The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCoastline Community College Learning Center_PA2009-072CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT April 22, 2010 Agenda Item 3 SUBJECT: Coastline Community College Learning Center - (PA2009 -072) 1505 -1535 Monrovia Avenue • Tentative Parcel Map No. NP2009 -004 (County of Orange No. 2009 -113) • Traffic Study No. TS2009 -001 APPLICANT: Coast Community College DistrictDistrict PLANNER: Rosalinh Ung, Associate Planner (949) 644 -3208, rung @newportbeachca.gov PROJECT SUMMARY Coast Community College District (CCCD) will be constructing a 3 -story, 68,800 - square -foot higher- education learning center. A tentative parcel map approval pursuant to Title 19 (Subdivision Code) and a traffic study pursuant to Title 19 (Subdivision Code) are required. RECOMMENDATION 1. Conduct a public hearing; and 2. Adopt Resolution No. (Attachment No. PC 1) to: a. Approve Tentative Parcel Map No. NP2009 -004; b. Find that, based on the weight of the evidence in the administrative record, Traffic Study No. TS2009 -002 prepared for the Learning Center is consistent with requirements of the Traffic Phasing Ordinance; and Coast Community College District Page 2 VICINITY MAP Y• .e.. wwon.,ro•. n ss .;e s s t yro s e�� .a se esssee .�.. i.�se�ess s�[s'� •� J�� E 1 GENERAL PLAN ZONING w ... . w •m w •v ... .v �w•� r� M.I..Y wN'w are OMRVI .0 -]! .v V Y• • � wY pyA[ ��• r MI11111 >II M Iw• now LO"GOGE NERAL PLAN ZONING CURRENT USE Light industrial and office (Multiple -Unit M -1 -A (Controlled ON - developments and dilapidated single - Residential) Manufacturing) unit residential development Light industrial and office NORTH RM M -1 -A developments and a private school SOUTH RM M-1 -A Office development Mobile home park and multiple - family EAST RM MFR (2178) -MHP residential development OS /RV (Open WEST Space/Residenbal PG-25 Vacant(Banning Ranch) Village) Coast Community College District Page 3 Coast Community College District (CCCD) is in the process of relocating their existing Costa Mesa learning center to the subject site. Pursuant to California Government Code Section 53094, the CCCD Board of Trustees voted to grant themselves the authority to render the City's Zoning Code (Title 20) inapplicable to this facility. Therefore, the Learning Center itself (i.e., the land use, site plan, elevations, etc.) does not require review or approval by the Planning Commission. Only the parcel map's consistency with the Subdivision Code and the Subdivision Map Act and the traffic study's compliance with the Traffic Phasing Ordinance are under consideration. Proiect Settin The subject property is located on the west side of Monrovia Avenue, north of the western terminus of 15th Street. The property is bounded by Monrovia Avenue to the east, the Banning Ranch property to the west, light industrial and office uses and Carden Hall Elementary and Junior High School to the north, and an office development to the south. Across Monrovia Avenue are the mobile home park and a multiple -unit residential development. The subject property is comprised of four parcels and currently improved with multiple industrial and office buildings, and an abandoned single -unit residence. These buildings and related improvements will be demolished prior to the construction of the learning center. Proiect Description The Newport Beach Learning Center will consist of a 3 -story, 68,800 square -foot L- shaped building that will be located along the western side of the property. The remainder of the site will be improved with a 242 -space surface parking lot and a bus drop -off area. Vehicular access to the property would be from Monrovia Avenue, via two drive approaches. The Learning Center will have a contemporary design and is planned to have a LEED Gold Certification. The learning center will provide twenty -two classrooms, an art gallery, five college -art classrooms, an activity room, two performance rooms, two computer labs, two science rooms, faculty and administrative offices, and a large student lounge with kitchen facilities. In terms of its operation, the Learning Center will be providing educational classes for high school -aged students as well as college students. During the daytime, the Learning Center would provide high school and college -level classes to the Newport-Mesa Unified School District's high school -aged students, as a part of the Coastline Community College's Early College High School (ECHS) program. Acquired Brain Injury and Developmentally Delayed Learner (ABI /DDL) Programs will also be provided during Coast Community College District Page 4 the daytime. In the evening, a variety of college -level classes will be offered to college students. Background In February 2009, CCCD opened escrow to purchase three parcels located at 1505, 1515 -1519, and 1527 -1533 Monrovia Avenue (Assessor Parcel Nos. 424 - 401 -09, 10 and 13) for the purpose of constructing a new higher- education learning center. On February 18, 2009, CCCD Board of Trustees took action under California Government Code Section 53094 to exempt itself from Title 20 (Planning and Zoning Code), and designated CCCD as the Lead Agency for purposes of compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). CCCD is subject to Title 19 (Subdivision Code) and City's Traffic Phasing Ordinance. On April 14, 2009, the City Council entered into an agreement with CCCD which authorized the City to manage the preparation of CEQA documents for development of the learning center. The City also agreed to assist CCCD in the processing of a traffic study pursuant the City's Traffic Phasing Ordinance and a parcel map for lot consolidation pursuant to the Subdivision Map Act. On August 19, 2009, CCCD, serving as the lead agency, adopted the mitigated negative declaration (MND). Following the adoption of MND, CCCD purchased a 0.54 - acre parcel lot located on Monrovia Avenue and directly north of the project site (1533 Monrovia Avenue). An addendum to the MND for the inclusion of the newly- acquired property was prepared and approved by CCCD on December 16, 2009. DISCUSSION Analysis General Plan and Zoning The subject property has a General Plan designation of Multiple -Unit Residential 18 units per acre and is presently zoned M-1 -A (Controlled Manufacturing) District. The M- 1-A District allows a wide range of moderate to low intensity industrial uses and limited accessory and ancillary commercial and office uses. The Learning Center is not consistent with the General Plan and the Zoning designations. Policy LU 6.1.4 of the Land Use Element acknowledges that other governmental agencies may be exempted from City land use control and approval. However, it also calls for the City to encourage school and utility districts and other governmental agencies to plan their properties and design buildings of high levels of visual and architectural quality that maintain the character of the neighborhood or district in which they are located and in consideration of the design and development policies for private uses specified by the General Plan. Coast Community College District Page 5 The Learning Center has been reviewed in length of various General Plan policies pertaining to compatible interfaces between different types of developments, adequate community supporting uses, siting of new development, compatibility of non -city public uses, grading and excavation activities, protection of right -of -way, emergency access, and noise compatibility of new development. The discussion of these polices is included in the environmental documents (Attachments Nos. PC 2 and PC 3) prepared for the Learning Center. The site plan of the Learning Center has been reviewed by City staff to ensure the off - street parking, traffic circulation, and vehicular access to and from Monrovia Avenue are adequate. Subdivision Compliance (Title 19 of the Municipal Code) In accordance with Title 19 (Subdivision Code), approval of a parcel map is required for the proposed 4- parcel consolidation. The Planning Commission must make the following findings in approving the tentative parcel map: 1. Finding: That the proposed map and the design or improvements of the subdivision are consistent with the General Plan and any applicable specific plan, and with applicable provisions of the Subdivision Map Act and this Subdivision Code. Facts in Support of Finding: The proposed tentative parcel map's consistency with the Multiple -Unit Residential General Plan land use designation is not under consideration pursuant to Policy LU 6.1.4. The proposed tentative parcel map is consistent with applicable provisions of the Subdivision Map Act and this Subdivision Code as it complies with minimum standards for subdivision design and improvements standards such as sidewalks and pedestrian access ways, drainage and erosion control, water supply, sanitary sewers connection, storm drains, and utility undergrounding. The City's Circulation Element calls for an extension of 15th Street to provide access to future development at the Banning Ranch property. As a condition of approval for the tentative parcel map, the City is requiring an irrevocable offer of dedication (IOD) of the additional required 22 -foot wide right -of -way from the southerly - most parcel to accommodate the ultimate 104 -foot wide right -of -way. CCCD also is required to construct a 10 -foot wide sidewalk and will be responsible for the construction costs of remaining future improvements (curb, gutter and one travel lane) along 15th Street, in accordance with the 15th Street's Master Plan Right -of -Way requirements. 2....Finding: That the. site is physically suitable for the type and density of development. Facts in Support of Finding: The subject site is within an area with a "low" to "no potential" for liquefaction due to the lack of liquefiable soils, as indicated in the City's General Plan Update EIR. The site is relatively flat with no significant changes in topography between the subject property and the adjacent properties. The site is suitable for the type and density of development proposed, in that the tentative parcel map has Coast Community College District Page 6 been conditioned to ensure that subdivision improvements serving the site and surrounding area will be adequate. 3. Finding: That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements is not likely to cause substantial environmental damage nor substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat; however, notwithstanding the foregoing, the decision - making body may nevertheless approve such a subdivision if an environmental impact report was prepared for the project and a finding was made pursuant to Section 21081 of the California Environmental Quality Act that specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the environmental impact report. Facts in Support of Finding: The design of the tentative parcel map and the proposed improvements for the Learning Center are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat as indicated in analysis provided in the narratives included with the mitigated negative declaration (MND) prepared and adopted for the project. The MND concludes that the project will have a less than significant impact to the environment with mitigation measures and no cumulative impacts have been identified. The site is currently developed and located in a highly urbanized area; no significant natural resources exist in the area of the project site. 4.. Finding: That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements is not likely to cause serious public health problems. Facts in Support of Finding: The design of the tentative parcel map and its proposed subdivision improvements (i.e. street related improvements, water supply, sanitary sewers connection, storm drains, and utility undergrounding) are in compliance with Chapter 19.24 Subdivision Design and Chapter 28 Subdivision Improvements of Title 19 Subdivision Code and, therefore, will not likely to cause serious public health problems. 5. Finding: That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision. In this connection, the decision - making body may approve a map if it finds that alternate easements, for access or for use, will be provided and that these easements will be substantially equivalent to ones previously acquired by the public. This finding shall apply only to easements of record or to easements established by judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction and no authority is hereby granted to the City Council to determine that the public at large has acquired easements for access through or use of property within a subdivision. Facts in Support of Finding: The design of tentative parcel map and its proposed improvements would not be in conflict with easements and street dedication, for access through or use of, within the subject property. Existing in -use utility easements located on the subject property and a new ingress /egress and utility easement for the land- locked parcel located on the northwest corner of t he project site have b een identified and reserved. Coast Community College District Page 7 6. Finding: That, subject to the detailed provisions of Section 66474.4 of the Subdivision Map Act, if the land is subject to a contract entered into pursuant to the California Land Conservation Act of 1965 (Williamson Act) the resulting parcels following a subdivision of the land would not be too small to sustain their agricultural use or the subdivision will result in residential development incidental to the commercial agricultural use of the land. Facts in Support of Finding: The site is not subject to a Williamson Act contract. Therefore, this finding does not apply. 7. Finding: That solar access and passive heating and cooling design requirements have been satisfied in accordance with Sections 66473.1 and 66475.3 of the Subdivision Map Act. Facts in Support of Finding: This finding does not apply as the tentative parcel map is for a 4 -lot consolidation and a land dedication for future street improvements with no subdivision proposed to create 5 or more parcels, 5 or more condominiums, a community apartment project containing 5 or more parcels, or for the conversion of a dwelling to a stock cooperative containing 5 or more dwelling unit. 8. Finding: That, in the case of a "land project" as defined in Section 11000.5 of the California Business and Professions Code: (a) there is an adopted specific plan for the area to be included within the land project; and (b) the decision- making body finds that the proposed land project is consistent with the specific plan for the area. Facts in Support of Finding: This finding does not apply as the project site is not a "land project' as defined in Section 11000.5 of the California Business and Professions Code. 9. Finding: That the subdivision is consistent with Section 66412.3 of the Subdivision Map Act and Section 65584 of the California Government Code regarding the City's share of the regional housing need and that it balances the housing needs of the region against the public service needs of the City's residents and available fiscal and environmental resources. Facts in Support of Finding: This finding does not apply as the tentative parcel map is for lot consolidation to be occupied by a nonresidential use. 10. Finding: That the discharge of waste from the proposed subdivision into the existing sewer system will not result in a violation of existing requirements prescribed by the Regional Water Quality Control Board. Facts in Support of Finding: The discharge of waste from the proposed tentative parcel map into the existing sewer system will not result in a violation of existing requirements prescribed by the Regional Water Quality Control Board. The design of the tentative parcel Coast Community College District Page 8 map and its proposed subdivision improvements (i.e. street related improvements, water supply, sanitary sewers connection, storm drains, and utility undergrounding) are not likely to cause serious public health problems as they have been indicated in analysis provided in the narratives included in with the MND. Furthermore, as conditions of approval, CCCD is required to submit a Water Quality Management Plan to be reviewed and approved by the Building Department, and a storm /drainage plan to be reviewed and approved by the General Services Department prior to the issuance of grading permits. 11. Finding: For subdivisions lying partly or wholly within the Coastal Zone, that the subdivision conforms with the certified Local Coastal Program and, where applicable, with public access and recreation policies of Chapter Three of the Coastal Act. Facts in Support of Finding: The subject property is not located within the Coastal Zone; therefore, this finding does not apply. Traffic Study Municipal Code Chapter 15.40 (Traffic Phasing Ordinance, or TPO) requires that a traffic study be prepared and findings be made before building permits may be approved for a project that will generate in excess of 300 average daily trips (ADT). Pursuant to Section 15.04.030.A, the project shall not be approved unless certain findings can be made. These findings and the facts in support of these findings are discussed below: 1. Finding: That a traffic study for the project has been prepared in compliance with this chapter and Appendix A; Facts in Support of Finding: A traffic study, entitled "Newport Beach Learning Center TPO dated September 2009" was prepared by Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. under the supervision of the City Traffic Engineer (Attachment NO. PC 4). The Learning Center will generate a total of 1,420 trips per day, including 194 a.m. peak -hour trips and 147 p.m. peak -hour trips. Pursuant to the TPO, only primary intersections in the City of Newport Beach are required to be analyzed; however, for the purposes of assessing project - related impacts .....pursuant to CEQA, the traffic study also included a cumulative impact analysis of the City of Costa Mesa intersections. As a result, a total of 25 intersections were evaluated with 14 located in the City of Newport Beach and 11 located in the City of Costa Mesa. 2. Finding: That, based on the weight of the evidence in the administrative record, including the traffic study, one of the findings for approval in subsection (B) can be made: Coast Community College District Page 9 15.40.030.6.1 Construction of the project will be completed within 60 months of project approval; and 15.40.030.B.1(a) The project will neither cause nor make worse an unsatisfactory level of traffic service at any impacted primary intersection. Facts in Support of Finding: The traffic study indicates that the project will increase traffic on 8 of the 14 study intersections in the City of Newport Beach by one percent (1 %) or more during peak hour periods one year after the completion of the project. Utilizing the Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) analysis specified by the Traffic Phasing Ordinance, the traffic study determined that the eight primary intersections identified will operate at LOS "C" or better during the AM and PM peak hours. The Learning Center has no significant impact on the study- intersections per the Traffic Phasing Ordinance guidelines, and no mitigation is required. The traffic study indicates that the project will have a significant impact on 1 of the 11 study- intersections in the City of Costa Mesa, under cumulative conditions. Mitigation measures were identified for this intersection and the project's fair share contribution was determined. The applicant has been informed and agreed to the mitigation measures. Based on the weight of the evidence in the administrative record, including the traffic study, the implementation of the proposed project will neither cause nor make worse an unsatisfactory level of traffic service at any impacted primary intersection within the City of Newport Beach. 3. Finding: That the project proponent has agreed to make or fund the improvements, or make the contributions that are necessary to make the findings for approval and to comply with all conditions of approval. Facts in Support of Finding: Since implementation of the proposed project will neither cause nor make worse an unsatisfactory level of traffic service at any impacted primary intersection within the City of Newport Beach, no improvements or mitigations are necessary. Therefore, staff recommends that the Planning Commission find that the traffic study has been prepared in compliance with the TPO. Coast Community College District Page 10 Environmental Review An Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) have been prepared by Michael Brandman Associates 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 July 17 to August 6, 2009. CCCD, serving as the lead agency, adopted the MND on August 19, 2009. An addendum to the MND for the inclusion of newly acquired property was prepared and approved by CCCD on December 16, 2009. The environmental documents prepared and approved for the Learning Center are therefore in compliance with the provisions of CEQA. 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. Finally, the item appeared upon the agenda for this meeting, which was posted at City Hall and on the city website. Prepared by: dism==L . — P,dslalinh Ung, Associat Pla ner Submitted by: David-Lepo, Planning V for ATTACHMENTS PC 1 Draft Resolution with Findings and Conditions PC 2 Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) PC 3 Addendum to the MND PC 4 Newport Beach Learning Center TPO PC 5 Project plans Attachment No. PC 1 Draft Resolution with Findings and Conditions RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH APPROVING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 2009 -004, AND FINDING TRAFFIC STUDY NO. TS2009 -001 IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE TRAFFIC PHASING ORDINANCE FOR A HIGHER - EDUCATION LEARING CENTER PROJECT LOCATED AT 1505 -1535 MONROVIA AVENNUE (PA2009 -072) THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH HEREBY FINDS AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. STATEMENT OF FACTS. 1. An application was filed by Coast Community College District (CCCD), with respect to properties located at 1505 -1535 Monrovia Avenue, and legally described as A Portion of Lot 1015 and all of Lot 1016 of the First Addition to Newport Mesa Tract is in the process of constructing a 3 -story, 68,800 square -foot higher- education learning center. The following approvals are requested or required in order to implement the project as proposed: a. Tentative parcel map approval pursuant to Title 19 (Subdivision Code) for a 4- parcel consolidation and a land dedication for future street improvements; and b. A traffic study pursuant to the City's Traffic Phasing Ordinance. 2. On February 18, 2009, CCCD Board of Trustees took action under California Government Code Section 53094, to exempt itself from Title 20 (Planning and Zoning Code), and designated CCCD as the Lead Agency for purposes of the compliance with California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Although CCCD is not subject to City policies and ordinances, consistency was evaluated for CEQA compliance. Additionally, CCCD is subject Title 19 (Subdivision Code) and City's Traffic Phasing Ordinance. 3. On April 14, 2009, the City Council entered into an agreement with CCCD which authorized the City to manage the preparation of CEQA documents for development of the learning center. The City also agreed to assist CCCD in the processing of a traffic analysis pursuant the City's Traffic Phasing Ordinance and a parcel map for lot consolidation pursuant to the Subdivision Map Act. 4. The subject property is located within the M -1 -A Zoning District and the General Plan Land Use Element category is RM (Multiple -Unit Residential). 5. The subject property is not located within the coastal zone. 6. A public hearing was held by the Planning Commission on April 22, 2010, in Santa Ana Heights Fire Station No. 7 at 20401 Acacia Avenue, Newport Beach. A notice of time, place and purpose of the meeting was given in accordance with the Newport Beach Planning Commission Resolution No. Paae 2 of 13 Municipal Code. Evidence, both written and oral, was presented to, and considered by, the Planning Commission at this meeting. SECTION 2. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT DETERMINATION. 1. An Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) have been prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and City Council Policy K -3. The draft Mitigated Negative Declaration was circulated for a 20 -day comment period from July 17 to August 6, 2009. CCCD, acting as the lead agency, adopted the MND on August 19, 2009. 2. Following the adoption of MND, CCCD purchased a 0.54 -acre parcel frontage lot located on Monrovia Avenue and directly north of the project site (1533 Monrovia Avenue). An addendum to the MND for the inclusion of newly acquired property was prepared and approved by CCCD on December 16, 2009. 3. The Planning Commission acknowledges that the environmental documents prepared and adopted for the proposed learning center by CCCD are, therefore, in compliance with the provisions of CEQA. SECTION 3. REQUIRED FINDINGS. 1. The subject property has a General Plan designation of Multiple -Unit Residential 18 units per acre and is presently zoned M -1 -A (Controlled Manufacturing) District. The M -1 -A District allows a wide range of moderate to low industrial uses and limited accessory and ancillary commercial and office uses. 2. The learning center is not consistent with the General Plan and the Zoning designations. Policy LU 6.1.4 of the Land Use Element acknowledges that other governmental agencies may be exempted from City land use control and approval. However, it also calls for the City to encourages school and utility districts and other governmental agencies to plan their properties and design buildings of high levels of visual and architectural quality that maintain the character of the neighborhood or district in which they are located and in consideration of the design and development policies for private uses specified by the General Plan. 3. For purposes of CEQA, the Learning Center has been reviewed in length of various General Plan policies pertaining to: • LU 5.1.2 - Compatible Interfaces • LU 6. 1.1 -Adequate Community Supporting Uses • LU 6.1.2 - Siting Of New Development • LU 6.1.4 - Compatibility Of Non -City Public Uses • HR 1.6 - Documentation Of Historical Resources • HR 1.7 - Offer For Relocation Of Historic Structure • HR 2.2 - Grading And Excavation Activities Tmplt: 11/23109 Planning Commission Resolution No. _ Page 3 of 13 • CE 2.1.6 - Protection Of Right -Of -Way • CE 2.2.6 - Emergency Access • CE 6.2.1 - Alternative Transportation Modes • NR 1.1 -Water Conservation In New Development • N 1.1 - Noise Compatibility Of New Development 4. Municipal Code Chapter 15.40 (Traffic Phasing Ordinance, or TPO) requires that a traffic study be prepared and findings be made before building permits may be approved for project's that will generate in excess of 300 average daily trips (ADT). The learning center will generate a total of 1,420 trips per day, including 194 a.m. peak -hour trips and 147 p.m. peak -hour trips. Pursuant to Section 15.04.030.A, the project shall not be approved unless certain findings can be made. The following findings and facts in support of such findings are set forth: Finding: A. That a traffic study for the project has been prepared in compliance with this chapter and Appendix A. Facts in Support of Finding: A -1. A traffic study, entitled "Newport Beach Learning Center TPO dated September 2009" was prepared by Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. under the supervision of the City Traffic Engineer. A -2. Pursuant to the TPO, only primary intersections in the City of Newport Beach are required to be analyzed; however, for the purposes of assessing project - related impacts pursuant to CEQA, the traffic study also included a cumulative impact analysis of the City of Costa Mesa intersections. As a result, a total of 25 intersections were evaluated with 14 located in the City of Newport Beach and 11 located in the City of Costa Mesa. Finding: B. That based on the weight of the evidence in the administrative record, including the traffic study, one of the findings for approval in subsection (B) can be made: 15.40.030.8.1 Construction of the project will be completed within 60 months of project approval; and 15.40.030.B.1(a) The project will neither cause nor make worse an unsatisfactory level of traffic service at any impacted primary intersection. Tmplt: 11/23/09 Planning Commission Resolution No. _ Page 4 of 13 Facts in Support of Finding: B -1. Construction of the project is anticipated to start in 2011 and be completed in 2012. If the project is not completed within sixty (60) months of this approval, preparation of a new traffic study will be required. B -2. The traffic study indicates that the project will increase traffic on 8 of the 14 study intersections in the City of Newport Beach by one percent (1 %) or more during peak hour periods one year after the completion of the project. B -3. Utilizing the Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) analysis specified by the Traffic Phasing Ordinance, the traffic study determined that the eight primary intersections identified will operate at LOS "C" or better during the AM and PM peak hours, and no mitigation is required. B-4. Based on the weight of the evidence in the administrative record, including the traffic study, the implementation of the proposed project will neither cause nor make worse an unsatisfactory level of traffic service at any impacted primary intersection within the City of Newport Beach. B -5. The traffic study indicates that the project will have a significant impact on one of the eleven study- intersections in the City of Costa Mesa. Finding: C. That the project proponent has agreed to make or fund the improvements, or make the contributions, that are necessary to make the findings for approval and to comply with all conditions of approval. Facts in Support of Finding: C -1. Since implementation of the proposed project will neither cause nor make worse an unsatisfactory level of traffic service at any impacted primary intersection within the City of Newport Beach, no improvements or mitigations are necessary. Mitigation measures were identified for the impacted - intersection in the City of Costa Mesa and the project's fair share contribution was determined. CCCD has been informed and is in agreement with the mitigation measures. 5. Pursuant to Section 19.12.070 of the City Subdivision Code, certain findings and facts in support of such findings shall be made for approval of a Tentative Parcel Map. Such findings and facts of support are as follows: Tmplt: 11/23/09 Planning Commission Resolution No. _ Page 5 of 13 Finding: A. That the proposed map and the design or improvements of the subdivision are consistent with General Plan and any applicable specific plan, and with the applicable provisions of the Subdivision Map Act and the City Subdivision Code. Facts in Support of Finding: A -1. The proposed tentative parcel map's consistency with the Multiple -Unit Residential General Plan land use designation is not under consideration pursuant to Policy LU 6.1.4. The proposed tentative parcel map is consistent with applicable provisions of the Subdivision Map Act and this Subdivision Code as it complies with minimum standards for subdivision design and improvements standards such as sidewalks and pedestrian access ways, drainage and erosion control, water supply, sanitary sewers connection, storm drains, and utility undergrounding. The City's Circulation Element calls for an extension of 15th Street to provide access to future development at the Banning Ranch property. As a condition of approval for the tentative parcel map, the City is requiring an irrevocable offer of dedication (IOD) of the additional required 22 -foot wide right -of -way from the southerly -most parcel to accommodate the ultimate 104 -foot wide right -of -way. CCCD also is required to construct a 10 -foot wide sidewalk and will be responsible for the construction costs of remaining future improvements (curb, gutter and one travel lane) along 15th Street, in accordance with the 15th Street's Master Plan Right -of -Way requirements. Finding: B. That t he site is physically suitable for the type and density of development Facts in SUDDort of Findina: B -1. The subject site is within an area with a "low" to "no potential" for liquefaction due to the lack of liquefiable soils, as indicated in the City's General Plan Update EIR. The site is relatively flat with no significant changes in topography between the subject property and the adjacent properties. The site is suitable for the type and density of development proposed, in that the tentative parcel map has been conditioned to ensure that subdivision improvements serving the site and surrounding area will be adequate. Finding C. That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements is not likely to cause substantial environmental damage nor substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat; however, notwithstanding the foregoing, the decision - making body may nevertheless approve such a subdivision if an environmental impact report was prepared for the project and a finding was made pursuant to Section 21081 of the Califomia Environmental Quality Act that specific economic, social, or other Tmplt: 11/23/09 Planning Commission Resolution No. _ Paae 6 of 13 considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the environmental impact report. Facts in Support of Finding: C -1. The design of the tentative parcel map and the proposed improvements for the Learning Center are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat as indicated in analysis provided in the narratives included with the mitigated negative declaration (MND) prepared and adopted for the project. The MND concludes that the project will have a less than significant impact to the environment with mitigation measures and no cumulative impacts have been identified. The site is currently developed and located in a highly urbanized area; no significant natural resources exist in the area of the project site. Finding: D. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements is not likely to cause serious public health problems. Facts in Support of Finding: D -1. The design of the tentative parcel map and its proposed subdivision improvements (i.e. street related improvements, water supply, sanitary sewers connection, storm drains, and utility undergrounding) are in compliance with Chapter 19.24 Subdivision Design and Chapter 28 Subdivision Improvements of Title 19 Subdivision Code and therefore will not likely to cause serious public health problems. Finding: E That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision. In this connection, the decision - making body may approve a map if it finds that altemate easements, for access or for use, will be provided and that these easements will be substantially equivalent to ones previously acquired by the public. This finding shall apply only to easements of record or to easements established by judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction and no authority is hereby granted to the City Council to determine that the public at large has acquired easements for access through or use of property within a subdivision Facts in Support of Finding: E -1. The design of tentative parcel map and its proposed improvements would not be in conflict with easements and street dedication, for access through or use of, within the subject property. Existing in -use utility easements located on the subject property and a new ingress /egress and utility easement for the land- locked parcel located on the northwest corner of the project site have been identified and reserved. Tmplt: 11/23/09 Planning Commission Resolution No. Paae 7 o Findina: F. That, subject to the detailed provisions of Section 66474.4 of the Subdivision Map Act, if the land is subject to a contract entered into pursuant to the California Land Conservation Act of 1965 (Williamson Act) the resulting parcels following a subdivision of the land would not be too small to sustain their agricultural use or the subdivision will result in residential development incidental to the commercial agricultural use of the land. Facts in Support of Finding: F -1. The site is not subject to a Williamson Act contract. Therefore, this finding does not apply. Finding: G. That solar access and passive heating and cooling design requirements have been satisfied in accordance with Sections 66473.1 and 66475.3 of the Subdivision Map Act. Facts in Support of Findin G -1. This finding does not apply as the tentative parcel map is for a 4 -lot consolidation and a land dedication for future street improvements with no subdivision proposed to create 5 or more parcels, 5 or more condominiums, a community apartment project containing 5 or more parcels, or for the conversion of a dwelling to a stock cooperative containing 5 or more dwelling unit. Finding: H. That, in the case of a "land project" as defined in Section 11000.5 of the California Business and Professions Code: (a) there is an adopted specific plan for the area to be included within the land project, and (b) the decision - making body finds that the proposed land project is consistent with the specific plan for the area. Facts in Support of Finding: H -1. This finding does not apply as the project site is not a `land project' as defined in Section 11000.5 of the California Business and Professions Code. Finding: 1. That the subdivision is consistent with Section 66412.3 of the Subdivision Map Act and Section 65584 of the Califomia Govemment Code regarding the City's share of the regional housing need and that it balances the housing needs of the region Tmplt: 11/23109 Planning Commission Resolution No. _ Page 8 of 13 against the public service needs of the City's residents and available fiscal and environmental resources. Facts in Support of Finding: 1 -1. This finding does not apply as the tentative parcel map is for lot consolidation to be occupied by a nonresidential use. Finding: J. That the discharge of waste from the proposed subdivision into the existing sewer system will not result in a violation of existing requirements prescribed by the Regional Water Quality Control Board. Facts in Support of Finding: J -1. The discharge of waste from the proposed tentative parcel map into the existing sewer system will not result in a violation of existing requirements prescribed by the Regional Water Quality Control Board. The design of the tentative parcel map and its proposed subdivision improvements (i.e. street related improvements, water supply, sanitary sewers connection, storm drains, and utility undergrounding) are not likely to cause serious public health problems as they have been indicated in analysis provided in the narratives included in with the MND. Furthermore, as conditions of approval, CCCD is required to submit a Water Quality Management Plan to be reviewed and approved by the Building Department, and a storm /drainage plan to be reviewed and approved by the General Services Department prior to the issuance of grading permits. Finding: K. For subdivisions lying partly or wholly within the Coastal Zone, that the subdivision conforms with the certified Local Coastal Program and, where applicable, with public access and recreation policies of Chapter Three of the Coastal Act. Facts in Support of Finding: K -1. The subject property is not located within the Coastal Zone; therefore, this finding does not apply. SECTION 4. DECISION. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. The Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach does hereby approve Tentative Parcel Map No. 2009 -004. Tmplt: 11/23/09 Planning Commission Resolution No. _ Paoe 9 of 13 2. The Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach does hereby find that the traffic study complies with the Traffic Phasing Ordinance, based on the weight of the evidence in the administrative record, including Traffic Study No. TS2009 -001. 3. This action shall become final and effective fourteen days after the adoption of this Resolution unless within such time an appeal is filed with the City Clerk in accordance with the provisions of Title 20 Planning and Zoning, of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 22TH DAY OF APRIL, 2010. AYES: NOES: BY: BY: Robert Hawkins, Chairman Charles Unsworth, Secretary Tmplt 11123/09 Planning Commission Resolution No. _ Page 10 of 13 EXHIBIT "A" CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL (Project- specific conditions are in italics) PLANNING 1. Tentative Parcel Map No. 2009 -004 shall expire 24 months from the date of approval, unless an extension is otherwise granted in accordance to Section 19.16.020 of the Newport Beach Title 19 Subdivision Code. 2. Traffic Study No. 2009 -001 shall expire 24 months from the date of approval pursuant to Section 15.40.035 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. This approval shall be deemed exercised by the issuance of grading permit to construct the proposed learning center. 3. Pursuant to Section 15.40.030(8)(2) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, construction of the proposed teaming center shall be completed no more than 60 months from the date of final approval of Traffic Study No. 2009 -001. 4. The applicant shall design and construct all required onsite and offsite improvements to permanent line and grade in accordance with Chapter 19.28 (Subdivision Improvement Requirements), Chapter 19.24 (Subdivision Design), Chapter 19.36 (Completion of Improvements), City Design Criteria, and other applicable provisions of Chapter 15.38 (Fair Share Traffic Contribution Ordinance), Chapter 15.40 (Traffic Phasing Ordinance), Chapter 15.42 (Major Thoroughfare and Bridge Fee Program), and Tentative Parcel Map conditions of approval. 5. This approval was based on the particulars of the individual case and does not in and of itself or in combination with other approvals in the vicinity or Citywide constitute a precedent for future approvals or decisions. 6. Prior to the issuance of gradina permits, the applicant shall pay any unpaid administrative costs associated with the processing of this application to the Planning Department. 7. Construction activities shall comply with Section 10.28.040 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, which restricts hours of noise - generating construction activities that produce noise to between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 6:30 p.m., Monday through Friday and 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on Saturday. Noise - generating construction activities are not allowed on Sundays or Holidays. 8. To the fullest extent permitted by law, applicant shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless City, its City Council, its boards and commissions, officials, officers, employees, and agents from and against any and all claims, demands, obligations, damages, actions, causes of action, suits, losses, judgments, fines, penalties, Tmplt: 11/23/09 Planning Commission Resolution No. _ Page 11 of 13 liabilities, costs and expenses (including without limitation, attorney's fees, disbursements and court costs) of every kind and nature whatsoever which may arise from or in any manner relate (directly or indirectly) to City's approval of the Newport Beach Learning Center Project including, but not limited to, the Tentative Parcel Map No. 2009 -004 and Traffic Study No. TS2009 -001. This indemnification shall include, but not be limited to, damages awarded against the City, if any, costs of suit, attorneys' fees, and other expenses incurred in connection with such claim, action, causes of action, suit or proceeding whether incurred by applicant, City, and /or the parties initiating or bringing such proceeding. The applicant shall indemnify the City for all of City's costs, attorneys' fees, and damages which City incurs in enforcing the indemnification provisions set forth in this condition. The applicant shall pay to the City upon demand any amount owed to the City pursuant to the indemnification requirements prescribed in this condition. Fire Department Conditions 9. The applicant shall provide Class I wet standpipe in lieu of access to rear of the property that shall meet the following requirements: a. Standpipe outlets shall be provided on all levels and at all stairwells. b. Standpipe maybe supplied by sprinkler system. c. The combined system must be designed so that closure of the fire sprinklers does not affect the operation of the standpipe. 10. The applicant shall provide fire department connection (FDC) at Monrovia Avenue. FDC shall be within 150 feet and located the same side of the street as the public fire hydrant. 11. The applicant shall provide one on -site hydrant. The location of hydrant shall be reviewed and approved by the Fire Department. Building Department Conditions 12. Prior to issuance of grading permits, the applicant shall prepare and submit a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) for the proposed project, subject to the approval of the Building Department and Code and Water Quality Enforcement Division. The WQMP shall provide appropriate Best Management Practices (BMPs) to ensure that no violations of water quality standards or waste discharge requirements occur. 13. A list of "good house - keeping" practices will be incorporated into the long -term post - construction operation of the site to minimize the likelihood that pollutants will be used, stored or spilled on the site that could impair water quality. These may include frequent parking area vacuum truck sweeping, removal of wastes or spills, limited use of harmful fertilizers or pesticides, and the diversion of storm water away from potential sources of pollution (e.g., trash receptacles and parking structures). The Stage 2 WQMP shall list and describe all structural and non - structural BMPs. In addition, the Tmplt: 11/23/09 Planning Commission Resolution No. _ Page 12 of 13 WQMP must also identify the entity responsible for the long -term inspection, maintenance, and funding for all structural (and if applicable Treatment Control) BMPs. General Services Conditions 14. Prior to issuance of grading permits, the drain /drainage plan to be reviewed Department Public Works Conditions applicant shall prepare and submit a storm and approved by the General Services 15. The applicant shall dedicate 22 feet along the 15th Street frontage to the City of Newport Beach, in accordance with the City General Plan Circulation Element as the extension of 15th Street is designated a primary arterial, which requires 104 -foot wide street right -of -way. 16. The Map shall be prepared on the California coordinate system (NAD88). Prior to Map recordation, the surveyor /engineer preparing the Map shall submit to the County Surveyor and the City of Newport Beach a digital - graphic file of said map in a manner described in the Orange County Subdivision Code and Orange County Subdivision Manual. The Map to be submitted to the City of Newport Beach shall comply with the City's CADD Standards. Scanned images will not be accepted. 17. Prior to recordation, the Map boundary shall be tied onto the Horizontal Control System established by the County Surveyor in a manner described in Sections 7 -9- 330 and 7 -9 -337 of the Orange County Subdivision Code and Orange County Subdivision Manual, Subarticle 18. Monuments (one inch iron pipe with tag) shall be set On Each Lot Corner unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. Monuments shall be protected in place if installed prior to completion of construction project. 18. All existing easements shall be maintained unless otherwise approved by the easement users. 19. Prior to issuance of grading permits, a w ater and sewer demand study shall be prepared by the applicant and submitted to the Public Works Department for review and approval. 20. All improvements shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the current edition of the City Design Criteria, Standard Special Provisions, and Standard Drawings. 21. An encroachment permit is required for all work activity within the public right of way. 22. No structures shall be constructed within the limits of any easements or public right -of- way. Tmplt: 11/23/09 Planning Commission Resolution No. _ Pape 13 of 13 23. All improvements shall be constructed as required by Ordinance and the Public Works Department. 24. The applicant is required to construct a new 5 -foot wide concrete sidewalk, curbs and gutters, and landscaped parkways along the length of the Monrovia Avenue street frontage. 25. All utilities serving the Development shall be made underground. 26. The applicant is required to install new street trees along the length of the Monrovia Avenue frontage as approved by the Public Works and General Services Departments. The number, location and size of the new City trees are subject to the approval of the Public Works and General Services Departments. 27. The parking layout shall comply with City Standard STD - 805 -L -A and STD - 805 -L -B. 28. On -site parking and vehicular circulation shall be subject to further review by the City Traffic Engineer. 29. The applicant is required to construct a 10 wide sidewalk along the 15th Street frontage per plans to be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department. 30. The applicant is required to compensate the City for the cost of the remaining future improvements (curb, gutter and 1 travel lane) along 15th Street. 31. All reconfigured /extinguished easements shall be shown as part of the final Parcel Map. Tmplt: 11/23/09 Attachment No. PC 2 Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) Coast Community College District 11460 Warner Avenue Fountain Valley, California 92708 -2597 (714) 241 -6144 PROPOSED MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT THE PROPOSED MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION In accordance with Coast Community College District (CCCP) policies regarding implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act, the CCCD has conducted an Initial Study to determine whether the following Project may have a significant adverse effect on the environment, and on the basis of that study hereby finds: The Proposed project will not have a significant adverse effect on the environment; therefore it does not require the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report. Although the Proposed project could have a significant adverse effect on the environment, there will / not be a significant adverse effect in this case because the Mitigation Measures described on the attached sheet(s) have been added to the project. An Environmental Impact Report is therefore not required. The Environmental documents which constitute the Initial Study and provide the basis and reasons for this determination are attached and hereby made a part of this document. PROJECT: Title: Newport Beach Learning Center Location: The Project is located along the west side of Monrovia Avenue and north of the terminus of 15th Street. Description: The proposed Pruiect consists of the development of a three -story learning facility on an approximately 3.4 -acre property located along the west side of Monrovia Avenue and north of the terminus of 15th Street. Project Proponent: Coast Community College District Address: 11460 Warner Avenue, Fountain Valley, California 92708 -2597 Contact Person: Kevin McElroy Telephone Number: 17141 241 -6144 NOTICE: This document and supporting attachments are provided for review by the general public. This is an information document about environmental effects only. Supplemental information is on file and may be reviewed in the office listed above. The decision - making body will review this document and potentially many other sources of information before considering the proposed project. As discussed in the attached Initial Study, the project site is not designated on the hazardous materials list that has been compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. This Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration is circulated for public review for a 20 -day period starting July 17, 2009 and ending on August 6, 2009. If you have comments on the Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration, provide written comments to Kevin McElroy, Coastline Vice President of Administrative Services at the Coast Community College District address shown above by 4:30 p.m. on August 6, 2009. Please address your written comments to our finding that the Project will not have a significant adverse effect on the environment: (1) identify the environmental effect(s), why they would occur, and why they would be significant, and (2) suggest any mitigation measures which you believe would eliminate or reduce the effect to an acceptable level. Regarding item (1) above, explain the basis for your comments and submit any supporting data or references. During the 20 -day public review period, a copy of the Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration is available for review and referenced documents can be made available for review at the Coast Community College District at the address shown above. This notice is hereby considered the CCCD's notice of intent to adopt this Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Newport Beach Learrtl / % Signed: *a 4 Dated: July 16, 2009 For Kevin McElroy Initial Study Newport Beach Learning Center Newport Beach, California Prepared for: �Cornrnunity College District Coast Community College District 11460 Warner Avenue Fountain Valley, CA 92708 -2597 714.438.4600 Contact: Kevin McElroy Prepared by: Michael Brandman Associates 220 Commerce, Suite 200 Irvine, CA 92602 714.508.4100 Contact: Shawn Nevill, J.D., Project Manager Michael E. Houlihan, AICP, Project Director %lichxl Bmndman Asuma[es July 16, 2009 Coast Community College District - Newport Beach Learning Center Initial Study Table of Contents TABLE OF CONTENTS Section 1: Introduction ........................................................................... ..............................1 1.1 - Project Title ........................................................................... ..............................1 1.2 - Project Location .................................................................... ..............................1 1.3 - Lead Agency Name and Address ......................................... ..............................1 1.4 - Project Sponsor's Name and Address .................................. ..............................1 1.5 - Contact Person and Phone Number ..................................... ..............................1 1.6 - General Plan Designation ..................................................... ..............................1 1.7 - Zoning ................................................................................... ..............................1 1.8 - Surrounding Land Uses and Setting ..................................... ..............................1 1.9 - Public Agencies Whose Approval Is Required ...................... ..............................2 1.10 - Purpose ............................................................................... ..............................2 1.11 - Project Description .............................................................. ..............................7 1.12 - Intended Uses of this Document ........................................ .............................12 Section 2: Environmental Checklist ..................................................... .............................13 1. Aesthetics ......................................................................... .............................13 2. Agriculture Resources ...................................................... .............................13 3. Air Quality ......................................................................... .............................13 4. Biological Resources ........................................................ .............................14 5. Cultural Resources ........................................................... .............................15 6. Geology and Soils ............................................................ .............................15 7. Hazards and Hazardous Materials ................................... .............................16 8. Hydrology and Water Quality ............................................ .............................16 9. Land Use and Planning .................................................... .............................17 10. Mineral Resources ............................................................ .............................18 11. Noise ................................................................................ .............................18 12. Population and Housing ................................................... .............................18 13. Public Services ................................................................. .............................19 14. Recreation ........................................................................ .............................19 15. Transportation / Traffic ..................................................... .............................19 16. Utilities and Service Systems ........................................... .............................20 17. Climate Change ................................................................ .............................21 18. Mandatory Findings of Significance .................................. .............................21 Section 3: Discussion of Environmental Evaluation .......................... .............................23 1. Aesthetics ......................................................................... .............................23 2. Agricultural Resources ..................................................... .............................25 3. Air Quality ......................................................................... .............................26 4. Biological Resources ........................................................ .............................39 5. Cultural Resources ........................................................... .............................41 6. Geology and Soils ............................................................ .............................44 7. Hazards and Hazardous Materials ................................... .............................48 8. Hydrology and Water Quality ............................................ ....._.......................55 9. Land Use and Planning .................................................... .............................59 10. Mineral Resources ............................................................ .............................66 11. Noise ................................................................................ .............................67 12. Population and Housing ................................................... .............................82 13. Public Services ................................................................. .............................83 14. Recreation ...................................................................... ............................... 86 15. Transportation /Traffic ....................................................... .............................86 Michael Brandman Associates iii WClient (PN -JN) \0064 \00640027 \IS \00640027 Initial Smdy Learning Centendw Coast Community College District - Newport Beach Learning Center Table of Contents Initial Study 16. Utilities and Service Systems ......................................... ............................... 96 17. Climate Change ............................................................ ............................... 100 18. Mandatory Findings of Significance ............................. ............................... 101 Section 4: References ........................................... ............................... ............................105 Net New Operational Emissions ( Unmitigated) ....................... ............................... Section 5: List of Preparers .................................. ............................... ............................107 Table 4: Michael Brandman Associates - Environmental Consultant ..... ............................... 107 Appendix A: Air Quality and Climate Change Analysis Appendix B: Cultural Resources Records Search Results Appendix C: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Appendix D: Noise Study Appendix E: Traffic Impact Report Appendix F: Service Letters Appendix G: Cumulative Project List LIST OF TABLES Table 1: Short -Term Regional Emissions ( Unmitigated) .......................... .............................26 Table 2: Construction Localized Significance Analysis (Unmitigated) ... ............................... 27 Table 3: Net New Operational Emissions ( Unmitigated) ....................... ............................... 28 Table 4: Carbon Monoxide Concentrations ........................................... ............................... 29 Table 5: Short -term Emissions ( Mitigated) ............................................... .............................32 Table 6: Localized Significance Analysis ( Mitigated) ............................... .............................32 Table 7: Onsite Noise Impacts ............................................................... ............................... 68 Table 8: Average Daily Traffic ............................................................... ............................... 70 Table 9: Year 2013 Background Baseline Noise Contours .................... ............................... 72 Table 10: Year 2013 Background With Project Noise Contours ............ ............................... 73 Table 11: Year 2013 Cumulative Baseline Noise Contours ..................... .............................74 Table 12: Year 2013 Cumulative With Project Noise Contours ............. ............................... 75 Table 13: Year 2013 Background Project Traffic Noise Contributions ... ............................... 77 Table 14: Year 2013 Cumulative Project Traffic Noise Contributions ...... .............................78 Table 15: Construction Noise Impacts at Nearby Receptors ................... .............................81 Table 16: Intersection Jurisdictions .......................................................... .............................86 Table 17: Project Buildout Trip Generation .............................................. .............................89 Table 18: Summary of One Percent Analysis ........................................ ............................... 90 Table 19: ICU Analysis and Corresponding Levels of Service for Cumulative Conditions............................................................................... ............................... 93 IV Michael Brandman Associates 11 Ch, a (PN- JN)\0064'.00640017,IS 006400171uiu a study LeamBig Center.duc Coast Community College District - Newport Beach Learning Center Initial Study Table of Contents Table 20: Net New Operational Greenhouse Gases ( Unmitigated) ........ ............................100 Michael Brandman Associates WClient (PN -JN) \0064 \00540027 \IS \00640027 Initial Smdy Learning Centendw Coast Community College District - Newport Beach Learning Center Table of Contents Initial Study LIST OF EXHIBITS Exhibit 1: Regional Location Map ............................................................ ............................... 3 Exhibit 2: Local Vicinity Map Aerial Base ................................................. ............................... 5 Exhibit3: Site Plan .................................................................................... ..............................9 vi Michael Brandman Associates 11 Ch, a (PN- JV)\0064 '.00640017,IS 006400171uiu a study LeamBig Center.duc Coast Community College District - Newport Beach Learning Center Initial Study Introduction SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION 1.1 - Proiect Title Newport Beach Leaming Center. 1.2 - Project Location The Project site is located in the western portion of the City of Newport Beach, which is shown on Exhibit 1. Specifically, the Project is located on a 3.4 -acre site along the west side of Monrovia Avenue and north of the terminus of 15th Street. The location of the Project site is shown on Exhibit 2. 1.3 - Lead Agency Name and Address Coast Community College District, 1370 Adams, Costa Mesa, California, 92626. 1.4 - Project Sponsor's Name and Address Coast Community College District, 1370 Adams, Costa Mesa, California, 92626. 1.5 - Contact Person and Phone Number Kevin McElroy, 714.241.6144. 1.6 - General Plan Designation RM (Multiple -Unit Residential). 1.7 - Zoning M -1 -A (Controlled Manufacturing). 1.8 - Surrounding Land Uses and Setting Light industrial and office uses are located immediately north of the Project site. Further north are Carden Hall Elementary and Junior High School, light industrial uses and public facilities. Multiple - Unit Residential developments are located east and south of the Project site. An office use is located immediately south of the Project site. A mobile home community is located on the east side of Monrovia, and multi - family residential communities are located southeast of the site. An undeveloped open field is located immediately west of the Project site, which is part of the proposed Banning Ranch development. Michael Brandman Associates H:\Client (PN -JN) \0064 \00640027 \IS \00640027 Initial Smdy Learning Centendw Coast Community College District - Newport Beach Learning Center Introduction Initial Study 1.9 - Public Agencies Whose Approval Is Required Lead Agency - Coast Community College District. Responsible Agency - City of Newport Beach. 1.10- This document is an Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration. It has been prepared in conformance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) statutes, Public Resources Code (PRC Section 21000 et seq.), CEQA Guidelines. The purpose of an Initial Study is to conduct formal environmental Project review to: 1. Identify Project impacts which are determined not to be significant. 2. Identify Project impacts which are determined to be potentially significant. 3. Provide an opportunity to incorporate mitigation measures or changes into the Project design, which will lessen the level of significance of anticipated environmental impacts. 4. Identify whether a Negative Declaration or EIR analysis is necessary to complete the environmental review for the Project pursuant to CEQA. A Mitigated Negative Declaration is appropriate where "the initial study has identified potentially significant effects on the environment, but (1) revisions in the project plans or proposals made by, or agreed to by, the applicant before the proposed negative declaration and initial study are released for public review would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effects on the environment would occur, and (2) there is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record before the public agency that the project, as revised, may have a significant effect on the environment." (PRC § 21064.5; CEQA Guideline 15369.5.) As stated in the proposed environmental determination below, 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. Such revisions include the mitigation measures integrated into the Discussion of Environmental Evaluation section below, which will be included in a mitigation monitoring and reporting program to be adopted by the lead agency. The Community College District has determined that Section 15081.5(b) of the CEQA Guidelines (i.e., EIRs Required By Statute) does not apply to the proposed project because there is not a long - range development plan for the proposed facility, and the proposed facility is not considered one of the campuses of the District. Coastline Community College offers instruction at approximately 50 sites. Parallel to other Coastline Community College facilities, the proposed facility will be a satellite center which supplements and supports all college site based instruction. Michael Brandman Associates HAClient (PN -IN)\ 0064 \00640027 \IS \00640027 Initial Study Learning Center.doc Chino Hills\ Prado Flood Control Basin .j Coo oo J Fullerton Yorba Luida Ana�m O © Orange Cleveland NF Project sae Garden Grove Santiago Reservoir a h a NOT TO SCALE Santa Ana i Fountain Valley Huntington Beach `• C sta,ddesa Irvine Project Site El Toro ewpoiT Beach v \ a `una Hills Laguna Niguel San Juan \pistrano G\ Dana Point Source: Census 2000 Data, The CaSIL, MBA GIB 2009. NNNN m 5 2.5 0 6 Exhibit 1 ❑❑N❑ Z Miles Regional Location Map Michael Brmdman Associates 00640027 • 07/2009 1 1_regional.mxd CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH • NEWPORT BEACH LEARNING CENTER INITIAL STUDYIMITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 0 ❑❑rill °z N ichael Btandman Associates 1,000 500 1,000 Feet txmlt 2 Local Vicinity Map Aerial Base 00640027 • 07/2009 12 local_aenal.mxd CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH • NEWPORT BEACH LEARNING CENTER INITIAL STUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Coast Community College District - Newport Beach Learning Center Initial Study Introduction 1.11 - Project Description 1.11.1 -Project Characteristics The proposed Project consists of the development of a three -story learning facility on an approximately 3.4 -acre property located along the west side of Monrovia Avenue and north of the terminus of 15`h Street. The proposed Project would require the demolition of several structures on the site and the grading on the project site would balance cut and fill material. Therefore, no soil material is proposed to be imported or exported. The Project includes the construction of an approximately 67,000 square foot (sq ft) building. The learning facility would include twenty -two classrooms, an art gallery, five college -art classrooms, an activity room, two performance rooms, two computer labs, two science rooms, faculty and administrative offices, and a large student lounge with kitchen facilities. The structure of the building consists of poured in -place concrete wall, floor, and frames. In response to the structure's orientation, the east fagade which faces east is articulated with punched openings that are protected with an aluminum louver system. The west side fagade is a three story glass enclosed open air circulation element that allows filtered daylight into the classrooms and protects from the wind and rain. The one story bar facade on the west has small slot windows as well as skylights. The structure includes a planted roof deck for outdoor activities. Furthermore, the entire facility is planned to achieve a LEED Gold Certification. The proposed learning center would replace the existing learning center that is located in Costa Mesa on Mesa Verde Drive at Baker Street. The existing learning center accommodates 2,240 students in approximately 45,000 square feet of facilities. The Community College District is proposing to relocate their learning center to achieve their long -term goal to own their facilities. As shown in Exhibit 3, the proposed L- shaped structure will be located along the northern and western sides of the project site. Parking will be provided in the center and eastern portions of the site. The proposed structure will be primarily three stories high except for the western portion of the structure that extends along the western side of the project site. This portion of the structure will be two stories and will include two outdoor plazas and planted areas on the second floor roof. Access to the second and third floors will be provided by outdoor staircases as well as elevators. The learning facility would be operated to meet the educational needs of both high school -aged students as well as college students. During the daytime, the learning facility would operate as part a of the Coastline Community College's Early College High School program, educating high school - aged students from within the Newport-Mesa Unified School District (NMUSD) in both college and high school courses. Coastline Community College would also provide services pursuant to its Disabled and Acquired Brain Injury program during daytime hours. Additionally, there will be limited college courses offered to college students during the daytime. During the evening, the proposed learning center would offer a variety of college courses to college students. Michael Brandman Associates H:\Client (PN -JN) \0064 \00640027 \IS \00640027 Initial Smdy Learning Centecdw Coast Community College District - Newport Beach Learning Center Introduction Initial Study 1.11.2 - Access and Parking Primary access to the learning facility would be provided along Monrovia Avenue by the use of two driveways. A bus drop -off area would be constructed along the Project's frontage with Monrovia Avenue, which would provide space for up to two buses to drop -off students outside of the flow of traffic. Parking will be provided at grade and will consist of a total of 198 parking spaces, which would provide separate designated parking spaces for handicapped users. The majority of the parking spaces will be in the surface parking lot while some of the parking will be accommodated in covered parking areas directly under portions of the second story. 1. 11.3 - Energy Efficiency Measures The following components are proposed to be implemented as project design features in order to reduce the energy demand created by the Project: • Provide electrical hook -ups for Transportation Refrigeration Units • Provide storm water retention on the Project site by providing percolation areas onsite. • Provide water efficient landscape and irrigation systems. • Provide water efficient plumbing fixtures. • Include vegetated roofs, where feasible. • Include operable windows for natural ventilation. • Use high performance insulated glass. • Install photovoltaic panels onsite. • Use fly ash in concrete walls and floors. • Use recycled content materials during construction throughout the interiors. • Use paints and various coatings that are low- emitting materials. Michael Brandman Associates HAClient (PN -IN)\ 0064 \00640027 \IS \00640027 Initial Study Learning Center.doc OFFICE! INDUSTR46L WIWI mw aa\ �innwiimiw l43 vnR1mlGSPPGE9 a ' G3 %1T T'PIGLL 1NIIN T$'OVERWW(i ,a\ nROPUSED � I I 39i0xt -<Z HGH MM •\ ' ewDXG WHIN �e I 4 a�x • ila<4 _ I� ADJACENT - VACANTUOT -A` i ENHANCED ��\ ,,a•` ,r\ eJ1�• — HAROSCAPE LANDSCAPE rvrvis ax,n.bwwn _ b 15TH STREET Source: LPA mr%I%N X ❑ ❑�❑ 80 40 0 80Feet Nhchael Brmdmm Associates 00640027 • 07/2009 13 site_plan.mxd Exhibit 3 Site Plan CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH a NEWPORT BEACH LEARNING CENTER INITIAL STUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Coast Community College District - Newport Beach Learning Center Initial Study Introduction 1. 11.4 - Utilities The Project would construct an on -site water system, consisting of an 3 -inch lateral line, that would connect to an existing 8 -inch water line located beneath Monrovia Avenue. Additionally, on -site sewer pipes would be installed and would connect to an existing 8 -inch vitrified clay pipe (VCP) sewer line located beneath Monrovia Avenue. A sewer manhole would be installed where the lateral connects to the sewer main within Monrovia Avenue. A Class I wet stand pipe and automatic sprinkler system will be installed to serve the fire protection needs for the proposed Project. Drainage collected from the Project site would be conveyed to the existing curb and gutter along the west side of Monrovia Avenue to a catch basin located at the Monrovia Avenue cul -de -sac, approximately 500 feet south of the Project site. 1.11.5 - Site Preparation The proposed Project site is comprised of three parcels which contains several existing buildings, including associated infrastructure and landscaping, that would be demolished as a part of the proposed Project. Site preparation would include the removal of existing improvements, and grading associated with the construction of the proposed learning center. It is anticipated that the earthwork would balance onsite. 1.11.6 - Existing Site Improvements The northern most parcel includes five buildings with an adjacent asphalt -paved parking area. These include a three -story office building; an industrial building that has been subdivided into 12 single - story individual suites with two, two -story suites; a two -story office building; and two, single -story, timber - framed tilt -up structures. A total of approximately 29,500 sq ft of building area currently occupies the 53,601 sq ft parcel; approximately 20,000 sq ft is office space; 6,500 sq ft as light industrial or warehouse uses; approximately 3,000 sq ft is laboratory space and approximately 4,000 sq. ft. is enclosed storage area. All of the buildings and existing improvements will be demolished and removed prior to the construction of the proposed Project. The middle parcel within the Project area was formerly a boat storage yard and is mostly an unpaved, vacant dirt lot. An abandoned single- family residence and its associated improvements located on the eastern portion of the parcel would be demolished and removed from the Project site. The eastern portion of the parcel also contains the remnants of a burned down single - family residence, which would be removed. The southernmost parcel consist of two buildings with an adjacent asphalt -paved parking area containing 30 parking spaces and two dirt tracks that were formerly used to test motorcycles and bicycles. Both structures are single -story tilt -up structures. The first building is approximately 500 sq ft and the second is approximately 600 sq ft. Michael Brandman Associates 11 H:\Client (PN -JN) \0064 \00640027 \IS \00640027 Initial Smdy Learning Centendw Coast Community College District - Newport Beach Learning Center Introduction Initial Study 1.12 - Intended Uses of this Document As the lead agency, the Coast Community College District has determined that a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) is the appropriate level of analysis pursuant to the CEQA Statues and Guidelines to address the potential environmental impacts of the proposed Project. As mitigated, the Project will not have a significant effect on the environment. This Initial Study and MND will be used as a basis for decision making on the following discretionary actions being considered for the Project. Coast Community College District (Lead Agency) Approval of the Project City of Newport Beach (Responsible Agency) • Approval of the Parcel Map • Approval of Traffic Study Pursuant to City of Newport Beach Traffic Phasing Ordinance 12 Michael Brandman Associates HAClient (PN -IN)\ 0064 \00640027 \IS \00640027 Initial Study Learning Center.doc Coast Community College District - Newport Beach Learning Center Initial Study Environmental Checklist SECTION 2: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Less Than I Potentially Significant Less Than No Environmental Issues Significant With Significant Impact L Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated 1. Aesthetics Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic ❑ ❑ ® ❑ vista? as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the b) Substantially damage scenic resources, ❑ ❑ ® ❑ including, but not limited to, trees, rock the California Resources Agency, to non- outcroppings, and historic building within a b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural state scenic highway? ❑ ❑ use, or a Williamson Act contract? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ character or quality of the site and its environment which, due to their location or surroundings? nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, ® ❑ ❑ d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare ❑ which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? 2. Agriculture Resources In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the Cal f rnia Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would theproject: 0 a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or ❑ ❑ ❑ Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non- agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural ❑ ❑ ❑ use, or a Williamson Act contract? c) Involve other changes in the existing ❑ ❑ ❑ environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non - agricultural use? 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? Michael Brandman Associates 13 H:\Climt (PN -JN) \0064 \00540027 \IS \00640027 Initial Smdy Learning Centendw Coast Community College District - Newport Beach Learning Center Environmental Checklist Initial Study Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than No Environmental Issues Significant With Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated 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 ozone precursors)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial ❑ ® ❑ ❑ pollutant concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a ❑ ❑ ® ❑ substantial number of people? 4. Biological Resources Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either ❑ ❑ ❑ directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any ❑ ❑ ❑ riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally ❑ ❑ ❑ protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of ❑ ® ❑ ❑ any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances ❑ Z ❑ ❑ protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted ❑ ❑ ❑ Z Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? 14 Michael Brandman Associates HAClient (PN -IN)\ 0064 \00640027 \IS \00640027 Initial Study Learning Center.doc Coast Community College District - Newport Beach Learning Center Initial Study Environmental Checklist Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than No Environmental Issues Significant With Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated 5. Cultural Resources Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the ❑ ® ❑ ❑ significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the ❑ E ❑ ❑ significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique ❑ E ❑ ❑ paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those ❑ ❑ E ❑ interred outside of formal cemeteries? 6. Geology and Soils Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as ❑ ❑ ❑ delineated on the most recent Alquist- Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ iii) Seismic - related ground failure, including ❑ ❑ ® ❑ liquefaction? iv) Landslides? ❑ ❑ ❑ b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ topsoil? c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is ❑ ❑ ® ❑ unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off -site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in ❑ ❑ ® ❑ Table 18 -1 -B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting ❑ ❑ ❑ the use of septic tanks or alternative Michael Brandman Associates is FIXIient (PN -JN) \0064 \00640027 \IS \00640027 Initial Study Learning Centendoe Environmental Checklist Environmental Issues Coast Community College District - Newport Beach Learning Center Initial Study wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? 7. Hazards and Hazardous Materials Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant Less Than No With Significant Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the ❑ ❑ ® ❑ environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the ❑ ❑ ® ❑ environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous ❑ ❑ ® ❑ or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one - quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which is included on a 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ E 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? 8. Hydrology and Water Quality Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste ❑ ❑ ® ❑ discharge requirements? 16 Michael Brandman Associates HAClient (PN -IN)\ 0064 \00640027 \IS \00640027 Initial Study Learning Center.doc Coast Community College District - Newport Beach Learning Center Initial Study Environmental Issues Less Than Potentially Significant Significant With Environmental Checklist Less Than No Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated 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 uses for which permits have been granted? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern ❑ ❑ ® ❑ of area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a. manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off -site? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern ❑ ❑ ® ❑ of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off -site? e) Create or contribute runoff water which would ❑ ❑ ® ❑ exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ g) Place housing within a 100 -year flood hazard ❑ ❑ ❑ area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h) Place within a 100 -year flood hazard area ❑ ❑ ❑ M structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk ❑ ❑ ❑ of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? ❑ ❑ ❑ 9. Land Use and Planning Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? ❑ ❑ ❑ b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local Michael Brandman Associates 17 H:\Climt (PN -JN) \0064 \00540027 \IS \00640027 Initial Study Learning Centendw Coast Community College District - Newport Beach Learning Center Environmental Checklist Initial Study Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than No Environmental Issues Significant With Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated 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 communities conservation plan? 10. 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? 11. Noise Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise ❑ ® ❑ ❑ levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of ❑ ® ❑ ❑ excessive groundbome 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 a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private ❑ ❑ ❑ airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? 12. Population and Housing Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an ❑ ❑ ® ❑ area, either directly (for example, by proposing 18 Michael Brandman Associates HAClient (PN -IN)\ 0064 \00640027 \IS \00640027 Initial Study Learning Center.doc Coast Community College District - Newport Beach Learning Center Initial Study Environmental Issues Less Than Potentially Significant Significant With Environmental Checklist Less Than No Significant Impact Michael Brandman Associates 19 H:\Climt (PN -JN) \0064 \00540027 \IS \00640027 Initial Smdy Learning Centendw Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated 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? 13. Public Services Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives far any of the public services: a) Fire protection? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ b) Police protection? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ c) Schools? ❑ ❑ ❑ E d) Parks? ❑ ❑ H ❑ e) Other public facilities? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ 14. 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? 15. Transportation I Traffic Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic, which is ❑ ® ❑ ❑ substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a ❑ ® ❑ ❑ level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? Michael Brandman Associates 19 H:\Climt (PN -JN) \0064 \00540027 \IS \00640027 Initial Smdy Learning Centendw Coast Community College District - Newport Beach Learning Center Environmental Checklist Initial Study Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than No Environmental Issues Significant With Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact _ Incorporated 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ H feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? ❑ ❑ ❑ M f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? ❑ ❑ ❑ 11 g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans or ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? 16. Utilities and Service Systems Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of ❑ ❑ ® ❑ the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new ❑ ❑ ® ❑ water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c) Require or result in the construction of new ❑ ❑ ® ❑ storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to ❑ ❑ 1Z ❑ serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e) Result in a determination by the wastewater ❑ ❑ ® ❑ treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes ❑ ❑ ® ❑ and regulations related to solid waste? h) Include a new or retrofitted storm water ❑ ❑ ❑ treatment control Best Management Practice 20 Michael Brandman Associates HAClient (PN -IN)\ 0064 \00640027 \IS \00640027 Initial Study Learning Center.doc Coast Community College District - Newport Beach Learning Center Initial Study Environmental Issues (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)? Less Than Potentially Significant Significant With Impact Mitigation Incorporated Environmental Checklist Less Than No Significant Impact Impact a) Does the project comply with the provisions of ❑ ❑ ® ❑ an adopted Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan or Strategy? If no such Plan or Strategy is applicable, would the project significantly hinder or delay California's ability to meet the reduction targets contained in AB 32? 18. Mandatory Findings of Significance a) Does the project have the potential to degrade ❑ ❑ ® ❑ the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self - sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are ❑ ❑ z ❑ individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ( "Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? c) Does the project have environmental effects, ❑ ❑ ® ❑ which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Michael Brandman Associates 21 H:\Client (PN -JN) \0064 \00540027 \IS \00640027 Initial Smdy Learning Centendw Coast Community College District - Newport Beach Learning Center Environmental Checklist Initial Study 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 ❑ Agriculture Resources ❑ Air Quality ❑ Biological Resources ❑ Cultural Resources ❑ Geology / Soils ❑ Hazards / Hazardous Materials ❑ Hydrology / Water Quality ❑ Land Use / Planning ❑ Mineral Resources ❑ Noise ❑ Population / Housing ❑ Public Services ❑ Recreation ❑ Transportation / Traffic ❑ Utilities / Services Systems ❑Climate Change ❑Mandatory Findings of Significance Environmental Determination On the basis of this initial evaluation: ❑ I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ® I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because 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 the 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 measure 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 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. Signed 0602, ee /w Date 07 -16 -2009 22 Michael Brandman Associates HAClient (PN -IN)\ 0064 \00640027 \IS \00640027 Initial Study Learning Center.doc Coast Community College District - Newport Beach Learning Center Initial Study Discussion of Environmental Evaluation SECTION 3: DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION Aesthetics Would the Project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? Less Than Significant Impact. The Project site and surrounding area are relatively flat and are located within an urbanized area of Newport Beach. The Project site is not part of a scenic vista. Newport Beach is located in a physical setting that provides a variety of coastal views, including those of the open waters of ocean and bay, harbor, beaches, rocky shores, wetlands, canyons, and coastal bluffs. As shown in Figure NR3 of the City of Newport Beach General Plan, the Project site is not located in the vicinity of a designated public view point or coastal view road. Views from the western portion of the Project site include undeveloped fields that are associated with the proposed Banning Ranch development, with the Pacific Ocean visible in the distance. Properties in the immediate vicinity of the site contain buildings with heights of one to three stories. The Project proposes a building that would be up to three stories tall, which is not substantially different from nearby building heights. The Project site and the immediate surrounding area are set back from the edge of the mesa a sufficient distance that the construction of the Project would not result in a substantial change in views of the ocean from any surrounding properties when compared to the existing condition. As the proposed Project would not significantly affect any scenic vistas in the vicinity of the Project site, impacts associated with scenic vistas would be less than significant. b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic building within a state scenic highway? Less Than Significant Impact. No officially designated scenic highways occur within the City of Newport Beach. SR -1 (Pacific Coast Highway) is designated by the City as a State Eligible Scenic Highway. The Project site is located on a mesa approximately 0.5 mile north of SR -1, and would be set back a sufficient enough distance that the intervening topography would restrict views of the proposed Project from SR -1. The proposed Project would include the removal of existing trees and buildings from the site; however, these features do not provide a significant scenic resources for the Project area. Additionally, because of the distance of the proposed Project from SR -1 and the limited scale of the development, the implementation of the proposed Project would not result in a significant impact related to scenic resources within a state scenic highway. There are no known scenic resources, including mature or heritage trees, and no rock outcroppings Michael Brandman Associates 23 H:\Client (PN -JN) \0064 \00540027 \IS \00640027 Initial Smdy Learning Centendw Coast Community College District - Newport Beach Learning Center Discussion of Environmental Evaluation Initial Study or historic buildings located on the Project site. Therefore, impacts related to this issue would be less than significant. c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its .surroundings? Less Than Significant Impact. The Project area is relatively flat and mostly urbanized, with residential, educational, and light industrial land uses in the surrounding area. The Project site's existing condition includes dilapidated buildings, overgrown vegetation, and a general lack of unified landscaping along the site's Monrovia Avenue frontage. These features are visible from nearby streets and properties. The existing house on the site is abandoned and has boarded up windows, and has been vandalized with graffiti. Vegetation appurtenant to the house is overgrown and dominates views of the area near the home. In the vicinity of the location where a burned down residence occurs on the site, piles of construction debris are visible from Monrovia Avenue. The Project would redevelop the property by removing light industrial uses on a portion of the site, as well as the abandoned residential home and the remnants of a burned residential home, which serve to negatively impact the visual character of the area in the existing condition. In addition to the removal of buildings on the Project site, the Project would remove associated landscaping. The proposed Project has been designed to blend in with existing development and provide unified landscaping along Monrovia Avenue from the northerly property boundary to the future 15t' Street alignment. Additionally, the Project would include landscaping to enhance the visual quality of the Project. Accordingly, the proposed Project would not result in a degradation of the existing visual character, quality of the site, and the surrounding area; therefore, associated impacts would be less than significant. d) Create anew source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorprated. The Project site is currently developed with commercial, industrial, and residential buildings and is surrounded by existing development to the north, east, and south. The proposed Project includes a learning facility with associated parking areas and security lighting that would create additional lighting sources on site. Because the proposed Project could create a substantial new source of light and glare, impacts associated with light and glare would be potentially significant. Compliance with mitigation measure AE -I and AE -2 would reduce the impacts associated with this issue to less than significant. 24 Michael Brandman Associates HAClient (PN -IN)\ 0064 \00640027 \IS \00640027 Initial Study Learning Center.doc Coast Community College District - Newport Beach Learning Center Initial Study Discussion of Environmental Evaluation Mitigation Measures AE -1 Prior to the operation of the site, all on -site lighting shall be shielded and confined within site boundaries. No direct rays of light or glare are permitted to shine onto public streets or adjacent sites or create a public nuisance. "Walpak" type lighting fixtures shall not be used on the Project site and all parking area lighting shall have zero cut -off fixtures. All light standards shall not exceed 24 feet in height. AE -2 The site shall not be excessively illuminated based on the luminance recommendations of the illuminating Engineering Society of North America. 2. Agricultural 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 Department 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? No Impact. The Project site is not located on land that is designated Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance. The Project site is located in an urban setting and does not support agricultural uses. As a result, no impacts are anticipated. h) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? No Impact. No Williamson Act contracts exist on the Project site. Additionally, the Project site is not zoned for agricultural use. Therefore, no associated impacts are anticipated. 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. The Project site and surrounding areas are highly urbanized and developed with office, educational, light industrial, and residential uses, and are not used as farmland or for agricultural purposes. The proposed Project would not result in the direct or indirect conversion of Farmland to non - agricultural uses. Therefore, no such impacts are anticipated. Michael Brandman Associates 25 H:\Client (PN -JN) \0064 \00540027 \IS \00640027 Initial Smdy Learning Centendw Coast Community College District - Newport Beach Learning Center Discussion of Environmental Evaluation Initial Study 3. Air Qual This analysis relies upon information contained in the Air Quality and Climate Change Analysis contained in Appendix A of this IS/MND. According to City staff, a demolition permit was recently issued for the onsite abandoned house due to code enforcement. The following is a summary of the Air Quality and Climate Change Analysis prepared for the Project. The Project is in the South Coast Air Basin, which is under the jurisdiction of the South Coast Air Quality Management District ( SCAQMD). The South Coast Air Basin is in nonattainment for ozone and particulate matter (PM to and PM2.5), which means that concentrations of those pollutants currently exceed the ambient air quality standards for those pollutants. Ambient air quality standards for criteria pollutants are set by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the California Air Resources Board (ARB) to protect the health of sensitive individuals. Criteria pollutants include ozone, PM10, PM2.5, carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide, lead, and sulfur dioxide. Ozone is formed through reactions of volatile organic compounds (VOCs), nitrogen oxides (NO.), and sunlight. To assist Lead Agencies in the analysis of Project - related air pollutants, the SCAQMD recommends use of regional and localized significance thresholds. If Project emissions are over the thresholds, the Project would result in a significant impact. Emissions during construction were estimated using URBEMIS2007 (see Appendix A for construction phase assumptions and URBEMIS output). As shown in Table 1, emissions of VOC and NOx during construction exceed the regional significance thresholds. The primary source of the VOC exceedance is from application of coating materials (paints, sealers, etc.) during the construction phase and the main source of NOx is from the vehicle emissions during the construction phase. Table 1: Short -Term Regional Emissions (Unmitigated) Source Emissions (pounds per day) VOC N% CO SO, PM,, Pwz Demolition 3.6 36.8 17.7 <0.1 26.7 6.9 Grading 3.5 30.4 15.6 <0.1 6.2 2.4 Trenching 2.4 19.6 10.4 <0.1 1.1 1.0 Building 12.2 150.2 50.6 <0.1 5.1 4.7 Building and asphalt paving 13.3 151.3 55.6 <0.1 5.3 4.9 Building, paving, coating 103.1 151.4 56.6 <0.1 5.4 4.9 Maximum Daily Emissions 103.1 151.4 56.6 <0.1 26.7 6.9 Significance Threshold 75 100 550 150 150 55 Significant Impact? Yes Yes No No No No 26 Michael Brandman Associates HAClient (PN -IN)\ 0064 \00640027 \IS \00640027 Initial Study Learning Center.doc Coast Community College District - Newport Beach Learning Center Initial Study Discussion or Environmental Evaluation Source Emissions (pounds per day) VOC I NO, I CO 1 SO, 1 PM1a I PM2.5 Note: The maximum daily emissions refer to the maximum emissions that would occur in one day; it was assumed that the grading activities do not occur at the same time as the other construction activities; therefore, their emissions are not summed. VOC = volatile organic compounds NOx = nitrogen oxides CO = carbon monoxide SOx = sulfur oxides PM, and PM2.5 = particulate matter <0.1 = less than 0.1 Source: Air Quality and Climate Change Analysis, 2009, Appendix A. The SCAQMD Governing Board adopted a methodology for calculating localized air quality impacts through localized significance thresholds (LSTs), which is consistent with SCAQMD's Environmental Justice Enhancement Initiative 1 -4. LSTs represent the maximum emissions from a project that will not cause or contribute to an exceedance of the most stringent applicable State or national ambient air quality standard. The onsite emissions during construction are compared with the localized significance thresholds and are summarized in Table 1. The onsite emissions were generated by URBEMIS. Onsite emissions are from fugitive dust during grading and emissions from construction vehicles and equipment operating on site. As shown in Table 2, localized emissions of nitrogen dioxide, PMIO, and PM2.5 exceed the localized significance thresholds. PM1O and PM2,5 exceedances are from demolition dust and nitrogen dioxide exceedances are from the exhaust of construction vehicles and equipment. Table 2: Construction Localized Significance Analysis (Unmitigated) Michael Brandman Associates 27 H:\Climt (PN -JN) \0064 \00640027 \IS \00640027 Initial Smdy Learning Centendw Onsite Emissions (pounds per day) Activity NO2 CO PMta 12102.e Demolition 11.3 6.6 25.5 5.9 Grading 25.0 12.5 6.0 2.1 Trenching 19.5 9.4 1.0 1.0 Building (year 2010) 149.2 45.6 5.0 4.6 Construction, asphalt paving (year 2011) 149.9 49.0 5.2 4.8 Construction, asphalt paving, coating 149.9 49.0 5.2 4.8 Maximum Daily Emissions 149.9 49.0 25.5 5.9 Localized Significance Threshold 131 945 7 5 Exceed Threshold? Yes No Yes Yes Note: Each of the above activities does not occur at the same time; therefore, the maximum daily emissions represent the maximum emissions that would occur in one day. Source: Air Quality and Climate Change Analysis, 2009, Appendix A. Michael Brandman Associates 27 H:\Climt (PN -JN) \0064 \00640027 \IS \00640027 Initial Smdy Learning Centendw Coast Community College District - Newport Beach Learning Center Discussion of Environmental Evaluation Initial Study Operational emissions of criteria pollutants are shown in Table 3. Project operational emissions include mobile emissions from project vehicle trips as well as area emissions from use of natural gas, maintenance of landscaping, and use of architectural coatings. As shown in the table, net new emissions during operations do not exceed the SCAQMD regional significance thresholds. Table 3: Net New Operational Emissions (Unmitigated) Source Emissions (pounds per day) VOc NO. c0 SO. PMIo PM2.5 Mobile 24.5 14.5 116.9 0.2 27.4 5.3 Area (natural gas, landscape, 1.6 2.2 3.3 0.0 <0.1 <0.1 architectural coatings) Subtotal - Project emissions 26.1 16.7 130.2 0.2 27.4 5.3 Existing -3.4 -5.0 -40.1 0.0 -6.0 -1.2 Net new emissions 22.7 11.7 90.1 0.2 21.4 4.1 Significance Threshold 55 55 550 150 150 55 Significant Impact? No No No No No No Notes: VOC = volatile organic compounds NO. = nitrogen oxides CO = carbon monoxide SO. = sulfur oxides PM, and PM,,, = particulate matter <0.1 = less than 0.1 Source: Air Quality and Climate Change Analysis, 2009, Appendix A. A carbon monoxide (CO) hotspot is a localized concentration of CO that is above the State or national 1 -hour or 8 -hour CO ambient air standards. Localized high levels of CO are associated with traffic congestion and idling or slow- moving vehicles. To provide a worst -case scenario, CO concentrations are estimated at project - impacted intersections, where the concentrations would be the greatest. Intersections with the highest potential for CO hotspots were selected based on their average delay, traffic volumes (obtained from the Traffic Report [see Appendix E] prepared for this project), and proximity to sensitive receptors. This analysis follows guidelines recommended by the CO Protocol and the SCAQMD. According to the CO Protocol, intersections with Level of Service (LOS) E or F require detailed analysis. In addition, intersections that operate under LOS D conditions in areas that experience meteorological conditions favorable to CO accumulation require a detailed analysis. The SCAQMD recommends that a local CO hotspot analysis be conducted if the intersection meets one of the following criteria: 1) the intersection is at LOS D or worse and where the project increases the volume to capacity ratio by 2 percent, or 2) the project decreases LOS at an intersection from C to D. Using the CALINE4 model, potential CO hotspots were analyzed at the intersections listed in Table 4. These intersections were chosen because they operate at LOS D or worse. There were several inputs to the CALINE4 model (see Appendix A). One input is the traffic volumes, which is from the 28 Michael Brandman Associates H:\Client (PN -IN)\ 0064 \00640027 \IS \00640027 Initial Study Learning Center.doc Coast Community College District - Newport Beach Learning Center Initial Study Discussion of Environmental Evaluation project - specific Traffic Report (AFA 2009). The p.m. peak hour 2013 with approved plus cumulative plus project volumes from the traffic study were used in this analysis. Emission factors were generated using the EMFAC2007 model for the year 2013. As shown in Table 4, the estimated 1 -hour and 8 -hour average CO concentrations at build -out in combination with background concentrations are below the State and national ambient air quality standards. No CO hotspots are anticipated because of traffic - generated emissions by the project in combination with other anticipated development in the area. Therefore, the mobile emissions of CO from the project are not anticipated to contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation of CO. Table 4: Carbon Monoxide Concentrations CEQA Thresholds and Analysis 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? Less than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated. The following two criteria are used to determine the level of significance for this potential impact. Project's Contribution to Air Quality Violations According to the SCAQMD, the Project is consistent with the AQMP if the Project will not result in an increase in the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations or Michael Brandman Associates 29 WClieat (PN -1N) \0064 \00540027 \IS \00640027 Initial Smdy Learning Centendw 1 Hour Estimated 8 Hour Estimated Significant Intersection CO Concentration CO Concentration Impact? (ppm)` (ppm)* _ 7Newport d Victoria 6.5 4.2 No W 7.7 5.0 No Broadway 7.0 4.5 No 4. Newport and Harbor 7.4 4.8 No 5. Newport and 18t "/Rochester 7.4 4.8 No 6. Superior and 17" 6.6 4.3 No 7. Newport and 17" 7.3 4.7 No * Includes background concentrations. ** Comparison of estimated concentration with ambient air quality standards (1 -hour 20 ppm, 8 -hour 9 ppm) Source: Air Quality and Climate Change Analysis, 2009, Appendix A. CEQA Thresholds and Analysis 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? Less than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated. The following two criteria are used to determine the level of significance for this potential impact. Project's Contribution to Air Quality Violations According to the SCAQMD, the Project is consistent with the AQMP if the Project will not result in an increase in the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations or Michael Brandman Associates 29 WClieat (PN -1N) \0064 \00540027 \IS \00640027 Initial Smdy Learning Centendw Coast Community College District - Newport Beach Learning Center Discussion of Environmental Evaluation Initial Study cause or contribute to new violations, or delay timely attainment of air quality standards or the interim emission reductions specified in the AQMP. As shown in (b) below, the Project could violate an air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation because the Project's emissions during construction exceed the localized significance thresholds for nitrogen dioxide, PMio, and PM2.5. If a project's emissions exceed the SCAQMD regional thresholds for NOx, VOC, PMIo, or PM2.5, it follows that the emissions could cumulatively contribute to an exceedance of a pollutant for which the basin is in nonattainment (ozone, PMIo, PM2.5) at a monitoring station in the basin. An exceedance of a nonattainment pollutant at a monitoring station would not be consistent with the goals of the AQMP - to achieve attainment of pollutants. As shown in Table 1, during construction, the project would exceed the regional significance thresholds for VOC and NOx. This means that without mitigation, project emissions of VOC and NOx could combine with other sources and create ozone. This could result in an ozone exceedance at a nearby monitoring station. The South Coast Air Basin is in nonattainment for ozone; therefore, the project would not be consistent with the AQMP. The Project does not meet this criterion, therefore the project would result in a significant impact on the AQMP. A CO hotspot analysis is the appropriate tool to determine if Project emissions of CO during operation of the proposed Project would exceed ambient air quality standards. The main source of air pollutant emissions during operation would be related to offsite motor vehicles traveling on the roads surrounding the Project site. The CO hotspot analysis (see Table 4) demonstrated that Project emissions of CO during operation along with emissions from other foreseeable Projects in the area would not result in an exceedance of the most stringent ambient air quality standards for CO or conflict with or obstruct implementation of an applicable air quality plan. Therefore, according to this criterion, CO emissions during operation would result in a less than significant impact. Control Measures The next criterion is compliance with the control measures in the 2003 and the 2007 AQMP. These control measures include the SCAQMD's Stationary and Mobile Source Control Measures; State Control Measures proposed by ARB; and Transportation Control Measures provided by Southern California Association of Governments. A further discussion of the control measures is provided in the Air Quality and Climate Change Analysis in Appendix A. Based on the evaluation in Appendix A, the Project would comply with all of the SCAQMD's applicable rules and regulations. Therefore, the Project complies with this criterion. 30 Michael Brandman Associates HAClient (PN -IN)\ 0064 \00640027 \IS \00640027 Initial Study Learning Center.doc Coast Community College District - Newport Beach Learning Center Initial Study Discussion of Environmental Evaluation Level of Significance Before Mitigation Potentially significant impact. Mitigation Measures The following measures will reduce emissions of VOC, NOx, PM 10, and PM2.5. Specific details regarding the amount of emission reduction are provided in Appendix A. AQ -1 Onsite painting shall be extended to a minimum of 23 days. Additionally, the developer shall require painting contractors to use low- volatile organic compound (VOC) paints (assumes no more than 100 grams /liter of VOC) and coatings. For a list of low VOC paints, see www.agmd.gov /prdasibrochures /paintguide.html (VOC reduction). AQ -2 During project construction, onsite electrical hook ups shall be provided for electric construction tools including saws, drills and compressors, to eliminate the need fuel powered electric generators. No more than one diesel or gasoline powered electric generators shall be used at any given rime. AQ -3 During Project construction, construction equipment shall be properly maintained; maintenance shall include proper tuning and timing of engines. Equipment maintenance records and data sheets of equipment design specifications shall be kept on -site during construction (NOx reduction). AQ -4 During Project construction, the developer shall prohibit onsite construction equipment for idling for more than 5 minutes in any one hour (NOx reduction). AQ -5 Prior to Project construction, the Project proponent will provide a traffic control plan that will describe in detail safe detours around the Project construction site and provide temporary traffic control (i.e., flag person) during demolition debris transport and other construction related truck hauling activities (NOx reduction). AQ -6 During demolition activities, no more than 6,500 square feet of buildings shall be demolished in one day. During active demolition, the structures being demolished shall be adequately watered to minimize fugitive dust. During active demolition and debris removal, water shall be applied every four hours to the area within 100 feet of a structure being demolished, to reduce vehicle trackout. Water shall be applied to disturbed soils after demolition is complete or at the end of each day of cleanup. Demolition activities shall be prohibited when wind speeds exceed 25 miles per hour (PMIO and PM2.5 reduction). Michael Brandman Associates 31 H:\Client (PN -1N) \0064 \00640027 \IS \00640027 Initial Smdy Learning Centendw Coast Community College District - Newport Beach Learning Center Discussion of Environmental Evaluation Initial Study Level of Significance After Mitigation Less than significant. Short-term regional emissions associated with Project construction after implementation of the above Mitigation Measures are provided in Table 5 below. Short-term localized emissions after implementation of Mitigation Measures are provided in Table 6. As shown in Table 5 and Table 6, short-term construction emissions are expected to be less than significant after application of Mitigation Measures. Table 5: Short -term Emissions (Mitigated) Source Emissions (pounds per day) VOC NO, CO SO, PM,a PMzs Demolition 2.3 19.9 11.2 <0.1 5.3 1.9 t Mass grading 35 30.4 15.6 <0.1 6.2 2.4 Trenching 2.4 19.6 10.4 <0.1 1.1 1.0 Building 3.9 41.1 19.1 <0.1 1.7 1.5 Building, paving, coating 68.0 50.0 27.4 <0.1 2.5 2.3 Maximum Daily Emissions 68.0 50.0 27.4 <0.1 6.2 2.4 Significance Threshold 75 100 550 150 150 55 Significant Impact? No No No No No No Note: The maximum daily emissions refer to the maximum emissions that would occur in one day; it was assumed that the grading activities do not occur at the same time as the other construction activities; therefore, their emissions are not summed. Demolition emissions also include a 50 percent reduction attributed to watering during demolition activities. VOC = volatile organic compounds NOx = nitrogen oxides CO = carbon monoxide SOa = sulfur oxides PM, and PM,., = particulate matter <0.1 = less than 0.1 Source: Air Quality and Climate Change Analysis, 2009, Appendix A. Table 6: Localized Significance Analysis (Mitigated) Onsite Emissions (pounds per day) Activity NOz co PM10 PM2.5 Demolition 11.3 6.6 4.9 1.6 Grading 25.0 12.5 6.0 2.1 Trenching 19.5 9.4 1.0 1.0 Building 40.1 14.1 1.6 1.4 Asphalt, building, coating 48.5 20.1 2.4 2.2 Maximum Daily Emissions 48.5 20.1 6.0 2.2 Localized Significance Threshold 131 945 7 5 32 Michael Brandman Associates H:\Client (PN -IN)\ 0064 \00640027 \IS \00640027 Initial Study Learning Center.doc Coast Community College District - Newport Beach Learning Center Initial Study Discussion of Environmental Evaluation Exceed Threshold? No No No No Note: Each of the above activities does not occur at the same time; therefore, the maximum daily emissions represent the maximum emissions that would occur in one day. Demolition emissions also include a 50 percent reduction attributed to watering during demolition activities. Source: Air Quality and Climate Change Analysis, 2009, Appendix A. b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? Less than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated. Two criteria are used to assess the significance of this impact: (1) the localized construction analysis and (2) the CO hotspot analysis. The Localized Significance Thresholds (LSTs) are specific to each source receptor area. If the Project results in emissions that do not exceed the LSTs, it follows that those emissions would not cause or contribute to a local exceedance of the applicable ambient air quality standards. The localized construction analysis contained in the Air Quality and Climate Change Analysis (also see Table 2 contained herein) demonstrates that without mitigation, the Project would not exceed the LSTs for CO. However, concentrations of nitrogen dioxide, PMIo, and PM2.5 would exceed the LSTs. Therefore, according to this criterion, the air pollutant emissions during construction would result in a significant impact and could exceed the ambient air quality standards for nitrogen dioxide, PMIo, and PM2.5. During operation, onsite emissions would not violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation because onsite emissions are anticipated to be negligible. Table 4 includes a CO hotspot analysis, which is the appropriate tool to determine if Project emissions of CO during operation would exceed ambient air quality standards. The main source of air pollutant emissions during operation are from offsite motor vehicles traveling on the roads surrounding the Project site. The CO hotspot analysis (see Table 4) demonstrated that Project emissions of CO during operation along with emissions from other projects in the area (i.e., see Appendix G for the list of cumulative projects) would not result in an exceedance of the most stringent ambient air quality standards for CO. Therefore, according to this criterion, air pollutant emissions during operation would result in a less than significant impact. Level of Significance Before Mitigation Potentially significant impact. Michael Brandman Associates 33 H:\Climt (PN -JN) \0064 \00540027 \IS \00640027 Initial Smdy Learning Centendw Coast Community College District - Newport Beach Learning Center Discussion of Environmental Evaluation Initial Study Mitigation Measures Mitigation measures AQ -1 through AQ -6 are required. Level of Significance After Mitigation Less than significant. 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 ozone precursors)? Less than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines 15130(b), this analysis of cumulative impacts incorporates a summary of projections. The Project must meet the following criteria to result in a less than significant cumulative impact: 1. Regional analysis: emissions of nonattainment pollutants below the regional significance thresholds 2. Plan approach: Project consistency with current air quality plans 3. Cumulative health impacts: less than significant cumulative health effects of the nonattainment pollutants Criterion 1: Regional Analysis If an area is in nonattainment for a criteria pollutant, then the background concentration of that pollutant has historically been over the ambient air quality standard. It follows that if a project exceeds the regional threshold for that nonattainment pollutant, then it would result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of that pollutant and result in a significant cumulative impact. The South Coast Air Basin is in nonattainment for PMio, PM2.5, and ozone. Therefore, if the Project exceeds the regional thresholds for PMIO, or PM2.5, then it contributes to a cumulatively considerable impact for those pollutants. Additionally, if the Project exceeds the regional threshold for NO, or VOC, then it follows that the project would contribute to a cumulatively considerable impact for ozone. The regional significance analysis of construction emissions demonstrated that without mitigation, emissions of VOC and NO, would be over the SCAQMD regional significance thresholds. VOC and NO, are ozone precursor pollutants. Therefore, according to this criterion, the Project results in a significant cumulative impact. 34 Michael Brandman Associates HAClient (PN -IN)\ 0064 \00640027 \IS \00640027 Initial Study Learning Center.doc Coast Community College District - Newport Beach Learning Center Initial Study Discussion of Environmental Evaluation Criterion 2: Plan Approach The geographic scope for cumulative criteria pollution from air quality impacts is the South Coast Air Basin because it is the area where the sources that generate the air pollutants are located, and the area where the pollutants circulate and are often trapped. The SCAQMD is required to prepare and maintain an AQMP and a State Implementation Plan to document the strategies and measures to be undertaken to reach attainment of ambient air quality standards. While the SCAQMD does not have direct authority over land use decisions, it is recognized that changes in land use and circulation planning are necessary to maintain clean air. The SCAQMD evaluated the entire Basin when it developed the AQMP. The Project is not consistent with the most recent AQMP without mitigation. Therefore, the Project presents a significant impact according to this criterion. Criterion 3: Cumulative Health Impacts The Basin is in nonattainment for ozone, PM1o, and PM2.5, which means that the background levels of those pollutants are at times higher than the ambient air quality standards. The air quality standards were set to protect public health, including the health of sensitive individuals (such as the elderly, children, and the sick). Therefore, when the concentration of those pollutants exceeds the standard, it is likely that some sensitive individuals in the population will experience health effects. However, the health effects are a factor of the dose - response curve. Concentration of the pollutant in the air (dose), the length of time exposed, and the response of the individual are factors involved in the severity and nature of health impacts. Because the severity and nature of health impacts would be individualized, any significant health impacts that may arise due to Project emissions would not be expected to cause 100 percent of the exposed population to experience health effects; but rather a certain percentage of the sensitive individuals would experience health effects. The regional analysis of construction emissions indicates that without mitigation, the Project would exceed the SCAQMD regional significance thresholds for VOC and NOx (ozone precursors). Because ozone is a secondary pollutant (it is not emitted directly but formed by chemical reactions in the air), it can be formed miles downwind of the Project site. Project emissions of VOC and NO, may contribute to the background concentration of ozone and cumulatively cause health effects. Health impacts may or may not include the following: (a) pulmonary function decrements and localized lung edema in humans and animals; (b) risk to public health implied by alterations in pulmonary morphology and host defense in animals; (c) increased mortality risk; and/or (d) risk to public health implied by altered connective tissue metabolism and altered pulmonary morphology in animals after long -term exposures and pulmonary function decrements in chronically Michael Brandman Associates 35 H:\Client (PN -JN) \0064 \00540027 \IS \00640027 Initial Smdy Learning Centendw Coast Community College District - Newport Beach Learning Center Discussion of Environmental Evaluation Initial Study exposed humans. Short-term exposure can result in breathing pattern changes, reduction of breathing capacity, increased susceptibility to infections, inflammation of the lung tissue, and some immunological changes. Children who live in high ozone communities and who participate in multiple sports have been observed to have a higher asthma risk. This is considered a significant cumulative health impact associated with ground -level ozone concentrations. Level of Significance Before Mitigation Potentially significant impact. Mitigation Measures Mitigation Measures AQ -1 through AQ -5 are required. Level of Significance After Mitigation Less than significant. d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. Implementation of the Project will result in exposing sensitive receptors to pollutant concentrations during construction and operational activities. Construction The localized construction analysis uses thresholds that represent the maximum emissions for a project that will not cause or contribute to an exceedance of the most stringent applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard. The thresholds are developed based on the ambient concentrations of that pollutant for each source receptor area and on the location of the sensitive receptors. If the project results in emissions under those thresholds, then the project would not cause or contribute to an exceedance of the standard. If the standards are not exceeded at the sensitive receptor locations, then the receptors would not be exposed to substantial pollutant concentrations. The construction localized significance analysis demonstrated that the Project would not exceed the localized thresholds for CO. Therefore, during construction, the Project would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations of CO. However, the localized significance analysis demonstrated that without mitigation, emissions of nitrogen dioxide, PM2.5, and PMIO could exceed the localized significance thresholds and thereby expose nearby sensitive receptors to substantial concentrations of those pollutants. Health effects from PM2.5 and PMIO can include the following: (a) Exacerbation of symptoms in sensitive patients with respiratory or cardiovascular disease; (b) Declines in pulmonary function growth in children; and /or (c) Increased risk 36 Michael Brandman Associates HAClient (PN -IN)\ 0064 \00640027 \IS \00640027 Initial Study Learning Center.doc Coast Community College District - Newport Beach Learning Center Initial Study Discussion of Environmental Evaluation of premature death from heart or lung diseases in the elderly. Daily fluctuations in PM2.5 levels have been related to hospital admissions for acute respiratory conditions, school absences, and increased medication use in children and adults with asthma. Health effects of nitrogen dioxide may include: (a) Potential to aggravate chronic respiratory disease and respiratory symptoms in sensitive groups and/or (b) risk to public health implied by pulmonary and extra - pulmonary biochemical and cellular changes and pulmonary structural changes. The construction equipment would emit diesel particulate matter, which is a carcinogen. However, the diesel particulate matter emissions are short-term in nature. Determination of risk from diesel particulate matter is considered over a 70 -year exposure time. Therefore, considering the dispersion of the emissions and the short time frame, exposure to diesel particulate matter is anticipated to be less than significant. Construction activities will also result in the demolition of structures that are expected to have asbestos and lead paint. Removal of these materials are addressed in Section 2.7, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, in this MND. Operation A CO hotspot analysis is the appropriate tool to determine if project emissions of CO during operation would exceed ambient air quality standards. The main source of air pollutant emissions during operation are from offsite motor vehicles traveling on the roads surrounding the project. The CO hotspot analysis demonstrated that emissions of CO during operation would not result in an exceedance of the most stringent ambient air quality standards for CO. Therefore, according to this criterion, air pollutant emissions during operation would result in a less than significant impact. Other pollutants such as PM 10 and PM2.5 would not be at a level to expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. During operation, road dust is a major contributor to particulate matter, which would be distributed over miles of roadway. This would be a less than significant impact. The indoor air pollutants that may be associated with operation of the Project include VOCs from new carpets and fresh paints, mold spores, and /or radon. The air pollutants that are controlled by the construction of the Project include VOCs from carpets, paints, and radon. VOCs from new carpets and new paint are temporary impacts that can be reduced by proper ventilation after installation. The health impact from these sources is considered significant. Michael Brandman Associates 37 H:\Client (PN -iN) \0064 \00540027 \IS \00640027 Initial Smdy Learning Centendw Coast Community College District - Newport Beach Learning Center Discussion of Environmental Evaluation Initial Study Indoor radon tests in the Project area have a low to moderate potential for radon. Commercial structures have a much lower ability to suction radon indoors because they are much larger, which reduces the pressure differential between indoors and outdoors. The Project would employ HVAC systems (as required by the State Architect) that would circulate air through the structure during operational hours. The system would be sufficient to disperse indoor radon concentrations, which would minimize the risk to human health. The proposed Project is not considered a sensitive land use because it would likely not attract children, the elderly, or the sick. A potential source of toxic air pollutants on the Project site is diesel particulate matter from the delivery of food by heavy -duty trucks. The site plan indicates that there is a food service loading area near the northern property line of the Project site. Project design features (i.e., locating the loading area away from classroom entrances, designing the site plan to allow trucks to travel to the loading area without traveling adjacent to the proposed classrooms, electrical hookups transportation refrigeration units can plug into, and signs that prohibit idling) would reduce emission concentrations in areas of the Project site with students. Potential exposure of the students and the nearby residences from project emissions of toxic air contaminants would be less than significant. Level of Significance Before Mitigation Potentially significant. Mitigation Measures Mitigation measures AQ -1 through AQ -6 are required. Level of Significance After Mitigation Less than significant. e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number ofpeople? Less than Significant Impact. Land uses typically considered associated with odors include wastewater treatment facilities, waste - disposal facilities, or agricultural operations. The Project does not contain land uses typically associated with emitting objectionable odors. Diesel exhaust and VOCs will be emitted during construction of the Project, which are objectionable to some; however, emissions will disperse rapidly from the Project site and, therefore, should not reach a level to induce a negative response. Level of Significance Before Mitigation Less than significant. 38 Michael Brandman Associates HAClient (PN -IN)\ 0064 \00640027 \IS \00640027 Initial Study Learning Center.doc Coast Community College District - Newport Beach Learning Center Initial Study Discussion of Environmental Evaluation 4. Biological Resources The following analysis is based on observations made during a site reconnaissance visit by a qualified biologist in June 2009. 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 is approximately 3.5 -acres and currently contains several structures on site associated with existing commercial land uses. The habitat onsite consists of heavily disturbed, ruderal (weedy) fields among stands of abandoned ornamental trees and shrubs. The habitat west of the project site is ruderal open field and is separated from the project site by a chain - linked fence. No suitable habitat for any candidate, sensitive, or special status species occurs within the project site and no such species is expected to occur. Implementation of the proposed project would not result in impacts to any species listed as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in any local, regional, State, or federal plans, policies or regulations. b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? No Impact. The project site is relatively flat and contains no prominent drainage features or associated vegetation. Furthermore, there are no prominent drainage features that lead from the project site to the undeveloped land west of the project site. No riparian habitat occurs within the project area. Additionally, the site is heavily disturbed from current and past use. No native plant communities are present on the Project site. Therefore, implementation of the project would not result in any impacts to riparian or other sensitive habitats. 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. No wetlands or prominate drainage features exist within the project site. No impacts are anticipated. Michael Brandman Associates 39 H:\Client (PN -JN) \0064 \00540027 \IS \00640027 Initial Smdy Learning Centendw Coast Community College District - Newport Beach Learning Center Discussion of Environmental Evaluation Initial Study all 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 wildlife nursery sites? Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. The Project site is located in a highly urbanized area and bordered on three sides by fully developed properties. Additionally, the site does not contain any native vegetation communities suitable for use by native wildlife species. Some common migratory bird species may use the tree and shrub vegetation located on the Project site for nesting activities. Therefore, development of the proposed project could potentially interfere with nesting birds, and therefore result in a potentially significant impact. Compliance with mitigation measure BR -1 would ensure that the proposed Project would not interfere with the movement of any native or migratory species or wildlife nursery site impacts would reduced to less than significant. Mitigation Measures BR -1 Project construction (including vegetation removal) will be initiated outside of the avian nesting season, which is February 15 through August 31. If the avian nesting season cannot be avoided, a pre - construction nesting survey shall be conducted by a qualified biologist. If any birds are found to be nesting on or in the vicinity of the project site, construction shall continue at the discretion of a qualified biologist. e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated. The project site contains scattered ornamental trees and shrubs, which do not constitute a sensitive habitat or native vegetation community. The site is not within the jurisdiction of any local coastal plan, and the City of Newport Beach does not have any local policies protecting the biological resources present onsite, with the exception of City Council Policy G -1, protecting trees within the public right of way. The proposed Project would remove all vegetation on the site, including any trees that may occur within the City's right of way. Based on information provided by City staff, there are four street trees required within the right -of -way of Monrovia Avenue adjacent to the project site. The implementation of the propose Project could result in an inconsistency with City Council Policy G -1. Therefore, a potential significant impact could occur. Implementation of the following mitigation measure is required. BR -2 Prior to occupancy, the District shall install street trees in compliance with City Council Policy G -1. 40 Michael Brandman Associates HAClient (PN -IN)\ 0064 \00640027 \IS \00640027 Initial Study Learning Center.doc Coast Community College District - Newport Beach Learning Center Initial Study Discussion of Environmental Evaluation fi 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 currently a developed 3.5 -acre lot bordered on three sides by fully developed properties. The Project site is located in an area designated for development and is not within any identified natural community conservation plan or habitat conservation plan. Therefore, no impacts would result. 5. Cultural Resources Would the Project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in ,¢15064.5? Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. The Project site was previously disturbed but contains both extant and demolished buildings and other improvements in the existing condition. One standing structure, the residential building located in the eastern portion of the site, is more than 45 years old. The demolition of the house would represent a potentially significant impact to a historical resource. The implementation of Mitigation Measure CR -1 would reduce the impact to less than significant. CR -1 Prior to demolition activities, any on -site structure built during or prior to 1964 shall be recorded onto DPR 523 Form(s) and evaluated for significance by a qualified architectural historian. The resultant DPR 523 Forms) should be submitted to the SCCIC for the assignment of a permanent identification number. The architectural historian evaluation should include determining whether the resource is eligible for inclusion in any federal, State or local registers of significant cultural resources. The results of this evaluation will determine the need or lack thereof for additional mitigative efforts prior to project implementation. In addition, the onsite structure built during or prior to 1964 shall be offered for relocation by any interested parties consistent with General Plan Policy HR1.7. b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5? Michael Brandman Associates 41 H:\Client (PN -JN) \0064 \00640027 \IS \00640027 Initial Smdy Learning Centendw Coast Community College District - Newport Beach Learning Center Discussion of Environmental Evaluation Initial Study Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. A cultural resources survey of the property was conducted both through a records search at the South Central Coast Information Center at California State University Fullerton and by a field visit by a qualified archaeologist. A previous survey of the property in 1975 was conducted with negative results. This assessment is corroborated by the 2009 reconnaissance survey. No surface archaeological resources are present on the Project site. However, there are archaeological resources that have been identified within the 1.0 mile records search radius and the potential exists for there to be undiscovered buried archaeological resources located on the site. Therefore, there is a potential for significant impacts to archaeological resources to occur during ground disturbing activities. Mitigation measure CR -2 requiring archaeological monitoring would reduce the impact to less than significant. CR -2 A qualified archaeologist and District- approved Native American representative shall be retained to observe grading activities. The qualified archaeologist shall conduct salvage excavation of archaeological resources as necessary. The archaeologist and Native American representative shall be present at the pre - grading conference. The archaeologist shall establish procedures for archaeological resources surveillance, and shall establish, in cooperation with the City, procedures for temporarily halting or redirecting work to permit the sampling, identification and evaluation of the fossils as appropriate. Full -time monitoring shall occur until the project archaeologist determines that the overall sensitivity of the project area has been reduced from moderate to low. Should the monitor determine that there are no cultural resources within the impacted areas, or should the sensitivity be reduced to low during monitoring, all monitoring should cease. If archaeological resources are discovered, the archaeologist shall report such findings to the District. If the archaeological resources are found to be significant, the archaeological observer shall determine appropriate actions, in cooperation with the District, for exploration and/or salvage. These actions, as well as final mitigation and disposition of the resources, shall be subject to the approval of the District. c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. A paleontological records search was conducted by Samuel A McLeod, Ph.D. of the Natural history Museum of Los Angeles County. There are no significant fossil localities that lie directly within the proposed Project site boundaries, but there are nearby localities from the same sedimentary deposits that occur in the Project site. There is a potential for vertebrate 42 Michael Brandman Associates HAClient (PN -IN)\ 0064 \00640027 \IS \00640027 Initial Study Learning Center.doc Coast Community College District - Newport Beach Learning Center Initial Study Discussion of Environmental Evaluation fossils at shallow depths associated with marine Quaternary terrace deposits. There are exposed marine Pleistocene San Pedro Formation deposits nearby as well. Accordingly, there is a potential for significant impacts to unique paleontological resources during ground disturbing activities. Mitigation Measure PR -1 requiring paleontologic monitoring would allow for the identification of any significant resources. Additionally, application of Mitigation Measures PR -2 through PR -4 would obtain all necessary scientific information and reduce the impacts to less than significant. PR -1 During ground disturbing activities, paleontologic monitoring of excavation in areas identified as likely to contain paleontologic resources shall be conducted by a qualified paleontologic monitor. Based upon this review, areas of concern include undisturbed older Quaternary deposits. Paleontologic monitors should be equipped to salvage fossils as they are unearthed, to avoid construction delays, and to remove samples of sediments likely to contain the remains of small fossil invertebrates and vertebrates. Monitors must be empowered to temporarily halt or divert equipment to allow removal of abundant or large specimens. Monitoring may be reduced or eliminated if the potentially fossiliferous units described herein are determined upon exposure and examination by qualified paleontologic personnel to have low potential to contain fossil resources, or if the parameters of the proposed project will not impact potentially fossiliferous units. This decision is at the discretion of the qualified paleontologic monitor. PR -2 In the case that the monitoring program results in a positive finding, the preparation of recovered specimens shall be conducted to a point of identification and permanent preservation, including washing of sediments to recover small invertebrates and vertebrates. Preparation and stabilization of all recovered fossils are essential in order to fully mitigate adverse impacts to the resources. PR -3 In the case that the monitoring program results in a positive finding, identification and curation of specimens into an established, accredited museum repository with permanent retrievable paleontologic storage shall be implemented. These procedures are also essential steps in effective paleontologic mitigation and CEQA compliance. The paleontologist shall have a written repository agreement in hand prior to the initiation of mitigation activities. Mitigation of adverse impacts to significant paleontologic resources is not complete until such curation into an established museum repository has been fully completed and documented. PR-4 In the case that the monitoring program results in a positive finding, the project paleontologist shall prepare a report of findings with an appended Michael Brandman Associates 43 H:\Client (PN -1N) \0064 \00540027 \IS \00640027 Initial Study Learning Centendoc Coast Community College District - Newport Beach Learning Center Discussion of Environmental Evaluation Initial Study itemized inventory of specimens. The report and inventory, when submitted to the appropriate Lead Agency along with confirmation of the curation of recovered specimens into an established, accredited museum repository, will signify completion of the program to mitigate impacts to paleontologic resources. d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside offornnal cemeteries? Less Than Significant Impact. No known human burial sites are located on or in the surrounding areas of the Project site. In the unlikely event that human remains are encountered during the Project grading or other construction activities, the proper authorities would be notified, and standard procedures for the respectful handling of human remains in compliance with State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 and Public Resources Code Section 5097.98 would be implemented. If any remains are discovered and determined to be prehistoric, the coroner is required to notify the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), which will determine and notify a Most Likely Descendant (MLD). With permission of the landowner, the descendent would be allowed to inspect the site of the discovery. The descendent would be required to complete the inspection within 24 hours of notification of the NAHC, and may recommend scientific removal and nondestructive analysis of human remains and items associated with Native American burials. With compliance with standard procedures, and all applicable federal, State, and local regulations regarding the respectful handling of human remains, impacts from the proposed Project would be less than significant. 6. Geoloav and Soils Regional Geologic Setting The proposed Project site is located within the Orange County Coastal Plain, one of the coastal alluvial basins of the Los Angeles Sedimentary Basin. The Orange County Coastal Plain is bounded to the north by the Puente Hills, to the east by the Santa Ana Mountains, to the west by the San Gabriel River, and to the southwest by the San Joaquin Hills and the Pacific Ocean. The central portion of the coastal plain forms the broad alluvial floodplain of the Santa Ana River, which originates in the San Bernardino Mountains. The river flows approximately 80 miles (130 km) from the San Bernardino Mountains to its point of discharge into the Pacific Ocean approximately 1 mile east of the site. The faulting and seismicity of Southern California is dominated by the San Andreas Fault System. The zone separates two of the major tectonic plates that comprise the earth's crust. The San Andreas Fault System generally trends northwest- southeast; however, north of the Transverse Ranges 44 Michael Brandman Associates HAClient (PN -IN)\ 0064 \00640027 \IS \00640027 Initial Study Learning Center.doc Coast Community College District - Newport Beach Learning Center Initial Study Discussion of Environmental Evaluation Province, the fault trends more in an cast/west direction, causing a north/south compression between the two plates. The City of Newport Beach is located in the northern part of the Peninsular Ranges Province geologic area, an area that is exposed to risk from multiple earthquake fault zones. The highest risk originates from the Newport- Inglewood fault zone, the Whittier fault zone, the San Joaquin Hills fault zone, and the Elysian Park fault zone, each with the potential to cause moderate to large earthquakes that would cause ground shaking in Newport Beach. Site Geology The northwestern portion of the City of Newport Beach, where the proposed Project is located, is on a broad mesa (commonly referred to as the Newport Mesa) that extends southeastward to join the San Joaquin Hills. The Newport Mesa consists of consolidated alluvial sediments which have been uplifted. These alluvium sediments consist of fine to coarse sand, with fine silty sands, clayey silt, and silty clay. The alluvial sediments are underlain by older terrace and alluvial deposits. The bedrock formation consists of complex crystalline metamorphic and igneous rocks. Seismic Hazards Seismic hazards are those hazards associated with earthquakes such as ground shaking, ground rupture, liquefaction, differential compaction or seismic settlement, and other phenomena. Like most sites in southern California, the site is most susceptible to ground shaking generated during earthquakes on nearby faults, particularly the Newport - Inglewood Fault which occurs approximately one mile south of the Project site. The intensity of ground shaking, or strong ground motion, is highly dependent upon the distance between the causative fault to the site, the magnitude of the earthquake, and the underlying soil conditions. This section relies on information contained in the City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR, which is incorporated by reference. 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 Geologistfor the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Less Than Significant Impact. Fault rupture occurs when an active fault displaces in two separate directions during an earthquake, but even the slow movement known as "fault creep" can cause displacement that results in offset or disfiguring of curbs, streets, and buildings. The nearest potentially active fault is the Newport- Inglewood Fault located near the coast, which occurs approximately one mile south of the Michael Brandman Associates 45 H:\Client (PN -1N) \0064 \00540027 \IS \00640027 Initial study Learning Centendw Coast Community College District - Newport Beach Learning Center Discussion of Environmental Evaluation Initial Study Project site No faults are known to occur on or within the immediate vicinity of the Project site. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? Less Than Significant Impact. As with all areas of Southern California, the proposed Project would be subject to strong ground shaking associated with seismic activity, especially given that the Project site is located near several significant faults that have the potential to cause moderate to large earthquakes. The Newport Beach area is considered to have a ten percent chance of experiencing ground acceleration greater than 43 to 52 percent of the force of gravity in 50 years. These levels of shaking can be expected to cause damage particularly to older and poorly constructed buildings. However, as with all structures in the area and within other areas, the proposed Project would be required to conform to the seismic design parameters of the California Building Code (CBC). Compliance with the seismic design parameters as outlined in the most recent CBC would ensure that impacts are less than significant. iii) Seismic - related ground failure, including liquefaction? Less Than Significant. Liquefaction describes the behavior of soils that, when loaded, suddenly suffer a transition from a solid state to a liquefied state, or having the consistency of a heavy liquid. Liquefaction can occur during vibratory conditions such as those induced by seismic event, under saturated conditions in soils, such as sand, in which the strength is purely frictional. A low relative density and loose consistency of the granular materials, shallow groundwater table, long duration and high acceleration of seismic shaking are some of the factors that can cause liquefaction. Presence of predominately cohesive or fine- grained materials and/or absence of saturated conditions can preclude liquefaction. Liquefaction hazards are usually manifested in the form of buoyancy forces expected on structures during liquefaction, increase in lateral earth pressures due to liquefaction, horizontal and vertical movements of structures resulting from lateral spreading, and post - earthquake settlement of the liquefied materials. As indicated in the City's General Plan Update EK Geology, Soils, and Mineral Resources section, the Project site is located in an area with low to no potential for liquefaction due to the lack of liquefiable soils. Prior to the implementation of the proposed Project, the project applicant will be required to prepare a geotechnical report for the proposed buildings, which would fully identify any site - specific risk for liquefaction and would identify any specific construction design recommendations in 46 Michael Brandman Associates HAClient (PN -IN)\ 0064 \00640027 \IS \00640027 Initial Study Learning Center.doc Coast Community College District - Newport Beach Learning Center Initial Study Discussion of Environmental Evaluation accordance with the CBC. Accordingly, impacts associated with this issue would be less than significant. iv) Landslides? No Impact. Slope failures are common during strong seismic shaking in areas of significant topographical relief. However, the Project site is located in a relatively flat area and no significant slopes are proposed. Additionally, the Project site is identified in the City's General Plan Update EIR, Geology, Soils, and Mineral Resources section as being outside the areas within the City that are at risk for landslides. Therefore, no impacts associated with this issue are expected to occur. b) Result insubstantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Less Than Significant Impact. The site is currently a mostly developed 3.5 -acre site comprised of 3 separate parcels of land with several commercial structures. Portions of the Project site occur as an open/vacant field in the existing condition. Development of the Project site to accommodate the proposed use would involve the installation of impervious surfaces on the site that would reduce soil erosion at the Project site compared to the existing condition. As all storm water flows would be directed to the existing municipal storm drain system, the Project would not result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil. Therefore, impacts related to erosion would be less than significant. c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? Less Than Significant Impact. The Project site is relatively flat and no substantial slopes are proposed. No existing landslides are known to be present on or adjacent to the property. The potential for lateral spreading and liquefaction are considered to be low, and compliance with City and CBC construction standards would ensure that significant impacts related to this issue would be avoided and would therefore be less than significant. Additionally, due to the topography of the Project area (relatively flat with average slopes less than 5 %), the potential for subsidence or collapse is considered low. Therefore, associated impacts are considered less than significant. 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? Less Than Significant Impact. Expansive soils expand or contract with changes in the moisture content. Some of the geologic units in the City, including both surficial soils Michael Brandman Associates 47 H:\Client (PN -1N) \0064 \00540027 \IS \00640027 Initial Study Learning Centecdoc Coast Community College District - Newport Beach Learning Center Discussion of Environmental Evaluation Initial Study and bedrock, have fine - grained components that are moderate to highly expansive. As required for all new school facilities, an evaluation of onsite soils will be required as part of building permit review in order to determine compliance with the CBC, and measures to reduce the potential impact of expansive soil impacts to less than significant. As discussed above, prior to the implementation of the proposed Project, the applicant will be required to prepare a geotechnical report. The Project- specific geotechnical report will identify onsite soils and evaluate such soils for expansiveness. The final design of the proposed Project building would be based on the results of the geotechnical report, thereby ensuring any impacts associated with this issue would be less than significant. 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 proposed Project will convey wastewater generated onsite to the existing municipal wastewater system. Septic tanks or other alternative wastewater disposal systems will not be employed at the Project site. Therefore, no impacts to soils due to the use of septic systems are anticipated. 7. Hazards and Hazardous Materials Assessment Past and Present Site Use The following is a summary of information contained in the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment located in Appendix C of this IS /MND. The Project site is currently developed with several commercial buildings, a vacant home, and the remnants of a burned down residence. However, historically the site has been used for agriculture, livestock grazing, and was generally undeveloped open space. A review of aerial photographs of the Project site indicates that initial signs of development at the Site are evident in 1927 where a small structure is visible at the westernmost end of a small dirt road which intersects Monrovia Avenue. By 1948, several additional small structures have been added to the site, including the abandoned home and the former residence that has burned down. In addition to the structures, the 1948 photograph indicates that some additional paths, vegetation, and dirt roads occurred on the project site. Considerable development is evident between 1947 and 1968, when paved roads and multiple structures and commercial /industrial facilities appear to have been added throughout the area and expansion of the oil field development in the area to the west of the Project site is visible. By 1968, 48 Michael Brandman Associates HAClient (PN -IN)\ 0064 \00640027 \IS \00640027 Initial Study Learning Center.doc Coast Community College District - Newport Beach Learning Center Initial Study Discussion of Environmental Evaluation the small structures located in the southern area of the site appear to have been removed. Additionally, the northern portion of the Project site appears to have two structures on it. By 1977, further development in the Project vicinity is evident, including a moderately large residential development at the southern terminus of Monrovia Avenue and a building located in the northern portion of the Project site are visible. A boat yard is also visible in the western portion of the Project site. By 1990, the commercial building that occurs at the northeastern portion of the property appears to have been constructed into its current configuration and the building that currently occurs in the southwestern portion of the site is now visible. By 2002, a small building in the southern portion of the site was constructed. From 2002 through 2005, the Site appears to have remained relatively unchanged. The boat yard located in the western portion of the site since approximately 1977 was reportedly abandoned sometime in 2006. Previous documentation prepared for a portion of the Project site indicated that minor localized soil staining was observed at a few small areas of the site in 2002, likely from minor spillage or dumping of waste oils associated with boat maintenance and repair from the abandoned boat yard. Subsequent soil sampling identified arsenic in each of the samples analyzed, with reported concentrations ranging between 7.2 mg/kg and 9.3 mg/kg. These arsenic concentrations exceed both the arsenic Regional Screening Level and arsenic California Human Health Screening Level for residential and industrial soil. However, these concentrations of arsenic are within typical background soil values for Southern California. Documentation prepared in 2006 for the Project site identified that evidence indicating the use of limited quantities of radioactive isotopes occurred at the Bioamerica facility, located in the northern portion of the Project site. At that time, the company was reportedly in the process of decommissioning its processes that involved radioactive isotopes. Remaining radioactive isotopes at the Project site were reportedly being consolidated for eventual disposal. Radioactive isotopes decommissioning was reportedly being performed in accordance with a plan submitted to the State Health Department. On 25 August, 2007, Bioamerica received a Radioactive Materials License Termination notice from the California Department of Public Health (CDPH). A review of regulatory agency records for the Project site indicated that the Project site was identified three times for facilities located at 1517, 1531, and 1533 Monrovia Avenue in regards to the documented disposal of oil - containing wastes, aqueous solutions, and laboratory waste chemicals respectively. No violations or indications of a release were noted in these database listings. In the vicinity of the Project site, 40 facilities were identified in the database search. Each listing was reviewed to evaluate its potential to impact the Project site. Of these listings, approximately 18 facilities were estimated to be located within 1/4 mile of the property boundary of the Project site. Michael Brandman Associates 49 H:\Client (PN -JN) \0064 \00540027 \IS \00640027 Initial Smdy Learning Centendw Coast Community College District - Newport Beach Learning Center Discussion of Environmental Evaluation Initial Study The majority of the facilities identified in the databases were listed due to their status as active or inactive handlers and/or generators of hazardous waste or having registered underground storage tanks (USTs), but were listed as having no violations or releases. In addition to the 40 off -site properties identified, an additional 71 off -site properties were identified as potentially being in the Project vicinity, but were not mapped due to poor or inadequate address information. The majority of these facilities identified in the databases were listed due to their status as active or inactive drycleaners, handlers and/or generators of hazardous waste, or having registered USTs, but were listed as having no violations or releases. The remaining facilities were determined to be outside the immediate vicinity of the Project site (adjacent or on roads adjacent to the property). In summary, none of the off -site facilities identified in the database search are considered to have a significant potential to impact the Project site. Site Reconnaissance A site reconnaissance and interviews were pursuant to the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment in order to assess present site conditions and to identify and evaluate evidence of potential recognized environmental conditions (RECs) at the Project site. The reconnaissance and interviews determined that Bioamerica uses and stores a variety of hazardous substances required for the development, manufacturing, and distribution of their medical diagnostic products. During the site reconnaissance, Geosyntec observed the storage and use of numerous laboratory-grade chemicals for research, development, product testing, and manufacturing in Bioamerica's laboratories and occupied units. These included numerous individual small quantity containers of dry solid chemicals, liquid chemicals, and compressed gasses. Dry solid chemicals (e.g., salts) were observed to be stored in small quantities (e.g., up to 2.5 kg). Examples include: potassium chloride, sodium azide, sodium citrate, potassium phosphate, sodium hydroxide, cupric sulfate, potassium carbonate, etc. These chemicals were observed primarily in Bioamerica's laboratory areas, although some storage of dry chemicals was also observed in other units in designated storage areas. Liquid chemicals were also observed in Bioamerica laboratories and designated storage areas, typically in small quantities (< 10 gallons). Examples include: cleaners such as isopropyl alcohols (in up to 20 liter containers); acids, such as sulfuric acid (in up to 2.5 liter containers); N.N- dimethyl- formamide (in up to 4 liter containers); methanol (in up to 1 liter containers); dichlorotrifluoroethane (in up to 10 gallon containers); oils (in up to 5 gallon containers); glycerin (in up to 4 liter containers); bleaches, pH buffer solutions, etc. Similar to the dry chemicals, liquid chemicals were observed primarily in Bioamerica's laboratory areas, although some storage of liquid chemicals was also observed in other units in designated storage areas. Nitrogen gas pressurized cylinders were observed in Bioamerica's laboratories. No evidence of leaks or spills related to chemicals was observed during the Site reconnaissance. Chemicals were observed to be stored in areas not immediately adjacent to plumbing drains. 50 Michael Brandman Associates HAClient (PN -IN)\ 0064 \00640027 \IS \00640027 Initial Study Learning Center.doc Coast Community College District - Newport Beach Learning Center Initial Study Discussion of Environmental Evaluation Bioamerica also utilizes and operates several laboratory- sensitive machines, including: incubators, mass spectrometers, freeze dryers, drying ovens, refrigerators, centrifuges, and assorted other laboratory equipment. Other tenants were observed storing chemicals during the site reconnaissance. Coast Marine, is reportedly permitted through the EPA for the recovery of refrigerant. Numerous containers of refrigerant, two 5- gallon containers of hydraulic fluid, up to seven 5- gallon diesel fuel totes, up to three 5- gallon containers of hydraulic oil, and a small amount (1 gallon) of acetone were observed. No evidence of leaks or spills related to chemicals was observed during the site reconnaissance. Helium, oxygen, and acetylene pressurized gas cylinders were also observed at Coast Marine. A burned down single - family residence exists on the eastern portion of the site along Monrovia Avenue. Burned debris was observed on the ground in the area where the structure formerly stood. For the building associated with the southern portion of the Project site, the following was observed as being stored and/or used: • Gasoline - one partially -full 55- gallon drum inside Building E; up to six 5 gallon containers and up to two 5- gallon containers inside Building E; • Aerosol cans, car oils, lubricating oils, refrigerant oils, machine /synthetic oils, paints, etc. - numerous less than 5- gallon containers; stored at multiple indoor locations; • Outdoor storage - one empty 30- gallon drum (unlabeled), two partially -full 5 gallon gasoline containers were found uncovered. Interior observations from these buildings identified the storage of approximately 40 motorbikes. Some minor leaks and spills of gasoline were noted underneath some of the motorbikes. One exterior pad- mounted transformer was observed at the eastern front of the property facing Monrovia Avenue, adjacent to the building in the northeastern portion of the site. An electrical room was observed on the first floor of this building, underneath the northeast comer of the 2nd floor (access was not possible at the time of the site reconnaissance). The transformer and exterior of the electrical room appeared to be in good operating condition, and no staining or readily visible signs of leaks were observed near either unit. It is not certain whether the insulating fluid within the transformer contains polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). Would the Project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed Project consists of the demolition of existing uses on the project site and the construction and operation of a learning facility. Michael Brandman Associates 51 H:\Client (PN -iN) \0064 \00640027 \IS \00640027 Initial Study Learning Centendoc Coast Community College District - Newport Beach Learning Center Discussion of Environmental Evaluation Initial Study Prior to demolition activities, the current hazardous waste handlers on the Project site and/or current property owners would relocate or dispose of all existing hazardous materials on the Project site in accordance with local, State, and federal regulations. The operation of the learning center would not involve the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials, other than relatively small quantities of materials associated with cleaning, maintenance and landscaping for the facility. The relatively small quantities and low concentrations of these materials would not create a significant public hazard. Therefore, impacts are anticipated to be less than significant. 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? Less Than Significant Impact. As identified above, several of the existing and past uses on the Project site involve the use of hazardous materials. All of the existing hazardous materials that occur on the Project site would be removed by the hazardous materials handlers and /or current property owners prior to the commencement of the proposed Project. As such, no transport of large quantities of hazardous materials associated with the current uses on the site would occur. The demolition and removal of construction materials associated with existing improvements on the site, including buildings, would result in the disposal of debris from buildings that were associated with previous hazardous materials use and storage. In addition, there is a potential for the existing onsite structures to contain asbestos and lead - based paint due to their age. Furthermore, the Project involves the removal of debris associated with a burned residence. The removal of these materials would involve the transport of hazardous materials to approved disposal facilities. However, because the demolition contractor would be required to comply with local, State, and federal regulations associated with the disposal of these materials, impacts associated with potential onsite hazardous materials would be less than significant. Previous operations on the site associated with the Bioamerica laboratory included the use of limited quantities /concentrations of radioactive materials in accordance with a Radioactive Material License regulated by the State of California Department of Health Services. However, based on a conversation between the District and Regina Jones of the California Department of Health Services, Radiologic Health Branch on July 13, 2009, the successful termination of the Radioactive Material License for Bioamerica was completed as of August 25, 2007. Furthermore, it was determined that Bioamerica completed all regulatory steps and met the State's requirements related to radioactive decommissioning. Ms. Jones also indicated that the receipt of the license termination as 52 Michael Brandman Associates HAClient (PN -IN)\ 0064 \00640027 \IS \00640027 Initial Study Learning Center.doc Coast Community College District - Newport Beach Learning Center Initial Study Discussion of Environmental Evaluation indicates that the property is released for unrestricted use. Documentation related to the termination of the Radioactive Material License is provided in Appendix C. During the operation of the learning center facility, the proposed Project would not employ the use of hazardous materials during its long -term operation in sufficient quantity and concentrations to pose a significant hazard to the public or the environment. Therefore, impacts related to reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials would be less than significant. c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one - quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? Less than Significant Impact. Carden Hall Elementary and Junior High School is located to the north of the proposed Project site, within one quarter mile. Prior to the commencement of the Project, current hazardous waste handlers on the Project site and /or current property owners would relocate or dispose of all existing hazardous materials on the Project site in accordance with local, State, and federal regulations. Although some hazardous materials may be encountered during demolition activities (i.e., asbestos and lead - paint), as discussed above, these materials would be removed in accordance with local, State, and federal regulations. Hazardous materials commonly associated with construction activities would be used in limited quantities and concentration during construction, including but not limited to petroleum based fuels, paint and solvents. However, as stated above, compliance with local, State, and federal regulations during demolition and construction would ensure that impacts associated with nearby schools would be less than significant. Previous operations at the Bioamerica laboratory on the Project site involved the use of limited quantities /concentrations of radioactive materials in accordance with a Radioactive Material License regulated by the State of California Department of Health Services. However, as discussed above in the discussion for Impact 7(b), the successful termination of the Radioactive Material License for Bioamerica was completed on August 25, 2007, which indicates that Bioamerica completed all regulatory steps and that the facility was released for unrestricted use. Accordingly, impacts associated with demolition of this facility would be less than significant. Documentation related to the termination of the Radioactive Material License is provided in Appendix C. The operation of the proposed Project as a learning center would not result in the emission of hazardous materials, or the handling of handling of hazardous or acutely hazardous materials in sufficient quantities to result in significant impacts to the existing Carden Hall Elementary and Junior High School, or the Coastline Learning Center which Michael Brandman Associates 53 H:\Client (PN -JN) \0064 \00540027 \IS \00640027 Initial Smdy Learning Centendw Coast Community College District - Newport Beach Learning Center Discussion of Environmental Evaluation Initial Study would be constructed on the Project site. Therefore, impacts during operation would be less than significant. 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? No Impact. Based on a review of the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, there are no sites on the Project site that are located on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 that would create a significant hazard to the public or the environment. Government Code Section 65962.5 identifies facilities subject to corrective action, sites selected for a response action, sites included in the Abandoned Site Assessment Program, sites with an unauthorized release from underground storage tanks, sites with cease and desist orders, and a list of all solid waste disposal facilities. The review of regulatory agency records for the Project site indicated that the Project site was identified three times for facilities located at 1517, 1531, and 1533 Monrovia Avenue in regards to the documented disposal of oil- containing wastes, aqueous solutions, and laboratory waste chemicals respectively; however, no violations or indications of a release were noted in these database listings. As a result, the Project site is not classified as a site pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5, and the Project would result in no impacts. 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? No Impact. The Project site is not located within an airport land use plan. The nearest public airport is John Wayne Airport, located approximately 4.5 miles from the proposed Project site. The construction of a three story building on the site would not result in any a safety hazards for people working or occupying the proposed Project. Accordingly, no impact would occur related to a public airport. J) 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? No Impact. The Project site is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip. Therefore, the proposed Project will not create related safety hazards. No impacts regarding this issue would occur. g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? 54 Michael Brandman Associates HAClient (PN -IN)\ 0064 \00640027 \IS \00640027 Initial Study Learning Center.doc Coast Community College District - Newport Beach Learning Center Initial Study Discussion of Environmental Evaluation No Impact. The proposed Project would not interfere any emergency response or evacuation plans. No changes to the surrounding street network would occur to adversely affect emergency response or evacuations. Additionally, Project access plans would be reviewed by emergency responders in order to assure that the Project would not interfere with emergency response and/or evacuation plans. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated. 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? Less Than Significant Impact. The Project site is currently developed with commercial uses. Land to the west of the Project site is composed of open space. According to the City's General Plan, the Project site located within a low /none fire susceptibility zone. Therefore, impacts related to wildland fires would be less than significant. 8. Hydrology and Water Quality The Project site is located within the Orange County Groundwater Basin. The Newport- Inglewood fault zone, located to the south of the site, is the predominant hydrogeologic feature in the area, acting as a barrier to groundwater flow in the aquifers below the uppermost water - bearing units. The area in which the Site is located is hydraulically bounded to the west by the mouth of the Santa Ana River and by marsh channels. The marsh channels are connected by a culvert to the mouth of the Santa Ana River. The water table elevation in the area is approximately equal to mean sea level and is generally influenced by tidal fluctuations. The construction of the learning facility includes the installation of onsite drainage infrastructure, which would convey runoff from the project site into the gutters located on Monrovia Avenue. From there, stormwater flows would be conveyed along the surface of the street within the gutters to a municipal storm drain intake. The project site is located within the Newport Bay Watershed, where storm runoff would eventually flow into the Pacific Ocean. In addition to requirements from Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act, there are also requirements relative to Section 402(p) of the Clean Water Act that affect storm water runoff from the Project. These requirements were created under a 1987 amendment to the Clean Water Act and require certain storm water discharges to obtain National Pollution Discharge Elimination System ( NPDES) permits. Permits are required for three general areas: municipal, industrial, and construction. The Environmental Protection Agency has delegated authority to issue these permits to the State RWQCB. In July of 1990, the County of Orange together with the 31 cities within Orange County (the permitees), obtained a NPDES permit for the discharge of municipal storm water. Would the Project: Michael Brandman Associates 55 H:\Client (PN -JN) \0064 \00540027 \IS \00640027 Initial Smdy Learning Centendw Coast Community College District - Newport Beach Learning Center Discussion of Environmental Evaluation Initial Study a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? Less Than Significant Impact. The Project site is within and, therefore, subject to the water quality regulations of the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board ( SARWQCB). The SARWQCB is authorized to implement a municipal stormwater permitting program as part of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System ( NPDES) authority granted under the federal Clean Water Act. The general permit applicable to this Project is the "Statewide General Construction Stormwater Permit' which addresses waste discharge requirements for discharges of stormwater runoff associated with construction activities. Consistent with the applicable municipal stormwater NPDES Permit, the City of Newport Beach is required to implement a stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) to minimize the incidence of construction- related pollutants entering the storm water system. Several items are required in a SWPPP, including the site maps showing drainage and discharge locations and the location of control measures, a description of the pollution prevention best management practices (BMPs) to be implemented on the site, BMP inspection procedures, and requirements for stormwater monitoring. Compliance with these requirements would prevent violation of water quality standards and waste discharge requirements during the construction of the site. During operation, the Project includes retention of stormwater on the site through the use of permeable surfaces within the parking lot as well as landscaping. In addition, the Project includes vegetation on the roof of the structure which will further reduce the amount of stormwater that will be conveyed off the project site. The stormwater that is conveyed off the project site to the curb and gutter system will include oil, grease, and tir particles from the parking lot area; however, the operation of the proposed learning center would not generate stormwater runoff that would violate water quality standards or water discharge requirements. As a result, impacts associated with this issue would be less than significant. 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 ofpre - existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted? Less Than Significant Impact. The Project does not propose any groundwater - extracting wells. The Project site in its existing condition is mostly developed with both pervious and impervious surfaces. The proposed Project would result in the construction of a learning facility, paved parking, and landscaping areas, resulting in the installation of 56 Michael Brandman Associates HAClient (PN -IN)\ 0064 \00640027 \IS \00640027 Initial Study Learning Center.doc Coast Community College District - Newport Beach Learning Center Initial Study Discussion of Environmental Evaluation impervious and pervious surfaces on the Project site. However, due to the Project site's relatively small size and location within an urbanized area, the Project site does not function as a substantial source for groundwater recharge. Additionally, the project includes design features that would allow groundwater infiltration. Therefore, the Project would not substantially deplete groundwater supplies, or substantially interfere with groundwater recharge. Impacts associated with groundwater are considered less than significant. c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of'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? Less Than Significant Impact. To accommodate the conversion of the Project site from its existing condition to a learning facility, the Project site will require limited grading and new on -site drainage infrastructure that would direct runoff to Monrovia Avenue. The Project would continue to drain runoff to the existing storm drain system, as in the existing condition. On -site improvements would be required to comply with the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Storm Water Permit Program to minimize erosion or siltation. Therefore, adverse impacts to the drainage pattern resulting in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off -site are less than significant. 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. To accommodate the conversion of the Project site commercial buildings to a learning facility, the Project site will require limited grading and new on -site drainage infrastructure that would direct runoff to Monrovia Avenue. The Project would continue to drain runoff to the existing storm drain system, as in the existing condition. The Project would be expected to contribute slightly increased, but similar volumes of runoff as those that occur in the existing condition. As the City's municipal drainage system has the capacity to accept stormwater from the Project site, impacts to the drainage system resulting in on- or off -site flooding are regarded as less than significant. e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources ofpolluted runoff? Less Than Significant Impact. To accommodate the conversion of the Project site commercial buildings to a learning facility, the Project site will require limited grading Michael Brandman Associates 57 FIXIient (PN -1N) \0064 \00540027 \IS \00640027 Initial Study l-earaing Centendoe Coast Community College District - Newport Beach Learning Center Discussion of Environmental Evaluation Initial Study and new on -site drainage infrastructure that would direct runoff to Monrovia Avenue. The Project would continue to drain runoff to the existing storm drain system, as in the existing condition. The Project would be expected to contribute slightly increased, but similar, volumes of runoff as those that occur in the existing condition. Currently, the Project site is mostly developed with light - industrial and office buildings that are graded to drain runoff to the gutter within Monrovia Avenue. The Project would be expected to contribute slightly increased, though similar, volumes of runoff volumes as those that occur in the existing conditions. Additionally, the project includes design features that would decrease volume of runoff including features allowing groundwater infiltration and vegetated horizontal surfaces. The City's municipal storm drain system within the Project area has the capacity to accommodate anticipated runoff from the Project site after construction. As runoff volumes would be similar after buildout of the Project compared to the existing condition, runoff from the developed Project site would not be expected to adversely affect the ability of the downstream municipal storm drain system to accommodate storm water flows. Compliance with NPDES permit requirements would ensure that the Project would not contribute additional sources of polluted runoff. Therefore, the Project would not exceed the capacity of the municipal stormwater drainage infrastructure or add substantial polluted runoff, and associated impacts would be less than significant. J) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed Project involves the construction of a three -story learning facility. The Project would continue to drain runoff to Monrovia Avenue. Project compliance with mandatory NPDES and SWPPP standard requirements as well as implementation of the required Project - specific WQMP would ensure that all impacts regarding water quality would be less than significant. The required WQMP would identify BMPs designed to reduce impacts to water quality, such as the installation of filtration measures at inlets and directing runoff to landscaped areas. The Project would not otherwise substantially degrade water quality and impacts would be less than significant. g) Place housing within a 100 -year flood hazard area as mapped on a, federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or otherflood hazard delineation map? No Impact. The proposed Project is a learning facility, and would not construct permanent housing. According to the City of Newport Beach General Plan, the Project site is located outside of a 100 -year Flood Hazard Area as determined by the Federal Emergency Management Agency. Therefore, no impacts from flood hazards are anticipated. 58 Michael Brandman Associates HAClient (PN -IN)\ 0064 \00640027 \IS \00640027 Initial Study Learning Center.doc Coast Community College District - Newport Beach Learning Center Initial Study Discussion of Environmental Evaluation h) Place within a 100 year f ood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect f ood f ows? No Impact. According to the City of Newport Beach General Plan, the Project site is located outside of a 100 -year Flood Hazard Area as determined by the Federal Emergency Management Agency. Therefore, no impacts related to impeding or redirecting flood flows are anticipated. i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including f ooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? No Impact. The Project site is not located within the dam inundation area for Prado Dam, or any other regional dams. Additionally, the Project is not located in the immediate vicinity of a dam or levee. Dams in the State of California are required to be built to withstand maximum credible seismic events, and are regularly inspected in order to ensure proper maintenance and function. Accordingly, no impact associated with this issue would occur. j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? No Impact. The proposed Project is located 0.6 mile from the Pacific Ocean, and because the site is on a bluff, that is located more than 100 feet above mean sea level the potential for the Project site to be exposed to inundation by tsunami is unlikely. It is elevated above areas that might be exposed to inundation by tsunami. The Project would not be not located near any other major water bodies or water storage facilities that could potentially generate a seiche. Additionally, the Project is located in a relatively flat area, and would not be subject to mudflow. Therefore, no adverse impacts to people or structures as a result of seiche, tsunami, or mudflow are anticipated. 9. Land Use and Planninq Would the Project: a) Physically divide an established community? No Impact. The proposed Project involves the construction of a three -story learning facility. It is currently developed with several industrial and office structures, and the site does not provide a linkage for a community. According to City staff, the site is in an area that is transitioning from industrial to residential and institutional uses. Thus, the Project vicinity is not an established community, and the Project would not physically divide an established community. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated. Michael Brandman Associates 59 H:\Client (PN -JN) \0064 \00540027 \IS \00640027 Initial Smdy Learning Centendw Coast Community College District - Newport Beach Learning Center Discussion of Environmental Evaluation Initial Study 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, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? No Impact. According to the City of Newport Beach General Plan, the project site is currently designated Multiple -Unit Residential (18 units per acre). The Multiple -Unit Residential designation is intended to provide multi - family residential development containing attached or detached dwelling units. The site is currently zoned Controlled Manufacturing (M -1 -A) District. The M -1 -A District provides area for a wide range of moderate to low industrial uses and limited accessory and ancillary commercial and office uses. The City of Newport Beach General Plan acknowledges that other governmental agencies (i.e., school districts) may be exempt from City land use control. The proposed learning center would remove potential future multiple -unit residences from the project site. However, because the proposed project is a Coast Community College District project, the proposed District facility is exempt from the City's land use control (i.e., the City's General Plan designation and zoning). It is, however, the intent of the District to ensure that the proposed project is compatible with the surrounding land uses and the City General Plan policies (except for land use designations). Following is a discussion of the proposed project's consistency with applicable policies of the City's General Plan. The elements of the General Plan that are applicable to the proposed project include Land Use, Historical Resources, Circulation, Natural Resources, and Noise. Land Use Element LU 5.1.2 Compatible Interfaces Require that the height of development in non - residential and higher - density residential areas transition as it nears lower- density residential areas to minimize conflicts at the interface between the different types of development. Analysis. The project site includes one -and two -story light - industrial structures within the northern portion of the project site, a single story house in the eastern portion of the project site, and one story storage structures in the southern portion of the project site. South of the project site is a three - story office structure, west of the site are single -story mobile home units, and north of the project site are single story office and industrial structures. Generally, the area in the vicinity of the Project site is considered high density. Implementation of the proposed project includes a two and three 60 Michael Brandman Associates HAClient (PN -IN)\ 0064 \00640027 \IS \00640027 Initial Study Learning Center.doc Coast Community College District - Newport Beach Learning Center Initial Study Discussion of Environmental Evaluation story structure along the northern and western portions of the project site. The height and bulk of the proposed learning center is compatible with the high density of the Project vicinity. In addition, the placement of the proposed structure is set back by approximately 180 feet from the nearest mobile home unit located east of Monrovia Avenue.. This distance provides the transition required by this policy. Therefore, the project would be consistent with this policy. LU 6.1.1 Adequate Community Supporting Uses Accommodate schools, government administrative and operational facilities, fire stations and police facilities, religious facilities, schools, cultural facilities, museums, interpretive centers, and hospitals to serve the needs of Newport Beach's residents and businesses. Analysis. The proposed Coastline Community College Learning Center provides a school facility to accommodate the needs of residents of Newport Beach as well as residents in the vicinity of Newport Beach. Therefore, the project would be consistent with this policy. LU 6.1.2 Siting of New Development Allow for the development of new public and institutional facilities within the City provided that the use and development facilities are compatible with adjoining land uses, environmentally suitable, and can be supported by transportation and utility infrastructure. Analysis. The hours of operation of the proposed school facility is 9:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. The nearest sensitive uses are mobile home units located east of Monrovia Avenue. There is currently a five -foot high block wall separating the mobile home units from Monrovia Avenue. Activities associated with the proposed school include automobile traffic and buses in the morning and afternoon. Parking is limited on the project site to 198 spaces; therefore, the majority of the students would attend school by buses, riding bikes, walking, and being dropped off and picked up at the school. Activities associated with arrivals and departures at the school in the morning, afternoon, and evening would not result in incompatible activities with the existing surrounding uses. During the afternoon and evening, the outdoor plaza areas will provide locations for activities. The outdoor plaza areas would be located on the second story roof of the structure proposed along the western portion of the project site. The outdoor plaza area would be Michael Brandman Associates 61 H:\Client (PN -JN) \0064 \00540027 \IS \00640027 Initial Smdy Learning Centendw Coast Community College District - Newport Beach Learning Center Discussion of Environmental Evaluation Initial Study separated from the existing mobile home units by a third story of the learning center structure as well as approximately 170 to 180 feet. The presence of the third story as well as the distance between the outdoor activity area and the existing mobile home units would allow compatibility of the project with the existing mobile home units. The proposed facility will result in potential significant environmental impacts; however, mitigation measures are available as discussed in Section 2 of this MND that would reduce potential impacts to less than significant. Since the proposed Project would not result in any significant and unavoidable adverse environmental impacts, the Project is considered environmentally suitable. Finally, the Project will be served by existing infrastructure including Monrovia Avenue (see Section 2.15), 15`I' Street (see Section 2.15), storm drain system (see Section 2.8), water and sewer lines (see Section 2.16), and less than significant impacts to these facilities have been identified. Based on the above discussion, the project would be consistent with this policy. LU 6.1.4 Compatibility of Non -City Public Uses Encourage school and utility districts and other government agencies that may be exempt from City land use control and approval to plan their properties and design buildings at a high level of visual and architectural quality that maintains the character of the neighborhood or district in which they are located and in consideration of the design and development policies for private uses specified by this Plan. Analysis. The Coast Community College District is working with the City of Newport Beach by submitting design plans of the proposed project. City staff is reviewing the plans for visual and architectural quality to ensure that the proposed project maintains the character of the neighborhood. The District understands that the project is exempt from the City land use control such as the General Plan and zoning. The cooperation between the District and the City meets the intent of this policy. Historical Resources HR 1.6 Documentation 62 Michael Brandman Associates HAClient (PN -IN)\ 0064 \00640027 \IS \00640027 Initial Study Learning Center.doc Coast Community College District - Newport Beach Learning Center Initial Study Discussion of Environmental Evaluation Require that, prior to the issuance of a demolition or grading permit, developers of a property that contains an historic structure as defined by CEQA retain a qualified consultant to record the structure in accordance with U.S. Secretary of Interior guidelines (which includes drawings, photographs, and written data) and submit this information to the Newport Beach Historical Society, Orange County Public Library, and City Planning Department. Analysis. As identified in Section 2.5 in this MND, the existing single family house located along the eastern portion of the project site is more than 50 years of age and is a potential historic structure. Mitigation Measure CR- 1 includes recordation of the structure on Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) forms. Therefore, the implementation of Mitigation Measure CR -1 would result in the proposed project being consistent with this policy. HR 1.7 Offer for Relocation of Historic Structure Requires that, prior to the demolition of a historic structure, developers offer the structure for relocation by interested parties. Analysis. As identified in Section 2.5 in this MND, the existing single family house located along the eastern portion of the project site is more than 50 years of age and is a potential historic structure. Mitigation Measure CR- 1 includes a requirement to offer the structure for relocation. Therefore, the implementation of CR -1 would result in the proposed project being consistent with this policy. HR 2.2 Grading and Excavation Activities Maintain sources of information regarding paleontological and archaeological sites and the names and addresses of responsible organizations and qualified individuals, who can analyze, classify, record, and preserve paleontological or archaeological findings. Require a qualified paleontologist/archaeologist to monitor all grading and/or excavation where there is a potential to affect cultural, archaeological or paleontological resources. if these resources are found, the applicant shall implement the recommendations of the paleontologist/archaeologist, subject to the approval of the City Planning Department. Michael Brandman Associates 63 H:\Client (PN -JN) \0064 \00540027 \IS \00640027 Initial Smdy Learning Centendw Coast Community College District - Newport Beach Learning Center Discussion of Environmental Evaluation Initial Study Analysis. An archaeological and paleontological resources evaluation was conducted for the project site as discussed in Section 2.5 of this MND. Potential archaeological and paleontological resources impacts could occur with the implementation of the proposed project. Mitigation measures MM CR -1 and MM PR -1 through MM PR -4 are recommended to be implemented to reduce potential archaeological and paleontological impacts to less than significant. Therefore, the implementation of the recommended archaeological and paleontological mitigation measures would result in the proposed project being consistent with this policy. Circulation CE 2.1.6 Protection of Right -of -Way Protect right -of -way for designated future streets and highways through all practicable means. Analysis. The proposed project includes a setback of 22feet from the southern boundary of the project site to allow the fixture widening from 15th Street along the southern boundary of the project site to allow the future widening of 15th Street. Therefore, the project would be consistent with this policy. CE 2.2.6 Emergency Access Provide all residential, commercial, and industrial areas with efficient and safe access for emergency vehicles. Analysis. The proposed project includes emergency access to all areas of the project site. Therefore, the project would be consistent with this policy. CE 6.2.1 Alternative Transportation Modes Promote and encourage the use of alternative transportation modes, such as ridesharing, carpools, vanpools, public transit, bicycles, and walking; and provide facilities that support such alternative modes. Analysis. The proposed project includes a Newport-Mesa buss drop -off for high school students within a turn -out along Monrovia Avenue. This drop off area is for high school students that are bused to the school while other high school students and college students are dropped off in front of the proposed facility within the parking lot. The project will also includes 64 Michael Brandman Associates HAClient (PN -IN)\ 0064 \00640027 \IS \00640027 Initial Study Learning Center.doc Coast Community College District - Newport Beach Learning Center Initial Study Discussion of Environmental Evaluation bicycle rakes for those who ride to school. The implementation of these project features would result in the project being consistent with this policy. Natural Resources NR 1.1 Water Conservation in New Development Enforce water conservation measures that limit water usage, prohibit activities that waste water or cause runoff, and require the use of water - efficient landscaping and irrigation in conjunction with new construction projects. Analysis. The project includes retention of surface water drainage on the project site through permeable parking areas and landscaped areas. These features are consistent with this policy. Noise N 1.1 Noise Compatibility of New Development Require that all proposed projects are compatible with the noise environment through the use of Table N2, and enforce the interior and exterior noise standards shown in Table N3. Analysis. As discussed in Section 3.11 in the MND, the exterior noise level at the proposed school structure fagade could be a maximum of 61.8 dBA CNEL near 15th Street and 51.5 dBA CNEL near Monrovia Avenue. Due to the exterior noise level, a noise evaluation was conducted to ensure interior noise levels would not exceed the State's 45 dBA CNEL interior noise standard for classrooms. The project includes mitigation measure MM NOI- 3 which requires a "windows closed" condition for those areas of the structure that could exceed interior noise levels of 45 dBA. The implementation of MM N0I -3 would result in the proposed project being compatible with the future noise environmental adjacent to the project site. Therefore, the project would be consistent with this policy. c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural communities conservation plan? No Impact. According to the City of Newport Beach General Plan, the project site is currently designated Multiple -Unit Residential (18 units per acre). The Multiple -Unit Residential designation is intended to provide primarily for multi - family residential development containing attached or detached dwelling units. The site is currently zoned Controlled Manufacturing (M -1 -A) District. The M -1 -A District provides area for a wide Michael Brandman Associates 65 FIXIient (PN -JN) \0064 \00640027 \IS \00640027 Initial Study Learning Center.doc Coast Community College District - Newport Beach Learning Center Discussion of Environmental Evaluation Initial Study range of moderate to low industrial uses and limited accessory and ancillary commercial and office uses. The City of Newport Beach General Plan acknowledges that other governmental agencies (i.e., school districts) may be exempt from City land use control. Because the proposed project is a Coast Community College District project, the proposed District facility is exempt from the City's land use control (i.e., the City's General Plan designation and zoning). However, it is the intent of the District to ensure that the proposed project is compatible with the surrounding land uses and the City General Plan policies. 10. 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? Less Than Significant Impact. According to Figure 4.5 -3 of the City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR, the Project site occurs within the West Newport Oil Field. Oil extraction wells occur to the south, west, and northwest of the Project site, but no oil extraction activities occur or are known to have historically occurred on the site. As of 2001, the West Newport Oil Field had 66 oil wells in operation and produced 131,831 barrels of oil and condensate; and the field was estimated to have 847 millions barrels of oil in reserves. In 2002, the West Newport oil field produced approximately 20.5 billion cubic feet of natural gas with a daily production per oil well of approximately 5 barrels. According to Figure 4.5 -4 of the City of Newport Beach General Plan Update FIR, the Project site occurs in an area designated as MRZ -3 by the California Geologic Survey (CGS). The CGS designates Mineral Resource Zones (MRZ) according to the presence or absence of significant deposits. These classifications indicate the potential for a specific area to contain significant mineral resources. MRZ -3 is defined as an area containing known mineral occurrences of undetermined mineral resource significance. As stated above, although the Project site occurs within an oil producing field, the Project site is not associated with oil production activities. The site is mostly developed in the existing condition and is designated for development by the City's General Plan. Because the Project site does not currently support mineral extraction activities and is designated for development, the loss of availability of mineral extraction on the site that would result during the lifetime of the proposed Project would be a less than significant. 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? 66 Michael Brandman Associates HAClient (PN -!N)\ 0064 \00640027 \IS \00640027 Initial Study Learning Center.doc Coast Community College District - Newport Beach Learning Center Initial Study Discussion of Environmental Evaluation Less Than Significant Impact. Refer to the impact analysis for 10(a), above. As stated, the City of Newport General Plan Update EIR identifies that the Project occurs within the West Newport Oil Field and is located within MRZ -3, which indicates that the site is in an area containing known mineral occurrences of undetermined mineral resource significance. No other locally- important mineral resource recovery sites are identified within the Project vicinity beyond the off -site oil extraction wells located south, west, and northwest of the site. Because the Project site does not currently support mineral extraction activities and is designated for development, the loss of availability of mineral extraction on the site that would result during the lifetime of the proposed Project would be a less than significant. 11. Noise The following section is summarized from information in the Noise Impact Analysis for Newport Beach Learning Facility Project and provided in Appendix D of this MND. Would the Project result in: a) Exposure ofpersons to or generation of noise levels in excess ofstandards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated. The City of Newport Beach's Noise Element of the General Plan and noise ordinance establishes noise standards that govern activities at the Project site. The Project includes a 67,000 square foot learning facility and is considered a noise - sensitive use. According to City's Noise Element of the General Plan, a school noise level would be considered significant if the exterior noise level exceeds 65 dBA CNEL. The primary sources of noise that would impact the proposed project would be from vehicular traffic on Monrovia Avenue and 15th Street. The proposed structure would be located approximately 50 feet from the centerline of 15th Street and approximately 180 feet west of the centerline of Monrovia Avenue. Based on the year 2013 cumulative with project conditions, 15th Street is anticipated to have 9,000 vehicles per day and Monrovia Avenue is anticipated to have 6,000 vehicles per day in the vicinity of the project site. The anticipated noise levels at the fagade of the proposed learning center was calculated using the FHWA traffic noise prediction model and the parameters outlined in Appendix D. The future daytime exterior noise levels were calculated at the first, second, and third floor building facades in order to calculate the interior noise levels within the future on- site classrooms. To assess the on -site interior noise level impacts, the first floor receivers were placed 5.5 feet above the proposed pad elevation, all second floor receivers were Michael Brandman Associates 67 liTlient (PN -JN) \0064 \00640027 \IS \00640027 Initial Study Learning Center.doc Coast Community College District - Newport Beach Learning Center Discussion of Environmental Evaluation Initial Study placed 17 feet above the proposed pad elevation, and all third floor receivers were placed 29 feet above pad elevation. All receivers were placed along the exterior edge of each unit at the location for the shortest distance to either 15th Street or Monrovia Avenue. The FHWA onsite traffic noise prediction model printouts are in Appendix D. The expected future exterior noise levels at the location of the first, second, and third floor or rooftop balcony facades are presented in Table 7. Table 7 also presents the anticipated interior noise levels for both "windows open" and "windows closed" conditions. Table 7: Onsite Noise Impacts Table 7 above shows that the exterior noise levels at the building fagade will range from 47.5 to 61.8 dBA CNEL. The calculations show that the "windows open" condition will result in interior noise levels that would exceed the State's 45 dBA CNEL interior noise standard for classrooms The "windows open" condition would be considered a significant impact. Mitigation Measure N0I -3 is provided to reduce interior noise to less than significant levels. The "windows closed" condition shown above in Table 7, provides the anticipated noise levels through implementation of Mitigation Measure N01- 3. Mitigation Measures NOW The project applicant shall provide a "windows closed" condition for the proposed learning center. A "windows closed" condition requires a means of mechanical ventilation per the Uniform Building Code standards. This shall be achieved with standard air conditioning or a fresh air intake system. 68 Michael Brandman Associates H:\Client (PN -IN)\ 0064 \00640027 \IS \00640027 Initial Study Learning Center.doc Interior Noise Levels (dBA CNEL) Required Exterior Noise Level at for: Interior Noise Location Floor' Fagade (dBA CNEL) 3 3 Windows Open Windows Closed Reduction 16.4 1 61.4 49.4 36.4 Near 15" Street 2 61.8 49.8 36.8 16.8 Balcony 61.2 -- — -- Near 1 47.5 35.5 22.5 2.5 Monrovia 2 50.6 38.6 25.6 5.6 Avenue 3 51.5 39.5 26.5 6.5 Notes: 'Noise level calculated at 5.5 feet for I" Floor, 17 feet for 2"d Floor, and 29 feet for 3`d Floor above pad elevation. Z A minimum of 12 dBA noise reduction is assumed with windows open condition. 3 A minimum 25 dBA noise reduction is assumed with a windows closed condition. Source: Michael Brandman Associates, 2009. Table 7 above shows that the exterior noise levels at the building fagade will range from 47.5 to 61.8 dBA CNEL. The calculations show that the "windows open" condition will result in interior noise levels that would exceed the State's 45 dBA CNEL interior noise standard for classrooms The "windows open" condition would be considered a significant impact. Mitigation Measure N0I -3 is provided to reduce interior noise to less than significant levels. The "windows closed" condition shown above in Table 7, provides the anticipated noise levels through implementation of Mitigation Measure N01- 3. Mitigation Measures NOW The project applicant shall provide a "windows closed" condition for the proposed learning center. A "windows closed" condition requires a means of mechanical ventilation per the Uniform Building Code standards. This shall be achieved with standard air conditioning or a fresh air intake system. 68 Michael Brandman Associates H:\Client (PN -IN)\ 0064 \00640027 \IS \00640027 Initial Study Learning Center.doc Coast Community College District - Newport Beach Learning Center Initial Study Discussion of Environmental Evaluation b) Exposure ofpersons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. Construction and operational activities can produce vibration that may be felt by adjacent uses. Several different methods are used to quantify vibration amplitude such as the maximum instantaneous peak in the vibrations velocity, which is known as the peak particle velocity (PPV) or the root mean square (rms) amplitude of the vibration velocity. Because of the typically small amplitudes of vibrations, vibration velocity is often expressed in decibels and is denoted as L, and is based on the rms velocity amplitude. A commonly used abbreviation is VdB, which in this text, is when L, is based on the reference quantity of 1 microinch per second. Construction The construction of the proposed project would not require the use of equipment such as jackhammers and pile drivers, which are known to generate substantial construction vibration levels. The primary sources of vibration during construction would be from a large bulldozer. A large bulldozer would produce a vibration level of 0.089 PPV or 87 VdB at 25 feet. The closest vibration - sensitive land uses are the office buildings located approximately 10 feet north of the project site. It is anticipated that the vibration levels caused by a large bulldozer operating on the edge of the project site adjacent to the nearest offsite building will be around 0.096 inches per second or 95 VdB, which would exceed the 0.017 inch per second PPV or 80 VdB threshold as discussed in Appendix D. Therefore, construction- related vibration may create a significant impact. Mitigation Measure NOI- 2 is provided to reduce construction- related vibration to less than significant levels. With incorporation of Mitigation Measure NOI -2, maximum vibration levels at the nearby offsite structures would be created from a small bulldozer. A small bulldozer would produce a vibration level of 0.003 PPV or 58 VdB at 25 feet. It is anticipated that the vibration levels caused by a small bulldozer operating on the edge of the project site adjacent to the nearest offsite building will be around 0.0034 inches per second or 66 VdB, which would be within the 0.017 inch per second PPV or 80 VdB threshold discussed in Section 5.0 in Appendix D. Therefore, with incorporation of Mitigation Measure NOI -2 construction- related vibration would create a less than significant impact. Michael Brandman Associates 69 H:\Client (PN -JN) \0064 \00640027 \IS \00640027 Initial Smdy Learning Centendw Coast Community College District - Newport Beach Learning Center Discussion of Environmental Evaluation Initial Study Mitigation Measures N0I.2 The applicant shall limit the use of equipment in the area of the project site that is within 75 feet of an offsite structure, to only small bulldozers (less than 150 horse power) and similar sized equipment. The operation of the proposed learning center would require truck deliveries to the project site. The nearest sensitive receptors are the residential mobile homes approximately 60 feet east of the project site. Based on information in Appendix D, a truck on a paved surface would typically produce a vibration level of 63 VdB at 50 feet. This would result in a vibration level of 0.002 inches per second or 61 VdB at the nearest residence, which is below the 0.017 inch per second PPV or 80 VdB discussed in Section 5.0 in Appendix D. Therefore, the vibration impacts caused by the ongoing operations of the proposed project onto the existing nearby homes would be less than significant. c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? Less Than Significant Impact. The ongoing operation of the proposed project would result in a potential long -term increase in ambient noise levels. Potential noise impacts associated with the operations of the proposed project are a result of project - generated vehicular traffic on the project vicinity roadways and from stationary noise sources associated with the proposed project. Offsite Vehicular Noise The potential off -site traffic noise impacts created by the on -going operations of the proposed project have been analyzed through utilization of the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Model and parameters described in Section 6.0 in Appendix D for the existing noise calculations. The future average daily traffic (ADT) volumes on the study area roadways were obtained from the Traffic Impact Analysis. The ADT volumes have been provided for the year 2013 baseline, year 2013 plus, year 2030 baseline, and year 2030 with project scenarios. The ADT volumes used in this analysis are shown below in Table 8. Table 8: Average Daily Traffic Roadway Monrovia Avenue I North of 16th Street 70 Average Daily Traffic 2013 2013 2013 2013 Background Background Cumulative Cumulative Baseline With Project Baseline With Project 5,000 5,950 6000 Michael Brandman Associates HAClient (PN -IN)\ 0064 \00640027 \IS \00640027 Initial Study Learning Center.doc Coast Community College District - Newport Beach Learning Center Initial Study Discussion or Environmental Evaluation Roadway Average Daily Traffic 2013 2013 2013 2013 Background Background Cumulative Cumulative Baseline With Project Baseline With Project 5,000 5,710 5,290 6000 Monrovia Avenue North of 15th Street Placentia Avenue North of Victoria 17,930 18,000 18,930 19000 Placentia Avenue North of 19th Street 26,790 27,000 27,790 28000 Placentia Avenue North of 17th Street 19,790 20,000 20,790 21000 Placentia Avenue North of 16th Street 16,720 17,000 17,720 18000 Superior Avenue North of 16th Street 15,530 16,000 20,530 21000 Superior Avenue South of 15th Street 14,710 15,000 16,710 17,000 Newport Boulevard North of Harbor Boulevard 86,290 87,000 96,290 97,000 Newport Boulevard North of 17th Street 97,290 98,000 107,290 108,000 Newport Boulevard North of Industrial Way 60,810 61,000 61,810 62,000 17th Street East of Monrovia Avenue 7,000 7,050 9,950 10,000 17th Street East of Placentia Avenue 15,880 16,000 19,880 20,000 17th Street East of Newport Boulevard 38,930 39,000 39,930 40,000 16th Street East of Monrovia Avenue 4,340 5,000 7,340 8,000 16th Street East of Placentia Avenue 5,000 5,380 7,620 8,000 15th Street East of Monrovia Avenue 9,500 10,100 16,200 16,800 Coast Highway West of Superior 3,900 5,500 10,500 12,100 Coast Highway East of Newport Boulevard 30,300 30,800 44,000 44,500 Monrovia Avenue North of 16th Street 28,500 28,800 54,800 55,200 Monrovia Avenue North of 15th Street 31,400 32,000 47,900 48,500 Placentia Avenue North of Victoria 32,400 32,400 61,400 61,400 Placentia Avenue North of 19th Street 30,400 30,400 51,100 51,100 Placentia Avenue North of 17th Street 31,800 32,900 55,900 57,000 Source: Austin -Faust Associates, Inc., 2009. The vehicle mix used in the FHWA Model is provided in Appendix D. The FHWA- Model utilized the Local vehicle mix, which has been based on typical vehicle mixes observed in California. Model Results The potential off -site noise impacts caused through the increase in vehicular traffic from the on -going operations from the proposed project on to the project study area roadways has been analyzed for the following four traffic scenarios: Michael Brandman Associates 71 H:\Client (PN -JN) \0064 \00640027 \IS \00640027 Initial Study Learning Ceramdw Coast Community College District - Newport Beach Learning Center Discussion of Environmental Evaluation Initial Study • Year 2013 Background Baseline: This scenario refers to the future traffic noise conditions based on the existing conditions plus an area growth rate and traffic from nearby approved projects, without construction of the proposed project. • Year 2013 Background With Project: This scenario refers to the future traffic noise conditions based on the Year 2013 Background Baseline conditions plus the traffic generated from the on -going operations of the proposed project. • Year 2013 Cumulative Baseline: This scenario refers to the future traffic noise conditions based on the Year 2013 Background Baseline conditions plus pending projects, including Banning Ranch, without construction of the proposed project. Year 2013 Cumulative With Project: This scenario refers to the future traffic noise conditions based on the Year 2013 Cumulative Baseline conditions, plus the traffic generated from the on -going operations of the proposed project. In order to quantify the traffic noise impacts along the analyzed roadways, the roadway noise contours were calculated. Noise contours represent the distance to noise levels of a constant value and are measured from the center of the roadway. For analysis comparison purposes, the Ldn and CNEL noise levels are calculated at 50 feet from the centerline. In addition, the distance from the centerline to the 55, 60, 65, and 70 dBA noise levels are calculated for both Ldn and CNEL standards. Year 2013 Background Baseline Conditions The calculated year 2013 background baseline noise contours are shown below in Table 9. Table 9: Year 2013 Background Baseline Noise Contours CNEL at 70 Distance to Contour (feet) 65 60 55 100 feet dBA dBA dBA dBA Roadway (dBA) CNEL CNEL CNEL CNEL. Monrovia Avenue North of 16th Street 55.1 RW RW 47 101 Monrovia Avenue North of 15th Street 55.1 RW RW 47 101 Placentia Avenue North of Victoria 61.2 RW 56 121 261 Placentia Avenue North of 19th Street 63.0 RW 73 158 341 Placentia Avenue North of 17th Street 61.7 RW 60 129 279 Placentia Avenue North of 16th Street 60.9 RW 54 116 249 Superior Avenue North of 16th Street 60.6 RW RW 110 237 Superior Avenue South of 15th Street 60.4 RW RW 106 229 Newport Boulevard North of Harbor Boulevard 71.7 129 278 600 1293 Newport Boulevard North of 17th Street 72.2 140 302 650 1400 72 Michael Brandman Associates HAClient (PN -IN)\ 0064 \00640027 \IS \00640027 Initial Study Learning Center.doc Coast Community College District - Newport Beach Learning Center Initial Study Discussion or Environmental Evaluation Road Newport Boulevard Distance to Contour (feet) CNEL at 70 65 60 55 100 feet dBA dBA dBA dBA t"fd (dBA) CNEL CNEL CNEL CNEL North of Industrial Way 70.2 102 221 475 1024 17th Street East of Monrovia Avenue 56.6 RW RW 60 128 17th Street East of Placentia Avenue 63.5 RW 80 172 371 17th Street East of Newport Boulevard 67.4 67 145 313 674 16th Street East of Monrovia Avenue 54.5 RW RW 43 92 16th Street East of Placentia Avenue 55.1 RW RW 47 101 15th Street East of Monrovia Avenue 54.4 RW RW 42 91 Coast Highway West of Superior 67.1 RW 137 295 637 Coast Highway East of Newport Boulevard 68.6 81 174 374 806 Notes: RW = Noise contour is located within right -of -way of roadway. Table 9 shows that for the year 2013 background baseline condition at 100 feet, only the analyzed roadway segments of: Placentia Avenue, Superior Avenue, Newport Boulevard, Coast Highway, and 17th Street east of Placentia Avenue would exceed the City's 60 dBA CNEL residential standard. The noise levels on all roadway segments would range from 54.4 to 72.2 dBA CNEL. Year 2013 Background With Project Conditions The calculated year 2013 background with project noise contours are shown below in Table 10. Table 10: Year 2013 Background With Project Noise Contours Michael Brandman Associates 73 H:\Client (PN -JN) \0064 \00640027 \IS \00640027 Initial study Learning Centendw Distance to Contour (feet) CNEL at 65 60 55 100 feet dBA dBA dBA dBA Segment (dBA) CNEL CNEL CNEL CNEL Monrovia Avenue North of 16th Street 55.1 RW RW 47 102 Monrovia Avenue North of 15th Street 55.6 RW RW 51 110 Placentia Avenue North of Victoria 61.3 RW 56 121 262 Placentia Avenue North of 19th Street 63.0 RW 74 159 343 Placentia Avenue North of 17th Street 61.7 RW 60 130 281 Placentia Avenue North of 16th Street 61.0 RW 54 117 252 Superior Avenue North of 16th Street 60.8 RW 52 112 242 Superior Avenue South of 15th Street 60.5 RW RW 108 232 Newport Boulevard North of Harbor Boulevard 71.7 130 280 603 1300 Michael Brandman Associates 73 H:\Client (PN -JN) \0064 \00640027 \IS \00640027 Initial study Learning Centendw Coast Community College District - Newport Beach Learning Center Discussion of Environmental Evaluation Initial Study f+maww Distance to Contour (feet) CNEL at 70 65 60 55 100 feet dBA dBA dBA dBA IL Segment (dBA) CNEL CNEL CNEL CNEL North of 17th Street 72.2 141 303 653 1407 Newport Boulevard Newport Boulevard North of Industrial Way 70.2 103 221 476 1026 17th Street East of Monrovia Avenue 56.7 RW RW 60 129 17th Street East of Placentia Avenue 63.6 RW 80 173 373 17th Street East of Newport Boulevard 67.4 68 145 313 675 16th Street East of Monrovia Avenue 55.1 RW RW 47 101 16th Street East of Placentia Avenue 55.4 RW RW 49 106 15th Street East of Monrovia Avenue 55.1 RW RW 47 101 Coast Highway West of Superior 67.1 RW 138 297 640 Coast Highway East of Newport Boulevard 68.6 81 174 375 807 Notes: RW = Noise contour is located within right -of -way of roadway. Table N shows that for the year 2013 background with project condition at 100 feet, when compared to the year 2013 background baseline condition, no additional roadway segments would exceed the City's 60 dBA CNEL residential standard. The noise levels on all roadway segments would range from 55.1 to 72.2 dBA CNEL. Year 2013 Cumulative Baseline Conditions The calculated year 2013 cumulative baseline noise contours are shown below in Table 11. Table 11: Year 2013 Cumulative Baseline Noise Contours Distance to Contour (feet) CNEL at 70 65 60 1 55 100 feet dBA dBA dBA dBA 0 Roadway 0 Segment (dBA) CNEL CNEL CNEL CNEL Monrovia Avenue North of 16th Street 55.8 RW RW 53 113 Monrovia Avenue North of 15th Street 55.3 RW RW 49 105 Placentia Avenue North of Victoria 61.5 RW 58 126 271 Placentia Avenue North of 19th Street 63.2 RW 75 162 349 Placentia Avenue North of 17th Street 61.9 RW 62 134 288 Placentia Avenue North of 16th Street 61.2 RW 56 120 259 Superior Avenue North of 16th Street 61.8 RW 62 133 286 Superior Avenue South of 15th Street 60.9 RW 54 116 249 Newport Boulevard North of Harbor Boulevard 72.1 139 300 646 1391 74 Michael Brandman Associates H:\Client (PN -IN)\ 0064 \00640027 \IS \00640027 Initial Study Learning Center.doc Coast Community College District - Newport Beach Learning Center Initial Study Discussion or Environmental Evaluation Road Newport Boulevard North of 17th Street North of Industrial Way East of Monrovia Avenue East of Placentia Avenue CNEL at 100 feet (dBA) 72.6 70.2 58.1 64.5 Distance 70 dBA CNEL 149 103 RW RW to Contour 65 dBA CNEL 322 223 RW 93 (feet) 60 dBA CNEL 694 480 75 200 55 dBA CNEL 1495 1035 162 431 Newport Boulevard 17th Street 17th Street 17th Street East of Newport Boulevard 67.5 69 148 318 686 16th Street East of Monrovia Avenue 56.7 RW 28 61 131 16th Street East of Placentia Avenue 56.9 RW 29 62 134 15th Street East of Monrovia Avenue 57.3 RW 30 66 142 Coast Highway West of Superior 67.6 69 150 322 695 Coast Highway East of Newport Boulevard 68.9 85 183 394 848 Notes: RW = Noise contour is located within right -of -way of roadway. Table 11 shows that for the year 2013 cumulative baseline condition at 100 feet, only the analyzed roadway segments of: Placentia Avenue, Superior Avenue, Newport Boulevard, Coast Highway, and 17th Street east of Placentia Avenue would exceed the City's 60 dBA CNEL residential standard. The noise levels on all roadway segments would range from 55.3 to 72.6 dBA CNEL. Year 2013 Cumulative With Project Conditions The calculated year 2013 cumulative with project noise contours are shown below in Table 12. Table 12: Year 2013 Cumulative With Project Noise Contours RoadwW Distance to Contour (feet) CNEL at 70 65 60 55 100 feet dBA dBA dBA dBA Segment (dBA) CNEL CNEL CNEL CNEL North of 16th Street 55.9 RW RW 53 114 Monrovia Avenue Monrovia Avenue North of 15th Street 55.9 RW RW 53 114 Placentia Avenue North of Victoria 61.5 RW 58 126 271 Placentia Avenue North of 19th Street 63.2 RW 76 163 351 Placentia Avenue North of 17th Street 61.9 RW 62 135 290 Placentia Avenue North of 16th Street 61.3 RW 56 121 262 Superior Avenue North of 16th Street 61.9 RW 62 135 290 Superior Avenue South of 15th Street 61.0 RW 54 117 252 Michael Brandman Associates 75 WCheat (PN -1N) \0064 \00640027 \IS \00640027 Initial Study Learning Ceramdw Coast Community College District - Newport Beach Learning Center Discussion of Environmental Evaluation Initial Study Roadway Distance to Contour (feet) CNEL at 70 65 60 55 100 feet dBA dBA dBA dBA S (dBA) CNEL CNEL CNEL CNEL North of Harbor Boulevard 72.2 140 301 649 1398 Newport Boulevard Newport Boulevard North of 17th Street 72.6 150 323 697 1501 Newport Boulevard North of Industrial Way 70.2 104 223 481 1037 17th Street East of Monrovia Avenue 58.2 RW RW 76 163 17th Street East of Placentia Avenue 64.5 RW 93 201 432 17th Street East of Newport Boulevard 67.5 69 148 319 687 16th Street East of Monrovia Avenue 57.1 RW 30 64 138 16th Street East of Placentia Avenue 57.1 RW 30 64 138 15th Street East of Monrovia Avenue 57.6 RW 32 69 150 Coast Highway West of Superior 67.7 70 150 324 698 Coast Highway East of Newport Boulevard 68.9 85 183 394 849 Notes: RW = Noise contour is located within right -of -way of roadway. Table 12 shows that for the year 2013 cumulative with project condition at 100 feet, when compared to the year 2013 background baseline condition, no additional roadway segments would exceed the City's 60 dBA CNEL residential standard. The noise levels on all roadway segments would range from 55.9 to 72.6 dBA CNEL. Noise Increases As discussed in the General Plan Noise Element Policy N.1.8 (see Section 4.3.1 in Appendix D of this MND), in order for offsite roadway noise impacts created by the proposed project's operations to be considered significant, the proposed project would need to increase the noise levels for a noise sensitive land use by (1) 3 dBA CNEL, where the without project noise level is 55 dBA CNEL or less; (2) 2 dBA CNEL, where the without project noise level is 55 to 60 dBA CNEL; (3) 1 dBA CNEL, where the without project noise level is 60 to 75 dBA CNEL; or (4) Any measurable noise increase, where the without project noise level is greater than 75 dBA CNEL. The fundamentals of traffic noise propagation are discussed in Appendix D. The proposed project's offsite traffic noise impacts have been analyzed for the year 2013 background and cumulative conditions, which are discussed below. Year 2013 Background Conditions The proposed project's potential offsite noise impacts have been calculated through a comparison of the year 2013 background baseline scenario to the year 2013 background plus project scenario. The results of this comparison are shown below in Table 13. 76 Michael Brandman Associates H:\Client (PN -IN)\ 0064 \00640027 \IS \00640027 Initial Study Learning Center.doc Coast Community College District - Newport Beach Learning Center Initial Study Discussion or Environmental Evaluation Table 13: Year 2013 Background Project Traffic Noise Contributions CNEL at 100 feet Potential Roadway Segment No With Project Significant Project Project Contribution Impact. Monrovia Avenue North of 16th Street 55.1 55.1 0.0 No Monrovia Avenue North of 15th Street 55.1 55.4 0.5 No Placentia Avenue North of Victoria 61.2 61.3 0.1 No Placentia Avenue North of 19th Street 63.0 63.0 0.0 No Placentia Avenue North of 17th Street 61.7 61.7 0.0 No Placentia Avenue North of 16th Street 60.9 61,0 0.1 No Superior Avenue North of 16th Street 60.6 60.8 0.2 No Superior Avenue South of 15th Street 40.4 60.5 0.1 No Newport Boulevard North of Harbor Boulevard 71.7 71.7 0.0 No Newport Boulevard North of 17th Street 72.2 72.2 0.0 No Newport Boulevard North of Industrial Way 70.2 70.2 0.0 No 17th Street East of Monrovia Avenue 56.6 56.7 0.1 No 17th Street East of Placentia Avenue 63.5 63.6 0.1 No 17th Street East of Newport Boulevard 67.4 67.4 0.0 No 16th Street East of Monrovia Avenue 54.5 55.1 0.6 No 16th Street East of Placentia Avenue 55.1 55.4 0.3 No 15th Street East of Monrovia Avenue 54.4 55.1 0.7 No Coast Highway West of Superior 67.1 67.1 0.0 No Coast Highway East of Newport Boulevard 68.6 68.6 0.0 No Source: Michael Brandman Associates, 2009. Table 13 above indicates that for the year 2013 background conditions the noise level contributions from the proposed project to the study area roadways would range from 0.0 to 0.7 dBA CNEL. A 0.7 dBA noise increase would occur on 15th Street east of Monrovia Avenue where the baseline noise level is 54.4 dBA CNEL. None of the roadway segments would exceed the City's thresholds of significance discussed above. Therefore, based on thresholds of significance defined above, no significant off -site noise impacts from project- related vehicle noise would occur along the study area roadways segments for the year 2013 background conditions. Year 2013 Cumulative Conditions The proposed project's potential offsite noise impacts have been calculated through a comparison of the year 2013 cumulative baseline scenario to the year 2013 cumulative plus project scenario. The results of this comparison are shown below in Table 14. Michael Brandman Associates 77 H:\Climt (PN -JN) \0064 \00640027 \IS \00640027 Initial study Learning Ceramdw Coast Community College District - Newport Beach Learning Center Discussion of Environmental Evaluation Initial Study Table 14: Year 2013 Cumulative Project Traffic Noise Contributions CNEL Roadway Segment No With Project Project Monrovia Avenue North of 16th Street 55.5 55.9 at 100 feet Project Potential :Contribution Significant Impact? 0.1 No 0.6 No Monrovia Avenue North of 15th Street 55.3 55.9 Placentia Avenue North of Victoria 61.5 61.5 0.0 No Placentia Avenue North of 19th Street 63.2 63.2 0.0 No Placentia Avenue North of 17th Street 61.9 61.9 0.0 No Placentia Avenue North of 16th Street 61.2 61.3 0.1 No Superior Avenue North of 16th Street 61.8 61.9 0.1 No Superior Avenue South of 15th Street 60.9 61.0 0.1 No Newport Boulevard North of Harbor Boulevard 72.1 72.2. 0.1 No Newport Boulevard North of 17th Street 72.6 72.6 0.0 No Newport Boulevard North of Industrial Way 70.2 70.2 0.0 No 17th Street East of Monrovia Avenue 58.1 58.2 0.1 No 17th Street East of Placentia Avenue 64.5 64.5 0.0 No 17th Street East of Newport Boulevard 67.5 67.5 0.0 No 16th Street East of Monrovia Avenue 56.7 57.1 0.4 No 16th Street East of Placentia Avenue 56.9 57.1 0.2 No 15th Street East of Monrovia Avenue 57.3 57.6 0.3 No Coast Highway West of Superior 67.6 67.7 0.1 No Coast Highway East of Newport Boulevard 68.9 68.9 0.0 No Source: Michael Brandman Associates, 2009. Table 14 above indicates that for the year 2013 cumulative conditions, the noise level contributions from the proposed project to the study area roadways would range from 0.0 to 0.6 dBA CNEL. A 0.6 dBA noise increase would occur on Monrovia Avenue north of 15a` Street where the baseline noise level is 55.3 dBA CNEL. None of the roadway segments would exceed the thresholds of significance discussed in Section 5.0 of Appendix D. Therefore, based on thresholds of significance defined above, no significant off -site noise impacts from project - related vehicle noise would occur along the study area roadways segments for the year 2013 cumulative conditions. As described above, the proposed project would not result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project. Therefore, potential offsite vehicular noise impacts would be less than significant. 78 Michael Brandman Associates H:\Client (PN -!N) \00(14 \00640027 \IS \00640027 Initial Study Learning Center.doc Coast Community College District - Newport Beach Learning Center Initial Study Discussion of Environmental Evaluation Offsite Stationary Noise Stationary noise impacts associated with the ongoing operations of the proposed project have been analyzed separately from the off -site vehicular noise impacts, since on -site noise sources may be directly regulated by local jurisdictions and are typically defined by stationary source noise regulations. The regulatory framework, which preempts direct regulation of transportation noise by local jurisdictions, is described in Appendix D. The proposed project would have potential stationary noise impact to the nearby residences from the proposed rooftop HVAC units, parking lot areas, and on -site vehicular traffic. In order to assess the proposed project's stationary noise impacts onto the nearby residences, a comparative noise measurement was taken at Orange Coast College and sound propagation calculations described in Appendix D. According to Table N3 of the General Plan and Section 10.26.025 of the Municipal Code, a stationary exterior noise impact would be considered significant if the noise levels created onsite exceeds 55 dBA Leg during the daytime (7 a.m. to 10 p.m.) and 50 dBA Leg during the nighttime (10 p.m. to 7 a.m.) when measured on the property line of any nearby residential property. According to Section 10.26.030 of the Municipal Code, a stationary noise impact would be considered significant if the noise level created onsite exceeds 45 dBA Leq during the daytime (7 a.m. to 10 p.m.) and 40 dBA Leq during the nighttime (10 p.m. to 7 a.m.) when measured at the interior of any nearby residential uses. In order to determine the anticipated noise level created by the ongoing operations of the proposed project, a comparative noise measurement was taken at Orange Coast College at the edge of a parking lot and approximately 30 feet southwest of the Art Center Building. The noise meter took a 20 minute measurement and recorded a noise level of 55.5 dBA Leq. During the noise measurement the primary sources of noise was from vehicles in the parking lot, people talking, and HVAC units on the nearby buildings. The nearest sensitive receptors to the project site are the residential mobile home uses on the east side of Monrovia Avenue and approximately 60 feet from the project site. Based on the noise attenuation rate for "hard sites" of 6 dB per doubling of distance, the anticipated stationary noise impact created by the operations of the proposed project at the residential mobile homes to the east would be 39.9 dBA Leq. This noise level should be considered a worst -case scenario since no additional attenuation was taken for the existing 5 -foot high block wall on the west side of the mobile homes. An operational noise level of 39.9 dBA Leq would be within the residential exterior and interior noise thresholds for both daytime and nighttime. Therefore, a less than significant stationary noise impact is anticipated to occur from the ongoing operations of the proposed project on to the occupants of any of the existing nearby residential uses. Michael Brandman Associates 79 11XIient (PN -JN) \0064 \00640027 \IS \00640027 Initial Study Learning Centendoc Coast Community College District - Newport Beach Learning Center Discussion of Environmental Evaluation Initial Study As described above, the proposed project would not result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project. Therefore, potential offsite stationary noise impacts would be less than significant. d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated. Short-term noise impacts could occur during construction activities from either the noise impacts created from the transport of workers and movement of construction materials to and from the project site, or from the noise generated on -site during: ground clearing /excavation, grading, and building construction activities. The project site is located in a developed area. The nearest noise sensitive land uses to the project site would be office uses approximately 10 feet north and approximately 80 feet south of the project site. An office use is considered sensitive as shown in Figure 4 in Appendix D. There are also mobile home uses located on the east side of Monrovia Avenue and approximately 60 feet east of the project site. An approximately five foot high block wall currently exists between the mobile homes and Monrovia Avenue. There are also multi- family homes located on the southeast corner of Monrovia Avenue and 15" Street and approximately 100 feet southeast of the project site. in addition, Carden Hall Elementary and Junior High School are located approximately 200 feet north of the project site. Construction noise impacts onto the nearby sensitive receptors have been calculated according to the equipment noise levels listed below in Table 15 and through the use of the Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM) developed by the FHWA. The greatest noise impacts to the nearby residential homes would be anticipated to occur during the demolition of the project site, since the demolition equipment produces the highest noise levels as shown in Table A in Appendix D. Construction noise has been modeled based on the equipment assumption used in the Air Quality and Climate Change Analysis, prepared by Michael Brandman Associates, July 2009, which assumed that the simultaneous operation of one concrete saw, one crushing /processing equipment, one dozer, one loader, and one tractor would occur for approximately one month during the demolition phase for the proposed project. The equipment was placed 100 feet apart starting at the edge of the area to be graded in order to create the worst -case noise levels at the nearby sensitive receptors. A summary of the results of the noise impacts associated with the construction of the proposed project is shown in Table 15, and the RCNM printouts are provided in Appendix D. 80 Michael Brandman Associates HAClient (PN -IN)\ 0064 \00640027 \IS \00640027 Initial Study Learning Center.doc Coast Community College District - Newport Beach Learning Center Initial Study Discussion of Environmental Evaluation Table 15: Construction Noise Impacts at Nearby Receptors Distance from Demolition Equipment Noise Levels Receptor Description Project Site (feet) dBA L,q dBA L,n,,, Office and light industrial to the north 10 96.6 103.6 School to the north 200 72.1 77.5 Residential mobile homes to the east 60 75.5 82.0 Multi - family residential to the southeast 100 77.4 83.6 Office to the south 80 79.1 85.5 Source: FHWA Roadway Construction Noise Model, Version 1.0; Michael Brandman Associates, 2009. Table 15 shows that the office and light industrial uses to the north of the project site would experience the greatest construction noise impact from the proposed project, with an average construction- related noise level of 96.6 dBA Leq and a maximum noise level of 103.6 dBA Lmax. With compliance of the limitation in construction hours detailed in Section 10.28.040 of the Municipal Code, the construction- related noise associated with the proposed project would not generate noise levels in excess of standards. However, construction activities may expose nearby sensitive receptors to noise levels that exceed Occupational Safety and Health (OSHA) maximum allowable noise exposure level of 90 dBA for 8 hours.. The estimated construction noise levels represent a potentially significant impact. Mitigation Measure N0I -1 is provided to reduce construction noise to less than significant levels. It is not possible to quantify each of the noise reduction measures presented in mitigation measure NOI -1; however, when combined these measures would provide at least a 10 dB reduction in noise level. Mitigation Measures N01 -1 The project applicant shall require construction contractors to adhere to the following noise attenuation requirements: e Construction activities shall be limited to between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 6:30 p.m. on weekdays and between the hours of 8 a.m. and 6 p.m. on Saturdays, except for Sundays and national holidays. e All construction equipment shall use noise - reduction features (e.g, mufflers and engine shrouds) that are no less effective than those originally installed by the manufacturer. Construction staging and heavy equipment maintenance activities shall be performed a minimum distance of 300 feet from the nearest offsite building, unless safety or technical factors take precedence. e Stationary combustion equipment such as pumps or generators operating within 300 feet of the nearest building shall be shielded with a noise protection barrier. Michael Brandman Associates 81 FIXIieut (PN -JN) \0064 \00640027 \IS \00640027 Initial Study Learning Centendoc Coast Community College District - Newport Beach Learning Center Discussion of Environmental Evaluation Initial Study • Portable noise barriers able to attenuate at least 6 dB shall be utilized for heavy equipment operations performed within 200 feet of the nearest offsite building. 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? No Impact. The Project site is located approximately 4.5 miles from John Wayne Airport. Due to the distance of the project site to the nearest public airport, the implementation of the proposed project would not expose people to excessive aircraft noise levels. The project site is located outside the 60 dBA noise contour of the John Wayne Airport Environs Land Use Plan. J) 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. The Project site is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip. Therefore, the proposed Project will not expose people residing or working in the Project area to excessive aircraft noise impacts. 12. 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)? Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed Project involves the construction of a three -story learning facility that would represent a relocation of the facility from its current Costa Mesa location, approximately 3 miles to the north. The proposed learning center would increase the Early College High School attendance by 150 students which would generate less than 10 additional jobs.Given the proximity of the existing facility (i.e., 3 miles away), the likelihood that existing employees will relocate to Newport Beach or Costa Mesa is small. Therefore, growth inducing impacts associated with the proposed project is less than significant. b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? 82 Michael Brandman Associates HAClient (PN -IN)\ 0064 \00640027 \IS \00640027 Initial Study Learning Center.doc Coast Community College District - Newport Beach Learning Center Initial Study Discussion of Environmental Evaluation No Impact. The Project site is composed of three separate parcels of land that include industrial and commercial uses. In addition, there is an abandoned and dilapidated house located on the eastern portion of the project site. The development of the proposed three - story learning facility would not displace any existing habitable housing unit, and the project, therefore, would not necessitate the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? No Impact. The Project site encompasses 3.4 acres. Currently, the site includes 20,000 square feet of office and approximately 15,100 square feet of light industrial use. The proposed project would result in the removal of these existing uses and the relocation of an existing Costa Mesa Learning Center. The removal of the existing uses and relocation of the existing learning center are not expected to displace people that would necessitate the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. 13. Public Services Would the Project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: a) Fire protection? Less Than Significant Impact. Information contained in this impact discussion is based in part on a service letter provided by the Newport Beach Fire Department (included in Appendix F) and the General Plan Update EIR for the City of Newport Beach. The Newport Beach Fire Department (NBFD) provides fire protection services for the entire City of Newport Beach. The NAFUD is responsible for reducing loss of life and property from fire, medical, and environmental emergencies. In addition to fire suppression, the NBFD also provides fire prevention and hazard reduction services. The Fire Prevention Division works in conjunction with the City's Planning, Public Works, and Building Departments to ensure that all new construction is built in compliance with local and State building and fire codes, including the provision of adequate emergency access and on -site fire protection measures. The City requires all businesses to be inspected annually for adherence to the fire and life safety codes. Further, the NBFD provides emergency medical services (EMS) from three of its existing fire stations. Michael Brandman Associates 83 H:\Client (PN -JN) \0064 \00540027 \IS \00640027 Initial Smdy Learning Centendw Coast Community College District - Newport Beach Learning Center Discussion of Environmental Evaluation Initial Study Fire stations are strategically located throughout the City to provide prompt assistance to area residents. Each fire station operates within a specific district that comprises the immediate geographical area around the station. Upper Newport Bay (and the circulation challenges it creates) result in Newport Beach having more fire stations per population than typical in order to maintain response times. The fire station that would service the Project site is the Lido Station ( #2), which is located at 475 32nd Street, in the City of Newport Beach. The Lido Station has one fire engine, one truck company, and one paramedic unit. The approximate response time for emergency calls in the Project area is 4 minutes, 30 seconds, and the average response times throughout the City of Newport Beach is 4 minutes, 28 seconds. The NBFD divides its staff into three shifts per day, with 39 personnel working each shift working at the eight Newport Beach fire stations each day. Each of the eight fire stations has one engine company, while three have paramedic vans, and two have ladder trucks. Of the 112 NBFD employees located at the eight NBFD stations, seven paramedics serve per shift. Two are always on duty at Stations 2, 3, and 5 with paramedic ambulances. In addition, Station 8 has 1 paramedic firefighter that rides on the engine. Each engine or truck company has a staff of 3 persons per 24 -hour period: 1 captain, 1 engineer (driver), and 1 fire fighter, with the exception that on one engine the firefighter position is staffed with a paramedic firefighter. Each paramedic ambulance has a staff of 2 firefighter - paramedics per 24 -hour period. The proposed Project involves the construction of a three -story learning facility. The Project would be reviewed by the NBFD to ensure that adequate emergency access is provided and that the construction drawings would be reviewed and approved by the State Architect to ensure compliance with state fire codes. The proposed Project would result in an incremental increase in demand for fire prevention services relevant to the net increase in development intensity on the site. However, the proposed Project is not expected to create a substantial increase in calls for service or the need for additional fire protection service to the Project area. Therefore, impacts associated with fire protection would be less than significant. b) Police protection? Less Than Significant Impact. The Project site is served by the Newport Beach Police Department, which is headquartered at 870 Santa Barbara Drive, Newport Beach 92660. The Newport Beach Police Department provides all services normally associated with public safety including patrols, investigations, crime analysis, crime prevention, K -9 unit, accident investigations /traffic enforcement, and emergency management/disaster preparedness. The department also operates a helicopter. 84 Michael Brandman Associates HAClient (PN -IN)\ 0064 \00640027 \IS \00640027 Initial Study Learning Center.doc Coast Community College District - Newport Beach Learning Center Initial Study Discussion of Environmental Evaluation The Newport Beach Police Department has an average response time of 4 minutes, 41 seconds for emergency calls throughout the Project area, which is the same as other portions of the City. Additionally, the Department has a mutual aid agreement through the Orange County Chief's and Sheriff's Associations. On a 24 hour basis, the Newport Beach Police Department would have 8 swom officers available to respond to calls in the Project area. The proposed Project is expected to incrementally increase the amount of police calls in proportion to the net increase in intensity of land uses proposed by the Project compared to the existing condition. However, the Newport Beach Police Department indicated that the incremental increase related to the proposed Project would not result in significant direct or cumulative impacts to police services. (See Police Service Letter, Appendix F.) Therefore, impacts related to this issue are considered less than significant and no mitigation is required. C) Schools? No Impact. The proposed Project involves the relocation of a three -story teaming facility on the Project site from its current location in the City of Costa Mesa. The proposed learning center would not result in the contribution of additional students to existing schools in the Project area, nor would it require the construction of new or expanded schools. Because the Project would not generate school -aged children, no impacts associated with schools would occur. d) Parks? Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed Project involves the relocation of a learning facility on the Project site. Students and staff associated with the proposed learning center are not expected to utilize parks in the vicinity of the Project site in any greater intensity than would occur in the existing condition. Therefore, introducing a teaming facility to the Project area would not create a demand for public recreational services. Therefore, impacts to parks would be less than significant. e) Other public facilities? Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed Project would relocate an existing learning center located in the City of Costa Mesa to the Project site. Because the proposed learning center would not result in a significant increase in the number of students generated by the existing learning center, and because the students that would utilize the proposed Project would be expected to be generated from a substantially similar geographic area compared to the existing facility, no significant increase in Michael Brandman Associates 85 H:\Client (PN -JN) \0064 \00540027 \IS \00640027 Initial Smdy Learning Centendw Coast Community College District - Newport Beach Learning Center Discussion of Environmental Evaluation Initial Study demand is expected to be placed on library and hospital services. As a result, impacts related to this issue would be less than significant. 14. 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? Less Than Significant Impact. The Project proposes to construct a three -story learning facility. Students of the facility would not create an increase in demand for existing recreational facilities. Therefore, impacts related to parks would be less than significant. 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? Less Than Significant Impact. The Project proposes a learning facility, which would not increase demand for recreational facilities. As such, the impacts associated with recreational facilities would be less than significant. 15. Transportation /Traffic The Coastline Community College Newport Beach Learning Center Traffic Report Pursuant to TPO and CEQA was prepared for the proposed Project by Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. in July 2009. The traffic study is included in Appendix E. Study Area Boundary The study area includes 26 intersections located within the City of Newport Beach (17) and City of Costa Mesa (9). Of the 17 intersections located within the City of Newport Beach, there are 14 intersection that are subject to the City's Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO). The 26 intersections, the jurisdiction of these intersections, and whether the intersection is subject to the City of Newport Beach TPO are shown in Table 16. Those intersections that are no subject to the TPO are included in the evaluation to adequately assess potential traffic impacts in accordance with CEQA. Table 16: Intersection Jurisdictions Intersection Jurisdiction TPO Intersections Placentia and Victoria Costa Mesa No Newport and 19th Costa Mesa/Caltrans No Newport and Broadway Costa Mesa/Caltrans No Newport and Harbor Costa Mesa/Caltrans No 86 Michael Brandman Associates HAClient (PN -IN)\ 0064 \00640027 \IS \00640027 Initial Study Learning Center.doc Coast Community College District - Newport Beach Learning Center Initial Study Discussion of Environmental Evaluation Intersection Aik Jurisdiction is TPO Intersections Newport and / 18th / Rochester Costa Mesa/Caltrans No Superior and 17th Costa Mesa No Newport and 17th Costa Mesa/Caltrans No Monrovia and 16th Costa Mesa/Newport Beach No Placentia and 16th Costa Mesa/Newport Beach No Superior and 16th / Industrial Costa Mesa No Newport and Industrial Costa Mesa/Caltrans No Monrovia and 15th Newport Beach No Placentia and 15th Newport Beach Yes Placentia and Superior Newport Beach Yes Superior and Hospital Newport Beach Yes Placentia and Hospital Newport Beach Yes Newport and Hospital Newport Beach/Caltrans Yes Orange and Coast Highway Newport Beach/Caltrans Yes Prospect and Coast Highway Newport Beach/Caltrans Yes Superior /Balboa and Coast Highway Newport Beach/Caltrans Yes Newport and Coast Highway Newport Beach /Caltrans Yes Riverside and Coast Highway Newport Beach/Caltrans Yes Tustin and Coast Highway Newport Beach/Caltrans Yes Dover and Coast Highway Newport Beach/Caltrans Yes Newport and Via Lido Newport Beach Yes Newport and 32nd Newport Beach Yes Source: Austin -Foust Associates, Inc., 2009 and Michael Brandman Associates, 2009 Existing Site Uses The project site currently includes approximately 20,000 sq ft of office and approximately 15,100 sq ft of light industrial uses. The existing onsite uses generate approximately 325 average daily trips (ADT), 45 a.m. peak hour trips and 45 p.m. peak hour trips. Existing Intersections Existing peak hour intersection volumes for the Newport Beach study intersections were provided by City staff. Although it is not a TPO intersection and the Newport Beach staff did not request its analysis, the stop - controlled intersection of Monrovia Avenue and 15`h Street is included in the analysis due to its location adjacent to the project site. Existing peak hour volumes for the Costa Mesa study intersections were obtained from recent traffic studies and adjusted to 2009 levels based on one percent annual growth rate at the direction of City of Michael Brandman Associates 87 H:AClimt ( PN- 1N)A0064V00640027AISV00640027 Initial study Learning Centendoc Coast Community College District - Newport Beach Learning Center Discussion of Environmental Evaluation Initial Study Costa Mesa staff, with the exception of the intersection of Monrovia Avenue at 16th Street, which was counted in early June 2009 by Traffic Data Services, Inc. (TDS). The City of Costa Mesa staff requested the Costa Mesa intersections listed in Table 16 to be evaluated. Newport Boulevard between 17tti and 19th has been under construction; therefore, collecting new counts along Newport Boulevard was not practical. The Newport Boulevard construction is expected to be completed in Summer 2009, and the new lane configurations were assumed in the analysis at staff s direction. The Newport Beach and Costa Mesa intersections are analyzed using the Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) methodology. Peak hour intersection volume to capacity ratios are calculated by means of ICU values, and these values correspond to Levels of Service (LOS). A LOS is a qualitative measure used to describe the condition of traffic flow, ranging from excellent conditions at LOS A to overloaded conditions at LOS F. The intersections along Newport Boulevard and Coast Highway are analyzed at the City of Newport Beach staff s request using the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) delay methodology consistent with Caltrans criteria in addition to the ICU methodology discussed above. The HCM delay methodology evaluates the amount of delay for the vehicle movements at an intersection. A delay of 0 to 10 seconds per vehicle corresponds to LOS A while a delay of more than 80 seconds per vehicle corresponds to LOS F. Existing level of service based on ICU values and delay values for the study intersections are provided in Appendix E on Table 3 for Newport Beach intersections, Table 4 for Costa Mesa intersections, and Table 5 for Caltrans intersections. As shown in Table 3, all of the Newport Beach study intersections operate at LOS C or better (i.e., less than or equal to 0.80). As shown in Table 4 in Appendix E, all of the Costa Mesa study intersections currently operate at LOS D (less than or equal to 0.90) or better except for the intersections of Newport and Harbor (i.e., 0.973 in the p.m. peak hour) as well as Newport and 18`h/Rochester (i.e., (0.970 in the p.m. peak hour) which current operate at LOS E. Background Volumes An ambient growth rate of 1.0 percent per year was added to the existing volumes at the City of Newport Beach intersections along Newport Boulevard north of Coast Highway and along Coast Highway and to the City of Costa Mesa intersections. Full occupancy of the project is assumed by Fall 2012; therefore, the study year is 2013. Traffic generated by approved projects in the study area (see Table 6 in Appendix E), obtained from City staff, were added to the existing peak hour volumes to obtain 2013 background peak hour volumes for the intersections prior to the addition of project - related traffic. Cumulative Volumes The City of Newport Beach staff provided a list of known but not approved projects for use in a cumulative conditions analysis (see Table 7 in Appendix E). Trip generation and distribution for each cumulative project was also provided by City staff. The City of Costa Mesa also provided a list of 88 Michael Brandman Associates HAClient (PN -IN)\ 0064 \00640027 \IS \00640027 Initial Study Learning Center.doc Coast Community College District - Newport Beach Learning Center Initial Study Discussion of Environmental Evaluation cumulative projects to be included in the analysis. The cumulative projects are in Table 7 in Appendix E. Performance Criteria According to the cities of Newport Beach and Costa Mesa, a significant impact at an intersection is defined as an increase of 0.010 or more in the intersection capacity utilization (ICU) value at an intersection that reaches LOS E or F during peak hours. A significant project impact to the intersections evaluated in accordance with the Caltrans HCM delay methodology is defined as a project causing an intersection to change from LOS A, B, or C to LOS D, E, or F. Trip Generation The proposed Learning Center is projected to accommodate 2,390 students. The project will generate 1,420 new daily trips, 194 new a.m. peak hour trips, and 147 new p.m. peak our trips as shown in Table 17. Table 17: Project Buildout Trip Generation I Land Use AM Peak Hour Rates kPMP eaea Hour Rates Daily Trips In Out Total In Out Total Trip Rates Learning Centerl 0.06 0.04 0.10 0.04 0.04 0.08 0.73 Office 1.36 0.19 1.55 0.25 1.24 1.49 11.01 Light Industrial (ITEM 110) 0.81 0.11 0.92 0.12 0.85 0.97 6.97 Existing Use Office -27 4 -31 -5 -25 -30 -220 Light Industrial -12 -2 -14 -2 -13 -15 -105 Total Existing Trip Generation -39 -6 -35 -7 38 -45 -325 Proposed Trip Generation Learning Center 143 96 239 96 96 192 1,745 Total New Trips 104 90 194 89 58 147 1,420 Empirical rates based on driveway counts (Tuesday April 21, 2009) Source: Austin -Foust Associates, Inc., 2009 Trip Distribution The trip distribution of project - generated traffic onto the surrounding circulation system was based on the existing Learning Center facility on Mesa Verde Avenue at Baker Street in Costa Mesa because the proposed Learning Center is relocating the school facilities to the project site. Since the existing Michael Brandman Associates 89 H:\Client (PN -JN) \0064 \00640027 \IS \00640027 Initial Study Learning Centendoc Coast Community College District - Newport Beach Learning Center Discussion of Environmental Evaluation Initial Study as well as the proposed Learning Center serves high school children throughout the Newport-Mesa School District as well as adults throughout the Coast Community College District, the distribution of students, faulty, and staff throughout the District is assumed to be the same at the proposed facility compared to the existing facility. The trip distribution of project - generated traffic onto the surrounding circulation system was determined from the concentration of home zip codes of the existing student population. Approximately 50 percent of the project trips are oriented toward the north along Newport Boulevard, 15 percent is oriented toward the north and west along arterial streets, 10 percent is oriented toward the east, 20 percent is oriented toward the west along Coast Highway, and 5 percent is oriented toward Balboa Peninsula. 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) ? Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated. Based on the above distribution of project trips, a peak hour intersection analysis at the 14 City of Newport Beach study - area intersections was conducted in accordance with the City of Newport Beach Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO). The TPO analysis consists of a one - percent analysis and an ICU analysis at Newport Beach signalized study -area intersections. The one - percent analysis compares the proposed project traffic with projected background (existing plus regional growth plus approved projects) plus project peak hour volumes on each leg of the intersection. If project peak hour traffic volumes are less than one percent of the projected background peak hour traffic on each leg of the intersection, no ICU analysis is required. If project peak hour traffic volumes are one percent or greater than the projected background peak hour traffic on each leg of the intersection, an ICU analysis is required. Table 18 identifies the peak hour project volumes at the study -area intersections and shows whether the proposed project would contribute less than one percent of the total peak hour traffic volumes at each leg of the intersection. Placentia and 15" Placentia and Superior Superior and Hospital Table 18: Summary of One Percent Analysis AM Peak Hour Project Volumes NB SB I EB I WB 31 1 0 1 41 1 16 10 1 27 Less than 1% of Peak Hour Volumes \o No No 00 Michael Brandman Associates HAClient (PN -IN)\ 0064 \00640027 \IS \00640027 Initial Study Learning Center.doc Coast Community College District - Newport Beach Learning Center Initial Study Discussion of Environmental Evaluation Placentia and Hospital 0 9 0 10 No Newport and Hospital 0 0 9 0 No Orange and Coast Highway 0 0 9 8 Yes Prospect and Coast Highway 0 0 9 8 Yes Superior /Balboa and Coast Highway 0 8 9 0 No Newport and Coast Highway 0 0 0 0 Yes Riverside and Coast Highway 0 0 0 0 Yes Tustin and Coast Highway 0 0 0 0 Yes Dover and Coast Highway 0 0 0 0 Yes Newport and Via Lido 0 0 0 0 Yes Newport and 32 "d 0 0 0 PM Peak Hour Project Volumes NB SB EB 27 0 26 0 — JL WB Yes Less than 1 %of Peak Hour Volumes No Intersection Placentia and 15`h 13 Placentia and Superior 9 18 9 0 Yes Superior and Hospital 4 9 0 0 No Placentia and Hospital 0 6 0 9 Yes Newport and Hospital 0 0 6 0 Yes Orange and Coast Highway 0 0 9 4 Yes Prospect and Coast Highway 0 0 9 4 Yes Superior /Balboa and Coast Highway 0 4 9 0 Yes Newport and Coast Highway 0 0 0 0 Yes Riverside and Coast Highway 0 0 0 0 Yes Tustin and Coast Highway 0 0 0 0 Yes Dover and Coast Highway 0 0 0 0 Yes Newport and Via Lido 0 0 0 0 Yes Newport and 32 "d 0 0 0 0 Yes Notes: SB = Southbound NB = Northbound EB = Eastbound WB = Westbound Source: Austin -Foust Associates, Inc., June 2009. As shown in Table 18, the proposed project would contribute one percent or more of the total background (existing plus growth plus approved projects) plus project volumes at 9 intersections in the City of Newport Beach. Although only 9 intersections required an ICU analysis because they did not pass the one percent analysis in accordance with the TPO, the ICU analysis is performed for all signalized study intersections, including non- Michael Brandman Associates 91 H:\Client (PN -JN) \0064 \00640027 \IS \00640027 Initial Smdy Learning Centendw Coast Community College District - Newport Beach Learning Center Discussion of Environmental Evaluation Initial Study TPO intersections in the City of Costa Mesa and the TPO intersections in Newport Beach which contributed less than one percent peak hour volumes and met the one percent analysis. Existing lane configurations were assumed, and a capacity of 1,600 vehicles per hour (vph) per lane was utilized. The ICU analysis was performed for City of Newport Beach and City of Costa Mesa signalized study area intersections and the HCM delay methodology was used for the City of Newport Beach and Costa Mesa unsignalized study intersections. In addition, the intersections under Caltrans jurisdiction were evaluated using the HCM delay methodology. Following are the project analyses under the existing plus project, 2013 background plus project, and 2013 cumulative plus project conditions. City of Newport Beach Tables 9, 10, and 11 in Appendix E include the ICU evaluation for the 14 Newport Beach signalized study intersections and the HCM delay methodology evaluation for one Newport Beach stop - controlled study intersection during the AM and PM peak hours. As shown in Tables 9, 10, and 11 in Appendix E, the 14 Newport Beach signalized study intersections and the Newport Beach stop - controlled study intersection operate at LOS D or better. Therefore, the project has no significant impact on the Newport Beach study intersections under existing plus project, 2013 background plus project, and 2013 cumulative plus project conditions during the AM and PM peak hours. City of Costa Mesa Tables 12, 13, and 14 in Appendix E include the ICU evaluation for the 10 Costa Mesa signalized study intersections and the HCM delay methodology evaluation for one Costa Mesa stop - controlled study intersection during the AM and PM peak hours. As shown in Tables 12 (existing plus project) and 13 (2013 background plus project) in Appendix E shows that there are two intersections (Newport & Harbor and Newport & 18th/ Rochester) that operate at LOS E and the remaining study intersections operate at LOS D or better. In addition, Tables 12 and 13 in Appendix E shows that the project has no significant impact on Costa Mesa study intersections during the AM and PM peak hours. Table 14 (2013 cumulative plus project) in Appendix E shows six intersections (Placentia & Victoria, Newport & 19th, Newport & 181h /Rochester, Superior & 17th, and Newport & 17th) that would operate at LOS E or F. The remaining Costa Mesa intersections operate at LOS D or better. In addition, Table 14 in Appendix E shows that the project will have a significant impact on the intersection of Superior Avenue at l7th Street in the City of Costa Mesa during the AM and PM peak hours. The intersection will operate at LOS E during the AM peak hour with the addition of project - generated traffic of 1.3 percent 92 Michael Brandman Associates HAClient (PN -IN)\ 0064 \00640027 \IS \00640027 Initial Study Learning Center.doc Coast Community College District - Newport Beach Learning Center Initial Study Discussion of Environmental Evaluation (0.013) and operate at LOS F during the PM peak hour with the addition of project - generated traffic of 1.0 percent (0.010). The proposed project will not have a significant impact on the remaining Costa Mesa study intersections. Table 19 shows the cumulative plus project ICU analysis for the intersection at Superior Avenue at 17" Street during the AM and PM peak hours. Table 19: ICU Analysis and Corresponding Levels of Service for Cumulative Conditions Project Impact on ICU Without Project With Project Value AM I PM Y AM PM AM I PM Superior and 0.989/ 1.021/ 1.002/ 1.031/ 0.013 0.010 17" LOS E LOS F LOS E LOS F Notes: Level of service ranges: .000 -.600 A;.601 -.700 B;.701 -.800 Q.801 -.900 D;.901 - 1.000 E; Above 1.001 F Source: Austin -Foust Associates, Inc., July 2009. As shown on Table 19, the intersection would operate at LOS E or LOS F, and the project would contribute 1.0 percent or more during the AM and PM peak hours during cumulative plus project conditions. Therefore, the project would significantly contribute to a significant cumulative impact on the intersection of Superior Avenue at 17th Street in the City of Costa Mesa. The following mitigation measure is required. TC -1 Prior to occupancy, the westbound approach of the Superior and 17th intersection shall be re- striped to provide a westbound left-turn lane, a shared left - turn/through lane, and a through lane. In addition, a split phasing in the east -west direction is required. The Coast Community College District shall provide its fair share (5 percent) of the improvement cost. After the implementation of TC -1, the A.M. peak hour would improve to 0.951 compared to 0.989 under the cumulative without project condition, but the level of service would remain at LOS E. In addition, after implementation of TC -1, the PM peak hour would improve to 0.880 compared to 1.021 under the cumulative without project condition, and the level of service would improve from LOS F to LOS D. Therefore, after the implementation of TC -1, the AM and PM peak hour ICUs at the Superior Avenue at 17`h Street intersection would improve compared to the cumulative without project condition, and the project's impact would be less than significant. Caltrans Tables 16, 17, and 18 in Appendix E include the HCM delay methodology evaluation at the Caltrans study intersections for the existing plus project, 2013 background plus Michael Brandman Associates 93 H:\Client (PN -JN) \0064 \00640027 \IS \00640027 Initial Study Learning Centecdoc Coast Community College District - Newport Beach Learning Center Discussion of Environmental Evaluation Initial Study project, and 2013 cumulative plus project conditions during the AM and PM peak hours. This evaluation included 14 intersections under the jurisdiction of Caltrans. As shown in Tables 16, 17, and 18, the project would not generate AM and PM peak hour traffic that would change the level of service. Therefore, the project would result in less than significant traffic impacts on intersections under the jurisdiction of Caltrans during the AM and PM peak hours. b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level ofservice standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated. As discussed above, the proposed project would contribute peak hour traffic volumes to intersections that are currently or are projected to operate at LOS E or LOS F. The project would contribute one percent or more to one of the study intersection (Superior and 17'h ) that would operate at LOS E or F during the AM or PM peak hour. The Superior and 17th intersection would operate at LOS E during the AM peak hour and LOS F during the PM peak hour. Therefore, the proposed project would result in a significant traffic impact at the Superior and 17th intersection in the City of Costa Mesa. The following mitigation measure is required. TC -1 Prior to occupancy, the westbound approach of the Superior and 17" intersection shall be re- striped to provide a westbound left -turn lane, a shared left- tum/through lane, and a through lane. In addition, a split phasing in the east -west direction is required. The Coast Community College District shall provide its fair share (5 percent) of the improvement cost. After the implementation of TC -1, the A.M. peak hour would improve to 0.951 compared to 0.989 under the cumulative without project condition, but the level of service would remain at LOS E. In addition, after implementation of TC-1, the PM peak hour would improve to 0.880 compared to 1.021 under the cumulative without project condition, and the level of service would improve from LOS F to LOS D. Therefore, after the implementation of TC -1, the AM and PM peak hour ICUs at the Superior Avenue at 17'h Street intersection would improve compared to the cumulative without project condition, and the project's impact would be less than significant. The intersections under the jurisdiction of Caltrans were also evaluated and as described above, project generated traffic would not result in a change in the level of service at any of the Caltrans study intersections. The Orange County Congestion Management Program (CMP) requires a traffic impact analysis for projects which generate 2,400 average daily trips (ADT) or more. The 94 Michael Brandman Associates HAClient (PN -IN)\ 0064 \00640027 \IS \00640027 Initial Study Learning Center.doc Coast Community College District - Newport Beach Learning Center Initial Study Discussion of Environmental Evaluation proposed project is forecast to generate 1,420 trips; therefore, the project is exempt from the preparation of a full CMP impact analysis. 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 nearest airport to the Project site is John Wayne Airport (JWA) located approximately 4.5 miles from the site. The Project would construct a three -story learning facility; however, the height of the structure is not expected to affect air traffic patterns. Additionally, due to the relatively small size of the Project, the proposed school would not affect air traffic at John Wayne Airport. 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. The proposed project will increase traffic volumes in the project vicinity. The Coastline Community College Newport Beach Learning Center TPO prepared by Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. in June 2009 evaluated the intersection of Monrovia Avenue and 15`s Street to determine if the projected increase in traffic would warrant a traffic signal. The intersection was evaluated under existing, background, and cumulative conditions using the Caltrans Peak Hour Signal Warrant analysis. As shown in Table 10 in Appendix E, a traffic signal warrant was not met under any of the three scenarios. Therefore, the existing all -way stop sign would continue to be adequate to accommodate project traffic. The proposed project would not substantially increase traffic hazards in the project area. e) Result in inadequate emergency access? No Impact. Access to the learning facility will be provided along Monrovia Avenue via two driveways. The design of the proposed facilities will provide adequate emergency access on the project site. Therefore, the proposed project would result in no impacts on emergency access. J) Result in inadequate parking capacity? No Impact. The proposed project includes a relocation of the existing Costa Mesa Learning Center to the project site. The existing Costa Mesa facility has 2,240 students that attend class, and the site has 189 parking spaces. There are currently no assigned parking spaces at the Costa Mesa facility and 20 parking spaces accommodate the staff and faculty during peak parking demand periods (pers. comm., K McElroy, July 14, 2009). In addition, approximately 85 to 90 percent of the existing parking at the Costa Mesa facility is used during the peak parking demand periods (pers. comm., K McElroy, Michael Brandman Associates 95 H:\Client (PN -JN) \0064 \00540027 \IS \00640027 Initial Study Learning Centecdoc Coast Community College District - Newport Beach Learning Center Discussion of Environmental Evaluation Initial Study July 14, 2009). The proposed project will increase the number of Early College High School (ECHS) students by 150 students, and the project includes approximately 198 parking spaces. Based on the ratio of students to parking spaces at the existing Costa Mesa facility (i.e., approximately 90 percent of the 189 parking spaces are used during peak parking demand periods for 2,240 students), the increase of 150 new ECHS students for a project facility total of 2,390 students would result in a project demand of less parking spaces than currently provided at the existing Costa Mesa facility. The inclusion of approximately 198 parking spaces on the project site would adequately accommodate daytime and evening parking demands. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in parking impacts. g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? No Impact. The proposed project includes a student drop -off on the project site adjacent to Monrovia Avenue. This drop off area is for Newport-Mesa School District buses to drop off high school age students. The project also includes bicycle rakes for those who ride to school. The implementation of these project features would not conflict with the City's adopted policies relating to alternative transportation. 16. Utilities and Service Svstems The proposed Project site would be served by several utility providers. The utility providers are each indicated below according to the respective service that they would provide: Domestic Water Municipal Sewer Conveyance Wastewater Treatment Solid Waste Electricity Natural Gas Would the Project: Mesa Consolidated Water District City of Newport Beach Orange County Sanitation District OC Waste & Recycling Southern California Edison Southern California Gas Company a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? 96 Michael Brandman Associates HAClient (PN -IN)\ 0064 \00640027 \IS \00640027 Initial Study Learning Center.doc Coast Community College District - Newport Beach Learning Center Initial Study Discussion of Environmental Evaluation Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed Project would replace the existing buildings located at the Project site. Wastewater from the Project site would be conveyed to the municipal sewer system owned and operated by the City of Newport Beach. The City conveys all wastewater to the Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD) for wastewater treatment. OCSD operates two wastewater treatment plants, where water is treated before flowing to the Pacific Ocean, or is diverted for use as reclaimed water. Because the project would be operated as a educational facility, a land use that wouldn't typically be associated with contaminated wastewater, the proposed learning center would not generate wastewater containing pollutants nor result in exceedance of wastewater treatment requirements. Moreover, the proposed Project would replace existing light industrial/laboratory uses that currently contribute wastewater to OCSD facilities. OCSD facilities are sized to accommodate new development in participating Orange County cities, including the wastewater that would be generated by the proposed Project. Because the Project would not generate wastewater containing pollutants and would not exceed the capacity of the OCSD wastewater treatment facilities, the Project would not exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the Regional Water Quality Control Board. Accordingly, impacts to wastewater treatment facilities would be less than significant. b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existingfacilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? Less Than Significant Impact. The Project site is within an urbanized area of Newport Beach and contains existing water and wastewater infrastructure to which the proposed Project will be connected. The development of the proposed Project would replace existing industrial and office land uses on the Project site that may generate higher demand for water and wastewater services compared to the proposed Project. Based on information received from The Mesa Consolidated Water District (MCWD), the existing MCWD facilities are sized to adequately accommodate the proposed development. The OCSD wastewater treatment facilities have been constructed to accommodate growth within their service area which includes the City of Newport Beach. According to OCSD, the OCSD treatment plant capacity at Treatment Plant 2 in Huntington Beach is 168 million gallons per day. The treatment plant processes an average of 129 million gallons per day. Wastewater generated from the proposed learning center could be accommodated by the existing OC WD treatment plant facilities based on the available capacity of the treatment plant. Therefore, impacts to water and wastewater treatment facilities would be less than significant. Michael Brandman Associates 97 H:\Client (PN -JN) \0064 \00640027 \IS \00640027 Initial study Learning Centendw Coast Community College District - Newport Beach Learning Center Discussion of Environmental Evaluation Initial Study 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? Less Than Significant Impact. In the existing condition, runoff generally drains towards Monrovia Avenue, where flows are conveyed to the existing curb and gutters located along Monrovia Avenue. Storm water would be conveyed south for approximately 500 feet to a catch basin that is located at the Monrovia Avenue cul -de- sac. According to City staff, there have been no drainage issues that have been identified in the project vicinity. Implementation of the proposed Project will include design features to retain storm water on the project site. These design features include permeable parking lot surfaces, landscaping and vegetative roofs. Although these features would contribute to reducing the amount of storm water leaving the Project site, there still will be storm water conveyed to a proposed curb and gutter system along the project's frontage. The amount of storm water conveyed offsite is not expected to be substantial, and the existing catch basin and storm drain at the Monrovia Avenue cul -de -sac is expected to be adequate to accommodate runoff from the Project site (pers. com., j. Auger, July 14, 2009). Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would result in less than significant impacts on the existing storm drain system. d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the Project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? Less Than Significant Impact. Domestic water service would be provided by MCWD. MCWD provides water service to more than 110,000 customers in an 18 square mile area. The service area includes the City of Costa Mesa, parts of Newport Beach, and some unincorporated sections of Orange County, including the John Wayne Airport. MCWD's water is a blend of local ground water and imported water from Northern California and the Colorado River. From MCWD's nine wells, groundwater is pumped from Orange County's groundwater basin, which is replenished by water from the Santa Ana River and imported water purchased from the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California. MCWD operates two reservoirs, the first reservoir (10 million gallons capacity) is located at 1965 Placentia Avenue and the second one (18 million gallons) at 2340 Orange Avenue. As required for all new development within the jurisdiction of MCWD, the Coast Community College District will have an engineer calculate the demand for the Project at buildout, and then calculate the appropriate on -site domestic water facilities, which would be reviewed and approved by MCWD. 98 Michael Brandman Associates HAClient (PN -IN)\ 0064 \00640027 \IS \00640027 Initial Study Learning Center.doc Coast Community College District - Newport Beach Learning Center Initial Study Discussion of Environmental Evaluation The proposed Project would replace existing commercial and light industrial land uses on the Project. Additionally, the proposed Project would relocate the existing learning center located in Costa Mesa, which is also within the service area for MCWD and generates demand for domestic water from MCWD in the existing condition. As indicated in a service letter from MCWD, contained in Appendix F of this IS/MND, any net increase in water demand anticipated by the Project would be met by existing entitlements. Furthermore, the proposed learning center includes various energy efficiency measures that would reduce the demand for water. These measures are identified in section 1.11.3 of this MND and include water efficient landscape and irrigation systems and water efficient plumbing fixtures. Accordingly, impacts related to this issue would be less than significant. 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. The City of Newport Beach provides wastewater service for the Project site, and wastewater flows from the Project would eventually flow to OCSD wastewater treatment facilities. OCSD facilities are sized to accommodate new development in participating Orange County cities, including the wastewater that would be generated by the proposed Project. Accordingly, OCSD would have capacity to serve the Project's wastewater needs and associated impacts would be less than significant. f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? Less than Significant Impact. The information contained in this analysis is based in part on a service letter provided by OC Waste & Recycling, which is included in Appendix F of this document. The Project site would be served by the Frank R. Bowerman Landfill, located at 11002 Bee Canyon Access Road, immediately north of the City of Irvine. The Frank R. Bowerman Landfill is permitted to accept up 8,500 tons of solid waste per day and currently receives an average of approximately 6,000 tons of solid waste per day. The landfill was recently expanded and now has an estimated remaining capacity of 62.6 million cubic yards (as of June 30, 2008) and is anticipated to close in 2053. There are no additional plans for expanding the landfill. OC Waste & Recycling provides for 15 -years of countywide solid waste disposal capacity, in conformance with the California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989. Because capacity exists to accommodate solid waste generated by the relocation of the proposed Project, implementation of the Project would not result in either a project - specific or cumulative significant impact to solid waste disposal capacity, and no mitigation would be required. Michael Brandman Associates 99 H:\Client (PN -JN) \0064 \00640027 \IS \00640027 Initial Smdy Learning Centendw Coast Community College District - Newport Beach Learning Center Discussion of Environmental Evaluation Initial Study g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? Less Than Significant Impact. See impact discussion for 16.f above. Because capacity exists in the landfill serving the Project area, the proposed Project would result in less than significant impacts associated with this issue. h) Include anew 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. The proposed project does not include storm water treatment control BMPs that would result in significant environmental effects susch as increased vectors and odors. 17. Climate Change a) Does the project comply with the provisions of an adopted Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan or Strategy? If no such Plan or Strategy is applicable, would the project significantly hinder or delay California's ability to meet the reduction targets contained in AB 32? Less than Significant Impact. The City of Newport Beach and the SCAQMD do not have an adopted Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan; therefore, significance will be determined by whether the project will hinder or delay California's ability to meet the reduction targets in AB 32. The following information in this section is a summary of the analysis in the Air Quality and Climate Change Analysis contained in Appendix A. The Project would emit approximately 2,148 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents (MTCO2e) during construction from exhaust from onsite equipment, delivery vehicles, and employee vehicles. Operational emissions are shown in Table 20. Table 20: Net New Operational Greenhouse Gases (Unmitigated) Source Motor vehicles Emissions (MTCO2e per year) 2,754 Natural gas 423 Electricity 294 Refrigerants 174 Subtotal: Project 3,645 Existing -1,157 Total Net New Emissions 2,488 100 Michael Brandman Associates HAClient (PN -IN)\ 0064 \00640027 \IS \00640027 Initial Study Learning Center.doc Coast Community College District - Newport Beach Learning Center Initial Study Discussion of Environmental Evaluation MTCO2e = metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents (includes carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and hydrofluorocarbons). Source: Air Quality and Climate Change Analysis, 2009, Appendix A. The proposed Project is implementing design features (as identified in Section 1. 11.3 of this Initial Study) that would reduce increase energy efficiency, decrease electricity use, decrease water use, reduce waste, and encourage alternative transportation. The Project includes a learning center, which may reduce vehicle miles traveled by students who would otherwise travel farther distances to go to another center using the public transit system. The Project would be consistent with the City of Newport Beach General Plan policies that would reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The Project would also be consistent with the applicable measures in ARB's Scoping Plan, which was prepared pursuant to AB 32. Therefore, the Project would not hinder or delay implementation of AB 32. 18. Mandatory Findings of Significance a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? Less Than Significant. The proposed learning facility will not have the potential to degrade the quality of the natural environment, and will not impact important biological resources (i.e., endangered, threatened, or rare plant or wildlife species). The implementation of Mitigation Measure BR -1 would ensure impacts to migratory birds would be less than significant. The structures that previously occupied the site were not considered a historical resource. In addition, Mitigation Measures CR -1, CR -2, and PR- 1 through PR -4 would ensure impacts to archaeological and paleontological resources would be less than significant. b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ( "Cumulatively considerable " means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects ofpast projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects) ? Less Than Significant Impact. The implementation of the proposed project will contribute to cumulative environmental impacts. Based on information received from the cities of Newport Beach and Costa Mesa, there are a number of cumulative projects (see Appendix G). Michael Brandman Associates 101 H:\Client (PN -JN) \0064 \00540027 \IS \00640027 Initial Smdy Learning Centendw Coast Community College District - Newport Beach Learning Center Discussion of Environmental Evaluation Initial Study The cumulative analysis discussed in this section depends on the environmental component that is analyzed. The majority of the environmental issues are discussed based on the cumulative project list in Appendix G. Air quality is discussed based on projections provided in the South Coast Air Basin Plan. Agricultural Resources, Biological Resources, Geology and Soils, Hydrology and Water Quality, Land Use and Planning, Mineral Resources, and Recreation As discussed in Section 2, the proposed Project would not result in impacts to these environmental components or these impacts would be site specific such as geology and soils. Therefore, the project would not contribute to any cumulative impacts associated with these issues. Aesthetics, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Population and Housing, Public Services, and Utilities and Service Systems Implementation of the proposed project would result in less than significant impacts to these environmental issues. Although the project would contribute to cumulative aesthetic, hazards and hazardous materials, population and housing, public services and utility and service system impacts, these impacts would be less than cumulatively considerable due to the relative small size of the proposed learning center. Cultural Resources Implementation of the proposed project would contribute to potential cumulative impacts to cultural resources. The proposed project will be implementing mitigation measures to reduce its impact on cultural resources to less than cumulatively considerable. Therefore, the proposed project would result in a less than significant cumulative impact on cultural resources. Air Quality, Noise, and Transportation and Circulation The cumulative analysis for each of these environmental issues is addressed in their respective area in Section 2. Cumulative air quality is discussed in Section 2.3, cumulative noise is discussed in Section 2. 11, and cumulative traffic is discussed in Section 2.15 of this IS /MND. Mitigation measures are recommended to reduce potential impacts to less than significant. In addition, these measures would reduce the project's impact contribution to less than cumulatively considerable. Therefore, cumulative air quality, noise, and transportation/circulation impacts associated with the project would be less than significant. c) Does the project have environmental effects, which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? 102 Michael Brandman Associates HAClient (PN -IN)\ 0064 \00640027 \IS \00640027 Initial Study Learning Center.doc Coast Community College District - Newport Beach Learning Center Initial Study Discussion of Environmental Evaluation Less Than Significant Impact. Implementation of the proposed Project would result in the construction of a 67,000 sq ft learning facility. All potentially significant impacts discussed throughout this document can be mitigated to a level of insignificance. Therefore, the Project is not expected to have an adverse effect on human beings either directly or indirectly. Michael Brandman Associates 103 H:\Client (PN -JN) \0064 \00640027 \IS \00640027 Initial Smdy Learning Centendw Coast Community College District - Newport Beach Learning Center Initial Study References SECTION 4: REFERENCES California Climate Change Center (CCCC). 2006. Our Changing Climate, Assessing the Risks to California: A Summary Report from the California Climate Change Center. July 2006. CEC -500- 2006 -077. www .climatechange.ca.gov/biennial reports /2006report/index.htrnl City of Newport Beach General Plan, approved November 7, 2007. Environmental Data Resources, Inc. (EDR). 2006, 1527 -1533 Monrovia Avenue, Inquiry Number: 1677432.2s. May 17, South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) 19931993. CEQA Handbook. Available at SCAQMD, 21865 Copley Dr, Diamond Bar, California, 91765. City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR, April, 2006. Michael Brandman Associates 105 H:\Client (PN -JN) \0064 \00640027 \IS \00640027 Initial Smdy Learning Centendw Coast Community College District - Newport Beach Learning Center Initial Study List SECTION 5: LIST OF PREPARERS Michael Brandman Associates - Environmental Consultant 220 Commerce, Suite 200 Irvine, CA 92602 Phone: 714.508.4100 Fax: 714.508.4110 Project Director.. ................................................................................... ...... Michael E. Houlihan, AICP ProjectManager .................................................................................. ............................... Shawn Nevill Cultural Resources Director ................................................. ............................... Kenneth J. Lord, Ph.D. Environmental Anal yst ......................................................................... ............................... Margaret Lin Air Quality and Climate Change Specialist ................ ............................... ............................Cori Wilson Sr. Editor ....................................................................................... ..................:............ Sandra L. Tomlin GIS /Graphics ............................................................................... ............................... Karlee McCracken Michael Brandman Associates 107 H:\Client (PN -JN) \0064 \00640027 \IS \00640027 Initial Smdy Learning Centendw Attachment No. PC 3 Addendum to the MND Addendum to the Final Mitigated Negative Declaration Newport Beach Learning Center Newport Beach, California Prepared for: Community College District Coast Community College District 11460 Warner Avenue Fountain Valley, CA 92708 -2597 714.438.4600 Contact: Contact: Kevin McElroy Prepared by: Michael Brandman Associates 220 Commerce, Suite 200 Irvine, CA 92602 714.508.4100 Contact: Shawn Nevill, J.D., Project Manager Michael E. Houlihan, AICP, Project Director %h, �, d 1;' ,.n,,..., .. December 4, 2009 Coast Community College District - Newport Beach Learning Center Addendum Final Mitigated Negative Declaration Table of Contents TABLE OF CONTENTS Section 1: Purpose and Background .................................................... ..............................1 Section2: CEQA Process ....................................................................... ..............................5 Section 3: Description of Changes to Final MND ................................. ..............................6 Section 4: Environmental Checklist ...................................................... ..............................7 Section 5: Analysis of Potential Environmental Effects ...................... ..............................8 1. Aesthetics .......................................................................... ..............................8 2. Agricultural Resources ...................................................... ..............................9 3. Air Quality .......................................................................... ..............................9 4. Biological Resources ........................................................ .............................11 5. Cultural Resources ........................................................... .............................12 6. Geology and Soils ............................................................ .............................13 7. Greenhouse Gas Emissions ............................................. .............................14 8. Hazards and Hazardous Materials ................................... .............................14 9. Hydrology and Water Quality ............................................ .............................16 10. Land Use and Planning .................................................... .............................17 11. Mineral Resources ............................................................ .............................18 12. Noise ................................................................................ .............................18 13. Population and Housing ................................................... .............................19 14. Public Services ................................................................. .............................20 15. Recreation ...................................................................... ............................... 20 16. Transportation/Traffic ....................................................... .............................21 17. Utilities and Service Systems ........................................... .............................22 18. Mandatory Findings of Significance .................................. .............................23 Section6: Conclusion ........................................................................... .............................24 Appendix A: Addendum to Cultural Resources Records Search Results and Recommendations for the Newport Beach Learning Center Appendix B: Updated Phase I Environmental Site Assessment LIST OF EXHIBITS Exhibit 1: Regional Location Map ......................... ............................... Exhibit 2: Local Vicinity Map ................................ ............................... Exhibit 3: Revised Site Plan ................................. ............................... Michael Brandman Associates HAClient (PN- JN)W66U5660002Wddendum IS MND05660002 Addendum IS MND- NBLC 12- 04- 2009.doc ......................... 2 ......................... 3 ..................... 4 it Coast Community College District - Newport Beach Learning Center Addendum Final Mitigated Negative Declaration CEQA Process SECTION 1: PURPOSE AND BACKGROUND An Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) was approved by the Coast Community College District (District) for the Newport Beach Learning Center project in September 2009. The MND identified a project area of 3.4 acres and included the demolition of existing improvements on the site and the construction of an approximately 45,000 square foot learning center facility. The MND identified that a total of 194 parking spaces would be installed, and included a bus turnout along Monrovia Avenue. However, following the approval of the MND, the District purchased a 0.54 -acre commercial property located adjacent to the northern boundary of the Newport Beach Learning Center project site for use as additional parking (Exhibit 1 and Exhibit 2). Additionally, the District has revised the site plan for the Newport Beach Learning Center to remove the bus turnout Exhibit 3. Therefore, in order to be consistent with the provisions of CEQA, it is necessary to make minor changes to the Newport Beach Learning Center Initial Study /MND to account for the addition of the 0.54 -acre parcel to the project area and the removal of a bus turnout. This addendum addresses the minimal changes that would occur as a result of the removal of existing uses on the 0.54 -acre parcel and the conversion the parcel to a parking area as well as the removal of the bus turnout. Michael Brandman Associates HAClient (PN- JN)W66U5660002Wddendum IS MND05660002 Addendum IS MND- NBLC 12- 04- 2009.doc ------------------------------------ \ Chino Hills 4 °oC T- X04 F Fullerton be Linda r— •y �dal w © Orange 9 N Cleveland NF Proied sle Garden Grove Santiago Reservoir a h a NOT TO SCALE Santa Ana ' Fountain Valley \ Huntington Beach C sta.Mesa Irvine ` Project Site ` El Toro v \ J, �t � Newport Beach `una Hills '1 , Laguna Niguel l\ San Juan Capistrano Dana Point Source: Census 2000 Data, The CaSIL, MBA GIB 2009. NNNN ^ 5 2.5 0 5 Exhibit 1 ❑❑❑ z ❑❑ N Miles Regional Location Map ;Michael Bradman Associates 35660002 • 12/2009 1 1_regional.mxd CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH • NEWPORT BEACH LEARNING CENTER INITIAL STUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION R31 MINA NNNIN ^ ,,000 500 0 1,000 Local Vicinity Map ❑❑N❑ z� Feet Aerial Base Michael B=dmm Associates 35660002 • 12/2009 12 looal_aerial.mxd CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH • NEWPORT BEACH LEARNING CENTER INITIAL STUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Y PA R ir Y I 0 7 Y ✓� ' [ — N Legend Project Site 1535 Monrovia Avenue (Additional Parcel) Source: LF'A 80 40 0 60 N ❑❑❑ °z Feet Michael Bmndman Associates C I I— H H 1 / f IIUUIL of 0 W z LU W Q Q O K Z O I I I I I e Exhibit 3 Revised Site Plan 35660002 • 12/2009 13 revised_site_plan.m c! CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH • NEWPORT BEACH LEARNING CENTER INITIAL STUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Coast Community College District - Newport Beach Learning Center Addendum Final Mitigated Negative Declaration CEQA Process SECTION 2: CEQA PROCESS - The District has the ultimate approval authority over the Newport Beach Learning Center project, and as the lead agency has decided to prepare this addendum. This Addendum has been prepared subsequent to the Newport Beach Learning Center Final Mitigated Negative Declaration in accordance with Section 15164 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. Section 15164 states, "an addendum to an adopted negative declaration may be prepared if only minor technical changes or additions are necessary or none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for the preparation of a subsequent EIR or negative declaration have occurred." Section 15162 illustrates that a subsequent negative declaration is not required unless "substantial changes" in the project or circumstances will require major revisions to the original negative declaration. The analysis contained in this document will determine whether the revisions to the Newport Beach Learning Center project would result in substantial changes in the project. Michael Brandman Associates HAClient (PN- JN)W66U5660002Wddendum IS MND05660002 Addendum IS MND- NBLC 12- 04- 2009.doc Coast Community College District - Newport Beach Learning Center Addendum Final Mitigated Negative Declaration Description of Changes to Final MND SECTION 3: DESCRIPTION OF CHANGES TO FINAL MND The revisions to the Newport Beach Learning Center Final MND include the addition of a 0.54 -acre parcel located adjacent to the northern boundary of the project site along Monrovia Avenue and the removal of the planned bus turnout along Monrovia Avenue. The 0.54 -acre parcel contains an approximately 7,780 square foot commercial building that would be removed as part of the project. The office building consists of six offices, two kitchens, two patios, four restrooms, an approximate 850- square foot design studio area, and approximately 500- square feet of mezzanine storage area. In the existing condition, the additional parcel is accessed via two driveways from Monrovia Avenue. The commercial land uses would be replaced by a parking area and an access driveway for use by the offsite property located immediately west of the 0.54 -acre parcel. The revisions to the Newport Beach Learning Center project do not include any other changes to the size or use of the Learning Center facility previously approved by the District. The proposed action involves the demolition of an existing one story office building and parking area. The demolition activities are expected to occur in conjunction with the removal of other buildings that occur on the Newport Beach Learning Center project site. After the completion of demolition activities, the additional parcel would be graded and paved parking improvements would be constructed on the site. A total of 51 parking spaces would be installed on the additional parcel, which would increase the total number of parking spaces for the Newport Beach Learning Center project to 249. Additionally, the existing driveway on the northernmost portion of the 0.54 -acre parcel that provides access to Monrovia Avenue and to the property located immediately west of the 0.54 -acre parcel is proposed to remain, and the access will be separated from the proposed parking area by a curb. This design feature will allow vehicles to access the adjacent property without conflicts with the proposed parking area. Michael Brandman Associates HAClient (PN- JN)W66U5660002Wddendum IS MND05660002 Addendum IS MND- NBLC 12- 04- 2009.doc Coast Community College District - Newport Beach Learning Center Addendum Final Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Checklist SECTION 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Substantial No New Substantial Environmental Issues 1. Aesthetics 2. Agriculture Resources Significant Change from Change from Impact Previous previous Analysis Analysis ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 3. Air Quality ❑ ❑ 4. Biological Resources ❑ ❑ 5. Cultural Resources ❑ ❑ 6. Geology and Soils ❑ ❑ 7. Greenhouse Gas Emissions ❑ ❑ 9. Hazards and Hazardous Materials ❑ ❑ 10. Hydrology and Water Quality ❑ ❑ 11. Land Use and Planning ❑ ❑ 12. Mineral Resources ❑ ❑ 13. Noise ❑ ❑ 14. Population and Housing ❑ ❑ 15. Public Services ❑ ❑ 16. Recreation ❑ ❑ 17. Transportation / Traffic ❑ ❑ 18. Utilities and Service Systems ❑ ❑ 19. Mandatory Findings of Significance ❑ ❑ Michael Brandman Associates HAClient (PN- JN)W66U5660002Wddendum IS MND05660002 Addendum IS MND- NBLC 12- 04- 2009.doc Coast Community College District - Newport Beach Learning Center Addendum Final Mitigated Negative Declaration Analysis of Potential Environmental Effects SECTION 5: ANALYSIS OF POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS Aesthetics Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic building within a state scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? all Create anew source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? No Substantial Change From Previous Analysis. Similar to the Newport Beach Learning Center project site analyzed in the MND, the additional parcel is located on a property that is flat, with residential, educational, and light industrial land uses in the surrounding area. The revised project would remove a commercial structure and replace it with parking improvements. The proposed parking improvements would be designed to integrate with the architectural and landscaping features of the Newport Beach Learning Center project. Because no structures are proposed on the additional parcel, views in the project area would not be substantially affected. The distance from SR -1 (Pacific Coast Highway), along with intervening development and the scale of the project changes would ensure that views from SR -1 would not be significantly altered compared to the impacts identified in the MND. The integration of landscaping features on the additional parcel with those planned for the Newport Beach Learning Center would provide an additional visual resource for the surrounding area. Finally, the removal of the existing building on the additional parcel and construction of parking improvements would not substantially affect the amount of light and glare that would be generated by the project compared to that analyzed in the MND. Therefore, the development of the additional parcel with parking improvements would not result in a substantial change from the previous analysis. The bus turnout included in the project description for the Newport Beach Learning Center analyzed in the MND was not a substantial visual feature for the project. The elimination of the bus turnout would result in only a nominal change in the visual appearance of the Newport Beach Learning Center project when compared to the impacts identified in the MND. Michael Brandman Associates HAClient (PN- JN)W66U5660002Wddendum IS MND05660002 Addendum IS MND- NBLC 12- 04- 2009.doc Coast Community College District - Newport Beach Learning Center Addendum Final Mitigated Negative Declaration Analysis of Potential Environmental Effects 2. Agricultural 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 Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non - agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non - agricultural use? No Substantial Change From Previous Analysis. The additional proposed parking area is not located on land that is designated as Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance; nor is the project site zoned for agricultural uses. There would be no new impacts to agricultural resources with the implementation of the proposed parking area. Additionally, the elimination of the bus turnout would not affect agricultural resources. Since the Final MND identified no impacts to agricultural resources, there would be no substantial changes to the "no impact' finding provided in the Final MND. 3. Air Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non - attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions, which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? Michael Brandman Associates fi Client (PN- JN)W66U5660002Wddendum IS MND05660002 Addendum IS MND - NBLC 12- 04- 2009.doc Coast Community College District - Newport Beach Learning Center Addendum Final Mitigated Negative Declaration Analysis of Potential Environmental Effects d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number ofpeople? No Substantial Change From Previous Analysis. An Air Quality and Climate Change Analysis was prepared for the Newport Beach Learning Center by Michael Brandman Associates, dated July 15, 2009, which is incorporated by reference. The significance for criteria pollutants during construction activities is based on emissions that would occur in a day. The mitigation measures in the Final MND would apply to the additional parcel. Demolition of the existing structures on the parcel would not increase the daily emissions estimates because mitigation measure AQ -6 as noted below from the Final MND would apply to the additional parcel. AQ -6 During demolition activities, no more than 6,500 square feet of buildings shall be demolished in one day. During active demolition, the structures being demolished shall be adequately watered to minimize fugitive dust. During active demolition and debris removal, water shall be applied every four hours to the area within 100 feet of a structure being demolished, to reduce vehicle track -out. Water shall be applied to disturbed soils after demolition is complete or at the end of each day of cleanup. Demolition activities shall be prohibited when wind speeds exceed 25 miles per hour. Grading of the 0.54 -acre parcel would not increase daily air pollutant and greenhouse gas emissions. The original analysis assumed that 2 acres per day would be graded. The original project site was 3.4 acres in size. Addition of the 0.54 -acre parcel to the original project site is approximately 3.9 acres. The URBEMIS model assumes that 25 percent of the project site would be graded on any one day; therefore, 25 percent of 3.9 acres is about 1 acre. Therefore, the 2 acres per day assumption in the original analysis is valid for the additional acreage. Therefore, the daily emissions during grading would be unchanged. There would be additional paving associated with the additional parcel. This additional paving would be accomplished with the same construction equipment assumed for the paving of the original project site; therefore, there would be no additional daily emissions from the construction equipment. There may be a slight increase in volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions associated with off gas emissions from paving an additional 0.54 -acre. The off gas emissions from paving one acre are approximately 0. 11 pounds per day, as noted in the URBEMIS output in the Air Quality and Climate Change Analysis. Therefore, additional off gas emissions from paving 0.54 -acre would be negligible and would not significantly increase the daily VOC emissions to above the regional significance thresholds. Annual greenhouse gas emissions from construction may increase slightly because construction may have a slightly longer duration; however, the significance conclusions in the original analysis would Michael Brandman Associates 10 HAClient (PN- JN)W66U5660002Wddendum IS MND05660002 Addendum IS MND- NBLC 12- 04- 2009.doc Coast Community College District - Newport Beach Learning Center Addendum Final Mitigated Negative Declaration Analysis of Potential Environmental Effects be unchanged because the significance finding for greenhouse gases is not based on emissions compared with a numerical threshold. During project operation, there would be a reduction in operational criteria pollutant and greenhouse gas emissions, as the new parking lot is not anticipated to increase vehicle trips or vehicle miles traveled, and the trips associated with the existing office building would be removed. Criteria emissions would still be under the significance thresholds. Additionally, since the existing building was constructed in 1958, it is likely that emissions were emitted in 1990. These emissions would be removed; therefore, greenhouse gas impacts would be less than in the original analysis. Therefore, the significance conclusions regarding operational criteria and greenhouse gas emissions are unchanged. The elimination of the bus turnout along Monrovia Avenue would not affect air quality emissions during construction or operation of the project. 4. Biological Resources Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? fi Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? Michael Brandman Associates if Fi Client (PN- JN)W66U5660002Wddendum IS MND05660002 Addendum IS MND - NBLC 12- 04- 2009.doc Coast Community College District - Newport Beach Learning Center Addendum Final Mitigated Negative Declaration Analysis of Potential Environmental Effects No Substantial Change From Previous Analysis. The additional parcel is entirely developed with a commercial building and an associated parking area. The Final MND incorporated Mitigation Measures BR -1 and BR -2 to ensure that the Newport Beach Learning Center would not interfere with the movement of any native or migratory species and that wildlife nursery site impacts would reduced to less than significant and to comply with City Council Policy G -1. Consistent with the Final MND, the application of the previously established mitigation measures would ensure that the development of the additional parcel would not result in any additional adverse impacts to biological resources. The elimination of the bus turnout would not affect biological resources. Therefore, there would be no substantial changes to the findings identified in the Final MND for Biological Resources. 5. Cultural Resources Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defned 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 geologicfeature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside offormal cemeteries? No Substantial Change From Previous Analysis. The analysis contained below is based on the Addendum to Cultural Resources Records Search Results and Recommendations for the Newport Beach Learning Center letter report contained in Appendix A of this document. The commercial structure on the additional parcel was constructed in 1958. Because the structure is more than 45 years old, an evaluation was conducted to determine whether the building is a significant resource. The evaluation of the building on the additional parcel determined that the earliest construction of the structure has been dated to 1958 with two additional phases added between 1958 and after 1972. The front fagade of the original 1958 Phase has a metalwork structure serving as a focal point for the building and defining the entry. The Phase 1 and 2 structures have flat roofs, while the Phase 3 has a sloping roof with skylights. Based on Office of Historic Preservation guidelines and CEQA guidelines, it was determined that the structure is not considered significant under CEQA. The implementation of Mitigation Measures CR -1 from the Final MND would further ensure that impacts to historic resources would be less than significant. Due to the adjacency of the additional parcel to the Newport Beach Learning Center project area analyzed in the Final MND, impacts related to archeological and paleontological resources would be Michael Brandman Associates 12 HAClient (PN- JN)W66U5660002Wddendum IS MND05660002 Addendum IS MND- NBLC 12- 04- 2009.doc Coast Community College District - Newport Beach Learning Center Addendum Final Mitigated Negative Declaration Analysis of Potential Environmental Effects similar to those identified in the Final MND. The implementation of Mitigation Measures CR -2 and PR -1 through PR -4 from the Final MND during ground disturbing activities on the additional parcel would ensure that impacts to archeological and paleontological resources would be less than significant. Since the Final MND identified less than significant impacts with mitigation to cultural resources, there would be no substantial changes to the "less than significant with mitigation incorporated" finding provided in the Final MND. 6. 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 insubstantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off -site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18 -1 -B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? No Substantial Change From Previous Analysis. The geological and soils conditions on the 0.54 - acre additional parcel would be substantially similar to those identified for the Newport Beach Learning Center in the Final MND. The additional proposed parking area would not raise new issues for geology, soils, and geophysical hazards. Since the Final MND identified less than significant Michael Brandman Associates 13 HAClient (PN- JN)W66U5660002Wddendum IS MND05660002 Addendum IS MND- NBLC 12- 04- 2009.doc Coast Community College District - Newport Beach Learning Center Addendum Final Mitigated Negative Declaration Analysis of Potential Environmental Effects impacts to geology and soils, there would be no substantial changes to the "less than significant" finding provided in the Final MND. 7. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Would the project: a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? b) Conflict with any applicable plan, policy or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? No New Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. As discussed in Section 3, Air Quality, Grading of the 0.54 -acre parcel would not increase daily air pollutant and greenhouse gas emissions. During paving activities, there may be a slight increase in volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions associated with off gas emissions from paving an additional 0.54 acre. However, additional off gas emissions from paving 0.54 acre would be negligible and would not significantly increase the daily VOC emissions to above the regional significance thresholds. Annual greenhouse gas emissions from construction may increase slightly because construction may have a slightly longer duration; however, the significance conclusions in the original analysis contained in the Final MND would be unchanged because the significance finding for greenhouse gases is not based on emissions compared with a numerical threshold. There would be a reduction in operational criteria pollutant and greenhouse gas emissions, as the additional parking area is not anticipated to increase vehicle trips or vehicle miles traveled and the trips associated with the existing office building would be removed. Additionally, since the existing building was constructed in 1958, it is likely that emissions were emitted in 1990. These emissions would be removed; therefore, greenhouse gas impacts would be less than in the original analysis. Therefore, the significance conclusions regarding operational greenhouse gas emissions would be unchanged. 8. Hazards and Hazardous Materials Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? Michael Brandman Associates 14 H: \Client (PN- JN)W66\15660002Wddendum IS MND05660002 Addendum IS MND- NBLC 12- 04- 2009.doc Coast Community College District - Newport Beach Learning Center Addendum Final Mitigated Negative Declaration Analysis of Potential Environmental Effects c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one - quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a 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? J) 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? No Substantial Change From Previous Analysis. An Updated Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment was conducted for the Newport Beach Learning Center, which included the addition of the 0.54 -acre parcel. The conclusions from the Updated Phase I Environmental Site Assessment in regards to the 0.54 -acre additional parcel are summarized below. The additional parcel includes an approximately 7,800 square foot vacant office building that was constructed in 1958 and has been generally occupied by architecture /design companies for administrative and office purposes since 1972. A database records search conducted for the additional parcel identified that the site was not included on any lists associated with hazardous materials. A site reconnaissance survey of the additional parcel found no evidence of the use or storage of hazardous substances or petroleum products except for a single box containing eight paint cans (1- gallon size or smaller) that was found in storage in the mezzanine area of the building. No evidence of leaks or spills related to these paints was observed during the site reconnaissance. Development of the 0.54 -acre property with parking uses would not affect emergency response plans or emergency evacuation plans, and would not expose people or structures to wildland fires. Additionally the property is not located within the vicinity of an airport or private landing strip. Due to the age of the building on the 0.54 -acre property, hazardous materials may be encountered during demolition activities (i.e., asbestos and lead - paint). However, as discussed in the Final MND, all such materials encountered during demolition activities would be removed in accordance with Michael Brandman Associates 15 HAClient (PN- JN)W66U5660002Wddendum IS MND05660002 Addendum IS MND- NBLC 12- 04- 2009.doc Coast Community College District - Newport Beach Learning Center Addendum Final Mitigated Negative Declaration Analysis of Potential Environmental Effects local, State, and federal regulations. Hazardous materials commonly associated with construction activities would be used in limited quantities and concentration during construction, including but not limited to petroleum based fuels, paint and solvents. Compliance with local, State, and federal regulations during demolition and construction would ensure that associated impacts would be similar to those identified in the Final MND. The addition of the 0.54 -acre property to the Newport Beach Learning Center site plan would not result in new or substantially greater hazards impacts. Since the Final MND identified less than significant impacts to hazards and hazardous materials, there would be no substantial changes to the "less than significant" finding provided in the Final MND. 9. Hydrology and Water Quality Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate ofpre- existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of 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? all Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off -site? e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources ofpolluted runoff? fi Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? g) Place housing within a 100year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h) Place within a 100 year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? Michael Brandman Associates 16 HAClient (PN- JN)W66U5660002Wddendum IS MND05660002 Addendum IS MND- NBLC 12- 04- 2009.doc Coast Community College District - Newport Beach Learning Center Addendum Final Mitigated Negative Declaration Analysis of Potential Environmental Effects i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? No Substantial Change From Previous Analysis. Runoff from the 0.54 -acre additional parcel would be directed into the gutters on Monrovia Avenue, as it does in the existing condition. As the additional parcel is already developed with commercial land uses, the demolition of the existing structure and construction of a parking area on the site would not result in an increase in impermeable surfaces on the site. Therefore, impacts related to hydrology and water quality would be substantially similar to those identified in the Final MND. Since the Final MND identified less than significant impacts to hydrology and water quality, there would be no substantial changes to the "less than significant" finding provided in the Final MND. The curb adjacent to the bus turnout that was proposed in the Final MND would have been part of the surface water drainage facility to convey storm water from the project site to the storm drain inlet located south of the project site along Monrovia Avenue. The removal of the bus turnout would alter the configuration of the curb; however, without the bus turnout, the proposed curb would still convey storm water from the project site to the storm drain inlet. In addition, the removal of the bus turnout would nominally improve surface water quality because buses would no longer stop along Monrovia Avenue and potentially leak fluids adjacent to the curb. Accordingly, the elimination of the bus turnout would not result in a substantial change from the previous analysis and impacts associated with this issue would be less than significant. 10. Land Use and Planning Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? 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, speck 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 communities conservation plan? No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The revisions to the project would involve the conversion of a 0.54 -acre commercial property to a parking area, which would support the Newport Beach Learning Center. The use of the 0.54 -acre property for parking use would not conflict with the City's General Plan or Zoning Ordinance. No new land use issues would result from the proposed Michael Brandman Associates 17 HAClient (PN- JN)W66U5660002Wddendum IS MND05660002 Addendum IS MND- NBLC 12- 04- 2009.doc Coast Community College District - Newport Beach Learning Center Addendum Final Mitigated Negative Declaration Analysis of Potential Environmental Effects parking area. Since the Final MND identified no impacts to land use and planning, there would be no substantial changes to the "no impact" finding provided in the Final MND. 11. 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? No Substantial Change From Previous Analysis. Similar to the project area analyzed for the Newport Beach Learning Center in the Final MND, the 0.54 -acre additional parcel occurs within the West Newport Oil Field. No oil extraction activities occur or are known to have historically occurred on the site. As of 2001, the West Newport Oil Field had 66 oil wells in operation and produced 131,831 barrels of oil and condensate; and the field was estimated to have 847 millions barrels of oil in reserves. In 2002, the West Newport oil field produced approximately 20.5 billion cubic feet of natural gas with a daily production per oil well of approximately 5 barrels. According to the City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR, the Project site occurs in an area designated as MRZ -3 by the California Geologic Survey (CGS). The CGS designates Mineral Resource Zones (MRZ) according to the presence or absence of significant deposits. These classifications indicate the potential for a specific area to contain significant mineral resources. MRZ -3 is defined as an area containing known mineral occurrences of undetermined mineral resource significance. As stated above, although the 0.54 -acre additional parcel occurs within an oil producing field, the property is not associated with oil production activities. The site is developed in the existing condition and is designated for development by the City's General Plan. Because the property does not currently support mineral extraction activities and is designated for development, the loss of availability of mineral extraction on the site that would result during the lifetime of the Newport Beach Learning Center would not result in impacts to Mineral Resources that would be substantially greater than those identified in the Final MND. 12. Noise Would the project result in: a) Exposure ofpersons 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? Michael Brandman Associates 18 HAClient (PN- JN)W66U5660002Wddendum IS MND05660002 Addendum IS MND- NBLC 12- 04- 2009.doc Coast Community College District - Newport Beach Learning Center Addendum Final Mitigated Negative Declaration Analysis of Potential Environmental Effects b) Exposure ofpersons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration orgroundborne noise levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? J) 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 Substantial Change From Previous Analysis. The proposed changes to the Newport Beach Learning Center would include the removal and replacement of an existing office building on a 0.54 - acre parcel with parking lot and access driveway for an off -site parcel. The additional parking lot would support the approved Newport Beach Learning Center and would not generate additional vehicle trips. Construction noise and vibration levels associated with the 0.54 -acre property would be similar to the project analyzed in the Final MND, and would be reduced through compliance with Mitigation Measures N0I -1 and N0I -2 in the Final MND. During operation as a parking lot and access driveway for an offsite property, the additional parcel is not expected to generate excessive levels of noise. The project is not locating within the vicinity of an airport or private airstrip. The removal of a bus turnout along Monrovia Avenue would not change the impact conclusions identified for noise in the Final MND. 13. 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)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers ofpeople, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Michael Brandman Associates 19 HAClient (PN- JN)W66U5660002Wddendum IS MND05660002 Addendum IS MND- NBLC 12- 04- 2009.doc Coast Community College District - Newport Beach Learning Center Addendum Final Mitigated Negative Declaration Analysis of Potential Environmental Effects No Substantial Change From Previous Analysis. The population, housing and growth effects of development of the approved Newport Beach Learning Center were fully and adequately evaluated in the Final MND. The addition of the 0.54 -acre parcel for increased parking capacity at the site and the elimination of a bus turnout along Monrovia would not result in the inducement of substantial unplanned growth. Since the Final MND identified less than significant impacts to population and housing, there would be no substantial changes to the "less than significant' finding provided in the Final MND. 14. Public Services Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: a) Fire protection? b) Police protection? c) Schools? d) Parks? e) Other pubic facilities? No Substantial Change From Previous Analysis. The impacts associated with public services for the approved Newport Beach Learning Center were evaluated in the Final MND. The removal of existing office land uses on the 0.54 -acre parcel and construction of additional parking for the Newport Beach Learning Center would not increase demand for public services. Additionally, the elimination of the bus turnout along Monrovia Avenue would not affect public services. Since the Final MND identified less than significant impacts to public services, there would be no substantial changes to the "less than significant' finding provided in the Final MND. 15. 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? Michael Brandman Associates 20 fi Client (PN- JN)U566U5660002Wddendum IS MND05660002 Addendum IS MND- NBLC t2- 04- 2009.doc Coast Community College District - Newport Beach Learning Center Addendum Final Mitigated Negative Declaration Analysis of Potential Environmental Effects No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The replacement of existing office land uses on the 0.54 -acre parcel with additional parking for the Newport Beach Learning Center as well as the elimination of a bus turnout would not result in an increase in the use of parks and would not include the construction or expansion of existing recreational facilities. Since the Final MND identified less than significant impacts to recreation, there would be no substantial changes to the "less than significant" finding provided in the Final MND. 16. Transportation/Traffic Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic, which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections) ? b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level ofservice standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? all Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? J) Result in inadequate parking capacity? g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? The proposed changes to the Newport Beach Learning Center project includes the replacement of existing office land uses on the 0.54 -acre parcel with additional parking for the Newport Beach Learning Center as well as the elimination of a bus turnout along Monrovia Avenue. The removal of the existing office building on the 0.54 -acre parcel would result in a reduction in vehicular trips to the project area associated with office use. The addition of 51 parking spaces as part of the revised site plan for the Newport Beach Learning Center would not generate additional vehicular trips to the site, but would instead only serve to provide additional parking capacity for students and staff at the project site. As such, impact conclusions identified in the Final MND associated with traffic and level of service standards would remain unchanged. Michael Brandman Associates 21 HAClient (PN- JN)W66U5660002Wddendum IS MND05660002 Addendum IS MND- NBLC 12- 04- 2009.doc Coast Community College District - Newport Beach Learning Center Addendum Final Mitigated Negative Declaration Analysis of Potential Environmental Effects The development of the 0.54 -acre parcel includes the driveway along the northern boundary of the site that would continue to provide access to Monrovia Avenue for an offsite parcel west of the project site. The driveway would be separated from the Newport Beach Learning Center parking area and would have an exclusive access along Monrovia Avenue that would not be shared with the Newport Beach Learning Center traffic. The design of the driveway access feature would ensure that conflicts between vehicular traffic associated with the Newport Beach Learning Center and the offsite property would not occur. The bus turnout along Monrovia Avenue that was previously analyzed in the Final MND was designed to accommodate school bus service to the site. The bus stop turnout on Monrovia was not planned to provide a stop for the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) or other non- school buses. The elimination of the bus turnout will result in bus access being provided within the Newport Beach Learning Center parking lot. Because the elimination of the bus turnout would not affect existing and planned alternative transportation service to the area, impacts associated with this issue would remained unchanged from those identified in the Final MND. 17. Utilities and Service Systems Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existingfacilities, 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 existingfacilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? J) 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? Michael Brandman Associates 22 HAClient (PN- JN)W66U5660002Wddendum IS MND05660002 Addendum IS MND- NBLC 12- 04- 2009.doc Coast Community College District - Newport Beach Learning Center Addendum Final Mitigated Negative Declaration Analysis of Potential Environmental Effects No Substantial Change From Previous Analysis. The impacts of the Newport Beach Learning Center on utilities and service systems were identified in the Final MND. The changes to the project including the replacement of existing office land uses on the 0.54 -acre parcel with an additional parking area would result in similar, if not slightly reduced, impacts to utilities and service systems. Accordingly, there would be no substantial changes to the "less than significant' finding provided in the Final MND. 18. Mandatory Findings of Significance a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self - sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ( "Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects ofpast projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects ofprobable future projects) ? c) Does the project have environmental effects, which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? The 0.54 -acre parcel is fully developed with office and accessory uses and the development of the property with parking uses would not degrade the quality of the environment or affect fish, wildlife, or plant species. Additionally, the changes to the Newport Beach Learning Center project would not result in any cumulatively considerable impacts or environmental effects that would cause substantial adverse effects on human beings. Therefore, there would be no substantial change to the analysis regarding these issues in the Final MND. Michael Brandman Associates 23 H: \Client (PN- JN)W66\15660002Wddendum IS MND05660002 Addendum IS MND - NBLC 12- 04- 2009.doc Coast Community College District - Newport Beach Learning Center Addendum Final Mitigated Negative Declaration Conclusion SECTION 6: CONCLUSION The changes to the Newport Beach Learning Center Final MND project were fully described in Section 3 of this document. As it was determined in Section 5 of this document, no substantial changes to the analysis contained in the Final MND would occur as a result of the modifications to the project, No mitigation measures in addition to those identified in the Final MND would be required with the implementation of the proposed parking area and removal of the bus turn out. Based on no new substantial changes to the analysis in the MND, the use of an Addendum to the Final MND for the proposed modifications is the appropriate level of documentation. Michael Brandman Associates 24 HAClient (PN- JN)W66U5660002Wddendum IS MND05660002 Addendum IS MND- NBLC 12- 04- 2009.doc Attachment No. PC 4 Newport Beach Learning Center TPO Traffic Report NEWPORT BEACH LEARNING CENTER TPO Traffic Report September 2009 �r� _`�AUST /N -FOVST ASSOCIATES, INC. NEWPORT BEACH LEARNING CENTER TPO TRAFFIC REPORT Prepared by: Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. 2020 North Tustin Avenue Santa Ana, California 92705 -7827 (714) 667 -0496 September 22, 2009 NEWPORT BEACH LEARNING CENTER TPO TRAFFIC REPORT This report summarizes an analysis performed for the proposed development of Coastline Community College Newport Beach Learning Center in Newport Beach based on the City's Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO) methodology. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposed Coastline Community College Newport Beach Learning Center project is located on the northwest corner of Monrovia Avenue and 15th Street in the City of Newport Beach. Coastline Community College Newport Beach Learning Center consists of a three -story 66,610 square foot learning facility that would provide college courses as well as Early College High School (ECHS) classes. The proposed project will be relocated from an existing facility on Mesa Verde Avenue in the City of Costa Mesa. The existing Costa Mesa Learning Center currently has approximately 2,240 students. The 3.5 -acre site is currently developed with approximately 20,000 square feet of office space and 15,100 square feet of light industrial space. Figure 1 illustrates the location of the project. Figure 2 illustrates the proposed site plan. TRIP GENERATION AND DISTRIBUTION The proposed Coastline Community College Newport Beach Learning Center will replace the existing facility on Mesa Verde Drive at Baker Street in Costa Mesa. The Coastline Community College Learning Center is not a typical community college facility. In addition to the college students, there are approximately 240 ECHS students taking classes at the facility, as well as students attending the ABI/DD Special Program; therefore, typical Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) community college trip rates would not accurately reflect the trip characteristics of this facility. Trip generation rates for the proposed project were derived from driveway counts of the existing Costa Mesa facility. Counts were collected from Monday, April 20 to Friday, April 24, 2009. The day with the highest total peak hour and daily volume was Tuesday, April 21. Therefore, the Tuesday volumes were utilized to determine the trip rates for the project based on the total number of students. Newport Beach Learning Center TPO 1 Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. Traffic Report 029034TPO.doc z 0 — U O � F U O a a ° 3 a a A w. o O y F C � r M O O O wo e O a v U cn v c � v � 9 v r � c a v t z F- e, e � ; 0° °O °s ♦ e e s °e. ea i8 e ea ♦ o Jy ♦ \JJ ♦♦ 1�Qd MAN — o � /O °_ m N b 4 -\ MiNgOVIJ m m s = r- r N Q QP L I�j �P VJAOJNOW e m e 0 m � W W e O o c✓ 0 0 pR05PE� r z 0 — U O � F U O a a ° 3 a a A w. o O y F C � r M O O O wo e O a v U cn v c � v � 9 v r � c a v t z F- z� Sg 3nN3AVVM4VNOW j� S - -- -- -- - - - - `$ 7rr4-�'ll i U xJ �t 'J / \ � • tl I • Q U Q N U 7 0 N Z J G N r ti f ^JI � 0 0 a c 3 a A w. o O y F C � r M O O O wo 0 0 v v L. v � 9 v C u 6 v i z F- The proposed project will replace the Coastline Community College classes, ECHS classes, and ABI /DD Special Programs currently provided at the existing Costa Mesa Learning Center. The proposed project will increase the number of ECHS students by approximately 150 students, with no increase in any of the other students, for a total of 2,390 students. The trip rates and the resulting trips generated are summarized in Table 1. The existing trips generated by the office and light industrial space on the proposed site, based on ITE trip rates, were subtracted from the proposed trip generation to produce the net new trips for the project. The proposed project will generate 1,420 new daily trips, of which 194 new trips will be generated during the AM peak hour and 147 new trips will be generated during the PM peak hour. The distribution of students, faculty, and staff throughout the district at the proposed facility is assumed to be the same as the existing facility. Therefore, the trip distribution of project - generated traffic onto the surrounding circulation system was determined from the concentrations of home zip codes of the existing student population. Approximately 50 percent of project trips are oriented toward the north along Newport Boulevard, 15 percent is oriented toward the north and west along arterial streets, 10 percent is oriented toward the east, 20 percent is oriented toward the west along Coast Highway, and five percent is oriented toward Balboa Penninsula. The general distribution for the proposed development is illustrated in Figure 3. Project - generated trips were assigned to the circulation system according to these distribution patterns. The AM and PM peak hour trips for the proposed development are illustrated in Appendix A. INTERSECTION ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY The City of Newport Beach identified 14 intersections for analysis to determine the impact of the proposed Coastline Community College Newport Beach Learning Center. These Newport Beach intersections are subject to the City's Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO) analysis. These intersections are: Placentia Avenue and 15'h Street Placentia Avenue and Superior Avenue Superior Avenue and Hospital Road Placentia Avenue and Hospital Road Newport Boulevard and Hospital Road Orange Street and Coast Highway Prospect Street and Coast Highway Superior Avenue /Balboa Boulevard and Coast Highway Newport Beach Learning Center TPO 4 Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. Traffic Report 029034TPO.doc Table I TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR LAND USE UNITS IN OUT TOTAL IN OUT TOTAL ADT TRIP RATES Learning Center] Stu .06 .04 .10 .04 .04 .08 .73 Office (ITE 710) TSF 1.36 .19 1.55 .25 1.24 1.49 11.01 Light Industrial (ITE 110) TSF .81 .11 .92 .12 .85 .97 6.97 TRIP GENERATION Proposed Project Learning Center 2,390 Stu 143 96 239 96 96 192 1,745 Existing Use Office 20.0 TSF -27 4 -31 -5 -25 -30 -220 Light Industrial 15.1 TSF -12 -2 -14 -2 -13 -15 -105 NET NEW TRIPS 104 90 194 89 58 147 1,420 Empirical rates based on driveway counts (Tuesday, April 21, 2009) Newport Beach Learning Center TPO 5 Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. Traffic Report 029034TPO.doc z� p Ln s 0 ♦ \ \ ♦ ♦ O �o ♦ I I ao- j OP C 0� \ I S / F YOflYtlH � �i� I z 0 F m z F v M � 3 U :n u: tz O z c J Ll` LL U a c 3 a A w. o O cyF � r M O O O wo e b 0 v v mti r� a Newport Boulevard Ramps and Coast Highway Riverside Avenue and Coast Highway Tustin Avenue and Coast Highway Dover Drive and Coast Highway Newport Boulevard and Via Lido Newport Boulevard and 32 ad Street Existing peak hour intersection volumes for the Newport Beach study intersections were provided by City Staff. Existing intersection capacity utilization (ICU) values and level of service (LOS) at the Newport Beach intersections are summarized in Table 2 (actual ICU calculation sheets are included in Appendix B). FUTURE TRAFFIC VOLUMES An ambient growth rate of 1.0 percent per year was added to the existing volumes at the City of Newport Beach intersections along Newport Boulevard north of Coast Highway and along Coast Highway. Full occupancy of the project is assumed by Fall 2012; therefore, the study year is 2013. Traffic generated by approved projects in the study area, obtained from City Staff, were added to the existing peak hour volumes to obtain year 2013 background peak hour volumes for the intersections prior to the addition of project - generated traffic (illustrated in Appendix A). Table 3 summarizes the approved projects included in this analysis. Year 2013 background- plus - project peak hour volumes were obtained by adding the project - generated peak hour intersection volumes presented above to the existing - plus - regional growth -plus- approved projects peak hour volumes. Year 2013 background - plus - project peak hour volumes are illustrated in Appendix A. City of Newport Beach Staff provided a list of known but reasonably expected projects for use in a cumulative conditions analysis. Trip generation and distribution for each cumulative project was also provided by City Staff. The City of Costa Mesa also provided a list of cumulative projects to be included in the analysis. The cumulative projects are summarized in Table 4. The peak hour cumulative intersection volumes were added to the existing - plus - regional growth -plus- approved projects volumes presented above to produce 2013 cumulative conditions (see Appendix A). Newport Beach Learning Center TPO 7 Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. Traffic Report 029034TPO.doc Table 2 EXISTING ICU ANALYSIS SUMMARY INTERSECTION AM PM 1. Placentia & 15th .40 .30 2. Placentia & Superior .51 .49 3. Superior & Hospital .61 .41 4. Placentia & Hospital .33 .37 5. Newport & Hospital .52 .59 6. Orange & Coast Hwy .73 .66 7. Prospect & Coast Hwy .72 .66 8. Superior /Balboa & Coast Hwy .62 .67 9. Newport & Coast Hwy .77 .63 10. Riverside & Coast Hwy .66 .75 It. Tustin & Coast Hwy .65 .58 12. Dover & Coast Hwy .64 .71 13. Newport & Via Lido .39 .44 14. Newport & 32nd .42 .50 Level of service ranges: .00 - .60 A .61- .70 B .71- .80 C .81- .90 D .91 - 1.00 E Above 1.00 F Newport Beach Learning Center TPO 8 Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. Traffic Report 029034TPO.doc Table 3 APPROVED PROJECTS SUMMARY Fashion Island Expansion 40 Temple Bat Yahm Expansion 65 CIOSA — Irvine Project 91 Newport Dunes 0 1401 Dove Street 0 Hoag Hospital Phase III 0 St Mark Presbyterian Church 77 Corporate Plaza West 60 Mariner's Mile Gateway 0 Our Lady Queen of Angels Church Expansion 0 2300 Newport Boulevard 0 Newport Executive Court 0 Hoag Health Center 50 North Newport Center 0 Santa Barbara Condo 0 Newport Beach Learning Center TPO 9 Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. Traffic Report 029034TPO.doc Table 4 CUMULATIVE PROJECTS SUMMARY PROJECT LAND USE NEWPORT BEACH Newport Beach Country Club Mariner's Medical Arts City Hall & Park Development WPI- Newport, LLC Banning Ranch Sunset Ridge Park Old Newport GPA Marina Park Pres Office Building B Conexant /Koll AERIE Newport Coast TAZ 1 — 4 COSTA MESA 372 —382 Victoria Street 1036 — 1042 W. 18' Street 1640 Monrovia Avenue 1901 Newport Boulevard Pacific Medical Plaza Ocean Lofts DU — dwelling units Rms — Rooms TSF — thousand square feet Residential Hotel Tennis /Golf Club Medical Office Addition City Hall Library Expansion Office/Retail Residential Retail Hotel Park Medical Office Public Marma/Park Office Residential Condominium Single Family Detached Condominium/Townhouse Multi- Family Attached Residential Residential Residential Live /Work Retail Residential Medical Office Residential Retail kTrONI511 5 DU 27 Rms 51.3 TSF 12.2 TSF 98.0 TSF 17.1 TSF 54.2 TSF 1,375 DU 75.0 TSF 75 Rms 13.7 Acre 25.7 TSF 10.5 Acre 16.7 TSF 974 DU 6 DU 954 DU 389 DU 175 DU 30 DU 34 DU 151 DU 5 DU 42.0 TSF 174 DU 76.7 TSF 218 DU 18.5 TSF Newport Beach Learning Center TPO to Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. Traffic Report 029034TPO.doc Year 2013 cumulative - plus - project peak hour volumes were obtained by adding the project - generated peak hour intersection volumes presented above to the existing -plus- regional growth -plus- approved projects -plus- cumulative projects peak hour volumes. Year 2013 cumulative - plus - project peak hour volumes are illustrated in Appendix A. TPO TRAFFIC ANALYSIS The TPO analysis consists of a one percent analysis and an ICU analysis. The one percent analysis compares the proposed project traffic with existing -plus- regional growth -plus- approved projects peak hour volumes. To pass the one percent analysis, peak hour traffic from the proposed project must be less than one percent of the projected existing- plus - regional growth - plus - approved projects peak hour traffic on each leg of the intersection. If the proposed project passes the one percent analysis, then the ICU analysis is not required and no further analysis is necessary. If the proposed project does not pass the one percent analysis, then the ICU analysis must be performed for each intersection which fails to pass the one percent test. Table 5 identifies the Newport Beach TPO intersections that require an ICU analysis (the one percent analysis sheets are included in Appendix Q. As this table indicates, the proposed project does not pass the one percent analysis at eight Newport Beach study intersections during the AM and PM peak hour; therefore, an ICU analysis is required for these eight intersections. PROJECT IMPACT ANALYSIS An ICU analysis was performed for the eight intersections that did not pass the one percent analysis. The City of Newport Beach requires the ICU value to be calculated to three decimal places then rounded to two decimal places for determination of impacts. Existing lane configurations were assumed, and a capacity of 1,600 vph per lane with no clearance factor was utilized in the ICU analysis. Table 6 summarizes the existing ICU values without and with the proposed project during the AM and PM peak hours, Table 7 summarizes the 2013 background ICU values without and with the proposed project, and Table 8 summarizes the 2013 cumulative ICU values without and with the proposed project (actual ICU calculation sheets are included in Appendix B). A significant impact is defined by the City of Newport Beach as an increase of .O1 or more in the ICU value at a signalized intersection that reaches LOS "E" or "F ". As Tables 6, 7, and 8 show, the Newport Beach Learning Center TPO I 1 Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. Traffic Report 029034TPO.doc Table 5 SUMMARY OF ONE PERCENT ANALYSIS AM PEAK HOUR PROJECT VOLUMES INTERSECTION NB SB EB WB LESS THAN 1% OF PEAK HOUR VOLUMES 1. Placentia & 15th 31 0 41 16 No 2. Placentia & Superior 10 27 21 0 No 3. Superior & Hospital 21 18 0 0 No 4. Placentia & Hospital 0 9 0 10 No 5. Newport & Hospital 10 0 9 0 No 6. Orange & Coast Hwy 0 0 21 18 No 7. Prospect & Coast Hwy 0 0 21 18 No 8. Superior/Balboa & Coast Hwy 0 18 21 0 No 9. Newport & Coast Hwy 0 5 0 0 Yes 10. Riverside & Coast Hwy 0 0 5 5 Yes 11. Tustin & Coast Hwy 0 0 5 5 Yes 12.. Dover & Coast Hwy 0 0 5 5 Yes 13. Newport & Via Lido 5 5 0 0 Yes 14. Newport & 32nd 5 5 0 0 Yes PM PEAK HOUR PROJECT VOLUMES-- LESS THAN 1% OF INTERSECTION NB SB EB WB PEAK HOUR VOLUMES 1. Placentia & 15th 27 0 26 13 No 2. Placentia & Superior 9 18 18 0 No 3. Superior & Hospital 18 12 0 0 No 4. Placentia & Hospital 0 6 0 9 No 5. Newport & Hospital 9 0 6 0 Yes 6. Orange & Coast Hwy 0 0 18 12 No 7. Prospect & Coast Hwy 0 0 18 12 No S. Superior /Balboa & Coast Hwy 0 12 18 0 No 9. Newport & Coast Hwy 0 3 0 0 Yes 10. Riverside & Coast Hwy 0 0 3 4 Yes 11. Tustin & Coast Hwy 0 0 3 4 Yes 12. Dover & Coast Hwy 0 0 3 4 Yes 13. Newport & Via Lido 3 4 0 0 Yes 14. Newport & 32nd 3 4 0 0 Yes Newport Beach Learning Center TPO 12 Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. Traffic Report 029034TPO.doc Table 6 EXISTING WITH PROJECT ICU ANALYSIS SUMMARY NO- PROJECT WITH PROJECT INTERSECTION AM PM AM PM PROJECT IMPACT AM PM 1. Placentia & 15th .40 .30 .45 .33 .05 .03 2. Placentia & Superior .51 .49 .52 .50 .01 .01 3. Superior & Hospital .61 .41 .61 .41 .00 .00 4. Placentia & Hospital .33 .37 .33 .38 .00 .01 5. Newport & Hospital .52 .59 .53 .60 .01 .01 6. Orange & Coast Hwy .73 .66 .74 .66 .01 .00 7. Prospect & Coast Hwy .72 .66 .72 .67 .00 .01 8. SuperiorBalboa & Coast Hwy .62 .67 .62 .68 .00 .01 Level of service ranges: .00 - .60 A .61 - .70 B .71 - .80 C .81 - .90 D .91 - 1.00 E Above 1.00 F Newport Beach Learning Center TPO 13 Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. Traffic Report 029034TPO.doc Table 7 BACKGROUND WITH PROJECT ICU ANALYSIS SUMMARY NO- PROJECT WITH PROJECT INTERSECTION AM PM AM PM PROJECT IMPACT AM PM 1. Placentia & 15th .40 .30 .45 .33 .05 .03 2. Placentia & Superior .53 .52 .53 .54 .00 .02 3. Superior & Hospital .62 .42 .62 .43 .00 .01 4. Placentia & Hospital .35 .40 35 .41 .00 .01 5. Newport & Hospital .57 .65 .58 .66 .01 .01 6. Orange & Coast Hwy .77 .70 .78 .71 .01 .01 7. Prospect & Coast Hwy .76 .71 .77 .71 .01 .00 8. Superior/Balboa & Coast Hwy .66 .73 .66 .73 .00 .00 Level of service ranges: .00 - .60 A .61 - .70 B .71 - .80 C 81 - .90 D 91 - 1.00 E Above 1.00 F Newport Beach Learning Center TPO 14 Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. Traffic Report 029034TPO.doc Table 8 CUMULATIVE WITH PROJECT ICU ANALYSIS SUMMARY NO- PROJECT WITH PROJECT INTERSECTION AM PM AM PM PROJECT IMPACT AM PM 1. Placentia & 15th .54 .40 .58 .43 .04 .03 2. Placentia & Superior .54 .56 .55 .58 .01 .02 3. Superior & Hospital .64 .44 .64 .45 .00 .01 4. Placentia & Hospital .35 .40 .35 .41 .00 .01 5. Newport & Hospital .59 .67 .59 .67 .00 .00 6. Orange & Coast Hwy .80 .74 .80 .75 .00 .01 7. Prospect & Coast Hwy .78 .75 .79 .75 .01 .00 8. SuperiorBalboa & Coast Hwy .68 .77 .68 .77 .00 .00 Level of service ranges: .00 - .60 A .61 - .70 B .71 - .80 C .81 - .90 D .91 - 1.00 E Above 1.00 F Newport Beach Learning Center TPO 15 Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. Traffic Report 029034TPO.doc project has no significant impact on the Newport Beach study intersections under existing, 2013 background, or 2013 cumulative conditions and no mitigation is necessary. CITY OF COSTA MESA IMPACTS The project site is located within one - quarter mile of the City of Costa Mesa border. Project traffic will travel along Costa Mesa streets to and from the site, and may potentially impact City of Costa Mesa intersections. Ten intersections in Costa Mesa were analyzed for the City of Costa Mesa. impacts were examined under existing, 2013 background, and 2013 cumulative conditions. Existing peak hour volumes for the Costa Mesa study intersections were obtained from counts provided by City of Costa Mesa Staff and recent traffic studies which were adjusted to 2009 levels based on one percent annual growth rate at the direction of City of Costa Mesa Staff, with the exception of the intersection of Monrovia Avenue at 16th Street, which was counted in early June 2009 by Traffic Data Services, Inc. (TDS). Newport Boulevard between 17th Street and 19th Street has been under construction; therefore, collecting new counts along Newport Boulevard was not practical. The Newport Boulevard construction is expected to be completed in Summer 2009, and the new lane configurations were assumed in the analysis at Staffs direction. Existing - plus - project peak hour volumes were obtained by adding project - generated peak hour trips to the existing peak hour volumes. Year 2013 background- plus - project peak hour volumes were obtained by adding the project - generated peak hour intersection volumes to the existing - plus - regional growth -plus- approved projects peak hour volumes. Year 2013 cumulative - plus - project peak hour volumes were obtained by adding project - generated peak hour intersection volumes to the existing - plus - regional growth -plus- approved projects - plus - cumulative projects peak hour volumes. The City of Costa Mesa defines a significant project impact as an increase of .010 or more in the ICU value at an intersection that reaches LOS "E" or "F" during the peak hours. The ICU values at the Costa Mesa intersections were calculated to three decimal places. The levels of service for the City of Costa Mesa intersections under existing - plus - project conditions are summarized in Table 9. The 2013 background- plus - project LOS for Costa Mesa intersections are summarized in Table 10, and Table 11 summarizes the 2013 cumulative - plus - project conditions at City of Costa Mesa intersections. Newport Beach Learning Center TPO 16 Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. Traffic Report 029034TPO.doc Table 9 EXISTING WITH PROJECT ICU ANALYSIS SUMMARY - COSTA MESA INTERSECTIONS Newport Beach Learning Center TPO 17 Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. Traffic Report 029034TPO.doc PROJECT NO- PROJECT WITH PROJECT IMPACT INTERSECTION AM PM AM PM AM PM Costa Mesa Intersections 15. Placentia & Victoria .817 .859 .817 .861 .000 .002 16. Newport & 19th .786 .797 .793 .801 .007 .004 17. Newport & Broadway .534 .686 .545 .695 .011 .009 18. Newport & Harbor .720 .973 * .720 .975 * .000 .002 19. Newport & 18`s/Rochester .728 .970 * .734 .975 * .006 .005 20. Superior & 17th .754 .703 .767 .713 .013 .010 21. Newport & 17th .728 .782 .731 .784 .003 .002 22. Monrovia & 16th' 8 sec 9 sec 9 sec 9 sec -- -- 23. Placentia & 16th .365 .363. .387 .384 .022. .021 24. Superior & 16th/Industrial .470 .454 .485 .470 .015 .016 25. Newport & Industrial .580 .561 .589 .570 .009 .009 * Exceeds LOS "D" Level of service ranges: .000 - .609 A 0 - 10 sec /veh A .610- .709 B 10 - 15 sec /veh B .710- .809 C 15 - 25 sec /veh C .810- .909 D 25. - 35 sec /veh D .910-1.009 E 35 - 50 sec /veh E Above 1.009 F Above 50 sec /veh F Stop - controlled intersection analyzed using HUM delay methodology (Appendix D) Newport Beach Learning Center TPO 17 Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. Traffic Report 029034TPO.doc Table 10 BACKGROUND WITH PROJECT ICU ANALYSIS SUMMARY - COSTA MESA INTERSECTIONS Newport Beach Learning Center TPO 18 Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. Traffic Report 029034TPO.doc PROJECT NO- PROJECT WITH PROJECT IMPACT INTERSECTION AM PM AM PM AM PM Newport Beach Intersections 15. Placentia & Victoria .851 .895 .851 .897 .000 .002 16. Newport & 19th .835 .854 .842 .858 .007 .004 17. Newport & Broadway .576 .752 .587 .761 .011 .009 18. Newport & Harbor .770 1.051 * .771 1.054 * .001 .003 19. Newport & 18a`/Rochester .779 1.051 * .785 1.055 * .006 .004 20. Superior & 17th .813 .802 .826 .811 .013 .009 21. Newport & 17th .779 .842 .782 .845 .003 .003 22. Monrovia & 16th' 8 sec 9 sec 9 sec 9 sec -- -- 23. Placentia & 16th .366 .365 .388 .386 .022 .021 24. Superior & l6th/Industrial .503 .492 .518 .509 .015 .017 25. Newport & Industrial .617 .596 .625 .606 .008 .010 * Exceeds LOS "D° Level of service ranges: .000 - .609 A 0- 10 sec /veh A .610 - .709 B 10 - 15 sec /veh B .710 - .809 C 15 - 25 sec /veh C .810 - .909 D 25 - 35 sec /veh D .910 - 1.009 E 35 - 50 sec /veh E Above 1.009 F Above 50 sec /veh F Stop - controlled intersection analyzed using HUM delay methodology (Appendix D) Newport Beach Learning Center TPO 18 Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. Traffic Report 029034TPO.doc Table 1l CUMULATIVE WITH PROJECT ICU ANALYSIS SUMMARY -COSTA MESA INTERSECTIONS Newport Beach Learning Center TPO 19 Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. Traffic Report 029034TPO.doc PROJECT NO- PROJECT WITH PROJECT IMPACT INTERSECTION AM PM AM PM AM PM Newport Beach Intersections 15. Placentia & Victoria .863 .907 * .864 .907 * .001 .000 16. Newport & 19th .903 .925 * .910* .930 * .007 .005 17. Newport & Broadway .632 .863 .643 .872 .011 .009 18. Newport & Harbor .826 1.162 * .827 1.164* .001 .002 19. Newport & 18`s/Rochester .838 1.160 * .844 1.165 * .006 .005 20. Superior & 17th .989 * 1.021 * 1.002 * 1.031 * .013 .010 21. Newport & 17th .884 .929 * .887 .930 * .003 .001 22. Monrovia & 16th' 9 sec 10 sec 9 sec 10 sec -- -- 23. Placentia & 16th .442 .442 .464 .463 .022 .021 24. Superior & 16th/Industrial .606 .582 .629 .603 .023 .021 25. Newport & Industrial .621 .616 .630 .626 .009 .010 * Exceeds LOS "D" Level of service ranges: .000 - .609 A 0 - 10 sec /veh A .610- .709 B 10 - 15 sec /veh B .710- .809 C 15 - 25 sec /veh C .810- .909 D 25 - 35 sec /veh D .910-1.009 E 35 - 50 sec /veh E Above 1.009 F Above 50 sec /veb F Stop - controlled intersection analyzed using HCM delay methodology (Appendix D) Newport Beach Learning Center TPO 19 Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. Traffic Report 029034TPO.doc As Tables 9 and 10 indicate, the project will have no significant impact on the Costa Mesa study intersections under existing and 2013 background conditions during the AM and PM peak hours. Under 2013 cumulative conditions (Table 11), the project will have a significant impact on the intersection of Superior Avenue at 17s' Street in the City of Costa Mesa. This intersection will operate at LOS "E" during the AM peak hour with the addition of project - generated traffic and LOS "F" during the PM peak hour under cumulative conditions with the addition of project - generated traffic. The project adds .010 or more to the ICU value during the AM and PM peak hours. Improvements to mitigate project impacts at the Costa Mesa intersection of Superior Avenue at 17t4 Street consist of restriping the westbound approach to provide a westbound left -turn lane, a shared left - turn/through lane, and a through lane. This would require split phasing in the east -west direction. These improvements would result in LOS "E" during the AM peak hour (ICU = .951) and LOS "D" during the PM peak hour (ICU =.880). Although the AM peak hour remains at unacceptable LOS "E ", the project's impacts are mitigated. The project's fair share of the identified improvement based on the increase in traffic at the intersection is five percent based on the following equation: Project Fair Share = Proiect Peak Hour Traffic 2013 Cumulative Traffic + Project Traffic — Existing Traffic CONCLUSIONS The proposed project, consisting of a 66,610 square -foot leaming center, will generate 194 new AM peak hour trips, 147 new PM peak hour trips, and 1,420 new daily trips. The marginal impact of project traffic on the street system was determined at 14 intersections in the City of Newport Beach. Eight of the study intersections did not pass the City of Newport Beach's TPO one percent analysis; however, these eight study intersections will operate at LOS "C" or better during the AM and PM peak hours, and the project had no significant impact on the study intersections per the TPO guidelines. Ten intersections in the City of Costa Mesa were analyzed for potential impacts from the proposed project. The project has a significant impact on the intersection of Superior Avenue and 17th Street in the City of Costa Mesa under 2013 cumulative conditions. Mitigation measures were identified for this location, and the project's fair share contribution was determined. Newport Beach Learning Center TPO 20 Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. Traffic Report 029034TPO.doc APPENDIX A PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES Newport Beach Learning Center TPO A -1 Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. Traffic Report 029034TPO.doc 1. Placentia & 15th 2. Placentia & Superior 3. Superior & Hospital 4. Placentia & Hospital i6tn 4 os'pital N I " � I p Q A9 .0 PROTECT GGL 4ti mmo y - 6 isro0 Qn s1Te 2 ��n tp ooGt i/ a �L r o �� n�i L 7 3 5 I � / _ nosnra 2 %Z_OG io „;p 4 v 8 ° b. Om 18, Coast Hwy o� 9. Newport & Coast Hwy C a -Mn 9 a Coasts -Iwy o 10 OpG° e" BO 13 lF � i ✓14,8 (lp° W p0 GNZ J4�8 OGO 4 e 0� 1g 12 1. Placentia & 15th 2. Placentia & Superior 3. Superior & Hospital 4. Placentia & Hospital 5. Newport & I os'pital R+� /O� 0p Q 9 y9 GGL 0 mmo y - �/ L 0 ��n tp ooGt o ism �L r o �� n�i L r 0 ncarau 0 �10 14II tl n�i L 0—. �� 0 —�i�tl 2 %Z_OG io „;p OZ h O 92000 o- 100 ° b. Om 18, Coast Hwy SOo° 8. Superior/Balboa & 9. Newport & Coast Hwy 10. Riverside & Coast Hwy w Coasts -Iwy o OpG° °p 4Y J� � i ✓14,8 ✓4� W p0 GNZ J4�8 OGO Oaf 0 e 0� 1g ° J14�Ao ��,.1ti1 zi�l <OgST„ 27 ,n 0 0—� COAST FWY O Z C00.5r ryV O y a � o00 5 —. l O Z GGO 11. Tustin & Coast Hwy 12. Dover & Coast l lwy 13. Newport & Via Lido 14. Newport 8 32nd °t o Nom o�not 0 o i4� o �i�tr o a n�tl tr��T� qtr tr 111 e � e /y 7 000 () Figure A- I AM PEAK. HOUR PROJECT TRIPS Newport Beach Learning Center TPO A -2 Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. Traffic Report 029034TPO- FigA -I.dwg 1. Placentia & 15th 2. Placentia & Superior 3. Superior & Hospital 4. Placentia & Hospital i6tn 4 os'pital N I � I p Q A9 .0 PROTECT J�4r 4ti 6 isro0 Qn s1Te 2 1 Ji4r i/ a e J✓� �L r o 7 3 5 I � / _ nosnra 17 Z n `� o �° 4 v 8 0 o� 0 C a -Mn 9 a a & 8. SupeSuperior/Balboa lbm o�� a & oast Hwy 9. Newport Coast 10. Riverside & Hwy w Coasts -Iwy 10 e" BO 13 lF o °1o4/° (lp° r `O 'Coast 4 12 1. Placentia & 15th 2. Placentia & Superior 3. Superior & Hospital 4. Placentia & Hospital 5. Newport & I os'pital J�4r G 1 Ji4r sm e J✓� �L r o r 0 rvcsrru e 9��fr o� �z o��fr 17 Z n `� o �° 0 6 o /F 0 0 p b. Om 18, oo a st C� wey a & 8. SupeSuperior/Balboa lbm o�� a & oast Hwy 9. Newport Coast 10. Riverside & Hwy w Coasts -Iwy o °1o4/° o a r `O 'Coast ✓ �°_ � L o ° n oz �He B 40 o ti t° r � o�ry ��o4l � � a o �e�r r 3 CO r ° ° o� oasr„ a � o00 e ° 11. Tustin & Coast Hwy 12. Dover & Coast l lwy 13. Newport & Via Lido 14. Newport 8 32nd °t o nom onot o o !4� g J1� 8 a notl f r �� err 3 <otirt,� oo rr e a° 7000 Oda Figure A -2 PM PEAK. HOUR PROJECT TRIPS Newport Beach Learning Center TPO A -3 Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. Traffic Report 029034TPO- FigA -2.dwg 1. Placentia & 15th 2. Placentia & Superior 3. Superior & Hospital 4. Placentia & Hospital i6tn 4 os'pital N I n � I p Q A9 �WU�t .0 PROTECT 4ti 6 isro0 Qn s1Te 2 360 �'O i/ a ry J✓� �L r 33 > 7 3 5 I � / _ nosnra 174ZMNN h si 4 v 8 ^A�o- h 'V =n 0 ° asrnwr 9 a b. Orange & Coast Hwy 7. Prospect & Coast Hwy 8. Superior/Balboa & 9. Newport & Coast Hwy 10 w e" BO 13 lF o (lp° 4 12 1. Placentia & 15th 2. Placentia & Superior 3. Superior & Hospital 4. Placentia & Hospital 5. Newport & I os'pital n F✓�/ 4�1� ��) 9 �WU�t 22 2< 360 �'O i 28 265 X55, J�4r ry J✓� �L r 33 > 1� r ;44 �rnu J�4r 5; :1tP 264: aZ ;2a :1tP 174ZMNN h si 40Z h �� 199Zmnm ^A�o- h 'V =n g y b. Orange & Coast Hwy 7. Prospect & Coast Hwy 8. Superior/Balboa & 9. Newport & Coast Hwy 10. Riverside & Coast Hwy w Coasts -Iwy o c ry4 Nbh4 hJ ✓ J4 8112 J34 L 3096 `' 2a90 1 {jZ 5g X68 1� JO I �� COgSry ti COggry 20� ` 9S ]914 2082 —� CoASr rwv 188 Z 312 rvv 1893 o ^o ti 211 COA5"" aZoo_ v 11. Tustin & Coast Hwy 12. Dover & Coast I Iwy 13. Newport & Via Lido 14. Newport 8 32nd _ °NOjt 469 mn� oon"= '� t 65 35 J{ 1220 J!� _ 2 !4� 327 5 J1� 33 117 s 1912 ��I 257��m COA hw r 1992 CQq Tlavy V�r+1�00 14 1 7000 v6C h �m Figure A -3 EXISTING AM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES Newport Beach Learning Center TPO A -4 Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. Traffic Report 029034TPO- FigA -3.dwg 1. Placentia & 15th 2. Placentia & Superior 3. Superior & Hospital 4. Placentia & Hospital i6tn 4 os'pital N I � I p Q A9 .0 PROTECT 4ti y 6 Qn SITE isro0 2 mss y t 368 1�7 4 '^ i/ a 10 ♦ 4e8 n� 7 3 5 I � / _ nosTiTa 4 v 8 N 0 C asrnwr 9 a 8. SuperiorB alboa & H 9. Newport & Coast wy 10. Riverside & Coast Hwy w Coast IEvy 10 e" BO 13 lF MC (lpp nNN`d 4 16� "ti 132 2645 12 1. Placentia & 15th 2. Placentia & Superior 3. Superior & Hospital 4. Placentia & Hospital 5. Newport & I os'pital 84 48 y / t 8 mss y t 368 1�7 4 '^ t 38 1 ]8 15th J 4 10 ♦ 4e8 n� t08 HCSPIrAL J 21 23 ae 26 � V 0 �Zb ��r 135 4 24 s� 1132 87 ,to N �286 N b. Orange & Coast Hwy 7. Prospect & Coast V" 8. SuperiorB alboa & H 9. Newport & Coast wy 10. Riverside & Coast Hwy w Coast IEvy MC Gm4 nNN`d g8 16� "ti 132 2645 ✓� //�� 16 J�-1323 Jl��2l5g ]I >O ,r S3 J9 I �� COg5T6 127g y COgST6 2S8 L ,n i85a v 226 1261 COAST h1W 159 244 t) COAST gg8 243 COA5" co 9 Z 1373 —,. t o 11. Tuslin & Coast Hwy 12. Dover & Coast I Iwy 13. Newport & Via Lido 14. Newport 8 32nd mm� onL 52 Ip1 JlVr500 t1021 21 IIII ♦Y� 411 lrt J1Vr lOR 19 J r 2235 Viq 145 s 270 1 t i+ COAST nwr 335 ��t� CQ/Tlasr 25 �nw� tr "iVi 2e'Ofry hC ry4 Figure A -4 EXISTING PM PEAK. HOUR. VOLUMES Newport Beach Learning Center TPO A -5 Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. Traffic Report 029034TPO- FigA -4.dwg 1. Placentia & 15th 2. Placentia & Superior 3. Superior & Hospital 4. Placentia & Hospital i6tn 4 os'pital N I n � I p Q A9 mwG°i .0 PROTECT 4ti 6 isro0 Qn s1Te 2 370 145 i/ a ♦ 32 n i t 7 3 5 I � / _ nosnla zot z21 4 v 8 s'. 3� ��1 0 C asrnwr 9 a 6.0,,,.,,c& Coast Hwy 7. Prospect & Coast Hwy 8. Superior/Balboa & 9. Newport & Coast Hwy 10 w e" BO 13 lF o " (lp° 4 N4 12 1. Placentia & 15th 2. Placentia & Superior 3. Superior & Hospital 4. Placentia & Hospital 5. Newport & I os'pital n """ �2o'v mwG°i 75 38 t 55 370 145 28 224 I5th ♦ 32 n i t 44 rvSFru 65 65 T-0771TAL 6S 24 2��fr 14 zot z21 aa z `� zoe zMnm s'. 3� ��1 g ye3"'o�' y 6.0,,,.,,c& Coast Hwy 7. Prospect & Coast Hwy 8. Superior/Balboa & 9. Newport & Coast Hwy 10. Riverside & Coast Hwy w Coasts -Iwy o " N4 wz �� esa �� N��bO 0J 349 67 J14 112 3tt6�j�� i3 J0 COggTy �� 34 2511 0 COggTy i t5- 23 768 2082 twv J12 _* COA6T ��1�� ]91ge� 9S 188Z ryV 1898 -,. ��r ^0 211 COA5"" 4ioo_ e, v 11. Tustin & Coast Hwy 12. Dover & Coast l lwy 13. Newport & Via Lido 14. Newport 8 32nd °NOjt mn� oon"= _ 469 t 65 35 1225 Jl��- _ 242 �� 221 5 117 s 19 1] 257��m COA hw I�r � 1997v COASTfIWy Viq 1100 1 7000 tiv6 h,-m.- Figure A -5 EXISTING PLUS PROJECT AM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES Newport Beach Learning Center TPO A -6 Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. Traffic Report 029034TPO- FigA -5.dwg 1. Placentia & 15th 2. Placentia & Superior 3. Superior & Hospital 4. Placentia & Hospital i6tn 4 os'pital N I � I p a A9 .0 PROTECT 4ti y 6 i?n SITE isro0 2 �ss�y i 377 ""'� i/ a J✓•� �\ r 48a �� n .i r 7 3 5 I � / _ nosTiTa 149Zmo� `h 29es �o 4 v 8 gm° 0 C asrnwr 9 a 6. Orange & Coast Hwy 7. Prospect & Coast Hwy 8. SuperiorBalboa & 9. Newport & Coast Hwy 10 w e" BO 13 lF o 3s (lp° r 4 mm4 12 1. Placentia & 15th 2. Placentia & Superior 3. Superior & Hospital 4. Placentia & Hospital 5. Newport & I os'pital 00 ^6 84 y �ss�y i 377 ""'� i 38 J 5th J�4r J✓•� �\ r 48a �� n .i r 1 r ;b8 ern J�4r ;21 ^so 32 -'i�t� n .i i 206 -Si �T 193��t1 149Zmo� `h 29es �o zaZ h s� 135 93Z�,oN gm° ,app�ahlryll� 91 N 6. Orange & Coast Hwy 7. Prospect & Coast Hwy 8. SuperiorBalboa & 9. Newport & Coast Hwy 10. Riverside & Coast Hwy w Coast IEvy o 3s r bN mm4 C ~2800 ��ti 13 AryNPO l, J1��2,59 ry8B `' 1,� 53 129j 265 COggT6 �/ 62 2]6� � X854 v 226 —1323 1261 -� COAST h1W 159 244 11 ,376 COA5TOv .y wry gg6 243 CORSfryw, yI�� 9 Z -,. 5Zo�,v 11. Tustin & Coast Hwy 12. Dover & Coast l lwy 13. Newport & Via Lido 14. Newport 8 32nd �Ort onL t1az1 198 52 22304 Ip1 JlVr215� I i4` 411 23 J1Vr 19 145 1273 ^ COAST tiw Very 1379 OASTlaW 25 1100 207o. ha -N ryn Figure A -6 EXISTING PLUS PROJECT PM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES Newport Beach Learning Center TPO A -7 Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. Traffic Report 029034TPO- FigA -6.dwg 1. Placentia & 15th 2. Placentia & Superior 3. Superior & Hospital 4. Placentia & Hospital i6tn 4 os'pital N I � I p Q A9 .0 PROTECT 4ti 6 isro0 Qn s1Te 2 \)00]5 i/ a 2? y 7 3 5 I � / _ nosnra 33 > �� t r ;8s ry�rn� J�4r 4 v n�� t264 : RZ 8 174 z �°'� ti sees as z `� 216 z ono 0 C asrnwr 9 a b. Outage & Coast Hwy 7. Prospect & Coast Hwy 10 9. Newport & Coast Hwy e" BO 13 lF Coasts -Iwy o (lpp N NVNO N�bO �Y 4 Ip�N rc� 12 1. Placentia & 15th 2. Placentia & Superior 3. Superior & Hospital 4. Placentia & Hospital 5. Newport & I os'pital V C,9 \)00]5 2? y � 3]8 "'� t 29 268 X55 r J✓� �L 33 > �� t r ;8s ry�rn� J�4r 51 :1tr n�� t264 : RZ ;� :1tr 174 z �°'� ti sees as z `� 216 z ono ati,o- b. Outage & Coast Hwy 7. Prospect & Coast Hwy 8. Superior/Balboa & 9. Newport & Coast Hwy 10. Riverside & Coast Hwy w Coasts -Iwy o N NVNO N�bO �Y Mpz Ip�N rc� 942 35 �� ✓�/ ]1 1268 11 3291 10 v CO � I �� %u 18 1193 2052 CO Isi �� 8991 20, 2177 200 COBASr Fwv 202 I-,. 1 AcOASi ryv �� -yam 219' "!�C 5" ev a�W 96 4Zoo_ 11. Tuslin & Coast Hwy 12. Dover & Coast l lwy 13. Newport & Via Lido 14. Newport 8 32nd on�t _yF 495 mn oont 65 ��— 36 1362 J1�r1344 �� cam- 327 5 !— 33 132 2081 26 Zeno COAST HV✓Y r A I�r 1� Viq L,00 �r 2,804 I�rCQATlaw 1 Z000 2� 56% v6 h,-m Figure A -7 2013 BACKGROUND AM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES Newport Beach Learning Center TPO A -8 Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. Traffic Report 029034TPO- FigA -7.dwg 1. Placentia & 15th 2. Placentia & Superior 3. Superior & Hospital 4. Placentia & Hospital i6tn 4 os'pital N I c � I p Q A9 .0 PROTECT 4ti ��o— 6 Qn SITE isro0 2 ]YJ i2 ��" f 1]4 ry� _ i/ a r 10 " r 44e ♦ n L /� 7 3 5 I � / _ nosnra 132 Z�m� ��L 2�3 � 4 v 8 0 S� 0 C asrnwr 9 a 8. SuperiorBalboa & 9. Newport & Coast Hwy 10. Riverside & Coast Hwy w Coast IEvy o 10 s e" BO 13 lF (lpp 4 ✓4� 12 1. Placentia & 15th 2. Placentia & Superior 3. Superior & Hospital 4. Placentia & Hospital 5. Newport & I os'pital c �L 848 ��o— t 88 ]YJ i2 ��" f 1]4 ry� _ i ,a5 ism r 10 " r 44e ♦ n L /� r na rvcsrau Ji�r tzfi ,1 23 —�I n L 99 S �4 204Z 324 ,1 132 Z�m� ��L 2�3 � � 235Z��1 � 0 S� _ b. Orange & Coast Hwy q 7. Prospect & Coast Hwy 8. SuperiorBalboa & 9. Newport & Coast Hwy 10. Riverside & Coast Hwy w Coast IEvy o s ey ✓14. ' ✓4� " 299 12y36 `'. SS ,3 13 2846 d 68 J4�,506 J14�2376 1A 20 � �1 COggr6 y COggr6 3p y `,995 ,061 v 235 1387 —� CoASr rwv 172 Z 254 _* A 11 1566 COA5T � "2 wp 256 COA5"" b A,% v —,. � I a 11. Tuslin & Coast Hwy 12. Dover & Coast l lwy 13. Newport & Via Lido 14. Newport 8 32nd 2 4C JlOI V l -1074 2352 id I 4� ` 42„ J1I V f 198 39 t a 53 v WwS nwJ r 3 /s" 8 15]1 26 21 Figure A -8 2013 BACKGROUND PM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES Newport Beach Learning Center TPO A -9 Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. Traffic Report 029034TPO- FigA -8.dwg 1. Placentia & 15th 2. Placentia & Superior 3. Superior & Hospital 4. Placentia & Hospital i6tn 4 os'pital N I � I p Q A9 m�utOi .0 PROTECT 4ti Cee, 6 isro0 Qn s1Te 2 388 145 i/ a r < w Jl� �\ r 32 /� n .i t 7 3 5 I � / _ nosTiTa 201ZrypN `� RBS. ao- 4 v � 8 3 0 C asrnwr 9 a b. Outage & Coast Hwy 7. Prospect & Coast Hwy 8. Superior/Balboa & 9. Newport & Coast Hwy 10 w e" BO 13 lF o (lp° 4 �0° N 4 12 1. Placentia & 15th 2. Placentia & Superior 3. Superior & Hospital 4. Placentia & Hospital 5. Newport & I os'pital 14�,. J2s'v m�utOi 75 38 Cee, ♦ t 55 388 145 29 234 i5w r < w Jl� �\ r 32 /� n .i t r 15T9 1C 11TAI r 68 65��fr n .1 t 264 —Si �\ 129r 201ZrypN `� RBS. ao- 40Z h 6 225Znno � 3 b. Outage & Coast Hwy 7. Prospect & Coast Hwy 8. Superior/Balboa & 9. Newport & Coast Hwy 10. Riverside & Coast Hwy w Coasts -Iwy o NNVNQ �0° N 4 � ^h m�z 'OCN� 11��r 9gp 18 ��ti, 35 0 vJJ ✓ e]K J4r 886 M � 1266 JOZ' / I �r COq�ry 2JJ 3 �I COgsTy t61 2g �� 841 104, 99 —� COT h1W 2122 AS 200 324 18 ryV 2072 h--m ti 219 COASfry�, Z y t r 4 9� 11. Tustin & Coast Hwy 12. Dover & Coast l lwy 13. Newport & Via Lido 14. Newport 8 32nd N 2 ° _a� oNOjt 495 mn� oont 65 -- 1362 J✓•��- 1356 44 �� 32 5 22 t 2086 � � r COn nwr ef�(, 1 ♦ V�q 44 2185 v�} r CQATlavy 267nno lJpp Ir 2� �k Figure A -9 2013 BACKGROUND PLUS PROJECT AM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES Newport Beach Learning Center TPO A -10 Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. Traffic Report 029034TPO- FigA -9.dwg 1. Placentia & 15th 2. Placentia & Superior 3. Superior & Hospital 4. Placentia & Hospital i6tn 4 os'pital N I c � I p Q A9 .0 PROTECT n t 84 y 6 Qn SITE isro0 2 �S� y ao1 ao a so J✓� �L r 48a > �� r 7 3 5 I � / _ nosnla 149 Z m h `�oB w 4 v 8 c, 0 C asrnwr 9 a b. Orange & Coast Hwy 7. Prospect & Coast Hwy 8. SuperiorBalboa & 9. Newport & Coast Hwy 10 w e" y0 13 /F o (lpp 4 12 1. Placentia & 15th 2. Placentia & Superior 3. Superior & Hospital 4. Placentia & Hospital 5. Newport & I os'pital c n t 84 y �S� y ao1 ao �5 J�4r so J✓� �L r 48a > �� r 1� r 06 �rn� J�4r ;�6 32 :1tP nI � r206 RZ 140 :1tP 149 Z m h `�oB w 2, 241 c, N b. Orange & Coast Hwy 7. Prospect & Coast Hwy 8. SuperiorBalboa & 9. Newport & Coast Hwy 10. Riverside & Coast Hwy w Coast IEvy o ✓14�360> ✓413 o� e "" 128 6 �'' SS ]404 2858 J4—,zz J14�238< '� 1� 20 I �� COggTB y COggTB 518 19's ` 1995 1051 235 1387 —� COASi M1WY 172 Z 11 254 j 1569 ��i by m mM 255 OOA5" v —,. a 11. Tuslin & Coast Hwy 12. Dover & Coast l lwy 13. Newport & Via Lido 14. Newport 8 32nd a o j 22 o "L Sa "t1074 JlVr2352 2370 +(r` 411 `COI J1V<— i 108 36 J{ r2 0 185 ti`e'r"" 1� 15]4 --i 1tir,CQATlas, 26Oman 00 tr ,y2� m�r 21 7o�ry 51, ia,a ryn Figure A -10 2013 BACKGROUND PLUS PROJECT PM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES Newport Beach Learning Center TPO A -1 I Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. Traffic Report 029034TPO- FigA- l0.dwg 1. Placentia & 15th 2. Placentia & Superior 3. Superior & Hospital 4. Placentia & Hospital i6tn 4 os'pital N I er � I p Q A9 .0 PROTECT 4ti 6 isro0 Qn s1Te 2 379 145 ""'� i/ a r 4 N It, �L r 32 �� n�i L 7 3 5 I � / _ nosnla 1]4ZMpN 4, ^O 4 v 8 b� ° 0 C asrnwr 9 a b. Orange & Coast Hwy 7. Prospect & Coast Hwy 8. Superior/Balboa & 9. Newport & Coast Hwy 10 w e" BO 13 lF o (lp° 4 ✓4� 35 12 1. Placentia & 15th 2. Placentia & Superior 3. Superior & Hospital 4. Placentia & Hospital 5. Newport & I os'pital er 75 115 ♦ t 55 379 145 ""'� t 33 234 i 5th J 4 r 4 N It, �L r 32 �� n�i L r 159 rvCSFnnL J b r 72 63, 213, n�i L264v �V 130 v�t� 1]4ZMpN 4, ^O 4 0 Z Z wm 217 NC,O ^F�NQ Bal2S b� ° °Q 'NN b. Orange & Coast Hwy 7. Prospect & Coast Hwy 8. Superior/Balboa & 9. Newport & Coast Hwy 10. Riverside & Coast Hwy w Coast IEvy o ✓14 „es ✓4� 35 ✓ J1, J1� -14;8 3388 y 1� JO �� 2 59 y 1 qje �� 919 1041 2266 —� GUA T tWY 324 I COgSPry COgSPry 217 9gOA5" 206 —y 2188 —,. cOASi ryv Zoo_ 11. Tuslin & Coast Hwy 12. Dover & Coast l lwy 13. Newport & Via Lido 14. Newport 8 32nd _ ° ° `�p1t °mn o�nt _aF 551 65 --1536 J✓•�r 544 327 5 — 33 2194 26 �nno 1 t r cow ti" tr 441 1� STlaW tr VAN L,�O 6 , 2296v I�tPCQ Figure A- 11 2013 CUMULATIVE AM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES Newport Beach Learning Center TPO A -12 Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. Traffic Report 029034TPO- FigA- 1 l.dwg 1. Placentia & 15th 2. Placentia & Superior 3. Superior & Hospital 4. Placentia & Hospital i6tn 4 os'pital N I � MN� I p Q A9 c�N .0 PROTECT J�4r 4ti 6 isro0 Qn s1Te 2 mss' y 395 1� ;;e `✓° J�4r i/ a r Jl� �L 48a > 7 3 5 I � / _ nosTiTa 132 Z�nr 29�d � 4 v 8 0 C asrnwr 9 a S. Superior/Balboa & 9. Newport & Coast Hwy 10. Riverside & Coast Hwy w Coasts -Iwy o 10 e" BO 13 lF �N^]O MC (lpp �YY �0�^ vJJ N "� aW C�Z pN°� 4 „�4� 1„ 3pa�0/ISPy 12 1. Placentia & 15th 2. Placentia & Superior 3. Superior & Hospital 4. Placentia & Hospital 5. Newport & I os'pital MN� V� 016 Sl9 c�N J�4r 2;0 mss' y 395 1� ;;e `✓° J�4r i 58 ;4b �5 r Jl� �L 48a > r 7o :1tP 2os �Z 14. :1tP 132 Z�nr 29�d � 24Z h er 237Zm�� b. Orange & Coast Hwy N 7. Prospect & Coast Hwy S. Superior/Balboa & 9. Newport & Coast Hwy 10. Riverside & Coast Hwy w Coasts -Iwy o �N^]O MC WyyO 4l4 �YY �0�^ vJJ N "� aW C�Z pN°� s14 �A3i �> „�4� 1„ 3pa�0/ISPy ✓ 209 J4�2o�8 J14 2532 820 I �l SCOggTy 1644 ti� ],933 �� 238 176 -y COAST twv 1778 ITryv 273 COA5"" 9 -� t I 11. Tuslin & Coast Hwy 12. Dover & Coat l lwy 13. Newport & Via Lido 14. Newport 8 32nd Wo' a o N 54 i° JlVl t1131 2552 — i ` 4 NO1Vt 168 1 9 26544 r 23 As0 v� 87 s 1663 5nwJ 1o� 78 3 r��CQATlavy 26Oman 21 7o.-N ia,a ryn Figure A -12 2013 CUMULATIVE PM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES Newport Beach Learning Center TPO A -13 Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. Traffic Report 029034TPO- FigA- 12.dwg 1. Placentia & 15th 2. Placentia & Superior 3. Superior & Hospital 4. Placentia & Hospital i6tn 4 os'pital N I e1 � I p 4 A9 .0 PROTECT 4ti 6 isro0 Qn slTe 2 i/ a 75 131 �y / ♦ t 55 7 3 5 I � / _ nosTiTa r 32 oU� IIAL /js r 159 rvCSFnnL 4 v oU�rTAL 61 S 264 -� R\ 8 201 Z ��,-N h RBS. p ^o- 40 Z h 226 Z mwo 0 C asrnwr 9 a b. Orange & Coast Hwy 7. Prospect & Coast Hwy 10 9. Newport & Coast Hwy e" BO 13 lF Coasts -lwy o (lp° NNaNO ^N � 4 n�NK 12 1. Placentia & 15th 2. Placentia & Superior 3. Superior & Hospital 4. Placentia & Hospital 5. Newport & I os'pital e1 75 131 �y / ♦ t 55 ��9 y 389 145 ""'� t 33 234 i5w r 4 " R\ r 32 oU� IIAL /js r 159 rvCSFnnL r 72 63 25] -��I oU�rTAL 61 S 264 -� R\ 217 130 I 201 Z ��,-N h RBS. p ^o- 40 Z h 226 Z mwo b. Orange & Coast Hwy 7. Prospect & Coast Hwy 8. Superior/Balboa & 9. Newport & Coast Hwy 10. Riverside & Coast Hwy w Coasts -lwy o NNaNO ^N � �NZ n�NK h J�Y n ��it �ti�3 �� 35 ✓ J1, 10411 ��-1443 3409 y 1,�A 4' J0 ��l COggTy 22 &0 y 1434 COggTy �9 �y 9019 2266 -� COAST h1W -y 32n' 18 CO uT "n 21193"' 99 245 �I��COA3fryw, 9W 206 0v 2193 -,. t� 4ioo� I I. Tustin & Coast Hwy 12. Dover & Coast I Iwy 13. Newport & Via Lido 14. Newport 8 32nd _ ° ° °Nt p1t Lo _ _yF 551 °"' 65 � --1536 J✓•�r 1532 44 �� 327 5 J��i— 33 2199 26 �nno t r cow ti" tr 4, 1� STlaW tr VAN L,�6 6 , 2301 v I�tPCQ 1 S2^ ,ySR p Figure A -I3 2013 CUMULATIVE PLUS PROJECT AM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES Newport Beach Learning Center TPO A -14 Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. Traffic Report 029034TPO- FigA- 13.dwg 1. Placentia & 15th Su i o 2. Placentia & Superior p^a e` r 3. Superior o�s po ita l Hy 4 . Placentia & Hospital i6tn 4 olt spti ta l N I b � *_ MJN I p Q A9 � .0 PROTECT ° � 4 4ti y 6 isro0 Qn s1Te 2 s4 Y`i y 14706 4 " J_ i/ a Jl� L � 48 Tun 7 3 5 I � / _ nosnla 19 49 T�r I O B ry& ^O� ry 4 v 8 0 C asrnwr 9 a S. Superior/Balboa & 9. Newport & Coast Hwy 10. Riverside & Coast Hwy w Coasts -Iwy 10 e" BO 13 lF L (lpp y0 h v o9 4 � � ,3� 3052 12 1. Placentia & 15th Su i o 2. Placentia & Superior p^a e` r 3. Superior o�s po ita l Hy 4 . Placentia & Hospital 56. & I olt spti ta l b *_ MJN � Fl h `r as� �� v � ° � 4 _ 84 21 0 y 8 s4 Y`i y 14706 4 " J_ 58 ;4I 5th Jl� L � 48 Tun r �Newport 0 : t r ] 1t o s : Z 4 1� r 19 49 T�r I O B ry& ^O� ry er 243 e, W b. Outage & Coast Hwy N 7. Prospect & Coast Hwy S. Superior/Balboa & 9. Newport & Coast Hwy 10. Riverside & Coast Hwy w Coasts -Iwy L � y0 h v o9 s14 3207 � � ,3� 3052 ✓// "� I J1, 2078 Ji4 Z257s $ 20 1 �� COggTy ]66 2 �� COggTy 2ry09 1,931 �` 238 1569 —� COASi F.1w 176 —y 17816 A �ASi h1v 273 COA5" ev 9W �N 9 -y l 11. Tuslin & Coast Hwy 12. Dover & Coat l lwy 13. Newport & Via Lido 14. Newport 8 32nd onL 54 i °t255 JlV_2552 +(r` 411 Irt J1V<— 10>z 36 J x2656 23 Viq 187 666 cn'S h" r 786 CQ/ Tliwr 26Oman 21'Ofry hC ry4 Figure A -14 2013 CUMULATIVE PLUS PROJECT PM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES Newport Beach Learning Center TPO A -15 Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. Traffic Report 029034TPO- FigA- 14.dwg INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION Peak hour intersection volume /capacity ratios are calculated by means of intersection capacity utilization (ICU) values. ICU calculations were performed for the intersections shown in Figure B -1. For simplicity, signalization is assumed at each intersection. Precise ICU calculations of existing non - signalized intersections would require a more detailed analysis. The procedure is based on the critical movement methodology, and shows the amount of capacity utilized by each critical move. A capacity of 1600 vehicles per hour (VPH) per lane is assumed with no clearance interval. Calculations are carried out to three decimal places. A "de- facto' right -turn lane is used in the ICU calculation for cases where a curb lane is wide enough to separately serve both thru and right -turn traffic (typically with a width of 19 feet from curb to outside of thru -lane with parking prohibited during peak periods). Such lanes are treated the same as striped right -turn lanes during the ICU calculations, but they are denoted on the ICU calculation worksheets using the letter "d" in place of a numerical entry for right -turn lanes. The methodology also incorporates a check for right -turn capacity utilization. Both right- turn -on- green (RTOG) and right - turn -on -red (RTOR) capacity availability are calculated and checked against the total right -turn capacity need. If insufficient capacity is available, then an adjustment is made to the total capacity utilization value. The following example shows how this adjustment is made. Example For Northbound Right 1. Right- Turn -On -Green (RTOG) If NBT is critical move, then: RTOG = V/C (NBT) Otherwise, RTOG = V/C (NBL) + V/C (SBT) - V/C (SBL) 2. Right - Turn -On -Red (RTOR) If WBL is critical move, then: RTOR = V/C (WBL) Otherwise, RTOR = V/C (EBL) + V/C (WBT) - V/C (EBT) Newport Beach Learning Center TPO B -1 Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. Traffic Report 029034TPO.doc Z 0 F U O Z O u F � U en u: F z 0 F 0 3 f. A � o u, C � v 0 c w� c � e O a v v cn v c � v � 9 v r � c a v t zF e � ; 0° °O °s O i I i °e. e� i e ea ♦ o Jy ♦ \JJ ♦♦ 1�Qd MAN — o � /O m N b 4 -\ MiNgOVIJ m m s = r- r N Q QP L I�j �P VJAOJNOW e m e m m � W W e O m c✓ m 0 pR05PE� r Z 0 F U O Z O u F � U en u: F z 0 F 0 3 f. A � o u, C � v 0 c w� c � e O a v v cn v c � v � 9 v r � c a v t zF 3. Right -Turn Overlap Adjustment If the northbound right is assumed to overlap with the adjacent westbound left, adjustments to the RTOG and RTOR values are made as follows: RTOG = RTOG + V/C (WBL) RTOR = RTOR - V/C (WBL) 4. Total Right -Turn Capacity (RTC) Availability For NBR RTC = RTOG + factor x RTOR Where factor = RTOR saturation flow factor (75 %) Right -turn adjustment is then as follows: Additional ICU = V/C (NBR) - RTC A zero or negative value indicates that adequate capacity is available and no adjustment is necessary. A positive value indicates that the available RTOR and RTOG capacity does not adequately accommodate the right -turn V /C, therefore the right -turn is essentially considered to be a critical movement. In such cases, the right -turn adjustment is noted on the ICU worksheet and it is included in the total capacity utilization value. When it is determined that a right -turn adjustment is required for more than one right -turn movement, the word "multi" is printed on the worksheet instead of an actual right -turn movement reference, and the right -turn adjustments are cumulatively added to the total capacity utilization value. In such cases, further operational evaluation is typically carried out to determine if under actual operational conditions, the critical right -turns would operate simultaneously, and therefore a right -turn adjustment credit should be applied. Shared Lane V/C Methodology For intersection approaches where shared usage of a lane is permitted by more than one turn movement (e.g., left/thru, thm/right, tef /thru /right), the individual turn volumes are evaluated to determine whether dedication of the shared lane is warranted to any one given turn movement. The following example demonstrates how this evaluation is carried out: Example for Shared Left/Thru Lane 1. Average Lane Volume (ALV) ALV = Left -Turn Volume + Thm Volume Total Left + Thm Approach Lanes (including shared lane) Newport Beach Learning Center TPO B -3 Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. Traffic Report 029034TPO.doc 2. ALV for Each Approach ALV (Left) = Left -Turn Volume Left Approach Lanes (including shared lane) ALV (Thru) = Thru Volume Thru Approach Lanes (including shared lane) 3. Lane Dedication is Warranted If ALV (Left) is greater than ALV then full dedication of the shared lane to the left-turn approach is warranted. Left -turn and thru V/C ratios for this case are calculated as follows: V/C (Left) = Left -Turn Volume Left Approach Capacity (including shared lane) V/C (Thru) = Thru Volume Thru Approach Capacity (excluding shared lane) Similarly, if ALV (Thru) is greater than ALV then full dedication to the thru approach is warranted, and left -turn and thru V/C ratios are calculated as follows: V/C (Left) = Left -Turn Volume Left Approach Capacity (excluding shared lane) V/C (Thru) = Thru Volume Thru Approach Capacity (including shared lane) 4. Lane Dedication is not Warranted If ALV (Left) and ALV (Thru) are both less than ALV, the left/thru lane is assumed to be truly shared and each left, left /thru or thru approach lane carries an evenly distributed volume of traffic equal to ALV. A combined left /thru V/C ratio is calculated as follows: V/C (Left /Thru) = Left -Turn Volume + Thru Volume Total Left + Thru Approach Capacity (including shared lane) This V/C (Left /Thru) ratio is assigned as the V/C (Thru) ratio for the critical movement analysis and ICU summary listing. If split phasing has not been designated for this approach, the relative proportion of V/C (Thru) that is attributed to the left -turn volume is estimated as follows: If approach has more than one left -turn (including shared lane), then: V/C (Left) = V/C (Thru) Newport Beach Learning Center TPO B-4 Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. Traffic Report 029034TPO.doc If approach has only one left -tum lane (shared lane), then: V/C (Left) = Left -Turn Volume Single Approach Lane Capacity If this left -turn movement is determined to be a critical movement, the V/C (Left) value is posted in brackets on the ICU summary printout. These same steps are carried out for shared thru/right lanes. If full dedication of a shared thm/right lane to the right -turn movement is warranted, the right -turn V/C value calculated in step three is checked against the RTOR and RTOG capacity availability if the option to include right -turns in the V/C ratio calculations is selected. If the V/C value that is determined using the shared lane methodology described here is reduced due to RTOR and RTOG capacity availability, the V/C value for the thru /right lanes is posted in brackets. When an approach contains more than one shared lane (e.g., left /thru and thm/right), steps one and two listed above are carried out for the three turn movements combined. Step four is carried out if dedication is not warranted for either of the shared lanes. If dedication of one of the shared lanes is warranted to one movement or another, step three is carried out for the two movements involved, and then steps one through four are repeated for the two movements involved in the other shared lane. Newport Beach Learning Center TPO B -5 Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. Traffic Report 029034TPO.doc 1. Placentia & 15th Existing (2009) Existing + Project AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1 1600 131 .082* 71 .044* NET 2 3200 425 .138 440 .143 NBR 0 0 15 17 SBL 1 1600 25 .016 14 .009 SET 2 3200 431 .141* 394 .133* SBR 0 0 19 30 EBL 0 0 57 27 EST 1 1600 51 .176* 23 .114* EBR 0 0 174 132 WBL 0 0 4 (.002)* 10 (.006)* WET I 1600 22 .016 4B .036 WBR 1 1600 75 .047 84 .053 Existing + Project TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .401 .297 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .446 .330 2013 Background AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1 1600 162 .101* 98 .061* NET 2 3200 425 .138 440 .143 NBR 0 0 15 17 SBL 1 1600 25 .016 14 .009 SET 2 3200 431 .141* 394 .133* SBR 0 0 19 30 EBL 0 0 57 27 EDT 1 1600 65 .202* 32 .130* EBR 0 0 201 149 WBL 0 0 4 (.002)* 10 (.006) *I WET 1 1600 38 .D26 61 .044 WBR 1 1600 75 .047 84 .053 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .401 .297 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .446 .330 2013 Background TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .402 2013 Background + Project AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1 1600 131 .082* 71 .044* NET 2 3200 429 .139 446 .145 HER 0 0 15 17 SBL 1 1600 25 .016 14 .OD9 SET 2 3200 436 .142* 396 .133* SBR 0 0 19 30 EBL 0 0 57 27 EDT 1 1600 51 .176* 23 .114* EBR 0 0 174 132 WBL 0 0 4 j.0021* 10 (.006)* WET 1 1600 22 .D16 48 .036 WBR 1 1600 75 .047 84 .053 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .402 2013 Background + Project 297 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .447 .330 Newport Beach Learning Center TPO Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. Traffic Report B -6 029034TPO- AppB.pdf AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V /C. NBL 1 1600 162 .101* 98 .061* NET 2 3200 429 .139 446 .145 NBR 0 0 15 17 SBL 1 1600 25 .016 14 .009 SET 2 3200 436 .142* 396 .133* SBR 0 0 19 30 EBL 0 0 57 27 EST 1 1600 65 .202* 32 .130* EBR 0 0 201 149 WBL 0 0 4 (.002)* 10 (.006)* WET 1 1600 38 .026 61 .044 WBR 1 1600 75 .047 84 .053 297 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .447 .330 Newport Beach Learning Center TPO Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. Traffic Report B -6 029034TPO- AppB.pdf 1. Placentia 6 15th 2013 Cumulative TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .537 2013 Cumulative + Project AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1 1600 131 .082* 71 .044* NET 2 3200 441 .143 483 .156 NBR 0 0 15 17 SBL 1 1600 25 .016 14 .009 SET 2 3200 468 .153* 421 .143* SEP. D 0 21 37 EEL 0 0 63 31 EST 1 1600 243 .300* 17D .2D8* EBR 0 0 174 132 WBL 0 0 4 {.002)* 10 {.006)* WET 1 1600 115 .074 259 .168 WBR 1 160D 75 .047 84 .053 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .537 2013 Cumulative + Project 401 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .582 .434 Newport Beach Learning Center TPO Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. Traffic Report B -7 029034TPO- AppB.pdf AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1 1600 162 .101* 98 .061* NET 2 3200 441 .143 4B3 .156 NBR 0 0 15 17 SBL 1 1600 25 .016 14 .009 SET 2 3200 468 .153* 421 .143* SBR 0 0 21 37 EEL D 0 63 31 EST 1 1600 257 .326* 179 .224* EBR 0 0 201 149 WBL 0 0 4 1.002)* 10 ).006) *i WET 1 1600 131 .D84 272 .176 WBR 1 1600 75 .047 84 .053 401 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .582 .434 Newport Beach Learning Center TPO Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. Traffic Report B -7 029034TPO- AppB.pdf 2. Placentia 6 Superior Existing (2009) Existing + Project AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 0 0 8 {.005)* 41 NET 2 3200 227 .D93 287 .129* NBR 0 0 61 86 SBL 1 1600 18 .011 11 .007* SET 1 1600 325 .203* 166 .104 SEP. 1 1600 268 .168 316 .198 EEL 1 1600 346 .216 224 .140* EST 2 3200 BD3 .261* 419 .138 EBR 0 0 33 22 WBL 1 1600 57 .036* 57 .036 WET 2 3200 243 .079 664 .211* WBR 0 0 9 11 Existing + Project TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .505 .487 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .522 .501 2013 Background AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 0 0 8 (.005)* 41 NET 2 3200 237 .096 296 .132* NBR 0 0 61 86 SBL 1 1600 18 .011 11 .007* SET 1 1600 334 .209* 172 .108 SBR 1 1600 286 .179 328 .205 EEL 1 1600 367 .229* 242 .151* SET 2 3200 803 .261 419 .138 EBR 0 0 33 22 WBL 1 1600 57 .036 57 .036 WET 2 3200 243 .079* 664 .211* WBR 0 0 9 11 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .505 .487 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .522 .501 2013 Background TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .525 2013 Background + Project AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 0 0 8 1.0051* 41 NET 2 3200 231 .101 293 .141* HER 0 0 85 118 SBL 1 1600 18 .011 11 .007* SET 1 1600 330 .206* 168 .105 SBR 1 1600 268 .168 316 .198 EEL 1 1600 346 .216 224 .140* EST 2 3200 833 .271* 459 .150 EBR 0 0 33 22 WBL 1 1600 69 .043* 112 .070 WET 2 3200 258 .083 733 .233* WBR D 0 9 11 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .525 2013 Background + Project 521 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .531 .535 Newport Beach Learning Center TPO Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. Traffic Report B -8 029034TPO- AppB.pdf AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 0 0 8 (.D05)* 41 NET 2 3200 241 .104 302 .144* NBR D 0 B5 11B SBL i 1600 18 .011 11 .007* SET 1 1600 339 .212* 174 .109 SBR 1 1600 286 .179 328 .205 EBL 1 1600 367 .229 242 .151* EST 2 3200 833 .271* 459 .150 EBR 0 0 33 22 WBL 1 1600 69 .043* 112 .070 WET 2 3200 258 .083 733 .233* WBR 0 0 9 11 521 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .531 .535 Newport Beach Learning Center TPO Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. Traffic Report B -8 029034TPO- AppB.pdf 2. Placentia 6 Superior 2013 Cumulative TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .543 2013 Cumulative + Project AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 0 0 8 {.005]* 41 NET 2 3200 232 .102 296 .142* NBR 0 0 85 118 SBL 1 1600 18 .011 11 .007* SET 1 1600 332 .208* 171 .107 SEP. 1 1600 297 .186 338 .211 EEL 1 1600 357 .223 258 .161* EST 2 320D 884 .287* 491 .160 EBR 0 0 33 22 WBL 1 1600 69 .D43* 112 .070 WET 2 3200 273 .D8B 789 .250* WBR 0 0 9 11 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .543 2013 Cumulative + Project 560 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .548 .575 Newport Beach Learning Center TPO Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. Traffic Report B -9 029034TPO- AppB.pdf AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 0 0 8 1.005]* 41 NET 2 3200 242 .105 305 .145* NBR 0 0 85 118 SBL 1 1600 18 .011 11 .007* SET 1 1600 341 .213* 177 .111 SBR 1 1600 315 .197 350 .219 EEL 1 1600 378 .236 276 .173* EST 2 3200 884 .287* 491 .160 EBR 0 0 33 22 WBL 1 1600 69 .D43* 112 .070 WET 2 3200 273 .D8B 789 .250* WBR 0 0 9 11 560 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .548 .575 Newport Beach Learning Center TPO Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. Traffic Report B -9 029034TPO- AppB.pdf 3. Superior 6 Hospital Existing (2009) Existing + Project AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1 1600 0 .000 0 .000 NET 2 3200 1390 .551* 600 .219* NBR 0 0 374 102 SBL 1 1600 72 .045* 76 .048* SET 2 3200 434 .136 797 .249 SBR 0 0 0 0 EBL 0 0 0 0 EST 1 1600 0 .000* 0 .000* EBR 0 0 0 0 WBL 2 3200 32 .010* 448 .140* WET 0 0 0 0 WBR 1 1600 55 .034 88 .055 Existing + Project TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .606 .407 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .613 .413 2013 Background AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1 1600 0 .000 0 .000 NET 2 3200 1411 .558* 618 .225* NBR 0 0 374 102 SBL 1 1600 72 .045* 76 .048* SET 2 3200 452 .141 809 .253 SBR 0 0 0 0 EBL 0 0 0 0 EDT 1 1600 0 .000* 0 .000* EBR 0 0 0 0 WBL 2 3200 32 .010* 44B .140* WET 0 0 0 0 WBR 1 1600 55 .034 88 .055 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .606 .407 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .613 .413 2013 Background TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .616 2013 Background + Project AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1 1600 0 .000 0 .000 NET 2 3200 1420 .561* 640 .232* HER 0 0 374 102 SBL 1 1600 72 .045* 76 .048* SET 2 3200 449 .140 866 .271 SBR 0 0 0 0 EBL 0 0 0 0 EDT 1 1600 0 .000* 0 .000* EBR 0 0 0 0 WBL 2 3200 32 .010* 448 .140* WET 0 0 0 0 WBR 1 1600 55 .034 88 .055 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .616 2013 Background + Project 420 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .622 .426 Newport Beach Learning Center TPO Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. Traffic Report B -10 029034TPO- AppB.pdf AM PK HOUR Re PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1 1600 0 .000 0 .000 NET 2 3200 1441 .567* 65B .238* NBR 0 0 374 102 SBL 1 1600 72 .045* 76 .048* SET 2 3200 467 .146 87B .274 SBR 0 0 0 0 EBL 0 0 0 0 EST 1 1600 0 .000* 0 .000* EBR 0 0 0 0 WBL 2 3200 32 .010* 448 .140* WET 0 0 0 0 WBR 1 1600 55 .034 88 .055 420 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .622 .426 Newport Beach Learning Center TPO Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. Traffic Report B -10 029034TPO- AppB.pdf 3. Superior 6 Hospital 2013 Cumulative TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .635 2013 Cumulative + Project AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1 1600 0 .000 0 .000 NET 2 3200 1482 .580* 706 .253* NER 0 0 374 102 SBL 1 1600 72 .045* 76 .048* SET 2 3200 493 .154 944 .295 SEP. 0 0 0 0 EBL 0 0 0 0 EST 1 1600 0 .000* 0 .000* EBR 0 0 0 0 WBL 2 3200 32 .010* 448 .140* WET 0 0 0 0 WBR 1 1600 55 .034 88 .055 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .635 2013 Cumulative + Project 441 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .642 .446 Newport Beach Learning Center TPO Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. Traffic Report B -11 029034TPO- AppB.pdf AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1 1600 0 .000 0 .000 NET 2 3200 1503 .587* 724 .258* NBR 0 0 374 102 SBL 1 1600 72 .045* 76 .048* SET 2 3200 511 .160 956 .299 SBR 0 0 0 0 EEL 0 0 0 0 EST 1 1600 0 .000* 0 .000* EBR 0 0 0 0 WBL 2 3200 32 .010* 448 .140* WET 0 0 0 0 WBR 1 1600 55 .034 88 .055 441 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .642 .446 Newport Beach Learning Center TPO Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. Traffic Report B -11 029034TPO- AppB.pdf 4. Placentia 6 Hospital Existing (2009) AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 0. 0 15 27 NET 1 1600 20 .022* 47 .046* NBR 1 1600 71 .044 98 .061 SBL 1.5 311 (.120)* 307 {,127)* SET 0.5 3200 41 .120 25 .127 SEP. 0 31 75 EEL 1 1600 61 .038 99 .062* EST 2 3200 264 .095* 206 .072 EBR O 0 40 24 WBL 1 1600 144 .090* 108 .068 WET 2 3200 145 .091 174 .109* WBR 0 0 360 .225 368 .230 Right Turn Adjustment WBR .026* TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .327 .370 2013 Background AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 0 D 15 27 NET I 1600 30 .D2B* 61 .055* NBR 1 1600 83 .052 117 .073 SBL 1.5 320 (.125)* 34B (.145)* SET 0.5 3200 49 .125 41 .145 SIR 0 31 75 EBL 1 1600 61 .038 99 .062* EST 2 3200 264 .095* 206 .072 EBR 0 0 40 24 WBL 1 1600 159 .099* 116 .073 WET 2 3200 145 .091 174 .109* WBR 0 0 378 .236 392 .245 Right Turn Adjustment WBR .027* TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .347 .398 Existing + Project AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 0 0 15 27 NET 1 1600 20 .022* 47 .046* NBR 1 1600 71 .044 98 .061 SBL 1.5 320 (.122)* 313 {.129)* SET 0.5 3200 41 .123 25 .129 SBR 0 31 75 EEL 1 1600 61 .038 99 .062* EST 2 3200 264 .095* 206 .072 EBR 0 0 40 24 WBL 1 1600 144 .090* 10B .068 WET 2 3200 145 .D91 174 .109* WBR 0 0 370 .231 377 .236 Right Turn Adjustment WBR .030* TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .329 .376 2013 Background + Project TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .350 .405 Newport Beach Learning Center TPO Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. Traffic Report B -12 029034TPO- AppB.pdf AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL D 0 15 27 NET 1 1600 30 .02B* 61 .055* HER 1 1600 83 .052 117 .073 SBL 1.5 329 (.128)* 354 {.147)* SET 0.5 3200 49 .126 41 .147 SBR 0 31 75 EBL 1 1600 61 .038 99 .062* EST 2 3200 264 .095* 206 .072 PER 0 0 40 24 WBL 1 1600 159 .099* 116 .073 WET 2 3200 145 .091 174 .109* WBR 0 0 .388 .243 401 .251 Right Turn Adjustment WBR .032* TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .350 .405 Newport Beach Learning Center TPO Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. Traffic Report B -12 029034TPO- AppB.pdf 4. Placentia 6 Hospital 2013 Cumulative AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 0 0 15 27 NET 1 1600 30 .028* 61 .055* NER 1 1600 83 .052 117 .073 SBL 1.5 322 (.126)* 351 (.146)* SET 0.5 3200 49 .126 41 .146 SEP. 0 31 75 EEL 1 1600 61 .038 99 .062* EST 2 320D 264 .D95* 206 .072 EBR O 0 40 24 WBL 1 1600 159 .099* 116 .073 WET 2 3200 145 .091 174 .109* WBR 0 0 379 .237 395 .247 Right Turn Adjustment WBR .028* TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .348 .400 2013 Cumulative + Project AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 0 0 15 27 NET 1 1600 30 .028* 61 .055* NBR 1 1600 83 .052 117 .073 SBL 1.5 331 ).128)* 357 {.148)* SET 0.5 3200 49 .128 41 .148 SBR 0 31 75 EEL 1 1600 61 .038 99 .062* EST 2 3200 264 .095* 206 .072 EBR 0 0 40 24 WBL 1 1600 159 .099* 116 .073 WET 2 3200 145 .091 174 .109* WBR 0 0 389 .243 404 .253 Right Turn Adjustment WBR .033* TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .350 .407 Newport Beach Learning Center TPO Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. Traffic Report B -13 029034TPO- AppB.pdf 5. Newport 6 Hospital Existing (2009) Existing + Project AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1 1600 129 .D81* 117 .073* NET 3 4B00 1373 .286 1215 .253 NBR 1 1600 96 .060 55 .034 SBL 1 1600 56 .035 48 .030 SET 3 4800 1066 .299* 1513 .358* SEP. 0 0 368 205 EEL 2 3200 197 .062* 293 .092 EST 1 1600 124 .078 135 .OB4* EBR 1 1600 199 .124 187 .117 WBL 1 1600 65 .041 121 .076* WET 2 3200 224 .079* 178 .067 WBR 0 0 28 38 Existing + Project TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .521 .591 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .527 .597 2013 Background AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1 1600 139 .087* 126 .079* NET 3 4800 1373 .286 1215 .253 NBR 1 1600 96 .060 55 .034 SBL 1 1600 56 .035 48 .030 SET 3 4800 1066 .299* 1513 .358* SBR 0 0 368 205 EEL 2 3200 197 .062* 293 .092 SET 1 1600 124 .07B 135 .084* EBR 1 1600 208 .130 193 .121 WBL 1 1600 65 .041 121 .076* WET 2 3200 224 .079* 17B .067 WBR 0 0 28 38 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .521 .591 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .527 .597 2013 Background TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .574 2013 Background + Project AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1 1600 157 .D98* 148 .093* NET 3 4BOD 1477 .30B 1333 .278 HER 1 160D 100 .063 57 .036 SBL 1 1600 58 A36 50 .031 SET 3 4.B00 1173 .326* 1636 .386* SBR 0 0 393 219 EEL 2 3200 217 .068* 324 .101* EST 1 1600 129 AB1 140 .088 EBR 1 1600 216 .135 235 .147 WBL 1 1600 68 .043 126 .079 WET 2 3200 234 .082* 185 .070* WBR 0 0 29 40 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .574 2013 Background + Project 650 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .580 .655 Newport Beach Learning Center TPO Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. Traffic Report B -14 029034TPO- AppB.pdf AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1 1600 167 .104* 157 .098* NET 3 4800 1477 .30B 1333 .278 HER 1 1600 100 .D63 57 .036 SBL 1 1600 58 .036 50 .031 SET 3 4800 1173 .326* 1636 AB6* SBR 0 0 393 219 EEL 2 3200 217 .068* 324 .101* EBT 1 1600 129 .081 140 .088 EBR 1 1600 225 .141 241 .151 WBL 1 1600 68 .043 126 .079 WET 2 3200 234 .082* 185 .070* WBR 0 0 29 40 650 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .580 .655 Newport Beach Learning Center TPO Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. Traffic Report B -14 029034TPO- AppB.pdf 5. Newport 6 Hospital 2013 Cumulative TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .585 2013 Cumulative + Project AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1 1600 158 .D99* 149 .093* NET 3 4BOD 1498 .312 1384 .2.B8 NBR 1 1600 107 .067 63 .039 SBL 1 1600 69 .043 57 .036 SET 3 4800 1213 .335* 1686 .397* SEP. D 0 393 219 EBL 2 3200 217 .068* 324 .101* EST 1 160D 130 .D81 141 ABS EBR 1 1600 217 .136 237 .148 WBL 1 1600 72 A45 14D .OB8 WET 2 3200 234 .D83* 187 .077* WBR O 0 33 58 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .585 2013 Cumulative + Project 668 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .591 .674 Newport Beach Learning Center TPO Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. Traffic Report B -15 029034TPO- AppB.pdf AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1 1600 168 .105* 158 .099* NET 3 4800 1498 .312 1384 .288 NBR 1 1600 107 .067 63 .039. SBL 1 1600 69 .043 57 .036 SET 3 4800 1213 .335* 1686 .397* SBR 0 0 393 219 EEL 2 3200 217 .068* 324 .101* EST 1 1600 130 .081 141 .088 EBR 1 1600 226 .141 243 .152 WBL 1 1600 72 .D45 140 .088 WET 2 3200 234 .083* 187 .077* WBR 0 R 33 58 668 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .591 .674 Newport Beach Learning Center TPO Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. Traffic Report B -15 029034TPO- AppB.pdf 6. Orange 6 Coast Hwy Existing (2009) Existing + Project AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 0. 0 49 {.0311* 37 NET 1 1600 1 .031 8 .028* NBR 1 1600 70 .044 29 .018 SBL 0 0 40 32 {.020)* SET 1 1600 2 .D26* 2 .021 SEP. 1 1600 19 .012 18 .011 EEL 1 1600 11 .007 44 .028* EST 3 4BOD 3095 .647* 117D .248 EBR D 0 10 19 WBL 1 1600 43 .027* 53 .033 WET 3 4800 870 .181 2786 .581* WBR 1 160D 17 .011 26 .016 Existing + Project TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .731 .657 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .735 .659 2013 Background AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 0 0 49 ).031]* 37 NET 1 1600 1 .031 8 .028* NBR 1 1600 70 .044 29 .018 SBL 0 0 40 32 {.020)* SET 1 1600 2 .026* 2 .021 SBR 1 1600 19 .012 18 .011 EEL 1 1600 11 .007 44 .028* SET 3 4800 3116 .651* 118B .251 EBR 0 0 10 19 WBL 1 1600 43 .027* 53 .033 WET 3 4800 8B8 .185 2800 .5B3* WBR 1 1600 17 .011 26 .016 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .731 .657 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .735 .659 2013 Background TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .774 2013 Background + Project AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 0 0 51 (.D321* 38 NET 1 1600 1 .033 B .029* HER 1 1600 73 .046 30 .019 SBL 0 0 42 33 {.021)* SET 1 1600 2 .D2B* 2 .022 SBR 1 1600 20 .013 19 .012 EEL 1 1600 11 .007 46 .029* EST 3 4800 3281 .686* 1273 .269 EBR 0 0 10 20 WBL 1 1600 45 .028* 55 .034 WET 3 4BOD 942 .196 2995 .624* WBR 1 1600 18 .011 27 .017 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .774 2013 Background + Project 703 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .778 .705 Newport Beach Learning Center TPO Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. Traffic Report B -16 029034TPO- AppB.pdf AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 0 0 51 (.032)* 38 NET 1 1600 1 .D33 B .029* HER 1 1600 73 .D46 30 .019 SBL 0 0 42 33 {.021)* SET 1 1600 2 .028* 2 .022 SBR 1 1600 20 .013 19 .012 EEL 1 1600 11 .007 46 .029* EBT 3 4800 3302 .690* 1291 .273 EBR 0 0 10 20 WBL 1 1600 45 .028* 55 .034 WET 3 4800 960 .200 3DO7 .626* WBR 1 1600 18 .011 27 ,017 703 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .778 .705 Newport Beach Learning Center TPO Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. Traffic Report B -16 029034TPO- AppB.pdf 6. Orange 6 Coast Hwy 2013 Cumulative TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .796 2013 Cumulative + Project AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 0. 0 51 {,032]* 38 NET 1 1600 1 .033 8 .029* NBR 1 1600 73 .046 30 .019 SBL 0 0 42 33 {.021)* SET 1 1600 2 .D28* 2 .022 SEP. 1 1600 20 .013 19 .012 EEL 1 1600 11 .007 46 .029* EST 3 4BOD 3388 .708* 1531 .323 EBR 0 0 10 20 WBL 1 1600 45 .028* 55 .034 WET 3 4B00 1165 .243 3189 .664* WBR 1 160D 18 .011 27 .017 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .796 2013 Cumulative + Project 743 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .800 .746 Newport Beach Learning Center TPO Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. Traffic Report B -17 029034TPO- AppB.pdf AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 0 0 51 1.032]* 38 NET 1 1600 1 .033 8 .029* NBR 1 1600 73 .046 30 .019. SBL 0 0 42 33 {.021)* SET 1 1600 2 .028* 2 .022 SBR 1 1600 20 .013 19 .012 EEL 1 1600 11 .007 46 .029* EST 3 4800 3409 .712* 1549 .327 EBR 0 0 10 20 WBL 1 1600 45 .02B* 55 .034 WET 3 4800 11B3 .246 3201 .667* WBR 1 1600 18 .011 27 ,017 743 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .800 .746 Newport Beach Learning Center TPO Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. Traffic Report B -17 029034TPO- AppB.pdf 7. Prospect 6 Coast Hwy Existing (2009) Existing + Project AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 0. 0 19 {,012]* 21 {.013)* NET 1 1600 0 .012 0 .013 NBR 1 1600 33 .021 28 .018 SBL 0 0 267 8B SET 1 1600 0 .171* 1 .061* SEP. D 0 7 8 EEL 1 1600 17 .011 16 .010* EST 3 4BOD 2490 .52D* 1279 .269 EBR 0 0 5 10 WBL 1 1600 26 .016* 23 .014 WET 3 4B00 1112 .239 2645 .579* WBR 0 D 34 132 Existing + Project TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .719 .663 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .723 .665 2013 Background AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 0 0 19 (.012]* 21 (.013]* NET 1 1600 0 .012 0 .013 NBR 1 1600 33 .021 26 .018 SBL 0 0 267 88 SET 1 1600 0 .171* 1 .061* SBR 0 0 7 8 EEL 1 1600 17 .011 16 .010* SET 3 4800 2511 .524* 1297 .272 EBR 0 0 5 10 WBL 1 1600 26 .016* 23 .014 WET 3 4800 1130 .242 2657 .5B1* WBR D R 34 132 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .719 .663 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .723 .665 2013 Background TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .761 2013 Background + Project AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 0 0 20 (.D121* 22 (.0141* NET 1 1600 0 .013 0 .014 HER 1 160D 34 .021 29 .018 SBL 0 0 278 92 SET 1 1600 0 .178* 1 .063* SBR 0 0 7 8 EEL 1 1600 18 .011 17 .011* EST 3 4800 2652 .554* 1386 .291 EBR 0 0 5 10 WBL 1 1600 27 .017* 24 .015 WET 3 4800 1193 .256 2846 .621* WBR 0 0 35 137 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .761 2013 Background + Project 709 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .765 .712 Newport Beach Learning Center TPO Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. Traffic Report B -18 029034TPO- AppB.pdf AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 0 0 20 (.012)* 22 {.014)* NET 1 1600 0 .013 0 .014 HER 1 1600 34 .D21 29 .018 SBL 0 0 278 92 SET 1 1600 0 .178* 1 .063* SBR 0 0 7 8 EBL 1 1600 18 .011 17 .011* EST 3 4600 2673 .558* 1404 .295 EBR D 0 5 10 WBL 1 1600 27 .017* 24 .015 WET 3 4800 1211 .260 285B .624* WBR 0 0 35 137 709 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .765 .712 Newport Beach Learning Center TPO Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. Traffic Report B -18 029034TPO- AppB.pdf 7. Prospect 6 Coast Hwy 2013 Cumulative TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .783 2013 Cumulative + Project AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 0. 0 20 {.012)* 22 {.014)* NET 1 1600 0 .013 0 .014 NBR 1 1600 34 .021 29 .018 SBL 0 0 278 92 SET 1 1600 0 .178* 1 .063* SEP. D 0 7 8 EEL 1 160D 18 .011 17 .011* EST 3 4BOD 2759 .576* 1644 .345 EBR D 0 5 10 WBL 1 1600 27 .017* 24 .015 WET 3 4B00 1416 .302 3040 .662* Wait O D 35 137 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .783 2013 Cumulative + Project 750 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .787 .752 Newport Beach Learning Center TPO Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. Traffic Report B -19 029034TPO- AppB.pdf AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 0 O 20 1.012]* 22 1.014)* NET 1 1600 0 .013 0 .014 NBR 1 1600 34 .021 29 .018 SBL 0 0 278 92 SET 1 1600 0 .178* 1 .063* SBR 0 0 7 B EEL 1 1600 18 .011 17 .011* SET 3 4800 27BO .580* 1662 .348 EBR 0 0 5 10 WBL 1 1600 27 .017* 24 .015 WET 3 4800 1434 .306 3052 .664* WBR D 0 35 137 750 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .787 .752 Newport Beach Learning Center TPO Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. Traffic Report B -19 029034TPO- AppB.pdf B. Superior /Balboa 6 Coast Hwy Existing (2009) AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1.5 168 254 NET 1.5 4800 266 .114* 208 .113* NBR 0 114 78 SBL 2.5 170 228 .071 SET 1.5 6400 165 .052* 243 .076* SEP. 2 3200 247 .077 710 .222 EEL 2 3200 709 .222 258 .081* EST 3 4BOD 1914 .399* 986 .2D5 EBR 1 1600 211 .132 243 .152 WBL 1 1600 95 .059* 226 .141 WET 4 6400 768 .144 1654 .315* WBR 0 0 155 162 Right Turn Adjustment SBR .OB5* Note: Assumes N/S Split Phasing TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .624 .670 2013 Background AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1.5 176 264 NET 1.5 4800 283 .120* 224 .119* NBR 0 119 62 SBL 2.5 177 237 .074 SET 1.5 6400 175 .055* 267 .083* SBR 2 3200 269 .084 793 .248 EEL 2 3200 761 .238 300 .094* EBT 3 4800 2040 .425* 1061 .221 EBR 1 1600 219 .137 256 .160 WBL 1 1600 99 .062* 235 .147 WBT 4 6400 841 .157 1995 .338* WBR 0 D 161 168 Right Turn Adjustment SBR .095* Note: Assumes N/S Split Phasing TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .662 .729 Existing + Project AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1.5 168 254 NET 1.5 4800 266 .114* 208 .113* NBR 0 114 78 SBL 2.5 170 228 .071 SET 1.5 6400 165 .052* 243 .076* SBR 2 3200 265 .083 722 .226 EEL 2 3200 730 .228 276 .086* SET 3 4800 1914 .399* 986 .2D5 EBR 1 1600 211 .132 243 .152 WBL 1 1600 95 .D59* 226 .141 WET 4 6400 768 .144 1654 .315* WBR 0 0 155 162 Right Turn Adjustment SBR .OB5* Note: Assumes N/S Split Phasing TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .624 .675 2013 Background + Project AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1.5 176 264 NET 1.5 4808 283 .120* 224 .119* HER 0 119 82 SBL 2.5 177 237 .074 SET 1.5 6400 175 .055* 267 .083* SBR 2 3200 287 .090 B05 .252 EBL 2 3200 782 .244 318 .099* PET 3 4800 2040 .425* 1061 .221 PER 1 1600 219 .137 256 .160 WBL 1 1600 99 .062* 235 .147 WBT 4 6400 841 .157 1995 .338* WBR D 0 161 16B Right Turn Adjustment SBR .095* Note: Assumes NIS Split Phasing TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .662 .734 Newport Beach Learning Center TPO Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. Traffic Report B -20 029034TPO- AppB.pdf 8. Superior /Balboa 6 Coast Hwy 2013 Cumulative AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1.5 183 293 NET 1.5 4800 283 .122* 227 .125* NER 0 119 82 SBL 2.5 192 291 SET 1.5 6400 175 .057* 268 .087* SEP. 2 3200 297 .093 813 .254 EBL 2 3200 772 .241 333 .104* EST 3 4BOD 2119 .441* 1193 .249 EBR 1 1600 245 .153 273 .171 WBL 1 1600 99 .062* 235 .147 WET 4 6400 951 .181 212B .364* WBR 0 0 209 209 Right Turn Adjustment SBR .OB9* Note: Assumes N/S Split Phasing TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .682 .769 2013 Cumulative + Project AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1.5 163 293 NET 1.5 4800 283 .122* 227 .125* NBR 0 119 82 SBL 2.5 192 291 SET 1.5 6400 175 .057* 26B .087* SBR 2 3200 315 .098 825 .258 EEL 2 3200 793 .248 351 .110* SET 3 4800 2119 .441* 1193 .249 EBR 1 1600 245 .153 273 .171 WBL 1 1600 99 .062* 235 .147 WET 4 6400 951 .181 211B .364* WBR 0 0 209 209 Right Turn Adjustment PER .08B* Note: Assumes N/S Split Phasing TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .682 .774 Newport Beach Learning Center TPO Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. Traffic Report B -21 029034TPO- AppB.pdf 9. Newport SE & Coast Hwy Existing (2009) LANES CAPACITY NBL 0 0 NBT 0 0 NBR 0 0 SBL 2 3200 SBT 0 0 SBR l 1600 EBL 0 0 EBT 2 3200 EBR f WBL 0 0 WBT 3 4800 WBR f Right Turn Adjustment AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR VOL VAC VOL V/C 0 0 0 0 0 0 383 .120* 586 .183' 0 0 288 .180 393 .246 0 0 2082 .651* 1261 .394* 188 159 0 0 812 .169 1823 .380 349 487 SBR .053* TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .771 630 Newport Beach Learning Center TPO Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. Traffic Report B -22 029034TPO- AppB.pdf 10. Riverside 6 Coast Hwy Existing (2009) NBL 0 0 NBT 1 1600 NBR 0 0 SBL 0 0 SBT 1 1600 SBR 1 1600 EBL 1 1600 EBT 2 3200 EBR 0 0 WBL 1 1600 WBT 3 4800 WBR 1 1600 Right Turn Adjustment AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR VOL VAC VOL v ✓C 0 10 0 .001 11 .014* 1 2 77 98 {.061 }* 4 .051* 2 .063 304 .190 404 .253 312 .195 244 .153* 1893 .593* 1373 .431 4 5 17 .011* 11 .007 1124 .234 2155 .449* 67 .042 70 .044 SBR .069* TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .655 746 Newport Beach Learning Center TPO Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. Traffic Report B -23 029034TPO- AppB.pdf 11. Tustin 6 Coast Hwy Existing (2009) AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 0 0 0 0 NBT 1 1600 0 .000 1 .002 NBR 0 0 0 2 SBL 0 0 33 55 SBT 1 1600 1 .030* 0 .051* SBR 0 0 14 27 EBL 1 1600 42 .026 94 .059* EBT 2 3200 1992 .623* 1376 .436 EBR 0 0 1 20 WBL 0 0 1 {.0011" 0 WBT 3 4800 1220 .254 2230 .465* WBR 1 1600 35 .022 52 .033 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .654 .575 Newport Beach Learning Center TPO Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. Traffic Report B -24 029034TPO- AppB.pdf 12. Dover 6 Coast Hwy Existing (2009) AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1 1600 16 .010 35 .022 NBT 1 1600 61 .038' 42 .026' NBR 1 1600 29 .018 41 .026 SBL 3 4800 840 .175' 918 .191" SBT 1 1600 51 .032 61 .038 SBR 1 1600 108 .068 119 .074 EBL 2 3200 117 .037 145 .045' EBT 3 4800 1912 .404" 1270 .270 EBR 0 0 25 25 WBL 1 1600 42 .026" 50 .031 WBT 3 4800 1212 .253 2153 .449" WBR f 469 1021 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .643 .711 Newport Beach Learning Center TPO Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. Traffic Report B -25 029034TPO- AppB.pdf 13. Newport 6 Via Lido Existing (2009) LANES CAPACITY NBL 0 0 NBT 3 4800 NBR f SBL 2 3200 SBT 3 4800 SBR 0 0 EBL 0 0 EBT 0 0 EBR 0 0 WBL 1 1600 WBT 0 0 WBR 2 3200 Right Turn Adjustment AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR VOL V/C VOL V ✓C 0 0 1278 .266* 1322 .275* 23 26 312 .098* 466 .146* 919 .194 1339 .288 12 45 0 0 0 0 16 9 5 .003* 23 .014* 1 0 327 ,102 411 .128 WBR .025* WBR .005* TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .392 440 Newport Beach Learning Center TPO Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. Traffic Report B -26 029034TPO- AppB.pdf 14. Newport 6 32nd Existing (2009) EBL 1.5 AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR 3200 LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1 1600 12 .008 46 .029' NBT 2 3200 889 .281' 862 .274 NBR 0 0 11 E/W Split 16 SBL 1 1600 51 .032* 73 .046 SBT 2 3200 701 .252 1006 .394* SBR 0 0 105 256 EBL 1.5 283 182 EBT 0.5 3200 16 .093* 24 .064* EBR f 7 27 WBL 0 0 33 19 WBT 2 3200 22 .017* 36 .017* WBR f 65 108 Note: Assumes E/W Split Phasing TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .423 .504 Newport Beach Learning Center TPO Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. Traffic Report B -27 029034TPO- AppB.pdf 15. Placentia 6 Victoria Existing (2009) Existing + Project AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 2 3200 AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR NET LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 2 3200 224 .070* 590 .164* NET 2 3200 410 .128 735 .230 NBR 1 1600 111 .069 185 .116 SBL 1 1600 70 .044 78 .049 SET 2 3200 456 .143* 494 .154* SEP. 1 1600 37 .023 129 .081 EEL 1 1600 89 .056 58 .036* EST 2 3200 1562 .488* 547 .171 EBR 1 1600 476 .298 315 .197 WBL 1 1600 185 .116* 146 .091 WET 2 3200 444 .139 1552 .4B5* WBR 1 1600 58 .036 85 .053 Existing + Project AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 2 3200 233 .073* 596 .186* NET 2 3200 415 .130 73B .231 NBR 1 1600 111 .069 185 .116 SBL 1 1600 70 .044 78 .049 SET 2 3200 461 .144* 49B .156* SBR 1 1600 37 .023 129 .081 EEL 1 1600 89 .056 58 .036* SET 2 3200 1550 .484* 53B .168 EBR 1 1600 486 .304 324 .203 WBL 1 1600 1B5 .116* 146 .091 WET 2 3200 434 .136 1544 .4B3* WBR 1 1600 58 .036 85 .053 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .817 .859 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .817 .861 2013 Background AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NEL 2 3200 233 .073* 614 .192* NET 2 3200 430 .134 770 .241 HER 1 1600 115 .072 192 .120 SBL 1 1600 73 .046 81 .051 SET 2 3200 479 .150* 516 .161* SBR 1 1600 38 .024 134 .084 EEL 1 1600 93 .05B 60 .038* EST 2 3200 1624 .508* 569 .178 EBR 1 1600 495 .309 328 .205 WBL 1 1600 192 .12D* 152 .095 WET 2 3200 462 .144 1614 .504* WBR 1 1600 60 .038 88 .055 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .851 2013 Background + Project AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 2 3200 242 .076* 620 .194* NET 2 3200 435 .136 773 .242 HER 1 1600 115 .072 192 .120 SBL 1 1600 73 .046 81 .051 SET 2 3200 4B4 .151* 520 .163* SBR 1 1600 38 .024 134 .084 EBL 1 1600 93 .058 60 .038* EBT 2 3200 1612 .504* 560 .175 EBR 1 1600 505 .316 337 .211 WBL 1 1600 192 .120* 152 .095 WET 2 3200 452 .141 1606 .5D2* WBR 1 1600 60 .03B 88 .055 895 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .851 .897 Newport Beach Learning Center TPO Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. Traffic Report B -28 029034TPO- AppB.pdf 15. Placentia 6 Victoria 2013 Cumulative TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .863 2013 Cumulative + Project AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 2 3200 AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR NET LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 2 3200 279 .087* 638 .199* NET 2 3200 439 .137 775 .242 NBR 1 1600 133 .083 194 .121 SBL 1 1600 73 .046 81 .051 SET 2 3200 481 .150* 528 .165* SEP. 1 1600 38 .024 134 AM EEL 1 1600 93 .058 60 .038* EST 2 320D 1624 .508* 570 .178 EBR 1 1600 503 .314 379 .237 WBL 1 1600 1B9 .11B* 172 .108 WET 2 3200 463 .145 1615 .505* WBR 1 160D 60 .038 88 .055 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .863 2013 Cumulative + Project AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 2 3200 288 .09D* 644 .2D1* NET 2 3200 444 .139 778 .243 NBR 1 1600 133 .083 194 .121 SBL 1 1600 73 .046 81 .051 SET 2 3200 486 .152* 532 .166* SBR 1 1600 38 .024 134 .084 EEL 1 1600 93 .058 60 .038* EST 2 3200 1612 .504* 561 .175 EBR 1 1600 513 .321 368 .243 WBL 1 1600 1B9 .11B* 172 .108 WET 2 3200 453 .142 1607 .502* WBR 1 1600 60 .038 88 .055 907 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .864 .907 Newport Beach Learning Center TPO Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. Traffic Report B -29 029034TPO- AppB.pdf 16. Newport 6 19th Existing (2009) AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1 1600 31 .019 65 .041 NET 4 6400 2709 .425* 2649 .420* NBR 0 0 9 38 SBL 1 1600 1B1 .113* 202 .126* SET 4 6400 2440 .381 3114 .487 SEP. 1 1600 486 .304 757 .473 EEL 2.5 886 .185* 731 .152* EST 1.5 6400 183 .114 171 .107 EBR 1 1600 14 .009 33 .021 WBL 1 1600 21 .013 54 .034 WET 2.5 4B00 162 .D51* 321 .099* WBR 0.5 237 .148 152 Right Turn Adjustment WBR .012* Note: Assumes E/W Split Phasing TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .786 .797 2013 Background AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL I 160D 32 .D2D 68 .043 NET 4 6400 2932 ,460* 2515 .462* NBR 0 0 9 40 SBL 1 1600 188 .118* 210 .131* SBT 4 6400 2639 .412 3431 ,536 SBR 1 1600 505 .316 787 .492 EBL 2.5 921 .192* 760 .158* EBT 1.5 6400 190 .119 178 .111 EBR 1 1600 15 .009 34 .021 WBL 1 1600 22 .014 56 .035 WBT 2.5 4800 168 .D53* 334 .103* WBR D.5 246 .154 158 Right Turn Adjustment WBR ,012* Note: Assumes E/W Split Phasing TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .835 .854 Existing + Project AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1 1600 31 .019 65 .041 NET 4 6400 2755 .432* 2678 .424* NBR 0 0 9 38 SBL 1 1600 181 .113* 202 .126* SET 4 6400 2492 .389 3158 .493 SBR 1 1600 486 .304 757 .473 EEL 2.5 886 .185* 731 .152* SET 1.5 6400 1B3 .114 171 .lD7 EBR 1 1600 14 .009 33 .021 WBL 1 1600 21 .013 54 .034 WET 2.5 4B00 162 .051* 321 .099* WBR 0.5 237 .148 152 Right Turn Adjustment WBR .012* Note: Assumes E/W Split Phasing TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .793 .801 2013 Background + Project AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1 1600 32 .020 6B .043 NET 4 6400 2978 .467* 2944 .466* NBR 0 0 9 4D SBL 1 1600 188 .118* 210 .131* SET 4 6400 2691 .420 3475 .543 SBR 1 1600 505 .316 787 .492 EBL 2.5 921 .192* 760 .158* PET 1.5 6400 190 .119 178 .111 PER 1 1600 15 .009 34 .021 WBL 1 1600 22 .014 56 .035 WBT 2.5 4800 168 .053* 334 .103* WBR 0.5 246 .154 15B Right Turn Adjustment WBR .012* Note: Assumes E/W Split Phasing TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .842 .858 Newport Beach Learning Center TPO Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. Traffic Report B -30 029034TPO- AppB.pdf 16. Newport 6 19th 2013 Cumulative AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1 1600 32 .020 68 .043 NET 4 6400 3371 .528* 3373 .533* NER 0 0 9 40 SBL 1 1600 188 .IIB* 210 .131* SET 4 6400 2909 .455 3963 .619 SEP. 1 1600 505 .316 787 .492 EEL 2.5 921 .192* 760 .158* EST 1.5 6400 190 .119 178 .111 EBR 1 1600 15 .009 34 .021 WBL 1 1600 22 .014 56 .035 WET 2.5 4800 168 .053* 334 .103* WBR 0.5 246 .154 158 Right Turn Adjustment WBR .012* Note: Assumes E/W Split Phasing TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .903 .925 2013 Cumulative + Project AM PR HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1 1600 32 .020 68 .043* NET 4 6400 3417 .535* 3402 .538 NBR 0 0 9 40 SBL 1 1600 188 .118* 210 .131 SET 4 6400 2961 .463 4007 .626* SBR 1 1600 505 .316 787 .492 EEL 2.5 921 .192* 760 .158* SET 1.5 6400 190 .119 17B .111 EBR 1 1600 15 .009 34 .021 WBL 1 1600 22 .014 56 .035 WET 2.5 4800 168 .053* 334 .103* WBR 0.5 246 .154 158 Right Turn Adjustment WBR .012* Note: Assumes E/W Split Phasing TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .910 .930 Newport Beach Learning Center TPO Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. Traffic Report B -31 029034TPO- AppB.pdf 17. Newport 6 Broadway Existing (2009) Existing + Project AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1 1600 4 .003* 7 .004* NET 4 6400 2677 .420 2542 .406 NBR 0 0 8 55 SBL 1 1600 60 .03B 142 .089 SET 3 4800 2396 .499* 3061 .638* SBR 1 1600 7 .004 62 .039 EEL 1 1600 6 .004 18 .011 EST 1 1600 9 .DOS* 23 .023* EBR 0 0 3 14 WBL 1 1600 38 .024* 33 .021* WET 1 1600 12 .DOB 15 .009 WBR d 1600 102 .064 95 .059 Existing + Project TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .534 .686 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .545 .695 2013 Background AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1 1600 4 .003* 7 .004* NET 4 6400 2723 .427 2571 .410 NBR 0 0 8 55 SBL 1 1600 60 .038 142 .OB9 SET 3 4800 2448 .510* 3105 .647* SBR 1 1600 7 .004 62 .039 EEL 1 1600 6 .004 18 .011 SET 1 1600 9 .DOB* 23 .023* EBR 0 0 3 14 WBL 1 1600 38 .024* 33 .021* WET 1 1600 12 .DOB 15 .009 WBR d 1600 102 .064 95 .059 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .534 .686 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .545 .695 2013 Background TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .576 2013 Background + Project AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1 1600 4 .003* 7 .004* NET 4 6400 2899 .454 2604 .447 HER 0 D 8 57 SBL 1 1600 62 .039 146 .093 SET 3 4.800 2593 .540* 3375 .703* DER 1 1600 7 .004 64 .040 EEL 1 1600 6 .004 19 .012 EST 1 1600 9 .008* 24 .024* EBB 0 0 3 15 WBL 1 1600 40 .025* 34 .021* WET 1 1600 12 .DOS 16 .010 WBR d 1600 106 .066 99 .062 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .576 2013 Background + Project 752 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .587 .761 Newport Beach Learning Center TPO Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. Traffic Report B -32 029034TPO- AppB.pdf AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1 1600 4 .003* 7 .004* NET 4 6400 2945 .461 2833 .452 NBR 0 0 8 57 SBL 1 1600 62 .039 146 .093 SET 3 4800 2645 .551* 3419 .712* SBR 1 1600 7 .004 64 .040 EEL 1 1600 6 .004 19 .012 EST 1 1600 9 .008* 24 .024* EBR 0 0 3 15 WBL 1 1600 40 .025* 34 .021* WET 1 1600 12 AOB 16 .010 WBR d 1600 106 .066 99 .062 752 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .587 .761 Newport Beach Learning Center TPO Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. Traffic Report B -32 029034TPO- AppB.pdf 17. Newport 6 Broadway 2013 Cumulative TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .632 2013 Cumulative + Project AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1 1600 4 .003* 7 .009* NET 4 6400 333B .523 3262 .519 NBR 0 0 8 57 SBL 1 1600 62 .039 14B .093 SET 3 4800 2663 .596* 3907 .814* SBR 1 1600 7 .004 64 .040 EBL 1 1600 6 .004 19 .012 EST 1 1600 9 .DOS* 24 .024* EBR 0 0 3 15 WBL 1 1600 40 .025* 34 .021* WET 1 1600 12 .DOB 16 .010 WBR d 1600 106 .066 99 .062 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .632 2013 Cumulative + Project 863 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .643 .872 Newport Beach Learning Center TPO Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. Traffic Report B -33 029034TPO- AppB.pdf AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1 1600 4 .003* 7 .004* NET 4 6400 3384 .530 3291 .523 NSR 0 0 8 57 DEL 1 1600 62 .039 148 .093 SET 3 4800 2915 .607* 3951 .823* SBR 1 1600 7 .004 64 .040 EEL 1 1600 6 .004 19 .012 SET 1 1600 9 .DOB* 24 .024* EBR 0 0 3 15 WBL 1 1600 40 .025* 34 .021* WET 1 1600 12 .DOB 16 .010 WBR d 1600 106 .066 99 .062 863 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .643 .872 Newport Beach Learning Center TPO Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. Traffic Report B -33 029034TPO- AppB.pdf 18. Newport 6 Harbor Existing (2009) AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 2 3200 317 .099* 726 .227* NET 4 6400 2653 .415 2480 .3B8 NBR O D 0 0 SBL D 0 0 0 SET 3 4800 2559 .543* 3160 .669* SEP. 0 0 49 50 EEL 1 1600 25 .016* 123 .077* EST 0 0 0 D EBR 2 3200 486 .152 537 .168 WBL 0 D 0 0 WET 0 0 0 0 WBR 0 0 0 0 Right Turn Adjustment EBR .062* TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .720 .973 2013 Background AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 2 3200 330 .103* 755 .236* NET 4 640D 2874 .449 2739 .428 NBR 0 0 0 0 SBL O 0 0 0 SBT 3 4800 2762 .586* 3478 .735* SBR 0 0 51 52 EBL 1 1600 26 .016* 128 .080* EST 0 0 0 0 EBR 2 3200 505 .158 558 .174 WBL 0 0 0 0 WET 0 0 0 0 WBR 0 0 0 0 Right Turn Adjustment EBR .065* TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .770 1.051 Existing + Project TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .720 .975 2013 Background + Project AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 2 3200 300 .D94* 732 .229* NET 4 6400 2920 .456 2766 .433 HER 0 Q 0 Q SBL 0 0 0 0 SET 3 4800 2814 .597* 3522 .745* SBR 0 0 51 52 EBL 1 1600 26. .016* 128 .080* EST 0 0 0 0 PER 2 3200 481 .150 537 .168 WBL 0 0 0 0 WET 0 0 0 0 WER 0 0 0 0 Right Turn Adjustment EBR .064* TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .771 1.054 Newport Beach Learning Center TPO Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. Traffic Report B -34 029034TPO- AppB.pdf AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 2 3200 287 .090* 703 .220* NET 4 6400 2699 .422 2509 .392 NBR 0 0 0 0 SBL 0 0 0 0 SET 3 4800 2611 .554* 3204 .678* SBR 0 0 49 50 EEL 1 1600 25 .016* 123 .077* SET 0 0 0 0 EBR 2 3200 462 .144 516 .161 WBL D 0 0 0 WET D 0 0 0 WBR 0 Q 0 p Right Turn Adjustment EBR .060* TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .720 .975 2013 Background + Project AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 2 3200 300 .D94* 732 .229* NET 4 6400 2920 .456 2766 .433 HER 0 Q 0 Q SBL 0 0 0 0 SET 3 4800 2814 .597* 3522 .745* SBR 0 0 51 52 EBL 1 1600 26. .016* 128 .080* EST 0 0 0 0 PER 2 3200 481 .150 537 .168 WBL 0 0 0 0 WET 0 0 0 0 WER 0 0 0 0 Right Turn Adjustment EBR .064* TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .771 1.054 Newport Beach Learning Center TPO Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. Traffic Report B -34 029034TPO- AppB.pdf 18. Newport 6 Harbor 2013 Cumulative AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 2 3200 330 .103* 755 .236* NET 4 6400 3313 .518 3197 .500 NBR O D 0 D SBL 0 0 0 D SET 3 4800 3032 .642* 4010 .846* SEP. 0 0 51 52 EBL 1 1600 26 .016* 128 .OBO* EST 0 0 0 0 EBR 2 3200 505 .158 558 .174 WBL 0 D 0 D WET 0 0 0 0 WBR 0 D 0 0 Right Turn Adjustment EBR .065* TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .826 1.162 2013 Cumulative + Project TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .827 1.164 Newport Beach Learning Center TPO Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. Traffic Report B -35 029034TPO- AppB.pdf AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 2 3200 300 .094* 732 .229* NET 4 6400 3359 .525 3226 .504 NBR 0 0 0 0 SBL D 0 0 0 SET 3 4800 3064 .653* 4054 .855* SBR O 0 51 52 EEL 1 1600 26 .016* 128 .080* SET 0 0 0 0 EBR 2 3200 481 .150 537 .168 WBL D 0 0 0 WET D 0 0 0 WBR D 0 0 0 Right Turn Adjustment EBR .C6=.* TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .827 1.164 Newport Beach Learning Center TPO Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. Traffic Report B -35 029034TPO- AppB.pdf 19. Newport 6 18th /Rochester Existing (2009) Existing + Project AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1 1600 64 .040+ 111 .069* NET 4 6400 2852 .447 2723 .428 NBR 0 0 7 15 SBL 1 1600 B5 .053 125 .078 SET 3 4800 2743 .571* 3515 .732* SEP. 1 1600 165 .103 144 .090 EEL 2 3200 178 .056* 251 .078* EST 1 1600 81 .051 75 .047 EBR 1 1600 25 .016 48 .030 WBL 1 1600 7 .004 18 .011 WET 1 1600 68 .061* 124 .091* WBR 0 0 30 22 Existing + Project TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .728 .970 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .734 .975 2013 Background AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1 1600 64 .040* 111 .069* NET 4 6400 2B68 .449 2729 .429 NSR 0 0 7 15 SBL 1 1600 85 .053 125 .078 SET 3 4800 2771 .577* 353B .737* SBR 1 1600 165 .103 144 .090 EEL 2 3200 178 .056* 251 .078* SET 1 1600 B1 .051 75 .047 EBR 1 1600 25 .016 48 .030 WBL 1 1600 7 .004 1B .011 WET 1 1600 68 .061* 124 .091* WBR 0 0 30 22 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .728 .970 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .734 .975 2013 Background TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .779 2013 Background + Project AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1 1600 67 .042* 115 .072* NET 4 6400 3081 .483 2992 .470 HER 0 0 7 16 SBL 1 1600 68 .055 130 Ml SET 3 4.800 2954 .615* 3.848 .802* SBR 1 1600 172 .108 150 .094 EEL 2 3200 1B5 .05B* 261 .OB2* EST 1 1600 84 .053 78 .049 EBR 1 1600 26 .016 50 .031 WBL 1 1600 7 .004 19 .012 WET 1 1600 71 .064* 129 .095* WBR 0 0 31 23 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .779 2013 Background + Project 1.051 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 785 1.055 Newport Beach Learning Center TPO Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. Traffic Report B -36 029034TPO- AppB.pdf AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1 1600 67 .042* 115 .072* NET 4 6400 3097 .485 299B .471 HER 0 0 7 16 SBL i 1600 BB .055 130 .081 SET 3 4B00 29B2 .621* 3871 .606* SBR 1 1600 172 .106 150 .094 EEL 2 3200 185 .058* 261 .OB2* EST 1 1600 B4 .053 78 .049 EBR 1 1600 26 .016 50 .031 WBL 1 1600 7 .004 19 .012 WET 1 1600 71 .064* 129 .095* WBR 0 0 31 23 1.051 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 785 1.055 Newport Beach Learning Center TPO Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. Traffic Report B -36 029034TPO- AppB.pdf 19. Newport 6 18th /Rochester 2013 Cumulative TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .838 2013 Cumulative + Project AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1 1600 67 .042* 115 .072* NET 4 6400 3511 .550 3444 .541 NBR 0 0 7 16 SBL 1 1600 B8 .055 130 .081 SET 3 4800 3221 .671* 4370 .910* SEP. 1 1600 175 .109 160 .100 EEL 2 3200 194 .061* 267 .OB3* EST 1 1600 84 .053 78 .049 EBR 1 1600 26 .016 50 .03i WBL 1 1600 7 .004 19 .012 WET 1 1600 71 .064* 129 .095* wait 0 0 31 23 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .838 2013 Cumulative + Project 1..160 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .844 1.165 Newport Beach Learning Center TPO Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. Traffic Report B -37 029034TPO- AppB.pdf AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1 1600 67 .042* 115 .072* NET 4 6400 3527 .552 3450 .542 NBR 0 0 7 16 SBL 1 1600 BB .055 130 .OB1 SET 3 4800 3249 .677* 4393 .915* SBR 1 1600 175 .109 160 .100 EEL 2 3200 194 .061* 267 .083* SET 1 1600 B4 .053 7B .049 EBR 1 1600 26 .016 50 .031 WBL 1 1600 7 .004 19 .012 WET 1 1600 71 .064* 129 .095* WBR 0 0 31 23 1..160 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .844 1.165 Newport Beach Learning Center TPO Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. Traffic Report B -37 029034TPO- AppB.pdf 20. Superior 6 17th Existing (2009) Existing + Project AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1 1600 20 .013 98 .061 NET 0.5 3200 117 (.290)* 173 (.148)* NBR 1.5 1059 664 SBL 1 1600 73 .046* 89 .056* SET 2 3200 279 .106 323 .126 SBR 0 0 60 80 EBL 1 1600 11 .007 27 .017 EST 2 3200 647 .212* 554 .195* EBR 0 0 32 71 WBL 1 1600 330 .206* 487 .304* WET 2 3200 445 .14B 436 .162 WBR 0 0 2B 83 Existing + Project TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .754 .703 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .767 .713 2013 Background AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1 1600 20 .013 90 .061 NET 0.5 3200 117 {.290)* 173 {.146)* NBR 1.5 1072 671 SBL 1 1600 73 .046* 89 .056* SET 2 3200 279 .106 323 .126 SBR 0 0 60 80 EBL 1 1600 11 .007 27 .017 EDT 2 3200 654 .214* 55B .197* EBR 0 0 32 71 WBL 1 1600 347 .217* 502 .314* WET 2 3200 454 .151 444 .165 WBR 0 0 28 83 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .754 .703 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .767 .713 2013 Background TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .813 2013 Background + Project AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1 1600 21 .013 102 .064 NET 0.5 3200 122 {.313)* 180 (.147)* HER 1.5 1155 763 SBL 1 1600 76 .048* 93 .058* SET 2 3200 290 .110 336 .131 SBR 0 0 62 83 EBL 1 1600 11 .007 28 .018 EDT 2 3200 673 .221* 576 .203* EBR 0 0 33 74 WBL 1 1600 370 .231* 630 .394* WET 2 3200 463 .154 453 .168 WBR 0 0 29 86 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .813 2013 Background + Project 802 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .826 .811 Newport Beach Learning Center TPO Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. Traffic Report B -38 029034TPO- AppB.pdf AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1 1600 21 .013 102 .064 NET 0.5 3200 122 {.313)* 1BO (.146)* NBR 1.5 1166 770 SBL 1 1600 76 .048* 93 .058* SET 2 3200 290 .110 336 .131 SBR D 0 62 63 EBL 1 1600 11 .007 28 .018 EST 2 3200 6BO .223* 580 .204* EBR 0 0 33 74 WBL 1 1600 387 .242* 645 .403* WET 2 3200 472 .157 461 .171 WBR 0 0 29 86 802 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .826 .811 Newport Beach Learning Center TPO Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. Traffic Report B -38 029034TPO- AppB.pdf 20. Superior 6 17th 2013 Cumulative TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .989 2013 Cumulative + Project AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LAMES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1 1600 21 .013 102 .064* NET D.5 3200 122 (.375)* 180 (.136) NBR 1.5 1425 953 SBL 1 1600 76 .04B* 93 .058 SIT 2 3200 290 .110 336 .131* SBR D 0 62 83 EEL 1 1600 11 .007 28 .018 EBT 2 320D 854 .277* 706 .244* EBR D 0 33 74 WBL 1 1600 463 .289* 931 .5B2* WET 2 3200 534 .176 659 .233 WBR 0 0 29 86 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .989 2013 Cumulative + Project 1.021 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 1.002 1,031 Newport Beach Learning Center TPO Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. Traffic Report B -39 029034TPO- AppB.pdf AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL i 1600 21 .013 102 .064* NET 0.5 3200 122 {.375]* 180 {.135) NBR 1.5 1438 960 SBL 1 1600 76 .048* 93 .058 SET 2 3200 290 .110 336 .131* SBR 0 0 62 B3 EBL 1 1600 11 .007 28 .018 EBT 2 3200 861 .279* 710 .245* EBR 0 0 33 74 WBL 1 1600 480 .300* 946 .591* WET 2 3200 543 .179 667 .235 WBR D 0 29 86 1.021 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 1.002 1,031 Newport Beach Learning Center TPO Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. Traffic Report B -39 029034TPO- AppB.pdf 21. Newport 6 17th Existing (2009) Existing + Project AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1 1600 50 .031 63 .039 NET 4 6400 1789 .312* 1820 .311* NBR 0 0 209 169 SBL 2 3200 559 .175* 714 .223* SET 3 4800 1807 .376 2314 .482 SEP. 1 1600 328 .205 347 .217 EEL 3 4B00 759 .158* 707 .147* EST 2 3200 345 .109 393 .130 EBR D 0 3 22 WBL 2 3200 142 .D44 276 .OB6 WET 3 4B00 400 .D83* 484 .101* WBR 1 1600 147 .092 201 .126 Existing + Project TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .728 .782 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .731 .784 2013 Background AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1 1600 50 .031 63 .039 NET 4 6400 1795 .313* 1823 .311* NBR 0 0 209 169 SBL 2 3200 554 .173* 710 .222* SET 3 4800 1618 .379 2324 .484 SBR 1 1600 349 .218 366 .229 EEL 3 4800 774 .161* 715 .149* SET 2 3200 350 .110 396 .131 EBR 0 0 3 22 WBL 2 3200 142 .044 276 .OB6 WET 3 4800 405 .084* 48B .102* WBR 1 1600 141 .088 196 .123 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .728 .782 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .731 .784 2013 Background TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .779 2013 Background + Project AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1 1600 52 .D33 66 .041 NET 4 640D 1922 .334* 1981 .337* HER 0 D 217 176 SBL 2 3200 581 .182* 743 .232* SET 3 4800 1953 .407 2475 .516 SBR 1 1600 368 .230 485 .303 EEL 3 4800 843 .176* 807 .168* EST 2 3200 359 .113 409 .135 EBR 0 0 3 23 WBL 2 3200 148 .046 287 .090 WET 3 4BOD 416 .DB7* 503 .1D5* WBR 1 1600 153 .096 209 .131 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .779 2013 Background + Project 842 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 782 .845 Newport Beach Learning Center TPO Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. Traffic Report B -40 029034TPO- AppB.pdf AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1 1600 52 .033 66 .041 NET 4 6400 1928 .335* 1984 .338* HER 0 0 217 176 SBL 2 3200 576 .180* 739 .231* SET 3 4800 1964 .409 2485 .51B SIR 1 1600 389 .243 504 .315 EEL 3 4800 858 .179* B15 .170* EBT 2 3200 364 .115 412 .136 EBR 0 0 3 23 WBL 2 3200 148 .046 287 .090 WET 3 4800 421 .088* 507 .ID6* WBR 1 1600 147 .092 204 .128 842 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 782 .845 Newport Beach Learning Center TPO Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. Traffic Report B -40 029034TPO- AppB.pdf 21. Newport 6 17th 2013 Cumulative TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .884 2013 Cumulative + Project AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1 1600 52 .033 73 .046 NET 4 6400 1930 .335* 2071 .351* NBR 0 0 217 176 SBL 2 3200 626 .196* 754 .236* SET 3 4800 2021 .421 2511 .523 SEP. 1 1600 522 .326 960 .600 EEL 3 4800 1266 .264* 1112 .232* EST 2 320D 381 .122 424 .140 EBR D O 8 24 WBL 2 3200 148 .046 287 .090 WET 3 4800 427 .089* 529 .110* WBR 1 160D 151 .094 264 .165 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .884 2013 Cumulative + Project 929 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .887 .930 Newport Beach Learning Center TPO Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. Traffic Report B -41 029034TPO- AppB.pdf AM PR HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1 1600 52 .033 73 .046 NET 4 6400 1936 .336* 2074 .352* NSR 0 0 217 176 SBL 2 3200 621 .194* 750 .234* SET 3 4B00 2032 .423 2521 .525 SBR 1 1600 543 .339 979 .612 EEL 3 4800 1281 .267* 1120 .233* SET 2 3200 3B6 .123 427 .141 EBR 0 0 8 24 WBL 2 3200 148 .046 287 .090 WET 3 4B00 432 .090* 533 .111* WBR 1 1600 145 .091 259 .162 929 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .887 .930 Newport Beach Learning Center TPO Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. Traffic Report B -41 029034TPO- AppB.pdf 23. Placentia 6 16th Existing (2009) Existing + Project AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1 1600 95 .059* 0 .000 NET 2 3200 541 .197 704 .249* NBR 0 0 88 94 SBL 1 1600 18 .011 2 .ODI* SET 2 3200 479 .193* 554 .200 SBR D 0 137 87 EBL 1 1600 6 .004 58 .036* EST 1 1600 94 .104* 59 .1D4 EBR 0 0 72 108 WBL 1 1600 15 .009* 12 .008 WET 1 1600 25 .D5B 41 .077* WBR 0 0 68 82 Existing + Project TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .365 .363 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .387 .384 2013 Background AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1 1600 95 .059* 0 .000 NET 2 3200 541 .197 704 .249* NBR 0 0 88 94 SBL 1 1600 18 .011 2 .001* SET 2 3200 479 .196* 554 .203 SBR 0 0 147 96 EBL 1 1600 15 .009 64 .040* EDT 1 1600 124 .123* 7B .116 EBR 0 0 72 10B WBL 1 1600 15 .009* 12 .008 WET 1 1600 58 .079 6B .094* WBR 0 0 68 82 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .365 .363 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .387 .384 2013 Background TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .366 2013 Background + Project AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1 1600 95 .D59* 0 .000 NET 2 3200 545 .19B 710 .251* HER 0 D B8 94 SBL 1 1600 i8 .011 2 .001* SET 2 3200 4B4 .194* 556 .2D1 SBR 0 0 137 87 EBL 1 1600 6 .004 58 .036* EDT 1 1600 94 .104* 59 .104 EBR 0 0 72 108 WBL 1 1600 15 .009* 12 .008 WET 1 1600 25 .058 41 .077* WBR 0 0 68 82 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .366 2013 Background + Project 365 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 388 .386 Newport Beach Learning Center TPO Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. Traffic Report B -44 029034TPO- AppB.pdf AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1 1600 95 .059* 0 .000 NET 2 3200 545 .19B 710 .251* NBR 0 0 BB 94 SBL 1 1600 18 .011 2 .001* SET 2 3200 484 .197* 556 .204 SBR 0 0 147 96 EBL 1 1600 15 .009 64 .040* EST 1 1600 124 .123* 78 .116 EBR 0 0 72 108 WBL 1 1600 15 .009* 12 .008 WET 1 1600 58 .079 6B .094* WBR 0 0 68 82 365 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 388 .386 Newport Beach Learning Center TPO Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. Traffic Report B -44 029034TPO- AppB.pdf 23. Placentia 6 16th 2013 Cumulative TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .442 2013 Cumulative + Project AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1 1600 111 .D69* 17 .011 NET 2 3200 541 .197 73.0 .258* NBR 0 0 88 94 SBL 1 1600 28 .DIB 9 .006* SET 2 3200 499 .199* 563 .203 SEP. 0 0 137 87 EEL 1 1600 6 .004 58 .036* EST 1 1600 175 .165* 124 .156 EBR 0 0 89 126 WBL 1 1600 15 .009* 12 .008 WET 1 1600 61 .081 132 .142* WBR 0 0 69 95 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .442 2013 Cumulative + Project 442 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .464 .463 Newport Beach Learning Center TPO Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. Traffic Report B -45 029034TPO- AppB.pdf AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1 1600 111 .069* 17 .011 NET 2 3200 541 .197 730 .258* NBR 0 0 88 94 SBL 1 1600 28 .018 9 .006* SET 2 3200 499 .202* 563 .206 SBR 0 0 147 96 EEL 1 1600 15 .009 64 .040* EST 1 1600 205 .184* 143 .168 EBR 0 0 89 126 WBL 1 1600 15 .009* 12 .008 WET 1 1600 94 .102 159 .159* WBR 0 p 69 95 442 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .464 .463 Newport Beach Learning Center TPO Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. Traffic Report B -45 029034TPO- AppB.pdf 24. Superior 6 16th /Industrial Existing (2009) Existing + Project AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NEI 1 1600 0 .000 0 .000 NET 2 3200 1161 .366* 945 .343* NBR 0 0 9 154 SBL 1 1600 0 .000 11 .007* SET 2 3200 621 .203 836 .280 SBR D 0 28 61 EBL 1 1600 0 .000 0 .000 EST 1 160D 167 .104* 146 .091 EBR 1 1600 0 .000 0 .000 WEI 0 D 0 D WET 1 1600 146 .096 152 .104* WBR 0 0 7 14 Existing + Project TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .470 .454 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .485 .470 2013 Background AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1 1600 0 .000 0 .000 NET 2 3200 1158 .366* 942 .343* NBR 0 0 14 157 SBL 1 1600 0 .000 11 .007* SET 2 3200 621 .208 837 .285 SBR 0 0 45 75 EBL 1 1600 16 .010* 10 .006* EDT 1 1600 181 .113 155 .097 EBR 1 1600 0 .000 0 .000 WBL 0 0 5 4 WET 1 1600 162 .109* 165 .114* WBR 0 0 7 14 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .470 .454 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .485 .470 2013 Background TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .503 2013 Background + Project AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1 1600 0 .000 0 .000 NET 2 3200 1253 .394* 1047 .377* HER 0 D 9 160 SBL 1 1600 0 .000 11 .007* SET 2 3200 673 .219 993 .33C SBR 0 0 29 63 EBL 1 1600 0 .000 0 .000 EDT 1 1600 174 .109* 152 .095 EBR 1 1600 0 .000 0 .000 WEL 0 0 0 O WET 1 1600 152 .099 158 .108* WBR 0 0 7 15 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .503 2013 Background + Project 492 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .518 .509 Newport Beach Learning Center TPO Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. Traffic Report B -46 029034TPO- AppB.pdf AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1 1600 0 .000 0 .000 NET 2 3200 1250 .395* 1D44 .377* NBR 0 0 14 163 SBL 1 1600 0 .000 11 .007* SET 2 3200 673 .225 994 .335 SBR 0 0 46 77 EBL 1 1600 16 .010* 10 .006* EST 1 1600 188 .118 161 .101 EBR 1 1600 0 .000 0 .000 WEL 0 0 5 4 WET 1 1600 168 .113* 171 .119* WBR 0 0 7 15 492 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .518 .509 Newport Beach Learning Center TPO Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. Traffic Report B -46 029034TPO- AppB.pdf 24. Superior 6 16th /Industrial 2013 Cumulative TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .606 2013 Cumulative + Project AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1 1600 0 .000 0 .000 NET 2 3200 1446 .455* 1176 .418 NER 0 0 9 160 BBL 1 1600 0 .000 11 OF SET 2 3200 708 .248 1123 .425* SEP. D 0 87 238 EEL 1 160D 80 .050* 62 .039* EST 1 1600 186 .116 161 .101 EBR 1 1600 0 .000 0 .000 WBL 0 D 0 0 WET 1 1600 154 .101* 173 .118* WBR 0 0 7 15 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .606 2013 Cumulative + Project 582 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .629 .603 Newport Beach Learning Center TPO Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. Traffic Report B -47 029034TPO- AppB.pdf AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1 1600 0 .000 0 .000 NET 2 3200 1443 .455* 1173 .418 NBR 0 0 14 163 DEL 1 1600 0 .000 11 .007 SET 2 3200 708 .254 1124 .430* SBR 0 0 104 252 EEL 1 1600 96 .060* 72 .045* EST 1 1600 200 .125 170 .1D6 EBR 1 1600 0 .000 0 .000 WBL 0 0 5 4 WET 1 1600 170 .114* 186 .128* WBR D 0 7 15 582 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .629 .603 Newport Beach Learning Center TPO Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. Traffic Report B -47 029034TPO- AppB.pdf 25. Newport 6 Industrial Existing (2009) Existing + Project AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1 1600 78 .049 68 .043* NET 3 4800 1840 .387* 1582 .333 NBR 0 0 19 17 SBL 1 1600 116 .073* 72 .045 SET 3 4800 1337 .292 1887 .405* SEP. D 0 65 55 EEL 0 0 92 82 EST 1 1600 97 .118* 66 .093* EBR 1 1600 102 .064 107 .067 WBL 1 1600 3 .002* 32 .020* WET 1 1600 71 .D44 43 .027 WBR 1 1600 52 .033 92 .058 Existing + Project TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .580 .561 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .589 .570 2013 Background AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NFL 1 1600 78 .049 68 .043* NET 3 4800 1828 .385* 1573 .331 NBR 0 0 19 17 SBL 1 1600 116 .073* 72 .045 SET 3 4800 1327 .294 1879 .407* SBR 0 0 86 73 EEL 0 0 110 94 SET 1 1600 97 .129* 66 .100* EBR 1 1600 102 .064 107 .067 WBL 1 1600 3 .002* 32 .020* WET 1 1600 71 .044 43 .027 WBR 1 1600 52 .033 92 .058 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .580 .561 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .589 .570 2013 Background TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .617 2013 Background + Project AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1 1600 81 .D51 71 .044* NET 3 4600 1975 .416* 1733 .365 HER 0 0 20 1B SBL 1 1600 121 .076* 75 .047 SET 3 4800 1464 .319 2D30 .435* SBR 0 0 68 57 EEL 0 0 96 85 EST 1 1600 101 .123* 69 .096* EBR 1 1600 106 .066 111 .069 WBL 1 1600 3 .002* 33 .021* WET 1 160D 74 .D46 45 .028 WBR 1 1600 54 .034 96 .060 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .617 2013 Background + Project 596 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .625 .606 Newport Beach Learning Center TPO Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. Traffic Report B48 029034TPO- AppB.pdf AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1 1600 81 .051 71 .044* NET 3 4800 1963 .413* 1724 .363 HER 0 0 20 1B SBL 1 1600 121 .076* 75 .047 SET 3 4800 1454 .321 2022 .437* SBR 0 0 89 75 EEL 0 0 114 97 EBT 1 1600 101 .134* 69 .104* EBR 1 1600 106 .066 111 .069 WBL 1 1600 3 .002* 33 .021* WET 1 1600 74 .046 45 .028 WBR 1 1600 54 .034 96 .060 596 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .625 .606 Newport Beach Learning Center TPO Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. Traffic Report B48 029034TPO- AppB.pdf 25. Newport 6 Industrial 2013 Cumulative TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .621 2013 Cumulative + Project AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1 1600 83 .052 66 .054* NET 3 4B00 1997 .420* 1787 .376 NBR 0 0 20 18 SBL 1 1600 121 .076* 75 .047 SET 3 4800 1502 .327 2077 .445* SEP. D 0 68 57 EEL 0 0 96 85 EST 1 1600 1D1 .123* 69 .096* EBR 1 1600 118 .074 120 .075 WBL 1 1600 3 .002* 33 .021* WET 1 1600 74 .046 45 .028 WBR 1 160D 54 .034 96 .060 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .621 2013 Cumulative + Project 616 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .630 .626 Newport Beach Learning Center TPO Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. Traffic Report B -49 029034TPO- AppB.pdf AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NFL 1 1600 83 .052 86 .054* NET 3 4800 1985 .41B* 1778 .374 NBR 0 0 20 18 SBL 1 1600 121 .076* 75 .047 SET 3 4800 1492 .329 2069 .447* SBR 0 0 89 75 EFL 0 0 114 97 SET 1 1600 101 .134* 69 .104* EBR 1 1600 118 .074 120 .075 WBL 1 1600 3 .002* 33 .021* WET 1 1600 74 .046 45 .028 WBR 1 1600 54 .034 96 .060 616 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .630 .626 Newport Beach Learning Center TPO Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. Traffic Report B -49 029034TPO- AppB.pdf APPENDIX C 1% ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS Newport Beach Learning Center TPO C -1 Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. Traffic Report 029034TPO.doc 1 % Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection: 1. Placentia & 15th Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter /Spring 2002 Peak 1 Hour Approved Cumulative Existing Regional Projects Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project Approach Peak 1 Hour Growth Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Direction Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume AM PEAK PERIOD Northbound 571 0 0 0 571 6 31 Southbound 475 0 0 0 475 5 0 Eastbound 262 0 0 0 282 3 41 Westbound 101 0 0 0 101 1 16 Project AM Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Project AM Traffic is estimated to be 1 % or greater of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PM PEAK PERIOD Northbound 528 0 0 0 528 5 27 Southbound 438 0 0 0 438 4 0 Eastbound 182 0 0 0 182 2 26 Westbound 142 0 0 0 142 1 13 Project PM Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Project PM Traffic is estimated to be 1 % or greater of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PROJECT: Newport Beach Learning Center FULL OCCUPANCY YEAR: 2013 Newport Beach Learning Center TPO Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. Traffic Report C -2 029034TPO- AppC.pdf 1 % Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection: 2. Placentia & Superior Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter /Spring 2009 Peak 1 Hour Approved Cumulative Existing Regional Projects Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project Approach Peak 1 Hour Growth Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Direction Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume AM PEAK PERIOD Northbound 296 0 28 0 324 3 10 Southbound 611 0 5 0 616 6 27 Eastbound 1182 0 30 0 1212 12 21 Westbound 309 0 27 0 336 3 0 Project AM Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Project AM Traffic is estimated to be 1 % or greater of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PM PEAK PERIOD Northbound 414 0 38 0 452 5 9 Southbound 493 0 2 0 495 5 18 Eastbound 665 0 40 0 705 7 18 Westbound 732 0 124 0 856 9 0 Project PM Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Project PM Traffic is estimated to be 1 % or greater of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PROJECT: Newport Beach Learning Center FULL OCCUPANCY YEAR: 2013 Newport Beach Learning Center TPO Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. Traffic Report C -3 029034TPO- AppC.pdf 1 % Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection: 3. Superior & Hospital Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter /Spring 2007 Peak 1 Hour Approved Cumulative Existing Regional Projects Projects Projected 1 %of Projected Project Approach Peak 1 Hour Growth Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Direction Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume AM PEAK PERIOD Northbound 1764 0 30 0 1794 18 21 Southbound 506 0 15 0 521 5 18 Eastbound 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Westbound 87 0 0 0 87 1 0 Project AM Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Project AM Traffic is estimated to be 1 % or greater of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PM PEAK PERIOD Northbound 702 0 40 0 742 7 18 Southbound 873 0 69 0 942 9 12 Eastbound 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Westbound 536 0 0 0 536 5 0 Project PM Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Project PM Traffic is estimated to be 1 % or greater of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PROJECT: Newport Beach Learning Center FULL OCCUPANCY YEAR: 2013 Newport Beach Learning Center TPO Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. Traffic Report C -4 029034TPO- AppC.pdf 1 % Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection: 4. Placentia & Hospital Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter /Spring 2007 Peak 1 Hour Approved Cumulative Existing Regional Projects Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project Approach Peak 1 Hour Growth Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Direction Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume AM PEAK PERIOD Northbound 106 0 22 0 128 1 0 Southbound 383 0 16 0 399 4 9 Eastbound 365 0 0 0 365 4 0 Westbound 649 0 33 0 682 7 10 Project AM Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Project AM Traffic is estimated to be 1 % or greater of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PM PEAK PERIOD Northbound 172 0 34 0 206 2 0 Southbound 407 0 57 0 464 5 6 Eastbound 329 0 0 0 329 3 0 Westbound 650 0 32 0 682 7 9 Project PM Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Project PM Traffic is estimated to be 1 % or greater of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PROJECT: Newport Beach Learning Center FULL OCCUPANCY YEAR: 2013 Newport Beach Learning Center TPO Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. Traffic Report C -5 029034TPO- AppC.pdf 1 % Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection: 5. Newport & Hospital Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter /Spring 2009 Peak 1 Hour Approved Cumulative Existing Regional Projects Projects Projected 1 %of Projected Project Approach Peak 1 Hour Growth Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Direction Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume AM PEAK PERIOD Northbound 1598 0 72 0 1670 17 10 Southbound 1490 0 75 0 1565 16 0 Eastbound 520 0 21 0 541 5 9 Westbound 317 0 1 0 318 3 0 Project AM Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Project AM Traffic is estimated to be 1 % or greater of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PM PEAK PERIOD Northbound 1387 0 95 0 1482 15 9 Southbound 1766 0 68 0 1834 18 0 Eastbound 615 0 60 0 675 7 6 Westbound 337 0 0 0 337 3 0 Project PM Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Project PM Traffic is estimated to be 1 % or greater of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PROJECT: Newport Beach Learning Center FULL OCCUPANCY YEAR: 2013 Newport Beach Learning Center TPO Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. Traffic Report C -6 029034TPO- AppC.pdf 1 % Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection: 6. Orange & Coast Hwy Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter /Spring 2009 Peak 1 Hour Approved Cumulative Existing Regional Projects Projects Projected 1 %of Projected Project Approach Peak 1 Hour Growth Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Feast Hour Direction Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume AM PEAK PERIOD Northbound 120 0 0 0 120 1 0 Southbound 61 0 0 0 61 1 0 Eastbound 3116 125 62 0 3303 33 21 Westbound 930 37 37 0 1004 10 18 Project AM Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Project AM Traffic is estimated to be 1 % or greater of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PM PEAK PERIOD Northbound 74 0 0 0 74 1 0 Southbound 52 0 0 0 52 1 0 Eastbound 1233 49 56 0 1338 13 18 Westbound 2867 115 95 0 3077 31 12 Project PM Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Project PM Traffic is estimated to be 1 % or greater of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PROJECT: Newport Beach Learning Center FULL OCCUPANCY YEAR: 2013 Newport Beach Learning Center TPO Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. Traffic Report C -7 029034TPO- AppC.pdf 1 % Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection: 7. Propsect & Coast Hwy Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter /Spring 2009 Peak 1 Hour Approved Cumulative Existing Regional Projects Projects Projected 1 %of Projected Project Approach Peak 1 Hour Growth Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Direction Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume AM PEAK PERIOD Northbound 52 0 0 0 52 1 0 Southbound 274 0 0 0 274 3 0 Eastbound 2512 100 62 0 2674 27 21 Westbound 1172 47 37 0 1256 13 18 Project AM Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Project AM Traffic is estimated to be 1 % or greater of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PM PEAK PERIOD Northbound 49 0 0 0 49 0 0 Southbound 97 0 0 0 97 1 0 Eastbound 1305 52 56 0 1413 14 18 Westbound 2800 112 95 0 3007 30 12 Project PM Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Project PM Traffic is estimated to be 1 % or greater of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PROJECT: Newport Beach Learning Center FULL OCCUPANCY YEAR: 2013 Newport Beach Learning Center TPO Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. Traffic Report C -8 029034TPO- AppC.pdf 1 % Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection: 8. Superior /Balboa & Coast Hwy Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter /Spring 2009 Peak 1 Hour Approved Cumulative Existing Regional Projects Projects Projected 1 %of Projected Project Approach Peak 1 Hour Growth Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Direction Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume AM PEAK PERIOD Northbound 548 0 7 0 555 6 0 Southbound 582 0 15 0 597 6 18 Eastbound 2834 113 73 0 3020 30 21 Westbound 1018 41 42 0 1101 11 0 Project AM Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Project AM Traffic is estimated to be 1 % or greater of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PM PEAK PERIOD Northbound 540 0 9 0 549 5 0 Southbound 1181 0 68 0 1249 12 12 Eastbound 1487 59 71 0 1617 16 18 Westbound 2242 90 67 0 2399 24 0 Project PM Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Project PM Traffic is estimated to be 1 % or greater of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PROJECT: Newport Beach Learning Center FULL OCCUPANCY YEAR: 2013 Newport Beach Learning Center TPO Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. Traffic Report C -9 029034TPO- AppC.pdf 1 % Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection: 9. Newport & Coast Hwy Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter /Spring 2009 Peak 1 Hour Approved Cumulative Existing Regional Projects Projects Projected 1 %of Projected Project Approach Peak 1 Hour Growth Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Direction Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume AM PEAK PERIOD Northbound 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Southbound 671 0 52 0 723 7 5 Eastbound 2270 91 16 0 2377 24 0 Westbound 1161 46 42 0 1249 12 0 Project AM Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Project AM Traffic is estimated to be 1 % or greater of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PM PEAK PERIOD Northbound 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Southbound 979 0 64 0 1043 10 3 Eastbound 1420 57 83 0 1560 16 0 Westbound 2310 92 26 0 2428 24 0 Project PM Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Project PM Traffic is estimated to be 1 % or greater of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PROJECT: Newport Beach Learning Center FULL OCCUPANCY YEAR: 2013 Newport Beach Learning Center TPO Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. Traffic Report C -10 029034TPO- AppC.pdf 1 % Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection: 10. Riverside & Coast Hwy Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter /Spring 2009 Peak 1 Hour Approved Cumulative Existing Regional Projects Projects Projected 1 %of Projected Project Approach Peak 1 Hour Growth Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Direction Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume AM PEAK PERIOD Northbound 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 Southbound 385 0 2 0 387 4 0 Eastbound 2209 88 103 0 2400 24 5 Westbound 1208 48 93 0 1349 13 5 Project AM Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Project AM Traffic is estimated to be 1 % or greater of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PM PEAK PERIOD Northbound 23 0 0 0 23 0 0 Southbound 504 0 2 0 506 5 0 Eastbound 1622 65 138 0 1825 18 3 Westbound 2236 89 142 0 2467 25 4 Project PM Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Project PM Traffic is estimated to be 1 % or greater of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PROJECT: Newport Beach Learning Center FULL OCCUPANCY YEAR: 2013 Newport Beach Learning Center TPO Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. Traffic Report C -11 029034TPO- AppC.pdf 1 % Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection: 11. Tustin 8 Coast Hwy Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter /Spring 2009 Peak 1 Hour Approved Cumulative Existing Regional Projects Projects Projected 1 %of Projected Project Approach Peak 1 Hour Growth Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Direction Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume AM PEAK PERIOD Northbound 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Southbound 48 0 93 0 141 1 0 Eastbound 2035 81 108 0 2224 22 5 Westbound 1256 50 93 0 1399 14 5 Project AM Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Project AM Traffic is estimated to be 1 % or greater of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PM PEAK PERIOD Northbound 3 0 0 0 3 0 0 Southbound 82 0 0 0 82 1 0 Eastbound 1490 60 140 0 1690 17 3 Westbound 2282 91 143 0 2516 25 4 Project PM Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Project PM Traffic is estimated to be 1 % or greater of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PROJECT: Newport Beach Learning Center FULL OCCUPANCY YEAR: 2013 Newport Beach Learning Center TPO Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. Traffic Report C -12 029034TPO- AppC.pdf 1 % Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection: 12. Dover & Coast Hwy Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter /Spring 2009 Peak 1 Hour Approved Cumulative Existing Regional Projects Projects Projected 1 %of Projected Project Approach Peak 1 Hour Growth Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Direction Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume AM PEAK PERIOD Northbound 106 0 0 0 106 1 0 Southbound 999 0 27 0 1026 10 0 Eastbound 2054 82 104 0 2240 22 5 Westbound 1723 69 98 0 1890 19 5 Project AM Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Project AM Traffic is estimated to be 1 % or greater of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PM PEAK PERIOD Northbound 118 0 0 0 118 1 0 Southbound 1098 0 26 0 1124 11 0 Eastbound 1440 58 166 0 1664 17 3 Westbound 3224 129 139 0 3492 35 4 Project PM Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Project PM Traffic is estimated to be 1 % or greater of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PROJECT: Newport Beach Learning Center FULL OCCUPANCY YEAR: 2013 Newport Beach Learning Center TPO Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. Traffic Report C -13 029034TPO- AppC.pdf 1 % Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection: 13. Newport & Via Lido Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter /Spring 2009 Peak 1 Hour Approved Cumulative Existing Regional Projects Projects Projected 1 %of Projected Project Approach Peak 1 Hour Growth Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Direction Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume AM PEAK PERIOD Northbound 1301 0 22 0 1323 13 5 Southbound 1243 0 7 0 1250 13 5 Eastbound 16 0 0 0 16 0 0 Westbound 333 0 0 0 333 3 0 Project AM Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Project AM Traffic is estimated to be 1 % or greater of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PM PEAK PERIOD Northbound 1348 0 14 0 1362 14 3 Southbound 1850 0 35 0 1885 19 4 Eastbound 9 0 0 0 9 0 0 Westbound 434 0 0 0 434 4 0 Project PM Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Project PM Traffic is estimated to be 1 % or greater of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PROJECT: Newport Beach Learning Center FULL OCCUPANCY YEAR: 2013 Newport Beach Learning Center TPO Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. Traffic Report C -14 029034TPO- AppC.pdf 1 % Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection: 14. Newport & 32nd Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter /Spring 2009 Peak 1 Hour Approved Cumulative Existing Regional Projects Projects Projected 1 %of Projected Project Approach Peak 1 Hour Growth Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Direction Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume AM PEAK PERIOD Northbound 912 0 6 0 918 9 5 Southbound 857 0 3 0 660 9 5 Eastbound 306 0 1 0 307 3 0 Westbound 120 0 0 0 120 1 0 Project AM Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Project AM Traffic is estimated to be 1 % or greater of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PM PEAK PERIOD Northbound 924 0 8 0 932 9 3 Southbound 1335 0 14 0 1349 13 4 Eastbound 233 0 0 0 233 2 0 Westbound 163 0 0 0 163 2 0 Project PM Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Project PM Traffic is estimated to be 1 % or greater of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PROJECT: Newport Beach Learning Center FULL OCCUPANCY YEAR: 2013 Newport Beach Learning Center TPO Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. Traffic Report C -15 029034TPO- AppC.pdf APPENDIX D HCM INTERSECTION DELAY WORKSHEETS Newport Beach Learning Center TPO D -1 Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. Traffic Report 029034TPO.doc Existing - AM Peak Hour 22: 16th & Monrovia Synchro 6 Report [B614] t �z r t4\ Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NEIL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 4* 4b 4b 4b Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Volume (vph) 6 28 7 28 50 39 6 62 3 20 73 30 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly flow rate (vph) 6 29 7 29 53 41 6 65 3 21 77 32 Direction, Lane # EB I WB 1 NB 1 SB 1 Volume Total (vph) 43 123 75 129 Volume Left (vph) 6 29 6 21 Volume Right (vph) 7 41 3 32 Hadj (s) -0.04 -0.12 0.03 -0.08 Departure Headway (s) 4.5 4.3 4.4 4.3 Degree Utilization, x 0.05 0.15 0.09 0.15 Capacity (veh/h) 761 789 768 796 Control Delay (s) 7.7 8.0 7.9 8.1 Approach Delay (s) 7.7 8.0 7.9 8.1 Approach LOS A A A A Intersection Summary Delay 8.0 HCM Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Newport Beach Learning Center TPO D -2 Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. Traffic Report 029034TPO- AppD.pdf Existing - PM Peak Hour 22: 16th & Monrovia Synchro 6 Report [B614] t �z r t4\ Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NEIL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 4b 4b 4b 4b Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Volume (vph) 44 80 21 10 26 29 9 72 14 31 98 13 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly flow rate (vph) 46 84 22 11 27 31 9 76 15 33 103 14 Direction, Lane # EB I WB 1 NB 1 SB I Volume Total (vph) 153 68 100 149 Volume Left (vph) 46 11 9 33 Volume Right (vph) 22 31 15 14 Hadj (s) 0.01 -0.20 -0.04 0.02 Departure Headway (s) 4.6 4.5 4.6 4.6 Degree Utilization, x 0.19 0.09 0.13 0.19 Capacity (veh/h) 736 743 740 741 Control Delay (s) 8.7 7.9 8.2 8.6 Approach Delay (s) 8.7 7.9 8.2 8.6 Approach LOS A A A A Intersection Summary Delay 8.5 HCM Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Newport Beach Learning Center TPO D -3 Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. Traffic Report 029034TPO- AppD.pdf Existing + Project - AM Peak Hour 22: 16th & Monrovia Synchro 6 Report [B614] t �z r t4\ Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NEIL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 4* 4b 4b 4b Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Volume (vph) 6 28 7 71 50 39 6 74 42 20 87 30 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly flow rate (vph) 6 29 7 75 53 41 6 78 44 21 92 32 Direction, Lane # EB I WB 1 NB 1 SB I Volume Total (vph) 43 168 128 144 Volume Left (vph) 6 75 6 21 Volume Right (vph) 7 41 44 32 Hadj (s) -0.04 -0.02 -0.16 -0.07 Departure Headway (s) 4.7 4.6 4.4 4.5 Degree Utilization, x 0.06 0.21 0.16 0.18 Capacity (veh/h) 702 739 768 753 Control Delay (s) 8.0 8.8 8.2 8.5 Approach Delay (s) 8.0 8.8 8.2 8.5 Approach LOS A A A A Intersection Summary Delay 8.5 HCM Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Newport Beach Learning Center TPO D -4 Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. Traffic Report 029034TPO- AppD.pdf Existing + Project - PM Peak Hour 22: 16th & Monrovia Synchro 6 Report [B614] t �z r t4\ Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NEIL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 4b 4b 4* 4b Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Volume (vph) 44 80 21 46 26 29 9 79 39 31 110 13 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly flow rate (vph) 46 84 22 48 27 31 9 83 41 33 116 14 Direction, Lane # EB I WB 1 NB 1 SB I Volume Total (vph) 153 106 134 162 Volume Left (vph) 46 48 9 33 Volume Right (vph) 22 31 41 14 Hadj (s) 0.01 -0.05 -0.14 0.02 Departure Headway (s) 4.8 4.8 4.6 4.7 Degree Utilization, x 0.20 0.14 0.17 0.21 Capacity (veh/h) 702 696 729 711 Control Delay (s) 9.0 8.6 8.6 9.0 Approach Delay (s) 9.0 8.6 8.6 9.0 Approach LOS A A A A Intersection Summary Delay 8.8 HCM Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Newport Beach Learning Center TPO D -5 Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. Traffic Report 029034TPO- AppD.pdf 2013 Background - AM Peak Hour 22: 16th & Monrovia Synchro 6 Report [B614] t �z r t4\ Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NEIL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 4* 4b 4b 4b Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Volume (vph) 6 28 7 28 50 39 6 62 3 20 73 30 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly flow rate (vph) 6 29 7 29 53 41 6 65 3 21 77 32 Direction, Lane # EB I WB 1 NB 1 SB 1 Volume Total (vph) 43 123 75 129 Volume Left (vph) 6 29 6 21 Volume Right (vph) 7 41 3 32 Hadj (s) -0.04 -0.12 0.03 -0.08 Departure Headway (s) 4.5 4.3 4.4 4.3 Degree Utilization, x 0.05 0.15 0.09 0.15 Capacity (veh/h) 761 789 768 796 Control Delay (s) 7.7 8.0 7.9 8.1 Approach Delay (s) 7.7 8.0 7.9 8.1 Approach LOS A A A A Intersection Summary Delay 8.0 HCM Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Newport Beach Learning Center TPO D -6 Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. Traffic Report 029034TPO- AppD.pdf 2013 Background - PM Peak Hour 22: 16th & Monrovia Synchro 6 Report [B614] t �z r t4\ Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NEIL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 4b 4b 4b 4b Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Volume (vph) 44 80 21 10 26 29 9 72 14 31 98 13 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly flow rate (vph) 46 84 22 11 27 31 9 76 15 33 103 14 Direction, Lane # EB I WB 1 NB 1 SB I Volume Total (vph) 153 68 100 149 Volume Left (vph) 46 11 9 33 Volume Right (vph) 22 31 15 14 Hadj (s) 0.01 -0.20 -0.04 0.02 Departure Headway (s) 4.6 4.5 4.6 4.6 Degree Utilization, x 0.19 0.09 0.13 0.19 Capacity (veh/h) 736 743 740 741 Control Delay (s) 8.7 7.9 8.2 8.6 Approach Delay (s) 8.7 7.9 8.2 8.6 Approach LOS A A A A Intersection Summary Delay 8.5 HCM Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Newport Beach Learning Center TPO D -7 Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. Traffic Report 029034TPO- AppD.pdf 2013 Background + Project - AM Peak Hour 22: 16th & Monrovia Synchro 6 Report [B614] t �z r t4\ Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NEIL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 4* 4b 4b 4b Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Volume (vph) 6 28 7 71 50 39 6 74 42 20 87 30 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly flow rate (vph) 6 29 7 75 53 41 6 78 44 21 92 32 Direction, Lane # EB I WB 1 NB 1 SB I Volume Total (vph) 43 168 128 144 Volume Left (vph) 6 75 6 21 Volume Right (vph) 7 41 44 32 Hadj (s) -0.04 -0.02 -0.16 -0.07 Departure Headway (s) 4.7 4.6 4.4 4.5 Degree Utilization, x 0.06 0.21 0.16 0.18 Capacity (veh/h) 702 739 768 753 Control Delay (s) 8.0 8.8 8.2 8.5 Approach Delay (s) 8.0 8.8 8.2 8.5 Approach LOS A A A A Intersection Summary Delay 8.5 HCM Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Newport Beach Learning Center TPO D -a Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. Traffic Report 029034TPO- AppD.pdf 2013 Background + Project - PM Peak Hour 22: 16th & Monrovia Synchro 6 Report [B614] t �z r t4\ Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NEIL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 4b 4b 4* 4b Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Volume (vph) 44 80 21 46 26 29 9 79 39 31 110 13 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly flow rate (vph) 46 84 22 48 27 31 9 83 41 33 116 14 Direction, Lane # EB I WB 1 NB 1 SB I Volume Total (vph) 153 106 134 162 Volume Left (vph) 46 48 9 33 Volume Right (vph) 22 31 41 14 Hadj (s) 0.01 -0.05 -0.14 0.02 Departure Headway (s) 4.8 4.8 4.6 4.7 Degree Utilization, x 0.20 0.14 0.17 0.21 Capacity (veh/h) 702 696 729 711 Control Delay (s) 9.0 8.6 8.6 9.0 Approach Delay (s) 9.0 8.6 8.6 9.0 Approach LOS A A A A Intersection Summary Delay 8.8 HCM Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Newport Beach Learning Center TPO D -9 Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. Traffic Report 029034TPO- AppD.pdf 2013 Cumulative - AM Peak Hour 22: 16th & Monrovia Synchro 6 Report [B614] t �z r t4\ Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NEIL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 4* 4b 4b 4b Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Volume (vph) 6 93 7 28 70 71 6 62 3 53 73 30 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly flow rate (vph) 6 98 7 29 74 75 6 65 3 56 77 32 Direction, Lane # EB I WB 1 NB 1 SB I Volume Total (vph) 112 178 75 164 Volume Left (vph) 6 29 6 56 Volume Right (vph) 7 75 3 32 Hadj (s) 0.01 -0.18 0.03 -0.01 Departure Headway (s) 4.7 4.4 4.8 4.7 Degree Utilization, x 0.15 0.22 0.10 0.21 Capacity (veh/h) 711 760 691 720 Control Delay (s) 8.5 8.7 8.4 8.9 Approach Delay (s) 8.5 8.7 8.4 8.9 Approach LOS A A A A Intersection Summary Delay 8.7 HCM Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Newport Beach Learning Center TPO D -10 Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. Traffic Report 029034TPO- AppD.pdf 2013 Cumulative - PM Peak Hour 22: 16th & Monrovia Synchro 6 Report [B614] t �z r t4\ Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NEIL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 4b 4b 4b 4b Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Volume (vph) 44 125 21 10 100 63 9 72 14 69 98 13 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly flow rate (vph) 46 132 22 11 105 66 9 76 15 73 103 14 Direction, Lane # EB I WB 1 NB 1 SB 1 Volume Total (vph) 200 182 100 189 Volume Left (vph) 46 11 9 73 Volume Right (vph) 22 66 15 14 Hadj (s) 0.01 -0.17 -0.04 0.07 Departure Headway (s) 4.9 4.8 5.1 5.1 Degree Utilization, x 0.27 0.24 0.14 0.27 Capacity (veh/h) 682 700 640 656 Control Delay (s) 9.8 9.3 8.9 9.9 Approach Delay (s) 9.8 9.3 8.9 9.9 Approach LOS A A A A Intersection Summary Delay 9.5 HCM Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Newport Beach Learning Center TPO D -11 Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. Traffic Report 029034TPO- AppD.pdf 2013 Cumulative + Project - AM Peak Hour 22: 16th & Monrovia Synchro 6 Report [B614] t �z r t4\ Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NEIL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 4* 4b 4b 4b Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Volume (vph) 6 93 7 71 70 71 6 74 42 53 87 30 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly flow rate (vph) 6 98 7 75 74 75 6 78 44 56 92 32 Direction, Lane # EB I WB 1 NB 1 SB I Volume Total (vph) 112 223 128 179 Volume Left (vph) 6 75 6 56 Volume Right (vph) 7 75 44 32 Hadj (s) 0.01 -0.10 -0.16 -0.01 Departure Headway (s) 5.0 4.7 4.8 4.9 Degree Utilization, x 0.15 0.29 0.17 0.24 Capacity (veh/h) 661 712 686 682 Control Delay (s) 8.9 9.7 8.8 9.5 Approach Delay (s) 8.9 9.7 8.8 9.5 Approach LOS A A A A Intersection Summary Delay 9.3 HCM Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Newport Beach Learning Center TPO D -12 Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. Traffic Report 029034TPO- AppD.pdf 2013 Cumulative + Project - PM Peak Hour 22: 16th & Monrovia Synchro 6 Report [B614] t �z r t4\ Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NEIL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 4b 4b 4* 4b Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Volume (vph) 44 125 21 46 100 63 9 79 39 69 110 13 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly flow rate (vph) 46 132 22 48 105 66 9 83 41 73 116 14 Direction, Lane # EB I WB 1 NB 1 SB I Volume Total (vph) 200 220 134 202 Volume Left (vph) 46 48 9 73 Volume Right (vph) 22 66 41 14 Hadj (s) 0.01 -0.10 -0.14 0.07 Departure Headway (s) 5.2 5.0 5.2 5.3 Degree Utilization, x 0.29 0.31 0.19 0.30 Capacity (veh/h) 646 666 618 628 Control Delay (s) 10.2 10.2 9.4 10.5 Approach Delay (s) 10.2 10.2 9.4 10.5 Approach LOS B B A B Intersection Summary Delay 10.1 HCM Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 Newport Beach Learning Center TPO D -13 Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. Traffic Report 029034TPO- AppD.pdf WTI I DEFINITIONS Certain terms used throughout this report are defined below to clarify their intended meaning: ADT Average Daily Traffic. Generally used to measure the total two - directional traffic volumes passing a given point on a roadway. DU Dwelling Unit. Used in quantifying residential land use. ICU Intersection Capacity Utilization. A measure of the volume to capacity ratio for an intersection. Typically used to determine the peak hour level of service for a given set of intersection volumes. LOS Level of Service. A scale used to evaluate circulation system performance based on intersection ICU values or volume /capacity ratios of arterial segments. Peak Hour This refers to the hour during the AM peak period (typically 7 AM - 9 AM) or the PM peak period (typically 3 PM - 6 PM) in which the greatest number of vehicle trips are generated by a given land use or are traveling on a given roadway. TSF Thousand Square Feet. Used in quantifying non - residential land uses, and refers to building floor area. V/C Volume to Capacity Ratio. This is typically used to describe the percentage of capacity utilized by existing or projected traffic on a segment of an arterial or intersection. VPH Vehicles Per Hour. Used for roadway volumes (counts or forecasts) and trip generation estimates. Measures the number of vehicles in a one hour period, typically the AM or PM peak hour. Newport Beach Learning Center TPO E -I Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. Traffic Report 029034TPO.doc Attachment No. PC 5 Project Plans \ a- f, 62 q0 0 \s. as nw..ti a.. m my momma ;r. m xv.m.oa a Nm- aal..n..�raN.- mrrwvna lva- uunwnr I i �9P PARCEL i PARCEL 1 I g07tA� PARCEL 3 r I , 1� I I, I 'I. 1 TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO 2009 -113 N IIEONG°IEiM44l9alOi OPfMTGFpNA1� 8TA1EfPCYR19'N ®a)AIM/O/GaWRI.RAIDNI PLC /elL1°1MNBlANNWMaBNtR /a0r iNICfMHLY1 _ WAYYNAXNI /ATNfPYR9(AZWNVSMVDDOFOWQQ'YMYG FMTWL ' OE�{91W a, '. )IWIte. SWa1tl� ' tereac am�NwvmAa rsNOaerNr, -sry ).or® .. �xa /m rrv,vo /.. exnxamurax xw �n /mow ni av'mr ua \ a- f, 62 q0 0 \s. as nw..ti a.. m my momma ;r. m xv.m.oa a Nm- aal..n..�raN.- mrrwvna lva- uunwnr I i �9P PARCEL i PARCEL 1 I g07tA� PARCEL 3 r I , 1� I I, I 'I. 1 TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO 2009 -113 N IIEONG°IEiM44l9alOi OPfMTGFpNA1� 8TA1EfPCYR19'N ®a)AIM/O/GaWRI.RAIDNI PLC /elL1°1MNBlANNWMaBNtR /a0r iNICfMHLY1 _ WAYYNAXNI /ATNfPYR9(AZWNVSMVDDOFOWQQ'YMYG FMTWL ' OE�{91W MS �NIBli.41B1 '. )IWIte. SWa1tl� ' tereac am�NwvmAa rsNOaerNr, -sry ).or® .. �xa /m rrv,vo /.. exnxamurax xw �n /mow ni av'mr ua r� ia�xo-mmrxx «r- nr- mwrc,vou ' a vc�aamm v-r-.a mn., ,zr6. �. m..'Q.rwtm wemm �moe�mmnaw ,' • �a°A°maa�m°G.rm.rm _ m "� sue.. ° �"° m m xa� aa„N. . ase,nonu xo r¢ neee -._-. ro...x m"tl'O'°'O"O°°' `:moo mr.e ewm ns •,rms�wsammx aaxwu wwzxaannx Nxsx xummr w.mo, nxx. xN (xam �mw.xc ms rx x .x..i xe. �- n:e°onaxesm'"�. "'¢mar'"m°Emm rmaremenarAUruv euc Iim Mn@PS N01mLL tlYTlXx= m/MI °1"''`"m'`ivu®nv�'aixuvw P. xvxa�mxx•a..mnxa .a..wswl m as mn nlNxm.m a aw Emvm°Bemwwrr annum mm�xrm mlmn >w .vx mmmrsemn�N mrmiru nmianna ua. N�/a ., ', �� xxn/armro)�avmax x.m xr '! wmx+wn•smmx 0° m�manam ronwx Am mmwxmwamv ,�ma im wx mrswcma nv/v- maalsxo .. nom °/• - emm� rum r,�manvu moma �4mw �/rn vma °moms wnie �vn 'Qmumarmmmwr vvvaan mmvawnmeumn x�N.nm am N.Nae/xevm.vmraaarmnxm Am��meoo. uml ma m. mmn amva u maxvrmmNaar zur wrm awnmv wrw mine rm ea%wm¢im x62 maruaaxe mm mwna Nmnraarrrm maxi ren /xnrsm �vo Ii .r°AVNUmw wo wems Qx�mvc mavaxarwn•mm aaawwwom "`mlcwr rs°'x.."ov. ®xm�uwa r �rrOOmal "�0 a'ao s�AVm�"mv °.'mor m�ow/r � mnr rlN:aa: � .' reay. mevsrpxNAn raas+NVmmnv n x`or'rs."OrowaP°`i "m"iar"O°m.�mkz ' uxm�a'nr� : xmxa maxa.�sxwa m®I�rmmwl ovr- mupp((��yyyy�{{ w"I`aur "r` I waem b fix. rinN�fN�I Eni VlR4� WE ra • ar� - I(1IL'/CaYfl MG7N1RW MO ImY a9mar wsw •Crow m mn TrtEaV.WI CYIIIO.'IM N9 xeaa�s/./ �IUP7 O _ �� mrm•mm =�hT 'f ,J x�Amwrc•m ®xxn renom r0).o�.ava xol.� VcwyAw g '�eru,•xnsmsrr a®o°wIm Me/`°"' norm mu •, �,„rw "'a"� �w•,n m mv"°mxa,`�«„,a aevnmr ;,°x �,mr�•��vmm aavuvc vawNr mat¢ _ � mi exsr« Tr s wm EXISTING OFFICE/ INDUSTRIAL ADJACENT VACANTLOT TOTAL LOT ACREAGE: GROSS BUILDING SIZE: BUILDING HEIGHT: PARKING COUNT: LANDSCAPEDAREA s:. £ V M4 4 m EXISTING OFFICE! INDUSTRIAL 3.9 ACRES 68,800 SQUARE FEET 42'8" STANDARD 235 HANDICAP 7 38,484 SQUARE FEET ENHANCED HARDSCAPE LANDSCAPE I Eit n =� W Q!�N amt N 3 OFFICE/ INDUSTRIAL W �Q Q Q '2 O 1 M1� p0 oo� I EXISTING MOBILE _? J 15TH STREET LPA- ci K ZW W� U .Wi ei J Z� W� Z J� WUZ 0. mim �p o7 E ayo 6 zo 0. 9