Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2004-88 - Saint Mark Prebyterian Church
RESOLUTION NO. 2004- 88 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH CERTIFYING THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND ADOPTING A MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM REGARDING THE SAINT MARK PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH PROJECT FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2200 SAN JOAQUIN HILLS ROAD (STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NO. 2003101137) WHEREAS, Saint Mark Presbyterian Church, has applied to the City of Newport Beach for approval of a General Plan Amendment No. 2003 -002, Planned Community Text Amendment No. 2003 -001, Use Permit No. 2003 -015, Traffic Study No. 2004 -004 and Parcel Map No. 2004 -036 necessary to develop an approximate 34,000 square foot church campus including a sanctuary, administration building, fellowship hall, pre- school buildings, expansion building and ancillary facilities on an approximate 7.38 acre site located at the northwesterly corner of MacArthur Boulevard and San Joaquin Hills Road. WHEREAS, in accordance with California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requirements, a Notice of Preparation (NOP) was filed with the State Clearinghouse, which assigned State Clearinghouse No. 2003101137. WHEREAS, the NOP and an Initial Study were distributed to all responsible and trustee agencies and other interested parties for a 30 -day public review period commencing on October 27, 2003 and ending on November 26, 2003. WHEREAS, in accordance with CEQA requirements, a Notice of Completion (NOC) of a Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) was filed with the State Clearinghouse, and the Draft EIR was distributed to agencies, interested organizations, and individuals by the City. The distribution list is available at the City of Newport Beach Planning Department. WHEREAS, a 45 -day public review period for the Draft EIR was established pursuant to State law, which commenced on July 14, 2004 and ended on August 31, 2004. WHEREAS, all comments received during the public review period for the Draft EIR were responded to in the Response to Comments document dated September 17, 2004. WHEREAS, on September 23, 2004, the Planning Commission held a public noticed public hearing at which time the final Environmental Impact Report, comprised of the Draft Environmental Impact Report, a listing of persons and organizations that provided written comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report during the public circulation period, a compilation of the these comments, and responses to those comments, was considered. Notice of time, place and purpose of the public hearing was duly given and testimony was presented to and considered by the Planning Commission at the hearing. WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the public hearing, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 1640, recommending that the City Council certify the EIR as complying with the requirements of CEQA. WHEREAS, the Final Environmental Impact Report identifies potential significant impacts to the environment and certain mitigation measures designed to reduce or avoid these impacts to a less than significant level. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Newport Beach has reviewed and considered the information in the Final EIR, and in the full administrative record, prior to taking any action on the project. The documents and other material that constitute the record of proceedings on which the City Council's Findings and decision are based are located at Newport Beach City Hall, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California 92658. The custodian for these documents is the Planning Department Executive Secretary. This information is provided in compliance with Public Resources Code section 21081.6(a)(2) and CEQA Guidelines section 15091(e). The following documents area also attached to this resolution for ease of reference, and by reference made in part of this Resolution. EIR -1 Draft Environmental Impact Report (Distributed separately due to bulk. Available for public review at the City's Planning Department.) EIR-2 Responses to Comments on Draft EIR dated July 2, 2004. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT THE City Council does hereby make the findings attached to this resolution as Exhibit "A" and certifies as follows: 1. That the Saint Mark Presbyterian Church Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse No. 2003101137) has been prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the CEQA Guidelines. 2. That the EIR reflects the City Council's independent judgment and analysis. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED the City Council does hereby adopt the Mitigation Monitoring Program attached to this resolution as Exhibit "B ". ADOPTED this 12th day of October 2004, by the following vote, to wit: AYES, COUNCIL MEMBERS Heffernan, Rosansky, Bromberg, Webb, Daigle, Nichols, Mayor Ridgeway NOES, COUNCIL MEMBERS None ABSENT, COUNCIL MEMBERS None MAYOR ATT S CITY CLERK STATE OF CALIFORNIA } COUNTY OF ORANGE } ss. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 1 I. LaVonne M. Harkless, City Clerk of the City of Newport Beach, California, do hereby certify that the whole number of members of the City Council is seven; that the foregoing resolution, being Resolution No. 2004 -88 was duly and regularly introduced before and adopted by the City Council of said City at a regular meeting of said Council, duly and regularly held on the 12th day of October, 2004, and that the same was so passed and adopted by the following vote, to wit: Ayes: Heffernan, Rosansky, Bromberg, Webb, Daigle, Nichols, Mayor Ridgeway Noes: None Absent: None Abstain: None IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto subscribed my name and affixed the official seal of said City this 13th day of October, 2004. (Seal) City Clerk Newport Beach, California EIR -1 Draft Environmental Impact Report for St. Mark Presbyterian Church including the Technical Appendix (SCH #2003101137) iI ' DRAFT Environmental Impact Report St. Mark Presbyterian Church State Clearinghouse No. 2003101137 July 2004 Prepared for: µR M IY)�, �Mr��u City of Newport Beach Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 Contact: Gregg B. Ramirez, Associate Planner 714.644.3219 Prepared by: soon Michael Brandman Associates 220 Commerce, Suite 200 Irvine, CA 92602 Contact: Kevin B. Shannon, Project Manager 714.508.4100 St Mark Presbyterian Church - Draft EIR Table of Contents Table of Contents Section 1: Introduction .................................................................... ............................... 1 -1 1.1 - Authority ............................................................................ ............................1 -1 1.2 - Determination of the Lead Agency and Responsible Agency ......................... 1 -1 1.3- Purpose of the EIR ......................................................... ............................... 1 -2 1.4 - Scope of the EIR ............................................................ ............................... 1 -2 1.5 - EIR Focus and Effects Found Not To Be Significant ....... ............................... 1 -3 1.6 - Organization of the EIR .................................................. ............................... 1-5 1.7 - Project Sponsors and Contact Persons .......................... ............................... 1 -6 1.8 - Review of the Draft EIR .................................................. ............................... 1 -7 Section 2: Executive Summary ....................................................... ............................... 2-1 2.1 - Introduction ..................................................................... ............................... 2 -1 2.2 - Project Description ......................................................... ............................... 2 -1 2.3 - Assumptions Regarding Development Sequence ........... ............................... 2 -3 2.4 - Areas of Controversy /Issues To Be Resolved ................. ............................... 2 -3 2.5 - Summary of Alternatives ................................................. ............................... 2 -3 2.6 - Mitigation Monitoring Program ........................................ ............................... 2 -4 2.7 - Summary of Significant Environmental Effects and Mitigation Measures....... 2 -4 Section 3: Project Description ........................................................ ............................... 3-1 3.1 - Project Location .............................................................. ............................... 3 -1 3.2 - Project Site History ......................................................... ............................... 3 -1 ' 3.3- Project Characteristics .................................................... ............................... 3.4- Project Objectives ......................................................... ............................... 3 -9 3 -39 3.5- Intended Uses of the Draft EIR ..................................... ............................... 3 -39 3.6 - Responsible and Trustee Agencies .............................. ............................... 3 -43 Section 4: General Description of Environmental Setting ............. ............................... 4 -1 4.1 - Overview of Environmental Setting ................................. ............................... 4 -1 ' 4.2 - Related Projects ............................................................. ............................... 4 -1 Section 5: Environmental Setting, Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and Level of Significance After Mitigation ................................. ............................... 5 -1 5.1 - Land Use and Planning ............................................... ............................... 5.1 -1 ' 5.2 - Hydrology and Water Quality ....................................... ............................... 5.2 -1 5.3 - Biological Resources ................................................... ............................... 5.3 -1 5.4 - Transportation and Traffic ............................................ ............................... 5.4-1 5.5 - Air Quality .................................................................... ............................... 5.5 -1 5.6 - Noise ........................................................................... ............................... 5.6 -1 Section 6: Other CEQA Considerations .......................................... ............................... 6 -1 6.1 - Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts ....................... ............................... 6 -1 ' 6.2 - Growth Inducing Impacts ................................................ ............................... 6 -1 Michael Brandman Associates H:\Cfient ( PN- 1N)\ 00 64 \00640021\DHIR \00640021_TOC.doc Table of Contents St Manz Presbyterian Church • Draft FIR 6.3 - Irreversible and Irrtrieveable Commitment to Resources that Would be Involved in the Proposed Action if Implemented .......... ............................... 6 -2 6.4 - Cumulative Impacts ........................................................ ............................... 6 -2 Section 7: Alternatives to the Proposed Project ............................ ............................... 7 -1 7.1 - No Project Alternative - No Development ........................ ............................... 7 -2 7.2 - No Project Alternative - Allowed Development ................ ............................... 7 -4 7.3 - Reduced Intensity Alternative ......................................... ............................... 7 -7 7.4 - Different Site Alternative ............................................... ............................... 7 -10 7.5 - Environmentally Superior Alternative ............................ ............................... 7 -11 Section 8: Organizations and Persons Consulted ......................... ............................... 8 -1 8.1 - Public Agencies .............................................................. ............................... 8-1 8.2 - Private Organizations ..................................................... ............................... 8-1 Section 9: Report Preparation Personnel ....................................... ............................... 9 -1 9.1 - Michael Brandman Associates ........................................ ............................... 9 -1 9.2 - Technical Subconsultants ............................................... ............................... 9 -1 Section 10: References .................................................................. ............................... 10 -1 LIST OF TABLES Table 2 -1: Executive Summary .............................................................. ............................2 -5 Table3 -1: Lot Summary ................. .............. ...................................................................... 3 -9 Table 3 -2: Development Summary ........................................................ ...........................3 -21 Table 3 -3: Building Heights ................................................................... ...........................3 -21 Table 3 -4: Seating Capacity and Hours ................................................. ...........................3 -22 Table3 -5: Building Use ......................................................................... ...........................3 -22 Table 3 -6: Church Activities .................................................................. ...........................3 -22 Table 4 -1: Related Projects .................................................................... ............................4 -5 Table 5.2 -1: Cumulative Peak Stormwater Runoff Summary (25 -year Storm) ...............5.2 -10 Table 5.3 -1: Biological Communities ..................................................... ..........................5.3 -5 Table 5.4 -1: Roadway Classifications .................................................... ..........................5.4 -2 Table 5.4 -2: MacArthur Boulevard/San Joaquin Hills Road Intersection Improvements................................................................................ ..........................5.4 -3 Table 5.4 -3: Study Intersections ............................ ............................... .........................5.4 -11 Table 5.4 -4: Accident Summary (1999 to 2003) ................................... .........................5.4 -15 Table 5.4 -5: LOS Category to ICU Range ............................................ .........................5.4 -17 Table 5.4 -6: Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus TPO Committed Projects Without Project........................................................... ............................... .........................5.4 -23 iv Michael Brandman Associates HACllevt (PNJN)\ 0064 \00640021\DPJR \00640021_TOC.d.c St Mark Presbyterian Church - Draft FIR Table of Contents Table 5.4 -7: Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus TPO Committed Projects With Project.......................................................................................... .........................5.4 -24 Table 5.5 -1: Ambient Air Quality Standards ........................................... ..........................5.5 -6 Table 5.5 -2: Air Quality Monitoring Summary 1992 -2002 ...................... ..........................5.5 -9 Table 5.5 -3: Estimated Short-Term Emissions (Site Grading) .............. .........................5.5 -18 Table 5.5 -4: Estimated Short-Term Emissions ( 2005) .......................... .........................5.5 -18 Table 5.5 -5: Composite Long -Term Emissions ..................................... .........................5.5 -19 Table 5.5 -6: Estimated CO Concentrations .......................................... .........................5.5 -20 Table 5.5 -7: Mitigated Short-Term Emissions ....................................... .........................5.5 -22 Table 5.6 -1: Human Reaction to Typical Vibration Levels ..................... ..........................5.6 -3 Table 5.6 -2: Interior and Exterior Noise Standards City of Newport Beach ...................... 5.6 -6 Table 5.6 -3: Land Use Noise Compatibility Matrix ................................. ..........................5.6 -7 Table 5.6 -4: Existing Noise Level Measurements, St. Mark Presbyterian Church Project.......................................................................................... .........................5.6 -11 Table 5.6 -5: Existing Weekday Traffic - Generated Noise Levels Through the Project Area.............................................................................................. .........................5.6 -12 Table 5.6 -6: Existing Sunday Traffic - Generated Noise Levels Through the Project Area........................................................................................ ............................... 5.6 -13 Table 5.6 -7: Buildout Traffic - Generated Noise Levels at the Project Site ......................5.6 -15 Table 5.6 -8: Noise Levels Generated by Typical Construction Equipment ..................... 5.6 -18 Michael Brandman Associates v H:\Clievt (PN -JN)\ 0064 \00640021\DBIR \00640021 _TOCAm Table of Contents St Mark Presbyterian Church - Draft EIR LIST OF EXHIBITS Exhibit 3 -1: Regional Location Map ........................................................ ............................3 -3 Exhibit 3 -2: Local Vicinity Map ................................................................ ............................3 -5 Exhibit 3 -3: Existing Conditions .............................................................. ............................3 -7 Exhibit3 -4: Parcel Map ......................................................................... ...........................3 -11 Exhibit 3 -5: Site Master Plan ......... ................................................................................... 3 -15 Exhibit 3 -6: Aerial Composite Plan ........................................................ ...........................3 -17 Exhibit 3 -7: Preliminary Grading Plan ............................................ ................................... 3 -19 Exhibit 3 -8: Landscape Architectural Plan ............................................. ...........................3 -25 Exhibit 3 -9: Preliminary Drainage Plan .................................................. ...........................3 -29 Exhibit 3 -10: Site Elevations .................................................................. ...........................3 -31 Exhibit 3 -11: Landscape Site Sections .................................................. ...........................3 -33 Exhibit 3 -12: Site Sections .................................................................... ...........................3 -35 Exhibit 3 -13: Site Section - Children's Play Area ................................... ...........................3 -37 Exhibit 3 -14: Site Perspective ................................................................ ...........................3 -41 Exhibit 4-1: Related Projects .................................................................. ............................4 -3 Exhibit 5.1 -1: Statistical Planning Areas ................................................ ..........................5.1 -5 Exhibit 5.1 -2: Big Canyon Planned Community Text Map ..................... ..........................5.1 -7 Exhibit 5.1 -3: Service Areas ................................................................. .........................5.1 -11 Exhibit 5.1 -4: Service Area No. 8- Belcourt-Big Canyon ........................ .........................5.1 -13 Exhibit 5.1 -5: Zoning Map ............................................................ ................................. 5.1 -19 Exhibit 5.1 -6: Final NCCP /HCP Boundaries ......................................... .........................5.1 -23 Exhibit 5.1 -7: Authorized CSS Take Areas ........................................... .........................5.1 -31 Exhibit 5.2 -1: Existing Hydrology ........................................................... ..........................5.2 -5 Exhibit 5.2 -2: Proposed Hydrology ....................... ......................................................... 5.2 -13 Exhibit 5.3 -1: Plant Communities .......................................................... ..........................5.3 -3 Exhibit 5.4 -1: Existing Weekday PM Peak Hour Intersection Volumes .. ..........................5.4 -5 Exhibit 5.4 -2: Existing Weekday AM Peak Hour Intersection Volumes .. ..........................5.4 -7 Exhibit 5.4 -3: Existing Sunday Peak Hour Intersection Volumes ........... ..........................5.4 -9 Exhibit5.5 -1: Wind Rose ....................................................................... ..........................5.5 -3 Exhibit 5.6 -1: Noise Measurement and Modeled Receptor Locations .... ..........................5.6 -9 Michael Brandman Associates H: \Clie. I( PN-) N)\O064WO640021DF.IRX(X)640021 _'rOCA c St Mark Presbvierian Church - Draft EIR LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix A: IS /NOP and Responses Appendix B: Cultural Resources Survey and Paleontological Records Review Appendix C: Water Quality Management Plan Appendix D: Preliminary Hydrology and Storm Water Management Study Appendix E: Biological Resources Survey Report Appendix F: Traffic Phasing Ordinance Analysis Appendix G: Air Quality Impact Analysis Report Appendix H: Focused Noise Study Table of Contents Michael Brandman Associates vls RUieot(PN-IN) \0064\00640021\DEIR \00640021 TOC.doc • Cumulative Impacts • Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts • Alternatives to the Proposed Project ' • Growth- Inducing Impacts • Effects Found Not to be Significant • Areas of Known Controversy 1.2 - DETERMINATION OF THE LEAD AGENCY AND RESPONSIBLE AGENCY ' St. Mark Presbyterian Church - Draft EIR Introduction State CEQA Guidelines Section 15367 defines the lead agency as the public agency, which has SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION 1.1 - AUTHORITY ' draft Impact is in California This Environmental Report (EIR) prepared accordance with the Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) to evaluate the potential environmental impacts associated with ' the implementation and development of the St. Mark Presbyterian Church project (SMPCP). The City of Newport Beach (City) is the lead agency for the preparation of this EIR. This document has ' been prepared in conformance with CEQA (California Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.), the State CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15000 et seq.) and the rules, regulations, and the City's Implementation Procedures for CEQA (City Council Policy Manual, Section K -3). This draft EIR is intended to serve as an informational document for the public agency decision - makers and the general public regarding the project objectives and components of the SMPCP. The environmental impacts of the SMPCP are analyzed in the EIR to the degree of specificity appropriate ' to the current SMPCP, in accordance with Sections 15146 and 15180 of the State CEQA Guidelines. This document will address the potentially significant adverse environmental impacts that may be associated with the construction, or operation of the project, as well as to identify appropriate and feasible mitigation measures and alternatives that may be adopted to significantly reduce or avoid these impacts. CEQA requires that an EIR contain, at a minimum, certain specific elements. These elements include: • Table of Contents ' • Introduction • Executive Summary ' • Project Description • Environmental Setting, Significant Environmental Impacts, and Mitigation Measures • Cumulative Impacts • Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts • Alternatives to the Proposed Project ' • Growth- Inducing Impacts • Effects Found Not to be Significant • Areas of Known Controversy 1.2 - DETERMINATION OF THE LEAD AGENCY AND RESPONSIBLE AGENCY ' "... State CEQA Guidelines Section 15367 defines the lead agency as the public agency, which has the principal responsibility for carrying out or approving a project." Criteria considered in identifying the lead agency include whether the agency: 1) has the greatest responsibility for supervising or Michael Brandman Associates 7 -7 ' HAC bent ( PN- IN)A0064V006400210EEIRV00640021 SecOI_Intoduc6on.doc Introduction St. Mark Presbyterian Church - Draft EIR approving the project as a whole; 2) is an agency with the general governmental powers, and 3) will act first on the project in question (refer to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15051). The lead agency for this EIR is the City. As the lead agency, the City has responsibility for review, adoption, and implementation of the project. Other public agencies may use this EIR in the decision - making or permit process and consider the information in this EIR along with other information that may be presented during the CEQA process. Environmental impacts may not always be mitigated to a level considered less than significant; in those cases, impacts are considered significant and unavoidable. In accordance with Section 15093(b) of the State CEQA Guidelines, if a public agency approves a project that has significant impacts that are not substantially avoided or lessened (i.e., significant and unavoidable impacts), the agency shall state in writing the specific reasons to support its actions based on the Final EIR or other information in the administrative record. The Statement of Overriding Considerations must be supported by substantial evidence in the record and should be included in the record of project approval. Additionally, the Statement of Overriding Considerations does not substitute for the Findings as required by Section 15091 of the CEQA State Guidelines. This draft EIR was prepared by a consultant under contract to the City. Prior to public review, it was extensively reviewed and evaluated by staff from the City. This EIR reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the City as required by CEQA. Lists of organizations and persons consulted and the report preparation personnel are provided in Sections 7 and 8 of this EIR. 1.3 - PURPOSE OF THE EIR The SMPCP is considered a project -level EIR. The intent of this document is to analyze the environmental effects of the SMPCP to the degree of specificity required by Section 15161 of the State CEQA Guidelines. Therefore, it is anticipated that upon certification of this EIR, no additional environmental review will be required for the implementation of the SMPCP. This EIR also considers a series of actions that are needed to achieve the development of the SMPCP. Additional City approvals (i.e., grading permits, building permits, etc.) may also be needed. The lead agency, as well as other responsible agencies, can approve subsequent actions without additional environmental documentation unless as otherwise required by Public Resources Code Section 21166 and State CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162, 15163 and 15164. The actions involved in the implementation of the SMPCP are described in Section 3, Project Description, of this EIR. Other agencies that may have discretionary approval over the project, or components thereof, are also described in Section 3. 1.4 - SCOPE OF THE EIR This draft EIR addresses the potential environmental effects of the SMPCP. The scope of the EIR includes comments received in response to the Notice of Preparation (NOP). 1 -2 Michael 9randman Associates HACImni(PN -JN) \0064 \00640021\DEn2 \00640021 Sec01- ,Invoducuon.doc St Mark Presbyterian Church - Draft EIR Introduction ' 1.5 - EIR FOCUS AND EFFECTS FOUND NOT TO BE SIGNIFICANT ' An Initial Study/Notice of Preparation (1S/NOP) was prepared and circulated for public review and comment in October 2003. Based on the 1S/NOP and comments received during the public review process, a determination was made that an EIR is required for the proposed project in order to address ' the potentially significant environmental effects of the SMPCP. The scope of the EIR includes issues identified by the City during the preparation of the 1S/NOP for the SMPCP, as well as environmental issues raised by agencies and the public in response to the 1S/NOP. Based on this, the environmental issues that could result in potentially significant impacts that are addressed in this draft EIR consist of the following: • Air Quality i• Biological Resources • Hydrology and Water Quality ' • Land Use and Planning • Noise ' • Transportation/Circulation The environmental issues that are determined not to be significantly affected by the SMPCP and therefore, do not require further analysis in this draft EIR are briefly described here pursuant to Section 15128 of the State CEQA Guidelines. For a complete discussion, refer to the 1S/NOP contained in Appendix A of this document. Aesthetics. The project site is located in a fully developed urban environment that does not contain any designated scenic highways adjacent to the site or designated scenic resources on the project site. Therefore, no impacts to scenic vistas would occur. ' The proposed project is located in a fully developed urban environment containing residential subdivisions, a golf course, a regional shopping center and office park, and an apartment complex in the immediate vicinity of the project site, and is bordered on two sides by major arterial roadways. ' The project site is undeveloped and is low in visual quality relative to the immediate vicinity. Therefore, less than significant impacts to aesthetics would occur. ' lighting. With the The proposed project will include exterior safety lighting and pedestrian walkway Project Design Features incorporated into the design of the project and the recommended mitigation ' measures, less than significant impacts would occur. ' Agricultural Resources. The project site is vacant and is not used for any agricultural production. for for In addition, the project site is not currently zoned or proposed agricultural production. Therefore, no impacts to agricultural resources would occur. Michael Brandman Associates tJ H:\CGenl (PN -9N) \0064\ 00690021 \ DEIR\00640021 -Sec01,mroducfion.doc Introduction St. Mark Presbyterian Church - Draft EIR Cultural Resources. A cultural records search was completed for this site along with field surveys of the site for cultural and paleontological resources. The field surveys did not indicate the presence of any cultural or paleontological resources. With the adoption of proposed mitigation measures relating to the potential for uncovering cultural or paleontological resources during construction activities, less than significant impacts to cultural or paleontological resources would occur. Geology and Soils. The project site is located within an identified earthquake zone and contains earth materials with moderate and variable potential for expansion. The geotechnical report prepared for the proposed project identified specific seismic mitigation measures to be integrated into the structure design and site plan. With the adoption of proposed mitigation measures relating to seismicity and expansive soils, impacts would be less than significant. The geotechnical report determined that the native slopes are stable and the constructed slopes would be stable, and that the conditions for liquefaction potential are absent from the site. Therefore, no significant impacts relating to slope stability or liquefaction would occur. Hazards and Hazardous Materials. The proposed project would require the use and storage of small amounts of commercial cleaning supplies and pesticides and fertilizers used in landscaping maintenance. No large amounts of hazardous materials or acutely hazardous materials are proposed for the project. In addition, the project site is not identified as a hazardous waste site. Therefore, no significant impacts resulting from the use, on -site storage, or transportation of hazardous materials would occur. The project site is located 3.4 miles south (approximately 18,000 feet) south of the John Wayne Airport. The proposed project does not penetrate any of the Federal Aviation Administration's Part 77 imaginary services or contain any lighting features or electronic equipment that would interfere with the visual or navigation systems of the airport; the project does not threaten the operations of the airport, or decrease its utility. Therefore, the proposed project would not have any impacts on the John Wayne Airport. The proposed project does not propose any significant modifications to the area circulation system that would affect any emergency response or evacuation plans. With the adoption of the proposed mitigation measure relating to construction vehicle parking, less than significant impacts to emergency response plans would result from project implementation. The project site is not located adjacent to any identified wildland fire areas. Therefore, no impacts from wildland fires would result from project implementation. Mineral Resources. The project site does not contain any known mineral resources and is not used for the extraction of mineral resources. In addition, the project site is not designated as a mineral resource area. Therefore, no significant impacts to mineral resources would occur. Michael Brandman Associates HXiient (PNJN) 0064 \00640021\DEIR\00640021 -SecOI Invoduaion.do ' 1.6 - ORGANIZATION OF THE EIR The EIR is organized into the following main sections: ' • Section 2: Executive Summary. This section includes a summary of the SMPCP and alternatives to be addressed in the EIR. Also included are a brief description of the areas of controversy and issues to be resolved, in addition to a table which summarizes the impacts, mitigation measures, and level of significance after mitigation. • Section 3: Project Description. This section includes a detailed description of the proposed SMPCP, including both its location, site and project characteristics. A discussion of the project I Michael Brandman Associates 1-5 H:1CIiem ( PN. JN) \0064\0064002MEIR\00640021-Sec01 Invoducdon.doc SL Mark Presbyterian Church - Draft EIR Introduction iPopulation and Housing. The project does not propose any dwelling units or require the removal or relocation of any existing housing structures. Therefore, no significant impacts to population or ' housing would occur. Public Services. The proposed project is located in a fully- improved urban environment. Utility infrastructure is currently available in the adjacent public rights -of -way. Police and fire services are available to serve the proposed project with a fire station and police station each located less than one mile from the project site. The project does not propose and dwelling units that would generate any school -age children or increase the use of public parks. Therefore, no significant impacts to public services would result from project implementation. Recreation. The project does not propose housing and therefore does not have the potential to increase the use of existing recreational facilities or create the demand for new recreational facilities. ' Therefore, no significant impacts to recreational facilities would occur. Utilities and Service Systems. The proposed project would consume nominal amounts of water and generate nominal amounts of wastewater that would not result in the need for new or significantly altered water facilities or wastewater treatment facilities. Water and sewer lines are available in the Therefore, impacts to or facilities would adjacent rights -of -way. no significant water wastewater occur. ' features Stormwater generated on -site by the project will be managed by stormwater conveyance and on -site detention basins contained in the overall project design. In addition to the conveyance features and detention basins, the proposed project incorporates Best Management Practices for water quality treatment. No new off -site stormwater drainage features are required for project implementation. Therefore, no significant impacts stormwater facilities would occur. The proposed project would not generate large amounts of municipal solid waste and would be ' served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity. Therefore, no significant impacts to solid waste facilities would occur. ' 1.6 - ORGANIZATION OF THE EIR The EIR is organized into the following main sections: ' • Section 2: Executive Summary. This section includes a summary of the SMPCP and alternatives to be addressed in the EIR. Also included are a brief description of the areas of controversy and issues to be resolved, in addition to a table which summarizes the impacts, mitigation measures, and level of significance after mitigation. • Section 3: Project Description. This section includes a detailed description of the proposed SMPCP, including both its location, site and project characteristics. A discussion of the project I Michael Brandman Associates 1-5 H:1CIiem ( PN. JN) \0064\0064002MEIR\00640021-Sec01 Invoducdon.doc Introduction St. Mark Presbyterian Church . Draft EIR objectives, intended uses of the EIR, responsible agencies, and approvals that are needed under the SMPCP is also provided. • Section 4: General Description of Environmental Setting. This section includes an overview of the general setting of the environment in the vicinity of the project site and identifies the related projects used in the cumulative impact analysis. • Section 5: Environmental Setting, Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and Level of Significance After Mitigation. This section analyzes the environmental impacts of the proposed SMPCP. Impacts are organized into major topic areas. Each topic area includes a description of the environmental setting, significance criteria, impacts, mitigation measures, and level of significance after mitigation. Policies in the General Plan that would avoid or reduce the impacts are also discussed. • Section 6: Other CEQA Considerations. This section provides a summary of significant environmental impacts, including unavoidable, irreversible, growth- inducing, and cumulative impacts. • Section 7: Alternatives to the Proposed Project. This section compares the impacts of the proposed SMPCP with three land use alternatives including the No Project Alternative, the Alternate Design Alternative, and the Reduced Density Alternative. Among these three alternatives, an environmentally superior alternative is identified. 1.7 - PROJECT SPONSORS AND CONTACT PERSONS The City is the lead agency and applicant in the preparation of the EIR. Michael Brandman Associates (MBA) is the environmental consultant to the City for the project. Preparers of this EIR are identified in Section 8, Report Preparation Personnel. Key contact persons are: Lead Agency ......................... City of Newport Beach Planning Department Gregg B. Ramirez, Associate Planner 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 Phone: 949.644.3219 Fax: 949.644.3229 E -mail: gramirez @city.newport- beach.ca.us Environmental Consultant Michael Brandman Associates Thomas F. Holm, AICP 220 Commerce, Suite 200 Irvine, CA 92602 Phone: 714.508.4100 Fax: 714.508.4110 E -mail: tholm @brandman.com 1-6 Michael Brandman Associates H dClim( PN- JN)100641006400211DEJR100640021 Sec01— Jn"ducuon.doe St. Mark Presbyterian Church - Draft EIR Introduction Project Sponsor ..................... St. Mark Presbyterian Church Mr. John Benner 2100 Mar Vista Newport Beach, CA 92660 Phone: 949.760.3810 Fax: 949.760.6867 1.8 - REVIEW OF THE DRAFT EIR This draft EIR has been distributed to responsible and trustee agencies, other affected agencies, surrounding cities, and interested parties, as well as all parties requesting a copy of the draft EIR in accordance with Public Resources Code 21092(b)(3). The Notice of Completion of the draft EIR has also been distributed as required by CEQA. During the 45 -day public review period, the EIR, including the technical appendices, is available for review at the City Planning Department and the Newport Beach Public Library, 1000 Avocado Avenue, Newport Beach, CA 92660, 949.717.3800. Written comments on the draft EIR must be addressed to: City of Newport Beach Planning Department Gregg B. Ramirez, Associate Planner 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 Phone: 949.644.3219 Fax: 949.644.3229 E- mail: gramirez @city.newport- beach.ca.us Upon completion of the 45 -day public review period, written responses to all significant environmental issues raised will be prepared and made available for review at least 10 days prior to the public meeting before the City Planning Commission, at which the certification of the final EIR will be considered. These environmental comments and their responses will be included as part of the environmental record for consideration by decision - makers for the project. ' Michael Brandman Associates 1-7 HACGenl( PN- JN) \0064\00690021\DE1R100640021 SecOI Invoducuon.doc 77 u St Mark Presbyterian Church - Draft EIR Executive Summary SECTION 2: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 2.1 - INTRODUCTION The project site is located in the City of Newport Beach, northwest of the intersection of MacArthur Boulevard and San Joaquin Hills Road adjacent to the Big Canyon Country Club. The project site is located in grid F -7 on page 889 of The Thomas Guide for Orange County. The site is also described as Assessor's Parcel Number 442 - 032 -62. The proposed project includes an amendment of the City General Plan that would change the current designation of Open Space/Recreation to the proposed designation of Government /Education/Institutional to enable the proposed development of the site as a church campus and pre - school. This action will accommodate the relocation of St. Mark Church from its current location in nearby Eastbluff to the proposed project site. The site has been historically undeveloped and may have been used for livestock grazing in the past. The site is used on an interim basis for a Christmas tree sales lot during the holiday season. Currently, the site is not used for any other purposes. The area surrounding the project site is fully developed with residential, recreational (golf course), professional office and regional shopping uses. Predominant land uses in the vicinity of the project site are the Big Canyon Country Club adjacent to the project site, Roger's Nursery south of the project site, and Newport Center, including Fashion Island, west of the project site. The overall objectives of the project are to: • Relocate the existing St Mark Church to a nearby location within the City; • Provide a church facility that will accommodate future growth; • Design a church facility that reflects the ministry dedication to environmental values; • Maximize preservation of the existing canyon feature on the site; • Maintain open space character of the site; and • Use small - scale, multiple- building footprints for enhanced aesthetics and to maintain a residential scale compatible with surrounding developed properties. 2.2 - PROJECT DESCRIPTION The development component of the proposed project consists of the following: church sanctuary, fellowship hall, administration building and counseling center, pre - school buildings, expansion building, nature center plaza, and related site improvements. The project site is segmented into a Michael Brandman Associates HXfient WN- JW0064 \00640021 \DEIR \00640021 Sec02_ExecSummary.doc 2 -1 Executive St. Mark Presbyterian Church - Draft EJR I North Campus and South Campus. The project retains a significant portion of the on -site canyon feature and incorporates this feature into the overall design. The project proposes two development phases. Vehicular access to the project site will be off San Joaquin Hills Road and MacArthur Boulevard. The following discretionary approvals and ministerial actions by the City are required for implementation of the proposed project. • General Plan Amendment • Big Canyon Planned Community Text Amendment • Tentative Parcel Map • Use Permit • Traffic Phasing Ordinance • Grading Permit • Building Permits, including associated plumbing, electrical or mechanical permits • Utility Connections The proposed project includes the following Project Design Features (PDFs) as part of the proposed project: PDF 1 Use of a small -scale multiple - building design that integrates the proposed project with the characteristics of development in the project vicinity. PDF 2 Use of large -scale landscape buffers on roadway frontages that minimize visual impacts from adjacent roadways and integrate with the planned open space. PDF 3 Retention of a majority of the canyon feature as open space and a nature preserve. PDF 4 Inclusion of a nature center plaza in the project in order to create views of the canyon feature from the proposed development and to facilitate understanding of the nature preserve. PDF 5 Use of deep earth tones in building colors that complement and blend -in with the natural color tones of the canyon feature. PDF 6 Lowering of the building site pads relative to the adjacent roadways results in a lowering of the building elevations that result in residentially scaled development. PDF 7 A view corridor from MacArthur Boulevard to the canyon feature is incorporated into the project design. PDF 8 Inclusion of a passenger loading station in the site plan that will facilitate carpooling. PDF 9 Blending of new, predominately native plant materials that are appropriate to the existing environment, with existing plant materials at the edge of the canyon feature. 2.2 Michael BrancIman Associates H:\Chc.t(PN -1N) \0064 \00640021\ EM\00640021 SecD2— ExceSumm .doe , 1 St. Mark Presbyterian Church - Draft EIR Executive Summary PDF 10 Use of on -site stormwater detention ponds with Best Management Practice (BMP) features for regulation of off -site discharge. PDF 11 Use of landscaped medians and swales designed for infiltration and filtration that allow clarification of surface runoff prior to discharge off -site. PDF 12 Use of low -level lighting fixtures in parking areas that contain directional shielding and use of low lighting fixtures in pedestrian walkways that shield light from adjacent properties and roadways. ' PDF 13 Use of landscape buffers on the rear portion of the site that shield the proposed development from adjacent residential development. ' 2.3 - ASSUMPTIONS REGARDING DEVELOPMENT SEQUENCE The project is proposed to be developed in two phases. The church sanctuary, fellowship hall, administration building, three of the four pre - school buildings, and nature center plaza are proposed for Phase I. The pre - school office building, the fourth pre- school classroom, the expansion building, and the fireside classroom in the administration building are proposed for Phase 2. Of the 50 parking stalls planned for the North Campus, 35 of these stalls may be included in either phase. ' For the purposes of evaluation, the proposed project is assumed to be developed as a single phase. 2.4 - AREAS OF CONTROVERSY/ISSUES TO BE RESOLVED The EIR addresses six areas that include land use and planning, hydrology and water quality, biological resources, transportation and traffic, air quality, and noise. Potential areas of controversy ' to be resolved through the EIR are summarized as follows: • Project implementation would result in conversion of existing open space to a non -open space use (see Section 5.1 -- Land Use and Planning). • Project implementation would result in removal of coastal sage scrub (see Section 5.3 — Biological Resources). • Project implementation would result in an increased potential for vehicular accidents related to lane weaving on San Joaquin Hills Road and inadequate sight distance on MacArthur ' Boulevard (see Section 5.4 — Transportation and Traffic). • Project implementation would result in increased noise levels in the vicinity of the project site ' (see Section 5.6 — Noise). 2.5 - SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVES ' Section 15126(d) of the State CEQA Guidelines requires a comparative evaluation of the proposed project in relation to a reasonable range of alternatives. The range of alternatives to the proposed Michael arandman Associates 2-3 HXiient (PN -)M\ 0064 \00( 40027 \DEW00640021 _Sec02_ExecSununary.doc Executive Summary St. Mark Presbyterian Church - Draft EIR project includes those alternatives that could feasibly accomplish most of the objectives of the project. The EIR includes an evaluation of the following alternatives: • No Project Alternative - No Development; • No Project Alternative - Allowed Development; • Reduced Intensity Alternative; and • Different Site Alternative. Section 7 of this EIR provides descriptions and analysis of each alternative. The environmentally superior alternative is determined to be the No Project Alternative. However, this alternative does not meet all of the project objectives. 2.6 - MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM CEQA requires agencies to set up monitoring and reporting programs to ensure compliance with the mitigation measures adopted in order to mitigate or avoid potentially significant environmental effects identified in the EIR. A mitigation monitoring program, incorporating the mitigation measures identified in this document, will be adopted at the time of certification of this EIR. 2.7 - SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Table 2 -1 provides a summary of the potential environmental effects of the proposed project. This table references the Environmental Impact, Project Design Features included in the proposed project (when applicable), recommended Mitigation Measures (if applicable), and the Level of Significance after mitigation. With the inclusion of the Project Design Features and after implementation of the recommended Mitigation Measures, all potentially significant environmental effects have been reduced to a less than significant level. Therefore, the City would not be required to adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations in accordance with CEQA Section 2108 L However, if the proposed project were to be modified in a manner that eliminated some of the Project Design Features or some of the Mitigation Measures were not adopted, implementation of the proposed project could then result in significant and unavoidable impacts. Under this scenario, the City would be required to adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations. Numbers in parentheses after each Environmental Impact heading reference the section of the EIR that contains the complete discussion of that impact, which includes: existing conditions; thresholds of significance; project impacts; cumulative impacts; recommended mitigation measures; and the level of significance after mitigation. impact classifications used in this table are No Impact, Less Than Significant Impact, and Potentially Significant impact. Accompanying each Environmental Impact statement is the Level of Significance before mitigation. yq Michael Brandman Associates H:\C bent (PNJN) \0061 \00540021\DEIR \00640021 Sec02_HxecSummnry.doc , I 1 I I I i ILl cc cc E E 3 y d d x w N d a m 0 .W x a d w Im � m E z ro E z � U 0A V7 s F a n. E z A U by V7 c s y a N T O. d A m u C y ti A � o c o aD O E ro p .-.o ._ cp v '' `'° w a.. U _E A adi e Z a° o a„ a c o r n a c U ❑ y y w a o �°� E Uu v o w O U WU .? Z o 2 E A z ._ c b L o 3 �' ° c ° .°'. v ro❑ o° a o u c Z o o E ro" :::: y o,� o o U v.°A c o2-5 o at c ° N v7 _� c o _ a E ''� c a '� `o z" o C9 .� E u mp m p I x a a W m !V_ C N N W V. O v U ul r- 0 m a m_ � J U_ F � a � ° c n w o ro i� `� 0 0 0 � d N y� C. U y 0 � .� s� d� u E v c Q A, u OU 121 y v v°_ ro o a o a> my 6 o v E w°' O = e .. v° a o _� _ o °>. a a=i o°'n .5 � a „3c co r'-'- � y E A $ a =s .2 .N y O a a v Q, c v o = b o ,m c o v° v° acC4.�°'.. a °a � .� ° oF, E c E � ° ��' aA `d' � ❑s g A o. = = Ar ° o °,o:° W W A ti v x C4 a� a v a� C6 ° C4 '� A .>• :2 .n S_° tb F �dca SOkoa a E W W A `8 v 'on E E .�° ° ° o o u Li °s cep one > — is o w v� a a y o u� c V o c c W o Cl I� N 11 1 z ' a I 1, I /1 I 1 i I I 1 L,I J I I I I I 11 11 1 I I 0 m a fA yU C: � s � a z a z c� 3 �' o A 'o •o o^ 0 3 0 .� � o f c E ` t 'EA� L s_ u Q E° `°- g= 2 0 0 � `o m •o w a.v o ro c o c `v a � A A c d° A m�.a w y v pa,b a A ou m Eeho Q °� c4�NAvoaucso O z z z A U .: U Co .. U U a1 A v o C, A A s ❑ c h c O .. O .=Z U o m � ° � °'a, o a:. '� ❑ U.E. v -• ai a> :° vEb aci o h •o .E v o-' 3 .„-. a h fi o L C w a a a' �7i U U R W r O v U Y y c O O) g m` v e y o z 0 z 0 z 0 z o z U � h m a W a 0 w C 1yi 4 1yi Lyi 1Ly 14y A � cC cC cd RS E E E E E E o 0 0 0 o c a a n m m bq � on o�p 'a a z z z z z z z C F-' G 'O O °� C �d C 0 'D '3 N O Z .° � ti E V y ',1°" s uU—. � T ai .�' 0 LL v o m c U c> O o ° y c o w v U �>- � a ° c � ❑ ° v v t0 c ° v F ° :a .�?, °: E ° cve v ° � n. a. ° `.. ci r h .a U E a w a°i E E v o E v v E E c c °- c a. � v y .,�, .a .a T U ��D Ea5 �tv,o.ric%P;mE ¢ E.E��.E �03 Eo�n.z, Eve .o°.EI C O Ol m a C W wG O N U oA L H y U Dq L H y U �0 L H y d � > a� A ❑ � c '^ m o '" o ,E E �c °���Ba �ceo�o'E'�EEc A E E m 3 �' o ct� .� a 'o a s n. `c' 'G o CL E �a h h m 'c °_ '•^' y C.- o E o .o .� E PQ a .°J, '�' a�i '°q m h W o d v v � m 4, 0 v v o Q s °, s m s '7, o N r a s a 'E o 0 a o� m v o a o o a y onL w s a u v aV m z a= ° z o`o K a v E^.E mL E cc W r Y Y 0 ^m `m a l0 w_ I W U r N a z z H a .E .N N Cp id N c U N O a � ❑ roL U rj N C O O ° .tz ti 4° C N ^) 'E 5E �yy E E u.Erwo -6 �s z N 3 ti a ti N° E s ro � .. a� s.� ° ❑. �v� o Nam ti N Li w St Mark Presbyterian Church - Draft EIR Project Description SECTION 3: ' PROJECT DESCRIPTION 3.1 - PROJECT LOCATION The project site encompasses 10.81 acres located in the City of Newport Beach, northwest of the ' intersection of MacArthur Boulevard and San Joaquin Hills Road adjacent to the Big Canyon Country MacArthur Boulevard, Club (see Exhibit 3 -1 and Exhibit 3 -2). Major arterial access is provided by San Joaquin Hills Road, Jamboree Road, and Pacific Coast Highway (SR 1). Regional freeway access to the site is provided by the Costa Mesa Freeway (SR 55) and the San Joaquin Hills ICirculation Transportation Corridor (SR 73). The project site is located in grid F -7 on page 889 of The Thomas Guide for Orange County. The site is also described as Assessor's Parcel Number 442- 032 -62. ' 3.2 - PROJECT SITE HISTORY The site has been historically undeveloped and may have been used for livestock grazing in the past. ' The site has been used on an interim basis for a Christmas tree sales lot during the holiday season. ' Currently, the site is not used for any permanent land use or other purpose. Early aerial photographs (c 1927) suggest that portions of the site were cleared and used for livestock grazing.' During the period 1931 to 1938 portions of MacArthur Boulevard were constructed, which ' resulted in partial filling of the canyon feature (see Exhibit 3 -3). Excavation and export of portions of the level areas of the site occurred during the period 1973 to 1983. In 1997, additional excavation ' occurred adjacent to MacArthur Boulevard related to the widening of the roadway.2 Tentative plans relating to the alignment and subsequent construction of the Corona Del Mar Freeway identified this site for purposes of a proposed interchange. However, a different alignment was ' ultimately chosen. In 1973, when the City adopted the General Plan, this site was designated as Recreation and Environmental Open Space. In 1992, the City adopted a development agreement with The Irvine Company known as the ICirculation Improvement and Open Space Agreement (CIOSA). The CIOSA, among other things, resulted in the dedication of specified land for open space purposes. This site is not a CIOSA- ' designated site. In March 1996, a City slope /drainage easement adjacent to MacArthur Boulevard was created and a ' 24" stormwater discharge outlet was installed in the canyon feature. This outlet discharges City of Newport Beach, Environmental Information Form, Page 3, March 28, 2003. a Constant & Dickey, Inc., Geotechnical Engineering Report, Page 10, January 11, 2002. Michael Brandman Associates 3-1 ' H:lChent (PN -JN)\ 0064\ 00640021\DEIRN00640021 _Sec03_ProjectDescripdon.doe SEAL BEACH County Los Angeles ty 72 -- Lo' _ _ w HABR4 • 90 142 VORBA LINDA 9 FULLERTON S) � 9Q • PLACENTIA 91 ANAHEIM 5 CYPRESS 39 • 55 STANTON ORANGE GARDEN GROVE • 22 • T STIN 261 SANTA ANA 1 HUNTINGTON 55 5 BE H 405 COSTA MESA IRVINE • 4 73 133 NEWPORT BEACH CORONA DEL MAR • LAGUNA BEACH CLEVISLI ND N AT I'0 -NA� -- 241 FORLST LAGUNA & \ /; MISSION VIEJO V • ! .;�;s INA TEL / JEL 5 74� • I SAN JUAN %____ CAPISTRANO ' \ DANA POINT rCounty a 'a SAN CLEMENTE C NNNN ¢ 5 2.5 0 5 Exhibit 3 -1 ❑ ❑9❑ o SCALE IN MILES Regional Location Map i%&hael Brandman Associates 00640021 • 01/2004 1 3- 1_regional.ai ST. MARK PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH • ORANGE COUNTY,CA N �1. M � Y • .w U cd U O 0 a N O N� I� T C U O ' j V N n _O N N1 o m Q o HiMON owl im" o 0 0 no M � M O B o X U W i~y W O o U � o v SG ° W a Cl W a) m U) W CL CL Y Q Q F U) c` v N C O J Q O V O 0 C O - ti F N O N � Z v o m E o c � L H1HON E m N mm m m m m m m r m m r M M 40 mm mm I 11 I 1 I I LJ I St Mark Presbyterian Church - Draft EIR Project Description stormwater into the canyon feature that is collected from MacArthur Boulevard and San Joaquin Hills Road, and properties located east of the site across MacArthur Boulevard. During the period 2000 to 2001, a sound wall was constructed adjacent to MacArthur Boulevard at the northeast comer of the site (see Exhibit 3 -3). There has been one discretionary permit application on this site. In 1978, The Irvine Company applied for a permit to install directional signage. 3.3 - PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS The Irvine Company owns this property. If the City approves this project, 1.67 acres of the 10.81 - acre site would be deeded to the Big Canyon Country Club for purposes unrelated and excluded from the project (see Exhibit 3-4). The Big Canyon Country Club already operates a golf course on this area and no additional development is planned. St. Mark Presbyterian Church would acquire the portion remaining for the proposed development, which contains 7.38 acres. The project includes: l) proposed amendment to the City General Plan changing the designation of the site from Recreational and Environmental Open Space to Govemment /Education/Institutional Facilities and PC District amendment creating a planning area for the construction of a church and related facilities and 2) the proposed development of the site as a church campus to accommodate the relocation of St. Mark Church from its current location in nearby Eastbluff (see Table 3 -1). Table 3 -1: Lot Summary Existing Proposed Designation Use Area (Ac.) Percent of Site 10.81 Ac. Zone: Big Canyon Church Campus (South & 7.38 85% Use: PC District North Campuses) Undeveloped General Plan: Open Space Government/ Education/ Canyon feature 1.10 15% Zone: PC Institutional District Parcel 1 - Open 1.67 -NA- General Plan: Recreational Space/Recreational(Deeded to Big Canyon Country Club) and Environmental Roadway dedication to City 1.76 -NA- Open Space Total 10.81 -NA- Source: St. Mark Presbyterian Church Development Application, March 2003., 1 Michael Brandman Associates 3 -9 H:\ Client (PN -1N)\ 0064 \00640021\nE62\ 00640021— Sec03_ProjectDesenpfion.doc I �4 Ji c \ ly 1 1 \✓ , LA , - _ -G OU S-J 111 - VyL IV i I �_.5.�'�i+� • - i 1. I p �t{ �Y1 1 '1 fin' `1i 1 1 1A 1 1, 1 F ! I I' li I i .', . 4 I • I II I �Z 0 CV. \ J � ,It CIO I M �+ P x x CJ W � ^^cC W Q V N 0 0 0 r= G utaoni OB Zn D N U e" ci 0 N 0 0 m 0 St. Mark Presbyterian Church - Draft EIR Project Description ' 3.3.1 - Site Characteristics The vacant project site is located at approximately 250 feet above mean sea level, and contains relatively flat terrain and a natural two - branch canyon feature in the central portion of the site'. For purposes of describing the project, the site may be roughly apportioned into three sub -areas: two ' generally -level areas proposed for development, and a canyon feature to be preserved 4. The proposed project uses these sub -areas as the basis for the site plan. The two generally level areas are the locations of the proposed church improvements identified as the South Campus and the North CampuS5 (see Exhibit 3 -5 and Exhibit 3 -6). Approximately 1.1 acres of the canyon feature is retained as open space and incorporated into the overall design of the church campus. The South Campus occupies the generally level area southwest of the canyon feature and the North Campus occupies the generally level area northeast of the canyon feature. A proposed drive aisle and pedestrian sidewalk link the South and North Campuses. 11 I 1 3 Constant & Dickey, Inc., Geotechnical Engineering Report, Page 11, January 11, 2002. For descriptive purposes only; exact boundaries of these sub -areas have not been calculated. 5 This terminology identified by the project applicant. I Michael Brandman Associates 3 -13 HXknt(PN -JM \0064 \00640021\DEIR\00640021 Sec03- ProjectDescripdon.doc The portion of the site proposed for development will be lowered approximately 8 to 12 feet below existing grade elevations (see Exhibit 3 -7). This would result in the exporting off -site of approximately 47,000 cubic yards of material. 3.3.2 - Development Characteristics The development component of the project consists of the following: church sanctuary, fellowship hall, administration building and counseling center, preschool buildings, expansion building, nature center plaza, and all related site improvements such as parking lots, driveways, site lighting, grading, landscaping, utility connections, etc. (see Exhibits 3 -3,3 -6 and 3 -7). The project proposes two development phases. The following tables summarize land use development (Table 3 -2), building heights (Table 3 -3), seating capacity and hours (Table 3 -4), building use (Table 3 -5), and church activities (Table 3 -6). 11 I 1 3 Constant & Dickey, Inc., Geotechnical Engineering Report, Page 11, January 11, 2002. For descriptive purposes only; exact boundaries of these sub -areas have not been calculated. 5 This terminology identified by the project applicant. I Michael Brandman Associates 3 -13 HXknt(PN -JM \0064 \00640021\DEIR\00640021 Sec03- ProjectDescripdon.doc M t y w c� C/1 W Q U N O F z u 9 HlilON B W11n LA F' LI LIM r„ m m m r m r m m � m m m la i m m a U C N W d �1 N n n' 3 u 1--1 QQ m o III i :' €� ! `4 > m N d CL CL oIL � r / ' G ` y it i a >. r J I 1 I iJ —^ 3k I �, 4•.✓ a ,1 �G 1 X +. IL Qry�,x Ni m m m m m m m m = m ME m m 1 (�j x W u . . � O U U d a 0 s z uiaou F ez U } F- z O U w O z O 2 U x U Z Q LU w r- y IM w w a F N c _m N d 0 a 0 �I 0 0 O N O v 0 1 1' I 111 111 I it f,I �g + Ill 11 , ,I � 3 I f I i II I� ,II Ifi I COI Iii ' hid III i Y1 , 7 � , I 1,' II n, I 11 I «_1 I + !f I I I I I �t I I i1 I I I i jj i Nly Ii1 i a i iI 1 i I Ii I I 1 m m m m m m m m = m ME m m 1 (�j x W u . . � O U U d a 0 s z uiaou F ez U } F- z O U w O z O 2 U x U Z Q LU w r- y IM w w a F N c _m N d 0 a 0 �I 0 0 O N O v 0 U M a z cn o W U w �0 r,y O 6 i CC = LLI ZU fi aw T 8 W 2 m C V N w W a z' U � y U E � m 0 ° v 9 Z :y r m S N H1aoN e m m m m m m� m m m m m m = r m = m m I I I I I I I I I I I St. Mark Presbyterian Church - Draft EIR Project Description Table 3-2: Development Summary iDe"p menfcomponent. pho South North Elevation a Elevations (FFE) North Campus Church Sanctuary 10,573 One Church Sanctuary Fellowship Hall 7,413 One Administration Building 4,666 One 38' Fireside Classroom 974 Two - NA - 46'* Preschool Classroom Buildings (4) 5,200 Fellowship Hall Bldg. I (Classrooms 1-2) 1,300 One Tower 28' Bldg. 2 (Classrooms 3-4) 1,300 One 19, Bldg. 3 (Classrooms 5-6) 1,300 One 15, 10, Bldg. 4 (Classrooms 7-8) 1,300 Two Nature Center Plaza - NA - Preschool Office Building 832 One Expansion Building 5,183 Two Nature Center Plaza - NA - One Total 33,867 Source: St. Mark Presbyterian Church Development Application, March 2003. Table 3-3: Building Heights 2 Height Above Existina Grade Development Component Height Above ,Oihish Floor Elevation a Elevations (FFE) North South. 1;:Sast I West Church Sanctuary Roof 46' - NA - 38' Tower 54'* - NA - 46'* Fellowship Hall Roof 22' 6" 12' 6" Tower 28' 19, Administration Building 28' (upper level FFE) 19, 31' (to chimney) 22' Preschool Buildings (5) 15, 10, Expansion Building 22' 17' Nature Center Plaza - NA - - NA - * Excludes additional 5' height flexibility option. Source: St. Mark Presbyterian Church Development Application, March 2003. Michael Brandman Associates RCHent (PN-1N)W64\00640Q21 1DEIRV)0640021-SCC03-ProjectDescfiption.dm 3-21 Project Description St. Mark Presbyterian Church - Draft EIR ' Table 3 -4: Seating Capacity and Hours Development Component sees, Church Sanctuary Employees Church Sanctuary 380 Monday - Sunday 6:30 a.m. - 10:30 p.m. Minor accessory uses such as prayer meetings will extend to 11:00 p.m. during weekdays I I Fellowship Hall - NA - Administration Building - NA - Nature Center Plaza - NA - Expansion Building - NA - Preschool 112 (14 per classroom) Monday - Friday 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. 18 Source: St. Mark Presbyterian Church Development Application, March 2003. Table 3 -5: Building Use Development Component Use Church Sanctuary Worship services Fellowship Hall Ancillary church activities such as weddings, social functions, bible studies, community meetings, etc. Administration Building Office functions related to church administration Nature Center Plaza Outdoor viewing area of canyon feature area Expansion Building Counseling, teaching, general administrative functions Preschool Indoor classroom instruction, outside sand play area, and administrative functions related to the preschool Source: St. Mark Presbyterian Church Development Application, March 2003. Table 3 -6: Church Activities Activity Description Worship Services Sunday morning 9:30 a.m. Weddings Approximately 10 per year Funerals Approximately 5 per year Special Events Non - scheduled events throughout the year include evening lectures, liturgical events, and social functions. Community Activities Alcoholics Anonymous 8 -10 meetings per week Parkinson's support group 1 meeting per week Homeowner's association I meeting per month Source: St. Mark Presbyterian Church, January 2004. 3-22 Michael Bmndman Associates HACaent(PN- JN)10064V00640021 ME1R100640021 Sec03_ProjectDescripuon.doc .1 St. Mark Presbyterian Church - Draft EIR Project Description Access Primary vehicular access to the site will be provided from San Joaquin Hills Road and a secondary access point is being considered from MacArthur Boulevard. The access point from San Joaquin Hills Road is proposed in the same location of the existing access point to the site. The primary access from San Joaquin Hills Road, located at the northwest comer of the site, will be limited to right tum -in and right tum -out movements only due to an existing raised, landscaped median in San Joaquin Hills Road. This access point is located the maximum possible distance from MacArthur Boulevard. A deceleration turning lane will be constructed on the north side of San Joaquin Hills Road in order to facilitate right turn movements into the site. The secondary access proposed will also be limited to right tum -in and right tum -out movements and will also have a decelerationtacceleration turning lane to facilitate turning movements into and out of the project site. Neither of these two access points is proposed for signalization. In addition, both access points provide emergency vehicular access to the site. Internal Circulation Internal circulation is provided by a series of drive aisles that interconnect the parking bays and connect the South and North Campuses. A one -way (counter - clockwise movement) passenger loading station is provided separate from the drive aisle adjacent to the church sanctuary. With the exception of this passenger loading station, all drive aisles are two -way. The drive aisles also serve as an emergency vehicular fire lane. Parking A total of 247 uncovered parking stalls in a 90° angle design will be provided on -site. The South Campus will provide 197 parking stalls with 6 of these stalls reserved for disabled access. The North Campus will provide 50 parking stalls with 6 stalls reserved for disabled access. Of the 50 parking stalls planned for the North Campus, 35 of these stalls may be included in either development phase. This parking is in excess of the minimum 128 parking stalls required by code. Landscaping The project proposes to retain some of the existing landscaping and add new landscaping. Landscaping is proposed to be blended with off -site landscaping at the northeast comer of the site adjacent to MacArthur Boulevard and in the canyon feature (see Exhibit 3 -8). Michael Brandman Associates HACGent(PN -JN)\ 0064 (00640021\DEIR\0064W2LScc03- rojectDes¢ipfian.doc 3 -23 *'Soo G • - ul. OE 2 = = m = m = = m m = = = m = = � i � � 1 ;p 71 Y 1 tl ez '' ; 3 U r a 33 33 I333�� eq I; + L. I - i -t - a � "g�aa•s , II ,I x ie YPZalid• -,° �I 11 , I I I - -- k 1 ',I I 4 ! Y . r• I I • 1 yl I I., r al q, I I I I I i I 4i 4 .� a �• � r I, � I I I � I r f I 00 � a Q) L X W C� ol U CC U A c0 m c Y—i w m i ¢ n U N Q pN ~ C O V N ym lQ H.LbON �F St. Mad* Presbyterian Church - Draft EIR Project Description ' Signage A total of three signs will identify the project. Two small low - profile "blade" style signs will be located near each access point and a low- profile monument style sign will be located near the corner facing the intersection of San Joaquin Hills Road and MacArthur Boulevard. The "blade" signs will ' be approximately 6 feet in height and 25 feet in width. The corner sign will be approximately 45 feet in width and will not extend above the height of the landscaped buffer. Church Bells ' There are no church bells or electronically reproduced church bell sounds proposed as part of the project. Lighting Exterior safety lighting will be provided for public safety. This lighting is designed to illuminate only ' the interior portion of the site. Parking lot light standards will be shielded away from surrounding properties and pedestrian scale low - profile bollard lighting will be used on walkways. ' Two of the existing light standards adjacent to MacArthur Boulevard will be relocated due to the construction of a turning lane. ' Nature Center Plaza A Nature Center Plaza would be incorporated into the overall campus plan. This plaza is located ' adjacent to the Administration Building and overlooks the Nature Preserve and canyon feature. This plaza would be improved with picnic tables and an interpretative nature display wall. The purpose of the Nature Center Plaza is to include within the project a specific location adjacent to the canyon feature that would allow a visual overlook and an interpretative center. This plaza is ' designed to be open and accessible to church attendees, visitors, and the general public. Stormwater Drainage The impervious areas associated with the proposed development will be graded to convey surface water flow toward landscaped medians and swales that are designed for infiltration and filtration, allowing clarification of surface runoff. Drainage inlets located in the parking areas will collect stormwater through underground lines to one of three on -site stormwater detention ponds. The first pond is located at the passenger loading station, the second at the mouth of the canyon feature, and ' the third at the northeast corner of the site. Drainage inlets within these ponds will be equipped with Best Management Practice (BMP) features designed to intercept pollutants and debris during storm 1 events prior to discharge off -site. Stormwater released from the detention ponds located at the passenger loading station and the mouth of the canyon feature will be discharged into the canyon ' feature through energy dissipaters. Stormwater released from the detention pond located at the Michael Bmndman Associates 3 -27 ' H:\CGent (PN- JN) \0064\00640021\DEIR\00640021- Sec03- PmjectDesc iption.doe Project Description St Mark Presbylenan Church - Draft EIR northeast corner of the site will be discharged into the existing stormwater system located in the MacArthur Boulevard roadway (see Exhibit 3 -9). 3.3.3 - Land Use The project proposes to amend the General Plan land use designation from the existing Recreational and Environmental Open Space designation to Govemmen taUEducationaUlnstitutional Facilities. This amendment is required because the proposed use is not consistent with the existing Recreational and Environmental Open Space designation. Churches are included in the list of permitted uses within the GovernmentaUEducationaVInstitutional, as identified in the Land Use Element. The project proposes to amend the text of the Big Canyon Planned Community. This text amendment is necessary in order to implement the project consistent with the zoning of the property in a manner consistent with the proposed General Plan designation of Govemmen taUEducationaVInstitulional. In addition, a Use Permit will be obtained for the entire church facility, including the day care facility. 3.3.4 - Project Design Features The proposed project includes specific design features, referred to as Project Design Features (PDFs), that may have the same effect as a mitigation measure by reducing or eliminating potentially significant environmental impacts. To ensure inclusion in the project, the PDFs associated with this project are hereby identified. PDF 1 Use of a small -scale multiple - building design that integrates the proposed project with the characteristics of development in the project vicinity. PDF 2 Use of large -scale landscape buffers on roadway frontages that minimize visual impacts from adjacent roadways and integrate with the planned open space (see Exhibit 3 -10). PDF 3 Retention of a majority of the canyon feature as open space and a nature preserve. PDF 4 Inclusion of a nature center plaza in the project in order to create views of the canyon feature from the proposed development and to facilitate understanding of the nature preserve. PDF 5 Use of deep earth tones in building colors that complement and blend -in with the natural color tones of the canyon feature. PDF 6 Lowering of the building site pads relative to the adjacent roadways results in a lowering of the building elevations that result in residentially scaled development. 8-20 Michael Brandman Associates H :C bent (PN- JN)W064W0640021\DE1R( 00640021 _Sec03_ProjectDescription.dw Lx fti iii P., 0 Z EP w Kig-O-N s 8 r u u L L C C cl cl rn I . . ........ .... ...... ... . NN: . .... .. ... ...... ..... Lx fti iii P., 0 Z EP w Kig-O-N s 8 r u u L L C C cl cl rn I \ � !L—A ull .. � 2 { $ § j $ G Hibm\ .0111) ■�« �- \ < z \ / . - � \ - \ \ \, \ . _ - � - - \ \ LLI ID LLI 2 { $ § j $ G Hibm\ .0111) ■�« o LLJ LVIA 1:i C, H18ON Ell wmwm WIM9 =1 mll 14 m w = = m m = = = = = m = = = = = m = cl w Z z F- F- 7 U W U I'l m Z 0 L'i V) U Z 0 U Vi O CD U) Q) U) N CL O Go A X LU I U) o LLJ LVIA 1:i C, H18ON Ell wmwm WIM9 =1 mll 14 m w = = m m = = = = = m = = = = = m = r� 4 ti 4a�ir2 s. Rib N r� .1 tl 12 _y . t� 1 C 1 . ` Gk-' cn h_ Ci SiY} CI 1J � r � t Y 1 _ i ?`ib U 1 1Iy U N \y`p�T�1Jxg� Ld • 51g T17 N � N 1 Pi y X1 W J N N N E p F m % C Z N E HN 6 r N �� — §} a § -0 >1 / 3aƒ CA o � \ ! Q ) \ � \ 2 2 » k 0 �\ r :. ._ \ 0 A§ � 9 3 � E5 - I 3i k� )! w CL z C-4 S( � c .- § §� § § , }!( kCL � \ 3! ' 0 » \ « Leq: WU ! \)(§\ } \ C-4 k : — §} a § -0 >1 / 3aƒ CA o � \ ! Q ) \ � \ 2 2 » k 0 �\ r :. ._ \ I 1 IF_ LI LJ �I 1 St Mark Presbyterian Church - Draft EIR Project Description PDF 7 A view corridor from MacArthur Boulevard to the canyon feature is incorporated into the project design. PDF 8 Inclusion of a passenger loading station in the site plan that will facilitate carpooling. PDF 9 Blending of new, predominately native plant materials that are appropriate to the existing environment, with existing plant materials at the edge of the canyon feature. PDF 10 Use of on -site stormwater detention ponds with Best Management Practice (BMP) features for regulation of off -site discharge. PDF 11 Use of landscaped medians and swales designed for infiltration and filtration allowing clarification of surface runoff prior to discharge off -site. PDF 12 Use of low -level lighting fixtures in parking areas that contain directional shielding and use of low lighting fixtures in pedestrian walkways that shield light from adjacent properties and roadways. PDF 13 Use of landscape buffers on the rear portion of the site that shield the proposed development from adjacent residential development (see Exhibit 3 -14). 3.4 - PROJECT OBJECTIVES The overall objectives of the project are to: • Relocate the existing St. Mark Church to a nearby location within the City; • Provide a church facility that will accommodate future growth; • Design a church facility that reflects the ministry dedication to environmental values; • Maximize preservation of the existing canyon feature on the site; • Maintain open space character of the site; and • Use small- scale, multiple - building footprints for enhanced aesthetics and to maintain a residential scale. 3.5 - INTENDED USES OF THE DRAFT EIR This EIR is being prepared by the City of Newport Beach to assess the potential environmental impacts that may arise in connection with actions related to implementation of the project. The City is the lead agency for the project and has discretionary authority over the project and project approvals. Should the City Council choose to approve this project, it is the intent of the City to permit all public infrastructure improvements and all future development that are within the parameters established and analyzed in sufficient detail within the framework of this EIR to proceed without further environmental analysis. Michael Brandman Associates H1Chem ( PN- 1N)\ 0064W0640021\DEDN00640021— Sec03— ProjectDescripdon.doc 3.99 M V N X 111 a w U O O Z c J Iili30N v 7; wIl < a 'u w N pl N 0 0 °o i t Lo LLI CE -: • rt LLI �. a 4 Ld ' ' Ul Ld •. z ... pf cr • t A Ljj cr.. • _ - ,7" . _ Ld l • Ul y W.. CL .`�_. LLI ,Yip. r. LLJ a® M V N X 111 a w U O O Z c J Iili30N v 7; wIl < a 'u w N pl N 0 0 °o St. Mark Presbyterian Church - Draft EIR Project Description I I I I Michael Brandman Associates 3-43 H:\Cliew ( PN- JN)\ 0064W0640021\DEIRWO64W21 _SecO3_PmjectDescription.doe The following discretionary approvals and ministerial actions by the City are required for implementation of the proposed project. • General Plan Amendment • Big Canyon Planned Community Text Amendment ' • Tentative Parcel Map • Use Permit • Traffic Phasing Ordinance • Grading Permit • Building Permits, including associated plumbing, electrical or mechanical permits • Utility Connections • Encroachment Permits ' 3.6 - RESPONSIBLE AND TRUSTEE AGENCIES The EIR will also provide environmental information to responsible and trustee agencies, and other public agencies, which may be required to grant approvals or coordinate with as part of project implementation. These agencies include, but are not limited to, the following: • Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board - NPDES and Section 401 Clean Water Certification I I I I Michael Brandman Associates 3-43 H:\Cliew ( PN- JN)\ 0064W0640021\DEIRWO64W21 _SecO3_PmjectDescription.doe Michael Brandman Associates 4-1 HX Hcn1( PN- JN)\0064 \00640021\6EIR\00640021 Sec04_GenEnvim.dm St Mark Presbyterian Church - Draft EIR General Deacrlption of Environmental Setting ' SECTION 4: ' GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 4.1 - OVERVIEW OF ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING ' The project site is located in the portion of the City known as Big Canyon, approximately 1.25 miles inland from Newport Bay north of the intersection of MacArthur Boulevard and San Joaquin Hills Road. The site contains 10.81 acres and is designated in the City General Plan as Recreational and Environmental Open Space. Of the 10.81 acres, 1.76 acres is existing MacArthur Boulevard right -of- ' way easement and the remaining 9.05 acres is undeveloped. The site is undeveloped and used as a Christmas tree sales lot during the holiday season. The site is characterized as generally level with a two - branch canyon feature in the central portion of the site. This canyon feature is heavily vegetated including native and non - native species. The area surrounding the project site is fully developed with residential, recreational (golf course) and regional shopping uses. Predominant land uses in the vicinity of the project site are the Big Canyon Country Club adjacent to the project site, Roger's Gardens Nursery south of the project site, and ' Newport Center, including Fashion Island, west of the project site. ' 4.2 - RELATED PROJECTS Section 15130 of the State CEQA Guidelines require an EIR include a discussion of cumulative impacts of a project when the incremental effects of a project are cumulatively considerable. Cumulative impacts are defined as an impact that is created as a result of the combination of the project evaluated in the EIR together with other projects causing related impacts. Cumulatively considerable means that the incremental effects of an individual project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects. The City provided a list of related projects for the purposes of identifying potential cumulative impacts (see Table 4 -1). A total of 10 projects were identified within a geographic area determined by the City to produce potential cumulative effects when combined with the proposed project (see 'Exhibit 4-1). Michael Brandman Associates 4-1 HX Hcn1( PN- JN)\0064 \00640021\6EIR\00640021 Sec04_GenEnvim.dm N N 1 1� G 'S rW i O n r i r r r 1 r 1 r a_ W 1� 0 r° V m w d m r� y d �O IL` io m Q r C d a F a Y z g kA_ 8 a N N C Oaa m 00 .� - d d G U � 0 C C d T y Gay 7 m U U o O V y O V t .U. N d y ❑ O 0 0 8 0 O WCC CW Wa WO U x U o x U CU U �' � 3 ai 3 3 3 ai ai ppy y t y 8y y y t t y O O O Sa O� O Q O� N O N� NN m mm mam�N � 7hm 'O � 7N 7� 7 � o � E d 3 o Q� O 7 ri U L O t x t 0�0 V U o ❑ U we w a N w y w x U j, d CC O: UU U CC u tn xx W U Urn O H U 0 e � o t CL p Q e v o a O O co U G a C C C .0 N o a O U CL O y a Y z Environmental Setting, Project Impacts, Mitigation St. Mark Presbyterian Church - Draft EIR Measures, and Level of Significance After Midgedon SECTION 5: ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING, PROJECT IMPACTS, MITIGATION MEASURES, AND LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION t I I I I 1 Ij I d u 1 Michael Brandman Associates 5.1 HXHent(PN.JN) 10060\ 00640021\6ElliN0640021 _Sec05- O -Environ nm]Seting.doc St Mark Presbyterian Church - Dm ft EIR Land Use and Planning 5.1 - LAND USE AND PLANNING Information in this section is based on the following reference documents: • Newport Beach General Plan, Land Use Element • Newport Beach General Plan, Circulation Element • Newport Beach General Plan, Recreation and Open Space Element • Newport Beach General Plan, Conservation of Natural Resources Element • Newport Beach General Plan, Noise Element • Newport Beach General Plan, Public Safety Element • Newport Beach General Plan, Growth Management Element • City of Newport Beach Zoning Code, Title 20 - Planning and Zoning • City of Newport Beach, Circulation Improvement and Open Space Agreement (CIOSA) • County of Orange, Airport Land Use Commission, Airport Environs Land Use Plan • County of Orange, Natural Community Conservation Plan (NCCP) and Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP), Central and Coastal Subregion • County of Orange, NCCP/HCP Implementation Agreement The purpose of this section is to identify the existing land use conditions on and surrounding the project site, analyze the project's compatibility with existing on -site and surrounding land uses, and to evaluate the project's consistency with relevant plans and policies. 5.1.1 - Existing Conditions On -site Land Use The City General Plan designates the project site as Recreational and Environmental Open Space. There are no permanent land uses located on the site. During the holiday season, the site is used as a Christmas tree sales lot. A 25 -foot Southern California Edison easement containing electrical power poles (from 85' to 100' in height) is located adjacent to MacArthur Boulevard. A City stormwater discharge easement is located adjacent to MacArthur Boulevard for stormwater generated off -site. Surrounding Land Uses The areas surrounding the site are primarily developed. MacArthur Boulevard and San Joaquin Hills Road border the site on two sides. Both of these roadways are designated as Major Roadways in the Circulation Element of the General Plan. Big Canyon Country Club is adjacent to the northern boundary of the site. Big Canyon Country Club is a gated residential community with a private golf Michael Brandman Asaoclates 5.1 -1 H:\Chcnt (PN- JN) \0064W0640021\D ©2\00640021— Sec05- 1_IandUse.doc Land Use and Planning St Mark Presbyterian Church - Draft EIR course with approximately 500 homes. The Big Canyon Apartment Complex, containing 74 dwelling units, is located adjacent to the northwest boundary of the site. Roger's Gardens is located south of the site across the intersection of MacArthur Boulevard and San Joaquin Hills Road. Roger's Gardens is a 7 -acre commercial nursery featuring indoor and outdoor plant sales, outdoor furniture sales, and gardening classes. Residential subdivisions are located to the east across MacArthur Boulevard. Newport Center, a 600 -acre retail, entertainment and office complex is located southwest of the project site, across San Joaquin Hills Road. The center contains 24 office buildings, 40 restaurants, a hotel, 2 cinema complexes, and Fashion Island, an outdoor mall that includes approximately 200 retail establishments. Fashion Island is classified as a Super - Regional mall by the International Council of Shopping Centers. Planning Several local and regional plans and programs apply to or are related to the project site. They are the City's General Plan and Zoning Code, Circulation Improvement and Open Space Agreement (CIOSA), Airport Environs Land Use Plan, and the Natural Community Conservation Plan (NCCP) and Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP). City of Newport Beach General Plan State law requires cities and counties, as political subdivisions of the State, to adopt a general plan that provides a comprehensive set of policies and guidelines that are the basis for land use decisions. In conformance with State planning law, general plans are required to contain the following elements: Land Use, Circulation, Conservation, Open Space, Noise, Safety, and Housing. In addition to adopting the required elements, the City has adopted the following optional elements to its General Plan: Growth Management Element and a Harbor and Bay Element. In addition, the City has appended recreational needs to the Recreation and Open Space Element. The Harbor and Bay Element does not apply to this portion of the City; therefore, it is not discussed in this section. The Housing Element does not identify the project site as a potential housing development site or contain policies specifically related to the project site. Therefore, it is not discussed in this section. Land Use Element. The Land Use Element, adopted in 1988 and incorporating subsequent Amendments, is intended as a long -range guide to the development of lands within the City's planning area, including both public and private properties. The City has developed a grouping of small communities or "villages," primarily due to the natural geographic form of Newport Bay. The various villages provide a wide variety of type and style of development. This wide range of development types provides both visual interest and community diversity. The Land Use Element proposes that the City build on the existing "groupings of villages" form and character, and, where possible, strengthen both the physical identity and functional efficiency of this form through several identified means. The two identified means relevant to the 5.1 -2 Michael Brandman Associates HA Client( PN- JN)\006R1006400210EIRt00640021 Sec05- 1_IandUse.doc St. Mark Presbyterian Church - Draft EIR Land Use and Planning proposed project are the use of open space buffers and corridors and the provision of public and semi- public facilities such as schools, parks, and churches.I The following development policies are generally applicable to the proposed project: Policy A The City shall provide for sufficient diversity of land uses so that schools, employment, recreation areas, public facilities, churches and neighborhood shopping centers are in close proximity to each resident of the community. Policy D The siting of new buildings and structures shall be controlled and regulated to insure, to the extent practical, the preservation of public views, the preservation of unique natural resources, and to minimize the alteration of natural land forms along bluffs and cliffs. The Land Use Plan organizes proposed use and development of all lands into the following four major land use categories: • Residential ' • Commercial • Industrial ' • Public, Semi - public and Institutional These major land use categories, representing similar groupings of land uses2, are further sub - divided into additional land use categories. The uses described in these land use categories are considered as predominant, proposed uses. Areas within the Public, Semi - Public, and Institutional major land use category are proposed for use or development of publicly owned facilities, institutions and open space, or for privately owned facilities of a public use, institutional or open space nature. Within this major land use category there are two sub - category land use designations: Governmental, Educational and Institutional Facilities and Recreational and Environmental Open Space. Following are their respective definitions: Governmental, Educational and Institutional Facilities is defined as follows: ' This land use category has been applied to areas proposed for use and development form the physical and social "infrastructure" of the community. Permitted uses include: • Governmental facilities (e.g., fire and police stations, postal facilities, etc.); • Educational facilities (e.g., schools and day care centers); and ' • Institutional facilities (e.g., hospitals, churches, senior housing facilities) 1 t City of Newport Beach, Land Use Element, Page 3, October 24, 1988. 2 See Section 20.05 of the Zoning Code for land use classifications by major land use category. Michael Brandman Associates 5.14 H:ICGent (PN -1Mt 00641 0069002ND ©Rt00640021_SecO5- 1— LandUw.dm Land Use and Planning St. Mark Presbyterian Church - Draft EIR Recreational and Environmental Open Space is defined as follows: This land use category has been applied to land proposed for use and development of open space of both a public and private nature. Some areas which carry this designation are special open space which are included due to the particular nature of the geographic land form, including beaches, bluffs, canyons and Newport Bay uplands. These areas provide for active or passive open space use, depending on the nature of the area. Other areas designated for open space can be used for a wide range of public and/or private open space uses, including: • Parks (active and passive); • Wildlife refuges; • Golf courses; • Yacht clubs; • Marina support facilities; • Aquatic facilities; • Tennis courts; • Private recreation facilities; • Drainage courses; • Interpretive centers; • Greenbelts; and • Landscaped areas. The land use plan divides the City into discrete. Divisions and Areas (see Exhibit 5.1 -1) each with its own set of land use policies. The project site is located within the Jamboree Road/MacArthur Boulevard Statistical Division (Area L) and is comprised of the major commercial and planned residential communities, including Newport Center, Big Canyon, Aeronutronic Ford/Belcourt, North Ford, San Diego Creek North, Jamboree/Macarthur, Koll Center Newport and Newport Place, and the Campus Drive Industrial Tract. This statistical division is sub - divided into four statistical areas: the Newport Center Statistical Area (Area L1), the Big Canyon Statistical Area (Area L2), the North Ford Area Statistical Area (Area L3), and the Airport Statistical Area (Area L4). The project site is located within the Big Canyon Statistical Area (Area L2) (see Exhibit 5.1 -2). The Big Canyon Statistical Area (Area (1-2) is divided into 16 areas, identified as Big Canyon Areas 1 -16, containing land use designations and policies specific to each area, as described in the text of the Land Use Element. An additional non - numbered area is identified as the Big Canyon Country 5,14 Michael Brandman Associates HACGent ( PNJN)W 064N0690021\DM \00600021_Sec05- 11andUse.dm Q ,o oa c Qt` y J � r] .'vc.�+1'i �� � (� i '�1T yl ✓v� .1L /�C ..LLB; ts loll 4- \� �n M• _ Cl. N d v m Q 7P' m 0 0 jP Z U 9 N a VIV c rl N z G n u �byU u W e C as cd c 2 Y � a a 4� V VJ a w U y O 0 Z H121ON r, r, r� Flamm r, fc m m c y yl a N 0 0 S I St. Mark Presbyterian Church - Draft EIR Land Use and Planning Club 3 The land use designations and policies for Big Canyon Areas 1 -16 apply to residential uses (Areas 1 -14, and 16) or commercial uses (Area 15) and therefore do not apply to the proposed project (Area 17). In addition, the project site is not designated as, or does not have a specific designation within, the Big Canyon Planned Community. The land use designation and policies associated with Area No. 17 relate to the proposed project. Area No. 17, Big Canyon Country Club, is described as follows: Big Canyon Country Club. This golf course with related facilities is located within the Big Canyon Planned Community and is designated for Recreational and Environmental Open ' Space to allow the continuation of this 191.13 -acre facility. Maximum development permitted is 65,000 square feet of commercial space. In addition to the text description, the General Land Use Plan map in the Land Use Element designates the project site as Recreational and Environmental Open Space. Circulation Element. The Circulation Element, adopted in 1988, is intended to identify the general location and extent of existing and proposed major thoroughfares, transportation routes, terminals, ' and other local public utilities in coordination with the Land Use Element. The objective of the Circulation Element is the construction of public transportation facilities which, ' in conjunction with programs to reduce peak hour traffic, will accommodate vehicular traffic generated by land use within the City at acceptable levels of service; to reduce, to the extent possible, the impact of summer visitor and tourist travel along Balboa Peninsula, on Balboa Island, and West Newport, and provide a safe, convenient and enjoyable system of bikeways that meet the needs of all cyclists. Recreation and Open Space Element. The Recreation and Open Space Element, adopted in 1998, is intended to maintain a recreation and open space system which meets the needs of the citizens of the City and which enhances the unique recreation and environmental resources within the City. State law defines open space as any parcel of land or water which is essentially unimproved and ' devoted to an open space use, and which is designated on the open space plan as any of the following: for the preservation of natural resources; for the managed production of resources; for outdoor recreation; or for public health and safety. In addition to the requirements for an open space element, the City has included, as an option, recreational needs and facilities in this element. The City is divided into service areas (see Exhibit 5.1 -3) for the purposes of park planning and to equitably administer parkland dedications and fees provided by residential development. The project site is located in Service Area No. 8 - Belcourt/Big Canyon (see Exhibit 5.1 -4). 3 This area is not specifically identified by number on the Big Canyon Planned Community text map (see Exhibit 5.1 -2), but is identified in the text and table on page 80 of the Land Use Element as Area No. 17. For purposes of this discussion, the Big Canyon Country Club will be identified as Area No. 17. Michael Brandman Associates 5.1-9 HACHM ( PN- JN) W054 t00640021tDE1Rt00640021_Sec05 -1 }en&0 .dm Q r. Q d • W i u • w QUQ U N O �• a. • Q • pip • •t• tJ y • ••• � O U • A � Z •• m � C � � Q • , `.G O •f • • • V V 4 Ci Z • d • �'jjfr • °c L• t . um • � N g Z • O ✓• Z • m • Q d • W i u • w 4 M � U kii zm 0 a N X U 3 W 3 y o ZRIE T Q 1/, N Q N U � m r d O NI 2 � ly �x� ¢o H18ON t 1k 7c6 �& Uj dk /Z w \ ir § .� � # \ � $ z HIHO\\/ � )� ��38 ! ¥ |§ (� • i }, § � E )( �!»!l.��!!,\ e 0 )| 1k 7c6 �& Uj dk /Z w \ ir § .� � # \ � $ z HIHO\\/ � )� ��38 I I I 11 I I I I I I I i I I I I I I St. Mark Presbyterian Church -Draft EIR Land Use and Planning There are no recreational uses that occur on the project site. The site may be used by area residents for unknown purposes.4 Because the proposed project does not contain any residential development, the policies related to parkland dedication would not apply. The Recreation and Open Space Element identifies and defines various types of parks, open space, and other recreation- related uses5. This element defines open space as follows: Open space includes passive and active open space areas which do not function as public parks but do provide open space relief. Such areas may or may not be accessible to the general public. The project site meets the definition of open space. However, the site is not officially designated as such (see Exhibit 5.1 -4). The project site does not meet the definition of a park and is also not designated for a future park site. The element defines Environmentally Sensitive Areas as those passive open space areas possessing unique environmental value, which may warrant some form of protection or preservation. Service Area No. 8 (Belcourt -Big Canyon) (see Exhibit 5.1 -4) does not contain any land designated as an Environmental Sensitive Area. The project site is not identified as an Environmentally Sensitive Area; however, the lack of a designation does not assure that environmentally sensitive areas do not exist at the site. The Service Area Needs section of the element describes Service Area No. 8 (Belcourt-Big Canyon) as containing substantial private recreational facilities but no public facilities, resulting in a deficiency (year 1998) of 14 acres and a projected deficiency of approximately 16 acres for the year 2010, and recommends that park facilities should be provided in or near this service area. In the Planned Facilities section of the element, no park facilities are identified within Service Area No. 8 due to a lack of suitable sites. It further states that in addition to the existing private recreational facilities available within this service area, public facilities are available near this service area boundary in Service Areas 7 and 11.6 Therefore, the project site was not identified as a potential park site. The following objectives and policies are applicable to the proposed project: • Objective 6 - Scenic Vistas and Resources: - Maintain and enhance the scenic character of the City. Policy 6.4 - Natural Landfann Preservation: ° For purposes of this discussion, it is assumed that the project site may be used by area residents; however, no data are available to support this. Moreover, no information is available regarding the granting of public access by the current property owner. 6 City of Newport Beach, Recreation and Open Space Element, Page 1 -10, June 27, 1998. 6 City of Newport Beach, Recreation and Open Space Element, Page 4 -6, June 27, 1998. Michael Breadman Associates 5.1 -15 HAC Uem( PN- JN)\0064W0640D21\DEIR\0064W21 Sec05- 1— andUse.dm Land Use and Planning St. Mark Presbyterian Church - Draft EIR Encourage preservation of the City's non - coastal, significant natural landforms along bluff's, cliffs and canyons through regulation of development. • Objective 9 - Environmental Resources: - Maintain and enhance the City's environmental resources. Policy 9.2 - HistoricaUCultural Resources: Encourage the preservation and enhancement of the City's archaeological, paleontological, historical and cultural resources through development regulation. Conservation of Natural Resources Element. The Conservation of Natural Resources Element, adopted in 1974, is intended to discuss the existing natural resources in the City, the programs for the conservation of these resources, and the actions that will he taken by the City to conserve these resources. This element addresses bay and water quality, air quality, beach erosion control, mineral resources, archaeological and paleontological resources, and energy conservation. Of these, beach erosion control and mineral resources are unrelated to the project site. Natural land and wildlife areas in the City that should be considered natural resources are addressed in the Recreation/Open Space Element. The following policies are applicable to the proposed project: Bay and Ocean Water Quality ............. The City Council is unalterably opposed to the discharge of any raw sewage, sewage effluent, litter, debris or other wastes into Newport Bay that in any way possible could cause pollution and contamination of the waters of Newport Bay. Air Quality ............... ............................ The City will pay particular close attention to possible stationery sources of air pollution in the review of all Environmental Impact Reports. Archaeological/Paleontological ........... Request the property owners of each of the large undeveloped sites to conduct scientific surveys of the property prior to any development or earth- moving activities. Energy Conservation ........................... Encourage architectural standards which take advantage of natural heat and light sources. Noise Element. The Noise Element, adopted in 1994, is intended to include noise control in the planning process. The underlying purpose of this is to reduce the number of people exposed to excessive noise and to minimize the future effect of noise in the City. The Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) noise contours identified in Figure 3 of the Noise Element are 65 dBA on MacArthur Boulevard and San Joaquin Hills Road adjacent to the project site, and 60 dBA along the property line adjacent to these roadways. The projected 2010 CNEL noise contours identified in Figure 4 of the Noise Element for the 65 dBA and 60 dBA noise contours, respectively, remain unchanged. 5.1 -16 Michael Brandmen Associates HACGent (PN -1N)W 064(0 0640021M DEIltW0640021— Sec05- L[andUse.d. I J 1 I I 1 1 11 L St. Mark Presbyterian Church - Dre@ EIR Land Use and Planning Table 1 of the Noise Element establishes potential suitability of various land uses relative to the noise environment, by pre - determined by CNEL ranges. According to this table, the proposed project is associated with compatibility Zone A. Land uses proposed for this zone are considered `clearly compatible" according to the following: Specified land use is satisfactory, based on the assumption that any buildings involved are of normal conventional construction without any special noise insulation requirements. Table 2 of the Noise Element identifies interior and exterior noise standards for various land use categories. Institutional land uses, of which the proposed project would be classified, establishes 45 dBA for interior and 65 dBA for exterior if school classrooms are included. Public Safety Element. The Public Safety Element, adopted in 1975, is intended to include safety considerations in the planning process related to fire, flood, and geologic hazards. None of the risk programs relating to flood hazards are applicable to the project site. The following individual risk reduction programs generally apply to the proposed project: General Program No. 1 ........................... The City shall require Environmental Impact Reports (EIRs) for any development areas of natural physical hazard, as defined in this element; said EIRs to include detailed assessment of the hazards and a comprehensive mitigation program. Geologic Program No. 2 ......................... The City shall require geologic and seismic studies as an integral portion of all Environmental Impact Reports with detailed mitigation measures for any development in areas of high potential hazards. Geologic Program No. 3 ......................... The City shall critically review proposals for development in expansive and collapsible soils and will require detailed geotechnical studies prior to development to assure mitigation of risk. Geologic Program No. 4 ......................... The City shall require building and siting design to be compensatory with geologic hazards which varying requirements based on risk, location and type of occupancy, and shall be safe and stable for its intended use. ' Fire Program No. 2 ..... ............................ The City shall require the use of fire retardant roofing materials adjacent to high fire hazard areas. 11 I Growth Management Element. The Growth Management Element, adopted in 1992, is intended to base growth and development on the City's ability to provide an adequate circulation system pursuant to the Countywide Traffic Improvement and Growth Management Plan Component. This element contains policies and programs for the establishment of traffic level of service standards, development mitigation, and development phasing. This element is not intended to replace or supersede any of the Michael Brandman Associates HXHent ( PN- 1N) \0064\00640021M DEIRW0640021 —Seco5 -1 Jmdl)se.d. 5.1 -17 Land Use and Planning St Mark Presbyterian Church - Draft EIR other General Plan elements. Rather, this element addresses, amplifies, and supports land use policies and traffic - related standards that are included in other General Plan elements.' City of Newport Beach Zoning Code The project site is designated as Planned Community District (PC) (see Exhibit 5.1 -5) and is adjacent to the Big Canyon Planned Community. No Planned Community development regulations have been adopted for the project site. The City Zoning Code states$ the purposes of the PC District is to: • Provide for the classification and development and parcels of land as coordinated, comprehensive projects so as to take advantage of the superior environment which can result from large -scale community planning; • To allow diversification of land uses as they relate to each other in a physical and environmental arrangement while ensuring substantial compliance with the spirit, intent and provisions of this Code; and • To include various types of land uses, consistent with the General Plan, through the adoption of a development plan and text materials, which set forth land use relationships and development standards. Circulation Improvement and Open Space Agreement ( CIOSA) In 1993, the City adopted a development agreement known as the Circulation Improvement and Open Space Agreement ( CIOSA) with The Irvine Company. This agreement resulted in various building entitlements for The Irvine Company, in exchange for which the City will receive pre - payment of required "fair share" road improvement fees, a commitment to construct road improvements adjacent to the proposed projects identified in the agreement, an interest fee loan, and dedication of land for future parks, open space, and potential senior housing sites. The open space land dedication was substantially more than what would have been required under the City's General Plan and Park Dedication Ordinance for the entitlements granted.9 This element includes the role of the CIOSA agreement in providing for the present and future recreation and open space needs of the community. Under the CIOSA agreement, a total of 138.1 acres of land has been dedicated by The Irvine Company. 10 The project site is not subject to the requirements of this agreement and is not identified in the agreement as an open space dedication site." ' City of Newport Beach, Growth Management Element, Page]. a City of Newport Beach, Municipal Code. Title 20 -City Zoning Code, Section 20.35.010. 9 City of Newport Beach, Recreation and Open Space Element, Page 1 -7, June 27, 1998. 10 Table A-4, Technical Appendix (Appendix A), Recreation and Open Space Element, June 27, 1998. City of Newport Beach, Circulation Improvement and Open Space Agreement, Exhibit B and Exhibit E, June 30, 1993. 5.1 -18 Michael Brandman Associates H: C6ent( PN- IN) W064WUG400211 DEni100640021— Sec05- 1— LavdUse.d. ' i rc n Y U/ i p( J a � 3 aN LL �U � ke1 1 O a ` (MLIEI MAN v'g fd1 ]tib9Mj [� arw O r, �= y h 2 O 7 � nL N i; 3�d ` A o S 0 a i, e K H J �dE C Q I �4y i G; �• O i flf�r if > k vi o0 a W • �" Fl, w ri m y � m ~ `o 0 � Z H m y N Q O HIHON WTI O wmwm 9 O Wmd WmIl Z cca�cnr " O G J ° ° t l l n Ile a J Q I �4y i G; �• O i flf�r if > k vi o0 a W • �" Fl, w ri m y � m ~ `o 0 � Z H m y N Q O HIHON WTI O wmwm 9 O Wmd WmIl k vi o0 a W • �" Fl, w ri m y � m ~ `o 0 � Z H m y N Q O HIHON WTI O wmwm 9 O Wmd WmIl St. Mark Presbyterian Church - Drat EIR Land Use and Plannin County of Orange Airport Land Use Commission, Airport Environs Land Use Plan This land use plan, amended November 16, 1995, is intended, for the twenty year planning future of the existing airports within Orange County, to safeguard the general welfare of the inhabitants within the vicinities of airports and to ensure the continued operation of the airports. ' The project site is located outside the Planning Area for John Wayne Airport, as defined by the Airport Land Use Commission .12 The height of the proposed project does not penetrate the imaginary ' surface as defined in FAR Part 77.13 and the project site is located outside the 60 dB CNEL contour ' line. 13 Therefore, the project site is not subject to the requirements of the Airport Environs Land Use ' Plan. Natural Community Conservation Plan and Habitat Conservation Plan ' The California Legislature enacted the Natural Community Conservation Plan (NCCP) Act in 1991, and declared a need for broad -based planning to provide for the effective conservation of the state's wildlife heritage while continuing to allow appropriate development and growth. The purpose of the ' NCCP is to create a multi - species, multiple- habitat subregional Reserve System, with a long -term adaptive management program, that will protect Coastal Sage Scrub (CSS) and other species and ' habitats located within the CSS mosaic, while providing for economic uses that will meet with the social and economic needs of the people of the subregion. ' The County of Orange approved on April 16, 1996, an NCCP and Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) for the Central and Coastal Subregion portions of Orange County. In addition, an Implementation ' Agreement was prepared for the NCCP/HCP of which the City is a participating agency. The Project site is located in the Coastal Subregion of the NCCP/HCP. ' Approval and implementation of the NCCP/HCP allows for the conservation of large, diverse areas of natural habitat. The Implementation Agreement satisfies State and federal mitigation requirements for designated development and adequately provides for the conservation and protection of the thirty - nine species and their habitats identified in the NCCP/HCP. ' Land in the NCCP/HCP Policy Plan Area is classified into the following: 12 County of Orange, Airport Land Use Commission, Airport Environs Land Use Plan, Section 2.2.4, November 16. 1995. 1s City of Newport Beach, Noise Element, Figure 6, October 10, 1994. ' Michael Braodman Associates 5.1 -21 H :\Cfienl(PN- M \0064\00640021\DEIR 100640021— Sec05 -1_L dUw.dm a Reserve System Lands ' a Special Linkage Areas ' a Existing Use Areas a Non - Reserve Open Space Areas 12 County of Orange, Airport Land Use Commission, Airport Environs Land Use Plan, Section 2.2.4, November 16. 1995. 1s City of Newport Beach, Noise Element, Figure 6, October 10, 1994. ' Michael Braodman Associates 5.1 -21 H :\Cfienl(PN- M \0064\00640021\DEIR 100640021— Sec05 -1_L dUw.dm Land Use and Planning SL Mark Presbyterian Church - Draft EIR Lands included within the Reserve System have been desigued to enable the reserve to function effectively as a multiple- habitat and multiple - species reserve, capable of providing long -term protection for a broad range of both CSS and non -CSS species. Special Linkage Areas are located outside the Reserve System and provide a connectivity function between habitat areas within the Reserve System, between the Central/Coastal Subregion and other subregions, and between the Reserve System and other outlying populations of Identified Species such as Upper Newport Bay. Existing Use Areas contain populations of Identified Species, but which are geographically removed from the Reserve System such that they do not provide primary connectivity functions. These areas typically include existing open space areas maintained by homeowner associations, other privately owned lands, and some public parkland. Prior to the creation of the NCCP/HCP, public open space already existing for habitat management and compatible recreational and cultural uses were identified. Some of this public open space land has been included into the Reserve System. The project site is a Non - Reserve parcel and is not located within the Reserve System, and is not classified as a Special Linkage Area, Existing Use Area, or Non - Reserve Open Space Area (see Exhibit 5.1 -6). Creation of the NCCP/HCP included multiple participants. In addition to federal, State and local government participation, which included the City of Newport Beach 14, landowners participated in the process and are classified as either Participating Landowners or Non - Participating Landowners. Participating Landowners are defined as public and private landowners that contributed siguificant land and/or funding toward the implementation of the Reserve System. The Irvine Company is among the identified Participating Landowners.15 Non - Participating Landowners are defined as those landowners that did not contribute either siguificant land or funding to the Reserve System. 5.1.2 - Thresholds of Significance According to Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines, a project will normally have a siguificant impact on land use if it results in the following: • Physically divides an established community; • Conflicts 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; or NCCP/HCP Implementation Agreement, Section 4.4.2. NCCP/HCP Implementation Agreement, Section 1.42,. 5.7,22 Michael Brendman Associates H:1CGem (PN -JN) 10064\00640021(DEIR10064002 I_See05- I_ImdUse.dw 1 1 A r r y PFIA a� b Lx W a U x a z w W V fll O O w 0 7�A N C1 J � I St. Mark Presbyterian Church - Draft EIR Lard Use and Planning ' • Conflicts with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation ' plan. ' 5.1.3 - Project Impacts Impacts Related to the Physical Division of an Established Community As previously discussed, the site is an undeveloped 10.81 -acre parcel that is used for a Christmas tree sales lot during the holiday season and for the discharge of off -site stormwater drainage from adjacent roadways and surrounding properties through a City easement. The surrounding properties are developed with urban uses. Development on this site does not have the potential to physically the divide the City or the Big Canyon Planning Area (Statistical Area L-2). It addition, dedication of land within the adjacent roadway or the dedication of land to the Big Canyon Country Club does not have the potential to physically divide an established community. Therefore, no significant impacts relating to the physical development of an established community would result from project implementation. ' Impacts Related to Land Use Plans, Policies, or Regulations Land Use Element ' Implementation of the proposed project would be consistent with the applicable policies of the Land Use Element. The project site is located within the Jamboree Road/MacArthur Boulevard Statistical Division (Area L), which is comprised of the major commercial and planned residential communities. ' Development of the project site as a church would conform to Policy A by diversifying the predominantly residential and commercial land uses in this statistical area. Additionally, the ' proposed project maintains an institutional use in close proximity to the residents it serves. The proposed project would be consistent with Policy D by preserving the existing viewi6 of the ' canyon feature. The project proposes to retain approximately 1.1 acres of this canyon feature. The incorporation of Project Design Feature No. 7 (see Section 3.3.4 of this document) into the project would preserve the view of the Canyon feature from MacArthur Boulevard. Although this canyon ' feature is not a designated unique natural resource or designated scenic vista, preservation of this feature would be consistent with the "spirit' of this policy. implementation. Therefore, no impacts relating to these policies would result from project 1 16 The term "view" is not specifically defined in Policy D or the Land Use Element. City Council Policy G -3 defines a ' "view" as a range of site including pleasing vistas or prospects or scenes. Michael Brandman Associates 5.1 -25 H:`Cbcnt (PN- JM\0064\0060002MEat\00640021 SecO5 -1 landUmdo Land Use and Planning St. Mark Presbyterian Church - Draft EIR The proposed project is not consistent with the Recreational and Environmental Open Space designation as referenced in the text of the Big Canyon Statistical Area (Area L2) and as shown on the General Land Use Map in the Land Use Element. The project proposes a General Plan Amendment to change the existing General Plan designation of Recreational and Environmental Open Space to Governmental, Educational, and institutional Facilities. Should the City approve this General Plan Amendment, as part of the overall project, the proposed project would then be consistent with the Land Use Element. The indirect impact of approving the General Plan Amendment would mean that this site would be precluded from development with some of the land uses allowed by the Recreational and Environmental Open Space designation (see discussion in Section 5. 1.1 under Land Use Element in this document). However, this impact is significantly lessened because the proposed project design includes many open space uses allowed by the Recreational and Environmental Open Space General Plan designation. Related Project Design Features include: PDF 2 Use of large -scale landscape buffers on roadway frontages that minimize visual impacts from adjacent roadways and integrate with the planned open space PDF 3 Retention of a majority of the canyon feature as open space and a nature preserve PDF 4 Inclusion of a nature center plaza in the project in order to create views of the canyon feature from the proposed development and to facilitate understanding of the nature preserve PDF 7 A view corridor from MacArthur Boulevard to the canyon feature is incorporated into the project design. PDF 10 Use of on -site stormwater detention ponds with Best Management Practice (BMP) features for regulation of off -site discharge In addition to the preservation of approximately 1.1 acres of the canyon feature, the project includes the permanent dedication of 1.67 acres of open space to the Big Canyon Country Club, together representing approximately 25% of the total site being retained as permanent, dedicated open space. In addition to the foregoing, the Recreation and Open Space Element did not identify any land within Service 8 (Belcourt-Big Canyon) that is suitable for development as a park (see discussion under Recreation and Open Space Element in this section) and also determined that extensive, private recreation facilities already exist within this service area. The remainder of the land uses allowed by the Recreational and Environmental /Open Space General Plan designation do not apply to the project site due to location and site characteristics. Therefore, the proposed project with inclusion of Project Design Features, will result in less than significant impacts relating to land use designations. With project approval, no significant impacts relating to General Plan Land Use Element consistency would result from project implementation. 5.1-26 Michael Brandman Associates H:\CGent ( PH- lt)\ 006 4NO 0640021\DElR \00640021_Sec05- 1_Und1Jse.dm I I 1 I 1 1 IL 1 1 St. Mark Presbyterian Church - Draft EIR Land Use and Plannkeg Circulation Element Implementation of the proposed project would be consistent with the objective of the Circulation Element. The project does not propose any new roadways or significant realignments to any existing roadways. Vehicular access from MacArthur Boulevard is a potentially significant modification. However, the proposed access from this location has been analyzed by a Traffic Engineer and a traffic consultant with the determination that no significant impacts to traffic would occur. A traffic phasing ordinance analysis for this project has been prepared in conformance with the City Traffic Phasing Ordinance and will be reviewed by the City (see Section 5.4 - Transportation and Traffic of this document for a complete discussion). Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would result in less than significant impacts related to the Circulation Element. Recreation and Open Space Element Implementation of the proposed project would be consistent with the applicable objectives of the Recreation and Open Space Element. Objective 6, Policy 6.4 encourages the preservation of natural features. The preservation of 1.1 acres of the canyon feature as permanent, dedicated open space is consistent with this objective. Implementation of the proposed project is also consistent with Objective 9, Policy 9.2 that encourages the preservation of natural resources. This policy is implemented through the City's Implementation Procedures for the California Environmental Quality Act (City Council Policy K -3). Consistent with Policy 9.2 and Policy K -3, a cultural resource survey and paleontological records search was performed for this site (see Appendix B). Therefore, no impacts relating to these policies would result from project implementation. Because the project site is not identified as a potential park site or required to meet the needs of Service Area No. 8 (Belcourt-Big Canyon), no impact would result from project implementation even though a deficiency of public recreational acreage based upon current policy exists today and will exist in the future. The proposed project is not consistent with the Recreational and Environmental Open Space General Plan designation. For an analysis of this impact, refer to the discussion under Land Use Element in this section of the document. With the incorporation of the Project Design features (as discussed in the Land Use Element in this section of this document) and the recommended mitigation measures relating to cultural resources identified in the Initial Study, less than significant impacts relating to the Recreation and Open Space Element would result. Conservation of Natural Resources Element Implementation of the proposed project would be consistent with the applicable policies of the Conservation Element. Regarding the Bay and Ocean Water Quality policy, the project would be Michael Brendman Associates 5.1-27 HACHent(PN- JN)\0064\00640021IDEIR \011640021— Sec05- 1— JandU.A. Land Use and Planning St. Mark Presbyterian Church - Draft EIR connected to the City's sanitary sewer system. Refuse receptacles are part of the proposed project and will be constructed in accordance with City standards and refuse will be collected and removed approximately once per week. The BMPs contained in the required Water Quality Management Plan will catch the small portions of litter, debris and other contaminants typically associated with parking lots prior to discharge into the on -site canyon feature. Regarding the Air Quality policy, an air quality technical study for this project has been prepared and will be reviewed by the City (see Section 5.5 - Air Quality of this document for a complete discussion). Regarding the Archaeological/Paleontological policy, it is not known if this parcel is classified as a "large undeveloped site" in accordance with the policy. Regardless of this distinction, the Initial Study identified mitigation measures for the protection of any archaeological and paleontological resources (see Section 1.5 - E1R Focus of this document). Regarding the Energy Conservation policy, the proposed project incorporates design features (see Section 3.3.4 - Project Design Features, specifically Nos. 1, 3, and 5 of this document) that would result in significant amounts of natural light infiltration and sun exposure to the various buildings. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would result in less than significant impacts related to the Conservation Element. Noise Element Implementation of the proposed project would be consistent with the intent of the Noise Element. Because the proposed project is associated with compatibility Zone A and the proposed construction is conventional without any special noise insulation requirements, it is consistent with the Noise Element. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would result in less than significant impacts related to the Noise Element. Public Safety Element Implementation of the proposed project would be consistent with the intent of the Public Safety Element. The proposed project is consistent with General Program No. 1 by the preparation of this Environmental Impact Report. The proposed project is consistent with Geologic Programs 1 -3 because a separate geotechnical engineering report has been prepared for this project and is incorporated into this Environmental Impact Report. Regarding Fire Program No. 2, the portion of the project site adjacent to MacArthur Boulevard is identified as a Potential Fire Hazard Area - Category 1.17 This category indicates locations of the highest fire risk in the City and is associated with sites that are characterized as dry and in very 17 City of Newport Beach, Public Safety Element, Figure 6, March 10, 1975. 5.1-28 Michael Brandman Associates HACIL- w(PN4N)\ 64664002) 1 Dfi12b0640021_$CC05- 1_IatdUW-dcc St. Mark Presbyterian Church - Drat EIR Land Use and Planning rugged locations. Subsequent to the adoption of this element in 1975, the project site, particularly the portion adjacent to MacArthur Boulevard, has been modified (see discussion in Section 3.2 - Project Site History of this document). Therefore, it is unlikely that the conditions described in this element currently exist. The project proposes the use of file roofing materials on all the buildings. In addition, the canyon feature in the central portion of the site is not identified1s as either a Very High Fire Severity Zone or a Special Fire Protection Area, as defined in Section 9.04.401 of the City Municipal Code. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would result in less than significant impacts related to the Public Safety Element. Growth Management Element Implementation of the proposed project would be consistent with the intent of the Growth Management Element. Because this element is consistent with the other City General Plan elements, it is consistent with the proposed project. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would result in less than significant impacts related to the Growth Management Element. Circulation Improvement and Open Space Agreement (CIOSA) Because the project site is not subject to the provisions of the Circulation Improvement and Open Space Agreement (CIOSA), the proposed is not inconsistent with this agreement. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not result in any impacts related to this agreement. City of Newport Beach Zoning Code The project site is designated as Planned Community but is not located within the adjacent Big Canyon Planned Community District. Therefore, the Big Canyon Planned Community District regulations will be amended to show the project site as being located within the Big Canyon Planned Community by creating a new Planned Area (No. 17). Planning Area No. 17 will have a PC land use designation of Institutional and Nature Preserve. The draft Planned Community text establishes permitted uses and development regulations for the implementation of the St. Mark project and the associated preservation of the canyon feature. The final language of the PC regulation for Area 17 will be revised to require discretionary approval (i.e., Use Permit) for the entire project so that project design features and mitigation measures can be required as conditions of approval. 18 Written communication, City of Newport Beach Planning Department, January 14, 2004. Michael Brandman Associates 5.1 -29 H:CGent(PN- JN)t0064t 00640021t DEm 100640021_Sec05- 1_lendUS .dm Lard Use and Planning St Mark Presbyterian Church - Draft EIR Impacts Related to Natural Community Conservation Plana4labitat Conservation Plans Implementation of the proposed project would not conflict with the Orange County Coastal Subarea Natural Community Conservation Plan/Habitat Conservation Plan (NCCP/HCP). The project site is a Non - Reserve parcel and is not located within a Reserve System Area, Special Linkage Area, Existing Use Area, or Non - Reserve Open Space Area. Because the project site is a Non - Reserve parcel, owned by a Participating Landowner, and subject to Planned Activities19, "Take" on the project site is authorized by Mitigation Measure No. 9.2.2 of the NCCP/HCP Mitigation and Implementation Agreement Monitoring Program (see Exhibit 5.1 -7). Under this Mitigation Measure, The Irvine Company is allowed up to 4,135 acres of "Take." Currently, the amount of "Take" by The Irvine Company is significantly below this figure 20 In addition, this Mitigation Measure includes the potential fluctuation in the number of CSS acres and covered habitat on Non - Reserve lands that could occur over time. Therefore, no impacts related to the NCCP/HCP would result from project implementation. 5.1.4 - Cumulative Impacts Development of the proposed project would result in a decrease in land designated as Recreational/Open Space. None of the related projects located within the City will result in a decrease in land designated as Recreational/Open Space. Three of the related projects are located outside of the City and are not subject to the provisions of the City general Plan. Therefore, no cumulative impacts would result from project implementation. 5.1.5 - Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures are required. 5.1.6 - Level of Significance After Mitigation With the incorporation of Project Design Features, less than significant impacts would result from project implementation. No additional mitigation measures are required. 19 Planned Activities are defined in Section 1.43 of the Implementation Agreement as development on land or interests in land owned or controlled by a Participating Landowner including development of communities and infrastructure. 20 Personal Communication, Mr. Steve L.etterly, Vice President of Environmental Permitting and Compliance, The Irvine Company, January 5, 2004. 5.1-30 Michael Brandman Associates HdCnent ( PN- 1N)\ 00643006400211DEai W0640021_Sec05- 1_landUse.d. M 4W N.T %Sk qAIksl St. Mark Presbyterian Church - Draft EIR Hydrology and Water Quality 5.2 - HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY This section describes the hydrology and water quality conditions for the project area and discusses the potential impacts that could result from implementation of the project. The information in this section is based on the following reference documents: • Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP), Nolan Consulting, Inc. (December 2003). • Preliminary Hydrology and Stormwater Management Study, KFM Engineering, Inc. (March, 2003). • City of Newport Beach, City Council Policy No. L- 18- Protection of Water Quality: Drainage- Public right -of -ways (April, 2002). • City of Newport Beach, City Council Policy No. L- 22- Protection of Water Quality: Water Quality Management Plans for New Development and Redevelopment (April, 2002). • City of Newport Beach, Public Safety Element (February, 1975). 5.2.1 - Existing Conditions Regional Hydrology Hydrology The project site is located within Orange County which is comprised of 13 watershed regions, as determined by the Watershed and Coastal Resources Division of the Public Facilities and Resources Department, County of Orange. The project site is located in the Newport Bay Watershed, which drains nearly one -fifth of the county (154 sq. miles). This watershed encompasses foothill regions, as well as alluvial and coastal plains, and until the last few decades, the area was predominantly open space and agricultural land. The increased demand for housing in Orange County has significantly altered this landscape. Today, the watershed area is mostly urban in character. The Newport Bay Watershed includes portions of the Cities of Newport Beach, Irvine, Laguna Hills, Lake Forest, Laguna Woods, Tustin, Orange, Santa Ana, and Costa Mesa as well as unincorporated County areas.' . Major tributaries and waterbodies located within the entire Newport Bay Watershed include: Newport Bay (Lower), Newport Bay (Upper), San Diego Creek (Reaches 1 and 2), Peters Canyon Channel, Serrano Creek, San Joaquin Freshwater Marsh, Santa Ana Delhi Channel and Big Canyon Wash. Newport Bay is divided into Upper and Lower Bays by the Pacific Coast Highway Bridge 2 The area surrounding Newport Bay is heavily developed. Several small watersheds are tributaries to the ' Newport Bay. Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board, 2002 Watershed Management Initiative. ' a This feature is commonly used as a demarcation between Upper and Lower Newport Bays. The two bays are hydraulically connected. Michael Brandman Associates 5.2 -1 H1C5em (PN- 1N)\0W\00640021WEIM 00690021 Scco5- 2_Hydro1osywaaiQuatdoe Hydrology and Water Duality St. Mark Presbyterian Church - Draft EIR Upper Newport Bay is one of the few remaining undeveloped coastal estuaries in California and is home to several federal- or state - listed rare or endangered species. Upper Newport Bay is listed as a Section 303 (d) water body of concern and, therefore, denoted as an environmentally sensitive area per the County of Orange WQMP. The San Diego Creek Watershed, with an area of 119 square miles, is the largest system draining into the Upper Newport Bay. The California Department of Fish and Game owns and manages a portion of Upper Newport Bay as a State Ecological Reserve. In addition to the major tributaries listed above, a number of smaller tributaries draining predominantly developed areas occur within the Upper Newport Bay area. One such tributary is the Big Canyon Wash which drains 2 square miles of land into the Upper Newport Bay Watershed. The Big Canyon Wash is northwest of the project site. The project site is located in the Big Canyon Watershed, a small tributary to the Newport Bay Watershed. Regional Groundwater Orange County, including the project site, is located in Region 8 of the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board's jurisdiction. Region 8 continues to be one of the most rapidly growing areas of the State. Although the region is geographically the smallest (nearly 3,000 square miles), it contains one of the largest concentrations of populations (almost five million people). Extensive ground water basins underlie much of this region. The Santa Ana River, the Region's main surface water body, transports more than 125 million gallons a day of reclaimed water from Riverside and San Bernardino Counties for recharge into the Orange County Groundwater Basin. The Region also includes much of coastal Orange County, where water quality impairment in Newport Bay is a key groundwater issue. Artificial conditions such as water extraction through wells, and the infusion of imported or treated water to replenish groundwater supplies also influences the groundwater. The elevation of groundwater varies with the amount of pumping and the amount of recharge. Groundwater basins may be recharged naturally through filtrating precipitation, or artificially with imported or reclaimed water. Sources of groundwater in the sub -basin include infiltration of precipitation and surface water. Regional Flooding The greatest potential flooding hazard in the City of Newport Beach is from the San Diego Creek Channel and the Upper Newport Bay, followed by the Big Canyon Reservoir. Newport Beach is adjacent to the San Diego Creek Channel, which is designed to provide flood protection to Orange County cities. Regional Stormwater Runoff The 1987 Federal Water Quality Act holds municipalities responsible for the urban sources of pollutants that are discharged through their storm drains. To reduce or eliminate sources of pollutants in Orange County, the Orange County Environmental Resources Department coordinates the efforts of the County, the Orange County Flood Control District and the incorporated 31 cities, including Newport Beach. Specific countywide water quality protection initiatives that have been implemented 5.2 -2 Michael Brandman Associates H: tCtleot( PN- rN)t0064t0064002I\DEM\00640021 Sec05- 2_HydwIogyWawrQ=I.doc St. Mark Presbyterian Church - Draft EIR Hydrology and Water Quality under the auspices of the Orange County Stormwater Program include: public education (e.g. No Dumping Drains to Ocean stenciled on 28,000 catch basins); extensive monitoring of creeks, channels, bays, and harbors; intensive inspections of illicit connections; water quality protections requirements for all new developments; and the 1997 adoption of a new water quality ordinance to support program implementation. Throughout the Newport Beach area, stormwater runoff is collected and disposed of through an integrated system of curbside getters, underground pipelines, drainage ditches, and creeks. Newport Beach's stormwater system includes detention facilities that minimize potential downstream impacts such as erosion or flooding. Regional Surface Water Quality A number of water quality problems adversely impact the designated beneficial uses of San Diego Creek and Newport Bay. These problems are divided into four main categories: sedimentation, eutrophication, bacterial contamination, and toxic substance contamination. Water quality is affected by both point and non -point pollution sources. Point pollution sources include industrial uses and treatment plants and non -point pollution sources include runoff from construction sites, landscaping, agricultural sites, and paved areas (roadways, driveways, and parking lots). Some common pollutants found in storm drains and creeks include: motor oil, yard clippings, fertilizers and pesticides, milky water from paint, soapy car wash water, eroded sediment from construction projects, and litter. The federal Water Pollution Control Act (also referred to as the Clean Water Act [CWA]) states that discharge of pollutants into waters of the United States from any point source is unlawful unless the discharge is in compliance with the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System ( NPDES) permit. Section 402(p) of the CWA establishes the framework for regnlating municipal and industrial (point sources) stormwater discharges under the NPDES program. In California, the NPDES program is administered through the nine Regional Water Quality Control Boards, including the Santa Ana Board. Locally the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board is responsible for determining the City's compliance with the water quality requirements of the CWA. Non -point pollution sources are also regnlated by the RWQCB through the General Construction Activity Stormwater NPDES permits, which are issued for stormwater discharges. Construction activities that are subject to this general permit include clearing, grading, and disturbances to the ground such as stockpiling or excavation that result in soil disturbances. Stormwater pollution prevention plans are required for the issuance of a construction NPDES permit and typically include both structural and non - structural Best Management Practices (BMPs) to reduce water quality impacts. According to Table A- 7.VI -1 (Priority Projects Categories) of the County Local WQMP, this project falls under a Category 7, Parking lots 5,000 square feet or more, or with 15 parking spaces or more, and potentially exposed to urban stormwater runoff. Project Site Hydrology Hydrology. The project site lies within the Big Canyon Watershed, which is a tributary to the Newport Bay Watershed. The proposed site is situated at a local high point, on the corner of Michael Brendman Associates 5.2.3 H: Cliem( PN- JM\006410 0 6 4 0 0211 DEIR`00640021_$ec05 -2 HydmlogyWamrQual.doc Hydrology and Water Qualdy St Mark Presbyterian Church - Draft ElR MacArthur Boulevard and San Joaquin Hills Road, and therefore has no significant surface flows onto the project site from off -site. 3 A small portion (less than one -half acre) of the site, located at the western comer, surface drains to the San Joaquin Hills Road right -of -way. Another small portion (approximately one -half acre) of the site, located at the northem,comer, surface drains to the MacArthur Boulevard right -of -way (see Exhibit 5.2 -1). The remainder of the project site surface drains into the canyon feature. The canyon feature also receives stormwater collected from the MacArthur Boulevard right -of -way and development east of the project site. Project Site Groundwater The project site is located in the (range County Groundwater Basin. The project construction plans do not include the construction of pumps or wells on site, therefore, no local groundwater will be utilized on the project site. Project Site Flood Potential The project site is not located within the boundaries of a 100 -year or 500 -year flood Zone .4 In addition, the project site is not located in a potential flood hazard area as identified in the City's Public Safety Element.5 The City has indicated that during heavy storm events, flooding has been known to occur on the Big Canyon Golf Course property.6 Project Site Drainage As stated previously the project site lies near a localized crest, or high - point, of an area of Newport Beach and generally slopes towards a natural canyon feature, central to the site, with two principal branches trending northerly towards the Big Canyon development. This canyon feature also splits the site into two generally level areas, with a narrow linkage between them, adjacent to MacArthur Boulevard. These two areas are sparsely vegetated with increased vegetation towards the canyon feature. The canyon feature is heavily vegetated. The existing site drainage, off -site storm drain and neighboring golf course are part of the existing Big Canyon drainage system flowing to the San Diego Creek Channel, which then discharges into Upper Newport Bay. The off -site flows originating upstream as part of the Big Canyon Watershed, pass through the site via the existing off -site storm drain system in MacArthur Boulevard and its 24" outlet at the upstream end of the on -site canyon feature. The off -site flows currently discharge runoff to the Big Canyon golf course adjacent to the site. 3 Water Quality Management Plan, Nolan Consulting, Inc., Page 5, December, 2003. ° FEMA Flood Hazard Areas Map, January 2004. 5 City of Newport Beach, Public Safety Element, Figure 5, March 1975. 6 City of Newport Beach, Planning Department Staff, December 5, 2003. 5.24 Michael Brandman Associates H:\CJim ( PN. JN) \0064W0640021\D Em006 40021- Suo5- 2_HydmlogyWawrQw).dm 1 1 I D Z W C7 u1 r Q 0 0 d w o E m v U) Za, U � U =) N m ID, d -`�E 0, 0, 0, Q Or Or Or ro E U) �3 I o I I I 0 c o o `. o° II 8 71 7- lnl Ob i I � I, ro.. ^fig "v�81k 000,� `a j C 'I N Of a N'• l � wJ�� Vg ° Go I` iz r•�`�G °�bti ° I �y � Kffi Q _ .�, yam_ �. y" �� 4I _ 1 _ _ M —M- i u a _�1 III = - -- N 0 . O V� 0 O "d X Wx W W 0 F z� U m H18ON t P3 �� ) ma i p Fl, T L yC N N N S 0 I it IJ 17 IJ II 1 1 J St. Mark Presbyterian Church - Draft EIR Hydrology and Water Quality The existing hydrology includes three primary drainage areas originating from the site, identified as Areas A, B, and C, and a fourth originating from the street and identified as Area D. Drainage area D is the portion of the site tributary to the Streets .7 Areas A, B, and C currently discharge from the site and enter the Big Canyon drainage system, which passes through the Big Canyon Golf Course. All drainage areas from the project site and the aforementioned off -site flows eventually enter the Big Canyon drainage system, which passes through the Big Canyon Golf Course. Project Site Water Quality The project site is undeveloped and does not contain any surface water features. Therefore, no existing on -site uses currently contribute to water quality issues. Applicable Programs. In March 2001, the existing regional NPDES Permit (CAS618030) was administratively extended in accordance with 40 CFR Part 122.6 and Title 23, Division 3, Chapter 9 section 2235.4 of the California Code of Regulations. The permit is applicable to all of Orange County and land within the jurisdiction of the Orange County Flood Control District, which includes the City of Newport Beach and the project site. In response to the extension of the NPDES requirements, the City adopted two City Council Policies intended to minimize dry- weather run -off and run -off from small rain events. City Council Policy L- 18- Protection of Water Quality: Drainage - Public Rights -of -Way contains the following policy applicable to the proposed project: Policy L -18 Whenever possible, runoff should be retained on private property to prevent the transport of pollutants such as pesticides, fertilizers, oil, engine coolant, gasoline, hydrocarbons, brake dust and, fire residue in accordance with the specified provisions of this policy. Reduction, retention or diversion of runoff can benefit property owners through water conservation and reuse of water that would otherwise drain to the City's street drainage system and our harbors, bays, and ocean. City Council Policy L- 22- Protection of Water Quality: Water Quality Management Plans for New Development and Redevelopment contains the following policy applicable to the proposed project: Policy L -22 New development or redevelopment presents the City and the public with the opportunity to reduce the impacts of runoff that would otherwise drain to the City's street drainage system and our harbors, bays and ocean. At the time of submittal of an application for a new development or redevelopment project, an applicant shall submit a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) to the City. The WQMP's purpose is to minimize to the maximum extent practical dry- weather runoff and runoff from small storms (less than 3/4" of rain falling over a 24 -hour period) during construction and post construction from the property. Preliminary Hydrology and Stove Water Management Study, KFM Engineering, Inc., Page 4, March 2003. Michael Brandman Associates 5.2 -7 H:\Cliem (PN- n4)\0064\00640021tDEIR\ 00640021— Sec05- 2— HydmlogyW a rQoal.doc Hydrology and Water Quality St Mark Presbyterian Church - Draft EIR 5.2.2 -Thresholds of Significance The St. Mark Presbyterian Church is considered to have a significant impact upon hydrology and water quality if it: • Violates any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements; • Substantially alters the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on -or off -site; • Substantially alters 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 of surface runoff in a manner, which would result in flooding on -or off -site; or, • Creates or contributes runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff. 5.2.3 - Project Impacts The proposed project includes the following Project Design Features that reduce or eliminate potential impacts to hydrology and water quality: PDF 3 Retention of a majority of the canyon feature as open space and a nature preserve. PDF 10 Use of on -site stormwater detention ponds with BMPs features for regulation of off - site discharge rates. PDF 11 Use of landscape medians and swales designed for infiltration and filtration that allow clarification of surface runoff prior to discharge off -site. PDF 14 Pre - construction grading will design land formations to drain toward the proposed parking lot areas and the landscape medians and detention basins in order to allow for clarification of surface runoff prior to discharge off -site. Short -term Temporary Construction Related Impacts Implementation of the proposed project will result in the grading of approximately 6.37 acres. During grading and construction activities, erosion might take place due to naturally occurring rainfall events. The plans and specifications for all grading and excavation activities will identify short-term construction BMPs where appropriate, to reduce the potential for significant levels of erosion during grading and other construction activities. Short-term construction BMPs will be implemented to eliminate sediment and construction debris runoff into area receiving waters during the construction period. Prior to construction and before a grading permit is issued, a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) must be prepared and approved by the City of Newport Beach in accordance with the requirements of the Regional Water 5.2-8 Michael Brandman Associates HAC bent (PN- 1N)100641006400211DEIRW 0640021 _Sec05- 2_HydmlogywamrQwl.doc ' Long -term Operational Impacts A WQMP has been prepared for this project to address the operational impacts of the proposed ' project. The WQMP identifies BMPs related to source control, treatment control, and site design. The WQMP identifies the following BMPs related to source control: • Educational materials; • Maintenance; • Litter control; • Employee training; • Catch basin inspection; • Parking lot sweeping; • Storm drain stenciling and signage; • Design of refuse storage areas to reduce pollution; • Use of water efficient irrigation systems and landscape design; and • Slope protection and use of energy dissipaters. The WQMP identifies the following BMPs related to treatment control: • Vegetated (grass) swales; • Dry detention basins; • Infiltration trench; and • Proprietary control measures. The WQMP identifies the following BMPs related to site design control: • Minimize impervious area and maximize permeability; • Create reduced or "zero discharge" areas for runoff volume reduction; and • Conserve natural areas. ' Michael Brandman Associates 5.2}9 HAChent( PN- JN)\ 0064\0064W211 DEII2(00640021_Sec05 -2 HydmlogyWawrQwl.doc St. Mark Presbyterian Church - Draft EIR Hydrology and Water Quality ' Quality Control Board (RWQCB) and in conformance with City Council Policy L -18. The SWPPP must include BMPs to eliminate and/or minimize stormwater pollution prior to, and during ' construction. The project site is bordered on the south and east by existing Major Roadways improved fully ' improved with curb, gutter and sidewalks that prevent off -site erosion. The northern and western boundaries of the project site consist of the Big Canyon Wash, which contains vegetation that reduces ' the threat of significant erosion. The proposed construction activities will increase the possibility of erosion on -site. ' Long -term Operational Impacts A WQMP has been prepared for this project to address the operational impacts of the proposed ' project. The WQMP identifies BMPs related to source control, treatment control, and site design. The WQMP identifies the following BMPs related to source control: • Educational materials; • Maintenance; • Litter control; • Employee training; • Catch basin inspection; • Parking lot sweeping; • Storm drain stenciling and signage; • Design of refuse storage areas to reduce pollution; • Use of water efficient irrigation systems and landscape design; and • Slope protection and use of energy dissipaters. The WQMP identifies the following BMPs related to treatment control: • Vegetated (grass) swales; • Dry detention basins; • Infiltration trench; and • Proprietary control measures. The WQMP identifies the following BMPs related to site design control: • Minimize impervious area and maximize permeability; • Create reduced or "zero discharge" areas for runoff volume reduction; and • Conserve natural areas. ' Michael Brandman Associates 5.2}9 HAChent( PN- JN)\ 0064\0064W211 DEII2(00640021_Sec05 -2 HydmlogyWawrQwl.doc Hydrology and Water Quality 6% Mark Avabylerian Church - Draft EIR These site design control BMPs are consistent with the following Project Design Features: PDF 3 Retention of a majority of the canyon feature as open space and a nature preserve PDF 10 Use of on -site stormwater detention ponds with BMPs features for regulation of off - site discharge rates. PDF 11 Use of landscape medians and swales designed for infiltration and filtration that allow clarification of surface runoff prior to discharge off -site. The total square footage for the master plan project would not exceed 33,387 square feet or result in a higher than 10.5 % building coverage. This would ultimately result in impervious site coverage of 45.1 percent. Below is a cumulative peak Storm Runoff summary table for a 25 -year storm event showing existing and post project build - out run -off rates. It is estimated, an additional 9 cubic -feet per second (cfs) of surface runoff will discharge to the north of the canyon feature during a 25 -year storm (4% chance of occurring in any given year) if un- attended. Project Design Feature No. 10 detains the increased runoff in three on -site detention basins, and controls the rate of discharge to downstream systems (i.e., the canyon feature) at or below existing conditions. Table 5.2 -1 compares cumulative peak Storm Runoff for a 25 -year storm event showing existing and post project build - out run -off rates. Table 5.2 -1: Cumulative Peak Stormwater Runoff Summary (25 -year Storm) lcisH (Propoa� Hdmlogy with onite detaiNidn) -c: Resultant Pn ge. (with on -alts detention) AteB' -• tfOdO: Flaw {C�S) IttBar Node PIWAl(Gi9) 1Flow(ofs) Increase ,' .8 A and B 7 T74 A and B 13 6.54 654 -12 -16% C 9 115 N/A N/A N/A 0 0 -100% DI 11 136 C 11 1.02 -034 - 034 -42% Source: Hydrology ad Stormwater Management Study, KFM Engineering, Inc. March 2003, Table H -1 As shown in Table 5.2 -1, with the incorporation of the three on -site detention basins the site surface runoff rates will be maintained at or below the existing surface run off conditions. Therefore, with implementation of the Project Design Features included in St Mark Presbyterian Church development plans, the project will not substantially increase the amount of surface runoff in a manner that would expose people or structures to on -site flooding or result in peak runoff rates from the project site that would exceed existing or planned capacities of flood control systems. The proposed project will have a less than significant impact on surface runoff. In addition, compliance with relevant stormwater management and flooding goals and policies of the City of Newport Beach and the BMPs outlined in the Water Quality Management Plan (Appendix C), the project will have a less than significant impact on existing or planned capabilities of flood control Michael Brandman Associates H:`.CGem (PN- 7N)\OW\0064002111)EIR` 0064002 1_Sec05- 2_HydrologyW.WrQwl.doc St. Mark Presbyterian Church - Draft EIR Hydrology and Water Quality systems. The project will comply with the City's NPDES permit and the City's Stormwater Management Plan Post Construction/Development Standard Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan. Compliance with the measures outlined in the NPDES permit and the mitigation plan further ensure the project's consistency with stormwater management and flooding goals and policies. The proposed grading design for the project includes raised earth berms along the project street frontages which generally force drainage patterns internal to the project site. The impervious development areas proposed for the site will generally be graded to drain towards the parking lot landscaped median and on -site detention ponds. The proposed drainage conditions will maintain the existing drainage patterns; that is, on -site flows will generally be directed to the canyon feature or to the existing drainage systems in MacArthur Boulevard conveying runoff into the Big Canyon drainage system. The increase in runoff resulting from the increase in impervious areas will be mitigated by on -site detention so that discharges from the site are maintained at or below existing conditions. This Project Design Feature is critical in order to control the quantity of runoff and ensure that potential contaminated runoff, typically consisting of trash and debris, heavy metals, and oil and grease 8, is directed toward the proper channels, which are designed to reduce contaminant levels to a less than significant level. The purpose is to significantly reduce the level of contaminants, not to purify the water. The landscaped medians and swales used to convey runoff will be designed to encourage filtration and infiltration, allowing clarification of surface runoff. Parking lot drainage inlets will be used in the detention pond areas, and the downstream end of landscaped swales and medians. The inlets will be equipped with debris screens and special inserts designed to intercept pollutants associated with parking lots and automotive residues. The on -site detention ponds will control the rate of discharge to the canyon feature so as not to exceed the pre- project condition. These Project Design Features will reduce project impacts to a less than significant level. Drainage inlets located in the parking areas will collect stormwater through underground lines to one of three on -site stormwater detention ponds. The first pond is located at the passenger loading station, the second at the mouth of the canyon feature, and the third at the northeast corner of the site. Drainage inlets within these ponds will be equipped with BMP features designed to intercept pollutants and debris during storm events prior to discharge off -site. Stormwater released from the detention ponds located at the passenger loading station and the mouth of the canyon feature will be discharged into the canyon feature through energy dissipaters. Stormwater released from the detention pond located at the northeast corner of the site will be discharged into the existing stormwater system located in the MacArthur Boulevard roadway (see Exhibit 5.2 -2). a Water Quality Management Plan, Nolan Consulting, Inc., Page 6, December, 2003. Michael Brandman Associates 5.2-11 H: \Cbcnt (PN- JN)WO64W0640021\DEIRVM40021 Sec05- 2— HydrologyWaWrOial.dm 1 r 1 f I, $ :30 1 1 y Q M S gTq_� m C p y C� /� p cmo p Eo € o tB }� �Qn IAN ko m a a ua O + N bw �1=y aN> N 8 ZO cod g o °QQ Q °o -'cw O IL 4W6 Q p a M a m O 1 =P p p p N � N Z LLJ 1 1 :� j '• v :h kI ji _ A� m -'A_ N 9, N � . O � O Y a .d X Wx b O O 0 0 Z m c H1� 9 mp 9 St. Mark Presbyterian Church - Draft EIR Hydrology and Water Quality Discharge handling into the canyon feature will utilize appropriate energy dissipation and permanent erosion control measures to avoid disruption to the existing canyon features beyond the project ' grading footprint. Exhibit 5.2 -2, Proposed Hydrology, depicts the location and type of Structural and Non - Structural BMPs proposed for the project. ' The proposed site development will include the construction of a new sanctuary, preschool, administration and other ancillary buildings along with paved access and parking areas. There will be 1 significant landscape buffer areas bordering MacArthur Boulevard and San Joaquin Hills Road frontages, as well as areas around the proposed buildings. The majority of the existing canyon feature will remain mostly undisturbed, natural, and/or re- vegetated with native material. It is estimated, an additional 9 cubic -feet per second (cfs) of surface runoff will discharge to the north of the canyon feature during a 25 -year storm (4% chances of occurring in any given year) if un- attended. The proposed plan is to detain the increased runoff in three on -site detention basins, and control the rate of at or below existing conditions. ' 5.2.4 - Cumulative Impacts The land use currently surrounding the project site is virtually built out with residential homes, a golf ' course, shopping centers and other commercial uses. The Land Use Element identifies approximately 14,000 square feet of additional commercial space within the Big Canyon Country Club that could be ' developed. Should this additional commercial development occur, an increase in the impervious ' surface would result in an increase in the off -site stormwater discharge from the Big Canyon Country Club to Upper Newport Bay. There is little potential for future construction in the vicinity of the ' project site which would result in an increase of impervious surfaces and runoff that would be associated with urban runoff. ' Five of the ten related projects identified in Section 4 of this document are located within the Newport Bay Watershed. They are: South Coast Shipyard; Our Lady Queen of Angels Church; St. Andrews Church; Regent Newport Beach Resort; and Lower Bayview Senior Housing. The effect of any individual project would most likely be less than significant; the incremental effect of other related ' projects could be potentially significant. However, through the application of Regional Water Quality ' Control Board standards, including requirements of NPDES permits and BMPs as implemented through a WQMP and SWPP, it is anticipated to reduce potential cumulative water quality impacts to less than significant levels. 1 5.2.5 - Mitigation Measures The following Project Design Features and Mitigation Measures will manage on -site runoff and avoid discharge of site pollutants, provide erosion control prior to and during construction through preparation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), and develop and implement a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) incorporating structural and non - structural BMPs for post- ' construction water quality protection. Michael Brandman associates 5.2-15 HXfiem( PN- JN)10064100640D211DEIR100640021 Sec05- 2_Hydmiogywam Qoal.dm Hydrology and Water OuaRy St. Mark Presbyterian Church - Draft EIR In addition to the Project Design Features, the following Mitigation Measures are recommended: MM H1 Prior to the commencement of construction and the issuance of a grading permit, and as a condition of project approval, a Water Quality Management Plan must be approved by the City of Newport Beach. MM H2 Prior to the commencement of construction and before a grading permit is issued; a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) shall be prepared and approved by the City of Newport Beach as the local permitting agency in accordance with the requirements of the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). The SWPPP shall include BMPs to eliminate and/or minimize stormwater pollution prior to, and during construction. 5.2.6 - Level of Significance After Mitigation With implementation of the identified Project Design Features and recommended Mitigation Measures, no significant hydrological or water quality impacts are anticipated. 5.2 -16 Michael Brandmen Associates HX fient( PN- 1N)\006/ \006d0021\DEa241D6E0021 Seo05.2_HydrologyWaMrQmi.dm Sc Mark Presbyterian Church - Dralt EIR Biological Resources 5.3 - BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Information in this section is based on the following reference documents: • Biological Resources Report, Michael Bradman Associates, February, 2004 (see Appendix E for the complete report) • County of Orange, Natural Community Conservation Plan (NCCP) and Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP), Central and Coastal Subregion • County of Orange, NCCP/HCP Implementation Agreement 5.3.1 - Existing Conditions The project site contains 10.81 acres and is generally level with a two - branch canyon feature that occupies the central portion of the site. The project site is located in the Central and Coastal Subregion of the Orange County Natural Community Conservation Plan (NCCP) and Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP). The project site is identified as a Non - Reserve parcel and is not located within the Reserve System, or identified as a Special Linkage Area, Existing Use Area, or Non - Reserve Open Space Area (see Section 5.1 of this document for a complete discussion). Methodology Studies of biological resources associated with the 7.38 -acre project site began with a review of relevant literature followed by a reconnaissance -level field survey. MBA conducted the on -site reconnaissance -level survey on September 29, 2003. The primary objective of this survey was to document the plant communities and existing conditions on the project site. Literature Review A compilation of sensitive plant and wildlife species recorded in the vicinity of the property was derived from the California Natural Diversity Database ( CNDDB), a database of sensitive species and plant community accounts maintained by the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). Additional recorded occurrences of plant species found on or near the property were obtained from the California Native Plant Society's (CNPS) Electronic Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California database. The CNDDB and CNPS searches included an extended search area ' from the project site (approximately 7 miles). Federal register listings, survey protocols, and species data provided by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and CDFG were also reviewed with 1 respect to federal- and State - listed or special status species potentially occurring in the vicinity of the project site. I Reconnaissance -Level Surveys The biological survey of the project site was conducted on foot and all exposed areas were inspected visually. Survey objectives were to identify the site's plant communities and characteristics, inventory the site's general condition and existing vegetation, and assess the potential for sensitive Michael Brandman Associates 5. 3-1 HACH=(PN -!N) 10664V M69002 1MDEIRM690021— Sec05- 3_BiobgimI Resou s.dm Biological Resources St Mark Presbyterian Church - Draft EIR species of plant or wildlife, or sensitive habitat designated as such by federal, State or local conservation agencies to occur on -site. All common plant species observed on -site were noted, except annual grass species, and all native species encountered were identified. Common plant species were readily identified by visual characteristics and morphology in the field. Unusual and less familiar plants were identified from sampling using taxonomical gnides. Wildlife species detected during field surveys by sight, calls, tracks, scat, or other sign were recorded during surveys in a field notebook. Field gnides were used to assist with identification of species during surveys. A general wildlife survey of the property was conducted in appropriate habitats during daylight hours. The purpose of this reconnaissance -level effort was to determine the general conditions and identify habitat areas that could be suitable for various common and special status species. Common species are generally considered potentially present on the property if suitable habitat is present and the area lies within a species' geographic range. Habitat areas were investigated for diagnostic wildlife signs such as nests, burrows, tracks, vocalizations, and any direct observations of specimens or their signs were recorded. The survey also inspected surface litter and occasionally turned stones, fallen bark, and tree branches to look for secretive reptiles and amphibians. An effort to locate and identify raptor (birds of prey) nests was also conducted during the reconnaissance -level survey. Such efforts include direct and incidental observation of raptor nests, owl pellets, and the identification of soaring or perched raptor species observed, if any. Biological Communities Three natural and two non - natural plant communities were identified on the 7.38 -acre project site (see Table 5.3 -1 and Exhibit 5.3 -1). The three natural communities are: coastal sage scrub, southern riparian scrub, and non - native grassland. The two non - natural communities identified are ornamental woodland and disturbed areas. The disturbed areas are characterized by lack of vegetative cover (except by ruderal or weedy species) and are typically the result of previous land use. Ornamental trees and shrubs occupy the north and west edges of the property adjacent to the golf course and residential development. Although not considered a natural plant community, such exotic vegetation offers some limited habitat value, particularly for common species that are highly adapted to human development. Coastal sage scrub (CSS) is found in the northern portion of the property and surrounds a patch of southern riparian scrub habitat, which is located within the canyon feature area located in the north - central portion of the property. A small area containing non - native grassland occurs adjacent to the southern riparian scrub and CSS plant communities. Brief descriptions of these plant communities are provided below. 5.3-2 Michael Brandman Associates H: XCIIent( PN- 1N)( W64 (O0640021OEIR100640021— SecO5 -3 —Biological Resou s.dm M R v a L � X W _ C L R _I t o LL 0 S 9 N d id m 9 � O T 2 HIMON c °c PP 'o U W U N 8 8 St. Mark Presbyterian Church - Dmit EIR Biological Resources Table 5.3-1: Biological Communities Community Approximate Acreage Coastal Sage Scrub 1.96 Southern Riparian Scrub 0.27 Non -native Grassland 0.35 Ornamental Woodland 0.43 Disturbed Areas 4.37 Total 7.38 Source: MBA, Biological Resources Report, February, 2004 Coastal Sage Scrub (CSS) CSS consists of low- growing, soft- leaved, drought deciduous shrubs, with occasional taller evergreen shrubs and succulents that typically occur on thin or rocky soils on mild to steep slopes throughout southern California below 3,000 feet in elevation. On the project site, dominant plants mainly consisted of California sagebrush (Artemisia californica), sticky monkey flower (Mimldus aurantiacus), Mexican elderberry (Sambucus mexicana), and coyote bush (Baccharis pilularis). Other plant species observed within the property include yellow star- thistle (Centaurea solstitialis), lemonadeberry (Rhus integrifolia), and black mustard (Brassica nigra). The project site contains approximately 1.96 acres of coastal sage scrub. Southern Riparian Scrub A small portion of this community was identified in the canyon feature. The representative plant species are typically well adapted to a hydrological regime ranging from semi - permanent inundation to occasional soil saturation on or near the surface during at least a portion of the growing season. Southern riparian scrub contains a relatively dense tangle of broad - leaved, winter - deciduous riparian thickets dominated by willow species. Dominant elements in this community include arroyo willow (Salix lasiolepis), western sycamore (Platanus racemosa), and giant creek nettle (Urtica dioica). Less than one -half acre was identified. The project site contains approximately 0.27 acres of southern riparian scrub. Non - native Grassland Non - native grassland consists of non - native, annual grasses often in association with ruderal herbs and occasional native annual forbs. These grasses begin to germinate with the fall rains, grow during the winter and spring, and wither in the early summer. This community is often found on clay soils (Holland 1986); it is incorporated into the California annual grassland series described by Sawyer and Keeler -Wolf (1995). Species observed in this plant community include black mustard (Brassica nigra), turkey mullein (Eremocarpus setigerus), Russian thistle (Salsola tragus), and telegraph weed (Heterotheca grandii fora). The project site contains approximately 0.35 acres of non - native grassland. ' Michael Brandman Associates 5.35 H:W Wien( PN- JN)A00&g006400210BIRV00640021 Sec05- 3_BiobAcal Reso=es.doc Biological Resources St. Mark Presbyterian Church - Draft OR Ornamental Woodland Exotic eucalyptus trees, and other ornamental shrubs such as acacia lie along the north and west edges of the project site. These areas contain little of no native vegetation and provide only limited habitat value, primarily as cover and perching opportunities for birds and common terrestrial wildlife that are normally associated with developed areas. The project site contains approximately 0.43 acres of ornamental woodland. Disturbed Areas These areas are characterized by a lack of significant vegetative cover, usually the result of previous human disturbance. Although such areas may contain a sparse cover of ruderal vegetation and an occasional scattering of native plant specimens, this type of "habitat' is not a plant community and is considered to be of little or no value to wildlife. The project site contains approximately 4.37 acres of disturbed areas. Sensitive Biological Resources Sensitive species are those plants and animals that occur, or have the potential to occur, on the project site that are endangered or rare, or are of current local, regional or State concern. Plant communities are considered to be sensitive biological resources based on: 1) federal, State or local laws regulating their development; 2) limited distributions; and 3) the habitat requirements of sensitive plants or animals occurring on the site. A review of the databases and pertinent literature determined that seven special status plant communities, twenty -three sensitive plant species, and nineteen sensitive wildlife species have been reported to occur within the search area. Based on the literature review and the findings of the reconnaissance -level survey, MBA evaluated each of these special status resources for their potential to occur and/or be affected by the proposed project. Plant Communities The CNDDB reports seven plant communities designated as having special status within the search area. However, none of these specific habitat types, as listed below, occur on the project site or in the immediate vicinity: • Southern foredunes; • Valley needlegrass grassland; • Southern coast live oak riparian forest; • Southern sycamore alder riparian woodland; • Southern dune scrub; • Southern coastal salt marsh; or • Southern cottonwood willow riparian ferest. 5.3E Michael Brandman Associates i: �CGent( PN- JN) U0064 \0064002ME1R10060021— Se-05 -3— Bi.i.gic.1 Rcsowc A.c St. Mark Presbyterian Church - Draft EIR Biological Resources In addition to the plant communities listed by the CNDDB, coastal sage scrub is generally recognized as a sensitive habitat type. The small portion of CSS habitat that occurs on the project site constitutes an isolated remnant within a predominantly developed area. The value of the CSS habitat on the project site is greatly reduced in comparison with similar habitat that occurs within large, natural areas because the site is surrounded by development and relatively inaccessible to most species of wildlife that might use this plant community as a breeding area or while foraging. Riparian habitats are also generally regarded as sensitive habitats as evidenced by several federal- and state- administered permit programs that advocate avoidance of impacts to riparian habitats and streambeds, or require compensatory mitigation for unavoidable losses of these aquatic resources. Sensitive Plant Species Twenty -three special status plant species were considered with regard for their potential to occur on the property due to their known occurrence in the region as reported by the CNDDB. Based on the habitat evaluation and available information regarding these species' range, distribution, and habitat preferences, many of special status species were considered absent or highly unlikely to occur, due to the lack of potentially suitable habitat. No special status plant species were observed on the project site. Three sensitive plant species, intermediate (foothill) mariposa lily, many - stemmed dudleya, and Robinson's peppergrass are considered to have a low to moderate potential to occur in association with CSS habitat on the property. It is not very likely that many - stemmed dudleya or Robinson's peppergrass occurs on the project site because habitat conditions appear to be only marginal for these species. The CSS vegetation on the slopes of the canyon feature is fairly dense, providing little opportunity for these low- growing plant species to become established since they require good exposure to sunlight. On the flatter areas of the site, the CSS coverage is more open, but due to previous disturbance and grading, any such populations are likely to have been lost had they been present in the past. Moreover, ruderal grasses and herbs presently occupy much of the open areas among the shrubs in the CSS habitat on flatter areas that have been subject to substantial disturbance. Also, Robinson's peppergrass is not generally known to occur in areas close to the coast, so the site may lie outside the normal range of this species. The intermediate (foothill) mariposa lily, which produces striking flowers on long slender stems for short periods in the late spring, could occur on -site, as habitat conditions are appropriate. However, even the likelihood of this species occurring on -site is not particularly high because the amount of CSS habitat is small, which further reduces the chance that a population of an uncommon species might occur. None of these species are listed as threatened or endangered by federal or state resource agencies. Sensitive Wildlife Species Nineteen sensitive wildlife species were considered with regard to their potential to occur on the project site. The site does not contain habitat that could be potentially suitable for at least fourteen of these species. For most of these species, there is no suitable habitat of any kind on -site or in the Michael Brandman Associates 5.3 -7 H:\Client(PN -1N)\0064 \00640021\D&R\00640021 Sec05- 3_Biologicul Resou s.doc Biological Resources St. Mark Presbyterian Church - Draft EIR immediate vicinity of the project site. Several of these species, such as the southwestern pond turtle and least Bell's vireo require substantially larger areas of natural riparian or aquatic habitat than is present on or in the near vicinity of the site. Three special status reptiles, orange - throated whiptail, coastal western whiptail, and coast horned lizard are closely associated with coastal sage scrub habitat, and thus have at least some potential to occur in this habitat on -site. However, the small size and isolated and disturbed nature of the available habitat on the project site limits the chance that any viable population of these species could persist for long periods of time because the number of individuals that the area could support would be extremely low. Two listed species, the federally - listed Threatened California gnatcatcher and the federally Endangered Pacific Pocket mouse were also considered with respect to their potential to occur. The possibility of these species occurring on -site cannot be entirely ruled out unless focused surveys are conducted for these species. However, based on the size, disturbed condition and relatively isolated nature of the habitat on the subject parcel, the potential for either species to occur on -site is considered very low. Dispersing California gnatcatcher juveniles could conceivably access the site via the golf course open space, or even by traversing through developed areas. However, as an adult this species is relatively sedentary and normally remains in the local vicinity of CSS patches selected for breeding, which are typically larger than two acres, rather than foraging over wide areas. While they may not travel long distances, foraging activities frequently extend over areas much greater than two acres. Although the patch of CSS on the parcel may be just large enough to accommodate one nesting pair, it is unlikely that an individual or pair would remain in such an otherwise limited area, surrounded on all sides by development and exposed to substantial noise and activity. Pacific pocket mouse (which was collected on nearby Spyglass Hill in 197 1) is currently known to occur in Orange County only at San Mateo Creek and the Dana Point Headlands, despite substantial focused surveys in potential habitat near the coast. Since this species appears to require loose sandy soils or alluvial deposits for burrowing, the limited area of open CSS vegetation on the site is considered only marginally suitable. Where the CSS vegetation exhibits an open canopy, on the flat portion of the site, soils are somewhat rocky, rather than sandy and may be too compacted by previous disturbances to be suitable for burrowing by this species. Furthermore, as noted above with respect to sensitive reptile species, it is unlikely that a small site could sustain a viable population of this relatively vulnerable prey species for any significant length of time. Regional Connectivity As a result of the reconnaissance -level survey, it was determined that wildlife movement across the project site is precluded by adjacent residential and commercial development. The northern perimeter of the project site contains a chain link fence located between the property and the adjacent golf course, which acts as a barrier to local wildlife movement to other areas north of the property. The property is considered a predominantly disturbed area surrounded by extensive urban development. Although there is the potential for wildlife movement on the property that could be facilitated by the disturbed areas, there is no wildlife movement corridor associated with the project site. 5.3-8 Michael Brandman Associates H:�fient( PN- 1N)\0064\00(W00210EIR\OOBA0021 Sec053_6iological Resources.doc , St. Mark Presbyterian Church - Draft OR Biological Resources 5.3.2 - Thresholds of Significance According to Appendix G of the State CF.QA Guidelines, a project would normally have a significant effect on the environment if it would: • 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 the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; • Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; • Have s substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act; • Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites; • Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance; or • Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Natural Community Conservation Plan (NCCP) Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) or other approved local, regional or State habitat conservation plan. 5.3.3 - Project Impacts The proposed project would remove portions of two of the three natural communities. Approximately 0.05 -acres of non - native grassland, and 1.5 -acres of CSS would be removed. None of the southern riparian scrub would be removed by the proposed project. Portions of the ornamental woodland areas and all of the disturbed areas would be removed. However, the proposed project incorporates design features into the overall project that preserve habitat on the project site. The following Project Design Features are applicable to the protection of CSS habitat: PDF -3 Retention of a majority of the canyon feature as open space and a nature preserve. PDF -9 Blending of new plant material with existing plant material at the interface of the canyon feature and the proposed development. No special status plant species were observed on -site. However, the possibility that sensitive plants may occur cannot be eliminated in the absence of focused surveys conducted during the appropriate season. Three special status plant species are considered to have at least some potential to occur on the site in association with the small portion of CSS habitat. However, none of these are listed by the Michael Brandman Associates 5.3 -9 H:\ Cllcnl (PN- JN) \(N)(W \0069002]\DEIR \00690021- SccOS- 3_Biological Ruourcmdoc Biological Resources St. Mark Presbyterian Church - Draft E/R federal or State resource agencies as endangered and thus are not specifically protected under current regulations and focused surveys are not required for these species. Furthermore, the small size and disturbed condition of the CSS habitat area makes it unlikely that sensitive plants, if present, could occur in sufficient numbers to be deemed a significant resource. Also, intermediate mariposa lily is a "covered species" under the NCCP implementing agreement for the coastal subregion of Orange County. Therefore, if this species, which is considered to have a moderate potential to occur, would be impacted by the proposed project, the provisions of the NCCP have already addressed such impacts by providing for the conservation of large reserve areas where populations of this species (and many others) are permanently protected. Therefore, the potential for the proposed project to significantly affect sensitive plant species is not considered significant. Several non - listed reptiles are considered to have at least some potential to occur on -site, although none were observed during the site survey. Impacts to CSS habitat resulting of the proposed project would reduce the available habitat on -site for these species, if they were present. However, these species are not subject to legal protections and moreover, because they are designated as "covered species" under the NCCP, direct and indirect impacts to these reptiles within areas planned for development, including the project site, have been addressed and mitigated through habitat conservation measures instituted by the NCCP Implementation Agreement. The possibility that the federally Threatened California gnatcatcher and the federally Endangered Pacific pocket mouse could potentially occur cn -site cannot be completely ruled out, since at least marginally suitable habitat occurs on -site. However, the likelihood that either species could occur is very low, and the available habitat area on the parcel is too limited and/or too disturbed to be likely to sustain a viable population of pocket mouse or a breeding pair of gnatcatchers. The 1.5 -acre loss of CSS associated with the proposed project constitutes a very small incremental contribution to the loss of potentially suitable CSS habitat for these sp cies in the region. In light of the NCCP, none of these potential impacts are considered significant. Both the gnatcatcher and the pocket mouse are "covered species" and impacts to these species and associated CSS losses outside the NCCP reserve in areas anticipated to be developed (defined as "Planned Activities" areas by the NCCP) have been fully addressed and mitigated by the NCCP. Portions of CSS and non - native grassland will be retained within the canyon feature. Areas between the limits of grading and the open space boundary line will blend new vegetation with existing vegetation. Less than one -half acre of riparian habitat was identified on the project site within the canyon feature. This portion of the canyon feature will be retained as permanent, dedicated open space as part of the proposed project (i.e., PDF -3) and no impact to riparian habitat will occur. The project site does not contain any federally - designated wetlands. Therefore, implementation of the project would not adversely affect any wetlands resources. 5.3 -10 Michael Brandman Associates :\CGeoi(PN -JN)\ 0064 \00640021\ E82 \00640021— Sec05- 3— Biulugic.1 KCS.0 ,.duc Although "Take" on the project site is authorized by Mitigation Measure No. 9.2.2 of the NCCP/HCP Mitigation and Implementation Agreement Monitoring Program, Mitigation Measure No. 10.0 of this same program requires the implementation of construction- related minimization measures. The purpose of this Mitigation Measure is to assure that construction and development within areas authorized for "Take" of CSS are undertaken in a manner that minimizes impacts to coastal California gnatcatchers that might use or could be in close proximity to the habitat proposed for conversion. Participating Landowners are required to comply with these measures. The City enforces these measures, in its capacity as a Signatory City to the NCCP/HCP Implementation Agreement, to ensure that NCCP construction- related minimization measures, as set forth in the Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement prepared for the NCCP/HCP, are enforced. 5.3.4 - Cumulative Impacts Implementation of the proposed project, in combination with future development in the region, would contribute to the loss of open space and a corresponding loss of potential habitat. However, the related projects (see Section 4 of this document) all occur within the boundaries of the NCCP /HCP and are subject to the provisions of the NCCP/HCP Implementation Agreement. Therefore, no cumulative impacts to biological resources would result from project implementation. NCCP /HCP Implementation Agreement, Section 1.52. City of Newport Beach, City Council Policy G -1, Attachment 1. 3 NCCP/HCP Implementation Agreement, Section 4.4.2. Michael Brandman Associates 5.3 -11 H:\ Cfievl(PN- 1N) \0004\00640021\DEIR \10640( @1 Secl15- 3_Biological Resources.doc St. Mark Presbyterian Church - Draft EIR Biological Resources ' The reconnaissance -level survey determined that the project site is isolated, surrounded by extensive urban development, bordered on two sides by Major Roadways, and is fenced along the northern ' perimeter and does not provide any connectivity value. In addition, the project site is not identified as a Special Linkage Area by the Orange County Central and Coastal Subregion Natural Community NCCP/HCP. Special Linkage Areas are defined by the NCCP/HCP Implementation Agreement' as System, between lands that provide connectivity functions between habitat areas within the reserve the Coastal Subregion and other subregions, or between Reserve System lands and outlying ' populations of Identified Species. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not interfere with any wildlife movement or wildlife corridors. The City does have a policy (City Council Policy G -1) regarding City - designated Special Trees, defined as landmark or dedicated trees. Neither the project site, nor any adjacent portion, are ' identified on the roster of sites designated with Special Trees, as administered by the City Parks, Beaches, and Recreation Commission 2 Although not identified as Special Trees, the Eucalyptus trees located adjacent to the San Joaquin Hills Road right -of -way are proposed for retention by the proposed project. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not conflict with any policies or ordinances relating to biological resources or tree preservation policies or ordinances. Although "Take" on the project site is authorized by Mitigation Measure No. 9.2.2 of the NCCP/HCP Mitigation and Implementation Agreement Monitoring Program, Mitigation Measure No. 10.0 of this same program requires the implementation of construction- related minimization measures. The purpose of this Mitigation Measure is to assure that construction and development within areas authorized for "Take" of CSS are undertaken in a manner that minimizes impacts to coastal California gnatcatchers that might use or could be in close proximity to the habitat proposed for conversion. Participating Landowners are required to comply with these measures. The City enforces these measures, in its capacity as a Signatory City to the NCCP/HCP Implementation Agreement, to ensure that NCCP construction- related minimization measures, as set forth in the Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement prepared for the NCCP/HCP, are enforced. 5.3.4 - Cumulative Impacts Implementation of the proposed project, in combination with future development in the region, would contribute to the loss of open space and a corresponding loss of potential habitat. However, the related projects (see Section 4 of this document) all occur within the boundaries of the NCCP /HCP and are subject to the provisions of the NCCP/HCP Implementation Agreement. Therefore, no cumulative impacts to biological resources would result from project implementation. NCCP /HCP Implementation Agreement, Section 1.52. City of Newport Beach, City Council Policy G -1, Attachment 1. 3 NCCP/HCP Implementation Agreement, Section 4.4.2. Michael Brandman Associates 5.3 -11 H:\ Cfievl(PN- 1N) \0004\00640021\DEIR \10640( @1 Secl15- 3_Biological Resources.doc Biological Resources St. Mark Presbyterian Church - Draft EIR 5.3.5 - Mitigation Measures ' The required construction- related minimization measures that are applicable to the proposed project are identified as Mitigation Measures BR -I through BR4. These measures are subject to public , health and safety considerations that include unexpected slope stabilization, erosion control measures, and emergency facility repairs. In the event of a public health and safety event, landowners or public ' agencies will provide the USFWS and the CDFG with the maximum practicable notice to allow for the capture of any gnatcatchers, cactus wrens and any other CSS Identified Species that are not otherwise flushed and will carry out the following measures only to the extent as practicable in the context of public safety and health considerations. BR -1 To the maximum extent practicable, no grading of CSS habitat that is occupied by nesting gnatcatchers will occur during the breeding season (February 15 through July 15). BR -2 Prior to the commencement of grading operations or other activities involving significant soil disturbance, all areas of CSS habitat to be avoided under the provisions of the NCCP /HCP, shall be identified with temporary fencing or other markers clearly visible to construction personnel. Additionally, prior to the commencement of grading operations or other activities involving disturbance of CSS, a survey will be conducted to locate gnatcatchers and cactus wrens within 100 feet of the outer extent of projected soil disturbance activities and the locations of any such species shall be clearly marked and identified on the construction/grading plans. A minimum of three surveys will be conducted, at least one week apart, in order to determine the presence or absence of the coastal California gnatcatcher in conformance with the survey protocol issued on August 6, 1997, by the USFWS. These surveys may be conducted at any time during the year; however, surveys conducted between February 15 and August 30 are preferred. BR -3 A monitoring biologist, acceptable; to the USFWS and CDFG shall be on -site during any clearing of CSS. The landowner or relevant public agency will advise the USFWS and CDFG at least seven calendar days, and preferably 14 calendar days, prior to the clearing of any habitat occupied by Identified Species to allow the USFWS and CDFG to work with the monitoring biologist in connection with bird flushing and/or capture activities. BR -4 Following the completion of initial grading or earthmoving activities, all areas of CSS habitat to be avoided by construction equipment and personnel will be marked with temporary fencing or other appropriate markers clearly visible to construction personnel. No construction access, parking, or storage of equipment of materials will be permitted within the marked areas. 5.3.6 - Level of Significance After Mitigation With the incorporation of the Project Design Features and the required Mitigation Measures, implementation of the project would result in less than significant impacts to biological resources. 5.3 -12 Michael Brandman Associates HAChent (PN-IN) \0064 \00640021\DBIR\00640021 Sec05- 3_Bio1ogi.1 Resoumes.doc SL Mark Presbyterian Church - Draft EIR Transportation and Traffic 5.4 - TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Information in this section is based on the following reference documents: • Traffic Phasing Ordinance Analysis (Revised), Urban Crossroads, Inc., February 2004 (see Appendix F for the complete report) • Newport Beach General Plan, Circulation Element • Newport Beach General Plan, Growth Management Element • Newport Beach Master Plan of Bikeways • Orange County Transportation Authority, Commuter Bikeways Strategic Plan, August, 2001 5.4.1 - Existing Conditions Policies Traffic Phasing Ordinance The City requires the preparation of a traffic study consistent with the provisions of the Traffic Phasing Ordinance for projects that exceed 10,000 square feet of space or generate greater than 300 daily vehicle trips. The objectives' of the Traffic Phasing Ordinance are: • Provide a uniform method of analyzing and evaluating the traffic impacts of projects that generate a substantial number of average daily trips and/or trips during the morning or evening peak hour period; • Identify the specific and near -term impacts of project traffic as well as circulation system improvements that will accommodate project traffic and ensure that development is phased with identified circulation system improvements; • Ensure that project proponents, as conditions of approval pursuant to this chapter, make or fund circulation system improvements that mitigate the specific impacts of project traffic on primary intersections at or near the time the project is ready for occupancy; and • Provide a mechanism for ensuring that a project proponent's cost of complying with traffic related conditions of project approval is roughly proportional to project impacts. Transportation Demand Management Ordinance The City enacted the Transportation Demand Management Ordinance to provide strategies that reduce traffic congestion. This ordinance applies to projects that would employ 100 or more people, or the current limit set forth in Rule 2202 of the South Coast Air Quality Management District, ' City of Newport Beach, Traffic Phasing Ordinance, Section 15.40.020. Michael Brandman Associates 5.4 -1 HSCfient (PN -1 N)\ 0064\ 00670021% DEIRt 00640021_Sec05- 4_Tanspomdcn.doc Transportation and Traffic St. Mark Presbyterian Church - Draft E/R whichever is lower at the time of project submittal 2 Because the proposed project would employ 29 people, significantly less than the identified threshold, the Transportation Demand Management Ordinance does not apply to the proposed project. Existing Roadway Classifications Roadways and their respective classifications vi the vicinity of the project site are identified in Table 5.4 -1: Table 5.4 -1: Roadway Classifications Roadway Segment Classification Jamboree Road Pacific Coast Highway to Major Road - 6 Lane Divided Santa Barbara Drive Jamboree Road Santa Barbara Drive to Major Road - 6 Lane Divided East Bluff Drive/Ford Road Jamboree Road East Bluff Drive/Ford Road to Major Road - 6 Lane Divided San Joaquin Hills Road Jamboree Road San Joaquin Hills Road to Major Road - 6 Lane Divided East Bluff Drive/Ford Road Jamboree Road Pacific Coast Highway to Major Road - 6 Lane Divided MacArthur Boulevard MacArthur Boulevard Pacific Coast Highway to Major Road - 6 Lane Divided San Miguel Drive MacArthur Boulevard San Miguel Drive to Major Road - 6 Lane Divided San Joaquin Hills Road MacArthur Boulevard San Joaquin Hills Road to Major Road - 6 Lane Divided Ford Road/Bonita Canyon Drive Ford Road East Bluff Drive to Primary Road - 4 Lane Divided Bonita Canyon Drive San Joaquin Hills Road Jamboree Road to Major Road - 6 Lane Divided Santa Rosa Drive/Big Canyon Drive San Joaquin Hills Road Santa Rosa Drive/Big Canyon Drive to Major Road - 6 Lane Divided MacArthur Boulevard San Joaquin Hills Road MacArthur Boulevard to Major Road - 6 Lane Divided San Miguel Drive Santa Rosa Drive San Joaquin Hills Road to Primary Road - 4 Lane Divided Newport Center Drive Santa Barbara Drive Jamboree Road to Secondary Road - 4 Lane Newport Center Drive Undivided ` City of Newport Beach Municipal Code, Section 20.64.050. South Coast Air Quality Management District Rule 2202, last amended on January 11, 2002, establishes 250 employees as the threshold. 5.4-2 Michael Brandman Associates H: Ghent (PN- JN) \0064\00640021\DEnt \00640021 Sec05 -4_T nnsponation.doc St. Mark Presbyterian Church - Draft EIR Transportation and Traffic Table 5.4 -1 (Cont.): Roadway Classifications Roadway Segment Classification ; San Miguel Drive Newport Center Drive to MacArthur Boulevard Primary Road - 4 Lane Divided San Miguel Drive MacArthur Boulevard to San Joaquin Hills Road Primary Road - 4 Lane Divided Newport Center Drive (entire segment) Major Road - 6 Lane Divided Source: City of Newport Beach General Plan, Circulation Element, Master Plan of Streets and Highways Exhibit, October 24, 1988. MacArthur Boulevard and San Joaquin Hills Road The project site is adjacent to the intersection of MacArthur Boulevard and San Joaquin Hills Road. Table 5.4 -2 provides information on existing intersection improvements. Table 5.4 -2: MacArthur Boulevard/San Joaquin Hills Road Intersection Improvements Roadway Direction and Movement Improvement MacArthur Boulevard Northbound through traffic 3 travel lanes MacArthur Boulevard Southbound through traffic 3 travel lanes MacArthur Boulevard Northbound turning traffic I right turn lane 2 left turn lanes MacArthur Boulevard Southbound turning traffic I free right turn 2 left turn lanes San Joaquin Hills Road Westbound through traffic 2 travel lanes San Joaquin Hills Road Eastbound through traffic 2 travel lanes San Joaquin Hills Road Westbound turning traffic I free right turn 1 left turn lane San Joaquin Hills Road Eastbound turning traffic 2 left turn lanes I combination through lane /right turn lane Source: St. Mark Presbyterian Church Traffic Phasing Ordinance Analysis (Revised), Exhibit 3 -A, Urban Crossroads, Inc., February 26, 2004. Lane Weaving The southbound free right turn lane from MacArthur Boulevard to westbound San Joaquin Hills Road allows vehicles to complete this turning movement without stopping. Vehicles turning from northbound MacArthur Boulevard to westbound San Joaquin Hills Road, via two left turn lanes, are controlled by a traffic signal. Vehicles emerging at the same time from these two turning movements are required to weave with each other in order to complete turning movements into Santa Rosa Drive, Big Canyon Drive, or other roadways. ' Michael Brandman Associates 5.4+7 H:\Clieui (PN.)N)\ 0064 \00640021 \DEIR\ 00640021 _SecO6.4_Transpomdon.doe Transportation and Traffic St. Mark Presbyterian Church - Draft EIR Existing Project Site Access The project site is undeveloped and contains one driveway located at the western corner of the site adjacent to San Joaquin Hills Road. Access to the interior of the site via this driveway is restricted by a chain. Vehicular access to the site only occurs during the holiday season when the site is used as a Christmas tree sales lot. Existing Turn Pockets An existing turn pocket is located within the MacArthur Boulevard right -of -way adjacent to the project site that funnels traffic into the free right hand turning lane for turning movements onto westerly San Joaquin Hills Road. Existing Traffic Conditions Traffic Study Area Because the Traffic Phasing Ordinance focuses on impacts to intersections during peak periods, the study intersections3 define the specific analysis locations within the City circulation system. Exhibit 5.4 -1 shows the locations of the study intersections in relation to the project site. Tragic Volumes Existing peak hour traffic operations have been evaluated for study area intersections. Manual turning movement counts were conducted for both the weekday and weekend. Weekday AM counts were conducted between the hours of 7:00 AM to 9:00 AM. Weekday PM counts were conducted between the hours of 4:00 PM to 6:00 PM. Sunday AM counts were conducted between the hours of 8:30 AM and 11:30 AM. Existing LOS calculations are based on manual AM and PM peak hour turning movement counts provided by the City. Existing Sunday intersection LOS calculations are based on manual AM peak hour turning movements. The results of this analysis are presented in Table 5.4 -1: Roadway Classifications and on Exhibit 5.4 -2: Existing Weekday AM Peak Hour Intersection Volumes, Exhibit 5.4 -1: Existing Weekday PM Peak Hour Intersection Volumes, and Exhibit 5.4 -3: Existing Sunday Peak Hour Intersection Volumes. 3 Designated by staff from the City of Newport Beach. Department of Public Works. 5.4„4 Michael Brandman Associates H:\CGent(NN -1N) \0064 \00640021\DEIR\00640021 Sec05- 4_Tmnsp0m6on.doc k—iso' = 150 -FOOT RIGHT TURN POCKET 1w1wMWN¢ NOT TO SCALE aaINIz Michael Brandman Associates EXlllblt 0.4 -1 Existing Number of Through Lanes and Intersection Controls 00640021 • 0312004 1 5.4 -1_ exist_ num _through_lanes_intersec_conxcir ST. MARK PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH • ORANGE COUNTY, CA NMwMw1w� � NOT TO SCALE 1131Waz �L-J Michael Brandman Associates Exhibit :),If—LG Existing Weekday AM Peak Hour Intersection Volumes 00640021 • 03/2004 1 5.4 -2_ exist_ wkday _am _peak_hour_intersec_vol.cdr ST. MARK PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH • ORANGE COUNTY. CA NOT TO SCALE Michael Brandman Associates EXhlblt Existing Weekday PM Peak Hour Intersection Volumes DD64DD21 • D3 /2DD4 15.4 -3_ exist_ wkday ymyeak_hour_inlersec_vol.cdr ST. MARK PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH • ORANGE COUNTY, CA L 0 m N C O N d C T V 7 M N d a {0 H Q W O t v, u� a 0 c° 4 al �o a� CO o$ z z a V_ 2 a h O � y W mm a a a a a a a Q a� E 9 JN b m C - > N o E U a t o a N m M N a o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o F o FO U Q Q v o E >Z s c E 0 0 0 0 0o g c a C >b COO 0 0 0 0 0 0 .3 b v o a ¢ — A n o n n n n— n n E > � o � 9 ¢ n n O O O m C C o a c (Q W m .0 E J _ _ K: _ N N N N F 5 1 m ¢ — n n — n n^ n _ —— C O O C II t n r W d N o d m y ¢ O n o v � o LL o iii o b n u^ v m ^ Uw0 o 0 C y r V1 V1 V1 V1 V1 V1 V1 V1 OC N L .,2 > L % v z z '9 ? 0 � C iYi c c c. o Ei rn a r a u� a 0 c° 4 al �o a� CO o$ z z a V_ 2 a h St. Mark Presbyterian Church - Draft EIR Transportation and Traffic Accident History At the request of the City Public Works Department, the intersection of MacArthur Boulevard and ' San Joaquin Hills Road was studied in order to determine the number and types of accidents that have occurred in the past five years (1999 through 2003). Included in this .study was an analysis° of turning movements from northbound traffic on MacArthur turning left (or westerly) onto San Joaquin Hills Road weaving with southbound traffic on MacArthur Boulevard turning right (or westerly) onto ' San Joaquin Hills Road. This turning movement is identified as the Special Interest Turning Movement. Table 5.4 -4 presents an aggregate of the results of this study. I I 1 1 ' 4 St. Mark Presbyterian Church Traffic Phasing Ordinance Analysis (Revised), Page 6 -4, Urban Crossroads, Inc., February 26, 2004. ' Michael Brandman Associates 5.413 HSCIicm (PN.JN)\ 0064\00640021 \D5W00640021_Sec(15 -4_ Transponadon.doc m O Cl) O W N O m C rn a v W T 0 W C EN = C m c N W d W V d a' 0 ;7 m a� N t d � as W O H W m U 2 C m O'er 7. � C O V O O V p F m V S N C N O O � N F C y v O O U 0 F m � m � 0 L j N O O N W N � � T .G [� IL °y x � a � m � T o � m a = m v O m 3 °G° T y J Fes- F t u m � U c o � r O O r � c F d ~ E y E C 5 O d O o U 2 I L 1 I Ll I 1 I I I 1 I I I St. Mark Presbyterian Church - Draft EIR Transportation and Traffic Performance Criteria Level of Service A "Level of Service" category is the generally accepted measure used to describe the quality of operation of roadways and intersections. There are six Levels of Service (LOS) categories - LOS A through LOS F - where LOS A represents free - flowing traffic conditions and LOS F represents constricted or bumper -to- bumper traffic conditions. The City has established LOS D as the acceptable level of service.' LOS D is generally characterized as a high- density, but stable, traffic flowing condition. Future traffic service levels are forecast in terms of Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU). The ICU methodology expresses intersection performance in terms of the degree of capacity utilization for critical lane groups of an intersection. Capacity utilization is expressed as a volume -to- capacity (V /C) ratio for each lane group, expressed in a decimal percent. The ICU of an intersection is based on the following variables: the number of vehicles using all legs of the intersection; the manner in which the vehicles use the intersection (left -turns, right -turns, etc.); and the capacity of each lane of the intersection. The sum of V/C ratios for the critical lane groups constitutes the ICU value for the intersection. ICU calculations assume a lane capacity value of 1,600 vehicles per hour of green time for both through and turn lanes and exclude a factor for yellow light clearance time. To operate an acceptable LOS, the Traffic Phasing Ordinance generally requires the ICU value for an intersection to be less than 0.90 with the contribution of project traffic. In situations where the ICU would exceed 0.90, the project must propose an improvement that will restore the intersection to an acceptable LOS. Table 5.4 -5 identifies LOS categories and their corresponding range of ICU values: Table 5.4 -5: LOS Category to ICU Range LOS Category ICU Range LOS A 0.00 to 0.60 LOS B 0.61 to 0.70 LOS C 0.71 to 0.80 LOS D 0.81 to 0.90 LOS E 0.91 to 1.00 LOS F 1.01 and greater Source: City of Newport Beach, Traffic Phasing Ordinance, Section 15.40.998 (Appendix A), sub- section 30). City of Newport Beach General Plan, Circulation Element, Policy No. 1, Page 7, January 1996, and City of Newport Beach General Plan, Growth Management Element, Policy No. 1, Page 4, May 1992. City of Newport Beach, Traffic Phasing Ordinance, Section 15.40.998 (Appendix A), sub- section 3(b). ' Michael Brandman Associates 5.4-17 HSCGent (PN-IN)\ 0064 \00640021\DF.IB\00640021 Se 05- 4— Transpomfion.doe Transportation and Traffic St Mark Presbyterian Church - Draft EIR Sight Distance The City has adopted sight distance standards? for various classifications of roadways that determine limited use areas and the types of improvements allowed within these areas. A roadway classified as a Major Road with a design speed of 55 miles per hour requires a minimum sight distance of 525 feet. This sight distance performance criteria applies to the portion of MacArthur Boulevard adjacent to the project site. Bikeways A Class I Bikeway, as designated by the Orange County Transportation Authority, is located in the San Joaquin Hills Road right -of -way. A Class II Bikeway, as designated by the City, is located in the MacArthur Boulevard right -of -way. 5,4.2 -Thresholds of Significance According to Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines, a project will normally have a significant impact on transportation and traffic if it results in any of the following: • 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); • Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways; • Result in a change in air traffic patterns, either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks; • Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment); • Result in inadequate emergency access:; • Result in inadequate parking capacity; or • Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks). The Transportation Phasing Ordinance has established thresholds for projects scheduled for completion within sixty months of project approval. No project shall be approved that would: • Cause a primary intersection to reach an unsatisfactory level of service, defined as Level of Service D or an Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) of 0.90; or 7 City of Newport Beach, Department of Public Works, STD-1 10-L (intersection Line of Sight Requirements), November 15, 1993. 5.418 Micheet Brendman Associates H:\CGen[(PNJN) \0064 \00640121\DP.IR \006 21_Sec05 -4_I nnspomdnadoc ' I 1 I 1 1 1 I 1 I 1 1 St. Mark Presbyterian Church - Draft EIR Transportation and Traffic • With the inclusion of project - required circulation improvements or funding for such improvements, cause a primary intersection to reach an unsatisfactory level of service, defined as Level of Service D or an Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) of 0.90. 5.4.3 - Project Impacts Projected Traffic Methodology Project Trip Generation The trip generation rates are based upon the City Trip Rates for weekday conditions and data collected by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) for Sunday conditions. The proposed project is anticipated to generate the highest number of trips during a Sunday mid - morning timeframe. Therefore, this data was also included in the analysis to ensure a conservative or "worst case" scenario at the access points. An average of 633 weekday daily trips are anticipated to occur with 71 trips (38 in/33 out) occurring during the AM peak hour (7 -9 AM) and 90 trips (43 in/47 out) occurring during the PM peak hour (4- 6 PM). Similarly, a total of 1,081 daily trips are expected to occur on Sundays with 281 (144 in/ 137 out) occurring during the peak timeframe. Project Trip Distribution Trip distribution represents the directional orientation of traffic to and from the project site. The trip distribution patterns and percentages have been based on the roadway system surrounding the site and the residences of church members. Exhibits 5.4 -5 and 5.4 -6 illustrate the project's inbound and outbound distribution percentages. At the request of the City Public Works Department, an alternative access scenario has been prepared which eliminates the project's driveway along MacArthur Boulevard. The impacts of this alternative are addressed in the Alternative Access section to follow. Project Trip Assignment The assignment of traffic from the site to the adjoining roadway system has been based upon the site's trip generation, trip distribution, and surrounding arterial highway and local street systems. Based on the identified project traffic generation and distribution, project weekday AM and Sunday peak hour intersection turning movement volumes are shown on Exhibit 5.4 -7. Exhibit 5.4 -8 illustrates the project PM peak hour intersection turning movement volumes. Traffic volumes on Sunday are generally less than weekdays and gaps will be available for traffic leaving the site. However, diversions have been assumed in the distribution patterns to account for the restricted access at the driveways and the U -Turn restrictions along San Joaquin Hills Road. Traffic Phasing Ordinance Committed Projects One of the components of evaluating future traffic volumes is the inclusion of committed project traffic. Committed projects are defined as projects which have been approved by the City of Newport Michael Brandman Associates 5.4-78 H: \Client (PN -JN) \0064 OOGW0210F.IR( 00640021 _Sec05 -4— 'Ctanspomfion.doc Transportation and Traffic St. Mark Presbyterian Church - Draft EIR Beach under the Traffic Phasing Ordinance. Because these projects are potentially under construction or are in their one -year maturity period, they are either not currently or are only partially generating traffic. Therefore, their traffic impacts are not reflected in the peak hour intersection traffic counts provided by the City. To account for this traffic component, the City rnaintains a database which tracks the committed projects traffic at each City intersection. The City then provides this committed projects traffic for the analysis year of the proposed project to the traffic consultant preparing the report. Pursuant to the City staff from the Public Works Department, 80% of the trip generation is assumed for all the committed projects at one year after the opening of the proposed project as a result of the potential interaction of these projects. Cumulative Project Trip Generation The proposed land uses and trip generation rates for the nearby uncommitted, cumulative projects provided by the City Department of Public Works. The following related projects are being included at the request of the City: • South Coast Shipyard • Our Lady Queen of Angels Church • Saint Andrew's Church • Regent Newport Beach Resort • Mariners Church • Exodus Community Center and Tarbut V'Torah Expansion • Newport Coast Developments • Newport Ridge Developments • Lower Bayview Senior Housing • Bonita Canyon Residential Development The assignment of traffic from the related projects to the adjoining roadway system has been based upon the projects' trip generation, trip distribution, and surrounding arterial highway and local street systems. Opening Year (2006) Traffic Impact Analysis Project impacts are assessed one year after the project is estimated for completion so that the project traffic has the opportunity to stabilize at its projected value. Because the overall level of traffic which will occur at that time is made up of different components, each traffic component is estimated separately and then combined to forecast the total level of traffic at each study intersection. Regional Traffic Growth Another component of future traffic which must be determined for the traffic analysis is the amount of traffic which occurs due to regional growth. The regional traffic component represents traffic which essentially passes through roadways within the City. 5.420 Michael Brandman Associates H:\C1w.t(PN- lN) \0064%00640021 CM%0069 21 Scc05 -a T..n p.r d.n.d.c I 11 L 1 St. Mark Presbyterian Church - Draft EIR Transportation and Traffic This traffic component maintains a growth trend which is not related to project approvals by the City. The amount of annual growth is identified by the City for segments of roadways which carry regional traffic and is expressed as a percentage of the total traffic which was counted. An annual growth rate of one percent per year along Jamboree Road and MacArthur Boulevard has been used to estimate Year 2006 ambient conditions. One Percent Test ' The first assessment of the project - related traffic is made to determine if the project significantly impacts an intersection. This is accomplished by analyzing intersection leg approach volumes at study intersections during the AM and PM peak hours. This assessment is referred to as the "One ' Percent Test ". ' During these peak timeframes, the total traffic volume, estimated to occur in the traffic analysis year, on each leg of each study intersection is determined. The project's traffic contribution to the intersection leg is also identified and is compared to the total non - project traffic volume. If the project's contribution on each leg is less than one percent of the non - project total, the analysis for that intersection for that time period is concluded and no further analysis is required. However, if the one ' percent threshold is equaled or exceeded, the intersection is said to be impacted by the project, and a peak intersection hour analysis for that time period must be performed to determine the capacity utilization at the intersection. By performing the One Percent Test using the existing traffic volumes, this is a "worst tcase scenario" because the future scenarios (i.e. existing plus ambient plus traffic phasing ordinance (TPO) projects have a larger base volume and a larger base volume would yield a smaller percentage. The One Percent Test and further analysis is not required by the Transportation Phasing Ordinance for the following intersections: ' • Jamboree Road and East Bluff Drive/Ford Road • Jamboree Road and Pacific Coast Highway • MacArthur Boulevard and Ford Road/Bonita Canyon Drive • MacArthur Boulevard and Pacific Coast Highway Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus TPO Committed Projects Tables 5.4 -6 and 5.4 -7 show the existing plus ambient growth (2006) plus TPO projects intersection Levels of Service for the existing network during the week and on Sunday without and with the proposed project, respectively. Although the additional traffic for the TPO projects are anticipated ' for weekday conditions, they are included in the Sunday analysis as a "worse case" scenario. I 1 rl Michael Brandman Associates 5.4.21 11XIiiem (PN- JN) \0064W0640021\DEIR \00640021 Scc05- 4_TrnspoMtiun.duc 2 AL ) § / \ ( E LU § 9-0 \ § G ! 3 \ \ } . « f ; % - a 72E ~ E2 7 ) \} 2 I ° \7} 7 • \§ CL _ , ƒ/§ CL ` ) }) ) S k \ ) / \ / ` t § r W W I U 7 v Y d O a M 3 M V d O o` v d E E O U O o. r N 3 IL r 0 C N m Q 7 IL 0) C N x W n Ld d co co F v a a m m` m L U z � y G y o E S y a d d W A Q U v o O v E � m ; 9 m E C Y 3 y o°o O tmv vii �' a 7 vi O co vi r C 3 O O O O 0 y G U ^y d m y"j y T v y � — o � a, O' J o N N o o a o IL U y n T 7 bL m y mH i r - L 0 no FL c 'o Fa d�a d' C 2 > y ti � t00 y O U O rTi xi L xi Oi x A N y ' S v a a m m` m L U z St Mark Presbyterian Church - Draft EIR Transportation and Traffic ' Long -Range Build -out. Intersection Levels of Service for the existing network during the week without and with the proposed project were analyzed. ' For long range (build -out) with and without project traffic conditions and for the alternative access scenario, the study area intersections are projected to operate at an acceptable Level of Service during the peak hours. ' Based on the ICU and Levels of Service, it is anticipated that there will be less than a 0.01 increase in the ICU between the without and with project traffic conditions. ' Alternative Access. At the request of the City Public Works Department, an alternative access scenario has been prepared that eliminates the proposed access point off MacArthur Boulevard and creates a single vehicular access point off San Joaquin Hills Road. The single access point scenario ' would result in less than significant impacts. ' Impacts Related to Traffic Increases and LOS Standards Based on the ICU, there will be less than 0.01 percent increase with the addition of project related ' traffic. For existing plus ambient growth (2006) plus TPO projects with project traffic conditions for the alternative access scenario, the study area intersections are projected to operate at an acceptable Level of Service during the peak hours. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would ' result in less than significant impacts related to increases in traffic and impacts to adopted Level of Service standards. ' Impacts Related to Air Traffic Patterns The project site is located outside the Planning Area for John Wayne Airport, as defined by the ' Airport Land Use Commission.' The height of the proposed project does not penetrate the imaginary surface as defined in FAR Part 77.13 and the project site is located outside the 60 dB CNEL contour ' line.' The project site is not subject to the requirements of the Airport Environs Land Use Plan. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not result in any impacts to air traffic patterns. ' Impacts Related to Hazards Due to a Design Feature ' Sight Distance Evaluation The project proposes two access points to the project site. The first access point will be in the same location as the existing access point off San Joaquin Hills Road and the second access point will be off MacArthur Boulevard. Based on the raised median along both roadways, these access points will be restricted to right turns in/out only. An alternative access analysis has been included in the study County of Orange, Airport Land Use Commission, Airport Environs Land Use Plan, Section 2.2.4, November 16, 1995. y City of Newport Beach, Noise Element, Figure 6, October 10, 1994. . Michael Brandman Associates 5.4 -25 R \Chen[ (PN -JN)\ 0064 \00640021\DEIR \00640021 4ec05- 4_T.nspomdon.doc Transportation and Traffic st. Mark Presbyterian Church - Draft EIR that would consist of only one access point to the project site off San Joaquin Hills Road. The location of the proposed access points was based on the following considerations: • Available Sight Distance - The location of the existing sound wall, SCE power poles, and geometric curvature was considered in determining the proposed location of the MacArthur Boulevard access point. • Proximity to the intersection of MacArthur Boulevard and San Joaquin Hills Road - both access points have been located as far as possible from this intersection to allow maximum weaving opportunities while providing adequate sight distance. The access point off San Joaquin Hills Road is consistent with the sight distance performance criteria. The proposed access point off MacArthur Boulevard has been evaluated to determine if the minimum sight distance as established by the sight distance performance criteria is available for this location for southbound traffic on MacArthur Boulevard. This evaluation determined that the minimum sight distance is available if a limited use area is identified that restricts the type of improvements that may be constructed within this area. Therefore, with the adoption of a mitigation measure (Mitigation Measure TT-9) that restricts the type of improvements that may be constructed within the limited use area, less than significant impacts related to sight distance on southbound MacArthur Boulevard would result from project implementation. Turn Pockets To evaluate the needs of the site in terms of right turn pocket lengths, the weekend trip generation was used. This timeframe has been chosen due to the higher expected traffic volumes to the project site. The proposed project would generate approximately 144 inbound trips on Sunday. Approximately 50 percent of the project traffic will enter the site from the MacArthur Boulevard access point and 50 percent from the access point off San Joaquin Hills Road access point. However, 100 percent of the project traffic would enter the site via the San Joaquin Hills Road access point under the alternative access scenario. The project proposes two right turn pockets into the site: one off San Joaquin Hills Road and one off MacArthur Boulevard. Turn pockets of less than 150 feet in length would result in an inadequate stacking distance for inbound traffic and would have the potential to impact circulation on the adjacent roadways and the potential to cause accidents. Therefore, with the adoption of a mitigation measure that requires turn pockets be a minimum of 150 feet in length, less than significant impacts related to stacking control would result from project implementation. Weaving Issues The addition of the project- related traffic would result in additional weaving of traffic westerly of the intersection of MacArthur Boulevard and San Joaquin Hills Road and would therefore result in an increased potential for traffic accidents. A Special Interest Turning Movement was analyzed to determine if any accidents occurred from northbound traffic on MacArthur turning left (or westerly) onto San Joaquin Hills Road conflicting with southbound traffic on MacArthur Boulevard turning 5.426 Michael Brandman Associates H:\ Chc nt(PNJN)\0064 \0063W21\I)CIR \006W 21— Sec05- 4_Tmnspona6on.du ' I 1 1 1 I 1] 1 1 1 1 i St Mark Presbyterian Church - Draft E/R Transportation and Traffic right (or westerly) onto San Joaquin Hills Road. As shown on Table 5.4 -4, no accidents within the study time frame (1999 through 2003) have been identified with this particular turning movement. Accidents associated with other types of turning movements were identified. Therefore, with the adoption of mitigation measures that modify the free right turn, less than significant impacts related to weaving on San Joaquin Hills Road would result from project implementation. Impacts Related to Emergency Access Emergency vehicular access is included in the proposed project. Off -site emergency vehicular access is from either access. On -site emergency vehicular access is provided by the drive aisles and the passenger loading station. A "grass crete" fire access lane is located between the church sanctuary and the passenger loading station. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not result in inadequate emergency access. Impacts Related to Parking Capacity The project proposes a total of 247 uncovered parking stalls, of which 10 are reserved for handicapped accessible, and 2 are reserved for van accessible. A total of 128 parking stalls are required by the City Planning and Zoning Code resulting in an excess capacity of 119 parking stalls. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not result in inadequate parking capacity. Impacts Related to Alternative Transportation The project includes bicycle racks for parking bicycles. Class I and Class II Bicycle Lanes are located in the San Joaquin Hills Road right -of -way and the MacArthur Boulevard right -of -way, respectively. In addition, the Newport Bus Transportation Center is located southwest of the project site in Newport Center. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not result in any conflicts to alternative transportation policies, plans, or programs. Impacts Related to Off -site Transportation of Soil The proposed project would lower the building pad elevations, as identified by PDF -6 in Section 3.3.4 of this document. This would require the off -site transportation of up to 47,000 cubic yards of soil material as identified in Section 3.3.1 of this document. Depending on the type and capacity used, this would result in approximately 1,800 trips. Following are mandatory obligations contained in Section 15.10.060(H) of the Municipal Code that relate to traffic: • Access road to the project site shall be only at points designated on the approved Grading Plan. • The last fifty feet of the access road, as it approaches the intersection with the public roadway, shall have a grade not to exceed three percent. There must be a three hundred foot clear, unobstructed sight distance to the intersection from both the public roadway and access road. If the three hundred feet sight distance cannot be obtained, the permittee shall post flagmen as required for public safety. Michael Brandman Associates 5.427 HXbent(PN -1M \0064 \00640021\DEIR \00640021 Sec05 -41 ranspo=uon.doc Transportation and Traffic St. Mark Presbyterian Church - Draft Ell? ' • A stop sign conforming to the requirements of Section 21400 of the California Vehicle Code shall be posted at the entrance of the access road to the public roadway. • An advance warning sign must be posted on the public roadway four hundred feet on either side of an access road intersection carrying the words "Truck Crossing." Therefore, with the mandatory compliance with these obligations, less than significant impacts related to traffic from the off -site transportation of soil material would result from project implementation. 5.4.4 - Cumulative Impacts The City Department of Public Works requested that additional traffic analysis be performed to address potential impacts of uncommitted, cumulative developments in the study area. This analysis includes existing traffic, committed projects, regional growth, and other projects identified by City staff that is not currently included in the City's Transportation Phasing Ordinance (TPO). These projects include the following: • South Coast Shipyard • Our Lady Queen of Angels Church • Saint Andrew's Church • Regent Newport Beach Resort • Mariners Church • Exodus Community Center and Tarbut'V'Torah Expansion • Newport Coast Developments • Newport Ridge Developments • Lower Bayview Senior Housing • Bonita Canyon Residential Development The existing plus ambient growth (2006) plus TPO projects plus cumulative projects intersection Levels of Service for the existing network during the week without and with the proposed project were analyzed, including the alternate access ;cenario. With the addition of traffic from related projects combined with project- generated traffic, including both access scenarios, the project's contribution to traffic is not cumulatively considerable. 5.4.5 - Mitigation Measures The following mitigation measures are recommended to reduce the impacts related to weaving issues on San Joaquin Hills Road and sight distance design hazards to a less than significant level: TT -1 Provide a right turn lane at the driveway along San Joaquin Hills Road to separate project traffic from the through traffic flows. 5.428 Michael Brandman Associates H:V fient( PN- JN)\ 006410064002MF.[ R1006G1 021_S.c05- ,_T.nsponauon.doc ' I 'I 1] 1 1 1 St. Mark Presbyterian Church - Draft EIR Transportation and Traffic TT -2 Re -stripe the free right turn lane to provide a 10 -foot wide lane along the curve and install raised pavement markers at 10 -foot intervals in order to reduce vehicular speeds. TT -3 Eliminate the painted crosswalk in the free right hand turn lane TT -4 Install a "15 MPH" sign at the beginning of the curve of the free right hand turn lane in order to reduce vehicular speeds. TT -5 Provide a minimum 150 -foot westbound right turn pocket along San Joaquin Hills Road at the project driveway. TT -6 Provide a minimum 150 -foot southbound right turn pocket along MacArthur Boulevard at the project driveway. TT -7 The pastoral staff shall distribute to the congregation and visitors maps that depict the following exit route from the San Joaquin Hills Road access point: San Joaquin Hills Road to Santa Rosa Road to Newport Center Drive to San Miguel Drive to MacArthur Boulevard. TT -8 On -site traffic signing and striping shall be implemented in conjunction with detailed construction plans for the project site. TT -9 Sight distance at the MacArthur Boulevard access point shall be reviewed with respect to standard Caltrans and City of Newport Beach sight distance standards at the time of preparation of final grading landscape and street improvement plans. 5.4.6 - Level of Significance After Mitigation With the adoption of the recommended Mitigation Measures, less than significant impacts to traffic would result from project implementation. Michael Brandman Associates HA\CUM(PN- JN) \0064\00640021\DEIR \00640021 Sec05- 4_Transpomfion.doc 5.4 -29 I 1 I U 1 I I 11 1 11 �j St. Mark Presbyterian Church • Draft EIR Air Quality 5.5 - AIR QUALITY Information in this section is based on the Air Quality Impact Analysis Report prepared for the proposed project by Michael Brandman Associates (see Appendix G for the complete report). 5.5.1 - Existing Conditions The project site is located in the City of Newport Beach within the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB). The SCAB consists of Orange County, together with the coastal and mountain portions of Los Angeles, Riverside and San Bernardino counties. Regional and local air quality within the SCAB is affected by topography, atmospheric inversions, and dominant onshore flows. Topographic features such as the San Gabriel and San Bernardino Mountains form natural barriers to the dispersion of air contaminants. The presence of atmospheric inversions limits the vertical dispersion of air pollutants. Subsidence inversions primarily occur in the summer when coastal areas are characterized by a sharp discontinuity between the cool marine air at the surface and the warm, sinking air aloft within the high - pressure cell over the Pacific Ocean to the west. This subsidence inversion allows for good horizontal dispersion of pollutants where the temperature initially follows a normal pattern of decreasing temperature with increasing altitude, however, at some elevation, the trend reverses and temperature begins to increase as altitude increases. This transition to increasing temperature establishes the effective mixing height of the atmosphere and acts as a barrier to vertical dispersion of pollutants. Dominant onshore flow provides the driving mechanism for both air pollution transport and pollutant dispersion. Locally, the dominant winds blow from west to east (see Exhibit 5.5 -1). Air pollution generated in coastal areas is transported east to inland receptors by the onshore flow during the daytime until natural barriers (the mountains) are confronted, limiting the horizontal dispersion of pollutants. The result is a gradual degradation of air quality from coastal areas to inland areas, which is most evident with the photochemical pollutants such as ozone. The greatest ozone problems are recorded at those South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) monitoring stations located at the base of the San Gabriel and San Bernardino mountains ranging from the City of Santa Clarita, east to the Cities of San Bernardino and Redlands. A second inversion type forms on clear, winter nights when cold air off the mountains sinks to the surface while the air aloft remains warm. This process forms radiation inversions that in conjunction with calm winds, trap pollutants such as automobile exhaust near their source. During the long nocturnal drainage flow from land to sea, the exhaust pollutants continually accumulate within the shallow, cool layer of air near the ground. Both types of inversions occur throughout the year to some extent, but the subsidence inversions are very dominant during the day in summer, and radiation inversions are much stronger on winter nights when nights are long and air is cool. The governing role of these inversions in atmospheric dispersion leads to a substantially different air quality environment in summer near the project area than in winter. Michael Brandman Associates 5.5 -1 H:\Cbi n[(PN -JN) \0064 \00640021\DEIR\OO640021 Sec05 -5 -Air Qu Hty.doc 9tafiw#53125-CWaMm%CA wed S11M (HAMS) �21 11-21 11-:$ VAnd 5pawl xox qyG WINDS -D an 7.10 inr 1&48% 00640021 •03/2004 15.5-1 windrose.edr ................... .... ............. ............... .. wed S11M (HAMS) �21 11-21 11-:$ VAnd 5pawl W "Os qyG WINDS -D ALINEI^ 7.10 33a ltnvts 1&48% 00640021 •03/2004 15.5-1 windrose.edr ST. MARK PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH • ORANGE COUNTY. CA Dnedlon 1661 (plowing "M) Jan 1 31 Midnigit - 11 PfA Mdwel l3md. Assoeiales Source: WRPLOT View 3.5 by Lakes Environmental Software - www.lakes-environmental.com INNSW NOT TO SCALE Exhibit 5s5 -1 ALINEI^ Wind Rose Michael Brandman Associates 00640021 •03/2004 15.5-1 windrose.edr ST. MARK PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH • ORANGE COUNTY. CA 1 ' Michael Brandman AaaOCiales 5.55 H1Cliem( PN- JN)W064t00G400211DEIRW06400ZI SccM -5_Air QuaGiy.doc St. Mark Presbyterian Church - Draft EIR Air Quality ' Ambient Air Quality Standards Ambient Air Quality Standards (AAQS) are the levels of air quality considered safe, with an adequate margin of safety, to protect the public health and welfare. They are designed to protect those people most susceptible to further respiratory distress such as asthmatics, the elderly, very young children, ' people already weakened by other disease or illness, and persons engaged in strenuous work or exercise, called "sensitive receptors." Healthy adults can tolerate occasional exposure to air pollutant concentrations above these minimum standards before adverse effects are observed. It has been however, hour demonstrated, that chronic exposure to ozone, even at concentrations equal to the one federal AAQS, may have adverse long term health implications. A new federal ozone standard for chronic exposure (8 hours) was adopted in 1997 to deal with unhealthful longer term exposure. National AAQS were established in 1971 for six pollutants with states retaining the option to add ' other pollutants, require more stringent compliance, or to include different exposure periods. The initial attainment deadline of 1977 was extended to 1987 for national AAQS, and ambient air quality was still far from attainment by the end of 1987 in air quality problem areas like Southern California. Subsequent amendments to clean air compliance regulations extended the attainment deadline to 2010 for extreme non attainment airsheds such as the SCAB. Because California had established AAQS several years before the federal action and because of unique air quality problems introduced by the restrictive dispersion meteorology, there is considerable difference between State and national clean air standards. Those standards currently in effect in California are shown in Table 5.5 -1. The entries in Table 5.5 -1 include the federal standards for chronic (8 hour) ozone exposure or for ' ultra small diameter particulate matter of 2.5 microns or less in diameter (called "PM -2.5 ") adopted in 1997. Compliance with these new national standards will be addressed during the next update of the regional Clean Air Plan (ozone), or must wait for several years of data collection to determine t baseline levels of (PM -2.5). Manufacturing and trucking associations challenged EPA's authority to promulgate standards without specific congressional authority as violating sovereign state's rights. The absence of any cost - benefit analysis was also challenged. These associations prevailed at the ' circuit and appellate court levels, but the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the stay in February 2001. The Court's decision did note inconsistency in the implementation dates of ozone standards, and halted full adoption of the new standards for PM -2.5 and the 8 -hour ozone standard until attainment schedules are coordinated. As noted in Table 5.5 -I, there are currently both federal and State standards for PM -2.5. California adopted an annual standard for PM -2.5 in June of 2003. Data ' collection is continuing for PM -2.5 and 8 -hour ozone, but no enforcement or attainment actions are currently ongoing for these standards. 1 ' Michael Brandman AaaOCiales 5.55 H1Cliem( PN- JN)W064t00G400211DEIRW06400ZI SccM -5_Air QuaGiy.doc Air Quality St. Mark Presbyterian Church - Draft EIR Table 5.5-1: Ambient Air Quality Standards 5.5E Michael Brandman Associates H :rCfl=(PN- )N) \0064QO640021V)E)R \0064(021 Sec05 -5_Air Qualiry.dm Averaging - Calhomia Stalhdards.' Federal Standards . . Pollutant Time .Concentration .. .,:' Methodi Primary Secondary Method 0.09 ppm .0 0.12 ppm 1 Hour (L µg/m3) (235 µg/m3) Same as Ozone (03) Ultraviolet Ethylene 0 OS ppm Photometry Standard Chemiluminescence 8 Hour — (157 µg/m3) Annual Geo- 30 µg/m3 — metric Mean Respirable Particulate 24 Hour 50 µg/m3 Gravimetric or 150 Same as Inertial Separation Matter Fteta Attenuation µg/m3 Primary and Gravime[ic (PM 10) Standard Analysis Annual Arithmetic — 50 µg/m -3 Mean Fine 24 Hour — 65 µg/m3 Particulate Gravimetric or Same as Inertial Separation Annual Matter Arithmetic 12 µg/m3 Eeta Attenuation 15 µg/m3 Primary Standard and Gravimetic Analysis (PM2.5) Mean Annual 0.053 ppm Nitrogen Arithmetic Mean — (100 µg/m3 ) Same as Gas Phase Dioxide (NO2) Chemilumines ence Primary Standard Chem luminescence I Hour ppm (470 µg/m3) 70 [ 8 hour 9.0 ppm 9 ppm (10 (10 mg/m3) mg/m3) Carbon Non-dispersive Non - dispersive 35 ppm Monoxide I Hour 20 ppm Infrared (40 None Infrared (CO) (23 mg/m3) Photometry mg/m3) Photometry (NDIR) (NDIR) 8 Hour (Lake 6 ppm Tahoe) (7 mg/m3) 30 Days average I.5 µ m3 g/ AIHL Method — _ High Volume Lead 54(12/74) Atomic Sampler and Same as — Absorption Primary y Atomic Absorption Quarter µm3 Standard Annual 0.030 ppm Arithmetic — (80 µg/m3) Mean Sulfur 24 Hour 0.04 ppm 0.14 ppm Dioxide (105 µg/m3) Fluorescence (36.5 [1 M. Pararosoaniline (SO2) 0.5 ppm 3 Hour — — (1300 µg/m3) I Hour 0.25 ppm (655 µg/m3) 5.5E Michael Brandman Associates H :rCfl=(PN- )N) \0064QO640021V)E)R \0064(021 Sec05 -5_Air Qualiry.dm U 11 1 1 1 1 U St Mark Presbyterian Church - Draft EIR Table 5.5 -1 (Cont): Ambient Air Quality Standards Air Baseline Air Quality Existing levels of ambient air quality and historical trends and projections in the project area are best documented from measurements made near the project site. The South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) has divided up the SCAB into 37 Source Receptor Areas (SRA) for evaluation purposes and operates monitoring stations within each SRA. The project site is within SCAQMD SRA 18. The monitoring station for SRA 18 is located in the City of Costa Mesa. The most recent published data for SRA 18 is presented in Table 5.5 -2, Air Quality Monitoring Summary 1992 -2002. This data shows that the baseline air quality conditions in the project area include occasional events of very unhealthful air. Even so, the frequency of smog alerts has dropped significantly in the last decade. The greatest recognized air quality problem in the SCAB is ozone. ' Michael Brandman Associates 5.5 -7 H:\ Client( PN-IN) \W64\00640021\D81R \0064OD21 Sec05 -5_Air Qnhly.dac Averaging CaIItornla standards , :<. :., Federal Standards . .. ..: Polluteht Jima Concentration Metyad: im Prary Secondary Method In sufficient amount to produce an extinction coefficient of 0.23 per Visibility 8 Hour (10 kilometer - visibility of ten miles Reducing am to 6 pm or more (0.07 - 30 miles or more Particles PST) for Lake Tahoe) due to particles when the relative humidity is less than 70 percent. Method: ARB Method V (8/18/89). No Federal Standards Turbidimetric Sulfates 24 Hour 25 pg/m3 Barium Sulfate (AIHL Method 61 (2/76) Hydrogen 0.03 ppm Cadmium Sulfide I Hour (42 pg/m3) Hydroxide STRactan Source: California Air Resources Board (7/09/03) Baseline Air Quality Existing levels of ambient air quality and historical trends and projections in the project area are best documented from measurements made near the project site. The South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) has divided up the SCAB into 37 Source Receptor Areas (SRA) for evaluation purposes and operates monitoring stations within each SRA. The project site is within SCAQMD SRA 18. The monitoring station for SRA 18 is located in the City of Costa Mesa. The most recent published data for SRA 18 is presented in Table 5.5 -2, Air Quality Monitoring Summary 1992 -2002. This data shows that the baseline air quality conditions in the project area include occasional events of very unhealthful air. Even so, the frequency of smog alerts has dropped significantly in the last decade. The greatest recognized air quality problem in the SCAB is ozone. ' Michael Brandman Associates 5.5 -7 H:\ Client( PN-IN) \W64\00640021\D81R \0064OD21 Sec05 -5_Air Qnhly.dac I ' d Q Am IF] i¢ W O t 7 U d Y y E ' E N c O N 0 0 'c O d T Q N N IF] i¢ W O t 7 U d Y y m t1 vi Z O N C5 d a z o 0 o m r W O O O O O O O O O O 0 ^ O o O a� c� m o o U U L. y U U O o N b N td O _ 'd ttl N t� 0 N U R co � 2 U u U oo tL � 2 2 z Z U _ N fa. Q PPPe OX-4 SAVC] 'oN P PWOX; l SAVU ON Papa lxE s.Cen ON m t1 vi 5i r m O t 7 V Y V y 8 O O O �Oi M O V W r r C N a` p� N O M M O O O O N V N z o o a a O O O O O O M O �n ap z o o M M C L qAq 01 O O O O M M o. U Q r z O Q M M O � c0 C Z O O M M 1f� O O O O O y M r � Z O z o o M m O M O O O O z O O V OC O W O O N M TE mE a E a Z6 .o a g mom o v Y v o o 'gyp 5 d m 2 a O O O y G = "�e O O ? O N PaPaaoxg s6eQ 'ON PQJ�XA PaPoxxH %{F'(j ON SF.E(l ON I I \ I @ I @ I I I I I I \ $ / 2 / I I k ! & ■ : \ k� \ \ \ � ^ N ! ! § )) \\ ( \)/ ay \� >7R !\\/) 2 / § |\ � \\\ \\ \= =w= § .2 { ;\} ` • ] ) > / \ { } 2) \ \ - ) , _ ON x k ! & In 1988, because of uncertainty in federal Clean Air Act reauthorization, the California Legislature enacted the California Clean Air Act (CCAA). The CCAA requires that regional emissions be reduced by 5 percent per year, averaged over 3 year periods, until attainment can be demonstrated. In ' July 1991, the SCAQMD adopted a revised AQMP that was designed to meet the CCAA requirements. The 1991 AQMP deferred the attainment date to 2010, consistent with the 1990 federal Clean Air Act. The 1990 federal Clean Air Act amendments required that all states with air sheds containing ' "serious" or worse ozone problems submit a revision to the State Implementation Plan (SIP). The SIP. The 1991, SIP St. Mark Presbyterian Church - Draft EIR Air Qualit ' The monitoring records document that in Monitoring Year 1992, the State hourly ozone standard was ' violated 21 days. Ozone levels have dropped significantly in the last few years with no violations of ' the State or federal ozone standards in 2002. ' Although the overall air quality is improving, one exception is the ambient concentrations of ' particulate matter smaller than 10 microns in diameter (PM10 and PM2.5). Over the last decade the State air quality standard for PM 10 has been consistently exceeded in the SCAB. The 1997 Federal standards for PM2,5 (annual arithmetic mean of 15 gg/m3 and 24 -hour average of 65 µg/m3) were ' upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in February 2001. SCAQMD monitoring data shows that ambient air concentrations in the area are exceeding the Federal annual and 24 -hour standards for PM -2.5 since SCAQMD began monitoring this pollutant in 1999. Final adoption of State standards for PM- 2.5 occurred in June of 2003 and a comparison of the air quality in the project area with the state ' standards is not yet available. Air Quality Management Plan ' The Federal Clean Air Act (1977 Amendments) stated that designated agencies in any area of the nation not meeting national clean air standards must prepare a plan demonstrating the steps that ' would bring the area into compliance with all national standards by December 31, 1987. The SCAB could not meet the deadline for ozone, nitrogen dioxide, carbon monoxide, or PM -10. In the SCAB, the agencies designated by the governor to develop regional air quality plans are the SCAQMD and the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). The two agencies first adopted an Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) in 1979 and revised it in 1982 to project attainment of the ' standards in 2000. In 1988, because of uncertainty in federal Clean Air Act reauthorization, the California Legislature enacted the California Clean Air Act (CCAA). The CCAA requires that regional emissions be reduced by 5 percent per year, averaged over 3 year periods, until attainment can be demonstrated. In ' July 1991, the SCAQMD adopted a revised AQMP that was designed to meet the CCAA requirements. The 1991 AQMP deferred the attainment date to 2010, consistent with the 1990 federal Clean Air Act. The 1990 federal Clean Air Act amendments required that all states with air sheds containing ' "serious" or worse ozone problems submit a revision to the State Implementation Plan (SIP). The SIP. The 1991, SIP 1991 AQMP was modified/adapted and submitted as the SCAB portion of the submittal estimated that an 85% basinwide reduction in volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions ' and a 59% reduction in oxides of nitrogen (NOx) between 1990 to 2010 were needed to meet federal clean air standards. ' In 1997, an AQMP was locally adopted. The California Air Resources Board (GARB) forwarded this plan on to EPA for its consideration and recommended approval. The 1997 AQMP was designed to Michael Brandman Associates 5.5 -13 ' H:\CHent (PN -JN)\ 0064\ 00640021 \DEIR \00640021_Sec05 -5_Air Qmfity.doc Air Quality St Mark Presbyterian Church - Draft EIR meet both federal (EPA) and State (GARB) air quality planning guidelines. Components of the 1997 AQMP included: • Demonstration of attainment for ozone, CO, and PM -10; • Updated emissions inventories (1993 base year) of VOC, NO., CO, SOx and PM -10; • Emissions budgets for future years of the inventoried compounds; • An updated pollution control strategy; and • Contingency measures if the plan as presently proposed fails to meet stated timetables. The 1997 AQMP was further revised to accelerate the adoption/implementation of 13 control measures. The 1999 SIP Revisions included additional ozone control measures meeting all legal requirements and was approved by EPA in 2000. Further revisions to the AQMP and SIP occurred in 2002 consisting of two PM 10 Attainment Plans for the Coachella Valley and the South Coast Air Basin. The 2002 revisions were approved by EPA on April 18, 2003, and together with the 1997 plan and 1999 SIP Revisions, constitute the currently adopted SIP for the SCAB. The 2003 AQMP updates the demonstration of attainment with the federal standards for ozone and PM 10, replaces the 1997 attainment demonstration for the federal CO standard and incorporates significant new scientific data, primarily in the form of updated emissions inventories. The 2003 plan is consistent with and builds upon the approaches taken in the 1997 AQMP and the 1999 and 2002 amendments, and adds new PM -10 and ozone control strategies. The 2003 AQMP was approved by CARB on August I, 2003 and is currently being reviewed by the EPA. Applicable Regulations The AQMP for the SCAB establishes a program of rules and regulations administered by the SCAQMD and directed at attainment of the state and national air quality standards. SCAQMD rules and regulations that apply to this project include SCAQMD Rule 403, which governs emissions of fugitive dust. Compliance with this rule is achieved through application of standard best management practices in construction and operation activities, such as application of water or chemical stabilizers to disturbed soils, covering haul vehicles, restricting vehicle speeds on unpaved roads to 15 mph, sweeping loose dirt from paved site access roadways, cessation of construction activity when winds exceed 25 mph and establishing a permanent, stabilizing ground cover on finished sites. Rule 403 also requires projects that disturb over 100 acres of soil or moves 10,000 yds3 /day of materials /day to submit to SCAQIvID a Fugitive Dust Control Plan. SCAQMD Rule 1108 governs the sale, use and manufacturing of asphalt and limits the VOC content in asphalt used in the South Coast Air Basin. Although this rule does not directly apply to the project, it does dictate the VOC content of asphalt available for use during the construction. 5.5 -14 Michael erandman AssocJates HAUL .t(PN -1N) \0064 \O0641D21\Dr,[R \0064()121 Sec05 -5_Air Qu Iity.doc According to Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines, a project is considered to have a significant impact on air quality if any of the following occur: • Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan; St. Mark Presbyterian Church - Draft EIR Air Quality ' SCAQMD Rule 1 1 13 governs the sale, use and manufacturing of architectural coatings and limits the VOC contents in paints and paint solvents. Although this rule does not directly apply to the project, it does dictate the VOC content of paints available for use during the construction of the buildings. 5.5.2 - Thresholds of Significance • Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations; or The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the SCAQMD have established thresholds ' for assisting lead agencies in determining potentially significant impacts to the environment relating to air quality. According to Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines, a project is considered to have a significant impact on air quality if any of the following occur: • Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan; • Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation; • 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); • Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations; or • Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people. ' Appendix G also states that, where applicable, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the previous determinations. SCAQMD Thresholds of Significance ' The SCAQMD has established air pollution thresholds against which a proposed project can be evaluated and assist lead agencies in determining whether or not the proposed project is potentially ' significant. While the final determination of whether or not a project is significant is within the purview of the lead agency pursuant to § 15064(b) of the State CEQA Guidelines, the SCAQMD recommends that the following air pollution thresholds be used by the lead agencies in determining ' whether the proposed project could result in a significant impact. These thresholds have been defined by SCAQMD for the SCAB based on scientific data the SCAQMD has obtained and factual data ' within the federal and state Clean Air Acts. Since the project is located within the SCAB and current air quality in the project area is typical of the air basin as a whole, these thresholds are considered valid and reasonable. Each of these threshold factors is discussed below. 1 Michael Brandman Associates %5 -15 ' H:\Cfient(PN -1N) \0064 \00640021 HEIR \00640027 See05 -5_Aw 9uaUty.doc Air Quality 3t. Mar* Presbyterian Church - Draft EIR Thresholds for Emissions Related to Construction Activities The following significance thresholds for project generated emissions during construction activities have been established by SCAQMD. Projects in the SCAB with construction- related emissions that exceed any of these thresholds should be considered significant: • 100 pounds per day or 2.5 tons per quarter -year of NOx; • 75 pounds per day or 2.5 tons per quarter. -year of ROC; • 550 pounds per day or 24.75 tons per quarter -year of CO; and • 150 pounds per day or 6.75 tons per quarter -year of SOx or PMIo. Thresholds for Emissions Related to Operation of the Project Specific criteria for determining whether the potential air quality impacts of a project are significant are set forth in the SCAQMD Handbook. The criteria for these emissions thresholds include, compliance with the State and National air quality standards and conformity with the existing AQMP for the SCAB. The daily operational emissions "significance" thresholds are: • 55 pounds per day of NOx; • 55 pounds per day of ROC; • 550 pounds per day of CO; and • 150 pounds per day of SOx or PM10. Emissions resulting from the operation of the proposed project may also be considered significant if a CO hotspot analysis determines that project - generated emissions cause a localized violation of the state CO 1 -hour standard of 20 parts per million (ppm), state CO 8 -hour standard of 9 ppm, federal CO I -hour standard of 35 ppm, or federal CO 8 -hour standard of 9.5 ppm. 5.5.3 - Project Impact's Impacts Related to the Air Quality Management Plan Project compliance with the Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) for the South Coast Air Basin is the final criterion in evaluating project related air quality impacts. The AQMP sets forth a comprehensive program that will lead the air basin into compliance with all federal and state air quality standards. The AQMP control measures and related emission reduction estimates are based upon emissions projections for a future development scenario derived from land use, population, and employment characteristics defined in consultation with local governments. Accordingly, conformance with the AQMP for development projects is determined by demonstrating compliance with local land use plans and/or population projections. Additionally, project generated emissions need to be below the SCAQMD thresholds for significance. The proposed project includes the relocation of an existing church to the new location. Although the project proposes a zoning and land use designation change at the proposed site, the project does not 5.5.16 Michael arandman Associates HAC)im(PN- ]N) \0064\0064002MEIR \00640021 Sec05 -5_Air Quality.doc St. Mark Presbyterian Church - Draft EIR Air Quality ' represent an increase in population or shift in employment characteristics from those assumed in the AQMP. However, project emissions during construction of the proposed project are above the SCAQMD thresholds of siguificance for NOx emissions. For this reason, it is appropriate to conclude that the proposed project is not in compliance with the AQMP. ' Impacts Related to Violations of Air Quality Standards and Increases in Criteria Pollutants Emissions that can adversely affect air quality originate from various activities. A project generates emissions both during the period of its construction and through ongoing daily operations. During construction of the proposed project, emissions will be generated by on -site construction equipment, off -site vehicles used to deliver supplies, and by construction workers commuting to and from the construction site. Once the project has been constructed, emissions are generated by the ongoing daily activities associated with the proposed project. Long -term daily operations and activities of the proposed project include air quality emissions resulting from the use of natural gas, gasoline driven landscape equipment, and commuting traffic. Emissions from Construction Activities 11 11 F L� 1 I Construction- related emissions can be distinguished as either on -site or off -site. On -site emissions generated during construction principally consist of exhaust emissions (NOX, SOX, CO, VOC, and PM]o) from heavy -duty construction equipment operation and fugitive dust (PMip) from disturbed soil. Off -site emissions during the construction phase normally consist of exhaust emissions and entrained paved road dust (PMIO) from worker commute trips, and material delivery trips to and from the construction site. Construction- related activities at the project site are anticipated to include the following major activities: • Grading/clearing including the excavation and earth moving for the construction of the building pads including off -site transportation of soil, and installation of underground utilities; • Building construction; and • Paving of parking areas, access driveways, and construction of concrete curbs, gutters, and sidewalks. Short-term emissions were evaluated with the URBEMIS 2002 computer program. The model divided construction into two distinct phases: (1) site grading; and (2) the construction period when the remainder of the project construction takes place. Site grading will take approximately 29 workdays. The total construction period is projected to occur over a one -year period. The results of these evaluations are summarized in Table 5.5 -3: Estimated Short-Term Emissions (Site Grading), and Table 5.5 -4: Estimated Short-Term Emissions (2005). Note that Table 5.5 -4 is both for the construction period. Table 5.5 -4 represents construction activities during 2005 when architectural coating applications occur simultaneous with paving and other finish construction work. Michael Brandman Associates 5.5 -17 KChent (PN- 1N) \0064\00640021\DEIR \00640021 Sec05 -5 Air Quality.duc Air Quality St. Mark Presbyterian Church - Draft EIR i Table 5.5 -3: Estimated Short-Term Emissions (Site Grading) Pollution Source NOx CO ROC sox PM -10 Grading (Ibs /day) NG' NG' NG NG' 115.94 Mobile Equipment (Ibs /day) 96.95 59.97 9.36 0.40 3.83 Commuting Traffic 0.37 3.93 0.19 NG 0.02 (lbs /day) 0.04 0.87 0.07 NG' 0.01 Emissions Totals (lbs/day) 97.32 63.90 9.55 0.40 119.79 Emissions Totals (tons /qtr) s 2.77 1.91 0.28 0.01 2.95 SCAQMD Thresholds 100lbs /day 550lbs /day 75 Ibs /day 150lbs /day 150lbs /day Asphalt Offgassing 2.5 tons /qtr 24.75 tons /qtr 2.5 tons/qtr 6.75 tons/qtr 6.75 tons/qtr Exceed Threshold? YES NO NO NO NO Note: ' Criteria pollutants that have estimated negligible values are designated NG (negligible emissions). z Quarterly emission totals for all criteria pollutants reflect 49 workdays of grading activity with the balance of the quarter (1 6 workdays) reflecting tha construction period. Source: St. Mark Church Air Quality Impact Analysis Report, Michael Brandman Associates, January, 2004, Revised, June 2004. Table 5.5 -4: Estimated Short-Term Emissions (2005) Pollution Source NOx CO ROC Sox PM -10 Off -road Construction 48.68 42.53 6.02 NG 2.24 Equipment Construction Commuting Traffic 0.04 0.87 0.07 NG' 0.01 Architectural Commuting 0.04 0.87 0.07 NG' 0.01 Traffic Architectural Coating NG' NG 51.83 NG' NG' Application Asphalt Offgassing NG' NGI 1.07 NG' NG' Off -road Asphalt Equipment 61.99 79.04 9.50 NG' 2.68 On -road Asphalt Equipment 5.06 0.95 0.26 0.07 0.12 Asphalt Commuting Traffic 0.03 0.64 0.05 NG' 0.01 Maximum Daily Emissions 1 15.84 124.91 68.87 0.07 5.07 Totals Emissions Totals 2 (tons /quarter) 1.95 1.87 1.17 >0.01 0.09 SCAQMD Thresholds 100 lbs /day 550 lbs /day 75 Ibs /day 150lbs /day 150 lbs /day 2.5 tons /qtr 24.75 2.5 tons/qtr 6.75 tons /qtr 6.75 tons /qtr tons/qtr Exceed Threshold'? YES NO NO NO NO Note: ' Criteria pollutants that have estimated negligible values are designated NG (negligible emissions). 2 Quarterly emissions reflect I I workdays of construction combined with painting and asphalt paving activities, 22 workdays of construction combined with painting activities, and 32 workdays of construction activities. Source: St. Mark Church Air Quality Impact Analysis Report, Michael Brandman Associates; January, 2004, Revised June, 2004. 1 5.5.18 Michael Brandman Associates H:\ Client( PN -JN)\ O \00640021\ Ent\00640021 Sec05 -5_Air Quality.doc I I LJ I I 1 u I i St. Mark Presbyterian Church - Draft EIR Air When unmitigated emissions projections are compared with the SCAQMD thresholds for significance, it is shown that emissions exceed the applicable thresholds for NOx during grading operations and the 2005 construction period. The primary sources of these emissions are mobile diesel equipment, fugitive dust, and architectural coatings. Without mitigation, project related short- term emissions are considered a significant impact. Emissions from Operational Activities Long -term operational emissions for the proposed development are considered for project build -out. Emission sources consist of mobile emissions and stationary emissions. Mobile emissions estimates are derived from motor vehicle traffic. Stationary emissions estimates are derived from the consumption of natural gas and consumer products, as well as emissions resulting from landscape maintenance. Long -term emissions were evaluated with the URBEMIS 2002 for Windows computer program. Table 5.5 -5: Composite Long -Term Emissions, presents the estimated daily total emissions at project build out. Table 5.5 -5: Composite Long -Term Emissions Pollution Source NOx (Lbs/Day) CO (Lbs/Day) ROC (Lbs/Day) sox (Lbs/Day) PM40 (Lbs/Day) Mobile Emissions 10.31 109.21 8.19 0.10 9.27 Natural Gas Consumption 0.33 0.13 0.02 NG NG Landscape Emissions 0.01 0.96 0.13 NG NG Emissions Totals (pounds /day) 10.65 110.30 8.34 0.10 9.27 SCAQMD Thresholds 55 lbs/day 550 Ibs /day 55 lbs /dav 150lbs /dav 1501bs /dav Exceed Threshold? NO NO NO NO NO Note: NG designates criteria pollutants that have estimated negligible values. Source: St. Mark Church Air Quality Impact Analysis Report, Michael Brandman Associates, January, 2004, Revised June 2004. Since composite long -term emissions as a result of the project are below the SCAQMD thresholds for significance, long -term impacts as a result of this project are less than significant. Carbon Monoxide (CO) is a localized problem requiring additional analysis beyond total project emissions quantification. Projects with sensitive receptors or projects that could negatively impact levels of service (LOS) of existing roads need to use the California Department of Transportation Carbon Monoxide Protocol (hereafter referred to as the CO protocol) to determine the potential to create a CO hot spot. A CO hot spot is a localized concentration of CO that is above the State or federal 1 -hour or 8 -hour ambient air standards. Localized high levels of CO are associated with traffic congestion and idling or slow- moving vehicles. Typically, the level of service (LOS) at an intersection producing a hot spot is at LOS D or worse during the peak hour. In year 2006, after project completion, none of the intersections meet this criterion. In area build out year 2020, one intersection, MacArthur Boulevard at San Joaquin Hills Road meets this criterion. Michael Brandman Associates H:\CGent(PN -1N) \0064\00640021 EIR\00640021— Sec05 -5 —Air Quality.doc 5.5 -19 Air Quality St. Mark Presbyterian Church - Draft EIR The model procedure that was followed combined the results of the traffic analysis assuming very restrictive dispersion conditions in order to generate a worst -case impact assessment in year 2020. Output from the CALINFA model is in I -hour CO concentrations in parts per million (ppm) at the selected receptor locations. The predicted I -hour CO concentrations were determined by adding the ambient background 1 -hour CO concentrations to the model projected 1 -hour CO concentration. The 8 -hour CO concentration was estimated by multiplying the I -hour model estimate by the persistence factor for the project area (0.6) and adding the ambient background 8 -hour CO concentration. The results from this screening procedure are presented in Table 5.5 -6. For each of the intersections, Table 5.5 -6 shows the receptor with the highest concentration. Table 5.5-6: Estimated CO Concentrations Receptor/ Closest Number of Traffic CO listence m 11clitersection eackgrouna co Estimated CO State Federal IMerseetion Vehiclesh9thr on6entra Concentration Concentration Concentration standards standards Worst Case 1 -hour Average CO Concentrations Reccptor 3 Macarthur Blvd/ 2552/1224 1.30 ppm Curbside 5.00 ppm 6.30 ppm 20 ppm 35 ppm San Joaquin Hills Rd. Worst Case 8 -hour Average CO Concentrations Receptor 3 Macanhur Blvd/ 2552/1224 0.78 ppm Curbside 4.30 ppm 5.08 ppm 9 ppm 9.5 ppm San Joaquin Hills Rd. Notes: 1 Generated from project specific Traffic Study. 2 Maximum CO 8 -hour average concentrations in SRA -18 2002. 2 Predicted using CALINE4 computer model. 4 Traffic generated CO concentrations + background CO concentrations. Source: St. Mark Church Air Quality Impact Analysis Report, Michael Brandman Associates, January, 2004, Revised June, 2004. Assuming worst -case conditions, the estimated I -hour and 8 -hour average CO concentrations in combination with background concentrations are below the State and federal ambient air quality standards. No CO hot spots are anticipated as a result of traffic generated emissions by the proposed project in combination with other anticipated development in the area. Impacts Related to Exposure to Substantial Pollutant Concentrations and Odors The proposed project does not contain or process any materials that could expose sensitive receptors in the vicinity of the proposed project to substantial concentrations of pollutants. The proposed project is not expected to generate any objectionable odors. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not result in exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial concentrations of pollutants or generate objectionable odors. 5.5 -20 Michael Brandman Associates K\Ownt(PN- JN)\Wb \00640021\DEa2 \00640021- Sec05 -5 -Air Quality. dce J l I I I 11 I �I I I Li u I St Mark Presbyterian Church - Draft EIR 5.5.4 - Cumulative Impacts The AQMP sets forth a comprehensive program that will lead the SCAB, including the project area, into compliance with all federal and State air quality standards and utilizes control measures and related emission reduction estimates based upon emissions projections for a future development scenario derived from land use, population, and employment characteristics defined in consultation with local governments. Because the proposed project is in conformance with the AQMP and the project is not significant on an individual basis, the project's incremental contribution to criteria pollutant emissions is not cumulatively considerable. 5.5.5 - Mitigation Measures Long -term emissions were found to be less than significant without mitigation, and therefore, do not require mitigation. However, without mitigation short-term emissions of NOx, during grading and construction of the proposed project would be a significant impact. In an effort to reduce estimated NOx emissions related to grading and construction activities, the following mitigation measures are recommended: AQ -1 Prior to construction of the proposed improvements, 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. AQ -2 During construction of the proposed improvements, construction equipment will be properly maintained at an off -site location and includes proper tuning and timing of engines. Equipment maintenance records and equipment design specification data sheets shall be kept on -site during construction. AQ -3 During construction of the proposed improvements, all contractors will be advised not to idle construction equipment on site for more than ten minutes. AQ -4 During construction of the proposed improvements, on -site diesel fueled construction equipment will be fueled with aqueous diesel fuel. 5.5.6 - Level of Significance After Mitigation Long -term emissions were found to be less than significant without mitigation, and therefore, do not require mitigation. Incorporation of Mitigation Measures AQ -I through AQ -4 will reduce project related emissions during construction of the proposed project. Table 5.5 -7 shows the quantified emissions that would result from grading and construction of the proposed project with implementation of Mitigation Measures AQ -I through AQ -4. ' Michael Brandman Associates 5.5-21 H:\Client (PN2N) \0064 \00640021\DEIR\00640021 Sec05 -5_Air QuaGty.doc Air Quality St. Mark Table 5.5 -7: Mitigated Short-Term Emissions Church - Draft EIR , Pollution Source NOx CO ROC SOx PM -10 Grading Emissions Totals (lbs/day) 74.11 57.41 8.54 0.34 27.85 Emissions Totals (tons /gtr)2 2.11 I 1.72 0.25 0.01 0.69 Exceed Threshold? NO NO NO NO NO Construction (2005) Enussions Totals (lbs /day) 89.47 112.46 67.28 0.06 1.71 Emissions Totals (tons /gtr)3 1.51 1.68 1.09 >0.01 0.03 Exceed Threshold? NO NO NO NO NO SCAQMD Thresholds 100 lbs/day 550 lbs /day 75 lbs /day 150 lbs/day 150 lbs/day 2.5 tons /qtr 24.75 2.5 tons /qtr 6.75 tons /qtr 6.75 tons /qtr tons/qtr Note: 1 Criteria pollutants that have estimated negligible values are designated NG (negligible emissions). 2 Quarterly emissions reflect 49 workdays of grading activities with the balance of the quarter reflecting the 2004 construction period when foundation construction and rough framing activities occur. Quarterly emissions reflect 65 workdays of construction combined with painting and asphalt paving, 24 workdays of painting, 1 I workdays of asphalt paving activities. Source: St. Mark Church Air Quality Impact Analysis Report, Michael Brandman Associates, January, 2004, Revised June 2004. As shown in Table 5.5 -7, mitigated short-term emissions associated with grading and construction are below the daily and quarterly SCAQMD suggested thresholds. Because all project generated emissions are below the SCAQMD thresholds, the proposed project is in compliance with the AQMP once mitigation addressing construction activities are incorporated into the proposed project. Therefore, with the incorporation of the proposed mitigation measures, implementation of the proposed project would result in less than significant impacts to air quality. 5.5 -22 Michael Brandman Associates H:\Uent (PN -JN)\ 0064 \00610021 \DEIR \00640021_Sec05 -5_Air Qua tly.doc LI I I I J I i '1 I 1 I I iJ i SR Mark Presbyterian Church - Draft EIR Noise 5.6 - NOISE Information in this section is based on the following documents: • Noise Impact Study, Synectecology, February, 2004 (see Appendix H for the complete report) • Newport Beach General Plan, Noise Element 5.6.1 - Existing Conditions Acoustic Fundamentals Sound is a pressure wave transmitted through the air that is described in terms of loudness or amplitude (measured in decibels), frequency or pitch (measured in Hertz [Hz] or cycles per second), and duration (measured in seconds or minutes). The standard unit of measurement of the loudness of sound is the decibel (dB). Typical human hearing can detect changes in sound levels of approximately 3 dB under normal conditions. Changes of 1 to 3 dB are detectable under quiet, controlled conditions and changes of less than I dB are usually indiscernible. A change of 5 dB is typically noticeable to most people in an exterior environment whereas a change of 10 dB is perceived as a doubling (or halving) of the noise. The human ear is not equally sensitive to all frequencies. Sound waves below 16 Hz are not heard at all and are "felt" more as a vibration. Similarly, while people with extremely sensitive hearing can hear sounds as high as 20,000 Hz, most people cannot hear above 15,000 Hz. In all cases, hearing acuity falls off rapidly above about 10,000 Hz and below about 200 Hz. Since the human ear is not equally sensitive to sound at all frequencies, a special frequency dependent rating scale is used to relate noise to human sensitivity. The A- weighted decibel scale (dBA) performs this compensation by discriminating against frequencies in a manner approximating the sensitivity of the human ear. Noise Noise is defined as unwanted sound, and is known to have several adverse effects on people, including hearing loss, speech and sleep interference, physiological responses, and annoyance. Based on these known adverse effects of noise, the federal government, the State of California and local governments have established criteria to protect public health and safety and to prevent disruption of certain human activities. Noise may be generated from a point source, such as a piece of construction equipment, or from a line source, such as a roadway containing moving vehicles. Because noise spreads in an ever - widening pattern, the given amount of noise striking an object, such as an eardrum, is reduced with distance from the source. This phenomenon is known as "spreading loss." The typical spreading loss for point source noise is 6 dBA per doubling of the distance from the noise source. A line source of noise, such as vehicles proceeding down a roadway, is also subject the spreading loss phenomenon. However, the rate of reduction includes the type of terrain over which the noise passes Michael Brandman Associates 5.6 -1 H'.\Client(PN -IN) \0064 \00640021\DEIR \00640021 SecO5- 6— Noise.doe Noise St, Mark Presbyterian Church - Draft E/R in addition to the distance. Hard sites, such as developed areas with paving, reduce noise at a rate of 3 dBA per doubling of the distance while soft sites, such as undeveloped areas, open space, and vegetated areas reduce noise at a rate of 4.5 dBA per doubling of the distance. These represent the extremes and most areas will actually contain a combination of hard and soft elements with spreading loss noise reduction placed somewhere in between. The only way to determine the absolute amount of attenuation that an area provides is through field measurement under operating conditions with subsequent noise level measurements conducted at varying distances from a constant noise source. Most environmental noise sources produce varying amounts of noise over time, so the measured sound levels also vary. For example, noise produced during an aircraft over flight will vary from relatively quiet background levels before the over flight to a maximum value when the aircraft passes overhead, then returning down to background levels as the aircraft leaves the observer's vicinity. Similarly, noise from traffic varies with the number and types of vehicles, speed and proximity to the observer. Public Reaction to Noise Because people react not only to their perception of individual noise events, but also to how many events there are, and what time of day or night they occur. Public reaction to transportation noise can be expressed as the percentage of the population which is "highly annoyed" by exposure to increasing Ldn values. The number of persons "highly annoyed" represents the upper 25 -30 percent of all persons who are annoyed to some degree by the noise. Widespread complaints may be expected when the transportation noise level exceeds 65 dB Ldn and widespread threats of legal action may be expected when the transportation noise level exceeds 70 dB Ldn. Noise Measurement Standards Community noise is generally not steady state and varies with time. Under conditions of non - steady state noise, some type of statistical metric is used to quantify noise exposure over a long period of time. The following standards are used to define noise levels: • Day/Night Noise Level (Ldn) - The Ldn is a 24 -hour, time - weighted annual average noise level, measured in decibels, with an added penalty for people's increased sensitivity to noise at night from 10 PM to 7 AM. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) identifies 45 Ldn indoors and 55 Ldn outdoors as the desirable maximum level of noise. • Equivalent Noise Level (Leq) -The Leq is a measurement of sound energy over a specified time (usually I hour). Leq represents the amount of variable sound energy received by a receptor over a timed interval in a single numerical value. For example, a 1 -hour Leq noise level measurement represents the average amount of acoustical energy that occurred in one hour. • Community Noise Equivalent Level I.CNEL) - The CNEL noise metric is based on 24 hours of measurement. CNEL also differs from Leq in that it applies a time - weighted factor designed 5.6 -2 Michael Brandman Associates H:Wkw(PN- JNM06410a40021 DEIM0064002 i_Se 05- 6_NoiscA.. , St. Mark Presbyterian Church - Draft Noise to emphasize noise events that occur during the evening and nighttime hours (when quiet time and sleep disturbance is of particular concern). Noise occurring during the daytime period (7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.) receives no penalty. Noise produced during the evening time period (7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m.) is penalized by 5 dBA, while nighttime noise (10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.) is penalized by 10 dBA. The Ldn noise metric is similar to the CNEL metric except that the period from 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. receives no penalty. Both the CNEL and Ldn metrics yield approximately the same 24 -hour value (within I dBA) with the CNEL being the more restrictive (i.e., higher) of the two. Vibration Vibration is a trembling, quivering, or oscillating motion of the earth. Like noise, vibration is transmitted in waves, but in this case through the earth or solid objects. Unlike noise, vibration is typically of a frequency that is "felt" rather than heard. Vibration can be either natural as in the form of earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, sea waves, landslides, etc., or man -made as from explosions, the action of heavy machinery, or heavy vehicles such as trucks or trains. Both natural and man -made vibration may be continuous such as from operating machinery, or transient as from an explosion. As with noise, vibration can be described by both its amplitude and frequency. Amplitude is generally characterized in three ways: particle displacement, particle velocity, and particle acceleration. Particle displacement is a measure of the distance that a vibrated particle travels from its original position and for the purposes of soil displacement is typically measured in inches or millimeters. Particle velocity is the rate of speed at which soil particles move in inches per second or millimeters per second. Particle acceleration is the rate of change in velocity with respect to time and is measured in inches per second per second or millimeters per second per second. Typically, particle velocity and/or acceleration (measured in gravities) are used to describe vibration. Table 5.6 -1 presents the human reaction and effect on buildings to various levels of vibration. Table 5.6 -1: Human Reaction to Typical Vibration Levels Vibration level Peak Particle velocity Human Reaction Effect on Buildings (inchestsecond) 0.006 - 0.019 Threshold of perception, possibility Vibrations unlikely to cause damage of any of intrusion type 0.08 Vibrations readily perceptible Recommended upper level of vibration to which ruins and ancient monuments should be subjected 0.10 Level at which continuous vibration Virtually no risk of "architectural' damage begins to annoy people. to normal buildings Michael Brandman Associates 5.6 -3 K\ Client( PN- 1N) \0064\00640021\DEIR \00640027 Sec05- 6_Noise.doc Noise St. Mark Table 5.6 -1 (Cont.): Human Reaction to Typical Vibration Levels Church - Draft EIR , vibration Level Peak ParacieVelocity Human; Reaction - Effect on Buildings (inches/second) - 0.20 Vibrations annoying to people in Threshold at which there is a risk to buildings. "architectural" damage to normal dwelling - houses with plastered walls and ceilings 0.4-0.6 Vibrations considered unpleasant by Vibrations at a greater level than normally people subjected to continuous expected from traffic, but would cause vibrations and unacceptable to some "architectural" damage and possibly minor people walking by bridges structural damage Source: Synectecology, St. Mark Church Noise Study, February, 2004. Vibrations also vary in frequency and this affects perception. Typical construction vibrations fall in the 10 to 30 Hz range and usually occur around 15 Hz. Traffic vibrations exhibit a similar range of frequencies. For example, due to their suspension systems, city buses often generate frequencies around 3 Hz at high vehicle speeds. It is more uncommon, but possible, to measure traffic frequencies above 30 Hz. The way in which vibration is transmitted through the earth is called propagation. Propagation of earthbome vibrations is complicated and difficult to predict because of the endless variations in the soil and other sub - surface conditions through which waves travel. There are three main types of vibration propagation; surface, compression, and shear waves. Surface waves, or Rayleigh waves, travel along the ground's surface. These waves carry most of their energy along an expanding circular wave front, similar to ripples produced by throwing a rock into a pool of water. Compression waves, or P- waves, are body waves that carry their energy along an expanding spherical wave front. The particle motion in these waves is longitudinal (i.e., in a "push- pull" fashion). P -waves are analogous to airbome sound waves. Shear waves, or S- waves, are also body waves that carry energy along an expanding spherical wave front. However, unlike P- waves, the particle motion is transverse or "side -to -side and perpendicular to the direction of propagation." As vibration waves propagate from a source, the energy is spread over an ever - increasing area such that the energy level striking a given point is reduced with the distance from the energy source. Wave energy is also reduced with distance as a result of material damping in the form of internal friction, soil layering, and void spaces. The amount of attenuation provided by material damping varies with soil type and condition as well as the frequency of the wave. Regulatory Setting To limit population exposure to physically and/or psychologically damaging, as well as intrusive noise levels, the federal government, the State of California, and local government have established standards and ordinances to control noise. 5.6-4 Michael Brandman Associates H:1CGent(PN- JN)\006400640021 IDn1n100640021 SecO5- fi_Noise.do L r� i. occupational noise is not applicable and therefore not addressed in this document The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) has set a goal of 45 dBA Ldn as a desirable maximum interior standard for residential units developed under HUD funding. (This level is also generally accepted within the State of California.) While HUD does not specify acceptable ' exterior noise levels, standard construction of residential dwellings constructed under Title 24 standards typically provide in excess of 20 dBA of attenuation with the windows closed. Based on this premise, the exterior Ldn should not exceed 65 dBA. St. Mark Presbyterian Church - Draft EIR Noise Federal Government The federal government regulates occupational noise exposure common in the workplace through the Occupational Health and Safety Administration (OSHA) under the USEPA. Noise exposure of this type is dependent on work conditions and is addressed through a facility's Health and Safety Plan. ' As any site construction will be required to operate under an approved Health and Safety Plan, occupational noise is not applicable and therefore not addressed in this document The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) has set a goal of 45 dBA Ldn as a desirable maximum interior standard for residential units developed under HUD funding. (This level is also generally accepted within the State of California.) While HUD does not specify acceptable ' exterior noise levels, standard construction of residential dwellings constructed under Title 24 standards typically provide in excess of 20 dBA of attenuation with the windows closed. Based on this premise, the exterior Ldn should not exceed 65 dBA. State of California The State Office of Noise Control has set acceptable noise limits for sensitive uses. Sensitive -type land uses, such as dwelling units and schools, are "normally acceptable" in exterior noise environments up to 65 dBA CNEL and "conditionally acceptable" in areas up to 70 dBA CNEL. A "conditionally acceptable" designation implies that new construction or development should be undertaken only after a detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirements for each land use type is made and needed noise insulation features are incorporated in the design. By comparison, a "normally acceptable" designation indicates that standard construction can occur with no special noise reduction requirements. Applicable interior standards for new multi - family dwellings are governed by Title 24 of the California Administrative Code. These standards require that acoustical studies be performed prior to construction in areas that exceed 60 dBA Ldn. Such studies are required to establish measures that will limit interior noise to no more than 45 dBA Ldn. This level has been applied to many cities in California including Newport Beach. City of Newport Beach The project is subject to both the Noise Element of the General Plan and the Municipal Code. The goals of the Noise Element are to provide sufficient information regarding the community noise environment such that noise can be objectively considered in the land use planning process. Other goals focus on the protection and maintenance of those areas in the city that have acceptable noise ' environments, and to reduce excessive noise in those existing sensitive areas where noise has reached unacceptable levels. The last goal of the Element is to establish a comprehensive program to minimize noise impacts from John Wayne Airport operations. The Noise Element sets a maximum desirable exterior noise level of 65 dBA CNEL for residential and lodging -type land uses. The exterior requirement for residential structures is reduced to 55 dBA CNEL with windows open if they are to be used as a natural ventilation requirement. Sensitive Michael Brandman Associates 5.6 -5 HACHent(PN -JN)\ 0064\ 00640021 \DEM\00640021— Sec05- 6_Noise.doc Noise St Mark Presbyterian Church - Draft E/R ' institutional uses (i.e., hospitals and classroom;) also have an exterior standard of 65 dBA CNEL. Churches do not have an exterior standard, but carry a 45 -dBA CNEL interior standard. Both sensitive residential and institutional (e.g., school, church) land uses are acceptable to an interior level of 45 dBA CNEL. As typical construction provides a minimum of 20 dBA of attenuation with windows closed, this interior level is easily achieved if external noise does not exceed 65 dBA CNEL. Less sensitive commercial and institutional uses (e.g., office and professional uses) are subject to an interior standard of 50 dBA CNEL. This level is easily achieved provided exterior levels do not exceed 70 dBA CNEL. The Noise Element is implemented through the Municipal Code. Table 5.6 -2 identifies standards of the City of Newport Beach Municipal Code that are applicable to the proposed project. Table 5.6-2: Interior and Exterior Noise Standards City of Newport Beach The municipal code recognizes that construction noise sources are not strictly relatable to a 24 -hour community noise standard and these regulations are included in Section 10.28.040 - Construction Activity -Noise Regulation. Here, the City places no performance standards or noise limitations on construction other than to restrict loud noise that disturbs, or could disturb a person of normal sensitivity, who works or resides in the vicinity of the construction site, to between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 6:30 p.m. on weekdays and 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on Saturdays. Construction is prohibited on Sundays and holidays if it disturbs or could disturb a person of normal sensitivity who works or resides in the vicinity of the construction site. The City does not quantify the term "loud." 5.6-6 Michael Brandman Associates H:\C bent (PN -rN) \0064 \00640021 O 61R\0G640021_$ee05- 6_Noise.doe Energy Average CNEL Municipal Code Title Interior Exterior Section 7:00 a.m: 10:00 p.m: 7:00 a.m. 10:00 p.m.- 10:00 p.m. 1 7:00 a.m. 10:00 P.M. 7:00 a.m. 10.26.025 Exterior Residential Noise N/A N/A 55 dBA Leq 50 dBA Leq standards 10.26.040 Schools, Daycare Centers, N/A N/A 55 dBA Leq 50 dBA Leq Churches, Libraries, Museums, Health Care Facilities Exterior residential portions of N/A N/A 60 dBA Leq 50 dBA Leq mixed -use properties Commercial uses N/A N/A 65 dBA Leq 60 dBA Leq 10.26.030 Interior Residential Noise 45 dBA Leq 45 dBA Leq N/A N/A standards Interior Residential portions of 45 dBA Leq 45 dBA Leq N/A N/A mixed -use areas * These standards are not to be exceeded for 15 minutes during any hour or by 20 dBA for any period of time. No interior standards are set for institutional land uses. Source: City of Newport Beach, Municipal Code. The municipal code recognizes that construction noise sources are not strictly relatable to a 24 -hour community noise standard and these regulations are included in Section 10.28.040 - Construction Activity -Noise Regulation. Here, the City places no performance standards or noise limitations on construction other than to restrict loud noise that disturbs, or could disturb a person of normal sensitivity, who works or resides in the vicinity of the construction site, to between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 6:30 p.m. on weekdays and 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on Saturdays. Construction is prohibited on Sundays and holidays if it disturbs or could disturb a person of normal sensitivity who works or resides in the vicinity of the construction site. The City does not quantify the term "loud." 5.6-6 Michael Brandman Associates H:\C bent (PN -rN) \0064 \00640021 O 61R\0G640021_$ee05- 6_Noise.doe St Mark Presbyterian Church - Draft Noise The City has established quantitative goals based on a land use and noise compatibility matrix and performance standards for design of facilities for the purpose of determining land use suitability relative to the noise environment. These are identified in Table 5.6 -3. Table 5.6 -3: Land Use Noise Compatibility Matrix Community Noise Equivalent Level CNEL Categories Uses <55 60 65 70 76 80> Institutional Hospital, Church, Library, A B C C D D General Schools Classroom Definitions: Zane A: Clearly Compatible- Specified land use is satisfactory, based upon the assumption that any buildings involved are of normal conventional construction without any special noise insulation requirements. Zone B: Normally compatible- New construction or development should a undertaken only after detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirements are made and needed noise insulation features in the design are determined. Conventional construction, with closed windows and fresh air supply systems or air conditioning, will normally suffice. Zane C: Normally Incompatible- New construction or development should generally be discouraged. If new construction or development does proceed, a detailed analysis of noise reduction requirements must be made and needed noise insulation features included in the design. Zane D: Clearly incompatible- New construction or development should generally not be undertaken. Source: City of Newport Beach General Plan, Noise Element, October 1994. Table 1 Land Use Noise Compatibility Matrix. Field Survey A field survey was performed by Synectecology on Tuesday, February 24, 2004, to determine existing noise levels at the project site. The most proximate existing sensitive uses in the project area include the Fairway Apartments along the southern portion of its western boundary and the single - family residential units located to the east across MacArthur Boulevard. The Big Canyon Golf Course, which includes single - family dwelling units, lies to the northwest. The study revealed that noise within the proposed project area is generally characterized by roadway noise as well as aircraft operations from John Wayne Airport. Noise monitoring was performed using a Quest Technologies Model 2900 Type 2Integrating/logging Sound Level Meter. The unit meets the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) Standard S 1.4 -1983 for Type 2, International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) Standard 651 - 1979 for Type 2, and IEC Standard 651 - 1979 for Type 2 sound level meters. The study included the following readings: Leq, Loy Log, L25, and L5o values were recorded. Additionally, the L,,,;,, and L., values were recorded. The L02, Log, L25, and L50 represent the values that are exceeded 1, 57 15, and 30 minutes per hour if the readings were extrapolated out to an hour's duration. The readings obtained along the roadways were supplemented with simultaneous vehicle counts. These counts were obtained for modeling purposes. The monitoring readings are shown on Table 5.6 -4 and the locations of these readings are shown on Exhibit 5.6 -1. Michael Brandman Associates 5.6 -7 H:Vfient(PN- JN)A0064V 00640021A DEIRV00640021— See05- 6— Noise.doe r.� con 4 cz U IE x L LU 0 5Q L u cz COO cz FI ggc iY O OnNit, E it, E .... . . .... . 0 0 F Z CI LL o "6 L6 7 Hi8ON � T, VE it 3� I It it it ft It z, it it 4 E R. Ej[ I't it "tine i Nei, 4 a .0 0 0 0 0 1 4) 0 - -------- cr Z a: .......... - ----------- ............ . I .......... ............... r.� con 4 cz U IE x L LU 0 5Q L u cz COO cz FI m mmmmmmm Mom mmmmmmmmm ggc iY O E E E 0 0 F Z CI LL o L6 7 Hi8ON m mmmmmmm Mom mmmmmmmmm I I I P St Mark Presbyterian Church - Draft EIR Noise Table 5.6-4: Existing Noise Level Measurements, St. Mark Presbyterian Church Project Monitoring Leq Luz Lea se Lso t n L Location (dBA) (dBA) (dBA) (4BA) (dBA) (dBA) (dBA) NR -I 65.7 71.9 69.4 66.6 63.6 52.3 78.3 NR -2 72.2 77.1 76.0 74.0 71.4 51.0 79.4 NR -3 71.0 76.4 74.8 72.4 69.9 52.2 83.3 NR -4 53.1 61.5 55.6 52.8 51.2 44.4 66.4 The Leq represents the equivalent sound level and is the numeric value of a constant level that over the given period of time transmits the same amount of acoustic energy as the actual time - varying sound level. The Lot, Los, 1.25, and L5p are the levels that are exceeded 2.8.25. and 50 percent of the time, respectively. Alternatively, these values represent the noise level that would be exceeded for 1, 5, 15, and 30 minutes during a 1 -hour period if the reading was extrapolated out to 1- hour's duration. The Lb and Lm„ represent the minimum and maximum root - mean -square noise levels obtained over a period of 1 second. Source: Synectecology, St. Mark Church Noise Study, February. 2004. NR -1 This reading was obtained toward the western portion of the site along San Joaquin Hills Road. The primary source of noise included vehicle traffic traveling along San Joaquin Hills Road, but traffic along MacArthur Boulevard was also audible. Other sources of noise included aircraft operations associated with John Wayne Airport. NR -2 This reading was obtained toward the northern portion of the site along MacArthur Boulevard. The primary source of noise included vehicle traffic traveling along MacArthur Boulevard. Other sources of noise included aircraft operations associated with John Wayne Airport. NR -3 This reading was also obtained along MacArthur Boulevard, this time more proximate to San Joaquin Hills Road. The primary source of noise included vehicle traffic traveling along MacArthur Boulevard. Other sources of noise included aircraft operations. NR -4 This measurement was obtained to characterize the noise at the western project boundary most proximate to the adjacent residents. The meter was placed along the chain link fence at the western site boundary. The meter was located behind a "bluff' such that neither MacArthur Boulevard nor San Joaquin Hills Road was visible, though traffic ' noise was audible. Readings at the proximate dwellings could be similar to the obtained values. The primary source of noise included vehicle traffic traveling along the adjacent roads, but aircraft noise was also notable. Existing Traffic Volumes In order to assess the potential for mobile- source noise impacts, it is necessary to determine the noise currently generated by vehicles traveling through the area. Average daily traffic (ADT) volumes were based on the existing daily traffic volumes provided by Urban Crossroads. iTo determine the CNEL noise level produced by this traffic, the percentage contribution from each hour of traffic was determined from an Orange County, year 2004 run of the EMFAC2002 computer 1 model (BURDEN2002 module) distributed by the California Air Resources Board. This model predicts the volume of vehicles and miles generated for each of the 24 hours of the day. Because the Michael Brandman Associates 5.6 -11 H:\CGent(PN -1N) \0064 \00610021\DEIR \00610021 SecOS- 6_Noise.doc Noise SL Mark Presbyterian Church - Draft EIR 1 project is estimated to generate its largest traffic volume on Sundays when ambient volumes are lowest, the analysis includes both weekday and Sunday noise levels. The Sound32 Noise Model considers four parameters in its calculations. These include the speed of the vehicles, the ratio of the vehicles (i.e., autos, medium trucks, and heavy trucks), the roadway logistics (i.e., distance that traffic is observed as it approaches/leaves, curvature of the road, etc.), and the volume of vehicles. A worst case assumes a straight road visible in both directions. Countless iterations of the model have shown that after 7`0 feet, more distant vehicles do not add measurably to the modeled noise levels. As such, this distanc-, was used in the modeling effort. A value of 10,000 vehicles was modeled at a distance of 50 feet for each noted vehicle ratio and speed observed throughout the project area. Actual projected roadway noise levels are then calculated in a spreadsheet and referenced to the 10,000 vehicle "standard" at a distance of 50 feet. Table 5.6 -5 presents the projected noise levels along site access roads in the project area as well as the distances to the 70, 65, and 60 dBA CNEL noise contours for weekday traffic. Table 5.6 -6 presents these same routes for Sunday traffic. All modeling assumes soft site conditions that shows a better correlation with field observation. Table 5.6-5: Existing Weekday Traffic - Generated Noise Levels Through the Project Area Street Name Segment Speed p Existing ADT Volumes - Existing CNEL (dBA @ 50 Feet) Distance to 70 CNEL Distance to 55 CNEL Distance to 50 CNEL Ford Rd. W/O Jamboree 45 14,900 68.8 42 90 194 Bonita Canyon Dr. E/O MacArthur 50 25,000 72.3 71 153 329 San Joaquin Hills FJO Jamboree 45 10,000 67.1 32 69 149 Rd. W/O Big Canyon 45 12,600 68.1 37 81 173 E/O Big Canyon 45 15,900 69.1 44 94 203 W/O MacArthur 45 2Q000 70.1 51 I10 236 MacArthur - San Miguel 45 20,300 70.2 5 1 1 1 1 238 E/O San Miguel 45 20,300 70.2 51 1 1 1 238 San Miguel Dr. Newport Center - MacArthur 35 20,700 67.6 34 74 160 E/O MacArthur 40 12,900 66.9 31 67 144 Pacific Coast W/O Jamboree 45 54,700 74.0 92 198 428 Hwy. E/O MacArthur 45 43,500 73.2 82 176 378 Jamboree Rd. N/O Ford 50 37,800 74.1 93 201 434 S/0 Ford 50 45,400 74.9 106 228 490 N/O San Joaquin Hills 50 38,400 74.1 94 203 438 San Joaquin Hills - Santa Barbara 50 34,900 73.7 89 191 411 Santa Barbara - Pacific Coast Hwy. 50 38,500 74.2 95 204 439 5.6 -12 Michael Hrandman Associates H:1Clwm (PN -JN) \0064 \0064OW 1 \DEnd\A0640021 8ec05- 6_N.hc doe i St. Mark Presbyterian Church - Draft EIR Noise Table 5.6 -5 (Cont.): Existing Weekday Traffic - Generated Noise Levels Through the Project Area Sheet Name Segment =SPced (mph) Existing ADT Volumes Existing - CNEL(dBA a 50 Fed)...CNEL Distance .1070 i6W CNEL Olatanee to 80 CNEL Santa Rosa Dr. San Joaquin Hills - Newport Center 30 11.,700 63.8 19 41 89 MacArthur Blvd. N/O Ford 55 63,000 77.3 153 330 711 San Joaquin Hills S/0 Ford 55 53,200 76.6 137 295 635 Rd. N/O San Joaquin Hills 55 54,600 76.7 139 300 646 San Joaquin Hills - San Miguel 50 35,900 73.9 90 195 419 S/O San Miguel 50 30,200 73.1 80 173 374 N/O Pacific Coast Hwy. 50 22,200 71.8 66 141 304 Source: Synectecology, St. Mark Church Noise Study, February, 2004. Table 5.6 -6: Existing Sunday Traffic - Generated Noise Levels Through the Project Area Existing Existing Distance Distance Distance Street Name Segment Michael Brandman Associates 5.6 -13 H:\Client(PN -1N) \0064 \00640021\DEIR \00640021 Sec05- 6_Noise.doc Speed (mph) ADT Volumes CNEL(dBA B 50 Feet) .1070 CNEL to 55 CNEL to 60 CNEL Ford Rd. W/O Jamboree 45 12,300 68.0 37 79 171 Bonita Canyon Dr. E/O MacArthur 50 18,400 70.9 58 125 268 San Joaquin Hills E/O Jamboree 45 8,500 66.4 29 62 133 Rd. W/O Big Canyon 45 6,600 65.3 24 52 113 E/O Big Canyon 45 10,900 67.5 34 73 157 W/O MacArthur 45 11,700 67.8 36 77 165 MacArthur - San Miguel 45 13,100 68.3 38 83 178 E/O San Miguel 45 13,100 68.3 38 83 178 San Miguel Dr. Newport Center - MacArthur 35 10,100 64.4 21 46 99 E/O MacArthur 40 8,800 65.2 24 52 112 Pacific Coast W/O Jamboree 45 32,800 71.8 65 141 304 Hwy. E/O MacArthur 45 34,600 72.2 70 151 325 Jamboree Rd. N/O Ford 50 24,100 72.1 69 149 321 S/0 Ford 50 31,900 73.3 83 180 387 N/O San Joaquin Hills 50 31,600 73.3 83 179 385 San Joaquin Hills - Santa Barbara 50 26,400 72.5 74 159 341 Santa Barbara - Pacific Coast Hwy. 50 23,500 72.0 68 147 316 Santa Rosa Dr. San Joaquin Hills - Newport Center 30 7,000 61.6 14 29 63 Michael Brandman Associates 5.6 -13 H:\Client(PN -1N) \0064 \00640021\DEIR \00640021 Sec05- 6_Noise.doc Noise St. Table 5.6 -6 (Cont.): Human Reaction to Typical Vibration Levels Church - Draft EIR Sheen Npme:. .. .. Segment .. ! tm' Existing . , ':. ADT Volumes Existing CNEL (dBA 0 50 Feat) Distartee to 70 CNEL Distance to BS ' CNE(.. Distance to W 'CNEL MacArthur Blvd. N/O Ford 55 38,100 75.1 110 236 508 S/0 Ford 55 33,100 74.5 100 215 463 N/O San Joaquin Hills 55 33,700 74.6 101 217 469 San Joaquin Hills - San Miguel 50 22,800 71.9 67 144 310 S /O San Miguel 50 21,000 71.5 63 136 293 N/O Pacific Coast Hwy. 50 20,900 71.5 63 136 292 Source: Synectecology, St. Mark Church Noise Study, February, 2004. 5.6.2 -Thresholds of Significance According to Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines the proposed project is considered to have a significant noise - related impact if the proposed project would: • 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; • Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundboume vibration or groundboume noise levels; • A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project; • A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project; • 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, expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels; and • For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels. 5.6.3 - project Impacts Impacts Related to the Generation of Noise Levels in Excess of Standards Impacts Related to On -site Land Uses The project is to be placed on a vacant parcel of land at the intersection of San Joaquin Hills Road and MacArthur Boulevard that would be exposed to traffic - related noise from these roadways. The church is not subject to an external noise standard but is subject to an internal standard of 45 dBA CNEL. The pre - school is subject to both an external standard of 65 dBA CNEL. Both the church and 5.614 Michael Brandman Associates H:\CGcnt (PN -JN)\ 0064 \00640021\DETR \0064002[— SecO5- 6_Noise.doe I I I 1 I I I I C] I 11 I L I I Mark Presbyterian Church - Draft EIR pre - school are subject to a 45 -dBA CNEL interior standard. The administrative offices and miscellaneous uses are subject to an interior standard of 50 dBA CNEL. Noise The included analysis is based on the build -out traffic volumes provided by Urban Crossroads. These traffic volumes are considerably higher than the ambient volumes, but serve as the design standards for the project for future occupancy (see Table 5.6 -7). It should also be pointed out that the projected noise levels consider noise associated with build -out of the area that may not occur for several years. Table 5.6-7: Buildout Traffic - Generated Noise Levels at the Project Site Modeled Location Plan Designation Exterior CNEL Standard Exceeds Standard? Fellowship Hall - Southeast Comer R -1 61.5 70 No Fellowship Hall - Northeast Corner R -2 61.7 70 No Administrative Building - Middle East Comer R -3 62.9 70 No Administrative Building - Northeast Comer R -4 63.6 70 No Church - Southeast Comer R -5 61.0 65 No Church - Northeast Comer R -6 61.6 65 No Pre- school - Southeast Comer R -7 63.9 65 No Pre - school Administration - Northeast Comer R -8 66.2 70 No Expansion Building - Southeast Comer R -9 65.2 70 No Expansion Building - Northeast Comer R -10 65.7 70 No Exterior level necessary to meet the applicable interior standards. Assumes 20 dBA of attenuation provided by the structure with typical construction and no additional requirements other than forced air ventilation. Source: Synectecology, St. Mark Church Noise Study, February, 2004. The proposed project includes design features into the overall project that reduce the traffic- generated noise from the adjacent roadways. The following Project Design Features are applicable to noise reduction on the project site: PDF 2 Use of large -scale landscape buffers on roadway frontages that minimize visual impacts from adjacent roadways and integrate with the planned open space. PDF 6 Lowering of the building site pads relative to the adjacent roadways and property lines in order to minimize visual impacts. The proposed use is consistent with the applicable standard. Therefore, less than significant impacts to on -site land uses would result from project implementation. Impacts Related to Off -site Land Uses Equipment. The project includes the on -site operation of a church and pre - school. Stationary- source noise includes those sources of noise that occur on -site, but potentially impact off -site receptors. While some minor amounts of noise are associated with the use of heating, air conditioning, and ventilation equipment, these sources are regulated under the Uniform Building Code as well as the Michael Brandman Associates N:\ Client( PN- JN)\0064 \0064002I\DEOi\006A0021 Sec05- 6_Noise.doc Noise St. Mark Presbyterian Church - Draft EIA Municipal Code and are commonplace in both commercial and residential areas. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would result in less than significant impacts related to equipment. Pre- School Activities. Another source of potential on -site noise is from children at the pre - school engaged in outdoor play activities. The pre - school is to be operated adjacent to a residential neighborhood. The pre - school could accommodate up to 112 children. The pre - school would be operated Monday through Friday, year - round, with operational hours running from 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. In order to determine potential noise impacts associated with outdoor play yard activities from the pre - school, noise readings were obtained by Synectecology at the Jenny Hari Early Education Center located in the City of Irvine. The Jenny Hari pre- school facility accommodates 85 children and is sufficiently similar to the proposed project to provide a meaningful comparison. Two representative readings were obtained at this facility. The noise level expected at the St. Mark pre - school facility would be comparable to that measured at the Jenny Hart facility, and their outdoor play areas are of similar size. Furthermore, the proposed project is to include a 5 to 6 -foot high masonry wall that would further contain play yard noise. (The Jenny Hart facility was enclosed with chain link fencing.) The nearest off -site structures to the proposed pre - school area are in excess of 250 feet. Assuming the use of the louder of the two readings obtained at the Jenny Hart facility, Leq noise at a distance of 250 feet is estimated at less than 45 dBA. Both Caltrans and FHWA note that any solid wall that is high enough to shield the view of the source results in a minimum of 5 dBA of attenuation. The presence of the masonry wall in the proposed project would then reduce this value by an additional 5 dBA and pre - school noise at the most proximate receptors would not exceed the ambient levels. Additionally, because exterior play activities are of limited duration, their noise would not measurably raise the CNEL. Therefore, noise impacts associated with the proposed pre- school would be less than significant. Parking Lot Activities. Another source of potential on -site noise is from parking lot activities. These activities typically include horns, car alarms and door slams. Synectecology performed noise measurements of automobile door slams on March 11. 2002. The ambient noise level was noted at 43 to 44 dBA. As a worst -case scenario, it is assumed that a door slam produces an instantaneous noise level of 65 dBA. Because a door slam is a brief occurrence lasting less than 1 second, it would not exceed the ambient level for a period of 15 minutes in any hour. The use of homs and unintentional sounding of car alarms would be rare occurrences. The sound created by the use of automobile homs and alarms is specifically exempted from the regulation within the City of Newport Beach Municipal Code. Specifically, Section 10.26.035 C of the ordinance exempts, "Any mechanical device, apparatus or equipment used, related to or connected with emergency machinery, vehicle, work or warning alarm or bell, provided the sounding A any bell or alarm on any building or motor vehicle 5.6 -16 Michael Brandman Associates H:U: lien l( PN- rN)NO064t0060002EOr[Rl00640021 Se,95 -6 Nui..d.c J St. Mark Presbyterian Church - Draft EIR Noise ' shall terminate its operation within forty -five (45) minutes in any hour of it being activated." Therefore, noise impacts associated with parking lot activities would be less than significant. ' Impacts Related to Excessive Groundborne Vibration The proposed project would involve the construction and operation of a church and pre - school. Caltrans notes that excessive groundbome vibration is typically associated with such activities as pile driving or blasting, neither of which would be required during site construction. Only minimal groundbome vibrations would be created during site preparation and subsequent construction associated with project development. However, no excessive groundbome vibrations would be created by the operation of the proposed project. Therefore, project implementation would result in less than significant impacts associated with groundbome vibrations. tThe project could increase the noise associated with weekday traffic by as much as 0.2 dBA CNEL. Sunday traffic noise could increase by as much as 0.3 dBA CNEL. These increases are well under the 3 -dBA threshold and are so low as to be inaudible. Therefore, less than significant impacts to ambient noise levels would result from project implementation. Impacts Related to Temporary or Periodic Increase in Noise Levels Short -term noise impacts are impacts associated with site preparation, excavation, grading, and construction of the proposed structures. The construction - related short -term noise levels would be higher than the existing or ambient noise levels in the project area today, but would cease once construction of the proposed project is complete. Two types of short -term noise impacts could occur during the construction of the proposed project. First, the transport of workers and import of construction materials to the site could incrementally increase noise levels and the second type is related to noise generated at the site during site preparation, excavation, and construction. Michael Brandman Associates 5.6 -17 HACEem(PN -IN) \0064 \00640021UJEIR \00640027 Sec05- 6— N.i..d.c Impact Related to a Substantial Increase in Ambient Noise Levels The greatest source of potential noise associated with the proposed project is in its contribution to on- road traffic. On -site operations also raise the ambient noise, but as previously discussed, their contribution is small and of limited duration and their addition to the CNEL is minimal and well under I dBA. The traffic analysis prepared by Urban Crossroads indicates that the project would generate as many as 765 ADT on a weekday and 1,081 ADT on a Sunday. These trips would be distributed over the network of roadways that access the project site. This presents the worst -case scenario in that the proposed project's contribution to the average daily traffic represents a larger percentage of the total traffic. In future years as ambient traffic volumes continue to increase, the project's contribution to both traffic and noise represents a smaller portion of the "whole." tThe project could increase the noise associated with weekday traffic by as much as 0.2 dBA CNEL. Sunday traffic noise could increase by as much as 0.3 dBA CNEL. These increases are well under the 3 -dBA threshold and are so low as to be inaudible. Therefore, less than significant impacts to ambient noise levels would result from project implementation. Impacts Related to Temporary or Periodic Increase in Noise Levels Short -term noise impacts are impacts associated with site preparation, excavation, grading, and construction of the proposed structures. The construction - related short -term noise levels would be higher than the existing or ambient noise levels in the project area today, but would cease once construction of the proposed project is complete. Two types of short -term noise impacts could occur during the construction of the proposed project. First, the transport of workers and import of construction materials to the site could incrementally increase noise levels and the second type is related to noise generated at the site during site preparation, excavation, and construction. Michael Brandman Associates 5.6 -17 HACEem(PN -IN) \0064 \00640021UJEIR \00640027 Sec05- 6— N.i..d.c Noise St. Mark Presbyterian Church - Draft EIR The transport of workers and import of construction materials to the site could incrementally increase noise levels along local access roads. Even though there could be a relatively high single event noise exposure potential associated with passing trucks, the increase in long -term ambient noise levels would be less than I dBA when averaged over a 24 -hour period. Therefore, less than significant impacts would result from transportation of workers and materials to the project site. Site preparation, including excavation, and construction is performed in sequential phases each with their own set of noise characteristics. However, similarities in the dominant noise sources and patterns of operation allow construction - related noise ranges to be categorized by work phase. Table 5.6 -8 lists typical construction equipment noise: levels recommended for noise impact assessments, based on a distance of 50 feet between the equipment and a noise receptor. Table 5.6 -8: Noise Levels Generated by Typical Construction Equipment Type of Equipment Fienge of Sound Levels Measured (dBA at 50 feet) Suggested Sound Levels for Analysis (dBA at 50 feet) Pile Drivers, 12,000 to 18,000 ft- lb/blow 81 to 96 93 Rock Drills 83 to 99 96 Jack Hammers 75 to 85 82 Pneumatic Tools 78 to 88 85 Pumps 68 to 80 77 Dozers 85 to 90 88 Tractor 77 to 82 80 Front -End Loaders 86 to 90 88 Hydraulic Backhoe 81 to 90 86 Hydraulic Excavators 81 to 90 86 Graders 79 to 89 86 Air Compressors 76 to 86 86 Trucks 81 to 87 86 Source: Synectecology, St. Mark Church Noise Study., February, 2004. The most proximate sensitive land uses include; the multi - family residential land uses that are located at the Fairview Apartments along the southwestern perimeter of the project site. The nearest of these dwelling units is located approximately 55 feet. from the property line and construction noise is estimated to reach levels of as much as 88 dBA Leq at this dwelling unit. Other residents at the Big Canyon Country Club are in excess of 225 feet from the proximate property line. At this distance, construction noise is calculated at 75 dBA Leq. Dwelling units located across MacArthur to the east are approximately 200 feet from the site. These receptors are protected from MacArthur Boulevard road noise by a masonry wall. In the absence of such a wall, construction noise could reach 77 dBA 5.6 -18 Michael Brandman Associates H:\Clievt (PN -JN)\ 0064\ 00640021\ DEIR \00640021_Seco5- 6_Noi.sedoc I The project site is not located within an airport land use plan area or in the immediate vicinity of any airport. The nearest public use airport to the project site is John Wayne Airport, located outside of the airport's 60 dBA CNEL noise contour. Implementation of the proposed project would not expose the on -site receptors to excessive aircraft noise levels No private airstrips exist within two miles of the proposed site. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in a noise hazard persons working on or visiting the project site. Michael Brandman Associates 5.6.19 HACGen1(PN -JN )\0064 \00640021\DEIR\00640021 Sec05- 6_Nois .doc St. Mark Presbyterian Church - Draft EIR Noise tLeq at these dwelling units. Much of this noise would be masked by traffic noise generated along MacArthur Boulevard and San Joaquin Hills Road. 1 These levels would only occur for very limited times when construction is performed near the proximate site boundary/structure on a worst-case workday. The other phases of construction, including the construction of the structures, would generate lower noise levels and are located further from the adjacent sensitive areas. Additionally, construction activities will be performed between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 6:30 p.m. on weekdays and 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on Saturdays. Construction is prohibited on Sundays and holidays if it disturbs or could disturb a person of normal sensitivity who works or resides in the vicinity. Following are mandatory obligations contained in Section 10.28.040 of the Municipal Code: • Mandatory compliance with the City of Newport Beach's noise control ordinance and that levels impacts implementation of the following project obligations would ensure noise remain less than significant. • Equipment shall be equipped with mufflers and sound control devices (e.g., intake silencers and noise shrouds) no less effective than those provided on the original equipment and no equipment shall have an unmuffled exhaust. • Construction equipment shall be maintained properly and tuned -up to minimize noise emissions. • Stationary source equipment (e.g., compressors) shall be located so as to maintain the greatest distance from proximate residential dwellings. • All equipment servicing shall be performed so as to maintain the greatest distance from the dwellings. • The name and telephone number of a contact person shall be posted on -site. from Therefore, less than significant impacts related to construction activities would result project implementation with the mandatory compliance with these obligations. Impacts Related to Airport Noise Levels I The project site is not located within an airport land use plan area or in the immediate vicinity of any airport. The nearest public use airport to the project site is John Wayne Airport, located outside of the airport's 60 dBA CNEL noise contour. Implementation of the proposed project would not expose the on -site receptors to excessive aircraft noise levels No private airstrips exist within two miles of the proposed site. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in a noise hazard persons working on or visiting the project site. Michael Brandman Associates 5.6.19 HACGen1(PN -JN )\0064 \00640021\DEIR\00640021 Sec05- 6_Nois .doc Noise 5.6.4 - Cumulative Impacts St. Mark Presbyterian Church - Draft EIR I For a cumulative impact to occur, traffic from the proposed project, in conjunction with traffic generated from the projects listed in Section 42 of this document, would have to surpass the 3 dBA significance threshold. For cumulative traffic to surpass this threshold, traffic generated would have to result in a doubling of existing vehicle traffic within the cumulative project area. The proposed project in conjunction with the related projects would not result in generating traffic of such a magnitude, and thus no significant cumulative ;noise impacts will occur due to project implementation. 5.6.5 - Mitigation Measures No measures are required. 5.6.6 - Level of Significance After Mitigation With the incorporation of the Project Design Features, implementation of the proposed project would result in less than significant impacts related to noise. 5.6 -20 Michael Brandman Associates H:\Ctwe t(PN -JN)\ 0064 \00640021\ EIR\00640021 Sec05- 6_Noi,,.d.c I St. Mark Presbyterian Church - Drat EIR Other CEQA Considerations SECTION 6: OTHER CEQA CONSIDERATIONS 6.1 - SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS As discussed in Section 3 of this document, the proposed project does not propose housing or require substantial changes to infrastructure that would otherwise induce growth. Therefore, implementation of the project would not result in the construction of substantial new infrastructure or facilities that could otherwise induce growth. Michael Brandman Associates 6-1 HACliem (PN- JN)WO64V)06100210EIR�O Jq 121— Sec06— Olhert;6QA.doc According to the State CEQA Guidelines - 15126, an EIR must disclose the significant unavoidable impacts that will result from a project. Moreover, these guidelines state that an EIR should explain the implications of such impacts and the reasons why the project is being proposed, notwithstanding such impacts. Implementation of the project would result in the alteration of the physical environment. The project includes Project Design Features and proposes mitigation measures that either reduce or eliminate potentially significant impacts to a level below significance. After implementation of the proposed project, it has been determined that each of the project related impacts can be feasibly mitigated to a level that is considered to be less than significant. I6.2 - GROWTH INDUCING IMPACTS "economic This Section evaluates the potential for the proposed project to affect or population growth, or the construction of additional housing, either directly or indirectly, in the surrounding environment" (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.2[d]). There are two types of growth inducing impacts that a project may have: direct and indirect. To assess the potential for growth- inducing impacts, the project's characteristics that may encourage and facilitate activities that individually or cumulatively that may affect the environment must be evaluated. Direct growth inducing impacts occur when the development of a project imposes new burdens on a community by directly inducing population growth, or by leading to the construction of additional developments in the same area. Also included in this category are projects that remove physical obstacles to population growth, such as a new road into an undeveloped area or a wastewater treatment plant with excess capacity that could allow additional development in the service area. Construction of these types of infrastructure projects cannot be considered isolated from the development they facilitate and serve. Projects that physically remove obstacles to growth, or projects that indirectly induce growth are those, which may provide a catalyst for future unrelated development in an area such as a new residential community that requires additional commercial uses to support residents. As discussed in Section 3 of this document, the proposed project does not propose housing or require substantial changes to infrastructure that would otherwise induce growth. Therefore, implementation of the project would not result in the construction of substantial new infrastructure or facilities that could otherwise induce growth. Michael Brandman Associates 6-1 HACliem (PN- JN)WO64V)06100210EIR�O Jq 121— Sec06— Olhert;6QA.doc Other CEQA Considerations St. Mark Presbyterian Church - Draft EIR 6.3 - IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRTRIEVE:ABLE COMMITMENT TO RESOURCES THAT WOULD BE INVOLVED IN THE PROPOSED ACTION IF IMPLEMENTED The environmental effects of the project are discussed in Section 5 of this document. Implementation of the project will require the long -term commitment of natural resources as described below. Approval and implementation of the actions related to the implementation of the project would result in an irretrievable commitment of non - renewable resources such as energy supplies. The energy resource demands will be used for construction, heating and cooling of buildings, transportation of people and goods, as well as lighting and other energy associated needs. Non - renewable resources will be committed primarily in the form of fossil fuels, and will include fuel, oil, natural gas, and gasoline used by vehicles and equipment associated with the construction of the project. Those resources include, but are not limited to, lumber and other forest products, sand and gravel, photochemical construction materials, steel, copper, lead, and water. Since alternative energy sources such as solar and wind energy are not currently in widespread use, it is unlikely that any real savings in non - renewable energy supplies (i.e. oil and gas) will be realized in the immediate future. More specifically the primary effect of the development under the proposed project would be the commitment of approximately 7 acres of undeveloped open space land to a non -open space use. The financial and material investments that would be required of the applicant and the City would result in further commitments of land resources making it likely that the same or similar uses would continue in the future. Implementation of the proposed project represents a long -term commitment to urbanization. Environmental changes associated with the implementation of the proposed project result in alterations of the physical environment. If the proposed project is approved, and subsequently implemented, new structures would be built, additional utilities would be constructed, and circulation improvements would be made. The commitment of resources and the levels of consumption associated with the proposed project are consistent with anticipated changes within the City and the region. Therefore, there is no particular justification for avoiding or delaying the continued commitment of these resources. 6.4 - CUMULATIVE IMPACTS Section 15130 of the State CEQA Guidelines requires the consideration of cumulative impacts within an EIR. Cumulative impacts are defined as two or more individual effects which, when considered together, are considerable or which, compound or increase other effects. The individual effects may be changes resulting from a single project or a number of separate projects. The cumulative impact from several projects is the change in the environment, which results from the projects when added to other closely related projects. In identifying projects, which may contribute to cumulative impacts, the State CEQA Guidelines allow the use of either a specific list of past, present, and reasonably g -p Michael Brandman Associates H:\ Clic. t( PN- JN) \0064\006400211DEIR\OD640021 Scc06_Offi rCEQA.d.c II St. Marc Presbyterian Church - Draft EIR Other CEQA Considerations anticipated future projects, providing related or cumulative impacts, including those that are outside of the control of the lead agency. A list of related of related projects, provided by the City, is referenced in Section 4.2 of this document. I CJ I i 1 II 1 i Michael Brandman Associates 6-3 H'.\Cfient (PN -1N)\ 0064\ 00640021\ DEER \00640021_Sec06_OLLretCEQA.doc The cumulative projects in the vicinity of the project site primarily consist of infill development in an already highly urbanized area or the redevelopment of previously developed sites. Therefore, cumulative development would be anticipated to utilize infrastructure and not to involve any 1 substantial extensions of infrastructure. Consequently, currently undeveloped areas would not be opened up to development as a result of the proposed project or the identified related projects. Each environmental issue in Section 5 of this document contains a discussion of cumulative impacts. I CJ I i 1 II 1 i Michael Brandman Associates 6-3 H'.\Cfient (PN -1N)\ 0064\ 00640021\ DEER \00640021_Sec06_OLLretCEQA.doc I St. Mark Presbyterian Church - Drat EIR Alternatives to the Proposed Project SECTION 7: ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT 1 Section 15126.6 of the State CEQA Guidelines requires an EIR to include an evaluation of alternatives to the propose project. The range of alternatives to the proposed project includes those alternatives that could feasibly accomplish most of the objectives of the project. These alternatives will focus on alternatives that are capable of avoiding or substantially lessening significant effects of the project, even if these alternatives would impede to some degree the attainment of project objectives or be more costly. The determination of feasibility may include factors such as site ' suitability, economic viability, infrastructure, plan consistency, regulatory and jurisdictional limitations, and control of the alternative site. The City, in its capacity as Lead Agency in consultation with the project proponent, has selected two alternatives to the proposed project: the Reduced Size Alternative and the Different Site Alternative. The rationale for selecting the Reduced Intensity Alternative was to evaluate the potential to develop at least a portion of the project site. The rationale for selecting the Different Site Alternative was to evaluate the potential for developing the project elsewhere in the City. In addition to these two alternatives, a "No Project' alternative is required. This alternative evaluates the potential environmental effects of not proceeding with the proposed project. tThe EIR has focused on the direct and indirect effects on the environment that would result from implementation of the proposed project. All potentially significant effects can be mitigated to a level that is considered less than significant. The project - related alternatives evaluated in this section are the following: • No Project Alternative - No Development • No Project - Allowed Development Alternative M• Reduced Intensity Alternative • Different Site Alternative The following are the objectives of the proposed project: • Relocate the existing St. Mark Church to a nearby location within the City; • Provide a church facility that will accommodate future growth; • Design a church facility that reflects the ministry dedication to environmental values; • Maximize preservation of the existing canyon feature on the site; • Maintain open space character of the site; and • Use small - scale, multiple - building footprints for enhanced aesthetics and to maintain a residential scale. Michael Brandman Associates 7-1 HX11ent (PN -JN)A 0064V 00640021A DEIR V00640021— Seco7— Altemafives.doc Alternatives to the Proposed Project St. Mm*Presbyterlan Church - Draft EZR The analysis of alternatives includes the assumption that all applicable mitigation measures associated with the proposed project would be implemented with the appropriate alternatives. However, applicable mitigation measures may be scaled to reduce or avoid the potential impacts of the alternative under consideration, and may not precisely match those identified for the proposed project. Following are descriptions of each alternative and a comparative environmental evaluation of potential impacts with those identified in the proposed project. The Environmentally Superior Alternative will be selected from among these alternatives and the proposed project. An alternative that is environmentally superior will result in the fewest or least significant environmental impacts. If the environmentally superior alternative is the "No Project" alternative, the EIR shall also identify an environmentally superior alternative from the other identified alternatives. 7.1 - NO PROJECT ALTERNATIVE - NO DEVELOPMENT 7.1.1 - Description This alternative evaluates, with the conditions existing at the time the Notice of Preparation was published, what would be reasonably be expected to occur in the foreseeable future if the project were not approved and without development that could be allowed. This alternative compares the environmental effects of the property remaining in its current state against the environmental effects that would occur if the project is approved. 7.1.2 - Impact Evaluation Following is a comparison of each topical issue with this alternative. Land Use Under the proposed project, no significant impacts relating to land use were identified in relationship to identified thresholds of significance. If none of the uses allowed under the existing Recreational and Environmental Open Space designation were to be developed, the project site would remain in it's current vacant, undeveloped state and be used as a Christmas tree sales lot on an interim, undetermined period of time. This alternative would avoid the proposed project's less than significant impacts related to land use. Therefore, this alternative would not result in avoiding or lessening any significant effects in relation to land use as compared to the proposed project. Hydrology/Water Ouality Under the proposed project, potentially significant impacts in relationship to identified thresholds of significance were identified relating to hydrology and water quality. These potentially significant 7 -2 Michael Brsndman Associates H:ICGent (PN -JN) 1006 4\006000211DE1R \0069W21_Seco7_Allemalives.dm I St Mark Presbyterian Church - Draft EIR Attsmatives to the Proposed Project impacts were reduced to a less than significant level with Project Design Features included in the project and with recommended mitigation measures. ■ Under this scenario, the project site would continue to be used for the off -site discharge of stormwater 1 from adjacent roadways and adjacent development through a City easement into the on -site canyon feature and on -site stormwater discharge from the project site into the canyon feature. The existing stormwater drainage pattern would remain unchanged. This alternative would avoid the proposed project's less than significant impacts related to hydrology and water quality. Therefore, this alternative would not result in avoiding or lessening any significant effects in relation to hydrology and water quality as compared to the proposed project. Biological Resources Under the proposed project, no significant impacts relating to biological resources were identified in relationship to identified thresholds of significance. Under this alternative, areas of non - native grassland, ornamental woodland, coastal sage scrub, and southern riparian scrub would remain in their present condition and not be removed. Over time, the area of coastal sage scrub could increase, but would likely not regenerate over the entire project site due to the unfavorable soil conditions of the mapped disturbed areas. Approximately 1 -acre of Coastal Sage Scrub would remain in its present condition and not be removed. This alternative would avoid the proposed project's less than significant impacts related to biological resources. Therefore, this alternative would not result in avoiding or lessening any significant effects in relation to biological resources as compared to the proposed project. Transportation/Circulation Under the proposed project, no significant impacts in relationship to identified thresholds of significance were identified regarding increases in traffic or intersection capacity were identified. Potentially significant impacts were identified regarding hazards from design. However, these ' potentially significant were reduced to a less than significant with the recommended mitigation measures. Under this alternative, there would be no additional vehicle trips associated with the project site and no additional traffic impacts would occur. Depending on the interim nature of the Christmas Tree 1 sales lot, if this use were discontinued at some point in the future, vehicle trips would be marginally reduced. This alternative would avoid the proposed project's less than significant impacts related to traffic - related design hazards. Therefore, this alternative would not result in avoiding or lessening any significant effects in relation to transportation and traffic as compared to the proposed project. Michael Brandman Associates 7-3 R Ctient(PN -JI)1 00641006 90D211DEIR100640021 _Sec07_Almrnadves.doe Ahematives to the Proposed Project St. Mark Presbyterian Church - Draft OR Air Quality Under the proposed project, potentially significant impacts in relationship to identified thresholds of significance were identified relating to air quality. These potentially significant impacts were reduced to a less than significant level with recommended mitigation measures. Under this alternative, there would be no construction related emissions, stationary source emissions or mobile source emissions. Minor amounts of stationery emissions and mobile source emissions would continue with the interim Christmas tree sales lot. This alternative would avoid the proposed project's less than significant impacts related to air quality. Therefore, this alternative would not result in avoiding or lessening any significant effects in relation to air quality as compared to the proposed project. Noise Under the proposed project, no significant impacts relating to noise were identified in relationship to identified thresholds of significance. Under this scenario, there would not be any potential for noise associated with the project site beyond the minor amount of noise generated during the holiday season when the project is used as Christmas tree sales lot. This alternative would avoid the proposed project's less than significant impacts related to noise. Therefore, this alternative would not result in avoiding or lessening any significant effects in relation to noise as compared to the proposed project. 7.1.3 - Conclusions This alternative is considered the environmentally superior alternative to the proposed project because it would either lessen or avoid any potentially significant effects in relationship to the proposed project. However, this alternative would not meet any of the objectives previously identified in this section. 7.2 - NO PROJECT ALTERNATIVE - ALLOWED DEVELOPMENT 7.2.1 - Description This alternative evaluates, with the conditions existing at the time the Notice of Preparation was published, what would be reasonably be expected to occur in the foreseeable future if the project were not approved, but with development that could be allowed, based on current plans and consistent with available infrastructure and community services. 7-4 Michael Brendman Associates H:\ Client( PNJN ) \0064\00640021\DEiR\00640021 Sec07_A1W=dv".dm I St. Mark Presbyterian Church - Draft EIR Akemadves to the Proposed Project Public or private uses that could be potentially developed on the project site (excluding harbor - related uses) under the existing Recreational and Environmental Open Space general plan designation are: • Public or private open space uses; • Active or passive parks; • Wildlife refuges; • Golf courses; • Tennis courts; • Private recreation facilities; • Drainage courses; • Interpretative centers; • Greenbelts; and • Landscaped areas. For purposes of this analysis, a park and tennis courts and private recreational facilities is assumed. The recreational facilities would be located within the same areas proposed for development by the proposed project church. The canyon drainage feature would be restricted in the same configuration as with the proposed project. Similarly, the nature center proposed by the church project would be retained with this recreation concept. 7.2.2 - Impact Evaluation Following is a comparison of each topical issue with this alternative. Land Use Under the proposed project, no significant impacts relating to land use were identified in relationship to identified thresholds of significance. Under the allowed development scenario, public and/or private uses recreational uses may be developed. The project contains a drainage course and easement that is not proposed for modification by the project. Under this alternative, the drainage course would remain. In addition, the proposed project includes landscaped areas and a small viewing and interpretative center adjacent to the canyon feature. Under this scenario, these uses would also remain. This alternative would avoid the proposed project's less than significant impacts related to land use. However, depending on the intensity of the recreational uses that could be developed, more significant impacts could result. For example, if tennis courts were to be developed under this scenario, hours of operation would be longer than with the proposed project. In addition, potential impacts from night lighting and noise could be greater than with the proposed project. Therefore, this alternative would not result in avoiding or lessening any significant effects in relation to land use as compared to the proposed project. Michael Brandman Associates 7.5 H:\CLent(PN -1N)\0064\ 006400211DEIR\00690021 _Sec07_Alwm ti es.dm ARemativas to the Proposed Project st Mark Presbyterian Church - Draft EIR Hydrology/Water Quality Under the proposed project, potentially significant impacts in relationship to identified thresholds of significance were identified relating to hydrology and water quality. These potentially significant impacts were reduced to a less than significant level with Project Design Features included in the project and with recommended mitigation measures. Under this alternative, the project site would continue to be used for the off -site discharge of stormwater from adjacent roadways and adjacent development through a City easement into the on- site canyon feature and on -site stormwater discharge from the project site into the canyon feature. The recreational development scenario would require modification of the project site and alter the site drainage and off -site discharge of stormwater and affect water quality. In addition, implementation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan and Water Quality Management Plan would be required for any development. This alternative would avoid the proposed project's less than significant impacts related to hydrology and water quality. Therefore, this alternative would not result in avoiding or lessening any significant effects in relation to hydrology and water quality as compared to the proposed project. Biological Resources Under the proposed project, no significant impacts relating to biological resources were identified in relationship to identified thresholds of significance. Under this alternative, development of the project site with the recreational development scenario would have the potential to remove some, or all of the plant communities. Therefore, this alternative would not result in avoiding or lessening any significant effects in relation to biological resources as compared to the proposed project. Transportatiort/Circulation Under the proposed project, no significant impacts in relationship to identified thresholds of significance were identified regarding increases in traffic or intersection capacity were identified Potentially significant impacts were identified regarding hazards from design. However, these potentially significant were reduced to a less than significant with the recommended mitigation measures. Under this alternative, the recreational development scenario would have the potential to generate vehicle trips and potentially affect intersection capacity. In addition, depending on the intensity of the development, potential traffic- related design hazards could result. Therefore, this alternative would not result in avoiding or lessening any significant effects in relation to transportation and traffic as compared to the proposed project. 7-6 Michael Brandman Associates HACEew WN-JMl0064WO640021\DEIRt0E64 i SecO7-Alwe fitl es.dm Noise Under the proposed project, no significant impacts relating to noise were identified in relationship to St. Mark Presbyterian Church - Draft OR Altematives to the Proposed Project Air Quality Under the proposed project, potentially significant impacts in relationship to identified thresholds of impacts significance were identified relating to air quality. These potentially significant were reduced to a less than significant level with recommended mitigation measures. likely in Under this alternative, the recreational development scenario would result short-term construction related impacts and, depending on the intensity of the development, result in long -term operational impacts. Therefore, this alternative would not result in avoiding or lessening any significant effects in relation to air quality as compared to the proposed project. Noise Under the proposed project, no significant impacts relating to noise were identified in relationship to identified thresholds of significance. Under this alternative, the recreational development scenario could result in generation of noise levels beyond the proposed project. Therefore, this alternative would not result in avoiding or lessening any significant effects in relation to noise as compared to the proposed project. 7.2.3 - Conclusions This alternative is not considered the environmentally superior alternative to the proposed project because it would not lessen or avoid any potentially significant effects in relationship to the proposed project. Like the No Project Alternative - No Development, this alternative would not meet any of the objectives previously identified in this section. 7.3 - REDUCED INTENSITY ALTERNATIVE �. 7.3.1 - Description As previously described in Section 3 of this document, the proposed project is generally divided into two development areas identified as the South Campus and the North Campus (see Exhibit 3 -6 in Section 3 - Project Description). A proposed drive aisle and pedestrian walkway link these two areas. In addition, the project proposes to retain approximately one acre of the canyon feature and has Campus is location the incorporated this feature into the overall design. The South the proposed of church sanctuary, administrative offices, parking, and a fellowship hall. The North Campus is the proposed location of the pre - school, expansion building and additional parking. Under this alternative, the North Campus portion of the proposed project would not be developed, resulting in elimination of the pre - school, expansion building, and additional stalls. This results in a reduction of approximately 11,215 square feet of building area and elimination of 50 parking stalls. In addition to Michael Brandman Associates 7 -7 H:VChent (PN -1N)10 06410064002 1\DEIR\00640021_Sec07_AM mtiws.dw Alternatives to the Proposed Project St. Mark Presbyterian Church - Draft EIR the portions of the plant communities proposed for retention with the proposed project, an additional approximately 1 -acre of coastal sage scrub, approximately 0.20 -acres of ornamental woodland, and approximately 0.25 -acres of non - native grassland in the North Campus portion of the project site would be preserved. The 1.67 acres proposed to be deeded to the Big Canyon Country Club as permanent, dedicated open space may not occur. Following is a comparison of each topical issue with the No Project Alternative. 7.3.2 - Impact Evaluation Land Use Under the proposed project, no significant impacts relating to land use were identified in relationship to identified thresholds of significance. Under this alternative, the portion of the project site proposed for development with the South Campus would be developed. In addition, the canyon feature, as with the proposed project, would be retained. The majority of the project site would be developed. This alternative would avoid the proposed project's less than significant impacts related to land use. Therefore, this alternative would not result in avoiding or lessening any significant effects in relation to land use as compared to the proposed project. Hydrology/Water Quality Under the proposed project, potentially significant impacts in relationship to identified thresholds of significance were identified relating to hydrology and water quality. These potentially significant impacts were reduced to a less than significant level with Project Design Features included in the project and with recommended mitigation measures. Under this alternative, the project site would continue to be used for the off -site discharge of stormwater from adjacent roadways and adjacent development through a City easement into the on- site canyon feature and on -site stormwater discharge from the project site into the canyon feature. Developing only the South Campus portion of the site would still require modification of the project site and alter the site drainage and off -site discharge of stormwater and affect water quality. In addition, implementation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan and Water Quality Management Plan would be required for any development. This alternative would not avoid the proposed project's less than significant impacts related to hydrology and water quality. Therefore, this alternative would not result in avoiding or lessening any significant effects in relation to hydrology and water quality as compared to the proposed project. 7 -8 Michael Brandman Associates NiCEem (PN -)N) 10064100640021 \DEIRI00640021- $ec07_Allematives.doc I I I I I I I I I I I [I I 11 1 St. Mark Presbyterian Church - Draft EIR Attematives to the Proposed Project Biological Resources Under the proposed project, no significant impacts relating to biological resources were identified in relationship to identified thresholds of significance. Under this alternative, preservation of approximately 0.50 -acres of coastal sage scrub, approximately 0.20 -acres of ornamental woodland, and approximately 0.30 -acres of non - native grassland would result. Development of the South Campus would still require removal of portions of the plant communities. All of the southern riparian scrub would be retained under this alternative as with the proposed project. In addition, off -site mitigation has already been completed for the habitat on this project site. This alternative would avoid the proposed project's less than significant impacts related to biological resources. Therefore, this alternative would not result in avoiding or lessening any significant effects in relation to biological resources as compared to the proposed project. Transportation/Circulation Under the proposed project, no significant impacts in relationship to identified thresholds of significance were identified regarding increases in traffic or intersection capacity were identified. Potentially significant impacts were identified regarding hazards from design. However, these potentially significant were reduced to a less than significant with the recommended mitigation measures. Under this alternative, weekday traffic generation associated with the pre - school or expansion building would not occur. However, potential impacts relating to access would remain and the proposed mitigation measures would still be required. The proposed access point off MacArthur Boulevard would still be required. In addition, depending on the type of development that could be allowed, potential traffic- related design hazards could result. This alternative would avoid the proposed project's less than significant impacts related to biological resources. Therefore, this alternative would not result in avoiding or lessening any significant effects in relation to transportation and traffic as compared to the proposed project. Air Quality Under the proposed project, potentially significant impacts in relationship to identified thresholds of significance were identified relating to air quality. These potentially significant impacts were reduced to a less than significant level with recommended mitigation measures. Under this alternative, construction related emissions, stationary source emissions, and emissions from mobile sources would be correspondingly reduced, as compared with the proposed project, but not eliminated. This alternative would avoid the proposed project's less than significant impacts related to air quality. Michael Brandman Associates z-` H:\ Client( PNJN )\00(r1\00640021\DEIR \(KXW)121 Sec07_Altematives'.doc Affematives to the Proposed Project St Mark Presbyterian Church - Draft EIR Therefore, this alternative would not result in avoiding or lessening any significant effects in relation to air quality as compared to the proposed project. Noise Under the proposed project, no significant impacts relating to noise were identified in relationship to identified thresholds of significance. Under this alternative, development of only the South Campus would slightly reduce noise - related activities associated with the proposed project, but not eliminate them. This alternative would avoid the proposed project's less than significant impacts related to noise. Therefore, this alternative would not result in avoiding or lessening any significant effects in relation to noise as compared to the proposed project. 7.3.3 - Conclusions If the environmentally superior alternative is the No Project Alternative, the State CEQA Guidelines require the selection an environmentally superior alternative from among the remaining alternatives. Therefore, this alternative is considered an environmentally superior alternative to the proposed project because it would be capable of further reducing the already less than significant effects associated with the proposed project. However, this alternative would not meet all of the objectives previously identified in this section. 7.4 - DIFFERENT SITE ALTERNATIVE With regard to alternative sites, Section 15126.6(f)(2) of the State CEQA Guidelines states that only locations that would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project need be considered for inclusion in the EIR. In addition, if the lead agency concludes that no feasible alternative locations exist, it must disclose the reasons for this conclusion. 7.4.1 - Description St. Mark Presbyterian Church has a ministry dedicated to environmental values. Prior to selecting the project site, St. Mark Church surveyed areas within the City to determine if any locations were available that could be developed as a church facility in conformance with the stated project objectives. The results of this survey were that no other locations were available. The requirements were that a potential site had to be a minimum of 4 acres in size and had to be vacant in order to eliminate the high -costs associated with structure removal or potential relocation of businesses. The potential site had to be adjacent to residential neighborhoods and not located within industrial or commercial zones. The potential site had to be in close proximity (approximately one mile) from the existing location in Eastbluff so that the members and regular attendees of the church would be able to continue attending without traveling out of the City or significant distances. In 7 -10 Michael Brandman Associates H:`, Client( PN -1N)\ 0064 t00640021ZEIR\00640021_Seco7 —Mt r tiws.dm Ll St. Mark Presbyterian Church - Draft EIR Alternatives to the Proposed Project addition, the potential site had to be adjacent to major roadways. Moreover, a potential site had to have some type of physical feature on or adjacent to the site so that the church facility could incorporate this feature into the overall site design in order to reflect the environmental orientation of the ministry. 7.4.3 - Conclusions Therefore, this alternative would not result in avoiding or lessening any significant effects in relation to project site. 7.5 - ENVIRONMENTALLY SUPERIOR ALTERNATIVE fBased The project site meets these criteria. First, the project site was undeveloped and would not require the removal of structures or dislocation of businesses. Second, the project site is adjacent to and near residential neighborhoods. Third, this project site was located in the City approximately one -mile from its current location in the Eastbluff area. Fourth, the project site is adjacent to two major roadways. Lastly, the presence of the canyon feature in the central portion of the site provided an opportunity to incorporate and preserve a portion of this feature into the overall design of the facility. The proposed development includes Project Design Features that allow it blend in with the surrounding environment and preserve views of the canyon feature from MacArthur Boulevard.( 7.4.2 - Impact Evaluation If an alternative site within the City were developed as a church facility, potentially significant environmental impacts could be similar, greater or lesser to the proposed project site, depending on ilocation, existing development and biological resources of the site. 7.4.3 - Conclusions Therefore, this alternative would not result in avoiding or lessening any significant effects in relation to project site. 7.5 - ENVIRONMENTALLY SUPERIOR ALTERNATIVE fBased on the previous analysis, the No Project Alternative - No Development would be the environmentally superior alternative because the less than significant impacts identified with the proposed project would be avoided altogether. Section 15126(e)(2) of the State CEQA Guidelines states that if the environmentally superior alternative is the No Project Alternative, the EIR must identify the environmentally superior alternative from the remaining alternatives. Therefore, the Reduced Intensity Alternative would be an environmentally superior because it is capable of further reducing the already less than significant impacts of the proposed project. However, neither the No Project Alternative nor the Reduced Intensity Alternative is capable of meeting the objectives of the proposed project. I L) ' Verbal communication, Scott Barnard, Barnard Ventures, LLC, (representing the project proponent), March 22, 2004. Michael Brendman Associates 7 -11 R CHeat ( PN- JN)W064\0064002iOEat\00640021 Sec07— A]wmtims.dm St. Mark Presbyterian Church - Draft EIR Organizations and Persons Consulted SECTION 8: ORGANIZATIONS AND PERSONS CONSULTED 8.1 - PUBLIC AGENCIES City of Newport Beach, Planning Department ............................... James W. Campbell, Senior Planner Gregg B. Ramirez, Associate Planner 8.2 - PRIVATE ORGANIZATIONS Barnard Ventures, LLC ........................................ ............................... ...........................Scott S. Barnard The Irvine Company .................................................. ............................... ..........................Steve Letterly Hyndman& Hyndman ........................................ ............................... .........................Shelly J. Hyndman Katzmaier, Newell & Kehr .................................... ............................... ...........................Eric Kassmeyer Constant & Dickey, Inc ........................................... ............................... ..........................David M. Luka KIMEngineering, Inc ........................................................................... ............................... Kelly Nolan Michael Brandman Associates 8-1 HAClient(PNJN) \0064 \0064002I\DEIR \00670021 Scc08_0rgPersons.doc I St. Mark Presbyterian Church - Draft EIR Report Preparation Personnel ' SECTION 9: REPORT PREPARATION PERSONNEL 9.1 - MICHAEL BRANDMAN ASSOCIATES tPrincipal -In- Charge ..................... Project Manager ........................... Environmental Analysis .............. ........... ............................... .........................Thomas F. Holm, AICP ................... ............................... ..........................Kevin B. Shannon Jackie M. Wettland David S. Merriman Michael K. Hendrix ................................... ............................... Kelly M. Rios ..................... ............................... Michael H. Dice, M.A. ..... ............................... .........................Sandra L. Tomlin ............................ ............................... Karlee A. Haggins ......... ............................... ..........................Angel Penatch ................................ ............................... Jose L. Morelos 9.2 -TECHNICAL SUBCONSULTANTS Urban Crossroads, Inc. St. Mark Presbyterian Church Traffic Phasing Ordinance Analysis ............................... Scott Sato, P.E. Synectecology St. Mark Presbyterian Church Noise Analysis ............ ............................... ...........................Todd Brody Michael Brandman Associates 9-1 H:\ l' lient (PN- JN) \0064\00640021\1)h:Ui \00610021 SecOY_ReponPepPers.doe AirQuality ....................... ............................... Biological Resources ....... ............................... Cultural Resources ........... ............................... ' Editor ............................... ............................... Graphics........................... ............................... Word Processing .............. ............................... Reproduction ................... ............................... David S. Merriman Michael K. Hendrix ................................... ............................... Kelly M. Rios ..................... ............................... Michael H. Dice, M.A. ..... ............................... .........................Sandra L. Tomlin ............................ ............................... Karlee A. Haggins ......... ............................... ..........................Angel Penatch ................................ ............................... Jose L. Morelos 9.2 -TECHNICAL SUBCONSULTANTS Urban Crossroads, Inc. St. Mark Presbyterian Church Traffic Phasing Ordinance Analysis ............................... Scott Sato, P.E. Synectecology St. Mark Presbyterian Church Noise Analysis ............ ............................... ...........................Todd Brody Michael Brandman Associates 9-1 H:\ l' lient (PN- JN) \0064\00640021\1)h:Ui \00610021 SecOY_ReponPepPers.doe I 1 I 1 11 I I I I I I I I 1 I St. Mark Presbyterian Church - Draft EIR SECTION 10: REFERENCES California Air Resources Control Board. "Software Users Guide: URBEMIS 2002 for Windows with Enhanced Construction Module, Version 7.4." Published May 2003. California Department of Transportation, Division of New Technology and Research. "CALINE4 - A Dispersion Model for Predicting Air Pollutant Concentrations Near Roadways." Published June 1989. Califomia Department of Transportation, Environmental Program. "Transportation Project -level Carbon Monoxide Protocol. " Revised December 1997. City of Newport Beach. City Council Policy No. L -18- Protection of Water Quality: Drainage- Public right -of- ways. Published April 2002. City of Newport Beach. City Council Policy No. L- 22- Protection of Water Quality: Water Quality Management Plans for New Development and Redevelopment. Published April 2002. City of Newport Beach. General Plan. (various dates by element). City of Newport Beach. Zoning Code, Title 20 - Planning and Zoning. City of Newport Beach. Circulation Improvement and Open Space Agreement (CIOSA). Published June 30,1993. County of Orange. Natural Community Conservation Plan (NCCP) and Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP), Central and Coastal Subregion. Published July 1996. :County of Orange. NCCP/HCP Implementation Agreement. Published July 1996. County of Orange. Airport Land Use Commission, Airport Environs Land Use Plan. Published November, 16, 1995. FEMA. Flood Hazard Areas Map. Published January 2004. KFM Engineering, Inc. Preliminary Hydrology and Stormwater Management Study. Published March 2003. Michael Brandman Associates. Biological Resources Report. Published February 2004. Michael Brandman Associates. Cultural Resources Survey and Paleontological Records Review Report. Published January 2004. Michael Brandman Associates. Air Quality Impact Analysis Report. Published January 2004. Michael Brandman Associates. Notice of Preparation/Initial Study. Published January 2004. Nolan Consulting, Inc. Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP). Published December 2003. ' Michael Brandman Associates 10 -1 WCliem (PN- JN)A0064V006 40021 A DEIRV00640021_Su10— Refemn.s.doc References St. Mark Personal Communication, Mr. Scott Barnard, Barnard Ventures, LLC, February 22, 2004. Draft OR , Personal Communication, Mr. Steve Letterly, Vice President of Environmental Permitting and Compliance, The Irvine Company, January 5, 2004. South Coast Air Quality Management District. "Final 2003 Air Quality Management Plan. " Published August 2003. South Coast Air Quality Management District. "1997 Air Quality Management Plan." Published November 1996. South Coast Air Quality Management District. "CEQA Air Quality Handbook. " Published November 1993. Synectecology. Noise Impact Study. Published February, 2004. Urban Crossroads, Inc. Traffic Phasing Ordinance Analysis. February, 2004. Written communication. City of Newport Bearh. Planning Department Staff, January 14, 2004. 10.2 Michael Brandman Associates H:A CSen[(PN- 1N)A0064V00640021\1)ETR \00610021 Sec10_Reference A.c 1 DRAFT Environmental Impact Report St. Mark Presbyterian Church State Clearinghouse No. 2003101137 July 2004 Technical Appendices Prepared for: iFK Yp� 7 v t n '� n'euux+°° City of Newport Beach Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 Contact: Gregg B. Ramirez; Associate Planner 714.644.3219 Prepared by: NOR ■■■i Michael Brandman Associates 220 Commerce, Suite 200 Irvine, CA 92602 Contact: Kevin B. Shannon, Project Manager 714.508.4100 St. Mark Presbyterian Church - Screencheck Draft EIR LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix A: IS/NOP and Responses Appendix B: Cultural Resources Survey and Paleontological Records Review Appendix C: Water Quality Management Plan Appendix D: Preliminary Hydrology and Storm Water Management Study Appendix E: Biological Resources Survey Report Appendix F: Traffic Phasing Ordinance Analysis Appendix G: Air Quality Impact Analysis Report Appendix H: Focused Noise Study Michael Brandman Associates H: \Client (PN -III\ 0064\ 00640021 \Scre .n heck \00640021_App_TOC.d. Table of Contents 1 1 r 1 r 1 r r r r r r �r r r r St. Mark Presbyterian Church - Screencheck Draft OR Michael Brandman Associates H:1Client(PN -7N)\ 0060 \00640021'Sc=mheck10064U027 Appendims.dm APPENDIX A: ISMOP AND RESPONSES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH P.O. BOX 1768, NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658 -8915 DATE: October 27, 2003 TO: Agencies and Interested Parties (see distribution list) FROM: City of Newport Beach, Planning Department SUBJECT: Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report The City of Newport Beach will be the Lead Agency and will prepare a Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the St. Mark Presbyterian Church project. The City has prepared an Initial Study that provides a detailed project description and evaluation of the potential environmental effects of the proposed project. The Initial Study is available for review at the following locations: City of Newport Beach, Planning Department Newport Beach Public Library 3300 Newport Boulevard 1000 Avocado Avenue Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Telephone: 949.644.3225 Telephone: 949.717.3800 The applicant requests approval of a General Plan amendment, Planned Community text amendment, use permit, tentative parcel map and traffic study, pursuant to the Traffic Phasing Ordinance, for the construction of a new church complex. The subject property is a 10.81 acre vacant parcel located northwesterly of the intersection of MacArthur Boulevard and San Joaquin Hills Road. The proposed church consists of a sanctuary, fellowship hall, administration building, counseling center, preschool buildings, nature center plaza and future expansion building, totaling approximately 33,000 square feet, and related site improvements including grading, parking lots, site lighting, landscaping and utility connections. If you would like to submit written comments on the Notice of Preparation, please send them to the City of Newport Beach at the address shown below. Please be specific in your statements describing your environmental concerns. Due to the time limits mandated by State law, your written response must be sent at the earliest possible date, but not later than 30 daysfrom the date of this notice, November 26, 2003, Project Title: St. Mark Presbyterian Church Project Applicant: St. Mark Presbyterian Church Send Responses to: Gregg B. Ramirez, Associate Planner Planning Department, Community and Economic Development City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 Telephone: 949.644.3 219 Facsimile: 949.644.3229 State Dept. of Transportation Stop Polluting Our Newport (SPON) Airport Land Use Commission District 12 P.O. Box 102 3160 Airway Avenue 3377 Michelson Drive, Suite 380 Balboa Island, CA 92662 Costa Mesa, California 92626 Irvine, CA 92612 -9984 Professlonal Native American Cultural Resource Monitors 27475 YneZ Road. Suite 349 Temecula, CA 92591 Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board 3737 Main SL, Suite 500 Riverside, CA 92501 Rids Dayton Chairman, PAC Development Review Committee 2900 Silver Lane Newport Beach. CA 92650 Community Development Department City of Irvine One Civic Center Plaza P.O. Box 19575 Irvine, CA 92623 -9575 South Coast Air Quality Management District 21865 E. Copley Dr. Diamond Bar. CA 91765 Californ ia Department of Fish and Game South Coast Region 4949 Viewridge Avenue San Diego. CA 92123 Southern Califomia Edison U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Carlsbad Office U-S. Fish and Wildlife Service Mike Bohen Hidden Valley Road Carlsbad Office 7333 Boise Avenue 6010 Carlsbad. en alley 6010 Hidden Valley Road Westminster CA 92583 Carlsbad, CA 92009 2. 3. H CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM Project Title: St. Mark Presbyterian Church Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Newport Beach Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 Contact Person and Phone Number: Gregg B. Ramirez, Planning Department (949) 644 -3210 Project Location: Northwest of the intersection of MacArthur Boulevard and San Joaquin Hills Road adjacent to the Big Canyon Country Club. 5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: St. Mark Presbyterian Church 2100 Mar Vista Newport Beach, CA 92660 6. General Plan Designation: 7. Zoning: PC Open Space/Recreation 8. Description of Project: (Describe the whole action involved, including but not limited to later phases of the project, and any secondary, support, or off -site features necessary for its implementation. Attach additional sheets if necessary.) a 10. See attached Initial Study Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: (Briefly describe the project's surroundings.) Current Development: Vacant (Christmas tree sales lot during holiday season) To the north: Big Canyon Country Club and single - family residential To the east: MacArthur Boulevard To the south: MacArthur Boulevard To the west: San Joaquin Hills Road and multi - family residential Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement.) State of California, Regional Water Quality Control Board. No other agencies are known at this time. ENVIRONMENTAL FORM Page 1 SOURCE LIST The following enumerated documents are available at the offices of the City of Newport Beach, Planning Department, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California 92660. 1. Final Program EIR — City of Newport Beach General Plan 2. General Plan, including all its elements, City of Newport Beach. 3. Specific Plan, District #8, Central Balboa. 4. Title 20, Zoning Code of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 5. City Excavation and Grading Code, Newport Beach Municipal Code. 6. Chapter 10.28, Community Noise Ordinance of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 7. South Coast Air Quality Management District, Air Quality Management Plan 1997. 8. South Coast Air Quality Management District, Air Quality Management Plan EIR, 1997. ENVIRONMENTAL FORM Page 2 St. Mark Presbyterian Church Project Initial Study Prepared for: City of Newport Beach Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 949.644.3219 Contact: Gregg B. Ramirez, Associate Planner Prepared by: Michael Brandman Associates 220 Commerce, Suite 200 Irvine, CA 92602 714.508.4100 Contact: Thomas F. Holm, AICP, Project Manager October 27, 2003 St. Alm* Presbylenan Church P�Wect - Initial Study Table of Contents TABLE OF CONTENTS Section1 Introduction ........ ..................................................................... ........................................ 1~1 Ll Purpose --------..`-----`----..—..---...---.-----l-1 1.2 Project Location ........................................................................................................ l-2 13 Site History ---------.-----..---.-----.—..----.---l-2 1'4 Environmental Setting ............................................................................................... l^Z 1.5 Project Description ----^,-----.,--..—'..--..----..---..|^4 1.6 Cumulative Projects ................................................ ............................................... l-23 1.7 Alternatives tothe Proposed Action ........................................................................ l-24 1.8 Environmental Determination ................................................................................. l-25 1.9 Intended Uses nf this Document .............................................................................. l-26 Section 2 Environmental Checklist .......................................................... ~...................................... 2-1 LAesthetics .................................................................................................................. 2-1 D. Agriculture Resources ............................................................................................... 2`l 0U. Air Quality ................................................................................................................. 2'l [V. Biological Resounues.--.---.—..-----.--.---.-----.----.2-2 V. Cultural Resources .................................................................................................... 2'3 YLGeology and Soils ..................................................................................................... 2-3 VU. Hazards and Hazardous Materials ............................................................................. -4 YlU. Hydrology and Water Quality ................................................................................... 2-4 D(. Land Use and Planning —,—..------.---'.----...---,..---'Z-6 X. Mineral Resources ..................................................................................................... 2'6 YI. Noise .---.----..-----..-----.--..—.---...-----..2-6 X%l poou�tio�and Housing .----...----..---.—..----.—,----..2-7 X%l. Public Services .......................................................................................................... 2-? }{IV. Ruurumtioo--...----.--.—.---.—.—.—.----------...—..2^? XV. 7loo --,.----...---.—.—'.—.,----.-----.2-8 X\/. Utilities and Service Systems .................................................................................... 2-8 ){l0L Mandatory Findings of Significance ......................................................................... 2-4 Section 3 Discussion of Environmental Evaluation ........................................................................ 3~1 [ Aesthetics .................................................................................................................. 3-] lL Agricultural Resources .............................................................................................. 3-2 OLAir Quality ................................................................................................................. 3-3 [V. Biological Resources ................................................................................................. 3-4 V. Cultural Ruwouruus----------..---''----^`----^-----^. 3^5 VI. Geology And Soils .................................................................................................... 3-6 VII. Hazards and Hazardous Materials ............................................................................. 3-8 YDL Hydrology and Water Quality ..,----.-----.---------..,,.-3-l0 [&. Land Use and Planning .—.--.--,-----.—..--..-----....--. 3-13 X. Mineral Resources ................................................................................................... 3'l5 XI. Noise ........................................................................................................................ 3-l5 }{l. Population and Housing ..---.—.--..—.--..'--.,----.—..'3^l6 }{lD. Public Services ........................................................................................................ 3-l? XlV. Recreation ................................................................................................................ 3-l8 XV. Truo --.,----..------'--.-----...----.3-l8 XVL Utilities and Service Systems .................................................................................. 3-20 }(l/L Mandatory Findings of Significance ,---.----.--..---------'3-2l Michael Brandnan4snpciates / St. Mark Preshytedan Chur h Project- Initial Study rahle of Contents LIST OF TABLES Table 1.5 -1: Lot Summary ... ............................... Table 1.5 -2: Development Summary ................... Table 1.5 -3: Building Heights ............................. LIST OF EXHIBITS Exhibit 1: Regional Location Map .......................... Exhibit 2: Local Vicinity Map ... ............................... Exhibit 3: Existing Conditions .. ............................... Exhibit 4: Site Master Plan ........ ............................... Exhibit 5: Aerial Composite Site Plan ...................... Exhibit 6: Landscape Architectural Site Plan........... Exhibit 7: Preliminary Drainage Plan ....................... 1 -10 1 -17 1 -17 I Michael arantlman Associates 11 H:\ C7im t(PN- AJ)N06410064002)100640021 Fimj IS(10- 27- 03).do i 1 11 I I I a 11 St Mark Presbyterian Church Project — Initial Study Introduction SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 PURPOSE The purpose of this Initial Study (IS) is to identify the potential environmental impacts associated with the proposed St. Mark Presbyterian Church project, located northwest of the intersection of MacArthur Boulevard and San Joaquin Hills Road in the City of Newport Beach (City). This IS has been prepared in conformance with the State CEQA Guidelines (Guidelines) that implement the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the City's Implementation Procedures for CEQA. Pursuant to Section 15367 of the Guidelines, the City is the lead agency in the preparation of a project -level Environmental Impact Report (EIR). Therefore, the City has primary responsibility for approval or denial of the proposed project. Because the City has determined that an EIR is required for this project, this IS was organized in a manner that: • Identifies potentially significant impacts that require analysis in the forthcoming project -level EIR; • Identifies environmental factors that are less than significant and therefore will only be described briefly in the EIR; and • Provides sufficient information to public agencies and other interested parties in formulation of a meaningful written response to the Notice of Preparation in accordance with Section I5082(b) of the Guidelines. This document is organized into the following sections: Section 1 — Introduction. Describes the project location and its environmental setting, a list of project design features, a detailed project description, a list ofproject objectives, identification of alternatives proposed for evaluation in the EIR, and intended uses of the EIR. Section 2 — Environmental Checklist. Provides an environmental checklist that identifies the level of impact associated with each environmental issue. Section 3 — Discussion of Environmental Evaluation. Provides a narrative discussion of each environmental issue contained in the environmental checklist. Michael Brandman Associates H: \Client(PN -JN) \0064 \00640021 \00640021 Final IS(10- 27- 03).doc z x m W VO z 0 z U 0 O x ct K CC � U x O z a w m ofw w a Y K Q H N 0 0 e N H W W z Z_ w J Q U N 0 0 0 N U U T 8 ' C Y (� N v N NV O V J 1-1 O HimoN " oN 9 m �� i °o M 'n s~ O t X W O U Ln W y 0 o Z W m C_ d U) W NlilON A c` c 4 0 C N W m 0 N T 0 0 0 0 11� *yO�AY •,•w+w�o�w O ' 0l �anaib v ti...■ wd71 SNUSM � � V VIA 1 \ 1 T� � I I I I 1 I ,� 4 •` �� Tie ' , 1 I I I I i 1 � I 8 I I I I� I IN •bl I � • la II b'� T l I I Y T TA 1 1 1 9 I IF I '1 777 I ■ I I T . Till 1 1 T• Tj•" 8 INN' T" y j M 'n s~ O t X W O U Ln W y 0 o Z W m C_ d U) W NlilON A c` c 4 0 C N W m 0 N T 0 0 0 0 I St. Mark Presbyterian Church Project- initial Study Introduction The canyon feature is currently used for stormwater discharge emanating from portions of MacArthur Boulevard and San Joaquin Hills Road, and properties located east of MacArthur Boulevard. This canyon feature contains ephemeral drainage features. Plant materials existing on the site include both non - native and native species. The following non- native species occur in dense form along the northern property line: Myoporum, Acacia, Eucalyptus, and Aleppo Pines. Mature Eucalyptus street trees exist along the San Joaquin Hills Road frontage. The canyon feature includesthe following native species: California Sage Brush, Mexican Elderberry, California Sycamore, and Black Sage. The site is bordered on the east and south by MacArthur Boulevard, a six -lane divided major arterial roadway; on the west by San Joaquin Hills Road, a six -lane major arterial roadway and an apartment complex; on the north by the Big Canyon Country Club, including a golf course and single - family residences; and on the northeast by an undeveloped parcel. ' Land uses in the general vicinity (approximately one mile) of the site are a mixture of primarily residential and secondarily regional shopping and recreational. The non - residential land uses in the vicinity of the project site are the Big Canyon Country Club, Newport Beach Country Club, Fashion Island/Newport Center, Roger's Gardens, Pacific View Memorial Park, Coastline Community College, Big Canyon Reservoir, Harbor View Nature Park, City Police and Fire stations, a park-and- ride facility, and Harbor View neighborhood shopping center. 1 1.5 PROJECT DESCRIPTION This IS evaluates the development of the proposed St. Mark Presbyterian Church project on a vacant 10.81 -acre site northwest of the intersection of MacArthur Boulevard and San Joaquin Hills Road in the City. tinto As discussed previously in Section 1.4 — Environmental Setting, the site may be roughly segmented three sub - areas: two gently sloping pads and a canyon feature. The proposed project uses these sub -areas as the basis for the site plan. First, a significant portion of the canyon feature is retained as open space and incorporated into the overall design of the church campus (see Exhibit 6). Second, the two gently sloping pads that bracket this canyon feature are the locations of the proposed improvements known as the South Campus and the North Campus. The South Campus occupies the Campus pad southwest of the canyon feature and the North occupies the pad northeast of the canyon feature. A drive aisle and pedestrian sidewalk link the South and North Campuses. Michael Brandman Associates 1 -9 H:l Cien t(PN- RN)10064M64002119D640091 Final JS ()0- 27- 03).&o St Mark Presbyterian Church project- Initial Study Introduction The remainder of this section provides details on individual components of the proposed project. 1.5.1 Development The development component of the project consists of the following: church sanctuary, fellowship hall, administration building and counseling center, preschool buildings, expansion building, nature center plaza, and related site improvements such as parking lots, driveways, site lighting, grading, landscaping, utility connections, etc. (see Exhibits 4, 5 and 6). The project proposes two development phases. The following tables summarize land! use, development and phasing information. Table 1.5 -1: Lot Summary 470,821 SF Church Campus (South & 321,629 Buildings: 10.5% (10.81 Ac.) North Campuses) (7.38 Ac.) Landscaping/Open Space: 53.0% Paving: 36.5% Parcel I -Open 72,717 Space/Recreational (1.67 Ac.) NA- (Deeded to Big Canyon Country Club) Easements for Roadways 76,475 NA- (Deeded to City) (1.76 Ac.) Total 470,821 100% (10.81 Ac.) Michael Brandman Associates 1.10 H: \Client(PN -JN) \0064 \00640021 \00640021 Final IS (10- 27-03)A,n j ►,�,n►r� rma3,,,es3aa s-1 t��= - - - - - - � �: ,SG•� Al" Is - ._- - 311S a Z OQ 3 K O 4 F_Z V W a a C yU t QI Z x m LL1 N O w CC$ z O x U Z Q K W f } Q] V) W K a Y K Q f to a +i � w c a a CL C � y N f N E E H1210 E m T � O Allm A it w m m r® err r m m r w r m m m w w m f 11 V I d i .a JdVl`. t2 i , i E-1''• � �1 8 � � i� � i � �� i �y �I - ' � � �•� ,G._ _'�"� �: t �= �' , ��e III � I ICI I d >C, a„ �119L II i, I , I Yz� r ' ... _ °�+�"+ .•..:`p w� �a � III' I I w ?� 1$ iO1. 1 J _J " G 1 n 1 i1 i1 I i1 I �7 I U WI J z o CL I I i iI U WI , z o z Z C CL m rn w � G o U d 0 E O ) O 1 m Z < o F � HIHON E m O� c o ire N on 0 O m m= m m r m m =` m r w m r m= m m U w a.w z o z Z O � C) O = O UZ z Q w w Ct ~ •� m N w CLa C CL m rn w � G o U d 0 E O ) O 1 m Z < o F � HIHON E m O� c o ire N on 0 O m m= m m r m m =` m r w m r m= m m G ob»JD\ )2\a =.... ! l' - - g.j3aa !� �( ■ § « ( f 3 LU 2 § m § 2 \ � § ) d f ) k � 2 � }HINON \\ ! ems«§ m" w ft ft m*a m w m" m m m w" m m m St. Mark Presbyterian Church Project— Initial Study Introduction Table 1.5-2: Development Summary Development Height Above Finish 'HeighCAbbve... !kyn§,,qMde DevelopmenE art FlborEl (IFFIE) bevati North South East West Church Sanctuary Roof 461 —NA— 38' 38' 40' Church Sanctuary 10,573 One Fellowship Hall Fellowship Hall 7,413 One Tower Administration Building 4,666 One 28' (upper level FFE) — NA — 31' (to chimney) Preschool Buildings (5) 15, Fireside Classroom 974 Two —NA— Nature Center Plaza Preschool Classroom Buildings (4) 5,200 Excludes additional 5' height flexibility option. Bldg. I (Classrooms 1-2) 1,300 One Bldg. 2 (Classrooms 3-4) 1,300 One Bldg. 3 (Classrooms 5-6) 1,300 One Bldg. 4 (Classrooms 7-8) 1,300 Two Preschool Office Building 832 One Expansion Building 5,183 Two Nature Center Plaza - NA - One Total 33,867 Table 1.5-3: Building Heights Michael Brandman Associates 1-17 HAClicna (PN-JN)10064100640021 \0064002 1 Final IS (10-27-03).doc Height Above Finish 'HeighCAbbve... !kyn§,,qMde DevelopmenE art FlborEl (IFFIE) bevati North South East West Church Sanctuary Roof 461 —NA— 38' 38' 40' Tower 54'* —NA— 46'* 46'* 48'* Fellowship Hall — NA — Roof 22' 6" Tower 28' Administration Building 28' (upper level FFE) — NA — 31' (to chimney) Preschool Buildings (5) 15, —NA— Expansion Building 22' —NA— Nature Center Plaza —NA — NA — Excludes additional 5' height flexibility option. Michael Brandman Associates 1-17 HAClicna (PN-JN)10064100640021 \0064002 1 Final IS (10-27-03).doc St. Mark Presbyterian Church Project- Initial Study Introduction Access Primary vehicular access to the site will be provided from San Joaquin Hills Road and a secondary access point is being considered from MacArthur Boulevard. The access point from San Joaquin Hills Road is proposed in the same location of the existing access point to the site. The primary access from San Joaquin Hills Road, located at the northwest corner of the site, will be limited to right turn -in and right turn -out movements only. This access point is located the maximum possible distance from MacArthur Boulevard. A deceleration lane will be constructed in order to facilitate right turn -in movements into the site. This access point is not proposed for signalization. In addition, this access point provides emergency vehicular access to the site The secondary access point under consideration will also be limited to right turn -in and right turn -out movements and will also have a deceleration/acceleration lane to facilitate turning movements into and out of the project site. This access point is located in order to avoid relocating any of the existing power poles in the 25' SCE easement. This access point is not proposed for signalization and would also provide emergency vehicular access to the site. internal Circulation Internal circulation is provided by a series of drive aisles that interconnect the parking bays and connect the South and North Campuses. A one -way passenger loading station and fire truck access is provided separate from the drive aisle adjacent to the church sanctuary. With the exception of this passenger loading station, all drive aisles are two -way. The drive aisles also serve as an emergency vehicular fire lane. Parking All parking is provided on -site; the project does not propose or require any parking on either MacArthur Boulevard or San Joaquin Hills Road. A total of 247 uncovered parking stalls in a 90° angle design will be provided. The South Campus will provide 197 parking stalls with 4 of these stalls reserved for handicapped accessible and 2 of these stalls reserved for van accessible. The North Campus will provide 50 parking stalls with 6 of these stalls reserved for handicapped accessible. Of the 50 parking stalls planned for the North Campus, 35 of these stalls may be included in either development phase. Nature Center Plaza A Nature Center Plaza is incorporated into the overall campus plan. This plaza is located adjacent to the Administration Building and overlooks the Nature Preserve and canyon feature. This plaza is improved with picnic tables and a nature display wall. Michael Brandman Associates 1 -18 HiC7 ices (PN- JN)10064100640021100640021 Final IS (10- 27- 03).doc St. Mark Presbyterian Church Project - Initial Study Introduction Stormwater Drainage The impervious areas associated with the proposed development will be graded to convey surface water flow toward landscaped medians and swales that are designed for infiltration and filtration, allowing clarification of surface runoff. Drainage inlets located in the parking areas will collect stormwater through underground lines to one of three on -site stormwater detention ponds. The first pond is located at the passenger loading station, the second at the mouth of the canyon feature, and the third at the northeast comer of the site. Drainage inlets within these ponds will be equipped with Best Management Practice (BMP) features designed to intercept pollutants and debris during storm events prior to discharge off -site. Stormwater released from the detention ponds located at the passenger loading station and the mouth of the canyon feature will be discharged into the canyon feature through energy dissipaters. Stormwater released from the detention pond located at the northeast corner of the site will be discharged into the existing stormwater system located in the MacArthur Boulevard roadway (see Exhibit 7). 1.5.2 Project Design Features The proposed project includes specific design features that are referred to as Project Design Features (PDFs). In many cases, environmental considerations are included in a PDF and, as a result, may have the same effect as a mitigation measure in reducing or eliminating potentially significant environmental impacts. For this reason, and to ensure inclusion in the project, the PDFs associated with this project are hereby identified. Following are PDFs associated with this project: PDF I Use of a small -scale multiple- building design that integrates the proposed project with the characteristics of development in the project vicinity PDF 2 Use of large -scale landscape buffers on roadway frontages that minimize visual impacts from adjacent roadways and integrate with the planned open space PDF 3 Retention of a majority of the canyon feature as open space and a nature preserve PDF 4 Inclusion of a nature center plaza in the project in order to create views of the canyon feature from the proposed development and to facilitate understanding of the nature preserve PDF 5 Use of deep earth tones in building colors that complement and blend -in with the natural color tones of the canyon feature PDF 6 Lowering of the building site pads relative to the adjacent roadways in order to minimize visual impacts PDF 7 Segmenting the site into a South Campus and North Campus that will preserve the existing view of the canyon feature from MacArthur Boulevard PDF 8 Inclusion of a passenger loading station in the site plan that will facilitate carpooling Michael Brandman Associates 1 -19 ffiClicnt (PN-IN)WOW00640021=640021.. Final fS(10- 27- 03)doc SOLL"GHOS w IV w VA WMWM'N AV� MI�Vft� Nrld 35VNNN wjvnHo Nvislisimm wasum"MORM; ry AM Is " � Wax 4 o It it II '10 J IF ij It \-j IL e 1, 1 a I -xv x Lu cd al 0 0 .0 HIHON E wmwm V ry m m w on IM' " m "` m w m go m" m Im " St. Mark Presbyterian Church Project- Initial Study Introduction PDF 9 Blending of new plant material with existing plant material at the interface of the canyon feature and the proposed development PDF 10 Use of on -site stormwater detention ponds with Best Management Practice (BMP) features for regulation of off -site discharge PDF 11 Use of landscaped medians and swales designed for infiltration and filtration that allow clarification of surface runoff prior to discharge off -site PDF 12 Use of lighting fixtures in parking areas that contain directional shielding and use of low lighting fixtures in pedestrian walkways that shield light from off -site properties PDF 13 Use of landscape buffers on the rear portion of the site that shield the proposed development from adjacent residential development 1.5.3 Open Space Preserve A portion (1.12 Ac.) the existing canyon feature is being retained as permanent open space and a Nature Preserve. The Nature Center Plaza adjacent to the Administration Building will provide an overlook to this area. 1.5.4 Land for Dedication Portions of the 10.81 -acre site are intended for permanent dedication. Existing improved street easements totaling 1.76 acres will be dedicated to the City. A separate parcel totaling 1.67 acres will be dedicated to the Big Canyon Country Club. 1.5.5 Discretionary Approvals The project proposes the following discretionary approvals: • General Plan Amendment • Big Canyon Planned Community Text Amendment • Tentative Parcel Map • Conditional Use Permit • Traffic Phasing Ordinance 1.6 CUMULATIVE PROJECTS A discussion of the cumulative, significant irreversible, and growth- inducing consequences of a project that adversely affect the environment is required by the CEQA Guidelines on the adoption, amendment, or enactment of public plans, ordinances, or policies. According to the Guidelines, Michael Brandman Associates HAClient(FN -K \0064 \00640021100640021 Final IS(10- 27- 03).doc St Mark Presbyterian Church Pmject - Initial Study Introduction attention must be given to impacts that limit the number of beneficial uses of the environment or pose long -term risks to health or safety. The growth inducing effects are also evaluated. An EIR must discuss the "cumulative impacts" of a project when its incremental effect will be cumulatively considerable. This means that the incremental effects of the individual project would be considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects (Guidelines' Section 15065[c]). For purposes of evaluating the potential of the proposed project to have cumulatively considerable incremental effects, the effects of related past, current, and probable future projects will be evaluated in the EIR. It is anticipated that the existing St. Mark Presbyterian Church, located in the Eastbluff area of the City, will ultimately be occupied by a separate potential user upon completion of the proposed project. To the extent this user moves forward with its plans within the time frame of this proposed project, such development plans will be treated as a separate, related project for the purposes of cumulative impact analysis. 1.7 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION The EIR will analyze a range of reasonable alternatives to the proposed project. Each alternative will be described and analyzed to determine if it can reasonably attain the identified objectives of the proposed project. The analysis will focus on whether the alternatives are capable of eliminating or reducing to a level of insignificance any significant adverse environmental impact of the proposed project. A comparison of the alternatives will also be provided in tabular format. The EIR will analyze the following alternatives: • Alternative I —No Project Alternative This mandatory alternative evaluates the potential impacts of not approving the proposed project. • Alternative 2 — Reduced Intensity Alternative A reduced project intensity alternative will be evaluated. • Alternative 3 — Different Site Altemative This alternative evaluates the potential impacts of building the church in a different location. Michael Brandman Associates 1 -24 HACliam(PN -IN) \0064 \00640021 \00640021 Final IS(10 -2] -03 ).duo .1 St. Mark Presbyterian Church Project - Initial Study Introduction 1.8 ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION 1.8.2 Effects Found To Be Potentially Significant Through the preparation of this IS, the City has determined that the proposed project has the potential to result in potentially significant impacts on the environment. The EIR prepared for the proposed project will analyze all impacts associated with the following environmental issues: ' • Air Quality • Land Use and Planting • Biological Resources • Noise * • Hydrology and Water Quality • Transportation/Traffic I I[] !I Michael Brandinan Associates 1.25 II:\ Client (PN -IN) \0064 \00640021 \00640021 Final IS(10- 27- 0J).doc Through the preparation of this IS, the City has determined that the proposed project may have a significant impact on the environment and that a project -level EIR (Guidelines' Section 15 161) will be prepared in compliance with Section 15)20 of the Guidelines. The preliminary scope and content of the EIR have been determined based on the results of the IS and information obtained from application materials submitted to the City by the project proponent. The scope and content will be further evaluated based on input received from public agencies and interested members of the public during the 30 -day Notice of Preparation (NOP) comment period. 1.8.1 Effects Not Found To Be Significant The City has determined that the potentially significant effects to the environment in the following environmental issue categories are less than significant and, therefore, will only be described briefly in the EIR, in accordance with Section 15128 of the Guidelines. These factors are: • Aesthetics • Mineral Resources • Agricultural Resources • Population and Housing • Cultural Resources • Public Services • Geology and Soils • Recreation • Hazards and Hazardous Materials • Utilities /Service Systems 1.8.2 Effects Found To Be Potentially Significant Through the preparation of this IS, the City has determined that the proposed project has the potential to result in potentially significant impacts on the environment. The EIR prepared for the proposed project will analyze all impacts associated with the following environmental issues: ' • Air Quality • Land Use and Planting • Biological Resources • Noise * • Hydrology and Water Quality • Transportation/Traffic I I[] !I Michael Brandinan Associates 1.25 II:\ Client (PN -IN) \0064 \00640021 \00640021 Final IS(10- 27- 0J).doc St Mark Presbyterian Church Project- Initial Study introduction 1.9 INTENDED USES OF THIS DOCUMENT This IS document has been prepared to determine the appropriate scope and level of detail required in completing the environmental analysis for the proposed project. This document will also serve as a basis for soliciting comments and input from public agencies and interested members of the public regarding the proposed project, following the distribution of the NOP of the EIR. The NOP will be circulated for a total of 30 days, during which written comments regarding the forthcoming EIR for the proposed project are invited to be sent to: City of Newport Beach Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 AT N: Gregg Ramirez, Associate Planner Michael Brandman Associates 1 -26 HAClient()?N -IN) \0064 \00640021 \00640021 Final l5 (10- 27- 03).doc i I II I I I I I � I II I I I I I I I 11 I St. Mark Presbyterian Church Project- Initial Study Environmental Checklist SECTION 2 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 5" .4 i,-Th"'I_'��-_ Jmbafet projects. a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic ❑ ❑ ❑ N vista? b) Substantially damage scenic resources, ❑ ❑ ❑ N including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic building within a state scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual ❑ ❑ N ❑ character or quality of the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or ❑ M ❑ ❑ glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? 1L ' Agr'cu"u7 y fu m refer to the Calrfomra hgncultural Land 1 valuation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the a Department land Would a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or ❑ ❑ ❑ N 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ Z use, or a Williamson Act contract? c) Involve other changes in the existing ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? 11L 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 N ❑ El ❑ the applicable air quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute ❑ EJ ❑ substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? Michael Brandman Associates 2-1 11:1Cfient (PN-JN)\0064W064002h0064002I Final IS (10-27-03).doc St. Mark Presbyterian Church Project- Initial Study Environmental Checklist Michael Brandman Associates 2 -2 1CA Client (PN- JN)A0064V00640021A00640021, Final IS (10- 27- 03).doc Potettpalty Less Than" Stgmflcant Less Than No, Etivtronmetrtallssues Sl mficant 10:1 §t nficant. ' "Impact I9tipact Nttiga4on IMpact .`: _ c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net ® ❑ ❑ ❑ increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non- attaimnent 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 ❑ ❑ N ❑ substantial number of people? IV :Biological Resources -_ Would'the.project' a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either ® ❑ ❑ ❑ directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any ® ❑ ❑ ❑ riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, 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 N ❑ ❑ ❑ 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 N ❑ ❑ ❑ 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 N ❑ ❑ ❑ protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? I) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted N ❑ ❑ ❑ Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? Michael Brandman Associates 2 -2 1CA Client (PN- JN)A0064V00640021A00640021, Final IS (10- 27- 03).doc St. Mai* Presbyterian Church Project - Initial Study Environmental Checklist I _ _ _ . Michael Brandman Associates 2-3 1 1:\cNeW WN-MY.0064A0064002 I T0640021 Fmal IS (10 -27 -031 doe W Q'Ith mam- 1�' 7" a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the ❑ M ❑ ❑ significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5? 1 b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the ❑ M ❑ ❑ .significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those ❑ L M ❑ ❑ interred outside of formal cemeteries? V1. Geology and Soils Would the p'r'oj'ec't. 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 ❑ H 11 ❑ 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. H) Strong seismic ground shaking? ❑ z ❑ ❑ iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including ❑ ❑ liquefaction? iv) Landslides? El H El El b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of ❑ ❑ z ❑ topsoil? c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is ❑ ❑ z unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project and potentially result in on- or oft'site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in ❑ M ❑ ❑ fable 18-1-13 of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting ❑ 1 1:1 El the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? . . ........ I _ _ _ . Michael Brandman Associates 2-3 1 1:\cNeW WN-MY.0064A0064002 I T0640021 Fmal IS (10 -27 -031 doe St. Mark Presbyterian Church Project— initial Study Environmental Checklist VIL Hazard's aii 0 HAtard6wimaterials:i Would, 6, ect a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the ❑ OT ❑ M ❑ environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? TO b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the ❑ Z ❑ environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous ❑ ❑ ❑ Z 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ N 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) lior a project located within an airport land use ❑ ❑ N ❑ 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? 1) 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 El interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h) Expose people or structures to a significant ❑ ❑ ❑ Z risk of loss, injury in J � or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? VIII. Hydrology and Water Quality Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste � ❑ ❑ ❑ discharge requireroelntS? Michael Brandman Associates 15(10-27-0)doc 2-4 I .I I I I I I I I � I LJ 11 I U I I St. Mark Presbyterian Church Pmiect — Initial Study Environmental Checklist Michael Bmndman Associates 2-5 H.1 Client(PN-JN)WO64100640021�00640021 Final I5(10-27-03).doc ou " - IgsThan Lets Than '.",,, No act . b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or ❑ ❑ N ❑ 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 the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern ❑ ❑ of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner, which would result in flooding on- or off-site? e) Create or contribute runoff water which would El 0 ❑ ❑ exceed the capacity of existing or planned storalwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? ❑ ❑ ED ❑ g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard ❑ ❑ ❑ 9 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ Z structures, which would impede or redirect flood flows? i) Expose people or structures to a significant ❑ ❑ 2 risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? j) Inundation by sciche, tsunami, or mudflow? k) Result in significant alteration of receiving ❑ 0 0 ❑ water quality during or following construction? 1) Result in a potential for discharge of ❑ ❑ storinwater pollutants from areas of material storage, vehicle or equipment fueling, vehicle or equipment maintenance (including washing), waste handling, hazardous materials handling or storage, delivery areas, loading docks or other outdoor work areas? Michael Bmndman Associates 2-5 H.1 Client(PN-JN)WO64100640021�00640021 Final I5(10-27-03).doc St Mark Presbyterian Church Project— initial Study Environmental Checklist Michael Brandman Associates 2-6 H \Clicnz (PN-JN)\006410064002BO0640021 Final I S (10- 27.03). doe I '—T p 1rtiPaat. m)Result in the potential for discharge of stormwater to affect the beneficial uses of the receiving waters? n) Create the potential for significant changes in the flow velocity or volume of stormwater runoff to cause environmental harm? o) Create significant increases in erosion of the ❑ ❑ M ❑ project site or surrounding areas? IX r Would'flie project a) Physically divide an established community? ❑ ❑ E] E' Z b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, El ❑ ❑ 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 ME11] for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat ❑ 0 conservation plan or natural communities conservation plan? X..:, Mineral Resources:. Would the project, a) Result in the loss of availability of a known ❑ ❑ ❑ Z 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- ❑ ❑ ❑ Z important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? X1. 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 ground home vibration or ground home noise levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient ❑ El ❑ noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project'? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in El ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing Without the project? Michael Brandman Associates 2-6 H \Clicnz (PN-JN)\006410064002BO0640021 Final I S (10- 27.03). doe I f� St. Mark Presbyterian Church Project - Initial Study _ Environmental Checklist 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 ❑ 0 11 or public use airport, would the project expose ❑ ❑ ❑ people residing or working in the project area ❑ ❑ ❑ to excessive noise levels? XIV. Recreation 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? Y.0 .opulatiol and Housing; , Would the project a) Induce substantial population growth in an ❑ b) Does the project include recreational facilities ❑ ❑ area, either directly (e.g., by proposing new or require the construction or expansion of homes and businesses) or indirectly (e.g., recreational facilities, which might have an through extension of roads or other adverse physical effect on the environment'? 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? XM. Public Services Would the,proiect resdit in substantial adverse,phystcal rmpacts associated: wtth,the provision of new or a) Fire Protection? ❑ ❑ ❑ b) Police Protection? ❑ ❑ ❑ c) Schools? ❑ 0 11 d) Parks? ❑ ❑ ❑ e) Other public facilities? — _..._._.. _..- .......__...�... ❑ ❑ ❑ .---- - .....- --- XIV. Recreation a) Would the project increase the use of existing ❑ ❑ ❑ neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Does the project include recreational facilities ❑ ❑ or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment'? Michael Brandman Associates H \Clicnt (PN- IN)10064100640021100640021 Final is (10- 27- 03).doc 2 -7 St. Mark Presbyterian Church PmJect- Initial Study Environmental Checklist Michael Brandman Associates 2 "8 11 ' CIient(PN-M)\ 0064\ 00640021 \00640021 Itina115 (10- 27- 03).doc T"Pt tl , XV TransportatioaJTraffit ` 4 Would.the project. a) Cause an increase in traffic, which is ® ❑ ❑ ❑ substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a ® ❑ ❑ ❑ level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, ❑ ❑ ❑ including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design ® ❑ ❑ ❑ feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? ❑ ❑ ❑ f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? ❑ ❑ ❑ g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or ❑ ❑ ❑ programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? XVL U6hhes and Service Systems Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of ❑ ❑ ® ❑ the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new ❑ ❑ ❑ water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c) Require or result in the construction of new ❑ ❑ ® ❑ storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d) have sufficient water supplies available to ❑ ❑ ❑ serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? Michael Brandman Associates 2 "8 11 ' CIient(PN-M)\ 0064\ 00640021 \00640021 Itina115 (10- 27- 03).doc If II If I I I I 1 I I U St. Mark Presbyterian Church Project — Initial Study Environmental Checklist e) Result in a determination by the wastewater ❑ ❑ ❑ El treatment provider, which serves or may serve the quality of the environment, substantially the project that it has adequate capacity to reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, serve the project's projected demand in cause a fish or wildlife population to drop addition to the provider's existing below self - sustaining levels, threaten to commitments? eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient El ❑ ❑ permitted capacity to accommodate the endangered plant or animal, or eliminate project's solid waste disposal needs? important examples of the major periods of g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes ❑ ❑ ❑ and regulations related to solid waste? b) Does the project have impacts that are h) Would the project include a new or retrofitted individually limited, but cumulatively stotmwater treatment control Best considerable? ( "Cumulatively considerable" Management Practice (BMP), (e.g., water means that the incremental effects of a project quality treatment basin, constructed treatment are considerable when viewed in connection wetland), the operation of which could result with the effects of past projects, the effects of in significant environmental effects (e.g., other current projects, and the effects of increased vectors and odors)? probable future projects.) XVII: Mandatory Ftadtugs of Significance a) Does the project have the potential to degrade ® El El El the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self - sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ( "Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) c) Does the project have environmental effects, El El ® El which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Michael Brandman Associates 2 -9 H.\Cliem(PN -IN) \0064 \00640021\00640021 Fmi 15(1047- 03).doc St. Mark Preshvierian Church Proiect— Initial Studv Environmental Checklist The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by the project, involving at least one impact that is a "potentially significant impact' as indicated by the preceding checklist and supported by evidence provided in Section 3. ❑ 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 Michael (3randman Associates 2 -10 HA Client (PN- IMF0064100640021100640021 Final IS(10- 27- 03).doc ❑ 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 I) 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. Date Signed C- ,r,- eiT�. �ctiti:t viz._ JO O—�:> Michael Brandman Associates 2 -11 H1 Client (PN -.IN)\ 0064 \00640021\0066.40021 Final IS(10- 27- 03).d,c St. Mark Presbyterian Church Project- Initial Study Environmental Checklist 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 I) 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. Date Signed C- ,r,- eiT�. �ctiti:t viz._ JO O—�:> Michael Brandman Associates 2 -11 H1 Client (PN -.IN)\ 0064 \00640021\0066.40021 Final IS(10- 27- 03).d,c I St. Mark Presbytedan Church Project— Initial Study Discussion ofEnvironmentai Evaluation ' SECTION 3 DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION I. AESTHETICS ' a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? h) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? No Impact (a, b). There are no designated scenic vistas or designated state scenic ' highways within or near the project site. Therefore, project implementation would have no impact on a scenic vista or highway and would not result in damage to scenic resources. c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? Less Than Significant Impact. The site is a barren, vacant in -fill parcel with low visual quality relative to surrounding development and absent any on -site improvements. The open space character of the site is attributable more to its lack of I on -site improvements than any intended use. The proposed project includes PDFs that make it compatible with surrounding development, enhance views from adjacent roadways onto the site, and retain the open space character of the site through the preservation of a majority of the canyon feature. In addition, the project represents a high - quality church design with retention of open space and preservation of existing ' view corridors through the site. The extensive use of landscaping in combination with lowering of the building pad minimizes visual impacts and preserves the open space character of the site. Therefore, implementation of the project would result in less than significant Impacts. d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? ' Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation. Exterior safety lighting will be confined to the interior of the site. Exterior parking lot lighting will be shielded from 1 surrounding properties. Pedestrian walkway lighting will also be shielded from surrounding properties. Therefore, implementation of the project would result in less than significant impacts with the incorporation of the following Project Design ' Features: Michael Brandman Associates 3-1 ' HXI,ie t(PN -]N) \0064 \00640021 \00640027 Pina115([0- 27 -03). dm St. Mark Presbyterian Church Project— Initial Study Discussion of Environmental Evaluation , PDF 2 Use of large -scale landscape buffers on roadway frontages that minimize visual impacts from adjacent roadways and integrate with the planned open space PDF 12 Use of lighting fixtures in parking areas that contain directional shielding and use of low lighting fixtures in pedestrian walkways that shield light from off -site properties PDF 13 Use of landscape buffers on the rear portion of the site that shield the proposed development from adjacent residential development In addition, the following mitigation measures are recommended: Al Exterior on -site lighting shall be shielded and confined within site boundaries. No direct rays or glare are permitted to shine onto public streets or adjacent sites or create a public nuisance. "Walpak" type fixtures are not permitted. All exterior lighting fixtures shall have zero cut -off fixtures and light standards for the parking lot shall not exceed 20 feet in height. Light standards for exterior walkways shall not exceed 10 feet in height. Other exterior light sources shall be no higher than 4 feet. A2 The applicant shall prepare a photometric study in conjunction with a final lighting plan for approval by the Planning Director prior to the issuance of a building permit. The building and grounds shall not be excessively illuminated based on the luminance recommendations of the Illuminating Engineering Society of North America, or, based on the opinion of the Planning Director, the illumination creates an unacceptable negative impact on surrounding land uses or environmental resources. The Planning Director may order the dimming of light sources or other remediation upon finding that the site is excessively illuminated. II. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES 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 Impact (a -c). The project site is vacant and is only used on an interim basis as a Christmas tree sales lot during; the holiday season. Because the site does not contain any agricultural resources and is not zoned for agricultural use, the project would not convert Farmland to non - agricultural uses and would not conflict with zoning for agricultural use. Additionally, the proposed project would not conflict with a Williamson Act contract. Therefore, no impacts would result from project implementation. Michael Brandman Associates 3-2 Ht \Chcn((PN- JN)\0064\00640021 \00640021 Final IS(10- 27- 03).doc I 1 1 I I I I I I I I St. Mark Presbyterian Church Project- Initial Study Discussion of Environmental Evaluation III. AIR QUALITY 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)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Potentially Significant Impact (a -d). The project reflects the relocation of the existing church facility from its existing site in the Eastbluff area of the City to the proposed site. In this respect, the operations of the church facilities do not represent a significant new source of air emissions, and consistency /conformity with AQMP and regional plans are not an issue. However, the project will generate mobile source and heavy equipment emissions during construction at the proposed site. Short -term effects include blowing dust and emissions from equipment, worker commutes and haul trucks. VOCs will be produced from site paving and architectural coatings. Emissions will be produced from facility operations, office employees, churchgoers, and mobile sources. Air quality impacts will be evaluated based on criteria of the CEQA Air Quality Handbook and federal and state Ambient Air Quality Standards. Construction emissions will be estimated using the URBEMIS7G air quality model and factors in AP -42 emissions standards compiled by SCAQMD. Operational emissions include those generated on- and off -site. Using details in both the project description and Traffic Impact Analysis study, the air quality assessment will calculate emissions for all criteria pollutants in project operations, including mobile sources and on- and off -site emissions from space and water heating sources and electrical generation for on -site use. The Traffic Impact Analysis study is a stand -alone technical report being prepared to analyze potential impacts of the project on the transportation and circulation system. If warranted based on traffic study volumes, a CO microscale hot -spot analysis for intersections would be performed. Following application of SCAQMD rules governing construction emissions, mitigation measures would be identified for any remaining significant effect. The cumulative analysis will include ongoing and proposed projects occurring within the same time frame as the proposed project. This air quality study will be summarized in the EIR and provided in its entirety as an appendix to the EIR. t Michael Drandman Associates 3 -3 H: \Cliew(PN -IN) \0064 \00640021 \00640021 Final IS(10- 27 -03).doc St. Mark IV Church Protect- Initial Discussion of Environmental Evaluation e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? Less Than Significant Impact. During construction of the proposed project, some odors would be emitted from construction equipment. These odors are not expected to be significant and will be concentrated on the project site. Substantial odors are not expected to travel from the site to surrounding areas. Odors from construction emissions would, therefore, not result in odor impacts on surrounding land uses. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 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 of `eet on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse efjrect 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 tha_ movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any local applicable policies protecting biological resources? fi Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other applicable habitat conservation plan? Potentially Significant Impact (a -f). The project site is within the Orange County Community Conservation Planning/Habitat Conservation Plan Program (NCCPIHCP) and specifically within the Central - Coastal sub -area. This program identifies the site as a Non - Reserve Parcel as opposed to a Special Linkage Parcel or Reserve Parcel. As a result, off -site mitigation measures for this property have previously been completed by the property owner. The mitigation established preserve areas that set -aside land that is more capable of supporting sensitive plants and animals than small, urban in -fill parcels like the project site. In addition, a biological assessment will be conducted for the proposed project consisting of a literature review, special status species listing update, aerial photo review and site reconnaissance. Habitat areas, vegetative communities and any jurisdictional areas will be mapped, with an assessment of their significance and sensitivities. The project will be required to comply with construction - related minimization measures 1 I I P I L_ I I Michael Brandman Associates 3-4 ' FIXIient (PN -JN) \0064 \00640021 \00640021, Final Is (10- 27- 03).doc I 1 1 1 i I I 1 1 I St. Mark Presbyterian Church Project- Initial Study Discussion of Environmental Evaluation pursuant to the NCCP/HCP. Mitigation measures will be formulated consistent with the expectations of the responsible agencies. This biological study will be summarized in the EIR and provided in its entirety as an appendix to the EIR. V. CULTURAL RESOURCES a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation (a -d). A cultural resource records search was completed for the project site in August 2003 by MBA staff. The results of this survey indicated that no prior cultural survey has ever taken place on the property and therefore there are no previously recorded cultural sites on the property. Subsequently, a field survey of the site was conducted on September 24, 2003 by MBA staff. No archaeological resources were observed on -site during the field survey. However, due to previous occupancy during periods of history and pre- history, there is a possibility buried cultural resources that exist on the site are covered by fill or vegetation, and that project construction could impact such resources. If undisturbed topsoil is encountered during construction, cultural resource monitoring should take place on a part-time basis. Therefore, the following mitigation measures are recommended:. C1 Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall provide written evidence to the Planning Director that a qualified archaeologist has been retained to observe grading activities and conduct salvage excavation of archaeological resources as necessary. The archeologist shall be present at the pre - grading conference, shall, establish procedures for archaeological resource surveillance, and shall establish, in cooperation with the applicant, procedures for temporarily halting or redirecting work to permit the sampling, identification and evaluation of the artifacts as appropriate. If additional or unexpected archaeological features are discovered, the archaeologist shall report such findings to the applicant and to the Planning Department. If the archeological resources are found to be significant, the archaeological observer shall determine appropriate actions, in cooperation with the applicant, 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 Planning Director. t Michael Bmndman Associates 3 -5 H: \Client(PN -1N) \0064 \00640021 \00640021 Final IS(10- 27- 03).doc St Mark Presbyterian Church Project- Initial Study Discussion of Environmental Evaluation The site survey did not observe any palentological resources on -site. However, the Pleistocene marine terrace deposits and the Miocene - Pliocene surface exposures associated with the Monterey :Formation are considered palentologically sensitive rock units. Examination of rock and soil units during the field survey showed that there are no exposed bedrock outcrops, but that it is very likely that bedrock from one or both units could be impacted during construction. Therefore, the following mitigation measures are recommended: C2 Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall provide written evidence to the Planning Department that a qualified paleontologist has been retained to observe grading activities and salvage fossils as necessary. The pideontologist shall be present at the pre - grading conference, shall establish procedures for paleontological resource surveillance, and shall establish, in cooperation with the applicant, procedures for temporarily halting or redirecting work to permit the sampling, identification and evaluation of the fossils, If major paleontological resources are discovered which require long term baiting or redirecting of grading, the paleontologist shall report such findings to the applicant and to the Planning Department. The paleontologist shall determine appropriate actions, in cooperation with the applicant, which ensure proper exploration and/or salvage. These actions, as well as final mitigation and disposition of the resources, shall be subject to the approval of the Planning Director. Therefore, with the incorporation of these recommended mitigation measures, less than significant impacts would result from project implementation. VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk ' of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent ' Alquist- Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the .State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ' ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? iii) Seismic - related grot,nd failure, including liquefaction? iv) Landslides? , Michael Brandman Associates 3 -6 ' H:ACliem (PN -N) 0064\00640021 \00640021 _Final IS (10- 27 -03).doc 1 St Mark Presbyterian Church Project- Initial Study Discussion of Environmental Evaluation tLess Than Significant Impact with Mitigation (a, i -iv). A Geotechnical Engineering Report has been prepared for the proposed project by the firm of ' Constant & Dickey. The results of this report state that the site is not located within an identified Earthquake Fault Zone. The report further states that a portion of the site is located in Seismic Zone 4 and in the vicinity of the Newport-Inglewood Fault Zone and therefore subject to varying intensities of seismic ground shaking from potential seismic events located elsewhere. Therefore, the following mitigation measures are recommended: GI Project design must comply with the 1997 Uniform Building Code (UBC) seismic design criteria. G2 Structure setback must comply with either the 1997 Uniform Building ' Code (UBC) or the Orange County Grading Manual. The report also concluded that the deep groundwater and consolidated nature of the bedrock at the site precludes liquefaction from occurring on the site. Therefore, with the incorporation of mitigation measures, less than significant impacts would result ' from project implementation. ' b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Less Than Significant Impact. Refer to response (o) in Section VIII, following. C) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable t as a result of the project and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? No Impact. The geotechnical engineering report prepared concluded that the ' existing native slopes and the anticipated constructed slopes are stable. Therefore, no impacts would result from project implementation. 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 with Mitigation. The geotechnical engineering t report concluded that the earth materials have a moderate and variable potential for expansion that could result in post - construction cracking and/or deformation. ' Therefore, the following mitigation measures are recommended: G3 Require any imported soil for general grading have a Expansion Index of ' less than 60. G4 Control site drainage. t Michael Brandman Associates 3-7 HiClient(PN -JN) \0064 \00640021 \00640021 final IS(10- 27- 03).doc St. Mark Presbyterian Church Project- Initial Study Discussion of Environmental Evaluation G5 Design footing embedments to resist the effects of expansive soil. G6 Maintain a proportionately high dead load component on foundations. G7 Over- excavate and. moisture soils condition below foundations, floor slabs and hardscape. G8 Use of articulation and reinforcement of concrete slabs and footings G9 Use of rigid foundation and floor slabs Therefore, with the incorporation of mitigation measures, less than significant impacts would result from project implementation. e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? No Impact. The project does not propose the use of septic tanks or any alternative systems. Therefore, no impacts would result from project implementation. VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? Less Than Significant Impact (a, b). Future on -site uses would stock and use common commercial solvents and cleaners used in building maintenance, and pesticides and fertilizers used in landscaping maintenance. These materials would not be supplied in a substantial quantity that would result in a significant hazard to the public. Therefore, less than significant impacts would result from project implementation. C) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one - quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? No Impact. There are no existing or proposed schools within one - quarter mile of the project site. Michael &andman Associate; IIACIicm (PN )N) \0064 \00640021\ 00640021 Final IS(10- 27- 03).doc St. Mark Presbyterian Church Project- Initial Study Discussion ofEnvimnmentat Evaluation d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Cade Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? No Impact. The site is not listed on any of the hazardous materials lists pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and there is no evidence that the site is contaminated due to previous use or dumping. Information referenced in the City's Environmental Information Form for the proposed project indicated that in May of 2000, soil borings were obtained at the site and subsequently analyzed by the firm of Sierra Analytical. The results of this analysis indicated that no surface or below grade radiation, PCBs, VOCs, heavy metals, fill soil, or landfill debris were encountered. The site is not listed on any of the hazardous materials lists. Therefore, no significant hazard to the public would result from project implementation. 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? Less Than Significant Impact (e, I). The project site is located approximately 3.4 (approximately 18,000 feet) miles south of the John Wayne Airport. The Airport Environs Land Use Plan, prepared by the Orange County Airport Land Use Commission (Commission), indicates that proposed projects located within 20,000 feet of the nearest airport runway that have the potential to interfere with the visual or electronic navigation systems of the airport, threaten the operations of the airport, or decrease its utility may require Commission review. Regarding building height restrictions, the Commission has adopted Part 77 of the Federal Aviation Regulations regarding objects affecting navigable airspace. However, due to the type of proposed use, the incorporation of PDFs in to the project, and the fact that the height of the proposed buildings do not penetrate any of the Part 77 imaginary surfaces, impacts are anticipated to be less than significant. g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation. Construction of the proposed project would not interfere with any local or regional emergency response or evacuation plans because the project would not result in alterations to the area circulation system. Emergency access to the project site will be provided by the ' vehicular access points. The following mitigation measure is recommended: Michael Brandman Associates 3 -9 H: 1C1 ie n[(PN- RN)1006410064002I10U640021 Final 15(10- 27- 03).d. St. Mark VIII. Church Project - ini6ai Study Discussion of Environmental Evaluation ' 131 Construction vehicles shall not block roadways on any roads adjacent to the project site or any of the roads leading to or from the project site. Therefore, with the incorporation of the proposed mitigation measure, less than significant impacts would result from project implementation. 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 Impact. The project site is adjacent to a country club and residential dwellings and additional urban development. No large wildland areas are located within the vicinity of the project site. Therefore, no impacts from wildland fires would result from project implementation. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? Potentially Significant Impact. The proposed project will be subject to federal water quality requirements during grading and construction. The Federal Clean Water Act (Section 402[p)) requires discharges of stormwater associated with industrial and construction aciiivity to be regulated by National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System ( NPDES) permits. NPDES compliance involves understanding the nature and feasibility of Best Management Practices (BMPs) for water quality control. A Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (S)NPPP) emphasizing stormwater BMPs will require approval by the City. In addition, a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) will be prepared and will require approval by the City. A preliminary hydrology and stormwater management study has been prepared for this project. This study will be finalized and the contents summarized in the EIR. Although significant hydrological and water quality impacts are not anticipated, these issues will be addressed in the EIR. 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)? Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project will be served by the City, which has indicated that providing water service for the project site will not have a Michaei Brandman Associates 3 -10 H9Clicnt (PN -IN) \0064100640021 \00640021 _Final IS (10- 27 -03).doc 1 St. Mark Presbyterian Church Project— Initial Study Discussion of Envimnmental Evaluation significant impact on their present or future water supplies. Therefore, the project would not substantially deplete groundwater supplies. The project would result in an ' increase of impermeable surfaces; however, the site is not considered a groundwater recharge basin and would not result in a net deficit in aquifer volume. Therefore, less than significant impacts would result from project implementation. c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site? Potentially Significant Impact (c -d). The preliminary hydrology and stormwater management study will be summarized in the EIR and will address the potential changes in the existing drainage pattern of the site and surrounding area including a quantitative analysis of the increase in runoff and the impacts on existing drainage facilities. e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation. A Preliminary Hydrology and Storm Water Management Report has been prepared for the proposed project by the firm of KFM Engineering, Inc. The proposed project includes on -site stormwater conveyance features that collect and direct stormwater to three on -site stormwater detention ponds that are designed to regulate the off -site discharge of stormwater to approximately the existing discharge levels. In addition, these ponds, along with other PDFs, contain BMPs that intercept pollutants. Incorporation of the following Project Design Features will regulate the planned stormwater run -off to existing levels and control pollution run -off: PDF 10 Use of on -site stormwater detention ponds with Best Management Practices (BMP) features for regulation of off -site discharge PDF 11 Use of landscaped medians and swales designed for infiltration and filtration that allow clarification of surface runoff prior to discharge off - site Michael Brandman Associates 3-11 HdCHem (PN -III \0064\ 00640021 \00640021Fi..I 15(10- 27- 03).d.c St Mark Presbyterian Church Project— Initial Study Discussion of Environmental Evaluation In addition, the following mitigation measures are recommended: Hl Require site construction to occur in stages and stabilized prior to disturbing other areas. 132 Construct temporary diversion dikes and basins to trap sediment from run -off and allow clarification prior to discharge. Therefore, with the inclusion of the Project Design Features and the incorporation of the recommended mitigation measures, less than significant impacts would result from project implementation. i Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? Less Than Significant Impact. Refer to response (m) following in this section. g) Place housing within a 100 -year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or otherjlood hazard delineation map? h) Place within a 100 -year flood hazard area structures, which would impede or redirect flood flows? No Impact (g, h). The proposed project is not located within a 100 -year flood zone according to Federal Emergency Management Agency's Flood Insurance Rate Map No. 06059C0055, Panel 55 of 81. Therefore, no impact would occur as a result of project implementation. 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 Impact. The proposed project is not located near a levee or dam that has the potential to expose people to a significant risk or lie within an area that could be inundated by a seiche, tsunami, or mudflow. Therefore, no impacts would result from project implementation. k) Result in significant alteration of receiving water quality during or following construction? Less Than Significant Impact. Refer to response (m) following in this section_ Michael Brandman Associates H' \Client(PN -JN) \0064\ 00640021 \00640021 Final IS(10- 27- 03),dac 11 St. Mark Presbyterian Church Project- Initial Study Discussion of Environmental Evaluation I) Result in a potential for discharge of stormwater pollutants from areas of material storage, vehicle or equipment fueling, vehicle or equipment maintenance (including washing), waste handling, hazardous materials handling or storage, delivery areas, loading docks or other outdoor work areas? No Impact. The proposed project is a church facility with preschool and a nature preserve. The project does not include material storage areas, vehicle maintenance, hazardous materials handling, or other outdoor work areas. Therefore, no impact would result from project implementation. m) Result in the potential for discharge of stormwater to affect the beneficial uses of the receiving waters? Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed stormwater system contains BMPs designed to prevent the discharge of pollutants off -site. Therefore, less than significant impacts would result from project implementation. n) Create the potential for significant changes in the flow velocity or volume of stormwater runoff to cause environmental harm? Less Than Significant Impact. The three on -site detention ponds are designed to regulate the off -site discharge of stormwater at less than or equal to the current discharge rates. Therefore, less than impacts would result from project implementation. o) Create significant increases in erosion of the project site or surrounding areas? Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project incorporates stormwater collection and conveyance features that prevent erosion on -site. In addition, energy dissipaters are located at the two discharge points in the canyon feature that would prevent erosion. Therefore, less than significant impacts would result from project implementation. IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING a) Physically divide an established community? No Impact. The project site is a vacant in -fill parcel located entirely within the City at the intersection of two major arterial roadways. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not physically divide any of the City's established communities. Michael Brandman Associates H:\ Client( PN -II)\ 0064\ 00640021 \00640021_ Final IS(10- 27- 0.7).doc 3 -13 St. Mark Presbyterian Church Project— Initial Study Discussion of Environmental Evaluation The absolute noise levels experienced in these areas will then be determined, and the resulting land use /noise compatibility discussed in the EIR. Noise levels generated by stationary sources will also be assessed for compatibility with the proposed land uses. Noise levels from stationary sources that potentially impact noise sensitive land uses will be estimated. The City's Noise Ordinance standards will be used to assess impacts. Based upon the cumulative baseline, the cumulative noise impacts in the area including mobile as well as any stationary sources of noise, will be assessed and discussed in the EIR. Mitigation for construction and/or operational impacts will be identified, as necessary. Residual impact, if any, would be compared with the impact criteria to assess adequacy of any proposed mitigation measures. The entire noise study will be summarized in the EIR, and included as an appendix to the EIR. 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? Less Than Significant Impact. The John Wayne Airport is located approximately 3.4 miles north of the project site: Excessive noise from aircraft overflights is not anticipated. Therefore, less than significant impacts would result from project implementation, j7 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 in the vicinity of a private airstrip. Therefore, no impacts would result from project implementation. XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? No Impact. The proposed project does not include any residential dwellings or businesses or propose additional infrastructure. Therefore, implementation of the project would not affect population growth. Michael Brandman Associates 3 -16 HA Client (PN -JN) \0064 \00640021 \00640021 Final 15(10- 27- 03).doc St. Mark Presbyterian Church Project — Initial Study Discussion of Environmental Evaluation 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? No Impact (b, c). The implementation of the proposed project will not result in the removal or displacement of any housing or people. Therefore, no impact on housing or population would result from project implementation. XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES ' Michael Brandman Associates 3 -17 HACliant(PN -JN) \0064\00640021\00640021 Final IS(10- 27- 03),doc 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 services: public a) Fire Protection? No Impact. The buildings will contain sprinklers for fire protection. The existing domestic water supply lines that are located in the San Joaquin Hills Road right-of- way will be the source for these sprinklers. The project proponent has verified with the City Utility Division that adequate supply is currently available for this purpose. ' In addition, a City fire station is located less than one mile northwest of the project site. The project provides access to the buildings and a fire lane will be provided. Therefore, implementation of the project would not require new or altered fire ' protection services. ' b) Police Protection? No Impact. The proposed project is located on an in -fill parcel adjacent to existing urban development and will not require additional police services. In addition, a City police station is located less than one mile northwest of the project site. Therefore, ' no impact would result from project implementation. tc) Schools? d) Parks? ' No Impact (c, d). The project does not propose any housing and therefore would not generate any school -age children or any increased demand for existing parks. ' Therefore, no impacts would result from project implementation. ' Michael Brandman Associates 3 -17 HACliant(PN -JN) \0064\00640021\00640021 Final IS(10- 27- 03),doc St. Mark Presbyterian Church Project— Initial Study Discussion of Environmental Evaluation e) Other publicfacilities? No Impact. The proposed project does not require modification to any other public facilities. Therefore, no impacts would result from project implementation. XIV. RECREATION a) 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? No Impact (a, b). The project does not propose housing that would increase the demand for existing recreational facilities or include or require recreational facilities. Therefore, no impacts would result from project implementation. XV. TRANSPORTATIONITRAFFIC 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? Potentially Significant Impact (a, b). A Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) for the proposed project will be prepared and summarized in the EIR. The'I'IA will contain updated baseline information and an impact analysis based on the proposed development. The TIA will conform to the methods and requirements of the City, and to applicable Congestion :Management Plan requirements. The EIR will present a summary of the existing traffic setting, impacts, and mitigation measures. 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. Refer to Section VII (e), previously. Michael Brandman Associates H:\ Client (PN -JN) \0064 \00640021 \00640021 Final IS(10- 27 -0J).doc St Mark Presbyterian Church Pmiect- MiGat Study Discussion of Environmental Evaluation d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? Potentially Significant Impact. The project proposes a primary access point to the site from San Joaquin Hills Road in the same location as the existing access point. There are no hazards anticipated with this access point. The project is proposing a second access point to the site from MacArthur Boulevard. Due to potential access constraints from the existing SCE poles, high vehicle speeds and the limited sight distance from MacArthur Boulevard at this location, the potential may exist for this access point to substantially increase traffic- related hazards. Both access points will be evaluated in the EIR. e) Result in inadequate emergency access? No Impact. Emergency access to the project site will be provided from San Joaquin Hills Road and, if a second access point is created, from MacArthur Boulevard. The drive aisles will provide emergency vehicular access within the - proposed development. Therefore, no impacts would result from project implementation. fi Result in inadequate parking capacity? No Impact. The proposed project provides on -site parking in excess of that required by City requirements. A total of 128 parking stalls are required for the proposed project. The site plan includes between 212 and 247, depending on the optional 35 parking stalls proposed for the North Campus. Therefore, no impacts would result from project implementation. g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? No Impact. No conflicts with any adopted alternative transportation policies, plans or programs are anticipated. Dedicated van accessible parking stalls are provided in ' addition to a passenger loading station that would promote carpooling. Therefore, no impacts would result from project implementation. II Michael Brandman Associates H'. \Client(PN -.Q) \0064 \00640021 \00640021 Final IS(I0- 27.03).dac J -19 St Mark Presbyterian Church Project - initial Study Discussion of Environmental Evaluation , XVI- UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? , Less Than Significant Impact. Design of the proposed project will meet the wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board ( RWQCB). The proposed church will result in nominal wastewater generation and treatment demands. The project applicant and technical consultants will work closely with the RWQCB and all applicable utility and service entities to abide by system and design requirements. Therefore, less than significant impacts would result from project implementation. 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? No Impact. The proposed project will not require the construction of a new water or wastewater treatment facility. In addition, existing facilities will not require expansion. Existing supply lines are located in the San Joaquin Hills Road right -of- way. Therefore, no impacts would result from project implementation. 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. Stormwater generated on -site will be conveyed to on -site stormwater detention ponds and then discharged off -site into the canyon feature and the existing stormwater collection system located in the MacArthur Boulevard right -of -way. The stormwater collection system is part of the overall project design. The on -site detention ponds will regulate the off -site discharge to match the current stormwater discharge levels from the site. Therefore, less than significant impacts would result from project implementation. d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? No Impact. Adequate domestic water supplies are expected to be available to serve the proposed project. Domestic water supply lines are located in the San Joaquin Hills Road right -of -way. Therefore, no impacts would result from project implementation. Michael Brandman Associates 3 -ZO H'.\CHem (PN4N)\0064\ 00640021 \00640021 -Fina1 15(10- 27- 03).doc ' 1 St. Mark Presbyterian Church Project— Initial Study Discussion of Environmental Evaluation ' e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may serve the project that it has inadequate capacity to serve the project's projected ' demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? No Impact. Adequate wastewater treatment is expected to be available to serve the proposed project. Sewer lines are located in the MacArthur Boulevard right -of -way. Therefore, no impacts would result from project implementation. f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? ' g) Comply with applicable federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? No Impact. Adequate permitted landfill capacity exists at the destination landfill and that State and local laws and regulations pertaining to solid waste and recycling will ' be complied with. Therefore, no impacts would result from project implementation. 1 I 1 h) Would the project include anew or retrofitted stormwater treatment control Best Management Practice (BAP), (e.g., water quality treatment basin, constructed treatment wetland), the operation of which could result insignificant environmental effects (e.g., increased vectors and odors)? Less Than Significant Impact. The project proposes on -site stormwater detention ponds that include BMPs prior to discharging the stormwater off -site. The operation and maintenance of these BMPs is not anticipated to generate any odors or vectors. Therefore, less than significant impacts would result from project implementation. XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self - sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? Potentially Significant Impact. The proposed project would eliminate vacant open space and disturb a portion of the canyon feature. It is not anticipated that the proposed project would degrade the quality of the environment in the vicinity of the site or cause populations to drop below self - sustaining levels, or threaten or eliminate an entire plant or animal community or reduce their number of restrict their range, or eliminate examples of history or prehistory. ' Michael Brandman Associates 3 -21 H: \Client(PN -JN) \0064100640021 \00640021 Ftnai IS(10- 27- 03),doc St. Mark Presbyterian Church Project- Initial Study Discussion of Environmental Evaluation b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ( "Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current prcjects, and the effects of probable future projects)? Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is located in a highly developed urban environment and is considered an in -fill parcel. Impacts are expected to be less than significant. c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project is a church facility that does not contain any features that would directly or indirectly expose human beings to adverse effects. Michael Bran6man Associates 3 -22 ' HACli cat(PN- JM \W:04 \00640021 \00640021 Final IS(10- 27- 01).doc St. Mark Presbyterian Church Project- Initial Study References SECTION 4 REFERENCES Constant & Dickey, Inc., 2002. Geotechnical Engineering Report for St. Mark Presbyterian Church. Anaheim, California. 30pp County of Orange, Airport Land Use Commission, 1995. Airport Environs Land Use Plan. Costa Mesa, California. 26pp KFM Engineering, Inc., 2003. Preliminary Hydrology and Storm Water Management Study for St. Mark Presbyterian Church. Foothill Ranch, California. 12pp Thomas Bros. Map Company, 2001. The Thomas Guide for Orange County: 889 Newport Beach, City of, 2003. St. Mark Presbyterian Church Project Review Application. Newport Beach, California. ] Opp Newport Beach, City of, 2003. St. Mark Presbyterian Church Environmental Information Form. Newport Beach, California. 1 ]pp Newport Beach, City of, 1999. City Council Policy Manual, Policy K -3. Implementation Procedures for the California Environmental Quality Act. United States Department of the Interior, Geological Survey. Laguna Beach 7.5' topographic map, 1965, photorevised 1981 Michael Brandman Associates 4-1 H:Whl nt(PN -JIB\ 0064\ 00640021 \00640021_ ml IS(10 -27- 03),&0 E.`, o� _,w of STATE OF CALIFORNIA .. s, Governor's Office of Planning and Research >� o.. State Clearinghouse Gray Davis RECEIVED BY Tat Finney Governor �N� pEpAgTME ate mD Director FLANK -7 ^= U, ,1TY CF Notice of Preparation 5 ZVV3 PM October 28, 2003 To: Reviewing Agencies - Re: St. Mark Presbyterian Church SCH# 2003101137 Attached for your review and comment is the Notice of Preparation (NOP) for the St. Mark Presbyterian Church draft Environmental Impact Report (FIR). Responsible agencies must transmit their comments on the scope and content of the NOP, focusing on specific information related to their own statutory responsibility, within 30 days of receipt of the NOP from the Lead Agency. This is a courtesy notice provided by the State Clearinghouse with a reminder for you to comment in a timely manner. We encourage other agencies to also respond to this notice and express their concerns early in the environmental review process. Please direct your comments to: Gregg Ramirez City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92659 with a copy to the State Clearinghouse in the Office of Planning and Research. Please refer to the SCH number noted above in all correspondence concerning this project. If you have any questions about the environmental document review process, please call the State Clearinghouse at (916) 445 -0613. Sincerely, ° Rugan Project Analyst, State Clearinghouse Attachments cc: Lead Agency 1400 TENTH STREET P.O. BOX 3044 SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 95812 -3044 (916)445 -0613 FAX(916)323 -3018 www.oprxa.gov 26 I 1 Document Details Report State Clearinghouse Data Base SCH# 2003101137 Project Title St. Mark Presbyterian Church Lead Agency Newport Beach, City of Project Location County Orange City Newport Beach Region Cross Streets MacArthur Blvd. Parcel No. 442- 032 -62 Township 65 Range 9W Section 93 Base SBBM Proximity to: Highways SRI Airports Railways Waterways Newport Bay Schools Land Use Vacant, P -C Project issues Air Quality; Flood Plain /Flooding; Noise; Traffic /Circulation; Vegetation; Water Quality; Lan du se; Cumulative Effects ' Reviewing Resources Agency; California Coastal Commission; Department of Parks and Recreation; Department Agencies of Water Resources; Department of Fish and Game, Region 5; Office of Emergency Services; Native American Heritage Commission; Caltrans, Division of Aeronautics, California Highway Patrol; Caltrans, District 12; Department of Toxic Substances Control; Regional Water Quality Control Board, Region 8 Date Received 10128/2003 Start of Review 10/28/2003 End of Review 11/26/2003 . -,- ,.."f., sWHi .e" „n f"_ L ffi,iont informatinn nrnvided by lead aQencv. Type NOP Notice of Preparation ' Description A church facility, including a pre - school, consisting of 9 buildings totaling approximately 34,000 sq ft and preservation of a natural canyon feature on the site. Lead Agency Contact Name Gregg Ramirez Agency City of Newport Beach Phone 949 - 644 -3219 Fax ' email Address 3300 Newport Boulevard City Newport Beach State CA Zip 92659 Project Location County Orange City Newport Beach Region Cross Streets MacArthur Blvd. Parcel No. 442- 032 -62 Township 65 Range 9W Section 93 Base SBBM Proximity to: Highways SRI Airports Railways Waterways Newport Bay Schools Land Use Vacant, P -C Project issues Air Quality; Flood Plain /Flooding; Noise; Traffic /Circulation; Vegetation; Water Quality; Lan du se; Cumulative Effects ' Reviewing Resources Agency; California Coastal Commission; Department of Parks and Recreation; Department Agencies of Water Resources; Department of Fish and Game, Region 5; Office of Emergency Services; Native American Heritage Commission; Caltrans, Division of Aeronautics, California Highway Patrol; Caltrans, District 12; Department of Toxic Substances Control; Regional Water Quality Control Board, Region 8 Date Received 10128/2003 Start of Review 10/28/2003 End of Review 11/26/2003 . -,- ,.."f., sWHi .e" „n f"_ L ffi,iont informatinn nrnvided by lead aQencv. ❑ ❑ ❑s 00c)- (j m Li ❑ ❑ ❑ D m 0 DOg mp10 ❑ w M =.O ❑ 2. G) m =9 00 3 o w^ 0 - 370 2 N K51 °'. 3 031.40 o 30 oo 31 L)0 (OR N O m^ w T T ° T 3 awl 5 a a S p R. R. y R. 3�� w X30 �To m 0 o a nOi d omo =�. m m 3 M1 y rny^• 3 m m N N � O a O O. ti Sc = 3 y T W y ° IL a' Fh' T GlT 'R = O O ?t ■ M o m ° 3 m 3 m` 3 a m `WG J A b m a ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ *Lim ID N w C mN r °m • � o �•° D D9 SO o A O m m m N R N d N O m-M Q' m p M O N O m m 0 y 0 ! wz MCP mom < <. w3 0 C 0 2 N m , Dl MM0 � 3 � n23 OC—c D � So m > ° 3 o 3o 3� Q d o my � y oao oN a Z 0 ^� u R. f° ^ _ •� O 1O o` m m s d' o a O d^ a T m 6 d N N a O J ❑ a ❑ 00c)- (j m Li ❑ ❑ ❑ O ❑ ❑ ❑ w ❑ ❑ 2. G) m '-O 00 3 O m O O 370 'ONT °o N K51 °'. 3 031.40 o 30 oo 31 L)0 (OR T3100 fro 5 - M�0 ao a 31310 ai 0 a 9 � 'am Q !- g9 N lip Vi awl 5 a � � p 'moa m� ro, mQ�o no w�y0 3�� w X30 �To n3� FR d 0 o mm O m omo =�. o� N oN� w M1 y rny^• 3 m 3 cna JJ 0 R^ O i a O O. ti Sc = 3 y T W y ° IL a' m D T T GlT 'R = W T O ?t 3x y am m3 '<o N m cm wco•m m.D m oao Dm ° f0 y O J m y� o•co� 2W+N WOS d x� 0 y > 6 N M n D N N m0 0 LT 0 3 w m a C m d H m 0 d 2 N D m N m O w o m O d F m y to O N 3 O O O 3 O O O O D ,� , m N 3 3 f° m N C J a al m N z N A W N J O N N (n m C a w Q P^ b 7 O N m J a fL9J �l J t j I v J rF ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ (j m Li L) W ❑ ❑ ❑� O 030 000 010 0�0 000 030 r' 2()02 O,r�O 370 p1 D0 7 r�D NN ww T`9 _N mOm tea;. a^ cc O c. N m c ET w DM0 7DO O j N w� r a O om•0 lip Vi ?5' (n oT^ �D.� �mD •c N mL0 2d mod icy N3M aa--0 W C o Nd+ 1 d y Nab S•m J N 3� JJ T H 3 R> N m ti m H m lib a m m b W N O ° N 0 y > 6 N M n D N N m0 0 0 0 3 3 0 v o O M m 3 O O O O O O O O D ,� , a J J a > > > G N J O N V M N a w N -• O b 7 O ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ D w ® ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑im ZRm Fmc 5.3Om °dm m ❑ ❑ ❑N Im O m 0 O a o'm —a m W, 4 O M W O 0yo 05v 0 � 0 0aa Oa mmm d m.-a„•a m ' -^, =dm t mm � D �^ �Tr ^m•^ �w•^ D' o T 0• D RL On w o a `a no o a Ora ° `t r 3 � 35 T.� .D a ° 3 0 D n a _EO '90 io Oo mom. -�• .4 y 1 oRd w o g d D om m d w 3 m 5F w .0 m y �N ro I -°. � m � m Nm '4 -� o3- �'- 3-4 H N m N T M w S N N % O Owi m 9 w C:3 31 Q o m .�% m O d 0 3 T O N d N 7 N 7 a 0 N m N N y m ^: a tmn D N O b 2 T O •' ^ m 6 O O O O O j Q 77 O a W a d N° m m> N d d d d d m S m d' a s< T y ^ J FT r0 d m m N N N m N C �' O ❑ O J O O ° ❑ O J m 0 O o M1 w d N o - N N m 0 w .t m m 0 o a 0 m° a ❑ ❑a❑ ❑ ❑ ❑❑ ❑ ❑off O m N71 O `L Li r9 ❑ ❑j Ox r-�I� OD m �J `G M L� NOMM c}O M 0 5.� a5 L?' m j O N O Q O :T CD O Lr ^O D»' O O O = —O 37 p? 00 D 0 a 0 0 ' M i3' 0 m m 9 T C) M m 0 = d 0 57 O d j O 0 rp 0 O O G 00 O O o O �' 0 O. »: y'M :E G m m O n O w 3 w0 O o ra w x.i 0 00 .� .DT Qa; o m n w N yma w W 0.60 N ^cam (ciW F m C. C w 0 0 m m m ai, ra G 0 m< m 3) 0' i o 31 t� v tO o m m N37G d CO w N pr W N M m m 0 31 roa m W m O rp 0 0 .� p D m O v O I South Coast Air Quality Management District 21865 E. Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, CA 91765 -4182 ®. (909) 396 -2000 • www.agmd.gov November 12, 2003 Mr. Gregg B. Ramirez; Associate Planner RECENED BY Planning Dept., Community and Economic Dev. PINNING DEPART%liEN T City of Newport Beach F pJr,,, ,j p; ;R i . E_ACH CITY � n rr r'` ' 3300 Newport Boulevard P.O. Box 1768 i�aq 17 2043 K111 Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 �M Dear Mr. Ramirez: ' Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report for St. Mark Presbyterian Church The South Coast Air Quality Management District (AQMD) appreciates the opportunity to comment on the above - mentioned document. The AQMD's comments are recommendations regarding the analysis of potential air quality impacts from the proposed project that should be included in the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR). ' Air Quality Analysis The AQMD adopted its California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Air Quality Handbook in 1993 to assist other public agencies with the preparation of air quality analyses. The AQMD recommends that the Lead Agency use this Handbook as guidance when preparing its air quality analysis. Copies of the Handbook are available from the AQMD's Subscription Services ' Department by calling (909) 396 -3720. The Lead Agency should identify any potential adverse air quality impacts that could occur from all phases of the project and all air pollutant sources related to the project. Air quality impacts from both construction and operations should be considered. Construction- related air quality impacts typically include, but are not limited to, emissions from the use of heavy -duty equipment ' from grading, earth- loading/unloading, paving, architectural coatings, off -road mobile sources (e.g., heavy -duty construction equipment) and on -road mobile sources (e.g., construction worker vehicle trips, material transport trips). Operation- related air quality impacts may include, but are not limited to, emissions from stationary sources (e.g., boilers), area sources (e.g., solvents and coatings), and vehicular trips (e.g., on- and off -road tailpipe emissions and entrained dust). Air quality impacts from indirect sources, that is, sources that generate or attract vehicular trips ' should be included in the evaluation An analysis of all toxic air contaminant impacts due to the Mr. Gregg B. Ramirez -2- LJ November 12, 2003 , decommissioning or use of equipment potentially generating such air pollutants should also be included. Mitigation Measures In the event that the project generates significant adverse air quality impacts, CEQA requires that all feasible mitigation measures be utilized during project construction and operation to minimize or eliminate significant adverse air quality impacts. To assist the Lead Agency with identifying possible mitigation measures for the project, please refer to Chapter 11 of the AQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook for sample air quality mitigation measures. Additionally, AQMD's Rule 403 — Fugitive Dust, and the Implementation Handbook contain numerous measures for controlling construction- related emissions that should be considered for use as CEQA mitigation if not otherwise required. Pursuant to state CEQA Guidelines §15126.4 (a)(1)(D), any impacts resulting from mitigation measures must also be discussed. Data Sources AQMD rules and relevant air quality reports and data are available by calling the AQMD's Public Information Center at (909) 396 -2039. Much of the information available through the Public Information Center is also available via the AQMD's World Wide Web Homepage (hM2://www.aqmd.goy). The AQMD is willing to work with the Lead Agency to ensure that project - related emissions are accurately identified, categorized, and evaluated. Please call Charles Blankson, Ph.D., Air Quality Specialist, CEQA Section, at (909) 396 -3304 if you have any questions regarding this letter. Sincerely, Steve Smith, Ph.D. Program Supervisor, CEQA Section Planning, Rule Development and Area Sources SS:CB:li ORC03 1 1 04 -02L1 Control Number C I November 26, 2003 �. Fan�o� �.fW9 /450- 1,81.8 /`�aa 949 /SA.S- O>46' /e- aar�ua� @urn aa-n VIA IsT CLASS MAIL VIA FACSIMILE ' Mr. Gregg B. Ramirez, Associate Planner . Planning Department, Community and Economic Development City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 Subject: Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report for St. Mark Presbyterian Church Project Dear Mr. Ramirez: We have reviewed the draft FIR and make the following comments. Big Canyon Community (approx 500 homes) is adjacent to the proposed St. Mark Presbyterian Church project and therefore is a very concerned entity as it affects the surrounding environment. As the record will show during the February 2001 Newport Beach City Council Meeting various concerns (specifically traffic) were expressed by participants in attendance and the council took the position that the surrounding neighbors should give the applicant a chance and the concerns about traffic will be addressed by the applicant. Unfortunately, we are now sitting at a point over 2 '/z years later vdth no solution put forth to resolve the difficult traffic problem presently existing at the corner of MacArthur and along San Joaquin Hills Road. Even without the additional traffic from the proposed project, we have had a number of accidents as traffic has increased significantly over the past 2 years along MacArthur Blvd. In addition, the vehicles turning on to San Joaquin and trying to gain access to Fashion Island/Newport Center find it exceedingly difficult to cross three lanes of traffic to make a left turn while other cars along San Joaquin (going in the same direction) are trying to bear right to enter Big Canyon. Obviously this situation would get worse if the proposed project is allowed to be built. ' As the record will show, this site was set aside and zoned for open space. As a left over parcel, originally part of an exit for the freeway along MacArthur, this site was considered inaccessible for any entry and exit that was workable. We have been told that ' the church services would be held on Sunday; therefore, there would not be a conflict with weekly business hours. However, based on viewing operations of the existing St. Mr. Gregg B. Ramirez, Associate Planner St. Mark Presbyterian Church Project Notice of Preparation of a Draft EIR November 26, 2003 Page two Mark's Church site, children are driven to the site around 8:30 a.m., which directly conflicts with the bulk of traffic entering San Joaquin to get to work in Newport Center. In addition, traffic again is heaviest exiting Newport Center between the hours of 3:30 p.m. — 5:30 p.m., which is when children are picked up after pre - school session. In addition, when there are Sunday sales in Fashion Island (almost every week) this will directly conflict with the Sunday church services. Based on the above, we strongly disagree with the Draft EIR comment in XN(d), that states, "there is no hazard anticipated with this access point." We have taken special notice of cars turning right at MacArthur onto San Joaquin and crossing over three lanes to make a left turn to enter Newport Center during various hours including around 8 -8:30 a.m. We find approximately 70% of the vehicles are making this maneuver which directly conflicts with other vehicles going north on MacArthur and making a left turn onto San Joaquin to enter the access driveway for the proposed development and the Big Canyon entry. We also wish to point out that we disagree with the "no impact" statement noted in XV (e). Emergency vehicles will not be able; to enter the site from San Joaquin since there is no left tam entrance to the site from Say Joaquin. A revised emergency plan is needed to service the site. Members of the Big Canyon Board are prepared to meet with the City, the Applicant or any other entity to review the above comments and concerns before this EIR is put on the City Council agenda. Sincerely, Bernie Rome, President of the Board of Directors Big Canyon Community Association cc: Board of Directors, Big Canyon Community Association Mayor Steve Bromberg City of Newport Beach, Y.O. Box 1768, Newport Beach, CA 92668 -8915 November 26, 2003 City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd P. O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 ATTN: Gregg B. Ramirez Planning Department RE: Draft EIR St. Mark Presbyterian Church Gentlemen: PLAN NI nU one r 4 :;H CITY f' 0 2(103 PM AM ?1819110111118111218 141516 We are the owners of the underlying fee in the adjacent 74 unit Big Canyon Apartments located at 2 Pine Valley Lane. After a review of the preliminary plans available at the Planning Department we have some concerns as the development of the church property may affect our tenants. The main entrance off San Joaquin Hills Road is immediately adjacent to a number of our rental units and in view of the traffic concentration at peak church usage times may create a noise and pollution problem at that location. This problem could easily be solved by moving the entry point and long driveway ten additional feet toward Mac Arthur Blvd. and requiring mature landscaping to be planted in the resulting setback. This would help shield the residents, provide both visual and sound insulation and help cut down on auto fumes at that location. The landscape should consist of both mature trees and shrubs between the trees. The design of the main church structure shows an enclosed children's play area and the adjacent area behind the sanctuary being located within five feet of the property line and next to the entry point of a number of apartment units on our property. Since both of these areas will be formed by a solid retaining wall it will create quite a large visual bulk which cannot easily be mitigated with only a five foot area to plant landscape. We would suggest a requirement of not less than a fifteen foot setback for any retaining wall or structure adjacent to the residential areas and a requirement of mature landscape closely spaced within that setback. In general, a minimum 15 foot set -back of a non - residential use from residential areas should be required of all proJects- BORSTEIN ENTERPRISES n 'J I 1 I As a final note the area between the residential property line and the circular parking , spaces ('one way drop off) should also be required to be planted with mature growth closely spaced to block the imposition of parked cars. Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this proposal. ' Borstein Enterprises Alan S. Borstein President I I 1 November 26, 2003 ' Mr. Gregg B. Ramirez City of Newport Beach ESSEX PROPERTY TRUST. INC. RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTNIENT CITY OF AM 3 2003 PM 71819,10,11,12,1 12, 3141516 4:. Planning Department 3330 Newport Beach Blvd. P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 ' RE: Draft EIR, St. Mark Presbyterian Church Dear Mr. Ramirez, Essex Property Trust is the lessee and operator of the 74 apartment homes located at 2 Pine Valley Lane. Upon review of the preliminary plans, we have some concerns regarding the proposed church. 1) We feel the entrance is too close to the existing residential units and should be moved south along San Joaquin Hills Road. 2) Regardless of the entrance location, mature landscaping should be required as a buffer between the driveway and the apartment homes in order to preserve the resident's quite enjoyment of the property. 3) Adequate landscaping should be required between the circular parking area and the residential units in order to mitigate the visual impact on the residents. 4) A greater setback should be required between the residential units and the proposed play area and the related retaining wall so that adequate space is available for a landscape buffer. 5) Careful consideration should be given to the area drainage system so that water is not routed on to our property. We are happy to have a responsible and compatible neighbor, however our residents also have great concern about the construction process and the potential disruption. As you are probably aware many of our residents are home during the day, therefore noise and dust are of particular concern. If approved, I trust that the City of Newport Beach will do everything reasonably possible to limit these unavoidable by- products of construction. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Erik Alexander Vice President, Division Manager azno Clarendon Street. Suite 200 Woodland Hilh. CA 91367 telephone 918 227 =too facsimile Sift 593 5956 aa•ww."sexpropenytrustcom STATE OF CALIFORNIA— BUSINESS AND HOUSING AGENC An r DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION District 12 3337 Michelson Drive, Suite 380 Irvine, CA 92612 -8894 Tel: (949) 2724 -2267 Fax: (949) 724 -2592 FAX& MAIL November 25, 2003 Mr. Gregg B. Ramirez Community & Economic Development Dep. City of Newport Beach P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92651 Subject: St. Mark's Presbyterian Church Dear Mr. Ramirez, RECEIVED B'y PLANNING DEPART+ WNIT CITY CF Nr1AlP; ^.C' - r %..`H 0 3 2003 PM Be xyaurpvwr AM ! 71819 110 111112 (1(213 41816 to . File: IGR/CEQA SCH #: 2003101137 Log #: 1325 SR #: PCH, SR -55, SR -73 Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the Notice of Preparation (NOP) of a Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the St. Mark Presbyterian Church Project. The project consists of the construction of a church sanctuary, fellowship hall, administration building and counseling center, preschool buildings, expansion building, nature center plaza, and related site improvements such as parking lots, driveways, site lighting, grading, landscaping, and utility connections. The project is located at the corner of Third Street and Mermaid Street in the City of Laguna Beach. The nearest State Routes to the project are Pacific Coast Highway (PCH), SR -55, and SR -73. Caltraus District 12 status is a reviewing agency on this project and has no comments at this time. However, in the event of any activity in Caltrans' right -of -way, an encroachment permit will be required. Applicants are required to plan for sufficient permit processing time, which may include engineering studies and environmental documentation. Please continue to keep us' informed of this and other future developments, which could potentially impact the transportation facilities. If you have any questions or need to contact us, please do not hesitate to call Maryam Molavi at (949) 724 -2267. Si cerely, n A� ROBERT F. JOSEPH, Chief IGR/Community Planning Branch c: Terry Roberts, Office of Planning and Research Terri Pencovic, Caltrans HQ IGR/Community Planning Gail Farber, District 12 Deputy Director of Planning Saied Hashemi, Traffic Operations North Leslie Mandersheid, Environmental Planning B "Caltrans improves mobility across California" I I Big Canyon Country Club PLANNING DEPARTS ?EDIT CITY t1� N�Wp ^F F_r.k"H November 25, 2003 Gregg B. Ramirez, Associate Planner Planning Department, Community and Economic Development City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 01 2003 P AM M 71 B 19110111112111213141516 Re: St. Mark Presbyterian Church Dear Gregg: Big Canyon Country Club is in receipt of the Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report related to the property at the northwesterly intersection of MacArthur Boulevard and San Joaquin Hills Road. The Club requests that the Environmental Impact Report for the Saint Mark Church project provide an analysis of project run -off impacts on Club property from a 10,25, 50, and 100 -year storm event. Please do not hesitate to contact me if I may be of any assistance or if you have any questions. Sincerely, �r - "i 4)11(-- ' David H. Voorhees, CCM General Manager Cc: Jeffrey Estabrooks Richard Godber ' 5 /ofrice /fpc /correspondence /citvofNB112603 One Big Canyon Drive, Newport Beach. CA 92660 -5299 I ' JAN D. VANDERSLOOT, M.D. 2221 East I e Street Office Phone: (714) 848 -0770 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Office Fax: (714) 848 -6643 ' Home Phone: (949) 548 -6326 Email: JonV3@aol.com November 25, 2003 RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPAR T ME "lT Gregg B. Ramirez, Associate Planner CITY C F NFWpr c �'EGi;H Planning Department, Community and Economic Development -10V 2 63 City of Newport Beach AM P� 3300 Newport Blvd 718,9110111)1211121 3 4 5 6 P.O. Box 1768 I I I Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 4 Re: Notice of Preparation (NOP) and Initial Study (IS) of a Draft Environmental Impact Report Project Title: St. Mark Presbyterian Church ' Project Applicant: St. Mark Presbyterian Church Dear Mr. Ramirez, Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the NOP and IS for the St. Mark Presbyterian Church project. Please put me on the distribution list for any notices concerning this project. tI believe the Draft EIR should contain more information than the Initial Study indicates will be included in the DE1R. Under Section 1.4, Environmental Setting, it should be noted that the gently sloping pads bracketing the canyon feature contains a dense stand of coastal sage scrub (CSS), a type of vegetation community that is home to many threatened and endangered species and is a type of vegetation community that is very environmentally sensitive and disappearing by development, causing measures to protect it to be implemented by the State. This dense native vegetation includes California sagebrush (Artemisia califomica), Coyote Brush (Baccharis pilularis), Coast sunflower (Encelia califomica), Buff Monkeyflower (Mimulus aurantiacus), Toyon, Lemonadeberry, etc. Moreover, the land adjacent to the existing dense vegetation is spontaneously restoring itself with species including California sagebrush and coyote brush, thereby expanding the restoration potential of this environmentally valuable land. In addition, this site's adjacency to the Big Canyon Golf Course and Country Club, with open space connections through drainage to the mouth of Big Canyon and Upper Newport Bay, should be noted. This is not an isolated parcel. Exhibit 2, Local Vicinity Map, should show in darkly shaded gray the mouth of Big Canyon connecting Upper Newport Bay with Big Canyon Country Club, to illustrate this open space connectivity. The acreage occupied by this sensitive vegetation community should be mapped, calculated, and preserved, with an appropriate buffer. The project calls for only preserving the L 12 canyon feature, while the amount of environmentally sensitive land on the site appears to be much larger, perhaps 50% of the site. ' Section 1.5.1 Parking. On page 1 -18, under Parking, it is stated that there will be 247 uncovered parking stalls present. The need for this large amount of parking should be clarified, since the previous Conceptual Site Masterplan called for 180 spaces. Large areas of the site are designated for parking. The acreage devoted to parking should be determined and alternatives such as a JAN D. VANDERSLOOT, M.D. 2221 East 16"' Street Newport Beach, CA 92663 Home Phone: (949) 548 -6326 Office Phone: (714) 848 -0770 Office Fax: (714) 848 -6643 Email: lonV3@aol.com parking structure should be considered. Reducing the overall footprint of development, including the area designated for parking, would enable preservation of existing sensitive environmental habitat. Section 1.5.3. The environmentally sensitive portion of the site, including the CSS and riparian areas within the canyon, should be mapped and the acreage calculated, and preserved as the Open Spare Preserve. This action would also lessen the impact of changing the General Plan Designation from REDS to Government /Educational/Institutional. Section 1.5.4. Land For Dedication. The areas designated as CSS plus the riparian canyon should be dedicated to the City as REOS, to partially :mitigate the loss of REOS in the General Plan. Section 1.6 Cumulative Impacts. An analysis should be made of the cumulative impacts of loss of REDS, including the 10.81 acres of REDS iiom this project, and the 8.1 -acre loss of REDS from the concurrent project at Marinapark, the Regent Newport Beach Hotel. These two projects will cause the unmitigated loss of 18.91 of REDS from the City's General Plan. Under Section 1.7, Alternatives to the Proposed Action, an alternative of creating a passive park serving as a headwater to Upper Newport Bay through Big Canyon Country Club and Mouth of Big Canyon should be considered. A reduced density alternative that preserves the CSS on site with a buffer should also be considered, in tune with the St Mark's Church statements about wanting to be good environmental stewards of the land. Under Section 1.8.1, Effects Not Found To Be Significant, the IS finds that impacts to recreation are less than significant or of no impact. However, the project changes the General Plan Land Use designation from Recreational and Environmental Open Space to Government /Educational/Inslitutional, resulting in loss of 10.81 acres of REDS. This is a significant impact and should be considered as such, including the cumulative impacts of loss of REDS designations of other areas in the City, such as the Regent Newport Beach Hotel at Marmapark. The St. Marks project is being processed concurrently with the Regent Newport Beach Hotel project, which will result in a loss of an additional 8.1 acres of REDS. The loss of 8.10 acres of REDS from the Regent Hotel plus 10.81 acres of REOS lost with St. Marks is a cumulatively significant loss of 18.91 acres that should be analyzed and mitigated. Replacement open space and mitigation should be thoroughly investigated, identified, and requited. Analysis should include traffic and other environmental impacts from both projects since REOS open spare is being converted to more intensive uses with more traffic, air quality, etc impacts than the REOS designation. Mitigation sites for replacement open space should include land such as the Lower Castaways site; an approximately 5 acre site currently owned by the current landowner of the St Mark's site, the Irvine Company. Other mitigation strategies such as retaining more open space in the project site that would retain the REOS designation should be considered such as 50% retained as open space. Such a strategy, including replacement open space, should ensure that no net loss of REOS in the City occurs with either or both of these projects. JAN D. VANDERSLOOT, M.D. 2221 East 16'h Street Newport Beach, CA 92663 Home Phone: (949) 548 -6326 Office Phone: (714) 848 -0770 Office Fax: (714) 848-6643 Email: JonV3@aol.com Environmental Checklist, IV. Biological Resources, it is noted that all boxes are checked indicating potentially significant impacts, the only category to have all boxes checked. This shows the potential harm to the biologic resources on the site from the project. Since the St Mark Church considers itself an environmentally responsible church, it should be amenable to retaining and coddling the special environmental resources on the site, and facilitate replacement open space for the land it will build on. Section 3, Discussion of Environmental Evaluation, Aesthetics. It should be noted that scenic vistas of the hills and Saddleback Mountain from San Joaquin Hills Road may be impaired by the development and should be analyzed in the DEIR. Section 3, IV. Biological Resources. Where the off -site mitigation areas are should be identified. Nevertheless, loss of this environmentally sensitive land is not good environmental stewardship of the land. This site is not an urban infill site. It sits at the top of an open space corridor extending to Upper Newport Bay. The DEIR should include a gnatcatcher survey at the proper time of year, since the CSS on the site is appropriate habitat for the threatened gnatcatcher. A site visit by me on November 23, 2003, found many bird species utilizing the site. This site is a vibrant ecological treasure that should be maintained and preserved by an environmentally responsible church such as St Mark. Thank you again for the opportunity to make comments and please put me on the distribution list for further notices, including my email address of JonV3@aol.com. Sincerely, Jan D. Vandersloot, MD I I 11 Robert & Debra Guthrie 1749 Port Hemley Circle Newport Beach, CA 92660 November 12, 2003 Gregg B. Ramirez, Associate Planner Plamung Development, Community and Economic Development City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 RE: Response to October 27, 2003 letter regarding Notice of Preparation of a Draft EIR for proposed St. Mark Presbyterian Church Dear Mr. Ramirez, In response to the above referenced Notice of Preparation, we have specific environmental concerns regarding noise. Traffic on MacArthur Boulevard generates an unacceptable level of noise affecting our home. We believe the previous ElR and acoustic study prepared in conjunction with the widening of MacArthur Boulevard underestimated the impact of increased traffic noise to our home. This problem was exacerbated by the construction of a sound wall across MacArthur Boulevard adjacent to the Big Canyon Golf.Course. Traffic noise is deflected from this sound wall back across MacArthur ■ Boulevard towards our home. It is our understanding the city of Newport Beach shared in ■ the cost of building this sound wall in part due to protests from Big Canyon residents. I I I I I I I The proposed church will certainly add additional traffic to MacArthur Boulevard, especially during Sunday mornings (one of the few relatively quiet traffic periods during a normal week). We believe the proposed project should be conditioned with the extension of a sound wall on the east side of MacArthur Boulevard from the terminus of the existing sound wall in front of the Bayview apartment complex to a point perpendicular to Port Tiffin Circle. This stretch of MacArthur Boulevard is one of the only points without any sound attenuation. In addition, we expect the City of Newport Beach to prolubit any church bells or similar sound emanating from the proposed project. Thank you for the opportunity to voice our concerns. If you need to cont.:,ct us, we can be reached at (949) 760 -9002 or via e -mail at debra_uthrie a,safeaccess cum. Sincerely, Routhrie RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTI4ENT CITY Op f. ` +e. ^T =ACH AM IPM �Ig1gl1p Ili ,i �i1?i3i4A6 HENRY R. TAECKER, JR. 27 RUE GRAND VALLEE TEL: (949) 640 -7242 NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92660 FAX: (949) 644 -5086 November 7, 2003 Mr. Gregg B. Ramirez, Associate Planner RECEIVED BY Planning Department, Community and Economic Development PANNING DEPARTMENT City of Newport Beach CITY nF `zACH 3300 Newport Blvd. P.O. Box 1768 AM i! 2003 PM Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 l i l I l i i l l I I Dear Mr. Ramirez: We are in receipt of the "Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report" and we are absolutely and unquestionably against the proposed development. The proposed development of said site is definitely NOT an appropriate use of said land and should be rejected forthwith. TRAFFIC: The proposed development would severely increase traffic congestion on two main roads (MacArthur and San Joaquin) which are already heavily congested. Inasmuch as the speed limits on the aforementioned streets are 55 and 45 mph and since it is imperative that traffic move safely and rapidly, cars slowing down to enter the development as well as cars exiting the development would severely interfere with traffic as well as increasing the risk of accidents for all motorists regardless of whether the motorists are turning east from MacArthur to San Joaquin or are entering /exiting the development. The traffic problems that will be caused by the proposed development will put all motorists at risk, jeopardize their safety, and will create enormous potential legal and monetary liability for the City of Newport Beach if this project is approved NUISANCE AND REDUCTION IN RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY VALUES: The proposed development would also create an unbearable nuisance to the quiet residential community across the way with the increased noise from the general activity as well as the pre - school for numerous children. In addition, an unbearable nuisance would be created from the lights of the development, including the parking lot lights and other lighting on site. The illumination necessary to provide a safe environment for the development would adversely affect the homeowners on a constant basis. This nuisance would relentlessly interfere with the quiet enjoyment of the residential neighborhood and would severely lower the property values of the residential neighborhood. IHOMOGENEITY: The proposed development would also attack the preservation of the character and integrity of the residential neighborhood and would reduce the homogeneity of the area. The prevention of traffic congestion and accidents, the safety of our motorists and community, the prevention of nuisances, the maintenance of property values, and the strong objection of the residents are legitimate reasons to reject the proposed development forthwith. My family and neighbors join me in our absolute opposition to the proposed development. Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter. Ve ruly ' i I H4 /mj 1 St Mark Presbyterian Church - Screencheck Draft EIR 1 APPENDIX B: CULTURAL RESOURCES SURVEY AND PALEONTOLOGICAL RECORDS REVIEW Michael Brandman Associates RXIient(PN -JN) \0064 \00640021 \Screencheck \00640021 Appendices.doc January 20 2004 Mr. James W. Campbell, Senior Planner City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 Subject: Final Cultural Resource Survey and Paleontological Records Review Letter Report for the St. Marks Church Project located on APN #442-032 -62, San Joaquin Hills Road and MacArthur Boulevard, City of Newport Beach, California. Dear Mr. Campbell: Enclosed is a letter report associated with a CEQA- protocol cultural resource survey and paleontological records review of the St. Marks Church project. The findings of the study were negative for cultural resources, but archaeological mitigation - monitoring is recommended under certain conditions. Paleontological mitigation - monitoring is recommended. If you have any questions or concerns regarding this report, please do not hesitate to call MBA at 714.508.4100. Sincerely, MICHAEL BRANDMAN ASSOCIATES II Michael Dice, M.A. Senior Archaeologist Enclosures: Appendix A: Photographs of the Study Area Appendix B: Personnel Qualifications Appendix C: Compliance Documents ' CQNy Documents \Pro1ects\ 00690021St. Mark's ChurchUxtter report drah.doc II ' Cultural Resource Survey and Paleontological Records Review for the St. Marks Church Project located on APN #442 - 032 -62, San Joaquin Hills Road and MacArthur Boulevard, City of Newport Beach, California. Final Prepared for: Mr. James W. Campbell, Senior Planner City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 ' Prepared by: Michael Dice, M.A. Senior Archaeologist c ` Michael Brandman Associates 220 Commerce, Suite 200 ' Irvine, CA 92602 January 20, 2004 ' Keywords: City of Newport Beach, CA -ORA -199, CA -ORA -21111 and CA -ORA -2111, Shell middens. USGS Laguna beach, CA. 7.5' topographic quadrangle map Final: Cultural Survey and Palen Records Search for the St. Marks Church January 20 2004 Page 3 Public Information Statement Iwpgation and Study Area At the request of the City of Newport Beach, Michael Brandman Associates (MBA) has conducted a cultural resource survey and paleontological records review of about ten acres in the City of Newport Beach, California. The subject property consists of one parcel: APN #442 -032- 62 (10.81 acres), which is located at the north comer of the intersection of San Joaquin Hills Road and MacArthur Boulevard. This area is considered to be the full cultural resource study area. Development of a new church complex is proposed within the project area. Purpose The purpose of this report is to delineate the location of the study area, identify all potentially significant cultural resources situated within the study area, delineate the potential for paleontological resources and, if impacted by the proposed development, propose recommendations for mitigation where necessary. Completion of this investigation fulfills the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), protocols associated with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA). as Amended, and Executive Order 11593 requirements. This report follows the California State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) recommended ARMR archaeological reporting format and fulfills all protocols associated with CEQA and NEPA -level archaeological studies. Report Overview This report is organized into sections and appendices, which are summarized as follows: •Section 2 reviews the goals of this study. -Section 3 summarizes the environmental and cultural setting. •Section 4 presents the investigative methods. •Section 5 reviews background information -Section 6 provides cultural resource survey and paleontological records review results. •Section 7 summarizes the project and provides management recommendations. •Section 8 presents a reference list. •Section 9 contains the project certification. *Appendix A provides recent photographs of the Study Area. *Appendix B presents personnel qualifications. *Appendix C presents archaeological compliance documents. Research MBA staff archaeologist Wayne Bonner performed the records search at the South Central Coastal Information Center, California State University, Fullerton (SCCIC), on August 30, 2003. The research indicated that the project area has never been surveyed previously. A few recorded historic and prehistoric resource sites lay within a half -mile radius of the study area, but no known sites or properties are located within the project area itself. The author surveyed the project area on September 24, 2003. During the cultural resources survey, no cultural properties were detected in the study area. Most of the parcel has been graded, probably because of efforts to reduce runoff into Big Canyon the result of construction of the intersection of MacArthur Boulevard and San Joaquin Hills Road. C:Wrojwt FilmTrojmm\00640021 St. MaM C4um!,Winal cultural mpw.doc Final: Cultural Survey and Palen Records Search for the St. Marks Church January 20 2004 Page 4 Review of the Morton and Miller (198 1) geological map shows that the area of direct effect may exhibit surface exposures of Pleistocene marine terrace deposits ( "Qtm") and Miocene - Pliocene era surface exposures associated with the Monterey Formation ( "Tm ") in area canyons and washes. Examination of rock and soil units during the archaeological survey showed that there are no exposed bedrock outcrops in the area of direct effect, but it is likely that bedrock hes at a shallow depth below the modem ground surface. It is likely that intact bedrock will be impacted during the project. Findings Summary There is a lack of cultural resources within the area of direct effect, but previous records suggest that several prehistoric sites be within about 300 meters of the project area. Thus, there is a possibility that cultural resources will be impacted during construction. Cultural resource monitoring is recommended, under limited conditions, during the earthmoving phases of site development, because there is a moderate chance that buried cultural materials will be uncovered during grading. It is always possible that cultural resources will be uncovered without a monitor present. In this case, should potentially significant buried cultural resources are uncovered during construction, such resources (excluding isolated artifacts) should be tested for historical significance prior to continued impact. In addition, California State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 dictates that if human remains are unearthed during construction, no further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has made the necessary findings as to origin and disposition pursuant to CEQA regulations and Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. The Pleistocene marine terrace deposits ( "Qtm ") and the Miocene - Pliocene era surface exposures associated with the Monterey Formation ( "Tm ") should be considered paleontologically sensitive rock units. Examination of rock and soil units during the archaeological survey showed that there are no exposed bedrock outcrops, but it is likely that bedrock from one or both rock units will be impacted during excavations. With appropriate mitigation, earth moving associated with development of the project could result in beneficial effects, including the recovery of scientifically highly important fossil remains that would not even have been exposed without earthmoving. A paleontological monitor should be on -site full time until and if the Lead Paleontologist recommends that full -time monitoring be reduced or eliminated entirely. Section 1.0. Introduction Michael Brandman Associates has conducted a cultural resource survey and paleontological records review of about ten acres in the City of Newport Beach, California. The subject property consists of one parcel: APN #442- 032 -62 (10.81 acres), which is located in Section 93 of T.6S R.9W (SBBM) as shown on the Laguna Beach, CA. 7.5' USGS topographic map. Located near the head of a spur of Big Canyon (Exhibit 1 below), the study area is under City jurisdiction. This report is associated with a plan to construct a new church complex. The cultural resource fieldwork took place on September 24 2003, while the cultural records search took place on August 30. The study area was surveyed for cultural resources utilizing procedures noted in Section 4.0. O: oject FUeskrrojmmk00640021 SL MarkY ChutchkFml cultural r wrt.doc Y Printed fmm TOPOI @2001 National Geographic Holdings (w Jopo,com) SOURCE: Topol @National Geographic Holdings Michael Brandman Associates H:\Client(PN -JN) \0064\00640021\00640021 -Final Culmral Reportdm Exhibit 1 Vicinity Map Final: Cultural Survey and Palen Records Search for the St. Marks Church January 20 2004 Page 6 The cultural resource assessment was performed to comply with CEQA and 36CFR800 (Section 106) implementing regulations found in the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA 1999; Archnet 1999), the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP 1999, ParkNet 2001) and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). This report closely follows the ARMR reporting format as is currently recommended by the California State Office of Historic Preservation (SHPO). The goal of this project was to identify any significant cultural resources situated within the boundaries of the defined study area, and define the potential for impacts to paleontological resources. The resource study consisted of five distinct efforts: I. Cultural resource record search conducted to determine whether any previously recorded cultural materials are present within the boundaries of the study area, or within a one -half mile radius of the study area. 2. A protocol block- transect survey of the entire project area. 3. Examination of archived aerial photographs, topographic maps and road maps that might reveal historic land use. 4. Development of mitigation recommendations. 5. Examination of geological maps to determine the paleontological sensitivity of the project area and development of mitigation recommendations of necessary. Section 2.0. Environmental and Cultural Setting 2.1 Location As seen in Exhibit 2, the project area is located in Section 93 of T.6S R.9W (SBBM) as shown on the Laguna Beach, CA. 7.5' USGS topographic map. The project area could be easily accessed and roughly 10 acres of land were surveyed to protocol. 2.2 T000graV4 The topography of the study area has been severely modified the result of road construction. Grading machines have flattened all areas located directly adjacent to the roads. A berm was created by pushing soil to the rim of the drainages to the north: this was likely a temporary measure to prevent runoff that might collect on the flat areas from running into the canyons. Ground visibility during the survey varied from 100% on the graded areas, to good in the slopes leading to the steeper canyon sections. Elevations within the study area is about 200 feet above seal level. 2.3 Vegetation The project site is covered with ruderal plants, grasses and remnants of the original sage scrub on the sides of the canyons. Prior to development in the early part of the last century, the project area probably was a combination of coastal sage scrub and chaparral, CTroject FilesTrojecls\00640021 St. Mark's Church \Final wlmral rep a,doc PROJECT AREA SPILL war ; I's / _Ia 25 Not S,, ?2 4* 44�. NIP 1* IRIJI VA v TRY 4.qv tetBia 36 rNtIMN -A NE Ac 7 V13 %0 a 1000ii:1:1 U 503 lcoomfflirls Printed from TOPOI @2001 National Geographic Holdings (tvww.topoxom) SOURCE: Topol @National Geographic Holdings Exhibit Michael Brandman Associates Project Topographic Map H:\Clie.t (PN-IN)\0064W640021 \00640021 -Final Culture] ReportAm Bee 22s, v aQ R 5,e: 17 N7 C &h Sub a 0 . n -A NE Ac 7 V13 %0 a 1000ii:1:1 U 503 lcoomfflirls Printed from TOPOI @2001 National Geographic Holdings (tvww.topoxom) SOURCE: Topol @National Geographic Holdings Exhibit Michael Brandman Associates Project Topographic Map H:\Clie.t (PN-IN)\0064W640021 \00640021 -Final Culture] ReportAm iI Final: Cultural Survey and Patent Records Search for the St. Marks Church January 20 2004 Page 8 2.4 Geolo Based on a map developed by Morton and Miller (200 1) the surficial geology of the project area can be characterized as Pleistocene /Holocene Alluvium - Colluvium and Marine Terrace Deposits in areas above the canyon cuts. Exposures of Miocene -era Monterey Formation are located in the deeper section of Big Canyon. All of the alluvial deposits have been heavily impacted by road development, while the Monterey Formation should be relatively intact at depth. According to prehistoric site records, much of the area was not impacted by development until the mid- 1960's. Prior to that date, the soils consisted of a veneer of fine, sandy sediments held together with scrubby, native grasses. 2.5 Water Resources The project area exhibits the tip of a blueline stream known as Big Canyon. It is possible that the main body of the canyon was a source of permanent water during prehistoric times. No springs or seeps are noted on the topographic map for this area. 2.6 Prehistoric and Ethnoeranhic Background Moratto (1984) and Chartkoff and Chartkoff (1984) provide recent overviews of California ' archaeology and historical reviews of the inland southern California coast, among other locales. The most accepted regional chronology for coastal and the southern coast of southern California is from Wallace's four -part Horizon format (1955), which was later updated and revised by Warren (1968). Created to place temporal structure upon materialistic phases observed during archaeological syntheses, the advantages and weaknesses of southern California chronological sequences are reviewed by Warren (in Moratto 1984), Chartkoff and Chartkoff (1984), and Heizer (ed. 1978). As of this writing, regional archaeologists generally follow Wallace's (1955) four -part southern California format. Early Man Horizon Spanning the period from approximately 15,000 to 6,000 B.C., archaeological assemblages attributed to this horizon are characterized by large projectile points and scrapers. The limited data available suggests that prehistoric populations focused on hunting and gathering, moving about the region in small nomadic groups. Technologies associated with ocean resource gathering would have likely been utilized. ' Millingstone Horizon Characterized by the appearance of handstones and millingstones, this horizon tentatively dates to between 6,000 and 1,000 B.C. Assemblages in the early millingstone period reflect an emphasis ' on plant foods and foraging subsistence systems. For inland locales, it has been assumed that exploitation of grass seeds formed a primary subsistence activity. Artifact assemblages include choppers and scraper planes, but there is a general lack of projectile points in excavated assemblages. The appearance of large projectile points in the late portion of the Millingstone Horizon suggests the development of a more diverse economy. The distribution of Millingstone sites reflects the theory that aboriginal groups may have followed a modified central -based wandering settlement pattern. In this semi - sedentary pattern, a basecamp would have been occupied for a portion of the year, but small population groups seasonally occupied subsidiary camps in order to exploit resources not generally available near the basecamp. Sedentism apparently increased in areas possessing an abundance of resources that were available for longer periods of time. More and inland regions would have provided a seasonally and aerially dispersed resource base, restricting sedentary occupation. ' C\Project Fi1es\Projec1s \00640021 St. Mark's Church\Final cultural reportdac Final: Cultural Survey and Palen Records Search for the St. Marks Church January 20 2004 Page 9 Intermediate Horizon Dating between 1,000 B.C. and A.D. 750, the Intermediate Horizon represents a transitional period. Little is known about the people of this period, especially those of inland southern California. Site assemblages retain many attributes of the Millingstone Horizon. Additionally, Intermediate Horizon sites contain large - stemmed or notched projectile points and portable mortars and pestles. The mortars and pestles suggest that the aboriginal populations may have harvested, processed and consumed acoms. Due to a general lack of data, neither the settlement and subsistence systems nor the cultural evolution of this period is well understood. It has been proposed that sedentism increased with the exploitation of storable food resources (acoms). The duration and intensity of occupation of basecamps increased during this period, especially in the later part of the horizon. Late Prehistoric Horizon Extending from A.D. 750 to Spanish Contact in A.D. 1769, the Late Prehistoric Horizon reflects an increased sophistication and diversity in technology. Assemblages characteristically contain projectile points, which imply the use of the bow and arrow. In addition, assemblages include steatite bowls, asphaltum, grave goods and elaborate shell omaments. Use of bedrock milling stations was widespread during this horizon. Increased hunting efficiency and widespread exploitation of atoms provided reliable and storable food resources. Historical Aspects of the Newport Beach area The study area lies within the traditional territory of the Native American group known as the Juanefio. which were Luisefio groups traditionally associated with the Mission San Juan Capistrano (Bean and Shipek 1978). Juanefio population sizes before 1769 are unknown. In 1800, approximately 1,300 Juanefio resided at the Mission, and Mission registers list 4,000 Native Americans interred in the mission cemetery (Englehardt 1922). The Juanefio spoke a form of the Takic language group, as did the neighboring Gabrielino to the north and the Luisefio to the south. Like their neighbors, the Juanefio were a hunter - gatherer society that seasonally migrated to exploit seasonal food resources. During these migrations, the Juanefio would inhabit temporary basecamps from which they would venture for resource exploitation. By 1873, only 40 Juanefio were associated with the Mission (Ames 1873). However, a number of villages farther inland remained inhabited (Wheeler 1879). In the 1930's, an estimated 300 Mission- descended Juanefio resided in Orange County (Yorba 1936). Today, small numbers of Juanefio live in the local area and participate in Native American concerns and traditions. According to records provided to MBA by the City of Newport Beach, early aerial photographs (circa 1927) show the property was cleared of native vegetation and utilized for grazing. MacArthur Boulevard was constructed between 1931 and 1938. Aerial photos show the street was not paved until after 1939. During the 1960's and 1970's, Newport Beach was transformed from a sleepy beach community to a high - density population center. The entire area had been developed for housing and golf courses in the 1970's, with San Joaquin Hills Road widened only recently (Exhibit 3). C'.Tmica Rcs%Projens \00640021 SL Muk's Church\Final culwml reporl.doc 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i i 1 1 1 1 II 1 1 1 SOURCE: www.terraserver.com Michael Brandman Associates C:Trcject FilesTroje B \00640021 St. Mark's Church\Final cultural report Am Date: 6 -1 -1994 • North is up. Exhibit 3 USGS Aerial Photograph w�Y��c♦ �.ncvc. wua �ayui ie oeau 1, /.o wpuyrapfuc fnnp SEARCH RADIUS Y `1%1 L - 1� c FI �.., � r .t ; C` y!i i'. � � � iii � �• -_ `-�; ,rt NSF . _ t t ...\aiZ Rr,S Bow•{, r,x� 1 �- �s Big wAv iRnraf, As �•• ♦ «`j - `,Cayon 1 COUNTR f. L Wne�iy f � e- � ✓ — - Sch �,/ r n I `; MaRSme�Jr�' y, r � •� - , �aubdel Pm�°• .,.�'LEV �_ `, r% r et > r 9 i NE RT_' ACS a. U 1m01EEl 0 sm inMFTFBS Printedfmm TOPOI @2001 Natimal Geographic Holdings (www.topo.com) SOURCE: Topo! ®National Geographic Holdings Exhibit 4 Michael Brandman Associates Cultural Records Search Radius HAClient (PN -JN) \0064\0064001\00640021 -Final Culracal Report.doc Final: Cultural Survey and Paleo Records Search for the St. Marks Church January 20 2004 Page 12 Section 3.0. Investigative Methods Procedures utilized to produce the data for this report were relatively straightforward. Protocol guidelines for performing the cultural resource field survey and any site or isolate recordation were previously downloaded from Federal websites. The California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP: CHRIS 1999) archaeological recordation guidelines and procedures follow National Park Service recordation guidelines (1983, 1985) and fulfill CEQA requirements. 3.1 Record Search Procedure MBA staff archaeologist Wayne Bonner performed the records search at the South Central Coastal Information Center, California State University, Fullerton (SCCIC), on August 30, 2003. This consisted of a search for any previously recorded cultural resource sites and /or isolates on or within a half -mile radius about the study area. This radius is found in Exhibit 4 above. The records search consisted of examining topographic maps for previous survey or study locations as well as locations of previously recorded archaeological sites. Photocopies of positive- finding reports (exhibiting any analytical information) and regional overviews were made, while cumulative lists of all negative- finding reports were generated. 3.2 Cultural Resource Fieldwork Procedure The author undertook a walkover survey of the project area on September 24, 2003. The property was examined for cultural resources and photographed at key points. The California OHP recommends that all potentially significant or important cultural resources (sites or isolates) discovered during a survey be documented utilizing modem State of California Department of Parks and Recreation Archaeological Site Forms (DPR523 series: OHP 1995). For the purposes of this study, the presence of three or more culturally significant artifacts within a 20m radius constitutes the minimal definition of the term "site" as would the existence of one or more historically significant surface /subsurface "features." "Isolated artifacts" are defined as one or two artifacts within a 20m radius without the presence of a "feature." If impacts to sites cannot be avoided by the project, recorded sites should be assessed using NHPA/NRHP Significance criteria (see Archnet 1999, CHRIS 1999, NRHP 1999, OHP 1995) utilizing methods noted below. 3.3 Procedures for Cultural Significance Determinations OHP, in response to CEQA, recommends that prior to development a cultural resource record search and a Phase I cultural resource survey take place on a property that exhibits some potential for cultural resources. According to protocol, if such a survey detects cultural sites or artifactual remains, the Lead Agency, whose role is to fulfill Section 106 and CEQA requirements, must be able to determine whether the cultural resources are eligible for inclusion in the National and/or California Registers. At the federal level, a step -by -step "Section 106" process has been developed and implemented per 36 CFR 800 (NHPA 1999). As a part of this procedure, the resource must be evaluated to determine whether it is "historically significant ". Federal eligibility must be determined utilizing ' four evaluative criteria found in implementing regulations 36 CFR part 63. The four National criteria include the following: ' A. That are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history; or B. That are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; or ' CAProject Files\Prgeds \00640021 St. Mark's ChurchTinal cultural reporUm If avoidance of a site cannot occur as a result_ of an action under CEQA, the project development plans must be evaluated in order to determine whether the action would cause a "substantial adverse change" in the Significance of the resource utilizing the State criteria above. Under Federal (36CRF800.5) and State regulations, all archaeological or historical sites must be carefully evaluated relative to the effects of the action, even if they have not been officially listed at the time the proposed action will take place. Although avoidance of cultural resources is always the best choice, where necessary, impacts to previously listed or potentially listed resources will and must be mitigated. Should it be determined that a cultural resource is or could be potentially listed on the National Register of Historical Resources, a Phase 2 (archaeological testing and/or historical structure evaluation) assessment of the resource must take place prior to impact. Should it be determined that the resource is Significant and that impacts will cause a substantial adverse change in its significance, that resource must undergo Phase 3 (data collection) prior to impact. Under CEQA, should Phase 2 test results determine that the resource would not qualify for listing in the California (or National) Register of Historical Resources, no further mitigation of any kind is required. Section 4.0. Previous Research and Records Review Results The cultural resource record search indicated that the study area has never been surveyed for cultural resources. Eight CEQA and/or NEPA- related cultural resource studies have taken place in the search radius (Anon 1978; Brock 198.5; Brown 1992; Del Chario 1981; Hayden 1994; Mabry 1978; Marmor 1991; McLean 1998). The search also indicated that no cultural properties have been recorded on -site, while one historic site (destroyed), one historic archaeological site (destroyed) and eight prehistoric sites (all likely destroyed) are known within the search radius. C.Tm eer ResTrojecLs \00640021 Si. Mark's ChurchTinal cultural repon.aoc , Final: Cultural Survey and Palen Records Search for the St. Marks Church January 20 2004 Page 13 , C. That embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable ' entity whose components may lack individual distinction; or D. That has yielded or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history. , If the project is CEQA -only, the State of California SHPO evaluation guidelines utilize significance criteria that essentially mirror that of the NHPA guidelines: ' A. Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California's history and cultural heritage; B. Is associated with the lives of persons important to our past; ' C. Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic values; or D. Has yielded, or may be Likely to yield, information important to prehistory or history. If avoidance of a site cannot occur as a result_ of an action under CEQA, the project development plans must be evaluated in order to determine whether the action would cause a "substantial adverse change" in the Significance of the resource utilizing the State criteria above. Under Federal (36CRF800.5) and State regulations, all archaeological or historical sites must be carefully evaluated relative to the effects of the action, even if they have not been officially listed at the time the proposed action will take place. Although avoidance of cultural resources is always the best choice, where necessary, impacts to previously listed or potentially listed resources will and must be mitigated. Should it be determined that a cultural resource is or could be potentially listed on the National Register of Historical Resources, a Phase 2 (archaeological testing and/or historical structure evaluation) assessment of the resource must take place prior to impact. Should it be determined that the resource is Significant and that impacts will cause a substantial adverse change in its significance, that resource must undergo Phase 3 (data collection) prior to impact. Under CEQA, should Phase 2 test results determine that the resource would not qualify for listing in the California (or National) Register of Historical Resources, no further mitigation of any kind is required. Section 4.0. Previous Research and Records Review Results The cultural resource record search indicated that the study area has never been surveyed for cultural resources. Eight CEQA and/or NEPA- related cultural resource studies have taken place in the search radius (Anon 1978; Brock 198.5; Brown 1992; Del Chario 1981; Hayden 1994; Mabry 1978; Marmor 1991; McLean 1998). The search also indicated that no cultural properties have been recorded on -site, while one historic site (destroyed), one historic archaeological site (destroyed) and eight prehistoric sites (all likely destroyed) are known within the search radius. C.Tm eer ResTrojecLs \00640021 Si. Mark's ChurchTinal cultural repon.aoc i 1 ' Final: Cultural Survey and Palen Records Search for the St. Marks Church ' January 20 2004 Page 14 4.1 Known Resources in the Project Vicinity ' According to SCCIC files, eight prehistoric shell midden sites were known within the half -mile radius of the project area. Most of these sites were destroyed in the 1960's during development of the first shopping center near Fashion Plaza and residential development south of the project area. Widening of MacArthur Boulevard lead to investigations of several remnant shell middens south - southwest of the project area. In addition, three sites were once likely located approximately 300 meters south of the project area on ground near the top of a hill that overlooks ' Newport Beach. These sites (CA -ORA -199, -200 and —201) were destroyed in January and February of 1966, so little information about them exists. ' Given these facts, there is a moderate probability that prehistoric cultural resources will be impacted if intact native fine sandy loam is encountered during construction. The most likely components found would be shell fragments, fire - altered rock, stone flakes and/or milling stones. Section 5.0. Results 5.1 Cultural Resources During the survey, no historic or prehistoric resources were observed. The ground surface visibility during the survey was excellent, due to the dearth of native vegetation within the project area, but the project area has been mostly graded during road construction. Soils at the edges of the canyons were inspected for unmistakable signs of human occupation (shell fragments), but none were observed. Section 6.0. Project Summary and Resource Assessments 6.1 Cultural Resource Management Recommendations There are no resources located within the area of direct effect that qualify as significant under CEQA cultural resource criteria, or under criterion A, B, C or D of the NEPA -level 36CFR part 63 criteria for listing. However, given the background information found in Section 3 above, there is a moderate probability that construction will impact buried cultural resources that are covered by fill, vegetation or both. We recommend that if undisturbed topsoil (typically a brown, fine sandy loam) is encountered during construction. cultural resource monitoring should take place at least on a part-time basis. 1) Part time monitoring should take place by a qualified archaeologist if intact native topsoils are encountered during construction. If no intact native topsoils are encountered, the monitoring requirement should be discontinued. Native American tribal monitors (from groups indicated by the NAHC response letter) should be retained by the project proponent and should be on site if an archeologist is also required. Native American monitors should also be on -site during any archaeological Phase 2 (testing) or Phase 3 (excavation) work. 2) Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the project applicant shall retain a Lead Agency- approved archaeologist to develop an archaeological mitigation plan and a discovery clause /treatment plan. Both of these plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Agency. The archaeological mitigation plan shall include monitoring all excavation CAProjcct Files\Projccts \00640021 St. Mark's Church\Fu�al cultural reportAcc Final: Cultural Survey and Paleo Records Search for the St. Marks Church January 20 2004 Page 15 activities on the project site by an Agency- approved archaeologist and/or his representative. The discovery clause /treatment plan shall include recovery and subsequent treatment of any archaeological or historical remains and associated data uncovered by brushing, grubbing or excavation. The treatment plan shall provide procedures for the curation of any detected cultural specimens. Any recovered cultural resources shall be identified, sites recorded, mapped and artifacts catalogued as required by standard professional archaeological practices. Examination by an archaeological specialist shall be included where necessary, dependent upon the artifacts, features, or sites that are encountered. Specialists will identify, date and/or determine significance potential. 3) If the archaeological monitor discovers cultural deposits, earthmoving shall be diverted temporarily around the deposits until the deposits have been evaluated, recorded, excavated and/or recovered, as necessary, and in accordance with the Agency- approved recovery plan. Earthmoving shall be allowed to proceed through the area after the archaeologist determines the artifacts are recovered and/or site mitigated to the extent necessary. 4) If a previously unknown cultural site is encountered during monitoring and it is determined by the archaeologist that a significance determination is required, the site shall be evaluated and recorded in accordance with requirements of the State Office of Historic Preservation (i.e., DPR 523 form). In this case, if the site is not determined to be significant, no measures subsequent to recording the site on appropriate forms are required. If any of the sites are determined to be significant, the Agency- approved archaeologist shall collect an adequate amount of artifacts at the specific archaeological site. The archaeologist shall determine the amount of artifacts needed to be collected. 5) If human remains are encountered during excavations associated with this project, all work shall halt and the County Coroner shall be notified (Section 5097.98 of the Public Resources Code). The Coroner will determine whether the remains are of forensic interest. If the coroner, with the aid of the County- approved archaeologist, determines that the remains are prehistoric, he /she will contact the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC). The NAHC will be responsible for designating the most likely descendant (MLD), who will be responsible for the ultimate disposition of the remains, as required by Section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code. The MLD will make his /her recommendations within 24 hours of their notification by the NAHC. This recommendation may include scientific removal and nondestructive analysis of human remains and items associated with Native American burials (Section 7050.5 of the Health and Safety Code). 6) Any recovered archaeological resources should be identified, sites recorded, mapped and artifacts catalogued as required by standard archaeological practices. Examination by an archaeological specialist should be included where necessary, dependent upon the artifacts, features or sites that are encountered. Specialists will identify, date and/or determine significance potential. 7) A final report of monitoring findings will be prepared by the Project Archaeologist for submission to the Proponent, the Lead Agency, and the South Central Coastal Information Center at California State University, Fullerton. The report will describe the history of the project area, summarize field and laboratory methods used, if applicable, and include any testing or special analysis information conducted to support the resultant findings. Q\Proiut i ilu\Proj"¢ \00640021 SL Mark's Ch,mb'do nal cWWral'ePaMdo Final: Cultural Survey and Palen Records Search for the St. Marks Church ' January 20 2004 Page 16 It is possible that potentially significant cultural resources will be uncovered during eanhmoving without a monitor present. If so, such sites (excluding isolated artifacts) should be tested for significance prior to continued impact following SHPO guidelines. 6.2 Native American Commentary It is assumed that once the suite of environmental reports is sent to the State environmental clearinghouse, and/or routed by the local agency, local tribal jurisdictions will comment upon these findings. On September 18 2003, we sent a request to the Native American Heritage Commission for the purposes of obtaining information related to known Native American sacred sites in the area. The NAHC response (Appendix C)shows that no known sacred sites are located ' within or near the project area. Because no known prehistoric sites are located within the project area, attempts to make direct tribal contact has not and will not take place. ' 6.3 Paleontological Resource Management Recommendations It is very likely that significant paleontological resources will be impacted during construction. With appropriate mitigation, earth moving associated with development of the project could result in beneficial effects, including the recovery of scientifically highly important fossil remains ' that would not even have been exposed without eanhmoving. We recommend that a paleontological monitor should be on -site full time until and if the Lead Paleontologist recommends that full -time monitoring be reduced or eliminated entirely. 1) Prior to any clearing and grubbing and/or eanhmoving activities on the project area, a qualified Project Paleontologist retained by the Proponent and approved by the City shall review the approved development and construction plans. The paleontologist shall participate in a pre-construction project meeting with the development staff to ensure an understanding of the mitigation measures required during construction. 2) Paleontologic monitoring of any eanhmoving will be conducted by a monitor, under direct guidance of the Project Paleontologist, in areas of the project underlain by previously undisturbed sediments that will be disturbed by eanhmoving. Eanhmoving in areas of the parcel where previously undisturbed sediments will be buried but not otherwise disturbed will not be monitored. Monitoring shall begin once eanhmoving reaches five (5) feet below the original ground surface. 3) Monitoring will be conducted on a full -time basis in areas of the project underlain by rock units in which there is a high potential for fossil remains being encountered by eanhmoving. 4) If the monitor discovers fossil remains, eanhmoving will be diverted temporarily around the fossil site until the remains have been recovered. Eanhmoving can then proceed through the area only after approval by the monitor. If fossil remains are found in an area underlain by a rock unit where there is a low or moderate /undetermined potential for fossil remains being encountered by eanhmoving, the level of monitoring will be increased to half or full time, respectively. On the other hand, if too few fossil remains are found after 50% of eanhmoving in those areas of the parcel underlain a particular rock unit has been completed, monitoring can be reduced or discontinued in those areas at the project paleontologists direction. 5) In the event that any fossil remains are encountered by eanhmoving when the monitor is not present, eanhmoving will be diverted around the fossil site and the monitor called to the location immediately to recover the remains. 6) If fossil remains are found, up to 6,000 pounds of fossiliferous sediments will be recovered from the fossil site and processed to allow for the recovery of smaller fossil remains. The C:\Project Files\PMj=u; \00640021 $t. Marks ChurchTinal cultural repon.doc Final: Cultural Survey and Paleo Records Search for the St. Marks Church January 20 2004 Page 17 total weight of all processed samples from the fossil - bearing rock unit will not exceed 6,000 pounds. 7) Should resources be detected, the Project Paleontologist retained by the Proponent and approved by the City will also develop a storage agreement with a museum repository acceptable within the County of Orange to allow for the permanent storage and maintenance of any fossil remains recovered in the project area as a result of the mitigation program, and for the archiving of associated specimen data and corresponding geologic and geographic site data. 8) Any recovered fossil remains will be prepared to the point of identification and identified to the lowest taxonomic level possible by knowledgeable paleontologists. The remains then will be curated (assigned and labeled with museum repository fossil specimen numbers and corresponding fossil site numbers, as appropriate; placed in specimen trays and, if necessary, vials with completed specimen data cards) and catalogued. Associated specimen data and corresponding geologic and geographic site data will be archived (specimen and site numbers and corresponding data entered into appropriate museum repository catalogs and computerized data bases) at the museum repository by a laboratory technician. The remains then will be accessioned into the museum repository fossil collection, where they will be permanently stored and maintained. The associated specimen and site data will be made available for future study by qualified investigators. 9) A final report of findings will be prepared by the project paleontologist for submission to the City, the Coastal Commission and the museum repository following accessioning of the specimens into the museum repository fossil collection. The report will describe parcel geology /stratigraphy, summarize field and laboratory methods used, include a faunal list and an inventory of curated/catalogued fossil specimens, evaluate the scientific importance of the specimens, and discuss the relationship of any newly recorded fossil site in the parcel to relevant fossil sites previously recorded from other areas. These recommended mitigation measures would be part of a program that is in compliance with Society of Vertebrate Paleontologists' standard guidelines. Implementing and adhering to these guidelines will reduce the potential adverse environmental impacts of construction on paleontologic resources to an insignificant level. The guidelines will also allow acceptance by a museum repository of a fossil collection the result of an impact mitigation program. C: \PMjMt Files\Frojects \00640021 St. Mark's Church\Final cultural report.doc r n �J Final: Cultural Survey and Falco Records Search for the St. Marks Church ' January 20 2004 Page 18 Section 7.0. References . Ames, J.G. 1873 Report of Special Agent John G. Ames in regard to the Condition of the Mission Indians of California, with Recommendations. In: Papers Accompanying the Report of the Commissioner of Indian Affairs, 1873. U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs, Washington D.C. ArchNet (CRM Archives) 1999 Section 106 Users Guide: 36 CFR 800: Part 800 - Protection of Historic and ' Cultural Properties. Website: 8000x.htm. Downloaded December 6, 1999. Bean, L.J. and F.C. Shipek 1978 Luiseno. In R.F. Heizer, (ed.), Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 8: ' California: 550 -563. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution. Chartkoff J.L. and K.K. Chartkoff 1984 The Archaeology of California. Stanford University Press, Menlo Park. CHRIS (Office of Historic Preservation, California State Parks) 1999 Instructions For Recording Historical Resources. Website: hitp: / /ohp. parks .ca.gov /chris/hrmanual.htm. Downloaded December 6, 1999. Englehardt, Z. 1922 The San Juan Capistrano Mission. Los Angeles Heizer, R.F. (ed.) 1978 Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 8: California. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution. Moratto, M.J. 1984 California Archaeology. San Diego, Academic Press. Morton and Miller 1981 Geologic Map Of Orange County California, Showing Mines and Mineral Deposits. Williams & Heintz Map Corporation, Washington D.C. NHPA (National Historic Preservation Act) 1999 Section 106, Step -by -Step. No specific date. Downloaded from NHPA website. NPS (National Park Service) 1983 Archaeology and Historic Preservation: Secretary of the Interior's Standards and Guidelines. Washington, D.C. 1985 Guidelines for Local Surveys: A Basis for Preservation Planning. National Register Bulletin 24. Washington D.C. (NRHP) National Register of Historic Places 1999 How Do I List A Property? Website: http:/ /www.cr.nps.gov /nrtlisting.htm. Downloaded December 6, 1999. OHP (Office of Historic Preservation, California) 1995 Instructions for Recording Historical Resources. Office of Historic Preservation, Sacramento. ParkNet 2001 National Register Bulletin 15 (rev August 1995). Washington, D.C. Accessed on -line from the National Park Service Website. Wallace, W.J. 1955 A Suggested Chronology for Southern California Coastal Archaeology. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 11(3):214 -230. C\Project FilesTrojeci \00640021 St. Mark's Cl urch\Final cultural reporcdoc Final: Cultural Survey and Paleo Records Search for the St. Marks Church January 20 2004 Page 19 Warren, C.N. 1968 Cultural Tradition and Ecolosical Adaptation on the Southern California Coast. In Archaic Prehistory in the Western United States, C. Irwin- Williams, ed. Eastern New Mexico University Contributions in Anthropology vol. I, no. 3, pp. 1 -4. Portales. Wheeler, G. 1879 Annual Report Upon the Geographical Surveys of the One Hundreth Meridian. Vol. 7. U.S. Government Printing, Office, Washington D.C. Yorba, A. 1936 Unpublished Papers in the Alfonso Yorba Collection. In the possession of D. Belardes, San Juan Capistrano. C\Proiect Files\Pigwts \00610021 St. Marks Church \Final to I rural rejwrt dm r� L Final: Cultural Survey and Palen Records Search for the St. Marks Church January 20 2004 Page 20 Section 8.0. Certification I hereby certify that the statements furnished above and in the attached exhibits present the data ' and information required for this archaeological report, and that the facts, statements, and informatio prese ed are true and correct to the besLQf my knowledge and belief. Date: b Signed: ' Michael Dice, M.A. Michael Brandman Associates Irvine, CA. I 1 I FII �J 7 Ll C\Project Nles\ProjuuuW064002l St. MarKS ChurchTinal cultural report.dr 1 1 r r r r �1 1 1 r r r r Ir '1 Final: Cultural Survey and Paleo Records Search for the St. Marks Church January 20 2004 Page 22 view of the project area from the western comer of the project along San Joaquin Hills Road North facing view from the western corner toward the intersection with MacArthur. H:A('liant (PV.IMVW64V1N164pp'_ A006401 21 -Final Culnual Nqv i.d, c Final: Cultural Survey and Paleo Records Search for the St. Marks Church January 20 2004 Page 23 East facing view from the tip of the southernmost canyon finger. West facing view showing a berm rimming the canyon constructed to retain runoff and reduce erosion. 11 WUnl ( PN- 7V)A 0064V(HICi4nU ?IApph40U ^_1 -Llnal Cultural Relrirt.d�x I1 Final: Cultural Survey and Palen Records Search for the St. Marks Church January 20 2004 Page 24 Northeast facing view of the eastern project area along MacArthur Boulevard Typical view of upper canyon tip showing density of remaining vegetation. H licnt (PN- JN)A0064V0UO 4(N121A ()0640021 -Final ('ulwrnl Rcp,�tt. doe I1 1 Final: Cultural Survey and Paleo Records Search for the St. Marks Church January 20 2004 Page 25 1 1 i LJ I 1 I I L� 1 1 C] Appendix B: Personnel Qualifications IC Trojeot Piles\Projws \00640021 St. Mark's ChurchTinal cultural report.doc LJ 1 Final: Cultural Survey and Palen Records Search for the St. Marks Church January 20 2004 Page 26 MICHAEL H. DICE, M.A. ' SENIOR ARCHAEOLOGIST EDUCATION rM.A... Anthropology - Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona B.A., Anthropology - Washington State University, Pullman, Washington Anthropology Track, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington Professional Affiliations Member, California Historical Society Member, National Trust For Historic Preservation REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL ARCHAEOLOGIST (RPA 2000) Professional History Michael Brandman Associates, Tustin, California - Senior Archaeologist L &L Environmental, Inc. Corona, California - Senior Archaeologist National Park Service (Pipe Spring National Monument) - Archaeologist ' NATIONAL PARK SERVICE (MESA VERDE NATIONAL PARK) - ARCHAEOLOGIST CRMC, Inc., Farmington, New Mexico - Archaeological Project Manager LaPlata Archaeological Consultants, Dolores, Colorado - Archaeologist CASA, Inc. Cortez, Colorado - Archaeologist. Human Skeletal Analyst Mr. Dice is a Certified Archaeologist with more than 16 years of experience performing records searches, archaeological surveys, archaeological site testing (Phase 2) and data collection (Phase 3) projects on private and public lands in the Southwestern United States and Southern California. During his career, he has authored or co- authored more than 50 CEQA and/or NEPA level documents including several manuscripts for the National Park Service. Mr. Dice is a member of the California Historical Society, a Registered Professional Archaeologist (EPA), and is a member of the National Trust For Historic Preservation. Professional Experiences Project Scientist/Archaeologist for CEQA -level Phase 1, Phase 2 and Phase 3 archaeological mitigation for the Temecula Marketplace Project in the City of Temecula, California. Performed the field survey, recorded a large ' historic ranch complex remnant, developed testing procedures for the historic and prehistoric components of the site, then gathered a crew and performed the Phase 2 test in the field. Responsible for developing the Phase 3 data collection plan. jProject Scientist/Archaeologist for Section 106 level review of archaeological testing at Pipe Spring National Monument, Fredonia, Arizona. Produced complete report synthesizing a series of excavations (1996 -1998) on an historic Mormon Fort within the Monument. Also wrote a draft plan for any future archaeological mitigation. Project Archaeologist/Database Manager for the emergency Chapin -5 Fire Rehabilitation Project, Mesa Verde National Park, Colorado (1996 - 1999). Began as field crew chief (GS -7) and finished with the Park as a GS -9 Database manager. Created an ACCESS 6.0 database for the recordation or re-recordation of more than 500 archaeological sites within the rehabilitation area. Project Scientist/Archacologist for CEQA -level Phase I and Phase 4 archaeological mitigation for the "The Club at Big Bear Lake" Project in the City of Big Bear Lake, California. Performed the field survey, recorded a large historic tourist complex remnant, wrote mitigation - monitoring recommendations for the City, then supervised the monitoring, analyzed the historic artifacts and wrote the fmal report. Performed more than 40 CEQA -level Phase 1 archaeological surveys in Southern California, which included evaluating more than 30 historic and prehistoric archaeological sites per California SHPO protocol. The reports fulfill ARMR reporting guidelines, while the County of Riverside reports fulfilled both ARMR and County of Riverside protocols. 1 Q\P ojul Files\P oiects \00690021 St, Marks Cburch\Final cultural -Pan.dm Ii Final: Cultural Survey and Paleo Records Search for the St. Marks Church January 20 2004 Page 27 Appendix C: Compliance Documents I 1 LJ 1 I I I a I j lC\Project PilesU rojw,, \00640021 St. MarRs Church\Final cultural reporcdoc St. Mark Presbyterian Church - Screencheck Draft EIR APPENDIX C: WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN Michael Brandman Associates HXUent(PN -JN) \0 \0064002Mcmmheck��21 _Appendices.dm 1 1 11 r I I 91 i �.j Iu II For: Planning Application No. PA 2003 -085 Property Location: 2,200 San Joaquin Hills Road Northwest Corner Mac Arthur Boulevard and San Joaquin Hills Road Newport beach, CA Prepared For: ST. MARK PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH 2100 Mar Vista Drive Corona Del Mar, CA 92660 Prepared By: Nolan Consulting, Inc. 26901 Camino De Estrella, Suite D Capistrano Beach, CA 92624 (949) 240 -7555 Prepared: December 8, 2003 Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) For: Planning Application No. PA 2003 -085 Assessors Parcel No. 442- 032 -62 Tentative Parcel Map No. 2000 -132 Property Location: 2200 San Joaquin Hills Road, Newport Beach, CA 92660 Prepared for. St. Mark Presbyterian Church (Developer) 2100 Mar Vista Drive Corona Del Mar, CA 92660 Property Owner. The Irvine Company, c/o Mr. Norm Witt 550 Newport Center Drive, Newport Beach, CA 92660 Ph.: (949) 720 -2129 Prepared by: Nolan Consulting, Inc 26901 Camino de Estrella, Suite D Capistrano Beach, CA 92624 Ph.: (949) 240 -7555 Prepared: December 8, 2003 Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) Planning Application No. PA 2003 -085 OWNER'S CERTIFICATION WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN 560 PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA 2003 -085 This Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) has been prepared for St. Mark Presbyterian Church (Developer) by Nolan Consulting Inc. The WQMP is intended to comply with the requirements of the City of Newport Beach Planning Department Permit Application Number PA 2003 -085 requiring the preparation of a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP). The undersigned, while it owns the subject property, is responsible for the implementation of the provisions of this plan and will ensure that this plan is amended as appropriate to reflect up -to -date conditions on the site consistent with the current Orange County Drainage Area Management Plan (DAMP) and the intent of the non - point source NPDES Permit for Waste Discharge Requirements for the County of Orange, Orange County Flood Control District and the incorporated Cities of Orange County within the Santa Ana Region Stormwater Runoff Management Program. Once the undersigned transfers its interest in the property, its successors -in- interest shall bear the aforementioned responsibility to implement and amend the WQMP. An appropriate number of approved and signed copies of this document shall be available on the subject site in perpetuity. Signed: Name: Title: Company: St. Mark Presbyterian Church Address: 2200 Mar Vista Drive, Corona Del Mar, CA 92660 Telephone #: (949) 644 -1341 Date: ISt. Mark Presbyterian Church Prepared: December 8, 2003 Contents Page I Contents Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) Planning Application No. PA 2003 -085 Section I Discretionary Permit(s) and Water Quality Conditions ...........................1 Section 11 Project Description ....................................................... ..............................2 PropertyOveview ............................................................ ..............................2 Site Usage and Landscape Character ............................ ..............................2 aParking and Access ........................................................ ..............................3 Proposed Buildings and Uses ......................................... ..............................3 Section 111 Site Description ............................................................. ..............................4 I Site Location, Planning /Community Name ...................... ..............................4 Site Drainage Characteristics .......................................... ..............................5 Section IV Best Management Practices ( BMPs) ........................... ..............................6 Priority Project Category ................................................. ..............................6 Anticipated /Potential Pollutants Generated by Land Use ..............................6 2002 303(d) Listed Water Bodies and Pollutants of Concern ........................7 iConstruction Activity ....................................................... ..............................7 Post Construction ............................................................ ..............................7 Source Control BMPs ........................................... ..............................8 SiteDesign BMPs ............................................... .............................10 11. Treatment Control BMPs ..................................... .............................11 Section V Inspection /Maintenance Responsibility for BMPs .... .............................12 BMP Maintenance and Inspection Matrix ...................... .............................13 Section VI Plot Plan & BMP Details .............................................. .............................15 Section VII Educational Materials .................................................. .............................18 Attachments: ❖ Routine Structural BMP Fact Sheets t • Storm Drain Signage /Stenciiing • Trash Storage Areas • Efficient Irrigation • Velocity Dissipation Devices :• Treatment Control BMP Fact Sheets • Vegetated Swale • Infiltration Trench • Water Quality Inlet • Drain Inserts Dry Extended Detention Ponds • BMP Inspection and Maintenance I❖ Attachment A of Appendix A -7.VI of the County DAMP ISt. Mark Presbyterian Church Prepared: December 8, 2003 Contents Page ii Water Quality management Plan (WQMP) Planning Application No. PA 2003 -085 Section 1 Discretionary Permit(s) and Water Quality Conditions City of Newport Beach, Planning Application No.: PA 2003 -085 Assessor's Parcel Number: 442- 032-62 Tentative Parcel Map No.: 2000 -132 Legal Description: Being a subdivision of a portion of Block 93 of the Irvine's Subdivision, as shown on a map filed in Book 1, Page 88, in the City of Newport Beach, County of Orange, State of California, of Miscellaneous Maps, in the office of said County. Water Quality Condition No.: Not Available Water Quality Conditions: Not Available St. Mark Presbyterian Church Prepared: December 8, 2003 Section I Page 1 Water Quality management Plan (WQMP) Planning Application No. PA 2003 -085 Section 11 Project Description Property Overview: The proposed St. Mark Presbyterian Church Project will occupy 7.38 acres of the exiting 10.81 acre vacant site (APN 442 - 032 -62) located at the northwest corner of the Intersection of MacArthur Boulevard and San Joaquin Hills Road in Newport Beach, CA. The balance of the 10.81 acre site not within the St. Mark project site area includes 1.67 acres designated as Parcel One (per Tentative Parcel Map 2000 -132) and 1.76 acres of existing street easement areas within MacArthur Boulevard. The street easement areas are proposed to be deeded to the City of Newport Beach. The 1.67 acres designated as Parcel One will be deeded to the Big Canyon Golf Course by The Irvine Company contingent upon the approval of the St. Mark application contained herein. Site Usage and landscape Character The St. Mark Church site design is predicated on maximizing preservation of the existing canyon environment and maintaining the open space character of the existing site. The use of small scaled multiple building footprints within the project site minimizes the visual impact of structures proposed and allows for the open space to continue throughout the project site. Large landscape buffers are proposed at both San Joaquin Hills Road and MacArthur Boulevard to diminish the visual impact of structures built on the site as well as the view of existing large power poles. The 7.38 acre St. Mark Project Site will result in a total of 42.8% of relatively impervious areas, including 8.2% as buildings and the remaining impervious areas (parking and hardscape) 34.5 %. The remaining 57.2% of the site will be preserved as open space and proposed landscaping. There is a significant landscape buffer proposed around the site perimeter will enhance the overall appearance of the existing site presently characterized by large areas of barren dirt which emphasize the large power poles. The landscaping will consist of a variety of trees, shrubs, and ground cover consistent with the area landscaping and natural canyon foliage. In addition there will be an additional 1.67 acres of open space preserved in the proposed deed to the Big Canyon Golf Course as part of this project. Then majority of the existing canyon which is central to the site will be preserved in its current natural condition. ISt. Mark Presbyterian Church Prepared: December 8, 2003 Section II Page 2 Water Quality management Plan (WQMP) Planning Application No. PA 2003 -085 Parking and Access The parking for the project will be asphalt paved surface parking. The site will contain between 212 and 247 on -site parking spaces where 128 are required by code. Additional parking is provided in excess of the required parking due to the unusual length of the site and canyon which separates the property requiring redundant parking to serve the specific building locations on site. Access to the St. Mark site will occur at two driveways. The primary access is proposed off of San Joaquin Hills Road located where the existing curb -cut currently sits t the Christmas Tree Lot and Pumpkin Patch functions presently occu" the site seasonally. The other will be located near the northeast end a property off of MacArthur Boulevard via designated acceleration a celeration lanes allowing right turn -in and right turn -out movements onl's -,,,, Proposed Buil `rf' and Uses The St. Mark Cvch project includes 4 structures or major uses which total approximately 26,410 square feet in building areas. The buildings are broken up into small residentially scaled buildings which include; a 380 seat Church Sanctuary, a Fellowship Hall, a Pre - School, and a Nature Center. Future expansion over a 20 year time-frame could include the addition of one 1300 square feet pre - school structure housing 2 classrooms and plans for up to 5,183 square feet in one additional building to accommodate future unknown needs of the congregation. The total square footage for the Master Plan project would not exceed 33,867 square feet resulting in 10.5% building coverage. This would ultimately result in the Master Plan impervious site coverage of 45.1 percent St. Mark Presbyterian Church Section II Page 3 Prepared: December 8, 2003 Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) Planning Application No. PA 2003 -085 Section 111 Site Description Site Location, Planning Area /Community Name The proposed 7.58 acre site is located in the City of Newport Beach, California, at the northwest corner of MacArthur Boulevard and San Joaquin Hills Road. The immediate vicinity surrounding the site is fully developed, including Newport Center /Fashion Island, ' Big Canyon Golf Course and community, Roger's Garden, and high and low density residential development. Figure 1.0 Location Map, below, shows the project location with respect to the surrounding community. Figure 2.0 Site BMPS, in Section VI, shows the specific project features, including buildings, drainage patterns, and related area drainage features. St. Mark Presbyterian Church Figure 1.0 - Location Map Prepared: December 8, 2003 Section III Page 4 Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) Planning Application No. PA 2003 -085 Site Drainage Characteristics The property lies near a localized crest, or high - point, of an area of Newport Beach and generally slopes towards a natural canyon, central to the site, with two principal branches trending northerly towards the Big Canyon development. This canyon is also part of the Big Canyon Watershed which originates southeast of the site and includes Big Canyon Reservoir. The existing site is sparsely vegetated in the pad areas with increased vegetation towards the canyon. The canyon is heavily vegetated. Existing storm drain systems exist in MacArthur Boulevard and San Joaquin Hills Road which discharge runoff from offsite developments and the immediate street areas into the on -site canyon. The existing site drainage, offsite storm drain and neighboring golf course are part of the existing Big Canyon drainage system, which eventually discharges into Upper Newport Bay. The off -site flows originating upstream and part of the Big Canyon Watershed, pass through the site via the existing off -site storm drain system in MacArthur Boulevard and its 24" outlet at the upstream end of the on -site canyon. The offsite flows currently discharge runoff to the Big Canyon golf course adjacent to the site. All drainage areas from the project site and the aforementioned off -site flows eventually enter the Big Canyon drainage system, which passes through the Big Canyon golf course. The proposed drainage conditions will maintain the existing drainage patterns, that is, on- site flows will generally be directed to the canyon or to the existing drainage systems in MacArthur Boulevard conveying runoff into the Big Canyon drainage system. The increase in runoff resulting from the increase in impervious areas will be mitigated by on- site detention so that discharges from the site are maintained at or below existing conditions. Figure 2.0 — Site BMPs in Section VI, shows the location of these detention basins as well as other Best Management Practices (BMPs) proposed for this project. St. Mark Presbyterian Church Section III Page 5 Prepared: December 8, 2003 1 ' Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) Planning Application No. PA 2003 -085 Section IV Best Management Practices (BMPs) ■ The purpose of this section is to address the City of Newport Beach policy on water quality, that is, Policy L -18: Protection of Water Quality: Drainage — Public Rights -of- -Way, and Policy L -22: Water Quality Management Plans for New Development and Redevelopment. Preparation of this WQMP is intended to meet the City requirements for preparation of a Water Quality Management Plan, as well as the Countywide Water Quality Management Plan, and the County's Drainage Area Management Plan (DAMP) The California Stormwater Quality Association's BMP Handbook and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) National Menu of Best Management Practices has also been used as a resource for the educational materials, evaluation, and recommendations of BMPs for this project. Detailed descriptions, applicability and I effectiveness, and maintenance requirements of various BMPs are list are included in Section VII. The approach to storm water quality management includes: ■ • Identify probable and known points of source contaminants. • Identify points of runoff collection and discharge. ' • Evaluate use and implementation of structural and non - structural Best Management Practices (BMPs) during construction. • Evaluate use and feasibility of appropriate structural and non - structural BMPs for post construction (long term) implementation with Site Design, Source Control and Treatment Control storm water BMPs. The basis for identification of source control, site design and treatment control BMPs is based on the County of Orange Local WQMP and the County of Orange DAMP. Priority Project Category 1 According to Table A- 7.VI -1 (Priority Projects Categories) of the County Local WQMP, this project falls under a Category 7, Parking lots 5,000 square feet or more, or with 15 parking spaces or more, and potentially exposed to urban storm water runoff . 1 Anticipated and Potential Pollutants Generated by Land Use Type Referring to Table A- 7.VI -2 the following pollutants are anticipated: Heavy Metals, Trash ' C and Debris, Oil and Grease ' The following are potential pollutants due to on -site landscaping: Nutrients, Pesticides, Oxygen Demanding Substances. 1 St. Mark Presbyterian Church Section IV Page 6 Prepared: December 8, 2003 Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) Planning Application No. PA 2003 -085 2002 303 (di Listed Water Bodies and Pollutants of Concern Upper Newport Bay, an environmentally sensitive area (ESA) is located approximately 1.2 miles westerly of the project site. As previously stated, the project is part of the Big Canyon local watershed which is a tributary to Upper Newport Bay. According to Table A- 7.V1 -3 of the County WQMP, the Pollutants of Concern for Upper Newport Bay are Heavy Metals and Pesticides. Construction Activity Construction BMPs will be implemented to eliminate sediment and construction debris runoff into areas receiving waters during the construction period. Prior to construction and before a grading permit is issued, a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan ( SWPPP) must be prepared and approved by the local permitting agency (in this case, the City of Newport Beach) in accordance with the requirements of the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) Order No. F18- 2002 -0010, National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) No. CAS618030. The SWPPP must include BMPs to eliminate and /or minimize storm water pollution prior to, and during, construction. Post Construction The proposed grading design for the project includes raised earth berms along the projects street frontages which generally force drainage patterns internal to the project site. The impervious development areas proposed for the site will generally be graded to drain towards the parking lot landscaped medians and on -site detention ponds. The landscaped medians and swales used to convey runoff will be designed to encourage filtration and infiltration, allowing clarification of surface runoff. Parking lot drainage inlets will be used in the detention pond areas, and at the downstream end of landscaped swales and medians. The inlets will be equipped with debris screens and special inserts designed to intercept pollutants associated with parking lots and automotive residues. The on -site detention ponds will control the rate of discharge to the canyon so as not to exceed the pre - project condition. Discharge handling into the canyon will utilize appropriate energy dissipation and r- 11 permanent erosion control measures to avoid disruption to the existing canyon features U beyond the project grading footprint. Figure 2 — Site BMPs depicts the location and type of Structural and Non - Structural BMP proposed for the project. i It needs to be noted that the design and implementation of detention ponds and infiltration trenches will have limitations with respect to the sizing and capacity of these treatment BMPs due to site restrictions. However, every effort must be made to maximize the capacity to meet the goals of the calculated Stormwater Quality Design Flow (SQDF) and /or the Stormwater Quality Design Volume for the site. These are the values which St. Mark Presbyterian Church Section IV Page 7 Prepared: December 8, 2003 I 1 I i i j Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) Planning Application No. PA 2003 -085 represent the amount of runoff to be "treated" and generally represent the low flows, as opposed to peak flows generated by the site hydrology using the Rational Method. SQDF values relate to Vegetated Swale BMPs (among others), and SQDV values correspond to Detention Basins and Infiltration Trench BMPs (among others). Attachment A of Appendix A -7.V1 of the County DAMP provides the Methodology fop computing these values. Source Control BMPs The following tables show source control BMPs (routine non - structural and routine structural) included in this project and those that are not. 0...4:.... Mnn RMOc St. Mark Presbyterian Church Prepared: December 8, 2003 Section IV Page 8 Check One If not applicable, state brief Included Not Identifier Name reason Applicable Education for Property Owners, X N1 Tenants and Occupants activity restrictions are inherent N2 Activity Restrictions X to the proposed use Common Area landscape X The Church will own and N3 Mana ement maintain the Landscape N4 BMP Maintenance X N5 Title 22 Code Restrictions X Not applicable N6 Local Industrial Code Compliance X Not applicable Not applicable to Church N7 Spill Contingency Plan X o erations N8 Underground Storage Tank X No USTs proposed Compliance Hazardous Materials Disclosure Not applicable to Church N9 Compliance operations N10 Uniform Fire Code Implementation X Not applicable N11 Common Area Litter Control X N12 Employee Training X N13 Housekeeping of Loading Docks No loading docks proposed N14 Common Area Catch Basin X Inspection N15 Street Sweeping Private Streets X and Parking Lots N16 Commercial Vehicle Washing X Not applicable St. Mark Presbyterian Church Prepared: December 8, 2003 Section IV Page 8 t e� 1 Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) Planning Application No. PA 2003 -085 Routine Structural RMPs St. Mark Presbyterian Church Prepared: December 8, 2003 Section IV Page 9 Check One If not applicable, state brief Includt ;d ot Applicable Name reason Provide storm drain system stenciling X and signage Design and construct outdoor material Material stockpiling and storage is storage areas to reduce pollution X not proposed introduction Design and construct trash and waste storage areas to reduce pollution X introduction Use efficient irrigation systems and landscape design, water conservation, X smart controllers, and source control Protect slopes and channels and X provide energy dissi anon Incorporate requirements applicable to individual priority project categories from SDRWOCB NPDES Permit a. Dock areas X Not applicable to Church operations b. Maintenance bays X Not applicable to Church operations c. Vehicle wash areas Not applicable to Church operations d. Outdoor processing areas X Not applicable to Church o erations e. Equipment wash areas X Not applicable to Church operations f. Fueling areas X Not applicable to Church operations g. Hillside landscaping X Not applicable to Church o erations h. Wash water control for food X Not applicable to Church preparation areas operations i. Community car wash racks X Not applicable to Church 1 1 — operations — St. Mark Presbyterian Church Prepared: December 8, 2003 Section IV Page 9 1. I LJ I II Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) Planning Application No. PA 2003 -085 Site Design BMPs The following table shows site design BMPs that are included with this project. Site Desian BMPS I' In addition to listed BMPs, other design elements will be evaluated and implemented where feasible as the final design evolves. Such design features will include measures, where feasible, to reduce direct discharge to impermeable surfaces such as directing roof drains to landscaped areas, and site grading to direct runoff to permeable areas where practical. I 1 r� St. Mark Presbyterian Church Section IV ' Page 10 Prepared: December 8, 2003 Check One If not applicable, state brief Yes No Name reason. Other remarks Minimize Impervious Area &Maximize Large landscape buffer along Permeability X perimeter & preservation of existin natural can on Due to the nature of site Minimize Directly Connected Connected circulation and limited access this Impervious Areas ( X design concept does not present appropriate opportunities for implementation. Create Reduced or "Zero Discharge" X Three detention basins are proposed thereby greatly Areas for Runoff Volume Reduction reducing peak runoff The existing canyon gradient and Conserve Natural Areas (C- Reduction X natural vegetation has been Factor) largely preserved and designed _ around I' In addition to listed BMPs, other design elements will be evaluated and implemented where feasible as the final design evolves. Such design features will include measures, where feasible, to reduce direct discharge to impermeable surfaces such as directing roof drains to landscaped areas, and site grading to direct runoff to permeable areas where practical. I 1 r� St. Mark Presbyterian Church Section IV ' Page 10 Prepared: December 8, 2003 Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) Planning Application No. PA 2003 -085 Treatment Control BMPs The following Table shows treatment control BMPs that are included in this project. A description of selected BMPs is included in Section VII: Trao} man} r:nn}rM RMPe St. Mark Presbyterian Churbh Prepared: December 8, 2003 Section IV Page 11 Check One If not applicable, state brief Yes No Name reason, Other remarks Vegetated (Grass) Strips X No grass strip areas are available for treatment of runoff Vegetated (Grass) Swales X Actual use involves landscape areas not incorporating turf Dry Detention Basin X Parking Lot and landscape area detention used Wet Detention Basin X Not compatible with existing conditions or proposed use. Constructed Wetland X Not compatible with existing conditions or proposed use. Detention Basin /Sand Filter X Not compatible with existing conditions or proposed use. Porous Pavement Detention X Opportunities for porous pavement will be evaluated during final design Potential limited use in combination Porous landscape detention X with detention basin in landscape area. Infiltration Basin X Not compatible with existing conditions or proposed use. Infiltration Trench X Used in combination with linear parking lot islands. Media Filter X Not compatible with existing conditions or proposed use. Proprietary Control Measures X Use will include Catch Basin Inserts. St. Mark Presbyterian Churbh Prepared: December 8, 2003 Section IV Page 11 Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) Planning Application No. PA 2003 -085 Section V Inspection/ Maintenance Responsibility for BMPs In order to provide and implement on -going BMP operation and maintenance for the project as outlined in this WQMP and as indicated in the project plans, the responsibility to do so must be established and a method of transferring responsibility in perpetuity in the case of a change of ownership or site management. The following owner is responsibility for this project: The property owner, St Mark Presbyterian Church, is responsible for long term operation and maintenance of the project BMPs in accordance with this WQMP. The property owner shall enforce the operation and maintenance of: • Source Control BMPs • Treatment Control BMPs Owner: St Mark Presbyterian Church Current Address: 2100 Mar Vista Drive Corona Delmar, Ca 92660 Contact: John Benner Phone: (949) 644 -1341 The City of Newport Beach has developed a "Notice of Transfer of Responsibility" form which must be used by the Owner at the time of a change of ownership to inform the City that such a transfer has occurred. On behalf of the Owner, the design team (listed below and currently developing the project) shat be responsible for implementation of the site design BMPs into the project plans and documents as identified in this WQMP to the extent practicable. Architect: Hyndman & Hyndman 2611 So. Coast Hwy 101, Suite 200 Cardiff, CA 92007 Phone: (760) 634-2595 Civil Engineer: Nolan Consulting, Inc 26901 Caminmo de Estrella, Suite D Capistrano Beach, CA 92624 Phone: (949) 240 -7555 Landscape Architect: Katzmaier, Newell & Kehr 2728 Coast Hwy East Corona Del Mar, CA 92625 Phone: (949) 760 -0454 St. Mark Presbyterian Church Prepared: December 8, 2003 Section V Page 12 a� 00 2° cv v� ° COL d N Z E c f0 f0 c _U �n CL T Q O1 c C d C r d N x b m c O M V m n c V L m m V c m c m C {0 C IL m c o CM c c c c N a a a "y 'E a a CL a` a` a` a` m a a m a U) L) U) U) L) U) C) U) L) O F L U) L) L U) L) 0 L U) L) C N M 2 U U U U U yU S Q) C J J C J C C C C a J L L mm L mm m tom m m m m m Z U`� U`�ya U`� ya c ya ya c ya Nc m$ m0 c0 m0 c$ E c° O L C a C= Ud mNa mEm mEm 'Em c._ cLiOE mina m�)o c._ DoE c- DoE DoE Lc.- UpE t'E a t E��0 m t v E2 2 a � N m � N m m m ; N m �¢� �¢o �¢� cLiav cL)av cL)(I F° L) (L cL)CL m L rn m N N w m C U) O in c �C' N a) = ma m c 'y 2A O. ... m 3 N E� w o d' � aadpd hc � t co v )On U 0 3 m C N J m D V E rn c N mm am '> > i �m LUCm NEE "rn :3 `O > N y y �c E o c a w N ` N N V c m o m a ° 0 �CL d m a a `o Z N N 0 w- N N o m y N - rm+ N - o O am m � m m 'o m 0-0 U E Q m 0 m 715 MR m�omd c m CO o U m a 0 :2 a`0ap�0 O O p m =a° m m '>a �,v m E2 c up>aEw'uam agd o m� E up aT2 E m N 2 m m N m a m O` RI C .F a m E: m O m N m o 0 C N c m U N a m m o m O J m CO U 0 v N J N m S 0 c x w 0 0° o a c E ,8 m m v o N v C d 5 0 o d d c L m E= o p 06 c: c d m d m y >`m m J m U T U) C T m C C > m m N 24 c ni E J c E `m E EO c w UUt Q w a d' mC)r(I V.2 U O C m O N N O 0 C O U `y aT `n m y O 3 m c a m y m a N o 2 p c c1 0 m 0 U S� m a 4= v m c c o m a m -O- n L g E� c `o La N m a)m a °) J c m an d 0 W rm- m ui L) (L U) m F¢ m w W O a� > O O .... N f0 d d a) O a) Z E c m U m a7 c U_ �n CL >. Q J c O C m m c O v m Q m v c m m v m m C m i ru 1 c U a7 L U L U C f0 .m m IL m Cl) 0 0 N W a`) a E m U m a m d m CL c O c N c N c m c m N a a a c N n N N N a7 m m m m p1 a` a a` a` O Y Y Y Y C a`NE c c c Z m a U m a m a a7 C `p M C 2 U IL N m .c L C' E L C E 0 `y p j 0 `y L m y Uaa�¢O1Uaa O L m m L y y Uaa m IL �� o m m a a E c p 2 m N O m Q p j m m m m a O m !c y y 0 0 3 m w O= m N C N N N c d -0 3E m1°'coN m m a`�aNia a dL�mcv m C N a N L m C O m F C m ccarmy N` m N m m p �wU� E- 3 c ° m c y c 0 ° M N m c O m 0.9 ? O a. > U 0.9 V m m> ; c a m E a o E a Z O� m m m N N m N m 0 p C T m c E 0 d m J Y _O TS f/7 an Ta w m N m m C L N m C L E C S c LL O m ¢ m m �Nal m CL 0 c d 3 m c N m IL U O F C 2 m d m m O V o c U a7 L U L U C f0 .m m IL m Cl) 0 0 N W a`) a E m U m a m d m CL I Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) Planning Application No, PA 2003 -085 1 Section Vi Location Map, Plot Plan & BMP 11 Details 11 1 i !1 1 [7 1 1 1 1 Attached are Figure 2.0 — Site BMPs and Figure 3.0 — BMP Details which depict the relevant Structural and Treatment Control BMPs proposed around the site and corresponding BMP Details, respectively. See Figure 1 — Location Map in Section I for an overview of the project with respect to the surrounding community. St. Mark Presbyterian Church Prepared: December 8, 2003 Section VI Page 15 0 z w 0 W I f �8ii 8 �r`2 X888 a8 s i c # 4 �ri n N vi p C C 0 m 5 OU C •. U 0 m C ui pM a N CO IOU / C ° Q p C c N N O C p y w o m0° 3 p con 's n .°:c me 3 E li C �+ N U m N O6 N c ° 01 00 cn' a a-'� av as pop ° o C c o m m3a°� ma mo c ° _ N a °c_ Er N a m o 030- um pt= Doti° O N o a �`pc7 Boa' (nn in a`aU- f �8ii 8 �r`2 X888 a8 s i c # 4 �ri n N vi p C C 0 m 5 OU C •. U 0 3 pU) / d ' I I C O ui CL M N c II p m " o 0t C 7 N to 0 °3 v3 pU) Q CN1 l I ' ? :J f 1' r 1 �r. X; I, /a•4 a CL HV \ \ W C I W a1 � a \ \ LL j 1 \ ` Or +� 1 1 W \ I I 1 -C AS N IE>mml �I S p. I U ac c p mU o ptU 7 I c 3 N I Li N N p r 1 � -0 r� c� pM aN c II O U N t r 7 C N N m m3 pU) CN7 tl ;I v 9 9 m m I j 7 t I V I I I to i ENmm 1 I O _ _ y c o p-t , Pooh 5111H ulnboor uDs 10 c 3 — – I 1� �!I I �I I I 1 I \� m C ui pM a N CO IOU / C ° Q p C c 3 pU) / d ' I I C O ui CL M N c II p m " o 0t C 7 N to 0 °3 v3 pU) Q CN1 l I ' ? :J f 1' r 1 �r. X; I, /a•4 a CL HV \ \ W C I W a1 � a \ \ LL j 1 \ ` Or +� 1 1 W \ I I 1 -C AS N IE>mml �I S p. I U ac c p mU o ptU 7 I c 3 N I Li N N p r 1 � -0 r� c� pM aN c II O U N t r 7 C N N m m3 pU) CN7 tl ;I v 9 9 m m I j 7 t I V I I I to i ENmm 1 I O _ _ y c o p-t , Pooh 5111H ulnboor uDs 10 c 3 — – I 1� �!I I �I I I 1 I \� R ■ || if � k � 9 2 I 7 f { d 1 �} | ~f � j� ! | |f � 2 p f !7 7f ff �| !| . , 2z= � � § 2aq z w Iw� oZ§ : \k LZ Or �7 $ 3 'Lm- m m = m = = = = = = = m = � m = = m ) k ! lO� 4 Co - . E ; {| zTo Sc In - _ i■ ) 0 ;) |'{§$ |;z° e ozOAf%!A%S `2 fm! E |2� -�2 0 l�k /k \ E /�!`{ 7. ■o23! ! .K �� - /�tl. ■2 §$|§! |, @!_{ �§ l- 2222! ±l,l2�!° _'C0 V' 'm M- - .! k 22� °!, °� |!! { | |2777 ;%! §Itk §k § \0.2'Fm §f � R >' %E . |.\ ,!E { ;)!B0cr0 ! §E] + d s| ; w n _ ui �d § 1 �} | ~f � j� ! | |f � 2 p f !7 7f ff �| !| . , 2z= � � § 2aq z w Iw� oZ§ : \k LZ Or �7 $ 3 'Lm- m m = m = = = = = = = m = � m = = m Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) Planning Application No. PA 2003 -085 Section VII Educational Materials The attached educational materials include supplemental information pertaining to the various BMPs proposed for this project. The source of this information includes the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Manual of Best management Practices and the California Stormwater Quality Association BMP Handbook. The purpose of the attached educational materials is to provide the owner/tenant with additional background material not covered in the text of the WQMP which will help educate the owner /tenant about the purpose, function, maintenance requirements, and budgetary costs associated with the various BMPs. Also included is Attachment A of Appendix A -7.VI of the County DAMP for computing SQDF and SQDV for Treatment Control BMPS List of Attachments BMP Fact Sheets Routine Structural BMP Fact Sheets • Storm Drain Signage /Stenciiing • Trash Storage Areas • Efficient Irrigation • Velocity Dissipation Devices Treatment Control BMP Fact Sheets • Vegetated Swale • Infiltration Trench • Water Quality Inlet • Drain Inserts • Dry Extended Detention Ponds • BMP Inspection and Maintenance Attachment A of Appendix A -7.VI of the County DAMP St. Mark Presbyterian Church Prepared: December 8, 2003 Section VII Page 18 Storm Drain Signage Description SD -13 Design Objectives Maximize Infiltration , Provide Retention Slow Runoff ' Minimize Impervious Land Coverage Prohibit Dumping of Improper ' Materials Contain Pollutants Collect and Convey ' 1 Waste materials dumped into storm drain inlets can have severe impacts on receiving and ground waters. Posting notices regarding discharge prohibitions at storm drain inlets can prevent waste dumping. Storm drain sign:; and stencils are highly visible source controls that are typically placed directly adjacent to storm drain inlets. Approach The stencil or affixed sign contains a brief statement that prohibits dumping of improper materials into the urban runoff conveyance system. Storm drain messages have become a popular method of alerting the public about the effects of and the prohibitions against waste disposal. Suitable Applications Stencils and signs alert the public to the destination of pollutants discharged to the storm drain. Signs are appropriate in residential, commercial, and industrial areas, as well as any other area where contributions or dumping to storm drains is likely. Design Considerations Storm drain message markers or placards are recommended at all storm drain inlets within the boundary of a development project. The marker should be placed in clear sight facing toward anyone approaching the inlet from either side. All storm drain inlet locations should be identified on the development site map. Designing New Installations The following methods should be considered for inclusion in the project design and show on t� project plans: r Provide stenciling or labeling of all storm drain inlets and catch S Q A basins, constructed or modified, within the project area with prohibitive language. Examples include "NO DUMPING — > cal "rfornia "'`� =�- Stormwater s Duality 4uociailon January 2003 California Stormwater BMP Handbook 1 of 2 ' New Development and Redevelopment www,rabmphandbooks.com ' SD -13 Storm Drain Sign DRAINS TO OCEAN" and /or other graphical icons to discourage illegal dumping. ■ Post signs with prohibitive language and /or graphical icons, which prohibit illegal dumping at public access points along channels and creeks within the project area. Note - Some local agencies have approved specific signage and /or storm drain message placards for use. Consult local agency stormwater staff to determine specific requirements for placard types and methods of application. Redeveloping Existing Installations Various jurisdictional stormwater management and mitigation plans (SUSMP, WQMP, etc.) define "redevelopment" in terms of amounts of additional impervious area, increases in gross floor area and /or exterior construction, and land disturbing activities with structural or impervious surfaces. If the project meets the definition of "redevelopment ", then the requirements stated under " designing new installations" above should be included in all project design plans. Additional Information Maintenance Considerations ■ Legibility of markers and signs should be maintained. If required by the agency with jurisdiction over the project, the owner/ operator or bomeowner's association should enter into a maintenance agreement with the agency or record a deed restriction upon the property title to maintain the legibility of placards or signs. Placement ■ Signage on top of curbs tends to weather and fade. ■ Signage on face of curbs tends to be worn by contact with vehicle tires and sweeper brooms. Supplemental Information Examples ■ Most MS4 programs have storm drain signage programs. Some MS4 programs will provide stencils, or arrange for volunteers to stencil storm drains as part of their outreach program. Other Resources A Manual for the Standard Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan (SUSMP), Los Angeles County Department of Public Works, May 2002. Model Standard Urban Storm Water Mitigation Plan (SUSMP) for San Diego County, Port of San Diego, and Cities in San Diego County, February 14, 2002. Model Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) for County of Orange, Orange County Flood Control District, and the Incorporated Cities of Orange County, Draft February 2003. Ventura Countywide Technical Guidance Manual for Stormwater Quality Control Measures, July 2002. 2 of 2 California Stormwater aMP Handbook January 2003 New Development and Redevelopment www.cabmphandbooks. cam Trash Storage Areas SD -32 ' Description Trash storage areas are areas where a trash receptacle (s) are located for use as a repository for solid wastes. Stormwater runoff from areas where trash is stored or disposed of can be polluted. In addition, loose trash and debris can be easily transported by water or wind into nearby storm drain inlets, channels, and /or creeks. Waste handling operations that may be sources of stormwater pollution include dumpsters, litter control, and waste piles. Approach This fact sheet contains details on the specific measures required to prevent or reduce pollutants in stormwater runoff associated with trash storage and handling. Preventative measures including enclosures, containment structures, and impervious pavements to mitigate spills, should be used to reduce the likelihood of contamination. Suitable Applications Design Objectives Maximize Infiltration Provide Retention Slow Runoff Minimize Impervious Land Coverage Prohibit Dumping of Improper Materials Contain Pollutants Collect and Convey Appropriate applications include residential, commercial and industrial areas planned for development or redevelopment. (Detached residential single - family homes are typically excluded from this requirement.) Design Considerations Design requirements for waste handling areas are governed by Building and Fire Codes, and by current local agency ordinances and zoning requirements. The design criteria described in this fact sheet are meant to enhance and be consistent with these code and ordinance requirements. Hazardous waste should be handled in accordance with legal requirements established in Title 22, California Code of Regulation. Wastes from commercial and industrial sites are typically hauled by either public or commercial carriers that may have design or access requirements for waste storage areas. The design criteria in this fact sheet are recommendations and are not intended to be in conflict with requirements established by the waste hauler. The waste hauler should be contacted prior to the design of your site trash collection areas. Conflicts or issues should be discussed with the local agency. Designing New Installations Trash storage areas should be designed to consider the following structural or treatment control BMPs: • Design trash container areas so that drainage from adjoining roofs and pavement is diverted around the area(s) to avoid run -on. This might include berming or grading the waste handling area to prevent run -on of stormwater. -- " CASGA • Make sure trash container areas are screened or walled to - -' California Stormwater prevent off -site transport of trash. Quality Auoclatron January 2003 California Stormwater BMP Handbook I of 2 , New Development and Redevelopment www.c:abmphandbooks.com 1 i1 SD -32 Trash Storage Areas ■ Use lined bins or dumpsters to reduce leaking of liquid waste. ■ Provide roofs, awnings, or attached lids on all trash containers to minimise direct precipitation and prevent rainfall from entering containers. ■ Pave trash storage areas with an impervious surface to mitigate spills. ■ Do not locate storm drains in immediate vicinity of the trash storage area. ■ Post signs on all dumpsters informing users that hazardous materials are not to be disposed �.., of therein. Redeveloping Existing Installations Various jurisdictional stormwater management and mitigation plans (SUSMP, WQMP, etc.) '. define "redevelopment' in terms of amounts of additional impervious area, increases in gross floor area and /or exterior construction, and land disturbing activities with structural or t impervious surfaces. The definition of" redevelopment' must be consulted to determine whether or not the requirements for new development apply to areas intended for redevelopment. If the definition applies, the steps outlined under "designing new installations" ' above should be followed. Additional Information Maintenance Considerations The integrity of structural elements that are subject to damage (i.e., screens, covers, and signs) must be maintained by the owner /operator. Maintenance agreements between the local agency and the owner /operator may be required. Some agencies will require maintenance deed restrictions to be recorded of the property title. If required by the local agency, maintenance agreements or deed restrictions must be executed by the owner /operator before improvement plans are approved. '. Other Resources A Manual for the Standard Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan (SUSMP), Los Angeles County t Department of Public Works, May 2oo2. Model Standard Urban Storm Water Mitigation Plan (SUSMP) for San Diego County, Port of San Diego, and Cities in San Diego County, February 14, 2002. Model Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) for County of Orange, Orange County Flood Control District, and the Incorporated Cities of Orange County, Draft February 2003. Ventura Countywide Technical Guidance Manual for Stormwater Quality Control Measures, July 2002. I ' 2 of 2 California Stormwater BMP Handbook January 2003 New Development and Redevelopment www.cabmphandbooks.com b Efficient Irrigation SD -12 Design Objectives ✓ Maximize Infiltration ✓ Provide Retention ✓ Slow Runoff Minimize Impervious Land Coverage Prohibit Dumping of Improper Materials Contain Pollutants Collect and Convey J 1 G Description Irrigation water provided to landscaped areas may result in excess irrigation water being ' conveyed into stormwater drainage systems. Approach ' Project plan designs for development and redevelopment should include application methods of irrigation water that minimize runoff of excess irrigation water into the stormwater conveyance system. ' Suitable Applications Appropriate applications include residential, commercial and industrial areas planned for development or redevelopment. (Detached residential single - family homes are typically ' excluded from this requirement.) Design Considerations ' Designing New installations The following methods to reduce excessive irrigation runoff should be considered, and incorporated and implemented where determined applicable and feasible by the Permittee: ' • Employ rain- triggered shutoff devices to prevent irrigation after precipitation. • Design irrigation systems to each landscape area's specific water requirements. • Include design featuring flow reducers or shutoff valves triggered by a pressure drop to control water loss in the event of broken sprinkler heads or lines. , • Implement landscape plans consistent with County or City water conservation resolutions, which may include provision of water sensors, programmable irrigation ' times (for short cycles), etc. CA S Q A - starmwater Quality ' Association January 2003 California Stormwater BMP Handbook 1 of 2 , New Development and Redevelopment www.cabmphandbooks.com 'fl 1, SD -12 Efficient Irrigation ' ■ Design timing and application methods of irrigation water to minimize the runoff of excess irrigation water into th e storm water drainage system. ■ Group plants with similar water requirements in order to reduce excess irrigation runoff and promote surface filtration. Choose plants with low irrigation requirements (for example, native or drought tolerant species). Consider design features such as: - Using mulches (such as wood chips or bar) in planter areas without ground cover to minimize sediment in runoff 1.. - I Installing appropriate plant materials for the location, in accordance with amount of sunlight and climate, and use native plant materials where possible and /or as recommended by the landscape architect Leaving a vegetative barrier along the property boundary and interior watercourses, to act as a pollutant filter, where appropriate and feasible Choosing plants that minimize or eliminate the use of fertilizer or pesticides to sustain growth ' ■ Employ other comparable, equally effective methods to reduce irrigation water runoff. Redeveloping Existing Installations Various jurisdictional stormwater management and mitigation plans (SUSMP, WQMP, etc.) define "redevelopment' in terms of amounts of additional impervious area, increases in gross floor area and /or exterior construction, and land disturbing activities with structural or " impervious surfaces. The definition of" redevelopment" must be consulted to determine whether or not the requirements for new development apply to areas intended for redevelopment. If the definition applies, the steps outlined under "designing new installations" above should be followed. ' Other Resources A Manual for the Standard Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan (SUSMP), Los Angeles County Department of Public Works, May 2oo2. Ll I J Model Standard Urban Storm Water Mitigation Plan (SUSMP) for San Diego County, Port of San Diego, and Cities in San Diego County, February 14, 2002. Model Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) for County of Orange, Orange County Flood Control District, and the Incorporated Cities of Orange County, Draft February 2003. Ventura Countywide Technical Guidance Manual for Stormwater Quality Control Measures, July 2002. 2 oft California Stormwater BMP Handbook New Development and Redevelopment www.cabmphandbooks.com January 2003 fs L.< LJ Velociti, Dissipation Devices Description and Purpose Outlet protection is a physical device composed of rock, grouted riprap, or concrete rubble, which is placed at the outlet of a pipe or channel to prevent scour of the soil caused by concentrated, high velocity flows. Suitable Applications Whenever discharge velocities and energies at the outlets of culverts, conduits, or channels are sufficient to erode the next downstream reach. This includes temporary diversion structures to divert runon during coustructiou. ■ These devices maybe used at the following locations: - Outlets of pipes, drains, culverts, slope drains, diversion ditches, swales, conduits, or channels. - Outlets located at the bottom of mild to steep slopes. - Discharge outlets that carry continuous flows of water. - Outlets subject to short, intense flows of water, such as flash floods. - Points where lined conveyances discharge to unlined conveyances Limitations ■ Large storms or bigb flows can wash away the rock outlet protection and leave the area susceptible to erosion. January 2003 Califomia Stormwater BMP Handbook Construction www.zabmphan(lbooks.com EC -10 objectives EC Erosion Control , SE Sediment Control TG Tracking Control WE Wind Erosion Control NS NonStommater Management Control Waste Management and ' WM Materials Pollution Control Legend: Primary Objective ' secondary Objective Targeted Constituents ' Sediment Nutrients Trash , Metals Bacteria Oil and Grease , Organics I Potential Alternatives None I of 4 Stormwater Ouatrty /lssoclation I of 4 EC -10 Velocity Dissipation Devices ■ Sediment captured by the rock outlet protection maybe difficult to remove without removing the rock. ■ Outlet protection may negatively impact the channel habitat. ' ■ Grouted riprap may break up in areas of freeze and thaw. ■ If there is not adequate drainage, and water builds up behind grouted riprap, it may cause the grouted riprap to break up due to the resulting hydrostatic pressure. Implementation General Outlet protection is needed where discharge velocities and energies at the outlets of culverts, ' conduits or channels are sufficient to erode the immediate downstream reach. This practice protects the outlet from developing small eroded pools (plange pools), and protects against gully erosion resulting from scouring at a culvert mouth. ' Design and Layout As with most channel design projects, depth of flow, roughness, gradient, side slopes, discharge rate, and velocity should be considered in the outlet design. Compliance to local and state regulations should also be considered while working in environmentally sensitive streambeds. General recommendations for rock size and length of outlet protection mat are shown in the rock outlet protection figure in this BMP and should be considered minimums. The apron length and rock size gradation are determined using a combination of the discharge pipe ' diameter and estimate discharge rate: Select the longest apron length and largest rock size suggested by the pipe size and discharge rate. Where flows are conveyed in open channels such as ditches and swales, use the estimated discharge rate for selecting the apron length and rock t size. Flows should be same as the culvert or channel design flow but never the less than the peak 5 year flow for temporary structures planned for one rainy season, or the in year peak flow for temporary structures planned for two or three rainy seasons. ' ■ There are many types of energy dissipaters, with rock being the one that is represented in the attached figure. ' ■ Best results are obtained when sound, durable, and angular rock is used. ■ Install riprap, grouted riprap, or concrete apron at selected outlet. Riprap aprons are best ' suited for temporary use during construction. Grouted or wired tied rock riprap can minimize maintenance requirements. ■ Rock outlet protection is usually less expensive and easier to install than concrete aprons or energy dissipaters. It also serves to trap sediment and reduce flow velocities. ■ Carefully place riprap to avoid damaging the filter fabric. - Stone 4 in. to 6 in. may be carefully dumped onto filter fabric from a height not to exceed tz in. ' - Stone 8 in. to iz in. must be hand placed onto filter fabric, or the filter fabric may be covered with 4 in. of gravel and the 8 in. to tz in. rock may be dumped from a height not to exceed 16 in. ' 2 of 4 California Stormwater BMP Handbook January 2003 Construction www.cabmphandbooks.com Velocity Dissipation Devices EC -10 - Stone greater than 12 in. shall only be dumped onto filter fabric protected with a layer of gravel with a thickness equal to one half the Dso rock size, and the dump height limited to twice the depth of the gravel protection layer thickness. ■ For proper operation of apron: Align apron with receiving stream and keep straight throughout its length. If a curve is needed to fit site conditions, place it in upper section of apron. ■ Outlets on slopes steeper than to percent should have additional protection. Costs Costs are low if material is readily available. If material is imported, costs will be higher. Average installed cost is $150 per device. Inspection and Maintenance ■ Inspect BMPs prior to forecast rain, daily during extended rain events, after rain events, weekly during the rainy season, and at two-week intervals during the non -rainy season. ■ Inspect BMPs subjected to non- stormwater discharges daily while non - stormwater discharges occur. ■ Inspect apron for displacement of the riprap and damage to the underlying fabric. Repair fabric and replace riprap that has washed away. If riprap continues to wash away, consider using larger material. • Inspect for scour beneath the riprap and around the outlet. Repair damage to slopes or underlying filter fabric immediately. • Temporary devices should be completely removed as soon as the surrounding drainage area has been stabilized or at the completion of construction. References County of Sacramento Improvement Standards, Sacramento County, May 1989. Erosion and Sediment Control Handbook, S.J. Goldman, K. Jackson, T.A. Bursztyusky, P.E., McGraw Hill Book Company, 1986. Handbook of Steel Drainage & Highway Construction, American Iron and Steel Institute, 1983. Manual of Standards of Erosion and Sediment Control Measures, Association of Bay Area Governments, May 1995. Stormwater Quality Handbooks Construction Site Best Management Practices (BMPs) Manual, state of California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), November 20 00. Stormwater Management of the Puget Sound Basin, Technical Manual, Publication 091 -75, Washington State Department of Ecology, February 1992. Water Quality Management Plan for the Lake Tahoe Region, Volume II, Handbook of Management Practices, Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, November 1988. January 2003 California Stormwater 3MP Handbook 3 of 4 Construction www.cabmphandbooks.com EC -10 Velocity Dissipation Devices Filler Fabric SECTION A -A 4do (min) Pipe outlet to well defined channel Key in 6 " -9" recommended for entire perimeter d =1.5 Max rock dia. 6.. Pipe Diameter Discharge Apron Length, 1a Rip Rap Dr, Diameter Mtn inches ft3 /s ft inches 5 10 4 12 10 13 6 10 10 6 20 16 8 18 30 23 12 40 26 16 30 16 8 40 26 8 24 50 26 12 60 30 16 For larger or higher Rows consult a Registered Civil Engineer Source: USDA - SCS 4 of 4 California Stormwater BMP Handbook January 2003 Construction www.cabmphandbooks.com 1 Vegetated Swale TC -30 Description Vegetated swales are open, shallow channels with vegetation covering the side slopes and bottom that collect and slowly convey runoff flow to downstream discharge points. They are designed to treat runoff through filtering by the vegetation in the channel, filtering through a subsoil mama:, and /or infiltration into the underlying soils. Swales can be natural or manmade. They trap particulate pollutants (suspended solids and trace metals), promote infiltration, and reduce the flow velocity of stormwater runoff. Vegetated swales can serve as part of a stormwater drainage system and can replace curbs, gutters and storm sewer systems. California Experience Caltrans constructed and monitored six vegetated swales in southern California. These swales were generally effective in reducing the volume and mass of pollutants in runoff. Even in the areas where the annual rainfall was Drily about in inches /yr, the vegetation did not require additional irrigation. One factor that strongly affected performance was the presence of large numbers of gophers at most of the sites. The gophers created earthen mounds, destroyed vegetation, and generally reduced the effectiveness of the controls for TSS reduction. Advantages ,{ ■ If properly designed, vegetated, and operated, swales can serve as an aesthetic, potentially inexpensive urban development or roadway drainage conveyance measure with significant collateral water quality benefits. Design Considerations , • Tributary Area J Sediment • Area Required • Slope ' • Water Availability J Trash • t Targeted Constituents ' , J Sediment ♦ J Nutrients • J Trash • J Metals ♦ J Bacteria • , J Oil and Grease J Organics ♦ Legend (Removal Effectiveness) ' • Low ■ High ♦ Medium �I Association January 2003 California Stormwater BMP Handbook 1 of 13 , New Development and Redevelopment www.cabmphandbooks.com ' '? CASGA _'.-..'. California Stormwater Quality , Association January 2003 California Stormwater BMP Handbook 1 of 13 , New Development and Redevelopment www.cabmphandbooks.com TC -30 Vegetated Swale ■ Roadside ditches should be regarded as significant potential swale/buffer strip sites and should be utilized for this purpose whenever possible. Limitations ■ Can be difficult to avoid channelization. ' ■ May not be appropriate for industrial sites or locations where spills may occur ■ Grassed swales cannot treat a very large drainage area. Large areas may be divided and treated using multiple swales. ■ A thick vegetative cover is needed for these practices to function properly. ■ They are impractical in areas with steep topography. a ■ They are not effective and may even erode when flow velocities are high, if the grass cover is ' not properly maintained. ■ In some places, their use is restricted by law: many local municipalities require curb and gutter systems in residential areas. ■ Swales are mores susceptible to failure if not properly maintained than other treatment BMPs. 'Design and Sizing Guidelines ■ Flow rate based design determined by local requirements or sized so that 85% of the annual runoff volume is discharged at less than the design rainfall intensity. Swale be designed the level does height ■ should so that water not exceed 2 /3rds the of the grass or 4 inches, which ever is less, at the design treatment rate. ■ Longitudinal slopes should not exceed 2.5% ■ Trapezoidal channels are normally recommended but other configurations, such as parabolic, can also provide substantial water quality improvement and may be easier to mow than designs with sharp breaks in slope. ■ Swales constructed in cut are preferred, or in fill areas that are far enough from an adjacent ' slope to minimize the potential for gopher damage. Do not use side slopes constructed of fill, which are prone to structural damage by gophers and other burrowing animals. ' ■ A diverse selection of low growing, plants that thrive under the specific site, climatic, and watering conditions should be specified. Vegetation whose growing season corresponds to the wet season are preferred. Drought tolerant vegetation should be considered especially ' for swales that are not part of a regularly irrigated landscaped area. ■ The width of the swale should be determined using Manning's Equation using a value of 0.25 for Manning's n. 2 of 13 California Stormwater BMP Handbook January 2003 New Development and Redevelopment www.cabmphandbooks.com Vegetated Swale TC -30 Construction /Inspection Considerations ■ Include directions in the specifications for use of appropriate fertilizer and soil amendments based on soil properties determined through testing and compared to the needs of the vegetation requirements. ■ Install swales at the time of the year when there is a reasonable chance of successful establishment without irrigation; however, it is recognized that rainfall in a given year may not be sufficient and temporary irrigation may be used. • If sod tiles must be used, they should be placed so that there are no gaps between the tiles; stagger the ends of the tiles to prevent the formation of channels along the swale or strip. • Use a roller on the sod to ensure that no air pockets form between the sod and the soil. • Where seeds are used, erosion controls will be necessary to protect seeds for at least 75 days after the first rainfall of the season. Performance The literature suggests that vegetated swales represent a practical and potentially effective technique for controlling urban runoff quality. While limited quantitative performance data exists for vegetated swales, it is known that check dams, slight slopes, permeable soils, dense grass cover, increased contact time, and small storm events all contribute to successful pollutant removal by the Swale system. Factors decreasing the effectiveness of swales include compacted soils, short runoff contact time, large storm events, frozen ground, short grass heights, steep slopes, and high runoff velocities and discharge rates. Conventional vegetated swale designs have achieved mixed results in removing particulate pollutants. A study performed by the Nationwide Urban Runoff Program (NURP) monitored three grass swales in the Washington, D.C., area and found no significant improvement in urban runoff quality for the pollutants analyzed. However, the weak performance of these swales was attributed to the high flow velocities in the swales, soil compaction, steep slopes, and short grass height. Another project in Durham, NC, monitored the performance of a carefully designed artificial swale that received runoff from a commercial parking lot. The project tracked n storms and concluded that particulate concentrations of heavy metals (Cu, Pb, Zn, and Cd) were reduced by approximately 50 percent. However, the Swale proved largely ineffective for removing soluble nutrients. The effectiveness of vegetated swales can be enhanced by adding check dams at approximately 17 meter (50 foot) increments along their length (See Figure 1). These dams maximize the retention time within the swale, decrease flow velocities, and promote particulate settling. Finally, the incorporation of vegetated filter strips parallel to the top of the channel banks can help to treat sheet flows entering the swale. Only 9 studies have been conducted on all grassed channels designed for water quality (Table 1). The data suggest relatively high removal rates for some pollutants, but negative removals for some bacteria, and fair performance for phosphorus. January 2003 California Stormwater BMP Handbook 3 of 13 New Development and Redevelopment w ww.rabmpha ndbooks. com Ifi I !. �J i TC -30 Vegetated Swale Table 1 Grassed swale pollutant removal efficiency data Removal Efficiencies M Removal) Study TSS TP TN NO. Metals Bacteria Type Caltrans 2002 77 8 67 66 83 -90 -33 dry swales Goldberg 1993 67.8 4.5 - 31.4 42 -62 -loo grassed channel Seattle Metro and Washington Department of Ecology 1992 6o 45 - -25 2 -16 -25 grassed channel Seattle Metro and Washington Department of Ecology, 1992 83 29 - -25 46 -73 -25 grassed channel Wang et al., 1981 8o - - - 70 -80 - dry swale Dorman et al., 1989 98 18 - 45 37 -81 - dry swale Harper, 1988 87 83 84 80 88 —go - dry Swale Kercher et al -, 1983 99 99 99 99 99 - dry Swale Harper, 1988. 81 17 40 52 37 -69 - et swale Koon, 1995 67 39 - 9 -35 to 6 - et swale While it is difficult to distinguish between different designs based on the small amount of available data, grassed channels generally have poorer removal rates than wet and dry swales, although some swales appear to export soluble phosphorus (Harper, 1988; Koon, 1995)• It is not clear why swales export bacteria. One explanation is that bacteria thrive in the warm Swale soils. Siting Criteria The suitability of a swale at a site will depend on land use, size of the area serviced, soil type, slope, imperviousness of the contributing watershed, and dimensions and slope of the swale system (Schueler et al., 1992). In general, swales can be used to serve areas of less than to acres, with slopes no greater than 5 %. Use of natural topographic lows is encouraged and natural drainage courses should be regarded as significant local resources to be kept in use (Young et al., 1996). Selection Criteria (NCTCOG, x993) ■ Comparable performance to wet basins ■ Limited to treating a few acres ■ Availability of water during dry periods to maintain vegetation ■ Sufficient available land area Research in the Austin area indicates that vegetated controls are effective at removing pollutants even when dormant. Therefore, irrigation is not required to maintain growth during dry periods, but may be necessary only to prevent the vegetation from dying. 4 o 13 California Stormwater BMP Handbook New Development and Redevelopment www.cabmphandbooks.com January 2003 P Vegetated Swale TC -30 The topography of the site should permit the design of a channel with appropriate slope and cross - sectional area. Site topography may also dictate a need for additional structural controls. Recommendations for longitudinal slopes range between 2 and 6 percent. Flatter slopes can be used, if sufficient to provide adequate conveyance. Steep slopes increase flow velocity, decrease detention time, and may require energy dissipating and grade check. Steep slopes also can be managed using a series of check dams to terrace the swale and reduce the slope to within acceptable limits. The use of check dams with swales also promotes infiltration. Additional Design Guidelines Most of the design guidelines adopted for sivale design specify a minimum hydraulic residence time of 9 minutes. This criterion is based on the results of a single study conducted in Seattle, Washington (Seattle Metro and Washington Department of Ecology, 1992), and is not well supported. Analysis of the data collected in that study indicates that pollutant removal at a residence time of 5 minutes was not significantly different, although there is more variability in that data. Therefore, additional research in the design criteria for swales is needed. Substantial pollutant removal has also been observed for vegetated controls designed solely for conveyance (Barrett et al, 1998); consequently, some flexibility in the design is warranted. Many design guidelines recommend that grass be frequently mowed to maintain dense coverage near the ground surface. Recent research (Colwell et al., 200o) has shown mowing frequency or grass height has little or no effect on pollutant removal. Summary of Design Recommendations 1) The Swale should have a length that provides a minimum hydraulic residence time of at least 10 minutes. The maximum bottom width should not exceed 10 feet unless a dividing berm is provided. The depth of flow should not exceed 2 /3rds the height of the grass at the peak of the water quality design storm intensity. The channel slope should not exceed 2.5%. 2) A design grass height of 6 inches is recommended. 3) Regardless of the recommended detention time, the swale should be not less than loo feet in length. 4) The width of the swale should tie determined using Manning's Equation, at the peak of the design storm, using a Manning's n of 0.25. 5) The swale can be sized as both a treatment facility for the design storm and as a conveyance system to pass the peak hydraulic flows of the loo -year storm if it is located "on- line." The side slopes should be no steeper than 3:1 (H:V). 6) Roadside ditches should be regarded as significant potential swale/buffer strip sites and should be utilized for this purpose whenever possible. If flow is to be introduced through curb cuts, place pavement slightly above the elevation of the vegetated areas. Curb cuts should be at least 12 inches wide to prevent clogging. 7) Swales must be vegetated in order to provide adequate treatment of runoff. It is important to maximize water contact with vegetation and the soil surface. For general purposes, select fine, close - growing, water - resistant grasses. If possible, divert runoff (other than necessary irrigation) during the period of vegetation January 2003 California Stormwater BMP Handbook 5 of 13 New Development and Redevelopment www.cabmphandbooks.com TC -30 Vegetated Swale establishment. Where runoff diversion is not possible, cover graded and seeded areas with suitable erosion control materials. Maintenance The useful life of a vegetated swale system is directly proportional to its maintenance frequency. ' If properly designed and regularly maintained, vegetated swales can last indefinitely. The maintenance objectives for vegetated swale systems include keeping up the hydraulic and removal efficiency of the channel and maintaining a dense, healthy grass cover. Maintenance activities should include periodic mowing (with grass never cut shorter than the design flow depth), weed control, watering during drought conditions, reseeding of bare areas, and clearing of debris and blockages. Cuttings should be removed from the channel and ' disposed in a local composting facility. Accumulated sediment should also be removed manually to avoid concentrated flows in the swale. The application of fertilizers and pesticides should be minimal. Another aspect of a good maintenance plan is repairing damaged areas within a channel. For example, if the channel develops ruts or holes, it should be repaired utilizing a suitable soil that is properly tamped and seeded. The grass cover should be thick; if it is not, reseed as necessary. Any standing water removed during the maintenance operation must be disposed to a sanitary sewer at an approved discharge location. Residuals (e.g., silt, grass cuttings) must be disposed in accordance with local or State requirements. Maintenance of grassed swales mostly involves maintenance of the grass or wetland plant cover. Typical maintenance activities are summarized below: ■ Inspect swales at least twice annually for erosion, damage to vegetation, and sediment and debris accumulation preferably at the end of the wet season to schedule summer maintenance and before major fall runoff to be sure the swale is ready for winter. However, additional inspection after periods of heavy runoff is desirable. The swale should be checked for debris and litter, and areas of sediment accumulation. • Grass height and mowing frequency may not have a large impact on pollutant removal. Consequently, mowing may only be necessary once or twice a year for safety or aesthetics or to suppress weeds and woody vegetation. • Trash tends to accumulate in swale areas, particularly along highways. The need for litter removal is determined through periodic inspection, but litter should always be removed prior to mowing. • Sediment accumulating near culverts and in channels should be removed when it builds up to 75 mm (3 in.) at any spot, or covers vegetation. • Regularly inspect swales for pools of standing water. Swales can become a nuisance due to mosquito breeding in standing water if obstructions develop (e.g. debris accumulation, invasive vegetation) and /or if proper drainage slopes are not implemented and maintained. 6 of 13 California Stormwater BMP Handbook January 2003 New Development and Redevelopment www.cabmphandbooks.com F'? Vegetated Swale TC -30 Cost Construction Cost Little data is available to estimate the difference in cost between various swale designs. One study (SWRPC, 1991) estimated the construction cost of grassed channels at approximately $0.25 per ft2. This price does not include design costs or contingencies. Brown and Schueler (1997) estimate these costs at approximately 32 percent of construction costs for most stormwater management practices. For swales, however, these costs would probably be significantly higher since the construction costs are so low compared with other practices. A more realistic estimate would be a total cost of approximately $0.50 per ft', which compares favorably with other stormwater management practices. January 2003 California Stormwater BMP Handbook 7 of 13 New Development and Redevelopment www.zabmphandbooks.com PW 3 M 1 U H N T-0 U a W A G N W W O U 3 y N N mm F- 6 L O O N N m [O m OR N O C ��{{ aN o m� N 5 p � Q N 2 — U C N O O N bf f9 N M a bf bf � f9 � H y m m " m a n Q U N C 3 m m m m z n n m Tn vl a X L c o � m v h Ol - t7 N N Cl t7 O O � 3 — m p N 0 — 0 X M M M M M f 9 f 9 X ? r F 0 0 @ O y Q o+ x - 3 0 O ° N r O Y d N + 3 a U a O a u E E o a 3 an d _ m O O 0 m v 0 n II Q L v m m II II Z O ❑ E 00,0 0 M N 0 , m o Tl3n<Q Q GO _ R�ll rymlp f! tl m v � N N m m o U `d < OO o o Im n o 0 o <. m a {n{yy ly m n t7 Ill m o O 19 I N I c o 3 ° o o° r qco{ be O Y m w c N o 0 0 D _ W m m o 9 v o a c Lrn c__ m m "pt m m E cc O N O1 > °m �E m c 9m2m� P� am mo a o `0 0 �o muc�0 � v�mmm m u r 6 L m O C O w o > O m N N 5 p � N 2 — U C N O O O n y m m " m a n Q � � C 3 m m m m z n n m Tn a X L c o � t C Cm m m � 3 — m p N 0 — 0 X O o O j L N m L X ? L 0 0 @ O y Q o+ x - 0 O m X X x o d d N + 3 a U a O a u E E o a 3 an d _ m O O 0 m v 0 n II Q L v m m II II Z O ❑ E 9 >Q m 02 Q o Tl3n<Q Q 0 0 N m O y o E n n a � � O m m U _ > m n 9 0 0 mKy as v C C mmL E ac E s`E V O U m m C > 3 O � 3 m 3 uz 0 m O M � � & 2 U) 0 C m � � ) ; E ■ � . m � ■ n ; \\| E> \f, \ £ �k &@ ;a ;■ ! 0 ! \f 2 ! + \) ; a a a a ! | }` $ { ; 2 �$ a ! « - _ - O 5 ;|® j k # & k & \0 W2 �,� -,6 \/0 2 \ \ f \ \ (0 ; ; ; ; \ \ ci f , : 0 I2 )u 0 �k «! ■! a; \ \ k/ k5 ; \\| E> \f, \ TC -30 Vegetated Swale Maintenance Cost Caltrans (2002) estimated the expected annual maintenance cost for a swale with a tributary area of approximately 2 ha at approximately $2,700. Since almost all maintenance consists of mowing, the cost is fundamentally a function of the mowing frequency. Unit costs developed by SEWRPC are shown in Table 3. In many cases vegetated channels would be used to convey runoff and would require periodic mowing as well, so there may be little additional cost for the water quality component. Since essentially all the activities are related to vegetation management, no special training is required for maintenance personnel. References and Sources of Additional Information Barrett, Michael E., Walsh, Patrick M., Malina, Joseph F., Jr., Charbeneau, Randall J, 1998, "Performance of vegetative controls for treating highway runoff, "ASCE Journal of Environmental Engineering, Vol. 124, No. 11, pp. 1121 -1128. Brown, W., and T. Scbueler. 1997. The Economics ofStormwaterBMPs in the Mid Atlantic Region. Prepared for the Chesapeake Research Consortium, Edgewater, MD, by the Center for Watershed Protection, Ellicott City, MD. Center for Watershed Protection (CWP). 1996. Design of Stormwater Filtering Systems. Prepared for the Chesapeake Research Consortium, Solomons, MD, and USEPA Region V, Chicago, IL, by the Center for Watershed Protection, Ellicott City, MD. Colwell, Shanti R., Horner, Richard R., and Booth, Derek B., 2000. Characterization of Performance Predictors and Evaluation of Mowing Practices in Biofiltration Swales. Report to King County Land And Water Resources Division and others by Center for Urban Water Resources Management, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Washington, Seattle, WA Dorman, M.E., J. Hartigan, R.F. Steg, and T. Quasebarth. 1989. Retention, Detention and Overland Flow for Pollutant Removal From Highway Stormwater Runoff. Vol. i. FHWA /RD 89/202. Federal Highway Administration, Washington, DC. Goldberg.1993. Dayton Avenue Swale BiofiltrationStudy. Seattle Engineering Department, Seattle, WA. Harper, H. 1988. Effects of StormwaterManagement Systems on Groundwater Quality. Prepared for Florida Department of Environmental Regulation, Tallahassee, FL, by Environmental Research and Design, Inc., Orlando, FL. Kercher, W.C., J.C. Landon, and R. Massarelli.1983. Grassy swales prove cost - effective for water pollution control. Public Works, 16: 53 -55� Koon, J. 1995. Evaluation of Water Quality Ponds and Swales in the Issaquah /East Lake Sammamish Basins. King County Surface Water Management, Seattle, WA, and Washington Department of Ecology, Olympia, WA. Metzger, M. E., D. F. Messer, C. L. Beitia, C. M. Myers, and V. L. Kramer. 2002. The Dark Side Of Stormwater Runoff Management: Disease Vectors Associated With Structural BMPs. Stormwater 3(2): 24- 39.Oakland, P.H. 1983. An evaluation of stormwater pollutant removal 10 of 13 California Stormwater BMP Handbook January 2003 New Development and Redevelopment www.cabmphandbooks.com Vegetated Swale TC -30 Reeves, E. 1994. Performance and Condition of Biofilters in the Pacific Northwest. Watershed Protection Techniques 1(3):117 -119. January 2003 California Stormwater BMP Handbook 11 of 13 New Development and Redevelopment www.cabmphandbooks.com through grassed swale treatment. In Proceedings of the International Symposium of Urban Hydrology, Hydraulics and Sediment Control, Lexington, KY. pp. 173 -182. Occoquan Watershed Monitoring Laboratory. 1983. Final Report: Metropolitan Washington Urban Runoff Project. Prepared for the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments, Washington, DC, by the Occoquan Watershed Monitoring Laboratory, Manassas, VA. Pitt, R., and J. McLean. 1986. Toronto Area Watershed Management Strategy Study: Humber River Pilot Watershed Project. Ontario Ministry of Environment, Toronto, ON. Schueler, T. 1997. Comparative Pollutant Removal Capability of Urban BMPs: A reanalysis. Watershed Protection Techniques 2(2):379 -383 Seattle Metro and Washington Department of Ecology. 1992. Biofiltration Swale Performance: Recommendations and Design Considerations. Publication No. 657. Water Pollution Control Department, Seattle, WA. Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission (SWRPC). 1991. Costs of Urban Nonpoint Source Water Pollution Control Measures. Technical report no. 31. Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission, Waukesha, WI. U.S. EPA, 1999, Stormwater Fact Sheet: Vegetated Swales, Report # 832- F- 99 -oo6 hLp:// w ,vw.ej)a.gov /ownlmtb /vegswale.pdf Office of Water, Washington DC. Wang, T., D. Spyridalds, B. Mar, and R Homer. 1981. Transport, Deposition and Control of Heavy Metals in Highway Runoff. FHWA- WA- RD- 39 -10. University of Washington, Department of Civil Engineering, Seattle, WA. Washington State Department of Transportation, 1995, Highway Runoff Manual, Washington State Department of Transportation, Olyinpia, Washington. Welborn, C., and J. Veenhuis. 1987. Effects of Runoff Controls on the Quantity and Quality of Urban Runoff in Two Locations in Austin. TY USGS Water Resources Investigations Report No. 87 -4004. U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, VA. Yousef, Y., M. Wanielista, H. Harper, D. Pearce, and R. Tolbert. 1985. Best Management Practices: Removal of Highway Contaminants By Roadside Swales. University of Central Florida and Florida Department of Transportation, Orlando, FL. Yu, S., S. Barnes, and V. Gerde. 1993. Testing of Best Management Practices for Controlling Highway Runoff. FHWA/VA- 93-Ri6. Virginia Transportation Research Council, Charlottesville, VA. Information Resources Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE). 2000. Maryland Stormwater Design Manual. www.mde. state. md. u_ s/ environnient /wma /stormwatermanual. Accessed May 22, 2001. Reeves, E. 1994. Performance and Condition of Biofilters in the Pacific Northwest. Watershed Protection Techniques 1(3):117 -119. January 2003 California Stormwater BMP Handbook 11 of 13 New Development and Redevelopment www.cabmphandbooks.com TC -30 Vegetated Swale Seattle Metro and Washington Department of Ecology. 1992. Biofiltration Swale Performance. Recommendations and Design Considerations. Publication No. 657. Seattle Metro and Washington Department of Ecology, Olympia, WA. USEPA 1993. Guidance Specifying Management Measures for Sources ofNonpoint Pollution in Coastal Waters. EPA- 8¢o- B- 92 -oo2. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water. Washington, DC. Watershed Management Institute (WMI). 1997. Operation, Maintenance, and Management of Stormwater Management Systems. Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water. Washington, DC, by the Watershed Management Institute, Ingleside, MD. 12 of 13 California Stormwater BMP Handbook January 2003 New Development and Redevelopment www.cabmphandbooks.com Vegetated Swale TC -30 i_ „III =T— � -••• — I 1'rm•ide for scour p0 Cross sMiou ursnale uilh ehttl Jnm. prmcclimi. Notation: L aLength of smofn imposmdmont area par chock dom(M (h) Dimcnsinnnn cico' orswale impn.naln.1 area. Os �Dapholcheckdomlh) Ss c Bonom sip. of srmb Chin) W c Top rritfh of chock dam(to W, a B.M. c,iddh of on.ck Cam (in 1u. o Raw of hon alol to vortk.l clunpe in mole side slopo (It" January 2003 California Stormwater BMP Handbook 13 of 13 New Development and Redevelopment www.ca bmphan dbooks. com 1 °= Infiltration Trench Description An infiltration trench is a long, narrow, rock -filled trench with no outlet that receives stormwater runoff. Runoff is stored in the void space between the stones and infiltrates through the bottom and into the sod matrix. Infiltration trenches perform well for removal of fine sediment and associated pollutants. Pretreatment using buffer strips, swales, or detention basins is important for limiting amounts of coarse sediment entering the trench which can clog and render the trench ineffective. California Experience Caltrans constructed two infiltration trenches at highway maintenance stations in Southern California. Of these, one failed to operate to the design standard because of average soil infiltration rates lower than that measured in the single infiltration test. This highlights the critical need for appropriate evaluation of the site. Once in operation, little maintenance was required at either site. Advantages ■ Provides l00% reduction in the load discharged to surface waters. I January 2003 California Stormwater BMP Handbook New Development and Redevelopment www.cabmphandbooks.com TC -10 Design Considerations is Accumulation of Metals • Clogged Sail Outlet Structures • VegetabonlLandscape Maintenance Targeted Constituents ■ An important benefit of infiltration trenches is the approximation of pre - development hydrology during which a Sediment significant portion of the average annual rainfall runoff is ✓ infiltrated rather than flushed directly to creeks. ■ If the is Trash ■ water quality volume adequately sized, infiltration ✓ trenches can be useful for providing control of channel ■ forming (erosion) and high frequency (generally less than the ' 2-year) flood events. I January 2003 California Stormwater BMP Handbook New Development and Redevelopment www.cabmphandbooks.com TC -10 Design Considerations is Accumulation of Metals • Clogged Sail Outlet Structures • VegetabonlLandscape Maintenance Targeted Constituents ✓ Sediment ■ ✓ Nutrients ■ ✓ Trash ■ ✓ Metals ■ ✓ Bacteria ■ ✓ Oil and Grease ■ ✓ Organics ■ Legend (Removal Effectiveness) • Law ■ High Medium - CAS 0A Callfornia Stormwater Quality Association 1 of 7 TC -10 Infiltration Trench ■ As an underground BMP, trenches are unobtrusive and have little impact of site aesthetics. Limitations • Have a high failure rate if soil and subsurface conditions are not suitable. • May not be appropriate for industrial sites or locations where spills may occur. • The maximum contributing area to an individual infiltration practice should generally be less than 5 acres. • Infiltration basins require a minimum soil infiltration rate of 0.5 inches /hour, not appropriate at sites with Hydrologic Soil Types C and D. • If infiltration rates exceed 2.4 inches /hour, then the runoff should be fully treated prior to infiltration to protect groundwater quality. • Not suitable on fill sites or steep slopes. • Risk of groundwater contamination in very coarse soils. • Upstream drainage area must be completely stabilized before construction. ■ Difficult to restore functioning of infiltration trenches once clogged. Design and Sizing Guidelines Provide pretreatment for infiltration trenches in order to reduce the sediment load. Pretreatment refers to design features that provide settling of large particles before runoff reaches a management practice, easing the long -term maintenance burden. Pretreatment is important for all structural stormwater management practices, but it is particularly important for infiltration practices. To ensure: that pretreatment mechanisms are effective, designers should incorporate practices such as grassed swales, vegetated filter strips, detention, or a plunge pool in series. ■ Specify locally available trench rock that is 1.5 to 2.5 inches in diameter. ■ Determine the trench volume by assuming the WQV will fill the void space based on the computed porosity of the rock matrix (normally about 35 %). ■ Determine the bottom surface area needed to drain the trench within 72 hr by dividing the WQV by the infiltration rate. d= WQV + RFV &g ■ Calculate trench depth using the following equation: where: Trench depth 2 of 7 California Stormwater BMP Handbook January 2003 New Development and Redevelopment www.cabmphandbooks.com Infiltration Trench TC -10 ■' WQV = Water quality volume January 2003 RFV = Rock fill volume K SA = Surface area of the trench bottom Y F • The use of vertical piping, either for distribution or infiltration enhancement shall not be M allowed to avoid device classification as a Class V injection well per 4o CFR146.5(e)(4)• r_ As with any infiltration BMP, the potential for groundwater contamination must be carefully ,..; • Provide observation well to allow observation of drain time. ■ May include a horizontal layer of filter fabric just below the surface of the trench to retain ' sediment and reduce the potential for clogging. considered. Construction /Inspection Considerations Stabilize the entire area draining to the facility before construction begins. If impossible, place a diversion berm around the perimeter of the infiltration site to prevent sediment entrance during ' construction. Stabilize the entire contributing drainage area before allowing any runoff to enter once construction is complete. Performance Infiltration trenches eliminate the discharge of the water quality volume to surface receiving waters and consequently can be considered to have l00% removal of all pollutants within this volume. Transport of some of these constituents to groundwater is likely, although the attenuation in the soil and subsurface layers will be substantial for many constituents. Infiltration trenches can be expected to remove up to 90 percent of sediments, metals, coliform bacteria and organic matter, and up to 6o percent of phosphorus and nitrogen in the infiltrated runoff (Schueler, 1992). Biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) removal is estimated to be between yo to 8o percent. Lower removal rates for nitrate, chlorides and soluble metals should be expected, especially in sandy soils (Schueler, 1992). Pollutant removal efficiencies may be improved by using washed aggregate and adding organic matter and loam to the subsoil. The stone aggregate should be washed to remove dirt and fines before placement in the trench. The addition of organic material and loam to the trench subsoil may enhance metals removal ' through adsorption. Siting Criteria The use of infiltration trenches may be limited by a number of factors, including type of native January 2003 soils, climate, and location of groundwater table. Site characteristics, such as excessive slope of the drainage area, fine- grained soil types, and proximate location of the water table and ' bedrock, may preclude the use of infiltration trenches. Generally, infiltration trenches are not suitable for areas with relatively impermeable soils containing clay and silt or in areas with fill. r_ As with any infiltration BMP, the potential for groundwater contamination must be carefully ,..; considered, especially if the groundwater is used for human consumption or agricultural purposes. The infiltration trench is not suitable for sites that use or store chemicals or ' hazardous materials unless hazardous and toxic materials are prevented from entering the trench. In these areas, other BMPs that do not allow interaction with the groundwater should be considered. January 2003 California Stormwater BMP Handbook 3 of 7 New Development and Redevelopment ' www.cabmphandbooks.com w TC -10 Infiltration Trench The potential for spills can be minimized by aggressive pollution prevention measures. Many municipalities and industries have developed comprehensive spill prevention control and countermeasure (SPCC) plans. These plans should be modified to include the infiltration trench and the contributing drainage area. For example, diversion structures can be used to prevent spills from entering the infiltration trench. Becau ,e of the potential to contaminate groundwater, extensive site investigation must be undertaken early in the site planning process to establish site suitability for the installation of art infiltration trench. Longevity can be increased by careful geotechnica.l evaluation prior to construction and by designing and implementing an inspection and maintenance plan. Soil infiltration rates and the water table depth should be evaluated to ensure that conditions are satisfactory for proper operation of an infiltration trench. Pretreatment structures, such as a vegetated buffer strip or water quality inlet, can increase Iongevity by removing sediments, hydrocarbons, and other materials that may clog the trench. Regular maintenance, including the replacement of clogged aggregate, will also increase the effectiveness and life of the trench. Evaluation of the viability of a particular site is the same as for infiltration basins and includes: ■ Determine soil type (consider RCS soil type `A, B or C' only) from mapping and consult USDA soil survey tables to review other parameters such as the amount of silt and clay, presence of a restrictive layer or seasonal high water table, and estimated permeability. The soil should not have more than 30 percent clay or more than 40 percent of clay and silt combined. Eliminate sites that are clearly unsuitable for infiltration. ■ Groundwater separation should beat least 3 m from the basin invert to the measured ground water elevation. There is concern at the state and regional levels of the impact on groundwater quality from infiltrated runoff, especially when the separation between groundwater and the surface is small. • Location away from buildings, slopes and highway pavement (greater than 6 m) and wells and bridge structures (greater than 30 m). Sites constructed of fill, having a base flow or with a slope greater than 15 percent should not be considered. • Ensure that adequate head is available to operate flow splitter structures (to allow the basin to be offline) without ponding in the splitter structure or creating backwater upstream of the splitter. • Base flow should not be present in the tributary watershed. Secondary Screening Based on Site Geotechnical Investigation ■ At least three in -hole conductivity tests shall be performed using USBR 7300 -89 or Bouwer- Rice procedures (the latter if groundwater is encountered within the boring), two tests at different locations within the proposed basin and the third down gradient by no more than approximately io m. The tests shall measure permeability in the side slopes and the bed within a depth of 3 m of the invert. ■ The minimum acceptable hydraulic conductivity as measured in any of the three required test holes is 13 mm /hr. If any test hole shows less than the minimum value, the site should be disqualified from further consideration. 4 of 7 California Stormwater BMP Handbook January 2003 New Development and Redevelopment www.cabmphandbooks.com 1' Infiltration Trench TC -10 Exclude from in fill in fill clays ■ consideration sites constructed or partially unless no silts or are present in the soil boring. Fill tends to be compacted, with clays in a dispersed rather than flocculated state, greatly reducing permeability. ■ The geotechnical investigation should be such that a good understanding is gained as to how the stormwater runoff will move in the soil (horizontally or vertically) and if there are any geological conditions that could inhibit the movement of water. Maintenance Infiltration trenches required the least maintenance of any of the BMPs evaluated in the Caltrans study, with approximately 17 field hours spent on the operation and maintenance of each site. Inspection of the infiltration trench was the largest field activity, requiring approximately 8 hr /yr. In addition to reduced water quality performance, clogged infiltration trenches with surface standing water can become a nuisance due to mosquito breeding. If the trench takes more than 72 hours to drain, th en the rock fill should be removed and all dimensions of the trench should be increased by 2 inches to provide a fresh surface for infiltration. Cost Construction Cost Infiltration trenches are somewhat expensive, when compared to other stormwater practices, in terms of cost per area treated. Typical construction costs, including contingency and design costs, are about $5 per ft3 of stormwater treated (SWRPC, 1.991.; Brown and Schueler, 1997). Actual construction costs may be much higher. The average construction cost of two infiltration trenches installed by Caltrans in southern California was about $50 /ft3; however, these were constructed as retrofit installations. Infiltration trenches typically consume about 2 to 3 percent of the site draining to them, which is relatively small. In addition, infiltration trenches can fit into thin, linear areas. Thus, they can 1 generally fit into relatively unusable portions of a site. Maintenance Cost One cost concern associated with infiltration practices is the maintenance burden and longevity. If improperly sited or maintained, infiltration trenches have a high failure rate. In general, maintenance costs for infiltration trenches are estimated at between 5 percent and 20 percent of the construction cost. More realistic values are probably closer to the 20- percent range, to ensure long -term functionality of the practice. 1 References and Sources of Additional Information Caltrans, 2002, BMP Retrofit Pilot Program Proposed Final Report, Rpt. CTSW -RT -o1 -050, California Dept. of Transportation, Sacramento, CA Brown, W., and T. Schueler. 1997. The Economics of Stormwater BMPs in the Mid - Atlantic Region. Prepared for the Chesapeake Research Consortium, Edgewater, MD, by the Center for Watershed Protection, Ellicott City, MD. Galli, J. 1992. Analysis of Urban BMP Performance and Longevity in Prince George's County, Maryland. Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments, Washington, DC. January 2003 California Stormwater BMP Handbook 5 of 7 New Development and Redevelopment 1 www.cabmphandbooks.com TC -10 Infiltration Trench Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE). 2000. Maryland Stormwater Design Manual. htW://www.mde.state.md.us/environmentkwma/stormwatermanual. Accessed May 22, 2001. Metzger, M. E., D. F. Messer, C. L. Beitia, C. M. Myers, and V. L. Kramer. 2002. The Dark Side Of Stormwater Runoff Management: Disease Vectors Associated With Structural BMPs. Stormwater 3(2): 24-39 Schueler, T. 1987. Controlling Urban Runoff:. A Practical Manual for Planning and Designing Urban BMPs. Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments, Washington, DC. Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission (SWRPC). 1991. Costs of Urban Nonpoint Source Water Pollution Control Measures. Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission, Waukesha, WI. Watershed Management Institute (WMI). 1997. Operation, Maintenance, and Management of Stormwater Management Systems. Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC. Information Resources Center for Watershed Protection (CWP). 1997. Si ormwater BMP Design SupplementforCold Climates. Prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds, Washington, DC, by the Center for Watershed Protection, Ellicott City, MD. Ferguson, B.K. 1994. Stormwater Infiltration. CRC Press, Ann Arbor, MI. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. 1989. Protecting Water Quality in Urban Areas: Best Management Practices. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Minneapolis, MN. USEPA_ 1993. Guidance to Specify Management Measures for Sources ofNonpoint Pollution in Coastal Waters. EPA- 84o -B -92 -002. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC. 6 of 7 California Stormwater BMP Handbook January 2003 New Development and Redevelopment www.cabmphandbooks.com Infiltration Trench TC -10 OVERFLOW TRENCH WITH PEA GRAVEL FILTERLAYER OVER WASHED BANKRUNGRAVEL AGGREGATE wmI SCREW TOP UO PLAN VIEW T PEA GRAVEL FILTER LAYER PROTECTIVE LAYER OF FILTER FABRIC TRENCH M FEETOEEP FILLED Wmi 1.5 -25 MCH DIAMETER CLEAN STONE (BANK RUN GRAVEL PREFERRED) SAND FILTER T DEEP (OR FABRIC FQUNALENp RUNOFF E FILTRATES THROUGH UNDISTURBED SUBSOILS WRH A MINIMUM RATE OF 0.5 MCHES PER HOUR SECTION January 2003 California Stormwater BMP Handbook 7 of 7 New Development and Redevelopment www.cabmphandbooks.com CONCRETE PARKING LOT LEVEL SPREADER GRASS CHANNEL (LESS THAN 1% WWWWYVVV SLOPE) PLUNGE Y WYYV YYY POOL WYYWWW YYV BYPASS (TOOETEMION FACILR'I) OVERFLOW TRENCH WITH PEA GRAVEL FILTERLAYER OVER WASHED BANKRUNGRAVEL AGGREGATE wmI SCREW TOP UO PLAN VIEW T PEA GRAVEL FILTER LAYER PROTECTIVE LAYER OF FILTER FABRIC TRENCH M FEETOEEP FILLED Wmi 1.5 -25 MCH DIAMETER CLEAN STONE (BANK RUN GRAVEL PREFERRED) SAND FILTER T DEEP (OR FABRIC FQUNALENp RUNOFF E FILTRATES THROUGH UNDISTURBED SUBSOILS WRH A MINIMUM RATE OF 0.5 MCHES PER HOUR SECTION January 2003 California Stormwater BMP Handbook 7 of 7 New Development and Redevelopment www.cabmphandbooks.com Water Quality Inlet Description Water quality inlets (WQIs), also commonly called trapping catch basins, oil /grit separators or oil /water separators, consist of one or more chambers that promote sedimentation of coarse materials and separation of free oil (as opposed to emulsified or dissolved oil) from stormwater. Some WQIs also contain screens to help retain larger or floating debris, and many of the newer designs also include a coalescing unit that helps promote oil /water separation. A typical WQI, as shown in the schematic, consists of a sedimentation chamber, an oil separation chamber, and a discharge chamber. TC -50 Design Considerations ■ Area Required �,. These devices are appropriate for capturing hydrocarbon spills, but provide very marginal sediment removal and are not very effective for treatment of stormwater runoff. WQIs typically capture only the first portion of runoff for treatment and are ' generally used for pretreatment before discharging to other best management practices (BMPs). Targeted Constituents California Experience ✓ Sediment • Caltrans investigated the use of coalescing plate oil /water ✓ Nutrients • separators at maintenance stations in Southern California. ✓ Trash A ' Twenty -two maintenance stations were originally considered for implementation of this technology; however, only one site ✓ Metals • ✓ Bacteria • appeared to have concentrations that were sufficiently high to ✓ Oil and Grease warrant installation of an oil -water separator. Concentrations of Organs • free oil in stormwater runoff observed during the course of the Legend (Removal Effectiveness) study even from this site were too low for effective operation of this technology, and no free oil was ever captured by the device. • Low ■ High Medium Advantages ■ Can provide spill control. Limitations ■ WQIs generally provide limited hydraulic and residuals storage. Due to the limited storage, WQIs do not provide substantial stormwater improvement. ■ Standing water in the devices can provide a breeding ground ' for mosquitoes. ■ Certain designs maintain permanent sources of standing water where mosquito and other vector breeding may to occur. Design and Sizing Guidelines A S Q A `fornia ■ Wa ter quality inlets are most effective for spill control and i should be sized accordingly. stormwater ri Association January 2003 California Stormwater BMP Handbook 1 of 6 New Development and Redevelopment www.cabmphandbooks.com TC -50 Water Quality Inlet ■ Designs that utilize covered sedimentation and filtration basins should be accessible to vector control personnel via access doors to facilitate vector surveillance and controlling the basins if needed. Performance WQIs are primarily utilized to remove sediment from stormwater runoff. Grit and sediment are partially removed by gravity settling within the first two chambers. A WQI with a detention time of 1 hour may expect to have 20 to 40 percent removal of sediments. Hydrocarbons associated with the accumulated sediments are also often removed from the runoff through this process. The WQI achieves slight, if any, removal of nutrients, metals and organic pollutants other than free petroleum products (Schueler, 1992). A 1993 MWCOG study found that an average of less than 5 centimeters (2 inches) of sediments (mostly coarse - grained grit and organic matter) were trapped in the WQIs. Hydrocarbon and total organic carbon (TOC) concentrations of the sediments averaged 8,15o and 53,900 milligrams per kilogram, respectively. The mean hydrocarbon concentration in the WQI water column was lo milligrams per liter. The study also indicated that sediment accumulation did not increase over time, suggesting that the sediments become re- suspended during storm events. The authors concluded that although the WQI effectively separates oil and grease from water, re- suspension of the settled matter appears to limit removal efficiencies. Actual removal only occurs when the residuals are removed from the WQI (Schueler 1992). A 1990 report by API found that the efficiency of oil and water separation in a WQI is inversely proportional to the ratio of the discharge rate to the unit's surface area. Due to the small capacity of the WQI, the discharge rate is typically very high and the detention time is very short. For example, the MWCOG study found that the average detention time in a WQI is less than 0.5 hour. This can result in minimal pollutaut settling (API, 199o). However, the addition of coalescing units in many current WQI units may increase oil /water separation efficiency. Most coalescing units are designed to achieve a specific outlet concentration of oil and grease (for example, 10 -1 5m /L oil and grease). Pollutant removal in stormwater inlets can be somewhat improved using inserts, which are promoted for removal of oil and grease, trash, debris, and sediment. Some inserts are designed to drop directly into existing catch basins, while others may require extensive retrofit construction. Siting Criteria Oil /water separation units are often utilized in specific industrial areas, such as airport aprons, equipment washdown areas, or vehicle storage areas. In these instances, runoff from the area of concern will usually be diverted directly into the unit, while all other runoff is sent to the storm drain downstream from the oil /water separator. Oil /water separation tanks are often fitted with diffusion baffles at the inlets to prevent turbulent: flow from entering the unit and resuspending settled pollutants. Additional Design Guidelines Prior to WQI design, the site should be evaluated to determine if another BMP would be more cost - effective in removing the pollutants of concern. WQIs should be used when no other BMP is feasible. The WQI should be constructed near a storm drain network so that flow can be easily diverted to the WQI for treatment (NVPDC, 1992). Any construction activities within the 2 of 6 California Stormwater BMP Handbook January 2003 New Development and Redevelopment www.cabmphandbooks.com iI ' January 2003 California Stormwater BMP Handbook 3 of 6 New Development and Redevelopment ' www.cabmphandbooks.com Water Quality Inlet TC -50 ' drainage area should be completed before installation of the WQI, and the drainage area should be revegetated so that the sediment loading to the WQI is minimized. WQIs are most effective for small drainage areas. Drainage areas of 0.4 hectares (1 acre) or less are often recommended. WQIs are typically used in an off -line configuration (i.e., portions of runoff are diverted to the WQI), but they can be used as on -line units (i.e., receive all runoff). Generally, off -line units are designed to handle the first 1.3 centimeters (0.5 inches) of runoff from the drainage areas. Upstream isolation /diversion structures can be used to divert the water to the off -line structure (Schueler, 1992). On -line units receive higher flows that will likely cause increased turbulence and resuspension of settled material, thereby reducing WQI performance. Oil /water separation tanks are often fitted with diffusion baffles at the inlets to prevent turbulent flow from entering the unit and resuspending settled pollutants. WQIs are available ' as pre - manufactured units or can be cast in place. Reinforced concrete should be used to construct below -grade WQIs. The WQIs should be water tight to prevent possible ground water contamination. Maintenance Typical maintenance of WQIs includes trash removal if a screen or other debris capturing device is used, and removal of sediment using a vactor truck. Operators need to be properly trained in WQI maintenance. Maintenance should include keeping a log of the amount of sediment collected and the date of removal. Some cities have incorporated the use of GIS systems to track sediment collection and to optimize future catch basin cleaning efforts. One study (Pitt, 1985) concluded that WQIs can capture sediments up to approximately 6o percent of the sump volume. When sediment fills greater than 6o percent of their volume, catch basins reach steady state. Storm flows can then resuspend sediments trapped in the catch basin, and will bypass treatment. Frequent clean -out can retain the volume in the catch basin sump available for treatment of stormwater flows. At a minimum, these inlets should be cleaned at least twice during the wet season. Two studies suggest that increasing the frequency of maintenance can improve the performance of catch basins, particularly in industrial or commercial areas. One study of 6o catch basins in Alameda County, California, found that increasing the maintenance frequency from once per year to twice per year could increase the total sediment removed by catch basins on an annual basis (Mineart and Singh, 1994). Annual sediment removed per inlet was 54 pounds for annual cleaning, 70 pounds for semi - annual and quarterly cleaning, and 16o pounds for monthly cleaning. For catch basins draining industrial uses, monthly cleaning increased total annual sediment collected to six times the amount collected by annual cleaning (18o pounds versus 30 pounds). These results suggest that, at least for industrial uses, more frequent cleaning of catch basins may improve efficiency. BMPs designed with permanent water sumps, vaults, and /or catch basins (frequently installed below - ground) can become a nuisance due to mosquito and other vector breeding. Preventing mosquito access to standing water sources in BMPs (particularly below - ground) is the best prevention plan, but can prove challenging due to multiple entrances and the need to maintain the hydraulic integrity of the system. BMPs that maintain permanent standing water may require routine inspections and treatments by local mosquito and vector control agencies to ' January 2003 California Stormwater BMP Handbook 3 of 6 New Development and Redevelopment ' www.cabmphandbooks.com TC -50 Water Quality Inlet suppress mosquito production. Standing water in oil /water separators may contain sufficient floating hydrocarbons to prevent mosquito breeding, but this is not a reliable control alternative to vector exclusion or chemical treatment. cost A typical pre -cast catch basin costs between $2,000 and $3,00o; however, oil /water separators can be much more expensive. The tine pollutant removal cost associated with catch basins, however, is the long -term maintenance cost. A vactor truck, the most common method of catch basin cleaning, costs between $125,000 and $150 „000. This initial cost may be high for smaller Phase II communities. However, it may be possible to share a vactor truck with another community. Typical vactor trucks can store between 10 and 15 cubic yards of material, which is enough storage for three to five catch basins. Assuming semi - annual cleaning, and that the vactor truck could be filled and material disposed of twice in one day, one truck would be sufficient to clean between 750 and 1,000 catch basins. Another maintenance cost is the staff time needed to operate the truck. Depending on the regulations within a community, disposal costs of the sediment captured in catch basins may be significant. References and Sources of Additional ]information American Petroleum Institute (API),199o. Monographs on Refinery Environmental Control - Management of Water Discharges (Design and Operation of Oil -Water Separators). Publication 421, First Edition. Aronson, G., D. Watson, and W. Pisani. Evaluation of Catch Basin Performance for Urban Stormwater Pollution Control. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. Berg, V.H, 1991. Water Quality Inlets (Oil /Grit Separators). Maryland Department of the Environment, Sediment and Stormwater Administration. Lager, J., W. Smith, R. Finn, and E. Finnemore. 1977. Urban Stormwater Management and Technology: Update and Users' Guide. Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. EPA-600/8-77-o'4.313 PP. Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments (MWCOG), 1993. The Quality of Trapped Sediments and Pool Water Within Oil Grit Separators in Suburban Maryland. Interim Report. Metzger, M. E., D. F. Messer, C. L. Beitia, C. M. Myers, and V. L. Kramer. 2002. The Dark Side Of Stormwater Runoff Management: Disease Vectors Associated With Structural Bmps. Stormwater 3(2): 24-39 Metzger, M. E., and S. Kluh. 2003. Surface Hydrocarbons Vs. Mosquito Breeding. Stormwater 4(1): 10. Mineart, P., and S. Singh. 1994. Storm Inlet Pilot Study. Alameda County Urban Runoff Clean Water Program, Oakland, CA. Northern Virginia Planning District Commission (NVPDC) and Engineers and Surveyors Institute, 1992. Northern Virginia BMP Handbook. Pitt, R., and P. Bissonnette. 1984. Bellevue Urban Runoff Program Summary Report. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Water Planning Division, Washington, DC. 4 of 6 California Stormwater BMP Handbook January 2003 New Development and Redevelopment www, cabm pba n d b oo ks. com S i t 1 FF I TC -50 Water Quality Inlet 6 of California Stormwater BMP Handbook New Development and Redevelopment www.cabmphandbooks.com January 2003 I Drain Inserts MP -52 Design Considerations Description Drain inserts are manufactured filters or fabric placed in a drop ■ Use with other BMPs inlet to remove sediment and debris. There are a multitude of ■ Fit and Seal Capacity within Inlet inserts of various shapes and configurations, typically falling into one of three different groups: socks, boxes, and trays. The sock consists of a fabric, usually constructed of polypropylene. The �€ fabric may be attached to a frame or the grate of the inlet holds the sock. Socks are meant for vertical (drop) inlets. Boxes are constructed of plastic or wire mesh. Typically a polypropylene "bag" is placed in the wire mesh box. The bag takes the form of the box. Most box products are one box; that is, the setting area and filtration through media occur in the same box. Some products consist of one or more trays or mesh grates. The trays may hold different types of media. Filtration media vary by manufacturer. Types include polypropylene, porous polymer, treated cellulose, and activated carbon. alifornia Experience California argeted Constituents The number of installations is unknown but likely exceeds a J Sediment thousand. Some users have reported that these systems require J Nutrients considerable maintenance to prevent plugging and bypass. J Trash J Metals Advantages Bacteria ■ Does not require additional space as inserts as the drain J Oil and Grease inlets are already a component of the standard drainage / Organics systems. Removal EKecWeness ■ Easy access for inspection and maintenance. See New Development and Redevelopment Handbook-Section 5. ■ As there is no standing water, there is little concern for mosquito breeding. ■ A relatively inexpensive retrofit option. Limitations Performance is likely significantly less than treatment systems that are located at the end of the drainage system such as ponds and vaults. Usually not suitable for large areas or areas with trash or leaves than can plug the insert. Design and Sizing Guidelines ' Refer to manufacturer's guidelines. Drain inserts come any many configurations but can be placed into three general groups: socks, boxes, and trays. The sock consists of a fabric, usually constructed of polypropylene. The fabric may be attached to a frame or the grate of the inlet holds the sock. Socks are meant S a A for vertical (drop) inlets. Boxes are constructed of plastic or wire "bag" California mesh. Typically a polypropylene is placed in the wire mesh stormwater box. The bag takes the form of the box. Most box products are Oualiry ' Association January 2003 California Stormwater BMP Handbook 1 of 3 New Development and Redevelopment 1 www.cabmphandbooks.com MP -52 Drain Inserts one box; that is, the setting area and filtration through media occurs in the same box. One manufacturer has a double -box. Stormwater enters the fast box where setting occurs. The stormwater flows into the second box where the filter media is located. Some products consist of one or more trays or mesh grates. The trays can hold different types of media. Filtration media vary with the manufacturer: types include polypropylene, porous polymer, treated cellulose, and activated carbon. Construction /Inspection Considerations Be certain that installation is done in a manner that makes certain that the stormwater enters the unit and does not leak around the perimeter. Leakage between the frame of the insert and the frame of the drain inlet can easily occur with vertical (drop) inlets. Performance Few products have performance data collected under field conditions. Siting Criteria It is recommended that inserts be used only for retrofit situations or as pretreatment where other treatment BMPs presented in this section area used. Additional Design Guidelines Follow guidelines provided by individual manufacturers. Maintenance Likely require frequent maintenance, on the order of several times per year. Cost ■ The initial cost of individual inserts ranges from less than $loo to about $2,000. The cost of using multiple units in curb inlet drains varies; with the size of the inlet. ■ The low cost of inserts may tend to favor the use of these systems over other, more effective treatment BMPs. However, the low cost of each unit may be offset by the number of units that are required, more frequent maintenance., and the shorter structural life (and therefore replacement). References and Sources of Additional Information Hrachovec, R, and G. Minton, 2001, Field testing; of a sock -type catch basin insert, Planet CPR, Seattle, Washington Interagency Catch Basin Insert Committee, Evaluation of Commercially- Available Catch Basin Inserts for the Treatment of Stormwater Runoff from Developed Sites, 1995 Larry Walker Associates, June 1998, NDMP Inlet /In -Line Control Measure Study Report Manufacturers literature Santa Monica (City), Santa Monica Bay Municipal Stormwater /Urban Runoff Project - Evaluation of Potential Catch basin Retrofits, Woodward Clyde, September 24, 1998 2 of 3 California Stormwater BMP Handbook January 2003 New Development and Redevelopment www.cabmphafidbooks.com National Menu of Best Management Practices Structural BMPs Ponds Dry Extended Detention Pond Postconstruction Storm Water Management in New Development and Redevelopment Description Dry extended detention ponds (a.k.a. dry ponds, extended detention basins, detention ponds, extended detention ponds) are basins whose outlets have been designed to detain the storm water runoff from a water quality design storm for some minimum time (e.g., 24 hours) to allow particles and associated pollutants to settle. Unlike wet ponds, these facilities do not have a large permanent pool. However, they are often designed with small pools at the inlet and outlet of the basin. They can also be used to provide flood control by including additional flood detention storage. Applicability temporarily detain mnoff during storm events Dry extended detention ponds are among the most widely applicable storm water management practices. Although they have limited applicability in highly urbanized settings, they have few other restrictions. Regional Applicability Dry extended detention ponds can be applied in all regions of the United States. Some minor design modifications might be needed, however, in cold or and climates or in regions with karst (i.e. limestone) topography. Ultra -Urban Areas Ultra -urban areas are densely developed urban areas in which little pervious surface is present. It is difficult to use dry extended detention ponds in the ultra -urban environment because of the land area each pond consumes. They can, however, be used in an ultra -urban environment if a relatively large area is available downstream of the pond. Storm Water Hot Spots Storm water hot spots are areas where land use or activities generate highly contaminated runoff, with concentrations of pollutants in excess of those typically found in storm water. Dry extended 'I National Menu of Best Management Practices detention ponds can accept runoff from storm water hot spots, but they need significant separation from ground water if they will be used for this purpose. Storm Water Retrofit A storm water retrofit is a storm water management practice (usually structural) put into place after development has occurred to improve water quality, protect downstream channels, reduce flooding, or meet other specific objectives. Dry extended detention ponds are very useful storm water retrofits, and they have two primary applications as a retrofit design. In many communities in the past, detention basins have been designed for flood control. It is possible to modify these facilities to incorporate features that encourage water quality control and/or charnel protection. It is also possible to construct new dry ponds in open areas of a watershed to capture existing drainage. Cold Water (Trout) Streams A study in Prince George's County, Maryland, found that storm water management practices can increase stream temperatures (Galli, 1990). Overall, dry extended detention ponds increased temperature by about 57. In cold water streams, dry ponds should be designed to detain storm water for a relatively short time (i.e., less than 12 hours) to minimize the amount of warming that occurs in the practice. Siting and Design Considerations Siting Considerations Although dry extended detention ponds can tie applied rather broadly, designers need to ensure that they are feasible at the site in question. This section provides basic guidelines for siting dry extended detention ponds. Draiiiaize Area In general, dry extended detention ponds should be used on sites with a minimum area of 10 acres. On smaller sites, it can be challenging to provide channel or water quality control because the orifice diameter at the outlet needed to control relatively small storms becomes very small and thus prone to clogging. In addition, it is generally more cost - effective to control larger drainage areas due to the economies of scale (see Cost Considerations). Slope Dry extended detention basins can be used on sites with slopes up to about 15 percent. The local slope needs to be relatively flat, however, to maintain reasonably flat side slopes in the practice. There is no minimum slope requirement, but there does need to be enough elevation drop from the pond inlet to the pond outlet to ensure that flow can move through the system. Soils / Topography Extended detention basins can be used with almost all soils and geology, with minor design adjustments for regions of karst topography or in rapidly percolating soils such as sand. In these areas, extended detention ponds should be designed with an impermeable liner to prevent ground water contamination or sinkhole formation. National Menu of Best Management Practices Ground Water Except for the case of hot spot runoff, the only consideration regarding ground water is that the base of the, extended detention facility should not intersect the ground water table. A permanently wet bottom may become a mosquito breeding ground. Research in Southwest Florida (Santana et al., 1994) demonstrated that intermittently flooded systems, such as dry extended detention ponds, produce more mosquitoes than other pond systems, particularly when the facilities remained wet for more than 3 days following heavy rainfall. Design Considerations Specific designs may vary considerably, depending on site constraints or preferences of the designer or community. Some features, however, should be incorporated into most dry extended detention pond designs. These design features can be divided into five basic categories: pretreatment, treatment, conveyance, maintenance reduction, and landscaping. Pretreatment Pretreatment incorporates design features that help to settle out coarse sediment particles. By removing these particles from runoff before they reach the large permanent pool, the maintenance burden of the pond is reduced. In ponds, pretreatment is achieved with a sediment forebay, which is a small pool (typically about 10 percent of the volume of water to be treated for pollutant removal). Treatment Treatment design features help enhance the ability of a storm water management practice to remove pollutants. Designing dry ponds with a high length -to -widtb ratio (i.e., at least 1.5:1) and incorporating other design features to maximize the flow path effectively increases the detention time in the system by eliminating the potential of flow to short- circuit the pond. Designing ponds with relatively flat side slopes can also help to lengthen the effective flow path. Finally, the pond should be sized to detain the volume of runoff to be treated for between 12 and 48 hours. Conveyance Conveyance of storm water runoff into and through a storm water management practice is a ' critical component of any such practice. Storm water should be conveyed to and from practices safely in a manner that minimizes erosion potential. The outfall of pond systems should always ' be stabilized to prevent scour. To convey low flows through the system, designers should provide a pilot channel. A pilot channel is a surface channel that should be used to convey low flows through the pond. In addition, an emergency spillway should be provided to safely convey =� large flood events. To help mitigate warming at the outlet channel, designers should provide shade around the channel at the pond outlet. Maintenance Reduction In addition to regular maintenance activities needed to maintain the function of storm water practices, some design features can be incorporated to ease the maintenance burden of each practice. In dry extended detention ponds, a "micropool" at the outlet can prevent resuspension of sediment and outlet clogging. A good design includes maintenance access to the forebay and micropool. 7 National Menu of Best Management Practices Another design feature that can reduce maintenance needs is a non - clogging outlet. Typical examples include a reverse -slope pipe or a weir outlet with a trash rack. A reverse slope pipe draws from below the permanent pool extending in a reverse angle up to the riser and determines the water elevation of the micropool. Because these outlets draw water from below the level of the permanent pool, they are less likely to be clogged by floating debris. Landscaping Designers should maintain a vegetated buffer around the pond and should select plants within the extended detention zone (i.e., the portion of the pond up to the elevation where storm water is detained) that can withstand both wet and dry periods. The side slopes of dry ponds should be relatively flat to reduce safety risks. Design Variations Dry Detention Ponds Dry detention ponds are similar in design to extended detention ponds, except that they do not incorporate features to improve water quality. In particular, these practices do not detain storm water from small -flow events. Therefore, detention ponds provide almost no pollutant removal. However, dry ponds can help to meet flood control, and sometimes channel protection, objectives in a watershed. Tank Storaee Another variation of the dry detention pond design is the use of tank storage. In these designs, storm water runoff is conveyed to large storage tanks or vaults underground. This practice is most often used in the ultra -urban environment, on small sites where no other opportunity is available to provide flood control. Tank storage is provided on small areas because providing underground storage for a large drainage area would generally be cost - prohibitive. Because the drainage area contributing to tank storage is typically small, the outlet diameter needed to reduce the flow from very small storms would very small. A very small outlet diameter, along with the underground location of the tanks, creates the: potential for debris being caught in the outlet and resulting maintenance problems. Since it is necessary to control small runoff events (such as the runoff from a I -inch storm) to improve water quality, it is generally infeasible to use tank storage for water quality and generally impractical to use it to protect stream channels. Regional Variations Arid or Semi -Arid Climates In and and semi -arid regions, some modifications might be needed to conserve scarce water resources. Any landscaping plans should prescribe drought - tolerant vegetation wherever possible. In addition, the wet forebay can be replaced with an alternative dry pretreatment, such as a detention cell. One opportunity in regions with a distinct wet and dry season, as in many and regions, is to use regional extended detention ponds as a recreation area such as a ball field during the dry season. I National Menu of Best Management Practices Cold Climates In cold climates, some additional design features can help to treat the spring snowmelt. One such modification is to increase the volume available for detention to help treat this relatively large runoff event. In some cases, dry facilities may be an option as a snow storage facility to promote some treatment of plowed snow. If a pond is used to treat road runoff or is used for snow storage, landscaping should incorporate salt- tolerant species. Finally, sediment might need to be removed from the forebay more frequently than in warmer climates (see Maintenance Considerations for guidelines) to account for sediment deposited as a result of road sanding. Limitations Although dry extended detention ponds are widely applicable, they have some limitations that might make other storm water management options preferable: • Dry extended detention ponds have only moderate pollutant removal when compared to other structural storm water practices, and they are ineffective at removing soluble pollutants (See Effectiveness). • Dry extended detention ponds may become a nuisance due to mosquito breeding. • Habitat destruction may occur during construction if the practice is designed in- stream or i♦ within the stream buffer. • Although wet ponds can increase property values, dry ponds can actually detract from the value of a home (see Cost Considerations). Dry extended detention ponds on their own only provide peak flow reduction and do little to control overall runoff volume, which could result in adverse downstream impacts. Maintenance Considerations In addition to incorporating features into the pond design to minimize maintenance, some regular maintenance and inspection practices are needed. Table l outlines some of these practices. Effectiveness Structural management practices can be used to achieve four broad resource protection goals: flood control, channel protection, ground water recharge, and pollutant removal. Dry extended detention basins can provide flood control and channel protection, as well as some pollutant removal. Flood Control !" One objective of storm water management practices can be to reduce the flood hazard associated with large storm events by reducing the peak flow associated with these storms. Dry extended detention basins can easily be designed for flood control, and this is actually the primary purpose of most extended detention ponds. National Menu of Best Management Practices Table 1. Typical maintenance activities for dry ponds (Source: Modified from WMI, 1997) Activity Schedule - ` ` _ • Note erosion of pond banks or bottom + _ Semiannual inspection • Inspect for damage to the embankment • Monitor for sediment accumulation in the facility and Annual forebay • Examine to ensure that inlet and outlet devices are free of inspection debris and operational • Repair undercut or eroded areas • Mow side slopes • Manage pesticide and nutrients Standard maintenance • Remove litter and debris • Seed or sod to restore dead or damaged ground cover Annual maintenance (as needed) • Remove sediment from the forebay i 5- to 7 -year maintenance • Monitor sediment accumulations, and remove sediment when' 25- to 50 -year maintenance the pond volume has been reduced by 25 percent Channel Protection One result of urbanization is the geomorphic changes that occur in response to modified hydrology, Traditionally, dry extended detention basins have provided control of the 2 -year storm (i.e., the storm that occurs, on average, once every 2 years) for channel protection. It appears that this control has been relatively ineffective, and recent research suggests that control of a smaller storm might be more appropriate (MacRae, 1996). Slightly modifying the design of dry extended detention basins to reduce the flow of smaller storm events might make them effective tools in reducing downstream erosion. Pollutant Removal Dry extended detention basins provide moderate pollutant removal, provided that the design features described in the Siting and Design Considerations section are incorporated. Although they can be effective at removing some pollutants through settling, they are less effective at removing soluble pollutants because of the absence of a permanent pool. A few studies are available on the effectiveness of dry extended detention ponds. Typical removal rates, as reported by Schueler (1997), are as follows: Total suspended solids: 61% Total phosphorus: 19% Total nitrogen: 31% Nitrate nitrogen: 9% Metals: 26 1/-54% There is considerable variability in the effectiveness of ponds, and it is believed that properly designing and maintaining ponds may help to improve their performance. The siting and design criteria presented in this sheet reflect the best current information and experience to improve the llC I National Menu of Best Management Practices performance of wet ponds. A recent joint project of the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) and the USEPA Office of Water might help to isolate specific design features that can improve performance. The National Storm Water Best Management Practice (BMP) database is a compilation of storm water practices that includes both design information and performance data for various practices. As the database expands, inferences about the extent to which specific design criteria influence pollutant removal may be made. For more information on this database, access the ASCE web page at h": / /www.asce.org. Cost Considerations Dry extended detention ponds are the least expensive storm water management practice, on the basis of cost per unit area treated. The construction costs associated with these facilities range considerably. One recent study evaluated the cost of all pond systems (Brown and Schueler, 1997). Adjusting for inflation, the cost of dry extended detention ponds can be estimated with the equation C = 12.4V"eo where: C = Construction, design, and permitting cost, and V = Volume needed to control the 10 -year storm (113). Using this equation, typical construction costs are $ 41,600 for a 1 acre -foot pond $ 239,000 for a 10 acre -foot pond $ 1,380,000 for a 100 acre -foot pond Interestingly, these costs are generally slightly higher than the cost of wet ponds on a cost per total volume basis. Dry extended detention ponds are generally less expensive on a given site, however, because they are usually smaller than a wet pond design for the same site. Ponds do not consume a large area compared to the total area treated (typically 2 to 3 percent of the contributing drainage area). It is important to note, however, that each pond is generally large. Other practices, such as filters or swales, may be "squeezed in" on relatively unusable land, but ponds need a relatively large continuous area. For ponds, the annual cost of routine maintenance is typically estimated at about 3 to 5 percent of the construction cost. Alternatively, a community can estimate the cost of the maintenance activities outlined in the maintenance section. Finally, ponds are long -lived facilities (typically longer than 20 years). Thus, the initial investment into pond systems can be spread over a ' relatively long time period. Another economic concern associated with dry ponds is that they might detract slightly from the value of adjacent properties. One study found that dry ponds can actually detract from the ' perceived value of homes adjacent to a dry pond by between 3 and 10 percent (Emmerling- Dinovo, 1995). 11 "1 National Menu of Best Management Practices F ; References Design References: Denver Urban Drainage and Flood Control District. 1992. Urban Storm Drainage Criteria Manual — Volume 3: Best Management Practices. Denver, CO. Watershed Management Institute (WMI). 1997. Operation, Maintenance, and Management of Storm Water Management Systems. Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water. Washington, DC. Other References: Brown, W., and T. Schueler. 1997. The Economics of Storm Water BMPs in the Mid - Atlantic Region. Prepared for Chesapeake Research Consortium. Edgewater, MD. Center for Watershed Protection. Ellicott City, MD. Emmerling- Dinovo, C. 1995. Storm Water Detention Basins and Residential Locational Decisions. Water Resources Bulletin 31(3): 515 -521 Galli, 1. 1990. Thermal Impacts Associated with Urbanization and Storm Water Management Best Management Practices. Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments. Prepared for Maryland Department of the Environment, Baltimore, MD. MacRae, C. 1996. Experience from Morphological Research on Canadian Streams: Is Control of the Two -Year Frequency Runoff Event the Best Basis for Stream Channel Protection? In Effects of Watershed Development and Management on Aquatic Ecosystems. American Society of Civil Engineers. Edited by L. Roesner. Snowbird, UT. pp. 144 -162. Santana, F., J. Wood, R. Parsons, and S. Chamberlain. 1994. Control of Mosquito Breeding in Permitted Storm Water Systems. Prepared for Southwest Florida Water Management District, Brooksville, FL. Schueler, T. 1997. Influence of Ground Water on Performance of Storm Water Ponds in Florida. Watershed Protection Techniques 2(4):525 -528. Information Resources Center for Watershed Protection (CWP), Environmental Quality Resources, and Loiederman Associates. 1997. Maryland Storm Water Design Manual. Draft. Prepared for Maryland 'a Department of the Environment, Baltimore, MD. s tJ Center for Watershed Protection (CWP). 1997. Storm Water BMP Design Supplement for Cold Climates. Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds. Washington, DC. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1993. Guidance Specifying Management Measures for Sources of Nonpoint Pollution in Coastal Waters. EPA- 840 -B -92 -002. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC. 12 ' EPA - Post - Construction Storm Water Management in New Development & Redevelopment Page 1 of 6 ' vr�S'D IT, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency National Pollutant Discharge Elimination w ' System (NPDES) - Q 2 s„�T44 PROZEG�`O Recen(Addi ions I Contac L s I Print Version Search NPDES: EPA_Home> OW Home> OWM Home> NPDES Home> Storm Water >Menu of BMPs I [1 I I I I i' L -i Construction Activity -Who's Covered? - Application Requirements Industrial Activity -Who's Covered? - Application Requirements 101 s 00�lia= Post - Construction Storm Water Management in New Development & Redevelopment BMP Inspection and Maintenance Municipal MS4s -Large & Medium Description -Small Phase) Phase II -Menu of BMPs - Urbanized Area Maps Wet Weather Discharges Endangered Species - Search Species Storm Water Home To maintain the effectiveness of postconstruction storm water control best management practices (BMPs), regular inspection of control measures is essential. Generally, inspection and maintenance of BMPs can be categorized into two groups -- expected routine maintenance and nonroutine (repair) maintenance. Routine maintenance refers to checks performed on a regular basis to keep the BMP in good working order and aesthetically pleasing. In addition, routine inspection and maintenance is an efficient way to prevent potential nuisance situations (odors, mosquitoes, weeds, etc.), reduce the need for repair maintenance, and reduce the chance of polluting storm water runoff by finding and correcting problems before the next rain. In addition to maintaining the effectiveness of storm water BMPs and reducing the incidence of pests, proper inspection and maintenance is essential to avoid the health and safety threats inherent in BMP neglect (Skupien, 1995). The failure of structural storm water BMPs can lead to downstream flooding, causing property damage, injury, and even death. Applicability Me: Hot Put Oul Wa Put &F III lit Elir ttof Sto Rut Po! Sto Ma: &F Pol Pre I Hot Mu; O-r; Dcu File Me. The sit Under the proposed Storm Water Phase II rule, owners and operators of small municipal separate storm sewer system (MS4) facilities would be responsible for implementing BMP inspection and maintenance programs and having penalties in place to deter infractions (USEPA, 1999). All storm water BMPs should be inspected for continued effectiveness and structural integrity on a regular basis. Generally, all BMPs should be checked after each storm event in addition to these regularly scheduled inspections. Scheduled inspections will vary among SMPS. Structural BMPs such as storm drain drop inlet protection may require more frequent inspection to ensure proper operation. During each inspection, the inspector should document whether the BMP is performing correctly, any damage to the BMP since the last inspection, and what should be done to repair the BMP if damage has occurred. Siting and Design Considerations Me: Hot Put Oul Wa Put &F III lit Elir ttof Sto Rut Po! Sto Ma: &F Pol Pre I Hot Mu; O-r; Dcu File Me. The sit EPA - Post - Construction Storm Water Management in New Development & Redevelopment Page 4 of 6 ri replacing of stone aggregate • Maintenance of inlets and outlets • Removal of Infiltration 5 % -20% $2,300 to accumulated Trench $%Q00 sediment from forebays or sediment 4 -year storage areas cycle when 50% of the original volume has been lost • Cleaning and removal of Infiltration debris after Facilities major storm events; ( >2" rainfall) Annual or • Mowing and as maintenance needed of upland vegetated Infiltration 1% -10% $150— $1,500 areas • Sediment Basin cleanout • Removal of accumulated sediment from forebays 3- to 5- or sediment storage areas year cycle when 50% of the original volume has been lost • Removal of trash and debris from control openings • Repair of leaks from the sedimentation chamber or deterioration Annual or Sand Filters 11 % -13% $2,200 of structural components as needed • Removai of the top few inches of sand, and cultivation of the surface, when filter bed is clogged • Clean out of accumulated ri EPA - Post - Construction Storm Water Management in New Development & Redevelopment Page 5 of 6 sediment from filter bed chamber once depth exceeds approximately '/z inch, or when the filter layer will no longer draw 3- to 5- down within year. 24 hours cycle • Clean out of accumulated sediment from sedimentation chamber once depth exceeds 12 inches • Mowing and litter /debris removal • Stabilization of eroded side slopes and bottom • Nurrient and Annual or pesticide use as management needed • Dethatching swale bottom and removal Dry Swales, of thatching • Discing or Grassed aeration of $200 to swale bottom 5 % -7% $2, 000 Scraping Channels, swale bottom and removal Biofilters of sediment to restore original cross section and infiltration 5 -year rate cycle • Seeding or sodding to restore ground cover (use proper erosion and sediment control) • Mowing and litter /debris $320 /acre removal Annual or Filter Strips (maintained) $1,000 • Nutrient and as pesticide use needed management • Aeration of soil on the 't •r EPA - Post - Construction Storm Water Management in New Development & Redevelopment Page 6 of 6 1 References Center for Watershed Protection (CWP). 1998. Costs and Benefits of Storm Water BMP's: Final Report 9114198. Center for Watershed Protection, Ellicott City, MD. Skupien, J. 1995. Postconstruction Responsibilities for Effective Performance of Best Management Practices. In National Conference on Urban Runoff Management: Enhancing Urban Watershed Management at the Local, County, and State Levels. Seminar Publication. EPA 625 -R -95 -003. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC. USEPA. 1999. Fact Sheet 2.6: Storm Water Phase 11 Proposed Rule, Construction Site Runoff Control Minimum Control Measure. EPA 833 -F -99 -008. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC. Water Environment Federation. 1998. Urban Runoff Quality Management. WEF Manual of Practice No. 23, ASCE Manual and Report on Engineering Practice No. 87. Water Environment Federation and American Society of Civil Engineers, Alexandria, VA. Qfhye of Water I O.ifice of Wastewater Ma_nageIDept I DiSCiaimer I Search EPQ EPA Holt I Privacy and SecurityNottice I Conta_ctSls Last updated on August 15, 2002 1:50 PM URL: http: / /cf pub. epa. gov/ npdes/ stormwater /menucfbmps /post_5.cfm I 1 I 11 I I r filter strip • Repair of eroded or sparse grass areas • Repair of erosion areas • Mulching of void areas • Removal and Biannual replacement or as of all dead needed Bioretention 5 % -7% $3,000 to and diseased $4,000 vegetation • Watering of plant material • Removal of mulch and Annual application of a new layer References Center for Watershed Protection (CWP). 1998. Costs and Benefits of Storm Water BMP's: Final Report 9114198. Center for Watershed Protection, Ellicott City, MD. Skupien, J. 1995. Postconstruction Responsibilities for Effective Performance of Best Management Practices. In National Conference on Urban Runoff Management: Enhancing Urban Watershed Management at the Local, County, and State Levels. Seminar Publication. EPA 625 -R -95 -003. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC. USEPA. 1999. Fact Sheet 2.6: Storm Water Phase 11 Proposed Rule, Construction Site Runoff Control Minimum Control Measure. EPA 833 -F -99 -008. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC. Water Environment Federation. 1998. Urban Runoff Quality Management. WEF Manual of Practice No. 23, ASCE Manual and Report on Engineering Practice No. 87. Water Environment Federation and American Society of Civil Engineers, Alexandria, VA. Qfhye of Water I O.ifice of Wastewater Ma_nageIDept I DiSCiaimer I Search EPQ EPA Holt I Privacy and SecurityNottice I Conta_ctSls Last updated on August 15, 2002 1:50 PM URL: http: / /cf pub. epa. gov/ npdes/ stormwater /menucfbmps /post_5.cfm I 1 I 11 I I r ATTACHMENT A DESIGN OF TREATMENT CONTROL BMPs USING THE STORMWATER QUALM DESIGN FLOW (SQDF) OR THE STORMWATER QUALITY DESIGN VOLUME (SQDV) Unlike flood control measures that are designed to handle peak flows, stormwater Treatment Control BMPs are designed to treat the more frequent, lower -flow storm events, or the first flush portions of runoff from larger storm events (typically referred to as the first -flush events). Small, frequent storm events represent most of the total average annual rainfall for the area. The flow and volume from such small events is targeted for treatment. The primary control strategy for designing Treatment Control BMPs is to treat the Stormwater Quality Design Flow (SQDF) or the Stormwater Quality Design Volume (SQDV) of the stormwater runoff. This section explains how to calculate the SQDF or the SQDV of the stormwater runoff. In addition, Treatment Control BMPs must be designed to safely convey or bypass peak design storms. I County of Orange Local Water Quality Management Plan A- 7.VE44 August 13, 2003 Hydrology/Hydraulics Hydrologic calculations for determining peak design storm flows in Orange County shall be in accordance with the latest edition of the Orange County Hydrology Manual produced in January 1986, together with the procedure set forth herein. Where jurisdictions within Orange County have approved alternative hydrologic calculation methods, the alternative methods may be utilized if they have been approved by the jurisdiction for use in design of flow -based stormwater quality BMPs. ' The Orange County Hydrology Manual requires that storm drains with tributary areas of less than 640 acres be designed for a minimum of 10 -year frequency below the top of the curb ' elevation using a combination of street and storm drain flow. In sump conditions, catch basin and connecting storm drains must be designed to a 25 -year frequency. Habitable structures shall have 100 -year flood protection. I County of Orange Local Water Quality Management Plan A- 7.VE44 August 13, 2003 I Stormwater Quality Design Flow (SQDF) Calculations The Stormwater Quality Design Flow (SQDF) is defined as the maximum flow rate of runoff produced from a rainfall intensity of 0.2 -inch of rainfall per hour'. Calculation Procedure 1. The Stormwater Quality Design Flow in Orange County is defined as QP,SQDF. 2. Calculate the peak rate stormwater quality design flow for the site (or each sub - drainage area that will discharge to a separate BMP) produced by 0.2- inch /hour rainfall by using the rational method equation: Where: QP.SQDF =C "I "A C = runoff coefficient obtained from Table A-1. I = rainfall intensity (0.2 in /hr) A = area of the site or sub- drainage area in acres Note: An alternate but less conservative method of computing the peak rate stormwater quality design flow (QP,sQDF) is to use the formula given in section D.6 of the Orange County Hydrology Manual, for I less than or equal than the lowest infiltration rate Fp for soil group D. This formula is: Where: QP,sQDF =' 0.90 "ai "I "A a = ratio of impervious area to total area (decimal fraction) 9 As defined in Section XILB.3.13 of the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Santa Ana Region, Waste Discharge Requirements for the County of Orange, Orange County Flood Control District, and the Incorporated , Cities of Orange County within the Santa Ana Region, Urban Stormwater Runoff Management Program, Orange County, Order No. R8- 2002 -0010, NPDES Permit No. CAS6180307 and in Section F.l.b.(2)(c) of the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Diego Region, Waste. Discharge Requirements for Discharges of Urban Runoff from the Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (M54s) Draining the Watersheds of the County of Change, the Incorporated Cities of Orange County and the Orange County Flood Control District within the San Diego Region, Board Order No. R9- 2002-0001, NPDES CA50108740 County of Orange Local Water Quality Management Plan A -7 VI-45 August 13, 2003 1 I, 1 I S I Table A -f C Values Based on/mpervious/Pervious Area Ratios % Impervious % Pervious C 0 100 0.15 5 95 0.19 10 90 0.23 15 85 0.26 20 80 0.30 25 75 0.34 30 70 0.38 35 65 0.41 40 60 0.45 45 55 0.49 50 50 0.53 55 45 0.56 60 40 0.60 65 35 0.64 70 30 0.68 75 25 0.71 80 11 20 0.75 a 15 0.79 90 10 0.83 95 5 0.86 100 0 0.90 Example Stormwater Quality Design Flow (SQDF) Calculation The steps below show an example calculation for a 3Oacre site with runoff coefficient of 0.45 (40% impervious). Step 1: Design Flow = QP, SQDF = C * I * A Step 2: Calculate the peak rate of flow QP,SQDF = 0.45 x 0.2 x 30 = 2.7 cfs = Stormwater Quality Design Flow for the BMP. County of Orange Local water Quality Management Plan A- 7,VF46 August 13, 2003 1' Stormwater Quality Design Storm Volume (5QDV) Calculations ' Hydrologic calculations for design of volumetric -based stormwater quality BMPs in Orange County shall be in accordance with one of the four following approaches specified in the permits: ' L The volume of runoff produced from a 24 -hour 85th percentile storm event, as determined from the local historical rainfall record (0.8 inch approximate average for ' the Orange County area) la; or ii. The volume of runoff produced by the 85th percentile 24 -hour runoff event, determined as the maximized capture urban runoff volume for the area, from the formula recommended in Urban Runoff Quality Management, WEF Manual of Practice No. 23 /ASCE Manual and Report on Engineering Practice No. 87,(1998); or iii. The volume of annual runoff based on unit basin storage volume, to achieve 80 percent (Santa Ana Permit area), or 90 percent (San Diego Permit area) or more volume treatment by the method recommended in California Stormwater Best Management Practices Handbooks (1993), or iv. The volume of runoff, as determined from the local historical rainfall record, that achieves approximately the same reduction in pollutant loads and flows as achieved by mitigation of the 85th percenti)e 24 hour runoff event" Individual projects may evaluate and select any of the above approaches. Procedures, data specific to Orange County, and examples for applying approaches (i), (ii), and (iii) are presented herein. The project used to demonstrate the calculations has the following characteristics: ■ Located in the City of Irvine ■ 400 ft above sea level ■ Total project area, At, is 10 acres ■ Impervious area, A;, is 6 acres ro This volume is not a single volume to be applied to all of Orange County. The size of the 89h percentile storm event is different for various parts of the County. The County may calculate the 85� percentile storm event using local rain data (the 0.8 inch standard is a rough average for the County and should only be used where appropriate 7 rain data is not available). In addition, isopluvial maps may be used to extrapolate rainfall data to areas where insufficient data exists in order to determine the volume of the local 85th percentile storm event in such areas. Where the County uses isopluvial maps to determine the 85th percentile storm event in areas lacking rain data, the County shall describe its method for using isopluvial maps in the LIP and /or County WQNIP. rl Under this volume criterion, hourly rainfall data may be used to calculate the 85� percentile storm event, where each storm event is identified by its separation from other storm events by at least six hours of no min. If hourly rainfall data is selected, the County shall describe the method for using hourly rainfall data to calculate the 89h percentile storm event in the LIP and /or County W(2NT- County of Orange Local Water Quality Management Plan A- 7.VF47 August 13, 2003 1 <k� 1' a Method (I): The volume of runoff produced from a 24 -hour 85th percentile storm event, as determined from 4.i the local historical rainfall record (0.8 inch approximate average for the Orange County area below elevation of 1,000 feet and 0.95 in for projects above 1,000 feet elevation). The procedure is as follows: 1. Review the area draining to the proposed BMP. Determine the percentage of the ' drainage area that is considered impervious. Impervious area includes paved areas, roofs, and other developed, non - vegetated areas. Non - vegetated, compacted soil areas shall be considered as impervious area. 2. Use Table A -1 to determine the Runoff Coefficient "C" for the drainage area The ., runoff coefficients from this table are intended only for use in this procedure for design of volumetric -based stormwater quality BMPs. 3. Find the depth of rainfall in inches of the 85th percentile storm event. Use 0.80 inch for projects with 1,000 ft or less in elevation. Use 0.95 inch for projects with 1,000 ft or more in elevation. 4. Calculate the Water Quality Design Volume of the BMP. The Water Quality Design Volume of the BMP is then calculated by multiplying the total rainfall by the BMP's drainage area and runoff coefficient Due to the mixed units that result (e.g., acre- , inches, acre -feet) it is recommended that the resulting volume be converted to cubic feet for use during design. Example Use of Unit Basin Storage Volume Curves Sizing a Dry Detention Basin (Ai /At) * 100 = (6/10) * 100 = 60% From Table A -1, for 60% impervious, C = 0.60 Vb= C *1 *At Vb = 0.60 * (0.8 in) * (10 ac) * (1 ft/12 in) * (43,560 W /acre) ' Size the BMP for Vb = 17,424.ft3 and 48 -hr drawdown Note that this result is greater than that calculated using the 80% annual capture volume approach below (Method (iii)). This is in part because the capture volume method is based on a continuous simulation model using actual rainfall data and accounts for drawdown affects in the detention basin. ' County of Orange Local Water Quality Management Plan A- 7.VI -4 August 13, 2003 1 i r -� Method (11) The volume of runoff produced by the 85th percentile 24 -hour runoff event, determined as the maximized capture urban runoff volume for the area, from the formula recommended in Urban Runoff Quality Management, WEF Manual of Practice No. 23 /ASCE Manual and Report on Engineering Practice No. 87, (1998). From WEF MOP 23/ ASCE MREP 87: Po= (a *C) *Pe Where: C = Runoff Coefficient = 0.858 i3 - 0.78 P + 0.774 i + 0.04 i = Watershed imperviousness ratio; namely, percent total imperviousness divided by 100 = 0.60 Pb = mean storm precipitation volume, watershed inches. Using Figure 53 in the manual, P6 = 0.65 inches a = Regression constant from least- square analysis. Using Table 54 in the manual for 48 -hours drain time, a = 1.963 Pa = Maximized detention volume using either the volume capture ratio as its basis, watershed inches C = 0.858 (0.60}n - 0.78 (0.60)2'- 0.774 (0.60) + 0.04 = 0.409 Po = (1.963 * 0.409)' 0.65 Po = 0.522 inches Vn = 0.522 (10 acre) (1 ft/ 12 in) (43,560 ft2/ acre) Size the BMP for Vb = 18,949 ft3 and 48 -hour drawdown Note that this result is greater than that calculated using the 80% annual capture volume approach below (Method (iii)). This is in part because the capture volume method is based on a continuous simulation model using actual rainfall data and accounts for drawdown affects in the detention basin. County of Orange Local Water Quality Management Plan A -ZVI-49 August 13, 2003 ' 1 1. I Method (III) - Annual Runoff or Unit Basin Storage Volume Method Move horizontally to the right across the figure until the curve corresponding to the drainage areas runoff coefficient ( °C ") determined in Step 2 is intercepted. Interpolation between curves may be necessary. Move vertically down the figure for this point until the horizontal axis is intercepted. Read the Unit Basin Storage Volume along the horizontal axis. Recommended drawdown time for dry detention basins is 48 hours as discussed in the fact sheet OR 1. Review the area draining to the proposed BA P. Determine the percentage of the ' drainage area that is considered impervious. Impervious area includes paved areas, roofs, and other developed, non - vegetated areas. Non - vegetated, compacted soil areas ' shall be considered as impervious area. ' 2. Use Table A -1 to determine the Runoff Coefficient "C" for the drainage area. The runoff coefficients from this table are intended only for use in this procedure for design of volumetric -based stormwater quality BMPs. Alternately, obtain the Runoff Coefficient `.. from the drainage design calculations for the project r 3. Find the Unit Basin Storage Volume 12_ { Use Figure A-1 for projects with elevations less than 1,000 ft ' Use Figure A -2 for projects with 1,000 ft or more in elevation. Enter Figure A-1 or A -2 on the vertical axis at 80% Annual Capture for projects in the ' Santa Ana Regional Board region or 90% Annual Capture for projects in the San Diego Regional Board region. Move horizontally to the right across the figure until the curve corresponding to the drainage areas runoff coefficient ( °C ") determined in Step 2 is intercepted. Interpolation between curves may be necessary. Move vertically down the figure for this point until the horizontal axis is intercepted. Read the Unit Basin Storage Volume along the horizontal axis. Recommended drawdown time for dry detention basins is 48 hours as discussed in the fact sheet OR 1 Figure A -3 provides a direct reading of Unit Basin Storage Volumes required for 80% (Santa Ana Regional Board region) and 90% (San Diego Regional Board region) annual capture of runoff for values of " "C" determined in Step 2 for projects with elevations less than 1000 ft. ' Figure A-4 provides a direct reading of Unit Basin Storage Volumes required for 80% (Santa Ana Regional Board region) and 90% (San Diego Regional Board region) annual capture of runoff for values of "C " determined in Step 2 for projects with elevations 1000 a ft or higher. r { 12 Figures A -1 - A4 are based on Precipitation Gages 4650 and 8243, located at Laguna Beach and Silverado Ranger Station, respectively. Both of these gages have data records of approximately fifty years of hourly readings and are ' maintained by the National Weather Service. Figures A -1 through Alt are for use only in the permit areas specified in Santa Ana Regional Board Order No. R8- 2002 -0010, NPDES Permit No. CAS618030, and San Diego Regional Board Order No. R9- 2002 -0001, NPDES CAS0108740. County of Orange Local Water Quality Management Plan A -7.V 150 August 13, 2003 1 Enter the vertical axis of Figure A3 (or Figure A11) with the "C'value from Step 2 Move horizontally across the figure until the line is intercepted. Move vertically down the figure from this point until the horizontal axis is intercepted. Read the Unit Basin Storage Volume along the horizontal axis. 4. Calculate the BMP volume. The basin volume or basic volume of the BMP is then calculated by multiplying the Unit Basin Storage Volume by the BW s drainage area. Due to the mixed units that result (e.g., acre - inches, acre -feet) it is recommended that the resulting volume be converted to cubic feet for use during design. Example Use of Unit Basin Storage Volume Curves Sizing a Dry Detention Basin (Ai /At)' 100 = (6/10)' 100 = 60% From Table A-1, for 60% impervious, C = 0.60 Use Figure A3, and the line that provides a direct reading of Unit Basin Storage Volumes required for 80% (Santa Ana Regional Board region) annual capture of runoff for values of "C" determined from Table A -1, and for projects with elevations less than 1000 ft Enter the vertical axis of Figure A-3 with C= 0.60. Move horizontally across the figure until the line is intercepted. Move vertically down the figure from this point until the horizontal axis is intercepted. Read the Unit Basin Storage Volume (V„) along the horizontal axis. V„ = 0.46 inches The volume of the basin is then. V. x At Vb = V. x At _ (0.46 in) (10ac) (1 ft/ 12 in) (43,560 ftz /ac) Size the BMP for Vb = 16,698 ft3 and 48 -hour drawdown County of Orange Local Water Quality Management Plan A- 7.VI -51 August 13, 2003 ' 1 C A L O1 O L a e � m � m 0 m y O c tea•;, m�u v 3 W m N m O w � � G O U Oi G m O e e e e e e e e e e ajnldeC) % 0 wi m N O N O m O O O e O m c y .O. N 0 0 N co N J Ol Q N A Q c c d Ot N C N zl m J d N 3 0 J m N O O C U N A N O U U U U c c c c m m m m fJ U_ U U L 0 L L O O O O U U U U S S S S 0 0 0 II0 o n 0 m A A Cl! O i I m i e e e e e e e e e e ajnldeC) % 0 wi m N O N O m O O O e O m c y .O. N 0 0 N co N J Ol Q N A Q c c d Ot N C N zl m J d N 3 0 J m N O O C U C IM OI Q G � � w V d d d m � G d O U � c N P!A m 3 w d Q � � H G = U e m O e e e e e e e e e e O O O O O O O O O O O m m r m YI d Nl N ajnldep % O M N N d L c d m O h Lq 0 In d O i 0 e O 0 N (h N 7 m 7 Q N J r Q C N a C E m r a `d 3 0 J N N O O C U � p v YJ O YJ O N In r o II II II II U U U U C C C C U U U U 0 0 0 0 C C C C f�f� 1 i i {r0 I _ I N I m m n ° I o - 0 a 0 e e e e e e e e e e O O O O O O O O O O O m m r m YI d Nl N ajnldep % O M N N d L c d m O h Lq 0 In d O i 0 e O 0 N (h N 7 m 7 Q N J r Q C N a C E m r a `d 3 0 J N N O O C U O 0 a` c �d Z � LL U � � N T h En O o 'a a w m LL m m W w « 0 I m En N 7 O U m G 0 r OI m r ID N V M N O O O O O O O O O ivaiowaoo young 0 N 0 0 °m c a t o C o w 0 N S 0 0 c O O O n O N r N Q i r E.. a c E m m c 2 O `v 3 J O) C O O C U J J U U m m I I I i i r i i i 3 A i 0 wl r OI m r ID N V M N O O O O O O O O O ivaiowaoo young 0 N 0 0 °m c a t o C o w 0 N S 0 0 c O O O n O N r N Q i r E.. a c E m m c 2 O `v 3 J O) C O O C U I� i r E 0 a e E d A UL 2�g U � O ¢ N d q 0 0 LL m m m d V � h d U d O r OI (O A ID N O M N O O O O O O O O OO luamw000 young CC! 0 0 0 t c d m .d. o y 0 0 0 N O O O O 0 N r N J ¢ i r m a E d o+ m m J O d 3 3 J d C O O C U N d i i I L) L) 00 00 I I I I I i I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ( I I C O i � I I 3 � co co ! I I I r OI (O A ID N O M N O O O O O O O O OO luamw000 young CC! 0 0 0 t c d m .d. o y 0 0 0 N O O O O 0 N r N J ¢ i r m a E d o+ m m J O d 3 3 J d C O O C U St. Mark Presbvterian Church - Screencheck Draft EIR APPENDIX D: PRELIMINARY HYDROLOGY AND STORM WATER MANAGEMENT STUDY Michael Brandman Associates 14:Client (PN- M)WOW006400211Screencheck =640021 Appendices.doc PRELIMINARY HYDROLOGY and STORM WATER MANAGEMENT STUDY FOR ST. MARK PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH Property Location: Northwest Corner Mac Arthur Boulevard and San Joaquin Hills Road Newport Beach, Ca Prepared by: KFM Engineering, Inc. 26672 Towne Centre Drive, Suite 300 Foothill Ranch, CA 92810 (949) 580 -3838 March, 2003 7 TABLE OF CONTENTS ' Section Page 1.0 INTRODUCTION 2 ' 2.0 EXISTING DRAINAGE CONDITIONS 4 3.0 PROPOSED DRAINAGE CONDITIONS 5 4.0 STORM WATER MANAGEMENT 7 ' 5.0 HYDROLOGIC METHODOLOGY 11 6.0 REFERENCES 12 ' TABLES H -1 Cumulative Peak Storm Water Runoff Summary (Existing and Proposed) H-2 Summary of Potential Construction BMPs H -3 Summary of Potential Post Construction BMPs H -4 Water Quality — Source Contaminants and BMPs FIGURES H -1 Location Map H -2 Hydrology Map — Existing Conditions H -3 Hydrology Map — Proposed Conditions Without On -Site Detention H-4 Hydrology Map — Proposed Conditions With On -Site Detention H -5 Storm Water Management - Proposed Site BMPs Appendix A: Hydrology Soil Data and Design Criteria Appendix B: Hydrology Calculations — Existing Conditions 10 -Year Hydrology Calculations 25 -Year Hydrology Calculations Appendix C: Hydrology Calculations — Proposed Conditions 25 -Year Hydrology with Detention 10 -Year Hydrology Without Detention 25 -Year Hydrology Without Detention Appendix D: Detention Basin - Storm Routing Calculations 25 -Year Detention Basin "A" 25 -Year Detention Basin "B" 25 -Year Detention Basin "C" Appendix E: Sample Construction Site BMPs (U.S. EPA NPDES) Appendix F: Sample Post Construction BMPs (U.S. EPA NPDES) Page 1 SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION SETTING The proposed 7.58 acre site is located in the City of Newport Beach, California, at the northwest corner of MacArthur Boulevard and San Joaquin Hills Road, and is part of a larger 10.81 parcel being subdivided on a parallel track by The Irvine Company (TIC). The site is currently undeveloped, and according to historical records, has never been developed, but likely used for grazing at one time. The immediate vicinity surrounding the site is fully developed, including Newport Center /Fashion Island, Big Canyon Golf Course, Roger's Garden, and high and low density residential development. EXISTING CONDITIONS The property lies near a localized crest, or high - point, of an area of Newport Beach and generally slopes towards a natural canyon, central to the site, with two principal branches trending northerly towards the Big Canyon development. This canyon also splits the site into two pad development areas, with a narrow linkage between them, adjacent to MacArthur Boulevard. The site is sparsely vegetated in the pad areas with increased vegetation towards the canyon. The canyon is heavily vegetated. Existing storm drain systems exist in MacArthur Boulevard and San Joaquin Hills Road which discharge runoff from offsite developments and the immediate street areas into the on -site canyon. The existing site drainage, offsite storm drain and neighboring golf course are part of the existing Big Canyon drainage system, which eventually discharges into Upper Newport Bay. PROPOSED SITE DEVELOPMENT The proposed site development will include the construction of a new sanctuary, preschool, administration and other ancillary buildings along with paved access and parking areas. There will be significant landscape buffer areas bordering MacArthur Boulevard and San Joaquin Hills Road frontages, as well as areas around the proposed buildings. The majority of the existing canyon will remain mostly undisturbed, natural, and /or re- vegetated with native material. It is estimated, an additional 9 cubic feet per second (cfs) of surface runoff will discharge to the mouth of the canyon during a 25 —year storm (4 percent chance of occurring in any given year) if un- attenuated. The proposed plan is to detain the increased runoff in three on -site detention basins, and control the rate of discharge to downstream systems (i.e., the canyon) at or below existing conditions. ' The proposed project will include measures to manage on -site runoff and avoid discharge of site pollutants, provide erosion control prior to and during construction through preparation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), and develop and implement a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) incorporating structural and non - structural Best Management Practices (BMPs) for post- construction water quality protection. lJ P5 4�. .'�s �I�.. I, ay,,5,f;✓�J r¢Yf'�L. I . ly it. 1 .L Project Area At >. �1 i vQ ti '�,N ' nu tdTRvI..L + .45 gy f E i frne �drvine ef�a� r > �t.• 90 � ry., � �J: � t Figure H -1: Location Map Page 3 11 U SECTION 2 EXISTING DRAINAGE CONDITIONS ' DESCRIPTION The proposed site is situated at a local high point, on the corner of Mac Arthur Boulevard and San Joaquin Hills Road, and therefore has no significant off -site flows tributary to the site. The existing hydrology includes three primary drainage areas originating from the site and are identified as Areas A, B, and C. Drainage Area D is the portion of the site tributary to the streets. There are off -site flows, which pass through the site at the canyon, via the existing off - site storm drain system in MacArthur Boulevard and its 24" outlet at the upstream end of the canyon. These flows are depicted at node SD1 ", and are 33.4 cfs and 40.2 cfs, for the 10 and 25 year storms, respectively. Areas A, B and C currently discharge runoff to the Big Canyon golf course adjacent to the site. All drainage areas from the site eventually enter the Big Canyon drainage system, which passes through the Big Canyon golf course. HYDROLOGY Hydrology calculations were conducted for the 10 -year and 25 -year storm events for Drainage Areas A, B, C and D. Figure H -2 presents the existing conditions hydrology map. Node 7 corresponds to the downstream confluence node for Drainage Areas A and B, which is where the runoff entering the canyon meets the property line of the Big Canyon golf course. Detailed existing hydrology calculations are included in Appendix B. The total peak runoff results of the existing and proposed hydrology are shown in Table H -1, Section 3. Page 4 SECTION 3 PROPOSED DRAINAGE CONDITIONS DESCRIPTION The proposed drainage conditions (without on -site detention) are depicted in Figure H -3. These flows will, for the most part, maintain the existing drainage patterns with a two notable exceptions: 1) Area "D" was reduced down to a small strip of landscaped parkway at the MacArthur Boulevard and San Joaquin Hills Road frontages, which sheets uniformly to the street. Area D is considered to create a negligible increase in the overall street drainage system, and is therefore not depicted in the proposed hydrology (compare Figure H- 2... Existing Conditions); and 2) Area "C" discharge will be redirected from the golf course to discharge into the MacArthur Boulevard storm drain system at the northeast end of the site. This MacArthur Boulevard storm drain system does not enter the on -site canyon but rather is part of the principal Big Canyon drainage system discharging to the Big Canyon golf course just to the north of the project site. This slight re- routing of the area "C" discharge is not considered to create a significant impact on the Mac Arthur Blvd. drainage system, due to the small discharge Q increase and the relatively short flow path. Areas "A" & "B" will continue to confluence and discharge to the mouth of the on -site canyon at the existing golf course property line. The majority of on -site runoff will come from the addition of impervious areas (i.e., buildings and parking areas), which will increase the peak storm runoff to the canyon if un- attenuated. The increase in runoff computed from the hydrology will be mitigated by the use of on -site detention basins. HYDROLOGY Hydrology calculations were conducted for the 10 -year and 25 -year storm events for Drainage Areas "A, B and C ". The total peak runoffs for the 25 -year storm are summarized in Table H -1 below. Node 13 corresponds to the downstream confluence node for Drainage Areas A and B, which is where the runoff entering the canyon meets the property line of the Big Canyon golf course. Node 11 corresponds to the downstream node for Drainage Area "C" at the existing MacArthur Boulevard storm drain system at the northeast end of the project (compare Area D1 from the Existing Conditions hydrology). The hydrology map for the proposed development (without detention basins) is presented in Figures H -3. Detailed hydrology calculations for the proposed conditions are included in Appendix C. Figure H -4 depicts the resulting nodal hydrology with the use of on site detention storage and storm routing. Appendix D includes the results from the analysis of the three detention basins (ponds) and routing to reduce the storm discharge to the canyon. The storm runoff will then, in turn, be discharged to the Big Canyon drainage system at a rate, which is at or below the existing conditions. Page 5 Table H -1 As shown in Table H -1, the resultant change in peak runoff, with the incorporation of on- site detention basins will be maintained at or below the existing condition. Page 6 Cumulative Peak Storm Water Runoff Summary (25 -year Storm) Existing Conditions Proposed Hydrology Resultant Change (w/ Onsite Detention) (w/ Onsite Detention) Area Node # Flow Area Node # Flow Flow 1 Increase (CIS) (Cis) (Cis) I (Ct5 ) % A &B 7' 7.74 A &B 13 6.54 6.54 1 -1.2 -16% C 9 3.15 D1 11 1.76 C 11 1.02 1.02 1 - 0.74 -42% As shown in Table H -1, the resultant change in peak runoff, with the incorporation of on- site detention basins will be maintained at or below the existing condition. Page 6 SECTION 4 STORM WATER MANAGEMENT The purpose of this section is to address the City of Newport Beach policy on water quality, that is, PolicyL -18: Protection of Water Quality: Drainage — Public Rights -of -Way, and Policy L -22: Water Quality Management Plans for Mew Development and Redevelopment. These policies have been taken into account in the development of the preliminary drainage system for the proposed project. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) National Menu of Best Management Practices has also been used as a resource for the evaluation and recommendations of BMPs for this project., Detailed descriptions, applicability and effectiveness of various BMPs from the EPA's list are included in Appendices E and F. The approach to storm water quality management includes: Identify probable and known points of source contaminants. Identify points of runoff collection and discharge. ' Evaluate use and implementation of structural and non - structural Best Management Practices (BMPs) during construction. Evaluate use and feasibility of appropriate structural and non - structural BMPs for post construction (long term) implementation with Site Design, Source Control and Treatment Control storm water BMPs. ' This section evaluates the project and recommends appropriate BMPs and design elements as described in the City of Newport Policy L -18 & L -22. Construction Construction BMPs will be implemented to eliminate sediment and construction debris runoff into areas receiving waters. Prior to construction and before a grading permit is issued, a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) must be prepared and approved by the local permitting agency (in this case, the City of Newport Beach) in accordance with the requirements of the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) Order No. R8 -2002- 0010, National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) No. CAS618030. The SW PPP must include BMPs to eliminate and /or minimize storm water pollution prior to, and during, construction. Table H -2 includes a summary of potential construction BMPs to be considered for this project. Appendix E includes commentaries from the U.S. EPA on ' several of these BMPs. LJ IIPage 7 TABLE H -2 SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL CONSTRUCTION BMPs BMP TYPE BRIEF DESCRIPTION • Construction Sequencing Sites are completed in stages and stabilized before disturbing other areas. • Dust Control Maintain water sprinkling and /or mulching of site to avoid wind bome transportation • Silt Fencing A temporary site perimeter control to intercept soil disturbed during grading activities. • Brush Barriers Similar to diversion dikes to reduce raw runoff and control discharge of sediments • Sediment Basins Temporary basins to trap sediment from runoff and allow clarification prior to dischar e • Temporary Diversion Dikes Runoff containment on site to allow for clarification prior to discharge • BMP Inspection and Maintenance Maintenance program to inspect/repair BMPs before and after storms. Post Construction The proposed grading design for the project includes raised earth berms along the projects street frontages which generally force drainage patterns internal to the project site. The impervious development areas proposed for the site will generally be graded to drain towards the parking lot landscaped medians and on -site detention ponds. The landscaped medians and swales used to convey runoff will be designed to encourage filtration and infiltration, allowing clarification of surface runoff. Parking lot drainage inlets will be used in the detention pond areas, and at the downstream end of landscaped swales and medians. The inlets will be equipped with debris screens and special inserts designed to intercept pollutants associated with parking lots and automotive residues. The on -site detention ponds will control the rate of discharge to the canyon so as not to exceed the pre - project condition. Discharge handling into the canyon will utilize appropriate energy dissipation and permanent erosion control measures to avoid disruption to the existing canyon features beyond the project grading footprint. Figure H- 5 depicts the key design elements of proposed BMP implementation for the site. During final design of the proposed development, the actual post construction structural BMPs will be sized and placed to facilitate their intended function within the limits of the project grading and drainage improvements. Table H -3 includes a list and description of BMPs considered applicable for post construction implementation. A detailed description of these BMPs and others are included in Appendix F. L ri L, i 1 ■ I In addition to listed BMPs, other design elements will be evaluated and implemented where feasible as the final design evolves, in order to comply with City Policies L -18 & L -22. Such design features will include measures, where feasible, to reduce direct discharge to impermeable surfaces. These design features will include directing roof drains to landscaped areas, and site grading to direct runoff to permeable areas where practical. TABLE H -3 SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL POST CONSTRUCTION BMPs BMP TYPE BRIEF DESCRIPTION A grassy /landscaped open channel adjacent to parking • Grass /Landscape Swales areas and to accept runoff, reduce velocity, and filter runoff as it travels along the vegetated channel. • Infiltration Basins A detention basin designed to intercept runoff, allow infiltration and clarification, and control rate of discharge. • Detention Ponds Dry ponds to detain runoff, clarify and control discharge. • Catch Basin Inserts Insertion devices at the catch basins to intercept oil /grease & debris at the locations where storm water enters the buried storm drain system. • Wet Ponds Permanent retention basins /pools to trap sediment and treat pollutants through settling and biological growth/consumption. • In -Line Storage Use of storm drain basin elements /buried storage to contain runoff & control discharge e.g., regular monitoring /maintenance programs, • Non Structural BMPs controlled use and type of fertilizers. Use and maintenance of trash receptacles, receptacle canopies Table H -4 includes a matrix of source contaminants, anticipated relative quantity level, and a selection of potential BMPs for Post Construction implementation and project feasibility rating. Note: Structural (S) BMPs generally refer to systems, which are tangible BMPs, constructed for the purposes of interception, treatment, control and /or reduction of storm water runoff from development during and after construction prior to discharge. Non - Structural (NS) BMPs generally refer to less tangible but nonetheless important methods to reduce pollutants from runoff, such as water quality management plans or parts thereof, operations and maintenance programs, and monitoring of BMP systems forperformance and reporting (if required) during construction as well as post construction (long term). 0 Page 9 Table H -4 WATER QUALITY SITE SOURCE CONTAMINANTS AND BMP SELECTION BMP Type and Implementation Feasibility S= Structural; NS =Non- Structural Source Pollutant Relative High Medium Low Category level Fertilizers /Landscape Natural Fertilizers/ Grass /Landscape Wet Ponds Maintenance Nutrients Medium /low Controlled Use Swales /Detention (S) Basins (S) (NS) Natural Grass /Landscape Periodic Landscape cides Pesticides Medium /low Fertilizers/ wales /Detention Wet Ponds Maintenance Controlled Use Basins (S) (S) NS Vehicle use/ on —site Grass /Landscape Catch Basin Wet Ponds Parking lot Oil &Grease Medium /low Swales (S) Inserts/Detention Inserts /De (S) Basins S Vehicle use /on —site Heavy Grass /Landscape Catch Basin Wet Ponds Parking lot Metals Medium /Low Swales (S) nserts /Detention (S) Basins S Outdoor Services/ Regular Isolated Catch Landscape Trash /Debris Low Maintenance -Site Site Receptacles Basin Maintenance I I I Stewardship NS w /Canopies (NS) Inserts S The recommended BMPs have been implemented widely in various climates and development types as discussed in the U.S. EPA National Menu of Best Management Practices (Appendices E and F) to improve the water quality of runoff from developments. The recommended BMPs would be readily compatible with the proposed development and no adverse impacts are anticipated from implementation of these BMPs. In accordance with the City Policies L -18 & L -22, a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) will be prepared for City approval prior to completion of final design that takes into account the final grading and drainage details, and presents the final proposed BMPs. Additionally, the WQMP will include a program of implementation, monitoring, and maintenance of post construction BMPs to help ensure long -term operation and function of their intended purpose. Page 10 SECTION 5 HYDROLOGIC METHODOLOGY Rational Method: The hydrology calculations have been conducted using the rational method. The rational method relates rainfall intensity, the ratio of runoff to rainfall, surface permeability, and the drainage area size to the peak runoff and is expressed by the equation: Q = CIA. Where Q = runoff (in cubic feet per second), C = runoff coefficient relating the ratio of runoff to rainfall, I = rainfall intensity (in inches per hour), A = drainage area (in acres). Using the RMH computer program, these calculations provide the peak discharge for the given storm event, and the time it takes (time of concentration, Tc) to arrive at the peak flow for a given drainage area. The hydrology results for the existing and proposed condition were compared to determine whether the proposed condition generated a higher peak discharge from the project. The peak discharge from the proposed condition was nearly double for some areas. In order to mitigate the increase in peak runoff, on -site storm water detention was implemented. On -Site Storm Water Detention Basins: ' Detention basin storage and storm water routing was analyzed using Haested Methods' Pond Pack hydrology software. Utilizing Tcfrom the RMH output, elevation to volume data from the areas graded for detention, hydrologic data, and an iterative design approach using various outlet conditions and pipe sizing, the peak discharge to down steam facilities was reduced to below existing conditions. I I I I i 5 ' Page 11 1 2. 3. 4. 5. SECTION 6 REFERENCES County of Orange Hydrology Manual, 1986, as incorporated in the Jack P. Norris Rational Method Hydrology (RMH) Software package version 6.6e, 1999. County of Orange Hydrology Manual, October 1986. Hydrology and Hydraulic Calculations with Haestad Method, Inc., Pond Pack V8.0 County of Orange Local Drainage Manual, January 1996 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's National Menu of Best Management Practices. Page 12 0 'o L 3 v° m E c °m m N Q °m a o 0 0 0 0 0 0 C c c oa o '° 'o O O O O a_ Z W O W J c O c rn Z ° 0 O O Q O L a � 7 Q N o O cc a O N °o P \i e 'I I 55— 55 OSCW551_ I PHN RB �/I i 1 ' b\ °p °a S111H UpIbDO( ui I 1 i I soi i 1 g5� i 3 55 ,•X 1 II \ �m1 M d Z C IQO� H U 0 li O >- .0 U) � d Y. W M L. L. ^O 0 LL 0 In d i as �I N Ct M, i N 11 Or O 4 i ,fI mll I 'InNi I u � •I I 5 � n I � 1 N eq d I I � I I it > II;. I�010 i Q III' M� d U 11 C; II' II c� I I I I I I I I �I ,II � 'nl�• >n� „n c 'o o� O :� E c O ° c Z� �> O oa rno 'D C 7 2 � om o O c C. L 0 oL 0 a. v > 3 3 S W mm a: P \i e 'I I 55— 55 OSCW551_ I PHN RB �/I i 1 ' b\ °p °a S111H UpIbDO( ui I 1 i I soi i 1 g5� i 3 55 ,•X 1 II \ �m1 M d Z C IQO� H U 0 li O >- .0 U) � d Y. W M L. L. ^O 0 LL 0 In d i as �I N Ct M, i N 11 Or O 4 i ,fI mll I 'InNi I u � •I I 5 � n I � 1 N eq d I I � I I it > II;. I�010 i Q III' M� d U 11 C; II' II c� I I I I I I I I �I ,II � 'nl�• >n� „n 0 Z W U W J OY \ \ \ .. LO 3 .N O N �� = W m LLJ CL LLJ 0 o E N O c y N a•c o O a v O 1 0)Z 0.2 cn O c' ° O d U I o \�F_- 0 o o ; ° V) m o m 3 EY 3 c CL U ._ V Q to c a y c I w1 rn C o CL o. 4 rnN o� ec, O I l y Zn SVER O .-. CVs :.� ss Oa ` 0. �; E V O °--- uO . \ 'h i \I ss '`ss— a1 o a o m m5x ma ma o. 0LL Lo o oa O 01I LLJ kmI T4 : a c 117 O M OCO O P� N f�;Z E a /\;.� \. •,�.. �`� <; ''II 0171 V3 L i 3 I o Lo " d II . s_ N. �`r,. s'. . II : 111 . LO R II I I \ �I c V t I O C ki + >n —a >n — + >n An —+>n —+>n —AA —+>n o +�.f —. �>n \ \S .- UIIIO(`. QDS. >n + >n� + rt �n W >n , — + >n + >n —� >n — + >n — + >n >n — + >n — + >n —+aA —+>n —+>n —+>n -- 4p >n x° .a +>n + >n L T I " ^_ i 3Net '�^� —�1 •0t + >n �.+>n —+>n —IVA 41 �- — __ — — — — — — --- 111 __ _ _ ♦— T Vn Appendix A: Soil Group Map a, y I Appendix B: Existing Conditions 10 -Year Hydrology Calculations 25 -Year Hydrology Calculations 1 RMH OC ver 6.6e June 2001 RATIONAL METHOD HYDROLOGY Orange County (C)Copyright 1999 Jack P. Norris, Tel 909- 676 -5816, Fax 676 -0016 SIN 112 KFM Engineering, Inc., 26632 Towne Centre Dr., #240, Foothill Ranch, CA 92610. ' 949.580.3838 File: STMKEHI0.DAT 10 records Runtime: 02 -04 -2003 09:59 Page 1 By KFM Work code 02 Job# 166 -001 +---------------- ------------ --- ---- - -- - -- ----- ------------------- - - - - -+ St. Mark Presbyterian Church Existing Hydrology, 10 year storm event stmkehl0.dat +---------------------------------------------------------------------- -- - - - - -+ Frequency: 10 - yr. I = 10.209 TcA -.573 Min. pipe size: 18" Initial subarea Tc by Kirpich formula: Tc = k (Di stA3 / deltaH)A.2 Record 1 Subarea 1 Stream 1 Process 1: Initial subarea Node 1 to node 2 ' Elev 247.00 to elev 237.00 delta H = 10.00' Length= 376' Slope= .02660 Hyd. Manual recommends against exceeding 330' Subarea: 1.25 acres Soil: D Fp = 0.20011/hr !�s Development type 1.3 = Nat /Agri, Poor cover ai= 0 Fm= 0.200" /hr - --- ---- - -------------____I_=_2. - - -- ------------------------------ k = 525 Tc = 11.62 min. 504 " /hr - A(total) = 1.250 ac Fm(avg) = 0.20011/hr Q= .9A(I -Fm) Q(subarea) = 2.59 cfs Q(total) = 2.59 cfs - - - - - -- - -- - -- -- -- - -- -- - - - - - Summary ----------------------------------- Stream 1 to node 2 Length= 376' Fm(avg) =.200 2.07 cfs /acre avg. A(tot)= 1.25 acres Tc= 11.62 min Q= 2.59 cfs ++..++..++++..++++..++++..++++++..+++ + + + + + .......................... New Stream Record 2 Subarea 2 Stream 2 Process 1: Initial subarea Node 3 to node 7 Elev 251.00 to elev 206.81 delta H = 44.19' Length= 596' Slope= .07414 Hyd. Manual recommends against exceeding 330' fit Subarea: 2 acres Soil: D Fp = 0.200" /hr .l 1 Development type 1.2 = Nat /Agri, Fair cover ai= 0 Fm= 0.200" /hr ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- k = .706 Tc = 15.31 min. I = 2.13811/hr A(total) = 2.000 ac Fm(avg) = 0.20011/hr Q= .9A(I -Fm) Q(subarea) = 3.49 cfs Q(total) 3_49 cfs ------------------------ -- --- - - - --- Summary --------------- - - - - -- Stream 2 to node 7 Length= 596' Fm(avg) =.200 1.74 cfs /acre avg. A(tot)= 2.00 acres Tc= 15.31 min Q= 3.49 cfs This stream is designated for confluence with 1 other by record 6 I a a EPS77w6 toN01TjVA( t /0' y e,i-a. File STMKEHIO.DAT Runtime 02 -04 -2003 09:59 I Job# 166 -001 Page 2 , -x New Stream Record 3 Subarea 3 Stream 3 Process 1: Initial subarea Node 4 to node 6 Elev 251.46 to elev 207.90 delta H = 43.56' Length= 515.36' Slope= .08452 6�a Hyd. Manual recommends against exceeding 330' L Subarea: .83 acre Soil: D Fp = 0.200 " /hr Development type 1.2 = Nat /Agri, Fair cover ai= 0 Fm= 0.200" /hr ---------------------------------------------------------------- k = .706 Tc = 14.07 min. I = 2.244 " /hr A(total) = 0.830 ac Fm(avg) = 0.200" /hr Q= .9A(I -Fm) Q(subarea) - 1.53 cfs Q(total) = 1.53 cfs ----------------------------------- Summary ------------------------------- --- - Stream 3 to node 6 Length= 515' Fm(avg) =.200 1.84 cfs /acre avg. A(tot)= 0.83 acres Tc= 14.07 min Q= 1.53 cfs ' This stream is designated for confluence with 1 other by record 4 :.:. New Stream Record 4 Subarea 4 Stream 4 Process 1: Initial subarea Node 5 to node 6 �Z Elev 243.00 to elev 207.90 delta H = 35.10' Length= 171' Slope= .20526 .1 Subarea: .74 acre Soil: D Fp - 0.200 " /hr 0 14 Development type 1.2 = Nat /Agri, Fair cover ai= 0 Fm= 0.200 " /hr --------- --- ---- `- -- ---- ---- -- ---- --- - -- — ------------------------------------- k = .706 Tc = 7.58 min. I = 3.199 " /hr A(total) = 0.740 ac Fm(avg) = 0.200 " /hr Q= .9A(I -Fm) Q(subarea) = 2.00 cfs Q(total) = 2.00 cfs ------ ------ -- - -- -- Summary ----------------------------------- Stream 4 to node 6 Length= 171' Fm(avg) =.200 2.70 cfs /acre avg. A(tot)= 0.74 acres Tc= 7.58 min Q= 2.00 cfs This stream is designated for confluence with 1 other by record 3 J I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I File STMKEHIO.DAT Runtime 02 -04 -2003 09:59 Job# 166 -001 Page 3 Record 5 Process 9 Confluence ' Confluencing 2 streams at node 6 @ Tc Stream 3 + Stream 4 = Confluenced - -- - -- 14.07 Q= 1.53 -- - - - - -- ------ - - -- -- + 1.36 = 2.89 cfs A= 0.83 + 0.74 1.57 ac., - 7.58 Q= 1.21 + 2.00 = 3.20 cfs A= 0.45 + 0.74 = 1.19 ac. Qpeak = 3.20 cfs at_. Tc = 7.58 minutes A = A(contributing) = 1.19 ac Fm(avg) = 0.200 " /hr. A(total) = 1.57 ac Confluenced streams will be designated as stream # 3 to continue downstream. -------------------------- --- - - - - -- Summary ----------------------------------- Stream 3 at node 6 Length= 515' Fm(avg) =.200 2.70 cfs /acre avg.(c) Conflu'd A(c)= 1.187 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ac A(tot)= 1.57 acres Tc= 7.58 min Q= 3.20 cfs Record 6 Subarea 5 Stream 3 Process 7: Channel flow - Natural Valley Subarea Q enters stream uniformly distributed along reach. Node 6 to node 7 Elev 207.90 to elev Subarea: .25 acre p 206.81 delta H = 1.09' Length= 109' Slope= .01000 N3 Soil: D Fp = 0.200 " /hr Development type 1 = Natural, Agriculture ai= 0 Fm= 0.200 " /hr V avg = 1.93' /sec for avg Q of 3.41 cfs Tc = 7.58 + 0.94 --------------------------------------------------------- = 8.52 min. I = 2.992 " /hr A(total) = ' 1.820 ac A(contrib) = 1.437 ac Fm(avg) = 0.200" /hr ! Q= .9A(I -Fm) Q(subarea) = 0.63 cfs Q(total) = 3.61 cfs ----------------------------- - - - - -- Summary ----------------------------------- ' Stream 3 to node 7 Length= 624' Fm(avg) =.200 2.51 cfs /acre avg.(c) Conflu'd A(c)= 1.437 ac A(tot)= 1.82 acres Tc= 8.52 min Q= 3.61 cfs This stream is designated for confluence with 1 other by record 2 I I I I I I File STMKEH10 -DAT Runtime 02 -04- 2003 09:59 Job# 166 -001 Page 4 ' Record 7 11 Process 9 Confluence Confluencing 2 streams at node 7 226.50 delta H =: 6.50' Length= 118.4' Slope= .05490 @ Tc Stream 2 + Stream 3 Soil: D Fp = 0.200 " /hr n1� Development = Confluenced 0.200" /hr Y^ - ----- -- -- - --- 15.31 Q= 3.49 -- - - - - -- - + 2.51 = --- --- --- - -- 6.00 cfs = 0.200" /hr - -- _- A= 2.00 + 1.44 = 3.44 ac. Q(total) , 8.52 Q= 2.60 + 3.61 = 6.41 cfs A= 1.11 + 1.44 = 2.55 ac. cfs /acre avg. , Qpeak = 6.41 cfs at Tc = 8.52 minutes A = A(contributing) = 2.55 ac 1.46 cfs Pm(avg) = 0.200" /hr. ' A(total) = 3.82 ac ' Confluenced streams will be designated as stream # 2 to continue downstream. ----------------------------- - -- - -- Summary ----------------------------------- Stream 2 at node 7 Length= 596' Fm(avg) =.200 2.51 cfs /acre avq.(c) Conflu'd A(c)= 2.550 ac A(tot)= 3.82 acres Tc= 8.52 min Q= 6.41 cfs ************************************* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *... * *.. * ** *xx * *• New Stream Record 8 Subarea 6 Stream 5 Process 1: Initial subarea Node 8 to node 9 C 1 Elev 238.00 to elev 225.00 delta H = 13.00' Length= 291' Slope= .04467 Subarea: 1.35 acres Soil: C Fp = 0.250 " /hr - Development type 1.2 = Nat /Agri, Fair cover ai= 0 Fm= 0.250 " /hr ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- k = .706 Tc = 12.72 min. I = 2.378 " /hr A(total) = 1.350 ac Fm(avg) = 0.250 " /hr Q= .9A(I -Fm) Q(subarea) = 2.59 cfs Q(total) = 2.59 cfs -------- ----------- ---------- - - - - -- Summary ---------------------------------- Stream 5 to node 9 Length= 291' Fm(avg) =.250 1.92 cfs /acre avg. A(tot)= 1.35 acres Tc= 12.72 min Q= 2.59 cfs New Stream Record 9 Subarea 7 Stream 6 Process 1: Initial subarea I I I I I Node 10 to node 11 Elev 233.00 to elev 226.50 delta H =: 6.50' Length= 118.4' Slope= .05490 Subarea: .58 acre Soil: D Fp = 0.200 " /hr n1� Development type 1.2 = Nat /Agri, Fair cover ai= 0 Pm= 0.200" /hr Y^ k = .706 Tc A(total) = = 8.52 0.580 ac min. I = 2.992 " /hr Fm(avg) = 0.200" /hr - -- _- Q= .9A(I -Fm) Q(subarea) 1.46 cfs Q(total) 1.46 cfs -------- ----- -- ------ --- ----- - - - - -- Summary ----------------------------------- Stream 6 to node 11 Length= 118' Fm(avg) =.200 2.51 cfs /acre avg. A(tot)= 0.58 acres Tc= 8.52 min Q= 1.46 cfs I I I I File STMKEHI0.DAT Runtime 02 -04 -2003 09:59 Job# 166 -001 Page 5 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + ++ New Stream Record 10 Subarea 8 Stream 7 Process 1: Initial subarea !Node 12 to node 13 D2. Elev 243.00 to elev 242.00 delta H 1.00' Length= 163' Slope= .00613 Y Subarea: .41 acre Soil: D Fp = 0.200" /hr Development type 1.3 = Nat /Agri, Poor cover ai= 0 Fm= 0.200" /hr ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- k = .525 Tc = 11.16 min. I = 2.563 " /hr A(total) = 0.410 ac Fm(avg) = 0.200 " /hr Q= .9A(I -Fm) Q(subarea) = 0.87 cfs Q(total) = 0.87 cfs ------- ------------ ------ - - - - -- - - -- Summary ----------------------------------- Stream 7 to node 13 Length= 163' Fm(avg) =.200 2.13 cfs /acre avg. A(tot)= 0.41 acres Tc= 11.16 min Q= 0.87 cfs ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + ++ Other: Stream 1: Len= 376' Atot= 1.25 ac Tc= 11.62 min Q= 2.59 cfs Stream 2: Len= 596' Atot= 3.82 ac Tc= 8.52 min Q= 6.41 cfs Stream 3: Len= 624' Atot= 1.82 ac Tc= 8.52 min Q= 3.61 cfs Stream 4: Len= 171' Atot= 0.74 ac Tc= 7.58 min Q= 2.00 cfs Stream 5: Len= 291' Atot= 1.35 ac Tc= 12.72 min Q= 2.59 cfs Stream 6: Len= 118' Atot= 0.58 ac Tc= 8.52 min Q= 1.46 cfs ____--------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------- End of RMH run for file STMKEHI0.DAT RMH OC ver 6.6e June 2001 RATIONAL METHOD HYDROLOGY Orange County (C)Copyright 1999 Jack P. Norris, Tel 909 - 676 -5816, Fax 676 -0016 SIN 112 KFM Engineering, Inc., 26632 Towne Centre Dr_, #240, Foothill Ranch, CA 92610. 949.580.3838 File: STMKEH25.DAT 10 records Runtime: 02 -04 -2003 10:04 Page 1 By KFM Work code 02 Job# 166 -001 +---------------------- -- ---------- -- - - - - -- -- -- - - - - - -- - ----------------- St. Mark Presbyterian Church Existing Hydrology, 25 year storm event stmkeh25.dat +------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Frequency: 25 - yr. I = 11.995 Tc' -.566 Min. pipe size: 18" Initial subarea Tc by Kirpich formula: Tc = k (Dist"3 / deltaH)A.2 1: i I 11 6xj517N4 GowD�Tie Z5. yet4 Record 1 Subarea 1 Stream 1 Process 1: Initial subarea Node 1 to node 2 Elev 247.00 to elev 237.00 delta H = 10.00' Length= 376' Slope= .02660 �� Hyd. Manual recommends against exceeding 330' Subarea: 1.25 acres Soil: D Fp = 0.200 " /hr Development type 1.3 = Nat /Agri, Poor cover ai= 0 Fm= 0.200" /hr -- ------ k = .525 Tc -- - - -- ------ - - - --- ------------------------------ = 11.62 min. I = 2.993 " /hr A(total) = 1.250 ac Fm(avg) = 0.200 " /hr Q= .9A(I -Fm) Q(subarea) = 3.14 cfs Q(total) = 3.14 cfs ----------------------------------- Summary ----------------------------------- Stream 1 to node 2 Length= 376' Fm(avg) =.200 2.51 cfs /acre avg. A(tot)= 1.25 acres Tc= 11.62 min Q= 3.14 cfs ..................................... ............................... New Stream I Record 2 Subarea 2 Stream 2 Process 1: Initial subarea Node 3 to node 7 Elev 251.00 to elev 206.81 delta H = 44.19' Length= 596' Slope= .07414 Q'L Hyd. Manual recommends against exceeding 330' Subarea: 2 acres Soil: D Fp = 0.200" /hr Development ------------------------------------------------------- type 1.2 = Nat /Agri, Fair cover ai= 0 Fm= 0.200" /hr k = .706 Tc ------------ `--- = 15.31 min. I = 2.56111/hr -- - - - - -` A(total) = 2.000 ac Fm(avg) = 0.200 " /hr Q= .9A(I -Fm) Q(subarea) = 4.25 cfs Q(total) = 4.25 cfs ----------------------------- - - - - -- Summary ----------------------------------- ' Stream 2 to node 7 Length= 596' Fm(avg) =.200 2.12 cfs /acre avg. tot)=_ acres--- Tc =_1min This stream ream ----- -` _`---- _-`___ -A( -2.00- by re is designated for confluence with 1 other by record 6 - -Q=-- `4.25 -cfs- I 11 6xj517N4 GowD�Tie Z5. yet4 File STMKEH25.DAT Runtime 02 -04 -2003 10:04 Job# 166 -001 Page 2 New Stream Record 3 Subarea 3 Stream 3 Process 1: Initial subarea Node 4 to node 6 Elev 251.46 to elev 207.90 delta H = 43.56' Length= 515.36' Slope= .0845 Hyd. Manual recommends against exceeding 330' g( Subarea: .83 acre Soil: D Fp = 0.200" /hr Development type 1.2 = Nat /Agri, Fair cover ai= 0 Fm= 0.200 " /hr 0.93 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ k = .706 Tc = 14.07 min. I = 2.68611/hr A(total) = 0.830 ac Fm(avg) = 0.200" /hr Q= .9A(I -Fm) Q(subarea) = 1.86 cfs Q(total) = 1.86 cfs ----------------------------- - - - - -- Summary ----------------------------------- Stream 3 to node 6 Length= 515' Fm(avg) =.200 2.24 cfs /acre avg. A(tot)= 0.83 acres Tc= 14.07 min Q= 1.86 cfs This stream is designated for confluence with 1 other by record 4 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ + + + + + + + + + + + * + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + ++ New Stream Record 4 Subarea 4 Stream 4 Process 1: Initial subarea Node 5 to node 6 yZ Elev 243.00 to elev 207.90 delta H = 35.10' Length= 171' Slope= .20526 �•/ Subarea: .74 acre Soil: D Fp = 0.200 " /hr Development type 1.2 = Nat /Agri, Fair cover ai= 0 Fm= 0.200" /hr ------------------- --- -------------- ------ - -- - -- - ----------------------------- k = .706 Tc = 7.58 min. I = 3.81211/hr A(total) = 0.740 ac Fm(avg) = 0.200" /hr Q= .9A(I -Fm) Q(subarea) 2..41 cfs Q(total) = 2.41 cfs ----------------------------- - - - - -- Summary ----------------------------------- Stream 4 to node 6 Length= 171' Fm(avg) =.200 3.25 cfs /acre avg. A(tot)= 0.74 acres Tc= 7.58 min Q= 2.41 cfs This stream is designated for confluence with 1 other by record 3 0 I I I L 1' i' File STMKEH25.DAT Runtime 02 -04 -2003 10:04 Job# 166 -001 Page 3 Record 5 Process 9 Confluence Confluencing 2 streams at node 6 @ Tc Stream 3 + Stream 4 = Confluenced - - - --- -- - - - - -- -- - - - - -- --- --- - - - - -- 14.07 Q= 1.86 + 1.66 = 3.51 cfs A= 0.83 + 0.74 = 1.57 ac. 7.58 Q= 1.45 + 2.41 = 3.86 cfs A= 0.45 + 0.74 = 1.19 ac. Qpeak = 3.86 cfs at Tc = 7.58 minutes A = A(contributing) = 1.19 ac Fm(avg) = 0.200" /hr. - A(total) = 1.57 ac Confluenced streams will be designated as stream # 3 to continue downstream. - - - Summary --------------------------------- Stream 3 at node 6 Length= 515' Fm(avg) =.200 3.25 cfs /acre avg.(c) Conflu=d-A(c)=-- 1.187- ac - - -A( tot) = - -1.57- acres - - -Q = -- -3.86 - - - -Tc =- -7.58- min cfs - Record 6 Subarea 5 Stream 3 Process 7: Channel flow - Natural Valley Subarea Q enters stream uniformly distributed along reach. Node 6 to node 7 Elev 207.90 to elev 206.81 delta H = 1.09' Length= 109' Slope= .01000 63 Subarea: .25 acre Soil: D Fp = 0.200 " /hr - Development type 1 = Natural, Agriculture ai= 0 Fm= 0.200 " /hr "425 V avg = 2.02' /sec for avg Q of 4.11 cfs ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tc = 7.58 + 0.90 = 8.48 min. I = 3.57711/hr A(total) = 1.820 ac A(contrib) = 1.437 ac Fm(avg) = 0.200" /hr Q= .9A(I -Fm) Q(subarea) = 0.76 cfs Q(total) = 4.37 cfs ----------------------------------- Summary ----------------------------------- Stream 3 to node 7 Length= 624' Fm(avg) =.200 3.04 cfs /acre avg-(c) , Conflu'd A(c)= 1.437 ac A(tot)= 1.82 acres Tc= 8.48 min Q= 4.37 cfs This stream is designated for confluence with 1 other by record 2 I I I L 1' II 11 n" I File STMKEH25.DAT Runtime 02 -04 -2003 10:04 Job# 166 -001 Record 7 Process 9 Confluence Confluencing 2 streams at node 7 @ Tc Stream 2 + Stream 3 = Confluenced - -- - -- -- - - - - -- -- - - - - -- 15.31 Q= 4.25 + 3.05 = 7.30 cfs A= 2.00 + 1.44 = 3.44 ac. 8.48 Q= 3.37 + 4.37 = 7.74 cfs A= 1.11 + 1.44 = 2.54 ac. Qpeak = 7.74 cfs at Tc = 8.48 minutes A = A(contributing) _ Fm(avg) = 0.200" /hr. �A(total) = 3.62 ac Page 4 2.54 ac Confluenced streams will be designated as stream # 2 to continue downstream. ----------------------------------- Summary ----------------------------------- Stream 2 at node 7 Length= 596' Fm(avg) =.200 3.04 cfs /acre av c Conflu= d- A(c) = -- 2.545- ac - - -A( tot) = -- 3.82 - acres - - -Tc= - -8.48- min -- =--- 7.74 -cfs- ************************************* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** New Stream Record 8 Subarea 6 Stream 5 Process 1: Initial subarea Node 8 to node 9 1 Elev 238.00 to elev 225.00 delta H = 13.00' Length= 291' Slope= .04467 �rL Subarea: 1.35 acres Soil: C Fp = 0.250" /hr L'! Development type 1.2 = Nat /Agri, Fair cover ai= 0 Fm= 0.250 " /hr 1 - - - - - - - -- 706 Tc = 12.72 min. I = 2.844 " /hr k - A(total) = 1.350 ac Fm(avg) = 0.250" /hr Q= .9A(I -Fm) Q(subarea) = 3.15 cfs Q(total) = 3.i5 cfs ------- -- -------------------- - - - - -- Summary ----------------------------------- Stream 5 to node 9 Length= 291' Fm(avg) =.250 2.33 cfs /acre avg. - - -- -- - -- ------ - - - - -- A(tot)= 1.35 acres Tc= 12.72 min Q= 3.15 cfs ..***......** ........................ ............................... New Stream Record 9 Subarea 7 Stream 6 Process 1: Initial subarea Node 10 to node 11 Elev 233.00 to elev 226.50 delta H = 6.50' Length= 118.4' Slope= .05490 �! Subarea: .58 acre Soil: D FP = 0.200 " /hr Development type 1.2 = Nat /Agri, Fair cover ai= 0 Fm= 0.20011/hr ------------`------------------------------------------------------------------ k = .706 Tc = 8.52 min. I = 3.56911/hr A(total) = 0.580 ac Fm(avg) = 0.200" /hr Q= .9A(I -Fm) Q(subarea) = 1.76 cfs Q(total) = 1.76 cfs ----------------- ----------- - - - - -- Summary ----------------------------------- Stream 6 to node 11 Length= 118' Fm(avg) =.200 3.03 cfs /acre avg. A(tot)= 0.58 acres Tc= 8.52 min Q= 1.76 cfs I 1 File STMKEH25.DAT Runtime 02 -04 -2003 10:04 Job# 166 -001 I Page 5 , +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + ++ New Stream Record 10 Subarea 8 Stream 7 Process 1: Initial subarea vZ -Node 12 to node 13 Elev 243.00 to elev 242.00 delta H = 1.00' Length= 163' Slope= .00613 *�' Subarea: .41 acre Soil: D Fp = 0.200 " /hr Y Development type 1.3 = Nat /Agri, Poor cover ai= 0 Fm= 0.200 " /hr _ k = .525 Tc = 11.16 min. I = 3.063 " /hr A(total) = 0.410 ac Fm(avg) = 0.200" /hr Q= .9A(I -Fm) Q(subarea) = 1.06 cfs Q(total) = 1.06 cfs --------------- -------------- - - - --- Summary ----------------------------------- Stream 7 to node 13 Length= 163' Fm(avg) =.200 2.58 cfs /acre avg. A(tot)= 0.41 acres Tc= 11.16 min Q= 1.06 cfs ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + ++ Other: Stream 1: Len= 376' Atot= 1.25 ac Tc= 11.62 min Q= 3.14 cfs Stream 2: Len= 596' Atot= 3.82 ac Tc= 8.48 min Q= 7.74 cfs Stream 3: Len= 624' Atot= 1.82 ac Tc= 8.48 min Q= 4.37 cfs Stream 4: Len= 171' Atot= 0.74 ac Tc= 7.58 min Q= 2.41 cfs Stream 5: Len= 291' Atot= 1.35 ac Tc= 12.72 min Q= 3.15 cfs Stream 6: Len= 118' Atot= 0.58 ac Tc= 8.52 min Q= 1.76 cfs ------------------------------------------------------------ End of RMH run for file STMKEH25.DAT i II I1 I1 II II 1 II II II Appendix C: Hydrology Calculations - Proposed Conditions 25 -Year Hydrology (With Detention) 10 -Year Hydrology (Without Detention) 25 -Year Hydrology (Without Detention) RMH OC ver 6.6e June 2001 RATIONAL METHOD HYDROLOGY Orange County (C)Copyright 1999 Jack P. Norris, Tel 909 - 676 -5816, Fax 676 -0016 SIN 112 KFM Engineering, Inc., 26632 Towne Centre Dr., #240, Foothill Ranch, CA 92610. 949.580.3838 File: STMKDP25.DAT 5 records Runtime: 02 -19 -2003 15:43 Page 1 By KFM Work code 02 Job# 166 -001 + -- ------------------------------- ------------------------ - - -- -+ St. Mark Presbyterian Church Hydrology 25 Year Storm Event, Proposed Detention Pond Routing stmkdp25.dat -------------------------------------- Frequency: 25 - yr. I = 11.995 TcA -.566 Min. pipe size: 18" Initial subarea Tc by Kirpich formula: Tc = k (Dist "3 / deltaH) ".2 Record 1 Subarea 1 Stream 1 Process 2: User - specified info at node Node 1 to node 4 Fm(avg)= .04411/hr. A(total)= 2.260 acres A(contributing) = 0.556 acres Tc = 6.23 minutes Q = 2.11 cfs Record 2 Subarea 2 Stream 1 Process 7: Channel flow - Natural Valley Subarea Q enters stream uniformly distributed along reach. Node 4 to node 13 Elev 230.00 to elev 207.00 delta H = 23.00' Length= 238' Slope= .09664 ' Subarea: .4 acre Soil: D Fp = 0.200 " /hr Development type 1 = Natural, Agriculture ai= 0 Fm= 0.200 " /hr V avg = 5.72' /sec for avg Q of 2.73 cfs ---------------------- ----------- ---------------- Tc = 6.23 + 0.69 = 6.92 min. I = 4.012 " /hr Z•(o(p A(total) = 2.660 ac Fm(avg) = 0.109" /hr Q= .9A(I -Fm) Q(subarea) = 1.41 cfs Q(total) = 3.36 cfs ------------ ----- - - - --- Summary ----------------------------------- ' Stream 1 to node 13 Length= 238' Fm(avg) =.109 3.51 cfs /acre avg. A(tot)= 2.66 acres Tc= 6.92 min Q= 3.36 cfs This stream is designated for confluence with 1 other by record 4 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- New Stream Record 3 Subarea 3 Stream 2 Process 2: User - specified info at node Node 1.1 to node 5 Fm(avg)= .109 " /hr. A(total)= 2.690 acres A(contributing) = 0.890 acres Tc = 9.68 minutes Q = 2.57 cfs u I L� fa.fipCiEl� CO�.ISITiOhE_ TO D ET-WTTO N Z 6- 4 e-A-K n File STMKDP25.DAT Runtime 02 -19 -2003 15:43 Job# 166 -001 Page 2 Record 4 Subarea 4 Stream 2 Process 7: Channel flow - Natural Valley Subarea Q enters stream uniformly distributed along reach. Node 5 to node 13 Elev 212.00 to elev 207.00 delta H = 5.00' Length= 248.5' Slope= .02012 Subarea: .59 acre Soil: D Fp = 0.200 " /hr 2 Development type 1 = Natural, Agriculture ai= 0 Fm= 0.200" /hr �7 V avg = 2.71' /sec for avg Q of 3.22 cfs 3 t8 ------- ---------- - - - --- - -- - - - - - -- ----------- --- - --- -- -- Tc = 9.68 + 1.53 = 11.21 min. I = 3.055 " /hr A(total) = 3.280 ac Fm(avg) = 0.145" /hr Q= .9A(I -Fm) Q(subarea) = 1.54 cfs Q(total) = 3.87 cfs - -- --- --- ------ ----- - - - --- Summary -- - -- - -- ----------------------------------- Stream 2 to node 13 Length= 249' Fm(avg) =.145 2.62 cfs /acre avg. A(tot)= 3.28 acres Tc= 11.21 min Q= 3.87 cfs This stream is designated for confluence with 1 other by record 2 Record 5 Process 9 Confluence Confluencing 2 streams at node 13 @ Tc Stream 1'+ Stream 2 = Confluenced -- -------- - -- -- - -- -- -- -- -- - - -- 6.92 Q= 3.36 + 3.18 = 6.54 cfs A= 0.96 + 0.91 = 1.87 ac. 11.21 Q= 2.53 + 3.87 = 6.41 cfs A= 0.96 + 1.48 = 2.44 ac. Qpeak = 6.54 cfs at Tc = 6.92 minutes A = A(contributing) _ Fm(avg) 0.12711/hr. A(total) = 5.94 ac 1.87 ac Confluenced streams will be designated as stream # 1 to continue downstream. ------------ ---- --- ------ ---- - - -- -- Summary ----------------------------------- Stream 1 at node 3 Length= 238' Fm(avg) =.127 3.50 cfs /acre av .(c Conflu'd A(c)= 1.870 ac A(tot)- 5.94 acres Tc= 6.92 min I Q= 6.54 cfs Other: Stream 2: Len= 249' Atot= 3.28 ac Tc= 11.21 min Q= 3.87 cfs --------------- -- End of RMH run for file STMKDP25.DAT proPoseb LaND ITJorv$ (w,rFroor be7e" T' e n) to. ye4-a- RMH OC ver 6.6e June 2001 RATIONAL METHOD HYDROLOGY Orange County (C)Copyright 1999 Jack P. Norris, Tel 909 - 676 -5816, Fax 676 -0016 SIN 112 KFM Engineering, Inc., 26632 Towne Centre Dr., #240, Foothill Ranch, CA 92610. 949.580.3838 File: STMKPHI0.DAT 16 records Runtime: 02 -18 -2003 17:07 Page 1 By KFM Work code 02 Job# 166 -001 +--- ---- - - -- -- --------------------------------------------- ------- - - - - -+ St. Mark Presbyterian Church Proposed Hydrology, 10 year storm event stmkphl0.dat Frequency: 10 - yr. I = 10.209 TcA -.573 Min. pipe size: 18" Initial subarea Tc by Kirpich formula: Tc = k (DistA3 / deltaH) ".2 ' Record 1 Subarea 1 Stream 1 Process 1: Initial subarea Node 1 to node 2 �' Elev 248.00 to elev 233.70 delta H = 14.30' Length= 279' Slope= .05125 Subarea: 1.72 acres Soil: D Fp = 0.200" /hr ' Development type 12 = Mobilhome park ai= .75 Fm= 0.050 " /hr - - - - -- ---- - - - k = .324 Tc = 5.58 min. I = 3.811 " /hr - A(total) _ 1.720 ac Fm(avg) = 0.050 " /hr Q= .9A(I -Fm) Q(subarea) = 5.82 cfs Q(total) - 5 82 cfs ----- -- ---- -------- ----- ----- - - - - -- Summary ----------------------------------- Stream 1 to node 2 Length= 279' Fm(avg). =.050 3.38 cfs /acre avg. A(tot)=__1_72_ acres _ _Tc =__5.58 min Q= 5.82 cfs Record 2 Subarea 0 Stream 1 Process 5: Pipe flow, Program- selected size Node 2 to node 4 Pipeslope = .9 * groundslope. n = .013 Elev 231.50 to elev 230•.00 delta H = 1.50' Length= 203.5' Slope= .00737 Subarea: 0 acre ' 5.82 cfs in 1 18" pipe (d = 1.50') Depth, D =0.90' D/d =.600 Sf = .00681 Hv= VA2 /2g= 0.43' 1.2Hv= 0.52' 1.SHv= 0.64' Travel time X -Sect A= 1.11 sf, V= 5.26' /sec, Tt= 0.64 min. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tc = 5.58 + 0.64 = 6.23 min. I = 3.58011/hr A(total) = 1.720 ac Fm(avg) = 0.050 " /hr Q= .9A(I -Fm) Q(subarea) = 0.00 cfs Q(total) = 5.82 cfs Computed Q 5.5 < upstream Q so upstream Q is used (Hydro. Manual D.11.6a) ' --------- --- ------ ----------- - - - - -- Summary ----------------------------------- Stream 1 to node 4 Length= 463' Fm(avg) =.050 3.38 cfs /acre avg. A(tot)= 1.72 acres Tc= 6.23 min Q= 5.82 cfs This stream is designated for confluence with 1 other by record 3 - -- -- -` -Y - proPoseb LaND ITJorv$ (w,rFroor be7e" T' e n) to. ye4-a- I File STMKPHIO.DAT Runtime 02 -18 -2003 17:07 Job# 166 -001 Page 2 I! Confluenced streams will be designated as stream # 1 to continue downstream. ----- ---------------------- --- - -- Summary - - -- Stream 1 at node 4 Length= 483' Fm(avg) =.099 3.35 cfs /acre avg (c) Conflu'd A(c)= 2.122 ac A(tot)= 2.26 acres Tc= 6.23 min Q= 7.11 cfs Stream Record 3 Subarea 2 Stream 2 Process 1: Initial subarea A Node 3 to node 4 Az- Elev 236.00 to elev 235.00 delta H = 1.00' Length= 251.2' Slope= .00398 Subarea: .54 acre Soil: D Fp = 0.200 " /hr • &� Development type 14 = Commercial ai= .9 Fm= 0.020" /hr j ------- - - -- -- k = .304 Tc ---------------------------------- = 8.37 min. I = ------- -- =- - 3.021 " /hr -1 A(total) = 0.540 ac Fm(avg) = 0.020 " /hr Q= .9A(I -Fm) Q(subarea) = 1.46 cfs Q(total) 96 cfs ------------------ ----- --- --- - - - - -- Summary --- - -- - -- Stream 2 to node 4 Length= 251' Fm(avg) =.020 2.70 cfs /acre avg. A(tot)= 0.54 acres Tc= 8.37 min Q= 1.46 cfs This stream is designated for confluence with 1 other by record 2 Record 4 Process 9 Confluence Confluencing 2 streams at node 4 @ Tc Stream 1 + Stream 2 = Confluenced - - - - -- -- 6.23 Q= - - - - -- -- - --- -- 5.82 + 1.29 = ------ -- - - -- 7.11 cfs A= 1.72 + 0.40 = 2.12 ac. 8.37 Q= 4.90 + 1.46 = 6.36 cfs A= 1.72 + 0.54 = 2.26 ac. Qpeak = 7.11 cfs at Tc = 6.23 minutes A = A(contributing) = 2.12 ac Fm(avg) = 0.099 " /hr. A(total) = 2.26 ac Confluenced streams will be designated as stream # 1 to continue downstream. ----- ---------------------- --- - -- Summary - - -- Stream 1 at node 4 Length= 483' Fm(avg) =.099 3.35 cfs /acre avg (c) Conflu'd A(c)= 2.122 ac A(tot)= 2.26 acres Tc= 6.23 min Q= 7.11 cfs +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + ++ New Stream Record 7 Subarea 5 Stream 4 Process 1: Initial subarea Node 6 to node 5 pp Elev 232.50 to elev 224.00 delta H = 8.50' Length= 294.5' Slope= .02886 D� Subarea: .93 acre Soil: C Fp = 0.250" /hro? Development type 8 = 5- 7 dwellings /acre ai= .5 Fm= 0.125 " /hr 7� --------------- ------------------------------------------------ k = .389 Tc = 7.68 min. I = 3.174 " /hr A(total) = 0.930 ac Fm(avg) = 0.125 " /hr Q =_9A(I_Fm) Q(subarea) = 2.55 cfs Q(total) 2.55 cfs -- Summary ----------------------------------- Stream 4 to node 5 Length= 295' Fm(avg) =.125 2.74 cfs /acre avg. A(tot)= 0.93 acres Tc= 7.68 min Q= 2.55 cfs This stream is designated for confluence with 1 other by record 6 I II it File STMKPHIO.DAT Runtime 02 -18 -2003 17:07 Job# 166 -001 Page 3 Record 5 Subarea 3 Stream 1 Process 7: Channel flow - Natural Valley Subarea Q enters stream uniformly distributed along reach. Node 4 to node 13 Elev 230.00 to elev 207.00 delta H = 23.00' Length= 238' Slope= .09664 n Subarea: .4 acre Soil: D FP = 0.200 " /hr 7 Development type 1 = Natural, Agriculture ai= 0 Fm= 0.200" /hr V avg = 7.19' /sec for avg Q of 7.35 cfs ---- ----- -- ---------- ---- ---- -- --- ------- -------------------------------------- Tc = 6.23 + 0.55 = 6.78 min. I = 3.41011/hr A(total) = 2.660 ac A(contrib) = 2.522 ac Fm(avg) = 0.06911/hr i Q= .9A(I -Fm) Q(subarea) = 1.20 cfs Q(total) = 7.58 cfs ----------------------------------- Summary ----------------------------------- Stream 1 to node 13 Length= 721' Fm(avg) =.069 3.01 cfs /acre avg.(c) Conflu'd A(c)= 2.522 ac A(tot)= 2.66 acres Tc= 6.78 min Q= 7.58 cfs This stream is designated for confluence with 1 other by record 10 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + ++ New Stream Record 6 Subarea 4 Stream 3 Process 1: Initial subarea Node 1.1 to node 5 Elev 248.00 to elev 224.00 delta H = 24.00' Length= 612' Slope= .03922 �) Hyd. Manual recommends against exceeding 330' Subarea: 1.76 acres Soil: D Fp = 0.200" /hr l76 Development type 8 = 5- 7 dwellings /acre ai= .5 Fm= 0.100" /hr k = .389 Tc = 9.68-min.----I-=-2.780"/hr A(total) = 1.760 ac Fm(avg) = 0.100 " /hr Q= .9A(I -Fm) Q(subarea) = 4.24 cfs Q(total) = 4_24 cfs ----------------------------------- Summary ----------------------------------- Stream 3 to node 5 Length= 612' Fm(avg) =.100 2.41 cfs /acre avg. A(tot)= 1.76 acres Tc= 9.68 min Q= 4.24 cfs This stream is designated for confluence with 1 other by record 7 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + ++ New Stream Record 7 Subarea 5 Stream 4 Process 1: Initial subarea Node 6 to node 5 pp Elev 232.50 to elev 224.00 delta H = 8.50' Length= 294.5' Slope= .02886 D� Subarea: .93 acre Soil: C Fp = 0.250" /hro? Development type 8 = 5- 7 dwellings /acre ai= .5 Fm= 0.125 " /hr 7� --------------- ------------------------------------------------ k = .389 Tc = 7.68 min. I = 3.174 " /hr A(total) = 0.930 ac Fm(avg) = 0.125 " /hr Q =_9A(I_Fm) Q(subarea) = 2.55 cfs Q(total) 2.55 cfs -- Summary ----------------------------------- Stream 4 to node 5 Length= 295' Fm(avg) =.125 2.74 cfs /acre avg. A(tot)= 0.93 acres Tc= 7.68 min Q= 2.55 cfs This stream is designated for confluence with 1 other by record 6 I II it E File STMKPHIO.DAT Runtime 02 -18 -2003 17:07 Job# 166 -001 Record 8 Confluencing 2 streams at node 5 Q Tc Stream 3 + Stream 4 = - -- - -- -- - -- - -- -- -- - --- 9.68 Q= 4.24 + 2.22 = A= 1.76 + 0.93 = Process 9 Confluence Confluenced - - -- 6.47 cfs 2.69 ac. 7.68 Q= 3.86 + 2.55 = 6.42 cfs A= 1.40 + 0.93 = 2.33 ac. Qpeak = 6.47 cfs at Tc = 9.68 minutes A = A(contributing) _ Fm(avg) = 0.109" /hr. ' A(total) = 2.69 ac Page 4 2.69 ac Confluenced streams will be designated as stream # 3 to continue downstream. -- ------- ----- -- - - - --- Summary --- ---- - - - - -- ----------------------------------- S.tream 3 at node 5 Length= 612' Fm(avg) =.109 2.40 cfs /acre avg.(c) Conflu'd A(c)= 2.690 ac A(tot)= 2.69 acres Tc= 9.68 min Q= 6.47 cfs Record 9 Subarea 0 Stream 3 Process 5: Pipe flow, Program - selected size Node 5 to node 12 Pipeslope = .9 * groundslope. n = .013 Elev 224.00 to elev 212.00 delta H = 12.00' Length= 41' Slope= .29268 Subarea: 0 acre 6.47 cfs in 1 18" pipe (d = 1.50') Depth, D =0.35' D/d =.233 Sf = .26583 Hv= V -2/2g= 6.62' 1.2Hv= 7.95' 1.5Hv= 9.93' Travel time X -Sect A= 0.31 sf, V= 20.64' /sec, Tt= 0.03 min. ---------------------------------------`--------------------------------------- Tc = 9.68,+ 0.03 = 9.71 min. I = 2.774 " /hr A(total) = 2.690 ac A(contrib) = 2.690 ac Fm(avg) = 0.109" /hr Q= .9A(I -Fm) Q(subarea) = 0.00 cfs Q(total) = 6.47 cfs Computed Q 6.5 < upstream Q so upstream Q is used (Hydro. Manual D.11.6a) ---- ----------- -- ------------ - - - - -- Summary ----------------------------------- Stream 3 to node 12 Length= 653' Fm(avg) =.109 2.40 cfs /acre avg.(c) Conflu'd A(c)= 2.690 ac A(tot)= 2.69 acres Tc= 9.71 min Q= 6.47 cfs I I I I File STMKPHIO.DAT Runtime 02 -18 -2003 17:07 Job# 166 -001 Page 5 Record 10 Subarea 6 Stream 3 Process 7: Channel flow - Natural Valley Subarea Q enters stream uniformly distributed along reach. ;Node 12 to node 13 - Elev 212.00 to elev 207.00 delta H = 5.00' Length= 248.5' Slope= .02012 Subarea: .59 acre Soil: D Fp = 0.200 " /hr Development type 1 = Natural, Agriculture ai= 0 Fm= 0.200 " /hr V avg = 3.23' /sec for avg Q of 6.86 cfs ------------------- --------------------------------- Tc = 9.71 + 1.28 = 11.00 min. I = 2.584 " /hr A(total) = 3.280 ac A(contrib) = 3.280 ac Fm(avg) = 0.125 " /hr Q= .9A(I -Fm) Q(subarea) = 1.31 cfs Q(total) = 7.26 cfs ----------- ----------------- - -- - - -- Summary ----------------------------------- Stream 3 to node 13 Length= 902' Fm(avg) =.125 2.21 cfs /acre avg.(c) Conflu'd A(c)= 3.280 ac A(tot)= 3.28 acres Tc= 11.00 min Q= 7.26 cfs ,. This stream is designated for confluence with 1 other by record 5 Record 11 Process 9 Confluence Confluencing 2 streams at node 13 @ Tc Stream 1 + Stream 3 = Confluenced 6.78 Q= 7.58 + 5.98 = 13.56 cfs A= 2.52 + 2.02 = 4.54 ac. 11.00 Q= 5.71 + 7.26 = 12.97 cfs A= 2.52 + 3.28 = 5.80 ac. Qpeak = 13.56 cfs at Tc = 6.78 minutes A = A(contributing) = 4.54 ac Fm(avg) = 0.094 " /hr. A(total) = 5.94 ac Confluenced streams will be designated as stream # 1 to continue downstream_ ----- ------------------------ - - - - -- Summary Stream 1 at node 13 Length= 721' Fm(avg) =.094 2.98 cfs /acre av4. Conflu'd A(c)= 4.543 ac A(tot)= 5.94 acres Tc= 6.78 min Q= 13.56 cfs 1 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- .................................................................... New Stream Record 12 Subarea 7 Stream 5 Process 1: Initial subarea Node 7 to node 8 Elev 230.00 to elev 227.50 delta H = 2.50' Length= 138' Slope= .01812 Subarea: .15 acre Soil: C Fp = 0.250" /hr /A Development type 7 = 3- 4 dwellings /acre ai= .4 Fm= 0.150' - /hr ---------- --- - -- ---------------_----------------------- k = .412 Tc = 6.60 min. I 3.464 " /hr A(total) = 0.150 ac Fm(avg) = 0.150 " /hr Q= .9A(I -Fm) Q(subarea) = 0.45 cfs Q(total) = 0_45 cfs -------- --------------------- - - - - -- Summary ----------------------------------- Stream 5 to node 8 Length= 138' Fm(avg) =.150 2.98 cfs /acre avg. A(tot)= 0.15 acres Tc= 6.60 min Q= 0.45 cfs I I I I File STMKPHIO.DAT Runtime 02 -18- 2003 17:07 Job# 166 -001 Page 6 . Record 13 Subarea 0 Stream 5 Process 5: Pipe flow, Program - selected size Node 8 to node 10 Pipeslope = .9 * groundslope. n = .013 ;Elev 225.00 to elev 224.00 delta H = 1.00' Length= 243' Slope= .00412 Subarea: 0 acre 0.45 cfs in 1 18" pipe (d = 1.50') Depth, D =0.26' D/d =.173 Sf = .00424 Hv= V -2/2g= 0.07' 1.2Hv= 0.09' 1.5Hv= 0.11' Travel time X -Sect A= 0.20 sf, V= 2.18' /sec, Tt= 1.85 min. ----------------------- ----------------- Tc = 6.60 + 1.85 = 8.45 min. I " = 3.005 /hr A(total) = 0.150 ac Fm(avg) = 0.150 " /hr Q= .9A(I -Fm) Q(subarea) = 0.00 cfs Q(total) = 0.45 cfs ' Computed Q 0.4 < upstream Q so upstream Q is used (Hydro. Manual D.11.6a) --------------------- -------- - - - - -- Summary ----------------------------------- Stream 5 to node 10 Length= 381' Fm(avg) =.150 2.98 cfs /acre avg. ' A(tot)= 0.15 acres Tc= 8.45 min Q= 0.45 cfs This stream is designated for confluence with 1 other by record 14 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** Record 14 Subarea 8 Stream Node 9 to node 10 Elev 232.50 to elev 227.00 Subarea: .57 acre Soil: D ******** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** New Stream ' 6 Process 1: Initial subarea G2 delta H = 5.50' Length= 186' Slope= .02957 Fp = 0.200" /hr A 7 Development type 12 = Mobilhome park ai= .75 Fm= 0.050 " / hr k = .324 T, A(total) = Q= .9A(I -Fm) Stream 6 to This stream 5.30 min. I = 3 0.570 ac Q(subarea) _ ----------------- - - - - -- node 10 Length= 186' A(tot)= is designated for confl .927 " /hr Fm(avg) = 0.050" /hr 1.99 cfs Q(total) = 1.99 cfs Summary ---------------------------------- Fm(avg) =.050 3.49 cfs /acre avg. 0.57 acres Tc= 5.30 min Q= 1.99 cfs uence with 1 other by record 13 File STMKPHI0.DAT Runtime 02 -18 -2003 17:07 Job# 166 -001 Page 7 Record 15 Process 9 Confluence Confluencing 2 streams at node 10 @ Tc Stream 5 + Stream 6 = Confluenced --- - -- -- - - - - -- 8.45 Q= 0.45 + -- - - - - -- ------ - - - --- 1.52 = 1.96 cfs A= 0.15 + 0.57 = 0.72 ac. 5.30 Q= 0.37 + 1.99 = 2.36 cfs A= 0.09 + 0.57 = 0.66 ac. Qpeak = 2.36 cfs at Tc = 5.30 minutes A = A(contributing) = 0.66 ac Fm(avg) = 0.064 " /hr. ' A(total) = 0.72 ac Confluenced streams will be designated as stream # 5 to continue downstream. ----------------------------------- Summary ----------------------------------- Stream 5 at node 10 Length= 381' Fm(avg) =.064 3.55 cfs /acre avg.(c) Conflu'd A(c)= 0.664 ac A(tot)= 0.72 acres Tc= 5.30 min Q= 2.36 cfs Record 16 Subarea 0 Stream 5 Process 5: Pipe flow, Program - selected size Node 10 - to node 11 Pipeslope = .9 * groundslope. n = .013 Elev 224.00 to elev 220.00 delta H = 4.00' Length= 71' Slope= .05634' Subarea: 0 acre 2.36 cfs in 1 18" pipe (d = 1.50') Depth, D =0.32' D/d =.213 Sf = .05071 Hv =V -2/29= 1.14' 1.2Hv= 1.36' 1.5Hv= 1.71' Travel time X -Sect A= 0.28 sf, V= 8.55' /sec, Tt= 0.14 min. - -- -- ------ - -- --- Tc = 5.30 + 0.14 = _---- ------------------ - -- 5.44 min. I = 3.869 /hr A(total) = 0.720 ac A(contrib) = 0.664 ac Fm(avg) = 0.06411/hr Q= .9A(I -Fm) Q(subarea) = 0.00 cfs Q(total) = 2.36 cfs Computed Q 2.3 < upstream Q so upstream Q is used (Hydro. Manual D.11.6a) ----------------------------- - - - - -- Summary ----------------------------------- Stream 5 to node 11 Length= 452' Fm(avg) =.064 3.55 cfs /acre avg.(c) Conflu'd A(c)= 0.664 ac A(tot)= 0.72 acres Tc= 5.44 min Q= 2.36 cfs + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + ++ Other: Stream 1: Len= Stream 2: Len= Stream 3: Len= Stream 4: Len= Stream 6: Len= End of RMH run for file F + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + ++ 721' Atot= 5.94 251' Atot= 0.54 902' Atot= 3.28 295' Atot= 0.93 186' Atot= 0.57 STMKPHIO DAT F ++ ac ac ac ac ac F + + + + + + + + + + + + ++ Tc= 6.78 min Tc= 8.37 min Tc= 11.00 min Tc= 7.68 min Tc= 5.30 min Q= Q= Q= Q= Q= 13.56 1.46 7.26 2.55 1.99 cfs cfs cfs cfs cfs RMH OC ver 6.6e June 2001 RATIONAL METHOD HYDROLOGY Orange County , (C)Copyright 1999 Jack P. Norris, Tel 909 - 676 -5816, Fax 676 -0016 SIN 112 KFM Engineering, Inc., 26632 Towne Centre Dr., #240, Foothill Ranch, CA 92610. 949.580.3838 File: STMKPH25,DAT 16 records Runtime: 02 -18 -2003 17:24 Page 1 By KFM Work code 02 Job# 166 -001 -------------- ---------------------- -- - - - - -- - -- - - - - -- --- --- -- - - - - -+ St. Mark Presbyterian Church I I Proposed Hydrology, 25 year storm event stmkph25.dat +------------------------------------------------------------------------ - - - - -+ Frequency: 25 - yr. I = 11.995 Tc 566 Min. pipe size: 18" ' Initial subarea Tc by Kirpich formula: Tc = k (Dist '3 / deltaH) ".2 Record 1 Subarea 1 Stream 1 Process 1: Initial subarea Node 1 to node 2 AI Elev 248.00 to elev 233.70 delta H = 14.30' Length= 279' Slope= .05125 Subarea: 1.72 acres Soil: D Fp = 0.200" /hr 02 ' Development type 12 = Mobilhome park ai= .75 Fm= 0.050 " /hr (� ) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- k = .324 Tc = 5.58 min. I = 4.53211/hr A(total) = 1.720 ac Fm(avg) = 0.050 " /hr ' Q= .9A(I -Fm) Q(subarea) = 6.94 cfs Q(total) = 6.94 cfs ---------------------- ------- - - - - -- Summary ----------------------------------- Stream -1 -to_ node -2 -- Length= - 279=- -F1.72 =_ 050 -Tc= 5 cfs /acre ^avg_ - -6.9 cfs ' A(tot)= 1.72 acres Tc= 5.58 min Q= 6.99 cfs Record 2 Subarea 0 Stream 1 Process 5: Pipe flow, Program- selected size , Node 2 to node 4 Pipeslope = .9 * groundslope. n = .013 Elev 231.50 to elev 230.00 delta H = 1.50' Length= 203.5' Slope= .00737 Subarea: 0 acre 6.94 cfs in 1 18" pipe (d = 1.50') Depth, D =1.02' D/d =.680 Sf = .00672 ' Hv= VA2 /2g= 0.46' 1.2Hv= 0.55' 1.5Hv= 0.69' Travel time X -Sect A= 1.2B sf, V= 5.42' /sec, Tt= 0.63 min. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tc = 5.58 + 0.63 = 6.21 min. I = 4.26B " /hr A(total) = 1.720 ac Fm(avg) = 0.050 " /hr Q =.9A(I -Fm) Q(subarea) = 0.00 cfs Q(total) = 6.94 cfs Computed Q 6.5 < upstream Q so upstream Q is used (Hydro. Manual D.11.6a) ----------------------------------- Summary - ---------- - - - - -- --------------- -- Stream 1 to node 4 Length= 483' Fm(avg) =.050 4.03 cfs /acre avg. A(tot)= 1.72 acres Tc= 6.21 min Q= 6.94 cfs This stream is designated for confluence with 1 other by record 3 11 projPZ>$" Ga*» tTcj Cw k.TVM JT DETf#2"q 2s -yam II II I File STMKPH25.DAT Runtime 02 -18 -2003 17:24 Job# 166 -001 Page 2 New Stream Record 3 Subarea 2 Stream 2 Process 1: Initial subarea :Node 3 to node 4 Elev 236.00 to elev 235.00 delta H 1.00' Length= 251.2' Slope= .00398 A Subarea: .54 acre Soil: D Fp = 0.200" /hr Development type 14 = Commercial --------------------- - - - - -- - -------------------------------!--------- ai= .9 Fm= 0.020 /hr - �,SQ k = .304 Tc = 8.37 min. I = 3.603 " /hr A(total) = 0.540 ac Fm(avg) = 0.020" /hr Q =.9A(I -Fm) Q(subarea) = 1.74 cfs Q(total) = 1.74 cfs ' ----------------------------------- Summary ----------------------------------- Stream 2 to node 4 Length= 251' Fm(avg) =.020 3.22 cfs /acre avg. • A(tot)= 0.54 acres Tc= 8.37 min Q= 1.74 cfs This - stream -is- designated - for - confluence - with -l- other -by- record - 2- -- -- --- - - - - -- Record 4 Process 9 Confluence Confluencing 2 streams at node 4 @ Tc Stream 1 + Stream 2 = Confluenced - - - - -- - -- - - - - -- - - - - - - -- ------ 6.21 Q= 6.94 + 1.53 = - - - - -- 8.47 cfs _ A= 1.72 + 0.40 = 2.12 ac. 8.37 Q= 5.84 + 1.74 = 7.59 cfs A= 1.72 + 0.54 = 2.26 ac. Qpeak = 8.47 cfs at Tc = 6.21 minutes A = A(contributing) = 2.12 ac Fm(avg) = 0.044 " /hr. A(total) = 2.26 ac Confluenced streams will be designated as stream # 1 to continue downstream. - - - - -- - - - -- -- ------ - - - - -- - - - -- - Summary ---------------------------------- Stream 1 at node 4 Length= 483' Fm(avg) =.044 3.99 cfs /acre avg.(c) Conflu'd A(c)= 2.120 ac A(tot)= 2.26 acres Tc= 6.21 min Q= 8.47 cfs - - - - - - - -- - - - -- - - --- II II I File STMKPH25.DAT Runtime 02 -18 -2003 1.7:24 Job# 166 -001 Page 3 Record 5 Subarea 3 Stream 1 Process 7: Channel flow - Natural Valley ' Subarea Q enters stream uniformly distributed along reach. Node 4 to node 13 Elev 230.00 to elev 207.00 delta H = 23.00' Length= 238' Slope= .09664 Subarea: .4 acre Soil: D Fp = 0.200 " /hr _ Development type 1 = Natural, Agriculture ai= 0 Fm= 0.200 " /hr m� V avg = 7.52' /sec for avg Q of 8 78 cfs ----------------------- Tc = 6.21 + 0.53 = 6.74 min. A(total) = 2.660 ac A(contrib) Q= .9A(I -Fm) Q(subarea) -- ------------------- -- - - -- Stream 1 to node 13 Length= 721' Conflu'd A(c)= 2.520 ac A(tot)= This - stream -is- designated - for -conf - - ------ ------- -- - - - - -- -- I = 4 075 " /hr = 2.520 ac Fm(avg) = 0.069 " /hr 1.44 cfs Q(total) = 9.09 cfs Summary ---------------------------------- Fm(avg) =.069 3.61 cfs /acre avg.(c) 2.66 acres Tc= 6.74 min Q= 9.09 cfs luence with 1 other by record 10 1 I I New Stream Record 6 Subarea 4 Stream 3 Process 1: Initial subarea Node 1.1 to node 5 Elev 248.00 to elev 224.00 delta H = 24.00' Length= 612' Slope= .03922 Qf Hyd. Manual recommends against exceeding 330' v Subarea: 1.76 acres Soil: D Fp = 0.200 " /hr Development type 8 = 5- 7 dwellings /acre ai= .5 Fm= 0.100" /hr ----------- --- -------------- -- - - - -- - ------------------------------------------ k = .389 Tc = 9.68 min. I = 3.319 " /hr ' A(total) = 1.760 ac Fm(avg) = 0.100 " /hr Q= .9A(I -Fm) Q(subarea) = 5.10 cfs Q(total) = 5.10 cfs ---------- - ------------------ - - - - -- Summary ----------------------------------- Stream 3 to node 5 Length= 612' Fm(avg) =.100 2.90 cfs /acre avg. ' A(tot)= 1.76 acres Tc= 9.68 min Q= 5.10 cfs This stream is designated for confluence with 1 other by record 7 xxxxxxx++ xx++ xxxx++•+ xx+ xxx + +r + +x + +r +xxxxx + + + + +xx + + + +xx+ New Stream . Record 7 Subarea 5 Stream 4 Process 1: Initial subarea Node 6 to node 5 Elev 232.50 to elev 224.00 delta H = 8.50' Length= 294.5' Slope= .02886 Subarea: .93 acre Soil: C Fp = 0.250 " /hr Development type 8 = 5- 7 dwellings /acre ai= .5 Fm= 0.12511/hr ' ------------------ k = .389 Tc = 7.68 min. I = 3.78311/hr A(total) = 0.930 ac Fm(avg) = 0.12511/hr Q= .9A(I -Fm) Q(subarea) 3.06 cfs Q(total) 3.06 cfs ----------------------------------- Summary ----------------------------------- Stream 4 to node 5 Length= 295' Fm(avg) =.125 3.29 cfs /acre avg. A(tot)= 0.93 acres Tc= 7.68 min Q= 3.06 cfs This stream is designated for confluence with 1 other by record 6 I I 1 I Record 8 ' Confluencing 2 streams at node 5 @ Tc Stream 3 + Stream 4 = 9.68 Q= 5.10 + 2.67 = A= 1.76 + 0.93 = File STMKPH25.DAT Runtime 02 -18 -2003 17:24 Job# 166 -001 II 1 I1 1 1 I 1 1 11 Process 9 Confluence Confluenced - - - - - -- 7.77 cfs 2.69 ac. 7.68 Q= 4.63 + 3.06 = 7.69 cfs A= 1.40 + 0.93 = 2.33 ac. Qpeak = 7.77 cfs at Tc = 9.68 minutes A = A(contributing) _ Fm(avg) = 0.109" /hr. ' A(total) = 2.69 ac Page 4 2.69 ac Confluenced streams will be designated as stream # 3 to continue downstream. ----------------------------- - - - - -- Summary ----------------------------------- Stream 3 at node 5 Length= 612' Fm(avg) =.109 2.89 cfs /acre avg.(c) Conflu'd A(c)= 2.690 ac A(tot)= 2.69 acres Tc= 9.68 min Q= 7.77 cfs Record 9 Subarea 0 Stream 3 Process 5: Pipe flow, Program - selected size Node 5 to node 12 Pipeslope = .9 * groundslope. n = .013 Elev 224.00 to elev 212.00 delta H = 12.00' Length= 41' Slope= .29268 Subarea: 0 acre 7.77 cfs in 1 18" pipe (d = 1.50') Depth, D =0.38' D/d =.253 Sf = .27677 Hv= V^2 /29= 7.58' 1.2Hv= 9.09' 1.5Hv= 11.37' Travel time X -Sect A= 0.35 sf, V= 22.08'/sec, Tt= 0.03 min. - ------- ------------------ Tc = 9.68 + 0.03 = -- - --- 9.71 min. -------------------- I = 3.313 /hr A(total) = 2.690 ac A(contrib) = 2.690 ac Fm(avg) = 0.109 " /hr Q= .9A(I -Fm) Q(subarea) = 0.00 cfs Q(total) = 7.77 cfs Computed Q 7.8 < upstream Q so upstream Q is used (Hydro. Manual D.11.6a) ----------------------------- - - - - -- Summary ----------------------------------- Stream 3 to node 12 Length= 653' Fm(avg) =.109 2.89 cfs /acre avg.(c) Conflu'd A(c)= 2.690 ac A(tot)= 2.69 acres Tc= 9.71 min Q= 7.77 cfs 1, File STMKPH25.DAT Runtime 02 -18 -2003 17:24 Job# 166 -001 Page 5 Record 10 Subarea 6 Stream 3 Process 7: Channel flow - Natural Valley ' Subarea Q enters stream uniformly distributed along reach. `Node 12 to node 13 Elev 212.00 to elev 207.00 delta H = 5.00' Length= 248.5' Slope= .02012 B3 Subarea: .59 acre Soil: D Fp = 0.200 " /hr Development type 1 = Natural, Agriculture ai= 0 Fm= 0.200 " /hr V avg = 3.38' /sec for avg Q of B.27 cfs -- - - - - -- -- - - - -- ' ------------------ ------ Tc = 9.71 + 1.23 = 10.94 min. I = 3.09711/hr A(total) = 3.280 ac A(contrib) = 3.280 ac Fm(avg) = 0.125 " /hr Q= .9A(I -Fm) Q(subarea) = 1.58 cfs Q(total) = 8.77 cfs ' ----- ------------------------ -- - - -- Summary ---------------------------------- Stream 3 to node 13 Length= 902' Fm(avg) =.125 2.67 cfs /acre avg.(c) Conflu'd A(c)= 3.280 ac A(tot)= 3.28 acres Tc= 10.94 min Q= 8.77 cfs This stream is designated for confluence with 1 other by record 5 Record 11 Process 9 Confluence Confluencing 2 streams at node 13 @ Tc Stream 1 + Stream 3 = Confluenced - - -- -- -- - - - - -- - - - - - -- -- -- - -- - -- 6.74 Q= 9.09 + 7.18 = 16.27 cfs A= 2.52 + 2.02 = 4.54 ac. 10.94 Q= 6.87 + 8.77 = 15.64 cfs ' A= 2.52 + 3.28 = 5.80 ac. Qpeak = 16.27 cfs at Tc = 6.74 minutes A = A(contributing) = 4.54 ac Fm(avg) =-0.09411/hr. A(total) = 5.94 ac ' Confluenced streams will be designated as stream # 1 to continue downstream. ------------------- - - - - -- Summary -- -- -- Stream 1 at node 13 Length= 721' Fm(avg)= 094 3.58 cfs /acre avg.(C Conflu'd A(C)= 4.540 ac A(tot)= 5.94 acres TC= 6.74 min Q= 16.27 Cfs ..................................... ............................... New Stream ' Record 12 Subarea 7 Stream 5 Process 1: Initial subarea Node 7 to node B C' Elev 230.00 to elev 227.50 delta H 2.50' Length= 138' Slope= .01812 Subarea: .15 acre Soil: C FP = 0.250 " /hr Development type 7 = 3- 4 dwellings /acre ai= .4 Fm= 0.150" /hr k = .412 Tc = 6.60 min. I = 4.12411/hr A(total) = 0.150 ac Fm(avg) = 0.150" /hr Q= .9A(I -Fm) Q(subarea) = 0.54 cfs Q(total) = 0.54 cfs -- --- -------- - - - --- Summary ----------------------------------- cfs /acre avg. Stream 5 to node 8 Length= 138' Fm(avg) =.150 3.58 A(tot)= 0.15 acres Tc= 6.60 min Q= 0.54 cfs - ________________ 11 File STMKPH25.DAT Runtime 02 -18 -2003 17:24 Job# 166 -001 Page 6 Record 13 Subarea 0 Stream 5 Process 5: Pipe flow, Program - selected size Node 8 to node 10 Pipeslope = .9 • groundslope. n = .013 Elev 225.00 to elev 224.00 delta H = 1.00' Length= 243' Slope= .00412 Subarea: 0 acre 0.54 cfs in 1 18" pipe (d = 1.501) Depth, D =0.29' D/d =.193 Sf = .00390 Hv= VA2 /29= 0.08' 1.2Hv= 0.09' 1.5Hv= 0.12' Travel time X -Sect A= 0.24 sf, V= 2.24' /sec, Tt= 1.81 min. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tc = 6.60 + 1.81 = 8.40 min. I = 3.595 " /hr A(total) = 0.150 ac Fm(avg) = 0.150 " /hr Q= .9A(I -Fm) Q(subarea) = 0.00 cfs Q(total) = 0.54 cfs Computed Q 0.5 < upstream Q so upstream Q is used (Hydro. Manual D.11.6a) ------------ ----------- ' --- -- - - - - -- Summary ----------------------------------- Stream 5 to node 10 Length= 381' Fm(avg) =.150 3.58 cfs /acre avg. A(tot)= 0.15 acres Tc= 8.40 min Q= 0.54 cfs This stream is designated for confluence with 1 other by record 14 New Stream Record 14 Subarea 8 Stream 6 Process 1: Initial subarea Node 9 to node 10 Elev 232.50 to elev 227.00 delta H = 5.50' Length= 186' Slope= .02957 ' cZ- Subarea: .57 acre Soil: D Fp = 0.200" /hr [rf Development type 12 = Mobilhome park ai= .75 Fm= 0.050" /hr - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- k = .324 Tc = 5.30 min. I = 4.66811/hr A(total) = 0.570 ac Fm(avg) = 0.050 " /hr Q= .9A(I -Fm) Q(subarea) = 2.37 cfs Q(total) = 2.37 cfs ---- ------------------------- - - - - -- Summary ----------------------------------- 6 to node 10 Length= 1B6' Fm(avg) =.050 4.16 cfs /acre avg. A(tot)= 0.57 acres Tc= 5.30 min Q= 2.37 cfs This stream is designated for confluence with 1 other by record 13 =------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- File STMKPH25.DAT Runtime 02 -18 -2003 17:24 Job# 166 -001 Record 15 Confluencing 2 streams at node 10 Q Tc Stream 5 + Stream 6 = 8.40 Q= 0.54 + 1.62 = A= 0.15 + 0.57 = Process 9 Confluence Confluenced 2.36 cfs 0.72 ac. 5.30 Q= 0.44 + 2.37 = 2.81 cfs A= 0.09 + 0.57 = 0.66 ac. Qpeak = 2.81 cfs at Tc = 5.30 minutes A = A(contributing) _ Fm(avg) = 0.06411/hr. ` A(total) = 0.72 ac Page 7 0.66 ac Confluenced streams will be designated as stream # 5 to continue downstream. ----------------------------- - - - - - Summary ---------------------------------- Stream 5 at node 10 Length= 381' Fm(avg) =.064 4.23 cfs /acre avg.(c) Conflu'd A(c)= 0.665 ac A(tot)= 0.72 acres Tc= 5.30 min Q= 2.81 cfs Record 16 Subarea 0 Stream 5 Process 5: Pipe flow, Program - selected size Node 10 to node 11 Pipeslope = .9 * groundslope. n = .013 Elev 224.00 to elev 220.00 delta H = 4.00' Length= 71' Slope= .05634 Subarea: 0 acre 2.81 cfs in 1 18" pipe (d = 1.501) Depth, D =0.34' D/d =.227 Sf = .05646 Hv =V -2/29= 1.36' 1.2Hv= 1.63' 1.5Hv= 2.04' Travel time X -Sect A= 0.30 sf, V= 9.35' /sec, Tt= 0.13 min. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tc = 5.30 + 0.13 = 5.43 %min. I = 4.606 " /hr A(total) = 0.720 ac A(contrib) = 0.665 ac Fm(avg) = 0.06411/hr Q= .9A(I -Fm) Q(subarea) = 0.00 cfs Q(total) = 2.81 cfs Computed Q 2.7 < upstream Q so upstream Q is used (Hydro. Manual D.11.6a) --------------- ------------ -- - --- -- Summary ----------------------------------- Stream 5 to node 11 Length= 452' Fm(avg) =.064 4.23 cfs /acre avg.(c) Conflu'd A(c)= 0.665 ac A(tot)= 0.72 acres Tc= 5.43 min Q= 2.81 cfs + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + ++ Other: Stream 1: Len= Stream 2: Len= Stream 3: Len= Stream 4: Len= Stream 6: Len= End of RMH run for file r + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + ++ 721' Atot= 5.94 251' Atot= 0.54 902' Atot= 3.28 295' Atot= 0.93 186' Atot= 0.57 STMKPH25 DAT - r ++ ac ac ac ac ac t + + + + + + + + ++ Tc= 6.74 Tc= 8.37 Tc= 10.94 Tc= 7.68 Tc= 5.30 min min min min min Q= Q= Q= Q= Q= r + + + + + + + + + + + + + ++ 16.27 cfs 1.74 cfs 8.77 cfs 3.06 cfs 2.37 cfs I 1 L] 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 f1 Appendix D: Detention Basin — Storm Routing Calculations 25 Year Detention Basin "A" 25 Year Detention Basin "B" 25 Year Detention Basin "C I Job File: C: \Program Files \Haestad \ST - MARK- A_POST.PPW Rain Dir: C: \Program Files \Haestad\ JOB TITLE Project Date: 2/18/2003 Project Engineer: KFM Project Title: St. Mark Presbyterian Church, Basin A Project Comments: Basin A calculations SIN: 620401103E87 KFM Engineering, Inc. PondPack Ver. 8.0058 Time: 4:05 PM Date: 2/19/2003 13, s/N A I Table of Contents i Table of Contents ...................... MASTER SUMMARY ...................... Watershed....... Master Network Summary ............. 1.D1 NETWORK SUMMARIES (DETAILED) Watershed....... Dev 25 Executive Summary (Nodes) .......... 2.01 ...................... RAINFALL DATA ....................... TypeI 24hr.... Dev 25 Synthetic Curve .................... 3.01 • "•• "•`••`•`•`•`• RUNOFF HYDROGP.APHS `•`•`••`• "••`• "•" SUBAREA A....... Dev 25 Unit Hyd. Summary .................. 4.01 ..................... .. HYG ADDITION ....................... OUT A........... Dev 25 Node: Addition Summary ............. 5.01 ....................... POND VOLUMES .......... ............. POND A.......... Vol: Elev -Area ..................... 6.D1 S /N: 620401103E87 KFM Engineering, Inc. PondPack Ver. 8.0058 Time 4:05 PM Date: 2/19/2003 Table of Contents Table of Contents (continued) * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** OUTLET STRUCTURES ii Outlet A........ Composite Rating Curve ............. 7.01 ....................... POND ROUTING ....................... POND A OUT Dev 25 Pond Routing Summary ............... 8.01 ROUTE A........; Dev 25 Diverted Hydrograph ................ 8.02 SIN: 620401303E87 RFM Engineering, Inc. POndPaCk Ver. 8.0058 Time: 4:05 PM Date: 2/19/2003 Type.... Master Network Summary Page 1.01 Name.... Watershed File.... C: \Program Files \Haestad \ST - MARK -A POST.PPW MASTER DESIGN STORM SUMMARY Network Storm Collection: Oc- storms MASTER NETWORK SUMMARY SCS Unit Hydrograph Method ('Node= Outfall; ♦Node= Diversion;) (Trun= HYG Truncation: Blank =None; L =Left; R =Rt; LR= Left &Rt) Total Return HYG Vol Qpeak Node ID _______ Type ____ Depth Rainfall hrs ___ __ __________ `OUT A Return Event in Type •OUT A RNF ID ____________ Dev 2 ______ '2.0500 _______ _________ Synthetic Curve ---------------- TypeI 24hr Dev 5 3.0300 Synthetic Curve Typel 24hr Dev 10 3.6800 Synthetic Curve TypeI 24hr Dev 25 4.4900 Synthetic Curve TypeI 24hr MASTER NETWORK SUMMARY SCS Unit Hydrograph Method ('Node= Outfall; ♦Node= Diversion;) (Trun= HYG Truncation: Blank =None; L =Left; R =Rt; LR= Left &Rt) SIN: 620401103E87 KFM Engineering, Inc. PondPack Ver. 8.0058 Time: 4:05 PM Max Qpeak Max WSEL Pond Storage cfs ft ac -ft _____ __ __ ______ ____________ 1.95 2.02 2.08 2.11 3.01 Return HYG Vol Qpeak Node ID _______ Type ____ Event ac -ft Trun hrs ___ __ __________ `OUT A JCT ____ __ 2 ____ __ ____ __ .198 ___ 10.0500 •OUT A JCT 5 .372 10.1000 'OUT A 2.02 JCT 30 .494 10.1000 'OUT A JCT 25 .647 10.1000 POND A IN POND 2 .198 9.9500 POND A IN POND 5 .372 9.9500 POND A IN POND 10 .494 9.9500 POND A IN POND 25 .647 9.9500 POND A OUT POND 2 .198 10.0500 POND A OUT POND 5 .372 10.1000 POND A OUT POND 10 .494 10.1000 POND A OUT POND 25 .647 10.1000 SUBAREA A AREA 2 .198 9.9500 SUBAREA A AREA 5 .372 9.9500 SUBAREA A AREA 30 .494 9.9500 SUBAREA A AREA 25 .647 9.9500 SIN: 620401103E87 KFM Engineering, Inc. PondPack Ver. 8.0058 Time: 4:05 PM Max Qpeak Max WSEL Pond Storage cfs ft ac -ft _____ __ __ ______ ____________ 1.95 2.02 2.08 2.11 3.01 4.50 5.49 6.72 1.95 234.44 .016 2.02 234.76 .039 2.08 234.98 .065 2.11 235.11 .087 3.01 4.50 5.49 6.72 Date: 2/19/2003 � 1 � 1 1 1 1 i I 1 1 1 Type.... Executive Summary (Nodes) Page 2.01 Name.... Watershed Event: 25 yr Pile.... C: \Program Piles \Haestad \ST - MARK- A_POST.PPW Storm... TypeI 29hr Tag: Dev 25 NETWORK SUMMARY -- NODES (Trun.= HYG Truncation: Blank -None; L =Left; R =Rt; LR =Left 6 Rt) DEFAULT Design Storm File,ID = Oc- storms Storm Tag Name = Dev 25 __________ __ Data Type, Pile, ID = Synthetic Storm ________________________ TypeI 29hr Storm Frequency = 25 yr Total Rainfall Depth= 9.9900 in Duration Multiplier = 1 Resulting Duration - 29.0000 hrs Resulting Start Time= .0000 hrs Step= .1000 hrs End= 29.0000 hrs HYG Vol Qpeak Qpeak Max WSEL Node ID Type ac-ft Trun. hrs cfs ft __________ _______ ____ __ Outfall OUT A JCT .697 _________ 10.1000 -------- 2.11 _________ POND A IN POND .697 9.9500 6.72 POND A OUT POND .697 10.1000 2.11 235.11 SUBAREA A AREA .697 9.9500 6.72 SIN: 620401103E87 KFM Engineering, Inc. PondPack Ver. 8.0058 Time: 9:05 PM Date: 2/19/2003 Type.... Synthetic Curve Name.... TypeI 24hr Tag: Dev 25 File.... C: \Program Files\Haestad\ Page 3.01 SIN: 620401103EB7 KFM Engineering, Inc. PondPack Ver. 8.0058 Time: 4:05 PM Date: 2/19/2003 CUMULATIVE RAINFALL FRACTIONS Time Output Time increment = .1000 hrs hrs Time on left represents time for first value in each row. -------------------------------------------------------------- .0000 ______________ __________ .000 .002 .003 ______________________ .005 .007 .5000 .009 .010 .012 .014 .016 1.0000 .017 .019 .021 -023 -024 1.5000 .026 .028 .030 .031 .033 2.0000 .035 .037 .039 -040 '042 2.5000 .044 .046 .048 .050 .052 3.0000 .054 .056 .058 .060 .062 3.5000 .065 .067 .069 -071 '074 4.0000 .076 .078 .081 .083 .085 4.5000 .088 .090 .093 .095 '098 5.0000 .100 .102 .105 .107 .110 5.5000 .112 .115 .117 .120 '122 6.0000 .125 .128 .130 .133 .136 6.5000 .139 .142 .146 .149 .152 7.0000 .156 .160 .163 .167 .171 7.5000 -175 .178 .182 .186 .190 8.0000 .194 .198 .203 .208 .213 8.5000 .219 .225 .232 .239 .246 9.0000 .254 .262 .271 .281 .292 9.5000 .303 .319 .345 .388 .463 10.0000 -515 .532 .548 .561 .573 10.5000 .583 .592 .600 .60B .616 11.0000 .623 .630 .636 .643 '649 11.5000 .656 .662 .667 '673 '679 12.0000 .684 .689 .694 .699 -704 12.5000 .709 .714 .719 .723 .728 13.0000 .732 .736 .740 .744 '748 13.5000 .752 .756 .760 .763 .767 14.0000 .770 .773 .777 .780 .783 14.5000 .786 .789 .793 .796 .799 15.0000 .802 .805 .808 -811 .814 15.5000 .817 .820 .823 .826 .829 16.0000 .832 .835 .838 .841 .843 16.5000 .846 .849 .852 .655 .857 17.0000 .860 .863 .865 .868 .871 17.5000 .673 .876 .878 .881 .883. 18.0000 .886 .888 .891 .893 .896 18.5000 .898 .901 .903 .905 '908 19.0000 .910 .912 .915 .917 .919 19.5000 .921 .923 .926 .928 .930 20.0000 .932 .934 .936 .938 .940 20.5000 -942 .944 .946 .948 .950 21.0000 .952 .954 .956 .958 .959 21.5000 .961 .963 .965 .967 .968 22.0000 .970 .972 .973 .975 .977 22.5000 .978 .980 .981 .983 .984 SIN: 620401103EB7 KFM Engineering, Inc. PondPack Ver. 8.0058 Time: 4:05 PM Date: 2/19/2003 Type.... Synthetic Curve Page 3.02 Name.... TypeI 24hr Tag: Dev 25 File.... C: \Program Files \Haestad\ CUMULATIVE RAINFALL FRACTIONS Time Output Time increment = .1000 hrs hrs Time on left represents time for first value in each row. 23.0000 .986 .987 .989 .990 -992 23.5000 .993 .995 .996 .997 -999 24.0000 1.000 SIN: 620401103E87 KFM Engineering, Inc. PondPack Ver. 8.0058 Time: 4:05 PM Date: 2/19/2003 Type.... Unit Hyd. Summary Page 4.01 Name.... SUBAREA A Tag: Dev 25 Event: 25 yr File.... C: \Program Files \Naestad \ST - MARK- A_POST.PPW Storm... TypeI 24hr Tag: Dev 25 SCS UNIT HYDROGRAPH METHOD STORM EVENT: 25 year storm Duration = 24.0000 bra Rain Depth = 4 -4900 in Rain Dir = C: \Program Files \Naestad\ Rain File -ID = - TypeI 24hr Unit Hyd Type = Default Curvilinear HYG Dir = C: \Program Files \Naestad\ HYG File - ID = work_pad.hyg - SUBAREA A Dev 25 Tc = .1038 hrs Drainage Area = 2.260 acres Runoff CN= 0 Computational Time Increment = 01384 hrs Computed:Peak Time = 9.9233 hrs Computed Peak Flow = 6.94 cfs Time Increment for HYG File = .0500 hrs Peak Time, Interpolated Output = 9.9500 hrs Peak Flow, Interpolated Output = 6.72 cfs WARNING: The difference between calculated peak flow and interpolated peak flow is greater than 1.50k DRAINAGE AREA ------------------- fLOSS= .0440 in /hr Cumulative Runoff --------------- - - -- 3.4340 in .647 ac-ft HYG Volume... .647 ac -ft (area under HYG curve) ••••• SCS UNIT HYDROGRAPH PARAMETERS ..... Time Concentration, Tc = .10380 hrs (ID: SUBAREA A) Computational Incr, Tm = 101384 hrs = 0.20000 Tp Unit Hyd. Shape Factor = 483.432 (37.46* under rising limb) K = 483.43/645.333, K = .7491 (also, K = 2 /(I +(Tr /Tp)) Receding /Rising, Tr /Tp = 1.6698 (solved from K = .7491) Unit peak, gp = 24.67 cfs Unit peak time Tp = .06920 hrs Unit receding limb, Tr - .27680 hrs Total unit time, Tb = .34600 hrs SIN: 620401103E87 KFM Engineering, Inc. PondPack Ver. 8 .0058 Time: 4 :05 PM Date: 2/19/2003 II II 1 1 [1 ' SIN: 620401103E87 KFM Engineering, Inc. PondPack Ver. 8.0058 Time: 4:05 PM Date: 2/19/2003 Type.... Node: Addition Summary Page 5.01 Name.... OUT A Event: 25 yr File.... C: \Program Files \Haestad \ST - MARK- A_POST.PPW Storm... TypeI 24hr Tag: Dev 25 ' SUMMARY FOR HYDROGRAPH ADDITION at Node: OUT A ' HYG Directory: C: \Program Files \Haestad\ Upstream Link ID Upstream Node ID HYG file HYG ID HYG tag ROUTE - A----- - - - - -- POND - A______ -IN_ -- work -pad _ hyg -- ROUTE - A-- _= - - - -- Dev -25- ' INFLOWS TO: OUT A -------------- - - - - -- Volume Peak Time Peak Flow HYG file HYG ID - HYG tag ac -ft hrs cfs _____________________________ work_pad.hyg ROUTE A _______ ______ Dev 25 ___ _______ .647 ________ 10.1000 ___ 2.11 TOTAL FLOW INTO: OUT A ' --------------------- HYG file - - - - -- HYG ID - - - -- HYG tag Volume ac-ft Peak Time hrs Peak Flow cfs work_pad.hyg OUT A - Dev 25 .647 10.1000 2.11 II II 1 1 [1 ' SIN: 620401103E87 KFM Engineering, Inc. PondPack Ver. 8.0058 Time: 4:05 PM Date: 2/19/2003 Type.... Node: Addition Summary Page 5.02 Name.... OUT A Event: 25 yr File.... C: \Program Files \Haestad \ST - MARK- A_POST.PPW Storm... TypeI 29hr Tag: Dev 25 TOTAL NODE INFLOW... HYG file = C: \Program Files \Haestad \work_pad.hyg HYG ID = OUT A HYG Tag = Dev 25 ----------------------------------- Peak Discharge = 2.11 cfs Time to Peak = 10.1000 hrs HYG Volume = .697 ac -ft HYDROGRAPH ORDINATES (cfs) Time Output Time increment = .0500 hrs hrs Time on left represents time for first value in _____- each row. ____ __________----------------------------------------------- 0000 00___ ______- _______ i ___9 _________- 0 .06 .07 .2500 .08 .08 .08 .08 .08 .5000 .08 .08 .08 .08 .08 .7500 .DB .08 .08 .08 .08 1.0000 .08 .08 .08 .08 .08 1.2500 .08 .08 .08 .08 .08 1.5000 .08 .08 .08 .08 .08 1.7500 .08 .08 .08 .08 .08 2.0000 .08 .08 .08 .08 .08 2.2500 .08 .09 .09 .09 .09 2.5000 .09 .09 .09 .10 .10 2.7500 .10 .10 .10 .10 .10 3.0000 .11 .11 .11 .11 .11 3.2500 .11 .12 .12 .12 .12 3.5000 .12 .12 .12 .13 .13 3.7500 .13 .13 .13 .13 .13 9.0000 .19 .19 .19 .19 .19 9.2500 .19 .19 .19 .19 .19 9.5000 .19 .19 .19 .15 .15 9.7500 .15 .15 .15 .15 .15 5.0000 .15 .15 .15 .15 .15 5.2500 .15 .15 .15 .15 .15 5.5000 .15 .16 .16 .16 .16 5.7500 .16 .16 .16 .16 .16 6.0000 .16 .16 .16 .17 .17 6.2500 .18 .18 .19 .19 .20 6.5000 .20 .21 .22 .22 .23 6.7500 .23 .29 .29 .25 .25 7.0000 .26 .27 .27 .27 .27 7.2500 .28 .28 .28 .28 .28 7.5000 .29 .29 .29 .29 .29 7.7500 .29 .29 .30 .30 .30 8.0000 .30 .31 .31 .33 .35 SIN: 620901103E87 KFM Engineering, Inc. PondPack Ver. 8.0058 Time: 9:05 PM Date: 2/19/2003 1 J 'SIN: 620401103E87 KFM Engineering, Inc. PondPack Ver. 8.0058 Time: 4:05 PM Date: 2/19/2003 Type.... Node: Addition Summary Page 5.03 Name.... OUT A Event: 25 yr File.... C: \Program Piles \Haestad \ST - MARK- A_POST.PPW ' Storm... TypeI 24hr Tag: Dev 25 HYDROGRAPH ORDINATES (cis) Time Output Time increment = .0500 hrs ` -, 8.2500 hrs I Time on left represents p .37 .39 time for first .41 value .43 in each row. .45 8.5000 .47 .49 .51 .53 .55 8.7500 .57 .59 .61 .63 .65 9.0000 .67 .69 .72 .75 .79 ' 9.2500 I .82 .86 .90 .93 .97 . 9.5000 I 1.01 1.10 1.30 1.61 1.83 9.7500 I 1.86 1.92 1.97 2.01 2.06 ' 10.0000 10.2500 I 2.09 2.10 2.10 2.10 2.11 2.10 2.11 2.10 2.11 2.09 10.5000 I 2.09 2.08 2.07 2.06 2.05 10.7500 I 2.03 2.02 2.01 1.99 1.98 11.0000 I 1.97 1.93 1.89 1.84 .91 11.2500 I .58 .57 .57 .56 .55 ' 11.5000 I .54 .53 .53 .52 .51 11.7500 I .50 .49 .48 .48 .47 12.0000 I .46 .45 .44 .44 .43 ' 12.2500 12.5000 I I .43 .40 .42 .40 .42 .39 .41 .39 .41 .38 12.7500 I .38 .37 .37 .36 .36 13.0000 .35 .35 .34 .34 .33 13.2500 .33 .32 .31 .31 .30 13.5000 I .30 .29 .29 .28 .28 13.7500 .27 .27 .26 .26 .25 14.0000 I .25 .24 .24 .24 .24 14.2500 .23 .23 .23 .23 .23 14.5000 I .23 .23 .23 .23 .23 ' 14.7500 I .22 .22 .22 .22 .22 15.0000 .22 .22 .22 .22 .22 15.2500 I .21 .21 .21 .21 .21 15.5000 I .21 .21 .21 .21 .20 15.7500 I .20 .20 .20 .20 .20 ' 16.0000 .20 .20 .20 .20 .19 16.2500 .19 .19 .19 .19 .19 16.5000 I .19 .19 .19 .19 .18 16.7500 I .18 .18 ' 17.0000 I .18 .18 .18 .18 .18 .18 .18 .17 17.2500 I .17 .17 .17 .17 .17 17.5000 I .17 .17 .17 .16 .16 17.7500 I .16 .16 .16 .16 .16 18.0000 I .16 .16 .16 .15 .15 18.2500 I .15 .15 .15 .15 .15 18.5000 I .15 .15 .15 .14 .14 18.7500 I .14 .14 .14 .14 .14 19.0000 19.2500 I I .14 .13 .14 .13 .14 .13 .13 .13 .13 .13 19.5000 .13 .13 .12 .12 .12 19.7500 I .12 .12 .12 .12 .12 1 J 'SIN: 620401103E87 KFM Engineering, Inc. PondPack Ver. 8.0058 Time: 4:05 PM Date: 2/19/2003 0 Type.... N Name.... 0 File.... C Storm... T Time hrs 20.0000 20.2500 20.5000 20.7500 21.0000 21.2500 21.5000 21.7500 22.0000 22.2500 22.5000 22.7500 23.0000 23.2500 23.5000 23.7500 24.0000 )de: Addition Summary Page 5.04 1T A Event: 25 yr : \Program Files \Haestad \ST - MARK -A POST.PPW rpeI 24hr Tag: Dev 25 MDROGRAPH ORDINATES (cfs) Output Time increment = .0500 hrs Time on left represents time for first value in each row. -------------------------------------------------------------- .12 .12 .11 .11 .11 .11 .11 .11 .11 .11 .11 .11 .10 .10 .10 .10 .10 .10 .10 .10 .10 .10 .09 .09 .09 .09 .09 .09 .09 .09 .09 .09 .08 .08 .08 .08 .08 .08 .08 .08 .08 .07 .07 .07 .07 .07 .07 .07 .07 .07 .02 .06 .06 .06 .06 .06 .06 .06 .06 .06 .06 .05 .05 .05 .05 .05 .05 .05 .05 .05 .05 .04 .04 .04 .04 .04 .04 .04 .04 .04 .03 .03 .02 .01 .00 SIN: 620401103887 HFM Engineering, Inc. POndPack Ver. 8.0058 Time: 4:05 PM Date: 2/19/2003 Type.... Vol: Elev -Area Page 6.01 Name.... POND A File.... C: \Program Files \Haes tad \ST - MARK- A_POST.PPW Elevation Planimeter Area Al +A2 +sgr(A1'A2) Volume Volume Sum (ft) (sq.in) (acres) (acres) (ac -ft) (ac -ft) -- - - - - -" 231.50 -- - - - -- ------------------------------------------ .0011 .0000 .000 .000 232.00 - - - -- .0011 .0033 .001 .001 233.00 - - - -- .0011 .0033 .001 .002 233.50 - - - -- .0011 .0033 .001 .002 239.00 - - - -- .0080 .0121 .002 .009 235.00 - - - -- .1500 .1926 .069 .068 235.50 - - - -- .3560 .7371 .123 .191 POND VOLUME EQUATIONS ' Incremental volume computed by the Conic Method for Reservoir Volumes. Volume = (1 /3) ' (EL2 -EL1) ' (Areal + Area2 + sq.rt.(Areal'Area2)) where: ELI, EL2 = Lower and upper elevations of the increment Areal,Area2 = Areas computed for ELI, EL2, respectively Volume = Incremental volume between ELI and EL2 5 /N: 620901103E87 KPM Engineering, Inc. PondPack Ver. 8.0058 Time: 9:05 PM Date: 2/19/2003 Type.... Composite Rating Curve Name.... Outlet A File.... C: \Program Files \Kaestad \ST - MARK -A POST.PPW " "* COMPOSITE OUTFLOW SUMMARY " " WS Elev, Total Q Notes -- ------- - - - - - -- -------- Converge ------------------------- Elev. Q TW Elev Error ft cfs ft + / -ft Contributing Structures -- ---- -- - - ----- -- - - - - -- - - --' -------------------------- 231.50 .00 Free Outfall None contributing 232.00 .46 Free Outfall cv 232.50 1.31 Free Outfall cv 233.00 1.55 Free Outfall cv 233.50 1.69 Free Outfall cv 234.00 1.83 Free Outfall cv 234.50 1.96 Free Outfall cv 235.00 2.08 Free Outfall cv 235.50 2.20 Free Outfall cv Page 7.01 SIN: 620401103E87 KFM Engineering, Inc. PondPack ver. 8.0058 Time: 4:05 PM Date: 2/19/2003 Type.... Pond Routing Summary Name.... POND A OUT Tag: Dev 25 File.... C: \Program Files \Haestad \ST - MARK- A_POST.PPW Storm... TypeI 24hr Tag: Dev 25 LEVEL POOL ROUTING SUMMARY HYG Dir = C: \Program Files \Haestad\ Inflow HYG file - work_pad.hyg - POND A IN Dev 25 Outflow HYG file = work_pad.hyg - POND A OUT Dev 25 Pond Node Data = POND A Pond Volume Data = POND A Pond Outlet Data = Outlet A No Infiltration INY0001M60100 W 01 M. Starting WS Elev = 231.50 ft Starting Volume = .000 ac -ft Starting Outflow = .00 cfs Starting Infiltr. _ .00 cfs Starting Total Qout= .00 cfs Time Increment = .0500 hrs INFLOW /OUTFLOW HYDROGRAPH SUMMARY Peak Inflow = 6.72 cfs at 9.9500 hrs Peak Outflow = 2.11 cfs at 10.1000 hrs Peak Elevation = 235.11 ft Peak Storage = .087 ac -ft II (.000% of Inflow Volume) ' SIN: 620401103E87 KFM Engineering, Inc. PondPack Ver. 8.0058 Time: 4:05 PM Page 8.01 Event: 25 yr Date: 2/19/2003 MASS BALANCE (ac -ft) t Initial Vol .000 ' _ t HYG Vol IN .647 - Infiltration = .000 - HYG Vol OUT = .647 - Retained Vol = .000 ' - - - -- Unrouted Vol = -.000 ac -ft II (.000% of Inflow Volume) ' SIN: 620401103E87 KFM Engineering, Inc. PondPack Ver. 8.0058 Time: 4:05 PM Page 8.01 Event: 25 yr Date: 2/19/2003 Type.... Diverted Hydrograph Name.... ROUTE A File.... C: \Program Files \Haestad\ Storm... TypeI 24hr Tag: Dev 25 DIVERTED HYDROGRAPH... HYG file = C: \Program Files \Haestad \work_pad.hyg HYG ID = ROUTE A HYG Tag = Dev 25 ----------------------------------- _ Peak Discharge = 2.11 cfs Time to Peak = 10.1000 hrs HYG Volume = .647 ac -ft HYDROGRAPH ORDINATES (cfs) Page 8.02 Event: 25 yr SIN: 620401103EB7 KFM Engineering, Inc. PondPack Ver. 8.0058 Time: 4:05 PM Date: 2/19/2003 Time Output Time increment - .0500 hrs hrs ----------- Time on left represents time for first value in each row. .0000 _-------------------------------------------------- .00 .01 .04 .06 .07 .2500 .08 ,OB .08 AS .08 .5000 .08 ,08 .08 .08 .08 .7500 .08 .08 .08 .08 .OB 1.0000 .08 .08 .08 .06 .OB 1.2500 .08 .08 .08 .08 .08 1.5000 .08 .08 .08 .08 .OB 1.7500 .08 .08 .08 .08 .08 2.0000 .08 .08 .08 .08 .08 2.2500 .08 .09 .09 .09 .09 2.5000 .09 .09 .09 .10 .10 2.7500 .10 .10 .10 .10 .10 3.0000 .11 .11 .11 .11 .11 3.2500 .11 .12 .12 .12 .12 3.5000 .12 .12 .12 .13 .13 3.7500 .13 .13 .13 .13 .13 4.0000 .14 .14 .14 .14 .14 4.2500 .14 .14 .14 .14 .14 4.5000 .14 .14 .14 .15 .15 4.7500 .15 .15 .15 .15 .15 5.0000 .15 .15 .15 .15 .15 5.2500 .15 .15 .15 .15 .15 5.5000 .15 .16 .16 .16 .16 5.7500 .16 .16 .16 .16 .16 6.0000 .16 .16 .16 .17 .17 6.2500 .18 .18 .19 .19 .20 6.5000 .20 .21 .22 .22 .23 6.7500 .23 .24 .24 .25 .25 7.0000 .26 .27 .27 .27 .27 7.2500 .28 .20 .28 .28 .20 7.5000 .29 .29 .29 .29 .29 7.7500 .29 .29 .30 .30 .30 8.0000 .30 .31 .31 .33 .35 SIN: 620401103EB7 KFM Engineering, Inc. PondPack Ver. 8.0058 Time: 4:05 PM Date: 2/19/2003 Type.... D Diverted H Hydrograph P Page 8.03 Name.... R ROUTE A E Event: 25 yr File.... C C: \Program F Files \Haestad\ Storm... T TypeI 2 29hr T Tag: Dev 2 25 HYDROGRAPH O ORDINATES ( (cfs) Time O Output T Time i increment = = .0500 hrs hrs T Time o on l left represents t time for f first value i in each row. 8.2500 . .37 . .39 . .91 . .93 . .95 8.5000 . .97 . .99 . .51 . .53 . .55 8.7500 . .57 . .59 . .61 . .63 . .65 9.0000 . .67 . .69 . .72 . .75 . .79 9.2500 . .82 . .86 . .90 . .93 . .97 9.5000 1 1.01 1 1.10 1 1.30 1 1.61 1 1.83 9.7500 I I 1 1.86 1 1.92 1 1.97 2 2.01 2 2.06 10.0000 2 2.09 2 2.10 2 2.11 2 2.11 2 2.11 10.2500 2 2.10 2 2.10 2 2.10 2 2.10 2 2.09 10.5000 2 2.09 2 2.08 2 2.07 2 2.06 2 2.05 10.7500 2 2.03 2 2.02 2 2.01 1 1.99 1 1.98 11.0000 1 1.97 1 1.93 1 1.89 1 1.89 . .91 11.2500 . .58 . .57 . .57 . .56 . .55 11.5000 . .59 . .53 . .53 . .52 . .51 11.7500 . .50 . .99 . .98 . .98 . .97 12.0000 . .96 . .95 . .99 . .99 . .93 12.2500 . .93 . .92 . .92 . .91 . .91 12.5000 . .90 . .90 . .39 . .39 . .38 12.7500 I I . .38 . .37 . .37 . .36 . .36 13.0000 . .35 . .35 , ,39 . .39 . .33 13.2500 . .33 . .32 . .31 . .31 . .30 13.5000 . .30 . .29 . .29 . .28 . .28 13.7500 . .27 . .27 . .26 . .26 . .25 19.0000 . .25 . .29 . .29 . .29 . .29 19.2500 . .23 . .23 . .23 . .23 . .23 19.5000 . .23 . .23 , ,23 . .23 . .23 19.7500 . .22 . .22 . .22 . .22 . .22 15.0000 . .22 . .22 . .22 . .22 . .22 15.2500 . .21 . .21 . .21 . .21 . .21 15.5000 . .21 . .21 . .21 . .21 . .20 15.7500 . .20 . .20 . .20 . .20 . .20 16.0000 . .20 . .20 . .20 . .20 . .19 16.2500 . .19 . .19 . .19 . .19 . .19 16.5000 . .19 . .19 . .19 . .19 . .18 16.7500 . .18 . .18 . .18 . .18 . .18 17.0000 . .18 . .18 . .18 . .18 . .17 17.2500 . .17 . .17 . .17 . .17 . .17 17.5000 . .17 . .17 . .17 . .16 . .16 17.7500 . .16 . .16 . .16 . .16 . .16 18.0000 . .16 . .16 . .16 . .15 . .15 18.2500 . .15 . .15 . .15 . .15 . .15 18.5000 . .15 . .15 . .15 . .19 . .19 18.7500 . .19 . .19 . .19 . .19 . .19 19.0000 . .19 . .19 . .19 . .13 . .13 19.2500 . .13 . .13 . .13 . .13 . .13 19.5000 . .13 . .13 . .12 . .12 . .12 19.7500 . .12 . .12 . .12 . .12 . .12 SIN: 620901103E87 KFM Engineering, Inc. PondPack Ver. 8.0058 Time: 9:05 PM Date: 2/19/2003 Type.... D: Name .... R( File.... C Storm... T; Time hrs 20 0000 20.2500 20.5000 20.7500 21.0000 21.2500 21.5000 21.7500 22.0000 22.2500 22.5000 22.7500 23.0000 23.2500 23.5000 23.7500 24.0000 verted Hydrograph Page 8.04 'UTE A Event: 25 yr \Program Files \Haestad\ ,peI 24hr Tag: Dev 25 HYDROGRAPH ORDINATES (cfs) Output Time increment = .0500 hrs Time on left represents time for first value in each row. _________ _______ .12 .12 _______________________________ .11 .11 .11 .11 .11 .11 -11 .11 .11 .11 .10 .10 .10 .10 .10 .10 .10 .10 .10 .10 .09 .09 .09 .09 .09 .09 .09 .09 .09 .09 .OB -OB .08 .OB .0B .08 .OB .08 .OB .07 .07 .07 .07 .07 .07 .07 .07 .07 .03 .06 .06 .06 .06 .06 .O6 .O6 .O6 .06 .06 .05 .05 .05 .05 .05 .OS .05 .05 .05 .05 .04 .04 .04 .04 .04 .04 .04 .04 .04 .03 .03 .02 .O1 .00 SIN: 620401103EB7 KFM Engineering, Inc. PondPack Ver. 8.0058 Time: 4:05 PM Date: 2/19/2003 Appendix A Index of Starting Page Numbers for ID Names P _____ POND A... 6.01, 8.01, 8.02, 9.01, 3.01 W _____ Watershed... 1.01, 2.01 SIN: 620901103E87 KFM Engineering, Inc. Pond Pack Ver. 8.0058 Time: 9:05 PM A -1 Date: 2/19/2003 Job File: C: \Program Files \Haestad \ST - MARK- C_POST.PPW Rain Dir: C: \Program Files \Haestad\ - -_ -- -- JOB - TITLE--- - - - - -- Project Date: 2/19/2003 Project Engineer: KFM Project Title: St. Mark Presbyterian Church, Basin C Project Comments: Basin calculations for area C SIN: 620901103E87 KFM Engineering, Inc. PondPack Ver. 8.0058 Time: 9:09 AM Date: 2,20/2003 1 1 11 J L F 1 11 II 1 1?1�5 //J �' Table of Contents Table of Contents i .................... .. MASTER SUMMARY ...................... Watershed....... Master Network Summary ............. 1.01 " " "'• " " "' NETWORK SUMMARIES (DETAILED) Watershed....... Dev 25 Executive Summary (Nodes) .......... 2.01 •>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>+ RAINFALL DATA •>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>• TypeI 24hr.... Dev 25 Synthetic Curve .................... 3.01 RUNOFF HYDROGRAPHS SUBAREA C....... Dev 25 Unit Hyd. Summary .................. 4.01 .................... ... HYG ADDITION ....................... OUT C........... Dev 25 Node: Addition Summary ............. 5.01 ................. ... .... POND VOLUMES ....................... POND C.......... Vol: Elev -Area ..................... 6.01 SIN: 620401103EB7 KFM Engineering, Inc. Pond Pack Ver. 8.0058 Time: 9:09 AM Date: 2/20/2003 Table of Contents ii Table of Contents (continued) OUTLET STRUCTURES Outlet C........ Composite Rating Curve ............. 7.01 * "'.... " " "'... POND ROUTING ....................'.. POND C OUT Dev 25 Pond Routing Summary ............... 8.01 ROUTE C........' Dev 25 Diverted Hydrograph ................ 8.02 SIN: 620901103E87 KPM Engineering, Inc. PondPack Ver. 8.0058 Time: 9:09 AM Date: 2/20/2003 Type.... Master Network Summary Page 1.01 Name.... Watershed Pile.... C: \Program Files \Haestad \ST - MARK- C_POST.PPW MASTER DESIGN STORM SUMMARY Network Storm Collection: Oc- storms MASTER NETWORK SUMMARY SCS Unit Hydrograph Method ( *Node =OUtfall; +Node= Diversion;) (Trun= HYG Truncation: Blank =None; L =Left; R =Rt; LR =Left&Rt) Total Return HYG Vol Node ID Qpeak Type Event Depth Rainfall _________ ____ JCT ______ 2 Return Event in Type 5 RNF ID ________ Dev _ _ __ 2 ___ _ __ 2.0500 ____ ____________ Synthetic Curve ---------------- TypeI 29hr Dev 5 3.0300 Synthetic Curve TypeI 29hr Dev 10 3.6800 Synthetic Curve TypeI 29hr Dev 25 4.4900 Synthetic Curve TypeI 29hr MASTER NETWORK SUMMARY SCS Unit Hydrograph Method ( *Node =OUtfall; +Node= Diversion;) (Trun= HYG Truncation: Blank =None; L =Left; R =Rt; LR =Left&Rt) SIN: 620401303E87 KFM Engineering, Inc. PondPack Ver. 8.0058 Time: 9:09 AM Return HYG Vol Node ID Qpeak Type Event ac -ft Trun *OUT C _________ ____ JCT ______ 2 __________ .049 *OUT C JCT 5 .094 'OUT C JCT 10 .130 *OUT C JCT 25 .177 POND C IN POND 2 .049 POND C IN POND 5 .094 POND C IN POND 30 .130 POND C IN POND 25 .177 POND C OUT POND 2 .049 POND C OUT POND 5 .094 POND C OUT POND 30 .130 POND C OUT POND 25 .177 SUBAREA C AREA 2 .099 SUBAREA C AREA 5 .099 SUBAREA C AREA 30 .130 SUBAREA C AREA 25 .177 SIN: 620401303E87 KFM Engineering, Inc. PondPack Ver. 8.0058 Time: 9:09 AM Date: 2/20/2003 Max Qpeak Qpeak Max WSEL Pond Storage hrs cfs _ ____ ft ___ ___ __ ac -ft _______ _ _ ___ ________ 10.0000 ___ .67 10.0500 .86 10.0500 .93 10.0500 1.02 9.9000 .98 9.9000 1.47 9.9000 1.80 9.9000 2.21 10.0000 .67 227.69 .005 10.0500 .86 227.99 .011 10.0500 .93 228.13 .016 10.0500 1.02 228.32 .024 9.9000 .98 9.9000 1.47 9.9000 1.80 9.9000 2.21 Date: 2/20/2003 Type.... Executive Summary (Nodes) Page 2.01 r Name.... Watershed Event: 25 yr File.... C: \Program Files \Haestad \ST - MARK- C_POST.PPW Storm... TypeI 24hr Tag: Dev 25 - NETWORK SUMMARY -- NODES , (Trun.= HYG Truncation: Blank =None; L -Left R_Rt; LR =Left 6 Rt) DEFAULT Design Storm File,ID = Oc- storms r Storm Tag Name = Dev 25 -- "" Data Type, File, ID = Synthetic Storm ---------------------------- TypeI 24hr Storm Frequency = 25 yr Total Rainfall Depth= 4.4900 in Duration Multiplier = 1 Resulting Duration = 24.0000 hrs Resulting Start Time= .0000 hrs Step= .1000 hrs End= 24.0000 hrs , .HYG Vol Qpeak Qpeak Max WSEL Node ID Type ac -ft Trun. hrs cfs ft r ____ __ Outfall OUT C JCT .177 _________ 10.0500 1.02 POND C IN POND .177 9.9000 2.21 POND C OUT POND .177 10.0500 1.02 228.32 SUBAREA C AREA .177 9.9000 2.21 r I r I [l I I r I SIN: 620401103E87 KFM Engineering, Inc. r PondPack Ver. 8.0058 Time: 9 :09 AM Date: 2/20/2003 I I1 II SIN: 620401103E87 KFM Engineering, Inc. PondPack Ver. 8.0058 Time 9:09 AM Date: 2/20/2003 Type.... Synthetic Curve Page 3.01 Name.... TypeI 24hr Tag: Dev 25 File.... C: \Program Files \Haestad\ ' CUMULATIVE RAINFALL FRACTIONS Time Output Time increment = .1000 hrs hrs Time on left represents time for first value in each row. .0000 -------------------------------------------------------------- .000 .002 .003 .005 .007 .5000 .009 .010 .012 .014 .016 1.0000 .017 .019 .021 .023 .024 1.5000 .026 .028 .030 .031 .033 2.0000 4035 .037 .039 .040 .042 2.5000 .044 .046 .048 .050 .052 3.0000 .054 .056 .058 .060 .062 3.5000 .065 .067 .069 .071 .074 4.0000 .076 .078 .081 .083 .085 4.5000 .088 .090 .093 .095 .098 5.0000 .100 .102 .105 .107 .110 5.5000 .112 .115 .117 .120 .122 6.0000 .125 .128 .130 .133 .136 6.5000 .139 .142 .146 .149 .152 7.0000 .156 .160 .163 .167 .171 7.5000 .175 .178 .182 .186 .190 8.0000 .194 .198 .203 .208 .213 8.5000 .219 .225 .232 .239 .246 9.0000 .254 .262 .271 .281 .292 9.5000 .303 .319 .345 .388 .463 10.0000 .515 .532 .548 .561 .573 10.5000 .583 .592 .600 .608 .616 11.0000 .623 . 63 0 .636 .643 .649 11.5000 .656 .662 .667 - .673 .679 12.0000 I .684 .689 .694 .699 .704 12.5000 .709 .714 .719 .723 .728 13.0000 .732 .736 .740 .744 .748 13.5000 .752 .756 .760 .763 .767 14.0000 .770 .773 .777 .780 .783 14.5000 .786 .789 .793 .796 .799 15.0000 .802 .805 .808 .811 .814 15.5000 .817 .B20 .B23 .826 .829 ' 16.0000 .832 .835 .838 .841 .843 16.5000 .846 .849 .852 .855 .857 17.0000 .860 .863 .865 .B6B .871 17.5000 .873 .876 .878 .881 .883 18.0000 .886 .888 .891 .893 .896 18.5000 .898 .901 .903 .905 .908 19.0000 .910 .912 .915 .917 .919 19.5000 .921 .923 .926 .920 .930 20.0000 .932 .934 .936 .938 .940 20.5000 .942 .944 .946 .948 .950 21.0000 .952 .954 .956 .958 .959 21.5000 .961 .963 .965 .967 .968 . 22.0000 22.5000 .970 .978 .972 .980 .973 .981 .975 .983 .977 .984 I I1 II SIN: 620401103E87 KFM Engineering, Inc. PondPack Ver. 8.0058 Time 9:09 AM Date: 2/20/2003 Type.... Synthetic Curve Page 3.02 Name.... TypeI 24hr Tag: Dev 25 File.... C:\Program Files \Haestad\ CUMULATIVE RAINFALL FRACTIONS Time Output Time increment = .1000 hrs hrs Time on left represents time for first value in each row. 23.0000 .986 .987 .989 .990 .992 23.5000 .993 .995 .996 .997 .999 24.0000 1.000 SIN: 620401103E87 KFM Engineering, Inc. PondPack Ver. 8.0058 Time: 9:09 P.M Date: 2/20/2003 1. I 11 S /N: 620401103E87 KFM Engineering, Inc. PondPack Ver. 8.0058 Time: 9:09 AM Date: 2/20/2003 Type.... Unit Hyd. Summary Page 4.01 Name.... SUBAREA C Tag: Dev 25 Event: 25 yr File.... C: \Program Files \Haestad \ST - MARK- C_POST.PPW Storm... TypeI 24hr Tag: Dev 25 SCS UNIT HYDROGRAPH METHOD ' STORM EVENT: 25 year storm Duration = 24.0000 hrs Rain Depth = 4.4900 in Rain Dir = C: \Program Files \Haestad\ Rain File -ID = - TypeI 24hr Unit Hyd Type = Default Curvilinear HYG Dir = C: \Program Files \Haestad\ ' HYG File - ID = work_pad.hyg - SUBAREA C Dev 25 Tc = .0883 hrs Drainage Area = .720 acres Runoff CN= 0 Computational Time Increment = 01178 hrs Computed_Peak Time = 9.9165 hrs Computed Peak Flow = 2.26 cfs Time Increment for HYG File = .0500 hrs Peak Time, Interpolated Output = 9.9000 hrs Peak Flow, Interpolated Output = 2.21 cfs WARNING:- The difference between- calculated flow and interpolated peak flow is greater than - - -peak 1.502 DRAINAGE AREA 1 fLOSS= 0640 in /hr Cumulative Runoff 2.9559 in .177 ac -ft ' HYG volume -.. .177 ac -ft (area under HYG curve) " *'* SCS UNIT HYDROGRAPH PARAMETERS " " ' lTime Concentration, Tc = .08833 hrs (ID: SUBAREA C) Computational Incr, Tm = .01178 hrs = 0.20000 Tp Unit Hyd. Shape Factor = 483.432 (37.462 under rising limb) K = 483.43/645.333, K .7491 (also, K = 2 /(1 +(Tr /Tp)) Receding /Rising, Tr /Tp = 1.6698 (solved from K .7491) Unit peak, qp = 9.24 cfs Unit peak time Tp = .05889 hrs Unit receding limb, Tr = .23555 hrs Total unit time, Tb = .29443 hrs 1. I 11 S /N: 620401103E87 KFM Engineering, Inc. PondPack Ver. 8.0058 Time: 9:09 AM Date: 2/20/2003 Type.... Node: Addition Summary Page 5.03 Name.... OUT C Event: 25 yr File.... C: \Program Files \8aestad \ST - MARK- C_POST.PPW Storm... TypeI 24hr Tag: Dev 25 BYDROGRAPH ORDINATES (cfs) Time Output Time increment = .0500 hrs hrs Time on left represents time for first value in each row. 8.2500 ________________________________ .10 ________________ .11 .11 _____ .12 ___ ______ .13 B.S000 .14 .14 .15 .15 .16 8.7500 .17 .17 .18 .19 .19 9.0000 .20 .21 .21 .22 .23 9.2500 .25 .26 .27 .28 .29 9.5000 .31 .34 .40 .48 .51 9.7500 .57 .66 .60 .87 .94 10.0000 .99 1.02 1.02 1.00 .97 10.2500 .95 .92 .89 .86 .84 10.5000 .79 ,70 .62 .56 .50 10.7500 .40 .27 .23 .21 .20 11.0000 .19 .19 .18 .18 .17 11.2500 .17 -.17 .17 .16 .16 11.5000 .16 .16 .15 .15 .15 11.7500 .15 .14 .14 .14 .13 12.0000 I .13 .13 .13 .13 .12 12.2500 .12 .12 .12 .12 .12 12.5000 .11 .11 .11 .11 .11 12.7500 .11 .10 .10 .10 .10 13.0000 .10 .10 .09 .09 .09 13.2500 .09 .09 .09 .08 .08 13.5000 I .08 .08 .08 .08 .07 13.7500 .07 .07 .07 .07 .07 14.0000 .06 .06 .06 .06 .06 14.2500 .06 .06 .06 .06 .06 14.5000 .06 .06 .06 .06 .06 14.7500 .06 .06 .06 .06 .06 15.0000 .06 .05 .05 .05 .05 15.2500 .05 .05 .05 .05 .05 15.5000 .05 as .05 .05 .05 15.7500 .05 .05 .05 .05 .05 16.0000 .05 as .05 .05 .05 16.2500 I as as .05 .05 .05 16.5000 as .05 .04 .04 .04 16.7500 .04 .04 .04 .04 .04 17.0000 I .04 .04 .04 .04 .04 17.2500 .04 .04 .04 .04 .04 17.5000 I .04 .04 .04 .04 .04 17.7500 .04 .04 .04 .04 .04 16.0000 ,04 .04 .04 .03 .03 18.2500 .03 .03 .03 .03 .03 18.5000 .03 .03 .03 .03 .03 18.7500 .03 .03 .03 .03 .03 19.0000 .03 .03 .03 .03 .03 19.2500 .03 .03 .03 .03 .03 19.5000 .03 .03 .03 .03 .02 19.7500 .02 .02 .02 .02 .02 SIN: 620401103EB7 KFM Engineering, Inc. PondPack Ver. 8.0058 Time: 9:09 AM Date: 2/20/2003 Type.... Node: Addition Summary Page 5.04 Name.... OUT C Event: 25 yr File.... C: \Program Files \Haestad \ST - MARK- C_POST.PPW Storm... TypeI 24hr Tag: Dev 25 HYDROGRAPH ORDINATES (cfs) Time Output Time increment = .0500 hrs hrs Time on left represents time for first value in each row. 20.0000 _______________________________ .02 _______________________________ .02 .02 .02 .02 20.2500 .02 .02 .02 .02 .02 20.5000 I .02 .02 .02 .02 .02 20.7500 .02 .02 .02 .02 .02 21.0000 I .02 .02 .02 .02 .01 21.2500 .01 .01 .01 .01 .01 21.5000 .01 .01 .01 .01 .01 21.7500 .01 .01 .01 .01 .01 22.0000 .01 .01 .01 .01 .01 22.2500 .01 .01 .01 .01 .01 22.5000 .01 .01 .01 .01 .01 22.7500 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 23.0000 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 23.2500 .00 .00 SIN: 620401103E87 KFM Engineering, Inc. PondPack Ver. 8.0058 Time: 9:09 AM Date: 2/20/2003 ' Type.... Vol: Elev -Area Page 6.01 Name.... POND C File.... C: \Program Files \Haestad \ST - MARK- C_POST.PPW Elevation Planimeter Area Al +A2 +sgr(A1 +A2) Volume Volume Sum (ft) (sq.in) (acres) (acres) (ac -ft) (ac -ft) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 226.90 - - - -- .0000 .0000 -000 .000 227.00 - - - -- .0013 .0013 .000 .000 228.00 - - - -- .0280 .0353 .012 .012 229.00 - - - -- .1045 .1865 .062 .074 POND VOLUME EQUATIONS ' Incremental volume computed by the Conic Method for Reservoir Volumes. Volume = (1/3) + (EL2 -ELI) + (Areal + Area2 + sq.rt.(Areal +Area2)) where: ELI, EL2 = Lower and upper elevations of the increment Areal,Area2 = Areas computed for ELI, EL2, respectively Volume = Incremental volume between ELI and 812 SIN: 620401303E87 KFM Engineering, Inc. PondPack Ver. 8.0058 Time: 9:09 AM Date: 2/20/2003 ' Type.... Composite Rating Curve Name.... Outlet C File.... C: \Program Files \Haestad \ST - MARK- C_POST.PPW + + + ++ COMPOSITE OUTFLOW SUMMARY + + ++ WS Elev, Total Q Notes ___ ___ __ ________ __ ______ Converge ------------------------- Elev. Q TW Elev Error ft _____ 226.90 _ __ cfs _______ .00 ft + / -ft ----- Free Outfall Contributing Structures _---- ___________- ________ None contributin g 227.40 .47 Free Outfall o3 227.90 .82 Free Outfall o3 228.40 228.90 1.06 1.25 Free Outfall Free Outfall o3 o3 229.00 1.29 Free Outfall o3 1 1 it SIN: 620401103E87 PondPack Ver. 8.0058 Page 7.01 KPM Engineering, Inc. Time: 9:09 AM Date: 2/20/2003 Type.... Pond Routing Summary Name.... POND C OUT Tag: Dev 25 File.... C: \Program Files \Haestad \ST - MARK- C_POST.PPW Storm. -. TypeI 24hr Tag: Dev 25 LEVEL POOL ROUTING SUMMARY HYG Dir = C: \Program Files \Haestad\ Inflow HYG file = work_pad.hyg - POND C IN Dev 25 Outflow HYG file = work_pad.hyg - POND C OUT Dev 25 Pond Node Data = POND C Pond Volume Data = POND C Pond Outlet Data = Outlet C No Infiltration INITIAL CONDITIONS Starting WS Elev = 226.90 ft Starting Volume = .000 ac -ft Starting Outflow = .00 cfs Starting Infiltr. _ .00 cfs Starting Total Qout= .00 cfs Time Increment = .0500 hrs INFLOW /OUTFLOW HYDROGRAPH SUMMARY Peak Inflow = 2.21 cfs at 9.9000 hrs Peak Outflow = 1.02 cfs at 10.0500 hrs ------------------------------------------------------ Peak Elevation = 228.32 ft Peak Storage = .024 ac -ft MASS BALANCE (ac -ft) -------------------------- + Initial Vol = .000 • HYG Vol IN = .177 - Infiltration = .000 - HYG Vol OUT = .177 - Retained Vol = .000 Unrouted Vol = -.000 ac -ft (.0026 of Inflow Volume) Page 8.01 Event: 25 yr SIN: 620401103E87 KFM Engineering, Inc. PondPack ver. 8.0058 Time: 9:09 AM Date: 2/20/2003 '. Type.... Diverted Hydrograph Page 8.02 Name.... ROUTE C Event: 25 yr Pile.... C: \Program Piles \Haestad\ Storm... Typal 24hr Tag: Dev 25 DIVERTED HYDROGRAPH... HYG file = C:\Program HYG ID = ROUTE C Piles \Haestad \work_pad.hyg HYG Tag = Dev 25 ____ _______________________________ Peak Discharge = 1.02 cfs Time to Peak = 10.0500 hrs HYG Volume = ________________ .177 ac -ft HYDROGRAPH ORDINATES (cfs) Time Output Time increment = .0500 hrs hrs Time on left represents time for first value in each row. .0000 .00 .00 .00 .01 .01 .2500 .01 .01 .01 .01 .01 .5000 .01 .01 .01 .01 .01 .7500 .01 .01 .01 .01 .01 1.0000 .01 .01 .01 .01 .01 1.2500 .01 .O1 .01 .01 .01 1.5000 .01 .01 .01 .01 .01 1.7500 .01 .01 .01 .01 .01 2.0000 .01 .01 .01 .01 .01 2.2500 .01 .01 .01 .01 .01 2.5000 .01 .02 .02 .02 .02 2.7500 .02 .02 .02 .02 .02 3.0000 .02 .02 .02 .02 .02 3.2500 .02 .02 .02 .02 .02 3.5000 .02 .02 .02 .03 .03 3.7500 .03 .03 .03 .03 .03 4.0000 .03 .03 .03 .03 .03 4.2500 .03 .03 .03 .03 .03 4.5000 .03 .03 .03 .03 .03 4.7500 I .03 .03 .03 .03 .03 5.0000 .03 .03 .03 .03 .03 5.2500 .03 .03 .03 .03 .03 5.5000 .03 .03 .04 .04 .04 5.7500 .04 .04 .04 .04 .04 6.0000 .04 .04 .04 .04 .04 6.2500 .04 .04 .05 .05 .05 6.5000 .05 .05 .05 .06 .06 6.7500 .06 .06 .06 .06 .07 7.0000 .07 .07 .07 .07 .07 7.2500 .07 .07 .07 .08 .08 7.5000 .08 .08 .OB .08 .08 7.7500 .08 .08 .08 .08 .08 M 8.0000 I .08 .0B .09 .09 .09 SIN: 620401303E87 KPM Engineering, Inc. PondPack Ver. 8.0058 Time: 9:09 AM Date: 2/20/2003 Type.... Diverted Hydrograph Page 8.03 Name.... ROUTE C Event: 25 yr File.... C: \Program Files \Haestad\ Storm... TypeI 24hr Tag: Dev 25 HYDROGRAPH ORDINATES (cfs) Time Output Time increment = .0500 hrs hrs Time on left represents time for first value in each row. 8.2500 _______________________________. .10 .11 ____________.__________________ .11 .12 .13 8.5000 .14 .14 .15 .15 .16 8.7500 .17 .17 .18 .19 .19 9.0000 .20 .21 .21 .22 -23 9.2500 .25 .26 .27 .28 .29 9.5000 .31 .34 .40 .48 .51 9.7500 .57 .66 .80 .87 -94 10.0000 .99 1.02 1.02 1.00 .97 10.2500 .95 .92 .89 .86 .84 10.5000 .79 .70 .62 .56 .50 10.7500 .40 .27 .23 .21 .20 11.0000 .19 .19 .18 .18 .17 11.2500 .17 '.17 .17 .16 .16 11.5000 .16 .16 .15 .15 .15 11.7500 .15 .14 .14 .14 .13 12.0000 .13 .13 .13 .13 .12 12.2500 .12 .12 .12 .12 .12 12.5000 .11 .11 .11 .11 .11 12.7500 .11 .10 .10 .10 .10 13.0000 I .10 .10 .09 .09 .09 13.2500 .09 .09 .09 .08 .08 13.5000 .08 .08 .08 .08 .07 13.7500 .07 .07 .07 .07 .07 14.0000 .06 .06 .06 .06 .06 14.2500 .06 .06 .06 .06 .06 14.5000 .06 .06 .06 .06 .06 14.7500 .06 .06 .06 .06 .06 15.0000 .06 .05 .05 .05 .05 15.2500 .05 .05 .05 .05 .05 15.5000 .05 .05 .05 .05 .05 15.7500 .05 .05 .05 .05 .05 16.0000 .05 .05 .05 .05 .05 16.2500 .05 .05 .05 .05 .05 16.5000 .05 .05 .04 -04 .04 16.7500 I .04 .04 .04 .04 .04 17.0000 .04 .04 .04 .04 .04 17.2500 .04 .04 .04 .04 .04 17.5000 .04 .04 .04 .04 .04 17.7500 .04 .04 .04 .04 .04 18.0000 .04 .04 .04 .03 .03 18.2500 .03 .03 .03 .03 .03 18.5000 I .03 .03 .03 .03 .03 18.7500 .03 .03 .03 .03 .03 19.0000 I .03 .03 .03 .03 .03 19.2500 .03 .03 .03 .03 .03 19.5000 .03 .03 .03 .03 .02 19.7500 .02 .02 .02 .02 .02 SIN: 620401103EB7 KFM Engineering, Inc. PondPack Ver. 8.0058 Time: 9:09 AM Date: 2/20/2003 tType.... Diverted Hydrograph Page 8.04 Name.... ROUTE C Event: 25 yr File.... C: \Program Files \Haestad\ Storm... TypeI 24hr Tag: Dev 25 HYDROGRAPH ORDINATES (cfs) Time Output Time increment = .0500 hrs ' 20.0000 hrs Time on left represents .02 .02 time for .02 first value .02 in each row. .02 20.2500 .02 .02 .02 .02 .02 20.5000 .02 .02 .02 .02 .02 20.7500 .02 .02 .02 .02 .02 21.0000 .02 .02 .02 .02 .01 21.2500 .01 .01 .01 .01 .01 21.5000 .01 .01 .01 .01 .01 21.7500 22.0000 I .01 .01 .01 .01 .01 .01 .01 .01 .01 .01 22.2500 .01 .01 .01 .01 .01 22.5000 .01 .01 .01 .01 .01 22.7500 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 23.0000 I .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 23.2500 I .00 .00 Ii II 11 I I i I SIN: 620401103E87 KFM Engineering, Inc. PondPack Ver. 8.0058 Time: 9:09 AM Date: 2/20/2003 Appendix A Index of Starting Page Numbers for ID Names P _____ POND C... 6.01, 8.01, 8.02, 4.01, 3.01 _____ N _____ Watershed... 1.01, 2.01 SIN : 620401103E87 KFM Engineering, Inc. PondPack Ver. 8 .0058 Time: 9:09 AM A -1 Date: 2/20/2003 r� r 1 i ! ! ! r r r Job File: C: \Program Files \Haestad \ST - MARK- B_POST.PPW Rain Dir: C: \Program Files \Haestad\ JOB _ TITLE ------ - - - - -- Project Date: 2/18/2003 Project Engineer: KFM Project Title: St. Mark Presbyterian Church, Basin B Project Comments: Basin B calculations SIN: 620401103E87 KFM Engineering, Inc. PondPack Ver. e.00Se Time: 4:16 PM Date: 2/19/2003 BAs/Al 't3' Table of Contents Table of Contents i ...................... MASTER SUMMARY ...................... Watershed....... Master Network Summary ............. 1.01 * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** NETWORK SUMMARIES (DETAILED) * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** Watershed....... Dev 25 Executive Summary (Nodes) .......... 2.01 ...................... RAINFALL DATA .............•......... TypeI 24hr.... Dev 25 Synthetic Curve .................... 3.01 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** RUNOFF HYDROGRAPHS * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** SUBAREA B....... Dev 25 Unit Hyd. Summary .................. 4.01 ......................• HYG ADDITION ............ *.......... OUT B........... Dev 25 Node: Addition Summary ............. 5.01 ....................... POND VOLUMES ....................... POND B.......... Vol: Elev- Volume ................... 6.01 SIN: 620401103E87 KFM Engineering, Inc. PondPack Ver. 8.0058 Time: 4:16 PM Date: 2/19/2003 i i i 1 1 1 1 1 r Table of Contents Table of Contents (continued) ii ••••••••••• *•••••••• OUTLET STRUCTURES " " " " " " " " " "' Outlet 8........ Composite Rating Cufve ............. 7.01 .. *..... * .............. POND ROUTING ....................... POND B OUT Dev 25 Pond Routing Summary 8.01 ROUTE B......... Dev 25 Diverted Hydrograph 8.02 SIN: 620901103E87 KFM Engineering, Inc. PondPack Ver. 8.0058 Time: 9:16 PM Date: 2/19/2003 Type.... Master Network Summary Page 1 -01 Name.... Watershed File.... C: \Program Files \Haestad \ST - MARK- B_POST.PPW MASTER DESIGN STORM SUMMARY Network Storm Collection: Oc- storms MASTER NETWORK SUMMARY SCS Unit Hydrograph Method ( *Node= OUtfall; +Node = Diversion;) (Trun= HYG Truncation: Blank -None; L =Left; R =Rt; LR= Left6Rt) Total Return HYG Vol Node ID Qpeak Type Event Depth Rainfall ___ __ ____ JCT ______ 2 Return Event in Type 5 RNF ID _________ Dev ___ 2 ______ 2.0500 __________ Synthetic ___ ___ Curve ---------------- TypeI 24hr Dev 5 3.0300 Synthetic Curve TypeI 24hr Dev 10 3.6800 Synthetic Curve TypeI 24hr Dev 25 4.4900 Synthetic Curve TypeI 24hr MASTER NETWORK SUMMARY SCS Unit Hydrograph Method ( *Node= OUtfall; +Node = Diversion;) (Trun= HYG Truncation: Blank -None; L =Left; R =Rt; LR= Left6Rt) SIN: 620401303E87 KFM Engineering, Inc. PondPack Ver. 8.0058 Time: 4:16 PM Date: 2/19/2003 Return HYG Vol Node ID Qpeak Type Event ac -ft Trun _ *OUT B ___ __ ____ JCT ______ 2 __________ .128 *OUT B ________ 1.74 JCT 5 .246 *OUT B 2.13 JCT 10 .339 *OUT B 2 -34 JCT 25 .474 POND B IN POND 2 .128 POND B IN POND 5 .246 POND B IN POND 10 .339 POND B IN POND 25 .474 POND B OUT POND 2 -128 POND B OUT POND 5 .246 POND B OUT POND 10 .339 POND B OUT POND 25 .474 SUBAREA B AREA 2 .128 SUBAREA B AREA 5 .246 SUBAREA B AREA 10 .339 SUBAREA B AREA 25 .474 SIN: 620401303E87 KFM Engineering, Inc. PondPack Ver. 8.0058 Time: 4:16 PM Date: 2/19/2003 Max Qpeak Qpeak Max WSEL Pond Storage hrs cfs ft ________ ac -ft ____________ ________ 10.1000 ________ 1.74 10.1500 2.13 10.1500 2 -34 10.2000 2.57 9.9500 3.14 9.9500 4.78 9.9500 5.87 9.9500 7.23 10.1000 1.74 225.41 .037 10.1500 2.13 225.94 .070 10.1500 2.34 226.28 '094 10.2000 2.57 226.68 .127 9.9500 3.14 9.9500 4.78 9.9500 5.87 9.9500 7.23 SIN: 620401303E87 KFM Engineering, Inc. PondPack Ver. 8.0058 Time: 4:16 PM Date: 2/19/2003 �i i T 1 I i 1 i f Type.... Executive Summary (Nodes) Page 2.01 Name.... Watershed Event: 25 yr File.... C: \Program Files \Haestad \ST - MARK- B_POST.PPW Storm... TypeI 24hr Tag: Dev 25 NETWORK SUMMARY -- NODES (Trun.= HYG Truncation: Blank =None; L =Left; R =Rt; LR =Left 6 Rt) DEFAULT Design Storm File,ID = Oc- storms Storm Tag Name = Dev 25 ___________ _ Data Type, File, ID = Synthetic Storm __________________ TypeI 24hr Storm Frequency = 25 yr Total Rainfall Depth= 4.4900 in Duration Multiplier = 1 Resulting Duration = 24.0000 hrs Resulting Start Time= .0000 hrs Step= .1000 hrs End= 24.0000 hrs HYG Vol Qpeak Qpeak Max WSEL Node ID Type ac -ft Trun. hrs cis it _________ ____ Outfall OUT B JCT .474 __ _________ 10.2000 2.57 _________ POND B IN POND .474 9.9500 7.23 POND B OUT POND .474 10.2000 2.57 226.68 SUBAREA B AREA .474 9.9500 7.23 SIN: 620401103EB7 KFM Engineering, Inc. PondPaCk Ver. 8.0058 Time: 4:16 PM Date: 2/19/2003 Type.... Synthetic Curve Page 3.01 Name.... TypeI 24hr Tag: Dev 25 File.... C: \Program Files \Haestad\ CUMULATIVE RAINFALL FRACTIONS Time Output Time increment = .1000 hrs hrs Time on left represents time for first value in each row. .0000 _______________________________ .000 _______________________________ .002 .003 .005 .007 .5000 .009 .010 .012 .014 .016 1.0000 .017 .019 .021 .023 .024 1.5000 .026 .028 .030 .031 .033 2.0000 .035 .037 .039 .040 .042 2.5000 .044 .046 .048 .050 .052 3.0000 .054 .056 .058 .060 .062 3.5000 .065 .067 .069 .071 .074 4.0000 .076 .078 .081 .083 .085 4.5000 .088 .090 .093 .095 .098 5.0000 .100 .102 .105 .107 .110 5.5000 -112 .115 .117 .120 .122 6.0000 .125 .128 .130 .133 .136 6.5000 .139 .142 .146 .149 .152 7.0000 .156 .160 .163 .167 .171 7.5000 .175 .178 .182 .186 .190 8.0000 .194 .198 .203 .208 .213 8.5000 .219 .225 .232 .239 .246 9.0000 .254 .262 .271 .281 .292 9.5000 .303 .319 .345 .388 .463 10.0000 .515 .532 .548 .561 .573 10.5000 .583 .592 .600 .608 .616 11.0000 .623 .630 .636 .643 .649 11.5000 .656 .662 .667 .673 .679 12.0000 .684 .689 .694 .699 .704 12.5000 .709 .714 .719 .723 .728 13.0000 .732 .736 .740 .744 .748 13.5000 .752 .756 .760 .763 .767 14.0000 .770 .773 .777 .780 .783 14.5000 .786 .789 .793 .796 .799 15.0000 .802 .805 .808 .811 .814 15.5000 .617 .820 .823 .826 .829 16.0000 .832 .835 .838 .841 .843 16.5000 .846 .849 -852 .855 .857 17.0000 .860 .863 ,.865 -868 -871 17.5000 .873 .876 .878 .881 .883 18.0000 .886 .888 .891 .893 .896 18.5000 .898 .901 .903 .905 .908 19.0000 .910 -912 .915 .917 .919 19.5000 .921 .923 .926 .92B .930 20.0000 .932 .934 .936 .938 .940 20.5000 .942 .944 .946 .948 .950 21.0000 .952 .954 .956 .958 .959 21.5000 .961 .963 .965 .967 .968 22.0000 .970 .972 .973 .975 .977 22.5000 .978 .980 .981 .9B3 .984 SIN: 620401103E87 KFM Engineering, Inc. PondPack Ver. 8.0058 Time: 4:16 PM Date: 2/19/2003 Type.... Synthetic Curve Page 3.02 Name.... TypeI 24hr Tag: Dev 25 File.... C: \Program Files \Haestad\ CUMULATIVE RAINFALL FRACTIONS Time Output Time increment = .1000 hrs hrs Time on left represents time for first value in each row. 23.0000 .986 .987 .989 .990 .992 23.5000 .993 .995 .996 .997 .999 24.0000 1.000 SIN: 620401103E87 KFM Engineering, Inc. PondPack Ver. 8.0058 Time: 4:16 PM Date: 2/19/2003 ' Type.... Unit Hyd. Summary Page 4.01 Name.... SUBAREA B Tag: Dev 25 Event: 25 yr File.... C: \Program Files \Haestad \ST - MARK- B_POST.PPW Storm... TypeI 24hr Tag: Dev 25 SCS UNIT HYDROGRAPH METHOD STORM EVENT: 25 year storm Duration = 24.0000 bra Rain Depth = 4.4900 in Rain Dir = C: \Program Files \Haestad\ Rain File -ID = - TypeI 24hr Unit Hyd Type = Default Curvilinear HYG Dir = C: \Program Files \Haestad\ HYG File - ID = work_pad.hyq - SUBAREA B Dev 25 Tc = .1613 bra Drainage Area = 2.690 acres Runoff CN= 0 Computational Time Increment: = 02151 bra Computed.Peak Time = 9.9576 bra Computed Peak Flow a 7.31 cfs Time Increment for HYG File = .0500 bra Peak Time, Interpolated Output = 9.9500 bra Peak Flow, Interpolated Output = 7.23 cfs DRAINAGE AREA f LOSS= 1090 :in /hr Cumulative Runoff 2.1131 in .474 ac -ft HYG Volume... .474 ac -ft (area under HYG curve) " "' SCS UNIT HYDROGRAPH PARAMETERS " "' Time Concentration, Tc = .16130 bra (ID: SUBAREA B) Computational Incr, Tm = .02151 bra = 0.20000 Tp Unit Hyd. Shape Factor = 483.432 (37.46% under rising limb) K = 483.43/645.333, K = .7491 (also, K = 2 /(1+(Tr /Tp)) Receding /Rising, Tr /Tp = 1.6698 (solved from K = .7491) Unit peak, qp = 18.90 cfs Unit peak time Tp = .10753 bra Unit receding limb, Tr = .43013 bra Total unit time, Tb = .53767 bra SIN: 620401103E87 KFM Engineering, Inc. PondPack Ver. 8.0058 Time 4:16 PM Date: 2/19/2003 it I I I I 1 I 1 1 SIN: 620401103E87 KPM Engineering, Inc. PondPack Ver. 8.0058 Time: 4:16 PM Date: 2/19/2003 Type.... Node: Addition Summary Page 5.01 Name.... OUT B Event: 25 yr - - -- -- File.... C: \Program Files \Haestad \ST - MARK- B_POST.PPW - - - - -- Volume Storm... TypeI 24hr Tag: Dev 25 HYG file HYG ID - SUMMARY FOR HYDROGRAPH ADDITION tag ac -ft hrs at Node: OUT B ------------------------- work _ pad.hyg HYG Directory: C: \Program Files \Haestad\ ----- 25 -- - - - - .474 Upstream Link ID Upstream Node ID HYG file HYG ID HYG tag TOTAL FLOW INTO: OUT B ROUTE B POND B IN work _pad.hyg ROUTE B Dev 25 it I I I I 1 I 1 1 SIN: 620401103E87 KPM Engineering, Inc. PondPack Ver. 8.0058 Time: 4:16 PM Date: 2/19/2003 INFLOWS TO: OUT B - -------------- - - -- -- ----- - - - - -- Volume Peak Time Peak Plow HYG file HYG ID - HYG tag ac -ft hrs cfs ------------------------- work _ pad.hyg -------------- ROUTE B Dev ----- 25 -- - - - - .474 -' -------- 10.2000 - - - - -- 2.57 TOTAL FLOW INTO: OUT B - HYG file --------------- HYG ID HYG - -g - -- to Volume ac--ft Peak Time hrs Peak Flow cfs work pad hyg OUT B Dev 25 .474 10.2000 2.57 it I I I I 1 I 1 1 SIN: 620401103E87 KPM Engineering, Inc. PondPack Ver. 8.0058 Time: 4:16 PM Date: 2/19/2003 Type.... Node: Addition Summary Page 5.02 Name.... OUT B Event: 25 yr File.... C: \Program Files \Haestad \ST - MARK- B_POST.PPW Storm... TypeI 24hr Tag: Dev 25 TOTAL NODE INFLOW... HYG file = C: \Program Files \Haestad \work_pad.hyg HYG ID = OUT B HYG Tag = Dev 25 __________ __________ __ Peak Discharge = 2.57 cfs Time to Peak = 10.2000 hrs HYG Volume = .474 ac -ft ------------------------------------ HYDROGRAPH ORDINATES (cfs) SIN: 620401103087 KFM Engineering, Inc. PondPack Ver. 8.0058 Time: 4:16 PM Date: 2/19/2003 Time Output Time increment = .0500 hrs hrs Time on left represents time for first value in each row. ------ 5.0500 ___ ----------- _--------------------------------------------------- .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 5.3000 .00 .00 .00 .01 .01 5.5500 .01 .01 .01 .01 .01 5.8000 .01 .01 .01 .01 .01 6.0500 .01 .01 .02 .02 .02 6.3000 .03 .03 .04 .04 .05 6.5500 .06 .06 .07 .08 .08 6.8000 .09 .10 .30 .11 .12 7.0500 .12 .13 .13 .14 .14 7.3000 .15 .15 .15 .15 .16 7.5500 .16 .16 .16 .17 .17 7.8000 .17 .17 .17 .18 .18 8.0500 .18 .18 .19 .20 .21 8.3000 .23 .25 .27 .30 .32 8.5500 .34 .37 .39 .42 .44 8.8000 .47 .49 .51 .54 .56 9.0500 .58 .60 .62 .64 .67 9.3000 .70 .73 .77 .81 .85 9.5500 .89 .96 1.08 1.25 1.42 9.8000 1.55 1.74 1.93 2.14 2.32 10.0500 2.47 2.54 2.57 2.57 2.56 10.3000 2.54 2.52 2.50 2.46 2.42 10.5500 2.37 2.33 2.28 2.23 2.18 10.8000 2.12 2.05 1.99 1.93 1.88 11.0500 1.82 1.73 1.64 1.55 1.47 11.3000 1.40 1.24 1.08 .95 .84 11.5500 .76 .69 .64 .59 .54 11.8000 .50 .47 .44 .42 .41 12.0500 .39 .38 .37 .36 .35 12.3000 .35 .34 .33 .33 .32 12.5500 .31 .31 .30 .29 .29 12.8000 .28 .28 .27 .26 .26 13.0500 .25 .25 .24 .23 .23 SIN: 620401103087 KFM Engineering, Inc. PondPack Ver. 8.0058 Time: 4:16 PM Date: 2/19/2003 t' Type.... Node: Addition Summary Page 5.03 Name.... OUT B Event: 25 yr File.... C: \Program FileS \Haestad \ST-MARK- B_POST.PPW Storm... TypeI 24hr Tag: Dev 25 HYDROGRAPH ORDINATES (cfs) Time Output Time increment = .0500 hrs hrs Time on left represents time for first value in each row. 13.3000 1 .22 .22 .21 .20 .20 13.5500 .19 .18 .lB .17 .17 13.8000 .16 .15 .15 .14 .14 14.0500 .13 .12 .12 .11 .11 14.3000 .11 .11 .30 .30 .10 14.5500 .10 .10 .10 .10 .09 14.8000 .09 .09 .09 .09 .09 15.0500 -09 .09 .08 .08 .08 15.3000 -08 .08 .08 .08 .08 15.5500 .07 .07 .07 .07 .07 15.8000 .07 .07 .07 .06 .06 16.0500 .06 .06 .06 .06 .06 16.3000 .06 .05 .05 .05 .05 16.5500 .05 .05 .05 .05 -05 16.8000 .04 .04 .04 .04 .04 17.0500 .04 .04 .04 .03 .03 17.3000 .03 .03 .03 .03 .03 17.5500 .03 .02 .02 .02 .02 17.8000 .02 .02 .02 .02 .01 18.0500 -01 .01 .01 .01 .01 18.3000 .01 .01 .01 .00 .00 II I It It SIN: 620401103EB7 KFM Engineering, Inc. PondPack ver. 8.0058 Time: 4:16 PM Date: 2/19/2003 Type.... Vol: Elev- Volume Name.... POND B File.... C: \Program Files \Haestad \ST - MARK- B_POST.PPW USER DEFINED VOLUME RATING TABLE Elevation Volume (ft) (ac -ft) --------------------- 229.00 .000 229.50 .006 225.00 .019 225 -50 .091 226.00 .079 226 -50 .110 227.00 .158 SIN: 620901103E87 KFM Engineering, Inc. PondPaCk Ver. 8 -0058 Time: 9:16 PM Page 6.01 Date: 2/19/2003 Type.... Composite Rating Curve Name.... Outlet B File.... C: \Program Files \Haestad \ST - MARK -B POST.PPW COMPOSITE OUTFLOW SUMMARY WS Elev, Total Q Notes --- --- ---- - - - - -- -- - - - --- Converge ------------------------- Elev. Q TW Elev Error ft cfs ft + / -ft Contributing Structures -- - -- - -- - - ----- -- - - - - -- - - - -- -------------------------- 224.00 .00 Free Outfall None contributing 224.50 .58 Free Outfall or 225.00 1.37 Free Outfall or 225.50 1.82 Free Outfall or 226.00 2.17 Free Outfall or 226.50 2.48 Free Outfall or 227.00 2.75 Freg Outfall or Page 7.01 SIN: 620401103E87 KFM Engineering, Inc. PondPacY. Ver. 8.0058 Time: 4:16 PM Date: 2/19/2003 Type.... Pond Routing Summary Name.... POND B OUT Tag: Dev 25 File.... C: \Program Files \Haestad \ST -MARK B_POST.PPW Storm... Typel 24hr Tag: Dev 25 LEVEL POOL ROUTING SUMMARY HYG Dir = C: \Program Files \Haestad\ Inflow HYG file = work_pad.hyg - POND B IN Dev 25 Outflow HYG file = work pad.hyg - POND B OUT Dev 25 Pond Node Data = POND B Pond Volume Data = POND B Pond Outlet Data = Outlet B No Infiltration INITIAL CONDITIONS Starting WS Elev = 224.00 ft Starting Volume = .000 ac -ft Starting Outflow = .00 cfs Starting lnfiltr. _ .00 cfs Starting Total Qout= .00 cfs Time Increment = .0500 hrs INFLOW /OUTFLOW HYDROGRAPH SUMMARY Peak Inflow = 7.23 cfs at 9.9500 hrs Peak ___ ----------------------------------------------------- Outflow _______ ______ = 2.57 cfs at 10.2000 hrs _____ Peak Elevation = 226.68 ft Peak Storage = .127 ac -ft MASS BALANCE (ac -ft) • Initial Vol = 000 • HYG Vol IN = .474 - Infiltration = .000 - HYG Vol OUT = .474 - Retained Vol = .000 Unrouted Vol = -000 ac -ft Page 8.01 Event: 25 yr (.0001 of Inflow Volume) SIN: 620401103E87 KFM Engineering, Inc. PondPack Ver. 8.0058 Time: 4:16 PM Date: 2/19/2003 I I I I SIN: 620401303E87 KPM Engineering, Inc. PondPack Ver. 8.0058 Type.... Diverted Hydrograph Page 8.02 Name.... ROUTE B Event: 25 yr Pile.... C: \Program Piles \Haestad\ Storm... TypeI 24hr Tag: Dev 25 DIVERTED HYDROGRAPH... HYG file = C: \Program Piles \Haestad \work_pad.hyg HYG ID = ROUTE B HYG Tag = Dev 25 _ __________________________ Peak Discharge Time to Peak 10.2000 2.57 cfs his HYG Volume .474 ac -ft HYDROGRAPH ORDINATES (cfs) Time Output Time increment = .0500 hrs hrs Time on left represents ---------- time for -- first value -- -- ---- in each - - ---- row- --------- 5.0500 5.3000 ----------- = I .00 .00 .00 .00 ----- ---- ----- .00 .00 .00 .01 .00 .01 5.5500 .01 .01 .01 .01 .01 5.8000 .01 .01 .01 .01 .01 6.0500 .01 .01 .02 .02 .02 6.3000 .03 .03 .04 .04 .05 6.5500 .06 .06 .07 .08 .08 6.8000 .09 .10 .10 .11 .12 7.0500 .12 .13 .13 .14 .14 7.3000 .15 .15 .15 .15 .16 7.5500 .16 .16 .16 .17 .17 7.8000 .17 .17 .17 .18 .18 8.0500 .18 .18 .19 .20 .21 8.3000 .23 .25 .27 .30 .32 8.5500 .34 .37 .39 .42 .44 ' 8.8000 .47 .49 .51 .54 .56 9.0500 .58 .60 .62 .64 .67 9.3000 .70 .73 .77 .81 .85 9.5500 .89 1.08 1.25 1.42 9.8000 .96 1.55 1.74 1.93 2.14 2.32 10.0500 2.47 2.54 2.57 2.57 2.56 10.3000 2.54 2.52 2.50 2.46 2.42 10.5500 2.37 2.33 2.28 2.23 2.18 10.8000 2.12 2.05 1.99 1.93 1.88 11.0500 1.82 1.73 1.64 1.55 1.47 11.3000 I 1.40 1.24 1.08 .95 .84 11.5500 .76 .69 .64 .59 .54 11.8000 .50 .47 .44 .42 .41 12.0500 .39 .38 .37 .36 .35 12.3000 .35 .34 .33 .33 .32 12.5500 .31 .31 .30 .29 .29 12.8000 .28 .28 .27 .26 .26 13.0500 .25 .25 .24 .23 .23 I I I I SIN: 620401303E87 KPM Engineering, Inc. PondPack Ver. 8.0058 Time: 4:16 PM Date: 2/19/2003 Type.... Diverted Hydrograph Page 8.03 Name..,. ROUTE B Event: 25 yr File.... C: \Program Files \Haestad\ Storm... TypeI 24hr Tag: Dev 25 HYDROGRAPH ORDINATES (cfs) Time I Output Time increment = .0500 hrs hrs Time on left represents time for first value in each row. _______________________________ _______________________________ 13.3000 .22 .22 .21 -20 .20 13.5500 .19 .18 .18 .17 .17 13.8000 .16 .15 .15 .14 .14 14.0500 .13 .12 .12 .11 .11 14.3000 .11 .11 .30 .30 .30 14.5500 .30 .30 .30 .30 .09 14.8000 I .09 .09 .09 -09 .09 15.0500 .09 .09 .08 .OB .08 15.3000 .08 .08 .08 .08 .08 15.5500 .07 .07 .07 .07 .07 15.8000 I .OI .07 .07 .06 .06 16.0500 I .06 .06 .06 .06 .06 16.3000 .06 .05 .05 .05 .05 16.5500 .05 .05 -05 .05 -OS 16.8000 .04 .04 .04 .04 .04 17.0500 .04 .04 .04 .03 .03 17.3000 .03 .03 .03 .03 .03 17.5500 .03 .02 .02 .02 .02 17.8000 I .02 .02 .02 .02 .01 18.0500 .01 .01 .01 .01 .01 18.3000 .01 .01 .01 .00 .00 5 /N: 620401103E87 KFM Engineering, Inc. PondPack Ver. 8.0058 Time: 4:16 PM Date: 2/19/2003 l 1 i 1 1 l l r T Appendix A Index of Starting Page Numbers for ID Names P _____ POND B... 6.01, B.01, 8.02, 4.01, 3.01 N _____ Watershed... 1.01, 2.D1 SIN: 620401103E87 KFM Engineering, Inc. PondPack Ver. 8.0058 Time: 4:16 PM A -1 Date: 2/19/2003 Appendix E: Sample Construction Site BMPs (U.S. EPA NPDES) I I I I I I LJ i I 11 I I EPA - Construction Site Storm Water Runoff Control Page 1 of 3 '101". Environmental Protection Agency i National Pollutant Discharge Elimination o= System (NPDES) ''Al. Recent Addifions I Contact Us I Print Version Search NPDES: F_— EPA Home > OW Horn > OWN! Hgrne> NPDES Home > Storm Wale r> Menu of BMPS Construction Activity -Who's Covered? - Application Requirements Industrial Activity -Who's Covered? - Application Requirements Municipal MS4s -Large & Medium -Small Phase Phase 11 -Menu of BMPS Wet Weather Discharges Endangered Species - Search Species Storm Water Home NLM JdoW This site is best viewed with Acrobat 5.0 Construction Site Storm Water Runoff Control Construction Sequencing Description Construction sequencing requires creating and following a work schedule that balances the timing of land disturbance activities and the installation of measures to control erosion and sedimentation, in order to reduce on -site erosion and off -site sedimentation. Applicability Construction sequencing can be used to plan earthwork and erosion and sediment control (ESC) activities at sties where land disturbances might affect water quality in a receiving waterbody. Siting and Design Considerations Construction sequencing schedules should, at a minimum, include the following: • The ESC practices that are to be installed • Principal development activities • Which measures should be installed before other activities are started • Compatibility with the general contract construction schedule Table 1 summarizes other important scheduling considerations in addition to those listed above. Table 1. Construction Activity 11 Schedule Consideration Construction access— This is t first land- disturbing activity. As entrance to site, construction soon ahe s construction begins, stabilize any routes, areas designated for bare areas with gravel and temporary hftp://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/stonnwater/menuofbmps/site-9.cfrn ' ;rS °r Cr�o S Menu of BMF Informatior Menu of BMPS Home Public Educatio Outreach _gn�- Waler ImDacts Public Involverr & Participatlon Illicit Discharg Detection & Elimination Construction Si Stone Water Runoff Contml Post - Constructi Storm Water Manaqement in New Developm• & Redevelopmr Pollution Prevention & G Housekeeping t Municipal Operatic, Downloadable Files Measurable Go 10/25/2002 EPA - Construction Site Storm Water Runoff Control equipment parking vegetation. Sediment traps and After construction site is accessed, principal barriers —basin traps, basins should be installed, with the addition of sediment fences, outlet more traps and barriers as needed during protection grading. Runoff control— diversions, Key practices should be installed after the perimeter dikes, water bars, installation of principal sediment traps and outlet protection before land grading. Additional runoff control measures may be installed during grading. Runoff conveyance system— If necessary, stabilize stream banks as soon stabilize stream banks, storm as possible, and install principal runoff drains, channels, inlet and conveyance system with runoff control outlet protection, slope drains measures. The remainder of the systems may be installed after grading. Land clearing and grading— Implement major clearing and grading after site preparation (cutting, installation of principal sediment and key filling, and grading, sediment runoff- control measures, and install additional traps, barriers, diversions, control measures as grading continues. Clear drains, surface roughening) borrow and disposal areas as needed, and mark trees and buffer areas for preservation. Surface stabilization— Temporary or permanent stabilizing measures temporary and permanent should be applied immediately to any seeding, mulching, sodding, disturbed areas where work has been either riprap completed or delayed. Building construction— During construction, install any erosion and buildings, utilities, paving sedimentation control measures that are needed. Landscaping and final stabilization— topsoiling, This is the last construction phase. Stabilize trees and shrubs, permanent all open areas, including borrow and spoil loontrol seeding, mulching, sodding, areas, and remove and stabilize all temporary riprap measures. Limitations Weather and other unpredictable variables may affect construction sequence schedules. However, the proposed schedule and a protocol for making changes due to unforeseen problems should be plainly stated in the ESC plan. TO Maintenance Considerations The construction sequence should be followed throughout the project and the written plan should be modified before any changes in construction activities are executed. The plan can be updated if a site inspection indicates the need for additional erosion and sediment control. Effectiveness Construction sequencing can be an effective tool for erosion and sediment control because it ensures that management practices are installed where necessary and when appropriate. The plan must be followed and updated if needed to maximize the effectiveness of ESC under changing conditions. Cost Considerations Construction sequencing is a low -cost BMP because it requires a limited amount of a contractor's time to provide a written plan for the coordination of construction activities and management practices. Additional time might be http:// cf3ub. epa. eov /ni3des/stormwater /menuofbmvs /site 9.cfm Page 2 of 3 I' I I I ,t L7 I i lJ I I I 1 1 1012512002 EPA - Construction Site Storm Water Runoff Control needed to update the sequencing plan if the current plan is not providing sufficient ESC. References Smolen, M.D., D.W. Miller, L.C. Wyall, J. Lichthardt, and A.L. Lanier. 1988. Erosion and Sediment Control Planning and Design Manual. North Carolina Sedimentation Control Commission, North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources, and Division of Land Resources Land Quality Section, Raleigh, NC. Office of Water I Office of Wastewater Management I Disclaimer I Search EPA EPA Home I Privacy and Security Notice I Contact Us Last updated on August 15, 2002 2:50 PM URL: http: / /cfpub.epa.gov /npdests tormwater /menuofbmpslsite_9.cfm Page 3 of 3 httD:// cf) ub. ena. aov /ni)des/stormwater /menuofbmi)s /site 9.cfm 10/25/2002 ' EPA - Construction Site Storm Water Runoff Control Page 1 of 4 CEO Srt)re U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ® National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Recent Additions I Contact Us I Print Version Search NPDES: F I I EPA Home> OW Home> OWM Home> NPDES Home> Storm Water> Menu of BMPs ' t�5il - :Afpttobotkott�dmt 't�auay' <`� ntiei;trmcES:,` Construction Site Storm Water Runoff Control Dust Control Description Dust control measures are practices that help reduce ('�s surface and air movement of dust from disturbed soil surfaces. Construction sites are good candidates for dust control measures because land disturbance from clearing and excavation generates a large amount of soil disturbance and open N space for wind to pickup Dust control measures can be used to dust particles. To Illustrate prevent dust from being transported by this point, limited research at wind (Source: Dust Pro, Inc., no date) construction sites has established an average dust emission rate of 1.2 tons /acre/month for active construction (WA Dept. of Ecology. 1992). These airborne particles pose a dual threat to the environment and human health. First, dust can be carried off -site, thereby increasing soil loss from the construction area and increasing the likelihood of sedimentation and water pollution. Second, blowing dust particles can contribute to respiratory health problems and create an inhospitable working environment. Applicability Dust control measures are applicable to any construction site where dust is created and there is the potential for air and water pollution from dust traveling across the landscape or through the air. Dust control measures are particularly important in arid or semiarid regions, where soil can become extremely dry and vulnerable to transport by high winds. Also, dust control measures should be implemented on all construction sites where there will be major soil disturbances or heavy construction activity, such as clearing, excavation, demolition, or excessive vehicle traffic. Earthmoving activities are the major source of dust from construction sites, but traffic and general disturbances can also be major contributors (WA Dept. of Ecology, 1992). The particular dust control measures that are implemented at a site will depend on the topography and land cover of a given site, as well as the soil characteristics and expected rainfall at the site. Top Siting and Design Considerations When designing a dust control plan for a site, the amount of soil exposed will SKU.,o Menu of BMI Informatior Menu of BMPs Hgpne Public Ed ca ig Water Impacts Public lnv lovert & Participation Illicit Discharge ee t4Ction 8! EIMAD ttIllD Construction Si' Storm Water Runoff Control Post -CpaEl ur. i Storm Water Management in New Developm Pollution Prevention 8 G Housekeepiag 1 Municipal OPerations Downloadable Files Measurable Go h"- / /cfnub.ena.2ov/ nndes /stormwater /menuofbmos/site II.cfm 10/25/2002 Construction Activity -Who's Covered? - Application Requirements Industrial Activity -Who's Covered? - Application Requirements Municipal MS45 -Large 8 Medium -Small Phase Phase II ' -Menu of BMPs Wet Weather Discharges Endangered Species - Search Species Storm Water Home I I EPA Home> OW Home> OWM Home> NPDES Home> Storm Water> Menu of BMPs ' t�5il - :Afpttobotkott�dmt 't�auay' <`� ntiei;trmcES:,` Construction Site Storm Water Runoff Control Dust Control Description Dust control measures are practices that help reduce ('�s surface and air movement of dust from disturbed soil surfaces. Construction sites are good candidates for dust control measures because land disturbance from clearing and excavation generates a large amount of soil disturbance and open N space for wind to pickup Dust control measures can be used to dust particles. To Illustrate prevent dust from being transported by this point, limited research at wind (Source: Dust Pro, Inc., no date) construction sites has established an average dust emission rate of 1.2 tons /acre/month for active construction (WA Dept. of Ecology. 1992). These airborne particles pose a dual threat to the environment and human health. First, dust can be carried off -site, thereby increasing soil loss from the construction area and increasing the likelihood of sedimentation and water pollution. Second, blowing dust particles can contribute to respiratory health problems and create an inhospitable working environment. Applicability Dust control measures are applicable to any construction site where dust is created and there is the potential for air and water pollution from dust traveling across the landscape or through the air. Dust control measures are particularly important in arid or semiarid regions, where soil can become extremely dry and vulnerable to transport by high winds. Also, dust control measures should be implemented on all construction sites where there will be major soil disturbances or heavy construction activity, such as clearing, excavation, demolition, or excessive vehicle traffic. Earthmoving activities are the major source of dust from construction sites, but traffic and general disturbances can also be major contributors (WA Dept. of Ecology, 1992). The particular dust control measures that are implemented at a site will depend on the topography and land cover of a given site, as well as the soil characteristics and expected rainfall at the site. Top Siting and Design Considerations When designing a dust control plan for a site, the amount of soil exposed will SKU.,o Menu of BMI Informatior Menu of BMPs Hgpne Public Ed ca ig Water Impacts Public lnv lovert & Participation Illicit Discharge ee t4Ction 8! EIMAD ttIllD Construction Si' Storm Water Runoff Control Post -CpaEl ur. i Storm Water Management in New Developm Pollution Prevention 8 G Housekeepiag 1 Municipal OPerations Downloadable Files Measurable Go h"- / /cfnub.ena.2ov/ nndes /stormwater /menuofbmos/site II.cfm 10/25/2002 �Eobe This site is best viewed with Acrobat 5.0 I I EPA Home> OW Home> OWM Home> NPDES Home> Storm Water> Menu of BMPs ' t�5il - :Afpttobotkott�dmt 't�auay' <`� ntiei;trmcES:,` Construction Site Storm Water Runoff Control Dust Control Description Dust control measures are practices that help reduce ('�s surface and air movement of dust from disturbed soil surfaces. Construction sites are good candidates for dust control measures because land disturbance from clearing and excavation generates a large amount of soil disturbance and open N space for wind to pickup Dust control measures can be used to dust particles. To Illustrate prevent dust from being transported by this point, limited research at wind (Source: Dust Pro, Inc., no date) construction sites has established an average dust emission rate of 1.2 tons /acre/month for active construction (WA Dept. of Ecology. 1992). These airborne particles pose a dual threat to the environment and human health. First, dust can be carried off -site, thereby increasing soil loss from the construction area and increasing the likelihood of sedimentation and water pollution. Second, blowing dust particles can contribute to respiratory health problems and create an inhospitable working environment. Applicability Dust control measures are applicable to any construction site where dust is created and there is the potential for air and water pollution from dust traveling across the landscape or through the air. Dust control measures are particularly important in arid or semiarid regions, where soil can become extremely dry and vulnerable to transport by high winds. Also, dust control measures should be implemented on all construction sites where there will be major soil disturbances or heavy construction activity, such as clearing, excavation, demolition, or excessive vehicle traffic. Earthmoving activities are the major source of dust from construction sites, but traffic and general disturbances can also be major contributors (WA Dept. of Ecology, 1992). The particular dust control measures that are implemented at a site will depend on the topography and land cover of a given site, as well as the soil characteristics and expected rainfall at the site. Top Siting and Design Considerations When designing a dust control plan for a site, the amount of soil exposed will SKU.,o Menu of BMI Informatior Menu of BMPs Hgpne Public Ed ca ig Water Impacts Public lnv lovert & Participation Illicit Discharge ee t4Ction 8! EIMAD ttIllD Construction Si' Storm Water Runoff Control Post -CpaEl ur. i Storm Water Management in New Developm Pollution Prevention 8 G Housekeepiag 1 Municipal OPerations Downloadable Files Measurable Go h"- / /cfnub.ena.2ov/ nndes /stormwater /menuofbmos/site II.cfm 10/25/2002 EPA - Construction Site Storm Water Runoff Control dictate the quantity of dust generation and transport. Therefore, construction sequencing and disturbing only small areas at a time can greatly reduce problematic dust from a site. If land must be disturbed, additional temporary stabilization measures should be considered prior to disturbance. A number of methods can be used to control dust from a site. The following is a brief list of some control measures and their design criteria. Not all control measures will be applicable to a given site. The owner, operator, and contractors responsible for dust control at a site will have to determine which practices accommodate their needs based on specific site and weather conditions. • Sprinklinggnigation. Sprinkling the ground surface with water until it is moist is an effective dust control method for haul roads and other traffic routes (Smolen et al., 1988). This practice can be applied to almost any site. • Vegetative Cover. In areas not expected to handle vehicle traffic, vegetative stabilization of disturbed soil is often desirable. Vegetative cover provides coverage to surface soils and slows wind velocity at the ground surface, thus reducing the potential for dust to become airborne. • Mulch. Mulching can be a quick and effective means of dust control for a recently disturbed area (Smolen et al., 1988). • Wind Breaks. Wind breaks are barriers (either natural or constructed) that reduce wind velocity through a site and therefore reduce the possibility of suspended particles. Wind breaks can be trees or shrubs left in place during site clearing or constructed barriers such as a wind fence, snow fence, tarp curtain, hay bale, crate wall, or sediment wall (USEPA, 1992). • Tillage. Deep tillage in large open areas brings soil clods to the surface where they rest on top of dust, preventing it from becoming airborne. • Stone. Stone may be an effective dust deterrent for construction roads and entrances or as a mulch in areas where vegetation cannot be established. • Spray -on Chemical Soil Treatments (palliatives). Examples of chemical adhesives include anionic asphalt emulsion, latex emulsion, resin - water emulsions, and calcium chloride. Chemical palliatives should be used only on mineral soils. When considering chemical application to suppress dust, consideration should be taken as to whether the chemical is biodegradable or water - soluble and what effect its application could have on the surrounding environment, including waterbodies and wildlife. Table 1 shows application rates for some common spray -on adhesives, as recommended by Smolen et al. (1988). Table 1. Application rates for spray -on adhesives (Source: Smolen et al., 1988) Spray -on Adhesive Water Type of Application Dilution Nozzle (gal /ac) Anionic Asphalt 7:1 Coarse Spray 1,200 Emulsion Latex Emulsion 12.5:1 Fine Spray 235 Resin in Water 4:1 Fine Spray 300 lop Limitations In areas where evaporation rates are high, water application to exposed soils may require near constant attention. If water is applied in excess, irrigation may create unwanted excess runoff from the site and possibly create conditions where vehicles could track mud onto public roads. Chemical applications should be used sparingly and only on mineral soils (not muck soils) because their misuse can create additional surface water pollution from http://cfpub.cpa.gov/npdes/stormwater/menuofbmps/sitc_l l .chn Page 2 of 4 1 I I I I I I I I 10/25/200! ' EPA - Construction Site Storm Water Runoff Control Page 3 of 4 runoff or contaminate ground water. Chemical applications might also present a health risk if excessive amounts are used. Maintenance Considerations Because dust controls are dependent on speck site and weather conditions, inspection and maintenance are unique for each site. Generally, however, dust control measures involving application of either water or chemicals require more monitoring than structural or vegetative controls to remain effective. If structural controls are used, they should be inspected for deterioration on a regular basis to ensure that they are still achieving their intended purpose. EffectiveAess • Sprinkling/Irrigation. Not available. • Vegetative Cover. Not available. Mulch. Can reduce wind erosion by up to 80 percent. . Wind Breaks/Barriers. For each foot of vertical height, an 8-to 10 -foot deposition zone develops on the leeward side of the barrier. The permeability of the barrier will change its effectiveness at capturing windbome sediment. Tillage. Roughening the soil can reduce soil losses by approximately 80 percent in some situations. ' . Stone. The sizes of the stone can affect the amount of erosion to take place.In areas of high wind, small stones are not as effective as 20 cm stones. Spray -on Chemical Soil Treatments (palliatives). Effectiveness of polymer stabilization methods range from 70 percent to 90 percent, according to limited research. Cost Considerations Chemical dust control measures can vary widely in cost, depending on specific needs of the site and level of dust control desired. One manufacturer of a chloride product estimated a cost of $1,089 per acre for application to road surfaces, but cautioned that cost estimates without a specific site evaluation are rather inaccurate. References Dust Pro, Inc. No date. Erosion Control. jwww.dustoro.comlerosion.html r \Il "dirrliimrr 1. Accessed January 2001. Smolen, M.D., D.W. Miller, L.C. Wyatt, J. Lichthardt, and A.L. Lanier. 1988. Erosion and Sediment Control Planning and Design Manual. North Carolina Sedimentation Control Commission, North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources, and Division of Land Resources Land Quality Section, Raleigh, NC. USEPA. 1992. Storm Water Management for Construction Activities: Developing Pollution Prevention Plans and Best Management Practices. EPA 832- R- 92 -005. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC. ' USEPA. 1992. Storm Water Management for Industrial Activities: Developing Pollution Prevention Plans and Best Management Practices. EPA 832 -R -92- 006. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC. Washington State Department of Ecology. 1992. Stormwater Management httn-// cfnuh. ena. eov /nndes/stormwater /menuofbmps /site II.cfrn 10/25/2002 EPA - Construction Site Storm Water Runoff Control Pagel of 4 I U.S. Environmental Protection Agency National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) F4 Recent Additions I Contact Us I Print Version Search NPDES: F EPA Home> W Home> OWM Home> NPDES Home > Storm Water> MenU of BMPs Construction Activity -Who's Covered? - Application Requirements Industrial Activity -Who's Covered? - Application Requirements Municipal MS45 -Large & Medium -Small Phase Phase 11 -Menu of BMPs Wet Weather Discharges Endangered Species - Search Species Storm Water Home Fj0w This site is best viewed with Acrobat 5.0 'FIPOESRfpfm I1�0bolfadh9ddii .Glounfy "` A�a�INPtlES Construction Site Storm Water Runoff Control Silt Fence Description Silt fences are used as temporary perimeter controls around sites where there will be soil disturbance due to construction activities. They consist of a length of filter fabric stretched between anchoring posts spaced at regular intervals along the site perimeter. The filter fabric should be entrenched in the ground between the support posts. When installed correctly and inspected frequently, silt fences . can be an effective barrier to sediment leaving the site in storm water runoff. Applicability Silt fences are generally applicable to construction sites with relatively small drainage areas. They are appropriate in areas where runoff will be occurring as low -level shallow flow, not exceeding 0.5 cfs. The drainage area for silt fences generally should not exceed 0.25 acre per 100 -foot fence length. Slope length above the fence should not exceed 100 feet (NAHB, 1995). Siting and Design Considerations Material for silt fences should be a pervious sheet of synthetic fabric such as polypropylene, nylon, polyester, or polyethylene yarn, chosen based on minimum synthetic fabric requirements, as shown in Table 1. Table 1. Minimum requirements for silt fence construction (Sources: USEPA, 1992; VDCR, 1995) Physical Property Requirements Filtering Efficiency 75 - 85% (minimum): highly dependent tAenu of BMPS on local conditions Tensile Strength at 20% (maximum) Elongation Standard Strength: 30lbs /linear inch Outreach on St, (minimum) http://cfpub.cpa.gov/npdcs/stonnwater/menuofbmps/sitc-30.cfin CF: 1 f 1 1 Menu of BMI Informatior tAenu of BMPS Home Public Educalio Outreach on St, Water Impacts Public Involverr' & Participation Illicit Discharge , Detection & Elimination Construction Si' Storm Waler Runoff Control Post- ConstruCtl j Storm Water Management in New Developm & Redevelopmf Pollution Prevention &_9 Housekeeping 1 Municipal Operations Downloadable Files Measurable Go� 1 I 10/25/20021 ' EPA - Construction Site Storm Water Runoff Control Page 2 of 4 Extra Strength: 50 Ibs /linear inch (minimum) Ultraviolet Radiation 90% (minimum) Slurry Flow Rate J10.3 gal/ft2 /min (minimum) If a standard strength fabric is used, it can be reinforced with wire mesh behind the filter fabric. This can increase the effective life of the fence. In any case, the maximum life expectancy for synthetic fabric silt fences is approximately 6 months, depending on the amount of rainfall and runoff for a given area. Burlap fences have a much shorter useful life span, usually only up to 2 months. Top Stakes used to anchor the filter fabric should be either wooden or metal. ' Wooden stakes should be at least 5 feet long and have a minimum diameter of 2 inches if a hardwood such as oak is used. Softer woods such as pine should be at least 4 inches in diameter. When using metal post in place of wooden stakes, they should have a minimum weight of 1.00 to 1.33 lb/linear foot. If metal posts are used, attachment points are needed for fastening the filter fabric using wire ties. A silt fence should be erected in a continuous fashion from a single roll of fabric to eliminate unwanted gaps in the fence. If a continuous roll of fabric is not available, the fabric should overlap from both directions only at stakes or ' posts with a minimum overlap of 6 inches. A trench should be excavated to bury the bottom of the fabric fence at least 6 inches below the ground surface. This will help prevent gaps from forming near the ground surface that would render the fencing useless as a sediment barrier. A The height of the fence posts should be between 16 and 34 inches above the original ground surface. If standard strength fabric is used in combination with ' wire mesh, the posts should be spaced no more than 10 feet apart. If extra - strength fabric is used without wire mesh reinforcement, the support posts should be spaced no more than 6 feet apart (VDCR, 1995). The fence should be designed to withstand the runoff from a 10 -year peak storm event, and once installed should remain in place until all areas up -slope have been permanently stabilized by vegetation or other means. Limitations Silt fences should not be installed along areas where rocks or other hard surfaces will prevent uniform anchoring of fence posts and entrenching of the filter fabric. This will greatly reduce the effectiveness of silt fencing and can create runoff channels leading off site. Silt fences are not suitable for areas where large amounts of concentrated runoff are likely. In addition, open areas where wind velocity is high may present a maintenance challenge, as high winds may accelerate deterioration of the filter fabric. Silt fences should not be installed across streams, ditches, or waterways (Smolen et al., 1988). When the pores of the fence fabric become clogged with sediment, pools of water are likely to form on the uphill side of fence. Siting and design of the silt fence should account for this and care should be taken to avoid unnecessary diversion of storm water from these pools that might cause further erosion damage. ' Maintenance Considerations Silt fences should be inspected regularly and frequently as well as after each rainfall event to ensure that they are intact and that there are no gaps at the fence - ground interface or tears along the length of the fence. If gaps or tears httn-// cfnuh. ena. eov /nndes/stormwater /menuofbmns /site 30.cfm 10/25/2002 EPA - Construction Site Storm Wafer Runoff Control Page 3 of 4 are found, they should be repaired or the fabric should be replaced immediately, Accumulated sediments should be removed from the fence base when the sediment reaches one -third to one -half the height of the fence. ' Sediment removal should occur more frequently if accumulated sediment is creating noticeable strain on the fabric and there is the possibility of the fence failing from a sudden storm event. When the silt fence is removed, the accumulated sediment also should be removed. Effectiveness ' USEPA (1993) reports the following effectiveness ranges for silt fences constructed of filter fabric that are properly installed and well maintained: average total suspended solids removal of 70 percent, sand removal of 80 to ' 90 percent, sift -loam removal of 50 to 80 percent, and silt -clay -loam removal of 0 to 20 percent. Removal rates are highly dependent on local conditions and installation. ' Cost Considerations Installation costs for silt fences are approximately $6.00 per linear foot (USEPA, 1992). SWRPC estimates unit costs between $2.30 and $4.50 per linear foot (SWRPC, 1991). References j NAHB. 1995. Guide for Builders and Developers. National Association of Homebuilders, Washington, DC. ' Smolen, M.D., D.W. Miller, L.C. Wyatt, J. Lichthardt, and A.L. Lanier. 1988. Erosion and Sediment Control Planning and Design Manual. North Carolina Sedimentation Control Commission, North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources, and Division of Land Resources Land Quality Section, Raleigh, NC. SWRPC. 1991. Costs of Urban Nonpoint Source Water Pollution Control Measures. Technical report no. 31. Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission, Waukesha, WI. USEPA. 1993. Guidance Specifying Management Measures for Sources of Nonpoint Pollution in Coastal Waters. EPA 840 -B -92 -002. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC. USEPA. 1992. Storm Water Management for Construction Activities: Developing Pollution Prevention Plans and Best Management Practices. EPA 832- R- 92 -005. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC. VDCR. 1995. Virginia Erosion & Sediment Control Field Manual. 2nd Edition. ' Virginia Department of Conservation, Division of Soil.and Water Conservation, Richmond, VA. ' Qffice of Water I Office of Wastewater Manaaemant I Disdaimer 1 Search EPA PE A Home I Privacy and Secur ty Notice I Contact us ' Last updated on August 15, 2002 2:50 PM URL: ht tp:// cfpub. epa. gov/ npdes/ stormwater /menuofbmpstsite_30.cfm http://cfpub.cpa.gov/npdcs/stonnwater/rnenuofbmps/site-30.cfm 10/25/200f I 1 I I I i I I I I EPA - Construction Site Storm Water Runoff Control Page 1 of 3 «x U.S. Environmental Protection Agency National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Recent Additions I Contact Us I Pratt Version Search NPDES: F-- Om Construction Activity -Who's Covered? - Application Requirements Industrial Activity -Who's Covered? - Application Requirements EPA Home> OW Home> OWM Horn > NPDES Horn > Storm Water> Motu of BMPs Construction Site Storm Water Runoff Control Brush Barrier Municipal MS4s Description -Large & Medium -Small Phase Phase 11 -Menu of BMPs Wet Weather Discharges Endangered Species - Search Species Storm Water Home Brush barriers are perimeter sediment control structures used to prevent soil in storm water runoff from leaving a construction site. Brush barriers are constructed of material such as small tree branches, root mats, stone, or other debris left over from site clearing and grubbing. In some configurations, brush barriers are covered with a filter cloth to stabilize the structure and improve barrier efficiency Applicability Brush barriers are applicable to sites where there is enough material from ` clearing and grubbing to form a sufficient mound of debris along the perimeter /Al cot . , "_$ of an area. The drainage area for brush barriers must be no greater than 0.25 AaoEe acre per 100 feet of barrier length. In addition, the drainage slope leading This site is best viewed down to a brush barrier must be no greater than 2:1 and no longer than 100 with Acrobat 5.0 feet. Brush barriers have limited usefulness because they are constructed of materials that decompose. Siting and Design Considerations A brush barrier can be constructed using only cleared material from a site, but it is recommended that the mound be covered with a filter fabric barrier to hold the material in place and increase sediment barrier efficiency. Whether a filter fabric cover is used or not, the barrier mound should be at least 3 feet high and 5 feet wide at its base. Material with a diameter larger than 6 inches should not be used, as this material may be too bulky and create void spaces where sediment and runoff will flow through the barrier. The edge of the filter ' fabric cover should be buried in a trench 4 inches deep and 6 inches wide on the drainage side of the barrier. This is done to secure the fabric and create a barrier to sediment while allowing storm water to pass through the water - ' permeable filter fabric. The filter fabric should be extended just over the peak of the brush mound and secured on the down -slope edge of the fabric by fastening it to twine or small- diameter rope that is staked securely. httn- / /c. fnub. ena. eov/ nnde s /stormwater /menuofbmos/site 3.cfm S Menu of BMI Informatior Menu of BMPs Home Public Educ io Outreach on St. ater mpactS Pub11Elnvolverr & Participation Illicit Dischargg Detection & Elimination Construction Si Storm Water Runoff Control Post - Construct] Storm Water Management in New Develoom & Redevelopmc Polluti on Prevention & G Housekeeoina I Municipal Operations Downloadable Files Measurable Go 10/25/2002 EPA - Construction Site Storm Water Runoff Control Page 2 of 3 , Top Limitations ' Brush barriers are an effective storm water runoff control only when the ' contributing flow has a slow velocity. Brush barriers are therefore not appropriate for high - velocity flow areas. A large amount of material is needed to construct a useful brush barrier. For sites with little material from clearing, alternative perimeter controls such as a fabric silt fence may be more ' appropriate. Although brush barriers provide temporary storage for large amounts of cleared material from a site, this material will ultimately have to be removed from the site after construction activities have ceased and the area , reaches final stabilization. Maintenance Considerations t Brush barriers should be inspected after each significant rainfall event to ensure continued effectiveness. If channels form through void spaces in the barrier, the barrier should be reconstructed to eliminate the channels. Accumulated sediment should be removed from the uphill side of the barrier when sediment height reaches between 1/3 and 1/2 the height of the barrier. When the entire site has reached final stabilization, the brush barrier should be removed and disposed of properly. Effectiveness Brush barriers can be effective at reducing off -site sediment transport, and ' their effectiveness is greatly increased with the use of a fabric cover on the up -slope side of the brush barrier. _ Cost Considerations Creating brush barriers can range in cost from $390 to $620, depending upon ' the equipment used, vegetation type (heavy or light), fuel price, personnel, amount of filterfabric needed (if used), and the number of hours to perform the task. A common filter fabric, geotextile, can range in cost from $0.50 to ' $10.00 /square yard, depending upon the type of geotextile used. References Casados, A., and Leyba, P. Forest Engineers, Santa Fe National Forest, personal communication, February 7, 2000. Straw Wattles. 2000. Photos: Minef. fhttp: / /WWW.strawwattles.com /photos /mine1JQQ 1. Accessed January 2001. VDCR. 1995. Virginia Erosion & Sediment Control Field Manua l. Second Edition. Virginia Department of Conservation, Division of Soil and Water Conservation. ' office of Water I Q"re of Wastevrater Management I Disclaimer 18_-eea ch EPA , EPA Home I Privacy and Security Notice I Contact Us ' Last updated on August 15, 2002 2:50 PM URL: http: / /cfpub.epa.gov/ npdes / stormwater /menUoPomps /site_3.crm http: / /cfvub,coa.eov /npdes /stormwater /menuofbmps /site 3.cfm 10/25/2002 I J I I EPA - Construction Site Storm Water Runoff Control Page 1 of 4 ,,os,5js U.S. Environmental Protection Agency National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) hq eao�cr Recent Addition. I Contact US I Print Version Search NPDES: Construction Activity -Who's Covered? - Application Requirements Industrial Activity -Who's Covered? - Application Requirements EPA Home> OW Home> OWM Home> NPDES H9me> Storm We > Menu of BMPs Construction Site Storm Water Runoff Control Sediment Basins and Rock Dams ' Municipal MS4s -Large & Medium Description -Small I I 1 I 1 I 1 Phase Phase U -Menu of BMPs Wet Weather Discharges Endangered Species - Search Species Storm Water Home Sediment basins and rock dams are two ways to capture sediment from storm water runoff before it leaves a construction site. Both structures allow a shallow pool to form in an excavated or natural depression where sediment from storm water runoff can settle. Basin dewatering is achieved either through a single riser and drainage hole leading to a suitable outlet on the downstream side of the embankment or through the gravel of the rock dam. In both cases, water is released at a substantially slower rate than would be possible without the control structure. A sediment basin can be constructed by excavation or by erecting an earthen 1'J, c,v A6M embankment across a low area or drainage swale. The basin can be either a ,d,W temporary (up to 3 years) structure or a permanent storm water control This site is best viewed measure. Sediment basins can be designed to drain completely during dry with Acrobat 5.0 periods, or they can be constructed so that a shallow, permanent pool of water remains between storm events. However, depending on the size of the basin constructed, the basin may be considered a wet pond and subject to additional regulation. Rock dams are similar in design to sediment basins with earthen embankments. These damming structures are constructed of rock and gravel and release water from the settling pool gradually through the spaces between the rock aggregate. Applicability ' Sediment basins are usually used for drainage areas of 5 to 100 acres. They can be temporary or permanent structures. Generally, sediment basins designed to be used for up to 3 years are described as temporary, while 1 those designed for longer service are said to be permanent. Temporary sediment basins can be converted into permanent storm water runoff management ponds, but they must meet all regulatory requirements for wet hNn• / /�fn..h rna onv/ nruirc /etnr.nvratar /mrnttnfhmnc /city ?7 Ciro 0fcr cs ,, Menu of BMf Informatior Menu of BMPs Elpme bli ,.Etucatio OVVeach on S1, Water Imoa t Public Involveir & Participation Illicit Dischame Detection & Eliminatin ConstrucOn Si' Stone water Runoff Control Post-Construct Stone Water Management in New Develoom & Redeveloomc Pollution Prevention & G HousekeepinctJ Municipal Operatic,ns Downloadable Files Measurable Go 10/25/2002 EPA - Construction Site Storm Water Runoff Control Page 2 of ' ponds. Sediment basins are applicable in drainage areas where it is anticipated that ' other erosion controls, such as sediment traps, will not be sufficient to prevent off -site transport of sediment. Choosing to construct a sediment basin with either an earthen embankment or a stone /rock dam will depend on the ' materials available, location of the basin, and desired capacity for storm water runoff and settling of sediments. Rock dams are suitable where earthen embankments would be difficult to , construct or where riprap is readily available. Rock structures are also ' desirable where the top of the dam structure is to be used as an overflow , outlet These dprap dams are best for drainage areas of less than 50 acres. ' Earthen dpmming structures are appropriate where failure of the dam will not result in substantial damage or loss of property or fife. If properly constructed, ' sediment basins with earthen dams can handle storm water runoff from drainage basins as large as 100 acres. , Top Siting and Design Considerations ' The potential sites for sediment basins should be investigated during the initial site evaluation. Basins should be constructed before any grading takes ' place within the drainage area. For structures that will be permanent, the , design of the basin should be completed by a qualified professional engineer experienced in the design of dams. Sediment basins with rock dams should be limited to a drainage area of 50 ' acres. Rock dam height should be limited to 8 feet with a minimum top width of 5 feet. Side slopes for rock dams should be no steeper than 2:1 on the basin side of the structure and 3:1 on the outlet side. The basin side of the ' rock dam should be covered with fine gravel from top to bottom for a minimum of 1 foot This will slow the drainage rate from the pool that forms and allow time for sediments to settle. The detention time should be at least 8 hours Sediment basins with earthen embankments should be outfitted with a dewatering pipe and riser set just above the sediment removal cutoff level. ' The riser pipe should be located at the deepest point of the basin and extend no farther than f foot below the level of the earthen dam. A water - permeable cover should be placed over the primary dewatering riser pipe to prevent trash and debris from entering and clogging the spillway. To provide an ' additional path for water to enter the primary spillway, secondary dewatering holes can be drilled near the base of the riser pipe, provided the holes are protected with gravel to prevent sediment from entering the spillway piping. ' To ensure adequate drainage, the following equation can be used to approximate the total area of dewatering holes for a particular basin (Smolen et al., 1988): Ao = (As x (2h) / (T x Cd x 20,428) ' where A. = total surface area of dewatering holes, ft2; ' AS = surface area of the basin, ft2; h = head of water above the hole, ft; http: // cfpub. epa. gov/ npdes/ storrnwater /menuofbmps/site_27.cfTn 1 0/25/200; ' EPA - Construction Site Storm Water Runoff Control Page 3 of 4 ' Cd = coefficient of contraction for an orifice, approximately 0.6; and T = detention time or time needed to dewater the basin, hours. ' In all cases, such structures should be designed by an appropriate professional based on local hydrologic, hydraulic, topographic, and sediment conditions. Limitations ' Neither a sediment basin with an earthen embankment nor a rock dam should be used in areas of continuously running water (live streams). The use of sediment basins is not intended for areas where failure of the earthen or rock dam will result in loss of life, or damage to homes or other buildings. In addition, sediment basins should not be used in areas where failure will prevent the use of public roads or utilities. ' Maintenance Considerations Routine inspection and maintenance of sediment basins is essential to their continued effectiveness. Basins should be inspected after each storm event to ensure proper drainage from the collection pool to determine the need for structural repairs. Erosion from the earthen embankment or stones moved from rock dams should be replaced immediately. Sediment basins must be ' located in an area that is easily accessible to maintenance crews for removal of accumulated sediment. Sediment should be removed from the basin when its storage capacity has reached approximately 50 percent. Trash and debris ' from around dewatering devices should be removed promptly after rainfall events. TOP ' Effectiveness The effectiveness of a sediment basin depends primarily on the sediment particle size and the ratio of basin surface area to inflow rate (Smolen et al., 1988). Basins with a large surface area -to- volume ratio will be most effective. Studies have shown that the following equation relating surface area and peak inflow rate gives a trapping efficiency greater than 75 percent for most sediment in the Coastal Plain and Piedmont regions of the Southeastern United States (Barfield and Clar, in Smolen et al., 1988): ' A = 0.01q where A is the basin surface area in acres and q is the peak inflow rate in cubic feet per second. ' USEPA It 993) estimates an average total suspended solids (TSS) removal rate for all sediment basins from 55 percent to 100 percent, with an average ' effectiveness of 70 percent. Cost Considerations ' If constructing a sediment basin with less than 50,000 ft3 of storage space, the cost of installing the basin ranges from $0.20 to $1.30 per cubic foot of storage (about $1,100 per acre of drainage). The averagecost for basins with ' less than 50,000 ft3 of storage is approximately $0.60 per cubic foot of storage (USEPA, 1993). If constructing a sediment basin with more than 50,000 ft3 of storage space, the cost range of installing the basin ranges from ' $0.10 to $0.40 per cubic foot of storage (about $550 per acre of drainage). The average cost for basins with greater than 50,000 0 of storage is httn:Hcfbub.eva , gov/ nodes /stormwater /menuofbmps/site 27.cfm 10/25/2002 EPA - Construction Site Storm Water Runoff Control Page 4 of 4 ' approximately $0.30 per cubic foot of storage (USEPA, 1993). References ' Smolen, M.D., D.W. Miller, L.C. Wyatt, J. Lichthardt, and A.L. Lanier. 1988. ' Erosion and Sediment Control Planning and Design Manual. North Carolina Sedimentation Control Commission, North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources, and Division of Land Resources Land Quality Section, Raleigh, NC. USEPA. 1992. Storm Water Management for Construction Activities: Developing Pollution Prevention Plans and Best Management Practices. EPA ' 832- R- 92 -005. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC. USEPA. 1993. Guidance Specifying Management Measures for Sources of , Nonpoint Pollution in Coastal Waters. EPA 840- B- 92 -002. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC. Office of Water I Office of Wastewater Menaaement I Disclaimer I Search EPA ' EPA Home I Privacy and Security Notice I Contact Us Last updated on August 15, 2002 2:50 PM ' URL: http: / /cfpub. epa. gov /npdes/stomn ter /menuofbmps/site_27,cfm 1 http: / /cfi)ub.eva.gov /npdes /storrnwater /menuofbmps /site 27.cfm 10/25/200P I 1 I '' I EPA - Construction Site Storm Water Runoff Control Page 1 of 4 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ® National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Y agr nacrreec Recent Additions I Contact Us I Print Version Search NPDES: F-- iI Construction Activity -Who's Covered? - Application Requirements Industrial Activity ' -Who's Covered? - Application Requirements EPA Home> OW HOme> OWM Home> NPDES Home> Storm Water> Menu of BMPs si r. Construction Site Storm Water Runoff Control Temporary Diversion Dikes, Earth Dikes, & Interceptor Dikes ' Municipal MS4S Description -Large & Medium -Small 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 Phase Phase 11 -Menu of BMPS Wet Weather Discharges Endangered Species - Search Species Storm water Home Earthen perimeter controls usually consist of a dike or a combination dike and channel constructed along the perimeter of a disturbed site. Simply defined, an earthen perimeter control is a ridge of compacted soil, often accompanied by a ditch or swale with a vegetated lining, located at the top or base of a sloping disturbed area. Depending on their location and the topography of the landscape, earthen perimeter controls can achieve one of two main goals. Located on the upslope side of a site, earthen perimeter controls help to prevent surface runoff from entering a disturbed construction site. An earthen FP41Go structure located upslope can improve working conditions on a construction "Ok site by preventing an increase in the total amount of sheet flow runoff This sire is best viewed traveling across the disturbed area and thereby lessen erosion on the site. with Acrobat 5.0 Alternatively, earthen perimeter control structures can be located on the downslope side of a site to divert sediment -laden runoff created onsite to onsite sediment trapping devices, preventing soil loss from the disturbed area. These control practices can be referred to by a number of terms, including temporary diversion dikes, earth dikes, or interceptor dikes. Generally speaking, however, all earthen perimeter controls are constructed in a similar fashion with a similar objective —to control the velocity and /or route of sediment -laden storm water runoff. 10R Applicability Temporary diversion dikes are applicable where it is desirable to divert flows away from disturbed areas such as cut or fill slopes and to divert runoff to a stabilized outlet (EPA, 1992). The dikes can be erected at the top of a sloping area or in the middle of a slope to divert storm water runoff around a httn:// cfbub. epa. pov /npdes/stonnwater /menuofbmps /site 12.cfm ,SSrr � `moo Menu of BMF Informatior Menu of BMPs Horne Public Educatio Outreach on St Water Impacts Public Involves & Participation Illicit Dischame Detection & Elimination Construction Si StormJ(AW Runoff Control Post- Constructi Storrs Water Management in New Dedelopm & Redevelopm[ Pollutlon Prevention & G Housekeeping 1 Municipal O era for ss Downloadable Files Measurable Go 10/25/2002 EPA - Construction Site Storm Water Runoff Control Page 2 of 4 , disturbed construction site. In this way, earth dikes can be used to reduce the length of the slope across which runoff will travel, thereby reducing the ' erosion potential of the flow. If placed at the bottom of a sloping disturbed area, diversion dikes can divert flow to a sediment trapping device. Temporary diversion dikes are usually appropriate for drainage basins smaller than 5 acres, but with modifications they can be capable of servicing areas as , large as 10 acres. With regular maintenance, earthen diversion dikes have a useful life span of approximately 18 months. To prevent storm water runoff from entering a site, earthen perimeter controls ' can be used to divert runoff from areas upslope around the disturbed ' construction site. This is accomplished by constructing a continuous, compacted earthen mound along the upslope perimeter of the site. As an additional control measure, a shallow ditch can accompany the earthen ' mound. Siting and Design Considerations ' The siting of earthen perimeter controls depends on the topography of the ' area surrounding a specific construction site and on whether the goal is to prevent sediment -laden runoff from entering the site or to keep storm water ' runoff from leaving the site. When determining the appropriate size and , design of earthen perimeter controls, the shape of the surrounding landscape and drainage patterns should be considered. Also, the amount of runoff to be diverted, the velocity of runoff in the diversion, and the erodibility of soils on the slope and within the diversion channel or swale are essential design considerations (WSDE, 1992). ' Diversion dikes should be constructed and fully stabilized prior to commencement of major land disturbance. This will maximize the effectiveness of the diversion measure as an erosion and sediment control device The top of earthen perimeter controls designed as temporary flow diversion measures should be at least 2 feet wide. Bottom width at ground level is ' typically 6 feet. The minimum height for earthen dikes should be 18 inches, with side slopes no steeper than 2:1. For points where vehicles will cross the dike, the slope should be no steeper than 3:1 and the mound should be ' constructed of gravel rather than soil. This will prolong the fife of the dike and increase effectiveness at the point of vehicle crossing. If a channel is excavated along the dike, its shape can be parabolic, ' trapezoidal, or V- shaped. Prior to excavation or mound building, all trees, brush, stumps and other objects in the path of the diversion structure should be removed and the base of the dike should be tilled before laying the fill. The , maximum design flow velocity should range from 1.5 to 5.0 feet per second, depending on the vegetative cover and soil texture. Most earthen perimeter structures are designed for short-term, temporary ' use. If the expected fife span of the diversion structure is greater than 15 days, it is strongly recommended that both the earthen dike and the _accompanying ditch be seeded with vegetation immediately after ' construction. This will increase the stability of the perimeter control and can decrease the need for frequent repairs and maintenance. TQP ,Limitations Earth dikes are an effective means of diverting sediment -laden storm water runoff around a disturbed area. However, the concentrated runoff in the ' channel or ditch has increased erosion potential. To alleviate this erosion capability, diversion dikes must be directed to sediment trapping devices, where erosion sediment can settle out of the runoff before being discharged http: // cfpub. epa. gov / npdes / stormwater /menuofbmps /site_l2.cfm 10/25/20) EPA - Construction Site Storm Water Runoff Control Page 3 of 4 ' to surface waters. Examples of appropriate sediment trapping devices that might be used in conjunction with temporary diversion structures include a sediment basin, a sediment chamber/filter, or any other structure designed to allow sediment to be collected for proper disposal. If a diversion dike crosses a vehicle roadway or entrance, its effectiveness can be reduced. Wherever possible, diversion dikes should be designed to ' avoid crossing vehicle pathways. Maintenance Considerations ' Earthen diversion dikes should be inspected after each rainfall to ensure continued effectiveness. The dike should be maintained at the original height, and any decrease in height due to settling or erosion should be repaired ' immediately. To remain effective, earth dikes must be compacted at all times. Regardless of rainfall frequency, dikes should be inspected at least once every 2 weeks for evidence of erosion or deterioration. ' Effectiveness t When properly placed and maintained, earth dikes used as temporary diversions are effective for controlling the velocity and direction of storm water runoff. Used by themselves, they do not have any pollutant removal capability. Diversion dikes must be used in combination with an appropriate ' sediment trapping device at the outfall of the diversion channel. Cost Considerations ' The cost of constructing an earthen dike can be broken dawn into two components: (1) site preparation, including excavation, placement and compacting of fill, and grading, and (2) site development, including lopsoiling 1 and seeding for vegetative cover. The Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission (1991) estimated the total cost of site preparation to be $46.33 to $124.81 for a 100 -foot dike with 1.5- foot -deep, 3:1 side slopes. The cost of site development was estimated at $115.52 to $375.44. The total cost ' was between $162 and $500. References ' Smolen, M.D., D.W. Miller, L.C. Wyatt, J. Lichlhardl, and A.L. Lanier. 1988. Erosion and Sediment Control Planning and Design Manual. North Carolina Sedimentation Control Commission, North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources, and Division of Land Resources Land Quality Section, Raleigh, NC USEPA. 1992. Storm Water Management for Construction Activities: Developing Pollution Prevention Plans and Best Management Practices. EPA 832 -R -92 -005. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, ' Washington, DC. Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation. 1995. Virginia Erosion & Sediment Control Field Manual. Second Edition. Virginia Department of ' Conservation, Division of Soil and Water Conservation, Richmond, VA. Walker, J., G. Jennings, and J. Arnold, J. 1996. Water Quality and Waste ' Management, Erosion and Sediment Control in North Carolina. North Carolina Cooperative Extension. httD://www.abe.msstate.edu/csd- tcinrcsinorth-caroil 30.html "Td' ' "m °'> ] Accessed on 03109100. ' Washington State Department of Ecology. 1992. Stormwater Management Manual for the Puget Sound Basin. Technical Manual. Washington State 7 rr. ii fi,,7 Po onv /mules /ctnrmwste.r /me.nunfhmns /site 12.cfm 10/25/2002 EPA - Construction Site Storm Water Runoff Control Pagel of 3 ' 3",c U.S. Environmental Protection Agency National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Ritgot Additions I Contact Us I Print MM Search NPDES: EPA Home > OW Horne > OWM Home > NPDES Home > Storm Water> Menu of BMPs Construction Activity ' + r '• • • r • -� • "+ i Aft -Who's Covered? ' - Application Requirements Industrial Construction Site Storm Water Runoff N t Activity Control C C -Who's Covered? - Application Requirements BMP Inspection and Maintenance Menu of BMI , Informatior Municipal MS4s Menu of BMPs -Large & Medium Description Home -Small To maintain the effectiveness of construction site storm water control best Public Educatio Phase I management practices (BMPs), regular inspection of control measures is Outreach on Sty Water Impacts essential. General) y, inspection and maintenance of BMPs can be Phase 11 categorized into two groups — expected routine maintenance and nonroutine Public invoiverr -Menu of BMPs (repair) maintenance. Routine maintenance refers to checks performed on a & Participation regular basis to keep the BMP in good working order and aesthetically Wet Weather pleasing. In addition, routine inspection and maintenance is an efficient way Illicit Discharge' Discharges to prevent potential nuisance situations (odors, mosquitoes, weeds, etc.), Detection & reduce the need for repair maintenance, and reduce the chance of polluting Elimination Endangered Species storm water runoff by finding and correcting problems before the next rain. - Search Species Construction Si', Routine inspection should occur for all storm water and erosion and sediment Storm Water Runoff Control control (ESC) measures implemented at a site. These measures may include, but are not limited to, grass - covered areas, seeded areas, mulched areas, Post- Constructi' Storm Water Home areas stabilized with geotextiles or sod, silt fences, earth dikes, brush Storm Water barriers, vegetated swales, sediment traps, sediment basins, subsurface Management in r drains, pipe slope drains, level spreaders, storm drain drop inlet protection measures, gabions, rain barrels, and road and site entrance stabilization New Develoom & Redevetoomfl measures. Nonroutine maintenance refers to any activity that is not performed on a regular basis. This type of maintenance could include major repairs after Pollution a violent storm or extended rainfall, or replacement and redesign of existing Prevention & G� control structures. Housekeepin Municipal Adobe This site is best viewed In addition to maintaining the effectiveness of storm water BMPs and Operatons with Acrobat 5.0 reducing the incidence of pests, proper inspection and maintenance is Downloadable, essential to avoid the health and safety threats inherent in BMP neglect Fifes (Skupien, 1995). The failure of structural storm water BMPs can lead to downstream flooding, causing property damage, injury, and even death. Measu ble G Applicability All storm water BMPs should be inspected for continued effectiveness and ' structural integrity on a regular basis for the life of the construction project. Generally, all BMPs should be checked after each storm event in addition to the regularly scheduled inspections. Scheduled inspections vary between ' BMPs. Structural BMPs like storm drain drop inlet protection might require more frequent inspection than other BMPs to ensure proper operation. Inspection and maintenance of BMPs should continue until all construction activities have ended and all areas of a site have been permanently ' stabilized. During each inspection, the inspector should document whether the BMP is performing correctly, any damage to the BMP since the last inspection, and what should be done to repair the BMP if damage has http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/stormwater/menuofbmps/site_2.cfTn EPA - Construction Site Storm Water Runoff Control Page 2 of 3 occurred. Siting and Design Considerations In the case of vegetative or other infiltration BMPs, inspection of storm water management practices following a Storm event should occur after the expected drawdown period for a gNen BMP. This approach allows the inspector to see whether detention and infiltration devices are draining corcectly. Inspection checklists should be developed for use by BMP inspectors. The checklists might include each BMP's minimum performance expectations, design criteria, structural specifications, date of implementation, and expected life span. In addition, the maintenance requirements for each BMP should be listed on the inspection checklist. This checklist will aid the inspector in determining whether a BMP's maintenance schedule is adequate or needs revision. Also, a checklist will help the inspector determine renovation or repair needs. Limitations Routine maintenance materials such as shovels, lawn mowers, and fertilizer can be obtained on short notice with little effort. Unfortunately, not all materials that might be needed for emergency structural repairs are obtained with such ease. Thought should be given to stockpiling essential materials in case immediate repairs must be made to safeguard against property loss and to protect human health. T212 Maintenance Considerations When considering a maintenance schedule for BMPs to control storm water runoff from construction activities, care should be taken to factor in increased erosion and sedimentation rates for construction sites. Clearing, grading, or otherwise altering the landscape at a construction site can increase the erosion rate by as much as 1,000 times the preconstruction rate for a given site (USEPA, 1992). Depending on the relative amount of disturbed area at a site, routine maintenance might have to occur on a more frequent basis. It is important that routine maintenance and nonroutine repair of storm water and erosion control BMPs be done according to schedule or as soon as a problem is discovered. Because many BMPs are rendered ineffective for storm water runoff control if not installed and maintained properly, it is essential that maintenance schedules are maintained and repairs are performed promptly. In fact, in some cases BMP neglect can have detrimental effects on the landscape and increase the potential for erosion. However, "routine" maintenance such as mowing grass should be flexible enough to accommodate varying need based on weather conditions. For example, more harm than good might be caused by mowing during a drought or immediately after a storm event. Effectiveness The effectiveness of BMP inspection is a function of the familiarity of the inspector with each particular BMP's location, design specifications, maintenance procedures, and performance expectations. Documentation should be kept regarding the dates of inspection, findings, and maintenance and repairs that result from the findings of an inspector. Such records are helpful in maintaining an efficient inspection and maintenance schedule and provide evidence of ongoing inspection and maintenance. Because maintenance work for storm water BMPs (mowing, removal of sediment, etc.) is usually not technically complicated, workers can be drawn from a large labor pool. As structural BMPs increase in their sophistication, httn: / /cfpub.epa.goy /npdes /stormwater /menuofbmPs/site 2.cfm 10/25/2002 EPA - Construction Site Storm Water Runoff Control Page 3 of 3 , however, more specialized maintenance training might be needed to sustain BMP effectiveness. ' Cost Considerations Mowing of vegetated and grassed, areas may be the costliest routine ' maintenance consideration (WEf, 1998). Management practices using relatively weak materials (such as filter fabric and wooden posts) may mean more frequent replacement and therefore increased costs. The use of more sturdy materials (such as metal posts) where applicable may increase the life ' of certain BMPs and reduce replacement cost. However, the disposal requirements of all materials should be investigated before BMP implementation to ensure proper handiing after the BMP has become , ineffective or when it needs to be disposed of after the site has reached final stabilization. References , Skupien, J. 1995. Postconstruction Responsibilities for Effective Performance of Best Management Practices. In National Conference on Urban Runoff , Management: Enhancing Urban Watershed Management at the Local, County, and State Levels. Seminar Pbbikelion. EPA 625 -R -95 -003. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC. ' USEPA. 1992. Storm Water Management for Construction Activities: Developing Pollution Prevention Plans and Best Management Practices. EPA 832 -R -92 -005. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, . Washington, DC USEPA. 1999. Fact Sheet 2.6: Storm Water Phase it Proposed Rule, , Construction Site Runoff Control Minimum Control Measure. EPA 833 -F-99- 008. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC. — Water Environment Federation. 1998. Urban Runoff Quality Management WEF Manual of practice No. 23, ASCE Manual and Report on Engineering Practice No. 87. Water Environment Federation and American Society of Civil , Engineers, Alexandria, VA. Office of Water I Office of Wastewater Management I Disclaimer I Search EPA ' EPA Home I Privacy and Sewrity 96S I Contact Us Last updated on August 15, 2002 2:50 PM URL: http:// cfpub. epa. govt npdest stormwater /menuofbmpsisite_2.cfm , http: // cfpub. epa. gov / npdes / stormwater /menuofbmps/site_2.cfin 1 1 10/25/200) I 1 11 1 1 11 ' Appendix F: Sample Post Construction BMPs (U.S. EPA NPDES) 1 1 1 1I 1 1 r 1 I u I 1 I I 1 1 National Menu of Best Management Practices Grassed Swales Postconstruction Storm Water Management in New Development and Redevelopment Description The term swale (a.k.a. grassed channel, dry swale, wet Swale, biofilter) refers to a series of vegetated, open channel management practices designed specifically to treat and attenuate storm water runoff for a specified water quality volume. As storm water runoff flows through these channels, it is treated through filtering by the vegetation in the channel, filtering through a subsoil matrix, and/or infiltration into the underlying soils. Variations of the grassed swale include the grassed channel; dry swale, and wet Swale. The specific design features and methods of treatment differ in each of these designs, but all are improvements on the traditional drainage ditch. These designs incorporate modified geometry and other features for use of the swale as a treatment and conveyance practice. Applicability Grassed swales can be used along roadsides and parking lotsto tolled and treat storm water runoff (gassed swales can be applied in most situations with some restrictions. Swales are very well suited for treating highway or residential road runoff because they are linear practices. Regional Applicability Grassed swales can be applied in most regions of the country. In and and semi -arid climates, however, the value of these practices needs to be weighed against the water needed to irrigate them. Ultro- Urban Areas Ultra -urban areas are densely developed urban areas in which little pervious surface exists. Grassed swales are generally not well suited to ultra -urban areas because they require a relatively large area of pervious surfaces. Storm Neater Hot Spots Storm water hot spots are areas where land use or activities generate highly contaminated runoff, with concentrations of pollutants in excess of those typically found in storm water. A typical example is a gas station or convenience store. With the exception of the dry swat° design (see Design Variations), hot spot runoff should not be directed toward grassed channels. These 78 National Menu of Best Management Practices practices either infiltrate storm water or intersect the ground water, making use of the practices for hot spot runoff a threat to ground water quality. Storm Water Retrofit A storm water retrofit is a storm water management practice (usually structural) put into place after development has occurred, to improve water quality, protect downstream channels, reduce flooding, or meet other specific objectives. One retrofit opportunity using grassed swales modifies existing drainage ditches. Ditches have traditionally been designed only to convey storm water away from roads. In some cases, it may be possible to incorporate features to enhance pollutant removal or infiltration such as check dams (i.e., small dams along the ditch that trap sediment, slow runoff, and reduce the longitudinal slope). Since grassed swales cannot treat a large area, using this practice to retrofit an entire watershed would be expensive because of the number of practices needed to manage runoff from a significant amount of the watershed's land area. Cold Water (Trout) Streams Grassed channels are a good treatment option within watersheds that drain to cold water streams. These practices do not pond water for a long period of time and often induce infiltration. As a result, standing water will not typically be subjected to warming by the sun in these practices. Siting and Design Considerations In addition to the broad applicability concerns described above, designers need to consider conditions at the site level. In addition, they need to incorporate design features to improve the longevity and performance of the practice, while minimizing the maintenance burden. Siting Considerations In addition to considering the restrictions and adaptations of grassed swales to different regions and land uses, designers need to ensure that this management practice is feasible at the site in question because some site conditions (i.e., steep slopes, highly impermeable soils) might restrict the effectiveness of grassed channels. Drainage Area Grassed swales should generally treat small drainage areas of less than 5 acres. If the practices are used to treat larger areas, the flows and volumes through the Swale become too large to design the practice to treat storm water runoff through infiltration and filtering. Slone Grassed swales should be used on sites with relatively flat slopes of less than 4 percent slope; 1 to 2 percent slope is recommended. Runoff velocities within the channel become too high on steeper slopes. This can cause erosion and does not allow for infiltration or filtering in the Swale. Soils / Topography Grassed swales can be used on most soils, with some restrictions on the most impermeable soils. In the dry Swale (see Design Variations) a fabricated soil bed replaces on -site soils in order to ensure that runoff is filtered as it travels through the soils of the Swale. 79 I INational Menu of Best Management Practices ' Ground Water The depth to ground water depends on the type of Swale used. In the dry Swale and grassed channel options, designers should separate the bottom of the Swale from the ground water by at least 2 ft to prevent a moist Swale bottom, or contamination of the ground water. In the wet Swale option, treatment is enhanced by a wet pool in the practice, which is maintained by intersecting the ground water. Design Considerations ' Although there are different design variations of the grassed Swale (see Design Variations), there are some design considerations common to all three. One overriding similarity is the cross - sectional geometry of all three options. Swales should generally have a trapezoidal or parabolic cross section with relatively flat side slopes (flatter than 3:1). Designing the channel with flat side slopes maximizes the wetted perimeter. The wetted perimeter is the length along the edge of the Swale cross section where runoff flowing through the Swale is in contact with the vegetated sides and bottom of the Swale, Increasing the wetted perimeter slows runoff velocities and provides more contact with vegetation to encourage filtering and infiltration. Another advantage to flat side slopes is that runoff entering the grassed Swale from the side receives some pretreatment along the side slope_ The flat bottom of all three should be between 2 -8 ft wide. The minimum width ensures a minimum filtering surface for water quality treatment, and the maximum width prevents braiding, the formation of small channels within the Swale bottom. Another similarity among all three designs is the type of pretreatment needed. In all three design options, a small forebay should be used at the front of the Swale to trap incoming sediments. A ' pea gravel diaphragm, a small trench filled with river nm gravel, should be used as pretreatment for runoff entering the sides of the Swale. Two other features designed to enhance the treatment ability of grassed swales are a flat longitudinal slope (generally between I percent and 2 percent) and a dense vegetative cover in the channel. The flat slope helps to reduce the velocity of flow in the channel. The dense vegetation also helps reduce velocities, protect the channel from erosion, and act as a filter to treat storm water runoff. During construction, it is important to stabilize the channel before the turf has been established, either with a temporary grass cover or with the use of natural or synthetic erosion control products. In addition to treating runoff for water quality, grassed swales need to convey larger storms safely. Typical designs allow the runoff from the 2 -year storm (i.e., the storm that occurs, on average, once every two years) to flow through the Swale without causing erosion. Swales should also have the capacity to larger (typically a 10 -year storm) safely. pass storms Design Foriafions The following discussion identifies three different variations of open channel practices, including the grassed channel, the dry swale, and the wet swale. Grassed Channel Of the three grassed Swale designs, grassed channels are the most similar to a conventional drainage ditch, with the major differences being flatter side slopes and longitudinal slopes, and a slower design velocity for water quality treatment of small storm events_ Of all of the grassed 80 National Menu of Best Management Practices swale options, grassed channels are the least expensive but also provide the least reliable pollutant removal. The best application of a grassed channel is as pretreatment to other structural storm water practices. One major difference between the grassed channel and most of the other structural practices is the method used to size the practice. Most storm water management water quality practices are sized by volume. This method sets the volume available in the practice equal to the water quality volume, or the volume of water to be treated in the practice. The grassed channel, on the other hand, is a flow- rate -based design. Based on the peak flow from the water quality storm (this vanes from region to region, but a typical value is the I -inch storm), the channel should be designed so that runoff takes, on average, 10 minutes to flow from the top to the bottom of the channel. A procedure for this design can be found in Design of Storm Water Filtering Systems (CWP, 1996). Dry Swales Dry swales are similar in design to bioretention areas (see Bioretention fact sheet). These designs incorporate a fabricated soil bed into their design. The existing soil is replaced with a sand/soil mix that meets minimum permeability requirements. An underdrain system is used under the soil bed. This system is a gravel layer that encases a perforated pipe. Storm water treated in the soil bed flows through the bottom into the underdrain, which conveys this treated storm water to the storm drain system. Dry swales are a relatively new design, but studies of swales with a native soil similar to the man -made soil bed of dry swales suggest high pollutant removal. Wet Swales Wet swales intersect the ground water and behave almost like a linear wetland cell (see Storm Water Wetland fact sheet). This design variation incorporates a shallow permanent pool and wetland vegetation to provide storm water treatment. This design also has potentially high pollutant removal. One disadvantage to the wet swale is that it cannot be used in residential or commercial settings because the shallow standing water in the swale is often viewed as a potential nuisance by homeowners and also breeds mosquitos. Regional Variations Cold Climates In cold or snowy climates, swales may serve a dual purpose by acting as both a snow storage /treatment and a storm water management practice. This dual purpose is particularly relevant when Swales are used to treat road runoff If used for this purpose, swales should incorporate salt - tolerant vegetation, such as creeping bentgrass. Arid Climates In and or semi -arid climates, swales should be designed with drought- tolerant vegetation, such as buffalo grass. As pointed out in the Applicability section, the value of vegetated practices for water quality needs to be weighed against the cost of water needed to maintain them in arid and semi -arid regions. 81 I� National Menu of Best Management PTactiecs ' Limitations Grassed swales have some limitations, including the following: • Grassed large drainage swales cannot treat a very area. ' • Wet swales may become a nuisance due to mosquito breeding. • If designed improperly (e.g., if proper slope is not achieved), grassed channels will have very little pollutant removal. • A thick is for function vegetative cover needed these practices to properly. Maintenance Considerations Maintenance of grassed swales mostly involves maintenance of the grass or wetland plant cover. Typical maintenance activities are included in Table I. ' Adapted CWP, Table 1. Typical maintenance activities for grassed swales (Source: from 1996) ' Activity Schedule • Inspect pea gravel diaphragm for clogging and correct the problem. I � Inspect grass along side slopes for erosion and formation of rills or gullies and correct. I Remove trash and debris accumulated in the inflow � forebay. I Annual ' • Inspect and correct erosion problems in the sand/soil bed (semi - annual the first year) of dry swales. • Based on inspection, plant an alternative grass species if i the original grass cover has not been successfully established. ' Replant wetland species (for wet Swale) if not sufficiently established. • Rototill or cultivate the surface of the sand/soil bed of dry swales if the swale does not draw down within 48 hours. ' As needed (infrequent) • Remove sediment build -up within the bottom of the ' swale once it has accumulated to 25 percent of the original design volume. I .. ... ..... _— .... • Mow grass to maintain a height of 3-4 inches As needed seasonaally) lly) nt 8 a National Menu of Best Management practices Effectiveness Structural storm water management practices can be used to achieve four broad resource protection goals. These include flood control., channel protection, ground water recharge, and pollutant removal. Grassed swales can be used to meet ground water recharge and pollutant removal goals. Ground Water Recharge Grassed channels and dry swales can provide some ground water recharge as infiltration is achieved within the practice. Wet swales, however, generally do not contribute to ground water recharge. Infiltration is impeded by the accumulation of debris on the bottom of the swale. Pollutant Removal Few studies are available regarding the effectiveness of grassed channels. In fact, only 9 studies have been conducted on all grassed channels designed for water quality (Table 2). The data suggest relatively high removal rates for some pollutants, but negative removals for some bacteria, and fair performance for phosphorous. One study of available performance data (Schueler, 1997) estimates the removal rates for grassed channels as: Total Suspended Solids: 81% Total Phosphorous: 29% Nitrate Nitrogen: 38% Metals: 14% to 55% Bacteria: -50% Table 2. Grassed swale pollutant removal efficiency data Removal Efficiencies (% Removal) Study TSS T3 TN 1 3O Metals i Bacteria! Type Goldberg 1993 fi7.8 4.5 -�34 1 42 -62 3100 j grassed channel !Seattle Metro and Washington 1 1 60 1 1 45 - I I -25 Department of Ecology 1992 1 1 (Seattle Metro and Washington 8 83 2 29 2 25 )Department of Ecology, 1992 `. - --- 80 ! Dorman et al., 1989 3 398 1 18 �� 4 45 !liarper, 1988 8 87 y y83- 84 8 80 .Kercher et al., 1983 9 99 9 ---I 99 Harper, 1988....' - --- -- - - -81 —� 3 37 —�40 r r- 52 -- Koon,1995 6 67 3 39 �- 9 9 _ 93 2 -16 -25 i grassed channel i 4673 ! -25 + grassed channel _ - _._. _I. 7t} -80i dry Swale_ 37-81 - -� -�' dry Swale 88_90 ! _ —dry Swale — 99 it , dry Swale . 37-69 - wet Swale -35 to 6 j - wet Swale -100 - I drainage channel I� 1 1 I 1 h �1 National Menu of Best Management Practices Table 2. (continued) Removal Efficiencies (% Removal) Study ! TSS ! TP TN NO, '!Metals Bacteria i Type '.Yousef et al., 1985 _ 8 13 11 14-29 I drainage channel !. Occoquan Watershed Monitoring Lab, 1983 -50 -9.1 18.2 j - -100 - drainage channel 'Yousef et al., 1985 19.5 8 2 j 41 -90 j - drainage channel Occoquan Watershed _100 to !Monitoring Lab, 1983 31 -23 i 36.5 j 33 drainage channel :Welborn and Veenhuis, 1987 I 0 -25 -25 ! -25 0 drainage channel 'Yu et al., 1993 j 68 I 60 1 1 74 - j drainage channel (Dorman etal.,1989 65 i 41 - 11 F14 -55 - drainage channel '.Pitt and McLean, ] 986 0 0 - j 0 j 0 drainage channel j Oakland, 1983 j 33 -25 20-58 I 0 I drainage channel Dorman et al., 1989 ]i 488 j� drainage I drahannel While it is difficult to distinguish between different designs based on the small amount of available data, grassed channels generally have poorer removal rates than wet and dry swales, although wet swales appear to export soluble phosphorous (Harper, 1988; Keen, 1995). It is not clear why swales export bacteria. One explanation is that bacteria thrive in the warm swale soils. ' Another is that studies have not accounted for some sources of bacteria, such as local residents walking dogs within the grassed swale area. 1 j �I Cost Considerations Little data are available to estimate the difference in cost between various swale designs. One study (SWRPC, 1991) estimated the construction cost of grassed channels at approximately $0.25 per ft'`. This price does not include design costs or contingencies. Brown and Schueler (1997) estimate these costs at approximately 32 percent of construction costs for most storm water management practices. For swales, however, these costs would probably be significantly higher since the construction costs are so low compared with other practices. A more realistic estimate would be a total cost of approximately $0.50 per ftZ, which compares favorably with other storm water management practices. 1 84 I National Menu of Best Management Practices References , Center for Watershed Protection (CW P). 1996. Design of Stormwater Filtering Systems. Prepared for the Chesapeake Research Consortium, Solomons, MD, and USEPA Region V, , Chicago, IL, by the Center for Watershed Protection, Ellicott City, MD. Brown, W., and T. Schueler. 1997. The Economics of Stormwater BMPs in the Mid - Atlantic Region. Prepared for the Chesapeake Research Consortium, Edgewater, MD, by the Center for Watershed Protection, Ellicott City, MD. Dorman, M.E., J. Hartigan, R.F. Steg, and T. Quasebarth. 1989. Retention, Detention and , Overland Flow for Pollutant Removal From Highway Stormwater Runoff. Vol. 7. FHWA/RD 89/202. Federal Highway Administration, Washington, DC. Goldberg. 1993. Dayton Avenue Swale Biofiitration Study. Seattle Engineering Department, Seattle, WA. Harper, H. 1988. Effects of Stormwater Management Systems on Groundwater Quality. Prepared ' for Florida Department of Environmental Regulation, Tallahassee; FL, by Environmental Research and Design, Inc., Orlando, FL. for ' Kercher, W.C., J.C. Landon, and R. Massarelli. 1983. Grassy swales prove cost - effective water pollution control. Public Works, 16: 53 -55. Knott, J. 1995. Evaluation of Water Quality Ponds and Swales in the Issaquah /East Lake ' Sammamish Basins. King County Surface Water Management, Seattle, WA, and Washington Department of Ecology, Olympia, WA. Oakland, P.H. 1983. An evaluation of sormwater pollutant removal through grassed Swale treatment. In Proceedings of the International Symposium of Urban Hydrology, Hydraulics and Sediment Control, Lexington, KY. pp. 173 -182. , Occoquan Watershed Monitoring Laboratory. 1983. Final Report: Metropolitan Washington Urban Runoff Project. Prepared for the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments, , Washington, DC, by the Occoquan Watershed Monitoring Laboratory, Manassas, VA. Pitt, R., and J. McLean. 1986. Toronto Area Watershed Management Strategy Study: Number River Pilot Watershed Project. Ontario Ministry of Environment, Toronto, ON. , Schueler, T. 1997. Comparative Pollutant Removal Capability of Urban BMPs: A reanalysis. Watershed Protection Techniques 2(2):379 -383. Seattle Metro and Washington Department of Ecology. 1992. Biofiltration ,Swale Performance: Recommendations and Design Considerations. Publication No. 657. Water Pollution Control ' Department, Seattle, WA. Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission (SWRP(_'). 1991. Costs of Urban Nonpoint Source Water Pollution Control Measures. Technical report no. 31. Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission, Waukesha, Wl. 85 , National Menu of Best Management Practices References (continued) Wang, T., D. Spyridakis, B. Mar, and R. Horner. 1981. Transport, Deposition and Control of ' Heavy Metals in Highway Runoff. FHWA- WA- RD- 39 -10. University of Washington, Department of Civil Engineering, Seattle, WA. ' Welborn, C., and J. Veenhuis. 1987. Effects of Runoff Controls on the Quantity and Quality of Urban Runoff in Two Locations in Austin, TX. USGS Water Resources Investigations Report No. 87 -4004. U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, VA. YOUSef, Y., M. Wanielista, H. harper, D. Pearce, and R. Tolbert. 1985. Best Management Practices. Removal of Highway Contaminants By Roadside Swales. University of Central Florida and Florida Department of "Transportation, Orlando, FL. ' Yu, S., S. Barnes, and V. Gerde. 1993. Testing of Best Management Practices for Controlling Highway Runoff FfIWANA- 93 -R16. Virginia Transportation Research Council, Charlottesville, ' VA. Information Resources Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE). 2000. Maryland Stormwater Design Manual. [www.mde.state.md.us/ environment /wma/stormwatermanuall. Accessed May 22, 2001. Reeves, E. 1994. Performance and Condition of Biofilters in the Pacific Northwest. Watershed ' Protection Techniques 1(3):117 -119. Seattle Metro and Washington Department of Ecology. 1992. Biofittration Swale Performance. Recommendations and Design Considerations. Publication No. 657. Seattle Metro and Washington Department of Ecology, Olympia, WA. ' USEPA 1993. Guidance Specifying Management Measures for Sources of Nonpoint Pollution in Coastal Waters. EPA- 840 -B -92 -002. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water. Washington, DC. Watershed Management Institute (WMI). 1997. Operation, Maintenance, and Management of Stormwater Management Systems. Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water. Washington, DC, by the Watershed Management Institute, Ingleside, MD. I 1 1 LJ 1 86 National Menu of Best Management Practices Infiltration practices Infiltration Basin Postconstruction Storm Water Management in New Development and Redevelopment Description An infiltration basin is a shallow impoundment which is designed to infiltrate storm water into the ground water. This practice is believed to have a high pollutant removal efficiency and can also help recharge the ground water, thus restoring low flows to stream systems. Infiltration basins can be challenging to apply on many sites, however, because of soils requirements. In addition, some studies have shown relatively high failure rates compared with other management practices. Ultra -Urban Areas Ultra -urban areas are densely developed urban areas in which little pervious surface exists. In these areas, few storm water practices can be easily applied due to space limitations. Infiltration basins can rarely be applied in the ultra -urban environment. Two features that can restrict their use are the potential of infiltrated water to interfere with existing infrastructure, and the relatively poor infiltration capacity of most urban soils. In addition, while they consume only the space of the infiltration basin site itself, they need a continuous, relatively flat area. Thus, it is more difficult to fit them into small unusable areas on a site. Storm YVater Hot Spots A storm water hot spot is an area where land use or activities generate highly contaminated nmoff, with concentrations of pollutants in excess of those typically found in storm water. Infiltration basins should never receive runoff from storm water hot spots, unless the storm water 26 Applicability Infiltration basins are designed to collect storm water from impervious areas and provide Infiltration basins have select applications. Their pollutant removal benefits through detention use is often sharply restricted by concerns over and flR ratio n ' ground water contamination, soils, and clogging at the site. Regional Applicability ' Infiltration basins can be utilized in most regions of the country, with some design modifications in cold and and climates. In regions of karst (i.e., limestone) topography, these storm water management practices may not be applied due to concerns of sink hole formation and ground ■ water contamination. Ultra -Urban Areas Ultra -urban areas are densely developed urban areas in which little pervious surface exists. In these areas, few storm water practices can be easily applied due to space limitations. Infiltration basins can rarely be applied in the ultra -urban environment. Two features that can restrict their use are the potential of infiltrated water to interfere with existing infrastructure, and the relatively poor infiltration capacity of most urban soils. In addition, while they consume only the space of the infiltration basin site itself, they need a continuous, relatively flat area. Thus, it is more difficult to fit them into small unusable areas on a site. Storm YVater Hot Spots A storm water hot spot is an area where land use or activities generate highly contaminated nmoff, with concentrations of pollutants in excess of those typically found in storm water. Infiltration basins should never receive runoff from storm water hot spots, unless the storm water 26 National Menu of Best Management Practices has already been treated by another practice. This caution is due to potential ground water contamination. Storm Water Retrofit A storm water retrofit is a storm water practice (usually structural) put into place after development has occurred, to improve water quality, protect downstream channels, reduce flooding, or meet other specific objectives. Infiltration basins have limited applications as a storm water retrofit. Their use is restricted by three factors. First, infiltration basins should be used to treat small sites (less than 5 acres). Practices that are applied to small sites, such as infiltration basins, are generally a high -cost retrofit option in tCTm6 of construction cost and the maintenance burden associated with the large number of practices needed to retrofit a watershed. Second, it is often difficult to find areas where soils are appropriate for infiltration in an already urban or suburban environment. Finally, infiltration basins are best applied to small sites, yet need a flat, relatively continuous area. It is often difficult to find sites with this type of area available. Cold Water (Trout) Streams Infiltration basins are an excellent option for cold water streams b,scause they encourage infiltration of storm water and maintain dry weather flow. Because storm water travels underground to the stream, it has little opportunity to increase in temperature. Siting and Design Considerations When designing infiltration basins, designers need to carefully consider both the restrictions on the site and design features to improve the long -term performance of the practice. Siting Considerations Infiltration practices need to be located extremely carefully. In particular, designers need to ensure that the soils on the site are appropriate for infiltration, and that designs minimize the potential for ground water contamination and long -term maintenance problems. Draina e Area Infiltration basins have historically been used as regional facilities, serving for both quantity and quality control. In some regions of the country, this practice is feasible, particularly if the soils are particularly sandy. In most areas, however, infiltration basins experience high rates of failure when used in this manner. In general, the practice is best applied to relatively small drainage areas (i.e., less than 10 acres). Slove The bottom of infiltration basins needs to be completely flat to allow infiltration throughout the entire basin bottom. Soils /Tovoeravhv Soils and topography are strongly limiting factors when locating infiltration practices. Soils must be significantly permeable to ensure that the practice can infiltrate: quickly enough to reduce the potential for clogging, and soils that infiltrate too rapidly may not provide sufficient treatment, 27 I National Menu ol'Best Management Practices ' creating the potential for ground water contamination. The infiltration rate should range between 0.5 and 3 inches per hour. In addition, the soils should have no greater than 20 percent clay content, and less than 40 percent silt/clay content (MDE, 2000). Finally, infiltration basins may ' not be used in regions of karst topography, due to the potential for sinkhole formation or ground water contamination. Ground Water Designers always need to provide significant separation distance (2 to 5 feet) from the bottom of ' the infiltration basin and the seasonally high ground water table, to reduce the risk of contamination. Infiltration practices should also be separated from drinking water wells. Design Considerations ' Specific designs may vary considerably, depending on site constraints or preferences of the designer or community. There are some features, however, that should be incorporated into most infiltration basin designs. These design features can be divided into five basic categories_ pretreatment, treatment, conveyance, maintenance reduction, and landscaping. ' Pretreatment Pretreatment refers to design features that provide settling of large particles before runoff reaches a management practice, easing the long -term maintenance burden. Pretreatment is important for all structural management practices, but it is particularly important for infiltration practices. In order to ensure that pretreatment mechanisms are effective, designers should incorporate "multiple pretreatment," using practices such as grassed swales, sediment basins, and vegetated filter strips in series. Treatment Treatment design features enhance the pollutant removal of a practice. For infiltration practices, designers need to stabilize upland soils to ensure that the basin does not become clogged with sediment. In addition, the facility needs to be sized so that the volume of water to be treated infiltrates through the bottom in a given amount of time. Because infiltration basins are designed in this manner, infiltration basins designed on less permeable soils should be significantly larger than those designed on more permeable soils. ' Convevance ' Storm water needs to be conveyed through storm water management practices safely and in a way that minimizes erosion. Designers need to be particularly careful in ensuring that channels leading to an infiltration practice are designed to minimize erosion. In general, infiltration basins should be designed to treat only small storms (i.e., only for water quality). Thus, these practices should be designed "off- line," using a flow separator to divert only small flows to the practice. Maintenance Reduction In addition to regular maintenance activities, designers also need to incorporate features into the design to ensure that the maintenance burden of a practice is reduced. These features can make regular maintenance activities easier or reduce the need to perform maintenance. In infiltration basins, designers need to provide access to the basin for regular maintenance activities. Where 1 28 National Menu of Best Management Practices possible, a means to drain the basin, such as an underdrain, should be provided in case the bottom becomes clogged. This feature allows the basin to be drained and accessed for maintenance in the event that the water has ponded in the basin bottorn or the soil is saturated. Landscaping Landscaping can enhance the aesthetic value of storm water practices or improve their function. In infiltration basins, the most important purpose of vegetation is to reduce the tendency of the practice to clog. Upland drainage needs to be properly stabilized with a thick layer of vegetation, particularly immediately following construction. In addition, providing a thick turf at the basin bottom helps encourage infiltration and prevent the formation of rills in the basin bottom. Design Variations Some modifications may be needed to ensure the performance of infiltration basins in and and cold climates. Arid or Semi -Arid Climates In and regions, infiltration practices are often highly recommended because of the need to recharge the ground water. In arid regions, designers need to emphasize pretreatment even more strongly to ensure that the practice does not clog, because of the high sediment concentrations associated with storm water runoff in areas such as the Southwest. In addition, the basin bottom may be planted with drought- tolerant species and/or covered with an alternative material such as sand or gravel. Cold Climates In extremely cold climates (i.e., regions that experience permafrost), infiltration basins may be an infeasible option. In most cold climates, infiltration basins can be a feasible practice, but there are some challenges to its use. First, the practice may become inoperable during some portions of the year when the surface of the basin becomes frozen. Other design features also may be incorporated to deal with the challenges of cold climates. One such challenge is the volume of runoff associated with the spring snowmelt event. The capacity of the infiltration basin might be increased to account for snowmelt volume. Another option is the use of a seasonably operated facility (Oberts.. 1994). A seasonally operated infihrationMetention basin combines several techniques to improve the performance of infiltration practices in cold climates. Two features, the underdrain system and level control valves, are useful in cold climates. These features are used as follows: At the beginning of the winter season, the level control valve is opened and the soil is drained. As the snow begins to melt in the spring, the underdrain and the level control valves are ,iosed. The snowmen is infiltrated until the capacity of the soil is reached. Then, the facility acts as a detention facility, providing storage for particles to settle. Other design features can help to minimize problems associated with winter conditions, particularly concerns that chlorides from road salting may contaminate ground water. The basin may be disconnected during the winter to ensure that chlorides do not enter the ground water in areas where this is a problem, or if the basin is used to treat roadside runoff. Designers may also want to reconsider application of infiltration practices on parking lots or roads where deicing is used, unless it is confirmed that the practice will not cause elevated chloride levels in the ground 29 I U u EJ n' u 1 �J 1 1 1 National Menu of Best Managerient Practices water. If the basin is used for snow storage, or to treat roadside or parking lot runoff, the basin bottom should be planted with salt - tolerant vegetation. Limitations Although infiltration basins can be useful practices, they have several limitations. Infiltration basins are not generally aesthetic practices, particularly if they clog. If they clog, the soils become saturated, and the practice can be a source of mosquitoes. In addition, these practices arc challenging to apply because of concerns over ground water contamination and sufficient soil infiltration. Finally, maintenance of infiltration practices can be burdensome, and they have a relatively high rate of failure. Maintenance Considerations Regular maintenance is critical to the successful operation of infiltration basins (see Table 1). Historically, infiltration basins have had apoor track record. In one study conducted in Prince George's County, Maryland (Galli, 1992), all of the infiltration basins investigated clogged within 2 years. This trend may not be the same in soils with high infiltration rates, however. A study of 23 infiltration basins in the Pacific Northwest showed better long -term performance in an area with highly permeable soils (Hilding, 1996). In this study, few of the infiltration basins had failed after 10 years. Table 1. Typical maintenance activities for infiltration basins (Source: Modified from WMI, 1997) Activity i Inspect facility for signs ofwetness or damage to structures Note eroded areas. • If dead or dying grass on the bottom is observed, check to ensure that water percolates 2 -3 days following storms. Note signs of petroleum hydrocarbon contamination and handle properly. I i I • i Mow and remove litter and debris. Stabilize of eroded banks. Repair undercut and eroded areas at inflow and outflow structures. Disc or otherwise aerate bottom. Dethatch basin bottom. Scrape bottom and remove sediment. Restore original cross - section and infiltration rate. Seed or sod to restore ground cover. 1 30 Schedule Semi - annual inspection Standard maintenance (as needed) Annual maintenance 5 -year maintenance I National Mena of Best Management Practices Effectiveness Structural management practices can be used to achieve four broad resource protection goals. These include flood control, channel protection, ground water recharge, and pollutant removal. Infiltration basins can provide ground water recharge and pollutant removal. Ground Water Recharge Infiltration basins recharge the ground water because runoff is treated for water quality by filtering through the soil and discharging to ground water. Pollutant Removal Very little data are available regarding the pollutant removal associated with infiltration basins. It is generally assumed that they have very high pollutant removal because none of the storm water entering the practice remains on the surface. Schueler (1987) estimated pollutant removal for infiltration basins based on data from land disposal of wastewater. The average pollutant removal, assuming the infiltration basin is sized to treat the runoff from a 1 -inch storm, is TSS 75% Phosphorous 60-70% Nitrogen 55-60% Metals 85 -90% Bacteria 90% These removal efficiencies assume that the infiltration basin is well designed and maintained. The information in the Siting and Design Considerations and Maintenance Considerations sections represent the best available information on how to properly design these practices. The design references below also provide additional information. Cost Considerations Infiltration basins are relatively cost - effective practices because little infrastructure is needed when constructing them_ One study estimated the total construction cost at about $2 per ft' (adjusted for inflation) of storage for a 0.25 -acre basin (SWRPC, 1991). Infiltration basins typically consume about 2 to 3 percent of the site draining to them, which is relatively small. Maintenance costs are estimated at 5 to 10 percent of construction costs. One cost concern associated with infiltration practices is the maintenance burden and longevity. If improperly maintained, infiltration basins have a high failure rate (see Maintenance Considerations)_ Thus, it may be necessary to replace the basin after a relatively short period of time. 31 National Menu of Best Management practices References Galli, J. 1992. Analysis of Urban BMP Performance and Longevity in Prince George's County, Maryland. Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments, Washington, DC. Hilding, K. 1996. Longevity of infiltration basins assessed in Puget Sound. Watershed Protection Techniques 1(3):124-125, Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE). 2000. Maryland Stormwater Design Manual. [http: / /www , mde.state.md.us/ environment /wma/stormwatermanual]. Accessed May 22, 2001. Oberts, G. 1994. Performance of Stormwater Ponds and Wetlands in Winter. Watershed Protection Techniques 1(2):64 -68. Scheeler, T. 1987. Controlling Urban Runoff. A Practical Manua! for Planning and Designing Urban BMPs. Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments, Washington, DC. Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission (SWRPC). 1991. Costs of Urban Nonpoint Source Water Pollution Control Measures. Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission, Waukesha, 1Nq. Watershed Management Institute (WMI). 1997. Operation, Maintenance, and Management of Stormwater Management Systems. Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water, Washington, DC. Information Resources Center for Watershed Protection (CWP). 1997. Stormwater BMP Design Supplement for Cold Climates. Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds. Washington, DC. Ferguson, B.K., 1994. Storrnwaterinfiltration. CRC Press, Ann Arbor, MI. USEPA. 1993. Guidance to Specify Management Measures for Sources of Nonpoint Pollution in Coastal Waters. EPA - 840 -B -92 -002. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC. 32 I L r- I_ u 1 n I�I I u I National Menu of Best Management Practices Structural BMPs Ponds Dry Extended Detention Pond Postconstruction Storm Water Management in New Development and Redevelopment Description Dry extended detention ponds (a.k.a. dry ponds, extended detention basins, detention ponds, extended detention ponds) are basins whose outlets have been designed to detain the storm water runoff from a water quality design storm for some minimum time (e.g., 24 hours) to allow particles and associated pollutants to settle. Unlike wet ponds, these facilities do not have a large permanent pool. However, they are often designed with small pools at the inlet and outlet of the basin. They can also be used to provide flood control by including additional flood detention storage. A dry extended detention pond is designed to temporarily detain runoff during storm events Applicability ' Dry extended detention ponds arc among the most widely applicable storm water management practices. Although they have limited applicability in highly urbanized settings, they have few other restrictions. Regional Applicability Dry extended detention ponds can be applied in all regions of the United States. Some minor design modifications might be needed, however, in cold or arid climates or in regions with karst (i.e. limestone) topography. Ultra- Urban Areas ' Ultra -urban areas are densely developed urban areas in which little pervious surface is present. It is difficult to use dry extended detention ponds in the ultra -urban environment because of the land area each pond consumes. They can, however, be used in an ultra -urban environment if a ' relatively large area is available downstream of the pond. Storm Water Hot .Spots Storm water hot spots are areas where land use or activities generate highly contaminated runoff, with concentrations of pollutants in excess of those typically found in storm water. Dry extended 1 5 National Menu of Best Management Practices detention ponds can accept runoff from storm water hot spots, but they need significant separation from ground water if they will be used for this purpose. Storm Water Retrofit A storm water retrofit is a storm water management practice (usually structural) put into place after development has occurred to improve water quality, protect downstream channels, reduce flooding, or meet other specific objectives. Dry extended detention ponds are very useful storm water retrofits, and they have two primary applications as a retrofit design. In many communities in the past, detention basins have been designed for flood control. It is possible to modify these facilities to incorporate features that encourage water quality control and/or channel protection. It is also possible to construct new dry ponds in open areas of a watershed to capture existing drainage. Cold Water (Trout) Streams A study in prince George's County, Maryland, found that storm water management practices can increase stream temperatures (GalIi, I990). Overall, dry extended detention ponds increased temperature by about 5 °F. In cold water streams, dry ponds should be designed to detain storm water for a relatively short time (i.e., less than I2 hours) to minimize the amount of warming that occurs in the practice. Siting and Design Considerations Siting Considerations Although dry extended detention ponds can be applied rather broadly, designers need to ensure that they are feasible at the site in question. This section provides basic guidelines for siting dry extended detention ponds. Drainage Area In general, dry extended detention ponds should be used on sites with a minimum area of 10 acres. On smaller sites, it can be challenging to provide channel or water quality control because the orifice diameter at the outlet needed to control relatively small storms becomes very small and thus prone to clogging. In addition, it is generally more cost - effective to control larger drainage areas due to the economies of scale (see Cost Considerations). Slope Dry extended detention basins can be used on sites with slopes up to about I5 percent. The local slope needs to be relatively flat, however, to maintain reasonably flat side slopes in the practice. There is no minimum slope requirement, but there does need to be enough elevation drop from the pond inlet to the pond outlet to ensure that flow can move through the system. Soils / Topography Extended detention basins can be used with almost all soils and geology, with minor design adjustments for regions of karst topography or in rapidly percohaing soils such as sand. In these areas, extended detention ponds should be designed with an impermeable liner to prevent ground water contamination or sinkhole formation. I� National Menu of Best Management Practices ' Ground Water Except for the case of hot spot runoff, the only consideration regarding ground water is that the base of the extended detention facility should not intersect the ground water table. A permanently wet bottom may become a mosquito breeding ground. Research in Southwest Florida (Santana et a1., 1994) demonstrated that intermittently flooded systems, such as dry extended detention ponds, produce more mosquitoes than other pond systems, particularly when the facilities remained wet for more than 3 days following heavy rainfall. Design Considerations Specific designs may vary considerably, depending on site constraints or preferences of the designer or community. Some features, however, should be incorporated into most dry extended detention pond designs. These design features can be divided into five basic categories: pretreatment, treatment, conveyance, maintenance reduction, and landscaping. Conveyance Conveyance of storm water runoff into and through a storm water management practice is a critical component of any such practice. Storm water should be conveyed to and from practices safely in a manner that tmmmtzes erosion potential. The outfall of pond systems should always be stabilized to prevent scour. To convey low flows through the system, designers should provide a pilot channel. A pilot channel is a surface channel that should be used to convey low flows through the pond. In addition, an emergency spillway should be provided to safely convey large flood events. To help mitigate warming at the outlet channel, designers should provide shade around the channel at the pond outlet. Maintenance Redaction In addition to regular maintenance activities needed to maintain the function of storm water practices, some design features can be incorporated to ease the maintenance burden of each practice. In dry extended detention ponds, a "micropool" at the outlet can prevent resuspension of sediment and outlet clogging. A good design includes maintenance access to the forebay and micropool. I Pretreatment Pretreatment incorporates design features that help to settle out coarse sediment particles. By removing these particles from runoff before they reach the large permanent pool, the maintenance burden of the pond is reduced. In ponds, pretreatment is achieved with a sediment forebay, which is a small pool (typically about 10 percent of the volume of water to be treated for pollutant removal). Treatment Treatment design features help enhance the ability of a storm water management practice to remove pollutants. Designing dry ponds with a high length -to -width ratio (i.e., at least I.5.1) and incorporating other design features to maximize the flow path effectively increases the detention time in the system by eliminating the potential of flow to short- circuit the pond. Designing ponds with relatively flat side slopes can also help to lengthen the effective flow path. Finally, the pond should be sized to detain the volume of runoff to be treated for between 12 and 48 hours. Conveyance Conveyance of storm water runoff into and through a storm water management practice is a critical component of any such practice. Storm water should be conveyed to and from practices safely in a manner that tmmmtzes erosion potential. The outfall of pond systems should always be stabilized to prevent scour. To convey low flows through the system, designers should provide a pilot channel. A pilot channel is a surface channel that should be used to convey low flows through the pond. In addition, an emergency spillway should be provided to safely convey large flood events. To help mitigate warming at the outlet channel, designers should provide shade around the channel at the pond outlet. Maintenance Redaction In addition to regular maintenance activities needed to maintain the function of storm water practices, some design features can be incorporated to ease the maintenance burden of each practice. In dry extended detention ponds, a "micropool" at the outlet can prevent resuspension of sediment and outlet clogging. A good design includes maintenance access to the forebay and micropool. I National Menu of Best Management Practices Another design feature that can reduce maintenance needs is a non - clogging outlet. Typical examples include a reverse -slope pipe or a weir outlet with a trash tack. A reverse slope pipe draws from below the permanent pool extending in a reverse angle up to the riser and determines the water elevation of the micropool. Because these outlets draw water from below the level of the permanent pool, they are less likely to be clogged by floating debris. Landscaping, Designers should maintain a vegetated buffer around the pond and should select plants within the extended detention zone (i.e., the portion of the pond up to the elevation where storm water is detained) that can withstand both wet and dry periods. The side slopes of dry ponds should be relatively flat to reduce safety risks. Design Variations Dry Detention Ponds Dry detention ponds are similar in design to extended detention ponds, except that they do not incorporate features to improve water quality. In particular, these practices do not detain storm water from small -flow events. Therefore, detention ponds provide almost no pollutant removal. However, dry ponds can help to meet flood control, and sometimes channel protection, objectives in a watershed. Tank Storage Another variation of the dry detention pond design is the use of tank storage. In these designs, storm water runoff is conveyed to large storage tanks or vaults underground. This practice is most often used in the ultra -urban environment, on small sites where no other opportunity is available to provide flood control. Tank storage is provided on small areas because providing underground storage for a large drainage area would generally be cost - prohibitive. Because the drainage area contributing to tank storage is typically small, the outlet diameter needed to reduce the flow from very small storms would very small. A very small outlet diameter, along with the underground location of the tanks, creates the potential for debris being caught in the outlet and resulting maintenance problems. Since it is necessary to control small runoff events (such as the runoff from a 1 -inch storm) to improve water quality, it is generally infeasible to use tank storage for water quality and generally impractical to use it to protect stream channels. Regional Variations Arid or Semi -Arid Climates In and and semi -arid regions, some modifications might be needed to conserve scarce water resources. Any landscaping plans should prescribe drought - tolerant vegetation wherever possible. In addition, the wet forebay can be replaced with an alternative dry pretreatment, such as a detention cell. One opportunity in regions with a distinct wet and dry season, as in many arid regions, is to use regional extended detention ponds as a recreation area such as a ball field during the dry season. National Menu of Best Management Practices Cold Climates In cold climates, some additional design features can help to treat the spring snowmelt. One such modification is to increase the volume available for detention to help treat this relatively large runoff event. In some cases, dry facilities may be an option as a snow storage facility to promote some treatment of plowed snow. If a pond is used to treat road runoff or is used for snow storage, ' landscaping should incorporate salt - tolerant species. Finally, sediment might need to be removed from the forebay more frequently than in warmer climates (see Maintenance Considerations for guidelines) to account for sediment deposited as a result of road sanding. Limitations Although dry extended detention ponds are widely applicable, they have some limitations that might make other storm water management options preferable: Dry extended detention ponds have only moderate pollutant removal when compared to other structural storm water practices, and they are ineffective at removing soluble pollutants (See Effectiveness). • Dry extended detention ponds may become a nuisance due to mosquito breeding. Habitat destruction may occur during construction if the practice is designed in- stream or within the stream buffer. • Although wet ponds can increase property values, dry ponds can actually detract from the value of a home (see Cost Considerations). Dry extended detention ponds on their own only provide peak flow reduction and do little to control overall runoff volume, which could result in adverse downstream impacts. Maintenance Considerations In addition to incorporating features into the pond design to minimize maintenance, some regular maintenance and inspection practices are needed. Table I outlines some of these practices. Effectiveness Structural management practices can be used to achieve four broad resource protection goals: flood control, channel protection, ground water recharge, and pollutant removal. Dry extended detention basins can provide flood control and channel protection, as well as some pollutant removal. Flood Control One objective of storm water management practices can be to reduce the flood hazard associated with large storm events by reducing the peak flow associated with these storms. Dry extended detention basins can easily be designed for flood control, and this is actually the primary purpose of most extended detention ponds. National Menu of Best Management Practices Table 1. Typical maintenance activities for dry ponds (Source: Modified from WMI, 1997) Activity Schedule • Note erosion of pond banks or bottom Semiannual inspection • Inspect for damage to the embankment • Monitor for sediment accumulation in the facility and Annual forebay • Examine to ensure that inlet and outlet devices are free of inspection debris and operational • Repair undercut or eroded areas • Mow side slopes • Manage pesticide and nutrients Standard maintenance • Remove litter and debris • Seed or sod to restore dead or damaged ground cover Annual maintenance (as needed) . Remove sediment from the forebay 5- to 7 -year maintenance • Monitor sediment accumulations, and remove sediment when the pond volume has been reduced by 25 percent 25- to 50-year maintenance Channel Protection One result of urbanization is the geomorphic changes that occur in response to modified hydrology. Traditionally, dry extended detention basins have provided control of the 2 -year storm (i.e., the storm that occurs, on average, once every 2 years) for channel protection. It appears that this control has been relatively ineffective, and recent research suggests that control of a smaller storm might be more appropriate (MacRae, 1996). Slightly modifying the design of dry extended detention basins to reduce the flow of smaller storm events might make them effective tools in reducing downstream erosion. Pollutant Removal Dry extended detention basins provide moderate pollutant removal, provided that the design features described in the Siting and Design Considerations section are incorporated. Although they can be effective at removing some pollutants through settling, they are less effective at removing soluble pollutants because of the absence of a permanent pool. A few studies are available on the effectiveness of dry extended detention ponds. Typical removal rates, as reported by Schueler (1997), are as follows: Total suspended solids: 61% Total phosphorus: 19% Total nitrogen: 31 % Nitrate nitrogen: 9 °10 Metals: 26 % -54% There is considerable variability in the effectiveness of ponds, and it is believed that properly designing and maintaining ponds may help to improve their performance. The siting and design criteria presented in this sheet reflect the best current information and experience to improve the 10 National Menu of Best Managcrncnt Practices performance of wet ponds. A recent joint project of the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) and the USEPA Office of Water might help to isolate specific design features that can improve performance. The National Storm Water Best Management Practice (BMP) database is a compilation of storm water practices that includes both design information and performance data for various practices. As the database expands, inferences about the extent to which specific design criteria influence pollutant removal may be made. For more information on this database, access the ASCE web page at http: / /www.asce.ora. Cost Considerations Dry extended detention ponds arc the least expensive storm water management practice, on the basis of cost per unit area treated. The construction costs associated with these facilities range considerably. One recent study evaluated the cost of all pond systems (Brown and Schueler, 1997). Adjusting for inflation, the cost of dry extended detention ponds can be estimated with the equation C = 12.4V °'60 where: C = Construction, design, and permitting cost, and V = Volume needed to control the 10 -year storm (ft'). rUsing this typical equation, construction costs are $ 41,600 for a I acre -foot pond $ 239,000 for a 10 acre -foot pond $ 1,380,000 for a 100 acre -foot pond Interestingly, these costs are generally slightly higher than the cost of wet ponds on a cost per total volume basis. Dry extended detention ponds are generally less expensive on a given site, however, because they are usually smaller than a wet pond design for the same site. Ponds do not consume a large area compared to the total area treated (typically 2 to 3 percent of the contributing drainage area). It is important to note, however, that each pond is generally large. Other practices, such as filters or swales, may be "squeezed in" on relatively unusable land, but ponds need a relatively large continuous area. For ponds, the annual cost of routine maintenance is typically estimated at about 3 to 5 percent of the construction cost. Alternatively, a community can estimate the cost of the maintenance activities outlined in the maintenance section. Finally, ponds are long -lived facilities (typically longer than 20 years). Thus, the initial investment into pond systems can be spread over a relatively long time period. Another economic concern associated with dry ponds is that they might detract slightly from the value of adjacent properties. One study found that dry ponds can actually detract from the perceived value of homes adjacent to a dry pond by between 3 and 10 percent (Emmerling- Dinovo, 1995). ' 11 National Menu of r3est Management Practices References Design References: Denver Urban Drainage and Flood Control District. 1992. Urban Storm Drainage Criteria Manual— Volume 3: Bert Management Practicer. Denver, CO. Watershed Management Institute (WMI). 1997. Operation, Maintenance, and Management of Storm Water Management Systems. Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water. Washington, DC. Other References: Brown, W., and T. Schueler. 1997. The Economics of Storm Water BMPs in the Mid - Atlantic Region. Prepared for Chesapeake Research Consortium. Edgewatea, MD. Center for Watershed Protection. Ellicott City, MD. Emmerling- Dinovo C. 1995. Storm Water Detention Basins and Residential Locational Decisions. Water Resources Bulletin 31(3): 515 -521 Galli, J. 1990. Thermal Impacts Associated with Urbanization and Storm Water Management Bert Management Practices. Metropolitan Washington Council o-' Governments. Prepared for Maryland Department of the Environment, Baltimore, MD. MacRae, C. 1996. Experience from Morphological Research on Canadian Streams: Is Control of the Two -Year Frequency Runoff Event the Best Basis for Stream Channel Protection? In Effects of Watershed Development and Management on Aquatic Ecosystems. American Society of Civil Engineers. Edited by L. Roesner. Snowbird, UT. pp. 144 -162. Santana, F., J. Wood, R. Parsons, and S. Chamberlain. 1994. Control of Mosquito Breeding in Permitted Storm Water Systems. Prepared for Southwest Florida Water Management District, Brooksville, FL. Schueler, T. 1997. Influence of Ground Water on Performance of Storm Water Ponds in Florida. Watershed Protection Techniques 2(4):525 528. Information Resources Center for Watershed Protection (CWP), Environmental Quality Resources, and Loiederman Associates. 1997. Maryland Storm Water Design Manual. Draft. Prepared for Maryland Department of the Environment, Baltimore, MD. Center for Watershed Protection (CWP). 1997. Storm Water BMP Design Supplement for Cold Climates. Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Wetlands, Oceans anc Watersheds. Washington, DC. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1993. Guidance Specifying Management Measures for Sources ofNonpoint Pollution. in Coastal Waters. I:PA- 840 -B -92 -002. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC. 12 7 11 J I Catch Basins /Catch Basin Inserts Postconstruction Storm Water Management in New Development and Redevelopment Description A catch basin (a.k.a. storm drain inlet, curb inlet) is an inlet to the storm drain system that typically includes a grate or curb inlet and a sump to capture sediment, debris, and associated pollutants. They are also used in combined sewer overflow (CSO) watersheds to capture floatables and settle some solids. Catch basins act as pretreatment for other treatment practices by capturing large sediments. The performance of catch basins at removing sediment and other pollutants depends on the design of the catch basin (e.g., the size of the sump) and maintenance procedures to retain the storage available in the sump to capture sediment. A worker inserts a catch basin insert for of and grease, trash, debris, and sediment removal from storm water as it enters the storm drainage system (Source: Ablech Industries, 2001) Catch basin efficiency can be improved using inserts, which can be designed to remove oil and grease, trash, debris, and sediment. Some inserts are designed to drop directly into existing catch basins, while others may require extensive retrofit construction. Applicability Catch basins are used in drainage systems throughout the United States. However, many catch basins are not ideally designed for sediment and pollutant capture. Ideal application of catch basins is as pretreatment to another storm water management practice. Retrofitting existing catch basins may help to improve their performance substantially. A simple retrofit option is to ensure that all catch basins have a hooded outlet to prevent floatable materials, such as trash and debris, from entering the storm drain system. Catch basin inserts for both new development and retrofits at existing sites may be preferred when available land is limited, as in urbanized areas. Limitations Catch basins have three major limitations, including: • Even ideally designed catch basins cannot remove pollutants as well as structural storm water management practices, such as wet ponds, sand filters, and storm water wetlands. • Unless frequently maintained, catch basins can become a source of pollutants through resuspension. • Catch basins cannot effectively remove soluble pollutants or fine particles. 93 Siting and Design Considerations The performance of catch basins is related to the volume in the sump (i.e., the storage in the catch basin below the outlet). lager et al. (1997) described an "optimal' catch basin sizing criterion, which relates all catch basin dimensions to the diameter of the outlet pipe (D): The diameter of the catch basin should be equal to 4D. The sump depth should be at least 4D. This depth should be increased if cleaning is infrequent or if the area draining to the catch basin has high sediment loads. The top of the outlet pipe should be 1.5 D from the bottom of the inlet to the catch basin. Catch basins can also be sized to accommodate the volume of sediment that enters the system. Pitt et al. (1997) propose a sizing criterion based on the concentration of sediment in storm water runoff. The catch basin is sized, with a factor of safet,/, to accommodate the annual sediment load in the catch basin sump. This method is preferable where high sediment loads are anticipated, and where the optimal design described above is suspected to provide little treatment. The basic design should also incorporate a hooded outlet to prevent floatable materials and trash from entering the storm drain system. Adding a screen to the top of the catch basin would not likely improve the performance of catch basins for pollutant removal, but would help capture trash entering the catch basin (Pitt et al., 1997). Several varieties of catch basin inserts exist for filtering runoff. There are two basic catch basin insert varieties. One insert option consists of a series of trays, with the top tray serving as an initial sediment trap, and the underlying trays composed of media filters. Another option uses filter fabric to remove pollutants from storm water runoff. Yet another option is a plastic box that Sts directly into the catch basin. The box construction is the filtering medium. Hydrocarbons are removed as the storm water passes through the box while trash, rubbish, and sediment remain in the box itself as storm water exits. These devices have a very small volume, compared to the volume of the catch basin sump, and would typically require very frequent sediment removal. Bench test studies found that a variety of options showed little removal of total suspended solids, partially due to scouring from relatively small (6- month) storm events (ICBK;, 1995). One design adaptation of the standard catch basin is to incorporate infiltration through the catch basin bottom_ Two challenges are associated with this design. 'The first is potential ground water impacts, and the second is potential clogging, preventing infiltration. Infiltrating catch basins should not be used in commercial or industrial areas, because of possible ground water contamination. While it is difficult to prevent clogging at the bottom of the catch basin, it might be possible to incorporate some pretreatment into the design. Maintenance Considerations Typical maintenance of catch basins includes trash removal if a screen or other debris capturing device is used, and removal of sediment using a vactor truck. Operators need to be properly trained in catch basin maintenance. Maintenance should include keeping a log of the amount of sediment collected and the date of removal. Some cities have incorporated the use 94 of GIS systems to track sediment collection and to optimize future catch basin cleaning efforts. One study (Pitt, 1985) concluded that catch basins can capture sediments up to approximately 60 percent of the sump volume. When sediment fills greater than 60 percent of their volume, catch basins reach steady state. Storm flows can then resuspend sediments trapped in the catch basin, and will bypass treatment. Frequent clean -out can retain the volume in the catch basin sump available for treatment of storm water flows. At a minimum, catch basins should be cleaned once or twice per year (Aronson et al., 1993). Two studies suggest that increasing the frequency of maintenance can improve the performance of catch basins, particularly in industrial or commercial areas. One study of 60 catch basins in Alameda County, California, found that increasing the maintenance frequency from once per year to twice per year could increase the total sediment removed by catch basins on an annual basis (Mineart and Singh, 1994). Annual sediment removed per inlet was 54 pounds for annual cleaning, 70 pounds for semi - annual and quarterly cleaning, and 160 pounds for monthly cleaning. For catch basins draining industrial uses, monthly cleaning increased total annual sediment collected to six times the amount collected by annual cleaning (180 pounds versus 30 pounds). These results suggest that, at least for industrial uses, more frequent cleaning of catch basins may improve efficiency. However, the cost of increased operation and maintenance costs needs to be weighed against the improved pollutant removal. In some regions, it may be difficult to find environmentally acceptable disposal methods for collected sediments. The sediments may not always be land - filled, land - applied, or introduced into the sanitary sewer system due to hazardous waste, pretreatment, or ground water regulations. This is particularly true when catch basins drain runoff from hot spot areas. Effectiveness What is known about the effectiveness of catch basins is limited to a few studies. Table 1 outlines the results of some of these studies. Table 1. Pollutant removal of catch basins (percent). Study Notes CO BO ' N - TP' ' Metals D' D' Pitt et al., 1997 ! - 32 Aronson et al., Only very small storms were j 64 10- ! 54- 7983 ;monitored in this study. 97 56 88 - -- - - -- - - -- - -I ,Mineart and Annual load reduction estimated For Copper 'Singh, 1994 based on concentrations and 3-4% (Annual cleaning) ! mass of catch basin sediment 15% (Monthly cleaning) ' TSS =total suspended solids, COD = chemical oxygen demand; BOD- biological oxygen demand, TN =total nitrogen, TP -total phosphors 95 Cost Considerations A typical pre -cast catch basin costs between $2,000 and $3,000. The true pollutant removal cost associated with catch basins, however, is the long -term maintenance cost. A vactor truck, the most common method of catch basin cleaning, costs between $125,000 and $150,000. This initial cost may be high for smaller Phase II communities. However, it may be possible to share a vactor truck with another community. Typical vactor trucks can store between 10 and 15 cubic yards of material, which is enough storage for three to five catch basins with the "optimat" design and an 18 -inch inflow pipe. Assuming semi - annual cleaning, and that the vactor truck could be filled and material disposed of twice in one day, one truck would be sufficient to clean between 750 and 1,000 catch basins. Another maintenance cost is the staff time needed to operate the truck. Depending on the regulations within a community, disposal costs of the sediment captured in catch basins may be significant. Retrofit catch basin inserts range from as little as $400 for a "drop -in" type to as much as $10,000 or more for more elaborate designs. References AbTech Industries. 2001. Photo of Catch Basin Insert. AbTech Industries, Scottsdale, AZ. Aronson, G., D. Watson, and W. Pisaro. Evaluation of Catch Basin Performance for Urban Stormwater Pollution Control. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. Interagency Catch Basin Insert Committee (lCBIC). 1995. Evaluation of Commercially- Available Catch Basin Inserts for the Treatment of Stormwater Runofffr om Developed Sites. Seattle, WA. Lager, J., W. Smith, R. Finn, and E. Finnemore. 1977. Urban .Stormwater Management and Technology: Update and Users' Guide. Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. EPA- 600/8 -77 -014. 313 pp. Mineart, P., and S. Singh. 1994. Storm Inlet Pilot Study. Alameda County Urban Runoff Clean Water Program, Oakland, CA. Pitt, R., and P. Bissonnette. 1984. Bellevue Urban Runoff Program Summary Report. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Water Planning Division, Washington, DC. Pitt, R., M. Lilbum, S. Nix, S.R. Durrans, S. Burian, J. Voorhees, and J. Martinson. 2000. Guidance Manual for Integrated IVet Weather Flow (WWF) Collection and Treatment Systems,for Newly Urbanized Areas (New W1,VFSystems). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, Cincinnati. OH. 96 LJ I National Menu of Best Management Practices In -Line Storage Postconstruction Storm Water Management in New Development and Redevelopment Description In -line storage refers to a number of practices designed to use the storage within the storm drain system to detain flows. While these practices can reduce storm peak flows, they are unable to improve water quality or protect downstream channels. Storage is achieved by placing devices in the storm drain system to restrict the rate of flow. Devices can slow the rate of flow by backing up flow, as in the case of a dam or weir, or through the use of Berm Controlled Discharge to { Sewer System Storm Water Storage Longitudinal Street Profile Basin Note: Not to scale and great vertical exaggeration Catch basins can be equipped with flow restrictors vortex valves, devices that reduce flow rates to temporarily detain storm water in the conveyance by creating a helical flow path in the system structure. A description of various flow regulators is included in Urbonas and Stahre (1990). Applicability In -line storage practices serve the same purpose as traditional detention basins (see Dry Extended Detention Pond). These practices can act as a surrogate for aboveground storage when little space is available for aboveground storage facilities. Limitations In -line storage has several limitations, including: • In -line storage practices only control flow, and thus are not able to improve the water quality of storm water runoff. If improperly designed, these practices may cause upstream flooding. Siting and Design Considerations Flow regulators cannot be applied to all storm drain systems. In older cities, the storm drainpipes may not be oversized, and detaining stonn water within them would cause upstream flooding. Another important issue in siting these practices is the slope of the pipes in the system. In areas with very flat slopes, restricting flow within the system is likely to cause upstream flooding because introducing a regulator into the system will cause flows to back up a long distance before the regulator. In steep pipes, on the other hand, a storage flow regulator cannot utilize much of the storage available in the storm drain system. 97 National Menu of Best Management Practices Maintenance Considerations Flow regulators require very little maintenance, because they are designed to be "self cleaning," much like the storm drain system. In some cases, flow regulators may be modified based on downstream flows, new connections to the storm drain, or the application of other flow regulators within the system. For some designs, such as check dams, regulations will require only moderate construction in order to modify the structure's design. Effectiveness The effectiveness of in -line storage practices is site - specific and depends on the storage available in the storm drain system. In one study, a single application was able to reduce peak flows by approximately 50 percent (VDCR, 1999). Cost Considerations Flow regulators are relatively low cost options, particularly since they require little maintenance and consume little surface area. References Urbonas, B., and T. Stahre. 1990. Storm Water Best Management .Practices and Detention for Water Quality, Drainage and CSO Management. Prentice -Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, NJ. Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation (VDCR). 1999. Watershed and Lake BMPs- -Best Management Practices for Established Urban Communities. Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation, Richmond, VA. 98 I I I �J I I 1 n L I I ,, I I 1 EPA - Post - Construction Storm Water Management in New Development & Redevelopment Page I of 6 w, n U& Environmental Protection Agency National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NIPDES) `LL 3 ✓rtr vr< 7�G' Recent Additions I Contact Us I Print Version Search NPDES: F__ ' Con_truction Activity -Who s Covered'? - Application Requirements Industrial Activity -Who's Coveted? - Application Reouirerns!-,15 EPA Home > OW Home > OWM Home> NPDES Home > Storm Water> Menu of BMPs Post - Construction Storm Water Management in New Development & Redevelopment BMP Inspection and Maintenance Municipal MS4s -Large & Mediurn Description Small Phas(. I Phase 1! -Meru o! BMPs - Urbanized Area Maps We! Weether Dischargec Fndanyered Spccies - Search Species Storm Water Home To maintain the effectiveness of postconslruction storm water control best management practices (BMPs), regular inspection of control measures is essential. Generally, inspection and maintenance of BMPs can be categorized into two groups— expected routine maintenance and nonrouline (repair) maintenance. Routine maintenance refers to checks performed on a regular basis to keep the BMP in good working order and aesthetically pleasing. In addition, routine inspection and maintenance is an efficient way to prevent potential nuisance situations (odors, mosquitoes, weeds, etc.), reduce the need for repair maintenance, and reduce the chance of polluting storm water runoff by finding and correcting problems before the next rain. In addition to maintaining the effectiveness of storm water BMPs and reducing the incidence of pests, proper inspection and maintenance is essential to avoid the health and safety threats inherent in BMP neglect (Skupien, 1995). The failure of structural storm water BMPs can lead to downstream flooding, causing property damage, injury, and even death. Applicability Under the proposed Storm Water Phase Il rule, owners and operators of small municipal separate storm sewer system (MS4) facilities would be responsible for implementing BMP inspection and maintenance programs and having penalties in place to deter infractions (USEPA, 1999). All storm water 8MPs should be inspected for continued effectiveness and structural integrity on a regular basis. Generally, all BMPs should be checked after each storm event in addition to these regularly scheduled inspections. Scheduled inspections will vary among BMPs. Structural BMPs such as storm drain drop inlet protection may require more frequent inspection to ensure proper operation. During each inspection, the inspector should document whether the BMP is performing correctly, any damage to the BMP since the last inspection, and what should be done to repair the BMP if damage has occurred. Siting and Design Considerations Illic Del Etq Col Sto Rut Po. SID Ma Nei &F Pot pre Hot Mu Op. Dot File r The sit EPA - Post - Construction Storm Water Management in New Development & Redevelopment Page 2 of 6 In the case of vegetative or other infiltration BMPs, Inspection of storm water management practices following a storm event should occur after the expected drawdown period for a given BMP. This allows the inspector to see whether detention and infiltration devices are draining correctly. Inspection checklists should be developed for use by BMP inspectors. Checklists might include each BMP's minimum performance expectations, design criteria, structural specifications, date of implementation, and expected life span. In addition, the maintenance requirements for each BMP should be listed on the inspection checklist. This will aid the inspector in determining whether a BMP's maintenance schedule is adequate or needs revision. Also, a checklist will help the Inspector determine renovation or repair needs. Limitations Routine maintenance materials such as shovels, lawn mowers, and fertilizer may be easily obtained on short notice with little effort. Unfortunately, not all materials that may be needed for emergency structural repairs are obtained with such ease. Thought should be given to stockpiling essential materials in case immediate repairs must be made to safeguard against property loss and to protect human health. Maintenance Considerations It is important that routine maintenance and nonroutine repair of storm water BMPs be done according to schedule or as soon as a problem is discovered. Because many BMPs are rendered ineffective for runoff control if not installed and maintained properly, it is essential that maintenance schedules are maintained and repairs are made promptly. In fact, some cases of BMP neglect can have detrimental effects on the landscape and increase the potential for erosion. However, "routine" maintenance, such as mowing grasses, should be flexible enough to accommodate the fluctuations in need based on relative weather conditions. For example, more harm than good may be caused by mowing during an extremely dry period or immediately following a storm event. Effectiveness The effectiveness of BMP inspection will be a function of the familiarity of the inspector with each particular BMP's location, design specifications, maintenance procedures, and performance expectations. Documentation should be kept regarding the dates of inspection, findings, and maintenance and repairs that result from the findings of an inspector. Such records are helpful in maintaining an efficient inspection and maintenance schedule and providing evidence of ongoing inspection and maintenance. Because maintenance work for storm water BMPs is usually not technically complicated (mowing, removal of sediment, etc.), workers can be drawn from a large labor pool. As structural BMPs increase in their sophistication, however, more specialized maintenance training might be needed to sustain BMP effectiveness. Cost Considerations Mowing of vegetated and grassed areas may be the costliest routine maintenance consideration (WEF, 1998). Management practices using relatively weak materials (such as filter fabric and wooden posts) may mean more Irequent replacement and therefore increased costs. The use of more sturdy materials (such as metal posts) where applicable may increase the life of certain BMPs and reduce replacement cost. However, the disposal requirements of all materials should be investigated before BMP implementation to ensure proper handling after the BMP has become ineffective or when it needs to be disposed of after the site has reached final stabilization. Table 1 shows maintenance costs, specific activities, and schedules for several postconstruction runoff BMP,. Table 1. Maintenance costs, activities, and schedules for urban management EPA - Post - Construction Storm Water Management in New Development & Redevelopment Page 3 of 6 practices (Adanted from CWP. 1998) Annual Maintenance Maintenance Type of Management ° Cost (/• of Cost fora "Typical" Maintenance Schedule Practice Practice Construction Activity Cost Application • Cleaning and removal of debris after major storm events; ( >f rainfall) • Harvest vegetation when a 50% reduction in Annual or the original as open water needed surface area occurs • Repair of embankment and side slopes • Repair of Ponds/ $3,000 to control Detention/ wetlands 3 % -6% $6,000 structure • Removal of Retention Practices accumulated sediment from forebays or sediment 5 -year storage areas cycle when 60% of the original volume has been lost • Removal of accumulated sediment from main 20 -year cells of pond cycle once 50% of the original volume has been lost Dry Ponds? —1% J $1,200 See above Wetlands —2% $3,800 See above • Cleaning and removal of debris after major storm events, ( >2" rainfall) Annual or • Mewing and as maintenance needed of upland vegetated areas • Sediment cleanout • Repair or EPA - Post - Construction Storm Water Management in New Development & -Redevelopment Page 4 of 6 ' replacing of stone aggregate • Maintenance of inlets and outlets • Removal of Infiltration 5°: -20°/ $2,300 to accumulated Trench $9,000 sediment from forebays or sediment 4 -year storage areas cycle when 50% of the original volume has been lost • Crr and emoval of Infiltration debris after Facilities major storm events, ( >2" rainfall) Annual or • Mowing and as maintenance needed of upland vegetated nfilasin n 1 % -10% $150— $1,500 areas • Sediment Basin cleanout • Removal of accumulated sediment from forebays 3 -to 5- or sediment storage areas Year when 50% of cycle the original volume has been lost • Removal of trash and debris from control openings • Repair of leaks from the sedimentation chamber or Annual or deterioration Sand Filters 1' % -13% $2,200 of structural components as needed • Removal of the top few inches of sand, and cultivation of the surface, when filter bed is clogged ® Clean out of �I accumulated iETA - Post- Construction Storm Water Management in New Development & Redevelopment Page 5 of 6 i Filtration Practices �r r sediment from filter bed chamber once depth exceeds approximately inch, or when the filter layer will no longer draw 3- to 5- down within year 24 hours cycle e Clean out of accumulated sediment from sedimentation chamber once depth exceeds 12 inches e Mowing and litter /debris removal e Stabilization of eroded side slopes and bottom e Nurtient and Annual or pesticide use as management needed e Dethatching swale bottom and removal Dry Swales, of thatching e Discing or Grassed aeration of $200 to Swale bottom 5 % -7% $2,000 e Scraping Channels, swale bottom and removal Biofilters of sediment to restore original cross section and infiltration 5 -year rate cycle e Seeding or sodding to restore ground cover (use proper erosion and sediment control) e Mowing and litter /debris $320 1acre emoval Annual or Filter Strips $1,000 e Nutrient and as (maintained) pesticide use needed management e Aeration of soil on the E ?A - Post - Construction Storm Water Management in New Development & Redevelopment Page 6 of 6 1 . References Center for Watershed Protection (CWP). 1998. Cost: and Benefits of Storm Water BMP's: Final Report 9114198. Center for Watershed Protection, Ellicott City, MD. Skupien, J. 1995. Postconstruction Responsibilities for Effective Performance of Best Management Practices. In National Conference on Urban Runoff Management: Enhancing Urban Watershed Management at the Local, County, and State Levels. Seminar Publication. EPA 625 -R -95 -003. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC. USEPA. 1999. Fact Sheet 2.6. Storm Water Phase 1/ Proposed Rule, Construction Site Runoff Control Minimum Control Measure, EPA 833 -F -99 -008. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Water, Washington, DC. Water Environment Federation. 1998. Urban Runoff Quality Management. WEF Manual of Practice No. 23, ASCE Manual and Report on Engineering Practice No. 87. Water Environment Federation and American Society of Civil Engineers, Alexandria, VA. Office of Water I Office of Wastewater Management I Disclaimer I Search EPA EPA Home I Privacy and Security Notice I Conlacl Us Last updated on August 15, 2002 1 i5 PM URL: http: / /cfput).epa.gov/ npdes/ stormwatei /nienuofbmps /post_5.cfm I! I I I r 1 I� r r. I filter strip • Repair of eroded or sparse grass areas • Repair of erosion areas • g of Mulchin void areas • Removal and replacement Lneeded of all dead Bioretention 15%_7% $3,000 to and diseased $4,000 vegetation • Watering of plant material • Removal of mulch and Annual application of a new layer References Center for Watershed Protection (CWP). 1998. Cost: and Benefits of Storm Water BMP's: Final Report 9114198. Center for Watershed Protection, Ellicott City, MD. Skupien, J. 1995. Postconstruction Responsibilities for Effective Performance of Best Management Practices. In National Conference on Urban Runoff Management: Enhancing Urban Watershed Management at the Local, County, and State Levels. Seminar Publication. EPA 625 -R -95 -003. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC. USEPA. 1999. Fact Sheet 2.6. Storm Water Phase 1/ Proposed Rule, Construction Site Runoff Control Minimum Control Measure, EPA 833 -F -99 -008. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Water, Washington, DC. Water Environment Federation. 1998. Urban Runoff Quality Management. WEF Manual of Practice No. 23, ASCE Manual and Report on Engineering Practice No. 87. Water Environment Federation and American Society of Civil Engineers, Alexandria, VA. Office of Water I Office of Wastewater Management I Disclaimer I Search EPA EPA Home I Privacy and Security Notice I Conlacl Us Last updated on August 15, 2002 1 i5 PM URL: http: / /cfput).epa.gov/ npdes/ stormwatei /nienuofbmps /post_5.cfm I! I I I r 1 I� r r. I I St. Mark Presbyterian Church - Screencheck Draft EIR I I I I IAPPENDIX E: BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES SURVEY REPORT I I I I I I I Michael Brandman Associates 111CIiem(PN -JN), 0064A 006400211Screencheck100640021 _Apprndices.doc i �1 I r DRAFT Biological Resources Survey Report St. Mark Presbyterian Church Property City of Newport Beach, Orange County, CA 1 Prepared for: ICity of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 Contact: Gregg B. Ramirez, Associate Planner r Prepared by: Michael Brandman Associates 220 Commerce, Suite 200 Irvine, CA 92602 714.508.4100 Contact: Scott Holbrook, Project Manager r is i G� ,__ February 2004 r (; II II I11 SL Mark Presbyterian Church Property - Draft Biological Resources Survey Report Table of Contents TABLE OF CONTENTS Section1 Introduction .......................................................................... ..............................1 Section2 Methods ................................................................................ ..............................7 2.1 Literature Review ............................................................. ..............................7 2.2 Reconnaissance -Level Surveys ....................................... ..............................7 2.3 USACE and CDFG Jurisdictional Areas ........................... ..............................8 2.4 Problems and Limitations ................................................. ..............................9 2.5 Definition of Terms ........................................................... ..............................9 Section 3 Environmental Setting ........................................................ .............................11 3.1 General Site Description ................................................. .............................11 3.2 Biological Communities ................................................... .............................11 Non - native Grassland ..................................................... .............................12 CoastalSage Scrub ........................................................ .............................12 Southern Riparian Scrub ................................................. .............................12 OrnamentalWoodland .................................................... .............................15 DisturbedAreas .............................................................. .............................15 3.3 Sensitive Biological Resources ....................................... .............................15 Sensitive Plant Communities ........................................... .............................15 SensitivePlant Species ................................................... .............................16 Sensitive Wildlife Species ............................................... .............................17 USACE and CDFG Jurisdictional Areas .......................... .............................18 Regional Connectivity/Wildlife Movement Corridor Assessment ...................18 Section4 Impacts ................................................................................. .............................27 4.1 Plant Communities .......................................................... .............................27 Sensitive Plant Species ................................................... .............................27 4.2 Sensitive Wildlife Species ............................................... .............................27 4.3 USACE and CDFG Jurisdictional Areas .......................... .............................28 Section5 References ........................................................................... .............................29 LIST OF EXHIBITS Exhibit 1: Regional Location Map ............................................................ ..............................3 Exhibit 2: Local Vicinity Map .................................................................... ..............................5 Exhibit 3: Plant Communities ................................................................. .............................13 LIST OF TABLES Table 1: Special Status Plant Species .................................................... .............................19 Table 2: Special Status Wildlife Species ................................................ .............................23 Michael Brandman Associates HACIiem (PN -III \0064 \00640021 \00640021_Bia Repomdoc M I ' St. Mark Presbyterian Church Property - Dmft Biological Resources Survey Report Introduction SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION At the request of the City of Newport Beach, Michael Brandman Associates (MBA) conducted a study of the biological resources and natural setting on a 7.38 -acre parcel known as the St. Mark ' Presbyterian property, in the City of Newport Beach, Orange County, California. The proposed project consists of site development involving construction of a church sanctuary, fellowship hall, administration building and counseling center, preschool buildings, expansion building, nature center plaza, parking areas, landscaping, and ancillary infrastructure improvements. This report describes the biological resources associated with the subject parcel. Relevant literature was reviewed and a survey of the site was conducted to identify and characterize the vegetation and habitat types present, determine the general condition of the site, and assess whether any habitat types or species of animals ' or plants designated as having special status may occur thereon. Conclusions are presented regarding whether the proposed project could result in adverse affects on such resources, if present. ' The property (Assessor's Parcel Number 442 - 032 -62) is located in an unnumbered section of Township 6 South, Range 9 West, as depicted on the USGS 7.5 minute topographic quadrangle map 1 for Laguna Beach, Ca. (Exhibit 1). The property lies adjacent to and immediately northwest of the intersection of MacArthur Boulevard and San Joaquin Hills Road adjacent to the Big Canyon Country Club (Exhibit 2). 1 I I I I LJ 1 Michael Brandman Associates H Uiew(PN -fN) \0064 \00640027`,00640021 Bio Report.doc Los Angeles County • YORHA LINDA FULLER TON • (r7��, 1,90 U PLACENTIAJ ANAE 5 CYPRESS 39) —" .OS • • 1 TOS STANTON • I GARDEN GROVE • I SEAT. BEACH SANTA MESA / • INE NEWPORT REACH CORONAOR MAR BEACH 1 NNN N it uIN111 o Michael l3tandman Associates 5 2.5 0 5 SCALE IN MILES 00640021 • 0912003 1 Regional.ai \o 4 C LEV EL, ND '--I _ NATI'0.4Al� M'OREST \• LAGUNA, • _HILLS MISSION VIEJO 4 ,,, .4 NIGUEL LACUNA . SAN JUAN i —""- CAPISTRANO 1 • �I DANA �'• POINT rCOuuly SAN CLLMENIt Exhibit I Regional Location Map ST. MARK PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH • ORANGE COUNTY,CA .- cd a mE x W U 4a O x cd U 2 � a U) O 0 e N F W W z Z_ W J Q U N 0 9 p C Q U N `1 J � O H�� v o O All �8 St. Mark Presbyterian Church Property - Draft Biological Resources Survey Report Methods SECTION 2 METHODS The study of biological resources associated with the property began with a thorough review of relevant literature followed by a reconnaissance -level field survey. MBA biologist Kelly Rios conducted the general reconnaissance -level survey on foot on September 29, 2003. 2.1 Literature Review A compilation of sensitive plant and wildlife species recorded in the vicinity of the property was derived from the California Natural Diversity Database ( CNDDB), a database of sensitive species and plant community accounts maintained by the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). Additional recorded occurrences of plant species found on or near the property were obtained from the California Native Plant Society's (CNPS) Electronic Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California database. The CNDDB and CNPS searches were not limited to the property itself but included an area extending a reasonable distance away from the site (approximately 7 miles). This region encompassed the USGS 7.5- minute topographic quadrangle maps for Laguna Beach, Newport Beach, and Tustin. Federal register listings, survey protocols, and species data provided by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and CDFG were also reviewed with respect to federal and state listed or special status species potentially occurring in the vicinity. These and other references are listed in Section 5 - References. 2.2 Reconnaissance -Level Surveys The biological survey of the subject parcel was conducted on foot and all exposed areas were inspected visually. Survey objectives were to identify the site's plant communities and characteristics, inventory the site's general condition and existing vegetation, and assess the potential for sensitive species of plant or wildlife, or sensitive habitat designated as such by federal, State or local conservation agencies to occur on site. All common plant species observed on site were noted, except annual grass species, and all native species encountered were identified. A compendium of species identified on the property is included in Appendix A of this document. Plant communities were mapped using 7.5- minute USGS topographic base maps, recent aerial photography (ca. 2000), and a Garmin Geographical Positioning System (G.PS) III Plus. Plant communities on the property were classified at a general level of detail using the widely accepted descriptions provided in Holland's Preliminary Descriptions of the Terrestrial Natural Communities of California 0 986 and 1992 update). Common plant species were readily identified by visual characteristics and morphology in the field. Unusual and less familiar plants were identified from sampling using taxonomical guides. Michael Brandman Associates H: \Cliem (PN -JN) \0064 \00640021 \00640021 Bin Rcpon.doc Methods St. Mark Presbyterian Church Property - Draft Biological Resources Survey Report Taxonomic nomenclature used in this study follows Hickman (1993). Common plant names, when not available from Hickman (1993), were taken from Munz (1974) or Roberts (1998). In this report, scientific names are provided immediately following common names of plant species (first reference only), because common names vary considerably among many botanical reference sources. Wildlife species detected during field surveys by sight, calls, tracks, scat, or other sign were recorded during surveys in a field notebook (Appendix. B). Field guides were used to assist with identification of species during surveys and included Stebbins (1985) for amphibians and reptiles, National Geographic Society (1987) for birds, and Bull and Grossenheider (1980) for mammals. Since common names of wildlife species arc fairly well standardized, scientific names are not generally used in this report but are provided in Appendix A for reference. Appendix A lists all vertebrate wildlife species observed or detected on the property during the survey. A general wildlife survey of the property was conducted in appropriate habitats during daylight hours. The purpose of this reconnaissance -level effort was not to search exhaustively for every species occurring within the property, but to ascertain general conditions and identify habitat areas that could be suitable for various common and special status species. Common species are generally considered potentially present on the property if suitable habitat is present and the area lies within a species' geographic range. Habitat areas were investigated for diagnostic wildlife sign such as nests, burrows, tracks, vocalizations, and any direct observations of specimens or their sign were recorded. The s surveyor also inspected surface litter and occasionally turned stones, fallen bark, and tree branches to look for secretive reptiles and amphibians. Many reptiles, amphibians, and mammals are secretive by nature and some are only nocturnally (nighttime) active, making diurnal (daytime) observations problematic. Observations of diagnostic signs may provide evidence of occurrence of these species. Otherwise, conclusions regarding potential occurrence are based on consideration of habitat suitability factors. An effort to locate and identify raptor (birds of prey) nests was also conducted during the reconnaissance -level study. Such efforts include direct and incidental observation of raptor nests, owl pellets, and the identification of soaring or perched raptor species observed (if any). 2.3 USACE and CDFG Jurisdictional Areas In general, surface drainage features indicated as blue -line streams on USGS maps and that are observed or expected to exhibit evidence of Flow are typically subject to state and federal regulatory authority as "waters." The surveyor reviewed USGS topographic maps and recent aerial photography (2000) prior to conducting general surveys and used these references, as well as the topographic base map for the site to locate and inspect natural drainage features that may be considered jurisdictional by either USACE or CDFG. A technical study known as a jurisdictional delineation is normally Michael Brandman Associates , li: lClient (PN- 1N)10064100640021100640021, aio Repan doo I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 i I 1 St Mark Presbyterian Church Property -Draft Biological Resources Survey Report Methods required to accurately determine the area and limits of drainage features and other water bodies that fall within USACE and/or CDFG jurisdiction. However, as the project has been configured in such a way as to avoid direct impacts to such features on the subject parcel, this biological resources survey report does not include a formal delineation of such resources. 2.4 Problems and Limitations The reconnaissance -level survey was conducted in the fall season when many plant species, particularly annual grasses and herbs, may have senesced (died) or exhibit considerable loss of foliage and flower parts, making identification difficult or virtually impossible. Also, wildlife species may have dispersed, migrated, or sought shelter from the oncoming winter, and are less likely to be observed during this time of year. 2.5 Definition of Terms Blue -Line Drainage: A blue -line drainage is a drainage feature indicated by a blue - colored dash and three -dot line symbol on USGS topographic maps. Focused Survey: A species - specific survey for an individual species that has a written protocol as approved by the USFWS. Plant Communities: A classification of natural or human influenced assemblage of plants that have common characteristics and can be easily identified by key plant species. Reconnaissance -Level Survey: A field investigation of common plants and wildlife species observed within a property that is often limited to a single point in time during the year. The survey is conducted to obtain a general understanding of the habitats within the property and not to systematically survey the entire property for every plant and wildlife species present. Taxonomic Nomenclature: A system of identifying an individual species, sub - species, or variety with a Latin -based scientific name. Michael Brandman Associates H. \Chent(PN -JN)\0064 \00640021\00640021 yio Repon.d.o ' St. Mark Presbyterian Church Property- Draft Biological Resources Survey Report Environmental Setting SECTION 3 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING ' 3.1 General Site Description I I 1 I 1 I I 1 The majority of the flat upper part of the parcel, above the small canyon, has been disturbed by foot traffic, temporary structures and parking and associated with previous uses for Christmas tree and pumpkin sales. The surrounding area is currently developed for residential use, commercial use, and a golf course. The drainage feature is currently undisturbed, but was likely disturbed in the past during construction of the surrounding development. 3.2 Biological Communities Three plant communities occur on the 7.38 -acre property, coastal sage scrub (CSS), southern riparian scrub, and non - native grassland. Another type of land cover classification, "disturbed," characterized by its lack of vegetative cover (except by ruderal (weedy) species) as the result of previous land use(s), is predominant on most of the flat portion of the parcel. Ornamental trees and shrubs occupy the north and west edges of the property where it lies adjacent to the golf course and residential development. Although not considered a natural plant community, such exotic vegetation offers some limited habitat value, particularly for common species that are highly adapted to human development. CSS is found in the northern portion of the property and surrounds a patch of southern riparian scrub habitat, which is located within the small canyon area located in the north- central portion of the property (Exhibit 3). A small area containing non - native grasslands occurs adjacent to the southern riparian scrub and CSS plant communities. Brief descriptions of these plant communities are provided below. Plant community classifications are derived from Holland (1986 and 1992 update) and updated by MBA as appropriate. Representative photographs are presented in Appendix C. Michael Brandman Associates t t H: \Client (PN -JN) \0064100640021 \00640021 Bio Rgm.doc The property lies next to the Fashion Island Plaza at the western limit of the San Joaquin Hills and is ' contained entirely by existing development and active land uses. The parcel is relatively flat with a small canyon occupying much of the north central portion of the site. Elevation ranges from 160 to 200 feet above sea level. ' A small drainage feature runs through the central canyon flowing in a northwesterly direction. Flows Pacific Ocean, through this drainage are expected to reach Upper Newport Bay, which connects to the thus the drainage is a second order tributary to a traditional navigable water. The watershed is limited to urban run -off from the adjacent Pacific View Memorial Park, a residential community, and associated Big Canyon Reservoir located southeast of the property. I I 1 I 1 I I 1 The majority of the flat upper part of the parcel, above the small canyon, has been disturbed by foot traffic, temporary structures and parking and associated with previous uses for Christmas tree and pumpkin sales. The surrounding area is currently developed for residential use, commercial use, and a golf course. The drainage feature is currently undisturbed, but was likely disturbed in the past during construction of the surrounding development. 3.2 Biological Communities Three plant communities occur on the 7.38 -acre property, coastal sage scrub (CSS), southern riparian scrub, and non - native grassland. Another type of land cover classification, "disturbed," characterized by its lack of vegetative cover (except by ruderal (weedy) species) as the result of previous land use(s), is predominant on most of the flat portion of the parcel. Ornamental trees and shrubs occupy the north and west edges of the property where it lies adjacent to the golf course and residential development. Although not considered a natural plant community, such exotic vegetation offers some limited habitat value, particularly for common species that are highly adapted to human development. CSS is found in the northern portion of the property and surrounds a patch of southern riparian scrub habitat, which is located within the small canyon area located in the north- central portion of the property (Exhibit 3). A small area containing non - native grasslands occurs adjacent to the southern riparian scrub and CSS plant communities. Brief descriptions of these plant communities are provided below. Plant community classifications are derived from Holland (1986 and 1992 update) and updated by MBA as appropriate. Representative photographs are presented in Appendix C. Michael Brandman Associates t t H: \Client (PN -JN) \0064100640021 \00640021 Bio Rgm.doc Environmental Setting St. Mark Presbyterian Church Property- Draft Biological Resources Survey Report Non - native Grassland Non - native grassland consists of non - native, amual grasses often in association with ruderal herbs and occasional native annual (orbs (Exhibit 3). These grasses begin to germinate with the fall rains, grow during the winter and spring, and wither in the early summer. This community is often found on clay soils (Holland 1986); it is incorporated. into the California annual grassland series described by Sawyer and Keeler-Wolf (1995). Species observed in this plant community include black mustard (Brassica nigro), turkey mullein (Eremocorpus setigerus), Russian thistle (Salsola tragus), and telegraph weed (Heterotheca grondii loro). The project site contains approximately 0.35 acres of non- native grassland. Wildlife species observed within this community include western fence lizard (Sceloporus oecidentalis), Audubon cottontail (Sylvilogus audubonii), and mourning dove (Zenaida macroura). Coastal Sage Scrub CSS consists of low- growing, soft - leaved, drought deciduous shrubs, with occasional taller evergreen shrubs and shrubby and succulents that typically occur on thin or rocky soils on mild to steep slopes throughout southern California below 3,000 feet in elevation. On the subject site, dominant plants mainly consisted of California sagebrush (Artemisia californica), sticky monkey flower (Mimulus ourontiaeus), Mexican elderberry (Sainbucus mexicana), and coyote bush (Baccharis pilulm•is). Other plant species observed within the property include yellow star- thistle (Cewaurea solstitialis), lemonadeberry (Rhos integrifolio), and black mustard (Brassica nigra). The project site contains approximately 1.96 -acres of CSS. Wildlife species observed in this natural community are typical of wildlife species that have adapted to urban development. These species include' western fence lizard, house finch (Carpodacus mexicanus), Anna's hummingbird (Calypte rnana), mourning dove, and song sparrow (Melospiza melodia). Southern Riparian Scrub Riparian vegetation occurs in association with watercourses and water bodies. The representative plant species are typically well adapted to a hydrological regime ranging from semi - permanent inundation to occasional soil saturation on or near the surface during at least a portion of the growing season. Southern riparian scrub contains a relatively dense tangle of broad- leaved, winter - deciduous riparian thickets dominated by willow species. Dominant elements in this community include arroyo willow (Salix lasiolepis), western sycamore (Platanus racemosa), and giant creek nettle (Urtica dioico). The project site contains approximately 0.27 acres of an acre of southern riparian scrub. Wildlife species observed in this plant community include song sparrow (,Melospiza nielodia). 12 Michael erandman associates ' H: �Ciient (PN- Rd)10064W064002n00640021 Bro Rcpo,Ldoc I Y �yb r� C; kF, � C 1 y. -Sap .d ` 8= °o B r It •d IMMA�7y► W W u n-. '00000000coa0000coa? � t �w Hills • in Joa4u►n Roa rY _ �'' �....'` ter► . d o� i z L z x x i S x z Q L T n n x Y FA I-E D C p U C � E v N D a C � d _T > H1HON I c o c Ell C0 WIU =c 0111 r € t m x v c W J z m E a 8 Y� A Q c 3 q c � �� C Z D O¢ W a�Ll L) a r It •d IMMA�7y► W W u n-. '00000000coa0000coa? � t �w Hills • in Joa4u►n Roa rY _ �'' �....'` ter► . d o� i z L z x x i S x z Q L T n n x Y FA I-E D C p U C � E v N D a C � d _T > H1HON I c o c Ell C0 WIU =c 0111 r € i1 II I[I II 1 1 v 0 0 N Q m a C m c E D C _T E C O M Q. cl X w a� E E O U .is o � m. W D E E E 0 U V O 0 N_ O O tp O O 1 ' St Mark Presbyterian Church Property - Draft Biological Resources Survey Report Environmental Setting Ornamental Woodland Exotic eucalyptus trees, and other ornamental shrubs such as acacia lie along the north and west edges of the properties perimeter. These areas contain little or no native vegetation and provide only limited habitat value, primarily as cover and perching opportunities for birds and common terrestrial wildlife that normally associated with developed areas. The project approximately 0.43 acres of ornamental woodland. ' Disturbed Areas ' These areas are characterized by a lack of significant vegetative cover, usually as the result of previous human disturbance. Although such areas may contain a sparse cover of ruderal vegetation and an occasional scattering of native plant specimens, this type of "habitat' is not a plant community ' and is considered to be of little or no value to wildlife. The remainder of the project site, approximately 4.37 acres, is comprised of disturbed areas. 1 Biological 3.3 Sensitive Resources Sensitive species are those plants and animals occurring or potentially occurring on the project site ' that are endangered or rare, as those terms are used by CEQA and its Guidelines, or are of current local, regional or State concern. Plant communities are considered to be sensitive biological ' resources based on I ) federal, State or local laws regulating their development, 2) limited distributions, and/or 3) the habitat requirements of sensitive plants or animals occurring on the site. A review of the databases and pertinent literature determined that seven special status plant communities, twenty -three sensitive plant species, and nineteen sensitive wildlife species have been ' reported to occur within the Tustin, Laguna Beach and Newport Beach topographic quadrangles ( CNDDB and CNPS). Based on this review and the findings of the survey, MBA evaluated each of ' these special status resources for their potential to occur and/or be affected by the proposed project. ' J Table I and Table 2 identify the plant and wildlife species, their status, habitat requirements, and their potential to occur within the property. Sensitive Plant Communities The CNDDB reports seven plant communities designated as having special status in the vicinity of ' the project (i.e., within seven miles) in the Tustin, Laguna Beach and Newport Beach topographic quadrangles. However, none of these specific habitat types, as listed below, occur within the parcel ' or in immediately adjacent areas: Southern foredunes ' Valley needlegrass grassland Michael Brandman Associates RXIiem (PN -1N) \0064 \00640021 \00640021 Bio Repon.doc St Marc Presbyterian church Property- Draft Biological Resources Survey Report Enviro nmental Setting Southern coast live oak riparian forest Southern sycamore alder riparian woodland Southern dune scrub Southern coastal salt marsh Southern cottonwood willow riparian forest In addition to the plant communities listed by the CNDDB, CSS is generally recognized as a sensitive habitat type. In the 1990's, concerns regarding rapid loss of CSS habitat in Southern California lead to the development of a comprehensive conservation program by government agencies, municipalities, and private landowners to address widespread loss of this resource known as the Natural Communities Conservation Planning (NCCP) process. The NCCP, as it applies to the coastal subregion of Orange County is briefly discussed in the Impact Section below as it relates to the project area. Due to the concerted efforts to establish a reserve system that provides protection for large blocks of CSS habitat in both coastal and central Orange County, development in certain areas outside the NCCP reserve are allowed to conduct removals of CSS. The subject parcel is located in an area designated by the NCCP for "Planned Activities," thus allowing the removal of CSS, subject to compliance with particular measures established by the NCCP implementation agreement. It is also important to recognize that the small patch of CSS habitat that occurs on site constitutes an isolated remnant fragment of CSS habitat within a sea of development. Thus the value of the CSS habitat area on site is greatly reduced in comparison with similar habitat that occurs within large natural areas, since the "island" of CSS on site surrounded by development and relatively inaccessible to most species of wildlife that might use this plant community as a breeding area or while foraging. Riparian habitats are also generally regarded as sensitive habitats as evidenced by several State and federally administered permit programs that advocate avoidance of impacts to riparian habitats and streambeds or require compensatory mitigation for unavoidable losses of these aquatic resources. The proposed project design has been configured to avoid direct impacts to the small patch of southern riparian scrub habitat and the associated streambed that occur on the property. Sensitive Plant Species Twenty -three special status plant species were considered with regard for their potential to occur on the property (Table I ) due to their known occurrence in the region as reported by the CNDDB. Based on the habitat evaluation and available information regarding these species' range, distribution, and habitat preferences, many of special status species were considered absent or highly unlikely to occur, due to the lack of potentially suitable habitat. No special status plant species were observed. within the property. Three sensitive plant species, intermediate (foothill) mariposa lily, many- stemmed dudleya, and Robinson's peppergrass are 16 Michael Brandman Associates H: \Client(PN -fN) \0064 \00640021\00640021 Bic Repon.doc 1 St. Mark Presbyterian Church Property - Draft Biological Resources Survey Report Environmental Setting considered to have a low to moderate potential to occur in association with CSS habitat on the ' property. It is not very likely that many - stemmed dudleya or Robinson's peppergrass occur on site, however, as habitat conditions appear to be only marginal for these species. The CSS vegetation on the slopes of the small canyon is fairly dense, providing little opportunity for these low- growing plant ' species to become established since they require good exposure to sunlight. On the flatter areas of the site, the CSS coverage is more open, but due to previous disturbance and grading, any such populations are likely to have been lost had they been present in the past. Moreover, ruderal grasses and herbs presently occupy much of the open areas among the shrubs in the CSS habitat on flatter areas that have been subject to substantial disturbance. Also, Robinson's peppergrass is not generally known to occur in areas close to the coast, so the site may lie outside the normal range of this species. The intermediate (foothill) mariposa lily, which produces striking flowers on long slender stems for short periods in the late spring, could occur on site, as habitat conditions are appropriate. However, even the likelihood of this species occurring on site is not particularly high because the patch of CSS habitat is quite small, which further reduces the chance that a population of an uncommon species might occur. None of these species are listed as threatened or endangered by State or federal resource agencies. ' Sensitive Wildlife Species Nineteen sensitive wildlife species were considered with regard to their potential to occur within the ' property (Table 2). The site does not contain habitat that could be potentially suitable for at least fourteen of the species considered. For most of these species, there is no suitable habitat of any kind on site or in the immediate vicinity of this relatively isolated parcel. Several of these species, such as the southwestem pond turtle and least Bell's vireo require substantially larger areas of natural riparian or aquatic habitat than is present on or in the near vicinity of the site. Three special status reptiles, orange - throated whiptail, coastal western whiptail, and coast homed lizard are closely associated with CSS habitat, and thus have at least some potential to occur in this habitat on site. However, the small ' size and isolated and disturbed nature of the available habitat on the parcel limits the chance that any viable population of these species could persist for long periods because the number of individuals ' that the area could support would be extremely low. Two listed species, the federally listed Threatened California gnatcatcher and the federally ' Endangered Pacific Pocket mouse were also considered with respect to their potential to occur. The possibility of these species occurring on site cannot be entirely ruled out unless focused surveys are conducted for these species However, based on the size, disturbed condition and relatively isolated nature of the habitat on the subject parcel, the potential for either species to occur on site is considered very low. Dispersing California gnatcatcher juveniles could conceivably access the site via the golf course open space, or even by traversing through developed areas. However, as an adult this species is relatively sedentary and normally remains in the local vicinity of CSS patches selected I for breeding, which are typically larger than two acres, rather than foraging over wide areas. While Michael Brandman Associates 17 H: \Clieot(PN -JN) \0064 \00640021 \00640021 Bio Repon,doc St- Mark Presbyterian Church Property - Draft Biological Resources Survey Report Environmental Setting they may not travel long distances, foraging activities frequently extend over areas much greater than two acres. Although the patch of CSS on the parcel may be just large enough to accommodate one nesting pair, it is unlikely that an individual or pair would remain in such an otherwise limited area, surrounded on all sides by development and exposed to substantial noise and activity. Pacific pocket mouse (which was collected on nearby Spyglass Hill in 197 1) is currently known to occur in Orange County only at San Mateo Creek and the Dana Point Headlands, despite substantial focused surveys in potential habitat near the coast. Since this species appears to require loose sandy soils or alluvial deposits forburrowing, the limited area of open CSS vegetation on the site is considered only marginally suitable at best. Where the CSS vegetation exhibits an open canopy, on the flat portion of the site, soils are somewhat rocky, rather than sandy and may be too compacted by previous disturbances to be suitable for burrowing by this species. Furthermore, as noted above with respect to sensitive reptile species, it is difficult to imagine, how such a small site could sustain a viable population of this relatively vulnerable prey species for any significant length of time. USACE and CDFG Jurisdictional Areas Although a formal jurisdictional delineation was not conducted, MBA's findings indicate that the property contains one drainage feature subject to both CDFG and USACE jurisdiction due to the presence of flows. This drainage feature exhibits connectivity to the larger Big Canyon Creek that flows to the northwest into Newport Back Bay. The jurisdictional drainage is considered perennial and is associated with urban run -off. Regional Connectivity/Wildlife Movement Corridor Assessment Opportunities for wildlife movement onto and through the parcel are greatly reduced by adjacent residential and commercial development. A chain link fence, located between the property and the adjacent golf course, further limits local terrestrial wildlife movement to and from the open space associated with the golf course and other areas north of the property. In its current state the property is a disturbed area surrounded by previous disturbance and development. Although local terrestrial wildlife and various avian species may occasionally forage on or traverse the property, the site offers no direct linkage to any undisturbed natural areas in the vicinity, thus the property offers no significant wildlife connections and wildlife movement through the site is not an important consideration. 16 Michael Brandman Associates HA Client (PN- JN)100641006400211006V0027 aio Repod.doc ' 0 E T W N m m CL y C W IL N y W .v m CL y r m a F N N C m O U `m f y n L y �n D h a o no 00 ae 7 z a U 4 b0 �y vOi T'^ y y y H H pl 0 zo z z z z z m pp 4J N 4J d N as N a`o. N a$. a❑ Ns a aam as as as d W� a m W :°• °' � W :° W :° W � W Y° W� W� Zs Zs Z,a T T T w 0 5 =2 0 N pj y: z U N C C C G C G Ny C G' G' C °c °c °c c F3 s N U b w O N ti 7 ^ N L M >� m' CL m y v a > •. V-0 5 ate' 'C C C „' N a s n L y �n D h a o no 00 ae 7 z a U 1? v P S W d 0 d K 4. A 0 v j U Y N d a N C A a N 7 A w N A .p a N C O U _N F d: .0 s on a d� o .gym' _ ... ❑❑_ v u.5 � A ++� as is a° ro G � av CW Y v y W 7 W H m id W� `a Z� 0 z m 7i y i - iaad o ro❑ m id �. roq '.LL. - -:' �G' w C C ❑ D s a v d U o ro° a G Atp 0 `1 O O O 7 O ro v N H y w° ° O U7 C G C F K F C _LL . O O u' 0 C m E v a °J m U- 0 E E a aH Ea E m G_ N � 4 (1 i L U p Z a O 11 1 1 N , C e e 3 W N d U Yi CL fq c IL N A A 41 m CL N c 0 U d a A H L- 0 U A H me 10 C u a 0 o aw E° o° ao u° Eo a z N N Ny a: Z S a o Z .a Z IL ti A id itl G T R G � �' � � L. � N O i y v r"n T vi .G b00 •. 3 w O C O O o E m 'o a > o o o m .a m$ o ao Z: ro m w w m m 'U C C C C C N ...� C C CO' G C W m � z 2 v CL N E o Z Q 5 me 10 C u a 0 o aw E° o° ao u° Eo a z N C E E w v K N v U N N a Y h N d U N O W c N a N 7 N Y m U N CL N C O U d a m F Cl 1 1 L� b F7 i0 A T m A .. t0 t U v Y VOi aJ X� N N C N N O O L� N r N z a o o ro ro •5 ° 0 0 �. 6 Ej c�_'iO_ a`aabi as °J c�� yo ti ':1 4Z � W on •o a u Y Sa L w S 78 "E. u 5 UUm 2r ...Y. C G J K CK >, � v aCi O N N U U v ti p_ Iij .• .- O U o A U .o m >, m a p N Z a a a a c a v m Ern •D ,a w •a m .c v —t C fA Li w (A v"i ° J kb E 'd. Q Oa W aL tg 2 U _ m �> U w a c'� ` w 5 c ?i E c v o 6 U Uw of C K C � UUU �G9 t V u F N N p Q Of L 3 c o en z 2 °Fsa Cl 1 1 L� d C Q 3 W d o. F R N R a N d R a e N 4. 4. l O u U f N uo Y C J u A O �I Og ag u° J° `O x N ro ro m � o a ❑ x a _a. _Q. _a. ^ Y N N N N ao z ao ao z z z z N L U _ m L Y 2 a a a NCJ• Y O� ih O 'O yN LO W N G= C GL � ro C td LLG _ Od °G N OA � U G "' L y ♦+ � Y id �" U U U d U u U N N N N N s Q z z z z z Q Q v U v N Y ry] z z z LL �Q d -E.,E yq� ° {� .N E U X . W CO U a a e d - m E 0 t O x V O ti U uo Y C J u A O �I Og ag u° J° `O x N a 0 d C r m 0 u U Y h N d U d o. y 7 N W U d o. C O U N d F- F r � C C r� •p � C Y m n. o - n. ro � aNCi � ,C T N4EI 0.0 vn °� U p O cci v aQi Q. ro D O id ro i] � id id id o _ o � o c P 6Nb o ro 5 0 tb U ro ro 3 � '� cn ❑ ai � c° on � c ro c v U U V rrl v� n V U U N W W c c c W F E U o 5 o ro ro v� hn ro v � o oD o� N 'a-- --- W 0 to ZZ � | \ \ § 3 § } 2 � � \ � � \ �o \{ - ( .�2§ :y .5aa } �\ \ \)» Ll ^�z e e m :s -- : c /:' / « Lli y 2/ St. Mark Presbyterian Church Property - D2(t Biological Resources Survey Report Impacts SECTION 4 IMPACTS 4.1 Plant Communities Implementation of the proposed project will convert approximately 0.05 -acres of the non - native grassland is approximately 1.5 -acres of CSS (Exhibit 3). No southern riparian scrub will be impacted by the proposed project. Regarding the non - natural plant communities, portions of the ornamental woodland and virtually all of the disturbed areas will be converted. Calculation of the acreage of project impacts to plant communities are based on the proposed open space area. The loss of CSS associated with the project constitutes a very small incremental contribution to the loss of this habitat in the region. Sensitive Plant Species No special status plant species were observed present on site but the possibility that sensitive plants may occur cannot be ruled out in the absence of focused surveys conducted during the appropriate season. Three special status plant species are considered to have at least some potential to occur on the site in association with the small patch of CSS habitat. However, None of these are listed by the State or federal resource agencies as endangered and thus are not specifically protected under current regulations and focused surveys are not required for these species. Furthermore, the small size and disturbed condition of the CSS habitat area on site makes it unlikely that sensitive plants, if present, could occur in sufficient numbers to be deemed a significant resource. Also, intermediate mariposa lily is a "covered species" under the NCCP implementing agreement for the coastal subregion of Orange County. Therefore, if this species, which is considered to have a moderate potential to occur, would be impacted by the proposed project, the provisions of the NCCP have already addressed such impacts by providing for the conservation of large reserve areas where populations of this species (and many others) are permanently protected. Therefore, the potential for the proposed project to significantly affect sensitive plant species is not considered significant. 4.2 Sensitive Wildlife Species Several non - listed reptiles are considered to have at least some potential to occur on site, although None were observed during the site survey. Impacts to CSS habitat that will occur as result of the proposed project could reduce the available habitat on site for these species, if they are present. However, these species are not subject to legal protections and moreover, because they are designated as "covered species" under the NCCP, direct and indirect impacts to these reptiles within areas planned for development, including the project site, have been addressed and mitigated through habitat conservation measures instituted by NCCP implementation agreement. Michael Brandman Associates 27 Pi: \Clint (PN -JN) \0064 \00640021 \00640021 Bto Repart.doc Impacts St. Mark Presbyterian Church Property - Draft Biological Resources Survey Report As discussed in the Setting Section, above, the possibility that the federally Threatened Califomia gnatcatcher and the federally Endangered Pacific pocket mouse could potentially occur on site cannot be completely ruled out, since at least marginally suitable habitat occurs on site. However, the likelihood that either species could occur is very low, and the available habitat area on the parcel is too limited and/or too disturbed to be likely to sustain a viable population of pocket mouse or a breeding pair of gnatcatchers. The loss of CSS associated with the project constitutes a very small incremental contribution to the loss of potentially suitable CSS habitat for these species in the region. In light of the NCCP, None of these potential impacts are considered significant. Both the gnatcatcher and the pocket mouse are "covered species" and impacts to these species and associated CSS losses outside the NCCP reserve in areas anticipated to be developed (defined as "Planned Activities" areas by the NCCP) have been fully addressed and mitigated by the NCCP as noted above. 4.3 USACE and CDFG Jurisdictional Areas The proposed project is configured so as to avoid direct impacts to the existing drainage feature in the small canyon on the property. p8 Michael Brandman Associates H Uienl (PN- JN)10064100640021100640021 Bio 2epun.duc ' Michael Brandman Associates H.\Clie.t (PN -JN) \0064 \00640021 \00640021 Rio Report doc 29 St. Mark Presbytedan Church Property - !raft Biological Resources Survey Report References SECTION 5 ' REFERENCES American Ornithologists' Union. 1983 (and supplements 1985, 1987, 1989, 1991, 1993, and 1995). The A.O. U. Check -List of North American Birds. 6th ed. Allen Press. Lawrence, Kansas. Burt, W. H., and Grossenheider, R. P., 1980. Peterson Field Guides, Mammals. Houghton Mifflin Company. New York, New York. California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG), 2003 (Jul.). State and Federally Listed Endangered, Threatened, and Rare Plants of California. The Resources Agency State of California, Department of Fish and Game, Natural Heritage Division, Natural Diversity Data ' Base. Sacramento, California. California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG), 2003 (July). Special Animals. The Resources Agency State of California, Department of Fish and Game, Natural Heritage Division, ' Natural Diversity Data Base. Sacramento, California. California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). 2003 (July) Natural Communities. California Department of Fish and Game, Natural Diversity Data Base. The Resources Agency of California. Sacramento, California. 1 19 pp. California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). 2003 (July) Special Plants List. California Department of Fish and Game, Natural Diversity Data Base. The Resources Agency of California. Sacramento, California. 119 pp. ' California Department of Fish and Game. 1988a. California's Wildlife. Volume I: Amphibians and Reptiles. State of California Resources Agency. Sacramento, California. ' California Department of Fish and Game. 1988b. California's Wildlife. Volume 11: Birds. State of California Resources Agency. Sacramento, California. California Department of Fish and Game. 1988c. California's Wildlife. Volume III: Mammals. State of California Resources Agency. Sacramento, California. California Department of Fish and Game. 2003. RareFind 2 personal computer program. Data Base ' Record Search for Information on Threatened, Endangered, Rare, or Otherwise Sensitive Species for the Ridgecrest North and Ridgecrest South USGS Topographic Quadrangles. California Department of Fish and Game, State of California Resources Agency. ' Sacramento, California. California Native Plant Society. 1994 -1997. California Native Plant Society's Electronic Inventory of ' Rare and Fndangered Vascular Plants of California. David C. Hudson & Associates and the Information Center for the Environment. U.C. Davis. ' Hickman, J. C. 1993. The.Jepson Manual: Higher Plants of California. University of California Press. Berkeley, California. Michael Brandman Associates H.\Clie.t (PN -JN) \0064 \00640021 \00640021 Rio Report doc 29 References St. Mark Presbyterian Church Property - Draft Biological Resources Survey Report Holland, R.F. 1986. Preliminary Descriptions of the Terrestrial Natural Communities of California. Non -game Heritage Program. California Department of Fish and Game. Sacramento, California. Manz, P. A. 1974. A Flora of Southern California. University of California Press. Berkeley, California. National Geographic Society. 1987. National Geographic Society Field Guide to the Birds of North America. 2 °d Edition. National Geographic Society, Washington D.C. Sawyer, J.O. and T. Keeler -Wolf. 1995. A Manual of California Vegetation. California Native Plant Society. Sacramento, California. Skinner, M. W., and B. M. Pavlik. 1994. California Native Plant Society 's Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California. California Native Plant Society. Special Publication, No. I, 5th ed. Stebbins, R. C. 1985. A Field Guide to Western Reptiles and Amphibians. 2 °d. Ed. Houghton- Mifflin Company. Boston, Massachusetts. Udvardy, M.D. 1994. National Audubon Society Field Guide to North American Birds. Alfred A. Knopf, Inc. New York, New York. U.S. Department of the Interior, Geological Survey. 1988. Tustin, Newport Beach, and Laguna Beach 7.5 minute USGS Quadrangle Map. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1993 (Sep 30). Plant Taxa for Listing as Endangered or Threatened Species; Notice of Review. Federal Register 50 CFR Part 17. U.S. Department of the Interior. Washington, DC. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1994 (Nov 15). Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Animal Candidate Review for Listing as Endangered or Threatened Species. Federal Register 50 CFR Part 17. U.S. Department of the Interior. Washington, DC. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1997c (Oct. 31). Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants. Federal Register 50 CFR Part 17.11 and 17.12. U.S. Department of the Interior. Washington, DC. 30 Michael Brandman Associates H: \Client(1'N -Jt) \0064 \00640021100640021 Bio Rcp.a.doe r I I L� ' St. Mark Presbyterian Church Property - Draft Biological Resources Survey Report I 1 1 Appendix A: Floral and Faunal Compendia ' Michael Bmndman Associates H: \Clove t (PN -IN) \0064 \00640021 \00640021_Dio Repw.doc St. Mark Presbyterian Church Property • Draft Biological Resources Survey Report Appendix A FLORAL COMPENDIUM Salix lasiolepis Scrophulariaceae Mimulus aurantiacus Urticaceae Urtica dioica ssp. holosericea Michael Brandman Associates H: \Clicnt (PN-JN)\0064\0064002 1 \0064002 1 Bio ReWa doc arroyo willow Figwort Family bush monkey flower Nettle Family giant creek nettle A -1 *Centaurea solstitialis yellow star - thistle ' *Cirsium vulgare bull thistle Heniizonia sp. tarweed ' Heterothecagrandii fora telegraph weed Xanthium struniarium cocklebur ' Brassicaceae_. Mustard Family Brassica nigra black mustard Capifohaceae ," Honeysuckle Family ' Sanibucus mexicana Mexican elderberry Chenbpodiaceae Goosefoot Family; Atriplex canescens four- winged saltbush *Salsola tragus Russian thistle Euphorhiatieae Spurge Family Ereniocarpus s etigerus dove weed ' Platanaceae : Sycamo're Famtly' Platanus raceniosa western sycamore Eriogonum fasciculatum California buckwheat *Runiex crispus curly dock Primulaceae Primrose Family *Anagallis arvensis scarlet pimpernel Salicaceae Willow Family Salix lasiolepis Scrophulariaceae Mimulus aurantiacus Urticaceae Urtica dioica ssp. holosericea Michael Brandman Associates H: \Clicnt (PN-JN)\0064\0064002 1 \0064002 1 Bio ReWa doc arroyo willow Figwort Family bush monkey flower Nettle Family giant creek nettle A -1 Appendix A St Mark Presbyterian Church Property - Draft Biological Resources Survey Report FAUNAL COMPENDIUM 2 Iquanidae Lizards Sceloporus occidentalis western fence lizard Columbidae Pigeons and Doves Zenaida macroura mourning dove Trochilidae Hummingbirds (7alypte anna Anna's hummingbird Corvidae Crows and Jays Corvus brachyrhynchos American crow Emberizidae Wood Warblers Afelospaij rnelodia song sparrow Pipilo crissalis California towhee Fringillidae Finches Carpodacus mexicanus house finch Sciuridae Squirrels Sperpiophilas beechelvi California ground squirrel Leporidae Hares and Rabbits Sylvilagus audubonii Audubon cottontail 2 i Michael Brandman Associates fiXiient (PN-JN)10064=64002 I \00640021.13io Report dou i , St. Mark Presbvterian Church - Screencheck Draft EIR 11 1 F APPENDIX F: TRAFFIC PHASING ORDINANCE ANALYSIS I 11 I I I Uj I I I 1 ' Michael Brandman Associates WCheN(PN -JN) 10064100640021 \Scrccncheck100640021 Appendices.doc I ri�� vP Td':F: ': R C tR S OSSR0A�5 � SAINT MARKS PRESBYTERIAN ' CHURCH TRAFFIC PHASING ORDINANCE ANALYSIS (REVISED) City of Newport Beach California II I ' URBAN CROSSROADS, INC. 41 Corporate Park, Suite 300 Irvine, CA 92606 Phone: (949) 660 -1994 ' Fax: (949) 660 -1977 www.urbanxroads.com 1 SAINT MARK'S PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH TRAFFIC PHASING ORDINANCE ANALYSIS (REVISED) NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA Prepared for: Mr. Tom Holm, AICP MICHAEL BRANDMAN ASSOCIATES 220 Commerce, Suite 200 Irvine, CA 92602 Prepared by: URBAN CROSSROADS, INC. 41 Corporate Park, Suite 300 Irvine, CA 92606 John Kain, AICP Scoff Sato, P.E. Jennifer Ekrami, P.E. November 20, 2003 February 26, 2004 (Revised) JK:SS:JE:jb JN:01267 -03 I I TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION PAGE 1.0 INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND ........................... ............................... 1 -1 r1.1 Introduction 1.2 Background 1.3 Analysis Methodology 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ................................................ ............................... 2 -1 3.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS .................................................. ............................... 3 -1 3.1 Study Intersections 3.2 Existing Traffic Volumes 11 4.0 PROJECTED TRAFFIC ..................................................... ............................... 4 -1 4.1 Project Trip Generation 4.2 Project Trip Distribution 4.3 Project Trip Assignment 4.4 Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO) Committed Projects 4.5 Cumulative Project Trip Generation 4.6 Cumulative Project Trip Distribution 4.7 Cumulative Project Trip Assignment 5.0 OPENING YEAR (2006) TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS ... ............................... 5 -1 5.1 Regional Traffic Growth 5.2 Determination of Impacted Intersections 5.3 Existing Plus Ambient Growth (2006) Plus TPO Committed Projects 5.4 Alternative Access - Elimination of Driveway along MacArthur Boulevard 5.5 Cumulative Project Analysis 5.6 Existing Plus Ambient Growth (2006) Plus TPO Committed Projects Plus Cumulative Projects 5.7 Long Range (Build -Out) Analysis 6.0 CONCLUSIONS / RECOMMENDATIONS .......................... ............................... 6 -1 :1 1 APPENDICES EXISTING TRAFFIC COUNTS /ICU ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS . ............................... A LEVEL OF SERVICE DEFINITION ................................................ ............................... B rTRAFFIC PHASING ORDINANCE APPROVED PROJECTS ......... ............................... C ONEPERCENT TEST ....................................................................... ............................... D EXISTING PLUS TPO WITH AND WITHOUT PROJECT TRAFFIC ANALYSIS ICUWORKSHEETS ........................................................................... ............................... E ALTERNATVE ACCESS EXISTING PLUS TPO PLUS PROJECT TRAFFIC ANALYSIS ICU WORKSHEETS ....................................... ............................... F COMMITTED & UNCOMMITTED PROJECTS ' TRAFFIC ANALYSIS ICU WORKSHEETS ....................................... ............................... G ALTERNATIVE ACCESS COMMITTED & UNCOMMITTED PROJECTS TRAFFIC ANALYSIS ICU WORKSHEETS ......................................... ............................... H LONG RANGE TRAFFIC ANALYSIS ICU WORKSHEETS ................. ............................... I ALTERNATIVE ACCESS LONG RANGE TRAFFIC ANALYSIS ICUWORKSHEETS ............................................................................... ..............................J CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH SIGHT DISTANCE REQUIREMENTS ............................... K I 1 1 i 1 LIST OF EXHIBITS EXHIBIT PAGE 1 -A LOCATION MAP ..................................................... ............................... 1 -2 2 -A SITE PLAN .............................................................. ............................... 2 -2 3 -A EXISTING NUMBER OF THROUGH LANES AND INTERSECTION CONTROLS ................................ ............................... 3 -2 3 -B EXISTING WEEKDAY AM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES ................................... ............................... 3 -5 3 -C EXISTING WEEKDAY PM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES ................................... ............................... 3 -6 3 -D EXISTING SUNDAY PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES ................................... ............................... 3 -7 4 -A INBOUND PROJECT TRIP DISTRIBUTION .......... ............................... 4 -5 4 -B OUTBOUND PROJECT TRIP DISTRIBUTION ...... ............................... 4 -6 4 -C ALTERNATIVE ACCESS INBOUND PROJECT TRIP DISTRIBUTION .............................................. ............................... 4 -7 4 -D ALTERNATIVE ACCESS INBOUND PROJECT TRIPDISTRIBUTION .............................................. ............................... 4 -8 4 -E PROJECT AM AND SUNDAY PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES ................................... ............................... 4 -9 4 -F PROJECT PM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES ................. 4 -10 4 -G ALTERNATIVE ACCESS PROJECT AM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES ................................. ............................... 4 -11 4 -H ALTERNATIVE ACCESS PROJECT PM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES ................................. ............................... 4 -12 4 -1 CUMULATIVE PROJECT LOCATION MAP ......... ............................... 4 -15 4 -J SOUTH COAST SHIPYARD TRIP DISTRIBUTION ............................ 4 -18 4 -K OUR LADY QUEEN OF ANGELS CHURCH TRIP DISTRIBUTION.. 4 -19 4 -L ST. ANDREWS CHURCH TRIP DISTRIBUTION ............................... 4 -20 4 -M REGENT NEWPORT BEACH RESORT TRIP DISTRIBUTION......... 4 -21 4 -N MARINERS CURCH TRIP DISTRIBUTION ......... ............................... 4 -22 4 -0 EXODUS COMMUNITY CENTER AND TARBUT V'TORAH EXPANSION TRIP DISTRIBUTION ..................... ............................... 4 -23 4 -P NEWPORT COAST TRAFFIC ANALYSIS ZONE 1 (TAZ) TRIP DISTRIBUTION PATTERNS ....................... ............................... 4 -24 4 -Q NEWPORT COAST TRAFFIC ANALYSIS ZONE 2 (TAZ) TRIP DISTRIBUTION PATTERNS ....................... ............................... 4 -25 4 -R NEWPORT COAST TRAFFIC ANALYSIS ZONE 3 (TAZ) TRIP DISTRIBUTION PATTERNS ....................... ............................... 4 -26 4 -S NEWPORT COAST TRAFFIC ANALYSIS ZONE 4 (TAZ) TRIP DISTRIBUTION PATTERNS ....................... ............................... 4 -27 4 -T NEWPORT RIDGE TRAFFIC ANALYSIS ZONE 1 (TAZ) TRIP DISTRIBUTION PATTERNS ....................... ............................... 4 -28 4 -U NEWPORT RIDGE TRAFFIC ANALYSIS ZONE 2 (TAZ) TRIP DISTRIBUTION PATTERNS ....................... ............................... 4 -29 4 -V NEWPORT RIDGE TRAFFIC ANALYSIS ZONE 3 (TAZ) TRIP DISTRIBUTION PATTERNS ....................... ............................... 4 -30 4 -W LOWER BAYVIEW SENIOR HOUSING TRIP DISTRIBUTION ......... 4 -31 4 -X BONITA CANYON - RESIDENTIAL TRIP DISTRIBUTION ................ 4 -32 4 -Y CUMULATIVE PROJECT AM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES........... ... 4 -33 4 -Z CUMULATIVE PROJECT PM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES.............. 4 -34 5 -A EXISTING PLUS AMBIENT PLUS TRAFFIC PHASING ORDINANCE (TPO) PROJECTS WITHOUT PROJECT AM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES ...... ............................... 5 -7 5 -B EXISTING PLUS AMBIENT PLUS TRAFFIC PHASING ORDINANCE (TPO) PROJECTS WITHOUT PROJECT PM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES ...... ............................... 5 -8 5 -C EXISTING PLUS AMBIENT PLUS TRAFFIC PHASING ORDINANCE (TPO) PROJECTS WITH PROJECT AM AND SUNDAY PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES............ 5 -9 5 -D EXISTING PLUS AMBIENT PLUS TRAFFIC PHASING ORDINANCE (TPO) PROJECTS WITH PROJECT PM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES .... ............................... 5 -10 5 -E ALTERNATIVE ACCESS WEEKDAY EXISTING PLUS AMBIENT PLUS TRAFFIC PHASING ORDINANCE (TPO) PROJECTS WITH PROJECT AM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES ...... 5 -12 5 -F ALTERNATIVE ACCESS WEEKDAY EXISTING PLUS AMBIENT PLUS TRAFFIC PHASING ORDINANCE (TPO) PROJECTS WITH PROJECT PM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES ...... 5 -13 5 -G ALTERNATIVE ACCESS SUNDAY EXISTING PLUS AMBIENT PLUS TRAFFIC PHASING ORDINANCE (TPO) PROJECTS WITH PROJECT AM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES ...... 5 -14 5 -H EXISTING PLUS AMBIENT PLUS TRAFFIC PHASING ORDINANCE (TPO) AND CUMULATIVE PROJECTS WITHOUT PROJECT AM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES ................. 5 -19 5 -1 EXISTING PLUS AMBIENT PLUS TRAFFIC PHASING ORDINANCE (TPO) AND CUMULATIVE PROJECTS WITHOUT PROJECT PM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES ................. 5 -20 5 -J EXISTING PLUS AMBIENT PLUS TRAFFIC PHASING ORDINANCE (TPO) AND CUMULATIVE PROJECTS WITH PROJECT AM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES ................. 5 -21 5 -K EXISTING PLUS AMBIENT PLUS TRAFFIC PHASING ORDINANCE (TPO) AND CUMULATIVE PROJECTS WITH PROJECT PM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES ................. 5 -22 5 -L ALTERNATIVE ACCESS EXISTING PLUS AMBIENT PLUS TRAFFIC PHASING ORDINANCE (TPO) AND CUMULATIVE PROJECTS WITH PROJECT AM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES ................................. ............................... 5 -23 I , 5 -M ALTERNATIVE ACCESS EXISTING PLUS AMBIENT PLUS TRAFFIC PHASING ORDINANCE (TPO) AND CUMULATIVE PROJECTS WITH PROJECT PM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES ................................. ............................... 5 -24 5 -N LONG RANGE (BUILDOUT) WITHOUT PROJECT AM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES .... ............................... 5 -29 5 -0 LONG RANGE (BUILDOUT) WITHOUT PROJECT PM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES .... ............................... 5 -30 5 -P LONG RANGE (BUILDOUT) WITH PROJECT AM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES .... ............................... 5 -31 5 -Q LONG RANGE (BUILDOUT) WITH PROJECT PM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES .... ............................... 5 -32 5 -R ALTERNATIVE ACCESS LONG RANGE (BUILDOUT) WITH ' PROJECT AM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES ................. 5 -33 5 -S ALTERNATIVE ACCESS LONG RANGE (BUILDOUT) WITH PROJECT PM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES ................. 5 -34 6 -A MACARTHUR BOULEVARD PROJECT DRIVEWAY -SIGHT DISTANCE ILLUSTRATION ................................... ............................... 6 -3 6 -B RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE SOUTHBOUND FREE RIGHT TURN LANE AT MACARTHUR BOULEVARD / SAN JOAQUIN HILLS ROAD ................................ ............................... 6 -10 1 6 -C CIRCULATIONS RECOMMENDATIONS ............. ............................... 6 -12 I i 1 1 1 I LIST OF TABLES TABLE PAGE 3 -1 INTERSECTION ANALYSIS FOR EXISTING CONDITIONS ................. 3-4 4 -1 PROJECT TRIP GENERATION RATES ................ ............................... 4 -2 4 -2 PROJECT TRIP GENERATION ............................... ............................... 4 -3 4 -3 OTHER DEVELOPMENT TRIP RATES ................. ............................... 4 -14 4-4 OTHER DEVELOPMENT TRIP GENERATION ..... ............................... 4 -16 5 -1 TRANSPORTATION PHASING ORDINANCE (TPO) ONEPERCENT TEST ............................................ ............................... 5 -3 5 -2 INTERSECTION ANALYSIS FOR EXISTING PLUS AMBIENT GROWTH (2006) PLUS TRAFFIC PHASING ORDINANCE (TPO) COMMITTED PROJECTS WITHOUT PROJECT .. ............................... 5-4 5 -3 INTERSECTION ANALYSIS FOR EXISTING PLUS AMBIENT GROWTH (2006) PLUS TRAFFIC PHASING ORDINANCE (TPO) COMMITTED PROJECTS WITH PROJECT .......... ............................... 5 -5 5-4 ALTERNATIVE ACCESS - INTERSECTION ANALYSIS FOR EXISTING PLUS AMBIENT GROWTH (2006) + TPO'S WITH PROJECT ................................................... ............................... 5 -11 5 -5 INTERSECTION ANALYSIS FOR EXISTING PLUS AMBIENT GROWTH (2006) PLUS TRAFFIC PHASING ORDINANCE (TPO) COMMITTED PROJECTS PLUS CUMULATIVE DEVELOPMENT WITHOUT PROJECT ............... ............................... 5 -16 5 -6 INTERSECTION ANALYSIS FOR EXISTING PLUS AMBIENT GROWTH (2006) PLUS TRAFFIC PHASING ORDINANCE (TPO) COMMITTED PROJECTS PLUS CUMULATIVE DEVELOPMENT WITH PROJECT ....................... ............................... 5 -17 5 -7 ALTERNATIVE ACCESS INTERSECTION ANALYSIS FOR EXISTING PLUS AMBIENT GROWTH (2006) PLUS TRAFFIC PHASING ORDINANCE (TPO) COMMITTED PROJECTS PLUS CUMULATIVE DEVELOPMENT WITH PROJECT ............................. 5 -18 5 -8 INTERSECTION ANALYSIS FOR LONG RANGE (BUILD -OUT) WITHOUT PROJECT ..................... ............................... 5 -26 5 -9 INTERSECTION ANALYSIS FOR LONG RANGE (BUILD -OUT) WITH PROJECT ............................ ............................... 5-27 5 -10 ALTERNATIVE ACCESS INTERSECTION ANALYSIS FOR LONG RANGE (BUILD -OUT) WITH PROJECT ... ............................... 5 -28 6 -1 YEAR 1999 ACCIDENT DATA SUMMARY FOR THE INTERSECTION OF MACARTHUR BOULEVARD AT SAN JOAQUIN HILLS ROAD .................................. ............................... 6 -5 6 -2 YEAR 2000 ACCIDENT DATA SUMMARY FOR THE INTERSECTION OF MACARTHUR BOULEVARD AT SANJOAQUIN HILLS ROAD .................................. ............................... 6 -6 6 -3 YEAR 2001 ACCIDENT DATA SUMMARY FOR THE INTERSECTION OF MACARTHUR BOULEVARD AT SAN JOAQUIN HILLS ROAD .................................. ............................... 6 -7 6-4 YEAR 2002 ACCIDENT DATA SUMMARY FOR THE INTERSECTION OF MACARTHUR BOULEVARD AT SAN JOAQUIN HILLS ROAD .................................. ............................... 6 -8 6 -5 YEAR 2003 ACCIDENT DATA SUMMARY FOR THE INTERSECTION OF MACARTHUR BOULEVARD AT SAN JOAQUIN HILLS ROAD .................................. ............................... 6 -9 Ll SAINT MARK'S PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH TRAFFIC PHASING ORDINANCE ANALYSIS (REVISED) NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA 1.0 INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND 1.1 Introduction This report presents the traffic impact analysis for the proposed Saint Mark's Presbyterian Church located at the northwest corner of San Joaquin Hills Road at MacArthur Boulevard in the City of Newport Beach. Exhibit 1 -A illustrates the location of the proposed project with respect to the surrounding roadway system. As required in the City of Newport Beach for all new development projects exceeding 10,000 square feet or generating greater than 300 daily vehicle trips, a traffic analysis is required. Therefore, this analysis has been prepared to address the potential impacts to the circulation system and conforms to the Traffic Phasing Ordinance analysis procedures specified by the City. Additionally, uncommitted developments that are expected to be developed in the near future that are in a close proximity to the site, have been included /analyzed in the "Cumulative Projects" scenario. 1.2 Background The Traffic Impact Analysis format requires that project traffic impacts be presented in progressive analysis steps. Following a description of the project location and site plan, the trip generation and distribution for the proposed project are presented. Traffic impacts at intersections are then determined for AM and PM peak hours. Traffic from other projects, which have been previously approved by the City of iNewport Beach (committed projects) but which are not completed or currently 1 1 -1 I EXHIBIT 1 -A LOCATION MAP 1 _? i I I 1 I 1 rl i 1 I 1 I 11 1 Of I I ' generating traffic, has been included in the analysis. Information on committed projects and their traffic were furnished by the City. Arterial roadways in the City which carry a regional traffic component are also identified by the City. Because the traffic volume which represents the regional traffic component increases without regard to the approval of projects within the city, the regional traffic growth component must be accounted for separately. As with committed project traffic, tthe annual regional growth rate for the study area is specified by the City. With the completion of this project contemplated in the Year 2005, assuming approval by the City, the analysis year for this project has been assumed to be 2006. Project traffic is then combined with existing, committed project and regional growth traffic to simulate traffic conditions during the analysis year. The City of Newport Beach has requested an additional analysis scenario that includes existing, committed project and regional growth traffic and other t developments that are expected to occur in the near future. 1 1.3 Analysis Methodology The ICU methodology expresses intersection performance in terms of the degree of capacity utilization for critical lane groups of an intersection. Capacity utilization is expressed as a volume -to- capacity (V /C) ratio in decimal percent for each approach lane group. Critical lane groups, whose movements conflict with each other (i.e., must move independently under the control of a unique signal phase) and have the highest V/C ratios, are then identified. The sum of V/C ratios for the critical lane groups constitutes the ICU value for the intersection. ICU calculations assume a lane capacity value of 1600 vehicles per hour of green time for both through and turn lanes and do not include a factor for yellow clearance time. ICU calculations are presented rounded to two decimal places. 1 1 -3 To operate an acceptable level of service, the Traffic Phasing Ordinance generally requires the ICU value for an intersection to be less than 0.90 with the contribution of project traffic. In situations where the ICU will exceed 0.90, the project must propose an improvement which will restore an acceptable level of service. For the purposes of the analysis, the incremental increase in intersection capacity due to the improvement must be limited to 70 percent of ifs value to insure some reserve capacity. In addition to the intersection analysis, the report provides a review of on -site traffic circulation, and site access from the adjoining street system. 1-4 i 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project site, located at the northwest corner of the intersection of San Joaquin Hills iRoad at Macarthur Boulevard in the City of Newport Beach, is proposed for development as a church with preschool /daycare facilities. The site plan for the proposed site is shown in Exhibit 2 -A. tThe site is designated as Open Space /Recreation in the City of Newport Beach General Plan and is currently undeveloped. During the holiday season, the site is used as a Christmas tree sales lot. No other uses occur on the site. The project proposes to amend the General Plan and designate this site as Governmental /Educational/ Institutional. As shown on the site plan, the project includes a 33,867 square foot Church facility to accommodate seating for 380 persons. The facility also includes a 5,200 square foot preschool /daycare center. I I I I I 1 1 2 -1 "Qy _a 44,1 ST. MAR M 2-2 EXHIBIT 2-A SITE PLAN I n LI ' 3.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS This section of the report identifies the existing traffic conditions in the study area in terms of traffic volumes and roadway geometrics /traffic controls. Exhibit 3 -A identifies the existing roadway conditions for study area roadways. The number of through traffic lanes for existing roadways and the existing intersection controls are identified. 3.1 Study Intersections Because the Traffic Phasing Ordinance focuses on the impacts to intersections during peak periods, the study intersections define the specific analysis locations within the city circulation system. These following intersections have been designated by the City staff for analysis in this report: Jamboree Road (NS) at: r• East Bluff Drive /Ford Road (EW) • San Joaquin Hills Road (EW) • Pacific Coast Highway (EW) ■ MacArthur Boulevard (NS) at: ■ Ford Road /Bonita Canyon Drive (EW) • San Joaquin Hills Road (EW) • San Miguel Drive (EW) • Pacific Coast Highway (EW) Santa Rosa Drive /Big Canyon Drive (NS) at: • San Joaquin Hills Road (EW) 1 3.2 Existing Traffic Volumes iExisting peak hour traffic operations have been evaluated for study area intersections. Manual turning movement counts were conducted for both the ' weekday and weekend. Weekday a.m. counts were conducted between the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. Weekday p.m. counts were conducted between the 3 -1 �f �f LEGEND: = TRAFFIC SIGNAL 4 = NUMBER OF LANES D = DIVIDED U = UNDIVIDED 44-- = FREE RIGHT TURN '—RTo = RIGHT TURN OVERLAP 4—DEF = DEFACTO RIGHT TURN LAN 4-150' = 150-FOOT RIGHT TURN POC ST. MARK'S CHURCH TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYST: EXHIBIT 3 -A EXISTING NUMBER OF THROUGH LANES AND INTERSECTION CONTROLS �111111�" 4D fORp BONITA %r� 40 RO CYN. DR. 0 Y 6pG�ti p~ m �o NYON �� 6J SITE ✓�`` Z so SANTA O ROSA DR. f A� vp CUF OR 40 0 E KET 0 3 -2 hours of 4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. Sunday a.m. counts were conducted between the hours of 8:30 a.m. to 11:30 a.m. The results of this analysis are summarized in Table 3 -1, along with the existing intersection geometrics and traffic control devices at each analysis location. Existing intersection level of service calculations are based upon manual AM and PM peak hour turning movement counts provided by the City of Newport Beach (see Exhibits 3 -B and 3 -C). Existing Sunday intersection level of service calculations are based upon manual AM peak hour turning movement counts made in September 2003 (see Exhibits 3 -D). Existing traffic counts and ICU calculation worksheets are provided in Appendix "A ". Levels of service definitions are provided in Appendix "B ". For existing weekday and Sunday traffic conditions, the study area intersections currently operate at Level of Service "C or better during the peak hours. 3 -3 M W J 3 -4 c d O v LU 6 y w N � z y c � E U ¢ R l7 V N l7 O N R d � v d c � S m � c N J W of o O > O O Q LU y Q U¢ m ¢ U m¢¢ a E Y m II LU � o d W y @ � — y O N R N Im 10 1l 10 10 O O 3 C C b 0 w j L y �vin Qr In co Ci r O o 0 m n o n n n Z N d I I U O W J I- N N m N N N O O m in W Z K �� o o 0 0 0 = O y jl O O L Z FL n t J F- N< l7 N O N O ¢ W m d 5 L 11 n � U1 E O a a Z m n n n n n 0 = 0 F- r Z a m m x c O H y F- E W O O o U r m R m r > W 0 m d 4 m O W O C U L N 6 F (O N > U Z U II N > p ry c = O N C r Q r OI Z E y '.' O N T N = W O Om Z U F- 0 J It 11 U J y v L tl O w O m Q F' Z IF- IF- IF- F- F- IF- IF- IF- IF- L O ¢ U IU- D F- U r m D W W W N W Z W Z O N U W O c U W. Df W Z t° S= T U S Z S_ C y m c a co c o y W0= p � m> > m p d o O' A U Q m m Q O U O 0 '� � 0� L 4i CU Ile C y= C 2 C C U 0 E w wa w�l°�w wa 3 -4 c d 6 y � n y c � E d � v d c � S m � c N � o O > O O � n E U a E m II � o d y @ � — y O > y C O O 3 C C b 0 w j L y � O C O g N d I I U O y n y d O y jl O O L Z n t d � c o d 5 L 11 n � U1 E m y A a m m x c O H y y � E o U r m R m r > c O x co d 4 m O V O C U L N 6 y (O N > U U II N > p ry c N C 1- Q N O _W OI U x E y '.' O N T N = W N U F- 0 J It 11 it y v L U w O 3 vl y ¢ U IU- D _ r m D i I I I I EXHIBIT 3 -B EXISTING WEEKDAY AM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES rsry Sq2 lFR 11A Zj )G i b� � ��trs °s 9p �a536^ UFO UR. 0 Cogsl vo � ^p^ <, yy'y J� )8 �C ^2j2 ask d7 1 tir �o ST MARK'S CHURCH TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS City of Newport Beach, California - 01267:09 URBAN 3 -5 EXHIBIT 3 -C , EXISTING WEEKDAY ' PM PEAK DOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES 1. ST. MARK'S CHURCH TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS, City of Newport Beach, California - 0 3 -6 I I it I II II III I! 1 EXHIBIT 3 -D EXISTING SUNDAY PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES IST. MARK'S CHURCH TRAFFIC IMPACT A 3 -7 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK [cam: 4.0 PROJECTED TRAFFIC This section of the report discusses project trip generation, distribution, and assignment to the roadway system. The traffic generation forthe project is based upon the specific land uses which have been planned for this development. 4.1 Proiect Trip Generation ' The project site, located at the northwest corner of the intersection of San Joaquin Hills Road at MacArthur Boulevard in the City of Newport Beach, is proposed for development as a Church. The site is currently vacant. As shown previously on the site plan (Exhibit 2 -A), the project includes a 33,867 square foot Church facility to accommodate seating for 380 persons. The facility includes a 5,200 square foot preschool /daycare center. The trip generation rates for the proposed project are shown in Table 4 -1. The trip generation rates are based upon the City of Newport Beach Trip Rates for weekday conditions and data collected by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) for Sunday conditions. Table 4 -2 summarizes the number of vehicles entering and exiting the site during the AM peak hour (7 -9 AM), the PM peak hour (4 -6 PM), and for the entire day. IThe proposed project is anticipated to generate the highest number of trips during a Sunday mid - morning timeframe. Therefore, this data was also included in the analysis to ensure a conservative "worst case" scenario at the access points. As indicated in Table 4 -2, an average of 633 weekday daily trips are anticipated to occur with 71 trips (38 in /33 out) occurring during the AM peak hour and 90 trips (43 in /47 out) occurring during the PM peak hour. Similarly, a total of 1,081 daily trips are expected to occur on Sundays with 281 (144 in/137 out) occurring during ' the peak timeframe. 1 4 -1 TABLE 4 -1 PROJECT TRIP GENERATION RATES LAND USE QUANTITY UNITSZ WEEKDAY TRIP RATES' DAILY AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR IN I OUT I TOTAL IN I OUT TOTAL Church 28.7 TSF 0.0£. 0.03 0.11 0.34 0.30 0.64 7.70 Preschool /Day Care Center 5.2 TSF 6.90 6.12 13.02 6.40 7.22 13.62 79.26 LAND USE ITE CODE UANTI UNITSZ SUNDAY TRIP RATES' DAILY PEAK HOUR IN OUT TOTAL Church 560 28.7 TSF 4.84 4.65 9.49 36.63 lPreschool/Day Care Center 565 5.2 TSF 0.94 0.80 1 1.74 5.83 Source: City of Newport Beach Trip Generation Rates Z TSF = Thousand Square Feet ' Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), Trip Generation, Sixth Edition, 1997 U:1UCJobsl0126TExcel 1101267- 03.xls]T 4 -1 4 -2 I I I I LJ I I lJ I, I I I I I I TABLE 4 -2 PROJECT TRIP GENERATION LAND USE QUANTITY UNITSZ WEEKDAY DAILY AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR IN OUT TOTAL IN I OUT ITOTAL Church 1 28.7 TSF 1 21 11 3 10 9 19 221 Preschool /Da Care Center 5.2 TSF 36 32 68 33 38 71 412 TOTAL 381 331 711 431 471 901 633 LAND USE QUANTITY I UNITSZ SUNDAY DAILY PEAK HOUR IN OUT ITOTALl Church 28.7 TSF 139 133 272 1,051 Preschool /Da Care Center 5.2 1 TSF 1 51 41 91 30 TOTAL 1 1441 1371 281F 1081 I' TSF = Thousand Square Feet IU: \UcJobs \01267\Excel \[01267- 03.xis)T 4.2 I 1 4 -3 4.2 M, ., Project Trip Distribution Trip distribution represents the directional orientation of traffic to and from the project site. The trip distribution patterns and percentages have been based on the roadway system surrounding the site and the residences of church members. Exhibits 4 -A and 4 -B illustrate the project's inbound and outbound distribution percentages. At the request of the City, an alternative access scenario has been prepared which eliminates the project's driveway along MacArthur Boulevard. The inbound and outbound distributions for this alternative are shown on Exhibits 4 -C and 4 -D, respectively. Project Trip Assignment The assignment of traffic from the site to the adjoining roadway system has been based upon the site's trip generation, trip distribution, and surrounding arterial highway and local street systems. Based on the identified project traffic generation and distribution, project weekday AM and Sunday peak hour intersection turning movement volumes are shown on Exhibits 4 -E. Exhibit 4 -F illustrates the project PM peak hour intersection turning movement volumes. The project AM /Sunday and PM peak hour intersection turning movement volumes for the alternative access scenario are shown on Exhibits 4 -G and 4 -H, respectively. It should be noted that traffic volumes on Sunday are generally less than weekdays and gaps will be available for traffic leaving the site. However, diversions have been assumed in the distribution patterns to account for the restricted access at the driveways and the U -Turn restrictions along San Joaquin Hills Road. Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPOLCommitted Projects One of the components of evaluating future traffic volumes is the inclusion of committed project traffic. Commjrtsd projects are defined as projects which have been approved by the City of Newport Beach under the Traffic Phasing Ordinance. EXHIBIT 4 -A ' INBOUND PROJECT TRIP DISTRIBUTION S h N FORD R BONITA 25 CYN. DR. 0 o syti J09 pG N i W z q0 D O mom/ SITE e °• � m Z o 0 SANTA R05A DR. �P Op S 15 ��CG f/ pR• N Go y�Ly m„ J� ve LEGEND: 'o 10 = PERCENT TO PROJECT 1 5T. MARK'5 CHURCH TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS City of Newport Beach California- 01267:05 URBAN 4 -5 EXHIBIT 4 -B 1 OUTBOUND PROJECT TRIP DISTRIBUTION ' S 10 =PERCENT FROM PROJECT ST. MARK'S 4 -6 1 5 1 1 1 I I 1 1 1I l 1 1' EXHIBIT 4 -C ' ALTERNATIVE ACCESS INBOUND PROJECT TRIP DISTRIBUTION I I I 11 l I Lj i I I I I I I 10 = PERCENT TO PROJECT ST. MARK'S CHURCH TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS, City of Newport Beach, California -01267:08 URBAN ' 4 -7 EXHIBIT 4 -G , ALTERNATIVE ACCESS OUTBOUND PROJECT TRIP DISTRIBUTION 1D = PERCENT FROM PROJECT MARK'S CHURCH TRAFFIC ow. I II U II l II 1 1 t� i EXHIBIT 4E PROJECT AM AND SUNDAY PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES 4110 = WEEKDAY /SUNDAY n EXHIBIT 4 -F ' PROJECT PM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES ' I 4 -10 1 X31 EXHIBIT 4 -G ALTERNATIVE ACCESS PROJECT AM AND SUNDAY PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES 1 o -� ;�� �oo J�� x-0 /0 oi8 1 0 6gr2 0� } r o00 �O O� LEGEND: 4/10 = WEEKDAY /SUNDAY I 0 ST. MARK'S CHURCH TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS, City of 4 -11 EXHIBIT 4 -H ' ALTERNATIVE ACCESS PROJECT PM PEAK (HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES L�' ST. MARK'S CHURCH TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS, City of Newport Beach, California - 01267:52 u 4 -12 1 I ' Because these projects are potentially under construction or are in their one -year maturity period, they are either not currently or are only partially generating traffic. j Therefore, their traffic impacts are not reflected in the peak hour intersection traffic counts provided by the City. To account for this traffic component, the City maintains a database which tracks the committed projects traffic at each City intersection. The City then provides this committed projects traffic for the analysis year of the proposed project to the traffic consultant preparing the report. A list of committed projects and their respective traffic volumes are provided in Appendix "C ". Pursuant to the City staff, 80% of the trip generation is assumed for all the committed projects at one year after the opening of the proposed project as a result of the potential interaction of these ' projects. 1 4.5 Cumulative Project Trip Generation Table 4 -3 lists the proposed land uses and trip generation rates for the nearby ' uncommitted, cumulative projects provided by the City of Newport Beach staff. The following projects are being included at the request of the City and are ' illustrated on Exhibit 4 -I: • South Coast Shipyard Our Lady Queen of Angels Church ' . Saint Andrew's Church • Regent Newport Beach Resort • Mariners Church Exodus Community Center and Tarbut V'Torah Expansion Newport Coast Developments ' . Newport Ridge Developments Lower Bayview Senior Housing ' . Bonita Canyon Residential Development ' Table 4-4 shows the daily and peak hour vehicle trips generated by the cumulative projects in the study area. 4 -13 TABLE 4 -3 OTHER DEVELOPMENT TRIP RATES' LAND USE UNITS2 PEAK HOUR AM PM IN OUT TOTAL IN OUT TOTAL DAILY Apartments /Multi Family Dwelling DU 0.90 0.42 1.32 0.43 0.20 0.63 6.47 Commercial Retail TSF 0.60 0.50 1.10 1.90 2.00 3.90 General Office TSF 2.60 0.35 2.95 1.49 7.26 8.75 Church TSF 0.08 0.03 0.11 0.34 0.30 0.64 Classrooms STU 0.18 0.12 0.30 NOM NOM 0.00 Resort Hotel ROOMS 0.20 0.10 0.30 0.20 0.30 0.50 JN/AA� Health Club TSF 1.25 0.85 2.10 2.93 1.93 4.86 Church, Synagogue TSF 0.63 0.38 1.01 0.55 0.46 1.01 High School STU 0.37 0.18 0.55 0.03 0.08 0.11 Elementary, Middle School STU 0.24 0.17 0.41 0.03 0.07 0.10 Child Care Center TSF 9.53 9.14 18.67 6.13 13.25 19.38 99.99 CondominiumfTownhouse DU 0.17 0.49 0.66 0.47 0.36 0.83 8.10 Single Family Residential DU 0.20 0.70 0.90 0.70 0.40 1.10 11.00 Elderly Residential i DU 0.10 0.30 0.40 0.30 0.10 0.40 4.00 Source: City of Newport Beach Trip Generation Rates, Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), Trip Generation, Sixth Edition, 1997 City of Irvine Mariners Church Master Plan, Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. City of Irvine Exodus Community Center and Tarbut V'Torah Expansion Traffic Study, Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. Z DU = Dwelling Units, TSF = Thousand Square Feet STU = Students 3 N/A = Not Available NOM = Nominal U: \UcJobs \01267 \Excel \[01267- 03.xlslT 4 -3 4 -14 I' '1 1 1 II i ,i 1 1 -o-- -c EXHIBIT 4 -1 CUMULATIVE PROJECT LOCATION MAP O� O-- v Beach, California - 01267:35 URBAN i 4 -15 1 LEGEND: O= SOUTH COAST SHIPYARD 1 O = OUR LADY QUEEN OF ANGELS CHUI O= ST. ANDREWS CHURCH ®= REGENT NEWPORT BEACH RESORT iO= MARINERS CHURCH EXODUS COMMUNITY CENTER i O= AND TARBUT V'TORAH EXPANSION NEWPORT COAST ®= NEWPORT RIDGE 1 O= LOWER BAYVIEW SENIOR HOUSING �= BONITA CANYON - RESIDENTIAL iST. MARK'S CHURCH TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS O-- v Beach, California - 01267:35 URBAN i 4 -15 TABLE 4-4 OTHER DEVELOPMENT TRIP GENERATION PROJECT LAND USE QUANTITY UNITS' PEAK HOUR AM PM W OUT TOTAL IN OUT South Coast Shipyard Residential • A artmerits 28 DU 25 37 12 6 Commercial Retail 15.8 TSF 9 17 30 32 Subtotal 34 54 42 38 Our Lady Queen of Angels Church Church 25 TSF 2 3 6 6 Classrooms 250 STU 45 P31 75 NOM NOM Subtotal 47 78 6 6 St. Andrews Church Church 33 F 3 11 1D Regent Newport Beach Resort Resort Hotel 156 ROOMS 31 47 31 47 Mariners Church Health Club 35 TSF 44 30 74 103 68 Church, Synagogue 328.25 TSF 207 125 332 181 151 Subtotal -Person Trip Generation 251 155 406 284 219 Subtotal - Vehicle Trip Generation 157 95 252 182 137 Exodus Community Center and Tarbut V'Torah Expansion Health Club 48.73 j TSF 61 41 102 143 94 Church, Synagogue 83.49 TSF 53 32 85 46 38 High School 320 STU 118 58 176 10 26 Elementary, Middle School 160 STU 38 27 65 5 11 Child Care Center 27.78 TSF 265 254 519 170 368 Subtotal -Person Trip Generation 535 412 947 374 537 Subtotal- Vehicle Trip Generation 331 253 584 240 333 Newport Coast Condomimumffownhouse 389 DU 66 191 257 183 140 Multi Family Dwelling 175 DU 158 74 232 75 35 Single Family Residential 954 DU 191 668 859 668 382 Subtotal 415 933 1,348 926 557 Newport Ridge Multi Family Dwelling 384 DU 346 161 507 165 77 Single Family Residential 632 DU 126 442 568 442 253 Commercial 102.959 TSF 62 51 113 196 206 Subtotal 534 654 1,188 803 536 Lower Bayview Senior Housing Elderly Residential 150 DU 15 45 60 45 15 ita Bon Can on - Residential !Apartments 139 OU 39 183 222 187 87 TOTAL 1 606 2 231 3 837 2,473_ 1,756 t' DU = Dwelling Units, TSF = Thousand Squat Feet, STU = Student; I 2 N/A = Not Available 3 NOM = Nominal ' U: WWobsl0126TE.rcen[01267- 03.x151744 ' I h 4 -16 1 r L ' 4.6 Cumulative Project Trip Distribution ' Exhibits 4 -J through 4 -X contain the directional distribution and assignment of the cumulative project traffic. 1 4.7 Cumulative Project Trip Assignment 1 The assignment of traffic from the cumulative projects to the adjoining roadway system has been based upon the projects' trip generation, trip distribution, and surrounding arterial highway and local street systems, as provided by the City staff. ' Based on the provided cumulative project traffic generation and distribution, cumulative project AM and PM peak hour intersection turning movement ' volumes are shown on Exhibits 4 -Y and 4 -Z, respectively. II II II II II II J 1 4 -17 --O EXHIBIT 4 -J , SOUTH COAST SHIPYARD ' TRIP DISTRIBUTION 10 =PERCENT TO /FROM PROJECT (D= SOUTH COAST SHIPYARD ST. MARK'S CHURCH 4 -18 I I EXHIBIT 4 -K OUR LADY QUEEN OF ANGELS CHURCH TRIP DISTRIBUTION 10 =PERCENT TO /FROM PROJECT O= OUR LADY QUEEN OF ANGELS CHURCH zo 1 0 ST. MARK'S CHURCH TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS, City of Newport Beach, California - 01267:37 URBAN 4 -19 --O EXHIBIT 4 -L ST. ANDREWS CHURCH TRIP DISTRIBUTION 10 =PERCENT TO /FROM PROJECT O- ST. ANDREWS CHURCH CHURCH TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS, City of Newport Reach, California - 4 -20 --c EXHIBIT 4 -M REGENT NEWPORT BEACH RESORT TRIP DISTRIBUTION 10 =PERCENT TO /FROM PROJECT ®= REGENT NEWPORT BEACH RESORT IMPACT ANALYSIS. Citv of Newport Beach. California -01267:39 4 -21 1 EXHIBIT 4 -N MARINERS CHURCH TRIP DISTRIBUTION 1 o- 1 10 =PERCENT TO /FROM PROJECT O= MARINERS CHURCH 4 -22 EXHIBIT 4 -0 EXODUS COMMUNITY CENTER AND TARBUT WTORAH EXPANSION r TRIP DISTRIBUTION 1 (D- IF it 1 ' ST 10 =PERCENT TO /FROM PROJECT ©° EXODUS COMMUNITY CENTER AND TARBUT V'TORAH EXPANSION 4 -23 01267:41 EXHIBIT 4 -P NEWPORT COAST TRAFFIC ANALYSIS ZONE 1 (TAZ) TRIP DISTRIBUTION PATTERNS 10 = PERCENT TO /FROM PROJECT 4 -24 TA2, n 11 I I I I I I EXHIBIT 4 -Q NEWPORT COAST TRAFFIC ANALYSIS ZONE 2 (TAZ) TRIP DISTRIBUTION PATTERNS TAZ 2 10 =PERCENT TO /FROM PROJECT ' ST MARK'S CHURCH TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS City of Newport Beach Calffornia - 01267:43 URBAN 4 -25 EXHIBIT 4 -R NEWPORT COAST TRAFFIC ANALYSIS ZONE 3 (TAZ) ' TRIP DISTRIBUTION PATTERNS 10 = PERCENT TO /FROM PROJECT 4 -26 EXHIBIT 4 -5 NEWPORT COAST TRAFFIC ANALYSIS ZONE 4 TAI TRIP DISTRIBUTION PATTERN 10 =PERCENT TO /FROM PROJECT 4 -27 a. TAZ 4 EXHIBIT 4 -T r NEWPORT RIDGE TRAFFIC ANALYSIS ZONE 1 (TAZ) r TRIP DISTRIBUTION PATTERN 10 =PERCENT TO/FROM PROJECT 4 -28 r r TAZ 1 r i. r r i r, r r� I r� r r r r it EXHIBIT 4 -U NEWPORT RIDGE TRAFFIC ANALYSIS ZONE 2 (TAZ) TRIP DISTRIBUTION PATT RN 10 = PERCENT TO /FROM PROJECT 4 -29 f AZ 2 EXHIBIT 4 -V NEWPORT RIDGE TRAFFIC ANALYSIS ZONE 3 (TAZ) TRIP DISTRIBUTION PATT RN 10 =PERCENT TO /FROM PROJECT C Fil rah, California - 4 -30 R. [T AZ tl r 25 EXHIBIT 4 -W LOWER BAYVIEW SENIOR HOUSING TRIP DISTRIBUTION 10 =PERCENT TO /FROM PROJECT O= LOWER BAYVIEW SENIOR HOUSING r rST. MARK'S CHURCH TRAFFIC IMPACT 4 -31 EXHIBIT 4 -X ' BONITA CANYON - RESIDENTIAL TRIP DISTRIBUTION 10 =PERCENT TO /FROM PROJECT 0 = BONITA CANYON - RESIDENTIAL of Newoort Beach. California - 4 -32 t EXHIBIT 4 -Y CUMULATIVE PROJECT AM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES I F I I I '� I I I I I [1 I 1 4 -33 ST. MARK'S CHURCH TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS, City of Newport Beach, California - 01267:14 V RBAN 1 4 -33 EXHIBIT 4 -Z ' CUMULATIVE PROJECT PM PEAK (HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES � I I ANALYSIS. Ci[v of 4 -34 IR� 1 5 OPENING YEAR (2006) TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS This section of the report discusses the impact of project traffic determined in the previous report section. Project impacts are assessed one year after the project is estimated for completion so that the project traffic has the opportunity to stabilize at its projected value. Because the overall level of traffic which will occur at that time is made up of different components, each traffic component is estimated separately and then combined to forecast the total level of traffic at each study intersection. 5.1 Regional Traffic Growth Another component of future traffic which must be determined for the traffic analysis is the amount of traffic which occurs due to regional growth. The regional traffic component represents traffic which essentially passes through the city on roadways within the City of Newport Beach. This traffic component maintains a growth trend which is not related to project approvals by the City of Newport Beach. The amount of annual growth is identified by the City for segments of roadways which carry regional traffic and is expressed as a percentage of the total traffic which was counted. An annual growth rate of 1 percent per year along Jamboree Road and MacArthur Boulevard has been used to estimate Year 2006 ambient conditions. 5.2 Determination of Impacted Intersections The first assessment of the project's traffic is made to determine if the project significantly impacts an intersection. This is accomplished by analyzing intersection leg approach volumes at study intersections during the AM and PM peak hours. This assessment is referred to as the "One Percent Test ". During these peak timeframes, the total traffic volume, estimated to occur in the traffic analysis year, on each leg of each study intersection is determined. The project's traffic contribution to the intersection leg is also identified and is compared 5 -1 5.3 to the total non - project traffic volume. If the project's contribution on each leg is less than one percent of the non - project total, the analysis for that intersection for that time period is concluded and no further analysis is required. However, if the one percent threshold is equaled or exceeded, the intersection is said to be impacted by the project, and a peak hour analysis for that time period must be performed to determine the intersection capacity utilization at the intersection. By performing the One Percent Test using the existing traffic volumes, this is a "worst case scenario" because the future scenarios (i.e. existing plus ambient plus traffic phasing ordinance (TPO) projects) have a larger base volume and a larger base volume would yield a smaller percentage. The results of the One Percent Test are shown in Table 5 -1. Analysis worksheets for each intersection are included in Appendix "D ". The results of the analysis indicate that four (4) of the study area intersections will not exceed the one percent test and further analysis is not required by the Transportation Phasing Ordinance. These intersections are as follows: Jamboree Road (NS) at: • East Bluff Drive /Ford Road (EW) • Pacific Coast Highway (EW) MacArthur Boulevard (NS) at: • Ford Road /Bonita Canyon Drive (EW) • Pacific Coast Highway (EW) Existinq Plus Ambient Growth (2006) Plus TPO Committed Projects Table 5 -2 and 5 -3 show the existing plus ambient growth (2006) plus TPO projects intersection levels of service for the existing network during the week and on Sunday without and with the proposed project, respectively. Although the additional traffic for the TPO projects are anticipated for weekday conditions, 5 -2 n M TABLE 5 -1 ' TRANSPORTATION PHASING ORDINANCE (TPO) ONE PERCENT TEST I 1 [1 I E I� Ci INTERSECTION ONE PERCENT OF PROJECTED PEAK HOUR VOLUMES PROJECT PEAK HOUR VOLUME OVER ONE PERCENT TEST? AM PM AM PM AM PM Jamboree Rd. at Eastbluff Dc /Ford Rd. • Northbound 19 19 7 9 No No • Southastbountl 19 20 2 2 No No • Ebound 12 7 2 2 No No • Westbound 5 2 0 0 No No Jamboree Rd. at San Joaquin Hills Rd.: • Northbound 15 15 0 0 No No • Southbound 22 21 4 4 No No • Eastbound 4 2 0 0 No No • Westbound 2 3 1 14 18 Yes Yes Jamboree Rd. at Pacfc Coast Highway: • Northbound 5 4 0 0 No No • Southbound 11 20 7 9 No No • Eastbound 31 25 4 4 No No • Westbound 13 24 0 0 No No Santa Rosa/Big Cyn Dr. at San Joaquin Hills Rd.: • Northbound 1 7 2 2 Yes No • Southbound 1 1 0 0 No No • Eastbound 6 6 1 4 4 No No • Westbound 11 5 20 28 Yes Yes MacArthur Blvd. at Ford Rd./Bonita Cyn: • Northbound 25 26 6 8 No No • Southbound 26 23 6 6 No No • Eastbound 3 3 0 0 No No • Westbound 24 13 6 6 No No MacArthur Blvd. at San Joaquin Hills Rd.: • Northbound 16 17 17 20 Yes Yes • Southbound 29 21 13 14 No No • Eastbound 4 12 6 6 Yes No • Westbound 12 7 6 6 No No MacArthur Blvd. at San Miguel Dr.: • Northbound 17 13 10 11 No No • Southbound 14 14 8 12 No No • Eastbound 3 12 5 7 Yes No • Westbound 5 5 0 0 No No MacArthur Blvd. at Pacific Coast Highway: • Northbound 0 0 D 0 No No • Southbound 8 13 5 7 No No • Eastbound 13 22 4 4 No No • Westbound 22 23 1 6 6 No No ' U: \UcJobs \01267\Excel \(01267- 03.xls]T 5 -1 5 -3 } 2 (b )0 \( �2 2 \k LLJ U) �§ )\ 23 w 2% ( C kk §i §§ ■ ■ } \ k } LLJ 2 5 -4 j)) \ « < ( \ � ( ( ! § Cl! ( IN 0L) \ 0 >ww _ < m< } \ { (/ ! t ! , \ \\ ~! A \ ) )\ §j\ J { A A _ §& _ - _ \\ <0 \ �� < e // §K2` , w 00 W W M \ \ \\ k/a (m\ \ \ \\ 22 ; r ;r \z \z \ z \\ \m\\ \\ {_ u ;.:.:2 5 -4 ul \ > ( \ � ( \ \ 0 \ { (/ \ \\ A J { A A _ \\ \ \ E e // ƒ0 /\) { k/a ul I ' LL w O a F- � LU U o a z 0 m O } w z N Z U) 2 a a U �` U lL ' LL = E F r } _~ U d J W 0- W N O C @ v N a 5 E W 2 F- r M U) L °y 1 W R U m F C7 w Z O ' W R' m a y W U aF- O c~ C r LL w O U a Q Q O ❑ Q U a z U 1 _y N Vf x W W of _ w ° 0 r C O N = o U L N r Q m J a m m Q U z a O L z O F U Y _ W O y N LU o w W F r O v Z I 5 -5 c LL w O U � o @ m <<m } w N w N a = ❑Q J = E D } d @ a N @ C @ v 5 E W r O N ❑ Q 2; 0 E d E C o y U L O LL w O U a Q Q m ❑ Q U a J of @ N Vf W of _ > Q C O C = o U L W w Q m Q m m Q U ❑ O L Y _ O y ❑ o w Q n O v N M m m m a uoi o u`@i r J W O O O O r N LL m of � ❑ Q N M IV O V Oi U LL 0 0 0 0 = L L n E FL ❑ Z @ L LQ r > r @ O E J K � m a O o m 0 c m x E S W Z 5 of A n O O O O ❑ o o r O N E m 2 z U It m = a w g 9 O d@ m Cf J 3 3 o m O N N O a a O o Q U ❑ m o � � Z II m ^ = � m n ^ O O = ❑ Z t�J °'v, m 4 U N m m m WJ N � O N N O f z_ A S ❑ Z r 0 of Om J O N N O U J Cf m m wo Z ~ ~ ~ ~ U U r O U z w Z w z w w (n N I! U Vf (n N W Q w Z C Q Z S U S S S y W N = Ot c = p = C, 'p Z o m@ Q @@ Q d @ m Q= @ m T O p O C O j 0 m 5 C C N C C C N JE <n c m 0 m m m w 5 -5 c � o @ _ N a = = E T @ d @ a @ C @ v 5 E 5 @ 'o 0 E d E C o y L O @ a � @ N Vf _ > O C O C = o U L O L _ O y ❑ o n A � m O a � 01 LL m n m v N m LL II N � m = L L ^ E @ L LQ r > @ O E J K o a O o m 0 c O x E S � E > F- N �n an d o o r O N E m It m = a m F g 9 O d@ J 3 3 o m O o Q U ❑ m o � � 11 II II II L a = � m 3 t�J °'v, m 4 U N n N F x 0 N s m w O O N 0 I N n 0 D 5.4 5.5 they are included in the Sunday analysis as a worse case scenario. Existing plus ambient growth (2006) plus TPO projects AM and PM peak hour intersection turning movement volumes without the proposed project are shown on Exhibits 5 -A and 5 -B, respectively. Exhibits 5 -C and 5 -D illustrate the AM and PM peak hour intersection turning movement volumes with the proposed project. For existing plus ambient growth (2006) plus TPO projects with and without project traffic conditions for both weekday and Sunday scenarios, the study area intersections are projected to operate at an acceptable Level of Service during the peak hours as shown on Tables 5 -2 and 5 -3. Alternative Access - Elimination of Driveway along MacArthur Boulevard At the request of the City, an alternative access scenario has been prepared which eliminates the project's easterly driveway along MacArthur Boulevard. Table 5-4 shows the intersection levels of service with the proposed project. Existing plus ambient growth (2006) plus TPO projects weekday AM and PM peak hour intersection turning movement volumes with the proposed project are shown on Exhibits 5 -E and 5 -F, respectively. Sunday AM peak hour intersection volumes with the proposed project are illustrated on Exhibit 5 -G. For existing plus ambient growth (2006) plus TPO projects with project traffic conditions for the alternative access scenario, the study area intersections are projected to operate at an acceptable Level of Service during the peak hours as shown on Table 5 -4. Cumulative Proiect Analysis The City of Newport Beach has requested that additional traffic analysis be performed to address potential impacts of uncommitted, cumulative developments in the study area. This analysis includes existing traffic, committed projects, regional growth, and other projects identified by City staff 5 -6 I I I I I I I I -1 L I I I I 71 i EXHIBIT 5 -A EXISTING PLUS AMBIENT PLUS TRAFFIC PHASING ORDINANCE (TPO) PROJECTS WITHOUT PROJECT AM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES I ST. MARK'S CHURCH TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS, City of Newport Beach, California - 01267:16 URBAN 5 -7 6 EXHIBIT 5 -13 EXISTING PLUS ANIBIENT PLUS TRAFFIC PHASING ORDINANCE (TPO) PROJECTS WITHOUT PROJECT PM PEAK SOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES CHURCH TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS. Citv of Newport beach. California- 01267:97 S -8 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1� 1 EXHIBIT 5 -C EXISTING PLUS AMBIENT PLUS TRAFFIC PHASING ORDINANCE (TPO)PROJECTS WITH PROJECT AM AND SUNDAY PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES I LEGEND: 5/14 = AM /SUNDAY PEAK HOUR VOLUMES ST. MARK'S CHURCH 5 -9 EXHIBIT 5 -D ' EXISTING PLUS AMBIENT PLUS TRAFFIC PHASING ORDINANCE (TPO) PROJECTS WITH PROJECT PM PEAK DOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES ' I I ST. MARK'S CHURCH TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS, City of Newport Beach, California -01267:19 URBAN, 5 - -10 1 1 r I� ' I W, LO W J Q F N N W U Q W Q Z LLJ H J Q 5 -11 C LL W O U w> Q ¢ ¢ m Q Q > N � a c .. Q J J E T w ❑ If C N D � E E m Z � } m L N 5 E N O r W < m 0 O U v v ❑ ¢ L N � � O O 0 O O U N � > > O W W O U d ¢ Q m ❑ ¢ J > O c r u n W � L L p m d N C N 9 ¢ W y Q m ¢ m m¢ C r N C Y W W % d m N m N u0') 3 JQ LL V N O m tU N W W v N O O O O > n O n a m n m m m c a ❑ c o U ¢ m- t7 N (O < U > C N 0 0 0 a o o m y c O O n N Z r E v c U � L d 00 j W 0 r N t7 t7 N N 3 6 'E 'C J Q C (n OI j.�.. m T 7 V $ N m o n C LU N W Z U (n A n O o 0 0 U r = r Z � r N R1 t7 t7 N ¢ W m aJ a O N N Q z a A A A A os❑ 7 U 0 r o n n W 00 � W J N O N N r Z_ A w O ❑ H Z r n o n n bO Z m J O N N r r U r r ¢< Z ro m ° p w Z w w Z W❑ K W R m m> f.7 = C Y2 U z Z T r� .2 .0 .2 y c� c❑ Q> Q N y N p. m p c c m c t c c Q 5 -11 C E= d p N > N � a c .. m J E T w � If C N D � E E m m L O E c c O j I I U � p L O � � N N � > > O � O C N C O c r u n L L p m d N C N 9 A A O C � p c m C r N C d m W c U L N� LL N L y O D L O N H N U N W A A A v N O _ 0 E > Q c a c o � K N � C N d U > C N a o o m y c w r E v c U � L d 00 j 6 N O > r ry U D w p 6 'E 'C J Q C (n OI j.�.. 11 T 7 V $ m o n C LU N U (n L a > } N N > U r N EXHIBIT 5 -E ' ALTERNATIVE ACCESS WEEKDAY EXISTING PLUS AMBIENT PLUS TRAFFIC PHASING ORDINANCE (TPO) PROJECTS r WITH PROJECT AM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES 4 ST. MARK'S CHURCH 5 -12 i ALTERNATIVE ACCESS WEEKDAY EXISTING ( �PpLU)S ' WITH PROiJECiIPM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION d EXHIBIT 5 -F AMBIENT PROJECTS VOLUMES V ST MARK'S CHURCH TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS City of Newport Beach, Califomia - 01267:23 URBAN 5-13 EXHIBIT 5 -G , ALTERNATIVE ACCESS EXISTING PLUS AMBIENT PLUS TRAFFIC PHASING ORDINANCE (TPO) PROJECTS WITH PROJECT SUNDAY PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES ANALYSIS. Citv of 5 - -19 that is not currently included in the City's Transportation Phasing Ordinance (TPO). These projects include the following: • South Coast Shipyard • Our Lady Queen of Angels Church • Saint Andrew's Church • Regent Newport Beach Resort • Mariners Church • Exodus Community Center and Tarbut V'Torah Expansion • Newport Coast Developments • Newport Ridge Developments • Lower Bayview Senior Housing • Bonita Canyon Residential Development 5.6 Existing Plus Ambient Growth (2006) Plus TPO Committed Projects Plus Cumulative Projects Table 5 -5 and 5 -6 show the existing plus ambient growth (2006) plus TPO projects plus cumulative projects intersection levels of service for the existing network during the week without and with the proposed project, respectively. The alternative access scenario is shown in Table 5 -7. Existing plus ambient growth (2006) plus TPO projects plus cumulative projects AM and PM peak hour intersection turning movement volumes without the proposed project are shown on Exhibits 5 -H and 5 -I, respectively. Exhibits 5 -J and 5 -K illustrate the AM and PM peak hour intersection turning movement volumes with the proposed project. The alternative access scenario for existing plus ambient growth (2006) plus TPO projects plus cumulative projects AM and PM peak hour intersection turning movement volumes with the proposed project are illustrated on Exhibits 5 -L and 5 -M, respectively. 5 -15 TA13LE 5 -5 INTERSECTION ANALYSIS FOR EXISTING PLUS AMBIENT GROWTH (2006) PLUS TRAFFIC PHASING ORDINANCE (TPO) COMMITTED PROJECTS PLUS CUMULATIVE DEVELOPMENT WITHOUT PROJECT ' When a right turn is designated, the lane can either be striped or unstriped. To function as a right turn lane there must be sufficient width for right turning vehicles to travel outside the through lanes. L = Left; T = Through; R = Right; >> = Free Right Turn; > = Right Turn Overlap; 1 = Improvement Source: Dowling Associates, Traffix Version 7.5 Rt (2002). For intersections with cross street stop control, the delay and level of service for worst individual movement (or movements sharing a single lane) are shown. J AWS =All Way Stop CSS = Cross Street Stop TS = Traffic Signal ' -- = Delay High, Intersection Unstable, Levet of Service "F ". U:\ UcJobs \01267\Excelt[01267- 03.xls]T 5 -5 5 -16 INTERSECTION APPROACH LANES' WEEKDAY LEVEL OF NORTH- SOUTH- EAST- WEST- TRAFFIC BOUND BOUND BOUND BOUND ICU, SERVICE INTERSECTION CONTROL' L T R L T R L T R L T R AM PM AM PM Jamboree Road (NS) at: • San Joaquin Hills Rd. (EW) TS 1 3 1>> .2 3 1>> 1 2 1>> 1 2 1 0.669 0.531 B A Santa Rosa /Big Cyn Dr. (NS) at: • San Joaquin Hills Rd. (EW) TS 1 1 1> 'I 1 1 1 3 0 2 3 0 0.383 0.548 A A MacArthur Blvd. (NS) at: San Joaquin Hills Rd. (EW) TS 2 3 1 2 3 1>> 2 3 0 1 2 1>> 0.706 0.881 C D • San Miguel Dr. (EW) TS 2 3 1 2 3 1> 2 2 0 2 2 1 0.471 0.612 A B ' When a right turn is designated, the lane can either be striped or unstriped. To function as a right turn lane there must be sufficient width for right turning vehicles to travel outside the through lanes. L = Left; T = Through; R = Right; >> = Free Right Turn; > = Right Turn Overlap; 1 = Improvement Source: Dowling Associates, Traffix Version 7.5 Rt (2002). For intersections with cross street stop control, the delay and level of service for worst individual movement (or movements sharing a single lane) are shown. J AWS =All Way Stop CSS = Cross Street Stop TS = Traffic Signal ' -- = Delay High, Intersection Unstable, Levet of Service "F ". U:\ UcJobs \01267\Excelt[01267- 03.xls]T 5 -5 5 -16 TABLE 5 -6 INTERSECTION ANALYSIS FOR EXISTING PLUS AMBIENT GROWTH (2006) PLUS TRAFFIC PHASING ORDINANCE (TPO) COMMITTED PROJECTS PLUS CUMULATIVE DEVELOPMENT WITH PROJECT ' When a right turn is designated, the lane can either be striped or unstriped. To function as a right turn lane there must be sufficient width for right turning vehicles to travel outside the through lanes. L = Left; T = Through; R = Right; >> = Free Right Turn; > = Right Turn Overlap; 1 = Improvement 2 Source: Dowling Associates, Traffx Version 7.5 R1 (2002). For intersections with cross street stop control, the delay and level of service for worst individual movement (or movements sharing a single lane) are shown. 3 AWS =All Way Stop CSS = Cross Street Stop TS = Traffic Signal ° -- = Delay High, Intersection Unstable, Level of Service "F ". U: \UcJobs \_ 01200 \01267 \Excel \[01267- 03.xls]T 5 -6 5 -17 INTERSECTION APPROACH LANES' WEEKDAY NORTH- SOUTH- EAST- WEST- LEVEL OF TRAFFIC BOUND BOUND BOUND BOUND ICU /DELAY SERVICE INTERSECTION CONTROL' L T R L T R L T R L T R AM PM AM PM Jamboree Road (NS) at: San Joaquin Hills Rd. (EW) TS 1 3 1>> 2 3 1>> 1 2 1>> 1 2 1 0.671 0.532 B A Santa Rosa /Big Cyn Dr. (NS) at: • San Joaquin Hills Rd. (EW) TS 1 1 1> 1 1 1 1 3 0 2 3 0 0.387 0.553 A A Southern Project Access (NS) at: • San Joaquin Hills Rd. (EW) CSS 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 3 0 0 3 0 13.1 10.3 B B MacArthur Blvd. (NS) at: San Joaquin Hills Rd. (EW) TS 2 3 1 2 3 1>> 2 3 0 1 2 1» 0.710 0.888 C D • San Miguel Dr. (EW) TS 2 3 1 2 3 1> 2 2 0 2 2 1 0.474 0.614 A 6 • Easterly Project Access (EW) CSS 0 3 0 0 3 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 20.9 19.4 C C ' When a right turn is designated, the lane can either be striped or unstriped. To function as a right turn lane there must be sufficient width for right turning vehicles to travel outside the through lanes. L = Left; T = Through; R = Right; >> = Free Right Turn; > = Right Turn Overlap; 1 = Improvement 2 Source: Dowling Associates, Traffx Version 7.5 R1 (2002). For intersections with cross street stop control, the delay and level of service for worst individual movement (or movements sharing a single lane) are shown. 3 AWS =All Way Stop CSS = Cross Street Stop TS = Traffic Signal ° -- = Delay High, Intersection Unstable, Level of Service "F ". U: \UcJobs \_ 01200 \01267 \Excel \[01267- 03.xls]T 5 -6 5 -17 TABLE 5 -7 ALTERNATIVE ACCESS - INTERSECTION ANALYSIS FOR EXISTING PLUS AMBIENT GROWTH (2006) PLUS TPO's PLUS CUMULATIVE DEVELOPMENT WITH PROJECT ' When a right turn is designated, the lane can either be striped or unstriped. To function as a right turn lane there must be sufficient width for right turning vehicles to travel outside the through lanes. L = Left; T = Through; R = Right; >> = Free Right TL rn; > = Right Turn Overlap; 1 = Improvement Source: Dowling Associates, Traffix Version 7.5 RI (2002). For intersections with cross street stop control, the delay and level of service for worst individual movement (or movements sharing a single lane) are shown. AW S =All Way Stop CSS = Cross Street Stop TS = Traffic Signal ° -- = Delay High, Intersection Unstable, Level of Service "F". U:IUcJobsl_ 01200 \01267\Excellj01267- 03.xisjT 5 -7 5 -18 INTERSECTION APPROACH LANES' WEEKDAY NOqND SOUTH- EAST- WEST- LEVEL OF TRAFFIC BOBOUND BOUND BOUND PAM IDELAY2 SERVICE INTERSECTION CONTROL' L T R L T R L T R PM AM PM Jamboree Road (NS) at: San Joaquin Hills Rd. (EW) TS 1 3 1>> 4. 3 1>> 1 2 1>> 1 2 1 0.671 0.532 B A Santa Rosa /Big Cyn Dr. (NS) at: • San Joaquin Hills Rd. (EW) TS 1 1 1> 1 1 1 3 0 2 3 0 0.393 0.562 A A Southern Project Access (NS) at: • San Joaquin Hills Rd. (EW) CSS 0 0 0 it 0 1 0 3 0 0 3 0 134 10.5 B B MacArthur Blvd. (NS) at: • San Joaquin Hills Rd. (EW) TS 2 3 1 :? 3 1>> 2 3 0 1 2 1>> 0.710 0.887 C D • San Miguel Dr. (EW) TS 2 3 1 2 3 1> 2 2 0 2 2 1 0.473 0.612 A B ' When a right turn is designated, the lane can either be striped or unstriped. To function as a right turn lane there must be sufficient width for right turning vehicles to travel outside the through lanes. L = Left; T = Through; R = Right; >> = Free Right TL rn; > = Right Turn Overlap; 1 = Improvement Source: Dowling Associates, Traffix Version 7.5 RI (2002). For intersections with cross street stop control, the delay and level of service for worst individual movement (or movements sharing a single lane) are shown. AW S =All Way Stop CSS = Cross Street Stop TS = Traffic Signal ° -- = Delay High, Intersection Unstable, Level of Service "F". U:IUcJobsl_ 01200 \01267\Excellj01267- 03.xisjT 5 -7 5 -18 EXHIBIT 5 -H EXISTING PLUS AMBIENT PLUS TRAFFIC PHASING ORDINANCE JTPO) AND CUMULATIVE PROJECTS WITHOUT PROJ CT AM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES RCH TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS. Citv of Newport Beach. California -01267:26 5 -19 EXHIBIT 5 -J ' EXISTING PLUS AMBIENT PLUS TRAFFIC PHASING ORDINANCE (TPO) AND CUMULATIVE PROJECTS WITH PROJECT M PEAK (HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES � ■ CHURCH TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS, City of rnlifnrnin _ M2R7-2R 5_2, ■ I h J 1 1 1 .f 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1� ST i EXHIBIT 5 -K EXISTING PLUS AMBIENT PLUS TRAFFIC PHASING ORDINANCE (TPO) AND CUMULATIVE PROJECTS WITH PROJECT PM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES MARK'S CHURCH TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS. Citv of 5 -22 - 01267:29 0 URBAN EXHIBIT 5 -L ' ALTERNATIVE ACCESS EXISTING PLUS AMBIENT PLUS TRAFFIC PHASING ORDINANCE (TPO) AND CUMULATIVE PROJECTS WITH PROJECT AM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES MARK'S CHURCH 5 -23 I ' EXHIBIT 5 -M ALTERNATIVE ACCESS EXISTING PLUS AMBIENT PLUS TRAFFIC PHASING ORDINANCE (TPO ) AND CUMULATIVE PROJECTS WITH PROJECT PM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES I I 1 I U II II I 1 I 1 �G ST. MARK'S CHURCH TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS, City of Newport Beach. California - 01267:64 5 -24 5.7 For existing plus ambient growth (2006) plus TPO projects plus cumulative developments with and without project traffic conditions and for the alternative access scenario, the study area intersections are projected to operate at an acceptable Level of Service during the peak hours as shown on Tables 5 -5, 5 -6 and 5 -7. Based on the ICU and level of services shown in Tables 5 -5, 5 -6 and 5 -7, it is anticipated that there will be less than a 0.01 increase in the ICU between the without and with project traffic conditions. Therefore, a significant impact is not anticipated. Long Range (Build -Out) Analysis Long range (build -out) intersection volumes were obtained from the City of Newport Beach staff. Table 5 -8 and 5 -9 show the long range (build -out) intersection levels of service for the existing network during the week without and with the proposed project, respectively. The long range (build -out) intersection levels of service for the alternative access scenario with the project are shown on Table 5 -10. Long range (build -out) AM and PM peak hour intersection turning movement volumes without the proposed project are shown on Exhibits 5 -N and 5 -0, respectively. Exhibits 5 -P and 5 -Q illustrate the AM and PM peak hour intersection turning movement volumes with the proposed project. The AM and PM peak hour intersection turning movement volumes for the alternative access scenario are illustrated on Exhibits 5 -R and 5 -S, respectively. For long range (build -out) with and without project traffic conditions and for the alternative access scenario, the study area intersections are projected to operate at an acceptable Level of Service during the peak hours as shown on Tables 5 -8, 5 -9 and 5 -10. Based on the ICU and level of services shown in Tables 5 -8, 5 -9 and 5 -10, it is anticipated that there will be less than a 0.01 increase in the ICU between the without and with project traffic conditions. Therefore, a significant impact is not anticipated. 5 -25 I II Ifl if II II I I I 1 if 1 I TABLE 5.8 INTERSECTION ANALYSIS FOR LONG RANGE (BUILD -OUT) WITHOUT PROJECT ' When a right turn is designated, the lane can either be striped or unstriped. To function as a right turn lane there must be sufficient width for right turning vehicles to travel outside the through lanes. L = Left; T = Through; R = Right; >> = Free Right Turn; > = Right Turn Overlap; 1 = Improvement Source: Dowling Associates, Traiix Version 7.5 Rt (2002). For intersections with cross street stop control, the delay and level of service for worst individual movement (or movements sharing a single lane) are shown. ' AWS =All Way Stop CSS = Cross Street Stop TS =Traffic Signal — = Delay High, Intersection Unstable, Level of Service "F ". U: \UcJobs \01267 \Excel \[01267- 03.xls]T 5-8 67"Al INTERSECTION APPROACH LANES' WEEKDAY NORTH- SOUTH- EAST- WEST- LEVEL OF TRAFFIC BOUND BOUND I BOUND BOUND ICU, SERVICE L T R L T R I L T R I L T R AM I PM AM I PM INTERSECTION CONTROL' Jamboree Road (NS) at: • San Joaquin Hills Rd. (EW) TS 1 3 1>> 2 3 1» 1 2 1>> 1 2 1 0.666 0.676 B B Santa Rosa /Big Cyn Dr. (NS) at: • San Joaquin Hills Rd. (EW) TS 1 1 1> 1 1 1 1 3 0 2 3 0 0.339 0.662 A B MacArthur Blvd. (NS) at: • San Joaquin Hills Rd. (EW) TS 2 3 1 2 3 1>> 2 3 0 1 2 1>> 0.599 0.732 A C • San Miguel Dr. (EW) TS 2 3 1 2 3 1> 2 2 0 2 2 1 0.403 0.657 A B ' When a right turn is designated, the lane can either be striped or unstriped. To function as a right turn lane there must be sufficient width for right turning vehicles to travel outside the through lanes. L = Left; T = Through; R = Right; >> = Free Right Turn; > = Right Turn Overlap; 1 = Improvement Source: Dowling Associates, Traiix Version 7.5 Rt (2002). For intersections with cross street stop control, the delay and level of service for worst individual movement (or movements sharing a single lane) are shown. ' AWS =All Way Stop CSS = Cross Street Stop TS =Traffic Signal — = Delay High, Intersection Unstable, Level of Service "F ". U: \UcJobs \01267 \Excel \[01267- 03.xls]T 5-8 67"Al TABLE 5 -9 INTERSECTION ANALYSIS FOR LONG RANGE (BUILD -OUT) WITH PROJECT ' When a right turn is designated, the lane can either be striped or unstriped. To function as a right turn lane there must be sufficient vAdth for right turning vehicles to travel outside the through lanes. L = Left; T = Through; R = Right; >> = Free Right Turn; > = Right Turin Overlap; 1 = Improvement Source: Dowling Associates, Traffx Version 7.5 R1 (2002). For intersections with cross street stop control, the delay and level of service for worst individual movement (or movements sharing a single lane) are shown. 3 AWS =Al Way Stop CSS = Cross Street Stop TS = Traffic Signal — = Delay High, Intersection Unstable, Level of Service "IF". U: \UcJobsl01267\Excei\ (01267- 03.xIsjT 5 -9 5 -27 INTERSECTION APPROACH LANES' WEEKDAY NORTH- SOUTH- EAST- WEST- LEVEL OF TRAFFIC BOUND BOUND BOUND BOUND ICUIDELAYZ SERVICE INTERSECTION CONTROL' L T R L T R L T R L T R AM PM AM PM amboree Road (NS) at: San Joaquin Hills Rd. (EW) TS 1 1 3 1>> 2 3 1» 1 2 1>> 1 2 1 0.668 0.676 B j B Santa Rosa/Big Cyn Dr. (NS) at: • San Joaquin Hills Rd. (EW) TS 1 1 1> 1 1 1 1 3 0 2 3 0 0.344 0.666 A j 8 Southern Project Access (NS) at: • an Joaquin Hills Rd. (EW) CSS 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 3 0 0 3 0 12.5 9.6 B A Blvd. (NS) at n Joaquin Hills Rd. (EW) TS 2 3 1 2 3 1>> 2 3 0 1 2 1>> 0.604 0.739 B C FMacArthur n Miguel Dr. (EW) TS 2 3 1 2 3 1> 2 2 0 2 2 1 0.406 0.659 A B sterly Project Access (EW) CSS 0 3 0 0 3 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 19.1 14.3 C B ' When a right turn is designated, the lane can either be striped or unstriped. To function as a right turn lane there must be sufficient vAdth for right turning vehicles to travel outside the through lanes. L = Left; T = Through; R = Right; >> = Free Right Turn; > = Right Turin Overlap; 1 = Improvement Source: Dowling Associates, Traffx Version 7.5 R1 (2002). For intersections with cross street stop control, the delay and level of service for worst individual movement (or movements sharing a single lane) are shown. 3 AWS =Al Way Stop CSS = Cross Street Stop TS = Traffic Signal — = Delay High, Intersection Unstable, Level of Service "IF". U: \UcJobsl01267\Excei\ (01267- 03.xIsjT 5 -9 5 -27 I i ITABLE 5 -10 ALTERNATIVE ACCESS - INTERSECTION ANALYSIS FOR LONG RANGE (BUILD -OUT) WITH PROJECT 1 When a right turn is designated, the lane can either be striped or unstriped. To function as a right turn lane there must be sufficient width for right fuming vehicles to travel outside the through lanes. L = Left; T = Through: R = Right: >> = Free Right Tum: > = Right Turn Overlap: 1 = Improvement Source: Dowling Associates, Traffx Version 7.5 R1 (2002). For intersections with cross street stop control, the delay and level of service for worst individual movement (or movements sharing a single lane) are shown. ' S AWS =All Way Stop CSS = Cross Street Stop a 7S = Traffic Signal = Delay High, Intersection Unstable, Level of Service "F ". U: \UCJObs \01267 \Excel \[01267- 03.x1s]T 5 -10 AM INTERSECTION APPROACH LANES' WEEKDAY NORTH- SOUTH- EAST- WEST- LEVEL OF TRAFFIC BOUND BOUND BOUND BOUND ICUIDELAY2 SERVICE INTERSECTION CONTROL' L T R L T R L T R L T R AM I PM AM I PM Jamboree Road (NS) at: • San Joaquin Hills Rd. (EW) TS 1 3 1» 2 3 1» 1 2 1>> 1 2 1 0.668 0.676 B B Santa Rosa /Big Cyn Dr. (NS) at: • San Joaquin Hills Rd. (EW) TS 1 1 1> 1 1 1 1 3 0 2 3 0 0.349 0.575 A B Southern Project Access (NS) at: • San Joaquin Hills Rd. (EW) CSS 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 3 0 0 3 0 12.8 9.7 B A MacArthur Blvd. (NS) at: • San Joaquin Hills Rd. (EW) TS 2 3 1 2 3 1>> 2 3 0 1 2 1>> 0.604 0.738 8 C • San Miguel Dr. (EW) TS 2 3 1 2 3 1> 2 2 0 2 2 1 0.405 0.556 A B 1 When a right turn is designated, the lane can either be striped or unstriped. To function as a right turn lane there must be sufficient width for right fuming vehicles to travel outside the through lanes. L = Left; T = Through: R = Right: >> = Free Right Tum: > = Right Turn Overlap: 1 = Improvement Source: Dowling Associates, Traffx Version 7.5 R1 (2002). For intersections with cross street stop control, the delay and level of service for worst individual movement (or movements sharing a single lane) are shown. ' S AWS =All Way Stop CSS = Cross Street Stop a 7S = Traffic Signal = Delay High, Intersection Unstable, Level of Service "F ". U: \UCJObs \01267 \Excel \[01267- 03.x1s]T 5 -10 AM EXHIBIT 5 -N ' LONG RANGE ( BUILDOUT)WITHOUT PROJECT AM PEAK OUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES 5 -29 I I I 1 1 Li i n EXHIBIT 5 -0 LONG RANGE (BUILDOUT)WITHOUT PROJECT PM PEAK OUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES 1 0 ST. MARK'S CHURCH TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS, City of Newport Beach, California- 01267:31 URBAN 5 -30 EXHIBIT 5 -P LONG RANGE (BUILDOUT) WITH PROJECT AM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES I 1 I L -►4 h, California - 01267:32 URBAN 5 -31 1 '1 1 i i ! i 1 1 1 1 1 1 ST. MARK'S CHURCH 1 EXHIBIT 5 -Q LONG RANGE (BUILDOUT) WITH PROJECT PM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES California - 5 -32 EXHIBIT 5 -R ALTERNATIVE ACCESS LONG RANGE (BUILDOUT WITH PROJECT AM PEAK DOUR INTERSECTION VOLUME ST. MARK'S of NewUort [leach. California - 5 -33 I EXHIBIT 5 -S ALTERNATIVE ACCESS LONG RANGE (BUILDOUT) WITH PROJECT PM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUME 1 1 1 11 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1i 1q 0 ST. MARK'S CHURCH TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS, City of Newport Beach, California- 01267:66 URBAN 1 5 -34 6.0 CONCLUSIONS /RECOMMENDATIONS The project site, located at the northwest -comer of the intersection of San Joaquin Hills Road at MacArthur Boulevard in the City of Newport Beach, is proposed for development as a church. The proposed project includes a 33,867 square foot Church facility to accommodate seating for 380 persons. The facility includes a 5,200 square foot preschool /daycare center. PROJECT TRAFFIC As indicated in Table 4 -2, an average of 633 weekday daily trips were observed with 71 trips (38 in /33 out) occurring during the AM peak hour and 90 trips (43 in /47 out) occurring during the PM peak hour. Similarly, a total of 1081 weekend daily trips were observed with 281 (144 in/137 out) occurring during the peak timeframe. INTERSECTION ANALYSIS The one access scenario (alternative access) will concentrate all of the traffic along San Joaquin Hills Road. The two access scenario will provide an additional driveway to disperse traffic to both adjacent roadways, San Joaquin Hills Road and MacArthur Boulevard. Based on the analysis included in this study, both the one access and two access scenarios are not anticipated to have a significant impact at the study area intersections with the proposed project. ACCESS ANALYSIS Sight Distance Evaluation The sight distance for the project driveway located along MacArthur Boulevard has been reviewed to determine if adequate sight distance can be provided for this location. This driveway is located along the inside of a horizontal curve at the high point of a vertical grade. The City of Newport Beach has adopted a sight distance standard (See Appendix 6 -1 K) that indicates that a major roadway with a design speed of 55 miles per hour requires a minimum of 525 feet. Exhibit 6 -A illustrates the sight distance lines and limited use area for the driveway. Based on this evaluation, it appears that adequate sight distance can be provided if the limited use area can be kept clear of obstructions. Project Access Location The project is anticipated to have two access points. One access driveway will be on San Joaquin Hills Road and the other will be off of MacArthur Boulevard. Based on the raised median along both roadways, these driveways will be restricted to right turns in /out only. An alternative access analysis has been included in the study that would consist of only one access to /from San Joaquin Hills Road. The location of the driveways has been based on the following: 1. Available Sight Distance — The existing sound wall and the geometric curvature of MacArthur Boulevard were used as a basis in determining the location of the driveway along MacArthur Boulevard. 2. Proximity to the intersection of MacArthur Boulevard /San Joaquin Hills Road — both driveways have been located as far as possible from the intersection to allow maximum weaving opportunities while providing adequate sight distance. Turn Pocket Recommendations To evaluate the needs of the site in terms of right turn pocket lengths, the weekend trip generation has been referenced. This timeframe has been chosen due to the higher expected traffic volumes to the site. As indicated previously on Table 4 -2, the site is expected to experience approximately 144 inbound trips on Sunday. Approximately 50 percent of the project traffic will enter the site from the easterly driveway and 50 percent from the southerly driveway (as illustrated previously on Exhibit 4 -A). However, 100 percent of the project traffic will enter the site via the southern driveway for the alternative M! EXHIBIT 6 -A , MACARTHUR BOULEVARD PROJECT DRIVEWAY -SIGHT DISTANCE ILLUSTRATION / / LIMITED USE AREA / p C 1 ' r/' O / t ST. MARK'S CHURCH TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS, City of Newport Beach, California - 01267:69 RBAN 6 -3 ' I 1 access. Therefore, 150 foot (minimum) right turn pockets into the site on San Joaquin Hills Road and MacArthur Boulevard will provide adequate stacking distance for inbound traffic for either access scenario. ' Accident Evaluation A five year accident history at the intersection of MacArthur Boulevard /San Joaquin Hills Road has been reviewed to determine the number and types of accidents that have occurred. Tables 6 -1 through 6 -5 summarize the number and types of accidents that have occurred between the years 1999 and 2003, respectively. The type of ' accidents included in these summaries generally involved rear end collisions, loss of vehicular control, and broadsides. I' 1 The City has requested an evaluation of accidents that have occurred involving traffic heading north along MacArthur Boulevard and turning left onto San Joaquin Hills Road conflicting with southbound traffic turning right from MacArthur Boulevard to San Joaquin Hills Road. Based on the City's past 5 -year historical accident data, this type of vehicular conflict was not observed /reported. The following section provides recommendations to minimize the potential for future vehicular conflicts of this nature. Weaving Issues A southbound free right turn lane currently exists at the intersection of MacArthur ' Boulevard /San Joaquin Hills Road. This geometric feature allows southbound traffic to make a right turn onto San Joaquin Hills Road without stopping. Based on the ' anticipated project traffic to the site, northbound traffic on MacArthur Boulevard will be ' required to merge with the free right turns prior to entering the site at the San Joaquin Hills Road driveway. In order to minimize vehicular conflicts between weaving vehicles, the recommendations are illustrated on Exhibit 6 -B and are described below: 1 6-4 TABLE 6 -1 YEAR 1999 ACCIDENT DATA SUMMARY FOR THE INTERSECTION OF MACARTHUR BLVD. AT SAN JOAQUIN HILLS ROAD1 ACCIDENT NUMBER DATE DAY TYPE OF ACCIDENT LOCATION2 B R OF INJURED PERSONS 1 1/11/1999 Mon. Rear end EB on SJHR, W. of MacArthur 0 2 2/5/1999 Fri. Collision SBLT on MacArthur at SJHR 0 3 2/7/1999 Sun. Collision SB MacArthurw /EBLT at SJHR 5 4 5/11/1999 Tues. Rear end SB MacArthur, N. of SJHR 0 5 7/13/1999 Tues. Rear end NB on MacArthur, S. of SJHR 1 6 7/21/1999 Wed. Rear end SBRT on MacArthur at SJHR 1 7 9/21/1999 Tues. Rear end NB on MacArthur, S. of SJHR 1 8 9/28/1999 Tues. Rear end WB on SJHR, E. of MacArthur 0 9 10/3/1999 Sun. Rear end EB on SJHR, W. of MacArthur 1 10 10/13/1999 Wed. Loss of Control NB on MacArthur, at SJHR 1 11 10/27/1999 Wed. Collision NBLT on MacArthur at SJHR 1 12 11/8/1999 Mon. Rear end SB on MacArthur, N. of SJHR 0 13 12/19/2000 Sun. Collision NB on MacArthur at SJHR 0 Source: City of Newport Beach 2 NB = Northbound, SB = Southbound, EB = Eastbound, WB = Westbound N. = North, S. = South, E. = East, W. = West SBLT = Southbound Left Turn SBRT = Southbound Right Turn NBLT = Northbound Left Turn SJHR = San Joaquin Hills Road U: \UcJobs \_ 01200 \01267\Excel \101267- 03.xls)T 6 -1 6 -5 TABLE 6 -2 YEAR 2000 ACCIDENT DATA SUMMARY FOR THE INTERSECTION OF MACARTHUR BLVD. AT SAN JOAQUIN HILLS ROAD' ACCIDENT NUMBER DATE DAY TYPE OF ACCIDENT LOCATION' NUMBER OF INJURED PERSONS 1 2/15/2000 Tues. Rear end NB on MacArthur, S. of SJHR 0 2 2/23/2000 Wed. Loss of Control NB on MacArthur, N. of SJHR 0 3 3/1/2000 Wed. Rear end SB on MacArthur, N. of SJHR 0 4 3/5/2000 Sun. Loss of Control NB on MacArthur, N. of SJHR 0 5 4/17/2000 Mon. Loss of Control NB on MacArthur, N. of SJHR 0 6 5/24/2000 Wed. Loss of Control SBRT on MacArthur at SJHR 0 7 8/16/2000 Wed. Rear end SB on MacArthur, S. of SJHR 0 8 9/5/2000 1 Tues. Rear end WB on SJHR, E. of MacArthur 0 9 9/6/2000 Wed. Collision SBLT on MacArthur at SJHR 0 10 9/7/2000 Thurs. Rear end SBRT on MacArthur at SJHR 0 11 9/22/2000 Fri. Loss of Control SBRT on MacArthur at SJHR 1 12 10/2/2000 Mon. Rear end SB on MacArthur, N. of SJHR 0 13 12/13/2000 Wed. Rear end EB on SJHR, W. of MacArthur 0 ' Source: City of Newport Beach 2 NB = Northbound, SB = Southbound, EB = Eastbound, WB = Westbound N. = North, S. = South, E. = East, W. = West SBLT = Southbound Left Turn SBRT = Southbound Right Turn SJHR = San Joaquin Hills Road U: \UcJobs \_ 01200 \01267 \Excel \(01267- 03.xis1T 6 -1 X Y, TA13LE 6 -3 YEAR 2001 ACCIDENT DATA SUMMARY FOR THE INTERSECTION OF MACARTHUR BLVD. AT SAN JOAQUIN HILLS ROAD' ' Source: City of Newport Beach 2 NB = Northbound, SB = Southbound, EB = Eastbound, WB = Westbound N. = North, S. = South, E. = East, W. = West SJHR = San Joaquin Hills Road U: \UcJobs \_01200 \01267 \Excel \[01267- 03.xls]T 6 -3 6 -7 NUMBER OF INJURED ACCIDENT NUMBER DATE DAY TYPE OF ACCIDENT LOCATION PERSONS 1 12/2/01 1 Sun. Broadside Collision EB on SJHR, W. of MacArthur 0 2 10/23/01 Tues. Rear End EB on SJHR, W. of MacArthur 1 3 8/8/01 Wed. Loss of Control WB on SJHR, W. of MacArthur 0 4 7/13/01 Fri. Rear End SB on MacArthur, N. of SJHR 1 5 5/2/01 Wed. Rear End NB on MacArthur, S. of SJHR 0 ' Source: City of Newport Beach 2 NB = Northbound, SB = Southbound, EB = Eastbound, WB = Westbound N. = North, S. = South, E. = East, W. = West SJHR = San Joaquin Hills Road U: \UcJobs \_01200 \01267 \Excel \[01267- 03.xls]T 6 -3 6 -7 TABLE 6-4 YEAR 2002 ACCIDENT DATA SUMMARY FOR THE INTERSECTION OF MACARTHUR BLVD. AT SAN JOAQUIN HILLS ROAD' ACCIDENT NUMBER DATE DAY TYPE OF ACCIDENT LOCATION NUMBER OF INJURED PERSONS 1 11/11/02 Mon. Broadside Collision WB on SJHR, W. of MacArthur 1 2 11/18/02 Mon. Loss of Control WB on SJHR, W. of MacArthur 0 3 10/25/02 Fri. Loss of Control NB on MacArthur, N. of SJHR 0 4 8/24/02 Sat. Loss of Control EB on SJHR, W. of MacArthur 0 5 7/30/02 Tues. Rear End SB on MacArthur, N. of SJHR 0 6 7/23/02 Tues. Rear End SB on MacArthur, N. of SJHR 0 7 3/20/02 Wed. Rear End SB on MacArthur, N. of SJHR 0 8 2/17/02 Sun. Overturned Vehicle NB on MacArthur, N. of SJHR 1 9 2/24/02 Sun. I Rear End NB on MacArthur, S. of SJHR 0 ' Source: City of Newport Beach 2 NB = Northbound, SB = Southbound, EB = Eastbound, WB = Westbound N_ = North, S. = South, E. = East, W. = West SJHR = San Joaquin Hills Road U: \UCJobs \_01200\01267\Excei \[01267- 03.xls)T 6-4 • i TA13LE 6 -5 YEAR 2003 ACCIDENT DATA SUMMARY FOR THE INTERSECTION OF MACARTHUR BLVD. AT SAN JOAQUIN HILLS ROAD' ACCIDENT NUMBER DATE DAY TYPE OF ACCIDENT LOCATIONZ NUMBER OF INJURED PERSONS 1 12/12/03 Fri. Rear end NB on MacArthur, S. of SJHR 0 2 11/12/03 Wed. Loss of Control NB on MacArthur, N. of SJHR 0 3 10/17/03 Fri. Broadside Collision WB on SJHR, W. of MacArthur 1 4 9/21/03 Sun. Rear end WB on SJHR, E. of MacArthur 0 5 9/5/03 Fri. Loss of Control NB on MacArthur, N. of SJHR 1 6 7/2/03 Wed. Loss of Control WB on SJHR, E. of MacArthur 1 j 7 8/15/03 Fri. _ Loss of Control NB on MacArthur, N. of SJHR 0 8 7/31/03 Thurs. Broadside Collision NB on MacArthur, S. of SJHR 1 9 6/5/03 Thurs. Loss of Control NB on MacArthur, N. of SJHR 0 10 5/10/03 Sat. Rear end NB on MacArthur, S. of SJHR 0 11 5/6/03 Tues. Rear end NB on MacArthur, S. of SJHR 0 12 4/27/03 Sun. Rear end SB on MacArthur, N. of SJHR 0 13 4/14/03 Mon. Loss of Control WB on SJHR, W. of MacArthur 1 14 3/13/03 _ Thurs. _ Rear end EB on SJHR, W. of MacArthur 0 15 3/2/03 Sun. Rear end NB on MacArthur, S. of SJHR 0 16 2/21/03 Fri. Rear end NB on MacArthur, S. of SJHR 0 17 2/12/03 Wed. _ Loss of Control NB on MacArthur, N. of SJHR 0 18 j 1/14/03 Tues. Rear end SB on MacArthur, N. of SJHR 0 ' Source: City of Newport Beach 2 NB = Northbound, SB = Southbound, EB = Eastbound, WB = Westbound N. = North, S. = South, E. = East, W. = West SJHR = San Joaquin Hills Road U: \UcJobs \_01200 \01267 \Excel \[01267- 03.xls]T 6 -5 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 EXHIBIT 6 -B COMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE SOUTHBOUND FREE RIGHT TURN LANE AT MACARTHUR BOULEVARD/ SAN JOAQUIN HILLS ROAD ELIMINATE PAINTED CROSSWALK. ` I Q II f� i z � I 0 z � J STRIPE THE FREE RIGHT TURN LANE TO PROVIDE A 10 FOOT WIDE LANE WIDTH. INSTALL RAISED PAVEMENT MARKERS (RPM) AT 10 FOOT INCREMENTS AROUND THE CURVE. INSTALL "15 MPH" SPEED LIMIT SIGN. o/ 0 ST. MARK'S CHURCH TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS, City of Newport Beach, California -01267:67 URBAN 6 -10 1. Provide a right turn lane at the driveway along San Joaquin Hills Road to separate project traffic from the through traffic flows. 2. Re- stripe the free right turn lane to provide a 10 -foot wide lane along the curve, with the addition of raised pavement markers. This re- striping is intended to reduce vehicular speeds. 3. Eliminate the painted crosswalk. 4. Install a "15 MPH" sign on the curve of the southbound free right turn lane from MacArthur Boulevard to San Joaquin Hills Road to promote slower speeds. CIRCULATION RECOMMENDATIONS Site specific circulation and access recornmendations are depicted on Exhibit 6 -C and include the following: • Provide a 150 -foot (minimum) westbound right turn pocket along San Joaquin Hills Road at the project driveway. • Provide a 150 -foot (minimum) southbound right turn pocket along MacArthur Boulevard at the project driveway. • The diversion route to exit the site via San Joaquin Hills Road to Santa Rosa to Newport Center to San Miguel back to MacArthur should be promoted by the pastoral staff. • On -site traffic signing and striping should be implemented in conjunction with detailed construction plans for the project site. • Sight distance at the project entrance should be reviewed with respect to standard CALTRANS and City of Newport Beach sight distance standards at the time of preparation of final grading, landscape and street improvement plans. 6 -11 EXHIBIT 6 -C CIRCULATION RECOMMENDATIONS PROVIDE A 1SO -FOOT (MINIMUM) THE DIVERSION ROUTE TO EXIT THE SITE VIA SAN JOAQUIN HILLS WESTBOUND RIGHT TURN LANE ROAD TO SANTA ROSA TO NEWPORT CENTER TO SAN MIGUEL BACK AT THIS LOCATION. TO MACARTHUR SHOULD BE PROMOTED BY THE PASTORAL STAFF. ST — / f1111ITTiTimi r /^ 11I1111� � � 1111111 1111f11 � a MACARTHUR BOULEVARD OWSITE TRAFFIC SIGNING AND STRIPING SHOULD BE AN ACCELERATION LANE PROVIDE A 1S0-FOOT (MINIMUM) IMPLEMENTED IN CONJUNCTION WITH DETAILED IS NOT RECOMMENDED SOUTHBOUND RIGHT TURN LANE CONSTRUCTION PLANS FOR THE PROJECT SITE. AT THIS LOCATION. AT THIS LOCATION. ' SIGHT DISTANCE AT THE PROJECT ENTRANCE INSTALL "DRIVEWAY SOO SHOULD BE REVIEWED WITH RESPECT TO FEET AHEAD" SIGNAGE AT ' STANDARD CALTRANS AND CITY OF NEWPORT A DISTANCE OF SOO FEET BEACH SIGHT DISTANCE STANDARDS AT THE TIME EAST OF THE PROJECT OF PREPARATION OF FINAL GRADING, LANDSCAPE DRIVEWAY ALONG AND STREET IMPROVEMENT PLANS. MACARTHUR BOULEVARD. 1 ST MARK'S CHURCH TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS City of Newport Beach, California _ 01267:34 URBAN ' 6 -12 APPENDIX A EXISTING TRAFFIC COUNTS /ICU ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS ' Intersection Turning Movement Prepared by: Southland Car Counters N -5 STREET: Jamboree Rd. DATE: 9/7/2003 LOCATION: City of Newport Beach I' E -W STREET: Eastbluff Dr. /Ford Rd. DAY: SUNDAY PROJECT# 03- 1339 -001 TOTAL NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND NR EASTBOUND ST WESTBOUND EL ET NL NT NR 5L ST 5R EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL LANES: 2 3 1 2 3 1 1 1 1 1.5 .5 1 6:00 AM 6:15 AM 6:30 AM 6:45 AM 7:00 AM 7:15 AM 7:30 AM 7:45 AM 8:00 AM 8:15 AM 8:30 AM 29 81 11 5 115 12 3 15 16 12 31 7 337 8:45 AM 33 113 21 5 148 13 11 13 38 34 29 1 459 9:00 AM 39 115 8 2 128 12 10 12 29 25 24 4 408 9:15 AM 49 114 15 4 129 18 10 15 41 17 33 3 448 9:30 AM 33 148 26 6 161 22 21 54 87 31 19 4 612 9:45 AM B5 143 49 6 283 28 19 34 70 6 80 6 809 10:00 AM 74 204 37 11 251 15 22 37 58 29 53 5 796 10:15 AM 57 210 30 13 281 10 10 19 47 38 25 7 747 10:30 AM 39 175 30 11 245 15 21 34 68 21 15 2 676 10:45 AM 33 158 25 9 240 17 18 35 46 16 13 6 616 11:00 AM 73 165 42 7 261 12 22 106 122 35 20 4 869 11:15 AM 106 222 32 9 344 13 23 37 89 69 51 6 1001 11:30 AM 11:45 AM TOTAL NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT W TOTAL VOLUMES = 650 1848 326 I 88 2586 187 190 I 411 711 333 I 393 55 7778 AM Peak Hr Begins at: 1030 AM PEAK VOLUMES = 1 251 0.764 129 I 36 57 I 84 325 1 141 18 I 1 PE FA AK 790 0 0.512 0.621 0.808 HR. CONTROL: Signalized; AS Intersection Turning Movement Prepared by: Southland Car Counters N -S STREET: Jamboree Rd. DATE: 9/7/2003 LOCATION: City of Newport Beach E -W STREET: San Joaquin Hills Rd. DAY::SUNDAY PROJECT# 03- 1339 -002 NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL LANES: 1 3 1 2 3 1 1.5 1.5 1 1.1 1.5 1 6:00 AM NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL 6:15 AM 119 2052 142 636 2819 125 1 307 74 124 1 229 55 387 7069 6:30 AM 6:45 AM 7:00 AM 7:15 AM 7:30 AM 7:45 AM 8:00 AM 8:15 AM 8:30 AM 6 94 7 17 120 7 18 2 9 16 0 19 315 8:45 AM 11 129 11 26 208 9 20 3 4 12 6 20 459 9:00 AM 10 134 7 34 136 6 23 8 7 17 1 23 406 9:15 AM 9 135 5 28 160 3 26 4 11 15 11 26 433 9:30 AM 7 157 11 45 221 14 30 1 10 14 3 25 538 9:45 AM 11 212 6 53 286 11 27 6 23 22 7 29 693 10:00 AM 13 204 21 51 282 13 26 7 7 24 2 47 697 10:15 AM 9 179 14 49 245 10 17 2 16 15 4 35 595 10:30 AM 10 190 8 79 238 15 35 12 12 23 2 38 662 10:45 AM 10 198 14 88 298 12 31 10 9 14 6 19 709 11:00 AM 9 202 14 96 298 13 24 7 9 27 7 49 755 11:15 AM 14 218 24 70 327 12 30 12 7 30 6 57 807 11:30 AM 11:45 AM TOTAL NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL VOLUMES= 119 2052 142 636 2819 125 1 307 74 124 1 229 55 387 7069 AM Peak Hr Begins at: 1030 AM PEAK VOLUMES = 1 43 808 60 1 333 PEAK HR. FACTOR: 1 0.890 CONTROL: Signalized; 1161 52 1 120 41 0.945 Aq 37 1 94 21 163 1 2933 1 ' 0.747 1 0.909 1 ' 1 1 .1 r r 1 r r r r r �1 it r 1 r 1 r r r 1 Intersection Turning Movement Prepared by: Southland Car Counters N -S STREET: Jamboree Rd. DATE: 9/7/2003 LOCATION: City of Newport Beach E -W STREET: Pacific Coast Hwy. DAY: SUNDAY PROJECT# 03- 1339 -003 TOTAL NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND ST SR NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL LANES: 1 2 0 1 2 1 3 4 0 2 4 1 6:00 AM 6:15 AM 6:30 AM 6:45 AM 7:00 AM 7:15 AM 7:30 AM 7:45 AM 8:00 AM 8:15 AM 8:30 AM 7 42 12 25 35 51 41 138 3 29 118 7 508 8:45 AM 5 46 19 24 92 83 58 137 5 19 134 16 63B 9:00 AM 7 43 18 30 47 61 53 139 9 21 111 13 552 9:15 AM 6 49 15 45 46 82 65 132 9 31 156 14 650 9:30 AM 4 58 20 44 54 122 79 186 6 32 175 19 799 9:45 AM 11 59 14 46 94 174 92 195 6 30 168 30 919 10:00 AM 6 71 17 47 89 162 85 195 5 31 187 18 913 10:15 AM 3 49 22 47 76 155 91 168 3 29 167 32 842 10:30 AM 4 54 15 62 67 128 92 197 7 28 195 16 867 10:45 AM 3 51 25 50 71 113 103 241 3 32 201 22 915 11:00 AM 11 56 25 60 86 178 102 205 8 40 216 39 1026 11:15 AM 7 95 32 97 91 172 114 228 4 55 198 38 1131 11:30 AM 11:45 AM TOTAL NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL VOLUMES = 74 673 234 577 I 848 1481 975 I 2161 68 377 I 2026 266 9760 I AM Peak Hr Begins at: 1030 AM 7y15 VOLUMES = I 25 97 1 269 591 411 22 1 155 117 I 97 P F EAK 1 8 0 0.917 0.939 0.816 0.705 HR. CONTROL: Signalized; AS Intersection Turning Movement Prepared by: Southland Car Counters N -S STREET: Santa Rosa Dr. DATE: 9 /7/2003 LOCATION: City of Newport Beach E -W STREET: San Joaquin Hills Rd. DAY: SUNDAY PROJECT# 03- 1339 -004 NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND TOTAL Ni- NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL LANES: 2 3 0 1 3 0 0 2 1 1 1 1 2452 6:00 AM 6:15 AM 6:30 AM 6:45 AM 7:00 AM 7:15 AM 7:30 AM 7:45 AM 8:00 AM 8:15 AM 8:30 AM 4 2 8 5 0 4 5 20 5 20 21 3 97 8:45 AM 5 3 10 7 1 6 6 22 9 24 30 4 127 9:00 AM 1 4 7 9 3 10 8 24 6 24 25 8 129 9:15 AM 4 3 21 7 3 4 2 29 6 28 27 12 146 9:30 AM 7 6 11 11 2 2 7 44 12 38 30 9 179 9:45 AM 10 4 20 9 2 8 4 36 11 43 56 19 222 10:00 AM 5 1 15 10 4 8 5 43 16 48 37 8 200 10:15 AM 11 3 28 13 3 7 7 21 16 54 33 24 220 10:30 AM 10 4 21 10 2 15 12 33 12 71 25 11 226 10:45 AM 15 2 18 13 2 8 16 43 22 104 42 17 302 11:00 AM 10 3 24 9 3 12 7 57 21 87 43 15 291 11:15 AM 11 2 33 16 2 5 9 59 16 91 51 18 313 11:30 AM 11:45 AM TOTAL Ni- NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL VOLUMES = 93 37 216 119 27 89 88 I 431 152 632 420 148 2452 AM Peak Hr Begins at: 1030 AM PEAK VOLUMES = 46 11 96 1 48 9 PEAK HR. FACTOR: 0.832 0.893 CONTROL: Signalized 40 1 44 192 71 353 0.903 WE 161 61 1 1132 0.882 0.904 I II II Intersection Turning Movement Prepared by: Southland Car Counters N -S STREET: McArthur Blvd. DATE: 9/7/2003 LOCATION: City of Newport Beach E -W STREET: Ford Rd. /Bonita Canyon Dr. DAY: SUNDAY PROJECT# 03- 1339 -005 TOTAL NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND NR EASTBOUND WESTBOUND SR EL NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL LANES: 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 2 1 6:00 AM 6:15 AM 6:30 AM 6:45 AM 7:00 AM 7:15 AM 7:30 AM 7:45 AM 8:00 AM 8:15 AM 8:30 AM 6 124 30 59 154 1 8 35 6 24 33 64 544 8:45 AM 6 140 21 50 193 1 3 28 7 29 26 89 593 9:00 AM 7 129 21 69 201 4 9 23 9 14 28 77 591 9:15 AM 12 167 18 63 235 0 5 21 11 24 35 80 671 9:30 AM 8 173 21 94 254 3 6 52 15 27 30 75 758 9:45 AM 15 185 32 158 239 5 3 63 17 77 104 153 1051 10:00 AM 12 184 22 102 233 2 7 34 8 54 38 112 808 10:15 AM 10 201 12 69 275 1 5 44 13 38 32 115 815 10:30 AM 12 195 13 79 379 0 3 26 7 40 33 101 888 10:45 AM 5 242 35 82 407 0 9 51 19 67 21 107 1045 11:00 AM 14 195 19 101 374 2 4 73 16 52 31 122 1003 11:15 AM 37 219 23 113 296 1 2 49 8 88 70 140 1046 11:30 AM 11:45 AM TOTAL NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR 'TOTAL VOLUMES = 144 2154 267 I 1039 3240 20 64 I 499 136 534 I 481 1235 I AM Peak Hr Begins at: 1030 AM PEAK VOLUMES = 168 851 PEAK HR. FACTOR: 0.895 CONTROL: Signalized; 90 1 375 1456 3 1 18 199 50 1 247 155 470 ' d 0.718 0.732 3982 0.952 Intersection Turning Movement Prepared by: Southland Car Counters N -5 STREET: McArthur Blvd. DATE: 9/7/2003 LOCATION: City of Newport Beach E -W STREET: San Joaquin Hills Rd. DAY: SUNDAY PROJECT# 03-1339 -006 TOTAL NORTHBOUND 50UTHBOUND NR EASTBOUND WESTBOUND SR EL NL NT NR 5L ST 5R EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL LANES: 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 0 1 2 1 6:00 AM 6:15 AM 6:30 AM 6:45 AM 7:00 AM 7:15 AM 7:30 AM 7:45 AM 8:00 AM 8:15 AM 8:30 AM 5 75 4 53 95 17 6 22 5 2 27 39 350 8:45 AM 4 86 3 64 116 20 8 26 7 4 31 46 415 9:00 AM 9 113 2 58 129 24 9 32 6 3 34 58 477 9:15 AM 8 109 1 51 148 29 10 43 9 4 39 67 518 9:30 AM 9 126 3 70 167 31 18 28 b 3 30 65 556 9:45 AM 12 171 4 75 222 54 25 42 9 5 52 69 740 10:00 AM 10 137 9 67 180 39 16 45 11 3 35 54 606 10:15 AM 15 157 6 72 218 93 24 47 10 7 46 89 784 10:30 AM 11 140 11 64 175 81 17 27 8 5 29 66 634 10:45 AM 8 164 8 81 268 105 15 52 10 8 51 75 845 11:00 AM 10 167 10 96 304 87 19 62 14 10 56 62 897 11:15 AM 15 195 9 93 319 111 23 69 25 5 47 78 1009 11:30 AM 11:45 AM TOTAL NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL. VOLUMES = 116 1640 70 1 644 2341 691 190 515 120 59 477 768 1 7831 AM Peak Hr Begins at: 1030 AM PEAK VOLUMES = I 44 666 38 1 334 1066 384 I 74 PEAK HR. FACTOR: 0.854 0.853 CONTROL: Signalized; UWE 230 57 + 28 183 281 1 3385 0.659 I 0.918 0.839 I II Ill II [1 1 Intersection Turning Movement Prepared by: Southland Car Counters N -S STREET: McArthur Blvd. DATE: 9/7/2003 LOCATION: City of Newport Beach E-W STREET: San Miguel Dr. DAY: SUNDAY PROJECT# 03- 1339 -007 NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND TOTAL NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL LANES: 2 3 0 2 3 0 2 2 0 2 2 0 5695 I 6:00 AM 6:15 AM 6:30 AM 6:45 AM 7:00 AM 7:15 AM 7:30 AM 7:45 AM 8:00 AM 8:15 AM 8:30 AM 7 109 17 0 58 2 11 11 3 27 18 1 264 8:45 AM 4 108 36 2 112 8 10 15 4 29 18 0 346 9:00 AM 6 68 16 2 78 6 12 13 3 23 8 0 237 9:15 AM 8 122 23 1 104 8 12 16 6 39 14 3 356 9:30 AM 14 134 3B 2 123 76 12 16 4 24 26 2 471 9:45 AM 10 165 60 2 149 76 21 28 10 52 23 4 600 10:00 AM 6 98 26 1 111 39 23 17 7 38 29 6 401 10:15 AM 14 126 28 1 130 45 22 34 10 32 36 14 492 10:30 AM 12 138 38 0 170 53 30 25 12 48 30 9 565 10:45 AM 26 160 55 2 201 92 36 32 10 51 69 20 754 11:00 AM 13 88 28 0 131 48 22 23 12 32 30 9 436 11:15 AM 22 155 54 2 232 89 35 50 10 51 61 12 773 11:30 AM 11:45 AM TOTAL NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL VOLUMES = 142 1471 421 15 I 1599 542 I 246 280 91 446 I 362 80 5695 I ' AM Peak Hr Begins at: 1030 AM PEAK VOLUMES = 73 541 175 1 4 734 282 1 123 130 44 ' PEAK HR. FACTOR: 0.818 0.789 0.782 ' CONTROL: Signalized; ' A9 182 190 50 1 2528 0.754 1 0.818 Intersection Turning Movement Prepared by: Southland Car Counters N-S STREET: McArthur Blvd. DATE: 9/7/2003 LOCATION: City of Newport Beach E -W STREET: Pacific Coast Hwy. DAY: SUNDAY PROJECT# 03 -1339 -008 TOTAL NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND NT EASTBOUND WESTBOUND ST SR NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL LANES: 2 1 2 3 3 1 789 I 2342 0 0 2089 1215 8491 6:00 AM 6:15 AM 6:30 AM 6:45 AM 7:00 AM 7:15 AM 7:30 AM 7:45 AM 8:00 AM 8:15 AM 8:30 AM 63 30 49 122 130 69 463 8:45 AM 76 32 52 138 137 79 514 9:00 AM 84 33 37 156 124 77 511 9:15 AM 92 56 48 176 174 98 644 9:30 AM 118 32 78 185 174 113 700 9:45 AM 107 47 74 219 191 107 745 10:00 AM 92 66 63 237 202 92 752 10:15 AM 120 62 76 203 123 93 677 10:30 AM 158 51 77 203 204 114 807 10:45 AM 141 82 80 216 204 136 859 11:00 AM 167 80 76 234 209 122 888 11:15 AM 188 79 79 253 217 115 931 11:30 AM 11:45 AM TOTAL NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL VOLUMES = 0 0 0 1406 I 0 650 789 I 2342 0 0 2089 1215 8491 AM Peak Hr Begins at: 1030 AM PEAK PFj VOLUMES I O 0.000 0 1 654 0.886 292 1 312 0.917 0 I O 0.971 487 I O936 CONTROL: Signalized iii Q I 1 II 1 Cl i 1 1 1 Existing ICU Calculation Sheets 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 All 1 1 % TRAFFIC VOLUME ANALYSIS INTERSECTION. COAST HIGHWAY & JAMBOREE ROAD 5055 (Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Daily Traffic 2003 AM APPROACH DIRECTION EXISTING PEAKHOUR VOLUME PEAK HOUR REGIONALGROWTH 1 VOLUME APPROVED PROJECTS PEAK HOUR VOLUME PROJECTED PEAKHOUR VOLUME I% OF PROJECTED PEAK HOUR VOLUME PROJECT PEAK HOUR VOLUME Northbound 525 Southbound 932 Eastbound 2883 Westbound 1200 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1 % of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes. Project Traffic is estimated to be equal to or greater than 1 % of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes. Intersection Capacity Ufilization (ICU) Analysis is required. 1 % TRAFFIC VOLUME ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: COAST HIGHWAY & JAMBOREE ROAD 5055 (Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Daily Traffic 2003 PM APPROACH DIRECTION EXISTING PEAKHOUR VOLUME PEAK HOUR REGIONAL GROWTH VOLUME APPROVED PROJECTS PEAKHOUR VOLUME PROJECTED PEAK HOUR VOLUME 1 % OF PROJECTED PEAKHOUR VOLUME PROJECT PEAK HOUR VOLUME Northbound 392 Southbound 1862 Eastbound 2315 Westbound 2235 0 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1 % of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes. Project Traffic is estimated to be equal to or greater than 1% of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes. Intersecfion Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PROJECT: DATE: INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTIUZATION ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: COAST HIGHWAY & JAMBOREE ROAD 5D55 EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED DN AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC 2003 AM _`_____ _____ | EXISTING | ------------------- PROPOSED ................ | EXISTING ............... . .................. ...................... |[*3T|NG| REGIONAL ................... \ C0MMiTT[D \ PROJECTED _____ ______ | PROJECT \ PROJECT | Movement Lanes | Lanes | PKHR | V/C GROWTH i PROJECT |v/0Ratio \vo)ume \ ;/C | |Capacity | Capacity | vn|umo ( Ratio | Volume \ Volume |N/oPro^od| | Ratio | | | | | | | \ Volume | | | ---`—' NIL ----- | l600| ------ | ----- 20| ----- -----' 0.013{ ..................... . .......... ........ | | . ............... . ................. ` | ) | ----- NT - ----- | ................... .-----. | 400 ---`-- ------ ( .--`---- ................... | ----- -----'| | | --'—'—} 3200 ------ - ---- - > 0.158 . .... .... -- -------} ............... l NR | | 105 | | | ' ------ SL ---'-- | 1600 ................... | ................ i51 . ----- . ------ | 0/094* ------- ------ \ | ----- ------. | | l ................. ST ................ / 3200 ................... ) ----~. 193. ---'— . ---- -- | 0I601 ------- ................... \ \ ----- -----'| | | \ ........... SR ----- | N3-| ................... . | --- — —. 588| ----- ------------------ | ------- ................... | | .----- ................. | | | -----' [L ----- | 4800\ ................... .-----. | 1056 --`-- .................. 0220* ------- -----' | | ............... -----'| \ | | -----' ET ----- | ............... ... | —� --`— l8l2 ----- ------ | ------- . ------. | ----- ---- '—| | | ----} 6400 ----`--- —`-- — - } 0.285 ------ '---- -- . ----- > | [R 15 | | | i wL i 7200 | | ........... 81 ............. .'...... | 0{]25 | '— ----`—. | | . — '--- '---( | | | -----' WT '—`--`. .` | 6400| ........ —..... | .'--I 9O3| . -- ---�— ----- 0J54° ------- ...... '........ | | .---�i | | \ — L/ Projected +project traffic iC.U. will he less than u/ equal tn8.90 — /—/ Projected +project traffic I.C.U, will bo greater than y.90 IPro/ected+pro/vcttraV/c/.C.U.*/sys|a/nsimprv,e/ncn|wi//be/assthanoryqua/{n8.98 — /—| Projected + project traffic /C.U. with project improvements will he less than |.C.U. without project ... ........... ..... .'`... —,.. .`...... ....... ....` ........ ....... ..... ............... .` .............. . Description d system improvement: .... . ............. __ ___ .... . ...... ..... ...... . PROJECT FORM 11 CH5855AM A7~� ��/3 ' CH5055PM 1 INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS 'ET INTERSECTION: COAST HIGHWAY & JAMBOREE ROAD 5055 I. ............ } 6400 .... ............................... } 0.230 ................. .........--- - -.... } ............... } EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC 1 ................ . .............. ................... WL 1 3200 I 2003 PM I . . - .. -- - - ---- ------- - I EXISTING I --- --- ---- --- - - ----'- ----- - -- ----- - - - - -- - ---- ------ - - - - -- PROPOSED I EXISTING I EXISTING I REGIONAL -- ------------ ------ - I COMMITTED I - - -- PROJECTED - ---- ------ - ------------- . I PROJECT I PROJECT I Movement I Lanes Lanes PK HR I V/C I GROWTH PROJECT I V/C Ratio I Volume V/C Capacity Capacity Volume Ratio I Volume Volume I w/o Project I Ratio I I_I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 I I Volume I I _I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. NL 1 1600 1 1 43 1 0.027 1 1 1 with project improvements will be less than I.C.U. without project ............... .............. . ................ .. -- - - - ------ 1 Description of system improvement; - ----- --- -- -- -- - --- --- - ----- - NT 1 ---- --- -------- --- - --------------- - ---- --- ----- -- - -- ---- - --.... 1 242 1 ------------------ - 1 - .- ----- -- - - - -- - .. ------- -- ------- -- -- I 1 PROJECT --------------- } 3200 - --- --- -- -- ..... ........ } 0.109 * - -- -- .. . ---------- --.... } ............... } I NR 1 1 107 A 1 I---------------- --------- - -- -- - SL1 1600 I ----- -- - --- --- - ------- - - -- --- - --- ------ --- - --- -- -- - --- 194 0.121 * I - ---- - I ----- -- -- I I ----------------- ._.-- ---- -. - ------ .....- ........ I ........_.... I --- --- ----- ST I 3200 1 ----------- ---._ -------- . - - - -- -- --- 1 491 1 0.153 1 --- -- ------ -- --.. 1 1 ----- 1 r -- ---- --- ---- -- - --- --------- - i SR I N.S. 1 -- --- -- --- -- — - ------- . - - - - -- ..---------- .... -- ----- -- -- --.. I 1177 1 1 - ------- --------- ... I - - - - -- ------------ --- --- - - - -- -- ---- - - ---- -------------- - -- ------- ... -------- - - -- i - I EL 1 4800 1 1 844 1 0.176 * -- - — ----- - I I I --------- --- - - -- - --- --- -- ------ - ---------- - ------ - -- ------- - - - - -- - ----- --- - - - -- .................. _ ----------------- .............. - ----- -- - - ---- - ---- - - - - -- . 'ET 1 1 1442 1 1 1 1 I. ............ } 6400 .... ............................... } 0.230 ................. .........--- - -.... } ............... } ER 29 1 1 1 ................ . .............. ................... WL 1 3200 I . ......... ...... . .............. . ....... ..... .... ........ - .............................. j I 171 1 0.053 1 I ................... .............. ............. . .................. WT 1 6400 1 ............. ............. -..... ........ ... 1 1804 1 0.282 I 1 ........................................................................................................................................ WR I N. S. I ............................... 260 I I I ................... ............... I ............. _ ................ EXISTING I.C.U. ........ . .............. ................ ................... 1 0.688 1 .................................................. I EXISTING + REGIONAL GROWTH ............................... ................. ......... ............................... . + COMMITTED W /PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.0 I .. .................................................................................................................................... ............................... EXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U. I I ............................................................................................ . ............................ . .............................. i I_I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 1- I Projected +project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 be less to 0.90 _I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w /systems improvement will than or equal ' 1_1 Projected + project traffic I,C.U. .. .. ............................. with project improvements will be less than I.C.U. without project ............... .............. . ................ .. Description of system improvement; ....................... ............................... ............... .............. ........................................................ ............................... . PROJECT FORM II CH5055PM A I% TRAFFIC VOLUME AN.9LYSIS INTERSECT70N.• COAST HIGHWAY & MACART]HUR BOULEVARD 5335 (Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Daily Traffic 2003 A* APPROACH DIRECTION EXISTING PEAKHOUR VOLUME PEAK HOLR I REGIONAL GROW'T'H VOLUME APPROVED PROJECTS PEAK HOUR VOLUME PROJECTED PEAKHOUR VOL(IME I'/. OF PROJECTED PEAKHOUR VOLUML--L PROJECT PEAKHOUR VOLUME Northbound 0 Southbound 776 Eastbound 1241 FwZtb 2095 0 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes. Project Traffic is estimated to be equal to or greater than 1% of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is nsqulred. I % TRAFFIC VOL UME ATJALYSIS INTERSECTION COAST FUGHWAY & MACARTHUR BOULEVARD 5335 (Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Daily Traffic 2003 P* APPROACH DIRECTION EXISTING PEAK HOUR VOLUME PEAKHOUR REGIONAL GROWTH I VOLUME APPROVED PROJECTS PEAK HOUR VOLUvIE PROJECTED PEAK HOUR VOLUME 1 %OF PROJECTED PEAK HOUR VOLUME PROJECT PEAK HOUR VOLUME Northbound 0 Southbound 1264 Eattbound 2141 Westbound 2193 1 _ Project Traffic is estimated to be less than t % of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes. I J Project Traffic is estimated to be equal to or greater than 1 % of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes, Intersection Capacity Utilization ()CU) Analysis is required. PROJECT: Aid DATE: CH5335AM 1 INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: COAST HIGHWAY & MACARTHUR BOULEVARD 5335 1� EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC 2003 AM ... ............. ... 1 . ............... .... I. EXISTING I ----- ---------- - ----- --- -- ---- PROPOSED I EXISTING - -- --- - -- ..... ...-------- - ---- -- IEXISTING I REGIONAL I .................. -- COMMITTED - ----- ----- . - - - -- - - --- --------- I PROJECTED I PROJECT - ----------------- . I PROJECT I Movement I Lanes Lanes I PK HR I V/C I GROWTH I PROJECT I V/C Ratio I Volume I V/C I I I Capacity I Capacity I Volume I Ratio I Volume I Volume I w/o Project I I Ratio I I I I I I I i i Volume ---- - .. .... ............- NIL ... - I I - - --- -- - ---- — - ------ ----..... I -------- _.... ......... ................- I J ....._...... --- ............... - - ---- ------ I .---- ...---- ---- I --- ------ - - -- - --- I NT - ---- - - - I I - -- ---- ............... -------- ......_ I ....._......_.........----- ...--- I ._.._ -- - - ' .. - -------- ----- ......... I ........ I-------- NR - - I I -- --- --- .............. _._..............---.... I -- — ---------. -- - I -- --...--- ......_ . - - - - - -- ----- -- -------- - - - --- I I - --- ------ --.... I I ------ --- ---- SL ----------- - -- ........- 1 3200 1 ------ --.. - .... ----- ................ 1 473 :............ -... -- - ....------ - -. ..- 0.148 * I --- --- - -- ---...... ------ ------- --- - -- - ---- -- I 1 _......_. 1 1 I .................. I ST -- ..... - -- - I I ------ -- -- -- - - - -- . ............... . ....... . ........ I I -------------------- ..... ' - -'- --- - ------ - - ----- I I - _ ------------- - I .......__...._ SR . ----- -- -- ---- I N.S. J -- --- --- . ..... . ........................._..... I 358 - ----- - - --- ....-- 1 1 -- - ------ --. - - - -- ... - ---------- ---- --- ------ — --- ... 1 1 - ----- --- - - -- 1 I I ............... i EL ..- ----- . ---- 1 3200 I --- ...........----- - - - . --- ..------ i 532 - --- ..........-- - - ------- ..-- --- ..............- 1 0.166 * I -- - ----- - --- ._...-- - ---- - -- - --- I I - ---- ..._- - I - --- - -- --- - --.- ET - ------ ---- -- ....... 1 4800 1 ----------- .................... I 963 ._...- ............... --- ..----- - 0.201 1 1 --- .- --- . ---- --- .....--- ..... -- - ---- ----- -- -- -- 1 1 ---- -.. f 1 1 - -- _.--- ...------ ER - ---- ---- I I --- ----- ---- ----- --.............. I I I I 1 I ....... ............................... WL 1 ------ ' ... - - ....... ----- --- .....- -- - I 1 _. -- -------- - -......-- -- ...-- ------ -------------- ........... 1 1 ........ 1 .. ............................... 1 WT 1 4800 1 ------ ---- .....-- - - ------------ ......-- 1 964 ------ ........ ._ .... .. 1 0.201 I - - ---- -- - - _.. ...... ...----- ---- - -- - - -- - _- I - ---- ....... -- -- i 1 -.. --- .-- - ----- WR ----- ............. I N.S. I ...... ........ ......._.........- 1 1083 ............. - -- - .._........_.................. 1 ...... ..... - ..._..._.._ ............. f . ....................... EXISTING ............. I.C.U. -- - -......... ......... ...... .... ..... ._ -.... — i 0.515 1 - ..... ._- ..........._......__._...... '- - ' - -..........._ I..........._.... EXISTING _. ... ._.. .... + REGIONAL - --- ........... ......... ..._................._......... GROWTH + COMMITTED W /PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. ---- ---- - - ---.. EXISTING -- -- --------- ...... -..- - -- - - .. ............---.........._. ----- ...... + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH ..-- -------- .................` -- . - ............... --- .------ .............. - + PROJECT I.C.U. . ............ ... — ............... . _ -... ..... -...... ..._. -- - ---- - - ----- - ---- -------- ....... . -- ..... ...... -------- ....... I _.......... - -- - 1_1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 1_1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 J_J Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w /systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 1_1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will be less than I.C.U. without project -- - ............... . .......... .... . ............... -- - ----- _...___ ..._......__.. _.. -._. Description of system improvement: ._ ................. . .............. ............._---- - ................ ................ .......... PROJECT CH5335AM A16 ...... .... . . . . - -- FORM II CH5335PM INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: COAST HIGHWAY & MACARTHUR BOULEVARD 5335 EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC 2003 PM ----'---- ------ - ------ ------- - ---- - ------- - - -- - ------- - ----- - ----- -------- - -------- - - - --- - - - ------ --- ---- - ----- . ............. . I EXISTING 1 PROPOSED ! EXISTING I EXISTING I PEGIONAL I COMMITTED I PROJECTED 1 PROJECT I PROJECT I Movement I Lanes I Lanes I PK HR I V/C I GROWTH I PROJECT I V/C Ratio I Volume I V/C I I Capacity I Capacity I Volume I Ratio I Volume I Volume I w/o Project I I Ratio I I I I I I I Volume 1 I I _..... --------- .....---------- I NIL I I I I I I I I I I - - - -- - - -- . ............. NT I I I I I I I I I -- -- ----- ------ - ----- ----- - ---- ------ ---- - -- . ............. i NR I I I I I I I I I I ...... I SL 1 3200 1 1 623 ..... .. ---------- --- - - - -- - __._ 1 0.195 * I I I I I - ------ --- - - -- .............. --- ST I -- --- ------ - --- ---- I ---- - ---- - ------- - - ---- I -------------- --- -- - I I I I I I 1 -- ------ - ----- - SR I -- -----' - -- N.S. 1 375 ------------ ...... --- -- ....... '----- - - .. .. ............. I I I I I I ----- - - -- -- I ---------------- EL 1 3200 1 1 428 ------ ........ - ------ -- ---- 1 0.134 " I I I I I - ----- ------ I -- --- ---- --- - -- ET 1 ............. 4800 - - 1 1 1430 - -- I ............. -------------- 1 0.298 1 1 1 I 1 I 1 - ---.. -- --- - E R --- ---- --- - --- -- ------ --- - ------- - - - --- - - ------ - .... ----------------- .................... . ------ -------- . ............ I I I ------ -- WL I I i i --- ----- ....................... _._.... 1 i I I I I I ................ I WT 1 -- -- - - ---- 4800 1 1 1149 1 - --- ---- ---- - -- - --- - - - - -' ............. 0.239 " I I I I I ------ i - - ------ ' WR I N. S. 1 1 427 1 .... -- ._.........._.........I I 1 I 1 1 1 - -- ---- -- -- EXISTING I.C.U. .............. — 1 - --- .............. . .............. ...._........ 0.568 1 1 --- ---------- -- - EXISTING + --------`- -- REGIONAL - ----- --- --`- ------ ' ........ . GROWTH + COMMITTED W /PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.0 I I I EXISTING + - -- --- ------- - COMMITTED + ---------- - -- - --- ----- REGIONAL GROWTH - ---- -- - --- -` - --- - - ----- -- --- - - - -- --............ .............. + PROJECT I.C.U. I I ------- - - - - - - ---------------- - ----------------- . . ................... --------- .............. . I_I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 1_I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 I_I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w /systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 1_I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will be less than 1.C.U. without project -- -- --- - ----- - - -- --- -- . --.........._... . I- -- --- - -- . .............. . ................ . ................... .... ........... . ............. Description of system Improvement: --- ---- ------ - - - - -- - .............. . .................. . ......... ----- . ........... .................... ------------------- - -------------- - ------------- PROJECT FORM II CH5335PM All I r, u I Ii I I % TRAFFIC VOL UME ANALYSIS DVTELSECTION. JAMBOREE ROAD & SAN JOAQUIN HILLS ROAD 5045 (Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Daily Traffic 2003 AM) APPROACH DM-FCTION EXLSTIIJG PEAKHOUR VOLUME PEAK HOUR REGIONAL GROWTH VOLUME APPROVED PROJECTS PEAK HOUR VOLUME PROJECTED PEAKHOUR VOLUME 1% OFPROJECTED PEAK HOUR VOLUME PROJECT PEAK HOUR VOLUME Northbound 1402 Southbound 2018 Eastbound 391 Westbound 151 0 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1 % of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes. 0 Project Traffic is estimated to be equal to or greater than 1 % of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. I % TRAFFIC VOLUME ANALYSIS DVTERSECTION JAMBOREE ROAD & SAN JOAQUIN MLS ROAD 5045 (Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Daily Traffic 2003 PM) APPROACH DIRECTION EXISTING PEAKHOUR VOLUME PEAK HOUR REGIONAL GROWTH VOLUME APPROVED PROJECTS PEAK HOUR VOLUME PROJECTED PEAK HOUR VOLUME 1% OFPROJECTED PEAK HOUR VOLUME PROJECT PEAK HOUR VOLUME Northbound 1321 Southbound 1957 Eastbound 186 Westbound 298 0 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes. 0 Project Traffic is estimated to be equal to or greater than 1 % of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. 1 ]x5O45AM INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: JAMBOREE R0AD& SAN ]8AOU|N HILLS ROAD 5845 EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC 2003 AM --- _------------- _ _�----'_- / EXISTING ( ---`------------- PROPOSED ( `...... ------ 8:S71NG - ---------`--- - / EXISTING J ------------------ REGIONAL - -------------------- ��...`.... �------------ ----------------- - (COMMITTED | PROJECTED i PROJECT / PROJECT | ) Movement | Lanes | Lanes | PKHR | Y/C |GR0YNlH | PROJECT IY/CRatio \ Volume | Y/C \ | |Capacity| Capacity | Volume | Ratio \ Volume { Volume | w/o Project | | Ratio ( / | / / ) 1 Volume 1 \ | i-- -- - - - - --- - / NIL ( 1600/ ---- -- ( ----- 20/ 0.013 ( ---'-- ------' ---- -'------ ----- --'`--| }.... ........... . ........ .... | NT ) 4808) ------ | ----- l282\ ---- - 0267° -^---- .... .... ---�---`--� ---'-�---'-') ) --- -- ------ ( 1 -`--'- ----' | NR | N3.| --- ---- --- \ 100| \ .. -- ----- -^---' ----- | i \ | | - - -- --_- � / '--------- | SL | J288| ------ \ `----- 6O7| - -- - -- - 8.288° --- - - - -'----'-------- - - - - \ \ \ | / - --- ( ) --- - ------- --- - --- ------ -- ------ 1 ST / 4888/ - ---- -- / -----I l297) `---- 0278/ .... .... ..... --- --- -------- ' ...... ............ - ------------- --- ----- ) | \ | \ |----- ---------- - -------- ---- / SR ( N.S. / ------ ( ----- 54/ - --- -- ( ------ --- ------ --- -' - --------- -� -----�-----'| / / | -'-`-- ------ | [L | ------- | `---- 283 ----- | -'--..... ------- --- --- ----- -----'\ \ \ [ 1 '----'} 4800 .- > 8{)70 "`------------ ------ ----------- -}- ..... ... ... \ | ET | | 51 | \ | \ � ----' -- '- . [R ( N3.| ------ | ................ 57| .'----. ------ ------' ------. ----- --`---� ... -'[ | ................. ................ ... � Wl 1 .... .......... 1 `' ....... ^. 114 ....... ....... .'-'-^`' ) ....... ^ .... ..... .--'`-- ----- ........ i \ l | -`'--^- } 4800 . ............. ..... `----. > 0.027 *----^`. --'`--. -`---}'-`-'-\ / WT / / 16 / / 1 | | | ................. . ........ ...... . ............. i YVK ( 1688 | ..... ................. [ 21 .... ...... . [ 8.813 i ........ ...... � .......... .- ..... ......... . ........ ...... . ... ............ [ ( | --........... . ............... . ..... |EXISTING |.C.U. ............. .-............. . ............... . | 8.572| .................. . ...... ........... - -~'--`' '--^` -'--^^-| { ) | '`-'`-. .'-~`- . '`-^--`' . ................ . `~---`. I EXISTING + REGIONAL GROWTH +COMM|T[[Dw/PR0P0S[DIMPROVEMENTS ^'-'-`'. ...... ..... ..... -''~-'- � I.C.U. | | | i................. . ............... . ........ | EXISTING + COMMITTED .......... .- + REGIONAL .......... '. GROWTH ..... ^-'`. + PROJECT ........... ...... I.C.U. . .... ........... '................... . ........... ... . ........ .... -( | | ... ................. . ....... ....... . ......... Split Phase E1W direction ......... . ............. '. .......... .... ..-.---. . .................... . ................... . .... .......... . - ...... ..... - L( Projected + project traffic iC.U. wit boless than or equal tn0.9O - L( Projected +p/o�md|raWriC.U. will be greater than 0.9V 1-1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w/systems improvement will te less than or equal to 0.90 - - I-( Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements wil be less than I.C.U. Without project `.~`-`. . ................ '- ................ ' ................... ........... ' .... .......... .` ..... --`....... ' .......... ...... ........ .` ........... --� Description of system improvement: ' ............ r-....... ............. ' ..... ^-.... ............... ' ...... ...... .... ` ...... .............. ' ............ .... ^ ............ ''............... . PROJECT FORM 11 &.\� i JA5045PM i 1 INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS Cq�/ F 0.`P INTERSECTION: JAMBOREE ROAD & SAN JOAQUIN HILLS ROAD 5045 FO 0 i E EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC 2 2003 PM EXISTING I PROPOSED I EXISTING I EXISTING I REGIONAL I COMMITTED I PROJECTED I I PROJECT I PROJECT I Movement I Lanes I Lanes I PK HR I V/C I GROWTH I PROJECT I V/C Ratio I I Volume I V/C I I I I Capacity I Capacity I Volume I Ratio I Volume I Volume I w/o Project I I I Ratio I i I I Volume I I - --- --- -- - - -- -- -- ------------- ----------- --- I - ------ --- - --- --- ---- A 20 I % TRAFFIC VOLUME ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: JAMBOREE ROAD & EASTBLUFF DRIVE/FORD ROAD 4980 (Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Daily Traffre 26'03 And APPROACH DIRECTION EXISTING PEAK HOUR VOLUME PEAK HOUR REGIONALGROWTH VOLUME APPROVED PROJECTS PEAK HOUR VOLUME PROJECTED PEAK HOUR VOLUME 1 %OF PROJ}CTED PEAKHOUR VOLUME PROJECT PEAK HOUR VOLUME Northbound 1766 Southbound 1722 Eastbound 1203 Westbound 508 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1 °A of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes. 0 Project Traffic is estimated to be equal to or greater than 1 % of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. I % TRAFFIC VOLUME ANALYSIS INTERSECTION. JAMBOREE ROAD & EASTBLIJFF DRJVE/FORD ROAD 4980 ( Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Daily Traffic 2003 PM APPROACH DIRECTION EXISTING PEAK HOUR VOLUME PEAK HOUR REGIONAL GROWTH VOLUME APPROVED I'ROJECTS PEAK HOUR VOLUME PROJECTED PEAK HOUR VOLUME 1 / OF PROJECTED PEAK HOUR VOLUME PROJECT PEAK HOUR VOLUME Northbound 1770 Southbound 1798 Eastbound 641 Westbound 233 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1 % of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes. 0 Project Traffic is estimated to be equal to or greater than 1% of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. �a � JA4980AM ' INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS Oq 4 INTERSECTION: JAMBOREE ROAD & EASTBLUFF DRIVE /FORD ROAD 4980 FO EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC . 2003 AM - -- -"- -- -' -- - ---- ------- ------ - - --- -- - -------- -- ----- ----- -- ----._ ------- ------.... -- -------- -- -- .......--- 1 EXISTING I PROPOSED I EXISTING I EXISTING I REGIONAL I COMMITTED I --------- ' ----- - - - - -- -- - . PROJECTED I PROJECT I PROJECT 1 Movement I Lanes I Lanes I PK HR I V/C GROWTH I PROJECT I V/C Ratio I Volume I V/C I I Capacity I Capacity I Volume I Ratio Volume I Volume I w/o Project I I Ratio I I I I I I Volume I I I ----------- - .. . ................... ----- - -- * --- -------- ---- .. ------ .------- ......--- NIL 1 3200 1 1 380 1 0.119 1 1 ..------- ----- - --- ------ ...... ----------------- 1 1 1 1 1 --- ---- -- ----- ..._._......... - -------- ---- ... -------- ..._..... - ............. ..... . . . . .. ....... . ------ ---- .............._._... NT 1 1 1322 1 --- - -- --- --... --- -- - - -- - -- 1 --- -- ---- - - ---- } 4800 -- -- ----- -... _....__...... } 0.289 -- -...__ -__ .._...... ----- ..... } . --- -- --- -- } NR 1 1 64 --------------- ... .......... .---- ------------------ . . ................._....... ......._.._..................... ......- SL 1 1600 1 1 72 1 0.045 1 1 ---- --- - - -- -- . ............. ......._..— — I 1 ---- - -- 1 - -- - - ---- ---- ---------- - - - - - - - --...- - ---- ----- ..........._..... ------------ -- * -- ------- ------ - -- -- ------- ST 1 4800 1 1 14-45 1 0.301 _............. -- ---- - --- -- -- ..._. I - ................- -- - ...._... ......... ................'--- -- --- - --....-- -- - - ---- ....--- --- --- ...... S-- I 1600- I 205 0.128 1 L -- -......... -- - - -- ------ ---... -- --- ' ------ -- I 1...... 1..........__.... 1 - .......... .. ..................._ - -- - ---- -- ---- - - EL 1 1600 1 1 311 1 0.194 1 I 1 ......._.......... - ----- 1 1 .........- --------- .... .._............ - - - -- ....._.... _...... .....---.- .........--- ET I 1600 I 346 0216 * I ---... --- -- ------ --... . ! - - - - - -- ---- - - - - -- ------ -- -- ...- ......_ .......- -- -- -- -- ER I N. S. 1 1 546 1 1 1 ----.- ----- ----- --- -- .__.-- ---- .... 1 1 I- 1 ---- - ---- -- - - --- ---- --- - - ---- - - --- --- ......._..__. ..._...__ ...................... ...- --- - -- --- ... wL 1 116 I ---- ...--- ---- _.......-- ---- --- 1 .....- ------ } 4800 � -- ....---- ....................... } 0.103 * _...._.. -----. .......- ..-- -...... } - . ...----- ------ } I WT 1 I 377 1 1 1 1 .......- ------ - - -- ----- --- - -- --- --- -------- --- ---- -- ............. .................-............. - - -- -- ---- -- - - - WR 1 1600 1 1 15 1 0.009 1 1 --------------- - - - ----------- 1 1 _........ - - -- -- - -- - -- - ..................- -- -- ...... _... EXISTING I.C.U. 0.739 1 --- ---- ....--- ...... -- ........... 1 I .........._...... - --- ---- ............ ---- ------ . EXISTING + REG GROWTH + COMMITTED W /PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. i I --- - --- .. --- -. .. ------- ' --- - --- ... — _....._.. . EXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH+ PROJECT I.C.U. I I . ................. . ... ' ................. . ....... ........ . _.._.. --------- . .......... ..... ................ . ................. .................... . Split Phase E/W direction ........... ........ . -- --- --`-- I_I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 1_1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 _I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w /systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 1_I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will be less than I.C.U. without project Description of system improvement: PROJECT ........... ............................... FORM II JA4980AM I j ' d JA498OPM INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: JAMBOREE ROAD & EASTBLUFF DRIVE /-ORD ROAD 4980 EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC; 2003 PM ... -- ---- - - ---- - ---- - --- -- - ----------- - - - --- - ------ ------ - ---- --- - - - -- ... -------------- - --- - ----------- -- - -- ------ -- ---- I EXISTING I PROPOSED I EXISTING I EXISTING I REGIONAL I COMMITTED I PROJECTED - - -- ---- ---- - -`---- ---- I PROJECT I PROJECT I Movement I Lanes I Lanes I PK HR V/C GROWTH I PROJECT V/C Ratio I Volume I V/C I I Capacity I Capacity I Volume Ratio Volume I Volume w/o Project I Ratio I I I I I Volume I 1 ---- - - ---- - --- ------- NIL 3200 1 370 0.116 I I - -- - -- - ------- ---.. 1 1 I ---- --- ---------- I----- -- ---- ----- ---- -- ---- ---- - - -- -- - -- - -- - ----- -- ---- -- -- - -- - -- --- -- ------ -------- - - -- -------------- ..-------- NT 1 1261 1 I 1 --- ------------ } 48DO - -------- - ----- - -- ------- ? 0.292 - --- - - ---- - - ----- -- -- -- 7 - -------- ---- I NR 1 I 139 1 1 1 I I----- ------ --- - - -- -- -- ---- -----.... -- -- -. - - -- ------- - - --- ............. ..- --- -- ---... SL 1600 1 58 1 0.036 I .....--- ---- - --.... - -- - -- 1 I 1 --- --- -- --- - - ---- - ------ -- - - -- - -- --- - -- - -- - -- - - - -- ----- - - -- ---- - -- - -- ------- - --- -- ----- ---- ------ --- ---- -- ST 1 4800 1 1 1613 0.336 1 1 - - --- ----- - -- 1 1 1 - --- ----- ---- ----- ----- -- - ----- - -- - -- ---- ...-- --------- - ---- -- ---- -- -- -- - -------- — --------- -------- -- ---------------- SR 1 1600 1 1 127 1 0.079 1 1 1 --- --------- - ---- --- 1 1 1 -- - - --- I I----- -- --- ------ - -- ---- -- --- - - - -- - -- - ----- ------ -- -- - -- --------- - - -- -- ---- -- ...... - ----- -- - --- --- --------- I EL I 1600 1 1 64 1 0.040 1 1 1 - - --- --- ------- - 1 1 1 --- I--------------- .. -- - - ------ - -------- - --- -- - - ------- ....... -- ----- --- -- -- - -- --- - - ----- - -- ----- -- - -- ---- ---- --- -- I ET 1 1600 1 204 1 0.128 * I I - -- ---- - - - --- - - ----- I I I I I-- - - ------- -- --- -- -- --------- - ---- -------- ----- - ----- - - - --- ..- ----- -- ----- -- ----- - - - -- -- -- ------ J' ER I N.S. 1 373 1 1 1 1 - -- ---- I 1 -- I ----- --- - -- - ----- --- - -- --------- -- - -- -- ---------- ---------- --- ....... -------- ..- - - -- -- - --- --- -- --- ---- ------ WL 1 110 1 1 -- - -- -- - - ......... 1 I--- ---- ----- 1 4800 - --- - - -- --- - -- -- -- 1 0.044 * .------- ........ WT 1 I 100 I 1 ----- -- - ---- - --- -------- .. -- - - --- --- -- - -- - ---- - -- -- ...... - -- - - - -- - - -------- -- - ---- ------ ------ WR 1 1600 1 23 0.014 I 1 - ------------ ......----- 1 -- -- -- -- - -- ---- - - - -- - --- — --- -- -- ..... - -- -- -- ....._ ..- -- -- ---- --- ------- - --- -- -- - ----- EXISTING I.C.U. 0.624 - ----- -- - --- - -- --- ....... ------- - - ----- .. ---- -------- - - --- ---- --- - -- ...- ----- ----- - -- - --- -- I EXISTING + REG GROWTH + COMMITTED W /PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. -- ------- ---- ...---- -- - ---- --- -- -- ---- - - -- ----- - --...- ------ _... --- ----- -- .....- -- ..........._....... ..... I EXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U. -- - - -- ----.. - -- -- - - - - -- I I --- -- -`........ - -. - - ---- -------- - --- ----- --- - -- - --------------- - ---- - ----- - - -- --- ---- -- -- -------- --- --- -- - ------ -- -- - - - -- Split Phase E/W direction - - ----- -- - - -- . ---- -- - - I_I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 1_1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 I_I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w /systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 J_J Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will be less than I.C.U. without project ------ . -- -------- - ------ ------- ... ------------------ - ---------------- .. ---------- .---- ------------------ .. _ ----------------- - ------- --- --- - - -- Description of system improvement: -- --------------- - -------------- --- - ------- ----- - - -- - - -- - ------ ----- --- -- ---------------- -- ------- _...... _ ..._--- ............. .- ----- .......... PROJECT JA49SOPM A,2,3 -- --------------- - - --- - -- - -- . FORM II ' 11 1 I% TRAFFIC VOLUME ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: MACARTHURBOULEVARD & SAN NUGUELDRIVE 7135 (Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Daily Traffic 2003 AM) APPROACH DIRECTION EXISTING PEAKHOUR VOLUME PEAK HOUR APPROVED PROJEM REGIONALGROVFM PEAK HOUR VOLUME VOLUME PROJECTED PEAK HOUR VOLUME 1 % OF PROJECTED PEAK HOUR VOLUME PROJECT PEAK HOUR VOLUME Northbound 1606 Southbound 1380 Eaztbound 303 Westbound 516 0 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1 % of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes. Project Traffic is estimated to be equal to or greater than 1 % of ProjectedPeak Hour Traffic Volumes. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. I% TRAFFIC VOL LIME ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: MACARTHUR BOULEVARD & SAN MIGUEL DRIVE 7135 (Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Daily Traffic 2003 PM) APPROACH DIRECTION EXISTING PEAK HOUR VOLUME PEAK HOUR APPROVED PROJECT RMONALGROWTHI PEAK HOUR VOLUME VOLUME PROJECTED PEAK HOUR VOLUME I% OF PROJECTED PEAK HOUR VOLUME PROJECT PEAK HOUR VOLUME Northbound 1235 Southbound 1355 Eastbound 1098 Westbound 458 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes. Project Traffic is estimated to be equal to or greater than 1 % of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes. Intersection Capacity Utilisation (ICU) Analysis is required. PROJECT: A2N DATE: MA7135AM INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS I 1 I A INTERSECTION: MACARTHUR BOULEVARD & SAN MIGUEL DRIVE 7135 EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY -� RAFFIC 2003 AM --- -- -- -- -- -- - --------------- - I EXISTING I ----- -- . ..-- -- - ----- .--- - - - - -- PROPOSED I EXISTING I EXISTING I REGIONAL I COMMI -LED I PROJECTED I PROJECT I PROJECT Movement I Lanes Lanes I PK HR V. /C GROWTH PROJECT V/C Ratio I Volume V/C Capacity I Capacity I Volume I Ratio I Volume I Volune w/o Project I Ratio I I I Volume ----- .. ---- ---- - - -. I NL -- -- - I 32001 _-- --- -- - --- --- --- ........ .... ................. 1 1421 0.044 1 I ------- ._..._......................._....-- I l 1 ...._ I --- ------- ----- I NT - --- -- - 1 4800 I -- ------------ ........ ------- .... - 1245 0.259 * -- ......--- ...--- I ------ I -- -- - - -- I ---...._....... I NR 1600 1 ------ - .......- - - ---- 2191 0.137 1 1 1 1 _......--- -..... SL _ ............ I 3200 I --- ...- --.-------- - --- .... -------- . ............... . .................. . ... ................ 1 I 0.000 I . ------------------- - -------------- .._... ......._. ! ......---- ST 1 48001 - - -- - .... 749 1 0.156 1 1 1 -- ------ -- --- - - - -- - - -- -- - - - - - -- - ---- 1 1 I ................... 1 I ...-'- ---- SR1 --- ----- .---- .. 1600 I ---- -- .......... .......- ----`- - ------ I -------- .--- . -- ----- - --- ...... ----- ._....... 63- I .............------ - -- ---------- ........-- I EL I 3200 1 - - --- ._ .............. .... ......... -- -- I 204 1 0.064 * ! -------- -- ---- - -- ----..... ..---- I I 1 . ...._._._.._ I -------- --- ---- ET --- ---------- ...-- 1 ------ - ......... ............................... _........ --- -- - -- ------ .._..........- 1 78 I ------ ----- ------ - - -- ----------- } 3200 ----- - - -- -- ..--- ...---- _... } 0.031 ...... ---------- -- ............... } ER I 21 1 1 I -- ------ .. . ---- ........... 1 WL -- 1..3200 I .........._...._........- -- ---- 1 212 I 0.066 I I - - - ---- ..._...._- ......._ 1 1 I WT . . 1 --------- --- -- ------.... .... -- -- --- --.... ..._...._..... - -- 1 297 ..........._----- .............. ......_.... -- 1 --- -- - -- - -- } 3200 -- ------- ........._..---------- } C.095 * _ .....--- ........._..._._.._.... } -- --......... } I WR 7 __ .. ................_............ I EXISTING I.C.U. -- ... -- ---- ----- ....._... ------ 1 C.418 1 . _........._.......... _....------- EXISTING + - ---`---- ........ --- .------- .... . ...... ......... ............... . .................. . ----- ......... REG GROWTH + COMMITTED W /PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. ................... I I--_._....... - EXISTING + - ------ -- - COMMITTED - -- -- - ....................... ._..................-- --- - - --.. _._....---..........._.......--- + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U. _....--- --- ....................� I ... ................. .......... -..... --- -------- - - - - -- - ................. _ ............. . _................ . .... ............... . ..._...._........ . .--- -----.... .._.._..... _... _I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be less than cr equal to 0.90 1_1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 1_1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w./systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 _I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will be less than I.C.U. without project .. ..........._ -- - ------------- ..... . ..... ........... ................ . . .................. ..................... .... ................ ........... Description of system improvement: PROJECT MA7135AM ARM I. I FCRM 111 L IJ IMA7135PM I 1 r INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: MACARTHUR BOULEVARD & SAN MIGUEL DRIVE 7135 -- EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC 2003 PM - - ---- - - ---- - ----- - - - - -- . -- ---- -`---- - - ------------- - I EXISTING I - ---------------- - -- ----- ------- - -- --- -- -'- - - ---- -- ---... - ------------------- ...----------------- PROPOSED I EXISTING I EXISTING I REGIONAL I COMMITTED I PROJECTED I PROJECT I PROJECT I Movement I Lanes I Lanes I PK HR I V/C I GROWTH I PROJECT I V/C Ratio I Volume I V/C I I I Capacity I Capacity I Volume I Ratio I Volume I Volume I w/o Project I I Ratio I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 Volume I I I .............. ...............I ................ NL 1 3200 1 .................................. I......................................... 1 74 1 0.023 I I ................... . ................... . .............. I .................. .. .............. ........... ... ................ . .............. . NT1 4800 I ................ ... ............... . .............. . ............ I ... . I 911 0.190 1 I ............ .... I ................... I .............. .............. NR 1 1600 1 .................. ............... ................ 1 250 1 0.156 1 1 1 ........................ 1 1 I ............................... .............. 1 ..... ............................... SL1 3200 I ............ ............................... ................. i 8 0.003 I ................ I ........ ............................... I .............. ............. ST 1 4800 1 .................. ............. 1 1034 1 0.215 " I I I ............................... ........................................................................................................................................ SR 1 1600 1 1 313 1 0.196 1 1 ........ ............................... . i .............. ............. 1 ................................................ EL 1 3200 1 ............................... . ................ 1 687 1 0.215 " I I ............................................ 1 1 I ............................... 1 .......................................................... ET 1 ............................... 1 362 I 1 1 ................ ? 3200 .... ............................... } 0.128 ................. .................... } ...... ...... } 4.. I I ................ ................ WL3200 1 ................. ........... ................ 199 1 0.062 ! ................... ............. .. .............. ............. 1 I WT 1 . ................ 239 ................ } 3200 .... ............................... } 0.081 ................. .................... } ...... } IWR I 1 20 I .. ................... . ................... I ............................ EXISTING I.C.U. ............... ................ 1 0.534 1 ................... ................... ................. .............. . EXISTING + REG GROWTH .................. . ............... . ............ . ................ .. + COMMITTED W /PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. I ... ............. ... ........... ._ ..... . .......... ......... . .............. ...I.......... .............. ... .............. . ................. .. ............... . ........ ...... EXISTING +COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U. I ............................................................................................................................................ I I I ............................... . I_I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 1_I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 1_1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w /systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 1_1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will be less than I.C.U. without project ... ---------------- - -------- - - - - -- - ----- -............ . ............ ... ............... ................ .. ................... . ................... Description of system improvement: PROJECT FORM II MA7135PM A2c� I% TRAFFIC VOLUME AIVALYSIS INTERSECTION: MACARTHUR BOULEVARD & SAN JOAQUIN HILLS ROAD 5070 (Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Daily Traffic 2003 AM) APPROACH DIRECTION EXISTING PEAK HOUR VOLUME PEAKHOUR APPROVED PROJECT REGIONAL GRO WTH PEAK HOUR VOLUME VOLUME PROJECTED PEAK HOUR VOLUME 1 %OF PROJECTED PEAK HOTIR VOLUME PROJECT PEAK HOUR VOLUME Northbound 1526 Southbound 2815 Eastbound 351 Westbound 1188 0 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than I % of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes. Project Traffic is estimated to be equal to or greater than 1 % of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. I % TRAFFIC VOLUME AIVALYSIS INTERSECTION: MACARTHUR BOULEVARD S: SAN JOAQUIN HILLS ROAD 5070 (Ezzskng Traffic Volumes Based on Average Daily Traffic 2003 PM) APPROACH DIRECTION EXISTING PEAK HOUR VOLUME PEAK HOUR APPROVEDPROJECT REGIONAL GROWTH PEAK HOUR VOLUME VC) 4F PROJECTED PEAK HOUR VOLUME 1% OF PROJECTED PEAK HOUR VOLUME PROJECT PEAK HOUR VOLUME Northbound 1625 Southbound 1999 Eastbound 1119 Westbound 707 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than I % of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes. 0 Project Traffic is estimated to be equal to or greater than 1% of Projected Peak Hour Tafflc Volumes. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. All MA5070AM I I i I I EXISTING I.C.U. 1 0.627 1 ... ----- --- --- ...... ------ ..---- - -- ....... __....... -- -- .. .........-- ....... EXISTING + REG GROWTH + COMMITTED W /PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. ---------------- . ----- ... --- .. ... ---- .._..- ---- - ..... ---- --- --- - -- - ---- --- ... _......_....- _...- - -- ---- ......... . EXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U. I I ..... ............................... .................... . ................... . ....... ...... .......................................... ............................... E/W Directional Split Phasing 1_1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 I_i Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 _i Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w /systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 1_1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will be less than I.C.U. without project ........................... - - -.. .... Description of system improvement: .. ................. PROJECT MA5070AM A2V FORM If INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS o � c94 Fo a�'�P INTERSECTION: MACARTHUR BOULEVARD & SAN JOAQUIN HILLS ROAD 5070 EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC I--- - - -- - 2003 AM - ---- --- -..... . ----------------- - ------------ - --- I EXISTING I - ----- - - - - -- ------ - ---- -- - ---`- - ----- -- ---- - ------------------ . -------------------- .------------------- PROPOSED I EXISTING I EXISTING I REGIONAL I COMMITTED - --- I PROJECTED I PROJECT I PROJECT I Movement Lanes Lanes PK HR I V/C GROWTH PROJECT I V/C Ratio I Volume I V/C I Capacity Capacity Volume Ratio Volume Volume I w/o Project I I Ratio Volume NIL 1 3200 1 ------- ---- ---.. ........... ...... -------- - - - - -- - 1 67 1 0.021 1 I ... I I ------- - - - ---.. 1 NT --- --- -- - --- I 4800 1 - --- -- --- -- ---- -- - -- -........--- - - - -- - --- -- ---- ----- -- ---- ----- .. - - -- -- ----- 1 1453 1 0.303 * I ... ---- ...----- ......-------- . I I I --------- - - --.- ---..... - ----- --- - ---- I -- - ---- - - ---- I ------... - - - - NR - - - --- --- — 1600 1 .. - ........ - ...._ .. ................. ..... __....----......_....----. - - - -- 6 1 0.004 1 1 - ....---- 1 1 1 1 .---- _--- ------- S -- - - - - -- - I 3200 I ----- -- - --- .... - - - ......... - ........... - ..........._- - -- --- ....... I 0.128 I -- .... - ------- _.............. I - .__... - -- - -- .._----- -- ---- - I ST 1 4800 1 - -- .......___ - -- -------...4 -- --- -------- - - - -- --.......... - - 1 1420 1 0.296 1 1 1 1 j1 ...... -- ...... 1 SR --- - - - --- I N. S. I ----....-- -- ----- - -------- ........ .............._................ _.... -' -........... I 987 1 ----- ............. - ...... - ----- - - - --- - - -- -- - - - - - -- - . 1 . EL . -- -- - 1 32001 ................... -- - -- --- ---- -- -- - -- 107 1 0.033 1 I I I I I -- -- -- - --- -- -- -- 1 ET -------- --- --- - 1 -- - - - --- -- - - - - -- - --- - - - - -- ---- - -- ------------ . ---- . ...._... --- ..------ .------ ...-- 1 199 1 1 - ------- ---- ---- .. -------- ........---------------- 1 I 1 - - -.. ..... } 4800 ---- .--- ....._......... --- -- -- } 0.051 * ............... -- ......_........---- 7 ............... } 1; ER j i 45 WL 1600 1 __... - ... -- - -- - -.... - ..------ . . . . .. .............. - -- I I I - - - - - -- - .......... i - - ----- -- - - - - - -- I - -- --- ---- --- --- I WT I 3200 1 ....__...- ... - - ......19 ....0.- -- ---- — ------ ..... ....... .....---- ... I 464 I 0.145 * I I I I I 1 I - -- - -- - --- WRN. - -- -- S. — _ _ _ .. . -- - .. 705 I I _..._.. - . ------------ --- ------ - - - ................... — ._..... -------- ....... .. -- ---. --- I I i I I EXISTING I.C.U. 1 0.627 1 ... ----- --- --- ...... ------ ..---- - -- ....... __....... -- -- .. .........-- ....... EXISTING + REG GROWTH + COMMITTED W /PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. ---------------- . ----- ... --- .. ... ---- .._..- ---- - ..... ---- --- --- - -- - ---- --- ... _......_....- _...- - -- ---- ......... . EXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U. I I ..... ............................... .................... . ................... . ....... ...... .......................................... ............................... E/W Directional Split Phasing 1_1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 I_i Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 _i Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w /systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 1_1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will be less than I.C.U. without project ........................... - - -.. .... Description of system improvement: .. ................. PROJECT MA5070AM A2V FORM If MA507OPM INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: MACARTHUR BOULEVARD & SAN JOAQUIN HILLS ROAD 5070 EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC; 2003 PM - -- . --- --`-- -------- - --- - -- --- - ------------------ - ---- --- ------ - -- - --- - -- - - -------- ------ - --- --- ------ -- - I I EXISTING I PROPOSED I EXISTING I EXISTING I REGIONAL I COMMITTED I ------------------ - -'- ----- - I -- - ---- ------ PROJECTED I PROJECT PROJECT I Movement I Lanes I Lanes I PK HR I V/C I 3ROWTH I PROJECT 1 V/C Ratio I Volume I V/C I Capacity I Capacity Volume Ratio Volume Volume I w/o Project I I Ratio I I I Volume I I NIL 1 3200 1 1 44 1 0.014 - -- - -- - ----- - - --- ------ I 1 1 - -- - ------ I---------------- ---- ------ -- - --------- - ----- ---- --- — - --- - -- -.--- -- - ---- -- --- ---- - - -- - ------ ---- -- - -- - NT 4800 1 1 1567 1 0.326 1 1 -- ----- - -- .. --- ...------------- 1 1 1 I-------- ------ - -- - ----------- - - .._.....- - - ---- ----- ...-- ----- --- . ... ....... - .......... i NR 1600 1 14 1 0.009 1 ----- - -- - ------- --- - - -- -- - --- - -- -.- ---- 1 1 -- -- --- - — --. - -- --- --- ------ - -- - --- ----- -- - - ----- ---- -- ----------------- ........... ...... - -------- --- - .---- -- - --- - ----.- - -- --- - SL 1 3200 1 1 570 1 0.178 * I I I I ----- ---- - - - --- - -- --- - -- - --- --------- - -- --- - - --------- -- - -- - --- ----......._-- -- ---- - -- - ---- - --- -.- - ST 1 4800 1 1 1209 I 0.252 1 1 1 -- - .- -- ------ ---- -- ---- - - ---- - -- ---- ---- 1 1 1 I-- ------- - ----- - --- -- -- - - -- - -- - ------- --- --- - -------- .. ----- SR I N.S.1 1 220 1 1 1 1 1 1 - -- I - -- ------- ------ - ---- --------- . ----------- ------ ---- --. - - -- -.. -- --- ------ ------------- - ------ --- ----- EL 1 3200 1 588 I 0.184 " I - --- -- ---- ---- - - -- -- ------- - -- - - -- I I ---- -- - - --- - ---- -- I --- --- -- ---- - - ----- -- --- --- - --- ------ --- --- --- - --------- ----- - --------- ..... ------------- .. -------- - - ---- .. J ET I I 403 1 1 -- ---- --- -- --- - -- --- 1 1 ----------- 1 4800 - ------ --------- --- ---- - -- } 0.111 - -- ------ ------ -- -- .... } ............... } II ER 1 1 128 1 1 1 I ----- - -- - --- -- r - - - -------- -- __ - - - - - __ ---- ------ - - ---- - ------- - - ------... --- - - - ----- -- - - -- - - - -- ---- -- ---- - - - I WL 1 1600 1 1 27 1 0.017 1 1 1 ------ - - - --- - ---- - 1 1 1 --- -- - - --- ---- - -- -- - - - - - - -- . - ---- -- -- - --- - -------- ...... I WT 1 3200 1 1 285 1 0.089 * I I I I I - ------ ---- -- ------ ------ -- ---- -- - --- - -- -- --- --- I W R I N. S. 1 I 395 1 1 1 1 ! I I --- --- - - - -- - -- ... - - ...... ------ ------ ...---------- -- - -- .......... I EXISTING I.C.U. 0.777 1 - ........._... - - -- - - -- -------- -- - --- -- ------- - - ----- - ----- '-- - -'— EXISTING + REG GROWTH + COMMITTED W /PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. I I -------- - --- --- -------------- - ----------------- ..--- - --- ---- . - -------------- - -- -------- - -- -------- ---- --- ....--- 1 EXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT C.U. I - ----.. - - -- -- -- -- - --- -- I --......--- -- ---- - ----- --- -- - -- -- -- - -'- . --------.... ..................... ..-- -._ - -- -- ------ ------ - E/W Directional Split Phasing ------------ ------ - ---- -- ------ - -- - - - -`- 1_I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 1_1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 I_I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w /systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 1_I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will be less than I.C.U. without project -- ----------- . - -- "- - -- -- -' --- .......... .........._.. . ...... I......... ------------ - ----------------- - ------ ---- -- - - ----- - -- Description of system improvement: --- ---------------- - - - - -- -- - - - - -- - ------------------ ... I--------------- - -------- - - - - -- . ............. . PROJECT FORM II MA5070PM RAI) I ' I% TRAFFIC VOL UME ANALYSIS u II II II U L 1 INTERSECT7ON.• MACARTHUR BOULEVARD & FORD ROAD 4985 (Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Daily Traffic 2003 AM) APPROACH DIRECTION 2STING PEAKHOUR VOLUME PEAK HOUR APPROVED PROJECT REGIONALGROWTH PEAK HOUR VOLUME VOLUME PROJECTED PEAK HOUR VOLUME 1% OF PROJECTED PEAK HOUR VOLUME PROJECT PEAK HOUR VOLUME Northbound 2372 Southbound 2464 Eastbound 300 Westbound 2331 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1 % of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes. 0 Project Traffic is estimated to be equal to or greater than 1 % of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. I% TRAFFIC VOL UME ANALYSIS INTERSECTION. MACARTHUR BOULEVARD & FORD ROAD 4985 (Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Daily Traffic 2003 PM) APPROACH DIRECTION EXLSTING PEAK HOUR VOLUME PEAK HOUR APPROVED PROJECT REGIONAL GROWTH PEAK HOUR VOLUME VOLUME PROJECTED PEAK HOUR VOLUME 1% OF PROJECTED PEAK HOUR VOLUME PROJECT PEAK HOUR VOLUME Northbound 2503 Southbound 2118 Eastbound 292 Westbound 1235 0 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1 % of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes. Project Traffic is estimated to be equal to or greater than 1 % of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. A30 INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: MACAKTHUR BOULEVARD & FORD ROAD 4985 EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED 0N AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC 2003 AM ----------- | ������---------------- | EXISTING | ���------ --------------- ------------------ --------------------- PROPOSED | EXISTING | EXISTING | REGIONAL | COMMITTED ------ ---------- - --------------- ---------------- \ PROJECTED \ PROJECT | PROJECT ) | Movement Lanes | Lanes | PKHK I v/C | GROWTH | PROJECT |v/CRatio | Volume | «/C | ( ICxpxcity Capacity | Volume | Ratio | Volume | Volume | w/o Project J ( Ratio ( \ | | | | | | | Vo|vmv | ) | 1 -'`-'- | NIL | -'---- ----' | 3200 | - ---- ----- ---------'-- -- ----- ----- '-- ----- ------ | 70 | D822 | | ' ------ '-' ----' '-----�| | \ | | - -- -- . -----'i ( NT -- -- - - / 6400/ --- -'- ------ ----- ------ ------- ( 2l87( 0.342* ( ------ ( I | I --- ----- -�i | ----'' � NR ----- | N. | --------- ------ ----- - ------ --- ---- ------- ------ | 115 | | | ------ ----- 1 | | | ----- --- ----- -'i { -'`'-- | SL / -'---- - --' - - | 3200 ------ ----- ----- --'--- ------- -' | 355| DJll* | ------ | \ | \ -' -'- ----- -------- -----'1 | ST ------ - | 6400 | -- - --'- -'`-- ----- ------ ----- -- | 2105 0.3291 i -------- | | | | -----'\ | ----- | SK ----- | N. S. -- --- - --- --------------- | 41 | | ----- | | | ( -'---�| | -'---' / EL ----- 1 3200 / -'---- -`-------'- - --- ----- ---- ---- ------- | 4J| 0.013 1 | ------ '----- ) } \ | -----'l | - ------ -------- | ET - ------- ---- 1 3200 -- -------- ---------'- ----'--------- l78| 0D56' ----- ----' -----� / `-'-' | ER | '---- ----' | 1600 | ------ ------------ ------ ---- ------' ------- | 79| 0.0491 ---'--' ----- ------ ----- -----'' | vYL i 3200 ------ -'`- -- - - - --- ---- '` -------- -- ---- ---- | 687| 0215« | \ | ) | - --- ') | ------ / WT ----- 1 3200 | ------ ----- ---'-- - - -'-- - - -- ----- | 376 | 0,118 | / ------ ----- ----- | | } > '-----| | -'-'-` | N/R [ -----' ----- I N.S. | '----- ------ -- -- - - ---' - ----'- ------ --- ---- | l268| | | ----- | | | � ------ ----- ---- --- -( |BUST|N8 - I.C.U. -- - - -- ----- ------------ ------- | 0J241 | | j------ ---- ---- | EXISTING +KEG -----' GROWTH --`'--' --'-- --- ------ -- ----- ----- ------- + COMMITTED vv/PR0P0SED IMPROVEMENTS |.C.U. ------ | | | -- ---- -'i � ------ / E%/ST/N8+ '-`--' -----, ----- - - ---- ------ ---- ----- COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT /.C.U. -----'- ----- - L( Projected + project traffic |.C.U. will be less than m equal toD.9O L| Projected + project ba0ic/.CUw//|be greater than 0.9O (-| Projected + project traffic |.C.U*/symcms improvement will bo less than o' equal tn090 - (-| Projected + project traffic |.C.0 with project improvements will bo less than !.CV. without project --- ------ ����- ����� ���--� ...�� ��- - Doa�p�oo��dcmim��unon[ --- ---------------- ............... ��........... ...`.......... ............... .................. ................. ............ . ............... ................. PROJECT FORM || A/2� rT-�� IMA4985PM II ' - I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 _I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 1_1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w /systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 1_1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will be less than I.C.U. without project 1 - --- ' -- - _ ----- .. _. Description of system improvement: ..- ................ . .............. . ........... -..._ . ..... ......... . ...... 'OJECT 4935PM I ..-- . ... ............. ............. . - -- _ .............. . -- ............ ......... _.. . ..... ................ .. . . ........................... . .. . ------- ............. . FORM II A!P" INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS cgC�o0.��p INTERSECTION: MACARTHUR BOULEVARD & FORD ROAD 4985 EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC 2003 PM 1 --------------- - ------ --- --- - I EXISTING I --- --- -------- - --------------- - ... - ---- - -- - ----- -- ------ - -- ------- --------- . PROPOSED I EXISTING EXISTING I REGIONAL I COMMITTED I - - - -- - ------ ------ ----------- PROJECTED I PROJECT PROJECT I Movement I Lanes Capacity I Lanes I Pk HR V/C GROWTH PROJECT I Capacity Volume Ratio I Volume Volume I V/C Ratio I Volume V/C I w/o Project I Ratio I I 1 Volume I I - -- - -- - ----- - - - - - -- I ------ - - -- -- - - --- --- - - ----- NIL 3200 ---- - - - - ---- - - ...-- - - - --- - --- --- - - ---- - -- -- -- - -- - - -- -- -- . .... ---- - -- - ----- --- ........... 1 ---- -- - -0 1 0.000 I ---- ...- -- I -- --- -- -- - - - - --. - - - --- ---- -- ---- -- -- -- ---- -- ------ ------ l NT I 6400 1 1 2350 1 0.367 I ------- - .................. I - ---- - --- --- ----- ...------------ NR N.S.1 1 1531 1 1 1 --- - -- -- - - - - -- ---- --- -- - - -- - - - -- -- . -- -- - --------- - - - --- - -- ----- --- ----- .....-- 1 ----- - - - - -- - ----- .- - - - - -. - -- ---- - - - - -- --------- ----- ---- - - -- - - - ---- - SL 3200 1 492 1 0.154 * - ----- --------- .. -. - - -- --- --- - --- -- ... 1 1 ............. -------------- - ST 6400 1 -- - -- --- ----- ---- -- .- - - - - -- - -- -- - - -- . - ------ ---- -- -- 1 1606 1 0.251 1 .......... I --- ----- -- - - -- .. ... - I --- - -- 1 ■ 1 SR i N.S.1 1 201 - - -- ' - - -... -- ------ ' ------- - --- ---- ------- - - - --- EL I 3200 — -- - -.... - -- -- ------- - - -- - -------- - - - --- - ---- ----------- ... 31 1 0.010 I I --------- ...- ------ ------- - ---- - - ---- ----- I ----- - .- -...------------ ET 1 3200 ------- ------ ---- - - - - -- . - -- --- -- - ------- -- --------------- ----- --- --- 197 0.062 1 I --- .--- I . . . .. ................_... - ' -- ' -- ---- --- - -- - -- -- - - - - -- - E.. I 1600 -- --- --- -- - - -- --- - - -- - - - ---- - - - - -- - -- - -- - ----- ...... ---- ---- . ---- 64 I 0.040 I I ! - ----- --- .. . ---- ------- ....... - ----- -- --- - - - ----- - -- I 1 WL 1 3200 1 ............... .. .......... ------- -- -- --- - 1 257 0.080 1 1 I -- 1 1 ------- ----- -- - --------- ------ WT 1 3200 I - - -- - --- --- -- - - --- .... --- -- - - - - - ---- -- - ----------- -- - ---.- - ----- --- - I I 0.072 ---- - --- ....... .. --- - -- -- -- -- - --- 1 WR 1 N. S. I - ------ - - - - -- -- ----.....229 1 7491 1 1 1 1 - 1 -- -- ------- ---- ------- - ... EXISTING I.C.U. - - ------ .--- .. -- - - - --- - - -- - -- - - - --- - - - --- - - - - - -- -- - -- -..- - - - - - -- - 1 0.663 1 - ---- ....--------- -- --- .....— '- -- _. I--------- - - - --- - ------ - - -- -- EXISTING + REG GROWTH -- ------- -- - -- --- - --- - -- - - ------- - - - - -- - - - -- -- - - - - -. -- ---- - -- -- -- -- -- + COMMITTED W/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. I --- --- - ------ I I I I--- .. -- ---- - - - - -- - ------ -- - --- - - ------ --- -- - - -- - --- ...... - - - - -- - ---------- .......... -- ........ ----------- .---- EXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U. I ........... ---- ....---- _..'--- - ---------- ....--- ------ .... ............................... -- --................. - ------- .-- --- ---- ----- --- - - - -.. - - -- -- - - ---- I ........_..._..... --- - -' - -- - ---.... -- - ' - I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 _I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 1_1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w /systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 1_1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will be less than I.C.U. without project 1 - --- ' -- - _ ----- .. _. Description of system improvement: ..- ................ . .............. . ........... -..._ . ..... ......... . ...... 'OJECT 4935PM I ..-- . ... ............. ............. . - -- _ .............. . -- ............ ......... _.. . ..... ................ .. . . ........................... . .. . ------- ............. . FORM II A!P" 1% TRAFFIC VOLUME ANALYSIS INTERSECTION. SAN JOAQUIN HILLS ROAD & SANTA ROSA DR/ BIG CANYON 5065 (Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Daily Traffic 2003 AM) APPROACH DTRECTTON EXISTING PEAKHOUR VOLUME PEAK HOUR APPROVED PROJECT REGIONAL GROVTTH PEAK HOUR VOLUME VOLUME PROJECTED PEAK HOUR VOLUME VOLUME I% OF PROJECTED PEAK HOUR VOLUMEi PROJECT PEAK HOUR VOLUME Northbound 102 Southbound 120 2a thound 543 Westbound 1020 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1 % of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes. 0 Project Traffic is estimated to be equal to or greater than 1 % of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes. Intersection Capacity Utilization ()CU) Analysis is required. 1 % TRAFFIC VOL UMEMULMIS INTERSECTION: SAN JOAQUIN HILLS ROAD & SANTA ROSA DR/ BIG CANYON 5065 (Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Daily Traffic 2003 PM) APPROACH DfRFCTION EXISTING PEAK HOUR VOLUME PEAK HOUR APPROVEDPROJECTS REGIONAL GRO WTH PEAK HOUR VOLUME VOLUME PROJECTED PEAK HOUR VOLUME I % OF PROJECTED PEAK HOUR VOLUME PROJECT PEAK HOUR VOLUME Northbound 641 Southbound 96 Eastbound 564 Westbound 518 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes, Project Traffic is estimated to be equal to or greater than 1% of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PROJECT: A�3 DATE: I ' SJ5065AM INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS i ASH INTERSECTION: SAN JOAQUIN HILLS ROAD & SANTA ROSA DRIVE / BIG CANYON 5065 ' EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC 2003 AM - ------- -- - - - - -- . ----------------- - - - .. ---------------- - ------ - ----- - ---- -------- '---- - --------------------- .------------------- - I EXISTING I PROPOSED I EXISTING I EXISTING I REGIONAL I COMMITTED PROJECTED ---- --- ------- PROJECT I PROJECT I Movement Lanes Lanes PK HR V/C GROWTH I PROJECT V/C Ratio Volume V/C I Capacity Capacity Volume Ratio I Volume ( Volume I w/o Project I I Ratio I I Volume I --------- --- - -.. .............. ......... -- ..............__...... - ....- ........._- -.. --- _ _--------......----------.......-.------........----------- NL 1600 36 j 0.023 1 .. ---- ... ------ ........ --- ----- - ----------------- ............ --....---- ---- ..... .... ........ .... .. ..----- ----- .....--- ..................... - NT 16001 71 0.004 1 1 --- -- - - -- ------- ...._... -- --- ---- ...... 1 - ------ --- - - - ----.- -------- -- -- ----- ------ -- - -- -- --- - - - - -.- --- - ......._ - ------ ..._ - - - - -- -.--- - - -- - .. --- ..... --- .......... I NR 1600 1 59 1 0.037 * I I --- - .. . ...... .......... . ... ... ...... .._..... ... .... ....... ...... ..... ...... ..... .._........................'- SL 1600 I 75 1 0.047 1 I ...... .... ...--- ... 1 - ......._..................1 ---- ---- .. - -- I - ------. - - -- - -- _ ------ ......._...... ........... . .. . .. ....... ......_- - -.. -- ST 1600 1 1 101 0.006 1 1 1 1 1 1 --- .------- - ..._......- -------- . ------------- ........ ....... ........- -.. --- ... ... ... - ..... — . --- - -- -.. ......................... SR 1 1600 I I 0.022 I ...._. ..... ...... - ----- ---... ------ ........ _ .._... - - -- I ----.........._. j .................. ............35 j EL 1600 1 1 47 0.029 1 1 ( 1 I--------- --- .--- .....- -- ---- ... ........... ...... ..................... - ..---------- - ---- ............. ..... .... ....---------- - ---- - 1 ET 1 1 389 1 1 1 ----- -------- ................. 1 1 ................. } 4800 ...... ............................... } 0.103 * ............... ...................... } ................ } ER 107 1 1 .......... . ............... . ................ .............. ...... ........... ........ ............. ... ............................................. WL ( 3200 I 1 ............ .........I ............... .... I ............................... ............... I.................11 .. ...........................443 ..... ..............._ WT 1 1 510 1 1 ....... : .... ..... } 4800 ...... ............................... } 0.120 ................... ...................... } ................ } WR 1 I 67 I . ......... . ............................_.. 1 ................. ....................... ...._...... ............ .............. ................ ........ ............ EXISTING I.C.U. 1 0.325 ................................................................................................ ............................... ................... EXISTING + REG GROWTH + COMMITTED W /PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. I I ............................... ...................................................................................................................................................... EXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I,C.U. I I I Split Phase N Direction I_I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 1_I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 1_I Projected + project traffic I,C.U. w /systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 ' 1_I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will be less than I.C.U. without project i ASH SJ5065PM INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: SAN JOAQUIN HILLS ROAD & SANTA ROSA DRIVE / BIG CANYON 506` EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFF C 2003 PM . --- ---------------- ..........'— . - -- '- ----- --- - I I EXISTING I PROPOSED I ------- ---- -- - ----------- -- -- ----------`--- -- ------------------ ' - -- -------------`- EXISTING I EXISTING I REGIONAL I COMMITTED I PROJECTED - -- -- ------- - ------------ I PROJECT I PROJECT I I Movement I Lanes Lanes I PK HR V/C GROWTH I PROJECT I V/C Ratio I Volume I V/C 1 I Capacity Capacity I Volume Ratio Volume I Volume I w/o Project I I Ratio I I I I I Volume I I I - ---- ------ ---- - -- ----------- ------------ ----- - NL 1 1600 1 -- --.- - - - - - -- 203 1 0.127 1 1 1 ---- '----- ..... --- --------- 1 1 I ------ - -- -- - - -- ------ --- - - - - -- -- -------- --- - -- - - --- - -- ---- - NT 1 1600 1 1 ------- - -...-- - -- ------ . - - -- .....- -- -- ---- - ------ - ---- --- -- - - ---------. ---- -- 37 1 0.023 1 1 1 -- ------- 1 1 ---- - ----- --- -- - - --- — I ---- --- ---- -- - -- ---- ------ - - -- _ NR 1 1600 I 1 _............-- - ----- -- - - -. 401 1 0.251 * I I I I I -- ---- - - ---- - --- ---- ---- ---- - --- - - - --- .....- 1 SL 1 1600 1 1 --- - -- 57 1 0.036 * I I ---- ----- - ---- - --- --- -- ---- ----- ---- -- - -- ST 1 1600 1 1 ------ -- ---- 10 1 0.006 1 1 1 ! -- - ------ --- -------- ------ ------- - -- - -- - --------- - ----- - 1 SR 1 1600 1 1 -- - --- - - - -- ----------- - --- -------- .........--------- .....-- ----- ----- ... 29 1 0.018 1 1 - --- -- ---- -- 1 1 I-------- -- - -- -- - -- -------- ---- -- --------------- I EL 1 1600 1 1 ----- .-------- 22 I 0.014 1 1 1 1 1 ------- ---- ---- - --- .-- - ----- - - ET 1 1 ------- - - - - -- ------- -- --- - -- ------ ----- - --- ------ --- - I - - -- ----- --- ------ 433 1 1 - -- --- ------ - --...- ...... 1 I.............. } 4800 --- ---........... -- - --- - - -- } 0.113 * ---..- -- ------ ----- -- ------ } - - --- ---- -- } ER 109 I I I --- -- ---- -- - --- - --- -- - - - -- --- .---- - - - ---- - 1 WL 1 3200 1 1 -- --- -- - - -- - - ---- ------ ... ----- --- - ------- - -- ---- -- --- --- 214 1 0.067 * I I ----- ------- ...- ----- I I '- 1 ------ - - - - -- -- --- - - - --- -- ---- — ------- . WT 1 1 ----- .. - - - -- - --- -- -- -- - -- ----- - -- --- -- --------- - ---- ...-- - ---- ...------ 256 1 1 - -- -- — —' ---- --------- } 4800 — --- ------ --- - -- - - ---- } 0.063 ...------------ _.- .......--- --- } .......... -- } I WR 1 I 48 1 1 --- --- ---- ---- .-.. --- -- ---- ..... -------- ....._ ............._...... EXISTING I.C.U. - . .------ . ....._.......... ---- . ----- ...-- ----- - -- 0.467 1 - -- ---- ---- - --- -- ... 1 -- - - - - -- --- --- . ------ - ----` - - ---- ----- ----- - -- ---- ---- .. . EXISTING + REG GROWTH + COMMITTED W /PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. I I ----- ------- ....... - - - ---- - - - . - - -- -- -- ---- - ------ -- --- - - --- - - -- - - - - -- -- ... -------- ...- _ -- - --- ------ --- ..-- --- --------- EXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U. I - --------- .._............... I --- - -- - -- - -- ---- - -- -- - -----I - ------------------ - Split Phase N/S Direction --------------- - --- -- - ---- -- -- ------- - - - - -- -- ------------------- - -- `-- --- ----- --------- ............ ** Assumed WBL included in NBR. 1_1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 1_1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 _I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w /systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 _I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will be less than I.C.U. without project --- --- ---------- - ------- ------ - ---- -------- -- - -- Description of system improvement: PROJECT SJ5065PM AS5- FORM II r- �J rl LJ I I I I I [j I I I [1 I I I 1 I I I Wo I L E I G n L� L I I IAPPENDIX B LEVEL OF SERVICE DEFINITION n Ll I I E I I I 1 Service Level General Definition LEVEL OF SERVICE - DEFINITIONS` A Free flow. Individual users are Stable flow, but the presence of other users in the traffic stream begins to be noticeable. Freedom to select desired speeds is relatively unaffected, but there is a slight decline in the freedom to maneuver within the traffic stream from LOS A. The level of comfort and convenience provided is somewhat less than at LOS A, because the presence of others in the traffic stream begins to affect individual behavior. Stable flow, but marks the beginning of the range of flow in which the operation of individual users becomes significantly affected by interactions with others in the traffic stream. The selection of speed is affected by the presence of others, and maneuvering within the traffic stream requires substantial vigilance on the part of the user. The general level of comfort and convenience declines noticeably at this level. Freeways Criteria for measurement Density (cars per lane -mile) Free flow operations. Average travel speeds near 60 mph generally prevail on 70 -mph freeway elements. Vehicles are almost completely unimpeded in their ability to maneuver within the traffic stream. The average spacing between vehicles is about 440 ft, or 22 car - lengths, with a maximum density of 12 cars /mi /In. The effects of minor incidents or breakdowns are easily absorbed at this level. Although they may cause a deterioration in LOS 'n the vicinity of the incident, standing queues will not form, and traff..c quickly returns to LOS A on passirg the disruption. Reasonably free -flow conditions, and speeds of over 57 mph are maintained on 70 -mph freeway elements. The average spac!rg between vehicles is about 260 ft. x 13 car - lengths, with a maximum density of 20 cars /mi /In. The abilih :o maneuver within the traffic stream 's only slightly restricted. The effects of minor incidents and breakdowns are still easily absorbed, though local deterioration in service would to more severe than for LOS A. Stable conditions, but flows approach the range in which small increases 'n flow will cause substantial deterioration in service. Averace travel speeds are still over 54 mph. Freedom to maneuver within the traffic stream is noticeably restricted at LOS C, and lane changes require additional care and vigilance by the driver. Average spacings are in tre range of 175 ft, or 9 car - lengths, w.. ^.h a maximum density of 30 cars /mi:!n. Minor incidents may still be absorbec. but the local deterioration in service will be substantial. Queues may to expected to form behind ary significant blockage. Additional vigilance by driver required for safe operation. R9 Arterials Criteria for measurement: Average travel speed (mph) Primarily free flow- operations at average travel speeds usually within 90 percent of the free flow speed. Vehicles are completely unimpeded in their ability to maneuver within the traffic stream. Stopped delay at signalized intersections is minimal. Unimpeded operations at average travel speeds usuall%: within 70 percent of the free flow speed. The ability to maneuver wit ".in the traffic stream is slightly restricted and stopped delays are not cothersome. Stable conditions. Ability to maneuver and chance lanes in midblock locations may be more restricted than in LOS 3, and longer queues and /or adverse signal coordination may contribute to lower average travel speeds of about 50 percent of the average free flow speed. virtually unaffected by the presence of others in the traffic stream. Freedom to select desired speeds and to maneuver within the traffic stream is ' extremely high. The general level of comfort and convenience provided to the motorist, passenger, or pedestrian is excellent. Stable flow, but the presence of other users in the traffic stream begins to be noticeable. Freedom to select desired speeds is relatively unaffected, but there is a slight decline in the freedom to maneuver within the traffic stream from LOS A. The level of comfort and convenience provided is somewhat less than at LOS A, because the presence of others in the traffic stream begins to affect individual behavior. Stable flow, but marks the beginning of the range of flow in which the operation of individual users becomes significantly affected by interactions with others in the traffic stream. The selection of speed is affected by the presence of others, and maneuvering within the traffic stream requires substantial vigilance on the part of the user. The general level of comfort and convenience declines noticeably at this level. Freeways Criteria for measurement Density (cars per lane -mile) Free flow operations. Average travel speeds near 60 mph generally prevail on 70 -mph freeway elements. Vehicles are almost completely unimpeded in their ability to maneuver within the traffic stream. The average spacing between vehicles is about 440 ft, or 22 car - lengths, with a maximum density of 12 cars /mi /In. The effects of minor incidents or breakdowns are easily absorbed at this level. Although they may cause a deterioration in LOS 'n the vicinity of the incident, standing queues will not form, and traff..c quickly returns to LOS A on passirg the disruption. Reasonably free -flow conditions, and speeds of over 57 mph are maintained on 70 -mph freeway elements. The average spac!rg between vehicles is about 260 ft. x 13 car - lengths, with a maximum density of 20 cars /mi /In. The abilih :o maneuver within the traffic stream 's only slightly restricted. The effects of minor incidents and breakdowns are still easily absorbed, though local deterioration in service would to more severe than for LOS A. Stable conditions, but flows approach the range in which small increases 'n flow will cause substantial deterioration in service. Averace travel speeds are still over 54 mph. Freedom to maneuver within the traffic stream is noticeably restricted at LOS C, and lane changes require additional care and vigilance by the driver. Average spacings are in tre range of 175 ft, or 9 car - lengths, w.. ^.h a maximum density of 30 cars /mi:!n. Minor incidents may still be absorbec. but the local deterioration in service will be substantial. Queues may to expected to form behind ary significant blockage. Additional vigilance by driver required for safe operation. R9 Arterials Criteria for measurement: Average travel speed (mph) Primarily free flow- operations at average travel speeds usually within 90 percent of the free flow speed. Vehicles are completely unimpeded in their ability to maneuver within the traffic stream. Stopped delay at signalized intersections is minimal. Unimpeded operations at average travel speeds usuall%: within 70 percent of the free flow speed. The ability to maneuver wit ".in the traffic stream is slightly restricted and stopped delays are not cothersome. Stable conditions. Ability to maneuver and chance lanes in midblock locations may be more restricted than in LOS 3, and longer queues and /or adverse signal coordination may contribute to lower average travel speeds of about 50 percent of the average free flow speed. D High- density, but stable, Flow. Speed and freedom to maneuver are severely restricted, and the driver or pedestrian experiences a generally poor level of comfort and convenience. Small increases in traffic Flow will generally cause operational problems at this level. Operating conditions at or near the capacity level. All speeds are reduced to a low but relatively uniform value. Freedom to maneuver within the traffic stream is extremely difficult, and it is generally accomplished by forcing a vehicle or pedestrian to "give way" to accommodate such maneuvers. Comfort and convenience levels are extremely poor, and driver or pedestrian frustration is generally high. Operations at this level are usually unstable, because small increases in flow or minor perturbations within the traffic stream will cause breakdowns. F Level -of- Service F. Forced or breakdown flow. This condition exists wherever the amount of traffic approaching a point exceeds the amount which can traverse the point. Queues form behind such locations. Arrival flow exceeds discharge flow. Bordem on unstable Flow. In this range, small increases in Flow cause substantial deterioration in service. Average travel speeds of 46 mph or more can still be maintained on 70- mph fnaeway elements. Freedom to maneuver within the traffic stream is severely limited. Even minor incidents can be expected to create substantial queuing, because the traffic stream has little space to absorb disruptions. Average spacings are about 125 ft, or 6 car- lengths, with a maximum density of 42 cars /mi /In. The boundary between LOS D and LOS E describes operation at capacity. Operations in this level are extremely unstable, because there are virtually no usable gaps in the traffic stream. Vehicles are spaced at approximately 80 ft, or 4 car - lengths, at relatively uniform headways. This, however, represents the minimum spacing at which stable flow can be accommodated. Any disruption to the traffic stream, such as a vehicle entering from a ramp, or a vehicle changing lanes, causes following vehicles to give way to admit the vehicle. At capacity, the traffic stream has no ability to dissipate even the most minor disruptions. Any incident can be expected to produce a serious breakdown with extensive queuing. The range of flows encompassed by LOS E is relatively small compared to other levels, but reflects a substantial deterioration in service=_. Maneuverability within the traffic stream is extremely limited. Average travel speeds at capacity are approximately 30 mph. Level F describes forced or breakdown Flow. Such conditions generally exist within queues forming behind breakdown points. Breakdown occurs when the ratio of actual arrival flow rate to actual capacity or the forecasted Flow rate to estimated capacity exceeds 1.00. Operations at such a point will generally be at or near capacity, and downstream operations may be better as vehicles pass the bottleneck (assuming that there are no additional downstream problems). The LOS F operations observed within a queue are the result of a breakdown or bottleneck at a downstream point. Source: "Highway Capacity Manual, Specific Report 209" Transportation Research Board, Washington D.C., 1985 C`' t Borders on a range on which small increases in Flow may .cause substantial increases in approach delay and, hence, decreases in arterial speed. This may be due to adverse signal progression, inapprcoriate signal timing. high volumes, or some combination of these. Average travel speeds are about 40 percent of free Flow speed. 1I I I I I Significant approach delays and average travel speeds of one -third the free Flow speed or lower. Such operations are caused by some combination or adverse progression, high signal density, extensive queuine at critical intersections. and 1 inapprc zmate signal timing. I ri I F1 Arterial flow at extremely low speed below one -third to one - quarter of th free flow speed. Intersectio congestion is likely at critical signalized locations, with hig� approach delays resulting. Advers progression is frequently a contribute to this condition. I i L1 I L E 1 ri 1 I I I I� 1 I I IJ I APPENDIX C TRAFFIC PHASING ORDINANCE APPROVED PROJECTS I 1 I C3 I ; m O W' W W' W' W W W W C GC J; c+J � � J' (O W, G W, Y W, Y W, Y @ y O a O a O a O a CD U d =a.,N C+J =a..NO =U), N'OO f6 7 0 CL L / CD O O IL N C co 0 0 U t 0 CD Z. J Z, Q. d .O d p Z� Z: W Z. Z� Z J W } = W CD r is v Z, N Z, C7 1— > Z QO Q 0 = O Q N J' N U J; Z J; Q J� CL o Z. I o z; N z, 0 Z. Q J J U 0] 0] Q 0 w w w w D D W W N`= N'= N,� N'W W NCO m 0 O'W m,O m'a (OO t9�� Z�U > > Z�U > N >; 1 Z CO > >' Z•c � C'Q — 2 W N 0]' � � GHQ N N co c7 COQ � U! u co: N C'Q N N 0]' O CJ .6 W N W, m m W W; 0 M Y i Y N CD. Y i Y 0 N CL ai; r a rn. O O a rn, � �', �; . m _ m; N j. r m; M N r J' p 0]' r CJ C? Z,� Z' Z.1 i Z' Z,1 Z. ; O m Z.1 Z, F C. ¢a ¢� ¢a ¢a C3 7 m c� G 3 ow U y C 3 O p O Q i d Q O C G pip O N t U N CD ` V O (L C CD , d O CL CL n 1- U O 0 a J� r :� 2 ¢a w- W• W' J, W. W Y 2 N ❑ a z = �; O N O Ir, 2 N rn : z H� a Ci U ~' ❑ N: J fn; cV _d m J. ❑ n w N Z. z z; J d rn z Z. z Z D O Z- - t ¢ z; ❑ : d J Z, O Z. Z N Z, D N off; o u �' N E•O E.w Z N , :H W; 'Z C' Y N Np7't• m W, E.m = E: E' Y Z o d M. Z. In d to C� E'er 2 .- Z;� Z'�N C :� 2 ¢a :E >_ ¢ [E C -1 w- W: W' J. W, n m m m CL N O Ir, 2 N rn : H� a Ci rn ❑ J' (p Q> J fn; cV W W Q� 2 Z. z z; � a Z D O Z- - t ❑ � J J Z, O Z. Z D m:0 Z•� off; o u �' N Z (n U) N , W; Y Ln IL N: E.m = E: E' m' N Z o m' 'z Z. In Z. C� :E >_ ¢ [E C -1 ¢a J' N cV W; I W. J.[ m W,� m d a O, rn ; z; Z: ❑ m Z. a N D Z. U ¢ E: m Z;� 6 m. N F W. Y C- (n. N m 2 E: m co Z Z: V C� :5 :5 ¢a W: W: W' J; W. m m a 2 � W W Q� m Z. Z D O ❑ O Z. ❑ W E :. :� Z:H (n ¢ W N , W; Y M: o d E.m = Z m' N a Z; G� ¢a J' N cV W; I W. J.[ m W,� m d a O, rn ; z; Z: ❑ m Z. a N D Z. U ¢ E: m Z;� 6 m. N F W. Y C- (n. N m 2 E: m co Z Z: V C� :5 :5 ¢a I 1 1 1 Ll 1 i 1 APPENDIX D ONE PERCENT TEST 1 1 l_J 1 1 1 LI 1 i I I I I I I I II II II II I I I I 1% TRAFFIC VOLUME ANALYSIS INTERSEC77ON: JAMBOREE ROAD & EASTBLUFF DRIVE/FORD ROAD 4980 (Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Daily Traffic 2003 AM APPROACH DIRECTION EXISTING PEAK HOUR VOLUME PEAKHOUR REGIONAL GROWTH VOLUME APPROVED PROJECTS PEAK HOUR VOLUME PROJECTED PEAK HOUR VOLUME 1 %OFPROJECTED PEAK HOUR VOLUME PROJECT PEAK HOUR VOLUME Nodhbound 1766 53 64 1883 19 7 Southbound 1722 52 107 1881 19 2 Eastbound 1203 36 1 - 1240 12 2 Westbound 508 15 13 536 5 0 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1 % of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes. Project Traffic is estimated to be equal to or greater than I% of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. I% TRAFFIC VOLUME ANALYSIS INTERSEC770N: JAMBOREE ROAD & EASTBLUFF DRIVEIFORD ROAD 4980 (Eaisdng Traffic Volumes Based on Average Daily Traffic 2003 PM APPROACH DIRECTION EXISTING PEAKHOUR VOLUME PEAK HOUR REGIONALGROWIH VOLUME APPROVED PROJECTS PEAK HOUR VOLUME PROJECTED PEAK HOUR VOLUME 1 %OF PROJECTED PEAK HOUR VOLUME PROJECT PEAK HOUR VOLUME Northbound 1770 53 115 1938 19 9 Southbound 1798 54 109 1961 20 2 Eastbound 641 19 2 662 7 2 Westbound 233 7 10 250 2 0 0 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1 % of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes. Project Traffic is estimated to be equal to or greater than 1 % of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PROJECT: St. Marks Church Traffic Impact Analysis �)3 DATE: 10119103 1% TRAFFIC VOLUMEAN,MLYSIS INTERSECTION.• JAMBOREE ROAD & SAN JOAQUIN HILLS ROAD 5045 (Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Daily Traffic 2003 A" APPROACH DIRECTION EXISTING PEAK HOUR VOLUME PEAK HOUR REGIONAL GROWTH VOLUME APPROVED PROJECTS PEAK HOUR VOLUME PROJECTED PEAK HOUR VOLUME 1% OF PROJECTED PEAK HOUR VOLINF PRO]ECT PEAK HOUR VOLUME Northbowd 1402 42 65 1509 15 0 Southbound 2018 61 103 2182 22 4 Eastbound 391 12 0 403 4 0 Westbowd l51 5 9 165 2 14 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1 % of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes. �X Project Traffic is estimated to be equal to or greater than I% of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. 1% TRAFFIC VOL UME ANAL KVIS WrERSEC770N.• JAMBOREE ROAD & SAN JOAQUIN FULS ROAD 5045 (Existing Traffic l'ohnnes Based on Average Daily Traffic 2003 PIW APPROACH DIRECTION EXIBTWG PEAK HOUR VOLUME PEAK HOUR REGIONAL GROWTH VOLUME I APPROVED PROJECTS PEAK HOUR VOLU1v1E A I PROJECTED PEAK HOUR VOLUME 1 %OF PROJECTED PEAK HOUR VOLUME PROJECT PEAK IIOLJR VOLUME Northbound 1321 40 97 3458 35 0 Southbowd 1957 59 101 I 2117 I 21 4 Eastbound 1 186 6 5 I 197 I 2 I 0 —"711 Westbound 298 9 30 337 3 18°° Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1 % of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes. —J Project Traffic is estimated to be equal to or greater than 1 % of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PROJECT: St. Mark's Church Traffic Impact Analysis \� 4 DATE: 10119103 1 1 1 i 1 i I % TRAFFIC VOL UME ANAL YSIS INTERSEC770N. COAST HIGHWAY & JAMBOREE ROAD 5055 (Eris[ing Traffic Vohanes Based on Average Daily Traffic 2003 AM APPROACH DIRECTION EXISTING PEAK HOUR VOLUME PEAKHOUR REGIONAL GROWTH VOLUME APPROVED PROJECTS PEAK HOUR VOLUME PROJECTED PEAK HOUR VOLUME 1 %OFPROJECTED PEAK HOUR VOLUME PROJECT PEAK HOUR VOLUME Northbound 525 16 1 542 5 0 Southbound 932 28 110 1070 11 7 Eastbound 2883 86 100 3069 31 4 Westbound 1200 36 49 1285 13 0 0 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than I% of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes. Project Traffic is estimated to be equal to or greater than 1 % of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. I % TRAFFIC VOL UME ANAL YSIS INTERSEC770N.• COAST HIGHWAY & JAMBOREE ROAD 5055 (Exlsbng Traffic Vohwnes Based on Average Daily Traffic 2003 PM APPROACH DIRECTION EXISTING PEAK HOUR VOLUME PEAK HOUR REGIONAL GROWTH VOLUME APPROVED PROJECTS PEAK HOUR VOLUME PROJECTED PEAK HOUR VOLUME 1 %OFPROJECTED PEAK HOUR VOLUME PROJECT PEAK HOUR VOLUME Northbound 392 12 3 407 4 0 Southbound 1862 56 87 2005 20 9 Eastbound 2315 69 130 2514 25 4 Westbound 2235 67 66 2368 24 0 0 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes. 0 Project Traffic is estimated to be equal to or greater than 1 % of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes. Intersection Capacfty Utilization (ICU) Analysis Is required. PROJECT: St. Marks Church Traffic Impact Analysis Ds DATE: 90 199103 i% TRAFFIC VOL UMEAN,4LMIS IMERSEC770N SAN JOAQUIN HELLS ROAD & SANTA ROSA DR /BIG CANYON 5065 (Exislfng Traffic Volumes Based on Average Daily Traffic 2003 A" APPROACH DIRECTION EXISTING PEAK HOUR VOLUME PEAK HOUR APPROVED PROJECTS REGIONAL GROWTH PEAK HOUR VOLUME VOLUME PROJECTED PEAK HOUR VOLUME 1 %OF PROJECTED PEAK HOUR VOLUME PROJECT PEAK HOUR VOLUME Northbound 102 3 10 115 1 0 Southbound 120 4 0 124 1 0 Eastbound 543 16 7 566 6 4 Westbound 1020 31 1 1052 11 23 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than I% of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes. L�J Project Traffic is estimated to be equal to or greater than I % of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. I% TRAFFIC VOLUME ANALYSIS INTERSECTION. SAN JOAQUIN HILLS ROAD & SANTA ROSA DR / BIG CANYON 5065 (Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Daily Traffic 2003 PtW APPROACH DIRECTION EXISTING PEAK HOUR VOLUME PEAK HOUR APPROVED PROJECTS REGIONAL GROWTH PEAK HOUR VOLUME VOLUME PROJECTED PEAK HOUR VOLUME 1 %OF PROJECTED PEAK HOUR VOLUME PROJECT PEAK HOUR VOLUME Northbound 641 19 26 686 7 0 Southbound 96 3 0 99 1 0 Eastbound 564 17 I 9 I 590 I 6 4 Westbound 518 16 12 546 5 33 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1 % of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes. 0 Project Traffic is estimated to be equal to or greater than 1 % of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PROJECT: St. Marks Church Traffic Impact Analysis DATE: 90/99103 I % TRAFFIC VOL UME ANAL YSIS INTERSECTION: MACARTHUR BOULEVARD & FORD ROAD 4985 (Eris/ing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Daily Traffic 2003 AAO APPROACH DIRECTION EXISTAG PEAK HOUR VOLUME PEAK HOUR APPROVEDPROJECT REGIONAL GROWTH PEAK HOUR VOLUME VOLUME PROJECTED PEAK HOUR VOLUME 1 %OFPROJECTED PEAK HOUR VOLUME. PROJECT PEAK HOUR VOLUME Northbound 2372 71 49 2492 25 6 Southbound 2464 74 26 2564 26 6 Eastbound 300 9 19 328 3 0 Westbound 2331 70 37 2438 24 6 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1 % of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes. Project Traffic is estimated to be equal to or greater than 11% of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. 1 % TRAFFIC VOL UME ANALYSIS INTERSECTION.• MACARTHUR BOULEVARD & FORD ROAD 4985 (Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Daily Traffic 2003 PAO APPROACH DIRECTION EXISTING PEAK HOUR VOLUME PEAK HOUR APPROVEDPRO]ECT REGIONAL GROWTH PEAK HOUR VOLUME VOLUME PROJECTED PEAK HOUR VOLUME 1 %OFPROIECTED PEAK HOUR VOLUME PROJECT PEAK HOUR VOLUME Northbound 2503 75 36 2614 26 8 Southbound 2118 64 118 2300 23 6 Eastbound 292 9 5 306 3 0 Wesl6ound 1235 37 12 1284 13 6 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1 % of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes. Project Traffic is estimated to be equal to or greater than 1% of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PROJECT: St. Mark's Church Traffic Impact Analysis DATE: 10/19/08 I % TRAFFIC VOL UME AMM YSIS INTERSECTION MACARTIIUR BOULEVARD & SAN JOAQUIN HILLS ROAD 5070 (Ex* ing Traffic Vohunes Based on Average Daily Traffic 2003 AM) APPROACH DIRECTION EXISTING PEAKHOUR VOLUME PEAK HOUR APPROVED PROJECTS REGIONAL GROWTH PEAK HOUR VOLUME VOLUME, PROTECTED PEAK HOUR VOLUME I %OFPROJECTED PEAK HOUR VOLUME PROJECT PEAK HOUR VOLUME Northbound 1526 46 5 1577 16 15 Southbound 2815 84 12 2911 29 6 Eastbound 351 11 8 370 4 4 Westbound 1188 36 _ 26 �_ 1250 12 6 0 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes. �X Project Traffic is estimated to be equal to or greater than'% of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. I % TRAFFIC VOL UME ANALYSIS INTERSECTION. MACARTHUR BOULEVARD & SAN JOAQUIN HILLS ROAD 5070 (Existing Traffic Volans Based on Average Daily Trajfw 2003 PM) APPROACH DIRECTION EXISTING PEAKHOUR VOLUME PEAKHOUR APPROVED PROJECTS REGIONAL GROWTH PEAKHOUR VOLUME VOLUME PROJECTED PEAK HOUR VOLUME I %OFPROJECTED PEAK HOUR VOLUME PROJECT PEAKHOUR VOLUME Northbound 1625 49 4 1678 17 18 Southbound 1999 60 54 2113 21 8 Eastbound 1119 34 21 1174 12 4 Westbound 707 21 5 733 7 6 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1 % of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes. Project Traffic is estimated to be equal to or greater than 1 %of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes. Intersection Capaolly, Utilization (ICU) Analysis is require!. PROJECT: St. Marks Church Traffic Impact Analysis DATE: 10 /19/03 I % TRAFFIC VOL UME ANAL YSIS INTERSECTION: MACARTHUR BOULEVARD & SAN NUGUEL DRIVE 7135 (F-x* ing Traffic Voho Based on Average Daily Traffic 2003 AM APPROACH DIRECTION EXISTING PEAK HOUR VOLUME PEAK HOUR APPROVEDPROJECT REGIONAL GROWTH PEAK HOUR VOLUME VOLUME PROJECTED PEAK HOUR VOLUME I %OFPROJECTED PEAK HOUR VOLUME PROJECT PEAK HOUR VOLUME Northbound 1606 48 0 1654 17 10 Southbound 1380 41 2 1423 14 5 Eastbound 303 9 1 313 3 10 Westbound 516 15 1 532 5 0 ' Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1 % of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes. �X Project Traffic is estimated to be equal to or greater than 1 % of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required, 1 1% TRAFFIC VOLUME ANALYSIS INTERSEC770N. MACARTHUR BOULEVARD & SAN MIGUEL DRIVE 7135 (Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Daily Traffic 1003 P" APPROACH DIRECTION EXISTING PEAKHOUR VOLUME PEAK HOUR APPROVEDPROJECT REGIONAL GROWTH PEAK HOUR VOLUME VOLUME PROJECTED PEAK HOUR VOLUME 1 0/o OFPROJECTED PEAK HOUR VOLT MfE PROJECT PEAK HOUR VOLUME Northbound 1235 37 2 1274 13 11 Southbound 1355 41 3 1399 14 7 Eastbound 1098 33 24 1155 12 14 Westbound 458 14 12 484 5 0 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1 %of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes. �X Project Traffic is estimated to be equal to or greater than 1 % of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PROJECT: St. Marks Church Traffic Impact Analysis DATE: 90 /99/03 I% TRAFFIC VOLUME ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: COAST HIGHWAY &MACARTHURBOULEVARD 5335 (Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Daily Traffic 20113 AAV APPROACH DIRECTION EXISTING PEAKHOUR VOLUME PEAK HOUR REGIONALGROWTH VOLUME APPROVED PROJECTS PEAK HOUR VOLI WE PROJECTED PEAK HOUR VOLUME 1 %OF PROJECTED PEAK HOUR VOLUMJ; PROJECT PEAK HOUR VOLUME Northbound 0 0 0 0 0 0 Southbound 776 23 16 815 8 5 Eastbound 1241 37 33 1311 13 4 Westbound 2085 63 23 2171 22 6 1- -J Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes. Project Traffic is estimated to be equal to or greater than 1 % of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. I% TRAFFIC VOLUME ANALYSIS INTERSECTION.• COAST HIGHWAY &MACARTHURBOULEVARD 5335 (Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Daily Traffic 2003 P" APPROACH DIRECTION EXLSTIiVG PEAK HOUR VOLUME PEAK HOUR REGIONAL GROWTH VOLUME APPROVED PROJECTS PEAK HOUR VOLIJIdE PROJECTED PEAK HOUR VOLUME 1% OF PROJECTED PEAK HOUR VOLUME PROJECT PEAK HOUR VOLUME Northbound 0 0 0 0 0 0 Southbound 1264 38 10 1312 13 7 Eastlound 2141 64 39 2244 22 4 Westbound 2193 66 17 2276 23 6 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1 % of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes. Project Traffic is estimated to be equal to or greater than 1 % of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PROJECT. St. Marks Church Traffic Impact Analysis r- �d u DATE: 90 199103 I 1 1 1 1 APPENDIX E ' EXISTING PLUS TPO WITH AND WITHOUT PROJECT TRAFFIC ANALYSIS ICU WORKSHEETS 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 JA5045AM 1 ' INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS °� ��/ P INTERSECTION: JAMBOREE ROAD & SAN JOAQUIN HILLS ROAD 5045 F00.N� EXISTING WEEKDAY TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC 2003 AM ' I EXISTING I PROPOSED I EXISTING I EXISTING I REGIONAL I COMMITTED 1 PROJECTED I PROJECT I PROJECT I I Movement I Lanes I Lanes I PK HR I V/C I GROWTH I PROJECT I V/C Ratio I Volume I V/C I I I Capacity I Capacity I Volume I Ratio I Volume I Volume I w/o Project I I Ratio I Volume I I I NL 1 1600 1 1 20 I 0.013 1 1 1 0 1 0.013 1 0 1 0.013 1 I NT I 4800 I I 1282 I 0.267 38 1 61 I 0.288 I 0 I 0.266 I 1 NR 1 N.S. I I 100 I I 31 4 1 I 0 I I 1 SL 1 3200 1 1 667 1 0.208 20 j 1 1 0.215 I 4 1 0.216 I I ST I 4800 I I 1297 1 0.270 1 391 103 1 0.300 1 0 1 0.300 1 1 SR 1 N.S. 1 1 54 I 2 1 I I 0 1 I 1 EL I 1 263 1 6 1 I 0 I 1 } 4800 - } 0.070 ' - } 0.072 - } 0.072 j I ET 1 I 51 I 2 1 ER N.S. 57 21 I 0 I 0 I 1 1 I I I I I I WL 1 1 114 1 3 1 9 1 5 1 i } 4800 - } 0.027 } 0.030 - -- } 0.031 1 i WT I I 16 I 0 I I 0 I i WR 1 1600 1 j 21 1 0.013 i 1 1 i 0.014 1 12 1 0.021 1 'I I EXISTING LC.U. 0.572 I 0.607 I 0.604 I 1 1 EXISTING + REGIONAL GROWTH+ COMMITTED W/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. I I I I 1 EXISTING +COMMITTED +REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U. 1 I 1 Split Phase E/W direction 1X1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 I _I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 ' I _I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w /systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 1_1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will be less than I.C.U. Without project Description of system improvement: ' PROJECT JA5045AM FORM II 1 1 �3 JA5045PM I EXISTING+ REGIONAL GROWTH + COMMITTED W /PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. I I I I EXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U. I I Split Phase WIN direction I X1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 1 –1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 1 J Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w /systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 1 –1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will be less than I.C.U. Without project Description of system improvement: PROJECT _ — FORM II , JA5045AM 1 ELl ' INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS CAP qL! Fp INTERSECTION: JAMBOREE ROAD & SAN JOAQUIN HILLS ROAD 5045 EXISTING WEEKDAY TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILYTRAFFIC 2003 PM I EXISTING I PROPOSED I EXISTING I EXISTING I REGIONAL I COMMITTED I PROJECTED I PROJECT I PROJECT I Movement I Lanes I Lanes I PK HR I V/C I GROWTH I PROJECT I V/C Ratio I Volume I V/C I I I Capacity I Capacity I Volume I Ratio I Volume I Volume I w/o Project I I Ratio I I t I i I I I I Volume I i I I NL 1 160 1 1 131 1 0.082 4 1 1 1 0.085 1 0 1 0.085 1 J NT J 4800 J I 1092 I 0.228 } 33 I 87 J 0.252 ) 0 ) 0.252 ) i NR I N.S. I I 98 I I 31 9 1 I 0 1 I I SL I 320 I I 387 I 0.121 i 12I 20 I 0.131 I 4 1 0.132 I I ST I 480 I I 1374 I 0.286 41 I 81 I 0.312 1 0 1 0.312 I I SR I N.S. I 196 I I 61 I 1 0 1 I I EL I I 87 I 31 1 1 0 I 1 } 480 - } 0.028 * - - } 0.030 - } 0.030 I I ET I I 46 1 1 1 4 1 0 I I ER I N.S. I l 51 I l 2 4 t 1 0 l l I WL I 161 I 5 1 7 1 7 I I } 480 - -- } 0.049 ' } 0.052 - } 0.054 I I WT ( ( 76 ( 21 ( 0 I I WR 1 160 I I 61 1 0.038 1 21 23 1 0.054 1 16 1 0.064 I I EXISTING I.C.U. 1 0.445 1 0.479 0.480 I EXISTING+ REGIONAL GROWTH + COMMITTED W /PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. I I I I EXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U. I I Split Phase WIN direction I X1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 1 –1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 1 J Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w /systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 1 –1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will be less than I.C.U. Without project Description of system improvement: PROJECT _ — FORM II , JA5045AM 1 ELl ' JAW45AM 1 1- - - - - - - - - - Description of system improvement: ' PROJECT FORM It JA5045AM J ' F ' INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS "9Gi FO RN INTERSECTION: JAMBOREE ROAD & SAN JOAQUIN HILLS ROAD 5045 EXISTING SUNDAY TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC 2DO3 AM ' I EXISTING 1 PROPOSED I EXISTING I EXISTING I REGIONAL I COMMITTED )PROJECTED 1 PROJECT I PROJECT I Movement I Lanes I Lanes I PK HR I V/C I GROWTH I PROJECT I V/C Ratio I Volume I V/C I I I Capacity I Capacity I Volume I Ratio I Volume I Volume I w/o Project I I Ratio I I I I i I I I I Volume I I I I NL I 16DO I 1 43 1 D.D27 1 1 1 D I 0.028 I D I D.028 1 I NT 1 4800 I I 808 1 0.168 24 I 61 I 0.186 ( O I 0.186 I I NR I N.S. I I 60 1 I 2 1 4 1 I D I I I SL I 3200 1 1 333 1 D.104 1D 1 1 1161 D.242 35 1D3 1 D.1 D7 1 15 1 D.112 I D.271 I D.271 1 D 1 I ST 1 4800 1 I 1 1 1 I SR 1 N.S. 1 I 52 I I 2 1 D I I D I I 1 1 EL I I 120 1 41 D I D I I 1 } 4800 - } D.034 ' } O.D35 - } D.D35 1 I ET I I 41 I 1 1 D I D I 'i 1 ER 1 N.S. 1 I 37 I I 1 1 D I I D I I I I WL I I 94 1 3 1 9 I 21 1 1 — } 4800 - } 0.024 '---1 0.027 - } 0.031 1 WT I I 21 1 1 1 0 1 D I I WR 1 16DD 1 1 163 1 0.102 1 51 D 1 0.105 1 48 1 0.135 1 I EXISTING SUNDAY I.C.U. 1 0.330 1 0.355 0.364 I EXISTING SUNDAY+ REGIONAL GROWTH + COMMITTED W/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. 1 I I I I EXISTING SUNDAY+ COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U. I I 'Split Phase EfW direction I X1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 'I _I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than D.90 I _I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w /systems improvement will be less than or equal to D.90 I _I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will be less than I.C.U. Without project 1- - - - - - - - - - Description of system improvement: ' PROJECT FORM It JA5045AM J ' F �31�1u 1 I 1 EXISTING + REG GROWTH +COMMITTED W/PROPOSED IMPROVE =MENTS I.C.U. I I I EXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U. I I I I Split Phase NIS Direction 1X1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 LI Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 LI Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w /systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 C1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will be less than I.C.U. without project Description of system improvement: PROJECT FORM II SJ5065AM L (P INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS C��P '9</ Fp tiN INTERSECTION: SAN JOAQUIN HILLS ROAD & SANTA ROSA DRIVE I BIG CANYON 5065 EXISTING WEEKDAY TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC 2003 AM I I EXISTING I PROPOSED I EXISTING I EXISTING I REGIONAL I COMMITTED I PROJECTED I PROJECT I PROJECT I Movement I Lanes I Lanes I PK HR I VIC I GROWTH I PROJECT I VIC Ratio I Volume I VIC 1 I I Capacity I Capacity I Volume I Ratio I Volume I Volume I w/o Project I I Ratio I I I I I I I I Volume 1 I I NL 1 16001 1 361 0.023 1 1 1 91 0.029 1 0 1 0.029 I NT 1 16001 1 71 0.004 1 0 1 1 0.005 l 0 1 O.ODS I 1 NR 1600 1 1 59 1 0.037 ' 2 1 1 1 0.039 I 2 1 0.040 I 1 SL 1 1600 1 1 75 1 0.047 ' 21 1 0.048 1 0 1 0.048 I 1 ST 1 16001 1 101 0.006 1 01 1 O.OD6 I 0 1 0.006 I 1 SR 1 16001 1 351 0.022 1 1 1 1 0.023 j 0 1 0.023 1 1 EL 1 16001 I 471 0.029 1 1 1 1 1 0.031 1 0 1 0.031 1 I I 1 ET I I 369 I- 12 1 I 4 I 1 } 4600 - - } 0.103 ' - - } 0.108 - } 0.109 1 1 ER 1 1 107 1 3 1 6 I D I I WL I 32DO I I 443 1 0.136 ' 13 1 1 0.143 I 7 1 0.145 I I WT I I 510 1 15 1 1 I 17 I 1 } 4800 - } 0.120 - - - } 0.124 - } 0.126 1 I WR I I 67 I 21 1 D I I EXISTING _ I C U _ I 0 325 I 0.337 0.342 1 1 I 1 EXISTING + REG GROWTH +COMMITTED W/PROPOSED IMPROVE =MENTS I.C.U. I I I EXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U. I I I I Split Phase NIS Direction 1X1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 LI Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 LI Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w /systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 C1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will be less than I.C.U. without project Description of system improvement: PROJECT FORM II SJ5065AM L (P I SJ5065PM 1 ' INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS O , '9CI Fp 0.N INTERSECTION: SAN JOAQUIN HILLS ROAD & SANTA ROSA DRIVE /BIG CANYON 5065 EXISTING WEEKDAY TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC 200.3 PM PROPOSED I EXISTING I EXISTING I REGIONAL I COMMITTED I PROJECTED I PROJECT 1 PROJECTI - 1 EXISTING I I Movement I Lanes I Lanes I PK HR I V/C I GROWTH I PROJECT I V/C Ratio I Volume I V/C I I Capacity I Capacity I Volume I Ratio I Volume I Volume I w/o Project I 1 Ratio 1 'I I I I I I I I I Volume I I I I I NL 1 16001 1 2031 0.127 1 6 1 6 1 0.134 1 0 1 1 0.134 1 I NT I 1600 } I 37 1 0.023 1 1 1 j 0.024 1 D I D.U24 I I I 1 NR I 1600 1 1 401 I 0.251 12 1 191 0.270 I 2 1 0.271 1 1 SL 1 1600 1 1 57 I 0.036 2 1 1 0.037 I 0 1 0.037 I I 1 1 ST 1 1600 1 1 101 0.005 I 0 1 1 0.006 1 0 1 0.006 1 1 SR 1 1600 1 1 291 0.018 1 1 1 I 0.019 1 0 1 0.019 1 I I 1 EL 1 1600 1 1 221 0.014 1 1 1 I 0.014 1 0 1 0.014 1 1 ET 1 I 433 I 13 I 1 1 4 1 1 } 4800 - } 0.113 } 0.118 - } 0.119 i ER 1 1 1D9 I 3 1 8 ( 0 I 1 WL 1 3200 I 1 214 1 0.067 6 1 12 1 0.073 1 9 1 0.075 1 I I I WT I I 256 I 81 1 1 24 1 1 } 4800 - } 0.063 - - } 0.065 - } 0.070 1 1 EXISTING I.C.U. I 0.467 1 0.498 -I 0.502 1 ' 1 EXISTING +REG GROWTH + COMMITTED W /PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. I I I 1 I 1 EXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U. I I I I ' Split Phase WS Direction "Assumed WBL included in NBR. 1X1 Projected + project tragic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.91) tL1 Projected + project tragic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 L1 Projected + project tragic I.C.U. w /systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 ' L1 Projected + project tragic I.C.U. with project improvements will be less than I.C.U. without project - Description of system improvement: PROJECT FORM II SJ5065PM SJ5065AM I.C.0 I EXISTING SUNDAY+ COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U. Splft phase N/S Direction IXI Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 LI Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 LI Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w /systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 LI Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will be less than I.C.U. without project Description of system improvement: PROJECT SJ5065AM E- FORM II INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS gClFpRN INTERSECTION: SAN JOAQUIN HILLS ROAD & SANTA ROSA DRIVE / BIG CANYON 5065 EXISTING SUNDAY TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC 2003 AM I I EXISTING I PROPOSED I EXISTING I EXISTING I REGIONAL I COMMITTEO I PROJECTED I PROJECT I PROJECT I I Movement I Lanes I Lanes I PK HR I V/C I GROWTH I PROJECT J V/C Ratio I Volume I V/C { I I Capacity I Capacity I Volume I Ratio I Volume I Volume I w/o Project I I Ratio I I I I I I I I I Volume I I I 1 NL 1 1600 I 1 46 1 0.029 1 1 1 9 1 0.035 J 0 J 0.035 1 ! NT 1 16001 ! 11 1 0.007 1 01 01 0.007 1 01 0.007 1 NR J 1600 1 1 961 0.060 31 1 1 0.062 1 7 1 0.067 I SL 1 1600 1 J 481 0.030 1 1 0 1 0.031 1 0 1 0.031 1 ST I 16001 1 91 0.006 1 01 01 0.006 1 01 0.006 1 SR 1 16001 1 401 0.025 1 1 1 0 1 0.026 1 0 1 0.026 1 EL 1 16001 1 441 0.028 1 1 1 1 1 0.029 1 0 1 0.029 1 ET 1 1 192 1 61 1 1 15 1 } 4800 - - } 0.055 - } 0.058 - } 0.061 I ER 1 1 71 1 21 6 1 0 I WL I 3200 1 1 3531 0.110 11 1 01 0.114 1 27 1 0.122 I WT I 1 161 1 51 1 1 69 } 4800 - - } 0.046 } 0.048 - } 0.062 I WR I 1 61 1 21 0 1 I EXISTING SUNDAY I.C.U. 1 0.255 1 0.265 0.281 I.C.0 I EXISTING SUNDAY+ COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U. Splft phase N/S Direction IXI Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 LI Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 LI Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w /systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 LI Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will be less than I.C.U. without project Description of system improvement: PROJECT SJ5065AM E- FORM II 1 MITIGB - OYAM +TPO +CUMUL Mon Jan 19, 2009 09:35:08 Page 1 -1 ' -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- St. Mark's Church Traffic Impact Analysis Opening Year (2006) + TPO w/ Project AM Peak Hour _________________________________________________ Level Of ___________________ Service Computation Report ____________ 2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Future Volume Alternative) +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + ++ Intersection 010 Southern Project Access (NS) / San Joaquin Hills RD. (KW) ' +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + ++ Average Delay (sec /veh): 0.1 Worst Case Level Of Service: B[ 12.7] +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + ++ Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R --------- ___ I_______________ II_______________ Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign II__ _____________II_______________I Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Rights: Include Include Include Include ' Lanes: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 3 0 0 II---------- 0 0 2 1 0 - - - - -I --------------------------- II--------------- Volume Module: II--------------- Base Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 351 0 0 1538 0 Growth Adj: 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 Initial Bse: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 362 0 0 1589 0 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 23 0 5 0 0 0 19 PasserByVOl: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ' Initial Fut: 0 0 0 0 0 23 0 367 0 0 1589 19 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 0 0 0 0 0 23 0 367 0 0 1589 19 ' Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Final Vol.: 0 0 0 0 0 23 0 367 0 0 1589 19 Critical Gap Module: Critical Gp:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 6.9 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx ' FollowUpTim:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 3.3 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx II xxxxx ---------- xxxx xxxxx - - - - - I ------------ I --------------- II Capacity Module: --------------- II--------------- Cnflict Vol: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 538 xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Potent Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 993 xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Move Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 993 xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Volume /Cap: xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx 0.05 xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx ' ----------- I--------------- II - Level Of Service Module: --------------- II--------------- II ---------- - - - - - I Queue: xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 0.1 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Stopped Del:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 12.7 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx LOS by Move: * * * * * B ' Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT Shared Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx SharedQueue:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shrd StpDel:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx ' Shared LOS: * * ApproachDel: xxxxxx 12.7 xxxxxx xxxxxx ApproachLOS: * B Traffix 7.6.0715 (c) 2003 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to URBAN CROSSROADS, IRVINE 1 E-9 MITIGB - OYAM +TPO +CUMUL Thu Feb 26, 2004 11:57:21 Page 1 -1 St. Mark's Church Traffic Impact Analysis Opening Year (2006) + TPO w/ Project PM Peak Hour -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Future volume Alternative) txxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxRxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxtxxxxxx Intersection 910 Southern Project Access (NS) / San Joaquin Hills RD. (EW) xxxRxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxRxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxixxxxxxxxxxxxx xxx Average Delay (sec /veh): 0.1 Worst Case Level Of Service: B( 10.11 rxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.- xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------ --------------- II--------------- II----------- ---- II-- -- ------ - - -- - I Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Rights: Include Include Include Include Lanes: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 ------------ I--------------- II--------------- ii------ ----- ---- li---------- - - -- - I volume Module: Base Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1423 0 0 729 0 Growth Adj: 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 .1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 Initial Bee: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1466 0 0 751 0 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 33 0 7 0 0 0 22 PasserByvol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Put: 0 0 0 0 0 33 0 1473 0 0 751 22 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1100 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 0 0 0 0 0 33 0 1473 0 0 751 22 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Final Vol.: 0 0 0 0 0 33 0 1473 0 0 751 22 Critical Gap Module: Critical Gp:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 6.9 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx FollowUpTim:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 3.3 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx ------------ I --------------- II--------------- II--------------- il--- ------- - - - - - I Capacity Module: Cnflict Vol: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 261 xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Potent Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 743 xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Move Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 743 xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Volume /Cap: xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx 0.04 xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx ------------ I - -------------- II- ------ - - - - -- - II--------------- 11---------- - -- - -1 Level Of Service Module: Queue: xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 0.1 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Stopped Del: xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 10.1 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx LOS by Move: * * * * * B Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT Shared Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx rxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx SharedQueue: xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shrd StpDel :xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx }xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shared LOS: * * ApproachDel: xxxxxx 10.1 xxxxxx xxxxxx ApproachLOS: * B Traffix 7.6.0715 (C) 2003 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to URBAN CROSSROADS, IRVINE 5 1 D MITIG8 - OYAM +TPO +CUMUL Thu Feb 26, 2004 12:03:40 Page 1 -1 St. Mark's Church Traffic Impact Analysis Opening Year (2006). TPO w/ Project Sunday Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 BCM Unsignalized Method (Future Volume Alternative) xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxexxx Intersection k10 Southern Project Access (NS) / San Joaquin Hills RD. (EW) xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxexxx Average Delay (sec /veh): 0.8 Worst Case Level Of Service: B[ 10.41 xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxexxx Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------ - - - - -- --------------- 11 --------------- 11 --------------- 11 --------------- � Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Rights: Include Include Include Include Lanes: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 Volume Module: Base Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 393 0 0 611 0 Growth Adj: 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 Initial Bse: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 405 0 0 629 0 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 96 0 21 0 0 0 72 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Put: 0 0 0 0 0 96 0 426 0 0 629 72 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1100 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PBF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PBF Volume: 0 0 0 0 0 96 0 426 0 0 629 72 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Final Vol.: 0 0 0 0 0 96 0 426 0 0 629 72 Critical Gap Module: Critical Gp:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 6.9 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx FollowUpTim:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 3.3 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx -- ---- - - - --- --------------- --------------- 11 --------------- H---------- - -___I Capacity Module: Cnflict Vol: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 246 xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Potent Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 761 xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Move Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 761 xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Volume /Cap: xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx 0.13 xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx ------------ I--------------- --------------- --------------- --------------- Level Of Service Module: Queue: xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 0.4 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Stopped Del: xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 10.4 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx LOS by Move; * * * * * B Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT Shared Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx SharedQueue:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shrd StpDel;xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shared LOS: * * ApproachDel: xxxxxx 10.4 xxxxxx xxxxxx ApproachLOS: * B Traffix 7.6.0715 (c) 2003 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to URBAN CROSSROADS, IRVINE F, �I MITIG8 - OYAM +TPO +CUMUL Mon Jan 19, 2004 09:37:01 Page 1 -1 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- St. Mark's Church Traffic Impact Analysis Opening Year (2006) + TPO w/ Project AM Peak Hour ----------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Future Volume Alternative) Intersection #9 Macarthur Blvd. (NS) / Easterly Project Access (EW) Average Delay (sec /veh): 0.0 Worst Case Level Of Service: C[ 19.7] Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------ I --------------- II --------------- II --------------- II--------------- I Control: Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Stop Sign Stop Sign Rights: Include Include Include Include Lanes: 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 ------------(---------------( 1--------------- II------ -- ------- II---------- - - - --I Volume Module: Base Vol: 0 2265 0 0 2813 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Growth Adj: 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 Initial Bse: 0 2333 0 0 2897 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Added Vol: 0 8 0 0 0 19 0 0 10 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 0 2341 0 0 2897 19 0 0 10 0 0 0 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 0 2341 0 0 2897 19 0 0 10 0 0 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Final Vol.: 0 2341 0 0 2897 19 0 0 10 0 0 0 Critical Gap Module: Critical Gp:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 6.9 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx FollowUpTim:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 3.3 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx ------------ I --------------- II---------------- II-------------- -II-- --- --- -- - - - - - I Capacity Module: Cnflict Vol: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx :cxxxx xxxx xxxx 975 xxxx xxxx xxxxx Potent Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 255 xxxx xxxx xxxxx Move Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 255 xxxx xxxx xxxxx Volume /Cap: xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx 0.04 xxxx xxxx xxxx ------------ I --------------- II--------------- II--------------- II---------- -- - - - I Level Of Service Module: Queue: xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 0.1 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Stopped Del:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 19.7 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx LOS by Move: * * * * * * * * C Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT Shared Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx SharedQueue:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shrd StpDel:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shared LOS: * * ApproachDel: xxxxxx xxxxxx 19.7 xxxxxx ApproachLOS: * * C Traffix 7.6.0715 (c) 2003 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to URBAN CROSSROADS, IRVINE e-(;2- MITIG8 - OYAM +TPO +CUMUL Thu Feb 26, 2004 11:58:49 Page 1 -1 St. Mark's Church Traffic Impact Analysis Opening Year (2006) + TPO w/ Project PM Peak Hour -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Future Volume Alternative) Intersection k9 Macarthur Blvd. (NS) / Easterly Project Access (EW) *** xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *xx * * * * * * ** Average Delay (sec /veh): 0.0 Worst Case Level Of Service: C[ 17.91 ************************************************* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R --------------------------- --------------- --------------- ---------- - - - --� Control: Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Stop Sign Stop Sign Rights: Include Include Include Include Lanes: 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 ------ - - - - -- --------------- --------------- --------------- ---------- - - - - -� Volume Module: Base Vol: 0 2984 0 0 2543 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Growth Adj: 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 Initial Bse: 0 3074 0 0 2619 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Added Vol: 0 12 0 0 0 22 0 0 14 0 0 0 PasserByVOl: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 0 3086 0 0 2619 22 0 0 14 0 0 0 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1100 1.00 1.00 1.00 PNF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PNF Volume: 0 3086 0 0 2619 22 0 0 14 0 0 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Final Vol.: 0 3086 0 0 2619 22 0 0 14 0 0 0 Critical Gap Module: Critical Gp:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 6.9 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx FollowUpTim:xxsxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 3.3 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx ------------ I --------------- --------------- II------ --------- II--- - - ---- - - - - -I Capacity Module: Cnflict Vol: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 884 xxxx xxxx xxxxx Potent. Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 292 xxxx xxxx xxxxx Move Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 292 xxxx xxxx xxxxx Volume / Cap: xxxx xxxx x xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx 0.05 xxxx xxxx xxxx --_--------- I --------------- --------------- --------------- ---------- - - - - -I Level Of Service Module: Queue: xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 0.2 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Stopped Del: xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 17.9 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx LOS by Move: * * * * * * * * C Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT Shared Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx SharedQueue: xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shrd StpDel: xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xrxx xxxxx Shared LOS: ApproachDel: xxxxxx xxxxxx 17.9 xxxxxx ApproachLOS: * * C Traffix 7.6.0715 (C) 2003 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to URBAN CROSSROADS, IRVINE E13 MITIG8 - OYAM +TPO +CUMUL Thu Feb 26, 2004 12:11:09 Page 1 -1 St. Mark's Church Traffic Impact Analysis Opening Year (2006) + TPO w/ Project Sunda}, ------------------------------------ Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Future Volume Alternative) Intersection #9 Macarthur Blvd. (NS) / Easterly Project Access (EW) Average Delay (sec /veh): 0.2 Worst Case Level Of Service: Bt 14.91 Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R I --------------------------- Control: Uncontrolled --------------- I1--------------- Uncontrolled 11 Stop Sign --------------- Stop Sign Rights: Include Includ=_ Include Include Lanes: 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 11----- 0 0 0 0 0 ----- - - - - -I ------ - - - - -- --------------- 11--------------- Volume Module: 11------ --- ------ Base Vol: 0 1093 0 0 1836 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Growth Adj: 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 Initial Bse: 0 1126 0 0 1893 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Added Vol: 0 34 0 0 0 72 0 0 41 0 0 0 PasserByVOl: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Put: 0 1160 0 0 1893 72 0 0 41 0 0 0 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1100 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 0 1160 0 0 1893 72 0 0 41 0 0 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Final Vol.: 0 1160 0 0 1893 72 0 0 41 0 0 0 Critical Gap Module: Critical Gp:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 6.9 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx FollowUpTim:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx r:xxxx xxxxx xxxx 3.3 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx - ! ------------ I--------------- Capacity Module: --------------- II-- ------- ------ II---------- - - - - Cnflict Vol: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx rxxxx xxxx xxxx 667 xxxx xxxx xxxxx Potent Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 406 xxxx xxxx xxxxx Move Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx 406 xxxx xxxx xxxxx Volume / Cap: xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx 0.10 xxxx xxxx xxxx ------------ I --------------- Level Of Service Module: --------------- --------------- --------------- Queue: xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 0.3 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Stopped Del: xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 14.9 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx LOS by Move: * * * * * * * * B Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT Shared Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx SharedQueue:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx ; cxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shrd StpDel:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx ; cxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shared LOS: * * ApproachDel: xxxxxx xxxxxx 14.9 xxxxxx ApproachLOS: * * B Traffix 7.6.0715 (c) 2003 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to URBAN CROSSROADS, IRVINE (e MA5070AM 1 ' 1X1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 L1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 LI Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w /systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 LI Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will be less than I.C.U. without project ' Description of system improvement: PROJECT INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS MA5070AM \ � d"` cytrF� INTERSECTION: MACARTHUR BOULEVARD & SAN JOAQUIN HILLS ROAD 5070 EXISTING WEEKDAY TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC 2003 AM I I EXISTING I PROPOSED I EXISTING I EXISTING I REGIONAL I COMMITTED I PROJECTED I PROJECT I PROJECT I 1 Movement I Lanes I Lanes I PK HR I V/C I GROWTH I PROJECT I V/C Ratio I Volume I V/C I I I COWRY ! CaPacitY I Volume I Rata J Volume I Volume I w/o Project I j Ratio 1 I I I I I I I I I Volume I I I NL J 32001 1 671 0.021 1 2 1 1 0.022 1 10 1 1 0.025 1 I I NT I 4800 ( 1 1453 1 0.303 44 1 5 1 0.313 1 7 1 0.314 I NR 16001 1 1 1 6 1 0.004 1 0 1 1 0.004 1 0 1 0.004 1 1 I SL 1 3200 I 1 408 1 0.128 1420 0.296 12 1 6 1 0.133 1 3 1 0.134 1 ST I 4800 1 1 1 1 1 43 1 4 1 0.306 1_ 7 1 0.307 1 J SR J N.S. J J 1871 1 30 1 2 j I 0 I I I I EL 1 3200 1 107 1 1 1 0.033 3 1 7 1 0.037 1 4 1 0.038 1 I ET I I 199 1 6 J 1 1 2 1 1 } 4800 - } 0.051 1 } 0.053 - } 0.053 I 1 ER 1 1 45 I 1 1 1 0 I J WL 1 1600 j J 19 1 0.012 I 1 1 I 0.012 1 0 1 0.012 j WT I 32DO I I 464 1 0.145 14 1 1 1 0.150 1 6 1 0.152 1 I WR I N.S.1 1 7051 I 21 1 251 1 01 I I ( I EXISTING I.C.U. _ 1 0.609 l _ - - 0.632 _ j 0.638 I J EXISTING +REG GROWTH –'- + COMMITTED W /PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. I I � I j EXISTING + COMMITTED +REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U. I I I I ' 1X1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 L1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 LI Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w /systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 LI Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will be less than I.C.U. without project ' Description of system improvement: PROJECT ' MA5070AM E cs- FORM II MA5070PM INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: MACARTHUR BOULEVARD & SAN JOAQUIN HILLS ROAD 5070 EXISTING WEEKDAY TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC 2003 PM I I EXISTING I PROPOSED I EXISTING I EXISTING I REGIONAL I COMMITTED I PROJECTED I PROJECT I PROJECTI I Movement I Lanes I Lanes I PK HR I V/C I GROWTH I PROJECT I V/C Ratio I Volume I V/C I I I Capacity I Capacity I Volume I Ratio I Volume I Volume I w/o Project 1 I Ratio I 1 I ! I ! I I ) Volume 1 1 I I NL 1 32001 1 441 0.014 1 1 1 1 0.014 1 11 1 0.018 1 I NT 1 4800 1 1 1567 1 0.326 ' 47 1 4 1 0.337 1 9 1 0.339 1 1 NR 1 16001 1 14 1 0.009 I 0 1 I 0.009 1 0 1 0.009 1 I SL 1 3200 1 1 570 1 0178 ' 17 1 26 1 0.192 1 5 1 0.193 1 1 ST 1 4800 I 1 1209 1 0.252 j 36 1 8 1 0.261 1 9 1 0.263 I SR 1 N.S. I 2201 I 71 201 1 01 1 EL 1 3200 1 1 588 1 0.184 ' 18 I 21 1 0.196 1 4 1 0.197 I ET I I 403 I 12 ! 1 2 I } 4800 - } 0.111 - – } 0.114 - } 0.114 1 ER 1 ( 128 1 4 1 1 0 1 W L 1 1600 1 1 27 1 0.017 1 1 1 1 0.017 1 0 1 0.017 I WT I 3200 I I 285 I 0.089 9 1 1 1 0.092 I 6 1 0.094 I WR 1 N.S. 1 i 3951 I 121 4 1 I 0 1 I EXISTING I.C.U. 1 0777 I 0.817 0.823 1 EXISTING +REG GROWTH+ COMMITTED WIPR0POSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. I I 1 EXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U. I I I 1X1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 L1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 U Projected + project traffic I.C. U. w/systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 LI Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will be less than I.C.U. without project Description of system improvement: — PROJECT MA5070PM Ft (0 FORM II , I MA507GAM I '1 EXISTING SUNDAY +REGIONAL GROWTH+ COMMITTED W/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. I I 1 EXISTING SUNDAY+ COMMITTED +REGIONAL GROWTH +PROJECT I.C.U. I I ' 1X1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 U Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 ' U Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w /systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 LI Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will be less than I.C.U. without project ' ' of system INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS PROJECT o H� MA5070AM INTERSECTION: MACARTHUR BOULEVARD 8 SAN JOAQUIN HILLS ROAD 5070 /F00.��P EXISTING SUNDAY TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC 2003 AM I I EXISTING I PROPOSED I EXISTING I EXISTING I REGIONAL I COMMITTED 1 PROJECTED 1 PROJECT I PROJECT I Movement I Lanes I Lanes I PK HR I V/C I GROWTH I PROJECT I V/C Ratio I Volume i V/C I I I Capacity I Capacity I Volume 1 Ratio I Volume I Volume I w/o Project I I Ratio I I I I I I I I Volume I I I NL 1 32001 1 441 0.014 1 1 1 0 1 0.014 1 361 0.025 1 l NT I 4800 I 1 666 I 0.139 20 1 5 1 0.144 1 27 ( 0.150 1 I NR 1 16001 1 381 0.024 1 1 1 01 0.024 1 0 1 0.024 1 1 SL 1 3200 1 1 334 1 0.104 10 1 61 0.109 1 14 1 0.114 1 1 ST 1 48001 1 1066 1 0.222 1 32 1 4 1 Q230 1 27 1 0.235 1 I SR 1 N.S.1 I 3841 74 I 121 2 21 I 01 I 0.031 I EL 3200 7 15 1 0.023 ' 0.026 J I 1 1 1 1 1 1 I ET 1 1 230 J 71 1 1 7 1 1 } 4800 - } 0.060 I } 0.062 - } 0.063 1 I ER I I 57 I 21 0 I 0 I 1 W L I 1600 1 I 28 1 0.018 1 1 1 0 1 0.018 1 0 1 0.018 1 I WT 32W 183 0.057 ' 5 1 0.059 1 22 1 I 0.056 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I WR I N.S.1 1 281 1 I 8 1 251 I 0 1 I 1 EXISTING SUNDAY I.C.U. 1 0.323 1 0.339 0.360 I '1 EXISTING SUNDAY +REGIONAL GROWTH+ COMMITTED W/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. I I 1 EXISTING SUNDAY+ COMMITTED +REGIONAL GROWTH +PROJECT I.C.U. I I ' 1X1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 U Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 ' U Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w /systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 LI Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will be less than I.C.U. without project ' Description improvement: of system ' PROJECT MA5070AM E1-7 FORM II MA7135AM �J �I I� IXI Projected +project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 LI Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 1_I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w /systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 LI Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will be less than I.C.U. without project Description of system improvement: PROJECT MA7135AM �1 O FORM II 1 i INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS C 4 �P ` INTERSECTION: MACARTHUR BOULEVARD 8 SAN MIGUEL DRIVE 7135 EXISTING WEEKDAY TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC 2003 AM { I EXISTING { PROPOSED 1 EXISTING i EXISTING I REGIONAL I COMMITTED I PROJECTED I PROJECT I PROJECT I Movement I Lanes I Lanes I PK HR I VIC I GROWTH I PROJECT I V/C Ratio { Volume I V/C I I I Capacity I Capacity I Volume I Ratio I Volume I Volume I w/o Project I I Ratio j I I I I I I I I Volume I I I I NL I 32001 I 1421 0.044 I 4I 1 0.046 { 01 0.046 I I NT l 4800 1 I 1245 I 0259 37 I I 0,267 I 10 I 0.269 1 1 I NR I 16001 I 2191 0.137 1 7I I 0.141 I 0I 0.141 I SL I 3200 I I 1 I 0.000 01 I 0.00D I 31 0.001 I ST j 4800 I I 7491 0.156 I 221 I 0.161 I 3I 0.161 I SR I 1600 I I 6301 0.394 I 191 2I 0.407 I 01 0.407 I EL I 3200 { I 204 I 0.064 6 I I 0.066 i 31 0.067 I I ET I I 78 ` I 2 I 1 - I 2 I } 3200 - } 0.031 - - } 0.032 - } 0.033 I I ER I I 21 I 1 1 I 0 I W L I 3200 I I 212 I 0.066 I 6 1 I 0.068 I 0 I 0.088 j WT I I 297 I 9 I 1 I 0 I } 3200 - } 0.095 } 0.098 - } 0.098 I WR I I 7 I o f I 0 I EXISTING I.C.U. I 0.418 I 0.431 0.434 EXISTING +REG GROWTH + COMMITTED W /PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. I I I EXISTING + COMMITTED _ + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U. I 1 I I i IXI Projected +project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 LI Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 1_I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w /systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 LI Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will be less than I.C.U. without project Description of system improvement: PROJECT MA7135AM �1 O FORM II 1 i .1 I II MA7135PM 1 EXISTING I.C.U. 1 0.534 1 EXISTING + REG GROWTH + COMMITTED W/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. 1 EXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U. ' 1X1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 L1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.9D ' 1J Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w /systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.9D 1_I Projected+ project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will be less than I.C.U. without project Description of system improvement: MA7135PM 1 G: (R 0.556 0.558 I I I I I FORM II INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS c�P qGl F00.N INTERSECTION: MACARTHUR BOULEVARD & SAN MIGUEL DRIVE 7135 EXISTING WEEKDAY TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC 2003 PM 1 I EXISTING I PROPOSED[ EXISTING I EXISTING I REGIONAL I COMMITTED I PROJECTED I PROJECT 1 PROJECTI 1 Movement I Lanes 1 Lanes I PK HR I V/C I GROWTH I PROJECT I V/C Ratio 1 Volume 1 V/C I I I Capacity 1 Capacity I Volume I Ratio 1 Volume I Volume I w/o Project 1 I Ratio 1 I I I I I I I I Volume I I I I NL 1 3200 1 1 74 1 0.023 ' 2 1 2 1 0.024 1 0 1 0.024 1 } NT 1 48001 1 911 1 0.190 1 27 1 1 0.195 1 11 1 0.198 1 I NR 1 1600 1 1 250 1 0.156 1 8 1 1 0.161 1 0 1 0.161 1 1 SL 1 3200 1 1 8 1 0.003 I 0 1 1 0.003 1 5 1 0.004 1 I ST 1 4800 1 1 1034 1 0.215 31 1 1 0.222 1 5 1 0.223 1 1 SR 1 1600 I 1 313 1 0.196 1 9 1 3 1 0.203 1 0 1 0.203 1 EL 1 3200 1 1 687 1 0.215 ' 21 1 3 1 0.222 1 5 1 0.224 1 I ET I I 362 I 11 1 10 I 2 1 } 3200 - } 0.128 - } 0.139 - } 0.139 1 1 ER I ( 49 1 1 1 10 1 0 1 WL 1 32001 1 199 1 0.062 1 6 1 1 0.064 1 0 1 0.064 I WT 1 1 239 1 7 1 12 1 0 1 } 3200 - } 0.081 - } 0.087 - } 0.087 I W R 1 1 20 1 1 1 1 0 1 EXISTING I.C.U. 1 0.534 1 EXISTING + REG GROWTH + COMMITTED W/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. 1 EXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U. ' 1X1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 L1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.9D ' 1J Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w /systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.9D 1_I Projected+ project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will be less than I.C.U. without project Description of system improvement: MA7135PM 1 G: (R 0.556 0.558 I I I I I FORM II MA7135AM Al Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 I_I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 I_I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w /systems improvement will ba less than or equal to 0.90 ' LI Projected+ protect traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will be less than I.C.U. without project , Description of system improvement: -- PROJECT FORM 11 MA7135AM , INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS C'9C INTERSECTION: MACARTHUR BOULEVARD &SAN MIGUEL DRIVE 7135 /FO AN�P ' EXISTING SUNDAY TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE: DAILY TRAFFIC 2DD3 AM I I EXISTING I PROPOSED I EXISTING I EXISTING I REGIONAL I COMMITTED I PROJECTED I PROJECT I PROJECT I I Movement I Lanes I Lanes I PK HR I VIC I GROWTH I PROJECT I VIC Ratio I Volume I VIC I I Capacity I Capacity I Volume I Ratio I Volume I Volume I w/o Project I I Ratio I I I I I I I Volume I I I I NL I 32001 1 73 1 0.023 I 21 01 0.023 1 01 0.023 1 I NT 1 4800 1 541 1 0.113 ' 16 1 0 1 0.116 1 36 1 0.124 I I NR 1 1600 1 I 175 1 0.109 I 5 1 0 1 0.113 1 0 1 0.113 1 I SL 1 3200 1 I 41 0.001 0 1 0 1 0.001 1 141 0.006 1 I ST 1 4800 1 I 734 1 0.153 ( 22 1 0 1 0.158 1 141 0.160 1 I SR 1 1600 1 1 282 1 0.176 1 8 1 2 1 0.163 1 0 1 0.163 i EL 1 3200 1 I 123 1 0.038 4 1 0 1 0.040 1 14 1 0.044 j ET 1 130 I 41 1 1 7 I' I 1 } 3200 - } 0.054 - } 0.056 - } 0.059 1 I ER I I 44 1 11 0 1 0 1 WL I 32DO I 1821 0.057 1 51 01 0.059 1 01 0.059 I I WT 190 1 6 1 1 1 0 I I } 3200 - } 0.075 ' } 0.078 - } 0.078 WR 1 I 50 1 2 1 0 1 0 EXISTING SUNDAY I.C.U. I 0.226 1 0.233 0.245 I EXISTING SUNDAY+ REGIONAL GROWTH +COMMITTED N /IPROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS 1 I.C.U. 1 EXISTING SUNDAY+ COMMITTED+ REGIONAL GROWTH +PROJECT I.C.U. Al Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 I_I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 I_I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w /systems improvement will ba less than or equal to 0.90 ' LI Projected+ protect traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will be less than I.C.U. without project , Description of system improvement: -- PROJECT FORM 11 MA7135AM , 1 Sao ' I I 1 1 APPENDIX F ALTERNATIVE ACCESS EXISTING PLUS TPO PLUS PROJECT TRAFFIC ANALYSIS ICU WORKSHEETS I I �l I I 11 Fl- I JA5D45AM ' F3 INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS "9< /p00.N INTERSECTION: JAMBOREE ROAD & SAN JOAQUIN HILLS ROAD 5045 ALTERNATIVE ACCESS WEEKDAY TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC 2003 AM 1 EXISTING 1 PROPOSED I EXISTING I EXISTING I REGIONAL I COMMITTED 1 PROJECTED I PROJECT I PROJECT I I Movement I Lanes I Lanes I PK HR I V/C I GROWTH I PROJECT I V/C Ratio I Volume I V/C 1 I Capacity I Capacity I Volume I Ratio I Volume I Volume I w/o Project I I Ratio I I I I I I I I I I— Volume I I 0 0.013 1 NL I 1600 I 1 20 I 0.013 I 1 I 0 1 0.013 1 I NT 1 4800 1 1 1282 I 0.267 38 I 61 1 0.288 I 0( 0.288 1 1 I NR N.S. 1� I 31 4 1 01 I I 'I SL i 3200 I I 667 1 0.208 ' 20 1 1 1 I 103 0.215 1 4 1 0.216 1 I 0.300 I 0 1 0.300 1 I ST I 4800 I I 1297 1 0.270 1 391 1 I SR I N.S.1 1 54 1 I 21 1 1 283 I 81 1 D I EL I } 4800 ! I } 0.070 ' } 0.072 - } 0.072 I I ET I I 51 1 2 1 1 D I I 1 ER I N.S. I I 57 I 1 21 1 1 D I I I 1 WL 1 1 114 1 31 9 1 5 I } 4800 - - } 0.027 - } 0.030 - -- } 0.031 1 WT I I 16 I 01 1 0 I I W R 1 1600 I 1 21 I 0.013 I 1 1 1 0.014 1 15 1 0.023 1 I I EXISTING I.C.U. I 0.572 I - - 0.604 - 1 0.607 1 I 1 I EXISTING + REGIONAL GROWTH+ COMMITTED WIPROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. I I I EXISTING +COMMITTED +REGIONAL GROWTH +PROJECT I.C.U. I I Split Phase EIW direction 1 X1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 I _I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 I _I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. vdsystems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 I _I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will be less than I.C.U. Without project Description improvement: of system PROJECT FORM II JA5045AM ' F3 JA5045PM INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: JAMBOREE ROAD & SAN JOAQUIN HILLS ROAD 5045 ALTERNATIVE ACCESS WEEKDAY TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC 2003 PM I EXISTING I PROPOSED I EXISTING I EXISTING I REGIONAL J COMMITTED I PROJECTED I PROJECT I PROJECT) I Movement I Lanes I Lanes I PK HR I V/C I GROWTH I PROJECT I V/C Ratio I Volume I V/C 1 J I Capacity I Capacity I Volume I Ratio I Volume I Volume I w/o Project I I Ratio I 1 I I I I I I I Volume I I I I NL 1 1600 I 1 131 1 0.082 4 1 1 1 0.085 1 0 1 0.085 1 I NT I 4800 I 1 1092 1 0.22E 1 33 1 87 1 0.252 1 O 1 0.252 1 I NR 1 N.S. I I 98 I I 3 1 9 1 I o f I 1 SL 1 3200 1 1 387 1 0.121 1 12 1 20 1 0.131 1 4 1 0.132 1 1 ST 1 4800 1 1 1374 1 0.286 41 J 81 1 0.312 1 0 1 0.312 1 1 SR j N.S. I I 196 I I 6 1 t I o f I i EL 1 1 87 1 3 1 1 1 0 1 1 } 4800 - } 0.028 } 0.030 - } 0.030 1 i ET 1 ( 48 1 1 1 4 1 0 I I ER I N.S. I I 51 I I 2 1 1 1 0 4 I WL 1 I 161 I 5 1 7 1 7 1 } 4800 - } 0.049 - } 0.052 - } 0.054 I WT I I 76 I 21 1 0 1 W R 1 1600 1 J 61 1 0.038 1 2 1 23 J 0.054 1 21 I 0.067 1 EXISTING I.C.U. 1 0.445 1 0.479 0.480 I EXISTING+ REGIONAL GROWTH + COMMITTED W /PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. 1 1 I EXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U. I Split Phase FJW direction I XI Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 I _I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 1 J Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w/systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 I _I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will be less than I.C.U. Without project Description of system improvement: PROJECT FORM II JA5045AM 1--11 i JA5D45AM INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: JAMBOREE ROAD & SAN JOAQUIN HILLS ROAD 5045 ALTERNATIVE ACCESS SUNDAY TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC j EXISTING-] PROPOSED -1 EXISTING 1 EXISTING 1 REGIONAL 1 COMMITTE Movement I Lanes I Lanes I PK HR I V/C I GROWTH I PROJECT I I Capacity I Capacity I Volume I Ratio I Volume I Volume I I I I I I I 1 1 NL I 1600 1 1 43 1 0.027 1 1 1 I NT l 4800 1 I 808 I 0.168 24 t 6 I I NR 1 N.S.1 1 60 1 1 21 SL 1 3200 1 1 333 1 0.104 10 1 I ST I 4800 1 1 1161 1 0.242 1 35 1 10 SR I N.S. 1 1 52 1 I 21 I 1 EL 1 1 120 1 41 1 } 4800 - ) 0.034 I ET I I 41 I 1 1 I I ER I N.S. I 37 I I 1 1 1 WL 1 I sa I 31 1 } 4800 - } 0.024 I WT 1 I 21 1 W R 1 1600 1 1 163 1 0.102 1 51 I I EXISTING SUNDAY I.C.U. 1 0.330 1 EXISTING SUNDAY + REGIONAL GROWTH + COMMITTED W/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS 1 I.C.U. - - - I 1 EXISTING SUNDAY+ COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U. Split Phase EIW direction I X1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 I J Projected + project traffic I.C. U. will be greater than 0.90 1 _I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w /systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 ' I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will be less than I.C.U. Without project Description of system improvement: PROJECT JA5045AM .1 r�_ D I PROJECTED I PROJECT I PROJECT I j V/C Ratio I Volume I V/C I I w/o Project I I Ratio I Volume I I I I 0 1 0.028 I 0 1 0 -02B I 1 1 0.186 I 0 1 0.186 I 41 I of I 1 I 0.107 1 14 1 0.112 1 I 3 1 0.271 1 0 1 0271 1 of I of I 0 1 0 j } 0.035 - } 0.035 j 0 I 0 I 01 I 01 I - - I 9 1 21 1 0.027 - -- 0.031 1 0} I 0 I 0 1 0.105 1 62 1 0.144 1 - I 0.355 0.363 I I � - - I I I FORM II 2003 AM FORM II SJ5065AM INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: S SAN JOAQUIN HILLS ROAD & SANTA ROSA DRIVE /BIG CANYON 5 5065 ALTERNATIVE ACCESS WEEKDAY TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC 2 2003 AM I I I EXISTING I P PROPOSED I EXISTING I EXISTING } R REGIONAL I COMMITTED I PROJECTED I P PROJECT } P PROJECT I I Movement I I Lanes I L Lanes I PKHR I V V/C I G GROWTH I PROJECT I I V V/C Ratio I V Volume I V V/C I I I I Capacity I C Capacity I Volume I R Ratio I V Volume I Volume I I w w/o Project I I I R Ratio I I I I I I I I I I I I I I V Volume I I I I I I NL I I 16001 I I 361 0 0.023 I 1 1 1 9 91 0 0.029 I 0 01 0 0.029 I I NT I I 16001 I I 71 0 0.004 I 0 01 I I 0 0.005 I 0 01 0 0.005 I I NR I I 1600 I j j 59 I 0 0.037 • 2 2 j 1 1 1 0 0.039 I B B I 0 0.044 I I SL I I 1600 I I I 75 I 0 0.047 • 2 2 1 I I 0 0.048 I 0 0 1 0 0.048 j I ST 1 1 1600 I 1 1 10 1 0 0.006 1 0 0 1 I I O O.006 i 0 0 1 0 0.006 I I SR I I 1600 I I I 35 I 0 0.022 I 1 1 1 I I 0 0.023 I 0 0 1 _ _ 0.023 I EL I I 16001 1 1 471 0 0.029 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0.031 I 0 01 0 0.031 I I ET I I 3 389 I I 1 12 1 1 1 I I 4 4 I I I } } 4800 - } } 0 0.103 - - } } 0 0.108 - - } 0 0.109 } I ER I I I I 107 I I 3 3 1 6 6 I I 0 0 I I I WL I I 3200 I I I 443 I 0 0.138 • 1 13 I I I 0 0.143 I I 13 I 0 0.147 I I WT I I I I 510 I I 1 15 I 1 1 1 1 20 I I I } } 4800 - } } 0 0.120 - - - } } 0 0.124 - - } 0 0.128 I I W R I I I I 67 I I 2 2 1 I I I I I EXISTING I I.C.0 I I 0 0325 I 0 0.337 0 0.347 1 EXISTING+ REG GROWTH+ COMMITTED W/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. i I EXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U. I Split Phase NIS Direction IXI Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 IJ Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 IJ Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w/systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 1_I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will be less than I.C.U. without project Description of system improvement: PROJECT SJ5065AM FCO FORM If I 1 SJ5065PM I INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS C '1[ /FO0.N INTERSECTION: SAN JOAQUIN HILLS ROAD & SANTA ROSA DRIVE/ BIG CANYON 5065 ALTERNATIVE ACCESS TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC 2003 PM 1 - I I EXISTING I PROPOSED[ EXISTING I EXISTING I REGIONAL I COMMITTED I PROJECTED I PROJECT I PROJECT I I Movement I Lanes I Lanes I PK HR I V/C I GROWTH I PROJECT I V/C Ratio I Volume I V/C I I I Capacity I Capacity I Volume I Ratio I Volume I Volume I w/o Project I I Ratio I I I I I I I I I Volume I I I 1 _ I NL I 16001 I 2031 0.127 I 6 I 6 I 0.134 I 0 I I 0.134 I I NT 1 16001 I 371 0.023 1 1 1 1 0.024 1 0 1 0.024 1 I I I NR I 1600 I I 401 I 0.251 12 1 19 I 0.270 I 12 1 0.278 I SL I 1600 I I 571 0.036 2 I I 0.037 1 0 1 0.037 I I I ST I 16001 I 10 I 0.006 I 0 I I 0.006 I 0 I 0.006 I SR I 1600 I 1 291 0.018 I 1 I I 0.019 I 0 1 0.019 I I I EL I 1600 I I 221 0.014 I 1 I I 0.014 I 0 1 0.014 I ET I i 433 I 13 I 1 I 4 I } 4800 - } 0.113 } 0.118 - } 0.119 I ER 1 1 109 1 3 1 8 I 0 l W L I 3200 I I 214 I 0.067 ` 6 I 12 I 0.073 I 19 I 0.079 I I I I WT I I 256 I 6I 1 I 28 - } 4800 - - } 0.063 - - } 0.065 - } 0.071 I WR 1 I I- 48- I 0 I I I I -- - -- EXISTING I.C.U. j 0.467 I 0.498 0.512 I 'I EXISTING+ REGGROWTH + COMMITTED W /PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. I I I I I 1 EXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U. I I I I Split Phase N/S Direction "Assumed WBL included in NBR. IXI Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 ' LI Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 LI Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w/systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 LI Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will be less than I.C.U. wHhout project Description of system improvement: - PROJECT FORM II SJ5065PM i r-r SJ5065AM INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: SAN JOAQUIN HILLS ROAD & SANTA ROSA DRIVE/ BIG CANYON 5065 2 2003 AM ALTERNATIVE ACCESS SUNDAY TRAFFIC V VOLUMES B BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC { EXISTING I PROPOSED I E EXISTING I E EXISTING I R REGIONAL { COMMITTED { { PROJECTED { PROJECT { PROJECT Movement I I Lanes I Lanes 1 P PK HR I V V/C I G GROWTH ( PROJECT I I V V/C Ratio I V Volume I R Ratio 1 Capacity I Capacity I V Volume I R Ratio I V Volume I Volume w w/o Project I I I 1 1 I I I I I I I I I I I V Volume I I I 1 1600 1 I 4 46 1 0 0.029 1 1 1( 9 9 1 0 0.035 { 0 0 I 0 0.035 1 NL 1 NT I I 16001 1 1 11 I 0 0.007 1 0 0I 0 01 0 0.007 I 0 01 0 0.007 I NR 1 1 1600 1 1 9 96 I 0 0.060 ' 3 31 1 1 1 0 0.062 1 3 34 1 0 0.084 1 SL 1 1 1600 I 1 4 48 1 0 0.030 ' 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 0.031 1 0 0 1 0 0.031 I ST 1 1 16001 I 9 91 0 0.006 1 I O 1 0 0 1 0 0.006 { 0 0 1 0 0.006 I SR 1 1 16001 1 4 401 0 0.025 1 1 1 1 0 01 0 0.026 1 0 0 1 0 0.026 I EL 1 1 16001 1 4 441 0 0.028 1 1 1 1 I 1 0 0.029 1 0 0 1 0 0.029 1 ET I I I 0 192 { { 6 61 1 1 1 1 1 14 I I }I I 0.055 - - } } 0 0 I I ER } I 7 71} I I 2 21 6 6 1 1 0 W L 1 1 3200 1 1 3 353 1 0 0.110 ' 1 11 1 0 0 1 0 0.114 1 5 55 1 0 0.131 1 WT I I I 1 161 1 1 5 5 1 1 1 I I I 82 I I WR I I 61 I 1 I I 0.306 I ( EXISTING SUNDAY I.C.U. 1 0.255 I 0.260 _ I 1 I.C.U. 1 1 EXISTING SUNDAY + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH+ PROJECT I.C.U. I I Split Phase N/S Direction jXI Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 LI projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 LI Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w/systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 LI Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will be less than I.C.U. without project Description of system improvement: PROJECT SJ5065AM 10•] FORM II ' 1 MITIG8 - OYAM +TPO Mon Jan 19, 2009 09:55:12 Page 1 -1 St. Mark's Church Traffic Impact Analysis Alt. Access Opening YeaL (2006) + TPO w/ Project AM Peak -mour ----------------------------- ------- - - - - -- ------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Future Volume Alternative) ............................................ ............................... ..... Intersection #10 Southern Project Access (NS) / San Joaquin Hills RD. (EW) tttttttttttttttttttttt ttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttt etttt Average Delay (sec /veh): 0.2 Worst Case Level Of Service: B[ 12.9] ............................................ ............................... ..... Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------ I--------------- II--------------- II--------------- II---------- - - - - - I Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Rights: Include Include Include Include Lanes: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 ------------ I--------------- II--------------- II--------------- II---------- - - - - - I Volume Module: Base Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 351 0 0 1538 0 Growth Adj: 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 Initial Bse: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 362 0 0 1589 0 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 33 0 12 0 0 0 38 PasserByVOl: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 0 0 0 0 0 33 0 379 0 0 1589 38 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 0 0 0 0 0 33 0 379 0 0 1589 38 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Final Vol.: 0 0 0 0 0 33 0 379 0 0 1589 38 Critical Gap Module: Critical Gp:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 6.9 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx FollowUpTim:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 3.3 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx ------------ I --------------- II--------------- II------- -------- II ---------- - - - - - I Capacity Module: Cnflict Vol: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 597 xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Potent Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 986 xxxx xxxx xxxxx .xxxx xxxx xxxxx Move Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 986 xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Volume /Cap: xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx 0.07 xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx ------------ I --------------- II--------------- II----- ------- `-- II---------- - - - - - I Level Of Service Module: Queue: xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 0.2 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Stopped Del:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 12.9 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx LOS by Move: t t t t t B t t t t t t Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT Shared Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx SharedQueue:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shrd StpDel:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shared LOS: t t t t t t t t t t t t ApproachDel: xxxxxx 12.9 xxxxxx xxxxxx ApproachLOS: " B " t Traffix 7.6.0715 (c) 2003 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to URBAN CROSSROADS, IRVINE F9 MITIG8 - OYAM +TPO Tue Jan 20, 2004 21:18:37 Page 1 -1 St. Mark's Church Traffic Impact Analysis Alt. Access opening Year (2006) + TPO w/ Project PM Peak Hour ----------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -- Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 ACM Unsignalized Method (Future Volume Alternative) rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr Intersection #10 Southern Project Access (NS) / San Joaquin Hills RD. (EW) rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr Average Delay (sec /veh): 0.2 Worst Case Level Of Service: B[ 10.3) rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------ I---------------- II--------------- II--------- _----- II---------- - - - - - I Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Rights: Include Include Include Include Lanes: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 ------------ I--------------- II--------------- II--- ------ ------ II---------- - - -- - I Volume Module: Base Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1423 0 0 729 21 Growth Adj: 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 Initial Bse: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1466 0 0 751 22 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 47 0 16 0 0 0 43 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 0 0 0 0 0 47 0 1462 0 0 751 65 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 0 0 0 0 0 47 0 1482 0 0 751 65 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Final Vol.: 0 0 0 0 0 47 0 1482 0 0 751 65 Critical Gap Module: Critical Gp:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 6.9 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx FollowUpTim:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 3.3 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx ------------ I --------------- II--------------- II-------------- -II---------- - - - -- I Capacity Module: Cnflict Vol: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 283 xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Potent Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 720 xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Move Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 720 xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Volume /Cap: xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx 0.07 xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx ------------ 1----------'---- II--------------- II--------------- II--- --- ---- - - - --I Level Of Service Module: Queue: xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 0.2 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Stopped Del:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 10.3 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx LOS by Move: r r r r r B r r r r r r Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT Shared Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx SharedQueue:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shrd StpDel:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shared LOS: r r r r r r r r r r r r ApproachDel: xxxxxx 10.3 xxxxxx xxxxxx ApproachLOS: r B r r Traffix 7.6.0715 (c) 2003 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to URBAN CROSSROADS, IRVINE ' MITIG8 - OYAM +TPO +CUMUL Thu Feb 26, 2004 13:07:43 _ _ _ ___ Page 1 -1 _______ __________ ____ ____ ________ St. Mark's Church Traffic Impact Analysis _ Alt, Access Opening Year (2006) + TPO w/ Project Sunday -- Level Of Service Computation --- -- -- ------------------------ Report 2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Future Volume Alternative) ................................................. ............................... Intersection #10 Southern Project Access (NS) / San Joaquin Hills RD. (EW) ................................................. ............................... Average Delay (sec /veh): 1.1 Worst Case Level of Service: B[ 11.21 Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------ Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign ______________ Uncontrolled ______________ Uncontrolled Rights: Include Include Include Include Lanes: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 1 __ __________ ________ _____ __ --------------- Volume Module: --------------- --------------- Base Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 393 0 0 611 0 Growth Adj: 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 Initial Bse: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 405 0 0 629 0 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 137 0 49 0 0 0 144 PasserByVOl: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 0 0 0 0 0 137 0 454 0 0 629 144 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 ' PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 0 0 0 0 0 137 0 454 0 0 629 144 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Final Vol.: 0 0 0 0 0 137 0 454 0 0 629 144 ' Critical Gap Module: Critical Gp:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 6.9 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx FollowUpTim:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 3.3 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx ___________________________ _______________ Capacity Module: __ _____________ --------------- Cnflict Vol: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 282 xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Potent Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 721 xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Move Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 721 xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Volume /Cap: xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx 0.19 xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx ------------ I--------------- _______________ Level Of Service Module: __ _____________ _______________� Queue: xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 0.7 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Stopped Del: xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 11.2 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx LOS by Move: * * * * * B Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT Shared Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx SharedQueue:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shrd StpDel:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shared LOS: * * ' ApproachDel: xxxxxx 11.2 ApproachLOS: * B xxxxxx xxxxxx ' Traffix 7.6.0715 (c) 2003 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to URBAN CROSSROADS, IRVINE 1X1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. MI be less than or equal to 0.90 I_j Projected + project traffic I.C.U, will be greater than 0,90 LI Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w /systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 LI Projected + project traffic I.C.U, with project improvements will be less than I.C.U. without project Description of system improvement. PROJECT MA5070AM F(;�,- FORM II I 1 INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS '9 < / O���I^ F00.P INTERSECTION: MACARTHUR BOULEVARDS, SAN JOAQUIN HILLS ROAD 5070 2003 AM ALTERNATIVE ACCESS WEEKDAY TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC I EXISTING I PROPOSED I EXISTING i EXISTING I REGIONAL I COMMITTED I PROJECTED I PROJECT I PROJECT Movement I Lanes I Lanes I PK HR I V/C I GROWTH I PROJECT I V/C Ratio I Volume I Ratio I 1 I Capacity I Capacity 1 Volume 1 Ratio I Volume I Volume 1 4o Project I I I I I 1 I I I I I Volume I I NL 1 32001 1 671 0.021 I 21 I 0.022 1 101 0.025 1 I NT I 4800 1 I 1453 1 0.303 44 1 5 1 0.313 I 0 l 0.313 I NR 1 16001 1 61 0.004 I 0 1 1 0.004 1 01 0.004 I 1 SL 1 3200 1 I 408 1 0.128 ' 12 1 6 1 0.133 1 0 1 0.133 I I I ST I 48001 I 14201 0.296 1 431 41 0.306 I 0 1 0.306 I SR 1 N.S.1 I 9871 1 301 2 1 1 191 I I EL 1 3200 1 I 107 1 0.033 ' 3 1 7 1 0.037 1 9 1 0.039 I 1 ET I I 199 I 6 1 } 4800 } 0.051 1 — _ 1 } I 0.053 - 3 } 1 0.053 I ER i I 45 I 1 1 1 0 I I W L 1 1600 j I 19 I 0.012 1 1 1 1 0.012 1 0 1 0.012 1 I WT I 3200 I 1 464 I 0.145 ' 14 1 1 1 0.150 1 6 1 0.152 I I WR - - - _ _— 21 1 j N.S. I 7o5I I 251 I 0 1 _ I 1 I EXISTING I.C.U. 1 0.609 I 0.632 0.637 I I EXISTING + REG GROWTH + COMMITTED WIPROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. I I 1 EXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U. ( I I 1 1X1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. MI be less than or equal to 0.90 I_j Projected + project traffic I.C.U, will be greater than 0,90 LI Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w /systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 LI Projected + project traffic I.C.U, with project improvements will be less than I.C.U. without project Description of system improvement. PROJECT MA5070AM F(;�,- FORM II I 1 I MA507OPM .1 I I H fI I u 1 EXISTING I.C.U. I 0.777 I 1 EXISTING +REG GROWTH + COMMITTED W /PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. 1 EXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U. 1X1 Projected + project tic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 LI Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greaterthan 0.90 LI Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w/systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 LI Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will be less than I.C.U. without project 0.817 0.822 I I I I I Description of system improvement: PROJECT FORM II MA507OPM 1 Ft3 INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS C� gClF00.Nt �P INTERSECTION: MACARTHUR BOULEVARD & SAN JOAQUIN HILLS ROAD 5070 ALTERNATIVE ACCESS WEEKDAY TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC 2003 PM I PROPOSED -1 EXISTING 1 EXISTING I REGIONAL I COMMITTED I PROJECTED I PROJECT 1 PROJECTI 1 EXISTING I I Movement I Lanes I Lanes I PK HR I V/C I GROWTH 1 PROJECT I V/C Ratio I Volume I V/C I I I Capacity I Capacity I Volume I Ratio I Volume I Volume I w/o Project I I Ratio I I I I I I I I Volume I I I I 1 NL 1 3200 1 1 441 0.014 1 1 1 1 0.014 1 11 1 1 0.018 1 1 NT 1 48M 1 I 1567 1 D.326 47 1 4 1 0.337 i 0 1 D.337 I 1 I I NR 1 1600 1 I 14 1 0.009 1 0 1 1 0.009 1 0 1 0.009 1 '1 SL 1 3200 1 1 5701 0.178 17 1 26 1 0.192 1 0 1 0.192 1 I I 1 ST 1 48001 1 12091 0.252 1 36 1 81 0.261 1 01 0.261 1 I SR 1 N.S. 1 I 2201 1 7 1 201 1 221 1 1 I 1 EL 1 3200 1 1 588 1 0.184 18 1 21 1 0.196 1 11 1 0.199 1 1 ET 1 1 403 1 12 1 I 5 I 1 } 4800 - } 0.111 - } 0.114 - } 0.115 1 I ER I l 128 I 4 1 I 0 I 1 W L 1600 I I 27 1 0.017 1 1 1 I 0.017 1 0 1 0.017 I I WT i 3200 1 1 285 I 0.089 9 1 1 1 0.092 1 6 1 0.094 I WR I N.S. 1 1 3951 1 12 1 4 1 I 0 1 I I H fI I u 1 EXISTING I.C.U. I 0.777 I 1 EXISTING +REG GROWTH + COMMITTED W /PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. 1 EXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U. 1X1 Projected + project tic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 LI Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greaterthan 0.90 LI Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w/systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 LI Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will be less than I.C.U. without project 0.817 0.822 I I I I I Description of system improvement: PROJECT FORM II MA507OPM 1 Ft3 MA5070AM l EXISTING SUNDAY + REGIONAL GROWTH + COMMITTED W /PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. I 1 1 EXISTING SUNDAY+ COMMITTED+ REGIONAL GROWTH +PROJECT I.C.U. 1X1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 LI Projected + project traffic I.C. U. will be greater than 0.90 1J Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w /systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 LI Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will be less than I.C.U, without project Description of system improvement: PROJECT MA5070AM f�-r L( I IrI r� FORM II r r' INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS c c � �P INTERSECTION: M MACARTHUR BOULEVARD & SAN JOAQUIN HILLS ROAD 5 5070 ALTERNATIVE ACCESS SUNDAY TRAFFIC VOLUMES B BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY T TRAFFIC 2 2003 AM { { { EXISTING I P PROPOSED{ EXISTING I E EXISTING { R REGIONAL I C COMMITTED { PROJECTED I P PROJECT { P PROJECT { I Movement I I Lanes I L Lanes I PKHR I V V/C I G GROWTH I P PROJECT I I V V/C Ratio I V Volume I V V/C I I I I Capacity I C Capacity I Volume I R Ratio I V Volume I V Volume I I w w/o Project I I I R Ratio I I I I I I I I I I I I I I V Volume I I I I I I NL 1 1 32001 1 1 441 0 0.014 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 0.014 1 3 361 0 0.025 I I NT I I 4800 I I I 666 I 0 0.139 ' 2 20 1 5 5 1 0 0.144 1 0 01 0 0.144 I I NR j j 1600 1 1 1 38 I 0 0.024 1 1 1 1 0 0 0.024 I o of 0 0.024 I I SL 1 1 3200 1 I I 334 I 0 0.104 1 10 1 6 6 1 0 0.109 I o of 0 0.109 I I ST 1 1 4800 1 1 1 1066 1 0 0.722 i 3 321 4 4 1 0 0.230 I 0 01 0 0.230 I I SR 1 1 N.S. 1 I I 3841 I I 1 121 2 2 1 1 1 7 72I I I I EL I I 3200 1 I I 74 1 0 0.023 2 2 1 7 7 1 0 0.026 1 3 35 1 0 0.037 I I ET 1 1 1 1 230 1 1 7 7 1 1 1 1 1 1 14 1 1 } 4800 - } } 0 0.060 I - - } } 0 0.062 - } } 0 0.065 I I ER I I i i 57 { { 2 2 1 0 0 I I 0 0 I I I W L 1 1 1600 I I I 28 1 0 0.018 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 0.018 I I 01 0 0.018 I WT 1 1 3200 1 I I 183 1 0 0.057 S S 1 1 1 1 0 0.059 I I 22 1 0 0.066 WR I I N.S. 1 I I 281 I I I B B 1 2 25 I I I o f I EXISTING SUNDAY I I.C.U. I I 0 0.323 I 0 0.339 0 0.356 l EXISTING SUNDAY + REGIONAL GROWTH + COMMITTED W /PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. I 1 1 EXISTING SUNDAY+ COMMITTED+ REGIONAL GROWTH +PROJECT I.C.U. 1X1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 LI Projected + project traffic I.C. U. will be greater than 0.90 1J Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w /systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 LI Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will be less than I.C.U, without project Description of system improvement: PROJECT MA5070AM f�-r L( I IrI r� FORM II r r' ill II II II I I MA7135AM I - I EXISTING I.C.U. I 0.418 I 0.431 I EXISTING +REG GROWTH + COMMITTED W /PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. I I EXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U. I I ' 1X1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 LI Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 LI Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w/systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 LI Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will be less than I.C.U. without project Description of system improvement: PROJECT MA7135AM �J 1 Fi .5- 0.433 FORM II INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS \\ NZ aN�r INTERSECTION: MACARTHUR BOULEVARD & SAN MIGUEL DRIVE 7135 co ALTERNATNE ACCESS WEEKDAY TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC 2003 AM 1 I EXISTING I PROPOSED I EXISTING I EXISTING I REGIONAL I COMMITTED I PROJECTED I PROJECT I PROJECT I I Movement( Lanes I Lanes I PK HR I WC 1 GROWTH I PROJECT I V/C Ratio I Volume I V/C I I Capacity I Capacity I Volume I Ratio I Volume I Volume I w/o Project I I Ratio I I I I I I I I Volume I I I NIL 1 32001 1 1421 0.044 I 41 I 0.046 I 01 0.046 1 I NT ( 48001 l 1245 I 0.259 37 I I 0.267 1 101 0.269 1 I NR 1 16001 I 219 1 0.137 1 7 1 1 0.141 I 0 I 0.141 SL I 32001 1 1 1 0.000 0 1 I 0.000 I 0 1 0.000 I ST I 48001 1 749 I 0.156 I 22 1 I 0.161 1 0 1 0.161 I SR 1 16001 1 6301 0.394 I 191 21 0.407 1 01 0.407 EL I 32001 1 204 I 0.064 6 1 I 0.066 1 0 1 0.066 I ET I I 78 I 2 1 1 I 2 I } 3200 - } 0.031 - } 0.032 - } 0.034 I ER I I 21 i 11 I 3 W L I 3200 I I 212 j 0.066 I 6 1 I 0.068 1 0 1 0.068 I WT I I 297 I 9 1 1 I 0 1 } 3200 } 0.095 } 0.098 1 0.098 I WR 1 I 7 I 01 I 0 I - I EXISTING I.C.U. I 0.418 I 0.431 I EXISTING +REG GROWTH + COMMITTED W /PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. I I EXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U. I I ' 1X1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 LI Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 LI Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w/systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 LI Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will be less than I.C.U. without project Description of system improvement: PROJECT MA7135AM �J 1 Fi .5- 0.433 FORM II MA7135PM INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS 1 1 1 INTERSECTION: MACARTHUR BOULEVARD & SAN MIGUEL DRIVE 7135 ALTERNATIVE ACCESS WEEKDAY TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC 2003 PM 1 I EXISTING I PROPOSED I EXISTING I EXISTING I REGIONAL I COMMITTED I PROJECTED I PROJECT I PROJECT I I Movement I Lanes I Lanes I PK HR I V/C I GROWTH I PROJECT I V/C Ratio I Volume I V/C 11 I I Capacity I Capacity I Volume j Ratio I Volume I Volume I w/o Project I ( Ratio I I I I I I I I I Volume I I I I NIL 1 32001 I 741 0.023 21 21 0.024 I 01 0.024 I NT j 4800 1 j 911 1 0.190 j 27 j 1 0.195 j 11 1 D.198 I NR 1 1600 1 1 25D I 0.156 I 8 I I D.161 I 0 1 0.161 SL 1 32001 I 8 1 0.003 I 0 1 I O.G03 I 01 0.003 _ I I ST 1 4800 1 1 1034 I 0.215 31 I I 0.222 I 0 1 0.222 I SR 1 1600 i I 313 1 0.196 1 9 1 3 1 0.203 I 0 1 0.203 I 1 EL 1 3200 I I 687 1 0.215 ' 21 1 3 1 0.222 I 0 1 0.222 I ET 1 I 362 I 11 1 10 I 2 1 ) 3200 - } 0.128 - } 0.139 - } 0.141 { ER { ( 49 { 1 { 10 { 5 1 W L 1 3200 I I 199 1 0.062 I 6 1 1 0.064 1 0 1 0.064 I ! WT I I 239 I 7 1 12 I 0 I } 3200 - } 0.081 - } 0.087 - ) 0.087 I WR I I 20 I 1 1 I D I I EXISTING I.C.U. 1 0,534 1 0.556 0.556 I 1 EXISTING+ -- - REG GROWTH +COMMITTED W/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. I I I I EXISTING+ COMMITTED+ REGIONAL GROWTH +PROJECTI.CU. IXj Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 CI Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 L1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w/systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0,90 LI Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will be less than I.C.U. without project Description of system improvement I --A PROJECT FORM II MA7135PM i F-1 co MA713SAM u IXI Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 LI Projected + project traffic I. C.U. will be greater than 0.90 LI Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w /systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 LI Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will be less than I.C.U. without project Description of system improvement: PROJECT MA7135AM 1-� 1 1 FORM 11 INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS '9CrFO0.N INTERSECTION: MACARTHUR BOULEVARD 8 SAN MIGUEL DRIVE 7135 ALTERNATIVE ACCESS SUNDAY TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC 2003 AM I EXISTING J PROPOSED I EXISTING J EXISTING I REGIONAL I COMMITTED I PROJECTED I PROJECT I PROJECT I I Movement I Lanes I Lanes I PKHR I V/C I GROWTH I PROJECT I V/C Ratio I Volume I V/C I I I Capacity I Capacity I Volume I Ratio I Volume I Volume I w/o Project I I Ratio I I I I I I Volume I I NL 1 3200 I I 731 0.023 I 21 01 0.023 I 01 0.023 I NT 4800 I 541 I 0.113 16 j 0 I 0.116 J 36 I 0.124 1 I NR I 16001 I 1751 0.109 5 0 0.113 01 I 0.113 I SL I 32001 I 41 0.001 01 01 0.001 1 01 0.001 1 ST I 48001 I 7341 0.153 1 22 1 01 0.158 1 01 0.158 1 SR 1 16001 I 282 1 0.176 1 8 1 2 1 0.183 1 0 1 0.183 1 EL I 3200 I J 123 I 0.038 4 1 0 1 0.040 I 0 1 0.040 1 I ET 130 I 4 1 1 I 7 I } 3200 - - } 0.054 - - } 0.056 - } 0.063 I ER 44 I 1 1 0 1 14 I W L I 3200 I I 182 1 0.057 1 5 1 0 1 0.059 1 0 1 0.059 1 WT 190 I 6 1 1 0 I } 3200 - } 0.075 ` } 0.078 - } 0.078 I I WR I I so I 21 0 I 0 j I EXISTING SUNDAY I.C.U. 0.226 I 0.233 0.241 J EXISTING SUNDAY + REGIONAL GROWTH + COMMITTED W/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS t.C.0 I EXISTING SUNDAY + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U. I I I I u IXI Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 LI Projected + project traffic I. C.U. will be greater than 0.90 LI Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w /systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 LI Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will be less than I.C.U. without project Description of system improvement: PROJECT MA7135AM 1-� 1 1 FORM 11 APPENDIX G COMMITTED & UNCOMMITTED PROJECTS TRAFFIC ANALYSIS ICU WORKSHEETS JA5045AM PROJECT JA5045AM 1 I (r3 FORM II INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS �. '94 FpA�� p INTERSECTION: JAMBOREE ROAD & SAN JOAQUIN HILLS ROAD 5045 EXISTING WEEKDAY TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC 2003 AM tI EXISTING I PROPOSED 1 EXISTING I EXISTING I REGIONAL I COMMITTED & I PROJECTED I PROJECT I PROJECT I 1 Movement I Lanes I Lanes I PK HR 1 VIC I GROWTH I UNCOMMITTED I VIC Ratio I Volume I V/ I 1 I Capacity I Capacity I Volume I Ratio 1 Volume I PROJECT I w/o Project I I Ratio 1 Volume I Volume I 1 NL 1 1600 1 1 20 1 0.013 1 1 1 0 1 0.013 1 0 1 0.013 1 I NT I 4800 1 I 1262 I 0.267 ' 38 1 250 1 0.327 1 0 1 0.327 I I I I NR I N.S. I 100 1 I 3 1 31 I 1 0 1 1 SL i 3200 1 I 667 1 0.208 201 62 1 0.234 1 4 1 0.235 1 I I 1 ST 1 4800 1 I 1297 1 0.270 1 39 1 226 1 0.325 1 0 1 0.325 1 1 SR 1 N.S. 1 1 54 1 I 21 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 I I EL 1 1 263 I 81 0 1 0 1 1 } 4800 - } 0.070 ' } 0.072 - — } 0.072 I I ET I 1 51 I 21 2 1 0 1 I ER I N.S. I 57 1 I 21 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 WL 1 I 114 I 31 28 1 } 4800 - } 0.027 } 1 0.036 - 5 } 1 0.037 I 1 WT 1 1 16 I 01 9 1 0 I 1 W R 1 1600 I 1 21 1 0.013 1 1 1 46 1 0.042 1 11 1 0.049 1 I 0.572 0.669 1 0.671 I 1 EXISTING WEEKDAY I.C.U. 1 I EXISTING WEEKDAY + REGIONAL GROWTH + COMM ITTED /UNCOMMITTED WIPROPOSED 1 IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. I I I 1 EXISTING WEEKDAY+ COMMITTEDIUNCOMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U. I Split Phase EIW direction 1 X1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 I _I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 I _I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w /systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 I i I _I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will be less than I.C.U. Without project — Description of system improvement: – PROJECT JA5045AM 1 I (r3 FORM II JA5045PM INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: JAMBOREE ROAD & SAN JOAQUIN HILLS ROAD 5045 EXISTING WEEKDAY TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFF 2003 PM I EXISTING I PROPOSED I EXISTING I EXISTING I REGIONAL I COMMITTED & I PROJECTED I PROJECT I PROJECTI I Movement I Lanes I Lanes I PK HR I V/C I GROWTH I UNCOMMITTED I VIC Ratio I Volume I VIC I I I Capacity I Capacity I Volume I Ratio I Volume I PROJECT I w/o Project I I Ratio I I I I I I I I Volume I Volume I I I I NL 1 1600 1 I 131 1 0.082 4 j 1 1 0.085 1 0 1 0.085 I I NT 1 4800 1 1 1092 I 0.22B 1 33 1 237 1 0.284 1 0 1 0.284 I I NR I N.s.1 1 98 I I 31 31 1 1 0 1 I SL j 3200 1 j 387 j 0.121 j 12 1 65 1 0.145 1 5 1 0.146 I I ST I 4800 1 I 1374 I 0.286 41 1 289 1 0.355 1 0 1 0.355 1 I SR I N.S. I I 196 I I 6 1 0 1 1 0 I I EL I I 87 I 3 1 1 1 0 I } 4800 - } 0.028 ' } 0.032 - } 0.032 I ET I I 48 I 1 1 14 1 0 I ER I N.S. I ( 51 I I 2 1 0 1 1 0 1 I WL 1 1 161 1 5 1 33 I 7 I } 4800 - } 0.049 ' - } 0.059 - } 0.060 WT I I 76 I 21 4 I 0 I WR 1 1600 I I 61 1 0.038 I 21 53 I 0.072 I 17 I 0.083 I EXISTING WEEKDAY I.C.U. 1 0.445 1 EXISTING W EEKDAY + REGIONAL GROWTH +COMMITTED/UNCOMMITTED W/PROPOSED I IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. I EXISTING WEEKDAY+ COMMITTED/UNCOMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U. Split Phase ENV direction I Xj Projected + project traffic J.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 1 _I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 1 _1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w /systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 I _I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will be less than I.C.U. Without project Description of system improvement: PROJECT JA5045AM 64 0.531 `0.532 1 I FORM II 1 SJ5065AM I I WT 1 1 510 1 15 1 74 1 } 4800 - - } 0.120 - - } WR 1 1 67 1 2 1 0 1 I EXISTING WEEKDAY I.C.U. 1 0.325 1 EXISTING WEEKDAY + REGIONAL GROWTH + COMMITTED/UNCOMMITTED W/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. EXISTING WEEKDAY +COMMITTED/UNCOMMITTED +REGIONAL GROWTH +PROJECT I.C.U. 1 >� Split Phase NIS Direction IXI Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 LI Projected +project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 LI Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w /systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 1 - LI Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will be less than I.C.U. without project Description of system improvement: PROJECT SJ5065AM GS 17 0.139 - } I Q 0.383 0.143 1 I - I 0.387 I I I - I I FORM II INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS �� q4 Fp0.� ;p- INTERSECTION: SAN JOAQUIN HILLS ROAD & SANTA ROSA DRIVE /BIG CANYON 5065 EXISTING WEEKDAY TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC 2003 AM { I EXISTING I PROPOSED I EXISTING I EXISTING I REGIONAL I COMMITTED & I PROJECTED I PROJECT I PROJECT I Movement I Lanes I Lanas I PK HR I V/C I GROWTH I UNCOMMITTED 1 V/C Ratio I Volume I V/C I I Capacity I Capacity I Volume I Ratio I Volume I PROJECT I w/o Project I I Ratio Volume I Volume I I I I I NL 1 16001 1 361 0.023 1 1 1 91 0.029 1 0 1 0.029 I i NT I 1600 1 1 7 1 0.004 1 0 1 0 1 0.005 1 0 1 0.005 I 1 I 1 NR 1 1600 1 1 59 1 0.037 ' 2 1 28 1 0.055 I 1 1 0.056 1 1 SL I 1600 1 1 75 1 0.047 ' 21 0 1 0.048 1 0 1 0.048 1 1 I 1 ST I 16001 I 101 0.006 1 01 01 0.006 1 01 0.006 1 1 SR 1 16001 I 351 0.022 1 1 1 0 1 1 0.023 1 0.031 0 1 0 1 0.023 I 0.031 1 EL 1 16001 1 471 0.029 1 1 1 1 1 1 ET 1 1 389 1 12 1 91 1 4 j -} 4800 - - } 0.103 - } 0.127 - } 0.127 1 ER 1 I 107 1 31 6 I 0 1 W L 1 3200 1 I 443 1 0.138 ' 13 1 32 1 0.153 I 7 1 0.155 I I WT 1 1 510 1 15 1 74 1 } 4800 - - } 0.120 - - } WR 1 1 67 1 2 1 0 1 I EXISTING WEEKDAY I.C.U. 1 0.325 1 EXISTING WEEKDAY + REGIONAL GROWTH + COMMITTED/UNCOMMITTED W/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. EXISTING WEEKDAY +COMMITTED/UNCOMMITTED +REGIONAL GROWTH +PROJECT I.C.U. 1 >� Split Phase NIS Direction IXI Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 LI Projected +project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 LI Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w /systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 1 - LI Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will be less than I.C.U. without project Description of system improvement: PROJECT SJ5065AM GS 17 0.139 - } I Q 0.383 0.143 1 I - I 0.387 I I I - I I FORM II SJ5065PM I - } 4800 - - } 0.063 - } 0.076 - } 0.083 1 I WR I I 48 1 1 0 1 0 1 I EXISTING WEEKDAY I.C.U. I 0.467 1 0.548 0.553 1 EXISTING WEEKDAY + REGIONAL GROWTH +COMMITTED/UNCOMMITTED W/PROPOSED 1 IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. I I 1 - I I EXISTING WEEKDAY+ COMMITTED/UNCOMMITTED +REGIONAL GROWTH +PROJECT I.C.U. I I I I Spot Phase NIS Direction - "Assumed WBL included in NBR. IXI Projected + project traRc I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 C1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 El Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w /systems Improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 LI Projected + project traffic I.C. U. with project improvements will be less than I.C.U. without project Description of system improvement: PROJECT SJ5065PM ( 0 FORM II n �J INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS C��/ INTERSECTION: SAN JOAQUIN HILLS ROAD & SANTA ROSA DRIVE/ BIG CANYON 5065 FO A��P V EXISTING WEEKDAY TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC 2003 PM I I EXISTING I PROPOSED 1 EXISTING I EXISTING I REGIONAL I COMMITTED& I PROJECTED I PROJECT I PROJECT i Movement I Lanes I Lanes I PK HR I V/C I GROWTH I UNCOMMITTED I V/C Ratio I Volume I V/C I I I Capacity I Capacity I Volume I Ratio I Volume I PROJECT I w/o Project I I Ratio I I I I I I I 1 Volume I Volume I I I NL 1 16001 1 2031 0.127 1 6 1 61 0.134 1 01 0.134 1 1 NT 1 16001 1 371 0.023 I 1 1 01 0.024 1 0 1 0.024 I NR 1 1600 1 1 401 1 0.251 ' 12 I 60 j 0.296 1 2 1 0.297 1 I SL 1 1600 1 1 571 0.036 2 1 01 0.037 1 0 1 0.037 1 ST 1 1600 I I 101 0.006 1 0 1 01 0.006 1 0 1 0.006 1 1 SR 1 1600 I I 29 1 0.018 I 1 1 01 0.019 1 01 0.019 EL 1 1600 I I 22 1 0.014 1 1 1 0 1 0.014 1 0 1 0.014 I ET I I 433 I 13 1 78 1 4 I } 4WD - } 0.113 } 0.134 - } 0.135 I ER I I 109 1 3 1 9 1 0 I WL 1 3200 I 1 2141 0.067 6 1 401 0.081 1 9 1 0.084 I WT 1 1 256 8 1 60 1 24 I - } 4800 - - } 0.063 - } 0.076 - } 0.083 1 I WR I I 48 1 1 0 1 0 1 I EXISTING WEEKDAY I.C.U. I 0.467 1 0.548 0.553 1 EXISTING WEEKDAY + REGIONAL GROWTH +COMMITTED/UNCOMMITTED W/PROPOSED 1 IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. I I 1 - I I EXISTING WEEKDAY+ COMMITTED/UNCOMMITTED +REGIONAL GROWTH +PROJECT I.C.U. I I I I Spot Phase NIS Direction - "Assumed WBL included in NBR. IXI Projected + project traRc I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 C1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 El Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w /systems Improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 LI Projected + project traffic I.C. U. with project improvements will be less than I.C.U. without project Description of system improvement: PROJECT SJ5065PM ( 0 FORM II n �J I I I I Tra££ix 7.6.0715 (c) 2003 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to URBAN CROSSROADS, IRVINE IY� MITIG8 - OYAM +TPO +CUMUL Tue Jan 20, 2004 21:37:28 Page 1 -1 St. Mark's Church Traffic Impact Analysis Opening Year (2006) + TPO +Cull ative Projects w/ Project Hour ' ---AM -Peak ------ -- ---- ----- ---- - -------- ---- - ------------------------------------ Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Future Volume Alternative--) ************************************************* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** Intersection #10 Southern Project Access (NS) / San Joaquin Hills RD. (EW) ************************************************* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** Average Delay (sec /veh): 0.1 Worst Case Level Of Service: B[ 13.11 ************************************************* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R --------- ___ I_______________ II_-_____________ Control: Stop Sign Stop II__ Sign _____________II_______________I Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Rights: Include Include Include Include Lanes: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 3 0 0 II----------- 0 0 2 1 0 - - - -I. ------------ I ------- -------- II--------------- Volume Module: II - - -- --- Base Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 351 0 0 1538 0 Growth Adj: 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 Initial Bse: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 362 0 0 1584 0 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 23 0 122 0 0 105 19 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 0 0 0 0 0 23 0 484 0 0 1689 19 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 0 0 0 0 0 23 0 484 0 0 1689 19 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Final Vol.: 0 0 0 0 0 23 0 484 0 0 1689 19 Critical Gap Module: Critical Gp:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 6.9 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx FollowUpTim:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 3.3 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx ------------ I -- - - - - -- II Capacity Module: --------------- II--- ------------ II ---------- - - - - - I Cnflict Vol: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 573 xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Potent Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 468 xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Move Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 468 xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Volume /Cap: xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx 0.05 xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx ------ --- -- I--------------- II - Level Of Service Module: --------------- II--------------- II ---------- - - - - - I Queue: xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 0.2 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Stopped Del:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 13.1 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx LOS by Move: * * * * * B Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT Shared Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx SharedQueue:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shrd StpDel:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shared LOS: * * ApproachDel: xxxxxx 13.1 xxxxxx xxxxxx ApproachLOS: * B I I I Tra££ix 7.6.0715 (c) 2003 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to URBAN CROSSROADS, IRVINE IY� MITIG8 - OYAM +TPO +CUMUL Thu Feb 26, 2004 13:14:03 Page 1 -1 St. Mark's Church Traffic Impact Analysis Opening Year (2006) + TPO + Cumulative Projects w/ Project PM Peak Hour - - - -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Level Of Service Computation Report -_ 2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Future Volume Alternative) xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx�x xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Intersection #10 Southern Project Access (NS) / San Joaquin Hills RD. (EW) xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxx xxx+ xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Average Delay (sec /veh): 0.1 Worst Case Level Of Service: B( 10.31 xxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxtxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------ - - - - -- --------------- Control: Stop Sign --------------- Stop Sign --------------- Uncontrolled --------------- Uncontrolled Rights: Include Include Include Include Lanes: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 --I - ----- - - - - -- --------------- Volume Module: --------------- ----------- --- - --- ------- - - - Base Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1423 0 0 729 0 Growth Adj: 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 Initial Bse: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1466 0 0 751 0 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 33 0 123 0 0 86 22 PasserByVOl: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 0 0 0 0 0 33 0 1589 0 0 637 22 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 0 0 0 0 0 33 0 1589 0 0 837 22 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Final Vol.: 0 0 0 0 0 33 0 1589 0 0 837 22 Critical Gap Module: Critical Gp:xxxxx xxxx xxxx" xxxx" xxxx 6.9 "xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx" xxxx "xxxx FollowUpTim:xxxxx xxxx "xxxx "xxxx xxxx 3.3 "xxxx xxxx "xxxx xxxx" xxxx xxxx" --- - ------------ I --------------- Capacity Module: --------------- -------------- -II------- - - - -I Cnflict Vol: xxxx xxxx xxxx" xxxx xxxx 290 xxxx xxxx "xxxx xxxx xxxx "xxxx Potent Cap.: xxxx xxxx "xxxx xxxx xxxx 713 xxxx xxxx xxxx" xxxx xxxx xxxx" Move Cap.: xxxx xxxx "xxxx xxxx xxxx 713 xxxx xxxx "xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx" Volume /Cap: xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx 0.05 xxxx xxxx ]c]CXX xxxx xxxx xxxx - - - - -I --------_--- I --------------- II--------------- Level Of Service Module: --------------- ---------- Queue: "xxxx xxxx "xxxx "xxxx xxxx 0.1 "xxxx xxxx "xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx" Stopped Del:xxxxx xxxx xxxx" xxxxx xxxx 10.3 "xxxx xxscx xxxxx "xxxx. xxxx "xxxx LOS by Move: * B Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR -- RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT Shared Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx" SharedQueue: "xxxx xxxx xxxx" xxxx" xxxx xxxxx xxxx" xxxx "xxxx xxxxx xxxx "xxxx Shrd StpDel:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx "xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx" "xxxx xxxx "xxxx Shared LOS: ApproachDel: xxxxxx 10.3 xxxx"" ""xxxx ApproachLOS: B Tra£fix 7.6.0715 (c) 2003 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to URBAN CROSSROADS, IRVINE Pon "60 ISO "IF I Traffix 7.6.0715 (c) 2003 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to URBAN CROSSROADS, IRVINE I 1 V MITIG8 - OYAM +TPO +CUMUL Tue Jan 20, 2004 21:36:01 Page 1 -1 _________________________________________________ St. Mark's _____________ _______ Church Traffic Impact Analysis ___________ Opening Year (2006) + TPO + Cumulative Projects w/ Project AM Peak Hour -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Future Volume Alternative) Intersection #9 Macarthur Blvd. (NS) / Easterly Project Access (EW) Average Delay (sec /veh): 0.0 Worst Case Level Of Service: C[ 20.91 Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R _____________11_______________I L - T - R --------- __________________ jj_______________ Control: Uncontrolled 11__ Uncontrolled Stop Sign Stop Sign Rights: Include Include Include Include Lanes: 0 0 3 0 0 II--------------- 0 0 2 1 0 II--------------- 0 0 0 0 1 II---------- 0 0 0 0 0 - - - - -I --------------------------- Volume Module: Base Vol: 0 2265 0 0 2813 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Growth Adj: 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 Initial Bse: 0 2333 0 0 2897 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Added Vol: 0 198 0 0 149 19 0 0 10 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 0 2531 0 0 3046 19 0 0 10 0 0 0 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 0 2531 0 0 3046 19 0 0 10 0 0 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Final Vol.: 0 2531 0 0 3046 19 0 0 10 0 0 0 Critical Gap Module: Critical Gp:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 6.9 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx FollowUpTim:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 3.3 --------------- II---------- xxxxx xxxx xxxxx - - - - - I ------------ I --------------- II Capacity Module: --------------- II Cnflict Vol: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 1025 xxxx xxxx xxxxx Potent Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 236 xxxx xxxx xxxxx Move Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 236 xxxx xxxx xxxxx Volume /Cap: xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx 0.04 xxxx xxxx xxxx '� ----------- I--------------- II - Level Of Service Module: --------------- II --------------- II- - - - - -- -I Queue: xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 0.1 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Stopped Del:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 20.9 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx LOS by Move: * * * • • • • • C Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT Shared Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx SharedQueue:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shrd StpDel:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shared LOS: ApproachDel: xxxxxx xxxxxx 20.9 xxxxxx ApproachLOS: * • C I Traffix 7.6.0715 (c) 2003 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to URBAN CROSSROADS, IRVINE I 1 V MITIGS - OYAM +TPO +CUMUL Thu Feb 26, 2004 13:14:18 Page 1 -1 St. Mark's Church Traffic Impact Analysis Opening Year (2006) + TPO + Cumulative Projects w/ Project PM Peak Hour -----------------------------------------..-------_-_---_--------_--------------- Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Future Volume Alternative) Intersection #9 Macarthur Blvd. (NS) / Easterly Project Access (EW) Average Delay (sec /veh): 0.0 Worst Case Level Of Service: C( 19.41 Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R --- --- - - - - -- --------------- --------------- --------------- --------------- Control: Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Stop Sign Stop Sign Rights: Include Include Include Include Lanes: 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 ------------ --------------- --------------- --------------- --------------- Volume Module: Base Vol: 0 2984 0 0 2543 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Growth Adj: 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 Initial Bse: 0 3074 0 0 2619 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Added Vol: 0 177 0 0 208 22 0 0 14 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 Initial Put: 0 3251 0 0 2827 22 0 0 14 0 0 0 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 0 3251 0 0 2827 22 0 0 14 0 0 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Final Vol.: 0 3251 0 0 2827 22 0 0 14 0 0 0 Critical Gap Module: Critical Gp:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 6.9 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx FollowUpTim: xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 3.3 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx -----_--_--- I --------------- --------------- --------------- ---------- - - - - -I Capacity Module: Cnflict Vol: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 953 xxxx xxxx xxxxx Potent Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 263 xxxx xxxx xxxxx Move Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 263 xxxx xxxx xxxxx Volume / Cap: xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx 0.05 xxxx xxxx xxxx ------------ I --------------- --------------- --------------- ------- --- - - - - -I Level Of Service Module: Queue: xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 0.2 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Stopped Del: xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 19.4 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx LOS by Move: * * * * * * * * C Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT Shared Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx SharedQueue:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx :cxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shrd StpDel:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx :cxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shared LOS: * * ApproachDel: xxxxxx xxxxxx 19.4 xxxxxx ApproachLOS: * * C Traffix 7.6.0715 (c) 2003 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to URBAN CROSSROADS, IRVINE (�-,,0 MA5070AM I 1 0( ' INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS 'QC /Fp0.N Z INTERSECTION: MACARTHUR BOULEVARD & SAN JOAQUIN HILLS ROAD 5070 EXISTING WEEKDAY TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC 2003 AM 1 I EXISTING I PROPOSED I EXISTING I EXISTING I REGIONAL I COMMITTED & 1 PROJECTED 1 PROJECT I PROJECT I Movement I Lanes I Lanes I PK HR I V/C I GROWTH I UNCOMMITTEC I V/C Ratio I Volume I VIC I I I Capacity I Capacity 1 Volume I Ratio I Volume I PROJECT I w/o Project I I Ratio I I I I I I I 1 Volume I Volume I I I I NL 1 32001 1 - 671 0.021 1 21 21 I 0.028 I 101 0.031 1 I NT I 4800 I l 14531 0.303 441 1241 0.338 1 61 0.339 1 I NR 1 1600 1 1 61 0.004 1 0 1 75 1 0.051 1 01 0.051 1 1 SL I 3200 I I 408 I 0.128 12 j 56 1 0.296 43 73 0.149 1 31 0.150 1 0.321 1 0.320 71 ST I 4800 1 1 1420 1 1 1 1 1 SR I N.S. l I 9871 1 301 311 1 01 1 3200 107 0.033 3 35 31 0.046 1 0.045 I EL 1 I I 1 1 1 1 1 ET 1 1 199 1 6 1 90 1 2 1 1 } 4800 - - } 0.051 1 - } 0.071 - } 0.072 I ER I 1 45 1 1 1 0 1 0 I W L I 1600 1 1 19 I 0.012 1 1 1 100 i 0.075 1 01 0.075 1 i1 WT I 3200 1 1 464 1 0.145 14 1 78 1 0.174 1 51 0.175 I IN 1 N.S.1 1 7051 I 211 691 1 01 1 1 EXISTING WEEKDAY I.C.U. I 0.609 I 0.706 1 0.710 I EXISTING WEEKDAY + REGIONAL GROWTH + COMMITTED /UNCOMMITTED W/PROPOSED I IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. I I 1 EXISTING WEEKDAY +COMMITTED/ UNCOMMITTED +REGIONAL GROWTH+ PROJECT I.C.U. I I I IXI Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be less than cr equal to 0.90 IJ Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 LI Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w/systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 LI Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will be less than I.C.U. without project Description improvement: of system PROJECT FORM II MA5070AM I 1 0( MA5070PM IXI Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 L1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 L1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w /systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 L1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will be less than I.C.U. without project Description of system improvement: PROJECT MA5070PM Grp FORM II 1 I INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS C,aGrFO /5 INTERSECTION: MACARTHUR BOULEVARD & SAN JOAQUIN HILLS ROAD 5070 a:1V EXISTING WEEKDAY TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC 2003 PM I I EXISTING I PROPOSED I EXISTING I EXISTING I REGIONAL I COMMITTED & I PROJECTED I PROJECT I PROJECT I Movement I Lanes I Lanes I PK HR I V/C 1 GROWTH I UNCOMMITTED I V/C Ratio I Volume I V/C I I I Capacity I Capacity I Volume I Ratio I Volume I PROJECT I w/o Project I I Ratio I I I I I I I I Volume I Volume I I I NL 1 32001 I 441 0.014 1 1 1 0 1 0.014 1 11 1 0.018 1 I NT j 4800 j j 1567 j 0.326 47 j 92 1 0.355 1 9 j 0.357 j I NR 1 16001 I 141 0.009 I 0 1 149 1 0.102 1 0 1 0.102 1 SL 1 3200 1 1 570 I 0.178 17 I 86 1 0.210 1 5 1 0.212 1 ST I 4800 I 1 1209 1 0.252 I 36 1 128 1 0.286 1 9 1 I 0.288 I SR I N.S. I 2201 f 71 50 1 I 01 I I EL 1 3200 I 1 588 j 0.184 18 I 53 1 0.206 I 5 1 0.207 1 I ET I I 403 1 121 84 j 2 I I } 4800 - - } 0.111 - - } 0.131 - } 0.132 1 ( ER ( ( 128 ( 4 ( 0 ( 0 I W L I 1600 1 1 27 1 0.017 1 1 1 117 I 0.091 1 0 1 0.091 1 I WT I 3200 1 I 285 1 0.089 9 1 57 1 0.110 I 7 1 0.112 j 1 WR I N.S, I I 395 1 I 12 1 49 I I 0 I I j EXISTING WEEKDAY I.C.U. I 0777 I 0.881 0.888 I EXISTING WEEKDAY + REGIONAL GROWTH +COMMITTED/UNCOMMITTED W/PROPOSED I IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. I I I - I EXISTING WEEKDAY +COMMITTED/ UNCOMMITTED +REGIONAL GROWTH +PROJECT I.C.U. I I I I I IXI Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 L1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 L1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w /systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 L1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will be less than I.C.U. without project Description of system improvement: PROJECT MA5070PM Grp FORM II 1 I I I IF] 11 I MA7135AM I EXISTING WEEKDAY I.C.U. 1 0.418 - 0.471 0.474 I EXISTING WEEKDAY + REGIONAL GROWTH + COMMITTED /UNCOMMITTED W /PROPOSED 1 IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. 1 1 EXISTING WEEKDAY+ COMMITTED / UNCOMMITTED +REGIONAL GROWTH +PROJECT I.C.U. I I I IXI Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 L Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 LI Projected +project traffic I.C.U. w /systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 1_1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will be less than I.C.U. without project ' Description of system improvement: PROJECT FORM 11 INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS c9/ � INTERSECTION: MACARTHUR BOULEVARD & SAN MIGUEL DRIVE 7135 FoaAOP EXISTING WEEKDAY TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC 2003 AM l I EXISTING I PROPOSED I EXISTING I EXISTING I REGIONAL I COMMITTED & I PROJECTED I PROJECT I PROJECT I I Movement I Lanes I Lanes I PK HR I V/C I GROWTH UNCOMMITTED 1 V/C Ratio I Volume I V/C I I Capacity I Capacity Volume I Rath I Volume I PROJECT I w/o Project I I Ratio I I I I I Volume I Volume I I I I NIL 1 32001 1421 0.044 I 4 1 371 0.057 1 0 1 0.057 1 I NT 1 4800 1 1245 0.259 37 1 194 1 0.308 1 9 1 0.309 I I NR 1 1600 1 1 2191 0.137 7 1 3 1 0.143 1 0 1 0.143 1 1 SL 1 3200 1 1 1 0.000 ' 0 1 0 1 0.000 1 3 1 0.001 1 I ST I 48001 7491 0.156 I 22 1 1701 0.196 1 3 1 0.197 1 I SR 16001 6301 0.394 19 I 21 0.407 I 0 1 0.407 1 I EL 3200 I 204 1 0.064 ' 6 1 0 1 0.066 1 3 1 0.067 1 I ET I 78 1 2 1 1 I 2 I I ) 3200 - ) 0.031 - ) 0.038 - ) 0.038 1 I ER I I 21 j 1 1 18 ( 0 1 I W L I 3200 1 212 1 0.066 6 1 9 1 0.071 0 1 0.071 I WT I 297 9 1 1 0 ) 3200 - - ) 0.095 - ) 0.098 - ) 0.098 1 I WR I 7 1 01 0 I 0 I I EXISTING WEEKDAY I.C.U. 1 0.418 - 0.471 0.474 I EXISTING WEEKDAY + REGIONAL GROWTH + COMMITTED /UNCOMMITTED W /PROPOSED 1 IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. 1 1 EXISTING WEEKDAY+ COMMITTED / UNCOMMITTED +REGIONAL GROWTH +PROJECT I.C.U. I I I IXI Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 L Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 LI Projected +project traffic I.C.U. w /systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 1_1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will be less than I.C.U. without project ' Description of system improvement: PROJECT FORM 11 MA7135AM � G�3 PROJECT MA7135PM FORM GI L[ I MA7135PM SEW POD INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZ4TION ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: MACARTHUR BOULEVARD & SAN MIGUEL DRIVE 7135 C,y C /pp0.N�P EXISTING WEEKDAY TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC 2003 PM 1 I EXISTING I PROPOSED I EXISTING I EXISTING I REGIONAL I COMMITTED & I PROJECTED I PROJECT I PROJECT)' I Movement J Lanes J Lanes J PK HR I VIC I GROWTH I UNCOMMITTEC 1 VIC Ratio I Volume I VIC I I I Capacity I Capacity I Volume 1 Ratio I Volume I PROJECT I w/o Project I I Ratio I I I I I I I I Volume I Volume I I I I NL 1 3200 I 1 74 1 0.023 2 1 24 1 0.031 1 0 I 0.031 I NT 1 48001 I 911 1 0.190 I 27 1 2361 0.245 l 11 1 0,247 l I I NR I 1600 1 1 250 1 0.156 1 8 1 9 1 0167 1 01 0.167 I SL j 32001 1 8 1 0.003 1 0 1 0 1 0.003 1 5 1 0.004 1 1 ST 1 4800 j j 1034 I 0.215 ' 31 1 236 J 0.271 1 5 1 0.272 J SR J 1600 J J 313 1 0.196 J 9 J 3 1 0.203 1 0 1 0.203 I I EL J 3200 1 1 687 1 0.215 ' 21 1 3 1 0.222 1 5 1 0.224 I ET 1 1 362 1 11 1 10 I 2 I j } 3200 - } 0.126 - } 0.150 - 1 0.151 I ER 1 1 49 1 1 1 48 I 0 I W L 1 3200 1 1 199 1 0.062 1 6 1 6 1 0.066 1 0 1 0.066 I I I WT I I 239 7 i 13 - - - 1 0 -- 1 } 3200 - - } 0.081 - } 0.087 - ) 0.067 I WR 1 1 20 J 1 1 0 I 0 J I EXISTING WEEKDAY I.C.U. J 0.534 1 0.612 0.614 EXISTING WEEKDAY + REGIONAL GROWTH + COMM ITTED/UNCOM MITTED WlPROPOSED - I IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. J I 1 EXISTING WEEKDAY +COMMITTED( UNCOMMITTED +REGIONAL GROWTH +PROJECTI.C.U.I I PQ Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be less than cr equal to 0.90 LJ Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 LI Projected + project traffic I.C.U. wlsyslems improvement will be less than cr equal to 0.90 CI Projected + project traffic t.C.U. with project improvements will be less than I.C.U. without project Description of system improvement: PROJECT MA7135PM FORM GI L[ I 11 1 I I I I I I APPENDIX H ALTERNATIVE ACCESS COMMITTED & UNCOMMITTED PROJECTS TRAFFIC ANALYSIS ICU WORKSHEETS I I II I 1 i JA5045AM I i INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS - c'9ClFO0.N�P INTERSECTION: JAMBOREE ROAD 8 SAN JOAQUIN HILLS ROAD 5045 ALTERNATIVE ACCESS EXISTING WEEKDAY TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC 2003 AM i1 EXISTING I PROPOSED I EXISTING I EXISTING I REGIONAL I COMMITTED 8 1 PROJECTED I PROJECT I PROJECT I I Movement I Lanes I Lanes I PK HR I V/C I GROWTH I UNCOMMITTED 1 VIC Ratio I Volume I VIC I I I Capacity I Capacity I Volume I Ratio I Volume I PROJECT I w/o Project I I Ratio I I I I i I I I Volume I Volume I I I I NL I 1600 1 1 20 1 0.013 1 1 1 0 1 0.013 1 0 1 0.013 1 I NT I 4800 1 1 1262 1 0.267 38 1 250 t 0.327 1 0 1 0.327 1 1 NR 1 N.S. I I 1D0 1 I 3 1 31 1 1 D 1 1 1 SL 1 3200 I 1 667 1 0.208 ' 20 1 62 1 0.234 1 4 1 0.235 1 1 ST 1 4800 1 1 1297 1 0.270 1 391 226 1 0.325 1 0 1 0.325 1 1 SR 1 N.S. I I 54 1 I 2 1 D 1 1 0 1 I I EL I 1 263 1 61 0 1 D 1 1 } 4600 - } 0.070 } 0.072 - } 0.072 1 I ET I I 51 i 2 1 2 I D I I ER 1 N.S. I I 57 I I 2 1 D 1 I 0 1 I 1 W L 1 1 114 1 3 1 28 1 5 I 1 } 4800 - - } 0.027 - } 0.036 - — } 0.037 I I WT I I 16 I 0 1 9 I D I WR I 1600 1 1 21 1 0.013 1 1 1 46 1 EXISTING WEEKDAY I.C.U. 0.572 0.042 1 15 1 0.052 I I I 0.669 0.671 I EXISTING WEEKDAY +REGIONAL GROWTH +COMMITTEDIUNCOMMITTED WIPROPOSED 1 IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. I i I EXISTING WEEKDAY+ COMMITTEDIUNCOMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U. I I I Split Phase EIW direction - - - - - - - - I X1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 I _I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 I _1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w /systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 iI _I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will be less than I.C.U. Without project Description of system improvement: PROJECT FORM II JA5045AM i [-I O3 JA5045PM INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: JAMBOREE ROAD & SAN JOAQUIN HILLS ROAD 5045 ALTERNATIVE ACCESS EXISTING WEEKDAY TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC 2003 PM 1 EXISTING I PROPOSED I EXISTING I EXISTING I REGIONAL I COMMITTED & I PROJECTED I PROJECT I PROJECT I I Movement I Lanes I Lanes I PK HR I V/C I GROWTH I UNCOMMITTED I V/C Ratio I Volume I V/C I I I Capacity 1 Capacity I Volume I Ratio I Volume I PROJECT I w/o Project I I Ratio j I I I I I I I Volume I Volume I I I I NL I 1600 I 1 131 I 0.082 41 1 I 0.085 I 0 1 0.085 I I NT 1 4800 1 1 1092 j 0.228 j 33 1 237 j 0.264 I 0 1 0284 1 I NR I N.S. 1 I 98 1 I 3 1 31 I I 0 1 I I SL I 3200 I i 387 1 0.121 j 12 1 65 1 0.145 1 5 1 0.146 I ST 1 4800 1 I 1374 1 0.286 41 1 289 1 0.355 1 0 1 0.355 I SR I N.S. 1 i 196 1 I 6 1 0 1 1 0 1 EL 1 1 87 j 3 1 1 1 0 I } 4800 - } 0.028 ' - - } 0.032 - } 0.032 I ET 1 j 48 I 1 1 14 1 0 I ER 1 N.S. 1 1 51 I 1 2 1 0 1 1 0 l I WL 1 1 161 1 5 1 33 1 7 I } 4800 - } 0.049 - --- } 0.059 - — } 0.060 I WT 1 1 76 1 2 1 4 1 0 I - -- I WR 1 1600 1 1 61 1 0.038 1 2 1 53 1 I EXISTING WEEKDAY I.C.U. 1 0.445 1 EXISTING WEEKDAY + REGIONAL GROWTH + COMMITTED/UNCOMMITTED W/PROPOSED 1 IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. I EXISTING WEEKDAY+ COMMITTEDIUNCOMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U. Split Phase ENV direction I Xl Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 I _j Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 I _I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w /systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 1 _1 Projected + project tragic I.C.U. with project improvements will be less than I.C.U. Without project Description of system improvement: PROJECT JA5045AM HL( I 0.072 I 21 I 0.086 1 0.531 0.532 I - I I I FORM II r� i� I ' SJ5065AM �5- INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS c9�tFOa��P INTERSECTION: SAN JOAQUIN HILLS ROAD & SANTA ROSA DRIVE/ BIG CANYON 5065 ALTERNATIVE ACCESS EXISTING WEEKDAY TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC 2003 AM I EXISTING I PROPOSED I EXISTING I EXISTING I REGIONAL I COMMITTED & I PROJECTED I PROJECT I PROJECT I 1 Movement I Lanes I Lanes I PK HR I V/C I GROWTH I UNCOMMITTED I WC Ratio I Volume I V/C 1 I I Capacity I Capacity I Volume 1 Ratio I Volume I PROJECT I w/o Project I I Ratio I i I I I I I I Volume 1 Volume I I I i I NL 1 16001 1 361 0.023 1 1 1 9 1 0.029 1 0 1 I 0.029 1 ( NT 1 16001 1 71 0.004 1 01 01 0.005 1 0 1 0.005 1 1 NR 1 1600 1 1 59 1 0.037 21 28 1 0.055 1 8 1 I 0.060 1 1 SL 1 1600 1 1 75 1 0.047 ' 21 0 1 0.048 1 0 1 0.048 1 1 ST 1 16001 1 101 0.006 1 01 0 1 0.006 1 0 1 0.006 1 1 SR 1 16001 1 351 0.022 1 1 1 0 1 0.023 1 0 1 0.023 1 1 I i EL 1 16001 1 471 0.029 1 1 1 1 1 0.031 1 0 1 0.031 1 i ET 1 1 389 1 121 91 1 4 1 1 } 4800 - } 0.103 } 0.127 - } 0.127 1 1 ER 1 1 107 1 31 6 1 0 1 I W L 1 3200 I I 443 I 0.138 13 1 32 1 0.153 1 13 1 0.157 1 I WT I I 510 1 15 1 74 1 20 1 1 } 4800 - } 0.120 - } 0.139 - } 0.143 1 i WR 1 1 67 1 21 0 1 0 1 i 0.325 0.383 I 0.393 1 1 EXISTING WEEKDAY I.C.U. I 1 EXISTING WEEKDAY+ REGIONAL GROWTH + COMMITTEDIUNCOMMITTED W/PROPOSED I IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. I I I 1 EXISTING WEEKDAY +COMMITTED/ UNCOMMITTED +REGIONAL GROWTH +PROJECT I.C.U. I I I I I Split Phase NIS Direction IXI Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 LI Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 LI Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w /systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 ' - LI Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will be less than I.C.U. without project Description of system improvement: PROJECT FORM II SJ5065AM �5- SJ5065PM INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: SAN JOAQUIN HILLS ROAD & SANTA ROSA DRIVE / BIG CANYON 5065 ALTERNATIVE ACCESS EXISTING WEEKDAY TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC 2003 PM I I EXISTING I PROPOSED I EXISTING I EXISTING I REGIONAL I COMMITTED & I PROJECTED I PROJECT I PROJECT I I Movement I Lanes I Lanes I PK HR I V/C I GROWTH I UNCOMMITTED I V/C Ratio I Volume I VIC I I Capacity I Capacity I Volume 1 Ratio 1 Volume I PROJECT I w/o Project I I Ratio I f I I I I I I Volume I Volume I f I I NL 1 16001 1 2031 0.127 1 6 1 61 0.134 1 0 1 0.134 I I NT I 1600 1 1 37 1 0.023 1 1 J 01 0.024 1 0 1 0.024 1 I NR 1 1600 1 1 401 1 0.251 12 1 601 0.296 1 11 1 0.303 I I SL 1 1600 1 I 57 1 0.036 ' 2 1 0 1 0.037 1 0 1 0.037 1 I ST I 16001 1 101 0.006 1 0 1 01 0.006 1 0 1 0.006 I I SR 1 1600 1 1 29 1 0.018 1 1 1 0 1 0.019 1 0 t 0.019 1 j EL I 1600 j 1 22 1 0.014 1 1 1 01 0.014 1 0 1 0.014 I 1 ET 1 1 433 1 13 1 78 1 4 I I } 4800 - - } 0.113 - } 0.134 - } 0.135 1 I ER ( I 109 1 3 1 9 l 0 I W L 1 3200 1 I 214 1 0.067 6 1 I WT 1 I 256 I B 1 I } 4600 - } 0.063 - - I W R I 1 46 I 1 1 I EXISTING WEEKDAY I.C.U. 1 0.467 1 EXISTING WEEKDAY + REGIONAL GROWTH +COMMITTED/UNCOMMITTED W/PROPOSED I IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. I EXISTING WEEKDAY + COMMITTED/UNCOMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.0 Split Phase WS Direction Assumed WBL included in NBR. jXj Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 C1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 F-1 Projected + project traffic I.C,U. w)systems Improvement vnll be less than or equal to 0.90 L1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will be less than I.C.U. without project Description of system improvement: PROJECT - - - - - -_- - -'- -- - - SJ5065PM NlV 40 1 0.061 1 19 1 0.087 I 60 1 28 I } 0.078 - } 0.084 I 0 I 0 I 0.548 0.562 I I I I I I I I FORM If IJ ' Tra££ix 7.6.0715 (c) 2003 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to URBAN CROSSROADS, IRVINE 1 IJ� MITIG8 - OYAM +TPO +CUMUL Mon Jan 19, 2009 19:06:98 Page 1 -1 __ __ _____ St. Mark's ______________ ____ _________________ Church Traffic Impact Analysis _________ Alt. Access Opening Year (2006) + TPO + Cumulative Projects w/ Project AM Peak Hour -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Future Volume Alternative) ............................................ ............................... ..... Intersection 010 Southern Project Access (NS) / San Joaquin Hills RD. (EW) ............................................ ............................... ..... Average Delay (sec /Veh): 0.2 Worst Case Level Of Service: B[ 13.9] Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L- T - R L - T - R L - T - R --------- ___ I_______________ II____-__________ Control: Stop Sign Stop II_- Sign ___________- _II_______________I Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Rights: Include Include Include Include ' Lanes: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 II--------------- 0 0 3 0 0 II---------- 0 0 2 1 0 - - - - -I ------------ I--------------- II--------------- Volume Module: Base Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 351 0 0 1538 0 Growth Adj: 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 Initial Bse: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 362 0 0 1589 0 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 33 0 129 0 0 105 38 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ' Initial Fut: 0 0 0 0 0 33 0 991 0 0 1689 38 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 0 0 0 0 0 33 0 991 0 0 1689 38 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Final Vol.: 0 0 0 0 0 33 0 991 0 0 1689 38 Critical Gap Module: Critical Gp:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 6.9 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx FollowUpTim:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 3.3 II-- xxxxx xxxx xxxxx ------------- II---------- xxxxx xxxx xxxxx - - - - -I ------------ I--------------- 11--------------- Capacity Module: Cnflict Vol: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 582 xxxx.xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Potent Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 961 xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx MoVe Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 961 xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Volume /Cap: xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx 0.07 xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx ----------- I-------------- -II - Level Of Service Module: - -- I --------------- --------------- I Queue: xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 0.2 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Stopped Del:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 13.9 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx LOS by MoVe: • • • t t B t t t t t Movement: LT - LTR - RT IT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT Shared Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx SharedQueue:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shrd StpDel:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shared LOS: • • • • • t t t t t t t ApproachDel: xxxxxx 13.9 xxxxxx xxxxxx ApproachLOS: • B t t ' Tra££ix 7.6.0715 (c) 2003 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to URBAN CROSSROADS, IRVINE 1 IJ� MITIG8 - OYAM +TPO +CUMUL Thu Feb 26, 2004 13:25:39 Page 1 -1 St. Mark's Church Traffic Impact Analysis Alt. Access Opening Year (2006) + TPO + Cumulative Projects w/ Project PM Peak Hour -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (:?uture Volume Alternative) *ttttttttttttttttttttttt Ytttttttttttttttt' kttttttt tttttttttttttttttttttttt *tttttt Intersection #10 Southern Project Access (NS) / San Joaquin Hills RD. (EW) Average Delay (sec /veh): 0.2 Worst Case Level Of Service: B[ 10.53 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + ++ Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R -- ---- - - - - -- --------------- --------------- --------------- --- ----- - - - - - -- Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Rights: Include Include Include Include Lanes: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 -- -- -- -- - - -- --------------- --------------- --------------- --- ---- -- - -- --- Volume Module: Base Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1423 0 0 729 0 Growth Adj: 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 Initial Bse: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1466 0 0 751 0 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 47 0 132 0 0 86 43 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Put: 0 0 0 0 0 47 0 1598 0 0 837 43 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 0 0 0 0 0 47 0 1598 0 0 837 43 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Final Vol.: 0 0 0 0 0 47 0 1598 0 0 837 43 Critical Gap Module: Critical Gp:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 6.9 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx FollowUpTim: xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 3.3 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx --------_--- I --------------- II --------------- -------------- -II-- ------ -- - - -- -I Capacity Module: Cnflict Vol: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 300 xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Potent Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 702 xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx XxXx xxxxx Move Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 702 xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Volume /Cap: xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx 0.07 xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx ----_---_--- I --------------- --------------- --------------- -- ------- - - - - - -I Level Of Service Module: Queue: xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 0.2 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Stopped Del: xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 10.5 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx LOS by Move: * * * * * B Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT Shared Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx :x xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxacx xxxx xxxxx SharedQueue:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shrd StpDel:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx :�cxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shared LOS: * * ApproachDel: xxxxxx 10.5 xxxxxx xxxxxx ApproachLOS: * B Traffix 7.6.071S (C) 2003 Dowling ASSOC. Licensed to URBAN CROSSROADS, IRVINE It � MA5070AM 1 1 1 i H1 1 INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS c��P '9Cl FO0.� INTERSECTION: MACARTHUR BOULEVARD & SAN JOAQUIN HILLS ROAD 5070 ALTERNATIVE ACCESS EXISTING WEEKDAY TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC 2003 AM 1 1 I EXISTING I PROPOSED I EXISTING I EXISTING I REGIONAL I COMMITTED & I PROJECTED I GROWTH UNCOMMITTEC I V/C Ra6o I PROJECT I Volume I PROJECT I V/C I I Movement I Lanes I Lanes I PK HR I V/C I I I I Capacity I Capacity I Volume I Ratio I Volume I PROJECT I w/o Project I I Ratio I I I I I I I I Volume I Volume I I I I I I NL I 32001 I 671 0.021 I 21 21 I 0.028 I 101 0.031 I 1 NT I 48001 I 14531 0.303 441 124 1 0.338 I 0 1 0.338 1 I I 1 NR I 16001 I 61 0.004 I 01 751 0.051 I 01 0.051 I I SL I 3200 I I 408 I 0.128 ' 12 I 56 I 0.149 1 of 0.149 I I I I ST I 48001 I 14201 0.296 I 431 731 0.320 I 01 0.320 I 1 SR I N.S. I 9871 I 301 31 I I 191 I I 1 I EL I 3200 I I 107 I 0.033 ' 3 1 35 1 0.045 I 8 I I 0.048 I I ET I I 199 1 6 1 90 I 4 I 1 } 4800 - - } 0.051 I - } 0.071 } 0.072 1 I ER I I 45 I 1 1 0 i 0 1 W L I 1600 I I 19 I 0.012 I 1 1 100 I 0.075 I 01 0.075 1 �I I WT I 3200 I I 464 I 0.145 ' 14 I 78 I 0.174 I 5 1 1 0.175 1 I WR I N.S. I 7051 I 21 I 691 I 01 I 1 1 EXISTING WEEKDAY I.C.U. 1 0.609 I — 0.706 0.710 I I I - - EXISTING WEEKDAY + REGIONAL GROWTH + COMM ITTED /UNCOMMITTED W/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. I.C.U. I I I I I EXISTING WEEKDAY + COMMITTED/UNCOMMITTED +REGIONAL GROWTH +PROJECT I 1 IXI Projected + project traffic I.C. U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 LI Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 1 U Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w /systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 LI Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will be less than I.C.U. without project 1 Description of system improvement: 1 PROJECT FORM II MA5070AM 1 i H1 MAS070PM INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: MACARTHUR BOULEVARD & SAN JOAQUI'N HILLS ROAD 5070 ALTERNATIVE ACCESS EXISTING WEEKDAY TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC 2003 PM I EXISTING I PROPOSED I EXISTING I EXISTING I REGIONAL J COMMITTED & I PROJECTED I PROJECT I PROJECT I Movement ( Lanes I Lanes I PK HR I V/C I GROWTH I UNCOMMITTED 1 V/C Ratio I Volume I V/C I I Capacity I Capacity I Volume I Ratio I Volume I PROJECT I w/o Project I I Ratio I I I I 1 I I I Volume I Volume I I I I NL I 3200 I I 44 1 0.014 I t 1 0 1 0.014 1 11 1 0.018 1 I NT 1 4800 1 1 1567 1 0.326 47 1 92 1 0355 1 0 1 0.355 1 I NR I 16001 I 141 0.009 I 0 1 1491 0.102 1 0 1 0.102 I SL I 3200 I I 670 1 0.178 17 J 86 J 0.210 1 0 1 0.210 1 I ST I 4800 1 1 12091 0.252 1 36 j 12B I 0.286 1 0 1 0.266 I 1 SR I N.S. I I 220 I i 7 1 50 1 1 21 I I ( EL j 3200 1 I 586 ( 0.184 18 1 53 I 0.206 1 12 1 0.210 I ET 1 I 403 I 12 I 84 1 5 1 I } 4800 - - } 0.111 - - y 0.131 - y 0.132 I I ER I I 128 I 4 1 0 1 0 I W L 1 1600 I I 27 I 0.017 1 1 1 117 1 0.091 1 0 1 0.091 I I WT 1 3200 1 1 285 1 0.089 9 1 57 I 0.110 1 7 I 0.112 1 WR I N.S. 1 1_ 395 ( I, 12 I 49 I_ I 0 1 1 I EXISTING WEEKDAY I.C.U. - i J 0.777 I 0.881 -I 0.887 1 EXISTING WEEKDAY + REGIONAL GROWTH + COMMITTED/UNCOMMITTED W/PROPOSED I IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. I I I EXISTING WEEKDAY +COMMITTED/ UNCOMMITTED +REGIONAL GROWTH +PROJECT I.C.U. I I I I 1X1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 El Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 El Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w /systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 LI Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will be less than I.C.U. without project Description of system improvement: — PROJECT ` — FORM 11 ' MA5070PM ff�a , I II II MA713SAM ' I EXISTING WEEKDAY I.C.U. 1 0.418 1 0.471 I EXISTING WEEKDAY + REGIONAL GROWTH + COMMITTED /UNCOMMITTED W /PROPOSED I IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. I I EXISTING WEEKDAY+ COMMITTED/UNCOMMITTED +REGIONAL GROWTH +PROJECT I.C.U. I 1 1 1 1 1 1 XI Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 Cl Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 LI Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w/systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 LI Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will be less than I.C.U. without project Description of system improvement: PROJECT MA7135AM 1+1 t 0.473 1 I I - I I I FORM 11 INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS c��t '9GI Fp0.l INTERSECTION: MACARTHUR BOULEVARD 8 SAN MIGUEL DRIVE 7135 ALTERNATIVE ACCESS EXISTING WEEKDAY TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC 2003 AM I I EXISTING I PROPOSED I EXISTING I EXISTING I REGIONAL I COMMITTED 8 I PROJECTED I PROJECT I PROJECT I I Movement I Lanes I Lanes I PK HR I V/C I GROWTH I UNCOMMITTED I V/C Ratio I Volume I V/C I I I Capacity I Capacity I Volurne I Ratio I Volume I PROJECT I w/o Project I I Ratio I I I I I I I Volume I Volume I NL 1 3200 1 1 142 1 0.044 1 4 1 37 1 0.057 1 0 1 0.057 1 NT 1 4600 1 I 1245 1 0.259 37 1 194 1 0.306 1 9 1 0.309 1 I NR 1 1600 1 I 219 1 0.137 1 7 1 3 1 0.143 1 0 1 0.143 1 1 SL 1 3200 1 1 1 0.000 ' 0 1 0 1 0.000 1 0 1 0.000 1 ST 4600 1 I 749 1 0.156 1 221 170 1 0.196 1 0 1 0.196 1 1 SR 1 1600 1 I 6301 0.394 1 191 2 1 0.407 1 0 1 0.407 1 1 EL 1 3200 1 I 204 1 0.064 ' 6 1 0 1 0.066 1 11 1 0.066 I ET 1 I 78 2 1 1 I 2 1 } 3200 } 0.031 - } 0.038 - } 0.039 I ER 1 I 21 I 1 1 18 I 3 I W L I 3200 1 I 212 1 0.066 1 6 1 9 1 0.071 1 0 1 0.071 1 I WT 297 I 9 1 1 0 1 ) 3200 - } 0.095 ' - } 0.098 - ) 0.096 WR 7 01 0 I 0 I ' I EXISTING WEEKDAY I.C.U. 1 0.418 1 0.471 I EXISTING WEEKDAY + REGIONAL GROWTH + COMMITTED /UNCOMMITTED W /PROPOSED I IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. I I EXISTING WEEKDAY+ COMMITTED/UNCOMMITTED +REGIONAL GROWTH +PROJECT I.C.U. I 1 1 1 1 1 1 XI Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 Cl Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 LI Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w/systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 LI Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will be less than I.C.U. without project Description of system improvement: PROJECT MA7135AM 1+1 t 0.473 1 I I - I I I FORM 11 MA7135PM INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS 1 1 INTERSECTION: MACARTHUR BOULEVARD & SAN MIGUEL DRIVE 7135 crFOar N ALTERNATIVE ACCESS EXISTING WEEKDAY TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC 2003 PM I EXISTING I PROPOSED I EXISTING I EXISTING I REGIONAL I COMMITTED & I PROJECTED I PROJECT I PROJECT I Movement I Lanes I Lanes I PK HR I V/C I GROWTH 1 UNCOMMITTEL 1 V/C Ratio I Volume I V/C I, I Capacity I Capacity I Volume I Ratio I Volume I PROJECT I w/o Project I I Ratio I I I I I 1 I Volume I Volume I I I NL I 3200 1 I 74 1 0.023 ' 2 1 24 1 0.031 1 0 1 0.031 I I' NT I 4800 I I 911 I 0.190 I 27 I 236 1 0.245 1 11 1 0.247 l NR I 160D 2501 0.156 I 8l 91 0.167 1 01 0.167 SL I 32001 I 8 1 0.003 I 0 I 0 1 0.003 1 0 1 0.003 I ST I 4800 I I 1034 1 0.215 31 1 236 1 0.271 I 0 1 0.271 SR I 16001 I 313 I 0.196 I 9 1 3 1 0.203 1 0 1 0.203 1 EL 1 3200 1 I 687 1 0.215 21 1 3 1 0.222 1 0 1 0.222 ET I 1 362 I 11 1 10 I 2 I } 3200 - } 0.128 - - } 0.150 - } 0.153 ER I I 49 1 1 1 48 I 5 W L 1 3200 1 I 199 1 0.062 1 6 1 6 1 0.066 1 0 1 0.066 WT I I 239 I 7 1 13 I 0 } 3200 - - } 0.081 - } 0.087 - } 0.087 WR I I 20 I 1 1 0 1 0 EXISTING WEEKDAY I.C.U. 1 0.534 1 0.612 0.612' EXISTING WEEKDAY + REGIONAL GROWTH + COMMITTEDIUNCOMMITTED W/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. I I EXISTING WEEKDAY + COMMITTED/UNCOMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH+ PROJECT I.C.U.I I I FXI Projected + project tic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 U Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 1J Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w /systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 1_I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will be less than I.C.U. without project Description of system improvement: PROJECT MA7135PM 41;Z 1 [I 1 1 1 i 1 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 APPENDIX I LONG RANGE TRAFFIC ANALYSIS ICU WORKSHEETS I I1 1� II II II II 1 i Z3 a a z 0 Z <0 Oz U z0 OU W U) IZ W z m r U E0 CiC m � m Fo m b m � b N .. v W� d 04 z T— l.' A O O r zv am xW I� 0,4 a> F 6 \ 1 39 J I I \ \ 1 I \ 1 1 1 1 1 1 \ �m \ 1 a• I I ee pfd`. N I r Ma - z: ry e IL 0 1. � i m 1 5 4• 4° 53 r� mti 9 3 Lt � O14b 47 oy 5F so S4 37 25 • 10 D I[YWM r lV �Yy �� m 62 — 22 15 i -s2w3 38 NME 18 Y u uu m , m 59 4 164 n 52 173 125 v 30 2 4 - �e s T— l.' A O O r zv am xW I� 0,4 a> F 6 I i J II 1 I1 1; 1 U 11 L [_] NEWPORT BEACH LONG -RANGE BUB.DOUT ICU SUMMARY 2010• LONG -RANGE INTERSECTION AM PM AM PM 1. Placentia & Superior .61 .63 .66 .60 2. Superior/Balboa & PCH B6 .78 .85 1.16 3. Newport & Hospital .79 .96 .77 .79 4. Newport & PCH NB Ramps 52 .70 57 .65 S. Newport & Via Lido .65 .75 .77 .70 6. Newport & 32nd .75 .81 .68 .71 7. Riverside & PCH .67 B8 .83 1.11 8. Tustin & PCH 57 .65 .78 .72 9. MacArthur & Campus .79 1.03 .69 1.11 10. MacArthur & Birch .87 .83 56 .84 11. Von Karman & Campus .69 .90 1.01 .79 12. MacArthur & Von ICartnan 57 .63 .78 .82 13. Jamboree & Campus .76 .92 .83 .96 14. Jamboree & Birch .77 BO .80 1.07 15. Campus & Bristol N .85 1.14 .75 1.74 16. Birch & Bristol N .80 .96 .75 .86 17. Campus & Bristol S .97 1.08 .83 .83 1& Birch & Bristol S .62 .95 .67 .68 19. Irvine & Mesa 1.14 130 .85 1.02 20. Irvine & U,- Wersity .73 117 .74 1.07 21. Irvine & 22nd/Santiago .65 .67 53 .80 22 Irvine & 20thAUghland 51 59 51 .61 23. Irvine & 19th/Dover .62 .62 .65 .82 24. Irvine & 17th/WestcliH .61 A .69 .89 25. Dover & WcstcliH 50 .47 51 52 26. Dover & 16th 58 .65 52 .90 27. DoverBayshorc & PCH .80 .81 .68 B3 28. Bayside & PCH .90 .87 .73 .92 29. MacArthur & Jamboree B6 1.18 .89 1.12 30. Jamboree & Bristol N 1.04 1.16 1.01 1.02 31. Bayview & Bristol S - - .42 58 32 Jamboree & Bristol S .80 1.21 .72 .87 33. Jamboree & Bayview/Univ N .85 .97 .85 1.04 34. Jamboree & Eastbluff N/Univ .68 .86 .64 .88 35. Jamboree & Bison .65 .85 57 .85 37. MacArthur & Bison .62 .78 .87 .82 3& Jamboree & Eastbluff S/Ford .83 .95 1.01 .98 39. MacArthur & Ford/Bonita Cyn 59 .83 .84 .77 40. Jamboree & SJH Rd .78 .82 .70 .71 41. Jamboree & Santa Barbara .64 .78 56 .91 42 Jamboree & PCH B8 .86 .75 B3 43. Santa Cruz & SJH Rd 39 .42 27 .46 44. Santa Rosa & SJH Rd 31 .45 37 .67 45. MacArthur & SJH Rd 54 .78 59 .72 46. MacArthur & San Miguel .77 .75 .70 .73 47. Newport Center & PCH 55 .42 .61 58 48. Avocado & PCH 57 .71 .60 .77 49. MacArthur & PCH 54 52 57 .73 50. San Miguel & SJH Rd 53 55 .63 .60 51. Goldenrod & PCH .76 .69 .87 .80 (Continued) J�g NEWPORT BEACH LANG -RANGE B=OUT (coat) ICU SUMMARY 68. NCD & S7H Rd .75 .69 .61 .62 Level of service rang= .00 - .60 A .61 - .70 B .71 - .80 C .81 - 90 D 91 - 1.00 E Above 1.00 F • From Newport Beach Circulation Improvement and Open Space Agreement Traffic Study, Austin -Foust Associates, Inc, April 1992 a6 20100 LANG -RANGE U=SECTION AM PM AM PM 52. Marguerite & S7H Rd 56 .47 .62 .46 53. Marguerite & PCH .77 .75 .89 .80 54. Poppy & PCH 58 .61 .67 .72 55. 15th & PCH .63 .89 51 .80 56. Bluff & PCH .76 .92 .60 .70 59. Spyglass Hill & S7H Rd .67 52 54 38 60. San Miguel & Spyglass Hill .15 .16 38 37 61. Avocado & San Miguel - - .49 .68 63. Campus & Airport Way - - .65 .81 66. NCD & PCH 51 .64 .68 54 68. NCD & S7H Rd .75 .69 .61 .62 Level of service rang= .00 - .60 A .61 - .70 B .71 - .80 C .81 - 90 D 91 - 1.00 E Above 1.00 F • From Newport Beach Circulation Improvement and Open Space Agreement Traffic Study, Austin -Foust Associates, Inc, April 1992 a6 38. Jamboree 8 Eastbluff S /Ford TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 1.01 40. Jamboree b SJH Rd .98 AM PE HOUR AM PR HOUR PH PE HOUR CAPACITY LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 2 3200 460 .14* 310 .10* NBT 3 4800 2150 .49 2330 .61 NBR 0 0 220 650 620 680 SBL 1 1600 50 .03 70 .04 SBT 3 4800 1870 .39* 2840 .59* SBR 1 1600 20 .01 30 .02 EBL 1 1600 140 .09 10 .01 EBT 1 1600 190 .12* 70 .04* EBR 1 1600 460 .29 250 .16 WBL 1.5 3200 530 (.19 )* 430 .13* WBT 1.5 4800 380 .19 90 .06 WBR 1 1600 20 ,01 10 .01 Right Turn Adjustment EBR .17* EBR .12* TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 1.01 40. Jamboree b SJH Rd .98 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 1 70 .71 JA 39. MacArthur b Ford/Bonita Cyn ._ -7 Loag -Range AM PE HOUR PH PE HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C 1 1600 20 .01 70 .04 3 4800 1740 .36* 2170 .45* 1 1600 10 .01 110 .07 2 3200 650 .20* 680 .21* 3 4800 2120 .44 2830 .59 f 4 80 1930 200 3000 1.5 SBR 380 .12* 90 .03* 1.5 4800 20 .01 30 .02 f 100 20 EBT 40 3200 1.5 .11 50 .20* 50 1 1.5 4800 30 .02* 30 .02* f 3200 480 .09 950 .06* TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 1 70 .71 JA 39. MacArthur b Ford/Bonita Cyn ._ -7 Loag -Range TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .84 .77 41. Jamboree A Santa Barbara Long-Range AM PR HOUR PH PR HOUR LAHHS CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 2 3200 70 .02 50 .02 NBT 4 6400 2750 .43* 1990 .31* NBR f 1600 80 .23 430 .08 SBL 2 3200 280 .09* 650 .20* SBT 4 6400 1930 .30 3000 .47 SBR f 1600 40 .14 150 .19 EBL 2 3200 50 .02* 100 .03 EBT 2 3200 340 .11 630 .20* EBR 1 1600 90 .06 40 .03 WBL 2 3200 290 .09 200 .06* WBT 2 3200 970 .30* 420 .13 WBR f 1600 600 .09 280 .31 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .84 .77 41. Jamboree A Santa Barbara Long-Range TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .56 .91 AM PZ HOUR PH PR HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1 1600 0 .00 0 .00 NBT 3 4800 1210 .25* 1260 .26 NBR 1 1600 370 .23 130 .08 SBL 2 3200 450 .14* 480 .15 SBT 3 4800 1460 .30 2040 .43* SBR 1 1600 220 .14 310 .19 EBL 1 1600 130 .08* 270 .17* EBT 1 1600 30 .02 40 .03 EBR 0 0 0 0 WBL 1.5 80 430 WBT 0.5 3200 10 .03* 90 .16* WBR 1 1600 150 .09 490 .31 Right Turn Adjustment WBR .06* WBR .15* TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .56 .91 x 42. Jamboree 6 PCH _ Long -Range TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION W44. Santa Rosa 6 SJH Rd Long -Rana 75 .83 AM PR HOUR PH PR HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1 1600 AM PE HOUR PH PR HOUR 10 LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1 1600 40 .03 60 .04 RBT 2 3200 560 .21* 420 .16* NBR 0 0 120 . 80 .01 SBL 1 1600 70 .04* 170 .11* SBT 2 3200 300 .09 600 .19 SBR f EBT 1330 4800 1910 .03* EEL 3 4800 U50 .24* 1310 .27* EBT - 4 6400 2110 .33 2490 .40 HER 0 0 10 4800 70 .11 WBL 2 3200 70 .02 150 .05 WBT 4 6400 1680 .26* 1860 .29* WBR f 0 130 150 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION W44. Santa Rosa 6 SJH Rd Long -Rana 75 .83 AM PR HOUR PH PR HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1 1600 30 .02 10 .01 RBT 1 1600 20 .01* 10 .01* RBR 1 1600 120 .08 590 .37 SBL 1 1600 50 .03* 120 .08* SBT 1 1600 10 .01 10 .01 SBR 1 1600 60 .04 20 .01 EEL 1 1600 30 .02 10 .01 EBT 3 4800 90 .03* 390 .10* HER 0 0 40 .12* 70 3 WBL 2 3200 660 .21* 390 .12* WBT 3 4800 400 .11 90 .03 WBR 0 0 110 .02 110 .07 Right Turn Adjustment Multi .09* NBR .36* TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .37 .67 43. Santa Cruz 6 SJH Rd Long-Range b TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .27 .46 45. MacArthur 6 SJH Rd Long -Range AM PR HOUR PH PH HOOK LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 2 3200 40 .01 550 .17* NBT 1 1600 10 .03* 20 .06 NBR 0 0 30 .01 70 .16 SBL 1 1600 20 .01* 10 .01 SBT 2 3200 20 .01 30 .02* SBR 0 0 140 .09 130 .08 EEL 1 1600 90 .06 190 .12* EST 3 4800 210 .07* 300 .09 HER 0 0 180 .11 300 .19 WBL 1 1600 100 .06* 30 .02 WBT 3 4800 290 .06 160 .04* WBR 0 0 20 20 Right Turn Adjustment Multi .10* Multi .11* b TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .27 .46 45. MacArthur 6 SJH Rd Long -Range TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .59 .72 AM PE HOUR PH PE HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1 1600 10 .01 50 .03 RBT 3 4800 1450 .30* 1490 .31* NBR 1 1600 10 .01 250 .16 SBL 2 3200 290 .09* 560 .18* SBT 3 4800 1120 .23 2150 .45 SBR f 860 390 EBL 2 3200 150 .05 600 .19* EBT 3 4800 130 .04* 410 .12 EBR 0 0 60 160 WBL 1 1600 260 .16* 40 .03 WBT 3 4800 510 .11 190 .04* WBR f 1070 310 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .59 .72 46. Nadrthur 6 San Niguel TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION ' 48. Avocado 6 PCH 70 .73 AM PR HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL VJC VOL VJC MBL 1 1600 120 .08 60 .04* NBT 3 4800 1230 .29* 930 .29 HER 0 0 ISO .11 460 .14 SBL 1 1600 20 .01* 30 .02 SBT 3 4800 610 .13 1620 .34* SHE 1 1600 750 .47 630 .39 EBL 2 3200 180 .06* 780 .24* EBT 2 3200 90 .03 540 .19 EBR 0 0 20 70 WBL 2 3200 240 .08 120 .04 WBT 2 3200 250 .09* 130 .06* WBR 0 0 40 50 Right Turn Adjustment Multi SBR .25* SHE .05* TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION ' 48. Avocado 6 PCH 70 .73 ' TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 60 .77 47. Newport Center 6 PCH Long-Range AM PK HOUR PH PK HOUR LAMES CAPACITY VOL VJC VOL VJC NBL 1 1600 110 .07* 110 .07* RBT 2 3200 60 .04 40 .03 NBR 0 0 180 .11 220 .14 SBL 1.5 3200 30 .02* 170 .07* SBT 0.5 3200 20 .02* 50 .07* SBR 1 1600 60 .04 160 .10 EBL 1 1600 180 .11* 40 .03 EBT 3 4800 1030 .22 1790 .39* SBR 0 0 30 60 WBL 1 1600 140 .09 220 .14* WBT 3 4800 1650 .34* 1070 .22 WBR f 210 60 Right Turn Adjustment Multi .06* Multi .10* ' TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 60 .77 47. Newport Center 6 PCH Long-Range TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 49. MacArthur A PCH Long -Range .61 .58 AM PK HOUR PH PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL VJC VOL VJC MBL 0 0 0 0 MBT 0 0 0 0 BE 0 0 0 0 SBL 2 3200 50 .02* 230 .07* SBT 0 0 0 0 SBR f 130 680 EBL 2 3200 580 .18* 600 .19* EBT 3 4800 1430 .30 1830 .38 EBR 0 0 0 0 WBL 0 0 0 0 WBT 3 4800 1950 .41* 1550 .32* WBR f 200 120 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 49. MacArthur A PCH Long -Range .61 .58 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .57 .73 AM PK HOUR PH PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL VJC VOL VJC HBL D 0 0 0 NBT 0 0 0 0 NBR 0 0 0 0 SBL 2 3200 90 .03* 760 .24* SBT 0 0 0 0 SBR f 610 440 EBL 2 3200 810 .25* 800 .25* EBT 3 4800 1470 .31 1550 .32 EBR 0 0 0 0 WBL 0 0 0 0 WBT 3 4800 1390 .29* 1130 .24* WBR f 710 290 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .57 .73 JA5045AM INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: JAMBOREE ROAD & SAN JOAQUIN HILLS ROAD 5045 LONG RANGE TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC 2003 AM LONG I PROPOSED I LONG I LONG RANGE I I PROJECT I PROJECT I I Movement I RANGE I Lanes I RANGE I V/C Ratio I I Volume I V/C 1 I I Lanes I Capacity I PK HR I w/o Project I I I Ratio 1 I I Capacity I I Volume I Volume I I I I NL 1 1600 I I 20 1 0.013 I I 0 1 0.013 1 I NT 1 48 I I 1740 1 0.363 ` I 0 1 0.363 1 NR 1 N.S. 1 1 10 I I I 0 1 1 SL I 3200 I 1 650 1 0.203 ` 1 4 1 0.204 1 ST I 4800 I I 2120 1 0.442 I I 0 1 0.442 I 1 SR I N.S. I 80 1 I 0 1 I EL j j 380 I I 0 I 1 } 4800 - } 0.083 ' - } 0.083 I I ET I I 20 I I 0 I I ER 1 N.S. I 20 1 I I 0 I 1 I WL I I 50 I 5 1 } 4800 - - } 0.017 ` - } 0.018 I WT I I 30 I I 0 I WR 1 1600 j 1 480 j 0.300 1 1 12 I 0.308 I LONG RANGE I C_U. 1 0.666 1 0.668 I LONG RANGE + PROJECT f.C.U. I Split Phase EM direction I X1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 I _I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 I I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w/systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 I_j Projected +project traffic l .C.U. with project improvements will be less than I.C.U. Without project Description of system improvemerC PROJECT FORM 11 JA5045AM 3710 i1 ' IA5045PM SpIR Phase EM directlon I XI Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 I _I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 1 _I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w /systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 I _I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will be less than I.C.U. Without project _ Description of system improvement: ' PROJECT FORM II JA5045AM U ' TI 1 INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS Cq�IFORN�P INTERSECTION: JAMBOREE ROAD 8 SAN JOAQUIN HILLS ROAD 5045 ' LONG RANGE TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC 2003 PM I LONG I PROPOSED I LONG I LONG RANGE I I PROJECT I PROJECT I Movement I RANGE I Lanes I RANGE I V/C Ratio I I Volume I V/C I Lanes I Capacity I PK HR I w/o Project I I I Ratio 'I I I I Capacity I I Volume I Volume I I I I N L 1 1600 1 1 70 1 0.044 ` 1 0 1 0.044 I NT I 4800 I I 2170 i 0.452 I I 0 1 0.452 I 1 NR 1 N.S. I 1 110 I 11 0 I I SL 1 3200 1 1 680 1 0.213 11 4 1 0214 j I ST 1 4800 I I 2830 I 0.590 1 0 1 0.590 1 SR I N.S.1 1 200 1 11 0 1 I I EL 1 1 90 1 1 0 I ET } 4800 - 1 } 1 30 0.025 _ 1 1 0 } 0.025 I I ER I N.S.4 I 40 1 41 0 I I I wL - I I 50 II 7 1 } 4800 - } 0.017 ' } 0.018 I WT I I 30 I I 0 I W R 1 1600 I i 950 1 0.594 I I 16 i 0.604 I 1 LONG RANGE I.C.U. 1 0.676 1 0.676 1 LONG RANGE + PROJECT I.C.U. 1 I SpIR Phase EM directlon I XI Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 I _I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 1 _I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w /systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 I _I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will be less than I.C.U. Without project _ Description of system improvement: ' PROJECT FORM II JA5045AM U ' TI 1 SJ5065AM INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: SAN JOAQUIN HILLS ROAD 8 SANTA ROSA DRIVE/ BIG CANYON 5065 qqw1ft/ LONG RANGE TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC 2003 AM I I LONG } PROPOSED { LONG { LONG RANGE { { PROJECT { PROJECT { I Movement I RANGE I Lanes I RANGE I VIC Ratio I I Volume I VIC I I I Lanes I Capacity I PK HR I w/o Project I I I Ratio I I I Capacity I I Volume I Volume I I I I I N L I 16001 I 30 I 0.019 I i 0 1 0.019 I I NT I 16001 I 201 0.013 } 1 0 1 0.013 1 I NR 1 16001 I 1201 0.075 1 2 1 0.076 I 1 SL I 1600 I i 501 0.031 I 0 1 0.031 } I ST I 1600 1 I 10 i 0.006 I I 0 1 0.006 I I SR I 1600 1 I 601 0.038 I 1 0 1 0.038 I I EL I 16001 1 301 0.019 I I 0 1 0.019 I i ET I I 90 I I 4 I I } 4800 - — } 0.027 } 0.028 I I ER I I 40 I I 0 I I WL i 3200 I I 660 I 0.206 I 7 1 0.208 I I WT I I 400 I I 17 I I } 48W _ .-- } 0.106 - - } 0.110 I I WR 1 I 110 I I 0 I I LONG RANGE I.C.U. I 0.339 I 0344 I LONG RANGE + PROJECT I.C.U. I I Split: Phase NIS Direction 1X1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 I_I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0,90 L_I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w/systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 IJ Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will be less than I.C.U. without project Description of system improvernent. PROJECT — — — FORM II SJ5065AM 7 J SJ5065PM J ' INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS C '9L7 FO i INTERSECTION: SAN JOAQUIN HILLS ROAD 8 SANTA ROSA DRIVE/ BIG CANYON 5065 LONG RANGE TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC t— I I LONG I PROPOSED I LONG I LONG RANGE II PROJECT I I Movement I RANGE I Lanes I RANGE I V/C Ratio 11 Volume I 'I I Lanes I Capacity I PK HR I I Capacity I I Volume I I w/o Project I I Volume I I I I I N L I 1600 I I 10 I 0.006 I I 01 I NT I 16001 j 101 0.006 I I 01 I I NR I 1600 I I 590 I 0.369 ' I 2 1 I SL 1600 1 I 120 1 0.075 I 01 I I ST I 16001 I 101 0.006 1 1 0 1 SR I 16001 I 201 0.013 I I 01 I EL I 16001 I 10I 0.006 I I 01 1 I - I ET I I 390 I I 4 I } 4800 - } 0.096 } I ER I I 70 I I 0 I W L I 3200 I I 390 1 0.122 ` I 91 I I WT I 1 90 I I 24 } 4800 - - } 0.042 - - } 'I WR I I 110 I I 0 I LONG RANGE I.C.U. I 0.662 1 I LONG RANGE + PROJECT I.C.U. I I Split Phase N/S Direction "Assumed WBL included in NBR. IXI Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 LI Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 LI Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w /systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 ' LI Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will be less than I.C.U. without project Description of system improvement: I ' PROJECT SJ5065PM r i3 rn PROJECT I V/C I Ratio I I I 0.006 I I 0.006 i I 0.370 I I 0.075 i I 0.006 1 I 0.013 I 0.006 0.097 0.125 0.047 0.666 FORM II MITIG8 - LONG RANGE Mon Jan 19, 2004 19:41:28 Page 1 -1 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- St. Mark's Church Traffic Impact Analysis Long Range (Build Out) w/ Project AM Peak Hour ----------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Future Volume Alternative) ++ r+++++++ r + + + + + + + + + + +rr + + + + + + + + +r + + + +rr+ rrr + +rrrrrr + + + + + + ++ +rrrrrrrrrrrrrr rrrrr Intersection #10 Southern Project Access (NS) / San Joaquin Hills RD. (EW) +rr +r + + + +rr + + + +rr + ++ rrrrr++ rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr + + + + + +r + +r +rrrr +rrrrrrrrr +rrrr Average Delay (sec /veh): 0.1 Worst Case Level Of Service: B[ 12.51 + rr+ r+++++ r++++ r + + + + + +rr + + + +rr + + + +rrrrrrrrrrr+ rrr + + +r + + + + + ++ +rrrrrrrrrrrrrr rrrrr Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------ I--------------- II--------------- II ---------- ----- II ---------- - - - - - I Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Rights: Include Include Include Include Lanes: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 ------------ I--------------- II---------------- II---- ----- ------ II---------- - - - - - I Volume Module: Base Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 351 0 0 1538 0 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 351 0 0 1538 0 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 23 0 5 0 0 0 19 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 0 0 0 0 0 23 0 356 0 0 1538 19 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 0 0 0 0 0 23 0 356 0 0 1538 19 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Final Vol.: 0 0 0 0 0 23 0 356 0 0 1538 19 Critical Gap Module: Critical Gp:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 6.9 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx FollowUpTim:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 3.3 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx ------------ I -------------- II-------------- II--- --- ----- ---- It ----- ----- - - - - - I Capacity Module: Cnflict Vol: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 522 xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Potent Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 505 xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Move Cap.: xxxx xxxx xx} x xxxx xxxx 505 xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Volume /Cap: xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx 0.05 xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx ------------I---------------II---------------II---------------1)--------------- Level Of Service Module: Queue: xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 0.1 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Stopped Del:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 12.5 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx LOS by Move: * * r r r B r r r r r r Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT Shared Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx SharedQueue:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shrd StpDel:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shared LOS: r r r r + + + + + r + r ApproachDel: xxxxxx 12.5 xxxxxx xxxxxx ApproachLOS: r B + r Traffix 7.6.0715 (c) 2003 Dowling ASSOC. Licensed to URBAN CROSSROADS, IRVINE 5 1y 7 MITIG8 - OYAM +TPO +CUMUL Mon Jan 19, 2004 19:42:45 - ------ -- --------- - - -'- ----------- ---- ------- St. Mark's Church Traffic Impact Analysis Lonq Range (Build Out) w/ Project PM Peak Hour ____ _______________________________ Level Of Service Computation Report Page 1 -1 2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Future Volume Alternative) ******************************************+****** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** Intersection #10 Southern Project Access (NS) / San Joaquin Hills RD. (EW) Average Delay (sec /veh): 0.2 Worst Case Level Of Service: A[ 9.61 **************************+********************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * + * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------ 1--------------- II--------------- II--------------- 11--------------- I Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Rights: Include Include Include Include Lanes: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 --------- --- --------------- II - - - - -- - II------------- -- II---------- - - - - -I Volume Module: Base Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1119 0 0 549 0 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1119 0 0 549 0 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 33 0 7 0 0 0 22 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Put: 0 0 0 0 0 33 0 1126 0 0 549 22 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 0 0 0 0 0 33 0 1126 0 0 549 22 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Final Vol.: 0 0 0 0 0 33 0 1126 0 0 549 22 Critical Gap Module: Critical Gp:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 6.9 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx FollowUpTim:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 3.3 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx ------------ I ------------- - - II -- --- II--------------- II- --------- - - - - -I Capacity Module: Cnflict Vol: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 194 xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Potent Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 821 xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Move Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 821 xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Volume /Cap: xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx 0.04 xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx ------------ I--------------- 11--------------- II-------------- -II---------- - - - - -I Level Of Service Module: Queue: xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 0.1 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Stopped Del:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 9.6 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx LOS by Move: * * * * * A Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT IT - LTR - RT Shared Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx SharedQueue:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shrd StpDel:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shared LOS: * * ApproachDel: xxxxxx 9.6 xxxxxx xxxxxx ApproachLOS: * A Traffix 7.6.0715 (c) 2003 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to URBAN CROSSROADS, IRVINE J,- IS;-- MITIG8 - LONG RANGE Mon Jan 19, 2004 19:41:58 Page 1 -1 -----------------------------------------._-------------------------------------- St. Mark's Church Traffic Impact Analysis Long Range (Build Out) w/ Project AM Peak Hour ------------------------------------------------- -------- -------------- --- - - -- -- Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Future Volume Alternative) Intersection #9 Macarthur Blvd. (NS) / Easterly Project Access (EW) Average Delay (sec /veh): 0.0 Worst Case Level Of Service: C[ 19.1] +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + ++ Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------ ------------ ,--- II --------------- II------- -------- II---- ------ - - - -- I Control: Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Stop Sign Stop Sign Rights: Include Include Include Include Lanes: 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 ------------ I--------------- II--------------- II--------------- II---------- - - - - - I Volume Module: Base Vol: 0 2265 0 0 2813 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 0 2265 0 0 2813 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Added Vol: 0 8 0 0 0 19 0 0 10 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 0 2273 0 0 2813 19 0 0 10 0 0 0 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 0 2273 0 0 2813 19 0 0 10 0 0 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Final Vol.: 0 2273 0 0 2813 19 0 0 10 0 0 0 Critical Gap Module: Critical Gp:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 6.9 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx FollowUpTim:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 3.3 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx ------------ I --------------- II--------------- II--------------- II---------- - - - - - I Capacity Module: Cnflict Vol: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 947 xxxx xxxx xxxxx Potent Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 266 xxxx xxxx xxxxx Move Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 266 xxxx xxxx xxxxx Volume /Cap: xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx 0.04 xxxx xxxx xxxx ------------ I --------------- II--------------- II------------- -- ll---------- - - - - - I Level Of Service Module: Queue: xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 0.1 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Stopped Del:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 19.1 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx LOS by Move: * * * * * * * * C Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT Shared Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx SharedQueue :xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shrd StpDel:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shared LOS: * * ApproachDel: xxxxxx xxxxxx 19.1 xxxxxx ApproachLOS: * * C Traffix 7.6.0715 (c) 2003 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to URBAN CROSSROADS, IRVINE MITIG8 - OYAM +TPO +CUMUL Mon Jan 19, 2004 19:43:20 Page 1 -1 _________________________________________________ ____________________ ___ ___ _ ____ St. Mark's Church Traffic Impact Analysis Long Range (Build out) w/ Project PM Peak Hour _________________________________________ __________ __ _____ ____ _____ _____ Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Future Volume Alternative) +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + ++ Intersection #9 Macarthur Blvd. (NS) / Easterly Project Access (EW) +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + ++ Average Delay (sec /veh): 0.0 Worst Case Level Of Service: B[ 14.31 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + ++ Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------ --------------- II--------------- II--------------- II--------------- I Control: Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Stop Sign Stop Sign Rights: Include Include Include Include Lanes: 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 ------------ I--------------- II--------------- II---- ------ ----- II---- ---- -- - - - - - I Volume Module: Base Vol: 0 2550 0 0 1999 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 0 2550 0 0 1999 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Added Vol: 0 12 0 0 0 22 0 0 14 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 0 2562 0 0 1999 22 0 0 14 0 0 0 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 0 2562 0 0 1999 22 0 0 14 0 0 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Final Vol.: 0 2562 0 0 1999 22 0 0 14 0 0 0 Critical Gap Module: Critical Gp:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 6.9 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx FollowUpTim:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 3.3 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx ------------ I --------------- II--------------- II------------ --- II---------- - - - - - I Capacity Module: Cnflict Vol: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 677 xxxx xxxx xxxxx Potent Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 400 xxxx xxxx xxxxx Move Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 400 xxxx xxxx xxxxx Volume /Cap: xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx 0.04 xxxx xxxx xxxx ------------ I --------------- il--------------- II---- ---- --- ---- II---------- - - - - - I Level Of Service Module: Queue: xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 0.1 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Stopped Del:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 14.3 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx LOS by Move: + * + + * * * * B + + + Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT Shared Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx SharedQueue:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shrd StpDel:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shared LOS: + + + + + * + + + + + + ApproachDel: xxxxxx xxxxxx 14.3 xxxxxx ApproachLOS: * * B Traffix 7.6.0715 (c) 2003 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to URBAN CROSSROADS, IRVINE �I� MA5070AM INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILI2ATION ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: MACARTHUR BOULEVARD & SAN JOAQUIN HILLS ROAD 5070 v LONG RANGE TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC 2003 AM I i LONG j PROPOSED { LONG j LONG RANGE { { PROJECT j PROJECT I I Movement I RANGE I Lanes I RANGE I VIC Ratio 1 1 Volume 1 Vic I I I Lanes 1 Capacity j PK HR ( wfo Project I I I Ratio 1 1 Capacity 1 1 Volume Volume I I I I 1 N L 1 3200 I 1 10 1 0.003 I I 10 1 I 0.606 1 I NT 1 4800 I 1 1450 j 0.302 1 7 1 0.304 1 1 NR 1 1600 j 1 10 1 DOW 1 1 0 1 0.006 1 SL 1 3200 1 1 290 1 0.091 ` i 3 1 0.092 1 ST j 48001 1 11201 0.233 11 7 1 0.235 I 1 SR 1 N.S. 1 1 6601 I I 01 I I EL 1 3200 1 150 1 0.047 ` 1 4 1 0.048 I I ET i 1 130 I I 2 I } 4800 - } 0.040 I } 0.040 I I ER I I 60 I I D I WL 1 1600 1 1 260 1 0.163 j l 0 1 0.163 I WT I 32001 1 5101 0.159 i 61 0.161 1 I WR 1 N.S. j j 1070 j I I 0 1 1 I LONG RANGE I.C.U. j 0.599 I 0.604 I I LONG RANGE + PROJECT I.C.U. 1 1 1X1 Projected + project traffic I.C. U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 LI Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 LI Projected + Project traffic I.C.U. w/systems improvement vdll be less than or equal to 0.90 0 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will be less than I.C.U. without project Description of system improvement PROJECT MA5070AM gig FORM II 1 MA5070PM 1 I LONG RANGE + PROJECT I.C.U. I ' 1X1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 I_J Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 El Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w/systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 U Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w@h project improvements will be less than I.C.U. without project ' Descnpbon of system impnwemera. ' PROJECT MA5070PM J 1 .s 1 9 2003 PM PROJECT V/C I Ratio 11 I 0.019 9 I 0.312 0 l 0.156 5 l ' 9 l INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: MACARTHUR BOULEVARD & SAN JOAQUIN HILLS ROAD 5070 LONG RANGE TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC 1 I I LONG I PROPOSED I LONG I LONG RANGE I I PROJECT I Movement I RANGE I Lanes I RANGE I V/C Ratio I I Volume I Lanes I Capacity I PK HR I w/o Project I I 'i I I Capacity I I Volume I Volume I I I I NL i 32001 l SO l 0.016 I I NT 1 4800 1 I 1490 j 0.310 1 I I NR i 1600 l l 250 l 0.156 I I i SL l 3200 I 1 560 0.175 ' l I 1 ST l 4800 i l 2150 I 0.44e I I i SR i N.S. 1 I 3901 I I i EL I 3200 1 I 600 1 0.188 ' l I ET I I 410 I I } 4800 _ _ } 0.119 - - I ER I l 160 I I 1 I WL 1600 I I I 401 0.025 I jWT _ _ I 3200 I l 190 l 0.059 1 WR I N.S. I l 3101 1 1 I LONG RANGE I C U 1 0.732 1 1 I LONG RANGE + PROJECT I.C.U. I ' 1X1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 I_J Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 El Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w/systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 U Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w@h project improvements will be less than I.C.U. without project ' Descnpbon of system impnwemera. ' PROJECT MA5070PM J 1 .s 1 9 2003 PM PROJECT V/C I Ratio 11 I 0.019 9 I 0.312 0 l 0.156 5 l 0.177 9 l 0.450 01 4 1 0.189 1 } 0.119 0 0 I 0.025 6 I 0.061 01 0.739 FORM II MA7135AM INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: MACARTHUR BOULEVARD & SAN MIGUEL DRIVE 7135 LONG RANGE TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC I I LONG 1 PROPOSED 1 LONG 1 LONG RANGE I I Movement 1 RANGE 1 Lanes I RANGE 1 V/C Ratio I I - 3 I Lanes 1 Capacity I PK HR 1 w/o Project 1 j 1 I Capacity 1 1 Volume I Volume I I I I NIL 1 3200 I I 120 1 0.038 I I I I NT I 4800 1 I 1230 i 0.256 ` I - NR I 1 1600 - - I I — 180 0.113 I I I 1 SL 1 3200 1 I 20 I 0.006 ` I - ST I 1 4800 - - 1 I — 610 1 0.127 I I I sR I lsoo I I — 750 0.469 1 EL 1 3200 I 1 180 1 0.056 ` I 1 ET I I } 3200 - - -- 0.034 I ER I I ZO W L 1 3200 1 240 1 0.075 1 1 WT 1 I 250 I } } 0.091 ` W R I I 40 I I 1 LONG RANGE I.C.U. I 0.403 1 1 LONG RANGE + PROJECT I.C.U. I 2003 AM PROJECT I PROJECT I Volume I V/C I i I Ratio I I - 0 I I 0.038 j I - 10 1 0.258 1 I - 0 I 0.113 j I - 3 I 0.007 I I - 3 I 0.128 j 0 j 0.469 1 I - 3 I - 0.057 1 I 2 I } 0.035 1 0 I - 0 1 I 0.075 1 I 0 I } 0.091 1 0 I - - I 0.406 1 I I I 1X1 Projected + project traffic I.C. U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 LI Projected + project traffic I.C. U. will be greater than 0.90 LI Projected + project traffic I.C. U. w /systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 LI Projected + project traffic I.C. U. with project improvements will be less than I.C.U. without project Description of system improvement: FORM II ' PROJECT MA7135AM 1 i 1 1 I , 1 1 MA7135PM INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: MACARTHUR BOULEVARD & SAN MIGUEL DRIVE 7135 LONG RANGE TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC 2003 PM I LONG I PROPOSED I LONG I LONG RANGE 11 PROJECT I PROJECT 1 1 Movement I RANGE I Lanes I RANGE I V/C Ratio 11 Volume I V/C I I Lanes I Capacity I PK HR I w/o Project I I I Ratio 1 I I Capacity I I Volume I Volume I I I I 1 NL I 32DO1 1 601 0.019'1 01 0.0191 1 NT I 48001 I 9301 0.194 11 11 1 0.196 1 1 NR I 1600 I 46D 1 0288 I I 0 1 0.288 1 I SL I 32001 I 30 1 0.009 5 1 0.011 1 1 ST I 4800 1 1 1620 1 0.338 ' 1 5 1 0.339 1 1 SR I 16001 I 6301 0.394 11 01 0.394 I EL I 3200 1 1 7801 0.244 1 5 1 0.245 I ET I I 540 I I 2 I 1 } 3200 - } 0.191 - - ) 0.191 I ER I I 70 II 0 l 1 W L 1 3200 I I 120 I 0.038 1 1 0 1 0.038 I I wT I I 130 11 D I 1 } 3200 - } 0.056 - } 0.056 1 1 W R I I 50 I I D I 1 LONG RANGE I.C.U. I 0.657 I 0.659 I LONG RANGE + PROJECT I.C.U. I 1X1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 11 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 LI Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w/systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 LI Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will be less than I.C.U. without project Description of system improvement: PROJECT MA7135PM Tr 001 k FORM II 1 1 APPENDIX J ALTERNATIVE ACCESS LONG RANGE TRAFFIC ANALYSIS ICU WORKSHEETS 1 7 1 I 7 1 JA5045AM Split Phase EM direction I X1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 1 _1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 '1 _I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. wfsystems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 I _I Projected +project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will be less than I.C.U. Without project — Description of system improvement. - PROJECT FORM II JA5045AM 1 T3 } 4600 - } 0.063 - INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS C'qL I INTERSECTION: 1 20 JAMBOREE ROAD & SAN JOAQUIN HILLS ROAD 5045 /FORN�P I 20 ALTERNATIVE ACCESS LONG RANGE TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC 2003 AM ' I I 1 LONG I PROPOSED I LONG 1 LONG RANGE 1 I I PROJECT 1 PROJECT I Movement I RANGE I Lanes I RANGE I WC Ratio I I Volume I VIC I I Lanes I Capacity I PK HR 1 w/o Project I I I Ratio I 30 I I capacity I I Volume I Volume I I I I NL 1 1600 I I 20 1 0.013 I I 0 1 0.013 0.666 1 j NT j 4800 j ( 1740 1 0.363 I 0 1 0.363 I 1 NR I N.S. 1 I 10 I I I o f 1 SL 1 3200 1 1 650 1 0.203 ` 1 4 1 0.204 I I ST 1 4800 1 1 2120 I 0.442 11 0 1 0.442 SR 1 N.S.1 80 1 I I 0 1 I I EL 1 I 360 I I 0 Split Phase EM direction I X1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 1 _1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 '1 _I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. wfsystems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 I _I Projected +project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will be less than I.C.U. Without project — Description of system improvement. - PROJECT FORM II JA5045AM 1 T3 } 4600 - } 0.063 - } 0.083 1 I ET 1 ER N.S. 1 20 I I 0 I 20 1 1 I 1 I I 0 1 I I ' wL I I 50 II 5 I I I } 4600 - } 0.017 } 0.016 1 WT i I 30 I I 0 I W R 1 1600 1 1 480 1 0.300 1 1 15 1 0.309 1 1 1 LONG RANGE I.C.U. I 0.666 1 1 0.668 I 1 - _ LONG RANGE + PROJECT I.C.U. _ I Split Phase EM direction I X1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 1 _1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 '1 _I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. wfsystems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 I _I Projected +project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will be less than I.C.U. Without project — Description of system improvement. - PROJECT FORM II JA5045AM 1 T3 JA5045PM INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: JAMBOREE ROAD & SAN JOAQUIN HILLS ROAD 5045 ALTERNATIVE ACCESS LONG RANGE TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC 2003 PM J LONG ( PROPOSED I LONG J LONG RANGE I I PROJECT I PROJECT I , J Movement I RANGE I Lanes I RANGE I VIC Ratio I I Volume I VIC I I I Lanes I Capacity I PK HR J w/o Project I I I Ratio I ( I Capacity ( ( Volume ( Volume (I I I f N L J 1600 1 J 70 I 0.044 J 0 1 0.044 j 1 NT 1 4800 1 1 2170 1 NR 0.452 11 0 1 0.452 1 1 0 I I N.S. 1 I 110 I I I 1 SL I 3200 I I 660 I ST 4800 0213 1 1 4 1 0.214 I 0.590 ' 0 I i I 1 2830 I 0.590 I 1 J SR ( N.S. J J 200 I I I 0 1 I I EL I I 90 0 I I I I } 4800 - — } 0.025 } 0.025 1 ET I I 30 I I 0 I I ER N.S.1 40 1 I 0 t 1 1 11 I WL I I 50 I I 7 I I } 4800 - — } 0.017 • - } 0.01e I , 1 WT ( ( 210 (( o I WR I 1600 I 0.594 I I 21 1 0.607 — — —950 LONG RANGE I.C.U. — 0.676 I , 0.676 I I 1 I LONG RANGE + PROJECT I.C.U. 1 I Split Phase EIW direction I XI Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 1 —1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 I I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w/systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 ' 1 —1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will be less than I.C.U. Without project Description of system improvement ' PROJECT — —FORM It JA5045AM 3K S15116SAM INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS qCl t=p 0.N INTERSECTION: SAN JOAQUIN HILLS ROAD & SANTA ROSA DRIVE I BIG CANYON 5065 ALTERNATIVE ACCESS LONG RANGE TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC 2003 AM tI I LONG I PROPOSED I LONG I LONG RANGE I i PROJECT I PROJECT I I Movement I RANGE I Lanes I RANGE I VIC Ratio I I Volume I VIC I I Lanes I Capacity I PK HR I w/o Project I I I Ratio 1 I I Capacity I I Volume I Volume I I I I NIL I 1600 1 I 30 1 0.019 1 I 0 1 0.019 I I NT 1 1600 1 1 20 1 0.013 1 1 0 1 0.013 I NR I 16001 I 1201 0.075 I 8 1 0.080 I 1 SL I 1600 1 ( 501 0.031 I 0 1 0.031 I ST I 16001 I 101 0.006 1 1 0 1 0.006 1 SR 1 1600 I I 60 1 0.038 j I 0 1 0.038 j ' 1 EL I 1600 I I 30 1 0.019 I I 0 1 0.019 I I ET I 90 I I 4 I I } 4800 - - } 0.027 - } 0.028 I I ER I I 40 I I o i I WL 32001 I 6601 0.206 I 13 1 0.210 I I - I I WT I I 400 I I 20 I I } 4800 - } 0.106 - - } 0.110 I I WR I I 110 I i 0 I I I 1 LONG RANGE I.C.U. 1 0.339 1 0.349 1 LONG RANGE + PROJECT I.C.U. - - - I Split Phase NIS Direction 1X1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 LI Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 ' 1-1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. wlsystems improvement YAII be less than or equal to 0.90 LI Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will be less than I.C.U. without project ' Description of system improvement'. . PROJECT SJ5065AM 1 -is FORM II SI5065PM Split Phase N/S Direction "Assumed WBL included in NBR. IXI Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 LI Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 LI Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w/systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 LI Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will be less than I.C.U. without project z Description of system improvement: PROJECT — SJ5065PM 2003 PM PROJECT I V/C I Ratio I I I 0.006 I I O.006 I I 0.376 I — I 0.075 I 1 0.006 I I 0.013 'I I 0.006 1 I I 0.097 I I - I 0.128 I - I I } 0.048 I I I 0.676 I I I rvrtrvi u 1 1 1. 1 I I 1 I I' 11 i I I J(D i INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS q<1 pp i INTERSECTION: SAN JOAQUIN HILLS ROAD 8 SANTA ROSA DRIVE / BIG CANYON 5065 ALTERNATIVE ACCESS LONG RANGE TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC I I LONG I PROPOSED I LONG I LONGRANGE I I PROJECT I I Movement I RANGE I Lanes I RANGE I V/C Ratio I I Volume I I I Lanes I Capacity I PK HR I w/o Project 11 I I I Capacity I I Volume I Volume I I I I NL I 16001 I 101 0.006 I I 01 I NT I 16001 I 101 0.006 11 01 I I NR 1 1600 I I 590 I 0.369 I 12 I SL I I 1600 I 120 I 0.075 I 0 1 I ST I 16001 I 101 0.006 I I 0 I I SR I 1600 I I 20 I 0.013 I I 0 I I EL I 1600 I I 10 I 0.006 I I 0 1 I ET I I 390 I I 4 I } 4800 - } 0.096 } I ER I I 70 I I 0 I W L 1 3200 I I 390 I 0.122 I 19 I I WT I I 90 I I 28 I } 4800 - } 0.042 I WR I I 110 I I 0 I LONG RANGE I.C.U. I 0.662 I I LONG RANGE + PROJECT I.C.U. I Split Phase N/S Direction "Assumed WBL included in NBR. IXI Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 LI Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 LI Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w/systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 LI Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will be less than I.C.U. without project z Description of system improvement: PROJECT — SJ5065PM 2003 PM PROJECT I V/C I Ratio I I I 0.006 I I O.006 I I 0.376 I — I 0.075 I 1 0.006 I I 0.013 'I I 0.006 1 I I 0.097 I I - I 0.128 I - I I } 0.048 I I I 0.676 I I I rvrtrvi u 1 1 1. 1 I I 1 I I' 11 i I I J(D i I 1 Tra££ix 7.6.0715 (c) 2003 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to URBAN CROSSROADS, IRVINE I 1 3-1 MITIG8 - LONG RANGE Mon Jan 19, 2004 19:52:56 Page 1 -1 _________________________________________________ St. Mark's _____________ __________________ Church Traffic Impact Analysis Alt. Access Long Range (Build Out) w/ Project AM Peak Hour _________________________________________________ Level Of Service Computation ______________ Report ___________ ______ 2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Future Volume Alternative) Intersection #10 Southern Project Access (NS) ************************************************* / San Joaquin Hills * * * * * * * * * * * * * * RD. * * * * * * (EW) * * * * * * * * * ** Average Delay (sec /veh): 0.2 Worst Case Level Of Service: BE 12.8] ************************************************* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R --------- ___ I_______________ II____-__-_______ Control: Stop Sign II__ Stop Sign ___________- _II_______________I Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Rights: Include Include Include Include Lanes: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 3 0 0 --------- 0 0 2 - 1 0 - - - - -I ------------ I--------------- II--------------- Volume Module: II-- ---- II--------- Base Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 351 0 0 1538 0 ' Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 351 0 0 1538 0 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 33 0 12 0 0 0 38 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ' Initial Fut: 0 0 0 0 0 33 0 363 0 0 1538 38 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 0 0 0 0 0 33 0 363 0 0 1538 38 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Final Vol.: 0 0 0 0 0 33 0 363 0 0 1538 38 Critical Gap Module: Critical Gp:xxxxx xxxx xx= xxxxx xxxx 6.9 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx ' FollowUpTim:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 3.3 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx - ------------ I --------------- II Capacity Module: --------------- II --------------- II ---------- - - - - I Cn£lict Vol: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 532 xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Potent Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 497 xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Move Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 497 xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Volume /Cap: xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx 0.07 xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx ----------- I--------------- II - Level Of Service Module: --------------- II --------------- II ---------- - - - - - I Queue: xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 0.2 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Stopped Del:xxxxx xxxx xx= xxxxx xxxx 12.8 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx LOS by Move: * * * * * B Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT IT - LTR - RT Shared Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx SharedQueue:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shrd StpDel:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shared LOS: * * ApproachDel: xxxxxx 12.8 xxxxxx xxxxxx ApproachLOS: * B 1 Tra££ix 7.6.0715 (c) 2003 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to URBAN CROSSROADS, IRVINE I 1 3-1 MITIG8 - LONG RANGE Mon Jan 19, 2004 19:53:46 Page 1 -1 St. Mark's Church Traffic Impact Analysis Alt. Access Long Range (Build Out) w/ Project PM Peak Hour -----------------------------------------._-------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (:Future Volume Alternative) Intersection #10 Southern Project Access (NS) / San Joaquin Hills RD. (EW) Average Delay (sec /veh): 0.3 Worst Case Level Of Service: A[ 9.73 Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------ --------------- II--------------- II--------------- II---------- - - - - - I Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Rights: Include Include Include Include Lanes: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 ------------ I--------------- II--------------- II--------------- II- --------- - - - - - I Volume Module: Base Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1119 0 0 549 0 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1119 0 0 549 0 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 47 0 16 0 0 0 43 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Put: 0 0 0 0 0 47 0 1135 0 0 549 43 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 0 0 0 0 0 47 0 1135 0 0 549 43 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Final Vol.: 0 0 0 0 0 47 0 1135 0 0 549 43 Critical Gap Module: Critical Gp:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 6.9 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx FollowUpTim:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 3.3 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx ------------ I --------------- II ---------------II---------------II--------------- Capacity Module: Cnflict Vol: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 205 xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Potent Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 808 xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Move Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 808 xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Volume /Cap: xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx 0.06 xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx ------------ I ---------------II---------------II---------------II--------------- Level Of Service Module: Queue: xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 0.2 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Stopped Del:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 9.7 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx LOS by Move: * + * * * A * + * * + + Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT Shared Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx SharedQueue:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shrd StpDel:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shared LOS: * * ApproachDel: xxxxxx 9.7 xxxxxx xxxxxx ApproachLOS: * A Traffix 7.6.0715 (c) 2003 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to URBAN CROSSROADS, IRVINE MA5070AM i 1 I LONG RANGE+ PROJECT I.C.U. 1X1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 D Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 L1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w /systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 ' LI Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will be less than I.C.U. without project I Description of system improvement. _ - - INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS CgCI MA5070AM INTERSECTION: F0 MACARTHUR BOULEVARD & SAN JOAQUIN HILLS ROAD 5070 RNtP ALTERNATIVE ACCESS LONG RANGE TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC 2003 AM iI { LONG { PROPOSED { LONG { LONG RANGE {{ PROJECT { PROJECT { I Movement I RANGE I Lanes { RANGE I VIC Ratio I ( Volume { VIC I I I Lanes I Capacity I PK HR I w/o Project I I ( Ratio 1 I I Capacity I I Volume I Volume I I 1 I ! NL I 32001 I 10 I 0.003 I I 101 I 0.006 I l NT I ( 4800 ( (— 1450 ( 0.302 ' ( 0 ( 0.302 l I NR 1 16001 I 101 0.006 I I 01 - I 0.006 I 'I I SL I 3200 I 1 290 1 0.091 ' 1 0 1 0.091 1 I I ST I 48001 1 11201 0.233 I I 01 0.233 1 I I SR I N.S. 1 I 860 I I I 19 I I I EL I 3200 I 1 150 I 0.047 1 9 1 I 0.050 I I I ET I } 4800 - ! 130 } I I 0.040 i - 3 } I 0.040 I I ER I I 60 I I 0 I 1 1 I WL I 16001 1 2601 0.163 I I 01 0.163 1 WT 32DO ` I I I 510 I 0.159 I 6 1 0.161 I I WR 1 N.S. 1 I 10701 I I 01 I I LONG RANGE I.C.U. 1 0.599 ( 0.604 1 I LONG RANGE+ PROJECT I.C.U. 1X1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 D Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 L1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w /systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 ' LI Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will be less than I.C.U. without project I Description of system improvement. _ - - PROJECT MA5070AM 1 -5q FORM II MA5070PM INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: MACARTHUR BOULEVARD & SAN JOAQUIN HILLS ROAD 5070 14v1ffffAdwi ALTERNATIVE ACCESS LONG RANGE TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC 2003 PM I LONG I PROPOSED I LONG I LONG RANGE I I PROJECT I PROJECT I I Movement I RANGE I Lanes I RANGE I V/C Ratio I I Volume I V/C I I I Lanes I Capacity I PK HR I w/o Project I I I Ratio I I I Capacity I I Volume I Volume I I I I -- I NL I 32001 1 501 - 0.016 I I 11 1 I 0.019 1 I -- I NT 1 480D 1 1 1490 1 I 0.310 ' 1 0 j I 0.310 I I NR I 1600 1 1 250 1 - 0.156 1 1 0 1 0.156 I SL I 3200 1 I 560 1 0.175 1 0 1 0.175 ST I 48W 1 1 2150 1 0.448 I I 0 1 0.448 I SR I N.S. 1 1 390 ( 1 1 22 I 1 EL I 3200 1 I 600 I 0.188 ' I 11 1 0.191 I ET 1 I 410 1 1 5 I } 4800 - - } 0.119 - - } 0.120 ER 1 i 160 11 0 I WL I 16001 1 401 0.025 I I 01 0.025 I WT I 3200 1 I 190 I 0.059 I 6 1 0.061 I WR I N.S. 1 3101 I I 0 I I LONG RANGE I.C.U. I 0.732 I 0.738 I LONG RANGE + PROJECT I.C.U. J IXI Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 LI Projected + project traffic I.C.U. vrill be greater than 0.90 L1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w /systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 LI Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will be less than I.C.U. without project Description of system improvement: PROJECT — FORM II MA5070PM cS(o MA7135AM IXI Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 LI Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 LI Projected + project traffic I.C.U. wlsystems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 I_I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will be less than I.C.U. without project Description of system improvement: PROJECT FORM II MA7135AM *Z�k INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS c��P 4c�> INTERSECTION: MACARTHUR BOULEVARD & SAN MIGUEL DRIVE =oaN 7135 ALTERNATIVE ACCESS LONG RANGE TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC 2003 AM I I LONG I PROPOSED I LONG I LONG RANGE 11 PROJECT I PROJECT I Movement I RANGE j Lanes I RANGE I VIC Ratio j i Volume I VIC I I I Lanes I Capacity I PK HR I w/o Project I I I Ratio I Capacity I I Volume I Volume N L I 3200 I I 120 I 0.038 I I 0 1 0.038 j NT I 4800 I I 1230 I 0.256 j 10 I 0.258 I NR I 16001 j 1801 0.113 I I 01 0.113 I I SL I 3200 I I 20 I 0.006 • I 0 1 0.006 j ST I 48001 I 6101 0.127 I I 01 0.127 I SR I 16001 I 7501 0.469 I I 01 0.469 I I EL I 3200 I I 180 j 0.056 I 0 I 0.056 I I ET I I so I I 2 I I } 3200 - } 0.034 - - } 0.036 I ER I I 20 I j 3 I I W L I 3200 I I 240 I 0.075 I I 0 1 0.075 j I WT I I 250 I I 0 I } 3200 - - } 0.091 ' - } 0.091 j I WR I I 40 I I 0 I I LONG RANGE I.C.U. I 0.403 I 0.405 I I LONG RANGE + PROJECT I.C.U. I I IXI Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 LI Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 LI Projected + project traffic I.C.U. wlsystems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 I_I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will be less than I.C.U. without project Description of system improvement: PROJECT FORM II MA7135AM *Z�k MA7135PM INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: MACARTHUR BOULEVARD & SAN MIGUEL DRIVE 7135 ALTERNATIVE ACCESS LONG RANGE TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC 2003 PM I I LONG I PROPOSED I LONG I LONG RANGE II PROJECT I PROJECT I I Movement I RANGE I Lanes J RANGE I VIC Ratio I I Volume I VIC I I I Lanes I Capacity I PK HR I w/o Project I I J Ratio I I I Capacity ! I Volume I Volume I! ! 1 I NL I 3200 I 1 60 1 0.019 1 0 1 0.019 1 J NT j 4800 J j 930 I 0.194 j J 11 J 0.196 I I NR J 1600 1 J 460 1 0.288 1 1 0 1 0.288 J i SL I 3200 1 I 30 1 0.009 I j 0 1 0.009 I 1 ST 1 4800 1 1 1620 1 0.338 ' I 0 1 0.338 I 1 SR I 16001 j 6301 0.394 11 01 0.394 1 1 EL 1 3200 1 1 780 1 0.244 ' 1 0 1 0.244 j I ET I 1 540 I I 2 I j } 3200 - — } 0.191 - - } 0.193 1 I ER 1 1 70 1 1 5 I 1 WL 1 32001 1 120 1 0.038 11 0 1 0.038 I I wT I I 130 I I 0 I I } 3200 - - — } 0.056 ` - } 0.056 I 1 WR I 50 11 0 1 1 LONG RANGE I.C.U. 1 0.657 1 0.656 I I LONG RANGE + PROJECT I.C.U. I I 1X1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 I_I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 1_I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w /systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 LI Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will be less than I.C.U. without project Description of system improvement: PROJECT MA7135PM tJ a- FORM II APPENDIX K CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH SIGHT DISTANCE REQUIREMENTS I L 1 l 1� I 1; I 1; FED -21 -2001 15:56 CITY OF NEWPORTBERCH B �k LIA£ OF SIOHT (TYP) LIMITED LSE RRFA -� —'– \ CLRB LINE DISTANCES (IT.) o Ai A Y1 t MPN I 45 I 35 25 949 644 711R P l7 Al Or SLOPE (TYP) MEUIRN NOTES: 1, THE 'LIMITED USE AREA' 15 LEIEAMINED BY TIE G*FHICAL METHOD LEJAC TIE R°PR0°AIR7E DIS7MM75 GIVEN IN THE RBOVE TRRLE. IT Sl&L BE USED FOR THE PLRPOSE OF PROHIBITIAC OR CLEARING OBSTRLCTIONS IN ORDER TO M9INIRIN RIECCRTE SI9fT DISTRICT RT INIERSTCTIOV6. 2. 7HE 'LINE Or SI(2fT' LINE 94LL BE 9,OWf RT INTElFXCTIQVS ON RLL LAWSCWIhG PLRE GFADING PLRNS, FWD TENTRTIVE T09CT PLRAEi MLW SFEE SIGHT DISMACE IS aicsTlAak. IN CRSES W£RE RN INTERSECTION IS LOCKED ON R VERTILA CLRVE, R PROFILE OF THE SIGHT LIRE NAY BE REQUIRED. 3. NLLS OR FWY OSSTRLCTIaC 71RT COLILD RESTRICT TIE VIEN NITHIN 71E 'LIMITED LGE RPER' SH'EL NOT BE PERMITTED. 4. THE TOE OF THE SLOPE SNLL NOT ENCRORCH INTO 7FC 'LIMITED USE RRER0. 5. OE 'LIMITED USE FRER' 9#LL BE AS NEW LEVEL RS POSSIBLE YET MRIMRIN PROPER DMINRGE, G. PLAWS FWD SWUSS WILL BE OF THE TYPE TWT MILL OWN NO HIGHER ThSN 24 INC}ES RBOVE TLC CAX4VD NITHIN THE 'LIMITED LSE AREAS'. 1. POINTS 'R' AW 'Rl' AT THE LOLRTIONS Or R DRIVER'S LINE OF SICK W R E IN R VEHICLE RT AV INTERSECTION 10 FELT B CX FROM TFE PROIECTION OF THE PRQ%IM LINE. THE DISTWE 'YI' 15 TFE DISTWX WF6LRED FROM TFE CEMTMIAE OF TIE RORD TO FRR RIWT THROLGH 7RFIFFIC LATE. THE D157RACE 71' 15 EQLRL TO ZERO FOR 7- lMERSECTI0N6. e. 7HE D157A-E 'S' REPRESENTS TIE SRFE STOPPIAG SIG7fT DISTRACF MERSU D BONG TIE CEMDP LSAE OF THE RORD. 9. POINTS 'C' RO 'Cl' AW THE LOCRTIOAB (CENTER LINE Or TIE TN?VEL LRNES) MIME 77E DRIVER OF VEHICLE, WKLINC RT R GIVEN SPEED, IRS TFC MININA SWIAG SIGHT DISTFNCE FEOUIRED TO BRIAG HIS VEHICLE TO R 97F STOP. ,� --j I , ted uu -- - 10, - -- 2 area- A LINE OF SIW REWRM LUION SnW FOP CRRLES IN EXaSS OF 4X SIGHT DISTANCE FOR BICYCLE PATHS C d TY OF NEWPORT ®ERCH IFFPROV0. LIC INTERSECTION LINE OF SIGHT REQUIREMENTS K?, Kv DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC Agil'CS R.L.E. NO. 12806 15 Abv 1993 'AOlLE N. T. S. M. GWIR I STD -110 -1 s I yll X I X1 MR.IOR 525 37 37 1 SM�Y 450 25 YN 13 3 SE Y 350 1 IB I 19 1 6 LOCH( 200 1 0 1 0 1 0 o Ai A Y1 t MPN I 45 I 35 25 949 644 711R P l7 Al Or SLOPE (TYP) MEUIRN NOTES: 1, THE 'LIMITED USE AREA' 15 LEIEAMINED BY TIE G*FHICAL METHOD LEJAC TIE R°PR0°AIR7E DIS7MM75 GIVEN IN THE RBOVE TRRLE. IT Sl&L BE USED FOR THE PLRPOSE OF PROHIBITIAC OR CLEARING OBSTRLCTIONS IN ORDER TO M9INIRIN RIECCRTE SI9fT DISTRICT RT INIERSTCTIOV6. 2. 7HE 'LINE Or SI(2fT' LINE 94LL BE 9,OWf RT INTElFXCTIQVS ON RLL LAWSCWIhG PLRE GFADING PLRNS, FWD TENTRTIVE T09CT PLRAEi MLW SFEE SIGHT DISMACE IS aicsTlAak. IN CRSES W£RE RN INTERSECTION IS LOCKED ON R VERTILA CLRVE, R PROFILE OF THE SIGHT LIRE NAY BE REQUIRED. 3. NLLS OR FWY OSSTRLCTIaC 71RT COLILD RESTRICT TIE VIEN NITHIN 71E 'LIMITED LGE RPER' SH'EL NOT BE PERMITTED. 4. THE TOE OF THE SLOPE SNLL NOT ENCRORCH INTO 7FC 'LIMITED USE RRER0. 5. OE 'LIMITED USE FRER' 9#LL BE AS NEW LEVEL RS POSSIBLE YET MRIMRIN PROPER DMINRGE, G. PLAWS FWD SWUSS WILL BE OF THE TYPE TWT MILL OWN NO HIGHER ThSN 24 INC}ES RBOVE TLC CAX4VD NITHIN THE 'LIMITED LSE AREAS'. 1. POINTS 'R' AW 'Rl' AT THE LOLRTIONS Or R DRIVER'S LINE OF SICK W R E IN R VEHICLE RT AV INTERSECTION 10 FELT B CX FROM TFE PROIECTION OF THE PRQ%IM LINE. THE DISTWE 'YI' 15 TFE DISTWX WF6LRED FROM TFE CEMTMIAE OF TIE RORD TO FRR RIWT THROLGH 7RFIFFIC LATE. THE D157RACE 71' 15 EQLRL TO ZERO FOR 7- lMERSECTI0N6. e. 7HE D157A-E 'S' REPRESENTS TIE SRFE STOPPIAG SIG7fT DISTRACF MERSU D BONG TIE CEMDP LSAE OF THE RORD. 9. POINTS 'C' RO 'Cl' AW THE LOCRTIOAB (CENTER LINE Or TIE TN?VEL LRNES) MIME 77E DRIVER OF VEHICLE, WKLINC RT R GIVEN SPEED, IRS TFC MININA SWIAG SIGHT DISTFNCE FEOUIRED TO BRIAG HIS VEHICLE TO R 97F STOP. ,� --j I , ted uu -- - 10, - -- 2 area- A LINE OF SIW REWRM LUION SnW FOP CRRLES IN EXaSS OF 4X SIGHT DISTANCE FOR BICYCLE PATHS C d TY OF NEWPORT ®ERCH IFFPROV0. LIC INTERSECTION LINE OF SIGHT REQUIREMENTS K?, Kv DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC Agil'CS R.L.E. NO. 12806 15 Abv 1993 'AOlLE N. T. S. M. GWIR I STD -110 -1 1 1 �1 St. Mark Presbyterian Church - Screencheck Draft EIR APPENDIX G: AIR QUALITY IMPACT ANALYSIS REPORT Michael Brandman Associates H:\Uent (PN- 1N)\ODr,4\006400211Scre chcck100640021 Appeadi=s.dm AIR QUALITY IMPACT ANALYSIS REPORT for the Proposed St. Mark Presbyterian Church Project Newport Beach, California Prepared For: City of Newport Beach Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 Contact: Gregg B. Ramirez, Associate Planner Prepared by: Michael Brandman Associates 621 East Carnegie Drive, Suite #100 San Bernardino, CA 92408 (909) 884 -2255 Contact: Thomas J. McGill, Ph.D., Regional Manager Revised June 2004 Air Quality Analysis Report for the Proposed St. Mark Presbyterian Church Project TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION 1 — INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY ............................................... ............................... 1 -1 1.1 PURPOSE AND METHODS OF ANALYSIS ......................................... ............................1 -1 1.2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................ ............................1 -1 1.2.1 Site Locat ion .............................................................................. ............................... 1 -1 1.2.2 Development Description .......................................................... ............................... 1 -1 1.2.3 Findings ......................................................................................... ............................1 -2 1.2.4 Mitigation Measures .................................................................. ............................... 1 -2 SECTION2 — SETTING ............................................................................................ ............................... 2 -1 2.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ........................................................................ ............................2 -1 2.2 PHYSICAL SETTING .............................................................................. ............................2 -1 2.3 REGULATORY SETTING ....................................................................... ............................2 -5 SECTION 3 — EMISSIONS ESTIMATES ................................................................ ............................... 3 -1 3.1 THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE .................................................... ............................... 3 -1 3.2 IMPACTS ............................................................................................... ............................... 3 -2 3.2.1 Short-term Impacts ..................................................................... ............................... 3 -2 3.2.2 Long -term Impacts ..................................................................... ............................... 3 -5 3.2.3 CO Hotspots ............................................................................... ............................... 3 -7 3.2.4 Mitigation Measures .................................................................. ............................... 3 -9 SECTION 4 — FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS ... ............................................................................... 4 -1 4.1 EVALUATION OF SIGNIFICANCE ....................................................... ............................4 -1 4.2 CONCLUSIONS ........................................................................................ ............................4 -2 SECTION 5 — REFERENCES ................................................................................... ............................... 5 -1 5.1 REFERENCES CITED ......... ................................................................................................. 5 -1 5.2 DOCUMENT PREPARATION STAFF ................................................. ............................... 5 -2 LIST OF TABLES Table 1 Traffic Generation Comparison .............................................................. ............................... 2 -1 Table 2 Source Receptor Area 33 Air Quality Monitoring Summary 1992 - 2002 .............................. 2 -8 Table 3 Estimated Short-term Emissions (Site Grading: 2004) ........................... ............................... 3 -3 Table 4 Estimated Short-term Emissions (Construction Period: 2004) ............... ............................... 3 -4 Table 5 Estimated Short-term Emissions (Construction Period: 2005) ............... ............................... 3 -4 Table 6 Estimated Short-term Emissions (Asphalt Paving: 2005) ....................... ............................... 3 -5 Table 7 Mitigated Short-term Emissions ............................................................. ............................... 3 -6 Table 8 Estimated Mobile Emissions ................................................................... ............................... 3 -7 Table 9 Estimated Emissions from Electrical Consumpt ion ................................ ............................... 3 -7 Michael Brandman Associates i H.CGent10064`A06400211ES104 -Air Study.doc I. Air Quality Analysis Report for the Proposed St, Mark Presbyterian Church Project ' Table 10 Estimated Emissions from Natural Gas Consumpt ion ............................ ............................... 3 -7 Table 11 Estimated Emissions from Landscaping ................................................. ............................... 3 -8 Table 12 Estimated Emissions from Consumer Products ...................................... ............................... 3 -8 Table 13 Composite Long -term Emissions ............................................................ ............................... 3 -8 Table 14 Mitigated Long -term Missions .............. ................................................................................. 3 -9 Table 15 Estimated CO Concentrat ions ............................................................... ............................... 3 -11 LIST OF EXH BITS Exhibit 1 — Regional Location Map ............................................................................... ............................2 -3 Exhibit2 — Local Vicinity Map .................................................................................. ............................... 2 -4 Exhibit3 — Site Plan ................................................................................................... ............................... 2 -5 Exhibit4 — Wind Rose ................................................................................................ ............................... 2 -6 APPENDICES Appendix A Assumptions Formulation and Use of URBEMIS 2002 in Determining Project Emissions Appendix B URBEMIS 2002 Output Files for Unmitigated Emissions , Appendix C URBEMIS 2002 Output Files for Mitigated Emissions Appendix D Electricity Usage Emissions Worksheet Appendix E CALINE 4 Output Files Michael Brandman Associates H.CGent\DD6dW06AW21\ESIN -Air Smdy.dw L1 F ii f I I CJ Air Quality Analysis Report for the Proposed St. Mark Presbyterian Church Project SECTION 1 - INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY 1 1.1 PURPOSE AND METHODS OF ANALYSIS The following air quality assessment was prepared to evaluate whether the expected criteria air pollutant emissions generated as a result of the proposed project would cause significant impacts to air resources in the project area. This assessment was conducted within the context of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA, California Public Resources Code Sections 21000 et seq.). The methodology follows the "CEQA Air Quality Handbook" prepared by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) for quantification of emissions and evaluation of potential impacts to air resources. As recommended by SCAQMD staff, URBEMIS 2002 version 7.4.2 and EMFAC2002 version 2.2, computer programs developed and approved by the California Air Resources Control Board, were used to quantify project - related emissions. 1.2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1.2.1 Site Location The proposed St. Mark Presbyterian Church project is located on a 10.81 -acre site at the northwest corner of San Joaquin Hills Road at MacArthur Boulevard in the City of Newport Beach within Orange County. 1.2.2 Development Description The proposed project consists of a church sanctuary, fellowship hall, administration building and counseling center, preschool buildings, expansion building, nature center plaza and related site improvements including parking lots, access driveways and landscaping. Total building area is approximately 33,867 square feet of gross floor space.. Access to the proposed project will be provided on MacArthur Boulevard and San Juaquin Hills Road with regional access provided by State Route 55 (Costa Mesa freeway). The proposed project represents a change in General Plan Land Use Designation and zoning. Previous land use designation for the site was Open Spacetrecreation and existing zoning is PC District (Big Canyon Planned Community zone). The proposed General Plan Land Use Designation is Govemment/EducationabUstitutional District and proposed zoning change requires amendments to the text of the Big Canyon Planned Community zone to accommodate the proposed project. Michael Brandman Associates 1 -1 H:Clienf0064`A064002I\ES104 -Air Sludy.dm Air Quality Analysis Report for the Proposed St. Mark Presbyterian Church Project 1.2.3 Findings The study found that with mitigation measures to reduce construction related impacts project related short-term and long -term emissions are below all the applicable SCAQMD thresholds of significance. A CO Hotspot Analysis demonstrates that the proposed project will not create localized concentrations of CO above the State or Federal CO standards. Therefore, project impacts to air quality are considered less than significant with mitigation. The analysis supports the following findings: • The project is in compliance with the SCAQMD Air Quality Management Plan; • The project - generated emissions will not violate Federal or State ambient air quality standards; • The project's contribution to cumulative impacts will not be significant; • The project will not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations; and • Project- generated odors will not affect a substantial number of people. 1.2.4 Mitigation Measures • Prior to construction of the proposed improvements, 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 concrete transport and other construction related truck hauling activities. • During construction of the proposed improvements, construction equipment will be properly maintained with all maintenance repairs completed at an offsite location and includes proper tuning and timing of engines. • During construction of the proposed improvements, all contractors will be advised not to idle construction equipment on site for more than ten minutes. • During construction of the proposed improvements, on -site construction equipment will be fueled with aqueous diesel fuel. Michael Brandman Associates H:Cben1\0064W0640021XES104 -Air Smdy.dm 1 -2 I I Air Quality Analysis Report for the Proposed St. Mark Presbyterian Church Project ' SECTION 2 -SETTING 2.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ' The proposed St. Mark Presbyterian Church project is located on a 10.81 -acre site at the northwest comer of San Joaquin Hills Road at MacArthur Boulevard in the City of Newport Beach within Orange County. The proposal consists of a church sanctuary, fellowship hall, administration building and counseling center, preschool buildings, expansion building, nature center plaza and related site improvements including parking lots, access driveways and landscaping. Total building area is approximately 33,867 square feet of gross floor space. Access to the proposed project will be provided on MacArthur Boulevard and San Juaquin Hills Road with regional access provided by State Route 55 (Costa Mesa freeway). The proposed project represents a change in General Plan Land Use Designation and zoning. Previous land use designation for the site was Open Space/recreation and existing zoning is PC District (Big Canyon Planned Community zone). The proposed General Plan Land Use Designation is Government /EducationaYMstitutional District and proposed zoning change requires amendments to the text of the Big Canyon Planned Community zone to accommodate the proposed project. The following provides a description of the regional and local conditions affecting air quality in the project area. 2.2 PHYSICAL SETTING The project site is located in the City of Newport Beach within the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB). The SCAB consists of Orange County, together with the coastal and mountain portions of Los Angeles, Riverside and San Bernardino counties. Regionally, the interaction of land (offshore) and sea (onshore) breezes control local wind patterns in the area, while the pattern typically reverses in the evening, flowing from the inland areas to the ocean (SCAQMD, 1993). Air stagnation may occur during the early evening and early morning during periods of transition between day and nighttime flows. The region also experiences periods of hot, dry winds from the desert, known as Santa Ana winds. Locally, the prevailing wind is generally from northwest to the southeast (Exhibit I, Wind Rose). Regional and local air quality within the SCAB is affected by topography, atmospheric inversions, and dominant onshore flows. Topographic features such as the San Gabriel and San Bernardino Mountains form natural barriers to the dispersion of air contaminants. The presence of atmospheric inversions limits the vertical dispersion of air pollutants. With an inversion, the temperature initially follows a normal Michael Brandman Associates 2-1 H.CbenNDW00 6 4 0 021\ES104-Air Smdy.doc Air Quality Analysis Repon for the Proposed St. Mark Preshyterian Church pattern of decreasing temperature with increasing altitude; however, at some elevation, the trend reverses and temperature begins to increase as altitude increases. This transition to increasing temperature establishes the effective mixing height of the atmosphere and acts as a barrier to vertical dispersion of pollutants. Dominant onshore flow provides the driving mechanism for both air pollution transport and pollutant dispersion. Air pollution generated in coastal areas is transported east to inland receptors by the onshore flow during the daytime until a natural barrier (the mountains) is confronted, limiting the horizontal dispersion of pollutants. The result is a gradual degradation of air quality from coastal areas to inland areas, which is most evident with the photochemical pollutants such as ozone. The greatest ozone problems are recorded at those South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) monitoring stations, which are located at the base of the San Gabriel and San Bernardino mountains. The project site is within SCAQMD Source Receptor Area (SRA) 18. The most recent published data for SRA 18 is presented in Table 1, Air Quality Monitoring Summary 1992 -2002. This data shows that the baseline air quality conditions in the project area good. Even so, the frequency of smog alerts has dropped significantly in the last decade. The greatest recognized air quality problem in the SCAB is ozone. The yearly monitoring records document that in 1992, 21 days experienced a violation of the state hourly ozone standard. It is encouraging to note that ozone levels have dropped significantly in the last few years with no violations of the state or federal ozone standards in 2002. Michael Brandman Associates 2 -2 H: Cli.60064\00640MITS104 -Air Smdy.d. i 1 f i 1 1 i 1 '1 Air Quality Analysis Report for the Proposed St. Mark Presbyterian Church Project Stmion #53126 -Costa Mesa CA wma S�-Ij (I ee111 I Michael Brandman AsweiMes Michael Brandman Associates H:ClientYJ \006400211ES104 -Air SNdy.doc Exhibit 1 Windrose 2 -3 Wind Speed Knots u. 's nv, nwowF n amvawc4 3.56 Knots 15.48% Direction 1981 = (blowing from) Jan 1 - Dec 31 Midnight - 11 PM .vPCI':']Yreu> ?tY Lah>L+ne.v.kvel4Mwz nxw M.— izi..xn+mznbttvn �z Michael Brandman Associates Michael Brandman Associates H:ClientYJ \006400211ES104 -Air SNdy.doc Exhibit 1 Windrose 2 -3 Air Quality Analysis Report for the Proposed St. Mark Presbyterian Church Project TABLET ` Annual Standards are exposed as either "Yes" or "No" Indicating whether or not the annual standard was exceeded for that year. d Date not available for SRA 18, SRA 17 monitoring station (Anaheim) used. ` 1999 id first year of SCAQMD records for federal 24 -hour PM -2.5 standard Michael Brandman Associates H: Chent\0064XA0640021\ES104 -Air Study.doc 2-4 Air Quality Analysis Report for the Proposed St. Mark Presbyterian Church Project 2.3 REGULATORY SETTING The federal and state ambient air quality standards (AAQS) establish the context for the local air quality management plans. The state and federal AAQS are presented in Tables 1. The California Air Resources Board maintains records as to the attainment status of basins throughout the state, under both state and federal criteria. For 2002, that portion of the SCAB, within which the proposed project is located, was designated as a non - attainment area for ozone and PM -10 under state standards, and as a non - attainment area for ozone, carbon monoxide, and PM -10 under federal standards. The Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) for the SCAB establishes a program of rules and regulations directed at attainment of the state and national air quality standards. SCAQMD rules and regulations that apply to this project include SCAQMD Rule 403, which governs emissions of fugitive dust, which is achieved through application of standard best management practices in construction activities, such as application of water or chemical stabilizers to disturbed soils, covering haul vehicles, restricting vehicle speeds on unpaved roads to 15 mph, sweeping loose dirt from paved site access roadways, cessation of construction activity when winds exceed 25 mph and establishing a permanent, stabilizing ground cover on finished sites. Rule 403 also requires projects that disturbs over 100 acres of soil or moves 10,000 yds3 /day of materials /day to submit to SCAQMD a Fugitive Dust Control Plan. SCAQMD Rule 2202 governs the reduction of mobile source emissions associated with employee commute trips for businesses that employ 250 or more part-time and/or full -time employees. This rule requires that regulated businesses submit an emission reduction program that includes an emission reduction target (ERT) and means for achieving the identified ERT. Emissions reduction options include: scrapping of older vehicles within the company fleet, incorporating clean fuel vehicles into the company vehicle fleet, conducting remote sensing of employee vehicles and repair of gross emitters, and participating in the Air Quality Investment Program (AQIP), which requires payment of set fees per employee into a fund used to implement mobile source emission reduction programs approved by the SCAQMD Governing Board. SCAQMD Rule 1 l l3 governs the sale of architectural coatings and limits the VOC content in paints and paint solvents. SCAQMD Rule 1 108 governs the sale and use of asphalt and limits the VOC content in asphalt. Although these rules do not directly apply to the project, it does dictate the VOC content of paint and asphalt available for use during the construction. Michael Brandman Associates 2 -5 H:CGen1W64=64W2I\ES104 -AG Swdy.do u ' Air Quality Analysis Report for the Proposed St. Mark Presbyterian Church Project SECTION 3 -EMISSIONS ESTIMATES 3.1 THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE Air quality impacts may be considered significant if: • Project - generated emissions contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation. • Project - generated emissions increase pollutant concentrations so as to result in a violation of a federal or state ambient air quality standard. • Project - generated emissions expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. • The project conflicts with or obstructs implementation of the Air Quality Management Plan for the South Coast Air Basin. • The project creates objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people • The project results 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) While the final determination of whether or not a project is significant is within the purview of the lead agency pursuant to § 15064(6) of the State CEQA Guidelines, the SCAQMD recommends that the following quantitative air pollution thresholds be used by the lead agencies in determining whether the proposed project could result in a significant impact. If the lead agency finds that the proposed project has the potential to exceed these air pollution thresholds, the project should be considered significant. These thresholds have been defined by SCAQMD for the South Coast Air Basin based on scientific data the SCAQMD has obtained and factual data within the federal and state Clean Air Acts. Since the project is located within the South Coast Air Basin and current air quality in the project area is typical of the air basin as a whole, these thresholds are considered valid and reasonable. Each of these threshold factors is discussed below. Thresholds for Emissions Related to Construction Activities Projects in the South Coast Air Basin with construction- related emissions that exceed any of these thresholds should be considered significant: • 100 pounds per day or 2.5 tons per quarter -year of NOx; Michael Brandman Associates 3-1 H:CIien1\0064100640021 \ES104 -Air SNdy.doc Air Quality Analysis Report for the Proposed St. Mark Presbyterian Church Project • 75 pounds per day or 2.5 tons per quarter -year of ROC; • 550 pounds per day or 24.75 tons per quarter -year of CO; and • 150 pounds per day or 6.75 tons per quarter -year of SOx or PMIO. Thresholds for Emissions Related to Operation of the Project Specific criteria for determining whether the potential air quality impacts of a project are significant are set forth in the SCAQMD Handbook. The criteria for these emissions thresholds include, compliance with the State and National air quality standards and conformity with the existing Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) for the South Coast Air Basin. The daily operational emissions "significance" thresholds are: • 55 pounds per day of NOx; • 55 pounds per day of ROC; • 550 pounds per day of CO; and • 150 pounds per day of SOx or PM 10. Project emissions may also be considered significant if a CO hotspot analysis determines that project - generated emissions cause a localized violation of the state CO 1-hour standard of 20 parts per million (ppm), state CO 8 -hour standard of 9 ppm, federal CO 1-hour standard of 35 ppm, or federal CO 8 -hour standard of 9.5 ppm 3.2 IMPACTS Air quality impacts can be described in a short-term and long -term perspective. Short-term impacts will occur during site grading and project construction. Long -tern air quality impacts will occur once the project is in operation. 3.2.1 Short-term Impacts Short-term impacts will include fugitive dust and other particulate matter, as well as exhaust emissions generated by earthmoving activities and operation of grading equipment during site preparation. Short-term impacts will also include emissions generated during construction of the foundation pads and residential units as well as driveways and sidewalk as a result of operation of equipment, haul trucks, personal vehicles by construction workers, and fumes from paint application. Assumptions relevant to model input for short-term emissions estimates are calculated assuming the entire project will be built in a single phase. They are as follows: Michael Brandman Associates WC1ient1D064`00640021\E5104 -Air SMdy.dm 3 -2 I Air Quality Analysis Report for the Proposed St. Mark Presbyterian Church • Approximately 30 acres will be graded during the initial phase of the development including approximately 47,000 cubic yards of soil removed from the site. Approximately 7.5 acres per day will be disturbed and approximately 980 cubic yards of soil (49 truckloads) per day will be removed from the site. • Using calculations based upon land use within the URBEMIS 2002 model approximately 13.9 acres of surface area will be covered in asphalt over a two week period. Short -term emissions were evaluated with the URBEMIS 2002 for Windows computer program. The URBEMIS 2002 model sets default values for worker trips and the use of asphalt. Model inputs include the projected type of land use, the year in which construction is to begin, and the length of the construction period. For the purposes of this analysis as a worst -case scenario, construction is slated to begin in early 2005 and the construction period is anticipated to require approximately 12 months to complete. Tables 3 through 6, Estimated Short -Term Emissions, summarize the results of these evaluations. TABLE3 ESTIMATED SHORT -TERM EMISSIONS (Site Grading: 2005) Pollution Source NOx CO ROC SOx x PM10 Fugitive Dust From Grading NG' NG' NG' NG' 115.94 Off -road Construction Equipment 67.26 55.04 8.04 NG' 3.13 On -road Haul Trucks 29.69 4.93 1.32 0.40 0.70 Commuting Traffic 0.37 3.93 0.19 NG' 0.02 Maximum Daily Emissions Totals 97.32 63.90 9.55 0.40 119.79 Emissions Totals (tons /quarter)' 2.77 1.91 0.28 0.01 2.95 SCAQMD Thresholds 100 lbs /day 2.50 tons/ tr 550 lbs /day 24.75 tons/ qtr 75 Ibs /day 2.50 tons/ qtr 150 Ibs /day 6.75 tons/ qtr 150 lbs /day 6.75 tons/ qtr Notes: 'Criteria pollutants that have estimated negligible values are designated NC (negligible emissions). 3 Quarterly emission totals for all criteria pollutants reflect 49 workdays of grading activities with the balance of the quarter (16 workdays) reflecting construction activities. Bold type indicates emission estimates that are above the SCAQMD significance thresholds. See Appendix H for model output report. Michael Brandman Associates 3 -3 H:CGenCA064t0064002 I AES104 -Atr Smdy.doc Air Quality Analysis Report for the Proposed St. Mark Presbyterian Church Project TABLE4 ESTIMATED SHORT -TERM EMISSIONS (Construction Period: 2005) Pollution Source' ,NOx CO ROC SOx PM -10 Off -road Construction Equipment 48.68 42.53 6.02 NG' 2.24 Construction Commuting Traffic 0.04 0.87 0.07 NG' 0.01 Architectural Commuting Traffic 0.04 0.87 0.07 NG' 0.01 Architectural Coating Application NG' NG1 51.83 NG' NG' Asphalt Off gassing NG NG' 1.07 NG' NG' Off -road Asphalt Equipment 61.99 79.04 9.50 NG 2.68 On -road Asphalt Equipment 5.06 0.95 0.26 0.07 0.12 Asphalt Commuting Traffic 0.03 0.64 0.05 NG' 0.01 I I I Maximum Daily Emissions Totals 115.84 124.91 68.87 0.07 5.07 Emissions Totals (tons/ quarter) 1.95 1.87 1.17 >0.01 0.09 SCAQMD Thresholds 100 Ihs /day 2�tr 550 lhs /day 24.75 tons /qtr 75 lhs /day 2.5 tons /qtr 150 lbs /day 6.75 tons/ qtr 150 Ihs /day 6.75 tons/ qtr Notes: 'NG designates criteria pollutants that have estimated negligible values. 2 Quarterly emission totals for all criteria pollutants reflect 65 workdays of finish construction activities combined with 24 workdays of architectural coating activities and I I workdays of asphalt paving activities. Bold type indicates emission estimates that are above the SCAQMD significance thresholds. See Appendix B for model output report. When emissions projections are compared with the SCAQMD thresholds for significance, it is shown that emissions exceed the applicable quarterly thresholds for NOx during grading activities and daily threshold for NOx during the construction and asphalt paving activities. The primary source of these emissions is mobile diesel equipment. In an effort to reduce estimated NOx emissions, a range of conditions imposed upon the project were considered. Effective NOx emission reduction measures include properly maintaining construction equipment (5% reduction), provide temporary traffic control (e.g., flag person) during transport activities (5% reduction), prohibit truck and equipment idling in excess of ten minutes (5% reduction) and fuel all diesel operated construction equipment with aqueous diesel fuel (14% reduction). Other potential emission reduction measures were found to be ineffective or have minimal benefits. Table 6 shows the estimated total short -term emissions with construction phase mitigation measures imposed upon the proposed project. Michael Brandman Associates 3 -4 RClientW64\00640021 \ES104 -Air Study.doc ' i 1 1 1 I 1 1 I 1 Air Quality Analysis Report for the Proposed St. Mark Presbyterian Church Project TABLE 6 MITIGATED SHORT -TERM EMISSIONS Pollution Source NOx Grading: Maximum Daily Emissions (Ibs /da) 74.11 Emissions Totals (tons/ quarter) 2.11 Construction: Maximum Daily Emissions Ibs /da) 89.47 Emissions Totals (tons/ quarter) 1.51 SCAQMD Thresholds 100 Ibs /day 2.5 tons/qtr Notes: See Appendix B for model output report. Short-term criteria pollutant emissions are below all the applicable SCAQMD significance thresholds with mitigation measures incorporated into the project. 3.2.2 Long -term Impacts ' Long -term emissions for the proposed development are considered for project build -out. Emission sources consist of mobile emissions and stationary emissions. Mobile emissions estimates are derived from motor vehicle traffic. Stationary emissions estimates are derived from the consumption of natural 1 gas, electricity and consumer products, as well as emissions resulting from landscape maintenance. Assumptions relevant to model input for the long -term emissions estimates are: 1 • The project is assumed to generate 1,081 average daily trips on Sundays. II i 1 1 LJ • Natural gas consumption is based on the default values for church and day -care land uses founding the URBEMIS 2002 model. • Landscape equipment emissions are based on default rates within the URBEMIS 2002 model for church and day -care land uses. Table 7, Estimated Mobile Emissions, presents estimated emissions of each of the criteria pollutants as a result of motor vehicle trips at project build -out (See Appendix B). TABLET ESTIMATED MOBILE EMISSIONS Pollution Source NOx (Lbs/Day) CO (Lbs/Day) ROC (Lbs/Day) Sox (Lbs/Day) PM -10 (Lbs/Day) Vehicle Trips 10.31 109.21 8.19 0.10 1 9.27 Note: See Appendix B for model output report. 1 Michael Brandman Associates 3 -5 Hcfient \0064\00640021TSI04 -Air SmdyA c Air Quality Analysis Report for the Proposed St. Mark Presbyterian Church Project Natural gas consumed by water heaters, cooking, and space heating in the proposed fast food restaurants and other commercial retail uses will produce emissions of criteria air pollutants. The anticipated emissions estimated by the URBEMIS 2002 for Windows computer program are listed in Table 8, Estimated Emissions from Natural Gas Consumption. TABLE 8 ESTIMATED EMISSIONS FROM NATURAL GAS CONSUMPTION NOx (Lii / Sky) CO (Lbs/Day) ROC ,. (Ltis/Dayi Sox (Lbs/Day) PM -10 (Lbs/Day) 033 0.13 0.02 NG NG Note: NG designates criteria pollutants that have estimated negligible values. See Appendix B for model output report. The URBEMIS 2002 for Windows computer program estimates emissions generated by landscape maintenance equipment as a result of fuel combustion and evaporation of unburned fuel. Equipment in this category includes lawn mowers, roto- tillers, shredders, blowers, trimmers, chain saws, and hedge trimmers used in commercial applications. These emission estimates are listed in Table 9, Estimated Emissions from Landscaping. TA13LE 9 ESTIMATED EMISSIONS FROM LANDSCAPING NOx (Lbs/Day) CO (Lbs/Day) ROC (Lbs/Day) Sox (Lbs/Day) PM -10 (Lbs/Day) 0.01 0.96 0.13 NG NG Note: NG designates criteria pollutants that have estimated negligible values. See Appendix B for model output report. An estimate of the daily total long -term project emissions is derived by combining both mobile and stationary emissions (electrical consumption natural gas consumption, consumer product consumption, and landscape maintenance). Table 13, Composite Long -term Emissions, presents the estimated daily total emissions at project build out. TABLE 10 COMPOSITE LONG -TERM EMISSIONS Michael Brandman Associates 3 -6 tt:Crrntw064u00640021ws104-AU stady.doc Air Quality Analysis Report for the Proposed St. Mark Presbyterian Church Project =' Pollution Soiii a NO k(Lxa) CO (Lbs1Da } ROC a Sox „ (Lbs/De )_ PM -10 (Lbsma ) Mobile Emissions 10.31 109.21 8.19 0.10 9.27 Natural Gas Consumption 0.33 0.13 0.02 NG NG Landscape Emissions 0.01 0.96 0.13 NG NG Emissions Totals (pounds/day) 10.65 110.30 8.34 0.10 9.27 SCAQMD Thresholds 55 lbs/day 550 lbs/day 150 lbs/day 150 Ibs /day Note: NG designates criteria pollutants that have estimated negligible values. When emissions projections are compared with the SCAQMD suggested thresholds for significance, it is shown that long -term emissions are all below the applicable thresholds. 3.2.3 CO Hotspots Carbon Monoxide (CO) is a localized problem requiring additional analysis beyond total project emissions quantification. Projects with sensitive receptors or projects that could negatively impact levels of service (LOS) of existing roads need to use the California Department of Transportation Carbon Monoxide Protocol (hereafter referred to as the CO protocol) to determine the potential to create a CO hot spot. A CO hot spot is a localized concentration of CO that is above the State or Federal 1 -hour or 8 -hour ambient air standards. Localized high levels of CO are associated with traffic congestion and idling or slow- moving vehicles. The proposed project has the potential to negatively impact the LOS on adjacent roadways as well as have idling vehicles queued in the drive -thru area and therefore, requires a CO hotspot analysis. The CO protocol recommends using CALME4, the fourth generation California Line Source Roadway Dispersion Model developed by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), to estimate 1 -hour CO concentrations from roadway traffic. Input data for this model includes meteorology, street network geometrics, traffic information, and emissions generation rates. Meteorological data required includes average temperatures, wind direction, sigma theta (standard deviation of wind direction), and wind speed. Street network geometrics require the use of an x,y coordinate system onto which the modeled roadways can be overlain in order to identify the relative location of traffic lanes to nearby receptors. Required traffic information was taken from the project specific traffic study and includes peak hour traffic volumes and levels of service. Emission factors were calculated in grams /mile /vehicle using the EMFAC2002 computer model. According to the CO protocol, the CAUNE4 model should simulate intersections by using a reduced speed to represent intersection speeds and waits. Therefore the slowing speed approaching an intersection was calculated at an average speed of 5 miles per hour (mph) within 249 feet. This value was derived by Michael Brandman Associates 3 -7 H:Cfient\0064\00640021 VSS 104 -Ah Study.doc Air Quality Analysis Report for the Proposed St. Mark Presbyterian Church Project calculating the time it would take for a vehicle to slow from 28 mph at a rate of 4.6 mph/second and doubling this distances to account for any vehicles which have already stopped at the intersection. Vehicles outside of the 249 -foot intersection approaches were assumed to be at a cruise speed of 28 mph as directed by the CO protocol for suburban traffic. The PM peak hour traffic volumes were used in this analysis because they represent the highest traffic volumes for both the project area and the proposed project. Typically, the level of service (LOS) at an intersection producing a hot spot is at D or worse during the peak hour. One intersection, Macarthur Boulevard at San Joaquin Hills Road meets this criterion. The model procedure that was followed combined the results of the traffic analysis assuming very restrictive dispersion conditions in order to generate a worst -case impact assessment. Output from the CALINE4 model is in 1 -hour CO concentrations in parts per million (ppm) at the selected receptor locations. The predicted J -hour CO concentrations were determined by adding the ambient background 1 -hour CO concentrations to the model projected 1 -hour CO concentration. The 8 -hour CO concentration was estimated by multiplying the I -hour model estimate by the persistence factor for the project area (0.6) and adding the ambient background 8 -hour CO concentration. The results from this screening procedure are presented in Table 11. Please note that for each of the intersections, Table 1 I shows the receptor with the highest concentration. Readings on all 4 receptors can be found in Appendix E. TAIBLE 11 ESTIMATED CO CONCENTRATIONS Not": I Generated from projw specific'rraffc Study. 2 MaximumC 08 -hnur average concentrations in SRA- 182002. 3 Predicred using CAL!'VE4 cornputer model 4 Tmffic generated CO concenndons +background CO concentrations See Appendix H for CALINF:4 output report Assuming worst -case conditions, the estimated 1 -hour and 8 -hour average CO concentrations in combination with background concentrations are below the State and Federal ambient air quality standards. No CO hot spots are anticipated as a result of traffic generated emissions by the proposed project in combination with other anticipated development in the area. Michael Brandman Associates 3 -8 H.ClientN064%W640021sES104 -Air Study.doc ' Traffic Background Receptor/ Number of knerated C( distance tr CO 'estimated C( State Federal Closest Intersection Vehicles/hr' 'oncentratior ntelrsectiol :oncentration loncentxatior itandard: Standards Worst Case 1 -hour Average CO Concentrations Receptor 3 Macarthor Blvd/ 2552/1224 1.30 ppm Curbside 5.00 ppm 6.30 ppm 20 ppm 35 ppm San Joa uin Hills Rd. Worst Case 8 -hour Average CO Concentrations Receptor 3 Vlacanhur Blvd/ 2552/1224 0.78 ppm Curbside 4.30 ppm 5.08 ppm 9 ppm 9.5 ppm San Joa uin Hills Rd. Not": I Generated from projw specific'rraffc Study. 2 MaximumC 08 -hnur average concentrations in SRA- 182002. 3 Predicred using CAL!'VE4 cornputer model 4 Tmffic generated CO concenndons +background CO concentrations See Appendix H for CALINF:4 output report Assuming worst -case conditions, the estimated 1 -hour and 8 -hour average CO concentrations in combination with background concentrations are below the State and Federal ambient air quality standards. No CO hot spots are anticipated as a result of traffic generated emissions by the proposed project in combination with other anticipated development in the area. Michael Brandman Associates 3 -8 H.ClientN064%W640021sES104 -Air Study.doc ' I ' Air Quality Analysis Report for the Proposed St. Mark Presbyterian Church Project ' 3.2.4 Mitigation Measures • Prior to construction of the proposed improvements, 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 concrete transport and other construction related truck hauling activities. • During construction of the proposed improvements, construction equipment will be properly ' maintained with all maintenance repairs completed at an offsite location and includes proper tuning and timing of engines. ' • During construction of the proposed improvements, all contractors will be advised not to idle construction equipment on site for more than ten minutes. ' • During construction of the proposed improvements, on -site diesel fueled construction equipment will be fueled with aqueous diesel fuel. 1 1 I ' Michael Brandman Associates 3 -9 H :Client\0064%006400211ES104 -Aic Smdy.doc ' Air Quality Analysis Report for the Proposed St. Mark Presbyterian Church Project ' SECTION 4 - FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS ' 4.1 EVALUATION OF SIGNIFICANCE Under the California Environmental Quality Act, air quality impacts may be considered significant if. • A project conflicts with, or obstructs implementation of, the Air Quality Management Plan. The Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) sets forth a comprehensive program that will lead the air basin into compliance with all federal and state air quality standards. The AQMP control measures and related emission reduction estimates are based upon emissions projections for a future development scenario derived from land use, population, and employment charactec::,:ica defined in consultation with local governments. Accordingly, conformance with the AQMP for development projects is determined by demonstrating compliance with local land use plans and/or population projections. The proposed project is the relocation of an existing church to the new location. Although the project proposed a zoning and land use designation change at the proposed site, the project does not represent an increase in population or shift in employment characteristics from those assumed in the AQMP. It is also noted that with mitigation to address construction activities, project emissions are below all of the SCAQMD thresholds of significance. For these reasons, it is appropriate to conclude that the proposed project is in compliance with the AQMP. • Project - generated emissions violate federal or state ambient air quality standards. The project area is designated a non - attainment area for ozone, and PM -10. The emissions inventory in the project - specific evaluation indicates that with mitigation addressing construction activities, all emissions are below the applicable SCAQMD threshold. Therefore, project generated emissions will not contribute to violations of the federal or state ambient air quality standards. • A project contributes a cumulatively considerable net increase of a criteria pollutant in a non - attainment area. The project area is designated as a non - attainment area for ozone, CO, and PM -10. The project - specific evaluation of emissions presented in the preceding analysis supports a conclusion that with mitigation addressing construction activities the air quality impacts for the proposed project Michael Brandman Associates 4 -1 HCGwtX0064`U06400211ES104Air SNdy.d. Air Quality Analysis Report for the Proposed St. Mark Presbyterian Church Project are less than significant on an individual project basis. CEQA Section 21100 (e) addresses evaluation of cumulative effects allowing the use of approved land use documents in a cumulative impact analysis. In addressing cumulative effects for air quality, the AQMP is the most appropriate document to use because the AQMP sets forth a comprehensive program that will lead the SCAB, including the project area, into compliance with all federal and state air quality standards and utilizes control measures and related emission reduction estimates based upon emissions projections for a future development scenario derived from land use, population, and employment characteristics defined in consultation with local governments. Since the proposed project is in conformance with the AQMP and the project is not significant on an individual basis, it is appropriate to conclude that the project's incremental contribution to criteria pollutant emissions is not cumulatively considerable. • Project- generated emissions expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. The nearest sensitive receptors include the adjacent residential uses west and north of the proposed project site. Local prevailing winds in the area travel from southwest to northeast (see Exhibit l). The project - specific CO hot spot analysis demonstrates that hot spots are not created as a result of the project. Considering the quantity of emissions and the dispersion of the pollutants, the project will not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. • Project creates objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people. The proposed project presents the potential for generation of objectionable odors in the form of diesel exhaust in the immediate vicinity of the site during construction of the project. The closest area with substantial numbers of people is the existing residential uses west and north of the proposed project site. Local prevailing winds in the area travel from southwest to northeast (see Exhibit 1). These emissions would rapidly dissipate and be diluted by the atmosphere downwind of the emission sources. Recognizing the quantity of emissions and the dispersion of the pollutants, the project will not subject a substantial number of people to objectionable odors. 4.2 The project - specific evaluation of short-term presented in the preceding analysis demonstrates that without mitigation, project generated emissions exceeds the SCAQMD thresholds for ROC and NOx. Construction phase mitigation measures reduce short-term ROC and NOx emissions to less than significant. The evaluation found that project generated long -term emissions are below the SCAQMD Michael Brandman Associates WCGeut=64Y00640021bES 104 -Air Smdy.dnc 4 -2 1 Air Quality Analysis Report for the Proposed St. Mark Presbyterian Church Project thresholds of significance. A CO Hotspot Analysis demonstrates that the proposed project will not create localized concentrations of CO above the State or Federal CO standards. Therefore, with mitigation incorporated into the proposed project air quality impacts are less than significant. Michael Brandman Associates RClieM="0 00G4W21 TS104 -A6 Smdy.dm 4 -3 Air Quality Analysis Report for the Proposed St. Mark Presbyterian Church Project SECTION 5 — REFERENCES ' 5.1 REFERENCES CITED ' The following documents were referred to as general information sources during preparation of this document. They are available for public review at the locations abbreviated after each listing and spelled out at the end of this section. Some of these documents are also available at public libraries and at other ' public agency offices. ' CalTrans 1997 California Department of Transportation, Environmental Program. Transportation Project -Level Carbon Monoxide Protocol. Revised December 1997. (Available at CalTrans) ' CARB 2002A California Air Resources Control Board. URBEMIS 2002 for Windows Computer Program and User's Guide, Version 7.4.2., May 2003 (Available at ' SCAQMD) CARB 2002B California Air Resources Control Board. EMFAC2002, Version 2.2, Calculating Emission Inventories for Vehicles in California User's Guide. ' September 2002. (Available at SCAQMD) Newport Beach 2004 City of Newport Beach Planning Department. City of Newport Beach Local ' Coastal Program Coastal Land Use Plan. Draft February 2004 (Available at Planning) Newport Beach 1988 City of Newport Beach Planning Department. Newport Beach General Plan. ' Updated 1988 (Available at Planning) SCAQMD 2003 South Coast Air Quality Management District. 2003 Air Quality Management ' Plan. August 2003. (Available at SCAQMD) SCAQMD 1996 South Coast Air Quality Management District. 1997 Air Quality Management Plan. November 1996. (Available at SCAQMD) SCAQMD 1993 South Coast Air Quality Management District. CEQA Air Quality Handbook. November 1993. (Available at SCAQMD) 1 SCAQMD 1991 South Coast Air Quality Management District. Rule 1135, Emissions of Oxides of Nitrogen from Electric Power Generation Systems. Adopted August, ' 4, 1989. Amended July 19, 1991. (Available at SCAQMD) Urban Crossroads 2004 Urban Crossroads Inc.. Saint Mark's Presbyterian Church Traffic Phasing ' Ordinance Analysis. Revised February 2004. (Available at Planning) 1 Michael Brandman Associates 5 -1 H:Ck.t\0064WD6400211ES104 -AU SNdy.doc Air Quality Analysis Repon for the Proposed St. Mark Presbyterian Church Location: Address: CalTrans California Department of Transportation, District 7, 120 South Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012 Planning Newport Beach Planning. Department, 3300 Newport Blvd., Newport Beach, CA 92658 SCAQMD South Coast Air Quality Management District, 21865 East Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, CA 91765 -4182 5.2 DOCUMENT PREPARATION STAFF Michael Brandman Associates Michael Hendrix, Project Manager Michael Brandman Associates 5-2 H ..CEen1ID06<1006100211ES104 -Alr SNdy.dw I �J I APPENDIX A ' ASSUMPTIONS FORMULATION AND USE OF URBEMIS 2001 FOR WINDOWS IN DETERMINING ' PROJECT EMISSIONS I [1 I I I I 1 J [J 11 USE OF URBEMIS 2002 IN DETERMINING PROJECT ENIISSIONS ' URBEMIS is a computer program that can be used to estimate emissions associated with land use development projects in California. URBEMIS, which stands for Urban Emissions Model, was originally ' created by the California Air Resources Board in the early 1980s. Since that time it has undergone several revisions. This version ( URBEMIS 2002 for Windows version 7.4.2), distributed in May 2003 in coordination with the ' California Air Pollution Control Officers' Association (CAPCOA), is the most current version of the URBEMIS software available at this time. Several changes in the use and defaults of URBEMIS 2002 for Windows were initiated to reflect specific conditions unique to this project. The following discussion ' summarizes model use and model default modifications. Short-Term Emissions: iConstruction is anticipated to require approximately I year to complete with grading and soil/material removal requiring approximately 2.2 months (approximately 49 workdays). The default construction phase ' lengths were modified as follows to more accurately predict emissions: Phase I - Demolition was turned off Phase 2 - Site Grading was changed from a default of 1.3 months to 2.2 months ' Phase 3 - Site Construction was changed from a default of 10.7 months to 9.8 months Sub -phase Construction was changed from 10.7 months to 9.8 months Sub - phases Architectural Coatings and Asphalt Paving remained at their default values tQuarterly Construction Emissions: Since grading activities are anticipated to require approximately 49 workdays, which is less than a quarter- , year, quarterly emissions for grading activities were combined with the first 16 workdays of general construction activities. The following formula was used: (49' [Phase 2 - Site Grading Emissions Maximum lbs/dayD + (16' [ Bldg Const Off -Road Diesel + Bldg Const worker TripsD Similarly, since the architectural coatings is anticipated to require approximately 24 workdays and asphalt paving activities 11 workdays. These activities are combined with general construction activities in the model to estimate the maximum daily emissions during construction of the proposed project. To account for the various levels of activities that will occur during the quarter -year in which construction of the church buildings take place, the following formula was used: ' (65 • [Bldg Const Off -Road Diesel + Bldg Const worker TripsD + (24 " [Arch Coating Off -Gas + Arch Coating worker TripsD + (1 l " [Asphalt Off -Gas + Asphalt Off -Road Diesel + Asphalt On -Road Diesel + Asphalt worker TripsD Long -Term Emissions: For vehicle commutes, the vehicle fleet, trip lengths, and fuel types were left at the default mixes. The default trip generation rates for each of the land uses were changed to reflect those used in the traffic study. Year of operation was changed from the default of 2003 to 2006 to reflect the anticipated operation of the proposed ' project. I i APPENDIX B URBEMIS 2002 OUTPUT FILES FOR CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATIONAL RELATED EMISSIONS ' Phase 3 - Building Construction Assumptions Start Month /Year for Phase 3: Mar 105 Phase 3 Duration: 9.8 months Start Month /Year for SubPhase Building: Mar '05 1 1 Page: 1 URBEMIS 2002 For Windows 7.4.2 File Name: C: \Program Files \URBEMIS 2002 For Windows \Projects2k2 \St.Marks (soil Export&Mitigation).urb ' Project Name: St. Marks Church Project Location: South Coast Air Basin (Los Angeles area) On -Road Motor Vehicle Emissions Based on EMFAC2002 version 2.2 DETAIL REPORT (Pounds /Day - Summer) Construction Start Month and Year: January, 2005 ' Construction Duration: 12 Total Land Use Area to be Developed: 10.81 acres Maximum Acreage Disturbed Per Day: 2.7 acres Single Family Units: 0 Multi- Family Units: 0 ' Retail / Office /Institutional /Industrial Square Footage: 33900 CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES UNMITIGATED (lbs /day) PM10 PM10 PM10 Source ROG NOx CO S02 TOTAL EXHAUST DUST * ** 2005 * ** Phase 1 - Demolition Emissions Fugitive Dust - - - = 0.00 - 0.00 ' Off -Road Diesel 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 On -Road Diesel 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Worker Trips 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Maximum lbs /day 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Phase 2 - Site Grading Emissions Fugitive Dust - - - - 115.94 - 115.94 Off -Road Diesel 8.04 67.26 55.04 - 3.13 3.13 0.00 ' On -Road Diesel 1.32 29.69 4.93 0.40 0.70 0.60 0.10 Worker Trips 0.19 0.37 3.93 0.00 0.02 0.01 0.01 Maximum lbs /day 9.55 97.32 63.90 0.40 119.79 3.74 116.05 ' Phase 3 - Building Construction Bldg Const Off -Road Diesel 6.02 48.68 42.53 2.24 2.24 0.00 Bldg Const Worker Trips 0.07 0.04 0.87 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 Arch Coatings Off -Gas 51.83 - - - Arch Coatings Worker Trips 0.07 0.04 0.87 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 Asphalt Off -Gas 1.07 - - Asphalt Off -Road Diesel 9.50 61.99 79.04 - 2.68 2.68 0.00 Asphalt On -Road Diesel 0.26 5.06 0.95 0.07 0.12 0.12 0.00 ' Asphalt Worker Trips 0.05 0.03 0.64 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 Maximum lbs /day 68.87 115.84 124.91 0.07 5.07 5.04 0.03 Max lbs /day all phases 68.87 115.84 124.91 0.40 121.09 5.04 116.05 Phase 1 - Demolition Assumptions: Phase Turned OFF Phase 2 - Site Grading Assumptions Start Month /Year for Phase 2: Jan 105 Phase 2 Duration: 2.2 months On -Road Truck Travel (VMT): 972 Off -Road Equipment No. Type Horsepower Load Factor Hours /Day 2 Other Equipment 190 0.620 B.0 6 Tractor /Loaders /Backhoes 79 0.465 8.0 ' Phase 3 - Building Construction Assumptions Start Month /Year for Phase 3: Mar 105 Phase 3 Duration: 9.8 months Start Month /Year for SubPhase Building: Mar '05 1 1 Page: 2 SubPhase Building Duration: 9.3 months Off -Road Equipment No. Type Horsepower 1 Concrete /Industrial saws 84 2 Other Equipment 190 1 Rough Terrain Forklifts 94 Start Month /Year for SubPhase Architectural Coatings: Nov SubPhase Architectural Coatings Duration: 1.1 months Start Month /Year for SubPhase Asphalt: Dec '05 SubPhase Asphalt Duration: 0.5 months Acres to be Paved: 4.5 0.00 Off -Road Equipment 0.00 No. Type Horsepower 1 Graders 174 1 Off Highway Trucks 417 1 Pavers 132 1 Paving Equipment 111 2 Rollers 114 CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES >MITIG4TED (lbs /day) Source •�• 2005**• Phase 1 - Demolition Emissions Fugitive Dust Off -Road Diesel On -Road Diesel Worker Trips - Maximum lbs /day Phase 2 - Site Grading Emissions ROG NOx CO Load Factor Hours /Day 0.730 8.0 0.620 8.0 0.475 8.0 'OS Load Factor Hours /Day 0.575 8.0 0.490 8.0 0.590 8.0 0.530 8.0 0.430 8.0 PM10 PM10 S02 TOTAL EXHAUST 'I C PM10 DUST ' - - - - 0.00 - 26.50 - -0.00 - 0.00 0.00 Off -Road Diesel 0.00 52.06 - 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 On -Road Diesel 0.00 0100 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.19 0.00 0.10 0.00 Worker Trips 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 Maximum lbs /day 0.00 0.00 Fugitive Dust - - - - 26.50 - 26.50 Off -Road Diesel 7.24 52.06 49.54 - 1.04 1.04 0.00 On -Road Diesel 1.12 21.70 4.19 0.34 0.29 0.19 0.10 Worker Trips 0.18 0.35 3.68 0.00 0.02 0.01 0.01 Maximum lbs /day 8.54 74.11 57.41 0.34 27.85 1.24 26.61 Phase 3 - Building Construction Bldg Const Off -Road Diesel 5.42 37.68 38.28 - 0.75 0.75 0.00 Bldg Const Worker Trips 0.07 0.04 0.82 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 Arch Coatings Off -Gas 51.83 - - - - - - Arch Coatings Worker Trips 0.07 0.04 0.82 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 Asphalt Off -Gas 1.07 - - - - - - Asphalt Off -Road Diesel 8.55 47.98 71.14 - 0.89 0.89 0.00 Asphalt On -Road Diesel 0.22 3.70 0.81 0.06 0.04 0.04 0.00 Asphalt Worker Trips 0.05 0.03 0.60 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 Maximum lbs /day 67.28 89.47 112.46 0.06 1.71 1.68 0.03 Max lbs /day all phases 67.28 89.47 112.46 0.34 28.29 1.68 26.61 Construction - Related Mitigation Measures Phase 2: Soil Disturbance: Apply soil stabilizers to inactive areas Percent Reduction(ROG 0.0% NOx 0.0% CO 0.0% S02 0.0% PM10 30.0 %) Phase 2: Soil Disturbance: Replace ground cover in disturbed areas quickly Percent Reduction(ROG 0.0% NOx 0.03 CO 0.03 502 0.03 PM10 15.0%) Phase 2: Soil Disturbance: Water exposed surfaces - 2x daily Percent Reduction(ROG 0.0% NOx 0.0% CO 0.0% S02 0.0% PM10 34.0 %) Phase 2: Off -Road Diesel Exhaust: Use aqueous diesel fuel Percent Reduction(ROG 0.0% NOx 14.0% CO 0.0% S02 0.0% PM10 63.0 %) Phase 2: On -Road Diesel Exhaust: Use aqueous diesel fuel Percent Reduction(ROG 0.0% NOx 14.0% CO 0.0% S02 0.0% PM10 63.0 %) Phase 2: Unpaved Roads: Water all haul roads 2x daily Percent Reduction(ROG 0.0% NOx 0.0% CO 0.0% S02 0.0% PM10 3.0%) Phase 2: Unpaved Roads: Reduce speed on unpaved roads to < 15 mph ' Page: 3 Percent Reduction(ROG 0.02 NOx 0.02 CO 0.02 SO2 0.02 PM10 40.0$) Phase 2: Worker Trips: Use shuttle to retail establishments ®lunch ' Percent Reduction(ROG 1.02 NOx 1.32 CO 1.32 SO2 1.32 PM10 1.32) Phase 2: Off -Road Diesel Exhaust: Time Engines and Reduce Idle Time Percent Reduction(ROG 10.02 NOx 10.02 CO 10.02 SO2 10.02 PM10 10.02) Phase 2: On -Road Diesel Exhaust: Traffic Control P1anTime Engines and Reduce Idle Time ' Percent Reduction(ROG 15.02 NOx 15.02 CO 15.02 SO2 15.02 PM10 15.02) Phase 2: Worker Trips: Traffic Control Plan Percent Reduction(ROG 5.02 NOx 5.02 CO 5.02 SO2 5.02 PM10 5.02) Phase 3: Off -Road Diesel Exhaust: Use aqueous diesel fuel ' Percent Reduction(ROG 0.02 NOx 14.02 CO 0.02 SO2 0.02 PM10 63.02) Phase 3: Off -Road Diesel Exhaust: Use aqueous diesel fuel Percent Reduction(ROG 0.02 NOx 14.02 CO 0.02 SO2 0.02 PM10 63.02) Phase 3: On -Road Diesel Exhaust: Use aqueous diesel fuel Percent Reduction(ROG 0.02 NOx 14.02 CO 0.02 SO2 0.02 PM10 63.02) Phase 3: Worker Trips: Use shuttle to retail establishments @lunch Percent Reduction(ROG 1.02 NOx 1.32 CO 1.32 SO2 1.32 PM10 1.32) Phase 3: Worker Trips: Use shuttle to retail establishments ®lunch ' Percent Reduction(ROG 1.02 NOx 1.32 CO 1.32 SO2 1.32 PM10 1.32) Phase 3: Worker Trips: Use shuttle to retail establishments ®lunch Percent Reduction(ROG 1.02 NOx 1.32 CO 1.32 SO2 1.32 PM10 1.32) Phase 3: Off -Road Diesel Exhaust: Tune Engines and Reduce Idle Time Percent Reduction(ROG 10.02 NOx 10.02 CO 10.02 SO2 10.02 PM10 10.02) Phase 3: Worker Trips: Traffic Control Plan Percent Reduction(ROG 5.02 NOx 5.02 CO 5.02 SO2 5.02 PM10 5.02) Phase 3: Worker Trips: Traffic Control Plan ' Percent Reduction(ROG 5.02 NOx 5.02 CO 5.02 SO2 5.02 PM10 5.02) Phase 3: Off -Road Diesel Exhaust: Tune Engines and Reduce Idle Time Percent Reduction(ROG 10.02 NOx 10.02 CO 10.02 SO2 10.02 PM10 10.02) Phase 3: On -Road Diesel Exhaust: Tune Engines Reduce Idle Traffic Control Plan Percent Reduction(ROG 15.02 NOx 15.02 CO 15.02 SO2 15.02 PM10 15.02) Phase 3: Worker Trips: Traffic Control Plan Percent Reduction(ROG 5.02 NOx 5.02 CO 5.02 SO2 5.02 PM10 5.02) ' Phase 1 - Demolition Assumptions: Phase Turned OFF Phase 2 - Site Grading Assumptions Start Month /Year for Phase 2: Jan '05 Phase 2 Duration: 2.2 months ' On -Road Truck Travel (VMT): 972 Off -Road Equipment No. Type Horsepower Load Factor Hours /Day 2 Other Equipment 190 0.620 8.0 6 Tractor /Loaders /Backhoes 79 0.465 8.0 Phase 3 - Building Construction Assumptions Start Month /Year for Phase 3: Mar '05 Phase 3 Duration: 9.8 months ' Start Month /Year for SubPhase Building: Mar '05 SubPhase Building Duration: 9.3 months Off -Road Equipment No. Type Horsepower Load Factor Hours /Day 1 Concrete /Industrial saws 84 0.730 8.0 2 Other Equipment 190 0.620 8.0 1 Rough Terrain Forklifts 94 0.475 8.0 Start Month /Year for SubPhase Architectural Coatings: Nov 105 ' SubPhase Architectural Coatings Duration: 1.1 months Start Month /Year for SubPhase Asphalt: Dec '05 SubPhase Asphalt Duration: 0.5 months Acres to be Paved: 4.5 ' Off -Road Equipment No. Type Horsepower Load Factor Hours /Day 1 Graders 174 0.575 8.0 1 Off Highway Trucks 417 0.490 8.0 ' 1 Pavers 132 0.590 8.0 1 Paving Equipment ill 0.530 8.0 2 Rollers ROG 114 0.430 Page: 4 SO2 Day -care Center Home - 0.31 0.29 AREA SOURCE EMISSION ESTIMATES (Summer Pounds per Day, Unmitigated) Source ROG 10.02 NOx CO S02 Natural Gas 0.02 0.33 8.19 0.13 - Wood Stoves - No summer emissions 0.10 20.0 Does not include correction for passby trips. 43.0 Fireplaces - No summer emissions land use) Does not include double counting adjustment for Landscaping 0.13 0.01 OPERATIONAL (Vehicle) EMISSION 0.96 0.00 Consumer Prdcts 0.00 - - - TOTALS(lbs /day,unmitigated) 0.15 0.34 EMFAC Version: EMFAC2002 (9/2002) 1.09 0.00 UNMITIGATED OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS Travel Conditions ROG NOx Co Home- SO2 Day -care Center Home - 0.31 0.29 3.11 0.00 Urban Trip Length (miles) Place of worship 7.88 10.02 Rural Trip Length (miles) 106.10 0.10 4.9 TOTAL EMISSIONS (lbs /day) Trip Speeds (mph) 8.19 10.31 40.0 109.21 0.10 20.0 Does not include correction for passby trips. 43.0 W of Trips - Commercial (by land use) Does not include double counting adjustment for internal trips. OPERATIONAL (Vehicle) EMISSION ESTIMATES Analysis Year: 2006 Temperature (F): 90 Season: Summer EMFAC Version: EMFAC2002 (9/2002) Summary of Land Uses: Unit Type Trip Rate Size Day -care center 5.83 trips / 1000 sq. ft. 5.20 Place of worship 36.63 trips / 1000 sq. ft. 28.70 Vehicle Assumptions: Fleet Mix: Vehicle Type Percent Type Non - Catalyst Catalyst Light Auto 55.60 2.2D 97.30 Light Truck < 3,750 lbs 15.10 4.00 93.40 Light Truck 3,751- 5,750 15.90 1.90 96.90 Med Truck 5,751- 8,500 7.00 1.40 95.70 Lite -Heavy 8,501- 10,000 1.10 0.00 81.80 Lite -Heavy 10,001- 14,000 0.30 0.00 66.70 Med -Heavy 14,001- 33,000 1.00 10.00 20.00 Heavy -Heavy 33,001- 60,000 0.90 0.00 11.10 Line Haul > 60,000 lbs 0.00 0.00 0.00 Urban Bus 0.10 0.00 0.00 Motorcycle 1.70 82.40 17.60 School Bus 0.10 0.00 0.00 Motor Home 1.20 0.00 91.70 Travel Conditions 8.0 PM10 0.00 I II O PM10 0.26 9.00 9.27 Total Trips 30.32 1,051.28 Commercial Diesel 0.50 2.60 1.20 2.90 18.20 33.30 70.00 88.90 100.00 100.00 0.00 100.00 8.30 Commute Non -Work Customer 10.3 5.5 5.5 10.3 5.5 5.5 40.0 40.0 40.0 5.0 2.5 92.5 3.0 1.5 95.5 Residential Home- Home- Home - Work Shop Other Urban Trip Length (miles) 11.5 4.9 6.0 Rural Trip Length (miles) 11.5 4.9 E.0 Trip Speeds (mph) 35.0 40.0 40.0 t of Trips - Residential 20.0 37.0 43.0 W of Trips - Commercial (by land use) Day -care center Place of worship 8.0 PM10 0.00 I II O PM10 0.26 9.00 9.27 Total Trips 30.32 1,051.28 Commercial Diesel 0.50 2.60 1.20 2.90 18.20 33.30 70.00 88.90 100.00 100.00 0.00 100.00 8.30 Commute Non -Work Customer 10.3 5.5 5.5 10.3 5.5 5.5 40.0 40.0 40.0 5.0 2.5 92.5 3.0 1.5 95.5 Page: 5 ' Changes made to the default values for Land Use Trip Percentages Changes made to the default values for Construction The user has overridden the Default Phase Lengths Site Grading Fugitive Dust Option changed from Level 1 to Level 2 ' Phase 2 mitigation measure Soil Disturbance: Apply soil stabilizers to inactive areas has been changed from off to on. Phase 2 mitigation measure Soil Disturbance: Replace ground cover in disturbed areas quickly has been changed from off to on. ' Phase 2 mitigation measure Soil Disturbance: Water exposed surfaces - 2x daily has been changed from off to on. Phase 2 mitigation measure Off -Road Diesel Exhaust: Use aqueous diesel fuel has been changed from off to on. ' Phase 2 mitigation measure On -Road Diesel Exhaust: Use aqueous diesel fuel has been changed from off to on. Phase 2 mitigation measure Unpaved Roads: Water all haul roads 2x daily has been changed from off to on. Phase 2 mitigation measure Unpaved Roads: Reduce speed on unpaved roads to < 15 mph has been changed from off to on. Phase 2 mitigation measure Worker Trips: Use shuttle to retail establishments ®lunch has been changed from off to ori. ' Phase 2 mitigation measure Off -Road Diesel Exhaust: Time Engines and Reduce Idle Time has been changed from off to on. Phase 2 mitigation measure On -Road Diesel Exhaust: Traffic Control P1anTime Engines and Reduce Idle Time has been changed from off to on. ' Phase 2 mitigation measure Worker Trips: Traffic Control Plan has been changed from off to on. Phase 3 mitigation measure Off -Road Diesel Exhaust: Use aqueous diesel fuel has been changed from off to on. ' Phase 3 mitigation measure Off -Road Diesel Exhaust: Use aqueous diesel fuel has been changed from off to on. Phase 3 mitigation measure On -Road Diesel Exhaust: Use aqueous diesel fuel has been changed from off to on. ' Phase 3 mitigation measure Worker Trips: Use shuttle to retail establishments ®lunch has been changed from off to on. Phase 3 mitigation measure Worker Trips: Use shuttle to retail establishments ®lunch has been changed from off to on. Phase 3 mitigation measure Worker Trips: Use shuttle to retail establishments ®lunch has been changed from off to on. Phase 3 mitigation measure Off -Road Diesel Exhaust: Tune Engines and Reduce Idle Time has been changed from off to on. ' Phase 3 mitigation measure Worker Trips: Traffic Control Plan has been changed from off to on. Phase 3 mitigation measure Worker Trips: Traffic Control Plan has been changed from off to on. Phase 3 mitigation measure Off -Road Diesel Exhaust: Tune Engines and Reduce Idle Time has been changed from off to on. Phase 3 mitigation measure On -Road Diesel Exhaust: Tune Engines Reduce Idle Traffic Control Plan has been changed from off to on. ' Phase 3 mitigation measure Worker Trips: Traffic Control Plan has been changed from off to on. ' Changes made to the default values for Area The landscape year changed from 2004 to 2006. ' Changes made to the default values for Operations The operational emission year changed from 2004 to 2006. 1 APPENDIX C CALINE 4 OUTPUT FILES EMFAC2002 OUTPUT FILES J 1 iCALINE4: CALIFORNIA LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL JUNE 1989 VERSION ' PAGE 1 JOB: St Marks: Macarthur at Joaquin Hills RUN: Hour 1 (WORST CASE ANGLE) ' POLLUTANT: Carbon Monoxide I 1 I. SITE VARIABLES ' U= .5 M/S Z0= 100. CM ALT= 10. (M) BRG= WORST CASE VD= .0 CM /S CLAS= 7 (G) VS= .0 CM /S MIXH= 1000. M AMB= .0 PPM SIGTH= 10. DEGREES TEMP= 27.0 DEGREE (C) II. LINK VARIABLES LINK * LINK COORDINATES (M) * EF H W ' DESCRIPTION * X1 Y1 X2 Y2 * TYPE VPH (G /MI) (M) (M) - -- ------------- *------------------------- *------------------------------ A. Macarthur N * 18 -4408 18 -4312 * AG 1810 2.0 .0 36.0 B. Macarthur N * 18 -4312 18 -4262 * AG 1749 3.4 .0 36.0 ' C. Macarthur N * 18 -4262 18 -4208 * AG 2413 3.4 .0 36.0 D. Macarthur N * 18 -4208 18 -4112 * AG 2413 2.0 .0 36.0 E. Macarthur N * 18 -4312 9 -4262 * AG 61 3.4 .0 36.0 F. Macarthur S * 0 -4208 9 -4262 * AG 562 3.4 .0 36.0 G. Macarthur S * 0 -4112 0 -4208 * AG 3114 2.0 .0 36.0 H. Macarthur S * 0 -4208 0 -4262 * AG 2552 3.4 .0 36.0 I. Macarthur S * 0 -4262 0 -4312 * AG 2362 3.4 .0 36.0 ' J. Macarthur S * 0 -4312 0 -4408 * AG 2362 2.0 .0 36.0 K. SanJoaguin E * -140 -4267 -45 -4267 * AG 1176 2.0 .0 24.0 L. SanJoaguin E * -45 -4267 9 -4267 * AG 1016 3.4 .0 24.0 ' M. SanJoaguin E * 9 -4267 59 -4267 * AG 1224 3.4 .0 24.0 N. SanJoaguin E * 59 -4267 155 -4267 * AG 1224 2.0 .0 24.0 0. SanJoaguin W * 155 -4255 59 -4255 * AG 546 2.0 .0 24.0 P. SanJoaguin W * 59 -4255 9 -4255 * AG 506 3.4 .0 24.0 ' Q. SanJoaguin W * 9 -4255 -45 -4255 * AG 647 3.4 .0 24.0 R. SanJoaguin W * -45 -4255 -140 -4255 * AG 647 2.0 .0 24.0 S. SanJoaguin W * -45 -4267 9 -4262 * AG 40 3.4 .0 24.0 ' T. SanJoaguin E * 59 -4256 9 -4262 * AG 604 3.4 .0 24.0 I 1 u CALINE4: CALIFORNIA LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL JUNE 1989 VERSION PAGE 2 JOB: St Marks: Macarthur at Joaquin Hills RUN: Hour 1 (WORST CASE ANGLE) POLLUTANT: Carbon Monoxide III. RECEPTOR LOCATIONS * COORDINATES (M) RECEPTOR * X Y Z ------------ *--------------------- 1. Recpt 1 * -7 -4248 1.8 2. Recpt 2 * 25 -4248 1.8 3. Recpt 3 * -7 -4274 1.8 4. Recpt 4 * 25 -4274 1.8 IV. MODEL RESULTS (WORST CASE WIND ANGLE ) * * PRED * CONC /LINK * BRG * CONC * (PPM) RECEPTOR * (DEG) * (PPM) * A B C D E F G H ------------- *------- *------- *----------------------------------------- 1. Recpt 1 * 105. * 1.2 * .0 .0 .3 .0 .0 .0 .0 .3 2. Recpt 2 * 196. * 1.2 * .0 .2 .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 3. Recpt 3 * 15. * 1.3 * .0 .0 .2 .1 .0 .0 .0 .4 4. Recpt 4 * 344. * 1.3 * .0 .0 .3 .0 .0 .0 .2 .2 * CONC /LINK * (PPM) RECEPTOR * I J K L M N O P Q R S T ------------ *------------------------------------------------------------- 1. Recpt 1 * .0 .0 .0 .0 .2 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .1 2. Recpt 2 * .2 .1 .0 .0 .2 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .1 3. Recpt 3 * .1 .0 .0 .2 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 4. Recpt 4 * .0 .0 .0 .0 .2 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .1 ('I I ' Title : South Coast Air Basin Avg 2020 Summer Default Title Version Emfac2002 V2.2 Sept 23 2002 Run Date 02/05/04 09:24:47 ' Scen Year: 2020 -- Model Years: 1975 to 2020 Season Summer Area South Coast AB Year:2020 -- Model Years 1975 to 2020 Inclusive -- Summer ' Emfac2002 Emission Factors: V2.2 Sept 23 2002 South Coast Air Basin Average Table 1: Running Exhaust Emissions (grams /mile) Pollutant Name: Carbon Monoxide Temperature: 80F Relative Humidity: 20t Speed MPH LDA LDT MDT HDT UBUS MCY ALL 5 2.281 4.030 4.650 6.399 29.222 23.177 3.373 ' 10 2.028 3.512 3.937 4.353 19.213 19.711 2.859 15 1.821 3.107 3.415 3.110 13.367 17.397 2.483 20 1.648 2.783 3.020 2.334 9.839 15.902 2.198 ' 25 1.502 2.521 2.714 1.840 7.661 15.048 1.976 30 1.378 2.305 2.472 1.523 6.310 14.759 1.801 35 1.273 2.129 2.282 1.324 5.497 15.042 1.661 40 1.183 1.985 2.133 1.209 5.064 15.995 1.552 45 1.107 1.870 2.022 1.160 4.934 17.830 1.469 50 1.044 1.783 1.948 1.169 5.084 20.939 1.413 55 0.993 1.724 1.915 1.238 5.539 26.018 1.387 ' 60 0.955 1.698 1.930 1.379 6.381 34.311 1.397 65 0.933 1.714 2.011 1.615 7.774 48.088 1.457 1 U J 1 r i 'r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r 1 St Mark Presbyterian Church - Screencheck Draft EIR Michael Brandman Associates HiClient(PN -➢N)\ 0064 \00640021 \Screencheck \00640021 Appendices.doc APPENDIX H: FOCUSED NOISE STUDY 1 1 r r 1 1 1 1 r i 1 r 1 r 1 i St. Mark Presbyterian Church Draft Focused Noise Study Prepared for: St. Mark Presbyterian Church Prepared by: Synectecology 10232 Overbill Drive Santa Ana, CA 92705 Prepared Under: Michael Brandman Associates 220 Commerce, Suite 200 Irvine, CA 92602 February 26, 2004 1.0 BACKGROUND 1 This noise analysis, conducted as a component of the environmental review process under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), codified in Section 21000 et seq. in the Public Resources Code, examines the potential noise impacts upon proposed and existing receptors resulting from the construction and subsequent ' operation of the St. Mark Presbyterian Church project to be located in the City of Newport Beach. For clarity and ease of integration, this document follows the CEQA format for the preparation of Mitigated Negative Declarations. ' The analysis fords that while construction is subject to local ordinance conditions, it does have the potential to create nuisance noise and a listing of recommendations to reduce this impact is included for City Planning Staff to consider when drafting a Conditional Use Permit. The analysis also examines noise impacts both to the site occupants as well as existing off -site receptors located along the perimeter and project access routes. Because future traffic levels would increase over existing levels, as a worst-case scenario, impacts to on -site occupants are based on build -out traffic projections. Noise modeling was performed using the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Sound32 model. Site logistics, including grade elevations and the placement of the proposed structures and berms, are based on the design plans submitted by the architect. The analysis estimates that the future on -site noise levels would not exceed the City's requisite standards for the given land uses. No mitigation is warranted. Potential offsite impacts are associated with on -site operations such as the operation of bells, children involved in preschool activities, and parking lot noise. The analysis examines the potential impacts of on -site sources with 1 respect to the City standards included in the Municipal Code. The analysis fords that based on the distances to off - site receptors, on -site sources would not exceed the applicable standards. Impacts can also occur from increased road noise due to project- generated vehicles. Because the project's contribution to this noise is greatest when compared with the existing noise levels, impacts are addressed for the existing plus project traffic volumes. Also, because the project would generate a higher volume of traffic on Sunday when ambient volumes are lighter, the analysis considers both weekday and Sunday scenarios. The analysis finds that while the project could increase existing noise levels by as much as 0.1 dBA CNEL on weekdays and 0.3 dBA CNEL on Sundays, based on a criterion of 3 dBA CNEL, all increases are less than significant and under CEQA, no mitigation is warranted. In fact, these increases are so small as to be indiscernible. 2.0 EXISTING ENVIRONMENT 2.1 Noise Definitions Sound is a pressure wave transmitted through the air. It is described in terms of loudness or amplitude (measured in decibels), frequency or pitch (measured in Hertz [Hzj or cycles per second), and duration (measured in seconds or minutes). The standard unit of measurement of the loudness of sound is the decibel (dB). Typical human hearing can detect changes in sound levels of approximately 3 dB under normal conditions. Changes of 1 to 3 dB are detectable under quiet, controlled conditions and changes of less than 1 dB are usually indiscernible. A change of 5 dB is typically noticeable to most people in an exterior environment whereas a change of 10 dB is perceived as a doubling (or halving) of the noise. The human ear is not equally sensitive to all frequencies. Sound waves below 16 Hz are not heard at all and are "feh" more as a vibration. Similarly, while people with extremely sensitive hearing can hear sounds as high as 20,000 Hz, most people cannot hear above 15,000 Hz. In all cases, hearing acuity falls off rapidly above about ' 10,000 Hz and below about 200 Hz. Since the human ear is not equally sensitive to sound at all frequencies, a special frequency dependent rating scale is usually used to relate noise to human sensitivity. The A- weighted decibel scale (dBA) performs this compensation by discriminating against frequencies in a manner approximating the sensitivity of the human ear. Noise is defined as unwanted sound, and is known to have several adverse effects on people, including hearing loss, speech and sleep interference, physiological responses, and annoyance. Based on these known adverse effects of second or millimeters per second. Particle acceleration is the rate of change in velocity with respect to time and is measured in inches per second per second or millimeters per second per second. Typically, particle velocity ' (measured in inches or millimeters per second) and/or acceleration (measured in gravities) are used to describe vibration. Table 1 presents the human reaction and effect on buildings to various levels of continuous vibration. TABLE 1 HUMAN REACTION TO TYPICAL VIBRATION LEVELS Vibration Level Human Reaction Effect on Buildings Peak Particle Velocity range and usually occur around 15 Hz. Traffic vibrations exhibit a similar range of frequencies. However, due to (inches /second) uncommon, but possible, to measure traffic frequencies above 30 Hz. 0.006 - 0.019 Threshold of perception, possibility of Vibrations unlikely to cansm e of intrusion any type 0.08 Vibrations readily perceptible Recommended upper level of vibration to waves, or Rayleigh waves, travel along the ground's surface. These waves carry most of their energy along an which nuns and ancient monuments , compression waves, are body waves that carry their energy along an expanding spherical wave front. The particle should be subjected 0.10 Level at which continuous vibration Virtually no risk of "architectural" begins to annoy people. damage to normal buildings 0.20 Vibrations annoying to people in Threshold at which there is a risk to buildings. "architectural" damage to normal dwelling — houses with plastered walls and ceilings 0.4-0.6 Vibrations considered unpleasant by Vibrations at a greater level than people subjected to continuous normally expected from traffic, but vibrations and unacceptable to some would cause "architectural" damage and people walking by bridges possibly minor structural damage Source: Caltrans 2002. I fl J I r r� I I i Vibrations also vary in frequency and this affects perception. Typical construction vibrations fall in the 10 to 30 Hz range and usually occur around 15 Hz. Traffic vibrations exhibit a similar range of frequencies. However, due to their suspension systems, city buses often generate frequencies around 3 Hz at high vehicle speeds. It is more uncommon, but possible, to measure traffic frequencies above 30 Hz. The way in which vibration is transmitted through the earth is called propagation. Propagation of carthbome vibrations is complicated and difficult to predict because of the endless variations in the soil through which waves , travel. There are three main types of vibration propagation; surface, compression, and shear waves. Surface waves, or Rayleigh waves, travel along the ground's surface. These waves carry most of their energy along an expanding circular wave front, similar to ripples produced by throwing a rock into a pool of water. P- waves, or , compression waves, are body waves that carry their energy along an expanding spherical wave front. The particle motion in these waves is longitudinal (i.e., in a "push -pull" fashion). P -waves are analogous to airborne sound waves. S- waves, or shear waves, are also body waves that carry energy along an expanding spherical wave front. I I I1 (i.e., hospitals and classrooms) also have an exterior standard of 65 dBA CNEL. Churches do not have an exterior ' standard, but carry a 45-dBA CNEL interior standard. Both sensitive residential and institutional (e.g., school, church) land uses are acceptable to an interior level of 45 dBA CNEL. As typical construction provides a minimum of 20 dBA of attenuation with windows closed, this interior level is easily achieved if external noise does not ' exceed 65 dBA CNEL. Less sensitive commercial and institutional uses (e.g., office and professional uses) are subject to an interior standard of 50 dBA CNEL. This level is easily achieved so long as exterior levels do not exceed 70 dBA CNEL. The Element references the Noise Ordinance for implementation of its goal and policies. As noted, the goals and policies included in the Noise Element are administered through the City Municipal Code. Section 10.26.025 "Exterior Noise Standards" sets performance standards for noise sources regulated under the City's control. For residential property, the City sets an ambient noise standard of 55 dBA Leq between the hears of 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. and 50 dBA Leq between the hours of 10:00 pm. and 7:00 a.m. Section 10.26.040 "Schools, Day Care Centers, Churches, Libraries, Museums, Health Care Institutions — Special Provisions" applies these residential limitations to sensitive commercial uses. Residential portions of mixed -use properties are subject ' to an ambient standard of 60 dBA during the day and 50 dBA at night. ( Mixed -use areas are defined as those areas where residential dwellings are located within 100 feet of commercial structures.) Commercial uses are subject to an exterior standard of 65 dBA between the hours of 7:00 am. and 10:00 p.m. and 60 dBA between the hours of ' 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. Section 10.26.010, "Definitions" defines ambient noise as `the all- encompassing noise level associated with a given environment, being a composite of sounds from all sources, excepting the alleged offensive noise, at the location and approximate time at which a comparison with the alleged offensive noise is to be made." Section 10.26.025 notes that if the ambient noise level exceeds the referenced standard, the ambient level becomes the standard against which the offensive noise is measured. Section 10.26.025 of the ordinance goes on to state that it is ' uniawfut for any person at any location within the incorporated area of the City to create any noise, or to allow the creation of any noise on property owned, leased, occupied or otherwise controlled by such person, which causes the noise level when measured on any other property, to exceed either the noise standard for any 15- minute period, or an instantaneous noise level (i.e., L..) equal to the value of the noise standard plus 20 dBA for any period of time. It should be noted that the ordinance is only applicable to stationary-source noise under City control. The City is not empowered to regulate noise from the operation of vehicles while operating on public roads. Section 10.26.030 "Interior Noise Standards" sets interior residential levels at 45 dBA between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. and 40 dBA between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. Residential portions of mixed -use areas are subject to the 45-dBA interior standard during both the day and night. These standards are not to be exceeded for 15 minutes during any hour or by 20 dBA for any period of time. No interior standards are set for institutional land uses The noise ordinance recognizes that construction noise sources are not strictly relatable to a 24 -hour community noise standard and these regulations are included in Section 10.28.040 "Construction Activity Noise Regulation." Here, the City places no performance standards or noise limitations on construction other than to restrict loud noise that disturbs, or could disturb a person of normal sensitivity who works or resides in the vicinity of the construction, to between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 6:30 p.m. on weekdays and 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on Saturdays. Construction is prohibited on Sundays and holidays if it disturbs or could disturb a person of normal sensitivity who works or resides in the vicinity. Note that the City does not quantify the tern 'loud." ' 2.4 Existing Setting 2.4.1 Field Measurements A field survey was performed on Tuesday, February 24, 2004 to determine existing noise levels at the project site. The most proximate existing sensitive uses in the project area include the Fairway Apartments along the southern portion of its western boundary and the single-family residential units located to the east across MacArthur Boulevard. The Big Canyon Golf Course, which includes single - family residential units, lies to the northwest. 1 I 1 1 NR -1 — This reading was obtained toward the western portion of the site along San Joaquin Hills Road. Specifically, the meter was located approximately 440 feet west of the westernmost, southbound through lane of MacArthur Boulevard and 50 feet north from centerline of travel for the near, westbound lace. The 15- Minute , reading began at 10:00 am. The primary source of noise included vehicle traffic traveling along San Joaquin Hills Road, but traffic along MacArthur Boulevard was also audible. San Joaquin Hills Road traffic included 152 autos, four medium trucks, and two heavy trucks proceeding eastbound. Westbound traffic included 183 autos, eight ' medium trucks, and one heavy truck. Other sources of noise included aircraft operations associated with John Wayne Airport- NR-2 — This reading was obtained toward the northern portion of the site along MacArthur Boulevard. Specifically, the meter was located approximately 940 feet north of the northernmost, westbound through lane of San Joaquin Hills Road and 50 feet west from centerline of travel for the near, southbound lane. The 15- minute reading began at 10:28 am. The primary source of noise included vehicle traffic traveling along MacArthur Boulevard. This traffic included 408 autos, 11 medium trucks, and three heavy trucks proceeding northbound. Southbound traffic included 392 autos and 14 medium trucks. Other sources of noise included aircraft operations associated with John Wayne Airport. NR -3 — This reading was also obtained along MacArthur Boulevard, this time more proximate to San Joaquin Hills Road. The meter was located approximately 530 feet north of the northernmost, westbound through lane of San Joaquin Hills Road and 50 feet west of the centerline of the near, southbound lane. The 15- minute reading began at 10:55 a.m. The primary source of noise included vehicle traffic traveling along MacArthur Boulevard. This traffic included 384 autos, six medium trucks, and five heavy trucks proceeding northbound. Southbound traffic.included 467 autos, nine median trucks, and one heavy truck. Other sources of noise included aircraft operations. NNRA — This measurement was obtained to characterize the noise at the western project boundary most proximate to the adjacent residents. The meter was placed along the chain link fence at the western site boundary approximately 444 fed north of San Joaquin Hills Road. This placed the meter approximately 35 feet from the garage structure , for units 90 and 92 of the Fairway Apartnrenrs. The meter was located behind a "bluff" such that neither MacArthur Boulevard nor San Joaquin Hills Road was visible, though traffic noise was audible. Readings at the proximate dwellings could be similar to the obtained values. The 15- minute reading began at 11:30 a.m. The primary souse of noise included vehicle traffic traveling along the adjacent roads, but aircraft noise was also notable. Modeling 2.4.2 Noise Level Modeling of Observed FmM Data Ambient noise is due mostly to vehicle travel through the project area While the site is well outside of the John Wayne Airport 60 dBA CNEL noise contour, aircraft operations do add to this noise. The Caltrans Sound32 version of the Federal Highway Administration traffic noise prediction model (Sound32 — Release 07/30/91) was used to evaluate traffic - related noise conditions in the project area. The model predicts 1- hour Leq noise levels and these are compared with the field measurements to determine the applicability of the model to local conditions. Later in this analysis, a factor is applied to provide the CNEL noise levels. These latter values were used in assessing potential impacts from the project implementation. The Sound32 noise model uses various parameters including the traffic volume, vehicle mix, vehicle speed, and roadway geometry to compute typical equivalent noise levels. Sound32 modeling was prepared for the number of vehicles and logistics observed during the field readings. Both soft and hard site modeling were prepared. The results of this analysis are included in Table 3. Note that the best overall correlation is obtained for soft site modeling where the predicted values are all within 1 dBA of the measured values. , 1 } mg—m-'am-2�! — @. Y F F`�9`F3 2 A i t R 'Rog 4�i2s 02m /) c qVA � peas ' � 3 Y 1 B / iCf£ ou v�u'NU z P'fr�A.71. R6 k I' n 1 Fo " wuu S Q H okv: 1\ - ° S H S N D M A N `yI/ IHT E FIOAS ST MARK ?j[ TE _ AR C M I TE Ci11FE H..Y N D M :A N MASTERPLAN .,,ten .,o,_y�>o,..0 „m, I I D I LI h 1 1 i I I 1 TABLE 3 NOISE LEVEL MEASUREMENTS VERSUS PREDICTED MODEL RESULTS Monitoring Location Measured Leq (dBA) Modeled Leq (dBA) Difference WBA) NR -1 (Hard Site) 65.7 67.9 2.2 NR -1 (Soft Site) 66.1 0.4 NR -2 (Hard Site) 72.2 73.3 1.1 NR -2 (Soft Site) 71.4 0.8 NR -3 (Hard Site) 71.0 73.6 2.6 NR -3 (Soft Site) 71.8 0.8 Modeling of Existing Traffic Volumes Noise within the project area is dominated by vehicles traveling along the local roadways. In order to assess the potential for mobile- source noise impacts, it is necessary to determine the noise currently generated by vehicles traveling through the area. Average daily traffic (ADT) volumes were based on the existing daily traffic volumes provided in the traffic study provided by Urban Crossroads. To determine the CNEL noise level produced by this traffic, the percentage contribution from each hour oftraffic was determined from an Orange County, year 2004 mm of the EMFAC2002 computer model (BURDEN2002 module) distributed by the California Air Resources Board. The model predicts the volume of vehicles and miles generated for each of the 24 hours of the day. The ratio of each hour of traffic to the total daily traffic was then calculated from the model data. Traffic between the hours of 7:00 p.m. and 10:00 p.m. was assigned a 5-dBA penalty whereas the traffic predicted between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. was assigned a 10-dBA penalty. The resultant noise associated with each hour was then logarithmically summed and averaged so that a "constant" factor could be ascertained and applied to the entire volume of traffic as if it were to occur in a 1 -hour period. Under these premises, the CNEL value is 10.2 dBA less than the model results that are predicted if the entirety of the ADT volume were modeled to occur in a 1 -hour period. As such, the CNEL can be represented by modeling the ADT as if it were to occur in a 1 -hour period and subtracting 10.2 dBA from the resultant value. For the purposes of this analysis, with the noted exceptions, the ratio of automobiles, medium trucks, and heavy trucks is based on the vehicle courts observed in the field study. In all, 2,050 vehicles were courted during the three field readings. Of these vehicles, 1,986 were autos, 52 were medium trucks, and 12 were heavy trucks. This equates to 96.88 percent autos, 2.54 percent medium trucks, and 0.58 percent heavy trucks. The ratios along Pacific Coast Highway is as provided by Caltrans. The Caltrans counts include 98.65 percent autos, 1.04 percent medium trucks, and 0.31 percent heavy trucks north of MacArthur Boulevard. Traffic south of MacArthur includes 98.09 percent autos, 1.38 percent medium trucks, and 0.53 percent heavy trucks. Vehicle speeds are based on the posted speed limits observed in the field survey. Traffic volumes are based on data prepared by Urban Crossroads. Because the project is estimated to generate its largest traffic volume on Sundays when ambient volumes are lowest, the analysis includes both weekday and Sunday noise levels. f J1 The Sound32 Noise Model considers four parameters in its calculations. These include the speed of the vehicles, the ratio of the vehicles (i.e., autos, medium trucks, and heavy trucks), the roadway logistics (i.e., distance that traffic is observed as it approacWeaves, curvature of the road, etc.), and the volume of vehicles. A worst case assumes a straight mad visible in both directions and countless iterations of the model have shown that after about 750 feet, more distant vehicles do not add measurably to the modeled noise levels. As such, this distance was used in the modeling effort. A value of 10,000 vehicles was modeled at a distance of 50 feet for each noted vehicle ratio and speed observed throughout the project area. Actual projected roadway noise levels are then calculated in a spreadsheet and referenced to the 10,000 vehicle "standard" at a distance of 50 feet. For example, if a road is projected to included 20,000 vehicles per day, the spreadsheet compares this volume with that for a road that included the 10,000 vehicle standard and raises the CNEL by 3 dBA accordingly using the formula: a Resultant Noise= 10 log(Projected Volume/10,000) The spreadsheet then calculates the distances to the 70, 65, and 60 dBA CNEL contours using soft site modeling as predicted by the formula: a Resultant Noise= 15 log(New Distance/50 feet) Table 4 presents the projected noise levels along site access roads in the project area as well as the distances to the , 70, 65, and 60 dBA CNEL noise contours for weekday traffic. Table 5 presents these same routes for Sunday traffic. All modeling assumes soft site conditions that shows a better correlation with field observation. The spreadsheets are included in this appendix. ' TABLE 4 EXISTING WEEKDAY TRAFFIC- GENERATED NOISE LEVELS THROUGH THE PROJECT AREA Street Name Segment Speed (mph) Existing ADT Existing CNEL (dBA istance to 70 Distance to 65 Distance to 60 Volumes 50 Feet) CNEL CNEL CNEL Ford lid WHO Jamboree 45 14,900 68.8 42 90 194 Bonita Canyon Dr. MacArthur 50 25,000 72.3 71 153 329 San Joaquin E/O Jamboree 45 10,000 67.1 32 69 149 Rd. Hills W/O Big Canyon 45 12,600 68.1 37 81 173 Big Capon 45 15,900 69.1 44 94 203 W/o MacArthur 45 20,000 70.1 51 110 236 San Miguel 145 145 120,300 170.2 51 111 238 I I 11 I I M I I I� u I F 11 E I I L� 1 L1 I O San Miguel 45 20,300 70.2 51 111 238 Newport Center - 35 20,700 67.6 34 74 160 E/O San Miguel Dr. MacAribw 40 12,900 .9 31 67 144 W/O Jamboree 45 54,700 74.0 92 198 428 Pacific Coast O Hwy. MacArftff 45 43,500 73.2 82 176 378 N/O Ford 50 37,800 74.1 93 201 434 S/O Ford 50 45,400 74.9 106 228 490 N/O San Joaquin Hills 50 38,400 74.1 94 203 438 San Joaquin Hills — Santa Barbara 50 34,900 73.7 89 191 411 Santa Barbara — Pacific Coast Jamboree Rd. Hwy. 50 38,500 74.2 95 204 439 San Joaquin Hills — Newport Santa Rosa Dr. Center 30 11,700 63.8 19 41 89 N/O Ford 55 63,000 77.3 153 330 711 S/0 Ford 55 53,200 76.6 137 295 635 N/O San Joaquin Hills 55 54,600 763 139 300 646 San Joaquin Hills — San Miguel 50 35,900 73.9 90 195 419 S/O San Miguel 50 30,200 73.1 80 173 374 MacArthur N/O Pacific Blvd. Coast Hwy. 50 22,200 71 A 66 141 304 TABLE 5 EXISTING SUNDAY TRAFFIC - GENERATED NOISE LEVELS THROUGH THE PROJECT AREA Street Name Segment Speed (mph) Existing ADT Existing CNEL WA Distance o 70 Dishme 65 to Distance 60 Volumes 50 Feet) CNEL CNEL CNEL Ford Rd. W/O Jamboree 45 12,300 68.0 37 79 171 Bonita Canyon 00 Dr. MacArt1mr 50 18,400 70.9 58 125 268 Jamboree 45 8,500 66.4 29 2 133 W/O Big Canyon 45 6,600 165.3 24 52 113 E/O Big Canyon 45 10,900 67.5 34 73 157 W/O MacArthur 45 11,700 67.8 36 77 165 Ardmr- San Miguel 45 13,100 68.3 38 83 178 San Joaquin San Hil]sRcL Nfiguel 45 13,100 68.3 38 83 178 Newport Center - MacArthur 35 10,100 64.4 21 46 99 E/O San Miguel Dr MacArtlair 40 8,800 65.2 24 52 112 W/O Jamboree 45 32,800 71.8 65 141 304 PaCIRC Coast E/O Hwy. MacArdiar 45 34,600 712 70 151 325 Jamboree Rd. N10 Ford 50 24,100 72.1 69 149 321 S/0 Ford 50 31,900 73.3 83 180 387 /O San Joaquin Hills 50 31,600 73.3 83 179 385 I I �J f L_ 1 I I I [1 I I LJ 1, I I 1 I I i I I 3.0 STANDARDS OF SIGNIFICANCE The applicable noise standards governing the project site are the City of Newport Noise Standards. As discussed above, the City's General Plan Noise Element sets a maximum desirable exterior noise level of 65 dBA CNEL for residential and lodging- type land uses as well as sensitive institutional uses including classrooms. Churches, do not ' have an exterior standard but carry a 45-dBA CNEL interior standard. Both sensitive residential and institutional land uses are acceptable to an interim level of 45 dBA CNEL. The less sensitive office and administrative uses are acceptable to an interior level of 50 dBA CNEL. Additionally, the project would generate vehicle trips that are added to the local roadway network and the inclusion of these vehicles could raise traffic noise levels through the adjoining residential area. Noise impacts can be broken down into three categories. The first is "audible" impacts, which refers to increases in noise level that are perceptible to humans. Audible increases in noise levels generally refer to a change of 3 dBA or more since this level has been found to be barely perceptible in exterior environments. The second category, "potentially audible," refers to a change in noise level between 1 and 3 dBA, This range of noise levels was found to be noticeable to sensitive people in laboratory environments. The last category includes changes in noise level of less than 1 dBA that are typically "inaudible" to the human ear except under quiet conditions in controlled environments. Only "audible" changes in noise level are considered potentially significant. ' Mobile- source noise (i.e., vehicle noise) is preempted from local regulation but is still subject to CEQA. Here an impact is considered significant if the project were to increase this noise by an audible level of 3 dBA CNEL 11 San Joaquin Hills _ Santa Barbara 50 26,400 72.5 74 159 341 Santa Barbara Pacific Coast Hwy- 50 23,500 72.0 68 147 316 San Joaquin Hills — Newport Santa Rosa Dr. Center 30 7,000 61.6 14 29 63 /0 Ford 55 38,100 75.1 110 236 508 S/0 Ford 55 33,100 74.5 100 215 463 /O San Joaquin Hills 55 33,700 74.6 101 217 469 San Joaquin Hills — San Miguel 50 22,800 71.9 67 144 310 S/O San Miguel 50 21,000 71.5 63 136 293 MacArthur /O Pacific Blvd. Coast Hwy. 50 20,900 71.5 63 136 292 3.0 STANDARDS OF SIGNIFICANCE The applicable noise standards governing the project site are the City of Newport Noise Standards. As discussed above, the City's General Plan Noise Element sets a maximum desirable exterior noise level of 65 dBA CNEL for residential and lodging- type land uses as well as sensitive institutional uses including classrooms. Churches, do not ' have an exterior standard but carry a 45-dBA CNEL interior standard. Both sensitive residential and institutional land uses are acceptable to an interim level of 45 dBA CNEL. The less sensitive office and administrative uses are acceptable to an interior level of 50 dBA CNEL. Additionally, the project would generate vehicle trips that are added to the local roadway network and the inclusion of these vehicles could raise traffic noise levels through the adjoining residential area. Noise impacts can be broken down into three categories. The first is "audible" impacts, which refers to increases in noise level that are perceptible to humans. Audible increases in noise levels generally refer to a change of 3 dBA or more since this level has been found to be barely perceptible in exterior environments. The second category, "potentially audible," refers to a change in noise level between 1 and 3 dBA, This range of noise levels was found to be noticeable to sensitive people in laboratory environments. The last category includes changes in noise level of less than 1 dBA that are typically "inaudible" to the human ear except under quiet conditions in controlled environments. Only "audible" changes in noise level are considered potentially significant. ' Mobile- source noise (i.e., vehicle noise) is preempted from local regulation but is still subject to CEQA. Here an impact is considered significant if the project were to increase this noise by an audible level of 3 dBA CNEL 11 (barely noticeable in an exterior environment). Additionally, the City has no published standards for vibration. As such, this analysis defers to the vibration standards published by Caltrans. 4.0 IMPACT ANALYSIS For ease of the reader, the presented impact analysis follows the Mitigated Negative Declaration Checklist format for the preparation of noise impacts as specified under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The Checklist asks if the project would result in the: a) Exposure of pawns to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? Less than Significant Impact. For on -site uses and stationary sources, the applicable poise standards include criteria established by local as well as any State regulations applicable to the proposed project. Impacts to On -site Land Uses The project is to be placed on a vacant parcel at the intersection of San Joaquin Hills Road and MacArthur Boulevard. Traffic traveling along these roads creates on -site noise. Am impact could be significant if the project were to site sensitive structures in areas that exceed the appropriate standards. As noted, the preschool is subject to an external standard of 65 dBA CNEL. Other sensitive on -site land uses, such as the church structure are subject to a 45-dBA CNEL interior standard whereas administrative offices and miscellaneous uses are subject to an interior standard of 50 dBA CNEL. The included analysis is based on the build -out traffic volumes provided by Urban Crossroads. These traffic volumes are considerably higher than the ambient volumes, but serve as the design standards for the project for firture occupancy. These volumes are projected at 26,100 average daily trips (ADT) along San Joaquin Hills Road west of MacArthur and 63,200 ADT along MacArthur Boulevard north of San Joaquin Hills Road. Sound32 noise modeling was performed for these two routes using the provided grade contours and placement of the various proposed structures and berms as provided by the architect. Modeled locations are included in Figure 1 and the results are included in Table 6. As a worst-case, the analysis addresses the impact of weekday traffic on the project as these days result in greater traffic volumes and noise levels. Note that all proposed uses are within their applicable standards and the impact is less than significant. It should also be pointed out that the projected noise levels consider noise associated with build -out of the area that may not occur for several years. Furthermore, when the area does build -out, due to additional congestion, traffic speeds through the area could be expected to decrease from their current levels reducing noise accordingly. Any potential reduction in speed, and noise, was not considered in the model tbat assumes existing posted speed limits. Furthermore, the analysis does not consider the presence of the on -site structures that shield other on -site structures from the road noise nor does it consider any attenuation provided by vehicles parked in the various lots that shield the structures from road noise. As such, the analysis is considered as a reasonable worst -case. TABLE 6 BUILDOUT TRAFFIC - GENERATED NOISE LEVELS AT THE PROJECT SITE Modeled Location Plan Designation Exterior CNEL' Standard Exceeds Sttandardard. d? an Fellowship Hall — Southeast Comer R-1 61.5 70 No i i lI I I I Ll I I I 1 I C] 1 1 Ll I 1 1 i 1 1 1 LL Fellowship Hall — Northeast Comer R -2 61.7 70 No Administrative Building — Middle East Comer R -3 62.9 70 No Administrative Building — Northeast Comer R-4 63.6 70 No Church — Southeast Comer R -5 61.0 65 No Church — Northeast Comer R -6 61.6 65 No Preschool — Southeast Comer R -7 63.9 65 No Preschool Administration — Northeast Comer R -8 66.2 70 No Expansion Building — Southeast Comer R -9 65.2 70 No Expansion Building — Northeast Comer R -10 65.7 70 No ' Exterior level necessary to meet the applicable interior standards. Assumes 20 dBA of attenuation provided by the structure with typical construction and no additional requirements other than forced air ventilation. Impacts to Off -site Land Uses The project includes the on -site operation of a church and preschool. Stationary- source noise includes those sources of noise that occur on -site, but potentially impact off -site receptors. While some noise is associated with the use of heating, air conditioning, and ventilation equipment, these sources are regulated under the Uniform Building Code as well as the City of Newport Beach Noise Ordinance and are commonplace in both commercial and residential areas. 1 Church Bells Less than Significant Impact. Little noise would be produced by on -site church operations. However, the church could make use of bells or chimes. This noise is of short duration. The City ordinance allows for this short- duration noise as long as it does not exceed the daytime noise standard (i.e., 55 dBA) for more than 15 minutes in any hour and does not exceed the standard by 20 dBA. While Synectecology has not measured the noise associated with church bells, either mechanical of electronic, noise level measurements of high school football games that include public address systems have been recorded. 1 Measurements obtained at a La Quiff High School football game (with over 3,500 in attendance) showed Lao readings of as much as 57.5 dBA as measured at a distance of approximately 350 feet from the bleachers. This equates to a level of about 74.4 dBA at 50 fleet. While one would not expect the sound of the church bells to approach that of a football game, a value of 75 dBA as measured at a distance of 50 feet was used to represent a reasonable worst -case scenario for the operation of bells. The most proximate resident is located in the Fairview Apartments approximately 55 feet from the site boundary. If the public address system were mounted at the property line and pointed at the residents, noise levels could be on the order of 74 dBA. This value does not exceed the 55 dBA standard by more than 20 dBA. Furthermore, the noise is of short duration limited to less than 15 minutes in any hour. In actuality, these bells would not be placed at the property line and the noise at the receptors would be further reduced. As such, the impact, while adverse, is less than significant. Pre - School Activities Less than Significant Impact. Another source of on -site noise is from children at the preschool engaged in outdoors play activities. The school is to be operated adjacent to residential neighborhood. The preschool could accommodate as many as 112 children. The school would be conducted Monday through Friday, year - round, with operational hours Honing from 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. To determine the noise associated with play yard activities, noise readings were obtained by Synectecology at the Jenny Hart Early Education Center located in the City of Irvine. The Jenny Hart pre - school facility accommodates 85 students so is roughly comparable to the proposed project. Noise readings were obtained at the Jenny Hart facility on September 5, 2002. The facility includes two adjacent play areas bath enclosed by chain link fencing. A sandy area is located to the west and encompasses an area 73 feet by 52 feet. This area includes various types on climbing play equipment. An asphalt area is located directly to the east and is separated by a chain link fence. This area is 64 feet by 88 feet and is used for playing ball, hopscotch, etc. Additionally, the school parking lot is located immediately north of the play area. Meadowbrook Road is located immediately north of the parking lot and 94 feet north of the play area. Two representative readings were obtained at this facility. Monitoring and calibration equipment were as described for the reading obtained at the projoct site. The meter was field calibrated at 3:15 p.m. prior to the readings and rechecked at 4:45 p.m. after the readings. No meter drift was noted. The results of these readings are included in Table 7 and each reading is described below. TABLE 7 JENNY DART PRESCHOOL NOISE LEVEL MEASUREMENTS Monitoring Location Leq Lot Log Les Lso Lnda L. JH -1 58.7 65.1 62.4 59.6 57.0 50.3 69.2 JH -2 57.4 62.6 60.1 58.2 56.7 50.7 68.6 The Leq represents the equivalent sound level and is the numeric value of a constant level that over the given period of time transmits the same amount of acoustic energy as the actual time - varying sound level. The Lot, Log, Lis, and L5o are the levels that are exceeded 2, 8, 25, and 50 percent of the time, respectively. Alternatively, these values represent the noise level that would be exceeded for 1, 5, 15, and 30 minutes during a 1- hour Period if the reading was extrapolated out to 1- hour's duration. Ile "and L. i I I H 1 I 11 I 1 I 11 I represent the minimum and maximum root- mean - square noise levels obtained over a period of 1 second. JH -1 - The first reading was obtained in the asphalt play area while the children were still playing in the sandy area. The 15- minute reading began at 3:45 p.m Approximately 25 children were playing in the area at the on-set of the 1 measurement. However, within approximately 5 minutes this value had doubled and in excess of 50 children were counted. Additional sources of noise included eight vehicles operating in the parking lot (and their associated noises such as door slams, alarm honks, and engine start-ups) ranging from about 50 to 100 feet from the meter. Additionally, vehicles on the adjacent roads, aircraft overflights, and people playing tennis (approximately 150 feet way) were observed during the reading. JH -2 - After the first reading, the children were allowed to occupy both the sand and asphalt areas. This required that the meter be moved into the parking lot area. The meter was located 50 feet north of the play area fence line immediately between the sand and asphalt areas. The 15- minute reading began at 4:25 p.m Approximately 55 to 60 children now occupied the combined areas. Additional sources of noise included eight vehicles operating in the parking lot (again with their associated noises). However, because the meter was moved into the parking lot, some of these vehicles were observed to pass within 15 to 20 feet of the meter. Additionally 14 autos were observed to pass on the adjacent road behind the meter at a distance of about 55 feet to the centerline of the road. Aircraft overflights also added to the measured noise. The noise level expected at the St Mark facility would be comparable to that measured at the Jenny Hart facility. Both facilities include roughly the same number of students and their play areas are of similar size. Furthermore, the proposed project is to include a 5 to 6 -foot high masonry wall and this would further contain play yard noise. (The Jenny Hart facility was enclosed with chain link fencing.) The nearest off -site structures to the pre-school area are in excess of 250 feet. Assuming the use of the louder of the two reading obtained at the Jenny Hart facility, Leq noise at a distance of 250 feet is estimated at under 45 dBA. Both Caltrans and FHWA note that any solid wall that is high enough to shield the view of the source results in a minimum of 5 dBA of attenuation. The presence of the proposed masonry wall would then reduce this value by an additional 5 dBA and pre - school noise at the most proximate receptors would not exceed the ambient levels. Additionally, because exterior play activities are of limited duration, their noise would not measurably raise the CNEL at the local residents and the impact is less than significant. Parkins Lot Activities Less than Significant Impact. Some types of noises are associated with parking lot operations and their potential impact on proximate receptors should not be ignored. Synectecology performed noise measurements of automobile door slams on March 11, 2002. Noise monitoring equipment is as described for the current field study and the meter was field calibrated at 6:05 pm. The ambient noise level was noted at 43 to 44 dBA. The measurements include 13 door "slams." The vehicles included a 1999 Oldsmobile Aurora (six slams) and a 1990 Jeep Grand Wagoner (seven slams); both full-size family vehicles. The meter was located 50 feet from the car door(s). The doors were purposely and forcefully "slammed." Furthermore, the vehicle occupant stood to the side as the doors were slammed so that the meter had a clear line -of -sight to the car doors. Additionally, the meter was allowed to return to the ambient noise level between door slams. Instantaneous readings for the Aurora ranged from 55.3 to 59.8 dBA. The Jeep produced readings ranging from 57.4 to 61.4 dBA. As a worst-caw scenario, it is assumed that a door slam produces an instantaneous noise level of 65 dBA. (This is well above any of the measured values and no shielding due to the presence of the occupant or other vehicles in the lot is assumed.) Because a door slam is such brief occurrence lasting less than 1 second, they would not exceed the ambient level for a period of 15 minutes in any hour. (At 1 second each, 900 consecutive door slams would have to occur over of ' period of 15 minutes and with a maximum of 247 parking spaces, this level of activity would not occur.) I I impact is less than significant. , I ' Additionally, based on an assumed value of 65 dBA as measured at a distance of 50 feet, the 75 dBA (i.e., the 55 dBA daytime standard plus 20 dBA) falls at a distance of 16 feet from the vehicle. No vehicle doors would be within this distance of any sensitive properties and the impact is less than significant. The use of homs and unintentional sanding of car alarms would be raze occurrences. The sound created by the use of automobile homs and alarms is specifically exempted from the regulation within the City of Newport Beach Municipal Code. Specifically, Section 10.26.035 C of the ordinance exempts, "Any mechanical device, apparatus or equipment used, related to or connected with emergency machinery, vehicle, work or warning alarm or bell, provided the sounding of any bell or alarm on any building or motor vehicle shall terminate its operation within forty -five (45) minutes in any hour of it being activated." As such, these sources would constitute a significant impact. (Note that one could also interpret this to exempt the operation of the church bells discussed above.) b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ground borne vibration or ground borne noise levels? and Less than Significant Impact. The proposed project would involve the construction and operation of a church preschool on 10.81 acres of land. Caltrans notes that excessive ground borne vibration is typically associated with such activities as pile driving or blasting, neither of which would be required during site construction. Only minimal ground home vibrations would be created during demolition and subsequent construction associated with project development. However, no excessive ground home vibrations or noise would be created by the operation of the proposed project and no significant vibration impacts would result from project development. No mitigation measures are necessary. , c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels eristiog without the project? Less than Significant Impact. CEQA notes that a project maybe significant if it represents a substantial increase to the existing noise levels. Noise impacts can be broken down into three categories. The first is "audible" impacts, which refers to increases in noise level that are perceptible to humans. Audible increases in noise levels generally refer to a change of 3 dBA or more since this level has been found to be barely perceptible in exterior environments. The second category, "potentially audible," refers to a change in noise level between 1 and 3 dBA. This range of noise levels was found to be noticeable to sensitive people in laboratory environments. The last category includes changes in noise level of less than I dBA that are typically "inaudible" to the human ear except under quiet conditions in controlled environments. Only "audible" changes in noise level are considered potentially significant. As such, a change of 3 dBA CNEL (barely perceptible to some people in an exterior environment) is used as the significance threshold. The greatest source of noise associated with the project is in its contribution to on -road traffic. On -site operations also raise the ambient noise, but as demonstrated above, their contribution is small and of limited duration and their addition to the CNEL is minimal and well under 1 dBA. The traffic analysis indicates that the project would generate as many as 765 ADT on a weekday and 1,081 ADT on a Sunday. These trips would be distributed over the network of roadways that access the project site. Tables 8 and ' 9 add the project - related trips to the existing ADT volumes through the project area for weekday and Sunday traffic, respectively. This presents the worst -case scenario in that the project's contribution to the average daily traffic represents a larger percentage of the total traffic. In future years as ambient traffic volumes continue to increase, the project's contribution to both traffic and noise represents a smaller portion of the "whole." ' The ratio of autos, medium trucks, and heavy trucks is as discussed for the existing setting. Speeds are again based on posted speed limits. All modeling assumes "soft site" conditions. Note that the project could increase the noise associated with weekday traffic by as much as 0.2 dBA CNEL. Sunday traffic noise could increase by as much as 0.3 dBA CNEL. These increases are well under the 3-dBA threshold and are so low as to be inaudible and the impact is less than significant. , I TABLES EXISTING VERSUS WITH PROJECT NOISE LEVELS ALONG SITE ACCESS ROADS FOR WEEKDAY TRAFFIC Speed Existing fisting with Project W'th Project Difference Street Name 5egnuert (Mph) C BA T Volumes Feet Volumes 50 Feet) 50 Feet) Ford Rd. W/O Jamboree 45 14,900 68.8 14,932 08.8 0.0 Bonita Canyon E/O Dr. MacArdw 50 25,000 72.3 25,127 72.3 0.0 O Jamboree 45 10,000 67.1 10,174 67.2 0.1 W/O Big Canyon 45 12,600 68.1 12,774 68.2 0.1 O Big Canyon 45 15,900 69.1 16,343 69.2 0.1 W/O MacArtbur 5 20,000 70.1 20,443 70.2 0.1 MacArthur - SanMiguel 45 20,300 70.2 20,379 70.2 0.0 San Joaquin San Hills Rd. Miguel 45 20,300 70.2 20,395 70.2 0.0 Newport Center - MacArtlu r 35 20,700 67.6 20,779 67.6 0.0 E/O San Miguel Dr. MacArdw 40 12,900 66.9 12,916 66.9 0.0 W/O Jamboree 45 54,700 74.0 54,795 74.0 0.0 Pacific Coast /O Hwy. MacArtlu r 45 43,500 73.2 43,595 73.2 0.0 Jamboree Rd. N10 Ford 50 37,800 74.1 37,863 74.1 0.0 S/0 Ford 50 45,400 74.9 45,511 74.9 0.0 N/O San Joaquin Hills 50 38,400 74.1 38,511 74.2 0.0 San Joaquin Hills - Santa Barbara 50 34,900 73.7 34,963 73.7 0.0 TABLE 9 EXISTING VERSUS WITH PROJECT NOISE LEVELS ALONG SITE ACCESS ROADS FOR SUNDAY TRAFFIC Sawa Barbma Speed Existing With Project Project rence Street Name Pacific Coast (O1pb) Existing CNEL T Volumes Feet wy. 50 38,500 74.2 38,563 74.2 0.0 Ford Rd. San Joaquin Hills 45 12,300 8.0 12,354 Bonita Canyon - Newport Santa Rosa Dr. Center 30 11,700 63.8 11,969 63.9 0.1 San Joaquin N/O Ford 55 63,000 77.3 63,127 77.3 0.0 Hills Rd. S/0 Ford 55 53,200 76.6 53,453 76.6 0.0 /O San Joaquin Hills 55 4,600 76.7 54,837 76.7 .0 San Joaquin 45 6,600 65.3 6,897 65.5 0.2 Hills - San Nfiguel 50 35,900 719 36,122 719 0.0 S/O San Miguel 50 30,200 73.1 30,327 73.1 0.0 MacArthur N/O Pacific Blvd Coast Hwy. 50 22,200 71.8 22,327 71.8 0.0 TABLE 9 EXISTING VERSUS WITH PROJECT NOISE LEVELS ALONG SITE ACCESS ROADS FOR SUNDAY TRAFFIC 1 1 1� 1 f 1 1 r t i 1 1 f' 1' 1 1 1 1 Speed Existing With Project Project rence Street Name Segment (O1pb) Existing CNEL T Volumes Feet Volumes 50 Feet) r(o, Ford Rd. W/O Jamboree 45 12,300 8.0 12,354 Bonita Canyon E/O Dr. MacArthur 50 18,400 70.9 18,616 71.0 0.1 San Joaquin O Jamboree 45 8,500 66.4 8,797 66.5 0.1 Hills Rd. W/O Big Canyon 45 6,600 65.3 6,897 65.5 0.2 E/O Big Canyon 45 10,900 67.5 11,656 67.8 0.3 W/O MacArthur 45 11,700 67.8 12,456 68.1 0.3 1 1 1� 1 f 1 1 r t i 1 1 f' 1' 1 1 1 1 i i 1 i 1 MacArthur - San Miguel 45 13,100 8.3 13,235 68.3 0.0 FJO San Miguel 45 13,100 .3 13,262 68.3 0.0 Newport Center MacArthur 35 10,100 64.4 10,235 64.5 0.1 O San Miguel Dr. MacArthur 40 8,800 65.2 8,827 65.3 0.1 W/O Jamboree 45 32,800 71.8 32,962 71.8 0.0 Pacific Coast O Hwy. MacArthur 45 34,600 72.2 34,762 72.2 0.0 /O Ford 50 24,100 72.1 24,208 72.1 0.0 S/O Ford 50 31,900 73.3 32,089 73.4 0.1 /O San Joaquin Hills 50 31,600 73.3 31,789 73.3 0.0 San Joaquin Hills _Santa Barbara 50 26,400 72.5 26,508 72.5 0:0 Santa Barbara Pacific Coast Jamboree Rd- Hwy. 50 23,500 72.0 23,608 72.0 0.0 San Joaquin Hills - Newport Santa Rosa Dr. Center 30 7,000 61.6 7,459 61.8 0.3 MacArthur N/O Ford 55 38,100 75.1 38,316 75.1 0.0 Blvd S/OFord 55 33,100 74.5 33,532 74.6 0.1 /O San Joaquin Hills 55 33,700 74.6 34,105 74.6 0.1 San Joaquin Hills - San Miguel 50 22,800 71.9 23,178 72.0 0.1 INS/fioS an guel 50 21,000 71.5 21,216 71.6 0.0 4 A substantial temporary or periodFc increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels edsS g without the project? Less than &gnifrcam Impact with bltdgation Incorporated. Short term noise impacts are impacts associated with site preparation, excavation, grading, and construction of the proposed structures. The construction - related short- term noise levels would be higher than the existing or ambient noise levels in the project area today, but would no longer occur once construction of the project is complete. Two types of short-term noise impacts could occur during the construction of the proposed project. First, the transport of workers and import of construction materials to the site could incrementally increase noise levels along local access toads. The URBENUS2002 computer model indicates that on average, commercial projects require 0.32 workers for every 1,000 square feet of structure. Based on a total of 33,867 square feet, the project would require 11 construction workers on a daily basis. While the actual number of workers is expected to be somewhat larger than this value, the model indicates that it is still a relatively small number. Furthermore, the delivery of materials is estimated to require one truck for every 10,000 square feet of structure and as many as four heavy trucks per day could occur. This volume of vehicles is too small to add measurably to the existing noise along major access routes. Therefore, even though there could be a relatively high single event noise exposure potential associated with passing trucks, the increase in long -term ambient noise levels would be less than 1 dBA when averaged over a 24 -hour period and construction- related impacts associated with vehicle travel would not result in a significant adverse impact. The second type of short-term noise impact is related to noise generated at the site during site preparation, excavation, and construction. Construction is performed in discrete steps, each of which has its own mix of equipment, and, consequently, its own noise characteristics. These various sequential phases would change the character of the noise generated on the site and, therefore, the noise levels surrounding the site as construction progresses. Despite the variety in the type and size of construction equipment, similarities in the dominant noise sources and patterns of operation allow construction- related noise ranges to be categorized by work phase. Table 10 lists typical construction equipment noise levels recommended for noise impact assessments, based on a distance of 50 feet between the equipment and a noise receptor. TABLE 10 NOISE LEVELS GENERATED BY TYPICAL CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT Type of Equipment Pacific Suggested Sound Levels for Analysis (dBA at 50 feet) Pile Drivers, 12,000 to 18,000 ft- lb/blow 81 to 96 93 Rock Drifts 83 to 99 96 Gast Hwy. 50 900 1.5 1,116 171.5 0.0 4 A substantial temporary or periodFc increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels edsS g without the project? Less than &gnifrcam Impact with bltdgation Incorporated. Short term noise impacts are impacts associated with site preparation, excavation, grading, and construction of the proposed structures. The construction - related short- term noise levels would be higher than the existing or ambient noise levels in the project area today, but would no longer occur once construction of the project is complete. Two types of short-term noise impacts could occur during the construction of the proposed project. First, the transport of workers and import of construction materials to the site could incrementally increase noise levels along local access toads. The URBENUS2002 computer model indicates that on average, commercial projects require 0.32 workers for every 1,000 square feet of structure. Based on a total of 33,867 square feet, the project would require 11 construction workers on a daily basis. While the actual number of workers is expected to be somewhat larger than this value, the model indicates that it is still a relatively small number. Furthermore, the delivery of materials is estimated to require one truck for every 10,000 square feet of structure and as many as four heavy trucks per day could occur. This volume of vehicles is too small to add measurably to the existing noise along major access routes. Therefore, even though there could be a relatively high single event noise exposure potential associated with passing trucks, the increase in long -term ambient noise levels would be less than 1 dBA when averaged over a 24 -hour period and construction- related impacts associated with vehicle travel would not result in a significant adverse impact. The second type of short-term noise impact is related to noise generated at the site during site preparation, excavation, and construction. Construction is performed in discrete steps, each of which has its own mix of equipment, and, consequently, its own noise characteristics. These various sequential phases would change the character of the noise generated on the site and, therefore, the noise levels surrounding the site as construction progresses. Despite the variety in the type and size of construction equipment, similarities in the dominant noise sources and patterns of operation allow construction- related noise ranges to be categorized by work phase. Table 10 lists typical construction equipment noise levels recommended for noise impact assessments, based on a distance of 50 feet between the equipment and a noise receptor. TABLE 10 NOISE LEVELS GENERATED BY TYPICAL CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT Type of Equipment Range of Sound Levels Measured (dBA at 50 feet) Suggested Sound Levels for Analysis (dBA at 50 feet) Pile Drivers, 12,000 to 18,000 ft- lb/blow 81 to 96 93 Rock Drifts 83 to 99 96 Jack Hammers 75 to 85 82 Pneumatic Tools 78 to 88 85 Ii 11 1 i! 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 H i I I I 1; i [1 I LJ I I 1 I Pumps 68 to 80 77 Dozers 85 to 90 88 Tractor 77 to 82 80 Front -End Loaders 86 to 90 88 Hydraulic Backhoe 81 to 90 86 Hydraulic Excavators 81 to 90 86 Graders 79 to 89 86 Air Compressors 76 to 86 86 Trucks I81 to 87 86 Composite construction noise is best characterized by Bolt, Beranek, and Newman (USEPA December 31, 1971). In their study, construction noise for commercial development is presented as 89 dBA Leq when measured at a distance of 50 feet from the construction effort. This value takes into account both the number of pieces and spacing of the heavy equipment used in the construction effort. In later phases during building assembly, noise levels are typically reduced from this value and the physical structures further break up line -of -sight noise. However, as a worst -case scenario, the 89-dBA value is used to assess the impact of the construction effort. The most proximate sensitive land uses include the multi- family residential land uses that are located at the Fairview Apartments along the southwestern perimeter. The nearest of these units is located approximately 55 feet from the property line and construction noise is estimated to reach levels of as much as 88 dBA Leq at this home. Other residents at the Big Canyon Country Club are in excess of 225 feet from the proximate property line. At this distance, construction noise is calculated at 75 dBA Leq. Residents located acmes MacArthur to the east are on the order of 200 feet from the site. These receptors are protected from MacArthur Boulevard road noise by a masonry wall. In the absence of such a wall, construction noise could reach 77 dBA Leq at these homes. Much of this noise would be masked by traffic noise generated along MacArthur Boulevard and San Joaquin Hills Road. These levels would only occur for very limited times when construction is performed near the proximate site boundary /structure on a worst-ewe workday. The other phases of construction, including the construction of the structures, would generate lower noise levels and are located further from the adjacent sensitive areas. The City of Newport Noise Ordinance, Section 10.28.040 "Construction Activity-Noise Regulations" exempts noise sources associated with construction, performed between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 6:30 p.m. on weekdays and 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on Saturdays. Construction is prohibited on Sundays and holidays if it disturbs or could disturb a person of normal sensitivity who works or resides in the vicinity. Mandatory compliance with the City of Newport Beach's noise control ordinance and implementation of the following project obligations would ensure that noise levels impacts remain less than significant. ' • Equipment shall be equipped with mufflers and sound control devices (e.g., intake silencers and noise shrouds) no less effective than those provided on the original equipment and no equipment shall have an unmuffled exhaust. ' • Construction equipment shall be maintained properly and tuned -up to minimize noise emissions. L1 i f, • Stationary source equipment (e.g., compressors) shall be located so as to maintain the greatest distance from proximate residential dwellings. t • All equipment servicing shall be performed so as to maintain the greatest distance from the dwellings. • The name and telephone number of a contact person shall be posted on -site. ' 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 not located within an airport land use plan area or in the immediate vicinity of any airport. The nearest public use airport to the project site is John Wayne Airport, located in excess of four miles to the northeast of the project site and the project is outside of the airport's. 60 dBA CNEL noise contour. Implementation of the proposed project would not expose the on -site receptors to excessive aircraft noise levels and no mitigation measures are necessary. ,n 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 No private airstrips exist within two miles of the proposed site. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in a noise haaard for the new residents that occupy the site. No mitigation measures are necessary. , 5.0 REFERENCES California Air Resources Board, EMFAC2002 Computer Model, Version 2.2, September 23, 2002 Caltrans, Sound32 Version of the FHWA Noise Program, Release 1. 4, September 28, 1992 Caltrans, Technical Analysis Notes, March 13, 1991 , Caltrans, Technical Noise Supplement to the Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol, October 1998 Caltrans, Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol for New Highway Construction and Reconstruction Projects, October 1998 Caltrans, Transportation Related Earthborne Vibrations, February 20, 2002 City of Newport Beach, City of Newport Beach Noise Element, October 15, 1974 City of Newport Beach, City Newport Beach Municipal Code, Chapter 10.26 Community Noise Control, 1995 Housing and Urban Development, The Noise Guidebook, Match 1985. South Coast Air Quality Management District, URBENBS2002 Computer Model, Version 7.4.2 U.S. Environmental protection Agency, Noise from Construction Equipment and Operations, Building Equipment, and Home Appliances, Bolt, Beranek, and Newman, 1971 I 1997 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, A Guide to HUD Environmental Criteria and Standards Contained in 24 CFR Part 51, August 1984 Urban Crossroads, Inc., Saint Marks Presbyterian Church Traffic Phasing Ordinance Analysis, City of Newport Beach, California, November 20, 2003 i f, I 1 ' APPENDIX A SOUND32 MODELING OF OBSERVED FIELD DATA 1 [J I 1 I I �J I I I 1 I ST. MARK CHURCH, NR -1, T -SAN JOAQUIN EB, 1 '608 45 , 16 , 45 , T -SAN JOAQUIN WB, 2 732 45 , 32 , 45 L -, 1 N,- 750.,- 133,0, N,750.,- 133,0, L -, 2 'N,750., -62,0, N,- 750., -62,0, R, 1 , 67 , 1 0,0,5., ' C,C 1 I tl I 1 1 I L� I HARD SITE 8 , 45 4 , 45 SOUND32 - RELEASE 07/30/91 TITLE: ' ST. MARK CHURCH, NR -1, HARD SITE 1 BASED ON FHWA -RD -108 AND , CALIFORNIA REFERENCE ENERGY MEAN EMISSION LEVELS RECEIVER LEQ R- 1- - - - - -- -67.9 II 1 1 1 1 i I I 1 ST. MARK CHURCH, NR -1, SOFT SITE T -SAN JOAQUIN EB, 1 '608 45 , 16 , 45 8 45 T -SAN JOAQUIN WB, 2 732 45 , 32 45 4 45 L -, 1 'N,- 750.,- 133,0, N,750.,- 133,0, L -, 2 'N,750., -62,0, N,- 750., -62,0, R, 1 , 67 , 1 0,0,5., ' D, 4.5 ALL,ALL C,C LJ 1 1 I ® I 1 SOUND32 - RELEASE 07/30/91 TITLE: ST. MARK CHURCH, NR -1, SOFT SITE BASED ON FHWA -RD -108 AND CALIFORNIA REFERENCE ENERGY MEAN EMISSION LEVELS RECEIVER LEQ ------ --- - -- - -- R-1 66.1 i 1 1� 1 1 t 1 1 I i i 1� 1 1 1. 1� 1 1 I ' -ST. MARK CHURCH, NR-2, HARD SITS T- MACARTHUR NB, 1 '1632 , 55 44 , 55 12 55 T- MACARTHUR SB, 2 1568 , 55 56 55 0 55 L -, 1 N,130.,- 750,0, N,130.,750,0, L -, 2 'N,62.,750,0, N,62.,- 750,0, R, 1 , 67 , 1 ' 0,0,5., D, 3 ALL, ALL C,C I I 1 [J LJ 1 I SOUND32 - RELEASE 07/30/91 TITLE: ST. MARK CHURCH, NR -2, HARD SITE BASED ON FHWA -RD -108 AND CALIFORNIA REFERENCE ENERGY MEAN EMISSION LEVELS RECEIVER LEQ --- ------ - - - - -- R-1 73.3 1 1 1 1' 1 1. 1. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1, 1 1 1 1 I ' ST. MARK CHURCH, NR -2, T- MACARTHUR NB, 1 1632 , 55 44 , 55 T- MACARTHUR SB, 2 1568 , 55 56 , 55 ' L -, 1 N,130.,750,0,, N,1' 0, L-,.2 'N,62.,750,0, N,62.,- 750,0, R, 1 , 67 , 1 0,0,5., D, 4.5 ALL, ALL C, C I 1 I SOFT SITE 12 , 55 0 , 55 SOUND32 - RELEASE 07/30/91 , TITLE: ST. MARK CHURCH, NR -2, SOFT SITE 1 BASED ON FHWA -RD -108 AND ' CALIFORNIA REFERENCE ENERGY MEAN EMISSION LEVELS RECEIVER LEQ R -1 71.4 ' 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 J ' ST. MARK CHURCH, NR -3, HARD SITE T- MACARTHUR NB, 1 '1536 , 55 24 , 55 20 55 T- MACARTHUR SB, 2 1868 , 55 36 55 4 55 'j-,1 'N,130.,- 750,0, N,130.,750,0, L -, 2 'N,62.,750,0, N,62.,- 750,0, R, 1 , 67 , 1 0,0,5., D, 3 ALL, ALL C,C 1 J SOUND32 - RELEASE 07/30/91 TITLE: ST. MARK CHURCH, NR -3, HARD SITE BASED ON FHWA -RD -108 AND CALIFORNIA REFERENCE ENERGY MEAN EMISSION LEVELS RECEIVER LEQ R -1 73.6 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ,I 1 1 1: 1. 1 I 1 ST. MARK CHURCH, NR-3, T- MACARTHUR NB, 1 1 1536 , 55 24 , 55 T- MACARTHUR SB, 2 1868 , 55 36 55 L -, 1 1 N,130.,- 750,0, N,130.,750,0, L -, 2 1 N,62.,750,0, N,62.,- 750,0, R, 1 , 67 , 1 1 0,0,5., D, 4.5 ALL, ALL C,C 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 [1 1 1 �1 1 1 SOFT SIT& 20 , 55 4 , 55 SOUND32 - RELEASE 07/30/91 TITLE: ST. MARK CHURCH, NR -3, SOFT SITE BASED ON FHWA -RD -108 AND CALIFORNIA REFERENCE ENERGY MEAN EMISSION LEVELS RECEIVER LEQ -------- - - - - --- R-1 71.8 1� 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 r 1 t I 1 � I 1 ' APPENDIX B SOUND32 MODELING OF 10,000 AVERAGE DAILY TRIPS AT VARIOUS SPEEDS 1 I I E 1 I I ST. MARK CHURCH, 10,000 ADT M 30 MPH T -10000 ADT, 1 9688 , 30 , 254 , 30 58 , 30 L -, 1 N,- 750.,50,0, N,750.,50,0, ' R, 1 , 67 , 1 0,0,5., D, 4.5 'ALL, ALL C,C 1 I I I 1 lJ I II 1 SOUND32 - RELEASE 07/30/91 TITLE: ST. MARK CHURCH, 10,000 ADT @ 30 MPH BASED ON FHWA -RD -108 AND CALIFORNIA REFERENCE ENERGY MEAN EMISSION LEVELS RECEIVER LEQ R -1 73.3 I I I I 1 L� 1 1 � 1 1 I 1 ST. MARK CHURCH, 10,000 ADT @ 35 MPH T -10000 ADT, 1 9688 , 35 , 254 , 35 , 58 , 35 L -, 1 N,- 750.,50,0, N,750.,50,0, R, 1 , 67 , 1 0,0,5., D, 4.5 'ALL,ALL C, C 1 1 I LJ 1 1 Cl 1 LJ SOUND32 - RELEASE 07/30/91 TITLE: ST. MARK CHURCH, 10,000 ADT @ 35 MPH BASED ON FHWA -RD -108 AND CALIFORNIA REFERENCE ENERGY MEAN EMISSION LEVELS RECEIVER LEQ R -1 74.6 I . 1 1 1 1 i 1I 1 1 L 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ' ST. MARK CHURCH, 10,000 ADT @ 40 MPH T -10000 ADT, 1 9688 , 40 , 254 , 40., 58 , 40 L -, 1 N,- 750.,50,0, 'N,750.,50,0, R, 1 , 67 , 1 0,0,5., D, 4.5 ALL, ALL C, C 1 I I I ti I I F I I I SOUND32 - RELEASE 07/30/91 ' TITLE: ST. MARK CHURCH, 10,000 ADT @ 40 MPH ' BASED ON FHWA-RD -108 AND , CALIFORNIA REFERENCE ENERGY MEAN EMISSION LEVELS RECEIVER LEQ ' R -1 - 76.0 t � I I 1 I j Lj ST. MARK CHURCH, 10,000 ADT @ 45 MPH T -10000 ADT, 1 9688 , 45 , 254 , 45 , 58 , 45 L -, 1 N,- 750.,50,0, N,750.,50,0, 'R, 1 , 67 , 1 0,0,5., D, 4.5 'ALL,ALL C,C I I I I I I I I [l I '1 '1 I I SOUND32 - RELEASE 07/30/91 , TITLE: ST. MARK CHURCH, 10,000 ADT W 45 MPH , BASED ON FHWA -RD -108 AND , CALIFORNIA REFERENCE ENERGY MEAN EMISSION LEVELS RECEIVER LEQ --------- - - - - -- R-1 77.3 1! i 1 1 1 II - 1 ST. MARK CHURCH, 10,000 ADT @ 50 MPH T -10000 ADT, 1 9688 , 50 , 254 , 50 L -, 1 N,- 750.,50,0, 1 N,750.,50,0, R, 1 , 67 , 1 0,0,5., D, 4.5 1 ALL,ALL C, C 1 1 1 i i i1 F, 11 i 1 1 11 1 58 , 50 SOUND32 - RELEASE 07/30/91 I TITLE: ST. MARK CHURCH, 10,000 ADT @ 50 MPH BASED ON FMA -RD -108 AND CALIFORNIA REFERENCE ENERGY MEAN EMISSION LEVELS RECEIVER LEQ R -1 78.5 r. r� 1. r. 1 r r r r r r r r r r r� r r 1 ST. MARK CHURCH, 10,000 ADT @ 55 MPH T -10000 ADT, 1 9688 , 55 , 254 , 55 , 58 , 55 N,- 750.,50,0, N,750.,50,0, 1 R, 1 , 67 , 1 0,0,5., D, 4.5 'ALL, ALL C,C 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i Cl i 1 11 11 SOUND32 - RELEASE 07/30/91 TITLE: ST. MARK CHURCH, 10,000 ADT W 55 MPH BASED ON FHWA -RD -108 AND CALIFORNIA REFERENCE ENERGY MEAN EMISSION LEVELS RECEIVER LEQ ---- ---- --- -- -- R-1 79.5 I i 1 1 1 I ' ST. MARK CHURCH, 10,000 ADT, PCH N/O T -10000 ADT, 1 9865 , 45 , 104 , 45 , 31 , 45 N,- 750.,50,0, tN,750.,50,0, R, 1 , 67 , 1 0,0,5., D, 4.5 'ALL,ALL C,C 1 I 1 45 MPH SOUND32 - RELEASE 07/30/91 ' TITLE: ST. MARK CHURCH, 10,000 ADT, PCH N/O MACARTHUR @ 45 MPH , BASED ON FHWA -RD -108 AND CALIFORNIA REFERENCE ENERGY MEAN EMISSION LEVELS RECEIVER LEQ , --------- - - - - -- R-1 76.8 n U 1 1 J 7, L 1 ST. MARK CHURCH, 10,000 ADT, PCH S/O MACARTHUR @ 45 MPH T -10000 ADT, 1 '9809 , 45 , 138 , 45 , 53 , 45 L -, 1 N,- 750.,50,0, N,750.,50,0, R, 1 , 67 , 1 0,0,5., D, 4.5 'ALL, ALL C, C 1 1 1 1 11 1 1 SOUND32 - RELEASE 07/30/91 TITLE: ST. MARK CHURCH, 10,000 ADT, PCH S/O MACARTHUR @ 45 MPH BASED ON FHWA -RD -108 AND CALIFORNIA REFERENCE ENERGY MEAN EMISSION LEVELS RECEIVER LEQ --- ------ - -- --- R-1 77.0 i 1 I C 1 1 I I L I I I APPENDIX C SOUND32 MODELING CALCULATIONS FOR EXISTING TRAFFIC- GENERATED NOISE 1 1 I V 3 m CV U y�$ O N a a �s �o n° 3 3 Q _ 3 m NN O j O '^ O N59 I V 3 m CV U y�$ O N a a �s V 3q A 'D �o 3 - A W� $$ QQ Q QQg sg QQ QQ Qg Q Q ❑F❑ a s�° o °o g nS � g g 5 b 3� iF $ i � S i G� Fi ° m�aa oo „000 v. v. o00 g vv. a vva vv 43j N - - - - - N ------------ � a l bw10 l^ I z3QQOIJz25i22 zm�.� ���d� d�w = 9 z � V O � O m 2 � � 0 e w 9 fi 9yt v v m m 3q A 'D �o 3 - A W� $$ QQ Q QQg sg QQ QQ Qg Q Q ❑F❑ a s�° o °o g nS � g g 5 b 3� iF $ i � S i G� Fi ° m�aa oo „000 v. v. o00 g vv. a vva vv 43j N - - - - - N ------------ � a l bw10 l^ I z3QQOIJz25i22 zm�.� ���d� d�w = 9 z � V R, 3 - a 9w Aq V m� �m c` S O S e v pp G 91-.7; R, 3 - a 9w Aq V m� �m c` S O I 1 ; 1 n Ll 1 1 pp G gg d° s� 9 9mg� r m n °^ A � x o � 5 � +CI S d as m ,S® mo�=vi �o n�o �oum ri�aa �ov�o a� •+.: ion Fi 9 F' r 9�+,on °n °n nn n p p o� pp °QgS 0 a S C�➢ a~.• a � y(sJ Z U U I 1 ; 1 n Ll 1 1 d° s� 9 A � 5 � +CI m ,S® mo�=vi �o n�o �oum ri�aa �ov�o oov •+.: ion Fi 9 F' r 9�+,on °n °n nn n p p p pp v °� a v v a v m� a v n o 0 0 0 o v. •+ o 0 0 r N m — .g s3 � V W n 5' a 3� Q UC V V F M1 ^� E ..0, Q o 0 o � ° QW 0z oz xW ° 3 cl yy'oµ� jP�, 3 z z z q w � vi ti W m d I 1 ; 1 n Ll 1 1 APPENDIX D SOUND32 MODELING CALCULATIONS FOR EXISTING VERSUS EXISTING PLUS PROJECT TRAFFIC VOLUMES 1 i i 1 9 3� 9 �9 b �C O �q V '.S .D E m i 3 v ¢p W S x aF FS3 J �o m 9 3� 9 �9 b �C O �q V '.S .D E m i 3 v W W � w S D L� b V s s s s s s '� r m V O n � ••r fV m a° .S ryJj � O O r r r r O O O O O O O O O O O r O O O O O O �� 000000000000000000000000 SYYa.. IW2 > 3 w h m m r r r r ry ry �p P O fV r P r r fV m V r P r 4? . a w� QQ QQ QQ Q Q QQ Q ilM Q g o SS 3 oo$g og g2'o3$?F o $ggo m � 3 � o n o 0o no oe.+ v. 000 ana aaa vam as an m •+ �+++•+ m ry AO w 1 ;n ZI .4 s �g� a M go- !0 � '����' �a 0 0 0 ° O O Q O O o g m Q O Q q z D Z Q 3 D Z z Z , `Z m m m z m z m m Z w � Z1 � va C5 m3 ti. Q7 vWi m w n m FS3 J °a J m m ° m }y® 4p8 w V V p p C C C C C C Ep O „ Y � J O 8 O .S ryJj � O O r r r r O O O O O O O O O O O r O O O O O O �� 000000000000000000000000 SYYa.. IW2 > 3 w h m m r r r r ry ry �p P O fV r P r r fV m V r P r 4? . a w� QQ QQ QQ Q Q QQ Q ilM Q g o SS 3 oo$g og g2'o3$?F o $ggo m � 3 � o n o 0o no oe.+ v. 000 ana aaa vam as an m •+ �+++•+ m ry AO w 1 ;n ZI .4 s �g� a M go- !0 � '����' �a 0 0 0 ° O O Q O O o g m Q O Q q z D Z Q 3 D Z z Z , `Z m m m z m z m m Z w � Z1 � va C5 m3 ti. Q7 vWi m w n m 6 c�y .p5p W WWz 4m�o 'D m o U V Q 8 q 5 Czl 13.� C C O C C C C C O O C C C C C C O C W V V O C O gg yya� �lF" en ee eee 8 yen �'�F'�n neon n °n °inn a® .(Qey O o1p ll"`n ^ T ^ O W T T fd`l T T IV n T T T ry ry 0 w fi b b O `n0 b b e Q Q Q S �p{ @UNU: u 5 Czl 13.� C C O C C C C C O O C C C C C C O C C O O O C O yya� �lF" en ee eee e�°n yen �'�F'�n neon n °n °inn a® o1p ll"`n ^ T ^ O W T T fd`l T T IV n T T T ry ry fi QQ 44 a o m a a a a a a v. T oda a°000v°. mn v.noo y� S ry T a � x E a 1Sa��ci 3c3�3�a�z�3z zggsz zy°z i I± �l F-7 L r, 11 Ci 1 I 4 APPENDIX E SOUND32 MODELING FOR ON -SITE RECEPTORS USING BUILD -OUT TRAFFIC 1 VOLUMES 1 1 1 11 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 ST MARK CHURCH, ON -SITE NOISE LEVELS AT BUILDOUT T- MACARTHUR N/O SAN JOAQUIN, 1 , 55 161 , 55 , 37 , 55 '6123 T- MACARTHUR S/O SAN JOAQUIN, 2 4524 , 50 119 50 , 27 , 50 T -SAN JOAQUIN W/O MACARTHUR, 3 2529 , 45 , 66 , 45 , 15 , 45 T -SAN JOAQUIN E/O MACARTHUR, 4 2819 , 45 , 74 45 17 45 -, 1 'L N,0.,0,253, N, 0., 666, 242, N,- 52.,1885,211, L -, 2 N,0.,0,253, N,O.,- 750,236, L -, 3 N,0.,0,253,- N,- 1285.,0,222, L -, 4 N,0.,0,253,- N,750.,0,271, -SOUTH BERM, 1 1 0 ,0 'B - 473.,93,240,242, - 434.,87,240,245, - 380.,89,240,246, 333.,89,240,247, '- - 289.,88,240,248, - 260.,87,240,249, - 240.,83,240,250, - 217.,84,240,251, - 191.,88,240,252, - 173.,97,240,253, - 157.,109,240,254, 1 B- SOUTH EASTERN BERM, 2 1 0 ,0 - 157.,109,240,253, - 129.,157,240,253, - 120.,207,240,252, - 117.,264,240,251, - 115.,320,240,250, - 111.,364,240,249, - 109.,408,240,248, - 105.,517,240,243, 116.,823,230,239, '- - 109.,856,230,233, B- NORTH EASTERN BERM, 3 1 0 ,0 120.,897,230,230, '- - 124.,916,230,235, - 133.,1111,230,230, B- EXISTING WALL, 4 2 0 ,0 - 200.,1104,226,234, - 160.,1170,220,228, - 160.,1270,220,228, 'R, 1 , 67 , 1 - 232,267,241.,R1 R, 2 , 67 , 1 - 234,298,241.,R2 ' R, 4 , 67 , 1 - 204,527,239.,R4 R, 5 , 67 , 1 - 395,364,241.,R5 R, 6 , 67 , 1 - 343,463,241.,R6 R, 7 , 67 , 1 - 193,687,235.,R7 R, 8 , 67 , 1 - 197,880,235.,R8 R, 9 , 67 , 1 - 224,907,235.,R9 R, 10 , 67 ,1 - 224,1045,235.,R10 D, 4.5 ALL,ALL C, C I 1 1 1 L7 1 n Lei J I I I ' SOUND32 - RELEASE 07/30/91 TITLE: 1 ST MARK CHURCH, ON -SITE NOISE LEVELS AT BUILDOUT 1 BAR EFFECTIVENESS / COST RATIOS BAR * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ID LENGTH BAR ' ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1 2 - 4.* 6.* 1 ELE 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 3 7.* ------------------------------------------------------ 1 - 0.* B1 P1 4 2 3 _ 0.* 0.* B1 B1 P2 P3 4 - 0.* B1 P4 BERM 5 - 0.* B1 P5 ' 6 0.* B1 P6 B1 P7 7 _ 0.* B1 P7 _ 12.* 8 - 0.* B1 P8 9 9 _ 0.* B1 P9 ' 10 0.* B1 P10 BERM 11 - 0.* B2 P1 ' 12 0.* B2 P2 13 0.* B2 P3 14 - 0.* B2 P4 15 0.* B2 P5 ' 16 _ 0.* B2 P6 17 - 0.* B2 P7 18 19 _ 0.* 0.* B2 B2 P8 P9 20 - 0.* B3 P1 ' 21 - 0.* B3 P2 22 - 0.* B4 P1 23 -------------------------------------------------- --- - B4 P2 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 ' BARRIER DATA * * * * * * * * * * ** 1 BAR BARRIER HEIGHTS BAR ELE 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ID LENGTH TYPE ' ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1 2 - 4.* 6.* B1 P1 B1 P2 39.6 54.0 BERM BERM 3 7.* B1 P3 47.0 BERM 4 - 8.* B1 P4 44.0 BERM 5 9.* B1 PS 29.0 BERM 6 _ 10.* B1 P6 20.4 BERM 7 - 11.* B1 P7 23.0 BERM 8 _ 12.* B1 P8 26.3 BERM ' 9 13.* B1 P9 20.1 BERM 10 - 14.* B1 P10 20.0 BERM 1 I 13 - 12.* B2 P3 57.1 BERM 1 14 - 11.* 1 6. B2 P4 56.0 BERM 8. 15 - 10.* B2 PS 44.2 BERM 16 - 9.* B2 P6 44.1 BERM 17 - 6.* B2 P7 109.2 BERM 18 - 6.* B2 P8 306.2 BERM 19 - 6.* B2 P9 34.3 BERM 20 - 3.* B3 P1 20.0 BERM ' 21 - 3.* B3 P2 195.3 BERM 22 - 8.* B4 P1 77.4 MASONRY 23 - 8.* B4 P2 100.0 MASONRY ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 r 1 ' i REC REC ID DNL PEOPLE LEQ(CAL) - ---- I ---- RI ----- ---- 67. - -- - -- 1. - 61.7 , 2 R2 67. 1. 61.9 3 R3 67. 1. 63.1 4 R4 67. 1. 63.8 ' 5 R5 67. 1. 61.2 6 R6 67. 1. 61.8 7 R7 67. 1. 64.1 8 R8 67. 1. 66.4 , 9 R9 67. 1. 65.4 10-- RIO 67. 1. 65.9 ------- - -- ' BARRIER TYPE COST BERM 34696. MASONRY 12383. MASONRY /JERSEY 0. CONCRETE 0. -------------------------------- TOTAL COST = $ 47000. BARRIER HEIGHT INDEX FOR EACH BARRIER SECTION 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 CORRESPONDING BARRIER HEIGHTS FOR EACH SECTION 4. 6. 7. 8. 9 .10.11.12.13.14.13.13.12.11.10. 9. 11 I I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 6. 6. 6. 3. 3. 8. 8. ' I I I I I EIR -2 Responses to Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report for St. Mark Presbyterian Church including the Technical Appendix (SCH #2003101137) Responses To Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report for St. Mark Presbyterian Church State Clearinghouse Number 2003101137 Prepared for: City of Newport Beach Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92659 949.644.3210 Contact: Gregg B. Ramirez, Associate Planner Prepared By: Michael Brandman Associates 220 Commerce, Suite 200 Irvine, CA 92602 714.508.4100 Contact: Kevin B. Shannon, Project Manager September 17, 2004 a'L St Mark Presbyterian Church — Resoonse to Comments on the Draft E!R TABLE OF CONTENTS Table of Contents Section1: Introduction ....................................................................... ............................... 1 Purpose..................................................................................... ............................... 1 Section 2: List of Commentors ........................................................... ............................... 2 Comment Letters Received on the Draft EIR ............................. ............................... 2 Section 3: Responses To Comments ................................................. ............................... 3 Michael Brandman Associates S ?D0640021 - St Mark Ch=h\RMTinnl RTC.doc ii n St Mark Presbyterian Church — Response to Comments on the Draft EIR Introduction SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION PURPOSE The Draft Environmental Impact Report for the St. Mark Presbyterian Church project was circulated for public review and comment beginning on July 14th, 2004, and ending August 31st, 2004. As required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), this addendum responds to comments received on the Draft EIR. As required by Section 15132 of the State CEQA Guidelines, the final EIR must respond to comments regarding significant environmental points raised in the review and consultation process. This document provides responses to comments on significant environmental points describing the disposition of the issue, explaining the EIR analysis, supporting EIR conclusions, or providing new information or corrections, as appropriate. This document, however, need not, and should not, attempt to respond to comments about the merits of the project; nor should it attempt to resolve citywide planning issues that require full community input and City consideration on their own. This document is organized as follows: • Section 1. This section provides a discussion of the relationship of this document with the Draft EIR. It also discusses the structure of this document. • Section 2. This section lists the agencies /individuals that commented on the contents of the Draft EIR. • Section 3. This section includes the comments and the responses to the comments that were received on the Draft EIR. Michael Brandman Associates S 0064002 - SL Mark ChWCh\RTC\Fina1 RTC.dm I SL Mark Presbyterian Church — Response to Comments on the Draft OR List of Commentors SECTION 2: LIST OF COMMENTORS A list of public agencies and organizations that provided comments on the Draft EIR is presented below. Each comment letter has been assigned an alphabetical designation (A through L). Each comment within each letter has been assigned a numerical designation so that each comment could be cross - referenced with an individual response. Responses follow each comment letter. COMMENT LETTERS RECEIVED ON THE DRAFT EIR A. State of California, Governor's Office of Planning and Research, State Clearinghouse B. City of Newport Beach, Environmental Quality Affairs Citizens Advisory Committee (EQAC), St. Mark Presbyterian Church Sub-committee C. State of California, Department of Transportation (Caltrans), District 12 D. State of California, State Water Resources Control Board E. Mr. Rod MacDonald F. Bornstein Enterprises G. City of Irvine, Community Development Department H. Canyon Hills Community Association I. Mr. Bernard Rome J. SPON K. Dr. Jan D. Vandersloot, M.D. L. City of Newport Beach, Public Works Department Michael Brandman Associates 5100640021 - St Mark Chwch\RTCFina1 RTC-doe `a St Mark Presbyterian Church — Response to Comments on the Draft EIR Responses To Comments SECTION 3: RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Following are the responses to the written comments that were received during the public review period on the Draft EIR. Where a comment results in a change to the Draft EIR, the response provides specific page, paragraph, and sentence reference, along with the new EIR text. Michael Brandmen Associates 5:100540021 - St Mark Ch=h1RTC1Fi ➢a1 RTC.dm a, 09/02/2004 09:56 9496443229 CNB PLANNING STATE OF CALIFORNIA Governor's Office of Planning and Research State Clearinghouse and Planning Unit Arnold Sobwwmegger Governor August 30, 2004 ® RECEIVED BY CITY PLANNING NEWPORT BEACH. Gregg Ram= - SEP 0 2 2004 City ofNcwport Beach AM PM 3 300 Newport Boulevard 713 9 j O 1 1 Z 1 Z 5 fi Newport Beach, CA 92659 -9915 Subject: St Mark Presbyterian Church SC114: 2003101137 Dear Gregg Ramirez: PAGE 02 Je Boel Acting Director The State Clearinghouse submitted the above named Draft FIR to selected state agencies for review. On the enclosed Document Details Report please note that the Clearinghouse has listed the state agencies that reviewed your document The review period closed on. August 27, 2004, and the continents from the responding agency (ies) is (are) enclosed. If this conmient package is not in order, please notify the State Clearinghouse immediately. Please refer to the project's ten -digit State Clearinghouse number iii future correspondence so that we may respond promptly. Please note that Section. 21104(c) of the California Public Resources Code states that responsible or other public agency shall only make substantive comments regarding those activities involved in a project which arc within an area of #pertiss of the agency or which are required to be carried out or approved by the agency. Those comments shall be supported by specific documentation." These comments are forwarded for use in preparing your final environmental document. Should you need more information or clarification of the enclosed comments, we recommend that you contact the commenting agency directly. This letter acknowledges that you have complied with the State Clearinghouse review requirements for draft environmental documents, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act. Please contact the State Clearinghouse at (916) 445 -0613 if you have any questions regarding the environmental review process. Sincerely, /Gp Terry Roberts �y c'y�,o Director, State CIcarmgliouse Enclosures cc: Resources Agency 7.400 TENTH STREET P.O. BOX 3044 SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 95812.3044 TEL (916) 44S -0613 FAX(916)323-3018 VAVw cr.ragov Ai I 09/02/2004 09:56 9496443229 CNB PLANNING PAGE 03 Document Details Report State Clearinghouse Data Base SCHO 2003101137 Project 77de St. Mark Presbyterian Church Lead Agency Newport Beach, City of Type EIR Draft EIR Description A general plan amendment and development of a church complex and preschool consisting of 9 buildings totaling approximately 34,000 sl and preservation of a natural canyon feature on the site. Lead Agency Contact Name Gregg Ramirez Agency City of Newport Beach Phone 949-644 -3219 emall Waterways Address 3300 Newport Boulevard City Newport Beach Project Location County Orange City Newport Beach Region Fax State CA Tip 92e5&8915 Cross Streets MacArthur Boulevard / San Joaquin Hills Road Parcel No. 442 -032 -62 Township 55 Range 9W Section 93 Base SBBM Proximity to: Highways SR -1 Airports Railways Waterways Newport Bay Schools High Schools: 2 Elementary Schools: 3 Land Use Undeveloped 7, P -C GP: Recreational and Environmental Open Space Project issues Flood PlainiFlooding; Noise; TraffldCirculation; Vegetation; Water Quality, Landuse; Cumulative Effects; Air Quality; Wildlife Reviewing Resources Agency; Regional Water Quality Control Board, Region 8; Department of Parks and Agencies Recreation; Native American Heritage Commission; Office of Historic Preservation; Department of Fish and Game, Region 5; Department of Water Resources; Califomis Coastal Commission; California Highway Patrot; Caltrans, District 12; Caltrans, Division of Aeronautics: State Lands Commission Date Received 07/14/2004 Start of Review 07/1412004 End ofReview 08/2712D04 Note: Blanks in data fields result from insufficient information provided by lead agency. 09/02/2004 09:56 9496443229 CNB PLANNING DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION District 12 3337 Michelson chive, Suitc 380 1rvma, C) 2724 2267 LSTAr� tq ECE I VED Tel: (9a9) 2724 -2267 Fax: (949) 724 -2592 L 2 7 2004 July 16, 2004 LEA RING HOUSE Mr. Gregg B. Ramirez Community & Economic Development Dep. City of Newport Beach P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92651 Subject: SL Mark's Presbyterian Church Dear Mr. Ramirez, PAGE 04 W Fox yaarpawerl Be energy Cfcienrl File: IGR/CEQA SCH#: 2003101137 Log #: 1325A SR #: PCH, SR -55, SR -73 Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the Draft Pnvironowntal Tmgact Report (AEIR) for the St. Mark Presbyterian Church Project dated July 2004. The project consists of the construction of a church sanctuary, fellowship hall, administration building and counseling center, preschool buildings, expansion building, nature center plaza, and related site improvements such as parking lots, driveways, site lighting, grading, landscaping, and utility connections. The project is located at the corner of Third Street and Mermaid Street in the City of Laguna Beach. The nearest State Routes to the project are Pacific Coast IEghway (PCH), SR -55, and SR -73. Caltrans District 12 status is a reviewing agency on this project and has no comments at this time. However, in the event of any activity in Caltrans' right -of -way, an encroachment permit will be required. Applicants are required to plan for sufficient permit processing time, which may include engineering studies and environmental documentation. Please continue to keep us informed of this and other future developments, which could potentially impact the transportation facilities. If you have any questions or need to contact us, please do not hesitate to call Maryam Molavi at (949) 724 -2267. W S' ce ly, B . 7 aSvctefA--� IGR/Community Planning Branch C: Terry Roberts, Office of Planning and Research Terri Pencovic, Caltrans HQ TOR/Community Planning 'Calrranr improves nwbiliN acm a California' l St. Mark Presbyterian Church - Response to Comments on the Draft EIR Responses To Comments A. State of California, Governor's Office of Planning and Research, State Clearinghouse Al. This correspondence is noted and acknowledges the closing of the public review period for the Draft EIR as required by law. No specific comments on the contents of the Draft EIR were provided. The correspondence indicates that the only state agency to respond was the State Department of Transportation (Caltrans). Refer to Response to Comment C regarding this comment letter. Michael Brandman Associates SA00640021 - SL Mark ChurchIRTC\FiMI RTC.d. �Q MEMORANDUM To: Gregg Ramirez, Associate Planner From: Environmental Quality Affairs Citizens Advisory Committee Subject: The City of Newport Beach Draft Environmental Impact Report SCH # 2003 10 1 1 3 7( "DEIR ") for St Mark Presbyterian Church ( "The "Project "); SCH # 2003071089 Date: August 16, 2004 Thank you for the opportunity to provide these comments on the captioned DEIR for the Project. I. A Brief Summary of Our Concerns. Please note that the DEIR is to include all comments from the NOR However the DE id id not include the comments of EQAC. To ensure that these comments are responded to, re incorporating our comments on the NOP in our comments on the DEIR and should be attac We are also concerned that pages from the Technical Appendices are missing i.e. (Pages 3 -14 & 3 -15), and the DEIR itself has pages that are either missing or numbered incorrectly. An example is Page 3 -13 in the DEIR, followed by three (3) exhibits (Pages 3 -5, 3 -6, & 3 -7) then followed by M1 Page 3 -21. How can it be known by anyone that the DEIR is complete? It is important that the Final EIR is complete. Concerns of the Committee include: (1) The Committee believes that there will be significant and unavoidable traffic impacts, which the Project does not fully mitigate. (2) The Project will create a loss of open space. (3) The extent of the Coastal Sage Scrub ( "CSS ") removal and replacement needs to be clarified. II. Introduction: EIR Standards. An EIR constitutes the heart of CEQA: An EIR is the primary environmental document which: EQAC Page 2 August 16, 2004 .. serves as a public disclosure document explaining the effects of the proposed Project on the environment, alternatives to the Project, and ways to minimize adverse effects and to increase beneficial effects." CEQA Guidelines section 15149(b). See California Public Resources Code section 21003(b) (requiring that the Jocument must disclose impacts and mitigation so that the document will be meaningful and useful to the public and decision- makers.) Further, CEQA Guidelines section 15151 sets forth the adequacy standards for an EIR: "An EIR should be prepared with a sufficient degree of analysis to provide decision - makers with information which enables them to make a decision which takes account of the environmental consequences. An evaluation of the environmental effects of a proposed project need not be exhaustive, but sufficiency of an EIR is to be reviewed in the light of what is reasonably feasible. Disagreement among experts does not make an EIR inadequate, but the EIR should summarize the main points of disagreement among the experts. The courts have looked not for perfection but for adequacy, completeness, and a good faith attempt at full disclosure." Further, "the EIR must contain facts and analysis, not just the agency's bare conclusions or opinions." Concerned Citizens of Costa Mesa, Inc. v. 32nd District Agricultural Association. (1986) 42 Cal. 3d 929 (Emphasis supplied.). In addition, an EIR must specifically address the environmental effects and mitigation of the Project. But "[tjhe degree of specificity required in an EIR will correspond to the degree of specificity involved in the underlying activity which is described in the EIR." CEQA Guidelines section 15146. The analysis in an EIR must be specific enough to further informed decision making and public participation. The EIR must produce sufficient information and analysis to understand the environmental impacts of the proposed Project and to permit a reasonable choice of alternatives so far as environmental aspects are concerned. See Laurel Heights Improvement Association v. Regents of the University of California (1988) 47 Cal. 3d 376. Also, to the extent that an EIR proposes mitigation measures, it must provide specific measures. It cannot defer such measures until some future date or event. `By deferring environmental assessment to a future date, the conditions run counter to that policy of CEQA which requires environmental review at the earliest feasible stage in the planning process." Sundstrom v. County of Mendocino (1988) 202 Cal. App. 3d 296, 308. See Bozung v. Local Agency Formation Com.0975) 13 Cal.3d 263, 282 (holding that "the principle that the environmental impact should be assessed as early as possible in government planning. "); Mount Sutro Defense Committee v. Regents of University of California (1978) 77 Cal. App. 3d 20, 34 (noting that environmental problems should be considered at a point in the planning process )111 EQAC Page 3 August 20, 2004 "where genuine flexibility remains "). CEQA requires more than a promise of mitigation of significant impacts: mitigation measures must really minimize an identified impact. "Deferral of the specifics of mitigation is permissible where the local entity commits itself to mitigation and lists the alternatives to be considered, analyzed and possibly incorporated in the mitigation plan. (Citation omitted.) On the other hand, an agency goes too far when it simply requires a project applicant to obtain a biological report and then comply with any recommendations that may be made in the report. (Citation omitted.) Defend the Bay v. City of . Irvine 2004 Cal. App. LEXIS 1031 at 25 (Cal. Ct. App., 2004). III. Section 2: Executive Summary 2.2 Project Description The development component of the proposed Project consists of the following: Church Sanctuary, fellowship Hall, administration building and counseling center, pre- school buildings, expansion building, nature center plaza and related site improvements. The DEIR shows under Projection Description a Development Summary, Table 3 -2, Page 3.21 an Expansion Building of 5,183 sq. ft. and a fireside classroom of 924 sq. ft. The DEIR X32 does not describe the use or hours of operation for these two buildings; therefore, is more mitigation necessary for noise or traffic for possible long hours of operation? Further, the DEIR does not state what will happen to the vacating site of St. Mark's 63 Church. Will it become "Open Space" and possibly used to mitigate the loss of Open Space as a result of St. Mark moving to the proposed site? IV Section 5: Environmental Setting Project Impacts Mitigation Measures and Level of Significance After Mitigation. 5.1 Land Use and Planning: The property is currently designated as Open Space/Recreation and request a change in this designation to allow a Church to be built. The DEIR states that the site is at this time "not used for any purpose." Open Space is a use because it adds to the enjoyment of the area by residents and visitors. The DEIR does not recognize one of the alternatives to this development is disapproval of the Project and leaving the property in its current designation of Open Space/Recreation. The DEIR appropriately points out that across the street from this Project is the highly developed Newport Center and Fashion Island. To allow a small portion of Public Open Space/Recreation in this area of otherwise fully developed properties would seem to be an appropriate use. The DEIR indicates that one of the objectives of the Project is to "maintain the open space character of the site," and some believe that the best way to accomplish this is to leave the current designation of Open space/Recreation to in fact preserve that character. 6 EQAC Page 4 August 20, 2004 The DEII2 states on Pages 5.1 -9 & 5.1 -15 that the site meets the definition of open space as follows: "Open space included passive and active open space areas, which do not function as public parks but do provide open space relief. Such areas may or may not be accessible to the general public." The DEII2 then states that this site is not officially designated as such (open space). The Project site does not meet the definition of a park, and is also not designated for a future park site. The Church site is located in Service Area no. 8 (Belcourt -Big Canyon), which as of the publication of this DEII2 has as of 1998 a deficiency of 14 acres and a projected deficiency of approximately 16 acres for the year 2010; therefore, by the year 2010, if this Project goes through and the Marina Park hotel goes through, then the 10.81 acres and 8.1 acres (18.1 acres) would bring the deficiency of open space in the City to 34.1 acres without any mitigation. This is a Project that the DEIR indicates requires substantial discretionary approvals by the City in order to implement the proposed Project by the applicant. Those discretionary approval items are categorized as follows: General Plan amendment, an amendment to the Big Canyon Planned Community text, approval of a tentative parcel map, issuance of a use permit for particular activities that are to take place on the site even with the designation given, making sure the property meets with the traffic phasing ordinance, issuing grading permits o allow substantial grading to take place on the site, and obviously the issuance of building and all related permits to allow the construction of the Project. Should the decision makers believe that any of these discretionary items should be denied, it would leave this particular site as Open Space/ Recreational, and possibly at some time in the future, might be developed as some type of a passive park that could be enjoyed by residents and visitors. 5.2 Hydrology and Water Quality Table 5.2.1: Cumulative Peak Storm Water Runoff Summary (25 —year storm) The table shows for comparison: EXISTING CONDITIONS Area Node A &B 7 D1 11 PROPOSED HYDROLOGY Area Node A &B 13 C 11 Are these comparisons for the same areas? In one case the Area is the same but with different Nodes, and the exact opposite for the next set. Can this please be clarified as it is not 5` EQAC Page 5 August 20, 2004 clear in the appendix? The November '03 NOP stated that the DEIR would include summaries of a hydrology study. This DEIR has only a "Preliminary Hydrology and Storm Management Study ". Is there a j3% complete study? When will it be ready? Will it be ready for public scrutiny before the EIR is approved? Appendix D. Table H -4 Water Quality Site Source Contaminants and BMP Selection (Page 10) Vehicle use/on -site parking lot source for Pollutant Categories "Oil and Grease" and 1390 "Heavy Metals" is rated as Medium/low. Please verify the vehicular volumes and accuracy of the medium/low rating. The filters should be able to handle the level of vehicle discharge. 5.3 Biological Resources While the DEIR concludes "the potential for the proposed Project to significantly affect 51 sensitive plant species is not considered significant," it does not fully identify and analyze the Project's impacts on the resources of the canyon itself. 5.4 Transportation and Traffic The Committee has serious reservations about the Project impacts on traffic safety. The Project proposes a right turn entryway be allowed from MacArthur Boulevard. It also proposes al 50 -foot lane leading up to this driveway. That sounds like a lot of room to handle decelerating cars trying to enter the site. However, MacArthur Boulevard is a 50 mile per hour roadway, and a vehicle traveling 50 miles an hour is traveling at 75 feet a second. Therefore, the 150 -foot deceleration lane is a bare minimum requirement. It is indicated on some of the plans attached to the report that vehicles are going to be allowed to make a right turn from the Project onto MacArthur Boulevard. If that is allowed, in the short distance between that driveway and the intersection of MacArthur Boulevard and San Joaquin Hills Road, then you are going to have serious problems with vehicles traveling 50 miles per hour southbound on MacArthur, and some of them attempting to make a right turn onto San Joaquin Hills Road with both of those southbound -type vehicles conflicting with vehicles attempting to exit the Project site on MacArthur and get into lanes to either go southbound on MacArthur past San Joaquin. The EIR should analyze the potential traffic safety impacts of vehicles merging onto MacArthur Boulevard in the same lane as vehicles decelerating to make the turn onto San Joaquin Hills Road. }31 O 3\i The Project location at the northwest comer of MacArthur Blvd. and San Joaquin Hills Rd. is an already busy intersection, and particular attention must be given to maintaining traffic safety and smooth flow on these major arterials. The DEIR conducts thorough analyses of all (3 \2 15 EQAC Page 6 August 20, 2004 relevant intersections and concludes that, with application of nine traffic mitigation measures, there are no significant impacts. However, the Committee believes that the evidence presented in the DEIR and the supporting Technical Appendix F (Traffic Phasing Ordinance Analysis) indicate that the best solution for this Project is to select the "Alternative Access" scenario which eliminates the MacArthur Blvd. ingress/egress point, and limits access to and from the Project to the San Joaquin Hills point. Following are the items from the DEIR which support the "Alternative Access" Solution: 1. DEIR Table 5.4-4 shows that there were 58 reported accidents at the MacArthur Blvd. /San Joaquin Hills Rd. intersection from 1999 -2003. 31 of these were rear -end collisions resulting from inability to stop fast enough. 2. The DEIR recognizes that the MacArthur Blvd. entrance may not be able to be designed with the necessary 525 feet minimum sight distance for vehicles approaching at 55 mph. Mitigation measure TT-9 (Page 5.4 -29) recognized this issue and states that the Project must review sight distance standards with Caltrans at the time of preparation of the Project final Grading and Landscape plans. 3. Mitigation Measure TT-4 (DEIR Page 5.4 -29) tries to control southbound MacArthur Blvd. Traffic transition to San Joaquin Hills Rd. by installing a "15 mph" sign at the beginning of (3 \2_ the curve. This mitigation measure should be investigated for adequacy. 4. Mitigation Measure TT-3 (DEIR Page 5.4 -29) proposes to facilitate southbound MacArthur Blvd. Traffic by eliminating the painted crosswalk in the right hand turn lane. This would not be necessary of the "Alternative Access" approach is selected. Also, removal of the painted crosswalk prevents pedestrian crossing of San Joaquin Hills Rd. toward the OCTA bus depot. 5. Technical Appendix F, Table 5 -7 (Page 5 -18) shows that the "Alternate Access" approach changes none of the Level of Service designations for any of the studied intersections. 6. Mitigation Measure TT-7 (DEIR Pages 5.4 -29) highlights the problems with the MacArthur Blvd. ingress /egress by imposing on the St. Mark pastoral staff a requirement to advise the congregation and visitors to use the San Joaquin Hills Rd. exit to facilitate traffic flow. The DEIR preparers have attempted to develop mitigation measures to resolve essential problems with the MacArthur Blvd. ingress /egress point when it would be safer and equally efficient to eliminate it from the plan. If it is kept in the plan, it does not appear that there are adequate distances for safe deceleration lanes, turnouts and appropriate signage to alert vehicles about the rapidly - approaching entrance. Finally, ten percent of the Project traffic is expected to depart from this point and weave across turn lanes and full -speed traffic lanes to get to the left and U -turn lanes on southbound MacArthur Blvd. at San Joaquin Hills Rd. (See Appendix F, Exhibit 4 -B, Page 4 -6 and DEIR Page 5.4 -19) EQAC Page 7 August 20, 2004 In addition, the DEIR (Page 5.4 -27) states that 47,000 cubic yards of soil material will be removed during the excavation and grading phase. It estimates that 1,800 truck trips will be needed to remove this soil and promises compliance with Municipal Code Section 15.10.0060(H) to achieve less than significant traffic impacts. This requires more analysis related to traffic slow -downs and/or stoppages due to the "Truck Crossing" signs. "flag men" actions and/or roadway cleanup. ?A3 Finally, the final EIR should analyze and clarify Project impacts to bikeways. CSx 6.4 Cumulative Impacts The Committee asks for clarification as to the cumulative impacts to loss of open space as a result of the proposed Project, which would eliminate a site from the Recreational and �j15 Environmental Open Space category in a service area that the Recreation and Open Space Element already shows as deficient. Appendices The Committee requests clarification for the noise contours for both traffic and construction noise impacts. Please note DEIR Page 5. 6 -18 and 19. Conclusion Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the captioned document. For the foregoing reasons, we recommend that the DEIR be revised to address the issues raised above. i-) St Mark Presbyterian Church - ReWwrise to Comments on the Drell EIR Responses To Comments B. City of Newport Beach, Environmental Quality Affairs Citizens Advisory Committee (EQAC). B 1. The comment regarding the response to the Notice of Preparation is noted. The omission of this set of comments was the result of a printing error. The comments on the Notice of Preparation were incorporated into the preparation of the Draft EIR. The comment letter will be inserted into the Technical Appendices volume for the Final EIR. The comment regarding the missing pages is noted. The printing error on the Technical Appendices volume will be corrected in the production of the Final EIR. The Draft EIR is complete and no pages were omitted. Because the Draft EIR was produced as a double -sided document with graphics printed on single -sided pages that are inserted manually, the backs of certain pages are required to remain blank. Although these pages are blank, they retain the page numbering sequence of the section they are located in. In the present example, the back of page 3 -13 of the Draft EIR, although blank, represents page 3 -14 and Exhibit 3 -5 represents page 3 -15 and the back side of Exhibit 3 -5 represents page 3 -16 and continuing on through the back of Exhibit 3 -7, which represents page 3 -20. Refer to page vi for a list of exhibits and their corresponding page numbers. B2. The comment regarding hours of operation is noted. The Fireside classroom is part of the Administration Building and is not proposed for any uses not already described. The hours would be the same as that of the Administration Building in which it is located. The Expansion Building and intended uses are identified in Table 3 -5 of the Draft EIR. Table 3-4 of the Draft EIR identifies the hours of operation of the Expansion Building. B3. The comment regarding the existing church site is noted. Section 3.4 of the Draft EIR identifies the relocation of the existing church to a location within the City as one of the project objectives. Should the City approve this project, St. Mark Presbyterian Church would then consider the subsequent use of the existing property. B4. The comment regarding open space is noted. Table 3 -1 of the Draft EIR identifies the existing land as undeveloped open space. Section 5. 1.1 of the Draft EIR identifies existing, temporary, and permanent uses of the project site. Page 5.1 -15 of the Draft EIR references a potential additional use of the project site. The Draft EIR has accurately described the existing use of the project site. Section 7 of the Draft EIR identifies two versions of the No Project Alternative. As a matter of note, only one alternative scenario is required for inclusion in an Environmental Impact Report. Specifically, Section 7. 1.1 of the Draft EIR identifies an alternative, the No Project Alternative — No Development, which evaluates disapproval of the proposed project and without any further proposed uses for the project site. In addition, the second alternative, the No Project Alternative — Allowed Development, specifically identifies an alternative that evaluates disapproval of the proposed project with potential development of the project site by uses that are allowed under the existing general plan designation. The project site is not identified as open space on either Exhibit 5.1 -2 or Exhibit 5.1- 4 of the Draft EIR. The project site is not identified as an open space site by the development agreement known as the Circulation Improvement and Open Space Michael Brandman Associates 5:100640021 - SC Mark Ch=b\RTCW=1 RTCAoc 1u St Mark Presbyterian Church - Response to Comments on the Draft EIR Responses To Comments Agreement, as described in Section 5. 1.1 of the Draft EIR. As referenced in Section 3.2 of the Draft EIR, the project site was designated as Recreational and Environmental Open Space due to its undeveloped character in 1973 when the City adopted the original general plan. Section 7.2 of the Draft EIR identifies the land uses that are allowed under the Recreational and Environmental Open Space designation. These land uses vary greatly in intensity and potential significant impacts. The objectives presented in Section 3.4 of the Draft EIR are not alternatives to the proposed project; they are objectives that relate to that which is being proposed. The statement on page 5.1 -9 of the Draft EIR is a'reference to the General Land Use Plan Map, following page 121 in the Land Use Element of the City General Plan (note: this map does not have an exhibit number or page number), that is meant to reference the existing general plan designation (see Table 3 -1 of the Draft EIR). The statement on page 5.1 -15 of the Draft EIR reflects information contained in the Recreation Element of the City General Plan, not the Land Use Element. There is no contradiction between these references. The comment regarding open space zoning is noted. Table 3 -1 on page 3 -9 of the Draft EIR sets forth the existing and proposed zoning and general plan designations. For clarification, the existing zoning classification is PC District; the General Plan designation is Recreational and Environmental Open Space. Section 3.2 of the Draft EIR describes a brief history of the project site. Historically, there have not been any plans to develop the project site with park or recreational- related uses. In addition, there are no current plans to develop this site with any such uses. Section 5. 1.1 of the Draft EIR states that no recreational uses occur on the project site other than undocumented use by area residents for underdetermined purposes (see footnote no. 4 on page 5.1 -15). Although the project site is designated as Recreational and Environmental Open Space by the Land Use Element of the City General Plan, it is not designated as such by the Recreation and Open Space Element of the City General Plan (see discussion on page 5.1 -15 and Exhibit 5.1-4 of the Draft EIR). While the project site does provide open space relief as stated in the Draft EIR, it is not automatically considered a park (see discussion on page 5.1 -15 of the Draft EIR). In addition, the project site is not designated as a future park site. Moreover, the Planned Facilities section of the Recreation and Open Space Element of the City General Plan did not identify any suitable park sites within Service Area No. 8. The project site was not designated as an open space site or as a potential, future park site in the development agreement entered into between the City and The Irvine Company in 1978, which is known as the Circulation and Improvement and Open Space Agreement. Therefore, findings presented in the Draft EIR adequately identify the impacts that would result from project implementation. B5. The comment regarding approvals is noted. Section 3.5 of the Draft EIR lists the various approvals associated with the proposed project in order to conform to the requirements of Section 15124 (d)(B) of the State CEQA Guidelines regarding contents of Environmental Impact Report documents. Michael Brandman Associates S:100640021 - St Mark ChwchWTC\Fina7 RTC.doc i l St. Mark Presbyterian Church — Response to Comments on the Draft EIR Responses To Comments B6. The comment regarding stormwater runoff is noted. Exhibit 5.2 -1 of the Draft EIR depicts the existing conditions on the project site. Exhibit 5.2 -2 of the Draft EIR depicts the proposed conditions for the project site. Table 5.2 -1 in the Draft EIR is summarizes the existing versus proposed conditions that included hydrology calculations for the 10 -year and 25 -year storm events for Drainage Areas A, B, C and D. This table shows that Drainage Areas A and B representing different acreages under the proposed project conditions, will continue to discharge to Big Canyon in approximately the same location, now named Node 13. Drainage Area C, under the existing conditions, is included within Drainage Area B under the proposed project conditions. Drainage Area D1, under the existing conditions, is included within Drainage Area C under the proposed project conditions., The analysis necessary to . evaluate potential on -site impacts and potential off -site impacts is an evaluation of the entire project site, which was provided. B7. The comment regarding the hydrology study is noted. The statement in the Notice of Preparation was intended to reference the Preliminary Hydrological Study summarized in the Draft EIR. This level of hydrological study is customarily used for environmental review purposes. Final reports are prepared in association with grading and/or building permits. B8. The continent regarding water quality is noted. The information presented in the various tables in Appendix D of the Technical Appendices volume is comprised from various published sources, most typically the Environment Protection Agency. The rating of medium/low associated with vehicle use and parking lot activities is assumed to be accurate because of the source of the information. B9. The comment regarding biological resources is noted. The resources of the canyon feature will be preserved and enhanced. The potential impact on the canyon was included in the overall analysis contained in the Biological Resources section. A portion of the canyon feature will be preserved (see Project Design Feature No. 3 in Section 3.3.4 of the Draft EIR). The canyon feature will continue to be used for the discharge of stormwater from the project site, adjacent roadways, and residential development across MacArthur Boulevard through the City easement and discharge outlet located in the canyon (see Exhibit 3 -3 in the Draft EIR). A view of the canyon will be preserved from MacArthur Boulevard (see Project Design Feature No. 7 in Section 3.3.4 of the Draft EIR). In addition, views of the canyon will be enhanced by members and visitors of the church facility by the inclusion of a nature center plaza with the proposed project (see Project Design Feature No. 7 in Section 3.3.4 of the Draft EIR). This distinction is important because if the canyon feature, as well as the entire project site, is currently used by area residents, they may in fact be trespassing due to the current private ownership of the property (see discussion on page 5.1 -15 of the Draft EIR). The Draft EIR evaluated the potential for the occurrence of special status plant communities on the entire project site, including the canyon, and concluded that none are present. The Draft EIR evaluated the potential for the occurrence of sensitive plant species on the entire project site, including the canyon, and concluded that none are present. The Draft EIR evaluated the potential for the occurrence of sensitive wildlife species on the entire project site, including the canyon, and concluded that of the nineteen species that have a potential to occur, fourteen of these do not occur due to a lack of suitable habitat. The remaining species were evaluated as having a low potential to occur. However, because a portion of the canyon feature is being Michael Brandman Associates 5:100640021 - St Mark Chu bT'rCTina1 RTC.doc M St Mark Presbyterian Church - Response to Comments on the Draft EIR Responses To Comments preserved, this potential, however remote, exists for species to access the canyon. The potential for the project site, including the canyon, was evaluated for its potential for regional connectivity for wildlife movement and concluded that the project site does not provide any regional connectivity. Therefore, findings presented in the Draft EIR adequately identify the impacts that would result from project implementation. B 10. The comment regarding traffic safety is noted. Section 5.4.1 of the Draft EIR referenced existing geometric design standards relating to sight distance along roadways (standard STD -1 10 -L -Intersection Line of Site Requirements). Section 5.4.3 of the Draft EIR evaluated the potential impacts related to sight distance. The traffic analysis prepared for this project located in Appendix F of the Technical Appendices volume, contained an analysis of sight distance on page 6-1 and included a graphical analysis (Exhibit 6 -A) on page 6-3. Regarding the deceleration lane, advanced signage would be installed before the driveway locations. Individuals destined for the project site would merge into the right -turn lane and begin slowing prior to the 150 -foot right- tuWdeceleration lane. Because of the existence of an 8- foot bike lane and a 14 -foot number 3 southbound lane, deceleration lanes in excess of 150 feet can be provided. The study concluded that, with the recommended mitigation measures or alternative designs or traffic safety devices approved by the City Public Works Department, less than significant impacts would result. Therefore, findings presented in the Draft EIR adequately identify the impacts that would result from project implementation. B 11. The comment regarding traffic safety is noted. The information presented in Section 5.4.3 of the Draft EIR is intended to summarize information contained in the traffic study located in Appendix F of the Technical Appendices volume. Section 6.0 of the traffic study included an analysis of the weaving issues associated with the entry design and surrounding streets making specific recommendations to address the issue. The proposed MacArthur Boulevard access point would be designed to accommodate adequate sight distance and signage. Therefore, findings presented in the Draft EIR adequately identify the impacts that would result from project implementation. B 12. The comment regarding traffic safety is noted. See Response to Comment B 11 for a discussion on traffic safety. The Committee's recommendation regarding the alternative access scenario is acknowledged. The proposed MacArthur Boulevard access point provides alternative routes to and from the project site and distributes traffic to more driveways. Regarding item number 1, Table 5.4.4 of the Draft EIR, which summarizes information contained in the technical study located in Appendix F of the Technical Appendices volume, only discloses the type of accident that occurred, such as a year- end collision. The contributing factors, which are myriad and may have included vehicular speed, are not included in the analysis. The traffic consultant has detailed reports for each accident and could conduct further analysis for accidents on southbound MacArthur Boulevard. Michael Brandman Associates 5100640021 - SL Mark ChurchWTORnal RTC.doc �,I St Mark Presbyterian Church - Response to Comments on the Draft EIR Responses To Comments Regarding item number 2, the Draft EIR concluded that with the implementation of the recommended changes to roadway design and compliance with the mandatory obligations relating to the sight distance standards, less than significant impacts would result from the proposed MacArthur Boulevard access point. Compliance with the City's Sight Distance Standard must be satisfied. Regarding items number 3, 4, and 6, the purpose of the traffic study, which was summarized in the Draft EM was to analyze the potential impacts of the proposed project and, if necessary propose mitigation measures. Therefore, findings presented in the Draft EIR adequately identify the impacts that would result from project implementation. B 13. The comment regarding construction traffic is noted. The purpose of the referenced Municipal Code section is to disclose the existence of mandatory obligations, or requirements, regarding the interaction of construction vehicles with the existing traffic during the short-term and temporary construction activities for all projects within the City. The referenced Municipal Code section is applicable to this project and would be enforced. Therefore, findings presented in the Draft EIR adequately identify the impacts that would result from project implementation. B 14. The comment regarding bikeways is noted. Section 5.4.1 of the Draft EIR identifies Class I and Class II bicycle lanes adjacent to the project site. An existing bicycle lane is located in MacArthur Boulevard. The alignment of this bicycle lane will be reviewed at the same time the geometric design for the deceleration lane is completed. Therefore, findings presented in the Draft EIR adequately identify the impacts that would result from project implementation. B 15. The comment regarding open space is noted. Table 4 -1 of the Draft EIR specifically identifies the Marinapark hotel project. Section 5.1.4 of the Draft EIR discusses the cumulative impacts of the proposed project. The Draft EIR prepared for the Marinapark project evaluated the potential impacts related to its existing land use designation of Recreational and Environmental Open Space and concluded that less than significant impacts would result from approval of the project. The Marinapark project site is fully developed. The proposed use would retain the existing uses that are deemed consistent with the Recreational and Environmental Open Space land use designation. Disapproval of the Marinapark proposed project would allow the existing uses to continue although the mobilehome use eventually must be eliminated. A portion of the Bayview landing project site is designated as open space. The proposed project includes a park site that is consistent with the designation. The Newport Coast projects were planned under the jurisdiction of the County of Orange and annexed into the City. These developments included open space areas that are now designated as Recreational and Environmental Open Space that will be preserved. The remainder of the projects identified on Table 4 -1 of the Draft EIR are not designated as Recreational and Environmental Open Space. Therefore, findings presented in the Draft EIR adequately identify the impacts that would result from project implementation. Michael Brandman Associates SA00640021 - St Muk Chwcb'RTC\Fim) RTC-doe v?c St Mark Presbyterian Church - Response to Comments on the Draft EIR Responses To Comments B16. The comment on contour lines is noted. The reference to the noise contour on page 5.6 -19 of the Draft EIR is in reference to the noise contour maps contained in the City's Noise Element. A review of these maps was necessary in order to determine if the project site was located with the geographic boundaries of the identified noise contour lines from John Wayne Airport. A review concluded that the project site was not located within these noise contour lines. Therefore, findings presented in the Draft EIR adequately identify the impacts that would result from project implementation. Michael Brandman Associates S,\00640021 - St Mark Ch=h7TCFinal RTC.dm 23 06/1G/2004 11:15 9496443229 CNB PLANNING PAGE 07 u• c ... a vl a .. iw : : l • J i . • N • w, ' '! •J %ei�C�4�u"'�v..�.i DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION District 12 3337 Michelson Drive. Suite 360 Irvine, CA 92612 -8894 Fa : (949) 72 -2 Fax: (949) 724 -2592 Ll July 16, 2004 Mr. Gregg B. Ramirez Community Bc Economic Development Dep. City of Newport Beach P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92651 Subject: St. Mark's Presbyterian Church Dear Mr. Ramirez, REC1 =1yBb BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH AM p Fte: yonrpOwer! JUL 2 $ 2004 Be energy efficient) 7181911011 1112111213141516 File: IGR/CEQA SCH#: 2003101137 Log #: I325A SR #: PCH, SR -55, SR -73 Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the St, Mark Presbyterian Church Project dated July 2004. The project consists of the construction of a church sanctuary, fellowship hall, administration building and counseling center, preschool buildings, expansion building, nature center plaza, and related site improvements such as parking lots, driveways, site lighting, grading, landscaping, and utility connections. The project is located at the corner of Third Street and Mermaid Street in the City of Laguna Beach. The nearest State Routes to the project are Pacific Coast Highway (PCIT), SR -55, and SR -73. Caltrans District 12 status is a reviewing agency on this project and has no comments at this time. However, in the event of any activity in Caltrans' night -of -way, an encroachment permit C will be required. Applicants are required to plan for sufficient permit processing time, which may include engineering studies and environmental documentation. Please continue to keep us informed of this and other future developments, which could potentially impact the transportation facilities. If you have any questions or need to contact us, please do not hesitate t6 call Maryam:Molavi at (949) 724 -2267. W' B. S C of IGR/Community Planning Branch C: Terry Roberts, Office of Planning and Research Terri Pencovic, Caltrans HQ IGR/Community Planning "Calrmn.r /mprn"es mobility across Cali %arnra" Nq St. Mark Presbyterian Church - Response to Comments on the Draft EIR Responses To Comments C. State of California, Department of Transportation (Caltrans), District 12 Cl. The comment regarding encroachment pem-iits is noted. The project description does not include any activities within or adjacent to a state - designated right -of -way. Should the proposed project require any activity within a state - designated right -of- way, Caltrans will be contacted immediately. As a matter of note, the first paragraph of this response incorrectly identifies the location of the proposed project. However, it is clear from remainder of this paragraph and the reference to the correct State Clearinghouse number that the agency accurately identified the proposed project and considered information regarding the proposed project. As a matter of note, Section 3.5 of the Draft EIR identifies encroachment permits from the City of Newport Beach that are required for implementation of the proposed project. Michael Brandman Associates S:00640021 - St Mark ChwchWTClFinal RTC.doc a5 / 08/16/2004 e s, 9496443229 c PLANNING w § ID] I k/} ƒf§ cc in Z2{ 2 ■Z CL }0 cm /t \k{ 2 ¥2 `!E E°- } § }0 } ��) « o2 / )§k %2) _ % k $i \ § \ & 'D / E�t15 7 E / 2CL /Fo )f g7 c 4 {) a = 0 ® \ m .M )k \k ' k �! §) §\ :k E � /\0�2 kf ■2 / � a 0 �� /` \ \0ƒ �k£I \\ 2 m'0 -0 §)a7 C- 40 _5 IL ? \ k § §..� ¢(£ { i 2 \§�0�� 2 °)2 �aaa / | &6 cl�a_d_ c /i k k PAGE « \ 2G St. Mark Presbyterian Church - Response to Comments on the Draft EIR Responses To Comments D. State of California, State Water Resources Control Board Dl. The comment regarding the Notice of Intent is noted. In conformance with the provisions of NPDES Permit No. CSA000002, a Notice of Intent for coverage under the General Pernut for construction activity will be filed. Michael arandman Associates S:\00640D21 - St. Mark Ch=h\RTC\Fna1 RTC.doc 08/16/2004 11:15 9496443229 CNS PLANNING PAGE e4 ROD MACDONALD August 9, 2004 Mr. Gregg Ramirez City of Newport Beach 3300 ]Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92659 Re: St. Marks Presbyterian Church Dear Gregg, As an architect and developer, I have never seen so much data and infiormatian . put together for a project approval that was so obviously the wrong project for a given C i- site! This whole effort could be just as easily be subtitled "Where is Greealfght when you really need them?" or "how to put 10 #s in a S# bag "1 This site is zoned Open Space and should be kept just that. It is a perfect location for an urban park that should be used for lunch breaks for all of the workers in Fashion l= Z Island, the Gelson's shopping Center, Roger's Gardens and the apartment complexes to the east and west. The objections that are clearly laid out in the Technical Appendices by the adjacent neighbors, including the apartment owners to the west, the Big Canyon Community Association, Big Canyon Country Club, and various homeowners are 3 accurate and to the point. This project does not work and is not wanted by the people that should really decide, those people that live around the project and will be affected the most. OFFSITESPI'kAFFIC No matter how you present the data, there is no way that access off and on to MacArthur can be accommodated_ Forgetting for a moment the "deceleration from 55 mph to the driveway" problem, more problematic is is the lack of on site vehicle stacking and short throat of the driveway at the MacArthur entrance. People hying to get into the site and faced with the "right or leftT' decision once in the parking lot are going to back up the traffic. This is clearly unsafe. Anyone who has tried to safely make the turn in to the shopping center where GulSveam is at the coast highway knows how difficult the maneuver really is! In the Gulfstream example, you are already slowing down for the signal at the coast highway but at the church site, the `=jor arterial highway" is moving E at fall speed (posted at 55 mph). The access off of San Joaquin is even more problematic. I make the turn every day and refuse to see the logic in the mitigation measures. Think the "Christmas Tree Lot traffic" multiplied by a factor of 20. Compound that with someone's inevitable attempt to turn left from northbound MacArthur to westbound San . Ioaquin and then into the proposed church lot. It's not going to world 9 Tansy Pine Lane Newport Beach, California 92960 949. 689-8= 08/16/2004 11:15 9496443229 CNB PLANNING PAGE 05 ROD MACDONALD According to the reports, the parking lot for 247 spaces will ONLY be used for 52 worship services a year in the Sanctuary which seats 380 people, 10 weddings, 5 funerals, unspecified evening lectures, liturgical events and social functions, 5 days a week of preschool for 112 students, 8 -10 Alcoholics Anonymous' meeting per week, I Parkinson's support group meeting group per week and 1 homeowners association meeting per month. No way will they all get in and out of this site safelyl SITE PLANNINGIARCHITE..CTURE IA's see., ..you are going to pave or roof over more that half of the site and drain the storm water ultimately into Big Canyon, build a parking lot and church the height equivalent of a 4 Ya -story apartment tower (not counting the tower!) right next to some apartments (less than 60 feet away!) and loom it all over the pristine park -like setting of Big Canyon, you are going to screen the project with mostly 15 gallon and 24 inch box trees (average height 8 feetl)which in 30 years will blend in with the existing neighborhood, run 247 cars in and out every day of the week for all kinds of functions and let's ,tot forget, you are going to use "deep earth tones in building colors that complement and blend -in with the natural color tones of the canyon featuW'. I am sorry, but considering the rich and atticnlate architectural tradition that the Irvine Company has brought to Newport and to Fashion Island, this planning effort should get C-or D+1 CONCLUSION Clearly a lot of money has been spent on the process and clearly a lot of important people want this to happen ..... and I guess that as a developer, I should be encouraged since I make my living getting things approved and built. However, I also believe that common sense has always been one great American trait. I am asking the powers that be to exercise a little common sense and see this project for what it is -THE .RIGHT USE IN THE WRONG PLACES 13est,leg?pds, Ps: I would be happy to Chair a committee to design and building a park, nature area and open space that would benefit many more people that the proposed use. 9 Torrey Pluee Lone Newport Beach, Callfornle 92660 94®4669 -6222 E'- a`� SL Mark Presbyterian Church - Rasoonse to Comments on the Draft EIR Responses To Comments E. Mr. Rod MacDonald El. The comment regarding Charter Section 423 is noted. The proposed project is not subject to the provisions of City of Newport Beach Charter Section 423, commonly known as the Greenlight Initiative. The increase in floor area is below the 40,000 square foot threshold and the increase in the amount of traffic generated during the peak hour is below the 100 -trip threshold required to trigger the requirements of Charter Section 423. E2. The comment regarding open space is noted. Refer to Response to Comment B4 for a discussion on open space. E3. The comment regarding objections is noted. Section 3.5 of the Draft EIR states that the City has discretionary approval, or project approval, over the proposed project. For clarification, project approval would come from a combination of the City Planning Commission and the City Council. This section also lists various ministerial and discretionary approvals associated with the proposed project. The decision makers will also take all objections into consideration as the determination as to whether to approve, modify or deny the project is made. E4. The comment regarding traffic is noted. On -site vehicle stacking will be reviewed during the plan check process that would include a thorough on -site circulation review. Pavement markings and signage may be required that would assist drivers. For a discussion on traffic, please refer to Response to Comments B 10 to B 13, and Response to Comment F2. E5. The comments regarding stormwater drainage, building heights, vegetation, vehicle trips, building colors, and The Irvine Company are noted. Section 5.2.1 of the Draft EIR states that Big Canyon currently receives the majority of the surface stormwater discharged from the project site and also receives stormwater from the adjacent roadway and development east of the project site via a City - installed storm drain outlet. Refer to Section 3.2 of the Draft EIR for a discussion on this Strom drain outlet. The project proposes to direct stormwater generated on the project site to on- site detention basins and ultimately discharge the stormwater into Big Canyon at or below existing discharge levels. Refer to Section 5.2.3 of the Draft EIR for a discussion on proposed stormwater conveyance and discharge. Project Design Feature No. 6 in Section 3.3.4 of the Draft EIR represents a proposed design feature that lowers the building pad, in relation to existing surface grades, in order to reduce the visual prominence of the proposed buildings. Section 3.3.1 of the Draft EIR states that the building pad would be lowered from eight to twelve feet. Table 3 -3 and Exhibits 3 -11 through 3 -12 of the Draft EIR provide information on building heights. Project Design Feature No. 2 in Section 3.3.4 of the Draft EIR represents a proposed design feature that includes landscaped buffers adjacent to the existing roadways. These buffers are raised in elevation relative to the surrounding grade and include landscaping. In addition, landscaping is proposed along the northern perimeter of the project site, except for the portion of the project site retained as a canyon feature. Exhibit 3 -8 of the Draft EIR shows the location of the proposed landscape buffers and perimeter vegetation. Exhibits 3 -10 through 3 -12 of the Draft EIR depict the proposed landscaping in relation to the existing and proposed development. Exhibit Michael Brandmen Associates SA00640021 - St Mark ChuchUYPCFinal RTC.doc St. Mark Presbyterian Church - Response to Comments on the Draft EIR Responses To Comments 3 -8 of the Draft EIR contains a table that states the various types of landscaping proposed and their corresponding sizes. For clarification, Section 3.3.2 of the Draft EIR identifies a total of 247 parking stalls proposed for the project. The comment regarding building colors is noted. Section 3.3.4 of the Draft EIR identifies certain features that have been incorporated into the design of the proposed project. The use of specific colors in order to match the natural colors of the canyon feature is identified as Project Design Feature No. 5. The purpose of choosing building colors that match the natural colors exhibited in the canyon feature is not to hide the project from public view. Rather, the colors were selected because the project proposes to retain a portion of the canyon feature and also incorporate this canyon feature into the overall site design (see Project Design Feature No. 3). Section 1.7 of the Draft EIR states that the project sponsor, or applicant, is St. Mark Presbyterian Church, not The Irvine Company. In its capacity as the project sponsor, St. Mark Presbyterian Church has proposed the site plan and architectural style. For clarification, Section 3.3 of the Draft EIR states that The Irvine Company currently owns the land. If the City approves this project, St. Mark Presbyterian Church would then acquire the land. Refer to Response to Comment F3 for a discussion on constraints to project site design. Therefore, findings presented in the Draft EIR adequately identify the impacts that would result from project implementation. Michael Brandman Associates S't00040021 - St. Mark ChurchWTCTF nal RTC.doc 08/16/2004 11:15 9496443229 CNB PLANNING PAGE 02 August 10, 2004 Planning Department City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 Attention: Gregg Ramirez RE: St. Mark Presbyterian Church —DEIR Gentlemen: I(] RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH AUG 12 2004 PM 7181911011 l 112111213141516 Essex Property Trust and Borstein Enterprises are owners of the Big Canyon Apartments located at 2 Pine Valley Lane, adjacent to the proposed St. Mark Church. While we have no fundamental objection to the adjacent land being occupied by the church, we have concerns about the placement of the structures and the lack of separation and/or mitigation measures at our mutual property line. On November 26, 2003, we set forth these concerns in a letter to you. We also spoke with Mr. John L. Brenner, the Chairman of the Entitlement Committee for St. Mark Church to express our specific concerns and suggested solutions. In reviewing the current DEIR we note that no changes were made to the plan as it may affect our residents and that the DEIR fails to even consider or evaluate the points raised in our letter of November 26, 2003. Our specific issues are as follows: An outdoor children's play area is connected adjacent to the main church sanctuary and located 55 feet from our nearest residential unit. This outdoor area, along with the church structure which is more than 40 feet in height, is proposed to be located only 5 feet from our property line, The DEIR is silent as to the noise impact of this play area and especially since its use will most likely occur on weekend days when our residents will be at home. BORSTEIN ENTERPRISES 2730 Wllshlre Boulevard, Suite 300 • Santa Monica. California 90403 . 310- 582.1991 • Fax 310 -SB2 -1999 5�L 08/16/2004 11:15 9496443229 CNB PLANNING PAGE 03 Since the church site is elevated above our property, the five foot set back from the property line is mostly a slope and it will be very difficult to plant foliage which could help screen the bulk size of the church or mitigate the sound intrusion. We had suggested that the church structure and children's play area be set back a minimum of 15 feet and that heavy landscape be placed in the set back area. Again, the DEIR does not even mention this issue. IF1 2. The main entrance off San Joaquin Hills Road and the main parldug lot are both immediately adjacent to our other residential units. This Z proximity will cause noise, exhaust pollution and .b.eadlight intrusion for the adjacent residents, none of which problems were addressed ht the DEIR This entire site is approximately 9 acres of which about 7 acres are useable. Since the actual building area comprises less than one - seventh of the useable land it would seem very simple to site the offending elements to mitigate both noise and pollution into the adjacent residential neighborhood which has been in existence for more than thirty years. Very truly yours, rresiaent 33 St. Mark Presbyterian Church — Response to Comments on the Draft E/R Responses To Comments F. Bornstein Enterprises Fl. The comment regarding the children's play area is noted. Exhibit 3 -13 of the Draft ERR depicts the children's play area in relation to the property line. This setback conforms to the requirements of the proposed PC regnlations. This same exhibit also depicts the setback to the Church building as 15 feet, consistent with the comment. This play area would be used by less children than would the pre - school. The following paragraph is added to page 5.6 -16 of the Draft ERR immediately following the paragraph entitled "Pre- School Activities ": Children's Play Area The children's play areas are to be located adjacent to the Fellowship Hall and east of the Church. The area located adjacent to the Fellowship Hall is in excess of 300 feet from the nearest residents located across MacArthur Boulevard and noise would be less than that predicted for the pre- school activities noted above. These residents are protected by a masonry wall and play activity noise at these residents would be less than significant. The play area located east of the church is approximately 60 feet from the proximate residents located to the west. Again using the higher of the noise readings obtained at the Jenny Hart facility, noise at the most proximate resident is calculated at 57 dBA Leq. The play area is to include a 5.5 -foot masonry wall. Again assuming the minimum 5 dBA of reduction for the wall, the resultant noise at the resident is calculated at 52 dBA Leq. This value is less than the City's noise standard of 55 dBA for activities conducted between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. and the impact is less than significant. Additionally, reading NR- 4 obtained proximate to both the residents and this proposed play area showed an Leq of 53.1 dBA. This measured value is higher than that for play area activities and based on the limited use of the play area, these activities would not substantially raise the ambient noise levels. Actual noise levels at the residents from play area activities would be further reduced by the grade separation between the project site and the residents as well as the smaller volume of children that are actually expected to use this area at any given time. Any potential impact would be less than significant. The project proposes landscaping adjacent to the north property line. Project Design Feature No. 13, identified in Section 2.2 of the Draft ERR, states that landscaping will be provided in order to provide a visual buffer to the adjacent property. Exhibit 3 -8 of the Draft ERR shows the proposed landscaping plan. The planting chart on this exhibit indicates that the northwest portion of the project site, adjacent to the residential properties, would receive the largest trees proposed for planting. In addition, Exhibit 3 -12 of the Draft ERR provides a cross section showing proposed landscaping and Exhibit 3 -14 of the Draft ERR depicts the proposed landscaping. Therefore, findings presented in the Draft ERR adequately identify the impacts that would result from project implementation. F2. The comment regarding the proposed entrance and parking lot is noted. The location of the proposed entrance off San Joaquin Hills Road was chosen in order to conform to the City's sight distance requirements from major roadways. This is an existing entrance to the project site when access is required and during the holiday season when the project site is used as a Christmas tree sales lot. In addition, this access point was chosen so that it was located as far as possible from the San Joaquin Hills Michael Brandman Associates SA00640021 - St Mark Church\ RMTinal RTCAOC 31 St. Mark Presbyterian Church — Response to Comments on the Draft EIR To Comments Road/MacArthur Boulevard intersection as possible in order to accommodate maximum allowable weaving opportunities. Refer to Section 5.4.3 of the Draft EIR for a discussion on sight distance requirements. Refer to the previous response (Response to Comment F 1) for a discussion on landscape buffers that would shield headlight intrusion. Section 5.6 -3 of the Draft EIR contains an analysis of noise - related impacts related to parking lot activities. Section 5.5.3 of the Draft EIR contained an analysis of both the short-term and long- term air quality impacts of the proposed project, which includes exhaust pollution from vehicles. Therefore, findings presented in the Draft EIR adequately identify the impacts that would result from project implementation. F3. The comment regarding the site acreage is noted. Section 3.3 of the Draft EIR, including Table 3 -1, identifies the overall site as containing 10.81 acres, of which, after two separate dedications of portions of the project site to entities other than the project proponent, results in approximately 7.4 acres available for the proposed development. The amount of "usable" land on the project site would be dependent . on the actual development proposed. In the case of the proposed project, the project proponent has chosen to retain a portion of the existing canyon feature into the overall site design. Exhibit 3-4 of the Draft EIR contains a project data table that states the proposed buildings would cover approximately 10.5 percent of the portion of the project site proposed for development. However, as with most proposed developments, buildings do not represent the only improvements necessary to fulfill the objectives of a proposed project. In the case of the proposed project, parking lots, interconnecting vehicular drive aisles, and pedestrian walkways are a necessary part of the proposed project. In addition, as previously referenced, the project proponent has chosen to retain a portion of the existing canyon feature and include extensive landscaped buffers adjacent to the existing roadways as part of the overall project site design. The project proponent and their architect, prior to application to the City, evaluated various site development scenarios in order to determine the best arrangement of the elements of the proposed development on the project site. The primary site planning constraint governing the proposed layout was the retention of a portion of the existing canyon feature and the incorporation of this feature into the overall project site design. Because of this constraint, either of the two remaining generally level areas that would be available for development would not be of sufficient size to accommodate the required building space. As a result, the project proponent chose to propose multiple low -rise buildings across the project site with two parking areas. The additional parking was provided in order to facilitate vehicular and pedestrian movement across the project site. This resulted in an increase in the number of parking stalls. In addition to this primary constraint, the extensive landscaped buffers adjacent to the existing roadways and the proposed location of the San Joaquin Hills Road access point created additional site design constraints. Because of these constraints, the church and fellowship hall, representing the primary buildings, would be required to be placed in close proximity to the canyon feature. Because of this primary constraint, and because of the requirement to place the San Joaquin Hills Road access point the maximum distance Michael Brandman Associates SA00040021 - St. Mark Ch=h\RTClFinal RTC.doc 3 5� SL Mark Presbyterian Church — Response to Comments on the Draft EIR Responses To Comments from MacArthur Boulevard and the proposed landscaped buffers, were the constraints that resulted in the proposed location of the primary parking lot. Therefore, findings presented in the Draft EIR adequately identify the impacts that would result from project implementation. Michael Brandman Associates 59D0640021 - SL Mark Ch=hWTC\Fi=I RTC.doc 08/24/2004 16:52 August 17, 2004 9496443229 CNB PLANNING FC71 Ccir ti:iiJ7 +y Deveiopms -ilt DspaiRlell PAGE 06 vdwv. c. i rvi n e. c e. u s City of Irvine. One Civic Center Plaz4., F.C. Box 19FS. h-vi�e, California 9PFP 9S5 Mr. Gregg B. Ramirez, Associate Planner City of Newport Beach Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTIMENT CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH AUG 2 4 2004 PM 7 819110111112111213141516 Subject: Notice of Availability of a Draft EIR — St. Mark Presbyterian Church Dear Mr. Ramirez: M9} 724 -600D The City of Irvine has received and reviewed the information on the above referenced project Based on our review, Planning Services staff has no specific comments at this time. Thank you for the opportunity to review the project We would appreciate information on any change in the project description as tite planning process proceeds. Jf you have any questions, please contact me at (949) 724 -6546 or aurcis@Lmirvine.ca.us ]&Uk--t-4 Associate Planner cc: Barry Curtis, Principal Planner Farideh E. Lyons, Senior Transportation Analyst File Gi St Mark Presbyterian Church - Response to Comments on the Draft EJR Responses To Comments G. City of Irvine, Community Development Department Gl. The comment regarding the project description is noted. The City of Irvine will be notified if any changes to the project description occur. Michael nrandman Associates S:\00640021 - St Merk Ch=h\RTC\Fina1 RTC.d. 3� 06/24/2004 16:52 9496443229 CNH PLANNING � � r Imrrsrvc d As<tor z&w, ,�aat�°ar�wsf�8..�'ndosel � .PP6Y6 August 19, 2004 Mr. Gregg B. Ramirez, Associate Planner Newport Beach Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 Re: DEIR for St. Mark Presbyterian Church Dear Mr. Ramirez: RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH AUG 2 4 2004 PM 7 8 9110111112 11121 3141SI6 .. We have received your notice advising that comments for the subject DEIR will be accepted. We are a homeowner association of 142 single - family lots in Big Canyon. Our concerns in the preparation of the Environmental Impact Report are basically limited to the issues of Transportatiou/Traff"ic as defined in the DEIR. The subject site is located at a critical location as it affects traffic ingress and egress from and to Big Canyon and Newport Center. In recent years the City of Newport Beach has expended considerable funds to improve the traffic capacity of MacArthur Blvd. In the planning of the subject site we.are concerned that there not be features which compromise the efficiency of that very important arterial and its intersections. As you are aware, a deceleration lane exists for a free right turn onto San Joaquin Hills Road. This existing feature greatly improves the capacity of that intersection and the flow of traffic. The concern is whether the friction introduced by entering and exiting church traffic will significantly detract from the free flow of traffic. Attention should also be given to exiting traffic intending to travel easterly along San Joaquin Hills Road. Perhaps, the entry on MacArthur should be considered ingress only. Our other concerns are with the San Joaquin Hill Road. There, the ingress and access is located at the far end of the property with only a deceleration lane proposed With the right turn only constraint, there are two concerns. One is the degree of friction caused by traffic to and from the church merging with left turn and right turn traffic from MacArthur Blvd.. ,The other concern is with the church exiting traffic, which desires to go easterly along San Joaquin Hills Road. As proposed, they may ciect to make U -turns at either the driveway to the parking area across the street or at the next intersection. In periods of high traffic flow this can be a concern. Would it be enough of a concern to probibiit these U -tum movements? In the study of these traffic issues, it would seem feasible for the Church to provide data indicating the likely direction.of.approacb. for both attendance to church. and for the school. This would seerri to greatly enhance the ability to evaluate the traffic impacts. 43- QVlle„•eaay03�praieco \CsnyM1 M119 ODMAdminiE�N&dmm Ca=p\ 2004 \CHD= Lt fm SL Mnk PrtxhYlaMnn Chamb DR1904.dae ryry^ 08/24/2004 16:52 9496443229 CNB PLANNING PAGE 05 Mr. Gregg Ramirez, Associate Planner Newport Beach Planning Department Re: DEIR for St. Mark Presbyterian Church August 19, 2004 Page Two In the DER, it was noted that the response concerning Result in Inadequate Emergency Access was "No Impact ". It would seem that the EIR should address that issue, The nearest fire station is located near N Z Jamboree Road. In the event a fire engine or paramedics were to approach the site, they apparently would either 1) travel on the wrong side of San Joaquin, 2) make a U -turn at MacArthur, or 3) travel on Jamboree to Ford Road and enter at either of the two proposed driveways. There is also a general concern. This proposed use is to change from an Open Space to a Churah/School. Has the land owner proposed an offsetting site to replace the loss of open space? To be clear, our association is not opposed to the church /school use. We are asking that the traffic issues noted above are thoroughly evaluated in the preparation of the final Environmental Impact Report. Sincerely, The Board of Directors of Canyon hills Community Association in Sig Canyon. cc: Board of Directors �M11RgCWay03Vr0jVCU%C nyan MUs OO9wdminis"dv6Admm Cm ApUOD4\Ca DEIR Le Ox h M,&Pmbymrian Chm h OR1904.doe J6 St Mark Presbyterian Church - Response to Comments on the Draft EIR Responses To Comments H. Canyon Hills Community Association HE . The comment regarding traffic is noted. For a discussion on traffic, please refer to Response to Comments B 10 to B 13, and Response to Comment F2. H2. The comment regarding emergency access is noted. Because the proposed driveways are not gate controlled or in some other way restricted, access to the project site by emergency vehicles would not be obstructed. The Newport Beach Fire Department has reviewed the project plans and has stated that the proposed access is adequate and that the project site can be accessed within their established emergency response time. H3. The comment regarding open space is noted. For a discussion on open space, refer to Response to Comment B4. Michael Brandman Associates S: \OD640021 - St Mark Ch=h\RTC\Fin81 RTC.doc LO 08/24/2004 16:52 9496443229 CNB PLANNING PAGE 02 Bernard Rome 3 Pinehurst Lane Newport Beach, Ca., 92660 August 23, 2004 Mr. Gregg B. Ramirez, Associate Planner Newport Beach Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, Ca., 92658 Re: DEIR for SG Mark Presbyterian Church Dear Mr. Ramirez: 0 PLANNING RECEIVED RTMENT CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH AUG 2 4 2004 AM PM 71819110 [11112 [1121 31 41516 When the proposed project first came before the city council in Feb. 2001 many negative comments were voiced about the applicability of this location for a church site or for that matter anything other than the passive open space it presently has. The council took the position that the applicant should be given a chance to prove that the traffic problem can be resolved and managed effectively. Unfortunately we are now sitting here over three years later without a feasible solution. However now some have "forced" the issue to show traffic will not present an unsafe situation. Although a traffic study was performed it does not consider growth potential of the applicam or their stated ability to lease the facility out for other than normal church functions. Listed below are some summarized facts that were not addressed during the traffic study. 1. MacArthur Blvd. is a major arterial highway to Newport Center/Fashion. Island (NC/FI) and mailings are made weekly to attract shoppers and I i visitors via the 73 freeway and turning onto San Joaquin Hills Road. No data was provided in the traffic study to account for this not only today but in the next 5,10 and 15 years from now. 2. Since applicant's major use on Sunday is for services will other events held on Sunday at Nun not be allowed? —ie 5K tins, special sales at = 2 stores usually held on weekends, etc. 3. As Newport Coast develops further, San ?oaquin Hills Road has become a main route to Big Canyon and NC/Fl. The Traffic study does not take this into consideration but uses data primarily developed in 2003 which is significantly different than what will be experienced in 5 to 15 years from now. 4. Traffic study shows no accidents from "weaving" experienced on San Joaquin when coming from MacArthur Blvd and going cast to either Big = y a- 08/24/2004 16:52 9496443229 CNB PLANNING PAGE 03 Canyon or NC/FI: however, the study does note people lost control of their vehicles. We know why they lost control. -- the weaving effect. Also z'1 one light pole in the San Joaquin median was knocked down by a vehicle forced to move over when traffic tried to cross lanes. The suggested procedure of handing out traffic route information for people to follow when they leave the site and go through Newport Center y is an unworkable plan. Our Lady Queen Of Angeles church has tried this and they have admitted it does not work. In summary it is obvious to many Newport Beach residents that this site is and has been a nightmare when reasonable vehicle access to and from is considered. To think that our planners and city council would bury their head in the sand and try to "shoe horn in" a facility at a site with dangerous traffic conditions is not using good sound judgment. Is this because of the lack of planning that has been experienced in the past? As an example Newport Coast was developed with a lot of expensive homes but without sites set aside to house religious places of worship. It is evident we are trying to mask our past mistakes by allowing this open space area to serve a select few at the expense of bath safety and common sense. Sincerely, Bernard Rome 0 St Mark Presbyterian Church - Response to Comments on the Draft EIR Responses To Comments Mr. Bernard Rome I1. The comment regarding traffic is noted. The traffic study prepared for this project was completed in strict conformance with the provisions of the City's Traffic Phasing Ordinance that accounted for existing and future growth. Existing traffic generated by Newport Center/Fashion Island is accounted for in the traffic analysis. Additionally, a cumulative and general plan build -out traffic analysis was conducted, which accounts for future growth and resultant traffic increases. Acceptable levels of service are predicted. Therefore, findings presented in the Draft EIR adequately identify the impacts that would result from project implementation. 12. The comment regarding traffic is noted. The traffic study analyzes typical traffic conditions. Special events in Fashion Island require a Special Event Permit. If it is determined that any proposed events are deemed unsafe by the City or would negatively impact the area, then the event would not be permitted. Therefore, findings presented in the Draft EIR adequately identify the impacts that would result from project implementation. 13. The comment regarding traffic is noted. Table 4 -1 of the Draft EIR identified the Newport Coast projects. The Newport Coast developments were included in the cumulative project conditions and assumed full build -out. In addition, Section 5.4.3 of the Draft EIR included the developments on the Newport Coast area in its analysis. Also, refer to Response to Comment I1. Therefore, findings presented in the Draft EIR adequately identify the impacts that would result from project implementation. I4. The comment regarding traffic safety is noted. Detailed traffic accident reports were evaluated for a 5 -year period. Based on this period, no vehicular conflicts on northbound MacArthur Boulevard turning left onto San Joaquin Hills Road and southbound MacArthur Boulevard free right turning vehicles were reported or observed. Refer to Response to Comment B 10 to B 13 for a discussion on traffic safety. I5. The comment regarding traffic is noted. Refer to Response to Comments BIO through B12 for a discussion on traffic safety. Michael Brandman Associates 5100640021 - St Mark Chwcb\RTC\Fina1 RTCd 0 Comments — Marinapark EIR Kevin Shannon - FW: St Mark EIR Comments From: "Ramirez, Gregg" <GRamirez @city. newport-beach.ca.us> To: "Kevin B. Shannon (E- mail)" <kshannon@brandman.com> Date: 8/31/2004 2:35 PM Subject: FW: St Mark EIR Comments Hi Kevin - T❑ Here's another comment letter. �1 Thanks - - - -- Original Message---- - From: andylingle @sbcglobal.net [mailto :andylingle @sbcglobal.net] Sent: Tuesday, August 31, 2004 2:31 PM To: gramirez @city.newport- beach.ca.us Subject: St Mark EIR Comments SPON P.O. Box 102 Balboa Island, California 92662 August 31, 2004 City of Newport Beach Planning Department Gregg B. Ramirez, Associate Planner 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92658 Subject: St. Mark Draft EIR Dear Mr. Ramirez, Page 1 of 3 SPON appreciates the opportunity to comment on the Draft EIR for St Mark Presbyterian Church. 1. The conversion of Recreational and Environmental Open Space to Institution should be mitigated The Land Use and Planning section of the DEIR identifies the loss of Recreational and Environmental Open Space (REDS) land as an insignificant impact. SPON disagrees with this conclusion and believes that the appropriate conclusion is that the loss of REDS land is Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated. On its own, the St. Mark project has many features that would make it an attractive contribution to the City. However, approval of this project will come at the expense of open space. We believe that the DEIR has underestimated the potential for the site to serve as an important biotic habitat, file: / /C:\ Documents %20and %20Settings \KShannon \Local %20Settings \Temp \GW... 9/l/200443 Comments — Marinapark EIR Page 2 of 3 which represents one significant objective for REDS property. The November 25, 2003 letter written to the City by Dr. Jan Vandersloot concerning the Initial Study explains that this property, 1 if allowed to naturalize, would serve as a more important biotic habitat than present. Therefore, we believe that while this property may appear to be a surplus remnant, under appropriate stewardship, it has the potential to support more widespread habitat for native flora and fauna in the Newport Beach area. SPON also believes that the property provides visual open space. In Newport Beach, and in Southern California in general, open space is a highly limited and diminishing resource. As the last remaining developable land in the City is built, there is increased pressure to use open space 52 for private and institutional uses.. The Marinapark site is an obvious example of a hotel developer acquiring City property at below- market rates instead of paying market rates for private property in the area. SPON is dismayed that the City considers protection of REDS land a low priority, and utilizes it as discount property for future development. Article 10.5 of the 2004 Planning, Zoning, and Development laws of the State of California recognizes that open space is a limited and valuable resource that should be conserved whenever S 3 possible. The State recognizes that discouraging conversion of open space to urban uses is a matter of public interest. SPON agrees with the Legislature of the State of California and believes that losing open space land without any mitigation for its loss is a significant impact. SPON disagrees that retaining 1.12 acres of open space could be considered mitigation for the loss of 7.38 acres of open space. To develop this 1.12 acre remnant would require expensive J earthwork to fill. The loss of valuable coastal sage scrub within this remnant would require extensive mitigation from the California Department of Fish and Game. As a result, the property left on -site as open space would remain as such under any development scenario. In our view, an appropriate mitigation program would determine the value of the property when converted from open space to institutional, plus the value of the loss to the remnant 1.12 acre open space parcel as a viable habitat The cumulative value of these two factors would be applied toward the purchase of an appropriate replacement parcel, or applied toward improving a REDS ,SS site elsewhere in the City. SPON suggests that replacement property might be surplus property owned by the current landowner or the City in a non -REDS designation that could meet the criteria for a REDS designation following an environmental analysis. If the City used the funds for improving a REDS property for open space purposes, the Central park property next to the library, or the Marinapark property would be two good choices for those funds. The St. Mark project is being processed concurrently with the Regent Newport Beach Hotel project at Marinapark. The cumulative impacts section of the DEIR should also include an S analysis of loss of REDS designations of other areas in the City, such as the Regent Newport Beach Hotel at Marinapark. If this significant impact is not mitigated, at a minimum, the Environmental Impact Report must J 1 include a Statement of Overriding Considerations that discusses the reasons why the importance of the project outweighs the public benefits from the open space. As a local environmental organization with a 25 -year history and hundreds of members throughout the City, SPON represents the hearts and minds of a large segment of the City's population. With this in mind, we look forward to your consideration of our input. Sincerely, file: / /C:\ Documents %20and %20Settings \KShannon \Local %20Settings \Temp \GW... 9/1/2004 �� Comments — Marinapark EIR Andy Lingle SPON Presiding Officer Page 3 of 3 file: / /C:\ Documents %20and %20Settings \KShannon \Local %20Settings \Temp \GW... 911/2004 4I St Mark Presbyterian Church - Response to Comments on the Draft EIR J. SPON To Comments J 1. The comment regarding biological resources is noted. There are several objectives, although not literally defined as such, identified in the description of the Recreational and Environmental Open Space designation on page 26 of the City's Land Use Element. This is reiterated in Section 5. 1.1 of the Draft EIR. The use of land carrying this designation, although not specifically identified in the definition, would be one of a wide range of potential uses. Section 5.3 of the Draft EIR presented a thorough description and analysis of the various plant communities existing on the project site. As shown on Exhibit 5.3 -1 of the Draft EIR, approximately half of the project site that is proposed for development contains disturbed areas. These areas are characterized by a lack of vegetative cover and poor soil quality and highly compacted. In this case, the disturbed areas are the result of road building activities. Re- colonization of Coastal Sage Scrub on these disturbed areas is highly problematic and extremely unlikely to occur. Section 3.2 of the Draft EIR identified a brief history of the project site. The project site is, in fact, a remnant piece of property resulting from the construction of road and surrounding residential, commercial and golf course developments. Therefore, findings presented in the Draft EIR adequately identify the impacts that would result from project implementation. J2. The comment regarding visual open space is noted. Table 3 -1 of the Draft EIR accurately identifies the existing use of the project site as undeveloped open space. Section 5.1 -1 of the Draft EIR identifies the development agreement between the City and The Irvine Company, as the current property owner (see Section 3.3 of the Draft EIR for a discussion on transfer of ownership) known as the Circulation Improvement and Open Space Agreement wherein specific parcels of land were dedicated for open space uses. The project site is not identified in this agreement. Refer to Response to Comment for a discussion on open space. B. The comment regarding open space is noted. The City is in conformance with the provisions of State law by the adoption of the Recreation and Open Space Element in June 1998. As a matter of clarification, Article 10.5 does not reference any specific impacts regarding the loss of open space land. Refer to Response to Comment B4 for a discussion on open space. J4. The comment regarding coastal sage scrub is noted. Section 5.3.3 and Exhibit 5.3- 1 of the Draft EIR identified the amount and extent of coastal sage scrub that would be removed and the amount that would be preserved as a result of project implementation. The portion of the coastal sage scrub located in the canyon feature is proposed for retention as part of the proposed project, not for development. This section of the Draft EIR also identified that the portion of coastal sage scrub to be removed as part of the proposed project is covered under the provisions of the Orange County Natural Community Conservation PlanMabitat Conservation Plan (NCCP/HCP). The project site is identified as "non- reserve" parcel within the NCCP. As a signatory agency the City may only apply those mitigation measures related to construction activates to non - reserve parcels as specified by the NCCP/HCP Implementation Agreement. Off -site mitigation for the "take" of coastal sage scrub on non - reserve parcels was agreed upon and implemented by the signatory land owners and agencies of the NCCP, which includes the California Department of Fish Michael Brandman Associates 5:100640021 - St. Mark Ch=hIRTORnal RTC.dw ;/ St Mark Presbyterian Church - Response to Comments on the Draft EIR Responses To Comments and Game (CDFG). The same provisions of the NCCP/HCP apply to the potential take of the California gnatcatcher. J5. The comment regarding property valuation is noted. The analysis contained in the Draft EIR concluded that changing the General Plan land use designation from the existing Recreational and Environmental Open Space to the proposed Governmental, Educational and Institutional Facilities resulted in less than significant impacts and therefore did not require mitigation measures. J6. The comment regarding open space is noted. For a discussion on the cumulative impacts, refer to Response to Comment B 15. P. The comment regarding potential impacts is noted. Section 1.2 of the Draft EIR discloses the potential for statements of overriding considerations. Michael Brandman Associates 5:\00640021 - St. Mark Chwch\RTCFinal RTC.doc —L 09/01/2004 09:43 9496443229 CNB PLANNING PACE 02 JAN D. VANDERSLOOT, M.D. 2221 East 10h Street Office Phone! (714) 848 -0770 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Office Fax: (714) 848 -6643 Home Phone: (949) 548 -6326 Email (al JonV3aol.com August 31. 2004 K Gregg B. Ramirez, Associate Planner Planning Department, Community and Economic Development City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 Re: Written Comments Draft Environmental Impact Report Project Title: St, Mark Presbyterian Church Project Applicant: St. Mark Presbyterian Church Dear Mr. Ramirez, RECEIVED By PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH AUG 3 1 2004 PM 7 1819110 jl l 112 it i213141516 Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Draft EIR for the St. Mark Presbyterian Church proiect. Please put me on the distribution list for any notices concerning this project. I previously submitted comments on the Notice of Preparation and Initial Study dated November �C 25, 2003. 1 hereby resubmit those comments for the Draft EIR and request a Response To Comments on each of the points 1 raised in the November 25 submission Additionally, I am requesting a re- evaluation of the Biological Resource Section 5.3, which states the potential for presence of the gnatcatcher is "considered very low" (p.5.3 -8). Actually, the potential is high due to the presence of gnatcatchers which have been identified in the nearby MacArthur /San Miguel parcel above the library. See attached letter that 1 sent to Sharon Wood, Assistant City Manager dated November 10, 2003, which has attached two reports from Robert Hamilton dated March 9, 1998, and July 16, 1998, documenting presence of the gnatcatcher on the library site. Loss of CSS on the site and its impact on the federally listed threatened gnatcatcner snouia De considered significant. K2 There is no evidence in the Draft EIR that a focused survey for the gnatcatcher has been '� 3 conducted on the site, An alternative site plan protecting all CSS onsite with buffers should be included in the EIR, Note K that this site is adjacent to the golf course with large open space areas, increasing the viability of gnatcatchers utilizing the site. Additionally, the Draft EIR ignores the need for park space in this region, Region 8, which could be satisfied by developing as alternative in the EIR that places a park on the site, with both passive and active recreation opportunities. The current City of Newport Beach Recreation and Open Space Element dated 1998, states on page 2.6 that there is a deficiency of 14 acres of parkland in this area, Service Area 8 - Big CanyonBelcourt. The subject site is 10,81 acres, which would go a long ways towards KS 09/01/2004 09:43 9496443229 CNB PLANNING PAGE 03 JAN D. VANDERSLOOT, M.D. 2221 East 16' Street Office Phone: (714) 848 -0770 Office Fax: (714) 848 -6643 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Homc Phone: (949) 5486326 Email' JonV3&ol.com satisfying the park needs in this area. See attached "Service Area Needs" from the Recreation and 1/ 5 1� Open Space Element. An alternative should be included in the Draft EIR that places a park on the site, consistent with the current REDS General Plan designation. Alternative mitigation sites for loss of this REOS acreage should be,included in the Draft EIR. �L Loss of this site due to a change in the designation from REDS to GET should be considered a K 7 significant impact under Land Use and Planning, because of the loss of potential parkland that is needed and the loss is unmitigated. A park plan should be considered the environmentally superior alternative because the CSS is be built J« regenerating itself on the site naturally, resulting in a larger area of CSS and a park can with buffers around the sensitive environmental habitat areas. The proposed project, on the other hand results in the loss of CSS that will decrease the potential for sensitive species like the gnatcateher to survive on the site. Comments from the Department of Fish and Game are not included, and because of the sensitive K nature of CSS and the onsite wetlands, their input should be solicited, as well as the USFWS. Thanks again for the opportunity to comment. Sincerely, /Jan4D, Vandersloot, MD Attachments: November 25, 2003 letter to Gregg B. Ramirez, with biology reports November 10, 2003 letter to Sharon wood Recreation and Open Space Element, June 1998, page 2 -6 Si uc,. uc cvva 1 /: VC Y4Y 044 3GGY �Nif YLANN IN sp(4J Y.VU01V11 JAN D. 2221 East leh Saoct Newport Beach, CA 92663 Home Phone: (949) 548 -6326 November 25. 2003 VANDLRSLOOT, MJD. Office Phone: office Fw.. Email: IC Gregg B. Ramirez, Associate Planner Planning Department, Community and Economic Development City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd, P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 (714) 84&0770 (714) 8486643 JonV3(dad -com RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMIEPIT CITY Cc NFWOr:cr Pr",`H �•I(J� 2 6 �{ P AM M 7l 131911011 111211 1213141516 Re: Notice of Preparation (NOP) and initial Study (IS) of a Draft Environmental Impact Report Project Title: SL Mark Presbyterian Church Project Applicant: St. Mark Presbyterian Church Dear Mr. Ramirez, Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the NOP and IS for the St. Mark Presbyterian Cburrdt project Please put me on the distribution list for any notices concerning this project I believe the Draft E)R should contain more information than the In Study indicates will be included in the DE)R. Under Sermon 1.4, Environmental Scrting, it should be noted Char the gently sloping pads bracketing the canyon feature contains a dense stand of coastal sage scrub (CSS), a type of vegetation community that is home to many threatened and endangered species and is a type of vegetation community that is very environmentally sensitive and disappearing. by development, causing measures to protect it to be implemented by the State. This dense native vegetation includes California sagebrush (Artemisia califomica), Coyote Brush (Baccharis pilularis), Coast sunflower (Encelia calif6mira), Buff Monkeyflower (Mimulus awantiacus). Toyon, Lemonadeberry, etc. Moreover, the land adjacent to the existing dense vegetation is spontaneously restoring itself with species including California sagebrush and coyote bnrsh, thereby expanding the restoration potential of this environmentally valuable land. Kin In addition, this site's adjacency to the Big Canyon Golf Course and Country Club, with open space connections through drainage to the mouth of Big Carryon and Upper Newport Bay, should Ki b be noted. This is not an isolated parcel. Exhibit 2, Local Vicinity Map, should show in darkly shaded gray the mouth of Big Canyon connecting Upper Newport Bay with Big Canyon Country Club, to illustrate this open space connectivity. The acreage occupied by this sensitive vegetation community should be mapped, calculated, and preserved, with an appropriate buffer. The project calls for only preserving the 1.12 Amon feature, while the amount of environmentally sensitive land on the site appears to be much larger, perhaps 50% of the site. Section 1.5.1 Parking. On page 1 -18, under Parking it is stated that there will be 247 uncovered parking stalls present. The need for this large amount of parking should be Clarified, since the I previous Conceptual Site Masterplan called for 180 spaces. Large areas of the site are designated xid for parking. The acreage devoted to parking should be determined and alternatives such as a Dhi;. U2'2UU3 1I:U9 949 644 3229 CNS PLANNING JAN D. VANDERSLOOT9 M.D. #5243 P.004 /011 2221 Fast 16°i Street Office Phone: (714)US-0770 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Office Fite (714) 8486643 Home Phone: (949) 5486326 Email: JoaV3Qaolcom parking structure should be considered Reducing the overall footprint of development, including the area designated for parking, would enable preservation of existing sensitive environmental habitat. Section 1.53. The environmentally sensiti ve portion of the sae, including the CSS and riparian areas within the canyon, should be mapped and the acreage calculated, and preserved as the Open Space Preserve. This action would also lessen the impact of changing the General Plan Designation from REOS to GovemmerNEducational /Institutional. Section 1.5.4. land For Dedication. The areas designated as CSS plus the riparian carryon should be dedicated to the City as REOS, to partially mitigate the loss of KWS in the General Plan. Section 1.6 Cumulative Impacts. An analysis should be made of the cumulative impacts of Ions of REDS, including the 10.81 acres of REOS from this project, and the 8.1 -acre loss of REOS from the concurrent project at Marinapark, the Regent Newport Beach Hotel. These two projects will cause the unmitigated loss of 18.91 of REOS from the City's General. Plan Under Section 1.7, Alternatives to the Proposed Action, an alternative of crtatmi s a passive park serving as a headwater to Upper Newport Bay through Big Canyon, Country Club and Mouth of Big Canyon should be considered. A reduced density alternative that preserves the CSS on site with a buffer should also be considered, in tune with the St Mark's Church statements about wanting to be good environmental stewards of the land. Under Section 1.8.1, Effects Not Found To Be Significant the IS finds that impacts to recreation are less than significant or of no impact. However, the project changes the General Plan Land Use designation from Recreational and Environmental Open Space to Govemmend F,ducationai/InstiartionaL resulting in loss of 10.81 acres of R. EOS. Tbis i.s a significant impact and should be considered as such, including the cumulative impacts of loss of REOS designations of other areas in the City, such as the Regent Newport Beach Hotel at Marinapark. The St. Marks project is being processed concurremly with the Regent Newport Beach Hotel project, which will result m a loss of an additional 8.1 acres of REOS. The loss of 8. 10 acres of. REOS from the Regent Hotel plus )0.8 1. acres of REOS lost with St. Marks is a cumulatively significant loss of 18.91 acres that should be analyzed and mitigated Replacement open space and mitigation should be thoroughly investigated, identified, and required. Analysis should include nffit and other environmental impacts from both projects since REOS open space is being converted to more intensive uses with more traffic, air quality, etc impacts than the REOS designation. Mitigation sites for replacement open space should include land such as the Lower Castavcays site, an approximately 5 acre site currently owned by the current landowner of the St Mark's site, the Irvine Company. Other mitigation strategies such as retaining more open space in the project site that would retain the REDS designation should be considered, such as 50% retained as open space. Such a strategy, including replacement open space, should ensure that no net loss of REOS in the City occurs with either or both of these projects. 1<2l Kis t4-i4 KL� kJ-�\ l< Li 53 un�.vt cvva ii:vy `J49 b44 3229 GNS PLANNING #5243 P.005l011 JAN D. 2221 East 16'h Street Newport Heads, CA 92663 Hoare Phone: (949) 5482326 VANDER.SLOOT, M.D. 06wePhone: (714) 848 -0770 Office Far: (714) 848-W3 Email: JonV3@ad.com Environmental Checklist; IV. Biological Resources, it is noted that all boxes are checked indicating potentially sign£ cant impacts, the only category to have all boxes checked. This shows the potential harm to the biologic resources on the site from the project. Since the St Mark Church considers itself an environmentally responsible church, it should be amenable to retaining and coddling the special environmental resources on the site, and facilitate replacement open space for the land it will build on. Ki> Section 3, Discussion of Envhwineatal Evaluation, Aesthetics. It should be noted that scenic 1Cik vistas of the hills and Saddleback Mountain from San Joaquin Wills Road may be impaired by the development and should be analyzed in the DEIR. Section 3, IV. Biological Re sources. Where the off -site mitigation area are should be identified. Nevertheless, loss o£this environmentally sensitive land is not good environmental stewardship of the land. This site is not an urban infill site. It sits at the top o£an open space corridor extending to Upper Newport Bay. The DEIR should include a gnatclatcber survey at the proper time of year., since the CSS on the site is appropriate habitat for the threatened gratcatcher. A site visit by me on November 23, 2003, found many bird species utilizing the sire. This site is a vibrant ecological treasure that should be maintained and preserved by an envirnnmentaUy responsible churcb such as St Mark. Tbank you again for the opportunity to make comments and please put me on the distribution list for fiuther notices, including my email address of JonV3@aa -coax. Sincerely, /Jan D. Vanderslooy MD 14.11 54 St Marc Presbyterian Church — Response to Comments on the Draft EIR Responses To Comments K. Dr. Jan D. Vandersloot, M.D. K 1. The comment regarding the previous comment letter of November 25`s, 2003, is noted. Because this comment set includes responses to two separate letters, the responses to the November 25b letter will be addressed under this response to comment (Response to Comment K1) with each comment alphabetically identified. The November 25`s letter follows the August 31a`, 2004, letter in order. a. Exhibit 5.3 -1 of the Draft EIR identifies the lateral extent of coastal sage scrub on the project site. Refer to Response to Comment J 1 for a discussion on re- colonization of the coastal sage scrub. b. Exhibit 3 -2 of the Draft EIR shows the project site in relation to the Big Canyon Country Club and the drainage feature that connects the Big Canyon Country Club to Upper Newport Bay. Although there are open space areas within Service Areas 8 and 9, as shown in the Recreation and Open Space Element that are in close proximity to each other, connectivity between these areas is unknown due to the barrier established by Jamboree Road and the fence between the project site and the Big Canyon Country Club property. c. The extent and acreages of the biological communities and the disturbed areas were calculated and mapped in Section 5.3 of the Draft EIR. For a discussion on the constraints in planning the proposed site, refer to Response to Comment F3. d. For a discussion on the parking ratios, refer to Response to Comment F3. Refer to Response to Comment for a discussion on constraints to site development. e. For a discussion regarding the cumulative impact on areas designated as Recreational and Environmental Open Space, refer to Response to Comment B 15. f. For a discussion on project alternatives, refer to Response to Comment B4. g. For a discussion regarding the change in land use designation, refer to Response to Comment B4. h. Section 5.4.4 of the Draft EIR included an analysis of the Marinapark project, and other related projects. L Section 5.1 of the Draft EIR analyzed the potential impacts related to the proposed change in land use designation and concluded that impacts would be less than significant without mitigation measures. j. The potential impacts on biological resources were evaluated in Section 5.3 of the Draft EIR. The proposed design, which incorporates preservation of a portion of the canyon feature into the overall site design, was presented in Section 3 of the Draft EIR. k. San Joaquin Hills Road is not a designated scenic vista and therefore impairment of the public view identified in the comment is not considered a significant environmental impact based upon the threshold of significance identified in the aesthetic analysis contained within the initial study. Michael Brandman Associates 59,00690021 - St Mark Chwch\RTCTinal RTC.doc 55 St Mark Presbyterian Church - Response to Comments on the Draft EIR Responses To Comments 1. Section 4.1 of the Draft EIR describes the project site in relation to its surroundings. It is not classified or characterized as an urban infill site, but does exhibit some of those characteristics. Refer to Response to Comment Klb for a discussion on open space corridors. For a discussion on gnatcatcher surveys, refer to Response to Comment K3. The comments from the previous comment letter were adequately addressed in the Draft EIR. K2. The comment regarding other sites is noted. The purpose of the Biological Resources Survey Report was to determine conditions on the project site, not to evaluate conditions on other project sites within the City. Section 5.3.3 of the Draft EIR acknowledged the potential for gnatcatchers to occur on the project site. This may be the case regarding the other site referenced. The analysis contained in Section 5.3 of the Draft EIR concluded that the potential for the California gnatcatcher to occur on the project site is very low due to the small amount and condition of the coastal sage scrub located on the project site. Also, see response J4 regarding the identification of the project site a non - reserve parcel by the NCCP/HCP and the potential take of CSS and the California gnatcatcher. K3. The comment regarding surveys is noted. The stated purpose of the Biological Resources Survey Report (Section 5.3.1 of the Draft EIR) was to ascertain the general conditions on the project site and to evaluate the potential suitability of any existing habitat. Section 5.3.3 concluded that because of the low quality of the existing coastal sage scrub, isolated nature of the project site, and high -level of disturbance due to the proximity to the surrounding urban development, that it would be very unlikely that gnatcatchers would occupy the project site and therefore, focused surveys would be unnecessary. In addition, no gnatcatchers were observed during the reconnaissance -level survey. Because the development is required to comply with the construction minimization measures contained in the NCCP/HCP, focused gnatcatcher surveys would be required prior to development. This is contained in Mitigation Measure BR -2. K4. The comment regarding an alternative site plan is noted. For a discussion on project alternatives, refer to Response to Comment K8. K5. The comment regarding park requirements is noted. For a discussion on park planning, refer to Response to Comment B4. For a discussion on project alternatives, refer to Response to Comment K8 and Response to Comment B4. K6. The comment on the change in the land use designation is noted. For a discussion on the change in land use designation, refer to Response to Comment B4. K7. The comment regarding the land use designation is noted. For a discussion regarding parkland, refer to Response to Comment B4. K8. The comment regarding alternatives is noted. Section 7 of the Draft EIR identifies alternatives to the project, as proposed. Because the proposed project is a church and related ancillary facilities, the alternatives evaluated must be related to that which is being proposed and be able to feasibly accomplish most of the objectives. Further, Michael Brandman Associates 5 ^00640021 - St Mark Ch=h\RTCWinal RTC.doc St Mark Presbyterian Church - Response to Comments on the Draft EIR Responses To Comments the environmentally superior alternative must be selected from those alternatives identified. Refer to Response to Comment B4 for a discussion on alternatives. Therefore, findings presented in the Draft EIR adequately identify the impacts that would result from project implementation. K9. The comments regarding the Department of Fish and Game are noted. Both the State of California Department of Fish and Game and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service were provided notice via certified mail of the Notice of Preparation of the Draft EIR and also, via certified mail, of the Notice of Availability of a Draft EIR. Neither agency submitted comments on the Notice of Preparation or on the Draft EIR. Michael Brandman Associates SA00640021 - SL Mark CbwchUtTC\FimI RTC.doc 6 J CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT 3300 NEWPORT BOULEVARD P.O. BOX 1768, NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92659 -1768 (949) 644 -3311 MEMORANDUM L TO: Gregg Ramirez — Planning Department FROM: Rich Edmonston /David Keely — Traffic Engineering DATE: August 27, 2004 SUBJECT: St. Marks EIR Comments date July 2004 The following are comments related to the St. Marks EIR dated July 2004: • Section 5.4.1, Table 5.4 -1 — All references to Pacific Coast Highway shall be changed to either East Coast Highway or West Coast Highway. The last section of Jamboree Road L9. should be Eastbluff Drive /Ford Road to MacArthur Boulevard instead of Pacific Coast Highway to MacArthur Boulevard • Section 5.4.1, MacArthur Boulevard/San Joaquin Hills Road — The text and table in this section describe the "existing intersection improvements" at MacAthur Boulevard/San L2 Joaquin Hills Road. This should be revised to indicate existing intersection geometry; improvements typically reference something that is planned in the future. • Section 5.4.1, Lane Weaving — A statement should be added to this section indicating that the distance between the MacArthur Boulevard /San Joaquin Hills Road and Santa L-3 Rosa Drive -Big Canyon Drive /San Joaquin Hills Road is approximately 1600 feet, centerline to centerline. • Section 5.4.2, Thresholds of Significance — Transportation Phasing Ordinance shall be Ly revised to read Traffic Phasing Ordinance. • Section 5.4.3, Opening Year (2006) Traffic Impact Analysis — The EIR or staff report should indicate that the proposed opening year is 2005, since as stated in this section L$ "Project impacts are accessed one year after opening year". The TPO analysis year is 2006. • Section 5.4.3, One Percent Test - Transportation Phasing Ordinance shall be revised to L tp read Traffic Phasing Ordinance. 5� • Section 5.4.3, Alternative Access — The alternative access analysis should be discussed as part of each analysis scenario, similar to the TPO analysis prepared by Urban L.? Crossroads. • Section 5.4.3,lmpacts Related to Off -site Transportation of Soil — Based on the information provided in the EIR each truck would be hauling approximately 26 cubic 3 yards of soil material. Typical soil hauling vehicles carry between 10 to 15 cubic yards of soil material. • Section 5.4.4, Cumulative Impacts — Cumulative Impact section of the report should be discussed prior to the long -range build -out analysis, since the cumulative analysis is still I—� for year 2006. • Section 5.4.5, Mitigation Measures - The traffic study recommended various improvements at the entrances and MacArthur Boulevard /San Joaquin Hills Road intersections. These improvements were not intended to be mitigations measures, but rather suggested improvements to be evaluated during the design stage of the project. Mitigations measures TT -2 through TT -4, should be rewritten to provide greater flexibility regarding the ultimate improvement(s) at this location. Below are the proposed changes to TT -2 through TT -4: TT -2: Re -stripe the southbound MacArthur Boulevard free right turn lane to provide a 10 -foot wide lane along the curve and install raised pavement markers at 10 -foot intervals or other improvements to reduce right - turning vehicular speeds. TT -3: Eliminate the painted crosswalk within the southbound MacArthur Boulevard free right turn lane or other improvements to reduce right- turning vehicular speed. TT -4: Install a "15 MPH" sign at the beginning of the curve of the southbound MacArthur Boulevard free right turn lane or other improvements to reduce right turning vehicular speed. HAdkeelffmffic Phasing Ordinance \TPO \St Marks\gr8- 27- 04memo.dw uo S9 St. Mark Presbyterian Church - Response to Comments on the Draft EIR Responses To Comments L. City of Newport Beach, Public Works Department L1. The comment regarding highway names is noted. The first, fifth, and sixth rows of Table 5.4 -1 of the Draft EIR is replaced with the following rows. f?Sdway_v @rti....'i88Slea1 Ex£ _..t..l ;. m.gm z. Jamboree Road East Coast Highway to Major Road - 6 Lane Divided Santa Barbara Drive Jamboree Road East Bluff Drive/Ford Road to Major Road - 6 Lane Divided MacArthur Boulevard MacArthur East Coast Highway to Major Road - 6 Lane Divided Boulevard San Miguel Drive L2. The comment regarding nomenclature is noted. The paragraph under the sub- heading "MacArthur Boulevard and San Joaquin Hills Road" on page 5.4 -3 of the Draft EIR is replaced with the following paragraph: The project site is adjacent to the intersection of MacArthur Boulevard and San Joaquin Hills Road. Table 5.4 -2 provides information on existing intersection geometry. The sub - heading entitled "Table 5.4 -2: MacArthur Boulevard/ San Joaquin Hills Road Improvements" is replaced with the following sub - heading: Table 5.4 -2: MacArthur Boulevard/ San Joaquin Hills Road Geometry L3. The comment regarding lane weaving is noted. The following sentence is added to the end of the paragraph under the sub - heading "Lane Weaving" on page 5.4 -3 of the Draft EIR: The distance between the MacArthur Boulevard/San Joaquin Hills Road and Santa Rosa Drive -Big Canyon Drive /San Joaquin Hills Road is approximately 1,600 feet, centerline -to- centerline. L4. The comment regarding nomenclature is noted. The paragraph containing the reference to the Transportation Phasing Ordinance on page 5.4 -18 of the Draft EIR is replaced with the following paragraph: The Traffic Phasing Ordinance has established thresholds for projects scheduled for completion within sixty months of project approval. No project shall be approved that would: L5. The comment regarding the opening year is noted. The sub - heading entitled "Opening Year (2006) Traffic Impact Analysis" on page 5.4 -20 of the Draft EIR is replaced with the following sub - heading: Opening Year (2005) Traffic Impact Analysis Michael Brandman Associates 5:\00640021 - S[. Mark Chu ch\RTC %al RTC.doc n St Mark Presbyterian Church — Response to Comments at the Draft EIR To Comments In addition, the following sentence is added to the end of the paragraph under this sub - heading: With the completion of this project contemplated in the Year 2005, if the project is approved by the City, the analysis year for this project has been assumed to be 2006. L6. The comment regarding nomenclature is noted. The paragraph containing the reference to the Transportation Phasing Ordinance on page 5.4 -21 of the Draft EIR, under the sub - heading "One Percent Test", is replaced with the following paragraph: The One Percent Test and further analysis is not required by the Traffic Phasing Ordinance for the following intersections: L7. The comment regarding the alternative access is noted. Section 5.4 of the Draft EIR is designed to summarize information contained in the stand -alone technical study prepared for this project, and is not intended to incorporate the entire study in the traffic section. The purpose for including various technical studies as part of an entire Environmental Impact Report is to allow access to the base information that was used in the preparation of individual sections for readers who desire a greater understanding of a particular issue. L8. The comment regarding truck capacity is noted. The comment notes that the off -site transportation of 47,000 cubic yards of dirt is not likely to take place with 1,800 truck trips due to a 26 cubic yard truck capacity. The truck capacity of 20 cubic yards was used in the air quality assessment and therefore, larger trucks than typical, which are available, must be utilized during grading operations. Using this capacity, a total of 2,350 truck trips will be necessary as opposed to the 1,800 trips. Although this represents approximately a 31 percent increase, it does not change the fact that the truck safety evaluation was based upon a total of 49 truck trips per day. The increase in total trucks does not impact the daily truck traffic and therefore, the measure proposed will adequately address traffic safety during grading operations. The third sentence in the main paragraph on page 5.4 -27 of the Draft EIR is amended to read: This would result in approximately 2,350 total truck trips at a rate of 49 truck per day. L9. The comment regarding the order of the sections is noted. Section 5.4.4 of the Draft EIR is consistent with the other sections of the Draft EIR and is generally the order in the majority of Environmental Impact Reports prepared. L 10. The comment regarding mitigation measures is noted. The comment suggests that the severity of the potential traffic safety impact may be overstated in the Draft EIR by requiring the recommended mitigation measures. The comment also indicates that there may be alternative designs or traffic safety devices that may be employed that will achieve the same avoidance of traffic safety impacts. In that case, the alternative language for the mitigation measures suggested by the City Public Works Department can be substituted for the draft recommended mitigation measures included in the Draft EIR. The inclusion of mitigation measures, or the reference to the fact that none are required depending on the particular project and environmental issue, is a necessary part of the environmental analysis. Without mitigation Michael Brandman Associates 5:100640021 - St. Muk Ch=h\RTQFi=I RTC.doc b St Mark Presbyterian Church - Response to Comments on the Draft EIR Responses To Comments measures, it would be unknown if potentially significant impacts are able to be reduced below the level of significance through the implementation of mitigation measures. In addition, mitigation measures are only proposed or recommended at this stage of the environmental review process. Mitigation measures such as these, are subject to modification or revision prior to certification of the Environmental Impact Report by the Lead Agency. Michael Brandman Associates SA00640021 - SL Mark Ch=h\RTCWin.1 RTC.doc Lpx Exhibit "A" EIR Findings of Fact CEQA Findings and Findings of Fact forthe St. Mark Presbyterian Church Prepared for: City of Newport Beach Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92659 Contact: Gregg B. Ramirez, Associate Planner Prepared by: Michael Brandman Associates 220 Commerce, Suite 200 Irvine, CA 92602 714.508.4100 Contact: Kevin B. Shannon, Project Manager September 28, 2004 St Mark Presbyterian Church CEQA Findings and Findings of Fact Table of Contents TABLE OF CONTENTS Section1: Introduction ....................................................................... ............................... 1 Section 2: Mitigated Project -Level and Cumulative Adverse Impacts ............................ 3 2.1 - Land Use and Planning ...................................................... ............................... 3 2.2 - Hydrology and Water Quality ............................................. ............................... 4 2.3 - Biological Resources ......................................................... ............................... 6 2.4 - Transportation and Traffic .................................................. ............................... 8 2.5 - Air Quality ........................................................................... .............................10 2.6 - Noise .................................................................................. .............................11 2.7 - Aesthetics ........................................................................... .............................11 2.8 - Cultural Resources ............................................................. .............................13 2.9 - Geology and Soils ............................................................... .............................14 2.10 - Hazards and Hazardous Materials .................................... .............................15 Section 3: Feasibility of Project Alternatives ..................................... .............................16 3.1 - No Project — No Development Alternative ........................... .............................16 3.2 - No Project — Allowed Development Alternative ................... .............................17 3.3 - Reduced Intensity Alternative ............................................. .............................18 3.4 - Alternative Site Alternative .................................................. .............................18 3.5 - Environmentally Superior Alternative .................................. .............................19 Michael Brandman Associates g C:\WI4DOWStDesktop\4t. Mark Findingsfinal.dm St. Mark Presbyterian Church CEQA Findings and Findings of Fact SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION Introduction In compliance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the State CEQA Guidelines (Guidelines), the City of Newport Beach has conducted an environmental review of the proposed St. Mark Presbyterian Church project. An Initial Study was completed in conformance with CEQA and the Guidelines in October 2003. A Notice of Preparation (NOP) to prepare a Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was circulated for public review and comment beginning on October 27, 2003, and ending on November 27, 2003. This NOP included the Initial Study. The State Clearinghouse (SCH) acknowledged receipt of the NOP and assigned SCH No. 2003101137 to the project. A Draft EIR was prepared in conformance with CEQA and the Guidelines and circulated for public review from July 14, 2004 through August 31, 2004. After receiving public comments on the Draft EIR, the City of Newport Beach prepared a document entitled "Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR." The "Responses" document includes exact copies of the original written comments received on the Draft EIR, a list of those entities who commented, and the City of Newport Beach's responses to the significant environmental points raised in the review and consultation process. In response to certain comments, the Draft EIR was modified, as set forth in the responses to comments. The Final EIR for the St. Mark Presbyterian Church project consists of the Draft EIR, the "Responses" document, and supplemental information correcting minor errors identified by staff or in public hearings. These Findings are based upon the information in the record of proceedings, including the Final EIR, City of Newport Beach staff reports, the project applicant's materials, the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and testimony presented at public hearings. The City of Newport Beach Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on this project on September 23, 2004. CEQA provides in relevant part, at Public Resources Code Section 21081, that: No public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an environmental impact report has been certified which identifies one or more significant effects on the environment that would occur if the project is approved or carried out unless both of the following occur: (a) the public agency makes one or more of the following findings with respect to each significant effect: 1. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project, which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. Michael Brandman Associates CiWINDOWS\Deskop\St. Mark Findingsfinal.doc St. Mark Presbyterian Church CEQA Endings and Findings of Fact Introduction 2. Those changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and have been, or can and should be, adopted by that other agency. 3. Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including considerations for the provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the environmental impact report. (b) With respect to significant effects, which were subject to a finding under paragraph (3) of subdivision (a), the public agency finds that specific overriding economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of the project outweigh the significant effects on the environment. Because the St. Mark Presbyterian Church project EIR identified significant effects that may occur as a result of the project, and in accordance with the provisions of CEQA and the Guidelines, the City Council of the City of Newport Beach hereby adopts these Findings. For each of the significant effects associated with the proposed project, as set forth in greater detail in these Findings below, the City of Newport Beach City Council makes the finding under paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) above. CEQA requires that the EIR reflect the City of Newport Beach's own independent judgment and review. Accordingly, the City of Newport Beach City Council expressly finds that the Final EIR for the St. Mark Presbyterian Church project reflects the City of Newport Beach's independent judgment. In accordance with the provisions of CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, the City Council of the City of Newport Beach has independently reviewed the record of proceedings and based on the evidence in the record adopts these Findings. Michel 6randman ASSOCIateS CAWAIDOWS\Deskwp\St. Mack Fin&npfinal.dm St. Mark Presbyterian Church CEQA Findings and Findings of Fact Mitigated Project -Level and Cumulative Adverse Impacts SECTION 2: MITIGATED PROJECT -LEVEL AND CUMULATIVE ADVERSE IMPACTS The EIR identified potentially significant project -level adverse impacts of the proposed St. Mark Presbyterian Church Project, and proposed mitigation measures to avoid or substantially lessen those impacts. In addition, the proposed project includes various Project Design Features (PDFs) that are set forth in the EIR and made a part of and incorporated into the project. Those impacts and mitigation measures along with Project Design Features (PDFs) are set forth in the following sections. The Newport Beach City Council finds, based on the record and on the facts as set forth below, that the incorporation of identified mitigation measures, along will all applicable Project Design Features (PDFs) will mitigate or avoid all the identified significant project -level and cumulative adverse impacts to a level that is considered less than significant. 2.1 - LAND USE AND PLANNING (EIR Section 5.1) 2.1.1 - Potentially Significant Impact Implementation of the project has the potential to result in impacts related to land use plans, policies and regulations. Finding Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project, which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. Changing the General Plan designation from Recreational and Environmental Open Space to Government, Education and Institutional Facilities is consistent with applicable General Plan policies. The project is consistent with Policy A that requires the City of Newport Beach to provide for a sufficient diversity of land uses that specifically identify churches among the identified land uses. The project adds to and does not impact the existing diversity of uses. The project is consistent with Policy B that allows for growth in the floor area limits provided that project - related traffic impacts do not exceed the Levels of Service desired by the City of Newport Beach. The project does not result in any significant cumulative Level of Service impacts. The project is consistent with Policy D that requires new buildings to preserve public views, preserve unique natural resources, and minimize alteration of natural landforms. The project retains the canyon feature, which may be considered a unique natural resource, and provides extensive landscaping. No public views exist through or across the project site. The project is consistent with Policy F that requires the City of Newport Beach to develop and maintain development standards that provide for aesthetic qualities of developments that are compatible with surrounding development. Michael Brandman Assodates C: \WD=WS\Deskt"\St. Mark Findiogsfind.doc SL Mark Presbyterian Church CEQA Findings and Findings of Fact Mitigated Project -Level and Cumulative Adverse impacts The project includes the adoption of development regulations specific to the project site and the proposed development that will be included within the Big Canyon Planned Community. The development regulations include all the standards identified in this policy. The project is consistent with the Recreation and Open Space Element of the General Plan. The project proposes retention of the canyon feature as permanent open space and is located adjacent to the Big Canyon Country Club, which represents 191 acres of dedicated open space. The project site is not identified as a park or a potential park site by the Recreation and Open Space Element. In addition, the recently completed Bonita Canyon Sports Park is in close proximity to residents in the vicinity of the project site. Facts in Support of Finding Project Design Features (PDFs) are incorporated into the proposed project, potential impacts related to land use plans, policies or regulations are reduced below the level of significance. PDF -2 Use of large -scale landscape buffers on roadway frontages that minimize visual impacts from adjacent roadways and integrate with the planned open space. PDF -3 Retention of a majority of the canyon feature as open space and a nature preserve. PDF -4 Inclusion of a nature center plaza in the project in order to create views of the canyon feature from the proposed development and to facilitate understanding of the nature preserve. PDF -7 A view corridor from MacArthur Boulevard to the canyon feature is incorporated into the project design. PDF -10 Use of on -site stormwater detention ponds with Best Management Practice (BMP) features for regulation of off -site discharge. 2.2 - HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY (EIR Section 5.2 and Section 1.5) 2.2.1 - Potentially Significant Impact (EIR Section 5.2) Implementation of the proposed project has the potential to result in impacts to water quality standards, excessive off -site surface runoff, or erosion. Michael Brandman Associates 4 C: \WDWWSVcsktW\.St. Mark Fin"pfin d.dm St Mark Presbyterian Church CEQA Findings and Findings of Fact Mitigated Project-Level and Cumulative Adverse Impacts However, because Project Design Features (PDFs) are incorporated into the proposed project, and mitigation measures are recommended, potential impacts related to hydrology and water quality are reduced below the level of significance. Finding Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project, which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on water quality that could be caused by construction activities. The development of a Water Quality Management Plan, as required by a mitigation measure, will provide for the long -term control and treatment of stormwater generated on the project site prior to discharge off -site. Facts in Support of Finding The project -level and cumulative significant effects have been eliminated or substantially lessened to a level that is less than significant by virtue of the Project Design Features (PDFs) included in the project and the following mitigation measures as identified in the frial EIR and incorporated into the project. PDF -3 Retention of a majority of the canyon feature as open space and a nature preserve. PDF -10 Use of on -site stormwater detention ponds with Best Management Practice (BMP) features for regulation of off -site discharge. PDF -11 Use of landscaped medians and swales designed for infiltration and filtration that allow clarification of surface runoff prior to discharge off -site. H -1 Prior to the commencement of construction and the issuance of a grading permit, and as a condition of project approval, a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) must be approved by the City of Newport Beach. H -2 Prior to the commencement of construction and before a grading permit is issued; a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan ( SWPPP) shall be prepared and approved by the City of Newport Beach as the local permitting agency in accordance with the requirements of the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). The SWPPP shall include BMPs to eliminate and/or minimize stormwater pollution prior to, and during construction. Michael Brandman Associates C: \WniDOWS\Desktop\St. Mmk Find p&W.doc St Mark Presbyterian Church CEQA Findings and Findings of Fact Mitigated Project -Level and Cumulative Adverse Impacts 2.2.2 - Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation (EIR Section 1.5) Implementation of the project has the potential to result in impacts related to stormwater runoff that would exceed the existing or planned drainage system. Finding Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project, which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. Facts in Support of Finding The project -level and cumulative significant effects have been eliminated or substantially lessened to a level that is less than significant by virtue of the Project Design Features (PDFs) included in the project and the following mitigation measures as identified in the final EIR and incorporated into the project. PDF -10 Use of on -site stormwater detention ponds with Best Management Practices (BMP) features for regulation of off -site discharge. PDF -11 Use of landscaped medians and swales designed for infiltration and filtration that allow clarification of surface runoff prior to discharge off -site. H -1 Require site construction to occur in stages and stabilized prior to disturbing other areas. H -2 Construct temporary diversion dikes and basins to trap sediment from run -off and allow clarification prior to discharge. 2.3 - BIOLOGICAL (EIR Section 5.3) 2.3.1 -Potentially Significant Impact Implementation of the proposed project has the potential to impact biological resources by the removal of approximately 0.50 acres of non - native grassland and approximately 1.5 acres of coastal sage scrub. Michael Brandman Associates Q \WINDDWS\Deskt p\St. Mark FindiMfinW.&c St. Mark Presbyterian Church CEQA Findings and Findings of Fact Mitigated Project-Level and Cumulative Adverse Impacts Finding Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project, which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. Facts in Support of Finding The project -level and cumulative significant effects have been eliminated or substantially lessened to a level that is less than significant by virtue of the Project Design Features (PDFs) included in the project and the following mitigation measures as identified in the final EIR and incorporated into the project. PDF -3 Retention of a major portion of the canyon feature as open space and a nature preserve. PDF -9 Blending of new, predominately native plant materials that are appropriate to the existing environment, with existing plant materials at the edge of the canyon feature. BR -1 To the maximum extent practicable, no grading of CSS habitat that is occupied by nesting gnatcatchers will occur during the breeding season (February 15 through July 15). BR -2 Prior to the commencement of grading operations or other activities involving significant soil disturbance, all areas of CSS habitat to be avoided under the provisions of the NCCP/HCP, shall be identified with temporary fencing or other markers clearly visible to construction personnel. Additionally, prior to the commencement of grading operations or other activities involving disturbance of CSS, a survey will be conducted to locate gnatcatchers and cactus wrens within 100 feet of the outer extent of projected soil disturbance activities and the locations of any such species shall be clearly marked and identified on the construction/grading plans. A minimum of three surveys will be conducted, at least one week apart, in order to determine the presence or absence of the coastal California gnatcatcher in conformance with the survey protocol issued on August 6, 1997, by the USFWS. These surveys may be conducted at any time during the year; however, surveys conducted between February 15 and August 30 are preferred. BR -3 A monitoring biologist, acceptable to the USFWS and CDFG shall be on -site during any clearing of CSS. The landowner or relevant public agency will advise the USFWS and CDFG at least seven calendar days, and preferably 14 calendar days, prior to the clearing of Michael Brandman Associates C:\WINDOWS\Desk WISt. Muk Fuxhngslinal.doc St. Mark Presbyterian Church CEQA Findings and Findings of Fact Mitigated Project -Level and Cumulative Adverse Impacts any habitat occupied by Identified Species to allow the USFWS and CDFG to work with the monitoring biologist in connection with bird flushing and/or capture activities. BR -4 Following the completion of initial grading or earthmoving activities, all areas of CSS habitat to be avoided by construction equipment and personnel will be marked with temporary fencing or other appropriate markers clearly visible to construction personnel. No construction access, parking, or storage of equipment of materials will be permitted within the marked areas. 2.3.2 - Potentially Significant Impact Implementation of the proposed project has the potential to impact southern riparian scrub that could contain federally- designated wetlands. Finding Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project, which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. Facts in Support of Finding The project -level and cumulative significant effects have been eliminated or substantially lessened to a level that is less than significant by virtue of the Project Design Features (PDFs) included in the project in the final EIR and incorporated into the project. PDF -3 Retention of a major portion of the canyon feature as open space and a nature preserve. 2.4 - TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC (E1R Section 5.4) 2.4.1 - Potentially Significant Impact The proposed project has the potential to result in an impact related to a design feature from the proposed access point off MacArthur Boulevard. Finding Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project, which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. Michael Brandman Associates 8 C:\WRIDOWS\DeskmP\St. Mack Find ngsfinal.dm St. Mark Presbyterian Church CEQA Findings and Findings of Fact Mitigated Project-Level and Cumulative Adverse Impacts Facts in Support of Finding The significant effect has been eliminated or substantially lessened to a level that is less than significant by virtue of the following mitigations measures as identified in the final EIR and incorporated into the project. TT-6 Provide the maximum length possible right turn pocket along MacArthur Boulevard at the project driveway. The turn pocket shall extend as long as necessary to meet standard traffic engineering requirements as determined by the Transportation/Development Services Manager, but is not required to be so long as to necessitate the relocation of the SCE power pole. TT -9 Sight distance at the MacArthur Boulevard access point shall be reviewed with respect to standard Caltrans and City of Newport Beach sight distance standards at the time of preparation of final grading, landscape and street improvement plans. 2.4.2 - Potentially Significant Impact The proposed project has the potential to result in an impact related to traffic weaving issues on San Joaquin Hills Road. Finding Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project, which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. Facts in Support of Finding The significant effect has been eliminated or substantially lessened to a level that is less than significant by virtue of the following mitigations measures as identified in the final EIR and incorporated into the project. TT -1 Provide a right turn lane at the driveway along San Joaquin Hills Road to separate project traffic from the through traffic flows TT-2 Re -stripe the free right turn lane to provide a 10 -foot wide lane along the curve and install raised pavement markers at 10 -foot intervals or other improvements to reduce right- turning vehicular speeds. TT-3 Eliminate the painted crosswalk in the free right hand turn lane or other improvements to reduce right - turning vehicular speeds Mkheel Brandman Associates C: \WINDOWS\DesktW\St. Mmk FindingsfinalAm St. Mark Presbyterian Church CEQA Findings and Findings of Fact Mitigated project -Level and Cumulative Adverse Impacts TT -4 Install a "15 MPH" sign at the beginning of the curve of the free right hand turn lane in order to reduce vehicular speeds or other improvements to reduce right - turning vehicular speeds. TT -5 Provide a minimum 150 -foot westbound right turn pocket along San Joaquin Hills Road at the project driveway. TT -7 The pastoral staff shall distribute to the congregation and visitors maps that depict the following exit route from the San Joaquin Hills Road access point: San Joaquin Hills Road to Santa Rosa Road to Newport Center Drive to San Miguel Drive to MacArthur Boulevard. TT-8 On -site traffic signing and striping shall be implemented in conjunction with detailed construction plans for the project site. 2.5 - AIR QUALITY (EIR Section 5.5) 2.5.1 -Potentially Significant Impact The proposed project has the potential to result in impacts related to emissions exceeding the NOx threshold during the short-term construction period. Finding Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project, which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. Facts in Support of Finding The significant effect has been eliminated or substantially lessened to a level that is less than significant by virtue of the following mitigations measures as identified in the final EIR and incorporated into the project. AQ -1 Prior to construction of the proposed improvements, 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. Michael Brandman Associates 10 CAWINDOWSO aMopVSt. Made Fiadiagfiaat.dm St. Mark Presbyterian Church CEQA Findings and Findings of Fact Mitigated Project -Level and Cumulative Adverse Impacts AQ -2 During construction of the proposed improvements, construction equipment will be properly maintained at an off -site location and includes proper tuning and timing of engines. Equipment maintenance records and equipment design specification data sheets shall be kept on -site during construction. AQ -3 During construction of the proposed improvements, all contractors will be advised not to idle construction equipment on site for more than ten minutes. AQ -4 During construction of the proposed improvements, on -site diesel fueled construction equipment will be fueled with aqueous diesel fuel. 2.6 - NOISE (EIR Section 5.6) 2.6.1 - Potentially Significant Impact Implementation of the project has the potential to result in impacts related to noise levels in excess of City of Newport Beach standards. Finding Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project, which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. Facts in Support of Finding Project Design Features (PDFs) are incorporated into the proposed project, potential impacts related to noise are reduced below the level of significance. PDF -2 Use of large -scale landscape buffers on roadway frontages that minimize visual impacts from adjacent roadways and integrate with the planned open space. PDF 6 Lowering of the building site pads relative to the adjacent roadways results in a lowering of the building elevations that result in residentially scaled development. 2.7 - AESTHETICS (EIR section 1.5) Michael Brandman Associates C:\Wn1DOWS\Deskty St. Mark Fiudi gsfiwldoc St Mark Presbyterian Church CEQA Findings and Findings of Fact Mitigated Project -Level and Cumulative Adverse Impacts 2.7.1 -Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Implementation of the project has the potential to result in impacts related to light and glare. Finding Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project, which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. Facts in Support of Finding The project -level and cumulative significant effects have been eliminated or substantially lessened to a level that is less than significant by virtue of the Project Design Features (PDFs) included in the project and the following mitigation measures as identified in the final EIR and incorporated into the project. PDF -2 Use of large -scale landscape buffers on roadway frontages that minimize visual impacts from adjacent roadways and integrate with the planned open space. PDF -12 Use of lighting fixtures in parking areas that contain directional shielding and use of low lighting fixtures in pedestrian walkways that shield light from off -site properties. PDF -13 Use of landscape buffers on the rear portion of the site that shield the proposed development from adjacent residential development. A -1 Exterior on -site lighting shall be shielded and confined within site boundaries. No direct rays or glare are permitted to shine onto public streets or adjacent sites or create a public nuisance. "Walpak" type fixtures are not permitted. All exterior lighting fixtures shall have zero cut -off fixtures and light standards for the parking lot shall not exceed 20 feet in height. Light standards for exterior walkways shall not exceed 10 feet in height. Other exterior light sources shall be no higher than 4 feet. A -2 The applicant shall prepare a photometric study in conjunction with a final lighting plan for approval by the Planning Director prior to the issuance of a building permit. The building and grounds shall not be excessively illuminated based on the luminance recommendations of the Illuminating Engineering Society of North America, or, based on the opinion of the Planning Director, the illumination creates an unacceptable negative impact on surrounding land uses or environmental resources. The Planning Director may order the dimming of light sources or other remediation upon finding that the site is excessively illuminated. Michael Brandman Associates 12 C: \WI4D0WS0C*t0p\St. Marc Fin&Wflnal.dM St Mark Presbyterian Church CEQA Findings and Findings of Fact Mitigated Project -Level and Cumulative Adverse Impacts 2.8 - CULTURAL RESOURCES (EIR section 1.5) 2.8.1 - Less Than Significant Impact Implementation of the project has the potential to result in impacts related to cultural and palentological resources. Finding Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project, which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. Facts in Support of Finding The significant effect has been eliminated or substantially lessened to a level that is less than significant by virtue of the following mitigations measures as identified in the final EIR and incorporated into the project. C -1 Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall provide written evidence to the Planning Director that a qualified archaeologist has been retained to observe grading activities and conduct salvage excavation of archaeological resources as necessary. The archeologist shall be present at the pre - grading conference, shall, establish procedures for archaeological resource surveillance, and shall establish, in cooperation with the applicant, procedures for temporarily halting or redirecting work to permit the sampling, identification and evaluation of the artifacts as appropriate. If additional or unexpected archaeological features are discovered, the archaeologist shall report such findings to the applicant and to the Planning Department. If the archeological resources are found to be significant, the archaeological observer shall determine appropriate actions, in cooperation with the applicant, 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 Planning Director. C -2 Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall provide written evidence to the Planning Department that a qualified paleontologist has been retained to observe grading activities and salvage fossils as necessary. The paleontologist shall be present at the pre - grading conference, shall establish procedures for paleontological resource surveillance, and shall establish, in cooperation with the applicant, procedures for temporarily halting or redirecting work to permit the sampling, identification and evaluation of the fossils. If Michael Brandman Assodates 13 C: 1WM)GWSDt*Wp\S1. Mark FndmPFSml.dm St. Mark Presbyterian Church CEQA Findings and Findings of Fact Mitigated Project-Level and Cumulative Adverse Impacts major paleontological resources are discovered which require long term baiting or redirecting of grading, the paleontologist shall report such findings to the applicant and to the Planning Department. The paleontologist shall determine appropriate actions, in cooperation with the applicant, which ensue proper exploration and/or salvage. These actions, as well as final mitigation and disposition of the resources, shall be subject to the approval of the Planning Director. 2.9 - GEOLOGY AND SOILS (EIR section 1.5) 2.9.1 - Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Implementation of the project has the potential to result in impacts related to seismic ground shaking and seismic events. Finding Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project, which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. Facts in Support of Finding The significant effect has been eliminated or substantially lessened to a level that is less than significant by virtue of the following mitigations measures as identified in the final EIR and incorporated into the project. G -1 Project design must comply with the 1997 Uniform Building Code (UBC) seismic design criteria. G-2 Structure setback must comply with either the 1997 Uniform Building Code (UBC) or the Orange County Grading Manual. G -3 Require any imported soil for general grading have a Expansion Index of less than 60. G-4 Control site drainage. G-5 Design footing embedments to resist the effects of expansive soil. Michael Brandman Associates 14 CAWAIDOWSOeskn p\St. Mack Ficingsfinal.dm St. Mark Presbyterian Church CEQA Findings and Findings of Fact Mitigated Project-Level and Cumulative Adverse Impacts G -6 Maintain a proportionately high dead load component on foundations. G -7 Over - excavate and moisture soils condition below foundations, floor slabs and hardscape. G8 Use of articulation and reinforcement of concrete slabs and footings. G -9 Use of rigid foundation and floor slabs. 2.10 - HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS (EIR section 1.5) 2.10.1 - Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Implementation of the project has the potential to result in impacts related to adopted emergency response plans or evacuation plans. Finding Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project, which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. Facts in Support of Finding The significant effect has been eliminated or substantially lessened to a level that is less than significant by virtue of the following mitigations measure as identified in the final EIR and incorporated into the project. H -1 Construction vehicles shall not block roadways on any roads adjacent to the project site or any of the roads leading to or from the project site. Michael Brandman Assoclafes 15 CIWDMWS0csk1oplSt. Mark FindinpfioAdm St Mark Presbyterian Church Additional Measures Incorporated into the Project CEQA Findings and Findings of Fact to Further Reduce Less Than Significant Impacts SECTION 3: FEASIBILITY OF PROJECT ALTERNATIVES CEQA and the Guidelines require that an EIR include an analysis of a reasonable range of feasible alternatives to a proposed project capable of avoiding or substantially lessening any significant adverse environmental impact associated with a proposed project. In addition, an EIR is required to include a discussion of the "No Project" alternative. Further, that an environmentally superior alternative must be identified. if the "No Project" alternative is the environmentally superior alternative, an environmentally superior alternative must then be identified from among the other alternatives. (CEQA Guidelines, section 15126.6.) As set forth in these Findings, the St. Mark Presbyterian Church project, with the Mitigation Measures and the Project Design Features (PDFs) incorporated, will have no remaining significant adverse environmental impact. Nonetheless, the City of Newport Beach has reviewed a range of potential alternatives to the proposed project, including two versions of the mandatory No Project Alternative. The EIR discussed the following four alternatives: the No Project —No Development Alternative; the No Project — Allowed Development Alternative; the Reduced Intensity Alternative; and the Alternative Site Alternative. Each was designed to reduce some of the impacts identified as significant and adverse. The Newport Beach City Council rejects each of these four alternatives, on the basis that they are infeasible, fail to meet the stated objectives of the St. Mark Presbyterian Church project, or fail to avoid adverse environmental impacts, as set forth in greater detail below. 3.1 - NO PROJECT - NO DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVE This alternative evaluates, with the conditions existing at the time the Notice of Preparation was published, what would be reasonably be expected to occur in the foreseeable future if the project were not approved and without development that could be allowed under the existing general plan designation. This alternative compares the environmental effects of the property remaining in its current state against the environmental effects that would occur if the project is approved. If none of the uses allowed under the existing Recreational and Environmental Open Space designation were to be developed, the project site would remain in it's current vacant, undeveloped state and be used as a Christmas tree sales lot on an interim, undetermined period of time. The canyon portion of the project site would continue to be used for the on -site and off -site discharge of stormwater. The existing vegetation on the project site would remain. Vehicle trips associated with Michael Brandman Associates 16 CAV1U4D0WS\Deslctop\St. Mark Findinga6ml.dw St. Mark Presbyterian Church CEQA Findings and Findings of Fact Feasibility of Project Altemahvas the interim Christmas tree sales lot would continue. This use could continue or be eliminated at some future point. In addition, a different interim use could be proposed for the project site that would have a greater number of vehicle trips than does the sales lot. Based on the interim use of the project site, air quality impacts would remain approximately the same or could increase if a different interim use were to be proposed that would result in a greater number of vehicle trips than the sales lot. The use of the project site by residents in the vicinity, although not specifically known, would continue. However, because the project site is privately owned, access to the project site in the future could be restricted. This alternative is considered the environmentally superior alternative to the proposed project because it would either lessen or avoid any potentially significant effects in relationship to the proposed project. However, this alternative would not meet any of the stated objectives previously identified. 3.2 - NO PROJECT - ALLOWED DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVE This alternative evaluates, with the conditions existing at the time the Notice of Preparation was published, what would be reasonably be expected to occur in the foreseeable future if the project were not approved, but with development that could be allowed, based on current plans and consistent with available infrastructure and community services. Allowed used range from low- intensity to high - intensity. For purposes of this analysis, a park and tennis courts and private recreational facilities is assumed. The recreational facilities would be located within the same areas proposed for development by the proposed project. The canyon drainage feature would be restricted in the same configuration as with the proposed project. Similarly, the nature center proposed by the church project would be retained with this recreation concept. Under the assumed allowed development alternative development, hours of operation could be greater than those of the proposed project. The canyon portion of the project site would continue to be used for the on -site and off -site discharge of stormwater. In addition, development under this scenario would require alterations to the project site topography and would require stormwater generated to be discharged into the canyon feature. Development under this scenario would have the potential to generate vehicle trips that could affect intersection capacity. Air quality impacts would result from short-term construction activities and long -term operational impacts. This scenario has the potential to generate noise levels in excess of the proposed project. This alternative is not considered the environmentally superior alternative to the proposed project because it would not lessen or avoid any potentially significant effects in relationship to the proposed project. Like the No Project Alternative - No Development, this alternative would not meet any of the objectives previously identified in this section. Michael Brandman Associates QXWDWWSTesktup\St. Muk Find gsfinal.dw St Mark Presbyterian Church CEQA Findings and Findings of Fact Feasiblllly of Project Altematives 3.3 - REDUCED INTENSITY ALTERNATIVE As described in the EIR, the proposed project is generally divided into two areas identified as the South Campus and the North Campus. A proposed drive aisle and pedestrian walkway link these two areas. In addition, the project proposes to retain approximately one acre of the canyon feature and has incorporated this feature into the overall design. The South Campus is the proposed location of the church sanctuary, administrative offices, parking, and a fellowship hall. The North Campus is the proposed location of the pre - school, expansion building and additional parking. Under this alternative, the North Campus portion of the project site would not be developed, resulting in elimination of the pre - school, expansion building, and approximately 50 parking stalls. The canyon portion of the project site would continue to be used for the on -site and off -site discharge of stormwater. In addition, development under this scenario would require alterations to the project site topography and would require stormwater generated to be discharged into the canyon feature. In addition to the portions of the plant communities proposed for retention with the proposed project, an additional approximately 1 -acre of coastal sage scrub, approximately 0.20 -acres of ornamental woodland, and approximately 0.25 -acres of non - native grassland in the North Campus portion of the project site would be preserved. The 1.67 acres proposed to be deeded to the Big Canyon Country Club as permanent, dedicated open space may not occur. Under this alternative, vehicle trips would be slightly reduced by the elimination of the uses associated with the expansion building and the pre- school. Short-term air quality impacts would be slightly reduced due to the reduction in the area that would need to be graded and the long -term operational impacts would also be slightly reduced due to the elimination of the uses associated with the pre - school and expansion building. Noise level may be slightly reduced under this alternative. If the environmentally superior alternative is the No Project Alternative, the State CEQA Guidelines require the selection an environmentally superior alternative from among the remaining alternatives. Therefore, this alternative is considered an environmentally superior alternative to the proposed project because it would be capable of further reducing the already less than significant effects associated with the proposed project. However, this alternative would not meet all of the objectives previously identified in this section. 3.4 - ALTERNATIVE SITE ALTERNATIVE Prior to selecting the project site, St. Mark Church surveyed areas within the City of Newport Beach to determine if any locations were available that could be developed as a church facility in conformance with the stated project objectives that reflects St. Mark Presbyterian Church's ministry dedicated to environmental values. The results of this survey were that no other locations were available. Michael Brandman Associates 16 C: \V1NWWS\Dcskwp\St. Mack Fimfings5naLdoc St. Mark Presbyterian Church CEQA Findings and Findings of Fact Feasibility of Project Alternatives The requirements were that a potential site had to be a minimum of 4 acres in size and had to be vacant or undeveloped in order to eliminate the high -costs associated with structure removal or potential relocation of businesses including the purchase of the business good will. The potential site had to be adjacent to residential neighborhoods and not located within industrial or commercial zones. The potential site had to be in close proximity (approximately one mile) from the existing location in Eastbluff so that the members and regular attendees of the church would be able to continue attending without traveling out of the City of Newport Beach or significant distances. In addition, the potential site had to be adjacent to major roadways. Moreover, a potential site had to have some type of physical feature on or adjacent to the site so that the church facility could incorporate this feature into the overall site design in order to reflect the environmental orientation of the ministry. The project site meets these criteria. First, the project site was undeveloped and would not require the removal of structures or dislocation of businesses. The Christmas tree sales lot is an interim use. Second, the project site is adjacent to and near residential neighborhoods. Third, this project site was located in the City of Newport Beach approximately one -mile from its current location in the Eastbluff area. Fourth, the project site is adjacent to two major roadways. Lastly, the presence of the canyon feature in the central portion of the site provided an opportunity to incorporate this feature into the overall design of the facility and dedicate a portion of it as permanent open space. The proposed development includes Project Design Features that allow it blend in with the surrounding environment and preserve views of the canyon feature from MacArthur Boulevard. Therefore, this alternative would not result in avoiding or lessening any significant effects in relation to project site. 3.5 - ENVIRONMENTALLY SUPERIOR ALTERNATIVE Based on the previous analysis, the No Project Alternative - No Development would be the environmentally superior alternative because the less than significant impacts identified with the proposed project would be avoided altogether. Section 15126(e)(2) of the Guidelines states that if the environmentally superior alternative is the No Project Alternative, the EIR must identify the environmentally superior alternative from the remaining alternatives. Therefore, the Reduced Intensity Alternative would be an environmentally superior alternative because it is capable of further reducing the already less than significant impacts of the proposed project. However, neither the No Project - No Development Alternative nor the Reduced Intensity Alternative is capable of meeting the stated objectives of the proposed project. Michael Brandman Associates 79 C:\VnNWWS\Desb0p\St. Mark Fiedingsfinal.doc Exhibit "B" Mitigation Monitoring Program Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the St. Mark Presbyterian Church Prepared for: City of Newport Beach Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92659 949.644.3210 Contact: Gregg B. Ramirez, Associate Planner Prepared by: Michael Brandman Associates 220 Commerce, Suite 200 Irvine, CA 92602 714.508.4100 Contact: Kevin B. Shannon, Project Manager September 28, 2004 St. Mark Presbyterian Church - Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program When making "findings" pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code §21081 of the), the public agency "shall adopt a reporting or monitoring program for the changes to the project or conditions of project approval, adopted in order to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment" This monitoring and reporting plan complies with Section 21081.6 of the California Public Resources Code. The responsible parties for implementation of the mitigation measures are the City of Newport Beach and /or its designee, the California Department of Fish and Game, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The following table presents the mitigation measures organized by topical area. The section numbers provided in parentheses correspond to the section number in the Draft EIR. At the end of the table are the mitigation measures identified in the Initial Study. This program includes both monitoring and reporting. Section 15097(c) of the State CEQA Guidelines allows public agencies to develop and adopt a program that combines monitoring of mitigation measures and reporting on mitigation measures. Generally, Reporting consists of a written compliance review that is presented to the decision - making body or authorized staff person. Monitoring generally consists of oversight activities. Michael Brandman Associates M -1 F1USERS\PLN\SharMPA's\PAs- 2003TA2003.OMCity Co cd\Final EIR Ib WNMP- final.dw D i U U ro f h a a k 3 z a = C N N C C N N = U 0 0 d CA 5 •o Y° c .a y o c mai0'O ma30�q a CL CL t �w p U p o oU v pp " o R 'o aRCC rov ° to E=� ,Oro cau_o op V' d N C = N ° :Q 'o •o a. Z: O ._ CL oA 0 ca to= z�roao N tl U vi O Ly ;6 p •� c om o ca R � � c � '- ao os3 °' u•° G U y N R U O L R '- a ° L. c CC Y d � U d •° o r a o d P'a'z„ y tb v .- O R + T 1' 0. srei!?4b`�miiii: a a k 3 z a y 3 z h N W j aa''y Any c v aci v m E E E v; � a N C p° O C L 42 E H 3 u � ... v O o A o v m r � � .., C7 � � a. � � ❑ _ C .s _ a � N .12 lul LO [O E° . s COL C 'O A 'O v M [n > •O L O O O' C :N m '68 a` '.m aCi a U v ,. '- c c c .A .c y A O :o a A _ ao p L �� T d �.Y 1 T -° i H La6 om o o =off v°Lac�3R °o�Oc L c�O�oo° �. m m i0 O S j � O � t A L ❑ U� W L N A N C L L LL '� .� aJi ° 0 E i °1 e o H = €w H� o �3 °U. COL M O E i E U. E N3 pL L a0 y C v O L O C� O [n �_�` NN'16 -ae; N M R ti z z a H -M m m m H y 3 z h N W j a m l h g' Q; al r U to E 0 0 C V U v O c Y O m �,o w d Y t, L " N U r_p `° R ro 3 °'- O L DA IMF to m U C c- -_ tz CA S O .� U Ei 'o s H o N N o o R A a V w W U U 0 0 i 9 N N W a a i c E c c E 2 c c a c c 5 d t ro d r ro v myT N Q,3 Q,3 Q,3� Q,3 a3� W tp Lz7 ro Li] C � ro U] c 'S a� aaid� m ,d(5 maido ._ a3Sd5 Fv3dC] N 4 12 row s d d s '� '� ACA :' N 'O � td U N 'y a° tJd ;� 3 = � € F N � G •� � N .� ro d .,.: .: O B N d = 'O O W s _� G�❑ a O G .� N 0A .G a=i o OO ro O� O�� ro O d O.� O T dG= G O 'J ro'O d O �• vi ° oE:' •, r rn v ��� CO d d d N Q a a a a a w i 0 W U T ryU 6 3 N IZ w i� i N:. m E E E E E a _ C:;W w -. m bn en bn on c c c c wa A A > > > I a a m m m U U p H N C O N tid O O U O U H U A N N U bn CIO a N Rf '= N O N G L U m U L F '—. Z) bn U m is t d 4. 'O N N to d C u to a —°. L a o o o c.= coy. a3 `oo E rn L ❑mHE�on�.AA° asoo ° c 7 d N= a� A aXi O rn N N RS d 0_D G L N 0 .N L ' c 'O 'u 7 c5 N 3 G U 'A T CA bA pL bn 20 C E o,0 W N r O it a 'on n. o o A a°i CL` a w i 0 W U T ryU 6 3 N IZ w i� i a N i U U f N m! E E E E E E E EYE EY° o o to O — Y O R O d R O = = u aXi v w —vRi ro u � .R. - -� V 0 0 0 0 ° m y a E o 0 a. � "0 0 °o m so ;o o o o 'aA a Y� ti R C4 O O u C y y0 u C ) a• N _ E C F2 to o 'o U u C O A > U 'O 0 p 0 u - C�� 1,2 u u C p' R C O CC _w