Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-43 - St. Andrews EIR & Monitoring ProgramRESOLUTION NO. 2005- 43 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 ANDREW'S PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH EXPANSION PROJECT FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 600 ST. ANDREWS ROAD (PA 2002 -265) WHEREAS, an application was filed by St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church for property identified as 600 St. Andrews Road located at the southwesterly comer of the intersection of 15th Street and St. Andrews Road. The application requests approval of a General Plan Amendment to increase the maximum allowable gross floor area that can be developed at the site. The application also includes a request to change the zoning district of the site from R -1 and R -2 to GEIF (Government, Educational and Institutional Facilities). Finally, the application includes a Use Permit to allow the demolition and replacement of Church buildings and the construction of a new Youth and Family Center with a gymnasium; and WHEREAS, in accordance with California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requirements, an Initial Study was prepared, and a Notice of Preparation (NOP) of an environmental impact report (EIR) for the proposed project was filed with the State Clearinghouse, which assigned State Clearinghouse No. 2003081065. WHEREAS, the NOP and Initial Study were distributed to all responsible and trustee agencies and other interested parties for a 30 -day public review period commencing on August 12, 2003 and ending on September 10, 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. The Draft EIR dated March 2004 was distributed separately due to bulk and is hereby designated as Exhibit EIR 1 and incorporated by reference herein. WHEREAS, a 45 -day public review period for the Draft EIR was established pursuant to State law, which commenced on March 17, 2004 and ended on April 30, 2004. WHEREAS, all comments received during the public review period for the Draft EIR were responded to in the Response to Comments document. The Response to Comments document was distributed separately due to bulk and is hereby designated Exhibit EIR -2 and incorporated by reference herein. WHEREAS, on May 20, 2004, August 19, 2004, October 21, 2004, November 18, 2004 and December 9, 2004 and May 19, 2005, the Planning Commission held public noticed public hearings 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. Adequate and timely notice of the time, place and purpose of the public hearing was duly given and testimony was presented to and considered by the Planning Commission at the hearings. WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the public hearing, the Planning Commission unanimously adopted Resolution No. 1655, 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 whole administrative records, including but not limited to reports, minutes and record of proceedings before the Planning Commission 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 are also attached to this resolution for ease of reference, and by reference made 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 March 2004 (Distributed separately due to bulk. Available for public review at the City's Planning Department.) 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 Andrew's Presbyterian Church Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse No. 2003081065) has been prepared in full compliance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code §§ 21000 et seq.) (CEQA) and the CEQA Guidelines (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, §§ 15000 et seq.) 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 11th day of August 2005 by the following vote, to wit: AYES, COUNCIL MEMBERS Selich, Rosansky, Ridgeway, Daigle, Nichols, Mayor e iernan NOES, COUNCIL MEMBERS Webb ABSENT, COUNCIL MEMBERS ATTEST: 170 CITY CLERK 6�YOR EXHIBIT A STATEMENT OF FINDINGS AND FACTS IN SUPPORT OF THE CERTIFICATION OF THE FINAL EIR, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, ZONE CHANGE AND USE PERMIT ST. ANDREW'S PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH SIGNIFICANT 'ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT, FINDINGS WITH RESPECT TO SAID EFFECTS, AND STATEMENT OF FACTS IN SUPPORT THEREOF, ALL WITH RESPECT TO THE PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, ZONE CHANGE, AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR ST. ANDREW'S PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH IN THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, CA I. INTRODUCTION The California Environmental Quality Act ( "CEQA "), Public Resources Code Section 21081 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 provide that: (a) No public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an EIR has been certified which identifies one or more significant environmental effects of the project unless the public agency makes one or more written findings for each of those significant effects, accompanied by a brief explanation of the rationale for each finding. The possible findings are: (1) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the final EIR. (2) Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency. (3) Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the final EIR. (b) The findings required by subsection (a) shall be supported by substantial evidence in the record. Section 15092 of the State CEQA Guidelines further stipulates that: Exhibit A Statement of Findings and Facts St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church General Plan AmendmenbCondifional Use Permit A public agency shall not decide to approve or carry out a project for which an EIR was prepared unless either: (1) The project as approved will not have a significant effect on the environment, or (2) The agency has: (A) Eliminated or substantially lessened all significant effects ' on the environment where feasible as shown in findings under Section 15091, and (B) Determined that any remaining significant effects on the environment found to be unavoidable under Section 15091 are acceptable due to overriding concerns as described in Section 15093. In making the findings required by Section 21081, the public agency must base its findings on substantial evidence in the record. An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the project has been prepared and certified as complete by the City of Newport Beach. The EIR identifies certain significant effects that may occur as a result of the St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church project alone or on a cumulative basis in conjunction with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects. The environmental review process for the St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church project is summarized below. In accordance with CEQA requirements, an Initial Study was prepared, and a Notice of Preparation (NOP) of a Draft EIR was filed with the State Clearinghouse on August 12, 2003. The State Clearinghouse assigned State Clearinghouse Number 2003081065. 2. The NOP and Initial Study were distributed to all responsible and trustee agencies and other interested parties on August 12, 2003 for a 30-day public review period. The review period ended on September 10, 2003. The Subcommittee of the Environmental Quality Affairs Citizens Advisory Committee (EQAC) for the St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church project submitted comments dated September 16, 2003 on the NOP and Initial Study. 3. The City of Newport Beach distributed a Notice of Preparation to all property owners within 300 feet of the subject property, which notified nearby residents that would be most directly affected by implementation of the proposed project, along with public agencies and interested organizations, that a Scooping Meeting would be held as a means of providing comments on the scope of the Draft EIR. The Scoping Meeting was conducted in the Newport Beach City Council chambers on August 20, 2003. 4. In accordance with CEQA requirements, a Notice of Completion (NOC) of the Draft EIR was filed with the State Clearinghouse on March 17, 2004. Exhibit A Statement of Findings and Facts St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church General Plan Amendment /Conditional Use Permit 5. 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. 6. A forty -five (45) day public review period for the Draft EIR was established pursuant to State law, which commenced on March 17, 2004 and ended on April 30, 2004. 7. Comments received during the public review period for the Draft EIR were responded to in a Response to Comments document dated May 2004. 8. A Final EIR has been prepared for the St. Andrews Presbyterian Church Expansion Project. The following components comprise the Final EIR: a. Draft EIR, March 2004; b. Comments received on the Draft EIR and responses to those comments, May 2004; and C. All attachments, incorporations, and references to the documents delineated in items a and b above. The City is the Lead Agency with respect to the project pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15367. As a Lead Agency, the City is required by CEQA to make findings with respect to each significant effect of the Project. The City has reviewed the EIR. The following sections make detailed findings with respect to the potential effects of the St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church project and refer, where appropriate, to the mitigation measures set forth in the Final EIR. The Final EIR and the administrative record concerning the St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church expansion project provide additional facts in support of the findings herein. The Final EIR (which includes, among other components, the Draft EIR, and the Response to Comments on the Draft EIR) is hereby incorporated into these Findings in its entirety. Furthermore, the mitigation measures set forth in the Mitigation Monitoring Program are incorporated by reference in these Findings. The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program was developed in compliance with Public Resources Code Section 21081.6 and is contained in a separate document. Without limitation, these are intended to elaborate on the scope and nature of mitigation measures, the basis for determining the significance of impacts, the comparative analysis of alternatives, and the reasons for approving the St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church project in spite of associated significant unavoidable adverse impacts. Final EIR SCH No. 2003081065 for General Plan Amendment, Zone Change and Use Permit for the St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church project identified significant environmental impacts prior to mitigation that may occur as a result of implementing the project. Thus, in accordance with the provisions of CEQA, the Newport Beach City Council hereby adopts Exhibit A Statement of Findings and Facts St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church General Plan AmendmenVQmcitional Use Permit these findings as part of its action to certify Final EIR SCH No. 2003081065 and approve the General Plan Amendment, Zone Change and Use Permit for the St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church project. 11. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT PROPOSED FOR APPROVAL Consistent with the intent of CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines, and relevant judicial interpretations of CEQA, the "project" addressed in the Final EIR is defined to include the approval of a general plan amendment, zone change, use permit, and a traffic phasing ordinance that would allow the development of a 35,948 square foot expansion to the existing St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church facilities and construction of a subterranean parking structure. Site development includes the demolition of two existing structures that encompass 24,230 square feet. One of the classroom buildings and the existing fellowship hall and kitchen facilities will be demolished and replaced with two new structures. In doing so, the total gross floor area will be increased to 140,388 square feet (i.e., a net increase in gross floor area of 35,948 square feet. The proposed project is intended to provide a new youth and family center (with a gymnasium), classroom facilities and related features in order to better serve the needs of the existing church membership and to provide more specialized services for younger members of the congregation. In addition, implementation of the project will also result in the modernization of existing facilities as well as providing up to 400 parking spaces on the subject property, including 173 spaces within a surface parking lot and 227 spaces in a subterranean parking structure to accommodate the activities conducted at the church. Project implementation requires the approval of three discretionary actions by the City of Newport Beach, including: • General Plan Amendment The General Plan Amendment is required in order to increase the maximum floor area allocated to the site, which exceeds the floor area allocated in the City's Land Use Element. • Zone Change Project implementation also necessitates the approval of a zone change that replaces the existing R -1 and R -2 zoning on the site to GEIR (Government, Educational and Institutional Facilities). • Use Permit The Use Permit will address the speck increase in development and specific uses, which may be different than previously approved in the existing Use Permit and the building height. Exhibit A Statement of Findings and Facts St. Andrea's Presbytenan Church General Plan AmendmenMonditlonal Use Permit • Traffic Phasing Ordinance Under the City's Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO), the project's additional traffic contribution beyond that which is included as a "committed project" must be analyzed and the requirements of the TPO must be satisfied before City action. These activities are under the jurisdiction of the City of Newport Beach as the Lead Agency, including the approval of discretionary planning actions and issuance of permits (e.g., grading permit, building permit, etc.) necessary for project implementation. III. IMPACTS DETERMINED TO BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT The following describes impacts of the St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church project found to be less than significant in the preparation of the Initial Study and the Draft EIR. The Initial Study, provided in Appendix A of the Draft EIR, was used to focus the scope of the Draft EIR. (a) INITIAL STUDY Land Use Planning The subject property is located in an area of the City of Newport Beach and County of Orange that is not addressed either in a habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan. As a result, project implementation will not conflict with any policies established for such plans. As previously indicated, the site is improved with the existing St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church facilities and does not support any sensitive habitat and /or species designated by State or federal resource agencies. Therefore, no significant impacts will occur if the project is implemented and no mitigation measures are required. Agriculture Project implementation will not result in the conversion of any prime or otherwise significant farmland. No agricultural use of the property presently occurs. The subject property is developed with a church and ancillary facilities. According to the Orange County Important Farmland Map, the entire area, including the subject property, is designated as "Urban and Built Up Land," which encompasses land occupied by structures with a building density of at least one dwelling unit to one and one -half acres. Development of the site as proposed will not result in any significant impacts to farmland or other agricultural resources. Population and Housing The proposed development will not result in the elimination of any residential dwelling units or residents. Therefore, no existing housing or residents will be displaced if the project is approved and constructed and no significant impacts will occur. Further, project implementation does not include the development of the site for residential or other land uses Exhibit A Statement of Findings and Facts St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church General Plan Amendment/Conditional Use Permit that would be considered directly growth- inducing. Further, all of the existing infrastructure exists in the area and is available to accommodate the proposed development. Adequate capacity exists in all of the infrastructure systems that serve the site (e.g., sewer, water, storm drainage, roadways, etc.) and no new or expanded facilities are required to provide service to the project. No significant additional growth would be anticipated to occur as a direct result of the proposed church development. Therefore, no significant growth- inducing impacts are anticipated as a result of project implementation. Geologic Issues 1. The project site is located in the seismically active southern California region. Primary ground rupture or fault rupture is defined as the surface displacement that occurs along the surface of a fault during an earthquake. There are no active faults or fault systems known to exist on or in the immediate vicinity of the project site. In addition, the project site is not within an Alquist- Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone as illustrated on the maps issued by the State Geologist for the area. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project is not anticipated to expose people or structures to fault rupture during a seismic event. No impacts will occur and no mitigation measures are required. 2. Although there are no active faults or fault systems known to exist on or in the immediate vicinity of the project site (and the site is not within an Alquist - Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone), it is subject to seismic shaking resulting from earthquakes occurring on one or more of the regional faults. The project site and environs are located within an area designated as Category 2 by the Newport Beach Public Safety Element (Newport Beach Public Safety Element "Potential Seismic Hazards Areas "). Areas in Category 2 are characterized by stronger shaking potential than Category 1, which is the lowest ground shaking category identified in the City. All of the structures and facilities proposed by the applicant will be designed and constructed in accordance with the most recently adopted version of the California Building Code, including all local amendments, to ensure that potential damage to seismic shaking will be minimized. Further, design level geotechnical studies will be conducted to ensure that on -site characteristics are evaluated and the proposed buildings properly designed to address the existing soils and geologic conditions. Implementation of proper grading and design measures will ensure that significant potential impacts associated with groundshaking will not occur. 3 Based on information presented in the City's Public Safety Element, the site is not susceptible to the potential effects of liquefaction as a result of groundshaking. Therefore, potential impacts are anticipated to be less than significant. Further, the subject property is devoid of slopes and /or unstable soils. No significant slopes exist on the site and none are proposed that would be subject to potential failure. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of potential landsliding. Exhibit A Statement of Findings and Facts St. Andrews Presbyterian Church General Plan Amendment/Conditional Use Permit 4. Implementation of the proposed project will necessitate grading and excavation that will temporarily expose on -site soils while demolition and construction of the proposed project takes place. In that interim period, it is possible that some erosion may occur, resulting in some sedimentation; however, in order to ensure that erosion and sedimentation are minimized, the applicant will be required to prepare and submit a Notice of Intent for coverage under the General Construction Activity Storm Water Runoff Permit to the Regional Water Quality Control Board prior to initiation of construction activities. As required by the NPDES permit, a Storm Water Pollution and Prevention Plan (SWPPP) will be prepared and will establish Best Management Practices (BMPs) intended to reduce sedimentation and erosion (refer to Section VIII — Hydrology). Although it is possible that potentially significant erosion could occur without the incorporation of appropriate measures, implementation of the mandatory BMPs will avoid potential erosion impacts associated with site grading and development. Further, the proposed site will be engineered to ensure that surface /subsurface drainage does not contribute to erosion or adversely affect the stability of project improvements. Therefore, the potentially significant erosion impacts will be avoided. 5. The site is not underlain by a high groundwater table that could contribute to possible subsidence or liquefaction. In the event that unstable soil conditions occur on the site due to previous grading, excavation, or placement of fill materials, these conditions will be effectively reduced by measures identified in the site specific geotechnical evaluation that addresses specific design and construction measures for the proposed buildings and subterranean parking garage. Any such required measures will be incorporated into the project design through routine implementation of the Building and Grading Codes, which will minimize any potential structure damage. As a result, potential impacts will be less than significant. 6. The soils underlying the site are characterized as moderately to highly expansive in nature (Newport Beach Public Safety Element — "Expansive and Collapsible Soil Hazard Areas "). However, the proposed development will be required to comply with the design parameters mandated in the most recently adopted California Building Code, including all local amendments, to address expansive soils as well as other soils and geologic conditions. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of project implementation. Hvdroloav and Water Qualitv 1. The proposed project includes the demolition of two existing buildings, which will be replaced with two larger, modern buildings to accommodate classrooms and the fellowship hall (including a new gymnasium and subterranean parking garage). The area of impervious surfaces and the types and quantities of pollutants will be nearly the same as that which exists on the current site. Approximately 85 percent of the site is currently covered with buildings and /or parking (i.e., impervious surfaces). Although the proposed project will result in an increase of about five percent in the amount of Exhibit A Statement of Findings and Facts St Andrew's Presbyterian Church General Plan AmendmenUConditmal Use Permit impervious surfaces, the slight increase will not result in a significant increase in either the volume or rate of surface runoff that occurs at the present time. The applicant has prepared a Stage 1 Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) that is intended to satisfy the City's requirements. This plan will be supplemented by the Stage 2 WQMP that will address the manner in which pollutants generated by the project will be minimized to ensure that no violations of water quality standards will occur. As a result, no significant water quality impacts are anticipated. 2. The subject site is located in an area that is completely developed. Although site alteration will occur, including demolition of existing structures and redevelopment of the site with additional structures and a subterranean garage, implementation of the proposed project will not affect any existing groundwater recharge activities. No groundwater wells are located on the site or in the vicinity of the project that would be adversely affected by the proposed project. Site development as proposed will not result in any impacts to nearby wells that would affect any domestic water well capacity or the ability to provide adequate water service to the existing and planned land uses in the City. 3. Project implementation will not result in any changes to the existing drainage patterns, either on the site or in the vicinity of the property. No alterations to existing watercourses are proposed by the applicant. Surface runoff currently flows from the site to the perimeter streets (i.e., 15t Street, Clay Street, and St. Andrew's Road). Redevelopment of the site as proposed will maintain the existing grades and will not substantially change the volume and rate of surface flows emanating from the site. 4. As indicated above, site alteration will not result in any changes to the existing drainage patterns in the area. Although the amount of impervious surfaces will increase slightly as a result of the proposed project, neither the amount nor rate of runoff emanating from the site will be significantly increased. The minor increase in surface runoff generated by the proposed project will not result in the exposure of either people or property to potential flooding, either on- or off -site. Also, it is likely that due to implementation of the WQMP, existing runoff will be diverted to landscape areas, resulting in no increase in runoff because these measures are not presently employed at the site. As a result, there may be an improvement in water quality, since roughly one -half of the site will be redeveloped with drainage system improvements to meet present day water quality standards. Therefore, no significant impacts are anticipated. 5. The minor increase in runoff generated by the approximately five percent increase in impervious surfaces will not be significant. The existing storm drainage and flood control facilities located in the vicinity of the site have adequate capacity to accommodate the minor increase. In addition, although pollutants in the form of petroleum hydrocarbons residue, pesticides and herbicides, and detergents will continue to be generated on -site as a result of automobile usage and on -going landscape maintenance activities, neither the types nor concentrations of these Exhibit A Statement of Findings and Facts St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church General Plan Amendment/Conditional Use Permit pollutants will change. As previously indicated, the applicant will be required to prepare a Stage 2 WQMP that will identify specific features and /or programs to ensure that pollutants are minimized. As a result, potential impacts will remain less than significant. 6. Although project implementation may result in some changes in the quality of surface water that could affect water quality at other nearby locations, the changes would not be considered to be significant because the site is currently developed and nearly completely impervious. However, the potential for degradation of the water quality is related to the types and intensities of uses proposed for the property. Although the applicant is proposing uses that are consistent and compatible with the existing land uses and those reflected in the adopted long -range plans for the site, the intensity of the use will be greater than currently permitted. Nonetheless, the types and concentrations of pollutants are similar to those resulting from the same uses that exist on the site and those in other areas in the City and include: silt (during construction), petroleum hydrocarbons from parking areas, pesticides and fertilizers, and other pollutants common to urban development. No unusual contamination or pollutant is anticipated as a result of implementing the proposed project and, further, the increases in pollutant and /or contaminant concentrations will be addressed in the requisite BMPs and other mitigation measures that have been prescribed for the proposed project. Therefore, the potential impacts will be reduced to a less than significant level. 7. The subject property is not located within the 100 -year flood plain as delineated on the Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) for the City of Newport Beach. No residential development is proposed by the applicant for the subject property. Therefore, development of the site as proposed will not result in the placement of housing within a flood -prone area identified by FEMA or the City of Newport Beach. Further, the subject property is not located in an area of the City that is subject to flooding resulting from the failure of a levee or dam. No significant impacts will occur as a result of project implementation. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of project implementation. 8. Although Newport Beach is a coastal community, the subject property is located approximately one mile from the coastline and is elevated approximately 80 feet above mean sea level. These conditions, combined with the fact that the potential for a tsunami is considered extremely remote in the City of Newport Beach, minimize the potential for damage and /or inundation from the effects of a tsunami. Further, the project site is not located within an area that would be subject to the adverse effects of significant oscillations in a large open water body (e.g., lake, reservoir, etc.). Implementation of the improvements proposed for St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church will not expose people or structures to seiches, tsunamis or mudflows. Therefore, no significant impacts will occur as a result of project implementation. Air Quality EXbibitA Statement of Findings and Facts St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church General Plan Amendment/Conditional Use Permit Objectionable odors are not currently present within the project site or environs. Approval of the proposed project would not ultimately result in the creation of objectionable odors, as there is no change in the nature of the land use. Although some of the equipment may emit some odors, they would not be significant during construction. Noise It is unlikely that any activities occurring as a result of project implementation will expose the area to excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels. As indicated above, potential noise impacts will result from typical construction activities and will not require unusual grading or construction techniques that would cause excessive groundbome vibrations (i.e., pile drivers). Further, no use proposed on the site would result in such impacts, which will be less than significant. Transportation /Circulation 1. Project implementation will not result in any changes to air traffic patterns. The subject site is currently developed and is not located within the immediate environs of John Wayne Airport (JWA) or other facility that would be affected by site development. Air traffic patterns into and out of JWA will not change if the project is developed as proposed. No significant impacts will occur as a result of project implementation. 2. No changes to the existing site access are proposed. Although it is anticipated that the project will generate additional traffic, no significant impacts are anticipated to emergency access. Further, project implementation will neither affect the existing Emergency Operations Plan nor result in significant public safety impacts to police and fire protection or other emergency services. As a result, potential impacts are anticipated to be less than significant. 3. The proposed project must comply with all of the policies and programs required by the City of Newport Beach related to traffic and circulation. A secondary bikeway (i.e., a bikeway that connects to backbone trails and serve cyclists and children riding to and from schools) is located along 15th Street. Bicycle racks are provided on the site and will continue to be available on the site to facilitate bicyclists. Therefore, project implementation will not adversely affect the bike lane and will not conflict with any of adopted policies and programs that support alternative transportation. No significant impacts are anticipated. Biological Resources The subject property is located within an urbanized area in the City of Newport Beach. No sensitive species (or candidate species) inhabit the site and no significant, valuable habitat presently exists at the project site. The site does not contain riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community. No portion of the subject property contains federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Specifically, no marshes, vernal Exhibit A Statement of Findings and Facts St. Andrew's Presbytenan Church General Plan Amendment/Conditional Use Permit pools or other wetlands defined by either the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers or the California Department of Fish and Game are located within the limits of the project site, which has been extensively altered and is devoid of natural habitat and does not support sensitive species. Finally, the developed site is not included in the Southern Orange County NCCP and, therefore, is not protected by an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan or other local, regional, or State habitat conservation plan. Therefore, development pursuant to the proposed site development plan will not conflict with local, regional or State resource preservation and conservation policies. Although intensification of the existing land uses will result in some short-term construction impacts, including dust and pollutant emissions that may have some minor effect on plant species throughout the region, no direct impacts to sensitive species will occur as a result of project implementation due to the proximity of the nature center and mitigation of short-term, construction- related air emissions. Therefore, no significant impacts to biological resources are anticipated to occur as a result of project implementation. Mineral Resources Neither the City's General Plan nor the State of California has identified the site or environs as a potential location for mineral resources of State -wide, regional, or local significance. No mineral resources are known to exist. Therefore, development of the subject property as proposed will not result in the loss of any locally important mineral resource recovery site. No significant impacts will occur as a result of project implementation. Hazards With the exception of the potential asbestos containing materials (ACM) that may be present in the existing structures that will be demolished, the proposed site development will not utilize hazardous materials, either during construction or operation of the project. If necessary, ACM abatement will occur pursuant to regulatory requirements prescribed by the SCAQMD and OCHCA. The site is not listed on any of the hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. The subject property is not located within the limits of the John Wayne Airport land use plan or other public airport. St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church is not located in the vicinity of John Wayne Airport or any other public airport or private facility. Project implementation will not result in potential adverse impacts, including safety hazards, to people residing or working in the project area. Therefore, implementation of the project will not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the potential release of hazardous materials as a result of an accident. Public Services Project implementation will result in the intensification of the site development to allow an additional 36,000 square feet of floor area on the site, for a total of 140,388 square feet. This increase in development will not result in significant impacts to the ability of the Newport Beach Fire Department or Newport Beach Police Department to provide an adequate level of protection. The site must comply with Uniform Fire Code (UFC) and California Building Code Exhibit A Statement of Findings and Facts St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church General Plan Amendment/Conditional Use Permit (including all local amendments) requirements and will be subject to review by the NBFD. The provision of educational services in the City of Newport Beach is the responsibility of the Newport-Mesa Unified School District. The proposed project will not directly result in potentially significant impacts to the District's educational facilities and /or existing capacity because no school -age students will be generated by the religious facilities proposed by the applicant. Implementation of the proposed project will result in the intensification of the use of the site. Although site development as proposed will not significantly change the use of the site, the increased intensity will not have any significant adverse effects on other public services, including libraries or administrative services provided by the City. Utilities and Service Systems 1. Implementation of the proposed project will not result in any direct discharges that would exceed wastewater treatment requirements. All of the raw sewage generate by the proposed project would be similar to that currently generated by the existing facilities and can be accommodated and adequately treated by existing facilities owned and operated by the Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD). The City of Newport Beach owns and maintains several sewer mains in the vicinity of the subject property, including those in 15th Street, Clay Street, and St. Andrew's Road. Although implementation of the proposed project may result in an increase in the generation of raw sewage caused by the increase in floor area, the existing sewer mains and sewage treatment plant capacity are adequate to accommodate the increase in raw sewage that would be generated by the proposed project. Therefore, no significant impacts to either the City or Sanitation District's ability to provide adequate sewage collection and treatment are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. 2. Project implementation will not adversely affect existing water supplies. The project will not create demands for water that exceed the parameters upon which the water supply and distribution are based. The City owns and maintains facilities in the vicinity of the subject property that serve the existing development in the vicinity of the proposed project. Although the proposed facilities will increase the demand for potable water, domestic water can be provided from the existing water supply and distribution system, which meet both the existing and proposed fire demands and needs of the project. Project implementation will not require the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities. Although Domestic water can be provided from the existing water supply and distribution system, which meet both the existing and proposed fire demands for the proposed project. No significant impacts will occur as a result of using domestic water. 3. Intensification of the existing development at St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church will not result in any significant changes to the existing surface runoff conditions associated with the 3.94 -acre property. Although on -site facilities may be necessary, the runoff will be directed to the same storm drain facilities that exist in the adjacent street system, which have adequate capacity to accommodate the post - development runoff generated by the proposed project. Therefore, no significant impacts are anticipated. ExhibitA Statement of Findings and Facts St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church General Plan AmendmenUConditional Use Permit 4. Solid waste will be generated at the site resulting from the intensification of the land uses. The County landfill system (i.e., three landfill sites) has a capacity in excess of 30 years. The City is in compliance with AB 939, which requires a 50 percent reduction in the amount of solid waste. The project site will remain subject to this provision. Therefore, no impact is anticipated. Aesthetics The St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church property is not located within the viewshed of a scenic highway. Further, the site and surrounding neighborhood are developed with a mix of uses, including St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church, Newport Harbor High School, and single - family residential development. No natural landforms, including rock outcroppings and significant trees exist on the site. The church complex was constructed over several years beginning in 1948, with the construction of the chapel building. The educational buildings were constructed during the 1960s and 1970s; the sanctuary was constructed in 1985. No historic buildings are located on the site and no impacts to either natural features or historic structures will occur as a result of project implementation. No significant impacts will occur Cultural /Scientific Resources The site was extensively altered when the existing St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church and ancillary facilities were constructed. No historic structures exist on the subject property and none exist within the vicinity of the site. As a result, implementation of development proposed by the applicant will not affect any existing historical resource in the City of Newport Beach. Further, no significant cultural or scientific resources are expected to be encountered on the subject site, which has undergone extensive alteration. Nonetheless, cultural /scientific resources monitoring will take place during grading. As a result, no significant impacts to historic resources are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. Recreation Project implementation does not include any land uses (i.e., residential, commercial or industrial development) that would either directly or indirectly create a demand for recreational amenities and /or services. Rather, the proposed project includes the demolition of two existing buildings and construction of two structures on the site to replace those proposed to be demolished. The proposed project includes a gymnasium that will be used for youth programs at the church. Integration of this "recreational" amenity could have a beneficial effect on existing recreational facilities by possibly reducing the demand for existing public facilities. No significant impacts to the existing recreational facilities and amenities are anticipated as a result of project implementation. (b) ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Exhibit A Statement of Findings and Facts St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church General Plan Amendment/Conditional Use Permit Additional analysis of the impacts found in the Initial Study to be potentially significant impacts was undertaken and presented in the Draft EIR. Through that analysis, it was determined that potential impacts would be less than significant or potential impacts would be avoided or minimized (i.e., less than significant) through the incorporation of standard conditions of approval (e.g., implementation of UBC requirements, etc.). The standard conditions identified below are appropriate. Land Use and Planning As set forth in more detail in Section 4.1 of the EIR and supporting documentation: No impact due to incompatibility with the existing on -site land uses or surrounding land uses would occur. 2. With approval of the requested General Plan Amendment, implementation of the proposed project would not result in an impact related to consistency with the General Plan designation for the project site. The proposed project is consistent with the applicable goals, policies, and objectives of the General Plan Elements. 4. The proposed project in conjunction with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects, would not result in a cumulative impact related to incompatible land uses or inconsistencies with land use plan and regulations. Standard Conditions SC 4.1 -1 All development proposed for St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church shall be reviewed for consistency with applicable provisions of the Building Code, Noise Ordinance and other applicable codes and ordinances prior to issuance of building permits. Transportation /Circulation As set forth in more detail in Section 4.2 of the EIR and supporting documentation: All of the key study intersections will continue to operate at acceptable levels of service (i.e., LOS D or better) in the future. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not result in any significant adverse impacts to key intersections. 2. The proposed project in conjunction with other past, present, or reasonably foreseeable future projects would not result in a cumulative impact related to circulation and /or access. Exhibit A Statement of Findings and Facts St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church General Plan Amendment/Conditional Use Permit Standard Conditions SC 4.2 -1 Prior to issuance of the demolition permit, St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church will submit an off -site parking management program that identifies parking and shuttle arrangements to accommodate the continued typical weekday use of the property as well as use of the facilities on weekends. The parking management program will also address the construction phase and will identify the manner in which construction parking will be accommodated without utilizing on- street parking in the adjacent residential neighborhood. SC 4.2 -2 Prior to issuance of the demolition permit, the contractor shall submit a Construction Traffic Control Plan (including a bike lane detour plan), to be prepared by a registered traffic engineer and submitted to the City of Newport Beach for approval. Approval shall be required prior to issuance of the authorization to proceed. All traffic control work for construction shall conform to the requirements as stipulated by the City of Newport Beach, including lane reductions, use of flagmen, etc. Air Quality As set forth in more detail in Section 4.3 of the EIR and supporting documentation: Implementation of the proposed project would not result in a significant long -term mobile- source or stationary- source air quality impacts. 2. The proposed project is consistent with the governing Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) policies and no impact would occur. 3. All of the intersections evaluated are forecast to operate at well within the established acceptable levels. Therefore, the project will not result in a significant local air quality impact (i.e., excessive carbon monoxide concentrations) at any of the intersections. Standard Conditions SC 4.3 -1 Adherence to SCAQMD Rule 403, which requires that, "... every reasonable precaution (is taken) to minimize fugitive dust emissions . . ." from grading operations to control particulate emissions, shall be implemented during the grading and construction phase. SC 4.3 -2 Adherence to SCAQMD Rules 431.1 and 431.2, which require the use of low sulfur fuel for stationary construction equipment. SC 4.3 -3 The project shall comply with Title 24 energy - efficient design regulations as well as the provision of window glazing, wall insulation, and efficient ventilation methods in accordance with Uniform Building Code requirements. Exhibit A Statement of Findings and Facts St. Andrews Presbyterian Church General Plan Amendment/Conditional Use Permit Noise As set forth in more detail in Section 4.4 of the EIR and supporting documentation: 1. The increase in the noise levels associated with mobile sources as a result of the proposed project would not be perceptible and no significant impact would occur. 2. The increase in the mobile- source noise levels as a result of the proposed project as well as that associated with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects would not be perceptible and no significant impact would occur. 3. Noise associated with parking lot activities and the use of the gymnasium would not be significant. 4. Combined traffic and aircraft noise levels are projected to be less than 65 CNEL in the vicinity of the project. As a result, the proposed project will not be significantly impacted by noise. 5. Demolition and construction activities associated with project implementation will generate noise levels in excess of the City's Noise Ordinance limits; however, construction activities are exempt from the ordinance. Standard Conditions SC 4.4 -1 Construction activities shall comply with Section 10.28.040 of the Newport Municipal Code, which restricts hours of noise - generating construction activities that produce noise to between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 6:30 p.m., Monday through Friday and 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on Saturday. Noise - generating construction activities are not allowed on Sundays or Holidays. Aesthetics As set forth in more detail in Section 4.5 of the EIR and supporting documentation: 1. Implementation of the proposed project would not result in significant impacts related to aesthetics or light and glare. 2. The proposed project in conjunction with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects would not result in a significant cumulative impact to aesthetics and light/glare. 3. Project implementation will not substantially damage scenic resources, including historic buildings or other natural features. Exhibit A Statement of Findings and Facts St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church General Plan Amendment/Conditional Use Permit 4. While the proposed buildings will result in an increase in both development intensity and building height over that currently existing, the visual character of the site will not be changed in such a way that significant adverse visual impacts will occur. Standard Conditions SC 4.5 -1 Development shall be compatible with the character of the neighborhood and surrounding sites and shall not be detrimental to the orderly and harmonious development of the surroundings and of the City. SC 4.5 -2 Site plan and layout of buildings, parking areas, pedestrian and vehicular access ways, and other site features shall give proper consideration to functional aspects of site development. SC 4.5 -3 Lighting shall be in compliance with applicable standards of the Zoning Code. Exterior on -site lighting shall be shielded and confined within t he 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. Parking area lighting shall have zero cut -off fixtures and light standards shall not exceed 20 feet in height. (The height of the standards can be adjusted lower to reflect the applicant's proposed height of standard.) SC 4.5 -4 The site shall not be excessively illuminated based on the luminance recommendations of the Illuminating Engineering Society of North America, or, if in the opinion of the Planning Director, the illumination creates an unacceptable negative impact on surrounding land uses or environmental resources. The applicant shall prepare photometric study in conjunction with a final lighting plan for approval by the Planning Director prior to the issuance of a building permit. Prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy or final of building permits, the applicant shall schedule an evening inspection by the Code Enforcement Division to confirm control of light and glare. Particular attention shall be given to the light spillage and glare in the parking lot at any residential areas. The Planning Director may order the dimming of light sources or other remediation upon finding that the site is excessively illuminated. (c) FINDING The environmental effects listed above are found not to be significant with the incorporation of the standard conditions identified for each issue. FACTS IN SUPPORT OF FINDING 1. The discussion and analysis identified in Section III(a) above indicate that the environmental effects listed are less than significant. Exhibit A Statement of Findings and Facts St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church General Plan Amendment/Conditional Use Permit 2. The Draft EIR concluded that the environmental effects identified in Section III(b) above are less than significant or would be avoided by the implementation of standard conditions of approval identified above. 3. During the 45 -day public review period as mandated by CEQA, the Draft EIR was distributed to all responsible and trustee agencies and other interested parties and no comments were received which would modify the above finding. IV. FINDINGS ON POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT A. LAND USE /RELEVANT PLANNING 1. IMPACT Short-Term Impacts: demolition and construction activities will result in an increase in the number and types of vehicles that will travel along 15th Street, which could result in temporary impacts in the form of increased hazards to bicycle travel along the secondary bikeway designated on that roadway. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the project, or are otherwise being implemented which substantially mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment as summarized above and described in detail in Chapter 4.0, Section 4.1 of the EIR. Facts in Support of the Finding: Implementation of the following mitigation measures, which are intended to minimize safety impacts by notifying residents and travelers along 15th Street and residential streets that intersect with that roadway of the construction activities and to provide a safe means of travel for bicyclists and pedestrians along the affected roadways. These measures will reduce potential short-term project - related safety impacts resulting from the demolition of the existing buildings and subsequent construction activities to a less than significant level. MM 4.1 -1 The applicant shall post signs along 15th Street and cross streets in the vicinity of the property that provide adequate warning to motorists, construction workers and heavy truck drivers, and bicyclists warning each of the potential increased hazards. Upon completion of the construction, the signs shall be removed. MM 4.1 -2 The applicant shall submit a Construction Traffic Control Plan (including a bike lane detour plan if determined necessary by the City's Traffic Engineer), which shall be prepared by a registered traffic engineer. The Construction Traffic Control Plan shall also Exhibit A Statement of Findings and Facts St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church General Plan Amendment/Conditional Use Permit identify the need for flagmen to direct traffic, if determined necessary. This plan shall be approved by the City's Traffic Engineer prior to issuance of the demolition permit. All significant environmental effects have been substantially lessened by virtue of the measures described above. No significant, unavoidable adverse impacts will remain after implementation of the required mitigation measures. B. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION 1. IMPACT Short-Term: The increase in heavy trucks, which would be used to transport construction equipment and materials during the construction phase, would exacerbate the undesirable delays that are forecast at the Irvine Avenue /15th Street intersection if the construction activities occur during the school year. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the project, or are otherwise being implemented which substantially mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment as summarized above and described in detail in Chapter 4.0, Section 4.2 of the EIR. Facts in Support of the Finding: Implementation of the following mitigation measure will reduce potential project - related contribution of vehicles during construction through the 15th Street/Irvine Avenue intersection. Although this intersection is forecast to operate at an acceptable level of service (i.e., LOS D or better), an "adverse" operating condition occurs during a 15- minute morning and afternoon peak period during the school year. The measure prescribed below will ensure that during the demolition and construction phase, heavy trucks would be diverted from the intersection and would not contribute to the short-term, adverse condition. As a result, the project's contribution during those periods would not exacerbate the short-term condition. MM 4.2 -1 Heavy construction vehicles, including trucks hauling construction equipment and materials, will be limited to non -peak hours during the construction phase when those activities occur during the school year. All significant environmental effects have been substantially lessened by virtue of the measure described above. No significant, unavoidable adverse impacts will remain after implementation of the required mitigation measures. Exhibit A Statement of Findings and Facts St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church General Plan Amendment/Conditional Use Permit 2. IMPACT Long -Term Impacts: Project implementation will result in a shortfall of approximately 62 on -site parking spaces. (Although it is anticipated that the proposed increase in on -site parking and availability of Newport Harbor High School and on- street parking on streets immediately adjacent to the subject property will be adequate to serve the anticipated parking demand for the proposed increase in development intensity, several mitigation measures have been recommended.) Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the project, or are otherwise being implemented which substantially mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment as summarized above and described in detail in Chapter 4.0, Section 4.2 of the EIR. Facts in Support of the Finding: Incorporation of mitigation measures, if determined necessary, derived from the site specific traffic and parking analysis prescribed in the measure listed below, will reduce potential short-term and long -term parking conditions in the vicinity of the subject property. MM 4.2 -2 St. Andrew's Church shall continue its arrangement with the Newport-Mesa Unified School District that allows the church to utilize on -site parking at Newport Harbor High School for overflow parking during Sunday services and any other large- attendance functions. MM 4.2 -3 St. Andrew's Church shall implement the traffic management plan for the construction phase of the expansion project and the traffic management plan for the expansion project (both prepared by Linscott, Law & Greenspan dated November 24, 2004) as required by Conditions of Approval Nos. 15 & 17 of Use Permit No. 2002- 056. MM 4.2-4 Deleted as the two traffic management plans identified in MM 4.2 -3 incorporate the provisions identified in MM 4.2 -4. MM 4.2 -5 Deleted as the two traffic management plans identified in MM 4.2- 3 incorporate the provisions identified in MM 4.2 -5. MM 4.2 -6 Staff shall be required to use the lower level parking, to make the more convenient close -in parking available for attendees of both services. MM 4.2 -7 The design of the parking facilities, including the parking structure, shall incorporate features to facilitate the movement of vehicles and pedestrians, and to encourage full use of the on -site parking Exhibit A Statement of Findings and Facts St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church General Plan Amendment/Conditional Use Permit spaces. Such design features would include: (1) the installation of adequate lighting and light - colored paint in all parking aisles corridors, elevators and stairwells; (2) convenient access to stairs and elevators from all areas of the structure; and clear signage to direct drivers and pedestrians to their desired destinations. MM 4.2 -8 Once a successful circulation and parking procedure is developed, it shall be communicated regularly to the Church membership through church bulletins and the church website. MM 4.2 -9 The 45- minute buffer between the end of the first service and the start of the second service shall be maintained to minimize inbound and outbound vehicle conflicts. MM 4.2 -10 With the exception of special or unusual events (e.g., memorial services, etc.) that now take place at the Church, no concurrent use of other assembly areas within the Church property that exceeds the approved capacity of 1,387 persons will be permitted at any time. MM 4.2 -11 When necessary, consideration shall be given to adding services at alternative times, such as Sunday afternoon, to disperse parking demands. MM 4.2 -12 Require all church staff to park on -site during the weekdays, and not use the street parking, thereby not adding to the on- street parking demand on school days. MM 4.2 -13 St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church shall consider issuing a greater number of parking permits to Newport Harbor High School to reduce the need for neighborhood street parking by students and staff on schooldays. All significant environmental effects have been substantially lessened by virtue of the measures described above. No significant, unavoidable adverse impacts will remain after implementation of the required mitigation measures. C. AIR QUALITY IMPACT Short-Term Impacts from Construction: Implementation of the proposed project will result in construction emissions that exceed the SCAQMD threshold Exhibit A Statement of Findings and Facts St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church General Plan Amendment/Conditional Use Permit established for NOx. This is due primarily to the trucks that will haul demolition debris and excavated dirt from the site. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the project, or are otherwise being implemented which substantially mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment as summarized above and described in detail in Chapter 4.0, Section 4.3 of the EIR. Facts in Support of the Finding: Incorporation of mitigation measures will reduce potential short-term impacts by limiting the miles traveled each day by the vehicles hauling construction debris and materials. The reduction of the vehicle miles will have the effect of reducing the amount of NOx emissions to ensure that the total daily emissions do not exceed the SCAQMD limits. As a result, potential air quality impacts will be reduced to a less than significant level. MM 4.3 -1 During demolition and excavation, daily total haul trucks shall travel no more than a cumulative 2005 miles per day hauling materials from the site to and from the dumping site. MM 4.3 -2 Prior to commencement of demolition and grading the project applicant shall submit to the city calculations showing the proposed travel route for haul trucks, the distance traveled, and how many daily truck trips that can be accommodated while keeping the cumulative miles traveled to below 2005 miles each day. The daily haul truck trips shall not exceed 2005 miles during demolition and excavation activities. All significant environmental effects have been substantially lessened by virtue of the measures described above. No significant, unavoidable adverse impacts will remain after implementation of the required mitigation measures. D. NOISE 1. IMPACT Long -Term Impacts: There is some potential that the mechanical systems proposed for the project, if not properly designed, could exceed the City's Noise Ordinance limits. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the project, or are otherwise being implemented which substantially mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment as summarized above and described in detail in Chapter 4.0, Section 4.4 of the EIR. Exhibit A Statement of Findings and Facts St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church General Plan AmendmenVConditional Use Permit Facts in Support of the Finding: Operational noise is regulated by the Newport Beach General Plan (Noise Element) and Noise Control Ordinance. As prescribed in the mitigation measure for the proposed project, all of the mechanical equipment that will be incorporated into the project will be designed to comply with the noise levels prescribed in the Noise Ordinance. Therefore, project - related operational noise impacts identified above can be reduced by the mitigation measure listed below. MM 4.4 -1 A noise study shall be prepared and submitted to the City for review prior to issuance of building permits. This noise study shall estimate noise levels generated by the proposed mechanical equipment at the worst -case residence. Compliance with the Noise Ordinance limits will be demonstrated, including the provision of any measures determined necessary to meet the limits specified. The mechanical equipment shall not generate an A- weighted average (Leq) noise level of greater than 55 dBA during the daytime (7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.) and 50 dBA during the nighttime (10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.). If the nighttime noise limit cannot be achieved a timer can be used to limit the operation of the system to the daytime hours. The study shall be prepared by a qualified acoustical engineer and submitted to the City of Newport Beach prior to the issuance of building permits. This will ensure that the mechanical equipment constructed with the project does not result in a significant noise impact. All significant environmental effects have been substantially lessened by virtue of the measures described above. No significant, unavoidable impacts will remain after implementation of the required mitigation measures. E. AESTHETICS 1. IMPACT Short-Term Impacts: Although not significant, it is possible that construction activities, including staging of equipment, could result in a short-term aesthetic nuisance in the neighborhood. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the project, or are otherwise being implemented which substantially mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment as summarized above and described in detail in Chapter 4.0, Section 4.5 of the EIR. Facts in Support of the Finding: Potential unsightly (albeit less than significant) project - related visual impacts associated with construction activities can be Exhibit A Statement of Findings and Facts St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church General Plan Amendment/Conditional Use Permit substantially reduced by implementing the mitigation measure identified below, as contained in the EIR. MM 4.5 -1 The construction and equipment staging area should be located in the least visually prominent area on the site and should be properly maintained and /or screened to minimize potential unsightly conditions. MM 4.5 -2 A six -foot high screen fence shall be placed around the parking lot at the property line during construction. MM 4.5 -3 Construction equipment and materials should be properly stored on the site when not in use. All environmental effects have been substantially lessened by virtue of the measures described above. No significant, unavoidable adverse impact will remain after implementation of the required mitigation measures. F. POLICE PROTECTION 1. IMPACT Long -Term Impacts: Although no significant impacts are anticipated based on information provided by the Newport Beach Police Department, the surrounding residential neighborhood has indicated that the subterranean parking garage could attract homeless or other in the area as well as loitering and undesirable conditions. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the project, or are otherwise being implemented which substantially mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment as summarized above and described in detail in Chapter 4.0, Section 4.6 of the EIR. Facts in Support of the Finding: Even though no significant impacts have been identified, the Newport Beach Police Department has recommended several mitigation measures to address the concerns of the surrounding neighborhood. These measures include means by which access to the parking structure can be controlled and monitored to minimize the potential for illicit or unauthorized activities to occur in that facility. Therefore, project - related impacts identified above can be reduced by the mitigation measures listed below. SC 4.6 -1 The proposed site plan will be subject to review by the Newport Beach Police Department. Exhibit A Statement of Findings and Facts St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church General Plan Amendment/Conditional Use Permit MM 4.6 -1 The structures should be construed so that the subterranean parking lot can be closed off to vehicular and pedestrian traffic when not in use (i.e., automatic or manual gate). MM 4.6 -2 The subterranean parking structure should be well lit during the day and night. In addition to the subterranean lot, the ground level parking should be lit at night to allow individuals the ability to identify someone from 100 feet away. MM 4.6 -3 Convex mirrors should be used to eliminate hiding places within the subterranean parking structure. MM 4.6-4 If Newport Beach High School students are given a permit and allowed to park in the structure during school, the church should handle any problems that arise (e.g., revoking the students permit). V. FINDINGS REGARDING IRRETRIEVABLE AND IRREVERSIBLE COMMITMENT OF RESOURCES As described in detail in Chapter 7 of the EIR, implementation of the proposed project would require the commitment of a relatively small amount of building materials such as sand, aggregate, concrete and asphalt. There would be an irretrievable commitment of energy resources such as gasoline and diesel fuel for the operation of construction equipment. In addition, some minor increases in demands for energy resources for heating and cooling would be associated with the proposed church expansion. Because these types of resources are available in sufficient quantities in this region, and the proposed project encompasses a very limited scope, these impacts are not considered significant. The generation of raw sewage, demands for water use and the consumption of other resources will not change significantly. Implementation of the proposed project will therefore not result in any significant adverse impacts related to the commitment of resources in the immediate or distant future. VI. FINDINGS REGARDING GROWTH INDUCING IMPACTS As described in detail in Chapter 8 of the EIR, the proposed project includes only the intensification of an existing, established land use that is not characterized by features that attract or facilitate new, unanticipated development, which would ordinarily be considered growth inducing. Project implementation will not result in any significant direct or indirect addition of residential development that would generate new residents or employment that would attract new residents to the area that are not already anticipated in the General Plan. The site is not located in an isolated area that is constrained by the absence of infrastructure where the provision of infrastructure would promote further development. None of the accepted standards that distinguish growth- inducing projects characterize the proposed Exhibit A Statement of Findings and Facts St. Andrew's Presbyterian church General Plan Amendment/Conditional Use Permit project. Therefore, no significant growth- inducing impacts are anticipated as a result of project implementation. VII. FINDINGS REGARDING CUMULATIVE IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT As described in detail in Chapter 9.0 of the EIR, the EIR analyzed the cumulative impacts of the project when considered together with other past, present and reasonably foreseeable future projects which were identified in the EIR. The EIR concluded that all of the cumulative impacts of the project when considered together with the related projects were less than significant. VIII. FINDINGS REGARDING ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT CEQA requires that an EIR describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the project, or to the location of the project, which could feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project and to evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives. Section 15126(d)(1) of the State CEQA Guidelines states that the ". . . discussion of alternatives shall focus on alternatives to the project or its location which are capable of avoiding or substantially lessening any significant effects of the project, even if these alternatives would impede to some degree the attainment of the project objectives, or would be more costly." The proposed project has been compared to several "feasible" alternative development scenarios, including the No Project alternative as prescribed by CEQA. These alternatives include: (1) No Project/No Development (i.e., No Expansion); (2) Renovation or Replacement of Existing Facilities (No Additional Expansion); (3) Reduced Intensity (Proposed Project without Gymnasium); (4) Off -Site Parking Structure; and (5) Alternative Site. The analysis contained within the EIR concludes that the proposed project will not result in any other long -term project - specific adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated to a less than significant level. Further, the potential impacts of the proposed project itself have not been found to significantly impact any sensitive environmental resource which might be avoided by development at another location. The following discussion summarizes the potential environmental consequences and highlights the comparative merits associated with each alternative identified as "potentially feasible" and analyzed in the EIR as well as the "No Project/No Development' alternative. A. NO PROJECT /NO DEVELOPMENT (NO EXPANSION) The No Project/No Development Alternative assumes only the continuation of the existing conditions without any additional expansion of the facilities as proposed or the "status quo." This alternative would be limited to the 104,428 square feet of development and the 250 - space surface parking lot. However, the City could cause more parking to be provided Exhibit A Statement of Findings and Facts St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church General Plan Amendmeni/Conditional Use Permit pursuant to the existing Use Permit, should it determine that additional parking is necessary. Although no physical expansion of the facilities would occur under this scenario, with the possible exception of providing increased parking on -site, it is possible that new programs and activities may also be conducted by the church to accommodate the church's various ministries since there is presently no limitation on religious activities or hours of operation. SUMMARY OF MAJOR ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS Implementation of this alternative would essentially eliminate all of the potential short term impacts identified for the proposed project. Specifically, no short-term air quality, noise, traffic and related construction impacts would occur if demolition and construction activities do not take place. However, without any expansion of the parking facilities, the existing parking deficiencies in the area to which the church and school contribute would continue to exist. Project Objectives: While the church and ancillary facilities would continue to serve its congregation and the local community as a meeting place under the No Project/No Development scenario, implementation of this alternative does not achieve most of the basic project objectives identified in Chapter 3.0. Specifically, the Youth and Family Center (with the gymnasium), which is intended to provide more specialized services, would not be constructed. Further, additional parking would not be provided. Although the facilities could be modernized with some interior improvements, the objective of making the structures more energy efficient would be more difficult to achieve. Other objectives such as enhancing the aesthetic character of the church and the provision of screening along Clay Street would not occur. Feasibility: Implementation of the no project/no development alternative is feasible because it would not require any significant expenditure of resources. Although no additional expansion of the facilities would occur, this alternative would not require approval of a General Plan Amendment to increase the intensity of development. However, it is important to note that none of the project objectives would be achieved. Elimination /Reduction of Significant Impacts: Without further development and expansion of the existing facilities, the potentially significant air quality impacts resulting from implementation of the project proposed by the applicant would not occur. Specifically, construction activity NOx emissions would not exceed SCAQMD thresholds. Further, while not significant, the construction noise impacts would also be eliminated and the potential nuisance activities associated with an underground parking structure would also be eliminated. However, the existing parking conditions would remain without the expansion of the parking as currently proposed. Nonetheless, the No Project/No Development Alternative would eliminate virtually all of the impacts resulting from the proposed project. Exhibit A Statement of Findings and Facts St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church General Plan Amendment/Conditional Use Permit Comparative Merits: Although this alternative would eliminate virtually all of the environmental impacts associated with the proposed project, however, none of the project objectives would be realized. B. RENOVATION OR REPLACEMENT ALTERNAIVE (NO ADDITIONAL EXPANSION) This alternative provides for renovation of the existing facilities, including modernization of those buildings and related facilities to accommodate many of the goals and objectives envisioned by the project applicant (e.g., update and modernize existing facilities, replace buildings, provide new landscape screening along Clay Street to improve vistas, enhance the aesthetic character of the church, etc.). As a result, the Renovation Alternative does not include demolition of the existing structures and, specifically, construction of a new Youth and Family Center and (replacement) Fellowship Hall. The total floor area and capacity of the church and ancillary facilities would be limited to the floor area and capacity that currently exists. In addition, the parking structure would not be constructed and the existing 250 -space surface parking lot would continue to serve as the primary source of on -site parking for St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church. SUMMARY OF MAJOR ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS Implementation of this alternative would involve only remodeling and modification of the existing facilities; however, it would not result in any physical expansion of the existing facilities and, therefore, would not result in any of the significant short-term impacts associated with the proposed project. Most of the impacts identified would be eliminated (e.g., short-term increases in traffic, air quality, noise, etc.) would be eliminated and none of the disturbance in the neighborhood resulting from the grading and excavation required for the proposed parking structure would occur. However, similar to the No Development Alternative, this alternative would do nothing to ease the on- street parking conditions and resulting traffic circulation impacts that affect the neighborhood. Project Objectives: Renovation of the existing facilities as permitted in this alternative would achieve several of the project objectives (e.g., update and modernize interior spaces, enhance landscape character, continue to provide a meeting place at the church for church - sponsored programs, etc.), two of the objectives would not be achieved. Specifically, without the expansion, a new Youth and Family Center, including the proposed gymnasium, would not be available to facilitate the programs identified by the church and additional parking would not be provided. Feasibility: This project, similar to the No Project/No Development alternative, would eliminate most of the potential impacts identified in Chapter 4.0. Construction noise and air quality impacts would be significantly reduced because no grading, excavation, demolition or building construction would occur. Noise and air emissions would occur only as a result of the remodeling and /or renovation activities, which would be significantly less than that anticipated as a result of project implementation. Further, Exhibit A Statement of Findings and Facts St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church General Plan Amendment/Conditional Use Permit potential increases in traffic would be related only to the any expansion of programs that may be offered by the church (which could occur without any remodeling or renovation) and would not be related to an increase in the floor area. Therefore, mobile- source noise and air emissions would also be related to any increase in the number and frequency of programs and activities offered by the church, which the church could implement if it chooses to do so without any review or approval by the City. Land use impacts are also related to the activities and programs offered by the church; however, this alternative would not require a General Plan Amendment and would be entirely consistent with the City's Land Use Element and adopted long -range plans. Without any changes, except for renovation and remodeling (mostly in interior spaces), no changes in the visual character would occur, except as provided by any enhanced landscaping. Finally, without the construction of the subterranean parking garage, none of the potential unauthorized activities previously discussed would occur. Elimination /Reduction of Significant Impacts: Similar to the No Project/No Development alternative this alternative can be feasibly implemented with a significantly reduced commitment of resources. However, while many of the applicant's objectives can be achieved, if a Youth and Family Center were to be created in this alternative, it would not include the gymnasium, an integral element of the programmatic elements proposed by the church. Comparative Merits: This alternative is identified as the "environmentally superior" alternative (aside from the No Development Alternative) when compared to other alternatives. While some of the project objectives would be achieved, the church's intent to provide improved youth facilities would not be fulfilled as desired. Also, without the additional on -site parking proposed, this alternative would be less desirable when compared to the proposed project. C. REDUCED DEVELOPMENT INTENSITY Because the site is currently developed with St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church and ancillary facilities, this alternative addresses only the proposed Youth and Family Center, which does not currently exist on the subject property. Therefore, the Reduced Intensity Alternative would encompass all of the improvements proposed by the applicant, including the Youth and Family Center and underground parking garage, with the specific exception of the gymnasium, which is proposed to be located within and be part of the Youth and Family Center. Implementation of this alternative would likely include the demolition and replacement of the existing fellowship hall (Building D) and classroom building (Building E). The total floor area resulting from the elimination of the gymnasium would be reduced to 133,493 square feet from 140,388 square feet. Although the floor area ratio would be reduced by approximately five percent, the Reduced Intensity Alternative would still require the approval of the same discretionary actions proposed by the project applicant (e.g., General Plan Amendment and Amended Use Permit), because it exceeds the maximum floor area permitted by the adopted Land Use Element. Exhibit A Statement of Findings and Facts St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church General Plan Amendment/Conditional Use Permit SUMMARY OF MAJOR ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS The Reduced Intensity Alternative would result in similar impacts as those identified for the proposed project. All of the short-term impacts (e.g., increased heavy truck traffic, noise, air quality, etc.) would occur as a result of the demolition and grading activities that would occur. None of the potentially significant impacts identified for the proposed project would be reduced or eliminated because this alternative includes the subterranean parking structure requiring extensive grading (50,000 cubic yards of earth materials), which must be disposed off -site. This alternative would accommodate a lower Youth and Family Center. Even though project - related visual impacts were considered less than significant, the reduction in building height would improve that condition. Project Objectives: Although the gymnasium would be eliminated from the Youth and Family Center, this alternative would achieve virtually all of the major project objectives. New and modernized facilities would be constructed on the property and additional classroom space would be available to facilitate the programmatic requirements of the church. In addition, the new buildings and landscaping enhancements would be implemented and would be integrated into the existing site and neighborhood design. Elimination /Reduction of Significant Impacts: Virtually all of the potential impacts identified in Chapter 4.0 for the proposed project would occur as a result of implementing this alternative, although potential long -term, operational increases in traffic associated with use of the gymnasium would not occur. All of the construction - related impacts (e.g., noise, air quality and traffic) would occur and be the same or very similar to those identified for the proposed project. It is anticipated that activities that would be otherwise conducted in the gymnasium (e.g., basketball and related court sports) would take place within the limits of the surface parking, where they occur at the present time. These outdoor activities could generate some noise; however, any noise resulting from these activities would be similar to that which occurs at the present time. Feasibility: While this alternative is feasible and could be implemented, it does not provide for one of the major components of the project, a gymnasium that would be utilized by the church to supplement its youth programs. Comparative Merits: This alternative would result in many of the same impacts as identified for the proposed project. In particular, the short-term, construction - related traffic, noise and air quality impacts would be the same as or similar to the proposed. project. With the exception of the elimination of the Youth and Family Center, all of the remaining objectives would be achieved if this alternative is implemented. Exhibit A Statement of Findings and Facts St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church General Plan Amendment/Conditional Use Permit D. OFF -SITE PARKING ALTERNATIVE A potential alternative to the construction of additional on -site parking on the church campus would be the construction of a parking structure on the high school campus north of 15th Street. This arrangement would involve the church constructing a parking structure, including one parking level at grade and one parking level above grade, on the existing 15th Street parking lot at Newport Harbor High School. The number of parking spaces would be equal to or exceed the existing number of parking spaces that currently exist in the St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church surface parking lot. As a result, the subterranean parking structure on the church property would not be constructed. With the exception of the subterranean parking structure, all of the other improvements proposed by the applicant would be implemented, resulting in an expansion to 140,388 square feet as reflected in Chapter 3.0 (Project Description). SUMMARY OF MAJOR ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS While this project alternative would result in the elimination of most of the construction impacts associated with the excavation of 50,000 yards of earth materials (e.g., noise, traffic and air quality), it would result in more significant visual impacts with the introduction of an above -grade parking structure on the high school site. None of the potential impacts would be avoided or significantly reduced and would not be environmentally superior when compared to the proposed project. Project Objectives: Implementation of the off -site parking alternative would result in the ability of the church to achieve all of the major objectives identified in Section 3.6. With the exception of the subterranean parking garage, the expansion and modification of the existing facilities would occur on the existing St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church Property. The expansion of the church parking would be provided within the 15t Street parking lot located on the Newport Harbor High School site. Elimination /Reduction of Significant Impacts: As indicated above, this alternative eliminates the subterranean parking garage on the subject property and relocates that parking expansion to the high school property, resulting in the elimination of a significant amount of grading and excavation that is necessary for the on -site parking garage. The parking proposed for this alternative would be contained in a two -level parking structure, with a ground level and one level of parking above the existing grade. As a result, the potentially significant NOx emissions resulting from the transport of 50,000 cubic yards of soils excavated from the St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church site would be reduced to a less than significant level and no mitigation measures (i.e., restriction of total vehicle miles traveled during construction) would be required. Virtually all of the remaining impacts associated with this alternative would be the same or similar to those identified for the proposed project in Chapter 4.0. However, in addition, with the construction of a larger, 400 -space parking structure, the visual character of the neighborhood would be altered. Although neither the school nor subject property are located within a designated scenic corridor or ExhibitA Statement of Findings and Facts St. Andrews Presbyterian Church General Plan Amendment/Conditional Use Permit viewshed, the introduction of a large structure could result in a negative aesthetic quality and would necessitate the incorporation of landscaping and other features to ensure that the structure does not dominate the character of the area. Feasibility: The feasibility of this alternative is related to the ability of the church to enter into an agreement and /or obtain permission from the Newport Mesa Unified School District to construct the parking structure on the school property. The ability for the church to receive exclusive rights to use such a structure is'not known. Comparative Merits: As indicated above, this project alternative would result in potentially greater impacts when compared to the proposed project (and other alternatives). Nonetheless, all of the project objectives would be realized. E. ALTERNATIVE SITE The State CEQA Guidelines requires that only locations "... that would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project ..." be evaluated in the Draft EIR. As indicated above, the subject property is developed as St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church and supports over 104,000 square feet of religious /institutional uses, including a sanctuary, chapel, fellowship hall, classrooms and related ancillary uses. For this reason, the Alternative Site analysis evaluates the potential environmental effects of only one component of the proposed project: the 32,744 square foot Youth and Family Center, because this component represents an element that does not exist at the site in the form currently proposed by the applicant. Therefore, this alternative evaluates the potential impacts of relocating the Youth and Family Center to an off -site location within the City of Newport Beach. This alternative would include all of the improvements proposed by the applicant with the exception of the demolition of Building E (existing classrooms); the Youth and Family Center would be constructed on the alternate site. As a result, improvements proposed on the St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church property would encompass less than 10,000 square feet, which would be associated with the new fellowship hall. Although no specific site has been identified, it is important that such a site be located within a radius of approximately one mile of the existing church. It is anticipated that a one -acre site would be adequate to accommodate the proposed Youth and Family Center. Several underutilized properties exist in the industrial area south of 17th Street (west of Newport Boulevard) that could be redeveloped for this purpose. SUMMARY OF MAJOR ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS Implementation of the proposed project on an alternative site (i.e., construction of the Youth and Family Center only, with the remainder of the project on the subject site) would result in most of the impacts associated with the proposed project. In addition, the location of the Youth and Family Center at a remote site would also generate additional traffic, noise and air quality impacts in another area of the City of Newport Beach. Depending on the traffic and circulation conditions in that area, additional impacts could also occur at intersections in that Exhibit A Statement of Findings and Facts St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church General Plan Amendment/Conditional Use Permit vicinity; however, there could be a reduction in the neighborhood traffic in the project vicinity as well as a reduction in the demand for parking. Proiect Obiectives: As with the Off -Site Parking Alternative, all of the project objectives could be achieved with the implementation of this alternative that proposes construction of the Youth and Family Center at an alternative site. However, it is important to understand that this alternative physically separates an integral element of the project (i.e., Youth and Family Center) from the administrative center of the St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church facilities. It is unknown what operational challenges this alternative would create and it is not known if such a separation of facilities would prove successful, since the youth this facility is meant to serve would not have ready access to the facility and since it is anticipated that this facility would be most widely used by the existing congregation that lives closer to the existing church. Based on the potential location of the alternative, the Youth and Family Center could be located up to one mile from the main church campus. Elimination /Reduction of Significant Impacts: Virtually all of the potential impacts identified in Chapter 4.0 would occur in the event an alternative site is developed with the Youth and Family Center. Construction noise and air quality impacts would occur in the residential neighborhood surrounding the existing church. Although similar traffic impacts would occur, some decrease in trips associated with the Youth and Family Center could be noticed with the relocation of that facility to the alternative site. However, potential noise, traffic and air quality impacts in the environs of the alternative site could increase both during construction (short-term noise and air quality) and after construction (traffic and mobile source emissions). Potential impacts on the visual character and police impacts identified for the proposed project would be similar to those resulting from the proposed project. Also, no significant land use conflicts or impacts are likely to occur. Feasibility In order to implement the development of an alternative site, the project applicant must purchase or otherwise acquire a site within another area of the City. Based on a review of the City's land use inventory, no undeveloped sites exist within the immediate vicinity of the existing church. Although some non - residential properties are located in the West Newport Area that could accommodate the proposed alternative project (i.e., construction of the Youth and Family Center), existing development would have to be demolished in order to implement this alternative. Acquisition of property not owned by the church could affect the ability of the church to feasibly implement the proposed project. Comparative Merits: This alternative will not reduce or avoid any of the project - related impacts and would not be environmentally superior when compared to the proposed project or other alternatives. However, all of the project objectives could be realized if this alternative is implemented. Exhibit A Statement of Findings and Facts St. Andrew's Presbytenan Church General Plan Amendment/Conditional Use Permit VI. GENERAL FINDINGS 1. The plans for the project have been prepared and analyzed so as to provide for public involvement in the planning and CEQA processes. 2. The degree that any impacts described in the EIR are perceived to have a significant effect on the environment, or such impacts appear ambiguous as to their effect on the environment, any significant effect of such impacts has been substantially lessened or avoided by the standard conditions and mitigation measures set forth in the Final EIR. 3. Comments regarding the Draft EIR received during the public review period have been adequately responded to in written Responses to Comments attached to the Final EIR. Any significant effects described in such comments were avoided or substantially lessened by the standard conditions and mitigation measures described in the Final EIR. 4. The analysis contained in the Final EIR of the environmental effects and mitigation measures represent the independent judgment and analysis of the City of Newport Beach. Exhibit A Statement of Findings and Facts St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church General Plan Amendment/Conditional Use Permit V .O Ea 2 C O) o N a �a C_ t W Otto y ` O co co m V t O aRr_o t p O K c W O w = O y N * ` ca O � N O) C � C a CD 0 a m y m y m y m y a+c m y rn � rn v rn c rn v NEE E E E E �^'SE�°'SE o c 2 c 2 c 2 c M c r— 2 c r— r m c. r m ao ao ao ao aomo aomoaomo 0 5` S d O C O C C 'O C O C 0 O c c v c rd ° md c M �N rn o MzMO m 2 m cJ = rn E y ° _ a c e E E a E o w E a F E a = ? a N O �O Ua N O N 0 —m y U N O 0 U N O N m 0 U m N m C y y C c(j C C C C O U U U 0 L O O O O o �^_' c c U 2 2 2 a a d m> IL a d LL 0 11 d lL d IL N °Im C.0 LJ i y ` �F.�.. 0 • 'p C N C SSZCC `o m c m w a L c a � 0 m e V 2 c o o .lea Nam3w T mN'rnccirn N C O 2'$ o m O M O C O i N C.E o E —^o y E m c v 2 2E a E v J 3m Z °wo° N = E 6 U c J L rn M-2 o T'9 C 0 a m 0 0 m N c m m N O m v m m .E wyh0 wo o o a,EU Nv JO o, €Ea o c o 2 M 2 U d s rn a N E o o- y a'uc2St�ca 0,6 S 0 a c c c a ° r m o a = u M c .K _ ;o a O v a u m rn a m a or t a T<c yN ° J ._ E — o _ c . S Q 2 c5 i L N 0 d m :S O E O a '05 .E :� o o a C h .c U N ° O L O J O # c _ U EL. C a V O a 0 = c oc0 do9 OU N ) O rn a °2 U aioic`v 6mE 2 m c �c a,y 2 E E c E_ 2 a v E o C M02 o _ L o —a O.L N N yN O N O O� .2 N y 2 L NO Z�` N O M 0 C N O 0 o s Mx oy 0a.2 _ 0.° v c iE c'a N E 2 wy 2 T( L W y— 0 O C 2- EL L .r U N U O N a C N O = N N U Ha M0 m H N. U # Q a Q U M q N M 7 N O L N N N N N m J M C1 _ .. V V V V V �. V V N i g N �, CD 0 - w amw me mw mC � my I! N c E on E w E E =Eo'e F m = E = E E =r c 0 m mm a o. m'wa a am = U 0 - ° 3 a =m ° o a a r o€ c c o o= m._.. = w. =o @� 0..0 O.E m o ,N o�am 0 =o � 2 E m @o p E � @ C cm�c2 ia o =8c E 0 - a o 00 (7 C Y m C Y m -d .s C _ @ ° 0 L U = O L U G c L o c ! c c Ug a =w ja w I aLL LL C N U @ @ @ @ y C = N `p= . @ mo C V N O m C > p. p O O N .O — 0 O 0 m O L �E w E 0 _ o >@ v cu °w o _ o .O o S u E m> m >; a X EUo rn o N @ t C M.2 O O .0—.. C N r> d L @@ 0 ,5 @ �•_ @ m U -.3 - -0.i @oO.UovNCaic`imdw ° m@ o m= E m o-@ 3 o m> ° v O O -2 �.> E R w c N'3 '- d c v o- a c° ° N _@ in 0 m 0 0 c o> E° F T" L.N Nd c O O c O C > ry 75 15 .0 U'- d'- > 6 @ O N U O u 0 O 00 � . O N yO N U @ U @ N aT E 0 O cop o 02 vmComm w ym C C O — ._d U m N N C @� 0 j @ C C N E 6 N w@ o ° O N wN @ ° `nE EmsNT. - N p _ 0 m O. =mOa C Eo m 2- N O L O m d 3 6 $> c N O U- 0° O T °@ LN 0 0 @ 8 L p 0@ �O t L 1N N @ L j N c d N Z @ p U U m 0 C m o m O L 0 omE dC 3 >o@3°yVC- 0o d N C L N U t O C C 3 W C° N° N L U c pl N L LOOim 'OOa@io° 3 @m �.�d �'o @�`o o. �'E T N C X@ E 0= V- 0 E 0- N N U m� a v °w�um o.co 0E yL V U �;nw o.0 'm° m -U O °m @ C ryE m... U t N m.mo doom w�`�° T L > m E 0 O 0° m° 3 V O@ O° Y_C @ 2.s O N yyO �_mv- E. �E N U> e @ l °U 2o c w@t wN Nte =c °E @. = O N U d 0C p2 � p iaL .0 O E2 _ 4w 0 m0 0 c o'er = o 0= O 0 0 C> v E o- 0.0 @ o o 0 fp @ O X O N d � L @ d @ C@ 6 O L 0 M N M M @ M ° V V V U m WaU a @ oa y N as c N m ca o¢c 0 CD O cOf C Z' W y 3 E E aEU= =E o f �r CIN SIN mN mN n Jm °n br Jn un scar Jm�n 32 Jn �c Jn 03 03 momo mo mo a. aJa o 0 m ° =u€ o c o_ co 0 '0 €Ea c w S ua s c a " E E E E N 'EE oum= o`cm m5 oa o 0 0 0 d " C � =.t D_ a — OI OI OI OI E - _ mJ y N J �mao O m o' o' v o' C y y y m C C E m C m C O U N U y U y O o o O ° D w L U U U 0 0 0 0 ° L N c c c g w> a a a a �, D �, D Q D v E LL ILL LL TN " cl� D C N TN T �0 y yD y ai N... �3 o o 0 m p o o m O p U m0 > E 0 : m U u i aa 8 ON V ` U N E U °" u E u 0 aa t5. a. N C m3 " y s O o n E N ° o m y-rn O , o u V 3 0 E n N O O 'Z=r D E N O "o uQ?!Om v 0 U Q R O O N y O , NR U $NU EE E= nE nc Do ° ° `°u 0 yo 0 EOD O Ow D m " m Q c D O L.E .. . E a E o a n J uUm - U N E i u" p o m m"aci. � = " y = U 0 O m 46 " 0 N " - u " a a L m c d y 3 c p m R m a m E cLN " >ZN0 Em OT"RD m 0 N@ 3" y 0 ND D pc 0'0O N V - ra D y " 0 4 y N Q ON a:. a o m m = c m N 0" > " rn v > a a.o E L ES N O M o v E a v O me u m o m Ea6 c o m 3 a c u N w T m o U o a° w 5 0 w N m n O w 0 C 3 m L ON U O Q C O 0 E o 0 m R y y c o ° °= F, `L° p n 00 - 0 Q L o "iv wCw 00 n 0 U 0� mum O O E O N m m u U O N ._ N J RJ" L L) "c vL E...�D o 0 U a6Nt c . v c D �m -1 E X N J " u r -� - D m c 'U- ' O E O N D Uy p N- < " a ; O o .O iry^ t 'u NO 2U `CV 00D o o D" no 'i .Z' ° J o °O O¢ E "p J c y N . c ° d O m � U om/ C C C m a N 0mC6 .nEm .D a o 0 E u M U 0 : T ° m O N N a ° � 0 C N �>o ~D mao a �¢ i0 ¢ c N Pw 2ZS < 0 T o Z y° O N U N U N `m U y U y U y U y u CL c c'c m n� CL m 3 ca o c `c ¢_ O co 0 o, z c E W4 U c C C m �a m aCL c , m �3 a� o C f Q o O � CD O W _a M N mom. N W N Z rnv mo 0ic c ` m 0 EE EE E °icE °' �'y� =Eo O � r A W L m a W ° C 9� u'N '� „ my my anm v`,t�v n u � � m o> mnvd o H oo w` U c ° u = u = E p c 03 aa a o ' cco c c am 2 EE a o'� c o'� o c 00 ooE,a o c ~E , co 2C7 2C7 OC7 U.00 UCD0 — a o o a 0 a o a of C m C 0 u u u y u ° U U U o U o L N c N c N c c a � LL y T v N iJ c 0 c 0 u m°` o '• 'o v o' O MME 0 aa0a 0Z T N U L y n... a C t U U p B' .m y o u m a p � « r m g' p p c N v v c a y T E: E 3 3 =— °u 3€ N O a c c o m C 3 in �rn Ern Uc E 0 Y m 3 D 3 u x L a y a 0 0 °= i W N oU m N k O N — L N � z c L N 0 d O U c O (ima 50 0 0 U u N C 0 p p oa ?.o u d °y 0Tov 0 a2 0v Ez 0 o a � o V n T 0 o O N u p c L 2 0 L) 4 0 m E ° 0 0 t o a .L � > o n- y o m gynO u Zun00M u a m n 0 m yU m v 0 a t= 0 o 2 u Yn cvm '- o d6 �N ° L p x . �'n _ u 0 a `L OZ O 0 0 0 0 °' N u bc..v 0 o E m, m r L".`1n , oumy y ° c 10 -a a E � G c O 'L 0 O .a � L N (a c u N u d a 0 m H a a— ° o a ° 0 o _ a3�c — a -- o m v ' m0 u - o ° m m Lmy w mE0u0000 H o 0 m "5 °; mMELL� H o0 a0 N,0 L 0 c c E V d a Z,_`o v w o° c U =, o mvmmcu- von�3oodo 0ti� `roc o�c =C N2m`° a�_ °O apE£`y1°>wEmUac v7 a.o M0 na �co0 2 ~.0 °U�? 102 2N_u LU ''OUty — u cp,yy Q c m° u cTH `� ~v TrnTm E¢%E 8 N °€ —m N Z m E'aav . c :-O `o a E o m m2 0 2 o . N m m O0 V `` 0 > 0 Oc o ° a 0 ° ppo U fi �QL a a u U d U p Q a N � O O iOn m E c o a -,fa ° 0 m o o ca E U n 0 o 2 ci U y ui m atv m m c —°UVEv N 0 t8 ou c )22 . v E v m , O y E o o m C ac l E d c N y CS5 = U 1 Ew � o�MMOW E N �yo °t ° Famd .d 0 o - o2 O c NOO N E N0 �N� Q C7 U nd ' d0u 2M� mOL L� ) T � � O N O U N z U U a v a a N a N N x J N 2 Z N c E W4 U c C C m �a m aCL c , m �3 a� o C f Q o O � CD O W _a rn wCLy c cc v o a d N � d D Q c N `0 3 CD O C 0 0 O o, z n °�aci v` me v` me `v me m o,v oic � me ,u E c y 'c E_ ,C C y -c E_= C° - E- c C c E c c E c ° 0 C ry O ry C C O m C C O N v C V O M C O C �+ w C �+ w N m a a v a a!6 v m a a a a v 10 m a a a v t° m a a a a y m n a m !� m u a M u �^ m u a a0 r H qq CL N d N a N a N C �O - O a ' =N ' =N ' ' U �E�%= cm �E o '~°cE.v E � g c 0a0E � � 0E �d 0b 0 0.cU W cm N ov _Eo 'o2 `o `o U a m ,=N m °m ° m _m � �Oo�0 oa oO 7 E o 0 o o ❑ ❑ ` a C Y 1 y y 0' C m tQ C D rn C C 9 'C u (p ° u L U L U L U L U L U C O O C = O V C r 0 0! E c c c c c U U L N m m m m m D m D c D a a a a a � ii w a iL C �a- °E E °v - .o °c _a 0 w 3: °v °"v °cam °ct odt mo 73" 'E Na - =� v = rn o a m c ,1Di3 w ds -OC > mrx 0. w v u> Oc arty a .. «° 2 Qv 2 y y 2 U a° d v�'$NC yQ c DEN yNm ON 'o u N u d o`0 0 TL_' -rn vi N t-°°t c -mo u �uEU .r J uaEvc£ynuo m >o, D �'a >'o m vE c$ m 10 a°L- > �-m `m E Q m a c D r � m a L) £ a J E u o o `a vJ�o- N d s' w auE"�m�' Jwv ° ��v.d a `°m yv °TOyd N o E D° a!w o 8i y € m C N °am iNiEc E Q a °' d- 0 �'rn E Z v °Ccm M<w v w Z N a c vY O wa io ~ vai m:o °_�mSo `c 0 - °m yayt°0 -aSt 050 v 5 un 'c JL m am cow. c�aE� °lca �>om w OE as = ou co 9a..cv` �9E �� mN NaJU Z`N0 2ma oo cy °a NCa 3 y a v= o'; n °.« m.6 c �'S N ;; d y voi�m«E u a w .. yN Q y_ O J u d aZ y,� N N.c Ca F0 ua N N a O EN MW a L E d TL UJ €3Et0a m2 V an p O O J w_ N O L "' C tD '� N N V N C f' C N C O'O O EE::m= t0 N a .0 C vi.L' «"o `o v� a; a Jv Q mu t0wW .. a u;E ym a uv.cm F N;3 N �_rn ° _c a in m" v= A rn= a c o o c c u r y a m c c= M m., o m o` N rnca O c c g ._ o c 2 U N m.c y J y r° U N 3 y! m O C= O° m- C P yM�; C N N N CC j E !' Q, O y N C N f T N y v i y m c~ v J o i o v a« c'v m u e N Sin o EE m d c `> o OD- c c u a> y c mmc �Za m SU c c wm .r 10 =3 -r a0 a� a:: a v " c v =NOEd mcm`� 0.2 -'ou c v v E.E Jw-- = d, E - uE my c••d._ooEdycma-- a,.- - d 0 0 w E E o' �o 0 0 Q 'c.°' °€ S g' E o °'C9 c c c o` a a oc y0ya u d Q° a xJ M 0' «a L)TO 0,E c c o o v i5 vEu v m� a;c io = y d y d.5 u m T o u :. E v mevc EU �n v vm a N.. a� w .h Na oSc E mau � y_ am 35 Em o=w y y'En NEu ^'E m acs via E ;�E -�.c° c t cam m c vz m� v ZaL- a� c.'0> JCO ate. d d w 5 €^ _ .cam c c- E= a u c c v a o c a- y 0 y n L J .. m N C E E v N O= v E� u m m c ou o m °- m_N .i'�� =aE= am Ev vo,= v v=w rna'•cddu°uo Ec ammum 8i vg.co `°o'g'. -' 'c�' v.cs ° J�a �'LC °cHn,��°�a�9�r .c�O°'v m`ww aQz E"U wuuvi o3>> ~c ,� i0mm>,m`m my c�c- o=a a T"dd Ea m`" -:: cc 2J in >;> w °u'. -O, rn E�y'- °`°°u'�_3 E � u� -c vi£Ti a c rnc3 ° J � UDc c E E °v Naao' =aO N d a y= D m W<z D d m Z " °"c J vi c «'V o 3 c =_ o m c N fn U O m a g a m fn =n d m 'o `O a°'T aN ;��QwvtOCy"$av av�2vFa Eyoa~o'o�mDy m'o y u vm0$ v` d o c��E��oc' N yE m{i aEc, M- _rn_.g'U •' � o m�0 q� °'3 a >o �'N,. `0 0 N ;c « �',`o v+u v'S�M °Om 'e =� m °c -`o�y a�mZ°a °Ti rnm >^;� o.c 'o 0a c O m y C O� ~ F- v= = 'U acN o d P C- ❑Li m C E o O tJ tit m N S € J o mM'S C C J N N d m m c- E c° crn m C O C T J'a O a N «9�E w m°c't5m m acvo Eo o�°' U o uu uc�rny Ems' -'uUmy oEEcu�o a' m c � 1D V V'acu i9 a aNNtO .��G o.c 'o_ ao- o N =E. c �Evvov�ym N iaaii °v OO 3�� o'y ZEE c m m"c3,- c mcJ>o= a-6a. =a 0warn v`0'W a- -= c Q a d a N 0)v m a._ v a .c ��N h N N m U U �..- V' N N c =o Ty Emo H U a E O J M r V❑ coq N r v d U N M N o u a M M Z C C C C C N C C g ' g ` a vUi � vUi vOi � rn wCLy c cc v o a d N � d D Q c N `0 3 CD O C 0 0 O o, z m E_ mE' a p � t W � c a.m E °Qa 7 a G N m -3 G 'O O G C Q N O LO O _rn me my me °c'v cN rn .D c c E m c E c y m W E c c� W E c r E i° c r W t° n m m u and '� n aE t° m u and n aE m u and m C c U u 2 m w° € ° m o O t O O t O O L p .` .. E 0Uc CL V N c m m 0 ` E o � mN p a 0 (j 0 . O . 0 a E o 0 0 —m m m m m p U E O u 0 0 0 o L U 0 c L N y> 'p N 'p N 'p N 32 N m d LL LL LL LL 0-5 O N c 0 m O m 0E N N o 0 'n p 00 C C -00 'Np « E 'c jU O Oci'Eo '.�p mu m E E O U N .w E= ESEE c um m Cm�mm C n o o c tm ONwN n n- rdmC� 0 E U m o ' 2v0 =0 ^m N °O O tcmmmU0 rL 0 2E 0 �V o mo aU 00 YMwo 1O°m .m S OUm mnOU E m EEm' TE E. n m u .O V LmO > y00 .0 ma E O S n 0 n2Z0U200 E - C 0- n C C o O N .. m> Eu O 0 m m o C 0 E om m.0 E O °mlm aC E° c zC (C i ° Ed =mo m n C n 'w oco0� o cNy cn "�o -o m:c E 0 mc 0 m c E 0 00 o 0 -2 $ 0 E .Om E E X g r u E m E.m = E m m E NE .6 E y OC 'O0 o m Lgym- 3 d E m E E m O U w . Q_ 3 m LuOm - y j > p O m0 m L) o n O N O« 0 m C O 'Ta o Q ~ Om w E ° Ewo m mN. `g ° .c n ' `.o0 E " E m E- E 06 E =EU 2° " uL 2 UE Em o c Em `° 0= . T°` ¢nioCn n m c0 N O0 t O O gin V 0 o`Em 00 C m m m - E 0 - O E E C L O 6 90 f Et N w % C u + m ou c 0 '« 0 p E M L =EC E> ° o m ° o c E c o y E " -E m E L 0 to E OO m« 00L EL n ° L n ,._ O E X O C`E 0 0> . m m E am u 0od O c E 0 E E E ` ` EE > L E C «E ..'�c .- 0 0' 2 o u 0 E c n$E E� 0c E ` ELm0 "s E O .0 E Zm $ E 2 0 O- c 0> > p ` 0 n E d EE C= 0w. U0 . -.P E 0 m° E m 0 E E Eo u E L E T O E CO � Si 0 C E m EU O.o-cE « oo rn SE E mU- a Em p �E« EL E>, y-E 02m 4 0i Lm- _ p n /i 3 «m `« C 2 «o p j 0 y m u m N C C2c E u o f m U C 0 0 u o e U0 >$ u M L '=EmiEum =11 E-- EnamENO= _mo L € `Ic m > 0 c L > E m E C 3 3 O O C ma m 0 Q m ° 0 m U >r 000° n 0 0 z _y a - mm En 0p�man = > 0 E 4 C E L m U m> C z pL y `.p U E .2 E E C m c E O n ° U E ° E om m O L 2E N m co 40.6 c0 CU m > o EL m c O c E2 m 0 O,�n-.. u O . m C O00 O MM- C U V2 E =y 0 E > 0 mnU; p -o Ecm FE Lo 0 OV Eo `mmoc E,E m' c 8 °Oum >i m E H a � � t 05 W a c Or m c � oa y � E as c y t0 3 O c C�¢ C O CD O 00 N y rnc�rnc�rny my my my 'y O c O c E E E E c cEw CEw c'r cr cr cr Oa m M0 M M 0 M as FQF=ao aoaodo a C O L L L L L L p N Q N Q J 2 J J N C N N C J N C J C y O L O C U j O C L O U O L O U m L O U L O U v �a O'c UJO O'c U JO J U Oc O a � O a. � _ O � O a E o o O o 0 0 m m m m m m C c c c c c c O - o r 0 W U C O C O C O C O C O C O M t N 'O 'O 'O y% v_ d N W d V1 g LL LL LL LL i LL N 16 0 M T) E N N W W r M W - J O c U V O J p E -o O ap O L E O �o El mO v v m c m °E m z c O m T C N R N d 6 J U L U C O O N 6 J@ O@ T .O .iVS FS �p N N O N r 6 y N d N E N 3 N N N 'O J 0TL 'O C O 3a U E W ram.ouo c NUL'O Ea a Mw NU O C L O N O o .-M- m - y `O y N t O3 L W a W O W a z '8 .O O = a C u O r W O O y O .o S = 3 N j N O T Nj ry O J J N O a v y a N v0 d O d O O C C J O (0 N C .r w O a10 L 0 d a O t En U IM No � N O '.O N a$ w ECv v m 0.0 0- 0- 0 - E 5v o o o 0 0 0 y J -E O J C a OI U O M ` C V U ON O � TL/ g 5) " E v N N s v c E °oV c =av vcacr a° J � o o m o- y y 0Z o $ ` 'm ' a o vo y m a iu 8 > m oc O u E LuL r m0 a y0 voO 0 oua _M v EE rnO -o v O N --o a ` N M W N 0U N O C O L O N N M N a =y O E -M' c- v' O 2LdWN u _ oL 3 m O ° N L o"Z �5 - o UL G EO u E U J v o v E rnd "s d c° 2 o oL) y . O v ° xg o L to EE E� a, > 0y � S v i mc5a ERm a = rnm0 0 E O = 0 y M 0212 0 O 0=-L O U O U U N O y c O N E O aa a 0 y E O 6 M o y v L M O E A w U a W a c 3 O Z N O O U C 0N U ¢ 0 N U 6- u Z w 6 W Z N U O OO$ 0= 'OO Q 1 .0 t9 Q . m m N N N N N N Z m E H a � � t 05 W a c Or m c � oa y � E as c y t0 3 O c C�¢ C O CD O 00 N STATE OF CALIFORNIA } COUNTY OF ORANGE } ss. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH } 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. 2005 -43 was duly and regularly introduced before and adopted by the City Council of said City at an adjourned regular meeting of said Council, duly and regularly held on the 11th day of August 2005, and that the same was so passed and adopted by the following vote, to wit: Ayes: Selich, Rosansky, Ridgeway, Daigle, Nichols, Mayor Heffernan Noes: Webb Absent: None Abstain: None IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto subscribed my name and affixed the official seal of said City this 12th day of August 2005. (Seal) City Clerk Newport Beach, California V O Ea` R c M O N a c c a t W Ct l0 m ` O CO fG 3 D=M a R V o cm C O U C ` W O r� _ O y N ca O tM c� L C C Q N U) 0 00 d C N C OI d C OI y C OI N a C m d OI C OI N OI C OI d N � E .c E C E C E c v C E C o C E c w C E C C= C= C= C= C FD Z C E D Z C E D L" O a a a a mL"Jm _M SM mM'jM a a O a a a m o a am O a am O O p 0 _o _ o m 5 `v U v L £ ° o mt °E E ` d a Oo o m o m° o a c a " _ u mu m. m O p U m O C . C a O C O C m F O? 9 Om 0 [2 O O O.Q O O N y O C , y N C y N C E a -m aym m y C7 � ci o u m m c C u 0.2 m L C ' o c c U L N > m a m a 9 c p 9 9 9 9 LL E: v IL a 41 v lL d a L T N N O 0I N 41 41 41 w c C O Y9 Y..: am N to L_ °9 ? 9 d O N 2.m ; '° N OI C U OI m T j0 N 0.2 u ?: m mo a-0. 0 n cc Ei L u c m L a m m o .c J c 'O m=v `o LOI J- Mo.5 = m a cc E'y c eJ a o o y d Z j Q y L a j t N C T m C C j J c JOC wuu `mo m Eo -Em 'c:: �` c m au d� y b `o om �aci 3 `m 'tee c c° c'St uu o m a a m° -° >c 0 N o O p v m m D d T t Oa0 m C c Vc U ,Om=y J N d L J N C E �umE uU c 4y 0- cE 3 iNU j :20 ,'u aEa Jo o m �° ° 'yo ' O`CO L p N 12 N m d Cy = m .. C c c x m_ c m C w o am m C C N m y 'O m L y t o W u L O C U p y Omm m U.2 p— U p p m w UaCN m X 4 m t X m p 0 m'p, J a J m C O e_— O m m L N C m J° m N C m X v J it ` _ L ... N" N a C m C m m E L O U C aN O w,`o v Emv o oE2 �'gi m L " c=�cm n. z1=00-co NV :E ycv... E �'rnS 0 a 3 m 3: rnL -C m o.v C� he m of �c .°aaNLLm m -E�aoE c E `nom L O O G O 0 y .0 ° 41 N N m a > D m E T a C N d TJ G J w O1 N j C O � m v'E m -- o m= m E y° o c co- E U - C - T U C N N m J e a C d y C C O m° Ln a a- -- m- Q c E- O= m d E d a d E y° N o C L L N O N N O1 L_ u_ JQ U N D L).9 _ C .. N_ N X _T = 9 U _> AO — t7 N C N N ... m N C L N O C> Z a` (�1 O � V L ii 2 N Old L C O_ OI C O C O" m N C'U E D VO O m N O u a a N U M X c C D O C D O t3j 0= E y C N C U p N E d J C a X m L O y .L.. 4J ' V C L T N O m C 0 X C .N U CO N L .0 E L (� C N zN X w m:c h N uHaa47 C and NHNV L a L) T ..i ¢ Ea ¢$ N Z M L6 V i[l V i[l V V L6 V m J y U U i i V V U) 0 00 t -.tee W R` c c' c m as m" ad c o` o¢ 'c _ iN 0 9 a i a av ac av C ac anti .q C E a m C E c E,6 C m a c E c C c C o M 'S m r m M m W M = M m a m m p m M m a nm m m U M a n p a m M o E m E E ° = _ O10 m`m cC o n', -d`m °aa m`o -EacC o Edco cm Jd =m om: -5 a._ c.o « m== o00. =a` £ Em o a m`omom p' E C._ m= a mn aQ O C o m c E a w ,`o CL D W:F - CL -6 a c a °c O — U m 0 U Y M U Z o U t c 0 c c i c d >d d a c M dLL LL um�m NDw mNL(O r'L-'EL C'O O Nm E n C -yCD'a .L.. N -- O C C C N a p m FF « O H O O a- J a N ti D C 0 Of O m m V y C '- o°i a U D 6 C _W.2 c = Jrn E'- ... L D O -'o P'E C a p O U- m S m > - C y COm -om =D �m o'-� 1p1 ,CnnD.2M o D v# Em >'o n m wve �' daLO m °'m EL) c2m2� >y`�LO wM= r0:o 0L mo _ W D .0 W> 9 nW mm�- L �cp a NU O C a C N a m -" 0rym� m =0 Z NmEm m L "y m 2 pUU0 NC m dU _ y y �_ mm••�L10 O _ N L C a m m C a N d E ° E. o 3 d c m a a -pL 4" !dm min p,N J o° mao5cc�n'_ mid L o c a o= o> t E D~ Z C m J C N C N y J N N N 0 O y u EO C N_ N m m._ m 0 0 dw m>E utd� ca nnn9a =a Ca 6. m m `o.0 om oR �'a- ° W `3F.c w o3 E m "'� ad y 2 a o -'-N CCN° a:°_m d �._ a m 0 a y o 0. r co �° amsm Nn'm d =� °ao°'�mE C o m .- °m N m C .0 L o.°-'N t` r L N m N 'fin u m �N°'E�comD nJi m L O O 3 N N _ m a T> L O a m 3 .°_' ° j m m O.0 m C N_ 6° O m O T J m amend mE`� .. Ti rnr C d and O Ja- a2 mLN ° m niL oom aNJN ti� m N r 0 ry N C N N_ N o .� C U N C C U dm 3 X12 ES a'�o 3°-°' mo uda ti dCmao M C oa pE .`°c ( °y m p # cmm00 a�Mraaac d L 4 U C OI t6 C° 3''3' H 1k L °O O r m N U= D°. mDO = U C N a U >> m 3 mNammca mc`o o.cE NN>.'_° ° N am 2°m M O C a- t .0 �N'° nm CO U E C a vm~m . oO_ 5m 7Jou _o m O O 2 M.9 m C M a m w °a m U a V D •am O o N m O N L m m N L Oen .O O N E E V OL D m L Um 3 N d O D E V m m U `cmm , C m DE m m N # C a T m C am m a _m o U d o �M' E> m m 0= ° 0 N C m o v o d a 3aW a` no D a° i m w m D a m o`o ia a= L . H> :% U ° d m o U i a m - o d C V D N m N m N n m U N C N m M N O M. Q M Q M V m j M Z L) U t -.tee W R` c c' c m as m" ad c o` o¢ 'c _ iN 0 9 a i W 4 U c `m na d y a- m ad G y @ 3 o, ca o c Q 0 @ o� Ln O C O a mna d° my° ad° mJdmJ d° md° md° dao o ao 0 0 0 0 O_ �.E o 0 0 0 om °Ev 3a _ .= o = 0 .= 0 Ld. �o.EE b E E E E @mc O cmc ° O O O E m y �•] O m C C C C E m C CDm a`o 0 0 0 0 O C Y Y Y O U U U o 0 0 0 O 0 c c c @ @ @ v O v 32 O v d it it it il d n d y T V n T -M -2 Oj E c 0 y = @ 0p '0 N 0 0 d o 0 N w O 3 p J @ m 3 0y m a 3,a°...�U C om Eo @L d y u> n mT" ° vcNo c O1 U EU u'�{ E c o do ¢ .0000 = >'9 NC OiN R N y Cdp @ N E —'C aOL d p..i Jn d@ d C •7 '� N @ c> >@@ a0E d o d d° L L o m w C 2 d... C U U N M d `. C a "n 7 C y�U a N N O N U 0 3 9 9 o c U d U Q o O m > 9 y N J p 1p Q y '� UU 6 M d @ 'O m o d .N- d L C y 0.9 C N i[ N p O U N d N EN @ C p c 6 c N V L O J J 01 3 @ U @ w 9 va - "C 2 @ LL N U @ @ .y 0 "� °a 0 w d d C V ° w @ n _.c c Q N ` @ @ U c O oO c L`." . NN Ud `L N . d 4 @@ E 0 0 p c n c .E u .. C o E d @ 0 d o @JU �m1d N d E a@ U @ 9OL p c @ 0 N'` U c � 3° 2 @ c d .0 . .0 ° @ o @ 00 0— 0 d L E 0—, > " W Z 0 d N - 'a ° N N pE�ddO O cL� @ J d 0—` dam o E c cY V @O U — a cm O V N n U y -L T R@ �n .N @ U 4 C d CO 0 O 0 @ L 0 d ; N 'N "8 c"2 = N @ j C C @ 3 "E .'Roc @@r0 .0 u M m U EJ @ cE d O @T L n § N C N N O @O E N_ c 0 d -@ @ da° 0 a c 3 E = 0NE m E @O 000 O UE T @0 O j O n f O d O c d wO C N y N i @ u moo o @ 0 OO 0 ' 0 E" "u ' � 0 d � @ p 0 E .O 0 000 d 0 E �U o w �ycmoa C n E @ O N "' m v 0E u L * @o m . ..d :EE "° C N C @ p `> L m^�m 'p up `° d o ° we 0Nd Ed 3 NC9 U @ y p N d U y L d E@ 00 nE d m>� % p UQ U -ry o. C 0 @ n O O 7 �... y >cU d E N � E m@° o Ua E U C w J O D� EpQ J c p0 m yO E E m` C E o C p O °O 3 6F ' co .— WOE J 'D :Q . n d' d dU . VO� -6 0 C@ C O U O m QU @ Q OEM d Z= d Q 0 C @ C @ m ° = ai ai ai ai ai ai d N U' x W 4 U c `m na d y a- m ad G y @ 3 o, ca o c Q 0 @ o� Ln O .- aiS 41 W N of d C O) N C O) C O C C d C 'W @ C O) c 3 EO O EE E E cE WcE E �'E o "oE�'m2 o m - °m cromwa.m @ a w 3E J > p9 "m n� mo p mo @ @ J acmo� ° n ° °� m @ °°mid=° =0 @ m ° 0 w F- U C o N u E E E E N M E E E °@ w `w a a d m d c c m o m °= C c o c W 4 0 0 W C@ N O) O) C C N C O) ` 2 N O E E E o a a o a C o a j 0 C E a N E O 0 N ~E . °O (D .0 °C7 007 °C7U oo °C70 - a`0 `o a0 a`o a C Y Y Y C O U ry U y m O y O °° U U U 0 U o 0 r O C @ C @ C @ C @ FL d LL LL L.. "� L@ 4) 41 0 c0 0 m O a C V N "5 N LL a U U o 41 J E N ¢ C o O 3 >� O L 3: D @ N E N O O O n@ nLm c @ V- N 0 y- n i 0 L @ c V J 4c 1 C 1 T 42 L E3: = @ @ N @ J N� 4d m E 'O V 2 ^ c O m 2 m O @ C6 0.9 ° y O U N W @ n d @ fO C /J 0 V 0� N o * J V 0 d 3 n 0" V c °nL@ 0.6M O F O 7nO� Nn Z.L.. 4Jw 4J p o N U@ N 0_ 3 41 41ry L. .L N YnON aLL F (2 0 O c �0 ~QU -3m n0)L..N -�C OAL @Mp00 •Lp'N Gd 0 a 0@_ Z` @ O W.- N j p "c L' V C N 41 n O O N C2 @nd Q. �>0 onSU 0C(0m @ _ °D 41 yN LO�UCnd 4"- n d C mm - U J N Z Od@ n@ O @ N i n G 0 �° N NVNJ c n a 4as omC 2 Ld a c@O4 O �nEo Z ...._ N 41 N a= J U - @ °c 4E ;-0ELna3vw� L = 0 d@ @ N L@ L)o N 41 oz 0> or @ ° - C' L O N o"oo L yn.J� -. .�.((- @ n C p C ( C(pp m N E� 41 C c C C@ N L O c Q. a 46 0 W J Sv ° O n'V4 0 an0 mB-nm@ U@ c 8 O L@ @@ L� -Ea�m @ C 4`1-2 c C @o O` L @ 04100 N .j O fn o._mC °_ a- 41'wo @n LY- p�Nc O.T# @ EL S,OW t) N h 41- o0ca @ mT° a - 0L c w�F N oy4`11 -m o 8.0 c @ E ._ �=Ma y C C @ °o° 3 :., 0OOOLE �mCm N= m� mvnW do aZ ° 0 '� ~w OC O vmtr_ o m-a0- EV cnm w -00-0o 3:(6 N00 °a Q. om0 Q. "0 W 2m6 ago, no 2°' >,�E>@U yoo u mL) t�2 O O° @ 4) 0 N O 4 n c f J° N- U U N 2 D ` y U L U C `j °U - 0 ' QEVL4J C FL `. 01 -C U CQ No C�� L' 3 N QQQ �� ME O._ F 2.`@ ... 2`O)T@ n C > °° w m v° a z c v V r aJ N. °- E m cg m U U 1- Z`E $� o d 2- m. @00 "E mo ot0�@ @>.waa oN @Q0 0m n N W Y3L o1.� �V ONN y N c -�0> @ O �m c N> U m. °40 coo o m L C_ v...� O N E T U naJ -@ n @ -E = U nL_ 2 oQ0 - a .0- T1 ° U C ._ V n 0 D o� N E y° N r y c O 0 bEc N n o >. a °O03oo 0 o m" @ mnvJ p N n o`o , O @ c o E U 'Swn2 Td'V :a.L0- m J N nN -a' 41c N 41 s m c L C. L0Ucm -0 J m E °- U 2.` 2 00 a O 41 a " d .L.. d c N (�(00 (7 4001 C C L 41 @� C 3 a ° L J c L C E 0 41 m C 0 W G J 4] $ ~ O O O@ y E m ... O. O mo� ... d 0 m v v o f o�OV ._ ° .2- ._ v o °nm �:.. a c d O) t L c E'm m O00 WWJ 4IL> o c >no °� mQV� n._N U @E c ti0 2'-2 C@ N >om 0 m412c m2 �r° a n `o 0 0 o 41 6 "rn E= J N c o c C J' Q C7 d n3 a CQ s aN N N ._ c@ -n'C Q@ n L� dL41C@N (- @ O �- 41 .�.. N O�O U h m @ T C @ W 0 N N N Z U U o v v v w < v 2 N N @ N 0 U J Z N WCLU LD c am O as �a0 c N @ 3 a� `o c c gm 0 N O co W y a C cE C mm C °'wmm O1ymm comet mm mvrn O1wrn E M p n E m n O m a c O m mma c r 0 m m a c i O m m m C N m c r W m m m c W m m U m am man man man a mam a aM0 aa0 f- f- om c€ c E c E E E E E mIC c C _ 0% m m m m m d m m m m y c m C C D c C O J d J d J d J d J d J 0 L7 'c J '- m J p J y6Cjm Ea c�j O m' D- C). _om =mc E E oa Oo oo oa oa m'm` 00 0 m` m:= my o y°S Ear H et '9 '3 .� '9 .� c n p� O E �. a o °`owy Vn 00`o O E m m c a`0 a`oao a`0 a`o a` as m`mC7U a a C 0 Y Y Y Y Y OI OI D OI CC N o m L E ° ° mU = Y U _ �o U 0 U U U o 2 m L m v � a a a m a m a D v C D m U D m a .y - w � LL W a LL .g um= EEmcJ v D c m �. l' L,. o' y m D ' D D m wyd y`c ocr D m y C °mLmo a'E_Em: ` -am o m cPS'nJ x mr�mym M m= >y n 2 D O n y U 2E' f O L) o 0 �m Zc -= Q am o m U w E mo J m m �L-6 mmb n y0 r c. 0m Emc Tc o cm =E man D m > o m.- c m U S et E m00 w 0m n Omm aC EO mam U Ho M" ouy N J O 0 J D J y n C U m y N U a y .6 c y m C w o Um m aC Z E E' � C,E ` p M OlQmmmm m °vimDE n$m m �'� .cam m m> mct3L'm Lm,D 00M '"m 'c c 4cO m >om0o= an y# D£cai m am m.O VinL) Z' c� �Ea omaE vi Cm m o" a co ego I'M � y �gps' 01 m���N� F- ° m��C 0 � U J w m Z N L N N L am N _ m- N 3 3 � W T U C L O C' yc mc.�, -.0 TL V Q -° o 'O� °�:°_t o" - °c m6 �°yvi0 C 0m On �'3 m E me mC= m`�mvi Jinmw0 vcE ;E m.om� oC `m am Jet -- am mat U g'.� ymy £Da c ma a?y� JE J"mm y.Mn c.0 mL"Q n yet - o o c 'l ^' n'm C c' m D L m„ `off .p y �' Of c y C- E Q o� o c E A U 0- O s � N 0 r U y y m O C L 0 :n° m :U- C O] m '� •C N 7 •L•• OA ... m C 'P- m w m v T y n m 0 >09m OCR~ m .,_ y y., E 3ov� 0U c c D...cm „mmL m €in y Sin pE'E E'mC Dyv... --._ c =� *6 �inm D >c c m 0 o m c ., _ mm c �Za °mam m EE J�'� v .syE @m - =a--a -yu° av m�? 0LN E 0MC m E"y °oo d 0- can�rn o N .mo FF o�v 00 m oEaS 3n y,`oc m .m cc m O �`on ate' -p-om CCp - E 2 $0Q °a "a ml .m. C° T O O y .T. " U C C O 'O W— m Fj J 0 m= C m m o L .? L 4�i�p N ._ U m j m N= Y Y J L m_ O U ' E$� m =�C E �M �mai `oz v°'i,s ma m �9 mm L"•o n--6 mm m L' net ya oc'CE `m 0. �cZ CS -au C= -net 3c oo ' yE m ymE m.-L y. m5 mrnL_m L ca_ c m`m y NyDW m =m E, m -ooca= Doyo m�cm mxm E =m ME-0 m'0 °cm mma`c -:n`.0 `mca�m m_c.'?mmmsV F- "' N net `t wti vnE o.v J J v =m O mTmc°�v E n amm mm a 0 U D m m O a D C m C y L m m O .'".' L O = L 'p N" .a m 0 J L 6L0 m D L., T C C H T �.,, E c m m 0 '3` '� p M yN acLfi E"U aT mm��E ymuw 2. ~'aci'o y.p T>w o`= m' i c2' m m,p9 m'o v EL ycLiEa -a3i �Vt v'o c °1y m cm2J mJinc ay C- c o rnJ f L Jet mLc c jy mU m- m a y J- FEE mma�im°wD EDm m mQ mm Z a?... c..:.y mm O C m .- y to U O m m C L L C aN ;��Qmmmcv yVnmv net `'mFm mILU 'S "= d Em`�nm0 — M -xa0� m'o m mmocvmy ='o y '� °LF3 t '°� c o c a m o.L.. �Fo yam aU L cV c0DO„E m �p 0 ._'; c = o `o y et mcoo m °1 ooh m L9,6 c "'�- o c m m m Z m D L m W L N m C C y C Oa C yi o ` C F Ln c'� a° m m N J y C C J y et m m m c° C T ~cm ~sFcH LL °y c yy�oEc =L„m€ :_ cmio"D _'p ..c. mNNeon m ViyN y"am!?�C D 2 ?w CC °- °c.. U ar'v mBE rn_oC Nv w...E C= Vo aw."- °E.9EC5 Mo c c N� L d:p �C J C D a2y F m c 0JOEm m cm ac�L mmc Q amD y OI.r �+ m a._ m m y mm 0LN r� m'mp H n ma Em Fc JOm y y m mV U.r Z°'J �'N 1n c o LoT >mp10E`m$�mo5 HUn E a._ a °n CCL EL m yit t m 7 m m N Q r ° ' N a' fD c fD c f0 c fD c fD v m e e a m a N g g g g w w m E v Q o wad c g' c m �a m oa c y m -3 �+ m `o c �Q O 0 CC) D a c a M ._ c m a .c E c E C, c y a .c a v .EE a c o c ° y U y Ec D W C cmm C E w m N a gE: a ao N a N a a°� a s � F c O `O n a c 2 m° 2 J c L c 2 c L N 2 �m ma a`cco rn 0to c U �LJ 0- U 0a. °° E m p E� m � y m c '° 0-a a c'o �a p01 OU C7U cc 0, UFO o UFO a`y'g E o 0 _m c c O O o _a o - c 0 s U % O v C ° C ° c 2 O o L U o N L y> D m y i D C d IL IL IL d LL M L a O N. d- m C D; m m N O U N m r O S° O 0 N L N C O C L C� L m EJ M C O N U C L C N a O U mm N m m '' 3 C c a a N O C N N ... m a 0 C' m :p a m a OI Z o E o C N N E: C a N N L N L =- N i d a n r a a a.` S' -N - m_m 'fie JO O. 2 a m Jmy� -DO N e' p Da� C o 00D0E N d N N L° a m p U N N# _LC L pL O p Cp N C L U. C m U N d C L L N C N m.p y O 6 D N L a C U ti m 0 °-'Cow U U L m O m d m a� D �{ a m Eo mac cfn oDm mcEyo y'y Com3mmL_c� mc..._ S,cmioodE „Ev000 nN ato cy dx Y3 ay rnU �d oo�Nm @ d D c0 Lad Um in ma mD0 zm0 2 ” ONi Oi EcN"a °i >, or domamNEc °m E nO1�°'._0 mN odmOmD acm n cy vai om=' „mm_p c' � �5 '=U m_ m°000E rn�mM i, v0 D m L= m Z c d° n $ot Ma c 0) .= ay $ p H g r N N .t ”' E U C 0) LS a m a-- a m o c y D y C ._ N J ti O S v rn r N= C m C.5 o�omoop¢maoy tmcao °'o3t'�0' �mCLm0m 00 m �° m�° —'°'2 E U M O N Q y C C m =,L .a O O C m O m m 0 C N m` L U O J 6 t 6 N a a= O d d U 6 w t N a N= C p m �., m L X V- Oy T V .0 #- a C N J d> C 'C ap y O p J p N N p m H m $p a N .3 :r y O L N a` Z— N O N N N� N 0 m N y c n m L C m m m m ~- am C m C- m j r a N W a O 9 m C_ N E a N� p U N yFEEJ"ym�aS mr d vL 0) Nudc dm.._ZEc� EEy =c UNpy 0)dT °N_mC- ,IEO 2myd�° V aNL D.O of c3 at Ey mtnomomtan a°'O ado CCQ OCNa°`O d`cn as tQommmE�U ay NCO ao'm dd y O N a T C m_ i0 w 2 a m O n C N a m p- = -'co J0M0 L °' . c a .3 r N- E C M, C N o. Emd d >ai C r y � a day' -m c'o. mfDpy10oy ca L- oac '� a n a c m"� y a a o E m J m> c m y c c N E d m o m a m o o' O '� c m mm m to aL._DC E>!?`m o r' mL aoorr O c� omt0my N.cpCE ON moa U. -- m d.m 3> mttay m a m0 L._ m�rUE cc mm_NU . ML- mrmram dm�c c'yD3dtnmc LL'o0 X°'a `c "-E aac Dom �EO.cm.mo vm =�'�n tcrc`m m.-.mm `.2� s E`N 0"'3om n� N E ao E°'Nac t�„mmc0'c >DmiN �"'N da Z'oioE ao t`c E'S �adM a U c.°- 2 a N m N E Ni° N o C CSC E N m W J 0=a ` m C a = m LE m C N m O L J D m L= J L a-- m m J C L a a U C m m m L" m m N L a p C a m y m U m T U pp U O L C C m j JZ m- mU 00 CELL00 aOv JmN 'yi UUU _mN Epic mm!� UmL- ma EnLl` T` O- vi mNa (-- 2 ° a C C ma N_x m mi'i OL E m-� C L m 0 a G n L d N_ E N m y d_a-NW a m m ... j N C C F �„ C N N N O O a r Vi J C O L= '� U_ r0 U'N = N L O c m r y U O d a G G E L a a m ML) C E 0 m L L.2 9 ma > a O ° L m L y a m m N L N y # n O m O C > L^ ` E CM O N a a U n ar O a U C mC N C F- N > D ¢ m o E o aU y U C ry mV_"T O c Z=_ moM ma E °' T cZ a = �T - � ' V J a y E a m N m m N C - _ m L W 0 L N U D a m LC ) O C p ti c C m- c m Y D D x o E m C O 0 a m cc r.0 m - O J a C °~ a U a J C - L U ° U `= p >° O c o E mmur Ovo n o m y M m oco E -uoC m y a n a 2 m 0 0 n�m 0 m m 'c �m o =c- = a=3 $J o D m m E m m m mL E 3 m J°aom mE . v o M ly aal J >oadZ 0 on _ = m dm aEc Z am mU m Na V 0 0 E o m m- U O > FN D N N N N N 2 6 6 co E a1°� o LZc o 0f m aa` c N m 3 a� o c :�¢ 0 O co _ MS y MS y a me � me � dam oay my my •p .m EE .m E EE �E C W� C W m m m m m m m aauanuao°> a da dam° � OH OH C O y U y J J C y U y J j C y U y J j C U y j C U y j C U y j C O L O O L O O L O U L O U L O U L O U EE 'c my'c °'`c m my m md`�dm`m m m m FE p.` U�OUDOU�O p5 p._ n oOQOQO _ _ n c c c c c O 6 O O O O G p _c C 0 C O _c C O C O C O C O a O t d an D d D d D d D d D d D d IL IL IL IL IL IL d O d ri U E d N m L L p m N 76 T O m C p `d E tom SUE `o mo E A DO ppL � cw Ey E_Om c i ;NO m'E m N J u d E m mo m L y �'y d E a �pp 'C c m E o z c C m N 0 a,z m O y W ° N y .Ld. O fn A C u C D d 0 Y L a y T dCCC y N U y C L t 0 E N" L C —Z N d A a E Q m a c - T a m a u C N L C a. U) N J E a N N a N u o H t auu 30 ° m u > min c 3m d D`- O N d y 6—d ? m N 6 ^L 3 N d t O LN ¢ O N `o N >'aL =p, m E m N d w N N D ODL 3:N c� H m m. 0m JJN °. t yp_`°c aau Ndm -5 u9 d �a do `°yUaBvv'i c 3 °0� °o Jm Z5 E 'pyy N U L C N J L d d D d C E m u H u N j N N J d o d o f L N O p U X 6 °'V1 6° d ;C M U N m d T C Y U m'C ° d U M d D> an d d d d 3 d >i L d O p L N y E a 0! N ; 6 °>a `��' m E c U Emd c ma m `° d d y d m�oo`m� y C L d O O c O a`a °¢ °° �c pcp N O o N L > N O m T cN J O J N 6 a O D U -' D = ,� N U L d U N U O C ° O! C L Vi m N N m pDp�� C O D v >= 0 m m d L° v C L U T d N '- �' O. N d T C ° W ° d U V d vi L N C °i 5 oa E d c O c d 3 C N m J a" a mo m C vi m d a 'aa as :4m oL) Cdd ay$� a Tr a>d caO n.- °c 0-H '�E ma cc �aU Sa mu a s m� U do u u mid U0 0 0a 0 d> m ° m L o 83 `J E� U.c� ada o °'V¢. `"U -um 1Om o r .E EQ c oat =.� mt TmN �? mw 1 - C D oa mo n 0 U d N d min ry O N N d C ,C d 5'°...a `- p da �� y C N ❑�'� y E V X00 m u.c m d�°o. L`Z °-o_, NtO u.c� cY-i °u o 3: NLa r-'Dda 'emu i oEV� �L �d Tam�V� m^` Eo. °-a� E=o. yyD H m of c 12 C- _ o U m ... L C T cr oUyc N d °' tp m Jo J J O d E`o �- °, d a >^m- d D d f0 °. m C m$ un E EE nirnddm Sw E�°vic 'x r'yL nti 'xa > O° `u m c mL L!- '= E- m dmv'�ao J O d �m J m C .L., p 0. u�a 'sy nu C °ca° m "' m U E may m f0 E2c°yw mL-' N a D L N O °aU uyiE U OV om y�0 Ud d D d 0yK In J E O.d00 C D_ y 4 0 aD :.p m C ?i Y E°'r D_ N O O U (p = m m L '� m N y NL pa J NL D E d C dNdE d m NOa i' d and > d d _ >'>�J m O L d U mry U w 'c N 01 ... C y N W? u L c J W D_ Q >i d � Z L N d L H N ... Z C .0 L D Z d .� y J O L d D c O O c E O O i G d o K c U $ Q N U Xo. Q U LL ° u Z° C6 W d o D Q 0 m m S D m m N N N N N N m E m a p C W d U c m °O. aL C N m �3 D, OC Q �y O Dr O Exhibit No. 10 DRAFT Environmental Impact Report SCH No. 2003081065 ST. ANDREW'S PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND USE PERMIT AMENDMENT City of Newport Beach Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 Prepared by: Keeton Kreitzer Consulting 17782 East 17`h Street, Suite 106 Tustin, CA 92780 -1947 March 2004 Exhibit No. 10 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT ST. ANDREW'S PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND USE PERMIT AMENDMENT SCH NO. 2003081065 Prepared for: City of Newport Beach Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 Contact: James Campbell, Senior Planner (949) 644 -3210 Prepared by: Keeton Kreitzer Consulting 17782 East 17th Street, Suite 106 Tustin, CA 92680 -1947 Contact: Keeton K. Kreitzer, Principal (714) 665 -8509 MARCH 2004 St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church General Plan Amendment and Use Permit Amendment Draft Environmental Impact Report Table of Contents ST. ANDREW'S PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND CONDITIONS USE PERMIT TABLE OF CONTENTS Paqe 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................ ............................1 -1 1.1 Description of the Proposed Project .......................................................... ............................1 -1 1.2 Alternatives ................................................................................................. ............................1 -2 1.3 Areas of Controversy ................................................................................. ............................1 -3 1.4 Issues to be Resolved ................................................................................ ............................1 -3 1.5 Impact Summary Table .............................................................................. ............................1 -4 2.0 INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND ................................................................ ............................2 -1 2.1 Purpose of the Draft EIR ............................................................................ ............................2 -1 2.2 Methodology ............................................................................................... ............................2 -7 2.3 Format of the Draft EIR .............................................................................. ............................2 -9 3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ...................................................................................... ............................3 -1 3.1 Project Location .......................................................................................... ............................3 -1 3.2 Environmental Setting ................................................................................ ............................3 -4 3.3 History and Evolution of the Existing Development ............... ............................ ..... .... ......... 3 -12 3.4 Description of the Proposed Project ................. ............................ ....................................... 3 -12 15 Project Phasing .......... ................... ......................... ................. ..................... .. ...... ................ 3 -20 3.6 Project Objectives ..................................................................................... ...........................3 -21 3.7 Project Processing Requirements and Requested Entitlements ............. ...........................3 -21 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS .......................... 4 -1 4.1 Land Use and Planning ..................... .......................... .......................... ................... ........ ...4.1 -1 4.11 Existing Conditions ................................................. ........................................... ....4.1 -1 4.1.2 Significance Criteria ................................................ ............................................... 4.1 -4 4.1.3 Standard Conditions ......................... ................ ..................................................... 4.1 -5 4.1.4 Potential Impacts... ....................... .......... ........... ......................... ....................... 4.1-5 4.1 .5 Mitigation Measures .................. .......... ........................................................... .... .4.1 -11 4.1.6 Level of Significance after Mitigation ............................ ......................... .............. 4.1 -12 4.2 Traffic and Parking ...... ........................ ..... ... ...... ........ ........................... ......... ...................... 4.2 -1 4.2.1 Existing Conditions ............................ ........................................... ... ...................... 4.2 -1 4.2.2 Significance Criteria ................................. ............................................................ 4.2 -11 4.2.3 Standard Conditions.. .......................................................................................... 4.2-11 4.2.4 Potential Impacts ....................................................................-- .........................4.2 -12 4.2.5 Mitigation Measures . ............................... .................. ......... ........ ........ ................. 4.2 -20 4.2.6 Level of Significance after Mitigation .......................................... .........................4.2 -21 C:IMyFilesIKKC -0060. STANDREWS.NBORAFTEIRITOC.doc St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church General Plan Amendment and Use Permit Amendment Draft Environmental Impact Report Table of Contents Paqe 4.3 Air Quality .................................................................................................. ..........................4.3 -1 4.3.1 Existing Conditions ...................................................................... ..........................4.3 -1 4.3.2 Significance Criteria ..................................................................... ..........................4.3 -5 4.3.3 Standard Conditions .................................................................... ..........................4.3 -6 4.3.4 Potential Impacts ......................................................................... ..........................4.3 -6 4.3.5 Mitigation Measures ................................................................... .........................4.3 -10 4.3.6 Level of Significance after Mitigation .......................................... .........................4.3 -11 4.4 Noise ......................................................................................................... ............................5 -1 ..........................4.4 -1 4.4.1 Existing Conditions ...................................................................... ..........................4.4 -1 4.4.2 Significance Criteria ..................................................................... ..........................4.4 -7 4.4.3 Standard Conditions .................................................................... ..........................4.4 -7 4.4.4 Potential Impacts ......................................................................... ..........................4.4 -7 4.4.5 Mitigation Measures ................................................................... .........................4.4 -15 4.4.6 Level of Significance after Mitigation .......................................... .........................4.4 -17 4.5 Aesthetics .................................................................................................. ..........................4.5 -1 4.5.1 Existing Conditions ...................................................................... ..........................4.5 -1 4.5.2 Significance Criteria ..................................................................... ..........................4.5 -6 4.5.3 Standard Conditions .................................................................... ..........................4.5 -7 4.5.4 Potential Impacts ......................................................................... ..........................4.5 -7 4.5.5 Mitigation Measures ................................................................... .........................4.5 -14 4.5.6 Level of Significance after Mitigation .......................................... .........................4.5 -14 4.6 Police Protection C:kMyFileskKKC- 0060 .STANDREWS.NBORAFTEIRITOC.doc ii ' 4.6.1 Existing Conditions ...................................................................... ..........................4.6 -1 4.6.2 Significance Criteria ...................................... ............................... ..........................4.6 -1 4.6.3 Standard Conditions .................................................................... ..........................4.6 -2 4.6.4 Potential Impacts ......................................................................... ..........................4.6 -2 4.6.5 Mitigation Measures ..................................... ............................... ..........................4.6 -2 4.6.6 Level of Significance after Mitigation ........................................... ..........................4.6 -3 5.0 IMPACTS FOUND NOT TO BE SIGNIFICANT BASED ON THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ....................................................................... ............................5 -1 5.1 Land Use and Planning .............................................................................. ............................5 -1 5.2 Agriculture .................................................................................................. ............................5 -1 5.3 Population and Housing ............................................................................. ............................5 -1 5.4 Geology and Soils ...................................................................................... ............................5 -2 5.5 Hydrology and Water Quality ..................................................................... ............................5 -3 5.6 Traffic and Parking ..................................................................................... ............................5 -4 5.7 Air Quality ................................................................................................... ............................5 -5 5.8 Noise .......................................................................................................... ............................5 -5 5.9 Biological Resources .................................................................................. ............................5 -5 5.10 Aesthetics ................................................................................................... ............................5 -5 5.11 Cuftural /Scientific Resources ..................................................................... ............................5 -6 5.12 Recreation .................................................................................................. ............................5 -6 5.13 Mineral Resources ..................................................................................... ............................5 -6 5.14 Hazards and Hazardous Materials ............................................................ ............................5 -6 5.15 Public Services ........................................................................................... ............................5 -6 5.16 Utilities ........................................................................................................ ............................5 -7 C:kMyFileskKKC- 0060 .STANDREWS.NBORAFTEIRITOC.doc ii ' St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church General Plan Amendment and Use Permit Amendment Draft Environmental Impact Report Table of Contents APPENDICES A. Initial Study and Notice of Preparation B. NOP Comment Letters C. Traffic and Parking Analysis D. Air Quality Analysis E Noise Analysis ' C:IMyFilesIKKC- 0060 .STANDREWS.NBIDRAFTEIRITOC.doc III Pape 6.0 UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS .................................................................. ............................6 -1 6.1 CEQA Guidelines Section 15126( b) ........................................................... .................'..........6 -1 6.2 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts ................................................................... ............................6 -1 7.0 IRRETRIEVABLE AND IRREVERSIBLE COMMITMENT OF RESOURCES ..... ............................7 -1 8.0 GROWTH INDUCING IMPACTS ............................................................................ ............................8 -1 8.1 Definition of Growth - Inducing Impacts ....................................................... ............................8 -1 8.2 Analysis of Growth - Inducing Impacts ........................................................ ............................8 -1 8.3 Conclusion .................................................................................................. ............................8 -2 9.0 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT ................................ ............................9 -1 9.1 Definition of Cumulative Impacts ............................................................... ............................9 -1 9.2 Cumulative Projects ................................. .............................................................................. 9 -1 9.3 Cumulative Impact Analysis ....................................................................... ............................9 -3 10.0 ALTERNATIVES .................................................................................................... ...........................10 -1 10.1 Introduction ................................................................................................ ...........................10 -1 10.2 Environmentally Superior Alternative ........................................................ ...........................10 -2 10.3 Alternatives Rejected from Further Consideration ................................... ...........................10 -2 10.4 Analysis of Alternatives ............................................................................. ...........................10 -3 10.5 Summary of Alternatives .......................................................................... ..........................10 -17 11.0 LIST OF PREPARERS AND PERSONS CONSULTED ...................................... ...........................11 -1 12.0 REFERENCES ....................................................................................................... ...........................12 -1 13.0 GLOSSARY OF ACRONYMS ............................................................................... ...........................13 -1 APPENDICES A. Initial Study and Notice of Preparation B. NOP Comment Letters C. Traffic and Parking Analysis D. Air Quality Analysis E Noise Analysis ' C:IMyFilesIKKC- 0060 .STANDREWS.NBIDRAFTEIRITOC.doc III St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church General Plan Amendment and Use Permit Amendment Draft Environmental Impact Report Table of Contents ST. ANDREW'S PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND CONDITIONS USE PERMIT LIST OF EXHIBITS Paqe 3 -1 Regional Map ........................................................................................................... ............................3 -2 3-2 Vicinity Map ................ : ......................................................................................................................... 3 -3 3 -3 Existing Site Development ....................................................................................... ............................3 -5 3-4 Aerial Photograph .................................................................................................... ............................3 -7 3 -5 Existing General Plan .............................................................................................. ............................3 -8 3 -6 Existing Zoning ....................................................................................................... ...........................3 -10 3 -7 Site Development Plan ........................................................................................... ...........................3 -15 3 -8 Level A (Basement) Parking Plan .......................................................................... ...........................3 -16 3 -9 Level B (Sub- Basement) Parking Plan ................................................................... ...........................3 -17 4.2 -1 Existing Roadway Configuration/Traffic Control ..................................................... ..........................4.2 -2 4.2 -2 Existing Peak Hour Volumes .................................................................................. ..........................4.2 -3 4.2 -3 Existing Parking ...................................................................................................... ..........................4.2 -5 4.2-4 Site Logistics Plan .................................................................................................. .........................4.2 -13 4.2 -5 Projected Peak Hour Volumes .............................................................................. .........................4.2 -15 4.4 -1 Interior and Exterior Noise Standards .................................................................... ..........................4.4 -3 4.4 -2 Noise Measurement Locations ............................................................................... ..........................4.4 -4 4.4 -3 Typical Construction Equipment Noise Levels ....................................................... ..........................4.4 -9 4.4-4 Future John Wayne Airport Noise Contours ........................................ .......................................... 4.4 -16 4.5 -1 Exterior Elevation — Proposed Building D ............................................................. .........................4.5 -10 4.5 -2 Cross - Section — Building D and Building E ........................................................... .........................4.5 -11 4.5 -3 Exterior Elevation — Proposed Building E ............................................................. .........................4.5 -12 4.5 -4 Conceptual Landscape Plan ..................................................................... ............................... 4.5 -13 4.5.5 Photometric Plan ...................................................................................... ............................... 4.5 -15 C: VvtyFileslKKC- 0060 .STANDREWS.NBIDRAFTEIRITOC.doc iv C:IMyFilesXKC- 0060. STANDREWS.NBIDRAFTEIRITOC. doc v St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church General Plan Amendment and Use Permit Amendment Draft Environmental Impact Report Table of Contents ST. ANDREW'S PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND CONDITIONS USE PERMIT LIST OF TABLES Paqe 1 -1 Summary of Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Level of Significance After Mitigation ...................... 1 -5 2 -1 List of Potential Responsible Agencies ................................................................... ............................2 -3 2 -2 Summary of NOP Comments .................................................................................. ............................2 -4 3 -1 3 -2 Summary of Existing Facilities ................................................................................. ............................3 Existing Staffing Summary ...................................................................................... ............................3 -4 -6 3 -3 Comparison of Existing vs. Proposed Facilities ..................................................... ...........................3 -13 34 Summary of Existing and Proposed Uses ............................................................. ...........................3 -14 3 -5 Summary of On -Site Programs .... ..................................................................................................... 3 -18 3 -6 Summary of Building Use Capacity ........................................................................ ...........................3 -19 4.1 -1 Estimated Growth for Statistical Area H3 ............................................................... ..........................4.1 -2 4.1 -2 Newport Beach Land Use Element Policy Analysis ............................................... ..........................4.1 -6 4.2 -1 Summary of Existing Peak Hour Intersection Operations ...................................... ..........................4.2 -4 4.2 -2 Summary of Parking Data Collection — Typical Weekday ..................................... ..........................4.2 -7 4.2 -3 Summary of Parking Data Collection — Typical Weekday Evening ....................... ..........................4.2 -9 4.2-4 Summary of Parking Data Collection — Sunday .................................................... .........................4.2 -10 4.2 -5 4.2 -6 Summary of Project Trip Generation ..................................................................... .........................4.2 Summary of 1 % Analysis — Existing Plus Growth Plus Approved Projects .......... .........................4.2 -14 -16 4.2 -7 Summary of Peak Hour Intersection Operations (Existing Plus Growth Plus Approved ProjectsPlus Project .............................................................................................. .........................4.2 -17 4.2 -8 Summary of 1 % Analysis —Cumulative Impacts with Project .............................. .........................4.2 -18 4.2 -9 Summary of Peak Hour Intersection Operations (Summary of Peak ICU Operations — Cumulative Plus Project Conditions ...................................................................... .........................4.2 -19 4.3 -1 Air Quality Monitoring Summary ............................................................................. ..........................4.3 -4 4 -3 -2 "Worst Case" Air Pollutant Emissions During Demolition ...................................... ..........................4.3 -7 4 -3 -3 "Worst Case" Air Pollutant Emissions During Excavation ...................................... ..........................4.3 -7 4 -3-4 Total Project (Operational) Emissions .................................................................... ..........................4.3 -9 4-4 -1 City of Newport Beach Noise Ordinance Standards .............................................. ..........................4.4 -1 4-4 -2 Ambient Noise Levels ............................................................................................. ..........................4.4 -2 4.4 -3 Existing (Modeled) Roadway Traffic Noise Levels ................................................. ..........................4.4 -6 4.4-4 Traffic Noise Increases Due to Trucks .................................................................. .........................4.4 -10 4.4 -5 Distance to Traffic Noise CNEL Contours with Construction Trucks .................... .........................4.4 -10 4.4 -6 Traffic Noise CNEL Level Increases ..................................................................... .........................4.4 -11 4.4 -7 Future (2020) Traffic Noise Levels (with Project) .................................................. .........................4.4 -13 4.4-8 Maximum Parking Lot Noise .................................................. ............................... .........................4.4 -14 10 -1 Summary of Project Altematives ........................................................................... ..........................10 -18 C:IMyFilesXKC- 0060. STANDREWS.NBIDRAFTEIRITOC. doc v St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church General Plan Amendment and Use Permit Amendment Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 1.0 SECTION 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1.1 Description of the Proposed Project 1.1.1 Project Location The City of Newport Beach is an urbanized coastal community located in western Orange County. Newport Beach is bordered by the Cities of Irvine on the north and northeast and by Costa Mesa on the north and northwest. Crystal Cove State Park is located southeast of the City's corporate boundaries. On the west, the incorporated limits of the City extend to the Santa Ana River; the City of Huntington Beach is located west of the Santa Ana River. The Pacific Ocean comprises the southern boundary of the City. 1.1.2 Project Description The applicant, St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church, is proposing to increase the intensity of development that currently exists on the 3.943 -acre property located at 600 St. Andrew's Road. The site supports five existing buildings, including the 1,387 -seat sanctuary, an existing chapel /administration building, two classroom buildings, and a fellowship hall. At the present time, the church property encompasses 104,440 square feet of gross floor area (GFA), resulting in an existing floor area ratio (FAR) of 0.61. �. Surface parking on the site accommodates 250 automobiles. The applicant is proposing to increase the gross floor area to 140,388 square feet (i.e., 34 percent), resulting in a 0.82 FAR. The 35,948 square feet expansion includes classrooms, a new youth center (including a gymnasium) and related facilities to support the existing church. Project implementation includes the demolition of two of the existing buildings. One of the education buildings and the existing fellowship hall and kitchen facilities will be demolished and replaced with new structures. In addition, the applicant is proposing to construct a subterranean parking garage beneath the surface parking lot proposed along Clay Street. A total of 400 parking spaces is proposed to accommodate the existing and proposed development. That figure includes 227 spaces in the subterranean garage and 173 surface parking spaces. (Eight handicap - accessible parking spaces are provided as required by the City.) Grading and excavation for the parking structures and building construction will be required. In addition, the project includes the alteration of existing utility connections to serve the new /modified buildings, landscaping and site lighting. Project implementation will necessitate the approval of a General Plan Amendment to increase the FAR to that ' proposed by the applicant and a Zone Change that would delete the R -1 and R -2 zoning classification on the subject property and replace those classifications with GEIF (Government, Institutional and Educational Facilities). In addition, a Revised and Amended Use Permit must also be approved by the City. The detailed project description is contained within Chapter 3.0 of the Draft EIR. 1.1.3 Project Phasing Processing of the requested entitlements to use is expected to be completed in the second quarter of 2004. Should the City Council approved the proposed General Plan Amendment and related entitlements following certification of a final EIR, St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church would prepare construction and infrastructure drawings for City review and approval. Preparation of those drawings and City review and permit issuance would be anticipated to occur by the second quarter of 2005, followed by commencement of construction in the third quarter of that year. Construction of the new buildings will occur concurrently and will commence once the two existing structures have been demolished. The demolition and construction activities are schedule to last approximately 11 months. Full occupancy of the completed buildings is anticipated to occur in the second quarter of 2006. I IC:VvlyFilesWKC- 0060. STANDREWS.NBIDRAFTEIR11. 0 Exec Sum. Intro.doc Page 1 -1 St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church General Plan Amendment and Use Permit Amendment Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 1.0 1.1.4 Project Objectives Implementation of the proposed project will achieve the following intended specific objectives, which have been identified by St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church. Provide a new Youth and Family Center (with gymnasium) and classroom facilities in order to better serve the needs of the existing church membership and to provide more specialized services for younger members of the congregation. Provide additional on -site parking in order to meet the parking demands of the church and related facilities and to ease existing (parking) impacts on neighborhood streets. Update and modernize existing facilities through the construction of new buildings by providing structures that have improved sound attenuation and which are more energy efficient and easier to maintain. Provide new landscape screening along Clay Street in order to improve vistas to the St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church campus from off -site locations. Enhance the aesthetic character of St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church in its present location through the utilization of similar building materials (e.g., brick and stucco) on the new structures, in order to maintain a cohesive aesthetic environment both on the site and in the neighborhood. Continue to provide facilities that serve as a meeting place for the local community by improving the caliber of meeting and youth activities and reinforcing the church's long tradition of service to the community. 1.2 Alternatives 1.2.1 Summary of Alternatives CEQA requires that an EIR describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the project, or to the location of the project, which could feasibly attain the basic objectives of the project, and to evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives. Chapter 10 sets forth potential alternatives to the proposed project and evaluates them as required by CEQA. Several alternative development scenarios have been identified as a means of reducing potentially significant impacts associated with implementation of the proposed project. These altematives include several other potentially feasible development alternatives, including: No Project/No Development (No Expansion) Renovation or Replacement of Existing Facilities (No Additional Expansion) Reduced Intensity (Proposed Project without Gymnasium) Off -Site Parking Structure Alternative Site 1.2.2 Environmentally Superior Alternative Chapter 10 describes the criteria that were used to select those alternatives for detailed analysis and to screen others from further detailed consideration. CEQA also requires that the EIR identify the environmentally superior alternative among all of the alternatives considered, including the proposed project. The No Project/No Development alternative identified and analyzed in Chapter 6 will eliminate the potentially significant short-term unavoidable adverse air quality impacts that would occur if the mitigation measures are not implemented. However, CEQA requires that if the "no project" alternative is the environmental superior alternative, an environmentally superior alternative among the other C: MyFilesWKC- 0060.STANDREWS.NBIDR4FTEIRI1.0 ExecSum.intro.doc Page 1 -2 St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church General Plan Amendment and Use Permit Amendment Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 1.0 alternatives shall be identified. Based on the comparative analysis of alternatives provided in Chapter 10, the Renovation or Replacement Alternative (i.e., no expansion of existing facilities) would be considered to be environmentally superior in that its implementation would result in the least adverse environmental impacts. 1.3 Areas of Controversy An Initial Study was prepared, which identified several issues are the focus of the Draft EIR. The areas of controversy are derived from the preliminary analysis presented in the initial study, comments received during the Notice of Preparation (NOP) comment period, including: Expansion of the church beyond its current floor area would create a facility that is too large for the residential neighborhood within which the project is located. The proposed expansion is incompatible with the residential development in which the church is located. Parking demands created by the expansion would adversely affect on- street parking that also serves the existing residential neighborhood. Air quality impacts would occur as a result of construction and development. Noise levels in the neighborhood would increase as a result of the increased intensity of use and the parking structure. The aesthetic character and quality of the neighborhood would be adversely affected by the increased intensity of use. Construction of a subterranean parking garage could promote criminal activity and other unauthorized activities on the site. 1.4 Issues to be Resolved The environmental analysis presented in Chapter 4.0 of the Draft EIR and the analysis included in the initial study, which also evaluates the potential effects of project implementation, indicate that several potential impacts were identified; however, in those instances, specific mitigation measures have been included to reduce the potential significant adverse effects to a less than significant level. In addition, several recommendations have also been included in this document to address other impacts resulting from project implementation, which have been determined to be less than significant, to eliminate or further reduce those adverse effects. The only issue to be resolved is identified below. Project implementation will necessitate approval of a General Plan Amendment and Amendment to the Use Permit, which requires the City to make a determination that the proposed project is compatible with the surrounding community. The intensity of the proposed expansion, which could result increased traffic and demands for parking may be perceived as "intrusive" within the existing residential neighborhood. C: IMyFileslKKC- OO60.STANDREWS.NBIDRAFTEIRII.0 ExecSum.lntro.doc Page 1 -3 St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church General Plan Amendment and Use Permit Amendment Draft Environmental Impact Report 1.5 Impact Summary Table Section 1.0 Table 1 -1 summarizes the significant adverse impacts of the proposed project. The table also provides a summary of the potential impacts found to be less than significant, and which do not require mitigation. Each environmental resource area covered in the main text is summarized. Also, impacts found to be significant are listed along with the proposed mitigation measures. The residual impact after application of mitigation measures is also indicated for each significant impact. C: WyFilesVKKC- 0060.STANDREWS.NBIDRAFTEIRI1.0 ExecSum.lntro.doc Page 1-4 d a c E E a° J c O d Q d U C U c O) N O d d J r � � C d � ad � 3 � N d c O cod C y U m d E O m E E 3 cn m U U O c m _m O y J U O E c _m m w y J U E E c m m w y J N E O Z m E O Z U d E - c _m m w y J UI c O E I UI @ c L UI 'UO N O 'O U 0 UI 'c O O 0 'U .L M.0 Tn�EH U °y d m d: m 3030 on M z dE'3 - °- c mo'La a�z, co0 0 E 2U.` 0 � E n 0 c .. y n d c @ o @ o T E cc c o N d a n ¢ E L @ m " m d @ @ °0- w °E d ¢H Vai M M - - C ¢E E c o 0 T d H c m d c 2 O 0 d 0° m o o 0 0md c @ 0a 0w P -6 0 O 0 O 00E U o 0 ~ @y ` @d> fl d@o o d t c @a c @ w @ 0 c @ t cm c0 ° E o 0mm a 5 E °' nGm m > @ Ed 0 2 m cw o E L y c w m@ o c16 d= E83 c 1OHy c 0 °c - � - i m m£ c y N o U c aoi c U °1 'L�'Eo 0 C¢ c @ w ddyoc@ o° : y Z@ 0 r°n T m d 0 'O p. ¢ @ c — c C L p. O o w w 2 1.0 .�. U 'O U 0 0 UI c w 0- —0E E O- 0 ` 000d YW 0L 3y. 0' U 3 0E UHw m d 00 E:m Qc . 0 3 9 c X 'v d E p>o @ @'a o yo J ¢ P Sao m= y Nn � y a.m2 d NUIN m ='O c —L 0 Oo w LUG @ Lc H >c�0 H—L) McWQ 59 020 Zd Z@ L(UjJN H@G]m Q 0 L O j, 16 m. C N y r c ] 3 c UI n c L w : E 3 E N O c ° w ° @ > @0 - N O j _ o0w E HN oo ¢N 0y o 0 @ @ O 0 0 L .c N O °M 0 w 3 0 n T ya a@ `o 0.UE1° c g Es we .@ @b 0.d M L« w m� -o -Q .c 2 °n E° ¢ T2- "s m 0. 0 �U �� = 0 9 m 0 Mn ,� E cc m o @ z0 wE &-:R3: E" c E`L' ono° 3 - °1 @ ynmQ3 ¢ cLOE @0.�'X0w c o w @ m H- w Z °in udi�o ooa °'3 00 c O o y0 @ 2> dN @N c O w°1 �0w 0 3 E £0o c°' ¢3E0....c `p w d E @ 3= t 3 OI L 0 O N O H '3 c 0 0 0- c 0. 0 O 0 0 :2 0 ... H= d N N° .-. >- E w 0 w 3 Y Z' c a>i o o 0 0 V m 0 0 oc z @ > V c m @ H = ... w N O C N O m 0 m O 0 c E Q o. .- � M d N cc w - 0.0 X p . d E p @ J U@I O °`C _ °n , w ° do y T o w -:c M-,o -0 c L O 2> :: — awiE m 2 > mEo c OLL_ 0 Vi c , oO, c� m U O EEo ¢m 0 o cmM p? UmE L d E 'Xnc E gmo c a00 Efiacic c y @ E =3S _ 0' oQcwo Ey O L O�o 00 ° L -O T ' @ t -' C w r 0 w c0 ° w OE d o U O c O n X N U H LL y- m C L J c H LL@@ w w L LL M n H O d a is m a y 0 W 0 i m p C C U O iy m J U p ¢ E c m m N J U p O E c m < m N J ymmN� ml'JNUmmNmm "E L N"L, CC.T. CC m9m mm2 019 EL NO E:= N_ - O N` -m9 = -m N C C NQL C ~ J C O O N .... O 'OI N p O >> C C U 4I :� N :.. T (0 :_ O A_ Y Tj U` O` 6 (7 y 4I O ON 0 E N "' N C C ... =mm=, N O '- l'J 10 N N y d Y L> U `.. `.. a 9 c �p Z N C/ N U L= .p .- -¢_ O N- O 0 O Y 0>� O O N m 9- m L O "E N ,� c ECnL='om L ?: 9 0 C LL... N .G N .0 0 0 0 O N a 9 N m cU =._Om Ev ZM 0' _� (0 X01 4 O E c J O C O J- 9 (6 M mY Tm ¢m W N >� > 3 3 O m Q N � C>J C '-' U O -- ¢O'b O m c M m Q 6,R U C O O G c O-a C_ a ,20 .2 O 4l 4f L... fn i C 0L.. Z'O 0> O N d ... YO .r ii '-' U 4I N N 9 J a p 0 7 A> CO U 0 (0 O Y m N y E` m 9 c m_ ¢C C O 9 m a E w p 0- M= 3 .2 v; d 6 O1 Z a m L.. 0= "' c `. 0 ... ¢m m N N y C op,mooi0 m 9¢ y m 6 m 9 U m i m N CU m mr E a m9 C ML.. 6 RIv5 d N ... C .L... N 'T 3 9 .` fn N p ..:-M .O m m O P 9 U m O M Z ¢ O N m r y C y O pQ y O N E O N L a 'Eh ma N C C'3m -0 <20 - m 9 0¢ m U N U m U 6� mCQm >ymf` C 6 Um' -. 0 O' p tO C> N O U f0 C N (� C - E C N N E- Y N C ti y O 0 9 .-: N= C (/1 O, C0 O M 41 j m > m U 0 j ".F." 9 O L y O T .E 9 .3 O L J N A L E U O y C C .2 d a f d N p = a m .L..�.. 0 a a d O N 2-0 U N 6>> N O N L a a—= y D �. �. d .`O. C m a N d V p- C O E O m N o E o u¢i - t0 U Qi Q j m L N O C V y tO U .T. U 6 C ME "° ¢ c� v m a C a O 0 O - N C O 0 O 41 6z 7 Q U n , d Y y ¢ d z N O N U 6 N d y M E N = a V= N .- d m N J op¢"'o C c c_ YrE m" V -m¢ O 0 =y T .p o "C � a c 0 ° ° t — m —d m«.N L° °a c ° °=° o u o= ` 0° h w ` E o ¢mU alE v =__ a L " a U ` o NL y C O _ `� O El r, t Q�E 0 O¢O ` y 0 0 Nom" O J 0 13 O ?O C m � O ) C °Q N a °mv u 2 Em 2 O o0, > o? 0 U3 o N J O N L C U C=omZ N_ . a ¢ n C f ` E E d a E _ o Do QU mU 0 w E3 QS QU Q8 =m J32M G m o.0M Na� EZc m _O m y tiO O 0 O N -Uw 6 0 0 J- 9 6 9 T y 0 VUEC- E y> my � y V NaO.'C O. O 0 m O C 0 0 m N L 0 O'9y m 0 m m G E Sl E !c O N G a m U m c T m OECD' m = m`m... 0.U0 G L0 ° E 0 3'C m °1 v c 0 m c 3 `'`V s c m y m .N O 0 y y L U CO 0 9 (m 0 m y ` 9 O E o.o E og rnd o m m —i C O U m m y m y Q m mD m 0 Nm OOm y VEND 0 6 IL 02 V 0 M ¢ 9 p 0 2 J O m 0 T >+ 6 C N Q m N C m J m >` m 0 O 0 m0 m 9 �O N 9 N O O E NQ OOm m m_ w O a 0E m � O m 8 O O 9 9-8 N dO O Ld 2 m N _ O O m .0 m N O U C O m c _o _ m = p c'- M:E U 3 N d... x >� d m a v m m > rn a E y C O T. c` oC m m O ¢ X0 = c O O U 0 I I 1 1 I I I I I E I I F- I F, j I E G E E a y c a E a d c U� c m y d y 01 C yl 2 a 20 , c 5 y o � T d maE y m (0 � ny H � 0 ui ME O E Eo d d 0 c d y c my O c L ?a m H N'c c 0 o p '0 p L =y0 n o m t c D H o d s c 2 0 U m? y :p E o � -c c a 0 = y " 3 L y 3 r - y > a m o ° n E c X00 c N c ry 0--, y ° E c > n $ o 0 y =aPiS y �00�T� EHr EOCio o y c y y o ° 0 0 m y n m E N c E c = d m 0 n m 3 0 p�m5 rn��c c c m s N O s 4 y � 000 a a oo y J TL n c L 3 o L .N y m H p pl._. O y y s c y o 0`0 3aci Tnnrn rn o 00 c ° c a y 0 o ' s asDo c c yny0 too ._. c - t 00 ° =0 O y y O —_ - O N O N 3 C= a E E m 6 E 'o t d 2 0 0 a nm3n53c 500 O -'E 0 � y o m y d E V mo m t c 3 mow 0 y mc0`0_rno o N o `a c ' m` � 0 Tnt m 0- 0- 00 z t y 00 z H c� t yrna ��=cc U am H y y c 0 N = 0 p N c o o p c ? N s 0 y = c wz5 n2 Ec`0 mE E d c E y c E � ui 0 mho � o � � H Ott N s H N y N any` mn � o c m E dt � E 3 y t 0 E H E_ � E � U0� NLjL 3 o E c , m y a c 0.0 w fan O 0 M,5 MM 81 O p N c° c c N c VaciE °c��Ec Em yTa mym y E> t a m no y .� ° 0 •- _N Ot O d d H rn y vx H'x n yo5 �Ei m 3� `o V m 0 5 C ° Z .N o F Y O o y 0 8 O p C C 0— U N G 0 8� �m� O m 'z y c o C° sQ E p� y m0 n> y ins U 0 tn0 my n$H m�"� 5ny rn °c MM � ayi m-0 rn' Fz zc > y00i .9 0 m ( sNp y M.2 y a c O 0 EE O 6 N.Ns 0 y 0 y 0 4I'p 0 O G> T y H n£ 5 Oyi Oyi E'rn£ Oyi M 0 0 c we 00 s rnH'3 nm y 0 cc n y d 0 o c a o. °c o JR, w To m °m Ociw d M0.8 c a 0 y d '0 d T (I) o `$ o $' U 9°0 N o � ; c C d ° 0 -000 y 5 vx r o w o w a m M c a c d 6.02-0 a E c r ^c mo yo L m C p O S T d m �o` �n0 6s N s s Q. co no. °EONi c 50yi0 o; p3 " � y z y .� y _3 a r.P... �y c.pcoc��o c E '010 MO0 y xo O 0 M,5 MM 81 O p N c° c c N c VaciE °c��Ec Em yTa mym y E> t a m no y .� ° 0 •- _N Ot O d d H rn y vx H'x n yo5 �Ei m 3� `o V m 0 5 C ° Z .N o F Y O o y 0 8 O p C C 0— U N G 0 8� �m� O m 'z y c o C° sQ E p� y m0 n> y ins U 0 tn0 my n$H m�"� 5ny rn °c MM � ayi m-0 rn' Fz zc > y00i .9 0 m ( sNp y M.2 y a c O 0 EE O 6 N.Ns 0 y 0 y 0 4I'p 0 O G> T y H n£ 5 Oyi Oyi E'rn£ Oyi ono 00 s rnH'3 nm cc n y o. °c c y y o 2 M0.8 c a 0 y d '0 y p n y o o m o o- 0 o w p 0 tidy c 00 m yrn°'Epc o y„ m` N' -yy U m x t o M nt `� a c d 6.02-0 a E c E Oci� y :o mc'amX E no. °EONi c 50yi0 o; p3 " � y z y .� y _3 a r.P... c m'C 0 y °c c E '010 MO0 y .y c y c yga s ^ y E£ 0 - 9 Dom n y y c'�yzE£ UJ N 006`0 o 02-i0oyu02 o _3 H cr. 02-, J� rnmrnio -� p M ? 0 M:R go � 0 t.. a N fI a G E c Q a m m u t ° m c m m— H � o y x mQ a�i J � n E @ ° c c m c m L_ N N m J C OI @ c ou ° L m 16 C C m 0 V c U O@ m E m O y@ N y E a Y m att ; N OU mo E E=Nmm°`6 m> O.L.. �c m...mm Edcg'E m mn OI�N tD U UC N Nc m`mw >° a� � uiv Qct O N m> C p Vl O 6D m C c m �' _sa C° m a n m ° a O CE a O m m m i m J U N 4 m nm .. OU .a Z' m 3 O `° m m oE ' -^ ma° y m r V T J N._ cc m m E dm� c n J a O - o w > C N O U 0 : N 1CC - aU 0 m E y ZL O a C cmm pO� m D n'05 n d Oc l a.m nL M O m H o V _ N m m° mryO mE m U y Z ° m m N G J m O N n.L c m � N y . N n ni N c c m L d N W-- m __ a _ _ m T E ry c m N N c c ° 3 m y _ m m m L N yy m C Y ° cU= m y mc c m L V y O T m S > O � a C C ° $ m m w N U E m _ •O O y n C m O c 0 mn � O m `nAn yGy a N p O a U O - .N .0 fc U-� I yN 0 w y p C ° O N"m n'� O d U - O J C c _ my E s » O m N m QEE _ _ m .OZ E L ' L m mm N a0 .Ny Om . y' = 'm c gNm 0 1m .0_ o'm Ec c Q d `m 0 m Sd s ° ow E N >N . p O y y C m y N m m w m EC N Q ryJ L N l 9 yc a O mryry VIyJ Y�O y,Gm =.L..m C CO EO mm c O O t t a d a C L L t L� t G °? N N N a m V L N X �`Oh wE�' O OIC rNKWU=m mK ONU ro0 3�iom UN qua w -E rE ii S' 2 2:12:1 2 oUc =o N Q =O J n =Ud'or Nam m m m m c Q m a 20 �WM U c._y m m tUo C T a m n L y S S Ea c m m w o m Ua =� d n d m ma o O c ° MM 1 mU IL c mo d V; n_ Q m W Q m U _ m — Q m L m M H `ymQ0 > o E 9 c O o�=UE 'c or dc�'m m o8 U Mm O >Q d J a E OI C m L-' N =o d 0 EcU o d t C O O_ O N d (i y C d C d - aci m E O Ot a= V m E - OI C v N m E OI L v N N d C a `O O d ? d OO L L O O d m L U N N L 0 d o E ° E N Z o L N N S J O O O o d O N > p d E C d N C C n O L O v N ry O" L Q p U v O J d yy d N 20 0 d . N N U d O NN N d T U O C Vm E I > N > N E m L o n d M c d d N N d ;° 0 3 o m c ° E n o $ L Nn U d N> d O d_ t d 1 O- N O L y d d > E O O O N° m a i � d ULLO O:y .. OLO � I Nm° nd vom ° o O v om d v U m E C L t 00 y C o N p d 66 c w �� .=.o L E£ ° d 5E m TdN Ec° E EL�> c N 0Q d O O mm2 `N , QpN O M ° O C En 0 0 N N > N N L L°mdd Od O v Tnd �O mU'C d 0E O S O U d d .E o n E n waE Cm Mm w 0 m M E O d Dom— 20 c d EV C J J y0`Od E d o 0O N U d y w H N m ° v O o'Cm mC ° E `= m y y . d o =O o i 2 n o U Q Q` __ N mDd Uv U 2E l0 ".. Lm y dT3 C N °o�m U U C O d L O d d L N N N= N Z a.JO O y S d y c o oN nmo O2 m E m ° E_ n?N m ° c L0L N �^O E T° pd O y Od 5 L E " , N d C H V �m O v G 0 C d d m E V m o m E o_ OE m. T L woVmc da3 mn on Op` 3 M O — —> ` li -2 n c°am omod Tn ` o —E m 3Z OdmoCZ ooE Uw m 0 Q o 0= mmom o d o Q n Nd d 0 - d > Z N L C O Z L .0 J �- O OIa y 02] d m d'p m T� y O N 6dV C N nV 2U c N a c 0.0 O o m n °'= y :10E E- ...mo > ydo cdt radi T 6 3 L - t ry Q Z d_ (p d L O 0 U E °c D t — d d a d n _3t 3 EL oc°> C Lp .2 Nas ND {dp L m N U m D L m N d p Ty NO m° wd- y m 0 L m:U 0 0 .. _ .mO d n_ n dp Od t t c n N n M 0 2 N t n 0 a.2 `° N m c m c `w 'm .3 N m 'E c 'rt no 0c o —E E N d O U ..: 015 w y o o y° n c E E Z x - d H d t o o 0 Q U U N L t d I CP d Q N c E Q 4 m J c ro m G Q N m 0 t O � m L m a m E a y R E y C 3 m i aW c Q � h 0 U c c p o jp � 0', < � Q m J U m �E O Z m E ryC C O (n C m t m J m E C C O (n C m m J m E C C O U1 C m £ m J 0 0a 0 0 0 f m Y E UL.. U m 0 0 Ty C L m C °L... m m m a y L... L... . m- 0O Q..: m C m 0 -ME f N E yC E « TN O C N 0pO O 'O 6 pp0 e .5;.s 0 Ozn N.�... N 0 a m 9 - U- d 'pC 2 C 40f _ ° a; �IIEoo IIm 0MO0y E y C m� �' .� C m cm y> m II (>0 C $mm O m E O O ,a L p E 0 m L 0 II L 0 n �9 C N a C = L "0' m 8's '.EQ �N�O�O'UNYC O� n0'N S O ac a LSO CE Uno mN mE�Gf �mL w "'m c E �0 mmEac �•E cayo me o ym °n 0 1p0 n 0 C C m o > L t t C 0 0 a d p m 0 N M 0 m a m O 7 T Z76 <:E Q- O C1 Z m m m 0 Gf m .y a W '3 N" N 0 m A C N m mEaII=.E0 m -0 C m N 6 N m C✓ 6 N N rn= n m 5 m C m 0 'G OUN �_p6TNa N O1�.E 0 l0 mlOC OIL 020 C °_ �... Ca Nl06UL L_ 6 NC.0 n0 d E 'O G`mfE CZNL.•Z NUayC 3 o` A y c` m °c y m L~ L y_ II a °o3 N 'c m c° JC E m M 0 N 2 a m o 9 0 �' E M' II a m �i m H a a N m�my _ ` mo L... E m E0" �y IIc nm c m �°+£v nc m a m_a= c'- S•Y'd� °° 'L C y N II S L II 8I II p m N D- ` O Cp GIOQp m� N O y' C M= Cy E y C C dC ��Nd 65U �Eo:°.'c yN Ummm P TOEm0 _'b;�8•u+Z. JCtm .E o'E rn`E Ka �'SE50, v� tcmyo -0- N Na C m °.� E w e ° w per- U m QO La m y W w c E o C C N t0 Ca t o d c m c d m 0 V> 6m L daj 0- 'o =vmIIa u'o II L C w`c�pp m Q o v �.� orb mc•-ppt D m ac 82 m O o 0 �'c °v mwo C y j N 0� .=. N N O N O V N L� t0 II L m N p II m _m N t N U 7~ G C ° m - N m m V >> C> E-E m C m m y X° 7 X m n � 7 N C _O m m 0 C E U m Q m D O O 20 T y m �1 t O1'W'pp 000EOm0CHQm Od Lmm N0 00 wF'2 Z' NBC OIOO�ajL E Edmn O.c mHmm Zm f dE Q£ U£OCOU W>S�UL a2'OG a 0> y ... 10 0 a ... II m 52-0 0" N= m n m M Tn p a w n 3 2 0 w AG y o o m M r" ary 0 t 6 0 .0 > L O m L a... O -0; t .3 Ot m �•� V cIInmv7p -- >...cwMm'L m mmEt� °c> mLC 8 c w °nom �mTaa -00 L O O E E y 'q m_- a 0 �- p w- p N U 0I "' .3 C y n L_ d m m 0 �_ ` 0 01L m n 0 N L L V > ti ... E E G N 0 a O S D O L O .3 7 _ y E m _ 6° p _ > 7 .�. 0 > > r 0 j US 0 O O c N 0 I > GC0 ` w V o T E 8 2 O n E od O D N 0 8 5 p N m M m m � TL Z r m , =y 0 C O 0 V OC 0 2 .e • HLp m t0 m 0 � m' E C 0 _ 'p m0mNJ a c m E um M E m E N C SN n V V Z 0 a m d V m C na j m> m° N C __ C .G 0 L ° E 0 a.x r O > 0 Q° 0 II ._. L d C> m m II > 0 C O 7 9 C O m .Q X C m a 0 m W 0 `-' G pn c 52m aw,� C J a 0 _ 2 O a�om.c °i c rn�3 M- E EEyzEUOE _ m_ m4 _Q..!_ �N Am pp. 06 m0 OIJR 40I,N am]L>�Cml 0 X m �. 0 0 6mU m 'OII>ts II N ~TII0�m 0 0 0 L O T 0 C 0 aww n'm '33ETi m a O O c a O E 0 m mOIIa p� $ Mc M E `m > m ._. 2 O L 4i M= 0 L 6 = 6'.ca c O O N2 N° N a 02= 0 °. C O �1 a N 0 5 0 x ai N 2 'p U L X C 0a S0. ._L-• 0 0 6 0 r m a E E d m U c c U o m c m m w Vl � o y >a J U n E z° U n E z° U n E z° co°uI « °oc -c «'olmm00 «E m « «tmc'mamco m m mZmmm> oVO0 mE °1 o O 000lL a`I a`I IOC m.> (IIJL 3 y y Eof JOaaEmm-�9m -m- 0C > a uI c°'mc 'R O3orn0 m° nndm oul C4C 0 0 Jcmm Lanni$ >0Cm coiom°'m m Nncm U L O Y > E E Zt mmn aE«c yV 3rnm�> �m= .m g c c 0 0- m a._ o °nm c 4o 4 O cc w X t0 O w "U a O c N O= O U m OO O m L m 0 m c -c ac V O 0 N Om O OE . 'c �a Om I . m n,P m m d o M- 5 m m m y «.m d 0 'E'M ' 0 m L U U ._ C m m E m m E �'c �° - y°`c O t c c > m o 0 o o 000N c c oH o c m c c m o m V o m c° m -c mU r y y y O Or ° 4 N n 0 0 J y 0= c o m et o P oO ao - n c- O E T O m m c m mc �m. -n -m0 0mmcpm nm °°N occ cmmmz . o 0 n'.0 a E m Ea >C ao " c n° m m mm Nm >1" O m0 I0OmU ?T m m z 4 T m m L c U O mC9 4) 4 m m N m C O 6 6 C« Z-- > m 3 c:6 Z 0 'c 'c C - o M U U E m o m � 0 0 o o L c m 0 mm 4 a .mO m m m� «� smc L o m4O y O UE ywOmU g�N- . m c n � n3 ` ma rn � a 3 m mEo': ° oTcam m- ° O r4oryU m oo .mm0 -o mo r oc d o m N o3 m L omo Z > m N V m oc c M �« U 6 a£n$a nyym a o on yyam °c2°U no - m n n °O o y nm d m E ° 16 a m ` y Z n o0 a o - 0c 0 J. o L° JO'- - -J. ` m� � t0 o � m o E , E cm u > E om a 0 mo 0 0 m T m u E -m 0ao noJy°c o n a O� oEa c c c E 2>'c =° C C m«mm= _n rnc d m m m O E 6 m y m 0 T U L ) > S Ei n I 4c 2 2 QC J 6 bmTa?mw m `m m) L i a 4L L L cm N m O'm uI ul 3 m _ UU O d Z ° i Z m 020 0 2� 0 _w O m 0'� m 'U'U O O m Tm Z« 4I ° c c c c c c y c - 0 0 m D m T . -r •O -o 'U m O X �m m m J m c N _0C . v m N N 1OE 'U m °C° _L N c N J C J Qd3c3Emr E: d0Omm 0.5 Em N` d O1m y . 2 `n J 0 m° m aXi -& cc c o i°.a o n m 30 m2 9i a`I '� c> m mmm-- C m .y -mums '0 c m J L'E �m >>.. min mcm� n °Z m« a m'c u' E _V - °m c c m _N m e T m° m N ?' $ m« o aci 'x T_ MO c oC U ncVL o -g'��. Z' «m�'�mm c °c '�'P cEb4 mm �3mcJi3N U')a°m cg'c m00 n «tiI 0 Jw,5 «m`- -od =m3LC my m m 3 «�.0mm °1c E n� o0oE Lrn 0c m a e =r 9i uI m et a e_n mm�.e y c°' m'� ° �,•__ n c ._ H H ,n U wr T N c m C m cI a E K c o m E 0 00rn 5 M i - 080�1 tmm °c rn D d ' C omdo 0 EN�mm a c C 0 0 m e 0 0ZH m LD mcoc wr Jm0 m .8 m mVmcn.. .c moc L°'6L cE ocSIC «y > ammanin mO,o o` occ mcpJ m ca >m a,_ c3 cc Como cJ me m m c a °I0i)o otU c L °-I c Cm H nNI M.9 o - 0 2 0 omo5`I '� 0 �, m >`a M'6 om x �'a�ai 73, co�yoy � cmi�F 0 O1o�`o mL 00my0mon .°- °100m�0 mE m n mW °o Tn W O 5 m o n« o.� y n n mo m o o c 0 a= E y o 3 m 3 c i� « jL c 3 m m y E E .,c-0 E $oo ino �cE acC Emo0 mC mVl =mo mmm °o�cmocc «o ny No CadNacAm «_ �� m >0 m o N 6 W- O N U i N 4 5) J> n > m o m LaO N J N 0 M 0 m _ 0 m m 1 E a c E Q E m CL @ U C C 02 m c m O VJ � O � j ¢ J U @ O E c @ U - OI fn m .L_. N N J Tl @ E E c @ U � OI fn m .L.. N N J U @ O E c @ U w OI fn m .L_. N d J Y OI V_ OI 4I Y 0 O C. @ C n m n m 0 T m o 0 U T L C 0 @ c C L 0 c 0 @ .3 - - U 0 -� c as0 ;@ @ y N L Q.._. Q. U ... @ U y c U C 0 T H o m N a�i c c rn d 0 '; a C o c V1, C @ O O @ U > N E N .@ 0 L c N E= _ Z U N E 0 @ @ O E L_ A N— 0" d U `-' 7 ._ 4 d L 4 N L_. C 4I U N 4I C= .3 ME —" 0 OI C @ w0E ^..y o W.�; 3mA a C� 'a3 w+ m o m d c U-0 m m � m 5 5 n V m 0 Z-6 c 0 m'L E2 Mo ydUm E o@i@ min a -0m y 0 '> mw, M m 0n-- Ems. @5y .L dU Eto Q '- L00 E g H c n. w m � OO6 0 —y @O C Q @_@ 02,- 0 7 O 0 4I L 0 n N 0 M> O C E @ > O.0 ML 0 U m c En `tia cru0 c H H RIS o 5 3 2 m o C O c 'm m U� 0 9 > 0 > n a .J C J U' " M L m .mr Eo 2Z _0 >c 0 0 a 022 mm Oo 'Q 0 Oa ° � -M m m m"d5E _. .0 m 0 0 @ C 0 0- l � E O. O L >' O O O _ O C 4 m o aim o m m 0L m yo mE 0 '3 an d =9 °13m Q- 12 o=C ny0M @.. oc T0-C6 �c m m@ >a0i > 0. n m 5 0 c - a I a� c �@ S y �@ m 5 t y@ o c Em QEcd nym °1 �w,ry E 000 ?� 'dam Ec rcy 00 O.- 0.� y@ E @ @- 0 dm dd-2 t�cd aHa> =n-5 nano Hcm �'n'EP° 3-:d °m °y 0, 5 m-L• m�0 cc6p Tncm 0 0 0 of 0n Zno d_ ow HE LL°1 @d ZEU°1 Q@ @O L CL O O] — L O @ L 0 @ N C 0 0 0 0 0 L d C 0 C0'- O 0 i U@ m mn c 0 0 $ o 0 0 6—co 3 CCU wr =3a dt 3a Lid wC- aCi 6 n�c-�m mncv aZU0m0'0 �39do 1 m v, E_ 80 v, n cnm >� 0>._. Sau@'UUS0 -@ 0_m- m @dot ca m @ @ - 4 d C O O d C @ Ot O - L E O O E m— m O >C -- @ N U N0 d¢ °m o d ° m d E o d 0Z ' LL 3 E 0 a @_ mm d ' p mm D 0 0 v @_00 n x m 2nc . a>> 0.L 2 as 0M: Td d m V y 0@ o @ 0 E L y . 4 U @ 0@ 0 i @ 0 0 0 O 0 4 O cc @ 0 M O O O O- m n O E cc cm d m @ N �S = O me m Z 0 C0 Cw ERwm 0 a 30 SnQ'Q cCyt3a H -0mon d -o @°1 cm0>a� v,oamcd @Em d�nHZm n� mwt �.�0'0 cdi`m .2-0�;dod mE0 dd 0 H� --'00 @ U 0.2 O 0 d O d E 00 m oE0 00 .y T= O >0 ° mo> S - E T O oW o = ad @ o m d0 nm d j o 2 o E C n C m m n ma m C .O C y O .@ O U us ] E E 'C U O O t1 O E E @ U . O U 0 O O 0£ U T w Wi z- � 0 LT.c v¢3c m c ¢m c O U 0 y 0 D E Q E `m 4 m J D N d a c E ¢ N a m m O < U `m E d 0 N aE h � D W < Q � U) Q d U c c U O W q C m PR Vl M o y` 5 >Q d J d N It L y S N N 0 O C O N O O - d U y Q N ry O N O N = 0 y E< y C C m � 0 5 c 3 U y N O .0 U_ C O d N H d N a o o d L ` H N 0 y N E � N N N N 0 H d s C T V C M M O d U j N N C N r O L O n U N U _m ~ N - N M.0 E y a 0 � c d m °O - o a b ° o E 2 C T N N N �- O C U C V lO o m£ y_ E m c N � U C E3vcmpj °c o E y d c N c OM= N C U O O p N O - am C 0- N 0 0.- C .d. N C 0 C - 0 y -N y 0 3 ... ..x d d n d M E c E y y E N d U_ 0- - d 3 a °1COCQ Sr°o $.=Z -5m`E i y 0Ru% E ` C O .0 U 6 U - J t0 �, t0 L U O d y U o:? d a c C m a a m `N N U 0 N C N N d U U U U 0 H c 0 Z ' St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church General Plan Amendment and Use Permit Amendment Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 SECTION 2.0 INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND 2.1 Purpose of the Draft EIR 2.1.1 Authority This Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was prepared pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) of 1970, as amended (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.) and the CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations Section 15000 et seq.). This EIR assesses the potential impacts associated with the proposed St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church development project. The City of Newport Beach is the Lead Agency for the proposed project and the attendant General Plan Amendment and Amendment to the Use Permit. An EIR is an informational document prepared pursuant to CEQA. It provides decision - makers, public agencies, and the public in general with detailed information about the potential significant environmental effects of a proposed project. It also lists the ways in which the significant effects of a project might be ' minimized and addresses alternatives to the project. CEQA requires that an EIR contain at a minimum, certain specific information, including but not limited to a clear, concise project description; environmental settings; discussion of environmental impacts; effects found not to be significant, and cumulative impacts. This information is required pursuant to Sections 15120 through 15132 of the State CEQA Guidelines, 2.1.2 Incorporation by Reference As permitted by Section 15150 of the CEQA Guidelines, this Draft EIR has referenced several technical studies, analyses, and reports. Information from the documents that has been incorporated by reference has been briefly summarized in the appropriate section(s) that follow and the relationship between the incorporated part of the referenced document and the Draft EIR has been described. The documents and other sources, which have been used in the preparation of this Draft EIR, are identified in Chapter 13.0 (Bibliography). In accordance with Section 15150(b) of the State CEQA Guidelines, the location where the public may obtain and review these referenced documents and other sources used in the preparation ' of the Draft EIR is also identified in Chapter 15.0. Several Elements of the Newport Beach General Plan have been used extensively in the preparation of the Draft EIR. Where appropriate and necessary, one or more of those elements have been incorporated by reference as permitted by CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines. 2.1.3 Intended Uses of the Draft EIR ' Pursuant to the requirements of CEQA, the Draft EIR is intended to provide information regarding the environmental consequences of, mitigation measures for, and alternatives to, the proposed St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church development project. It is also meant to facilitate discussions with other agencies ' regarding implementation of mitigation measures. CEQA is specific about providing disclosure where "[t]he EIR is to demonstrate to an apprehensive citizenry that the agency has, in fact, analyzed and considered the ecological implications of its action ... " (Guidelines Section 15300 [d]). CEQA also requires consideration of the whole or entirety of an action. With these guiding principles in mind, the intended uses of this EIR are to: Inform the decision - makers, public, and agencies about the project; Analyze the environmental impacts of the proposed St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church project; Provide notice to Responsible/Trustee Agencies regarding required permits; C:IMyFilesKKC- 0060. STANDREWSMIDRAFTEIRI2. 0 Introduction.doc Page 2.1 St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church General Plan Amendment and Use Permit Amendment Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 Incorporate analysis related to the requirements of these laws to allow responsible agencies to make findings pursuant to this EIR. Although this Draft EIR will also be necessarily specific in the depth of analysis (i.e., project -level analysis), this document, along with the supporting existing setting and General Plan and related long - range planning documents, provides environmental documentation for the implementation of each of the elements proposed by the project applicant, including the specific programmatic proposals for use of the existing and proposed development. It provides project level environmental documentation for individual projects that are consistent with the goals, concepts, and strategies of the City of Newport Beach General Plan. A discretionary approval is an action taken by a government agency that calls for the exercise of judgment in deciding whether to approve or how to carry out a project. For this project, the government agency is the Newport Beach City Council. To approve and implement the proposed St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church General Plan Amendment and Amendment to the Use Permit, the following specific discretionary approvals by the Newport Beach City Council are needed: Certification of the EIR (DEIR and FEIR together) /Approval of the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Approval of the General Plan Amendment Approval of a Zone Change Approval of a Revised and Amended Use Permit In accordance with Section 15161 of the State CEQA Guidelines, this document is intended to serve as a "project" EIR that examines the environmental impacts of the specific development project. In this case, several discretionary actions are requested to implement the proposed St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church project. The analysis contained in this document will focus on the changes in the environment that will result from the development of the proposed improvements identified by the applicant, St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church. This EIR will be used in the review of the St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church improvements and the adoption of and approval of any of the following project implementation activities that may be necessary: Approval of development plans, including zoning and other related permits; 2. Issuance of permits and other approvals necessary for implementation of the proposed project. 2.1.4 Related Approvals This EIR may be used by the following public agencies in the adoption of the proposed St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church improvements and approval of implementation activities there under (refer to Table 2 -1); 1. City Council of the City of Newport Beach; 2. Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach; 3. Departments of the City of Newport Beach that must approve implementation activities undertaken in accordance with the General Plan Amendment and related discretionary actions; 4. California Regional Water Quality Control Board; C: WyFilesVOC C- 0060.STANDREWS.Na1DRAFTEIR12.0 Introduction.doc Page 2 -2 I I I 1 I_J 11 L 1 I I St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church General Plan Amendment and Use Permit Amendment Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 5. All other public agencies that may approve implementation activities undertaken in accordance with the General Plan Amendment and Amendment to the Use Permit. 2.1.5 Agencies Having Jurisdiction The principal agency having jurisdiction over the proposed project is the City of Newport Beach because the project site is located in the City. Nonetheless, the proposed project includes a series of possible actions over which a number of agencies may have authority. Table 2 -1 lists potential state, regional, and local approvals that may occur during the course of implementation of the proposed project and identifies the agencies with potential jurisdiction over these permits and /or approvals. Table 2 -1 List of Potential Responsible Agencies Project Approvals Agency I Permit/Approval Local Agencies City of Newport Beach General Plan Amendment Zone Change Use Permit (Amendment) Building, Grading and Ancillary Permits Water Supply and Distribution Sewer and Drainage Facilities Drainage /Flood Control Facilities Regional Agencies Orange County Sanitation District Sewage Collection and Treatment Connection Permit Orange County Health Care Agency I Asbestos Remediation State Agencies Regional Water Quality Control Board National Pollution Discharge Elimination System ( NPDES) Storm Water Permit NPDES Construction Permit ' 2.1.6 Notice of Preparation The City of Newport Beach has complied with Sections 15063 and 15082 of the CEQA Guidelines by ' preparing and issuing a Notice of Preparation of a Draft EIR. The City distributed a Notice of Preparation (NOP) of an EIR and an Initial Study (IS) for the proposed St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church project on August 7, 2003 for a 30 -day review period. The NOP was distributed to the State Clearinghouse Office of Planning and Research, public agencies, utility and service providers, Orange County Clerk/Recorder, and homeowners' associations in the project area. A copy of the NOP (and IS) is provided in Appendix A of this EIR. The distribution list for the NOP is provided in Appendix B. The City received 11 written responses to the NOP (refer to Appendix B). Table 2 -2 summarizes the responses and indicates where in the IS and /or the EIR each specific environmental topic raised in these comment letters is located. CAMyFilesKKC- 0060. STANDREWS. NBIDRAFTEIRI2. 0 Introduction. doc Page 2 -3 St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church General Plan Amendment and Use Permit Amendment I Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 Table 2 -2 Summary of NOP Comments St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church C :IMyFilesIKKC- 0060.STANDREWS.NB DRAFTEIR12.0 Introductlon.doc Page 2 -4 Section in Draft EIR Agency /Organization /Individual Summary of Comment(s) Where Issue is Evaluated Project will overbuild the Section 4.1 neighborhood. Land Use /Relevant Planning Minnie & David Ballard The project will encourage more Section 4.2 traffic. Traffic and Parking Lead Agency should identify any South Coast Air Quality potential adverse air quality Section 4.3 Management District impacts from all phases of Air Quality development Intensity of proposed development Section 4.1 is too high — conflicts with "quiet' Land Use /Relevant Planning residential neighborhood. At Marshall Increase in traffic and continued Section 4.2 use of on- street parking in spite of Traffic and Parking the parking garage. Proposed expansion is Section 4.1 David Young incompatible with the existing Land Use /Relevant Planning residential neighborhood Noise associated with increased Section 4.4 vehicular traffic. Noise Lighting from on -site facilities and Section 4.5 vehicular traffic. Aesthetics Ellen Shiro Air emissions and fumes from Section 4.3 increased vehicular traffic. Air Quality Construction noise and air impacts Sections 4.3 and 4.4 for underground garage and gym. Air Quality and Noise Need for a comprehensive project Chapter 3.0 description. Project Description Land use compatibility and Section 4.1 consistency analysis. Land Use /Relevant Planning Current and projected parking Section 4.2 demands /shared parking potential. Traffic and Parking Newport Heights Improvement Need for a detailed traffic analysis. Section 4.2 Association (Don Krotee) Traffic and Parking Project - related noise from increased traffic and parking Section 4.4 garage. Noise Project - related air quality Section 4.3 violations and exposure of Air Quality residents to adverse air quality. C :IMyFilesIKKC- 0060.STANDREWS.NB DRAFTEIR12.0 Introductlon.doc Page 2 -4 tSt. Andrew's Presbyterian Church General Plan Amendment and Use Permit Amendment Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 IC:IMyFilesKKC- 0060. STANDREWS .NBIDRAFTEIR12.01ntroduction.doc Page 2 -5 Section in Draft EIR Agency /Organization /Individual Summary of Comment(s) Where Issue is Evaluated Degradation of the existing visual Section 4.5 character and quality of the Aesthetics neighborhood (including light and glare). Subterranean parking structure Section 4.6 Newport Heights Improvement could create a magnet for criminal Police Protection Association (Don Krotee) activity. (Continued) Evaluate an alternative site for a Chapter 10.0 regionally -sized church. Alternatives Cumulative impacts and project- Chapter 9.0 related impacts. Cumulative Impacts The proposed land use change is inconsistent with the preexisting Donna A. Gallant CC &Rs that are binding and run Section 4.1 with the property that expressly Land Use /Relevant Planning prohibit land use changes without meeting certain tests. Increased traffic resulting from Section 4.2 project implementation. Traffic and Parking Proposed intensification of the site Section 4.1 conflicts with the neighborhood, Land Use Relevant Planning necessitating the City to protect the residential nature of the area. Tom Cullis Construction impacts, including Sections 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, and 4.4 dust, noise, traffic, etc. Land Use/Relevant Planning, Traffic and Parking, Air Quality, and Noise Criminal activity resulting from the Section 4.6 construction of the parking garage. Police Protection Outdoor lighting. Section 4.5 Aesthetics Noise associated with Section 4.4 underground parking structure. Noise Richard and Elaine England Demands on law enforcement. Section 4.6 Police Protection Logistics of the flow of traffic and Section 4.2 interruptions of service during Traffic and Parking construction. Southern California Gas Company The Gas Company can adequately serve the site. Not Applicable California Department of No comments. Not Applicable Transportation IC:IMyFilesKKC- 0060. STANDREWS .NBIDRAFTEIR12.01ntroduction.doc Page 2 -5 St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church General Plan Amendment and Use Permit Amendment Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 2.1.7 Scoping Meeting Although not required, the City conducted a Scoping Meeting pursuant to Section 15083 of the State CEQA Guidelines. The City of Newport Beach distributed a Notice of Preparation to all property owners within 300 feet of the subject property, which notified nearby residents that would be most directly affected by implementation of the proposed project, along with public agencies and interested organizations, that a Scoping Meeting would be held as a means of providing comments on the scope of the Draft EIR. The Scoping Meeting was conducted in the Newport Beach City Council chambers on August 20, 2003. The initial study responses, NOP comments, and comments presented at the Scoping Meeting were used to establish the scope of the issues addressed in this Draft EIR. Appendix 14.1 contains a copy of the initial study and the NOP (with mailing list). All of the NOP comment letters that were received during each NOP comment period are included in Appendix 14.2 of this document. 2.1.8 Availability of the Draft EIR The Draft EIR has been distributed directly to numerous public agencies and to interested organizations for review and comment. The Draft EIR and all related technical studies are also available for review and copying at the City of Newport Beach. These documents and materials are also available for inspection at the Newport Beach Public Library located at 1000 Avocado in the City of Newport Beach. In addition, copies of the Draft EIR are also available for review at the two branch libraries listed below. Mariners Branch Balboa Branch 2005 Dover Drive 100 East Balboa Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92660 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Agencies, organizations and individuals are invited to comment on the information presented in the Draft EIR during the public review period. Specifically, comments are requested on the scope and adequacy of the environmental analysis. Respondents are also asked to provide or identify additional environmental information that is germane but which they feel may not have been used in the analysis. Following the public review period, a response to all substantive public review comments will be prepared and compiled into a Final EIR. The Final EIR will be considered by the Newport Beach City Council for certification. In addition to the locations identified above, copies of the Draft EIR for the St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church General Plan Amendment and Amendment to the Use Permit are also available for review at: City of Newport Beach Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 Contact Person: James Campbell (949) 644 -3210 2.1.9 Opportunities for Public Input and the EIR Process If comments on the Draft EIR are submitted, they will be addressed in the Responses to Comments Report. The Responses to Comment Report will be part of the Final EIR and will be presented to the Newport Beach Planning Commission and the City Council for their consideration of the EIR and the proposed St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church project. The Response to Comments Appendix will be available for public review at the City of Newport Beach Planning Department located at 3300 Newport Boulevard. C:WyFilesVCKC- 0060. STANDREWS. NBIDRAFTEIRU 01ntroduction.doc Page 2 -6 St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church General Plan Amendment and Use Permit Amendment Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 2.1.10 Certification of the EIR After the circulation of the Draft EIR, the City of Newport Beach will prepare responses to all written comments received on the environmental analysis presented in that document and will prepare the Final EIR. The Final EIR will consist of the Draft EIR, revised as appropriate based on comments received during the public comment period, the EIR Appendices and the Responses to Comments Appendix. The Newport Beach Planning Commission will review the EIR for adequacy and make recommendations to the City Council regarding certification of the Final EIR. The City Council will consider the information in the Final EIR prior to its certification, should the City Council find the document adequate. The City Council will have to certify the EIR in order to implement the improvements proposed for the St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church. 2.2 Methodology 2.2.1 Existing Conditions This introductory section describes the existing environmental conditions related to each issue analyzed in the Draft EIR. In accordance with Section 15125 of the State CEQA Guidelines, both the local and regional settings are discussed as they exist prior to implementation of the Proposed Project. 2.2.2 Impact Significance Criteria Section 15126 of the CEQA Guidelines requires that an EIR "identify and focus on the significant environmental effects" of a proposed project. "Effects" and "impacts" mean the same under CEQA and are used interchangeably within this Draft EIR. A "significant effect" or "significant impact" on the environment means "a substantial, or potentially substantial, adverse change in any of the physical conditions within the area affected by the project" (Section 15382 of the CEQA Guidelines). In determining whether an impact is "significant" within CEQA's definition, emphasis has been given to the basic policies of CEQA with respect to a particular subject matter, as well as to specific criteria for significance found in the CEQA Guidelines (refer to Appendix G to the CEQA Guidelines). An effort has been made to avoid overly subjective significance criteria that are not based in specific CEQA policies and /or generally accepted thresholds upon which significance can be determined. For each subject area addressed within this Draft EIR, significance criteria are identified that have been applied in analyzing the potential effects of the Proposed Project. 2.2.3 Standard Conditions and Uniform Codes The Proposed Project will incorporate, where necessary or required, standard conditions and uniform codes as required by the City and /or other responsible agencies. For analytical purposes, compliance with these regulatory requirements is not considered mitigation. Where an otherwise significant impact is avoided, in whole or in part, due to the application of standard regulatory requirements or project features, the text will note that an issue of environmental concern exists and that it is addressed by a standard regulatory requirement. The requirement has been identified and the manner in which it addresses the environmental issue is also identified. This precludes the use of mitigation measures that are mere repetitions of common practice, City planning /approval procedures, or laws that are applicable to the Proposed Project. 2.2.4 Impact Analysis The impact analysis presented in the Draft EIR identifies specific project - related impacts. As described above, the significance criteria provide the basis for distinguishing between impacts that are determined C:IMyFilesKKC- 0060. STANDREWSWBIDRAFTEIRI2.O Introduction.doc Page 2 -7 St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church General Plan Amendment and Use Permit Amendment Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 20 to be significant (i.e., impact exceeds the threshold of significance) and those that are less than significant. The existing environmental setting (i.e., existing conditions) is the basis for documenting the nature and extent of impacts anticipated to result from project implementation. Potential impacts presented in the Draft EIR will be based on a "worst case analysis," which assumes future development within the St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church property based on a maximum buildout of the site proposed by the project applicant. In assessing the impacts of the Proposed Project and the various CEQA alternatives, the City of Newport Beach has conducted the following analysis: "Potential effects" of the project have been identified. Initially, these potential effects are identified on a cursory level. No determination is made that they truly are "significant, "adverse," or "substantial." This process merely identifies issues and impacts, which, on a cursory level, may seem possible. "Potential effects" include issues identified in the initial study /environmental assessment as well as those raised by the public, the landowners, the City, and other public agencies. With respect to each potential effect, an analysis has been conducted to determine if, in fact: The project produces the identified "effect "; and The effect produces a substantial, or potentially substantial, change in the physical conditions within the area affected by the project (i.e., "significant "); and The changed conditions are "adverse." Where the investigation of a potential effect concludes the effect is too speculative for evaluation, that conclusion is noted and the discussion of that effect is ended. Where the investigation demonstrates a potential effect does or may (without undue speculation) occur, but is beneficial, that conclusion is noted. Where the investigation demonstrates a potential effect is not significant or not adverse, that conclusion is noted. 2.2.5 Mitigation Measures Where the analysis described in Section 2.2.4 above demonstrates that a potential effect does or may (without undue speculation) occur and is found to have a substantial or potentially substantial and adverse impact on physical conditions within the area affected by the project, that conclusion is noted and: Mitigation measures are provided which will minimize or avoid the significant effects and, in most cases, reduce them to less than significant levels; and /or Where feasible mitigation measures are not identified which can reduce or avoid the significant effects) to less than significant levels, the significant effect will be identified as one that will result in "significant unavoidable adverse impacts ". 2.2.6 Unavoidable Significant Impacts Unavoidable significant adverse impacts (i.e., those effects that either cannot be mitigated or they remain significant even after mitigation) will be identified in this section the Draft EIR if the mitigation measures prescribed cannot reduce the significant impacts to a less than significant level (or the mitigation measures are infeasible, or their implementation cannot be guaranteed because they are the responsibility of another public agency). Prior to approval of the Proposed Project, the Newport Beach City Council will be required to adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations that identifies and describes the public benefit(s) associated with project implementation that offset the potentially significant C: IMyFilesIKKC- 0060.STANDREWS.NBIDRAFTEIR12.O Introduction.doc Page 2 -8 ' St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church General Plan Amendment and Use Permit Amendment Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 ' short-term, construction - related air quality impacts identified in the event the air quality mitigation measures are not implemented as prescribed (refer to Section 4.3.6). 1 2.3 Format of the Draft EIR As noted above, this EIR focuses on the analysis of those environmental parameters that may experience significant adverse impacts as a result of the proposed St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church General Plan Amendment and Amendment to the Use Permit. This analysis is documented in this Draft EIR as follows: Section 1.0 — Executive Summa N. This section includes the executive summary, which summarizes the proposed project and the project alternatives. In addition, a table is included in this section that summarizes the potential environmental impacts, mitigation measures and level of significance after mitigation. Section 2.0 - Introduction. This section provides relevant, information, context and background on the CEQA process and the proposed project. Section 3.0 — Proiect Description. This section includes a brief description of the environmental setting, provides a detailed project description, enumerates the project objectives, and identifies implementation /phasing associated with the proposed project. Section 4.0 — Environmental Analysis. This section describes the existing conditions, the thresholds of significance, the analytical methodology, the impacts of the proposed projects, mitigation to reduce or avoid any significant adverse impacts, and the level of significance of the impacts after mitigation for the environmental parameters determined in the IS to potentially result in significant adverse impacts. Section 5.0 — Impacts Determined to be Less than Significant. This section summarizes the environmental impacts found not to be significant based on the analysis provided in the initial study (IS). Section 6.0 — Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts. This section summarizes the potential significant unavoidable adverse impacts of the proposed project, after mitigation, based on the analysis documented in Section 4.0. Section 7.0 — Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources. This section addresses the potential for irretrievable and irreversible commitment of resources associated with the proposed project. Section 8.0 — Growth - Inducing Impacts. This section addresses the potential for growth- Inducing impacts associated with the proposed project. Section 9.0 — Cumulative Impacts. This section addresses the potential for cumulative impacts associated with the proposed project. Section 10.0 — Alternatives. This section provides a qualitative analysis of the potential environmental impacts associated with the Altematives to the Project, including the No Project Alternative. Section 11.0 — Organizations and Persons Consulted. This section lists the City of Newport Beach staff and /or departments consulted during the preparation of the Draft EIR as well as consultant personnel who were consulted during or responsible for the preparation of this Draft EIR. Section 12.0 — Bibliography. This section lists the references used in the preparation of this Draft EIR. C:WyFilesVOCC -0060. STANDREWS.NBIDRAFTEIR12.0 Introduction. doc St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church General Plan Amendment and Use Permit Amendment Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 Section 13.0 — Glossary of Terms. This section provides a comprehensive glossary of terms and acronyms used in the EIR. Appendices. The Appendices to this EIR include the NOP, the responses to the NOP and technical reports prepared to analyze the potential impacts of the project alternatives. C:1 MyFilesIKKC- 0060.STANDREWS.NBV)RAFTEIRI2.0 Introduction.doc Page 2 -10 ' St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church General Plan Amendment and Use Permit Amendment Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 3.0 SECTION 3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ' 3.1 Project Location The City of Newport Beach is an urbanized coastal community located in western Orange County (refer to Exhibit 3 -1). Newport Beach is bordered by the Cities of Irvine on the north and northeast and by Costa Mesa on the north and northwest. Crystal Cove State Park is located southeast of the City's corporate boundaries. On the west, the incorporated limits of the City extend to the Santa Ana River; the City of Huntington Beach is located west of the Santa Ana River. The Pack Ocean comprises the southwestern boundary of the City. The City of Newport Beach has developed as a grouping of small communities or "villages," primarily due to the natural geographic form of the bay. Many of the newer developments, located inland from the bay, have been based on a "Planned Community" concept, resulting in an extension of the village form, even where no major geographic division exists. The various villages provide for a wide variety of type and style of development, both residential and commercial. The City includes lower density, single - family ' residential areas, as well as more intensively developed residential beach areas. Commercial areas range from master planned employment centers to marine industrial, neighborhood shopping centers, a regional shopping center, and visitor commercial areas. ' St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church was established in Newport Beach in 1947 and moved to its present location at 600 St. Andrew's Road in the City three years later. The roughly triangular- shaped property encompasses 3.943 acres, which are bounded on the northeast by 15"' Street and on the southeast by Clay Street; St. Andrew's Road comprises the northwestern property boundary. Exhibit 3 -2 provides a local context for the subject property. The subject property is located within the Newport Heights area of the City. This area is located northerly of the Mariner's Mile Specific Plan and is bounded by Dover Avenue on the east and Irvine Avenue on the west; 15"' Street and the Mariner's Mile Specific Plan form the northern and southern boundaries, respectively, of Newport Heights statistical area, which is located between Irvine Avenue and Dover ' Drive. The Cliff Haven area is located west of Irvine Avenue and is designated predominantly for single - family detached residential development, although properties between 15 Street and Coral Place east of Irvine Avenue and adjacent to St. Andrew's Road are designated for two- family residential or multiple - family residential land use. The western corner of St. Andrews Road at 15th Street is designated ' Government, Education and Institutional Facilities, the same designation for Newport Harbor High School to the north of 15th Street. I I ' CWyFilestl(KC- 0060. STANDREWS. NBIDRAFTEIR13. 0 Deschption.doc Page 3 -1 ;_ N — � "° 0 0 �� — °R; .J p ~97 O O P Se11�. ,. - s �{ 4 �nY .. �O SIGN DIEGO Fallem _.r PROJECT SITE O - our Not 11 1� bo O O Exhibit 3 -1 Regional Map ICI, u 11 FI 171 Ll L �I 1I n- IV LO r r . — —•— ._ p Not 11 1� bo O O Exhibit 3 -1 Regional Map ICI, u 11 FI 171 Ll L �I 1I SOURCE: Kimley -Hom and Associates, Inc. Exhibit 3 -2 Vicinity Map St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church General Plan Amendment and Use Permit Amendment , Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 3.0 3.2 Environmental Setting 3.2.1 Existing Land Use St. Andrew's Church PropertV The site supports five existing buildings, including the 1,387 -seat sanctuary located at the apex of St. Andrews Road and 15th Street. Other buildings on the site include the chapel /administration building that fronts on 15th Street, an education building and the fellowship hall that abut the existing surface parking lot fronting Clay Street, and an additional educational building located along St. Andrews Road. At the present time, the church property encompasses 104,440 square feet of gross floor area (GFA), resulting in an existing floor area ratio (FAR) of 0.61. (This figure exceeds the 100,428 square feet allocated to the church property and reflected in the Land Use Element of the City's General Plan.) Surface parking on the site accommodates 250 automobiles. The existing buildings are illustrated on Exhibit 3 -3. Table 3 -1 reflects the existing level of development on the 3.943 -acre site. Table 3 -1 Summary of Existing Facilities St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church Building' Building Use Existing floor Area (Square Feet) Building A Main Sanctuary 41,921 Building B Classrooms 21,669 Building C Offices /Chapel 16,620 Building D Fellowship Hall 17,762 Building E Classrooms 6,468 Total 104,440 'Refer to Exhibit 3 -3. SOURCE: St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church Entitlement to Use Application; May 20, 2003. At the present time, St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church maintains a staff of 118 individuals and provides pre- kindergarten, kindergarten and after school programs to accommodate programs available at the church. The existing full- and part-time staffing of the church and the existing school and after school enrollments are presented in Table 3 -2. C: IMyFilesVOxC- 0060.STANDREWS.NBIDRAFTEIRI3. O Descrip0on.doc Page 3 -4 CNN VINHONNO 'HOV313 I)dOdM3N avou SM3kjaNV IS 009 :..r — M C1 5 0 K6 LU > g 13381S Hlgl x LLI HounHO NVIU31AG831d,� SM3UClNV IS A, ell 11 '.1 0 cr w cc 0 z Si vi , �'oy :..r — M C1 5 0 K6 LU > C3 13381S Hlgl x LLI , �'oy al MUM :..r — ,,o o C3 Ul A, ell 11 '.1 al MUM ,,o o C3 Ul al MUM St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church General Plan Amendment and Use Permit Amendment Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 3.0 Table 3 -2 Existing Staffing Summary St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church StaffinglStudents Full -Time Part -Time Total St. Andrews Presbyterian Church Staffing Clergy 11 0 11 Business /Clergy Support 28 21 49 Teachers 0 33 33 Maintenance & Janitorial 9 0 9 Ministry Interns 0 16 16 Total Employees 48 70 118 Students Pre - Kindergarten 0 160 160 Kindergarten 0 40 40 After School K -6 0 100 100 After School 7 -12 0 0 0 Total Students 0 300 300 SOURCE: St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church Entitlement to Use Application; May 20, 2003. Surrounding Land Uses Newport Harbor High School is located north of 15`h Street. The school's property extends from Irvine Avenue on the west to the Newport Beach Environmental Nature Center on the east and is situated between 16`h Street on the north and 15`h Street on the south. The Environmental Nature Center is a created habitat that extends along the eastern boundary of the high school between 15`h Street and 16`h Street on the north and south, respectively. The subject property is surrounded by residential development on the west and southwest (primarily duplexes) and on the east and south (single - family detached residences). The Masonic Temple is located at the southwestern corner of 15`h Street and St. Andrew's Road. Commercial development is located approximately one -half mile north of the site along 17th Street. South of the project (along Pacific Coast Highway), approximately one -half mile away, the primary land use is retail commercial, including marine - related uses. In addition, Ensign Middle School is also located south of Coral Place within the residential neighborhood south of the church property. Exhibit 3 -4 (Aerial Photograph) reflects the relationship of the existing St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church to the adjacent residential development and Newport Harbor High School. 3.2.2 Existing General Plan The St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church property is designated as "Governmental, Educational & Institutional Facilities" (GEIF) on the Newport Beach Land Use Element as is the Newport Harbor High School property and the parcel located at the southwest comer of 15th Street and St. Andrew's Road. This GEIF land use designation allows for the development of government facilities (e.g., fire stations, libraries, etc.), educational facilities such as schools, and institutional facilities (e.g., hospitals, churches, etc.). The areas to the east and southeast (east of St. Andrew's Road) are designated "Single Family Detached Residential" and "Two Family Residential (abutting St. Andrew's Road);' the area west of St. Andrew's Road and south of 15`h Street is designated as "Multi- Family Residential" Exhibit 3 -5 reflects the adopted General Plan land use designations for the subject property and the area surrounding St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church. According to the Newport Beach General Plan, the site is limited to 100,428 square feet of gross floor area. C: WyFilesKKC- 0060.STANDREWS.NBIDRAFTEIR13. 0 Descriptlon.doc Page 3 -6 r r Y" ((1 s. r.� - r I � I � _ 76 e °o V L 2 `o 2 3 2 ?4' 3Alao ) a SS hb r lg a 0 R a n 4� Oyoa 5 •P'I. 'm ti0 N PP LL _ S b °u u � i E me mu E � �✓ u v` ii E E N� o O� fi bry P4. ° in u r i E a° ft K tt t7 > GO d7 �2 S w ° N. `,>_,.. 2 LL �J S9N1� w tt ovoa ° 899bVN SONS aivaid �4 U O 2 k a � c M — ra K W = V *.P .X W L U m O a d 2 O U U1 U K O m St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church General Plan Amendment and Use Permit Amendment Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 3.0 ' 3.2.3 Existing Zoning ' The larger southern portion of the subject property is zone R -1 (Single Family Residential) and northern portion of the site is zone R -2 (Duplex Residential). Residential district regulations are intended to accommodate residential development areas that are consistent with the General Plan. Public and semi- ' public land uses such as churches are also permitted in the R -1 and R -2 zoning districts; however, approval of an amendment to the existing use permit is required. St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church is currently operating under a Use Permit (UP No. 822). Newport Harbor High School is zoned GEIF (Governmental, Educational & Institutional Facilities) consistent with the land use designation identified and described above. The area east of St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church is zoned R -1, with the exception of the property extending along St. Andrews Road between Clay Street and Cliff Drive, which is zoned R -2. The area south of 15th Street and west of St. Andrew's Road is zoned MFR (Multiple Family Residential); however, the parcel at the southwest corner of 15th Street and St. Andrew's Road is zoned GEIF. Zoning for the St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church and vicinity are illustrated on Exhibit 3 -6. 3.2.4 Physical Environment Land Use The area in which the project site is located is virtually entirely developed. As indicated above, single - family attached and detached residential development exists southeast and southwest of the church property. Newport Harbor High School is located north of 15th Street; the Masonic hall occupies the small parcel located at the northwest corner of St. Andrews Road and 15th Street. The Newport Beach Environmental Nature Center occupies a narrow drainage, which physically separates the school from the residential development to the east. No significant undeveloped property is located within the immediate vicinity of the site. The site is devoid of natural vegetation and has urban landscaping and introduced plant materials. Climate and Air Quality The project site is located within the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB), a 6,600 square mile area encompassing all of Orange County and the non -desert portions of Los Angeles, Riverside, and San Bernardino Counties. Regional meteorology is largely dominated by a persistent high - pressure area that commonly resides over the eastern Pacific Ocean. The distinctive climate of this area is determined primarily by its terrain and geographic location. Local climate is characterized by warm summers, mild winters, infrequent rainfall, moderate daytime onshore breezes, and moderate humidity. Ozone and pollutant concentrations tend to be lower along the coast, where the constant onshore breeze disperses pollutants toward the inland valley of the SCAB and adjacent deserts. However, as a whole, the SCAB fails to meet national standards for several criteria pollutants, including ozone, carbon monoxide and PM10, and is classified as a "non- attainment" area for those pollutants. Geology and Seismicity The project site is located in the seismically active southern California region. There are no active faults or fault systems known to exist on or in the immediate vicinity of the project site. In addition, the project site is not within an Alquist - Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone as illustrated on the maps issued by the State Geologist for the area. Although there are no active faults or fault systems known to exist on or in the immediate vicinity of the project site (and the site is not within an Alquist - Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone), it is subject to seismic shaking resulting from earthquakes occurring on one or more of the regional faults. The closest active faults within 50 miles of the project site are the Newport- Inglewood, Norwalk, and Raymond Faults. The Newport- Inglewood fault, which is the only active fault within or immediately adjacent to the City of Newport Beach, could generate a 7.0 magnitude or greater maximum credible earthquake. The subject property is devoid of slopes and /or unstable soils. C' MyResMC -0060. STANDREWS.NBIDRAFTEIR13. 0 Description.doc Page 3 -9 j MFR R'2 (21781 LOT 47 wG mn 2� XOLLY ti H MAAGIRET sm o N o N R-) ; R-I R9 X 0 Ei Q -/ 2 J RR7✓( Q -/ 4' _ 1�C F -d.F— '6� CA cs �GEIF e., e F 1 °.`.a \ F-IR (2176) " P oje ite 1 MFR 1217B1�i i i m c M FR (217 81 Q 1 MFR (217 8) 1 h R \ MFR (21781 �\ - pt ALG Q� (pP4/ � O A f4 e R-1 Jvp. NO. f9/ r�Y M. /II♦ wONw[( fN1,CN � / STREE T SOURCE: City of Newport Beach AW 11.V PI AL NCSIYCNIIAL SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DUPLEX RESIDENTIAL MXTPLE FAMLY RESDENTIAL MULTIPLE RESIDENTIAL A ,,. VCJL,Flw. cornfacmL Gov ry COW-, fasr. c.K Exhibit 3 -6 Existing Zoning St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church General Plan Amendment and Use Permit Amendment Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 3.0 ' Drainage and Hydrology As previously indicated, the entire site is currently developed. Impervious surfaces cover the vast majority of the site, which is adequately served by the City's storm drain system located in the roadways that surround the site. The subject property is not located within the 100 -year flood plain as delineated on ' the Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) for the City of Newport Beach. Further, neither the church property nor the surrounding residential development is located in an area of the City that is subject to flooding resulting from the failure of a levee or dam. ' Transportation and Circulation Three public streets abut the subject property, including 15'h Street on the north, St. Andrews Place on ' the west/southwest, and Clay Street on the east/southeast. These roadways are classified as local streets on the City's Circulation Element/Master Plan of Streets & Highways. In addition, a secondary bikeway is reflected on 15th Street, extending from approximately St. James Place (east of the subject property) to Irvine Avenue. Direct vehicular access to the project site is currently available at three ' entrances, including one along each of the surrounding streets. The existing church and related facilities currently generate traffic throughout the week. Approximately 250 on -site parking spaces have been provided on the property to accommodate the church campus. ' Public Services and Utilities Fire protection facilities and service to the subject property are provided by the Newport Beach Fire ' Department (NBFD). The NBFD operates and maintains six fire stations to respond to emergency calls throughout the City. Fire Station No. 6, located at 1348 Irvine Avenue, is the fire station closest to the subject site. Fire Station No. 2 is located on the Balboa Peninsula at 32 ad Street, near City Hall and is approximately 1.5 miles from the site. In addition to the City's resources, the NBFD also maintains a formal mutual aid agreement with the Orange County Fire Authority (OCFA) and all neighboring municipal fire departments to facilitate fire protection in the City should the need arise. The Newport Beach Police Department (NBPD) is responsible for providing police and law enforcement services within the corporate limits of the City. The Police Department headquarters is located at 870 Santa Barbara Drive, at the intersection of Jamboree Road and Santa Barbara, approximately two miles northeast of the subject property. Police and law enforcement service in the City is provided by patrols with designated "beats." The City of Newport Beach owns and maintains several sewer and water mains in the vicinity of the subject property, including those in 15th Street, Clay Street, and St. Andrews Road. Sewer collection and wastewater treatment services are provided by the City of Newport Beach (local collection) and the Orange County Sanitation District (conveyance and treatment). In addition, all of the utilities (i.e., electricity, natural gas, and telephone) are currently available and serve the church and existing development. The project site receives electrical and natural gas service from Southern California Edison and Southern California Gas Company, respectively. 3.2.5 Social Environment St. Andrew's Presbyterian is located within the Cliff Haven Statistical Area (H3); the Newport Heights Statistical Area (1-12), also predominantly residential in character, is located west of the Cliff Haven Statistical Area. The Cliff Haven area is nearly entirely developed with residential development. Although it is predominantly single - family residential, some areas include both duplexes and multiple - family residential. According to the General Plan, a total of 555 dwelling units has been allocated for the area. It is anticipated that little potential for residential growth remains in the Cliff Haven Statistical Area. At buildout of the area (i.e., 555 residential dwelling units), the Cliff Haven Statistical Area would support a population of approximately 1,100. The General Plan identifies some additional non - residential growth that may occur based on land use allocations. Most of the anticipated non - residential growth is allocated to the future expansion of Newport Harbor High School (approximately 40,000 square feet based on the Land Use Element). The remainder of that growth would occur in the Dover /Cliff Drive and Dover /16'h Street areas, which have been allocated a total of approximately 15,000 square feet of CWYF#esKKC -006a STANDREWS.NBIDRAFTEIM3.0 Description.doc Page 347 St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church General Plan Amendment and Use Permit Amendment Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 3.0 administrative /professional office growth. The Newport Heights Statistical Area is also virtually entirely developed. Few if any additional dwelling units remain to be developed; in addition, the non - residential development forecast in the General Plan is related to expansions at Ensign View Park, Cliff Drive Park and Newport Heights Elementary School. At buildout, Statistical Area H2 would support 781 residential dwelling units and a population of approximately 1,546 residents. 3.3 History and Evolution of the Existing Development The first sanctuary of St. Andrew's Presbyterian church was built on the site in the early 1950s, with classrooms, the church office, and the chapel added subsequently in that decade. The transcepts (i.e., wings) of the sides of the sanctuary and Dierenfield Hall were constructed in the early 1960s. The City approved Use Permit (UP) No. 822, which included an increase in the seating capacity by approximately 280, an enlargement of the existing lounge, and an addition of the (new) pastor's study and counseling room. Amendments to UP -822 were approved in 1974 (Carpenter Hall and the classrooms) and 1982 when resubdivision No. 723 was approved. This approval, which included a new sanctuary, also directed that the sanctuary be located a minimum of 92 feet from Clay Street. Approval of the site plan by the City also included the establishment of a maximum building height of 46 feet and required the provision of a minimum of 250 parking spaces on site. The Newport Beach Planning Commission approved the final amendment to UP -822 on May 23, 1985. As a result of that amendment, improvements to St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church included removing the then existing chapel and constructing a new building containing administrative offices, storage and mechanical rooms, and a new chapel. In addition, St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church was required to file semi - annual attendance reports with the Planning Department that documents attendance at services and parking demand. 3.4 Description of the Proposed Project The applicant, St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church, is proposing to increase the intensity of development that currently exists on the 3.943 -acre property. As indicated previously, the site currently supports five existing buildings, including the 1,387 -seat sanctuary, a chapel /administration building, two classroom buildings, and a fellowship hall. Project implementation includes the demolition of two of the existing buildings (refer to Exhibit 3 -3). One of the classroom buildings (Building E) and the existing fellowship hall and kitchen facilities (Building D) will be demolished and replaced with two new structures. In doing so, the total gross floor area will be increased to 140,388 square feet (i.e., 34 percent), resulting in a FAR of 0.82. The 35,948 square foot expansion includes classrooms, a new youth center (including a gymnasium), and related facilities to support the existing church. Table 3 -3 reflects a comparison of the existing and proposed facilities. C: 1MyFilesVOC C- 0060.STANDREWS.NBIDRAFTEIR13.0 Description.doc Page 3 -12 St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church General Plan Amendment and Use Permit Amendment Draft Environmental Impact Report Table 3 -3 Comparison of Existing vs. Proposed Facilities St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church Section 3.0 Table 3-4 provides a summary of the new construction and modifications to the existing buildings proposed for St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church. This table reflects the specific uses allocated for the existing and proposed buildings. As indicated in that table, the majority of the modifications resulting from the construction of the two new structures and remodeling of the existing structures includes the provision of restrooms, storage and circulation, which encompass 16,134 square feet of the total proposed expansion, or approximately 45 percent of the entire increase in building area. The next greatest increases in building area are the proposed Youth and Family Center that includes a gymnasium (6,895 square feet) and general assembly area (6,035 square feet), which make up another 37 percent of the proposed increase. The remainder of the proposed increase in floor area encompasses 2,386 square feet for office space, 88 square feet allocated to changing rooms, 1,348 square feet proposed for additional classroom space, and increase of 2,000 square feet for the music department, 514 square feet for the library, and 548 square feet for the kitchen; the area proposed for the nursery will not change. In addition, the applicant is proposing to construct a subterranean parking garage beneath the surface parking lot proposed along Clay Street. A total of 400 parking spaces is proposed by the applicant to accommodate the existing and proposed development. That figure includes 227 spaces in the subterranean garage and 173 surface parking spaces. Grading and excavation for the parking structure and building construction will be required. These activities will result in the export of approximately 50,000 cubic yards of soils from the site. Construction will include alteration of landscaping and project site lighting. The proposed site development plan is illustrated in Exhibit 3 -7. Exhibits 3 -8 and 3 -9 illustrate the Level A (Basement) and Level B (Sub- basement) Plans for the subterranean parking garage, respectively. C:IMyFilesV(KC -0060. STANDREWS.N131DRAFTEIRO. 0 Description. doc Page 3 -13 Existing Floor Area Proposed Floor Area Net Change Building (Square Feet) (Square Feet) (Square Feet) Building A— Main Sanctuary 41,921 41,921 0 BuildingB — Classrooms 21,669 21,107 (562) Building C — Offices /Chapel 16,620 16,6206 0 Building D — Fellowship Hall 17,762 27,9964 10,234 Building E — Gym/Classrooms 6,468 32,744 26,276 Total 104,440 140,388 35,948 'Includes 3,114 square feet of renovation. 2Indudes 1,465 square feet of renovation. 3Includes 1,904 square feet of renovation °New construction. 'The majority of these improvements reflect the new Youth and Family Center (only limited classroom additions). SOURCE: St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church Entitlement to Use Application; May 20, 2003. Table 3-4 provides a summary of the new construction and modifications to the existing buildings proposed for St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church. This table reflects the specific uses allocated for the existing and proposed buildings. As indicated in that table, the majority of the modifications resulting from the construction of the two new structures and remodeling of the existing structures includes the provision of restrooms, storage and circulation, which encompass 16,134 square feet of the total proposed expansion, or approximately 45 percent of the entire increase in building area. The next greatest increases in building area are the proposed Youth and Family Center that includes a gymnasium (6,895 square feet) and general assembly area (6,035 square feet), which make up another 37 percent of the proposed increase. The remainder of the proposed increase in floor area encompasses 2,386 square feet for office space, 88 square feet allocated to changing rooms, 1,348 square feet proposed for additional classroom space, and increase of 2,000 square feet for the music department, 514 square feet for the library, and 548 square feet for the kitchen; the area proposed for the nursery will not change. In addition, the applicant is proposing to construct a subterranean parking garage beneath the surface parking lot proposed along Clay Street. A total of 400 parking spaces is proposed by the applicant to accommodate the existing and proposed development. That figure includes 227 spaces in the subterranean garage and 173 surface parking spaces. Grading and excavation for the parking structure and building construction will be required. These activities will result in the export of approximately 50,000 cubic yards of soils from the site. Construction will include alteration of landscaping and project site lighting. The proposed site development plan is illustrated in Exhibit 3 -7. Exhibits 3 -8 and 3 -9 illustrate the Level A (Basement) and Level B (Sub- basement) Plans for the subterranean parking garage, respectively. C:IMyFilesV(KC -0060. STANDREWS.N131DRAFTEIRO. 0 Description. doc Page 3 -13 ° O U y N c E Q E a `c c m E Q !7 m c N t r n {� r V C U w $ `m E o'w N a E 3 � �W c Q � nO M m 9 m F U) N U L O L QU C O m a` •c d c T ma O) m C � N O w 3 6 m O y ma EN 7 N r 0 N R 1 11 I I 1 N rnoN N N N m ° V N romem O N D7 0 m N vmm i r e N O N N E dc E 4 : w-m m o in o o in moor r° a in 00 a O N m rn'r' V °Drnor (pm o(oom(o y p 2 'te r (6 vi (dam° n N� moifD KmU T W N m N W N m C7 O (d m O O O O (o m m m m m m 2 c L N N (mD Imp U t7 t7 m m 0000 O0 N N Y m °oo mo °y °o °oo° � oo J m Ey E N O m� O O w w N j p q � 0 0 0 0° 0 �� 0 M t7 O N N M N ry C 0 c y m ro N Z H 6 N ma'x c W m �i m0 �iR g row ��i^ oo�o�Di o�n o T 2 O O m N m� m C6 46 0 W a C U E a o n n Nod n °D� N gi i�0 4 O m r N O O O N O� y t 7r m N� D N O U c E m c E m m m co N N N m M 0 0 0 w O m C 0 0 L U U U m N m V (D O m O D O O m Of (D NnN N r N O N MNM (D N t7 nrm y N O O y M7 N N w t7 Q t 7 N t 7 O t 7 C N N T n N d a � r r c m ry N O N N N m Q m U O W Q m U O W <M U C W c rn rn rn rn m rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn U o c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c o'o 000 m o00 '995 0o m vva vv� w' pp ,moon - 550 O mmmmmH mmmmmH mmmmmH cam mmm rn r 0 N R 1 11 I I 1 [ i� 1� ) \ §� \} , A$ _a ® � c E w � !!! � ~ ~`~ \ \\ \ j \ CNN . .. . 'HO. : IblOdM3N .... SM38ONV IS ... § } $ 3� t � ■�� ■ ■■ .■ , IS `��� ■■ ®R 37 \ [ i� 1� ) \ §� \} , A$ _a ® � c E w � !!! § } $ ■�_! \ !., [ i� 1� ) \ §� \} , m A$ _a ® � c E w � 0 § O $ m iviiiwens JNINNVId ZO-OZ-U R � � PP4 l �'", .V �tllt tttlt L e LL - ... sm38aNV IS ... �llli ii�ii - �1 liilli 11 R R m m m m m m m m m W ,Y M �+ Q z x W ` CL m E d In m m a m J } � � PP4 l .V L e m m m m m m m m m W ,Y M �+ Q z x W ` CL m E d In m m a m J } iviiiwens ONINNVId ZO-OZ-Z 6 899v76 VINE10411VO 'HOV28 lblOdM3N avod smadaNV iS 009 E 0 U) ca cn HounHO NVIHMAG83W SM3HONV Is C41 SIR MAN IS ®R I IF CY) r_ C4 m LU E 0 U) ca cn St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church General Plan Amendment and Use Permit Amendment Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 3.0 The church buildings and related facilities will accommodate, and are not limited to, the programs identified in Table 3 -5, including the use of a portion of the parking lot (approximately 31 parking spaces) in the vicinity of St. Andrews Road for outdoor activities associated with the pre - school. Table 3 -5 Summary of On -Site Programs St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church Program Summary DaylTime Regular Attendance Comments Regular Programs Worship Services Sat. 5:30 p.m. Sunday 8:30 & 10:15 a.m. 2,000 over 3 Services Sunday School Sat. 5:30 p.m. Sunday 8:30 & 10:15 a.m. 400 over 3 Services Wednesday Bible Study Wednesday 7:00 p.m. 600 35 weeks /year Junior High Group Wednesday 6:00 p.m. 120 High School G'ou Wednesday 7:15 p.m. 120 5"'/6 "' Grade Group Wednesday 6:00 p.m. 100 Early Childhood School Weekdays 9:00 a.m. 200 September to June WATCH Weekdays 12:30 p.m. 100 September to June Parent -Child Program Weekdays 8:00 a.m. 40 September to June Wonderful Weekdays Weekdays 8:00 a.m. 100 July and August Choir Rehearsal Thursday 7:00 p.m. 120 September to June Men's Fellowship Wednesday 6:30 a.m. 100 Alanon Monday-Wednesday 7:00 a.m. 25 Church Committees Various Evenings 25 Fellowship Groups Various Days & Evenings 20 Max per Group P.W. Luncheons Wednesda 11:00 a.m. 100 Once a month S.A.M. Luncheon Thursday 11:00 a.m. 100 Once a month Periodic Programs Vacation Bible School Monday -Friday 8:30 a.m. 800 1 week program after school Divorce Recovery Program Thursday 7:00 p.m. 400 10 weeks Fall and Spring Relationship Seminar Thursday 7:00 p.m. 150 7 weeks Fall and Spring Alpha Wednesday 6:00 p.m. 25 10 weeks Fall and Spring Christmas Concert 4:00 & 7:00 p.m. 1,000 /show 2 weekends in December 24 -Hour Prayer Vigil 5:00 p.m. 5 -25 /hour Hourly change of participants Adventures in Faith 500 2 evenings /3 mornings /yr Christmas Eve Services 5:00, 7:00, 9:00 & 11:00 p.m. 4,000 Christmas Eve Maunday Thursday Service 7:00 p.m. 1,000 Thanksgiving Service 10:00 a.m. 1,000 Ash Wednesday Communion 6:00 p.m. Part of Wed Night Together Boy Scouts /Cub Scouts Various Times Mtgs /Eagle Scouts Events Bible Study Fellowship Monday 7:00 p.m. 150 September to May Covenant Groups Various Times Groups are 8 -16 persons Rummage Sale Wednesday-Friday 9:00 a.m. Once /year plus setups 4 -Score and More Annual 300 Soup Supper Annual 400 National Day of Prayer Bkfst First Thursda in May 200 New Members Classes 1 Sunday 11:30 a.m. 175 Three per year Other Events Memorial Services Monda - Saturday 10:00 a.m. As requested (67 in 2002) Weddings Friday p.m. &Saturday As requested (45 in 2002) Community Concerts Various Weekends As requested (16 in 2002) NHHS Events Various Days /Evenings As requested SOURCE: St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church Entitlement to Use Application; May 20, 2003. C:IMyFilesWKC -0060. STANDREWS.NBIDRAFTEIRI3. St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church General Plan Amendment and Use Permit Amendment Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 3.0 As previously indicated,_ implementation of the proposed project will result in the demolition of two existing structures and redevelopment and intensification of the site to allow the expansion of several facilities that currently exist at St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church. The capacities, in persons, of the existing and rebuilt facilities are reflected in Table 3 -6. Table 3 -6 Summary of Building Use Capacity St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church As indicated in Table 3 -6, redevelopment of the site as proposed will not result in any significant changes to the existing capacity in Buildings A, B, and C. Building D (Dierenfield Hall) has a current capacity of 1,149 occupants at the present time, which is allocated to meeting rooms; however, after construction of the new building, the capacity will be reduced to 713 occupants, or approximately 40 percent of the existing capacity of Dierenfield Hall. Typical occupancy of this building is anticipated to remain the same (447 occupants). Building E, which currently accommodates only classrooms, has a capacity of 694 C: 1MyFilesXKC -0060. STANDREWS. NBIDRAFTEIR0.0 Description. doe Page 3 -19 Existing Proposed Building Capacity Typical Capacity Typical Building A — Sanctuary Sanctuary 1,387 900 1,387 900 Prayer /Other Small Rooms 154 21 154 21 Offices 10 6 10 6 Choir /Related Rooms 472 0 472 0 Other 40 3 40 3 Building Total 2,063 930 2,063 930 Building B— Classrooms Classrooms 1,480 320 1,480 320 Offices 21 2 21 2 Other 15 26 15 26 Building Total 1,516 348 1,516 348 Building C — Chapel /Offices Chapel 223 100 223 100 Offices 42 1 42 1 Meeting Rooms 176 30 176 30 Library 30 10 30 10 Building Total 471 141 471 141 Building D — Dierenfield Hall Meeting Rooms 1,109 445 659 445 Offices 12 1 26 1 Kitchen 20 1 20 1 Other 8 0 8 0 Building Total 1,149 447 713 447 Building E — Classrooms Classrooms 694 160 734 160 Offices 0 0 13 1 Gymnasium /Multi- purpose 0 0 1,333 350 Study Center 0 0 275 50 Building Total 694 160 2,355 561 'Existing Building will be demolished and new building constructed in their place. SOURCE: St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church Entitlement to Use Application; May 20, 2003. As indicated in Table 3 -6, redevelopment of the site as proposed will not result in any significant changes to the existing capacity in Buildings A, B, and C. Building D (Dierenfield Hall) has a current capacity of 1,149 occupants at the present time, which is allocated to meeting rooms; however, after construction of the new building, the capacity will be reduced to 713 occupants, or approximately 40 percent of the existing capacity of Dierenfield Hall. Typical occupancy of this building is anticipated to remain the same (447 occupants). Building E, which currently accommodates only classrooms, has a capacity of 694 C: 1MyFilesXKC -0060. STANDREWS. NBIDRAFTEIR0.0 Description. doe Page 3 -19 St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church General Plan Amendment and Use Permit Amendment Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 3.0 ' occupants. After demolition and construction of the new Youth and Family Center structure, Building E will have a capacity of 2,355, a significant increase (230 percent); the typical occupancy will also increase from 160 occupants to 561 occupants (250 percent). It is important to note that concurrent use of the site has been restricted to the maximum capacity of the sanctuary, which has been established at 1,387 persons by Use Permit No. 822. This condition will apply to future use of the existing and proposed facilities. 3.5 Project Phasing Demolition and Site Development Processing of the requested entitlements to use is expected to be completed in the second quarter of 2004. Should the City Council approve the proposed General Plan Amendment and related entitlements following certification of a final EIR, St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church would prepare construction and infrastructure drawings for City review and approval. Preparation of those drawings and City review and permit issuance would be anticipated to occur by the second quarter of 2005, followed by commencement of construction in the third quarter of that year. Construction of the new buildings will occur concurrently and will commence once the two existing structures have been demolished. The demolition and construction activities are schedule to last approximately 11 months. Full occupancy of the completed buildings is anticipated to occur in the second quarter of 2006. Weekday Church Activities During the demolition and construction phase, the church administrative and ministry operations will continue to take place during the week. This staffing, which includes 65 ministers, employees, and volunteers, is constant and must occur whether or not worship services are conducted. In order to facilitate weekday operations during construction activities, the church will provide an off -site shuttle service, which will eliminate the need for on -site parking. The church has entered into an agreement with the Lighthouse Coastal Community Church (Lighthouse Church) located at 301 Magnolia Street in Costa Mesa for weekday staff parking. Based on that agreement, Lighthouse Church will provide up to 50 spaces each day, Monday through Friday, between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church will provide a shuttle service to transport employees between the parking lot and the site. Weekend Church Activities The Newport Mesa Unified School District has issued a permit (Permit No. 4014) to St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church that entitles the church to utilize the existing parking lots at Newport Harbor High School to accommodate church services and related activities. The on- street parking along 15t' Street and 16th Street on the Newport Harbor High School campus will be made available to the church by the School District to satisfy Wednesday evening and weekend parking demands (i.e., Saturday evenings and most Sundays). The permit allows the use of the high school parking lots on Wednesday evening from 6:00 p.m., on Saturday from 5:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m., and on Sunday from 8:00 a.m. to 12:00 p,m. Permit No. 4014 is effective from July 5, 2205 through November 6, 2005. In addition, the church is prepared to supplement the loss of on -site spaces with supplementary shuttle ' service staged from off -site locations. Other potential off -site candidate properties currently being investigated include but are not limited to: Newport Harbor High School - 16th Street and 15'h Street lots Ardell Property (formerly Windows on the Bay property) - 2241 West Coast Highway Newport Dunes - 1131 Back Bay Drive 1 ' C: IMyFilesWKC- 0060.STANDREWS.NBIDRAFTEIR13.0 Description.doc Page 3 -20 St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church General Plan Amendment and Use Permit Amendment Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.6 Project Objectives Section 3.0 Implementation of the proposed project will achieve the following intended specific objectives, which have been identified by St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church. Provide a new Youth and Family Center (with gymnasium) and classroom facilities in order to better serve the needs of the existing church membership and to provide more specialized services for younger members of the congregation. Provide additional on -site parking in order to meet the parking demands of the church and related facilities and to ease existing (parking) impacts on neighborhood streets. Update and modernize existing facilities through the construction of new buildings by providing structures that have improved sound attenuation and which are more energy efficient and easier to maintain. Provide new landscape screening along Clay Street in order to improve vistas to the St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church campus from off -site locations. Enhance the aesthetic character of St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church in its present location through the utilization of similar building materials (e.g., brick and stucco) on the new structures, in order to maintain a cohesive aesthetic environment both on the site and in the neighborhood. Continue to provide facilities that serve as a meeting place for the local community by improving the caliber of meeting and youth activities and reinforcing the church's long tradition of service to the community. 3.7 Project Processing Requirements and Requested Entitlements Project implementation will necessitate the approval of the following discretionary actions by the Newport Beach City Council: General Plan Amendment Zone Change Use Permit Amendment The General Plan Amendment is required in order to increase the floor area ratio to that proposed by the applicant, which exceeds the floor area allocated in the Land Use Element (i.e., 100,428 square feet). In addition, the applicant is also requesting a Zone Change that would replace the existing R -1 and R -2 zoning that exists on the site to GEIF (Government, Educational and Institutional Facilities). The Use Permit Amendment will address the specific increase in development and specific uses, which may be different than previously approved in the existing Use Permit and the building height. C: 1MyFileslK KC- 0060.STANDREWS.NBIDRAFTEIR13.0 Descdption.doc Page 3 -21 I Li St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church General Plan Amendment and Use Permit Amendment Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.0 CHAPTER 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS INTRODUCTION This section documents the environmental analysis for those parameters for which the proposed General ' Plan Amendment and Amendment to the Use Permit for the St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church project may or would result in potentially significant adverse impacts. These parameters were identified based on the cursory environmental analysis presented in the Initial Study contained in Appendix A of this Draft EIR, comments received during the 30 -day NOP comment period, and from comments received at Scoping Meeting conducted for the proposed project. The purpose of Chapter 4.0 (Environmental Analysis) is to describe the existing environmental conditions on the subject property and in the environs and to identify the potential impacts or consequences that may result from implementation of the proposed project. In order to facilitate the analysis of each issue in this EIR, a standard format was developed to analyze each issue thoroughly. This format is presented below with a brief discussion of the information included within each topic. Existing Environmental Setting Potential Effects of Project Found to be Significant Short-Term (Construction) Impacts ' Long -Term (Operational) Impacts ' C: IMyFiiesAKC- 0060.STANDREWS.NBIDRAFTEIR14.0 Intro.lmpacts.doc Page 4 -1 This introductory section describes the existing environmental conditions related to each issue analyzed in the Draft EIR. In accordance with Section 15125 of the State CEQA Guidelines, both the local and regional settings are discussed as they exist prior to implementation of the proposed ' project. The existing conditions provide the basis against which the potential environmental impacts are evaluated. Significance Criteria Specific criteria have been identified upon which the significance of project - related potential impacts are determined. The significance criteria which are the basis of the environmental analysis contained in the Draft EIR are derived from the significant effects presented in Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines, adopted local, State, and federal policies and programs which may apply, and other commonly accepted technical and non - technical standards. Analysis of the Proposed Project This section of the Draft EIR identifies and describes the potential impacts, both adverse and beneficial, which will result from project implementation. All project - related impacts have been clearly and adequately analyzed in accordance with Section 15126 of the State CEQA Guidelines. Impacts that have been avoided or reduced to a level of insignificance are identified as "insignificant" and analyzed accordingly. In order to facilitate the impact analysis, the following outline has been utilized. Potential Effects of Project Found to be Insignificant Short-Term (Construction) Impacts Long -Term (Operational) Impacts Potential Effects of Project Found to be Significant Short-Term (Construction) Impacts ' Long -Term (Operational) Impacts ' C: IMyFiiesAKC- 0060.STANDREWS.NBIDRAFTEIR14.0 Intro.lmpacts.doc Page 4 -1 St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church General Plan Amendment and Use Permit Amendment Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.0 Mitigation Measures Where a potential significant environmental effect has been identified in the environmental analysis, mitigation measures have been included in this section of the document which ".. . minimize significant adverse impacts ... for each significant environmental effect identified in the EIR ", as prescribed in Section 15126 of the State CEQA Guidelines. Unavoidable Significant Adverse Impacts Unavoidable significant adverse impacts are those effects that either cannot be mitigated or they remain significant even after mitigation. These significant effects will be identified in this section of the Draft EIR. Prior to approval of the proposed project, the Newport Beach City Council will be required to adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations that identifies and describes the public benefit(s) associated with project implementation that offset the significant impacts. C:IMyFilesIKKC -OO60. STANDREWS. NBIDRAFTEIR14.01ntro.lmpacts.doc Page 4-2 1 ' St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church General Plan Amendment and Use Permit Amendment Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.1 1 4.1 Land Use and Planning 1 4.1.1 Existing Conditions Surrounding Land Use rSt. Andrew's Presbyterian Church is located in a residential community within the City of Newport Beach. The subject property is surrounded by residential development on the west and southwest (primarily duplexes and other multiple -unit structures) and on the east and southeast (single - family detached residences). Newport Harbor High School is located north of 151" Street. The school's property extends from Irvine Avenue on the west to the Newport Beach Environmental Nature Center on the east and is situated between 16th Street on the north and 151h Street on the south. The Environmental Nature Center is a created habitat that extends along the eastern boundary of the high school between 151h Street and 16th Street on the north and south, respectively. The Masonic Temple occupies the parcel located at the southwest corner of 15rh Street and St. Andrews Road. Land uses further north of Newport Harbor High ' School include commercial development along 17th Street. South of the project (along Pacific Coast Highway), the primary land use is retail commercial, including marine - related uses. In addition, Ensign Elementary School is also located south of Coral Place within the residential neighborhood south of the church property. Land Use Planning Newport Beach General Plan Land Use Element ' The subject property is designated as "Governmental, Educational and Institutional Facilities," a land use category that the City has applied to areas developed with uses that "... form the physical and social 'infrastructure' of the community" St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church is an "institutional" use that is consistent with the land use designation adopted for the site by the City. The site is limited to 100,428 square feet of gross floor area (with no further expansion). The area surrounding the site includes "Single Family Detached Residential" to the east and southeast, 'Two - Family Residential" to the south, and "Multi - Family Residential" to the west and southwest. Newport Harbor High School is also designated as "Governmental, Educational and Institutional Facilities" The City of Newport Beach is divided into thirteen (13) Statistical Divisions, which are subdivided into Statistical Areas. St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church and the surrounding area are located within Statistical Division H (i.e., the Newport Heights Area). Specifically, the site is located in Statistical Area H3, or the Cliff Haven Area. The Cliff Haven Area includes all residential land bounded by Irvine Avenue, 16th Street, Dover Drive, and West Coast Highway. This statistical area is designated predominantly for residential development; however, in addition to St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church, several public and institutional uses exist within the Cliff Haven Area, including Newport Harbor High School, Cliff Haven Park, and Ensign Intermediate School. The Land Use Element of the General Plan includes growth projections for each of the Statistical Areas within the City. The estimated growth projected for Statistical Area H3 is reflected in Table 4.1 -1. As indicated in Table 4.1 -1, the Cliff Haven Statistical Area was nearly completely built out when the General Plan was completed in 1988. A total of only 36 residential dwelling units were anticipated at the time the Land Use Element was adopted; only 54,391 square feet of non - residential development was anticipated within the planning area. It is important to note that the Land Use Element allocated a total of 100,428 square feet for St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church. As indicated in Chapter 3.0 (Project Description), the existing church encompasses 104,440 square feet, a figure that currently exceeds the floor area allocated to this use in the Land Use Element (100,428 square feet). The 100,428 square foot figure was an estimate of the existing development and its application to the site was intended to limit future expansion to the existing development in 1998 when the existing General Plan Land Use Element was adopted. No additional growth was anticipated at the time the Land Use Element was adopted in 1988. ' C: IMyFilesWKC- 0060.STANDREWS.NBIDRAFTEIR14.1 Land Use.doc Page 4.1 -1 St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church General Plan Amendment and Use Permit Amendment Draft Environmental Impact Report Table 4.1 -1 Estimated Growth for Statistical Area H3 St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church 4.1 Land Use Residential (in DUs) Commercial (in sq. ft.) Existing (111187) Gen. Plan 1 Projection Projected I Growth Existing (111187) Gen. Plan Projection Projected Growth Cliff Haven 519 555 36 0 0 0 Cliff Haven Park 0 0 0 0 0 0 St. Andrew's Church 0 0 0 100,428 100,428 0 Newport Harbor HS 0 0 0 840,493 879,912 39,419 Dover /Cliff 0 0 0 12,000 17,465 5,465 Dover /16 Street 0 0 0 73,648 83,155 9,507 Total 519 555 36 1,026,569 1,080,960 54,391 Population 1,028 1,099 71 SOURCE: Newport Beach General Plan Land Use Element; October 24, 1988 (Amended through 9/95). Circulation Element None of the streets bordering the subject property are included in the City's Circulation Element on the Master Plan of Streets and Highways. Each of the streets surrounding the St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church property is a local /collector street. In addition, 15th Street, from approximately St. James Place east of the subject site to Newport Boulevard is designated as a secondary bikeway, which is intended to connect to trails or bikeways and serve cyclists and children riding to and from school. Several policies were adopted by the City, with the intent of accomplishing the basic objective of construction of public transportation facilities, which, in conjunction with programs to reduce peak hour traffic, can accommodate vehicular traffic within the City of Newport Beach at acceptable levels of service. The policies constitute the basis for both further analysis and new solutions to ensuring that adequate transportation facilities exist with the City. Housing Element The Housing Element of the Newport Beach General Plan examines residential development within the City and establishes local policies and programs to facilitate the conservation, improvement, and development of housing for all economic segments of the community. The element presents policies and programs that are intended to guide the City in making decisions regarding housing. The Housing Element estimates that the City accommodates 46,932 dwelling units, including the 5,150 dwelling units in the recently annexed Newport Coast based on the General Plan and City's traffic model and the 2000 Orange County Progress Report. The Housing Element further estimates that the average household size in the City of Newport Beach would be 2.25 persons (by 2000) and the vacancy rate would decline to 10.0 percent (from approximately 11.5 percent at the time the Housing Element was prepared). The population of the City (including unincorporated areas in the sphere of influence) was estimated to be 89,488 at buildout (i.e., 2010), or approximately 2.9 percent of the population estimated for Orange County at that time. The City identified eight remaining major undeveloped sites suitable for residential development; however, none of those sites are located in the project area. Additional areas of the City have been identified as "residential infill," including an area east of St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church (the Castaways property) and two areas west of Superior Avenue (Caltrans West and Newport Ranch). C: 1MyFilesLKKC- 0060.STANDREWS.NBIORAFTEIR14.1 Land Use.doc Page 4.1 -2 St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church General Plan Amendment and Use Permit Amendment Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.1 Noise Element The Newport Beach Noise Element adopted by the City includes several policies and programs intended to control noise pursuant to the goals set for noise control within the corporate limits. A land use /noise compatibility matrix was included in the Noise Element that reflects noise compatibility associated with various land uses. This matrix identifies four zones, which define the acceptable noise levels for the various land uses. These zones include: A — Clearly Compatible; B — Normally Compatible; C — Normally Incompatible; and D — Clearly Incompatible. As indicated in that matrix, institutional land uses, including hospitals, churches, libraries, schools (i.e., classrooms) are "clearly compatible" land uses in Zone A (i.e., areas where community noise equivalent level [CNEL] is less than 60 dBA). These uses are considered normally compatible" uses by the City in Zone B designated areas, where the noise is measured to be 60 to 65 dBA CNEL. Institutional land uses are "normally incompatible" and "clearly incompatible" in Zone C and ' Zone D, respectively. Zone C includes areas where the noise level is between 65 and 75 dBA CNEL; areas exceeding 75 dBA CNEL are included in Zone D. Single- family, two- family and multiple - family residential dwelling units are subject to the same noise compatibility levels. The Noise Element also prescribes interior and exterior noise standards for all land uses in the City. For churches, the interior energy average CNEL standard is 45 dBA; no exterior noise standards have been established for churches. For residential dwelling units (except for mobile homes), the interior and exterior energy average CNEL noise standards are 45 dBA (with closed windows and mechanical ventilating or other natural ventilating system provided) and 65 dBA, respectively. The Noise Element is also discussed in Section 4.4 (Noise). Public Safety Element The Public Safety Element of the Newport Beach General Plan addresses the potential of physical and natural conditions within the City to subject existing structures and residents to potential hazards. These phenomena include geologic hazards, flooding and fires. The purpose of the Public Safety Element is to introduce safety considerations in the planning process in order to reduce loss of life, injuries, damage to property, and economic and social dislocation resulting from the occurrence of those hazards. According to the Public Safety Element, the site is located in an area that has been identified as "Category 2" seismic hazard (i.e., a stronger shaking potential than Category 1, which is the lowest potential risk). The virtually flat site is devoid of significant slopes and, therefore, has not adverse slope stability conditions. The site also has been identified as having moderate to highly expansive soils; however, only a slight potential for erosion. St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church is located in an area of the City that is not subject to potential flooding and is not subject to potential wildland fire hazards or other high fire hazard potential. Specifically, a "Risk Reduction Program" is also included in the Public Safety Element, which contains land development regulations, restrictions, and other actions that are considered to be reasonable and practical to implement in order to reduce the potentially significant effects associated with the potential hazards. In addition, disaster planning is also addressed through the City's Emergency Operations Plan. Major evacuation routes have also been identified (Newport Boulevard, Superior Avenue, Coast Highway, etc.). Recreation and Open Space Element The Newport Beach Recreation and Open Space Element was adopted by the City as "... an expression of the City's objectives for high quality open space recreation facilities." Although a recreation element that is not required by State law, the recreation component as been combined with the mandated Open Space f� Element to address parks and recreation facilities and programs that are closely linked to the preservation and enhancement of open space addressed in the Open Space component of this element. Pursuant to the Quimby Act and the Recreation and Open Space Element, the City has adopted a Park Dedication Ordinance that prescribes the manner in which new residential development in the City of Newport Beach addresses parks and recreational requirement (i.e., either dedication of land designated for park use or for the payment of "in -lieu" fees, or a combination of the two. The goals and objectives articulated in the Recreation and Open Space Element are intended to address the provision of adequate recreation and open ' space amenities, including parks, trails, shared facilities, scenic vistas and resources, etc. ' C: IMyFilesWKC- 0060.STANDREWS.NBORAFTEIR14.1 Land Use.doc Page 4.1 -3 St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church General Plan Amendment and Use Permit Amendment Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.1 The City of Newport Beach is divided into several services areas for the purposes of park planning and to equitably administer parkland dedications and fees provided by residential development. The proposed project is located in Service Area 3 (Newport Heights /Upper Bay). Service Area 3 is largely built out and contains several important park and recreational facilities, including those existing at schools within the area (e.g., Newport Harbor High School, Ensign Junior High School, and Mariners and Newport Heights Elementary Schools. Although the existing and projected parks acreages are deficient, the school recreation facilities cited above compensate for these deficiencies. Harbor Element The City of Newport Beach adopted a Harbor and Bay Element on June 12, 2001. This optional element of the General Plan that focuses on the uses of the water and waterfront property within the area encompassing portions of Lower and Upper Newport Bay and Newport Harbor. The Harbor and Bay Element supplements provisions of the Land Use and the Recreation and Open Space Elements. The principal goal of the Harbor and Bay Element is to establish policies and programs that will preserve the diversity and charm of Newport Harbor and Bay without unduly restricting the rights of the waterfront property owner. Although the Element is intended to control the content of Harbor Regulations and Harbor Permit Policies related to development of, and the activities conducted on, that portion of the Harbor that is bayward of the bulkhead or the line of mean high tide, it is also considered in land use decisions related to properties adjacent to Newport Bay. However, the proposed project is not located within the limits of the City regulated by this element of the Newport Beach General Plan. Local Coastal Program /Land Use Plan (LCP /LUP) The Local Coastal Program consists of citywide policies and land use designations, detailed area descriptions for each of the areas located within the City's coastal zone boundary, and land use maps for the entire coastal zone. The LCP /LUP addresses shoreline access, recreation and visitor - serving facilities, water and marine resources, environmentally sensitive habitat areas, coastal visual resources, locating and planning new development and related land use and planning issues. No portion of the site or adjacent areas is located within the City's coastal zone; therefore, site development plans and programs and land use regulations prescribed in the LCP /LUP do not apply to the subject property. Newport Beach Zoning The larger southern portion of the subject property is zoned R -1 (Single Family Residential) and northern portion of the site is zone R -2 (Duplex Residential). Residential district regulations are intended to accommodate residential development areas that are consistent with the General Plan. Public and semi- public land uses are also permitted in the R -1 and R -2 zoning districts; however, approval of an amendment to the existing use permit is required. St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church is currently operating under a use permit (Use Permit No. 822). Newport Harbor High School is zoned GEIF (Governmental, Educational & Institutional Facilities) consistent with the land use designation. The area east of St. Andrew's Church is zoned R -1, with the exception of the property extending along St. Andrew's Road between Clay Street and Cliff Drive, which is zoned R -2. The area south of 151h Street and west of St. Andrew's Road is zoned MFR (Multiple Family Residential); however, the parcel at the southwest corner of 15'h Street and St. Andrew's Road (occupied by the Masonic Temple) is zoned GEIF. 4.1.2 Significance Criteria Land use impacts are considered significant if the proposed project will conflict with the adopted plans and goals of the community as expressed in the Newport Beach General Plan. In addition, the following would be considered significant adverse impacts of the proposed project related to land use: C: 1MyFil eslKKC- 0060.STANDREWS.NBIDRAFTEIR14.1 Land Use.doc Page 4.1 -4 St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church General Plan Amendment and Use Permit Amendment Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.1 Conflict with an applicable land use plan, policy or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. Conflict with an adopted habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan. Physically dividing an established community. Substantial or extreme use incompatibility. Incompatible land uses in an aircraft accident potential area as defined in an airport land use plan. Inconsistency or conflict with established recreational, educational, religious our scientific uses of the area. 4.1.3 Standard Conditions SC 4.1 -1 All development proposed for St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church shall be reviewed for consistency with applicable provisions of the Building Code, Noise Ordinance and other applicable codes and ordinances prior to issuance of building permits. 4.1.4 Potential Impacts 4.1.4.1 Short-Term Construction Impacts Substantial or extreme use incompatibility Construction impacts associated with project implementation include short-term (i.e., approximately 14 months) increases in traffic volumes (particularly heavy trucks), air emissions, and noise levels in the vicinity of the project site. These issues, which are discussed in detail in Section 4.2 (Traffic and Parking), Section 4.3 (Air Quality), and Section 4.4 (Noise), are summarized below. Appropriate mitigation measures and compliance with existing regulations (e.g., noise ordinance, SCAQMD dust suppression, etc.). 4.1.4.2 Long -Term Operational Impacts Conflict with an applicable land use plan, policy or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. Newport Beach General Plan Land Use Element As previously indicated, the project applicant is proposing to amend the Land Use Element of the Newport Beach General Plan. The amendment would allow for the increase in floor area, which exceeds the land use projections for the Cliff Haven Statistical Area prescribed in that long -range planning document. The City has adopted several policies related to land use, including future development within each statistical area. Consistency of the proposed project to these policies is presented in the analysis contained in Table 4.1 -2. STANDREWS.NBORAFTEIRWA Land Use.doc Page 4.1 -5 St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church General Plan Amendment and Use Permit Amendment Draft Environmental Impact Report Table 4.1 -2 Newport Beach Land Use Element Policy Analysis St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church General Plan Policy 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. Io Insure reaevelopment or oiaer or unaemtnizea properties, and to preserve the value of property, the fiber area limits specified in the Land Use Element allow for some modest growth. To insure that traffic does not exceed the level of service desired by the City, variable Floor area limits shall be established based upon the trip generation characteristics of the use or uses proposed for the site. Section 4.1 I he proposea protect is locatea in an area or me city trial is predominantly single - family residential in nature (Statistical Area H3). Although a general plan amendment is proposed to accommodate the increase in floor area proposed by the applicant, no change to the land use designation (Governmental, Educational & Institutional Facilities) is proposed. Project implementation includes an expansion in the floor area that currently exists. Although the expansion includes approximately 36,000 square feet of new Floor area, a significant portion of that increase (45 percent) will accommodate circulation, restrooms and storage, which are not activity areas within the church. The two existing structures proposed to be demolished will be replaced with the same number of buildings, including a fellowship hall and an education building that accommodates a gymnasium. In addition to relocating the existing outdoor basketball courts /hard court areas that are currently located within the limits of the existing parking lot, the gymnasium will accommodate other church functions. The new buildings have been designed to include modem features to serve the church more efficiently. The proposed expansion and mcdemization program will neither materially affect the land use diversity of the area nor significantly change the neighborhood character after demolition and construction are completed and the new structures are occupied and used by the church. Implementation of the proposed project will not change the existing land use and, therefore, the diversity of the land uses Keaevelopment ana mboemlzation or the existing cnurcn as proposed is generally consistent with this policy, which suggests that some modest increase in Floor area may be permitted if adequate capacity exists in the infrastructure (e.g., circulation, sewer and water, etc.). Based on the detailed traffic analysis that was prepared for the proposed project, all of the primary intersections are forecast to operate ate Level of Service A or B when project - related traffic is added to future growth and approved project traffic. Similarly, the increase in traffic generated by the proposed increase in floor area will not result in any significant cumulative impacts. It is important to note that although the Floor area will increase by approximately 36,000 square feet, the function and use of the church will not change. Specifically, the capacity of the existing sanctuary will remain unchanged (i.e., 1,387 seats). The classroom building that will be demolished will be replaced with a new building has been designed to more efficiently accommodate the existing and anticipated programs conducted both on Sunday and during the week. This new building will also accommodate a new a gymnasium, which will replace the (basketball) facilities that are currently located in the surface parking on the site. In addition, the new fellowship hall will also replace the existing fellowship hall (Dierenfield Hall) with a modem building that provides for a more effective use of the interior space. As indicated in this policy, the increase in floor area requested by the project applicant will be evaluated by the City to ensure that the infrastructure is adequate to accommodate any changes in traffic generation and public commercial, recreation or destination visitor serving facilities in Not Applicable and around the harbor shall be controlled and regulated to minimize traffic congestion and parking shortages, to ensure access to the water for residents and visitors, as well as C: IMyFilesVC KC- 0060.STANDREWS.NBOP.4FTEIR14.1 Land Use.doc Page 4.1 -6 1 St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church General Plan Amendment and Use Permit Amendment Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.1 General Plan Policy Policy Analysis maintain the high quality of life and the unique and beautiful residential areas that border the harbor. The siting of new buildings and structures shall be controlled The St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church site and surrounding and regulated to ensure, to the extent practical, the preservation neighborhood are located within an area of the City that is of public views, the preservation of unique natural resources, virtually built out; no noteworthy visual resources and /or natural and to minimize the alteration of natural landfors along bluffs features (e.g., bluffs and cliffs, landmark trees, shoreline, etc.) and cliffs. are identified in the General Plan in the project study area and neither the subject property nor the surrounding neighborhood is located within a designated public viewshed. Further, none of the surrounding streets are identified or acknowledged by the General Plan as scenic corridors. Therefore, development of the site as proposed is consistent with this policy. Provisions shall be made for the encouragement or Not Applicable development of suitable and adequate sites for commercial marine - related facilities so as to continue the City's historical and maritime atmosphere, and the char and character such business have traditionally provided the City. The City shall develop and maintain suitable and adequate The applicant will be required to comply with all applicable standards for landscaping, sign control, site and building design, development standards, including those that prescribe parking and undergrounding of utilities and other development landscaping, signage, site and building design, parking and standards to ensure that the beauty and char of existing utilities. New development is proposed on the site that results in residential neighborhoods are maintained, that commercial and an increase in floor area. Although the intensification will result office projects are aesthetically pleasing and compatible with in the elimination in a portion of the existing surface parking (i.e., surrounding land uses and that the appearance of, and activities a reduction of 73 spaces), a subterranean parking garage will be conducted within industrial developments are also compatible constructed to accommodate the 73 spaces that previously with surrounding land uses and consistent with the public health, existed above ground on the site and an additional 150 parking safety and welfare. spaces for a total of 400, including 173 in the surface parking lot and 223 in the subterranean garage. The on -site parking will also be supplemented with on -street parking along streets adjacent to the site as well as parking made available to the Church at Newport Harbor High School. The new buildings will be designed to maintain the integrity of the existing church facilities as well as the surrounding neighborhood. Building materials and features that are the same as those comprising the existing church buildings will be employed in the design of the new buildings to ensure that the character of both the site and the surrounding neighborhood is maintained. Although construction activities will result in some disruption in the normal activities on the site and in the neighborhood, the disruptions and nuisance will cease when the demolition and construction are completed. Utilization of the church will return to pre - construction activity levels, which will not result in any changes in the health, safety and welfare in the community. Therefore, compliance with all of the applicable regulations and development standards will enable the City to maintain the existing character of the neighborhood.. Prohibit or restrict certain types of land use conversions or fors Not Applicable of ownership which, by their nature, reduce available housing, are incompatible with residential uses, or present police, health, or safety problems. Continue to oppose the lease of offshore tracts to oil producers Not Applicable and prohibit the construction of new onshore oil facilities except as may be necessary in conjunction with the operation of the West Newport oil field. The City shall aggressively pursue annexation of territory within Not Applicable its sphere of influence with due consideration given to costs and benefits associated with incorporation. The land use designations and building intensity standards in Not Applicable this Element reflect limits on John Wayne Airport imposed by the Airport Settlement Agreement and the provisions of that agreement have become an integral part of the land use and planning process of the City of Newport Beach. The City should take all steps necessary to preserve and protect the Agreement, as well as assist in the selection of a second commercial airport, which, in conjunction with John Wayne Airport, could serve a majority of the County's short- and medium haul demand. IC: IMyFilesWKC- 0060.STANDREWS.NBIDRAFTEIR14.1 Land Use.doc Page 4.1 -7 St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church General Plan Amendment and Use Permit Amendment Draft Environmental Imoact Report Section 4.1 As indicated in the consistency analysis presented above, although the proposed project will further exceed the General Plan projections for the site, the proposed uses are entirely consistent with the land uses prescribed in the Land Use Element, there is available capacity in all of the City's infrastructure (e.g., circulation, sewer and water facilities, and public services and facilities) systems to accommodate the increased floor area. Although there will continue to be a shortfall of on -site parking as a result of the parking waiver approved by the City of Newport Beach, the applicant is proposing to increase the number of parking spaces on the site from 250 to 400 (i.e., a 60 percent increase) without increasing the capacity of the sanctuary, which is the basis for determining on -site parking. The majority of the new parking spaces will be located in the subterranean parking garage. This increase is expected to improve parking conditions in the neighborhood. In addition, design of the proposed structures and landscaping will be consistent and complementary to the existing sanctuary and related church facilities. Neither the character of the site nor that of the surrounding neighborhood will be substantially changed. Circulation Element The majority of the policies articulated in the adopted Circulation Element are intended to ensure that adequate capacity is available in the City's roadway system. The subject property is located along local /residential streets. Therefore, project implementation will not result in any impacts that would require improvements to the arterial roadways included in the City's Master Plan of Streets and Highways. Further, all of the key study intersections are forecast to operate at an acceptable level of service (i.e., LOS D or better) with the proposed project as recommended in the Circulation Element; therefore, no significant impacts are anticipated to those roadways and no improvements (i.e., mitigation) are required. As indicated previously, the City's Master Plan of Bikeways identifies a secondary bikeway along 15`h Street between Newport Boulevard on the west and St. James Place on the east in the vicinity of the project site. It is possible that demolition and construction activities may temporarily pose a potential safety hazard associated with the increase in heavy truck and related construction traffic. The potential hazard would be considered to be the greatest during the hauling activities necessary to transport demolition debris and excess soil excavated for the construction of the parking garage. The potential traffic conflicts can be minimized through the implementation of a signage program or flagmen warning bicyclists of the increased risk. After completion of the demolition and construction activities, the safety hazards posed by construction traffic would end. No significant long -term impacts to the secondary bikeway would occur and no mitigation measures are necessary. Housing Element As previously indicated, the subject property is not one of the several remaining major undeveloped sites identified in the City as suitable for development. Further, the proposed project site is not designated for residential development and will not affect either the existing or future demand for housing in the City of Newport Beach. Therefore, project implementation will not have any significant impacts on the goals, objectives and policies of the Newport Beach Housing Element. Noise Element The policies articulated in the Noise Element are intended to reduce both transportation and stationary noise in the City. Noise associated with the proposed project includes that resulting demolition and construction phase, which may be anticipated over a 12 -month period. This noise source includes both stationary noise (e.g., construction equipment) and mobile source noise (e.g., vehicular traffic). In addition, long stationary and mobile- source noise may also occur after completion of the construction and occupancy of the new buildings. However, it is important to note that the focus of control of noise from non - transportation sources, particularly during the demolition and construction phase, is through the Noise Ordinance, which is used to protect people from noise generated by people and /or machinery on properties adjacent to noise - sensitive land uses, including residential development. Specifically, as indicated in Section 4.4 (Noise), construction activities are limited to the hours between 7:00 a.m. and 6:30 p.m. Monday through Friday and 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on Saturday (and prohibited on Sundays C: IMyFilesWKC- 0060.STANDREWS.NBIDRAFTEIR \4.1 Land Use.doc Page 4.1 -8 St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church General Plan Amendment and Use Permit Amendment Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.1 ' and federal holidays), consistent with the City's Noise Ordinance to ensure that construction - related noise is minimized. Further, the Noise ordinance allows the City to ensure, through conditions of approval, that adequate noise control measures at all construction sites are provided (e.g., provision of mufflers, physical separation of machinery maintenance areas, etc.) Operational impacts associated with the proposed project are also identified and described in Section 4.4. The minor increase in traffic anticipated to result from the proposed expansion will not significant increase long -term mobile source noise levels. Compliance with the requirements of the Newport Beach Noise Ordinance will ensure that the proposed project is consistent with the Noise Element. Public Safety Element Site development as proposed is entirely consistent with Public Safety Element. Development exists on the subject property, which has been developed in accordance with the current building and development requirements established by the City and State to ensure structural integrity. No adverse soils and geologic conditions on the site exist that would be a constraint to development of the site as proposed. The proposed buildings have been designed to comply with all applicable building and structural requirements prescribed in the Uniform Building Code that address seismic shaking, structural integrity, and other parameters. Further, the subject site and surrounding area is not subject to flooding and /or inundation. Adequate access is available along the surrounding street system to allow emergency access for fire and police protection. No significant impacts to the policies and programs of the Newport Beach Public Safety Element are anticipated. Recreation and Open Space Element Although existing and projected parks acreages in Service Area 3 (i.e., the service area in which the subject property is located) are deficient, St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church is a non - residential land use that does not directly result in demands for recreation and open space features and, therefore, does not directly affect those facilities. Nonetheless, the gymnasium proposed to be located in the Youth and Family Center will replace the existing outdoor basketball courts and permit the church to accommodate a variety of indoor recreation and related youth activities. Therefore, the proposed project does not conflict ' with the goals, objectives and policies of the Recreation and Open Space Element, which establish the City's responsibility for providing parks and recreational facilities. Harbor Element The subject property is not located within the harbor area as designated by the City of Newport Beach. Therefore, the goals, objectives and policies of the Harbor Element do not apply to development of the site as proposed and no impacts are anticipated. Local Coastal Program /Land Use Plan (LCP /LUP) As indicated in Section 4.1.1, the subject property is not located within the coastal zone delineated within the City. Therefore, site development is not subject to the provision o f the LCP /LUP. Newport Beach Zoning The site is currently zoned R -1 and R -2, which permits institutional uses such as churches. As previously indicated, the church is currently operating under the provision of a use permit, which was last amended in 1985. The applicant is requesting approval of a zone change, which will make the zoning and land use designation entirely consistent. Approval of the GEIF zoning district for the subject property would allow a building height limit of 32/50, which permits a building height of 32 feet by right and up to a maximum of 50 feet with a use permit. The maximum building height proposed is 40 feet. Therefore, an amendment ' to the use permit is also proposed. The Use Permit includes consideration of the proposed 40 -foot high iC. IMyFilesWKC- 0060.STANDREWS.NBORAFTEIR14.1 Land Use.doc Page 4.1 -9 St. Andrews Presbyterian Church General Plan Amendment and Use Permit Amendment Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.1 structures pursuant to Chapter 20.65. In addition, the Planning Commission or City Council may impose conditions or alterations to the project in connection with the granting of the amended use permit as deemed necessary to ensure that compliance with the purpose and intent of the zoning code is achieved. Conflict with an adopted habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan On October 24, 2000, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) published a final rule to designate 513,650 acres of land as critical habitat for the coastal California gnatcatcher. Although these lands encompass portions of Los Angeles, San Bernardino, Orange, Riverside, and San Diego counties, neither the project site nor environs is located within areas designated as critical habitat of the USFWS final rule. Further, the area in which the subject property is located is not covered by an adopted habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan or program. Finally, because the site and surrounding neighborhood are developed, the Recreation and Open Space Element of the Newport Beach General Plan does not recognize the site as an open space or recreational feature. Therefore, no significant impacts or conflicts natural resource plans and /or programs will occur as a result of project implementation. No mitigation measures are required. Physically divide an established community Impacts associated with the physical division of an established community typically occur when land uses or features (e.g., arterial roadways, flood control channels, and related infrastructure) have the effect of creating a physical barrier and prevent circulation and integration between the existing land uses. Implementation of the proposed project includes only the expansion of an existing institutional use (i.e., St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church), which will occur entirely on the existing church property. Therefore, the proposed expansion will not result in the physical division of the established residential neighborhoods surround the subject property. Although some temporary (i.e., approximately 12 months) impacts associated with demolition and construction of the new structures will have some affect on circulation, noise and air quality, once construction is completed, no discernable physical features will exist that would cause a physical division of the neighborhood land uses. Further, use of the site would continue to accommodate activities that current take place on the property. No significant departure from the current use of the site is anticipated that would cause a physical division within the existing neighborhood. Therefore, no significant impacts will occur as a result of project implementation. Substantial or extreme land use incompatibility Existing Land Use Uses proposed for the St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church are virtually the same uses and activities that currently take place on the site, which were identified in Tables 3 -5 and 3 -6 (refer to Chapter 3.0, Project Description). No significant changes in the existing use of the site will occur as a result of the increase in floor area. As indicated in Table 3 -5, the most significant change in use of the church property is the relocation of the existing outdoor recreational amenities (e.g., basketball courts) from the existing surface parking lot on the south side of the property to Building E, which will accommodate a gymnasium. In addition, some existing on -site surface parking will be eliminated and replaced in a subterranean parking garage. The number of parking spaces on -site (i.e., surface and subterranean parking) will be increased to 400. Although this number of parking spaces will exceed that which currently exists on the site, it will not meet current the parking code requirement of one space for each three seats in the sanctuary (i.e., 462 parking spaces). At the present time, the existing floor area of the church facilities (104,440 square feet) exceeds the maximum floor area allocated in the Newport Beach General Plan, which is 100,428 square feet. Although the increase in floor area will require a general plan amendment to adjust the Land Use Element allocation, it is important to understand that the majority of the modifications resulting from the construction of the two new structures and remodeling of the existing structures includes the provision of restrooms, storage and circulation. The 16,134 square feet allocated for these functions comprise approximately 45 percent of the total increase in building floor area (35,948 square feet). The next C: 1MyFilesV( KC- 0060.STANDREWS.NBIDRAFTEIR14.1 Land Use.doc Page 4.1 -10 St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church General Plan Amendment and Use Permit Amendment Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.1 greatest increases in building area are the proposed Youth and Family Center that includes a gymnasium (6,895 square feet) and general assembly area (6,035 square feet), which make up another 37 percent of the proposed increase. The remainder of the proposed increase in floor area encompasses 2,386 square feet for office space, 88 square feet allocated to changing rooms, 1,348 square feet proposed for additional classroom space, and increase of 2,000 square feet for the music, 514 square feet for the ' library, and 548 square feet for the kitchen; the area proposed for the nursery will not change. Upon completion of the construction of the two new buildings (i.e., new Building D and new Building E) and the parking structure, activities on the site will be similar to those that currently take place. It is important that although the gymnasium can be used to accommodate youth basketball and related sports programs and assemblies and /or group meetings, the church is limited by prior conditions that preclude concurrent use of the facilities that would exceed the current capacity of the sanctuary (i.e., 1,387 seats). As a result, no significant changes to the current operational characteristics of the church would occur that would result in a significant impact on land use compatibility. As indicated above, the gymnasium will facilitate a broader range of activities, which would increase the level of activity at the site and, as a result, the neighborhood could experience increased levels of traffic and demands for parking than occur at the present time. Although these increases may be perceived as "intrusive" within the neighborhood when compared to the current activity levels occurring on the site, they are 1 less than significant because the existing roadway network and intersections have adequate capacity to accommodate the increase in traffic (refer to Section 4.2). In addition, the increased parking proposed on- site, augmented with parking at Newport Harbor High School and on- street parking adjacent to the Church, will reduce the demand for parking along the residential streets. The increase in (assembly) floor area does not result in greater demands for parking, which are based on the capacity of the sanctuary (i.e., one parking space for each three seats); no changes to the sanctuary are proposed. (It is important to note that the parking requirement for individual buildings is less than that required for the sanctuary.) Based on the increase in parking provided on -site, existing parking deficiencies will be adequately addressed and the church will be in compliance with the City's parking code requirement. It is anticipated that the provision of additional parking spaces will reduce existing ' impacts to on- street parking in the neighborhood. Further, implementation of a parking management plan as recommended (refer to Section 4.2.5) will facilitate parking required for church - related activities and reduce the use of parking in the surrounding residential neighborhood. ' Although an NOP comment indicated that the proposed project is inconsistent withy the "CC &Rs," the City is not aware of a conflict with any existing CC &Rs. Nonetheless, even if it is determined that such a conflict does exist, it is not the responsibility of the City to enforce CC &Rs, nor would it prevent the City from taking ' an action on the proposed project related to the General Plan Amendment and Amendment to the Use Permit. 1 4.1.5 Mitigation Measures Impact 4.1 -1 Demolition and construction activities will result in an increase in the number and types of vehicles that will travel along 15v' Street which could result in temporary impacts in the form of increased hazards to bicycle travel along the secondary bikeway designated on that roadway. MM 4.1 -1 The applicant shall post signs along 15'' Street and cross streets in the vicinity of the property that provide adequate warning to motorists, construction workers and heavy truck drivers, and bicyclists warning each of the potential increased hazards. Upon completion of the construction, the signs shall be removed. MM 4.1 -2 The applicant shall submit a Construction Traffic Control Plan (including a bike lane 1 detour plan if determined necessary by the City's Traffic Engineer), which shall be prepared by a registered traffic engineer. The Construction Traffic Control Plan shall also C: IMyFilesWKC- 0060.STANDREWS.NBORAFTEIM4.1 Land Use.doc Page 4.1 -11 4.1.6 Level of Significance after Mitigation Although implementation of the proposed project will contribute to some short-term impacts and /or nuisances, including increased noise, dust and construction traffic, the impacts will be cease upon completion of the demolition and construction phase. However, during that period, appropriate measures have been identified (refer to Sections 4.2 -2, 4.2 -3, and 4.2 -4), which adequately address the impacts and reduce them to a less than significant level. No significant unavoidable adverse impacts will remain. II I I I 1 I I C: VvlyFilesW< C- 0060.STANDREWS.NBIDRAFTEIR14.1 Land Use.doc Page 4.1 -12 ' St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church General Plan Amendment and Use Permit Amendment Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.1 identify the need for flagmen to direct traffic, if determined necessary. This plan shall be approved by the City's Traffic Engineer prior to issuance of the demolition permit. 4.1.6 Level of Significance after Mitigation Although implementation of the proposed project will contribute to some short-term impacts and /or nuisances, including increased noise, dust and construction traffic, the impacts will be cease upon completion of the demolition and construction phase. However, during that period, appropriate measures have been identified (refer to Sections 4.2 -2, 4.2 -3, and 4.2 -4), which adequately address the impacts and reduce them to a less than significant level. No significant unavoidable adverse impacts will remain. II I I I 1 I I C: VvlyFilesW< C- 0060.STANDREWS.NBIDRAFTEIR14.1 Land Use.doc Page 4.1 -12 ' St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church General Plan Amendment and Use Permit Amendment Draft Environmental Impact Report ' 4.2 Traffic and Parking Section 4.2 A detailed traffic and parking analysis was prepared by Kimley Hom & Associates, Inc., to address the potential traffic and parking impacts resulting from the implementation of the proposed expansion of St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church. The analysis of potential traffic impacts complies with the Transportation Phasing Ordinance (TPO) procedures implemented by the City of Newport Beach. Pursuant to the adopted TPO requirements, the analysis includes an evaluation of the primary intersections to which the project contributes one percent or more of peak hour traffic on any intersection leg. The Traffic Study for the proposed project analyzed the following primary intersections identified in the TPO: Riverside Avenue/Coast Highway Tustin Avenue/Coast Highway Irvine Avenue /19`h Street/Dover Drive Irvine Avenue/Westcliff Drive Dover Drive/Westcliff Drive Dover Drive /16'h Street Dover Drive /Bayshore Drive at Coast Highway Two additional intersections (although not "primary" intersections) were also evaluated in the Traffic Study for the proposed project. These intersections include: Irvine Avenue /15"' Avenue (unsignalized) Dover Drive /Cliff Drive The analysis utilizes the City of Newport Beach Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) methodology, which provides a comparison of the theoretical hourly vehicular capacity of an intersection to the number of vehicles actually passing through that intersection during a given hour. It is important to note that the proposed project does not include additional seating in the sanctuary and the proposed new floor area (35,948 square feet) will not result in additional traffic coming to and leaving the church during the Sunday morning service hours. Therefore, an analysis of project traffic on Sunday was not conducted. In addition to the TPO traffic study, a parking survey was also conducted to evaluate the potential effects of project implementation on the existing and future parking conditions in the study area. Parking surveys were conducted to document "typical" weekday parking as well as typical weekday evening and Sunday parking conditions. The findings and recommendations related to both traffic and circulation and parking presented in the 'Traffic Impact Study for the St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church Facilities Expansion Project" are summarized in this section of the Draft EIR. The Traffic Impact Study is included as Appendix C. 4.2.1 Existing Conditions Existing Traffic Conditions The subject property is located at 600 St. Andrews Road, on a triangular parcel bounded by 15'h Street on the northeast, St. Andrews Road on the northwest, and Clay Street on the south. Each of these streets is a local street that serves the existing residential neighborhood. Existing roadway lane configurations and traffic controls for the streets in the project area are illustrated on Exhibit 4.2 -1. Existing peak hour traffic volumes are shown on Exhibit 4.2 -2. C: IMyFilesIK KC- 0060.STANDREWS.NBIDRAF7-EIR14.2 Tra(FcBParking.rev.doc Page 4.2 -1 r ® SIONAUZEO INTERSECTON o ONSI6N.WZEO INTERSECTION Exhibit 4.2 -1 Existing Roadway Configuration/Traffic Control MURCE: Kimley -Nom and Associates, Inc. Exhibit 4.2 -2 Existing Peak Hour Volumes SOURCE: Kirnley -Horn and Associates, Inc. St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church General Plan Amendment and Use Permit Amendment Drell Environmental Impact Report Table 4.2 -1 Summary of Existing Peak Hour Intersection Operations St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church Section 4.2 Signalized Intersection AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour ICU LOS ICU LOS Riverside Avenue /Coast Highway 0.71 C 0.79 C Tustin Avenue/Coast Highway 0.70 B 0.60 A Irvine Avenue /Dover Drive /19 Street 0.56 A 0.59 A Irvine Avenue/Westcliff Drive 0.55 A 0.79 C Dover Drive/Westcliff Drive 0.42 A 0.61 B Dover Drive /16 Street 0.44 A 0.56 A Dover Drive /Cliff Drive 0.50 A 0.47 A Dover Drive /Coast Highway 0.74 C 0.76 C Unsignalized Intersection AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Delay (sec) LOS Delay (sec) LOS Irvine Avenue /15 Street 19.97 C 25.19 D Focused Analysis: Peak 15- minute period 39.09 E 34.45 D i SOURCE: Kimley -Horn & Associates, Inc. (February 2004) As indicated above, a peak hour intersection analysis for both the primary and other study area intersections was conducted for the existing conditions utilizing the ICU methodology. The a.m. and p.m. peak hour intersection operating conditions are reflected in Table 4.2 -1. As can be seen, each of the study area signalized intersections is currently operating at acceptable levels of service (i.e., LOS D or better) during both the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. The unsignalized intersection of Irvine Avenue and 151" Street currently operates at LOS C in the a.m. peak hour and LOS D in the evening peak hour, with periods of increased congestion and delay during the peak 15- minutes associated with school arrival and departure activities at Newport Harbor High School. Existing Parking Conditions A surface parking lot on the St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church property accommodates 250 parking spaces. Access to the surface parking lot is provided via one driveway each on 151" Street, St. Andrews Road, and Clay Street; full turning movements are permitted at each of the driveways. The City of Newport Beach parking code requires one parking space for each three seats for places of religious assembly (i.e., churches). Based on the approved capacity of 1,387 seats at St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church, a total of 462 parking spaces is required. The church is currently operating under a use permit that allows use of the Newport Harbor High School parking lot for Sunday services. This lot, located on 15"' Street, provides access to approximately 150 parking spaces. Additional school parking is available at the north end of the lot, and off 161h Street; however, churchgoers do not typically use these parking areas. Existing on- street parking in the vicinity of the subject property is illustrated on Exhibit 4.2 -3. Although actual usage of unstriped on- street parking may vary depending on individual driver practices, an estimated 626 on- street parking spaces exist in the study area depicted on Exhibit 4.2 -3, based on an average of 22 linear feet per space on streets that are unstriped. C: IMyPileslKKC- 0060.STANDREWS.NBIDRAFTEIR14.2 TraKc &Parking.revdoc Page 4.2 -4 1� e�l w a v 0 0 z "/ S �s i s3)vds SZ vds sz 8088VH JnNS I �-Z `� a �pp & aU s EJ _ l s33vds LL 7d �vds os 31Vald II I s3JYds 91 vds s 1 SS 38CNV'1S M � N = �a x w� ai' �w c N 0 A U O N N Q O C A C O Z i. E Y 1!1 U C 7 O W St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church General Plan Amendment and Use Permit Amendment , Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.2 Parking restrictions are posted on selected streets in the neighborhood, primarily to restrict high school parking overflow during school days. Most of the streets are posted with signs that read, "2 Hour Parking 8 A.M. to 6 P.M. School Days" and 'Zone 2 Permits Exempt:' (The Zone 2 Permit is a resident preferential parking permit for the area around Newport Harbor High School.) The west side of Irvine Avenue is posted with signs that read, "No Parking 7 A.M. to 9 A.M. School Days;" signs on the east side of Irvine Avenue read, "No Parking 2 P.M. to 4 P.M. School Days:" The on- street parking is heavily used both on weekdays and Sundays. On weekdays, students and staff of Newport Harbor High School are the predominant users of the on- street parking. On Sundays, church -goers use the street parking to supplement the church and high school off - street parking. Weekday Parking Demand Table 4.2 -2 reflects the results of the parking survey conducted to characterize "typical" weekday parking demand /utilization and the relationship of that existing demand to the existing supply of both on- street and surface parking at the church. As indicated, on a typical weekday morning, before high school students and staff arrive for school (classes begin at 7:45 a.m.), 221 cars were parked on the study area streets (refer to Exhibit 4.2 -3). This number is assumed to be resident parking demand, before the high school demand starts. A second early morning count was conducted to confirm the earlier count, and 222 cars were found parked on the street at 6:00 a.m. In addition, there were 10 vehicles in the church parking lot, consisting of church buses and vehicles. On- street parking demand was observed to increase rapidly, especially between 7:00 a.m. and 8:00 a.m. (334 vehicles), and peaked between 8:00 a.m. and 9:00 a.m. when 383 vehicles (61 percent of the street capacity) were observed. While the usage of the on- street parking closest to the school was near capacity throughout much of the school day, less of the one - street parking was used on the street segments that stretched away from the school, south of the church. Overall, usage of the on- street parking throughout the study area was consistently between 50 and 60 percent during much of the school day. The exact number of cars parked on the street attributable to the school is not known, since some of the parking taken in the early morning by residents is freed up when those residents leave for work, and is subsequently taken by school students and staff. A limited number of parking spaces in the St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church parking lot are also made available to the school. The church provides (by permit) 36 parking spaces for Newport Harbor High School students. The church occasionally limits school use of the church parking lot when the parking is needed for mid -week memorial services, or other church activities. The number of occupied parking spaces in the church parking lot increased throughout the morning, peaking at 129 (52 percent of the church lot capacity) from 11:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. and dropping to 56 (22 percent) by 3:00 p.m. Approximately 75 spaces in the parking area closest to St. Andrews Road are generally not used when day care is in session, except for short periods of time when parents are dropping off or picking up their children. Even with this parking area off limits, and with as many as 36 student cars in the church parking lot, approximately 45 parking spaces remained available in the church parking lot during the church peak hour between 11:00 a.m. and 12:00 p.m. Based on this data, as well as observations throughout the day, it appears that on a typical weekday, church parking demand does not encroach onto the neighborhood streets. However, school demand for on- street parking remained high throughout the day, in spite of the two -hour parking restriction. It is important to note that parking control officers were noted "chalking" tires. In addition, many students were also observed moving their vehicles between classes throughout the day to avoid being ticketed. C: 1MyFilesW< C- 0060.STANDREWS.NBIDRAFTEIR14.2 Tra/fic&Parking.mv.doc Page 4.2 -6 [] u rJ I u ,11 1 1 L E_1 St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church General Plan Amendment and Use Permit Amendment Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.2 Table 4.2 -2 Summary of Parking Data Collection — Typical Weekday St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church ' Weekday Evening Parking Demand Parking data associated with the subject property and in the neighborhood was also collected to characterize parking conditions on a weekday evening (i.e., 3:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m.), when residents' demand for on- street parking is considered to be the greatest. Wednesday evening was selected because of the number and variety of activities scheduled at the church. The results of the Wednesday evening parking survey are presented in Table 4.2 -3. C: IMyFilesIK KC- 0060,STANDREWS.NBIDRAFTEIR14.2 TraRc&Parking.revdoc Page 4.2 -7 6.7 7-8 8.9 9.10 10.11 11.12 12.1 1 -2 2.3 Location Capacity AM AM AM 1 AM AM AM AM PM PM 15 Street (111 Spaces) - Irvine Avenue to St. Andrews Road 57 19 52 48 48 45 49 42 49 46 - St. Andrews Road to Clay Street 34 10 53 39 39 40 43 39 41 33 - Clay Street to Signal Kings Place 20 3 10 18 14 21 13 20 3 6 Street Sub -Total 111 32 115 105 10 106 105 101 93 85 Haven Place (46 Spaces) - Irvine Avenue to St. Andrews Road 46 36 30 37 34 29 33 29 14 17 Street Sub -Total 46 36 30 37 34 29 1 33 29 14 17 Clay Street (87 Spaces) - Irvine Avenue to St. Andrews Road 52 34 33 31 30 22 24 22 15 17 - St. Andrews Road to 15°i Street 46 5 25 45 46 47 44 31 10 13 Street Sub -Total 98 39 58 76 76 69 68 53 25 30 Coral Place (56 Spaces) - Irvine Avenue to St. Andrews Road 56 23 16 1 16 15 9 11 12 9 16 Street Sub -Total 56 23 16 16 15 9 11 12 9 16 Irvine Avenue (54 Spaces) - 15'" Street to Haven Place 16 4 14 5 3 4 4 0 3 9 - Haven Place to Clay Street 31 6 8 5 4 4 3 0 0 0 - Clay Street to Coral Place 18 8 8 5 5 5 1 4 0 1 3 1 2 Street Sub -Total 65 18 30 15 12 13 11 0 6 11 St. Andrews Road (71 Spaces) - 15" Street to Haven Place 14 6 13 14 14 16 14 15 10 14 - Haven Place to Clay Street 19 12 14 16 15 16 15 15 6 1 - Clay Street to Cliff Drive 42 7 7 10 1 10 7 17 17 9 8 Street Sub -Total 75 21 34 40 39 39 46 47 25 23 Pirate (42 Spaces) - Clay Street to Cliff Drive 42 11 13 21 25 14 15 14 11 13 Street Sub -Total 42 11 13 21 25 14 15 14 11 13 Snug Harbor (50 Spaces) - Clay Street to Cliff Drive 50 13 11 29 27 1 24 1 21 23 16 1 15 50 13 11 29 27 24 21 23 16 15 Signal Road (54 Spaces) - 15° Street to Cliff Drive 54 14 15 17 17 16 18 16 11 17 Street Sub -Total 54 14 15 1 17 17 16 18 16 11 17 St. James (29 Spaces) - 15° Street to Kings Place 29 10 12 27 23 16 20 23 10 13 Street Sub -Total 29 10 12 27 23 16 20 23 10 13 Total On-Street Parking 626 221 334 383 369 335 348 318 220 240 Total On-Street Parking Occupancy 35% 53% 61% 59% 54% 56% 51% 35% 388 Church Parking Lot 250 10 14 69 111 126 129 89 55 56 Church Parking Lot Occupancy 4% 6% 28% 44% SD% 52% 36% 22% 22% Total Parking 876 231 348 452 480 461 477 407 275 296 Total Parking Utilization 26% 40% 52% 55% 53% 54% 46% 31% 34 SOURCE: Kimley -Hom and Associates, Inc. (February 2004) ' Weekday Evening Parking Demand Parking data associated with the subject property and in the neighborhood was also collected to characterize parking conditions on a weekday evening (i.e., 3:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m.), when residents' demand for on- street parking is considered to be the greatest. Wednesday evening was selected because of the number and variety of activities scheduled at the church. The results of the Wednesday evening parking survey are presented in Table 4.2 -3. C: IMyFilesIK KC- 0060,STANDREWS.NBIDRAFTEIR14.2 TraRc&Parking.revdoc Page 4.2 -7 St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church General Plan Amendment and Use Permit Amendment Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.2 As indicated in Table 4.2 -3, the peak parking demand for the typical weekday evening occurs between 7:00 p.m. and 8:00 p.m. At that time, 234 parking spaces of the estimated 626 on- street parking spaces (37 percent of the total on- street parking spaces available) were utilized, presumably by residents. Nearly 80 percent (194 parking spaces) of the surface parking lot on the church property was also utilized. (This total includes the diagonal parking along the south side of 15'h Street, immediately adjacent to the church property, which peaked at 31 spaces during that "peak" time period and dropped to 2 cars by 10:00 p.m.). While the exact number of cars parking on the streets attributable to the church is not known, it can be assumed that the majority of the cars on the streets immediately adjacent to the St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church property (i.e., 15' Street between St. Andrews Road and Clay Street, St. Andrews Road between 15'h Street and Clay Street, and Clay Street between St. Andrews Road and 15'h Street) is church parking, based on the fact that the parking demand on these three streets peaked at 66 vehicles between 7:00 p.m. and 8:00 p.m., coinciding with the peak church parking. The number of cars utilizing those three streets dropped to 13 vehicles by 10:00 p.m. It is important to note that with the exception of Clay Street between Snug Harbor and 15th Street, the street segments adjacent to the church do not have direct residential frontage and, therefore, would not be primary parking for residents. The demand along most other streets in the neighborhood generally remained constant throughout the evening, and the total number of cars parked on the street by 10:00 p.m. was 176 (28 percent of the total on- street parking available). The majority of the on- street parking on the streets by 10;00 p.m. is assumed to be resident parking. The data, combined with observations throughout the evening survey period, indicate that, other than the streets immediately adjacent to the church property indicated above (i.e., 15'" Street between St. Andrews Road and Clay Street, St. Andrews Road between 15th Street and Clay Street, and Clay Street between St. Andrews Road and 15'h Street), weekday evening church parking demand does not currently depend on on- street parking in the neighborhood surrounding the church. C: 1MyFileslK KC- 0060.STANDREWS.NBIDRAFTEIR14.2 Traffic &ParWng.rev.doc Page 4.2 -8 St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church General Plan Amendment and Use Permit Amendment Draft Environmental Impact Report Table 4.2 -3 Summary of Parking Data Collection — Typical Weekday Evening St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church Section 4.2 Sundav Parkino Demand A third parking survey of existing conditions was conducted on Sunday morning to determine the effect of church - related parking on the existing supply of on- street parking. Church services at St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church take place at 8:15 a.m. and 10:30 a.m. on Sunday morning. The results of the parking demand survey, which indicate that the peak parking demand occurs between 10:00 a.m. and 11:00 a.m., are summarized in Table 4.2-4. C: IMyFil esWKC- 0060.STANDREWS.NBIDRAFTEIR14.2 TmfficBParking.rev.doc Page 4.2.9 2.3 3.4 4-5 5-6 6 -7 7-8 8-9 9.10 Location Capacity PM PM PM PM PM PM PM PM 157 Street (111 Spaces) - Irvine Avenue to St. Andrews Road 57 24 26 30 23 30 33 27 21 - St. Andrews Road to Clay Street 34 19 19 21 7 20 31 19 2 - Clay Street to Signal Kings Place 20 10 6 7 5 4 8 4 4 Street Sub-Total 111 53 51 58 35 54 72 50 27 Haven Place (46 Spaces) - Irvine Avenue to St. Andrews Road 46 19 24 19 26 25 30 32 33 Street Sub-Total 46 19 24 19 26 25 30 32 33 Clay Street (87 Spaces) -Irvine Avenue to St. Andrews Road 52 18 19 19 19 26 26 29 28 - St. Andrews Road to 15° Street 46 7 1 6 1 2 4 1 3 1 11 3 1 2 Street Sub-Total 98 25 25 21 23 29 37 32 30 Coral Place (56 Spaces) • Irvine Avenue to St. Andrews Road 56 11 14 15 26 25 20 23 23 Street Sub-Total 56 11 14 15 26 25 20 23 23 Irvine Avenue (54 Spaces) - 15" Street to Haven Place 16 0 5 3 1 1 2 0 1 • Haven Place to Clay Street 31 6 4 0 0 1 2 4 10 - Clay Street to Coral Place 18 0 0 0 5 3 3 3 0 Street Sub-Total 65 6 9 3 6 5 7 7 11 St. Andrews Road (71 Spaces) • 15" Street to Haven Place 14 8 11 11 8 9 13 9 6 - Haven Place to Clay Street 19 4 4 5 8 6 11 4 2 • Clay Street to Cliff Drive 42 1 2 1 1 1 1 9 1 6 2 1 3 1 5 Street Sub-Total 75 14 16 17 25 21 26 16 13 Pirate (42 Spaces) - Clay Street to Cliff Drive 42 11 11 11 11 14 11 12 13 Street Sub-Total 42 11 11 11 11 14 11 12 13 Snug Harbor (50 Spaces) - Clay Street to Cliff Drive 50 9 10 8 9 14 11 9 8 50 9 10 8 9 14 11 9 8 Signal Road (54 Spaces) .15 1h Street to Cliff Drive 54 9 8 9 9 10 9 10 9 Street Sub-Total 54 9 1 8 9 1 9 1 10 9 10 1 9 St. James (29 Spaces) • 15" Street to Kings Place 29 9 11 13 10 7 11 10 9 Street Sub-Total 29 9 11 13 10 7 11 10 9 Total On-Street Parking 626 166 179 174 180 204 234 201 176 Total On-Street Parking Occupancy 27% 29% 280/6 29% 33% 37% 32% 28% Church Parking Lot 250 67 66 78 100 148 194 80 10 Church Parking Lot Occupancy 27% 26% 31% 40% 59% 78% 32% 4% Total Parking 876 233 245 252 280 352 428 281 186 Total Parking Utilization 27% 28% 29% 32% 40% 49% 32% 21% SOURCE: Kimley -Hom and Associates, Inc. (February 2004) Sundav Parkino Demand A third parking survey of existing conditions was conducted on Sunday morning to determine the effect of church - related parking on the existing supply of on- street parking. Church services at St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church take place at 8:15 a.m. and 10:30 a.m. on Sunday morning. The results of the parking demand survey, which indicate that the peak parking demand occurs between 10:00 a.m. and 11:00 a.m., are summarized in Table 4.2-4. C: IMyFil esWKC- 0060.STANDREWS.NBIDRAFTEIR14.2 TmfficBParking.rev.doc Page 4.2.9 St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church General Plan Amendment and Use Permit Amendment Draft Environmental Impact Report Table 4.2-4 Summary of Parking Data Collection —Sunday St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church Section 4.2 As indicated in Table 4.2-4, the church parking lot was virtually full (i.e., 249 vehicles were parked in the 250 - stall parking lot) during the 10:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m. peak use period. In addition, parking demand in the school parking lot also peaked between the same period, at which time 98 vehicles were parked there. Parking demand on the streets surrounding the church peaked between 8:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. when 363 vehicles (58 percent of the on- street parking capacity) utilized on- street parking. It is important to note that the church does not have the exclusive right to parking at the high school. C: IMyFileslK KC- 0060,STANDREWS.NBIDRAFTEIR14.2 Traffic&Parking.rev. doc Page 4.2 -10 6.7 7-8 8.9 9 -10 10 -11 11 -12 Location Capacity AM AM AM AM AM AM 1 r Street (111 Spaces) - Irvine Avenue to St. Andrews Road 57 21 21 35 35 39 28 - St. Andrews Road to Clay Street 34 7 25 39 41 39 19 - Clay Street to Signal Kings Place 20 4 7 8 8 5 3 Street Sub-Total 111 32 53 82 84 83 50 Haven Place (46 Spaces) - Irvine Avenue to St. Andrews Road 46 38 37 38 39 38 36 Street Sub -Total 46 38 37 38 39 38 36 Clay Street (87 Spaces) - Irvine Avenue to St. Andrews Road 52 35 36 33 33 31 32 - St. Andrews Road to 15" Street 46 5 31 1 45 1 46 39 1 8 Street Sub -Total 98 40 67 78 79 70 40 Coral Place (56 Spaces) - Irvine Avenue to St. Andrews Road 56 23 20 21 19 20 19 Street Sub-Total 56 23 20 21 19 20 19 Irvine Avenue (54 Spaces) - le Street to Haven Place 16 7 7 5 6 4 4 - Haven Place to Clay Street 31 8 7 11 11 5 6 - Clay Street to Coral Place 18 11 11 11 12 8 2 Street Sub -Total 65 26 25 27 29 1 17 12 St. Andrews Road (71 Spaces) - 15� Street to Haven Place 14 6 19 24 20 21 8 - Haven Place to Clay Street 19 7 13 12 14 15 4 - Clay Street to Cliff Drive 42 5 10 1 14 13 12 1 4 Street Sub-Total 75 18 42 50 47 48 16 Pirate (42 Spaces) - Clay Street to Cliff Drive 42 16 18 20 24 17 15 Street Sub -Total 42 16 18 20 24 17 15 Snug Harbor (50 Spaces) - Clay Street to Cliff Drive 50 10 18 19 18 15 9 5o 10 18 19 8 15 9 Signal Road (54 Spaces) - 15" Street to Cliff Drive 54 11 13 12 13 14 10 Street Sub -Total 54 11 13 12 13 14 1 10 St. James (29 Spaces) • 150 Street to Kings Place 29 12 14 14 11 12 10 Street Sub -Total 29 12 14 14 11 12 10 Total On-Street Parking 626 226 307 361 363 334 217 Total On-Street Parking Occupancy 36% 49% 58% 58% 53% 35% Church Parking Lot 250 45 1 118 1 205 229 249 115 Church Parking Lot Occupancy 18% 47% 82% 92% 100% 46% Newport Harbor HS Parking Lot 150 5 29 71 86 98 20 Newport Harbor HS Parking Occupancy 3% 19% 47% 57% 65% 13% Total Parking 1026 276 454 637 678 681 352 Total Parking Utilization 27% 44% 62% 66% 66% 1 34% SOURCE: Kimley -HOm and Associates, Inc. (February 2004) As indicated in Table 4.2-4, the church parking lot was virtually full (i.e., 249 vehicles were parked in the 250 - stall parking lot) during the 10:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m. peak use period. In addition, parking demand in the school parking lot also peaked between the same period, at which time 98 vehicles were parked there. Parking demand on the streets surrounding the church peaked between 8:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. when 363 vehicles (58 percent of the on- street parking capacity) utilized on- street parking. It is important to note that the church does not have the exclusive right to parking at the high school. C: IMyFileslK KC- 0060,STANDREWS.NBIDRAFTEIR14.2 Traffic&Parking.rev. doc Page 4.2 -10 St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church General Plan Amendment and Use Permit Amendment Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.2 ' Unlike the weekday evening when the majority of the church parking on the streets was concentrated on the three street segments immediately adjacent to the church property, Sunday moming parking demand extended to other streets reaching into the neighborhood. Similar to the weekday parking scenario, the exact number of cars parked on the street attributable to the church is not known, since much of the parking demand on a Sunday morning is by residents, some of whom leave for church, work, or other purposes at various times during the morning. Most of the parking spaces on 15"' Street, Haven Place, and Clay Street, between Irvine Avenue and St. Andrews Road, were utilized by residents. These three street segments were almost fully occupied from early in the morning, leaving few spaces available for church members. Conversely, virtually all of the parking demand on the three streets immediately adjacent to the church (i.e., 15th Street between St. Andrews Road and Clay Street, St. Andrews Road between 15`" Street and Clay Street, and Clay Street ' between St. Andrews Road and 15'" Street) was generated by the church. When these three adjacent roadway segments were full, some church members opted to park on other streets in the neighborhood, including Pirate Lane, Snug Harbor, Signal Road, and Kings Place. (Any cars parked on the these streets in the early morning hours were assumed to be resident parking.) ' Based on observations during the parking survey, it was noted that some church members opted to park on the neighborhood streets, even when parking spaces were available in the Newport Harbor High School parking lot. As indicated in Table 4.2-4, the amount of on- street parking increased from 226 parked cars before 7:00 a.m. to 363 cars by 10:00 a.m., even though parking was still available in the church parking lot. The majority of this street parking occurred on the three streets immediately adjacent to the church property, indicating that some church members prefer the close street parking over the parking lot. ' 4.2.2 Significance Criteria Implementation of the proposed project would result in a significant adverse environmental impact if any of the following occurs as a result of project implementation. ' The project will generate an increase In traffic at intersections in the City of Newport Beach that results in an ICU change of 0.01 or more and the resulting ICU is 0.91 (LOS E) or greater. The project will generate an increase in traffic at a CMP intersection resulting in a LOS F, or if a CMP intersection maintains an existing LOS F and an increase in traffic results in an ICU change beyond 0.10. ' The project will result in inadequate access or parking capacity. 4.2.3 Standard Conditions SC 4.2 -1 Prior to issuance of the demolition permit, St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church will submit an ' off -site parking management program that identifies parking and shuttle arrangements to accommodate the continued typical weekday use of the property as well as use of the facilities on weekends. The parking management program will also address the construction ' phase and will identify the manner in which construction parking will be accommodated without utilizing on- street parking in the adjacent residential neighborhood. I SC 4.2 -2 Prior to issuance of the demolition permit, the contractor shall submit a Construction ' Traffic Control Plan (including a bike lane detour plan), to be prepared by a registered traffic engineer and submitted to the City of Newport Beach for approval. Approval shall be required prior to issuance of the authorization to proceed. All traffic control work for construction shall conform to the requirements as stipulated by the City of Newport Beach, including lane reductions, use of flagmen, etc. C: IMyFilesIKKC- 0060.STANDREWS.NBIDRAFTEIR14.2 TraKcBParking.rev.doc Page 4.2 -11 St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church General Plan Amendment and Use Permit Amendment Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.2 4.2.4 Potential Impacts 4.2.4.1 Short-Term Construction Impacts Traffic and Circulation The construction phasing plan prepared for St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church reflects a 48 -week construction schedule. Within that time frame, the demolition and grading effort is estimated to encompass eight weeks. The grading operation will require the export of 50,000 cubic yards of soil for the construction of the parking structure, and 3,000 cubic yards of material from the demolition of buildings. The entire operation is estimated to require 15 trucks for soil export, each making six to seven round trips per day (i.e., in empty, out loaded). Although all of the intersections in the project area are forecast to operate at acceptable levels of service (i.e., LOS D or better), the unsignalized intersection of Irvine Avenue and 15'" Street is anticipated to operate at LOS F and LOS E during the peak 15- minute periods during the morning and afternoon, respectively (refer to Tables 4.2 -7 and 4.2 -9). The undesirable 15- minute peak periods will occur with or without the proposed project - related traffic and is the result of school traffic, which corresponds to class schedules at Newport Harbor High School. However, it is important to note that this intersection is forecast to operate at an acceptable level of service during the summer months, during both the a.m. and p.m. peak hours, because school is not in session. The addition of this truck activity will be a temporary occurrence, and will be scheduled to take place at a time when Newport Harbor High School is not in session (i.e., during the summer months). Therefore, the addition of heavy trucks hauling construction materials and export soil from the site as currently anticipated (based on the construction phasing schedule) will not result in significant impacts to the Irvine Avenue /15t' Street Intersection. It is possible that the imposition of the mitigation measure that establishes a limit on the daily heavy truck miles in order to reduce air quality impacts could cause the demolition and grading schedule to extend beyond the two -month period currently anticipated. In the event that occurs, resulting in grading during the school year, when classes are in session, the additional heavy truck traffic added to the circulation system would exacerbate the 15- minute peak period level of service that is forecast at the 15'" Street/Irvine Avenue intersection. The proposed site Logistics Plan (refer to Exhibit 4.24) indicates that the construction traffic will proceed to the site from the west via 15"' Street. As a result, the addition of any truck trips at the Irvine Avenue /15"' Street intersection during the morning and afternoon peak hours would exacerbate the peak 15- minute condition forecast at that location during those time frames. Therefore, in order to avoid this potentially significant construction - related impact, it will be necessary to restrict heavy truck trips outside the peak hours of the school. Parking Throughout the construction phase, the size of the construction crew reporting to the site will vary from as few as 10 during the demolition and construction phase to 60, during the actual construction of the buildings and parking structure. During the construction phase, when adequate on -site parking is not available for the construction crew, workers will be shuttled to the site from an off -site location and will not be allowed to park on local streets. During much of the construction period, the on -site parking will be disrupted, and staff and church members will be required to park off -site. St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church has identified potential off -site locations for temporary parking and shuttle arrangements to accommodate church members and staff during the construction period when on -site parking is not available. These sites are the Lighthouse Coastal Community Church located at 300 Magnolia Street in Costa Mesa and Newport Harbor High School. Church staff will park at the Lighthouse Coastal Community Church and be transported to the site in church vehicles. St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church and Newport Harbor High School have entered into a temporary agreement that gives the church the exclusive use of parking at the high school. Potential parking conflicts will be minimized or avoided through the implementation of the parking management plan that will be prepared and approved by the City. C: MyFilesWKC- 0060.STANDREWS.NBIDRAFTEIR14.2 Tratftc&Parking.rev.doc Page 4.2 -12 Z J J zz f. < St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church General Plan Amendment and Use Permit Amendment Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.2.4.2 Long -Term Operational Impacts Project Trip Generation Section 4.2 As indicated previously (refer to the Project Description), the proposed expansion of St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church will result in the addition of 328 new vehicular trips, including 26 a.m. peak hour trips and 24 p.m. peak hour trips on a daily basis. The trip generation summary is presented in Table 4.2 -5. Table 4.2 -5 Summary of Project Trip Generation St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church Land Use KSF' Trip Generation Rates Project- Related Trip Generation Daily AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour In Out In Out Daily In Out In Out Church 35.948 9.11 1 0.39 1 0.33 0.36 0.30 1 328 14 1 12 13 11 'Thousand Square Feet SOURCE: Kimley -Hom & Associates, Inc. (December2003) Project- related trip distribution assumptions were developed based on existing traffic patterns in the area, the nature of the proposed land use, land uses likely to interact with the proposed project, and the roadway system available for trip making. Exhibit 4.2 -5 reflects the peak hour traffic volumes forecast for the proposed project. City of Newport Beach TPO Analysis Table 4.2 -6 provides a summary of the project - related traffic contributions, combined with the existing plus growth (including approved projects). As indicated in that table, the increase in traffic generated by the proposed project will exceed the one percent threshold established by the City of Newport Beach at only two of the nine study area intersections (i.e., seven "primary" intersections and two additional intersections) identified below. As a result, a TPO traffic impact analysis was conducted at these intersections. Irvine Avenue/1 a Street/Dover Drive (EB approach, a.m. and p.m. peak hours) Dover Drive/Cliff Street (NB approach, a.m. peak hour, and EB approach, a.m. and p.m. peak hours) C:IMyFilesIKKC -0060. STANDREWS. NBIDRAFTEIRW.2 Traffic&Parking.mv. doc Page 4.2 -14 Exhibit 4.2 -5 Projected Peak Hour Volumes SOURCE: Kimley -Nom and Associates, Inc. i0 N m a U d O IL v CD W 0 CL 2 ILt OS� Fat U W U C y O ca 5. aCDw °a CL ocn �¢ 3 A � EEL C �L 0 C7 7 IL m C VJ 'x W a N aL C 0 O p R II ya v a 1 V Y N Y N m Z N Y m O Y N O Y N Z N Y aL � U J @ O II.O �a w aQN V YNNY �yy N1N12 N OYNmZNNY avNY�oY�aY° �p Y uJ N Y° N Y N >- C,4 mY a GL U o O o n G L a o< Q N � U °o n L a o< Q Z Q O O Y O O Y t0 Y n Y N N Y I� N Y m Z- O Y E E E E E E E E > > > > > > > > 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 v c 0 v ? 0 v c 0j @ c 0j @ c 0 ° 0 v 0 m c O O L j C L j C L j m L L I L j m L j L j a N a v > > 5 5 > 5 m $ 5 p .ay a a o > � o v ow o oJ o°... Y U y Y @ .� v @ @ v @ v @ Q d� Q dlQ nQ n d diC Q d .0 a a a a a .a°J o 0 0 0 0 0 v w a°� aa d 0 0 00 °Q °O� Q °o °QD Qo QQo o a� aoJ aS a°o a "o w 3 0 2 @ 3 = o a u L :C @ Y ..o c p N 33 @ `° U U Li yv 1u v `v `v ' `v Z Z 0 O 0 0 O D o o O N St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church General Plan Amendment and Use Permit Amendment ' Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.2 The ICU analysis conducted for the "Existing Plus Growth Plus Approved Projects" peak hour traffic conditions revealed that project - related traffic would not result in any significant impacts at the twp intersections to which project - related traffic contributed one percent or more traffic. The unsignalized intersection of Irvine Avenue /15`" Street was also analyzed, for informational purposes. As indicated in Table 4.2 -7, the greatest increase in the ICU values forecast at the two affected signalized intersections is only 0.01. Each of the three intersections is forecast to operate an acceptable level of service (i.e., LOS D or better) during both peak hours. However, the intersection of Irvine Avenue /15"' Street will operate with LOS F delays during the a.m. peak 15- minute period and LOS E during the p.m. peak 15- minute period. Table 4.2 -7 Summary of Peak Hour Intersection Operations Existing Plus Growth Plus Approved Projects Plus Project St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church signalized Intersections AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour W/o Project W/Project Project Impact Impact Sig? W/o Project W /Project Project Impact Impact Sig? ICU LOS ICU LOS ICU I LOS ICU FIL OS Irvine Avenue/Dover Dnve/ 19' Street 0.58 A 0.59 A 0.01 No 0.61 B 0.62 B 0.01 No Dover Drive /Cliff Drive 0.52 A 0.53 A 0.01 No 0.49 A 0.50 A 0.01 No Unsignalized Intersections W/o Project W /Project Project Impact (sec) Impact Sig? W/o Project W /Project Project Impact (sec) Impact Sig? Delay (sec) LOS Delay (sec) LOS Delay (sec) LOS. Delay (sec) LOS Irvine Avenue /15 Street 22.39 C 22.86 C I N/A N/A 30.17 D 30.63 D I N/A N/A Focused analysis: 15- minute period 1 50.50 1 F 1 52.11 1 F I N/A I N/A 1 41.94 1 E 1 42.53 E I N/A I N/A SOURCE: Kimley -Hom & Associates. Inc. (Febmary 2004) Cumulative Impact Analysis I 1 The project - related a.m. and p.m. peak hour traffic volumes were compared to the cumulative peak hour , volumes on each leg of each of the study area intersections to determine if the proposed project would result in potentially significant cumulative impacts. It was determined that project - related traffic will exceed one percent of one or more approach legs at the same two study area intersections as identified under the TPO ' analysis conditions (refer to Table 4.2 -8). 11 11 11 C: VvtyFilesWKC- 0060.STANDREWS.NBIORAFTEIR14.2 Traffic &Parking.rev.doc Page 4.2 -17 1 N O_ U h U w W A F L L CD Ta C a? Q d N e c i a W N C Q _a ~ Ec3 E C L Uv CD Q m .% 7 � E 7 U 6 Qi 1 p° v R 'O L � U 0 m O p a a m o a N V Y N N Y N N Z N Y O Y N O Y N Z N N Y 'O L c U o m O p II n N p m W QN N m 2 N 2 v c L J U O m II O L Q o d Q N Y° N Y� N Y � N J2 a0 0 Y 0 0 Y tD Y 01 n Y N Y N Y m Y 0 Y C L 0 U O m a� L o 0 O Z Q_o E E E E E E E E > > > > > > > > 0 > C 0 > 0. 0 > 0. 0 > 0. 0 > 0. 0 > 0. 0 > 0. 0 > (� ^ j y e j y e j y e j y e j y e j m e O c t E- t E; O E- t E; O E; O E -� O E O E N 2 � 2 � " Y m O m Z Y m O m L Y m O m S Y m 0 m S Y m O m L Y m 0 m S Y m 0 m Y O m w a m> m¢ m> ... m¢ m> m¢ m> m¢ y> ... m¢ m> m¢ y> m y >$ 2 c¢ p 7 N 7 omoOK7 N 7 KO7 N9 N 92092 a Vvm Oma U U Y U U Y U U O U U Y U U Y U U Y U ij y U m m m`,t mmmmEC mEt m m'E m m`,t m m'•E m m`,t 2 p� O O O d O d Q¢ N Q¢ O d C a d� 0 a ao a a0 aaaaaa0aaaa0Tauu `e o 0 0 0 m m 0 ° e °a OQe e ooe e 2- 2- m �aa�aa�aa�aa�aa�aa�aa�aa ILIL 'o m m Q 3 c c L m m = m rn m m0 U E Y h > U a m N m p° mmf U > " c - >o >0 0 o 0 w 2 o 0 a 0 m 6 Qi 1 p° v R St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church General Plan Amendment and Use Permit Amendment Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.2 The summary of the peak hour intersections operations forecast for the cumulative conditions including the proposed project is presented in Table 4.2 -9. As indicated in that table, the greatest increase in the ICU resulting from project - related traffic is 0.01. Each of these intersections is forecast to operate at LOS A or B in the cumulative plus project conditions. Therefore, no significant project - related impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. The unsignalized intersection of Irvine Avenue and 15" Street was also analyzed for informational purposes. The results of the HCM analysis are also reflected in Table 4.2 -9. As indicated in the table, the intersection is projected to operate at LOS D or better in both peak hours, with or without the project in the cumulative traffic scenario. However, due to concentrated traffic patterns associated with Newport Harbor High School, the intersection is shown to experience LOS F delays during the peak 15- minute period in the a.m. peak hour and LOS E delays during the p.m. peak hour. It is important to note, however, that these delays will occur both with and without the project in the cumulative traffic scenario. Table 4.2 -9 Summary of Peak Hour Intersection Operations Summary of Peak ICU Operations — Cumulative Plus Project Conditions St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church Signalized Intersections AM Peak Hour PM Peak:Hour W/o Project W/Project Project Impact Impact Sig? W/o Project W /Project Project Impact Impact Sig? ICU LOS LOS ICU LOS ICU LOS Irvine Avenue/Dover Drive/ 19'" Street 0.59 A ;0.59] A 0.00 No 0.61 B 0.62 B 0.01 No Dover Drive /Cliff Drive 0.58 A A 0.01 No 0.59 A 0.60 A 0.01 No Unsignalized Intersections W/o Project W/Project Project Impact (sec) Impact Sig? W/o Project W/Prbject Project impact (sec) Impact ,Sig? Delay (sac) LOS Delay (sec) . LOS Delay (sec) LOS Delay (sec) LOS Irvine Avenue/15 Street 22.39 C 22.86 C N/A N/A 30.17 D 30.63 D N/A N/A Focused analysis: 15- minute period 50.50 1 F 1 52.11 F N/A N/A 1 41.94 E 1 42.53 1 E I N/A N/A SOURCE: Kimley -Hom & Associates, Inc. (February 2004) Future Parking Conditions With the completion of the improvements proposed for St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church, the on -site parking supply will increase to 400 parking spaces. Although this number exceeds the existing 250 surface parking spaces, it does not meet the parking code requirement established by the City of Newport Beach (i.e., one parking space for each three seats for the largest assembly area, which is based upon the premise that there is not concurrent assembly occupancy). Based on that requirement, the parking provided upon completion of the improvements will be deficient by 62 spaces. However, the addition of 150 parking spaces on site will greatly reduce the need for on- street parking for the majority of church services and events. During the week, approximately 30 parking spaces in the parking area closest to St. Andrew's Road would not be available when day care is in session, except for short periods of time when parents are dropping off or picking up their child. As previously indicated, even with this parking area off limits, and with as many as 36 student cars in the church parking lot, no significant impacts to parking are anticipated because the weekday use of the site creates the lowest demand (i.e., the on -site parking demand during the week was a maximum of 52 percent), as indicated in Table 4.2 -2. Implementation of the proposed project with the gymnasium will facilitate a broader range of activities, which would increase the level of activity at the site and, as a result, the neighborhood could experience increased levels of traffic and demands for parking than occur at the present time. However, the potential increase in traffic associated with these uses is less than significant because existing roadway network and intersections have adequate capacity to accommodate the increase in traffic. In addition, the increased parking proposed on -site, augmented with parking at Newport Harbor High School and on- street parking adjacent to the Church, will reduce the demand for parking along the residential streets. Further, implementation of a C: VvtyFilesWKC- 0060.STANDREWS.NBIDRAFTEIR14.2 TrafficBParking.rev.doc Page 4.2 -19 St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church General Plan Amendment and Use Permit Amendment Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.2 Parking Management Program (refer to Section 4.2.5) should facilitate more efficient use of the proposed parking facilities and assist in reducing or eliminating the need to park on any neighborhood streets that have direct residential frontage. Nonetheless, several recommendations have been identified to address future parking for St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church. ' 4.2.5 Mitigation Measures Traffic Impact 4.2 -1 The increase in heavy trucks, which would be used to transport construction equipment and materials during the construction phase, would exacerbate the ' undesirable delays that are forecast at the Irvine Avenue/15a Street intersection if the construction activities occur during the school year. MM 4.2 -1 Heavy construction vehicles, including trucks hauling construction equipment and materials, ' will be limited to non -peak hours during the construction phase when those activities occur during the school year. ' Parking Although it is anticipated that the proposed increase in on -site parking and availability of Newport Harbor High School and on- street parking on streets immediately adjacent to the subject property will be adequate to serve the anticipated parking demand for the proposed increase in development intensity, the following measures are recommended to facilitate future parking procedures for the St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church. ' MM 4.2 -2 St, Andrew's Church should continue its arrangement with the Newport-Mesa Unified School District that allows the church to utilize on -site parking at Newport Harbor High School for overflow parking during Sunday services and any other large- attendance functions. ' MM 4.2 -3 St. Andrew's Church shall implement a Parking Management Program to instruct church members where to park. The Parking Management Program shall list allowable parking areas as follows, in order of priority: ' Park in the church parking lot, or along 151h Street adjacent to the church property If needed, park in the High School parking lot, or on the north side of 15th Street If needed, park along St. Andrews Road, adjacent to the church property ' If needed, park along Clay Street, between St. Andrews Road and Snug Harbor (do not park on Clay Street between Snug Harbor and 151h Street) • Do not park on any other neighborhood streets MM 4.2-4 The Parking Management Program shall stipulate a requirement to provide ushered parking for large- attendance functions, to maximize the efficiency of the on -site parking. This would involve using individuals to direct people to park sequentially, starting at the end of each ' parking aisle and working back to the start of the aisle by filling each space, making the most efficient use of the parking area and minimizing vehicle - pedestrian conflicts. Consideration should also be given to staging the parking sequence and entry and exit patterns so that people leaving the first service will not conflict with people arriving early for the second ' service. MM 4.2 -5 If necessary parking personnel should be employed to "cone off' or otherwise restrict use of ' the street parking adjacent to the church property, until the on -site parking is fully utilized. MM 4.2 -6 Staff should be required to use the lower level parking, to make the more convenient close - in parking available for attendees of both services. C :IMyFi/es1KKC- 0060.STANDREWS.NB DRAFTEIR14.2 Tratfk&Parking.rev.doc Page 4.2 -20 St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church General Plan Amendment and Use Permit Amendment Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.2 MM 4.2 -7 The design of the parking facilities, including the parking structure, should incorporate features to facilitate the movement of vehicles and pedestrians, and to encourage full use of the on -site parking spaces. Such design features would include: (1) the installation of adequate lighting and light- colored paint in all parking aisles corridors, elevators and stairwells; (2) convenient access to stairs and elevators from all areas of the structure; and clear signage to direct drivers and pedestrians to their desired destinations. MM 4.2 -8 Once a successful circulation and parking procedures is developed, it should be communicated regularly to the Church membership through church bulletins and the church website. MM 4.2 -9 The 45- minute buffer between the end of the first service and the start of the second service should be maintained to minimize inbound and outbound vehicle conflicts. MM 4.2 -10 With the exception of special or unusual events (e.g., memorial services, etc.) that now take place at the Church, no concurrent use of other assembly areas within the Church property that exceeds the approved capacity of 1,387 persons will be permitted at any time. MM 4.2 -11 Consideration should be given to adding services at alternative times, such as Sunday afternoon, to disperse parking demands. MM 4.2 -12 Require all church staff to park on -site during the weekdays, and not use the street parking, thereby not adding to the on- street parking demand on school days. MM 4.2 -13 St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church should consider issuing a greater number of parking permits to Newport Harbor High School to reduce the need for neighborhood street parking by students and staff on school days. 4.2.6 Level of Significance After Mitigation Project implementation will not result in any significant impacts to the circulation system and, further, will not exacerbate any existing parking deficiencies in the neighborhood. However, as indicated above, several recommendations have been identified to facilitate parking both for the church as well as the neighborhood and high school. 1! C:\ MyFilesWKC- 0060.STANDREWS.NBIDRAFTEIR14.2 TrafficBParking.navdoc Page 4.2 -21 1 St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church General Plan Amendment and Use Permit Amendment Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.3 ' 4.3 Air Quality ' A detailed air quality analysis was prepared by Mestre Greve Associates to evaluate the potential air quality impacts. The analysis in the following sections focuses on the existing conditions in the study area, the analysis methodology, thresholds of significance, the potential short- and long -term air quality impacts of the ' proposed expansion of St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church project related to the ambient air quality standards (AAQS) and sensitive receptors, and mitigation as needed. The Mestre Greve air quality analysis is included in Appendix D; the findings and recommendations of that analysis are summarized below. 4.3.1 Existing Conditions Climate ' The climate in and around the project area, as with all of Southern California, is controlled largely by the strength and position of the subtropical high pressure cell over the Pacific Ocean. It maintains moderate temperatures and comfortable humidity, and limits precipitation to a few storms during the winter "wet" season. Temperatures are normally mild, excepting the summer months, which commonly bring substantially higher temperatures. In all portions of the basin, temperatures above 100° Fahrenheit (F) have been recorded in recent years. The annual average temperature in the basin is approximately 62° F Winds in the project area are usually driven by the dominant land /sea breeze circulation system. Regional wind patterns are dominated by daytime onshore sea breezes. At night the wind generally slows and reverses direction traveling towards the sea. Wind direction is altered by local canyons, with wind tending to flow parallel to the canyons. During the transition period from one wind pattern to the other, the dominant wind direction rotates into the south and causes a minor wind direction maximum from the ' south. The frequency of calm winds (less than two miles per hour) is less than 10 percent of the winds that occur. Therefore, there is little stagnation in the project vicinity, especially during busy daytime traffic hours. ' Southern California frequently has temperature inversions that inhibit the dispersion of pollutants. Inversions may be either ground based or elevated. Ground -based inversions, sometimes referred to as radiation inversions, are most severe during clear, cold, early winter mornings. Under conditions of a ground -based inversion, very little mixing or turbulence occurs, and high concentrations of primary pollutants may occur locally along major roadways. Elevated inversions can be generated by a variety of meteorological phenomena. Such inversions act as a "lid," or upper boundary, and restrict vertical mixing. Below the elevated inversion, dispersion is not restricted. Mixing heights for elevated inversions are lower ' in the summer and more persistent. This low summer inversion puts a lid over the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB) and is responsible for the high levels of ozone observed during summer months in the air basin. Air Quality Management The proposed project is located in the SCAB and, jurisdictionally; the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) and the California Air Resources Board (GARB) are responsible for monitoring and enforcement within the SCAB. The SCAQMD sets and enforces regulations for stationary sources in the basin and develops and implements Transportation Control Measures. The CARB is charged with controlling motor vehicle emissions. CARB establishes legal emission rates for new vehicles and is responsible for the vehicle inspection program. Other important agencies in the air quality management for the basin include the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). The EPA implements the provisions of the federal Clean Air Act (CAA), which establishes ambient air quality standards that are applicable nationwide. In areas that are not achieving the standards, the CAA requires that plans be developed and implemented to meet the standards. The EPA oversees the efforts in this air basin and insures that appropriate plans are being developed and implemented. The primary agencies responsible for writing the plan are SCAG and the SCAQMD, and the plan is called the Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP). SCAG prepares the transportation component of the AQMP. C.VNyFilesIKKC -0060. STANDREWS. NBIDRAFTEIR14.3 Air Quality. doc Page 4.3 -1 St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church General Plan Amendment and Use Permit Amendment Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.3 SCAQMD and SCAG, in cooperation with local governments and the private sector, have developed the AQMP for the air basin. The AQMP is the most important air management document for the basin because it provides the blueprint for meeting state and federal ambient air quality standards. The 1997 AQMP was adopted locally on November 8, 1996, by the governing board of the SCAQMD. CARB amended the Ozone portion of the 1997 AQMP in 1999 as part of the California State Implementation Plan (SIP). The 1997 AQMP with the 1999 Amendments was adopted by the EPA in December of 1999. State law mandates the revision of the AQMP at least every three years, and federal law specifies dates certain for developing attainment plans for criteria pollutants. The 1997 AQMP with the 1999 Amendments supersedes the 1994 AQMP revision that was adopted locally by the SCAQMD in November 1996. The 1997 revision to the AQMP was adopted in response to the requirements set forth in the California Clean Air Act (CCAA) and the 1990 amendments to the Federal Clean Air Act. SCAQMD and SCAG have released a draft 2003 AQMP, which has been adopted by SCAQMD and ARB. The 2003 AQMP must still be approved by the EPA before it becomes the applicable plan. The SCAB has been designated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as a "non - attainment" area for three constituents: (1) ozone, (2) carbon monoxide, and (3) suspended particulates. Nitrogen dioxide in the SCAB has met the federal standards for the third year in a row, and therefore, is qualified for redesignation to attainment. A maintenance plan for nitrogen dioxide is included in the 1997 AQMP. The CCAA mandates the implementation of the program that will achieve the California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS) and the CAA mandates the implementation of new air quality performance standards. EPA has designated SCAB as "extreme non - attainment" for 1 -hour ozone, and "serious non - attainment" for PM10 and CO. Attainment of all federal PM10 health standards is to be achieved by December 31, 2006, and ozone standards are to be achieved by November 15, 2010. For CO, the deadline was to be December 31, 2000; however the basin was granted an extension. The SCAB has not had more than one violation of the federal CO standard in the past two years. Therefore, the SCAB has met the criteria for CO attainment. However, SCAB is still formally designated as a non - attainment area for CO until the EPA redesignates it as an attainment area. SCAQMD plans to submit a proposed maintenance plan to the EPA in late fall /early winter 2003. In 1997, the EPA established an 8 -hour standard for ozone and standards for particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter (PM2.5). In 1999, a federal court ruling (American Trucking Associations, Inc., et al., v. United States Environmental Protection Agency) blocked implementation of these standards. In February 2001, the United States Supreme Court upheld the standards but remanded some issues back to the Circuit Court. In March 2002, the Circuit Court upheld the standards. Establishment of a PM2.5 standard was just the first step in the assessment and reduction of PM2.5 levels. Tools need to be developed to accurately estimate PM2.5 and precursor emissions, their dispersion and atmospheric interactions, and the resulting concentrations. Uncertainty brought by the court challenge delayed development of the tools to estimate PM2.5 emissions and concentrations, especially at a project level. The focus at this time is establishment of a PM2.5 measurement network to determine which areas are in attainment of the standard and which are not and how substantial the concentrations are in areas of non - attainment. At this time, adequate tools are not available to perform a detailed assessment of PM2.5 emissions and impacts at the project level. Further, there are no good sources for the significance thresholds for PM2.5 emissions. Until tools and methodologies are developed to assess the impacts of projects on PM2.5 concentrations the analysis of PM10 will need to be used as an indicator of potential PM2.5 impacts. EPA is scheduled to promulgate air quality designations for the new 8 -hour ozone standard by April 15, 2004. At this time, it is not known when EPA plans to begin implementation of the new PM2.5 standards. C: UL1yFilesVOC C-0060.STANDREWS.NBIDRAFTEIR14.3 Air Quality.doc Page 4.3 -2 St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church General Plan Amendment and Use Permit Amendment Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.3 ' On June 20, 2002, the CARB revised the PM10 annual average standard to 20 pg /m3 and establish an annual average standard for PM2.5 of 12 pg /m3. These standards were approved by the Office of Administrative Law in June of 2003 and are now effective. However, as discussed above there are presently no adequate tools available to assess PM2.5 impacts; therefore, PM10 emissions must be used as an indicator of potential PM2.5 impacts. SCAQMD has not altered the recommended significance ' thresholds or analysis techniques based on these revised standards. The overall control strategy for the AQMP is to meet applicable state and federal requirements and to demonstrate attainment with ambient air quality standards. The 1997 AQMP uses two tiers of emission treduction measures; (1) short- and intermediate -term measures, and (2) long -term measures. Short- and intermediate -term measures propose the application of available technologies and ' management practices between 1994 and the year 2005. These measures rely on known technologies and proposed actions to be taken by several agencies that currently have statutory authority to implement such measures. Short- and intermediate -term measures in the 1997 AQMP include 35 stationary source, 7 on -road, 6 off -road, 1 transportation control and indirect source, 5 advanced transportation technology, and 1 further study measures. All of these measures are proposed to be implemented between 1995 and 2005. These measures rely on both traditional command and control and on alternative approaches to implement technological solutions and control measures. To ultimately achieve ambient air quality standards, additional emission reductions will be necessary beyond the implementation of short- and intermediate -term measures. Long -term measures rely on the advancement of technologies and control methods that can reasonably be expected to occur between ' 1997 and 2010. These long -term measures rely on further development and refinement of known low - and zero- emission control technologies for both mobile and stationary sources, along with technological breakthroughs. ' Ambient Air Quality Air quality at any site is dependent on the regional air quality and local pollutant sources. Regional air ' quality is determined by the release of pollutants throughout the air basin. Estimates for the SCAB have been made for existing emissions ( "2003 Air Quality Management Plan ", August 1, 2003). The data presented in the AQMP indicate that mobile sources are the major source of regional emissions. On -road ' mobile sources (i.e., motor vehicles) account for approximately 45 percent of volatile organic compounds (VOC), 63 percent of nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions, and approximately 76 percent of carbon monoxide (CO) emissions. ' Air quality data for the area in which the project site is located is collected at the Costa Mesa monitoring station. The data collected at this station is considered representative of the air quality experienced in the vicinity of the project. The air pollutants measured at the Costa Mesa station include ozone, carbon ' monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2) and sulfur dioxide (SOA PM10 and PM2.5 monitoring data were collected at the Mission Viejo station. The air quality monitored data from 2000 to 2002 for all of these pollutants are shown in Table 4.3 -1. (Data from 2003 was not available at the time the air quality analysis was prepared. Table 4.3 -1 also presents the Federal and State air quality standards. I- L I� 1 ' C:\ MyFii esVC KC- 0060;STANDREWS.NBVOR4FTEIR14.3 Air Oualdydoc Page 4.3 -3 St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church General Plan Amendment and Use Permit Amendment Draft Environmental Impact Report Table 4.3 -1 Air Quality Monitoring Summary' St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church Section 4.3 Ozone, a secondary pollutant, is not directly emitted but is the result of chemical reactions between other pollutants, most importantly hydrocarbons and NOZ, which occur only in the presence of bright sunlight. Pollutants emitted from upwind cities react during transport downwind to produce the oxidant concentrations experienced in the area. Many areas of the SCAQMD contribute to the ozone levels experienced at the monitoring station, with the more significant areas being those directly upwind. As indicated in Table 4.3 -1, ozone (monitored at the Costa Mesa Station) is the air pollutant of primary concern in the project area. The state 1 -hour ozone standard was exceeded 3 days in 2002, 2 days in 2001, and 9 days in 2000. The federal 1 -hour and 6 -hour standards were exceeded on only 1 day in 2000 and 2001; neither standard was exceeded in 2002. The data from the past three years show a slight downward trend in the number of days exceeding the state and federal ozone standards. C: IMyFilesIKKC- 0060.STANDREWS.N8IDRAFTE /RW.3 Air QualHydoc Page 4.3-4 Days State Days Federal California Federal % Maximum Standard Standard Pollutant Standard Standard Year Measured' Level Exceeded Exceeded 0.09 ppm 0.12 ppm 2002 99 0.087 3 0 Ozone for 1 hour for 1 hour 2001 100 0.098 2 1 2000 100 0.130 9 1 0.08 ppm 2002 99 0.070 n/a 0 Ozone None for 8 hours 2001 100 0.073 We 0 2000 100 0.086 n/a 1 20 ppm 35 ppm 2002 96 5.1 0 0 CO for 1 hour for 1 hour 2001 99 5.4 0 0 2000 99 7.8 1 0 0 9'0 ppm 9 ppm 2002 87 4.3 0 0 CO for 8 hours for 8 hours 2001 99 4.6 0 0 2000 99 6.3 0 0 0.25 ppm for 2002 99 0.106 0 We NOi (1 -Hour) None 2001 100 0.082 0 n/a 1 hour 2000 100 0.107 0 n/a 0.04 ppm for 0.14 ppm 2002 99 0.011 0 0 so, 24 hours for 24 hours 2001 87 0.005 0 0 2000 1 100 0.006 0 0 Particulates 50 pg /m a 3 150 pg /m 2002 — 80 5130 0 PM103 for 24 hours for 24 hours 2001 94 60 3/18 0 (24 -Hour) 2000 98 98 2/12 0 Particulates 3 20 pm/m 50 pg /m 3 2002 — 28131 Yes No PM104 AGM AAM 2001 94 24/26 Yes No (Annual) 2000 98 25127 Yes No Particulates No Separate 3 65 pg /m 2002 100 58.5 n/a 0 PM2.5 State Std for 24 hours 2001 99 53.4 n/a 0 (24 -Hour) 2000 100 94.7 n/a 1 Particulates 3 12 pg/m 3 15 pg/m 2002 100 15.5 Yes Yes PM2.5 �'M AAM 2001 99 15.8 Yes Yes (Annual) 2000 100 14.7 Yes No 'As measured at Costa Mesa and Mission Viejo Monitoring Stations. Percent of year where high pollutant levels were expected that measurements were made. 3First number shown in Days State Standard Exceeded column is the actual number of days measured that state standard was exceeded. The second number shows the number of days the standard would be expected W be exceeded if measurements were taken every day. °First number shown in Max Level column is the Annual Geometric Mean: the second number is the Annual Arithmetic Mean. 3Annual Geometric Mean. sAnnual Arithmetic Mean. n/a — not applicable (i.e., no standards to compare with). -- no data available. SOURCE: Mestre Greve Associates, Inc. (January 21, 2004) Ozone, a secondary pollutant, is not directly emitted but is the result of chemical reactions between other pollutants, most importantly hydrocarbons and NOZ, which occur only in the presence of bright sunlight. Pollutants emitted from upwind cities react during transport downwind to produce the oxidant concentrations experienced in the area. Many areas of the SCAQMD contribute to the ozone levels experienced at the monitoring station, with the more significant areas being those directly upwind. As indicated in Table 4.3 -1, ozone (monitored at the Costa Mesa Station) is the air pollutant of primary concern in the project area. The state 1 -hour ozone standard was exceeded 3 days in 2002, 2 days in 2001, and 9 days in 2000. The federal 1 -hour and 6 -hour standards were exceeded on only 1 day in 2000 and 2001; neither standard was exceeded in 2002. The data from the past three years show a slight downward trend in the number of days exceeding the state and federal ozone standards. C: IMyFilesIKKC- 0060.STANDREWS.N8IDRAFTE /RW.3 Air QualHydoc Page 4.3-4 St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church General Plan Amendment and Use Permit Amendment Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.3 Carbon monoxide (CO) is another important pollutant that is due mainly to motor vehicles. Currently, CO levels in the project region are in compliance with the state and federal 1 -hour and 8 -hour standards. Although no exceedances of this pollutant have occurred in the three years reflected in Table 4.3 -1, high levels of CO commonly occur near major roadways and freeways and CO may potentially be a continual problem in the future for areas next to freeways and other major roadways. Particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5) is another air pollutant of primary concern in the area. The state standards for PM10 have been exceeded at the Mission Viejo monitoring station between 2 and 5 days over the three years for which data are available. The federal standard for PM10 was not exceeded. The federal standard for PM2.5 was exceeded only 1 day in 2000, and none in 2001 and 2002. The maximum levels in 2001 were the lowest in the last three years. The annual average PM10 and PM2.5 concentrations have exceeded the state standards for the past three years. The federal standard was exceeded only for PM2.5 in the last two years. There does not appear to be a trend toward fewer days of exceedances and maximum levels for both PM10 and PM2.5. Particulate levels in the area are the result of natural sources, grading operations and motor vehicle operations. According to the EPA, some people are much more sensitive than others to breathing fine particles (PM10 and PM2.5). People with influenza, chronic respiratory and cardiovascular diseases, and the elderly may suffer worsening illness and premature death due to breathing these fine particles. People with bronchitis can expect aggravated symptoms from breathing in fine particles. Children may experience decline in lung function due to breathing in PM10 and PM2.5. Other groups considered sensitive are smokers and people who cannot breathe well through their noses. Exercising athletes are also considered sensitive, because many breathe through their mouths. The monitored data shown in Table 4.3 -1 reveal that other than ozone, PM10, and PM2.5 exceedances as discussed above, no state or federal standards were exceeded for the remaining criteria pollutants. 4.3.2 Significance Criteria A project will normally have a significant impact related to air quality if it will result in: A violation of any ambient air quality standard. A significant contribution to an existing or projected air quality violation. Exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. The AQMD has established the following regional thresholds for construction- and operation - related air quality emissions. A project with daily emissions that are less than the thresholds identified below for construction activities and/or long -term project operations is consisted to have a less than significant effect on the regional air quality throughout the SCAB. Activity Pollutant Emissions (pounds/day) CO ROG NOx PM10 sox Construction 550 75 100 150 150 Operation 550 55 55 150 150 SOURCE: South Coast Air Quality Management District. C: IMyFilesIKKC- 0060.STANDREWS.NBIDRAFTEIR14.3 Air Qualifydoc Page 4.3 -5 St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church General Plan Amendment and Use Permit Amendment Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.3 In addition to the regional thresholds identified above, air pollutant emissions from a project are locally significant if they result in air pollutant concentrations that either create a violation of an ambient air quality standard or contribute to an existing air quality violation. The SCAQMD has established significance thresholds should the existing ambient air pollutant concentrations exceed a standard. Specifically, carbon monoxide is the criteria pollutant for which a significance threshold has been established. If the ambient air quality standards for carbon monoxide identified below are exceeded, local pollutant concentrations are considered significant. 8 -hour standard 0.45 ppm 1 -hour standard 1 ppm 4.3.3 Standard Conditions SC 4.3 -1 Adherence to SCAQMD Rule 403, which requires that, "... every reasonable precaution (is taken) to minimize fugitive dust emissions ..." from grading operations to control particulate emissions, shall be implemented during the grading and construction phase. SC 43-2 Adherence to SCAQMD Rules 431.1 and 431.2, which require the use of low sulfur fuel for stationary construction equipment. SC 43-3 The project shall comply with Title 24 energy - efficient design regulations as well as the provision of window glazing, wall insulation, and efficient ventilation methods in accordance with Uniform Building Code requirements. 4.3.4 Potential Impacts 4.3.4.1 Short-Term Air Quality Impacts Temporary impacts will result from project construction activities. Air pollutants will be emitted by construction equipment and fugitive dust will be generated during on site grading of the site. The greatest air pollutant emissions will occur during demolition and excavation of the parking garage. These activities will occur sequentially over an eight -week period and are described in more detail below. Construction activities for large development projects are estimated by the EPA (according to the 1993 CEQA Handbook, emission factor for disturbed soil is 26.4 pounds of PM10 per day per acre, or 0.40 tons of PM10 per month per acre). If water or other soil stabilizers are used to control dust as required by SCAQMD Rule 403, the emissions can be reduced by 50 percent. The PM10 calculations include the 50 percent reduction from watering. Demolition is projected to release 0.00042 pounds of PM10 per cubic foot of building space demolished. Demolition The existing fellowship hall and one classroom building will be demolished as a part of the project. These buildings have a total floor area 24,230 square feet and an approximate volume of 363,450 cubic feet. The demolition of the buildings is expected to create approximately 3,000 cubic yards of demolition debris that will be hauled off site. This material will be hauled to the nearest landfill, the Frank R. Bowerman Landfill in Irvine, an 18.5 -mile trip from the project site. The project proponent has proposed removing material at a rate of 100 trucks per day. At this rate the demolition debris will be removed in 1.5 days. The heavy equipment required to perform the demolition includes, an excavator, two backhoes with hoe ram, a front loader, a water truck and a street sweeper. It is estimated that there will be 10 worker vehicles traveling to and from the site each day and the average trip length for each worker vehicle is 11 miles. Using the estimates presented above the peak construction emissions for the project were calculated and presented in Table 4.3 -2. The data used to calculate the emissions are shown in the appendix to the Air Quality Analysis (refer to Appendix D). C:MyFilesWKC- 0060:STANDREWS. NBIDRAFTEIR14.3 Air Quality. doc Page 4.3 -6 St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church General Plan Amendment and Use Permit Amendment Draft Environmental Impact Report Table 4.3 -2 "Worst Case" Air Pollutant Emissions During Demolition St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church Source Pollutant Emissions (poundslday) CO ROG NOx PM10 Disburbed Site 0.0 0.0 0.0 33.0 Demolition 0.0 0.0 0.0 50.9 Construction Equipment 44.3 6.4 51.9 2.5 Debris Haul Trucks 22.2 8.5 87.8 3.3 Employee Travel 3.8 0.3 0.5 0.0 Total Emissions 70.3 15.2 140.2 89.7 SCAQMD Thresholds 550 75 100 150 Exceeds Threshold? No No Yes No SOURCE: Mestre Greve Associates, Inc. (January 21, 2004) Section 4.3 As indicated in Table 4.3 -2, NO, pollutant emissions associated with the demolition are projected to be greater than the significance thresholds established by the SCAQMD in the CEQA Air Quality Handbook. The primary source of NO, emissions is from the debris hauling trucks with construction equipment contributing substantially to the total NO, emissions. As a result, the implementation of mitigation measures will be necessary to reduced the potential impacts to a less than significant level. Excavation Approximately 50,000 CY of dirt will be excavated from the site for the subterranean parking structure: Where this material will be hauled will not be known until after the grading permit is issued and just before the excavation begins. The location is dependant on what sites, often construction sites, are accepting fill material at the same time as the excavation of the project. As a worst -case estimate, it was assumed that a one -way trip to the disposal site would be 20 miles. The project proponent has proposed removing material at a rate of 100 trucks per day. At this rate the excavated material will be removed in 36 days. The heavy equipment required to perform the excavation includes, an excavator, two backhoes with hoe ram, a front loader, a water truck and a street sweeper. It is estimated that there would be 10 worker vehicles traveling to and from the site each day and the average trip length for each worker vehicle is 11 miles. Using the estimates presented above, the peak construction emissions for the project were calculated and presented in Table 4.3 -3. (The data used to calculate emissions are in the appendix.) Table 4.3 -3 "Worst Case" Air Pollutant Emissions During Excavation St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church Source. Pollutant Emissions (poundslday) CO ROG NOx PM10 Grading Activity 0.0 0.0 0.0 33.0 Truck Loading 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 Construction Equipment 44.3 6.4 51.9 2.5 Dirt Export Trucks 24.0 9.1 94.9 3.6 Employee Travel 5.7 0.4 0.7 0.0 Total Emissions 74.0 16.0 147.6 39.4 SCAQMD Thresholds 550 75 100 150 Exceeds Threshold? No No Yes No SOURCE: Mestre Greve Associates, Inc. (January 21, 2004) C:IMyFilesV(KC -0060. STANDREWS. NB%DRAFI'EIR14.3 Air Quality. doc Page 4.3 -7 St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church General Plan Amendment and Use Permit Amendment Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.3 Similar to the emissions resulting demolition activities, the data presented in Table 4.3 -3 indicate that NO, emissions associated with the excavation are also projected to be greater than the significance thresholds established by the SCAQMD in the CEQA Air Quality Handbook. As indicated above, the primary source of NO, emissions is from the haul trucks, with construction equipment also contributing substantially to the total NO, emissions. Mitigation measures are prescribed in Section 4.3.5. 4.3.4.2 Long -Term Air Quality Impacts Local Air Quality The traffic study prepared for the project (refer to Section 4.2 of the Draft EIR) shows that for the intersections with more than 1 percent of peak hour traffic through that intersection resulting from project implementation are projected to operate at levels of service (LOS) of B or better under future with project conditions. Air quality at intersections is only a concern at those intersections operating at LOS D or worse (i.e., LOS E or F). That is, only intersections with an LOS of D or worse are considered to have the potential to cause localized exceedances of the ambient air quality concentration standards. To result in a significant impact the project would have to substantially increase pollutant concentrations at an intersection where the concentrations exceed the ambient air quality standard. The intersections serving traffic from the project are projected to continue to operate at conditions much better than LOS D. As a result, those intersections would not be expected to experience air pollutant concentrations in excess of the ambient air quality standards. Therefore, the project will not result in a significant local air quality impact. Regional Air Quality The primary source of regional emissions generated by the proposed project will be from motor vehicles. Other emissions will be generated from the combustion of natural gas for space heating and the generation of electricity. Emissions will also be generated by the use of natural gas and oil for the generation of electricity off -site. The data used to estimate the on -site combustion of natural gas, and off -site electrical usage are based on the proposed land uses in terms of dwelling units and square footages, and emission factors taken from the 1993 CEQA Handbook. The traffic study prepared for the project indicates that the project will generate 328 additional daily trips to and from the project during operation. The average trip length for the proposed project is assumed to be 9.0 miles. This is a composite trip length derived from data contained in the SCAQMD CEQA Handbook (Page 9 -24). The product of the project daily trips and trip length, translate to total of 2,582 vehicle miles traveled (VMT) generated by the proposed project. An average speed of 25 miles per hour was assumed. Additional pollutant emissions associated with the project will be generated on -site by the combustion of natural gas for space heating and water heating and off -site due to electrical usage. The project will add approximately 35,948 square feet of floor space to the church. The square footages and emission factors utilized in calculating the emissions with these sources are provided in the appendix. The emissions are projected for 2005. The total project emissions are presented in Table 4.3-4. C:IMyFilesVKKC -0060. STANDRE WS. NS ORAFTEIR14.3 Air Quality. doc Page 4.3 -8 St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church General Plan Amendment and Use Permit Amendment Draft Environmental Impact Report Table 4.3-4 Total Project (Operational) Emissions St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church Source Pollutant Emissions (pounds /day) CO ROG NOx PM10 Vehicular Trips 48.5 3.4 6.7 0.3 Natural Gas Consumption 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 Electrical Generation 0.2 0.0 1.0 0.0 Total Emissions 48.8 3.4 8.0 0.4 SCAQMD Thresholds 550 55 55 150 Exceeds Threshold? No No No No SOURCE: Mestre Greve Associates, Inc. (January 21, 2004) Section 4.3 The information presented in Table 4.3 -4 reveals that the total project emissions are below the SCAQMD significance thresholds. Since the project emissions are below the significance thresholds, the implementation of the proposed project will not result in any significant regional air quality impacts. Therefore, no long -term mitigation measures are necessary. Consistency with the Air Quality Management Plan The SCAQMD's CEQA Handbook states that "New or amended GP Elements (including land use zoning and density amendments), Specific Plans, and significant projects must be analyzed for consistency with the AQMP:' Strict consistency with all aspects of the plan is usually not required. A proposed project should be considered to be consistent with the plan if it furthers one or more policies and does not obstruct other policies. The Handbook identifies two key indicators of consistency: (1) Whether the project will result in an increase in the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations or cause or contribute to new violations, or delay timely attainment of air quality standards or the interim emission reductions specified in the AQMP (except as provided for CO in Section 9.4 for relocating CO hot spots). (2) Whether the project will exceed the assumptions in the AQMP in 2010 or increments based on the year of project buildout and phase. Both of these criteria are evaluated in the following sections. Criterion 1 - Increase in the Frequency or Severity of Violations? Based on the air quality modeling analysis contained in this report, it is expected that there will be short- term construction impacts due to the project. While emissions will be generated in excess of SCAQMD's threshold criteria, it is unlikely that short-term construction activities will increase the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations due to required compliance with SCAQMD Rules and Regulations and the relatively small size of the project in relation to the entire Basin and Basin -wide emissions. The analysis showed that local pollutant concentrations are not projected to exceed any of the air quality standards and that operation of the project will not produce emissions in excess of the SCAQMD thresholds. The proposed project is not projected to contribute to the exceedance of any air pollutant concentration standards, thus the project is found to be consistent with the AQMP for the first criterion. C: IMyF11esIK KC- 0060.STANDREWS.NBIDRAFTEIR14.3 Air Quality. doc Page 4.3 -9 St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church General Plan Amendment and Use Permit Amendment Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.3 Criterion 2 - Exceed Assumptions in the AQMP? Consistency with the AQMP assumptions is determined by performing an analysis of the project with the assumptions in the AQMP. Thus, the emphasis of this criterion is to insure that the analysis conducted for the project is based on the same forecasts as the AQMP. The Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide (RCP &G) consists of three sections: Core Chapters, Ancillary Chapters, and Bridge Chapters. The Growth Management, Regional Mobility, Air Quality, Water Quality, and Hazardous Waste Management chapters constitute the Core Chapters of the document. These chapters currently respond directly to federal and state requirements placed on SCAG. Local governments are required to use these as the basis of their plans for purposes of consistency with applicable regional plans under CEQA. Since the SCAG forecasts are not detailed, the test for consistency of this project is not specific. The traffic modeling upon which much of the air quality assessment is based on is the County of Orange Congestion Management Program (RCMP) Methodology. The AQMP assumptions are based upon projections from local general plans. Projects that are consistent with the local general plan are consistent with the AQMP assumptions. The long -term emissions from the operation of the project are below the significance thresholds, and therefore, are not considered to be regionally significant. Therefore, the emissions from the project will be consistent with the AQMP assumptions. 4.3.5 Mitigation Measures The analyses presented in Section 4.3.4.1 showed that NOx emissions are projected exceed the significance thresholds during demolition and excavation. This is primarily due to the trucks that will haul demolition debris and excavated dirt from the site. The only practical way to reduce the emissions is to limit the number of trucks hauling materials from the site. By limiting truck trips to a daily vehicle miles traveled to 2005 miles or less, NOx emissions will remain below the 100 pounds per day significance threshold. For demolition this means limiting the hauling of demolition debris off site to 54 trucks per day. A side effect of this is that it extends the time it will take to haul demolition debris off site from 1.5 days to about 3 days. For the excavation it will depend on where the materials will be hauled. If the round -trip travel distance to the haul site is 20 miles or less, then materials could be removed at the proposed rate of 100 truckloads per day. If the travel distance is greater, the number of daily truck trips would need to be reduced so that the total daily haul truck vehicle miles traveled did not exceed 2005 miles. Depending on the distance to be traveled this could extend the duration of the excavation. Note, that the daily vehicle miles traveled by the haul trucks is calculated simply by multiplying the number of daily truck trips by the round trip travel distance. Impact 4.3 -1 Implementation of the proposed project will result in construction emissions that exceed the SCAQMD threshold established for NOx. This is due primarily to the trucks that will haul demolition debris and excavated dirt from the site MM 4.3 -1 During demolition and excavation, daily total haul trucks shall travel no more than a ' cumulative 2005 miles per day hauling materials from the site to and from the dumping site. MM 4.3 -2 Prior to commencement of demolition and grading the project applicant shall submit to the city calculations showing the proposed travel route for haul trucks, the distance traveled, and how many daily truck trips that can be accommodated while keeping the cumulative miles traveled to below 2005 miles each day. The daily haul truck trips shall not exceed 2005 miles during demolition and excavation activities. C: MyFilesWKC -0060. STANDREWS. NBIDRAFTEIRI4. 3 Air Quality. doc Page 4.3 -10 1 1 I 1 1 J St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church General Plan Amendment and Use Permit Amendment Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.3 4.3.6 Level of Significance After Mitigation With the limits on truck travel during demolition and excavation described in MM 4.3 -1 and MM 4.3 -2, emissions during construction will be reduced to a less than the significant level. Therefore, no significant, unavoidable air quality impacts will occur as a result of project implementation. However, in the event the mitigation measures are not implemented, significant short-term air quality impacts will occur as indicated below. Although grading is anticipated to take place during the summer, when school is not in session, implementation of Mitigation Measures 4.3 -1 and 4.3 -2 (placing a limit on the maximum daily mileage traveled by the trucks hauling export materials) may result in the extension of the grading schedule, which could then result in grading and hauling activities occurring when school is in session at Newport Harbor High School. As indicated in Section 4.2.4, the unsignalized intersection of 15th Street and Irvine Avenue is forecast to operate at an unacceptable level of service during the 15- minute morning and afternoon peak periods when school is in session. This potential traffic impact can be mitigated through proper scheduling; however, implementation of Mitigation Measures 4.3 -1 and 4.3 -2 may have several other unintended consequences. These consequences include noise along the school's 15th Street and Irvine Avenue frontages and within residential areas around the project site and potential safety conflicts (i.e., pedestrian and neighborhood /school traffic conflicts with construction traffic). If Mitigation Measures 4.3 -1 and 4.3 -2 are not implemented, the short-term air quality impact (i.e., NOx emissions that exceed the SCAQMD threshold) would not be mitigated and would remain significant (assuming the daily vehicle miles traveled by haul and other construction trucks exceeded 2,005 miles per day). It is important to note that this potential significant unavoidable impact will be short-term in nature (if it occurs at all) and will cease upon completion of the demolition and grading activities. In the event the project is approved without the imposition of the mitigation measures prescribed in Section 4.3.5, the Newport Beach City Council will be required to adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations related to short-term construction related impacts. Lastly, there is a reasonable possibility that there will not be an air quality impact at all because the total vehicle miles traveled for truck hauling may not exceed the daily maximum of 2,005 miles with a nearby disposal site. In this instance, no significant air quality impact would occur due to truck hauling activities and the proposed construction schedule avoiding an overlap with the typical school sessions will avoid the traffic impact at 15th Street/Irvine Avenue and the other unintended consequences identified above. C:1myF#esWKC -0060. STANDREWS. NBORAFTE/R14.3 Air Qualfty. doc Page 43-11 ' St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church General Plan Amendment and Use Permit Amendment Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.4 4.4 Noise An acoustical analysis was prepared by Mestre Greve Associates to evaluate the potential project - related noise impacts. The analysis in the following sections focuses on the existing conditions in the study area, the analysis methodology, thresholds of significance, the potential short- and long -term noise impacts of 1 the proposed expansion of St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church project in the residential neighborhood, and mitigation as needed. The Mestre Greve acoustical analysis is included in Appendix E; the findings and recommendations of that analysis are presented below. ' 4.4.1 Existing Conditions Noise Criteria The Newport Beach Noise Ordinance and Noise Element of the City's General Plan contain the regulations and policies adopted by the City that address noise. The Noise Ordinance applies to noise occurring on one property that impacts an adjacent or neighboring property. Typically, limits are established for noise levels that can be experienced at the neighboring property. The Noise Ordinance is part of the City's Municipal Code and is enforceable throughout the City. The Noise Element of the Newport Beach General Plan prescribes limits on noise levels associated with transportation noise sources, including vehicles on public roadways, railroads and aircraft. These limits established in the Noise Element are imposed on new development proposed in the City. As a result, new development is required to incorporate appropriate measures to ensure that the limits are not exceeded. The City of Newport Beach Noise Ordinance and Noise Element policies are presented below. Newport Beach Noise Ordinance The Newport Beach Noise Ordinance (Chapter 10.26 - Community Noise Control) establishes exterior and interior noise standards for noise generated on private property that may affect neighboring properties. Table 4.4 -1 presents the City of Newport Beach's Noise Ordinance standards. Table 4.4 -1 City of Newport Beach Noise Ordinance Standards St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church C:IMyFilesWKC -0060. STANDREWS. NBORAFTEIR14.4 Noise. doc Page 4.4 -1 Noise. Level Not to be Exceeded 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 Zone Noise Metric p.m. (Daytime) a.m. _Nighttime) Exterior Noise Standards Leq (15 minutes) 55 dBA 50 dBA I — Residential Lmax 75 dBA 70 dBA Leq (15 minutes) 65 dBA 60 dBA 11— Commercial Lmax 85 dBA 80 dBA III —Mixed Use Residential Leq (15 minutes) 60 dBA 50 dBA Lmax 80 dBA 70 dBA IV — Industrial /Manufacturing Leq (15 minutes) 70 dBA 70 dBA Lmax 90 dBA 90 dBA Interior Noise Standards I — Residential Leq (15 minutes) 45 dBA 45 dBA Lmax 65 dBA 65 dBA II —Mixed Use Residential' Leq (15 minutes) 45 dBA 45 dBA Lmax 65 dBA 65 dBA Residential within 100' of a commercial property where noise is from said commercial property. SOURCE: Mestre Greve Associates, Inc. January 29, 2004). C:IMyFilesWKC -0060. STANDREWS. NBORAFTEIR14.4 Noise. doc Page 4.4 -1 St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church General Plan Amendment and Use Permit Amendment , Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.4 The noise ordinance is designed to control unnecessary, excessive and annoying sounds from sources such as parking lots, loading docks, and mechanical equipment at the residential properly line. However, the noise ordinance requirements cannot be applied to mobile noise sources such as heavy trucks when traveling on public roadways. Although federal and State laws preempt control of the mobile noise sources on public roads, the requirements can be applied to vehicles traveling on public property. The City of Newport Beach exterior and interior noise criteria are expressed in terms of 15- minute Leq and Lmax noise levels. The noise levels specified are those that are not to be exceeded at a property from noise generated at a neighbor properly. Noise levels are to be measured with A- weighting and a slow time response. Greater noise levels are permitted during the day (7 a.m. to 10 p.m.) as compared to the nighttime period (10 p.m. to 7 a.m.). Newport Beach Noise Element Outdoor and indoor noise limits for various land uses impacted by transportation noise sources are identified and prescribed in the Newport Beach Noise Element. The noise limits specified in the City's Noise Element are expressed in terms of the Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL). The standard states that for residential land use, the exterior noise exposure level shall not exceed 65 CNEL and the interior noise exposure level shall not exceed 45 CNEL. Exhibit 4.4 -1 reflects the interior and exterior noise standards prescribed by the Noise Element for all land uses. Ambient Noise Levels Ambient noise measurements were performed to document the ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project. Noise measurements were made at three locations around the project site. Exhibit 4.4 -2 shows the location of the measurement sites. The noise measurements were conducted between 10:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m. on January 22, 2004. (Refer to Appendix E for a description of the instrumentation and related specifications and parameters of the noise measurements.) The measurement results are presented in terms of the equivalent noise levels (Leq), maximum noise levels, minimum noise levels and percentile noise levels (L %). The L50 percentile level for example, represents the noise levels exceeded 50 percent of the time, and usually represent the average ambient noise level. The L90 noise levels represent the background noise levels that are exceeded 90 percent of the time. The L10 noise levels represent the typical maximum noise level of noise events. Table 4.4 -2 Ambient Noise Levels St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church Site Time Leq Lmax L70 L50 L90 Lmin 1 10:07 a.m. 59 74 62 57 52 49 2 10729 a.m. 56 67 60 52 49 47 SOURCE: Mestre Greve Associates, Inc. (January 29, 2004) C: MyFil esIKKC- 0060.STANDREWS.NBIDRAFTEIR14.4 Noise.doc Page 4.4 -2 LAND USE CATEGORIES ENERGY AVERAGE CNEL CATEGORIES USES INFERIOR' LXnRIOR2 RESIDENTIAL Single Fondly, Two Fomily, Multiple Family 453 554 65 Mobile Houle 65 65 COMMERCIAL INDUSTRIAL Hotel, Motel, Transient Lodging 45 656 INSTITUTIONAL Corm erdal Retail, Bonk, RestauroM 55 - - -- Office Building, Research and Development Professional 50 _____ Offices, City Office Budding Mphlitmoter, Concert Had Auditorium, Meetmg Hot 45 Gymrlastm (Multipurpose) 50 Sports Club 55 - - -- NWmdochxing, Worehousulg, wholesale, Utilities 65 Movie Theaters 45 - - - -- INSTITUTIONAL Hospital, $&took' Clossroo n 45 65 Church, Lbrary 45 ___ OPEN SPACE Parks - - -- 65 INTERPRETATION 1. Indoor frMronadR exchrArS: eadaOOna, faleh, chests, Corridors 2. outdoor endrarmheM bnilsd to: Private Vord of single ksnsy Multi -fonly Pdvale Patio a below, which is served by o means M on e fmm inside. Mobie horn pork Hospi al Putty Park's picric uree Schools Playground /land and motel mawfio n ovea 3. Noise level requkemenf wit Closed windows. Mechanical ventikr g sysrem or other means of natural vOn iloboo shill be Provided as port of Chapter 12. Section 1205 Of USC. 6. Naas kmtl reaasem¢nf with open windows, if pray are uaM b mast rlafurW wnNbfia+rcqurmhahf. 5. exlador noise level should be such 0lofthe interior noise knef will not e+ceed 45 Cl E 6. ExceptXwse areas around the aipoc wills the 65 CNB canour. Exhibit 4.4 -1 City of Newport Beach Noise Standards SOURCE: Mestre Greve Associates, Inc. ' City of Newport Beach ` pus ILLSI e r , Fla • / q Aa r' }t R 2 �3 af�� �' lyj Cytl ' ~' 7a •r''� CY. 0 I � C s 4 a r Exhibit 4.4.2 Noise Measurement Locations SOURCE: Mestre Greve Associates, Inc. St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church General Plan Amendment and Use Permit Amendment Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.4 On the morning the measurements were taken, there were moderate Santa Ana winds and the noise from the wind through trees elevated the measured noise level to some extent. During the first half of the measurement at Site 1, the church parking lot was being used as a preschool playground. Voices from the parking lot were audible at the site but were not considered to be intrusive. The highest noise levels occurred as a result of vehicular traffic along Clay Street. (A UPS truck pass -by resulted in the maximum noise level.) Another source of noise during the measurement period was aircraft approaching John Wayne Airport, which was operating in a "reverse" pattern (due to the Santa Ana wind conditions). As a result, aircraft were landing from the southwest, opposite of what normally occurs, resulting in the need for approaching planes to fly closer to the project site because they need to take a straighter path in order to align with the runway upon arrival. On departure, the aircraft make a left turn to the south away from the project site. An arriving commercial aircraft resulted in the measured maximum noise level at Site 2. Wind noise, traffic on 151h Street and Clay Street, and some equipment (possibly a tree grinder) operating at the high school north of 15"' Street, contributed to the ambient noise levels at that location. Existing Roadway Noise Levels An estimate of highway noise levels (expressed in CNEL) in the project environs was computed for the roadways affected by project traffic. Appendix E provides a discussion of the methodology and criteria utilized to calculate these noise levels. The distances to the existing 60, 65 and 70 CNEL contours for the roadways in the vicinity of the proposed project site are presented in Table 4.4 -3. The figures in the table represent the distance from the centerline of the road to the contour value shown. In addition, the CNEL value at 100 feet from the roadway centerline is also presented. It is important to note that the values expressed in Table 4.4 -3 represent existing noise levels, which do not take into account the effect of any existing noise barriers or intervening topography that may affect ambient noise conditions. C: IA4yFilesIKKC- 0060.STANDREWS.NBIDRAFTEIR14.4 Noise.doc Page 4.4 -5 St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church General Plan Amendment and Use Permit Amendment , Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.4 Table 4.4 -3 Existing (Modeled) Roadway Traffic Noise Levels St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church C: MyFilesWKC- 0060 ..STANDREWS.N3IDRAFTEIR14.4 Noise.doc Page 4.4 -6 ' Distance to CNEL Contour from CNEL@ Centerline of Roadway (in feet) Roadway Segment 100 Feet 70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL Pacific Coast Highway West of Riverside Avenue 65.7 52 111 240 East of Riverside Avenue 65.3 49 105 227 West of Tustin Avenue 65.3 49 105 227 East of Tustin Avenue 65.3 49 105 226 West of Dover Drive 67.1 64 138 2979 East of Dover Drive 68.8 83 179 386 Cliff Drive West of Dover Drive 54.9 RW RW 45 15 Street West of Irvine Avenue 54.2 RW RW 41 East of Irvine Avenue 54.3 RW RW 42 16 Street West of Dover Drive 55.5 RW RW 50 East of Dover Drive 52.5 RW RW 31 Westcliff Drive West of Irvine Avenue 63.4 36 78 167 East of Irvine Avenue 61.8 RW 61 131 West of Dover Drive 62.2 RW 65 140 19 Street West of Irvine Avenue 53.5 RW RW 37 East of Irvine Avenue 55.6 RW 24 51 Riverside Avenue North of Pacific Coast Highway 56.5 RW 27 58 South of Pacific Coast Highway 48.3 RW RW RW Tustin Avenue North of Pacific Coast Highway 51.9 RW RW 29 Irvine Avenue North of 19'h Street 63.2 RW 76 163 South of 19'h Street 62.5 RW 68 146 North of Westcliff Drive 62.7 RW 70 150 South of Westcliff Drive 62.4 31 67 144 North of 15'h Street 58.4 RW 37 79 South of 15`" Street 55.3 RW 23 49 Dover Drive North of Westcliff Drive 57.5 RW RW 68 South of Westcliff Drive 64.3 41 89 192 North of 16'h Street 64.2 41 88 190 South of 16'h Street 64.6 44 94 202 North of Cliff Drive 64.4 43 92 198 South of Cliff Drive 64.6 44 95 204 North of Pacific Coast Highway 65.0 46 100 215 South of Pacific Coast Highway 54.1 RW RW 41 'Measured from roadway centerline. RW - Contour falls within roadway right -of -way. SOURCE: Mestre Greve Associates, Inc. (January 29, 2004) C: MyFilesWKC- 0060 ..STANDREWS.N3IDRAFTEIR14.4 Noise.doc Page 4.4 -6 ' St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church General Plan Amendment and Use Permit Amendment Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.4 ' The information presented in Table 4.3 -3 reveals that noise levels along Pacific Coast Highway and Dover Drive are substantial (i.e., the 65 CNEL contour extends well beyond the edge of the right -of -way of that arterial roadway). Noise levels along Westcliff Drive and Irvine Avenue are moderate (i.e., the 65 CNEL contour extends only slightly beyond the roadway right -of -way). Residential uses along these roadways with existing noise barriers (i.e., concrete block walls) likely do not experience noise levels in excess of 65 CNEL City standard. Noise levels along Cliff Drive, 15th Street, 15`h Street, 15`h Street, 1gth Street, Riverside and Tustin are minor. Noise levels along the edge of these roadways are just at or below 65 CNEL. ' 4.4.2 Significance Criteria ' Off -site impacts from on -site activities, temporary and long -term, are measured against the City of Newport Noise Ordinance. As indicated previously, any activity on private property must comply with the noise ordinance. Noise levels resulting from activities that do not comply with the criteria prescribed in the noise ordinance are considered to be a significant noise impact. Tn community noise assessment, changes in noise levels greater than 3 dB are often identified as significant, while changes less than 1 dB will not be discernible to local residents. In the range of 1 to 3 dB, residents who are very sensitive to noise may perceive a slight change. (It is important to note that there is no scientific evidence is available to support the use of 3 dB as the significance threshold.) In laboratory testing situations, humans are able to detect noise level changes of slightly less than 1 dB. In a community noise situation, however, noise exposures occur over a long time period, and changes in noise levels occur over years, rather than the immediate comparison made in a laboratory situation. Therefore, the level at which changes in community noise levels become discernible is likely to be some value greater than 1 dB, and 3 dB appears to be appropriate for most people. Long -term off -site impacts from traffic noise are measured against two criteria. Both criteria must be met for a significant impact to be identified. First, project traffic must cause a noise level increase greater than 3 dB on a roadway segment adjacent to a noise sensitive land use. Second, the resulting future with project noise level must exceed the criteria level for the noise sensitive land use. In this case the criteria level is 65 CNEL for residential land uses. Long -term on -site impacts are measured against the noise level limits given in the City of Newport Beach Noise Element standards shown in Exhibit 4.4 -1. The standard applicable to the project is the Church 45 CNEL interior noise standard. There are no exterior standards specified for Church uses. 4.4.3 Standard Conditions SC 4.4 -1 Construction activities shall comply with Section 10.28.040 of the Newport Municipal Code, which restricts hours of noise - generating construction activities that produce noise to between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 6:30 p.m., Monday through Friday and 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on Saturday. Noise - generating construction activities are not allowed on Sundays or Holidays. 4.4.4 Potential Impacts Potential noise impacts are commonly divided into two groups; temporary and long term. Temporary impacts are usually associated with noise generated by construction activities. Long -term impacts are further divided into impacts on surrounding land uses generated by the proposed project and those impacts that occur at the proposed project site. ' C: 1MyFilesWKC- 0060.STANDREWS.NBIDRAFTEIR14.4 Noise.doc Page 4.4 -7 St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church General Plan Amendment and Use Permit Amendment Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.4 4.4.4.1 Short-Term Noise Impacts Construction Noise Construction noise represents a short-term impact on ambient noise levels. Noise generated by construction equipment, including trucks, graders, bulldozers, concrete mixers and portable generators can reach high levels. Demolition for the project is expected to occur over a two -week period. Grading including excavation of the subterranean parking structure is expected to occur over a six -week period. Construction of the parking structure and buildings is then expected to occur over a 40 -week period. Construction equipment noise comes under the control of the Environmental Protection Agency's Noise Control Program (Part 204 of Title 40, Code of Federal Regulations). Examples of construction noise at 50 feet are presented in Exhibit 4.4 -3. Note that at twice the distance (i.e. 100 feet) the noise levels will be 6 dB lower than those shown in Exhibit 4.4 -3. At 200 feet from the source (i.e.. four times the distance) the noise levels will be 12 dB lower and at 500 feet the noise levels are 20 dB lower than shown on Exhibit 4.4 -3. Noise measurements for other projects indicate that the noise levels resulting from commonly used grading equipment (i.e. loaders, graders and trucks) typically do not exceed the middle of the range shown in Exhibit 4.4 -3. The nearest homes to the construction are located across Clay Street and St. Andrews Road. Construction activities will occur as close as 45 feet to the property lines of these homes. At this distance construction noise levels are only about 1 dB louder than those shown in Exhibit 4.4 -3. This maximum noise level will only occur as a piece of heavy equipment operates adjacent to a residence. Much of the time equipment will operate at a distance of 150 feet or more away from any one home. At this distance heavy construction equipment noise levels are 9 dB lower than shown in Exhibit 4.4 -3. Peak noise levels from construction equipment could reach as high as 96 dBA at the homes across Clay Street and St. Andrews Road. Average noise levels during periods of high construction activities are estimated to be in the range of 60 to 70 dBA. The noise levels generated by on -site construction activities will exceed the current Noise Ordinance standards. Section 10.26.035.D of the Newport Beach Municipal Code exempts construction equipment from the provisions of the Noise Ordinance and requires them to comply with Section 10.28 of the Code. Section 10.28.040 of the Code restricts hours of noise - generating construction to between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 6:30 p.m., Monday through Friday and 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on Saturday. Noise - generating construction activities are not allowed on Sundays or Holidays. Because the proposed project will be required to comply with Section 10.28.040 of the City's Noise Ordinance, the short-term noise impacts are considered to be less than significant. Demolition debris and dirt excavated for the subterranean parking garage will be trucked off site to remote locations. These trucks will generate noise along public roadways and at the project site. The trucks are expected to travel on Irvine Avenue, and 15'h Street, entering the site from 15'h Street near Clay Road (refer to Exhibit 4.2 -4). The trucks will then exit the site onto St. Andrews Road, near Clay Street, and travel to 15'h Street, turning left onto 15'h Street. Trucks will proceed to Irvine Avenue and then turn right on Irvine Avenue. Based on the construction phasing plan, soils excavated from the site will be transported from the property at a rate of 100 trucks per day, resulting in the addition of 200 daily truck trips to 15'" Street, Irvine Avenue, and St. Andrews Road, Table 4.44 shows the affect on traffic noise levels along these roadways. The CNEL noise level at 100 feet from the roadway centerline, based on existing average daily traffic volumes, is presented along with the noise level resulting from this traffic and the addition of 200 daily heavy truck trips on the roadways. The increase in CNEL noise level due to the addition of the trucks is presented in the last column of the table. (Data is not presented for St. Andrews Road since the traffic study prepared for the project did not report traffic volumes for St. Andrews Road. Presumably, traffic volumes and noise levels along St. Andrews Road are lower than those along 15'h Street.) C: IMyFiles\ KKC- 0060.STANDREWS.NBIDRAFTEIR14.4 Noise.doc Page 4.4 -8 A-Weighted Sound Level (dBA) At 50 Feet Equipment 60 70 80 90 100 1101 Compacter (Rollers) Front Loader Backhoe Tractor Scraper, Grader Paver Truck — --_-_- --- Concrete Mixer Concrete Pump Crane (Movable) Crane (Derrick) Pump Generator Compressor Pneumatic Wrench Jackhammer and Drill Pile Drivers (Peak Levels) Vibrator Saw 60 70 SOURCE: Mestre Greve Associates, Inc. MOB L-mc-f-L 80 90 160 110 Source: "Handbook of Noise Control," by Cyril Harris, 1979 Exhibit 4.4-3 Construction Equipment Noise Levels St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church General Plan Amendment and Use Permit Amendment Draft Environmental Impact Report Table 4.4-4 Traffic Noise Increases Due to Trucks St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church Section 4.4 Table 4.4-4 reveals that the greatest noise level increases will be experienced along 15`h Street. However, these increases at that location are less than the 3 dB "substantial" increase required for a significant impact to occur. Further, noise levels will not exceed the City's 65 CNEL standard at homes along 15'" Street as shown in Table 4.4 -5, which reflects the distances to CNEL contours with the construction truck traffic on 15`h Street and Irvine Avenue. Table 4.4 -5 shows that the traffic noise level along the right -of -way of 15`h Street will be less than 65 CNEL. The haul trucks associated with demolition and excavation of the project will not result in a significant noise impact. Table 4.45 Distance to Traffic Noise CNEL Contours with Construction Trucks St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church CNEL @ 100' Increase in Roadway Segment CNEL (dBA) Existing W /Project Trucks 15 Street East of Irvine Avenue RW East of Irvine Avenue 54.3 56.8 2.5 Irvine Avenue North of 19" Street 38 North of 19`" Street 63.2 63.7 0.5 South of 19`' Street 62.5 63.1 0.6 North of Westcliff Drive 62.7 63.2 0.6 South of Westcliff Drive 62.4 63.0 0.6 North of 15" Street 58.4 59.8 1.4 'From centerline of roadway. SOURCE: Mestre Greve Associates, Inc. (January 29, 2004) Table 4.4-4 reveals that the greatest noise level increases will be experienced along 15`h Street. However, these increases at that location are less than the 3 dB "substantial" increase required for a significant impact to occur. Further, noise levels will not exceed the City's 65 CNEL standard at homes along 15'" Street as shown in Table 4.4 -5, which reflects the distances to CNEL contours with the construction truck traffic on 15`h Street and Irvine Avenue. Table 4.4 -5 shows that the traffic noise level along the right -of -way of 15`h Street will be less than 65 CNEL. The haul trucks associated with demolition and excavation of the project will not result in a significant noise impact. Table 4.45 Distance to Traffic Noise CNEL Contours with Construction Trucks St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church C: IMyFilesV< KC- 0060.STANDREWS.NBIDRAFTEIR14.4 Noise.doc Page 4.4 -10 Distance to CNEL Contour from Centerline of Roadway (feet) 70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL Roadway Segment 15 Street East of Irvine Avenue RW RW 61 Irvine Avenue North of 19" Street 38 82 177 South of 19'" Street 35 74 160 North of Westcliff Drive 35 76 164 South of Westcliff Drive RW 73 158 North of 15"' Street RW 45 97 FRW — C ontour does not extend beyond roadway right -of -way. RCE: Mestre Greve Associates, Inc. (January 29, 2004) C: IMyFilesV< KC- 0060.STANDREWS.NBIDRAFTEIR14.4 Noise.doc Page 4.4 -10 St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church General Plan Amendment and Use Permit Amendment Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.4.4.2 Long -Term Operational Noise Impacts Off-Site Impacts Vehicular Noise Section 4.4 Table 4.4 -6 reflects the incremental noise level increases due to project - generated traffic on roadways in the vicinity of the project. The first column presents the roadway segments analyzed. The second column shows the increases in traffic noise CNEL levels over existing conditions due to all projected growth in the area. This includes general traffic volume growth, as well as additional traffic from currently approved projects as well as other anticipated projects. The final column shows the contribution of noise resulting from the proposed project to this increase (i.e., how much louder future noise levels will be with approval of the proposed project). Table 4.4 -6 Traffic Noise CNEL Level Increases St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church C: IMyFilesIK KC- 0060.STANDREWS.NBIDRAFTEIR14.4 Noise.doc Page 4.4 -11 Noise Level Increase (in dB) Roadway Segment Over Existing Project Contribution Pacific Coast Highway West of Riverside Avenue 1.6 0.0 East of Riverside Avenue 1.7 0.0 West of Tustin Avenue 1.7 0.0 East of Tustin Avenue 1.7 0.0 West of Dover Drive 1.7 0.0 East of Dover Drive 1.5 0.0 Cliff Drive West of Dover Drive 0.2 0.2 15 Street West of Irvine Avenue 0.2 0.0 East of Irvine Avenue 0.2 0.1 16 Street West of Dover Drive 0.2 0.0 East of Dover Drive 0.2 0.0 Westcliff Drive West of Irvine Avenue 0.9 0.0 East of Irvine Avenue 1.2 0.0 West of Dover Drive 1.1 0.0 19P Street West of Irvine Avenue 0.2 0.0 East of Irvine Avenue 0.3 0.0 Riverside Avenue North of Pacific Coast Highway 0.2 0.0 South of Pacific Coast Highway 0.2 0.0 Tustin Avenue North of Pacific Coast Highway 0.2 0.0 Irvine Avenue North of 19'" Street 0.2 0.0 South of 19th Street 0.2 0.0 North of Westcliff Drive 0.2 0.0 South of Westcliff Drive 0.2 0.0 North of 15`" Street 0.2 0.0 South of 15'" Street L 0.2 0.0 C: IMyFilesIK KC- 0060.STANDREWS.NBIDRAFTEIR14.4 Noise.doc Page 4.4 -11 St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church General Plan Amendment and Use Permit Amendment Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.4 Table 4.4 -6 indicates that traffic associated with the project is projected increase traffic noise levels by, at most, 0.2 dB, which is significantly less than the 3 dB threshold. As indicated previously, such an increase in noise would not normally be perceptible to persons of average sensitivity. Therefore, project implementation will not result in a significant noise impact. The greatest noise increases due to all traffic growth are along Pacific Coast Highway, where noise levels are projected to increase by up to 1.7 dB; however, this increase is not substantial (i.e., less than the 3 dB threshold). Further, traffic generated by the project does not contribute to these increases. As a result, the project - related cumulative traffic noise impacts will be less than significant. The distances to the future 60, 65 and 70 CNEL contours (measured from the roadway centerline) with the proposed project for the roadways in the vicinity of the proposed project site are given in Table 4.4 -7. The CNEL values projected at a distance of 100 feet from the roadway centerline are also presented in that table. (The contours do not take into account the effect of any noise barriers or topography that may affect ambient noise levels.) The distances to the future build out (2020) 60, 65 and 70 CNEL contours with the project alternatives and general plan conditions for the roadways in the vicinity of the proposed project site are presented in Appendix E. C: WlyFilesIKKC- 0060.STANDREWS.NBIDRAFTEIR14.4 Noise.doc Page 4.4 -12 Noise Level Increase (in dB) Over Existing Project Contribution Roadway Segment Dover Drive North of Westcliff Drive 0.3 0.0 South of Westcliff Drive 1.1 0.0 North of 16'" Street 1.1 0.0 South of 16d' Street 1.0 0.0 North of Cliff Drive 1.1 0.0 South of Cliff Drive 1.0 0.0 North of Pacific Coast Highway 1.0 0.0 South of Pacific Coast Highway 0.2 0.0 SOURCE: Mestre Greve Associates, Inc. (January 29, 2004) Table 4.4 -6 indicates that traffic associated with the project is projected increase traffic noise levels by, at most, 0.2 dB, which is significantly less than the 3 dB threshold. As indicated previously, such an increase in noise would not normally be perceptible to persons of average sensitivity. Therefore, project implementation will not result in a significant noise impact. The greatest noise increases due to all traffic growth are along Pacific Coast Highway, where noise levels are projected to increase by up to 1.7 dB; however, this increase is not substantial (i.e., less than the 3 dB threshold). Further, traffic generated by the project does not contribute to these increases. As a result, the project - related cumulative traffic noise impacts will be less than significant. The distances to the future 60, 65 and 70 CNEL contours (measured from the roadway centerline) with the proposed project for the roadways in the vicinity of the proposed project site are given in Table 4.4 -7. The CNEL values projected at a distance of 100 feet from the roadway centerline are also presented in that table. (The contours do not take into account the effect of any noise barriers or topography that may affect ambient noise levels.) The distances to the future build out (2020) 60, 65 and 70 CNEL contours with the project alternatives and general plan conditions for the roadways in the vicinity of the proposed project site are presented in Appendix E. C: WlyFilesIKKC- 0060.STANDREWS.NBIDRAFTEIR14.4 Noise.doc Page 4.4 -12 St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church General Plan Amendment and Use Permit Amendment Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.4 Table 4.4 -7 Future (2020) Noise Traffic Noise Levels (with Project) St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church ' C. lMyFilesUOC C- 0060.STANDREWS.NBIDRAFTEIR14.4 Noise.doc Page 4.4 -13 Distance to CNEL Contour from CNEL@ Centerline of Roadway (in feet) Roadway Segment 100 Feet' 70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL Pacific Coast Highway West of Riverside Avenue 67.3 66 143 308 East of Riverside Avenue 67.1 64 138 296 West of Tustin Avenue 67.1 64 138 296 East of Tustin Avenue 67.1 64 137 296 West of Dover Drive 68.8 83 179 385 East of Dover Drive 70.3 104 225 485 Cliff Drive West of Dover Drive 55.1 RW RW 47 15 Street West of Irvine Avenue 54.3 RW RW 42 East of Irvine Avenue 54.3 RW RW 43 16 Street West of Dover Drive 55.7 RW RW 52 East of Dover Drive 52.5 RW RW 32 Westcliff Drive West of Irvine Avenue 64.3 42 90 193 East of Irvine Avenue 63.0 RW 74 159 West of Dover Drive 63.4 36 78 168 19 Street West of Irvine Avenue 53.7 RW RW 38 East of Irvine Avenue 55.9 RW 25 53 Riverside Avenue North of Pacific Coast Highway 56.7 RW 28 60 South of Pacific Coast Highway 48.5 RW RW RW Tustin Avenue North of Pacific Coast Highway 52.0 RW RW 29 Irvine Avenue North of 19'h Street 63.4 36 78 169 South of 19th Street 62.7 RW 70 150 North of Westcliff Drive 62.8 RW 72 154 South of Westcliff Drive 62.5 32 69 148 North of 15"' Street 58.6 RW 38 81 South of 15'h Street 55.5 RW 23 50 Dover Drive North of Westcliff Drive 57.8 RW RW 71 South of Westcliff Drive 65.3 49 105 226 North of 16th Street 65.3 48 104 225 South of 16'h Street 65.6 51 110 237 North of Cliff Drive 65.5 50 108 233 South of Cliff Drive 65.7 51 111 239 North of Pacific Coast Highway 66.0 54 116 250 South of Pacific Coast Highway 54.3 RW RW 42 Measured from roadway centerline. RW - Contour falls within roadway right -of -way. SOURCE, Mestre Greve Associates, Inc. (January 29, 2004) ' C. lMyFilesUOC C- 0060.STANDREWS.NBIDRAFTEIR14.4 Noise.doc Page 4.4 -13 St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church General Plan Amendment and Use Permit Amendment Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.4 On -Site Activities As previously indicated, noise levels generated on the project site must comply with they City's Noise Ordinance, which defines the noise level limits that can be generated at an adjacent area by a noise source on private property. There are residential uses located across St. Andrews Road and Clay Street from the project site and a school located across 15'" Street. Onsite activities that have been identified that could potentially result in noise impacts are parking lot activity, events in the proposed gym, and mechanical equipment. Potential project - related impact associated with these on -site activities are identified and described below. Parking Lot Activity Traffic associated with parking lots is typically not of sufficient volume to exceed community noise standards that are based on a time averaged scale such as the CNEL or Leq scale. However, the instantaneous maximum sound levels generated by car door slamming, engine start-up, and car pass -bys can be annoying to nearby residents. Tire squeal may also be a problem, depending on the type of parking surface. Estimates of the maximum noise levels associated with some parking lot activities are presented in Table 4.4 -8 and are based on limited measurements conducted by Mestre Greve Associates. The noise levels presented are for a distance of 50 feet from the source, and are the maximum noise level generated. A range has been provided to reflect the variability of noise generated by various automobile types and driving styles. Table 4.4-8 Maximum Parking Lot Noise St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church Event Lmax Door Slam 60 to 70 Car Alarm Activation 65 to 70 Engine Start-up 60 to 70 Car pass -by 55 to 70 'dBA at 50 from the source. SOURCE: Mestre Greve Associates, Inc. (January 29, 2004) The existing homes are located approximately 50 feet from the nearest parking area. Table 4.4 -8 reveals that the maximum noise level anticipated at the homes resulting from the parking lot activity is 70 dBA. Therefore, parking lot noise levels are not projected to exceed the City's nighttime Noise Ordinance limit of 70 dBA. Further, the proposed parking lot is at the same location as the existing church parking lot. While the project will result in more vehicles using the parking lot, it will not substantially increase the noise levels generated within the parking lot. It is important to note that noise from the lower level of the parking structure would be contained by the design of the structure. Therefore, parking lot activity will not result in a significant noise impact. Activities Inside the Proposed Gym Concerns have also been expressed on noise levels generated from activities, particularly live music performances, inside the gym. The proposed architectural plans for the gym were reviewed. The proposed plans show that Building E is designed such that the gym portion of the building does not open directly to the outdoors. There is a lobby area with two sets of doors between the gym and outdoors. If there are live music performances in the gym, the proposed design will minimize noise escaping from the facility. At least one set of these doors should remain closed at all times. Therefore, activities within the Gym are not expected to result in a significant noise impact. C: VvtyFileslKKC- 0060.STANDREWS.NBIDRAFTEIR14.4 Noise.doc Page 4.4 -14 St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church General Plan Amendment and Use Permit Amendment Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.4 Mechanical (HVAC) Equipment Mechanical, heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) equipment also has the potential to generate noise levels that exceed the thresholds prescribed in the City's Noise Ordinance. Because this equipment generates what is essentially a constant noise level, the equipment must comply with the Leq noise limits presented in Table 4.1 -1. It is anticipated that a properly designed system will comply with the Noise Ordinance limits. To accurately estimate noise levels from mechanical equipment prior to installation, information on the specific units proposed for installation is required. This information is ' typically not known until architectural plans are nearing the building permit issuance stage, To ensure that the mechanical system does not generate noise levels in excess of the City's Noise Ordinance a study should be prepared and submitted before building permit approval (refer to Section 4.4.5). ' On -Site Impacts Exhibit 4.4 -1 indicates that the noise standard from the Noise Element that is applicable to the project is a ' 45 CNEL interior noise standard. There is no exterior standard defined for churches. Table 4.4 -7 indicates that the traffic noise generated by traffic on 15th Street will be less than 65 CNEL on the project site (the 65 CNEL contour does not extend beyond the roadway right -of -way). Noise levels from traffic on ' Clay Street and St. Andrews Road will be even lower. Traffic noise levels were not projected for these roadways because traffic volumes were not reported for these roadways in the traffic study. Presumably because traffic volumes on these roadways, along with noise levels, will be lower than along 15"' Street. The project is located approximately 3.5 miles southwest of John Wayne Airport. Exhibit 4.44 presents the 60, 65, and 70 CNEL noise contours from the airports 1985 Master Plan and Compatible Land Use Plan and related EIR 508 prepared by the County of Orange. This represents the current approved and adopted plan for the development and operation of John Wayne Airport and is, therefore, required for use in the planning process. (It is important to note that the contours illustrated on Exhibit 4.4 -4 are much larger than those anticipated under the current Settlement Agreement that limits operations at the airport.) Future noise levels, under the Settlement Agreement, will be substantially less than those presented in ' Exhibit 4.4 -4, which reveals that the project site is located well outside the 60 CNEL contour under the worst -case future projected aircraft noise levels. Therefore, aircraft noise levels will be much less than 60 CNEL. ' Combined traffic and aircraft noise levels are projected to be less than 65 CNEL. Typical construction provides at least 20 dB of outdoor - to-indoor noise reduction, assuming windows remain closed. To assume windows can remain closed, adequate ventilation must be provided per Chapter 12, Section 1205 ' of the Uniform Building Code. The HVAC systems proposed for the project will provide this ventilation. Therefore, interior noise levels will be less than the City's 45 CNEL interior noise standard. As a result, the proposed project will not be significantly impacted by noise. 4.4.5 Mitigation Measures Short-Term Construction Noise Impacts As indicated in Section 4.4.4.1, demolition and construction of the project will generate noise levels in excess of the City's Noise Ordinance limits. However, the City of Newport Beach has adopted a Noise Ordinance that limits noise - generating of construction activities to the hours between 7:00 a.m. and 6:30 p.m. on weekdays, 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on Saturdays. Compliance with this standard condition will ensure that the construction activities will be less than significant. Therefore, construction activities associated with project implementation will not result in significant noise impact and no mitigation is required. C: IMyFiiesIK KC- 0060.STANDREWS.NBIDRAFTEIRW.4 Noise.doc Page 4.4 -15 a ' St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church General Plan Amendment and Use Permit Amendment Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.4 Long -Term Operational Noise Impacts tTraffic Noise ' The project is not projected to result in any significant long -term off -site traffic noise impacts. No mitigation is required. On Site Activities rImpact 4.4 -1 There is some potential that the mechanical systems proposed for the project, if not properly designed, could exceed the City's Noise Ordinance limits. MM 4.4 -1 A noise study shall be prepared and submitted to the City for review prior to issuance of building permits. This noise study shall estimate noise levels generated by the proposed mechanical equipment at the worst -case residence. Compliance with the Noise Ordinance limits will be demonstrated, including the provision of any measures determined necessary to meet the limits specified. The mechanical equipment shall not generate an A- weighted average (Leq) noise level of greater than 55 dBA during the daytime (7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.) and 50 dBA during the nighttime (10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.). If the nighttime noise limit cannot be achieved a timer can be used to limit the operation of the system to the daytime hours. The study shall be prepared by a qualified acoustical engineer and submitted to the City of Newport Beach prior to the issuance of building permits. This will ensure that the mechanical equipment constructed with the project does not result in a significant noise impact. Long Term On -Site Impacts Adequate ventilation shall be provided for the proposed building pursuant to Chapter 12, Section 1205 of the UBC so that windows can remain closed to meet the City's interior noise standard. (It is important to note that windows do not need to be sealed shut; however, they must remain closeable at the occupants' discretion.) This ventilation requirement should be satisfied by the proposed HVAC system. The project site is not significantly impacted by noise and no mitigation measures are required. 4.4.6 Level of Significance After Mitigation Project - related noise impacts are anticipated to be less than significant, with the possible exception of noise associated with HVAC and related mechanical equipment employed on -site. However, implementation of the mitigation measure prescribed in Section 4.4.5 will adequately address the potential mechanical equipment noise impacts, which will be reduced to a less than significant level. No significant unavoidable impacts will occur as a result of project implementation. C: IMyFilesIKKC- 0060.STANDREWS.NBIDRAFTEIRW.4 Noise.doc Page 4.4 -17 St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church General Plan Amendment and Use Permit Amendment Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.5 ■ 4.5 Aesthetics The aesthetic quality of the site is determined by its visual character, consisting of elements such as natural and man -made features, elevations and topography, and prominent views of and from the site. In addition, surrounding urban and natural features comprise the visual setting within which the project site takes on a given degree of importance, depending on the qualities of that setting. Both natural and man -made landscape features contribute to perceived visual images and the aesthetic value of a view. Aesthetic value is influenced by one or more factors, including geologic, hydrologic, botanical, wildlife, recreational, and urban features. Visual images and their perceived visual quality can vary substantially by season and even hourly as weather, light, shadow, and the elements that comprise the viewscape change. Judgments of visual quality must also be made based on an established set of ' parameters identified by the City, since the same landform or visual resource in different geographic areas could have different visual resource quality and sensitivity in each setting. Evaluating a project's landscape changes and its effects on visual quality is often seen as a highly i subjective matter open to many interpretations and personal preferences. The scenic quality component can be described as the overall impression that the individual retains after driving through, walking through, or flying over an area. Viewer response is a combination of viewer exposure and viewer sensitivity. Viewer exposure to a viewshed is a function of the number of viewers, the number of views seen, the distance of the views, and the viewing duration. Viewer sensitivity relates to the extent of the public's concern for particular viewscapes. Visual quality is evaluated based on the relative degree of vividness, unity, variety, and uniqueness apparent in a viewscape as modified by its visual sensitivity. High- quatity views are highly vivid, relatively varied or unique, and possess a high degree of visual unity. Low - quality views lack vividness, are not visually varied or unique, and possess a low degree of visual unity. Visual sensitivity heightens the overall visual quality of a view. The visual character of a site is also defined by the visual resources (e.g., natural landforms, unique ' natural or man -made features, etc.) and their context within the viewshed as perceived from a variety of locations. A viewshed is defined as all of the surface area visible from a particular important location or sequence of locations (e.g., a roadway or trail) as identified and /or defined by the City of Newport Beach. ' Visibility and visual dominance of landscape elements are described with respect to their placement within the field of view. The stronger the influence exerted by the features, the greater the potential for landscape variety, though not necessarily aesthetic quality. The assessment of the aesthetic character of the area employs a qualitative, descriptive approach at a broad scale to describe and evaluate the visual resources of the subject site and the effects of the proposed development on the visual character of the area. 4.5.1 Existing Conditions St. Andrew's Church Property Visual Environment ' In general, the site and environs are urbanized. As previously indicated, St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church occupies the 3.943 -acre site. Several existing structures comprise the church complex, includin� the sanctuary, administration building, fellowship hall, and two education buildings, are located along 15 Street and St. Andrews Road. These buildings are described below. The existing 1,387 -seat sanctuary, rising to a height of approximately 44 feet above the ground, is located at ' the southeast comer of 15'' Street and St. Andrews Road. The character of this large structure is illustrated below. The sanctuary is the tallest of the five buildings occupying the site. St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church General Plan Amendment and Use Permit Amendment Draft Environmental Imnact Renort Section 4.5 As illustrated in the photograph, the existing sanctuary is the dominant visual feature on 15'h Street. This structure is characterized by a brick facade and a roof that is steeply pitched. Landscaping, including trees, hedges and shrubs, has been incorporated into the design of the site along the 15th Street and St. Andrews Road boundaries, which softens the development edges. The existing cross, which rises approximately 97 feet above the site, is a landmark on the property that can be seen from some vantages along 16th Street, north of Newport Harbor High School; however, the existing structures are generally not visible from that location. Although some overhead utilities exist on the north side of 15th Street, all such features have been undergrounded on the south side of the street. The character of the sanctuary, when viewed from Haven Place, is illustrated below. C:IMyFilesLKKF0060. STANDREWS.NBIDRAFTEIRW.5 Aesthetics.rov.doc Page 4.5-2 1 1 i 1 i 1 11 C� 1 1 jrj7� u 1 1 1 i 1 1 St Andrew's Presbyterian Church General Plan Amendment and Use Permit Amendment Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.5 The character of the existing church facilities from the area of the Newport Harbor High School parking lot along 15th Street is illustrated below. The chapel and a portion of the fellowship hall can be seen through the landscaping that exists along 15" Street. The landscaping effectively screens the two story structures located along the 15'h Street. These existing structures maintain the character of the larger sanctuary, which includes the use of bricks on the facades, paint on plaster, and the same roof materials. The top of the cross is also visible from this location. Vehicular access to the church is provided along 151h Street, which opens into a large surface parking lot comprising the eastern limits of the site. The education buildings, as viewed from Snug Harbor looking to the northwest, are illustrated below. As can be seen, the buildings are set back significantly from Clay Street to accommodate the surface parking lot that comprises the southern and eastern portion of the site. The buildings shown in this photograph are proposed to be demolished and replaced with new structures. 1 C:IMyFilesWKC- 0060, STANDREWS. NBIDRAFTEIR14.5 Aesthetics. rev. doc Page 4.5-3 St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church General Plan Amendment and Use Permit Amendment Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4. A large tree in the parkway at the Clay Street/St. Andrews Road intersection provide a degree of screening and visual relief from the existing education buildings and surface parking lot, as indicated in the photograph below. Portions of the church are also visible from the Newport Beach Environmental Nature Center (ENC) located northeast of the subject property west of Newport Harbor High School. The photograph below illustrates the view of the church from the southern end of the linear ENC. The sanctuary can be seen through the sycamore tree on the right side of the photograph. C: IMyFilesVC KC- 0060.STANDREWS.NBIDRAFTEIR14.5 Aesthetics.rev.doc Page 4.5-4 ' St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church General Plan Amendment and Use Permit Amendment Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.5 ' Although the subject property is visible from the ENC, the subject property is not located with a designated "scenic vista." The ENC encompasses a narrow corridor that supports recreated habitat. Fences demarcate the eastern and western boundaries of the ENC. As reflected in the photograph, the cyclone fence located along the western boundary of the corridor has been covered with a screening material, which allows for only partial views of the upper portions of the buildings occupying the St. ' Andrew's Presbyterian Church property. Surrounding Development ' Residential development surrounds the subject property south of Clay Street and north of St. Andrews Road; Newport Harbor High School is located north of 151h Street. The single - family detached residential dwelling units located south of Clay Street are generally one story in height, although some two -story ' homes also exist. The residential development in this area is characterized by a variety of architectural styles typical of the 1960s and 1970s. It is important to note that the development south of Clay Street is physically separated not only by Clay Street but also the wide surface parking lot on the south side of the church site (refer to the Aerial Photograph in Chapter 3.0). With the exception of the Masonic Temple located at the comer of 15'' Street and St. Andrews Road, the area to the west is composed of single - family attached residential development. As illustrated in the Aerial Photograph in Chapter 3.0, these residential structures are generally two stories. As can be seen, residential development north of Clay Street is located closer to the existing church structures than the development south of Clay Street. However, it is important to note that landscaping has been incorporated along the south side of Clay Street to buffer the taller church buildings from the nearby residential development. The Newport Harbor High School campus, which supports several large educational buildings, is located north of 15`h Street. As can be seen, most of these buildings are two stories in height and are typically white with red tile roofs. The most dominant structure on the campus is the clock tower, which is located near the 15`h Street/Irvine Avenue intersection. The 15'h Street parking lot, which is located adjacent to the Newport Beach Environmental Nature Center, is located across the street from the church parking lot. The existing development on the St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church property can be seen from vantages not only the residential development and school properties surrounding the site but also from the extreme southern end of the Nature Center. Lighting The existing church facilities have lighting for both security purposes and for signage and aesthetics. With the exception of the pole - mounted lighting fixtures in the existing parking lot the lighting is generally located on the (exterior) facades of the buildings and directed toward the interior plaza. No exterior lighting fixtures exist on the buildings abutting 15th Street. A lighted cross rises approximately 97 feet above the site that is visible from all directions in the vicinity of the subject property. The cross, as viewed from Haven Place, is illustrated in the photograph below. C:IMyFilesIKKC- 0060. STANDREWS. NBI DRAFTEIR14.5Aesthetics.mv.doc Page 4.5-5 ' St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church General Plan Amendment and Use Permit Amendment Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.5 Although illumination of the cross does light up the sky when atmospheric conditions create particulates, at the present time, none of the lighting provided on -site extends onto adjacent properties. Other lighting sources include the streetlights along St. Andrews Road and 15"' Street. 4.5.2 Significance Criteria The proposed project will be considered to have a significant aesthetic impact it The project has a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista. Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway. Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings. C:WyFi/esWKC-0060. STANDREWS.NBIDRAFTEIR14.5 Aesthetics.rev.doc Page 4.5-6 I' St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church General Plan Amendment and Use Permit Amendment Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.5 Create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area. It is important to note that potential significant impacts are those that occur to /from designated public viewsheds identified by the City of Newport Beach in the General Plan. These locations include view parks, public beaches and open space, and scenic highways and scenic drives. 4.5.3 Standard Conditions Several standard conditions apply to projects that are subject to site plan review in order to preserve the aesthetic character of the site and area within which it is located. Where applicable, the proposed project will be subject to the conditions cited below as prescribed in the municipal code. SC 4.5 -1 Development shall be compatible with the character of the neighborhood and surrounding sites and shall not be detrimental to the orderly and harmonious development of the surroundings and of the City. SC 4.5 -2 Site plan and layout of buildings, parking areas, pedestrian and vehicular access ways, and other site features shall give proper consideration to functional aspects of site development. SC 4.5 -3 Lighting shall be in compliance with applicable standards of the Zoning Code. Exterior on- site lighting shall be shielded and confined within t he 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. Parking area lighting shall have zero cut -off fixtures and light standards shall not exceed 20 feet in height. (The height of the standards can be adjusted lower to reflect the applicant's proposed height of standard.) SC 4.5 -4 The site shall not be excessively illuminated based on the luminance recommendations of the Illuminating Engineering Society of North America, or, if in the opinion of the Planning Director, the illumination creates an unacceptable negative impact on surrounding land uses or environmental resources. The applicant shall prepare photometric study in conjunction with a final lighting plan for approval by the Planning Director prior to the issuance of a building permit. Prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy or final of building permits, the applicant shall schedule an evening inspection by the Code Enforcement Division to confirm control of light and glare. Particular attention shall be given to the light spillage and glare in the parking lot at any residential areas. The Planning Director may order the dimming of light sources or other remediation upon finding that the site is excessively illuminated. 4.5.4 Potential Impacts ' 4.5.4.1 Short -Term Construction Impacts Implementation of the proposed project will result in demolition, site preparation (e.g., grading, etc.) and construction activities that could have some short-term effects that would temporarily change the character of the area; however, it is important to note that these potential effects are similar to those which are typical of similar development projects in residential neighborhoods that undergo development and redevelopment, although the scale of the proposed project is larger than that typically experienced in ' a residential area. The effects of grading include exposing a portion of the site to heavy construction, including demolition of existing structures, excavation along the eastern portion of the site to accommodate the subterranean parking garage, and construction of the new structures that will replace ' those demolished in the initial development phase. Construction staging areas, storage of equipment and supplies, demolition of existing buildings and related activities will contribute to a generally "disturbed" C:IMyF#esWKC- 0060. STANDREWS.NBIDRAFTEIR14.5 Aesthetics.rev.doc Page 4.S7 St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church General Plan Amendment and Use Permit Amendment Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.5 condition, which may be perceived as a potential visual impacts. However, while these activities may be unsightly during the demolition and construction phases, they are not considered significant impacts because they are temporary in nature and will cease upon completion of the proposed construction program. Moreover, once completed, the character of the site and neighborhood will return to normal. In addition, several measures, such as a screen fence six feet high at the property line, can be taken to minimize the potential adverse effects of construction. Appropriate measures have been identified to ensure that such adverse effects be minimized. 4.5.4.2 Long -Term Operational Impacts The project has a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista As indicated above, the subject property is located in the Cliff Haven area of the City that is nearly entirely developed. The predominant land use in the project environs is single- and multiple - family residential development, although some institutional uses, including the subject property, exist in the area. No scenic vistas are identified, either by the Newport Beach General Plan or other long -range planning document adopted by the City. Although the aesthetic character of the project area is defined by its predominant residential nature, the Cliff Haven area is devoid of natural features or other important visual amenities (e.g., bluffs, water features, etc.) that typically define important visual amenities, including scenic vistas. Objective 6 of the Recreation and Open Space Element is intended to preserve scenic vistas and resources; however, none of the desired features are located in the project area. In particular, the policies articulated in the Recreation and Open Space Element address coastal views, coastal bluffs, and the preservation of natural landforms. Neither those features nor any designated scenic vista(s), including from the Newport Beach ENC, exist in the project area and none of the adjacent roadways is identified as a scenic drive or scenic highway on the Recreation and Open Space Map. Moreover, although project implementation will result in new development, the proposed structures will be substantially similar in height and /or character as the existing sanctuary and buildings that will not be demolished. As a result, the aesthetic character of the area will not change significantly and no significant visual impacts are anticipated. Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway No resources, including heritage trees, rock outcroppings or other naturally features exist on the site; therefore, project implementation will not result in any substantial damage to existing important scenic resources. Further, neither of the existing buildings proposed to be demolished have been designated as "historic" structures. Therefore, project - related impacts will be less than significant. Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings As described above, the area surrounding the St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church property are developed with single- and multiple - family residential dwelling units, a high school, and the Masonic temple. The character of the existing church and ancillary structures are compatible with the character of the surrounding development, which includes a variety of architectural styles. Although the intensity of development on the site would be intensified (refer to Section 4.1, Land Use /Relevant Planning), construction of the two new buildings, which will replace the two buildings proposed for demolition, will not result in a significant change in the character of the area. The proposed buildings will be located in the same general area of the existing buildings. The new fellowship hall (Building D) will be 35 feet 2 inches high, not including the mechanical screening, compared to the height of the existing fellowship hall, which is 29 feet 9 inches (from finished grade). Building elevations for Building D are shown in Figure 4.5 -1. As can be seen, the building materials proposed to be used are similar to those incorporated into the existing sanctuary and other structures that will not be demolished. Building facades will be treated with brick veneer and painted exterior plaster. Punched aluminum windows, aluminum doors, and painted metal canopies will characterize the new fellowship hall, which will be located approximately 175 feet from Clay Street. (The existing Dierenfield C:1MyFilesV(KC -0060. STANDREWS. NBIDRAFTEIR14.5 Aesthetics.rev.doc Page 45 -8 ' St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church Generai Pian Amendment and Use Permit Amendment Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.5 ' Hall is currently located approximately 130 feet from Clay Street.) Exhibit 4.5 -2 reflects a cross - section of the proposed Building D and the relationship of that structure to the existing sanctuary. ' The Youth and Family Center, which is proposed to replace the classroom building (Building E), will be located closer to Clay Street than the structure that will be demolished. This building will be ' approximately 90 feet from Clay Street at its closest point, compared to 170 feet for the existing classroom building. This main structure will be approximately 32 feet high, not including the mechanical screen (8 feet), at its tallest point as reflected in the Exterior Elevations shown in Figure 4.5 -3. The primary building materials and character will be the same as proposed for the new fellowship hall (e.g., ' brick veneer, painted exterior plaster, and the roof). Exhibit 4.5 -2 illustrates a cross - section of the new Youth and Family Center (Building E) and its relationship to the existing Education Building (Building B). ' Planters are proposed around each of the new structures as well as landscape plantings (i.e., trees and a hedgerow) that will extend along the length of Clay Street from 15'" Street to St. Andrews Road. These planned improvements are intended to screen the surface parking lot and buildings. Other plant materials will also be incorporated into the surface parking lot. In addition, enhanced paving and other hardscape ' elements will complement the existing and new buildings within the campus. The proposed landscape plan is presented in Figure 4.5 -4. ' Create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area By definition, light pollution is the upward and outward distribution of light, which is emitted either directly from fixtures or from reflection off the ground or other surfaces, such as buildings or other features. Light sources are labeled with an output rating in lumens, the most common measure of light output. As lamps and fixtures age, become weathered and deteriorate, their lumen output decreases. Illuminance, or the amount of light ' being transmitted upon a certain area, is measured in terms of footcandles (i.e., a measure of light equal to one lumen per square foot). The higher the footcandle level, the brighter the illuminated area will be. The outcome of direct light shining from a fixture making it difficult to see or causing discomfort is referred to ' as glare. Human response to glare is dependent upon the brightness of the source, contrast between the source and the surrounding environment, size of the source, and the position of the light source. Glare is a particular problem for motorists traveling in proximity to the light source, although glare may be visible from nearby or distant areas. Glare is commonly considered in terms of candlepower, which is defined as the luminous intensity emitting from a light source in a particular direction. Measurement of candlepower is typically done with a light meter provided the distance form the glare source to the meter is known. ' Overall, lighting has been designed and installed such that it is directed downward, away from adjoining properties and public rights -of -way, does not spill out significantly onto adjacent areas and still maintains the ambience of the area while not reducing the safety of the users. Compliance with the City of Newport Municipal Code and applicable criteria will be ensured through the development of a project specific design based upon the final site plan, which must be approved by the City Planning, Building and Public Works Departments. ' Project implementation will result in the addition and /or modification of the existing lighting plan. Specifically, all of the existing pole- mounted parking lot fixtures will be removed and replaced with new pole- mounted fixtures at 16 feet above the finish grade; the new lighting fixtures will be no higher than existing parking lot lighting fixtures. Several of the existing lighting "wall packs" will remain on the facades of the existing buildings; however, the existing floodlights on Building C will be removed as well as the existing floodlights on Building D and Building E, which will be removed as those buildings are demolished. The existing cylinder "downlight" on the sanctuary will remain. Lighting in the plaza will consist of low -level walkway lighting, ' building mounted lighting, and tree "uplights " None of the plaza lighting, which will be shielded by structures on the site, will be visible from the adjacent residential properties. I ' C: IMyFilesV( KC- 0060.STANDREWS.NBI)RAFTEIRI4.5 Aesthetics. rev, doc Page 4.5-9 �: Prnlrzr�:, Lu Y m m w w w i m m m m w = � w = w= m m • � m ad ����Ira asp g3 � u u� �• � as ! i O� ak' a �. err !y .,♦ tea•.;, - a aVOW SM3WaNV IS 009 kiF1 / 1, I I •,\ t I ll I � "' _ `1►1 \O1►1Q1 \I \IOM r � Sam m m w w w i m m m m w = � w = w= m m • � m ad ����Ira asp g3 � u u� �• � as ! i O� ak' a �. err !y .,♦ tea•.;, - a / 1, I I t I yll 1 _ m m w w w i m m m m w = � w = w= m m � � .� t , A&" � zj X U) Jy fit U m (U U4 Im C 1 ®O U m (U St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church General Plan Amendment and Use Permit Amendment Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.5 A site photometric plan was prepared, which illustrates the level of lighting that will emanate from the site. As indicated in Figure 4.5 -5, none of the existing or proposed lighting will result in significant off -site intrusion. The maximum illuminance value is estimated to be approximately 14.3 footcandles in an area located directly below the pole- mounted light fixture at the northeastern comer of the parking lot. However, the illuminance of this source of light diminishes rapidly and is reduced to 0.2 footcandle at the curb along the south side of 15th Street. The average illuminance value in the parking lot is 1.52 footcandles. In comparison, a typical residential streetlight would operate at an average of 3.00 to 5.00 footcandles. Although some light emanating from the subject property will extend into St. Andrews Road and Clay Street, the illuminance of all light will be reduce to 0.00 footcandle before it reaches the residential properties located to west of St. Andrews Road and south of Clay Street. Therefore, no significant lighting and glare impacts are anticipated to occur as a result of project implementation and no mitigation measures are required. 4.5.5 Mitigation Measures Although not significant, the following measures are recommended to ensure that the short-term adverse visual effects of demolition, grading and construction are minimized. MM 4.5 -1 The construction and equipment staging area should be located in the least visually prominent area on the site and should be properly maintained and /or screened to minimize potential unsightly conditions. MM 4.5 -2 A six -foot high screen fence shall be placed around the parking lot at the property line during construction. MM 4.5 -3 Construction equipment and materials should be properly stored on the site when not in use. Design of the proposed project is consistent and compatible with the existing on -site structures and with the character of the area. As a result, no significant visual impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. 4.5.6 Level of Significance After Mitigation As indicated above, the site and vicinity are not identified as visual resources and no significant aesthetic features exist either on the site or in the project area. Although project implementation will result in some temporary visual impacts resulting from demolition and construction of the new buildings and the subterranean parking structure, no significant, long -term visual impacts are anticipated. I I I 1 C:IMyFilesIKKC- 0060.STANDREWS.NBIDRAFTEIR14.5 Aesthetics.rev.doc Page 4.5-14 g e � a a 8 g� i eg ti e a a 4 C � � �a c H as w N L 9� � 4 w £9926 VINHO:111VO `HOV38 1HOdM3N aVOli SM3UGNV 18 009 3 r CL a W HounHO NVIUM 18S3W SM3UGNd 1S SEE �a g e � a a 8 g� i eg ti e a a 4 �i +Imil io! "A� \fit - "7���i��iY�YlL nia i�ir+ [JII�Ar•7,YiiA��i�y ►■ \iimnmmmr; �Y�i�i�11�i /�\ iYis.lr�4_. 31iili' i! 'a \7R1h:.iMEltgSa]F1�Rf1M "jq,Ac i A AA A� go= � ♦ C � � �a s � w o r CL �i +Imil io! "A� \fit - "7���i��iY�YlL nia i�ir+ [JII�Ar•7,YiiA��i�y ►■ \iimnmmmr; �Y�i�i�11�i /�\ iYis.lr�4_. 31iili' i! 'a \7R1h:.iMEltgSa]F1�Rf1M "jq,Ac i A AA A� go= � ♦ � � � � i � �I � � � � � 71 � � � � � � St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church General Plan Amendment and Use Permit Amendment Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.6 4.6 Police Protection Although the preliminary analysis presented in the initial study concluded that potential impacts to law enforcement and police protection resulting from project implementation would be less than significant, comments received during the NOP comment period raised issues related to potential impacts associated I with activities that could occur in the proposed subterranean parking garage (e.g., drugs, loitering, vagrancy, etc.). Therefore, additional analysis has been conducted and is included in this section of the Draft EIR. The analysis is based on information provided by the Newport Beach Police Department. 4.6.1 Existing Conditions The City of Newport Beach Police Department is responsible for providing police and law enforcement services within the corporate limits of the City. The Police Department headquarters is located at 870 Santa Barbara Drive, at the intersection of Jamboree Road and Santa Barbara, approximately 3.5 miles from the St. Andrew's Presbyterian project site. The Department is comprised of approximately 280 full- and part-time employees, of which 145 are full -time, swom police officers. The current ratio of swom officer is two for each 1,000 residents, although that ratio is reduced significantly as the population of the City increases as a result of tourism occurring during some months. Nonetheless, the existing full -time swom officer staffing allows the Department to adequately serve the needs of the community, including the summer seasons when the population increases. Police and law enforcement service in the City is provided by patrols within designated "beats." Newport Beach is divided into 37 reporting districts for the purposes of assigning manpower and reporting statistics. The basic patrol plan calls for the 37 districts to be divided into seven beats; each beat is assigned to an individual patrol unit. Additional patrol and traffic units are assigned to handle traffic investigations and to M provide additional manpower where needed. In addition to the patrol officers, the Department utilizes various specialized units such as foot patrols, bicycle patrols, and ABLE (Air Borne Law Enforcement) to police the City. These methods are adequate to respond to the City's current needs; however, the plan may be reevaluated and adjusted, if necessary, to respond to changes in demographics and crime problems that occur. The Newport Beach Police Department participates in an Inter -City Assistance Plan with all other Orange County Police Departments and the Orange County Sheriffs Department and Harbor Patrol. This plan allows for mutual aid in unusual circumstances where the resources of a participating agency are not adequate to meet a single, specific event, such as an incident involving public disorder or large -scale emergency. The Department has no plans to move or building a new police facility, nor any plans to modify the way law enforcement services are currently provided to the community, absent special problems that arise from time to time. The current emergency response times average approximately four minutes. 4.6.2 Significance Criteria The proposed project would result in significant adverse environmental impacts if any of the following occur: Implementation of the proposed project will result in an increase in the demand for law enforcement services to such a degree that accepted service standards are not maintained without an increase in manpower and /or equipment; or Implementation of the proposed project will result in the interference with an emergency response or evacuation plan(s) in the community or not provide internally consistent analysis of policies to guide future development. I IC: IMyFilesVC KC- 0060.STANDREWS.NBIDRAFTEIR14.6 Police Protection.doc Page 4.6-1 St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church General Plan Amendment and Use Permit Amendment Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.6 4.6.3 Standard Conditions SC 4.6-1 The proposed site plan will be subject to review by the Newport Beach Police Department. 4.6.4 Potential Impacts 4.6.4. Short -Term (Construction) Impacts Short-term impacts are those that occurring during construction of each development phase of the project. Construction impacts may include vandalism at the site. However, implementation of adequate security measures, which include securing the on -site construction equipment as well as closure of the construction area after normal working hours, will minimize the potential impacts to structures and /or equipment. 4.6.4.2 Long -Term (Operational) Impacts Project implementation will result in the demolition of two existing structures, followed by their replacement with two new structures on the St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church property. The proposed project will allow for the expansion of the existing development, which will increase the total floor area on the site to 140,388 square feet. Although the floor area of the church facilities will be increased by approximately 36,000 square feet, a significant amount (45 percent) of the increase encompasses restrooms, storage and circulation areas within the new buildings. Approximately 37 percent of the floor area increase encompasses the new gymnasium (6,895 square feet) and general assembly area (6,035 square feet). In addition, the development also includes the construction of a subterranean parking garage that will accommodate 227 parking spaces. Correspondence from the Newport Beach Police Department indicated that implementation of the proposed project with the improvements summarized above will not adversely affected emergency response times, which currently average approximately four minutes. The Department did not identify any potential impacts to the existing law enforcement services provided in the City of Newport Beach. The Department did not anticipate any negative effects on normal traffic flow, although it would reduce parking along residential streets in the neighborhood due to the proposed increase in on -site parking. Concern was expressed in comments received in response to the Notice of Preparation that construction of the subterranean parking structure could attract homeless or others into the area who could use the parking garage as shelter. In addition, youths may also congregate in the parking area to smoke and /or use or sell drugs. Although this potential issue is not considered a significant problem, several measures have been recommended by the Newport Beach Police Department to avoid or deter use of the parking structure for such unintended use. Based on information provided by the Newport Beach Police Department, implementation of the proposed project will not result in an increase in the demand for law enforcement services that would necessitate an increase in manpower and /or equipment. Further, the proposed project will not result in the interference with an emergency response or evacuation plan in the community. Therefore, no significant impacts are anticipated as a result of project implementation. 4.6.5 Mitigation Measures Although no significant impacts are anticipated as a result of project implementation, the Newport Beach Police Department has identified several recommendations for consideration to address the concerns identified in the NOP comment letter. Those recommendations are identified below. MM 4.6 -1 The structures should be construed so that the subterranean parking lot can be closed off to vehicular and pedestrian traffic when not in use (i.e., automatic or manual gate). C: 1MyFilesXK KC- 0060.STANDREWS.N8IDRAFTEIR14.6 Police Protection.doc Page 4.6-2 St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church General Plan Amendment and Use Permit Amendment Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.6 MM 4.6 -2 The subterranean parking structure should be well lit during the day and night. In addition to the subterranean lot, the ground level parking should be lit at night to allow individuals the ability to identify someone from 100 feet away. MM 4.6 -3 Convex mirrors should be used to eliminate hiding places within the subterranean parking structure. MM 4.6-4 If Newport Beach High School students are given a permit and allowed to park in the structure during school, the church should handle any problems that arise (e.g., revoking the student's permit). 4.6.6 Level of Significance after Mitigation No significant law enforcement impacts are anticipated as a result of project implementation. Nonetheless, several recommendations have been identified to address potential safety and related concerns identified by nearby residents. According to the Police Department, implementation of these recommendations are intended to adequately address the neighborhood concerns and ensure that potential impacts remain less than significant. No significant short- or long -term impacts to law enforcement and police protection services will occur as a result of project implementation. C: IMyFilesWKC- 0060.STANDREWS.NBIDRAFTEIR14.6 Police Protection.doc Page 4.6-3 St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church General Plan Amendment and Use Permit Amendment Draft Environmental Impact Report Chapter 5.0 CHAPTER 5.0 IMPACTS FOUND NOT TO BE SIGNIFICANT BASED ON THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT The environmental process requires the Lead Agency for a proposed project, in this case the City of Newport Beach, to prepare a Notice of Preparation (NOP) which describes the proposed project and summarizes the potential environmental impacts which could result from the implementation of a proposed project. An initial study (IS) checklist, which defines areas of concern, was completed as part of this process. The IS discussed what topics were going to be analyzed further in the EIR. The results of the IS for the proposed St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church project focused the topics that were going to be studied in the EIR down to several topical areas. Therefore, an Environmental Impact Report has been prepared to assess certain potential impacts associated with this project. The IS, which was circulated with the Notice of Preparation (NOP), and the supporting documentation for the proposed St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church project are provided in Appendix A of this EIR. This section summarizes those potential impacts of the proposed St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church expansion project that were determined in the IS to be below a level of significance or which could be mitigated to below a level of significance based on mitigation measures incorporated in the IS. 5.1 Land Uses and Planning The subject property is located in an area of the City of Newport Beach and County of Orange that is not addressed either in a habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan. As a result, project implementation will not conflict with any policies established for such plans. As previously indicated, the site is improved with the existing St. Andrews Presbyterian Church facilities and does not support any sensitive habitat and /or species designated by State or federal resource agencies. Therefore, no significant impacts will occur if the project is implemented and no mitigation measures are required. 5.2 Agriculture Project implementation will not result in the conversion of any prime or otherwise significant farmland. No agricultural use of the property presently occurs. The subject property is developed with a church and ancillary facilities. According to the Orange County Important Farmland Map, the entire area, including the subject property, is designated as "Urban and Built Up Land," which encompasses land occupied by structures with a building density of at least one dwelling unit to one and one -half acres. Development of the site as proposed will not result in any significant impacts to farmland or other agricultural resources. 5.3 Population and Housing The proposed development will not result in the elimination of any residential dwelling units or residents. Therefore, no existing housing or residents will be displaced if the project is approved and constructed and no significant impacts will occur. Further, project implementation does not include the development of the site for residential or other land uses that would be considered directly growth- inducing. Further, all of the existing infrastructure exists in the area and is available to accommodate the proposed development. Adequate capacity exists in all of the infrastructure systems that serve the site (e.g., sewer, water, storm drainage, roadways, etc.) and no new or expanded facilities are required to provide service to the project. No significant additional growth would be anticipated to occur as a direct result of the proposed church development. Therefore, no significant growth- inducing impacts are anticipated as a result of project implementation. C: IMyFilesLKKC- 0060.STANDREWS.NBIDRAFTEIR15.0 Not Sig.doc St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church General Plan Amendment and Use Permit Amendment Draft Environmental Impact Report Chapter 5.0 5.4 Geology and Soils The project site is located in the seismically active southern California region. Primary ground rupture or fault rupture is defined as the surface displacement that occurs along the surface of a fault during an earthquake. There are no active faults or fault systems known to exist on or in the immediate vicinity of the project site. In addition, the project site is not within an Alquist - Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone as illustrated on the maps issued by the State Geologist for the area. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project is not anticipated to expose people or structures to fault rupture during a seismic event. No impacts will occur and no mitigation measures are required. Although there are no active faults or fault systems known to exist on or in the immediate vicinity of the project site (and the site is not within an Alquist - Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone), it is subject to seismic shaking resulting from earthquakes occurring on one or more of the regional faults. The project site and environs are located within an area designated as Category 2 by the Newport Beach Public Safety Element (Newport Beach Public Safety Element "Potential Seismic Hazards Areas "). Areas in Category 2 are characterized by stronger shaking potential than Category 1, which is the lowest ground shaking category identified in the City. All of the structures and facilities proposed by the applicant will be designed and constructed in accordance with the most recently adopted version of the California Building Code, including all local amendments, to ensure that potential damage to seismic shaking will be minimized. Further, design level geotechnical studies will be conducted to ensure that on -site characteristics are evaluated and the proposed buildings properly designed to address the existing soils and geologic conditions. Implementation of proper grading and design measures will ensure that significant potential impacts associated with groundshaking will not occur. Based on information presented in the City's Public Safety Element, the site is not susceptible to the potential effects of liquefaction as a result of groundshaking. Therefore, potential impacts are anticipated to be less than significant. Further, the subject property is devoid of slopes andlor unstable soils. No significant slopes exist on the site and none are proposed that would be subject to potential failure. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of potential landsliding. Implementation of the proposed project will necessitate grading and excavation that will be temporarily expose on -site soils while demolition and construction of the proposed project takes place. In that interim period, it is possible that some erosion may occur, resulting in some sedimentation; however, in order to ensure that erosion and sedimentation are minimized, the applicant will be required to prepare and submit a Notice of Intent for coverage under the General Construction Activity Storm Water Runoff Permit to the Regional Water Quality Control Board prior to initiation of construction activities. As required by the NPDES permit, a Storm Water Pollution and Prevention Plan (SWPPP) will be prepared and will establish Best Management Practices (BMPs) intended to reduce sedimentation and erosion (refer to Section VIII — Hydrology). Although it is possible that potentially significant erosion could occur without the incorporation of appropriate measures, implementation of the mandatory BMPs will avoid potential erosion impacts associated with site grading and development. Further, the proposed site will be engineered to ensure that surface /subsurface drainage does not contribute to erosion or adversely affect the stability of project improvements. Therefore, the potentially significant erosion impacts will be avoided. The site is not underlain by a high groundwater table that could contribute to possible subsidence or liquefaction. In the event that unstable soil conditions occur on the site due to previous grading, excavation, or placement of fill materials, these conditions will be effectively reduced by measures identified in the site specific geotechnical evaluation that addresses specific design and construction measures for the proposed buildings and subterranean parking garage. Any such required measures will be incorporated into the project design through routine implementation of the Building and Grading Codes, which will minimize any potential structure damage. As a result, potential impacts will be less than significant. C:4MyFAesWKC-0060.STANDREWS.NS DRAFTEIRZ.0 Not Sig.dw Page 5-2 St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church General Plan Amendment and Use Permit Amendment Draft Environmental Impact Report Chapter 5.0 The soils underlying the site are characterized as moderately to highly expansive in nature (Newport Beach Public Safety Element — "Expansive and Collapsible Soil Hazard Areas "). However, the proposed development will be required to comply with the design parameters mandated in the most recently adopted California Building Code, including all local amendments, to address expansive soils as well as other soils and geologic conditions. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of project implementation. 5.5 Hydrology and Water Quality The proposed project includes the demolition of two existing buildings, which will be replaced with two larger, modern buildings to accommodate classrooms and the fellowship hall (including a new gymnasium ' and subterranean parking garage). The area of impervious surfaces and the types and quantities of pollutants will be nearly the same as that which exists on the current site. Approximately 85 percent of the site is currently covered with buildings and /or parking (i.e., impervious surfaces). Although the proposed project will result in an increase of about five percent in the amount of impervious surfaces, the slight increase will not result in a significant increase in either the volume or rate of surface runoff that occurs at the present time. The applicant has prepared a Stage 1 Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) that is intended to satisfy.the City's requirements. This plan will be supplemented by the Stage 2 WQMP that will address the manner in which pollutants generated by the project will be addressed to ensure that no violations of water quality standards will occur. As a result, no significant water quality impacts are anticipated. The subject site is located in an area that is completely developed. Although site alteration will occur, including demolition of existing structures and redevelopment of the site with additional structures and a subterranean garage, implementation of the proposed project will not affect any existing groundwater recharge activities. No groundwater wells are located on the site or in the vicinity of the project that would be adversely affected by the proposed project. Site development as proposed will not result in any impacts to nearby wells that would affect any domestic water well capacity or their ability to provide adequate water service to the existing and planned land uses in the City. Project implementation will not result in any changes to the existing drainage patterns, either on the site or in the vicinity of the property. No alterations to existing watercourses are proposed by the applicant. Surface runoff currently flows from the site to the perimeter streets (i.e., 15th Street, Clay Street, and St. Andrew's Road). Redevelopment of the site as proposed will maintain the existing grades and will not substantially change the volume and rate of surface flows emanating from the site. As indicated above, site alteration will not result in any changes to the existing drainage patterns in the area. Although the amount of impervious surfaces will increase slightly as a result of the proposed project, neither the amount nor rate of runoff emanating from the site will be significantly increased. The minor increase in surface runoff generated by the proposed project will not result in the exposure of either people or property to potential flooding, either on- or off -site. Also, it is likely that due to implementation of the WQMP, existing runoff will be diverted to landscape areas, resulting in no increase in runoff because these measures are not presently employed at the site. As a result, there may be an ' improvement in water quality, since roughly one -half of the site will be redeveloped with drainage system improvements to meet present day water quality standards. Therefore, no significant impacts are anticipated. The minor increase in runoff generated by the approximately five percent increase in impervious surfaces will not be significant. The existing storm drainage and flood control facilities located in the vicinity of the site have adequate capacity to accommodate the minor increase. In addition, although pollutants in the form of petroleum hydrocarbons residue, pesticides and herbicides, and detergents will continue to be generated on -site as a result of automobile usage and on -going landscape maintenance activities; however, neither the types nor concentrations of these pollutants will change. As previously indicated, the applicant will be required to prepare a Stage 2 WQMP that will identify speck features and /or C:IMyFilesV(KC -0060. STANDREWS.NBIDRAFTEIRO.0 Not Sig. doc Page 5-3 St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church General Plan Amendment and Use Permit Amendment Draft Environmental Impact Report Chapter 5.0 programs to ensure that pollutants are minimized. As a result, potential impacts will remain less than significant. Although project implementation may result in some changes in the quality of surface water that could affect water quality at other nearby locations, the changes would not be considered to be significant because the site is currently developed and nearly completely impervious. However, the potential for degradation of the water quality is related to the types and intensities of uses proposed for the property. Although the applicant is proposing uses that are consistent and compatible with the existing land uses and those reflected in the adopted long -range plans for the site, the intensity of the use will be greater than currently permitted. Nonetheless, the types and concentrations of pollutants are similar to those resulting from the same uses that exist on the site and those in other areas in the City and include: silt (during construction), petroleum hydrocarbons from parking areas, pesticides and fertilizers, and other pollutants common to urban development. No unusual contamination or pollutant is anticipated as a result of implementing the proposed project and, further, that the increases in pollutant and /or contaminant concentrations will be addressed in the requisite BMPs and other mitigation measures that have been prescribed for the proposed project. Therefore, the potential impacts will be reduced to a less than significant level. The subject property is not located within the 100 -year flood plain as delineated on the Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) for the City of Newport Beach. No residential development is proposed by the applicant for the subject property. Therefore, development of the site as proposed will not result in the placement of housing within a flood -prone area identified by FEMA or the City of Newport Beach. Further, the subject property is not located in an area of the City that is subject to flooding resulting from the failure of a levee or dam. No significant impacts will occur as a result of project implementation. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of project implementation. Although Newport Beach is a coastal community, the subject property is located approximately one mile from the coastline and is elevated approximately 80 feet above mean sea level. These conditions, combined with the fact that the potential for a tsunami is considered extremely remote in the City of Newport Beach, minimize the potential for damage and /or inundation from the effects of a tsunami. Further, the project site is not located within an area that would be subject to the adverse effects of significant oscillations in a large open water body (e.g., lake, reservoir, etc.). Implementation of the improvements proposed for St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church will not expose people or structures to seiches, tsunamis or mudflows. Therefore, no significant impacts will occur as a result of project implementation. 5.6 Transportation and Circulation Project implementation will not result in any changes to air traffic patterns. The subject site is currently developed and is not located within the immediate environs of John Wayne Airport (JWA) or other facility that would be affected by site development. Air traffic patterns into and out of JWA will not change if the project is developed as proposed. No significant impacts will occur as a result of project implementation. No changes to the existing site access are proposed. Although it is anticipated that the project will generate additional traffic, no significant impacts are anticipated to emergency access. Further, project implementation will neither affect the existing Emergency Operations Plan nor result in significant public safety impacts to police and fire protection or other emergency services. As a result, potential impacts are anticipated to be less than significant. The proposed project must comply with all of the policies and programs required by the City of Newport Beach related to traffic and circulation. A secondary bikeway (i.e., a bikeway that connects to backbone trails and serve cyclists and children riding to and from schools) is located along 15`h Street. Bicycle racks are provided on the site and will continue to be available on the site to facilitate bicyclists. Therefore, project implementation will not adversely affect the bike lane and will not conflict with any of C: VN yFilesW( C- 0060.STANDREWS.NBIDRAFTEIR0.0 Not Sig.dac Page 5-4 1 St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church General Plan Amendment and Use Permit Amendment Draft Environmental Impact Report Chapter 5.0 adopted policies and programs that support alternative transportation. No significant impacts are anticipated. 5.7 Air Quality ' Objectionable odors are not currently present within the project site or environs. Approval of the proposed project would not ultimately result in the creation of objectionable odors, as there is no change in the nature of the land use. Although some of the equipment may emit some odors, they would not be significant during construction. Will 5.8 Noise ' It is unlikely that any activities occurring as a result of project implementation will expose the area to excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels. As indicated above, potential noise impacts will result from typical construction activities and will not require unusual grading or construction techniques that would cause excessive groundborne vibrations (i.e., pile drivers). Further, no use proposed on the site would result in such impacts, which will be less than significant. ' 5.9 Biological Resources I The subject property is located within an urbanized area in the City of Newport Beach. No sensitive species (or candidate species) inhabit the site and no significant, valuable habitat presently exists at the project site. The site does not contain riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community. No portion of the subject property contains federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Specifically, no marshes, vernal pools or other wetlands defined by either the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers or the California Department of Fish and Game are located within the limits of the project site, which has been extensively altered and is devoid of natural habitat and does not support sensitive species. Finally, the developed site is not included in the Southern Orange County NCCP and, therefore, is not protected by an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan or other local, regional, or State habitat conservation plan. Therefore, development pursuant to the proposed site development plan will not conflict with local, regional or State resource preservation and conservation policies. Although intensification of the existing land uses will result in some short-term construction impacts, including dust and pollutant emissions that may have some minor effect on plant species throughout the region, no direct impacts to sensitive species will occur as a result of project implementation due to the proximity of the nature center and mitigation of short-term, construction - related air emissions. Therefore, no significant impacts to biological resources are anticipated to occur as a result of project implementation. 5.10 Aesthetics The St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church property is not located within the viewshed of a scenic highway. Further, the site and surrounding neighborhood are developed with a mix of uses, including St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church, Newport Harbor High School, and single - family residential development. No natural landforms, including rock outcroppings and significant trees exist on the site. The church complex was constructed over several years beginning in 1948, with the construction of the chapel building. The educational buildings were constructed during the 1960s and 1970s: the sanctuary was constructed in 1985. No historic buildings are located on the site and no impacts to either natural features or historic structures will occur as a result of project implementation. No significant impacts will occur. I IC: IMyFilesV< KC- 0060.STANDREWS.NBIDRAFTEIRI5.0 Not Sig.doc Page S-5 St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church General Plan Amendment and Use Permit Amendment Draft Environmental Impact Report CHAPTER 6.0 i UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS 6.1 CEQA Guidelines Section 15126(b) Chapter 6.0 This Section summarizes the unavoidable adverse impacts associated with proposed St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church expansion project. Specifically, Section 15126(b) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines requires that an Environmental Impact Report (EIR): "Describe any significant impacts, including those which can be mitigated, but not reduced to a level of insignificance. Where there are impacts that cannot be alleviated without imposing an alternative design, their implications and the reasons why the project is being proposed, notwithstanding their effect, should be described." Section 4.0 (Environmental Analysis) documents the analysis of the potentially significant adverse impacts associated with the St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church expansion project. As discussed below, implementation of the proposed project will not result in any unavoidable significant adverse impacts unless the mitigation measures required for air quality are not implemented. 6.2 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts Several potentially significant adverse impacts have been identified in Chapter 4.0 of the Draft EIR. As a result, in each case where such an impact occurs, specific mitigation measures have been prescribed. Implementation of these mitigation measures, which will be ensured through the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, will either eliminate, avoid, or reduce the potentially impacts to a level of insignificance. However, it is possible that significant unavoidable average air quality impacts would occur in the event the mitigation measures prescribed in Section 4.3.5 are not implemented in order to avoid potentially significant traffic impacts at the 15th Street/Irvine Avenue intersection and elevated noise levels along the 151h Street frontage of Newport Harbor High School. If Mitigation Measures 4.3 -1 and 4.3 -2 are not implemented, the following short-term air quality impact will remain significant. Impact 4.3 -1 Implementation of the proposed project will result in construction emissions that exceed the SCAQMD threshold established for NOx. This is due primarily to the trucks that will haul demolition debris and excavated dirt from the site C: IMyFilesVC KC- 0060.STANDREWS.NBIDRAFTEIR16.0 Unavoidable.doc Page 6-1 St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church General Plan Amendment and Use Permit Amendment Draft Environmental Impact Report Chapter 7.0 CHAPTER 7.0 IRRETRIEVABLE AND IRREVERSIBLE COMMITMENT OF RESOURCES Implementation of the proposed St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church expansion project will require the commitment of a relatively small amount of building materials such as sand, aggregate, concrete and asphalt since the nature of the project encompasses demolition and new construction. There would be an irretrievable commitment of energy resources such as gasoline and diesel fuel for the operation of construction equipment. In addition, some minor increases in demands for energy resources for heating and cooling would be associated with the proposed church expansion. Because these types of resources are available in sufficient quantities in this region and the proposed projects encompass a very limited scope, these impacts are not considered significant. Although project implementation will not require the acquisition of additional property, expansion of existing uses will occur as a result of the proposed project. However, the generation of additional raw sewage, demands for water use, and the consumption of other resources will not change significantly. The proposed improvements that would be implemented as a result of the church expansion project will not result in any significant adverse impacts related to the commitment of resources in the immediate or distant future. STANDREWS.NBIDRAFTEIR17.0 Irretrievable.doc Page 7 -1 St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church General Plan Amendment and Use Permit Amendment Draft Environmental Impact Report Chapter 8.0 CHAPTER 8.0 GROWTH- INDUCING IMPACTS 8.1 Definition of Growth- Inducing Impacts Section 15126.2(d) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines requires that an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) describe the potential growth inducing impacts of a proposed project. Specifically, Section 15126.2(d) states: "Discuss the ways in which the proposed project could foster economic development or population growth, or the construction of additional housing, either directly or indirectly, in the surrounding environment.... Also discuss the characteristics of some projects that may encourage and facilitate other activities that could substantially affect the environment, either individually or cumulatively. It must not be assumed that growth in any area is necessarily beneficial, detrimental or of little significance to the environment" 1 Normally to assess whether the proposed project may foster spatial, economic or population growth, several questions are considered: ' Would the proposed expansion of the church facilities result in the removal of an impediment to growth such as the establishment of an essential public service or the provision of new access to an area? Would the proposed expansion of the church facilities result in economic expansion or ' growth such as changes in the revenue base or employment expansion? Would the proposed expansion of the church facilities result in the establishment of a precedent setting action such as an innovation, a radical change in zoning or a General Plan amendment approval? Would the proposed expansion of the church facilities result in development or encroachment in an isolated or adjacent area of open space, as opposed to an infill type of project in an area that is already largely developed? 8.2 Analysis of Growth- Inducing Impacts Potential project - related growth- inducing impacts related to each of the questions cited above are discussed below. Would the proposed expansion of the church facilities result in the removal of an impediment to growth such as the establishment of an essential public service or the provision of new access to an area? As indicated previously, the proposed project is located in an area of the City where all of the essential public service and /or utilities and other features exist. Further, the existing public facilities and services, including police and fire protection services, sewer, water, and storm drainage facilities, and parks and recreational facilities, are adequate to serve the proposed expansion. This is due largely to the fact that although the two proposed buildings will result in an increase in floor area when compared to the two buildings that will be demolished, the proposed use of the site will remain virtually the same. Further, although the intensity of the site will increase, the capacity of the church and the activities that would be permitted to occur concurrently on the site will be limited to the same conditions previously approved for C:WyFilesWKC -0060. STANDREWS. N8IDRAFTEIR18. 0 Growth. doc Page 8 -1 St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church General Plan Amendment and Use Permit Amendment i Draft Environmental Impact Report Chapter 8.0 the church in 1985. As a necessity to expand an impediment to growth. result, there would not be any significant new demands that would result in the existing service or create a new service, which would eliminate an existing Would the proposed expansion of the church facilities result in economic expansion or growth such as changes in the revenue base or employment expansion? Implementation of the proposed project will not result in any significant economic growth or expansion in either the City of Newport Beach, County of Orange or larger southern California region. Specifically, with the exception of short-term construction jobs, no significant employment will be created by the proposed project. The expansion of the existing church is intended to facilitate the existing youth and family religious and related programs currently available through St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church. No significant increase in staffing is anticipated and no retail or other revenue - generating uses are proposed that could stimulate unanticipated growth and development in the City of Newport Beach. Additionally, church facilities are exempt from property taxes. Further, no residential development is proposed and none would be expected to occur as either a direct or indirect result of the proposed expansion project. Therefore, no significant growth- inducing impacts of the proposed project are anticipated. Would the proposed expansion of the church facilities result in the establishment of a precedent setting action such as an innovation, a radical change in zoning or a General Plan amendment approval? Although the applicant is requesting and amendment to the Land Use Element that establishes the maximum floor area for the subject property, all of the existing infrastructure serving the site and area have adequate capacity and will not necessitate any additional expansion. Amendments to the City's General Plan are not unusual and do not represent a radical change to the land use adopted for the site. The City frequently considers amendments to the adopted General Plan. In the case of the proposed project, the proposed amendment is requesting an increase in the intensity of the same use, which is currently permitted by the adopted land use designation. No significant change to the existing use is proposed and, therefore, the amendment does not represent a radical change to the adopted land use. Therefore, approval of the proposed general plan amendment that allows for expansion of the existing facilities will not set a precedent in the use of the site. Would the proposed expansion of the church facilities result in development or encroachment in an isolated or adjacent area of open space, as opposed to an infill type of project in an area that is already largely developed? Generally, growth- inducing projects possess such characteristics as being located in isolated, undeveloped or under developed areas, necessitating the extension of major infrastructure (e.g., sewer and water facilities, roadways, etc.) or those that could encourage the "premature" or unplanned growth in an area not planned for development (i.e., "leapfrog" development). The subject property is a developed site located within an urbanized area in the City of Newport Beach. As such, it is important to note that the proposed intensification of the existing development will not remove an obstacle to population growth since the project site is located in an area that is urbanized. As indicated above, all of the essential infrastructure, including sewer and water facilities, storm drainage facilities, electricity and natural gas, and related utilities have adequate capacity to accommodate the proposed expansion, which will not result in significant increases in demands on the infrastructure. Therefore, no significant growth- inducing impacts are anticipated 8.3 Conclusion The answer to each of the questions cited above as they relate to the proposed St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church project is "no." The proposed project includes only the intensification of an existing, established land use that is not characterized by features that attract or facilitate new, unanticipated development, which would ordinarily be considered growth inducing. Conventionally, growth inducement is measured by the potential of C: IMyFitesUK KC- 0060.STANDREWS.NBIDRAFTEIR18.0 Growth.doc Page 8 -2 St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church General Plan Amendment and Use Permit Amendment Draft Environmental Impact Report Chapter 8.0 a project or a project's secondary effects (i.e. provision of new infrastructure which supports housing or creation of jobs) to facilitate development of housing. Since the proposed expansion of St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church only facilitates the efficient use of the church, the standard variables associated with the development of housing, commercial or industrial land uses do not apply very well. Additionally, although some additional residential development is forecast in the larger Cliff Haven Area, residential development of the properties in the immediate vicinity of the project site is not anticipated because the area is virtually completely developed. Further, all of the infrastructure that exists in the project area is adequate to provide an adequate level of service, including sewer, water, and storm drainage. As previously indicated, project implementation will not result in any significant direct or indirect addition of residential development that would generate new residents or employment that would be an "attractor" of residents to the area that are not already anticipated in the General Plan. The site is not located in an isolated area that is constrained by the absence of infrastructure where the provision of infrastructure would promote further development. None of the accepted standards that distinguish growth- inducing projects characterize the proposed project; therefore, no significant growth- inducing impacts are anticipated as a result of project implementation. iC: IMyFilesV( KC- 0060.STANDREWS.NBIDRAFTEIR18.0 Growth.doc Page 8 -3 St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church Generai Plan Amendment and Use Permit Amendment Draft Envimnmentai impact Report Section 9.0 CHAPTER 9.0 I' CUMULATIVE IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT 9.1 Definition of Cumulative Impacts Section 15355 of the CEQA Guidelines defines cumulative impacts as: "...two or more individual effects which when considered together, are considerable or which compound or increase other environmental impacts." Section 15355 further describes potential cumulative impacts as: ' "(a) The individual effects may be changes resulting from a single project or a number of separate projects. (b) The cumulative impacts from several projects are the change in the environment which results from the incremental impact of the project when added to other closely related past, present and reasonably foreseeable probable future projects. Cumulative impacts can result ' from individually minor but collectively significant projects taking place over a period of time." Cumulative impacts refer to two or more individual impacts which, when considered together, are considerable or which compound or increase other impacts. The individual effects may be changes resulting from a single project or from a number of projects. A cumulative impact refers to the degree of change in the environment resulting from a particular project, plus the incremental impacts created by other closely related past, present and reasonably foreseeable future projects. Cumulative impacts may reveal that relatively ' minor impacts associated with a particular project may contribute to more significant impacts when considered collectively with other projects taking place over a period of time. 9.2 Cumulative Projects Section 15130(b)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines provides two options for considering potentially significant cumulative adverse impacts. This analysis can be based on either: "(A) A list of past, present and probable future projects producing related or cumulative impacts, including, if necessary, those projects outside the control of the agency, or ' (B) A summary of projections contained in an adopted General Plan or related planning document, or in a prior environmental document which has been adopted and certified, which described or evaluated regional or areawide conditions contributing to the cumulative impact. Any such planning document shall be referenced and made available to the public at a location specified by the lead agency" The cumulative impacts analysis requires consideration of other projects in an area, in conjunction with the proposed project, to assess the potential for significant adverse cumulative impacts. For this Draft EIR, the potential environmental effects of the proposed St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church project were considered in conjunction with the potential environmental effects of buildout anticipated for the project area. Several projects were identified by the City of Newport Beach as "approved" projects (but were less than 100 percent constructed), which were evaluated in the traffic analysis conducted for the proposed project. The approved projects include: IC: 1MyFiiesV( KC- 0060.STANDREWS.NBIDRAFTEIR19.0 Cumuiative.doc Page 9 -1 St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church General Plan Amendment and Use Permit Amendment Draft Environmental Impact Report • Balboa Bay Club Expansion • Fashion Island Expansion • Temple Bat Yahm Expansion • Ford Redevelopment (Ford Aeroneutronics Planned Community) Holtze Hotel • Newport Center Block 600 • Cannery Lofts Village • Hoag Hospital Phase II • CIOSA— Irvine Project • Newport Dunes Irvine Development 1999 Church of Latter Day Saints Temple Newport Coast • Newport Ridge • Lower Bayview Senior Housing Section 9.0 In addition, other projects have been proposed in the City of Newport Beach that have not yet been approved. These projects include: St. Mark's Presbyterian Church Our Lady Queen of Angels Marina Park Resort and Community Plan (formerly known as Regent Newport Beach Hotel) South Coast Shipyard Redevelopment Because implementation of the projects identified above are anticipated to have the greatest affect on traffic and circulation, the potential cumulative associated with them have been evaluated in the traffic analysis prepared for the proposed project and summarized in Section 4.2 of the Draft EIR. However, construction of these projects does not occur within the immediate vicinity of the proposed project and do not affect the same resources and amenities as those affected by the St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church project. Nonetheless, the potential cumulative impacts are identified and described in Section 9.3. In addition to these approved and "pending" projects identified above, one project is located in the immediate vicinity of the St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church. The Newport-Mesa Unified School District approved a $173.3 million School Facilities Program authorized by Measure A, which was approved by voters in 2000. The funds available to the District provide for the implementation of an extensive district -wide school modernization program. Under the schedule approved for the Measure A modernization program, which is broken down into four groups of schools within the District's jurisdiction, construction and modernization of Group I schools began in March 2003. Newport Harbor High School, located north of 15'h Street from the subject property, is included in the Group II schools designated by the District. Modernization of the Newport Harbor High School facilities is slated to begin in March 2004. Expansion of Newport Harbor High School is not anticipated or planned for at this time and implementation of the Measure A Modernization improvements will not increase either the capacity of the school or the number of students attending classes there. The District will implement several improvements at the high school, including new sewer connections to existing facilities in 15 Street and Irvine Avenue, replacing the lighting within the 15'h Street parking lot, extending electrical facilities into the school from 15'h Street, and other improvements on the site such as the abatement of health and safety issues, window replacement and related structural modifications to facilitate health and safety. It is anticipated that the vast majority of the improvements would be implemented within an 18- to 24- month period, beginning in approximately May 2004 and ending in May 2006. As a result, construction of the proposed project will occur during the same time frame that some of the Newport Harbor High School modernization improvements will be implemented. Therefore, because the school is located across the street from the subject property, potential cumulative impacts associated with traffic, parking and other construction- related issues associated with the proposed project may occur. These potential cumulative impacts, along with those impacts related to the projects identified above, are also identified in the analysis that follows. C: IMyFiles" 0- 0060.STANDREWS.NBIDRAFTEIR19.0 Cumulative.doc Page 9 -2 I I St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church General Plan Amendment and Use Permit Amendment Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 9.0 9.3 Cumulative Impact Analysis 9.3.1 Land Use and Planning As previously indicated, the applicant is requesting an amendment to the adopted General Plan. Specifically, the amendment is requesting an increase in intensity of development from that prescribed in the Land Use Element of the Newport Beach General Plan. However, it is important to note that the proposed amendment does not change the land use designation but would allow for an increase in the floor area that would be permitted on the site. Each of the projects identified in Section 9.2 have undergone or will undergo the same project review process as the proposed project in order to preclude potential land use compatibility issues and planning policy conflicts. It is assumed that development of the related projects will progress in accordance with the Land Use Element to ensure that land use compatibility and General Plan consistency is achieved. Consequently, each project will be analyzed both independently of other land uses as well as within the context of existing and planned development to ensure that the goals, objectives, and policies of ' the General Plan are upheld. As indicated in Section 4.1 of the Draft EIR, the proposed project is generally consistent with the applicable goals, policies and objectives articulated in the Newport Beach Land Use Element and other elements. Where some of the approved and proposed project may result in the reduction of open space resources and /or undeveloped property as they presently existing and an increase in the appearance of and effects from urbanization, the proposed project is currently developed and does not possess any natural open space. As a result, the proposed project will not contribute to that incremental loss of open space. Although implementation of the proposed project will contribute to the cumulative neighborhood impacts created by the improvements scheduled on the Newport Harbor High School site, these impacts are temporary in nature and related to the proximity of construction activities that could occur concurrently. The consequences of such concurrent activities in the neighborhood include increased construction traffic, noise and air emissions; however, upon completion of construction, the impacts will cease. Use of the either property will not change. The activities that occur at the present time will continue to occur in the future, both at the school and at the church. Therefore, no significant cumulative impacts to land use will occur as a result of project implementation. 9.3.2 Population and Housing While several of the projects identified in Section 9.2 encompass residential development, implementation of the proposed project will not result in either the elimination of existing housing and related displacement of residents or, conversely, the addition of residential dwelling units and increase in population. Therefore, the proposed expansion of St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church will not adversely affect the housing stock in the City of Newport Beach or population projections estimated for the City. Further, the increase in floor area proposed for the church will not adversely affect the jobs/housing balance because the increased floor area is anticipated to facilitate existing church programs. Therefore, project implementation will not result in potentially significant cumulative impacts to population and housing. 9.3.3 Geology and Soils The site is currently developed with over 100,000 square feet of religious facilities. Demolition of two existing structures and the construction of two new building to replace the older structures and excavation of a portion of the property for the subterranean parking garage will not result in significant cumulative impacts to soils and geology. The site and development are currently exposed to potential groundshaking associated with seismic activities occurring on one of the active regional faults. Although the proposed project will increase the intensity of development on the site, the potential exposure to the effects of seismic activity and /or soil conditions will not increase and project implementation will not result in potential cumulative impacts because the parking garage and the new buildings will be constructed to meet applicable structural design requirements. Similarly, other development proposed in the City of Newport Beach must also comply with the specific building design parameters prescribed in the applicable regulations. C: 1MyFilesV(KC- 0060.STANDREWS.NBV)RAFTEIR19.0 Cumulative.doo Page 9 -3 St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church General Plan Amendment and Use Permit Amendment Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 9.0 9.3.4 Hydrology and Water Quality With the exception of the landscaped areas on the site, the subject property is covered almost entirely with impervious surfaces. Demolition of the existing structures, excavation and construction of the subterranean parking garage and construction of the new buildings to replace those demolished will not result in a significant increase in storm runoff. Similarly, the types and quantities of pollutants will be the same as those that are currently generated on the site. As a result, no significant changes in either storm runoff or a material effect on the quality of the water will occur if the project is implemented. The existing facilities in the vicinity of the site have adequate capacity to accommodate any slight increase in surface runoff, which would be less than significant. In addition, the applicant will be required to implement Best Management Practices and related measures in accordance with the NPDES requirements to ensure that both storm water runoff and quality meet the requisite criteria. With the exception of the improvements proposed at Newport Harbor High School, all of the projects identified in Section 9.2 are located outside the project area. Additionally, each of the approved or proposed projects, should they be implemented, will be required to implement similar water quality mitigation measures to reduce and avoid water quality impacts. Further, none of the improvements that will be undertaken at Newport Harbor High School will result in a significant contribution to either surface runoff or water quality. Therefore, project implementation will not result in significant cumulative impacts to either hydrology or water quality. 9.3.5 Air Quality The proposed project will result in the generation of potentially significant construction - related emissions, which will be emitted into the air basin. Similarly, the construction of other projects will also contribute to the short-term pollutant burden within the basin. However, because the contribution is short-term and because adequate mitigation measures will be implemented, these impacts will not be significant on a cumulative basis. However, implementation of the mitigation measures identified in Section 4.3.5 to reduce the construction- related air quality impacts could result in adverse short-term traffic and noise impacts. If the air quality mitigation measures are not implemented in an effort to avoid the traffic and noise impacts, project implementation will result in significant (unavoidable) short-term air quality impacts, which would contribute to and exacerbate the short-term cumulative impacts resulting from the construction of the related project. The long -term (i.e., operational) emissions associated with the proposed project are the result the incremental increase in vehicular traffic generated by the project and on demands for natural gas and electricity; however, these incremental operational emissions do not exceed significance thresholds and, will not be significant on a cumulative basis when compared to the projects identified in Section 9.2. 9.3.6 Traffic and Parking Traffic When compared to the cumulative projects identified in Section 9.2, the improvements at Newport Harbor High School would contribute construction traffic to the same intersections during the same period as the proposed project. While it is likely that both projects would generate construction traffic, including heavy trucks and employee trips in the neighborhood during the construction phase of each project, which are anticipated to occur during the same period, the construction activities, including construction traffic would exacerbate the undesirable intersection operating conditions at Irvine Avenue and 15th Street forecast during the 15- minute a.m. and p.m. peak periods. However, it is important to note that none of the heavy truck trips resulting from project- related grading and export of the soils from the St. Andrews Presbyterian Church property will occur when school is in session and would not contribute to the adverse operating conditions at that intersection. If the mitigation measures for air quality are implemented and the demolition and grading phase is extended into the school year, potential impacts to the 15th StreettIrvine Avenue would occur, which would contribute to the cumulative degradation of that intersection during the 15- minute morning and afternoon peak periods. Although it is possible that construction traffic associated with the high school renovation projects may occur simultaneously, a mitigation measure has been proposed that restricts project- related heavy truck traffic during the construction phase to non -peak periods to avoid contributing to the undesirable 15- minute peak period operating conditions at that C: 1MyFileslK KC- 0060.STANDREWS.NBIDRAFTEIR19.0 Cumulative.doc Page 9 -4 St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church General Plan Amendment and Use Permit Amendment Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 9.0 intersection should there be an overlap of project- related truck trips and school attendance. Therefore, the project- related cumulative impacts would be avoided. Further, the applicant must adhere to a Construction Traffic Control Plan that must be submitted to and approved by the City of Newport Beach, which will minimize any potential construction traffic impacts. In the same way, any construction activity occurring at Newport Harbor High School that would affect the local circulation system would also be required to prepare a Construction Traffic Control Plan that would be reviewed and approved by the City. As such, the cumulative impacts in the neighborhood can be minimized. The Traffic Analysis (refer to Appendix B) indudes a cumulative impact analysis that evaluates not only projects subject to the City's TPO (i.e., approved projects) but also other development projects that have been proposed, or that are reasonably foreseeable, in the City. Based on that analysis, the greatest project - related increase in the ICU anticipated to occur at the three intersections that were the subject of the analysis is 0.01. Each of these intersections (i.e., Irvine Avenue/Dover Drive /19'h Street and Dover Drive /Cliff Drive) is forecast to operate at LOS D or better (i.e., at an acceptable level of service) in the cumulative plus project conditions. Although the traffic analysis indicated that the unsignalized intersection of Irvine Avenue and 15th Street is also forecast to operate at LOS D or better in the future (i.e., cumulative conditions), the 15- minute a.m. and p.m. peak periods (i.e., when school - related traffic affects that intersection) would be impaired. However, project- related traffic increases are not significant and would not result in significant cumulative impacts at Irvine Avenue/15 h Street. Parking Cumulative impacts to parking during the construction phase would be associated with the ' implementation of renovation and remodeling improvements proposed at Newport Harbor High School (Measure A School Modernization Program) that would occur during the same time frame that construction is taking place on the proposed project. Some of the improvements proposed for the high school related to the extension of sewer and electrical facilities into the school site may result in the temporary elimination of on- street parking along 15'h Street and Irvine Avenue. In addition, it is possible that some on- street parking spaces along the south side of 15th Street could be temporarily eliminated due to grading, site preparation and construction activities required to implement the proposed project. The combination of these construction activities that result in the elimination of any on- street parking or off -site parking proposed to be utilized by St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church or Newport Harbor High School on any of those streets could exacerbate the current undesirable on- street parking conditions in the adjacent residential neighborhood. In order to ensure that such parking impacts do not occur, SC 4.2- 1 (refer to Section 4.2 -3) requires that the applicant prepare a parking management program that addresses both short- and long -term parking. Specifically, that plan will identify the manner in which construction parking will be accommodated without utilizing on- street parking in the adjacent residential ' neighborhood. It is anticipated that the high school will also be required to prepare such plan, subject to the approval of the City of Newport Beach, to ensure that neighborhood parking is not adversely affected. St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church as entered into agreements with Newport Harbor High School and Lighthouse Coastal Community Church to provide off -site parking during the construction phase. As a ' result, the potential short-term construction- related parking impacts can be reduced to a less than significant level. ' Although the on -site parking will accommodate fewer cars than required by the City's parking code, the proposed project provides for 150 parking spaces more than currently exists to serve the church. Without an increase in the existing capacity of the church (i.e., 1,387 seats) it is anticipated that long -term parking can be accommodated through a combination of parking resources, including: (1) on the subject property, which will accommodate up to 400 cars in the surface parking lot and subterranean garage; (2) in parking available at Newport Harbor High School in the 15'" Street parking lot (approximately 150 parking spaces); and (3) on- street parking available along 15'" Street, Clay Street, and St. Andrews Road adjacent to the subject property. ' Further, as prescribed in Section 4.2.5, the applicant will be required to prepare a parking management program that addresses long -term parking. Even though construction and renovation activities at Newport Harbor High School will continue beyond the one -year construction phase anticipated for St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church, those activities will be limited to Monday through Saturday and would not affect parking i 1 IC: V,4yFilesV( KC- 0060.STANDREWS.NBI)RAFTEIR19.0 Cumulative.doc Page 9 -5 St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church General Plan Amendment and Use Permit Amendment Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 9.0 on Sunday when parking demands of the church are the greatest. As a result, no long -term cumulative impacts are anticipated. 9.3.7 Biological Resources With the exception of the Newport Beach Environmental Nature Center located east of Newport Harbor High School, the subject property and surrounding area are devoid of any natural vegetation. Redevelopment of the subject property as proposed will not result in impacts to any direct significant sensitive plants or animals. Further, with the exception of the Newport Harbor High School modernization improvements, none of the related projects identified in Section 9.2 are located in the vicinity of the Newport Beach Environmental Nature Center. Dust and particulate matter generation associated with the renovation improvements that occur concurrently with the project - related construction activities would be minimized through the implementation of the requisite SCAQMD conditions to reduce the emissions. Therefore, no significant cumulative impacts to the biological resources at the Environmental Nature Center will occur as a result of project implementation and no additional mitigation measures are necessary. 9.3.8 Mineral Resources As indicated above, the site and surrounding areas have been developed. No mineral resources are known to exist on the subject property that would be adversely impacted by developed of the site as proposed. Therefore, no significant cumulative impacts to mineral resources will occur. 9.3.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials The subject property has not been used for any activities that have resulted contamination or otherwise created a "hazardous" condition. The site has been altered and currently supports urban development, which does not involve the use of hazardous materials in the daily operations of the church. Demolition of two existing structures is proposed that could yield some asbestos containing materials or lead -based paint. However, demolition will require that appropriate measures are implemented that comply with AQMD and other regulatory requirements to ensure that no significant emissions of potentially hazardous materials occurs. Similarly, other projects, including the modernization improvements proposed for Newport Harbor High School, would also be required to comply with these same requirements so that no significant emissions occur. Therefore, no significant cumulative impacts would occur when compared to other projects that have been approved or proposed in the City of Newport Beach. 9.3.10 Noise Similar to air quality, implementation of the proposed project will result short-term (i.e., construction- related) increases in noise levels along 15"' Street, resulting from heavy truck traffic; however, the project- related increases are not significant and the 65 dBA CNEL noise contour will remain within the street right -of -way. While it is possible that some of the noise generated during the construction stage will be a nuisance to surrounding residents, the construction noise is exempted by the Newport Beach Noise Ordinance. Long- term vehicular noise associated with the increase in development will not be significant, even when compared to the increase in noise resulting from the cumulative projects identified in Section 9.2. The slight increase in mobile - source noise levels attributed to the proposed project, (i.e., 0.2 dBA) is not audible and, therefore, not cumulatively significant. The mechanical equipment (e.g., HVAC, etc.) will be required to comply with current City requirements. Therefore, no significant cumulative impacts are anticipated. 9.3.11 Public Services The project site is located in an area of the City of Newport Beach that is adequately served by public services and facilities, including police and fire protection. The increase in the intensity of use of the subject property will not significantly affect the existing level of service of either police of fire protection. As indicated in Section 4.6, the potential (less than significant) impacts associated with the proposed underground parking garage will not alter the ability of the Newport Beach Police Department from providing an adequate level of service to the site even with when compared to the approved and proposed development other areas of the C: 1MyFilesWKC -0060.STANDREWS.NBIDRAFTEIR19.0 Cumulative.doc Page 9-6 St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church General Plan Amendment and Use Permit Amendment Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 9.0 1 City. The related projects identified in Section 9.2 have been evaluated by both the Newport Beach Police and Fire Departments to ensure that adequate levels of service can be provided and. These projects are within the long -range projections identified in the City's General Plan and, therefore, would not adversely affect the City's ability to provide an adequate level of protection. Because the project is not residential in nature, project implementation will not result in any impacts on schools and /or parks and recreational facilities. As a result, no significant cumulative impacts will occur to public facilities and services. 9.3.12 Utilities and Service Systems The site and surrounding area are adequately served by utilities (i.e., sewer, water and storm drain facilities, solid waste disposal, electricity and natural gas). With the exception of the modernization improvements at Newport Harbor High School, none of the approved or proposed projects are located within the immediate ' project area and would not affect the ability of the existing service systems to provide adequate utilities to the subject property. Although Newport Harbor High School improvements include the extension of new sewer and electrical facilities connections to 1 e Street and Irvine Avenue, no expansion in capacity is planned and there is no increased demand for services anticipated for the school. While there will be a minor, incremental increase in the demands utilities as a result of the increase in intensity proposed for the church, the existing utilities have capacity to provide an adequate level of service. Therefore, no significant cumulative impacts will occur as a result of project implementation. 9.3.13 Aesthetics As indicated Section 4.5, the site is currently developed and supports structures that are two levels above the existing street grade (approximately 43 feet in height). Two of the existing structures will be demolished and replaced with similar structures that will be approximately the same height (40 feet) as the buildings they will replace. The building massing and character has been designed to be consistent with the existing buildings ' and will not dramatically change the character of the neighborhood, which is residential in nature. With the exception of the modernization improvements proposed for Newport Harbor High School, no other development is proposed in the vicinity of the project that would adversely affect the aesthetic character of the area. The improvements that will be undertaken at Newport Harbor High School are limited to ' remodeling and structural improvements that facilitate public health and safety and do not include new construction. As a result, the long -term existing neighborhood character will not be adversely affected by the proposed project, either individually or on a cumulative basis. 9.3.14 Cultural /Scientific Resources The site is currently developed and no significant cultural, historic or scientific resources are known to be located on the subject property. Although it is possible that other proposed and approved development could result in impacts to cultural, historical or scientific resources, appropriate mitigation will be required to ensure that such impacts are less than significant. While grading and excavation are required to prepare the site for construction, no cultural, historical or scientific resources would be affected and no impacts would occur. Therefore, project implementation will not result in significant impacts, either individually or on a cumulative basis. 9.3.15 Recreation As indicated previously, the proposed project does not include residential development and, therefore, would not result in an increase in population. As a result, no additional demands for recreational facilities would be generated by the project that would be added to the cumulative projects listed above. Therefore, no significant project- related or cumulative impacts to recreational facilities are anticipated. I 1 IC. MyFileslK KC- 0060.STANDREWS.NBIDRAFTEIRI9.0 Cumulative.doc Page 9 -7 St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church General Plan Amendment and Use Permit Amendment Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 10.0 SECTION 10.0 PROJECT ALTERNATIVES 10.1 Introduction 10.1.1 Purpose and Scope rCEQA requires that an EIR describe a "reasonable" range of alternatives to the project, or to the location of the project, which could feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project, and to evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives. This chapter sets forth potential alternatives to the proposed ' project and evaluates them as required by CEQA. Section 15126.6(c) directs that an EIR should focus on alternatives capable of: (1) eliminating or reducing ' significant adverse environmental effects of a proposed project and (2) feasibly accomplishing most of the basic project objectives. The discussion of alternatives in this Draft EIR reviews a range of alternatives, including the "No Project" alternative as prescribed by the State CEQA Guidelines, which satisfies this requirement. ' This section analyzes several potentially feasible alternatives to the proposed project, including: No Project/No Development (No Expansion) Renovation or Replacement of Existing Facilities (No Additional Expansion) Reduced Intensity (Proposed Project without Gymnasium) • Off -Site Parking Structure Alternative Site 10.1.2 Criteria for Selecting Alternatives ' The alternative selection process included participation by the Newport Beach Planning Department and project environmental consultant to identify policy- related constraints (e.g., Newport Beach Land Use ' Element, zoning, etc.), site development constraints (existing land use), project objectives, and the ability of to mitigate significant impacts. With the exception of the No Project/No Development alternative and the Alternative Site, which are prescribed by the State CEQA Guidelines, each of the alternatives identified above reflects the these criteria and are feasible. ( 10.1.3 Evaluation of Project Alternatives ' According to the CEQA Guidelines (Section 15126.61a]), an EIR must "... describe a range of reasonable alternatives for the project, or to the location of the project which would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project, and evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives" The Guidelines go on to indicate that ' alternatives that are capable of substantially lessening any significant effects of the Project must be examined, "... even if these alternatives would impede to some degree the attainment of the project objectives or would be more costly." The Guidelines further indicate "... that the EIR need examine in detail only the alternatives that the lead agency determines could feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project" (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6[C]). Thus the ability of an alternative to attain most of the basic project objectives is central to the consideration of alternatives to the proposed project. 1 ICAMyFiles"C- 0060, STANDREWS. NBIDRAFTEIR110. 0 Altematives.doc Page 10-1 St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church General Plan Amendment and Use Permit Amendment Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 10.0 For each alternative, the analysis presented in this section: Describes the alternative; Discusses the impacts of the alternative and evaluates the significance of those impacts; and, Evaluates the alternative relative to proposed project, specifically addressing project objectives, feasibility, the elimination or reduction of potentially significant impacts. 10.1.4 Identification of Impacts After describing the altemative, this Draft EIR evaluates the impacts of the alternative. The major resource areas included in the detailed impact analysis in Section 4.0 are included in this section. The potential environmental consequences are identified and described in the analysis for each of the alternatives identified in Section 10.1.1. 10.2 Environmentally Superior Alternative The No Project Altemative (i.e., status quo) is determined to be the "environmentally superior' alternative. However, as prescribed in the State CEQA Guidelines (refer to Section 15126.6[e][2]), the EIR must also identify an environmentally superior altemative among the other altematives that were analyzed in the event that the No Project Alternative (either scenario) is identified as "environmentally superior" Therefore, the environmentally superior altemative is the Reduced Intensity (Proposed Project without Gymnasium) Alternative. Although implementation of this altemative would not avoid potentially significant impacts identified in Chapter 4.0, this alternative would reduce the intensity of development on the site and would achieve most of the project objectives. 10.3 Alternatives Rejected from Further Consideration As indicated above, the purpose of the alternatives analysis is to evaluate a range of reasonable, feasible alternatives that can achieve most of the basic objectives of the proposed project and reduce potentially significant environmental impacts. One alternative, a regionally -sized church, was identified by the Newport Heights Improvement Association in NOP comments submitted to the City. Upon review and analysis of that alternative, it was determined that no further consideration is required based on the guidance presented in the State CEQA Guidelines. The relevant discussion of why that alternative was rejected is presented below. Regionally -Sized Church Alternative Don Krotee, representing the Newport Heights Improvement Association identified the need to analyze a "regionally- sized" church as an alternative in the Draft EIR. However, this altemative was not considered further for the following reasons: A project that would result in the development of a regionally -sized church would result in more significant impacts. Such an alternative would require expansion of the existing church capacity beyond that which currently exists. It is anticipated that this more intense project would result in potentially greater noise, air quality, traffic, parking, aesthetics, and neighborhood nuisance impacts than the impacts identified in Chapter 4.0 for the proposed project. It is not anticipated that the regionally -sized church alternative would not reduce any potentially significant impacts identified in the Draft EIR. These increased impacts are not consistent with the guidance of the State CEQA Guidelines, which recommend evaluating alternatives that would reduce one or more significant impacts. C: WyFileslK KC- 0060.STANDREWS.NBIDRAFTEIR110.O Altematives.doc Page 10 -2 it St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church General Plan Amendment and Use Permit Amendment Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 10.0 2. The subject property currently supports 104,440 square feet of religious facilities on 3.943 acres. At the present time, the existing on -site parking does not meet current parking code requirements for the 1,387 -seat capacity church. Redevelopment of the site with a regionally -sized church would in all likelihood require demolition of most or all of the existing facilities, which would be replaced with a larger sanctuary and ancillary facilities (e.g., fellowship hall, classrooms, office space, etc.). In order to redevelop the site with a church that serves as a "regional" facility, it would be necessary to dedicate a greater proportion of the site to the sanctuary. As a result, the remaining area would be utilized for the ancillary facilities identified above. Further, assuming a church capacity of 2,500 seats (i.e., approximately double that of the existing church), it would be necessary to provide over 830 on -site parking spaces. Without adequate surface area available that could be dedicated to parking, this alternative would necessitate the construction of a significantly larger subterranean garage (perhaps more than four underground levels or an above -grade garage). The potential for increasing the intensity of the use of the site, would be severely constrained by its relatively small size. 3. While this alternative may achieve most or all of the basis project objectives identified by the project applicant (refer to Section 3.6), the increase in the nature and extent of potential impacts would outweigh the benefits realized from implementation of a regional church. It is possible that both the construction- related and operational air quality impacts (specifically mobile- source emissions) associated with a significantly larger sanctuary (e.g., 2,500 -seat capacity) would occur, which could not be (feasibly) mitigated, resulting in a significant, unavoidable adverse impact. Other impacts in the neighborhood, including increased traffic, parking demands, noise, nuisances, would also be increased with a facility of this magnitude. Implementation of such an alternative would not reduce or eliminate any of the potentially significant impacts associated with the proposed project. 4. Although the proposed project requires the approval of a General Plan Amendment and Use Permit Amendment, the capacity and use of the site would not be materially changed. Conversely, a large regionally -sized church (i.e., one having a significantly larger capacity than the existing church) and the ancillary facilities would encompass a significantly greater floor area ratio than the proposed project and would necessarily have a greater function and use. Further, a larger facility may not be in keeping with the existing neighborhood character and, therefore, be inconsistent with the goals and objectives of the Land Use Element of the Newport Beach General Plan. 5. St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church does not wish to grow into a "regionally- sized" church. Therefore, the alternative does not meet the stated project objectives. For the reasons cited above, the alternative of a regionally -sized church was eliminated from further consideration as an alternative. Those alternatives that were evaluated are presented in Section 10.4. ' 10.4 Analysis of Alternatives 10.4.1 No Project/No Development Alternative (No Expansion) The No Project/No Development Alternative is required by CEQA in order to establish a comparative basis for understanding the impacts of the project and other alternatives to the proposed project. In this case, the subject property is currently developed as the St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church and ancillary facilities (e.g., chapel, fellowship hall, classrooms, etc.). Further, the project site is developed to the maximum floor area ratio prescribed for the property in the Land Use Element of the Newport Beach ' General Plan. Therefore, the No Project/No Development Alternative assumes only the continuation of IC:IMyFilesIKKC- 0060. STANDREWS .NBIDRAFTEIRIf0.0Altematims.doc Page 10 -3 St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church General Plan Amendment and Use Permit Amendment Draft Environmental Impact Report the existing conditions without any additional expansion of the facilities as proposed or the "status quo" This alternative would be limited to the 104,428 square feet of development and the 250 -space surface parking lot. However, the City could cause more parking to be provided pursuant to the existing Use Permit, should it determine that additional parking is necessary. It is important to note that although no physical expansion of the facilities would occur under this scenario, with the possible exception of providing increased parking on -site, it is possible that new programs and activities may also be conducted by the church to accommodate the church's various ministries since there is presently no limitation on religious activities or hours of operation. 10.4.1.1 Land Use and Planning Implementation of the No Project/No Development Alternative would result in the continuation of the existing use of the site. Without intensification of the site, neither a General Plan Amendment nor a Use Permit Amendment would be required; however, the benefit of increased on -site parking to accommodate use of existing church facilities would also not occur, unless the City determined that additional parking were required under the auspices of the church's existing use permit. At the present time, a modest to significant amount of overflow parking, extends into the adjacent residential neighborhoods and causes some degree of nuisance; however, during the week (i.e., Monday through Friday), on- street parking in the residential areas is mostly attributed to high school students and not the church, which does not have a high demand for parking during that time. Some of the neighborhood parking impacts on Saturday and Sunday evenings are associated with regularly held church services. Without implementation of the proposed project, it is likely that these neighborhood parking impacts will continue, unless additional parking is provided at Newport Harbor High School, which might be characterized as an unlikely event due to the budgetary constraints of the Newport Mesa Unified School District. With the exception of potential increase activities that make take place to accommodate the church's various ministries (e.g., youth and fellowship programs, adult classes, etc.), this alternative would not significantly change the characteristics of the neighborhood, unless the City required additional parking. 10.4.1.2 Traffic and Parking None of the short-term construction- related impacts associated with the proposed project (e.g., construction traffic, loss of on -site parking during construction, etc.) would occur if the proposed improvements were not implemented. Intersections would continue to operate at LOS C or better and no additional project- related traffic would be added to either the existing or future traffic levels. As indicated above, no additional parking would be provided. St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church would continue to operate under the existing Use Permit No. 822 (as amended in 1985). Under that permit, the City has allowed the use of off -site parking, including the historic use of Newport Harbor High School's 15"' Street parking lot, to supplement that provided on -site. As indicated above, without any additional improvements, the church could expand their programs and activities. If so, it is possible that some increases in traffic and the demand for parking could occur; however, with the exception of the Saturday evening and Sunday morning services, most of the activities would occur during the week in the evenings and would not significantly affect the existing or future traffic and parking conditions. In the event the number of church services was increased, particularly on Sunday morning, the demands for parking would also be increased by extending the time of parking impacts. The church is required to monitor worship service attendance to comply with the approved use permit. If attendance exceeds the thresholds specified in the use permit, the church is required to implement appropriate operational changes to lessen parking demand. Therefore, no significant traffic or parking impacts are anticipated as a result of the No Project/No Development alternative. 10.4.1.3 Air Quality With the elimination of any physical improvements, no construction- related air quality impacts would occur. Specifically, the significant short-term air quality impacts resulting from the excavation required for the construction of the parking structure and the demolition of the existing buildings would be eliminated. No heavy truck traffic would be generated to haul the excavated soils to an off -site location would be required and the significant NOx emissions would be eliminated. The only potential air quality impacts that would be anticipated from this alternative would be the incremental increase in both stationary and mobile source C:1MyFileslKK -0 .S E S .NBrORAFTEIRIt0.0Altematims.doc Page 10 -4 St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church General Plan Amendment and Use Permit Amendment Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 10.0 emissions that may occur as a result of the expansion of one or more of the programs; however, these impacts are not expected to exceed the SCAQMD significance thresholds because the numbers of trips on a daily basis are not quantifiable and would likely not be significant. Therefore, continuation of the "status quo" conditions would eliminate the potentially significant project- related air quality impacts identified in Section 4.3 of the Draft EIR. 10.4.1.4 Noise Similar to the air quality impacts discussed above, the No ProjecUNo Development alternative would also ' have the benefit of eliminating all short-term, construction- related noise impacts. Without site preparation, demolition, grading, and /or construction of new buildings, no construction noise would be generated by the project. With the exception of any potential increases in the church's programmatic activities, no additional S. noise would be generated from the implementation of this alternative. As indicated above, while some additional programs and activities may occur at the church, the resulting noise would generally be associated with the minor increases in vehicular traffic and any outdoor activities that may be conducted on the site. While some of this noise may be considered a nuisance in the neighborhood, it is unlikely that it ' would exceed significance thresholds. Further, non - mobile source noise levels are regulated by the City's Noise Ordinance, which would be enforced to ensure that excessive noise levels generated on the subject property would be subject to and regulated by that ordinance. No significant noise impacts would be ' anticipated as a result of the No Project/No Development alternative. 10.4.1.5 Aesthetics ' Without the improvements proposed, no new structures would be introduced on the St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church site. The existing structures and amenities would remain in place and no impacts to the visual character or aesthetic nature of the site and /or neighborhood would occur. 10.4.1.6 Police Protection As indicated in Section 4.6, adequate police protection and law enforcement services currently exist to serve ' the church and neighborhood. Without any additional expansion of facilities, resulting in an increase in the intensity of the project, no additional impacts would occur to these services. Specifically, without the subterranean parking garage, the potential for illicit activities out of sight of the general public would not occur ' and there would be no need for implementing the measures recommended in the analysis related to the parking structure, which would be eliminated in this alternative. As a result, no significant impacts to police protection would occur with the No Project/No Development alternative. ■ 10.4.1.6 Other Environmental Parameters Adequate infrastructure exists in the utility systems that serve the subject property. Without any further site disturbance associated with improvements, no impacts would occur to any natural resources (e.g., biological resources, agricultural soils, and mineral resources) and /or cultural /scientific resources. No changes in the rate or amount of surface runoff will occur because no change in the amount of impervious surfaces would occur. The existing structures would be subject to seismic activity and secondary seismic hazards that are typical throughout Southern California; however, no improvements are proposed that would subject the development to adverse seismic conditions. It is important to note that the two structures that are proposed to be demolished pre -date recent updates in building technology and, therefore, could be more susceptible to the effects of seismicity than the new structures proposed by the applicant. Finally, existing public services and facilities continue to be adequate to serve the existing level of development. Ability to Achieve Project Objectives While the church and ancillary facilities would continue to serve its congregation and the local community as a meeting place under the No Project/No Development scenario, implementation of this alternative does not achieve most of the basic project objectives identified in Chapter 3.0. Specifically, the Youth C: 1MyFileslKKC- 0060. STANDREWS .NBIDRAFTEIRM.OAItematives.doc Page 10 -5 St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church General Plan Amendment and Use Permit Amendment Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 10.0 and Family Center (with the gymnasium), which is intended to provide more specialized services, would not be constructed. Further, additional parking would not be provided. Although the facilities could be modernized with some interior improvements, the objective of making the structures more energy efficient would be more difficult to achieve. Other objectives such as enhancing the aesthetic character of the church and the provision of screening along Clay Street would not occur. Elimination /Reduction of Significant Impacts Without further development and expansion of the existing facilities, the potentially significant air quality impacts resulting from implementation of the project proposed by the applicant would not occur. Specifically, construction activity NOx emissions would not exceed SCAQMD thresholds. Further, while not significant, the construction noise impacts would also be eliminated and the potential nuisance activities associated with an underground parking structure would also be eliminated. However, the existing parking conditions would remain without the expansion of the parking as currently proposed. Nonetheless, the No ProjecUNo Development Alternative would eliminate virtually all of the impacts resulting from the proposed project. Feasibility Implementation of the no projecUno development alternative is feasible because it would not require any significant expenditure of resources. Although no additional expansion of the facilities would occur, this alternative would not require approval of a General Plan Amendment to increase the intensity of development. However, it is important to note that none of the project objectives would be achieved. 10.4.2 Renovation or Replacement Alternative (No Expansion of Existing Facilities) This alternative provides for renovation of the existing facilities, including modernization of those buildings and related facilities to accommodate many of the goals and objectives envisioned by the project applicant (e.g., update and modernize existing facilities, replace buildings, provide new landscape screening along Clay Street to improve vistas, enhance the aesthetic character of the church, etc.). As a result, the Renovation Alternative does not include demolition of the existing structures and, specifically, construction of a new Youth and Family Center and (replacement) Fellowship Hall. The total floor area and capacity of the church and ancillary facilities would be limited to the floor area and capacity that currently exists. In addition, the parking structure would not be constructed and the existing 250 -space surface parking lot would continue to serve as the primary source of on -site parking for St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church. 10.4.2.1 Land Use and Planning Implementation of this alternative would not require any physical expansion of the existing facilities. Rather, the existing classrooms and fellowship hall, as well as other existing facilities, would be renovated to accommodate the existing and anticipated use of the church and ancillary facilities. As a result, none of the effects described in Section 4.1 (e.g., nuisances caused by construction activities, including increased construction traffic, etc.). Further, the this alternative development scenario would not require the approval of a General Plan Amendment (or an amendment to the Use Permit) and would, therefore, be consistent with the relevant use plans adopted by the City. However, without a gymnasium, some of the activities that are currently conducted outdoors (e.g., basketball and other recreation) that would have taken place inside the new gymnasium proposed by the applicant, will continue to take place in the existing surface parking lot. Use of this area for recreational activities could generate noise that could be perceived as a "nuisance" by nearby residents and neighboring property owners. However, the noise levels and degree of nuisance experienced would be similar to that which currently exists. C. MyFileswKC- 0060. STANDREWS .NBDRAFTEIRIf0.0Altematives.doc Page 10 -6 St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church General Plan Amendment and Use Permit Amendment Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 10.0 10.4.2.2 Traffic and Parking Although a slight (temporary) increase in traffic may occur as a result of contractor /construction activities necessary to remodel and renovate the existing facilities, no significant short- or long -term traffic impacts would occur as a result of this alternative. However, it is important to note that the existing surface parking on the church site (which does not currently meet parking code requirements) is supplemented with the on- street parking on Clay Street, St. Andrews Road, and 15`" Street and parking at Newport Harbor High School, and is the source of concern in the neighborhood. It is possible that an increase in the number or frequency of activities occurring at the church, which could occur by right, could affect the existing parking conditions, which could exacerbate the use of on- street parking within the surrounding neighborhood by the church and students attending Newport Harbor High School. ' 10.4.2.3 Air Quality With the elimination of demolition, excavation necessitated by the proposed subterranean parking structure, and new construction, only very nominal air emissions associated with the remodeling /renovation activities ' would occur. Specifically, the analysis presented in Section 4.3 indicated that construction emissions resulting from project implementation (particularly those associated with heavy truck hauling) would result in potentially significant NOx emissions. Without the need to haul surplus soils from the site, such heavy truck ' traffic would not occur. The NOx emissions, as well as fugitive dust and other contaminant emissions would occur. Therefore, none of the temporary or long -term activities associated with this alternative would exceed the SCAQMD significance thresholds. No significant air quality impacts would occur as a result of implementing this alternative. 10.4.2.4 Noise As indicated above for air quality, elimination of any requirement for demolition, grading and new construction will result in the elimination of any short-term noise associated with those activities. Although the City's Noise Ordinance allows for construction noise during certain hours, such noise is considered to be a nuisance, particularly during a lengthy construction phase. Therefore, by eliminating any need to grade the site and construct new facilities, virtually all of the construction- related noise impacts would be avoided. Further, no significant new traffic would be generated as a result of implementing this alternative that would generate substantial new vehicular noise. ' 10.4.2.5 Aesthetics ' Renovation of the existing facilities would not include the construction of new buildings and /or structures. Therefore, the changes proposed by the applicant through the demolition of two existing structures and their replacement would not occur; however, it is Important to understand that the changes resulting from project implementation were determined to be less than significant. Although it is possible that some exterior ' remodeling and /or renovation may occur, it would not result in any significant alterations that would materially affect the existing visual /aesthetic character of the project site. Therefore, implementation of this alternative will not result in any visual impacts and would eliminate any significant changes to the existing visual character. 10.4.2.6 Police Protection The Newport Beach Police Department has indicated that it has adequate resources to serve the proposed project and that no significant impacts on those services would occur if additional floor area is provided on the site. Implementation of this alternative, which includes remodeling and /or renovation of existing facilities, will eliminate the potential (less than significant) impacts identified in Section 4.6 associated with the construction ' of the subterranean parking structure (i.e., safety and illicit activities), as suggested by neighborhood residents. Without any further intensification, the existing resources will continue to be adequate and the recommendations identified by the Newport Beach Police Department to address the parking structure would be unnecessary C:IMyFilesIKKC- OO60.STANDREWS. NBIDRAFTEIR110. O Alternatives. d0c Page 10-7 St. Andrew's Presbytedan Church General Plan Amendment and Use Permit Amendment Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 10.0 10.4.2.7 Other Environmental Parameters As indicated previously, the subject property is developed with a sanctuary and ancillary/supporting structures and facilities (i.e., classrooms, fellowship hall, chapel, surface parking, etc.). No new construction would occur that would increase any demands for public service or utilities, which are all currently adequate to serve the existing development. No impacts to soils, mineral resources, biological resources, Ability to Achieve Project Objectives Renovation of the existing facilities as permitted in this alternative would achieve several of the project objectives (e.g., update and modernize interior spaces, enhance landscape character, continue to provide a meeting place at the church for church - sponsored programs, etc.), two of the objectives would not be achieved. Specifically, without the expansion, a new Youth and Family Center, including the proposed gymnasium, would not be available to facilitate the programs identified by the church and additional parking would not be provided. Elimination /Reduction of Significant Impacts This project, similar to the No Project/No Development alternative, would eliminate most of the potential impacts identified in Chapter 4.0. Construction noise and air quality impacts would be significantly reduced because no grading, excavation, demolition or building construction would occur. Noise and air emissions would occur only as a result of the remodeling and /or renovation activities, which would be significantly less than that anticipated as a result of project implementation. Further, potential increases in traffic would be related only to the any expansion of programs that may be offered by the church (which could occur without any remodeling or renovation) and would not be related to an increase in the floor area. Therefore, mobile - source noise and air emissions would also be related to any increase in the number and frequency of programs and activities offered by the church, which the church could implement if it chooses to do so without any review or approval by the City. Land use impacts are also related to the activities and programs offered by the church; however, this alternative would not require a General Plan Amendment and would be entirely consistent with the City's Land Use Element and adopted long -range plans. Without any changes, except for renovation and remodeling (mostly in interior spaces), no changes in the visual character would occur, except as provided by any enhanced landscaping. Finally, without the construction of the subterranean parking garage, none of the potential unauthorized activities previously discussed would occur. Feasibility Similar to the No Project/No Development alternative this alternative can be feasibly implemented with a significantly reduced commitment of resources. However, while many of the applicant's objectives can be achieved, if a Youth and Family Center were to be created in this alternative, it would not include the gymnasium, an integral element of the programmatic elements proposed by the church. 10.4.3 Reduced Intensity Alternative (Proposed Project without Gymnasium) Because the site is currently developed with St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church and ancillary facilities, this alternative addresses only the proposed Youth and Family Center, which does not currently exist on the subject property. Therefore, the Reduced Intensity Alternative would encompass all of the improvements proposed by the applicant, including the Youth and Family Center and underground parking garage, with the specific exception of the gymnasium, which is proposed to be located within and be part of the Youth and Family Center. Implementation of this alternative would likely include the demolition and replacement of the existing fellowship hall (Building D) and classroom building (Building E). The total floor area resulting from the elimination of the gymnasium would be reduced to 133,493 square feet from 140,388 square feet. Although the floor area ratio would be reduced by approximately five percent, the Reduced Intensity Alternative would still require the approval of the same discretionary actions proposed by the C: IMyFilesWKC- 0060.STANDREWS.NBIDRAFTEIRIf0.0 Altematives.doc Page 10-8 St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church General Plan Amendment and Use Permit Amendment Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 10.0 project applicant (e.g., General Plan Amendment and Amended Use Permit), because it exceeds the maximum floor area permitted by the adopted Land Use Element. 10.4.3.1 Land Use and Planning Like the proposed project, the Reduced Intensity Alternative (i.e., no gymnasium) would require approval of a General Plan Amendment as a result of the increase in floor area (i.e., approximately 30,000 square feet) and an amended and revised Use Permit. Virtually all of the (insignificant) impacts identified for the proposed project will occur with the implementation of this alternative (i.e., neighborhood nuisance impacts related to noise, parking, air quality, etc.), even without the gymnasium use. However, all of the sports activities (e.g., basketball, volleyball, etc.) that would be conducted in the new gymnasium would occur outside within the area presently used for such activities in the existing surface parking lot. Similar to the proposed project, concurrent use of the church facilities cannot exceed the existing rated capacity of the sanctuary. Therefore, even though the gymnasium would not be included in this alternative, the potential impacts would be similar to those identified for the proposed project. 10.4.3.2 Traffic and Parking As indicated in Section 4.2, traffic generation and parking demands associated with the proposed project are based on the capacity of the sanctuary. Even though one of the elements of the project would be eliminated (i.e., gymnasium) in this alternative, the associated traffic generation and parking demands would be the same as identified for the proposed project. Based on the detailed traffic analysis conducted for the project, no significant traffic impacts would occur. All of the key intersections would continue to operate at acceptable ' levels and no project- related traffic impacts would occur. Similarly, the same parking demands are associated with this alternative as for the proposed project. Therefore, the parking impacts identified in Section 4.2 would occur if this alternative were implemented. As a result, the same mitigation measures would be required to address the (existing) on -site parking deficiency. However, if this alternative were implemented, it is likely that a number of large gatherings that would be associated with the gymnasium structure would be avoided, which would reduce nuisance traffic/parking issues. ' 10.4.3.3 Air Quality Potential air quality impacts, like traffic and parking impacts, associated with the Reduced Intensity alternative will be the same as identified and described for the proposed project because virtually the same level of construction activities will occur and no changes are proposed to the capacity of the sanctuary, which determine the nature and extent of potential traffic generation and parking demands. Therefore, the same short- and long -term air quality emissions will occur, requiring the implementation of the mitigation measures ' prescribed in Section 4.3. Implementation of this alternative will not reduce the potential air quality impacts significantly. M 10.4.3.4 Noise As indicated previously, the Reduced Intensity alternative would eliminate the gymnasium. Nonetheless, construction impacts associated with this alternative would be the same as described for the proposed project because the development under this scenario would require the same level of construction as for the proposed project. However, without a gymnasium, the recreational activities that would normally be conducted in the gymnasium would take place within the limits of the surface parking lot designated to accommodate such uses. While not significant, the continuation of these activities would result in noise levels that are similar to those occurring at the present time from the same activities. These impacts would not be significant; however, they could be a source of nuisance to nearby surrounding residential properties. Finally, noise related to the HVAC and related equipment could also be a source of potential noise in this alternative, similar to the impacts identified in Section 4.4. Therefore, the same mitigation measure would be required to address that impact. As a result, implementation of the Reduced Intensity alternative would not reduce or eliminate potential noise impacts. C: 1MyFilesKKC- 0060.STANDREWS.NArDRAFTEIR110.0 Altematives.doc Page 70 -9 St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church General Plan Amendment and Use Permit Amendment Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 10.0 10.4.3.5 Aesthetics Development of the site resulting from the implementation of this alternative would allow for a Youth and Family Center without the inclusion of the gymnasium. Although elimination of that component of the Youth and Family Center would still allow for the construction of a two -story structure if the basement level is included as an above -grade floor and the classrooms are included in the story, it would be possible to replace the existing two -story structure with a single -story structure. As such, the lounge, offices and related features could still be provided in the basement level with the classrooms included in the first floor. The effect of such an alternative would be a reduction in the building mass on the subject property. Although no significant visual impacts were identified as a result of project implementation (because the proposed Youth and Family Center is generally replacing a similar structure, both in mass and height), the reduction in building height on the site would reduce the proposed intensity and massing on the site. However, as indicated above, the proposed Youth and Family Center without the gymnasium element could be implemented in building with two levels above grade. In that event, the visual impacts would be similar to those that currently exist and would be anticipated with the proposed project. 10.4.3.6 Police Protection As indicated by the Newport Beach Police Department (refer to Section 4.6), no significant impacts to emergency response and /or the provision of law enforcement services will occur as a result of project implementation. However, in order to address neighborhood concerns related to safety and activities that may take place in the subterranean parking garage, the Department identified several recommendations to address those concerns. Because the parking garage is also included in this alternative, the same recommendations would be included to avoid or eliminate the potential for the safety and other impacts identified in the NOP comments submitted to the City. Therefore, implementation of this alternative will not avoid or eliminate any of the (less than significant) impacts. 10.4.3.7 Other Environmental Parameters Adequate infrastructure exists in the utility systems that serve the subject property. Although this alternative would include the subterranean parking garage and would require the same amount of grading and site preparation, including demolition, past development of the site has resulted in the alteration of the subject property. Therefore, no impacts would occur to any natural resources (e.g., biological resources, agricultural soils, and mineral resources) and /or cultural/scientific resources are anticipated. Changes in the rate or amount of surface runoff that will occur would be the same as for the proposed project because the areas that would affected by this alternative are the same as for the proposed project. The existing and proposed structures would be subject to seismic activity and secondary seismic hazards that are typical throughout southern California; however, all of the improvements would be subject to the current Building Code and related requirements to ensure that any structural damage and /or loss of life are minimized to the extent possible. Finally, existing public services and facilities continue to be adequate to serve the existing level of development. Ability to Achieve Project Objectives Although the gymnasium would be eliminated from the Youth and Family Center would be eliminated, this alternative would achieve virtually all of the major project objectives. New and modernized facilities would be constructed on the property and additional classroom space would be available to facilitate the programmatic requirements of the church. In addition, the new buildings and landscaping enhancements would be implemented and would be integrated into the existing site and neighborhood design. Elimination /Reduction of Significant Impacts Virtually all of the potential impacts identified in Chapter 4.0 for the proposed project would occur as a result of implementing this alternative, although potential long -term, operational increases in traffic associated with use of the gymnasium would not occur. All of the construction- related impacts (e.g., noise, air quality and traffic) would occur and be the same or very similar to those identified for the C:1MyFilesV(KC- 0060.STANDREWS. NBIDRAFTEIRV 0.0 Alternatives. doc Page 10 -10 iL I I I St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church General Plan Amendment and Use Permit Amendment Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 10.0 proposed project. It is anticipated that activities that would be otherwise conducted in the gymnasium (e.g., basketball and related court sports) would take place within the limits of the surface parking, where they occur at the present time. These outdoor activities could generate some noise; however, any noise resulting from these activities would be similar to that which occurs at the present time. Feasibility While this alternative is feasible and could be implemented, it does not provide for one of the major components of the project, a gymnasium that would be utilized by the church to supplement its youth programs. 10.4.4 Off -Site Parking Alternative For more than 40 years, St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church has utilized available parking on the Newport Harbor High School Campus with a single point of access at 15th Street as overflow parking. Although the arrangement for "shared" parking has been informal, it has been helpful in accommodating Wednesday evening, Saturday, and Sunday worship services when, under most circumstances, school is not in session. In addition, for Sunday worship, the day when the greatest usage of the project site occurs, high school activities (including athletic activities) are infrequent. In return, the church has provided as many as 36 parking spaces for Newport Harbor High School students on the church parking lot when services are not conducted and the space is available. (The church does limit school use when the parking is occupied for mid -week memorial services, youth activities, or other church activities that require use of the full parking lot. ' A potential alternative to the construction of additional on -site parking on the church campus would be the construction of a parking structure on the high school campus north of 15th Street. This arrangement would involve the church constructing a parking structure, including one parking level at grade and one parking level above grade, on the existing 15" Street parking lot at Newport Harbor High School. The number of parking spaces would be equal to or exceed the existing number of parking spaces that currently exist in the St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church surface parking lot. As a result, the subterranean parking structure on the church property would not be constructed. With the exception of the subterranean parking structure, all of the ' other improvements proposed by the applicant would be implemented, resulting in an expansion to 140,388 square feet as reflected in Chapter 3.0 (Project Description). 10.4.4.1 Land Use and Planning Implementation of this alternative would result in similar impacts land use/relevant planning impacts identified in Section 4.1. Specifically, the expansion of the St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church and ancillary facilities would under this development scenario would necessitate the approval of a General Plan Amendment (i.e., Land Use Element) as well as an Amendment to the Permit to allow the increase in intensity proposed by the applicant. In addition, some temporary (i.e., approximately 12 months) impacts associated with demolition and construction of the new structures will have some affect on circulation, noise and air quality; however, as described for the proposed project, once construction is completed, no discernable physical features will exist that would cause a physical division of the neighborhood land uses. Use of the site would continue to accommodate activities that current take place on the property. The provision of additional off -site parking within the limits of the Newport Harbor High School parking lot located on 15`" Street would supplement the surface parking at St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church. If a parking structure were built at that location that accommodated 400 parking spaces, the combination of on- and off -site parking (i.e., 573 total parking spaces) would exceed the parking code requirements for the existing and proposed facilities, which would require 463 parking spaces based on a sanctuary capacity of 1,387 seats. Further, provision of 400 parking spaces on the Newport Harbor Campus would expand the supply of parking spaces that would be available during the week for students and faculty, which would help alleviate the demand for on- street parking in the residential neighborhood that is a source of concern for property owners and residents in the project environs. No significant departure from the current use of the site is anticipated that would cause a physical division within the existing neighborhood. C: IMyFileslKKC- 0060. STANDREWS .NBIDRAFTEIR00.0A1[ematives.doc Page 10 -11 St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church General Plan Amendment and Use Permit Amendment Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 10.0 Similar to the proposed project, when completed, the two new buildings will be constructed (i.e., new Building D and new Building E), and activities on the site will be similar to those that currently take place. As previously indicated, the church is limited by prior conditions that preclude concurrent use of the facilities that would exceed the current capacity of the sanctuary (i.e., 1,387 seats). The increase in floor area does not result in greater demands for parking, which are based on the capacity of the sanctuary (i.e., one parking space for each three seats); no changes to the sanctuary are proposed. As a result, no significant changes to the current operational characteristics of the church would occur that would result in a significant impact on land use compatibility. 10.4.4.2 Traffic and Parking Upon completion of this alternative, potential traffic impacts will be the same as those identified for the proposed project because the improvements and uses are the same as identified for the proposed project (with the exception of the off -site parking). Post - development intersection operations will not be significantly affected; all of the key intersections in the project environs will continue to operate at LOS C or better, which is the desired operational characteristic. Implementation of this alternative would temporarily close the 15"' Street parking lot on the Newport Harbor High School campus, which would increase the utilization of the 16"' Street parking lot on the that campus as well as on- street parking in and around the project site. While some temporary traffic impacts associated with construction activities (e.g., construction traffic conflicts, etc.), the same mitigation will be incorporated to ensure that such conflicts and nuisance traffic in the neighborhood is reduced to a less than significant level. The construction of a parking structure, which would accommodate up to 400 parking spaces, in addition to the 173 parking spaces proposed in the surface parking lot on the St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church property, would exceed the 462 parking spaces mandated by the City's parking ordinance (i.e., one parking space for each three seats in the sanctuary for the 1,387 -seat capacity). However, unless it could be demonstrated that the 400 parking spaces would be available for exclusive use by the church, a joint use parking facility on school district property without such a provision may not be adequate to accommodate the parking demands of the church if there was a conflict with the Newport Harbor High School use. Without such a definitive commitment of parking, use of the on- street parking in the neighborhood could occur, thereby exacerbating the existing parking demands. 10.4.4.3 Air Quality By eliminating the proposed subterranean parking structure and replacing it with a parking structure on the Newport Harbor High School site would result in the elimination of a significant amount of grading and excavation (i.e., approximately 50,000 yards) and the subsequent need to export the surplus soil materials to an off -site location. Although construction of off -site parking structure would result in some short-term air quality impacts, the significant NOx emissions identified for the proposed project would be eliminated because no hauling would be required. With the significant reduction in NOx emissions, the impacts would be less than significant. Other short-term and long -term air emissions will be less than significant. Therefore, with the replacement of the subterranean parking structure by this alternative, air quality impacts can be reduced to a less than significant level. 10.4.4.4 Noise Potential long -term noise impacts associated with this alternative would be similar to those identified in Section 4.4 (Noise). While the construction impacts resulting from the demolition of the existing structures and proposed replacement buildings would also be similar to the proposed project, the construction- related noise impacts associated with the subterranean parking garage on the site would be transferred to area adjacent to the Newport Harbor High School. None of the grading and excavation necessary to construct the subterranean parking garage would occur; however, construction noise would be generated by the new two level, above -grade parking structure that would be constructed to replace the proposed on -site parking garage. As a result, the impacts would be transferred to the Newport Harbor High School site located north of 15"' Street, which may result in impacts to the high school, especially in the event construction occurs when school is in session. Depending on the location of the staging area utilized to construct that facility, C:1MyFileslKKC- 0060. STANDREWS.NBIDRAFTEIRM. 0 Altematives.doc Page 10 -12 St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church General Plan Amendment and Use Permit Amendment Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 10.0 some of these short-term noise impacts could be greater to nearby residential properties. Potential noise levels could be less in some areas, particularly along Clay Street, with the construction of the parking structure on the Newport Harbor High School site because the source of the noise would be located farther from those residences. In addition, construction activities would occur closer to the Newport Beach Environmental Nature Center, which would have some impacts on any wildlife residing within that man -made habitat area. In any event, construction would only occur during the hours prescribed by the City's Noise Control Ordinance, which would ensure that noise impacts are less than significant. As indicated above, long -term noise impacts associated with the development on the existing church site and the use of the parking structure that would be relocated to the Newport Harbor High School site would be similar to the proposed project and would also require the implementation of the same mitigation measures to reduced potential noise resulting from mechanical equipment on the St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church site (no such noise impacts would be associated with the off -site parking structure). As a result, none of the significant project- related impacts would be reduced or eliminated by this alternative. 10.4.4.5 Aesthetics As indicated in Section 4.5, neither the subject property nor the off -site location proposed for the off -site parking structure in this alternative is located in an area of the City that possesses important visual amenities or is within a significant view corridor. However, construction of a two -level parking structure (i.e., one level above grade) would result in the introduction of a large above -grade structure on a site where only surface parking exists. Further, this location is adjacent to the existing Newport Beach Environmental Nature Center (east of the site). As a result, construction of this large structure (which would accommodate up to 400 parking spaces) would alter the visual character of the site and in the area immediately adjacent to the site. Although potential visual impacts associated with development on the St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church site would be the same as identified for the proposed project, the parking structure at the off -site location would be visible from the southern terminus of the trail located within the Environmental Nature Center and within the views of the predominant residential neighborhood, which could be considered to be an adverse visual impact by neighborhood residents. It would be necessary to ensure that adequate landscaping is provided to mitigate the effects of the large structure on the Newport Harbor High School site. These potential impacts, although possibly less than significant, would be greater when compared to the proposed project. 10.4.4.6 Police Protection Although the parking structure would be located off -site and above grade, it is possible that some of the issues and concerns identified by the neighborhood residents (e.g., homeless utilizing the parking structure, loitering, drug activity, etc.) could also occur on the parking structure identified in this alternative. However, as indicated in Section 4.6, the Newport Beach Police Department has indicated that no significant impacts to their ability to provide an adequate level of protection in the area and, further, has recommended several measures that could be incorporated into the project design to ensure that such unauthorized use of the parking structure is minimized or eliminated. The same or similar measures would also be recommended for ' the off -site parking structure located at Newport Harbor High School. Therefore, the potential impacts to police protection will be the same as forthe proposed project. 10.4.4.7 Other Environmental Parameters ' As previously indicated, adequate infrastructure exists in the utility systems and is available to provide adequate service to both the church and high school site where the parking structure would be constructed in this alternative. The site in question currently supports surface parking and has been previously disturbed. Any additional disturbance that would be anticipated to implement a parking structure in that location would not result in significant impacts to natural resources (e.g., biological resources, agricultural soils, and mineral resources) and/or cultural /scientific resources. No changes in the rate or amount of surface runoff will occur ' because no change in the amount of impervious surfaces would occur because the existing parking lot is composed of impervious surfaces. The proposed parking structure would be subject to seismic activity and secondary seismic hazards that are typical throughout southern California; however, the structure would be designed to comply with current building codes to minimize the potential structural damage. Finally, existing public services and facilities continue to be adequate to serve the existing level of development. ' C:IMyFileslKKC- 0060. STANDREWS .NMDRAFTEIRIf0.0Altematives.doc Page 10 -13 St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church General Plan Amendment and Use Permit Amendment Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 10.0 • Ability to Achieve Project Objectives Implementation of the off -site parking alternative would result in the ability of the church to achieve all of the major objectives identified in Section 3.6. With the exception of the subterranean parking garage, the expansion and modification of the existing facilities would occur on the existing St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church property. The expansion of the church parking would be provided within the 15`" Street parking lot located on the Newport Harbor High School site. Elimination /Reduction of Significant Impacts As indicated above, this alternative eliminates the subterranean parking garage on the subject property and relocates that parking expansion to the high school property, resulting in the elimination of a significant amount of grading and excavation that is necessary for the on -site parking garage. The parking proposed for this alternative would be contained in a two -level parking structure, with a ground level and one level of parking above the existing grade. As a result, the potentially significant NOx emissions resulting from the transport of 50,000 cubic yards soils excavated from the St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church site would be reduced to a less than significant level and no mitigation measures (i.e., restriction of total vehicle miles traveled during construction) would be required. Virtually all of the remaining impacts associated with this alternative would be the same or similar to those identified for the proposed project in Chapter 4.0. However, in addition, with the construction of a larger, 400 -space parking structure, the visual character of the neighborhood would be altered. Although neither the school nor subject property are located within a designated scenic corridor or viewshed, the introduction of a large structure could result in a negative aesthetic quality and would necessitate the incorporation of landscaping and other features to ensure that the structure does not dominate the character of the area. Feasibility The feasibility of this alternative is related to the ability of the church to enter into an agreement and /or obtain permission from the Newport Mesa Unified School District to construction the parking structure on the school property. The ability for the church to receive exclusive rights to use such a structure is not known. 10.4.5 Alternative Site (Youth and Family Center /Gymnasium) The State CEQA Guidelines requires that only locations "... that would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project .. " be evaluated in the Draft EIR. As indicated above, the subject property is developed as St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church and supports over 104,000 square feet of religious /institutional uses, including a sanctuary, chapel, fellowship hall, classrooms and related ancillary uses. For this reason, the Alternative Site analysis evaluates the potential environmental effects of only one component of the proposed project: the 32,744 square foot Youth and Family Center, because this component represents an element that does not exist at the site in the form currently proposed by the applicant. Therefore, this alternative evaluates the potential impacts of relocating the Youth and Family Center to an off -site location within the City of Newport Beach. This alternative would include all of the improvements proposed by the applicant with the exception of the demolition of Building E (existing classrooms); the Youth and Family Center would be constructed on the alternate site. As a result, improvements proposed on the St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church property would encompass less than 10,000 square feet, which would be associated with the new fellowship hall. Although no specific site has been identified, it is important that such a site be located within a radius of approximately one mile of the existing church. It is anticipated that a one -acre site would be adequate to accommodate the proposed Youth and Family Center. Several underutilized properties exist in the industrial area south of 17"' Street (west of Newport Boulevard) that could be redeveloped for this purpose. Potential impacts anticipated from this alternative are discussed below. C:1ft4yFilesVKK - 0060.STANDREWS.NSIDRAFTEIR110.0 Altematives.doc Page 10 -14 St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church General Plan Amendment and Use Permit Amendment Draft Environmental Impact Repoli Section 10.0 10.4.5.1 Land Use and Planning Depending on the availability of a feasible site, construction of the Youth and Family Center could occur at a site in the western portion of the City of Newport Beach, within one mile of the existing St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church site. A site in this non - residential area of the City was identified in order to avoid impacts to residential properties (i.e., acquisition of land that would eliminate residential dwelling units and displace existing residents). Some of the properties located in the West Newport area appear to be underutilized and could be converted to accommodate the Youth and Family Center building, if they are available. However, it is likely that any site selected to accommodate this alternative would require acquisition of a currently developed site for a non - industrial /commercial use. Implementation of this alternative would necessitate the approval of a Use Permit to accommodate the proposed use at that location. Implementation of this project alternative would also require the demolition of any existing non- , residential structures that may exist on the site in question and the relocation or elimination of the existing business. It is anticipated that the proposed use of an off -site location for the Youth and Family Center would not result in any significant land use conflicts, assuming that the findings for the Use Permit approval could be made by the City. With the relocation of the Youth and Family Center, the activities that would occur in that facility would also be relocated to the off -site location. The remaining improvements would take place on the subject property, including the demolition of Building D and construction of the new fellowship hall and the construction of the subterranean parking structure. The impacts associated with these activities will be the same as described for the proposed project. 10.4.5.2 Traffic and Parking By relocating the Youth and Family Center to an alternative site, the majority of the project - related trips resulting from the proposed project would be reduced in the vicinity of the subject property. Fewer than 30 trips would be generated by the project components proposed at the existing St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church site. Even though project - related traffic impacts were determined to be less than significant, it is anticipated that the reduction in the number of trips associated with this alternative would be noticeable in the neighborhood and desirable by residents. The remainder of the traffic associated with the use of this "off- site" facility (Youth and Facility Center) would be transferred to the circulation system in the vicinity of the off -site location; however, the number of trips associated with such a facility would not be significant. Based on the daily trip generation rate of 9.11 trips per 1,000 square feet, this alternative would generate a total of approximately 300 trips. Peak hour trip generation associated with this alternative would include 23 trips in the morning and 21 trips in the afternoon. It is anticipated that the traffic generated by this project alternative would likely not result in significant impacts to the circulation system in the non - residential West Newport area, which has been identified as an area where a potential alternative site could be located. Therefore, traffic impacts would likely be less than significant. However, if project trips exceed 300 ADT, a project traffic study would be required and mitigation of impacts would be required should they be identified. In addition, development of this alternative would require the provision of on -site parking that would be adequate to serve the proposed uses. The provision of parking at the alternative site in accordance with the City's parking code requirements would be adequate to avoid potential parking impacts. Relocation of the Youth and Family Center to an alternative site would not reduce the parking at the existing St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church site. As indicated in Section 4.2, parking for the church is based on the maximum seating capacity, which is 1,387 seats. The provision of the 400 parking spaces at the existing church site would increase the number of parking spaces that currently exists on the site (250 spaces). Although there would still be a shortfall of parking at the church site when compared to the minimum zoning code standards, the increase in on -site parking would improve the existing parking conditions. Development of the Youth and Family Center component of the proposed project on an alternative site would reduce traffic in the neighborhood and a potential demand for parking when compared to the proposed project. 10.4.5.3 Air Quality Although one of the proposed facilities would be relocated to a site within West Newport in this alternative, mobile- source air quality impacts would be similar to those identified in Section 4.3 because all of the C: IMyFileslKKC- 0060. STANDREWS. NBIDRAFTEIR110.OAltematives.doc Page 10 -15 St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church General Plan Amendment and Use Permit Amendment Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 10.0 emissions would occur within the same air basin (i.e., South Coast Air Basin). Project- related mobile- source emissions were thoroughly evaluated and determined to be less than significant. However, some construction emissions would be reduced because the existing Building E would not be demolished. While the long -term air quality impacts associated with this alternative would be the same as the proposed project, some reduction in construction - related impacts would occur when compared to the proposed project. However, the air quality impacts would remain less than significant. 10.4.5.4 Noise Short-term, construction noise impacts associated with this alternative would be similar to the proposed project. Is indicated in Section 4.4, activities associated with grading and excavation (including heavy truck traffic) as well as demolition of the existing Building D and construction of the new structure in its place will result in the generation of temporary noise. In addition, additional temporary noise could be generated if demolition of any existing structures on the alternative site is necessary. If so, such noise and that associated with construction of the new Youth and Family Center would be introduced in the area where the alternative site is located. However, these potential noise impacts would not be significant because there is a higher threshold for noise in non - residential areas than in residential neighborhoods and, further, construction activities are exempt from noise control regulations during the hours of construction stipulated in the City's Noise Control Ordinance. Long -term (i.e., operational) mobile- source noise levels in the vicinity of the existing St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church site may be reduced as a result of the reduction in traffic that would occur by relocating the Youth and Family Center to an alternative site; however, the same mitigation would be required for the new building to ensure that mechanical equipment does not impact the existing residential neighborhood. No mitigation would be required for the Youth and Family Center if located on an alternative site in a non - residential area. 10.4.5.5 Aesthetics Implementation of this alternative (i.e., relocating the Youth and Family Center) on a site within the West Newport area of the City would result in similar impacts as described for the proposed project. Although Building E would not be demolished in this alternative, the overall changes to the existing aesthetic character would not change significantly at that location. The new fellowship hall would replace the existing Building D (Dierenfield Hall) and would have the same design and character as that proposed; however, the existing Building E would remain in its current location. As a result, the overall character of the site would not change significantly from that described in Section 4.5, except that the massing and design of Building D would be the same as currently exists; however, this character would not be significantly different from that currently proposed by the applicant. On the other hand, construction of the Youth and Family Center on an alternative site could change the existing character of the immediate area of the alternative site, which is characterized by non - residential development. Although this would not rise to the level of a significant impact, development of the alternative site with the Youth and Family Center could be different that the that existing in the area; however, this potential difference would not be significant. No significant reduction in visual impacts would occur as a result of implementing this alternative. 10.4.5.5 Police Protection With the implementation of the proposed parking garage on the subject property (i.e., St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church site), the potential impacts of this alternative will be the same as for the proposed project and the same recommendations to avoid potential unauthorized activities in the subterranean garage would be the same to ensure that such use would be deterred. In addition to the potential impacts at the existing church site, construction of the Youth and Family Center at an alternative location would create a demand for law enforcement activities; however, because the West Newport area is currently developed, law enforcement service is provided and is adequate to serve that area. When compared to the proposed project, the location of the Youth and Family Center at that location would have potential incremental impacts on law enforcement services; however, they would not be considered significant. C:VvlyFilesV(KC- 0060. STANDREWS. N8I)RAFTEIR1f0.0Altematives.doc Page 10 -16 St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church General Plan Amendment and Use Permit Amendment Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 10.0 ' 10.4.5.7 Other Environmental Parameters ' The West Newport area is developed with non - residential land uses and is supported by infrastructure, including roads, sewer and water facilities and utility systems that have adequate capacity to serve the development proposed in this alternative. Previous development has resulted in significant modifications to ' the natural conditions in that area. As a result, further disturbance associated with improvements are not anticipated to result in additional or significant impacts to any natural resources (e.g., biological resources, agricultural soils, and mineral resources) and/or cultural /scientific resources. Given the level of development in this area, any changes resulting from the implementation of this alternative would result in only minor ' increases in the rate or amount of surface runoff because impervious surfaces exist on the potential sites in question. Although the new Youth and Family Center would be subject to seismic activity and secondary seismic hazards that are typical throughout southern California, the development would be constructed to ' meet all applicable building and related codes to ensure that potential structural damage and loss of life are minimized. Finally, existing public services and facilities are expected to be adequate to serve the level of development associated with the new Youth and Family Center at the alternate location. ' Ability to Achieve Project Objectives As with the Off -Site Parking Alternative, all of the project objectives could be achieved with the ' implementation of this alternative that proposes construction of the Youth and Family Center at an alternative site. However, it is important to understand that this alternative physically separates an integral element of the project (i.e., Youth and Family Center) from the administrative center of the St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church facilities. It is unknown what operational challenges this alternative would ' create and it is not known if such a separation of facilities would prove successful, since the youth this facility is meant to serve would not have ready access to the facility and since it is anticipated that this facility would be most widely used by the existing congregation that lives closer to the existing church. Based on the potential location of the alternative, the Youth and Family Center could be located up to one mile from the main church campus. • Elimination /Reduction of Significant Impacts ' Virtually all of the potential impacts identified in Chapter 4.0 would occur in the event an alternative site is developed with the Youth and Family Center. Construction noise and air quality impacts would occur in ' the residential neighborhood surrounding the existing church. Although similar traffic impacts would occur, some decrease in trips associated with the Youth and Family Center could be noticed with the relocation of that facility to the alternative site. However, potential noise, traffic and air quality impacts in the environs of the alternative site could increase both during construction (short-term noise and air quality) and after construction (traffic and mobile source emissions). Potential impacts on the visual character and police impacts identified for the proposed project would be similar to those resulting from the proposed project. Also, no significant land use conflicts or impacts are likely to occur. Feasibility In order to implement the development of an alternative site, the project applicant must purchase or ' otherwise acquire a site within another area of the City. Based on a review of the City's land use inventory, no undeveloped sites exist within the immediate vicinity of the existing church. Although some non - residential properties are located in the West Newport Area that could accommodate the proposed ' alternative project (i.e., construction of the Youth and Family Center), existing development would have to be demolished in order to implement this alternative. Acquisition of property not owned by the church could affect the ability of the church to feasibly implement the proposed project. 10.5 Summary of Alternatives ' An EIR is required to identify the "environmentally superior' altemative among those evaluated from the reasonable range of alternative analyzed. Section 15126.6(e)(2) of the State CEQA Guidelines mandates C:1MyFileSW(C- 0060. STANDREWS .NAI3RAF7-EIRIIO.OAltemativeS.doc Page 10 -17 St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church General Plan Amendment and Use Permit Amendment Dmft Environmental Impact Report Section 10.0 that in the event "... the environmentally superior alternative is the 'no project' alternative, the EIR shall also identify an environmentally superior alternative among the other alternatives. As indicated in Section 10.4.1, the No Project/No Development (no expansion) alternative is the environmentally superior alternative. However, implementation of the Renovation /Replacement Alternative (no additional expansion) may be identified as the "environmentally superior' alternative when compared to the proposed project and other alternatives evaluated because the potentially significant air quality impacts identified for the proposed project would be avoided. As summarized in Table 10 -1 and the preceding analysis, the Renovation /Replacement Alternative is able to achieve some of the project objectives. Table 10 -1 Summary of Project Alternatives St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church C:1MyFiles\KKC- 0060.STANDRE S.NBIDRAFTEIR110.0 Altematives.doc Page 10-18 Impacts Meets Reduced Avoided or Additional Environmentally Project Alternative Impacts Reduced Impacts : Superior Objectives No Project/ No Air Quality Development Yes Noise No Yes None Land Use Renovation/Replacement (No Additional Yes Air Quality No Yes Some Expansion) Reduced Intensity Yes No No Yes Some Off Parking No No Aesthetics No All rn-Site Alteative Site No No No No All C:1MyFiles\KKC- 0060.STANDRE S.NBIDRAFTEIR110.0 Altematives.doc Page 10-18 St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church General Plan Amendment and Use Permit Amendment Draft Environmental Impact Report SECTION 11.0 ORGANIZATIONS AND PERSONS CONSULTED CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Planning Department Patricia Temple, Director James Campbell, Senior Planner Public Works Department Rich Edmonston, Transportation and Development Services Manager Dave Keely, Associate Traffic Engineer Police Department Andi Querry, Crime Prevention Specialist City Attorney's Office Robert Burnham, City Attorney Robin Clauson, Assistant City Attorney KEETON KREITZER CONSULTING Keeton Kreitzer, Principal KIMLEY -HORN ASSOCIATES, INC. Serine Ciandella, Project Manager MESTRE -GREVE ASSOCIATES, INC. Matt Jones BETTENCOURT & ASSOCIATES Philip Bettencourt ST. ANDREW'S PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH Herb Smith Section 11.0 C. IMyFilesWKC- 0060.STANDREWS.NBIDRAFTEIR111. 0 Preparers.doc Page 11 -1 I St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church General Plan Amendment and Use Permit Amendment Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 12.0 SECTION 12.0 REFERENCES The references listed below in this preparation of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the proposed St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church project. Each of these documents is available at the City of Newport Beach at the address listed below. City of Newport Beach Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92658 ATTN: Mr. James Campbell, Senior Planner City of Newport Beach; General Plan Land Use Element; October 24, 1988 (Incorporates General Plan Amendments through 2000). City of Newport Beach; General Plan Circulation Element October 24, 1988 (Reprinted January, 1992, incorporating GPA 89 -1 [G] and GPA 89- 2[J]). City of Newport Beach; General Plan Harbor and Bay Element; Adopted June 12, 2001). City of Newport Beach; General Plan Housing Element; August 2003. City of Newport Beach; General Plan Noise Element; Adopted October 15, 1974 (Amended by GPA 87 -1 [B] October 10, 1994. City of Newport Beach; Public Safety Element; March 10, 1975. City of Newport Beach; Recreation and Open Space Element; Jun 2, 1998. City of Newport Beach; Local Coastal Program (Land Use Plan); January 9, 1990. City of Newport Beach; Municipal Code. LSA; Initial Study for the St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church Master Plan of Facilities; April 12, 1982. Kimley -Horn and Associates, Inc; St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church Facilities Expansion Project; December 2003. Mestre Greve Associates; Air Quality Assessment for St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church; January 21, 2004. Mestre Greve Associates; Noise Assessment for St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church; January 29, 2004. Bettencourt & Associates; St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church Entitlement to Use Application (General Plan and Use Permit PA 2002 -265). C:WyFI1esWKC- 0060. STANDREWS.NBIDRAFTEIRII2. 0 Re /emnces.doc Page 12 -1 St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church General Plan Amendment and Use Permit Amendment Draft Environmental Impact Report SECTION 13.0 GLOSSARY OF ACRONYMS AAQS Ambient air quality standard /standards ADT Average daily traffic ANSI American National Standards Institute AQMD South Coast Air Quality Management District AQMP Air Quality Management Plan BMP Best management practices CAA Federal Clean Air Act CARB California Air Resources Board CCAA California Clean Air Act CDFG California Department of Fish and Game CEQA California Environmental Quality Act CESA California Endangered Species Act CNEL Community Noise Equivalent Level CO Carbon monoxide CWA Federal Clean Water Act DAMP Drainage Area Management Plan dB Decibel dBA A- weighted decibel EA Environmental Assessment EIR Environmental Impact Report EPA Environmental Protection Agency F Fahrenheit ft feet ICU Intersection Capacity Utilization IS Initial Study Leq Equivalent noise level Lmax Maximum noise level Lmin Minimum noise level LOS Level of service MCLs Maximum content levels MMRP Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program MPAH Master Plan of Arterial Highways NO2 Nitrogen dioxide NOP Notice of Preparation NOx Nitrogen oxides NPDES Nation Pollution Discharge and Elimination System 03 Ozone Section 13.0 C: IMyFilesIKKC- 0060.STANDREWS.NBIDRAFTEIR113.0 Glossaty.doc Page 13 -1 St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church General Plan Amendment and Use Permit Amendment Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 13.0 PA Planning Application PRC Public Resources Code PM10 Particulates ten microns or less in diameter ppm parts per million ROG Reactive organic gases RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board SAMP Special Area Management Plan SCAG Southern California Association of Governments sf Square feet SO2 Sulfur dioxide SWPPP Storm Water Pollution and Prevention Program Sox Sulfur oxides TDM Transportation Demand Management TDS Total dissolved solids USGS United State Geological Survey V/C volume /capacity vpd Vehicles per day C- 1MyFiles \KKC- 0060.STANDREWS.NBIDRAFTEIR \13.0 Giossary.doc Page 13 -2 I 1 1 17 1 1 t Appendix A ' Initial Study /Notice of Preparation 1 -, J 1 1 1 1 11 I 11 tProject: CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING DEPARTMENT Patricia L. Temple, Director NOTICE OF PREPARATION CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church Expansion General Plan Amendment and Use Permit (PA2002 -265) Applicant: St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church Project Location: 600 St. Andrews Road ' Newport Beach, CA 92663 -3689 County of Orange ' Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Pursuant to Section 15082(a) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, the City of Newport Beach will be the lead agency and will prepare an environmental impact report for the project described below. The City needs to know your agency's views as to the scope and content of the environmental information related to your agency's statutory authority with respect to the proposed project. Your agency will need to use the EIR prepared by our agency when considering any applicable permits for the project. The project description and location are described herein. The potential environmental effects of the project are described in the initial study that is proposed as an attachment. Pursuant to Section 15103 of the State CEQA Guidelines, your response must be sent at the earliest date but received by our agency no later than thirty (30) days after receipt of this notice. Should you have any questions regarding the project or Notice of Preparation, please call James Campbell, Senior Planner with the City of Newport Beach, at (949) 644 -3210. Please mail your written response, including any comments you may have on this project to: James Campbell, Senior Planner City of Newport Beach Planning Department P. O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 Scoping Meeting Planned: The City of Newport Beach will be conducting a scoping meeting where your views regarding the scope of the EIR can be expressed. The meeting will be held on August 20, 2003 at 6:30PM the City Hall Council Chambers, 3300 Newport Boulevard. 3300 Newport Boulevard Post Office Box 1768 Newport Beach, California 92658 -8915 Telephone: (949) 644 -3200 Fax: (949) 644 -3229 www.city.newport- beach.ca.us Description: The applicant proposes to increase the intensity of development that currently exists on the 3.943 -acre property. The site supports five existing buildings, including the 1,200 -seat sanctuary, an existing chapel /administration building, two classroom buildings, and a fellowship hall. At the present time, the church property encompasses 104,822 square feet of gross floor area (GFA), resulting in an existing floor area ratio (FAR) of 0.61. Surface parking on the site accommodates 250 automobiles. Project implementation includes the demolition of two of the existing buildings. One of the education buildings and the existing fellowship hall and kitchen facilities will be demolished and replaced with two new structures. In doing so, the gross floor area will be increased to 140,388 square feet (i.e., 34 percent), resulting in 0.82 FAR. The 35,948 square feet expansion includes classrooms, a new youth center (including a gymnasium), and related facilities to support the existing church. In addition, the applicant is proposing to construct a subterranean parking garage beneath the surface parking lot proposed along Clay Street. A total of 400 parking spaces is proposed to accommodate the existing and proposed development. That figure includes 227 spaces in the subterranean garage and 173 surface parking spaces. Grading and excavation for the parking structures and building construction will be required. Construction will include alteration of landscaping and project site lighting. Project implementation will necessitate the approval of a General Plan Amendment to increase the FAR to that proposed by the applicant; in addition, a Revised and Amended Conditional Use Permit must also be considered by the City. / Ja�nes Campbell Senior Planner CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM 1. Project Title: St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church Expansions and Renovation General Plan Amendment and Use Permit (PA2002 -265) 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Newport Beach Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 3. Contact Person and Phone Number: James Campbell, Senior Planner, Planning Department (949) 644 -3210 4. Project Location: 600 St. Andrew's Road Newport Beach, CA 92663 -5325 5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Herb Smith ' St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church 500 St. Andrew's Road tNewport Beach, CA 92663 6. General Plan Designation: Governmental, Educational & Institutional Facilities 7. Zoning: R -1 (Single - Family Residential) and R -2 (Duplex Residential 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.) The applicant, St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church, is proposing to increase the intensity of ' development that currently exists on the 3.943 -acre property located at 600 St. Andrew's Road. The site supports five existing buildings, including the 1,200 -seat sanctuary, an existing ' chapel /administration building, two classroom buildings, and a fellowship hall. At the present time, the church property encompasses 104,440 square feet of gross floor area (GFA), resulting in an existing floor area ratio (FAR) of 0.61. The existing site plan is illustrated in Figure 1. ' Surface parking on the site accommodates 250 automobiles. The applicant is proposing to increase the gross floor area to 140,388 square feet (i.e., 34 percent), resulting in a 0.82 FAR. The 35,948 square feet expansion includes classrooms, a new youth center (including a gymnasium) and related facilities to support the existing church (refer to Figure 2). Project implementation includes the demolition of two of the existing buildings. One of the education buildings and the existing fellowship hall and kitchen facilities will be demolished and replaced ' with new structures. In addition, the applicant is proposing to construct a subterranean parking garage beneath the surface parking lot proposed along Clay Street. A total of 400 parking spaces CHECKLIST Page 1 ivninensf)NINNYId MOZ11, 1338le H191 f i Nil �Jl AN, IN NNNNI'l, I h�.-, I -N IN IN / r.N 1 III IN NN% I INN, eN, IN, CO NO K uo iY IN 1. 5 01 4L i7L LLI .. F99Z6 VINUO-M) 'HOV3S IUOdM3N avou sm3uaNV IS 009 .. HounHO NVld3iAeS3dd SM3dGNV IS 13253535 RAS 595 1338le H191 f i Nil �Jl AN, IN NNNNI'l, I h�.-, I -N IN IN / r.N 1 III IN NN% I INN, eN, IN, CO NO K uo iY IN 1. 5 01 4L i7L LLI 1tlj.Liws s0NINNVld ZO.OZ-Z6 N = L � c. LL ) W N Q. O L a m up m w M,= i m m � = m� M OE m= mm i • 11 GVOU-SM3UaNV IS 009 i N = L � c. LL ) W N Q. O L a m up m w M,= i m m � = m� M OE m= mm I 11 1 1 1 is proposed to accommodate the existing and proposed development. That figure includes 227 spaces in the subterranean garage and 173 surface parking spaces. (Eight handicap - accessible parking spaces are provided as required by the City.) Grading and excavation for the parking structures and building construction will be required. In addition, the project includes the alteration of existing utility connections to serve the new /modified buildings, landscaping and site lighting. Project implementation will necessitate the approval of a General Plan Amendment to increase the FAR to that proposed by the applicant; in addition, a Revised and Amended Conditional Use Permit must also be approved by the City. Table 1 summarizes the existing and proposed facilities. Table 1 Summary of Existing and Proposed Facilities St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church 9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: (Briefly describe the project's surroundings.) Current Development: Existing Floor Area Proposed Floor Area Net Change Building (Square Feet) (Square Feet) (Square Feet) Building A — Main Sanctuary 41,921 41,921' 0 Building B — Classrooms 21,669 21,107' (562) Building C — Offices /Chapel 16,620 16,620' 0 Building D — Fellowship Hall 17,762 27,9964 10,234 Building E — Gym/Classrooms 6,468 32,7444 26,276' Total 104,440 140,388 35,948 'Includes 3,114 square feet of renovation. 'Includes 1,465 square feet of renovation. 'Includes 1,904 square feet of renovation 'New construction. 'The majority of these improvements reflect the new gymnasium and lounge (only limited classroom additions). SOURCE: St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church Entitlement to Use Application; May 20, 2003. 9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: (Briefly describe the project's surroundings.) Current Development: St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church (Sanctuary and ancillary facilities, including classrooms, fellowship hall, surface parking, etc.) To the north: Newport Harbor High School To the east: Single - Family Residential To the south: Single - Family Residential To the west: Single - Family Residential CHECKLIST Page 2 I 10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or ' participation agreement.): None ' ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: , The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. ■ Land Use Planning ■ Transportation/ ❑ Public Services Circulation ❑ Population & Housing ❑ Geological Problems ❑ Water ■ Air Quality ❑ Biological Resources ❑ Energy & Mineral Resources ❑ Hazards ■ Noise ❑ Mandatory Findings of Significance DETERMINATION (To be completed by the Lead Agency.) On the basis of this initial evaluation: ❑ Utilities & Service Systems ■ Aesthetics ❑ Cultural Resources ❑ Recreation 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 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. ❑ CHECKLIST Page 3 ! I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effects) on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect Is a "potentially significant Impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated." 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, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case 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, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. ❑ i E1X) Submi by: James Campbell, Senior PI er Date City of Newport Beach Planning Department —6�� C,6 0-5 1 Prepared by: Keeton K. Kreitzer, Pri ipal Date Keeton Kreitzer ConsAlt4ng I I `J FAUSERSTLMSHAREDV F0RMSWEG- DECl00CKLIST.D0C. CHECKLIST Page 4 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST I. AESTHETICS. D Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? C) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non- agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? C) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non- agricultural use? III. AIR QUALITY. Would the project: Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact ❑ ❑ D ❑ ❑ o 23 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ o ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ No Impact I CHECKLIST Page 5 I� �r I i CHECKLIST Page 6 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact a) Conflict with or obstruct p ❑ ❑ ❑ implementation of the applicable air quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? C) Result in a cumulatively 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 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 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ substantial pollutant concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ a substantial number of people? IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ 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 ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? CHECKLIST Page 6 I CHECKLIST , Page 7 ' Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact C) Have a substantial adverse effect on ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impeded the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any local policies or ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f) Conflict with the provisions of an ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? V. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse ❑ ❑ ❑ p change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5? C) Directly or indirectly destroy a ❑ ❑ p ❑ unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? CHECKLIST , Page 7 ' r I VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist- Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? iii) Seismic - related ground failure, including liquefaction? iv) Landslides? b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? C) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project and potentially result in on- or off -site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18- 1 -B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact ❑ ❑ ❑ Q ❑ ❑ Q ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Q CHECKLIST Page 8 VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? C) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one - quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites which complied pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e) For a project within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project resuItin a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Lessthan Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact ❑ ❑ Q ❑ Q ❑ ❑ ❑ Q ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Q ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Q I No Impact CHECKLIST Page 9 , r L! I i y t y 1 r r t. ?r h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact El rv�enuany Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated El Lessthan Significant Impact El No Impact 0 a) Violate any water quality standards ❑ ❑ ❑ or waste discharge requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater ❑ ❑ ❑ R) supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre- existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? C) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of 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 a 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? C' 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? C 7 L CHECKLIST Page 10 CHECKLIST Page 11 r Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact f) Otherwise substantially degrade ❑ ❑ ❑ water quality? g) Place housing within a 100 -year ❑ ❑ ❑ flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h) Place within a 100 -year flood ❑ ❑ ❑ hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? i) Expose people or structures to a ❑ ❑ ❑ significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 mudflow? k) Result in significant alteration of ❑ ❑ ❑ receiving water quality during or following construction? 1) Result in a potential for discharge of ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ stormwater pollutants from areas of material storage, vehicle or equipment fueling, vehicle or equipment maintenance (including washing), waste handling, hazardous materials handling or storage, delivery areas, loading docks or other outdoor work areas? m) Result in the potential for discharge ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ of stormwater to affect the beneficial uses of the receiving waters? n) Create the potential for significant ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ changes in the flow velocity or volume of stormwater runoff to cause environmental harm? o) Create significant increases in ❑ ❑ p ❑ erosion of the project site or surrounding areas? CHECKLIST Page 11 r i IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal: a) Physically divide an established community? b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? C) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? X. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally- important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan? XI. NOISE. Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise 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 groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? votennaiiy Significant Potentially Unless Less than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact ❑ ❑ ❑ Q ❑ Cl ❑ Q ❑ ❑ ❑ Q Q ❑ ❑ ❑ CHECKLIST Page 12 CHECKLIST Page 13 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact C) A substantial permanent increase in 13 ❑ ❑ ❑ ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic 13 ❑ ❑ ❑ increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? e) For a project located within an ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 airport land use land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f) For a project within the vicinity of a ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project: a) Induce substantial population ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of ❑ ❑ ❑ existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? C) Displace substantial numbers of ❑ ❑ ❑ people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? CHECKLIST Page 13 i �r I i i i i XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES Would the project: a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered government facilities, need for new or physically altered government facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Fire protection? Police protection? Schools? Other public facilities? XIV. RECREATION a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction of or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? opportunities? XV. TRANSPORTATIONfTRAFFIC Would the project: ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 CHECKLIST Page 14 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 CHECKLIST Page 14 XVL UTILITIES & SERVICE SYSTEMS Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment ❑ ❑ requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? I No Impact ❑ i CHECKLIST Page 15 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact a) Cause an increase in traffic which is ❑ Cl 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 ❑ ❑ p access? f) Result in inadequate parking ❑ ❑ capacity? g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, ❑ ❑ 0 or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? XVL UTILITIES & SERVICE SYSTEMS Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment ❑ ❑ requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? I No Impact ❑ i CHECKLIST Page 15 i i CHECKLIST Page 16 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact b) Require or result in the construction ❑ ❑ p ❑ 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? e) Result in a determination by the ❑ ❑ ❑ wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient ❑ ❑ ❑ permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local ❑ ❑ ❑ statutes and regulation related to solid waste? h) Would the project include a new or ❑ ❑ ❑ retrofitted storm water treatment control Best Management Practice (BMP), (e.g. water quality treatment basin, constructed treatment wetland), the operation of which could result in significant environmental effects (e.g. increased vectors and odors ?) CHECKLIST Page 16 Significant Potentially Unless Less than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. A) Does the project have the potential ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ 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 period of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that p ❑ ❑ 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 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? XVII. EARLIER ANALYSES. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the following on attached sheets: a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. CI IFCKLIST Page 17 c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures, which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site - specific conditions for the project. 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. Title 20, Zoning Code of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 4. City Excavation and Grading Code, Newport Beach Municipal Code. 5. Chapter 10.28, Community Noise Ordinance of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 6. South Coast Air Quality Management District, Air Quality Management Plan 1997. 7. South Coast Air Quality Management District, Air Quality Management Plan EIR, 1997. 8. St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church Entitlement to Use Application General Plan Amendment and Use Permit (PA 2002 -265); May 20, 2003. 9. St. Andrew's Presbyterian Site Plan, Floor Plans, Elevation Drawings, Photometric Plans, and related information (May 20, 2003). CHECKLIST Page 18 City of Newport Beach St, Andrew's Presbyterian Church — August 4, 2003 Page 19 ICHECKLIST EXPLANATION I. Aesthetics Significance Criteria: The proposed project would result in significant adverse environmental impacts if any of the following occur: ' Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista. • Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway. • Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings. • Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area. Analysis: a. Less than Significant Impact The site occupied by St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church is located in an urbanized area of the City of Newport Beach. Neither the site nor the area in which the church is located is identified as a scenic or visual resource. Further, no vista parks or other visual amenities are located in the area that would be affected by site development. None of the streets surrounding the subject property are designated as scenic routes. Therefore, intensification of the site will not have a substantial effect on a scenic vista. b. Less than Significant Impact As indicated above, the site is not located within the viewshed of a scenic highway. Further, the site and surrounding neighborhood are developed with a mix of uses, including St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church, Newport Harbor High School, and single - family residential development. No natural landforms, including rock outcroppings and significant trees exist on the site. The church complex was constructed over several years beginning in 1948, with the construction of the chapel building. The educational buildings were constructed during the 1960s and 1970s; the sanctuary was constructed in 1985. No historic buildings are located on the site and no impacts to either natural features or historic structures will occur as a result of project implementation. No significant impacts will occur. C. Potentially Significant Impact The site is developed with 104,822 square feet of floor area, including the 1,200 -seat sanctuary, chapel and administrative spaces, classrooms, a fellowship hall and related facilities associated with St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church. In addition, surface parking and some recreational facilities (outdoor sports courts) ' exist on the site. The maximum building height of the existing development is 43 feet. The applicant is proposing to demolish two existing buildings and replace those structures with two newer, modern buildings that will accommodate classrooms and the fellowship hall that will be demolished. The building height proposed for the new buildings will be between 30 and 35 feet above existing grade. It is possible that the intensification of the existing site, combined with the height and massing of the proposed buildings, could change the character of the site and neighborhood. The Draft EIR will evaluate the potential changes to the visual character of the site resulting from project implementation. 1 City of Newport Beach St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church — August 4, 2003 Page 20 d. Less than Significant Impact The project includes some additional lighting will be incorporated into the proposed project to address on- site security around the new structures that are proposed and the church facilities. In addition, parking lot lighting will be integrated into the surface parking lot proposed to accommodate a portion of the vehicles (the remainder will be parked in the proposed subterranean parking garage). Two existing floodlights associated with the two existing buildings that will be demolished will be removed from the site. In addition, all existing pole mounted parking lot fixtures will be removed. New parking lot lighting fixtures will be pole mounted at a height of 16 feet above finish grade. These new lighting fixtures will be no higher than the existing parking lot lighting fixtures. Lighting proposed within the plaza area consists of low level walkway lighting, building mounted lighting, and three "uplights." None of the plaza lighting will be visible from the adjacent residential properties because it will be shielded by structures on the site. A photometric plan has been prepared and submitted to the City that reflects no spillage of light beyond the property boundary. The parking lot lighting will comply with standards established by the Newport Beach Municipal Code, which requires that exterior lighting shall be energy- efficient and shielded or recessed so that direct glare and reflections are contained within the boundaries of the parcel. The site will be designed to comply with the City's standard requirements for exterior lighting as prescribed by the Newport Beach Municipal Code. Compliance with the Municipal Code and with the standard condition prescribed below will ensure that lighting impacts do not adversely affect the nearby residential development to the east and south. Mitigation Measures: As indicated above, the Draft EIR will evaluate the potential effects of the new construction. Although no significant lighting and glare impacts are anticipated, the following conditions will be implemented to ensure that lighting impacts are further minimized. SC -1 Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit plans, including a photometric study showing lighting levels to the City of Newport Beach Planning Department for review and approval of exterior lighting. Exterior lighting shall be designed and maintained in such a manner as to conceal light sources and to minimize light spillage and glare to adjacent properties and the public right -of -way. The plans shall be prepared and signed by a licensed electrical engineer acceptable to the City. The applicant shall provide to the Planning Department, in conjunction with the lighting system plan, lighting fixture product types and technical specifications, including photometric information, to determine the extent of light spillage or glare that can be anticipated. This information shall be made a part of the building set of plans for issuance of the building permit- SC-2 Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy or final of building permits, the applicant shall schedule an evening inspection by the Code Enforcement Division to confirm control of light and glare. Particular attention shall be given to the light spillage and glare in the parking lot and across the bay at any residential areas. II. Agriculture Resources Significance Criteria: The proposed project would result in significant adverse environmental impacts if the following occurs: • Loss or elimination of "prime" agricultural lands as designated by the State of California and /or County of Orange and such designated soils are capable of sustained, viable agricultural production. i City of Newport Beach St, Andrew's Presbyterian Church — August 4, 2003 Page 21 IAnalysis: a. No Impact Project implementation will not result in the conversion of any prime or otherwise significant farmland. No agricultural use of the property presently occurs. The subject property is intensively developed with a church and ancillary facilities. Further, the St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church site is located in an area that has been developed with urban uses, including single - family residential development and Newport Harbor High School. According to the Orange County Important Farmland Map, the entire area, including the ' subject property, is designated as "Urban and Built Up Land," which encompasses land occupied by structures with a building density of at least one dwelling unit to one and one -half acres. Development of the site as proposed will not result in any significant impacts to significant farmland. b. No Impact The subject property is not zoned for agricultural uses and /or included in a Williamson Act contract. Therefore, no conflicts with the adopted short- and long -range plans will occur and no direct or indirect impacts are anticipated to occur as a result of project implementation. C. No Impact The proposed project will result in the demolition of two existing buildings that accommodate classrooms 1 and related church facilities. These buildings will be replaced with two new buildings, surface parking and ancillary features; no substantial change in use of the existing property will occur. Further, implementation of the proposed land uses will not result in the conversion of existing agricultural uses or prime farmland to non- agricultural uses. No portion of the subject property or areas within the project environs are currently designated for agricultural purposes or are in an agricultural use. The subject property neither contains prime farmland nor supports existing agricultural uses or uses accessory to agricultural uses. The site is not located in proximity to existing agricultural uses that would be affected if the project were approved. Therefore, no significant impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. Mitigation Measures: No significant impacts to agricultural soils and /or resources are anticipated as a result of project implementation. Therefore, no mitigation measures are required. III. Air Quality Significance Criteria: The proposed project would result in significant adverse environmental impacts if any of the following occur: • The project could interfere with the attainment of the federal or State ambient air quality standards by either violating or contributing to an existing or projected air quality violation. • The project could result in population increases within the regional statistical area that would be in excess of that projected in the AQMP. • The project could generate vehicle trips that cause a localized violation of CO standards. • The project might have the potential to create or be subjected to objectionable odors. • The project could have hazardous materials on -site and could result in an accidental release of air toxic emissions. City of Newport Beach St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church — August 4, 2003 Page 22 The project could emit an air toxic contaminant regulated by District rules or that is on a federal or State air toxic list. The project could be occupied by sensitive receptors near a facility that emits air toxics or near CO "hot spots." The project could emit carcinogenic air contaminants that could pose a cancer risk. The 1993 SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook states that any projects in the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB) with daily emissions that exceed any of the following thresholds should be considered as having an individually and cumulatively significant air quality impact: 55 pounds /day of ROC (75 Pounds /day during construction) 55 pounds /day of NOx (100 pounds /day during construction) 550 pounds /day of CO 150 pounds /day of PM10 150 pounds /day of Sox Analysis: a. Potentially Significant Impact The applicant is proposing to intensify development on the site by demolishing two existing structures and replacing them with two modern structures to accommodate the many uses of the church property. The existing St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church complex, which currently encompasses 104,440 square feet, will be modernized by demolishing the two existing building and replacing them. Upon completion, the site will support 140,388 square feet (i.e., an increase of 35,948 square feet). It is anticipated that the increase in vehicular trips would result in an increase in the vehicular emissions currently generated by the proposed project. Because the site is located in the South Coast Air Basin, which has been designated as a "non- attainment area" for certain pollutants, it is possible that the increase in vehicular emissions could violate one or more of the air quality standards. Potential air quality impacts will be quantified and presented in the Draft EIR. b. Potentially Significant Impact As previously indicated, the proposed project encompasses the intensification of the existing church property. Approval of the proposed project would result in conformity with the long -range land use plan (i.e., General Plan Land Use Element) adopted for the site by the City of Newport Beach. The City's General Plan and zoning adopted for the subject property anticipated that the site would be developed with a use consistent with the adopted land use designations. Although the proposed project is consistent with the land use designation prescribed by the General Plan, the City has allocated 100,428 square feet to the St. Andrew's Church site. The project must be found to be consistent with all of the policies and requirements established by that plan. However, intensification of land uses in Orange County potentially impacts ambient air quality on two scales of motion. As cars drive throughout Southern California, the small incremental contribution to the basin air pollution burden from any single vehicle is added to that from several million other vehicles. Although the impact from the church project, even if it generates a significant number of new vehicle trips, is very small on a regional scale, it is still possible that the incremental addition of the project - related emissions could contribute to a projected air quality violation. Therefore, it will be necessary to evaluate the project- related emissions in the Draft EIR, as indicated above. An air quality assessment will be undertaken to evaluate the potential air quality impacts of the proposed project. The findings of that analysis will be presented in the Draft EIR. In addition to the operational emissions, temporary construction activity emissions, including those associated with the demolition of the two existing structures, will occur during project build -out. Such emissions include on -site generation of dust and equipment exhaust, and off -site emissions from City of Newport Beach St, Andrew's Presbyterian Church — August 4, 2003 Page 23 construction employees commuting and /or trucks delivering building materials and hauling soils off -site. Construction activity emissions are difficult to quantify, since the exact type and amount of equipment that will be used or the acreage that may be disturbed on any given day in the future is not known with any ' reasonable certainty. The potential project - related, short-term air quality impacts, including construction - related impacts and operational impacts, will be thoroughly evaluated in the air quality assessment. do C. Potentially Significant Impact As indicated above, the applicant is proposing to increase the floor area of the site from 104,440 square feet to 140,388 square feet (i.e., an increase of 35,998 square feet); in addition, a subterranean parking garage is also proposed. The modest increase in the floor area of the existing church facilities will result in a similar increase in both mobile- and stationary- source pollutant emissions in the air basin. In addition, some temporary air pollutant emissions would be anticipated as a result of the demolition of the existing fellowship hall and classroom buildings and site preparation and construction of the new buildings and subterranean parking garage. Although both short- and long -term pollutant emissions will be minimized through the incorporation of several standard conditions (e.g., covering the trucks hauling demolition materials, water the site, etc.), it is possible that these potential impacts could contribute to the cumulative degradation of the air basin, which is currently designated a "non- attainment area." d. Potentially Significant Impact The sensitive receptors in the vicinity of the site are the occupants of the single- and multiple - family residential dwelling units located east, west, and south of the subject property; in addition, Newport Harbor High School, located north of the site, is also considered to be sensitive receptor. The greatest amount of pollutants generated by the proposed project will occur during the construction phase. The emissions will comprise mostly dust and particulate materials that will be dispersed in the area of operations. However, such emissions will be controlled through the implementation of standard conditions and rules prescribed by the South Coast Air Quality Management District and will be short-term in nature. The use of dust control measures can substantially reduce the generation of fugitive dust. Watering reduces dust generation by up to 50 percent when implemented in accordance with SCAQMD Rule 403. Rather than representing a significant adverse air quality impact, fugitive dust would represent a temporary annoyance in the immediate vicinity of the project sites as the dust settles on automobiles, homes and other outdoor structures. Although implementation of the measures described above will substantially decrease the particulate and dust emissions, it is possible that the increase in vehicular traffic and potential congestion could result in additional idling at intersections that could increase the carbon monoxide concentrations at those locations. Therefore, a CO "hotspot" analysis will be undertaken in the Draft EIR to evaluate the potential impacts to sensitive receptors. Less than Significant Impact Objectionable odors are not currently present within the project site or environs. Approval of the proposed project would not ultimately result in the creation of objectionable odors, as there is no change in the nature of the land use. Although some of the equipment may emit some odors, they would not be significant during construction. Mitigation Measures: Compliance with standard conditions established by the SCAQMD and City of Newport Beach will reduce construction impacts. If potentially significant impacts are identified in the air quality assessment conducted for the project and included in the Draft EIR, appropriate mitigation measures will be prescribed. City of Newport Beach St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church — August 4, 2003 Page 24 IV. Biological Resources Significance Criteria: The proposed project would result in significant adverse environmental impacts if any of the following occur: The project would result in a direct loss of individuals of a State or federal listed threatened or endangered species. The project would result in the direct loss of a significant or important biological habitat for any sensitive, threatened, or endangered species of plant or animal. The project would have a substantial adverse effect on habitat essential for State or federal listed fish, wildlife, or plants. Analysis: Less than Significant Impact The subject property is located within an urbanized area in the City of Newport Beach. No sensitive species (or candidate species) inhabit the site and no significant, valuable habitat presently exists at the project site. The Newport Beach Environmental Nature Center, a 3.5 -acre man -made "habitat" is located north of 15" Street (east of and adjacent to Newport Harbor High School), within a drainage easement that encompasses a range of habitats, including coastal sage scrub, riparian, chaparral, riparian, etc. These man -made habitats have been recreated within the Environmental Nature Center, which is an educational institution that serves the City of Newport Beach and surrounding areas. The majority of the recreated habitats and plant species exist in the northern limits of the center, which does not abut the site. No other natural habitats or species exist in the vicinity of the St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church site. Although intensification of the existing land uses will result in some short-term construction impacts, including dust and pollutant emissions that may have some minor effect on plant species throughout the region, no direct impacts to sensitive species will occur as a result of project implementation due to the proximity of the nature center and mitigation of short-term, construction - related air emissions. Therefore, no significant impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. b. Less than Significant Impact As indicated above, the subject property and surrounding environs have been extensively disturbed as a result of the development of the area. As such, the site does not contain riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community. As indicated above, riparian and other sensitive habitats have been created within the Environmental Nature Center located north of the site; however, development of the site with the proposed improvements to St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church will not result in any direct significant adverse impacts to riparian or sensitive habitats. Therefore, no mitigation measures are required. C. No Impact No portion of the subject property contains federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Specifically, no marshes, vernal pools or other wetlands defined by either the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers or the California Department of Fish and Game are located within the limits of the project site, which has been extensively altered and is devoid of natural habitat and does not support sensitive species. No significant impacts will occur as a result of project implementation and no mitigation measures are required. City of Newport Beach St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church — August 4, 2003 Page 25 d. No Impact The subject property is not located within any wildlife movement corridor. The site and adjacent properties are developed in accordance with the existing Newport Beach General Plan. No areas of significant open space are located in the project environs that would be adversely affected by development of the site as proposed. Therefore, no significant adverse impacts will occur as a result of project implementation and no mitigation measures are required. e. No Impact Although implementation of the proposed project will result in physical changes to the property in question, it will not result in significant direct impacts to biological resources. As indicated in the preceding discussions, no significant biological resources exist within the limits of the existing property and no significant impacts to biological resources will occur as a result of project implementation. The short- and long -term air emissions (e.g., dust, particulates, etc.) will not significantly impact the habitats and species that exist in the Environmental Nature Center. Further, project implementation will not result in any conflicts with local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources. All of the vegetation on the site is introduced and is non - native. Therefore, no mitigation measures are required. f. No Impact The developed site is not included in the southern Orange County NCCP and, therefore, is not protected by an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan or other local, regional, or State habitat conservation plan. Therefore, development pursuant to the proposed site development plan will not conflict with local, regional or State resource preservation and conservation policies. No significant impacts will occur as a result of project implementation and no mitigation measures are required. Mitigation Measures: Because the subject property is intensively developed, is devoid of significant natural habitat and does not support any sensitive biological resources, including plant and wildlife species, no significant impacts will occur to biological resources if the project is implemented as proposed. V. Cultural Resources Significance Criteria: The proposed project would result in significant adverse environmental impacts if any of the following occur: • Project implementation will disrupt or adversely affect an archaeological or historic site, structure, or artifact. • Project Implementation will disrupt or adversely affect a paleontological site. Analysis: a. No Impact The site was extensively altered when the existing St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church and ancillary facilities were constructed. No historic structures exist on the subject property and none exist within the vicinity of the site. As a result, implementation of development proposed by the applicant will not affect City of Newport Beach St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church — August 4, 2003 Page 26 any existing historical resource in the City of Newport Beach. Because the proposed project is consistent with the General Plan and zoning designations adopted for the site, no changes to the existing land use policies related to historic structures are anticipated. As a result, no significant impacts to historic resources are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. b. Less than Significant Impact As previously indicated, the site has been extensively altered as a result of prior site development (i.e., existing St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church) and related improvements. In addition, the surrounding area is urbanized and development has occurred that has resulted in extensive grading and landform modification in the area. Past grading and development activities on the site would have affected any near - surface archaeological sites. Development anticipated to occur pursuant to the proposed site development plan will involve extensive grading and excavation necessary to prepare the site for construction of the proposed structures and related features that replace the existing church buildings that will be demolished. The site is not located in an area identified as being "culturally sensitive" or as having potentially significant archaeological sensitivity. Given the nature and extent of the alterations that have taken place on the subject property, it is not anticipated that cultural resources will be encountered. Nonetheless, the City's requirement for site monitoring during grading will ensure that if any cultural resource artifact(s) are encountered during grading, they can be evaluated to determine the nature and extent of any necessary action. C. Less than Significant Impact The subject property is located within an urbanized area and has been extensively altered, as indicated above. Any surficial paleontological resources that may have existed at one time have likely been unearthed or disturbed as a result of prior landform alteration. Similar to potential impacts described for archaeological resources, it is not likely that implementation of the proposed project will result in any potential significant impacts to paleontological resources because the site has been disturbed as a result of prior development and other improvements within the existing St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church property. Any fossils and /or related resources would have been impacted by past landform alteration conducted on the property. Nonetheless, it is appropriate to have a paleontological monitor on -site during grading to temporarily halt such activities to collect and evaluate the resources. d. No Impact There are no known ethnic cultural values attributable to the 3.9 -acre site that has been previously developed and /or improved with the church and related facilities. In particular, no human remains are known to exist within the affected property, which has been altered as a result of past site development activities; no human remains were known to have been discovered during those operations or are suspected to exist on the property. Project implementation will necessitate grading and excavation and additional site development; however, human remains are not expected to be encountered. Although no significant impacts are anticipated, the presence of an archaeological monitor during grading activities will allow appropriate collection and evaluation if either human remains or other cultural resources and /or artifacts are encountered. Mitigation Measures: The City of Newport Beach prescribes several standard conditions to ensure that potential impacts to cultural and /or scientific resources are adequately addressed. Although no significant impacts are anticipated, the following standard conditions will be implemented. City of Newport Beach St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church — August 4, 2003 Page 27 SC -3 The applicant shall submit written evidence to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning that a certified paleontologist and archaeologist have been retained to observe grading activities and salvage and catalogue fossils and artifacts as necessary. The paleontologist and archaeologist shall be present at the pre -grade conference, shall establish procedures for paleontological and archaeological resource surveillance and shall establish, in cooperation with the City, procedures for temporarily halting or redirecting work to permit sampling, identification and evaluation of the findings. If archaeological and /or paleontological resources are discovered, which require long- term halting or redirecting of grading, the archaeologist/paleontologist shall report such findings to the applicant and City. The archaeologist/paleontologist shall determine appropriate actions, in cooperation with the applicant, which ensure proper exploration and /or salvage. Excavated finds shall be offered to the City, or its designee, on a first - refusal basis. The applicant may retain said finds if written assurance is provided that they will be properly preserved in Orange County, unless said finds are of special significance, or a museum in Orange County indicates a desire to study and /or display them at the time, in which case items shall be donated to the City, or designee. VI. Geology and Soils Significance Criteria: The proposed project would result in significant adverse environmental impacts if any of the following occur: Groundshaking and /or secondary seismic effects (e.g., liquefaction, slope failure, etc.) could cause substantial structural damage and /or an unmitigated risk to human safety, even after implementation of the recommended geotechnical measures, required local and State seismic design parameters, and common engineering practices for seismic hazard abatement. Adverse soil conditions such as compressible, expansive, or corrosive soils present a damage hazard to occupied structures or infrastructure facilities. Analysis: a.i. No Impact The project site is located in the seismically active southern California region. Primary ground rupture or fault rupture is defined as the surface displacement that occurs along the surface of a fault during an earthquake. There are no active faults or fault systems known to exist on or in the immediate vicinity of the project site. In addition, the project site is not within an Alquist - Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone as illustrated on the maps issued by the State Geologist for the area. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project is not anticipated to expose people or structures to fault rupture during a seismic event. No impacts will occur and no mitigation measures are required. a.ii. Less than Significant Impact As indicated above, the site is located in a seismically active region. The potential for severe damage and loss of life resulting from earthquake activity exists within the City of Newport Beach. Although there are no active faults or fault systems known to exist on or in the immediate vicinity of the project site (and the site is not within an Alquist - Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone), it is subject to seismic shaking resulting from earthquakes occurring on one or more of the regional faults. The project site and environs are located within an area designated as Category 2 by the Newport Beach Public Safety Element (Newport Beach Public Safety Element "Potential Seismic Hazards Areas "). Areas in Category 2 are characterized by City of Newport Beach St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church — August 4, 2003 Page 28 stronger shaking potential than Category 1, which is the lowest ground shaking category identified in the City. The closest active faults within 50 miles of the project site are the Newport- Inglewood, Norwalk, and Raymond Faults. The Newport- Inglewood fault, which is the only active fault within or immediately adjacent to the City of Newport Beach, could generate a 7.0 magnitude or greater maximum credible earthquake, which would subject the subject property to potentially severe groundshaking. In addition, the Norwalk fault, approximately 15 miles from the site, may be capable of generating a 6.3 magnitude earthquake. The northeast- southwest trending Raymond Fault Zone has a length of approximately 16 miles and extends from the foothills of the San Gabriel Mountains in Sierra Madre to the Adams Hill area of Glendale. The maximum credible earthquake expected from the Raymond fault is 6.8. Other causative faults in the region include the San Andreas and San Fernando Fault Zones and the San Jacinto Fault. Seismic activity on one of these faults /fault zones could range from 6.0 to over 8.0. All of the structures and facilities proposed by the applicant will be designed and constructed in accordance with the current Uniform Building Code to ensure that potential damage to seismic shaking will be minimized. Further, design level geotechnical studies will be conducted to ensure that on -site characteristics can be evaluated and the proposed buildings properly designed to address the existing soils and geologic conditions. Implementation of proper grading and design measures will ensure that significant potential impacts associated with groundshaking will not occur. a.iii. Less than Significant Impact The probability of occurrence of ground failure associated with severe ground shaking (e.g., landsliding, ground subsidence, ground lurching, shallow ground rupture, liquefaction, and soil strength loss) depends on the severity of the earthquake, distance from the causative fault, topography, subsoils and groundwater conditions, and other related factors. Based on information presented in the City's Public Safety Element, the site is not susceptible to the potential effects of liquefaction as a result of groundshaking. Therefore, potential impacts are anticipated to be less than significant. a.iv. No Impact The subject property is devoid of slopes and /or unstable soils. No significant slopes exist on the site and none are proposed that would be subject to potential failure. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of potential landsliding. b. Less than Significant Impact Implementation of the proposed project will necessitate grading and excavation that will be temporarily expose on -site soils while demolition and construction of the proposed project takes place. In that interim period, it is possible that some erosion may occur, resulting in some sedimentation; however, in order to ensure that erosion and sedimentation are minimized, the applicant will be required to prepare and submit a Notice of Intent for coverage under the General Construction Activity Storm Water Runoff Permit to the Regional Water Quality Control Board prior to initiation of construction activities. As required by the NPDES permit, a Storm Water Pollution and Prevention Plan (SWPPP) will be prepared and will establish Best Management Practices (BMPs) intended to reduce sedimentation and erosion (refer to Section VIII — Hydrology). Although it is possible that potentially significant erosion could occur without the incorporation of appropriate measures, implementation of the mandatory BMPs will avoid potential erosion impacts associated with site grading and development. Further, the proposed site will be engineered to ensure that surface /subsurface drainage does not contribute to erosion or adversely affect the stability of project improvements. Therefore, the potentially significant erosion impacts will be avoided. City of Newport Beach St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church — August 4, 2003 Page 29 C. Less than Significant Impact The site is not underlain by a high groundwater table that could contribute to possible subsidence or liquefaction. In the event that unstable soil conditions occur on the site due to previous grading, excavation, or placement of fill materials, these conditions will be effectively reduced by measures identified in the site specific geotechnical evaluation that addresses specific design and construction measures for the proposed buildings and subterranean parking garage. Any such required measures will be incorporated into the project design through routine implementation of the Building and Grading Codes, which will minimize any potential structure damage. As a result, potential impacts will be less than significant. d. Less than Significant Impact The soils underlying the site are characterized as moderately to highly expansive in nature (Newport Beach Public Safety Element — "Expansive and Collapsible Soil Hazard Areas "). However, the proposed development will be required to comply with the design parameters mandated in the 1997 Uniform Building Code and 1997 "Greenbook" to address expansive soils as well as other soils and geologic conditions. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of project implementation. e. No Impact The existing St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church is connected to a municipal sanitary sewer system operated and maintained by the City of Newport Beach. The existing fellowship hall and one classroom building will be demolished and replaced with new buildings, resulting in an increase of approximately 36,000 square feet of floor area over that currently existing on the site. These new structures and facilities will be connecting to the existing sanitary sewer system. As a result, a septic tank or alternative system will not be required and no impacts are anticipated to the existing soils comprising the site. Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures and standard conditions will be required to ensure that the proposed development is protected from the effects of seismic activity. SC -4 The proposed project shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the 1997 "Greenbook" and 2001 California Building Code. ' SC -5 A site - specific foundation subsurface investigation for planned structures shall be prepared by the City prior to issuance of the grading permit to verify subsidence and liquefaction potential. The foundation subsurface investigation will identify specific measures to ensure that proposed structures withstand the potential secondary seismic effects. SC -6 All construction shall conform to the 1997 edition of the Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction except as specifically amended by the Contract Documents. All work shall be done in accordance with: (1) the Special Provisions; (2) the Plans for this project; (3) the latest 1997 American Public Works Association Standard Plans as amended; (4) the Orange County Standard Drawings; and (5) the most current locally adopted version of the California Building Code. t_J I! City of Newport Beach St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church — August 4, 2003 Page 30 VII. Hazards and Hazardous Materials Significance Criteria: The proposed project would result in significant adverse environmental impacts if any of the following occur: • Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. • 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. • Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one - quarter mile of an existing or proposed school. • Be located on a site that is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would create a significant hazard to the public or the environment. • Result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area if located within two miles of a public airport or public use airport. Analysis: a. Less than Significant Impact Project implementation will not result in the creation of any potential impacts related to the transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. The applicant is proposing to demolish two existing buildings on the subject property and construct two new buildings (i.e., fellowship hall and classrooms) and a subterranean parking garage in their place. In addition, some remodeling of the remaining existing structures is also proposed to modernize the St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church facilities to accommodate the existing and proposed use of the site. Demolition of the existing structures could include asbestos - containing materials (ACM) abatement if ACM exists. However, ACM abatement is regulated by the Orange County Health Care Agency (OCHCA) and South Coast Air Quality Management District (AQMD). Adherence to the regulatory requirements prescribed by those agencies will ensure that no potential significant impacts will occur. Minor amounts of paint, solvents, herbicides, pesticides, and cleaning agents may be stored for typical maintenance purposes. This minor accessory storage does not pose any increased hazard above present levels, assuming this type of storage presently occurs. Any such materials will be stored and used in the prescribed manner by the Fire Department and fire code. Therefore, no significant impacts will occur. Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated As indicated above, with the exception of the potential ACM that may be present in the existing structures that will be demolished, the proposed site development will not utilize hazardous materials, either during construction or operation of the project. If necessary, ACM abatement will occur pursuant to regulatory requirements prescribed by the SCAQMD and OCHCA. Therefore, implementation of the project will not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the potential release of hazardous materials as a result of an accident. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of project implementation. C. Less than Significant Impact Newport Harbor High School is located north of 15" Street, immediately north of the subject property. In addition, residential development is located east, west, and south of St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church. Although project implementation may result in demolition or other activities that could affect sensitive P, City of Newport Beach St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church — August 4, 2003 Page 31 receptors (e.g., dust and particulate emissions, etc.), the release of airborne contaminants such as ACM would be appropriately addressed through standard conditions and regulations prescribed by the regulatory agencies having jurisdiction (AQMD and OCHCA). No other potential release of hazardous materials would occur as a result of project implementation. Therefore, no mitigation measures are required. No Impact The subject property is currently improved with the facilities that encompass St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church; the site is not listed on any of the hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. Therefore, no significant impacts are anticipated as a result of project implementation. e. Less than Significant Impact The subject property is not located within the limits of the John Wayne Airport land use plan or other public airport. Neither that commercial airport nor any other public airport is located within two miles of the site. As a result, project implementation will not result in potential adverse impacts, including safety hazards, to people residing or working in the project area. No significant impacts will occur as a result of project implementation and no mitigation measures are necessary. No Impact The subject property is not located in the vicinity of a private airstrip. Therefore, development of the site as proposed will not result in potential adverse impacts, including safety hazards, to people residing or working in the project area. Therefore, no significant impacts will occur as a result of project implementation and no mitigation measures are necessary. ■ g. Less than Significant Impact The City of Newport Beach has prepared an Emergency Operations Plan that designates procedures to be followed in case of a major emergency. Pacific Coast Highway is designated as an evacuation route in the City; in addition, Superior Avenue and Newport Avenue west of the site are also designated 1 evacuation routes. The project site is not designated for emergency use within the Emergency Operations Plan. The primary concern of the Public Safety Element and the City of Newport Beach is in terms of risks to persons and personal property. Although the site is subject to potentially severe seismic shaking and fires, development pursuant to building and fire code requirements will ensure that the potential impacts ' are minimized or reduced to an acceptable level. The site is not located within a flood hazard area or subject to such potential disasters. Development of the subject property as proposed will not adversely affect either the evacuation routes or the adopted emergency operations planning program(s) being implemented by the City of Newport Beach. Therefore, project implementation will not physically interfere with the City's emergency planning program. No significant impacts will occur as a result of project implementation. h. No Impact The subject property is located within an urbanized area of the City of Newport Beach. No natural vegetation and /or habitat exists on the site and the site is not subject to the potential risk of wildland fires. There are no major urban or wildland fire hazards that pose a significant threat to the development. No significant impacts as a result of wildland fires will occur if the project is implemented and no mitigation Imeasures are necessary I City of Newport Beach St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church — August 4, 2003 Page 32 Mitigation Measures: Although no significant public health and safety impacts are anticipated, it is possible that ACM may exist in the existing buildings that are proposed to be demolished. Therefore, the applicant will be required to address any ACM and /or lead based paint in accordance with current regulatory requirements, which are reflected below. SC -7 The removal of ACM shall be performed in accordance with methods specified in 8 CCR 1529, SCAQMD Rule 1403. SC -8 Friable ACM (e.g., pipe insulation material, spray - applied ceiling texture material, etc.) removal shall be conducted in strict accordance with Class I asbestos work requirements set for in Cal - OSHA regulations. SC -9 Non - friable ACM (e.g., floor tile and mastic, window putty, roofing materials, joint compound, linoleum, etc.) removal shall be conducted in strict accordance with Class II asbestos work requirements as set forth in Cal -OSHA regulations. SC -10 Any demolition refuse that contains contaminated materials (e.g., asbestos - containing materials) shall be transported in an appropriate manner to a landfill that is certified to receive such waste. VIII. Hydrology and Water Quality Significance Criteria: The proposed project would result in significant adverse environmental impacts if any of the following occur: • Substantial and adverse increased inundation, sedimentation and /or damage from water forces to the subject project and /or other properties are caused by improvements such as grading, construction of barriers or structures. • Development within the 100 -year flood plain as delineated by FEMA that would expose people and /or property to potential serious injury and /or damage. • Impervious surfaces increase and /or divert storm water runoff that results in the inability of the existing collection and conveyance facilities to accommodate the increased flows. • Project implementation will cause a violation of water quality objectives and impede the existing beneficial uses of on -site surface waters or off -site coastal waters. A usable groundwater aquifer for municipal, private, or agricultural purposes is substantially and adversely affected by depletion or recharge. • Storm water and /or induced runoff mixes with a tidal habitat or pond causing instability to the existing water quality (e.g., reduction of salinity, increase of dissolved solids, introduction of sediments, etc.), which, in turn, substantially and adversely affects the habitat. • Sediments are increased and /or diverted by proposed improvements and cause sediment deposition in sensitive habitat areas (e.g., riparian, etc.) to the detriment of the habitat and /or sensitive species. Analysis: a. Less than Significant Impact The proposed project includes the demolition of two existing buildings, which will be replaced with two larger. modern buildings to accommodate classrooms and the fellowship hall (including a new gymnasium City of Newport Beach St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church — August 4, 2003 Page 33 and subterranean parking garage). The area of impervious surfaces and the types and quantities of pollutants will be nearly the same as that which exists on the current site. Approximately 85 percent of the site is currently covered with buildings and /or parking (i.e., impervious surfaces). Although the proposed project will result in an increase of about five percent in the amount of impervious surfaces, the slight increase will not result in a significant increase in either the volume or rate of surface runoff that occurs at the present time. The applicant has prepared a Stage 1 Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) that is intended to satisfy the City's requirements. This plan will be supplemented by the Stage 2 WQMP that will address the manner in which pollutants generated by the project will be addressed to ensure that no violations of water quality standards will occur. As a result, no significant water quality impacts are anticipated. b. No Impact The subject site is located in an area that is completely developed. Although site alteration will occur, including demolition of existing structures and redevelopment of the site with additional structures and a subterranean garage, implementation of the proposed project will not affect any existing groundwater recharge activities. No groundwater wells are located on the site or in the vicinity of the project that would be adversely affected by the proposed project. Site development as proposed will not result in any impacts to nearby wells that would affect any domestic water well capacity or their ability to provide adequate water service to the existing and planned land uses in the City. C. No Impact Project implementation will not result in any changes to the existing drainage patterns, either on the site or in the vicinity of the property. No alterations to existing water courses are proposed by the applicant. Surface runoff currently flows from the site to the perimeter streets (i.e., 15" Street, Clay Street, and St. Andrew's Road). Redevelopment of the site as proposed will maintain the existing grades and will not substantially change the volume and rate of surface flows emanating from the site. d. Less than Significant Impact As indicated above, site alteration will not result in any changes to the existing drainage patterns in the area. Although the amount of impervious surfaces will increase slightly as a result of the proposed project, neither the amount nor rate of runoff emanating from the site will be significantly increased. The minor increase in surface runoff generated by the proposed project will not result in the exposure of either people or property to potential flooding, either on- or off -site. Therefore, no significant impacts are anticipated. Less than Significant Impact The minor increase in runoff generated by the approximately five percent increase in impervious surfaces will not be significant. The existing storm drainage and flood control facilities located in the vicinity of the site have adequate capacity to accommodate the minor increase. In addition, although pollutants in the form of petroleum hydrocarbons residue, pesticides and herbicides, and detergents will continue to be generated on -site as a result of automobile usage and on -going landscape maintenance activities, however, neither the types nor concentrations of these pollutants will change. As previously indicated, the applicant will be required to prepare a Stage 2 WQMP that will identify specific features and /or programs to ensure that pollutants are minimized. As a result, potential impacts will remain less than significant. Less than Significant Impact Although project implementation may result in some changes in the quality of surface water that could affect water quality at other nearby locations, the changes would not be considered to be significant City of Newport Beach St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church — August 4, 2003 Page 34 because the site is currently developed and nearly completely impervious. However, the potential for degradation of the water quality is related to the types and intensities of uses proposed for the property. The applicant is proposing uses that are consistent and compatible with the existing land uses and those reflected in the adopted long -range plans for the site; however, the proposed floor area ratio is greater than that prescribed in the General Plan. The types and concentrations of pollutants are similar to those resulting from the same uses that exist on the site and those in other areas in the City and include: silt (during construction), petroleum hydrocarbons from parking areas, pesticides and fertilizers, and other pollutants common to urban development. It is important to note that no unusual contamination or pollutant is anticipated as a result of implementing the proposed project and, further, that the increases in pollutant and /or contaminant concentrations will be addressed in the requisite BMPs and other mitigation measures that have been prescribed for the proposed project. Therefore, the potential impacts will be reduced to a less than significant level. g. No Impact The subject property is not located within the 100 -year flood plain as delineated on the Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) for the City of Newport Beach. No residential development is proposed by the applicant for the subject property. Therefore, development of the site as proposed will not result in the placement of housing within a flood -prone area identified by FEMA or the City of Newport Beach. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of project implementation. h. No Impact As indicated above, the site is not located within the limits of the 100 -year flood plain. Existing habitable structures are proposed on the site to replace two existing buildings that will be demolished. However, neither of these structures nor the existing sanctuary and classroom buildings will be located within a flood plain that would impede or redirect flood surface flows. Therefore, no significant impacts will occur as a result of project implementation. i. No Impact The subject property is not located in an area of the City that is subject to flooding resulting from the failure of a levee or dam. No significant impacts will occur as a result of project implementation. No Impact A seiche involves the oscillation of a body of water in an enclosed basin, such as a reservoir, storage tank, or lake. According to the City's General Plan, no enclosed bodies of water are located in the immediate vicinity of the site. A tsunami, commonly referred to as a tidal wave, is a sea wave generated by submarine earthquakes, major landslides, or volcanic action. Great magnitude waves have not historically been recorded in Orange County because the coastline is somewhat protected from the north by the coastal configuration (Palos Verdes Peninsula and Point Conception) and the offshore islands (Santa Catalina and San Clemente Islands). Although Newport Beach is a coastal community, the subject property is located approximately one mile from the coastline. These conditions, combined with the fact that the potential for a tsunami is considered extremely remote in the City of Newport Beach, minimize the potential for damage and /or inundation from that phenomenon. Implementation of the proposed improvements proposed for St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church will not expose people or structures to seiches, tsunamis or mudflows. Therefore, no significant impacts will occur as a result of project implementation. City of Newport Beach St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church — August 4, 2003 Page 35 k. Less than Significant Impact Although no new sources of water pollution will result from the proposed project, pollutant discharges from the existing and proposed uses will continue to enter receiving waters from the project site, without the proper mitigation, both during and after construction. The types of pollutants that have the potential to be transported downstream are those that occur at the present time and include the use of pesticides and herbicides to maintain the proposed landscaping and abate and control weeds and undesirable vegetation, petroleum hydrocarbons washed from the parking lot and garage structure, and other sources typical of urban development. In addition, excavation and grading necessitated by the construction of the new structures (and subterranean parking) will also expose the site soils to the elements and could result in potential erosion and the transport of silt from the property. Without the incorporation of appropriate features to improve the quality of surface runoff that may contain such pollutants, the potential impacts may be significant. The Best Management Practices (BMPs) that will be implemented during construction will be described in the Stage 2 WQMP and Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan ( SWPPP). Some BMPs that address these pollutants include, but are not limited to the use of sediment and erosion control; non -storm water management; and material management. The implementation of the SWPPP and the indicated BMPs during construction will reduce the potential impacts to a less than significant level. As previously indicated, the entire site is currently undeveloped and comprised of impervious surfaces over the vast majority of the site. Therefore, development of the site as proposed would result only in the intensification of the existing uses and would not result in a significant increase of urban runoff due to the creation of additional impervious surfaces. The applicant will complete a WQMP, which will consider site design, source control, and treatment control post - construction BMPs. The BMPs identified in the WQMP will help to minimize or eliminate the potential pollutant loads in the surface runoff emanating from the site during the operation of the proposed project. BMPs that address the pollutants specified above may include, but are not limited to water efficient landscaping and irrigation systems; redirection and control of points of discharge of storm water runoff; improved access for maintenance of impervious areas and drainage systems; segregation of runoff from areas that could contain urban pollutants; low maintenance 1 BMPs like absorptive filters in storm drain inlets; and non - source control BMPs. Implementation of these and /or other measures will ensure that potential impacts will remain less than significant. 40 I. Less than Significant Impact The construction process has the potential to generate pollutants that could be conveyed off -site as a result of water - transporting soil during the site preparation and grading activities. Other materials utilized during the building and construction process could also enter off -site locations. As previously described, a SWPPP will be developed by the applicant that will address the appropriate BMPs that will need to be implemented in order to mitigate the alteration of receiving water quality during construction. Implementation of erosion and sediment control, non - stormwater management, and material management BMPs will reduce the potential impacts to a less than significant level. In addition, operational impacts may also occur (e.g., landscape maintenance that results in the use of pesticides and herbicides, use of parking lots, etc.). The City of Newport Beach requires the implementation of several post- construction BMPs that will be prescribed in the WQMP to address pollutant transport in the storm water system. These BMPs may include such structural features as the incorporation of fossil filters or directing runoff to landscaped areas, etc. All site design, source control, and treatment control BMPs will be considered, and the appropriate BMPs to address mitigation of receiving water quality will be selected for incorporation into the WQMP. The implementation of these features will ensure that potential impacts will remain less than significant. City of Newport Beach St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church — August 4, 2003 Page 36 M. Less than Significant Impact The potential increase in impervious surfaces on the site may result in a slight increase in the volume of runoff leaving the subject property. However, it is unlikely that any potential increase in the volume of that runoff would contribute to erosion downstream from the subject site (runoff from the site occurs as surface runoff into the adjacent streets, which enters an underground pipe prior to being discharged into the bay). Nonetheless, the City will ensure that any potential for erosion is minimized or avoided through the implementation of on -site features (e.g., directing surface runoff to landscaped areas, etc.) that would achieve the intended goals and objectives prescribed by the City of Newport Beach. Implementation of these measures and features, prescribed in a Stage 2 WQMP, will ensure that potential impacts remain less than significant. n. Less than Significant Impact As previously indicated (refer to Vlll.d and Vlll.e), project implementation will result in the demolition of two existing structures that will be replaced with two new buildings that will replace the existing impervious surfaces on the site. As a result, no significant increase in the potential volume and rate of runoff generated on the site would occur, The implementation of the BMPs and other measures that will be identified in the WQMP and SWPPP, will effectively ensure that no significant impacts will occur. o. Less than Significant Impact Although project implementation will result in the exposure of the site soils to the elements during the construction phase, appropriate erosion control techniques prescribed in the Stage 2 WQMP will address the specific nature of any potential erosion. Upon completion of construction, potential erosion of the site soils will be eliminated. The incorporation of the mandated BMPs will ensure that potential erosion of the site soils remain less than significant. No potential erosion of off -site soils will occur as a result of project implementation. Mitigation Measures: Implementation of the proposed project will not result in a significant increase in the amount of pervious surfaces. The project will be designed to address surface water and runoff associated with the proposed project. Adequate storm drainage and flow control facilities exist in the project area to accommodate the proposed project. In addition, the incorporation of BMPs as prescribed by the City of Newport Beach, County of Orange, and California Regional Water Quality Control Board will ensure that no significant water quality impacts will occur. Implementation of the following standard conditions will ensure that no impacts to surface drainage and /or water quality will occur. SC -11 A Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and Notice of Intent (NOI) to comply with the General Permit for Construction Activities will be prepared, submitted to the State Water Quality Control Board for approval and made part of the construction program. The project applicant will provide the City with a copy of the NOI and their application check as proof of filing with the State Water Quality Control Board. This plan will detail measures and practices that will be in effect during construction to minimize the project's impact on water quality. SC -12 A list of "good house - keeping' practices will be incorporated into the long -term post- construction operation of the site to minimize the likelihood that pollutants will be used, stored or spilled on the site that could impair water quality. These may include frequent parking area vacuum truck sweeping, removal of wastes or spills, limited use of harmful fertilizers or pesticides, and the diversion of storm water away from potential sources of pollution (e.g., trash receptacles and parking structures). The Stage 2 WQMP shall list and describe all structural and non - structural City of Newport Beach St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church — August 4, 2003 Page 37 BMPs. In addition, the WQMP must also identify the entity responsible for the long -term inspection, maintenance, and funding for all structural (and if applicable Treatment Control) BMPs. IX. Land Use and Planning Significance Criteria: The proposed project would result in significant adverse environmental impacts if any of the following occur: • Physically divide an established community. • Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. • Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan. Analysis: a. Less than Significant Impact The St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church complex exists on the 3.94 -acre property, which is located within the Cliff Haven area of the City. The Cliff Haven area is characterized by predominantly residential land uses between Irvine Avenue, 16'" Street, Dover Drive and West Coast Highway. The predominant land use designations within this area are single - family detached residential development, with some areas shown for two - family residential or multiple - family residential land use. Newport Harbor High School and Ensign Junior High School area located within the Cliff Haven area. As indicated above, the site is currently developed. Although the applicant is proposing to redevelop a portion of the site, the proposed intensification of the site will not physically divide the Cliff Haven community. All of the development will occur on the subject property, which is separated from the existing residential development on the south by Clay Street and the residential development on the west by St. Andrew's Road; 15'" Street separates the site from Newport Harbor High School, which is located north of the subject property. No physical changes are proposed that would physically divide the existing community. Therefore, no significant land use impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. b. Potentially Significant Impact Although the proposed project is consistent with the existing land use designation and zoning adopted for the site by the City of Newport Beach, project implementation will necessitate the approval of a General Plan Amendment to increase the permitted floor area ratio (FAR). In addition, the applicant is requesting ' approval of an "Amended and Revised Conditional Use Permit" to address the proposed project. The discussion and analysis that follow addresses the Newport Beach General Plan and Zoning affecting development of the subject property. Newport Beach General Plan Land Use Element ' The Land Use Element of the Newport Beach General Plan has designated the site "Governmental, Educational & Institutional Facilities." This land use designation has been applied to areas developed with uses that form the physical and social "infrastructure" of the community, including police and fire stations, libraries, the Municipal court, schools and day care facilities; and churches, reservoirs, and museums. The St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church site is located in Statistical Area H3 (Cliff Haven Area) within the City of Newport Beach St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church — August 4, 2003 Page 38 area. The Land Use Element has allocated a total of 100,428 square feet of floor area for this site. (Information provided by the applicant indicates that the existing floor area of the church is 104,822 square feet for a FAR of 0.62.) The applicant is proposing to increase the FAR to 0.82 (excluding the subterranean garage), which would permit an increase in floor area to 140,388 square feet. The increase exceeds the FAR permitted by the General Plan (Land Use Element) and, therefore, will require the approval of a General Plan Amendment. The Draft EIR will evaluate the potential land use impacts associated with the increase in floor area requested by the applicant. Policy D of the Land Use Element requires the siting of new buildings and structures to be controlled and regulated to ensure, to the extent practical, the preservation of public views, the preservation of unique natural resources, and to minimize the alteration of natural landforms along bluffs and cliffs. The subject property and surrounding area are developed with a mix of residential and institutional uses. No unique natural resources or landforms exist on the site or in the project environs. The site is not a coastal bluff. Further, the site is not located within a public viewshed and the proposed project will not obstruct existing views within a designated viewshed. Therefore, no conflict with this policy is anticipated. Housing Element The proposed project is not subject to the goals, policies and objectives of the Newport Beach Housing Element. The project does not displace housing, propose housing, nor does it eliminate a site for potential housing. Therefore, no significant conflicts with that element of the City's General Plan will result. Circulation Element None of the streets bordering the subject property are included in the Circulation Element Master Plan of Streets and Highways. Project implementation may result in an increase in daily vehicular trips that would be generated by the church. With the exception of roadway and intersections improvements that may be necessary as a result of project implementation, the proposed improvements are generally consistent with the policies articulated in the Circulation Element, which require that the circulation system and intersections have adequate capacity and will operate at an acceptable level of service (i.e., LOS "D ") to accommodate the projected growth. To that end, any potential project - related traffic impacts resulting from the proposed project must be mitigated to ensure that an adequate level of service is provided. Noise Element The Newport Beach Noise Element is a comprehensive program for including noise control in the planning process. The site is not located within an area identified by the City that is subject to excessive noise levels. As indicated previously, the proposed project may result in some increase in ambient noise levels, both during construction and from the increase in vehicular traffic. However, the project must comply with the noise control ordinance and other relevant policies and programs prescribed by the City to address noise. An acoustical analysis will be undertaken to evaluate both construction - related and operational noise conditions. If necessary, appropriate measures will be identified to assure compliance with the Noise Element. Public Safety Element Goals articulated in the City's Public Safety Element are intended to address natural environmental hazards, including geology, erosion, seismicity, flooding, fire, and risks from hazardous materials. Although the proposed development will be subject to groundshaking associated with seismic activity occurring in the region, the subject property is suitable for development (as evidenced by the existence of the existing St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church complex on the site). It is not located within the limits of a 100 -year flood plain or subject to wildland fire or risks from explosions or related hazards. Further, none of the proposed church facilities will be located within the 100 -year flood plain or will be significantly City of Newport Beach St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church — August 4, 2003 Page 39 affected by adverse conditions. This element of the General Plan also includes a Public Safety Plan that identifies emergency evacuation routes in the event of a disaster (e.g., hazardous materials spill, flooding, etc.). Project implementation will neither affect the existing Emergency Operations Plan nor result in ' significant public safety impacts to police and fire protection. Therefore, project implementation is consistent with the Public Safety Element of the Newport Beach General Plan. Recreation and Open Space Element The St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church property is located in Service Area 3 (Newport Heights -Upper Bay). Several parks and recreational amenities are identified within this recreation service area, including schools, view parks, community parks open space and related features; however, no such features are identified for the subject site and the project is not directly affected by the Recreation and Open Space Element. The proposed project does not include residential development that typically creates a demand for parks and recreational facilities. To the extent that community recreation could be impacted by the intensification of the site, the applicant is proposing to replace the existing outdoor basketball courts on the site with a gymnasium, which is intended to supplement the church's youth program. While this facility will 1 not serve the general public, it will off -set any potential demand created by the additional development. The Recreation and Open Space Element also identified objectives related to scenic vistas and resources and environmentally sensitive habitat areas (ESHA) and cultural resources. However, the site is not ' considered a scenic resource and no unique or natural features exist on the property that are considered visual amenities. Also, the site and environs have been developed and no ESHAs or significant historical, cultural or scientific resources exist that would be adversely affected by site development. Conservation Element The project has been designed to comply with applicable water quality requirements and incorporates storm water filters to treat initial drainage. The project also includes other features prescribed in the SWPPP in accordance with the oversight and requirements of the Regional Water Quality Control Board. Section VIII of this document discusses the issue of water quality, and with the implementation of the SWPPP, and other requirements prescribed by the City and RWQCB the project will not conflict with the policy to protect and enhance water quality. Section III of this document addresses air emissions and although compliance with standard conditions established by the South Coast AQMD will reduce some construction emissions, the Draft EIR will evaluate potential air quality impacts associated with demolition and construction as well as long -term operation of the proposed project. Other policies in the Conservation Element relate to beach erosion, mineral resources, energy conservation, and cultural and scientific resources. As presented in this analysis, the site is not located within an area of the City that would directly affect beach erosion. No mineral resources are identified, either by the City of State of California on the site or in the project environs, and any cultural or scientific resources that may have existed have been affected by past grading and development of the site. ' Nonetheless, the applicant will be required to monitor grading activities. Finally, the proposed project must comply with applicable energy conservation regulations of the Californian Building Code, which will ensure that no conflicts with policies related to energy conservation occur. Growth Management Element The Growth Management Element was adopted by the City for the purpose of planning adequate transportation facilities and coordinating new development to ensure that the City's circulation system can accommodate the increases in traffic associated with growth. The area surrounding the subject property is intensively developed. If it is determined that impacts to the existing transportation and circulation City of Newport Beach St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church — August 4, 2003 Page 40 facilities (e.g., intersection impacts) occur as a result of project implementation, appropriate mitigation measures will be prescribed in order to provide an adequate level of service at any affected location(s). As a result, the project is (will be) consistent with the stated goals and objectives of the Public Facilities /Growth Management and no impacts are anticipated as a result of project implementation. Harbor and Bay Element The St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church site is not located within the limits of the Harbor and Bay Element. Therefore, no significant impacts are anticipated. Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan (LUP) The site is not located within the limits of the coastal zone delineated by the Coastal Act of the State of California. Therefore, site development is not regulated by the City's Local Coastal Program, Land Use Plan and no impacts are anticipated. Newport Beach Zoning The subject property is zoned R -1 (Single - Family Residential) and R -2 (Duplex Residential). Residential district regulations are intended to accommodate residential development in areas that are consistent with the General Plan, achieve design compatibility with surrounding neighborhoods, etc. Public and semi- public land uses are also permitted in the R -1 and R -2 zones; however, approval of a (conditional) use permit is required. St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church is currently operating under a conditional use permit. As indicated above, the Land Use Element of the Newport Beach General Plan specifies a square footage limit for the site (i.e., 100,428 square feet). The applicant is proposing to exceed the maximum limit prescribed by the General Plan. Should the General Plan Amendment be found acceptable, no conflict will exist with the zoning ordinance. C. No Impact The subject property is located in an area of the City of Newport Beach and County of Orange that is not addressed either in a habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan. As a result, project implementation will not conflict with any policies established for such plans. As previously indicated, the site is improved with the existing St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church facilities and does not support any sensitive habitat and /or species designated by State or federal resource agencies. Therefore, no significant impacts will occur if the project is implemented and no mitigation measures are required. Mitigation Measures: Implementation of the proposed project is generally consistent with the long -range plans adopted by the City of Newport Beach, including the General Plan and zoning adopted for the site. However, as indicated above, the increase in floor area exceeds that which is prescribed by the General Plan (Land Use Element) and will be evaluated in the Draft EIR. City of Newport Beach St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church — August 4, 2003 Page 41 X. Mineral Resources Significance Criteria: The proposed project would result in significant adverse environmental impacts if any of the following occur: • Project implementation will result in the loss of availability of a mineral resource identified on the City's General Plan and/or State of California documents that has economic values both locally and regionally. Analysis: a. No Impact The subject property and the area in which the site is located is developed with urban uses, including single- and multiple - family residential to the east, west and south, and Newport Harbor High School north of 15'" Street. Neither the City's General Plan nor the State of California has identified the site or environs as a potential location for mineral resources of State -wide or regional significance. No mineral resources are known to exist; therefore, no significant impacts will occur as a result of project implementation. b. No Impact As indicated above, the Newport Beach General Plan does not acknowledge the site or environs as having a potential to have value as a locally important mineral resource site. Development of the subject property as proposed will not result in the loss of any locally important mineral resource recovery site; therefore, no significant impacts will occur as a result of project implementation. Mitigation Measures: As indicated above, project implementation will not result in any significant impacts to mineral resources. Therefore, no mitigation measures are required. XI. Noise Significance Criteria: The proposed project would result in significant adverse environmental impacts if any of the following occur: • For existing residential development, project traffic increases exterior CNEL from below 65 dB to above 65 dB; and project traffic increases CNEL by 3 dB or more (i.e., a noticeable change). • For existing residential development, activity noise levels on the site exceed City's exterior Municipal Code standards; and activity noise levels on the site increase ambient noise level by 3 dB or more (a noticeable change). Analysis: a. Potentially Significant Impact The project site and vicinity are located within an urbanized area. Ambient noise levels on the subject property and in the project environs are the result of vehicular traffic utilizing the surrounding roadways City of Newport Beach St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church — August 4, 2003 Page 42 and from activities occurring on the Newport Harbor High School campus north of 15'" Street. Project implementation will increase the intensity of development above that currently existing on the property. As a result, activities occurring on the site, including demolition and construction and the resulting increase in traffic generation, could result an increase in the ambient noise levels. An acoustical analysis will be prepared for the proposed project to evaluate both short- and long -term noise impacts based on the proposed activities. The findings and conclusions of that analysis will be presented in the Draft EIR. b. Less than Significant Impact It is unlikely that any activities occurring as a result of project implementation will expose the area to excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels. As indicated above, potential noise impacts will result from typical construction activities and will not require unusual grading or construction techniques that would cause excessive groundborne vibrations. Further, no use proposed on the site would result in such impacts, which will be less than significant. C. Potentially Significant Impact Implementation of the proposed project could result in an increase in vehicular traffic generated on the site. As a result, it is possible that the increase in traffic could result in an increase in the ambient noise levels associated with vehicular traffic in the adjacent residential neighborhood and in the vicinity of Newport Harbor High School. As indicated above, the acoustical analysis will evaluate the project - related noise impacts, including those resulting from on -site activities and those resulting from potential increases in vehicular traffic. The findings and conclusions of the acoustical analysis will be presented in the Draft EIR. d. Potentially Significant Impact As indicated above, it is possible that short-term noise levels may increase during the demolition, grading, site preparation and construction phases of the proposed project. These events have the potential to generate noise and vibration levels that can impact sensitive land uses, which could affect nearby sensitive land uses (e.g., residential development) in the vicinity of the project site. Residential development existing in the vicinity of the project site is located to the east and north of the project site. Therefore, it is likely that the adjacent residents could be subjected to short-term construction noise. The severity of the construction noise impacts will be dictated by the type and amount of construction equipment used, the density of heavy equipment, the proximity to a noise sensitive land use area (e.g., residential), and the duration of the grading and site development process. Noise levels may reach 95 dBA at 50 feet from the source for such equipment as pneumatic hammers. These short -term noise levels are permitted by the City during normal working hours established by the Noise Control Ordinance. Therefore, the proposed development must comply with the City's Noise Element and Noise Control Ordinance to ensure that construction - related noise does not extend beyond the normal working hours. The City's Noise Control Ordinance is used to protect people from noise generated by people or machinery on adjacent property. Specifically, the ordinance addresses construction noise by prohibiting excessive noise levels between 6:30 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. on weekdays and between 6:00 p.m. and 8:00 p.m. on Saturday (n excessive noise is permitted on Sundays or holidays). Construction - related noise impacts will be evaluated in the acoustical analysis that will be prepared for the proposed project. e. No Impact No portion of the project site is located within an airport land use plan, or within two miles of a public airport or public use airport. This site is not located in an area subject to excessive noise levels generated by John Wayne Airport (JWA). Development of the subject property as proposed would neither affect nor be affected by aircraft operations at such a facility that would generate noise in excess of regulatory City of Newport Beach St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church — August 4, 2003 Page 43 standards. Therefore, no significant impacts would occur as a result of project implementation and no mitigation measures are required. f. No Impact No portion of the project site is located in the vicinity of a private airstrip. Development of the subject property as proposed would neither affect nor be affected by aircraft operations at such a facility that would generate noise in excess of regulatory standards. Therefore, no significant impacts would occur as a result of project implementation and no mitigation measures are required. Mitigation Measures In addition to complying with the City's Noise Control Ordinance, the following standard conditions will be implemented to minimize obtrusive noise in the vicinity of the proposed project. Additional measures may be required based on the findings and conclusions presented in the acoustical analysis. SC -13 All construction equipment shall be muffled and shall be maintained in good working order to reduce the equipment - related noise generation. SC -14 All construction activities shall comply with applicable State and local construction noise regulations. XII. Population and Housing Significance Criteria: The proposed project would result in significant adverse environmental impacts if any of the following occur: • Directly or indirectly induce substantial growth of population. • Displace a large number of people or housing. Analysis: a. Less than Significant Impact Project implementation does not include the development of the site for residential or other land uses that would be considered directly growth- inducing. Further, all of the existing infrastructure exists in the area and is available to accommodate the proposed development. Adequate capacity exists in all of the infrastructure systems that serve the site (e.g., sewer, water, storm drainage, roadways, etc.) and no new or expanded facilities are required to provide service to the project. The proposed improvements are intended to accommodate the St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church congregation. No significant additional growth would be anticipated to occur as a direct result of the proposed church development. Any future growth that would occur in the City or project environs would be the result of social and economic conditions that are conducive to development, unrelated to the proposed project, which would be anticipated to be consistent with the adopted long -range plans. Therefore, no significant growth- inducing impacts are anticipated as a result of project implementation. b. No Impact As previously indicated, development of the site as proposed will replace and expand the St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church complex to accommodate the existing and future church uses. The proposed City of Newport Beach St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church — August 4, 2003 Page 44 development will not result in the elimination of any residential dwelling units. Therefore, no existing housing will be displaced if the project is approved and constructed and no significant impacts will occur. C. No Impact As indicated above, no residential structures exist on the site and no housing will be displaced if the proposed project is implemented. The proposed project will permit the demolition and replacement of two existing buildings and modernization of the remaining church facilities. These improvements will not require the elimination of any residential dwelling units. Therefore, no people will be displaced and no significant impacts are anticipated. Mitigation Measures: No significant impacts to population and housing will occur as a result of project implementation. Therefore, no mitigation measures are required. XIII. Public Services Significance Criteria: The proposed project would result in significant adverse environmental impacts if any of the following occur: • An increase in the demand for fire protection services to such a degree that accepted service standards (e.g., manpower, equipment, response times, etc.) are not maintained. • The interference with emergency response or evacuation plan(s) in the community or not provide internally consistent analysis or policies to guide future development. • Expose people or structures to 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. • An increase in the demand for law enforcement services to such a degree that accepted service standards are not maintained without an increase in manpower and /or equipment. • Create student enrollments that exceed available capacities of school facilities or educational services and would require the construction of new school facilities. • Create detrimental impacts to other public /governmental services. Analysis: a. Less than Significant Impact Fire protection facilities and service to the subject property are provided by the Newport Beach Fire Department (NBFD). The NBFD operates and maintains six fire stations to respond to emergency calls throughout the City. Fire Station No. 6, located at 1348 Irvine Avenue, is the fire station closest to the subject site. Fire Station No. 2 is located on the Balboa Peninsula at 32ntl Street, near City Hall and is approximately 1.5 miles from the site. In addition to the City's resources, the NBFD also maintains a formal automatic aid agreement with the Orange County Fire Authority (OCFA) and all neighboring municipal fire departments to facilitate fire protection in the City should the need arise. Project implementation will result in the intensification of the site development to allow an additional 36,000 square feet of floor area on the site, for a total of 140,388 square feet. This increase in development will not result in significant impacts to the ability of the NBFD to provide an adequate level of protection. The site must comply with Uniform Fire Code (UFC) and UBC requirements and will be subject to review by the NBFD. No significant impacts will occur as a result of project implementation. City of Newport Beach St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church — August 4, 2003 Page 45 The Newport Beach Police Department (NBPD) is responsible for providing police and law enforcement services within the corporate limits of the City. The Police Department headquarters is located at 870 Santa Barbara Drive, at the intersection of Jamboree Road and Santa Barbara, approximately two miles northeast of the subject property. The NBPD currently has a ratio of 1.91 sworn officers for each 1,000 residents in the City. This ratio is adequate for the current population. Police and law enforcement service in the City is provided by patrols with designated "beats." Project implementation will result in the intensification of site development and will allow for the development of an additional 35,000 square feet of religious facilities, for a total of 140,388 square feet over the entire site. Although intensification of the site will occur, use of the site will remain the same and would not adversely affect the ability of the NBPD to provide an adequate level of service. The provision of educational services in the City of Newport Beach is the responsibility of the Newport- ' Mesa Unified School District. The 3.9 -acre property is located south of Newport Harbor High School, which is located north of 15" Street. Other district facilities are located west and south of the subject property. Because the District's facilities are overcrowded, residential, commercial and industrial 1 developments are assessed statutory school fees to offset the direct and indirect impacts (i.e., the addition of student -age children). Payment of the State - mandated statutory school fees is the manner by which potential impacts to the District's educational facilities are mitigated. However, the proposed project will not directly result in potentially significant impacts to the District's educational facilities and /or existing ' capacity because no school -age students will be generated by the religious facilities proposed by the applicant. Implementation of the proposed project, which includes a net increase in floor area of approximately 36,000 square feet, will result in the intensification of the use of the site. However, site development as proposed will not significantly change the use of the site and, therefore, will not have any significant adverse effects on other public services, including libraries or administrative services provided by the City. Mitigation Measures As indicated above, the proposed project must comply with the UFC and California Building Code to address emergency and building access and related requirements imposed by the NBFD and NBPD. No significant impacts to educational and other public facilities will occur and no mitigation measures are required. XIV. Recreation Significance Criteria: The proposed project would result in significant adverse environmental impacts if any of the following occur: • Create a demand for recreation services that exceeds the design or use standards of existing and /or planned facilities on the adopted Recreation Element of the City for the area. Analysis: a. No Impact Project implementation does not include any land uses (i.e., residential, commercial or industrial development) that would either directly or indirectly create a demand for recreational amenities and /or services. Rather, the proposed project includes the demolition of two existing buildings and construction City of Newport Beach St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church — August 4, 2003 Page 46 of two structures on the site to replace those proposed to be demolished. The proposed project includes a gymnasium that will be used for youth programs at the church. Integration of this "recreational" amenity could have a beneficial effect on existing recreational facilities by possibly reducing the demand for existing public facilities. No significant impacts to the existing recreational facilities and amenities are anticipated as a result of project implementation. b. No Impact As indicated above, the applicant is proposing several improvements that would increase the intensity of development on the St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church site. However, these improvements would not result in the need for additional recreational facilities that would cause significant physical changes to the environment. As indicated above, the proposed project does not include residential development or uses that would create and increase in the demand for recreational facilities. Further, a gymnasium is included in the project design that is intended to accommodate youth sports and recreational activities at the church. The implementation of this facility will offset any potential indirect demand for recreational facilities created by the proposed project. Therefore, no significant impacts will occur as a result of project implementation. Mitigation Measures: Project implementation will not result in potential significant impacts to recreational facilities. No mitigation measures are required. XV. Transportation/Traffic Significance Criteria: Implementation of the proposed project would result in a significant adverse environmental impact if any of the following occurs as a result of project implementation: The project will generate an increase in traffic at intersections in the City of Newport, which results in an intersection capacity utilization (ICU) change of 0.01 or more and the resulting ICU is 0.91 (LOS E) or greater. The project will generate an increase in traffic at a CMP intersection resulting in a LOS E, or if a CMP intersection maintains an existing LOS F and an increase in traffic results in an ICU change beyond 0.10. The project will provide adequate access and parking capacity. a. Potentially Significant Impact The proposed project includes the intensification of development on the 3.94 -acre property. The applicant is proposing to increase the floor area of the church facilities (including classrooms etc.) by approximately 36,000 square feet. In addition, a gymnasium is also proposed to supplement the church's youth programs. The proposed increase in development intensity could result in an increase in vehicular traffic that could adversely affect the levels of service at key intersections within the neighborhood and outlying area in the City. It is possible that existing and forecast levels of service for those intersections could be degraded to unacceptable levels of service. A detailed traffic analysis will be prepared that addresses the off -site project impacts at area intersections, in accordance with the City's Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO) requirements, as well as CEQA cumulative projects requirements. The traffic analysis will evaluate both short -term (i.e., construction - related) and long -term (i.e., operational) impacts. The findings and conclusions of the detailed traffic analysis will be presented in the Draft EIR. City of Newport Beach St, Andrew's Presbyterian Church — August 4, 2003 Page 47 b. Potentially Significant Impact As indicated above, it is possible that the incremental increase in vehicular traffic generated by the ' proposed project could contribute potentially adverse traffic conditions that may be forecast for the key intersections evaluated in the traffic analysis. The Draft EIR will thoroughly evaluate the potential individual and incremental effects of the traffic increases resulting from project implementation. C. No Impact Project implementation will not result in any changes to air traffic patterns. The subject site is currently developed and is not located within the immediate environs of John Wayne Airport (JWA) or other facility that would be affected by site development. Air traffic patterns into and out of JWA will not change if the project is developed as proposed. No significant impacts will occur as a result of project implementation. ' d. Potentially Significant Impact i Although the project will be designed to comply with all requisite City requirements to avoid potential hazards, it is possible that the increase in traffic generated by the proposed project could adversely affect safety in the area that is dominated by residential development and Newport Harbor High School due to the location of the proposed parking structure and the increased concentration of vehicles accessing the ' site. The traffic analysis will evaluate the potential (safety) impacts both to the existing residential development as well as to the high school located north of 15'4 Street. e. Less than Significant Impact No changes to the existing site access are proposed. Although it is possible that the project could generate additional traffic, no significant impacts are anticipated to emergency access. As indicated in Section IX (Land Use and Planning) and Section XIII (Public Services), project implementation will neither affect the existing Emergency Operations Plan nor result in significant public safety impacts to police and fire protection or other emergency services. As a result, potential impacts are anticipated to be less than significant. Potentially Significant Impact The site is located in a predominantly residential neighborhood in the City. The surrounding neighborhood has raised parking as an issue of concern due to the existence of Newport Harbor High School and St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church. On- street parking in the neighborhood is available along streets in the neighborhood, however, a two -hour time limit exists to minimize the existing parking impacts occurring in the neighborhood. At the present time, a total of 250 parking spaces are currently available on the St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church site to accommodate church -goers and others visiting the church. The church and high school have shared parking facilities in an effort to alleviate parking deficiencies; however, there is no formal agreement between the two property owners. The applicant is proposing to increase the total number of parking spaces to 400 on -site, which will be accommodated in both surface and subterranean parking facilities. Although the site has been designed to meet the City's parking code requirements (i.e., 1 parking space for each 3 seats or 1 parking space for each 35 square feet used for assembly purposes), it is possible that project implementation could exacerbate the existing parking problems identified by the area residents. A parking analysis will be conducted to evaluate the adequacy and efficiency of the proposed parking and the effects of the proposed project, if any, on the existing inventory of on- street parking. The findings and conclusions of the parking study will be presented in the Draft EIR. City of Newport Beach St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church — August 4, 2003 Page 48 g. Less than Significant Impact As indicated above, the proposed project must comply with all of the policies and programs required by the City of Newport Beach related to traffic and circulation. A secondary bikeway (i.e., a bikeway that connects to backbone trails and serve cyclists and children riding to and from schools) is located along 15'" Street. Bicycle racks are provided on the site and will continue to be available on the site to facilitate bicyclists. Therefore, project implementation will not adversely affect the existing bike lane and will not conflict with any of adopted policies and programs that support alternative transportation. No significant impacts are anticipated. Mitigation Measures: A detailed traffic and parking analysis will be undertaken to evaluate the potential project - related impacts, including those that may occur during the construction phase. The results of the analysis will be presented in the Draft EIR, including any mitigation measures that may be required to reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level where such impacts may be identified. XVI. Utilities and Services Systems Significance Criteria: The proposed project would result in significant adverse environmental impacts if any of the following occur: • The project - related demand caused an increase in wastewater treatment that reached or exceeded the current capacity of existing or planned treatment facilities or caused a reduction in the level of service, thereby requiring substantial expansion of existing facilities or the construction of new facilities. • The proposed project's use of water resources will substantially and adversely deplete existing sources of domestic water. • The proposed project will require the construction of new water facilities, sewer facilities and stormwater facilities beyond those already planned and the cost of which would not be borne by the City. • The project will generate solid waste that exceeds the capacity of the landfill to accept and dispose of the waste. Analysis: a. Less than Significant Impact Implementation of the proposed project will not result in any direct discharges that would exceed wastewater treatment requirements. All of the raw sewage generate by the proposed project would be similar to that currently generated by the existing facilities and can be accommodated and adequately treated by existing facilities owned and operated by the Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD). Therefore, no significant impacts will occur as a result of project implementation. b. Less than Significant Impact The City of Newport owns and maintains several sewer mains in the vicinity of the subject property, including those in 15' Street, Clay Street, and St. Andrew's Road. Although implementation of the proposed project may result in an increase in the generation of raw sewage caused by the increase in floor area, the existing sewer mains and sewage treatment plant capacity are adequate to accommodate City of Newport Beach St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church — August 4, 2003 Page 49 I the increase in raw sewage that would be generated by the proposed project. Therefore, no significant impacts to either the City or Sanitation District's ability to provide adequate sewage collection and treatment are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. Domestic water can be provided from the existing water supply and distribution system, which meet both the existing and proposed fire demands for the proposed project. If required, individual fire connections will be made to the domestic water laterals to serve the subject site. No significant impacts will occur as a result of using domestic water. C. Less than Significant Impact As indicated in Section VIII (Hydrology and Water Quality), intensification of the existing development at St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church will not result in any significant changes to the existing surface runoff conditions associated with the 3.94 -acre property. Although on -site facilities may be necessary, the runoff will be directed to the same storm drain facilities that exist in the adjacent street system, which have adequate capacity to accommodate the post - development runoff generated by the proposed project. Therefore, no significant impacts are anticipated. d. Less than Significant Impact Project implementation will not adversely affect existing water supplies. The project will not create ' demands for water that exceed the parameters upon which the water supply and distribution are based. The City owns and maintains facilities in the vicinity of the subject property that serve the existing development in the vicinity of the proposed project. Although the proposed facilities will increase the 1 demand for potable water, domestic water can be provided from the existing water supply and distribution system, which meet both the existing and proposed fire demands and needs of the project. Project implementation will not require the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities. Although new laterals may be required, existing supplies are adequate to ensure the provision of adequate fire flows and domestic water service to the site. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of project implementation. e. Less than Significant Impact The OCSD has adequate capacity at the existing treatment facilities to provide sanitary treatment to the small incremental increase in raw sewage that will be generated by the proposed project. As previously indicated, the type of development proposed is generally consistent with the City's long range plans for the area and will not exceed the sewage generation rates prescribed for the site. Therefore, no significant impacts will occur and no mitigation measures are required as a result of project implementation. Less than Significant Impact Implementation of the proposed project would result in the generation of demolition and construction debris during the construction phase of the proposed project. As previously indicated, it is possible that some of the demolition debris from the two existing buildings may contain asbestos containing materials, which will require proper handling and disposal. In addition, solid waste will be generated at the site resulting from the intensification of the land uses. The County landfill system (i.e., three landfill sites) has a capacity in excess of 30 years. The City is in compliance with AB 939, which requires a 50 percent reduction in the amount of solid waste. The project site will remain subject this provision. Therefore, no impact is anticipated. g. Less than Significant Impact As indicated above, the City is required to comply with AB939, which requires reducing the amount of solid waste by 50 percent. Site development will be subject to the requirements established in the City's City of Newport Beach St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church — August 4, 2003 Page 50 Source Reduction and Recycling Element (SRRE) that reflect the manner in which solid waste reduction will occur. Compliance with the SRRE will ensure that such reductions occur, not only at the project site but also throughout the City of Newport Beach. Therefore, no significant impacts are anticipated to occur as a result of project implementation. h. No Impact Although BMPs will be incorporated into the project design, none of the features would result in the creation of any potentially significant environmental impacts. As previously indicated (refer to Section VIII — Hydrology and Water Quality), a Stage 1 WQMP has been prepared and submitted to the City that identify some of the BMPs, which may include low maintenance features such as absorptive filters in storm drain inlets. These features will not result in potentially significant impacts. Further, a Stage 2 WQMP must be prepared that will specify each of the structure and non - structural BMPs that will be incorporated into the proposed project. Due to the relatively small increase in impervious surface area and resulting increase in runoff, no water quality treatment basin is anticipated. These features will be designed to ensure that no significant impacts occur. Mitigation Measures Although no significant impacts are anticipated, the following measures will be implemented to ensure that utility service is provided to the proposed project. SC -15 Prior to issuance of the building permit, the applicant shall prepare a waste management plan, which shows how demolition and /or construction materials will be recycled. The site plan shall show the location of receptacles(s) to accumulate refuse generated on -site for recycling purposes as a result of demolition or construction. SC -16 Any demolition refuse that contains asbestos or other materials that require special handling shall be transported to a landfill that is certified to receive such waste. XVIL Mandatory Findings of Significance a. Less than Significant Impact The project site has been developed and is heavily impacted by past use and development activities. Development of the proposed project will not significantly degrade the quality of the environment. No native habitat or wildlife exists on or inhabits the subject property. Further, no cultural or historical resources are located on the site. In particular, project implementation will not substantially reduce the habitat of fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of major periods of California history. b. Potentially Significant Impact Implementation of the proposed project does have the potential to generate project - related impacts that may be cumulatively considerable (e.g., air quality, traffic, noise, etc.). The Draft EIR will include analyses of the potential impacts resulting from project implementation with respect to land use and planning, traffic and circulation, air quality, noise, and aesthetics. The project - related and cumulative impacts associated with these issues will be thoroughly evaluated in the Draft EIR. City of Newport Beach St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church — August 4, 2003 Page 51 C. Potentially Significant Impact Construction and operation of the proposed project has the potential to generate significant environmental effects that could cause adverse effects on humans, either directly or indirectly, through the generation of additional traffic. These effects include potentially significant impacts to the existing roadway and circulation network, increased air emissions and noise levels, etc. The Draft EIR will provide analyses of the potential impacts of the proposed project with respect to these issues. Appendix B NOP Comment Letters i z ° ----- -,EOr STATE OF CALIFORNIA ca` °o � Governor's Office of Planning and Research d� State Clearinghouse "0P�"F' Gray Davis Tal Finney Governor Interim Director August 12, 2003 To: Reviewing Agencies I L_ l I Notice of Preparation Re: St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church Expansion, General Plan Amendment and Use Permit (PA2002 -265) SCH# 2003081065 Attached for your review and comment is the Notice of Preparation (NOP) for the St. Andrews Presbyterian Church Expansion, General Plan Amendment and Use Permit (PA2002 -265) draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR). Responsible agencies must transmit their continents 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 A ee ncy. 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 continents to: James Campbell City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 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, Scott Moreau Associate Planner, State Clearinghouse Attachments cc: Lead Agency 1400 TENTH STREET P.O. BOX 3044 SACRAMENTO. CALIFORNIA 95812 -3044 (916)445 -0613 F.4X(916)323 -3018 www.opr.ca.gov P_by 26 Document Details Report \ State Clearinghouse Data Base SCH# Project Title Lead Agency 2003081065 St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church Expansion, General Plan Amendment and Use Permit (PA2002 -265) Newport Beach, City of Type NOP Notice of Preparation ' Description General Plan Amendment and Use Permit for an increase of floor area for a chruch facility. The project includes the demolition of two buildings and the construction of three structures, including a gymnasium /fellowship hall, classroom building and a parking structure resulting in an increase of , 35,566 gross square feet. Lead Agency Contact Name James Campbell Agency City of Newport Beach Phone 949- 644 -3210 Fax email Address 3300 Newport Boulevard City Newport Beach State CA Zip 92663 Project Location County Orange City Newport Beach Region Cross Streets 15th Street & Irvine Avenue Parcel No. 049 - 252 -11 Township Range Section Base Proximity to: Highways SR1 & SR55 Airports Railways Waterways Newport Bay & Pacific Ocean Schools Newport Harbor High Land Use Religious institution & education /low density residential zoning /Governmental, Educational & Institutional Facilities General Plan Designation Project issues Aesthetic /Visual; Agncultural Land; Air Quality; Archaeologic- Historic: Drainage /Absorption; Flood Plain /Flooding; Forest Land /Fire Hazard; Geologic /Seismic; Minerals, Noise, Population /Housing Balance; Public Services; Recreation /Parks; Schools /Universities; Sewer Capacity; Soil Erosion /Compaction /Grading; Solid Waste; Toxic /Hazardous; Traffic /Circulation; Vegetation; Water Quality; Water Supply; Wetland /Riparian; Wildlife; Landuse; Cumulative Effects Reviewing Resources Agency, California Coastal Commission; Department of Conservation; Office of Historic Agencies Preservation; Department of Parks and Recreation; Department of Water Resources; Department of Fish and Game, Region 5; Native American Heritage Commission; California Highway Patrol; Caltrans, District 7; Regional Water Quality Control Board, Region 8 Date Received 08/12/2003 Start of Review 08/12/2003 End of Review 09/10/2003 Note: Blanks in data fields result from insufficient information provided by lead agency. o C r O i p a' m D ° U O m m C C ro c U _ U CI N m Fi O UN`n ? m `o U O Q p N U u N m0 N L Q C C E E E o E �j U N v ¢ V) O O O O O c c °y O N m /y o c .a ° N ° a O� N LL= C a N m C Jam m D D m V O R a o m ¢ ° N Q N R m N R m O 10 �' u u N O m c y U V .0 a) '5 N U L c m m m m N U m D U m 9 Cl U c ¢ a ¢ m �o m. aa0 m ccm mU 03 03 ima' imm mm in� m-Da m¢ mm t6 U_N O U O'DLL O> U c` D U L_ c O m a U N D aUS aUa U C O a Ji U W O o U m O UO O u 0 r 3 m o O c i c O m C � m X 0 0 C 3 ro YJ R = R tC ` oW L m a`W 3 0 a m T a E N a° a Ds W= N ° 7 aUZ a W U(n aU cc aU m cm,.; ro._ °o c - aJ J aU D:U) ¢ w O mcc v =m 0 00 03 00 (/,st0 DU o .>°'.m aaio� m Wrn0 DaW v'°m D3o a vm Do a ®o zUo 0 Oaa 0 a: 0oaa 0(J m E N a 4 N a C 9 O m D ° !2 U m m m D` E CI N m Fi O UN`n m m `o U O Q p N U u m C m C C C C E E E o E �j U N v ¢ V) O O O O O c c °y O N U N R a) L 0 m m M.5 O` m m .D 0 U a W ad ca O ° O O OD d G �' E O at M03 Z, C N O m c y U V .0 a) '5 m L 5 L Y Z O m a a a a a E V m 0 C a C O mw C a O ¢- m a) V .0.. D! m E m a m o C n CO C C C d O C1. O O G C N X Y D E It. LL IL IL ('} LL `�� LL O ry E U O Y O f N ¢oR a `ot�� 00�� o>. U R YJ R = R tC ` oW a`W va° cvU T a E N a° a Ds W= N ° roo 'mom 'UO O E N W ..LL am ao m cm,.; ro._ °o c - y N J ° 0 00 0 O m0 W cc vov v =m q m'5 voaO1i° cc 03 00 (/,st0 DU vom 0 .>°'.m aaio� m Wrn0 DaW v'°m D3o E vm Do o-, (9 -a zUo Oaa 0 a: 0oaa 0(J m E a o c o 0 0 011 a s ��aoa ■ ° co a C p N m V N D r N C R N Ti 'E c � o a C O O O D D D D E E = c o o m a dE d tG y C 'a V C C ra r N E d 3 ` E YO c0 r D — D v a) E N E m o m c o a D a a 3 U y ° Q U c o w E c o m u' c D B o�LL U a. Vc O om 0 d to o E =c = u E ED m w 0 maOco h °nE . c "ON T m m LL C U 7 c m= C N E N O ma C O U `mL d ° E °> O LL1 U O >m ° D m N O m cr Y U N J O O U R E'- m B E c O ¢ F QC = U a a c =O m Q) m - F > o0mo m >vm v 0o > -c- m n y mm ym a - a ma — Oa Q y v Oaa Om W o a m o (nUa DaZ Dtn W o Duo Dino c 0 0�o mo o� o o a o a o 0 0 N a 4 N a C N O !2 v m m E E E E o E �j o m v ¢ V) v c a U c c °y m m Y m U m m M.5 o m m =U W ad ca 76 O D t L V 3 m L 5 L Y Z O m L O m L c T C S O E V m 0 C a C m n m m ° T E N D L a) m o 9 C d `O V m E It. LL IL IL ('} LL `�� LL O orc `oEc `ot�� 00�� o>. `oZ� of cqo oro ono a`W va° cvU vEm roo 'mom 'UO oEom c m cm,.; ro._ °o c - y N ion uc ro mom oam > iooaDi a vov v =m vom° voaO1i° cc vmdo Or-aO vom 0 .>°'.m aaio� m Wrn0 DaW v'°m D3o E vm Do o-, (9 -a zUo Oaa 0 a: 0oaa 0(J m E a o o 0 0 011 a s ��aoa ■ a R � o a N d tG y C 'a V D r N 3 c o YO c0 J D a) W E 2 a) E al E m c Z U a U m U M w B o�LL U o > E to o E =c = u QN O c � O N O C . c T m LL _v°N U 7 U ` `mL d ° E °> ° TU V } C7 E Y n ° N E'- m B E c O ¢ =a E5 a a c =O m >vm v ° iamLL m. ° 0 a - mm o .o ma — Oa Q y v Oaa Om W o a m o (nUa V100 DaZ Dtn W 00a 0a m D,�a c aZ 0, U U U C7 O¢ UU W L ■o a ®a a e ■ as a LL a.o. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION District 12 3337 Michelson Drive, Suite 380 Irvine, CA 92612 -8894 September 10, 2003 Mr. James Campbell, Senior Planner City of Newport Beach Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92658 n,� � _ - M CITY PLANNING `DEP�RT ACH ,T 1 ii 2003 PM @(gi4llp 17 i1 2131 °ii 14 1516 File: IGR/CEQA SCH #: 2003081065 IGR Log #: 1288 SR #: PCH, SR -55 Subject: St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church Expansion, General Plan Amendment and Use Permit (PA 2002 -265) Dear Mr. Campbell, F7ecyourpoweri Be energy efficient! Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the Notice of Preparation (NOP) for a Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) on St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church Expansion project. The project includes the demolition of two buildings and the construction of three new structures including a gymnasium, classroom building, and a parking structure for 35,566 gross square feet. The project site is located on 600 St. Andrews Road in the City of Newport Beach. 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 development and 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. Sincerely, rr ROBERT F. JOSEPH Chief of Advanced Planning Branch District 12 cc: Terry Roberts, Office of Planning and Research Ron Helgeson, Caltrans HQ IGR/Community Planning Gail Faber, District 12 Deputy Director of Planning Saied Hashemi, Traffic Operations "Calts improves mobility across California" J n L I I u C] 1 1 I I I 1 The Gas Company A Sempra Energy umity- September 16, 2003 City of Newport Beach Planning Dept. P.O.Box1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658 -891 Att: James Campbell Subject: E.I.R. for St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church Expansion Southern California Gas Company Technical Services Department 1919 S. State College Blvd., Bldg. A Anaheim CA. 92806 RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY CF t +Gt ^ /Dnc r ^CACiH 5 =P 18 2003 AM PM 7181911011111.?�1112;31�15;6 Thank you for providing the opportunity to respond to this E.I.R. (Environmental Impact Report) Document. We are pleased to inform you that Southern California Gas Company has facilities in the area where the aforementioned project is proposed. Gas service to the project can be provided from an existing gas main located in various locations. The service will be in accordance with the Company's policies and extension rules on file with the California Public Utilities Commission when the contractual arrangements are made. This letter is not a contractual commitment to serve the proposed project but is only provided as an informational service. The availability of natural gas service is based upon conditions of gas supply and regulatory agencies. As a public utility, Southern California Gas Company is under the jurisdiction of the California Public Utilities Commission. Our ability to serve can also be affected by actions of federal regulatory agencies. Should these agencies take any action, which affect gas supply or the conditions under which service is available, gas service will be provided in accordance with the revised conditions. This letter is also provided without considering any conditions or non - utility laws and regulations (such as environmental regulations), which could affect construction of a main and/or service line extension (i.e., if hazardous wastes were encountered in the process of installing the line). The regulations can only be determined around the time contractual arrangements are made and construction has begun. ' Estimates of gas usage for residential and non - residential projects are developed on an individual basis and are obtained from the Commercial - Industrial /Residential Market Services Staff by calling (800) 427 -2000 (Commercial/Industrial Customers) (800) 427 -2200 (Residential Customers). We have developed several programs, which are available upon request to provide assistance in selecting the most energy efficient appliances or systems for a particular project. If you desire further information on any of our energy conservation programs, please contact this office for assistance. 1 Sinc ki ,,I� (( / /�~,,,/,,// IWl I fog, Kris Keas ' Technical Supervisor West Region - Anaheim ep eirOldoc I South Coast Air Quality Management District 21865 E. Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, CA 91765 -4182 (909) 396 -2000 • www.agmd.gov RECEIVED BY August 13, 2003 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY r1r !nionor ^cACH Mr. James Campbell, Senior Planner City of Newport Beach Planning Dept. P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 Dear Mr. Campbell: 11 LJ I AM 'tUrii 1 8 2003 PM ' 71819 110 1111 112 1112; 314,516 ■ Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report for St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church Expansion and Renovation General Plan Amendment and Use Permit (PA2002 -265) 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 decommissioning or use of equipment potentially generating such air pollutants should also be included. I I� Mr. James Campbell -2- August 13, 2003 1 ' Mitiention 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 t — 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)(1)), 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 (httpi / /www.agmd.gov). 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 i MC030812 -OILI Control Number F u 1 I �J I The proposed additions to the St. Andrews complex will have the following negative environmental impacts on the immediate neighborhood: 1. Increased traffic both on Sundays but also during the weekdays and evenings. St. Andrews is proposing to become more than a neighborhood church. They are proposing to provide services that extend beyond the concept of a worship facility. As a result, the neighborhood will see increased traffic during the daytime and evening time. Currently when evening youth programs conclude, there is up to 1 hour of continued noise and activity outside as the groups gather in the parking lots. 2. In many aspects, the expansion will make the St. Andrews facility more like a commercial facility and as such will have a negative impact on the prime residential real estate in the immediate neighborhood. The slow expansion over time is the objective of the facility and we believe it is time to direct the facility back to its core value: a place of worship. 3. The construction will have a severe impact on the neighborhood. Large trucks passing through the neighborhood transporting dirt, concrete, steel reinforcing, etc. will be a safety hazard for the children and all individuals living in the neighborhood. This type of construction will also contribute to the continued deterioration of our neighborhood streets. Who will repair the streets once all of the construction is completed? 4. An underground parking facility could easily become a magnet for the following situations: a. A place for homeless individuals to sleep b. A place for drug abusers to meet c. The usual crimes that occur where a discreet unsupervised area is available. This is a serious concern following evening sports activities at Newport Harbor High School. A simple look at similar facilities in surrounding cities makes it obvious that this situation will develop. Who will patrol such a facility since it will be privately owned? Such a facility will have to include significant lighting as a means to prevent #a,#b and #c above. This lighting will again convert a quite neighborhood into more of a commercial looking area. (We voted against City streetlights in the past to preserve the quiet character of our neighborhood.) 5. Should the facility expansion be allowed to occur then it is imperative that the City of Newport Beach takes all necessary steps to protect our neighborhood. One key way to protect the neighborhood is to cul -de -sac Snug Harbor Road and Pirate Road at Clay Street. If the city of Newport Beach is going to allow the commercial activities to develop on the St. Andrews facility then please propose other viable methods to further isolate the neighborhood. Sincerely, q67Z�- om Cullis 418 Snug Harbor Road Newport Beach, CA PLANNING RECEIVED CITY OE NF: 4"Dr)RT REACH AM AUG 2 5 2003 PM 789101112123456 F u 11 1 11 �I I 1 Mr. James Campbell Senior Planner City of Newport Beach Planning Department P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 Dear Mr. Campbell: Donna A. Gallant 424 Saint Andrews Road Newport Beach, CA 92663 August 19, 2003 RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF NEWDnvT BEACH AM ALlf' 2 0 2003 PM 71819110 it l i 12111213141516 I am writing in response to the Notice of Preparation regarding the proposed expansion of the St. Andrews Presbyterian Church. Since I am one of St. Andrews' immediate neighbors on Clay Street, I am taking this opportunity to express my strong opposition to St. Andrews' plan, and to offer some comments. The Cliff Haven subdivision predates its annexation into the City of Newport Beach. Each lot carries original subdivision Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions that are binding and run with the land. These declare the subdivision General Plan use of the lots to be for residential use exclusively. They also specify what test must be met in order to modify or escape the Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions. Any property owner seeking to modify or escape the Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions must obtain, within a specific time schedule, the approval of the owners of more than fifty percent of the acreage area of that tract, excluding streets, alleys and parks. Pat. St. Andrews Church ownsesidential lots along Clay Street that were purchased from previous owners and cleared of the then existing houses. Five lots are in tract 1220, five in tract 1218. In 1979, prior to St. Andrews' last expansion, the church filed declarations with the Orange County Recorder supporting church use of the Clay Street residential lots and signed by a limited number of property owners from tracts 1220 and 1218. However, this small number did not meet the test specified in the subdivision Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions for St. Andrews Church to either modify the underlying use of the Clay Street lots or to escape the Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions. Now being discussed is a proposed amendment to the City of Newport Beach's General Plan that would facilitate a change in zoning of St. Andrews' Clay Street lots from Residential R -2 to Institutional. I believe such an amendment would legitimize the type and level of density that St. Andrews Church now proposes. I also believe that it would work to the detriment of my property and the entire Cliff Haven neighborhood. I ask the City of Newport Beach to recognize and respect the residential nature of the Cliff Haven subdivision. Sincerely, Donna A. Gallant Campbell, James From: david young [ david .rowanyoung @worldnet.att.net] Sent: Sunday, August 17, 2003 12:25 PM To: jcampbell @city.newport- beach.ca.us Subject: St. Andrews expansion Dear Mr. Campbell: It is my understanding that St. Andrews is seeking city approval to expand their facilities. Because I am unable to attend the scheduled council meeting on Aug. 20th I wanted nevertheless to voice my opposition to St. Andrews' proposal. As a resident in the immediate neighborhood I am familiar with the original plans and conditional use permit that allowed a neighborhood church to expand into the current institutional facility and the promises that the neighborhood would not be further burdened by any future expansion. Despite such assurances and the unanimous neighborhood opposition to the proposed expansion, St. Andrews pushes ahead. I am unconditionally and unambiguously opposed to any expansion of the St. Andrews' facility. Their current facility and more so, their proposed expansion are wholly incongruous with the adjoining residential neighborhood. Such an expansion will negatively impact and diminish the character of the Cliffhaven community in every conceivable manner and the city should not consider amending the general plan or altering the conditional use permit to facilitate such ill advised development schemes. Please register my opposition with any relevant regulatory bodies. Thank you, Dave Young 604 St. James Place Newport Beach, CA 92663 949 645 7272 1 Campbell, James From: Jill Kanzler bill @standrewspres.org] Sent: Monday, August 18, 2003 9:18 AM To: jcampbell @city.newport- beach.ca.us Cc: eshiro@fvhs.com Subject: FW: St. Andrew Church_8_03_I am writing about the proposed expansion at St.doc Jim, Attached are comments from a St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church neighbor. Please let me know if you need additional assistance from me or if you would like me to forward elsewhere. Thank you. --Jill Jill Kanzler 949 -650- ' 5433 JKanzler @adelphia.net ' Original Message---- - From: Ellen Shiro [mailto:eshiro @fvhs.com] Sent: Tue 8/5/2003 7:24 PM ' To: Jill Kanzler Cc: Subject: St. Andrew Church_8_03_I am writing about the proposed expansion at St.doc Dear Jill, Would you forward this to Jim Cambell as soon as possible. He did not leave me his address or email. I am leaving town for a month and would like my observations and opinions to be heard. I congratulate your church on ' the many contributions they make to those that participate. It is difficult living in such close proximity due to the reasons below. ' Thank you for helping me get heard, Ellen Shiro ' To Jim Cambell and staff: I am writing about the proposed expansion at St. Andrews Church. I live across the street at 499 St. Andrew. Noise /Air /Light Pollution: Already there is excessive noise in this residential neighborhood due to the traffic and comings and goings of pedestrians, buses, cars to /from the church. It is hard to sleep through it on Sunday mornings. On evenings after events like the Divorce Recovery program , there is a tremendous amount of traffic and consequent noise and fumes. The light pollution at night is very- significant and uncomfortable. When the programs let out, the 150 plus car lights, of traffic leaving the parking, lot shine directly into my living window. ' I bought this condo presuming I was living in the peace and quiet of this residential neighborhood. Living across from the church sometimes feels like living across from a shopping mall. This traffic has already increased in ' the 13 years that I have lived here. Therefore, I do not want to see more increase in the amount of traffic and noise and lights shining and lessened air quality, which more traffic would represent. I fear that the addition of teenagers going to and from the gym would greatly increase the noise on the streets with both car noise and socializing noise, t as well as the dangerous driving of some of the cars passing through. Underground garage and gym: The noise and air pollution from such a project would be ongoing for a year, ' and perhaps more. Because I live close to the beach, I have no air conditioning. I leave my windows open for a fresh breeze. Even in the hot months, air conditioning is not needed. If the construction happens, I will not be able to open my windows for up to a year without extensive filth, in the form of dust and dirt, entering my windows. My ' condo with the windows shut will be suffocatingly hot. Trees: If the action is no building, I suggest the church allow the trees around the perimeter to grow larger and fuller. That would help to take care of the situation of noise, light , and dirt pollution that is already occurring. Safety: This is a neighborhood with children and old people. We want our streets light on traffic, not more congested. Already many people, whom I see leaving the church, do not stop at the stop sign. Ellen Shiro 499 St. Andrew Newport Beach, Ca. 92663 9492933890 FAX TRANSMITTAL ' Campbell, James I IF i From: Don Krotee [dkrotee @krotee.coml Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2003 7:45 AM To: James Campbell (E -mail) Subject: ST ANDREWS eirscoping comments8 -20 -03 ASSOCIATION Page 1 of 2 E -MAIL / FAX TRANSMITTAL ' The proposal by St. Andrews Presbyterian Church to construct new facilities and a parking garage fronting Clay Street is an enormous concern to our community. The existing church facility is already too large for our R -1 neighborhood. Its proposal to expand by 40% would create a density greater than South Coast Plaza. We welcome the City's effort to provide a comprehensive review of this project by preparing an EIR. Pursuant to Section 15802 of the CEQA Guidelines, the scope of the EIR for the expanded church facility should address, at a minimum, the following concerns: ' 1. Project Description: including (a) a description of existing and proposed church activities by day of week, time of day, and number of employees and patrons at each activity. 2. Land Use: including (a) compatibility with existing land uses; (b) impact of placing of a regionally sized facility within a residential neighborhood; (c) consistency with applicable land use plans (e.g., general plan, zoning, existing church conditional use permit). ' 08/20/2003 PO Box 3242 ' NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92659 -0888 E -mail: dkrotee@krotee.corn Date: August 19, 2003 Subject: St. Andrews Presbyterian Church Proposed Expansion Notice of Preparation, SCH: 2003081065 To: Jim Campbell, case planner From: Don Krotee AIA, President Newport Heights Improvement Association Pages: 2. ' The proposal by St. Andrews Presbyterian Church to construct new facilities and a parking garage fronting Clay Street is an enormous concern to our community. The existing church facility is already too large for our R -1 neighborhood. Its proposal to expand by 40% would create a density greater than South Coast Plaza. We welcome the City's effort to provide a comprehensive review of this project by preparing an EIR. Pursuant to Section 15802 of the CEQA Guidelines, the scope of the EIR for the expanded church facility should address, at a minimum, the following concerns: ' 1. Project Description: including (a) a description of existing and proposed church activities by day of week, time of day, and number of employees and patrons at each activity. 2. Land Use: including (a) compatibility with existing land uses; (b) impact of placing of a regionally sized facility within a residential neighborhood; (c) consistency with applicable land use plans (e.g., general plan, zoning, existing church conditional use permit). ' 08/20/2003 FAX TRANSMITTAL Page 2 of 2 3. Traffic and Circulation: including (a) current and projected (20 year) parking demand for the church; (b) current and expected status of shared parking arrangements with high school; (c) expected queuing in and out of parking garage during peak and non peak hours; (d) the alignment of key ingress and egress points, impacts on current and projected (20 year) peak and non peak hour traffic; (e) adequacy of vehicular access; (f) impact on pedestrian circulation; (g) traffic impacts during construction. 4. Air Quality: including'(a) violations of state and federal air quality standards; (b) exposure of residents to increased and substantial pollutant concentrations; (c) effects on the flora and fauna at the Environmental Nature Center from substantial pollutant concentrations; (d) creation of objectionable odors. 5. Noise: including (a) generation of noise levels in excess of adopted standards or acceptable levels from vehicular activities, errant car alarms, and patron activities within parking garage. 6. Aesthetics: including (a) the potential degradation of the existing visual character and quality of the surrounding residential community; and (2) creation of a new substantial source of light or glare. Please note although page 20 of the Initial Study states that a photometric plan of the proposed lights has been prepared and that there are no significant adverse impacts, the document fails to provide any information to support this conclusion. The photometric plan should be included within the EIR for the benefit of public review and comment. 7. Public Safety: including (a) the development of a subterranean parking structure adjacent to homes and school facilities could create a magnet for criminal activity; the EIR should include a review of the project's proposed security plan. 8. Project Alternatives: including (a) alternative sites for a regionally sized church facility. 9. Mandatory Findings of Significance: including (a) project impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable; (b) project environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. Also please note that the Initial Study erroneously includes mitigation measures for geology and hazards, but fails to include these as EIR topics. Failure to do so is contrary to the intent of Section 21081.6 of the Public Resources Code that requires a public agency to adopt a monitoring report for all mitigation measures. We look forward to the City's prudent review and consideration of this project. 08/20/2003 1 8 -20 -03 1 I l] 1 1 1 1 �0: Newport Beach City Council and James Campbell, Senior Planner P?: Richard and Elaine England 935 Snug Harbor Road, Newport Beach, 92663 Rte: St. Andrews Presbyterian Church Proiect. l _ ' c As your letter states, "the City would like your input and views as to potential environmental issues, questions on possible impact of the project ..... If you have comments regarding this notice, the Initial Study or the project in general ....... send no later than 30 O.ays after receipt of this notice. 's'e have read the Initial Study and offer the follow- ing input as well as some other comments on the project. INITIAL STUDY I Aesthetics Outdoor lighting -- limits of hours of use IX Land Use and Planning Plans for zoning changes Consideration of, project impact on Environmental Nature Center XI Noise Oa:e 11) I Icy tU Copies Sent To: �yor �Caunril Member �anager ❑ nt+ n�7y n Noise impact peculiar to underground parking structure Will piledrivers be used on this project? XIII Public Services Potential increased demands on law enforcement due to the peculiar nature of the underground parking structure XV Transportation /Traffic Logistics for the flow of traffic in and out of the underground parking structure Consideration of overall traffic problems during con- struction as they contribute to the ongoing projects at schools Legal position as to the undocumented agreement with the Newport -Mesa School District for use of Parking facilities Responsibility for payment of repairs for damage to City streets and for water /sewer system changes XVI utilities and Service Systems Details of interruptions of service during construction of water /sewer service lines Details on handling of asbestos containing materials; dust from same It is anticipated that the development of the EIR, traffic & parking study, application for zoning changes, noise and air quality studies as well as modifications to the General Plan and Conditional Use Permit will provide details on antici- pated Disruption as required in addition to the Mitigation Measures given in the Initial Study. L u I F 11 1 �, r L UHF ST—ANDREWS PROJECT, SPECIFIC CONCERNS LJ i A substantial number of the following thoughts are related to those mentioned in comments on the Initial Study ' and are repeated here for emphasis. ' parking structure 1. how will it be supervised and when 2. how long will it take to fill, empty using the pro-posed ' entrance /exit 3. what configuration of parking space sizes will be develo'Ded 4. what plans are made for noise abatement 5. how will fumes, pollution be handled ' 6. what is planned for control of lighting 7. when an event has been concluded, what will be done to expedite emptying the structure at the street level S. when the structure is empty, how will it be secured, patrolled 9. what plans have been made to respond to, and assure access ' during emergencies gymnasium ' 1. items from above list 2. scheduling -use plans, especially during peak traffic hours 3. what plans are made for accommodating large vehicles, such as team buses, equipment trucks neighborhood streets ' 1. how will drop -offs be handled 2. what plans are made for speed control, crosswalks, et. al. ' 3. 4 is there a plan to assure parking rights of residents all streets in R -1 neighborhood are one lane each way; all closest streets have restricted parking. Will any of this change under proposed plans ' construction 1. what is planned to accomodate users of the existing parking ' lot during the construction buildup? 2. what will be done to communicate with residents as to the pending inconveniences caused by construction? LJ i 3. will variances be sought; for what, announced when? 4. what is planned to reimburse property owners for property damage, dirt incurred during construction? general will St. Andrews solicit input from neigboring homeowners after use of the new facilities begin? statement It is our fear that many of the aspects of the St. Andrews construction plan are not in the best interest of property own- ers in the neighborhood and can be detrimental to property values. 1 James Campbell, Senior Planner City of Newport Beach Planning Department P. O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 Mr. Campbell: ' I reside at 330 St. Andrews, half a block away from the church. I am a real estate developer, licensed Architect and licensed Real Estate Broker in the development business for over 30 years, well versed in planning and zoning procedures. I occasionally attend St. Andrews church and appreciate all the good work that the church does and ' how good a neighbor they are. The Church, however, is a business like any other organization. The intensity they are requesting, in my opinion (and I am usually on the other side of the fence) is too intense for our area. I currently put up with the parking in front of my house on Sunday by parishioners the same as I do for the Saturday Soccer ' and baseball games which I enjoy directly across the street from my house at the Ensign field. While the parking garage will eliminate most of the on street parking the on street parking will continue after the ' garage is built as it is easier to walk half a block than wait in line in a parking garage before and after services. The Traffic before and after services on Sunday, traffic from counseling sessions in the afternoon and evening, and weekday morning and evening drop off /pick up of children at the church combined with the high school traffic ' make that intersection of St. Andrews and 15th St. a difficult area to navigate during certain hours of the day with the current use. I support the Church as it is now but I do not support the expansion of the church to intensify their business and services. Once a church becomes this large and aggressive, a more commercial area would definitely be more appropriate than our quiet neighborhood. Let this remain as their neighborhood church and take the more intense ' use and services to a more commercial area. I will be out of town during this hearing but will attend future hearings. Please accept this letter as my comment for ' the record. 'Al Marshall Pacific National Development 1012 Brioso Ste 201 Costa Mesa, CA 92627 (949) 645 -1000: (949) 645 -9800 Fax almarshall@pacificnationaldevelopment.com I :1 James 'Campbell, From: Al Marshall [ al marshall@ pacificnationaldevelopment.comj Sent: Friday, August 15, 2003 11:06 AM jcampbell @city.newport- beach.ca.us 'To: Cc: jblauer@pacbell.net Subject: St. Andrews Church 1 James Campbell, Senior Planner City of Newport Beach Planning Department P. O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 Mr. Campbell: ' I reside at 330 St. Andrews, half a block away from the church. I am a real estate developer, licensed Architect and licensed Real Estate Broker in the development business for over 30 years, well versed in planning and zoning procedures. I occasionally attend St. Andrews church and appreciate all the good work that the church does and ' how good a neighbor they are. The Church, however, is a business like any other organization. The intensity they are requesting, in my opinion (and I am usually on the other side of the fence) is too intense for our area. I currently put up with the parking in front of my house on Sunday by parishioners the same as I do for the Saturday Soccer ' and baseball games which I enjoy directly across the street from my house at the Ensign field. While the parking garage will eliminate most of the on street parking the on street parking will continue after the ' garage is built as it is easier to walk half a block than wait in line in a parking garage before and after services. The Traffic before and after services on Sunday, traffic from counseling sessions in the afternoon and evening, and weekday morning and evening drop off /pick up of children at the church combined with the high school traffic ' make that intersection of St. Andrews and 15th St. a difficult area to navigate during certain hours of the day with the current use. I support the Church as it is now but I do not support the expansion of the church to intensify their business and services. Once a church becomes this large and aggressive, a more commercial area would definitely be more appropriate than our quiet neighborhood. Let this remain as their neighborhood church and take the more intense ' use and services to a more commercial area. I will be out of town during this hearing but will attend future hearings. Please accept this letter as my comment for ' the record. 'Al Marshall Pacific National Development 1012 Brioso Ste 201 Costa Mesa, CA 92627 (949) 645 -1000: (949) 645 -9800 Fax almarshall@pacificnationaldevelopment.com I :1 Minnie & David Ballard 415 Santa Ana Avenue Newport Beach, CA 92663 August 11, 2003 Mayor Bromberg and Council City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 Re: St. Andrews Church Expansion Dear Honorable Mayor and Council: Ii J . 1 I am writing this letter due to my concern of the proposal for the expansion of St. Andrews Church. Although it is a wonderful community church, I feel it will overbuild the neighborhood and will encourage more traffic and a continuation of over building of the surrounding areas. If there is any further building in that area it should be for a Newport Harbor High parking structure so the neighborhood is not overwhelmed by the students parking. I am sure the expansion is warranted to the members of the church, but not to the neighborhood. Maybe they need to look elsewhere for property that would be more conducive for the upgrades. Sincerely, Minnie & David Baliard Date copies sent io: �yor uncil Member �hlanager ❑ Attorney o -- Appendix C Traffic Study 1 TRAFFIC STUDY FOR ' ST. ANDREW'S PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH IN THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Prepared for: The City of Newport Beach ' Prepared by: ' Kimley -Horn and Associates, Inc. 2100 W. Orangewood Avenue, Suite 140 Orange, California 92868 1 ' February, 2004 1 APPENDICES APPENDIX /\— Approved Project Information N� APPENDIX B— Cumulative Project Information APPENDIX C—l% Analysis Worksheets `TP()Analysis APPENDIX [)~ Intersection Analysis Worksheets —TP()Analysis 0� APPENDIX G—l% Analysis Worksheets `C8()/\/\nu|yuiu � ` APPENDIX F~ Intersection Analysis Worksheets `C8()/\Analysis APPENDIX [}' St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church Activity Schedule ~ Wednesday November 5,ZAA3 ( TABLE OF CONTENTS �= INTRODUCTION ................................... ................ .................................................. ............. —.......... ...... | PROJECTDESCRIPTION ........................................................................................ ...................... — ......... | STUDY METHODOLOGY —.------.------.-----.---.---------.--| EXISTING CONDITIONS ..................................... ............................. ..................................................... ... 4 FUTURECONDITIONS ................................ ......... .................................................................................... 4 TP() Analysis 'Futunenitb Approved Proiocl.------------.,—.------..-----'C C6()/\ Analysis ` Cumulative Conditions .................................................................... ............................. x PROJECTTRAFFIC .................................................. ......... ............................................................. ......... |\ TripGeneration ............ ............................... .............................................................................. ......... �|i =� Tbo[Xotr�hu��oo dAssignment ^ / and /�oon-------.-----------------------`----' 15 l% ANALYSIS AND PROJECT IMPACT ................................................................................................. |5 TP() Analysis —Ezi / Plus Growth Plus Approved ynjtcl--.---------,---.--.—.|5 C8()A Analysis — Cumulative Projects .................................................................................................... 2| FINDINGS............................................................... —................................................................................ 2| N� SITE CIRCULATION AND PARKING ...................................................................................................... (]o'Strtt1 --..---------------.--.------.------.------,—.25 " 25 U� Survtyo---.----.----.------------.--..--.-----.--.—.-2S WeekdayParking Demand ................................................................................................................... 2x 0� Evening Parking [)to�und,--.---.---------.--.------.---.-30 ' 0� Sunday Parking Demand ...................................................................................................................... 3% Summary vf Parking Data Collection ....................................................................................................... 2 ProposedParking ...................................................................................................................................... 34 APPENDICES APPENDIX /\— Approved Project Information N� APPENDIX B— Cumulative Project Information APPENDIX C—l% Analysis Worksheets `TP()Analysis APPENDIX [)~ Intersection Analysis Worksheets —TP()Analysis 0� APPENDIX G—l% Analysis Worksheets `C8()/\/\nu|yuiu � ` APPENDIX F~ Intersection Analysis Worksheets `C8()/\Analysis APPENDIX [}' St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church Activity Schedule ~ Wednesday November 5,ZAA3 ( I LIST OF FIGURES ' Figure 1 — Project Area Vicinity Map ............................................................................... ..............................2 Figure2 — Project Site Plan .............................................................................................. ..............................3 Figure 3 — Existing Lane Configurations and Traffic Control .......................................... ..............................5 Figure 4 — Existing Peak Hour Traffic Volumes .............................................................. ..............................6 1 Figure 5 — Approved Project Peak Hour Traffic Volumes ............................................... ..............................9 Figure 6 — Existing Plus Growth Plus Approved Project Peak Hour Traffic Volumes ... .............................10 Figure 7 — Cumulative Project Peak Hour Traffic Volumes ............................................ .............................12 Figure 8 — Cumulative Conditions Peak Hour Traffic Volumes ................. .................. ... ......................... Figure 9 — Project Trip Distribution ..... .................................................. .... ........ ................ .......................... 16 Figure 10 — Project Peak Hour Traffic Volumes ............................................................. .............................17 Figure I 1 — Existing On- Street Parking ........................................................................... .............................26 ' Figure 12 — Existing Parking Restrictions ....................................................................... .............................27 i LIST OF TABLES Table I — Summary of Peak Hour Intersection Operation — Existing Conditions.. ........................................ 7 Table 2 — Summary of Approved Projects ........................................................................ ..............................8 Table 3 — Summary of Cumulative Projects .................................................................... .............................11 Table 4 — Summary of Project Trip Generation ............................................................... .............................14 ' Table 5 — Summary of 1% Analysis — TPO Analysis Existing Plus Growth Plus Approved Projects... ...... IS Table 6 — Summary of Peak Hour Operation — Existing Plus Growth Plus Approved Projects ...................19 Table 7 — Summary of Peak Hour Intersection Operation — Existing Plus Growth Plus Approved Projects PlusProject ............................................................................................... ............................... ..........20 Table 8 — Summary of 1 % Analysis — CEQA Analysis — Cumulative Conditions ..................................... 22 Table 9 — Summary of Peak Hour Intersection Operation — Cumulative Conditions ...... .............................23 Table 10 — Summary of Peak Hour Intersection Operation — Cumulative Plus Project Conditions .............24 Table I 1 — Summary of Parking Data Collection — Weekday Morning and Afternoon .. .............................29 Table 12 — Summary of Parking Data Collection — Weekday Evening ........................... .............................31 Table 13 — Summary of Parking Data Collection — Sunday Morning ............................. .............................33 I E I I I 1 I i ST. ANDREW'S PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH TRAFFIC IMPACT AND PARKING ANALYSIS IINTRODUCTION ' This report has been prepared to provide an analysis of the traffic- related impacts associated with the proposed St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church expansion. This report has been prepared in accordance with the City of Newport Beach Transportation Phasing Ordinance (TPO) traffic impact study requirements. An analysis of project parking is also included in this report. ' PROJECT DESCRIPTION The St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church is located at 600 St. Andrews Road, on a triangular parcel bounded by 15" Street on the northeast, St. Andrews Road on the northwest, and Clay Street on the south. A vicinity map is provided on Figure 1. The existing operation occupies five buildings, including the Main Sanctuary with 1,387 seats; two classroom buildings; a building housing church ' offices and the chapel; and Dierenfield Hall, a facility for general assembly and classes. The total square footage of the existing St. Andrew's facilities is 104,400 square feet. A copy of the project site plan is provided on Figure 2. The proposed project consists of a combination of remodeling, removal, or expansion of selected building areas on the St. Andrew's site. The most substantial changes would be the renovation and expansion of Dierenfield Hall (a net increase of 10,234 square feet) and the removal of one existing classroom building, to be replaced with a Youth Center and classrooms (a net increase of 26,276 square feet). The net change to the classroom building will be a reduction of 562 square feet. The total program will result in an overall increase of 35,948 square feet of building area. No increase in sanctuary or chapel seating is proposed. The building program also includes the construction of a parking structure, which will result in an increase in on -site parking from the existing 250 spaces to a total of 400 parking spaces. ' STUDY METHODOLOGY Project impact analysis in the City of Newport Beach must follow the City's Transportation Phasing Ordinance (TPO) procedures. The traffic study is to include analysis of any primary intersection to which the project contributes one percent or more of peak hour traffic on any intersection leg. A i primary intersection is any intersection on the Primary Intersection list in Appendix B of the City's TPO, and any additional intersection selected by the Traffic Manager. An 'impacted primary intersection" is any primary intersection where project trips increase the volume of traffic on any leg by one percent or more during any peak hour period. Intersection analysis is conducted using the City of Newport Beach Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) methodology, which provides a comparison of the theoretical hourly vehicular capacity of an intersection to the number of vehicles actually passing through that intersection during a given hour. A capacity of 1,600 vehicles per lane per hour is assumed. The study must demonstrate that the project will either not cause or make worse an unsatisfactory level of service at any impacted primary intersection, or that the project will mitigate the impacts of project trips on any impacted primary intersection in the vicinity of the project with feasible improvements. I St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church - 1 - February, 2004 Traffic and Parking Study FIGURE 1 PROJECT AREA VICINITY MAP 2 - >rnn and Associates, Inc. W L� ' (y 15TH STREET N Y aq M 41 a ff !+ mom w� S \, S 1 �tl x FIGURE 2 i PROJECT SITE PLAN �an _ 3 _ Kimley— Horn ssoclates, Inc. Based on discussions with City of Newport Beach Traffic Engineering staff, the traffic study for the proposed St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church expansion will analyze the following primary intersections identified in the TPO: • Riverside Avenue at Coast Highway • Tustin Avenue at Coast Highway • Irvine Avenue at 19ih Street/Dover Drive • Irvine Avenue at Westcliff Drive • Dover Drive at Westcliff Drive • Dover Drive at 16`h Street • Dover Drive ; Bayshore Drive at Coast Highway. In addition, staff has requested that traffic analysis be conducted at the following local intersections, which are located in close proximity to the project site: • Irvine Avenue at 15th Street (unsignalized) • Dover Drive at Cliff Drive EXISTING CONDITIONS City of Newport Beach staff provided existing peak hour traffic data for the seven TPO primary intersections. Kimley -Horn conducted existing peak hour traffic counts at the intersections of Irvine Avenue at 15" Street and Dover Drive at Cliff Drive. Existing turning lanes and traffic controls at the study intersections are depicted on Figure 3. Existing peak hour turning movement volumes at the study intersections are shown on Figure 4. Peak hour intersection analysis was conducted using the City's ICU methodology for signalized intersections. The unsignalized intersection of Irvine Avenue and 15" Street were analyzed using the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) methodology. Since the City does not have an adopted methodology to evaluate impacts at unsignalized intersections, the HCM analysis is presented for informational purposes only. A summary of the existing morning and evening peak hour intersection operation at each of the primary intersections is provided on Table 1. Review of Table 1 shows that all primary intersections analyzed are currently operating at LOS "C" or better in both the morning and evening peak hours. The unsignalized intersection of Irvine Avenue and 1 S" Street currently operates at LOS "C" in the morning peak hour and LOS "D" in the evening peak hour, with periods of increased congestion and delay during the peak 15- minutes associated with school arrival and departure activities at the Newport Harbor High School. FUTURE CONDITIONS For this analysis, future traffic forecasts have been developed for two different future scenarios. For purposes of the City of Newport Beach Transportation Phasing Ordinance, Future with Approved Projects conditions are analyzed. For purposes of meeting the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requirements, Cumulative Conditions must also be analyzed. A discussion of each is provided in the following sections. St. Andrew's Presb Traffic and Parking Church - 4 - February, 1 I� :1 r 1 1 r .r I� X�, , SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION UNSIGNAUZED INTERSECTION X l /� FIGURE 3 r EXISTING LANE CONFIGURATIONS AND TRAFFIC CONTROLS o:o 5 — Kimley —Horn and Associat7.1-1- 12 W W FIGURE 4 �-� EXISTING PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES D.❑ 8 _ Kimley —Horn and Associates, Inc. U O 6 U N Y I r I IJ �J I I u L f I I I I i TABLE I SUMMARY OF PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION OPERATION EXISTING CONDITIONS 0.44 Signalized Intersection AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour ICU LOS ICU LOS Riverside Ave at Coast Highway 0.71 LOS C 0.79 C Tustin Ave at Coast Highway 0.70 Focused analysis: Peak 15- minute period B 0.60 A Irvine Avenue at Dover Dr / 19th Street 0.56 A 0.59 A Irvine Avenue at Westcliff Drive 0.55 A 0.79 C Dover Drive at Westcliff Drive 0.42 A 0.61 B Dover Drive at 16th Street 0.44 A 0.56 A Dover Drive at Cliff Drive 0.50 A 0.47 A Dover Drive at Coast Highway 0.74 1 C 0.76 1 C Unsignalized Intersection AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Delay (sec) LOS Delay (sec) LOS Irvine Avenue at 15th Street 1997 C 25.19 D Focused analysis: Peak 15- minute period 39.09 E 34.45 D Note: The intersection of Irvine Avenue and 15th Street is unsignalized. Analysis of this intersection is provided for information purposes only. 7- TPO Analysis - Future with Approved Projects For TPO purposes, traffic forecasts are developed for the year following completion of the project. This future condition includes an ambient growth rate of 1.0 percent per year, plus traffic from all Approved Projects in the vicinity of the proposed project site. Project completion is expected to occur in Year 2006, therefore, the analysis year is 2007. One percent per year ambient growth has been applied to four years. Approved project traffic information was provided by City staff. A copy of the Approved Projects information provided by the City is included in Appendix A. A summary of the Approved Projects included in the TPO Analysis is provided on Table 2. The compilation of all Approved Project peak hour traffic volumes at the study intersections is shown on Figure 5. Existing plus Growth plus Approved Project peak hour traffic volumes are shown on Figure 6. Table 2 - Summary of Approved Projects Project Number Project Name Percent Complete 147 Balboa Bay Club Expansion 0% 148 Fashion Island Expansion 36% 154 Temple Bat Yahm Expansion 0% 157 Ford Redevelopment 95% 162 Holtze Hotel 30% 166 Newport Center Block 600 0% 167 Cannery lofts Village 0% 168 Hoag Hospital Phase 11 0% 555 CIOSA - Irvine Project 9100 910 Ne ort Dunes 0% 935 Irvine Development 1999 0% Source: City of Newport Beach - Traffic Phasing Data - Includes approved projects less than 100% complete CEQA Analysis - Cumulative Conditions CEQA requires that a Cumulative Conditions analysis, which also includes traffic from Related Projects in the vicinity of the project be conducted. Related Projects consist of projects that are in various stages of the application and approval process, but that have not yet been approved. These projects are considered to be "reasonably foreseeable" projects, and must therefore be analyzed for CEQA purposes. Cumulative Project traffic information was provided by City staff. Traffic data sheets for each Cumulative Project are provided in AppendLv B. A summary of the related projects included in the CEQA analysis is provided on Table 3. The compilation of all Cumulative Project peak hour traffic at the study intersections is shown on Figure 7. Cumulative Conditions peak hour traffic volumes (consisting of Existing plus Growth plus Approved Projects plus Related Projects traffic) are shown on Figure 8. St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church - 8 - February, 2004 Traffic and Parking Study APPROVED PROJECT PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES non 9 _ Kim)ey —Horn and Associates, Inc. e' 8 0 x N NOT TO SCALE t I �l 9� ry I I 1 i i r 1 1 r r r r O� r 1 � r J� j j k X41/32 s3s'i nei -1 /23� men zz /yy= hour liurnin gn movement FIGURE 6 olu mes EXISTING PLUS GROWTH PLUS APPROVED PROJECT PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES IM❑ 10 — Kimley —Horn and Associates, Inc. I I r� ©1 �r w U N x I w 1 I r I ,1 1] I L Table 3 — Summary of Cumulative Projects Project Name Project Description Cannery Lofts 22 Medium Density Residential DU 17.11 KSF Commercial South Coast Shipyard 28 Apartments 19.8 KSF Commercial 10.4 KSF Commercial Office Mormon Temple 17.46 KSF Mormon Temple Saint Mark Presbyterian Church 34.8 KSF Church 4.72 KSF Daycare J Our Lady Queen of Angels 18.5 KSF Church 250 Students Regent Newport Beach Hotel 156 Rooms Newport Coast 3,180 SF Residential 1,880 Condo J MF Residential 2,807 Acres State Park Newport Ridge 2,107 SF Residential 1,281 MF Residential 102.959 KSF Commercial Lower Bayview Senior Housing 15 Senior Housing DU DU = Dwelling Units KSF — Thousand Square Feet SF = Single - Family (Residential) MF = Multi- Family (Residential) ' PROJECT TRAFFIC Trip Generation The traffic to be generated by the proposed St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church project was calculated using trip generation rates from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (HE) publication Trip Generation, Sixth Edition. Since the proposed project consists of support uses for the existing St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church, the Land Use Category used was "Church" (ITE Code 9 560). The description provided in the ITE manual for this land use category reads as follows: "A church is a building in which public meeting worship services are held. A church may also house an assembly hall or sanctuary; meetings rooms; classrooms; and occasionally dining, catering, or party facilities." Daily, morning and evening peak hour trip generation rates and project - related trips for the proposed St. Andrews expansion are presented on Table 4. ' Based on ITE trip rates, the St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church expansion of 35,948 square feet will generate 327 trips on a typical weekday basis with 26 trips in the morning peak hour and 24 trips in the evening peak hour. St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church - 11 - February, 2004 Traffic and Parking Study I F] I i' 1i 1' I 'I I i A � 1 U a r x W 0 V N Y w G Table 4 — Summary of Project Trip Generation Trip Generation Rates Project Trip Generation Land KSF AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak Use Daily Daily In Out Tot In Out Tot In Oui Tot In Out Tot Church 35.948 9.11 .39 .33 .72 .36 .30 .66 328 14 12 26 13 11 24 Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Report, 6`h Edition. Land Use Category: 560 — Church Note: KSF = Thousand Square Feet 14- Traffic and Parking February, ZUU4 Since the development plan does not call for additional seating in the sanctuary, and since the proposed new square footage will not result in additional traffic coming to and from the church during the Sunday morning service hours, an analysis of project traffic on a Sunday morning was not necessary. ' Trip Distribution and Assignment The project trip distribution assumptions were developed based on existing traffic patterns in the area, the nature of the project land use, land uses likely to interact with the project, and the roadway system available for tripmaking. Trip distribution assumptions were reviewed and approved by City staff. Project trip distribution assumptions are depicted on Figure 9. With the basic trip distributions established, the project trips were assigned to the available road system. The trip distribution percentage factors were applied to the project trip generation, and the results are shown on Figure 10. These volumes represent the St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church project contribution of traffic at the study intersections and study roadways. 1% ANALYSIS AND PROJECT IMPACT In accordance with City of Newport traffic study requirements, the project traffic contribution at the study intersections was evaluated for both the TPO Analysis (Existing plus Growth plus Approved Projects) and the CEQA Analysis (Cumulative Conditions) to deternne the extent of the traffic impact analysis required of the project. TPO Analysis - Existing Plus Growth Plus Approved Projects The project morning and evening peak hour traffic volumes were compared to the Existing Plus Growth Plus Approved Projects peak hour volumes on each leg of each study intersection to determine whether or not the project would have a significant impact. The results of the analysis are summarized on Table 5. 1% Analysis Worksheets for the TPO Analysis are provided in Appendix C. Review of Table 5 shows that the project traffic will exceed 1% of one or more approach legs at two study intersections: • Irvine Avenue at 19'h Street / Dover Drive (EB approach, AM and PM peak hours) • Dover Drive at Cliff St. (NB approach, AM peak hour, and EB approach, AM/PM peak hours) The project will be required to proceed with a TPO traffic impact analysis at these intersections. ICU analysis was conducted for Existing Plus Growth Plus Approved Project peak hour traffic conditions for the two impacted intersections. ICU worksheets are provided in Appendiv D. The unsignalized intersection of Irvine Avenue and 15'h Street was also analyzed, for informational purposes, using the HCM methodology. The resulting peak hour operation is summarized on Table 6. As shown on Table 6, each of the three intersections is forecasted to operate at an acceptable level of service (LOS -D" or better) in both peak hours. The intersection of Irvine Avenue and 15'h Street will operate with level of service -V delays during the peak 15- minute period in the morning peak hour. Project peak hour traffic was added to the three intersections, and the intersection analysis was conducted. The results are shown on Table 7. Review of Table 7 shows that, with the addition of project traffic, each of the intersections will continue to operate at LOS "D" or better in both peak hours. Table 7 also provides an indication of the magnitude of the project's impact at each intersection. The project will not adversely impact any of the study intersections. St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church -15- February, 2004 Traffic and Parking Study FIGURE 9 PROJECT TRIP DISTRIBUTION - 16- L p' ect Trip Distribution y Intersection Kimley -Horn sates, Inc.l FIGURE 10 PROJECT PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES ❑mm❑ —17— Klmley —Horn and Associates, Inc. m C a N N} N N} U') } 0 0} 0 0} — O} 0 0} 1� } co O O m ` Q N } LO N }} O} O O d O} O O} N oo >- G j Q N} N M Z N} O O} N O} N Z m N} 7 � O p m w LL W Q a N V} N N} c) e`1 Z N} CO O} N O} N Cl) Z U') N } N F U W Q C U d I' N} O} � -T } Lo } Lo N} N} N} O} W O N JIl a O a V N} O} } O U) } U) N} N} N} � 0} L C CL Q Qp N IL CL U) Q c L 0 0 } 0 0} 00 CO } O 1- } N} N} O} O} N N U p M O d L CL F Z <rL Q \° LLJ J 0 00 F E E E E E E E E Q 7 Q 7 o 7 0 7 0 7 0 7 0 7 0 7 0 7 0 a > C'. > C'. > C'. > C'. > C'. > C'. > C'. > CI. C C L 7 O L 7 O L 7� O r L 7 O L 7 O L 7 O L 7 G L 7 O 7 Z C L E L E L E L E L E L E O E L E U) F o � c � c � c � c � c � c L � c � c (n ;.7 Y �p OL.. f0 Y Co OL.. f0 Y Co OL.. f0 Y Co OL.. f0 Y N OL.. f0 Y N OL.. f0 Y N OL.. f0 Y Co OL.. f0 X Ol > Ol > Ol > Ol > Ol > Ol > Ol > Ol > W c O 7 (n 7 y a 7 (n 7 (n 7 y 7 y a 7 (n 7 y V O Q) � p Q) o Q o Q) ) o Q) o 0 0� Q) 0 0� Q) 0 Q) o Q) U) Q) L Q) L — Q) L N L — Q) L — Q) L — O7 L Q) L U Y Ut5 Y U F- U Y U t Y U V Y U V Y U U Y _U F- p Y U O7 f0 O .o m O .o f0 Ol 'O f0 O 'O f0 Ol 'O N O: 'o N N 'O f0 O o m o m a m o m o m o a m o m Z w 0 w 0 w w 0 0 w 0 w 0 w 0 0 w Q O o o O o 'O o 'o O o 'o o 'o O o 'o o 'o O o 'O o 'o O o 'O o 'o O o 'o o 'o O o 0 o o o o o o O o F 3 0 3 3 U v`oi U Q) o U p O U U > > > > Z Z 0 0 0 0 F7 m 11 1 I I 1 I I Ul TABLE 6 SUMMARY OF PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION OPERATION EXISTING PLUS GROWTH PLUS APPROVED PROJECTS Intersection AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour ICL' LOS ICU LOS Irvine Avenue at Dover Dr / 19th Street 058 A 0.61 B Dover Drive at Cliff Drive 0.52 A 0.49 A Unsignalized Intersection AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Delav (sec) LOS Delay (sec) LOS Irvine Avenue at 15th Street 22.39 C 30.17 D Focused analysis: Peak 15- minute period 50.50 F 41.94 E Note: The intersection of Irvine Avenue and 15th Street is unsignalized. Analysis of this intersection is provided for information purposes only. 1 -19- T O N E' a 0 W ,o 0 a F O N w 0 T n E 0 mzlm R O O a ¢ r-i r z ti U O C• T ° ° � A � ° d' ° z w O 1I A C' p R C• ¢ ¢ z z z z a t;a CG '1 U v h, W VJ �' '� O O •�. u V h N N a ow 'o zz L L w � C O Q i m p O O .yC. r. T O N E' a 0 W ,o 0 a F O N w 0 T n E 0 mzlm 1 CEQA Analysis — Cumulative Projects ' The project morning and evening peak hour traffic volumes were compared to the Cumulative peak hour volumes on each leg of each study intersection for Cumulative Conditions to determine whether or ' not the project would have a significant impact. The results of the analysis are summarized on Table 8. 1% Analysis Worksheets for the CEQA Analysis are provided in Appendix E. Review of Table 8 shows that the project traffic will exceed 1% of one or more approach legs at the same two study intersections as under the TPO Analysis conditions. The project will be required to proceed with traffic ' impact analysis at these two intersections for the CEQA analysis, as well. Intersection Capacity Utilization analysis was conducted for Cumulative (Existing Plus Growth Plus ' Approved Plus Related Project) peak hour traffic conditions for the two impacted intersections. The unsignalized intersection of Irvine Avenue and 15" Street was also analyzed, for informational purposes, using the HCM methodology. Analysis worksheets for the CEQA Analysis are provided in Appendix F. The resulting peak hour intersection operation is summarized on Table 9. As shown on Table 9, each of the three intersections is projected to operate at LOS "D" or better in both peak hours. The intersection of Irvine Avenue and 15" Street will continue to operate with level of service "F" delays during the peak 15- minute period in the morning peak hour. Project peak hour traffic was added to the three study intersections, and the intersection analysis was conducted. The results are shown on Table 10. With the addition of project traffic, each of the study intersections will continue to operate at LOS "D" or better under Cumulative Plus Project conditions in both peak hours. The project will not adversely impact any of the study intersections FINDINGS Based on the City's 1% analysis process, the proposed St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church project would have a greater than 1% impact at two study intersections: ' Irvine Avenue at 19" Street / Dover Drive • Dover Drive at Cliff Street ' Based on the City's Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) methodology, these two intersections are projected to operate at an acceptable Level of Service both with and without the project, in both the Existing plus Growth plus Approved Project condition (analyzed for TPO purposes) and the Cumulative Condition (analyzed for CEQA purposes). The unsignalized intersection of Irvine Avenue and 15" Street was analyzed for informational purposes using the Highway Capacity Manual methodology for unsignalized intersections. Results were reported for the typical morning and evening peak hour periods, as well as for the peak 15 -minute periods within those peak hours. The intersection is projected to operate at LOS "D" or better in both peak hours with 1 or without the project, in both the Existing plus Growth plus Approved Project condition (analyzed for TPO purposes) and the Cumulative Condition (analyzed for CEQA purposes). Due to concentrated traffic patterns associated with the Newport Harbor High School, the intersection is shown to experience LOS "F" delays during the peak 15- minute period in the morning peak hour. This is a common occurrence at intersections adjacent to elementary, middle, and high school sites. The project would not have a significant impact at any study intersection. St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church -21 - February, 2004 Traffic and Parking Study - 22 - U M N} M N }} O} O O } O} 0 0} 1� } a O N O Q Q N N} N N} V} 0 0} O O} O} 0 0} M ro} V} N} N Cl) Z N} O} N O} N Z N N} U a N N O N O � W Q Q M} N N} M M Z N M Z N} N} O} } l(7 } l(7 N} N> N> O} 7 U d cu � O L ol ZQ 7 ol a V N} O} �} O l(7 } Lo N} � N} � N} } 0 F O d 0 0} O O } ro (0! } O 1- } N} 10 N} 10 O} O} U) O } U a o J W r cl Q Q 0 0} O O } c0 } I 1- } C N }-1 N} M, - } O} Z F Q z � J e e W J � LL 7 ~ O U E E E E E E E E a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 U) > C'. > C'. > C,. > C'. > C'. > C'. > C'. > Cl. J O e O e O e O e O e O e O e O e 7 O O O O O O O O Z L 7 L O L O L O L O O O O Q :5 Y N O> N Y N O> N P N O N L Y N O> N Y N OL.. N Y N O> N Y N >> N w Y N O> N a cy o W U o 0 Q) 0 0 Q) O Q) �o O Q) �o O Q) �o O Q) �o O Q) O Q) U L — Q7 L — _Q) L — Q7 L — Q7 L — Q7 L — Q7 L — Q7 L — U Q) Y= (p � t Q7 Y V E V O Y (6 U E U O Y (6 O F- U Q) Y (6 .V iF i Q7 Y (p O � U Q7 Y (p O � t Q7 Y (6 U_ E O (p O N Q) N Q) (p 0 N (6 0 N (p 0 Q) (p 0 Q) (p 0 N (p C)L CL O Q) Q) O Q) Q) O Q) Q) O Q) Q) O Q) Q) O Q) Q) O Q) Q) o 1 Q) I Q) o 'o o 'o 'o o 'o 'o o F 3 C O = T T .O N 2 - 2 N O U m Q) y L m Q) U p O U U Q) c jn C_ > > > > _C 0 - 22 - TABLE 9 SUMMARY OF PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION OPERATION CUMULATIVE CONDITIONS Intersection AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour ICIi LOS ICU LOS Irvine Avenue at Dover Dr / 19th Street 0.59 A 0.61 B Dover Drive at Cliff Drive 0.58 A 0.59 A Unsignalized Intersection AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Delay (sec) LOS Delay (sec) LOS Irvine Avenue at 15th Street 22.39 C 30.17 D Focused analysis: Peak 15- minute period 50.50 F 41.94 E Note: The intersection of Irvine Avenue and 15th Street is unsignalized. Analysis of this intersection is provided for information purposes only. -23- O z -24- R C' O O R C• d d z z 7 z z R R V d d ° O O ° v z z x v O w d x O o w y W y a � OV' a � � R u vMJ vMi "NJ = z �O vii v o o � a O z a o c y d d z z z z Wo F � W ti •o a ° o T a z z O c" x a v w v a _ Q T o �r C 3cj O O 3 A N O ✓ � v � q Ca C i ,L C _ ti a� R N o T •rn G ..i `° d lz d � L •� � � b C j C G o o O z -24- ' SITE CIRCULATION AND PARKING The St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church currently provides a surface parking lot with 250 parking spaces. Access to the parking is provided via one driveway each on 15ih Street, St. Andrews Road, and Clay Street, with full turning movements allowed at all driveways. The proposed project will involve reduction of the surface parking to 173 spaces, and construction of 227 new parking spaces below grade, for a total of 400 parking spaces. This is an increase of 150 spaces over the existing parking supply. The existing driveways will remain in their current locations. The City of Newport Beach parking code for places of religious assembly requires I parking space for each 3 seats. The parking requirement for the St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church, with 1,387 seats, therefore, would be 462 parking spaces. The Church is currently operating under a use permit that allows the Church to use the Newport Harbor High School parking lot for Sunday services. The High School parking lot, immediately across 15th Street from the church entrance, provides easy access to approximately 150 parking spaces in the area immediately north of 15 °i Street. Additional school ' parking is available at the north end of the lot, and off 16`' Street, but is not typically used by Church members. 1 On- Street Parking The south side of 15" Street is striped with diagonal and parallel parking between Clay Street and ' Irvine Avenue. On the remainder of the streets surrounding the church, parallel parking is allowed, with some restrictions posted. ' Existing on- street parking immediately surrounding the church is depicted on Figure 11. In the area immediately surrounding the church, there are approximately 626 on- street parking spaces. On streets where parking spaces are not striped, the number of potential parking spaces was estimated based on an average of 22 linear feet per space. Actual usage of a stretch of street may yield greater or fewer parked cars, depending on how drivers park. If the demand is made up of primarily of smaller cars, and if drivers park close to the car in front, then each car may require less than the 22 linear feet of curb, and more cars may fit in a stretch of road than the estimate. If, on the other hand, drivers leave inefficient gaps between their car and the next, such that it is larger than needed to get into and out of the space but not large enough for another car, then less than the maximum potential on- street parking will be achieved. The Church is surrounded by a high school, single - family, and multi - family residential uses. Parking restrictions are posted on selected streets in the neighborhood, primarily to restrict high school parking overflow during school days. Parking restrictions posted on the neighborhood streets are shown on Figure 12. Most of the streets are posted with signs that read, "2 Hour Parking 8 A.M. to 6 P.M. School Days" and "Zone 2 Permits Exempt ". The west side of Irvine Avenue is posted with signs that ' read, "No Parking 7 A.M. to 9 A.M. School Days" and signs on the east side of Irvine Avenue read, "No Parking 2 P.M. to 4 P.M. School Days." The on- street parking is heavily used both on weekdays and Sundays. On weekdays, students and staff ' of the Newport Harbor High School are the predominant users of the street parking. On Sundays, church -goers use the street parking to supplement the church and high school off - street parking. 1J St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church -25- February, 2004 Traffic and Parking Study )1, —26— .y, z Y Q IL H W W cr H W z —0 ii DCO 2X LW V C 0 O V N 11 C ❑ O O T L E Y 0 6 0 0 0 7d I- Q H 0 0 z -27- VJ z O F U_ Ili ar c� z Y Q Q N IL T Wz VJ X LL W V C V O N " C ❑ o a v �x W rp a 6 N ` mF I a I a Y6 ZQ -L6 z C_O C=J N VI Q_O O C=J Z VI 20 O (IJ Z VI l O O O J 0 0 0 7d I- Q H 0 0 z -27- VJ z O F U_ Ili ar c� z Y Q Q N IL T Wz VJ X LL W V C V O N " C ❑ o a v Parking Surveys The City of Newport Beach staff requested that an inventory of available parking and a survey of on- street parking demand be conducted for this study, to determine the extent to which church employees and members use the on- street parking. Parking surveys were conducted from 6:00 AM to 3:30 PM on a typical weekday, from 3:00 PM to 10 PM on a weekday evening, and from 7:00 AM to 12:00 noon on a Sunday. Parking data was collected in the Church parking lot and on the following streets: • 15`h Street, from Irvine Avenue to Kings Place • Haven Place, from Irvine Avenue to St. Andrews Road • Clay Street, from Irvine Avenue to 15 °i Street • Coral Place, from Irvine Avenue to St. Andrews Road • Irvine Avenue, from 15`h Street to Coral Place • St. Andrews Road, from 15" Street to Cliff Drive • Pirate Road, from Clay Street to Cliff Drive • Snug Harbor, from Snug Harbor to Cliff Drive • Signal Road, from 15`h Street to Cliff Drive. • St. James Road, from 15'h Street to Kings Place In addition, parking data was also collected in the 15ih Street High School parking lot on Sunday. Weekday Parking Demand Parking demand surveys were conducted from 6:00 AM to 3:30 PM on a typical school weekday. The results of the surveys are summarized on Table 11. Review of Table 11 shows that on a weekday morning, before high school students and staff start arriving for school (classes start at 7:45 AM), 221 cars were parked on the study streets. This number is assumed to be resident parking demand, before the high school demand starts. A second early morning count was conducted to confirm this count, and 222 cars were found parked on the street at 6:00 AM. In addition, there were 10 vehicles in the church parking lot, consisting of church buses and vehicles parked in the northeast comer of the lot. On- street parking demand was observed to increase rapidly, especially between 7:00 and 8:00, and peaked at 383 cars (61% of the street capacity) between 8:00 and 9:00. While the usage of the on- street parking closest to the school was near capacity throughout much of the school day, less of the on- street parking was used on the street segments that stretched away from the school, south of the Church. Overall, usage of the on- street parking throughout the study area was consistently between 50 and 60% throughout much of the school day. The exact number of cars parked on the street attributable to the school is not known, since some of the parking taken in the early morning by residents is freed up when those residents leave for work, and is subsequently taken by school students and staff. A limited number of parking spaces in the St. Andrew's parking lot are also made available to the school. The church provides 36 parking spaces for Newport Harbor students, by permit. The church occasionally limits school use of the Church parking lot when the parking is needed for mid -week memorial services, or other church activities. St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church -28- February, 2004 Traffic and Parking Study Table 11 Summary of Parking Data Collection Weekday Morning and Afternoon Location Capacity 6 -7 AM 1 7 -8 AM 8 -9 AM 1 9 -10 AM 10 -11 AM Ill -12 AM 12 -1 PM 1-2 PM 2 -3 PM East/West Streets 15th Street - Irvine Avenue to St. Andrews Road - St. Andrews Road to Clay Street - Clay Street to Kings Place 57 34 20 19 10 3 52 53 10 48 39 18 48 39 14 45 40 21 49 43 13 42 39 20 49 41 3 46 33 6 Street Sub -Total 111 32 115 105 101 106 105 101 93 85 Haven Place - Irvine Avenue to St. Andrews Road 46 36 30 37 34 29 33 29 14 17 Street Sub -Total 46 36 30 37 34 29 33 29 14 17 Clay Street - Irvine Avenue to St. Andrews Road 52 34 - St. Andrews Road to 15th Street 46 5 33 25 31 45 30 46 22 47 24 44 22 31 15 10 17 13 Street Sub -Total 98 39 58 76 76 69 68 53 25 30 Coral Place - Irvine Avenue to St. Andrews Road 56 23 16 16 15 9 11 12 9 16 Street Sub -Total 56 23 16 16 15 9 11 12 9 16 North /South Streets Irvine Avenue - 15th Street to Haven Place - Haven Place to Clay Street - Clay Street to Coral Place 16 31 18 4 6 8 14 8 8 5 5 5 3 4 5 4 4 5 4 3 4 0 0 0 3 0 3 9 0 2 Street Sub -Total 65 18 30 15 12 13 11 0 6 11 St. Andrews Road - 15th Street to Haven Place - Haven Place to Clay Street - Clay Street to Cliff Drive 14 19 42 6 12 7 13 14 7 14 16 10 14 15 10 16 16 7 14 15 17 15 15 17 10 6 9 14 1 8 Street Sub -Total 75 25 34 40 39 39 46 47 25 23 Pirate - Clay Street to Cliff Drive 42 11 13 21 25 14 15 14 11 13 Street Sub -Total 42 11 _IL_L 21 25 14 15 14 11 13 Snug Harbor - Clay Street to Cliff Drive 50 13 11 29 27 24 21 23 16 15 Street SuTotal b- 50 13 11 29 27 24 21 23 16 15 Signal Road - 15th Street to Cliff Dtive 54 14 15 17 17 16 18 16 11 17 Street Sub -Total 54 14 15 17 17 16 18 16 11 17 St. James - 15th Street to Kings Place 29 10 12 27 23 16 20 23 10 13 Street Sub -Total 29 10 12 27 23 16 20 23 10 13 Total On-Street Parking 626 221 334 383 369 335 348 318 220 240 On- Street Parking Percent Occupancy 35% 53% 61% 59% 54% 56% 51% 35% 38% Church Parking Lot 250 10 14 69 111 126 129 89 55 56 Church Parking PercentOccupancy 4% 60' 44% 50% 52% 36% 22% 22% Total 876 231 348 W502'0 7 480 461 477 407 275 296 Total Percent Occupancy 1 26% 40% 52% 55% 53% 54% 46% 31% 34% -29- The number of occupied parking spaces in the church parking lot increased throughout the morning, peaking at 129 parking spaces (52% of the Church lot capacity) from I I AM to 12 Noon, and dropping to 56 by 3:00 PM. Approximately 75 spaces in the parking area closest to St. Andrews Road are generally not used when day care is in session, except for short periods of time when parents are dropping off or picking up their child. Even with this parking area off limits, and with as many as 36 student cars in the church parking lot, approximately 45 empty spaces in the church parking were still available during the church peak hour between I I AM and 12 Noon. Evaluation of this data, as well as observations throughout the day indicate that on a typical weekday, church parking demand does not encroach onto the neighborhood streets. School demand for on- street parking remained high throughout the day, in spite of the 2 -hour parking restriction. In fact, data collection personnel observed a parking control officer chalking tires, and many students moving their cars between classes throughout the day to avoid being ticketed. Wednesday Evenine Parking Demand Parking data in the neighborhood was also collected from 3:00 to 10:00 PM on a weekday evening to determine whether or not church parking demand for their evening activities impact the neighborhood, when residents' demand for street parking would be at its greatest. Wednesday evening was selected because of the number and variety of activities scheduled at the church. A copy of the activities schedule for the night that parking data was collected is provided in Appendix G. On the evening of the data collection, a number of band and choir rehearsals were held in various music rooms in Building B, starting at 4:00 or 5:00 PM. A Family dinner started at 5:15, followed by a variety of Children's and Family Ministries starting at 6:30 and 7:00 PM, which were held in various meeting rooms throughout the facility. Most events were scheduled to end by 7:30 or 8:30, with two events shown ending at 9:30. The on -site and on- street parking demand for a weekday evening are summarized on Table 12. Review of Table 12 shows that the parking demand in the church parking lot peaked between 7 and 8 PM, which coincides with the various scheduled event start and end times. At its peak, a total of 194 of the 250 church parking spaces (78 %) were occupied. On- street parking in the neighborhood surrounding the church also peaked between 7 and 8 PM, with 234 parked cars (37% of the total on- street parking). This total includes the diagonal parking along the south side of 15" Street, immediately adjacent to the church property, which peaked at 31 spaces between 7 and 8 PM, and dropped to 2 cars by 10:00 PM. While the exact number of cars parked on the streets attributable to the church is not known, it can be assumed that the majority of the cars on the streets immediately adjacent to the St. Andrews property (151' Street between St. Andrews and Clay, St. Andrews between 15th Street and Clay Street, and Clay Street between St. Andrews and 151° Street) was church parking. This assumption is based on the fact that the parking demand on these three streets peaked at 66 vehicles between 7 and 8 PM, coinciding with the peak church parking, and dropped to 13 vehicles by 10:00 PM. In addition, these street segments do not have direct residential frontage (with the exception of Clay Street between Snug Harbor and 15th Street), and therefore would not be primary parking for residents. The demand along most other streets in the neighborhood generally remained constant throughout the evening, and the total number of cars parked on the street by 10:00 PM was 176 (28% of the total on- street parking). The majority of the on- street parking on the streets by 10:00 PM is assumed to be resident parking. St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church -30- February, 2004 Traffic and Parking Study Table 12 Summary of Parking Data Collection Weekday Evening Location Capacity 2 -3 PM 1 3 -4 PM 4 -5 PM 5 -6 PM 6 -7 PM 7 -8 PM 8 -9 PM 9 -10 PM East/West Streets 15th Street - Irvine Avenue to St. Andrews Road - St. Andrews Road to Clay Street - Clay Street to Kings Place 57 34 20 24 19 10 26 19 6 30 21 7 23 7 5 30 20 4 33 31 8 27 19 4 21 2 4 Street Sub -Total 111 53 51 58 35 54 72 50 27 Haven Place - Irvine Avenue to St. Andrews Road 46 19 24 19 26 25 30 32 33 Street Sub -Total 46 19 24 1 19 1 26 ji 25 1 30 1 32 1 3 Clay Street - Irvine Avenue to St. Andrews Road 52 - St. Andrews Road to 15th St. 46 18 7 19 6 19 19 2 4 26 3 26 11 29 3 28 2 Street Sub -Total 98 25 25 21 23 29 37 32 30 Coral Place - Irvine Avenue to St. Andrews Road 56 11 14 15 26 25 20 23 23 Street Sub -Total 56 11 14 15 26 25 20 23 23 North /South Streets Irvine Avenue - 15th Street to Haven Place - Haven Place to Clay Street - Clay Street to Coral Place 16 31 18 0 6 0 5 4 0 3 0 0 1 0 5 1 1 3 2 2 3 0 4 3 1 10 0 Street Sub -Total 65 6 9 3 6 5 7 7 11 St. Andrews Road - 15th Street to Haven Place - Haven Place to Clay Street - Clay Street to Cliff Drive 14 19 42 8 4 2 11 4 1 11 5 1 8 8 9 9 6 6 13 11 2 9 4 3 6 2 5 Street Sub -Total 75 14 16 17 25 21 26 16 13 Pirate - Clay Street to Cliff Drive 42 11 11 11 11 14 11 12 13 Street Sub -Total 42 11 11 11 11 14 11 12 13 Snug Harbor - Clay Street to Cliff Drive 50 9 10 8 9 14 11 9 8 Street Sub -Total 50 9 10 1 8 9 14 11 9 8 Signal Road - 15th Street to Cliff Drive 54 9 8 9 9 10 9 10 9 Street Sub -Total 54 9 8 9 9 10 9 10 9 St. James - 15th Street to Kings Place 29 9 11 13 10 7 11 10 9 Street Sub -Total 29 9 11 13 10 7 11 10 9 Total On-Street Parking 626 166 179 174 180 204 234 201 176 On- Street Parking Percent Occupancy 27% 29% 28% 29% 33% 37% 32% 28% Church Parking Lot 250 67 66 78 100 148 194 80 10 Church Parking Percent Occupancy 27% 26% 31% 40% 59% 78% 32% 4% Total 876 233 245 252 280 352 428 281 186 Total Percent Occupancy 1 27% 1 28% 1 29% 1 32% 1 40% 49% 32% 21% 31- Evaluation of this data, as well as observations throughout the evening indicate that, other than the streets immediately adjacent to the church property (15 " Street between St. Andrews and Clay, St. Andrews between 15ih Street and Clay Street, and Clay Street between St. Andrews and 15 "' Street), weekday evening church parking demand does not depend on on- street parking in the neighborhood surrounding the Church. Sunday Parking Demand St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church service times are held at 8:15 AM and 10:30. Sunday morning parking demand studies were conducted from 7:00 in the morning to noon. The results are summarized on Table 13. Parking demand in the Church parking lot peaked between 10 and 11:00 AM, indicating that the attendance at the 10:30 service is greater than the 8:15 service. At the peak time, 249 vehicles were in the church parking lot, which means that for all intents and purposes, the church lot was full. Parking demand in the school parking lot also peaked between 10 and I 1 AM, at 98 vehicles. Parking demand on the streets surrounding the church peaked between 8 and 10:00 AM, at 363 vehicles (58 %). Unlike the weekday evening when the majority of church parking on the streets was concentrated on the three street segments immediately adjacent to the church property, Sunday morning parking demand extended onto other streets reaching into the neighborhood. Similar to the weekday experience, the exact number of cars parked on the street attributable to the Church is not known, since much of the parking demand on a Sunday morning is by residents, some of whom leave for church, work, or other purposes at various times of the morning. It was observed that most of the parking spaces on 15" Street, Haven Place and Clay Street between Irvine Avenue and St. Andrews Road were taken by residents. These three street segments were almost fully occupied from early in the morning, leaving few spaces available for church members. On the other hand, virtually all of the parking demand on the three streets immediately adjacent to the church (15 h Street between St. Andrews and Clay, St. Andrews between 15'h Street and Clay Street, and Clay Street between St. Andrews and 15" Street) was observed to be church parking. When the three street segments which provide the closest street parking to the church were full, some church members opted to park on the other streets in the neighborhood, including Pirate Lane, Snug Harbor, Signal Road, and Kings Place. In the early morning hours on a Sunday, any cars parked on these streets are assumed to be resident parking. As the moming progressed, however, and residents left and returned throughout the morning, it was not possible to determine which cars were resident cars, and which were associated with the church. It was observed that some church members opted to park on the neighborhood streets even when parking spaces were available in the Newport Harbor High School parking lot. Review of the data on Table 13 also shows that the amount of on -street parking increased from 226 parked cars before 7:00 AM to 363 by 10:00 AM, while parking was still available in the Church parking lot. The majority of this street parking occurred on the three streets immediately adjacent to the Church property, indicating that some Church members prefer the close street parking over the parking lot. A discussion of the need for parking management measures is provided later in this section. Summary of Parking Data Collection Upon review of the data collected and observations conducted throughout the area at various times, the following general conclusions about church parking are made: St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church -32- February, 2004 Traffic and Parking Study I i �1 J Ij IJ L L I I I I Table 13 Summary of Parking Data Collection Sunday Morning Location Capacity 6 -7 AM 7 -8 AM 8 -9 AM 9 -10 AM 10 -11 AM 11 -12 AM East/West Streets 15th Street - Irvine Avenue to St. Andrews Road - St. Andrews Road to Clay Street - Clay Street to Kings Place 57 34 20 21 7 4 21 25 7 35 39 8 35 41 8 39 39 5 28 19 3 Street Sub -Total 111 32 53 82 84 83 50 Haven Place - Irvine Avenue to St. Andrews Road 46 38 37 38 39 38 36 Street Sub -Total 46 38 37 38 39 38 36 Clay Street - Irvine Avenue to St. Andrews Road - St. Andrews Road to 15th Street 52 46 35 5 36 31 33 45 33 46 31 39 32 8 Street Sub -Total 98 40 67 78 79 70 40 Coral Place - Irvine Avenue to St. Andrews Road 56 23 20 21 19 20 19 Street Sub -Total 56 23 20 21 19 20 19 North /South Streets Irvine Avenue - 15th Street to Haven Place - Haven Place to Clay Street - Clay Street to Coral Place 16 31 18 7 8 11 7 7 11 5 11 11 6 11 12 4 5 8 4 6 2 Street Sub -Total 65 26 25 27 29 17 12 St. Andrews Road - 15th Street to Haven Place - Haven Place to Clay Street - Clay Street to Cliff Drive 14 19 42 6 7 5 19 13 10 24 12 14 20 14 13 21 15 12 8 4 4 Street Sub -Total 75 18 42 50 47 48 16 Pirate - Clay Street to Cliff Drive 42 16 18 20 24 17 15 Street Sub -Total 42 16 18 20 24 17 15 Snug Harbor - Clay Street to Cliff Drive 50 10 18 19 18 15 9 Street Sub -Total 50 10 18 19 18 15 9 Signal Road - 15th Street to Cliff Drive 54 11 13 12 13 14 10 Street Sub -Total 54 11 13 12 13 14 10 St. James - 15th Street to Kings Place 29 12 14 14 11 12 10 Street Sub -Total 29 12 14 14 11 12 10 Total On Street Parking 626 226 307 361 363 334 217 On- Street Parking Percent Occupancy 36% 49% 58% 58% 53% 35% Church Parking Lot 250 45 118 205 229 249 115 Church Parking Percent Occupancy 18% 47% 82% 92% 100% 46% Newport Harbor H S Parking Lot 150 5 29 71 86 98 20 Newport Harbor H S Parking Percent Occupancy 3% 19% 47% 57% 1 65% 13% Total 1026 276 454 637 1 678 681 352 Total Percent Occupancy 27% 1 44% 1 62% 1 66% 66% 34% -33- • On a typical weekday, the church parking demand is accommodated by the on -site parking supply. In fact, the church provides 36 parking spaces for Newport Harbor students, by permit ' on a typical weekday, when not needed for mid -week memorial services, or other church activities. • A substantial amount of on- street parking activity in the neighborhood occurs throughout the , morning and early afternoon hours due to the High School. • On some weeknights, when numerous church functions are scheduled, church members park on , the streets immediately adjacent to the church property (15`h Street between St. Andrews and Clay, St. Andrews between 15" Street and Clay Street, and Clay Street between St. Andrews and 15`" Street), even when up to 50 parking spaces were available in the church parking lot. In ' general, church parking demand did not extend beyond the streets immediately adjacent to the church property. j • On a Sunday morning during the main services, the church parking lot was full. Church ' members also parked in the -Newport Harbor High School parking lot, on the streets immediately adjacent to the church property, and on the neighborhood streets surrounding the , church. • It was observed that some church members opted to park on the neighborhood streets even , when parking spaces were available in the Newport Harbor High School parking lot and in the Church parking lot. Proposed Parking , With the completion of the St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church project, the on -site parking supply will increase to 400 parking spaces. This parking supply will be short of the City of Newport Beach parking code requirement of 1 space for every 3 seats by 62 spaces. The additional 150 parking spaces on the church property will greatly reduce the need for on- street parking for the majority church services and events, and should eliminate the need to park on any neighborhood streets with direct residential ' frontage. The following recommendations are made to address future parking procedures for the St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church. • The Church should formalize their arrangement with the Newport Harbor High School to ' ensure the availability of a minimum of 150 school parking spaces for use by the Church during Sunday services and any other large - attendance functions, including Sunday services. • The church should implement a Parking Management Program to instruct church members where to park. The Parking Program should list allowable parking areas in order of priority, as follows: park in the church parking lot, or along 15'h Street adjacent to the church property first, ' if needed, park in the High School parking lot, or on the north side of 15" Street if needed, park along St. Andrews Road, adjacent to the church property if needed, park along Clay Street, between St. Andrews Road and Snug Harbor (do not park on Clay Street between Snug Harbor and 15" Street.) Do not park on any other neighborhood streets St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church -34- February. 2004 Traffic and Parking Study • The Parking Management Program should include ushered parking for large - attendance functions, to maximize the efficiency of the on -site parking. This would involve using individuals to direct people to park sequentially, starting at the end of each parking aisle and working back to the start of the aisle by filling each space. This will make the most efficient use of the parking area, and will minimize vehicle- pedestrian conflicts. Consideration should also be given to staging the parking sequence and entry and exit patterns so that people leaving the first service will not conflict with people arriving early for the second service. • If necessary, parking personnel should be employed to "cone off' or otherwise restrict use of the street parking adjacent to the church property, until the on -site parking is fully utilized. • Staff should be required to use the lower level parking, to make the more convenient close -in parking available for attendees of both services. • The design of the parking facilities, including the parking structure should incorporate features to facilitate the movement of vehicles and pedestrians, and to encourage full use of the on -site parking spaces. Such design features would include installing adequate lighting and light - colored paint in all parking aisles, corridors, elevators and stairwells, convenient access to stairs and elevators from all areas of the structure, clear signage to direct drivers and pedestrians to their desired destinations. • Once a successful circulation and parking procedure is developed, it should be communicated regularly to the Church membership through church bulletins and the church website. • A minimum 45- minute buffer between the end of the first service and the start of the second service should be maintained will also help to minimize inbound and outbound vehicle conflicts. • No concurrent use of other assembly areas within the Church property will be allowed while Sunday Church services are underway. • Consideration should be given to adding services at alternative times, such as a Sunday afternoon, to disperse the demand. Weekday On- Street Parking Demand When the Church parking structure is completed, the Church should do the following to help alleviate parking demand on the neighborhood streets: • Require all Church staff to park on -site during the weekdays, and not use the street parking, thereby not adding to the on- street parking demand on school days. • Issue a greater number of parking permits to the High School, to reduce the need for neighborhood street parking by students and staff on school days. St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church _35- February, 2004 Traffic and Parking Study PROJECT CONSTRUCTION TRAFFIC The St. Andrews's construction plan calls for a 48 -week construction schedule, of which the demolition and grading effort is estimated to require 8 weeks. The grading operation will require export of 50,000 cubic yards of soil for the construction of the parking structure, and 3,000 cubic yards of material from the demolition of buildings. The entire operation is estimated to require 15 trucks for soil export, each making 6 to 7 round tnps per day (in empty, out loaded). This truck traffic activity will be a temporary occurrence, and will be scheduled to take place when the Newport Harbor High School is not in session. Other large construction equipment, such as excavators, back-hoes, compressors, concrete trucks, cranes, etc. will be required during various construction phases. This type of equipment is generally brought to the site at the start of the construction phase, and kept on site until that phase ends. If the transport of any large construction equipment occurs during the school year, the transport should be scheduled such that the equipment is brought to or removed from the construction site outside of the peak morning and afternoon school hours. Throughout the construction, the size of the construction crew reporting to the site will vary from 10, during the demolition and excavation phase, to 60 during the actual construction of the building and parking structure. During the construction phases when adequate on -site parking is not available for the construction crew, workers will be shuttled to the site from an off -site location, and will not be allowed to park on local streets. During much of the construction period, the on -site parking will be disrupted, and staff and church members will need to park off -site. The Church has identified potential off -site locations for temporary parking and shuttle arrangements to accommodate church members and staff during the construction period when on -site parking is not available. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the Church will be required to provide an off -site parking management program that would identify parking and shuttle arrangements to accommodate the continued typical weekday use of the property during the week, and use of the sanctuary on weekends only. St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church -36- February. 2004 Traffic and Parking Study APPENDIX A APPROVED PROJECT INFORMATION �I 11 1 1 ' APPROVED PROJECTS LIST AND TRIP ASSIGNMENT I I I 11 I If 15- JUL -03 Project Number 147 148 154 157 162 166 167 168 555 910 935 Traffic Phasing Data Projects Less Than 100% Complete Project Name Percent BALBOA BAY CLUB EXPANSION FASHION ISLAND EXPANSION TEMPLE BAT YAHM EXPANSION FORD REDEVELOPMENT HOLTZE HOTEL NWPT. CNTR. BILK 600 CANNERY LOFTS VILLAGE HOAG HOSPITAL PHASE II CIOSA- IRVINE PROJECT NEWPORT DUNES IRVINE DEVELOPMENT 1999 0% 36% 0% 95% 30% 0% 0% 0% 91% 0% 0% page: 1 N CR G 7 CO V dC R G C 2 O v o a L > Qi O O Q Q = Q 0 L V N d L � o Via_ �a F j O Q 0 J N 0K: N >J' W' F' W' W. • J m UI d S cn, cn cn � Z• I p W F• o z: p N Z. x F m W N' E Q m. w f0 m' f- W Y r N i a °w° E'm Z�m m Z; C' ¢al d F -. J� Q:: - W• F. N W; J. W. s d F as >F >J' 0 m ! W' F: W: J. W. s m m d Z: p � W zi Z. J W F U) F z: F Z. N N Z: x F d p W E'a m• Z'Z �• c � ' O W: p W. U7, F ui Y m m: a cn . E;A = Z;m co C as >F >J' 0 m ! W' F: W: J. W. s m m d ¢a i > � m Z: m I 1 o f V N z: W W W F Z. N W 0 d d p O W: F II U7, Y N r N m: ui CD I O Z: C' ¢a i > � m ¢a �--'o W' m I 1 I III W s 0 d d p U7, ui u O C/) a m i u ui i O z, p } Z:cn CO Q c'00 m 'D Lo p W' m F Y CL C/) m; E'er co C ¢a m R G 3 C0 v d m E r c 2 o 0 0. °> d O ir �o a 000 L U y a. � � c ca � F j O Q Q Q J >J' n W' � m J W m d a =a J' ¢a Z. 3 3 r P Q x z; Z: Z U ¢ O J Z. W Q n o m. E: V7 m; n m om Z•w �. 6 � o W: W, m � a m =a: a(D E; ° Z.N `Z J C mm'�m W. ¢a 3 P Q Z 3 F ^^.� l" >' Q n W 1 3 W. � j m a 2 =a: 3 J I mm'�m W. I _ Z• � o F CJ d Z Q Z F � 1 3 } � j i mm'�m W. a o F CJ am X: = n E:M nl Z. N Z' �tyQ1 ¢a� i f a E E 7 d N � d O jCL Q ova O = co Q L V � d CL. � o w a c F j O w Q. Q U' Q 0 J' 3' Q�, W J. W. R m a r; J V �, •- N z z; (Y J; — ❑ Z W O O y;, d Co. Y Q m . r IL V), m C• mm Qa I 1 r, F 1 I ' APPENDIX B ' CUMULATIVE PROJECT INFORMATION �l 11 I I' I ' CUMULATIVE PROJECTS TRIP GENERATION AND TRIP DISTRIBUTION 11 II II II II II I I V— W NndAv 3 V VNV V1NV5 191NOdM3N ssis ,e 0 a 0 O c LL O r ME Zu W w W J o JEE v/ Z11 ina3 m� i i ml o� o; _o mi V a z r x; V' a ml �I Zi zl TABLE 2 -2 PROJECT TRIP GENERATION LAND USE QUANTITYJ UNITS' PEAK HOUR DAILY AM PM IN OUT IN OUT Existing Credits Residential - Low 1 DU 0 1 1 0 11 Office 14.37 TSF 26 3 5 24 217 Industrial 22.90 TSF 17 4 3 20 160 TOTAL CREDITS 43 8 9 44 388 Proposed Project Residential- Medium 22 DU 4 11 10 8 178 General Commercial 17.11 TSF 10 9 33 34 770 TOTAL 14 20 43 42 948 NET NEW TRIPS -29 12 34 -2 560 z DU = Dwelling Unit TSF = Thousand Square Feet U: \UCJobs \00636 \Excel \[00636- OUIS)T 4-1 TABLE 2 -1 TRIP GENERATION RATES' LAND USE UNITS PEAK HOUR DAILY AM PM IN OUT IN OUT Residential - Low DU 0.20 0.70 0.70 0.40 11.00 Residential - Medium DU 0.17 0.49 0.47 0.36 8.10 General Commercial TSF 0.60 0.50 1.90 2.00 45.00 Office TSF 1.69 0.21 0.32 1.55 14.03 Industrial TSF 0.76 0.16 0.12 0.86 6.97 Source: 1996 Newport Beach Traffic Analysis Model (NBTAM) trip rates, ' Cannery Lofts TPO Traffic Analysis (Austin -Foust Associates, Inc.) DU = Dwelling Units ' TSF = Thousand Square Feet ' U:\UcJobs1006361Exce !\[09636- 02.xls]T4 -1 <Z MQ CO =_ X W W a/ N_ D 0 a a_ N H a O N V , 39N"O G w 0 a 0 O 0 O H a 2 Z u W� � a W J ° EE / 8J/ Z,: a,, ]S i TABLE 3 -2 PROJECT TRIP GENERATION LAND USE QUANTITY UNITS' PEAK HOUR DAILY AM PM IN OUT IN OUT Existing Credits Commercial Retail 3.8 TSF 2 2 7 8 171 Commercial Office 10.4 TSF 27 4 15 76 233 TOTAL CREDITS 29 6 23 83 404 Proposed Project Residential - Apartments 28 DU 25 12 12 6 181 Commercial Retail 19.6 TSF 12 10 37 39 882 Commercial Office 10.4 TSF 27 4 15 76 233 TOTAL 64 26 64 121 1 1,296 NET NEW TRIPS 35 20 41 38 892 ' DU = Dwelling Unit TSF = Thousand Square Feet ' U: 1UcJobsN00636 NExcelc[00636- C2.xls]T 3 -2 I TABLE 3 -1 TRIP GENERATION RATES' LAND USE UNITS` PEAK HOUR DAILY AM PM IN OUT IN OUT Residential - Apartments DU 0.90 0.42 0.43 0.20 6.47 Commercial Retail TSF 0.60 0.50 1.90 2.00 45.00 General Office TSF 1 2.60 1 0.35 1 1.49 7.26 22.44 Source: City of Newport Beach Trip Generation Rates, Institue of Transportation Engineers (ITE), Trip Generation, ' Sixth Edition, 1997, Land Use Category 710 2 DU = Dwelling Units TSF = Thousand Square Feet U: \UcJobs \00636 \Excel \1006366- 02.xlsjT 3 -1 I 1 u andW� W rFr^- vJ bL V t V O a 0 O LL O r- Ciz ZI u W w a W u J ° tE / ri co m@. i i i i TABLE 4 -2 1 NEWPORT BEACH MORMON TEMPLE TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY , WEEKDAY LAND USE OUANTITJ UNITS' PEAK HOUR DAILY AM PM IN OUT IN OUT Mormon Temple Thousand Square Feet 1 17.46 1 TSF 54 52 770 Thousand Square Feet 17.46 TSF 20 5 16 10 410 WEEKEND LAND USE QUANTITY UNITS' PEAK HOUR DAILY IN OUT Mormon Temple Thousand Square Feet 1 17.46 1 TSF 54 52 770 'TSF = Thousand Square Feet U:1U cJc bs \006361Exce11100636 -02. xls1T4 -2 l ' 1 1 1 1 1 TABLE 4 -1 TRIP GENERATION RATES' WEEKDAY CONDITIONS LAND USE PEAK HOUR TRIP RATES DAILY RATE AM PM IN OUT IN OUT Norman Temple Rates Based on: 1 Thousand Square Feet 1.12 0.28 0.93 0.56 23.46 WEEKEND CONDITIONS LAND USE PEAK HOUR TRIP DAILY RATE IN OUT Morman Temple Rates Based on: Thousand Square Feet 3.12 2.99 44.11 Source: Empirical data coliection /trip generation analysis conducted by Solaegui Engineers, LTD (September 15, 2001) U:\UcJ ob s \006361Exce 8100636 -02.x I sjT4 -1 Lo V Z m >> WVm Z W � d N � CL Z O Sa O0 Z a N as unaw» dli GpN MIG UEl ♦ ♦ r L ' (n 0 Z W 0 ui J 44 / Sr( iJ/ / Zvi ' �E• i G ' o c C ' o i o r z r D W O V m m , zi Z w a i u„ o I I 1 4 1 r\ I I t i I a' of0 o a, o m• m v m i 0 a 3• �1 J. Zj CI W� QI rl � JI V' 1 II V= Q: W O 6 I Z; I WS COAST Q d'p O pb S O w W ;0 ¢ m P Oµ. S J c`PS $ AEdVOd Z v Z JE 6 K OJ ` YC _ bL S 31a3n9atlW V II � ` \` hOB SAN MICUEL 3AV ,F .- 0ONN30109 f �' `\ 30 Q ` Z j,joa Q S � a 1_ 0. fA o VJ O HE pFOR iO b S 24 JEF Y� 1 m t e G 5 .15 HJUI8 �O OO,Ep ra 0 LO tl(1dWVJ b ' V n 3AV Nusn Q 3AV VNV V1 S o PS i z i x Nfje� a �l C3 '3AV39NVtl0 m V+ J c m o is 1tlOdM3N lB t101tl3d05 m S m J SS 5 SS115 ell' Y m Yd, 00 6c OI 1 N yOS APP Y� JEE ' i Z Sf` dp Y'rb P, N� PAP bb dO SAP I ' �I c Z V Q K 1 ~ f 7i H� Q J �d Fl S J; 'yy tSt V: Od JQ5 V I O�� w aO m ' 0 H m: a' Z TABLE 5 -2 PROJECT TRIP GENERATION =LAND SE QUANTITY UNITS' PEAK HOUR DAILY AM PM IN OUT IN OUT Church 34.8 TSF 3 1 12 10 NIA` Da care 4.720 TSF 1 33 1 29 1 30 1 34 374 TOTAL 36 1 30 1 42 1 44 1 NIA ' TSF = Thousand Square Feet 2 N/A = Not Available U: \UCJobs \00636 \Exc N00636- 02.xisIT 5 -2 TABLE 5 -1 TRIP GENERATION RATES' LAND USE UNITS' PEAK HOUR DAILY AM PM IN OUT IN OUT Church TSF 0.08 0.03 0.34 0.30 NIA' Daycare TSF 1 6.90 1 6.12 1 6.40 1 7.22 1 79.26 ' Source City of Newport Beach Trip Generation Rates 2 TSF = Thousand Square Feet N/A = Not Available U: \UcJobs \00636\Excel\ [00636- 02.xisTT 5 -1 < GAZ C.6 j 0 x LLI U6 cc ON z ua O 4fow�>� I 61 w C/) 39N"O Vi P o LL o r LU LLI O Zi r 31 zi I� .1 1 .1 I I 7 Iu TABLE 6 -2 PROJECT TRIP GENERATION LAND USE UNITS' PEAK HOUR DAILY AM PM IN OUT N OUT Church TSF 2 1 6 6 1 N /Az Classrooms STU 45 30 0 j 0 1 273 Total 47 31 6 6 N/A ' TSF = Thousand Square Feet ; STU = Students z N/A = Not Available U: \UcJobs \00636 \Excel \[00636- 02.xls]T 6 -2 IM11111=5 TRIP GENERATION RATES' LAND USE UNITS' PEAK HOUR DAILY AM PM IN OUT IN OUT Church TSF 1 0.08 0.03 0.34 0.30 NIA' Classrooms STU 1 0.18 0.12 NOW NOM 1.09 ' Source: City of Newport Beach Trip Generation Rates Z TSF = Thousand Square Feet ; STU = Students 3 NIA =Not Available NOM = Nominal U: \Uciobs \00636 \Excel \[00636- 02.xls)T 6 -1 CVO LU mm� u'J.-CC \ 0 H ay - • �o r zcr. �z W W r - s I 'r r i \ l \ 1 1 f L�FOR�� <Pi zo; i i I w o, � a W ' J ° 1 ` F W I 'co t \. a. o: 0. 0 m ui e �I tlOIM3d OS m v =i F rirD e J� / Z e 0 0 D z z v W w � a W ' J ° 1 ` F W I 'co t \. a. o: 0. 0 m ui e �I tlOIM3d OS m v =i F rirD e J� / Z e TABLE 8 -2 PROJECT TRIP GENERATION LAND USE QUANTITY UNITS PEAK HOUR DAILY AM PM IN OUT IN OUT Resort Hotel 156 1 ROOMS 1 6 31 47 936 U: \UCJOOs \00636 \Excel \(00636 -02.xlsiT 4 -1 I fJ I I 7L I I 1 I D TABLE 8 -1 TRIP GENERATION RATES' LAND USE UNITS PEAK HOUR DAILY AM PM IN OUT IN OUT Resort Hotel ROOMS 0.20 0.10 0.20 0.30 6.00 I' Source: City of Newport Beach Trip Generation Rates U:1UcJobs\006361Excel \(00636- 02.xfsjT 4 -1 i :Vt ;; UZ, - zix IJ ma Z 0 cc P = us ua Z 0 O O 3 m M M z wQr u 0 0 V z V 0 z < z I Z.; Qal el OI ZI zl al LLI rci ri wi ml ri ol M. 0 0 3AV VNV V3 VS IS IbWM3N N O N I 6 ! m a e.v 4 i EE q M N C—!W� � z . Cf] N LU W_A co �z a� a� W r_ Q_l N � O~ V H 'a W z 0 O M 1 F 0 m N i Co' o � �r 3ntl Add JFE � 0 Q oe m„ i F— i I COAST j ` b 311a309atl !. SAN MMNEI !Y / \ 3Atl \ DoaN3Dl CADO AV 3Atl YNtl V1NYS O i 2 N 3Atl 39N"O N '191aOdM3N IIK / / JET / TABLE 12 -2 PROJECT TRIP GENERATION TAZ PLANNING AREA LAND USE QUANTITY UNITS' PEAK HOUR DAILY AM PM IN OUT IN OUT 1A Condominium/Townhouse 121 DU 21 59 57 44 980 16 Single Family Detached Residential 36 DU 7 25 25 14 396 1C CondominiumlTownhouse 888 DU 151 435 417 320 7,193 1 2A Single Family Detached Residential 206 DU 41 144 144 82 2.266 13C Multi Family Dwelling 116 DU 104 49 50 23 751 13D Multi Family Dwelling 116 DU 104 49 50 23 751 13E Multi Famil Dwelling 116 DU 104 49 50 23 751 TOTAL FOR TAZ 1 532 810 793 529 13,088 3A Single Family Detached Residential Single Family Detached Residential 347 DU 69 243 243 139 3,817 3B 450 DU 90 315 315 180 4,950 4B Single Family Detached Residential 587 DU 117 411 411 235 6,457 2 13A Multi Family Dwelling 117 DU 105 49 50 23 757 13B Multi Family Dwelling 117 DU 105 49 50 23 757 14 Single Family Detached Residential 26 DU 5 18 18 10 286 17 State Park (gross acres) 2,807 AC 589 1 2,526 814 870 53,754 TOTAL FOR TAZ 2 1,080 3.611 1.901 1,480 70,778 2B Single Family Detached Residential 62 DU 12 43 43 25 682 3 4A Single Family Detached Residential 784 DU 157 549 549 314 1 8,624 TOTAL FOR TAZ 3 169 592 592 339 9,306 2C Single Family Detached Residential 307 DU 61 215 215 123 3,377 5 Single Family Detached Residential 300 DU 60 210 210 120 3,300 4 6 Single Family Detached Residential 75 DU 15 53 53 30 825 B lCondominium 49 142 136 104 I 2,341 'OTAL FOR TAZ 4 1 185 620 614 377 9,843 TOTAL FOP ALL ZONES 1 966 5 533 3 900 2 725 103,015 DU = Dwelling Units AC = Acres U'. \UCJobs \00636\Excel \(00636- 02.xls]T 12 -2 TABLE 12 -1 TRIP GENERATION RATES' LAND USE UNITSZ I PEAK HOUR DAILY AM PM IN OUT IN OUT Condominium/Townhouse DU 0.17 0.49 0.47 0.36 8.10 Multi Family Dwelling DU 0.90 0.42 0.43 0.20 6.47 Single Family Detached Residential DU 0.20 0.70 0.70 0.40 11.00 State Park (gross acres) AC 0.21 0.90 0.29 0.31 19.15 ' Source: City of Newport Beach Trip Generation Rates 2 DU = Dwelling Units AC = Acres U:\ UcJobs \006361Excek[00636- 02.xis]T 12 -1 Qr E W z H m o W S H w_a �n o- �z �o zP a� V m H r yJ LAI a z Od r o Q a H U ~ a i m � ° ♦\FOa��I O m N E o N lE \\` M31Mvs O 0 ° Z. m.; ri 7 w \ , I 0 r D z Z � W , V G W II a G � s Q4 �Qo N C 0♦ Yf HY PAP � APP Yf JFE � H 6 ♦/ r P dO,v P / LESS 7 a f-3 O / " N N Q oB I i bu ° O s VNV V1NV5 \V 399 O M. JEF / tI ZIQe m..J 7�I �I e� O� O Q L2 Z z � H F co > =pm W = Q: 0 W D. H W_ a W 0 J G Y - 61i1�9 1 I F H R 0 0 0 C z Z v W �W a W J ° I r r �c I i 1 I 11 TABLE 15 -2 PROJECT TRIP GENERATION LAND USE UNITS' PEAK HOUR. DAILY AM PM IN OUT IN OUT Elderly Residential DU 15 45 45 15 600 1 ' DU = Dwelling Units 1 U: \UcJa6s \00636 \Excel \[00636- 02.xls]T 15 -2 TABLE 15 -1 TRIP GENERATION RATES' LAND USE UNITS' PEAK HOUR DAILY AM PM IN OUT IN OUT Elderly Residential DU 0.10 0.30 0.30 0.10 4.00 I I I i ' Source: City of Newport Beach Trip Generation Rates ' DU = Dwelling Units , I APPENDIX C 1% ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS - TPO ANALYSIS 1% TRAFFIC VOLUMEANALYSIS INTERSECTION. COAST HIGHWAY & RIVERSIDE AVENUE 2630 (Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Daily Traffic 2003 AM) 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 VOLUME PROJECT PEAK HOUR VOLUME Northbound 5 4.06% 0 0 5 0 0 Southbound 355_t 4.06% 14 0 370 4 2 Eastbound 2364 4.06% 96 79 2539 25 4 Westbound 1345 1 4.06% 55 66 1466 15 2 TRUE Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 10/. of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes FALSE 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 VOLUME ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: COAST HIGHWAY & RIVERSIDE AVENUE 2630 (Existing Traffic Volumes 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 I% OF PROJECTED PEAK HOUR VOLUME PROJECT PEAK HOUR VOLUME Northbound 37 4.06% 2 0 39 0 0 Southbound 384 4.06% 16 0 400 4 2 Eastbound 1776 4.069X. 72 90 1938 19 4 Westbound 2342 4.06% 95 83 2520 25 2 TRUE I Project Traffic is estimated to be less than i% of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes FALSE 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. DATE: 1% TRAFFIC VOLUME ANALYSIS INTERSECTION. COAST HIGHWAY & TUSTIN AVENUE 2635 (Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Daily Traffic 2003 AM) APPROACH DIRECTION EXISTING PEAK HOUR VOLUME PEAK HOUR REGIONAL GROWTH VOLUME APPROVED PROJECTS PEAK HOUR VOLUME PROJECTED PEAK HOUR VOLUME I %OF PROJECTED PEAK HOUR VOLUME PROJECT PEAK HOUR VOLUME Northbound 0 4.06% 0 0 0 0 0 Southbound 54 4.06% 2 0 56 1 0 Eastbound 2177 4.06% 88 83 2348 23 2 Westbound 1349 4.06% 55 66 1470 15 2 TRUE Project Traffic is estimated to be less than I % of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes FALSE 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 % TRAFFIC VOLUME ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: COAST HIGHWAY & TUSTIN AVENUE 2635 (Existing Traffic Volumes 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 %OF PROJECTED PEAK HOUR VOLUME PROJECT PEAK HOUR VOLUME Northbound 0 4.06% 0 0 0 0 0 Southbound 74 4.06% 3 0 77 1 0 Eastbound 1621 4.06% 66 90 1777 18 2 Westbound 2391 4.06% 97 83 2571 26 2 TRUE Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes FALSE 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. DATE: 1% TRAFFIC VOLUME ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: IRVINE AVENUE &DOVER DRIVE/ 19TH STREET 3385 (Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Daily Traffic 2003 AM) APPROACH DIRECTION EXISTING PEAK HOUR VOLUME PEAK HOUR REGIONAL GROWTH VOLUME APPROVED PROJECTS PEAK HOUR VOLUME I PROJECTED PEAK HOUR VOLUME 10,16 OF PROJECTED PEAK HOUR VOLUME I PROJECT PEAK HOUR VOLUME Northbound 1146 4.06% 47 2 1195 12 6 Southbound 972 4.06% 39 1 1012 10 4 Eastbound 252 4.06% 10 0 262 3 3 Westbound 356 4.06% 14 3 373 4 1 FALSE Project Traffic is estimated to be less than I % of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes TRUE 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 VOLUME ANALYSIS INTERSECTION. IRVINE AVENUE &DOVER DRIVE! 19TH STREET 3385 (Existing Traffic Volumes 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 11 OFPROJECTED PEAK HOUR VOLUME PROJECT PEAK HOUR VOLUME Northbound 788 4.06% 32 1 821 8 6 Southbound 1439 4.06% 58 2 1499 15 4 Eastbound 189 4.06% 8 0 197 2 3 Westbound 494 4.06% 20 2 516 5 1 FALSE Project Traffic is estimated to be less than I % of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes TRUE 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. PROJECT: DATE: I % TRAFFIC VOL UME ANAL YSIS INTERSECTION: IRVINE AVENUE & WESTCLIFF DRIVE /17TH STREET 3275 (Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Daily Traffic 2003 AM) APPROACH DIRECTION EXISTING PEAK HOUR VOLUME PEAK HOUR REGIONAL GROWTH VOLUME APPROVED PROJECTS PEAK HOUR VOLUME PROJECTED PEAK HOUR VOLUME I% OF PROJECTED PEAK HOUR VOLUME PROJECT PEAK HOUR VOLUME Northbound 980 4.06% 40 2 1022 10 7 Southbound 824 4.06% 33 0 858 9 5 Eastbound 1049 4.06% 43 1 1093 11 2 Westbound 460 4.06% 19 0 479 5 0 TRUE Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes FALSE 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% TRAFFIC VOLUME ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: IRVINE AVENUE & WESTCLIFF DRIVE /17TH STREET 3275 (Existing Traffic Volumes 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 0/60FPROJECTED PEAK HOUR VOLUME PROJECT PEAK HOUR VOLUME Northbound 875 4.06% 36 0 911 9 7 Southbound 1337 4.06% 54 0 1391 14 5 Eastbound 1087 4.06% 44 2 1133 11 2 Westbound 908 4.06% 37 0 945 9 0 TRUE Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes FALSE 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: DATE: I % TRAFFIC VOLUME ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: DOVER DRIVE & WESTCLIFF DRIVE 3290 (Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Daily Traffic 2003 AM) 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 VOLUME PROJECT PEAK HOUR VOLUME Northbound 741 4.06% 30 5 776 8 2 Southbound 481 4.06% 20 1 502 5 2 Eastbound 546 4.06% 22 0 568 6 0 Westbound 0 4.06% 0 0 0 0 0 TRUE I Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes FALSE 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: DOVER DRIVE& WESTCLIFF DRIVE 3290 (Existing Traffic Volumes 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°/ OF PROJECTED PEAK HOUR VOLUME PROJECT PEAK HOUR VOLUME Northbound 1201 4.06% 49 2 1252 13 2 Southbound 492 4.06% 20 2 514 5 2 Eastbound 827 4.06% 34 3 864 9 0 Westbound 0 4.06% 0 0 0 0 0 TRUE Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes FALSE Project Traffic is estimated lobe equal to or greater than 1% of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PROJECT: DATE: I % TRAFFIC VOLUME ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: DOVER DRIVE & 16th STREET (Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Daily Traffic 2003 AM) 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 VOLUME PROJECT PEAK HOUR VOLUME Northbound 701 4.06% 28 3 732 7 2 Southbound 984 4.06% 40 1 1025 10 2 Eastbound 158 4.06% 6 1 165 2 0 Westbound 101 4.06% 4 7 112 1 0 TRUE Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes FALSE I 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 VOLUME ANALYSIS INTERSECTION. DOVER DRIVE & 16th STREET (Existing Traffic Volumes 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% OF PROJECTED PEAK HOUR VOLUME PROJECT PEAK HOUR VOLUME Northbound 1320 4.06% 54 2 1376 14 2 Southbound 972 4.06% 39 5 1016 10 2 Eastbound 232 4.06% 9 1 242 2 0 Westbound 102 4.06% 4 5 111 1 0 TRUE Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes FALSE 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: DATE: I % TRAFFIC VOLUME ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: DOVER DRIVE & CLIFF DRIVE 3055 (Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Daily Traffic 2003 AM) 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 VOLUME PROJECT PEAK HOUR VOLUME Northbound 892 4.06% 36 16 944 9 11 Southbound 1063 4.06% 43 1 1107 11 2 Eastbound 232 4.06% 9 0 242 2 13 Westbound 0 4.06% 0 0 0 0 0 FALSE Project Traffic is estimated to be less than I% of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes TRUE 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. 19/6 TRAFFIC VOLUME ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: DOVER DRIVE & CLIFF DRIVE 3055 (Existing Traffic Volumes 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 I°/ OF PROJECTED PEAK HOUR VOLUME PROJECT PEAK HOUR VOLUME Northbound 1353 4.06% 55 18 1426 14 9 Southbound 1046 4.06% 42 5 1093 11 2 Eastbound 167 4.06% 7 0 174 2 11 Westbound 0 4.06% 0 0 0 0 0 FALSE I Project Traffic is estimated to be less than I % of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes TRUE 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: DATE: 1% TRAFFIC VOLUME ANALYSIS INTERSECTION. COAST HIGHWAY & DOVER DRIVEBAYSHORE DRIVE 3060 (Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Daily Traffic 2003 AM) APPROACH DIRECTION EXISTING PEAK HOUR VOLUME PEAK HOUR REGIONAL GROWTH VOLUME APPROVED PROJECTS PEAK HOUR VOLUME PROJECTED PEAK HOUR VOLUME I% OFPROJECTED PEAK HOUR VOLUME PROJECT PEAK HOUR VOLUME Northbound 139 4.06% 6 0 145 1 0 Southbound 1253 4.06% 51 16 1320 13 10 Eastbound 2257 4.06% 92 115 2464 25 2 Westbound 2018 4.06% 82 71 2171 22 8 TRUE Project Traffic is estimated to be less than I% of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes FALSE Project Traffic is estimated to be equal to or greater than 10/ of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. 1% TRAFFIC VOLUME ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: COAST HIGHWAY & DOVER DRIVE/BAYSHORE DRIVE 3060 (Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Daily Traffic 2003 PM) APPROACH DIRECTION EXISTING PEAK HOUR VOLUME PEAK HOUR REGIONAL GROWTH VOLUME APPROVED PROJECTS PEAK HOUR VOLUME I PROJECTED PEAK HOUR VOLUME I% OF PROJECTED PEAK HOUR VOLUME PROJECT PEAK HOUR VOLUME Northbound 99 4.06% 4 0 103 1 0 Southbound 1187 4.06% 48 12 1247 12 9 Eastbound 1771 4.06% 72 96 1939 19 2 Westbound 3699 4.06% 150 102 3951 40 7 TRUE Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes FALSE 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: DATE: APPENDIX D INTERSECTION ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS - TPO ANALYSIS DO3055AM INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: IRVINE AVENUE & DOVER DRIVE /19TH STREET 3385 EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC 2003 AM I EXISTING I PROPOSED I EXISTING I EXISTING I REGIONAL I APPROVED 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 Capacity I Capacity I Volume I Ratio I Volume I Volume I w/o Project I Ratio I I I 1 0.0406 1 1 Volume I I ___________--- NL 1 --------- --- _______________ ____ ________________ 1600 1 1 _____________ 43 1 _______________ - _– 0.027 1 2 1 __ -------- _ 1 1 _________________ -------------- __________ 0.029 1 1 1 –_I 0.0291 NT 1 1 1069 1 43 1 1 1 - 2 -- - -I 3200 _ ___________ _ ____ _____ } 0.345 ' _— ________ _ __________ } 0.359 ' ________ } 0.359 ' NR 1 1 34 1 1 1 I SL 1600 1 1 158 1 0.099 ' 6 1 1 1 0.103 ' I 0.103 ' ST 1 1 795 1 32 1 1 2 3200 _ ____________ _________ } 0.254 _ _________ _ ---------- } 0.265 _ ________ } SR I 19 1 1 1 1 EL 1 1600 1 I 81 1 0.051 1 3 1 1 0.053 1 1 0.0531 ET 1 1 146 1 6 1 1— 1 – ___________ } 1600 _ ______________ _ __________ } 0.107 ' ___________ _ ___________ } 0.111 'i ___________ } 0.1 13 ' ER I 1 25 1 1 1 1 1 1 WL 1 16001 161 0.010 1 1 1 0.011' 1 0.011' WT 1 1600 1 1 101 1 0.063 I 4 1 1 1 0.066 1 1 0.0671 WR 1 1600 1 1 239 1 0.149 - 10 1 2 1 0.157 1 1 0.157 1 EXISTING I.C.U. 0.561 I EXISTING +REG GROWTH +COMMITTED W /PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. 1 0.584 I EXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U. I I I 0.586 1 True Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 False Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w /systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will be less than I.C.U. without project Description of system improvement: ' PROJECT DO305SAM FORM II DO3055PM INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS F I INTERSECTION: IRVINE AVENUE 8 DOVER DRIVE /19TH STREET 3385 EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC 2003 PM I I EXISTING I PROPOSED J EXISTING I EXISTING I REGIONAL J APPROVED I PROJECTED I PROJECT I PROJEC Movement I Lanes I Lanes PK HR V/C I GROWTH PROJECT V/C Ratio Volume V/C Capacity I Capacity Volume 1 Ratio I Volume I Volume I w/o Project I I Ratio 1 I 0.0406 1 1 Volume I 1 _____________ NIL _ ____ —___ _ ----------------- _ ------------- _ ___ —_ ______ _ _______— ______ __ ________ 1 1600 1 E31 0.038 ' 2 1 0,040 ' 1 1 0.041 I NT 1 693 1 28 1 2 3200 _ __________ _ __________ } 0.227 _ _________ _ ______________ } 0.236 _ ___________ } 0.237 I NR 1 1 34 I 1 I 1 SL 1600 1 I 205 1 0,128 1 8 1 1 - - - -- -- 1 0.134 1 - ---- - - - - -- 1 0.1340 I ST 1 1188 48 1 1 2 3200 --------------------- } 0.386 * __________ _ _____________ } 0.402 ' __________ } 0.402 ' SR EL I 46 2 53 ' ' 1 1600 1 1 0.033 2 1 0.034 0.034 I ET _________ I I 99 I 4 1 } 1600 _ _____________ _ __________ } 0.085 _ _________ _ _____________ 1 } 0.089 _ ______________ } 0.090 ER 37 2 1 I I----------------------------------------- 1 WL __— ___— _________— ------ - - -- — --- - - - - -- 1 1600 1 1'- - - - -44 1 -- 0.028 1 2 1 _____________ _____— _______ -- - - - - -1 ' — - -- - -- — — I —0.029 -- -- - -___ ' - - - - -- I I— 0.029 1 WT J 1600 I I 210 1 0.131 9 1 0.138 1 1 0.138 1 -- ______ I WR _ ________ _ __________ _ __ —_____ _ ______ —_ _ __ 1 1600 1 1 240 1 0.150 I 10 1 1 1 0.157 1 1 1 0.157 _____ ______— 1 EXISTING _ _ __ _______ ____ ----- ____— _— ____________ ____ —____ ____ —____ I.C.U. 1 0.588 1 ____________ ________ _ _______ J EXISTING + REG GROWTH +COMMITTED W /PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. J 0.614 1 1 I-- - - -- I EXISTING + - - - - --------------------- -- - - - -------- --- -------- - - - - -- COMMITTED+ REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U. ----- - - - - -- -- - - - --- I ' 1 1 - - - - - 0.61 — True Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 False Projected + project traffic I.C.U, will be greater than 0.90 Projected + project traffic I.C.U, w /systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 , OProjected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will be less than I.C.U. without project 1 Description of system improvement: 003055PM 1 DO3055AM INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: DOVER DRIVE & CLIFF DRIVE 3055 EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC 2003 AM I EXISTING I PROPOSED I EXISTING I EXISTING I REGIONAL I APPROVED I PROJECTED I PROJECT I PROJECT I 1 Movement I Lanes I Lanes 1 PK HR I V/C I GROWTH I PROJECT I V/C Ratio I Volume I V/C I I I Capacity 1 Capacity Volume I Ratio I Volume I Volume I w/o Project I Ratio I I I I I 0.0406 I Volume I NIL 1 1600 I 127 1 0.079 ' 5 1 0 083 ' 6 1 0 086 ' 1 NT 1 3200 1 765 1 0.239 1 31 1 16 1 0.254 I 1 0 254 1 I NR I I I I I SL I I I ST 1 I 884 1 36 1 I _________ } 3200 _ ____________ ________ } 0.332 • _________— _ ___________ } 0.346 - __________ } 0.346 ' SR I 179 7 1 1 1 I - - -- - - -- - -- 1 EL 1 1600 I 1 - - - - -- 89 1 — - - - - -- - ----- - - - - -- - ------- - - - - -- - 0.056 I 4 1 I ----------------------------- 0.058 1 1 1 i 0.0591 I ET I I ER I 1600 1 143 1 0.089 ' 6 1 0.093 ' 5 1 0 096 ' 1 __________ ________ _ ________ —__ WL I I ___ I —_____ _________ _ ___— ______ _ I I ___________ _ ________ _ ________1 I WT I f I I I I I--- - - - - -- - ----- - - - - -- - --- - - - - -- WR I I - - - - - -- - ---- - - - - -- ------------ -- --- - - - - -- --- I - - - - -- ------ - - - - -- I EXISTING I C.U. I 0.500 I I 1 EXISTING +REG GROWTH +COMMITTED W /PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. I 0.522 1 I -------- _ -------- _ ---------- _________ ________ ____ —_____ ___— ______ - I EXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U. I ___________ 1 _____ 1 0.5281 True Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 False Projected + project traffic I.C.U, will be greater than 0.90 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w /systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 Projected +project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will be less than I.C.U. without project Description of system improvement: I PROJECT DO3055AM 1 FORM II D03055PM INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: DOVER DRIVE & CLIFF DRIVE 3055 I 17 1 EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC 2003 PM I EXISTING I PROPOSED[ EXISTING I EXISTING I REGIONAL I COMMITTED I PROJECTED 1 PROJECT I PROJECT I Movement I Lanes 1 Lanes I PK HR I V/C I GROWTH I PROJECT I V/C Ratio 1 Volume V/C I I Capacity Capacity I Volume I Ratio I Volume I Volume I w/o Project I Ratio I I I -- -- - -- – 0.0406 1 Volume I I I NIL 1 1600 I 126 0.079 ' 51 I 0.082 51 0.085 I NT 1 3200 1 I 1227 1 0.383 1 50 I 18 0.405 1 0.405 NR I I I SL 1 ST 1 1 983 1 40 I 5 I i _________ ? 3200 _ __ _______ } 0.327 ___________ _ _____________ } 0.342 • __ —_____ } 0.342 ISR --- - ______63 - - - -------------------------------------------------------- 3 1 1 EL 1600 1 1 61 1 0.038 1 2 1 1 0.039 1 1 1 0.040 ET I I I ER 1 1600 1 106 1 0.066 4 1 1 0.069 4 1 0.071 WL i - -- — I - - - - -- - - - - --- -- - -- I – - - - - - -- - - - - -- - - - - -- I WT I I I WR _______�_ 1 EXISTING I.C.U. 1 0472 I 1 __ ----------------------------------------------- ------------------ ----------- I 1 EXISTING +REG GROWTH + COMMITTED W /PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. I — 0.4931 —_ —___ _ ________ _ ____ —__ i EXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U. 1 I 0.498 True Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 False Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w /systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 , Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will be less than I.C.U, without project Description of system improvement: I PROJECT FORM 11 D03055PM 1 ! 1 ALL -WAY STOP CONTROL ANALYSIS General Information ISite information Analyst JAR Agency /Co. Kimley -Horn and Associates Date Performed 2110 12004 Analysis Time Period AM Peak Period Intersection 15th St and Irvine Ave Jurisdiction City of Newport Beach Analysis Year Existing Project ID St. Andrews EastANest Street: 15th Street North /South Street: Irvine Avenue Volume Adjustments and Site Characteristics Approach Eastbound westbound Movement L T R L T R Volume 126 104 31 30 54 176 %Thrus Left Lane 50 50 Approach Northbound Southbound Movement L T R L T R Volume 17 263 23 175 147 133 %Thrus Left Lane 50 50 Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 Configuration LTR L TR LTR L TR PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Flow Rate 273 31 241 317 184 294 Heavy Vehicles No. Lanes 1 2 1 2 Geometry Group 4b 5 4b 5 Duration, T 0.25 Saturation Headway Adjustment Worksheet Prop. Lett -Tums 0.5 1.0 0.0 0.1 1.0 0.0 Prop. Right -Tums 0.1 0.0 0.8 0.1 0.0 0.5 Prop, Heavy Vehicle hLT -adj 0.2 0.2 0.5 0.5 0.2 0.2 0.5 0.5 hRT -adj -0.6 -0.6 -0.7 -0.7 -0.6 -0.6 -0.7 -0.7 hHV -adj 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 17 hadj, computed 7.92 7.92 7.92 7.92 7.92 7.92 Departure Headvf2Ry and Service Time hd, initial value 3.20 3.20 1 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 X. initial 0.24 0.03 0.21 0.28 0.16 0.26 hd, final value 7.92 7.92 7.92 7.92 7.92 7.92 x, final value 0.60 0.07 0.50 0.67 0.41 0.58 Move -up time, m 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 service Time 5.6 Capacity and Level of Service Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 Capacity 426 281 447 451 434 1 486 Delay 21.81 11,84 17.16 24.45 15.97 19.08 LOS C B C C C C Approach: Delay 21,81 16.55 24.45 17,88 LOS C C C C Intersection Delay 19.97 Intersection LOS C ALL -WAY STOP CONTROL ANALYSIS General Information Site Information Analyst JAR Agency /Co. Kimley -Horn and Associates Date Performed 211012004 Analysis Time Period PM Peak Period Intersection 15th St and Irvine Ave Jurisdiction City o / Newport Beach Analysis Year Existing Project ID St. Andrews East=est Street 15th Street North /South Street Irvine Avenue Volume Adjustments and Site Characteristics [Approach Eastbound Westbound Movement L I T I R L I T R volume 95 49 1 27 I 14 35 173 %Thrus Left Lane I 50 I 50 J Approach Northbound Southbound Movement L T I R L T R Volume 5 160 6 140 317 192 %Thrus Left Lane 50 I J I 50 lEastbound I Westbound Northbound I Southbound Ll L2 L1 L2 L1 12 L1 12 Configuration LTR J I L TR LTR J L TR PHF 0.95 095--1 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Flow Rate 179 14 1 218 I 179 J 147 535 % Heavy Vehicles No. Lanes 1 2 1 I 2 J Geometry Group 4b 5 4b 5 Duration, T I 0.25 Saturation Headway Adjustment Worksheet Prop. Left -Tums 0.6 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 Prop. Right -Tums 0.2 0.0 0.8 1 0.0 0.4 Prop. Heavy vehicle hLT -adj 0.2 0.2 0.5 0.5 0.2 0 -2 0 -5 0.5 hRT -adj -0.6 -0.6 -0.7 -0.7 -0.6 -0.6 -0.7 -0.7 hHv -adj 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 hadj, computed 7.47 7.47 7.47 7.47 7.47 7. 47 Departure Headway and Service Time hd, initial value 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 x, initial 0 -16 0.01 0.19 0.16 0.13 0.48 hid, final value 7.47 747 7.47 7.47 7.47 7.47 x, final value 0.37 0.03 0.41 0.35 0.28 0.90 Move -up time, m 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 Service Time 5.2 5.2 5.2 1 5.2 1 Ca aci and Level of Service Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 Capacity 429 264 468 429 397 589 Delay 14.51 10.88 14.23 13.66 12.18 41.04 LOS 8 8 8 8 8 E Approach: Delay 14.51 14.03 13.66 34.82 LOS 8 8 8 D Intersection Delay 25.19 Intersection LOS D ALL -WAY STOP CONTROL ANALYSIS General Information Site Information Analyst JAR Agency /Co. IOmley -Horn and Associates Date Performed 2/10/2004 Analysis Time Period AM Peak Period Y Intersection 15th St and Irvine Ave Jurisdiction City of Newport Beach Analysis Year Existing Project ID St. Andrews East/West Street: 151h Street North /South Street: Irvine Avenue Volume Adjustments and Site Characteristics roach Eastbound Westbound Movement L T R L T R Volume 126 104 31 30 54 176 %ThruS Left Lane 50 50 Approach Northbound Southbound Movement L T R I L T R Volume 17 263 23 175 147 133 %Thrus Left Lane 50 50 Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 Configuration LTR L TR LTR L TR PHF 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81 Flow Rate 322 37 284 374 216 346 Heavy Vehicles No.Lanes I 1 I 2 1 2 Geometry Group 4b 5 4b 5 Duration, T 0.25 Saturation Headway Adjustment Worksheet Prop. Left -Tums 0.5 1.0 0.0 0.1 1.0 0.0 Prop. Right -Tums 0.1 0.0 0.8 0.1 0.0 I 0.5 Prop. Heavy Vehicle hLT -adj 0.2 0.2 0.5 0.5 0.2 0.2 0.5 0.5 hRT -adj -0.6 -0.6 -0.7 -0.7 -0.6 -0.6 -0.7 -0.7 hHV -adj 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1 -7 1.7 hadj, computed 9.21 9.21 9.21 9.21 9.21 9.21 Departure Headway and Service Time hd, initial value 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 x, initial 0.29 0.03 0.25 0.33 0.19 0.31 rid, final value 9.21 9.21 9.21 9.21 9.21 9.21 X, final value 0.82 0.10 0.68 0.92 0.56 0.81 Move -up time, in 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 Service Time 6.9 6.9 6.9 J 6.9 Capacity and Level of Service Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 Capacity 378 287 396 400 382 421 Delay 42.84 13.52 28.01 57.35 22.91 37.80 LOS E B I D F C E Approach: Delay 42.84 26.34 57.35 32.08 LOS E D F D Intersection Delay 39.09 Intersection LOS E ALL -WAY STOP CONTROL ANALYSIS General Information iSite Information Analyst JAR Agency /Co. IGmley -Horn and Associates Date Performed 211012004 Analysis Time Period PM Peak Period Intersection 15th St and Irvine Ave Jurisdiction City of Newport Beach Analysis Year Existing Project ID St. Andrews East/West Street: 15th Street Norlh/South Street: Irvine Avenue Volume Adjustments and Site Characteristics A roach Eastbound Westbound Movement L T R L T R Volume 95 49 J 27 I 14 1 35 173 %Thrus Left Lane I 50 I 50 Approach Northbound Southbound li Movement L TL T R Volume 5 I 160 6 140 317 I 192 %Thrus Left Lane 50 50 Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 Configuration LTR L TR LTR L TR PHF 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 Flow Rate 191 15 233 190 157 571 I % Heavy Vehicles J No. Lanes 1 2 1 2 J Geometry Group 415 5 4b 5 Duration, T 0.25 Saturation Headwa Ad- ustment Worksheet Prop. Left -Tums 0.6 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 Prop. Right -Tums 0.2 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.0 04 Prop. Heavy Vehicle hLT -adj 0.2 0.2 0.5 0.5 0.2 0.2 0.5 0.5 hRT -adj -0.6 -0.6 -0.7 -0.7 -0.6 -0.6 -0.7 0.7 hHV -adj 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 dtLl. hadj, computed 1 7.76 7.76 7.76 7.76 7.76 7.76 Departure Headwa and Service :time hd, initial value 3.20 1 1 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 x, initial 0.17 0.01 0.21 0.17 0.14 0.51 hill. final value 7.76 7.76 7.76 7.76 7.76 7.76 x, final value 0.41 0.03 0.46 0.39 0.31 1.00 Move -up time, m 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 Service Time 5. 5j 5.5 5.5 5.5 Capacity and Level of `1 Service Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 Capacity 441 265 483 440 407 573 Delay 15.78 11.19 15.68 14.82 12.87 61.44 LOS C B C B B F Approach: Delay 15.78 15.41 14.82 50.96 Los C C B F Intersection Delay 34.45 Intersection LOS I D J ALL -WAY STOP CONTROL ANALYSIS General Information Site Information Analyst JAR Agency /Co. Kimley -Horn and Associates Date Performed 211012004 Analysis Time Period AM Peak Period Intersection 15th St and Irvine Ave Jurisdiction City of Newport Beach Analysis Year ExistingPlus Growth + App Project ID St. Andrews East/West Street: 15th Street North /South SlreeC Irvine Avenue Volume Adjustments and Site Characteristics Approach Eastbound Westbound 41 Movement L T R L T R Volume 131 108 32 31 56 183 %Thrus Left Lane I 50 I I 50 Approach Northbound Southbound Movement L T R L T R volume 18 1 274 24 182 153 138 Thrus Left Lane SQ I I I 50 I� Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 LJ L2 Configuration LTR L TR I LTR L TR PHE 0.95 1 0.95 1 0.95 L 0.95 0.95 0.95 Flow Rate 283 32 250 331 191 306 % Heavy Vehicles No. Lanes 1 2 L 1 2 Geometry Group 4b 5 1 4b 5 Duration. T 0.25 Saturation Headway Adjustment Worksheet Prop. Left -Tums 0.5 1.0 0.0 0.1 1.0 0.0 Prop. Right -Tums 0.1 0.0 0.8 0.1 0.0 I 0.5 Prop. Heavy Vehicle hLT -adj 0.2 0.2 0.5 0.5 0.2 0.2 0.5 0.5 hRT -adj -0.6 -0.6 -0.7 -0.7 -0.6 -0.6 -0.7 -0.7 hHV -adj 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 hadj, computed 8.17 8.17 8.17 8.17 8.17 8.17 De aitt re Headwa and Service Time hd, initial value 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 x, initial 0.25 0.03 0.22 0.29 0.17 0.27 hd, final value 8.17 8.17 8.17 8.17 8.17 8.17 x, final value 0.64 0.08 0.53 0.72 0.43 0.62 Move -up time, m 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 Service Time 5.9 5.9 5.9 5.9 Capacity and Level of Service Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 Capacity 415 282 433 440 424 472 Delay 24.41 12.16 18.70 28.42 17.04 21.42 LOS C B C D C C Approach: Delay 24.41 17.96 2842 19.74 LOS C C D C Intersection Delay 22.39 InlerSeCtion LOS C ALL -WAY STOP CONTROL ANALYSIS General Information Site Information Analyst JAR Agency /Co. Kimley -Hom and Associates Date Performed 21102004 Analysis Time Period PM Peak Period Intersection 15th St and Irvine Ave Jurisdiction City of Newport Beach Analysis Year ExishngPlus Growth + App Project ID St. Andrews EastANest Street: 15th Street North /South Street: Irvine Avenue Volume Adjustments and Site Characteristics Approach Eastbound Westbound Movement L F T R L T R Volume 99 51 28 15 36 180 %Thrus Left Lane 50 Approach Northbound Southbound Movement L T R L T _ R J Volume 5 166 6 146 1 330 200 %Thrus Left Lane 50 50 1 1 Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 1-2 L1 L2 Configuration LTR L TR LTR L TR PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Flow Rate 186 15 226 185 153 557 % Heavy Vehicles No.Lanes 1 2 1 2 Geometry Group 4b 5 4b 5 Duration, T 0.25 Saturation Headway Adjustment Worksheet Prop. Left Turns 0.6 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 Prop. Right -Turns 0.2 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.4 Prop. Heavy Vehicle hLT -adj 0.2 0.2 0.5 0.5 0.2 0.2 0.5 0.5 hRT -adj -0.6 -0.6 -0.7 -0.7 -0.6 -0.6 -0.7 -0.7 hHV -adj 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 hadj, computed 7.64 7.64 7.64 7.64 7.64 7.64 De artuie'Heidwa and Service Time hd, initial value 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 x, initial 0.17 0.01 0.20 0.16 0.14 0.50 Ind, final value 7.64 7.64 7.64 764 7.64 7.64 x, final value 0.39 0.03 0.44 0.37 0.30 0.96 Move -up time, m 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 Service Time 5.3 5.3 5.3 _� 5.3 Capic1tv and Level of Service Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Ll L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 Ll L2 Capacity 436 265 476 435 403 580 Delay 15.22 11.07 15.00 14.29 12.57 51.93 LOS C B C 8 8 F Approach: Delay 15.22 14.76 14.29 43.45 LOS C 8 8 E Intersection Delay 30.17 Intersecti on LOS D ALL -WAY STOP CONTROL ANALYSIS General Information Site Information Analyst JAR Agency /Co. Klmley -Horn and Associates Date Performed 2/10 /2004 Analysis Time Period AM Peak Period Intersection 151h St and Irvine Ave Jurisdiction City of Newport Beach Analysis Year ExistingPlus Growth + App .✓ - N j; rl l,r j C r:z .�.� y _5 Project ID St. Andrews East/West Street: 15th Street North /South Street: Irvine Avenue Volume Adjustments and Site Characteristics Approac h Eastbound Westbound Movement L T R L T R Volume 131 108 32 31 56 _ 183 %Thrus Lett Lane 50 1 50 1 _ Approach Northbound Southbound Movement L T R L T R Volume 18 274 24 182 153 138 %Thrus Lett Lane 50 50 Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 Configuration LTR L I TR I LTR L TR PHF 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81 Flow Rate 334 38 295 390 225 360 % Heavy Vehicles No. Lanes 1 2 1 2 Geometry Group 4b 5 4b 5 Duration, T 0.25 Saturation Headway Adjustment Worksheet Prop. Left -Tums 0.5 1.0 0.0 0.1 1.0 0.0 Prop. Right•Tums 0.1 0.0 0.8 0.1 0.0 0.5 Prop. Heavy Vehicle hLT -adj 0.2 0.2 0.5 0.5 0.2 0.2 0.5 0.5 hRT -adj -0.6 -0.6 0.7 -0.7 -0.6 -0.6 -0.7 -0.7 hHV -adj 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 hadj, computed 9.62 9.62 9.62 9.62 9.62 9.62 De ii Headwa and.Service Time hd, initial value 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 x, initial 0.30 0.03 0.26 0.35 0.20 0.32 hd, final value 9.62 9.62 9.62 9.62 9.62 9.62 x, final value 0.89 1 0.11 0.74 1.01 0.61 0.88 Move -up time, in 2.3 1 23 2.3 2.3 Service Time 7.3 1 7.3 7.3 7.3 Cpacityand Level of Service Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 Capacity 372 288 391 390 370 407 Delay 54.82 14.03 33.48 78.01 26.16 49.69 LOS F g D F D E Approach: Delay 54.82 31.26 78.01 40.64 LOS F D F E Intersection Delay 50.50 Intersection LOS F ALL -WAY STOP CONTROL ANALYSIS General Information ISite Information Analyst JAR Agency /Co. f6mley -Horn and Associates Date Performed 211012004 Analysis Time Period PM Peak Period Intersection 15th St and Irvine Ave Jurisdiction City of Newport Beach Analysis Year ExistingPlus Growth +App (b' i' • n { }c ;rla x11 Project ID St. Andrews East/West Street: 15th Street North/South Street: Irvine Avenue Volume Adjustments and Site Characteristics Approac Eastbound Westbound Movement L T R L T R Volume 99 51 28 15 36 180 %Thrus Left Lane 50 I 50 Approach Northbound Southbound Movement L T R L T R Volume 5 166 6 146 330 200 %Thrus Left Lane 50 I 50 I J Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 Configuration LTR L TR LTR L TR PHF 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 Flow Rate 199 16 242 197 164 594 % Heavy Vehicles No. Lanes 1 2 1 2 Geometry Group 4b 5 4b 5 Duration, T 0.25 Saturation Headway Adjustment Worksheet Prop. Left -Tums 0.6 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 Prop. Right -Tums 0.2 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.4 Prop, Heavy Vehicle hLT -adj 0.2 0.2 0.5 0.5 0.2 0.2 0.5 0.5 hRT -adj -0.6 -0.6 -0.7 -0.7 -0.6 -0.6 -0.7 -0.7 hHV -adj 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 hadj, computed 7.85 7.85 7.85 7.85 7.85 7.85 De adore Headway and Service Time hd, initial value 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 x, initial 0.18 0.01 0.22 0.18 0.15 0.53 hd, final value 7.85 7.85 7.85 7.85 7.85 7.85 x, final value 0.43 0.04 048 0.41 0.33 1.06 Move -up time, m 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 Service Time 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 Ca ac- and Level of Service Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 Lt L2 Capacity 442 266 486 447 414 594 Delay 16.43 11.30 16.38 15.44 13.33 78.42 LOS C B C C B F Approach: Delay 16.43 16.06 15.44 64.34 LOS C C C F Intersection Delay 41.94 Intersection LOS E ALL -WAY STOP CONTROL ANALYSIS General Information Site Information Analyst JAR Agency /Co. i(imley -Horn and Associates Date Performed 211012004 Analysis Time Period AM Peak Period Intersection 15th St and Irvine Ave Jurisdiction City of Newport Beach Analysis Year Existing Plus Growth + App +Proj Project ID St. Andrews East/West Street: 15th Street North /South Street: Irvine Avenue Volume Adjustments and Site Characteristics Approa ch Eastbound Westbound Movement L T R L T R Volume 131 109 32 31 57 187 %Thrus Left Lane 50 50 A roach Northbound Southbound Movement L T R L T R Volume 18 274 24 187 153 138 %Thrus Left Lane 50 50 Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L1 12 L1 L2 L1 12 L1 12 Configuration LTR L TR LTR L TR PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Flow Rate 284 32 256 331 196 306 Heavy Vehicles I I J No. Lanes 1 2 1 2 Geometry Group 4b 5 4b 5 Duration. T 0.25 Saturation Headway Adjustment Worksheet Prop. Left -Tums 0.5 1.0 0.0 0.1 1.0 1 0.0 Prop. Right -Tums 0.1 0.0 0.8 0.1 0.0 0.5 Prop. Heavy Vehicle hLT -adj I 0.2 1 0.21 0.5 1 0.5 I 0.2 0.2 0.5 J 0.5 hRT -adj -0.6 0.6 -0.7 -0.7 -0.6 -0.6 -0.7 -0.7 hHV -adj 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 hadj, computed 8.23 8.23 8.23 8.23 8.23 8.23 Departure Headway and Service Time -' hd, initial value 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 x. initial 0.25 0.03 0.23 0.29 0.17 0.27 hd, final value 8.23 8.23 8.23 8.23 8.23 8.23 x, final value 0.65 0.08 0.55 0.73 0.45 0.63 Move -up time, m 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 service Time 5.9 5.9 5.9 5.9 Ca acity and Level of Service Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 I L2 L1 L2 Capacity 412 282 432 436 422 469 Delay 24.93 12.21 19.31 29.05 17.49 21.77 LOS C B C D C C Approach: Delay 24.93 18.52 29.05 20.10 LOS C C D C Intersection Delay 22.86 Intersection LOS C I 1 I -I II LJ u j I I J I I 1 ALL -WAY STOP CONTROL ANALYSIS General Information Site Information Analyst Agency /Co. Date Performed Analysis Time Period JAR ICimley -Horn and Associates 2110 12004 PM Peak Period Intersection Jurisdiction Analysis Year 151h St and Irvine Ave City of Newport Beach ExislingPlus Growth + App +Prof Project ID St. Andrews EastANesl Street: 151h Street North /South Street: Irvine Avenue Volume Adjustments and Site Characteristics Approach Eastbound Westbound Movement L T R L T R Volume 99 52 28 15 37 184 %7hrus Left Lane I 50 I I 50 I I I Approach Northbound i Southbound Movement L T R I L T f R f Volume 5 166 6 151 330 200 %Thrus Left Lane 50 50 Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L1 L2 L1 L2 L7 L2 L1 L2 Configuration LTR I I L I TR I LTR L TR PHF 0.95 1 1 0.95 1 0.95 1 0.95 0.95 0.95 (Flow Rate 187 15 231 185 158 557 % Heavy Vehicles NO. Lanes I 1 I 2 I 1 j 2 Geometry Group I 4b I 5 I 4b I 5 I IDuration. T I 0.25 Saturation Headway Adjustment Worksheet Prop. Left -rums 0.6 1.0 I 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 Prop. Right•Tums 0.2 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.4 prop. Heavy Vehicle hLT•adj 0.2 0.2 0.5 0.5 0.2 0.2 0.5 0.5 hRT•adj -0.6 -0.6 -0.7 -0.7 -0.6 -0.6 -0.7 -0.7 hHV•adj 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 hadj. computed 7.67 7.67 7.67 7.67 7.67 7.67 De arture Headway and Service Time hd, initial value 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 x, initial 0.17 0.01 0.21 0.16 0.14 0.50 hd, final value 7.67 7.67 7.67 7.67 7.67 7.67 X. final value 0.40 0.03 0.45 0.38 0.31 0.96 Move -up time, m 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 Service Time 5.4 5.4 5.4 5.4 Ciiiipadty and Level of Service Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 I L2 L1 I L2 Capacity 437 265 481 435 408 577 Delay 15.35 11.09 15.28 14.39 12.77 53.11 LOS C 8 C 8 8 F Approach: Delay 15.35 15.02 14.39 44.19 LOS C C 8 E Intersection Delay 30.63 Intersection LOS D I 1 I -I II LJ u j I I J I I 1 ALL -WAY STOP CONTROL ANALYSIS General Information Site Information Analyst JAR Agency /Co. Kimley -Horn and Associates Date Performed 2/10/2004 Analysis Time Period AM Peak Period Intersection 15th St and Irvine Ave Jurisdiction City of Newport Beach Analysis Year ExrstingPlus Growth + App +Prof Project ID St. Andrews East/West Street 15th Street North /South Street Irvine Avenue Volume Adjustments and Site Characteristics Approach Eastbound Westbound Movement L T R L T R volume 131 109 32 31 57 187 %Thrus Left Lane I 50 ' I I 50 Approach Northbound Southbound Movement L T R L T R Volume 18 274 24 187 153 138 %Thrus Left Lane 50 50 Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L1 12 L1 L2 L1 12 L1 L2 Configuration LTR L TR LTR L TR PHF 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81 Flow Rate 336 38 ' 301 390 I 231 360 % Heavy Vehicles No. Lanes 1 2 1 2 Geometry Group 4b 5 4b 5 Duration, T 0.25 Saturation Headway Adjustment Worksheet Prop. Left -Tums 0.5 1.0 0.0 0.1 1.0 0.0 Prop. Right -Tums 0,1 0.0 0.8 0.1 0.0 0.5 Prop. Heavy Vehicle hLT -adj 0.2 0.2 0.5 0.5 0.2 0.2 0.5 0.5 hRT -adj -0.6 -0.6 -0.7 -0.7 -0,6 -0.6 -0.7 -0.7 hHV -adj 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 hadj. computed 9.67 9.67 9.67 1 9.67 9.67 9.67 De arture Headwa '.and Service Time..:" hd, initial value 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 x, initial 0.30 0.03 0.27 0.35 0.21 0.32 hill, final value 9.67 9.67 9.67 9.67 9.67 9.67 x, final value 0.90 0.11 0.76 1.01 0.63 0.89 Move -up time, m 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 Service Time 7.4 7.4 7.4 74 Capacity.and Level of Service Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L1 12 L1 12 L1 12 L1 12 Capacity 370 288 390 390 368 404 Delay 56.86 14.07 35.16 80,56 27.38 50.91 LOS F B E F D F Approach: Delay 56.86 32,79 80.56 41.71 LOS F D F E Intersection Delay 52.11 Intersection LOS F ALL -WAY STOP CONTROL ANALYSIS General information ISite Information Analyst JAR Agency /Co. Kmley -Horn and Associates Date Performed 21102004 Analysis Time Period PM Peak Period Intersection 151h St and Irvine Ave Jurisdiction City of Newport Beach Analysis Year ExistingPlus Growth +App +Pro/ Project ID St. Andrews East/Nest Street: 15th Street North /South Street_ Irvine Avenue Volume Ad- ustments and Site Characteristics Approach Eastbound Westbound Movement L 'r R L T R Volume 99 52 28 15 37 184 %Thrus Left Lane 50 I 50 Approach Northbound Southbound Movement L T R L T R Volume 5 166 6 151 330 200 %Thrus Left Lane 50 50 Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L1 L2 I L1 12 L1 J 1-2 L1 12 Configuration LTR L TR LTR L TR PHF 0.89 0.89 0.89 1 0.89 0.89 0.89 Flow Rate 200 16 247 197 169 594 % Heavy Vehicles No.Lanes 1 2 1 2 Geometry Group 4b 5 4b 5 Duration, T 0.25 Saturation Headway Adjustment Worksheet Prop. Left -Tums 0.6 I 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 Prop. Right -rums 0.2 0.0 0.8 I 0.0 0.0 0.4 Prop, Heavy Vehicle hLT -adj 0.2 02 0.5 0.5 0.2 0.2 0.5 0.5 hRT -adj -0.6 -0.6 -0.7 -0.7 -0.6 -0.6 -0.7 -0.7 hHV -adj 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 hadj, computed 7.87 7.87 7.87 7.87 7.87 7.87 Departure Headway. and.Service Time hd, initial value 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 T 3.20 3.20 x, initial 0.18 0.01 0.22 0.18 0.15 0.53 hd, final value 7.87 7.87 7.87 7.87 7.87 7.87 x, final value 0.44 0.04 0.49 0.41 1 0.34 1.06 Move -up time, m 23 23 2.3 2.3 Service Time 5.6 5.6 5.6 5.6 CapacKy and Level of Service Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L1 L2 11 L2 L1 12 L1 1-2 Capacity 440 266 486 447 419 594 Delay 16.55 11.31 16.68 15.54 13.55 80.07 LOS C B C C B Approach: Delay 16.55 16.35 15.54 65.34 LOS C C C F Intersection Delay 42.53 Intersection LOS E APPENDIX E 1% ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS - CEQA ANALYSIS J I 1% TRAFFIC VOLUME ANALYSIS CUMULATIVE ANALYSIS INTERSECTION. IRVINE AVENUE &DOVER DRIVE 119TH STREET 3385 (Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Daily Traffic 2003 AM) APPROACH DIRECTION EXISTING PEAK HOUR VOLUME PEAK HOUR REGIONAL GROWTH VOLUME APPROVED/ CUMULATIVE PROJECTS PEAK HOUR VOL PROJECTED PEAK HOUR VOLUME I %OFPROJECTED PEAK HOUR VOLUME PROJECT PEAK HOUR VOLUME APPROVED CUMULATIVE Northbound 1146 4.06% 47 2 0 1195 12 6 Southbound 972 4.06% 39 1 6 1018 10 4 Eastbound 252 4.06% 10 0 0 262 3 3 Westbound 356 4.06% 14 3 7 380 4 1 FALSE I Project Traffic is estimated to be less than I % of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes TRUE 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 Vo TRAFFIC VOLUME ANALYSIS CUMULATIVE ANALYSIS INTERSECTION. IRVINE AVENUE &DOVER DRIVE 119TH STREET 3385 (Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Daily Traffic 2003 PM) APPROACH DIRECTION EXISTING PEAK HOUR VOLUME PEAK HOUR REGIONAL GROWTH VOLUME APPROVED/ CUMULATIVE PROJECTS PEAK HOUR VOL PROJECTED PEAK HOUR VOLUME I %OFPROJECTED PEAK HOUR VOLUME PROJECT PEAK HOUR VOLUME APPROVED I CUMULATIVE Northbound 788 4.06% 32 1 0 821 8 6 Southbound 1439 4.06% 58 2 11 1510 15 4 Eastbound 189 4.06% 8 0 0 197 2 3 Westbound 494 4.06% 20 2 7 523 5 1 FALSE I Project Traffic is estimated to be less than I % of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes TRUE 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. DATE: 1% TRAFFIC VOLUME ANALYSIS CUMULATIVE ANALYSIS INTERSECTION. IRVINE AVENUE & WESTCLIFF DRIVE /17TH STREET3275 (Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Dail3, Traffic 2003 AM) APPROACH DIRECTION EXISTING PEAK HOUR VOLUME PEAK HOUR REGIONAL GROWTH VOLUME I APPROVED/ CUMULATIVE I PROJECTS PEAK HOUR VOL PROJECTED PEAK HOUR VOLUME I %OFPROJECTED PEAK HOUR VOLUME PROJECT PEAK HOUR VOLUME I APPROVED ICUMULATIVE Northbound 980 4.06% 40 2 0 1022 10 7 Southbound 824 4.06% 33 0 0 858 9 5 Eastbound 1049 4.06% 43 1 180 1273 13 2 Westbound 460 4.06% 19 0 383 862 9 0 TRUE Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1°% of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes FALSE I 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 CUMULATIVE ANALYSIS INTERSECTION. IRVINE AVENUE & WESTCLIFF DRIVE /17TH STREET3275 (Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Daily Traffic 2003 PM) APPROACH DIRECTION EXISTING PEAK HOUR VOLUME PEAK HOUR REGIONAL GROWTH VOLUME APPROVED/ CUMULATIVE PROJECTS PEAK HOUR VOL PROJECTED PEAKHOURI VOLUME 11. OF PROJECTED PEAK HOUR VOLUME PROJECT PEAK HOUR VOLUME APPROVED CUMULATIVE Northbound 875 4.06% 36 0 0 911 9 7 Southbound 1337 4.06% 54 0 0 I391 14 5 Eastbound 1087 4.06% 44 2 1 304 1 1437 J 14 2 Westbound 908 4.06% 37 0 1 201 1146 1 11 0 TRUE Project Traffic is estimated to be less than I % of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes FALSE I 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: DATE: I % TRAFFIC VOL UME ANA L YSIS CUMULATIVE ANALYSIS INTERSECTION. DOVER DRIVE & WESTCLIFF DRIVE 3290 (Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Daily Traffic 2003 AM) APPROACH DIRECTION EXISTING PEAK HOUR VOLUME, PEAK HOUR REGIONAL GROWTH VOLUME APPROVED /CUMULATIVE PROJECTS PEAK HOUR VOL PROJECTED PEAK HOUR VOLUME I% OFPROJECTED PEAK HOUR VOLUME PROJECT PEAK HOUR VOLUME APPROVED CUMULATIVE Northbound 741 4.06% 30 5 390 1166 12 2 Southbound 481 4.06% 20 1 6 508 5 2 Eastbound 546 4.06% 22 0 180 748 7 0 westbound 0 4.06% 0 0 0 0 0 0 TRUE I Project Traffic is estimated to be less than I % of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes FALSE 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 CUMULATIVE ANALYSIS INTERSECTION. DOVER DRIVE& WESTCLIFF DRIVE 3290 (Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Daily Traffic 2003 PM) APPROACH DIRECTION EXISTING PEAK HOUR VOLUME PEAK HOUR REGIONAL GROWTH VOLUME APPROVED /CUMULATIVE PROJECTS PEAK HOUR VOL PROJECTED PEAK HOUR VOLUME I %OFPROJECTED PEAK HOUR VOLUME PROJECT PEAK HOUR VOLUME APPROVED I CUMULATIVE Northbound 1201 4.06% 49 2 208 1460 15 2 Southbound 492 4.06% 20 2 11 525 5 2 Eastbound 827 4.06% 34 3 304 1168 12 0 westbound 0 4.06% 0 0 0 0 0 0 TRUE Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes FALSE Project Traffic is estimated to be equal to or greater than l% of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PROJECT. DATE. 1% TRAFFIC VOLUMEANALYSIS CUMULATIVE ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: DOVER DRIVE & 16th STREET (Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Daily Traffic 2003 AM) APPROACH DIRECTION EXISTING PEAK HOUR VOLUME PEAK HOUR REGIONAL GROWTH VOLUME APPROVED /CUMULATIVE PROJECTS PEAK HOUR VOL PROJECTED I PEAK HOUR VOLUME 1 %OFPROJECTED PEAK HOUR VOLUME PROJECT PEAK HOUR VOLUME APPROVED ICUMULATIVE1 Northbound 701 4.06% 28 3 389 1121 11 2 Southbound 984 4.06% 40 1 186 1211 12 2 Eastbound 158 4.06% 6 1 0 166 2 0 Westbound 101 4.06% 4 7 0 112 1 0 TRUE. Project Traffic is estimated to be less than I % of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes FALSE I 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 CUMULATIVE ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: DOVER DRivE & 16th STREET (Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Daily Traffic 2003 PM) APPROACH DIRECTION EXISTING PEAK HOUR VOLUME PEAK HOUR REGIONAL GROWTH VOLUME APPROVED/ CUMULATIVE PROJECTS PEAK HOUR VOL PROJECTED PEAK HOUR VOLUME I %OF PROJECTED PEAK HOUR VOLUME PROJECT PEAK HOUR VOLUME APPROVED ICUMULATIVE Northbound 1320 4.06% 54 2 208 1584 16 2 Southbound 972 4.06% 39 5 315 1331 13 2 Eastbound 232 4.06% 9 1 0 243 2 0 Westbound 102 4.06% 4 5 0 111 1 0 TRUE Project Traffic is estimated to be less than I% of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes FALSE I 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. PROJECT. DATE: II ' 1 % TRAFFIC VOL UME ANALYSIS CUMULATIVE ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: IRVINE AVENUE &15TH STREET ' (Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Daily Traffic 2003 AM) APPROACH DIRECTION EXISTING PEAK HOUR VOLUME PEAK HOUR REGIONAL GROWTH VOLUME APPROVED/ CUMULATIVE PROJECTS PEAK HOUR VOL PROJECTED PEAK HOUR VOLUME I %OFPROJECTED PEAK HOUR VOLUME PROJECT PEAK HOUR VOLUME APPROVED ICUMULATIVE Northbound 303 4.06% 12 0 0 316 3 0 Southbound 455 4.06% 18 0 0 474 5 9 Eastbound 261 4.06% 11 0 0 272 3 2 Westbound 260 4.06% 11 0 0 271 3 11 FALSE Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes TRUE 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 CUMULATIVE ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: IRVINE AVENUE & 15TH STREET (Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Daily Traffic 2003 PM) APPROACH DIRECTION EXISTING PEAK HOUR VOLUME PEAK HOUR REGIONAL GROWTH VOLUME APPROVED/ CUMULATIVE PROJECTS PEAK HOUR VOL PROJECTED PEAK HOUR VOLUME I% OFPROJECTED PEAK HOUR VOLUME PROJECT PEAK HOUR VOLUME APPROVED ICUMULATIVE Northbound 171 4.06% 7 0 0 178 2 0 Southbound 649 4.06% 26 0 0 676 7 9 Eastbound 171 4.06% 7 0 0 178 2 2 Westbound 222 4.06% 9 0 0 231 2 11 FALSE Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes TRUE 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: DATE: 1 % TRAFFIC VOLUME ANALYSIS CUMULATIVE ANALYSIS INTERSECTION. DOVER DRIVE & CLIFF DRIVE 3055 (Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Daily Traffic 2003 AM) APPROACH DIRECTION EXISTING PEAK HOUR VOLUME PEAK HOUR REGIONAL GROWTH VOLUME APPROVED/ CUMULATIVE PROJECTS PEAK HOUR VOL PROJECTED PEAK HOUR VOLUME I% OFPROJECTED PEAK HOUR VOLUME PROJECT PEAK HOUR VOLUME APPROVED ICUMHATIVE Northbound 892 4.06% 36 16 389 1333 13 11 Southbound 1063 4.06% 43 1 186 1293 13 2 Eastbound 232 4.06% 9 0 0 242 2 13 Westbound 0 4.06% 0 0 0 0 0 0 FALSE Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes TRUE 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 % TRAFFIC VOLUME ANALYSIS CUMULATIVE ANALYSIS INTERSECTION. DOVER DRIVE & CLIFF' DRIVE 3055 (Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Daily Traffic 2003 PM) APPROACH DIRECTION EXISTING PEAK HOUR VOLUME PEAK HOUR REGIONAL GROWTH VOLUME APPROVED/ CUMULATIVE PROJECTS PEAK HOUR VOL PROJECTED PEAK HOUR VOLUME I% OFPROJECTED PEAK HOUR VOLUME PROJECT PEAK HOUR VOLUME APPROVED I CUMULATIVE Northbound 1353 4.06% 55 18 208 1634 16 9 Southbound 1046 4.06% 42 5 315 1408 14 2 Eastbound 167 4.06% 7 0 0 174 2 11 Westbound 0 4.06% 0 0 0 0 0 0 FALSE Project Traffic is estimated to be less than I% of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes TRUE 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. PROJECT. DATE. i 1 J ' 1% TRAFFIC VOLUME ANALYSIS CUMULATIVE ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: COAST HIGHWAY& RIVERSIDE AVENUE 2630 (Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Daily Traffic 2003 AM) APPROACH DIRECTION EXISTING PEAK HOUR VOLUME PEAK HOUR REGIONAL GROWTH VOLUME APPROVED/ CUMULATIVE PROJECTS PEAK HOUR VOL PROJECTED PEAK HOUR VOLUME I %OFPROJECTED PEAK HOUR VOLUME PROJECT PEAK HOUR VOLUME I APPROVED CUMULATIVE Northbound 5 4.06% 0 0 0 5 0 0 Southbound 355 4.06% 14 0 0 370 4 2 Eastbound 2364 4.06% 96 79 576 3115 31 4 Westbound 1345 4.06% 55 66 1163 2629 26 2 TRUE Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes FALSE 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% TRAFFIC VOLUME ANALYSIS CUMULATIVE ANALYSIS INTERSECTION. COAST HIGHWAY& RIVERSIDE AVENUE 2630 (Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Daily Traffic 2003 PM) APPROACH DIRECTION EXISTING PEAK HOUR VOLUME PEAK HOUR REGIONAL GROWTH VOLUME I APPROVED/ CUMULATIVE PROJECTS PEAK HOUR VOL PROJECTED PEAK HOUR VOLUME I% OFPROJECTED PEAK HOUR VOLUME PROJECT PEAK HOUR VOLUME I APPROVED ICUMULATIVE Northbound 37 4.06% 2 0 0 39 0 0 Southbound 384 4.06% 16 0 0 400 4 2 Eastbound 1776 4.06% 72 90 960 2898 29 4 Westbound 2342 4.06% 95 83 662 3182 32 2 IRUE Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes FALSE I 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. DATE: I % TRAFFIC VOLUME ANALYSIS CUMULATIVE ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: COAST HIGHWAY & TUST[N AVENUE 2635 (Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Daily Traffic 2003 AM) APPROACH DIRECTION EXISTING PEAK HOUR VOLUME PEAK HOUR REGIONAL GROWTH VOLUME APPROVED /CUMULATIVE PROJECTS PEAK HOUR VOL PROJECTED PEAK HOUR VOLUME I %OFPROJECTED PEAK HOUR VOLUME PROJECT PEAK HOUR VOLUME I APPROVED ICUMULATIVF Northbound 0 4.06% 0 0 0 0 0 0 Southbound 54 4.06% 2 0 0 56 1 0 Eastbound 2177 4.06% 88 83 576 2924 29 2 Westbound 1349 4.06% 55 66 1163 2633 26 2 TRUE Project Traffic is estimated to be less than I% of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes FALSE I 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 CUMULATIVE ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: COAST HIGHWAY & TUSTIN AVENUE 2635 (Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Daily Traffic 2003 PM) APPROACH DIRECTION EXISTING PEAK HOUR VOLUME PEAK HOUR REGIONAL GROWTH VOLUME APPROVED /CUMULATIVE PROJECTS PEAK HOUR VOL PROJECTED PEAK HOUR VOLUME I %OFPROJECTED PEAK HOUR VOLUME PROJECT PEAK HOUR VOLUME I APPROVED ICUMULATIVFI Northbound 0 4.06% 0 0 0 0 0 0 Southbound 74 4.06% 3 0 0 77 1 0 Eastbound 1621 4.06% 66 90 960 2737 27 2 Westbound 2391 4.06% 97 83 662 3233 32 2 TRUE Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes FALSE 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. PROJECT: DATE: 1% TRAFFIC VOLUME ANALYSIS CUMULATIVE ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: COAST HIGHWAY & DOVER DRIVEBAYSHORE DRIVE 3060 (Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Daily Traffic 2003 AM) APPROACH DIRECTION EXISTING PEAK HOUR VOLUME PEAK HOUR REGIONAL GROWTH VOLUME APPROVED/ CUMULATIVE PROJECTS PEAK HOUR VOL PROJECTED PEAK HOUR VOLUME 1 ° /OF PROJECTED PEAK HOUR VOLUME PROJECT PEAK HOUR VOLUME I APPROVED ICUMULATIVE Northbound 139 4.06% 6 0 0 145 1 0 Southbound 1253 4.06% 51 16 186 1506 15 10 Eastbound 2257 4.06% 92 115 582 3046 30 2 Westbound 2018 4.06% 82 71 1570 3741 37 8 TRUE Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes FALSE 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 CUMULATIVE ANALYSIS INTERSECTION. COAST HIGHWAY & DOVER DRIVEBAYSHORE DRIVE 3060 (Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Daily Traffic 2003 PM) APPROACH DIRECTION EXISTING PEAK HOUR VOLUME PEAK HOUR REGIONAL GROWTH VOLUME APPROVED /CUMULATIVE PROJECTS PEAK HOUR VOL PROJECTED PEAK HOUR VOLUME 1 %OF PROJECTED PEAK HOUR VOLUME PROJECT PEAK HOUR VOLUME APPROVED CUMULATIVE Northbound 99 4.06% 4 0 0 103 1 0 Southbound 1187 4.06% 48 12 315 1562 16 9 Eastbound 1771 4.06% 72 96 979 2918 29 2 Westbound 3699 4.06% 150 102 880 4831 48 7 TRUE Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes FALSE 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: DATE: APPENDIX F INTERSECTION ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS - CEQA ANALYSIS it 1103055AM INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS CUMULATIVE CONDITIONS INTERSECTION: IRVINE AVENUE & DOVER DRIVE /19TH STREET 3055 EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC 2003 AM I EXISTING I PROPOSED I EXISTING I EXISTING I REGIONAL I CUMULATIVE I PROJECTED I PROJECT I PROJECT I I Movement I Lanes I Lanes I PK HR 1 V/C I GROWTH ( PROJECT I WC Ratio I Volume I WC I I I Capacity I Capacity I Volume I Ratio Volume I Volume I w/o Project I Ratio I I I 0.0406 1 I Volume I I I NIL 1 1600 1 43 1 0.027 1 21 11 0.029 1 11 0.0291 NT 1 1069 1 43 1 1 1 2 I 3200 _ ___________ _ ------ } 0.345 • _________ _ ____________ } 0.359 ' __________ } 0.359 ' NR 1 1 34 I 1 I I 1 SL 1 1600 I 1 158 1 0.099 ' 61 71 0.107 ' 1 0.107 ' 1 ST 1 795 32 1 1 3 I I ___ ---- _----- } 3200 _ _____________ ___________ } 0.254 _ __________ . _______- ______ } 0.265 _ __________ } 0.266 1 I SR I 19 I 11 1 1 -- --- ----- -- --- EL I ---- -- ------ - ---- -------- ----- 1600 1 1 ------ -- ------- - -- 81 1 -- ---- ---- 0.051 1 ------ - - ----- - --- ---- --- ------- - 31 1 ----------- ----- --- -- - - - --- - 0.053 1 --- ----- --- - ---I 0.0531 1 ET 1 1 146 1 6 1 I I ____--------- } 1600 _ __________._ ___________ -__ } 0.107 ' .________ _ __ ----- - - - - -- } 0.111 • ----- - - - - -- } 0.112 ' 1 ER 25 11 I I I--- - - - - -- - 1 W L 1 -- - - - - -- - ----- --- - ---- 1600 1 1 - -- - -- - - 16 1 - - - - ------------ 0.010 ' - ---- - - - - --------------------------------- 11 1 0.011 • 1 0.011 ' 1 ___— ____ —_ _ WT 1 ________ _ ___________ 1600 1 1 ________ _ _________ 101 1 _ 0.063 1 -------- _ ----------- _ 41 11 __________ _ ________ _ 0.066 1 1 _________I 0.0661 I--------------------------------------- I WR 1 1600 1 1 _ ___ 239 1 —____ _ 0.149 ' _________ _ _______ 10 1 91 0.161 1 1 0.161 1 I__________ _________ ___________ ________ _ _________ _ I EXISTING I.C.U. 1 0.561 I I EXISTING +REG GROWTH +COMMITTED W /PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. I EXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U. CI 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 LI Projected +project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will be less than I.C.U. without project Description of system improvement: 1 L PROJECT D03055AM 0.588 1 - - - - -- -- --- --- - - - - - -- I 0.589 ' FORM II 10DOXII.Y VIT'l INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS CUMULATIVE CONDITIONS INTERSECTION: IRVINE AVENUE & DOVER DRIVE/19TH STREET 3055 EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC 2003 PM I! 7 [l EXISTING I.C.U. I 0.588 1 I EXISTING +REG GROWTH + COMMITTED W /PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. I EXISTING+ COMMITTED+ REGIONAL GROWTH +PROJECT I.C.U. LI 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 DO3055PM 0.614 1 I I 0.616 1 1 FO 1 EXISTING I PROPOSED EXISTING EXISTING I REGIONAL I CUMULATIVE 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 V/C I I Capacity I Capacity Volume Ratio I Volume I Volume I w/o Project I I Ratio I I I 0.0406^ 1 Volume I I NIL 1 1600 1 61 — - -- 0.038 2 1 ^^ —— 1 1 0.040 1 1 0.041 ' .________ NT _ ________ _ ________ —_ _ 1 1 ________ _ _________ 693 _ 1 __________ _ __________ 28 1 _ ___________ _ ________ _ ________ I 2 .________ } 3200 _ ________— _ ______ —_ } 0.227 _ __________ _ _____ —___ } 0.236 _ ________ } 0.237 NR 1 1 34 1 1 1 I 1 SL I 1600 1 1 205 I 0.128 1 8 1--- 12 I 1 — I -_ 0.141 ST I I 1188 1 - - - -_ -- 48 1 - - - - -- 1 -- -0.141 - __ -- 1 3 1 .________ } 3200 _ __________ _ ___________ } 0.386 ' _________, _ _ __________ } 0.402 ' __________ } 0.403; S R I I 46 1 2 1 ! --------- EL — - - - - - -- - - ----- - --- -- - I 1600 I I --- - - -- -- - ----- 53 — ---- - - 0.033 ' --- -- -- ---- - - 2 1 — ----- --- - - --- - ----- -- - - --- -- -- ------- -- -- - -- - 0.034 ' I __-'_ -- -- 0.034 ' ET I I 99 4 1 I -- ------- } 1600 - ---- ----- - ---- ---- } 0.085 - ---------- - ------- - -- } 0.089 - -------- --) 0.089 ER 1 1 37 1 2 1 I 1 I - 1 44 I 0.028 ! 2 I I 0.029 I I 0.029 .__ — ___ WT ____ -- __________ - 1 1600 1 1 ______— ___ 210 1 0.131 ` ______ _— 9 1 _____ —_ 1 1 ______ ________ ___ 0.138 ' 1 — 0.138 ' _— ______ W R _ ______— _ ---------- _ 1 1600 1_ - - - - -_ 1 _____ —__ _ -- 240 1 ------- _ 0.150 1 _________ _ ___----------------------------------- 10 1 8 1 0.161 1 1 - 1 - -- 0.161' EXISTING I.C.U. I 0.588 1 I EXISTING +REG GROWTH + COMMITTED W /PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. I EXISTING+ COMMITTED+ REGIONAL GROWTH +PROJECT I.C.U. LI 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 DO3055PM 0.614 1 I I 0.616 1 1 FO I IDO3055AM I1 INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS CUMULATIVE CONDITIONS INTERSECTION: DOVER DRIVE 8 CLIFF DRIVE 3055 EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC 2003 AM I EXISTING I PROPOSED I EXISTING I EXISTING I REGIONAL I CUMULATIVE I PROJECTED I PROJECT I PROJECT I Movement I Lanes I Lanes I PK HR I V/C I GROWTH I PROJECT I 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 0.0406 1 I Volume I NL 1 1600 1 127 1 0.079 5 1 0.083 6 1 0.086 NT 1 3200 1 1 765 1 0.239 1 31 1 405 1 0.375 1 1 0.3751 _________ _ ___ —___ _ ___________ __ NR I I I —_____ _ ____ —___ _ I _________ _ ___— _______ _ I I ___________ _ I _________ _ __— I ______1 I SL ST 1 1 884 1 36 1 187 1 I --------- } 3200 _ ------- _ ------------- } 0.332 • _____________ _ __________ } 0.404 ' ----- ____--- } 0.404 ' SR 1 1 179 7 1 1 EL 1 1600 1 1 89 1 0.056 1 4 1 I 0.058 1 1 1 0.0591 ET -- - - - - -- - --- - - - - -- - ----- - - - - -- - ER 1 1600 1 1 - --- -- - 143 1 - - - -- 0.089 ' -- - - -- - - - - -- 6 1 I -- - - - - -- 0.093 ' — — -- 5 1 -- - - -I 0.096 ___ —_____ _ ________ _ __-- _______ ________ WL I I I _ ________ I _ I __________ _ __________ _ I I ____— ______ _ I ---- - - - -- _________ _ ______�_I I -- -- I - - - - -- - ----- - - - - -- -- - - -wT - -- I_ - -- f I - - - - -- - -- I - - - - -- - I --- - - - - -- - --- - - - - -- - I I ------------------- - - I - - - - - ---- I ------ - -I I - - ------ - - - - ------------------- - -------- WR I I I -- - I - - - -- --------------------- I I I I - I - ----- - - -I I - - - - -I --- - - - - -- --------- ----------- -- EXISTING I.C.U. - - - - -- - --------- j 0.500 1 --- - - - - -- - ----------- ----- - - - -- --- - - - -- - _ ___ —_ —___ _ ___,__ —__ EXISTING +REG GROWTH +COMMITTED W /PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. I ---------- O.680 1 I EXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U. I I 0.5861 uProjected + 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: PROJECT DO3055AM FORM II DO3055PM INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS CUMULATIVE CONDITIONS INTERSECTION. DOVER DRIVE 8 CLIFF DRIVE 3055 I I EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC 2003 PM I EXISTING I PROPOSED I EXISTING I EXISTING I REGIONAL I CUMULATIVE I PROJECTED I PROJECT I PROJECT 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 1 Capacity I Capacity I Volume Ratio I Volume I Volume I w/o Project I I Ratio 0.0406__ I_____________ I Volume__ I NIL 1 1600 1 1 126 I 0.079 ' 51 1 0.082 ' 51 0.085 ' _________ _ __ -____ _ __________ _ ________ _ ________ _ _________ _ __________ _ __- _______ _ _ -_____ _ ________I NT I 3200 I - 1227 I 0.383 I 50 I -226 I - I 0.470 11 -- - - - - -- -- - - -- — - - - - -- NR I I I I I -- I I I ------------------- - - -- - -- - - - - -- - ----- - - - - -- - ----- -- - - - - -- SL ------- - - - - -- - ---- - - - - -- - ---- - - - - -- --- - - - - -- - --- - - - - -- - - ---- - - - - -- - --- - - - - -- - ------ - - - - -- - -- ST 1 1 983 1 40 1 320 --- - - - - - -- - 1 -- - - - - -- - -- - - - - -- I 3200 _ ___________ _ ___________ } 0.327 • __________ _ ____________ } 0.440 ' __________ } 0.441 ' SR 63 1 3 _ EL 1 1600 1 61 I 0.038 I 2 0.039 1 1 1 0.0401 ET 1 I I I I I I ER 1 1600 1 1 106 1 0.066 ' 4 1 1 0.069 ' 4 1 0.071 ' ------ --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- WIL I I I I I WT I I I I I I I I I -- - - - - -- - - - - - -- - ---- - - - - -- - -- - - - - -- - - - - - - -- - --- - - - - -- - ---- - - - - -- - WR 1 I I ---- - - - - -- - - - - -- - - - - -- ------- - -- --- ---- - - - - -- -------- - -- - --- - -- - ----- - ------- ------------------------------- EXISTING I.C.U. I 0.472 1 1 EXISTING +REG GROWTH +COMMITTED W /PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. I 1 -- - -- ------ - - - -- - --- - ----- - -- --- - -- ------ - - - - --- — - -- - -_ -- EXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH +PROJECT I.C.U. I - -- _0.591 1 _ —_--- - 1 - -- - 0.597 1 -- - ----- - - - -- --- - --- - - - ---------------------------------------- -- Projected + traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 --- - - - - -- - -- ------ - --- -- - --- ' LI project L1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 Projected + traffic I.C.U. w /systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 ' LI project LI Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will be less than I.C.U. without project Description of system improvement: PROJECT DO3055PM FOR 11 1I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ALL -WAY STOP CONTROL ANALYSIS General Information Site Information j Analyst JAR Agency /Co. Kimley -Horn and Associates Date Performed 211012004 Analysis Time Period AM Peak Period Intersection 15th St and Irvine Ave Jurisdiction City of Newport Beach Analysis Year Cumulative Project ID St. Andrews East/West Street: 15th Street North /South Street: Irvine Avenue Volume Adjustments and Site Characteristics Approach Eastbound Westbound Movement L T R L I T R Volume 131 108 32 31 56 183 %Thrus Left Lane 50 50 I� Approach Northbound Southbound Movement L T R L T R Volume 18 274 24 182 153 138 %Thrus Left Lane 50 50 Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound 11 12 11 L2 L1 12 I 11 L2 Configuration LTR L TR LTR L TR PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Flow Rate 283 32 250 331 191 306 % Heavy Vehicles No. Lanes 1 2 1 2 Geometry Group 4b 5 4b 5 Duration, T 0.25 Saturation Headway Adjustment Worksheet Prop. Left -Tums 0.5 1.0 0.0 0.1 1.0 0.0 Prop. Right -Tums 0.1 0.0 0.8 0.1 0.0 0.5 Prop. Heavy Vehicle hLT -adj 0.2 0.2 0.5 0.5 0.2 0.2 0.5 0.5 hRT -adj -0.6 -0.6 -0.7 -0.7 -0.6 -0.6 -0.7 1 -0.7 hHV -adj 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1 1.7 1.7 hadj, computed 8.17 8.17 8.17 8.17 8.17 8.17 De arture Headway and Service Time hd, initial value 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 x, initial 0.25 0.03 0.22 0.29 0.17 0.27 Ind. final value 8.17 8.17 8.17 8.17 8.17 8.17 X. final value 0.64 0.08 0.53 0.72 0.43 0.62 Move -up time, m 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 Service Time 5.9 5.9 5.9 5.9 g1pagity and Level of Service Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L1 12 L1 12 1-1 1_2 11 1_2 Capacity 415 282 433 440 424 472 Delay 24.41 12.16 18.70 28.42 17.04 21.42 LOS C B C D C C Approach: Delay 24.41 17.96 28.42 19.74 LOS C C D C Intersection Delay 22,39 Intersecti on LOS C ALL -WAY STOP CONTROL ANALYSIS General Information ISite Information Analyst JAR Agency /Co. 10mley -Horn and ASsoi iates Date Performed 2/1012004 Analysis Time Period PM Peak Period Intersection 15th St and Irvine Ave Jurisdiction City of Newport Beach Analysis Year Cumulative Project ID SL Andrews East/West Street: 15th Street North /South Street: Irvine Avenue Volume Adjustments and Site Characteristics Approach Eastbound Westbound Movement L T R L T R Volume 99 51 28 15 36 180 %Thrus Left Lane 50 I 50 Approach Northbound Southbound Movement L T R L T R Volume 5 166 6 146 330 200 %Thrus Left Lane 50 1 50 Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L1 L2 11 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 Configuration LTR L TR LTR L TR PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Flow Rate 186 15 226 185 153 557 Heavy Vehicles No. Lanes 1 2 1 2 Geometry Group 4b 5 4b 5 Duration, T 0.25 Saturation Headway Adjustment Worksheet Prop. Left-Tums 1 0.6 1 F 1.0 1 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 Prop. Right -Tums 0.2 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.4 Prop. Heavy Vehicle hLT -adj 0.2 0.2 0.5 0.5 0.2 0.2 0.5 0.5 hRT -adj -0.6 -0.6 -0.7 -0.7 -0.6 -0.6 -0.7 -0.7 hHV -adj 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 17 17 1.7 17 hadj, computed 7.64 7.64 7.64 7.64 7.64 7.64 Departure Headway and Service Time hd, initial value 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 x, initial 0.17 0.01 0.20 0.16 0.14 0.50 hd, final value 7.64 7.64 7.64 7.64 7.64 7.64 x, final value 0.39 0.03 0.44 0.37 0.30 0.96 Move -up time, m 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 Service Time 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.3 Capacity and Level of Service Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound 11 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 t2 Capacity 436 265 476 435 403 580 Delay 15.22 11.07 15.00 14.29 12.57 51.93 LOS C B C B B F Approach: Delay 15.22 14.76 14.29 43.45 LOS C B B E Intersection Delay 30.17 Intersection LOS D ALL -WAY STOP CONTROL ANALYSIS General Information Site Information Analyst JAR Agency /Co. Kimley -Horn and Associates Date Performed 2/10/2004 Analysis Time Period AM Peak Period Intersection 151h St and Irvine Ave Jurisdiction City of Newport Beach Analysis Year Cumulative Project ID St. Andrews East/West Street: 15th Street North /South Street: Irvine Avenue Volume Ad'ustments and Site Characteristics Approac h Eastbound Westbound I Movement L T R L T R Volume 131 108 32 31 ' 56 183 %Thrus Left Lane I 50 I I 50 Approach Northbound Southbound Movement L T R L T R Volume 18 274 24 182 153 138 %Thrus Left Lane I 50 I I 50 Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L1 L2 L1 L2 I L1 L2 I L1 L2 Configuration LTR L TR LTR L TR PHF 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81 Flow Rate 334 38 295 390 225 360 Heavy Vehicles No.Lanes 1 2 1 2 Geometry Group 4b 5 4b 5 Duration. T 0.25 Saturation Headway Adjustment Worksheet Prop. Left -Turns 0.5 1.0 0.0 0.1 1.0 0.0 Prop. Right -Tums 0.1 0.0 0.8 0.1 0.0 0.5 Prop. Heavy Vehicle hLT -adj 0.2 0.2 0.5 0.5 0.2 0.2 0.5 0.5 hRT -adj -0.6 -0.6 -0.7 -0.7 -0.6 -0.6 -0.7 -0.7 hHV -adj 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 I 1.7 hadj, computed 9.62 9.62 9.62 912 j 9.62 1 9.62 Departure Headwa .:and. Service Time hd, initial value 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 x, initial 0.30 0.03 0.26 0.35 0.20 0.32 hd, final value 9.62 9.62 9.62 9.62 9.62 9.62 x, final value 0.89 0.11 0.74 1.01 0.61 0.88 Move -up time, m 2.3 23 2.3 2.3 Service Time 7.3 7.3 7.3 7.3 Capacity and Level of Service Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 Capacity 372 288 391 390 370 407 Delay 54.82 14.03 33.48 78.01 26.16 49.69 LOS F 8 D F D E Approach: Delay 54.82 31.26 78.01 40.64 LOS F D F E Intersection Delay 50.50 Intersection LOS F ALL -WAY STOP CONTROL ANALYSIS General Information Site Information Analyst JAR Agency /Co. fGailey -Horn and Associates Date Performed 211012004 Analysis Time Period PM Peak Period Intersection 15th St and Irvine Ave Jurisdiction City of Newport Beach Analysis Year Cumulative i - j' J ; ,;;4 j C. .' I,� . j Project ID St. Andrews East/West Street: 15th Street North /South Street: Irvine Avenue Volume Ad- ustments and Site Characteristics Approach Eastbound Westbound Movement L T R L T R Volume 99 51 28 15 ( 36 180 %Thrus Left Lane 50 I 50 Approach Northbound Southbound Movement L T R L T R Volume 5 166 6 146 330 200 %Thrus Left Lane 50 50 Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 1-2 Configuration LTR L TR LTR L TR PHF 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 Flow Rate 199 16 242 197 164 594 % Heavy Vehicles No.Lanes 1 2 1 2 Geometry Group 4b 5 4b 5 Duration, T 0.25 Saturation Headway Adj ustment Worksheet Prop. Left -Tums 0.6 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 Prop. Right -Tums 0.2 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.4 Prop. Heavy Vehicle hLT -adj 0.2 0.2 0.5 0.5 0.2 0.2 0.5 0.5 hRT -adj -0.6 -0.6 -0.7 -0.7 -0.6 -0.6 -0.7 -0.7 hHV -adj 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 hadj, computed 7.85 7.85 785 7.85 7.85 7.85 De. arture Headwa :and Service Time hd, initial value 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 x, initial 0.18 0.01 0.22 0.18 0.15 0.53 hd, final value 7.85 7.85 7.85 7.85 7.85 7.85 x, final value 0.43 0.04 0.48 0.41 0.33 1.06 Move -up time, in 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 Service Time 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 Capacity and Level of Service Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L1 L2 Ll L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 Capacity 442 266 486 447 414 594 Delay 16.43 11.30 16.38 15.44 13.33 78.42 LOS C B C C B F Approach: Delay 16.43 16.06 15.44 64.34 LOS C C C F Intersection Delay 41.94 Intersection LOS E ALL -WAY STOP CONTROL ANALYSIS General Information Site Information Analyst JAR Agency /Co. Kimley -Horn and Associates Date Performed 211012004 Analysis Time Period AM Peak Period Intersection 15th St and Irvine Ave Jurisdiction City of Newport Beach Analysis Year Cumulative Plus Project Project ID St. Andrews East/West Street: 15th Street North /South Street: Irvine Avenue Volume Adjustments and Site Characteristics roach Eastbound Westbound Movement L T R L T R Volume 131 109 32 31 57 J 187 %Thrus Left Lane I 50 J 50 Approach Northbound Southbound Movement L T R L T R Volume 18 274 24 187 153 138 %Thnu Left Lane 50 50 Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 L7 L2 Configuration I LTR L TR LTR L TR PHF 0.95 0.95 95 0. 0.95 0.95 0.95 (Flow Rate 284 32 256 331 196 306 %Heavy Vehicles No.Lanes 1 2 1 2 Geometry Group 4b 5 4b 5 Duration, T 0.25 Saturation Headway Adjustment Worksheet Prop. Left -rums 0.5 1.0 0.0 0.1 1.0 0.0 Prop. Right -rums 0.1 0.0 0.8 0.1 0.0 0.5 Prop. Heavy Vehicle hLT -adj 0.2 0.2 0.5 0.5 0.2 0.2 0.5 0.5 hRT -adj -0.6 I -0.6 I -0.7 -0.7 -0.6 -0.6 -0.7 -0.7 hHV -adj 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 computed mputed 8.23 8.23 8.23 8.23 8.23 8.23 Departure Headway and Service Time hid, initial value 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 x, initial 0.25 0.03 0.23 0.29 0.17 0.27 hid. final value 8.23 8.23 8.23 8.23 8.23 8.23 x, final value 0.65 0.08 0.55 0.73 0.45 0.63 Move -up time. in 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 Service Time 5.9 5.9 5.9 � 5.9 Capacity and Level of Service Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L1 L2 U L2 L1 L2 U L2 Capacity 412 282 432 436 422 469 Delay 24.93 12.21 19.31 29.05 17.49 21.77 LOS C B C D C C Approach: Delay 24.93 18.52 29.05 20.10 LOS C C D C Intersection Delay 22.86 Intersection LOS C ALL -WAY STOP CONTROL ANALYSIS General Information ISite Information Analyst JAR Agency /Co. Kimley -Horn and Associates Date Performed 2/10/2004 Analysis Time Period PM Peak Period Intersection 15th St and Irvine Ave Jurisdiction City of Newport Beach Analysis Year Cumulative Plus Project Project ID St. Andrews EastAVest Street: 15th Street North /South Street: Irvine Avenue Volume Adjustments and Site Characteristics Approach Eastbound Westbound Movement L T R L T R Volume 99 52 28 15 37 184 %Thrus Left Lane 50 50 Approach Northbound Southbound Movement L T R L T R Volume 5 166 6 151 330 200 %Thins Left Lane 50 50 Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L1 12 L1 L2 1 -1 L2 L1 L2 Configuration LTR L TR LTR L I TR PHF 0,95 0.95 0.95 0,95 0.95 0.95 Flow Rate 187 15 231 185 158 557 Heavy Vehicles No.Lanes 1 2 1 2 Geometry Group 4b 5 4b 5 Duration, T 0.25 Saturation Headway Adjustment Worksheet Prop. Left -Tums 0.6 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 Prop. Right -Tums 0.2 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.4 Prop. Heavy Vehicle hl-T -adj 0.2 0.2 0.5 0.5 0.2 0.2 0.5 0.5 hRT -adj -0.6 -0.6 -0.7 -0.7 -0.6 -0.6 -0.7 -0.7 hHV -adj 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1 .7 1.7 hadj, computed 7.67 7.67 7.67 7.67 7.67 7.67 De a ure Headway acid Service Time hd, initial value 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 x, initial 0.17 0.01 0.21 0.16 0.14 0.50 Ind, final value 7.67 7.67 7.67 7.67 7.67 7.67 x. final value 0.40 0.03 0.45 0.38 0.31 0.96 Move -up time. m 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 Service Time 5.4 5.4 5.4 _J 5.4 Capacity and Level of Service Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound 11 L2 11 12 11 12 11 12 Capacity 437 265 481 435 408 577 Delay 15.35 11.09 15.28 14.39 12.77 53.11 LOS C 8 C 8 8 F Approach: Delay 15.35 15.02 14.39 44.19 LOS C C 8 E Intersection Delay 30.63 Intersection LOS D I I d i i I I I H I I I I I I 1 I ALL -WAY STOP CONTROL ANALYSIS General Information ISite Information . Analyst JAR Agency /Co. Kimley -Horn and Associates Date Performed 211012004 Analysis Time Period AM Peak Period Intersection 15th St and Irvine Ave Jurisdiction City of Newport Beach Analysis Year Cumulative + Project V r - - ?., ,,.i* -•., ?rt iVS (5 Project ID St. Andrews EastANest Street: 15th Street North /South Street: Irvine Avenue Volume Adjustments and Site Characteristics Approac h Eastbound Westbound Movement L T R L T I R Volume 131 109 32 31 57 187 %Thrus Leff Lane 50 50 Approach Northbound Southbound Movement L T R L T R Volume 18 274 24 187 153 138 %Thrus Left Lane 50 50 Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 Li L2 Configuration LTR L TR LTR L I TR PHF 0.81 0.81 0 -81 0.81 1 0.81 0 -81 J Flow Rate 336 38 301 390 231 360 Heavy Vehicles No.Lanes 1 2 1 2 Geometry Group 4b 5 4b 5 Duration, T 0 -25 Saturation Headway Adjustment Worksheet Prop. Left -Tums 0.5 1.0 0.0 0.1 1.0 0.0 Prop. Right-Tums 0.1 0.0 0.8 0.1 0.0 0.5 Prop. Heavy Vehicle hLT -adj 0.2 0.2 0.5 0.5 0.2 0.2 0.5 0.5 hRT•adj -0 -6 -0.6 -0.7 -0.7 -0.6 -0.6 -0.7 -0.7 hHV -adj 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 hadj, computed 9.67 9.67 9.67 9.67 9.67 9.67 De arture Headway and Service Time Ind, initial value 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 - 3.20 3.20 x, initial 0.30 0.03 0.27 0.35 0.21 0.32 hd, final value 9.67 9.67 9.67 9.67 9.67 9.67 x, final value 0.90 0.11 0.76 1.01 0.63 0.89 Move -up time, m 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 Service Time 7.4 7.4 7.4 7.4 Capacity and Level of Service Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L1 L2 L7 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 Capacity 370 288 390 390 368 404 Delay 56.86 14.07 35.16 80.56 27.38 50.91 LOS F 8 E F D F Approach: Delay 56.86 32.79 80.56 41.71 LOS F D F E Intersection Delay 52.11 Intersection LOS F ALL -WAY STOP CONTROL ANALYSIS General Information Site Information Analyst JAR Agency /Co. Kimley -Horn and Associates Date Performed 2/10 12004 Analysis Time Period PM Peak Period Intersection 15th St and in fine Ave Jurisdiction City of Newport Beach Analysis Year Cumulative Plus Project n1 11 lii j f- ; I, nn I ;,i j Pro ect ID St. Andrews East/Nest Street: 15th Street North /South Street: Irvine Avenue Volume Adjustments and Site Characteristics Approach Eastbound Westbound Movement L T R L T R Volume 99 52 28 15 37 i 184 %Thrus Left Lane I 50 I I 50 I { Approach Northbound Southbound Movement L T R L T R Volume 5 166 6 151 330 200 %Thrus Left Lane 50 I 50 I Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 Configuration LTR L TR LTR L TR PHF 0.89 0,89 0.89 0,89 a89 0.89 Flow Rate 200 16 247 197 169 594 % Heavy Vehicles No. Lanes 1 2 1 2 Geometry Group 4b 5 4b 5 Duration, T 0.25 Saturation HeadwaY Adjustment Worksheet Prop. Left -rums 0.6 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 Prop. Right -rums 0.2 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.4 Prop. Heavy Vehicle hLT -adj 0.2 0.2 0.5 0.5 0.2 0.2 0.5 0.5 hRT -adj -0.6 -0.6 -0.7 -0.7 -0.6 -0.6 -0.7 -0.7 hHV -adj 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 hadj, computed 7.87 7.87 7.87 7.87 7.87 7.87 Departure Headway and Service Time hd, initial value 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 x, initial 0.18 0.01 0.22 0.18 0.15 0.53 Ind. final value 7.87 7.87 7.87 7.87 7.87 7.87 x, final value 0.44 0.04 0.49 0.41 0.34 1.06 Move -up time, m 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 Service Time 5.6 5.6 5.6 5.6 Capacity and Level of Service Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 Capacity 440 266 486 447 419 594 Delay 16.55 11.31 16.68 15.54 13.55 80.07 LOS C 8 C C 8 F Approach: Delay 16.55 16.35 15.54 65.34 LOS C C C F Intersection Delay 4253 Intersection LOS E I I i i I I i I I I I I 11 I I I lJ I I I I 1 I 1 I APPENDIX G ST. ANDREW'S PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH ACTIVITY SCHEDULE - WEDNESDAY NOV. 59 2003 [1 I I Browse events Advanced event search vember r5� 2003 No Wednesday Building: all) - start 6:45 AM 8:00 AM 9:00 AM ' 9:15 AM 10:00 AM 11:00 AM 11:00 AM ' 4:00 PM 5:00 PM 5:00 PM + 5:00 PM Day Week Month Show events Event type: Customer type: (all) — (all) :D— Wednesday November 5, 2003 End Event 8:00 AM Men's_Breiakfast Customer: Congregational Care Department Event type: All Church Event Building: C Room: Dierenfield Hall B 5:00 PM Chapel Open.for Prayer, and, Meditation Customer: Administration Event type: All Church Event Building: D Room: Chapel Foyer 12:00 PM ParentlChild Classes Customer: Children's Ministries Event type: Children's Education Building: E Room: SS /ECS E116 11:30 AM ParentlChild Fellowship Customer: Children's Ministries Event type: Children's Education Building: B Room: AE B014a 11:00 AM )oy$ingers,.Rehearsal Customer: Music and Worship Department Event type: Rehearsal Building: A Room: Choir Rehearsal Room 2:00 PM Presbylonrian„WOmen's Luncheon Customer: Adult Education Department Event type; Ail Church Event Building: C Room: Dierenfleld Hall ABC 2:00 PM Presbyterian Wome_n's,LUncheon Customer: Adult Education Department Event type: All Church Event Building: C Room: Inner /Outer Kitchens 4:50 PM Caro) Chimers Rehearsal Customer: Music and Worship Department Event type: Rehearsal Building: B Room: AE B014a 5:30 PM Angel ,BaOQ ZLehearsal Customer: Music and Worship Department Event type: Rehearsal Building: e Room: AE 8019 5:30 PM Che.cm)-.Choirgeearsal Customer: Music and Worship Department Event type: Rehearsal Building: B Room: AE 8016 5:45 PM Carol Choir Rehearsal Customer: Music and Worship Department Event type: Rehearsal Building: B Room: AE B014a 5:00 PM 6:00 PM Chorister Choir Rehearsal Customer: Music and Worship Department Event type: Rehearsal Building: B Room: AE B015a 5:15 PM 6:15 PM Solid Rock Cafe Customer: Families & Singles Ministries Event type: All Church Event Building: C Room: Dierenfield Hall BC 5:15 PM 6:45 PM Writing Class Customer': Adult Education Department Event type: Adult Education Class Building: D Room: Lydia Sarandan's Office 6:00 PM 8:00 PM Jun, for High. Prime Time Customer: Youth and Young Adults Department Event type: Bible Study Building: C Room: Junior High Room C222 6:30 PM 7:30 PM FOUND Customer: Children's Ministries Event type: Children's Education Building: C Room: Carpenter's Hall C221 6:30 PM 7:30 PM FOUND Customer: Children's Ministries Event type: Children's Education Building: E Room: SS /ECS E216a 6:30 PM 7:30 PM Kids' Klub Customer: Children's Ministries Event type: Child Care Building: B Room: Nursery 6:30 PM 7:30 PM Kids' Klub Customer: Children's Ministries Event type: Children's Education Building: Other Room: Various Rooms - by Grade Level 6:30 PM 7:30 PM Wednesday—Night Together Customer: Families & Singles Ministries Event type: All Church Event Building: A Room: Sanctuary 7:00 PM 8:30 PM Aloha Customer: Families & Singles Ministries Event type: All Church Event Building: D Room: Chapel 7:00 PM 8:30 PM Atha Customer: Families & Singles Ministries Event type: All Church Event Building: C Room: Dierenfield Hall A 7:00 PM 8:30 PM PreMan al Counseli g Customer: Youth and Young Adults Department Event type: Youth Activities Building: A Room: Pastor's Robing Room 7:00 PM 9:30 PM Alpha Customer: Families & Singles Ministries Event type: All Church Event Building: C Room: Dierenfield Hall B 8:00 PM 9:30 PM Dun's Rece tion Customer: Administration Event type: Reception Building: D Room: Stewart Lounge - �,Lnue. tw Copy "Or IC03 Dean Evans &Associates. Tr..,.. AJ ,lahfs r1,50rvee I I I 1 1 1 P I Appendix D Air Quality Assessment F i 11 I I J 1 I II ' Air Quality Assessment For: I ST. ANDREWS PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH ' CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH I I Prepared For: KEETON KREITZER CONSULTING 17882 East 171h Street, Suite 106 Tustin, CA 92780 I Submitted By: MESTRE GREVE ASSOCIATES Fred Greve, P.E. Matthew B. Jones, P.E. 27812 El Lazo Road Laguna Niguel, CA 92677 949.349.0671 Fax 949.349.0679 January 21, 2004 Report #04 -015 I I I Table Of Contents i I I P, I I] I I 1.0 Existing Air Quality ........................................................................ 1 1.1 Project Description .............................................................................. 1 1.2 Climate ................................................................................................ 1 1.3 Air Quality Management ...................................................................... 2 1.4 Monitored Air Quality ........................................................................... 4 2.0 Potential Air Quality Impacts ......................................................... 7 2.1 Thresholds of Significance .................................................................. 2.2 Short Term Impacts ............................................................................. 7 8 2.2.1 Construction Air Pollutant Emissions ...... ..............................8 3.0 2.3 Long Term Impacts ............................................................................ Mitigation Measures .................................................................... 10 13 3.1 Short-Term Impacts ........................................................................... 13 3.1.1 Particulate Emission (PM-10) ControlError! Bookmark not defined. 3.1.2 Construction Equipment Emission ControlError! Bookmark not defined. 3.2 Long Term Impacts ............................................................................ 13 4.0 Level of Significance after Mitigation .............. .............................13 4.1 Short Term Impacts ..... .........................Error! Bookmark not defined. APPENDIX......................................................................................... 14 i I I P, I I] I I Mestre Greve Associates 1.0 Existing Air Quality 1.1 Project Description St. Andrews Presbyterian Church Page 1 St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church was established in Newport Beach in 1947 and moved to its present location at 600 St. Andrew's Road in the City three years later. The roughly triangular - shaped property encompasses approximately 3.9 acres, which are bounded on the northeast by 15th Street and on the southeast by Clay Street; St. Andrew's Road comprises the northwestern property boundary. A vicinity map is presented in Exhibit 1. The applicant, St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church is proposing to increase the intensity of development that currently exists on the property. The site currently supports five existing buildings, including a 1,200 -seat sanctuary, a chapel /administration building, two classroom buildings, and a fellowship hall. An existing site plan is presented in Exhibit 2. One of the classroom buildings and the fellowship hall will be demolished for the project. The locations of these buildings are noted on Exhibit 2. 1 The project proposes the construction of two new buildings, a new Fellowship Hall, and a Gymnasium /Classroom building, that will increase the square footage of the facility by 35,948 square feet to a total of 140,388 square feet. In addition, the proposed project includes a ' subterranean parking garage beneath the surface parking lot proposed along Clay Street. The project would include 227 parking spaces in the subterranean garage and 173 surface parking spaces. The proposed site plan is presented in Exhibit 3. This report will analyze the potential air quality impacts associated with this project. Regional air quality impacts from construction and operation of the proposed project are analyzed, as are potential local air quality impacts. Potential air quality impacts from project are analyzed in Section 2 and mitigation measures described in Section 3. The remainder of this section provides background on the regions air quality and a description of the existing air quality. 1.2 Climate The climate in and around the project area, as with all of Southern California, is controlled largely by the strength and position of the subtropical high pressure cell over the Pacific Ocean. It maintains moderate temperatures and comfortable humidity, and limits precipitation to a few storms during the winter "wet" season. Temperatures are normally mild, excepting the summer months, which commonly bring substantially higher temperatures. In all portions of the basin, temperatures well above 100 degrees F. have been recorded in recent years. The annual average temperature in the basin is approximately 62 degrees F. Winds in the project area are usually driven by the dominant land/sea breeze circulation system. Regional wind patterns are dominated by daytime onshore sea breezes. At night the wind generally slows and reverses direction traveling towards the sea. Wind direction will be altered by local canyons, with wind tending to flow parallel to the canyons. During the transition period from one wind pattern to the other, the dominant wind direction rotates into the south and causes a minor wind direction maximum from the south. The frequency of calm winds (less than 2 miles per hour) is less than 10 percent. Therefore, there is little stagnation in the project vicinity, especially during busy daytime traffic hours. rr kit 15TH SVIEET F------------- 71 LU Zu r. Al" W Lu u 71 - 0 LL ' Z 1 Au I" LU el � z mz IL 3:z LILZ x Z-j tE NN CVa = cc LLI w Mestre Greve Associates St. Andrews Presbyterian Church Page 2 Southern California frequently has temperature inversions which inhibit the dispersion of pollutants. Inversions may be either ground based or elevated. Ground based inversions, sometimes referred to as radiation inversions, are most severe during clear. cold. early winter mornings. Under conditions of a ground based inversion, very little mixing or turbulence occurs. and high concentrations of primary pollutants may occur local to major roadways. Elevated inversions can be generated by a variety of meteorological phenomena. Elevated inversions act as a lid or upper boundary and restrict vertical mixing. Below the elevated inversion dispersion is not restricted. Mixing heights for elevated inversions are lower in the summer and more persistent. This low summer inversion puts a lid over the SCAB and is responsible for the high levels of ozone observed during summer months in the air basin. 1.3 Air Quality Management The proposed project is located in the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB) and, jurisdictionally, is the responsibility of the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) and the California Air Resources Board (CARB). The SCAQMD sets and enforces regulations for stationary sources in the basin and develops and implements Transportation Control Measures. The CARB is charged with controlling motor vehicle emissions. CARB establishes legal emission rates for new vehicles and is responsible for the vehicle inspection program. Other important agencies in the air quality management for the basin include the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). The EPA implements the provisions of the federal Clean Air Act. This Act establishes ambient air quality standards that are applicable nationwide. In areas that are not achieving the standards, the Clean Air Act requires that plans be developed and implemented to meet the standards. The EPA oversees the efforts in this air basin and insures that appropriate plans are being developed and implemented. The primary agencies responsible for writing the plan are SCAG and the SCAQMD, and the plan is called the Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP). SCAG prepares the transportation component of the AQMP. SCAQMD and SCAG, in coordination with local governments and the private sector, have developed the Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) for the air basin. The AQMP is the most important air management document for the basin because it provides the blueprint for meeting state and federal ambient air quality standards. The 1997 AQMP was adopted locally on November 8, 1996, by the governing board of the SCAQMD. CARB amended the Ozone portion of the 1997 AQMP in 1999 as part of the California State Implementation Plan. The 1997 AQMP with the 1999 Amendments was adopted by the EPA in December of 1999. State law mandates the revision of the AQMP at least every three years, and federal law specifies dates certain for developing attainment plans for criteria pollutants. The 1997 AQMP with the 1999 Amendments supersedes the 1994 AQMP revision that was adopted locally by the SCAQMD in November 1996. The 1997 revision to the AQMP was adopted in response to the requirements set forth in the California Clean Air Act (CCAA) and the 1990 amendments to the Federal Clean Air Act (CAA). SCAQMD and SCAG have released a draft 2003 AQMP which has been adopted by SCAQMD and ARB. The 2003 AQMP still needs approvals by the EPA before it becomes the applicable plan. The SCAB has been designated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as a non - attainment area for ozone, carbon monoxide, and suspended particulates. Nitrogen dioxide in the I Mestre Greve Associates St. Andrews Presbyterian Church , Page 3 SCAB has met the federal standards for the third year in a row, and therefore, is qualified for redesignation to attainment. A maintenance plan for nitrogen dioxide is included in the 1997 AQMP. The CCAA mandates the implementation of the program that will achieve the California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS) and the CAA mandates the implementation of new air quality performance standards. EPA has designated SCAB as extreme non - attainment for 1 -hour ozone, and serious non- attainment for PM10 and CO. Attainment of all federal PM10 health standards is to be achieved by December 31, 2006, and ozone standards are to be achieved by November 15, 2010. For CO, the deadline was to be December 31, 2000 however the basin was granted an extension. The SCAB has not had more than one violation of the federal CO standard in the past two years. Therefore, the SCAB has met the criteria for CO attainment. However, SCAB is still formally designated as a non - attainment area for CO until USEPA redesignates it as an attainment area. SCAQMD plans to submit a proposed maintenance plan to the USEPA in late fall /early winter 2003. In 1997, the EPA established an 8 -hour standard for ozone and standards for particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter (PM2.5). In 1999, a federal court ruling (American Trucking Associations, Inc., et al., v. United States Environmental Protection Agency) blocked implementation of these standards. In February 2001, the United States Supreme Court upheld the standards but remanded some issues back to the Circuit Court. In March 2002, the Circuit Court upheld the standards. Establishment of a PM2.5 standard was just the first step in the assessment and reduction of PM2.5 levels. Tools need to be developed to accurately estimate PM2.5 and precursor emissions, their dispersion and atmospheric interactions, and the resulting concentrations. Uncertainty brought by the court challenge delayed development of the tools to estimate PM2.5 emissions and concentrations, especially at a project level. The focus at this time is establishment of a PM2.5 measurement network to determine which areas are in attainment of the standard and which are not and how substantial the concentrations are in areas of nonattainment. At this time, adequate tools are not available to perform a detailed assessment of PM2.5 emissions and impacts at the project level. Further, there are no good sources for the significance thresholds for PM2.5 emissions. Until tools and methodologies are developed to assess the impacts of projects on PM2.5 concentrations the analysis of PM10 will need to be used as an indicator of potential PM2.5 impacts. EPA is scheduled to promulgate air quality designations for the new 8 -hour ozone standard by April 15, 2004. At this time, it is not known when EPA plans to begin implementation of the new PM2.5 standards. On June 20, 2002, the CARB revised the PM10 annual average standard to 20 µg /m3 and establish an annual average standard for PM2.5 of 12µg /m3. These standards were approved by the Office of Administrative Law in June of 2003 and are now effective. However, as discussed above there are not adequate tools to assess PM2.5 impacts and PM 10 emissions must be used as an indicator of potential PM2.5 impacts. SCAQMD has not altered the recommended significance thresholds or analysis techniques based on these revised standards. I ' Mestre Greve Associates St. Andrews Presbyterian Church Page 4 1 The overall control strategy for the AQMP is to meet applicable state and federal requirements and to demonstrate attainment with ambient air quality standards. The 1997 AQMP uses two tiers of emission reduction measures; (1) short- and intermediate -term measures, and (2) long- , term measures. Short- and intermediate -term measures propose the application of available technologies and management practices between 1994 and the year 2005. These measures rely on known technologies and proposed actions to be taken by several agencies that currently have statutory authority to implement such measures. Short- and intermediate -term measures in the 1997 I' AQMP include 35 stationary source, 7 on -road, 6 off -road, I transportation control and indirect source, 5 advanced transportation technology, and I further study measures. All of these measures are proposed to be implemented between 1995 and 2005. These measures rely on both traditional command and control and on alternative approaches to implement technological solutions and control measures. To ultimately achieve ambient air quality standards, additional emission reductions will be necessary beyond the implementation of short- and intermediate -term measures. Long -term measures rely on the advancement of technologies and control methods that can reasonably be I , expected to occur between 1997 and 2010. These long -term measures rely on further development and refinement of known low- and zero - emission control technologies for both mobile and stationary sources, along with technological breakthroughs. 1.4 Monitored Air Quality Air quality at any site is dependent on the regional air quality and local pollutant sources. Regional air quality is determined by the release of pollutants throughout the air basin. Estimates for the SCAB have been made for existing emissions ( "2003 Air Quality Management Plan ", August 1, 2003). The data indicate that mobile sources are the major source of regional emissions. Motor vehicles (i.e., on -road mobile sources) account for approximately 45 percent of volatile organic compounds (VOC), 63 percent of nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions, and approximately 76 percent of carbon monoxide (CO) emissions. Air quality data for this area is collected at the Costa Mesa monitoring station. The data collected at this station is considered representative of the air quality experienced in the vicinity of the project. The air pollutants measured at the Costa Mesa station include ozone, carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO,) and sulfur dioxide (SO,). PM10 and PM2.5 monitoring data were collected at the Mission Viejo station. The air quality monitored data from 2000 to 2002 for all of these pollutants are shown in Table 1. Data from 2003 was not available at the time this report was prepared. Table I also presents the Federal and State air quality standards. Mestre Greve Associates St. Andrews Presbyterian Church ' Page 5 Table 1 Air Qualitv Levels Measured at Costa Mesa/Mission Vieio Monitorinq Stations NOZ 0.25 PPM None 2002 99 0.106 0 Days State Days National for 1 hour California National 0.082 % Max. Standard Standard Pollutant Standard Standard Year Meas.' Level Exceeded Exceeded Ozone 0.09 ppm 0.12 ppm 2002 99 0.087 3 0 0.005 for 1 hr. for 1 hr. 2001 100 0.098 2 1 0 0 2000 100 0.130 9 1 Ozone None 0.08 ppm 2002 99 0.070 n/a 0 PM2.5 State Standard for 8 hr. 2001 100 0.073 n/a 0 (24 Hour) 2000 100 0.086 n/a 1 CO 20 ppm 35 ppm 2002 96 5.1 0 0 PM2.5 for 1 hour for 1 hour 2001 99 5.4 0 0 (Annual) 2000 99 7.8 0 0 CO 9.0 ppm 9 ppm 2002 87 4.3 0 0 for 8 hour for 8 hour 2001 99 4.6 0 0 2000 99 6.3 0 0 NOZ 0.25 PPM None 2002 99 0.106 0 n/a (1 -Hour) for 1 hour 2001 100 0.082 0 n/a 3/18 0 2000 100 0.107 0 n/a so, 0.04 PPM 0.14 PPM 2002 99 0.011 0 0 for 24 hours for 24 hours 2001 87 0.005 0 0 2001 94 2000 100 0.006 0 0 Particulates 50 ug /m3 150 ug /m3 2002 80 5/30 0 PM10= for 24 hr. for 24 hr. 2001 94 60 3/18 0 (24 Hour) 2000 98 98 2/12 0 Particulates 20 ug/m3 50 ug /m3 2002 28/31 Yes No PM 103 AGM° AAMS 2001 94 24/26 Yes No (Annual) 2000 98 25/27 Yes No Particulates No Separate 65 ug /m3 2002 100 58.5 n/a 0 PM2.5 State Standard for 24 hr. 2001 99 53.4 n/a 0 (24 Hour) 2000 100 94.7 n/a 1 Particulates 12 ug /m3 15ug /m3 2002 100 15.5 Yes Yes PM2.5 AAM5 4AM5 2001 99 15.8 Yes Yes (Annual) 2000 100 14.7 Yes No I. Percent of year where high pollutant levels were expected that measurements were made 2. First number shown in Days State Standard Exceeded column is the actual number of days measured that state standard was exceeded. The second number shows the number of days the standard would be expected to be exceeded if measurements were taken every day. 3. First number shown in Max Level column is the Annual Geometric Mean and the second number is the Annual Arithmetic Mean. 4. Annual Geometric Mean 5. Annual Arithmetic Mean n/a— not applicable (no standards to compare with). -- —no data available I Mestre Greve Associates St. Andrews Presbyterian Church Page 6 The Costa Mesa monitoring data presented in Table 1 show that ozone is the air pollutant of primary concern in the project area. The state 1 -hour ozone standard was exceeded 3 days in 2002, 2 days in 2001, and 9 days in 2000. The federal 1 -hour and 8 -hour standards were exceeded 1 day in 2000 and 2001, none at all in 2002. The data from the past three years show a slight downward trend in the number of days exceeding the state and federal ozone standards. Ozone is a secondary pollutant; it is not directly emitted. Ozone is the result of chemical reactions between other pollutants, most importantly hydrocarbons and NO„ which occur only in the presence of bright sunlight. Pollutants emitted from upwind cities react during transport downwind to produce the oxidant concentrations experienced in the area. Many areas of the SCAQMD contribute to the ozone levels experienced at the monitoring station, with the more significant areas being those directly upwind. Carbon monoxide (CO) is another important pollutant that is due mainly to motor vehicles. Currently, CO levels in the project region are in compliance with the state and federal 1 -hour and 8 -hour standards. High levels of CO commonly occur near major roadways and freeways. CO may potentially be a continual problem in the future for areas next to freeways and other major roadways. Particulate matters (PM 10 and PM2.5) is another air pollutant of primary concern in the area. The state standards for PM10 have been exceeded at the Mission Viejo monitoring station between 2 and 5 days over the past three years. The federal standard for PM10 was not exceeded. The federal standard for PM2.5 was exceeded only 1 day in 2000, and none in 2001 and 2002. The maximum levels in 2001 were the lowest in the last three years. The annual average PM10 and PM2.5 concentrations have exceeded the state standards for the past three years. The federal standard was exceeded only for PM2.5 in the last two years. There does not appear to be a trend toward fewer days of exceedances and maximum levels for both PM 10 and PM2.5. Particulate levels in the area are due to natural sources, grading operations and motor vehicles. According to the EPA, some people are much more sensitive than others to breathing fine particles (PM10 and PM2.5). People with influenza, chronic respiratory and cardiovascular diseases, and the elderly may suffer worsening illness and premature death due to breathing these fine particles. People with bronchitis can expect aggravated symptoms from breathing in fine particles. Children may experience decline in lung function due to breathing in PM10 and PM2.5. Other groups considered sensitive are smokers and people who cannot breathe well through their noses. Exercising athletes are also considered sensitive, because many breathe through their mouths. The monitored data shown in Table 1 show that other than ozone, PM10 and PM2.5 exceedances 1 as mentioned above, no state or federal standards were exceeded for the remaining criteria pollutants. �I II Il Mestre Greve Associates St. Andrews Presbyterian Church Page 7 2.0 Potential Air Quality Impacts Air quality impacts are usually divided into short term and long term. Short-term impacts are usually the result of construction or grading operations. Long -term impacts are associated with the built out condition of the proposed project. 2.1 Thresholds of Significance 2.1.1 Regional Air Quality In their "1993 CEQA Air Quality Handbook" the SCAQMD has established significance thresholds to assess the regional impact of project related air pollutant emissions. Table 2 presents these significance thresholds. There are separate thresholds for short-term construction and long -term operational emissions. A project with daily emission rates below these thresholds are considered to have a less than significant effect on regional air quality throughout the South Coast Air Basin. Table 2 SCAQMD Regional Pollutant Emission Thresholds of Slanlficance Pollutant Emissions (lbstday) CO ROG NOx PM10 sox Construction 550 75 100 150 150 Operation 550 55 55 150 150 2.1.2 Local Air Quality Air pollutant emissions from a project are significant if they result in local air pollutant concentrations that either create a violation of an ambient air quality standard or contribute to an existing air quality violation. The SCAQMD has established significance thresholds should the existing ambient air pollutant concentrations exceed a standard. The thresholds presented in Table 5 account for the continued degradation of the local air quality. If the ambient air quality standards are exceeded then pollutant concentrations that exceed the thresholds presented in Table 5 are considered significant. Table 3 SCAQMD Local Pollutant Concentration Increase Thresholds of Sionificance Air Pollutant Pollutant Averaging Time Concentration Carbon Monoxide (CO) 8 Hours 0.45 ppm I Hour I unm ppm -parts per million iI ' Mestre Greve Associates St. Andrews Presbyterian Church Page 8 2.2 Short Term Impacts 2.2.1 Construction Air Pollutant Emissions Temporary impacts will result from project construction activities. Air pollutants will be emitted by construction equipment and fugitive dust will be generated during on site grading of the site. The greatest air pollutant emissions will occur during demolition and excavation of the parking garage. These activities will occur sequentially over an eight -week period and are described in more detail below. Construction activities for large development projects are estimated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (according to the 1993 CEQA Handbook, emission factor for disturbed soil is 26.4 pounds of PM 10 per day per acre, or 0.40 tons of PM 10 per month per acre). If water or other soil stabilizers are used to control dust as required by SCAQMD Rule 403, the emissions can be reduced by 50 percent. The PM 10 calculations include the 50% reduction from watering. Demolition is projected to release 0.00042 pounds of PMIO per cubic foot of building space demolished. Typical emission rates for construction equipment were obtained from URBEMIS2002. URBEMIS2002 is a computer program published by Jones and Stokes based on guidance and funding from most of the air pollution control /air quality management districts in California that calculates emissions from land use development projects. Emission rates for employee vehicle trips and heavy truck operations were from EMFAC2002. EMFAC2002 is a computer program generated by the California Air Resources Board that calculates composite emission rates for vehicles. Emission rates are reported by the program in grams per trip and grams per mile. Demolition The existing fellowship hall and one classroom building will be demolished as a part of the ' project. These buildings have a total floor area 24,230 square feet and an approximate volume of 363,450 cubic feet. The demolition of the buildings is expected to create approximately 3,000 cubic yards of demolition debris that will be hauled off site. This material will be hauled to the ' nearest landfill, the Frank R. Bowerman Landfill in Irvine, an 18.5 -mile trip from the project site. The project proponent has proposed removing material at a rate of 100 trucks per day. At this rate the demolition debris will be removed in 1.5 days. The heavy equipment required to perform the demolition includes, an excavator, two backhoes with hoe ram, a front loader. a water truck and a street sweeper. It is estimated that there will be 10 worker vehicles traveling to and from the site each day and the average trip length for each worker vehicle is I I miles. Using the estimates presented above the peak construction emissions for the project were calculated and presented in Table 4. The data used to calculate the emissions are shown in the appendix. I F1 '_J i Mestre Greve Associates Table 4 Worst Case Air Pollutant Emissions During Demolition I St. Andrews Presbyterian Church ' Page 9 The data presented in Table 4 shows that NO, pollutant emissions associated with the demolition are projected to be greater than the Significance Thresholds established by the SCAQMD in the CEQA Air Quality Handbook. The primary source of NO, emissions is from the debris hauling trucks with construction equipment contributing substantially to the total NO, emissions. Mitigation is discussed in Section 3.1. Excavation Approximately 50,000 CY of dirt will be excavated from the site for the subterranean parking structure. Where this material will be hauled will not be known until after the grading permit is issued and just before the excavation begins. The location is dependant on what sites, often construction sites, are accepting fill material at the same time as the excavation of the project. As a worst -case estimate, it was assumed that a one -way trip to the haul site would be 20 miles. The project proponent has proposed removing material at a rate of 100 trucks per day. At this rate the excavated material will be removed in 36 days. The heavy equipment required to perform the excavation includes, an excavator, two backhoes with hoe ram, a front loader, a water truck and a street sweeper. It is estimated that there would be 10 worker vehicles traveling to and from the site each day and the average trip length for each worker vehicle is 11 miles. Using the estimates presented above the peak construction emissions for the project were calculated and presented in Table 5. The data used to calculate the emissions are shown in the appendix. Table 5 Worst Case Air Pollutant Emissions Durino Excavation Pollutant Emissions (lbs/day) Source CO ROG N0, PM10 Disturbed Site 0.0 0.0 0.0 33.0 Demolition 0.0 0.0 0.0 50.9 Construction Equipment 44.3 6.4 51.9 2.5 Debris Haul Trucks 22.2 8.5 87.8 3.3 Employee Travel 3.8 0.3 0.5 0.0 Total Emissions 70.3 15.2 140.2 89.7 SCQAMD Thresholds 550 75 100 150 The data presented in Table 4 shows that NO, pollutant emissions associated with the demolition are projected to be greater than the Significance Thresholds established by the SCAQMD in the CEQA Air Quality Handbook. The primary source of NO, emissions is from the debris hauling trucks with construction equipment contributing substantially to the total NO, emissions. Mitigation is discussed in Section 3.1. Excavation Approximately 50,000 CY of dirt will be excavated from the site for the subterranean parking structure. Where this material will be hauled will not be known until after the grading permit is issued and just before the excavation begins. The location is dependant on what sites, often construction sites, are accepting fill material at the same time as the excavation of the project. As a worst -case estimate, it was assumed that a one -way trip to the haul site would be 20 miles. The project proponent has proposed removing material at a rate of 100 trucks per day. At this rate the excavated material will be removed in 36 days. The heavy equipment required to perform the excavation includes, an excavator, two backhoes with hoe ram, a front loader, a water truck and a street sweeper. It is estimated that there would be 10 worker vehicles traveling to and from the site each day and the average trip length for each worker vehicle is 11 miles. Using the estimates presented above the peak construction emissions for the project were calculated and presented in Table 5. The data used to calculate the emissions are shown in the appendix. Table 5 Worst Case Air Pollutant Emissions Durino Excavation Pollutant Emissions (lbs/day) Source CO ROG NO, PM10 Grading Activity 0.0 0.0 0.0 33.0 Truck Loading 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 Construction Equipment 44.3 6.4 51.9 2.5 Dirt Export Trucks 24.0 9.1 94.9 3.6 Employee Travel 5.7 0.4 0.7 0.0 Total Emissions 74.0 16.0 147.6 39.4 SCQAMD Thresholds 550 75 100 150 i1 ,1 Mestre Greve Associates St. Andrews Presbyterian Church Page 10 The data presented in Table 5 shows that NO, emissions associated with the excavation are projected to be greater than the Significance Thresholds established by the SCAQMD in the CEQA Air Quality Handbook. The primary source of NO, emissions is from the haul trucks with ' construction equipment contributing substantially to the total NO, emissions. Mitigation is discussed in Section 3.1. I' 2.3 Long Term Impacts 2.3.1 Local Air Quality The traffic study prepared for the project shows that for the intersections with more than 1% of peak hour traffic through that intersection coming from the project are projected to operate at levels of service (LOS) of B or better under future with project conditions. Air quality around ' intersections is only a concern around intersections with an LOS of D or worse. That is, only intersections with an LOS of D or worse are considered to have the potential to cause exceedances of the ambient air quality concentration standards. To result in a significant impact ' the project would have to substantially increase pollutant concentrations at an intersection where the concentrations exceed the ambient air quality standard. The intersections serving traffic from the project are projected to continue to operate at conditions much better than LOS D and ' therefore would not be expected to experience air pollutant concentrations in excess of the ambient air quality standards. Therefore the project will not result in a significant local air quality impact. 2.3.2 Regional Air Quality The primary source of regional emissions generated by the proposed project will be from motor vehicles. Other emissions will be generated from the combustion of natural gas for space heating and the generation of electricity. Emissions will also be generated by the use of natural gas and oil for the generation of electricity off -site. ' The emission factors from version EMFAC2002 were used to calculate the vehicular emissions. The EMFAC2002 emission factors were obtained from the Air Resources Board (ARB). The EMFAC2002 emission factors, at an average speed of 25 miles per hour, were used in the ' estimates. The data used to estimate the on -site combustion of natural gas, and off -site electrical usage are based on the proposed land uses in terms of dwelling units and square footages, and emission factors taken from the 1993 CEQA Handbook. The traffic study prepared for the project indicates that the project will generate 328 additional daily trips to and from the project during operation. The average trip length for the proposed project is assumed to be 9.0 miles. This is a composite trip length derived from data contained in ' the SCAQMD CEQA Handbook (Page 9 -24). The product of the project daily trips and trip length, translate to total of 2,582 vehicle miles traveled (VMT) generated by the proposed project. An average speed of 25 miles per hour was assumed. Additional pollutant emissions associated with the project will be generated on -site by the combustion of natural gas for space heating and water heating and off -site due to electrical usage. The project will add approximately 35,948 square feet of floor space to the church. The 1 Mestre Greve Associates St. Andrews Presbyterian Church Page 11 square footages and emission factors utilized in calculating the emissions with these sources are provided in the appendix. The emissions are projected for 2005. The total project emissions are presented in Table 6. Table 6 Total Proiect Emissions Table 6 shows that the total project emissions are below the SCAQMD Thresholds. Since the project emissions are below the significance thresholds, the project will not result in any significant regional air quality impacts. No long -term mitigation measures are necessary. 2.4 Compliance with Air Quality Planning The following sections deal with the major air planning requirements for this project. Specifically, consistency of the project with the AQMP is addressed. As discussed below, consistency with the AQMP is a requirement of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). 2.4.1 Consistency with AQMP An EIR must discuss any inconsistencies between the proposed project and applicable GPs and regional plans (California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) guidelines (Section 15125)). Regional plans that apply to the proposed project include the South Coast Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP). In this regard, this section will discuss any inconsistencies between the proposed project with the AQMP. The purpose of the consistency discussion is to set forth the issues regarding consistency with the assumptions and objectives of the AQMP and discuss whether the project would interfere with the region's ability to comply with federal and state air quality standards. If the decision -maker determine that the project is inconsistent, the lead agency may consider project modifications or inclusion of mitigation to eliminate the inconsistency. The SCAQMD's CEQA Handbook states that "New or amended GP Elements (including land use zoning and density amendments), Specific Plans, and significant projects must be analyzed for consistency with the AQMP." Strict consistency with all aspects of the plan is usually not required. A proposed project should be considered to be consistent with the plan if it furthers one or more policies and does not obstruct other policies. The Handbook identifies two key indicators of consistency: (1) Whether the project will result in an increase in the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations or cause or contribute to new violations, or delay timely attainment of Pollutant Emissions (lbstday) CO ROG NOx PM10 Vehicular Trips 48.6 3.4 6.7 0.3 Natural Gas Consumption 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 Electrical Generation 0.2 0.0 1.0 0.0 Total Project Emissions 48.8 3.4 8.0 0.4 SCAQMD Thresholds 550 55 55 150 Table 6 shows that the total project emissions are below the SCAQMD Thresholds. Since the project emissions are below the significance thresholds, the project will not result in any significant regional air quality impacts. No long -term mitigation measures are necessary. 2.4 Compliance with Air Quality Planning The following sections deal with the major air planning requirements for this project. Specifically, consistency of the project with the AQMP is addressed. As discussed below, consistency with the AQMP is a requirement of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). 2.4.1 Consistency with AQMP An EIR must discuss any inconsistencies between the proposed project and applicable GPs and regional plans (California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) guidelines (Section 15125)). Regional plans that apply to the proposed project include the South Coast Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP). In this regard, this section will discuss any inconsistencies between the proposed project with the AQMP. The purpose of the consistency discussion is to set forth the issues regarding consistency with the assumptions and objectives of the AQMP and discuss whether the project would interfere with the region's ability to comply with federal and state air quality standards. If the decision -maker determine that the project is inconsistent, the lead agency may consider project modifications or inclusion of mitigation to eliminate the inconsistency. The SCAQMD's CEQA Handbook states that "New or amended GP Elements (including land use zoning and density amendments), Specific Plans, and significant projects must be analyzed for consistency with the AQMP." Strict consistency with all aspects of the plan is usually not required. A proposed project should be considered to be consistent with the plan if it furthers one or more policies and does not obstruct other policies. The Handbook identifies two key indicators of consistency: (1) Whether the project will result in an increase in the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations or cause or contribute to new violations, or delay timely attainment of ' Mestre Greve Associates St. Andrews Presbyterian Church Page 12 air quality standards or the interim emission reductions specified in the AQMP (except as provided for CO in Section 9.4 for relocating CO hot spots). (2) Whether the project will exceed the assumptions in the AQMP in 2010 or increments based on the year of project buildout and phase. Both of these criteria are evaluated in the following sections. Criterion 1 - Increase in the Frequency or Severity of Violations? Based on the air quality modeling analysis contained in this report, it is expected that there will be short-term construction impacts due to the project. While emissions will be generated in excess of SCAQMD's threshold criteria, it is unlikely that short-term construction activities will increase the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations due to required compliance with SCAQMD Rules and Regulations and the relatively small size of the project in relation to the entire Basin and Basin -wide emissions. The analysis showed that local pollutant concentrations are not projected to exceed any of the air quality standards and that operation of the project will not produce emissions in excess of the SCAQMD thresholds. The proposed project is not projected to contribute to the exceedance of any air pollutant concentration standards, thus the project is found to be consistent with the AQMP for the first criterion. Criterion 2 - Exceed Assumptions in the AQMP? Consistency with the AQMP assumptions is determined by performing an analysis of the project with the assumptions in the AQMP. Thus, the emphasis of this criterion is to insure that the analyses conducted for the project are based on the same forecasts as the AQMP. The Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide (RCP &G) consists of three sections: Core Chapters, Ancillary Chapters, and Bridge Chapters. The Growth Management, Regional Mobility, Air Quality, Water Quality, and Hazardous Waste Management chapters constitute the Core Chapters of the document. These chapters currently respond directly to federal and state requirements placed on SCAG. Local governments are required to use these as the basis of their plans for purposes of consistency with applicable regional plans under CEQA. Since the SCAG forecasts are not detailed. the test for consistency of this project is not specific. The traffic modeling upon which much of the air quality assessment is based on is the County of Orange Congestion Management Program (RCMP) Methodology. The AQMP assumptions are based upon projections from local general plans. Projects that are consistent with the local general plan are consistent with the AQMP assumptions. The long term emissions from the operation of the project are below the significance thresholds, and therefore, tare not considered to be regionally significant. Therefore, the emissions from the project will be consistent with the AQMP assumptions. Mestre Greve Associates 3.0 Mitigation Measures I - St. Andrews Presbyterian Church Page 13 3.1 Short -Term Impacts The analyses presented in Section 2.2 showed that NOx emissions are projected exceed the significance thresholds during demolition and excavation. This is primarily due to the trucks that will haul demolition debris and excavated dirt from the site. The only practical way to reduce the emissions is to limit the number of trucks hauling materials from the site. By limiting truck trips to a daily vehicle miles traveled to 2005 miles or less, NOx emissions will remain below the 100 pounds per day significance threshold. For demolition this means limiting the hauling of demolition debris off site to 54 trucks per day. A side effect of this is that it extends the time it will take to haul demolition debris off site from 1.5 days to about 3 days. For the excavation it will depend on where the materials will be hauled. If the round -trip travel distance to the haul site is 20 miles or less, then materials could be removed at the proposed rate of 100 truckloads per day. If the travel distance is greater, the number of daily truck trips would need to be reduced so that the total daily haul truck vehicle miles traveled did not exceed 2005 miles. Depending on the distance to be traveled this could extend the duration of the excavation. Note, that the daily vehicle miles traveled by the haul trucks is calculated simply by multiplying the number of daily truck trips by the round trip travel distance. AQ -1 During demolition and excavation, daily total haul trucks shall travel no more than a cumulative 2005 miles hauling materials from the site to the dumping site and back again. Prior to commencement of demolition and grading the project applicant shall submit to the city calculations showing the proposed travel route for haul trucks, the distance traveled, and how many daily truck trips that can be accommodated while keeping the cumulative miles traveled to below 2005 miles each day. The daily haul truck trips shall not exceed this amount during demolition and excavation. 3.2 Long Term Impacts The analyses presented in Section 2.3 shows that operation of project will not result in any significant long-term air quality impacts. No mitigation is required. 4.0 Level of Significance after Mitigation With the limits on truck travel during demolition and excavation described in mitigation measure AQ -1, emissions during construction will be reduced to a level less than the significance threshold and, therefore, not be result in a significant impact. The analysis presented in Section 2.3 shows that operation of project will not result in any significant long -term air quality impacts. Therefore, with mitigation measure AQ -1 the project will not result in any significant air quality impacts. L ' Mestre Greve Associates II St. Andrews Presbyterian Church Page 14 APPENDIX Construction Emissions Calculation Worksheets Operation Emissions Calculation Worksheet CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS includes 1993 CEOA AO Handbook Data Project: St Andrews Church Case Demoliton Tear. cuua Construction Employee Travel Emissions Number of Employees on Construction Site: 10 Average Trip Length for Employee Travel to Site: 11 CO ROG NOx PM10 Fmnln.,ve Trowel Fmiccinnc llhe Wv 1 01 n 97 n AQ n nA Truck Emissions Input Data Number Daily Truck Round Trips: 100 Average One Way Trip Length: 18.5 Daily Vehicle Miles Traveled: 3700 CO ROG NOx PM10 Truck Emissions lbs. /d 22.16 8.46 87.78 3.34 Emissions from Grading Activities Input Data Project Size (in acres): 2.5 0 Emissions (in Ibs /day /acre): 26.40 mnq Reduction: 50% Results Emissions (tons /day): 0.02 Emissions (pounds /day): 33 Cnurro- PAnP O.A of YOGA r.rnA Hnndhnn4 Particulate Emissions from Demolition Input Data Building Volume (it') 363,450 Duration of Demolition (Days) 3 Assumptions PM10 Emissions (in Ibs /fN): 0.00042 Results Total Emissions (in tons): 0.08 Total Emissions (in Ibs): 153 Emissions (in tons /day): 0.03 Emissions (in Ibs /dav): 51 Emissions from Grading Equipment Hours /Day of Activity: 8 Enter number of pieces for each type of equipment: Daily Emissions (Ibs. /day) 4 3 5 6 ID Type No. CO ROG NOx PM10 21 Tractors /Loaders /Bac 3 13.38 1.95 16.35 0.78 4 Crawler Tractors 1 9.95 1.45 12.16 0.57 10 Other Construction Ei 1 14.24 2.08 17.41 0.82 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Water Truck 1 3.72 0.52 2.31 0.13 lGrading CO ROG NOx PM10 Equipment Emissions lbs./ 44.310 6.442 51.929 2.476 CO ROG NOx PM10 CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS Includes 1993 CEQA AQ Handbook Data Project: St Andrews Church Case Demoliton .ear. cuuo Construction Employee Travel Emissions Number of Employees on Construction Site: 10 Average Trip Length for Employee Travel to Site: 11 CO ROG NOx PM10 Employee Travel Emissions _(Ibs. /dy 3.83 0.27 0.49 0.03 Truck Emissions Input Data Number Daily Truck Round Trips: 54 Average One Way Trip Length: 18.57 Daily Vehicle Miles Traveled: 2005.56 CO ITruck ROG NOx PM10 Emissions (Ibs. /dy) 12.01 4.59 47.58 1.81 Particulate Emissions from Grading Activities Input Data Project Size (in acres): 2.5 Assumptions 3 PM10 Emissions (in Ibs /day /acre): 26.40 Watering Reduction: 50% Results Emissions (tons /day): 0.02 Emissions (pounds/day): 33 Source: Page 9 -3 of 1993 CEOA Handbook Particulate Emissions from Demolition Input Data Building Volume (ft') 363,450 Duration of Demolition (Days) 3 Assumptions PM10 Emissions (in Ibs /ft'): 0.00042 Results Total Emissions (in tons): 0.08 Total Emissions (in Ibs): 153 Emissions (in tons /day): 0.03 Emissions in Ibs /da : 51 Emissions from Grading Equipment Hours /Day of Activity: 8 Enter number of pieces for each type of equipment: Daily Emissions (Ibs. /day) 4 3 5 6 ID Type No. CO ROG NOx PM10 21 Tractors/Loaders /Bac 3 13.38 1.95 16.35 0.78 4 Crawler Tractors 1 9.95 1.45 12.16 0.57 10 Other Construction E, 1 14.24 2.08 17.41 0.82 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Water Truck 1 3.72 0.52 2.31 0.13 CO ROG NOx PM10 [Grading Equipment Emissions Ibs./ 44.310 6.442 51.929 2.476 TOTAL CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS CO ROG NOx PM10 ITotal Emissions Ibs. /da 60.15 11.30 100.00 88.20 CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS Includes 1993 CEQA AQ Handbook Data Project: St. Andrews Church Case Excavation Year: 2005 Construction Employee Travel Emissions Input Data Number of Employees on Construction Site: 15 Average Trip Length for Employee Travel to Site: 11 CO ROG NOx PM10 Employee Travel Emissions (Ibs. /dy 5.74 0.41 0.74 0.04 Truck Emissions Input Data Number Daily Truck Round Trips: 100 Average One Way Trip Length: 20 Daily Vehicle Miles Traveled: 4000 CO ROG NOx PM10 Truck Emissions Ibs. /d 23.96 9.15 94.90 3.62 Particulate Emissions from Grading Activities Input Data Dirt Project Size (in acres): 2.5 Assumptions 15.0% PM10 Emissions (in Ibs /day /acre): 26.40 Watering Reduction: 50% Results 0.00 Emissions (tons /day): 0.02 Emissions (pounds/day): 33 Source: Page 9-3 of 1993 CEQA Handbook Particulate Emissions from Material Handling Input Data Dirt Materials (tons /day): 1512.0 Moisture Content ( %): 15.0% Mean Wind Speed (mph): 12 Assumptions Enter number of pieces for each type of equipment: PM10 Emissions (in Ibs /lon): 0.00 Results Emissions (tons /day): 0.00 Emissions (oounds /dav): 0.31 Source: Table 9 -9•G (page A9 -101) of 1993 CEQA Handb. Emissions from Grading Equipment Hours /Day of Activity: 8 Enter number of pieces for each type of equipment: Daily Emissions (Ibs. /day) 4 3 5 6 ID Type No. CO ROG NOx PM10 21 Tractors /Loaders /Rac 3 13.38 1.95 16.35 0.78 4 Crawler Tractors 1 9.95 1.45 12.16 0.57 10 Other Construction E. 1 14.24 2.08 17.41 0.82 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Water Truck 1 3.72 0.52 2.31 0.13 CO ROG NOx PM10 lGrading Equipment Emissions Ibs./ 44.310 6.442 51.929 2.476 aoi om CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS Includes 1993 CEQA AQ Handbook Data Project: St. Andrews Church Case Excavation TC r: evvo Construction Employee Travel Emissions Number of Employees on Construction Site: 15 Average Trip Length for Employee Travel to Site: 11 CO ROG NOx PM10 Fmnlnvaa Travel Fmissinns (Ihs /dv 5 74 n 41 n 74 n.n4 Truck Emissions 26.40 Number Daily Truck Round Trips: 100 Average One Way Trip Length: 10 Daily Vehicle Miles Traveled: 2000 CO ROG NOx PM10 Truck Emissions (lbs. /d 11.98 4.57 47.45 1.81 Particulate Emissions from Grading Activities Input Data Project Size (in acres): 2.5 PM10 Emissions (in Ibs /day /acre): 26.40 Watering Reduction: 50 Results Moisture Content ( %): Emissions (tons /day): 0.02 Emissions (oounds /dav): 33 Source: Page 9 -3 of 1993 CEQA Handbook Particulate Emissions from Material Handling Input Data Dirt Materials (tons /day): 1512.0 Moisture Content ( %): 15.0 Mean Wind Speed (mph): 12 Assumptions Enter number of pieces for each type of PM10 Emissions (in Ibs /tan): 0.00 Results Emissions (tons /day): 0.00 Emissions (pounds /dav): 0.31 Source: Table 9 -9 -G (Pace A9 -1011 of 1993 CEQA Handbr Emissions from Grading Equipment Hours/Day of Activity: 8 Enter number of pieces for each type of equipment: Daily Emissions (Ibs. /day) 4 3 5 6 ID Type No. CO ROG NOx PM10 21 Tractors /Loaders /Bac 3 13.38 1.95 16.35 0.78 4 Crawler Tractors 1 9.95 1.45 12.16 0.57 10 Other Construction E, 1 14.24 2.08 17.41 0.82 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Water Truck 1 3.72 0.52 2.31 0.13 CO ROG NOx PM10 [Grading Equipment Emissions Ibs./ 44.310 6.442 51.929 2.476 TOTAL CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS CO ROG NOx PM10 Total Emissions Ibs. /da 62.03 11.42 100.12 37.64 •••..•••. AIR EMISSIONS " "" "" Revision 795 (odudes 1993 CEOA Air Quality Handbook Update) Project St. Andrei Study Year: 2005 ••••••• • Veb4ub. Emissions Frims.ni, Factor 5ourcer Emf. 2002 Speed (mph)_ 25 LADWP Gas Use Elendtal Use UnItTypre Number of Tops= 328 IFQvDa 101y Single Fam. 6665 Average Trip Length_ 9,0 o SOx Mult. Fam, c4 4105 0 Vehicle Miles Traveled= $952 1.99 li Fam. 1 =5 3918 0 0 Pollutant 0.00 CO ROG NO. PM 10 Sox Factor (gm/mi) Oflice 5.89 0.39 033 0.05 0.29 Emis, (LbMy) 29 38.34 2.53 6.03 034 1.69 Emis. ThA) 0 0.02 0.00 000 0.00 0.00 Factor (gr ip) 2357 IC19 1.19 0.98 0.01 000 Emis. (LC/Dy) 0 10.26 0.86 071 0.01 0.00 Emis. Tn /D 001 000 000 0,00 0.00 Total Vehicular Emissions (LbMy) CO 48.60 339 673 035 1.89 Total Vehicular Emission Tnl0 5.3 002 000 000 0.00 000 •• ^••••. I'll FYIGCI MIC AIIF FI F/`TCV•AI G rkar.' ION 5%,- Ann110G1 CFOA HaM HanHn hk SCE LADWP Gas Use Elendtal Use UnItTypre Ft3NUMi OU or F12' IFQvDa 101y Single Fam. 6665 0 0 o SOx Mult. Fam, c4 4105 0 0 0.36 1.99 li Fam. 1 =5 3918 0 0 N7 0.00 Restaurant FOIE".. 476 0 Subtotal for Residential 70.00 Oflice 2 35,410 2,357 0 0.0014% Retail 29 0 0 0 HOtebMbiel 4.8 0 0 0 Elementary School FNCatiamerMto. CusNmersMlo. 2357 Subtotal for Retail(Cammemal Industrial 2936.6 0 0 0 0 Hospital 17.9 0 Subtotal for hodusbal 0 Total F12 ) 351948 2,357 Total 0 Pollutant CO ROG NOx Pulp sox secret ibsll0ii 113) 20 5.3 0J 0.2 0 Emis. (LbOy) 0.05 0.01 028 0.00 000 Emis. TbfD 000 000 0.00 0.00 DIM •• ^••••. I'll FYIGCI MIC AIIF FI F/`TCV•AI G rkar.' ION 5%,- Ann110G1 CFOA HaM HanHn hk '^ TOTAL EMISSIONS- - SCE LADWP Number of Elendtal Use UmtT a HWH/Ui "HNnivVr Units or Fp 101y Residential Wei 5172 0 o SOx Emis. (LNDy) "WFq r. "H!tt 2NI. 8.01 0.36 1.99 OBice 8.8 17.1 35,948 N7 0.00 Restaurant 47.3 476 0 0 70.00 Retail 11.8 15.3 0 0 0.0014% Food Stare 51.4 55.2 0 0 Warehouse 3.4 5.3 0 0 Elementary School 6.3 5.5 0 0 College 11.6 11.5 0 0 Hospital 17.9 25.5 0 0 HotellMOtel fib 13.1 0 0 Miscellanepes 88 12.2 0 0 KVA Hours Direct usage 0 0 0 Total (Ft2i 35,948 867 Total Contaminant CO ROG NO. PLAID SO Factor(IWMWH) 0.2 0.01 1.15 0.04 0.12 Emis, (Lb,Oy) 017 0.01 100 0.03 040 Emis. Tni 000 000 0.00 0.00 000 '^ TOTAL EMISSIONS- - Contaminant CO ROG NO. PIM SOx Emis. (LNDy) 40.82 3.41 8.01 0.36 1.99 Emis. (Tni 002 1 0100 0.00 0.00 2010 SCAB(TorDi 3341.00 769.00 697.00 45700 70.00 Percent Regional 0.0007% O.U102% 0.0006% 0.0000% 0.0014% Appendix E Noise Assessment Noise Assessment For: ST. ANDREWS PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Prepared For: KEETON KREMER 17882 East 17t6 Street, Suite 106 Tustin, CA 92780 Submitted By: MESTRE GREVE ASSOCIATES 27812 El Lazo Road Laguna Niguel, CA 92677 949.349.0671 Fax 949.349.0679 January 29, 2004 Report#04 -016 IL] ' Table Of Contents 1.0 EXISTING SETTING ....................................... ..............................1 1.1 Project Description ............................................... ............................... 1 1.2 Background Information on Noise ........................ ............................... 2 1.3 Existing Roadway Noise Levels ........................... ............................... 6 ' 2.0 POTENTIAL NOISE IMPACTS ...................... ............................... 2.1 Noise Impact Criteria ............................................ ............................... 8 9 2.2 Temporary Impacts ............................................. ............................... 10 2.3 Long Term Off -Site Impacts ............................... ............................... 12 2.4 Long Term On -Site Impacts ............................... ............................... 16 3.0 MITIGATION MEASURES ............................. .............................17 ' 3.1 Temporary Impacts ............................................. ............................... 17 3.2 Long Term Off -Site Impacts ............................... ............................... 17 3.3 Long Term On -Site Impacts ............................... ............................... 17 ' 4.0 UNAVOIDABLE NOISE IMPACTS ................. .............................17 APPENDIX............................................................ .............................18 ii 1 1 I 11 I ' Mestre Greve Associates St. Andrews Presbyterian Church Page 1 1.0 EXISTING SETTING 1.1 Project Description St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church was established in Newport Beach in 1947 and moved to its present location at 600 St. Andrew's Road in the City three years later. The roughly triangular - shaped property encompasses 3.943 acres, which are bounded on the northeast by 15th Street and on the southeast by Clay Street; St. Andrew's Road comprises the northwestern property boundary. A vicinity map is presented in Exhibit 1. The applicant, St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church is proposing to increase the intensity of development that currently exists on the 3.943 - acre property. The site currently supports five existing buildings, including a 1,200 -seat sanctuary, a chapel /administration building, two classroom buildings, and a fellowship hall. An existing site plan is presented in Exhibit 2. One of the classroom buildings and the fellowship hall will be demolished for the project. The locations of these buildings are noted on Exhibit 2. The project proposes the construction of two new buildings, a new Fellowship Hall, and a Gymnasium/Classroom building, that will increase the square footage of the facility by 35,948 square feet to a total of 140,388 square feet. In addition, the proposed project includes a subterranean parking garage beneath the surface parking lot proposed along Clay Street. The project would include 227 parking spaces in the subterranean garage and 173 surface parking spaces. The proposed site plan is presented in Exhibit 3. This report will analyze the potential noise impacts associated with this project. Traffic volume information used in this report to project traffic noise levels were provided by Kimley -Horn and Associates and are presented in their traffic study for the project. Traffic noise impacts are evaluated at the opening year of the project. Traffic noise impacts on the project site are also assessed. Project Noise impacts from project site activity on nearby residential areas are also discussed. The traffic volumes presented in the traffic study are AM and PM peak hour traffic volumes. Average daily traffic (ADT) volumes are required to calculate traffic noise CNEL levels. Based on discussions with the traffic engineer, the no project ADT volumes (existing and future) used in this analysis where calculated by assuming that the PM peak hour traffic volume is 10% of the averaged daily traffic volume. Project ADT volumes were calculated using the Average Daily Trip Generation and the trip distribution presented in the traffic study. The project ADT volumes were added to the future no project traffic volumes to determine the future with project traffic volumes. 0 O C i W m Q 15TH STA,t T r. • r QW Y � N W N Q� '• r. .ZI_j s r ,F, r W w uy Q' ID y Cv C Cc O W 'ow% O i PA O a i C O W V O J C d d 7 H d m N P*j U ' Mestre Greve Associates St. Andrews Presbyterian Church Page 2 ' 1.2 Background Information on Noise ' 1.2.1 Noise Criteria Background Sound is technically described in terms of the loudness (amplitude) of the sound and frequency (pitch) of the sound. The standard unit of measurement of the loudness of sound is the decibel ' (dB). Decibels are based on the logarithmic scale. The logarithmic scale compresses the wide range in sound pressure levels to a more usable range of numbers in a manner similar to the Richter scale used to measure earthquakes. In terms of human response to noise, a sound 10 dB ' higher than another is judged to be twice as loud; and 20 dB higher four times as loud; and so forth. Everyday sounds normally range from 30 dB (very quiet) to 100 dB (very loud). ' Since the human ear is not equally sensitive to sound at all frequencies, a special frequency- dependent rating scale has been devised 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. Community noise levels are measured in terms of the "A- weighted decibel," abbreviated dBA. Exhibit 4 provides examples of various noises and their typical A- weighted noise level. Sound levels decrease as a function of distance from the source as a result of wave divergence, atmospheric absorption and ground attenuation. As the sound wave form travels away from the source, the sound energy is dispersed over a greater area, thereby dispersing the sound power of the wave. Atmospheric absorption also influences the levels that are received by the observer. The greater the distance traveled, the greater the influence and the resultant fluctuations. The degree of absorption is a function of the frequency of the sound as well as the humidity and temperature of the air. Turbulence and gradients of wind, temperature and humidity also play a significant role in determining the degree of attenuation. Intervening topography can also have a substantial effect on the effective perceived noise levels. Noise has been defined as unwanted sound and it is known to have several adverse effects on people. From these known effects of noise, criteria have been established to help protect the public health and safety and prevent disruption of certain human activities. This criteria is based on such known impacts of noise on people as hearing loss, speech interference, sleep interference, physiological responses and annoyance. Each of these potential noise impacts on people are briefly discussed in the following narratives: HEARING LOSS is not a concern in community noise situations of this type. The potential for noise induced hearing loss is more commonly associated with occupational noise exposures in heavy industry or very noisy work environments. Noise levels in neighborhoods, even in very noisy airport environs, is not sufficiently loud to cause hearing loss. SPEECH INTERFERENCE is one of the primary concerns in environmental noise problems. Normal conversational speech is in the range of 60 to 65 dBA and any noise in this range or louder may interfere with speech. There are specific methods of describing speech interference as a function of distance between speaker and listener and voice level. [_ 1 1 1 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 Mestre Greve Associates St. Andrews Presbyterian Church Page 3 SLEEP INTERFERENCE is a major noise concern for traffic noise. Sleep disturbance studies have identified interior noise levels that have the potential to cause sleep ' disturbance. Note that sleep disturbance does not necessarily mean awakening from sleep, but can refer to altering the pattern and stages of sleep. ' PHYSIOLOGICAL RESPONSES are those measurable effects of noise on people that are realized as changes in pulse rate, blood pressure, etc. While such effects can be induced and observed, the extent is not known to which these physiological responses cause harm or are sign of harm. ANNOYANCE is the most difficult of all noise responses to describe. Annoyance is a very individual characteristic and can vary widely from person to person. What one person considers tolerable can be quite unbearable to another of equal hearing capability. 1.2.2 Noise Assessment Metrics The description, analysis and reporting of community noise levels around communities is made difficult by the complexity of human response to noise and the myriad of noise metrics that have been developed for describing noise impacts. Each of these metrics attempts to quantify noise levels with respect to community response. Most of the metrics use the A- Weighted noise level to quantify noise impacts on humans. A- Weighting is a frequency weighting that accounts for human sensitivity to different frequencies. Noise metrics can be divided into two categories: single event and cumulative. Single -event metrics describe the noise levels from an individual event such as an aircraft fly over or perhaps a heavy equipment pass -by. Cumulative metrics average the total noise over a specific time period, which is typically I or 24 -hours for community noise problems. For this type of analysis, cumulative noise metrics will be used. Several rating scales have been developed for measurement of community noise. These account for: (1) the parameters of noise that have been shown to contribute to the effects of noise on man, (2) the variety of noises found in the environment, (3) the variations in noise levels that occur as a person moves through the environment, and (4) the variations associated with the time of day. They are designed to account for the known health effects of noise on people described previously. Based on these effects, the observation has been made that the potential for a noise to impact people is dependent on the total acoustical energy content of the noise. A number of noise scales have been developed to account for this observation. Two of the predominate noise scales are the: Equivalent Noise Level (LEQ) and the Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL). These scales are described in the following paragraphs. LEQ is the sound level corresponding to a steady -state sound level containing the same total energy as a time - varying signal over a given sample period. LEQ is the "energy" average noise level during the time period of the sample. LEQ can be measured for any time period, but is typically measured for I hour. This I hour noise level can also be referred to as the Hourly Noise Level (HNL). It is the energy sum of all the events and background noise levels that occur during that time period. Mestre Greve Associates St. Andrews Presbyterian Church , Paae 4 CNEL, Community Noise Equivalent Level, is the predominant rating scale now in use in California for land use compatibility assessment. The CNEL scale represents a time weighted 24 -hour average noise level based on the A- weighted decibel. Time weighted refers to the fact that noise that occurs during certain sensitive time periods is penalized for occurring at these times. The evening time period (7 p.m. to 10 p.m.) penalizes noises by 5 dBA, while nighttime (10 p.m. to 7 a.m.) noises are penalized by 10 dBA. These time periods and penalties were selected to reflect people's increased sensitivity to noise during these time periods. A CNEL noise level may be reported as a "CNEL of 60 dBA," "60 dBA CNEL," or simply "60 CNEL." Typical noise levels in terms of the CNEL scale for different types of communities are presented in Exhibit 5. Ldn, the day -night scale is similar to the CNEL scale except that evening noises are not penalized. It is a measure of the overall noise experienced during an entire day. The time - weighted refers to the fact that noise that occurs during certain sensitive time periods is penalized for occurring at these times. In the Ldn scale, those noise levels that occur during the night (10 pm to 7 am) are penalized by 10 dB. This penalty was selected to attempt to account for increased human sensitivity to noise during the quieter period of a day, where home and sleep is the most probable activity. L( %) is a statistical method of describing noise which accounts for variance in noise levels throughout a given measurement period. L( %) is a way of expressing the noise level exceeded for a percentage of time in a given measurement period. For example since 5 minutes is 25% of 20 minutes, L(25) is the noise level that is equal to or exceeded for five minutes in a twenty minute measurement period. It is L( %) that is used for most noise ordinance standards. For example most daytime city, state and county noise ordinances use an ordinance standard of 55 dBA for 30 minutes per hour or an L(50) level of 55 dBA. In other words the noise ordinance states that no noise level should exceed 55 dBA for more that fifty percent of a given period. 1.2.3 Noise Criteria The Noise Ordinance and Noise Element of the General Plan contain the City's policies on noise. The Noise Ordinance applies to noise on one property impacting a neighboring property. Typically, it sets limits on noise levels that can be experienced at the neighboring property. The Noise Ordinance is part of the City's Municipal Code and is enforceable throughout the City. The Noise Element of the General Plan presents limits on noise levels from transportation noise sources, vehicles on public roadways, railroads and aircraft. These limits are imposed on new developments. The new developments must incorporate the measures to ensure that the limits are not exceeded. The City of Newport Beach Noise Ordinance and Noise Element policies are presented below. Noise Ordinance The Newport Beach Noise Ordinance (Chapter 10.26 Community Noise Control) establishes exterior and interior noise standards for noise generated on private property affecting a neighbor. Table I presents the City of Newport Beach's Noise Ordinance standards. The noise ordinance is designed to control unnecessary, excessive and annoying sounds from sources such as parking lots, loading docks, and mechanical equipment at the residential property line. The noise ordinance requirements can not be applied to mobile noise sources such as heavy trucks when P 11 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 L J So. CNEL Outdoor Location —90- < Apartment Next to Freeway 3/4 Mile From Touchdown at Major Airport —80— Downtown With Some Construction Activity Urban High Density Apartment —70— -Urban Row Housing on Major Avenue —60 Old Urban Residential Area —50 - -� Wooded Residential Agricultural Crop Land —40 Rural Residential Wilderness Ambient —30— U.S. EnNeonmmtd RoiMion AWNS "Y pW CMmtleirsotbn of r . intlu biglivnons 0 0..* g o Adis ut tls * CumWalive NOise Es .., WA Report M0 MA. Wn. EIIHIBIT 5 Mestre Greve AssoCtates TYPICAL OUTDOOR NOISE LEVELS Mestre Greve Associates St. Andrews Presbyterian Church Page 5 traveling on public roadways. Federal and State laws preempt control of the mobile noise sources on public roads. However, the requirements can be applied to vehicles traveling on public property. The City of Newport Beach exterior and interior noise criteria is given in terms of 15 minute Leq and Lmax noise levels. The noise levels specified are those that are not to be exceeded at a property from noise generated at a neighbor property. Noise levels are to be measured with A- weighting and a slow time response. Greater noise levels are permitted during the day (7 a.m. to 10 p.m.) as compared to the nighttime period (10 p.m. to 7 a.m.). Table 1 City Of Newport Beach Noise Ordinance Standards I Residential Leq (15 min) 45 dBA 40 dBA Noise Noise Level Not To Be Exceeded Zone Metric 7 a.m. to 10 p.m. 10 p.m. to 7 a.m. * Residential within 100' of a commercial property where noise is from said commercial property (daytime) (nighttime) EXTERIOR NOISE STANDARDS The City of Newport Beach specifies outdoor and indoor noise limits for various land uses ' I Residential Leq (15 min) 55 dBA 50 dBA residential land use, the exterior noise exposure level shall not exceed 65 CNEL and the interior Lmax 75 dBA 70 dBA II Commercial Leq (15 min) 65 dBA 60 dBA Lmax 85 dBA 80 dBA III Mixed Use Residential* I- eq (15 min) 6- 0 dBA 50 dBA Lmax 80 dBA 70 dBA _.._. _ _. .- IV Industrial/Manufacturing -- Leq (15 min) - - -._. .. - --- 70 dBA 70 dBA Lmax 90 dBA 90 dBA I Residential Leq (15 min) 45 dBA 40 dBA Lmax 65 dBA 60 dBA III Mixed Use Residential* Leq (15 min) 45 dBA 45 dBA ' Lmax 65 dBA 65 dBA * Residential within 100' of a commercial property where noise is from said commercial property 1 Noise Element The City of Newport Beach specifies outdoor and indoor noise limits for various land uses ' impacted by transportation noise sources. The noise limits specified in the City's Noise Element are in terms of the Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL). The standard states that for residential land use, the exterior noise exposure level shall not exceed 65 CNEL and the interior noise exposure level shall not exceed 45 CNEL. Exhibit 6 presents the complete Interior and exterior noise standards for contained in the City of Newport Beach Noise Element —1 JI lJ J 1 1 L 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 Mestre Greve Associates St. Andrews Presbyterian Church ' Page 6 1.3 Ambient Measurements Ambient noise measurements were performed to document the ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the Project: Noise measurements were made at three locations around the project site. Exhibit 2 shows the location of the measurement sites. The noise measurements were conducted between 10:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m. on January 22, 2004. The measurement survey utilized a Mel & Kjwr 2236 automated digital noise data acquisition system for short -term (15 -min) readings. This instrument automatically calculates both the Equivalent Noise Level (LEQ) and Percent Noise Level (L %) for any specific time period. The noise monitor was equipped with a Bruel & Kjxr 1/2 -inch electret microphone and was calibrated with a Bruel & Kjar calibrator with calibrations traceable to the National Bureau of Standards. Calibration for the instruments performed annually and is certified through the duration of the measurements. This measurement system satisfies the ANSI (American National Standards Institute) Standards 1.4 for Type 1 precision noise measurement instrumentation. The measurement results are presented in terms of the equivalent noise levels (Leq), maximum noise levels, minimum noise levels and percentile noise levels (L %). The L50 percentile level for example, represents the noise levels exceeded 50 percent of the time, and usually represent the average ambient noise level. The L90 noise levels represent the background noise levels which are exceeded 90 percent of the time. The L10 noise levels represent the typical maximum noise level of noise events. Table 2 Existin4 Noise Measurements Site Time Leg Lmax L10 L50 L90 Lmin 1 10:07 59 74 62 57 52 49 2 10:29 56 67 60 52 49 47 On the morning the measurements were taken there were moderate Santa Ana winds and the noise from the wind through trees elevated the measured noise level to some extent. During the first half of the measurement at Site 1 the adjacent St. Andrews parking lot was being used as a preschool playground. Voices from the parking lot were audible at the site but not intrusive. The highest noise levels resulted from vehicles passing by on Clay Street. A UPS truck pass -by resulted in the maximum noise level. Another source of noise during the measurement were aircraft approaching John Wayne Airport. The airport was operating in a "reverse" pattern with aircraft landing from the Southwest, opposite of what normally occurs. This results in the planes flying closer to the project site as they need to take a straighter path, aligned with the runway, on arrival. On departure the aircraft make a left turn to the south away from the project site. An arriving commercial aircraft resulted in the measured maximum noise level at Site 2. Wind noise, traffic on 15" Street and Clay Street contributed to the noise level along with some equipment operating at the high school across 15'h Street, possibly a tree grinder. I Mestre Greve Associates St. Andrews Presbyterian Church Page 7 ' 1.4 Existing Roadway Noise Levels An estimate of highway noise levels in terms of CNEL was computed for the roadways affected ' by project traffic. The Highway Noise Model published by the Federal Highway Administration ( "FHWA Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model," FHWA -RD -77 -108, December, 1978) was utilized. The CALVENO noise emission curves developed by Caltrans were used with the FHWA model. These curves better model the California vehicle mix. The FHWA Model uses traffic volume, vehicle mix, vehicle speed, and roadway geometry to compute the "equivalent noise level." A computer code has been written which computes equivalent noise levels for each ' of the time periods used in the calculation of CNEL. Weighting these noise levels and summing them results in the CNEL for the traffic projections used. CNEL contours are found by iterating over many distances until the distances to the 60, 65, and 70 CNEL contours are found. ' The distances to the existing 60, 65 and 70 CNEL contours for the roadways in the vicinity of the proposed project site are given in Table 2. These represent the distance from the centerline of the road to the contour value shown. The CNEL at 100 feet from the roadway centerline is also ' presented. The values given in Table 3 represent existing noise levels and do not take into account the effect of any existing noise barriers or topography that may affect ambient noise levels. Table 3 Modeled Existinq Roadwav Traffic Noise Levels RW- Contour Falls Within Roadway Right -of -Way t From Centerline of Roadway CNEL Distance To CNEL Contour from Level @ Centerline of Roadway (feet) Roadway Segment 100't 70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL Pacific Coast Highway West of Riverside 65.7 52 111 240 East of Riverside 65.3 49 105 227 West of Tustin 65.3 49 105 227 East of Tustin 65.3 49 105 226 West of Dover 67.1 64 138 297 East of Dover 68.8 83 179 386 Cuff West of Dover 54.9 RW RW 45 15th Street West of Irvine 54.2 RW RW 41 East of Irvine 54.3 RW RW 42 16th Street West of Dover 55.5 RW RW 50 East of Dover 52.3 RW RW 31 Westcliff West of Irvine 63.4 36 78 167 East of Irvine 61.8 RW 61 131 West of Dover 62.2 RW 65 140 19th Street West of Irvine 53.5 RW RW 37 East of Irvine 55.6 RW 24 51 RW- Contour Falls Within Roadway Right -of -Way t From Centerline of Roadway Mestre Greve Associates Table 3 (Continued) Modeled Existino Roadwav Traffic Noise Levels St. Andrews Presbyterian Church ' Pace 8 RW- Contour Falls Within Roadway Right -of -Way f From Centerline of Roadway Table 3 shows that noise levels along Pacific Coast Highway and Dover are substantial. The 65 CNEL contour extends well beyond the edge of the right of way. Noise levels along Westcliff and Irvine are moderate. The 65 CNEL contour extends only slightly beyond the roadway right of way. Residential uses along these roadways with existing noise barriers (concrete block walls) likely do not experience noise levels in excess of 65 CNEL City standard. Noise levels along Cliff, 15' Street, 15' Street, 15" Street, 19" Street, Riverside and Tustin are minor. Noise levels along the edge of these roadways are just at or below 65 CNEL. CNEL Distance To CNEL Contour from Level @ Centerline of Roadway (feet) Roadway Segment 100' t 70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL Riverside North of Pacific Coast Highway 56.5 RW 27 58 South of Pacific Coast Highway 48.3 RW RW RW Tustin North of Pacific Coast Highway 51.9 RW RW 29 Irvine North of 19th Street 63.2 RW 76 163 South of 19th Street 62.5 RW 68 146 North of Westcliff 62.7 RW 70 150 South of Westcliff 62.4 31 67 144 North of 15th Street 58.4 RW 37 79 South of 15th Street 55.3 RW 23 49 Dover North of Westcliff 57.5 RW RW 68 South of Westcliff 64.3 41 89 192 North of 16th Street 642 41 88 190 South of 16th Street 64.6 44 94 202 North of Cliff 64.4 43 92 198 South of Cliff 64.6 44 95 204 North of Pacific Coast Highway 65.0 46 100 215 South of Pacific Coast Highway 54.1 RW RW 41 RW- Contour Falls Within Roadway Right -of -Way f From Centerline of Roadway Table 3 shows that noise levels along Pacific Coast Highway and Dover are substantial. The 65 CNEL contour extends well beyond the edge of the right of way. Noise levels along Westcliff and Irvine are moderate. The 65 CNEL contour extends only slightly beyond the roadway right of way. Residential uses along these roadways with existing noise barriers (concrete block walls) likely do not experience noise levels in excess of 65 CNEL City standard. Noise levels along Cliff, 15' Street, 15' Street, 15" Street, 19" Street, Riverside and Tustin are minor. Noise levels along the edge of these roadways are just at or below 65 CNEL. �1 Mestre Greve Associates St. Andrews Presbyterian Church Page 9 2.0 POTENTIAL NOISE IMPACTS Potential noise impacts are commonly divided into two groups; temporary and long term. Temporary impacts are usually associated with noise generated by construction activities. Long term impacts are further divided into impacts on surrounding land uses generated by the proposed project and those impacts which occur at the proposed project site. 2.1 Noise Impact Criteria Off -site impacts from on -site activities, temporary and long -term, are measured against the City of Newport Noise Ordinance presented previously. Any activity on private property must comply with the noise ordinance. Any activity that could not comply with the noise ordinance would result in a significant noise impact. Long -term off -site impacts from traffic noise are measured against two criteria. Both criteria must be met for a significant impact to be identified. First, project traffic must cause a noise level increase greater than 3dB on a roadway segment adjacent to a noise sensitive land use. Second the resulting future with project noise level must exceed the criteria level for the noise sensitive land use. In this case the criteria level is 65 CNEL for residential land uses. In community noise assessment, changes in noise levels greater than 3 dB are often identified as significant, while changes less than I dB will not be discernible to local residents. In the range of I to 3 dB, residents who are very sensitive to noise may perceive a slight change. Note that there is no scientific evidence is available to support the use of 3 dB as the significance threshold. In laboratory testing situations, humans are able to detect noise level changes of slightly less than I dB. In a community noise situation, however, noise exposures are over a long time period, and changes in noise levels occur over years, rather than the immediate comparison made in a laboratory situation. Therefore, the level at which changes in community noise levels become discernible is likely to be some value greater than I dB, and 3 dB appears to be appropriate for most people. Long -term on site impacts are measured against the noise level limits given in the City of Newport Beach Noise Element standards shown in Exhibit 6. The standard applicable to the project is the Church 45 CNEL interior noise standard. There are no exterior standards specified for Church uses. Mestre Greve Associates St. Andrews Presbyterian Church ' Page 10 2.2 Temporary Impacts 2.2.1 Construction Noise Construction noise represents a short term impact on ambient noise levels. Noise generated by construction equipment, including trucks, graders, bulldozers, concrete mixers and portable generators can reach high levels. Demolition for the project is expected to occur over a two - week period. Grading including excavation of the subterranean parking structure is expected to occur over a six -week period. Construction of the parking structure and buildings is then expected to occur over a 40 -week period. Construction noise, generally, represents a short -term impact on ambient noise levels. Noise generated by construction equipment and construction activities can reach high levels. Construction equipment noise comes under the control of the Environmental Protection Agency's Noise Control Program (Part 204 of Title 40, Code of Federal Regulations). Examples of construction noise at 50 feet are presented in Exhibit 6. Note that at twice the distance (i.e. 100 feet) the noise levels will be 6 dB lower than those shown in Exhibit 7. At 4 times the distance (i.e. 200 feet) the noise levels will be 12 dB lower. At 500 feet the noise levels are 20 dB lower than shown on Exhibit 6. Note that noise measurements made by Mestre Greve Associates for other projects show that the noise levels generated by commonly used grading equipment (i.e. loaders, graders and trucks) generate noise levels that typically do not exceed the middle of the range shown in Exhibit 7. The nearest homes to the construction are located across Clay Street and St. Andrews Road. Construction activities will occur as close as 45 feet to the property lines of these homes. At this distance construction noise levels are only about I dB louder than those shown in Exhibit 7. This maximum noise level will only occur as a piece of heavy equipment operates adjacent to a residence. Much of the time equipment will operate at a distance of 150 feet or more away from any one home. At this distance heavy construction equipment noise levels are 9 dB lower than shown in Exhibit 7. Peak noise levels from construction equipment could reach as high as 96 dBA at the homes across Clay Street and St. Andrews Road. Average noise levels during periods of high construction activities are estimated to be in the range of 60 to 70 dBA. The noise levels generated by on -site construction activities will be in excess of the Noise Ordinance Standards. Section 10.26.035.D of the Newport Beach Municipal Code exempts construction equipment from the provisions of the Noise Ordinance and requires them to comply with Section 10.28 of the Code. Section 10.28.040 of the Code restricts hours of construction to between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 6:30 p.m. Monday through Friday and 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on Saturday. Noise generating construction activities are not allowed on Sundays or Holidays. The project does not propose any construction activities outside of these hours and therefore, will not result in a significant noise impact. Demolition debris and dirt excavated for the subterranean parking will be trucked off site to remote locations. These trucks will generate noise along public roadways. The trucks are expected to travel on Irvine Avenue, and 15' Street, entering the site from 15" Street near Clay Road. The trucks will then exit the site onto St. Andrews Road, near Clay Street, and travel to I 1 1 1 1 1 Mestre Greve Associates St. Andrews Presbyterian Church , Page 11 15`h Street, turning left to Irvine Avenue and then right on Irvine Avenue. The project proponent has proposed removing material from the site at a rate of 100 trucks per day. This would add 200 daily truck trips to 15`h Street, Irvine Avenue, and St. Andrews Road. Table 4 shows the affect on traffic noise levels along these roadways. The CNEL noise level at 100 feet from the roadway centerline based on existing average daily traffic volumes is presented along with the noise level resulting from this traffic and the addition of 200 daily heavy truck trips on the roadways. The increase in CNEL noise level due to the addition of the trucks is presented in the last column of the table. Data is not presented for St. Andrews Road. The traffic study prepared for the project did not report traffic volumes for St. Andrews Road. Presumably, traffic volumes and noise levels along St. Andrews Road are lower than those along 15' Street. Table 4 Traffic Noise CNEL Increases Due to Trucks f From Centerline of Roadway Table 4 shows that the greatest noise level increases will be experienced along 15' Street. However these increases are less than the 3dB substantial increase required for a significant impact to occur. Further, noise levels will not exceed the City's 65 CNEL standard at homes along 15' Street as shown in Table 5. Table 5 presents the distances to CNEL contours with the construction truck traffic on 15`h Street and Irvine Avenue. Table 5 shows that the traffic noise level along the right -of -way of 15'" Street will be less than 65 CNEL. The haul trucks associated with demolition and excavation of the project will not result in a significant noise impact. Table 5 Distance to Traffic Noise CNEL Contours with Construction Trucks CNEL @ 100't Increase in Roadway Segment Existing w/Trucks CNEL 15th Street 60 CNEL 15th Street East of Irvine 54.3 56.8 2.5 Irvine 61 Irvine North of 19th Street 63.2 63.7 0.5 South of 19th Street 62.5 63.1 0.6 North of Westcliff 62.7 63.2 0.6 South of Westcliff 62.4 63.0 0.6 North of 15th Street 58.4 59.8 1.4 f From Centerline of Roadway Table 4 shows that the greatest noise level increases will be experienced along 15' Street. However these increases are less than the 3dB substantial increase required for a significant impact to occur. Further, noise levels will not exceed the City's 65 CNEL standard at homes along 15' Street as shown in Table 5. Table 5 presents the distances to CNEL contours with the construction truck traffic on 15`h Street and Irvine Avenue. Table 5 shows that the traffic noise level along the right -of -way of 15'" Street will be less than 65 CNEL. The haul trucks associated with demolition and excavation of the project will not result in a significant noise impact. Table 5 Distance to Traffic Noise CNEL Contours with Construction Trucks RW-Contour does not extend beyond roadway right of way Distance To CNEL Contour from Centerline of Roadway (feet) Roadway Segment 70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL 15th Street East of Irvine RW RW 61 Irvine North of 19th Street 38 82 177 South of 19th Street 35 74 160 North of Westcliff 35 76 164 South of Westcliff RW 73 158 North of 15th Street RW 45 97 RW-Contour does not extend beyond roadway right of way ' Mestre Greve Associates St. Andrews Presbyterian Church Page 12 ' 2.3 Long Term Off -Site Impacts This section examines noise impacts from the proposed project on the surrounding land uses. Specifically traffic noise increases due to the project are examined as well as potential noise impacts from activities on the project site. 2.3.1 Traffic Noise Table 6 shows the incremental noise level increases due to traffic on roadways in the vicinity of the project. The first column presents the roadway segments analyzed. The second column shows the increases in traffic noise CNEL levels over existing conditions due to all projected growth in the area. This includes general traffic volume growth, as well as additional traffic from currently approved projects as well as other anticipated projects. The final column shows the projects contribution to this increase. That is, how much louder future noise levels will be with approval of the proposed project. Table 6 Traffic Noise CNEL Level Increases Noise Level Increase Over Project Roadway Segment Existing Contribution PCH West of Riverside 1.6 0.0 East of Riverside 1.7 0.0 West of Tustin 1.7 0.0 East of Tustin 1.7 0.0 West of Dover 1.7 0.0 East of Dover 1.5 0.0 Cliff West of Dover 0.2 0.2 15th Street West of Irvine 0.2 0.0 East of Irvine 0.2 0.1 16th Street West of Dover 0.2 0.0 East of Dover 0.2 0.0 Westcliff West of Irvine 0.9 0.0 East of Irvine 1.2 0.0 West of Dover 1.1 0.0 19th Street West of Irvine 0.2 0.0 East of Irvine 0.3 0.0 Riverside North of PCH 0.2 0.0 South of PCH 0.2 0.0 Mestre Greve Associates Table 6 (Continued) Traffic Noise CNEL Level Increases St. Andrews Presbyterian Church ' Paae 13 Table 6 shows that traffic associated with the project is projected increase traffic noise levels by, at most, 0.2 dB. This is much less than the 3 dB threshold and will not be perceptible to residents. The project will not result in a significant noise impact. The greatest noise increases due to all traffic growth are along PCH with increases up to 1.7 dB. This increase is not substantial. Further, traffic generated by the project does not contribute to these increases. There are no significant cumulative traffic noise impacts. The distances to the future 60, 65 and 70 CNEL contours with the proposed project for the roadways in the vicinity of the proposed project site are given in Table 7. These represent the distance from the centerline of the road to the contour value shown. The CNEL at 100 feet from the roadway centerline is also presented. The contours do not take into account the effect of any noise barriers or topography that may affect ambient noise levels. The traffic data used to calculate these noise levels is presented in the appendix. The distances to the future build out (2020) 60, 65 and 70 CNEL contours with the project alternatives and general plan conditions for the roadways in the vicinity of the proposed project site are presented in the appendix. 11 1 Noise Level Increase Over Project Roadway Segment Existing Contribution Tustin North of PCH 0.2 0.0 Irvine North of 19th Street 0.2 0.0 South of 19th Street 0.2 0.0 North of Westcliff 0.2 0.0 South of Westcliff 0.2 0.0 North of 15th Street 0.2 0.0 South of 15th Street 0.2 0.0 Dover North of Westcliff 0.3 0.0 South of Westcliff 1.1 0.0 North of 16th Street 1.1 0.0 South of 16th Street 1.0 0.0 North of Cliff 1.1 0.0 South of Cliff LO 0.0 North of PCH 1.0 0.0 South of PCH 02 0.0 St. Andrews Presbyterian Church ' Paae 13 Table 6 shows that traffic associated with the project is projected increase traffic noise levels by, at most, 0.2 dB. This is much less than the 3 dB threshold and will not be perceptible to residents. The project will not result in a significant noise impact. The greatest noise increases due to all traffic growth are along PCH with increases up to 1.7 dB. This increase is not substantial. Further, traffic generated by the project does not contribute to these increases. There are no significant cumulative traffic noise impacts. The distances to the future 60, 65 and 70 CNEL contours with the proposed project for the roadways in the vicinity of the proposed project site are given in Table 7. These represent the distance from the centerline of the road to the contour value shown. The CNEL at 100 feet from the roadway centerline is also presented. The contours do not take into account the effect of any noise barriers or topography that may affect ambient noise levels. The traffic data used to calculate these noise levels is presented in the appendix. The distances to the future build out (2020) 60, 65 and 70 CNEL contours with the project alternatives and general plan conditions for the roadways in the vicinity of the proposed project site are presented in the appendix. 11 1 U ' Mestre Greve Associates St. Andrews Presbyterian Church Paae 14 Table 7 Future (2020) With ProDosed Proiect Traffic Noise Levels t From Roadway Centerline RW- Contour Falls Within Roadway Right-of -Way Distance To CNEL Contour from CNEL Centerline of Roadway (feet) Roadway Segment @ 100't 70CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL PCH West of Riverside 67.3 66 143 308 East of Riverside 67.1 64 138 296 West of Tustin 67.1 64 138 296 East of Tustin 67.1 64 137 296 West of Dover 68.8 83 179 385 East of Dover 70.3 104 225 485 Cliff West of Dover 55.1 RW RW 47 15th Street West of Irvine 54.3 RW RW 42 East of Irvine 54.5 RW RW 43 16th Street West of Dover 55.7 RW RW 52 East of Dover 52.5 RW RW 32 Westcliff West of Irvine 64.3 42 90 193 East of Irvine 63.0 RW 74 159 West of Dover 63.4 36 78 168 19th Street West of Irvine 53.7 RW RW 38 East of Irvine 55.9 RW 25 53 Riverside North of PCH 56.7 RW 28 60 South of PCH 48.5 RW RW RW Tustin North of PCH 52.0 RW RW 29 Irvine North of 19th Street 63.4 36 78 169 South of 19th Street 62.7 RW 70 150 North of Westcliff 618 RW 72 154 South of Westcliff 62.5 32 69 148 North of 15th Street 58.6 RW 38 81 South of 15th Street 55.5 RW 23 50 Dover North of Westcliff 57.8 RW RW 71 South of Westcliff 65.3 49 105 226 North of I6th Street 65.3 48 104 225 South of 16th Street 65.6 51 110 237 North of Cliff 65.5 50 108 233 South of Cliff 65.7 51 111 239 North of PCH 66.0 54 116 250 South of PCH 54.3 RW RW 42 t From Roadway Centerline RW- Contour Falls Within Roadway Right-of -Way Mestre Greve Associates St. Andrews Presbyterian Church , Page 15 2.3.2 On -Site Activities Noise levels generated on the project site must comply with they City's Noise Ordinance. The Noise Ordinance defines the noise level limits that can be generated at an adjacent area by a noise source on private property. There are residential uses located across St Andrews Road and Clay Street from the project site. Onsite activities that have been identified that could potentially result in noise impacts are parking lot activity, events in the proposed gym, and mechanical equipment. Parking Lot Activity Traffic associated with parking lots is not of sufficient volume to exceed community noise standards that are based on a time averaged scale such as the CNEL or Leq scale. However, the instantaneous maximum sound levels generated by car door slamming, engine start -up, and car pass -bys can be annoying to nearby residents. Tire squeal may also be a problem depending on the type of parking surface. Estimates of the maximum noise levels associated with some parking lot activities are presented below and are based on limited measurements conducted by Mestre Greve Associates (Table 8). The noise levels presented are for a distance of 50 feet from the source, and are the maximum noise level generated. A range is given to reflect the variability of noise generated by various automobile types and driving styles. Table 8 Maximum Noise Levels Generated By Parking Lots fdBA at 50 feet) Event Lmax Door Slam 60 to 70 Car Alarm Activation 65 to 70 Engine Start -up 60 to 70 Car pass -by 55 to 70 The existing homes are located approximately 50 feet from the nearest parking area. Table 8 shows that the maximum noise levels anticipated at the homes from the parking lot activity are 70 dBA. Therefore, parking lot noise levels are not projected to exceed the City's nighttime Noise Ordinance limit of 70 dBA. Further, the proposed parking lot is at the same location as the existing church parking lot. While the project will result in more vehicles using the parking lot it will not substantially increase the noise levels generated within the parking lot. Therefore, parking lot activity will not result in a significant noise impact. Activities Inside the Proposed Gym Concern has been expressed on noise levels generated from activities, particularly live music performances, inside the gym. Review of the proposed architectural plans for the gym show that Building E is designed such that the Gym portion of the building does not open directly to the outdoors. There is a lobby area with two sets of doors between the Gym and outdoors. If there are live music performances in the Gym this design will minimize noise escaping from the Gym. At least one set of these doors should remain closed at all times. Therefore, activities within the Gym are not expected to result in a significant noise impact. ' Mestre Greve Associates St. Andrews Presbyterian Church Page 16 ' Mechanical (HVAC) Equipment Mechanical, heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) equipment has the potential to ' generate noise levels in excess of the City's Noise Ordinance. Because this equipment generates what is essentially a' constant noise level they are required to comply with the Leq noise limits presented in Table I. Using a properly designed system, there is no reason to believe that the ' mechanical equipment will not comply with the Noise Ordinance limits. 'ro accurately estimate noise levels from mechanical equipment prior to installation, information on the specific units proposed for installation is required. This information is typically not known until architectural plans are nearing the building stage. 'ro ensure that the mechanical system does not generate ' noise levels in excess of the City's Noise Ordinance a study will be required to be submitted before building permit approval as specified in the mitigation Section 3.2.2. I t 2.4 Long Term On -Site Impacts Exhibit 6 shows that the noise standard from the Noise Element that is applicable to the project is a 45 CNEL interior noise standard. There is no exterior standard defined for churches. Table 7 I shows that the traffic noise generated by traffic on 15" Street will be less than 65 CNEL on the project site (the 65 CNEL contour does not extend beyond the roadway right of way). Noise levels from traffic on Clay and St. Andrews will be even lower. Traffic noise levels were not projected for these roadways because traffic volumes were not reported for these roadways in the traffic study. Presumably because traffic volumes on these roadways, along with noise levels, will be lower than along 15' Street. ' The project is located approximately 3.5 miles southwest of John Wayne Airport. Exhibit 8 presents the 60, 65, and 70 CNEL noise contours from the airports 1985 Master Plan and Compatible Land Use Plan and related EIR, EIR 508. This represents the current approved and adopted plan for the development and operation of John Wayne Airport and is therefore required for use in the planning process. Note that these contours are much larger than those anticipated ' under the current Settlement Agreement that limits operations at the airport. Future noise levels, under the Settlement Agreement, will be substantially less than those presented in Exhibit 8. Exhibit 8 shows that the project site is located well outside the 60 CNEL contour under the ' worst -case future projected aircraft noise levels. Therefore, aircraft noise levels will be much less than 60 CNEL. Combined traffic and aircraft noise levels are projected to be less than 65 CNEL. Typical construction provides at least 20 dB of outdoor -to- indoor noise reduction assuming windows remain closed. 'ro assume windows can remain closed, adequate ventilation must be provided per Chapter 12, Section 1205 of the Uniform Building Code. The HVAC systems planed for the project will provide this ventilation. Therefore, interior noise levels will be less than the City's 45 CNEL interior noise standard. The project is not significantly impacted by noise. F] L� P4 UW ik I Mestre Greve Associates St. Andrews Presbyterian Church Page 17 ' 3.0 MITIGATION MEASURES 3.1 Temporary Impacts Demolition and construction of the project will generate noise levels in excess of the City's Noise Ordinance limits. However, the City of Newport Beach has adopted a Noise Ordinance that excludes control of construction activities during the hours between 7:00 a.m. and 6:30 p.m on weekdays, 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on Saturdays. Construction activities are not excluded on ' Sundays and Holidays. The project does not propose construction outside of the hours permitted in the Noise Ordinance. Therefore, construction project will not result in significant noise impact and no mitigation is required. ' 3.2 Long Term Off -Site Impacts 3.2.1 Traffic Noise ' The project is not projected to result in any significant long -term off -site traffic noise impacts. No mitigation is required. 3.2.2 On Site Activities There is some potential that the mechanical systems proposed for the project could exceed the City's Noise Ordinance limits. However, there is no reason that a properly designed system ' should exceed the limits. To ensure that mechanical systems for the retail portion project do not exceed the Noise Ordinance, a noise study shall be required prior to issuance of building permits. This noise study shall estimate noise levels generated by the proposed mechanical equipment at ' the worst -case residence. Compliance with the Noise Ordinance limits will be demonstrated and any measures required to meet the limits specified. The mechanical equipment shall not generate an A- weighted average (Leq) noise level of greater than 55 dBA during the daytime (7 am to 10 pm) and 50 dBA during the nighttime (10 pm to 7 am). If the nighttime noise limit cannot be achieved a timer can be used to limit the operation of the system to the daytime hours. The study shall be prepared by a qualified acoustical engineer and submitted to the City of Newport Beach ' prior to the issuance of building permits. This will ensure that the mechanical equipment constructed with the project does not result in a significant noise impact. 3.3 Long Term On -Site Impacts ' For the proposed buildings adequate ventilation per Chapter 12, Section 1205 of the UBC will be provided so that windows can remain closed to meet the City's interior noise standard. Note that windows do not need to be sealed shut, but remain closeable at the occupants' discretion. This ' ventilation requirement should be satisfied by the proposed HVAC system. The project site is not significantly impacted by noise and no mitigation ' 4.0 UNAVOIDABLE NOISE IMPACTS There are no unavoidable noise impacts associated with the project. 1 iI ' Mestre Greve Associates St. Andrews Presbyterian Church Page 18 APPENDIX Traffic Volumes Traffic Mixes L Mestre Greve Associates Table A -1 Averaqe Dailv Traffic Volumes St. Andrews Presbyterian Church Page 19 Speed No Project Cumulative Roadway Segment (mph) Mix Existing Cumulative w/ Project PCH West of Riverside 35 1 43,130 62,790 62,856 East of Riverside 35 1 39,750 59,290 59,323 West of Tustin 35 1 39,720 59,260 59,293 East of Tustin 35 1 39,590 59,120 59,153 West of Dover 40 1 42,970 63,360 63,393 East of Dover 40 1 63,540 89,520 89,619 Cliff West of Dover 35 1 3,560 3,600 3,764 15th Street West of Irvine 30 1 4,030 4,170 4,187 East of Irvine 30 1 4,170 4,230 4,362 16th Street West of Dover 35 1 4,140 4,310 4,310 East of Dover 35 1 1,990 2,070 2,070 Westcliff West of Irvine 35 1 25,170 31,240 31,273 East of Irvine 35 1 17,520 23,310 23,310 West of Dover 35 1 19,350 25,210 25,210 19th Street West of Irvine 25 1 5,060 5,250 5,283 East of Irvine 25 1 8,310 8,850 8,867 Riverside North of PCH 30 1 6,850 7,110 7,143 South of PCH 30 1 1,050 1,090 1,090 Tustin North of PCH 30 1 2,370 2,460 2,460 Irvine North of 19th Street 35 1 24,240 25,400 25,450 South of 19th Street 35 1 20,570 21,360 21,426 North of Westcliff 35 1 21,440 22,260 22,326 South of Westcliff 35 1 20,010 20,750 20,849 North of 15th Street 30 1 10,770 11,120 11,235 South of 15th Street 30 1 5,290 5,500 5,500 Dover North of Westcliff 30 1 8,680 9,230 9,263 South of Westcliff 40 1 22,370 28,560 28,593 North of 16th Street 40 1 21,940 28,260 26,293 South of 16th Street 40 1 24,130 30,560 30,593 North of Cliff 40 1 23,340 29,740 29,773 South of Cliff 40 1 24,420 30,780 30,912 North of PCH 40 1 26,430 32,950 33,082 South of PCH 40 1 2.180 2.270 2.270 Mestre Greve Associates Table A -2 Day /Evening/Night Traffic Distributions 1. Arterial Roadways St. Andrews Presbyterian Church ' Page 20 Day Eve Night Auto 5.51% 12.57% 9.34% MT 1.56% 0.09% 0.19% HT 0.64% 0.02% 0.08% St. Andrews Presbyterian Church ' Page 20 Exhibit No. 11 Final Environmental Impact Report Volume 2 Response to Public Comments SCH No. 2003081065 ST. ANDREW'S PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND USE PERMIT City Of Newport Beach Planning Department ' 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 1 Prepared by: ' Keeton Kreitzer Consulting 17782 East 1711 Street, Suite 106 Tustin, CA 92780 -1947 June 2004 1 Exhibit No. 11 �r Memorandum City of Newport Beach Planning Department FILE COPY To: St. Andrews EIR (PA2002 -265) From: James Campbell Date: December 2004 Re: Additional materials added at the direction of the Planning Commission The Planning Commission added to the St. Andrews EIR the following items 1. Environmental Quality Affairs Citizens Advisory Committee comments on the Notice of Preparation dated September 16, 2003. 2. Updated parking tables 4.2 -2, 4.2 -3 & 4.2 -4 3. Comment letter from Comprehensive Planning Services dated July 16, 2004 and staff response to those comments. 4. replacement color photographs from Section 4.5 (pages 4 -5.2, 4 -5.3 & 4 -5.4) CC: 1 MEMORANDUM To: Environmental Quality Affairs Citizens Advisory Committee City of Newport Beach From: St. Andrew's Subcommittee Environmental Quality Affairs Citizens Advisory Committee City of Newport Beach Subject: Notice of Preparation ( "NOP ") for St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church Expansions and Renovation; General Plan Amendment and Use Permit (PA2002 -265) (the "Project ") Date: September 16, 2003 Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the NOP for the captioned Project located at 600 St. Andrew's Road, Newport Beach, California 92663. We offer the following comments in the hopes of improving the Draft Environmental Impact Report ( "DEIR ") and the Project. 1. Project Description: The NOP contains an incomplete Project description. The proposed Project includes enlarged parking from 250 to 400 spaces including the construction of a two level parking structure with the lower level below grade. In addition, the Project includes over a five fold increase in the classroom size and increasing the Fellowship Hall from 17,762 to 32,744 square feet. However, the NOP fails to discuss the reasons for these increases associated with the Project. The DEIR should discuss the nature and reasons for such changes so that the public may be able to understand and comment on the Project. 2. Environmental Checklist and Discussion: a. Aesthetics: The checklist, page 19, indicates that "the maximum building height of the existing development is 43 feet." Although this may reflect some entitled height limit, the NOP should state whether this is the entitlement or the actual height of the existing buildings. The new Project buildings are to be 30 -35 feet "above existing grade" (page 19). The EIR should clearly indicate whether the Project will be taller or shorter as viewed from the street or adjacent residential property than the existing conditions. Further, the DEIR should discuss and identify the location of the current buildings that are to be replaced and indicate the location of the proposed buildings. It would appear this should be done so that local residents can determine what if any effect these newer buildings may have on their adjoining properties. In addition, the lighting element seems to be very specific about what is required and does indicate concern for light spillage and glare. The checklist indicates these issues are not being addressed in the EIR but will be addressed prior to the issuance of a building permit or a certificate of occupancy. However, CEQA requires more than deferred analysis: the DEIR should discuss the lighting impacts and glare so that the public may have an opportunity to know what the differences will be between the current night lighting versus the planned night lighting and so that appropriate mitigation or modifications can be worked out before any building permit is issued. b. Air Ouality: The Checklist indicates that the Project could have potentially significant impacts on air quality both long term and short term. The long term impacts will result from the increased vehicular traffic associated with the Project. However, the NOP lists mitigation for only short term impacts. The DEIR must explain and analyze the nature and extent of these impacts and, if necessary, provide adequate mitigation. C. Geology and Soils: The Checklist indicates that the Project will have less than significant impacts on geology and soils. However, the Project will include a subterranean garage and involve substantial excavation. However, the NOP identifies three mitigation measures including preparation of a site specific foundation subsurface study. The DEIR should include this study, analyze Project impacts and, if necessary, propose necessary mitigation. d. Hydrology and Water Quality: The NOP notes that the Project will have less than significant impacts on hydrology and water quality. However, the NOP proposes two mitigation measures including a proposal for frequent parking area sweeping and other structural and non - structural features. The DEIR should analyze and discuss these impacts, and fully identify and discuss the mitigation measures. C. Land Use and Planning: The Checklist indicates that the Project may have a potentially significant impact on land use and planning including inconsistency with the City's General Plan due to the Project's increase of floor area ratio ( "FAR "). The DEIR should fully discuss and analyze these impacts and, if necessary propose adequate mitigation. E Noise: The Checklist indicates that the Project may have potentially significant long term and short term noise impacts. Among other impacts, the NOP notes that the Project may create increased vehicular impacts and increased short term construction impacts. The NOP indicates that an acoustical study will be prepared for the Project. The DEIR should include this study, discuss any impacts identified and, if necessary propose any necessary mitigation. g. Transportation/Traffic: The Checklist indicates that the Project may create potentially significant impacts on transportation and traffic. Among other things, the NOP indicates at page 47 that the City requires one parking space for each three seats and the Applicant will build 400 spaces. The church on page 1 is identified as having a 1200 seat sanctuary. That use alone would appear to utilize all the parking spaces. If we still have classes, gymnasiums, fellowship halls, etc. with a total square footage proposed of 100,000 square feet for which there is no parking on site when the "main sanctuary" is in use. The DEIR should thoroughly discuss the parking demand for the Project, the uses of the Project, impacts on parking and, if necessary, propose mitigation measures. In addition, the Checklist indicates that the bike lane on 15th Street won't be adversely effected. Considering that the increased size and use would seem to imply more cars coming and going, the DEIR should discuss and analyze the impacts of the Project's traffic on bicycle and pedestrian safety. This could be a significant issue for the Applicant and the City. Given the potential for liability, the DEIR should include a very careful study of bike safety so that the Applicant and the City will understand the Project's impacts on bicycles including its impacts on transportation and bicycles in view of the close proximity of the schools which have very heavy bicycle use. Also, the Checklist at page 46 shows that the Project may create significant impacts on traffic including impacts on adjacent streets which impacts will be addressed in the DEIR. This traffic study should analyze the Project's impacts on all primary intersections as well as the intersections of Fifteen Street and Irvine Avenue, Sixteenth Street and Irvine Avenue, and Cliff Drive and Irvine Avenue. Currently, intersections in the vicinity of the Project experience significant problems, in part, during the school year. The DEIR should analyze all such impacts and, if necessary, propose adequate mitigation measures. h. Mandatory Findings of Significance: The Checklist indicates that the Project may have potentially significant impacts that are cumulatively significant. The DEIR should include in its cumulative impact analysis all projects in the vicinity including the proposed Mariner's library and any expansion of schools including Harbor High School or Ensign Middle School. The DEIR must address all such impacts and provide adequate mitigation for any such impacts. 3. Conclusion: Thank you again for the opportunity to comment on the NOP for the Project. We hope that these comments and others will assist the City in the preparation of the DEIR. Table 11 Summary of Parking Data Collection Weekday Morning and Afternoon Location Capacity I 6 -7 AM 7 -8 AM 8 -9 1 AM 9 -10 AM 10 -11 AM 11 -12 AM 12 -1 PM 1 -2 PM 2 -3 PM EastlWest Streets 15th Street - Irvine Avenue to St. Andrews Road - St. Andrews Road to Clay Street - Clay Street to Kings Place 52 39 20 19 10 3 52 39 17 48 39 18 48 39 14 47 39 20 49 39 17 42 39 20 49 41 3 46 33 6 Street Sub -Total 111 32 108 105 101 106 105 101 93 85 Haven Place -Irvine Avenue to St. Andrews Road 46 36 30 37 34 29 33 29 14 17 Street Sub -Total 46 36 30 37 34 29 33 29 14 17 Clay Street -Irvine Avenue to St. Andrews Road - St. Andrews Road to 15th Street 52 46 34 5 33 31 25 45 30 46 23 46 24 44 22 31 15 10 17 13 Street Sub -Total 98 39 58 76 76 69 68 53 25 30 Coral Place - Irvine Avenue to St. Andrews Road 56 23 16 16 15 9 11 12 9 16 Street Sub -Total 56 23 16 16 15 9 11 12 9 16 North /South Streets Irvine Avenue - 15th Street to Haven Place - Haven Place to Clay Street - Clay Street to Coral Place 16 31 18 4 6 8 14 8 8 5 1 5 5 3 4 5 4 4 5 4 3 4 0 0 0 1 3 0 3 9 0 2 Street Sub -Total 65 18 30 15 12 13 11 0 6 11 St. Andrews Road - 15th Street to Haven Place - Haven Place to Clay Street - Clay Street to Cliff Drive 14 19 42 6 12 7 13 14 7 14 16 10 14 15 10 14 18 7 14 15 17 14 16 17 10 6 9 14 1 8 Street Sub -Total 75 25 34 40 39 39 46 47 25 23 Pirate - Clay Street to Cliff Drive 42 11 13 21 25 14 15 14 11 13 Street Sub -Total 42 11 13 21 25 14 15 14 11 13 Snug Harbor - Clay Street to Cliff Drive 50 13 11 29 27 24 21 23 16 15 Street Sub -Total 50 13 11 29 27 24 21 23 16 15 Signal Road - 15th Street to Cliff Drive 54 14 15 17 17 16 18 16 11 17 Street Sub -Total 54 14 15 17 17 16 18 16 11 17 St. James - 15th Street to Kings Place 29 10 12 27 23 1 16 1 20 23 1 10 1 13 Street Sub -Total 29 10 12 .27 23 16 20 23 10 13 Total On- Street Parking 1 626 221 327 383 369 335 348 318 220 240 On-Street Parking Percent Occupancy 35% 52% 61% 59% 54% 56% 51% 35% 38% Church Parking Lot 250 10 14 69 111 126 129 89 55 56 Church Parking Percent Occupancy 4% 6% 28% 44% 50% 52% 36% 22% 22% Total 876 231 341 452 480 461 477 407 275 296 Total Percent Occupancy 26% 39% 52% 55% 53% 54% 46% 31% 34% -29- Table 12 Summary of Parking Data Collection Weekday Evening Location Capacity 2 -3 1 PM 3 -4 PM 4 -5 PM 5 -6 1 PM 6 -7 PM 7 -8 PM 8 -9 PM 9.10 PM East/West Streets 15th Street - Irvine Avenue to St. Andrews Road - St. Andrews Road to Clay Street - Clay Street to Kings Place 57 34 20 24 19 10 26 19 6 30 21 7 23 7 5 30 20 4 33 31 8 27 19 4 21 2 4 Street Sub -Total 111 53 51 58 35 54 72 50 27 Haven Place - Irvine Avenue to St. Andrews Road 46 19 24 19 26 25 30 32 33 Street Sub -Total 46 19 24 19 26 25 30 32 33 Clay Street - Irvine Avenue to St. Andrews Road - St. Andrews Road to 15th St. 52 46 18 7 19 6 19 2 19 4 26 3 26 11 29 3 28 2 Street Sub -Total 98 25 25 21 23 29 37 32 30 Coral Place - Irvine Avenue to St. Andrews Road 56 11 14 15 26 25 20 23 23 Street Sub -Total 56 11 14 1 15 1 26 25 20 1 3 23 North /South Streets Irvine Avenue - 15th Street to Haven Place - Haven Place to Clay Street - Clay Street to Coral Place 16 31 18 0 6 0 5 4 0 3 0 0 1 0 5 1 1 3 2 2 3 0 4 3 1 10 0 Street Sub -Total 65 6 9 3 6 5 7 7 11 St. Andrews Road -15th Street to Haven Place - Haven Place to Clay Street - Clay Street to Cliff Drive 14 19 42 8 4 2 11 4 1 11 5 1 8 8 9 9 6 6 13 11 2 9 4 3 6 2 5 Street Sub -Total 75 14 16 17 25 21 26 16 13 Pirate - Clay Street to Cliff Drive 42 11 1 11 1 11 1 11 14 11 12 13 Street Sub -Total 42 11 11 11 1 11 14 11 12 1 13 Snug Harbor - Clay Street to Cliff Drive 50 9 10 8 1 9 14 11 9 8 Street Sub -Total 50 9 10 8 9 14 11 9 8 Si nal Road - 15th Street to Cliff Drive 54 9 8 9 9 10 1 9 10 9 Street Sub -Total 54 9 8 9 9 10 9 10 9 St. James - 15th Street to Kings Place 29 9 11 13 10 1 7 11 10 9 Street Sub -Total 29 9 11 13 10 7 11 10 9 Total On- Street Parking 626 166 179 174 180 204 234 201 176 On- Street Parking Percent Occupancy 27% 29% 28% 29% 33% 37% 32% 28% Church Parking Lot 250 67 66 78 100 148 194 80 10 Church Parking Percent Occupancy 27% 26% 31% 40% 59% 78% 32% 4% Total 876 233 245 252 280 352 428 281 186 Total Percent Occupancy 27% 28% 29% 32% 40% 49% 32% 21% -31- Table 13 Summary of Parking Data Collection Sunday Morning Location Capacity 6 -7 AM 7 -8 AM 8 -9 1 AM 9 -10 AM 10 .11111 AM .12 AM East/West Streets 15th Street - Irvine Avenue to St. Andrews Road - St. Andrews Road to Clay Street - Clay Street to Kings Place 57 34 20 21 7 4 21 25 7 40 34 8 42 34 8 44 1 34 5 1 28 19 3 Street Sub -Total 111 32 53 82 84 83 50 Haven Place - Irvine Avenue to St. Andrews Road 46 38 37 38 39 38 36 Street Sub -Total 46 38 37 38 39 38 36 Clay Street - Irvine Avenue to St. Andrews Road - St. Andrews Road to 15th Street 52 46 35 5 36 31 33 33 45 46 31 39 32 8 Street Sub -Total 98 40 67 78 79 70 40 Coral Place - Irvine Avenue to St. Andrews Road 56 23 20 21 19 20 19 Street Sub -Total 56 23 20 21 19 20 19 North /South Streets Irvine Avenue - 15th Street to Haven Place - Haven Place to Clay Street - Clay Street to Coral Place 16 31 18 7 8 11 7 7 11 5 11 11 6 11 12 4 5 8 4 6 2 Street Sub -Total 65 26 25 27 29 17 12 St. Andrews Road - 15th Street to Haven Place - Haven Place to Clay Street - Clay Street to Cliff Drive 14 19 42 6 7 5 14 18 10 14 19 17 14 19 14 14 19 15 8 4 4 Street Sub -Total 75 18 42 50 47 48 16 Pirate - Cla Street to Cliff Drive 1 42 1 16 18 20 24 17 15 Street Sub -Total 1 42 16 18 1 20 24 17 15 Snug Harbor - Clay Street to Cliff Drive 50 10 18 1 19 18=]=l 5 9 Street Sub -Total 50 10 18 19 18 15 9 Signal Road - 15th Street to Cliff Drive 54 11 13 12 13 14 10 Street Sub -Total 54 11 13 12 13 14 10 St. James - 15th Street to Kings Place 29 12 14 14 11 12 10 Street Sub -Total 29 12 14 14 11 12 10 Total On- Street Parking 626 226 307 361 363 334 217 On-Street Parking Percent Occupancy 36% 49% 58% 58% 53% 35% Church Parking Lot 250 45 118 205 229 249 115 Church Parking Percent Occupancy 1 18% 47% 82% 92% 100% 46% Newport Harbor H S Parking Lot 150 5 29 71 86 98 20 Newport Harbor H S Parking Percent Occupant 3% 19% 47% 57% 65% 13% Total 1026 276 454 637 678 681 352 Total Percent Occupancy 1 27% 1 44% 1 629/o 66% 66% 34% -33- Comprehensive Planning Services July 16, 2004 James Campbell, Senior Planner City of Newport Beach Planning Department P. O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 Fax number: (949) 644 -3229 e -mail: jampbell@city.newport- beach.ca.us RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH JUL 2 2 2004 AM PM 71819110 X11112111213141516 Re: St. Andrews Presbyterian Church Proposed Expansion FINAL EIR, SCH: 2003081065 Dear Jim: We appreciate the City's response to our comment letter, dated April 26, 2004, regarding the Draft EIR for the church expansion. Although some of the responses correct incomplete or incorrect data previously presented in the Draft EIR, other responses do not adequately address our comments, and require further consideration and response and recirculation of the EIR before forwarding the EIR and the project to Planning Commission and City Council for approval. The comments requiring additional response are summarized below: Construction Impacts: Our comment letter of April 26 points out that the EIR analysis regarding the rate of demolition and material export contains serious errors. Your response indicates that the information was provided by the applicant and simply included in the EIR. It is disconcerting that the City's environmental consultant does not review technical information provided by the applicant to ascertain whether that information is correct or indeed even realistic. This lack of thorough review and analysis is apparent in a number of areas of the EIR, which we identified in our previous correspondence and reiterate herein. Should our analysis be correct and the number of excavation days required for the expansion be I I months, versus the 1.5 days assumed in the EIR, the project would continue to have unavoidable significant adverse impacts relative to air quality. According to the California Air Resources Board approved URBEMIS 2002 air quality model, project construction would continue to exceed SCAQMD thresholds for reactive organic gases. Further, unavoidable significant adverse affects on sensitive receptors (i.e., adjacent students and residents) would occur as the prolonged construction creates heavy emissions of dust and pollutants. The EIR must revise the air quality analysis and include all calculations within the EIR document. Similarly, the EIR must revise the traffic and noise analyses to account for the impacts of the extended construction period on the neighborhood and schools. Traffic Volumes: Our comment letter of April 26 points out that with the proposed church expansion, traffic at the intersection of 15th and Irvine will worsen to LOS E during the p.m. peak and LOS F during the a.m. PO Box 15592 Newport Beach,Cahforrua 92659 Voice: 949/650 -3206 Facsimile: 949/548 -6981 a -mail: joann @jalcps.com St. Andrews Presbyterian Church Expansion July 16, 2004 Page 2 of 3 peak. Your response indicates that this is not a concern because this is a brief and non -peak hour occurrence. Please be reminded that CEQA defines a significant impact relative to vehicular traffic as: An increase in traffic that 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) Clearly, the increase in traffic at the intersection of 15th and Irvine which causes the volume of the roadway to exceed capacity is a significant adverse impact pursuant to CEQA. Traffic Counts: Our comment letter of April 26 points out that the Church's primary access point is on Clay Street, but the Draft EIR fails to study traffic impacts on Clay Street. Your response states that the traffic counts were conducted only on primary intersections as defined by the City's Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO), and on two additional non - primary intersections not identified by the TPO. Your response makes no mention of Clay and Irvine or Clay and St. Andrews. But based on the apparent subjective determination of which intersections to include in the analysis, we again request that the EIR traffic study be revised to include impacts on Clay Street. Best Efforts to Predict Impacts: Our comment letter of April 26 points out that pursuant to Section 15144 of the CEQA Guidelines, the lead agency must use its best efforts to find out and disclose all that it reasonably can about a project. Your response states that Mitigation 4.2. 10 which is intended to place an operational cap of 1,387 persons addresses this issue. Unfortunately, that mitigation measure does not work. The church currently operates concurrent Sunday events, filling not only its 1,387 person sanctuary, but also Dierenfield Hall, the chapel, the choir rooms and three stories of Sunday school and day care facilities. Its not realistic to expect that the church proposes to undertake its large expansion and will end up providing less services than it does now. Also the suggested mitigation would be impossible to enforce. Does the City propose to have a head - counter at each church activity? The Draft EIR needs to be revised to account for the concurrent use of all existing and proposed facilities. General Plan Compliance: Our comment letter of April 26 points out that existing General Plan policies require sufficient diversity to allow schools, employment, recreation areas, public facilities, churches and neighborhood shopping centers in close proximity to each resident; and requires that floor area limits provide for moderate redevelopment and for preservation of property values. Ycur response states that protect intensity should not be considered when considering the balance of land uses. Intensity is the issue at hand. The proposed expansion, by proposing to expand 35% and creating a facility more dense than South Coast Plaza, is not "modest' growth. The project will violate these General Plan policies, and could debase the value of the single family homes surrounding the church. Regional Facility: Our comment letter of April 26 points out that the proposed expansion would create a regionally sized facility. Your response suggests that there is no requirement to analyze the church as a regional facility. The majority of the church's patrons come from outside the neighborhood and many from outside the Newport Beach -Costa Mesa community. The church as proposed would be one of the largest religious facilities in the state. Certainly, the project would create a regionally sized facility. Appropriate alternative sites would be those served by arterial and collector streets. The Draft EIR needs to be revised to adequately examine such alternative sites. St. Andrews Presbyterian Church Expansion July 16, 2004 Page 3 of 3 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts: Our comment letter of April 26 points out that mitigation measures MM 4.3 -1 and 4.3 -2 do not work. As explained above, if the amount of haul truck miles traveled per day is reduced, the excavation period would likely extend from 1.5 days to I I months, and the project would continue to have unavoidable significant adverse impacts relative to air quality. Project construction would continue to exceed SCAQMD thresholds for reactive organic gases, and unavoidable significant adverse affects on sensitive receptors (i.e., adjacent students and residents) would occur as the prolonged construction creates heavy emissions of dust and pollutants. In addition, short-term traffic and noise impacts would likely occur. Pursuant to CEQA, whether or not impacts are short-term is irrelevant to determining significance. Our comment letter of April 26 also points out that the Draft EIR fails to adequately disclose the process that the City must follow should it chose to approve the church expansion regardless of the unavoidable adverse impacts. Your response that such disclosure is not required is incorrect. The EIR is first and foremost an informational document. An adequate EIR should be oriented toward providing decision - makers, their staffs, other involved public agencies, interested organizations, and the general public with an objective and impartial assessment of the potential significant environmental impacts that could result from implementation of the Project. The very stringent requirements established by Sections 15091 and 15093 of the CEQA Guidelines relative to required Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations are intended to forestall facile approval of environmentally damaging projects. When considering a project that will have unavoidable significant adverse impacts to the community such as the proposed church expansion, the full weight of these required findings must be disclosed to the general public as well as the decision - makers. We urge the City to revise the EIR as outlined above and to recirculate the EIR for further consideration and response. Thank you for your consideration. Yours truly, �On.J�J 4l�vv Joann Lombardo Q Ift Response to Follow -up Comments Comprehensive Planning Services (July 16, 2004) St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church Response to Comment No. 1 As indicated in this comment, the basis for calculating air quality impacts during the construction period is the information provided by the project applicant. The information was reviewed by the air quality consultant to confirm that it represents a 'reasonable" estimate of the effort necessary to implement the proposed project. This comment incorrectly suggests that the analysis presented in the Draft EIR assumed a 1.5 -day excavation period for excavation of the 50,000 cubic yards of earth material. It appears that the commentator is confusing the demolition phase with the grading and excavation phase. As indicated in the Air Quality Assessment (refer to page 8 in Appendix B), a total of approximately 3,000 cubic yards of demolition debris would be generated and hauled off -site. Assuming 100 trips per day, the demolition debris could be removed in less than two days, as indicated in that analysis. The analysis associated with excavation of 50,000 cubic yards of earth material for the subterranean parking garage is discussed on page 9 of the Air Quality Assessment. Grading and excavation of the site would occur relatively quickly. As indicated in that discussion, removal of the 50,000 cubic yards of earth material from the site would take 36 days. This is based on a rate of 100 trucks per day and a 14 cubic yard capacity for each truck (i.e., "double" rigs). The 11 -month excavation excavation /dirt removal period suggested in this comment is unusually long. Dirt would be hauled from the site at the rate of only 240 cubic yards per day (i.e., 17 "double" trucks per day). Although a trip length of 20 miles was assumed to provide a "worst case" analysis, it is likely that a closer fill site will be available to accept the dirt exported from the subject property. If so, the air quality impacts associated with the project would be reduced in proportion to the reduction in the number of miles traveled to the fill site. Nonetheless, as indicated in the Draft EIR, a mitigation measure (refer to MM 4.3 -1) has been included that limits the total daily vehicle miles traveled to 2,005 in order to ensure that air quality impacts remain less than significant. The Air Quality Assessment correctly and adequately evaluated air quality impacts based on reasonable grading and construction parameters provided by the project applicant. It is, therefore, unnecessary to recalculate the construction phase air emissions. Similarly, the noise and traffic impacts presented in the Draft EIR are also based on reasonable and appropriate parameters and no additional analysis is required. St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church Comprehensive Planning Services - Response to Comments (July 16, 2004) November 11, 2004 1 Response to Comment No. 2 Because unsignalized intersections cannot be evaluated using the Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) method of analysis, which is the basis of the traffic analysis presented in the Draft EIR, the Irvine Avenue /15th Street intersection was evaluated utilizing the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) methodology. As indicated in the analysis (refer to Table 4.2 -7 in the Draft EIR), that intersection currently operates at an acceptable level of service during both the a.m. and p.m. peak hours and is also forecast to operate at LOS D or better in the future (i.e., with project - related traffic and other traffic forecast for the area). A "focused" analysis was also conducted for both the morning and afternoon peak periods during the "worst' 15- minute period for informational purposes only. However, it is important to understand that the analysis for that 15- minute period is not a criterion utilized by the City for determining potentially significant impacts. Although operating conditions at that intersection will be undesirable (i.e., LOS E and F) for the focused 15- minute period, when the remainder of the peak hour traffic was incorporated into the analysis, both the a.m. and p.m. peak hour levels of service are acceptable. This conclusion is consistent with the significance criteria utilized by the City of Newport Beach and reflected in the Draft EIR in Section 4.2.2 as well as the criterion referenced in this comment. Response to Comment No. 3 Traffic Counts: Clay Street Response to Comment No. 4 As indicated in this comment, concurrent use of the church facilities is limited to 1,387 persons (with the exception of special or unusual events). As required by Section 21081.6 of CEQA, a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) will be adopted if the project is approved and must be implemented to ensure that all of the mitigation measures prescribed in this document are implemented. To that end, the MMRP identifies the timing of implementation of the mitigation measure (i.e., during church services /related activities), the manner in which monitoring will occur (i.e., on- site monitoring), and the responsible department (i.e., Planning Department). Therefore, the Church will be required to monitor and maintain records of concurrent attendance. The records will be submitted to the Newport Beach Planning Department to ensure that the maximum concurrent capacity is not exceeded. Response to Comment No. 5 This comment (and the prior CPS comment on the Draft EIR) suggests that the development intensity of the site exceeds that of South Coast Plaza; however, such a comparison is not appropriate given the significant difference in the use of the respective properties. While it is true that an increase in floor area is proposed, the use St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church Comprehensive Planning Services - Response to Comments (July 16, 2004) November 11, 2004 01 of the site will not significantly change. The increase in floor area, much of which is associated with the gymnasium, is intended to better facilitate existing programs offered by the church. The DEIR acknowledges that the proposed construction can accommodate a wider range of activities due to the design of the buildings, which will likely lead to increased use and activity at the site over time. Response to Comment No. 6 While the church's capacity of 1,387 seats may exceed the capacity of many religious institutions and may draw "regionally" as suggested in this comment, it is not one of the largest religious facilities in the State and is not considered to be a regional church. Section 10 (Project Alternatives) of the Draft EIR provides an extensive discussion related to alternatives that were considered, including the "regionally -sized church," an alternative that was rejected from further consideration. Most important in this consideration is the fact that the church capacity is not proposed to be increased to the size of a "regional" facility, which is typically larger than the existing capacity of St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church and the fact that an increase in sanctuary seating capacity was not proposed. The proposed project includes only the demolition and replacement of existing facilities, with an increase in floor area related to the replacement of those structures that does not directly relate to the capacity of the church itself. As a result, growth to a regional church is not an objective of the proposed project and, therefore, would not necessitate evaluating a regional church, either at the subject site or at an alternative location. Further, as indicated in that analysis (refer to Section 10.3), it is not anticipated that the regionally -sized church alternative would reduce potential impacts; in some cases, such an alternative could result in more significant impacts (e.g., air quality, traffic, etc.) although at a different location. These reasons as well as others cited in Section 10.3 are the basis of eliminating the "regional" church from further consideration. Other alternatives, including an alternative site, were also evaluated. Section 15126.6 of the State CEQA Guidelines requires an EIR to include an analysis of a reasonable range of alternatives, including alternative locations, which could feasibly achieve most of the project objectives and also reduce potentially significant impacts. It is important to note, however, that the key consideration in evaluating alternative sites is the ability of the alternative location to avoid or substantially lessen potential impacts. In addition, where an alternative was considered (during the scoping process) but rejected because of its infeasibility, such information must also be disclosed in the Draft EIR. While an alternative location was evaluated, that analysis evaluated only the relocation of the Youth and Family Center /Gymnasium proposed by the church because no increase in the church capacity was proposed and such growth is not an objective of the church and relocation of the church is not proposed. Therefore, only the "new" facility proposed by the church to replace one of the existing structures was evaluated in the analysis of an alternative site (refer to Section 10.4.5). As indicated in that analysis, no undeveloped sites existing within the vicinity of the existing church site that could SL Andrew's Presbyterian Church Comprehensive Planning Services - Response to Comments (July 16, 2004) November 11, 2004 3 accommodate the relocation of the Family and Youth Center /Gymnasium. Further implementation of such an alternative would also necessitate a long -term lease or acquisition by the church, which could affect its feasibility. Lastly, the proposed Youth and Family Center is designed to accommodate youth activities intended primarily to serve youth in the area that likely attend nearby schools. Locating it at an off -site location may affect the feasibility and desirability of the proposed project. Response to Comment No. 7 Refer to Response to Comment No. 2. As indicated in that response the potential air quality, noise and traffic impacts resulting from demolition, excavation and export, construction, and operations have been correctly and adequately evaluated in the Draft EIR. However, it is important to note that if each of these phases is protracted, the daily emissions would be reduced in proportion to the daily activities. For example, if the hauling of dirt from the site occurred in 11 months as suggested in this comment compared to the 36 days evaluated in the Draft EIR, the daily emissions would be significantly reduced because the number of haul trucks would be reduced from 100 per day to less than 20 trucks per day. As a result, daily air emissions could be reduced by 80 percent. Similarly, the effects on such activities on both noise and traffic would also be reduced with the decrease in truck traffic. This comment incorrectly suggests that daily short-term emissions would be significant, exceeding SCAQMD thresholds for reactive organic gases, etc. The most significant "impact" associated with a protracted excavation and construction schedule is the nuisance that would occur on a daily basis for the 11 -month period identified in this comment. Response to Comment No. 8 Section 2.1.3 (refer to page 2 -1) and Section 2. 1.10 (refer to page 2 -7) in the Draft EIR summarize the use of the EIR (i.e., inform decision - makers, public, etc.) and the responsibility of the City of Newport Beach (i.e., certification) when considering the information presented in the Draft EIR. As indicated in those discussions, the Newport Beach City Council must consider the adequacy of the information prior to its certification. In addition, implicit is the requirement that the City Council must adopt Findings pursuant to Section 15091 of the State CEQA Guidelines and, if necessary, a Statement of Overriding Considerations pursuant to Section 15093 only when there is a significant, unavoidable adverse occurs as a result of project implementation. In that case, the adoption of the Findings and a Statement of Overriding Considerations would need to occur prior to project approval. In addition to these documents, the City must also approve /adopt the MMRP as previously identified and described (refer to response to Comment No. 5). However, while these documents will be included in the public record for the project, there is no requirement to include them in the Draft EIR, as indicated in the prior response. St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church Comprehensive Planning Services - Response to Comments (July 16, 2004) November 11, 2004 4 law s. 6M-q Y� Z IV r .1t i fctlSI IV r .1t i I L�l I I �I 1 I I I I St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church General Plan Amendment and Use Permit Amendment Final Environmental Impact Report Table of Contents ST. ANDREW'S PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TABLE OF CONTENTS FINAL EIR Paqe INTRODUCTION................................................ ......... ......................... .................. ............................... ............. 1 -1 EIR COMMENT LETTERS AND RESPONSES .................................................................... ............................... 1 The Gas Company .................................................................................................. ............................... 1 2 Carl R. Carlson ........................................................................................................ ............................... 3 3 Elaine and Richard England .................................................................................... ............................... 5 4 CB Richard Ellis, Inc ................................................................................................ .............................11 5 Ann E. Evans ........................................................................................................... .............................13 6 Robert J. Craig ......................................................................................................... .............................15 7 Environmental Quality Affairs Committee ............................................................... .............................18 8 Barbara Rawling ...................................................................................................... .............................40 9 Christopher Budnik .................................................................................................. .............................42 10 Ron and Novell Hendrickson ................................................................................... .............................44 11 Don Krotee ............................................................................................................... .............................46 12 Comprehensive Planning Services ....................................................................... ............................... 52 13 James M. Carmack ................................................................................................ ............................... 62 14 Russell Cheek .......................................................................................................... .............................66 15 Russell Cheek .......................................................................................................... .............................68 16 Russell Cheek .......................................................................................................... .............................70 17 Eunice Smith Jones ................................................................................................. .............................72 18 Terry Butros ......................................................................................................... ............................... 74 19 Carl Richardson ...................................................................................................... .............................80 20 Raymond and Margaret Palmer .............................................................................. .............................82 21 Donald and Grace Samis ........................................................................................ .............................84 22 Jean and George Slack ........................................................................................... .............................86 23 Donna A. Gallant ................................................................................................... ............................... 88 24 Diane Connelly ....................................................................................................... .............................90 25 Donna and Paul Gallant .......................................................................................... .............................94 26 Newport-Mesa Unified School District ..................................................................... .............................96 27 Jim Connelly ........................................................................... ............................... ............................100 28 Webster J. Jones ..................................................................... ............................... ............................103 29 Gary P. Hill ............................................................................. ............................... ............................105 30 Bruce C. Stuart ........................................................................ ............................... ............................107 31 Richard Stoneman ................................................................... ............................... ............................122 32 Willard and Gayle Courtney ..................................................... ............................... ............................126 33 Marci Resh ....... .... ................................................ .............. ... .. ......................................................... 128 34 M. C. Healow .......................................................................... ............................... ............................130 35 Buck and Colleen Johns .......................................................... ............................... ............................132 36 Maureen A. Cox ...................................................................... ............................... ............................134 37 Mary Turner ............................................................................. ............................... ............................136 38 Victoria L. Gagniere ................................................................. ............................... ............................138 39 Jane Hudson .... ................................................................................................. ................................ 140 40 Marci Resh ....... ................................................................................................................................ 142 41 Cole Bryan ......................................................................................................... ............................... 144 42 Marci Resh ....... ................................................................................................................................ 146 43 Anne Brewer .......................................................................... ............................... ............................148 STANDRE WS. NBIDRAFTEIRITOC. FINALEIR. doc St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church General Plan Amendment and Use Permit Amendment Final Environmental Impact Report Table of Contents Paqe 44 M. C. Healow ....................................................................................................... ............................... 150 45 Jane Lambareli .. ................................................................................................................................ 152 46 Rachel Lambrakis ................................................................................................ ............................... 154 47 M. C. Healow ...................................................................................................... ............................... 156 48 Mike Lambrakis ...................................................................... ............................... ............................158 49 Cindy Stoneman .................................................................................................. ............................... 160 C: \MyFilesVCKC- 0060. STANDREWS .NBIDRAFTEIRITOC.FINALEIR.doc ii I 1 1 11 I I 1 1 INTRODUCTION 'J 1 1 i I i i C 1 1 IRESPONSE TO PUBLIC COMMENTS ST. ANDREW'S PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH ' SCH NO. 2003081065 NEWPORT BEACH, CA INTRODUCTION The 45 -day public review period for the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the St. Andrew's ' Presbyterian Church project extended from March 17 through April 30, 2004. Forty -nine (49) comment letters were received on the Draft EIR. Responses to the comments in the letter have been prepared and are included with the Final EIR. It is important to note that several comment letters received by the City of Newport Beach either express support for or opposition to the proposed project. Although, no responses to these letters are required, they have been included, nonetheless, with the responses to comments and will be presented to the Newport Beach Planning Commission and City Council for their consideration. The comment letters were received from: 1. The Gas Company (March 24, 2004) ' 2. 3. Carl R. Carlson (April 7, 2004) Elaine and Richard England (April 15, 2004) 4. CB Richard Ellis, Inc. (April 16, 2004) 5. Ann E. Evans (April 21, 2004) 6. Robert J. Craig (April 21, 2004) 7. Environmental Quality Affairs Committee (April 22, 2004) 8. Barbara Rawling (April 26, 2004) 9. Christopher Budnik (April 26, 2004) ' 10, Ron and Novell Hendrickson (April 26, 2004) 11, Don Krotee (April 26, 2004) 12, 13, Comprehensive Planning Services (April 26, 2004) James M. Carmack (April 27, 2004) 14. Russell Cheek (April 28, 2004) 15. Russell Cheek (April 28, 2004) 16. Russell Cheek (April 28, 2004) 17. Eunice Smith Jones (April 28, 2004) 18. Terry Botros (April 28, 2004) 19. Carl Richardson (April 28, 2004) t 20. Raymond and Margaret Palmer (April 28, 2004) 21. Donald and Grace Samis (April 28, 2004) ' 22. 23. Jean and George Slack (April 28, 2004) Donna A. Gallant (April 29, 2004) 24. Diane Connelly (April 29, 2004) 25. Donna and Paul Gallant (April 29, 2004) 26. Newport -Mesa Unified School District (No Date — Received April 30, 2004) ' 27. Jim Connelly (No Date — Received April 30, 2004) 28. Webster J. Jones (April 30, 3004) 29. Gary P. Hill (April 30, 2004) ' 30. Bruce C. Stuart (April 30, 2004) 31. Richard Stoneman (April 30, 2004) ' 32. 33. Willard and Gayle Courtney (April 23, 2004) Marci Resh (April 28, 2004) 34. M.C. Healow (April 28, 2004) 35. Buck and Colleen Johns (April 28, 2004) ' St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church Draft EIR Responses to Public Comments June 9, 2004 1 -1 36. Maureen A. Cox (April 28, 2004) 37. Mary Turner (April 27, 2004) 38. Victoria L. Gagniere (April 28, 2004) 39. Jane Hudson (April 28, 2004) 40. Marci Resh (April 28, 2004) 41. Cole Bryan (April 28, 2004) 42. Marci Resh (April 28, 2004) 43. Anne Brewer (April 28, 2004) 44. M. C. Healow (April 28, 2004) 45. Jane Lambareli (April 27, 2004) 46. Rachel Lambrakis (April 28, 2004) 47. M. C. Healow (April 28, 2004) 48. Mike Lambrakis (April 28, 2004) 49. Cindy Stoneman (April 30, 2004) Responses to these comments have been prepared according to Section 15088 of the State CEQA Guidelines. The letters received during the public review period have been reproduced in the section that follows. The letters have been reviewed and substantive comments have been identified. Responses have been prepared and follow each letter of comment in this 'Response to Public Comments" Appendix to the Final EIR. Each comment in each letter for which a response is required has been numbered for easy reference. St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church Draft EIR Responses to Public Comments June 9, 2004 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 EIR COMMENT LETTERS AND RESPONSES i 1 1 i 1 1 1 i 1 I I 1 Letter No. 1 The Gas Company D A Sempra Energy utiuty° March 24, 2004 City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. P.O. Box 11768 Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 Attention: James Campbell Southern California Gas Company Technical Services Department 1919 S. State College Blvd., Bldg. A RE6_*� I `9` - 92806 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH APR 01 2004 71819110111 112111213141516 Subject: EIR - 600 St. Andrews Road, St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church ' Thank you for providing the opportunity to respond to this E.I.R. (Environmental Impact Report) Document. We are pleased to inform you that Southern California Gas Company has facilities in the area where the aforementioned project is proposed. Gas service to the project can be provided from an existing gas main located in various locations. The service will be in accordance with the Company's policies and - - ' extension rules on file with the California Public Utilities Commission when the contractual arrangements are made. 1 1 1 1 This letter is not a contractual commitment to serve the proposed project but is only provided as an informational service. The availability of natural gas service is based upon conditions of gas supply and regulatory agencies. As a public utility, Southern California Gas Company is under the jurisdiction of the California Public Utilities Commission. Our ability to serve can also be affected by actions of federal regulatory agencies. Should these agencies take any action, which affect gas supply or the conditions under which service is available, gas service will be provided in accordance with the revised conditions. This letter is also provided without considering any conditions or non - utility laws and regulations (such as environmental regulations), which could affect construction of a main and/or service line extension (i.e., if hazardous wastes were encountered in the process of installing the line). The regulations can only be determined around the time contractual arrangements are made and construction has begun. Estimates of gas usage for residential and non - residential projects are developed on an individual basis and are obtained from the Commercial- IndustriaVResidential Market Services Staff by calling (800) 427 -2000 (Commercial/Industrial Customers) (800) 427 -2200 (Residential Customers). We have developed several programs, which are available upon request to provide assistance in selecting the most energy efficient appliances or systems for a particular project. If you desire further information on any of our energy conservation programs, please contact this office for assistance. Sine e_ f Kiev Kris eas Tech�ical Supervisor West Region - Anaheim KK/nh eir04.doc 1. Southern California Gas Company (March 24, 2004) Response to Comment No. 1 This letter acknowledges that Southern California Gas Company owns and maintains facilities in the area that can be extended to provide gas service to the proposed project. No specific comments on the adequacy of the Draft EIR are raised in this letter and no response is required. However, as suggested in the letter, the Gas Company has developed several energy conservation programs for both residential and non - residential uses. It is recommended that the applicant work with the Southern California Gas Company to implement appropriate energy - saving features in order to conserve energy. St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church Draft EIR , Responses to Public Comments June 9, 2004 2 ' 1 Letter No. 2 Campbell, James From: DouglasRet @aol.com Sent: Wednesday, April 07, 2004 6:37 PM 'To: jcampbell @city.newport- beach.ca.us Subject: No Subject 'I live at 306 Pirate Road in Newport Beach and feel that the new St Andrews project will have a very negative impact on this neighborhood. Not only during the destruction and construction period but also due to the impact on the traffic /noise/ and danger that it will bring. We definitly do not need an underground parking structure near our homes. This is one of the most dangerous places that any neighborhood can have nearby. It is a breeding ground for crime, 'both minor and major in nature. It is time for St Andrews to move if they really think they need this huge increase in space and the parking structure. We have had to put up with them filling this street each weekend as well as for ' special events. Please do not approve this impact report and /or the project. Carl R. Carlson RECEIVED BY ' PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ' APR 0 7 2004 17 819 1011111211121314A6 I 1 I 1 1 2. Carl R. Carlson (April 7, 2004) ' Response to Comment No. 1 This comment expresses opposition to the proposed project. Although several concerns are raised in this letter, no specific comments on the adequacy of the information presented in the Draft EIR have been identified. This letter will be forwarded to the Newport Beach Planning Commission and City Council for , their consideration. Each of the issues identified as a concern has been addressed in the analysis presented in the Draft EIR, ' including traffic, noise, and security related to the proposed parking structure. The Draft EIR included the results of a detailed traffic analysis that was prepared in accordance with the City's current requirements. The results of that analysis, which is summarized in Section 4.2, concludes that some construction - related impacts can be anticipated; however, the impacts can be mitigated through the implementation of a Construction Traffic Control Plan. All of the intersections in the project vicinity are currently operating at LOS C or better and no significant impacts would occur as a result of project implementation unless construction activities occur during the school year. Appropriate mitigation measures have been identified ' to reduce the potential traffic impacts to a less than significant level. Also, parking will be addressed through the Parking Management Program to ensure that no significant impacts in the neighborhood occur. In addition, project - related noise impacts have also been identified and addressed in Section 4.4. , Compliance with the City's noise control ordinance will ensure that construction activities occur in accordance with adopted standards and requirements. Finally, issues related to the parking structure have been addressed in Section 4.6 in the Draft EIR. The Newport Beach Police Department has made several recommendations (e.g., adequate lighting, closure when not in use, etc.) that are intended to , address potential security and crime problems. 1 I IJ St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church Draft EIR ' Responses to Public Comments June 9, 2004 4 ' 1 ' Letter No. 3 April 15, 2004 James Campbell, Senior Planner Newport Beach Planning Department ' 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 RE: St. Andrews Presbyterian Church ' Draft Environmental Impact Report Initial comments on the ADEQUACY of the DEIR ' FR: Elaine and Richard England 435 Snug Harbor Road Newport Beach, CA 92663 ' ADEQUACY: (definition) 1) fully sufficient for a requirement or ourpQ. 21 barely ' sufficient or suitable. ' Examples of items discussed in the DEIR that are confusing and/or contradictory include: 1. MM 4 -6 -2 (Lighting) ... "..the ground level parking should be lit at night to allow individuals to identify someone from 100 feet away ". . ' Pg 1 -10 ... "exterior on -site lighting shall be shielded and confined within site boundries. "although some light emanating from the subject property will extend into St. Andrews Road and Clay Street, the illuminance of all light will be reduced to 0.00 footcandle before it reaches the residential properties south of Clay Street ". ' QUESTIONS; t Our property is 45 feet from the Church property line; how will this light be "shielded "? During what hours and under what conditions will these lights be on at night? RECEIVED BY ' PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ' APR 2 0 2004 PM 7 g09 101,11121112�314�5I6 5 1 2. Newport Beach's City Noise Ordinance 10 -28 -040_ restricts construction activities ' to between lam and 6:30 pm on week days; 8 am to 6 pm on Saturdays. " The project does not propose construction outside of the hours permitted in the Noise ' Ordinance ". "The mechanical equipment shall not generate noise levels greater than 50 dBA ' during the nighttime ". (10 pm to 7 am). If the nighttime noise limit cannot be achieved a timer can be used to limit the operation of the system to the daytime hours ". QUESTION: 2 Which of the above is correct? Will there be noise at night or not? ' 3. Project Construction Traffic —"the truck traffic activity will be scheduled to take ' Place when the Newport Harbor High School is not in session ". , "heavy construction vehicles, including trucks hauling construction equipment and materials will be limited to non -peak hours during the construction phase when those ' activities occur during the school year ". QUESTIONS: , 3 When is Harbor High not is session? What are the non -peak hours if activites of this sort do indeed occur despite what is stated in the DEIR? ' "The Frank B. Bowerman Landfill in Irvine is 18.5 miles. Debris will be removed in 1.5 days. Trucks will take 6 -7 round trips daily ". ' Traveling by passanger car, on the 405 Freeway, I traveled to Bowerman Landfill and back in 35 minutes each way at 9:30 am. Take that elapsed time (1 hour and ten ' minutes) and add loading time at St. Andrews, unloading time at Bowerman; add delays for slower routes and time for lunch, breaks and waiting in line, each truck trip will take closer to ' two hours. Two hours X 6 trips = 12 hours. The landfill is only open for 8 hours (9 for transit trucks). QUESTIONS; ' 4 How long will this process take, certainly not 1.5. days. Where will the 15 trucks line up ' to wait for their turn in loading? E 1 1 4 St Andrews Parking Management aWam " if needed, park along Clay Street between St.. Andrews Road and Snug Harbor, (do not park on Clay Street between Snug Harbor and 15' Street). Do not park on any other neighborhood streets ". QUESTION: Why is it OK to park in front of the Gallant, Botros, Marscellas and England residences on Clay Stret but not others on Clay Street or other available neighborhood streets? "if nec essary, parking personnel should be employed to "cone -off' or otherwise restrict use of the street parking adjacent to the church property until the on -site parking is fully realized ". QUESTIONS: 5 Who are the "parking personnel" to be employed; what does "otherwise restrict" mean and what gives St. Andrews the right to "cone -off' anything on public streets? 6 1 7 1 1 5. Underground Parking Structure "several measures have been recommended by the Newport Beach Police Department to ensure that unauthorized activities are avoided or minimized ". QUESTIONS: What are the recommendations made by the Newport Beach Police Department and what does "minimize unauthorized activities" imply? 6. Public Services "adequate sewer, water and storm drainage facilities are located within the existing street system, which can serve the additional development ". QUESTIONS: Will there be any interruption of sewer, water, electric, gas or television cable services due to this project? Will there be any closure of streets, if so, which and for how long? 7. Phasing of the Project $ IQUESTION: What has been planned to coordinate this project with Newport Harbor High School's demolition and construction plans should they occur at the same time? WE HAVE IDENTIFIED A PORTION OF OUR CONCERNS REGARDING THE PROPOSED ST. ANDREWS PROJECT, WE DISPUTE ANY CONCLUSIONS SUGGESTED BY THE DEIR THAT THIS PROJECT IS IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD; THE PLAN IS LIKE TRYING TO PUT 10 POUNDS OF SAND INTO A FIVE POUND BAG. WE URGE REJECTION OF THE APPLICATION. I 1 1 I 3. Elaine and Richard England (April 15, 2004) Response to Comment No. 1 As indicated in the Draft EIR (refer to page 4.5 -9), the lighting has been designed and will be installed so that it is directed downward, away from adjoining properties. Further, the lighting must comply with the City's municipal code requirements for lighting. The lighting that will be "shielded" is that emanating from existing and proposed fixtures located within the interior portions of the property. The existing and proposed structures will shield that lighting. Further, as indicated in the condition that the City will impose on the applicant, all exterior, on -site lights shall be shielded so that the light is confined within the site boundaries. The nature and type of shielding will depend on the type and location of the lighting fixture. The (preliminary) photometric plan (refer to Exhibit 4.5 -5) indicates that the lighting emanating from the subject property will not extend onto any of the nearby residential properties. As indicated in Standard Condition 4.5 -4, the applicant will be required to prepare a photometric study in conjunction with the final lighting plan, which must be approved by the Planning Director. Response to Comment No. 2 Construction will only occur during the daytime hours for which they are exempted from the noise ordinance as noted in the comment. Mechanical equipment refers to HVAC and other equipment that will be used as needed by the project after completion of construction (i.e., operation). This equipment may operate during the nighttime hours. A discussion of the noise associated with HVAC equipment is presented in the Draft EIR (refer to page 4.4 -15). That discussion indicated that properly designed systems typically comply with limits established by the Noise Ordinance. Nonetheless, a mitigation measure has been prescribed to ensure that noise equipment complies with the noise level limits specified by the City's Noise Ordinance. Response to Comment No. 3 ' The reference to Newport Harbor High School "session" refers to the school year, which extends from September through June. In order to avoid the 15- minute (worst case) peak period that is associated with high school traffic, the mitigation measures prescribed for the proposed project would require that construction traffic be directed away from the 15" Street/Irvine Avenue intersection during the morning ' and afternoon "peak" hours, which include the 15- minute peak period related to school traffic. Non -peak hours, for the purpose of this measure and the avoidance of the 15- minute peak periods are between 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. ' Response to Comment No. 4 ' As indicated in Section 4.3.4.1 (refer to page 4.3 -6) in the Draft EIR, the removal of the demolition debris is estimated to take less than two days, based the removal of that material (i.e., 3,000 cubic yards) at the rate of 100 trucks per day made by multiple trucks. The removal of the 50,000 cubic yards of excavated earth material will require 36 days. Exhibit 4.2.4 (Ste Logistics Plan) illustrates the manner in which haul ' trucks and construction equipment would access the site. That exhibit indicates that trucks would enter the site from 151" Street, continue through the existing parking lot in a southerly direction and exit the site at St. Andrews Road. There is ample area within the site to accommodate haul trucks. The Construction ' Traffic Control Plan will address the issue of queuing by haul trucks to ensure that adequate circulation along 15'" Street or other roadways is maintained during the demolition and construction phase. Response to Comment No. 5 ' The intent of the recommendation was to NOT have church parking in front of any homes. The limits of the recommended street sections will be modified to make this clear. Church staff and volunteers will be ' St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church Draft EIR Responses to Public Comments June 9, 2004 ' 9 I used to set up parking areas and to direct parking activities. "Otherwise restrict' simply means that there ' may be items other than cones used to delineate parking areas. Any parking restriction on the public street would be directed at church traffic, and would be implemented in cooperation with the City. ' Response to Comment No. 6 Unauthorized activities include anything unlawful occurring within the proposed parking garage. The ' recommendations of the Newport Beach Police Department are presented in Section 4.6.5 and include such measures as closing off the subterranean parking lot to vehicular and pedestrian traffic when not in use, providing ample lighting for the structure during both the day and nighttime hours, and the use of , convex mirrors to monitor the structure. The Police Department believes that these measures will reduce the potential (i.e., minimize) for unauthorized activities to occur on the site. As the Draft EIR indicates, the Police Department does not believe that project implementation will result in an increase in the demand for law enforcement services that would necessitate an increase in manpower and/or equipment. As a result, ' the potential impacts on law enforcement would be less than significant. Response to Comment No. 7 While it is possible that some of the utilities serving the subject property may be temporarily halted during the site preparation and construction phase, project implementation will not result in any disruption of utility , service, including sewer, water, electricity, gas and /or television, to the residential dwelling units in the vicinity of the subject property. Response to Comment No. 8 ' As prescribed in Section 4.2 (Traffic and Parking), the applicant will be required to prepare and submit a Construction Traffic Control Plan, which must be approved by the City of Newport Beach. The Newport- ' Mesa Unified School District will also be required to provide the City of Newport Beach with similar details that reflect their renovation and /or construction plans to ensure that adequate circulation, including emergency access, during the construction phase of either project is maintained. Nonetheless, SC 4.2 -2 ' will be revised as indicated below to reflect the need to reflect any concurrent construction activities associated with the Newport Harbor High School renovation project. SC 4.2 -2 Prior to issuance of the demolition permit, the contract shall submit a Construction ' Traffic Control Plan (including a bike lane detour plan), to be prepared by a registered traffic engineer and submitted to the City of Newport Beach for approval. Prior to preparation of the plan, the contractor shall contact the ' Newport-Mesa Unified School to determine whether construction and /or renovation activities at the high school will occur at the same time as demolition and construction of the proposed project. The Traffic Control Plan prepared for ' the proposed project shall reflect any concurrent construction activities that occur at the high school. Approval shall be required prior to issuance of the authorization to proceed. All traffic control work for construction shall conform to the requirements as stipulated by the City of Newport Beach, including lane ' reductions, use of flagmen, etc. I St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church Draft EIR ' Responses to Public Comments June 9, 2004 10 i, J ' RE: Draft Environmental Impact Report St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church SCH #2003081065 1 Gentlemen: 1 I have reviewed the above mentioned Environmental Impact Report and find that the report is very favorable with regards to the proposed development by St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church. If the church will adhere to the mitigation factors, which seem to be reasonable for the church to accomplish, then there is no negative impact on the community. I believe that the additional buildings will enhance the community both, for the youth as well as families within the community. The issue is not to address St. Andrew's as far as its current location and its current facilities, the issue is how can the facility be enhanced to positively impact the community in a much greater way. Given the information in the report and given the plans that are proposed I would hope that the Planning Department wiV proceed with approval on this project and present it to the Planning Commission as well as the City Cc cil for their approval. Thank you f your efforts on this project. i I Jon .I esident ;.8485 11 S:Ujma KLetters12004 City of Newport Beach 4I&04.doc CERE Ann: Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 RECEIVED BY CB RICHARD ELLIS PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ' Letter No. 4 APR 2 0 2004 Jon Marchiorlaffi PM 3501 Jamboree Road, Suite 100 Vice President 7 glgllp 111112111213141516 Newport Beach, CA 92660 CB Richard Ellis, Inc. 949.725.8485 Tel Brokerage Services 949.725.8623 Fax ion. ma rchiorlalti@cbre.com www.cbre.com April 16, 2004 ' RE: Draft Environmental Impact Report St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church SCH #2003081065 1 Gentlemen: 1 I have reviewed the above mentioned Environmental Impact Report and find that the report is very favorable with regards to the proposed development by St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church. If the church will adhere to the mitigation factors, which seem to be reasonable for the church to accomplish, then there is no negative impact on the community. I believe that the additional buildings will enhance the community both, for the youth as well as families within the community. The issue is not to address St. Andrew's as far as its current location and its current facilities, the issue is how can the facility be enhanced to positively impact the community in a much greater way. Given the information in the report and given the plans that are proposed I would hope that the Planning Department wiV proceed with approval on this project and present it to the Planning Commission as well as the City Cc cil for their approval. Thank you f your efforts on this project. i I Jon .I esident ;.8485 11 S:Ujma KLetters12004 City of Newport Beach 4I&04.doc City of Newport Beach Ann: Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 ' RE: Draft Environmental Impact Report St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church SCH #2003081065 1 Gentlemen: 1 I have reviewed the above mentioned Environmental Impact Report and find that the report is very favorable with regards to the proposed development by St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church. If the church will adhere to the mitigation factors, which seem to be reasonable for the church to accomplish, then there is no negative impact on the community. I believe that the additional buildings will enhance the community both, for the youth as well as families within the community. The issue is not to address St. Andrew's as far as its current location and its current facilities, the issue is how can the facility be enhanced to positively impact the community in a much greater way. Given the information in the report and given the plans that are proposed I would hope that the Planning Department wiV proceed with approval on this project and present it to the Planning Commission as well as the City Cc cil for their approval. Thank you f your efforts on this project. i I Jon .I esident ;.8485 11 S:Ujma KLetters12004 City of Newport Beach 4I&04.doc 4. CB Richard Ellis (April 16, 2004) Response to Comment No. 1 This letter expresses support for the proposed expansion of St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church, based on the incorporation of the proposed mitigation measures. This letter will be forwarded to the Newport Beach Planning Commission and City Council for their consideration. No further response is necessary. St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church Draft EIR Responses to Public Comments June 9, 2004 12 APR -27 -2004 14:45 ' Letter No. 5 April 21. 2004 Mayor Ridgeway and Council James Campbell, Senior Planner City of Newport Beach Planning Department P. O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 Fax number:(949) 644 -3229 e -mail: jcampbell@city.newport- beach.ca.us P.04 RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH APR 3 0 2004 7181911 0 11 1 11 2 11 1213141516 Re: 5t. Andrews Presbyterian Church Proposed Expansion Draft EIR, SC H: 2003081065 1 Dear Honorable Mayor, Council and Mr. Campbell: I have a number of concerns regarding the DEIR for the proposed expansion of ' St. Andrews. I believe the expansion plan is inappropriate for a residential neighborhood. There will be major increases in traffic on the surrounding 1 residential streets that are not addressed in this report. I believe the traffic ' volumes in the area already exceed acceptable standards for residential streets and much of the problem is being caused by the previous church expansion. I own rental property nearby St Andrews and I believe my tenants may move out 1 if this project is approved due to the increased noise, traffic and pollution. I believe the EIR is inaccurate and does not reflect the increased traffic and congestion that will result if either the parking facilities or the building square 2 footage is increased. I am not in favor of rezoning the St. Andrews parcel, increasing the parking facilities or increasing the square footage of the buildings. Any of these changes, separately or collectively, will have a significant, Permanent, adverse impact on my property value and rental income. Sincerely. X Name: �rt/ cJ CUH NS Owner of : /90/ Newport Beach CA 92663 yy�� Owners Mailing address: S3 DC nl �fE I 1 1 13 TOTAL P.04 5. Ann E. Evans (April 21, 2004) Response to Comment No. 1 This letter expresses opposition to the proposed expansion of St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church based on the "inappropriateness" of the project in a residential neighborhood due to major increases in traffic. This letter will be forwarded to the Newport Beach Planning Commission and City Council for their consideration. Response To Comment No. 2 While no specific comments are identified, concerns related to increased demand for parking and increased traffic in the neighborhood are expressed. It is important to note that the traffic analysis was conducted in accordance with the City's prescribed methodology using standard trip generation rates and reflects the result of the study based on the proposed increase in floor area proposed by the applicant. The most significant impacts anticipated as a result of the proposed project are those that would occur during the estimated 11 -month construction phase; however, with the implementation of a Construction Traffic Control Plan, it is anticipated that these temporary impacts will be reduced. Also, the parking proposed by the applicant is intended to reduce the demand for parking on neighborhood streets. The 400 proposed parking spaces, combined with on- street parking adjacent to the church and that available in the Newport Harbor High School 15'" Street parking lot will minimize the number of church - related vehicles that would parking in the neighborhood. St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church Draft EIR Responses to Public Comments June 9, 2004 14 1J I Letter No. 6 Campbell, James RECEIVED BY From: robert.craig @ablestik.com PLANNING DEPARTMENT Sent: Wednesday, April 21, 2004 1:00 PM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH To: jcampbell@city.newport-beach.ca.us To The City of Newport Beach Planning Commissioners and City Council Members: APR 2 1 2004 71819110111112111213141516 My name is Robert Craig and I live at 418 Snug Harbor Road in Cliff Haven. My house is about a half a block from the St. Andrews Church Complex. It is my understanding that the Church is planning an expansion that involves an underground parking structure and a 40,000 square foot expansion. I 'have reviewed the draft EIR and I also have seen the plans. I am in complete opposition to this proposed expansion. My reasons are as follows: 1. Currently my street is one of the main parking areas for members of St. Andrews - not just on Sunday but for nightly events and on Saturdays. This was not supposed to be the case according to the CUP for the previous expansion. In fact, I was a board member of the Cliff Haven Community 1 Association during the period of the last expansion and I distinctly remember that St. Andrews was directed to monitor the parking and take steps to prevent,parking on the neighborhood streets. This never happened. Over the past several years my drive way has been blocked at least a dozen times by Church related vehicles and I have had to call the police department to get this resolved. 2. 1 am opposed to an underground parking structure within line of site of my home. Please ask yourselves the following question: Would I like to stand in my front yard and view a large parking facility in my residential neighborhood? I am sure your answer would be a flat out NO! In addition to the parking structure, we will also be exposed to: the associated lighting necessary to prevent crimes at night the rush of cars all at one time into and out of the parking structure directly down our streets - - imagine 9 AM on Sunday morning about 500 cars travelling down Snug Harbor Road and Pirate Road to the parking structure .............and then 11 AM those 500 cars all leave at the same time. because of the complexity of moving that many cars into and out of a parking structure, who in their right mind would want to park in the structure? Their first choice would be the neighborhood streets..... same situation as exists today...... only more so because of the expansion. 3. What steps will be taken to mitigate the inherent crime that will take place in the parking structure during late night hours? Who will police this open structure? 4. Please review the Home Depot structure on Harbor Blvd....... if you approve the proposed expansion to St. Andrews then you will approve a facility in our residential neighborhood that will be larger than Home Depot. St. Andrews was at one time a neighborhood church that serviced the local Newport Beach area. I contend that is time to limit the size of the facility and another branch can be constructed at another location. ISincerely, 1 15 Robert J. Craig 418 Snug Harbor Road Newport Beach, Ca 92663 949 - 548 -4271 1 I I This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. For more information please visit http: / /www.messagelabs.com /email 16 6. Robert J. Craig (April 21, 2004) Response to Comment No. 1 1 This comment identifies an enforcement issue related to monitoring parking associated with church activities. There is no specific comment related to the analysis presented in the Draft EIR and no response is necessary. Response to Comment No. 2 This comment expresses opposition to the proposed subterranean parking structure. Although the comment makes reference to a "... large parking facility ... ", it is important to note that the proposed parking structure is a subterranean facility, which includes a surface parking lot in virtually the same place as the existing surface parking lot. An above -grade parking structure is not proposed on the subject property. The comment also indicates a belief that 500 cars will use Snug Harbor and Pirate Road twice each Sunday and a belief that these cars will not use the proposed parking structure since street parking will be more convenient. As prescribed in the Draft EIR, a Parking Management Program must be prepared and submitted to the City for approval. That plan will list the allowable parking areas and will instruct church members where to park to minimize the amount of parking that occurs along the nearby residential streets. As indicated in MM 4.2 -4, the Parking Management Program will instruct members not to park on any neighborhood streets. Response to Comment No. 3 As indicated in Section 4.6, the Newport Beach Police Department does not believe the proposed parking structure will inherently lead to crime; however, several measures have been identified to minimize the potential for criminal activity. These measures include incorporating features so that the parking structure can be closed off to vehicular and pedestrian traffic when not In use, providing adequate lighting during the day and night, and the use of convex mirrors to eliminate hiding places in the parking structure. The 1 Police Department has indicated that the proposed project would not adversely affect emergency response times and should not have a negative effect on normal traffic flow. No significant impacts associated with project implementation were identified by the Police Department. Although on -site security is the responsibility of the church, the Newport Beach Police Department will continue to be responsible for providing law enforcement, including that associated with criminal activities in the parking structure. ' Response to Comment No. 4 This comment suggests that the proposed project will create a development intensity similar to that of the Home Depot on Harbor Boulevard. Although it may be true that the church may be larger than the Home Depot, the development intensity of the church should not be compared to the intensity of the Home Depot because the uses are substantially different and have different characteristics. The greatest increase in floor area of the church results from the gymnasium (6,895 square feet) and storage space (approximately 1 16,000 square feet). It is anticipated that virtually the same uses that current take place on the site would occur in the new structures, including the gymnasium, which will accommodate some of the recreation programs that are currently conducted outdoors. The increase in general assembly area and classrooms represents approximately 20 percent of the proposed expansion area (i.e., approximately 7,500 square feet). St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church Draft EIR Responses to Public Comments June 9, 2004 17 ALLEN, MULLINGS & ALLEN LLP ' ATTORNEYS AT LAW Letter No. 7 BARRY L. ALLEN 2021 E. FOURTH STREET TEL: (714) 558 -6991 , THOMAS D. MULLINGS SUITE 120 FAX: (714) 558 -0638 DEBRA E. ALLEN SANTA ANA, CA 92705 -3999 IRS A 33- 0709655 April 22, 2004 I Jim Campbell Senior Planner CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH City Hall 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92660 Re: St. Andrews Church Dear Mr. Campbell RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH APR 2 6 2004 AM PM ?81911011111211121314156 , r Enclosed please find the EQAC report on the St. Andrews EIR. , If you have any questions feel free to call me. Very truly yours, BARRY L. ALLEN BLA: deu cc: Robert Hawkins (w /enc.) 18 I -. M 1 TO: Jim Campbell, Senior Planner of City of Newport Beach FROM: EQAC ISUBJECT: EQAC Report on the St. Andrews Church Draft EIR On April 19, 2004, at the Committee's regular monthly meeting, the EIR and proposed project by St. Andrews Church was discussed. Present during this discussion were representatives of St. Andrews Church. The following is the EQAC report on the Committee's review of the draft EIR: In Appendix B are the NOP comment letters. Conspicuously absent is the NOP comment letter made by EQAC. No explanation has been offered to the subcommittee as to why this particular letter was not included in the EIR. The final EIR should include EQAC's comments. 1 1. Land Use and Planning: 1 (a) Section 3.2.3 Existing Zoning (page 3 -9) - The first sentence incorrectly references the southern portion of the subject property as being zoned R -1 and the northern portion zoned R -2. According to Exhibit 3 -6, the reference is reversed. 1 (b).. Section 3.5 Project Phasing (page 3 -20) - Under the paragraph entitled "Weekend Church Activities" there is a reference to permit no. 4014 and the dates don't make 1 2 sense. We assume the effective date is July 5, 2005 and it expires November 6, 2005. Considering the lengthy construction process this permit is likely to lapse before the project is started or completed. (c) Candidate properties currently being investigated for off -site parking 3 include the Ardell property. Ardell has indicated that their property is not available for an ioff -site parking agreement with the church. (d) Section 4.1.1 Existing Conditions (Land Use and Planning) - Housing 4 Element (page 4.1 -2) - The last sentence refers to areas available for in -fill development and includes the upper castaways property that has been developed for over five years. 5 (e) Recreation and Open Space Element (page 4.1 -2) - Bob Henry Park is located in the referenced area. 1 I 1 19 I (f) Page 1 -5, Table 1 -1, Potential Impact No. 2 - Revise the first sentence by 6 inserting the word "not" as shown in bold "the proposed project is not consistent with the Newport Beach General Plan." ' (g) Page 8 -2, second full paragraph - Delete the second and third sentences that state "amendments to the City's general plan are not unusual and do not represent a radical 7 change to the land use adopted for the site. The City frequently considers amendments to the adopted general plan." These statements understate the importance of general plan amendments ' and represent more opinion than fact. $ (h) Page 9 -3, Section 9.3.1 Land Uses and Planning - The second paragraph is unclear and should be revised. (i) Page 9 -3, Section 9.3.1 Land Uses and Planning - The third paragraph concludes that concurrent construction at Newport Harbor High School and the church does not represent any significant cumulative impact because construction impacts are temporary. Before 9 a conclusion of no significance is reached, a discussion of the duration of concurrent construction activity and severity of the potential inconvenience to residents is necessary. In ' other parts of the EIR they indicate that the high school plan is already in effect and is expected to last for two years and the "construction schedule" for the proposed project is 11 months. 0) Page 10 -4, Section 10.4.1 No Project/No Development Alternative and page 10 -8, Section 10.4.2.7 Elimination /Reduction of Significant Impacts indicate that there is ' no limitation on religious activities or hours of activities. This statement conflicts with 10 statements elsewhere in the document that indicate the 1985 use permit placed a limit on - concurrent activities to be no greater than the sanctuary use (see Section 10.4.3.1). These sections should be corrected if the church does have limitations on overall activities on the site. 2. Air Quality: (a) Project construction will result in temporary impacts, particularly with 11 respect to demolition and excavation of the parking garage. Fugitive dust will be controlled by ' water and other stabilizers, based on SCAQMD Rule 403. (b) The hauling of debris to a disposal site 18 miles away will exceed the , 12 SCAQMD threshold established for NOX from the trucks. Until the emission technology with respect to the type of truck being used becomes fmancially feasible for truck manufacturers, this problem will remain for any and all projects that require hauling of similar debris. I 20 1 I (c) Overall the project draft EIR, pages 4.3 -8 states: "The project will not 13 result in a significant local air quality impact" provided all mitigation measures are taken. Due to the length of construction (one year), should the policy makers require additional mitigation? 3. Noise: (a) The City ordinance that controls for noise from construction equipment, 14 limits the hours of construction from 7:00 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. Monday through Friday, at 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Saturdays. 11 1 15 i LJ (b) Page 4.4 -2, third paragraph "ambient noise levels" - There are two potential weaknesses in this study. First, the study was conducted between 10 -11:00 a.m. on a weekday. Most residential neighborhoods are relatively quiet during this time period as most people are at work. The time choice to measure, and the limited time of measurement (1 hour) would bias the study to underestimate the ambient noise level for the area. Further, this is not the time frame when the church will be working at peak capacity. Shouldn't measures be taken on a Sunday morning? (c) Another potential study weakness is that it was conducted during Santa Ana wind conditions that also caused changes in the John Wayne flight path, which is not typical. 16 This factor could bias the study to change ambient noise levels for the area at the time of measurement. This study should be redone. 17 -(d) - At page 4.4 -8; third paragraph =Indicates that construction noise at some homes may reach as high as 96db. This is a very high level as shown in Exhibit 4.4 -3 where the noise is up in the pile driver range. This is a temporary situation, that may be very disturbing to some residents. Maybe it would be wise to notify the homeowners in advance when construction will be close to their homes and the noise levels will be at their peak. This type of mitigation may bring goodwill from the neighbors. (e) On page 9 -6 it indicates that construction noise is exempted by a Newport Beach noise ordinance. Is this correct? Is it correct that construction activities can make as much noise as they want to and neither the City or adjacent residents can complain because such 18 noise is "exempted "? If this is true then it would appear appropriate to notify Harbor High School of this exemption for construction noise so that they will know that such noise that exists during a construction phase will not have to be mitigated by the project proponents. This notice would be important so that those students, staff, and parents of students, might want to take a position on this project. The EIR calls the construction noise a "nuisance ". Legally, that 1 21 I I appears to be the appropriate term but putting up with construction projects at the school, for 24 months, and construction projects on the subject site for at least an 11 -month period of time (the time estimated to build the project) might be considered something more than a "nuisance ", as a layman might understand it. Therefore, it is suggested that a special notification of the noise issues be given to the school so that they will be aware of this matter in order to make sure they bring any concems they might have before the policy makers. (f) On page 10 there is a discussion about noise generated by 200 daily heavy truck trips on the roadways adjacent to the site and specifically 15th Street. The report indicates that less than 3db increase will exist, when these trucks are traveling on 15th Street adjacent to 19- FI`azboiHig -li School -- Tfits commiffee "does not c -'many sped expertise in noise but believes " - -- ' that this particular measurement of increased noise of only 3db for 200 heavy truck trips per day may be incorrect. The report concludes "the greatest noise level increase will be experienced along 15th Street ". The report concludes that because it is only 3db this is less than the "substantial increase requirement" for it to be a significant impact. (g) The EIR contains a Table 8 on page 15 which shows the sounds created , by various activities and indicates that a car passing by in a parking lot at a distance of 50 feet 20 generates 55 to 70db but then concludes that large construction vehicles hauling dirt loads, 200 loads a day, wouldn't be higher than 56.8db in the middle of the classrooms at Harbor High School. (h) With the proposed expansion of the gymnasium /classroom /fellowship , center there is likely to be significantly more activities taking place on this site. This does not appear to be" discussed' or adequately covered in the EIR: The alternative to sending-the matter 21 back for additional studies or information is placing some limitations on the applicant for use ' at these new facilities so that the various elements in the EIR that are being relied upon by the policy makers will not in fact become just "fiction" because of substantially more intensive use of the site by applicant. (i) The gymnasium is identified as part of the project but the EIR is not clear ' 22 1 on its intended use. If the gymnasium is intended by the applicant for more intensive uses /more frequent uses, then the noise element should be reviewed because of this intensification of use. 0) On page 1 -9 it indicates a noise study is being prepared and will be submitted to the City for review prior to issuance of building permits. This should be prepared 23 now and included in the EIR so the policy makers and citizens would have an opportunity to comment before the project is approved (see SUNDSTROM case). F 22 1 P- I ' (k) The EIR under "Mitigation Measures" 4.4.5 states that: "There is some potential that the mechanical systems proposed for the project, if not properly designed, could ' 24 exceed the City's noise ordinance limits." The EIR indicates that a noise study will be prepared and submitted to the City prior to the issuance of building permits. This should be completed before the project is approved by the policy makers and made a part of this EIR. (See ' SUNDSTROM case.) (1) Page 4.4 -11, Table 4.4 -6 - For the roadway segment "Cliff Drive - west ' 25 of Dover Drive ", the two. columns are equal at 0.2. Is the church responsible for all the projected growth of noise on that street? 4. Aesthetics: 26 I(a) At page 4.5 -8, fourth paragraph, fourth line starting with "surrounding" delete "intensity of ", but even then it is not clear what this sentence is attempting to state. 1 27 L 1 I I (b) While there are very good color photos of the existing conditions, there are no visual simulations of the proposed changes. Such graphics would assist the reader in concluding, as has the authors of the EIR that there are no visual impacts. While there are no scenic vistas in the area, residents in the vicinity have expressed concerns about the increased intensity of the project and its compatibility with the residential neighborhood. A better graphic representation of the changes would help explain the difference in the bulk between the existing and the proposed uses. Such graphics should be required to aid the decision makers. (c) -Long Term Operational Impact- starts- on° page 4.5 -8 - The analysis..... concludes that the site photometric plan was prepared which indicates that none of the lighting 28 will result in significant off -site intrusion but there is no mitigation measure to insure that the proposed lighting is implemented as represented. 5. Police Protection: (a) The summary of NOP comments (pages 2 -4 and 2 -5) states that a "subterranean parking structure could create a magnet for criminal activity" as a major concern of the adjacent residential neighbors. To address this concern the draft EIR lists two criteria to 29 determine if an. adverse environmental impact will be created. They are: (1) Increase in demand for law enforcement services to a degree that accepted service standards are not maintained. and (2) Interference with emergency response or evacuation plans. It would appear that this project does not result in the above adverse impacts. However, the draft EIR does not 1 23 30 11 deal with the concern that a magnet for crime may be built. The applicant should be required to design a parking structure that does not become a magnet for criminal activity. The applicant should be required to demonstrate to the policy makers proper design features have been incorporated into the structure to prevent crime. Examples of what might be utilized is open areas in the walls to allow daylight, well lighted underground structure, open and lighted staircases, and surveillance cameras. The applicant should demonstrate that similar features will be incorporated in their parking structure. The police should be asked to supply information on criminal activity in underground parking structures. 6. Traffic and Parking: , (a) The streets around the project are almost all single lane in each direction. , With Harbor High School, the across the street neighbor of the project, the traffic is never going to be great, given the size and capacity of the streets. Fortunately, other than the church school ' (300 students) and church staff and school personnel (118) the traffic generated by the two neighbors generally use the streets at different hours during the day. If the project is approved the EIR anticipates an increase of 320 added car trips on a typical weekday (traffic study, page 21). This figure standing alone would not appear to increase traffic levels in a significant degree. The EIR traffic studies confirm this. (b) Sunday morning traffic was not analyzed (page 15). The project engineers ' 31 utilized "CHURCH" as the way to categorize the project. Is this appropriate when the proposed expansion is not the sanctuary but to the remainder of the project? ' (c) , During the construction phase how does the project intend to enforce the 32 I no heavy truck use during peak traffic hours? (d) During construction what is the proponents plan to allow bicyclists to use 33 15th Street in a safe manner? After all, this area has heavy bicycle use for Harbor High and , Ensign Middle School. 34 (e) On page 4.2.11 a proposed condition is that the contractor has to submit ' a traffic control plan prior to the issuance of the demolition permit. That plan should be submitted at this time so that it can be reviewed by the public and the policy makers to determine if it is a reasonable plan before approving this project. The agency's promise and deferral on the mitigating of this significant impact fails to satisfy CEQA requirements. "By deferring environmental assessment to a future date the condition runs counter to the policy of , CEQA which requires environmental review at the earliest feasible stage in the planning process." SUNDSTROM v. COUNTY OF MENDICINO (1988) 202 CA3d 296, 308. U 24 1 I ' (f) Section 4.2.4.2, Long -Term Operational Inputs (page 4.2 -17) - The unsignalized intersection of Irvine Avenue and 15th Street will operate at level F in the A.M. ' 35 at level E in the P.M. The EIR states this is an acceptable condition because this intersection currently operates at these unacceptable levels. The applicant's project will add traffic to this unacceptable condition. What effort is the applicant willing to make to try and solve this 'admitted traffic problem that is at least partially caused by the existing development on site? (g) Section 4.2.2, Significant Criteria - Currently, the applicant does not meet 1 the required parking spaces for the existing facilities. After the proposed project is completed 36 the applicant will still not have sufficient parking capacity and will require an ordinance variance (62 spaces short). The applicant should be required to meet parking requirements in order to eliminate one of the significant complaints from the neighboring residential community. (h) The church has a staff of 118 people (page 3 -4 and 3 -6). Where are they 37 going to park during construction when the parking lot is removed and the parking garage is under construction? ' (i) There are 300 students in the church school. All the children are of an age that they would not be driving their own motor vehicles to the site. How are the students ' 38 in the church school going to arrive at school and be safely delivered and transported to the school during construction? 0) Exhibit 4.2 -3 Diagrams off street parking in all the residential areas surrounding the site. This provides 626 on street parking places. 462 of those will be occupied 39 on Sunday-if no parking is provided on site during construction and -if Harbor High School - ' doesn't allow the use of its parking lot because of its own construction activities going on at the same time. (k) On a typical Sunday now 490 cars were determined to be parked in the church lot, school lot, and on the street during Sunday church activities. The obvious question is where do these 490 cars park during the construction phase of the church when there is no on site parking available? On page 4.2 -11 a condition on the project is for the church to submit an off site parking management program during the construction phase. The policy makers ' 40 should require that program to be provided at this time for viewing by the policy makers to see if it is in fact a practical solution for the parking problem. Such important guidelines should not be left to some consideration after the project is approved but before the issuance of a 1 "demolition permit ". That doesn't give the public a chance to comment on the plan unless this is part of the EIR and the documents that the policy makers and public can review prior to any approval of the project. (See SUNDSTROM case.) I 1 25 I I (1) Under PARKING on page 4.2 -12, the first paragraph, it indicates that construction crews will be shuttled to the site from an off site location and will not be allowed to park on local streets. Where is the "off -site location "? What method is suggested for ' 41 enforcement of this requirement on construction workers? If a construction worker parks on a local street and then walks to the job site what do you do to him? Many construction workers bring the equipment they need to do their job in their trucks. How does the proponent plan to , get the product that they use to perform their jobs to the site if their trucks have to be parked far away and then they as individuals are shuttled to the site? (m) On page 4.2 -12 there is discussion of an alternative parking site as being r 42 1 at the Lighthouse Coastal Community Church. Is there a written agreement between the churches to allow this? ' 26 1 (n) On page 9 -2 of the EIR there is a discussion of plans at Harbor High School for significant work to be completed on site and in some instances involving 15th Street and Irvine Avenue within an 18 to 24 month period beginning in approximately May 2004. The 43 EIR goes on to conclude, on page 9 -3, that because these projects are temporary these impacts would cease upon the completion of the project. Considering the length of time of the two ' projects, is it appropriate to burden the residents in the area with not only the construction projects of the school but also the construction projects at the applicant's site at the same time? , (o) The City requires one parking space for each three seats and the church seats1387 people. The proposed parking on site is 400 spaces. The church will therefore be �. 44 under parked by 62 spaces even with the increased parking being built. In approving this project •— . the policy makers must consider whether allowing such a deficiency in parking to exist is appropriate. ' (p) The EIR proposes a parking management program to instruct church members where to park (page 1 -7). This "program" is basically telling people where to park 45 off -site. Is it appropriate to allow this project when the parking plan mainly involves using street parking in a residential neighborhood? ' (q) St. Andrews is a good neighbor and provides valuable services to the 46 community. However, they're in a basically R -1 neighborhood. The question needs to be asked: Is this just too much to give in this particular location? (r) The EIR concludes that parking on the city streets will "reduce demand 47 for parking along residential streets" (page 4.2 -19 and various other locations in EIR). The streets where the parking is proposed are "residential streets ". 26 1 I P (s) Another suggested mitigation for parking is set forth on page 4.2 -21 and indicated "with the exception of special or unusual events that now take place at the church, no concurrent use of other assembly areas within the church property that exceeds the approved 48 capacity of 1387 persons will be permitted at any time." Is the applicant willing to allow a condition on the project for this mitigation measure? If so, then it would appear that the ' sanctuary could not be used for services at any time when any other area of the church property is being utilized for any other purpose at all. 1 (t) On page 4.2 -12 the EIR indicates that the church and the high school have 49 "entered into a temporary agreement that gives th? church the exclusive use of parking at the ' high school." The policy makers should require a copy of this agreement. (u) The traffic study, at page 35, suggests that when the project is completed, ' if it is completed as planned, it would now have substantial excess parking capacity available except on Sundays. The traffic study recommends the church therefore issue a greater number 50 of parking permits to the high school to reduce the need for neighborhood street parking by ' students and staff on school days. The policy makers should request /require of the applicant that such an agreement be made between the church and the school on the basis that it would be of a substantial benefit to the residents in the area. ' (v) The traffic study seems to be incomplete in one area. When you have church activities on a weekday for not only the sanctuary are in use, but you have Harbor High ' School in session, and you have the church school in session plus the other daily activities that 51 are set forth in the church calendar that take place throughout the day. Wouldn't it be appropriate, -and of assistance to the policy makers, to have a study done on,a weekday of-the parking and traffic in the area when the church has a memorial service /funeral at the same time as all the above activities are also taking place? ' (w) The EIR on page 4.2 -21 indicates that "project implementation ... will not 52 exacerbate any existing parking deficiencies in the neighborhood." In view of the studies set forth in the EIR this would appear to be an inappropriate finding. 7. Miscellaneous: L n L (a) LIGHTING - On page 1.11 a lighting study is discussed with an evening inspection to take place prior to the issuance of a building permit. If it is impractical to conduct 53 that study and include that in the EIR (see SUNDSTROM case) isn't that something that should be required to be published to the citizens in the area so that they might attend the inspection to determine what effect the lighting study may have on the residential area? 27 (b) On page 1 -13 the last item indicates that adequate sewer, water and storm 54 drainage facilities are located within the existing street system. The EIR should point out what study they are referring to that indicates that these storm drainage facilities that are located in existing street system are sufficient. 28 ' 7. Newport Beach Environmental Quality Affairs Committee (April 22, 2004) ' The NOP comment letter submitted by EQAC was considered during the preparation of the Draft EIR and its inclusion in the Draft EIR was an oversight.. The comment letter will be included in the final EIR with other NOP comments letters. Land Use and Planning Response to Comment No. 1 ' As indicated in this comment, the first sentence in Section 3.2.3 on page 3 -9 inadvertently reversed the zoning on the north and south portions of the site. This comment correctly identifies the zoning reflected ' on Exhibit 3 -5, which indicates that the northern portion of the site is zoned R -1 and the southern portion of the site is zoned R -2. The Final EIR will be revised to read: ' "The larger northern portion of the subject property is zoned R -1 (Single Family Residential) and the southern portion of the site is zoned R -2 (Duplex Residential)." Response to Comment No. 2 iThe effective dates on the permit are July 5, 2005 through November 6, 2005. The applicant has indicated that similar temporary permits will be sought by the applicant and granted by Newport-Mesa ' Unified School District in the future to cover the construction period. Response to Comment No. 3 ' At the time the Draft EIR was written, the church was discussing the use of the Ardell property as a potential candidate site for off -site parking. This comment that the Ardell property is no longer available for use by the church for off -site parking is acknowledged, although the validity of the statement is not ' known. The Final EIR will be revised to reflect this information (i.e., the reference to the Ardell property to accommodate potential off -site parking will be deleted). Response to Comment No. 4 The discussion on page 4.1 -2 of the Castaways property and described it as "residential infill" is a reference from the Housing Element of the City's General Plan that described that property at the time the Housing Element was prepared. This statement will be eliminated from the document. Response to Comment No. 5 ' This comment is acknowledged. The Final EIR will be revised to reflect the fact that Bob Henry Park is located in Service Area 3. Response to Comment No. 6 This comment is acknowledged. The first sentence in the second impact under Land Use and Planning will be revised as indicated below. "While the proposed project is not consistent with the land use designation adopted on the Land Use ' Element of the Newport Beach General Plan, the increase in floor area is not consistent with the floor area allocation prescribed for the subject property." ' St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church Draft EIR Responses to Public Comments June 9, 2004 ' 29 Response to Comment No. 7 1 This comment is acknowledged and the second and third sentences in the second full paragraph on page 8 -2 will be deleted as recommended in this comment. Response to Comment No. 8 The second paragraph on page 9 -3 will be deleted in the Final EIR and replaced with the following . paragraph. "Implementation of some of the approved and proposed projects previously identified may result in the ' reduction of open space resources because they may be undeveloped and /or may possess open space features. The conversion of these undeveloped and /or underdeveloped properties will also result in urbanization and will be characterized by the effects associated with site development (e.g., loss of open , space, increased intensity of use, etc.). However, the St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church site is currently entirely developed with structures, surface parking and landscaping and does not possess any natural open space. As a result, implementation of the proposed project (i.e., intensification of the site) will not contribute to that incremental loss of open space caused by other approved and pending projects ' identified in this section" Response to Comment No. 9 ' Section 9.3.1 acknowledges that the concurrent construction and remodeling activities that will be underway at Newport Harbor High School and at the church will result in increased traffic, noise and air quality impacts on a temporary basis. The most significant of these impacts would be anticipated during the estimated two -month grading operation at the church necessary to construct the underground parking garage. Up to approximately 200 heavy trucks per day would be generated by these activities at the church. However, upon completion of the hauling activities, the trips would cease. In order to ensure that , the additional heavy truck trips are minimized to the maximum extent possible, heavy truck trips that could occur during the school year would be limited to non -peak hours. Further, the City requires the preparation, submittal and approval of a Traffic Control Plan by a registered traffic engineer that would ' meet all of the requirements stipulated by the City, which are intended to minimize impacts in the neighborhood. Therefore, the project - related impacts would be addressed through these measures. Construction activities at NHHS include remodeling and modernization projects that will not require the closure of parking lots or streets. Construction staging is planned to be accommodated within the existing campus and unusual construction - related traffic is not anticipated (i.e., significant demolition debris or dirt hauling). It is anticipated that both the Newport-Mesa Unified School District and project applicant will coordinate their efforts during the length construction phases of each project (i.e., 24 months for the ' school and 11 months for the church) to ensure that the combined cumulative impacts are minimized and the effects on the residential neighborhood are reduced to an acceptable level. Response to Comment No. 10 While there is a specific limitation or restriction on the concurrent use of portions of the site (i.e., the concurrent use of the sanctuary and chapel shall not exceed the capacity of the sanctuary, which is 1,387 seats), the City has neither limited nor restricted the numbers or types of activities that may occur during the church's hours of operation. Hours of operation are not presently restricted in any. St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church Draft EIR Responses to Public Comments - June 9, 2004 30 , IAir Quality Response to Comment No. 11 The statements are accurate. As indicated in the Draft EIR (refer to the standard conditions identified in Section 4.3.3 on page 4.3 -6), the project must comply with applicable SCAQMD rules to reduce fugitive ' dust emissions. These conditions will be included in the Mitigation Monitoring and Report Program (MMRP) that will be implemented by the City if the project is approved to ensure that such emissions are minimized. Response to Comment No. 12 The statements are accurate. As indicated in the Draft EIR, if a closer stockpile area for the exported soils cannot be secured, significant short-term air quality impacts will occur. A mitigation measure limiting the total vehicle miles traveled per day will reduce the potential impact to a less than significant level. However, should the City choose to accelerate the grading activities to avoid the school session due to air quality and hazard concerns related to students, a significant unavoidable adverse impact may occur. A Statement of Overriding Considerations would then be necessary to be adopted prior to approving the proposed project. Response to Comment No. 13 While construction will last for one year, the activates that cause the greatest air pollutant emissions, ' demolition of existing buildings, and excavation, will only occur for a small fraction of this time, a few days for demolition and approximately 36 days for excavation and export of dirt form the site. Most of the construction, the actual erection of the buildings, does not generate substantial air pollutant emissions that ' would require any further mitigation. Noise Response to Comment No. 14 The statements are accurate. SC 4.4 -1 on page 4.4 -7 of the Draft EIR requires that the proposed project comply with the City's adopted Noise Ordinance, which prohibits noise - generating construction activities as indicated in this comment. Compliance will be monitored by the City as part of the MMRP. ' Response to Comment No. 15 The noise measurements were taken to document the ambient noise environment in the vicinity of the project. The time period that the measurements were taken was chosen to be a period of lower daytime noise levels to document quieter periods in the vicinity of the project. They are not used in the impact analysis. If the measurements showed existing noise levels substantially above the Noise Ordinance limits they could be used to increase the allowable limits per Section 10.26.025.0 of the Noise Ordinance but were not due to the atypical condition. The measurements were repeated under more typical conditions and are reported below. The ambient noise levels are approach the 55 dBA Leq Noise Ordinance standard. 1 Response to Comment No. 16 The noise measurements were repeated at the same locations as the previous measurements on Wednesday, May 12, 2004. During this day the weather was clear and sunny, there was a typical light breeze, and John Wayne Airport was operating in its normal pattern. The table below shows the results of these measurements along with the previous measurements. ' St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church Draft EIR Responses to Public Comments June 9, 2004 31 Site Date Time Leq Lmax L10, L50 L90 Lmin 1 1/22/04 10:07 59 74 62 57 52 49 1 5/12/04 11:06 55 68 58 53 48 44 2 1/22/04 10:29 56 67 60 52 49 47 2 5/12/04 11:41 53 66 57 50 44 42 The results show that, without Santa Ana Wind conditions, noise levels are somewhat lower in the vicinity of the project. The sources of noise were generally the same: local traffic, playground activities at St. Andrews, aircraft, and distant traffic. The noise levels are well within the range of those expected for a residential area. At Site 1 the maximum noise level for the new measurement was caused by a school buss on Clay Street and at Site 2 the maximum was caused by a commercial jet departure from John Wayne Airport. Response to Comment No. 17 A neighborhood notification program regarding the construction activities associated with the proposed project is a good idea. The following mitigation measure will be incorporated into the Final EIR and will be included in the MMRP. MM 4.4 -2 The applicant shall notify adjacent residents and property owners within the vicinity of the church prior to the commencement of grading, demolition, and /or construction activities that will result in excessive noise levels. Response to Comment No. 18 Section 10.28.040 exempts construction activities from the noise ordinance limits during the specified hours. Demolition and excavation will generate the highest noise levels during the construction of the project. However, these activities are projected to only occur over, at most, a 1.5 -month period. Noise generated by other construction activities that are less reliant on heavy equipment will be substantially lower. There is no reason the school should not be included in the neighborhood notification program discussed in the previous comment. Response to Comment No. 19 When two equal noise levels are added together the resulting noise level is 3 dB higher. When two different noise levels are added together the resulting noise level is less than 3 dB higher than the louder level. When noise levels differing by more than 10 dB are added together the resulting noise level is the higher of the two noise levels. Noise modeling shows that the existing CNEL level at 100 feet from the centerline of 15" Street East of Irvine Avenue is 54.3 dB CNEL based on the existing traffic volume of 4,170 vehicles per day. Noise generated by the trucks will be 52.8 dB CNEL at 100 feet from the centerline. The sum of these two noise levels is 56.7 dB CNEL which represents a 2.4 dB increase over conditions without trucks. This is less than the 3 dB substantial increase threshold. Response to Comment No. 20 We assume that the reference to the 56.8 dB noise level reference is the level presented in Table 4.4 -4 of the DEIR (Table 4 of the technical report) for 15'" Street East of Irvine with trucks. The noise level presented in this table is in terms of CNEL. As discussed in the report CNEL is a 24 -hour average noise level that weights noise occurring during the nighttime hours, 10 pm to 7 am, by 10 dB and noise occurring St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church Draft EIR Responses to Public Comments June 9, 2004 32 I ' during the evening hours, 7 pm to 10 pm, by 5 dB. The CNEL metric is used for assessment of transportation noise sources including traffic noise on public roadways. ' Noise generated on private property is measured against the City's Noise Ordinance, which is in terms of a 15- minute average noise level and a maximum instantaneous noise level that cannot be exceeded. The parking lot noise levels presented in Table 8 of the technical report (Table 4.4 -8 of the DEIR) are in terms of maximum noise levels generated by the activities listed. Therefore, the noise levels mentioned in the comment cannot be directly compared. Maximum ' instantaneous noise levels are solely dependant on the source of noise. CNEL levels are dependent on the source of noise as well as how often and at what time of day the noise occurs. Response to Comment No. 21 The traffic noise level increases analyzed include the effects of increased traffic to and from the project due to the proposed expansion. This analysis shows that the increased traffic will not result in a significant noise impact. Noise impacts from activities on the project site are measured against the City's Noise Ordinance. The City's Noise Ordinance limits are in terms of a 15- minute Leq (average) noise level and a maximum noise level that cannot be exceeded. The analysis presented in the report shows that the new activities are not anticipated to exceed the limits specified in the Noise Ordinance. The measurements presented in the study and above show that the noise levels in the area are near the Noise Ordinance limits (55 dBA Leq for daytime). Therefore, because the activities will be required to comply with the Noise Ordinance they will not substantially increase the noise levels in the vicinity of the project. ' Response to Comment No. 22 ' The intended use of the gymnasium is for youth athletic activities, assembly functions and social gatherings, including dances. Refer to Response to Comment No. 21, above. Response to Comment No. 23 Specific equipment specifications (i.e. manufacturer and model) are required for a detailed noise assessment to predict noise levels from the mechanical equipment. At this time this information is not available and therefore, this analysis cannot be prepared. As discussed in the report there is no reason that a properly designed system cannot comply with the Noise Ordinance limits. The essence of the mitigation measure is that the noise generated by mechanical equipment needs to comply with the City's ' Noise Ordinance. To ensure compliance, this study will be required, prior to issuance of building permits. Any measures required so that the system does not exceed the Noise Ordinance limits will need to be included in the building plans. ' Response to Comment No. 24 See Response to Comment No. 23, above. Response to Comment No. 25 The existing traffic volume along this segment of Cliff Drive is 3,560 vehicles per day. With the project the traffic volume is projected to grow to 3,764 vehicles per day. Of the new vehicles, 164 are projected to be from the project and the remaining 40 from other growth. Those 40 vehicles increase noise levels by less than 0.1 dB and the majority of the 0.2 dB increase projected is due to the project. ' St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church Draft EIR Responses to Public Comments June 9, 2004 33 I Aesthetics ' Response to Comment No. 26 ' The Final EIR will be revised to delete "the intensity of before the word "development" in the third sentence in the third full paragraph on page 4.5 -8. The intent of that discussion was to convey the notion that although the amount of floor area (i.e., intensity) would be increased on the site, the overall character ' of the site will not change. While it is true that the buildings will be larger and taller than the existing structures, the overall character of the site and area will not change significantly. The new buildings will have similar architecture as the sanctuary and related buildings on the site and will be located in the same , general area. The increased height will require specific findings to be made by the City for approval. Response to Comment No. 27 Visual simulations were not required for the project due to the lack of visual or scenic resources and public views. Additionally, the applicant has prepared a scale model of the proposed project that should assist decision - makers in evaluating the proposed project. Response to Comment No. 28 Two conditions have been included in Section 4.5.3 on page 4.5 -7 of the Draft EIR. These conditions, which require compliance with applicable standards of the Zoning Code and the preparation and approval of a photometric study prepared in conjunction with the final lighting plan, will ensure that project - related lighting will be controlled and no significant impacts to adjacent property owners will occur. All standard , conditions identified in the Draft EIR will be included as conditions of approval to the Use Permit should the City choose to approve the project. Police Protection , Response to Comment No. 29 ' As indicated in the preface to Section 4.6 (Police Protection) on page 4.6 -1 of the Draft EIR, the information presented in the analysis is based on information provided by the Newport Beach Police Department. The Police Department responded to the specific concern of increased criminal activity at the site by indicating that project implementation would not result in a demand for law enforcement services that "... would necessitate an increase in manpower and /or equipment." Nonetheless, several recommendations were identified for consideration by the Police Department because of the proposed subterranean garage. Those measures, which are intended to reduce the potential for illicit activities on ' the site, have been included as mitigation measures. Traffic and Parking , Response to Comment No. 30 This comment is noted. As indicated in the traffic analysis, project implementation would result in an increase of only 328 additional vehicle trips per day. Neither the daily nor peak hour trips associated with project operational characteristics, when added to the existing and future traffic volumes, would result in significant impacts to the intersections evaluated in the traffic analysis. Response to Comment No. 31 , The Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Manual (7th Edition) describes a church as follows: A church houses an assembly hall or sanctuary; it may also house meeting rooms, classrooms, St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church Draft EIR Responses to Public Comments June 9, 2004 34 , i I 1 i 1 I 1 I and occasionally dining, catering, or party facilities." The weekday trip generation rates published by ITE reflect the trip- making characteristics of a church with all its ancillary uses, based on the total square feet of all uses. Sunday traffic was not analyzed, because the focus of a traffic study is the impact of a project on the operation of area intersections during the times when they are carrying their greatest amount of traffic, which are weekday peak periods. Therefore, the traffic analysis represents a "worst case" scenario. Response to Comment No. 32 Typical of any construction site operation, the requirements and restrictions imposed on the project will be communicated to the construction manager, and any infractions by the construction team will be addressed immediately. Further, the City will be required to monitor construction mitigation measures through the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP). Response to Comment No. 33 There is no plan at this time to close any portion of 15 " Street. be designed to ensure safety vehicle /pedestrian /bicycle trave include the use of barricades, flagmen or restriction of heavy heavy school - related traffic. Response to Comment No. 34 The Construction Traffic Control Plan will to the maximum extent. This plan may construction equipment during periods of The City of Newport Beach requires the preparation and submittal of a Construction Traffic Control Plan for approval by the City prior to the issuance of the demolition permit. This "standard" condition prescribed by the City for similar projects is appropriate and does not "defer" environmental review as suggested in this comment. The potential impacts associated with the construction activities have been identified in the Draft EIR. The Construction Traffic Control Plan will provide the appropriate detail regarding specific characteristics of the construction program that may not be known at the present time. The City will review the plan to ensure that all it addresses all of the potential impacts identified in the Draft EIR. Response to Comment No. 35 The uinsignalized intersection at 15" Street and Irvine Avenue will operate at LOS C during the a.m. peak hour and LOS D during the p.m. peak hour. The LOS E and LOS F reflect conditions during the focused 15- minute period within the peak hour. The study does not indicate that LOS "E" or "F" during the 15- minute period is acceptable, but rather, indicates that the project's contribution to intersection operations during that 15- minute period. ' Response to Comment No. 36 The City waived a portion of the required parking when the current sanctuary was approved. Since that ' approval, the parking requirement for religious assembly has increased from one space for every five seats to one space for every three seats. The comment is correct in that the proposed project does not supply the minimum required spaces based upon the current standard. The Draft EIR incorrectly states Ll that the project is 62 spaces deficient. The project is 63 spaces deficient and the EIR will be corrected to reflect this error. The comment that the project should be required to provide the minimum number of off - street spaces required by Code is acknowledged and will be forwarded to the decision - makers. 35 St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church Draft EIR Responses to Public Comments June 9, 2004 i Response to Comment No. 37 1 The applicant has received permission to have their staff park at Lighthouse Coastal Community Church located at 300 Magnolia Street in Costa Mesa during the week. During the weekend, staff and volunteers ' will park on -site or at NHHS or other off -site locations identified. Response to Comment No. 38 ' The applicant plans to close and possibly relocate the pre - school during the construction period. No location for the temporary pre - school has been identified to date by the applicant. ' Response to Comment No. 39 Reference Church operation plans for the construction phases when all on -site parking is unavailable. If , school parking is unavailable at the time the Church parking is under construction, other off -site parking locations will need to be secured. Otherwise, church services will need to be conducted in an alternate location. , Response to Comment No, 40 The comment indicates that the parking study within the Draft EIR has determined that 490 cars are ' attributable to the church on a typical Sunday. This statement is not correct as the Draft EIR indicates that there is no way to determine the exact number of cars attributable to the church on any given day. During construction, church - related cars will park at NHHS, Lighthouse Coastal Community Church, other off -site , parking lots yet to be identified, and on the street. Church vans and busses will be utilized to shuttle church participants to the site. Postponing the preparing of the parking management plan does not change the fact that off -site parking must be secured. The minimum number of spaces that should be , secured is 400 spaces, inclusive of the spaces available in the NHHS lot on 15" Street. Refer to Response to Comment No. 39. Response to Comment No. 41 The construction contractor is responsible for identifying locations for construction crew parking. While those locations have not been identified to date, once the locations are secured they will be identified and , the information will be included in the parking management plan. In addition, the contractor will also be responsible for ensuring that the equipment needed on -site during demolition and /or construction are adequately addressed so that on- street parking in the neighborhood is not utilized. Response to Comment No. 42 While no agreement currently exists, the Lighthouse Coastal Community Church has sent a letter the , project applicant that acknowledges a commitment on the church's behalf to allow use of the existing church parking on a temporary basis to accommodate both staff and church parking needs of St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church during the week. As indicated in the Draft EIR, the staff and others parking , at the remote site would be shuttled to St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church on shuttles and other church vehicles. Response to Comment No. 43 As indicated in this comment, it is anticipated that construction of the proposed project and renovation and , construction at Newport Harbor High School may be anticipated to occur concurrently. SC 4.2 -2 in the Draft EIR requires that the applicant prepare a Construction Traffic Control Plan. That mitigation St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church Draft EIR , Responses to Public Comments June 9, 2004 36 , I measures as been revised to reflect the concurrent construction activities at the two sites. The revised condition is identified below. ' SC 4.2 -2 Prior to issuance of the demolition permit, the contract shall submit a Construction Traffic Control Plan (including a bike lane detour plan), to be prepared by a registered traffic engineer and submitted to the City of Newport Beach for ' approval. Prior to preparation of the plan the contractor shall contact the Newport-Mesa Unified School to determine whether construction and /or renovation activities at the hiah school will occur at the same time as demolition ' and construction of the proposed project. The Traffic Control Plan prepared for the proposed protect shall reflect any concurrent construction activities that occur at the high school. Approval shall be required prior to issuance of the ' authorization to proceed. All traffic control work for construction shall conform to the requirements as stipulated by the City of Newport Beach, including lane reductions, use of flagmen, etc. ' The appropriateness of the concurrent construction at the two sites (as currently anticipated) will be a consideration of the Newport Beach Planning Commission and City Council. ' Response to Comment No. 44 The Draft EIR incorrectly states that the project is 62 spaces deficient. The project is 63 spaces deficient and the EIR will be corrected to reflect this error. The parking analysis concluded that the 400 parking spaces provided on -site, combined with the parking available in the 15'" Street parking lot at NHHS and the on- street parking along 15'" Street, St. Andrews Road, and Clay Street abutting the church will reduce the demand for parking along the residential streets (i.e., that have direct residential frontage). ' Nevertheless, as indicated in this comment, the decision - makers must determine if the resulting on -site parking deficiency is appropriate. Response to Comment No. 45 This statement is incorrect. The parking management plan addresses parking on -site first, then at NHHS, and then along 15'" Street, and specifically calls for Church members to be instructed NOT to park in the ' residential neighborhood. Response to Comment No. 46 This comment, which raises a question related to the intensity of development proposed by the project applicant and the compatibility with the existing residential neighborhood, is acknowledged. While no ' specific issue related to the environmental analysis is raised in this comment, it will be forwarded to the Newport Beach Planning Commission and City Council for consideration prior to taking an action on the proposed project. ' Response to Comment No. 47 The EIR states that providing additional parking on -site, and directing Church members to utilize the ' school parking and the street parking that does not have residential frontage will "reduce or eliminate the need to park on any neighborhood streets with direct residential frontage" ' It appears the intent of the comment is to insist that all streets in the area are "residential streets,' even 15'" Street adjacent to the church and school. The distinction between streets with and without residential frontage is made in the study to be sensitive to the effects of Church - related parking directly in front of one's home. ' St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church Draft EIR Responses to Public Comments June 9, 2004 37 Response to Comment No. 48 As indicated in the Draft EIR, use of the facilities at St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church would be limited to the maximum capacity of the sanctuary, which is based on 1,387 seats. This maximum "occupancy" would be applied to the entire site, including all buildings and grounds, regardless of which facilities are being utilized. It is important to note that the last statement in this comment would be true only if the on- site occupancy reaches 1,387 without use of the sanctuary. However, the sanctuary could accommodate additional occupants as long as the maximum occupancy /capacity allocated to the church facilities is not reached. Response to Comment No. 49 The temporary agreement referenced in the Draft EIR is a temporary permit from the Newport -Mesa Unified School District for the parking of 400 cars on Wednesday, Saturday and Sunday, between July 2005 and November 2006. However, as a point of clarification, a formal agreement beyond this permit for the use of parking by the church at the Newport Harbor High School parking lot(s) does not exist. However, it is important to note that the existing "arrangement" between the church and the District provides for the use of available parking facilities when either the church or District has had events that caused a peak parking demand in order to ease on- street parking demands that affect the surrounding residential neighborhood. This District has indicated a desire to continue the informal arrangement with the church to utilize the existing parking facilities. Response to Comment No. 50 This comment is acknowledged. The recommendation of the EQAC urging the church to allot a greater number of parking spaces for use by the high school is reflected in MM 4.2 -13 in the Draft EIR. This recommendation will be forwarded to the Newport Beach Planning Commission and City Council for consideration prior to taking action on the proposed project. Response to Comment No. 51 The traffic analysis was conducted at the direction of the City Traffic Engineer in accordance with the applicable standards. The analysis evaluated the anticipated "typical" development scenario as proposed by the project applicant using industry accepted trip generation rates. An analysis of mid -week parking related to memorial service parking was not conducted since the capacity of the main sanctuary is not changing and the project will not impact the number of potential memorial services. It should be acknowledged that mid -week memorial services create increased parking demands on the area when school is in session because parking at NHHS is not available. The proposed project increases on -site supply by 150 spaces and memorial services that draw the maximum occupancy of the main sanctuary are not typical events. Response to Comment No. 52 The conclusion that the proposed project would not exacerbate the existing parking deficiencies in the neighborhood is based on the findings of the parking study, which determined that with the addition of 150 parking spaces on -site (albeit 62 spaces short based on the City's parking code requirement of one parking space for each three seats), the availability of parking in the 15" Street parking lot, and the on- street parking that is located on 15'" Street, Clay Street, and St. Andrews Road adjacent to the site, adequate parking would exist without encroaching into the residential streets in the surrounding neighborhood. St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church Draft EIR Responses to Public Comments June 9, 2004 38 I I �7 U IJ I 11 11 Miscellaneous Response to Comment No. 53 The Draft EIR included an analysis of potential light and glare impacts that were based on a photometric plan, which was prepared for the proposed project. As indicated in that analysis (refer to page 4.5 -14, " ... none of the existing or proposed lighting will result in significant off -site intrusion." All of the light created by the proposed project will remain within the limits of the subject property or within the street rights -of- way. All of the illuminance created by the on -site lighting would be reduced to 0.00 footcandle before reaching any residential property. Nonetheless, the City requires that a photometric study be prepared in conjunction with the final lighting plan to ensure project compliance with the City's very rigorous lighting requirements. As indicated in Standard Condition (SC) 4.5 -3, "Lighting shall be in compliance with applicable standards of the Zoning Code." SC 4.5 -4 also requires that the site "... shall not be excessively illuminated based on the luminance recommendations of the illuminating Engineering Society of North America ..." Therefore, the fact that the preliminary analysis concluded that no project - related lighting would extend into the adjacent residential areas and compliance with pre- existing standard conditions will ensure that no significant impacts occur. Response to Comment No. 54 Existing sewer and water facilities are located in the adjacent roadways that will be extended to the new buildings proposed by St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church. The improvement plans are on file with the City's Public Works and Utilities Departments. Consultations with City Public Works and Utilities Department staff indicate that adequate water, sewer and storm drain capacity presently exist to serve the proposed project. 39 St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church Draft E/R Responses to Public Comments June 9, 2004 1 4 Letter No. 8 April 26, 2004 James Campbell, Senior Planner City of Newport Beach Planning Department P. O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 Fax number:(949) 644 -3229 e -mail: jcampbell @city.newport- beach.ca.us 143o Date O I Copies Sent To: L �- t7layor /�euncil Member ' r] Alanager ttor y ' Re: St. Andrews Presbyterian Church Proposed Expansion Draft EIR, SCH: 2003081065 Dear Jim: My biggest gripe about the DEIR is the traffic findings. Knowing that the Church is in violation of the existing CUP (they have covered up their requirement of Saturday reporting attendance) we have been in a situation where the City has been asleep at the wheel and the church has much more in programs and traffic than the makers of the original CUP ever imagined. And, this is not fair. In light of this, I'm very worried about the addition of far greater velocity and trips because of an expansion. The greatest let down, according to the DEIR, is knowing that the City has already accepted a LOS (level of service) D and might consider ordinary, E and F. As you know these are awful traffic levels a driver may expect in LA, but not here. I have serious concern that the City is permitting high thresholds of LOS in residential areas. The result, as is the case with this traffic analysis, finds these levels of service rather ordinary, and worse, end up allowing this application to proceed in that the City may offer findings of no impact. Having lived her for over 25 years, I can tell you that our communities have no intention 3 in lowering our standards and, if the State is telling staff that, `it's ok', It's like my friends in our community say, we want better for ourselves. 4 Find that these mitigation measures are too weak and that our LOS allowances are too high. Recommend denial to the Commission. You should want better for us too. Yours very truly, Cra K4zz e L, 0- 69� Fc Mayor and City Council 40 11 1 i �J J I i LJ J �l 11 I 8. Barbara Rawling (April 26, 2004) Response to Comment No. 1 The writer is suggesting in this comment that the existing church is in violation of the present conditions of approval by not monitoring parking and reporting attendance. However, the church has submitted the required attendance reports that cite the attendance during Sunday worship services. The City of Newport Beach staff believes that the requirement to report attendance relates to Sunday worship services only. Although the church has not submitted information related to their obligation to monitor parking usage, reporting parking usage is not specifically required by the condition imposed by the City. Since the average reported attendance over the past several years has been below 915, the requirement for monitoring parking is not necessary in order to comply with the City's condition. The traffic analysis prepared for the proposed project is consistent with the City's methodology for estimating daily and peak hour trips, which is based on floor area and trip generation rates for similar uses (i.e., churches) as compiled in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual (61' Edition). Response to Comment No. 2 Level of Service (LOS) D operating conditions for intersections in the City of Newport Beach is "acceptable" based on the City's adopted traffic analysis criteria. This level of service for intersections is widely accepted by cities throughout Southern California as the acceptable intersection operating standard. As indicated in the Draft EIR, all of the signalized intersections that were analyzed are currently operating at LOS C or better and will continue to do so in the future with project - related and cumulative traffic added to the circulation network. Only one unsignalized intersection, Irvine Avenue /151" Street, operates at LOS D (acceptable) during the afternoon peak period and LOS E for the 15- minute period in the morning that is characterized by the highest volume of traffic (i.e., that associated with Newport Harbor High School). In the post - development scenario, the intersections that were analyzed as part of the TPO analysis will continue to operate at LOS B or better when project - related traffic is added. Further, the Irvine Avenue /151" Street unsignalized intersection would also operate at an acceptable level of service (LOS D or better) during both the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. The only exception is the 15 -minue period in the morning and afternoon, at which time the a.m. operating condition is projected to be LOS F and the p.m. operating condition is projected to be LOS E. This LOS is not considered a significant impact since there is no significance threshold for a 15 minute period. However, a mitigation measure (MM 4.2 -1) was prescribed that restricts the use of heavy construction vehicles, including trucks hauling construction equipment and materials, to non -peak hours during the construction phase when those activities occur when school is in session. The intent of this measure is to better facilitate traffic access to NHHS and reduce hazards during this period of time. Response to Comment No. 3 This statement does not contain a comment on the adequacy of the Draft EIR. No response is required. Response to Comment No. 4 Implementation of the mitigation measures prescribed in the Draft EIR are intended to reduce the potential impacts to a less than significant level. This statement appears to be directed to the decision - makers who will determine if additional measures may be necessary before taking action on the proposed project. No further response is necessary. 41 St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church Draft EIR Responses to Public Comments June 9, 2004 1 Letter No. 9 April 26, 2004 James Campbell, Senior Planner City of Newport Beach Planning Department P. O. Box 1768 Newport - Beach, CA 92658-8915 e -mail: jcampbeli @city.newporf•beach.ca.us REC r PLANNINt -. CITY OF N APR 8 Yu04 rr. �8 T 19I10 I11 112 Il 1213141516 Fax number:j949j 644 -3229 Re: St. Andrews Presbyterian Church Proposed Expansion Draft EIR, SCH: 2003081065 Dear Mr. Campbell: I have a number of concerns regarding the proposed expansion of St. Andrews. I believe the plan is inappropriate for a residential area and is going to have major adverse affects on my properties in this neighborhood, including my rental property. There will be major increases in traffic, especially on Clay Street, that are not addressed in this report. I believe the EIR is inaccurate and does not reflect the increased traffic and congestion -that will result if either the parking facilities or the building square. footage is increased as proposed. I am opposed to rezoning the St Andrews parcel. I am also opposed to any increase in the parking facilities or any increase in the square footage of the buildings. Any of these changes, separately or collectively, will have a significant, adverse impact on my property values and rental income. I believe my tenants may move out if this project is approved due to the increased noise, traffic and pollution. I have also spoken to several owners and tenants at the following addresses on Clay Street and they share my concerns: 1704,1804,1604,1500, 1401, 1601, 1901, 2005 and 1900 I will be contacting additional owners and tenants on this matter and will encourage them to contact you directly and attend the Council meeting on 5/20/04. If the church wants to provide services that can not fit within the size of the existing facility, they should consider finding an alternative site to build on. This proposed 2 expansion is completely beyond a reasonable scope for a residential neighborhood. A facility as large as the one proposed is more of a regional facility and should be relocated to an area with regional access, Sincerely, Christopher Budnik 2215 E.16th Street Newport Beach CA 92663 42 RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH APR 2 8 2004 PM 7181911011111211 1213141516 I 9. Christopher Budnik (April 26, 2004) ' Response to Comment No. 1 Although several concerns are raised in this letter (e.g., traffic, noise and pollution), no specific comments related to the adequacy of the Draft EIR are presented. It is important to note that the traffic analysis complies with the current methodology prescribed by the City of Newport Beach to evaluate project - related traffic impacts. Traffic increases are predicted and are based upon the increased area proposed and ITE Trip Generation standards for churches. In addition, it is important to understand that although ' the capacity of the sanctuary is not proposed for expansion, the applicant is increasing the number of parking spaces on -site that will serve the church in an effort to alleviate the existing undesirable parking conditions in the surrounding neighborhood. Although the increase in parking will be less than the number prescribed by the parking code, without the increase proposed by the applicant, the existing parking impacts occurring within the residential neighborhood will likely continue. While this comment alludes to major increases in traffic, especially on Clay Street, that are not addressed, the nature and extent of such increases is not identified and a specific response cannot be prepared to address that issue. ' Response to Comment No. 2 ' The remainder of the comments in this letter express opposition to the proposed expansion of St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church based on the "inappropriateness" of the church in a residential neighborhood due to major increases in traffic. This letter will be forwarded to the Newport Beach Planning Commission and City Council for their consideration. _J 1 ' St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church Draft E/R Responses to Public Comments ' June 9, 2004 43 RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH APR 3 0 2004 PM AM I9Iib I11I12 I1I2I3j4j516 1 Letter No. 10 Ron and Novell Hendrickson 1991 Port Claridge Place, Newport Beach, CA 92660 Tel. 949 644 -8644 City of Newport Beach, Planning Dept., Attn: Mr. James Campbell, Senior Planner 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 Subject: DEIR for the St.Andrew's Presbyterian Church, Newport Beach, CA SCH No. 2003081065 March 2004 Dear Mr. Campbell: April 26, 2004 We have reviewed the subject Draft EK and we believe that it deals with the issues that encompass this project. It appears that all of the impacts can be mitigated. We know that the.neigbbors are concerned with traffic, but it appears the St. Andrew's project would have minimal impact on the neighborhood. I attended the City's Newport Heights /Cliff Haven Traffic Calming Study meeting on 2/26/04 at Ensign Middle School, and no questions were raised regarding any St. Andrew's generated traffic. The traffic generated by both Harbor High and Ensign School are obviously the major concern to the neighborhood. We trust that the City Staff, Planning Commission and City Council will provide a fair review of this DEIR and ultimately give it their approval Thank -you for the opportunity to review this document. Sincerely, 44 CC: Councilman John Heffernan 10. Ron and Novell Hendrickson (April 26, 2004) Response to Comment No. 1 The comments in this letter suggest that the Draft EIR adequately evaluates the potential impacts of the proposed expansion of St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church and express support for that expansion. No further response is necessary. This letter will be forwarded to the Newport Beach Planning Commission and City Council for their consideration. St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church Draft EIR Responses to Public Comments June 9, 2004 45 Letter No. 11 ; Campbell, James , From: Don Krotee [dkrotee @krotee.coml RECEIVED BY Sent: Monday, April 26, 2004 12:00 PM PLANNING DEPARTMENT To: James Campbell (E-mail) CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH , Subject: Comments on the St. Andrews DEIR APR 2 6 2004 AM PM 1112 81911011 11[2131415 6 CPS DEIRComment letter- revise... 1 ' Hi Jim: Attached is a file which may have already been sent and received by the City under a separate covert Please acknowledge, this receipt or accept this file as our Community Associations CEQA concerns for this part of the process. Although the EIR has. several inconsistencies and typographical errors, we have deliberately focused, on what the neighborhood feels are substantive issues. I know that all of the comments will receive their equal consideration, however, as a GPAC member, I' am very concerned about the traffic comments wherein a LOS of D is found to be acceptable. The EIR fails to explain what policy of the City establishes that an LOS of D is acceptable. Further, the ., EIR fails to explain if an LOS of D is acceptable only on a collector or higher street, or is it also acceptable on local re; sidential streets. I plan to have the specialists doing the traffic answer these City questions also as involving GP and other policies. , Don Krotee Newport Heights Improvement Association ' dkrotee @krotee.com ; <<CPS DEIRComment letter- revised 4- 26- 04.doc>> ' [_1 46 1 I ' RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH APR 2 6 2004 ' April 26, 2004 AM PM 718191 10 X11112 X11213141516 James Campbell, Senior Planner ' City of Newport Beach Planning Department P. O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 4,2658 -8915 Fax number:(949) 644 -3229 ' e -mail: jampbell@city.newport-beach.ca.us ' Re: St. Andrews Presbyterian Church Proposed Expansion Draft EIR, SCH: 2003081065 ' Dear Mr. Campbell: As requested by Newport Heights Improvement Association, we have reviewed the Draft EIR for the ' proposed St. Andrews Presbyterian Church expansion. We have a number of concerns regarding the content and level of analyses presented in the project Draft EIR. We ask that the City provide a thorough and complete response to each of these comments, summarized below: ' Project Description: ' Section 3.0 of the Draft EIR erroneously implies that the church has occupied the same 3.9 acre site for 50 years. Rather, since moving to the comer of 156 Street and what has been subsequently named St. Andrews Road, the church has systematically purchased additional residential properties, including a ' block of single family homes that used to front Clay Street, and has subsequently been absorbed as part of the church property. The church has also purchased adjacent multifamily properties that it currently uses to house staff. Durin g! the past 50 years, the church has transformed itself from a small neighborhood church to a very large regional facility. Full disclosure of all past church expansions and of church ' properties adjacent toithe site is critical to the City and community understanding the history of the project. ' Further, the Project Description fails to disclose how the church has grown significantly since City approval of its currentUse Permit (LIP) some 20 years ago, and that the church may now be in violation of that UP. The existing UP (No. 822) did not provide for Saturday services. However, for about the last ' 10 years, the church has held Saturday evening services without reporting these activities to the City, as is required by Condition 96 of the existing UP. Air Quality: The analysis of short term air quality impacts contains a number of serious errors. The Draft EIR states that the demolition of the existing church buildings will result in 3,000 cubic yards of debris, and will be removed at a rate of 10,0 truck loads a day. There will be 10 trucks and each truck, according to the EIR, will travel 20 miles to the landfill or 40 miles round trip. The EIR concludes that the debris will be removed in 1.5 days. However, a typical single axle dump truck carries 7 cubic yards of debris. A round ' trip from the church to the landfill, including time to load and unload the trucks, will take about 90 1 47 7 _J St. Andrews Presbyterian Church Expansion April 26, 2004 ' Page 2 of 4 minutes, depending on the time of day and length of queuing at the dump. Optimistically, the quickest a dump truck could enter the church site, be filled with debris and exit the site would be 15 minutes, or 4 t trucks an hour, or at:its best, 32 trucks a day. Dumping the entire 3,000 cubic yards of debris would take at least 13.5 days, or 2.5 workweeks. The: additional 50,000 cubic yards of soil that would need to be excavated and removed would take at least 223 work days or 44.6 work weeks or 1 1 months. Combined, demolition and excavation at the project site will result in 255 works days, about one work year, of all day truck traffic. The dump trucks will make a total of 7,571 trips and travel 290,840 miles. The project air quality analysis does not adequately account for the cumulative impact of these 255 days t and 7,571 trips of truck traffic, nor does it adequately explain the adverse effect of these air quality impacts on adjacent residents, students and the sensitive biological resources within the adjacent Environmental Nature Center. This consistent level of heavy truck traffic will also certainly damage ' neighborhood roads, and cause traffic and noise impacts. Traffic: , Level of Service: The Draft EIR fails to fully present the potential project parking and traffic impacts. The EIR states that an LOS of D is acceptable. However the EIR fails to explain what policy of the City , establishes that an LOS of D is acceptable. Further, the EIR fails to explain if an LOS of D is acceptable only on a collector or; higher street, or is it also acceptable on local residential streets. The EIR then finds that with the proposed church expansion, traffic at the intersection of 15th and Irvine ' will worsen to LOS E during the p.m. peak, and LOS F during the a.m. peak. However, the EIR neglects to explain to the reader the significance of these levels of service. According to the Highway Capacity Manual, a LOS of Emeans that there are high traffic delays, and individual cycle failures are frequent , occurrences. LOS F is gridlock. LOS E and F are traffic levels a driver may expect to experience on freeways or major commercial or urban streets, not in a suburban residential neighborhood. ' Traffic Counts: The Church's primary access points are on Clay Street, but the Draft EIR fails to study traffic impacts on Clay Street. The Draft EIR needs to be revised to assess impacts on Clay Street and also needs to describeithe following: ' • Precise times of peak hours • The days and times traffic and parking studies were conducted • The church activities that were occurring during these times; if there were sermons or lectures, the ' speakers need to ;be identified as attendance at the church varies greatly depending on the orator speaking. ' Best Efforts to Predict Impacts: Pursuant to Section 15144 of the CEQA Guidelines, the lead agency must use its best efforts to find out and disclose all that it reasonably can about a project. The Draft EIR for the church expansion fails to comply with this disclosure requirement. The traffic analysis assumes the additional 35,948 square feet of church facility will not be used on Sunday. However, the church ' currently operates a number of additional activities concurrent with its Sunday services. These additional activities include adult lecture series and seminars, as well as children Sunday school classes. There is nothing in the project application that would preclude the church from holding activities in the additional classrooms, offices and gym/multiuse area during the Sunday services. The church is currently holding Saturday services and other activities outside its existing UP, and it is reasonable to expect that they would operate Sundayy(and Saturday) activities in their new facility. I 48 1 ' St. Andrews Presbyterian Church Expansion April 26, 2004 ' Page 3 of 4 To allow the City and community to understand the full potential impacts of the proposed expansion, the EIR must be revised to account for traffic and parking impacts assuming full use of the new facilities during Sunday services. ' Significant Adverse Impacts: The EIR states that a significant adverse impact will occur if the project traffic causes the ICU at an intersection to increase by 0.01 or more, and the resulting ICU is 0.91 (LOS E). As presented in Table 4.2 -7 of the EIR, the proposed expansion will cause the ICU at the intersection of Irvine Avenue and 15th Street to increase 1.61 percentage points and the resulting LOS is F. By the EIR's definition, this'. is a significant adverse impact. Parking: Table 4.2 -2 contains a number of errors. In several instances, the table suggests that the number ' of available on- street, parking spaces exceeds street parking capacity by more than 55 %. For example, the table states that St. Andrews Road to Clay Street has a capacity of 34 on- street parking spaces, but that there were 53 cars parked on the street. This would not be possible unless half the block were double ' parked. The EIR needs to correct the table and recalculate the parking analysis as required. Parking Structure Driver Behavior: Residents in the greater Newport Beach /Costa Mesa are generally parking structure adverse, particularly subterranean parking. Residents will chose to park on a surface lot or on a street if available. The few parking garages that exist in the area (Triangle Square, the office building at Irvine Boulevard and 17th Street) are frequently underutilized. Cars enter, leave and queue I ' through parking garages at a much slower rate than they do through at -grade parking. The EIR traffic study needs to be revised to account for greater queuing time at the proposed parking structure entrance and exit, and the EIR:parking study needs to account for potential parking garage adverse behavior. IGeneral Plan Compliance A policy of the General Plan Land Use Element states that the City shall provide sufficient diversity to allow schools, employment, recreation areas, public facilities, churches and neighborhood shopping centers in close proximity to each resident. The Draft EIR incorrectly finds that the project does not conflict with this policy. Rather, by proposing to expand 35 %, the church will create a facility more ' dense than South Coast Plaza, thereby disrupting the fine balance between residential homes and community services that this General Plan policy strives to achieve. ' Another General Plan Land Use policy states that to insure redevelopment of older or underutilized properties and to preserve the value of property, the floor area limits specified in the Land Use Element allow for some modest growth. The proposed expansion, by proposing to expand 35% and creating a ' facility more dense than South Coast Plaza, is not "modest" growth. The project will violate this General Plan policy, and could debase the value of the single family homes surrounding the church. Alternatives: Regional Facilitv: Th'e Draft EIR misstates Mr. Krotee's request regarding project alternatives. His NOP ' comment letter, dated August 20, 2003, notes that the proposed expansion would create a regionally sized facility and that an alternative site should be considered that would better facilitate such a regionally sized facility. Appropriate alternative sites would be those served by arterial and collector streets. The Draft EIR fails to adequately examine such alternative sites. Renovation or Re2lacement Alternative: The Draft EIR correctly identifies this alternative as an environmentally superior altemative. This altemative recommends that the existing church facilities be ' renovated and/or replaced, but with no increase in total square footage. This alternative appears to 1 49 St. Andrews Presbyterian Church Expansion April 26, 2004 Page 4 of 4 warrant more detailed consideration by the City and applicant, including a review of alternative space plans for the church.', Alternative Site: Placing the proposed youth and family center /gymnasium in a commercial or industrial area rather than a residential area would certainly have fewer land use and aesthetic impacts than the proposed project. The Draft EIR fails to adequately describe these impact reductions. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts! Section 4.3.5 of the! EIR finds that the project will cause unavoidable adverse impacts relative to construction- related air pollution. The EIR then makes an attempt to abate these impacts by proposing mitigation measures MM 4.3 -1 and 4.3 -2; however, these mitigation measures do not work. Neither the EIR or the appended air quality analysis adequately demonstrates how a reduction in truck miles traveled would reduce NOx emissions. Further, neither the EIR or the appended air quality analysis adequately demonstrates how the increased number of days of truck traffic will impact cumulative levels ofNOx and other air quality emissions. Finally, although the EIR acknowledges that implementation of MM 4.3 -1 and 4.3 -2 could adversely affect traffic and noise, the EIR fails to include an analysis of these potential impacts. The EIR's:attempt to dismiss these potentially unavoidable adverse impacts as "short- term" violates the intent of CEQA, which requires the FIR to fully consider both the short-term and cumulative impacts of a project. The Draft EIR also fails to adequately disclose the process that the City must follow should it chose to approve the church expansion regardless of the unavoidable adverse impacts. Section 15091 of the CEQA Guidelines requires that the City make one or more written findings for each of the unavoidable effects. These findings must be accompanied by a brief explanation of the rationale for each finding. The possible findings are: • Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the-final EIR. • Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted! by such other agency. • Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternative's identified in the final EIR. These could be extremely difficult findings for the City to make relative to the proposed project. Thank you for your consideration. Please do not hesitate to call me at 949 - 650 -3206, should you have any questions. Yours truly, Joann Lombardo 50 11. Don Krotee (April 25, 2004) Response to Comment No. 1 The attachment to Mr. Krotee's e-mail is a duplicate of a letter that was submitted by Comprehensive Planning Services (Joann Lombardo). Responses have been prepared and are provided for those comments (refer to the Response to Comments to Letter No. 12 — Comprehensive Planning Services). St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church Draft EIR Responses to Public Comments June 9, 2004 51 1 Comprehensive Planning Services Letter No. 12 April 26, 2004 James Campbell, Senior Planner City of Newport Beach Planning Department P. O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 Fax number:(949) 644 -3229 e -mail: jcampbell @city.newport- beach.ca.us RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH AM APR 3 0 2004 PM 7 819j 101111121112j3141516 Re: St. Andrews Presbyterian Church Proposed Expansion Draft EIR. SCH: 2003081065 Dear Mr. Campbell: As requested by Newport Heights Improvement Association, we have reviewed the Draft EIR for the proposed St. Andrews Presbyterian Church expansion. We have a number of concerns regarding the content and level of analyses presented in the project Draft EIR. We ask that the City provide a thorough and complete response to each of these comments, summarized below: Project Description: Section 3.0 of the Draft EIR erroneously implies that the church has occupied the same 3.9 acre site for 50 years. Rather, since moving to the corner of 15th Street and what has been subsequently named St. Andrews Road, the church has systematically purchased additional residential properties, including a block of single family homes that used to front Clay Street, and has subsequently been absorbed as part of the church property. The church has also purchased adjacent multifamily properties that it currently uses to house staff. During the past 50 years, the church has transformed itself from a small neighborhood church to a very large regional facility. Full disclosure of all past church expansions and of church properties adjacent to the site is critical to the City and community understanding the history of the project. Further, the Project Description fails to disclose how the church has grown significantly since City approval of its current Use Permit (UP) some 20 years ago, and that the church may now be in violation 2 of that UP. The existing UP (No. 822) did not provide for Saturday services. However, for about the last 10 years, the church has held Saturday evening services without reporting these activities to the City, as is required by Condition #6 of the existing UP. Air Quality The analysis of short term air quality impacts contains a number of serious errors. The Draft EIR states that the demolition of the existing church buildings will result in 3,000 cubic yards of debris, and will be 3 removed at a rate of 100 truck loads a day. There will be 10 trucks and each truck, according to the EIR, will travel 20 miles to the landfill or 40 miles round trip. The EIR concludes that the debris will be removed in 1.5 days. However, a typical single axle dump truck carries 7 cubic yards of debris. A round trip from the church to the landfill, including time to load and unload the trucks, will take about 90 52 PO Box 15592 Newport Beach,California 92659 Voice: 949/650 -3206 Facsimile: 949/548 -6981 e-mail: joann @jalcps.com , 1 St. Andrews Presbyterian Church Expansion April 26, 2004 Page 2 of 4 minutes, depending on the time of day and length of queuing at the dump. Optimistically, the quickest a ' dump truck could enter the church site, be filled with debris and exit the site would be 15 minutes, or 4 trucks an hour, or at its best, 32 trucks a day. Dumping the entire 3,000 cubic yards of debris would take at least 13.5 days, or 2.5 work weeks. The additional 50,000 cubic yards of soil that would need to be excavated and removed would take at least 223 work days or 44.6 work weeks or I I months. Combined, demolition and excavation at the project site will result in 255 works days, about one work year, of all day truck traffic. The dump trucks will make a total of 7,571 trips and travel 290,840 miles. ' The project air quality analysis does not adequately account for the cumulative impact of these 255 days and 7,571 trips of truck traffic, nor does it adequately explain the adverse effect of these air quality 4 impacts on adjacent residents, students and the sensitive biological resources within the adjacent Environmental Nature Center. This consistent level of heavy truck traffic will also certainly damage neighborhood roads, and cause traffic and noise impacts. 'Traffic: 1 15 1 6 1 1 7 1 1 1 Level of Service: The Draft EIR fails to fully present the potential project parking and traffic impacts. The EIR states that an LOS of D is acceptable. However the EIR fails to explain what policy of the City establishes that an LOS of D is acceptable. Further, the EIR fails to explain if an LOS of D is acceptable only on a collector or higher street, or is it also acceptable on local residential streets. The EIR then finds that with the proposed church expansion, traffic at the intersection of I Sth and Irvine will worsen to LOS E during the p.m. peak, and LOS F during the a.m. peak. However, the EIR neglects to explain to the reader the significance of these levels of service. According to the Highway Capacity Manual, a LOS of E means that there are high traffic delays, and individual cycle failures are frequent occurrences. LOS F is gridlock. LOS E and F are traffic levels a driver may expect to experience on freeways or major commercial or urban streets, not in a suburban residential neighborhood. .Traffic Counts: The Church's primary access points are on Clay Street, but the Draft EIR fails to study traffic impacts on Clay Street. The Draft EIR needs to be revised to assess impacts on Clay Street and also needs to describe the following: • Precise times of peak hours • The days and times traffic and parking studies were conducted • The church activities that were occurring during these times; if there were sermons or lectures, the speakers need to be identified as attendance at the church varies greatly depending on the orator speaking. Best Efforts to Predict Impacts: Pursuant to Section 15144 of the CEQA Guidelines, the lead agency must use its best efforts to find out and disclose all that it reasonably can about a project. The Draft EIR for the church expansion fails to comply with this disclosure requirement. The traffic analysis assumes the additional 35,948 square feet of church facility will not be used on Sunday. However, the church currently operates a number of additional activities concurrent with its Sunday services. These additional activities include adult lecture series and seminars, as well as children Sunday school classes. There is nothing in the project application that would preclude the church from holding activities in the additional classrooms, offices and gym /multiuse area during the Sunday services. The church is currently holding Saturday services and other activities outside its existing UP, and it is reasonable to expect that they would operate Sunday (and Saturday) activities in their new facility. 63 V ft AA Significant Adverse Impacts: The EIR states that a significant adverse impact will occur if the project ' traffic causes the ICU at an intersection to increase by 0.01 or more, and the resulting ICU is 0.91 (LOS 8 E). As presented in Table 4.2 -7 of the EIR, the proposed expansion will cause the ICU at the intersection of Irvine Avenue and 15th Street to increase 1.61 percentage points and the resulting LOS is ' F. By the EIR's definition, this is a significant adverse impact. Parking: Table 4.2 -2 contains a number of errors. In several instances, the table suggests that the ' number of available on- street parking spaces exceeds street parking capacity by more than 55 %. For example, the table states that St. Andrews Road to Clay Street has a capacity of 34 on- street parking 9 spaces, but that there were 53 cars parked on the street. This would not be possible unless half the block were double parked. The EIR needs to correct the table and recalculate the parking analysis as ' required. Parking Structure Driver Behavior: Residents in the greater Newport Beach /Costa Mesa are generally ' parking structure adverse, particularly subterranean parking. Residents will chose to park on a surface lot or on a street if available. The few parking garages that exist in the area (Triangle Square, the office 10 building at Irvine Boulevard and 17th Street) are frequently underutilized. Cars enter, leave and queue ' through parking garages at a much slower rate than they do through at -grade parking. The EIR traffic study needs to be revised to account for greater queuing time at the proposed parking structure entrance and exit, and the EIR parking study needs to account for potential parking garage adverse behavior. General Plan Compliance: A policy of the General Plan Land Use Element.states that the City shall provide sufficient diversity to allow schools, employment, recreation areas, public facilities, churches and neighborhood shopping 11 centers in close proximity to each resident The Draft EIR incorrectly finds that the project does not ' conflict with this policy. Rather, by proposing to expand 35 %, the church will create a facility more dense than South Coast Plaza, thereby disrupting the fine balance between residential homes and community services that this General Plan policy strives to achieve. t Another General Plan Land Use policy states that to insure redevelopment of older or underutilized properties and to preserve the value of property, the floor area limits specified in the Land Use Element ' 12 allow for some modest growth. The proposed expansion, by proposing to expand 35% and creating a facility more dense than South Coast Plaza, is not "modest" growth. The project will violate this General Plan policy, and could debase the value of the single family homes surrounding the church. ' Alternatives: Regional Facility' The Draft EIR misstates Mr. Krotee's request regarding project alternatives. His NOP ' comment letter, dated August 20, 2003, notes that the proposed expansion would create a regionally 13 sized facility and that an alternative site should be considered that would better facilitate such a , regionally sized facility. Appropriate alternative sites would be those served by arterial and collector streets. The Draft EIR fails to adequately examine such alternative sites. 1 54 1 , St. Andrews Presbyterian Church Expansion April 26, 2004 Page 3 of 4 t To allow the City and community to understand the full potential impacts of the proposed expansion, the EIR must be revised to account for traffic: and parking impacts assuming full use of the new facilities during Sunday services. ' Significant Adverse Impacts: The EIR states that a significant adverse impact will occur if the project ' traffic causes the ICU at an intersection to increase by 0.01 or more, and the resulting ICU is 0.91 (LOS 8 E). As presented in Table 4.2 -7 of the EIR, the proposed expansion will cause the ICU at the intersection of Irvine Avenue and 15th Street to increase 1.61 percentage points and the resulting LOS is ' F. By the EIR's definition, this is a significant adverse impact. Parking: Table 4.2 -2 contains a number of errors. In several instances, the table suggests that the ' number of available on- street parking spaces exceeds street parking capacity by more than 55 %. For example, the table states that St. Andrews Road to Clay Street has a capacity of 34 on- street parking 9 spaces, but that there were 53 cars parked on the street. This would not be possible unless half the block were double parked. The EIR needs to correct the table and recalculate the parking analysis as ' required. Parking Structure Driver Behavior: Residents in the greater Newport Beach /Costa Mesa are generally ' parking structure adverse, particularly subterranean parking. Residents will chose to park on a surface lot or on a street if available. The few parking garages that exist in the area (Triangle Square, the office 10 building at Irvine Boulevard and 17th Street) are frequently underutilized. Cars enter, leave and queue ' through parking garages at a much slower rate than they do through at -grade parking. The EIR traffic study needs to be revised to account for greater queuing time at the proposed parking structure entrance and exit, and the EIR parking study needs to account for potential parking garage adverse behavior. General Plan Compliance: A policy of the General Plan Land Use Element.states that the City shall provide sufficient diversity to allow schools, employment, recreation areas, public facilities, churches and neighborhood shopping 11 centers in close proximity to each resident The Draft EIR incorrectly finds that the project does not ' conflict with this policy. Rather, by proposing to expand 35 %, the church will create a facility more dense than South Coast Plaza, thereby disrupting the fine balance between residential homes and community services that this General Plan policy strives to achieve. t Another General Plan Land Use policy states that to insure redevelopment of older or underutilized properties and to preserve the value of property, the floor area limits specified in the Land Use Element ' 12 allow for some modest growth. The proposed expansion, by proposing to expand 35% and creating a facility more dense than South Coast Plaza, is not "modest" growth. The project will violate this General Plan policy, and could debase the value of the single family homes surrounding the church. ' Alternatives: Regional Facility' The Draft EIR misstates Mr. Krotee's request regarding project alternatives. His NOP ' comment letter, dated August 20, 2003, notes that the proposed expansion would create a regionally 13 sized facility and that an alternative site should be considered that would better facilitate such a , regionally sized facility. Appropriate alternative sites would be those served by arterial and collector streets. The Draft EIR fails to adequately examine such alternative sites. 1 54 1 St. Andrews Presbyterian Church Expansion ' April 26, 2004 Page 4 of 4 Renovation or Reolacement Alternative: The Draft EIR correctly identifies this alternative as an environmentally superior alternative. This alternative recommends that the existing church facilities be 114 renovated and /or replaced, but with no increase in total square footage. This alternative appears to warrant more detailed consideration by the City and applicant, including a review of alternative space ' I plans for the church. Alternative Site: Placing the proposed youth and family center /gymnasium in a commercial or industrial ' 15 area rather than a residential area would certainly have fewer land use and aesthetic impacts than the proposed project The Draft EIR fails to adequately describe these impact reductions. t Unavoidable Adverse Impacts: Section 4.3.5 of the EIR finds that the project will cause unavoidable adverse impacts relative to construction - related air pollution. The EIR then makes an attempt to abate these impacts by proposing mitigation measures MM 4.3 -1 and 4.3 -2; however-, these mitigation measures do not work. Neither the EIR or the appended air quality analysis adequately demonstrates how a reduction in truck miles traveled would reduce NOx emissions. Further, neither the EIR or the appended air quality analysis ' 16 adequately demonstrates how the increased number of days of truck traffic will impact cumulative levels of NOx and other air quality emissions. Finally, although the EIR acknowledges that implementation of MM 4.3 -1 and 4.3 -2 could adversely affect traffic and noise, the EIR fails to include an analysis of these ' I potential impacts. The EIR's attempt to dismiss these potentially unavoidable adverse impacts as "short - term violates the intent of CEQA, which requires the EIR to fully consider both the short-term and cumulative impacts of a project. The Draft EIR also fails to adequately disclose the process that the City must follow should it chose to approve the church expansion regardless of the unavoidable adverse impacts. Section 15091 of the ' CEQA Guidelines requires that the City make one or more written findings for each of the unavoidable effects. These findings must be accompanied by a brief explanation of the rationale for each finding. The possible findings are: ' 1 7 Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the final EIR. Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency ' and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency. Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of ' employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the final EIR. ' These could be extremely difficult findings for the City to make relative to the proposed project. Thank you for your consideration. Please do not hesitate to call me at 949 - 650 -3206, should you have ' any questions. Yours truly, Joann Lombardo 1 66 Q ft AA 12. Comprehensive Planning Services (April 26, 2004) Response to Comment No. 1 It was not the intent of the Draft EIR to (erroneously) imply that the church has occupied the 3.9 -acre site since its inception over 50 years ago. As indicated in this comment, the church acquired adjacent property to expand the facility. The Final EIR will be revised to reflect the physical growth of St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church. Response to Comment No. 2 St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church has been operating in its current location since 1950. In 1962, the City approved Use Permit No. 822 that allows for additions to the church. In 1974, the Use Permit was again amended to expand the campus. The Use Permit was amended in 1982 and also in 1985. The latter amendment allowed for the acquisition of 10 homes located along Clay Street, which were removed to make way for the existing 250 -space surface parking lot. The existing sanctuary and chapel /administration building were the most recent major construction additions to the church, which were completed in the mid 1980s. The church campus operates pursuant to two permit applications at the present time: Use Permit No. 822 and Site Plan Review No. 31. The use permit covers the entire campus and the site plan review relates to the construction of the main sanctuary. It is important to note that the City adopted the present General Plan Land Use Element in 1988, which permits no additional floor area at the site over that permitted in these previous permits. The applicant now desires to increase the floor area allocation to accommodate additional construction. Some residents have suggested that the existing church is in violation of the present conditions of approval by not adequately monitoring parking or reporting attendance. The relevant condition is: "The applicant shall monitor attendance and semi - annually report attendance figures to the Planning Department. The applicant shall also monitor usage of the high school and on- site%ff- street parking areas. During any four (4) week period where attendance exceeds 1040 persons per worship service or concurrent use of chapel and sanctuary for other activities, or if attendance exceeds 915 and usage is less than 85% of capacity for the high school and on- site%ff- street parking areas, the applicant shall modify the project's operational characteristics to lessen parking demand in a manner acceptable to the Planning Department or apply for an amendment to this Use Permit to provide additional on- site%ff- street parking." The church has submitted the required attendance reports on a regular basis that cite the attendance during Sunday worship services. While it is suggested in the comments that the church is violating this condition by not reporting attendance at all events and by not including information related to parking usage, City staff believes that the attendance reporting requirement related to Sunday worship services only. (Use Permit No. 822 does not limit when worship services may be held nor does it require approval by the City in order to conduct Saturday evening services.) Staff also believes that there was a general understanding at the time when the condition was applied that other activities on days other than Sunday would have lower occupancy levels, and therefore a lower parking demand. Although the church has not submitted any information related to their obligation to monitor parking usage, reporting parking usage is not specifically required by the condition. Since the average reported attendance over the past several years has been below 915, monitoring parking is not necessary for compliance with the condition. The City required the traffic consultant evaluate the parking usage for a typical Sunday. The results of the parking availability study indicate that street parking is heavily used on Sunday, but with the combined parking supply (i.e., that available on -site, at Newport Harbor High School, and on the street adjacent to St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church Draft EIR Responses to Public Comments June 9, 2004 56 I I 1 I 1 I 1 tthe church property), parking demand does not exceed 85% of available supply. The complete study is contained within the traffic and parking study that is an appendix to the EIR. ' Response to Comment No. 3 The rate of demolition and material export was derived through discussions with the applicant. The ' applicant indicated that they expected approximately 3,000 cubic yards of debris to be generated and that this would be hauled off site at a rate of 100 trucks per day in trucks with 14 cubic yard capacities. The comment suggests that the rate of debris and material export assumed to calculate the emissions is too high and that the actual rate would be approximately 32 truck trips per day. A lower rate would result in lower daily activity levels and corresponding lower pollutant emissions. Additionally, less heavy equipment would be required on site, further lowering daily emissions. ' The threshold of significance, take from South Coast Air Quality Management District recommendations, used to assess the impacts of construction - related air quality emissions, is based on the maximum daily emissions due to construction. With mitigation that limits daily truck travel emission from demolition and excavation will be below the thresholds of significance. If, as the commenter asserts, the assumed demolition and excavation rates are not possible and will actually be lower than assumed, air pollutant emissions during construction will remain below the thresholds of significance. ' Response to Comment No. 4 The Section 4.4.4.1 of the Draft EIR assesses the potential noise impacts from the debris and material ' trucks at a rate of 100 truck round trips per day. This analysis shows that the additional truck trips will not substantially increase traffic noise levels along the roads the trucks will utilize. Fewer daily trucks would lessen the noise level increase cause by the trucks and they would not result in a significant noise impacts as concluded in the Draft EIR. Response to Comment No. 5 ' The City of Newport Beach has long established that a Level of Service "D" is the City's standard for peak hour intersection operation for signalized intersections, regardless of the classification of the intersecting streets. This Level of Service standard is consistent with the County of Orange Level of Service standard ' for peak hour intersection operation. In some isolated cases, a more lenient standard (i.e., LOS E) is adopted. For example, the County of Orange has adopted LOS E for their Congestion Management Program (CMP) facilities. The City LOS D standard was first adopted by the City in 1978 with the Traffic ' Phasing Plan that later became the Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO). The LOS D threshold applies to all identified primary intersections and any other signalized intersection required to be studied by the City Traffic Engineer. Regarding the level of service at the 15" Street/Irvine Avenue intersection, the traffic study points out that the intersection will operate at LOS C during the AM peak hour and LOS D in the PM Peak hour; both acceptable levels of service. The LOS E and LOS F conditions that are forecast will occur only during a 15 minute period of time (i.e., during the peak school periods). This analysis was presented for informational purposes and does not represent typical traffic impact analysis since 15 minute peak period impact analysis has not been conducted previously by the City. During these times, it is acknowledged that there are "high traffic delays" The long lines and congestion builds quickly and clears quickly, which is typical of traffic conditions at intersections located near elementary, junior high and high schools. It is acknowledged that the project would contribute traffic to this intersection. Because the adverse intersection operating conditions are forecasted, even for the 15- minute peak period associated with the school and not the typical peak hour operating conditions, the Draft EIR has included a mitigation measure that requires no heavy truck traffic to occur during the school peak period (when school is in session) to avoid exacerbating this adverse condition. ' St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church Draft EIR Responses to Public Comments June 9, 2004 '67 Response to Comment No. 6 The City's Traffic Phasing Ordinance (7PO) requires analysis and mitigation of impacts at primary intersections identified in the TPO and at other intersections, as identified by the City Traffic Engineer. The focus of the TPO is to address impacts at key intersections of main arterials during the morning and evening peaks. Traffic counts were obtained from the City of Newport Beach for the primary study intersections surrounding the project site. These counts are conducted by the City on a bi- annual basis for their TPO database and are included in the traffic study. Counts for 2003 were taken in March, April and May on typical weekdays (i.e., Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays). It is important to note that the City was not aware of what speakers or program offerings were scheduled at St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church at the time the counts were taken. The City also identified two additional non - primary intersections for analysis: Dover / Cliff and Irvine / 15'". Since these are not TPO intersections, counts were not available from the TPO database. Counts were conducted on June 11, 2003. The Newport Harbor High School was still in full session on that day. The morning and evening peak hours at these two intersections were observed to be as follows: Irvine / 15'h 7:15 to 8:15 and 4:45 to 5:45 PM Dover / Cliff 7:30 to 8:30 and 5:00 to 6:00 PM Weekday parking counts were conducted on June 11, 2003 and follow -up spot -check counts and observations have been conducted a number of times since then. Sunday parking counts were conducted on June 15, 2003, with verification counts on June 22, 2003. Weeknight parking counts were conducted on November 5, 2003. Although a list of specific activities conducted at the church on these dates is not available, observations in the field lead staff to believe the counts are indicative of typical operations and variations in parking counts based upon specific activities are possible. Response to Comment No. 7 The assumption for analytical purposes was that concurrent occupancy would not exceed that of the main sanctuary (1,387 people). Mitigation measure 4.2.10 is intended to place an operational limit on occupancy such that the level of activity is that expected in the analysis. Saturday services are not "outside" Use Permit No. 822. This Use Permit places no limitation on the time or day or number of worship services. The DEIR assumes that use of the facility will be similar to that described in the application and would operate without operational limits with the exception of those identified in the DEIR or existing conditions of Use Permit No. 822. Response to Comment No. 8 As stated in the traffic study, the analysis of the unsignalized intersection was presented for information purposes. The TPO analysis and the 0.01 impact criteria is applicable to signalized intersections only where the impact assessment is conducted with the Intersection Capacity Utilization does not apply to unsignalized intersections. The 1.61 increase in the morning peak hour refers to average seconds of delay, not intersection capacity. St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church Draft EIR Responses to Public Comments June 9, 2004 58 I 1 I I 1 i I d I 1 I 11 1 1 1 1 L� I 1 I 1 1 1 Response to Comment No. 9 The parking table had been updated, and a copy of the revised table will be incorporated into the Final EIR. Response to Comment No. 10 Aversion to public parking structures is partially due to unfamiliarity with the facility, and uncertainty about its security. A parking structure on a church property would not be viewed with the same concerns by church members. Church members will be regular users of the parking structure, and will become familiar with its layout and orientation of the entry and exit drives. Several measures have been recommended to ensure that the structure is well lit, not dark and gloomy, and that access from the structure to the church is convenient and well marked. Additionally, the parking spaces and drive isles will meet all City requirements and compact spaces are not permitted. These features will assist in making the structure more user friendly. The Traffic Study suggests that consecutive services be separated by a minimum of 45 minutes so that the garage can empty and fill effectively. Response to Comment No. 11 This comment disagrees with the land use consistency analysis presented in the Draft EIR that and contends that the proposed project is inconsistent with Land Use Element Policy A. The policy states that the City shall provide for a sufficient diversity of land uses so that schools, employment, recreational areas, public facilities, churches and neighborhood shopping centers are in close proximity to all residents. It is important to note that that while the intensity of the development will increase, the nature and intent of the use will not change, and therefore, the diversity of land uses will not change. The policy does not contain any statements related to the intensity of land uses or the balance of residential uses and intensity of non - residential uses. The church will continue to function in virtually the same way as it presently does at the same location. For these reasons, it was determined that the proposed project would not adversely affect land use diversity or the balance that currently exists and the project would be consistent with this policy of the Land Use Element. Response to Comment No. 12 The comment indicates that the project does not represent modest growth of the site consistent with Land Use Policy B. As previously indicated, nearly one -half of the increase in floor area proposed for St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church will occur in the categories of storage, restrooms, and other areas that do not typically generate traffic or other adverse environmental effects. The additional floor area proposed for the Church will not result in significant long -term impacts to the City's infrastructure (e.g., sewer and water facilities, circulation network, etc.) because adequate capacity exists in those facilities to accommodate the increase. Most importantly, an increase in the capacity of the sanctuary, which will remain at 1,387 seats, is not proposed. Although no such increase in seating capacity is proposed, an increase in on -site parking is also proposed to alleviate some of the existing undesirable parking conditions in the surrounding neighborhood. Aside from the construction phase, no significant long -term traffic impacts are anticipated (based on the traffic analysis conducted for the proposed project). For these reasons, the increase in floor area was determined to be "modest" and, therefore, consistent with the policy articulated in the Land Use Element. Finally, the City Council has the ability to change the policy should it choose to do so and the Council would ultimately be the final arbiter of whether or not the project is consistent with this policy. Response to Comment No. 13 The comment indicates that the Draft EIR misstates Mr. Krotee's request regarding alternative analysis. The comment also expresses the opinion that the proposed project would create a regionally sized facility. 69 St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church Draft EIR Responses to Public Comments June 9, 2004 It is important to understand that no improvements are being proposed that would result in any increase in ' the rated seating capacity of the church (i.e., the sanctuary), which is 1,387 seats. The improvements and modifications are proposed to ancillary structures that support the church - related activities (i.e., classrooms and fellowship hall), which the church believes do not adequately support the current youth and adult programs offered at St. Andrew's. The improvements are intended to modernize the facilities to better accommodate and serve the programmatic desires of the church. Therefore, because there is no proposal before the City that would require that a "regional church be evaluated at an alternative location, , it was determined that an alternative that evaluated a 'regional' church would not be necessary. In its place, the alternative site evaluation presented in the Draft EIR (Section 10.4.5) evaluates the potential impacts associated with the relocation of the major improvements proposed by St. Andrew's (i.e., youth ' and family center /gymnasium). Response to Comment No. 14 ' This comment acknowledges that the Renovation /Replacement alternative is the environmentally superior alternative and should be investigated further by the project applicant. No specific comments related to the adequacy of the information presented in the analysis of this alternative is presented here and no response is necessary. Response to Comment No. 15 This comment acknowledges that the Alternate Site alternative represents less land use and aesthetic impacts. As indicated in Section 10.4.5.1 in the Draft EIR, relocation of the Youth and Family Center (and gymnasium) to a site within an industrial area of the City "... would not result in any significant land use ' conflicts ..." at the alternative site location. Nevertheless, the existing fellowship hall and classroom building would be demolished on the subject property, resulting in the same impacts as described for the proposed project. Further, a new fellowship hall would be erected on the St. Andrew's Presbyterian ' Church site, which would also have the same land use and visual effects as described for the proposed project. A reduction in the on -site development of the site would occur with the relocation of the Youth and Family Center facility. As a result, the site would accommodate only 107,644 square feet, which is slightly more than the 104,440 square feet that currently exist on the site. This slight increase in floor area would still require a General Plan Amendment; however, the intensity of development on the site would be reduced considerably. In addition, the relocation of the 40 -foot high building designed to house the Youth and Family Center will provide greater visual penetration through the site. ' Response to Comment No. 16 This comment that suggests the mitigation measures (i.e., MM 4.3 -1 and M.3 -2) do not work is incorrect. t Implementation of the mitigation measures that limit the cumulative daily vehicle miles traveled to 2,005 will effectively reduce the NOx emissions to below the SCAQMD significance threshold (i.e., 100 pounds ' per day). The construction emissions calculation worksheets are included in the appendix to the air quality analysis (refer to Appendix D to the Draft EIR), which provide the quantitative analysis necessary to conclude that the mitigation measures would effectively reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level. It is important to note that the construction impact analysis is predicated on a "worst ' case" scenario of utilizing a fill site that is located 20 -miles from the proposed project. In the event a closer site is identified and used for soils export, the mobile- source construction emissions would be reduced from the quantities identified in the Draft EIR. Nonetheless, the analysis necessarily assumed a longer driving distance because a site has not been identified to date. It is also important to understand that if the grading and construction schedule is protracted (i.e., fewer trips per day over a longer period of time), the daily emissions would be reduced (refer to Response to Comment No. 3) and would have less ' of an impact on both project - related and cumulative air emissions. St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church Draft EIR ' Responses to Public Comments June 9, 2004 60 ' I IResponse to Comment No. 17 I k I 1 The findings to which reference is made in this comment relate to the "Findings of Fact' that must be prepared and adopted by the decision - making body. Neither the CEQA Guidelines nor the City of Newport Beach CEQA Guidelines require that a discussion of the Findings of Fact be presented in the Draft EIR. Section 15091 of the CEQA Guidelines articulate the requirements for adopting the Findings of Fact, which are typically prepared following the Draft EIR review and comment period and prior to the public hearings. The Findings of Fact will be prepared and presented to the Newport Beach Planning Commission and City Council for adoption by the latter body for consideration and approval at the time the EIR is certified and prior to taking action on the proposed project. As indicated in this comment, findings must be made for each of the potentially significant impacts identified in the Draft EIR. Further, in the event one of the findings cannot be made for one or more of the potentially significant adverse impacts identified in the EIR, a Statement of Overriding Considerations must be prepared and adopted by the decision - making body. The Statement of Overriding Considerations must identify the public benefits that would be derived from implementing the proposed project, which would offset the potential adverse impacts identified in the Draft EIR that would not otherwise be achieved if the project is not approved and implemented. The Statement of Overriding Considerations, like the Findings of Fact, is prepared prior to the public hearings and must be adopted, along with the Findings of Fact and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, in order to approve the proposed project. These documents will be prepared and submitted to the appropriate decision - makers as prescribed by the State CEQA Guidelines. 61 St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church Draft EIR Responses to Public Comments June 9, 2004 I ask that the project description include actual attendance figures including ALL attendance at ' the facility. This report should include total attendance each day of the week for all activities. 2 The facility is not currently reporting anything but Sunday service attendance. This is certainly ' inadequate to determine the impact of current or future activities. I believe that this is also a violation of the facility Conditional Use Permit. The draft EIR does not study nor does it address the several residential streets impacted by the current and future use of this facility. I would ask that the intersections of Cliff and St. Andrews, 3 Pirate, Snug Harbor and Kings Road be included in the EIR. These streets are severely impacted by current traffic and not included in the study. , Traffic counts provided in the EIR are not and should be properly identified neither in terms of 4 dates (which would reveal whether or not a holiday or vacation date was involved) nor by the speaker at the service (which would identify demand for that date). The traffic and parking study fails to acknowledge that most users and especially older users of 5J parking facilities avoid parking in structures given a choice. The report should take this into consideration as well as recognize the delays associated with parking lines created by ingress and egress of a structure. ' The current CUP calls for a 25 mile per hour standard to be maintained on more than one street 6 adjacent to the facility. The DEIR does not and should provide a study regarding that ' issue /requirement. 1 62 1 1 Letter No. 13 RECEIVED BY April 27, 2004 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH James Campbell APR 2 8 2004 City of Newport Beach Planning Department PM P. O. Box 1768 AM Newport Beach, CA 92658 7 0 111112 11 1213141516 -8915 16& Hand delivered vlll Re: St. Andrews Presbyterian Cburcb Draft EIR, Dear Mr. Campbell: I have reviewed the Draft EIR and have several concerns regarding the depth and accuracy of this ' report. There are several issues which merit further review and comment by the appropriate entity. Please review the following and respond: The report characterizes the St. Andrews facility as a small neighborhood church and fails to review the rapid growth in terms of membership, attendance, properties owned in the neighborhood, and days and hours of operation in the past ten years. It.is critical to disclose this historical data for the readers of the EIR to understand the past and appreciate the potential of future traffic, noise and impact of the expansion. I ask that the project description include actual attendance figures including ALL attendance at ' the facility. This report should include total attendance each day of the week for all activities. 2 The facility is not currently reporting anything but Sunday service attendance. This is certainly ' inadequate to determine the impact of current or future activities. I believe that this is also a violation of the facility Conditional Use Permit. The draft EIR does not study nor does it address the several residential streets impacted by the current and future use of this facility. I would ask that the intersections of Cliff and St. Andrews, 3 Pirate, Snug Harbor and Kings Road be included in the EIR. These streets are severely impacted by current traffic and not included in the study. , Traffic counts provided in the EIR are not and should be properly identified neither in terms of 4 dates (which would reveal whether or not a holiday or vacation date was involved) nor by the speaker at the service (which would identify demand for that date). The traffic and parking study fails to acknowledge that most users and especially older users of 5J parking facilities avoid parking in structures given a choice. The report should take this into consideration as well as recognize the delays associated with parking lines created by ingress and egress of a structure. ' The current CUP calls for a 25 mile per hour standard to be maintained on more than one street 6 adjacent to the facility. The DEIR does not and should provide a study regarding that ' issue /requirement. 1 62 1 St. Andrews Church Draft DER Page 2 of 2 Alternative sites should be studied by the EIR. This facility is, even now, too big and too active for a residential neighborhood. It is vital that the church study alternative sites if they wish to continue to expand. The EIR should examine these options and their potential to locate in a commercial zone to reduce the negative impact on our neighborhood. Thank you for your consideration. I look forward to your response James M. Carmack 1000 Cliff Drive, Newport Beach, California 92663 63 I 13. James M. Carmack (April 27, 2004) 1 Response to Comment No. 1 The comment indicates that the DEIR characterizes the existing St. Andrews facilities as a small neighborhood church. The author of the EIR believes the existing and proposed facilities are best described by the term "community" church. The size of the existing facilities and proposed expansion do not support the term of "neighborhood" church nor does it support the use of the term "regional" church. St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church has been operating in its current location since 1950. In 1962, the City approved Use Permit No. 822 that allows for additions to the church. In 1974, the Use Permit was again ' amended to expand the campus. The Use Permit was amended in 1982 and also in 1985. The latter amendment allowed for the acquisition of 10 homes located along Clay Street, which were removed to make way for the existing 250 -space surface parking lot. The existing sanctuary and chapel /administration building were the most recent major construction additions to the church, which were completed in the mid 1980s. The church campus operations pursuant to two permit applications at the present time: Use Permit No. 822 and Site Plan Review No. 31. The use permit covers the entire campus and the site plan review relates to the construction of the main sanctuary. It is important to note that the City adopted the present General Plan Land Use Element in 1988, which permits no additional floor area at the site over that allocated in that adopted plan. The applicant now desires to increase the floor area allocation to accommodate additional construction. ' Response to Comment No. 2 Table 3 -5 on page 3 -18 provides a summary of the activities and programs that occur at St. Andrew's , Presbyterian Church. As can be seen, it is estimated that approximately 2,400 members attend church services including Sunday school in three services, including one on Saturday evening. Attendance at other activities and programs at the church range from as few as 25 individuals who typically attend , church committee meetings to as many as 4,000 church -goers who would attend Christmas services (over four services). It is anticipated that these programs will continue in the future and are appropriate figures to be used as the basis for the analysis presented in the Draft EIR. Please refer to Response No. 1 of , Comment Letter No. 8 (Barbara Rawling) with regards to the comment related to the belief that the church violates the existing Use Permit related to reporting attendance. Response to Comment No. 3 The City's Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO) requires analysis and mitigation of impacts at primary signalized intersections identified in the TPO and at other intersections, as identified by City staff. The focus of the TPO is to address impacts at key intersections of main arterials during the morning and evening peaks. It is acknowledged that the streets mentioned could potentially carry some component of the traffic destined for the church, although the majority is assumed to arrive and depart via Irvine Avenue, , Clay Street, and 15" Street. Response to Comment No. 4 Traffic counts were obtained from the City of Newport Beach for the primary TPO intersections surrounding the project site. These counts are conducted by the City on a bi- annual basis for their TPO database. The traffic counts provided by the City were taken in the spring and fall of 2003 and were ' scheduled to best reflect average or typical traffic conditions and do not reflect seasonal highs or lows in traffic. Traffic counts were taken when school was in session and were not taken during any holiday period. St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church Draft EIR , Responses to Public Comments June 9, 2004 64 ' Counts for 2003 were taken in March, April and May on typical weekdays (i.e., Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays). It is important to note that the City was not aware of what speakers or program offerings ' were scheduled at St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church at the time the counts were taken. The City also identified two additional non - primary intersections for analysis: Dover / Cliff and Irvine / 15". Since these are not TPO intersections, counts were not available from the TPO database. Counts were ' conducted on June 11, 2003. The Newport Harbor High School was still in full session on that day. The morning and evening peak hours at these two intersections were observed to be as follows: 1 Irvine / 15`" 7:15 to 8:15 and 4:45 to 5:45 PM Dover / Cliff 7:30 to 8:30 and 5:00 to 6:00 PM ' Weekday parking counts were conducted on June 11, 2003 and follow -up spot -check counts and observations have been conducted a number of times since then. Sunday parking counts were conducted on June 15, 2003, with verification counts on June 22, 2003. Weeknight parking counts were conducted on November 5, 2003. ' Response to Comment No. 5 Aversion to public parking structures is partially due to unfamiliarity with the facility, and uncertainty about its security. A parking structure on a church property would not be viewed with the same concerns by church members. Church members will be regular users of the parking structure, and will become familiar with its layout and orientation of the entry and exit drives. Several measures have been recommended to ensure that the structure is well lit, not dark and gloomy, and that access from the structure to the church ' is convenient and well marked. Additionally, the parking spaces and drive isles will meet all City requirements and compact spaces are not permitted. These features will assist in making the structure more user friendly. The Traffic Study suggests that consecutive services be separated by a minimum of 1 45 minutes so that the garage can empty and fill effectively. Response to Comment No. 6 Implementation of the proposed project will not affect any posted speed limits or other speed standard prescribed for the area. 1 Response to Comment No 7 The Draft EIR included an "Alternative Site" alternative; however, it is important to understand that the only ' element of the proposed project considered for this alternative is the Youth and Family Center (and Gymnasium). As indicated in the Draft EIR, this project component does not currently exist at the St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church site in the form currently proposed. Further, because the proposed expansion does not include an increase in the capacity of the sanctuary, it is not necessary to evaluate the ' relocation of all of the existing facilities. ' St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church Draft EIR Responses to Public Comments June 9, 2004 65 Letter No. 14 �usse G/ C'Gr� -elm All, 6�>- ��( 5'2 6�3 From Date Mayor Ridgeway and Council City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92663 Re: St. Andrews Expansion Dear Honorable Mayor and Council: Clerk to copy each of the council' Copies Sent To: �yor _- ,,�uncil member _ 1ana;er �orneyfi I understand that a $90,000 Environmental Impact Report has been published for the application of St. Andrews Presbyterian Church expansion. EIR's are made so that toxic uses don't pollute our neighborhoods. They generally result in the uses being built to a smaller scale and find that the toxins are of low impact, or an 'acceptable level'. Without opening the document (let alone having found someone stupid enough to pay for it), someone should have the sense to see that: this 'bigger than a Home Depot church' does not belong in a small community. The proposal asks that the City allow 140,388 square feet (Home Depots start around 104,000 square feet). What part of this sound like good planning? - Even if the DEIR were to be watered down to the point of saying, "don't fret, the traffic and pollution is at an 'acceptable level' in accordance with the State Public Resources requirements ", who says that should be good enough for the City of Newport Beach? The answer to that is, the City Council. And, I say to the City council, it's not good enough for the communities. The size of the church is already an impact on the community far greater than ever anticipated by a 20 -year old CUP. If St. Andrews wants to be bigger have them find somewhere else with freeway access. What's next, a satellite up link facility? Please, Council, be reasonable. The neighborhood associations have been talking to the church for 2 years asking for the church to remodel, not expand, their 100,000 square foot church. Please find that St. Andrews church may be made better, but no larger. Please hear the communities on this issue. Yours truly, 66 J u 1 I J— I I I 1 I Ir14. Russell L. Cheek (April 28, 2004) 1 Response to Comment No. 1 This comment expresses opposition to the proposed project. Although several concerns are raised in this letter, no specific comments on the adequacy of the information presented in the Draft EIR have been 1 identified. This letter will be forwarded to the Newport Beach Planning Commission and City Council for their consideration. II I971 II a] II II II II II II II C I I 1 67 St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church Draft EIR Responses to Public Comments June 9, 2004 1 Letter No. 15 / Date: Mayor Ridgeway and Council City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92663 Re: St. Andrews Expansion Dear Honorable Mayor and Council: I understand that St. Andrews Presbyterian Church has published a $90,000 EIR in support for their huge expansion. I am not familiar with the CEQA guidelines and I won't judge this report, but I can tell you the church is a serious growth concern in our neighborhood. Without having seen this huge document, the churches presence in the community already is a huge traffic generator and noisy. The application asks the City for 140,388 square feet, 35,500 more than is already too much. The math does not work in this small community. Their size is already an impact. Please, Council, look seriously at the 20 -year old CUP and ask if the programs they have now were contemplated then. If St. Andrews wants to be bigger they should move. Please vote to deny this application. 68 15. Russell L. Cheek (April 28, 2004) Response to Comment No. 1 This comment expresses opposition to the proposed project. Although several concerns are raised in this letter, no specific comments on the adequacy of the information presented in the Draft EIR have been identified. This letter will be forwarded to the Newport Beach Planning Commission and City Council for their consideration. St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church Draft E/R Responses to Public Comments June 9, 2004 69 1 Clerk to copy each of the council Letter No. 16 4ss e L/ C'1I {e k- Date Mayor Ridgeway and Council City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92663 Re: St. Andrews Expansion = _ Dear Honorable Mayor and Council: The proposal by St. Andrews Presbyterian Church asks that the City find appropriate, for this neighborhood church, to grow to 140,388 square feet- over 34% larger then the already 104,822 square feet. I am appalled at this suggestion and ask you to deny this application. If St. Andrews wants to expand any of their youth and adult programs they need to find a better site where the church. is..served by collector streets able to handle the volumes of 24-7 traffic that will accompany this full range of uses. In a time when neighborhoods are dear to the families that comprise them, this pressure of greater land use density and application for this type of muli -use expansion must consistently be denied. I understand that a DEIR is being developed for the property and I say, so what. Even if the EIR were to say 'terrific', the community still says, and rightly so; 'no; it just doesn't work'. Please find that staff looks at the current CUP very stringently and that the staff consider conditions to protect the neighborhoods. And, please find that St. Andrew's church may be made better, but no larger. Please hear the citizens on this issue. Yours truly, 70 16. Russell L. Cheek (April 28, 2004) Response to Comment No. 1 This comment expresses opposition to the proposed project. Although several concerns are raised in this letter, no specific comments on the adequacy of the information presented in the Draft EIR have been identified. This letter will be forwarded to the Newport Beach Planning Commission and City Council for their consideration. St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church Draft EIR Responses to Public Comments June 9, 2004 71 1 Eunice Smith Jones RECEIVED BY 341 Costa Mesa Street PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Costa Mesa, CA 92627 April 28 2004 Letter No. 17 APR 3 0 2004 PM Mr James Campbell AM Senior Planner 71819110111112111213141516 City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 Re: Draft EIR Report for St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church N.B. 3/4/04 Dear Mr. Campbell: I have reviewed the Draft EIR for improvements to St. Andrew's and they seemed to me to be in proper order. I began attending St. Andrew's in 1949 when it met in the library of Newport Harbor High School with a congregation of a little over 100 members. There were mostly empty fields surrounding the area when construction began on the original buildings for the church about that same time. Over the years, St. Andrew's has met the spiritual needs of so many people in the area and has now grown to slightly over 4000 members. There have been several building projects over the years as St. Andrew's grew; and it seems that the the church has always tried to be a good neighbor and comply with any inconveniences to those living in the neighborhood. I'm sure we shall try to ease parking, traffic and noise complaints that have been expressed. We are grateful to the city of Newport Beach for the help they have given us on this project. sincerely, Eunice Jones 72 II 11 17 Eunice Jones (April 28, 2004) Response to Comment No. 1 The comments in this letter suggest that the Draft EIR adequately evaluates the potential impacts of the proposed expansion of St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church and express support for that expansion. No further response is necessary. This letter will be forwarded to the Newport Beach Planning Commission and City Council for their consideration. St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church Draft EIR Responses to Public Comments June 9, 2004 73 2 I Letter No. 18 RECEIVED BY April 28, 2004 PLANNING DEPARTMENT , CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH James Campbell, Senior Planner ' City of Newport Beach Planning Department APR 2 9 2004 P. 0. Box 1768 78Q 1011 12123456 Newport I I I I I I 1 1 Beach, CA 92658 -8915 III , Fax number:(949) 644 -3229 e -mail: jampbell @city.newport- beach.ca.us ' Re: St. Andrews Presbyterian Church Proposed Expansion Draft EIR, SCH: 2003081065 , Dear Mr. Campbell: , I am writing to express my opposition to the proposed St. Andrews expansion. As part of the application process, an EIR was requested by the City and prepared by Keeton Kreitzer Consulting. I believe this EIR has several flaws. Many of these flaws are detailed in the response prepared by Ms. Joann Lombardo on behalf of the Newport Heights Improvement Association, which you should have received under separate cover. I concur with Ms. Lombardo's assessment, and I point out the following additional , deficiencies. Traffic ' The Daily Trip Generation figure quoted in the EIR is unreasonably low. The EIR projects 328 daily trips. This figure is based on an expansion of 35,948 square , feet, and is derived from the ITE Trip Generation publication. The Land Use Category used is "Church ", defined by the ITE manual as "a building in which public meeting worship services are held. A church may also house an assembly , hall or sanctuary, meeting rooms, classrooms, and occasionally dining, catering, or party facilities." This definition does not include a gymnasium/performance hall as proposed in St. Andrews plans. As I understand it from speaking with other t traffic consultants, the actual land use of the expansion should be used to determine the Trip Generation Rate, not the overall facility type. The gym/performance hall seats over 1,300 people. At a generous 3 persons per car, a , single full capacity event in the gym would yield over 430 car trips. This is for a single event, not counting other usage during that day. There is no cap on the number of such events. As I understand it, the EIR is required to assume a worst- , case assessment as part of the impact analysis. I don't believe this has been done. Traffic impact on streets in close proximity to the Church property has not been , assessed. The closest intersection analyzed is 15th and Irvine. This is away from curb cut at Pirate Road and Clay Street, the most - likely point of entry /exit for the parking structure. Using this driveway, cars would approach the facility from the south. The closest intersection to the south measured in the EIR is Cliff Drive and Dover, then again at Dover and PCH. At that distance from the property, Church traffic has dissipated, causing an artificially low measurement of impact in the 74 1 1 ' 3 4 ' rJ 1 Ll EIR. Noise No long -term noise projections local to the church site have been provided in the EIR. Again, impact on the neighboring properties has not been assessed. Only a local 30- minute measurement of current noise level has been performed along Clay Street. Noise projections have only been provided for streets well away from the Church property. The EIR categorically states that the gymnasium/performance hall shall not have a noise impact. The consultant reaches this conclusion by simply relying on the fact that a double set of doors is shown on the plans, and that the facility does not open directly to the exterior. As far as I can see, there has been no assumptions listed as to the type of amplification equipment to be used or the specific types of events to be held. The consultant's conclusions cannot be reasonably supported in fact. Noise impact from the parking garage has not been adequately assessed. The EIR does not account for a) car alarms going off, which is a constant source of irritation in the existing St. Andrews facility, b) engine and tire noise as cars enter /exit the parking facility. Usage of the parking facility is likely to be en- masse, as for a church service at a specific time. 400 cars leaving the facility at the conclusion of an event would create a high -level of noise for an extended period of time. Air Quality The impact to air quality of local properties has not been fully assessed. In addition to short-term impact due to construction, there is likely to be considerable degradation of the air quality enjoyed by neighbors of the Church, especially those immediately adjacent to the driveways at St. Andrews and Clay Streets. No measure has been taken of the effect of 400 idling engines as they wait to enter /exit the parking structure. Aesthetics The EIR incorrectly implies that vehicular access to the Church is only from 15th 7 Street (p 4.5 -3). This is inaccurate and misleading as it minimizes the impact of traffic using the Clay Street and St. Andrews Street driveways. • The pictures of the existing property (p4.5 -2, 4.5 -3, 4.5 -4) are stretched in the landscape direction, minimizing the mass and bulk of the existing property. There 8 is no technical reason for this distorted view; I would like to understand why the pictures are reproduced in this manner. • The huge mass of the gymnasium/performance hall, and its impact on the adjacent properties, has not been considered. At 40' high, the gymnasium will cast 9 shadows on the properties along St. Andrews Street. The gymnasium will also block sky views for properties along Clay Street, between Pirate and St. Andrews. V& I No consideration of these and other impacts have been considered. Process ' I have not been able to determine a) whether or not City policy requires /suggests a Conflict of Interest Disclosure be obtained from consulting companies, and b) U whether or not the City has a Conflict of Interest Disclosure from the EIR ' consultant. Can City Staff please clarify? Much of the impact assessed in EIR is based on the assumption that occupancy of the site shall not exceed the 1,387 persons permitted in the sanctuary under the existing CUP. Yet this assumption is contradicted in the EIR itself on p. 4.2 -21, which states that during "special of unusual events (eg, memorial services, etc) which now take place in the Church" this occupancy limit may be exceeded. According to the diagram on p.3 -18, there were 128 such "Other Events" in 2002. This number has certainly grown since 1 2002, and will likely be even higher given the additional facilities requested by St. Andrews. The EIR does not address this worst -case scenario as required by CEQA. In my opinion, the EIR prepared for this application is woefully inadequate and is not an 12 accurate projection of the impact of the St. Andrews expansion. I would appreciate a written response to these points at your earliest convenience. , Respectfully, Terry Botros 433 Pirate Road , Newport Beach, CA 92663 949.887.0299 , 76 1 I 1 i I 1 1 1 U 1 18. Terry Botros (April 30, 2004) Response to Comment No. 1 The weekday trip generation rates published by ITE reflect the average daily trip- making characteristics of a church with all its ancillary uses, based on the total square feet of all uses. The youth functions planned for the gymnasium are already taking place on the church site, either outdoors, or in available spaces in existing buildings, and will simply be relocated to the gymnasium. The traffic associated with getting the youth to and from these functions is already occurring. The DEIR acknowledges that increased activity at the site is likely to occur should the project be approved. The gymnasium is designed to have an occupant load of 460 persons not 1,300 persons as the comment would suggest. Response to Comment No. 2 The City's Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO) requires analysis and mitigation of impacts at primary signalized intersections identified in the TPO and at other intersections, as identified by City staff. The focus of the TPO is to address impacts at key intersections of main arterials during the morning and evening peaks. It is acknowledged that the streets mentioned could potentially carry some component of the traffic destined for the church. It is not known with certainty whether the entrance to the project site on Clay Street would be the primary entrance to the site given the location of the entrance to the proposed parking garage. Closure of this access point would increase vehicular demands at the remaining access points at St. Andrews Road and 15'" Street possibly creating other secondary effects. Project trip distribution assumes that 50% of project related traffic will come through the Cliff Drive /Dover intersection and 40% of traffic will travel on through the Dover /Coast Highway intersection, so to say that project related traffic is dissipated in not supported by evidence. Forty percent of project related traffic is anticipated to use the intersection of 1511 Street and Irvine Boulevard and the remaining 10% is expected to use other residential streets to the south. This percent equates to an increase in approximately 33 trips per day through residential streets to the south not in route to the Cliff Drive /Dover intersection. Response to Comment No. 3 Noise measurements were performed simply to describe the existing noise environment in the vicinity of the project. Section 4.4.4.2 of the DEIR examines long -term noise impacts. In this section, changes in traffic noise levels along roadways in the vicinity of the project due to traffic generated by the project are assessed. The roadways assessed are the same as those assessed in the traffic study, which have the greatest potential to be impacted by the project. The results show that the traffic generated by the project will not result in any substantial traffic noise increases and therefore, not result in a significant noise impact. Potential noise impacts from on -site activities including parking lot activity, gymnasium activities, and mechanical equipment are also assessed. The analysis shows that, with mitigation, these activities will not generate noise in excess of the City's Noise Ordinance, and therefore, not result in a significant noise impact. Response to Comment No. 4 Sound levels within the gym would need to be above 108 dBA inside the gym for a continuous 15- minute period to result in the noise level at the nearest residence to approach the 50 -dBA Leq nighttime Noise Ordinance limit. This level is approaching the threshold of pain and employees could not be exposed to this noise level for more than an hour per OSHA regulations. It is unlikely that any event in the proposed gym would generate sustained sounds at this level for anything approaching a sustained period. Therefore, the activities in the Gym will not result in a significant noise impact. 77 St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church Draft EIR Responses to Public Comments June 9, 2004 Response to Comment No. 5 Table 4.4 -8 of the DIER shows the assumed noise levels generated by parking lot/structure activity. The analysis surrounding this table shows that the parking lot/structure will not result in a significant noise impact. Response to Comment No. 6 Local air quality impacts from vehicles entering and exiting the parking structure were not considered because of the relatively low volume of traffic entering and exiting the project. Mestre Greve Associates routinely assesses local air pollutant concentrations around intersections with thousands of vehicles passing through them and these analyses almost never show air pollutant concentrations above the ambient air quality standards. Therefore, it is not expect that the number of vehicles expected to enter and exit the project to result in air pollutant concentrations exceeding the ambient air quality standards in the local area. Response to Comment No. 7 The EIR does not imply that the only vehicular access to the Church is from 15" Street. The photograph on page 4.5 -3 makes reference to 15" Street, the location from which the picture was taken. The photograph in the lower portion of page 4.5 -3 clearly shows that a curb cut that allows for ingress and egress to the site is located on Clay Street (viewed from Snug Harbor). In addition, Exhibit 3 -3 (Existing Site Development) also shows the locations of the three parking lot entrance locations on 15'" Street, Clay Street, and St. Andrews Road. Response to Comment No. 8 The aspect ratio of the photographs illustrated on pages 4.5 -2, 4.5-3 and 4.5 -4 were inadvertently changed during formatting of the document making the images appear stretched horizontally. This would have the effect of reducing the height of features and making them appear wider than actual. Non - distorted images will be included in the final EIR. Response to Comment No. 9 A shade /shadow analysis was not undertaken for the proposed project. A prior analysis conducted for a significantly taller structure previously proposed on the subject property concluded that although some shadows would be cast off the subject property, the building height was 105 feet, significantly higher than the buildings currently proposed. The building shadow for the 105 -foot structure in winter (December 21) was projected to remain primarily on the site, although a shadow would be cast along Haven Place for about an hour in the morning. That shadow would also extend across St. Andrews Road for a short time in the morning. In the afternoon, there would have been a shadow to the northeast, on the high school parking lot. The summer (June 21) shadows were forecast to be limited to the site, although for a short time (i.e., less than one hour) in the morning, the shadow of that building was shown to extend west across St. Andrews Road and Clay Street. Also, late afternoon shadows during the summer were also forecast to fall on four lots. However, it is important to understand that the proposed structures are significantly lower than the 105 feet previously evaluated and the extent of any shadows would be significantly less than those previously evaluated for the much taller structure. Because each of the new buildings proposed on the St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church property is approximately 32 feet high (not including the mechanical equipment on top of the buildings), it is anticipated that shadow effects, if any, would only occur for relatively brief periods at sunrise and sunset and would not be significant. St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church Draft EIR Responses to Public Comments June 9, 2004 78 I ' Response to Comment No. 10 ' Current City policy does not require a conflict of interest disclosure statement to be obtained and no such written statement from the EIR consultant presently exists. The EIR consultant has represented to the City that no conflict of interest exists. City staff has no reason to believe there is a conflict of interest between the environmental consultant and the applicant. 1 Response to Comment No. 11 ' The analysis presented in the Draft EIR is based on the rated capacity of the sanctuary, which is 1,387 seats. The reference to "special events" identified on page 4.2 -21 does not contradict the assumptions utilized to analysis the proposed project. The "special events" to which reference is made includes ' memorial services and other functions that are not typically part of the programmatic requirements of St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church because it is not possible to predict the number of people that would attend such functions. With those limited exceptions, which cannot be accurately predicted, the City will apply and enforce a condition of approval that limits concurrent use of the site not to exceed 1,387 persons. ' Response to Comment No. 12 ' This comment is acknowledged. Responses to each of the comments have been prepared in the preceding discussions. The comments and the responses will be submitted to the Newport Beach Planning Commission and City Council for consideration during the public hearing and EIR certification ' process. 1 79 St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church Draft EIR Responses to Public Comments June 9, 2004 Letter No. 19 April 28, 2004 RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH APR 3:0 2004 PM 7 �819�10 111 X12 �1 �2�3141516 City of Newport Beach Planning Department Attn: Mr. James Campbell, Senior Planner 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport $each, CA 92658 -8915 Re: Draft EIR for St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church, Newport Beach March 2004 Dear Sir: I 6061 Sierra Bravo Rd. , Irvine, CA 92612 I am a subcontracts engineer, retired from Fluor Corporation. During my 15 years with Fluor, I became familiar with the environmental impact studies and reports required by many of the subcontracts I wrote and worked on. This professionally prepared draft appears to me to cover all the bases. The mitigations and conclusions seem both thorough and reasonable. Our grandson and his family are also members of St. Andrew's. This fine young Christian is doing well academically and is on the crew at Newport Harbor High School. I want him to continue on the paths he has chosen — not those you read about in the newspapers. The proposed youth center would be an effective facilitator in developing him, others in the neighborhood of St. Andrew's and those who follow, as good neighbors and citizens. We appreciate and thank you for the efforts of you and your staff to implement progress in the City of Newport. CR/cja 80 Very truly yours, Carl Richardson 1 1 LJ C 1 C 1 I 1 19. Carl Richardson (April 28, 2004) Response to Comment No. 1 The comments in this letter suggest that the Draft EIR adequately evaluates the potential impacts of the proposed expansion of St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church and express support for that expansion. No further response is necessary. This letter will be forwarded to the Newport Beach Planning Commission and City Council for their consideration. St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church Draft EIR Responses to Public Comments June 9, 2004 81 I 1 82 1 ' Letter No. 20 April 28, 2004 RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT ' CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Mr. James Campbell, Senior Planner Planning Department APR 3 0 2004 , City of Newport Beach AM PM 3300 Newport blvd. 71819110111112111 2 3 4 516 I I I Newport beach, CA 92658 -8915 , Re: Draft EIR for St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church Dear Mr. Campbell: , We have just read the Draft EIR and it appears to be very thorough. It obviously represents a great deal of hard work. , We are members of St. Andrews and have lived in Cliff Haven for more than 50 years. The concerns of our neighbors about traffic, parking, noise and litter seem to us to be ' inaccurately aimed at the church and its members when many of the problems stem from the High School and the lack of enough parking for its students. St. Andrews wishes to install more parking spaces and also provide adequate facilities for programs for both ' Harbor High students and those from Ensign Intermediate School. These additions would provide a place for the young people to gather and help keep them and their cars off of the residential streets. ' Remember that we are not asking for greater seating capacity in our sanctuary. We hope that our thoughts will be helpful to you in your deliberations. ' Yours Truly, Ra mond J. Palmer Marga t . Palmer 702 St. James Place ' Newport Beach, CA 92663 ' (949) 548 -4739 1 82 1 .1 ' 20. Raymond and Margaret Palmer (April 28, 2004) Response to Comment No. 1 The comments in this letter suggest that the Draft EIR adequately evaluates the potential impacts of the proposed expansion of St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church and express support for that expansion. No further response is necessary. This letter will be forwarded to the Newport Beach Planning Commission and City Council for their consideration. St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church Draft EIR Responses to Public Comments June 9, 2004 83 DONALD B. SAMIS GRACE E. SAMIS 444 Serra Drive Corona del Mar, California 92625 Telephone Wtt 760 -0630 949 Letter No. 21 Mr James Campbell Senior Planner City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 April 28th, 2004 RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH APR 3 0 2004 71819110 111 1 1 2 11 12131415�6 RE: Draft EIR Report for St Andrew's Church 3 -04 -04 Dear Sir: We have reviewed the mitigation items in the Draft $IR (report and are of the opinion they handle the concerns well and proper:' 1 We do hope the report receives the approval of all the official entities in a timely manner in order that the church may proceed with this most wortH4aile prcject. Respectfully, , Am, ow- x 84 21. Donald and Grace Samis (April 28, 2004) Response to Comment No. 1 The comments in this letter suggest that the Draft EIR adequately evaluates the potential impacts of the proposed expansion of St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church and express support for that expansion. No further response is necessary. This letter will be forwarded to the Newport Beach Planning Commission and City Council for their consideration. St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church Draft EIR Responses to Public Comments June 9, 2004 85 r� RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT Letter No. 22 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH N aQ iQ 1 APR 2 9 2004 AM PM 7191 X12 11 1213,41516 f. �j cam, -�..� ���.' .�-✓ `�� �� 1 I I I I 86 1 I ' 22. Jean and George Slack (April 28, 2004) Response to Comment No. 1 The comments in this letter suggest that the Draft EIR adequately evaluates the potential impacts of the proposed expansion of St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church and express support for that expansion. No further response is necessary. This letter will be forwarded to the Newport Beach Planning Commission and City Council for their consideration. [l II II II II II II II II II I 1 87 St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church Draft EIR Responses to Public Comments June 9, 2004 1 Letter No. 23 6 St Q 2 , K1wp"t ge"41 C14 qyq 4116-- s6la Date: Qln;� �9, aoe I C/, <ai k� �l� St S�` Gue6u� &- J q .2 (P G 3 ' Mayor Ridgeway and Council City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92663 Re: St. Andrews Expansion Dear Honorable Mayor and Council: RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH APR 3 0 2004 PM 718 19110111 112111213141516 I understand that St. Andrews Presbyterian Church has published a $90,000 EIR in support for their huge expansion. I am not familiar with the CEQA guidelines and I won't judge this report, but I can tell you the church is a serious growth concern in our neighborhood. Without having seen this huge document, the churches presence in the community already is a huge traffic generator and noisy. The application asks the City for 140,388 square feet, 35,500 more than is already too much. The math does not work in this small community. Their size is already an impact. Please, Council, look seriously at the 20 -year old CUP and ask if the programs they have now were contemplated then. If St. Andrews wants to be bigger they should move. Please vote to deny this application. )ta4,4M1q,A� "t d a4l, o ,a �'-.e4g 88 1 I ' 23. Donna A. Gallant (April 29, 2004) Response to Comment No. 1 This comment expresses opposition to the proposed project and acknowledges that she did not review the Draft EIR. Although several concerns are raised in this letter, no specific comments on the adequacy of the information presented in the Draft EIR have been identified. This letter will be forwarded to the Newport Beach Planning Commission and City Council for their consideration. St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church Draft EIR Responses to Public Comments June 9, 2004 89 Letter No. 24 ' April 29, 2004 RECEIVED BY rLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH James Campbell, Senior Planner ' City of Newport Beach Planning Department APR 3 0 2004 P.O. Box 1768 AM PM Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 71819110111 X12 11 121314j516 ' Dear Mr. Campbell, 1 Thank you for the opportunity to provide feedback to the Draft EIR for the proposed St. ' Andrews Presbyterian Church expansion. I would appreciate your response to the following questions not addressed in the EIR. Program Description: ' I do not think the EIR addresses a needs assessment of the St. Andrews Membership. ' Where does it describe the congregation's support of the expansion? Has the congregation been contacted and had the opportunity to provide feedback? Does the EIR assume membership is informed about the expansion and supports these changes? It was my understanding the original goal was outreach to new neighborhoods, and to make St. Andrews available to more people from different areas. Now it seems St. Andrews is not planning to increase membership. Where are the clear and concise objectives, and are these supported by a well - informed membership? The EIR does not describe the Programmatic Changes the church plans to make if the ' expansion is completed. What are the specific programmatic changes that necessate the expansion? What is the schedule for the new activity center? When will the concerts and 2 or sports league activities be held - once a week on Sundays only? Will they be at the ' same time as Sunday Services or in the evening? What about during the week? How often will it be used and how many people will attend events at the new facility. The new structure inevitably means more people, more people means more traffic — where is this additional usage quantified on a daily basis? I'm concerned that commitments and decisions made at the past St. Andrews expansion , 3 have been omitted and overlooked from this EIR. I think the details of the past expansion and conversations with people who were involved originally need to be addressed. Traffic: The EIR does not address additional traffic on Clay Street and surrounding neighborhood streets such as Snug Harbor, Pirate, and Kings. Could we please understand what 4 consideration has been given to the increased traffic on the surrounding residential streets? What are the plans to ensure the safety of the children and residents when it is ' evident traffic will increase significantly on these streets as well as 15ffi and Irvine? 1 90 1 I 1 Current Usage: 1 It has been brought to our attention that St. Andrews owns or rents residential property in 5 the surrounding area and conducts functions and meetings in these just off -site locations. Have the number of participants of functions at the surrounding properties been included 1 in the EIR? Has the church exceeded the allowed usage numbers with current activities? Alternatives: ' In my opinion, St Andrew's may have outgrown this location and it is the responsibility 1 6 of the City, the Church and this EIR to evaluate alternatives. I do not think this has been adequately addressed in the EIR. Please comment. 1 Thank you very much for your consideration of my comments. I look forward to hearing back from you. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions. 1 Diane Connelly DianecoRmsn.com 1 321 Pirate Road Newport Beach, CA 92663 (949) 722 -1904 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 91 24. Diane Connelly (April 29, 2004) Response to Comment No. 1 The applicant, St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church, has submitted an application to the City that proposes an expansion of the existing facilities. It is not know if a "needs assessment" of the church membership was conducted and a needs assessment is not necessary for the application to be evaluated. The Draft EIR was prepared pursuant to the City's development review process that requires that projects that are subject to CEQA be adequately evaluated. The analysis presented in the Draft EIR evaluates the project currently proposed by the applicant and is not concerned with the issue of whether the membership is informed about the expansion and /or supports the changes. The project description contained in Chapter 3.0 reflects the specific project parameters and articulates the project objectives as expressed by the applicant and prepared by City staff. Response to Comment No. 2 The issue of whether the church membership has provided feedback or otherwise supports the proposed project does not raise any issues related to the adequacy of the environmental analysis. The project objectives, which are presented in Section 3.6 of the Draft EIR, include the provision of the new Youth and Family Center and classrooms to better serve the needs of the church membership. Other goals include the provision of additional parking and more efficient and modern facilities. The Draft EIR evaluated the potential environmental consequences of the project as currently proposed by the project applicant. Response to Comment No. 3 The proposed development is intended to accommodate the existing programs conducted at St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church in a more efficient manner. Several programs currently conducted outdoors would be moved inside with the completion of the Youth and Family Center. Table 3 -5 identifies the programs that are conducted by the church, which would be the same programs that would continue with the proposed improvements. A schedule that identifies specific events (e.g., concerts, sports activities, etc.) has not been identified; however, it is anticipated that such events would occur in the same manner as now take place at the church. Church officials have indicated that the gymnasium would not be utilized by outside groups to accommodate sports leagues or similar programs. It should be noted that there are no programmatic or scheduling limitations imposed of the site presently other than a limit on concurrent use of the chapel and sanctuary and a prohibition of a school past pre - school. Aside from these limits and those identified as mitigation measures, it can be assumed that without any additional operational limits or conditions imposed, the applicant could use the proposed facilities without limits. Response to Comment No. 4 The City's Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO) requires analysis and mitigation of impacts at primary signalized intersections identified in the TPO and at other intersections, as identified by City staff. The focus of the TPO is to address impacts at key intersections of main arterials during the morning and evening peaks. It is acknowledged that the streets mentioned could potentially carry some component of the traffic destined for the church, although the majority is assumed to arrive and depart via Irvine Avenue, Clay Street, and 15'" Street. Project trip distribution assumes that 50% of project related traffic will come through the Cliff Drive /Dover intersection and 40% of traffic will travel on through the Dover /Coast Highway intersection, so to say that project related traffic is dissipated in not supported by evidence. Forty percent of project related traffic is anticipated to use the intersection of 15" Street and Irvine Boulevard and the remaining 10% is expected to use other residential streets to the south. This percent equates to an increase in approximately 33 trips per day through residential streets to the south not in route to the Cliff Drive /Dover intersection. St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church Draft EIR Responses to Public Comments June 9, 2004 92 I I I 1 I I 1 1 i I ' Response to Comment No. 5 ' The Draft EIR evaluated the improvements as proposed by the applicant. Activities, if any, that may occur at off -site locations are not included in the analysis presented in the Draft EIR because there is no indication in the application that the programs currently implemented by the church (refer to Table 3 -5 in Chapter 3, Project Description) occur at any other property. Response to Comment No. 6 ' The improvements proposed by the church do not include an expansion of the existing sanctuary or chapel. Because no such expansion is proposed, the City determined that an alternative that evaluates the relocation of the entire church is not necessary. Nonetheless, the City determined that an alternative that evaluated the potential impacts associated with relocating the Youth and Family Center (and ' gymnasium) on an alternative site is appropriate and is included in the Draft EIR. 1 I [J I 1 93 St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church Draft EIR Responses to Public Comments June 9, 2004 1 Clerk to copy each of the council Letter No. 25 Pau! s. �a�(aKf 64 s-f tk� /1i/ Nzu°f8 �r 93663 419 �YS 3s /� From d of �'�2 fozyr� o6 C( ' S0` Q, Ae`-� P--/, 4 44- aw a a6- 0,"" `s`T�f c(lnec&�, IWpa6Tew/ 6 ( S7 a4fA � CCcw��4, �sa'oD q,m;( 29, laoz/ Mayor Ridgeway and Council City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92663 Re: St. Andrews Expansion Dear Honorable Mayor and Council: RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH APR 3 U 2004 PM 7 819110111112111213141516 The proposal by St. Andrews Presbyterian Church asks that the City find appropriate, for this neighborhood church, to grow to 140,388 square feet- over 34% larger then the already 104,822 square feet. I am appalled at this suggestion and ask you to deny this application. If St. Andrews wants to expand any of their youth and adult programs they need to find a better site where the church is served by collector streets able to handle the volumes of 24 -7 traffic that will accompany this full range of uses. In a time when neighborhoods are dear to the families that comprise them, this pressure of greater land use density and application forthis type of muli -use expansion must consistently be denied. I understand that a DEIR is being developed for the property and I say, so what. Even if the EIR were to say 'terrific', the community still says, and rightly so; 'no; it just doesn't work'. Please find that staff looks at the current CUP very stringently and that the staff consider conditions to protect the neighborhoods. And, please find that St. Andrew's church may be made better, but no larger. Please hear the citizens on this issue Yours truly, i)ox a a ,ea /,(Z- f (�ati.l S. /�,4Xl 6tic7 4 94 I ' 25. Donna and Paul Gallant (April 29, 2004) Response to Comment No. 1 This comment expresses strong opposition to the proposed project. Although several concerns are raised in this letter, no specific comments on the adequacy of the information presented in the Draft EIR have been identified. This letter will be forwarded to the Newport Beach Planning Commission and City Council for their consideration. St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church Draft E/R Responses to Public Comments June 9, 2004 95 2004-Apr -30 04:40pm From -NMUSD BUS SVCS +7144245015 T -870 P.002/004 F -982 , NEWPORT- -MESA Unified School District 2985A Bear Street • Costa Mesa • California 92626 • (714) 424 -5000 BOARD OF TRUSTEES Dana Black • Dave Brooks • Tom Egan Martha Fluor • Judy Franco • Linda Sneen • Serene Stokes Robert J. Barber Ed. D., Superintendent Mailing Add( s: P.Q1 Box 1368 Letter No. 26 Newport Bench. CA 926630366 Mr. ,Tames CaLmpbell, Senior Planner, Newport Beach Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Bez ch, California 92658 -8915 Dear Mr. Campbell: The Newport -Mesa Unified School District is in receipt of the Draft Environmental Impact Report 1.'or the St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church General Plan Amendment and Use Permit. In that the project is immediately adjacent to Newport Harbor High School and the document mentions the school district in section 10.4.4.2 Traffic and Parkingwe would like to make the following comments. There is no formal parking agreement between the school district and St. Andrews, and no such agreement is contemplated at this time. We recognize that there has been some confusion on this point in the past and would direct your attention to our previous letter to the Newport 3each Planning Commission, dated June 16, 2003, which is attached. Section 10.4.4. • raises at least the speculation of a joint school district /church parking 2 structure on tic grounds of Newport Harbor high School. Please be advised that there are no plans for such a structure and that the school district has not indicated any interest in the creation of such an option. 3 Please also be advised that the school district's Measure A modernization program will be in various stages of construction at Newport Harbor High School until late 2005, and that the planned replacement of the Robins/Loats building (the tower building) is anticipated to commence soon after that. Even short term impacts which would close the school's 15'h 3arking lot would need to be reviewed by the district as to both normal operation and construction at the site for the time that such closure is planned. Sincerely ;d / i '' Paul H. Reed Assistant Sup nintendent, Business Services 96 RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH APR 3 0 2004 AM PM 7181911 0 11 1 11 2 11 1213141516 I I 2004-APi -30 04:40pm From -NMUSD BUS SVCS +7144245015 T-670 P.003/004 F -982 NEWPORT -MESA Unified School District 2985A Sear Street • Costa Mesa • California 92626 • (714) 424 -5000 BOARD OF TRUSTEES Dana Black • Dave Brooks • Tom Egan Martha Fluor • Judy Franco • Linda Sneen • Serene Stokes Robert J. Barbot Ed. D., Superintendent Mailing Address: P.O. Box 1368 Newport Beach, CA 92663 -0368 June 16, 2003 Mr. Steven Kiser Chairman, Planning Commission City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beacli, CA 92663 Ms Patricia Temple - Planning Direc:or City of Newpori Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92663 RE: St. Andrews Presbyterian Church, Application for Conditional Use Permit RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH APR 3 0 2004 PM AM 1911011111211121314t516 ' Dear Mr. Kiser and Ms. Temple: We are all aware that parking in the neighborhood around Newport Harbor High School is an ' issue of concern. We are also aware that there are ongoing discussions considering proposals from St. Andrews Presbyterian Church for renovation and modernization of the church facilities. The School District is pleased to have St. Andrews as a good neighbor of long standing. ' The District is Concerned, however, that there may be some misunderstanding regarding the relationship between the Newport -Mesa Unified School District and St. Andrews Presbyterian Church as it pe-tains to parking issues and the impact of parking on the church's proposed ' renovation and modernization plan. Information published by the church states the following: "St. Andrews and Newport Harbor High School have shared parking for 45 years. The church and high school expect to continue that historic relationship that helps ease ' parking demands on the neighborhood." As a general statement the information is correct. The Church and the School District have enjoyed a mutually beneficial relationship as good neighbors over the years, To the extent each ' have had parkir g •Facilities available when one or the other have had events which caused a peak parking demand the relationship has indeed provided additional options to the neighborhood. However, the District is compelled to clarify that the relationship has been merely one of good neighbors, To the best of our knowledge, and to the extent files stretching back forty-five years ' are available, ti- ere is no formal agreement between the Church and the School District that grants any spec ific parking or other facility rights to one or the other entity, 1 97 2004- Aar -SO 04:40pm From -NMUSD BUS SVCS Mr. Steven Ki :;er and Ms. Patricia Temple June 17, 200; Page Two +7144245015 T -870 P.004/004 F -982 We agree we 'rave enjoyed a historic relationship and hope it will continue, but as a matter of public record we must point out that it is not a contractual relationship. We trust no one is assessing it a+i such. Sincerely, A ' /& Paul H. Reed Assistant Sup arintendent Business Services c: Members of the Board of Education Super ntendent Robert J. Barbot Mr. Jake Easton, St. Andrews Presbyterian Church 98 1 26. Newport -Mesa Unified School District (Received April 30, 2004) I L7 1 �J 1 II Response to Comment No. 1 This comment is acknowledged. The City understands that there is no formal parking arrangement between the School District and St. Andrews and that both parties have enjoyed a mutually beneficial relationship as good neighbors. Both St. Andrews Presbyterian Church and the School District have enjoyed the privilege of parking upon each other's property when events have caused parking demands to peak. Continuance of this relationship is desired by all parties. Response to Comment No. 2 This comment is acknowledged. The analysis of a parking structure on existing 15'" Street parking lot at Newport Harbor High School is included in the Draft EIR as an alternative to accommodate parking for the proposed project in what would be hoped as a mutually beneficial arrangement. Response to Comment No. 3 This comment is acknowledged and has been addressed in the Draft EIR (refer to Section 4.2). Further, SC 4.2 -2 has been revised to reflect the need for the contractor for the project applicant to confer and coordinate with the School District to ensure that any concurrent construction activities can be addressed in the St. Andrew's Construction Traffic Control Plan. 99 St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church Draft EIR Responses to Public Comments June 9, 2004 RECEIVED BY , Letter No. 27 PLANNING DEPARTMENT James Campbell CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ' Senior Planner APR 3 0 2004 City of Newport Beach AM PM P.O. Box 1768 71819110111112111213141516 Newport Beach, CA 92658 Re: Draft EIR — St. Andrews proposed expansion ' Dear Mr. Campbell, ' As a concerned resident of Newport Beach, I would like to thank you for allowing me to voice my concerns over the planned expansion by St. Andrews. Our ' primarily single family residential neighborhood is impacted by many different factors. Traffic and related parking though seem to make up the greatest threat to the current levels of safety, security and peace we enjoy. ' I'm concerned that not enough consideration was given to certain key factors in the draft EIR. , 100 1 • Church expansion —The church has systematically and continuously grown since it's inception. It is no longer a quiet neighborhood church, but ' is seeking to become a large regional facility serving more than the 1 surrounding neighborhood. It is hard to believe that they have remained in compliance with the CUP, zoning and planning regulations through their ' growth. • Programs — The Church had continuously added to their programs, with morning and evening speakers and events, Saturday evening services, ' .concerts, etc., etc. The EIR does not address the additional uses and 2 increased programs that an enlarged facility will allow. The Church's plan even shows a large amount of space dedicated to storage. Isn't that a use ' better suited to an offsite facility? • Alternate Site — With the potential for the planned and additional expansion of the facility and the increased current uses and future 3 programs, it would seem more investigation should be given to an alternate site. • Parking — Evidence would suggest that during peak usage, the parking t and attendant traffic would be negatively affected. With current 4 ingress /egress problems exacerbated by a structure, traffic would back up in the neighborhood and more street parking can be expected, with the structure ending up being under utilized. • Traffic — Increased programs and usage will increase the amount of 1 visitors and the traffic in the neighborhood. During peak usage, streets such as Pirate Rd., Snug Harbor, Clay and Signal become major 5 thoroughfares. These neighborhood residential streets, with no sidewalks, ' become crowded with cars, the additional street parking by Church users complicates the issue. Where does the EIR deal with the potential for a 100 1 serious accident with one of our residents, especially the children and elderly. In conclusion, there are a number of significant issues affecting the quality of life in our neighborhood that need more complete investigation. I appreciate your consideration with regards to this matter. Please feel free to contact me if you would like further clarification or have any questions. Warm Regards, Jim Connelly 321 Pirate Rd. Newport Beach 949 - 722 -1904 101 Ll 27. Jim Connelly (Received April 30, 2004) t Response to Comment No. 1 ' This comment does not raise any environmental issues related to the adequacy of the Draft EIR. No response is necessary. Response to Comment No. 2 The on -site programs that are conducted at St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church are presented in Table 3 -5 in the Draft EIR. It is anticipated that these programs will continue to be provided by the church and, ' therefore, they are the basis for the environmental analysis contained in the Draft EIR. The new structures are intended to provide more efficient use of the site and facilitate the current programs by providing modern facilities that have been designed to be more efficient and responsive to the specific ' programmatic needs of the church as identified in Table 3 -5. The Draft EIR acknowledges that increased activity is a likely result of project approval. Response to Comment No. 3 ' Chapter 10.0 of the Draft EIR evaluates alternatives to the proposed project, including an alternative site (for the youth and family center /gymnasium). As indicated in that analysis, it does not appear that vacant , property within the vicinity of the existing church is available. As further indicated, most of the potential impacts identified for the proposed project would occur at an alternative site, which would merely be transferred to the alternative location. ' Response to Comment No. 4 The future parking for the church will provide 150 additional parking spaces, in a single -level structure with , standard width drive aisles and parking stalls. The number and location of access points will remain the same. Ingress and egress for the structure and the parking spaces will be improved over the existing parking lot layout. The on -site parking spaces will be closer than any parking on the neighborhood , streets. The applicant will be required to implement design features to ensure that the structure is well lit and well signed and, further, that stairs and elevators are conveniently located for the comfort and convenience of its users. Taking all these factors into consideration, with a minimum of 45 minutes between services and the implementation of a parking management plan where parking attendants are ' used to facilitate efficient use of the parking garage, there is no basis to assume that the structure will not be used. , Response to Comment No. 5 The additional square footage is intended to be used to accommodate existing church functions and , programs. The gymnasium will be used primarily for existing youth activities, which are currently held in other existing church facilities or outdoors. Church officials have indicated that the gymnasium will not be made available to outside groups for non - church functions or leagues. Providing a facility to , accommodate only the church youth functions currently taking place at the church will not generate significant traffic increases. It is acknowledged that increased activity may occur over time should programs and membership at the church grow. The EIR predicts that an additional 328 vehicle trips per ' day will access the site, which is not creating a significant traffic impact. St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church Draft EIR ' Responses to Public Comments June 9, 2004 102 ' ' RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ' APR 3.0 2004 PM AM Letter No. 28 1819110111112111213141516 ' Mr. James Campbell, Senior Planner City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd., Newport Beach, CA 92658 ' Dear Sir: Webster J. Jones 341 Costa Mesa St., Costa Mesa, CA 92627 April 30, 2004 ' I started teaching at Newport Harbor High School in the fall of 1949. The following year my wife and I joined St. Andrew's. We have watched the expansion of the high school and our church for over fifty years. Some of my students have had the benefit of attending the youth programs that St. Andrew's has offered through pastors such as Jim Stewart, Charles Dierenfield, Kim Strutt, and Ed Snedeker. I have talked to former students at their class reunions and at church; I have come to realize that many of these programs have had a positive effect on their lives. In ' addition I feel that the proposed gym facility should in many cases meet the needs of some of the local youth and young adults who might not have the time or skill for organized sports at the junior or senior high level. ' I have come to see the importance of exposing our youth to character building programs to counteract what they hear and see in the movies, ' on TV, and in recorded material. Today's young people need to have qualified persons with whom to talk to, to answer questions about what is ' going on in today's world and to receive some kind of guidance. These are the kinds of opportunities that St. Andrew's is offering for our youth. ' I have read over the DEIR, and it would implement and improve the current program for our young people, as it exists today. 1 103 28. Webster J. Jones (April 30, 2004) Response to Comment No. 1 The comments in this letter suggest that the Draft EIR adequately evaluates the potential impacts of the proposed expansion of St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church and express support for that expansion. No further response is necessary. This letter will be forwarded to the Newport Beach Planning Commission and City Council for their consideration. w 1 11 St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church Draft EIR ' Responses to Public Comments June 9, 2004 104 I 1 Gary P. Hill 503 Kings Road Newport Beach, CA- Letter No. 29 April 30, 2004 James Campbell, Senior Planner City of Newport Beach Planning Department P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach Ca 92658 -8915 Subject; St. Andrews Presbyterian Church Proposed Expansion Draft EIR. Mr. Campbell rLANNING DE DEPARTMENT ITY OF NEWPORT BEACH AM APR 3 -0 -2004 PM 71819110111,1211 12131415 6 ' As a property owner in Cliff Haven neighborhood and having lived (in three separate homes) within one mile of St Andrews Church for over fifty years I believe I have a good idea of what is going on there. As stated in the EIR draft it is false to say the Church has occupied that much area for fifty years. ' The Church that was once a Sunday only church and pre school Monday through Friday, has now gone to a huge business empire operating seven days a week and over twelve hours a day. I would like to see in their current use permit ( No. 822) where they are allowed to run such a business. 1 H I cannot talk about air quality, but as far as the car traffic goes the amount of cars that are using the 2 small residential streets has increased drastically. The increased traffic is not just on Sundays anymore, it is very busy all the time. I would like to know when St. Andrews is doing there traffic study per there use permit because the traffic is out of hand. 3 The proposed parking structure that is planned will not solve the parking problem in the neighborhood. It is been true in most studies that seniors do not park in parking structures they avoid them at all costs so we have them all again in the neighborhood streets. 4 I just can't believe the expanded St. Andrews church would be good for our neighborhood. St Andrews should move out to Bonita Canyon if they want to run such a huge business empire. Sincerer .� I 949 -675 -0740 Email garypbill@sbcglobal.net IGld 29. Gary P. Hill (April 30, 2004) t Response to Comment No. 1 , This comment expresses opposition to the proposed project. Although several concerns are raised in this letter, no specific comments on the adequacy of the information presented in the Draft EIR have been identified. The church has not occupied the entire project site for 50 years as the comment would , suggest. The project site was expanded in 1982 when the church purchased 10 single family dwellings facing Clay Street that were subsequently developed for parking. Response to Comment No. 2 , The traffic analysis conducted for the proposed project is based on the City standard methodology and the 1 expansion of the facilities as proposed by the project applicant. The comment that traffic in the neighborhood is "out of hand" will be forwarded to decision makers for review. Response to Comment No. 3 t Aversion to public parking structures is partially due to unfamiliarity with the facility, and uncertainty about its security. A parking structure on a church property would not be viewed with the same concerns by ' church members. Church members will be regular users of the parking structure, and will become familiar with its layout and orientation of the entry and exit drives. Several measures have been recommended to ensure that the structure is well lit, not dark and gloomy, and that access from the structure to the church 1 is convenient and well marked. Additionally, the parking spaces and drive isles will meet all City requirements and compact spaces are not permitted. These features will assist in making the structure more user friendly. The Traffic Study suggests that consecutive services be separated by a minimum of 45 minutes so that the garage can empty and fill effectively. ' Response to Comment No. 4 This comment reflects the opinion of the commentor and does not question the adequacy of information ' presented in the Draft EIR. This comment will be forwarded to the Newport Beach Planning Commission and City Council for consideration prior to taking an action on the proposed project. The improvements proposed by the church do not include an expansion of the existing sanctuary or chapel. Because no , such expansion is proposed, the City determined that an alternative that evaluates the relocation of the entire church is not necessary. Nonetheless, the City determined that an alternative that evaluated the potential impacts associated with relocating the Youth and Family Center (and gymnasium) on an ' alternative site is appropriate and is included in the Draft EIR. C] St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church Draft EIR , Responses to Public Comments June 9, 2004 106 ' I ' RECEIVED BY BRUCE C. STUART PLANNING DEPARTMENT 333 Pirate Road CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ' Newport Beach, CA 92663 APR 3 0 2004 PM (949) 725 -4118 71819110111112111213141516 Letter No. 30 April 30, 2004 ' VIA EMAIL ocampbell@city.newport-beach.ca.us James Campbell, Senior Planner City of Newport Beach Planning Department P.O. Box 1768 ' Newport Beach, California 92658 Re: St. Andrews Presbyterian Church Proposed Expansion Draft EIR, SCH: 2003081065 Dear Mr. Campbell: As a 26 year resident of Pirate Road and one who has lived through the prior church expansion in 1982, my family and I have significant concerns with respect to the proposed St. Andrews expansion. To that end, I have reviewed the draft EIR described above and have a ' number of questions or comments. The numbers opposite my comments correspond to Section or Page numbers of the draft EIR. ' 3.5 During the construction activity, how will the parking demands of the Church's other programs, such as their preschool, be addressed? How will the absence of on -site parking impact high school parking in the neighborhood during the construction? How ' will use of shuttle services be enforced? Table 4.1 -2 Is the general plan policy with respect to changes in character of the neighborhood limited solely to the look or use of the building? Can't the increase in intensity of use ' result in a significant change in the residential character of the neighborhood? Further, the reference to a "modest" increase in floor area in the third line of the second box, given the over 30% increase in floor area, appears grossly inaccurate. Further, the 2 conclusory statement made at the end of the paragraph that the expansion will not result in a significant cumulative traffic impact seems unsupported. The analysis of the intensity of use seems focused solely on the use of the sanctuary. In determining the ' level of utilization of the church facilities on Sunday or Saturday, only the numbers of attendees in the sanctuary appear to be counted. What of the Sunday School attendees, which are in separate buildings during the same service time? The policy analysis 1 1 DOCSOCh 041588v 1 /19999 -0000 107 James Campbell, Senior Planner April 30, 2004 Page Two further assumes, without any evidence, that the parking structure will be adequately used. Please provide the basis for such conclusion. Further, on page 4.1 -7, in the third box, it appears that offsite parking is relied upon in satisfying parking needs. Therefore, it would appear that the increased floor area and additional parking structure will not alleviate any existing parking issues. There is already a significant adverse impact on the neighborhood based on current utilization of the church facilities which is far beyond that initially contemplated by the 1982 Use Permit due to the expansion of the Church programs, including the addition of Saturday evening services. To add more imposes too great a burden on the neighborhood. 4.I.4.2 The initial paragraph seems to focus solely on the sanctuary for determining parking demands. In fact, what are the total attendance counts in the sanctuary and at Sunday 3 school to determine whether that is an appropriate measure? See prior comment concerning lack of evidence of how the parking structure will improve current and future parking problems. r] On page 4.1 -10, the analysis focuses on the type of use and ignores completely the intensity of use that will occur due to the increased facilities. By its own statements, the Church has indicated that it wants to expand its facilities to enhance (aka expand) its offering to its youth groups, especially at the high school level. How is that potential additional demand addressed with respect to parking and traffic impacts? Further, the use of gymnasium which the report specifies would increase levels of traffic and demands for parking above what presently exists, are said not to be significant, yet the only traffic analysis done with respect to an intersection near the neighborhood was the intersection at Cliff Drive and Dover. No analysis appears to have been done with respect to the impact on traffic throughout the Cliff Haven neighborhood, especially Pirate Road, which serves as a principal access route to the Church parking lot currently (and would be for the parking structure). 4.1.5 The mitigation measures do not appear to take into consideration the impact on traffic 5 in any area other than at the intersection of 15t1' and Irvine. What is anticipated to occur if the LOS at 15t1' and Irvine is at a level F due to construction and school conflicts? How will other intersections and streets be affected? Won't people choose alternate routes, thereby burdening other intersections? 1-4.2 Why was an analysis of traffic on Sunday not conducted? Has the Church agreed that 6 the gymnasium facility would never be utilized on Sundays? DOCSOC/ 1041588v ] / 19999 -0000 108 James Campbell, Senior Planner April 30, 2004 ' Page Three ' 4.2.1 Weekday Parking Demand. The analysis of parking demands seems to ignore the cumulative effect of the Church and High School on the neighborhood. It segregates 7 demand between the Church and the High School. Although the Church cannot control the High School parking, the absence of on -site parking during construction and an t increase in the intensity and level of use during school hours or during the evenings when the school has functions, creates potential conflicts. 4.2.1 On Page 4.2 -11, the City acknowledges that there is available, unused parking on the Newport Harbor High School lot often during Church services, yet members choose to 8 park on the more proximate neighborhood streets. On what basis does the study indicate that a parking structure will be utilized more than the High School parking lot and thereby alleviating the impact on the neighborhood? SC4.2 -1 What enforcement mechanisms are contemplated with respect to any construction ' 9 I parking in the residential neighborhood? 14.2.4.1 What is the average load each truck will carry? What after peak hours of operation are ' 10 contemplated for truck operations in the event construction activity occurs during the school year or during school construction? Further, how far is the Lighthouse Coastal Community Church from St. Andrews? 1 ' 11 4.2.4.1 Further Parking Condition. When the daycare drop -offs occur, will the balance of the parking structure be able to handle the parking demand at that time? Will drop -off result in a back -up or queuing into the neighborhood. See prior comment concerning my question about the conclusion about the adequacy of the existing road network to handle the increase in traffic. What support is given for the statement "the increased parking proposed on -site, augmented with the parking at Newport Harbor High School and on- street parking adjacent to the Church will reduce the demand for parking on the residential streets ?" This assumes people will park in the parking structure and the High School lot (which the EIR states is not fully utilized now and thus probably wouldn't be in the future) and not park in the more convenient location of the neighborhood streets. 12 MM4.2 -1 See prior comment requesting definition of "non -peak hours ". MM4.2 -2 What is the impact if the parking arrangement with the School District ceases? How 13 could it cease? ' MM4.2 -3 Please indicate what, if any, of these measures are currently utilized by the Church to 14 handle existing parking problems. What specific enforcement mechanisms are intended ' to be used to prevent church parking on neighborhood streets? 1 ' DOCSOC/1041588v1/19999 -0000 109 James Campbell, Senior Planner April 30, 2004 Page Four 15 I MM4.24 How will the operation of the parking structure be handled to avoid a back -up of traffic in the neighboring streets? 16 1 MM4.2 -7 Has any study of the parking structure utilization been conducted? 17 IMM4.2 -10 See prior comment concerning establishing basis of measurement on total attendance, not just the sanctuary. MM4.2 -1 I This would appear to allow an even greater intensity of use, which by necessity would 18 have to increase the overall level of traffic, only perhaps reducing it during a peak period. This makes the problems in the neighborhood perhaps less at one period, but larger over a greater period. 4.2.6 Please indicate the basis for the conclusion that the project will not exacerbate the 19 existing parking deficiencies in the neighborhood. This appears to be predicated upon full utilization of the parking structure, no evidence of which has been provided. 201 4.3.4.2 Please indicate whether or not there is any effect on local air quality caused by traffic backups which could be created by cars queuing in and around the parking structure. 21 4.4.1 With respect to the noise study, no measurements appear to have been taken in the neighborhood itself. Most of the measurements appear to be some distance from the residential neighborhood. _ What are the impacts with respect to intended noise in the Cliff Haven neighborhood itself? This would apply both during construction and afterwards due to traffic and Church operations. On page 4.4 -14, there is a statement that the design will minimize noise escaping from the facility. How much noise is anticipated to escape? How will that affect the ambient noise in the neighborhood? 4.5.4.2 The analysis of the impact on the neighborhood does not appear to take into 22 consideration the massing of the gymnasium closer to the residences. Also, it does not discuss the height of the parking structure as it relates to the current height of the parking lot and landscape berm. 4.5.4 Shouldn't the study indicate that the neighboring Cliff Haven area does not generally 2S have street lights and therefore any lighting increase is noticeable. Further, the level of lighting appears to be in conflict with later statements about security that requires recognition of people at a distance of 100 feet. Please reconcile these statements. 24 1 MM4.5- I Where is the construction staging area to be located? DOCSOC/ 1041588v 1/ 19999 -0000 110 James Campbell, Senior Planner April 30, 2004 Page Five 14.6.2 What is the level of incident reports for parking structures in the Newport Beach area 25 with respect to vandalism and similar issues? How will the security for the parking structure in the evenings be handled? 4.6.4.2 Are there are safety concerns from the Fire or Police Department with respect to t 26 increased traffic through the Cliff Haven neighborhood, which, when coupled with the onsite parking for the neighbors and the Church and the presence of a number of children, seems to create higher risk of accidents? ' 27 MM4.6 -2 See prior comment concerning mitigation measures which appear to conflict with the photometric study. ' 2$ 1 I 1 6.2 I would strongly disagree that the impact of the expansion would be reduced to a level of insignificance by the proposed mitigation monitoring /reporting program. A 34% increase in floor area, placing approximately 135,000 square feet on a 3.9 acre site which is acknowledged to be parking deficient now, and 62 spaces deficient later, which relies on full utilization of a parking structure about which no evidence has been given to assure its full utilization and /or traffic flow is not logically insignificant. 9.2 The report appears to focus mainly on buildings and the type of use. The High School enrollment is increasing and therefore the level of the intensity of its use will be 29 increasing. The report does not seem to adequately address the cumulative effect of that increased enrollment and the potential increase in utilization.of the Church facilities on the neighborhood. 30 9.3.1 See prior comment that the report focuses on the type use and does not appear to consider the increase in the intensity of use. ' 31 9.3.6 See prior question concerning definition of Non -Peak Hours. Further, note that there is an increase which will be created at the Dover Drive and Cliff Drive intersection. This is one of the main entrances (if not the main entrance) to the Cliff Haven residential neighborhood. Also, what impact does the current traffic calming study being conducted for Newport Heights and Cliff Haven based on current traffic problems throughout the neighborhood, have on the contemplated traffic impacts from the St. Andrews expansion? Please note that I do concur with the conclusion on page 9 -5 with respect to the "current undesirable on- street parking conditions in adjacent residential neighborhoods ". However, there appears to be no clear basis for any indication as to how the parking structure or parking management program would alleviate the current undesirable conditions, especially in light of the increased intensity of use. ' DOCSOC/1041588v1/19999 -0000 ill 32 James Campbell, Senior Planner April 30, 2004 Page Six , 10.4.1 This alternative is the most appealing to the neighbors. There are already deficiencies in ' parking as acknowledged in the EIR which the City should review as part of the Use Permit now. To increase the intensity of usage on the site would exacerbate an already existing ' problem. The unsupported reliance on a parking structure to solve not only a current problem, but to absorb the future expansion is unsupported. The analysis indicates that certain other choices would not change the current parking demands and therefore ignore the ' existing problems and the additional traffic /parking issues that are created by the expansion and increase in operations from that contemplated in 1982. To allow further expansion is unwise and would be detrimental to the Cliff Haven residential neighborhood adjoining St. ' Andrews. BCS:ssd Very truly yours, ' Bruce C. Stuart ' 1 1 DOCSOC/ 1041588v 1/ 19999 -0000 112 , ' 30. Bruce C. Stuart (April 30, 2004) ' Response to Comment No. 1 The applicant has indicated that the pre - school will be relocated during the construction phase. In the event that a suitable site for relocating the pre - school cannot be secured, the school will be temporarily ' closed to avoid parking conflicts. The loss of the on -site parking allocated to the high school by the church would be eliminated. As a result, the students currently utilizing that parking (approximately 25 per day) would have to park elsewhere, including on the street if parking in either the 15" Street or 16" Street ' parking lots at NHHS are not available. This temporary loss could affect the current on- street parking conditions in the neighborhood. The manner in which shuttle service would be provided will be prescribed and enforce in the Parking Management Plan, which will be included in the Mitigation Monitoring and ' Reporting Program that the City will adopt to ensure that mitigation measures are implemented. Field verification of the shuttle operations will be conducted by City staff. Response to Comment No. 2 ' While it is true that changes in character could result from both the use and intensity of development, the analysis concluded that there would not be a significant change in the character of development for ' several reasons. The proposed Youth and Family Center will replace an existing classroom building and include a gymnasium and general assembly area. Although these "uses" may be different in function that the existing classrooms, the building will accommodate programs that currently take place both in the ' classrooms and other locations with the existing buildings as well as outdoors. In addition, approximately 45 percent of the increase in intensity encompasses restrooms, storage and circulation, which don't typically change the uses but contribute to the increase in the intensity of those uses proposed by the applicant. (It is important to note that although such non - usable space does not typically result in any direct operational impacts such as traffic, noise, air quality, etc., the approximately 16,000 square feet of floor area dedicated to these "uses" has been utilized to estimate the increase in traffic associated with the proposed project.) Finally, the new structures have been designed to be architecturally consistent and compatible with the existing church so as not to create a different character than currently exists on the site. The Draft EIR clearly indicates that the capacity (i.e., maximum on -site occupancy on any day, including Sunday) of the church and associated facilities has been established to be 1,387. Although this figure is based on the capacity of the sanctuary, that figure is the maximum number of occupants that can ' be accommodated on the property on any given day, including Sunday when church services result in peak usage of the site. The maximum capacity of the sanctuary will continue to be the basis of the on -site maximum occupancy with the implementation of the mitigation measures. As a result, the intensity of the ' use of the existing and proposed facilities will not change, however, the amount of usage over time may increase given the greater flexibility of use the new facilities will provide, even though the floor area of the total development increases. ' This comment also suggests that no evidence is included in the Draft EIR that the parking structure would be utilized. It is important to understand that the aversion to public parking structures is partially due to unfamiliarity with the facility, and uncertainty about its security. A parking structure on a church property ' would not be viewed with the same concerns by church members. Church members will be regular users of the parking structure, and will become familiar with its layout and orientation of the entry and exit drives. Several measures have been recommended to ensure that the structure is well lit, not dark and gloomy, and that access from the structure to the church is convenient and well marked. Most importantly, measures have been prescribed in the Draft EIR to facilitate the use of the parking structure, including instructing members and churchgoers to utilize the parking in the parking structure before seeking on- ' street parking. Additionally, the parking spaces and drive isles will meet all City requirements and compact spaces are not permitted. These features will assist in making the structure more user friendly. The Traffic Study suggests that consecutive services be separated by a minimum of 45 minutes so that the garage can empty and fill effectively. ' St. Andrew's Presbylerian Church Draft EIR Responses to Public Comments June 9. 2004 ' 113 J 1 Response to Comment No. 3 , The requirement for on -site parking is prescribed in the City's municipal code, which is based on the seating capacity of the sanctuary and not other uses that may occur on the site. At the present time, the City requires the provision of one parking space for every three seats in the sanctuary. While a deficiency ' of 63 parking spaces is anticipated, no increases in the capacity of the sanctuary is proposed; however, 150 additional parking spaces will be provided, including those in the parking structure. The parking study concludes that with the increase in on -site parking, combined with the availability of surface parking at the , NHHS 15" Street parking lot, and on- street parking available along 15' Street, Clay Street, and St. Andrews Road adjacent to the church, parking would be improved in the neighborhood because there would be adequate parking available from those sources. Response to Comment No. 4 When the church sanctuary was approved, the parking requirement was one parking space for each five ' seats, resulting in a need for only 277 parking spaces. A parking waiver was granted that allowed for a total of 250 parking spaces to be provided on -site. Since that time, however, the City changes its requirements for church parking, increasing the ratio of parking spaces to one for each three seats in the ' sanctuary. Based on that formula, a total of 463 on -site parking spaces would be required for the church. Although the applicant is not proposing to expand the capacity of the sanctuary, implementation of the proposed gymnasium will facilitate a broader range of activities, which would increase the level of activity , at the site and could create additional demands for parking. The proposed project provides an additional 150 parking spaces on -site, including spaces in both surface and subterranean parking facilities. This increase, to 450 parking spaces, is 63 spaces fewer than what ' would be required under the current parking code requirements. An extensive parking analysis was conducted that evaluated parking during the weekday, weekday evenings, and on Sunday to determine the nature and extent of church related parking demands, particularly that affecting the surrounding residential neighborhood. Based on that parking study, it was determined that the increase of on -site parking to 400 parking spaces as well as the availability of parking at the NHHS 15" Street parking lot and on- street parking along the roadways abutting the existing church (i.e., south side of 151 Street, east side ' of St. Andrews Road, and west side of Clay Street), will reduce the demand for parking along the residential streets. The potential increase in traffic associated with the uses occurring in the gymnasium is less than significant because existing roadway network and intersections have adequate capacity to accommodate the projected increase in traffic. ' The City's Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO) requires analysis and mitigation of impacts at primary signalized intersections identified in the TPO and at other intersections, as identified by City staff. The ' focus of the TPO is to address impacts at key intersections of main arterials during the morning and evening peaks. It is acknowledged that the streets mentioned could potentially carry some component of the traffic destined for the church, although the majority is assumed to arrive and depart via Irvine Avenue, Clay Street, and 15° Street. Project trip distribution assumes that 50% of project related traffic will come , through the Cliff Drive/Dover intersection and 40% of traffic will travel on through the Dover /Coast Highway intersection, so to say that project related traffic is dissipated in not supported by evidence. Forty percent of project related traffic is anticipated to use the intersection of 15'" Street and Irvine Boulevard ' and the remaining 10% is expected to use other residential streets to the south. This percent equates to an increase in approximately 33 trips per day through residential streets to the south not in route to the Cliff Drive/Dover intersection. , St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church Draft EIR ' Responses to Public Comments June 9, 2004 114 ' ' Response to Comment No. 5 The LOS E projected for the 15'" Street/Irvine Avenue intersection reflects the operating condition of that intersection during the 15- minute peak period associated with the school, which is anticipated either with or without the proposed project - related traffic. The City's traffic analysis methodology requires that mitigation measures be incorporated based on the typical peak hour conditions and not on a focused 15- minute peak within the peak hour. As indicated in the traffic analysis and in the Draft EIR, the 15'" Street/Irvine Avenue is forecast to operate at LOS D, which is acceptable based on the City's traffic analysis requirements and no mitigation measures are required. The mitigation measure identified in the ' Draft EIR, which limits construction vehicles to non -peak hours, is intended to minimize any conflicts at that intersection associated with the school traffic, even though the intersection will operate at an acceptable level of service based upon the peak hour period. 1 Response to Comment No. 6 i I I i I I The gymnasium may be used on Sunday for youth Sunday school activities, which are already occurring on the site. For the purposes of analysis, no concurrent assembly occupancy was anticipated, hence the mitigation measure limiting maximum occupancy of the site to the maximum sanctuary occupancy of 1,387. The occupancy load of the gymnasium has been established by the City Building Department at 460 people and as a result, use of the gymnasium would not generate additional traffic or create a demand for parking. Response to Comment No. 7 The parking analysis addressed all observed parking in the area, including school traffic. The proposed increase in on -site parking from 250 to 400 spaces, while maintaining a maximum occupant load of the site at 1,387, will alleviate some of the street parking that occurs now. During construction, the applicant has made temporary arrangements with Lighthouse Coastal Community Church located on Magnolia Street in the City of Costa Mesa to provide staff parking. In addition, the applicant has received a permit from the Newport Mesa School district for 400 parking spaces Wednesday, Saturday and Sunday during construction. Other off -site parking lots are being sought for other time periods. Response to Comment No. 8 The church on -site parking was fully utilized during the Sunday service. The parking structure will offer the closest parking, and will continue to be utilized by church members. The street parking immediately adjacent to the church property is also close and convenient, and will also continue to be viewed as desirable. Underutilized school parking is located across the street, and will likely continue to be the last parking area chosen due to proximity. Church personnel will be charged with monitoring parking behavior and reminding church members of the church's parking commitments as enforced through the parking management plan suggested as a mitigation measure. Response to Comment No. 9 The contractor will be responsible for identifying remote parking locations for construction workers to ensure that parking on neighborhood streets during construction does not occur. Construction parking will be addressed in the Parking Management Plan and will be enforced through the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP). The City will be responsible for ensuring that the mitigation measures, including those related to construction parking as addressed in the Parking Management Plan, are enforced through field verification. 1 115 St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church Draft EIR Responses to Public Comments June 9, 2004 u Response to Comment No. 10 Heavy trucks hauling construction debris and soils that will be exported from the site typically can carry 10 to 20 cubic yards of materials. Based on the City's Noise Ordinance, the construction activities could occur between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. Monday through Friday and 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on Saturday. No construction that generates noise would be permitted outside those hours. Construction activities are not permitted on Sundays and holidays. These hours of operation would be effective both during the school year and when school is not in session. The Lighthouse Coastal Community Church is located on Magnolia Street in the City of Costa Mesa, which is less than two miles north of the subject property. Response to Comment No. 11 The addition of 150 on -site parking spaces alone will reduce the need for parking on the neighborhood ' streets. Drop off for the existing pre - school should not impact efficient use of the parking structure. Vehicle back -up from pre - school drop off, if it occurs, can be re- directed such that it occurs on -site through proper site management. This potential situation can be accounted for within the parking management program required as a mitigation measure for the project. The implementation of a parking management plan to direct church members where to park and where not to park will further reduce the church parking on neighborhood streets (other than the streets immediately adjacent to the church property that do not have residential frontage on them). Response to Comment No. 12 The "peak hour" is defined as the four consecutive 15 minute periods with the highest traffic volumes. The AM peak falls within 7AM and 9AM and the PM peak falls within 4PM and 6PM. Non -peak hours are those times outside these defined "peaks." In the case of MM 4.2 -1, non -peak hours would be those ' hours outside the school a.m. and p.m. peak hours when school traffic is the greatest. Response to Comment No. 13 ' The Newport-Mesa Unified School District and St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church do not have a formal agreement to share parking. The church is free to use the 15'" Street parking to accommodate activities occurring at St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church when it is available. In addition, the church makes available some parking on its property to accommodate a limited number of students attending Newport Harbor High School. There is no indication from the School District or St. Andrew's that the existing informal parking arrangement will be terminated. Should the applicant lose the privilege of parking at NHHS, church - related parking within the area surrounding project site would likely increase and alternate supplies of off - street parking should be implemented. Response to Comment No. 14 The church does not currently have a formal Parking Management Program. The church has initiated a "parking ministry" where members are educated where to park and the sensitivities of the neighborhood. Information and maps have appeared in church newsletters. While church personnel do not have the I authority to impose formal penalties, the church will employ all possible measures and practices to gain compliance from church members with the parking management program. Response to Comment No. 15 The on -site parking will have three entries and exits, which will help to disperse the peak (parking) demand. It has been recommended that church personnel be required to park in the lower parking areas, to ensure full usage of this area of the structure, as well as to keep the upper level of parking available for St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church Draft EIR ' Responses to Public Comments June 9, 2004 116 ' church members and visitors. It is recommended that church members be directed to park sequentially, to fill in each parking space starting at the end of one aisle and working to the other end. It is also recommended that a circulation plan be developed that the break between church services be a minimum of 45 minutes, to allow the parking areas to clear out after the prior service. The use of parking attendants to facilitate efficient parking is contemplated with the parking management plan to avoid back -up at access points. ' Response to Comment No. 16 The traffic engineer evaluated the parking structure and recommends a 45 minute separation between services. Additionally, the use of standard parking stalls and minimum drive isles will facilitate more efficient use of the structure. Response to Comment No. 17 As previously indicated, parking requirements are based on the seating capacity of the sanctuary and not how the floor area is used. The parking analysis conducted for the proposed project relies on the parameters established by the City for on -site parking. Similarly, traffic generation is based on rates prescribed in the Institute of Traffic Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual (61" Edition). These are the ' relevant sources for forecasting traffic and parking. Response to Comment No. 18 As indicated in Response to Comment No. 17, the project - related trip generation is based on ITE rates for similar facilities. Table 4.2 -5 (refer to page 4.2 -14) in the Draft EIR revealed that a total of 328 additional daily vehicle trips would occur as a result of project implementation. That figure is based on a trip t generation rate of 9.11 trips for each 1,000 square feet. Based on the proposed increase in floor area of 35,948 square feet, the project would generate 328 additional vehicles per day. Peak hour trip generation was also forecast based on the applicable ITE rates. It must be understood that these daily and peak hour rates are averages based on floor area and do not necessarily reflect the specific use of the area by the church because there is a variation in how floor area is used. The EIR acknowledges that the proposed project will likely increase the intensity of use of the site less so in terms of peak usage, but in terms of more activities over time due to the new facilities flexibility of use. Response to Comment No. 19 The parking counts showed that the church parking was fully utilized during Sunday services and near capacity on a Wednesday evening, when a number of church functions were under underway. The addition of 150 on -site parking spaces alone will reduce the need for parking on the neighborhood streets I assuming that more than 250 cars use the 400 space garage. There is no indication that the parking structure will not be used by church members once it is completed. Response to Comment No. 20 Although a CO "hot spot' analysis was not conducted for the parking structure, local air quality was evaluated on in Section 4.3.4.2 in the Draft EIR (refer to page 4.3 -8). Because the intersections serving traffic from the project are projected to continue to operate at conditions much better than LOS D, they would not be expected to experience air pollutant concentrations (i.e., CO "hotspot) in excess of the ambient air quality standards. It is anticipated that long- queues would not occur based on the requirement to space services at least 45 minutes apart, which is specifically intended to avoid those conditions and provide for freer flow of traffic into and out of the parking structure. St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church Draft EIR Responses to Public Comments June 9, 2004 117 Response to Comment No. 21 Noise measurements were taken in the residential neighborhood southeast of Clay Street (refer to Exhibit 4.4 -2). As indicated on page 4.4 -2, average (Leq) ambient noise levels in that residential neighborhood are less than 60 dBA, which are within the exterior noise standards established by the City. Roadway noise levels were quantified along the roadways included in the traffic analysis, including 15`" Street and Irvine Avenue, which are the main access roadways leading to the subject property. The statement on page 4.4 -14 related to the design addresses noise associated with the use of the gymnasium. As suggested in that discussion, the gymnasium will be designed to minimize noise generated within that facility (e.g., athletic events, musical performances, youth activities, etc.) As suggested in that discussion, two sets of doors exist between the gym and the outdoors. At least one set of those doors should be closed at all times. The ambient noise in the neighborhood should be unaffected with the implementation of the project. Relocating existing outdoor athletic events within the proposed gymnasium will reduce general sound within the area. Response to Comment No. 22 The relationship of the proposed Youth and Family Center (and gymnasium) to the existing residential development is discussed on page 4.5 -9. The building, which will be approximately 40 feet high including the mechanical street, will be approximately 90 feet from the Clay Street at its closest point (compared to 170 feet that currently exist). While the building will be taller and larger than the existing educational building it will replace, the character of the building will be similar to that of the existing sanctuary and other buildings that exist and are proposed on the site to create uniformity. The screened mechanical area of the gymnasium building (40 feet tall portion of the building) is approximately 750 square feet and is located roughly in the center of the proposed building, as compared to the building footprint of approximately 14,200 square feet. The gymnasium portion of the building is 32 feet in height with the educational portion being an average of approximately 24 feet in height. The proposed parking structure is a subterranean facility and would not have any levels above the ground surface. The "structure" encompasses that portion of the facility that is below the existing grade and, therefore, would not result in potentially significant visual impacts. Response to Comment No. 23 The comment is correct in its assumption that in areas of lower ambient lighting levels, smaller increases in lighting tend to produce greater levels of impact. Although it is true that the streets within the Cliff Haven neighborhood do not have street lights, the on -site lighting will not change significantly from that which occurs at the present time. The color and materials have been selected to match existing structures closely and nighttime architectural lighting is not proposed. These features will tend to limit new sources of illumination reflected from proposed lighting sources. As indicated in the Draft EIR (refer to page 4.5 -9 and 4.5 -14), pole lighting that will replace the existing parking lot lighting will be the same height as the existing poles. Further, the photometric plan (refer to Exhibit 4.5 -5) indicates that no light spillage will extend beyond the street rights -of -way and no residential properties will be impacted by the new lighting for the surface parking lot or other proposed light sources on the site. Finally, several measures, including the preparation of an additional photometric plan based on the final lighting plan will be prepared to ensure that no significant light spillage occurs and that all lights comply with the existing City requirements. Proposed lighting will be evaluated by crime prevention specialists of the Newport Beach Police Department ensure minimum on -site lighting levels to ensure safety. Response to Comment No. 24 Construction staging would occur within the limits of the site. No construction staging areas are proposed off -site (other than parking) to avoid visual impacts and construction - related parking in the neighborhood. In order to ensure that the construction staging areas, which can be unsightly if not properly maintained, St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church Draft EIR Responses to Public Comments June 9, 2004 118 ' would be located within the least visually prominent areas and would be screened to minimize such potential unsightliness. In addition, a six -foot high screen fence will be placed around the parking lot to further screen on -site construction activities. Response to Comment No. 25 ' The information provided by the Police Department did not include incidents in parking structures. However, in order to avoid concerns identified by residents in the neighborhood (e.g., loitering, vandalism, etc.) several measures were recommended that have been included in the Draft EIR. These measures include providing adequate lighting and closing off the parking structure when it is not in use. The incorporation of these measures will minimize any potential law enforcement issues. ' Response to Comment No. 26 The Newport Beach Police Department was contacted to provide information related to the potential for adverse impacts on the Department's ability to provide an adequate level of law enforcement/police protection both in the City and in the project environs. The Department's response did not address the potential for increased risks of accidents related to increased traffic through the Cliff Haven neighborhood. The results of that inquiry, which were presented in Section 4.6 of the Draft EIR, revealed that the Police 1 Department does not anticipate any significant increase in the demand for law enforcement service. It is important to note that adequate emergency access to the site by both police and fire vehicles and equipment must be provided. The Newport Beach Fire Department has evaluated the project and they do ' not anticipate any issues related to the provision of service within the context of increase traffic to the site and increased on -site parking. Response to Comment No. 27 The lighting proposed for the subterranean parking structure would not generate excessive light from the property because the lighting would be in the portion of the structure located below grade. The lighting proposed for the surface parking lot (above the subterranean parking level) will be adequately shielded and will comply with City requirements. As indicated in Response to Comment No. 23, a subsequent photometric study will be conducted on the final lighting plan to ensure that light spillage does not extend ' into the nearby residential areas. No conflicts with MM 4.6 -2 and the mitigation measures prescribed in Section 4.5 -5 will occur. Response to Comment No. 28 This comment reflects the opinion of the writer. However, based on the technical analyses conducted on the proposed project (e.g., traffic and parking, noise, and air quality), mitigation measures have been prescribed that will eliminate the potential impacts identified in the Draft EIR or reduce those impacts to a less than significant level. The purpose of the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) is to ensure that the mitigation measures are implemented. The discussion in Section 6.2 of the Draft EIR identifies the potential unavoidable adverse impact that may occur in the event the air quality mitigation measures are not implemented. Should the City choose not to implement the air quality mitigation measures, the short-term, construction - related air quality impacts would be significant. In that event, the Newport Beach City Council would be required to adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations prior to approving the proposed project. Response to Comment No. 29 The improvements proposed for the high school are not intended to increase the capacity of NHHS. Rather, these improvements include remodeling and renovation of existing buildings and related facilities. The cumulative impact analysis evaluates the effect of the potential project - related impact combined with St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church Draft EIR Responses to Public Comments ' June 9, 2004 119 I other proposed projects. While the improvements proposed by the Newport-Mesa School District have ' been included, increases in enrollment are not specifically reflected in cumulative impact analysis presented in Chapter 9.0. Predicting increased enrollment at NHHS cannot be done with certainty especially when reductions in enrollment have occurred in the past. Cumulative impacts identified are those related to the construction activities that are anticipated to occur at roughly the same time as the proposed project. Similarly, other development projects have been identified (refer to page 9 -2 of the Draft EIR), which are included in the cumulative analysis for traffic, noise and air quality (as well as other ' impact areas). The cumulative impacts associated with the intensity proposed by the church are included in the analysis presented in Chapter 9.0. Based on that analysis, the cumulative impacts are less than significant in most cases or can be minimized through the incorporation of project - related mitigation and /or standard conditions. Response to Comment No. 30 Refer to Response to Comment No. 4. Response to Comment No. 31 ' The City is presently conducting a traffic calming study for the Newport Heights and Cliff Haven neighborhoods. The study, in consultation with the neighborhood, has focused upon calming or mitigating ' traffic that cuts through the neighborhood between Coast Highway to the south and 17" Street to the north. Slowing traffic has been the target although it can generally be said that increased volume is not desirable. The study has not focused upon parking to a remarkable degree. The comment also reflects disagreement with the assessment of cumulative parking impacts presented in r Section 9.3.6 on page 9 -5 of the Draft EIR, which concludes that the combination of parking provided on the site, on street parking on streets adjacent to the site, and surface parking at the NHHS 151" Street parking lot can be utilized by proposed project to accommodate parking without adversely affecting parking within the residential neighborhoods. Although there is concern that has been expressed by residents that the parking structure would not be utilized, it is anticipated that such would not be the case at St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church. In addition, the Parking Management Program will be implemented by the church, which will instruct drivers to park on the site, including the parking structure. As church members become familiar with the layout and orientation of the entry and exit drives, the structure will be less intimidating. In addition, features will be incorporated into the design of the parking structure that will , facilitate its use (e.g., lighting, easy access to elevators and stairs, etc.). The conclusion presented in Section 9.3.6 is based on the parking analysis conducted for the proposed project. Nonetheless, this comment, which expresses disagreement with that conclusion, will be forwarded to the Newport Beach Planning Commission and City Council for their consideration prior to taking action on the proposed project. Response to Comment No. 32 This comment reflects the writer's opinion on the No Project/No Development alternative and is opposed to further expansion of the existing development. This comment will be forwarded to the Newport Beach Planning Commission and City Council for consideration prior to taking action on the project. As indicated in the analysis in Section 10.4.1, this alternative would not allow for additional parking as proposed by the project applicant, resulting in a continuation of the current parking conditions. The analysis presented in Chapter 4.0 concludes that even though the intensity of development on the site would be increased, the potential traffic, noise and air quality impacts would not be significant or can be reduced to an acceptable level through the implementation of mitigation measures. St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church Draft EIR Responses to Public Comments June 9, 2004 120 r I This comment also suggests that the parking study relies on the use of the parking structure is unsupported. It is important to note that an aversion to public parking structures is partially due to ' unfamiliarity with the facility, and uncertainty about its security. A parking structure on a church property would not be viewed with the same concerns by church members. Church members will be regular users of the parking structure, and will become familiar with its layout and orientation of the entry and exit drives. Several measures have been recommended to ensure that the structure is well lit, not dark and gloomy, ' and that access from the structure to the church is convenient and well marked. Additionally, the parking spaces and drive isles will meet all City requirements and compact spaces are not permitted. These features will assist in making the structure more user friendly. The Traffic Study suggests that consecutive services be separated by a minimum of 45 minutes so that the garage can empty and fill effectively. I I I_ �J I �1 I LJ I 1 I I 121 St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church Draft EIR Responses to Public Comments June 9, 2004 Page 1 of 2 Letter No. 31 Campbell, James RE6 EPVEB$'i 1 ' From: dcstoney [dcstoney @adelphia.net] PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Sent: Friday, April 30, 2004 3:55 PM To: jcampbell @city.newport- beach.ca.us APR 2 9 2004 Subject: St Andrew's EIR 7181911011111211,213,41516 ' Mr. Campbell, I am a resident of Cliff Haven and I want you to know that I have briefed the DEIR prepared for the planned expansion at St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church. I am not well versed in the field of reviewing DEIRs and have no experience in the realm of real estate development which made the voluminous content a challenging read for me and my wife. I would however still like to challenge some of the content in the areas of parking, noise, lighting and traffic 1) Parking The stated number of spaces in the new underground parking structure is to be 400 as apparently calculated and required by the seating capacity of the sanctuary. This does not take into effect the other additional proposed new and expanded facilities and potential consecutive events occurring on any given day of any given week. Combine that with the natural human opposition to parking in a structure (as evidenced by Triangle Square) and that means ' more street -side parking in the neighborhood than there already is. This is a direct negative effect on the community. 2) Noise ' The construction noise is another element that concerns me. When will truck traffic actually occur and what will the number of trucks be at any given time on any day? I was confused by conflicting information in the report. The noise generated by the fleet of trucks and trip counts that happen at whatever time of day will destroy the peaceful 2 quality of our area for hours at a time during the construction phase and will also apparently overlap with construction traffic from the NHHS construction schedule. Additionally, the proposed number of functions and programs to be carried out by the church are going to increase the traffic in the area into the future indefinitely. This is will forever reduce the quality of life in this area by adding traffic noise forever. 3) Lighting ' There are confusing explanations in the EIR regarding the lighting of the area of the grounds on the Clay Street side of the facility. Some residents live within 50 feet or less of this side of the facility and I believe the report states a minimum nighttime field of view of 100 feet to be well lit... but no intrusive light is to spill over into the adjacent housing. How 3 can this be done? I see a direct negative impact on those immediate residents on Clay. What about general additional area lights and any lighting on the cross that is there now? Will there be new lights on a new cross ? I like to look at the night sky with my children and we deal with a washed -out skyline due to the current nighttime lighting... what will the overall new lighting be and what will it do to the night sky and the surrounding area going forward? 4) Traffic ' To increase the size of a facility that already produces an unacceptable level of traffic in a neighborhood area and 4 to further state that forecasted traffic increases will be adequately handled by current infrastructure is ludicrous to me based on my experience of living in the area near the church facility. I find fault in the report in as much as the intended program times, quantities and sizes are not considered as a whole relative to traffic and parking increases. In closing, I want to state that I am actually supportive of what the church does for the general community. Although I do have problems with the current location and size of the facility, I am O.K. with the idea of rj improvements but not growth, not here. Maybe the church should consider a more commercial area to expand their reach. This is not the only location they should look at but it is one that, if they have their way, will suffer from a general deterioration of the quality life and a negative impact on the beauty that makes it so unique. Thank you 122 ' 05/03/2004 i for your consideration. Sincerely, Richard Stoneman 1 1 II II II II II II L II II II it 123 1 1 05/03/2004 Page 2 of 2 I 31. Richard Stoneman (April 30, 2004) , Response to Comment No. 1 By far, the greatest parking demand occurs during church services in the sanctuary. Conditions of 4M approval will be placed on the project to restrict concurrent use of other on -site facilities during functions in the sanctuary such that a total of 1,387 people are at the site at a time. , Aversion to public parking structures, especially in commercial areas, is primarily due to unfamiliarity with the facility, and uncertainty about its security. A private parking structure on a church property would not be viewed with the same concerns by church members. Church members will be regular users of the parking structure, and will become familiar with its layout and orientation of the entry and exit drives. Several measures have been recommended to ensure that the structure is well lit, not dark and gloomy, and that access from the structure (i.e., stairs, elevators, and walkways) to the church is convenient and well marked. Additionally, the parking spaces and drive isles will meet all City requirements and compact spaces are not permitted. These features will assist in making the structure more user friendly. The Traffic Study suggests that consecutive services be separated by a minimum of 45 minutes so that the garage can empty and fill effectively. Response to Comment No. 2 Construction activities that generate noise will be limited to the hours between 7:00 a.m. and 6:30 p.m. on weekdays, 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on Saturdays and at no time on Sundays or Federal Holidays. Since there is no such thing as a non -noise producing construction activity, the noise ordinance effectively ' prohibits construction activity to these hours. The hours of operation for the trucks will be limited because of this. The analysis presented in Section 4.4.4.1 shows that the trucks will not significantly increase traffic noise levels along the roads that they will travel. The analysis presented in Section 4.4.4.2 and Table 4.4 -6 shows that the project will result in traffic noise CNEL level increases of 0.2 dB or less. This increase is imperceptible. Response to Comment No. 3 As indicated in the Draft EIR, a site photometric plan was prepared to illustrate the level of lighting that will emanate from the site. The photometric plan was based on the site plan and design of the lighting ' features proposed for the site. Based on that plan, (refer to Exhibit 4.5 -5), the analysis concluded that although some light emanating from the parking lot will extend into St. Andrews Road and Clay Street, the illuminance of that lighting will be reduced to 0.00 footcandle before it reaches the residential properties. Further, the City requires that all lighting must comply with the applicable standards of the zoning code (no excessive lighting). To ensure that the project complies with all applicable requirements, the applicant must prepare a photometric study in conjunction with the final lighting plan, which must be approved by the Planning Director prior to the issuance of a building permit. Other conditions have also been prescribed that will ensure that lighting complies with all applicable regulations. The project does not include any new lighting on the cross and does not propose a new cross. The color and materials have been selected to match existing structures closely and nighttime architectural lighting is not proposed. These features will tend to limit new sources of illumination reflected from proposed lighting sources. Response to Comment No. 4 1 The additional square footage is intended to be used to accommodate existing church functions and programs, although it is acknowledged that the additional area can facilitate future increases in programs and activity. Based upon area, which is used as the basis of traffic analysis accepted by professional traffic engineers, the proposed project is not forecasted to generate significant increases in traffic. The gymnasium will be used primarily for existing youth activities, which are currently held in other existing St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church Draft EIR Responses to Public Comments June 9, 2004 124 I ' church facilities or outdoors. Church officials have indicated that the gymnasium will not be made available to outside groups for non - church functions or leagues. Providing a facility to accommodate only the church youth functions currently taking place at the church will not generate significant additional traffic increases that would be associated with a commercial entertainment venue. Response to Comment No. 5 ' This comment, which expresses opposition to the expansion, is noted and acknowledged and will be forwarded to the Newport Beach Planning Commission and City Council for their consideration prior to taking action on the proposed project. It is important to note that Chapter 10.0 (Alternatives to the Proposed Project) evaluate the potential impacts associated with locating the Youth and Family Center, the most significant component of the proposed project, on an alternative site in the City. While such a site has not been specifically identified, the analysis concluded that the implementation of such an alternative would still result in similar impacts identified for the proposed project, including those related to construction traffic, construction noise and air quality. The operational impacts resulting from that relocation would merely be transferred from the existing St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church site to the area in the vicinity of the alternative site. UI I I D I I I I J 1 125 St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church Draft EIR Responses to Public Comments June 9, 2004 1 Willard & Gayle Courtney 611 Saint James Place Newport Beach, CA 92663 April 23, 2004 Letter No. 32 Mayor Ridgeway and Council 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach CA, 92663 re: St Andrews Church expansion. Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers I RECEIVED V-` PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH APR 2 9 2004 PM AM PM We strongly object to another expansion of the St. Andrews church. There have been several plans approved over the years, each negativly impacting with more traffic to our residential area. The traffic congestion used to be felt mostly on Sundays, now there are more activities and the traffic is not confined to just one day. with the proposed plans of a gymnasium etc., this problem will only increase on other days as well.We would remind you that this is an R! zoning and further deviation from the general plan is most objectionable. We understand' that the church is purchasing other residential properties to be converted to their use thus removing property from the tax base. All of this will require more services such as police and fire.A double whammy! Please listen to the residents of this area who do not want this expansion. Gayle Courtney ted, Dzte AA"`— CapieS �entio: J h92yo( �ncil Mgmh °t Zan- 126 ^I [J ' 32. Willard and Gayle Courtney (April 23, 2004) Response to Comment No. 1 This comment expresses opposition to the proposed project. Although several concerns are raised in this letter, no specific comments on the adequacy of the information presented in the Draft EIR have been identified. This letter will be forwarded to the Newport Beach Planning Commission and City Council for their consideration. St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church Draft EIR Responses to Public Comments June 9, 2004 i P'a'l 7 ❑erl tD copy each cf the council Letter No. 33 , Sys 12-0ct a � f1r1,12 From iy/z5?-/ c Mayor Ridgeway and Council City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92663 Re: St. Andrews Expansion Dear Honorable Mayor and Council: 'opie Sent To; , Mayor Council Member °anaper ^eL The proposal by St. Andrews Presbyterian Church asks that the City find appropriate, for this neighborhood church, to grow to 140,388 square feet- over34% larger then the already 104,822 square feet. I am appalled at this suggestion and ask you to deny this application. If St. Andrews wants to expand any of their youth and adult programs they need to find a better site where the church is served by collector streets able to handle the volumes of 24 -7 traffic that will accompany this full range of uses. In a time when neighborhoods are dear to the families that comprise them, this pressure of greater land use density and application for this type of muli -use expansion must consistently be denied. I understand that a DEIR is being developed for the property and I say, so what. Even if the EIR were to say 'terrific', the community still says, and rightly so; 'no; it just doesn't work'. Please find that staff looks at the current CUP very stringently and that the staff consider conditions to protect the neighborhoods. And, please find that St. Andrevvs church may be made better, but no larger. Please hear the citizens on this issue. Yours truly, RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH v APR 2 9 2004 PM 7 ig 19110 Il l 112 Il 121314151 128 �i ' 33. Marc! Resh (April 28, 2004) Response to Comment No. 1 This comment expresses opposition to the proposed project. Although several concerns are raised in this letter, no specific comments on the adequacy of the information presented in the Draft EIR have been identified. This letter will be forwarded to the Newport Beach Planning Commission and City Council for their consideration. St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church Draft EIR Responses to Public Comments June 9, 2004 129 7 Letter No. 34 7n. C' "-) From Mayor Ridgeway and Council City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92663 Re: St. Andrews Expansion Dear Honorable Mayor and Council: Clerk to copy each of the council, ? r I understand that a $90,000 Environmental Impact Report has been published for the application of St. Andrews Presbyterian Church expansion. EIR's are made so that toxic uses don't pollute our neighborhoods. They generally result in the uses being built to a smaller scale and find that the toxins are of low impact, or an 'acceptable level'. Without opening the document (let alone having found someone stupid enough to pay for it), someone should have the sense to see that: this `bigger than a Home Depot church' does not belong in a small community. The proposal asks that the City allow 140,388 square feet (Home Depots start around 104,000 square feet). What part of this sound like good planning? - Even if the DEIR were to be watered down to the point of saying, "don't fret, the traffic and pollution is, at an `acceptable ' level' in accordance with the State Public Resources requirements", who says that should be good enough for the City of Newport Beach? The answer to that is, the City Council. And, I say to the City council, it's not good enough for the communities. The size of the church is already an impact on the community far greater than ever anticipated by a 20 -year old CUP. If St. Andrews wants to be bigger have them find somewhere else with freeway access. What's next, a satellite up link facility? Please, Council, be reasonable. The neighborhood associations have been talking to the church for 2 years asking for the church to remodel, not expand, their 100,000 square foot church. Please find that St. Andrews church may be made better, but no larger. Please hear the communities on this issue. RECEIVED BY ' PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Yours truly, APR 2 9 2004 PM 718,91101111121 112,314,516 130 I 34. M.C. Healow (April 28, 2004) Response to Comment No. 1 This comment expresses opposition to the proposed project. Although several concerns are raised in this letter, no specific comments on the adequacy of the information presented in the Draft EIR have been identified. This letter will be forwarded to the Newport Beach Planning Commission and City Council for their consideration. 131 St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church Draft EIR Responses to Public Comments June 9, 2004 1 Letter No. 35 From Mayor Ridgeway and Council City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92663 Re: St. Andrews Expansion Dear Honorable Mayor and Council: Clerk to copy each of the council --- The proposal by St. Andrews Presbyterian Church asks that the City find appropriate, for this neighborhood church, to grow to 140,388 square feet- over 34% larger then the already 104,822 square feet I am appalled at this suggestion and ask you to deny this application. If St. Andrews wants to expand any of their youth and adult programs they need to find a better site where the church is served by collector streets able to handle the volumes of 24 -7 traffic that will accompany this full range of uses. In a time when neighborhoods are dear to the families that comprise them, this pressure of greater land use density and application for this type of muli -use expansion must consistently be denied. I understand that a DEIR is being developed for the property and I say, so what. Even if the EIR were to say'terrific', the community still says, and rightly so; 'no; it just doesn't work'. Please find that staff looks at the current CUP very stringently and that the staff consider conditions to protect the neighborhoods. And, please find that St. Andrew's church may be made better, but no larger. Please hear the citizens on this issue. Yours truly, 132 RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 71819110 111112111213141516 I 3s. Buck and Colleen Johns (April 28, 2004) Response to Comment No. 1 This comment expresses opposition to the proposed project. Although several concerns are raised in this letter, no specific comments on the adequacy of the information presented in the Draft EIR have been identified. This letter will be forwarded to the Newport Beach Planning Commission and City Council for their consideration. 133 St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church Draft EIR Responses to Public Comments June 9, 2004 1 Letter No. 36 / no, ,� r lL q go, From M Mayor Ridgeway and Council City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, Califomia 92663 Re: St. Andrews Expansion Dear Honorable Mayor and Council: Clerk to copy each of the councL.l 1 The proposal by St. Andrews Presbyterian Church asks that the City find appropriate, for this neighborhood church, to grow to 140,388 square feet- over 34% larger then the already 104,822 square feet. I am appalled at this suggestion and ask you to deny this application. If St. Andrews wants to expand any of their youth and adult programs they need to find a better site where the church is served by collector streets able to handle the volumes of 24 -7 traffic thatwill accompany this full range of uses. In a time when neighborhoods are dear to the families that comprise them, this pressure of greater land use density and application for this type of muli -use expansion must consistently be denied. I understand that a DEIR is being developed for the property and I say, so what. Even if the EIR were to say 'terrific', the community still says, and rightly so; 'no; it just doesn't work'. Please find that staff looks at the current CUP very stringently and that the staff consider conditions to protect the neighborhoods. And, please find that St. Andrew's church may be made better, but no larger. Please hear the citizens on this issue. Yours truly, 0 "/7 0. 134 RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH APR 2 9 2004 PM AM 19110,1 1 11 2 11 1213141516 36. Maureen A. Cox (April 28, 2004) Response to Comment No. 1 This comment expresses opposition to the proposed project. Although several concerns are raised in this letter, no specific comments on the adequacy of the information presented in the Draft EIR have been identified. This letter will be forwarded to the Newport Beach Planning Commission and City Council for their consideration. St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church Draft E!R Responses to Public Comments June 9, 2004 135 1 Letter No. 37 From ,4- Iz 7 / 4 Date Mayor Ridgeway and Council City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92663 Re: St. Andrews Expansion Dear Honorable Mayor and Council: Cr2 *s %O copy each OI the council 1 ...J The proposal by St. Andrews Presbyterian Church asks that the City find appropriate, for this neighborhood church, to grow to 140,388 square feet- over 34% larger then the already 104,822 square feet. I am appalled at this suggestion and ask you to deny this application. If St Andrews wants to expand any of their youth and adult programs they need to find a better site where the church is served by collector streets able to handle the volumes of 24 -7 traffic that will accompany this full range of uses. In a time when neighborhoods are dear to the families that comprise them, this pressure of greater land use density and application for this type of muli -use expansion must consistently be denied. I understand that a DEIR is being developed for the property and I say, so what. Even if the EIR were to say 'terrific', the community still says, and rightly so; 'no; it just doesn't work'. Please find that staff looks at the current CUP very stringently and that the staff consider conditions to protect the neighborhoods. And, please find that St. Andrews church may be made better, but no larger. Please hear the citizens on this issue. Yours truly, 136 RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH APR 2 9 2004 PM 7 89110111112111213141516 J I I 1 37 Mary Turner (April 27, 2004) Response to Comment No. 1 This comment expresses opposition to the proposed project. Although several concerns are raised in this letter, no specific comments on the adequacy of the information presented in the Draft EIR have been identified. This letter will be forwarded to the Newport Beach Planning Commission and City Council for their consideration. St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church Draft EIR Responses to Public Comments June 9, 2004 137 1 Letter No. 38 wMM Date Mayor Ridgeway and Council City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92663 Re: St. Andrews Expansion Dear Honorable Mayor and Council: Clerk t0 copy each of the C; uncii I The proposal by St. Andrews Presbyterian Church asks that the City find appropriate, for this neighborhood church, to grow to 140,388 square feet- over 34% larger then the already 104,822 square feet. I am appalled at this suggestion and ask you to deny this application. If St Andrews wants to expand any of their youth and adult programs they need to find a better site where the church is served by collector streets able to handle the volumes of 24-7 traffic that will accompany this full range of uses. In a time when neighborhoods are dear to the families that comprise them, this pressure of greater land use density and application for this type of muli -use expansion must consistently be denied. I understand that a DEIR is being developed for the property and I say, so what. Even if the EIR were to say 'terrific', the community still says, and rightly so; 'no; it just doesn't work'. Please find that staff looks at the current CUP very stringently and that the staff consider conditions to protect the neighborhoods. And, please find that St. Andrew's church may be made better, but no larger. Please hear the citizens on this issue. RECEIVED BY Yours truly, PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH APR 2 9 2004 AM '- 7 a,91 10 111112 11I 2I 3 138 I Victoria L. Gagniere (April 28, 2004) Response to Comment No. 1 This comment expresses opposition to the proposed project. Although several concerns are raised in this letter, no specific comments on the adequacy of the information presented in the Draft EIR have been identified. This letter will be forwarded to the Newport Beach Planning Commission and City Council for their consideration. St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church Draft EIR Responses to Public Comments June 9, 2004 139 1 Letter No. 39 �3 SL C From Date - Z8 - 09 Mayor Ridgeway and Council City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92663 Re: St. Andrews Expansion Dear Honorable Mayor and Council: Clerk to copy each of the council I understand that a $90,000 Environmental Impact Report has been published for the application of St. Andrews Presbyterian Church expansion. EIR's are made so that toxic uses don't pollute our neighborhoods. They generally result in the uses being built to a smaller scale and find that the toxins are of low impact, or an 'acceptable level'. Without opening the document (let alone having found someone stupid enough to pay for it), someone should have the sense to see that: this `bigger than a Home Depot church' does not belong in a small community. The proposal asks that the City allow 140,388 square feet (Home Depots start around 104,000 square feet). What part of this sound like good planning? - Even if the DEIR were to be watered down to the point of saying, "don't fret, the traffic and pollution is at an 'acceptable level' in accordance with the State Public Resources requirements ", who says that should be good enough for the City of Newport Beach? The answer to that is, the City Council. And, I say to the City council, it's not good enough for the communities. The size of the church is already an impact on the community far greater than ever anticipated by a 20 -year old CUP. If St. Andrews wants to be bigger have them find somewhere else with freeway access. What's next, a satellite up link facility? Please, Council, be reasonable. The neighborhood associations have been talking to the church for 2 years asking for the church to remodel, not expand, their 100,000 square foot church. Please find that St. Andrew's church may be made better, but no larger. RECEIVED BY Please hear the communities on this issue. PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Yours truly, I APR 2 9 2004 PM 1 � AM j911D111112111213141516 , 140 39. Jane Hudson (April 28, 2004) Response to Comment No. 1 This comment expresses opposition to the proposed project. Although several concerns are raised in this letter, no specific comments on the adequacy of the information presented in the Draft EIR have been identified. This letter will be forwarded to the Newport Beach Planning Commission and City Council for their consideration. St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church Draft EIR Responses to Public Comments June 9, 2004 141 1� I understand that a $90,000 Environmental Impact Report has been published for the application of St. Andrews Presbyterian Church expansion. EIR's are made so that toxic uses, don't pollute our neighborhoods. They generally result in the uses being built to a smaller scale and find that the toxins are of low impact, or an 'acceptable level'. Without opening the document (let alone having found someone stupid enough to pay for it), someone should have the sense to see that: this 'bigger than a Home Depot church' does not belong in a small community. The proposal asks that the City allow 140,388 square feet (Home Depots start around 104,000, square feet). What part of this sound like good planning? - Even if the DEIR were to be watered down to the point of saying, "don't fret, the traffic and pollution is at an 'acceptable , level' in accordance with the State Public Resources requirements ", who says that should be good enough for the City of Newport Beach? The answer to that is, the City Council. And, I say to the City council, it's not good enough for the communities. The size of the church is already an impact on the community far greater than ever anticipated by a 20 -year old CUP. If St. Andrews wants to be bigger have them find somewhere else with . freeway access. What's next, a satellite up link facility? Please, Council, be reasonable. The neighborhood associations have been talking to the church for 2 years asking for the church to remodel, not expand, their 100,000 square foot church. Please find that St. Andrews church may be made better, but no larger. Please hear the communities on this issue. Yours truly, �� \ RECEIVED BY ' PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH AM APR 2 9 2004 , PM 71819110111112,112,3141516 142 ' Clerk to copy each of the counc;l, Letter No. 40 c5 (` 2 5,, z Z % FrolI - /m U4 Date Mayor Ridgeway and Council City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard ' Newport Beach, California 92663 Re: St. Andrews Expansion Dear Honorable Mayor and Council: I understand that a $90,000 Environmental Impact Report has been published for the application of St. Andrews Presbyterian Church expansion. EIR's are made so that toxic uses, don't pollute our neighborhoods. They generally result in the uses being built to a smaller scale and find that the toxins are of low impact, or an 'acceptable level'. Without opening the document (let alone having found someone stupid enough to pay for it), someone should have the sense to see that: this 'bigger than a Home Depot church' does not belong in a small community. The proposal asks that the City allow 140,388 square feet (Home Depots start around 104,000, square feet). What part of this sound like good planning? - Even if the DEIR were to be watered down to the point of saying, "don't fret, the traffic and pollution is at an 'acceptable , level' in accordance with the State Public Resources requirements ", who says that should be good enough for the City of Newport Beach? The answer to that is, the City Council. And, I say to the City council, it's not good enough for the communities. The size of the church is already an impact on the community far greater than ever anticipated by a 20 -year old CUP. If St. Andrews wants to be bigger have them find somewhere else with . freeway access. What's next, a satellite up link facility? Please, Council, be reasonable. The neighborhood associations have been talking to the church for 2 years asking for the church to remodel, not expand, their 100,000 square foot church. Please find that St. Andrews church may be made better, but no larger. Please hear the communities on this issue. Yours truly, �� \ RECEIVED BY ' PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH AM APR 2 9 2004 , PM 71819110111112,112,3141516 142 ' 40. Marci Resh (April 28, 2004) Response to Comment No. 1 This comment expresses opposition to the proposed project. Although several concerns are raised in this letter, no specific comments on the adequacy of the information presented in the Draft EIR have been identified. This letter will be forwarded to the Newport Beach Planning Commission and City Council for their consideration. St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church Draft EIR Responses to Public Comments June 9, 2004 143 1 Clerk to copy each of the council, Letter No. 41 .r Ce {� 1 �; ( 9-2—b -27 From - Date Mayor Ridgeway and Council City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92663 Re: St. Andrews Expansion 1 Dear Honorable Mayor and Council understand that a $90,000 Environmental Impact Report has been published for the , application of St. Andrews Presbyterian Church expansion. EIR's are made so that toxic uses don't pollute our neighborhoods. They generally result in the uses being built to a smaller scale and find that the toxins are of low impact, or an `acceptable level'. Without opening the document (let alone having found someone stupid enough to pay for it), someone should have the sense to see that: this `bigger than a Home Depot church' does not belong in a small community. The proposal asks that the City allow 140,388 square feet (Home Depots start around 104,000' square feet). What part of this sound like good planning? - Even if the DEIR were to be watered down to the point of saying, "don't fret, the traffic and pollution is at an 'acceptable ' level' in accordance with the State Public Resources requirements", who says that should be good enough for the City of Newport Beach? The answer to that is, the City Council. And, I say to the City council, it's not good enough for the communities. , The size of the church is already an impact on the community far greater than ever anticipated by a 20 -year old CUP. If St. Andrews wants to be bigger have them find somewhere else with freeway access. What's next, a satellite up link facility? Please, Council, be reasonable. The , neighborhood associations have been talking to the church for 2 years asking for the church to remodel, not expand, their 100,000 square foot church. Please find that St. Andrew's church may be made better, but no larger. Please hear the communities on this issue. RECEIVED BY , PLANNING DEPARTMENT Yours truly, CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH i, APR 2 9 2D04 ' ljJ � 78910111 12123456 III I I I , 144 41. Cole Bryan (April 28, 2004) Response to Comment No. 1 This comment expresses opposition to the proposed project. Although several concerns are raised in this letter, no specific comments on the adequacy of the information presented in the Draft EIR have been identified. This letter will be forwarded to the Newport Beach Planning Commission and City Council for their consideration. St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church Draft EIR Responses to Public Comments June 9, 2004 145 1 I Letter No. 42 Date: Mayor Ridgeway and. Council ' City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92663 Re: St. Andrews Expansion , Dear Honorable Mayor and Council: ' I understand that St. Andrews Presbyterian Church has published a $90,000 EIR in support for their , huge expansion. I am not familiar with the CEQA guidelines and I won't judge this report, but I can tell you the church is a serious growth concern in our ' neighborhood. Without having seen this huge document, the churches presence in the community already is a huge traffic generator and noisy. The application asks the City for 140,388 square ' feet, 35,500 more than is already too much. The math does not work in this small community. Their size is already an impact. , Please, Council, look seriously at the 20 -year old CUP and ask if the programs they have now were contemplated then. If St. Andrews wants to be bigger they should move. Please vote to deny this application. RECEIVED BY ' PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH APR 2 9 2004 , 718191101111121112 314i5 6 146 , 42. Marci Resh (April 28, 2004) Response to Comment No. 1 This comment expresses opposition to the proposed project. Although several concerns are raised in this letter, no specific comments on the adequacy of the information presented in the Draft EIR have been identified. This letter will be forwarded to the Newport Beach Planning Commission and City Council for their consideration. St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church Draft EIR Responses to Public Comments June 9, 2004 147 u Letter No. 43 From _1% Date Ao C Mayor Ridgeway and Council City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92663 Re: St. Andrews Expansion Dear Honorable Mayor and Council: Clerk to copy each of the council' I understand that a $90,000 Environmental Impact Report has been published for the application of St. Andrews Presbyterian Church expansion. EIR's are made so that toxic uses don't pollute our neighborhoods. They generally result in the uses being built to a smaller scale and find that the toxins are of low impact, or an `acceptable level'. Without opening the document (let alone having found someone stupid enough to pay for it), someone should have the sense to see that: this `bigger than a Home Depot church' does not belong in a small community. The proposal asks that the City allow 140,388 square feet (Home Depots start around 104,000 square feet). What part of this sound like good planning? - Even if the DEIR were to be watered down to the point of saying, "don't fret, the traffic and pollution is at an 'acceptable level' in accordance with the State Public Resources requirements ", who says that should be good enough for the City of Newport Beach? The answer to that is, the City Council. And, I say to the City council, it's not good enough for the communities. The size of the church is already an impact on the community far greater than ever anticipated by a 20 -year old CUP. If St. Andrews wants to be bigger have them find somewhere else with freeway access. What's next, a satellite up link facility? Please, Council, be reasonable. The neighborhood associations have been talking to the church for 2 years asking for the church to remodel, not expand, their 100,000 square foot church. Please find that St. Andrew's church may be made better, but no larger. Please hear the communities on this issue. Yours truly, 3 L I LJ RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH APR 2 9 2004 , 7 819110111112111213141516 148 , 43. Anne Brewer (April 28, 2004) Response to Comment No. 1 This comment expresses opposition to the proposed project. Although several concerns are raised in this letter, no specific comments on the adequacy of the information presented in the Draft EIR have been identified. This letter will be forwarded to the Newport Beach Planning Commission and City Council for their consideration. St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church Draft EIR Responses to Public Comments June 9, 2004 149 1 I n44pr No 44 Clem to copy each of the council ' 0,5' ��R' C, el Date Mayor Ridgeway and Council City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92663 Re: St. Andrews Expansion Dear Honorable Mayor and Council: The proposal by St. Andrews Presbyterian Church asks that the City find appropriate, for this neighborhood church, to grow to 140,388 square feet- over 346/o larger then the already 104,822 square feet. I am appalled at this suggestion and ask you to deny this application. If St Andrews wants to expand any of their youth and adult programs they need to find a better site where the church is served by collector streets able to handle the volumes of 24 -7 traffic that will accompany this full range of uses. In a time when neighborhoods are dear to the families that comprise them, this pressure of greater land use density and application for this type of muli -use expansion must consistently be denied. I understand that a DEIR is being developed for the property and I say, so what. Even if the EIR were to say 'terrific', the community still says, and rightly so; 'no; it just doesn't work'. Please find that staff looks at the current CUP Very stringently and that the staff consider conditions to protect the neighborhoods. And, please find that St. Andrew's church may be made better, but no larger. Please hear the citizens on this issue. Yours truly, 150 RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH APR 2 9 2004 M PM 1819110 111112111213141516 44. M. C. Healow (April 28, 2004) Response to Comment No. 1 This comment expresses opposition to the proposed project. Although several concerns are raised in this letter, no specific comments on the adequacy of the information presented in the Draft EIR have been identified. This letter will be forwarded to the Newport Beach Planning Commission and City Council for their consideration. St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church Draft EIR Responses to Public Comments June 9, 2004 151 1 Letter No. 45 From - . i l < L� Mayor Ridgeway and Council City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92663 Re: St. Andrews Expansion Dear Honorable Mayor and Council: Clerk to copy each of the council' RECEIVED BY ' PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH APR 2 9 2004 PM 7 819110111112111213141516 I understand that a $90,000 Environmental Impact Report has been published for the , application of St. Andrews Presbyterian Church expansion. EIR's are made so that toxic uses' don't pollute our neighborhoods. They generally result in the uses being built to a smaller scale and find that the toxins are of low impact, or an 'acceptable level'. Without opening the document (let alone having found someone stupid enough to pay for it), someone should have the sense to see that: this `bigger than a Home Depot church' does not belong in a small ' community. The proposal asks that the City allow 140,388 square feet (Home Depots start around 104,000' square feet). What part of this sound like good planning? - Even if the DEIR were to be watered down to the point of saying, "don't fret, the traffic and pollution is at an 'acceptable ' level' in accordance with the State Public Resources requirements ", who says that should be good enough for the City of Newport Beach? The answer to that is, the City Council. And, I say to the City council, it's not good enough for the communities. The size of the church is already an impact on the community far greater than ever anticipated by a 20 -year old CUP. If St. Andrews wants to be bigger have them find somewhere else with freeway access. What's next, a satellite up link facility? Please, Council, be reasonable. The , neighborhood associations have been talking to the church for 2 years asking for the church to remodel, not expand, their 100,000 square foot church. Please find that St. Andrewn s church ' may be made better, but no larger. Please hear the communities on this issue. Yours truly, �r I ` U'. 152 l [I I 45. Jane Lambareli (April 27, 2004) Response to Comment No. 1 This comment expresses opposition to the proposed project. Although several concerns are raised in this letter, no specific comments on the adequacy of the information presented in the Draft EIR have been ' identified. This letter will be forwarded to the Newport Beach Planning Commission and City Council for their consideration. 1I 1 II .1 II I St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church Draft EIR Responses to Public Comments June 9, 2004 153 1 Letter No. 46 ( I 6- From �1z0lG� Date ;Q� C Mayor Ridgeway and Council City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92663 Re: St. Andrews Expansion Dear Honorable Mayor and Council: Q2-66C, Clem to copy eac'h of t;7e coascii ' IJ RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMEI %T CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH APR 2 9 2004 PM AM The proposal by St. Andrews Presbyterian Church asks that the City find appropriate, for this neighborhood church, to grow to 140,388 square feet- over 34% larger then the already 104,822 square feet I am appalled at this suggestion and ask you to deny this application. If St. Andrews wants to expand any of their youth and adult programs they need to find a better site where the church is served by collector streets able to handle the volumes of 24 -7 traffic-that-will accompany this full range of uses. In a time when neighborhoods are dear to the families that comprise them, this pressure of greater land use density and application for this type of muli -use expansion must consistently be denied. I understand that a DEIR is being developed for the property and I say, so what. Even if the EIR were to say `terrific', the community still says, and rightly so; 'no; it just doesn't work'. Please find that staff looks at the current CUP very stringently and that the staff consider conditions to protect the neighborhoods. And, please find that St. Andrews church may be made better, but no larger. Please hear the citizens on this issue. Yours truly, 154 1 I it46. Rachel Lambrakis (April 28, 2004) Response to Comment No. 1 This comment expresses opposition to the proposed project. Although several concerns are raised in this letter, no specific comments on the adequacy of the information presented in the Draft EIR have been ' identified. This letter will be forwarded to the Newport Beach Planning Commission and City Council for their consideration. II II II �i] I 1 1 155 St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church Draft E/R Responses to Public Comments June 9, 2004 1 Letter No. 47 Date: Mayor Ridgeway and Council City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92663 Re: St. Andrews Expansion Dear Honorable Mayor and Council: 1 RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH APR 2 9 2004 PM , 7y8I9i10I11112 i11213141516 I I understand that St. Andrews Presbyterian Church has published a $90,000 EIR in support for their huge expansion. I am not familiar with the CEQA guidelines and I won't judge this report, but I can tell you the church is a serious growth concern in our neighborhood. Without having seen this huge document, the churches presence in the community already is a huge traffic generator and noisy. The application asks the City for 140,388 square feet, 35,500 more than is already too much. The math does not work in this small community. Their size is already an impact. Please, Council, look seriously at the 20 -year old CUP and ask if the programs they have now were contemplated then. If St. Andrews wants to be bigger they should move. Please vote to deny this application. 156 i 1 1 47. M. C. Healow (April 28, 2004) Response to Comment No. 1 This comment expresses opposition to the proposed project. Although several concerns are raised in this letter, no specific comments on the adequacy of the information presented in the Draft EIR have been identified. This letter will be forwarded to the Newport Beach Planning Commission and City Council for their consideration. St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church Draft EIR Responses to Public Comments June 9, 2004 157• u Letter No. 48 rom q— �' --G Date Mayor Ridgeway and Council City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92663 Re: St. Andrews Expansion Dear Honorable Mayor and Council: Clerk to copy each of the colmcil' RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH APR 2 9 2004 AM PM 7 819110111112111213141516 I understand that a $90,000 Environmental Impact Report has been published for the application of St. Andrews Presbyterian Church expansion. EIR's are made so that toxic uses don't pollute our neighborhoods. They generally result in the uses being built to a smaller scale and find that the toxins are of low impact, or an 'acceptable level'. Without opening the document (let alone having found someone stupid enough to pay for it), someone should have the sense to see that: this `bigger than a Home Depot church' does not belong in a small community. The proposal asks that the City allow 140,388 square feet (Home Depots start around 104,000 square feet). What part of this sound like good planning? - Even if the DEIR were to be watered down to the point of saying, "don't fret, the traffic and pollution is at an 'acceptable level' in accordance with the State Public Resources requirements ", who says that should be good enough for the City of Newport Beach? The answer to that is, the City Council. And, I say to the City council, it's not good enough for the communities. The size of the church is already an impact on the community far greater than ever anticipated by a 20 -year old CUP. If St. Andrews wants to be bigger have them find somewhere else with freeway access. What's next, a satellite up link facility? Please, Council, be reasonable. The neighborhood associations have been talking to the church for 2 years asking for the church to remodel, not expand, their 100,000 square foot church. Please find that St. Andrew's church may be made better, but no larger. Please hear the communities on this issue. Yours truly, 158 48. Mike Lambrakis (April 28, 2004) Response to Comment No. 1 This comment expresses opposition to the proposed project. Although several concerns are raised in this letter, no specific comments on the adequacy of the information presented in the Draft EIR have been identified. This letter will be forwarded to the Newport Beach Planning Commission and City Council for their consideration. St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church Draft E/R Responses to Public Comments June 9, 2004 159 Letter No. 49 Campbell, James From: dcstoney ldcstoney @adelphia.net] Sent: Friday, April 30, 2004 5:38 PM To: jcampbell @city.newport- beach.ca.us Subject: church EIR Dear Mr. Campbell, Page 1 of 1 RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH APR 3 0 2004 PM 17 819110111112111213141516 My husband wrote you earlier today regarding St. Andrew's desire to expand. I would like you to consider that I second all of his thoughts on the subject. We have children and they often play in the street, but depending on the schedule the church is running on any given day, I need to ask them to come out of the street or back into the house. There are many children on our street and I worry about them when people are rushing to attend church or going get their children to day care. I can't imagine what it will be like during construction too with big trucks all over our roads. We love living here and don't want the quality of our home and neighborhood to be diminished by the increases in noise, traffic, lighting, parking, litter and crime. Please don't allow this church to grow here in our backyard. Thank you, Cindy Stoneman 160 05/03/2004 49. Cindy Stoneman (April 30, 2004) Response to Comment No. 1 This comment expresses opposition to the proposed project. Although several concerns are raised in this letter, no specific comments on the adequacy of the information presented in the Draft EIR have been identified. This letter will be forwarded to the Newport Beach Planning Commission and City Council for their consideration. St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church Draft EIR Responses to Public Comments June 9, 2004 161