No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAbout19 - Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (LDS) Newport Beach Temple AppealMemorandum To: Honorable Mayor and City Council From: James Campbell, Senior Planners J Date: November 8, 2002 Re: LDS Temple City of Newport Beach Planning Department City Council Meeting November 12, 2002 Agenda Item No. 19 The LDS Church submitted two computer simulations of the proposed Temple on Wednesday as the agenda packets were being finalized. The two simulations were inserted between the staff report and the exhibits without explanation due to a lack of time to prepare a memorandum. The two simulations depict a 99 -foot, 9 inch high Temple as approved by the Planning Commission and a 90 -foot Temple that is now being offered by the applicant for approval. An additional piece of correspondence was received from Richard Fuller after the report was prepared. It is attached to this memorandum for your consideration. Nov 07 02 03:13p To: From: Job/Ref.No: Total Pages: Message: WEAL ESTATE OFFICES OF RICHARD A. FULLER, MAI, CRE • Consultation • Valuation 4910 CAMPUS DRIVE NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 TELEPHONE (949) 644 -4040 FACSIMILE (949) 660 -7076 EMAIL RFULLER @FULLCON.COM FACSIM R TRANSMITTAL FORM Jim Campbell Date: 1 11 -7- 2002 Fax No: Firm: City: 949 - 644 -3200 City of Newport Beach Newport Beach Richard A. Fuller, MAI, CRE Phone: (949) 644 -4040 Facsimile: (949) 660 -7076 City Council Meeting - November 12th (including this page) Jim: p . i'. If possible, could you include the attached sheets to your package for the Temple discussion - I have been asked to speak at the meeting. Dick Fuller * ** Important Notice * ** This message is intended only for the use of the individual to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged and/or confidential. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of the communication is strictly prohibited. if you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by telephone. Thank you. 110V 07 02 03:19P • MEMBER. APPRAIVAL INSTITUTE • MEMBER. COUNSCLOAS Di .CAL ReTATE • EERTIFIEO OENERAL APPRAISER SENT BY FAX September 30, 2002 FULLER CONSULTING RICHARD A. FULLER, MAI, CRE REAL. ESTATE • CONSULTATION' VALUATION 4010 CAMPUS DRIVE N8WY08? BSACB. CA2- IFV8N2A H2660-21SB Mr. Randall Bell, MAI Bell Anderson & Saunders, LLC 496 Broadway Laguna Beach, CA 92651 Dear Randy: P.2 • 1£LEPNONC (9491 M4f0AO • FACSIMILE: (9491 660 -]0]6 • EMAIL PFULLCRQ'ULLCON.0 - RE: Proposed Newport Beach LDS Temple As you may know, the LDS church is proposing to build a Temple on Bonita Canyon Road, in Newport Beach. This Temple was proposed to have t5% site coverage and ±124' steeple. On September 5, 2002, 1 addressed the Newport Beach Planning Commission, with respect to any alleged diminution in value to the surrounding neighborhood, as a result of the proposed Temple. My conclusions were based on 3 studies prepared by independent MAI's in Atlanta, Washington DC and Orlando. In each study, they concluded that there was no diminution in value, to the surrounding residential neighborhoods. I am attaching a synopsis of these conclusions. After considerable testimony, this matter was continued by the Planning Commission until October 3b, 2002. Included in the staff report, prepared for the Planning Commission meeting on October 3'", 2002, is a letter by David Guden, an appraiser, who disagreed with my findings and conclusions and referenced your article in the appraiser journal "The Impact of Detrimental Conditions on Property Values" roman numeral V - Imposed Conditions. I am enclosing a copy of Mr. Guden's letter and would appreciate your comments, with respect to 1) Mr. Guden's letter and 2) the diminution in residential values attributable to the proposed Temple. yours, A. Fuller, MAI, CRE FORENSIC YALUpn ON • O,", wrt N¢53 . ESTATE5 AND TRUSTS • PPOPRPTv ACOUISITION LIT:GATION 5UPPORT • EMINENT DOMAIN • ARGITRATION • PROPERTY O,SPOSITION Nov 07 02 03:13p PA, w) w u >1 CL E 0• Q. qu cz� 4 u d B 4 >1 V 42 be Q cz� QC 0 VO IS 2 M. 0 >1 12 41 cg 16 Z Q o V M . -S 's 00 '0 M. i it E m V 0 Nu al tj R: V W a rA tt O W -- b 00 •in .PVC tE M. CL u r CtD Iz 3.w -12 60 E D y Ck. zr4 ba o E o ca G• d O dt 12 t �D C� C� LO E w) w u >1 CL P.4 Nov 07 02 03:20p Bell Anderson & Sanders LLc RED PROFESSIONAL BUILDING 496 BROADWAY LAGUNA BeACN, CALIFORNIA 92651 (949) 497-7600 FAX (949) 497 -7601 September 30, 2002 Mr. Richard Fuller, MAI, CRE FULLER CONSULTING 4910 Campus Drive Newport Reach, California 92660-2119 Re: David Guder Letter and the Economic Impact Studies of Temples Dear Mr. Fuller: Today, l received your letter, a letter written by an appraiser, Mr. David Guder and a summary of three Economic Impact Studies related to temples. Mr. Guder cites concerns about property values being negatively impacted by a proposed Mormon Temple. In support of Mr. Guder's letter, he refers and attaches an article The Impact of Detrimental Conditions on Property Values, published in the Appraisal Journal. I am the author of this article. As an overview, prior to my current position, 1 was the national Managing Director of the Real Estate Damages practice at price Waterhouse. In addition to several articles and courses, I authored the textbook Real Estate Damages. (Chicago: Appraisal Institute, 1999). Having conducted hundreds of studies nationally involving environmental and neighborhood issues, crime scenes and natural disasters, my career has been featured by the Wall Street Journal, the Associated Press, People Magazine, all major networks and CNN. As an advisory board member of the Bureau of National Affairs (Washington, DC), certain valuation methodologies that I developed were adopted-into Federal Regulations. Mr. Guder correctly assumes that certain neighborhood developments can have a negative impact on property values. Such studies are well documented, and could include airport noise, noxious odors and so forth. However, I am concerned that Mr. Guder represents that my article supports his position, when it sire __ply does not. There is nothing in my scope of experience, research, articles or the Real Estate Damages textbook, that supports Mr. Guder's conclusions that a religious facility, such as a church, temple, synagogue or mosque, results in a loss of value to nearby homes. Furthermore, there is nothing within my scope of research that contradicts the findings of the Economic Impact Studies by three MAI Appraisers that you submitted to the planning commission on September 5, 2002. e ly yo Randall Bell, MAI CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Agenda Item No. 19 November 12, 2002 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: Planning Department James Campbell, Senior Planner (949) 644 - 3210— Jcampbell@city.newport- beach.ca.us SUBJECT: Appeal of the Planning Commission's approval of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (LDS) Newport Beach Temple APPELLANTS: Kathryn Cole, Martha Carrier, Jane Langel, Robert Danese, Kenneth A. Wong, Jim Schumann & Lynn Long ISSUE: Should the Planning Commissions approval of the LDS Temple with a maximum height of 99 feet, 9 inches be upheld or modified? RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council hold a public hearing and either uphold or modify the decision of the Planning Commission to approve the LDS Temple project. DISCUSSION: Background: The LDS Temple project was reviewed at two hearings held by the Planning Commission on September 5 and October 3, 2002, with approval of the project occurring at the second meeting. The appellants contend that the approval violates federal, state and municipal law. The adopted Planning Commission resolution is attached as Attachment A. The appellants also dispute the findings, recommendations and decisions of the Commission and staff as well as the certification of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR). The appeal is attached to the report as Attachment B and states that the height of the steeple is at issue. A letter from one of the appellants in support of the appeal is attached to the report as Attachment C. LDS Temple Appeal November 12, 2002 Page 2 The staff reports and minutes from these meetings are attached as Attachments D -H. The project plans and the EIR are attached as Attachments I & J respectively. The public had the opportunity to review and comment on the project and the EIR as provided for in State Planning Law and the California Environmental Quality Act. Two separate notices were sent in accordance with applicable requirements in addition to notices required for the EIR. Several hundred people attended the Planning Commission meetings and Planning Commissioners indicated that hundreds of pieces of correspondence has been received and considered. Three main issues have been the focus of a majority of the debate: structure height, structure lighting and potential holiday traffic. Additionally, project opponents have indicated that the Environmental Impact Report is flawed as it understates the level of impact of both the height and lighting of the Temple on the community. Finally, the issue of the height of the Stake Center steeple being incorrectly cited at 86 feet, as opposed to 68 feet, just prior to the second Planning Commission hearing became a significant topic of discussion. The review process resulted in a height of the Temple at 99 feet, 9 inches, reduced from the proposed height of 123 feet, 9 inches. This height was presented to the Planning Commission at the October 3`d meeting by the applicant. The hours of lighting were also reduced 1 hour in the morning and 1 hour in the evening from that proposed. The LDS Church proposed the hour reduction in the morning and the Planning Commission reduced the lighting in the evening by 1 hour over the objections of the Church. Lighting hours as approved will be 6AM to dawn and dusk to 10PM. The issue of potential increases in traffic visiting the site for a large holiday lighting display was addressed by requiring a Special Event Permit for such displays as proposed by the applicant. Appeal: The appeal takes issue with the height of the Temple. A letter has been submitted by one of the appellants, Kenneth A. Wong, in support of the allegations cited in the appeal. As noted, the letter is attached as Attachment C. The letter makes 8 general arguments: 1. The project site is a low rise planned community. Indeed the area can be characterized as low rise and it is in a planned community. The general area is broader than that and includes portions of Harbor View Hills, Harbor Knolls and Seawind, which are not within the Bonita Canyon Planned Community. The Planning Commission considered the character of the area in its decision as evidenced by the findings made with approval of the project. References to St. Andrews were made to show other structures within the City that have religious symbols that were allowed under the height exemption for churches in the Zoning Code. The author correctly points out that St. Andrews is not located in a LDS Temple Appeal November 12, 2002 Page 3 planned community. St. Andrews is subject to a 35 -foot height limit where the project site is located within a planned community and is subject to a 40 or 50 -foot height limit. Residential uses near St. Andrews are also not in a planned community and are subject to a 24 -foot height limit where the residential areas of Bonita Canyon have a 50 -foot height limit. 2. 100 feet exceeds the height limit by 100% and is excessive. The author recognizes the fact that the Zoning Code provides an opportunity for a religious building to exceed applicable height limits through a Use Permit. No limits on the exemption are established as the actual exemption was planned to be decided on a case by case basis through a Use Permit. The author takes issue of the late compromise offered by the applicant; however, the Planning Commission believed they had sufficient information to proceed. 3. The crane demonstration was inadequate and misrepresentative. The crane demonstration was an attempt to physically show the proposed height and location of the Temple steeple. The height and location were surveyed by a civil engineer to be within 2 feet in both the horizontal and vertical sense. It was never intended to represent bulk or volume. The crane was used as the base image for the visual simulations contained within the EIR as well as to test its visibility from afar. 4. The proposed steeple is not slender and will be a dominate feature in views. The width of the approved steeple ranges from 29.5 feet at its base to 15.25 feet at 70 feet from the ground. The top 12 feet is the angel figure that is approximately 2 -4 feet wide. Staff and the Planning Commission have acknowledged the fact that the Temple will be highly visible from a wide area. 5. Approval violated the First Amendment Establishment Clause. The approval of the Temple does not represent the establishment of a religion, nor does it prohibit the free exercise thereof. Staff believes the approval is not inconsistent with the First Amendment. 6. Origins of the intent of the purchase of the lot by the LDS Church. The original plans and intent behind the purchase of the lot is not relevant to this case. 7. St. Matthew's Church. St. Matthew's Church is located across the street and was granted a Use Permit for a bell tower for the main sanctuary (yet to be built) at 75 feet. The site is also within the Bonita Canyon Planned Community subject to a 50 foot height limit of the Residential designation. The author believes that differential treatment has been afforded the LDS Church through its approval being 25 feet higher than St. Matthews. St. Matthews asked and received approval for a 75 -foot tall structure, whereas the LDS Church asked for a 124 -foot structure and agreed to lower it to 100 feet. The permitted heights were based upon the facts of each case and the facts LDS Temple Appeal November 12, 2002 Page 4 are not the same. The LDS Temple site is located on a larger property located farther away from residences. It is not possible to say how much each of these factors affected the approval of the St. Matthews case. 8. City used the wrong standard for protection of adjacent properties with regards to lighting. The standard cited by the author applies to signs and is not applicable to structures. Staff interprets the author's statement to mean that the general finding for a Use Permit affords lesser protection for adjacent properties than that provided in the standard for signs. Staff believes the Planning Commission duly considered the effects of project lighting in its decision. Environmental Review: The City has prepared an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The EIR, State Clearinghouse No. 2002031048, was found to be adequate and the Planning Commission certified the EIR at the October 3, 2002 meeting. The appeal calls into question the EIR and its certification; however, the appeal and its supporting letter from Mr. Wong does not present any information that leads staff to conclude that the EIR is inadequate. No new information regarding any new significant and adverse environmental impacts is identified. The Environmental Impact Report concluded that no significant adverse environmental impacts to aesthetics and view will result with the implementation of the project. This determination was made based upon an evaluation of the project using view simulations, field surveys and established thresholds of significance. The analysis within the EIR was intended to provide an objective review of the issues based upon the thresholds of significance commonly applied in the environmental review process. Assessing the impact of the project on aesthetics or views is a subjective issue and different people will have different opinions as to what the correct answer is. A change or impact to private views is secondary to that of public views, and a perceived impact to property values is an economic issue outside the scope of California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). All environmental comments and responses to the comments were considered by the Commission. The Planning Commission found the EIR to be acceptable and certified the document prior to acting on the project. The Commission indicated that the EIR met one of the primary goals of CEQA, which is to provide information to the public and decision makers so that an informed decision can be made on the project. Public Notice: A public notice was prepared in accordance with the Municipal Code. It was published in the Daily Pilot posted at the site and mailed to nearby homeowners associations, property owners, interested parties, individuals and organizations commenting on the LDS Temple Appeal November 12, 2002 Page 5 EIR and residents in the area. The mailing list included approximately half of Bonita Canyon, Harbor View Hills and Harbor Ridge Estates, and all of Harbor View Knoll and Seawind. Altematives: The Council has the following options: 1. Uphold the decision of the Planning Commission by approving the project subject to the findings and conditions contained within Planning Commission Resolution No. 1574. 2. Modify the decision of the Planning Commission by changing the height of the Temple. Staff does not recommend that the Temple be limited to the 50 -foot height limit as it would not meet project objectives and would not be consistent with past approvals of other churches to exceed height limits. Prepared by: James W. Campb II, Senior Planner Attachments: Submitted by: Patricia L. Temple, Plan ing Director A. Planning Commission Resolution No. 1574 approving the project. B. Appeal C. Letter from Kenneth A. Wong, appellant D. Excerpt of minutes from the October 3, 2002 Planning Commission meeting. E. Supplemental Planning Commission staff report dated October 3, 2002 F. Planning Commission staff report dated October 3, 2002 G. Planning Commission staff report dated September 5, 2002 H. Excerpt of minutes from the September 5, 2002 Planning Commission meeting. I. Project Plans J. Revised and approved elevation and photo simulations K. Environmental Impact Report (Separate and transmitted previously) a mww� f 3L Av�r. dC=b <S"O* Each of the attachments begins on the following handwritten numbered pages: Attachment A — Page 6 Attachment B — Page 18 Attachment C — Page 22 Attachment D — Page 38 Attachment E — Page 56 Attachment F — Page 60 Attachment G — Page 142 Attachment H — Page 450 Attachment I — Page 469 Attachment J — Page 478 Attachment K — Page 488 ATTACHMENT A Planning Commission Resolution No. 1574 approving the project. RESOLUTION NO. 1574 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH CERTIFYING AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 2002 -001 AND APPROVING USE PERMIT NO. 2002 -036 AND SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. 2002 -005 FOR THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER DAY SAINTS, NEWPORT BEACH TEMPLE TO BE LOCATED AT 2300 BONITA CANYON DRIVE (PA2001 -208). The Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach does hereby find, resolve and order as follows: Section 1. An application was filed by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (LDS). with respect to property located at 2300 Bonita Canyon Drive, and legally described as Parcel 1 per Exhibit B attached to Lot Line Adjustment No. 14065 -LL and Grant Deed Recorded per Document No. 93- 0425720, for a Use Permit and Site Plan Review to allow the construction and operation of a Temple, with a 123 foot, 9 inch high steeple, on an 8.65 acre site within the Bonita Canyon Planned Community. Section 2. Public hearings were held on September 5, 2002 and October 3, 2002, at 6:30 P.M. in the City Hall Council Chambers, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California. A notice of time, place and purpose of the meetings was given. Evidence, information, and opinion, both written and oral, and drawings, photographs, plans, simulations materials and diagrams were presented to and considered by the Planning Commission at the meetings. Section 3. The Planning Commission finds as follows: 1. Approval of Use Permit No. 2002 -36 for the proposed LDS Temple is supported by the following facts: a) The proposed location of the use is in accord with the objectives of the Zoning Code and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. The zoning of the site is PC -50, Bonita Canyon Planned Community. The proposed use is within Sub Area No. 7 of the Bonita Canyon Planned Community, which is designated for Public /Semipublic uses. The purpose of the designation is contained within the preface of the Planned Community Development Plan and states that "Sub -area 7 is designated Public /Semipublic to reflect an existing church on the property." The existing church on the property is the LDS Stake Center. An LDS Temple is consistent with the designation of the site. b) The proposed location of the use permit and the proposed conditions under which it would be operated or maintained will be consistent with the General Plan and the purpose of the district in which the site is located; will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, or welfare of persons residing or working in or adjacent to the neighborhood of such use; and will not be detrimental to the properties or improvements in the vicinity or to the general welfare of the city, for the following reasons: Planning Commission Resolution No. 1574 Page 2 of 10 i) The project site is designated Governmental, Educational and Institutional Facilities by the Land Use Element of the General Plan. This land use designation is applied to areas developed with uses that form the physical and social infrastructure of the community and are designated for educational facilities, municipal uses, hospitals, libraries and churches, -among other civic - related uses. The proposed project, a place of religious worship or church, is a permitted institutional use within this land use category. ii) The proposed project is consistent with Land Use Element Policy A as the site is in close proximity to residents of the community, thereby providing convenient access to the facility. Additionally, the site is located in close proximity to major highways (MacArthur Blvd./Bonita Canyon Dr. /SR -73) to allow safe and convenient access for visitors to the proposed project while not significantly impacting levels of traffic service as concluded by the EIR. iii) The proposed project is consistent with Land Use Element Policy D. The project site does not possess any natural resources, nor does it constitute a natural landform warranting preservation, due to the past grading of the site. The site is not within a designated scenic vista, and the project does not significantly block public views due to the width of the steeple that does not exceed 29' -6" up to 50 feet from grade and 15'-4" above 50 feet in height, although the project will be highly visible from public areas. iv) The operation and maintenance of the proposed Temple is not anticipated to generate adverse impacts to the area as concluded by the EIR. The site has access from a signalized intersection on a major highway, and adequate off - street parking will be provided given the proposed schedule and occupancy of the Temple, taking into account shared use of the parking lot with the adjacent Stake Center. The traffic study prepared for the project concludes that no significant traffic impacts will result with the implementation of the project. v) The proposed Temple is located in an area with similar uses but will not contribute to traffic on Sundays when other churches in the area are more active, since the Temple will be closed on Sundays. vi) The closest residential use is located within Bonita Canyon Village, which is approximately 620 feet away at its closest point from the proposed Temple. The site is 8.65 acres and the steeple atop the proposed Temple is roughly located in the Center of the project site. The setbacks of 83 feet to the south, 291 feet to the east, 379 feet to the west, and 189 feet to the north provide adequate separation of the Temple from its surroundings and assist in making the project more compatible with the community. vii)Exterior illumination of the proposed Temple is designed to focus light on the Temple and steeple while minimizing light and glare in the surrounding area. The hours of illumination are also limited and not 24 hours a day. viii) The requested height of 123 feet, 9 inches is not compatible with the surrounding area as there are no other comparable structures of this height within the City. The reduction of the overall height of the Temple from 123 feet, 9 inches to 99 feet, 9 inches Planning Commission Resolution No. 1574 Page 3 of 10 above the proposed finished floor of 193.5 feet above mean sea level will make the proposed structure more compatible with area. A 99.75 -foot overall height limitation will reduce the impact of the proposed Temple upon public and private views in the surrounding area. A 99.75 -foot high Temple meets the applicant's project objective "To provide a highly visible site and a distinctive Temple with a steeple sufficiently high and illuminated to be seen from a substantial distance" based upon the visibility of a crane that was installed at the site to simulate the height of the steeple in January of 2002. A 99.75 -foot high Temple, including the steeple and angel figure will be approximately 31 feet, 9 inches taller than the adjacent Stake Center and does not eliminate visibility of the Temple from the same distances and locations as the higher requested height. Due to this height differential with the Stake Center, as well as the overall site design, building architecture and lighting, the proposed Temple will be more prominent than the adjacent Stake Center. The reduced height of the Temple in no way limits religious activities conducted within the Temple. ix) A finding that the proposed use is not detrimental to the community is further supported by the facts in support of approval of Site Plan Review No. 2002 -005. Said facts in support of SR2002 -005 as outlined in paragraph 2 below are hereby incorporated by reference. c) That the proposed use will comply with the provisions of the Zoning Code, including any specific condition required for the proposed use in the district in which it would be located. The proposed use is within Sub Area No. 7 of the Bonita Canyon Planned Community which is designated for Public /Semipublic uses. As noted. the use requires the approval of a Use Permit. No specific condition related to the operation of a church or place of religious worship is contained within the Bonita Canyon Planned Community Development Plan. 2. The proposed project is consistent with the intent and purpose of Chapter 20.92 (Site Plan Review) and warrants approval based upon the following findings: a) Sites subject to site plan review under the provisions of this chapter shall be graded and developed with due regard for the aesthetic qualities of the natural terrain, harbor, and landscape, giving special consideration to waterfront resources and unique landforms such as coastal bluffs or other sloped areas; trees and shrubs shall not be indiscriminately destroyed: The site will be graded and developed with due regard for the aesthetic qualities of the site even though additional filling of the site will be necessary to achieve the grades proposed. The site slopes moderately from abutting streets to the north and east toward Bonita Canyon Village and the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor, and the elevation changes from approximately 195 feet to approximately 175 feet above mean sea level. The pad elevation for the proposed Temple is 193 feet with the finished floor being 193.5 feet. This finished floor elevation is 3.5 feet above the finished floor of the abutting Stake Center and roughly 1 foot lower than Bonita Canyon Drive approximately 340 feet from its intersection with Prairie Road. The intersection is approximately 10 feet above the proposed finished floor. iJ Planning Commission Resolution No. 1574 Page 4 of 10 The site also has no unique natural landforms due to the past grading of the site and no trees or landscaping. b) 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: The proposed project is compatible with the character of the neighborhood and surrounding sites and is not detrimental to the orderly and harmonious development of the surroundings and of the City. The area is characterized by a mixture of residential uses, churches, a park, a preschool and a shopping center. The area is not a "densely" urbanized area when compared to other areas of the city and is "suburban" in character with many open space areas. These open areas include the adjacent open canyon near SR -73, Bonita Canyon Sports Park and numerous landscaped areas within medians, parkways and other setback areas. The site is bordered on two sides by open space and Bonita Canyon Drive providing additional separation from nearby land uses. Nearby residential structures are approximately 28 -30 feet in height and are not located in close proximity to the proposed Temple as they are located over 620 feet away. The nearby churches are large buildings comparable in size to the project although the proposed steeple is higher than other buildings and steeples in the area. The Temple will have significant setbacks from property lines, low lot coverage and 5.5 acres of landscaping that when combined assist in making the development more compatible with its surroundings. The granite exterior finish with its "flamed" property is not reflective. The color of granite selected is warm and earth toned, which is compatible with the colors of the surrounding community. c) Development shall be sited and designed to maximize protection of public views, with special consideration given to views from public parks and from roadways designated as Scenic Highways and Scenic Drives in the Recreation and Open Space Element of the General Plan: The site is not within a designated scenic vista and the project does not significantly block public views due to the width of the steeple that does not exceed 29' -6" up to 50 feet from grade and 15'-4" above 50 feet in height. It is acknowledged that the project will be highly visible from public areas. Two view simulations were prepared for the EIR from the Bonita Canyon Sports Park. Views 3 and 4 show that the Temple steeple will make up a-small percentage of the viewable area and not block views. Other view simulations were prepared from Bonita Canyon Drive that also show that the project will be visible, but again, the percentage of viewable area that the steeple will occupy is small and views are not blocked. d) Environmentally sensitive areas shall be preserved and protected. No structures or landform alteration shall be permitted in environmentally sensitive areas unless specific mitigation measures are adopted which will reduce adverse impacts to an acceptable level or the Planning Commission finds that the benefits outweigh the adverse impact: The site is not within a designated Environmentally Sensitive Area (ESA). Planning Commission Resolution No. 1574 Page 5 of 10 e) No structures shall be permitted in areas of potential geologic hazard unless specific mitigation measures are adopted which will reduce adverse impacts to an acceptable level or the Planning Commission finds that the benefits outweigh the adverse impacts: The project site is not in an area of potential geologic hazard. The site is located close to the Newport Inglewood fault zone and severe ground shaking at the project site might be experienced during a major event and liquefaction is of concern. A preliminary geotechnical investigation was conducted delineating grading and building techniques to ensure safety. All applicable City and State building codes and seismic design guidelines will be applied through the issuance of a building permit and grading permit, which will minimize possible risks of damage during an earthquake. The study did identify that the existing crib walls that support the site to the north and east are showing signs of distress related to wall movement. The applicant has elected to avoid any potential issues with these crib walls by providing sufficient landscape setbacks from these walls in accordance with the geotechnical study thereby avoiding any safety issues with the crib walls. f) Residential development shall be permitted in areas subject to noise levels greater than 60 CNEL only where specific mitigation measures will reduce noise levels in exterior areas to less than 60 CNEL and reduce noise levels in the interior of residences to 45 CNEL or less: The project does not involve residential uses; therefore, this standard does not apply. g) 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: Consideration has been made for shared parking usage with the adjacent Stake Center and adequate parking for both uses will be present. The circulation and parking layout meets or exceeds City design standards. The site plan includes several walkways within and around the gardens and a separate pedestrian crossing is provided between the proposed Temple and the Stake Center. Both the Planning and Public Works Departments have reviewed the proposed site plan for proper pedestrian and vehicle function and have found that the site plan does not present any negative circulation issues with either Temple operation or shared parking usage with the adjacent Stake Center. h) Development shall be consistent with specific General Plan and applicable specific plan district policies and objectives, and shall not preclude the implementation of those policies and objectives: The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan and applicable policies and objectives of the Bonita Canyon Planned Community, and does not preclude the implementation of those policies and objectives. Findings la, lbi, lbii and lbiii above are hereby incorporated by reference. i) Development shall be physically compatible with the development site, taking into consideration site characteristics including, but not limited to, slopes, submerged areas, and sensitive resources: i- Planning Commission Resolution No. 1574 Page 6 of 10 The site slopes from approximately 195 feet to approximately 175 feet above mean sea level. The proposed site plan will require grading to fill the site from 5 -8 feet below the Temple building. As noted previously, the proposed grade of the Temple 193 feet above mean sea level is comparable with the existing Stake Center and Bonita Canyon Drive. The site is devoid-of sensitive resources due to the previous mass grading of the site and contains no submerged lands. The site plan includes approximately 5.5 acres of landscaped gardens and walkways that will be planted with some more mature plantings. This high percentage of landscaping and the relatively small footprint of the proposed Temple (approximately 0.4 acres) make the site plan more compatible with the open space areas that abut the site. j) When feasible, electrical and similar mechanical equipment and trash and storage areas shall be concealed: Electrical service will be provided underground and mechanical equipment will be within the building or concealed behind roof parapets and will not be visible from the ground. Trash storage areas will be accommodated within enclosures or within the proposed building. k) Archaeological and historical resources shall be protected to the extent feasible: No known archaeological and historical resources are known to exist and are unlikely to exist due to the highly disturbed nature of the site from its previous grading. 1) Commercial development shall not have significant adverse effects on residences in an abutting residential district: The project is not a commercial project and therefore, this standard is not directly applicable. The intent of this standard is to ensure that a project does not have a significant adverse impact upon surrounding residences. The Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) concludes that there will be no significant adverse environmental impacts associated with the implementation of the project. No views from residential properties will be blocked. 3. The contents of the environmental document, including comments on the document and responses to the comments, have been considered in all the decisions on this project. On the basis of the entire environmental review record, the proposed project will have a less. than significant impact upon the environment and there are no known substantial adverse affects on the environment that would be caused. Additionally, there are no long -term environmental goals that would be compromised by the project or cumulative impacts that are anticipated in connection with the project. No mitigation measures are identified aside from implementation of the project as described in the project description and application of standard conditions of approval. Conditions of approval are applied that require implementation of the project as described and that apply standard conditions of approval. Subsequent to preparation and circulation of the DEIR, the project applicant submitted a revised project to reduce the height of the steeple. The revised Temple design now includes a steeple at a height of 99 feet, 9 inches. The reduction in height is 24 feet or 19.4%. Additionally, the church has revised their lighting schedule such that lights will not come on prior to 6 a.m. The exterior material, finish, color and lighting 13 Planning Commission Resolution No. 1574 Page 7 of 10 concept are not changing from the original project. The original Temple design included 1,089 square feet above 35 feet in height and the new proposal occupies 969 square feet above this height. The reduced height and lower area above 35 feet more than balances the slight increase in width, and the revised project presents no greater impact to public views than the proposed project. The City has reviewed the revised plans and finds the proposed project to have an impact on the environment similar to and/or less than the original submittal. Therefore, the findings in the DEIR apply to the revised project, the EIR does not require recirculation and the EIR may be certified with no change. Section 4. Based on the aforementioned findings, the Planning Commission hereby certifies Environmental Impact Report (SCH #2002031048) and approves Use Permit No. 2001 -036 and Site Plan Review No. 2002 -005, subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit "A" attached. Section 5. This action shall become final and effective fourteen (14) days after the adoption of this Resolution unless within such time an appeal is filed with the City Clerk or this action is called for review by the City Council in accordance with the provisions of Title 20, Planning and Zoning, of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 3rd DAY OF OCTOBER 2002. AYES: Kiser. McDaniel. Tucker. Selich. Aeaianian NOES: Toeree ABSENT: Gifford BY: ev er, Chairman Secretary Planning Commission Resolution No. 1574 Page 8 of 10 Exhibit "A" Conditions of Approval The development shall be in substantial conformance with the plans except as modified below. The plans are identified by date as follows: Sheet No. Date Site plan 04 -5 -02 Conceptual grading plan 03 -7 -02 Landscape plan 05 -1 -02 Elevation drawing Stamped "Received by the Planning Department" on 10 -3 -02 2. The project is subject to all applicable City ordinances, policies, and standards, unless specifically waived or modified by the conditions of approval. 3. Project approvals shall expire unless exercised within 24 months from the effective date of approval as specified in Section 20.91.050A of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. Reasonable extensions may be granted by the Planning Director in accordance with applicable regulations. 4. The proposed project shall conform to the requirements of the Uniform Building Code, any local amendments to the UBC, and State Disabled Access requirements, unless otherwise approved by the Building Department. 5. The applicant shall submit a landscape and irrigation plan prepared by a licensed landscape architect or licensed architect for on -site and adjacent off -site planting areas. These plans shall incorporate drought tolerant plantings and water efficient irrigation practices, and the plans shall be approved by the Planning Director prior to the issuance of a building permit. All planting areas shall be provided with a permanent underground automatic sprinkler irrigation system of a design suitable for the type and arrangement of the plant materials selected. Planting areas adjacent to vehicular activity shall be protected by a continuous concrete curb or similar permanent barrier. Landscaping shall be located so as not to impede vehicular sight distance to the satisfaction of the Traffic Engineer. _ 6. All landscape materials and landscaped areas shall be maintained in accordance with the approved landscape plan. All landscaped areas shall be maintained in a healthy and growing condition and shall receive regular pruning, fertilizing, mowing and trimming. All landscaped areas shall be kept free of weeds and debris. All irrigation systems shall be kept operable, including adjustments, replacements, repairs, and cleaning as part of regular maintenance. 7. All improvements within the public right of way shall be constructed as required by Ordinance and the Public Works Department. All work within the public right of way shall be completed under an encroachment permit issued by the Public Works Department. S. Disruption caused by construction work along roadways and by movement of construction vehicles shall be minimized by proper use of traffic control equipment and flagmen. Traffic I5 Planning Commission Resolution No. 1574 Page 9 of 10 control and transportation of equipment and materials shall be conducted in accordance with state and local requirements. 9. A hydrology and hydraulic study shall be prepared by the applicant and approved by the Public Works Department, along with a master plan of water, sewer and storm drain facilities for the on -site improvements and public improvements prior to the issuance of a building permit. Any modifications or extensions to the existing storm drain, water and sewer systems shown to be required by the study shall be the responsibility of the developer. 10. Fair Share traffic mitigation fees shall be paid to the City prior to the issuance of any building or grading permit for construction of the project. 11. All mechanical equipment shall be screened from view of adjacent properties and adjacent public streets, and shall be sound attenuated in accordance with Chapter 10.26 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, Community Noise Control. 12. Overhead utilities serving the site shall be placed underground to the nearest appropriate pole unless it is determined by the City Engineer that such undergrounding is physically infeasible. 13. The on -site parking, vehicular circulation and pedestrian circulation systems shall be subject to further review by the Traffic Engineer. A minimum of 146 parking spaces shall be provided in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance. 14. In accordance with the provisions of Chapter 13 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code or other applicable section or chapter, street trees shall be required and shall be subject to the review and approval of the General Services and Public Works Departments. 15. The applicant shall be responsible for the payment of all applicable City plan check and inspection fees. 16. The overall height of the Temple including the steeple and angel shall be no more than 99 feet, 9 inches from the proposed finished floor elevation of 193.5 feet above mean sea level. 17. Exterior on -site lighting shall be shielded and confined within site boundaries. No direct rays or glare are permitted to shine onto public streets or adjacent sites or create a public nuisance. "Walpak" type fixtures are not permitted. All exterior lighting fixtures shall have zero cut -off fixtures and light standards for the parking lot shall not exceed 20 feet in height. Light standards for exterior walkways shall not exceed 10 feet in height. Other exterior light sources shall be no higher than 4 feet. 18. The applicant shall prepare a photometric study in conjunction with a final lighting plan for approval by the Planning Director prior to the issuance of a building permit. The building and grounds shall not be excessively illuminated based on the luminance recommendations of the Eluminating Engineering Society of North America, or, based on the opinion of the Planning Director, the illumination creates an unacceptable negative impact on surrounding land uses or environmental resources. The Planning Director may order the dimming of light sources or other remediation upon finding that the site is excessively illuminated. )(0 Planning Commission Resolution No. 1574 Page 10 of 10 19. Architectural lighting of the Temple, including the steeple and angel figure, shall be aimed to illuminate the structure and shall avoid missing the structure to the maximum extent feasible. Light sources aimed to illuminate the steeple and angel shall be located such that the angle of light shall be no less than 70 degrees from the horizontal ground surface. Changes to the lighting system that would increase lighting levels or increase the lighting sources shall require an amendment to this Use Permit. 20. Lighting of the Temple steeple shall be limited to the hours of 6:OOAM to sunrise and sunset to 10:OOPM. Any future increase in these hours of illumination or increases in lighting levels or additional light sources shall require an amendment to this Use Permit. 21. The applicant shall obtain a Special Event Permit for holiday lighting displays. No holiday lighting shall be permitted on the Temple structure. A Special Event Permit may not authorize holiday lighting on the Temple structure. 22. No more than 175 people may occupy the Temple at any one time. II .' �•. * * * ** (Page 1 of 2) * * * ** CITY OF NEWPff1p W APPLICATION TO APPEAL DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION Application No. 2002 -036, etc. '02 OCT 16 P3 :43 Name of Appellant or person filing: _ Kathryn Cole, et. al. (see Address: 20 Peppertree, Newport Beach, CA 92660 CITY CLERK OjAlgg l(949) 759 -9415 Date of Planning Commission decision: Thurs. , October 3 20 02 Regarding application of: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter -day Saints (LDS) for (Description of application filed with Planning Commission) Proposed LDS temple, including integral steeple exceeding local area height restriction (subject of LDS's Application for a Conditional Use Permit), to be located at 2300 Bonita Canyon Rd. (PA2001 -208, etc.) Reasons for Appeal: Due to violation of federal, state and municipal law. Additional grounds of appeal include, but are not limited to, disputing the findings, recommendations and decisions of the city Planning Commission and the underlying city staff, and the city's approval of the Dratt EIR /EIR. October 16. 2002 JJr . .. // i %rCl�ii� III DWI AM, 1 "'UN WA CITY CLERK •. a /.MI. i ztFOR OFFICE USE ONLY Date Appeal filed and Administrative Fee received: I � hbw I,% 20 Q;- v Hearing Date. An appeal shall be scheduled for a hearing before the City Council within thirty (30) days of the filing of the appeal unless both applicant and appellant or reviewing body consent to a later date (NBMC Sec. 20.95.050) G cc: Appellant _- Planning (Furnish one set of mailing labels for mailing) _ ° File APPEALS: Municipal Code Sec. 20.95.040(8) -__ rR Appeal Fee: $312 pursuant to Resolution No. 2002 -50 adopted on 7 -23 -Q? �efFectiye 7 -242) De osit funds with Cashier in Account #2700 -5000) „' 10 -16-02 Page 2 of 2 "Name of Appellant or person filing" (all five (5) communities closest to subject parcel) 1) Kathryn Cole— 20 Peppertree, Newport Beach, CA 92660- (Bonita Canyon) 2) Martha Carrier— 1918 Port Bristol Cir., " (Harbor View Homes- Phase 1) 3) Jane Langel— 1851 Port Barmouth " (Harbor View Homes- Phase 1) 4) Robert Danese— 1954 Port Nelson (Harbor View Homes- Phase 2) 5) Kenneth A. Wong, Esq.- 2264 Port Durness PI. " (Harbor View Homes- Phase 3 aka Seawind) 6) Kim Schumann, Esq.— 2248 Port Durness PI. " (Harbor View Homes- Phase 3 aka Seawind) 7) Lynn Long— 2745 Hillview " (Harbor View Knoll) �I ATTACHMENT C Letter from Kenneth A. Wong, appellant Oct 23 02 06:40p Kenneth A. Wong Attorney at Law Seawind Community Newport Beach, CA 92660 Ofc:(714)445 -3267 Cell: (714)296-9661 Fax (H):(949)644 -7060 October 23, 2002 The Hon. Steven Bromberg, Esq. City Councilman p.I u2 OCT LQ P3.02 \cii i?ate 106g6 3-� Gzpies Sent To: Mayor _,4 i1 ouncil Member 1506 Park Ave. Fax: (949) 6441853 J2--Wtfianager Balboa Island, CA 92662 E -mail: dandee(cDearthlink.rrbt y orn C l Re: Enclosure of city's own wording endorsing a height differential –� Z � a molx tl 17.5 feet above existing steeple on adjacent LOS Stake Centers Shu )c �^ tj (Exhibit #6 of Planning Department's "wort to the Planning � Commission" dated October 3, 2002 (this printed text was made ❑ — available to the public by city staff immediately prior to 10/3 PC meeting]) Dear Councilman Bromberg: Again, I and the many involved homeowner residents from all five (5) of the communifies closest to the subject parcel want to thank you and your colleague, Councilman John Heffernan, for all of the active interest and concern on our behalf. I am especially appreciative that due to the work of you two public servants, our grassroots collection of homeowners now has some restored faith in our municipal government. Please note that very responsive Councilman Heffernan is also receiving this letter and attachment. I will not re -hash the reasons for our understandable and justifiable disgust at the earlier process involving the performance, recommendations and decisions of the city staff and Planning Commission (PC), from our earlier discussions it is already evident to me that you thoroughly understand same, and I have heard your assurances that you will bring that intolerable wrong to the attention of the full Council. As you know, some in our group have been involved in this effort to protect our residential area going back nearly 18 months. Over that time, hundreds of homeowner residents have participated in a myriad of efforts, based upon their skills, experience, interests and time availability. I can assure you that none of us have sought any leadership role– only circumstance, an J Oct 23 02 06:41p ability and willingness to donate some additional time and energy and, most significantly, an abiding and appropriate care for our homes and neighborhoods, has by default created any prominence. Seawind resident Peggy Stair gets all the credit for spotting a most critically relevant passage produced by the city itself. Peggy is a 14 -year owner - resident, and is currently the President of the Seawind Board of Trustees. But for her careful and patient reading of the voluminous documents produced over the long life of this matter, we might have missed this most pertinent fact created by the city's own staff. Completely aside from staffs report prepared for the original PC meeting back on September 5, 2002, even the last report (staff made same available to the public immediately prior to the 10/3 PC meeting; this copy was on the table at the back of the Council Chambers for public distribution) dated October 3 stated these revealing words: "...the steeple and angel figure will be approximately 17.5 feet taller than the adjacent Stake Center..." (at page 65, lines 3 and 4, of the 10/3/02 Report, also known as Page 3 of 8 of Exhibit #6) 1 am, of course, enclosing the entire seven page Exhibit #6 from which the above quote is drawn. Those unsympathetic to the homeowner residents, such as the LDS applicant and perhaps the city staff and PC, will almost certainly attempt to "spin" the foregoing. It can be expected that they will "explain away' that very specific difference in height by saying that the quotation is taken out -of- context, since elsewhere in the paragraph reference was made to the temporary crane erected to simulate the LDS's original proposal of 124 feet, and that no LDS - oriented values ( "highly visible ...... distinctive'... "sufficiently high "... "illuminated," etc.) were thwarted at even the 100 foot height. With all due respect, such anticipated arguments (along with anything of the like) are wholly erroneous and without merit. Why? Kindly note these listed points: 1) For better or worse, our area of northern Newport Beach is a low rise, planned community. That's why all references to St. Andrew's Presbyterian's 90+ foot structure on the other side of Newport Bay are irrelevant— because that area is not and has never been a planned community. True, both parcels are in one and the same city, but only our area from the beginning has had the 50 foot height restriction and p.2 �5 Oct 23 02 06:41p low rise character. Homeowners here bought with a knowledge of and preference for the planned community character and its benefits. 2) We're fully cognizant of the fact that city law allows for churches to apply for a Conditional Use Permit to possibly allow for a steeple to exceed the otherwise applicable 50 foot height maximum. But a 100% increase? (which at 100 feet, is what the LDS suddenly announced to the public at the very meeting on October 3 during which the PC approved same). Please indulge me the following analogy (imperfect as they are): If for some reason you announce that you want to buy my used car, and the thing's worth $5,000.00 fair market value, but ( state that the price is $12,400.00, you'd have every right to cry 'foul; and say that's outrageous. If I eventually relent, and reduce the price to $10,000.00, 1 really don't think that you owe me some kind of "thanks" for my 'generosity' or Wilingness to compromise' or anything of the sort Objectively speaking, should anyone hold it against you that you expect some reasonableness on the seller's part? Or that you're not particularly moved or persuaded by the seller's theological contentions that the price, including the reduced price, have been dictated by the car seller's 'Prophet of God" (who happens NOT to be a Newport Beach resident)? Can the seller, or anyone else for that matter, fault you for seeking a price more in the realm of $7,500.00? (Note that in this illustration, at $7,500.00, that's a full 50% above market value, and in a geographic area where no used car has previously sold for more than market value). 3) The crane did precious Tittle to accurately convey what our area will actually wind -up with in terms of presence and height (not to mention the stark lighting reality). Months ago some of our group's research found references indicating that cranes and other simulations in no way convey the true bulk and impact of the later construction_ This is evidently why better simulations have required and involved a lightweight frame or rectangular box of the designed structure's dimensions to be suspended at the exact height, with either canvas or lightweight boarding affixed, so as to accurately block the view and establish the physical Presence. So, if our opponents wish to say that the "17.5 feet" reference is only in relation to the crane or the modified 100 foot figure, then they place the complete inadequacy and misrepresentative nature of the January 2002 crane exercise in issue_ 4) Some of our opponents have been heard to say that the proposed new steeple is "slender.` This is a specious argument because, as we said at the speaker's podium at the first PC meeting on September 5, "slender does not translate into non - existent or non - apparent. Cases p.3 `)(c Oct 23 02 06:41p p.4 in oint: both the Washington Monument and the Eiffel Tower are indisputably slender by anyone's measure; neither, however, are in the least bit lacking in worldwide tame or image. In tact, when one visualizes either in the mind's eye, one dearly envisions the complete architecture, in its full height and proportion. Indeed, one doesn't even pay attention to whatever might be in the background (D.C. skyline? Paris skyline? trees? mountains ?) because the "slender construction IS the dominant view... the new view... the force -fed, pushed- from -not- only- out -of- city - but - out -of -state view. And don't forget the nighttime illumination allowed by the PC up through 10:00 PM, ensuring that promotional /advertising value is not lost due to darkness. 5) I'll not belabor the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, since as a veteran attorney you're more than capable of ensuring that the Council understands that the city violates equal protection if it in any way favors one religion or faith over another (and this includes accommodations of any kind, no matter how possibly well- intended). 6) Our researchers reviewing the public records tell me that the LDS apparently originally purchased the subject parcel to build the Stake Center, but evidently later determined that not enough panting could be accommodated. This appears to be why the LDS then bought the adjacent parcel, and erected the Stake Center where it stands today. The idea of an LDS Temple on the originally- purchased lot seems to have come along sometime later, with the actual origin of that specific idea being a matter of some debate. 7) Our researchers also inform that the public records reflect that the new St. Matthews Anglican Church (across the street from the subject site) has a maximum height allowance on their steeple at 75 feet. Both churches are in the same planned community area, yet differential treatment from the qty seems to be involved (see Rem 5 above). 8) Please note also: It is further respectfully submitted that the PC used the wrong standard concerning the illumination issue (i.e., "detrimental to the health, safety and welfare of the citizens of Newport Beach.'. Our review of the Newport Beach Municipal Code at Section 20.67.025H.3 (general provisions dealing with signagefdluminated signs) reveals in relevant part "...signs may be illuminated provided, such illumination does not interfere with the use and eniovment of adjacent Properties or create any public safety hazard..." (emphasis added). Having directly confronted and refuted the probable and expected retorts against the cited quotation, were again left with the simple fact that these are the 4 aI Oct 23 02 06:41p city's own words: "... 17.5 feet taller than the adiacent Stake Center." It is an unassailable point that the qty, by its own document, was recommending that the new temple steeple be a respectable, and not insignificant, additional height of approximately 17.5 feet above the existing and nearby Stake Center steeple. Please remember now that everyone knows that the Stake Center steeple is actually at 68 feet (and not the bogus 86 foot figure which some "in the know chose not to disclose or reveal to our city personnel and representatives), the Stake is already enjoying an 18 foot premium above NB's basic height maximum (it's'grandfathered -in' since it was built under Irvine's jurisdiction). For numerous reasons, including the above factual reference to the new St. Matthew's and its height limitation, and as we have previously stated publicly, our grassroots group would prefer a maximum LDS temple steeple height of 75 feet. At the same time, however, recognizing that the city's own words and document clearly convey the concept that NB was prepared to allow for a 17.5 foot differential, with the arithmetic revealing that to be 85.5 feet (68 feet plus 17.5 feet), we respectfully contend that 85.5 feet should be the very highest figure that the Honorable City Council should consider upon this appeal. Finally, to be Gear, let's have the temple and the steeple... but please, let's not allow the applicant, with the approval of our elected representatives and only municipal protectors, to impose its stubborn, insistent and self - righteous will upon its long -term neighbors. We thank you and Councilman Heffernan for your attention to these important points and the attachment. Kenneth A. Attorney at P.S.) May I encourage you and Councilman Heffernan to shareihis-eritife letter and the attachment with the full Council? Encls. Cc: The Hon. John Heffernan, Esq. City Councilman 26 Corporate Plaza Newport Beach, CA 92660 Fax: (949)721 -1140 E -mail: jhff @aol.com P. 5 29 EXifIB/T �/_� RESOLUTION NO. Pif G6 OF 8 A RESOLU11ON OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH CERTIFYING AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 2002 -001 AND APPROVING USE PERMIT NO. 2002 -036 AND SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. 2002-005 FOR THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER DAY SAINTS, NEWPORT BEACH TEMPLE TO BE LOCATED AT 2300 BONITA-CANYON DRIVE (PA2001 -208). The Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach does hereby find, resolve and order as follows: t =: Section 1. An application was filed by the Church of Jesus Chiiskof Latter Day Saints. with respect to property located at 2300 Bonita Canyon Drive, and legally 'described as Parcel 1 per Exhibit B attached to Lot Line Adjustment No. 14065- LLand Grins Deed.; Recorded per Document No. 93- 0425720, for a Use Permit and Site Plan Revi$w to alloii.i the construction and operation of a Temple on an 8.65 acre site within the Bonita Canyon Planned Community. The request also includes consideration of a 124 -foot high steeplet}tatwould exceed the maximum allowable height of 50 feet. Section 2. A public hearing was hel ....'September 5,? ?002 and October 3, 2002, at 6:30 P.M. in the City Hall Council Chambe'rs',-.33.00 Nervpot Boulevard, Newport Beach, California. A notice of time, place and purpose; of the meetings was given. Evidence, information, and opinion, both written and oral, and diawings, photographs, plans, simulations materials and diagrams were presented to and.considered by the Planning Commission at the meetings. Section 3. The "Tanning Commission finds as follows: 1. The project site is' designated Governmental, Educational and Institutional Facilities by the Land Use:Mement:;of the General Plan. This land use designation is applied to areas developed_'with uses that:form the physical and social infrastructure of the community and are designited'for educational,`facilities, municipal uses, hospitals, libraries and churches, among other civic - related uses. The proposed project, a place of religious worship or church, is listed as a permit t4jAstitutional use within this land use category. 2. The proposed project is consistent with Land Use Element Policy A as the site is in close proximity to residents of the community, thereby providing convenient access to the facility. Additionally, the site is located in close proximity to major highways (MacArthur BlvdMonita Canyon DrJSR -73) to allow safe and convenient access for visitors to the proposed -project while not significantly impacting levels of traffic service as concluded by the EIR. 3. The proposed project is consistent with Land Use Element Policy D. The project site does not possess any natural resources, nor does it constitute a natural landform warranting preservation, due to the past grading of the site. The site is not within a designated scenic vista, and the project does not significantly block public views due to the slender design of the steeple, although the project will be highly visible from public areas. � I Oct: 23 02 06:42p Resolution No. Page 2 of 8 The proposed use is within Sub Area No. 7 of the Bonita Canyon Planned Community, which is designated for Public/Semipublic uses. The purpose of the designation is contained within the ptcfacc of the Planned Community Development Plan and states that "Sub-area 7 is designated Public/Semipublic to reflect an existing church on the property.' The existing church on the property is the LDS Stake Center. An LDS Temple is consistent with the designation of the site. 5. Use Permit No. 2002 -36 for the proposed LDS Temple and the conditions under which it will be operated or maintained will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, or welfare of persons residing or working in or adjacent to the neighborhood of such use; and will not be detrimental to the properties or improvements in the vicinity or to the general welfare of the city for the following reasons: a) The project site and the operation of the proposed Temple are.cpnsis[ent with the General Plan and are consistent with the purpose of the Public/SetiiiPU ic desi gnation of the property by the Bonita Canyon Planned Community Development Plan. " b) The operation and maintenance of the proposed - Temple' is _Trptyani1cipated to generate adverse impacts to the area as concluded by. the EIR..Ttie 'site has access from a signalized intersection on a major highway, `and adequate off -street parking will be provided given the proposed schedule and '.occupancy of the Temple, taking into account shared use of the parking lot with the adjacent Stake::Center. The traffic study prepared for the project concludes that no significant,, traffic impacts will result with the implementation of the projeqL.., , ,;• c) The proposed Temple is;located'in:an'area with similar uses but will not contribute to traffic on Sundays when other churches in the area are more active. d) The closest �iesident.ial... use.: is• located within Bonita Canyon Village, which is approximately. 620 feet away at its closest point from the proposed Temple. The site is 8.65 acres and the.steeple atop the proposed Temple is roughly located in the Center of the project site. The.setbacks of 83 feet to the south, 291 feet to the east, 379 feet to the west, and 189 feet tit `the: north provide adequate separation of the Temple from its surroundings and assist in making the project more compatible with the community. e) Exterior illumination of the proposed Temple is designed to focus light on the Temple and steeple while minimizing light and glare in the surrounding area. The hours of illumination are also limited and not 24 hours a day. f) The requested height of 123 feet, 9 inches is not compatible with the surrounding area as there are no other comparable structures of this height within the City. The reduction of the overall height of the Temple from 123 feet, 9 inches to 100 feet above the proposed finished floor of 193.5 feet above mean sea level will make the proposed structure more compatible with area. A 100 feet overall height limitation will reduce the impact of the proposed Temple upon public and private views in the surrounding area. A 100 -foot high Temple meets the applicant's project objective "To provide a highly visible sire and a distinctive Temple with a steeple sufficiently high and illuminated to be seen from a p•7 vkl/ .9d Oes 23 02 06 :43p Resolution No. Page 3 of 8 P. a substantial distance" based upon the visibility of a crane that was installed at the site to simulate the height of the steeple in January of 2002. A 100-foot high Temple, including the steeple and angel figure will be approximately 17.5 feet taller than the adjacent Stake \ Center and does not eliminate visibility of the Temple from the same distances and locations as the higher requested heightlZe to this height differential with the Stake Center, as well as the overall site design, building architecture and lighting, th roposep Templc will be more prominent than the adjacent Stake Center) The reduced height of the Temple in no way limits religious activities conducted within a Temple.> g) A finding that the proposed use is not detrimental to the community is further supported by the facts in support of approval of Site Plan Review N6,,2002-005. Said facts in support of SR2002 -005 as outlined in paragraph 6 below are hereby incorporated by reference. '==z 6. The proposed project is consistent with the intent and purposrof-Chapter20.92 (Site Plan Review) and warrants approval based upon the following facts related'to the'standards for approval of a Site Plan Review application: a) The site will be graded and developed.. with due, regard for the aesthetic qualities of the site even though additional filling of the site' %wll be necessary to achieve the grades proposed. The site slopes moderately from- abutiirrg streets., to the north and east toward Bonita Canyon Village and the San Joaquin Hills = :Transportation Corridor, and the elevation changes from approximately 195 feet:to approximately 175 feet above mean sea level. The pad elevation for.lhe_proposed Tempie.is.193 feet with the finished floor being 193.5 feet. This finished'floor elevation . 'rs'.3.5 feet above the finished floor of the abutting Stake Center and roughlya foot lower than Bonita Canyon Drive approximately 340 feet from its intersection. witti:Prwrie Road: The intersection is approximately 10 feet above the proposed finished floor. The site also has no unique natural landforms due to the past grading of the site and n-6trecs`or landicaping. b) The proposed $inject is compatible with the character of the neighborhood and surrounid ng sites ands not: detrimental to the orderly and harmonious development of the surroundings and of-thef6ty. The area is characterized by a mixture of residential uses, churches ;a.park, a preschool and a shopping center. The area is not a "densely" urbanized area when compared to other areas of the city and is "suburban" in character with many open space areas. These open areas include the adjacent open canyon near SR- 73, Bonita Canyon Sports Park and numerous landscaped areas within medians, parkways and other setback areas. The site is bordered on two sides by open space and Bonita Canyon Drive providing additional separation from nearby land uses. Nearby residential structures are approximately 28 -30 feet in height and are not located in close proximity to the proposed Temple as they are located over 620 feet away. The nearby churches are large buildings comparable in size to the project although the proposed steeple is higher than other buildings and steeples in the area. The Temple will have significant setbacks from property lines, low lot coverage and 5.5 acres of landscaping that when combined assist in making the development more compatible with its surroundings. The granite exterior finish with its_ "flamed" property is not reflective. The r 1( Oct 23 02 OG:43p Resolution No. Page 4 of 8 color of granite selected by the Church is warm and earth toned, which is compatible with the colors of the surrounding community. c) The site is not within a designated scenic vista and the project does not significantly block public views due to the slender design of the steeple. It is acknowledged that the project will be highly visible from public areas. The view simulations that were prepared for the EIR show that the Temple steeple will make up a small percentage of the viewable area and not block public views. d) The site is not within a designated Environmentally Sensitive Area (ESA) and the construction and operation of the proposed Temple will not impact any ESA. The site is devoid of sensitive resources or submerged lands. No known =archaeological and historical resources are known to exist and are unlikely to - ek#t,,due to the highly disturbed nature of the site from its previous grading-,Ile'- site plan includes approximately 5.5 acres of landscaped gardens and walkWkys'that. will bgplanted with some mature plantings. This high percentage of landsq�ping ari"d.,'the relatively small footprint of the proposed Temple (approximately 0.4 a=les) mak6 :4he site plan more compatible with the open space areas that abut the -site. c) Consideration was also made for shared parking usage with the adjacent Stake Center. The circulation and parking layout meets'.oi exceeds City design standards. The site plan includes several walkways within and•aroiind tbe! gardens and 'a separate pedestrian crossing is provided between the proposed•Tcmple and the Stake Center. Both the Planning and Public Works.Departrnents have reviewed the proposed site plan for proper pedestrian and vehicle 'function . and have "found that the site plan does not present any negative circulation issues with either Temple operation or shared parking [sage with the adjacent Stake Center. ` f) Electrical scrvAce will be provided unfferground and mechanical equipment will he within the building or :concealed behind roof parapets and will not be visible from the ground. Although trash storage areas-:are not specifically delineated on the plans, trash storage will bcaccommodated within`enclosures or within the proposed building. = =rte The conte'n'ts of'he environmental document, including comments on the document and responses ro the comments, have been considered in all the decisions on this project. On the basis of the entire environmental review record, the proposed project will have a less than significant impact upon the environment and there are no known substantial adverse affects on the environment that would be caused. Additionally, there are no long -term environmental goals that would he compromised by the project or cumulative impacts that are anticipated in connection with the project. No mitigation measures are identified aside from implementation of the project as described in the project description and application of standard conditions of approval. Conditions of approval are applied that require implementation of the project as described and that apply standard conditions of approval. p.9 Ai /t.j Oct 23 02 06:44p Resolution No. Page 5 of 8 Section 4. Based on the aforementioned findings, the Planning Commission hereby certifies Environmental Impact Report (SCH #2002031048) and approves Use Permit No. 2001- 036 and Site Plan Review No. 2002 -005, subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit "A" attached. Section 5. This action shall become final and effective fourteen (14) days after the adoption of this Resolution unless within such time an appeal is filed with the City Clerk or this action is called for-review by the City Council in accordance with the pDvisions of Title 20, Planning and Zoning, of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED TH AYES: NOES: p.10 . Oct 23 02 06:45p Exhibit "A" Conditions of Approval Resolution No. Page 6of8 The development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved plans except as modified below. The plans are identified by date as follows: Sheet No. Date Site plan 04.5 -02 Conceptual grading plan 03.7 -02 Landscape plan 05 -1 -02 Elevation A2.1 03 -3 -02 Elevation A2.2 03 -3 -02 Elevation A2.3 03 -3-02 Elevation A2.4 03.3 -02 2. The project is subject to all applicable City ordinances, ;policies, and s6 n8ards, unless specifically waived or modified by the conditions of approval -_. 3. Project approvals shall expire unless exercised within ^24'months fi6m'the effective date of approval as specified in Section 20.91.050A of :the Newport Beach Municipal Code. Reasonable extensions may be granted by .the Planning Director in accordance with applicable regulations. - 4. The proposed project shall conform to the requirements of the Uniform Building Code, any local amendments to the UBC, and - State. Disabled Access requirements, unless otherwise approved by the Building Department, 5. The applicant shall!Wbmit.a landscape and irrigation plan prepared by a licensed landscape architect or licensed architect for`:bn- site:and adjacent off -site planting areas. These plans shall incorporate drought tolerant plantings and water efficient irrigation practices, and the plans shall.be approved by the Planning Director prior to the issuance of a building permit. All planting areas shall be provided with a permanent underground automatic sprinkler irrigation system of a design suitablc for the type and arrangement of the plant materials selected. Planting areas adjacent to vehicular activity shall be protected by a continuous concrete curb or similar permanent barrier. Landscaping shall be located so as not to impede vehicular sight distance'to the satisfaction of the Traffic Engineer. 6. All landscape materials and landscaped areas shall be maintained in accordance with the approved landscape plan. All landscaped areas shall be maintained in a healthy and growing condition and shall receive regular pruning, fertilizing, mowing and trimming. All landscaped areas shall be kept free of weeds and debris. All irrigation systems shall be kept operable, including adjustments, replacements, repairs, and cleaning as part of regular maintenancc. 7. All improvements within the public right of way shall be constructed as required by Ordinance and the Public Works Department. All work within the public right of way must be completed under an encroachment permit issued-* the Public Works Department. p.11 e4_ h �I Oet 23 02 06 :4Sp Resolution No. Page 7 of 8 8. Disruption caused by construction work along roadways and by movement of construction vehicles shall be minimized by proper use of traffic control equipment and flagmen. Traffic control and transportation of equipment and materials shall be conducted in accordance with state and local requirements. 9. A hydrology and hydraulic study shall be prepared by the applicant and approved by the Public Works Department, along with a master plan of water, sewer and storm drain facilities for the on -site improvements and public improvements_prior to the issuance of a building permit. Any modifications or extensions to the existing storm drain, water and sewer systems shown to be required by the study shall be the responsibility of the developer. 10. Fair Share traffic mitigation fees shall be paid to the City prior' W sthe issuance of any building or grading permit for construction of the project. p.12 11. All mechanical equipment shall be screened from view of adjaceiifprope-rties and adjacent public streets, and shall be sound attenuated in accordance with 'Ghapter``10.26 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, Community Noise Control.; - 12. Overhead utilities serving the site shall be placed underground to thenearest appropriate pole unless it is determined by the City Engineer that such 'uhdergrounding is physically infeasible. 13. The on -site parking, vehicular circulation and pedestrian 'circulation systems shall be subject to further review by the Traffic,. Engineer._ A. minimum of 146 parking spaces shall be provided in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance. 14. In accordance with the provisions of Chapter 13 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code or other applicable secdonior chapter, street trees shall be required and shall be subject to the review and approval of the General'Seryices and Public Works Departments. 15. The applicant shall be responsible for the payment of all applicable City plan check and inspection fees. 16. The overall height of the Temple including the steeple and angel, shall be no more than 100 feet from the Po ro `sed finished floor elevation of 193.5 feet above mean sea level. P .., 17. Exterior on -site lighting shall be shielded and confined within site boundaries. No direct rays or glare arc permitted to shine onto public streets or adjacent sites or create a public nuisance. "Walpak" type fixtures are not permitted. All exterior lighting fixtures shall have zero cut -off fixtures and light standards for the parking lot shall not exceed 20 feet in height. Light standards for exterior walkways shall not exceed 10 feet in height. Other exterior light sources shall be no higher than 4 feet 18. The applicant shall prepare a photometric study in conjunction with a final lighting plan for approval by the Planning Director prior to the issuance of a building permit. The site shall not be excessively illuminated based on the luminance recommendations of the Illuminating Engineering Society of North America, or, based on the opinion of the Planning Director, the illumination creates an unacceptable negative impact on surrounding land uses or "VT J -� Oet 23 02 06:45p Resolution No. Page 8of8 environmental resources. The Planning Director may order the dimming of light sources or other remediation upon finding that the site is excessively illuminated 14. Architectural lighting of the Temple, including the steeple and angel figure, shall be aimed to illuminate the structure and shall avoid missing the structure to the maximum extent feasible. Light sources aimed to illuminate the steeple and angel shall be located such that the angle of light shall be no less than 70 degrees from the horizontal ground surface. Changes to the lighting system that would increase lighting levels or increase the lighting sources shall require an amendment to this Use Permit. 20. Lighting of the Temple steeple shall be limited to the hours of 5:OOAM to sunrise and sunset to I I.00PM. Any future increase in these hours of illumination or increases in lighting levels or additional light sources shall require an amendment to this Use Pemui;. 21. If a holiday lighting display within the project site is created that generates iiiCrrased visitors to the site that creates a need for traffic control, the applicant shall tiq responsible for the costs associated with the City providing any increased traffic control': measures deemed necessary to properly manage the temporary increase in:traffic:' `- - t� P. 13 A"i ATTACHMENT D Excerpt of minutes from the October 3, 2002 Planning Commission meeting. City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes October 3, 2002 Newport Beach LDS Temple (PA2001 -208) (Continued from 09 /05/2002) 2300 Bonita Canyon Drive A Use Permit and Site Plan Review to allow the construction of a place of religious worship on an 8.6 acre site within the Bonita Canyon Planned Community. The Temple is planned as a 17,575 square foot building in the center of the property, surrounded by 5.5 acres of gardens, walkways, and water treatments in the western portion of the project site and parking in the eastern and northeastem perimeters of the site. The request also includes consideration of a 124 -foot high steeple that would exceed the maximum allowable height of 50 feet. Commissioner Toerge noted the following: • I had attended the September 5m Planning Commission meeting. • I read the minutes of that meeting and the draft Environmental Impact Report and the response to comments as well as all of the correspondence that had been received at the City. I had visited the site numerous times and studied the crane when it was on site. • I have had conversations with both the proponents and opponents of the project. Chairperson Kiser stated he wanted to hear from staff on the new information received within the last weeks having to do with the actual height as it has been discovered of the Stake Center steeple next door to the proposed project. Mr. Campbell noted: • Staff has prepared a short supplemental report. A letter was received from Mr. Alan Murray that questioned the Stake Center steeple height. A City survey crew was dispatched and the height of 68 feet was verified. • The original 86 -foot figure had been taken from the approved set of drawings that originated from the City of Irvine where the project had been approved. • There was no evidence of a field correction or change to the drawings in those records. Staff had no indication that the Stake Center steeple had not been built according to those plans. • Given this new information, the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was re- evaluated to see if any ramifications compromised the findings. • Since the EIR was based upon the photo simulations with the crane and was not based upon any comparison analysis with the Stake Center steeple we do not feel the EIR has been compromised and feel that it can be certified this evening. • Responses to Mr. Murray's letter and other comment letters that had been received in relation to the extension of the EIR comment period have been prepared and are available for the public. INDEX PA2001 -208 0 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes October 3, 2002 INDEX We ask that the Planning Commission include those responses to comments- within the record. At Commission inquiry, Ms. Ciauson, Assistant City Attorney, noted that an analysis had been done and the conclusion was that the EIR did not need to be recirculated. The new information does not raise any new substantial environmental impacts. Mr. Campbell added that the environmental consultant has prepared an Errata indicating that the references to the 86 feet be amended to say 68 feet, which appears twice in the document. That would become part of the record through the Commission's action in the certification of the EIR. Commissioner Tucker noted the CEQA Guidelines 15088.5 (a) 1 through 4. 'Significant new information' requiring recirculation include, for example, a disclosure showing that: • A new significant environmental impact would result from the project or from a new mitigation measure proposed to be implemented. Mr. Campbell believes there is no significant impact shown by the tower height because the analysis was based on the 124 feet and not based upon the 86 feet. • A substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact would result unless mitigation measures are adopted that reduce the impact to a i level of insignificance. Mr. Campbell believes that there is no significant impact to reduce. • A feasible project alternative or mitigation measure considerably different from others previously analyzed would clearly lessen the environmental impacts of the project, but the project's proponents decline to adopt it. Mr. Campbell noted that circumstance is not here. • The draft EIR was so fundamentally and basically inadequate and conclusory in nature that meaningful public review and comment were precluded. Mr. Campbell noted that is not the case. Mr. Campbell, at Commission inquiry, noted that there are two actions for the Planning Commission to take tonight. The resolution would accomplish both actions. They can be separated with the drafting of a separate resolution. Public comment was opened. Chairperson Kiser asked for Mr. Murray to approach the podium to speak. Allen K. Murray, 2330 Port Lerwick Place noted the following: • Read in the Draft EIR and the staff report dated 09 /05/2002 that the Stake Center steeple was 86 feet tall. • The steeple height for the new tower was based on being higher than the 86 feet of the Stake Center steeple. • He measured and verified the height of 67.28 feet for the Stake Center steeple. • Some of the homeowners hired a surveyor who then verified that the Stake ; 41 ^ City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes October 3, 2002 Center steeple height was 67.08 feet. • He went to -.the Planning Department and pulled the plans and they state 86 feet for the tower height. • He confirmed with the City of Irvine that the height as built was shorter than the 86 feet and was indeed 68 feet. • The LDS members were giving the number of 71 feet in several of their presentations to residents. • He is irritated that the numbers were not verified before the information went out to the public. • Since the City's recommendation of 100 feet was made to be higher than the 86 feet Stake Center steeple, it seems that 75 feet would do it. • We in the neighborhood have not had any particular problem with the Stake Center steeple. Commissioner Selich noted that in reading the supplemental staff report, the height of the existing steeple was not the basis for their recommendation. Mr. Campbell answered that the 100 -foot alternative was based on surveying the area through fieldwork. We thought the Stake Center steeple was 86 feet but in looking at the crane to see how much it could be seen within the area, we felt the 100 foot would be as visible and meet the project objectives. Mr. Murray noted this presents a question of credibility of any information related here. There has been other data presented, and were these other situations evaluated correctly, or checked? Chairperson Kiser thanked the speaker for all his efforts In bringing forth this new information. He then asked for Mr. Martin to approach the podium to speak. Ralph Martin, President of R and M Architects and Planners, representing the applicant noted: • The height did not have any relevance in terms of the proposed temple steeple. • During the Stake Center construction process, there was a significant reduction in the steeple. • Because it was an incidental part of the overall picture, we focused on the Temple itself. There was no consideration that would have any bearing except that we wanted to make the proposed Temple steeple higher than, and more dominant than, whatever the Stake Center steeple would appear to be. • We knew it was less than 86 feet. • The City of Irvine drawings show 86 feet. If you add to that a 5 -foot lightening rod, that is where 91 feet comes from. About 20 feet of the Stake Center steeple was reduced during the construction process resulting in a height of around 71 feet. There was no research done to verify that number and it became the 71 feet noted on the original application to the City of Newport Beach. Chairperson Kiser noted that since the 86 ff. height was mentioned in the staff report INDEX �p- City of Newport Beach /%N Planning Commission Minutes L October 3, 2002 INDEX and discussed, representatives of the applicant were present and had read the staff report, it seems incumbent on the applicant to Inform staff of this error. It was not done and staff or the Commission had heard nothing. Because it was used in my analysis in order to achieve one of the four requirements of the Temple for the new Temple steeple to be visually more prominent than the surrounding buildings and such, it was a criterion. _ We should have been notified of the correct height. Mr. Martin added: • The application went to the City on 10/23/2001 and had 13 components. • Environmental and peripheral issues states that the Stake Center steeple was 71 feet. • Because we were focusing on the Temple steeple, we didn't give any more credence to that. • We received an email from City staff stating that the finished floor elevation was 'x' and the drawings in their possession show 86 feet. • There was a meeting after that and that matter was discussed and the observation was made that the 86 feet was incorrect and that the 71 feet was likely the height of the Stake Center steeple. Commissioner Tucker noted that no matter what the Commission does, there is a taint that is hanging over the proceedings. A lot of people believe that the whole justification for the more prominent building was to try and have a differential between the two buildings. This is troubling to me. r Chairperson Kiser asked Mr. Joe Bentley if he would approach the podium to speak. Chairperson Kiser then read a portion of an email that Mr. Bentley sent to the Planning Department staff member, Jim Campbell, on October 1, 2002: "Assuming that everything he says is true, it appears that the plans you inspected in files received by the City of Irvine earlier this year showing the 86' height may not have been the final as- built. I had heard that during the course of construction, the Church for its own reasons had reduced the steeple height'. Chairperson Kiser then asked Mr. Bentley to help the Planning Commissioners understand why he did not disclose his knowledge that the Stake Center steeple height was less than the 86- foot height that had been relied upon the Planning Department staff. Mr. Joe Bentley, 61 Montecito noted the following at Commission inquiry: • He shares the concern about the error that was not corrected in the staff report. • He was not directly involved during the course of construction; however, he had been informed that there had been a reduction in the Stake Center steeple height. • He never saw the plans from the City of Irvine. • Photo simulations were made based upon the crane height and the relation to the Stake Center steeple. • When the Church makes its own determination on what it feels is an appropriate relationship between the two buildings, it would take the actual heights without doing the measurements. � 3 ` City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes October 3, 2002 Chairperson Kiser stated that he was very troubled by the fact that Mr. Bentley had not disclosed this Information, and he believed that Mr. Bentley did a disservice to the applicant, the City and the public by concealing the information. Public comment was closed. At Commission inquiry, Mr. Campbell noted that staff stands behind the recommendation that was put forth. In the supplemental staff report, we indicate that if the Temple steeple was to be reduced further beyond staff's recommendation, we cannot say that the project objectives would be met in the same fashion. The City was not put on notice that we were wrong about the height of 86 feet; the applicant had accepted the data that was taken from the building permit plans. They are not as -built plans but are the plans that the City of Irvine approved and then microfilmed and transported to us when the property was annexed by the City. Commissioner Tucker noted his disappointment with the mistaken measurement, and his support of staff's work. The Temple had put forth the concept that the Temple needed to be visible for the faithful and he had asked about staff's recommendation of 100 feet being visible. It was acknowledged by a Temple representative that 100 feet would be visible as well. I am not sure if a lower level would be visible. There is a divide here that the community and the Temple should bridge. The Planning Commission will have to make the decision now. There will be a steeple; the question is the height. The lighting issue is also being addressed. I can see an argument being made for the Temple steeple to be 14 feet over the Stake Center steeple, which is what staff thought they were suggesting at the 100 -foot height. I can also see an argument being made for the steeple height being 100'. One of the things as a possible choice for us is to continue this for a couple of weeks, and let the residents and the Temple people figure it out. As far as the importance of the correct Stake Center height, I think from an environmental impact standpoint, it doesn't really make any difference. Chairperson Kiser noted that he would hear from the applicant again for any changes they may have to bring before the Commission. Commissioner Toerge noted: • The place to start is with a clear understanding of factual baseline information. This particular error may not render the EIR invalid, I believe it impacts the way the public views the project. • All public review, testimony, opinions, etc. have been based upon false and potentially misleading information. • I am not disparaging the draft EIR nor the staff report. It simply has a flaw. • The staff report mentions the Stake Center tower height; the Draft EIR mentions it and it is further used in the Response to Comments as partial justification for the report's finding. • I will not be supporting any action on the project tonight except for a continuance so that the draft EIR staff report and related material can be INDEX 44 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes 1 October 3, 2002 INDEX corrected and made available for public review. Chairperson IGser stated he is ready to go forward with this proposed project. Commissioner Agajanian concurred noting that he has worked through the additional information and prefers going ahead. Commissioner McDaniel noted he too has worked through the issues and is ready to vote on this matter tonight. Commissioner Selich noted he is ready to move ahead adding that, in none of the analysis that has been presented, either on positions presented in the EIR or the criteria that the church representatives gave at the last meeting, was there any direct relationship in terms of any numerical formula between the height they were proposing or how they viewed the height of the Temple steeple in relationship to the Stake Center steeple. It was one of their criteria but it was simply that it be more prominent. Whether it is 86 or 68 feet is really immaterial and not a reason to continue this item. Commissioner Tucker stated he would like to have this matter continued so that the parties can try to figure out whether it is 82 or 100 feet. I will be voting for one of those two heights unless the homeowners and the Temple want something in _ between, in which case, they have to come in with some type of consensus. I hate 1 to be the one to decide it for them without giving them an opportunity with this new information. I prefer to see it continued. Chairperson ICser noted that four Commissioners have given a straw vote to go ahead and asked that the applicant or a representative come forward for testimony. Public comment was opened. Mr. Ralph Martin, R and M Architects and Planners, made a Power Point presentation noting: • Landscape plan on approximately 55% of the site. • Mature trees and landscape will screen the Temple. • Changed direction of the existing double- divided roadway onto the site into the parking area. • The temple is now proposed to be, at the top of the angel, 99 feet and 9 inches. The format of the steeple has been changed as well as the style. • The actual footage of the building remains the some at 17,575 square feet about 35 feet high. • Simulations were presented with the proposed new steeple height in comparison to the crane. • A comparison of the proposed 2001 and 2002 temple elevations and dimensions was displayed and discussed. �5 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes October 3, 2002 INDEX • We have been listening to people and have made modifications to the designs reflective of that Input. At Commission inquiry, Mr. Martin answered that the angel height is twelve feet. Mr. Ray Swartz Konsortum 1, lighting engineers representing the applicant noted: • Due to the reduction in the steeple height the luminance intensity has been reduced. The fixtures that illuminate the angel figure itself have been pulled in closer to the tower to keep the light shining at a more vertical angle to reduce the halo effect that might be caused by any light that would miss the angel and continue on into the night sky. The wattages on the fixtures to illuminate the tower have been reduced about 30% with the same number of fixtures as previously proposed. With the lower steeple height than the previous, we had to pull the fixtures out a little farther to make sure that the angel was adequately illuminated without any shadows coming from the steeple itself. The fixtures used to illuminate the steeple itself have remained in place although they have changed in wattage. • There is no lighting within the steeple opening. Referring to the diagram, he pointed out the location of the lights on the Temple building. Mr. Weatherford Clayton, Stake President of the Temple in the Newport Beach area, noted: • This new plan has been given the approval of the President of the Church who has that authority. The lighting will commence at 6 in the morning. • The Temple is now shorter. There is no holiday lighting on the Temple building itself, and that will never occur. He then presented a packet of exhibits to the Commission. • At Commission inquiry, he added that there is no change to the length of the proposed building, only the steeple structure is different. Mr. Campbell noted that after scaling the drawings, there is a slight difference in length. Mr. Martin concurred and noted that he will adjust those exhibits to be sure that they are the same. Chairperson ICser then gave an explanation of the procedure of the rest of the hearing on this matter. He stressed that the issues on which the Commission has not received testimony are the issues that should be addressed tonight by the speakers in public comment. The range of possible issues identified in the EIR are aesthetics, traffic and parking, air quality, hydrology and water quality, and land use. We have received a significant amount of public testimony on the aesthetics issue, have received some amount of testimony concerning traffic and parking, and have 'iL City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes October 3, 2002 INDEX received limited or no testimony on the other Issues. He then called the names of the speakers who had signed speaker cards at the last meeting, but who did not speak. Steven Brombal, 21 Regents noted: • Staff relied on the 86 -foot figure as represented by the applicant. • The Orange Coast Association of Realtors took a position noting the concerns about the height, hours of operation and effects of the lighting. • He noted that a steeple of 75 feet is reasonable. • There should be a condition on no holiday lighting. • We would like to see no lighting in the morning at all and the lights off at 10:00 P.M. Kathy Cole, 20 Peppertree noted that her home backs up to the existing Stake Center. She expressed her concern about allowing this project, as it does not conform. The lighting from the Stake Center shines in her home both day and night. In the staff report, it states that the parking lights and security lights will remain on. This needs to be adjusted so that some of the parking lights for security will stay on but not all. If the Temple is allowed to have all parking lights on but the Stake Center has none, this is a conformity issue. She then presented pictures showing various views. This is a Planned Community with local community churches and is not a place for regional churches/Temple that want to have grand exposure. I suggest that a 75 -foot steeple level be approved. Martha Carrier, 1918 Port Bristol Circle noted: • This use permit would allow a 150% increase in allowable height for the steeple. • When the property was purchased, there was a 50 -foot height limit. • Expressed her concern about the facts being changed. • The lighting, traffic, hours of operation and the height of the steeple would intrude onto our neighborhood. • The project has not been accurately portrayed to the public. Susan Ordoubadian, 2238 Port Aberdeen Place noted: • The height of the proposed steeple at 100 feet is too high in comparison to other structures in the neighborhood. • The homes and stores are at the most two stories high. • The proposed steeple height is the same as a ten story high building. • The sheer size and lighting scheme will block views and overpower the neighborhood. • The steeple should be built in conformance. Commissioner Tucker noted: • The City does not have a policy of protecting private views. • Every property owner has the right to use his or her own property as allowed by the Zoning Code. • There is a provision in our Codes that doesn't restrict the heights on 10 q c ! City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes October 3, 2002 churches: it requires a use permit be granted. The Church has the right to seek a use permit for any height. If the findings can be made under the Code. It is our decision after hearing your input as to what we think that appropriate height should be. Peter Walters. 30 Palazzo expressed his concern of credibility. He noted that there are temples that have been built with no steeple. Conley Smith. 76 Victoria stated his opposition to the project noting a similar church in the area and its significant impacts of noise. traffic and holiday lighting on the surrounding neighborhoods. Randy Hunter. 2232 Port Dumess Place stated his objection to the project as it impacts his view and asked that the maximum height of 50 feet be enforced. Walter Charamza. 2224 Por5t Durness Place introduced 3 photos depicting the effect of the temple from his back yard. He noted the impact that the high steeple will have on the surrounding communities as depicted by the crane height. He stated that the helicopters patrol in the area and it would be contrary to the public interest to place a structure within the area where police activity is patrolling in a flying machine. Lisa Hunter. 2232 Port Dumess Place noted that things have been brought up about the community to reevaluate the project. She is having a hard time trying to figure out what the differences would be now that the height is purported to be different. She suggested that a crane be placed again to allow the community to see how the new structure. as proposed tonight. would impact the community. I ask that you put lights on it so that at night we can see what the impacts will be. The lighting on the statute was supposed to be brighter than that on the building. She is concerned because the lighting for the angel has to go past the building to get to the angel and that will increase the building lighting. She is concerned about the differences between 100 feet and 86 feet. 68 feet and 100 feet. Christian Garner. 15 Boardwalk. noted his concerns about: • The height of the steeple as it is inappropriate for the community. The Stake Center is not the height that it has been purported to be and is further concerned that the 14 feet that he felt comfortable with before is not such a good compromise if the Stake Center is 68 feet and 100 feet would be much too high. • He stated that many other people would be here tonight to speak in opposition if they knew about the corrected Stake Center Steeple height of 68 feet. Russell Niewiarowski. 20102 Kline Drive noted his opposition due to the height and lighting of the steeple. Public comment was closed. INDEX q City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes October 3, 2002 INDEX Public comment was opened. Chairperson Kiser called for Dick Fuller, and asked him to confirm that the applicant has offered to have holiday lighting on the grounds only with a Special Event Permit, and to never have holiday lighting on the Temple building. Mr. Fuller, MIA. CRE answered for the applicant and affirmed the statement, and said that the applicant would accept such a condition. Public comment was closed. Chairman Kiser then noted: • The Planning Commission needs to consider all the communications received both at home and at work. • In addition to all of the letters, emails and faxes that all of the Commissioners have reviewed, I have received at my home letters from friends and neighbors who support the proposed structure as presented. I have also received from long term Newport Beach residents for whom I have the utmost respect, letter in vigorous opposition to the steeple and its lighting. Some believe the Temple should not have a steeple at all. Others believe that the steeple should be no higher than the adjacent Stake Center and should blend in with the surrounding development. • After all of this input, what we are left with is a matter for our judgment as to what is fair and reasonable which, for this project, is largely a matter of scale, and amount of lighting. • The Commission is left with a matter of judgment as to what is fair and reasonable, which is for the matter of scale and amount of lighting. • As a planning matter, it is an approximate 17,575 square foot structure that is proposed for this site, which is about 5% lot coverage. • The remainder of the site consists of about 5 acres of gardens and terraced parking. • The area is a Planned Community District designated for public and semi- public uses and is fairly close to neighborhoods. • We could be considering for this site, a public school, after school facility, or a congregate care facility well in excess of a building of 100,000 square feet. • This is a large piece of property with a small building on it. • Concerning the error in the staff report and the EIR regarding the 86 versus what we now know to be 68 foot height of the Stake Center steeple, I looked at the Zoning, Municipal Code and PC regulations regarding what is applicable. The three significance criteria identified in the earlier staff report based on California Environmental Quality Act, the City of Newport General Plan and the Municipal Code provisions provide the project will have a potentially significant impact if it will either: have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista - this is not considered a scenic vista. Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings - this does not apply. Create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely 12 d) L'11 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes October 3, 2002 INDEX affect day or nighttime views in the area - this is what we are grappling with. The crane was at the proper height for the 124 -foot steeple. There may have been comparisons to the Stake Center steeple, but for me that was not something I could not resolve after listening to all the (new information about the Stake Center height) information we have been given over the last several days in order to come to some conclusions. • Because the crane was at the proper height, it also means the relative difference between the Stake Center steeple and the proposed 124 -foot steeple was correct. • We have a proposal tonight to lower the steeple to 99 feet and 9 inches. • The new Information about the Stake Center steeple height we have discussed tonight does not mean that we have to start our analysis from scratch. • If one or more individuals affiliated with the applicant knew of the error in the Stake Center steeple height and did not pursue correction of the error, then it is those Individuals who will have to bear the burden of their own ethical discord. The Incorrect information does not affect my analysis of the application after I had a chance to go through what the effects of the new information would be. • I used the Stake Center steeple height primarily as a level over which the Temple steeple height needed to be to meet one of the stated objectives of the Temple. • We have one or more church steeples in our City that are nearly 100 feet high. The tower at the Newport Harbor High School is also nearly 100 feet high. The steeple at St. Matthews Church across from this project will be 75 feet high from a grade that is eight feet higher than that of the proposed Temple. The revised proposal brings the steeple into parity with similar uses in our City. This is not a privacy issue; no one will be up in the steeple looking down into the Bonita Canyon homes. With the revisions proposed by the applicant, the lighting will not be an irritant after the Temple is built. Ambient light from streetlights, lights in the park adjacent to Bonita Canyon Drive and lights behind the existing Stake Center create and produce enough ambient lighting to make the Temple steeple lighting unobjectionable. • The proposed Temple would be a wonderful addition to our City and would serve an Important purpose. Motion was made by Chairman Kiser to adopt Resolution No. 1574, certifying Environmental Impact Report No.-2002-001 and approving the Use Permit No. 2001 -036 and Site Plan Review No. 2001 -005 (PA2001 -208) subject to conditions contained in the staff report with these modifications and additions: • Condition 16 - Overall height of the Temple steeple shall read 99 feet and 9lnches with the new design per the plan submitted tonight. 13 5b City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes October 3, 2002 INDEX Condition 20 - Ughting of the Temple steeple shall be limited to the hours of 6:00 A.M.. to sunrise and sunset to 10.00 P.M. Condition 21 to be replaced with, 'Holiday lighting will require an application for, and approval of, a Special Event Permit from the City of Newport Beach. Commissioner Agajanian noted his agreement with Chairman Kiser's comments adding: • Need to balance the interest of both the neighborhood and the Temple. • Supports the Temple use in this location. • The neighborhood is in a low -rise architectural area: there are no prominent structures anywhere in this community. • The building, as proposed, cuts into the low profile nature of the area and that is what he is sensitive to. • A balance can be reached. It is a matter of assuring that the illumination and steeple height are all in conformance so that the Temple can get the prominence they seek and the neighbors can retain the low profile nature of the neighborhood. • He would like to see the steeple less than 100 feet. His consideration is how much taller the steeple rises above the profiles. Having looked at the crane that identified the height of 124 feet, supports anything under 100 feet. • His preference is to have no pre -dawn lighting of the Temple. • He agrees with the additional condition for the holiday lighting. Commissioner Selich noted: • There is no height limit for churches in the City. This was a decision made by a City Council many years ago to regulate the church heights with a use permit. It is up to the Planning Commission to determine the proper height for the church facilities. The factors mentioned in Chairperson Kiser's comments go into the Commission making a decision. Saying that we are granting an exemption or a variance is totally incorrect. • I don't believe the steeple as proposed will have any negative impact to the surrounding community /properties. • It is a well designed facility. • He supports what the Chairman has said. Commissioner McDaniel noted: • In favor of the motion as proposed. • That site could get 189,000 square feet of a five -story building. I think this is a pretty good deal with what is being proposed. • The traffic is going to be minimum compared to what could go there. • Something needs to be built there, and the applicants have a right to build there. • Lowering the tower makes it more attractive and makes it look shorter. • 1 don't believe that looking at this further will change anybody's mind. 14 e 51 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes October 3, 2002 Commissioner Toerge noted: INDEX Looking at the photographs in the EIR, the structure is rather dominant in the view plane. • This new design has only been available for two hours tonight for us to consider. The public deserves the opportunity to see what has been proposed and review what the applicant wants to do now. I am uncomfortable moving forward with a plan that was put before the Commission two hours ago, when in fact the original plan was drawn in May. In favor of no morning lighting, 6 a.m. seems a reasonable time and turning off the lights at 10:00 p.m. is also reasonable. I would consider lighting the angel only and not the steeple, as it would have a far less impact on the neighborhood if that were the case. • Wants to understand better the program to whether or not the parking lot Is lit 24 hours, do they go off? The parking lot lighting at the Stake Center is very bright and I don't know if or what time it goes off. Parking lot lighting is an important issue. • I am concerned with the parking demand at the Stake Center during construction of the Temple. • The credibility issue, I don't believe anybody purposely attempted to mislead anybody. I am concerned about the 'non negotiable' aspects of the project: The height of the steeple is paramount, yet, there are other temples that do not have steeples. Night lighting is 'non - negotiable' but yet, in the Biblical phrases that refer to its need was really brought about centuries before there was lighting. So, it is hard for me to grasp the absoluteness of those demands. • That there is no holiday lighting is very important to the people living there and to me as well. • I don't have a problem with the reduced height. However, I am concerned that because of the inadvertent error that the public has not been presented with this new information. • While I think the project has merit and I endorse the structure in that location and the use, I am concerned about the process, especially considering that comments have been made regarding litigation and federal laws that offer churches certain rights that other facilities do not have. • My interest is to continue this item to accommodate the public's review of the new information and new temple design. Commissioner Tucker noted: • Our job is to weigh equities. • No one on the Commission lives near the Temple and none of us face the voters. We can and have been objective about this issue. Our decision will be rendered in good faith and after an ample opportunity for the proponents and opponents to be heard. • I find that the EIR is adequate and that no new information justifying 15 5z City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes October 3, 2002 INDEX recirculation has been presented. The Site Plan merits approval. The Intensity of development of the site is considerably less than what City Codes would allow. The new compromised hours and changes recommended by the plan of the Temple's lighting consultant should address the reasonable concerns of the neighbors. Lighting will not be directed at the residential areas, and while the lighted steeple will be visible to those who look skyward at night, it won't shine in anyone's bedroom in any meaningful fashion. The steeple height was argued in every possible way. The City Attorney has concluded that the City Planning Commission has the authority to find that, with a use permit, the steeple height may exceed 50 feet. The fact is there is a steeple taller than 50 feet next to the proposed site. After reviewing the revised plans for the steeple I believe the steeple height now proposed at just less than 100 feet is justifiable and reasonable. Chairperson ICser clarified the motion to adopt Resolution No. 1574, certifying Environmental Impact Report No. 2002 -001 and approving the Use Permit No. 2001 -036 and Site Plan Review No. 2001-005 (PA2001 -208) subject to conditions that are in the staff report and in addition with these modifications: • Condition 16 - Overall height of the Temple steeple shall read 99 feet and 9 inches with the new design per the plan submitted tonight. • Condition 20 - Lighting of the Temple steeple shall be limited to the hours of 6:00 A.M. to sunrise and sunset to 10:00 P.M. • Condition 21 to be replaced with, 'Holiday lighting will require an application tor, and approval of, a Special Event Permit from the City of Newport Beach. Commissioner Tucker asked about the occupancy of 150 people in the facility at one time and asked that a condition be placed on this issue. Additionally: • Findings need to contain the exact language from the Code regarding Use Permits and Site Plan Review. • On Resolution paragraph 56, it refers to highway, is that the correct word? Mr. Edmonston answered that this is a major highway and would be appropriate left in the Resolution. • On Resolution paragraph 5C, add to the sentence, '.....since the Temple will be closed on Sundays.' This will reflect the applicant's agreement the Temple will not be open on Sundays. • Put the reasons into the findings for both a use permit and site plan as applicable for each element of the Code. • Condition 1 should be changed to the correct height pursuant to the new exhibits presented this evening. • Condition 7 change the last word in the second sentence to shall. • Condition 18, the second line, change site to building and grounds. • Add a condition about no holiday lighting on the building. Mr. Campbell noted that this revised project now has a steeple that is a little lower and a little wider: staff has prepared an additional finding to be inserted IL' 53 City of Newport Beach .3.' Planning Commission Minutes October 3, 2002 INDEX regarding the certification of the EIR. 'The revised temple design now Includes a steeple at a height of 99 feet, 9Inches. The reduction In height Is 24 feet or 19.4 %. Additionally, the church has revised their lighting schedule such that lights will not come on prior to 6 a.m. and shall cease at 10:00 p.m. The exterior material, finish, color and lighting concept are not changing from the original project. The original Temple Includes 1,089 square feet above 35 feet In height and the new proposal occupies 969 square feet above this height. Due to the reduced height, slight increase In width and lower area above 35 feet, the revised project presents no greater impact to public views than the proposed project. The City has reviewed the revised plans and finds the proposed project to have an Impact on the environment similar to and /or less than the original submittal. Therefore, the findings in the DEIR apply to the revised project, and the EIR may be certified with change. Public comment was opened and a representative of the applicant was called to testify to the conditions language: Temple closing on Sundays, capacity of 175 people as a maximum, prohibition of holiday lighting on the building: and no lights after 10:00 p.m. Weatherford Clayton stated: The Temple is closed on Sundays. He agrees to this condition. More than 150 -175 people cannot occupy the Temple at any one time. There will be no holiday lights on the Temple building. At Commission inquiry, Dr. Clayton continued: • The safety lighting stays on and the official parking lot lights go off at 11:00 p.m. • The Stake Center grounds have adequate parking, other than 2 days per year (n the months of March and September). Special accommodations for overflow parking on these 2 days will be in place while the Temple is under construction. The parking by the Temple site is chained off so it has not been used and will not be a problem during construction. Chairperson Kiser revised his motion to add; no holiday lighting on the Temple building itself and that getting a Special Event Permit would not allow the holiday lighting on the Temple; and the finding that the Temple Is closed on Sundays; a maximum number of occupancy of 175 for the structure. Ms. Wood suggested adding timing on the parking lights if the Commission agrees with that concern. Commissioner Tucker noted that there is no reason to keep the parking lights on after people have left. Following a brief discussion, it was decided that there are standards in the Zoning Code regarding lighting and spillage that will be adequate to control the parking 17 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes October 3, 2002 lots lighting. Commissioner Agajanian asked that a straw vote be taken to reduce the steeple height to 90 feet. Chairperson Kiser polled the Commission: Commissioner Tucker - yes, if three other Commissioners agree. Commissioner Selich - no. Chairperson Kiser - no. Commissioner McDaniel - no. Commissioner Agajanian - yes. Commissioner Toerge - not willing to decide without more time to study plans. Chairperson Kiser called for vote on the motion: Ayes: Agajanian, McDaniel, Kiser, Selich, Tucker Noes: Toerge Absent: Gifford INDEX .ADDITIONAL BUSINESS: Additional Business €, a) City Council Follow -up - Ms. Wood introduced Gregg Ramirez who has en promoted to Associate Planner and will be working on Planning Co ission staff report preparation. Ms. Wood then noted that at the last Counc eeting of September 24th they approved, on second reading, the Code Am dment for the Temporary Real Estate Signs, and the projects on Orange Stree nd Finley Avenue. Participation in a new housing program, with a Joint Po Authority formed by cities in Orange County for a lease to own program w approved. The EZ Lube appeal was withdrawn. The Council confirmed the ayor's appointment of Commissioner Toerge to both the General Plan Up to Committee and the Local Coastal Program Committee. b) Oral report from Planning Comm! s representative to the Economic Development Committee - Commissio r Selich reported that there was no meeting due to the delay in the Fiscal a Economic Study. c) Report from Planning Commission's representa s to the General Plan Update Committee - Commissioner Agajanian no d that everything is moving along. d) Report from Planning Commission's representative to the L I Coastal Plan Update Committee - no meeting. e) Matters that a Planning Commissioner would like staff to report on a 18 55 ATTACHMENT E Supplemental Planning Commission staff report dated October 3, 2002 J �aEW"ea CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Hearing Date- October 3, 2002 PLANNING DEPARTMENT Agenda Item: 2 u 3300 NEWPORT BOULEVARD Staff Person: James Campbell NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658 (949) 644 -3210 (949) 644 -3200; FAX (949) 644 -3229 Appeal Period: 14 days SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION PROJECT: Newport Beach LDS Temple (PA2001 -208) 2300 Bonita Canyon Drive New Information The city received a comment letter late Monday from Allen Murray that questioned the height of the steeple of the Stake Center. Staff dispatched a survey crew and verified that the Stake Center is not 86 feet high, but rather 68 feet high. The figure of 86 feet was taken from the building permit plans approved by the City of Irvine and there was no evidence of a field correction. Prior to these events, staff had no indication that the Stake Center steeple was not built according to plans. The new information has the following possible implications: Environmental Impact Report The change in height of the Stake Center steeple has no impact upon the aesthetic analysis contained within the EIR as the analysis was not based upon a comparison of the project with the Stake Center. No statements within the EIR are made quantifying any relationship between the two structures. The analysis within the EIR is based upon the crane and photo simulations. The height and location of the crane was verified at approximately 124 feet by a survey conducted by a professional engineer. The new information that the Stake Center steeple is 18 feet lower than previously thought does not result in the identification of any new significant environmental information. Therefore, staff believes that the analysis and conclusions of the EIR remain valid. Staff has prepared a response to the Murray letter as well as other letters commenting on the project received since the previous meeting (Exhibit No. 1). Staffs Previous Recommendation The 100 -foot alternative was identified for discussion purposes and there was no quantitative method used to arrive at the height. It was identified as it would meet project objectives and it was thought that any reduction in the height would incrementally lessen the visual impact of the project, with all other things being equal. The new information on the height of the Stake Center does not alter the conclusion or recommendation staff has presented as the analysis was based upon an extensive field survey conducted when the crane was installed at the site in January of 2002. The height of the Stake Center steeple is one of many factors to be weighed in determining whether or not the height requested is compatible with the area. It is not known if lowering the height of the Temple further would meet project objectives to the same extent as achieved by a 100 -foot Temple. Submitted by: Prepared by: Sharon Z. Wood JAMES W. CAMPBELL Assistant City Manager Senior Planner Exhibits: Additi l responses to comments (separate) 5y ATTACHMENT F Planning Commission staff report dated October 3, 2002 (gib CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Hearing Date: October 3, 2002 PLANNING DEPARTMENT Agenda Item: 2 u _ i 3300 NEWPORT BOULEVARD Staff Person: James Campbell NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658 (949) 644 -3210 (949) 644 -3200; FAX (949) 644 -3229 Appeal Period: 14 days REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION PROJECT: Newport Beach LDS Temple (PA2001 -208) 2300 Bonita Canyon Drive SUMMARY: A Use Permit and Site Plan Review to allow the construction and operation of a place of religious worship on an 8.6 acre site within the Bonita Canyon Planned Community. The Temple is planned as a 17,575 square foot building in the center of the property, surrounded by 5.5 acres of gardens, walkways, and water treatments in the western portion of the project site and parking in the eastern and northeastern perimeters of the site. The request also includes consideration of a 124 -foot high steeple that would exceed the maximum allowable height of 50 feet. ACTION: Conduct a public hearing and Adopt Resolution No. — certifying Environmental Impact Report No. 2002 -001 and approving the Use Permit No. 2001 -036 and Site Plan Review No. 2001 -005 (PA2001 -208) subject to conditions. APPLICANT: Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints 50 E. North Temple Street, Salt Lake City, UT 84150 Introduction This item was continued from September 5, 2002 in order to facilitate proper noticing of the Notice of Availability or Notice of Completion of the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR). At the conclusion of the previous meeting, the Commission directed the applicant to explore the potential for flexibility regarding the height and lighting of the Temple. At the last meeting, a large petition was submitted with what appears to be approximately 1000 signatures in favor of the project. It appears that all of the signatures are of Newport Beach residents and the petition is identical, so staff has attached a copy of only one signed petition. Should the Commission desire to review the entire petition, it is available in the Planning Department as part of the administrative record. Discussion During the previous meeting, the majority of the discussion was focused on the height of the steeple, proposed lighting and the adequacy of the EIR. Holiday lighting was discussed and an inquiry was made about the depth of the fill proposed through project grading. Commissioner �I Selich requested a discussion of the relationship between the Bonita Canyon PC text and the Zoning Code as well as a discussion of the church exemption to height limits within Section 20.65.060(G). Each of these issues is discussed below. Height The Commission requested that the applicant identify what, if any, flexibility there is with regards to height of the Temple. The applicant has been in contact with Church officials in Salt Lake City, but has not submitted .any changes to the proposal. Staff has drafted two resolutions for project approval with two different height limits: 100 feet and 123 feet 9 inches (applicant's request). Staff recommends the compromise height of 100 feet. Staff s analysis is that 100 feet will meet both the project objectives and address community concerns regarding compatibility of the structure with the surrounding area. Lighting Staff has drafted a set of conditions requiring the preparation of a final photometric study, prohibition of excessive lighting creating glare, and the ability to modify or dim the lighting if it presents a problem. These conditions are standard conditions applied to nonresidential or mixed use projects. Staff also proposes to limit the height of exterior lighting fixtures (20 feet in the parking lot, 10 feet for exterior walkways and 4 feet in the garden area). Limiting the height of fixtures will assist in limiting light spilling onto neighboring areas. Staff also proposes that lighting fixtures aimed at the Temple be located such that the angle from the ground is no less than 70 degrees. This angle is important in reducing the size of the "halo" effect by keeping the light more vertical. Lastly, staff has drafted a condition limiting the hours of exterior architectural lighting to 5:OOAM to sunrise and sunset to 11:OOPM. Holiday Lighting The applicant has no plans to create a holiday lighting display at this time. The City presently does not regulate or restrict holiday lighting displays for any land uses, and staff does not recommend that the LDS Temple be subject to any more restrictive regulation than applicable to other uses. However, staff recommends prohibiting additional architectural lighting of the Temple and steeple beyond what is proposed during the remainder of the year. Additionally, staff suggests that the applicant be held responsible for increased costs of public services if holiday displays generate increased traffic that necessitates increased services relating to traffic control measures. Staff believes that this provision would protect the public interest by mitigating potential nuisance issues by the least restrictive means. Environmental Impact Report Many speakers at the last meeting who spoke in opposition to the project disagreed with the conclusion of the aesthetics section of the EIR. No comments during the last meeting identified any new information to conclude that the conclusions of the EIR are invalid. No new information was presented that identified any new impacts. As noted previously, this matter was continued to LDS Temple (PA2001 -208)) October 3, 2002 Page 2 of 5 facilitate full noticing of the EIR. As of the writing of this report, no new comments on the EIR have been received. The extended comment period ends on September 301', and if any comments are received, responses will be prepared and forwarded to the Commission for consideration at or before the meeting for incorporation within the Final EIR. Grading plan One question was raised during the last meeting regarding a perceived inconsistency between staff s statement that the fill below the Temple is between 5 -8 feet in depth and the description within the preliminary geotechnical report. The change in grade below the Temple building varies between 5 -8 feet based upon the preliminary grading plan. The preliminary geotechnical report cites that maximum fill depths of 10 -12± feet are planned in certain areas of the site to achieve the elevations proposed. These statements do not contradict each other as the higher fill depths are necessary in some areas to level out the site, but the depth of fill below the proposed Temple building varies between 5 -8 feet. Relationship benveen the Bonita Canyon PC regulations and the Zoning Code A question was raised regarding the relationship of the Planned Community Development Plan and the Zoning Code regarding building height. Chapter 20.65 establishes height limits for all property within the City including all planned communities. Section 20.65.050 states that each planned community shall establish height limits as part of the planned community development plan. The Bonita Canyon Planned Community establishes a height limit for the subject property at 50 feet, which is consistent with the 32/50 height limitation zone established in Section 20.65.040 applicable to the Bonita Canyon Planned Community. Section 2.1.4 dictates that the PC Development Plan regulates all development within its boundaries and in cases where there is conflict between the PC Development Plan and the Zoning Code, the PC Development Plan prevails. In summary, any property within a PC district is subject to the development opportunities and restrictions of both the Zoning Code and PC Development Plan, with a PC Development Plan prevailing when in conflict with the Zoning Code. Section 20.65.060(G) establishes an exemption for church structures. It states that "church structures used for church purposes shall be exempt from restrictions of this chapter, except that any such structure exceeding 35 feet in height shall require a use permit." Therefore, since a Use Permit is required, but a church structure is exempt from the restrictions of the Chapter, the required findings for the Use Permit are the standard findings contained within Chapter 20.91 (Use Permits & Variances). These findings are discussed in the September 5, 2002 staff report. The applicant has prepared an analysis of the exemption opportunity for the Commission's consideration (Exhibit No. 2). In conclusion, staff believes the Use Permit before the Planning Commission is the proper application within which to consider the proposed 124 -foot height of the Temple. Staff does not believe that a Variance is the appropriate application as Section 20.65.060(G) clearly indicates that a church is exempt from height limits subject to the issuance of a Use Permit. LDS Temple (PA2001 -208)) October 3, 2002 Page 3 of 5 lr. The Use Permit application and procedure as described has been used routinely in the past. St. Andrews Presbyterian, St. James Episcopal and St. Mathew's Episcopal churches have processed Use Permits under similar circumstances for structures that exceeded applicable height limits. St. Andrews and St. James are not located within planned communities and are subject to conventional zoning. St. Mathews Episcopal Church is located within the Bonita Canyon Planned Community and received approval of a Use Permit for a 75 -foot high steeple and cross. Using the same application procedure for the project is consistent application of the development regulations and procedures. Recommendation Staff has prepared two draft resolutions for the Commission to consider. The first resolution approves the project with the height of the Temple not to exceed 100 feet. The second resolution approves the project with the height of the Temple as requested by the applicant. Staff does not recommend project approval with the Temple at 50 feet. This height is not consistent with stated project objectives and is not consistent with past approvals for structures to exceed height limits granted by the City for other religious institutions. Typically, staff does not stress past approvals as a precedent as it is well known that consideration granted in the past was based upon the specific facts and circumstances of the individual cases, and therefore not establishing a precedent. In this case, it is important to stress that this applicant must be provided the opportunity for consideration of a Use Permit to exceed the height limit pursuant to Section 20.65.060(G) consistent with past approvals. This does not mean that the City must approve a 124 -foot steeple. Staff recommends this application receive the same opportunity to exceed height limits as other churches subject to evaluation specific to this location and project. Based on evaluation of the LDS Temple and its location, as discussed in the report for September 5, staff recommends approval with the height of the Temple at 100 feet. Submitted by: Sharon Z. Wood Assist wtCitv Manager Prepared by: JAMES W. CAMPBELL Senior Planner LDS Temple (PA2001 -208)) October 3. 2002 Paoe 4 of 5 I Exhibits 1. Petition in favor of the project 2. Letter from I Bently on behalf of the LDS Church regarding the building height exemption for churches. 3. Letter from I Bently on behalf of the LDS Church regarding the height and lighting of the Temple. 4. Additional correspondence received by staff since the last meeting. 5. Additional comments on the EIl2 and responses to comments (to be submitted at the meeting). 6. Draft resolution for project approval —100 -foot Temple 7. Draft resolution for project approval — 123 foot, 9 inch high Temple LDS Temple (PA2001 -208)) October 3, 2002 Page 5 of 5 I �p THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 1-01 Exhibit # I Petition in favor of the project 1 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK PETITION FOR APPROVAL OF THE TEMPLE USE PERNUT APPLICAITON, SITE PLAN REVIEW AND ENVIRONMENTAL MPACP REPORT OF THE -CHUR CH- 0FJESUS CHRIST OF LAT TER-DA YSAINTS I am an adult resident of the City of Newport Beach. I hereby request that the City's Planning Commission and City Council approve construction of the LDS Temple, proposed to be built at 2300 Bonita Canyon Drive, which presently includes the following elements: • An approximately 17,500 square -foot temple on 8.65 acres- less than 5% lot coverage. (This is 1 /4th the size of the LDS Temple on the I -5 in La Jolla and 1 /10th the size permitted by city zoning.) • Setbacks which exceed the city minimum by more than 80 feet on all sides. • Approximately 5.5 acres of landscaped areas. • 152 spaces of terraced landscaped parking, to serve an average capacity of 150 persons. • Soft lighting (less than virtually all non - residential facilities in the City of Newport Beach.) • A 91 -foot steeple atop a 32 -foot, 9 -inch, one -story Temple building for a combined total of 123' 9" above finished grade. • All building illumination to be kept on until 11 pm. I respectfully request that you approve this project as outlined above. Dated: Signature: Address: �����',Pkv ��, THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 'll Exhibit # 2 Letter from I Bently on behalf of the LDS Church regarding the building height exemption for churches. THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK �3 BOSTON BRUSSELS CHICAGO FRANKFURT HAMBURG HONG KONG LONDON LOS ANGELES MILAN MOSCOW NEW JERSEY Via Fax/Regular Mail Robert Burnham, Esq. Newpori Beach City Attorney 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 Dear Bob: Latham a Watkins ATTORNEY$ AT LAW r WWW.LW.COM 1 September 13, 2002 U� NEW YORK NORTHERN VIRGINIA RANGE COUNTY ElV=D PARIS SEP 17 ZOOZ CITY ATTOnIN -7 -0 Re: LDS Temple /City Church Height Exemption SAN DIEGO AN FRANCISCO ILICON VALLEY SINGAPORE TOKYO SHINGTON. D.C. M No. a45320028 During our first Planning Commission hearings last Thursday, September 50, Bob Wynn delivered to the Commission's secretary a copy of the enclosure, "Church and Steeple Height Exemption: The Newport Beach Zoning Code Is Consistent With Federal Law ( "RLUIPA" ). This letter will amplify a few points raised in Bob's paper and at the hearings. One of the objections raised most often by those opposing our project, both before and during the hearings, is that we need some land of special relief in order to exceed the normal 50 -foot height limit that applies to other new construction in Bonita Canyon Planned Community 50, including our site. As the Daily Pilot quoted Steven Brombal, the opposition's first speaker: "If they [the Mormons] had agreed to abide by the rules of a 50 foot height limit, we certainly would not be here tonight. " The opponents' position is based on the Bonita Canyon PC Development Plan, which imposes a 50 -foot height limit on all covered property. Our position is that Municipal Code §20.65.070 -G exempts church structures from this or any other height limit, so long as a use permit is issued. This church- height exemption is extremely broad, as described at the end of this letter. We shouldn't have to justify and fight for every inch of steeple that goes above 50 feet. At the hearing, the Commission asked Robin Clauson to give them her opinion as to whether the PC text must specifically refer to the Zoning Code or the subsection G exemption in order for that exemption to apply, and whether silence itself constitutes a conflict that precludes use of the exemption. The Planning Department's Staff Report noted on page 5 that: "91here the Planned Community Develop- ment Plan is silent or does not provide sufficient guidance, the Newport Beach Zoning Code (Title 20 of the Municipal Code) is applied and where there is conflict between the PC Development Plan and the Zoning Code, the PC Development Plan takes precedence. " On page 6, it also states: "The Bonita Canyon PC Development Plan does not specify a procedure to deviate from structure height; therefore, the Newport Beach Municipal Code provisions apply." It then refers to the church height exemption in subsection G. 9SO TOWN CENTER DRIVE, SUITE 2000 • COSTA MESA. CAUFORNM 92526-I92S TELEPHONE: (714) S40 -1235 • FAX: (714) 755 -9290 OC1558143.1 09 -13 -2002 14:31 IATHAM a WATKINS Robert Burnham, Esq. September 13, 2002 Page 2 We see no conflict here between the silence of the PC -50 Plan, which does not mention churches, and the general zoning exemption of subsection G. Certainly, it shouldn't be necessary for a general exemption like that to be mentioned each place where it could apply in order to be effective. As a matter of fact, Bob Wynn has examined all 36 of the existing PC Development Plans at City Hall. He has determined that none of those Plans specifically refers to any of the Zoning Code §20.65.070 "Exceptions to Height Limits," including the subsection G exemption for churches. 1 All that is required in each case is the issuance of a use permit, without regard to the normal height limit in any particular PC zone. That is what we are requesting in this case, consistent with other churches in Newport Beach that have exceeded the prevailing height limits. When Patty Temple was asked by some Planning Commissioners whether she thought the 50- foat height limit had been applied to St. Matthew's Church across Bonita Canyon. Drive from our site, Ms. Temple confirmed that St. Matthew's received a use permit (initially issued by the City of Irvine, then confirmed by the City of Newport Beach upon annexation) that included a steeple much higher than 50 feet, but without the need for any special relief or special process of any land as to their steeple. Finally, we note that §20.65.070 -G gives churches far more latitude to exceed the normal height limits than any of the other items that are listed in §20.65.070 as "Exceptions to Height Limits ". Only churches are said to be "exempt' from all restrictions of Chapter 20.65 (entitled "Height Limits "). Other stated "Exceptions to Height Limits" —such as elevator shafts, enclosed stairwells, screened mechanical equipment, chimneys and vents, skylights and roof windows, flag poles and boat cranes —are, in rum, subject to other very specific limitations that have been imposed, above and beyond the general Planned Community height limits. However, there is no stated maximum limit for churches! The only requirement for a church structure (if it exceeds 35 feet, which virtually all churches will do) is that "it shall require a use permit." With this statement of broad intent in mind, we request that you or Robin clarify in writing to the Planning Commission that — so far as churches are concerned — not only does the 50 -foot height limit from our PC text not apply, but neither does any other maximum limit. Please call either Bob Break, Bob Wynn or me if you have any questions. We hope to hear from you before the end of next week, if possible. ours ly, Joseph of LATHAM & WATKINS Enclosure. Robin Clauson, Esq. Robert K. Break, Esq. Robert L. Wynn James Campbell 1 In fact, only 3 of the 36 PC Plans specifically allow any churches to be built at all. That exclusion may itself raise questions under RLUIPA's final § 2000cc (b)(3), which is titled "Exclusions and Limits." However, that issue is beyond the scope of our letter, as it does not apply in our case. n 1 0C,558143.1 09 -13 -2002 14:31 Church & Steeple Height Exemption The Newport Beach Zoning Code Is Consistent With Federal Law ( "RLUIPA ") A persistent misunderstanding regarding The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter -day Saints' application for a use permit to build its new Temple at 2300 Bonita Canyon Drive needs to be corrected. It is erroneously stated that the Church is seeking some kind of special exception, variance or other favor from the city, as part of this process. Therefore, our effort is viewed by many as bad precedent for future churches to be built in the City of Newport Beach. Like many cities in California, Newport Beach has a zoning ordinance that allows churches to exceed the normal height limits imposed on non - church buildings.' This is true for all churches built in every zone throughout the city, be it agricultural or residential or industrial. Newport Beach's Municipal Code § 20.65.070(G) reads in full as follows: "Church structures used for church purposes shall be exempt from the restrictions of this chapter [entitled `Height Limits'], except that any such structure exceeding 35 feet in height shall require a use permit." The last part of this section is redundant, since in this city, no church can be built in any zone without a use permit: Also, virtually every church in Newport Beach exceeds 35 feet (which is the normal zoning height limit), especially if it has a steeple. Therefore, if a church first obtains a use permit, then citywide height limits simply do not apply. When a use permit is issued, it covers all essential project elements, not just one —like a steeple. There is no need for any variance, exception or other special permit to enable a church steeple to exceed the normal height limit (which, in the Bonita Canyon Planned Community Development Zone, is 50 feet rather than 35 feet). Of course, before issuing a use permit, the city must exercise reasonable discretion, within legal parameters, in evaluating all matters relating to health, safety or welfare such as traffic, parking and certain aesthetic considerations. That will beat the core of the City Planning Commission's public hearings on the Temple on September 51h. Two good examples of how this church use permit process has been applied in the Temple's immediate area are the adjoining LDS stake center and the future chapel (with steeple) for the St. Matthews Church— across Bonita Canyon Drive from the LDS Temple site. Both structures exceed (or will exceed) the prescribed 50 -foot limit and are subject to prior use permits. But neither required any steeple processing, separate and apart from the project as a whole. This process is not only consistent with the citywide exemption for church structures, but also with the new federal law— Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act ( "RLUIPA "). Signed by President Clinton on September 22, 2000, RLUIPA prohibits a city from treating a church on "less than equal terms" with a non - church institution. According to the map following Muni. Code Chapter 20.65 "Height Limits," the maximum height permitted for non - church facilities is 37i feet (applicable to commercial buildings in Newport Center and the Airport area). Therefore, 315 feet may also be the right height for future church structures built in Newport Beach. To impose a lower limitation, without proper overriding circumstances, may be a violation of RLUIPA. ✓, D 0CW5827.1 09 -13 -2002 14:55 In addition to the federal law, various state courts have held — without any reference whatsoever to RLUIPA —that steeple heights are protected religious symbols. In a Massachusetts case, the state Supreme Court unanimously ruled that a 169 -foot steeple, as a religious symbol, was not properly a subject of judicial review and declined to determine what exact height was religiously symbolic. See Martin v. The Corporation of the Presiding Bishop of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter -day Saints, 434 Mass. 141, 747 N.E.2d 131 (2001). In a recent New York Appeal, the judges unanimously upheld the trial court's mandate to the town to issue a temple building height variance (including a 115 -foot steeple) which had been denied as exceeding the town's 35 -foot height limit. See Matter of Corporation of Presiding Bishop of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter -day Saints v. Zoning Board Of Appeals of Towtu'Village of Harrison, New York Law Journal, p. 23 (July 16, 2002). In short, as the City's own EIR for the proposed LDS Temple correctly concluded: "No variance or other special permit of any kind is required for the steeple. (See EIR p. 3 -16.) This application for a use permit to build a church that includes a 123' 9" steeple should be approved. ' For example, in Redlands where the LDS Church is building a similar temple and steeple, the Redlands Municipal Code § 18.152.030 reads in full: "Penthouses or roof structures or the housing of elevators, stairways, tanks, ventilating fans or similar equipment required to operate and maintain the building and fire or parapet walls, skylights, towers, steeples, flagpoles, chimneys, smokestacks, personal television antennas, water tanks, silos, churches or similar structures, may be erected above the maximum height permitted in each district . No structure or penthouse shall be allowed for purposes of providing additional floor space (Ord. 2433 §2, 2000). OC1555827.1 09 -13 -2002 14:55 Exhibit # 3 Letter from J. Bently on behalf of the LDS Church regarding the height and lighting of the Temple. l�� THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK ry FROM LATHAM & WATKINS OC #1 BOSTON SRUSSEL5 CHICAGO FRANKFURT HAMBURG HONG KONG LONDON IOS ANGELES MILAN Moscow NEW JERSEY Via Fax/Rep-War Mail Robin Clauson, Esq. Assistant City Attorney 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 Re: Proposed Dear Ms. Clauson: (WED) 9. 25' 02 11: 28 /ST. It : 27/NO. 4861483116 F 2 Latham a Wafts NEW YORK NORTHERN ERn VIRGINIA ATTORNEYS AT LAW ORANGE COUNTY W W W. LW.COM PARIS SAN DIEGO —. SAN FRANCISCO SILICON VALLEY SINGAPORE TOKYO WASHINGTON. D.O. September 25, 2002 Beach Temple, 2300 Bonita Canyon Drive ( "Temple ") During our hearings in the above matter on September 5°i, you handed me copy of a letter addressed to the City Planning Commissioners from Robert W. Dyess, Jr., Esq., a resident and board member of the Bonita Canyon Maintenance Association. He attached a schedule of "Unofficial Temple Statistics" that showed the size, steeple height and hours of operation for all current temples of the Church. The purpose for the Dyess schedule was to demonstrate that there arc many temples with shorter steeples and shorter operating hours than what are proposed for this Temple. His reason was an attempt to establish that a mandatory reduction in our proposed steeple height or operating hours, in his words, "clearly would not constitute a substantial burden on [the Church's rights of) religious exercise." His data is all taken out of context, with no information about the surrounding terrain or other nearby structures, including any Church -owned buildings. With due respect to Mr. Dyess' impressive volume of work, it entirely misses the point. The essence of the Church's rights of free exercise in this case includes its members'Jaith that each temple design. including the steeple, is a significant but an individual religious symbol. It really doesn't matter how many temples have shorter steeples or whether some have no steeple at all. The members' faith is not based on any mathematical formula or averaging of steeple heights. A statistical study showing that a high percentage of temples with shorter steeples than that proposed for this Temple is completely irrelevant to the members' faith that this particular Temple's design was inspired through the Church's President. The foundation for that faith is as follows: The Church's President —whom the members regard as a prophet has a unique mandate to determine temple location and design. An early LDS scripture recorded in 1838 illustrates that mandate. In this scripture, the Lord said to the Church's first president, Joseph Smith: N command you to build a house unto me [in Par West, Missouri], for the gathering together of my saints, that they may worship me.... [L)et the house be built unto my name according to the pattern which I will show unto them. And if my people build it not according to the pattern which I shall show unto theirpresidency, I will MoL accept it at their hands" (Doctrine & Covenants 115:8, 14 -15. Emphasis added.). The city leaders and our opponents don't need to believe any part of this scriptural mandate. But under both federal and California law, the fact that Church members believe it should be respected. 950 TOWN CChMA DnnP, 5VIn ¢000 • COSTA M4SA, CAUFORNIA 92626 -IB25 TELEPHONE: 1719) 5404235 • FAX: 1714) 755-8280 V(.1558192.3 0925 -2002 11:13 FROM LATHAM & WATKINS OC #1 tATtlAM a WATIU11S Robin Clauson, Esq. September 25, 2002 Page 2 (WED) 9, 25' 02 11:29 /ST. 11:27/NO. 4861483116 P 3 I have first -hand knowledge that the current Church President, Gordon B. Hinckley, has been intimately involved with the selection of the existing site for the Temple and its pattern or design, especially regarding such essential religious symbols as the steeple and the angel figure atop it. How he receives and applies this inspiration is up to him. It can be done in many ways. The fact remains that the members have faith that he has specified or approved the essential design features as part of his divine mandate. As a corollary, no substantial change may be made to the Temple design without his approval. In my remarks at the September Sa' hearing, entitled "Why Would a Mandatory Reduction in Steeple Height Be an Undue Burden , On Our Religious Free Exercise ?" (delivered in writing due to time constraints), I noted that one of the key factors the Church's President may consider in determining steeple height is the surrounding topography and whether the Temple will appear subordinate to any nearby LDS structure. One of the EIR Project Objectives stated that the Temple (including its steeple) must be highly visible, so as to be seen "as a pinnacle of the faith and source of perceived eternal blessings to the faithful." Such items as terrain topography and adjoining structures mayor may not be factors in satisfying this objective. It is up to the President to make the final determination, in each case, so fur as Church members are concerned. As for operating and lighting hours, these will vary according to the individual needs at each temple. Some temples will start earlier and some will run later than others, according to the members' own circumstances in the area. Members would need to arrive about 1/2 hour before any Temple ceremony begins, in order to prepare for it. So the correct arrival time for a 5:30 am session would be around 5:00 am. Conversely, if the last session of the day (lasting about 2 hours) started at 8 pm, it could take another half hour or so to complete their preparations and then leave by around 10:30 pm. Thereafter, the Temple leaders and other volunteer workers would depart by around 11 pm. These are typical schedules for many LDS temples. In any case, I am confident that the City will not entangle itself in regulating Temple operating hours any more than it would try to regulate the hours of midnight mass, sunrise services or other inherently religious observances that did not pose any health, safety or welfare risks. An important element of religious faith for LDS temples involves keeping them illuminated during normal operating hours, as a symbol offollowing Christ into the light and out of darkness. Here, we are asking for no greater hours of building illumination or operation than other existing churches now enjoy in the City of Newport Beach. I trust that this will clarify some of the misunderstandings in Mr. Dyess' letter. Yours truly, Josep entley of LATHAM & WATKINS cc: City Attorney Robert Burnham Senior Planner James Campbell City Clerk LaVonne Harkless �,I 00558192.3 09.25.2002 11:13 FROM LATHAM & WATKINS OC #1 (WED) 9.25'02 11 :29/ST. 11 :27/NO. 4861483116 P 4 kef:eli mG Gel QwLy RONALD K. BROWN, JR. x FRANK M. CADIGAN GARY ALDO DAPELO ROBERT W. DYESS, JR.x MARSHA GABLE PAUL C. NEON r%S x HEIDI DTRB LEWID THOMAS J. O'KEEFE x Y,MOT„Y C. PICKART NIKKI A. PRESLEY MICHAEL P. RIDLEY KICHARD L.3CIOC JOHN A. STILLMAN THOMAS E. WALLET x.L PROTES&IONAL CORPORATION LAW OCCICCC OP GOOD, WILDMAN. HEGNESs & WA.LLEY 5000 CAMPUS DRIVE NEWPORT SEA.CU, CALIHOBNL& 02860 -2tat (949� 955.1100 Chair and Members of the Planning Commission, t City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 September 5; -2002 Re: Proposed Newport Beach Temple The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints Dear Planning Commission Members: ROT M. GOOD (KCT,KCD) PAUL W. WILDMAN ov cou.xx,. LOUIS A. CAPPADONA DOUGLAS M. VICKERY STEPHEN G. OTTO FAX (949) 833-0633 I reside at 8 Seabluff, Newport Beach, in the Bonita Canyon Community. I am also a member of the Board of Directors of Bonita Canyon Maintenance Association and a partner in the Ncwport Beach law firm of Goad, Wildman, Heoness & Walley. The purpose of this letter is to provide additional information to assist you in the determination of whether any restrictions or conditions that you may impose on the proposed Newport Beach Temple would constitute a "substantial burden" upon the exercise of religion under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act ( RLUIPA). I refer you to the Memorandum dated August 28, 2002 from the City Attorney's Office to the Chair and Members of the Planning Commission which contains an analysis of RLUIPA (the "City Attorney Memorandum "). The City Attorney Memorandum concludes that the Project Proponent has not clearly articulated whether and to what extent a reduction in the proposed height of the steeple or conditions relative to lighting would constitute a substantial burden on religious exercise. Further, the City Attorney Memorandum suggests that it is left to the Planning Commission, from information submitted or presented, to conclude whether a substantial burden would be imposed by a reduction or modification to the project. If no substantial burden on religious exercise is found, it is irrelevant under RLUIPA whether any modification serves a compelling governmental interest. FROM LATHAM & WATKINS OC #1 Chair and Members of the Planning Commission (WED) 9. 25' 02 11:29 /ST. 11:27/NO. 4861483116 P 5 Re: Proposed Newport Beach Temple The Church-of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints September 5, 2002 Page 2 of 3 Attached hereto is a schedule of Unofficial Temple Statistics prepared by me from information obtained on the internet. The primary internet sources of information are disclosed on the schedule. The statistics include the steeple height and hours of operation for most of the 113 LDS Temples in current operation. Information is also included for some of the 6 Temples under construction and some of the 7 Temples that have been announced but are not yet under construction. The statistical information on steeple heights shows that there are at least 53 Temples in operation with steeple heights of 80 feet or less. Three Temples have no steeple. Although the Temples without steeples were constructed more than 75 years ago, the 50 Temples with the shorter steeples all were constructed in the past twenty years under the presidency of Gordon B. Hinckley, who I understand is the current President of the Church. The 53 Temples with short steeples or no steeples represent 47 percent of the 113 currently operating Temples. The 50 Temples with short steeples represent 54 percent of the 93 currently operating Temples constructed during the Presidency of Gordon B. Hinckley. These Temples all have steeples that are shorter than the 86 -foot steeple of the LDS Stake Center located next to the proposed Newport Beach Temple_ Accordingly, a reduction in steeple height for the Newport Beach Temple to 86 feet or less should he consistent with the Church's exercise of religion in roughly one -half of its existing Temples. Any conditional use permit granted by you should require a substantial reduction in the height of the steeple. Such a reduction clearly would not constitute a substantial burden on religious exercise. The attached schedule also Includes the hours of operation for 64 of the 113 currently operating Temples. Hours of operation for the other 49 operating Temples were listed as by appointment. Most Temples are open Tuesday through Saturday. However, some Temples operate on Mondays. The average opening time for all days of operation for the 64 Temples is approximately 7:45 am. The average last meeting time for all days of operation was just before 7:00 pm. Notwithstanding these average hours of operation for other Temples, the Church has stated its intention to operate the Newport Beach Temple from 5:00 am to 11:00 pm five days per week. No other Temple posts these extreme hours of operation. As a homeowner whose bedroom looks upon the proposed Temple, my Primary concern with the proposed hours of operation is the timing of the lighting of the Temple and its steeple during the nighttime hours of proposed operation. Traffic and noise FROM LATHAM & WATKINS OC #1 (WED) 9. 25' 02 11:29 /ST. 11:27/NO. 4861483116 P 6 Chair and Members of the Planning Commission Re: Proposed Newport Beach Temple The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints September 5, 2002 Page 3 of 3 during these nighttime hours also cause concern. In January of this year we were advised by Church officials that the lighting would be extinguished at 11:00 pm. There was no mention of turning the lights back on at 5:00 am until the publication of the Draft Environmental Impact Report. As a light sleeper, I regard the proposed re- lighting of the steeple every morning at 5:00 am as an intrusion of my right not to be disturbed and of my right to privacy. Lighting has been reduced for other Temples. The website for the Redlands Temple reports a compromise between Church and City officials for the lights to be turned off at 10:30 pm during the five operating days and at 10:00 pm during the two nort- operating days. There are several other references in the Temple websites to lighting compromises. There is no indication that any other Temple turns its lights back on m the morning hours. The Church should be asked to reduce its hours of operation and lighting. The extreme hours proposed for the Newport Beach Temple far exceed the hours of operation and lighting for most Temples. At the very least, the Church should be prohibited from rc- lighting the Temple and its steeple in the morning hours. Such a reduction should not constitute a substantial burden on the exercise of religion. Our residential neighborhood should not be asked to live with standards that are not imposed on other Temple neighborhoods under the guise of free exercise of religion. Please take this information into account in determining the restrictions and conditions that you must impose. Very truly yours, Orke,4w �Ajs—,r Robert W. Dyes %, Jr. cc City Attorney Robert Burnham Mayor Tod W. Ridgeway Council Member Gary Proctor Council Member Norma J. Glover Council Member Garold B. Adams Mayor Pro Tem Steven Bromberg Council Member Dennis D. O'Neil Council Member John Heffeman FROM LATHAM & WATKINS OC #1 (WED) 9. 25'02 11:29 /ST. 11:27/NO. 4861483116 F 7 VNOMCIAL TEMPLE STATISTICS* (Listed in Chronological Order by Date of Construction) Location.. Hours of QMration ** Square Footage Steeple Height Operating Temples: 1. St. George Utah 7:20am -8:00 pm 110,000 175 feet 7:20anr 11:20ani Mon 6:00am- 8:00pm Wed 6:00am- 8:00pm Sat 2. Logan Utah 7:00am- 8:00pm 119,619 Two Towers 5:30am- 8:00pm Wed 170 feet 5:30am- 8:00pm Sat 3. Manti Utah 7:30am- 7:30pm 100,373 Two Towers 179 feet 4. Salt Lake 5:45am- 8:00pm 253,053 Six Spire 210 feect 5. Laie Hawaii 7:00am- 8:00pm 47,224 NO STEEPLE 7:00am- 11:00am Mon 5:30am- 11:30am Sat 6. Cardston Alberta 9:30am- 7:30pm 88,562 NO STEEPLE 9:30am- 8:30pm Fri 7:30am- 12:30pm Sat 7. Mesa Arizona 7:00am- 7:30pm 113,916 NO STEEPLE 5:30am- 7:30pm Fri 6:30am- 7:30prn Sat 8. Idaho Falls 5:00am- 8:00pm 92,177 148 feet 5:00am- 7:00pm Sat 9. Bem Switzerland 8:00am- 3:00pm 35,546 140 feet 8:00am- 8:00pm Fri 8:00am- 1:00pm Sat 10. Los Angeles 7:00am- 8:30pm 190,614 258 feet 5:30am- 8:00pm 1'ue 7:00am- 8:00pm Wed 5:30am- 7:30pm Sat 11. Hamilton New 8:30am- 8:30pm 44,212 157 feet Zealand 8:00am- 10:30pm Fri 6:30am- 10:30am Mon 12:30pm- 6-OOpm Sat 12. London 8:00am- 8:00pm 46,174 190 feet 8:00am- 12:00am Fri 7:00am- 4:00pm Sat 13. Oakland 7:00am- 8:00pm 95,000 Five Spire 5:30am- 8:00pm Tue 170 feet 5:30am -4:30pm Sat 14. Ogden Utah 7:00am- 8:00pm 115,000 180 feet 6:00am- 8:00pm Wed Page 1 of 6 FROM LATHAM & WATKINS OC #1 Location 15. Provo Utah -. 16. Washington D.C. 17. Sao Paulo 18. Tokyo 19. Seattle 20. Jordan River Utah 21. Atlanta 22. Apia Samoa 23. Nuku'alofa Tonga 24. Santiago Chile 25. Papeete Tahiti 26. Mexico City 27. Boise Idaho 28. Sydney Australia 29. Manila Philippines 30. Dallas Texas 31. Taipei Taiwan (WED) 9. 25' 02 11: 29 /ST. 11: 27/NO. 4861483116 P 8 Hours of Operation 7:00am- 8:00pm 7:00am- I 0:00am Mon 6:00am- 8:00pm Sat 7:00am- 9:O0pm 7:00am- 10:30pm Fri 6:00am- 8:30pm Sat 7:00am- 8:30pm 7 ;00am- 11:55pm Fri 1: 1 5pm-6:45pm Sat I0:00am- 7:30pm 6:OOam- 2:30pm Sat 7:00am- 8:O0pm 5:30am- 8:O0pm Tue 6:00am- 8:00pm Sat 6:00am- 8:20pm 5:00am- 8:20pm Tue 9:00am- 8:00pm 8 ;00am- 4:00pm Sat 7:OOam- 7:00pm 6:00am- I0:00am Sat 6:OOam- 7:OOpm 5:OOam- 9:OOam Mon 9:00am- 8:30pm 9:OOam- 10:30pm Fri 7:OOam- 6:30pm Sat 7.00am- 7:00pm 6:00am- 7:00pm Sat 8:OOam- 7:OOpm 7:00am- 5 :00pm Sat 7:00am- 8:00pm 5:00am- 8:00pm Tue 6:30am- 8:00pm Sat 9:OOam- 7:15pm 6:00am- 12:00pm Sat 7:00am- 7:00pm 7:OOam- 10:00pm Fri 7:OOam- 5:O0pm Sat 7:00am- 8:00pm 6:00am -3:30 Sat 2:O0pm- 7:00pm 10:30am- 7:00pm Fri 10:30am- 5:OOpm Sat Page 2 of 6 Square Footage 128,325 .1 111 59.246 Steeple Height 118 feet Six Spire 288 feet 101 feet 52,590 l78 feet 110,000 179 feet 35,325 (reduced height due to airport) 148,236 139 feet 35,360 Unknown 14,460 75 feet 14,572 75 feet 13,712 76 feet 9,936 66 feet 116,642 152 feet 35,325 Six Spire 112 feet 30,677 75 feet 26,683 Six Spire 115 feet 46,956 Six Spire 95 feet 9,945 Six Spire 126 feet FROM LATHAM & WATKINS OC #1 Location 32. Guatemala City 33. Freiberg Germany 34. Stockholm Sweden 35. Chicago Illinois 36. Johannesburg South Africa 37. Seoul Korea 38. Lima Peru 39. Buenos Aires Argentina 40. Denver Colorado 41. Frankfurt Germany 42. Portland Oregon 43. Las Vegas Nevada 44. Toronto Ontario 45. San Diego ff-�iRMTI Gf. 47. Bountiful Utah 48. Hong Kong 49. Mount Timpanogos Utah (WED) 9. 25' 02 11:29 /ST. 11:27/N0. 4861483116 P 9 Hours of Ooerati 7:00am -1 I:00am Mon 7:00am- 5:00pm Tue 7:00am- 5:00pm Wed 5:30am- 7:00pm Thu 5:30am- 7:00pm Fri 5:00am- 1:00pm Sat 8:00am- 1:OOpm 7:00pm- 7:00pm Fri 7:30am- 6:00pm 7:30am- 12:00pm Sat 8:00am- 8:00pm 7:00am- 7:00pm Sat 3:30pm- 6:30pm 6:00am- 6:30pm Fri 7:00am- 1:00pm Sat 1:30pm- 7:30pm 6:00am- 3:30pm Sat 7:30am- 7:00pm 8:00am- 8:00pm 6:00am- 6:00pm Sat 8:00am- 7:30pm 5:30am- 7 -30pm Wed 7:00am- 4:00pm Sat 8:00am- 5:00pm 8:00am- 7:00pm Fri 8:00am- 2:00pm Sat 7:00am- 8:00pm 5:30am- 8:00pm Sat 7:00am- 8:00pm 7:00am- 7:00pm Sat I I :00am- 8:00pm 7:00am- 8:00pm Sat 7:00atn- 8:00pm 5:30am- 8:00pm Tuc 6 :30am- 8:00pm Sat 8:00am- 8:00pm 7:30atn- 3:00pm Sat 6:00am- 8:00pm 9:00am- 7:00pm 6:00am- 8:00pm Page 3 of 6 Square Footage 11,610 13,300 14,508 29,751 19,184 28,057 9,600 11,980 29,117 24,170 79,220 80,350 57,982 72,000 70,000 104,000 21,744 107,240 teeple Height Six Spire 126 feet Unknown Six Spire 112 feet Six Spire 112 feet Six Spire 112 feet Six Spire 112 feet Six Spirc 112 feet Six Spire 112 feet Unknown 82 feet Six Spire 169 feet Six Spire 119 feet 116 feet Two Towers 200 feet 165 feet 175 feet 135 feet 190 feet b� l,n' FROM LATHAM & WATKINS OC #i (WED) 9. 25' 02 11:30 /ST. 11 :27/N0. 4861483116 F 10 Page 4 of 6 4� Location Hours of Operation Square Footage Steeple Heieht 50. St. Louis - 9:00am- 7:30pm 58,749 150 feet 7:30am- 2:15pm 51. Vernal Utah 6:00am- 7:45pm 38,771 97 feet 6:00am- 1:30pm Mon 52. Preston England 7:15am- 8:00pm 69.630 155 feet 7:15am- 12:00pm Mon 7:15am4:00pm Sat 53. Monticello Utah By Appointment 6,700 70 feet 54. Anchorage Alaska By Appointment 6,800 70 feet 55. Colonia Juarez By Appointment 6,800 47 feet Chihuahua Mexico 56. Madrid Spain 8:00&m- 7:00pm 45,800 Unknown 8:00am- 5:00pm Sat 57. Bogota Colombia 9:30am- 7:15pm 53,500 Unknown 9:30am- 12 :30pm Sat 58. Guayaquil Ecuador 10:00am- 7:00pm 70,884 Unknown 9:00am- 2:00pm Sat 59. Spokane Washington By Appointment 10,700 78 feet 60. Columbus Ohio 6:00pm- 8:00pm 10,700 78 feet I0:00am- 8:00pm Wed 12:00pm- 8:00pm Fri 8:00am- 6:30pm Sat 61. Bismarck North By Appointment 10,700 78 feet Dakota 62. Columbia South By Appointment 10,700 78 feet Carolina 63. Detroit Michigan By Appointment 10,700 78 feet 64. Halifax Nova Scotia By Appointment 10,700 78 feet 65. Regina Saskatchewan By Appointment 10,700 78 feet 66. Billings Montana 8:00am- 7:30pm 33.800 120 feet 7:00am- 4:20pm Sat 67. Edmonton Alberta By Appointment 10,700 78 feet 68. Raleigh North By Appointment 10,700 78 feet Carolina 69. St. Paul Minnesota By Appointment 10,700 78 feet 70. Kona Hawaii By Appointment 10,700 79 feet 71. Ciudad Juarez Mexico By Appointment 10,700 78 feet 72. Hermosillo Sonora By Appointment 10,769 78 feet Mexico 73. Albuquerque New 8:00am- 7:00pm 34,245 Unknown Mexico 7:00am- 7:00pm Sat 74. Oaxaca Mcxico By Appointment 10,700 78 feet Page 4 of 6 4� FROM LATHAM & WATKINS OC #1 75. 76. 77. 78. 79. 80. 81. 82. 83. 84. 85. 86. 87. 88. 89. 90. 91. 92. 93. 94. 95. 96. 97. .. 100. 101. 102. 103. 104. 105. 106. 107. 108. 109. Location Tuxtla Gutierrez Mexico Louisville Kentucky 502 -241 -4115 Palmyra New York Fresno California Medford Oregon Memphis Tennessee Reno Nevada Cochabamba Bolivia Tampico Mexico Nashville Tennessee Villahermosa Mexico Montreal Canada San Jose Costa Rica Fukuoka Japan Adelaide Australia Melbourne Australia Suba Fiji Merida Mexico Veracruz Mexico Raton Rouge Louisiana Oklahoma City Caracas Venezuela Houston Texas Birmingham Alabama Santo Domingo Dominican Republic Boston Recife Brazil Porto Alegre Brazil Montevideo Uruguay Winter Quarters Nebraska Guadalajara Mexico Perth Australia Columbia River Washington Snowflake Arizona Lubbock Texas (WED) 9. 25' 02 11:30 /ST. 11:27/NO. 4861483116 P 11 Hours of Operation Square Footage By Appointment 10.700 By Appointment 10.700 By Appointment By Appointment By Appointment By Appointment By Appointment 9:30am- 7:30pm 8:30am- 4:30pm Sat By Appointment By Appointment By Appointment By Appointment By Appointment By Appointment By Appointment By Appointment By Appointment By Appointment By Appointment By Appointment By Appointment By Appointment 8:00am- 8:O0pm 7:00am- 3:00pm Sat By Appointment 8:30am- 8:00pm 6:00am- 3:30pm Sat 8:00am- 8:00pm 10:30am- 8:00pm 8:O0am- 3:30pm Sat By Appointment By Appointment By Appointment By Appointment By Appointment By Appointment By Appointment By Appointment Page 5 of 0 10.700 10.700 10.700 10.700 10.700 33.303 10.700 10.700 10.700 10.700 10.700 10.700 10.700 10,700 10.700 10.700 10.700 10.700 10.769 15.332 33.970 10.700 67.000 69.600 37.200 10.700 10.700 16.000 10.700 10.700 16.880 18.621 16.498 Steeple Height 78 feet 78 feet 78 feet 78 feet 78 feet 78 feet 78 feet Unknown 78 feet 78 feet 78 feet 75 feet 75 feet 75 feet 75 feet 75 feet 75 feet 75 feet 75 feet 75 feet 75 feet 75 feet Unknown 75 feet Unknown 139 feet Unknown 78 feet * ** 78 feet * ** Unknown 78 feet * ** 78 feet * ** Unknown Unknown 108 feet C� FROM LATHAM & WATKINS OC #1 (WED) 9. 25' 02 11 :30/3T, I I :27/NO. 4861483116 P 12 Location Hours of QMration Square Footage Steeple Hei ht Not Available 115. The Hague 110. Monterrey Mexico By Appointment 16.498 108 feet * ** 111. Campinas Brazil None Stated 48.100 Unknown 112. Asuncion Paraguay By Appointment 10.700 78 feet * ** 113. Nauvoo Illinois 6:OOam- 8:OOpm 54,000 162 feet Not Available 6:OOam- 4:OOpm Mon 118. Redlands California Under Constmetion: 114. Copenhagen Denmark Not Complete Not Available Not Available 115. The Hague Not Complete 14,477 Not Available Netherlands 56.000 from 1 ] 5 feet 116. Brisbane Australia Not Complete 10.700 78 feet 117. Accra Ghana Not Complete Not Available Not Available 118. Redlands California Not Complete 18.000 130 feet 124. Newport Beach compromise: lights off 17,572 124 feet 125. San Antonio Texas at 10:30pm on 15.000 Not Available 126. Manhattan New York operating days and at 20,000 Not Available 10:00pm on Sun and Mon 119. Aba Nigern Not Available Not Available Not Available Announced Temples: 120. New York New York Not Complete 28,400 105 feet compromise from compronse 56.000 from 1 ] 5 feet 121. Kiev Ukraine Not Available Not Available Not Available 122. Helsinki Finland Not Available 23,000 Not Available 123. Sacramento California Not Available 58.000 Not Available 124. Newport Beach 5:00am- 11:00pm 17,572 124 feet 125. San Antonio Texas Not Available 15.000 Not Available 126. Manhattan New York Not Available 20,000 Not Available *Sources: 1. Temples of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter -Day Saints Website www.ldschurchtemples.com 2. Nathan's Exhaustive Guide to the Temples of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter -Day Saints Website www.geocities.corri/Athen-jParthenon/4909 otherwise noted stated hours of operation are for Tuesday through Saturday. ** *Unconfirmed steeple heights based on relative steeple heights of other Temples with same square footage and appearance by picture. �u :Ar Page 6 of 6 �� THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Exhibit # 4 Additional correspondence received by staff since the last meeting. q�� THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK q� JOSEPH A. LUMSDAINE" MARK C. DOYLE MICHELE S. PATTERSON MICHAEL A. LANPHERE MATTHEW L. KINLEY DANIEL R. GOLD JOAN PENFIL' SHANNON M. SILVERMAN ROY J. JIMENEZ FRANCIS A. JONES MONICA GOEL REZA MANSOURI 'Of Counsel "Professional Law Corp. AUTHOR'S EMAIL mcloyle ®tldlaw.com TREDWAY LUMSDAINE ® DOYLE LLP Lawyers September 4, 2002 James Campbell Senior Planner City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 Re: Draft Environmental Impact Report Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints Temple Dear Mr. Campbell: 1920 MAIN STREET, SUITE 1000 IRVINE, CALIFORNIA 92614 (949) 756.0684 FAX (949) 756 -0596 DOWNEY OFFICE DOWNEY, CALIFORNIA 90241 (562) 923 -0971 FAX (562) 869 -4607 LONG BEACH OFFICE LONG BEACH, CALIFORNIA 90802 (562) 983.8140 FAX (562) 983 -8141 www.8tllaw.com HAROLD T. TREDWAY RETIRED (1 984) REPLY TO: IRVINE Via Facsimile ar.d First Class Mail RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPART<t1ENT CITY C`" \I _rrrr!1pT 7. =ALiH AP19 SEP U 6 2002 P(vi 718,9110111112 111213 1 � 1516 .a T I am a resident of Bonita Canyon and a member of the Bonita Canyon Maintenance Association. I am writing to voice my objection to the Draft Environmental Impact Report published by the Church and express the support of the Bonita Canyon Maintenance Association position as stated in their letter to you of August 8, 2002. I am aware that recent legislation has caused additional concern regarding restrictions upon religious institutions. It is important to note that construction of a steeple tower approaching 130 feet in height is not essentiai to the practice of a religious belief. Instead the height of the temple acts as a marketing /public relations device to promote the church to all those within view of it including those on the 73 Freeway. Perhaps this would be acceptable in a commercial area with similar height buildings but it is clearly not acceptable and inconsistent with the general plan for a steeple of that height to be constructed in a residential neighborhood. I urge the planning commission to carefully consider the comments of the Bonita Canyon Maintenance Association which represent the many residents living adjacent to this proposed site and require the Draft Environmental Impact Report to be modified accordingly. Further, based on the current plans submitted by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints Temple the conditional use permit should be denied. J 0043864.1 99999 -- James Campbell September 4, 2002 Page 2 Should the City accept the Draft Environmental Impact Report and issue the conditional use permit for construction of the tower, I will consider legal action challenging both the Environmental Impact Report and the City's issuance of a conditional use permit. Thank you for your consideration. Respectfully submitted, TREDWAY, LUMSDAINE & DOYLE LLP Mark C. Doy MCD:jij cc: Bonita Canyon Maintenance Association Board of Directors q5 OG43864.1 99999 ` ,j l)avAd sovxke 2905SUVer L-I,lM Newport -each, CA92660 September 1, 2002 Dear Chairman Kiser, I am a Newport Beach resident and am whole- heartedly in support of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints building of the temple. This should not be an issue of religion, but simply stated a land use issue. It is my understanding that the extensive study that the city requested, concluded there to be NO NEGATIVE IMPACT, on the community or the aesthetics of the surrounding neighborhoods. Please allow the temple to be built the temple as the plans currently state, its not like the issue is excessive noise as is the concern of the neighbors of the Village Inn. The LDS temple goers consider the temple grounds to be scared and thus are typically reverently respectful. The temple will not "block" anyone's view, as is the concern of the neighbors of the Butler Home on W. Bay. The large spire and angel atop will not prevent the views of their neighbors or serve as an eyesore. The Temple grounds will be beautifully landscaped and from the pictures in the report, it clearly shows that the spire will only be slightly higher than the existing spire. (When I hold a pencil six inches away from my face, it does not block my view of the beach behind it, and such is the case of the angel on top.) Respectfully, 34-- David Sonke 2905 Silver Lane Newport Beach, CA 9260 RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY 0~ NF ,H AN1 SEP U 2002 PNl 71B19110111112111213141616 r I I jewvdfersovu,ze 2905,SUver L Rvue Newport -each, 0,A92660 September 1, 2002 Dear Chairman Kiser, I am a Newport Beach resident and am whole- heartedly in support of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints building of the temple. This should not be an issue of religion, but simply stated a land use issue. It is my understanding that the extensive study that the city requested, concluded there to be NO NFGATIVE IMPACT, on the community or the aesthetics of the surrounding neighborhoods. Please allow the temple to be built the temple as the plans currently state, its not like the issue is excessive noise as is the concern of the neighbors of the Village Inn. The LDS temple goers consider the temple grounds to be scared and thus are typically reverently respectful. The temple will not "block" anyone's view, as is the concern of the neighbors of the Butler Home on W. Bay. The large spire and angel atop will not prevent the views of their neighbors or serve as an eyesore. The Temple grounds will be beautifully landscaped and from the pictures in the report, it clearly shows that the spire will only be s ightly higher than the existing spire. (When I hold.a pencil six inches away from my ice, j�, does not block my view of the beach behind it, and such is the case of the angel yip top) Respectfully ( zo---- if , 2905 Silver Lane Newport Beach, CA 92660 RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARWEN H CITY 0� U� icn, -? SEP 0 6 2002 P61 AM i 45 1 1 236 ?16191101111121.1 1 Debra S. Bendheim 2313 Fairhill Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 September 3, 2002 Mr. Steven Kiser Chairman — Planning Commission City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd Newport Beach, CA 92663 Dear Mr. Kiser: RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF NFIVP ^,T REACH AM SFp 0 R 2002 PM 7;6;9;i011i;1u;? 12;3i4;�;6 I am writing to express my support for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter - Day Saints and their desire to build a temple in our great city. I think that it will be a wonderful building, one of beauty and serenity. I think it will be a great benefit to the community and look forward to its construction. I have looked at the Environmental Impact Study and found it to be complete and satisfactory in its conclusions. As a resident of this city for over 20 years, I want to publicly voice my support for the temple. Sincerely yours, 1W'tt"4-'1j1 WaryWargaret Bendheim 2742 Bayshore Drive Newport Beach, CA 92663 Septem6er3, 2002 9,fr. Steven xiser Chai»nan — tPlanning Commission City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd Newport Beach, CA 92663 (Dear 9dr. K ser. RECEIVED BY �� " "��'WC, DEPARTMEM T S , 0 6 nuz PNl �, �,:,.,;1.11121112131�1516 I am writing to express my support for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-cDay Saints and their desire to 6uilda temple in ourgreat city. I think that it wiff6e a wonderfur 6uifding, one of beauty and serenity. I thinkit wiff 6e a great 6enefit to the community and (vok forward to its construction. I have lookedat the Environmental impact Study andfoundit to 6e complete and satisfactory in its conclusions. As a resident of this cityfor over 20 years, I want to pu6luly voice my support far the temple. Sincerely yours, CWOL J Candace E. Jackson 1545 Cumberland %ewport Beach, " 92660 Septem6er3, 2002 Wr. Steven xiser Chairman — (Planning Commission City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd Newport Beach, CA 92663 Dear 912r. xiser.' RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY 0P 'dFV"P07 T E=ACN AM SEP U F 2002 PM 718,9110,11,12,11213ilz 1516 I I am writing to express my support for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter -Day Saints and their desire to 6uild a temple in ourgreat city. I thinkthat it will6e a wonderful 6udStng, one of beauty and serenity. I thinkit wff 6e a great 6enefit to the community and look forward to its construction. I have lookedat the Environmentallmpact Study andjoundit to 6e comprete and satisfactory in its conclusions As a resident of this city forover20 years, I want to pu6Culy voice my support for the temple. � o� September 3, 2002 Mr. Steven Kiser Chairman — Planning Commission City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd Newport Beach, CA 92663 Dear Mr. Kiser: RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY Or '1JFV.POPT rtrACH AM SEP U 6 2002 PNl 71819110111112111213141616 I am writing to express my support for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter -Day Saints and their desire to build a temple in our great city. I think that it will be a wonderful building, one of beauty and serenity. I think it will be a great benefit to the community and look forward to its construction. I have looked at the Environmental Impact Study and found it to be complete and satisfactory in its conclusions. As a resident of this city for over 20 years, I want to publicly voice my support for the temple. Sincerely yours, �o I 2313 Fairhill Drive, Newport Beach, California 92660 Planning Commission City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92658 Re: SOMETHING NEW!!!!! Draft EIR LDS Temple Dear Commissioners: September 6, 2002 RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTN4ENT CITY �� (, ip.�rr r G. H AM SEP i 3 2002 PM 718j?110111112111N13141516 I attended the PC meeting last night. My card was not chosen to speak and I would like to supply you with something that you may not have heard before. Like Mr. Fuller, who spoke last night, I too am an appraiser with much experience in Southern California. I am also a resident of Bonita Canyon. As you know, appraisers can have a multitude of opinions. After all, that is what an appraisal is — an opinion. I disagree with Mr. Fuller and his findings regarding the value of the homes in the adjoining areas. I have attached an article for you and the Planning Commission to read on "The Impact of Detrimental Conditions on Property Values ". This article (from The Appraisal Journal) notes many factors that are both realized and perceived to decrease or damage real property and its value. To many of the homeowners in Bonita Canyon, this temple will be (and is) perceived as a future detrimental condition. You had pointed out at the beginning of the meeting that it would be your responsibility to ensure that the project would not be detrimental to the neighborhood. In this article, the most applicable DC would be Roman Numeral V — Imposed Conditions. The article that was included in the DEIR referred to "churches" and I would argue would not be similar to gigantic temples. I would like to see a copy of what Mr. Fuller submitted to you. I can't imagine that property values would increase in the vicinity of structures such as is proposed (unless you are a member of that church). Regardless, while I do not object to the existing church or even a temple that conforms to the existing zoning regulations, the proposed structure is completely unacceptable. I am also worried that the City of Newport Beach might just "roll over" and accept anything that the LDS church wishes. The city attorney may be fearful of fighting the LDS church with the recent ruling in Boston and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act ( RLUIPA). As is noted in several articles, RLUIPA will likely be tested in courts and its constitutionality may be questioned (as the RFRA was declared unconstitutional in 1997). The edicts of the temple (steeple height, color, design, lighting) are all "revealed to the president of the LDS church" and are therefore set. That may be fine for believing mormons, but is that edict fair to be thrust on the citizens of Newport Beach? I think not,. i Among the effects of the proposed temple that would impact the surrounding properties would be: ✓ Adverse effect on the scenic vistas ✓ Degradation of the existing visual character of the surroundings ✓ Addition of substantial light pollution, and ✓ Increase of traffic. The values of the homes in the Bonita Canyon development can easily be recorded and noted for a diminution in value after the temple is built. The City or the church could then be found to be the source of the diminution and could further be held liable for damages. Factors for the economy and any other outside influences can be separated from the impacts of the temple to determine a net damage to the residences. The EIR is also woefully inadequate in the measurement of traffic impacts on the area. A much more detailed analysis of the traffic in and out of the temple must be presented. What are the traffic patterns and visitor /member traffic patterns at other temples in the nation? The LDS church should be forced to present daily /monthly and annual traffic counts for at a minimum the Los Angeles and San Diego temples. I'm sure this data can be presented with little effort — if the church wished to. I am convinced that the traffic impacts as presented in the EIR are grossly incorrect. In addition, I would propose that any permit be conditioned upon working with the City of Newport Beach, City of Irvine, and the Transportation Corridor Agencies /OCTA in having the Bonita Canyon Drive off ramp from the Route 73 be changed to a "Non -Toll" ramp, with the Toll Road beginning south of this ramp. Traffic from Shady Canyon, Newport Coast and the Turtle Rock area all routinely use Bonita Canyon Drive to MacArthur simply to avoid paying the toll. This causes unnecessary congestion, noise and pollution in our residential area. Traffic is a regional problem and should be conditioned upon any permit that is granted. I also object to the lighting. In summary, I cannot object to the temple being built but can object to its conformity to the standards set by the City of Newport Beach and that of the community in which we live. Sincerely, David Guder 30 Whitehall Newport Beach, CA 92660 Cc: Bonita Canyon Maintenance Association �D> � J Randall Bell, MAI The Impact of Detrimental Conditions on Property Values Detrimental conditions that affect property values range from temporary conditions and market perceptions to construction defects, environmental contamination, and geotechnical issues. Quantifying the impact of DCs is significantly more complex and challenging than working through the three approaches to value. The author has discovered distinctive graphic patterns in his study of DCs and grouped them into 10 general categories, each with unique characteristics. The article urges appraisers to address the costs associated with assessment, remediation, ongoing costs, and the effects of any market resistance. There are over 200 detrimental conditions (DCs) that can affect real estate values. They include temporary easements, airport noise, construction defects, serious toxic waste, geotechnical issues, and natural disasters. Determining the diminution in property value brought about by a DC requires the application of specialized methods, procedures, and formulas. In fact, contamination and geotechnical issues present some of the most involved problems in real estate valuation. All DCs can be classified into 10 categories, each having unique patterns and attributes that can be illustrated on a graph. Further, a DC's impact on value can vary from case to case. A DC could even be completely benign. Therefore, each situation must be independently and competently analyzed. The Bell Chart' defines each classification and graphs the relationship between property values and typical events (see figure 1). DETRIMENTAL CONDITIONS MODEL All DCs involve some or all of six basic ele- ments that lead to an understanding of: the costs or losses associated with the assessment of the condition, the repair or remediation costs, any ongoing conditions, and any residual market resistance to the condition. The DC Model illustrates the costs before, during, and after the actual remediation (see figure 2). These costs are shown as A or the value as if unaffected by 1. Randall Bell, "The Ten Standard Categories of Detrimental Conditions," Right of Way (July 1996): 1416. 2. Randall Bell, "Quantifying Diminution in Value Due to Detrimental Conditions: An Application to Environmentally Contaminated Properties," Environmental Claims Journal (October 1996): 135. Randall Bell, MAI, directs the real estate damages practice of PricewaterhouseCoopers in Costa Mesa, California. He specializes in the valuation of properties affected by detrimental conditions, and is the developer and an instructor of the Appraisal Institute's seminar, "Valuation of Detrimental Conditions." His book on the same subject, titled Real Estate Damages, will be released in 1999. Mr. Bell earned an MBA from the University of California, Los Angeles. ". lD� l J Figure 1 The Bell Chart: The 10 Classifications of Detrimental Conditions Class Detrimental Conditions Analysis I I Result No C If N o hVW Any DE re The are hundreds of OCs have a vanaly of knpeda Detrimental , Sale "" " °`"'et'd at Market Detrimental Cond'dbm (DCa) w ch. upon anafftu vary on e Condition ) (N pYWtiMYYOIJICY:M se.+ swulaaiw ocean awuVcml bNr.a... chat �p��p�y case-caso bail. roe neaean� r or Dania" rnR*aeR.N"V 6tabn�i the OC Mader aAYrin Condition *uW4Ee� Fiae RipM >R�Wroeudn Ewcw VUSeesatr ik anal of related .tea . ( gales. Atl 6lC demerit OF11fB Ix I) HOMArket Special Buyer Motivation Mode! amid be =,tai aged In Fmmtan Premium gelE>Ran. sm Redevelopment ProieU every of tuat 7tis can yeW a �a�ly afvaluatlo f is can based i ° s p mawmun Upon Ule irhGhL�OrL eXS7SD11 and Fong Shu Short-Tarn V*Wfap deaohelernelt a Oeelmental casfinon Model 111 Market Coadiaors Emnoiiryl3upply b Demand RecessionCeptession Lease a off tiolgng Option Exan:iso of Ophonlfaxedourn $ p .� S C 8 True. (( - s IV Temporary Condition °k 9a au Ina I{,gh Var�iy/rerM. Easeme OeferredMaintenaricelLegal %toGnPns A `eNNptXPnOab {abbSna.isab �su.n�wneorm.ae neavDrcnie •�•••.� V1110 YlPd Vitae — va�uemih DC LL r cane imrmAcJam.2rsmtewmrn A ununpairsd Value B: Dc orcura a tYexaed C: Asr+awnnt9Nro Thn b bu. k- -•— ►- e V Imposed Condition NeIfgqhbcamg lssuo• Eminent Do riCroundlTaJC Geed3sahols(Leaserd Lease Deed i�aRerpwaerry �,�F�� LeasehddlLeased Fee D' II^�L� —s- a c PFysiral Deprodaaon Isla �tb ,ubtri DId V e°aa:n aNeu�vmcsg�n a.plWm'JanEUFRnae . grycrtabw tde Pmja.I el2fRq(nitki E DR.mIrvgSaga CcseBR °s watANy ; c a++ssoe nea.;tl V1 Building Construction Defect use I� Construction Codas Building Coda Violaaors (Risk) a e Damages am Oenctimatked Condition Poor Wuritmaaristdp'Leaks OvsGea Raww� Functional Depredation R1$! the UriryJeiod Ua4la. to iscrik ningfhe impact onvalua o iser&alt ibard A o +^ c �) SOD or Sal Construction the O ummsde 6eaneert cite OC and unrdalW Geoteehnicai OeainaWrennearq iss ees. For aaaml t, market Construction foundatloNCut SFdl avhdhkatsmay .ben>sponsmletbr e Condition gsb �n o n lovvret�r�am rttbbe Xb TM" a`w+�a Ytll Environmental Condition Sall Corrtani+oam Mars Values la ul�y ar�i phiral appira5an that Hof ft c a fund ih".baddicnal apptoadr" to e nna w V618fiadfaaaU Protald Nkfaniaridl®'LVST 1. The Sales tatiylaiscri Approach 0 atin oe seam a i D '—' a 'fir c IX Natural NaDJrat Disasters Con , � 2 The Imm�a Capitaltr�dn a c0 a TorlffiaM1mhdsiddSoi Types Approach ufBrtfg incomaaM risk t=MWdhandtvd'Wt*DC. 1 a The Cost AWcadh i�aohV wyy data wth and R Incurable Apple to twi OCs akl kusesaseo� x�aDG t Condition In severe siAm6on where a The iampe!ekusandBab3h daee aDpoadhes .m vela to e �� kndamental tarthea�yar ottxs ° Q 1996 -1998 by Randal SM &W. the DC; B, the value upon the realization that i DC exists; C, the value upon assessment of the situation; D, the value upon repair or otherwise resolved; E, the value upon the consideration of any ongoing costs; and F, the impact of any market resistance. The value patterns of any DC will involve some or all of these six basic elements. For example, Classes III through VI generally utilize only components of this model, as may Classes VI and IX although they may have all the elements of the model. The point is that all elements must be considered in any DC assignment. SIX BASIC ELEMENTS Valuation as if no detrimental condition. The first step of a DC assignment is to value the property as if there were no DC. Bell: The Impact o /Detrimental Conditions on Property Values 381 �p5 2 Detrimental Conditions Model A i Uh7npahvd Vehm .. . .....+ .. Sep 44e C T1 1311. . Delrlmelval Coadlb'on occurs E ..0. Matlael Resistance (Risk) On-Going Use aReepoosl 11Y cast a Responsihllity Repair Use Project Ineer&e (Risk) Curt 8 ResponsWty Assessment Use lhrosdalnty Fador (Risk) Time 01M 1947 Ronddl Boo MAI. toed try perrnWm This establishes a benchmark for the following studies. Assessment costs. These encompass all the costs associated with monitoring and assessing the DC before any repairs or remediation, including the Phase I and II studies, soils and geotechnical studies, and other monitoring costs. These costs are provided by the engineering firms that do such monitoring, and because requests for this work are commonplace, the cost estimates are generally well established. Remediation costs. The remediation costs represent all costs associated with the actual repairs, cleanup, and correction of the condition. A vast spectrum of costs could be included, depending on the remediation method chosen. The costs would also include any agency oversight, engineering, legal review, permits, sampling, improvement demolition, improvement reconstruction, additional scientific analysis, and backfill. Again, these costs are often provided by the engineers of the firm contracted to conduct the remediation. However, special care should be taken in reviewing the completeness of such estimates because the original cost estimates are often exceeded. The fort[ providing the estimates should clearly set forth whether the costs are best case, expected care, or worst care scenarios —an important point for implementing the next step. As stated, remediation costs can exceed their original estimates. For this reason, a contingency factor may be required to adjust remediation costs to reflect a complete and reasonable cost estimate, so that the real estate market is reasonably assured that all reasonable remediation costs are accounted for in the estimates provided. It is important to note that the contingency factor applied to the remediation costs relate to the hard costs of remediation and should not be confused with intangible losses, such as onus or stigma. Because informed potential buyers must be reasonably assured that they have i clear indication of their potential cash liability, it is essential that the total remediation costs accurately reflect the total reasonable repair costs, not just i cursory and optimistic estimate. Carrying costs must also be considered. During the remediation process, there may be disruptions to the properhs use, resulting in a loss of rental revenues or the utility of the property. In addition, operating expenses, which may be paid by the tenant under the terms of a net lease, would also be considered. The final element of the repair process is the project incentive. This is the entrepreneurial profit required for a buyer to purchase damaged property and make the repairs. Ongoingcosts. Some damaged properties incur ongoing costs even after repairs or remediation is completed. For example, a contaminated property may undergo continued monitoring. Formally damaged or contaminated properties may have difficulty in 382 The Appraisal Journal, October 1998 / l - obtaining financing. Lenders may not consider financing an unremediated site and may also be reluctant to finance a property that has been remediated, usually due to concerns that government agencies do not permanently certify a site as clean. The result could be an environmental review of the property, additional loan points, a higher interest rate, or a lower loan- to-value ratio. In the end, the property owner could pay additional financing costs. A damaged property may also incur re- strictions in use. For example, a formally contaminated site may be limited to industrial uses, even if it had previously been a commercial or residential use. This issue must be individually studied for any damaged property. Market resistance. At this point, the total costs and losses are subtotaled, and an ad- justment is made for the overall market re- sistance to the property, if any. This adjustment reflects the market's post -repair resistance to purchase the property when similar properties without a history of defectiveness are available. Valuation as is. To derive the value, as is, all the above issues must be addressed, quanti- fied, and deducted from the value as if no DC exists. The total losses attributable to a DC can range fiom being nominal. to exceeding he Class I value. Additionally, the costs of remediation may actually be minor compared with all the associated costs. DC CLASSIFICATIONS Class I —No Detrimental Conditions or Be- nign Condition. Class I is the most straight- forward because it involves an absence of DCs. Many DC assignments include the initial step of determining the market value as if no DC exists. The formulas relating to the concepts of Classes I through X are summarized in figure 3. This class also involves situations in which an act or event occurs, but the issue has no effect on value. Such cases can involve any one of the DC Classes II through IX This concept is straightforward, but it can be the grounds for litigation. For example, a plaintiff may contend -that some condition affected his or her property value, while the defendant claims that the event had no impact on value. One way to determine if an issue is, in fact, a DC is with a paired -sales analysis. In this process, market data that is clearly unaffected by the issue is collected and then compared with similar market data that is affected. If a legitimate DC exists, there will likely be a measurable and consistent difference between the two sets of market data; if not, there will likely be no significant difference between the two sets of data. When a published study about a neighborhood adjacent to a well - designed landfill in the Los Angeles area was compared with comparable neighborhoods some distance from the landfill, the results indicated no significant difference between the two neighborhoods in either current prices or appreciation rates. 3 During the remediation process, there may be disruptions to Class II— Non - market Premium. Class II in- the property's eludes assemblage, redevelopment zones, and other situations where the buyer paid a premium. This is a detrimental condition in terms of the higher price being paid by the buyer. Class III - Market Condition. Class III includes the normal cycle of the real estate market when values increase, decrease, or remain level over ; specific period of time. These patterns of value are simply the effects of the general economy coupled with real estate supply and demand. This is a significant classification because a certain condition might be suspected to have affected the value when, in fact, the DC was benign, and the market conditions caused the loss or gain in value. In addition, each of the other graphs depicting the common characteristics of the impact of various DCs on value is based on level market conditions. In reality, market conditions may have an added impact in and of themselves, thereby requiring adjustments for market conditions with any one of the various classifications of DCs. One way of measuring Class III conditions may be to study several comparable sales that resold at a later date. By comparing the initial and subsequent sales dates and values, a determination can be made about the market trends. Graphically, Class III simply reflects increased, decreased, or level market conditions over time. Class IV— Temporary Condition. Because this class describes DCs that are only 3. Donald H. Bleich.M. Chapman Findlay. BL and G. Michael Phillips, "An Evaluation of the Impact of a Well-Designed Landfill on Surrounding Property values.`The Appraisal Journal (April 1991):247. Bell: The / mpact o/Detlimenta/ Conditions on properly Values use, resulting in a loss of rental revenues or the utility, of the property. 10 383 , , / Figure 3 Detrimental Conditions Valuation Formulas DC Cost Approach Unlmpalred Value Assessment Stage Value Effects Cost & Responsibility Use Risk (Uncertainty Factor) Repair Stage Value Effects Cost & Responsibility Use Risk (Project Incentive) Ongoing stage Value Effects Cost & Responsibility Use Risk (Market Resistance) = Impaired Value DC Sales Comparison Approach Control Area Market Data (No DC, Point A) Test Area Market Data (With DC, Points 8, C, D, E of F) Diminution In Value DC Income Capitalteation Approach Value M = Net Operating Income p) Capitalization Rata (R) 1 R V Cost Effects Impacts Income (1) Use Effects Risk Effects Impacts Rate (R) temporary in nature, the loss in value is limited to the disruption caused by the temporary condition. The most common Class IV situation involves temporary construction easements in which a portion of a property is used by another party while adjoining construction is underway. Upon the completion of construction, the full use of the property is returned to its original state.. This temporary disruption can affect value. For example, if temporary construction disrupts the traffic patterns of a shopping center, the diminution in value may be extracted from the lost revenues, higher vacancy rates, and other related losses. The diminution in value would be in addition to the rental rate of the land being used during the temporary construction. Further, while the effects of bankruptcy are often a benign Class 1 DC, this situation may be a Class IV DC if there is substantial deferred maintenance or there are other temporary conditions that affect the value. Another type of Class IV DC involves absorption losses. For example, if a particular condition causes a major tenant to vacate the building abruptly, the property value would drop upon the tenant's departure and then increase over time as flue vacant space is absorbed. Absorption losses specifically include lost rents, leasing commissions, and tenant improvements. Class IV conditions may also be the result of t crime scene or other tragic event. Media coverage of the incident might negatively influence the market's perception. Interviews with brokers and agents indicate that when disclosed, a violent crime committed within a residence adversely affects value" As depicted by the graphs, these types of conditions may either have a brief effect only or have a long - lasting effect that could diminish with time. In some extreme situations, the memories caused by the tragedy may be sc unpleasant that the improvements are eventually demolished, however, the stigma tends to impact the site continuously. Measuring Class IV DCs often involve comparing the subject property to other properties in similar Class IV situations and subsequently sold to buyers informed of the tragic event. (A lower sales price is often required to entice buyers to purchase these properties.) The Class IV graphs may reflect only a short and temporary drop in value if the condition is minor and forgotten by market participants quickly. It may also reflect a sudden drop with t gradual increase in value as the market eventually becomes more accepting of the situation. Class V— Imposed Condition Adverse ex- ternal factors, eminent domain, undesirable acts, or forced events by another person or entity constitute Class V conditions. 4. Sheila A. Little, "EBttis of Violent Crimes on Residential Property Values," The Appraisal Journal(Ju1y 1988):342. 384 The Appraisal Journal, October 1998 /' i Specifically, the DCs can be imposed governmental conditions such as down- zoning, special bond assessments, or the designation of a property as a historic site. Examples of adverse external factors are dumps, landfills, factories that produce noise and bad odors, neighbors that allow their property to- deteriorate, and trans- mission lines. 5 They may also include the dis- covery that improvements were illegally con- structed, or the development of surrounding nuisances (or perceived nuisances) such as a sewer treatment plant, airport noise, or a prison. For example, published studies illustrate that there is a measurable impact on values due to international airport noise. a In addition, Class VI DCs apply to eminent domain situations, especially a partial taking, and to willful acts of the property owner, such as entering into a ground lease. In some situations, the effects of an imposed condition may be relatively easy to assess. In other cases, the imposed condition may be unclear and require special studies to predict how the market will change. Upon full investigation and assessment, the uncertainties are eliminated and the value of the property generally increases. Graphically, Class V often reflects a sudden drop in value upon the occurrence of the DC and a permanent loss in value as a result of the imposed condition. In a situation involving diminishing effects, such as a ground lease, the leasehold value gradually decreases over time. Class VI— Building Construction Condition The basic premise of both Class VI and VII DCs is that they are manmade, which means that they can often be repaired. Class VI DCs involve construction issues above grade. As such, they are relatively easy to assess, and often result in the restoration of the property's full value upon completion of the repairs. Typically, the problems are self - evident, and no special studies are required to determine the scope of the problem; however, all potential losses should be addressed. To quantify these types of DCs, the appraiser must study the cost of repairs, engineering, related services such as relocating the tenant, free rent for the tenant while repairs are being made, post - repair cleanup, and so forth. Some tenant relocation costs can partially, if not entirely, be mitigated simply by waiting until the property is vacant to make the repairs. Depicted on a graph, a Class VI situation may show a drop in value upon the discovery of the condition and a return to full value upon the repair of the condition. In unusual circumstances, there may be an ongoing condition that remains because it is not physically or economically possible to cure, thereby resulting in a permanent loss in the value of the improvements. For example, if a construction defect cannot be economically repaired, it may be a situation similar to inadequate insulation or asbestos abatement. The most noteworthy example of this situation is asbestos containing materials, which because they may be impractical to remove from a building, are an ongoing condition. Air monitoring may be required throughout die life of the improvements and special handing and disposal costs would be incurred if the building is eventually demolished.7 Under this condition, the graphic illustration reflects a permanent loss of value because the condition remains, or is perceived to remain, unchanged over time. Class VII —Soil or Geotechnical Construc- tion Condition These DCs, which involve construction issues below grade, are more difficult to assess and repair than Class VI conditions because of the challenges of assessing conditions below grade and the associated drilling, coring, and excavation. This category of DCs could include site grading; soil cut, fill, and compacting; slopes; drainage; tunneling; or retaining walls. Often, Class VII DCs can be assessed and repaired even if the foundation must be reinforced or the improvements underpinned. Like Class VI DCs, calculating the diminution in value would involve the review of the functional utility of the property, repairs that are necessary to prevent a loss to life or property, repair costs, engineering costs, disruption to the property, etc. These conditions are manmade and can usually be corrected although in some extreme conditions, they cannot be repaired and an ongoing condition may remain, affecting the value if the functional utility of the property is diminished or the market 5. Hsiang -te Kung and Charles F. Seagle, "Impact of Transmission Lines on Property Values: A Case Study," The Appraisal Journal (July 1992):413. 6. Marvin Frankel, "Airport Noise and Residential Property Values: Results of a Survey Study," The Appraisal Journal (January 1991): 96 -110. 7. Randall Be] 6"Flue Impact of Asbestos on Real Estate Values," Right of Way (October 1994): 10 -21. Bell: The Impact ofDetnmental Conditions oa Property Values Class V1 DCs are relatively easy to assess, and often result in the restoration of the property's full value upon completion of the repairs. 385 Id or the market perceives the ongoing issue to impact the value. Thus, the functional use of the property and the necessary repairs must be carefully reviewed. For example, if a site has fill soil that is up to 100 feet deep and differential settlement occurs, it may not be economically or physically possible to install piles and extra building foundations to the bedrock to support the improvements and fully mitigate the situation. As a result, it may be reasonable to expect that the property will be more prone to earthquake damage and continued settlement damage. In this type of condition, the value of the property may be permanently impaired and beyond the other Class VI and VII categories. On the other hand, some Class VI and VII DCs do not have any effect on the rental rates paid by tenants, or the propertys liability or utility and may, therefore, be questionable as Class VI or VII DCs at all, if the capdalization rate is also unaffected. For example, if improperly compacted shallow soils cause some minor settlement cracks on the floor of a warehouse building, and similar settlement cracks are commonly found in comparable properties with no known soils problems, the issue may not have any impact on Value. This is pa :icularly .:ae if the tenants' use of the property is unaffected by the condition and the marketability of the space is comparable to that of similar properties. The Class VII graph indicates a loss in value when the condition is discovered and a return to the non - impacted value upon the assessment and repair of the condition. As stated, in some unusual conditions, there may be a residual market resistance remaining even after repairs are made. CIass VIII — EnvironmentaI Condition Class VIII involves environmental contamination such as hydrocarbons, asbestos, radioactive waste, solvents, and metals. In these situations, remediation costs must be analyzed carefully. There may be a variance between estimated and actual remediation costs. However, in recent years, this concern has subsided somewhat due to the introduction of cost cap insurance and increased use of indemnifications by responsible parties. In ad- dition, if the property is contaminated, there may be continued and justified concerns about problems and issues resurfacing in the future. The Environmental Protection Agency maintains a list of problem sites, including those yet to be investigated. These lists are available on request, and if a problem arises, a Freedom of Information Act officer can be contacted.' No government agency will irrevocably certify a site as clean even if the site has undergone remediation and has site closure status.10 In fact, once contaminated, a site is always on a list and, as a result, nlay be reex- amined in the future. Further, it is difficult to prove that all contaminants were removed and no longer exist. In other words, it is logically and scientifically impossible to prove a negative hypothesis and regardless of how much time, energy, or resources are expended, absolute assurance is impossible." Figure 4 shows the general flow of activity related to a contaminated site and the possible circular nature of this process: I' In recent years, "letters of nonresponsibility' and other mitigation techniques have elevated many of these concerns. As shown on the chart, even with site closure, 'tie sale, :zfinancing or new we of a property may trigger a Phase I survey, which in turn could lead to a Phase II study. This, of course, could result in another review of the property by the government regulatory agency, with possible new political agendas or other factors altered since the previous site closure was issued. This means that, in rare instances, a formerly contaminated site could be subjected through the site assessment and remediation process again. Stigma- related losses can be nonexistent, nominal or, in extreme situations, virtually destroy a property's value 13 When environ mental features are viewed as repulsive, upsetting, of disruptive, they are stigmatized as undesirable.1' While engineering experts may possess the expertise tojudge that a specific 8. Albert R. Wilson, "Emerging Appmaches to Impaired Property Valuation," The Appraisal Journal (April 1996):156.9. Ralph K Olsen. "Hazardous waste Sims," The Appraisal Journal (April 1989):234, 10. Wilson, 158. 11. Albert R_ Wilson, 'The EnvironmentaI Opinion: Basis form Impaired Value Opinion," The Appraisal Journal (July 1994):441.12. Randall Bell, "Quantifying Diminution in Value Due to Detrimental Conditions: An Application to Environmentally Contaminated Properties," Environmental Claims Journal (October 1996): 135. 13. Peter J. Patchin, "Contaminated Properties and the Sales Comparison Approach," The Appraisal Journal (July 1994): 408.14, Bill Mundy, "Stigma and Value, "The Appraisal Journal (January 1992): 10. 386 The Appraisal Journal, October 1998 No government agency will irrevocably certify a site as clean even if the site has undergone remediation and has site closure status. X, situation is not a cause for concern, the non - engineer, who is also often the potential buyer and lender, may view a formerly damaged property with skepticism. In contamination cases, the reduction in value results from the increased risk associated with the contamclated property.15 Such ongoing concerns may create market resistance - sometimes referred to as stigma, onus, taint, or impairmentagainst properties that have a history of problems and have potentially incurred future liabilities or hidden cleanup costs, as .well as against the general hassle involved with owning the property. With source contamination properties, all elements of the DC Model should be considered. Class IX— Natural Condition Class IX in- volves tumble natural conditions that may be economically and physically repaired. These would include earthquakes, tornadoes, floods, landslides, endangered species, and other natural conditions. These DCs may involve a significant safety issue to the occupants of the property. If the DC can be fully assessed and repaired, the property value may return to the previous level before the condition existed. However, if there is still a question about the effectiveness of the repair of remediation, there may be a residual loss of value. Again, the impact on value involves the costs to clean up or fortify the site, incidental costs, and any residual conditions. All the elements of the DC Model should be considered. Class X— Incurable Condition This class represents the most serious cases, for the property may not be economically or physically remedied, resulting in considerable or total loss in property value. The property may be a liability if the condition creates a Figure4 Environmental Contamination: Flow of Events Site Contamination Known Remedlate Unknown 15. James A. Chalmers and Scott A. Roehr, "Issues in the valuation of Contaminated Property, "The Appraisal Journal(Janwry 1993): 33. Bell: The Impact o /Detrimental Conditions on Properly Values 387 / iF: Governmental aP> -.�.�., RegNatory x• Agency 15. James A. Chalmers and Scott A. Roehr, "Issues in the valuation of Contaminated Property, "The Appraisal Journal(Janwry 1993): 33. Bell: The Impact o /Detrimental Conditions on Properly Values 387 / serious hazard or the cost to repair exceeds the property value. Examples of Class X DCs would include extreme toxic or hazardous waste issues and major landslides- situations that pose a risk to life, health, and property, and cannot be economically and physically repaired. Even if the DC is curable, it would still be considered Class X because the problem cannot be cured by the property owner. For example, if a landslide originates in an adjoining canyon, the property owner cannot make repairs to the affected property because it belongs to another person or entity. Class X conditions bring about a total or an overwhelming loss in value upon the discovery of the condition and are so severe that property becomes worthless or even a liability if the costs to correct the DC exceeds the property's Class l value. Nlethodologiesto Quantify Diminution in Value General research sources Regardless of the method used in quantifying the impact of a DC, market data must be collected and analyzed. The challenge is that comparable information on DCs is often not provided in typical appraisal reports. For this reason, specialized research methods must be employed For example, if the DC is soils subsidence, a search may be conducted for all articles published on the topic. From this information, property owners and brokers may be contacted and interviewed. Also, government agencies, environmental engineers, and soils engineers often have logs of completed remediation projects from which specific projects may be identified and studied. Of course, brokers and sales agents often pro- vide excellent leads on properties affected by DCs. Comps Infosystems, Inc., based in San Diego, California, now publishes market data nationwide that is categorized by the Bell Chart. Paired -sales analysis. This process involves comparing sales affected by a DC with similar sales not affected by a DC. For example, a group of properties under the flight path of an airport can be compared with similar properties not located under the flight path. Resale analysis. To conduct this analysis, the appraiser would study sales comparables and the subsequent resales of the same properties, usually to determine the increase, decrease, or level conditions of market values, or to determine the impact of a DC by comparing values before and after the DC is discovered For example, if there is a discernible pattern to the selling prices of a specific property type, the effects and direction of the market can be determined. Cost -to- remediate analysis. Conducting this analysis means studying the costs to remediate , DC, including engineering, tenant relocation, lost rents, demolition, repair, cleanup, new tenant improvement buildout, leasing commissions, carrying costs, etc. Market data analysis. This analysis consists of studying the effects of DCs on other properties. Although die unique characteristics of every DC makes direct comparison difficult, market data can help support the appraiser's conclusions. A study designed to cross - reference remediation and stigma costs and losses illustrates the wide range of effects of DCs and provides market data on conditions of sales compambles (see table 1). Direct capitalization analysis. This process capitalizes permanent lost rents brought about by a DC. For example, if a property leases for a certain rate before the construction of an adjoining sewage treatment plant and then leases for less upon the completion of the plant, the difference in the net operating income may be capitalized to determine the permanent impact of the DC. If the income and risks (capitalization or discount rates) are affected, the situation must be addressed, using specific methods. to Discounted cash flow analysis. This analysis involves the calculation of the net present value of a stream of income that reflects an affected property's various costs and fluctuating revenues. If a property is undergoing asbestos abatement or soils remediation, the cash flow study would incorporate all the costs cited in the cost -to- repair approach. In addition, the cash flow would include air or ground water monitoring costs and, if some contaminants remain, any future demolition, disposal, or cleanup costs. Further, the discount rate may be increased to account for the perceived risks of property ownership, if supported by the market Modified cash flow studies are also required to measure the impact of a ground lease on leasehold estates. These leasehold 16. Richard A. Neustein, "Estimating Value Diminution by the Income Approach." The Appraisal journal (April 1992): 283 -287. 388 The Appraisal Journal, October 1998 ) 1 %�I advantage studies involve the calculation of market and contract ground rents and the computation of the net present value of any difference. ANALYZING DETRIMENTAL CONDITIONS The basic guidelines for analyzing DCs are summarized in the following: 1. Always use market data when quantifying the impact of DCs on value. Quantifying damages based solely on experience and professional judgment is reckless and probably unethical, particularly when market data exists for virtually all DCs. In the absence of direct market data, surveys may be used. Failing to research and apply relevant market data is the single most common flaw in DC analysis. Some in dividuals tend to hump all DCs together when discussing or writing about various conditions. Be careful to understand the limitations of such information, as there are distinct traits for each classification of DCs. 2. Be cautious in using market data from one DC classification when attempting to quantify the diminution in value of another DC category. This is the basic concept of comparing apples to apples. The common characteristics of each class of DCs are graphically distinct. Some DCs involve repairs and some do not; some involve permanent residual conditions while others diminish over time; some involve engineering studies and others do not, and so forth. 3. An appraiser should never go beyond his or her area of expertise. It is unethical for appraisers to go beyond their area of expertise, such as assessing soils con- ditions, making engineering calculations, identifying contaminants, estimating the extent of damages or contamination, or estimating the time to remediate." 4. Consider the reliability of remediation es- timates. It is not uncommon for rerried- iation projects to incur cost overruns. Many issues and questions should be con- sidered, such as: Does the contractor have a contract clause that allows for additional costs? Is the property indemnified against cost overruns? Are the estimates best case, most likely, or worst case scenarios? Do bonds, cost capitalization insurance, or in- demnifications exist that shift the liability overruns to the contractor, insurance company, or other party? Are the estimates itemized to reveal any additional incidental costs? Is the site assessment comprehensive enough to yield a realistic cost estimate ?18 5. Always review the remediation costs and related engineering costs for "rea- sonableness". While real estate appraisers and analysts are generally not also engineers, it is not only possible but appropriate that these costs be reviewed for basic reasonableness. " 6. Consider all the associated repair costs. The actual cost of repair can often be relatively minor compared with all the associated costs, such as engineering costs, tenant relocation, lost rents, demolition, repair, clean -up, tenant improvement buildout, leasing commissions, and absorption. All costs should be itemized, categorized, and analyzed. Never attempt to quantify damages based solely on the Bell Chart. The chart is in no way intended to quantify any loss in value. This can be accomplished only by a comprehensive study by a qualified expert. However, the Bell Chart does show the general issues, typical value patterns, and relative impact on values for various classifications. 8. Exceptions do exist, but usually only in more extreme circumstances. These charts reflect the common characteristics of DCs, but exceptions do exist. For example, a construction defect may be so major that it takes many years to repair. This situation may involve considerable disruptions to the tenants and even create media attention. In these types of conditions, the property value may be impacted by negative market reactions to the problems even after the repairs are fully completed. 17. Appraisal Institute, "Guide Notes to The Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice, Guide Note 8 - The Consideration of Hazardous Substances in the Appraisal Process" (Chicago, 11linois: Appraisal Institute, 199 1): D21. 18. Ibid., Guide Note 6- Reliance on Reports Prepared by Others, D14. 19. Ibid. Bell: The/ mpactoT Debimenta /ConditionsonPropertyVa/ues Appraisers should always review the remediation costs and related engineering costs for reasonableness. 389 ''3 0 a K W C O .q c E c O U N O N m B E 'e z- 15 0 x 999�<<� N L m O Cl C a G a t} o Qm 25 Z5 7525 i$ cY,2'S 25 v v � g m �$ s 2Y 2525 � 25 � 25 ii 2525 B � � � r ,QQQQml� E a m $ m ui g s o c v b g m 6 ��vnvvaarmP o m m € S � e 390 The Appraisal Joumal, October 1998 J J 9. Study the functional utility and mitigation issues carefully. The issues related to the DC's actual impact on the utility of a property must be addressed. For example, some DCs do not require immediate repair, and the costs may be significantly mitigated by merely waiting for a naturally occurring tenant vacancy before repairing the problem. Other DCs may affect the property, but the rents, occupancy, and resale value remain unaffected. In these cases, the DC may, in fact, be benign. How the DC has had a real or perceived impact on the day -to -day use of the property must be considered. For example, a few years ago asbestos abatement was considered a necessity by many. Today the perception that asbestos is a heath risk has diminished. 10. Recognize the various dimensions of using the Bell Chart. The applications for using the standard Bell Chart classifica tions are far - reaching. In fact, it is possible that one property issue will involve the use of three or more classifications. A property owner may contend that an adjoining development caused his or her property value to decline when market conditions are actually to blame. The property owner might inappropriately use the Class V criteria and presume an impact on value, but the proper analysis would involve a Class I analysis to demonstrate that the condition is benign. Class III would be used to illustrate the real cause of the declining value. By properly classifying DCs, selecting the appropriate method, and following these basic rules, each individual situation may be more effectively and accurately studied. Relevant market data can then be researched and the proper methods applied. CONCLUSION Quantifying the value diminution of property affected by a detrimental condition can be a challenging appraisal assignment. The appraiser must recognize six basic issues: (1) the value as if the property is unaffected by the DC; (2) the value upon the DC's occurrence or its discovery; (3) the necessity for a proper and thorough assessment of the situation; (4) the determination of value upon completion of repairs -i.e, the condition is otherwise resolved; (5) the necessity for the value conclusion to take into account any ongoing costs; and (6) the need to examine the impact of any market resistance. In other words, the appraiser must examine the full spectrum of events -before remediation, the remediation process itself, post - remediation, and any post - repair market resistance caused by the situation. The result should be ; meaningful and accurate assessment of low a det- rimental condition has affected the value. Belt: Tine Impact of Detrimental Conditions on PmpeAy Values 391 115 RECEIVED BY Newport Beach City Council PLANNING DEPARTNIENT Newport Beach Planning Commission CITY OF NF: k�p ^t T i'- =A "R � 3300 Newport Boulevard SEF 17 2002 Newport Beach, CA 92663 AM PM September 13, 2002 71819110111112111213141516 Dear Council Members and Commissioners, I first moved to Newport Beach, 38 years ago, at the age of 7. At the time it was just hills between CdM and the airstrip we now know as John Wayne Airport, No Fashion Island, Newport Center, Big Canyon, Harbor View Homes, Spyglass Hill, Belcourt, etc. There was the little neighborhood of Harbor View, seen for miles at Christmas time with its blue and green Christmas lights and a huge white star on every house. We moved in to Eastbluff when it was new and ran down the hill and across the big field that is now the Bluffs to explore the old salt mine in the back bay. Slowly, the open land disappeared. One field after another was developed, and the city has grown more and more beautiful over the years. Now my church would like to build a temple on a small parcel at the edge of town. The main objectors to the project are new residents who somehow think they have a right to "conserve" the city now that they are comfortably sitting on a bluff that 5 years ago offered grazing cattle and a panoramic view all across the county towards Brea. I don't understand the logic. Only a handful of people in Bonita Canyon will even be able to glimpse the temple from their property. The temple will be beautiful. Every temple project meets with strong opposition, with most of the roots found in doctrinal opposition. For example, a few years ago, when our chapel opened, our youth distributed flyers inviting the public to an open house. One Seawind resident, Randy Hunter, sent a letter to our stake president threatening to have any Mormon arrested who stepped foot on his property again, and furthermore, that we "don't have the right to call ourselves a church." I notice he is now one of the main spokespeople for the opposition. Please don't let a very few squeaky wheels convince you to turn down something that will add so much peace and beauty to the city. This topic has gotten plenty of press, and a very few residents of the city have bothered to speak out in opposition. I back up to Bonita Canyon road —and where I once saw cows and city lights, I now see 500 yards plus of Irvine -like adobe houses, with associated street lighting, house lighting and traffic. I would like to see a temple in my view too, please. Lisa Jarvie 1918 Port Cardiff Place Campbell, James From: Roger Gilbert (jocegil @adelphia.net] Sent: Saturday, September 21, 2002 11:45 AM To: Jim (James) Campbell Subject: My Thoughts re "Spire "--- - - - - -- Hi There Dear Mr -. Campbell -- after speaking to a very nice, polite person in the Planning Department, I decided to follow her recommendation and send a note re the Mormon Spire -- I believe that if that is one of the things that is important to the Mormon "Way of Worship" than they should be allowed to have their Spire be the number of feet that they so desire ......... I simply cannot believe that it will interfere with the view (visual or opinionated) of some homeowners -- do they walk around with their heads pointed upward all the time? If they are driving they should be looking out the front window of their car -- and if they are walking they should be looking at curbs, bumps in the sidewalk, or else smiling and talking to their companion..... I also think that such negativism is intolerant and what does that teach one's children - - - - -- normally I do not write "letters" or opinions even though I have strong thoughts on most everything -- but this seemed like such a nit picky thing on the part of some people that I am putting "my two cents in "......I had called Mr. Bromberg, our city council rep, and he said that if the Mormons got their way than all the other churches might raise their steeples too (and actually no one should mind if they did) -- I presume he was talking just a rhetorical scenario...... well, this note is much to long but I just get a bit weary of reading how petty some of the issues are that some segments of our city complain about when there are more important things going on in this world of ours....... Sincerely, Jocelyn Gilbert........ J Page 1 of 1 Campbell, James From: phil and barbara kilmer[bari]i@pacbell.net) Sent: Tuesday, September 24, 2002 5:03 PM To: jcampbell @ciry.newport- beach.ca.us Subject: Moorman Temple Please take a moment to read my note, it is of great concern to me. Thank You. I reside in "Harbor View homes ", in the immediate proximity of the purpose Mormon temple. The crane was viewed and did little to show the true impact of temple on the surrounding communities. The only way to understand the impact on our community is to see a similar Mormon Temple. Hopefully you have viewed one of these temples, if not you should observe the Mormon temple on the way to San Diego, on the left next to the freeway, you cannot miss it. After speaking with James Campbell, the Senior Planner assigned to this project, I felt very little resistance to this project from the planning Department, thus my note to you. CONCERNS I understand that religious organizations have some leeway in the variance process, but this project has gone considerable past the normal exception that may be considered. This proposed Temple is in the middle of a residential district. The structure exceeds maximum height and illumination requirements. The fact they may consider turning off or lowering the lights on the lower portion of the building, except their angle on top of the steeple, which will remain illuminated all night does not warrant an exception. If the city waives the height and lighting requirements, what about the other churches in the immediate area? If they request to add excessive steeples will the city allow them the exception? Maybe we could have a steeple build contest. Joking. Frankly the temples excessive height and illumination would be an unwanted intrusion in the lives of the residence of our community. Remember the FLETCHER JONES affair? Lastly, I don't see any real benefit to the City, unless it receives some kind of tax revenue from the project, or the community. One of the major religious believes is to love thy neighbor and do unto others as you would have them do to you. With that in mind, how can a particular religious group attempt to force an unwanted structure on any community? The word "force" may seem harsh, but in reality I understand that the Mormon Church has and is prepared to do what ever it takes to accomplish their goal, including litigation. Guess who pays the legal fees? The City and ultimately the taxpayers. I know you are aware of the above, but please remember the people of the communities involved when decision must be made on this matter. Thank You Phillip S. Kilmer 09/27/2002 i THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Exhibit # 5 Additional comments on the EIR and responses to comments (to be submitted at the meeting). Sa0 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Exhibit # 6 Draft resolution for project approval — 100 -foot Temple THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK �a 3 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH CERTIFYING AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 2002 -001 AND APPROVING USE PERMIT NO. 2002 -036 AND SITEPLAN REVIEW NO. 2002 -005 FOR THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER DAY SAINTS, NEWPORT BEACH TEMPLE TO BE LOCATED AT 2300 BONITA CANYON DRIVE (PA2001 -208). The Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach does hereby find, resolve and order as follows: Section 1. An application was filed by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. with respect to property located at 2300 Bonita Canyon Drive, and legally described as Parcel 1 per Exhibit B attached to Lot Line Adjustment No. 14065 -LL and Grant Deed Recorded per Document No. 93- 0425720, for a Use Permit and Site Plan Review to allow the construction and operation of a Temple on an 8.65 acre site within the Bonita Canyon Planned Community. The request also includes consideration of a 124 -foot high steeple that would exceed the maximum allowable height of 50 feet. Section 2. A public hearing was held on September 5, 2002 and October 3, 2002, at 6:30 P.M. in the City Hall Council Chambers, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California. A notice of time, place and purpose of the meetings was given. Evidence, information, and opinion, both written and oral, and drawings, photographs, plans, simulations materials and dia_erams were presented to and considered b_v the Plannin_e Commission at the meetings. Section 3. The Planning Commission finds as follows: 1. The project site is designated Governmental, Educational and Institutional Facilities by the Land Use Element of the General Plan. This land use designation is applied to areas developed with uses that form the physical and social infrastructure of the community and are designated for educational facilities, municipal uses, hospitals, libraries and churches, among other civic - related uses. The proposed project, a place of religious worship or church, is listed as a permitted institutional use within this land use category. 2. The proposed project is consistent with Land Use Element Policy A as the site is in close proximity to residents of the community, thereby providing convenient access to the facility. Additionally, the site is located in close proximity to major highways (MacArthur Blvd./Bonita Canyon Dr. /SR -73) to allow safe and convenient access for visitors to the proposed project while not significantly impacting levels of traffic service as concluded by the EIR. 3. The proposed project is consistent with Land Use Element Policy D. The project site does not possess any natural resources, nor does it constitute a natural landform warranting preservation, due to the past grading of the site. The site is not within a designated scenic vista, and the project does not significantly block public views due to the slender design of the steeple, although the project will be highly visible from public areas. �� 1 Resolution No. Page 2of8 4. The proposed use is within Sub Area No. 7 of the Bonita Canyon Planned Community, which is designated for Public /Semipublic uses. The purpose of the designation is contained within the preface of the Planned Community Development Plan and states that "Sub -area 7 is designated Public /Semipublic to reflect an existing church on the property." The existing church on the property is the LDS Stake Center. An LDS Temple is consistent with the designation of the site. 5. Use Permit No. 2002 -36 for the proposed LDS Temple and the conditions under which it will be operated or maintained will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, or welfare of persons residing or working in or adjacent to the neighborhood of such use; and will not be detrimental to the properties or improvements in the vicinity or to the general welfare of the city for the following reasons: a) The project site and the operation of the proposed Temple are consistent with the General Plan and are consistent with the purpose of the Public /Semipublic designation of the property by the Bonita Canyon Planned Community Development Plan. b) The operation and maintenance of the proposed Temple is-not anticipated to generate adverse impacts to the area as concluded by the EiR. The site has access from a signalized intersection on a major highway, and adequate off - street parking will be provided given the proposed schedule and occupancy of the Temple, taking into account shared use of the parking lot with the adjacent Stake Center. The traffic study prepared for the project concludes that no significant. traffic impacts will result with the implementation of the project. . c) The proposed Temple is located in an area with similar uses but will not contribute to traffic on Sundays when other churches in the area are more active. d) The closest residential use is located within Bonita Canyon Village, which is approximately 620 feet away at its closest point from the proposed Temple. The site is 8.65 acres and the steeple atop the proposed Temple is roughly located in the Center of the project site. The setbacks.of 83 feet to the south, 291 feet to the east, 379 feet to the west, and 189 feet to the north provide adequate separation of the Temple from its surroundings and assist in making the project more compatible with the community. e) Exterior illumination of the proposed Temple is designed to focus light on the Temple and steeple while minimizing light and glare in the surrounding area. The hours of illumination are also limited and not 24 hours a day. f) The requested height of 123 feet, 9 inches is not compatible with the surrounding area as there are no other comparable structures of this height within the City. The reduction of the overall height of the Temple from 123 feet, 9 inches to 100 feet above the proposed finished floor of 193.5 feet above mean sea level will make the proposed structure more compatible with area. A 100 feet overall height limitation will reduce the impact of the proposed Temple upon public and private views in the surrounding area. A 100 -foot high Temple meets the applicant's project objective "To provide a highly visible site and a distinctive Temple with a steeple sufficiently high and illuminated to be seen from a �a5 Resolution No. Page 3 of 8 substantial distance" based upon the visibility of a crane that was installed at the site to simulate the height of the steeple in January of 2002. A 100 -foot high Temple, including the steeple and angel figure will be approximately 17.5 feet taller than the adjacent Stake Center and does not eliminate visibility of the Temple from the same distances and locations as the higher requested height. Due to this height differential with the Stake Center, as well as the overall site design, building architecture and lighting, the proposed Temple will be more prominent than the adjacent Stake Center. The reduced height of the Temple in no way limits religious activities conducted within the Temple. g) A finding that the proposed use is not detrimental to the community is further supported by the facts in support of approval of Site Plan Review No. 2002 -005. Said facts in support of SR2002 -005 as outlined in paragraph 6 below are hereby incorporated by reference. 6. The proposed project is consistent with the intent and purpose of Chapter 20.92 (Site Plan Review) and warrants approval based upon the following facts related to the standards for approval of a Site Plan Review application: a) The site will be graded and developed with due regard for the aesthetic qualities of the site even though additional filling of the site will be necessary to achieve the grades proposed. The site slopes moderately from abutting streets to the north and east toward Bonita Canyon Village and the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor, and the elevation changes from approximately 195 feet to approximately 175 feet above mean sea level. The pad elevation for the proposed Temple is 193 feet with the finished floor being 193.5 feet. This finished floor elevation is 3.5 feet above the finished floor of the abutting Stake Center and roughly 1 foot lower than Bonita Canyon Drive approximately 340 feet from its intersection with Prairie Road. The intersection is approximately 10 feet above the proposed finished floor. The site also has no unique natural landforms due to the past grading of the site and no trees or landscaping. b) The proposed project is compatible with the character of the neighborhood and surrounding sites and is not detrimental to the orderly and harmonious development of the surroundings and of the City. The area is characterized by a mixture of residential uses, churches, a park, a preschool and a shopping center. The area is not a "densely" urbanized area when compared to other areas of the city and is "suburban" in character with many open space areas. These open areas include the adjacent open canyon near SR- 73, Bonita Canyon Sports Park and numerous landscaped areas within medians, parkways and other setback areas. The site is bordered on two sides by open space and Bonita Canyon Drive providing additional separation from nearby land uses. Nearby residential structures are approximately 28 -30 feet in height and are not located in close proximity to the proposed Temple as they are located over 620 feet away. The nearby churches are large buildings comparable in size to the project although the proposed steeple is higher than other buildings and steeples in the area. The Temple will have significant setbacks from property lines, low lot coverage and 5.5 acres of landscaping that when combined assist in making the development more compatible with its surroundings. The granite exterior finish with its "flamed" property is not reflective. The it J Resolution No. Page 4 of 8 color of granite selected by the Church is warm and earth toned, which is compatible with the colors of the surrounding community. c) The site is not within a designated scenic vista and the project does not significantly block public views due to the slender design of the steeple. It is acknowledged that the project will-be highly visible from public areas. The view simulations that were prepared for the EIR show that the Temple steeple will make up a small percentage of the viewable area and not block public views. d) The site is not within a designated Environmentally Sensitive Area (ESA) and the construction and operation of the proposed Temple will not impact any ESA. The site is devoid of sensitive resources or submerged lands. No known archaeological and historical resources are known to exist and are unlikely to exist due to the highly disturbed nature of the site from its previous grading. The site plan includes approximately 5.5 acres of landscaped gardens and walkways that will be planted with some mature plantings. This high percentage of landscaping and the relatively small footprint of the proposed Temple (approximately 0.4 acres) make the site plan more compatible with the open space areas that abut the site. e) Consideration was also made for shared parking usage with the adjacent Stake Center. The circulation and parking layout meets or exceeds City design standards. The site plan includes several walkways within and around the gardens and a separate pedestrian crossing is provided between the proposed Temple and the Stake Center, Both the Planning and Public Works Departments have reviewed the proposed site plan for proper pedestrian and vehicle function and have found that the site plan does not present any negative circulation issues with either Temple operation or shared parking usage with the adjacent Stake Center. f) Electrical service will be provided underground and mechanical equipment will be within the building or concealed behind roof parapets and will not be visible from the ground. Although trash storage areas are not specifically delineated on the plans, trash storage will be accommodated within enclosures or within the proposed building. 7. The contents of the environmental document, including comments on the document and responses to the comments, have been considered in all the decisions on this project. On the basis of the entire environmental review record, the proposed project will have a less than significant impact upon the environment and there are no known substantial adverse affects on the environment that would be caused. Additionally, there are no long -term environmental goals that would be compromised by the project or cumulative impacts that are anticipated in connection with the project. No mitigation measures are identified aside from implementation of the project as described in the project description and application of standard conditions of approval. Conditions of approval are applied that require implementation of the project as described and that apply standard conditions of approval. pl Resolution No. Page 5 of 8 Section 4. Based on the aforementioned findings, the Planning Commission hereby certifies Environmental Impact Report (SCH #2002031048) and approves Use Permit No. 2001- 036 and Site Plan Review No. 2002 -005, subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit "A" attached. Section 5. This action shall become final and effective fourteen (14) days after the adoption of this Resolution unless within such time an appeal is filed with the City Clerk or this action is called for review by the City Council in accordance with the provisions of Title 20, Planning and Zoning, of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 3`d DAY OF OCTOBER, 2002. 99 9W Steven Kiser, Chairman Shant Agajanian, Secretary AYES: NOES: ABSENT: u� Resolution No. Exhibit "A" Conditions of Approval Yage 6 of x The development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved plans except as modified below. The plans are identified by date as follows: Sheet No. Date Site plan 04 -5 -02 Conceptual grading plan 03 -7 -02 Landscape plan 05 -1 -02 Elevation A2.1 03 -3 -02 Elevation A2.2 03 -3 -02 Elevation A2.3 03 -3 -02 Elevation A2.4 03 -3 -02 2. The project is subject to all applicable City ordinances, policies, and standards, unless specifically waived or modified by the conditions of approval., 3. Project approvals shall expire unless exercised within 24 months from the effective date of approval as specified in Section 20.91.050A of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. Reasonable extensions may be granted by the Planning Director in accordance with applicable regulations. 4. The proposed project shall conform to the requirements of the Uniform Building Code, any local amendments to the UBC, and State Disabled Access requirements, unless otherwise approved by the Building Department. 5. The applicant shall submit.a landscape and irrigation plan prepared by a licensed landscape architect or licensed architect for on -site and adjacent off -site planting areas. These plans shall incorporate drought tolerant plantings and water efficient irrigation practices, and the plans shall be approved by the Planning Director prior to the issuance of a building permit. All planting areas shall be provided with a permanent underground automatic sprinkler irrigation system of a design suitable for the type and arrangement of the plant materials selected. Planting areas adjacent to vehicular activity shall be protected by a continuous concrete curb or similar permanent barrier. Landscaping shall be located so as not to impede vehicular sight distance to the satisfaction of the Traffic Engineer. 6. All landscape materials and landscaped areas shall be maintained in accordance with the approved landscape plan. All landscaped areas shall be maintained in a healthy and growing condition and shall receive regular pruning, fertilizing, mowing and trimming. All landscaped areas shall be kept free of weeds and debris. All irrigation systems shall be kept operable, including adjustments, replacements, repairs, and cleaning as part of regular maintenance. 7. All improvements within the public right of way shall be constructed as required by Ordinance and the Public Works Department. All work within the public right of way must be completed under an encroachment permit issued by the Public Works Department. � ail J Resolution No. Page 7 of 8 8. Disruption caused by construction work along roadways and by movement of construction vehicles shall be minimized by proper use of traffic control equipment and flagmen. Traffic control and transportation of equipment and materials shall be conducted in accordance with state and local requirements. 9. A hydrology and hydraulic study shall be prepared by the applicant and approved by the Public Works Department, along with a master plan of water, sewer and storm drain facilities for the on -site improvements and public improvements prior to the issuance of a building permit. Any modifications or extensions to the existing storm drain, water and sewer systems shown to be required by the study shall be the responsibility of the developer. 10. Fair Share traffic mitigation fees shall be paid to the City prior to the issuance of any building or grading permit for construction of the project. 11. All mechanical equipment shall be screened from view of adjacent properties and adjacent public streets, and shall be sound attenuated in accordance with Chapter 10.26 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, Community Noise Control. 12. Overhead utilities serving the site shall be placed underground to the nearest appropriate pole unless it is determined by the City Engineer that such undergrounding is physically infeasible. 13. The on -site parking, vehicular circulation and pedestrian circulation systems shall be subject to further review by the Traffic Engineer. A minimum of 146 parking spaces shall be provided in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance. 14. In accordance with the provisions of Chapter 13 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code or other applicable section or chapter, street trees shall be required and shall be subject to the review and approval of the General Services and Public Works Departments. 15. The applicant shall be responsible for the payment of all applicable City plan check and inspection fees. 16. The overall height of the Temple including the steeple and angel, shall be no more than 100 feet from the proposed finished floor elevation of 193.5 feet above mean sea level. 17. Exterior on -site lighting shall be shielded and confined within site boundaries. No direct rays or glare are permitted to shine onto public streets or adjacent sites or create a public nuisance. "Walpak" type fixtures are not permitted. All exterior lighting fixtures shall have zero cut -off fixtures and light standards for the parking lot shall not exceed 20 feet in height. Light standards for exterior walkways shall not exceed 10 feet in height. Other exterior light sources shall be no higher than 4 feet. 18. The applicant shall prepare a photometric study in conjunction with a final lighting plan for approval by the Planning Director prior to the issuance of a building permit. The site shall not be excessively illuminated based on the luminance recommendations of the Illuminating Engineering Society of North America, or, based on the opinion of the Planning Director, the illumination creates an unacceptable negative impact on surrounding land uses or 136 Resolution No. Page 8 of 8 environmental resources. The Planning Director may order the dimming of light sources or other remediation upon finding that the site is excessively illuminated. 19. Architectural lighting of the Temple, including the steeple and angel figure, shall be aimed to illuminate the structure and shall avoid missing the structure to the maximum extent feasible. Light sources aimed to illuminate the steeple and angel shall be located such that the angle of light shall be no less than 70 degrees from the horizontal ground surface. Changes to the lighting system that would increase lighting levels or increase the lighting sources shall require an amendment to this Use Permit. 20. Lighting of the Temple steeple shall be limited to the hours of 5:OOAM to sunrise and sunset to 11:OOPM. Any future increase in these hours of illumination or increases in lighting levels or additional light sources shall require an amendment to this Use Permit. 21. If a holiday lighting display within the project site is created that generates increased visitors to the site that creates a need for traffic control, the applicant shall be responsible for the costs associated with the City providing any increased traffic control measures deemed necessary to properly manage the temporary increase in traffic. 131 �J Exhibit # 7 Draft resolution for project approval — 123 foot, 9 inch high Temple I,� THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK X33 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH CERTIFYING AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 2002 -001 AND APPROVING USE PERMIT NO. 2002 -036 AND SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. 2002 -005 FOR THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER DAY SAINTS, NEWPORT BEACH TEMPLE TO BE LOCATED AT 2300 BONITA CANYON DRIVE (PA2001 -208). The Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach does hereby find, resolve and order as follows: Section 1. An application was filed by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. with respect to property located at 2300 Bonita Canyon Drive, and legally described as Parcel 1 per Exhibit B attached to Lot Line Adjustment No. 14065 -LL and Grant Deed Recorded per Document No. 93- 0425720, for a Use Permit and Site Plan Review to allow the construction and operation of a Temple on an 8.65 acre site within the Bonita Canyon Planned Community. The request also includes consideration of a 124 -foot high steeple that would exceed the maximum allowable height of 50 feet. Section 2. A public hearing was held on September 5, 2002 and October 3, 2002, at 6:30 P.M. in the City Hall Council Chambers, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California. A notice of time, place and purpose of the meetings was given. Evidence, information, and opinion, both written and oral, and drawings, photographs, plans, simulations materials and diagrams were presented to and considered by the Planning Commission at the meetings. Section 3. The Planning Commission finds as follows: The project site is designated Governmental, Educational and Institutional Facilities by the Land Use Element of the General Plan. This land use designation is applied to areas developed with uses that form the physical and social infrastructure of the community and are designated for educational facilities, municipal uses, hospitals, libraries and churches, among other civic - related uses. The proposed project, a place of religious worship or church, is listed as a permitted institutional use within this land use category. 2. The proposed project is consistent with Land Use Element Policy A as the site is in close proximity to residents of the community, thereby providing convenient access to the facility. Additionally, the site is located in close proximity to major highways (MacArthur Blvd./Bonita Canyon Dr. /SR -73) to allow safe and convenient access for visitors to the proposed project while not significantly impacting levels of traffic service as concluded by the EIR. 3. The proposed project is consistent with Land Use Element Policy D. The project site does not possess any natural resources, nor does it constitute a natural landform warranting preservation, due to the past grading of the site. The site is not within a designated scenic vista, and the project does not significantly block public views due to the slender design of the steeple, although the project will be highly visible from public areas. 13 Resolution No. Page 2 of 8 4. The proposed use is within Sub Area No. 7 of the Bonita Canyon Planned Community, which is designated for Public /Semipublic uses. The purpose of the designation is contained within the preface of the Planned Community Development Plan and states that "Sub -area 7 is designated Public /Semipublic to reflect an existing church on the property." The existing church on the property is the LDS Stake Center. An LDS Temple is consistent with the designation of the site. 5. Use Permit No. 2002 -36 for the.proposed LDS Temple and the conditions under which it will be operated or maintained will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, or welfare of persons residing or working in or adjacent to the neighborhood of such use; and will not be detrimental to the properties or improvements in the vicinity or to the general welfare of the city for the following reasons: a) The project site and the operation of the proposed Temple are consistent with the General Plan and are consistent with the purpose of the Public /Semipublic designation of the property by the Bonita Canyon Planned Community Development Plan. b) The operation and maintenance of the proposed Temple is not anticipated to generate adverse impacts to the area as concluded by the E1R.. The site has access from a signalized intersection on a major highway, and adequate off - street parking will be provided given the proposed schedule and occupancy of the Temple, taking into account shared use of the parking lot with the adjacent Stake Center. The traffic study prepared for the project concludes that no significant traffic impacts will result with the implementation of the project. c) The proposed Temple is located in an area with similar uses but will not contribute to traffic on Sundays when other churches in the area are more active. d) The closest residential use is located within Bonita Canyon Village, which is approximately 620 feet away at its closest point from the proposed Temple. The site is 8.65 acres and the steeple atop the proposed Temple is roughly located in the Center of the project site. The setbacks of 83 feet to the south, 291 feet to the east, 379 feet to the west, and 189 feet to the north provide adequate separation of the Temple from its surroundings and assist in making the project more compatible with the community. e) Exterior illumination of the proposed Temple is designed to focus light on the Temple and steeple while minimizing light and glare in the surrounding area. The hours of illumination are also limited and not 24 hours a day. f) The requested height of 123 feet, 9 inches is not detrimental to the surrounding area based the central location of the steeple within the 8.65 acres site, its slender design, large setbacks to property lines, large distance to surrounding properties, and the exterior color and finish of the granite selected. The requested height is necessary to achieve the project objective, which is "to provide a highly visible site and a distinctive Temple with a steeple sufficiently high and illuminated to be seen from a substantial distance" and does not block public or private views as the steeple occupies a small percentage of viewable 135 Resolution No. Page 3 of 8 area. Additionally, the requested height is necessary to ensure that the Temple will be more prominent than the adjacent Stake Center. g) A finding that the proposed use is not detrimental to the community is further supported by the facts in support of approval of Site Plan Review No. 2002 -005. Said facts in support of SR2002 -005 as outlined in paragraph 6 below are hereby incorporated by reference. 6. The proposed project is consistent with the intent and purpose of Chapter 20.92 (Site Plan Review) and warrants approval based upon the following facts related to the standards for approval of a Site Plan Review application: a) The site will be graded and developed with due regard for the aesthetic qualities of the site even though additional filling of the site will be necessary to achieve the grades proposed. The site slopes moderately from abutting streets to the north and east toward Bonita Canyon Village and the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor, and the elevation changes from approximately 195 feet to approximately 175 feet above mean sea level. The pad elevation for the proposed Temple is 193 feet with the finished floor being 193.5 feet. This finished floor elevation is 3.5 feet above the finished floor of the abutting Stake Center and roughly 1 foot lower than Bonita Canyon Drive approximately 340 feet from its intersection with Prairie Road. The intersection is approximately 10 feet above the proposed finished floor. The site also has no unique natural landforms due to the past grading of the site and no trees or landscaping. b) The proposed project is compatible with the character of the neighborhood and surrounding sites and is not detrimental to the orderly and harmonious development of the surroundings and of the City. The area is characterized by a mixture of residential uses, churches, a park, a preschool and a shopping center. The area is not a "densely" urbanized area when compared to other areas of the city and is "suburban" in character with many open space areas. These open areas include the adjacent open canyon near SR- 73, Bonita Canyon Sports Park and numerous landscaped areas within medians, parkways and other setback areas. The site is bordered on two sides by open space and Bonita Canyon Drive providing additional separation from nearby land uses. Nearby residential structures are approximately 28 -30 feet in height and are not located in close proximity to the proposed Temple as they are located over 620 feet away. The nearby churches are large buildings comparable in size to the project although the proposed steeple is higher than other buildings and steeples in the area. The Temple will have significant setbacks from property lines, low lot coverage and 5.5 acres of landscaping that when combined assist in making the development more compatible with its surroundings. The granite exterior finish with its "flamed" property is not reflective. The color of granite selected by the Church is warm and earth toned, which is compatible with the colors of the surrounding community. c) The site is not within a designated scenic vista and the project does not significantly block public views due to the slender design of the steeple. It is acknowledged that the project will be highly visible from public areas. The view simulations that were prepared .JO % J Resolution No. Page 4 of 8 for the EIR show that the Temple steeple will make up a small percentage of the viewable area and not block public views. d) The site is not within a designated Environmentally Sensitive Area (ESA) and the construction and operation of the proposed Temple will not impact any ESA. The site is devoid of sensitive resources or submerged lands. No known archaeological and historical resources are known to exist and are unlikely to exist due to the highly disturbed nature of the site from its previous grading. The site plan includes approximately 5.5 acres of landscaped gardens and walkways that will be planted with some mature plantings. This high percentage of landscaping and the relatively small footprint of the proposed Temple (approximately 0.4 acres) make the site plan more compatible with the open space areas that abut the site. e) Consideration was also made for shared parking usage with the adjacent Stake Center. The circulation and parking layout meets or exceeds City design standards. The site plan includes several walkways within and around the gardens and a separate pedestrian crossing is provided between the proposed Temple and the Stake Center. Both the Planning and Public Works Departments have reviewed the proposed site plan for proper pedestrian and vehicle function and have found that the site plan does not present any negative circulation issues with either Temple operation or shared parking usage with the adjacent Stake Center. f) Electrical service will be provided underground and mechanical equipment will be within the building or concealed behind roof parapets and will not be visible from the ground. Although trash storage areas are not specifically delineated on the plans, trash storage will be accommodated within enclosures or within the proposed building. 7. The contents of the environmental document, including comments on the document and responses to the comments, have been considered in all the decisions on this project. On the basis of the entire environmental review record, the proposed project will have a less than significant impact upon the environment and there are no known substantial adverse affects on the environment that would be caused. Additionally, there are no long -term environmental goals that would be compromised by the project or cumulative impacts that are anticipated in connection with the project. No mitigation measures are identified aside from implementation of the project as described in the project description and application of standard conditions of approval. Conditions of approval are applied that require implementation of the project as described and that apply standard conditions of approval. Section 4. Based on the aforementioned findings, the Planning Commission hereby certifies Environmental Impact Report (SCH #2002031048) and approves Use Permit No. 2001- 036 and Site Plan Review No. 2002 -005, subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit "A' attached. Section 5. This action shall become final and effective fourteen (14) days after the adoption of this Resolution unless within such time an appeal is filed with the City Clerk or this action is called for review by the City Council in accordance with the provisions of Title 20, Planning and Zoning, of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 3') Resolution No. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS yd DAY OF OCTOBER, 2002. I-M I-M Steven Kiser, Chairman Shant Agajanian, Secretary AYES: f`LION&I ABSENT: Page 5 of 8 13� Resolution No. Exhibit "A" Conditions of Approval Page 6 of 8 The development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved plans except as modified below. The plans are identified by date as follows: Sheet No. Date Site plan 04 -5 -02 Conceptual grading plan 03 -7 -02 Landscape plan 05 -1 -02 Elevation A2.1 03 -3 -02 Elevation A2.2 03 -3 -02 Elevation A2.3 03 -3 -02 Elevation A2.4 03 -3 -02 2. The project is subject to all applicable City ordinances, policies, and standards, unless specifically waived or modified by the conditions of approval;;'. 3. Project approvals shall expire unless exercised within 24 months from the effective date of approval as specified in Section 20.91.050A. of .the Newport Beach Municipal Code. Reasonable extensions may be granted by the Planning Director in accordance with applicable regulations. 4. The proposed project shall conform to the requirements of the Uniform Building Code, any local amendments to the UBC, and State Disabled Access requirements, unless otherwise approved by the Building Department., 5. The applicant shall submit a landscape and irrigation plan prepared by a licensed landscape architect or licensed architect for on -site and adjacent off -site planting areas. These plans shall incorporate drought tolerant plantings and water efficient irrigation practices, and the plans shall be approved by the Planning Director prior to the issuance of a building permit. All planting _,areas shall be provided with a permanent underground automatic sprinkler irrigation system of a design suitable for the type and arrangement of the plant materials selected. Planting areas adjacent to vehicular activity shall be protected by a continuous concrete curb or similar permanent barrier. Landscaping shall be located so as not to impede vehicular sight distance to the satisfaction of the Traffic Engineer. 6. All landscape materials and landscaped areas shall be maintained in accordance with the approved landscape plan. All landscaped areas shall be maintained in a healthy and growing condition and shall receive regular pruning, fertilizing, mowing and trimming. All landscaped areas shall be kept free of weeds and debris. All irrigation systems shall be kept operable, including adjustments, replacements, repairs, and cleaning as part of regular maintenance. 7. All improvements within the public right of way shall be constructed as required by Ordinance and the Public Works Department. All work within the public right of way must be completed under an encroachment permit issued by the Public Works Department. q 13 e Resolution No. Page 7 of 8 8. Disruption caused by construction work along roadways and by movement of construction vehicles shall be minimized by proper use of traffic control equipment and flagmen. Traffic control and transportation of equipment and materials shall be conducted in accordance with state and local requirements. 9. A hydrology and hydraulic study shall be prepared by the applicant and approved by the Public Works Department, along with a master plan of water, sewer and storm drain facilities for the on -site improvements and public improvements prior to the issuance of a building permit. Any modifications or extensions to the existing storm drain, water and sewer systems shown to be required by the study shall be the responsibility of the developer. 10. Fair Share traffic mitigation fees shall be paid to the City prior to the issuance of any building or grading permit for construction of the project. 11. All mechanical equipment shall be screened from view of adjacent properties and adjacent public streets, and shall be sound attenuated in accordance with Chapter 10.26 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, Community Noise Control. 12. Overhead utilities serving the site shall be placed underground to the nearest appropriate pole unless it is determined by the City Engineer that such undergrounding is physically infeasible. 13. The on -site parking, vehicular circulation and pedestrian circulation systems shall be subject to further review by the Traffic Engineer. A minimum of 146 parking spaces shall be provided in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance. 14. In accordance with the provisions of Chapter 13 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code or other applicable section or chapter, street trees shall be required and shall be subject to the review and approval of the General Services and Public Works Departments. 15. The applicant shall be responsible for the payment of all applicable City plan check and inspection fees. 16. The overall height of the Temple including the steeple and angel, shall be no more than 123 feet, 9 inches from the proposed finished floor elevation of 193.5 feet above mean sea level. 17. Exterior on -site lighting shall be shielded and confined within site boundaries. No direct rays or glare are permitted to shine onto public streets or adjacent sites or create a public nuisance. "Walpak" type fixtures are not permitted. All exterior lighting fixtures shall have zero cut -off fixtures and light standards for the parking lot shall not exceed 20 feet in height. Light standards for exterior walkways shall not exceed 10 feet in height. Other exterior light sources shall be no higher than 4 feet. 18. 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. The site shall not be excessively illuminated based on the luminance recommendations of the Illuminating Engineering Society of North America, or, based on the opinion of the Planning Director, the illumination creates an unacceptable negative impact on surrounding land uses or I�1� Resolution No. Page 8 of 8 environmental resources. The Planning Director may order the dimming of light sources or other remediation upon finding that the site is excessively illuminated. 19. Architectural lighting of the Temple, including the steeple and angel figure, shall be aimed to illuminate the structure and shall avoid missing the structure to the maximum extent feasible. Light sources aimed to illuminate the steeple and angel shall be located such that the angle of light shall be no less than 70 degrees from the horizontal ground surface. Changes to the lighting system that would increase lighting levels or increase the lighting sources shall require an amendment to this Use Permit. 20. Lighting of the Temple steeple shall be limited to the hours of 5:OOAM to sunrise and sunset to 11:OOPM. Any future increase in these hours of illumination or increases in lighting levels or additional light sources shall require an amendment to this Use Permit. . 21. If a holiday lighting display within the project site is created that generates increased visitors to the site that creates a need for traffic control, the applicant shall be responsible for the costs associated with the City providing any increased traffic control..: measures deemed necessary to properly manage the temporary increase in traffic. J � ATTACHMENT G Planning Commission staff report dated September 5, 2002 `y � CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Hearing Date: September 5, 2002 PLANNING DEPARTMENT Agenda Item: 2 s 3300 NEWPORT BOULEVARD Staff Person: James Campbell NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658 (949) 644 -3210 (949) 644 -3200; FAX (949) 644 -3229 Appeal Period: 14 days REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION PROJECT: Newport Beach LDS Temple (PA2001 -208) 2300 Bonita Canyon Drive SUMMARY: A Use Permit and Site Plan Review to allow the construction and operatation of a place of religious worship on an 8.6 acre site within the Bonita Canyon Planned Community. The Temple is planned as a 17,575 square foot building in the center of the property, surrounded by 5.5 acres of gardens, walkways, and water treatments in the western portion of the project site and parking in the eastern and northeastern perimeters of the site. The request also includes consideration of a 124 -foot high steeple that would exceed the maximum allowable height of 50 feet. ACTION: Conduct a public hearing and provide direction to staff as necessary, and continue the item to October 3, 2002. APPLICANT: Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints 50 E. North Temple Street, Salt Lake City, UT 84150 LOCATION: Northeast corner of the intersection of Bonita Canyon Dr. and Prairie Rd. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Parcel 1 of Lot Line Adjustment No. 14065 -LL & Grant Deed per Instrument No. 93- 0425720 GENERAL PLAN: Governmental, Educational & Institutional Facilities ZONING DISTRICT: PC -50 (Bonita Canyon Planned Community, Sub -area #7, Public /Semi Public) 1,6 I WIN WE ,, G ri P � a FOR v 500 0 500 1000 LDS Temple (PA20011-208) Feet �1►r ■ rrr ■r►rr, 1�►H�r d i�... ■� �rrruiii' : «rirr ®err► 1:� � �,�� Current Development: Vacant land with two asphalt paved parking areas used for overflow parking for the adjacent LDS Stake Center To the north: Open space, San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor (SR -73) To the east: Open space, San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor (SR -73) To the south: Church, preschool, City sorts park, Shopping Center, residential uses To the west: Existing LDS Stake Center, residential (Bonita Canyon Village) LDS Temple (PA2001 -208)) September 5, 2002 Page 2 of 20 15 1 `j Introduction The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints requests approval of Use Permit and Site Plan Review applications for the construction and operation of a Temple. Pursuant to the Bonita Canyon Planned Community Development Plan, a place of religious worship requires a Use Permit and development of the site for any use requires a Site Plan Review application. Both applications require review and approval by the Newport Beach Planning Commission. The Use Permit application includes a request to allow a 123 -foot, 9 -inch steeple atop the proposed Temple to exceed the allowable height limit of 50 feet. The applicant has prepared a comprehensive set of plans for the project, which are referenced as Exhibit No. 1 and are separate full -sized drawings. Proiect & Site Overview The project site is approximately 8.65 acres and is located at the northeast corner of Bonita Canyon Drive and Prairie Road, between MacArthur Boulevard and the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor (State Route 73 or SR -73). The site is bounded by Bonita Canyon Drive to the south, the private extension of Prairie Road to the west, and open space to the north and east. The topography of the site is characterized by a moderate sloping of the site down away from the abutting roadways from approximately 195 feet in elevation to approximately 180 feet above mean sea level. The site is presently vacant and has two asphalt parking areas used for overflow parking for the adjacent Stake Center. The site was mass graded to its present condition in 1995 with the development of the Stake Center. The Temple is planned as a 17,575 square foot building located in the center of the property, surrounded by approximately 5.5 acres of gardens, walkways, and water treatments in the western portion of the project site and parking in the eastern and northeastern perimeters of the site. The Church maintains a separate Stake Center, or "meeting house," directly adjacent to the proposed Temple site. For comparison, the proposed Temple building is approximately 40 percent, or 10,925 square feet, smaller than the existing Stake Center. The steeple on the existing Stake Center is 86 feet from the finished floor elevation of approximately 190 feet above mean seal level to its peak, and the Temple's steeple would be 123'9" from the finished floor level of 193.5 feet above mean seal level (MSL). The proposed Temple would function in concert with the adjacent Stake Center; however, operations at each facility are distinctly separate and generally do not occur simultaneously at peak capacity. The Temple and the Stake Center will share parking and will utilize the same main access road from the existing signalized intersection of Bonita Canyon Dr. and Prairie Rd. The operational characteristics of an LDS Temple are different from religious observances in other places of worship. The Temple is a place for individual worship rather than group worship, and it is closed on Sundays when the Church's regular meetinghouses are at peak utilization. In a Temple, qualified Church members- participate in the Church's most sacred ceremonies including marriage (or "sealing "), instructional ceremonies followed by an informal small group gathering, and individual meditation in the Temple's largest lobby or "Celestial Room." The Temple will be open Tuesday through Saturday with hours of operation that may range from approximately 5:00 LDS Temple (PA2001 -208)) September 5, 2002 Page 3 of 20 ` 1 1 _l a.m. to approximately 11:00 p.m. Activities will occur throughout the day; however, it is anticipated that Friday evenings and Saturday mornings will be the busiest times for Temple activities. These functions are in contrast to the large group activities held in other Church buildings like the adjacent Stake Center. These activities include regular Sunday worship services, Sunday school classes, and other age group organizations, weekly youth activity nights, adult leadership or administrative meetings and periodic women's meetings, college student classes and activities, athletic competitions, dances, wedding receptions, and other social or physical activities. At present, the Newport Beach Stake consists of approximately 3,400 members. The proposed Temple will be constructed as a two - tiered fagade, with a single steeple at the north end of the building. The height of the first parapet is 21.5 feet; the second parapet is at 32.75 feet and 35 feet above the finished floor of the Temple on the north and south ends, respectively; and the steeple (including an angel figure) at its highest point is approximately 123.75 feet above the finished floor elevation of 193.5 feet above mean sea level. The exterior of the building will be finished with textured non - reflective light colored earth tone granite. Along the lower 30 inches of the building, the same colored polished granite will be used to provide a wainscoting effect. To further articulate the building fagade, a band of scored granite runs along the upper edge of each parapet. Within the building fagade are a series of arched alcoves, some of which have art- glass and others clear windows. Atop the steeple, the statue will be finished in gold leaf. The Temple contains approximately 15,625 square feet of interior space, with 14,963 square feet on the main floor and 662.5 square feet on the lower floor, comprised of the baptistery and mechanical rooms. The overall footprint of the building is approximately 208 feet x 110 feet. Spaces within the Temple are arranged to reflect the various activities described above. Areas within the Temple facility include instructional rooms, sealing rooms, baptismal area, waiting areas, men's and women's dressing areas, storage areas, bathrooms, closets, a laundry, a serving area, and administrative offices. The proposed landscaping plan provides a variety of trees, shrubs, and vines along Bonita Canyon Drive and along the eastern and northern perimeters of the site. Additionally, clusters of landscaping will be provided in the northwest perimeter of the site to provide screening to residents of the Bonita Canyon Village development. The entry court to the north of the Temple entrance provides a landscaped courtyard extending along the perimeter of the Temple building. Rows of cypress trees will radiate outward from the Temple. Additionally, a buffer of planted pines will surround the property. Concrete pathways will provide circulation within the garden area and a connection to the adjacent Stake Center. A linear waterway connecting to an accent water feature is proposed in the western area of the garden. An approximately six foot high black tubular steel fence will enclose the active use areas of the Temple facility. This will supplement the security fence now separating the Temple site from the adjacent open space reserve area. Two access gates will be located in the garden area, and an additional access gate will be located at the interior access road. These gates will be open during regular Temple hours, and the garden area gates will be open during daylight hours on most LDS Temple (PA2001 -208)) September 5, 2002 Page 4 of 20 I �, Sundays for use and enjoyment by members attending Sunday worship services at the Stake Center and by visiting guests. The exterior of the Temple facility is proposed to be lighted. The Temple's exterior lighting system includes the following illumination categories: landscape elements, the building fagade, the building tower, and the angel figure. Security lighting will also be provided and includes four additional illumination categories: the roadway, parking lot, pedestrian pathways and property perimeter. An ascending hierarchy of lighting levels is proposed from the lower fagade progressively upward to the angel figure at the top of the tower. All lighting fixtures will be aimed to illuminate only the landscape or architectural surfaces, thus minimizing the light trespass into adjacent properties and reducing "light pollution" into the night sky. Architectural lighting of the Temple is proposed from 5AM to dawn and from dusk to I IPM. Between I IPM and 5AM, no lighting of the site except for security lighting and parking lot lighting is proposed. Analysis As noted previously, The City is reviewing two applications for the proposed project: Use Permit No. 2001 -036 and Site Plan Review No. 2001 -005. These applications are required pursuant to the Bonita Canyon Planned Community Development Plan that acts similar to zoning regulations. Where the Planned Community Development Plan is silent or does not provide sufficient guidance, the Newport Beach Zoning Code (Title 20 of the Municipal Code) is applied and where there is conflict between the PC Development Plan and the Zoning Code, the PC Development Plan takes precedence. General Plan The project site is designated Governmental, Educational and Institutional Facilities by the Land Use Element. This land use designation is applied to areas developed with uses that form the physical and social infrastructure of the community and are designated for educational facilities, municipal uses, hospitals, libraries and churches, among other civic - related uses. The proposed project, a place of religious worship or church, is listed as a permitted institutional use within this land use category. The General Plan has 12 general development policies which guide development and city planning. Policy A and Policy D are generally applicable to the project, while the remaining policies are not applicable. 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. The project site is designated for Governmental, Educational and Institutional Facilities, which allows churches. The site is in close proximity to residents of the community providing convenient access. Additionally, the site is located in close proximity to major highways (MacArthur LDS Temple (PA2001 -208)) September 5, 2002 Page 5 of 20 t Blvd./Bonita CanyonDr. /SR -73) to allow safe and convenient access for visitors to the proposed project while not significantly impacting levels of traffic service as concluded by the EIR. Staff believes the project is consistent with this policy. Policy D The siting of new buildings and structures shall be controlled and regulated to insure, to the extent practical, the preservation of public views, the preservation of unique natural resources, and to minimize the alteration of natural land forms along bluffs and cliffs. The project site does not possess any natural resources, nor does it constitute a natural landform warranting preservation due to the past grading of the site. The site is not within a designated scenic vista, and the project does not significantly block public views due to the slender design of the steeple, although it is acknowledged that the project will be highly visible from public areas. In staff's opinion, and concluded in the EIR, public views will not be blocked to an extent inconsistent with this policy. Bonita Canyon Planned Community Development Plan Section 8 of the Bonita Canyon PC Development Plan establishes property development standards applicable to the development of the proposed project. The following table identifies each standard and how the project compares to the standard. Feature Standard Standard Project Project applied to Characteristic Compliance Project Minimum Lot Size 0.25 acres 0.25 acres 8.65 acres Yes Maximum Lot 50% 4.33 acres 0.53 acres or Yes Coverage 6.1% Maximum Height 50 feet 50 feet 123 feet, 9 No — relief Limit inches requested Minimum Site 15% 1.30 acres 5.5 acres Yes Landscaping Setbacks Front (south): 0 feet 0 feet 83 feet Yes East Side: 10 feet 10 feet 291 feet Yes West Side: 10 feet 10 feet 379 feet Yes Rear (north): 10 feet 10 feet 189 feet Yes The project complies with all development standards except for structure height, from which the applicant is seeking relief. The Bonita Canyon PC Development Plan does not specify a procedure to deviate from structure height; therefore, the Newport Beach Municipal Code provisions apply. Section 20.65.070.G stipulates that structures used for church purposes shall be exempt from the LDS Temple (PA2001 -208)) September 5, 2002 q Page 6 of 20 1 I restrictions of Chapter 20.65 (Height Limits), except that such structures exceeding 35 feet in height shall require a Use Permit. The Use Permit related to structure height is discussed below. Parking Minimum parking requirements are not specified by the Bonita Canyon PC Development Plan. Therefore, the Newport Beach Municipal Code provides guidance. Section 20.66.030 establishes a parking requirement based upon seating for religious assembly. The standard is I parking space for every 3 seats or I space per 35 sq. ft. of assembly uses. The Temple has seating for 96 people for instructional sessions in addition to the Celestial Room, sealing rooms, baptismal area, waiting areas, men's and women's dressing areas, storage areas, bathrooms, closets, a laundry, a serving area, and administrative offices. The remaining assembly in addition to the instructional rooms is 4,017 sq. ft. The total parking required is 146 spaces according to the established parking requirement. The proposed project provides 152 parking spaces, and therefore, complies with applicable standards. The project parking will be used on Sundays as overflow parking for activities occurring at the adjacent Stake Center when peak usage occurs at the Stake Center. The City of Irvine required a minimum of 150 spaces to be located on the subject property as overflow for the Stake Center while approving a 70 space parking waiver. Irvine also used a more restrictive parking ratio than used by Newport Beach. The City Traffic Engineer concludes that the 152 spaces provided with the project in addition to the 227 spaces at the Stake Center, adequate parking will be available. The Temple will be closed Sunday and Monday, and shared use of the Temple parking should not prove problematic due to the differing peak uses of the two sites. Use Permit No. 2001 -036 As noted, pursuant to Section 8.2 of the Bonita Canyon PC Development Plan, the project requires the approval of a Use Permit for a church (or other place of religious worship). The Use Permit also includes a request to have the proposed Temple exceed the 50 -foot height limit. The findings for the approval of a Use Permit are contained within Chapter 20.91 of the Zoning Code. The following discussion is broken down into two separate sections based upon the two separate aspects of the Use Permit application: the use and structure height. Use The mandatory findings for a use permit are: 1. That the proposed location of the use is in accord with the objectives of this code and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. The proposed use is within Sub Area No. 7 of the Bonita Canyon Planned Community, which is designated for Public /Semipublic uses. The purpose of the designation is contained within the preface of the Planned Community. Development Plan and states that "Sub -area 7 is designated Public /Semipublic to reflect an existing church on the property" The existing church on the property is the LDS Stake Center. An LDS Temple is consistent with the designation of the site. LDS Temple (PA2001 -208)) September 5, 2002 Page 7 of 20 J 2. That the proposed location of the use permit and the proposed conditions under which it would be operated or maintained will be consistent with the General Plan and the purpose of the district in which the site is located; will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, or welfare of persons residing or working in or adjacent to the neighborhood of such use; and will not be detrimental to the properties or improvements in the vicinity or to the general welfare of the city. The project site and the operation of the proposed Temple is consistent with the General Plan as discussed previously and is consistent with the purpose of the Public /Semipublic designation of the property by the Bonita Canyon Planned Community Development Plan. The operation and maintenance of the proposed Temple is not anticipated to generate adverse impacts to the area. The site has access from a signalized intersection on a major highway, and the City's Traffic Engineer concludes that adequate off - street parking will be provided given the proposed schedule and occupancy of the Temple, taking into account shared use of the parking lot with the adjacent Stake Center. The traffic study prepared for the project concludes that no significant traffic impacts will result with the implementation of the project. The proposed Temple is located in an area with similar uses but will not contribute to traffic on Sundays when other churches in the area are more active. The busiest time for the Temple is anticipated to be Friday evenings and Saturday mornings and the weekend peak hour is 2 -3PM. Potential traffic conflicts on Saturday morning with the Bonita Canyon Sports Park are expected to be minimal. This is due to the unused capacity of the roadway and the anticipated lack of need for a majority of park users to use intersection of Prairie Road and Bonita Canyon Drive. The Traffic Engineer expects that a majority of park users will use San Miguel Drive or Mesa Verde Drive to approach the park with only Newport Coast and Irvine residents approaching the intersection of Bonita Canyon Dr. and Prairie Road. Services and activities associated with the project are primarily conducted within the proposed Temple, and therefore will not generate noise that would affect nearby residences. Exterior activities are generally limited to visitors walking the gardens or photo opportunities after marriage ceremonies. Church custom requires exterior illumination of the proposed Temple structure. According to the Church's religious practices and beliefs, Temple must be lit when it is in use by church members who are eligible to participate in services within a Temple. Additionally, according to the applicant, eligible church members may not enter or exit the Temple in darkness. The applicant originally desired lighting of the Temple from dusk to dawn, but now proposes a reduced lighting schedule as indicated due to concerns expressed by the surrounding neighborhoods. The reduced hours correspond to the normal operating hours of the Temple. These reduced lighting hours are viewed by staff as a beneficial change, although further reduction in the hours of operation and illumination could be considered. 3. That the proposed use will comply with the provisions of this code, including any specific condition required for the proposed use in the district in which it would be located. The proposed use is within Sub Area No. 7 of the Bonita Canyon Planned Community which is designated for Public /Semipublic uses. As noted, the use requires the approval of a Use Permit. LDS Temple (PA2001 -208)) September 5, 2002 Page 8 of 20 ) 5 1 No specific condition related to the operation of a church or place of religious worship is contained within the Bonita Canyon Planned Community Development Plan. Structure Height The finding that the Planning Commission must consider is the general finding that the height of the proposed Temple will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, or welfare of persons residing or working in or adjacent to the neighborhood of such use; and will not be detrimental to the properties or improvements in the vicinity or to the general welfare of the city. Building height is measured within the Bonita Canyon PC Development Plan as the vertical distance from the finished grade adjacent to the building to the highest point of the structure. The Temple will have a two - tiered fagade, with a single steeple at the north end of the building. The height of the first parapet is 22 feet above finished grade; the second parapet is at 33.25 feet and 35.5 feet above the finished grade of the Temple on the north and south ends, respectively; and the steeple (including the statue of the angel) at its highest point is approximately 124 feet above the finished grade of 193 feet above mean sea level (MSL). Finished grade is approximately 5 -8 feet higher than the natural grade under the proposed Temple. In absolute terms, the height of the finished grade will be 193 MSL and the top of the proposed steeple and angel is 317 MSL. For comparison purposes, the adjacent Stake Center has a steeple that is 86 feet tall on a finished grade of 190 feet. Therefore the top of the Stake Center in absolute terms is 276 MSL or 41 feet lower than the Temple steeple. There are other facilities in Newport Beach with high roof top features, which can be used for comparison purposes. The steeple and cross atop St. Matthew's Church across Bonita Canyon Drive will be 75 feet in height from grade with the grade being higher than that proposed for the Temple. The 75 -foot steeple and cross has not been constructed at this time and will be constructed in a later phase of construction. The cross at St. Andrews Church in Newport Heights is 97 feet high above finished grade and the tower at Newport Harbor High School is approximately 97.5 feet high above the top of the curb at 15th Street. No other religious structure within the City is close to these heights. Additionally, the height of the LDS Temple in La Jolla, which is highly visible from Interstate 5, is 202 feet to the top of the angel and the Temple in Los Angeles is 257 feet to the top of the angel. The applicant has provided a graphic comparison of the facilities, although it should be noted that they are substantially larger structures as well (Exhibit No. 2). The La Jolla Temple is approximately 80,000 square feet, and the Los Angeles Temple is approximately 190,000 square feet, while the proposed Newport Beach Temple will be 17,575 square feet. The closest residential use is located 600 -900 feet away from the proposed steeple within Bonita Canyon Village. The elevation of the rear yards of these closest homes averages approximately 174 MSL, approximately 20 ft. lower than the Temple site. Many residents living in the area have expressed the opinion that the height of the structure and its lighting will prove detrimental. Others have expressed the opposite viewpoint. The Temple, if LDS Temple (PA2001 -208)) September 5, 2002 Page 9 of 20 1 approved as requested, will be the predominant structure in the area due to its height, lighting, design and mass. The applicant's stated objective is to create a distinctive Temple that is highly visible. Staff believes that a lower alternative will meet this objective, and suggested a 100 -foot high alternative for discussion purposes within the Alternatives section of the Draft Environmental Impact Report. Further limiting lighting hours and the steeple height could also assist in ameliorating some of the impacts on surrounding residential properties. Several comments raised the question as to why four LDS Temples have no steeples. This question was raised with the belief that steeples are not a required design feature dictated by religious beliefs. The Church's response this question is that Temples were constructed under the supervision of a past Church President with a differing vision than the current President under whose direction the proposed project has been designed. The president of the LDS Church is considered by the faithful as a prophet of God. All Temples constructed under the current President have steeples as "symbolic architectural connection with the infinite, embodying the value of upward ascendancy." (Exhibit No. 3). Structure Height - Airport Land Use Commission Consideration The project is located within 20,000 feet of John Wane Airport, and due to the height of the structure, notification of the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) and Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is required. The airport Environs Land Use Plan establishes two imaginary surfaces. The first is an "obstruction" surface that extends outward from both the approach and departure ends of the runways. Land uses and structure height is regulated to ensure that no hazards are created. The second imaginary surface is called the "notification" surface, which extends further outward both horizontally and vertically and from the entire runway. The horizontal limit is 20,000 feet and the project site is approximately 16,100 feet away from the runway. The elevation of the notification surface increases with distance from the airport to a limit of 200 feet above the elevation of the airport. Any structure that is proposed to be above this imaginary surface requires notification of the Airport Land Use Commission and the Federal Aviation Administration. The elevation of the imaginary notification surface at the project site is approximately 34 feet above the average grade of the site, and the building exceeds this height. The notification is required pursuant to the Airport Environs Land Use Plan and Zoning Code Section 20.65.080. Section 20.65.080 also requires ALUC consideration of the issue prior to any action on the project. This notification was accomplished and the Airport Land Use Commission reviewed the project on August 14, 2002. The Commission decided to postpone further review of the project until such time as a technical study is completed by the FAA. This study, also known as the FAA Form 7460 Determination, is expected in the next several weeks. It is not anticipated that the FAA will determine the proposed Temple to be a significant threat to air navigation; however, they might recommend hazard lighting taking the form of white light or the traditional red beacon. The authority to impose such hazard lighting rests with the Airport Land Use Commission. They do not possess the ability to alter the project by lowering the height or denying the project as the structure does not fall within a Part 77 Obstruction Imaginary Surface for JWA. The ALUC also indicated that they wanted to see the project after initial hearings by the Planning Commission so they could get a better idea as to the height of the project. This was LDS Temple (PA2001 -208)) September 5, 2002 Page 10 of 20 based upon the notion that hazard lighting may take different forms (if required at all) depending upon the final height of the proposed Temple. Due to the involvement and initial review of the project by the ALUC, staff believes that Section 20.66.080 has been complied with. Lighting As noted, the applicant plans to light the proposed Temple from 5AM to dawn and dusk to I IPM, with no architectural lighting proposed outside of these hours except for security lighting of the exterior walkways and parking lot. The City has no lighting standard or restrictions on the hours of potential lighting. It is acknowledged that the site is presently dark due to its vacant status, so when the site is developed, additional lighting should be expected. Security and parking lot lighting would be no more of a nuisance with the project as opposed to any other land use. In fact, lighting attributable to these sources will likely be less with the proposed project due to the high percentage of landscaping when compared to other institutional uses that would likely have less landscaping. The cross atop St. Andrews is the most notable religious symbol in the city lighted during the evening. The City has not placed any limitation upon the hours of illumination of the cross, but St. Andrews extinguishes the lights at IOPM pursuant to a general arrangement with the nearby residents who complained about having the cross illuminated later in the night. Site Plan Review No. 2001 -005 Per Section 8.1 of the Bonita Canyon PC Development Plan, Site Plan Review is required to develop the project site. Section 20.92 of the Zoning Code establishes 12 standards for review of Site Plan Review applications. A. Sites subject to site plan review under the provisions of this chapter shall be graded and developed with due regard for the aesthetic qualities of the natural terrain, harbor, and landscape, giving special consideration to waterfront resources and unique landforms such as coastal bluffs or other sloped areas; trees and shrubs shall not be indiscriminately destroyed: The site slopes moderately from abutting streets to the north and east toward Bonita Canyon Village and the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor. The elevation changes from approximately 195 feet to approximately 175 feet above mean sea level. The pad elevation for the Temple proposed by the applicant is 193 feet with the finished floor being 193.5 feet. This finished floor elevation is 3.5 feet above the finished floor of the abutting Stake Center and roughly I foot lower than Bonita Canyon Drive approximately 340 feet from its intersection with Prairie Road. The intersection is approximately 10 feet above the proposed finished floor. The site was mass graded with the development of the adjacent Stake Center with the intention to possibly develop the site with a Temple in the future. Additional filling of the site will be necessary to achieve the grades proposed by the applicant. The site has no unique natural landforms due to the past grading of the site and no trees or landscaping. LDS Temple (PA2001 -208)) September 5, 2002 Page 1 1 of 20 ; 1 � �l B. 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: The project site is situated in the northern portion of the City in an area with urban development that ranges from residential development at densities of 3.3 to 6.6 dwelling units per acre to commercial, institutional, public parks, and open space land uses. Several churches currently exist or are planned for development in the vicinity of the project site. Single - family homes in the Bonita Canyon Village development are located northwest and west of the site at approximately 620 and 900 feet, respectively. The existing LDS Church Stake Center is located west of the project site across the main entrance driveway (an extension of Prairie Road). Bonita Canyon Sports Park is approximately 200 feet south of the project site, across Bonita Canyon Drive. Saint Matthew's Church, which is currently under construction, is approximately 150 feet from the project site located at the southeast corner of Bonita Canyon Drive and Prairie Road. A developmental pre - school is located south of Bonita Canyon Drive approximately 200 feet from the project site. Further to the south of these uses is a neighborhood shopping center and residential uses within the Harbor View Knoll, Seawind, Harbor Ridge and Harbor View Hills communities. Harbor View Knoll, Seawind and Harbor Ridge are at a higher elevation than the project site, and the project will be visible from many lots that face to the north. Harbor View Knoll is approximately 600 feet from the project site and has the benefit of many mature trees that help screen the proposed Temple. Seawind is approximately 600 feet away at its closest and up to 2100 feet away. Harbor Ridge is approximately 2500 feet distant from the project site. Harbor View Hills is approximately 1200 feet at its closest point and the majority of the tract is at a lower elevation than the project. North of the project site is the Bonita Canyon Dam/Reservoir and scrub covered open space. The dam acts as a flood control retention basin and stores surface water runoff during a storm event. Further to the north and east is the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor (SR -73). Beyond SR -73 within the City of Irvine are light industrial uses and residential uses are planned. Southeast of the project site are developing properties within the Newport Ridge Planned Community recently annexed to the city. An apartment community has recently been occupied and single - family residences are being constructed, which are approximately 1500 feet and 1800 feet away from the project site. These properties are at a higher elevation than the project site, and the project will be visible from many northwest- facing residences. As noted above, the area is characterized by a mixture of residential uses, churches, a park, a preschool, a shopping center. The area does not generate a sense that is "densely" urbanized when compared to other areas of the city, in staffs opinion. The area is suburban and also has many open space areas. These open areas include the adjacent open canyon near SR -73, the park and numerous landscaped areas within medians, parkways and other setback areas. The site is bordered on two sides by open space and Bonita LDS Temple (PA2001 -208)) September 5, 2002 Page 12 of 20 Canyon Drive providing additional separation from nearby land uses. Nearby residential structures are approximately 28 -30 feet in height and are not located in close proximity to the proposed Temple. The nearby churches are large buildings comparable in size to the project although the height of the proposed steeple is not. The Temple will have significant setbacks from property lines, low lot coverage and 5.5 acres of landscaping that when combined, they assist in making the development more compatible. C. Development shall be sited and designed to maximize protection of public views, with special consideration given to views from public parks and from roadways designated as Scenic Highways and Scenic Drives in the Recreation and Open Space Element of the General Plan: The site is not within a designated scenic vista and the project does not significantly block public views due to the slender design of the steeple. It is acknowledged that the project will be highly visible from public areas. Two view simulations were prepared for the EIR from the Bonita Canyon Sports Park. Views 3 and 4 show that the Temple steeple will make up a small percentage of the viewable area and not block views. Other view simulations were prepared from Bonita Canyon Drive that also show that the project will be visible, but again, the percentage of viewable area that the steeple will occupy is small and views are not blocked. Rather, the steeple becomes a prominent feature within the overall viewshed. D. Environmentally sensitive areas shall be preserved and protected. No structures or landform alteration shall be permitted in environmentally sensitive areas unless specific mitigation measures are adopted which will reduce adverse impacts to an acceptable level or the Planning Commission finds that the benefits outweigh the adverse impact: The site is not within a designated Environmentally Sensitive Area (ESA). E. No structures shall be permitted in areas of potential geologic hazard unless specific mitigation measures are adopted which will reduce adverse impacts to an acceptable level or the Planning Commission finds that the benefits outweigh the adverse impacts: The project site is not in an area of potential geologic hazard. The site is located close to the Newport Inglewood fault zone and severe ground shaking at the project site might be experienced during a major event and liquefaction is of concern. A preliminary geotechnical investigation was conducted delineating grading and building techniques to ensure safety. All applicable City and State building codes and seismic design guidelines will be applied through the issuance of a building permit, which will minimize possible risks of damage during an earthquake. The study did identify that the existing crib walls that support the site to the north and east are showing signs of distress related to wall movement. The applicant has elected to avoid any potential issues with these crib walls by providing sufficient landscape setbacks from these walls in accordance with the geotechnical study thereby avoiding any geotechnical issues. F. Residential development shall be permitted in areas subject to noise levels greater than 60 CNEL only where specific mitigation measures will reduce noise levels in exterior areas to less than 60 CNEL and reduce noise levels in the interior of residences to 45 LDS Temple (PA2001 -208)) September 5, 2002 Page 13 of 20 I / 1 CNEL or less: The project does not involve residential uses; therefore, this standard does not apply. G. Site plat: 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: The Planning, Public Works and Building Departments have reviewed the site plan for proper pedestrian and vehicle function. Consideration was also made for shared parking usage with the adjacent Stake Center. The circulation and parking layout meets or exceeds City design standards. The site plan includes several walkways within and around the gardens and a separate pedestrian crossing is provided between the proposed Temple and the Stake Center. All Departments believe that the site plan does not present any negative circulation issues with either Temple operation or shared parking usage with the Stake Center. H. Development shall be consistent with specific General Plan and applicable specific plan district policies and objectives, and shall not preclude the implementation of those policies and objectives: This finding has been discussed previously in this report, and the project is consistent with these policies and objectives. L Development shall be physically compatible with the development site, taking into consideration site characteristics including, but not limited to, slopes, submerged areas, and sensitive resources: As noted, the site slopes from approximately 195 feet to approximately 175 feet above mean sea level. The proposed site plan will require grading to fill the site from 5 -8 feet below the Temple building. As noted previously, the proposed grade of the Temple is comparable with the existing Stake Center and Bonita Canyon Drive. The site is devoid of sensitive resources or submerged lands. The site plan includes approximately 5.5 acres of landscaped gardens and walkways that will be planted with some more mature plantings. This high percentage of landscaping and the relatively small footprint of the proposed Temple (approximately 0.4 acres) make the site plan more compatible with the open space areas that abut the site. J. When feasible, electrical and similar mechanical equipment and trash and storage areas shall be concealed: Electrical service will be provided underground and mechanical equipment will be within the building or concealed behind roof parapets and will not be visible from the ground. Trash storage areas are not specifically delineated on the plans, and the applicant intends that trash storage be accommodated within the building. K. Archaeological and historical resources shall be protected to the extent feasible: No known archaeological and historical resources are known to exist and are unlikely to exist due to the highly disturbed nature of the site from its previous grading. L. Commercial development shall not have significant adverse effects on residences in an abutting residential district: The project is not a commercial project and therefore, this standard is not directly applicable. However, the intent of this standard is to ensure that a project does not have a significant adverse impact upon surrounding residences. The LDS Temple (PA2001 -208)) September 5, 2002 Page 14 of 20 L I J Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) concludes that there will be no significant adverse environmental impacts. Area residents have expressed the opinion that the proposed project will have a significant and adverse impact upon the enjoyment of their property due to a diminishment of views and lowering of property values. No views from residential properties will be blocked, although the proposed Temple will be a feature within the view. Depending upon the location of the property, the Temple will be a smaller or larger feature. The most directly impacted residential area will be the southeasterly portion of Bonita Canyon Village. Staff believes that the visibility of the proposed Temple does not automatically make it a significant and adverse impact. Some may perceive the visual impact as beneficial. Impacts to property value are not possible to measure at this point. Changes to property value can easily be tracked, but it is much more difficult to identify a single factor, such as the proposed Temple, as the primary cause of a change in value with certainty, as many unrelated factors would affect the analysis. The applicant has submitted an article that would suggest that property values may rise as a result of Temple construction. (Exhibit No. 4). Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) The City Attorney has prepared a memorandum that provides further information on this topic (Exhibit No. 5). Environmental Review The City contracted with LSA, Inc. (LSA) for the preparation of an Initial Study and EIR for the proposed project. The Initial Study was prepared in accordance with applicable requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Within the Initial Study, all environmental factors contained within the Initial Study checklist were analyzed and discussed. Based upon the analysis within the Initial Study, the following environmental topics were identified as potentially affected by implementation of the proposed project and should be addressed in the DEIR: Aesthetics, Air Quality, HydrologyAVater Quality, Land Use /Planning and Transportation/Circulation. The remaining issue areas were determined to be affected at either a less than significant level or that the project would have no impact and would not be discussed in the DEIR: Agricultural Resources, Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Geology/Soils, Hazards & Hazardous Materials, Mineral Resources, Noise, Population/Housing, Public Services, Recreation and Utilities/Service Systems. LSA then prepared and circulated a Notice of Preparation of an Environmental Impact Report in accordance with CEQA. The Draft EIR (State Clearinghouse No. 2002031048) focused upon the environmental issues identified as "potentially affected" It has been previously transmitted to the Commission and is referenced as Exhibit No. 9 of this report. The DEIR was completed and circulated for a mandatory 45 -day review period that began on June 25, 2002 and concluded on August 9, 2002. The comment period was extended to allow additional comments to be received through August 16, 2002 as the Airport Land Use Commission, a responsible agency, was unable to respond within the comment period. Comments were received from one responsible agency, several public agencies and interested parties for which the City is required to prepare written responses for. These comment letters and LDS Temple (PA2001 -208)) September 5, 2002 Page 15 of 20 l 5 � responses to the comments are contained in the Response to Comments Document transmitted to the Commission with this report (Exhibit No. 10). The DEIR provides a detailed description of the project and the environmental setting as well as sections on the potentially affected environmental topics. The DEIR concludes that the project will not have a significant adverse impact to the environment in any of these areas. A significant amount of public criticism has been voiced regarding the conclusion that the proposed Temple would not create a significant impact in the area of aesthetics, the principal issue analyzed in the EIR. The City of Newport Beach Recreation and Open Space Element, Objective 6, addresses scenic vistas and resources in the City. The implementing policies support the provision of view parks and enhanced streetscapes along scenic highways and scenic drives. The Municipal Code of the City of Newport Beach does not contain any provisions to protect private viewsheds. Only public viewsheds from public parks, State designated scenic highways, or within the Coastal Zone are afforded some protection by existing City policy. The project site is not within the Coastal Zone nor is the project site within a designated scenic vista. The significance criteria for aesthetic impacts used for this analysis are based on the CEQA Guidelines, the City of Newport Beach General Plan, and Municipal Code provisions outlined above. These criteria provide that the proposed project would have a potentially significant impact if it would: • Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista; • Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings; or • Create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area. In late January of 2001, the applicant erected a crane at the project site to simulate the height of the proposed Temple. The height and location of the top of the crane was certified by the project engineer as being within approximately 2 feet of the top of the proposed Temple. A red aircraft warning light was affixed to the top and the crane was in place for approximately 4 days and 3 nights. This event was extensively noticed by the applicant and a great number of photographs of the crane were taken by both staff and the architect for the project. Fifteen of these photographs were selected by staff to serve as the basis for the visual simulation used within the Draft Environmental Impact Report. View simulations were prepared to provide a "project opening" condition and a "ten year" condition. The project opening condition provides an illustration of the project as it will appear when the Temple is dedicated, with new landscaping planted at project completion. The ten year simulation provides an illustration of how the project will look after 10 years of landscape growth. In the majority of the view simulations prepared for the proposed project, the proposed Temple is visible within the built environment, but only a small percentage of "viewable area" will be impacted. The area most impacted would be the southeasterly section of Bonita Canyon LDS Temple (PA2001 -208)) September 5, 2002 Page 16 of 20 1 Village. Due to the proximity of this area, the Temple will be a more visible feature occupying a higher percentage of "viewable area" than from other vantage points. It is acknowledged in the DEIR that the Temple steeple will be visible to the surrounding community and that the new Temple will be more prominent than the existing built environment. The project site is bordered both on the west and south with similar structures, i.e., buildings with steeple elements (existing Stake Center and Saint Matthew's Church). At 123 feet 9 inches, the finished height of the steeple element will be the tallest structure in the project vicinity. However, the steeple element is not a large, bulky mass; rather, it is a relatively narrow tapered element that at its highest point is approximately 18 inches wide. The EIR concludes that the Temple and steeple will not dominate existing views. The degree of prominence to any affected views is dependent upon the location and distance of the viewer from the project site. Lighting of the Temple will increase the visibility of the structure when lit, and there is no other structure in the city to draw a clear comparison to the proposed project. Due to the proposed color and non - reflective qualities of the Temple exterior, evening lighting should not prove glaring as compared to a more white exterior. It is recognized that any issue of aesthetic impact, especially an aesthetic impact to a view, tends to be subjective. Different individuals will have different opinions about aesthetics and visual impacts. However, based on CEQA Guidelines (Section 15064 f(5) and Section 15065 h(3)), the level of significance is defined by the thresholds. The analysis in the EIR provides an objective analysis pursuant to requirements of CEQA, which focuses on an evaluation of evidence concerning the physical environment as measured against specific thresholds. Based on the significance criteria identified above, the EIR concludes that development of the Temple on the project site will result in a less than significant aesthetic impact. Traffic was also an important component of the environmental analysis. A traffic study was prepared by Urban Crossroads under the supervision of the City Traffic Engineer. The study was prepared using the procedures of the Traffic Phasing Ordinance. The intersection of Bonita Canyon Drive and Prairie Road was also considered in the cumulative analysis. Site access was also analyzed. No significant traffic- related impacts were predicted and no mitigation measures are required. Project Alternatives The "no project/no build" alternative would avoid all the impacts attributable to the proposed project, but would not achieve the applicant's goals. The "reduced intensity" alternative was assumed to be a Temple with a 100 -foot overall height measured from the finished floor elevation of 193.5 feet above mean sea level. Reduced lighting hours were also considered. Staff believes that any reduction in structure height or reduction in illumination hours will incrementally lessen the impacts of the proposed project; however, staff believes that the proposed project will not have a significant adverse impact to the environment. LDS Temple (PA2001 -208)) September 5, 2002 Page 17 of 20 I Certification of the Environmental Impact Report Staff believes that the DEIR has been prepared and processed in full compliance with the CEQA implementing guidelines and that all the environmental factors and evidence have been analyzed and disclosed. Public notice of the DEIR has been provided and the DEIR has been made available for public comment. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission provide a forum for public input upon the adequacy of the document. If the DEIR proves adequate, staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt written findings related thereto, and certify the Draft EIR as a Final Environmental Impact Report. The Planning Commission is not required to agree with the conclusions of the DEIR. In that case, the Commission can require additional analysis or they can select a project alternative that reduces impacts to the environment to a less than significant level. The Planning Commission cannot act to certify the EIR at this time due to the fact that the Notice of Availability of the DEIR was not posted at the County as required by CEQA. The notice is required to be posted a minimum of 30 days in advance of certification of the EIR. Staff has had a new notice posted on August 30'' advising the public that the comment period on the DEIR is open for an additional 30 days expiring on September 30''. Staff will prepare responses to additional comments received during this period. Staff has also posted notice of the re- opening of the comment period in accordance with CEQA. Additional Information and Correspondence Councilmember Bromberg has generated a petition or poll of residents who live in Bonita Canyon Village. The poll was started in mid -April of this year and 106 of 124 respondents indicated that they "disapprove" of the project. Respondents included comments upon the project with their responses to the poll. The poll, results and responses are attached as Exhibit No. 6. Additional correspondence has been received by staff at various times through the processing of this application and is attached as Exhibit No. 7. The City also received a petition in opposition to the proposed project with 386 signatures. The petition identifies the height, lighting, traffic, noise, congestion and the proposed exterior color as issues and is attached as Exhibit No. 8. The cover letter with the petition indicates that more signatures are forthcoming. Recommendation After considering all the facts, plans, analysis, Draft Environmental Impact Report and comments received throughout the process, staff believes that the Use Permit and Site Plan Review should be approved. Staff further recommends that the Planning Commission consider reducing the height of the proposed steeple to a level between 86 feet and 100 feet based upon compatibility with the neighborhood, including nearby churches. The 100 -foot steeple alternative was selected as it is believed that it would satisfy the project objective "To provide a highly visible site and a distinctive Temple with a steeple sufficiently high and illuminated to be seen from a substantial distance." This belief is based upon an extensive field survey of the general area conducted in late January of 2002, when a crane was installed at the site to simulate the height of the steeple. Additionally, the alternative height was LDS Temple (PA2001 -208)) September 5, 2002 Page 18 of 20 161 selected as it would incrementally lessen aesthetic impacts of the project due to the height of the steeple. A 100 -foot structure will be higher than the adjacent LDS Stake Center (86 feet) making it more prominent than the adjacent Stake Center based upon height alone. The height difference of approximately 17.5 feet between the top of the Stake Center and a 100 -foot high Temple will be perceptible from Bonita Canyon Drive and SR -73. It should be acknowledged that a Temple of equal height to the Stake Center may appear visually more prominent than the Stake Center due to the difference in architectural styling, lighting and building color. It should be further acknowledged that a Temple of equal height to the Stake Center, given the difference in architectural styling, lighting and building color, may also meet the project objective stated above. Alternative heights of 75 feet or 50 feet were rejected due to a belief that a Temple of this height would not satisfy the project objective stated above. Lowering the height of the project will reduce its visibility and visual impact, but lowering it below 86 feet, in staff's opinion, is questionable as the structure would be lower than the adjacent Stake Center, which is a subordinate building within the religious practices of the LDS Church. Reducing the height to 50 feet as has been suggested by several residents is not recommended in that the city has permitted other churches to have religious symbols (i.e. steeples and crosses) to exceed applicable height limits with several exceeding 50 feet. Many comments have been received suggesting reduced lighting or no lighting of the proposed Temple. Reducing the hours of illumination is a valid technique to increase the compatibility of the proposed Temple; however, staff believes that the lighting hours based upon the hours of operation is acceptable. Staff is hesitant to suggest limiting the hours of operation of a place of religious worship, especially when there is little external evidence of the activities other than vehicles entering and exiting the site. As noted previously in the report, the city cannot certify the EIR at this time due to the additional noticing required, and the EIR must be certified, if found adequate, prior to acting on the project. Therefore, staff recommends that the Planning Commission conduct a public hearing, provide direction to staff on the preparation of findings and conditions, and continue the item to October 3, 2002. Submitted by: PATRICIA L. TEMPLE Planning Director PmirAiUa� Prepared by: JAMES W. CAMPBELL Senior Planner Planner ' (Z:nz 6fl LDS Temple (PA2001 -208)) September 5, 2002 Page 19 of 20 Exhibits 1. Project plans (Separate large format plans) 2. Comparison graphic of Los Angeles and La Jolla Temple and the proposed Newport Beach Temple 3. Steeples and Lighting as Religious Symbols 4. Property Value Article 5. Memorandum prepared by the City Attorney regarding RLUIPA. 6. Councilmember Bromberg's poll, results and responses. 7. Additional correspondence received. 8. Petition in opposition 9. Draft EIR (Separate Bound Volume) 10. Responses to Comments document (Separate Bound Volume) LDS Temple (PA2001 -208)) September 5, 2002 Page 20 of 20 `�3 Exhibit No. 1. Project plans 14� 'ii • • tE •33FEE 4?aS`3? �qqi �C i�ty p €Ri �S p ?? sg x� =o�oa 1byJ VUi pE r3 wm w F� w ¢F ...s z d Y 9 Y' G F •E .D b 'A .A 66 'b D �E EQ a ,5 e X11 JI Q 11 m gy2„ J 1 c Q �1 y dE I� z • �: aF o � 1 11 � II t -- ? 'w e _ ( EG n ii l S 5 i _ry ii ge ' 1.. b at At t A d4� �4 5p Zw W�o oxl� 13w:M-W, z z W w M p 11 it C, C5 E6 2q II wx -j I -Tru 11 II II II S F� L e• °i 6 w10 o S ® a =Z Iz 4 m ma_ o _ S o'44 om:t x[44 � S a� o I 6 \ M \ y , G I Q Exhibit No. 2. Comparison graphic of Los Angeles and La Jolla Temple and the proposed Newport Beach Temple )13 C E 2 U Q W m H 0 a w z 0 w X15 Exhibit No. I Steeples and Lighting as Religious Symbols 11 BOSTON Watkins NEW YORK CHICAGO Latham a NORTHERN VIRGINIA FRANKFURT ATTORNEYS AT LAW ORANGE COUNTY HAMBURG WWW.LW.COM PARIS SAN DIEGO HONG KONG LONDON DECEIVED BY SAN FRANCISCO PLANNING_ DEPARTMENT VALLEY LOS ANGELES SILICON CITY OF NCWP` r- EAGH SINGAPORE MOSCOW TOKYO NEW JERSEY DEC 1 ©2001 WASHINGTON. D.C. December 12, 200 ,18191101111121112131415 6 FVl No. 0145320028 Via Mail/Fax (949) 644 -3229 Patricia Temple Planning Director 3300 Newport Boulevard P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Re: Bonita Canyon Temple / Steeples and Lighting as s Religious Symbols Dear Ms. Temple: At our meeting on November 20`h, you requested a written statement of the official position of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter -day Saints regarding the religious significance of steeples and lighting on temples. Attached is the Church's official statement entitled "Temple Steeples and Lighting as Religious Symbols." While this statement has been tailored to fit the Newport Beach Temple, I am informed that its principles are uniform, at least as to temples located in the United States. In addition to finding that the erection and lighting of a steeple is an important religious symbol, we are confident that the City will also determine that this element is no threat to the health, safety or welfare of the general public. In fact, it is hard to envision any actual municipal benefit to be served by any City restriction on the height or lighting of this slender steeple. That was the effect of a very similar case, involving one of our temples, that was decided earlier this year. Enclosed is a copy of a Massachusetts Supreme Court decision in Martin vs. The Corporation of the Presiding Bishop of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter -day Saints (May 16, 2001). That case involved the height of a steeple built in Belmont, near Boston. The court upheld a 139 -foot tower (including a 56 -foot building), despite a local zoning restriction limiting height to 60 feet or 4 stories. (I have marked certain passages that are especially pertinent here.) That decision was based on the First Amendment and a Massachusetts state law called the "Dover Amendment" which was similar to the recent federal law, The Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 (or "RLUIPA ") The Martin case did not rely on RLUIPA, as it was enacted after the Martin case was first briefed. Our facts are even better than in the Boston case. Here, our setbacks are far greater and the steeple is even lower than in that case. Also, the nearest plaintiff there lived twice as close to the Boston Temple as the nearest Bonita Canyon resident will live to our Temple: 300 feet vs. 650 feet. As for views, the Church has designed the steeple to be so narrow as not to obstruct any significant views from neighboring properties. I also understand that our site is not within any "view corridor" or "view point overlay," as designated by the City- Perhaps a few opposing neighbors may think they are aggrieved because they can actually see a tall lighted steeple from their homes. As the Martin court said: "...generally, concerns about the visual impact of a structure do not suffice to confer standing to appeal a zoning decision." If the potential injury is so minimal as to raise serious doubts about the objectors' standing even to raise a legal challenge, then City action to prevent any such injury should not amount to a "compelling governmental interest." 650 TowN CENTER DRIVE. SUITE 2000 0 COSTA MESA. CALIFORNIA 92626-1925 TELEPHONE- (714) 540 -1235 • FAX: (714) 755 -8290 Oc DOCSW7225z2 @4 #902!.DOC[W20001 I ') l IATHAM & WATNINS Patricia Temple December 12, 2001 Page 2 RLUIPA prohibits any substantial burdening of the Church's free exercise of religion (including any undue restrictions on the "use, building or conversion of real property") unless the city uses the least restrictive means to advance a compelling governmental interest. Whatever interest may exist in protecting neighbors' sentiments about what they see when they look out their windows cannot possibly meet RLUIPA's "compelling interest" test. Even under the simpler "balancing analysis" test applied in California or the "neutrality test" that was applied by the U.S. Supreme Court before RLUIPA, a neighbor's desire not to see a temple or its steeple pales in comparison to the important "free exercise" benefits that accrue to the Church and the community. Thus, restricting steeple height or temple lighting cannot satisfy any of these federal standards. The Martin case suggests that it is permissible for the zoning board to inquire about possible amendments to the proposed site or building design. During our early design stages, after meeting with the Harbor View Homes and Bonita Canyon Association boards last August, the Church's architects voluntarily amended the steeple design before taking it to the highest ecclesiastical leaders for final approval or to the City for its review. Accordingly, the steeple height has already been reduced by about 9 feet (7 %) and its overall surface was proportionately reduced by nearly 20 %. You have also asked me to describe other accommodations to neighbors' concerns that the Church has made, which include the following: (a) The initial decision to construct a temple with 17,500 square feet rather than the maximum 90,000 sq. ft. permitted by The Irvine Company or even the required minimum of 25,000 sq. ft. (about the same size as the existing Church meetinghouse). This land was acquired for a much larger building, as evidenced by the high price paid for this prime site. This excess land will result in less than 5% lot coverage and combined setbacks (front, rear and side yards) of nearly 1,000 feet; (b) Redesign of the main access road so as to curve towards the temple in an easterly direction. Now, head lights from oncoming traffic will be directed away from the nearest homes. The parking lots themselves will be terraced and obscured by landscaping, further reducing headlight glare; (c) Willingness to install more extensive and mature landscaping materials to cover more view of the temple and its lighting and ultimately some of the steeple. (Residents desiring to reduce the view still further could plant evergreens closer to their homes, with much greater effect than our more distant plantings.) Terraced gardens and mature palm and pine trees will surround the temple as well; (d) Use of textured, non - reflective exterior materials on the building itself. This material will not be "dazzling white" as some of the news articles have stated, but will more likely be a reddish -tan or other earth -tone material; and (e) Willingness to use subdued lighting and to turn off direct fagade illumination on the building after 11 pm, despite the Church's preference to keep the top part of the steeple lighted all night due to its religious symbolism. All grounds and building lighting will be strictly contained on site. Please feel free to call me if either you, Jim Campbell or Todd Weber has any further questions or needs in this matter. Thank you. g urs Bentley of LATHAM & WATKINS OC_DOCSW72257.2 @4N902!.DOC[W20001 NEWPORT BEACH CALIFORNIA STAKE THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER -DAY SAINTS OFFICIAL STATEMENT TEMPLE STEEPLES AND LIGHTING AS RELIGIOUS SYMBOLS: Newport Beach California Temple of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter -dav Saints This statement is the official position of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter -day Saints regarding the following points: 1. Design Authority. Church members believe that the location and design of temples are revealed by God to the president of the Church, whom members regard as a prophet. 2. Temples As Holy Places. In our theology, temples are places of deep religious significance. The purpose of temples is to exalt and enlighten the human soul. Thus, greater emphasis is placed on the aesthetic beauty, serenity and design of temples than any other Church facility. 3. The Steeple. The temple steeple is a symbolic architectural connection with the infinite, embodying the value of upward ascendancy. It must be high enough to be visible at a distance which identifies the temple as a source of eternal blessings available to the faithful. A recent President of the Church said: "...spires are symbolic of haw our lives ought to be ever moving upward toward God." 4. Illumination. Lighting of the steeple and the statue described below is also a symbol of our theology, reflecting the Savior's statement: "I am the light of the world He that followeth me shall not walk in darkness" (John 8:12). Illumination for the Newport Beach Temple is designed to be much more subdued than for the temples in La Jolla and West Los Angeles. The steeple should be kept illuminated during all normal operating hours, which may continue as late as 11:00 pm. 5. The Angel. In our theology, the statue atop the steeple represents an angelic messenger who helped to restore the gospel of Jesus Christ through Joseph Smith. It is reflective of the statement in Revelation 14:6: "And I saw another angel fly in the midst of heaven, having the everlasting gospel to preach unto them that dwell on the earth, and to every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people." i l I Vf W ord . Cla fin, M. D. Newport Beach Stak President, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter -day Saints 747 N.E.2d 131 (Cite as: 434 Mass. 141, 747 N.E.2d 131) C Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Middlesex. Arleen MARTIN & others [FNI] FNI. Jenny Altschuler, Margaret Boyajian, and Joyce Janes. V. The CORPORATION OF THE PRESIDING BISHOP OF the CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER -DAY SAINTS. Argued Jan. 12, 2001. Decided May 16, 2001. Neighboring landowner brought action against church to challenge decision by zoning board of appeals approving tall steeple on temple. The Superior Court Department, Middlesex County, Elizabeth M. Fahey, J., annulled the decision. Church's application for direct appeal was granted. The Supreme Judicial Court, Marshall, C.J., held that: (1) landowner had standing to challenge approval by zoning board of appeals; (2) Dover Amendment restricting zoning ordinances and by- laws concerning land or structures used for religious purposes applied to church's decision: and (3) the Amendment prohibited the restriction. Vacated and remanded. West Headnotes [1] Zoning and Planning 0571 414k571 Most Cited Cases As an abutter to property affected by decision of zoning board of appeals, landowner enjoyed a rebuttable presumption that she was a person aggrieved and entitled to appeal board's decision. M.G.L.A. c. 40A, §§ 11, 17. [2] Zoning and Planning 0571 414k571 Most Cited Cases Generally, concerns about the visual impact of a structure do not suffice to confer standing to appeal zoning decision. Page 2 [3] Action C�:-13 13kl3 Most Cited Cases A defined protected interest may impart standing to a person whose impaired interest falls within that definition. [4] Zoning and Planning 0571 414k571 Most Cited Cases Landowner abutting property on which church sought to build tall steeple on temple had standing to challenge approval by zoning board of appeals; zoning bylaw required consideration of visual consequences and views from developed properties, and since the landowner would be able to see the steeple from most or all of her property, she came within the scope of bylaw protection. [5] Zoning and Planning (2=76 414k76 Most Cited Cases Dover Amendment restricting zoning ordinances and by -laws concerning land or structures used for religious purposes applied to church's decision to build tall steeple on temple; the structure as a whole was used for religious purposes, even if the steeple did not have an independent religious use. M.G.L.A. c. 40A, § 3. [61 Zoning and Planning (S:-76 41406 Most Cited Cases Each element or section of a structure need not have an independent religious use to be protected by the Dover Amendment restricting zoning ordinances and by -laws concerning land or structures used for religious purposes; rather, the Amendment applies if the structure as a whole is used for religious purposes. M.G.L.A. c. 40A, § 3. [7] Constitutional Law 084.5(1) 92k84.5(1) Most Cited Cases [71 Zoning and Planning K�=76 41406 Most Cited Cases First Amendment prohibited judge from determining whether the inclusion of a particular architectural feature on a temple was necessary for a particular religion and, therefore, whether a tall steeple was Copr. Q West 2001 No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works Ana 747 N.E.2d 131 (Cite as: 434 Mass. 141, 747 N.E.2d 131) necessary to the Morman religion and protected by the Dover Amendment restricting zoning ordinances and by -laws concerning land or structures used for religious purposes. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. I; M.G.L.A. c. 40A, § 3. [81 Zoning and Planning c2�65 414k65 Most Cited Cases Rigid application of zoning bylaw's height restrictions to church steeple would impair the character of the temple without advancing any municipal concern and, therefore, was prohibited by the Dover Amendment restricting zoning ordinances and by -laws concerning land or structures used for religious purposes, but permitting reasonable regulations concerning height; the character of the temple with its steeple encompassed both its architectural beauty, as well as its religious symbolism. M.G.L.A. c. 40A, § 3. [91 Zoning and Planning C.:-65 414k65 Most Cited Cases Considering only whether a zoning bylaw's height restriction prevented or diminished a temple's religious usefulness as applied to a steeple was too narrow under the Dover Amendment restricting zoning ordinances and by -laws concerning land or structures used for religious purposes, but permitting reasonable regulations. M.G.L.A. c. 40A, § 3. [101 Zoning and Planning C^�:-65 414k65 Most Cited Cases When applying the Dover Amendment that restricts zoning ordinances and by -laws concerning land or structures used for religious purposes, the trial judge should have considered whether compliance with height restrictions would have impaired the character of a church temple, while taking into account the special characteristics of its exempt use. M.G.L.A. c. 40A, § 3. [111 Zoning and Planning C^�:-76 414k76 Most Cited Cases Religious doctrine is not the defining test whether imposition of a zoning requirement will impair the character of a religious building and is prohibited by the Dover Amendment restricting zoning ordinances and by -laws concerning land or structures used for Page 3 religious purposes. M.G.L.A. c. 40A, § 3. * *133 *142 Arthur P. Kreiger, Cambridge, for the plaintiffs. Paul Killeen (Edward J. Naughton with him) for the defendant. James O. Fleckner & Andrew M. Fischer, Boston, for The American Jewish Congress, amicus curiae, submitted a brief. Present MARSHALL, C.1., GREANEY, IRELAND, SPINA, COWIN, & SOSMAN, JJ. MARSHALL, C.J. May the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (church) build a steeple atop its new temple on the highest hill of Belmont where the proposed steeple would rise higher than the dimensional requirements of the applicable Belmont zoning bylaw? The board of appeals of Belmont (board) said yes, but its decision was annulled by a judge in the Superior Court. The church appealed, and we granted its application for direct appellate review. [FN21 FN2. The board of appeals of Belmont also filed a notice of appeal. It did not, however, file a brief or otherwise pursue its appeal. The church's planned temple in Belmont complied with all zoning bylaws but for the height of its proposed steeple: the steeple would rise eighty- three feet above the roof of the temple, while under the applicable Belmont bylaw the church had a permitted right to build a steeple (projection) of eleven feet, two inches. On the church's application for zoning relief, the board concluded that the bylaw's projection height restriction, if applied to the steeple, would be an unreasonable regulation of a religious structure prohibited by the Dover Amendment, G.L. c. 40A § 3, second par. [FN31 We agree. We vacate the judgment of the Superior Court because it is inconsistent with that statute. FN3. General Laws C. 4C � 3, second par., provides: "No zoning ordinance or by -law shall ... prohibit, regulate or restrict the use of land or structures for religious purposes ... on land owned ... by a Copr. 0 West 2001 No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works \03 747 N.E.2d 131 (Cite as: 434 Mass. 141, *142, 747 N.E.2d 131, * *133) religious sect or denomination ... provided, however, that such land or structures may be subject to reasonable regulations concerning the bulk and height of structures and determining yard sizes, lot area, setbacks, open space, parking and building coverage requirements." *143 1 Since 1979, the church has owned a nine -acre wooded lot in Belmont. Bounded on the north by a major highway, Route 2, the lot is surrounded on the east, south, and west by single - family residences. In 1995, the president of the church, Gordon B. Hinckley, announced plans to construct a temple on the lot. The construction of a temple, which is used to perform three sacred ceremonies, is a matter of deep religious significance to the church and its members, who believe that the location and design of temples are revealed by God to the presidency of the church. The Belmont temple site is located in the single residence -A (SR -A) zoning district. Section 3.3 of the Belmont zoning bylaw allows religious uses by right in an * *134 SR -A zone. [FN4] Because of the large size of its lot, the church had the right to construct a temple of up to "60 feet or 4 stories in height" [FN51; its temple plan met that and all other zoning requirements. The permissible height of the steeple is governed, in turn, by § 4.2.2 n. I of the Belmont bylaw concerning uninhabited "projections." [FN61 Because the church's eighty - three foot proposed steeple, whicl *144 included at the top a ten -foot statue of the Angel Moroni, [FN71 did not comply with that bylaw, the church applied for a special permit to exceed the height limit and, alternatively, a determination that application of the bylaw's height restriction to the steeple would violate the Dover Amendment, G.L. c. 40 E 3, second par. FN4. Section 3.3 of the Belmont zoning bylaw provides that "[r]eligious or educational use[s] exempted from prohibition by [G.L. c. 40A. § 3,1" are permitted in all of Belmont's single residence zones. FN5. Section 4.2 of the Belmont zoning bylaw provides that buildings in the single residence -A (SR -A) zone of Belmont may be no more than thirty -six feet, or two and one -half stories high. However, "[g]reatei height is permitted provided Page 4 the building setback from each street and lot line exceeds otherwise applicable requirements by 10 feet plus one foot for each foot of excess height, but in no case shall building height exceed 60 feet or 4 stories in height." Section 4.2.2 n. 5. The temple is set back over 300 feet from most of the surrounding lots, and no less than 165 feet from the nearest building. FN6. Section 4.2.2 n. I of the Belmont zoning bylaw provides that: "Chimneys, towers and other projections not used for human occupation may exceed the height limitations herein provided that ... any such projection above the building exceeding 10 feet or 20% of the building height, whichever is greater, shall be allowed by special permit only." FN7. The church presented uncontested evidence that the Angel Moroni is an important religious symbol for the church, the equivalent of a cross for other Christian -based faiths. Members believe the Angel Moroni appeared to Joseph Smith, the founder of the church. Beginning in May, 1996, and continuing over many months, the board held numerous public hearings on the church's application. On April 28, 1997, the board granted the requested relief. The board noted that the Dover Amendment requires a degree of accommodation between protected uses and matters of critical municipal concern. It found that there is "no grave municipal concern in controlling steeple height on churches," and that it was "hardly accommodating to a protected use to limit the Church to a 12 foot projection." [FN81 The board concluded that the steeple height requested by the church was reasonable "as a Dover type regulation of height." The board also concluded that the "benefits" provided by the church outweigh the burdens that could result from the steeple height, and that the height of the steeple requested by the church was reasonable "as a special permit matter." [FN91 FN8. The twelve -foot steeple refers to the steeple height that would have been allowed by right under the church's initial application. See note 22, infra. FN9. Section 7.4.2 of the Belmont zoning bylaw provides that a special permit "shall be granted only if the Special Permit Granting Authority determines that the proposal's benefits to the Town Copr. m West 2001 No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works l�4 747 N.E.2d 131 (Cite as: 434 Mass. 141, *144, 747 N.E.2d 131, * *134) will outweigh any adverse effects for the Town." Other special permit criteria specified f 7.4.2, such as location, access, and the process to be followed, are "preferred" rather than required. The plaintiffs brought an action in the Superior Court challenging the board's decision pursuant to the Zoning Act, G.L. c. 41 1 17. [FN10] In response the board am * *135 the church challenged the standing of each of the plaintiffs to seek relief from the board's ruling. A judge in the Superior Court rejected that argume *14! and concluded that at least one of the plaintiffs had standing. The judge then ruled that the Dover Amendment did not apply to the church's application for zoning relief because "neither the presence nor the height" of the steeple represents a "necessary element of the Mormon [FNIIj religion." She also concluded that the board had abused its discretion by issuing a special permit allowing the steeple. FNIO. General Laws c. 401 t 17, provides, in pertinent part: "Any person aggrieved by a decision of the board of appeals or any special permit granting authority ... may appeal to ... the superior court department in which the land concerned is situated...." FNI1. Members of the church are sometimes referred to as "Mormons" or members of the "LDS" faith. The plaintiffs Arleen Martin, Jenny Altschuler, and Margaret Boyajian are owners of residential propenies that abut the temple site. The plaintiff Joyce Jones is the owner of residential property that "abuts a way which abuts an abutter to the church property," and resides within 300 feet of the temple. The church first challenges the judge's decision affirming the standing of all four plaintiffs to bring this action. We agree with the judge that Martin has standing, albeit on grounds somewhat different from those on which the judge relied. We therefore need not address the standing of the remaining three plaintiffs. See Save the Bay, Inc. v. Department of Pub. Utils., 366 Mass. 667, 674 -675, 322 N.E.2d 742 (1975) Murray v. Board of Appeals of Barnstable, 22 Mass.App.Ct. 473, 476 n. 7, 494 N.E.2d 1364(1986). [FN12] FN12. The plaintiffs also sought review of the Page 5 board's decision in the nature of certiorari pursuant to G.L. C. 24 i 4, as well as a declaratory judgment regarding the propriety of the board's ruling pursuant to G.L. c. 2311 t 1. Review in the nature of certiorari is available only where no other remedy is available and review is necessary to correct "a substantial injury or injustice arising from the proceeding under review Walpole v. Secretary of the Executive Office of Envil. Affairs, 405 Mass. 67, 72, 537 N.E.2d 1244 (1989). The judge concluded that, because the claims could be reviewed under G.L. C. 401 C 17, the plaintiffs could not avail themselves of G.L. c. 249, g 4, and that declaratory relief was not appropriate for the same reason and dismissed counts 11 and III of the complaint. The plaintiffs filed a cross appeal challenging that aspect of the judge's decision. Because relief is available under G.L. c. 40A. § 17 we do not reach the cross appeal. See Part 111. supra. [I] As an abutter to the temple site, Martin enjoys a rebuttable. presumption that she is a "person aggrieved" under G.L *14f c. 40A f 11. See Bell v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Glouces 429 Mass. 551, 553- 554, 709 N.E.2d 815 (1999), quoting Marashlian v. Zoning Bd. Of Appeals of Newburyport, 421 Mass. 719, 721, 660 N.E.2d 369 (1996). Martin claimed that she would be adversely affected by the shadow of the steeple, as well as the steeple's visual impact. The judge found that Martin "would have a view of most, if not all, of the steeple from her back door and pan of her patio, as well as a clear view from areas in her yard where she regularly gardens and landscapes "; she "also would see the spire from the front of her house." The judge pointed to the fact that the yproposed steeple was 139 feet, [FN13] and would be built at the top of a hill in Martin's backyard. She concluded that Martin had standing because of the "extreme and unique" visual impact caused by the "presence of such an enormous structure looming over" Martin's property. FN 13. It is apparent that the judge was referring to the combined height of the main structure of the temple and the steeple. * *136 [2][3][4] Generally, concerns about the visual impact of a structure do not suffice to confer standing, and we are not persuaded by the judge's reasoning on this point. Harvard Square Defense Fund, Inc. v. Planning Bd. of Cambridge, 27 Mass.App.Ct. 491, 493, 540 N.E.2d 182 (1989). Copr. 0 West 2001 No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works 1�5 747 N.E.2d 131 (Cite as: 434 Mass. 141, *146, 747 N.E.2d 131, * *136) ut Belmont's zoning bylaw itself provides that the and should take into consideration the "[v]isual [ consequences" of any proposed structure. Subsection (1) o § 7.4.2(c) of the bylaw provides that "[v]iews from public ways and developed properties s sio'uld be considerately treated in the site arrangement and building design." [FN 141 A t defined protected interest may impart standing to a Iperson whose *147 impaired interest falls within that definition. Se( Monks v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Plymouth, 37 Mass.App.Ct. 685, 688 -689. 642 N.E.2d 314 (1994), citin; Circle Lounge & Grille, Inc. v. Board of Appeal of Boston 324 Mass. 427. 431, 86 N.E.2d 920 (1949). Monks v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Plymouth, sul homeowners appealed from the grant of a special permit to build a communications tower. The Appeals Court held that a bylaw similar to the one at issue here [FN15] did not confer automatic standing on abutters. but the abutters could establish that they were within the legal scope of the protection created by Id at 688, 642 N.E.2d 314. In that case the abutters did so by demonstrating that the tower "would be 'clearly visible from almost every window' of their home." Id at 687, 642 N.E.2d 314. Here the judge found that the towering steeple would be visible to Martin from most, if not all. of her property, both during the day and when lit at night. [FN16] We conclude that Martin has demonstrated that she came within the scope of Belmont's bylaw protection sufficiently to confer standing on her. [FN 17] FN 14. Section 7.4.2 (special permit criteria) of the Belmont bylaw states in pertinent pan: "The following shall be the basis for decisions on special permits ... Special Permits shall be granted only if the Special Permit Granting Authority determines that the proposal's benefits to the Town will outweigh any adverse effects for the Town or the vicinity, after consideration of the following preferred qualities. among other things: "(c) Visual Consequences. "(1) Views from public ways and developed properties should be considerately treated in the site arrangement and building design." FN15. The zoning bylaw at issu Monks v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of 37outh, Mass.App.Ct. 685, 686 - 687. 642 N.E.2d 314 (1994), provided that: "No structure shall be built ... to above a height of thirty -five (35) feet ... without a special permit Page 6 from the board of appeals. after a finding by the board that ... the proposed structure will not in any way detract from the visual character or quality of the adjacent buildings. the neighborhood or the town as a whole." FN16. As a condition of the requested zoning relief, the board required that the steeple be lighted only "no later than 11 p.m., (or at whatever earlier hour all other churches in Belmont turn off all exterior lights)." FN 17. The judge also found that Martin established that the steeple will affect her "by casting a shadow" over her property, which would "substantially reduce" her enjoyment of her property sufficient to confer standing. We agree with the church that the evidence of shadow from the steeple was speculative and insufficient to confer standing. III The Dover Amendment precludes the adoption of zoning ordinances or bylaws restricting the use of land for religious (and other exempt) purposes, G.L. c. 40A, § 3, second par., but authorizes "reasonable regulation[ ]" of bulk, height, yard si *10 lot area, setbacks, open space, and parking requirements. See note supra * *11 The amendment "seeks to strike a balance between preventing local discrimination against [a religious] use ... and honoring legitimate municipal concerns that typically find expression in local zoning laws" (citation omitted) Trustees of Tufts College v. Medford, 415 Mass. 753. 757, 616 N.E.2d 433 (1993). Local zoning requirements are meant to be applied uniformly. Consequently, "local officials may not grant blanket exemptions from the requirements to protected uses. Campbell v. City Council of Lynn, 415 Mass. 772, 778, 616 N.E.2d 445 (1993). But they may decide that zoning requirements concerning height and dimension should not be applied to a proposed religious use where it would unreasonably impede the protected use without appreciably advancing critical municipal goals. Set Trustees of Tufts College v. Medford, supra at 757 -761, 616 N.E.2d 433. The board made a careful examination of the case law interpreting the Dover Amendment. It concluded that the first issue to be considered was "whether the ... structure is being used for a Copr. 0 West 2001 No Claim to Crig. U.S. Govt. Works 1�� 747 N.E.2d 131 (Cite as: 434 Mass. 141, *148, 747 N.E.2d 131, * *137) religious purpose." The board found that it "is clearly part of Mormon theology to reflect, in their buildings. the belief of an ascension towards heaven." The board found that members of the church believe that steeples, by pointing toward heaven, "serve the purpose of lifting Mormons' eyes and thoughts towards heaven." It concluded that the steeple served a religious purpose, and that application of the Belmont bylaw regulating the height of uninhabited projections would be an unreasonable regulation of a religious use. Rejecting that analysis, the judge found that, "[w]hile a steeple may have inspirational value and may embody the Mormon value of ascendency towards heaven. that is not a matter of religious doctrine and is not in any way related to the religious use of the [t]emple." She then determined that, because "neither the presence nor the height of the steeple atop the [t]emple represents a necessary element of the Mormon religion," it does not "aid in the Morons' system of faith" so as to be entitled to be analyzed pursuant to the Dover Amendment. In the alternative, the judge concluded that, even if the Dover Amendment were applicable, the church "failed to carry its burden of proof" that limiting the height of tin *149 proposed steeple to eleven feet, two inches, is "unreasonable." She reached this conclusion because the church had not shown that "limiting the spire [height] would prevent or significantly impede the religious use" of the temple. The judge erred on both grounds. 0 [5][6] First, in deciding that the Dover Amendment was not applicable, the judge erroneously framed the question as "whether the construction of the spire atop the already existing [t]emple [FN18] constitutes the 'use of land or structures for religious purposes' so as to trigger a Dover Amendment analysis." The statute directs the inquiry to the use of "land" or a "structure," not the use of an element or part of a structure. See G.L. c. t 3.. second par. ( "No zoning ordinance or by -law shall ... prohibit, regulate or restrict the use of land or structures for religious purposes "). 5 Worcester County Christian Communications, Inc. v. Board of Appeals of Spencer, 22 Mass.App.Ct. * *138 83. 87, 491 N.E.2d 634 (1986) ( "focus must be placed on the use of the structure "). To view each element, each section of a "structure." as requiring an Page 7 independent "religious" use leads to impossible results: Is a church kitchen or a church parking lot a "religious" use? We have not formulated the test so narrowly. Trustees of Tufts College v. Medford, 415 Mass. 753, 754 -755, 616 N.E.2d 433 (1993), for example, we considered the applicability of the Dover Amendment to several construction projects proposed by an educational institution, including a multi -level parking gara It We recognized that the proposed parking garage was for an educational purpose, because it "will be located in the core ... area of Tufts' campus Id. at 755, 616 N.E.2d 433. While the judge's inquiry may have focused on the steeple because the temple complied in all other respects with Belmont's zoning bylaws. the question under the statute is whether the structure as a *150 whole is to be used for religious purposes. [FN 191 It clearly is, and just as clearly the Dover Amendment applies. FN18. Because the proposed temple complied in all other respect with Belmont's bylaws. in June. 1998, the church obtained a building permit and began construction of the temple, including an approximately eleven foot base for the proposed steeple. Construction of the temple was complete by the time of trial. FN19. Despite the fact that the size of the temple itself was not before her, the judge found that. although the church claimed that the temple could not accommodate its intended religious uses if it were arty smaller, the portion of the interior temple space "devoted to the temple's purpose ... is a relatively small percentage." She went on to note that "[r]ooms such as the audio - visual room. lunch room, dining room, storage. custodian/clothing drop. general office, showers, mechanical areas, multi- use, waiting and study rooms, arrival center, cold and dry storage rooms and locker rooms are purely for the convenience of [tlemple visitors [rather than] the practice of the Mormon religion...." This is the son of particularized inquiry into the use of discrete sections of a structure serving a protected religious use that is inappropriate. [7] The judge also used an erroneous legal test to determine whether a "structure" serves a religious purpose, thereby entering an area of inquiry that the First Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits. She correctly noted that " Jr]eligious purpose' means something in aid of a system of faith and worship," citin] Needham Pastoral Counseling Copr. 0 West 2001 No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works lk 747 N.E.2d 131 (Cite as: 434 Mass. 141, *150, 747 N.E.2d 131, * *138) Ctr., Inc. v. Board of Appeals of Neec 2%, Mass.App.Ct. 31, 33, 557 N.E.2d 43 (1990). She then impermissibly concluded that a steeple is not "a necessary element of the Mormon religion." It is not for judges to determine whether the inclusion of a particular architectural feature is "necessary" for a particular religion. A rose window at Notre Dame Cathedral, a balcony at St. Peters Basilica, are judges to decide whether these architectural elements are "necessary" to the faith served by those buildings? The judge found, as she was compelled to do in the face of overwhelming and uncontradicted testimony, that temples "are the places where Mormons conduct their sacred ceremonies." No further inquiry as to the applicability of the Dover Amendment was warranted. Set Parish of the Advent v. Protestant Episcopal Diocese of Mc 426 Mass. 268, 284 -285, 688 N.E.2d 923 (1997) (civil tribunals must avoid resolving matters of purely ecclesiastical nature). See + Employment Div., Dep't of Human Resources of Or. v. Smit 494 U.S. 872, 887, 110 S.Ct. 1595, 108 L.Ed.2d 876 (1990), and cases cited ( "[r]epeatedly and in many different contexts, we have warned that courts must not presume to determine the place of a particular belief in a religion or the plausibility of a religious claim "). *151 B [8] As an alternative ground for denying relief, the judge determined that, even if the Dover Amendment applied, 0 * *13! church failed to prove that application of the Belmont bylaw to its temple was unreasonable. We described in Trustees of Tufts College v. Medfc 415 Mass. 753, 616 N.E.2d 433 (1993), an Campbell v. City Council of Lynn 415 Mass. 772, 616 N.E.2d 445 (1993), the standards by which to analyze application of the Dover Amendment to exempt institutions. While the reasonableness of a local zoning requirement will depend on the particular facts of each case, we said that a judge should consider whether the requirement sought to be applied takes into account "the special characteristics of [the exempt] use," adding that a zoning requirement that results "in something less than nullification of a proposed [exempt] use may be unreasonable within the meaning of the Dover Amendment. " Trustees of Tufts College v. Medford, Page 8 supra at 758 -759 & n. 6, 616 N.E.2d 433. See Campbell v. City Council of Lynn, supra at 778, 616 N.E.2d 445. [9][10] The judge found that the church had not met its burden of proving that the height restriction was unreasonable because it had not shown "that limiting the spire to 12 [feet] would prevent or significantly impede the religious use of the [t]emple or substantially diminish or detract from its usefulness." By considering only whether the height restriction prevented or diminished the temple's religious "usefulness," the judge's focus was again too narrow. There are several ways in which an applicant may demonstrate "unreasonableness." See, e.€ Trustees of Tufts College v. Medford, sups at 759 -760, 616 N.E.2d 433 (zoning requirement unreasonable if it detracts from usefulness of structure, imposes excessive costs on applicant, or impairs character of proposed structure). See alsi Rogers v. Norfolk 432 Mass. 374, 385, 734 N.E.2d 1143 (2000) ( "proof of cost of compliance is only one way" to show unreasonableness, and court must consider other aspects such as use or character of property); Campbell v. City Council of Lynn, supra at 778, 616 N.E.2d 445 (same). The judge should have considered whether compliance with Belmont's height restrictions would have impaired the character of the temple, while taking into account the special characteristics of its exempt use. [I I] *152 The judge dismissed the church's desire to build a steeple as a "purely" aesthetic issue. But matters of aesthetic and architectural beauty are among the factors to be considered in deciding whether a zoning requirement "impairs the character" of a proposed exempt u Trustees of Tufts College v. Medford, suprc at 757, 759 & n. 6, 616 N.E.2d 433. The "character" of the temple with itssteeple surely encompasses both its architectural beauty, as well as its religious symbolism. See Petrucci v. Board of Appeals of West 453, Mass.App.Ct. 818, 826 -827, 702 N.E.2d 47 (1998) (Dover Amendment precluded application of zoning ordinance that would "disturb the sense of the building's continuity" and ruin its "architectural integrity "). The record is replete with evidence that the steeple is integral to the specific character of the contemplated use. The church's architect based his design on an approved church prototype. There was uncontradicted testimony that the church values Copr. m West 2001 No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works 747 N.E.2d 131 (Cite as: 434 Mass. 141, *152, 747 N.E.2d 131, * *139) an ascendency of space for the religious ceremonies performed in temples. The architect designed the temple to have a steeple topped by a religious symbol, a statue of the Angel Moroni, because he considered the design of a well - proportioned steeple to be part of his assignment. [FN20] There was evidence * *14l that all but three of the church's numerous temples located in countries around the world have steeples. [FN21] The Mormon religion is hardly unique in this regard: churches have long built steeples to "express elevation toward the infinite, [their] spires soaring into the heavens." J. Sallis, Stone 63 (Ind. Univ. Press 1994), and a steeple is the precise architectural feature that most often makes the public identify the building as a religious structure. The judge found that, "[w]hile a spire may have inspirational value and may embody the Mormon value of ascendancy towards heaven, that is not a matter of religious doctrine...." fIt is not permissible for a judge to determine what is or is not a matter of religious doctrine. Se Fortin v. *152 Roman Catholic Bishop ofWorceste 416 Mass. 781, 785, 625 N.E.2d 1352 (1994). See also Fowler v. Rhode Island. 345 U.S. 67, 70, 73 S.Ct. 526, 97 L.Ed. 828 (1953) ( "no business of courts to say ... what is a religious practice or activity "). In any event, religious "doctrine" is not the defining test whether imposition of a zoning requirement will impair the character of a religious building. FN20. Because there was evidence that not all Mormon temples are topped by a figure of the Angel Moroni, the judge found the presence of the Angel Moroni "is not a matter of religious doctrine and is not in any way related to the religious use of the [t]emple." Catholic or Protestant religious services may be conducted in buildings that do not bear an exterior sign of a cross; that would not support a finding that a cross is "not in any way related to the religious use" of the building. FN21. At the time of trial, the church had 110 temples operating or under construction worldwide. The board found, and there was no evidence to the contrary, that no municipal concern was. served by controlling the steeple height of churches. It concluded that the height exemption requested by the church was reasonable in light of the function of a Page 9 Csteeple, and the importance of proportionality of steeple height to building height. Once it determined that the Dover Amendment was implicated, it was permissible for the board to consider whether something less than the original design of the steeple height was reasonable. It did so, and the church voluntarily amended its design to reduce the height of the steeple. [FN22] We agree with the boardthat a rigid application of Belmont's height restrictions for uninhabited "projections" would impair the character of the temple without advancing any municipal concern. FN22. In its initial application, the church proposed a temple that would be 94,100 square feet, fifty -eight feet high, with six steeples, the tallest of which would be 156 feet high. The church later submitted a revised plan that reduced the size of the proposed temple to 68,000 square feet, a height of fifty -six feet, and a single steeple of eighty-three feet. C Because we conclude that the height restriction imposed on uninhabited "projections" under § 4.2.2 of the Belmont bylaws may not reasonably be imposed on the church because of the Dover Amendment, we need not address whether the judge impermissibly exceeded her authority in annulling the decision of the board to issue a special permit. [FN23] We also need not consider whether the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000, 42 U.S.0 § 2000cc (2000), prohibits the application of the Belmont height limitation to the church's *154 proposed steeple. The judgment of the Superior Court is vacated. The case is remanded to th * *141 Superior Court. A new judgment is to be entered affirming the decision of the board of appeals of Belmont. FN23. The board found that the "benefits [of the I church's proposed steeple] outweigh the burdens," and concluded that the height of the steeple was reasonable "(a) as a ]over type regulation of height, (b) as a special permit matter or (c) a combination of the two." So ordered. END OF DOCUMENT Copr. © West 2001 No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works lsl`� /[ t Exhibit No. 4. Property Value Article I�� Journal of Real Estate Finance end Economics, 12: 319 -330 (1996) © 1996 Kluwer Aeadomic PublisEen Living. Next. to. Godliness: Residential Property Values and Churches THOMAS M.. CAWLL, PH.D, ., .. .. . Professor of &onomlu, University of Newda, Lar Jegar, 4303 Haryla d Parkway, Las [¢gas, NF 89154 -6Cb5 TERRENCE M. CtAUR=. PH.D. . . Professor of Finance. Urdversiry of Nesadd, Las Vegas, 4505 - Maryland Parkway, Lm *jw. NP 89154.600.8 IEPF JENSEN ... . Omdaare A,alsraru, YhwPormrion Center, Untwersiry of Nevada, Las Vegas, 4505 Airgoe std Parkway, tar Vegar. NV 891544007 Abstract This article extends the analysis concerning the impact of wighborhood churches on residential property values by ius'esdgatiog omriy SA00 inldantW property iraaaacdons in Henderson, Nevada, betman January 1986 end December 1990. We find that r=at property values deae , at 'a decreasing rate, as distance from a neipkhorhood chureb increases. This result is the oppoalte of that reported by Do. Wdbui, and Short In a Previous edition of this Journal. We bolster ota 6ndiuga by showing that distance from the site of a future chnrch has little or no impact on residential property values, whereas distance frond au'cdating bhid'ch Is associated with Ioiver pfoptr ty values. Our aideaet indicator that ntighbmhood churches are amnaitio that enhanw the value of neighborhood residential property. Finally, we dca nastntt that larger churches (as measured by square foot of lot size) tend to have a greater positive impact on residemid property values. In a recent article in this journal, Do, Wilbur, and Short (1994) (hereafter referred to as DWS) reported that a church can constitute a negative extemality on residential property values much as does a powerline, bazardous waste dump, landfill, or nuclear waste reposi- tory. t That a church should, a priori, constitute a, negative externality Is not clear, however. Although DWS suggest that such items as increased trat8c or the noise of church beW may produce a negative effect, churches can also be viewed as amenities, much like shop- ping centers and quality schools. It is well -known that where there exist desirable neigh. borhood amenities; the value of which are reflected in property prices.3 In the cage of churches, one could hypothesize, for example, that elderly homeowners, religious because of their temporal proximity, to meeting Him or Her and loathe to drive, may place a high value on being within walking distitaco to their house of worship. Other; equally appealing reasons can be offered suggestive of a positive effect on property values.4 If a church can be seen, a priori, equally as a positive or as a negative externality, then certain questions arise. Why did DWS obtain the results that tbelydid? Would'other tests in other localities produce the same result? Can all churches (denominations) be seen as either negative or positive bxternalities ?r Is disc a difference in the relationship between church locations and property values if the sale of the hobrb odcurs before of aftei the construction of the church building? tj3 z d 5 0 L 100065£ aN /SC S '1S /9V G 20.60 'I1 (I82) srJOl.lmos iN37`Ln00a Isl woes 320 CARROLI . CLAURLME AND JENSEN 7b answer these questions, we replicate the DWS study in another real estate market. Our method is different. however, in that it seeks to answer these questions. In addition. the size of our sample is over ten times that of DWS.b Our results are quite different, as well. We look at churches of several different denoiinations and`fnd that nearly all, but not all, have a positive effect on property values. There are differences in the price effect of various denominations. We also find, not surprisingly. that there is no price eFfcct of distance between residential property and future church sites. before the construction of a church. That is. we intentionally divide our sample to include sales prior to, and subse- quent to, construction of some neighborhood churches. We do this as an added check to ensure that our statistical results are not spurious. In the next section, we present the model and data for these tests. The third section, which presents the empirical results, is followed by a concluding section. 1. Model and data I.I. Model a Following DWS, we test several versions of a standard hedonic model: LSFu = f(4j,. t. DISTik). where LSP„ is the natural logarithm of real selling price of property.i at time r. X;I, is a vector of j characteristics of property i at time r, r is a time trend. and DIST,k is the dis- tance of property i from "nuisance" k, in this case. the nearest neighborhood church. meas- ured in feet. Our sets of j characteristics embody the following: AGE = the age of the structure in years. BATHS = the number of bathrooms. BEDS = the number of bedrooms. FP = an indicator variable for whether the house has a freplace.1 LSQFTB = the natural logarithm of the square feet cd the building. LSQFTL = the natural logarithm of the square feet-of the lot. POOL = an indicator variable for whether the property has a swimming pool. ROOMS = the total number of rooms in the' building. 289014 = an indicator for the Green Valley master- platwed community (zip code 89014). in contrast to the rest of Henderson. NV (zip code = 89015). MONTHa = the time -trend variable. equal to 0 in January 1986, and increasing by I per month. Our tests are designed to answer the questions posed in section 1. Accordingly. we test the model by looking at transaction prices of a sample of houses surrounding all 32 churches in the local market of Henderson. Nevada. We include indicators for the following multiple. church denominations: Baptist: 7 churches: Mormon (LDS): 5 churches: Catholic: 3 churches. Tlie other'17cburches include Lutheran, Presbyterian, Methodist, Assembly of God. Pentecostal. and congregatioiLs of unknown affiliation. Each chinch is separately identified by an indicator in a third variant of our model. £ d 60 L t 000696'ONIS r' '1S/97 SNo11:190S INSK"00 183 W0112'(1� RESSMENTIAL PROPERTY VALUES AND CHURCHES 321 Like DM, we measure distance to the closest church (in feet). The address of each prop- erty and the address of each church, were converted to an k-Y coordinate *%win, and the closest chinch to each proltttity thereby idep i4cd. Then the computer calculated the distance from each propertyh to that closest neighborhood church. This calculation was made regard- less of whether the church was constructed before or after the house was bought; that is, some ilistzhces are the span between a residential property and a Vacant future site of a chureb. Distingiushing tiie'relation between property values and tiistaoces fo actual or future neighborhood cbmrbes provides a very strong test of the nuisance versus amenity effect of neighborhood churches. If chtrches tend to locate where land is inexpensive ,9 then neighboring houses would also reflect those low land prices, even before the church is built However, if the church is truly a nuisance, then preperty near the future church site would .not show the diminished value until after the church's construction. Similarly, if churches are amenities, property values would increase as distance from the church decreased after the church is built, but not before. 1.2. The data Our data consist of all property sales in Henderson,' Nevada (zip code 89015) and the master planned comrini City of Green Valley (zip code 89014), between January 1986 and December 1990.10 This was a period of brisk construction activity of both houses and churches." Five churches in our sample were built during this period, and four were constructed after this period. Oar data allow us to determine both how neighborhood churches affect single - family houses, and whether distance from the church sift affects housing prices before and after the church is built. Data were obtained from Metroscan, a large computerized database of the files of tiie Tax Assessor's office of Clark County, Nevada. The database consists of 319,451 properties, including 196,000 singMamily homes.'Z We found 4,924 single-family property sales for the period January 1986- December 1990 in Henderson, Nevada. After eliminating observations with missing data, we obtained OUT statistical sam- ple of 4,858 property sales. 13 We present descriptive statistics for these data in 'able 1. We also obtained data on 32 churches in Henderson and Green Valley from the same Metroscan file. 7Vv6ty -two churches were const acted befbie 1986, four were built between 1986 and 1990, and six were constructed after 1990. Churches of major denominations include seven Baptist churches, five Mormon (IRS) eburches; and three Catholic churches. Thble.2 shows statistics on each church and the number of property sales closest to each church, both before and after that church was built ' Table 3 presents the results Of three regtbssitins'rnn on the rire sampl'ei'tbat is, houses bought before and after oeighbofiood churches were built. The first 7eg;essfon suppresses the information on religious denominations and individual. churches. We. find results con- sistent with the usual hedouic literature. Housing prices decrease with age and number Of rooms; housing prices increase significantly with time (about 0.5 % a month), square feet of the building (elasticity = 0.6),. and square feet of lot size (elasticity = 0.13)_ Houses with fireplaces sell for about 7 % more than houses without fireplaces, and houses with swimming pools sell for about 79a more than houses v+itho. xw_unmmg per, cderis pan- bus.'4 Houses in Green Valley (289014.= 1) sell for about 175 m`oie than houses in old Henderson (289014 = 0). P' d 60L10006SS "ON /SV :Gl '1S 1Lv $1 Z0.60'II LI N3) SNOI4MOS 1NZYtR000 ISl WOES Ir 322 CARROLL. CIAUIMMIE AND JENSEN 7bbLe 1. Descriptive statistics. .. .. .. 3 Paws Sample Before Church Huill After Church limit Standard Standard Standard Mean Deviation Mean, Deviation Mean Deviation r -Stn istic PRICE $103,215 534,275 " $111,760 $33,415 $94,933 $34,035 -10:58 RPRICE S84t5M 526,971. $92,565 $25,872 SS 11406 I„ $26,746 AGE 4.48. 8.16 2.07 4.71' 5 41 8.97 , 12.98 PATHS .. . 2.14 0.49 2.23 0.41 2.10 0.51 -10.11 BEDS 3.30,. 0.86 3.40 0.72, 326 0.77 -6.20 1 DISTANCE 2872 2932 2768 1654 2913 3293 1.67 FIREPLAC PP D.90 80.30'%" 0.57 39.78% 1.07 95.10% 0.46 21.59% 0.84 74.62% 0.60 43.53% -13.83 -16.56 POOL 1947% 39.60% 26.48% 44.14% 16.78% 37.37% -831 ROOMS 6.13 124 6.46 1.18 6.01 1.25 =12.75 SQFTB 1.741 '. 561 1856 502 1697 576 - 11,02 SQM 7700 4987 i 7377 2951 7825 5570 1.62 289014 .63.697. 48.09% 93.32% 24.97% 52.31% 49.95% -29.36 Z89015 36.31% 48.09% 6.68% 24.97% 47.69% 49.95% 29.36 ' MONTH .38.23 16.06 34.68 15.54 39.59 16.05 9.28 BAPTIST 16.82 %'.. 37.41% 16.77% 37.37% 16.94% 37.43 %' 0.57 CATHLC 18.77% 39.05% 23.96% 42.76% 16.78% 37.37% -5.57 - LDS 23.10% : 42.15% 0.00% 0.00% 31,97% 46.64% 25.45 CHAGE 4.41 -. 9.11 -2.55 1.36 7.08 9.40 38.09 Number 4858 1348 . 3510 PRICE Sales pricy of land and building in current dollars RPRICE Sales price of land and building in constant dollars (1982 -1984 = ]OD) AGE' Age of strdcmte BATHS Number of bathrooms ' BEDS Number of bedrooms DISTANCE Dirmw bem"n property and =cow church, so feet FHtEPL.AC Number of fireplaces PP PP = 1 if building has 1 or more fisaplaces; PP - 0, building bas no flrcplaa POOL Pool inddicator (POOL - 1, her pool; POOL = 0, does not have pool) ROOMS total number of rooms in shuetme SQPTB Square feet of building SQFIL Square &a of lab . 289014 Indicant for zip code 89014 (Green Valley) MONTH Number of months after January 1986 that property sale closed E.MMST Indicator for Baptist churches CATHLC Indicator for Catholic churches LOS Indirimr for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (IDS) CHAOE Age of nearest church at timc of property transfer (AGE < 0 u taus eburoh bad not yet been built) . S d 60L 1000696'ON/S V: S I'181L V: S I Z0,60'II (1 E3) /l I SN011R'10S 1NEYMDOC IS1 WOES REMENT AL PROPERTY VALUES AND CHURCHES 323 � � �+ ^ o mo � e r�"a •i� n. p'g � � o na e'W � � i+ � N h �'e o 0 0 e m y P p d a O n 0 < "' ^ O N V z ^'� o e W 3 N a Z V a D Vp p W mbt��F mom.. a.b.. ypn app. V.hOn FVNP OO OG mbr Y�^^6 µOµ OOa pPa P. O r n N r N i2 Fd U o V ., ppss. P. phpp�pp��<. �mpq�$ p��pG^ ����a�� 'Q�q�pp�gps�pp�gp�.qp�pp_pqns W W W W m W W W� W W W '^� R �V � m W W W i A 9 m •• m m m. m m m Q a 1D b �y ♦ P P O P p M v� r„ (V P N O �p (� NW y H auf V�. ��pp �y N N N N N N N N N �' 1 n 9 Z r 9 d 60L 1000696'01M/97' S I'IS /87'51 20.60'11 (1133) SNOI1f170S .TNa)Cf1004 ISI 14083 324 CARROLL. CLAURE77E AND IENSEN Table 3 Regession mulls; dependent variable - log of real sciting price: entim sample. variable Coeffidmit FStalistir Coefficient 1Stausuc coefficient FSw1lsuo Log of caastant 5.5560 70.74 5.6009 71.36 5.7506 68.37 AGE - 0.0060 -19.83 - 0.0061 -20.25 - 0.0060 -14.55 BATHS 0.@00 3.12 0.0192 2.99 0.0217 3.37 BEDS - 0,0022 -0.54 - 0.0029 -0.70 .0.0009 0.22 MONTH 0,0021 I7.79 0.0021 17.90 D.0021 17.57 DISTANCE - 1.12E-05 -9.13 - 1.22&05 -9.67 - 1.32E -05 -9.09 DIS75Q 1.86E -10, 7.91 2.02B -10 8.43 2.21E-10 BA8 FP 0.0682 11.66 0.0694 11.91 0.0600 9.99 LSQPTB 0.6013 42.08 0.5979 41.93 0.5787 39.63 LSQFTL 0.1298 20.87 0.1285 20.70 0.1228 18.67 POOL 0.0651 12.91 0.0649 12.93 0,0646 13.03 ROOMS - 0.0159 -4.74 - 0.0159 -4.76 - 0.0149 -4.47 Z89014 0.1579 31.11 0.1610 31.01 0.1908 18.74 Baptist - 0.0142 -2.52 Catholic - 0.0270 -4.99 LDS 0.0125 2.53 Chi. F = 9.1118 RZ $ 0.8294 0.8312 0.8368 Adlurtcd RZ 0.8290 0.8307 0.8356 Multiple F 1962.81 1589.55 686.64 Durbim -%tsoa ' I.87 1.88 1.91 Number 4858 4859 4959 We are most interested in the coefficients on distance and distance squared. We find that Property values decrease with distance from the neighborhood church at a decreasing rate (as shown by the significant positive coefficient on distance squared). Taking the partial derivative of the log of real price with respect to distance and setting the result equal to zero allows us to solve for the distance at which proximity to churches has no impact on property values: aln(SP) = -1.1 x 10_5 + 2(1.9 x 10 -1)D = 0 Do OD = 1.1 x 10 -5 28,947 feet = 5.48 miles. u 2(1.9 x ]0- Our results are strongly at odds with those of DWS, who found that property values in- creased with distance from the neighborhood church, up to a distance of 850 feet. Appar- ently, reactions of housing prices to neighborhood churches in Chula Vista, California, and Henderson, Nevada, are riot the same. Adding indicator variables for denominations proves interesting. Fach of the dummy var- iables for Baptist, Catholic, and Mormon (LDS) churches was statistically significant. Com- pared to properties near (actual or future) churches of "other" denominations, properties near Baptist churches sell for 1.4% less, houses near Catholic churches sell for 2.66% less, and LDS churches seat for 1.3% more. Adding dummy variables for each of the 30 3 4 d 604I00065£'ON/99 :S1 '15 /Bt -51 Z0 .60'1 I (188) SNOIln -iO3 1N31V100c I£1 Y;CFd RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY VALUES AND CHURCBM 325 churches with neighborbood sales.provides a; significant, but small, improvement in the explanatory power of the equation. -None of the 'other coefficients are materially affected by the inclusion of church or.denom.i ational indicator variables. Most importantly, prop- erty values decrease at a decreasing rate with distance from the neighborhood church, up to a distance oF5.5 miles.76. . Table 3 begs the question of whether the distance from the neighborhood church reflects the amenity valise of the church, per se: or if that distance merely measures the effects of preexisting..chamcteristics of church neighborhoods that predaie� the church building. In Table 4; we limit our sample to 1,348 sales that occurred before the church building was erected. In contrast to •Table 3 (and Table 5), property values are not significantly related to the distance or the squared distance from the neighborhood chutch.17 Adding dummy variables for.Baptist and Catholic denominations (no LDS churches in the sample were constructed af�e.1986) does not affect the results, except to imply that Catholic churches tend to be built in neighborhoods with slightly lower property values. This implies that the negative relation between property values and Catholic churches predates the building of the church, which does not seem tD' be the case for Baptist churches.ls Table 5 clinches the argument that neighborhood churches represent amenities that, by themselves, enhance property values. The first regression shows that, for properties bought after the neighborhood church was built, property values decrease with distance and in- crease with the square of distance. Adding the indicator variable for church denomination implies that Baptist and Catholic churches teed to locate in neighborhoods with slightly lower average property values; the location of LDS churches appears to be independent WM 4. Regmaion cesultr, dependent varlable =log of seal selling price, homm p=hased before church built va i 167 `,.t. 'Cmffiai iu ,i- sraditic Cod Oient 1 r -SwMc CoAck'nl 1_9"itic Log of conarmt 3.0845 26.89 5.8963 27.05 3.8584 26.57 AGE . - 0.0040 -5.15 - 0.0042 -5.37 - 0.0042 -5.43 BATHS - 0.0576 -5.38 - 0.0544 -5.08 - 0,0553 -5.17 BEDS - 0.0010 -0:16 - 0.0054 -0.87 - 0.0065 -1.03 MONTH" O.00L4 12.35 0.0020 9.36 0,0020 9.41 DISTANCE - 4.27E-06 -1.47 - 4.84E-06 -1.51 - 4.22 &06 -1.30 DISH - 8,01Fr11 -0.35 - 3.86E -11 -0.16 - 6.75E -11 -029 PP - 0.0064 -0.42 - 0.0092 -0.61 - 0,0094 -0,62 LSQFrB 0.8868 36.24 0.8577 36.46 0.8933 36.25 LSQFt'L 0.1137 10.04 0.1147 10.18 011139 10.08 POOL 0.0395 5.86 0.0390 5.80 0.0384 5.72 ROOMS - 0.0309 -6.68 - 0.0306 -6.66 - 0.0305 -6.62 289014 0.1438 9.95 0.1565 10.63 0.0941 2.05 Baptist 0.0040 0.45 Catholic - 0.0294 -3.71 LDS chueh F - 6.1422 .R2 0.8249 0.8369 0.8371 Adjusted R2 0.9334 0.8351 0.8353 Multq&F 13.80 488.42 456.39 Durbin %tson 1.64 1.66 1 -67 Number 1348 _ 1348 1348 r r 4` 8 d 6 0L 1 0006S£ 'ON/S P ' 9 1 "1S /8b ; S I Z0 ,60 '1 1 ( 183) SNO 111110S INZY4n000 I S I YV083 326 CARROLL, CLAUREM AND JENSEN 2bfe S Regression results; dependent variable = log of real selling price; homes purchased after church built Variable Coefficient r- statistic Coefficient r- Statistic Coefficient bsta(iatic Log of camta= 5.9950 64.68 6.0400 65.26 6.2038 63.50 AGE -0 -0061 -18.01 - 0.0061 -18.31 -0 -0060 -1628 BATHS 0.0382 5.00 0.0380 4.98 0.0440 5.68 BEDS - 0.0062 -1.22 - 0.0051 -1 -00 - 0.0044 -0.86 MONTH 0.0021 13.72 0.0023 14168 0.0022 13 -95 DISTANCE - 1.20E-05 -8.25 - 1.331-' 115 -8.90 - 1.361105 -7 -83 Drsm 2.02E -10 7.50 2.20 ,40 • 8.10 2291140 7 -61 FP 0.0854 13.00 0.0873 13.26 0 -0810. 12 -09 rSQFTB 0.5265 30.87 0.5230 30.73 0.4974 28.63 LSQFIL 0.1359 18.71 0.1332 ii; '* 0.1316 17 -11 POOL 0 -0729 11.13 0.0720 11.04 0.0709 10 -94 ROOMS - 0.0106 -2.46 - 0.0118 -2:74 -0 -0093' -2 -15 Z89014 0.1660 27.34 0.1655 25.94 0.1802 17.14 Baptist - 0.0213 -3.02 Catholic - 0.0297 -4.04 LDS 0.0101 1,67 Church F = 9.22 R2 0.8272 0.8292 0.8321 Adjusted Rr 0.8266 0.8295 0.8310 Multiple F 1395.13 1130.88 751.12 Durbin Warsm i 1.90 1.91 1 Number 3510 3510 -93 3310 of property values. The set of dummy variables for the 30 churches with neighborhood property sales increases the adjusted R2 Slightly, albeit significantly, but otherwise leaves the results unmodified. ' -Table 6 represents our analog of DWS's tables 3 and 4, showing the relation between property values and distance from neighborhood churches- DWS showed a gain of approx- imately $4,000 (2.2 %) of value) due to movement 850 feet away from churches. We demon- strate a loss of nearly $4,500 (5.5 % of value) as a result of being one mile, instead of 100 Table 6. Property values and distanoe from neighborbood church Distance (fee) Distance (miles) Property Value Rate of Change per 1000 feet Proportion of sales 100 0.02 $83.023 - 1-1960% 0.14% 950 0.16 882293 - 1.1657% .8.41% 1,320 0.25 581,847 - 1.1467% 22.42% 1.760 0.33 $81 A38 -1 -1289% 22 -42% 2.640 0.50 $80,646 - 1.0933% 57.35% 2.910 0.55 880.409 -1- 0924% 57 -35% 3,520 0.67 $79.886 -1 -0578% 57.35% 3,960 0 -75 $79,518 - 1.0400% 76.07% 5 ,280 1.00 578.462 - 0.9867% 98.55% 7,920 1.5D $76,552 - 0.8800% 88.55% 6 d 60L 100069E'0N/SGu S I 'SS /64 u9 1 aD.60'11 (183) SNOLMIOS 1NDMDOG 1SI Y10P3 RFZDENTIAL PROPEM VALUES AND CHURCIMS 327 feet, from a church. In our sample, 97.5% of property purchases were with 15 miles of existing church=, Assuming normality, 95 %' of DWS's sample is within 1,300 feet (or one- quarter of a mile). - - .. .. . I Them is one additional equation to fit in an attempt to reconcile our results with those of DWS. Although their article did not discuss the size or other characteristics of neighbor- hood churches, it is conceivable that small churches are less intimidating to neighborhood residents than large churches are. If noise and traffic are the major disruptions caused. by churches, then we would expect that bigger churches would create correspondingly greater ex N PC. the size of the church,, and distance from the church, 4 DW are qqrrqct that churches. are nuisances, then larger churches o.ugbt tD be gre.ateT nu isances than smaller ehurche8, If churches are apcmfies, IMerchurches should enhance property values more than smaller churches do, retum.s W experienced. CLOTmeasures the, size of the newest neighborhood p square feet (s= Mible 2).39 A positive coefficient on CWT supports the, hypothesis: that churches are amenities,. while a )=gative coefficient supports the.hypothesis that church= arc nuisances. DCWr is the ' intm-action term between the size of the church lot and.the. distance from the cburch,.whilB D2CLOTis the interac- tion term between the squarc.of distance and church lot size. Table 7 shows that CLOT has a positive codficiept-that is statistically Significant at the 0.05 level, Being near the smallest church act size = 20,000). would increase property values by pnly 0.33 %, Being near the largest church (square feet = 368,517) would increase properly values by 6.27 %. Table 7 Property volt , church lot size, and dirta L7 aeamt cbumb; Variable CoefrWient f-stabste Coefficitan psafisfic Los iub=ept 6.1019 6024 . 6.2296 E; '. _'I. : " ;;. , . 39. Ij AGE -0.0059 -14.66 -0.0057 -1.4.43 BATHS 0.0571 6.72 0.0533 6.92 BFDS -016078 .-1.41 -6.o658 1.07 MONTH o.bMI 1225 0.6021 1234 DISTANCE -2.34FA6 -9.40 -2.74E-05 -3.55 DISM 1.38E-09 6.78 4.20E-09 4.73 PP 0.0682 9.20 O.DW 9.30 LSQFTB 03267 28.43 0.5050 27.07 LSQFTL 0.1223 14.73 0.I224 14.74 POOL 0.0769 .10.93 0.0760 10.19 ROOMS -0.0097 -1.98 -0.0090 -1.74 289014 0.1496 21.46 0.1642 22.25 CLOT 1.65E-07 2.43 mcLar _5195B-11 -2.10 1)2LCL(yr -2.24 A7 ojMo 08244 Adjusted R1 01202 0.8234 F-Smastle iow.37 821.25 Jjnrbi %u� star 1.1575 1.9616 ObMMDAS 2640 2640 01 d 6 OL 100 069 S ox/gr: g i Ls/e v­ s 1 3 o .6 o - i i (iii) 1� PIC) SN011MOS INaKnDOG ISI WOH3 328 CARROLL, CLAIJREME AND JENSEN Both the coefficients on DCLOT and D2CL0T ate negative and statistically significant at the OD5 level; This implies that the effect of church size on housing values declines rapidly with distance from the church. All effects due to church size disappear at 2,309 feel (0.43 miles).' These results support the conclusion that neighborhood churcbas are amenities. 2. Conclusion Oirr findings sharply contrast with those of Do, Wilbur, and Short (1994). Whereas they purport to show that neighborhood churches are nuisances that reduce property values Over relatively short diarance,'we find tbat'oeaghborhood churches are amenities that enhance property values over imia larger distances (at least ooe-balf mile, in contrast to DWS's limitation of 850 feet). We suspect that the small size of their sample, plus the restriction of their sample to properties at a very short distance from churches, may have distorted DWS's fmdings.21 It is possible, however, that both studies accurately reflect the relation- ship between neighborhood churches and proj�.erty values in their respective communities. Dula Vista, California, is apparently SO crammed with churches that citizens can only escape its theocratic etrvironar mt by selling their bones at a discount. This gives new mean- ing to the term "moral hazard." Henderson, Nevada, by contrast, is close to Las Vegas (sin city). Henderson residents welcome churches built on vacant lots that might otherwise have been the site of a neighborhood casino. Obviously, there is further research that must be conducted before this issue is finally resolved. How we housing value gradients across cities related to the concentration of churches within cities? We suspect that interesting contrasts can be made between'Vatican City, Salt Lake City, and Mecca. Acknowledgments The authors wish to acknowledge the helpful comments of an anonymous referee. This research was made possible in part through a research grant from First Interstate Bank Institute for Business Leadership. All remaining errors are the responsibility of the authors. Notes 1. the literature which offm empirical support for the negative effect on properly prices of such obviously undesirable property am as listed here Is voluminous sad not referenced out of a eoaerro for brevity. 2. Which the authors find, by the way, quite comforting. 3. Again, fur brevity the reader is rot bored with a lengthy, list of references which report that proslarlry to quality schools is an amenity for which house buyers are willing to pay. 4. In the rapidly growing Its Vegas valley it is a common practice for real estate developers to donate lead to religious groups who build churches prior m the devllopera' constmetion of bousas. It is doubtful that the developers believe that the churches will reduce the prices which they con charge for msidcalial property. 5. would churches offcing relatively sedom or fewer sarvicu be preferred to their conmcrpmis with rowdy aid frequent rervlw, for example? 6. M= DWS sample contained 469 ptaper6a sold between January 1991 and September 1992 in Chula Vista, California. Thormage distance between in theirssmple is 634.37 feet with a.smndard deviation of 360.42 feet. implying that 95% of the properties in dicira mple are within 1,355 feet of a chumh..This wmlm out to 11 churches per square mile. Our data consists of 32 churches emoting an area of approrrimately 100 square miles. 1I d 6 OL! OOO69 S'ON/S 17 o 91'LS /01 :G1 30.60'11 tIE3) SNOILngos lmaymDoc ISI yiOEd 4 RESIDENTIAL PROPEM VALUES AND CHURCHES 329 7. Our data act includes the wralmr of fireplaces par house, but this cardinal variable was more highly corre- hued with building sin than is thia-iodieator variable.. g. The time trend MONTH is intended to reflect the effects of general inflation and housing price inandca, which the Hendenon, Nevada ma last may parallel. However, addition of the percent change it the CPI, the rate of change in the CPl fm housin& ard the prevailing mortgage iatereat we proud stadstically insigniBcem. 9- Say, part to cametarki, parsonages, or sinner 10. The Las Vegas suburb of Ones Valley was amunted by the city of 14esdorsom in the early 198W. 11. 'Dying to investigate all 1 %,000 housing sales for the c&ct of local rhumbes would hove been a denoting task- Homes outside the Las Vegas valloy could be hundreds cfmda from a "neighborhood" church. Ob w- vadons outside Henderson and Green Valley would have created distortions des to an Air Force base, the Las Vegas Strip, the 14th busiest airport in the country, land fills, and other nuisaocea Accordingly, we restrict our sample to a suburb of Las Vegas, for ovary of the same masom'" DWS restricted their ample to a suburb of San Diego. . ... . . . . 12. Both now and preowned homes were included in the sample. We include property sales before churches were actually eonstruped 10 control for spurious correlation between unspecified hazards (of which the authors could find acne) sad chmeb sales. 13. Sixyrwa anks wero]and aal= only. Another four soles had missing daa on building size and number ofmama. 14. To compute the precis: effect, subtract one from the anti-tog of the coefficient m the dummy variable: &P over _ P =e 1= 1.0725 -1 =0.0823 =7.25% 15, The 55 miles is a p0mt estiraaGC of rem efS:d derived from the coefficients on the distance and dlwaoe sguated variables. It is likely that the major effect diminish .s much before this point estimate. %taestirrated the equations by including only bows within a given number of feet and discovered that the major impad occurs within 1,910 feat (035 toles) of the neighborhood church, which included 613 % of our sample. 16. Slam durance and squared"knex, incnase wpffizr, thematted insignificance ofdiatanceand squared distsoce could reflect multicAmarity between those two variables. This pmblw is avoided by relating the log of real housing price to the log of distance, to the coefficient can be interpreted as an elasticity. In the sample of 1348 observations Won the church was camtrucoed. the elasticiryof property taloca with respect no dInaaoe (hum the future church site) is - .0096, or about 1% loss in value for each doubling of ditdan ce. This eoeCi- citun was barely slguihocant with a 1- ssatistic of —2.04. In the as of observation, after the church was wen shuctrd, the elasticity is —OXS with a t- statistic of 7.67. This small negative e&d of distance prior to the church being sanstractett might be an ezpeetz0ore effect. 17. Given that LDS and Catholic families tend to be Iatger than Baptist families, this result does no appear to select a neighborhood aversion to noisy children ter Sunday mornings. 18. Because church lots are typically purchased pior m the construction of the thumb building the size of the church building was known for only two churches, while lot airs is known for 23 churches. The aim of the church lot is a good pansy for the number of parking spaces (rftediag traffic) and the expansion potential of the church activities. 19. Bemuse church lob are typically purchased pior to the coruuuctioa of the church building, the sine of the church building was Imows for only two chumbes, while lot she is (mown for 23 churches. The size of the church lot is a good pray for the number of parking spaces (reflecting traffic) and the expansion potential of the church activities. 20. [siting D stand for distance and 5 for church size, Table 7 implies: ZRAP ,= 1.65 x 10 —z — 5.95 x 10 —tt D — 5.71 x 10 -75 D2. as we have .65 — 5.95 x 10—` D — 5.71 x 10-3 Dz - 0, which implies D, — 5.95 x 10 -4 — (5.95 x 10 —Y — 4(1.65)(5.71 x 10'3) = 2,304. 2(5.71 X 10 -3) ap3 31 d 6 O 1000656 "OpVS f"SI '18/05 °Sf 3Q.60'11 II83) SN011n10S 1NIIN.100C IS] WoUs 330 CARMLL, CLAUREII6 AND'JENSEN 21. When we limited oar sample to the 762 propa ties whhim OW feet of ne)gbborhmd churches, sold after ih r We church was completed. we found Wet neither the eoefficiem on distance nor the coe(5cjem on.dbmaoe squmed "a smtistimlly signMeatt, with a joint Rsmtlstie of 130. which implies a'pmbability of.27 that both coef cicnis am mem Dropping the diataoce squared variables (becaeuc of possible'xmiWeormazeity wit dismnca) yielded a C9Cfficiant on distance equal m - 2.74&(15, whicb is dpficant at the 9.3% heel, 020-taA test ... . Reference Do. A. Quang, Rabmt W. Wilbur. and James L, Short. ( 1994). -An EmpiriW F.xaminadan of the Exiermaties of Neighborhood Churcbes on Housing Values" 77za Jonrnol ojReal Exam Finance andEccaomiu 9(2),127 -136. s I £I d 60L 100065£ "ON/St, :91 '1S /IS :SI Z0 ,60'11 (I Y3) SNOI1MOS 1NSM000 I S i YiOf33 Exhibit No. 5. Memorandum prepared by the City Attorney regarding RLUIPA. O /`lJ CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE TO: Chair & Members of the Planning Commission �1 FROM: City Attorney RE: Newport Beach LDS Temple Use Permit No 2001 -036 Site Plan Review No. 2001 -005 DATE: August 28, 2002 INTRODUCTION The purpose of this memo is to provide the members of the Planning Commission with an analysis of the impact of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) on the Commission's consideration of Use Permit Application No. 2001 -036 and Site Plan Review No. 2001 -005 (Newport Beach LDS Temple — the "Project). The Planning Department Staff report provides all the relevant information concerning the Project and our land use regulations but the following summary may be helpful to a clear understanding of the potential impact of RLUIPA. The Project proposes construction of an LDS Temple. The Temple is a structure that contains approximately 15,625, is between 32.75 and 35 feet high, and includes a steeple (topped by a statute of the Angel Moroni) that is approximately 123.75 feet above the finished floor level. The Project requires a use permit to authorize a religious use pursuant to the Bonita Canyon Planned Community Development Plan (Development Plan); a use permit authorizing the steeple to exceed 35 feet (the Zoning Code specifies 35 feet while the Development Plan has a 50 foot height limit); and a site plan review pursuant to the Development Plan. The primary issue is the impact of RLUIPA on the discretion of the Planning Commission to require reductions in the height of the steeple. DISCUSSION RLUIPA, enacted on September 22, 2000, is the second attempt by Congress to require proof of a compelling governmental interest to justify land use decisions J61 that substantially burden the exercise of religion.' We are aware of no case law interpreting RLUIPA that serves as precedent so our analysis is based on the language in the statute, the apparent intent of Congress, limited trial court rulings and comments from attorneys that specialize in land use law. For purposes of this memo we are assuming that RLUIPA is constitutional and is applicable to this Project. RLUIPA is applicable to "a program or activity that receives federal financial assistance" or where the substantial burden is imposed as a result of a program pursuant to which government makes "individualized assessments of the proposed uses for the property involved. "2 While other provisions of RLUIPA may be applicable in general terms3, the following language is most relevant to this Project: "No government shall impose or implement a land use regulation in a manner that imposes a substantial burden on the religious exercise of a person, including a religious assembly or institution, unless the government demonstrates that imposition of the burden on that person, assembly, or institution - - (A) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and (B) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest. RLUIPA defines religious exercise as "any exercise of religion, whether or not compelled by, or central to, a system of religious belief." The use, building, or conversion of real property for the purpose of religious exercise is considered to be religious exercise. The Project clearly involves religious exercise as that term is defined in RLUIPA. The primary issue is whether a reduction in the height of the steeple or modification to proposed lighting would substantially burden the exercise of religion. RLUIPA does not define substantial burden and conflicting inferences can be drawn by reference to the legislative history and the test of the statute. Some commentators believe that the absence of any definition of "substantial burden" in RLUIPA suggests that Congress intended that term to be applied as 1 The Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA) - invalidated by the Supreme Court in Boerne v. Flores (521 U.S. 507) was RLUIPA's predecessor statutory scheme. 2 The City of Newport Beach receives federal financial assistance although no direct assistance is provided to the "program" that administers the Zoning Code. 3 For example, governments cannot (a) implement a land use law that treats religious assembly or institutions on less than equal terms with non - religious assemblies or institutions; (b) impose or implement a land use regulation that discriminates on the basis of religion; or (3) impose/ implement a land use regulation that excludes religious assemblies from, or unreasonably limits religious assemblies within, a jurisdiction. ��b it was under RFRA and cases evaluating claims that the government was violating a persons right of "free exercise." In that regard the courts evaluated the term "substantial burden" in two ways. In the context of laws that were generally applicable and neutral relative to religion, courts have stated that substantial burden involves coercing individuals into acting contrary to their religious beliefs, conditioning receipt of an important benefit upon conduct proscribed by a religious faith, or denying a benefit due to conduct mandated by a religious belief. Bessard v. California Community Colleges, 867 F.Supp. 1454, 1462 (E.D. Cal. 1994). In the context of land use laws, at least one court used a three -prong balancing test — balancing the impact on the exercise of religion with the extent of the states interest in imposing the burden and the extent to which granting the permit would interfere with government's ability to achieve its objectives. Christian Gospel Church, Inc. v. City and County of San Francisco 896 F.2d 1221 (9th Cir. 1990). On the other hand, the express provisions of RLUIPA differ from RFRA and pre - RLUIPA case law in terms of the expansive definition of religious exercise. RLUIPA defines religious exercise as "any exercise of religion, whether or not compelled by, or central to, a system of religious belief' as well as a "use, building or conversion of real property for religious purposes." Congress also expressed the intent that RLUIPA be broadly construed in favor of religious exercise to the maximum extent permitted by the terms of the statute and the Constitution.4 The Project proponent has submitted an "Official Statement' that describes the significance of the "temple steeple and lighting as religious symbols." The Official Statement declares that: (a) The "location and design of temples5 are revealed to the president of the Church, whom members regard as a prophet "; (b) Temples are places of "deep religious significance" so greater emphasis is placed on their "aesthetic beauty, serenity and design" than "any other Church facility; (c) The steeple is a "symbolic architectural connection with the infinite, embodying the value of upward ascendancy" toward God and "must be high enough to be visible at a distance... to identify "the temple as a source of eternal blessings.... "; 4 The Project proponent has the burden of proving the City's action "substantially burdens" religious exercise. Assuming the Project proponent proves that a condition or modification is a substantial burden the City is required to establish the compelling interest for doing so and that all conditions or modifications are the least restrictive means of protecting its interests. 5 We assume this includes the design of the steeple. pcit a (d) Lighting of the steeple and statue is "a symbol" of the theology of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter -Day Saints and reflects "the Savior's statement that "I am the light of the world. He that followeth me shall not walk in darkness." (e) The "statue atop the steeple represents an angelic messenger who helped to restore the gospel of Jesus Christ through Joseph Smith." The Project proponent has provided information relevant to the connection between their religion and the design, location and /or lighting of the temple, steeple and statue. However, aside from the source of the information relative to the "location and design of temples" and the need for the steeple and statue to be visible at a distance, the Project Proponent has not clearly articulated whether and to what extent a reduction in the proposed height of the steeple and /or conditions relative to lighting would burden their religious exercise. If the Planning Commission concludes, from the information submitted to date and /or presented at the public hearing(s), that any reduction in the height of the steeple or modification in lighting would substantially burden the exercise of religion then those Project components may not be modified unless the Planning Commission also finds that the modification "serves a compelling governmental interest' and is the least restrictive means of protecting that interest. The governmental interests in modifications to steeple height or proposed lighting are - based on information in the current record - somewhat limited. The EIR concludes that the Project will have no significant impact in any category. The adverse impact on the primary interest furthered by the height limits in the Zoning Ordinance - "to ensure that the unique character and scale of Newport Beach is preserved "' - is mitigated somewhat by the distance between the steeple and the nearest residence and the slender nature of the structure. Robin Clauson *Robert Burnham �i' Exhibit No. 6. Councilmember Bromberg's poll, results and responses. a0 Mayor Rft Tod W. Ridgeway Mayor Pro Tem Steven Bromberg Council Members Garold B. Adams Norma J. Glover John Heffernan Dennis D. O'Neil Gary L. Proctor CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH OFFICE OF THE CITY COUNCIL April 12, 2002 RE: Mormon /LDS Temple Dear Bonita Canyon Resident (sorry for the informality): The Mormon /LDS Temple project on Bonita Canyon Drive and Prairie Road is planned at 17,500 square feet (about 5% or so of the lot area) and has raised concerns with a number of residents in my council district, more specifically in Bonita Canyon. You probably observed the 124' crane, which was placed at the proposed temple site for a few days by the church. The purpose was to give everyone an idea of just what 124' actually looks like, although the crane and the steeple are of course quite different. The current application and plans submitted to the City reflect a light stone exterior surface on the building and steeple as well as lighting until 11:00 p.m. each night. A lighting consultant has suggested the lighting intensity be reduced by 50% and the church has agreed to this modification. Presently, the project is undergoing an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) that should describe the project and process, evaluate environmental impacts including height, lighting, and exterior color, project aesthetics, air quality, geology and soils, traffic and other items required by State and local regulations. The contents of this report will be available for the public and will be considered by the City when the public hearing before the Planning Commission is held on the Church's application for a Use Permit. At this point in time, the concerns that have been relayed to me by a number of residents in Bonita Canyon, as well as other areas of the City, in order of priority are: Steeple Height, Lighting, Exterior Building Color, and Traffic. I would like to hear from you. Therefore, I would appreciate your giving me the following input, which will assist me if and when this issue is before the City Council. 1. Do you: Approve or Disapprove of the project? (Please elaborate with comments — #4) City Hall • 3300 Newport Boulevard • Newport Beach, Califomia 92663 -3884 www.city.newport - beach.ca.us � J 3 l Page 2 2. Do you have enough. information at this time? Yes No If no, what additional Information would you like to see? 3. Have you attended any community meetings on the issue? Yes No 4. Other comments. (Please use available space on 'this letter or use a separate piece of paper.) Thank you for taking the time to respond. Stating your identity is optional, but it is important and will be confidential— promise. Please return your questionnaire to: Steve Bromberg, 620 Newport Center Drive, 11"' Floor, Newport Beach, 92660. Steve Bromberg, Mayor Pro Tern Councilman, 5`" District 949 - 640 -2001 Fax: 949 -644 -1853 E -Mail: dandee @earthlink.net r 1� 1. Do you Approve or Disapprove of the project ?* Approve Disapprove 18 106 2. Do you have enough information at this time? YES NO 95 15 3. Have you attended community meetings on this issue? YES NO 57 56 *(There are two blank ones as to approve or disapprove) ��5 STRADLING YOCCA CARLSON & RAUTH July 11, 2002 VIA MESSENGER AND EMAIL— dandee(aiearth link. net Steve Bromberg Mayor Pro Tern City of Newport Beach City Hall 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach CA 92663 -3884 Re: Mormon Temple Dear Mayor Bromberg: SAN FRANCISCO OFFICE 44 MONTGOMERY STREET. SUITE 4200 SAN FRANCISCO. CALIFORNIA 94104 TELEPHONE (415) 2193.2240 FACSIMILE (415) 203.2255 SANTA BARBARA OFFICE 302 OLIVE STREET SANTA BARBARA. CALIFORNIA 93101 TELEPHONE (005) 500 -0065 FACSIMILE (005) 5041000 Thank you for your letter of April 12 concerning the architectural issues arising from the application of The Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter Day Saints OLDS ") for a conditional use permit to build a Temple with a 121 foot temple on Bonita Canyon Drive. I previously sent you a copy of your April 12 letter indicating my concerns. This letter elaborates on my objections to the proposed height and lighting of the Temple. I have lived at 22 Seabluff in Bonita Canyon with my wife Joan and children Natasha, Alex, and Jackson since the house was built in April 1999. Our home sits on a small promontory with the back of the house overlooking Battersea facing the toll road and UCI. The existing LDS Stakehouse and its lighted parking lot are directly visible from the back of our house and our backyard. The proposed Temple will be equally visible from all of the rooms at the back of our office and our backyard also be in plain view as well. Enclosed is a 4 x 6 inch photograph that 1 took from the deck on my bonus room at approximately 8 p.m. during the week the lighted crane was in place to simulate the Temple height. This picture shows the same essential view we will have of the Temple from my upstairs master bedroom, master bath, and studio, as well as my kitchen and family room downstairs, and my entire back yard. It is an understatement to say the Temple will be visible from my house. If built and lighted as planned, it will dominate the landscape and overwhelm the view, especially in the early moming hours and at night. Though the crane was topped with a single light in the enclosed photo, you can see how it stands out dramatically against the night sky. This is DOCSOC16955011n(19999.0000 a 1 A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION ATTORNEYS AT LAW BRUCE D. MAY 660 NEWPORT CENTER DRIVE, SUITE 160D DIRECT OIAL: (949) 725 -4124 NEWPORT BEACH. CA 926606422 BMAYQSYCR.COM TELEPHONE (949) 7254000 FACSIMILE (949) 7254100 July 11, 2002 VIA MESSENGER AND EMAIL— dandee(aiearth link. net Steve Bromberg Mayor Pro Tern City of Newport Beach City Hall 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach CA 92663 -3884 Re: Mormon Temple Dear Mayor Bromberg: SAN FRANCISCO OFFICE 44 MONTGOMERY STREET. SUITE 4200 SAN FRANCISCO. CALIFORNIA 94104 TELEPHONE (415) 2193.2240 FACSIMILE (415) 203.2255 SANTA BARBARA OFFICE 302 OLIVE STREET SANTA BARBARA. CALIFORNIA 93101 TELEPHONE (005) 500 -0065 FACSIMILE (005) 5041000 Thank you for your letter of April 12 concerning the architectural issues arising from the application of The Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter Day Saints OLDS ") for a conditional use permit to build a Temple with a 121 foot temple on Bonita Canyon Drive. I previously sent you a copy of your April 12 letter indicating my concerns. This letter elaborates on my objections to the proposed height and lighting of the Temple. I have lived at 22 Seabluff in Bonita Canyon with my wife Joan and children Natasha, Alex, and Jackson since the house was built in April 1999. Our home sits on a small promontory with the back of the house overlooking Battersea facing the toll road and UCI. The existing LDS Stakehouse and its lighted parking lot are directly visible from the back of our house and our backyard. The proposed Temple will be equally visible from all of the rooms at the back of our office and our backyard also be in plain view as well. Enclosed is a 4 x 6 inch photograph that 1 took from the deck on my bonus room at approximately 8 p.m. during the week the lighted crane was in place to simulate the Temple height. This picture shows the same essential view we will have of the Temple from my upstairs master bedroom, master bath, and studio, as well as my kitchen and family room downstairs, and my entire back yard. It is an understatement to say the Temple will be visible from my house. If built and lighted as planned, it will dominate the landscape and overwhelm the view, especially in the early moming hours and at night. Though the crane was topped with a single light in the enclosed photo, you can see how it stands out dramatically against the night sky. This is DOCSOC16955011n(19999.0000 a 1 Steve Bromberg July 11, 2002 Page Two because the Temple would be far and away the tallest structure in a residential neighborhood with minimal ambient lighting, which is the basis for all our objections. My house represents my life savings. I paid a premium of about $100,000 for my lot, because of the view. I paid an additional premium of about $100,000 for a bonus room above the garage with a small deck overlooking Battersea. I spent more than another $100,000 on a spa, hardscape, and landscaping in the backyard. Even using the modest assumption that 500 homes are in direct view of the site, we are talking about at least a half billion dollars in real estate that will be directly impacted. When I moved into the neighborhood, I was well aware of the LDS Stakehouse that was already built on Bonita Canyon. The Stakehouse is relatively much larger than anything in the neighborhood, and I understood that a variance had been granted for the LDS to exceed the height limit, but the dark earth tones of the Stakehouse allowed it to blend in with Bonita Canyon. More importantly, the Stakehouse already existed, so when I made the choice to buy my house it was part of the decision. i also was well aware of the floodlights in the Stakehouse parking lot, which for reasons I have never understood are kept on until at least 10 pm every night, even though you will rarely see any activity at the Stakehouse on a typical night after business hours. Yet the lighting of the parking lot was called out to me when I bought the house, and even though it provides much greater illumination than the Bonita Canyon streetlights, it was there when I moved in and I accepted it as part of the price of my house. What I never imagined is that the City would allow anyone to build a structure next door to the Stakehouse of the size now proposed by the LDS, light it at 5 am and keep it lighted until 11 P.M. As the enclosed photograph shows to the naked eye, a lighted Temple will stand out in the night sky because there is nothing but relatively low level street and house lamps in the surrounding vicinity. Indeed, UCI has a small astronomical observatory located down the road on Bonita Canyon across from Tarbut V'Torah. Obviously that she was selected because of the low ambient light. There is simply no legitimate reason why the City should allow any non - conforming structure of this size in a residential neighborhood, or allow it to be lighted during hours that that would overwhelm the early morning and night sky and disrupt the sleep and daily life patterns of local residents. To begin with, it is self- evident that the justification proffered by the LDS for the lighting is not based on any bona fide principle of religious belief orexpression. Electric lighting did not exist when the Book of Morrison was written in the 1830's, roughly half a century before Thomas Edison perfected incandescent lighting. Electric lighting is a purely secular concern, and neither the LDS nor any other faith can make any plausible claim that their faith dictates electric lighting of any magnitude for any hours. To the contrary, electric lighting is a particularly local concern DOCSOM955010119M.0000 Steve Bromberg July 11, 2002 Page Three where the City's power to regulate is beyond question. Indeed, allowing a special exemption for the lighting requested by the LDS, when all the other structures (including churches) in the area conform to reasonable lighting standards, would be showing favor to a single faith, and constitute an unlawful establishment of religion and a violation of State and U.S. Constitution by the City and its officers. More precisely, allowing the LDS a special exemption as requested would (1) have no secular purpose, (2) have a primary effect that advances a religious purpose, and (3) foster an excessive governmental entanglement with religion. This constitutes an unlawful establishment of religion. See Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602, 687 -88 (1971), and County ofAlleghany v. ACLU, 492 U.S. 573 (1989). As a homeowner suffering tangible harm, I could clearly have standing to sue on such a claim. There is no functional need for the lighting the Temple from 5 a.m. until 11 p.m., since we are told it will be used only during the day, for small groups of people. For the same reason, there is no safety concern, such as lighting to deter crime in an underground parking structure. There is no practical necessity, as with the need to light the only gas station on a stretch of lonely highway. The fact is, the proposed lighting is solely to attract attention to the structure. Anyone who has seen a Mormon Temple, such as in La Jolla, Westwood, the Oakland foothills, knows that they are not lighted to blend into the neighborhood. They are lighted to stand out. They are intended to capture the eye, rather than disappear into the night sky. This is fact, and not a swipe at Mormonism. In other words, electric lighting of the Temple is simply a form of signage, which the City has plenary power to regulate. Light pollution is a real concern, both esthetically and in terms of safety and health. This Temple will be situated in a residential neighborhood. Children (and adults) are sleeping at 5 a.m. and 11 p.m. The lighting should conform to reasonable residential hours. The issue of lighting cannot be separated from the height of the tower, which would also require a substantial departure from the established standards that have served the community so well. As with the proposed lighting, the proposed height of the Temple is an arbitrary choice by the LDS, and is not dictated by any bona fide religious principle. The recent draft Environmental Impact Report prepared and paid for by the LDS states in pertinent part: "The Temple steeple is a symbolic architectural connection with the infinite; it must be high enough to be visible at a distance that identifies the Temple as a source of the Church's highest and DOCSOC%95501v111 9999.0000 �1 Steve Bromberg July 11, 2002 Page Four holiest blessings." (Draft EIR dated June 2002 at page 3 -8.) Taking this assertion at face value, it does not in any way dictate that the Temple steeple be 121 feet. Indeed, it proves too much: The same logic would justify a 1,200 foot steeple. Or a 50 foot steeple. More to the point, even the LDS's own draft EIR endorses the alternative of making the steeple shorter and curtailing the lighting. Pages 5-6 of the Draft EIR state that "...Alternative 2 proposes a 100 foot high steeple and a reduction in hours of illumination for lighting of the architectural elements of the Temple facade." No explanation is given for this 100 foot figure. II could just as logically be 50 feet. In short, even the LDS acknowledges that the Temple can be made shorter, and the lighting reduced, consistent with its own asserted religious objectives. This points the way to an obvious solution. Reduce the height of the steeple. Make it no taller than the existing LDS Stakehouse. Reduce the amount and size of the lights to a minimum, and allow them to be turned on only from dusk until a reasonable hour, such as 8 p.m. This is not only a fair and reasonable compromise, but it also avoids the grave Constitutional issues I have outlined above. Newport Beach is an exquisite oceanfront town, a resort, a Riviera. It is also a place for houses of worship, but the Temple as proposed by the LDS exceeds all rational standards for a residential neighborhood. I am counting on you and the other elected City officials to protect my interests as a home owner and parent. I do not have the wealth, personnel, and resources of the LDS to make sure the basic design parameters of our neighborhood are protected. This is where I need your help as my elected representatives. In closing, I want to emphasize that I am a deeply religious person and I respect all faiths, including the Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter Day Saints I have reached out to Joe Bentley and Bob Wynn to discuss these issues in a rational manner. I also have conveyed my concerns to Doug Higham, a member of the Mission Viejo LDS Stake Presidency, who happens to be a childhood friend. I also have befriended Rick and Kim Nicholson who are fine neighbors that support the Temple. I have gone out of my way to assure them that my opposition to the current plans for the Temple flows not from any ideological differences but from concern over neighborhood and property values. I welcome the Temple as a new neighbor, and I ask only that they live by the same standards as all other neighbors. D O C S O M 95501 A 119999.0000 Steve Bromberg July 11, 2002 Page Five Very truly yours, Bruce D. May BDM:mt Enclosure cc: Mayor Tod W. Ridgeway, tdgeway(o)citv.newport-beach.ca.us Council Member Gary Proctor, gproctorgniuveniledefenders.com Council Member Norma J. Glover, nglovergn city. newport- beach. ca. us Council Member Garold B. Adams, garold adams@hotmail.com Mayor Pro Tern Steven Bromberg, dandee _earthlink.net Council Member Dennis D. O'Neil, doneilCilhewittoneil.com Council Member John Heffeman, ihffgPaol.com Planning Commission Member Shant Agajanian Planning Commission Member Anne K. Gifford, annegiffPcs.com Planning Commission Member Steven Kiser, skiser _packbell.net Planning Commission Member Michael C. Kranzley, michael.kranzlev @chase.com Planning Commission Member Earl McDaniel, emcdaniel@tuilertoncb.com Planning Commission Member Edward Selich, edselich(o)adelphia.net Planning Commission Member Larry Tucker, gtp(g2ohill.com DOCSOCM55010119999.0000 ��b r- ', �s -�: =n. -Y� Page 2 2. Do you have enough information at this time? Yes ✓ No If no, what additional information would you like to see? 3. Have you attended any community meetings on the is e? Yes No 4. Other comments. (Please use available space on this letter or use a separate piece of paper.) L Name Address _ Thank you for taking the time to res Statin our identity is optional, but it is important and will be co romi Please return your questionnaire to: Steve Bromberg,-620 Newpo Center Drive, 11"' Floor, Newport Beach, 92660. Std4e Bromberg, Mayor Pro/Tem Councilman, 5"' District V 949 - 640 -2001 Fax: 949 -644 -1853 E -Mail: dandee @earthlink.net a�� Page 2 l i 2. Do you have enough information at this time? Yes V No If no, what additional infognation would you like to see? 3. Have ypu attended any community meetings on the issue? Yes No y 4. Other comments. (Please use available space on this letter or use a separate piece ofpaper.)1,,,�; Name Address_ Thank you for taking the time to respond. Stating your identity is optional, but it is important and will be confidential— promise. Please return your questionnaire to: Steve Bromberg, 620 Newport Center Drive, 11"' Floor, Newport Beach, 92660. SABromberg, P o em Councilma n, 949 - 640 -2001 Fax: 949 -644 -1853 E -Mail: dandee @earthlink.net aa3 - t i I aa3 Page 2 2. Do you have enough information at this time? Yes No i< If no, what additional information wo Id you like to see? GVrreAl C0r\�A_T` y 0/1 /16"J. 3. Have you attended any community meetings on the issue? Yes No 4. Other comments. (Please use available space on this letter or use a separate piece of paper.) Name_. Address_ Thank you for taking the time to respond. Stating your identity is optional, but it is important and will be confidential— promise. Please return your questionnaire to: Steve Bromberg, 620 Newport Center Drive, 11th Floor, Newport Beach, 92660. St a Bromberg, Mayor P o em Councilman, 5th District 949 - 640 -2001 Fax: 949 -644 -1853 E -Mail: dandee @earthlink.net aa� Page 2 2. Do you have enough information at this time? Yes No If no, what additional information would you like to see? 3. Have you attended any community meetings on the issue? Yes No 4. Other comments. (Please use available space on this letter or use a separate piece of paper.) y� Ir-' Name Address_ Thank you for taking the time to respond. Stating your identity is optional, but it is important and will be confidential— promise. Please return your questionnaire to: Steve Bromberg, 620 Newport Center Drive, 11"' Floor, Newport Beach, 92660. St a Bromberg, Mayor P o em Councilman, 5t' District 949 -640 -2001 Fax: 949 - 644-1853 E -Mail: dandee @earthlink.net aa� Page 2 2. Do you have enough information at this time? Yes i< No If no, what additional information would you like to see? 3. Have you attended any community meetings on the issue? Yes No 4. Other comments. (Please use available space on this letter or use a separate piece of paper.) Name— Address— Thank you for taking the time to respond. Stating your identity is optional, but it is important and will be confidential— promise. Please return your questionnaire to: Steve Bromberg, 620 Newport Center Drive, 11"' Floor, Newport Beach, 92660. St a Bromberg, Mayor P o em Councilman, 5"' District 949 -640 -2001 Fax: 949 - 644 -1853 E -Mail: dandee @earthlink.net �fi� . � a r.�fzt -lt � �1.�t �efrde>✓+�e ��e. l�ht�� -o blind raly a &d lot r)�? 01#1 our Lf'!ap a�� April 15, 2002 Mr Bromberg, We object to the lighted steeple but not to the idea of having a temple. We went to the Salt Lake City Winter Olympics. Driving around the area, it is obvious why the temple is designed the way it is. The purpose is to draw attention to the local center of worship of the LDS church. They are very good at placing the temple in the most visible places. The lighting insures the temple is noticed all night long. Our main problem is the build and its use is not appropriate to a residential neighborhood. We live here because of the homogeneous blend of residential, commercial and other uses. The idea of one structure standing out from everything else, specifically designed to draw attention to itself at the expense of the community is wrong. The Newport Planning board wouldn't let any business think of asking for a special use permit to place a 12 story building on the site. Just because the builder is a religious organization we don't believe should influence the decision to abide with the existing regulations. Please vote to restrict the building to the regulated height. Thank you, aa� Page 2 2. Do you have enough information at this time? Yes �No If no, what additional information would you like to see? 3. Have you attended any community meetings on the issue? Yes No 4. Other.comments. (Please use available space on this letter or use a separate piece of paper.) JV - �{rV1CQ��� NamerI� Address s - u 5D Thank you for taking the time to respond. Stating your identity is optional, but it is important and will be confidential— promise. Please return your questionnaire to: Steve Bromberg, 620 Newport Center Drive, 11th Floor, Newport Beach, 92660. St9/ be"D�i ayor P o em Councilman, 5 strict 949 - 640 -2001 Fax: 949 -644 -1853 E -Mail: dandee @earthlink.net 04A. r +4-yn V-D Ott q • CTd 1� 1 Page 2 2. Do you have enough information at this time? Yes X No If no, what additional information would you like to see? 3. Have you attended any community meetings on the issue? Yes No 4. Other comments. (Please use available space on this letter or use a separate piece of paper.) Thank you for taking the time to respond. Stating your identity is optional, but it is important and will be confidential— promise. Please return your questionnaire to: Steve Bromberg, 620 Newport Center Drive, 11" Floor, Newport Beach, 92660. a t Sa Bromberg, Mayor P o em Councilman, 5"' District 949 - 640 -2001 Fax: 949 -644 -1853 E -Mail: dandee @earthlink.net , "D Y'_ O +_¢ 1 S . r ✓G� S v d C�b ^q e�J S-.c ctS wcl� aIS �•�1�� '� vc ; r.Cd' U Y� '�• �S t:(� T o... k4✓' cj �Pl G �. � �'T �j j �v�n^,e _• ly 4 �S� ov. q, �lS-C , °��t.� '�4� :� Ca�•..vr� �..�: � �lSrt �-Q( "+�$ 2X.�ftn"'o. b � G• A / (< �i }��iy Page 2 2. Do you have enough information at this time? Yes No If no, what additional information would you like to see? 3. Have you attended any community meetings on the issue? Yes No 4. Other comments. (Please use available space on this letter or use a separate piece of paper.) Name Address Thank you for taking the time to respond. Stating your identity is optional, but it is important and will be confidential— promise. Please return your questionnaire to: Steve Bromberg, 620 Newport Center Drive, 11th Floor, Newport Beach, 92660. Six/ a Bromberg, Mayor P o em Councilman, 5"' District 949 - 640 -2001 Fax: 949 - 644 -1853 E -Mail: dandee @earthlink.net t 6aA., �4' w e�Q 'am ov- P`L_ , w�e't"�' C`'' a-? din g pis PA�k � Yz z3r Page 2 2. Do you have enough information at this time? Yes _)<_ No If no, what additional information would you like to see? 3. Have ou attended any community meetings on the issue? Yes No 5C 4. Other. comments. (Please use available space on this letter or use a separate piece of paper.) Thank you for taking the time to respond. Stating your identity is option -a but it is important and will be confidential— promise. Please return your questionnaire to: Steve Bromberg, 620 Newport Center Drive, 11JI Floor, Newport Beach, 92660. St a Bromberg, MayojPem Councilman, 'S Distric 949 - 640 -2001 Fax: 949 -644 -1853 E -Mail: dandee @earthlink.net d CAA- Page 2 2. Do you have enough information at this time? es No If no, what additional information would you like to see? 3. Have you attended any community meetings on the issue. Yes No 4. Other comments. (Please use available space on this letter or use a separate piece of paper.) Thank you for taking the time to respond. Stating your identity is optional, but it is important and will be confidential— promise. Please return your questionnaire to: Steve Bromberg, 620 Newport Center Drive, 11th Floor, Newport Beach, 92660. St a Bromberg, Mayor P o em Councilman, 5"' District 949 - 640 -2001 Fax: 949 -644 -1853 E -Mail: dandee @earthlink.net ' ^1 J Page 2 2. Do you have enough information at this time? Yes No If no, what additional information would you like to see? 3. Have you attended any community meetings on the issue? Yes No �/_ a Qther.comments. (Please use available space on this letter or use a separate piece of paper.) B o K to 4 aA Thank you for taking the time to respond. Stating your identity is optional, but it is important and will be confidential— promise. Please return your questionnaire to: Steve Bromberg, 620 Newport Center Drive, 111' Floor, Newport Beach, 92660. St a Bromberg, Mayor P o em Councilman, 5� District 949 - 640-2001 Fax: 949-644-1853 E -Mail: dandee @earthlink.net J �3 Page 2 2. Do you have enough information at this time? Yes No If no, what additional information would you like to see? 3. Have you attended any community meetings on the issue? Yes X No 4. Other comments. (Please use available space on this letter or use a separate piece of paper.) Z I, but it is important and will be confidential — promise. Please return your questionnaire to: Steve Bromberg, 620 Newport Center Drive, 11"' Floor, Newport Beach, 92660. St a Bromberg, Mayor P o em Councilman, 5t' District 949 - 640 -2001 Fax: 949 -644 -1853 E -Mail: dandee @earthlink.net F�� y�fles s 0QM�W� ' o,W TR c► K- PA�K- w� S l (_tAT L A G MTS TIA AT STA y ED L tG IE-b 0.01 IL �U;uC; P.rr, ZT w�S Tl-tE 61��EST" ,�u�SRNCE i�� r✓��, AK)n ray �A "�«y o T wAS NtA�ly 1L ►PISS IgL� s�kQ7L7z S� ,� ccp.rh., C.0EN Lj ,T+A ray ��5�� RL'�lGUfL(� T1tls Ll6KT w��L Nai &pI ., ►HCSE cuKe � � �AC� 1,.,lNDa�.J� z FEEL S�ON6t -y PFoR -� C U;5- 6r J �T G �� So L L L P3ix S ;11E Q� ��Ki c , rNt April 17, 2002 Steve Bromberg 620 Newport Center Drive, 11 th Floor Newport Beach, California 92660 RE: Proposed Mormon Temple and Steeple in Bonita Canyon Dear Mr. Bromberg, Thank you for your solicitation of input regarding the above - referenced item. As you can see from my responses to the questions in your letter, I am unalterably opposed to the entire project. To even pretend that a 124 foot high steeple is remotely consistent with any residential area is outrageous. Certainly, I was not informed of any such structure plans so close to the Bonita Canyon development when I purchased my home here. To light such a huge eyesore at night is an additional blight. I also agree with those who are concerned about traffic. Traffic is going to be tremendously increased when the parks opposite the proposed area are open. I am opposed to the temple itself being built, let alone the steeple. If this project is thrust upon the residents in the area, I can assure you there will be wide - spread and intensive legal action. Thank you for asking for the opinion of the residents most impacted. Page 2 2. Do you have enough information at this time? Yes No If no, what additional information would you like to see? 3. Have you attended any community meetings on the issue? Yes No 4. Other comments. (Please use available space on this letter or use a separate piece of paper.) Thank you for taking the time to respond. Stating your identity is optional, but it is important and will be confidential— promise. Please return your questionnaire to: Steve Bromberg, 620 Newport Center Drive, 11i' Floor, Newport Beach, 92660. St a Bromberg, Mayor P o em Councilman, 5�' District 949 - 640 -2001 Fax: 949 - 644 -1853 E -Mail: dandee @earthlink.net /ya /� �fi l�Zoiurs l�l�zrihy' � y ks 66 l /AI dq /1' f- Je /L -/7 / //.-Pa ljSp /a y is'i ke S / 'Wek, f /u I Page 2 2. Do you have enough information at this time? Yes %' No If no, what additional information would you like to see? 3. Have you attended any community meetings on the issue? Yes No Other comments. (Please use available space on this letter or use a separate piece of paper.) Thank you for taking the time to respond. Stating your identity is optional,'bbt it is important and will be confidential— promise. Please return your questionnaire to: Steve Bromberg, 620 Newport Center Drive, llp' Floor, Newport Beach, 92660. St a Bromberg, Mayor fVm Councilman, 5"' District 949- 640 -2001 Fax: 949 -644 -1853 E -Mail: dandee @earthlink.net pro f- Etas 0- rCCe E�r1 �ti40� J,0re_I It pyu_ '6 �� Yy , J_,'-jU'U � (1- c9d r`O V, c_� t c-)) S bLd TP �gccf�iC(.S " , eT ,p '��� I r t -� y�V t S c o,no � o Nu'd '°- " S Cz. v t( r�� c E-Y� f �� t i—Gwti� S -(2 r art r 09 ft a,1 1ST Page 2 2. Do you have enough information at this time? Yes ✓ No If no, what additional information would you like to see? 3. Have you attended any community meetings on the issue? Yes No 4. ther comments. (Please use available space on this letter or use a separate piece of paper.) Thank you for taking the time to respond. Stating your identity is optional, but it is important and will be confidential— promise. Please return your questionnaire to: Steve Bromberg, 620 Newport Center Drive, 11th Floor, Newport Beach, 92660. St a Bromberg, Mayor P o em Councilman, 5�' District 949 - 640 -2001 Fax: 949 -644 -1853 E -Mail: dandee @earthlink.net i / �► iii i. / � C1,ND D7�// �/1 QlJZ /.�2 - /� //� // /7 �/e. ,(l/rTi /1 nrl /�i'a/� / / /(] X / '/� %%i /// /l� %ilk /I /. // /din e l �[L�( �(/i/IA'P/� ZAL �o a c�muc�✓ �� �c �Q art t-�&y .. Ae/b I �Q� c.�U Q ,/illll[2 C�U7ivY.�LC�Q1� U� ;Jr, -an.� oz� f7'1�cir-�on, T eo. T-f- , � ki I t G'Qn �rne�m� �eca�o -n� a3A Arm FAR t Page 2 2. Do you have enough information at this time? Yes No SC Iff no, what additional information would yoVike to see? � i� c oReq . 3. Have youattended any commun meetings on the issue? Yes No Other comments. (Please use available space, on this letter or use a separate piece of paper.) 1 '41/Z V- U 5-7n k� - w o�w yt d J .7 Thank you for taking the time to respond. Stating your identity is.optional, but it is important and will be confidential— promise. Please return your questionnaire to: Steve Bromberg, 620 Newport Center Drive, 11"' Floor, Newport Beach, 92660. St a Bromberg; Mayor P o em Councilman, 5"' District 949 -640 -2001 Fax: 949 -644 -1853 E -Mail: dandee @earthlink.net -k , Page 2 2. Do you have enough information at this time? Yes )<� No If no, what additional information would you like to see? 3. Have attended any community meetings on the issue? Yes No 4. Other comments. (Please use available space on this letter or use a. separate piece of paper.) 730 int C/-x e 6 :.. Thank you for taking the time to respond. Stating your identity is optional, but it is important and will be confidential— promise. Please return your questionnaire to: Steve Bromberg, 620 Newport Center Drive, 11th Floor, Newport Beach, 92660. St a Bromberg, Mayor P o em Councilman, 5th District 949 - 640 -2001 Fax: 949 - 6441853 E -Mail: dandee @earthlink.net a4� April 17. 2002 Mayor Pro Tern Bromberg 620 Newport Center Drive 11'h Floor Newport Beach, CA 92660 Dear Mayor Pro Tern Bromberg: I write to express my opposition to the proposed Mormon Temple as currently designed. I moved back to Orange County in 2000 after spending my first 18 years here (1970- 1988). I have always enjoyed this area as one which promotes a certain level of conformity and forethought to its planning and real estate development. As a result, we live in a community which is beautiful and balances well the needs of all our community members. With an understanding of Newport Beach's stance toward development and conformity, my wife and I purchased a home in Bonita Canyon about two years ago. We were lucky to find a lot which abuts an edge of the tract and overlooks a protected area. Behind the protected area is the current Mormon Stake Center. This building is not obtrusive in its design and is not lit at night so as not to disturb us. We are happy to have this structure "as a neighbor." However, the proposal for the Mormon Temple is quite disturbing. Our backyard literally directly overlooks the parcel of land. If the design called for a building not as opposing and intrusive I would not be writing this letter. However, the height and brightness of the proposed design will dramatically interfere with the enjoyment of my property and severely reduce the property's value. Please do not misinterpret my desires. I have no problem with a Mormon Temple in concept. However, the height of such a structure and the lighting as proposed (even until 1 1 pm) is unacceptable. The variance from permitted construction is too great. I appreciate your interest in this matter and hope you take your constituents' concerns seriously. In my opinion, this is the most important issue you face. Sincerel ours, a^� Page 2 2. Do you have enough information at this time? Yes No If no what additional information would you like to see? � ���Ch -'�� c� s�: <G-�7., ^C Sc -f'x,Ll lhrGS /�Pn'�7.X 4iP•.. 3. Have :¢ou attendecL9any community meetings on the issue? Yes No 4. Other.comments. (Please use available space on this letter or use a separate piece of paper.) Thank you for taking the time to respond. Stating your identity is optional, but it is important and will be confidential— promise. Please return your questionnaire to: Steve Bromberg, 620 Newport Center Drive, 11th Floor, Newport Beach, 92660. St a Bromberg, Mayor P o em Councilman, 5th District 949 - 640 -2001 Fax: 949 - 6441853 E -Mail: dandee @earthlink.net Page 2 2. Do you have enough information at this time? Yes No If no, what additional information would you like to see? 3. Have you attended any community meetings on the issue? Yes No Y 4. Other comments. (Please use available space on this letter or use a separate piece of paper.) Name Address Thank you for taking the time to respond. Stating your identity is optional, but it is important and will be confidential— promise. Please return your questionnaire to: Steve Bromberg, 620 Newport Center Drive, 11"' Floor, Newport Beach, 92660. '�f St a Bromberg, Mayor P o em Councilman, 5"' District 949 - 640 -2001 Fax: 949 -644 -1853 E -Mail: dandee @earthlink.net C�i.� Page 2 2. Do you have enough information at this time? Yes -.,V No If no, what additional information would you like to see? 3. Have you attended any community meetings on the issue? Yes No 4. Other comments. (Please use available space on this letter or use a separate piece of paper.) Address Thank you for taking the time to respond. Stating your identity is optional, but it is important and will be confidential— promise. Please return your questionnaire to: Steve Bromberg, 620 Newport Center Drive, 11th Floor, Newport Beach, 92660. St a Bromberg, Mayor P o em Councilman, 5t' District 949 - 640 -2001 Fax: 949 - 644-1853 E -Mail: dandee @earthlink.net Dear Mr. Bromberg. Thank you for your interest in the future and the needs of our community. My wife and I both feel that the impact of the Mormon/LDS Temple project to be built on Bonita Canyon Drive is going to have a deep negative impact on our community, and the value of our houses. As you have mentioned in your letter, the main concerns remain: Lighting (both of the Steeple and during the holiday season), Steeple Height, Exterior Building Color and the impact on traffic. Also to be considered are the project aesthetics, whereby a structure that does not conform to the whole flow of its adjacent community (ours, Harbor View Homes, their current temple and the adjacent church) is allowed to be erected. For these reasons, and other potential negative impacts that it could have on the environment, and possibly paving the way for other ugly structure to take precedence and be built in our neighborhood, that we adamantly object to the whole project. We would deeply appreciate your taking our concerns into consideration and act accordingly. Page 2 2. Do you have enough information at this time? Yes No X If no, what additional information would you like to seJ_ � to v 3. Have you attended any community meetings on the issue? Yes No X 4. Other comments. (Please use available space on this letter or use a separate piece of paper.) Thank you for taking the time to respond. Stating your identity is optional, but it is important and will be confidential— promise. Please return your questionnaire to: Steve Bromberg, 620 Newport Center Drive, 11"' Floor, Newport Beach, 92660. �� Stc4e Bromberg, Mayor P o em Councilman, 5" District 949 - 640 -2001 Fax: 949 -644 -1853 E -Mail: dandee @earthlink.net aCls�u ��4�J v c,�40aN% Mayor Tod W. Ridgeway Mayor Pro Tem Steven Bromberg Council Members Garold B. Adams Norma J. Glover John Heffernan Dennis D. O'Neil Gary L. Proctor RE: Mormon /LDS Temple CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH OFFICE OF THE CITY COUNCIL April 12, 2002 Dear Bonita Canyon Resident (sorry for the informality): The Mormon/LDS Temple project on Bonita Canyon Drive and Prairie Road is planned at 17,500 square feet (about 5% or so of the lot area) and has raised concerns with a number of residents in my council district, more specifically in Bonita Canyon. You probably observed the 124' crane, which was placed at the proposed temple site for a few days by the church. The purpose was to give everyone an idea of just what 124' actually looks like, although the crane and the steeple are of course quite different. The current application and plans submitted to the City reflect a light stone exterior surface on the building and steeple as well as lighting until 11:00 p.m. each night. A lighting consultant has suggested the lighting intensity be reduced by 50% and the church has agreed to this modification. Presently, the project is undergoing an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) that should describe the project and process, evaluate environmental impacts including height, lighting, and exterior color, project aesthetics, air quality, geology and soils, traffic and other items required by State and local regulations. The contents of this report will be available for the public and will be considered by the City when the public hearing before the Planning Commission is held on the Church's application for a Use Permit. At this point in time, the concerns that have been relayed to me by a number of residents in Bonita Canyon, as well as other areas of the City, in order of priority are: Steeple Height, Lighting, Exterior Building Color, and Traffic. I would like to hear from you. Therefore, I would appreciate your giving me the following input; which will assist me if and when this issue is before the City Council ^ ^ 1. Do you: Approv ^ or Disapprove _Zof the project? (Please . elaborate with comments — #4) - 00 /G' City Hall • 3300 Newport Boulevard • Newport Beach, Californi www.citynewport- beach.ca.us Page 2 2. 3. 0 7 Do you have enough information at this time? Yes X No If no, what additional information would you like to see? Have you attended any community meetings on the issue? Yes X No Other comments. (Please use available space on this letter or use a separate piece of paper.) Thank you for taking the time to respond. Stating your identity is optional, but it is important and will be confidential— promise. Please return your questionnaire to: Steve Bromberg, 620 Newport Center Drive, 11th Floor, Newport Beach, 92660. St a Bromberg, MayjPo m Coun cilman, 5' Distr 949 - 640 -2001 Fax: 949 -644 -1853 ,r E -Mail: dandee @earthlink.net Grp LV i.� �P:�-- /xii����v /mss •-�•� o��� �'��,�r/� �/o%n 5,4 In Page 2 2. Do you have enough information at this time? Yes No If no, what additional information would you like to see? 3. Have you attended any community meetings on the issue? Yes No 4. Other comments. (Please use available space on this letter or use a separate piece of paper.) Nam Thank you for taking the time to respond. Stating your identity is optional, but it is important and will be confidential— promise. Please return your questionnaire to: Steve Bromberg, 620 Newport Center Drive, 11th Floor, Newport Beach, 92660. St a Bromberg, Mayor P o em Councilman, 5th District 949 - 640 -2001 Fax: 949 - 6441853 E -Mail: dandee @earthlink.net '.aL UL�1 &9'1� AV4_11 0 �- R_ L'� lei . 6,� Page 2 2. K 91 0 Do you have enough information at this time? Yes No If no, what additional information would you like to see? Have you attended any community meetings on the issue? Yes No Other comments. (Please use available space on this letter or use a separate piece of paper.) Thank you for taking the time to respond. Stating your identity is optional, but it is important and will be confidential— promise. Please return your questionnaire to: Steve Bromberg, 620 Newport Center Drive, 11th Floor, Newport Beach, 92660. St a Bromberg, Mayor P o em Councilman, 5r District 949 - 640 -2001 Fax: 949 -644 -1853 E -Mail: dandee @earthlink.net y�� im April 22, 2002 Mr. Steve Bromberg 620 Newport Center Drive 11'" Floor a Newport Beach, Ca. 92660 Dear Mr. Bromberg: 1 appreciate your inquiry regarding my thoughts on the proposed temple. There are several points 1 feel we should consider before approval is given. 1 agree with the concerns previously related to you by other Bonita Canyon residents. Steeple height, lighting, exterior building color and traffic are the top issues for the counsel to consider. The steeple height seems excessive relative to the neighborhood and 1 feel, would be too prominent. 1 think residents of other communities who are not well informed may be underestimating the impact of the lighted steeple. As for exterior building color, 1 have seen at least five Mormon Temples in the United States. 1 think all of them (based on the exterior color) would not be a fit with the general surroundings. The traffic study should play an important role in the decision. As you are aware, there are a number of churches in the area. Since 1 have moved into Bonita Canyon, (2 years), the traffic flow has only increased. We should also take into account the current road widening which will result in increased traffic flow regardless of the temple. The increased flow of traffic is already affecting the properties along the main road due to noise levels. Finally, the other churches in the area have not had an issue with confomting to the requirements. Are we being fair? Are we creating additional pressures on the community as other churches seek approvals for other projects and variances? Again, l disapprove of the project. I have am confidant however, the City Council will be able to reach a reasonable win/win situation for both the church and the community. Thank you for your attention on this matter. Page 2 2. Do you have enough information at this time? Yes ✓ No If no, what additional information would you like to see? 3. Have you attended any community meetings on the issue? Yes � No sAtxi e \ Wjz_ 4. Other comments. (Please use available space on this letter or use a separate piece of paper.) Q- d`tmoP rove of Hhq- S k-ce pl-t- e �cee_dt rho Ije' k vJ2 C� \tv dlto o(lrU.�Z Ut' 1�. liShf"�A(J.. Thank you for taking the time to respond. Stating your identity is optional, but it is important and will be confidential— promise. Please return your questionnaire to: Steve Bromberg, 620 Newport Center Drive, 11" Floor, Newport Beach, 92660. SAedBrom er g, Mayor P o em Councilman, 5t' District 949 - 640 -2001 Fax: 949-644 -1853 E -Mail: dandee @earthlink.net M Qkgk - 7 fort COW\Yoe�- we r,S',A' Aj, S d' -f 11tc,-V0--1 4�4-"h +C/_ szv-en o a o k+ v u.k i4^ P C4 aJ e_ aPpreC, a I l�eti2 -f-ki p/oJecf s�o�cd ,tioi LA_ � /i'oc✓e�► c.�rr*"_t �equiJe n � !Z1'PAtiAl�� loft Page 2 2. Do you have enough information at this time? Yes No If no, what additional information would you like to see? 3. Have you attended any community meetings on the issue? Yes X No 4. Other, comments. (Please use available space on this letter or use a separate piece of paper.) Thank you for taking the time to respond. Stating your identity is optional, but it is important and will be confidential— promise. Please return your questionnaire to: Steve Bromberg, 620 Newport Center Drive, 11th Floor, Newport Beach, 92660. St a Bromberg, MayjPo m Cou ncilman, 5th Distri 949 - 640 -2001 �1 Fax: 949 -644 -1853 E -Mail: dandee @earthlink.net QV' sifn ob�eJiors ache fo 4 S�-eeQl2 heiJA (dart ih J,+ ts v prtzeder► ed i(1 hei�h� oral '5 ou; oC s6a(2 j► its svr(txnld(n �c,+ o� his st ze- don na% bier•:. rtX+ -1-0 a f6devl CDMMV4%(4y carat will havf, a he M�c,.ci' D►� ad;uce ero . otiIows 6k- t d-01 4 -eeplea +o be. but { % v� �l�►�s - I�m�i� �� Can �ey d "y ahL/ aJA*&►d,l �tcmit F �'h� sr�v►1� ►w,��r� Ivd e, � awy o�l�►er G4��rcl /n woo ld ��,� -�v Permc�nen� SCatfir\ ovl �1*-►e- (�.4vrd beuo +y of "4e- Iawls(6L f. we re�ee�k ily aS 1'I�,� yon requir'e- 44.1at oe chvr&k ���d� b ovr -e) tt i+l rteA iyOe l ivlts . Page 2 2. Do you have enough information at this time? Yes � No If no, what additional information would you like to see? 3. Have yo ended any community meetings on the issue? Yes No 4. Other comments. (Please use available space on this letter or use a separate piece of paper.) Thank you for taking the time to respond. Stating your identity is optional, but it is important and will be confidential— promise. Please return your questionnaire to: Steve Bromberg, 620 Newport Center Drive, 11th Floor, Newport Beach, 92660. St a Bromberg, Mayej m Counci lman, 5th Distr 949 - 640 -2001 Fax: 949 -644 -1853 E-Mail: dandee @earthlink.net _l 5 b" i lcat i s Ar l bo J 4vte Tar. 40 dLVC1. Y �rlveQ� tia.� a cti'(Wk h&r, wr, �fo jl7 11473 '1.�o 4 a�� Page 2 2. Do you have enough information at this time? Yes X_ No If no, what additional information would you like to see? 3. Have you attended any community meetings on the issue? Yes iC No 4. Other comments. (Please use available space on this letter or use a separate piece of paper.) Thank you for taking the time to respond. Stating your identity is optional, but it is important and will be confidential— promise. Please return your questionnaire to: Steve Bromberg, 620 Newport Center Drive, 11th Floor, Newport Beach, 92660. St a Bromberg, MayjPo m Cou ncilman, "' Distr 5 i 949 - 640 -2001 Fax: 949 - 644 -1853 E -Mail: dandee @earthlink.net 4-c � b_" C w � Y. s �� � 4,J / sin Page 2 2. Do you have enough information at this time? Yes ✓ No If no, what additional information would you like to see? 3. Have yo attended any community meetings on the issue? Yes No 4. Other comments. (Please use available space on this letter or use a separate piece of paper.) Thank you for taking the time to respond. Stating your identity is optional, but it is important and will be confidential— promise. Please return your questionnaire to: Steve Bromberg, 620 Newport Center Drive, 11th Floor, Newport Beach, 92660. St a Bromberg, Mayor P o em Councilman, 5th District 949 - 640 -2001 Fax: 949 - 644 -1853 E -Mail: dandee @earthlink.net i / /ice. Page 2 2. Do you have enough information at this time? Yes No If no, what additional information would you like to see? 3. Have you attended any community meetings on the issue? Yes No 4- 4. Other comments. (Please use available space on this letter or use a separate piece of paper.) A T it is important and will be confidential— promise. Please questionnaire to: Steve Bromberg, 620 Newport Center Drive Newport Beach, 92660. St a Bromberg, Mayor P o em Councilman, 5"' District 949 - 640 -2001 Fax: 949 -644 -1853 E -Mail: dandee @earthlink.net i return your 11�h Floor, fl/ lvzk Page 2 2. 93 91 Na Do you have enough information at this time? Yes X No If no, what additional information would you like to see? Have you attended any community meetings on the issue? Yes No _x Other comments. (Please use available space on this letter or use a separate piece of paper.) Thank you for taking the time to respond. Stating your identity is optional, but it is important and will be confidential— promise. Please return your questionnaire to: Steve Bromberg, 620 Newport Center Drive, 11th Floor, Newport Beach, 92660. St a Bromberg, Mayor P o em Councilman, 5th District 949 - 640 -2001 Fax: 949 -644 -1853 E -Mail: dandee @earthlink.net sr/yA ;� �y M14.� It W41- . if i�' /,/ (�e C Lr{rrr�I- �cvGl, a, f ;f S �, � ;/ . fur 'y 4PP: Page 2 2. Do you have enough information at this time? Yes No X If no, what additional information(( would you like fto see? Ch VIYJ.try.c,.�-e_f R e_(6 f4 o I41, tra� C- 5i4U 3. Have you attended any community meetings on the issue? Yes X No 4. Other comments. (Please use available space on this letter or use a separate piece of paper.) Thank you for taking the time to respond. Stating your identity is optional, but it is important and will be confidential— promise. Please return your questionnaire to: Steve Bromberg, 620 Newport Center Drive, 11"' Floor, Newport Beach, 92660. St a Bromberg, Mayor P o em Councilman, 5t' District 949 - 640 -2001 Fax: 949 -644 -1853 E -Mail: dandee @earthlink.net T4 PYtwVry GBri[eN4l IS fe 5��% I1etSlnf. `ti✓e _ II a(?r� �dc#t / / 40 met•f<rtCt5 No e 40 r �¢ toSi4ek.��ttJ he.cy1,�•ryee� Tte- S"fe N.eil-W stto,-d 6e " 9res-kv r'�4 ft4_ ,54eeP1e td 4- cµvrqA `P"Gouse. Ik a.lgi�rh, fp Fie is oa� o� owdo.M.; L",k tt, ".ee�(`j�`�ey 06`e��' WR are td^CevYda-Ltlj dL�! P Y W by s l S &o r 0 0 r C Ge k-es Ord pryo, -wrt ► s do cm_SkL-J farIe- S�'rrlc "-r- lle Se�e� co�ce�q ;s ��51� .may . Vt wr4trC}ad C�V'1 . ►.Jk,,Jdc 4 IkT' -f d-,- e4,%ict lo,JW o.v4 s4,2(le t 11% pA'►. Tfus is u�.o p le . We wise �eI«ee d�.aQ PGe Sgl,s�ary P1wc -CA& rVYl� doe o-.� �� G %e�a•i(y - TGQre are J50 i�a << � �'Hs�esP4";A - I *k 1015. ffke4e„, tf 1 Cd�,terk. Is 4te S4_,yle � � "Cl Page 2 Do you have enough information at this time? Yes ,_ No If no, what additional information would you like to see? Have you attended any community eetjngs oe? Yes No C 4. Other comments. (Please use available space on this letter or use a separate piece of paper.) XLe_,;_ je - Thank you for taking the time to respond. Stating your identity is optional, but it is important and will be confidential— promise. Please return your questionnaire to: Steve Bromberg, 620 Newport Center Drive, 11th Floor, Newport Beach, 92660. St a Bromberg, Mayor P o em Councilman, 5�' District 949 - 640 -2001 Fax: 949 - 644 -1853 E -Mail: dandee @earthlink.net , , r I Pui, i =00 / i Page 2 2. Do you have enough information at this time? Yes ✓ No If no, what additional information would you like to see? 3. Have you• attended any community meetings on the issue? Yes No V 4. Other .comments. (Please use available space on this letter or use a separate piece of paper.) Thank you for taking the time to respond. Stating your identity is optional, but it is important and will be confidential— promise. Please return your questionnaire to: Steve Bromberg, 620 Newport Center Drive, 11t' Floor, Newport Beach, 92660. St a Bromberg, Mayor P o em Councilman, St' District 949 -640 -2001 Fax: 949 -644 -1853 E -Mail: dandee @earthlink.net : 6 e�� p�c c�iien- concccn` l.t1e afc on '� � � �a cco+., use 4A- -ire erd 4- tl.e new S�CCee�, ;s means L..>xe.n c s�cc4ke is \;Jr has a vacy bciSIT, v:ew, �e Fetn�lc ic\ Lp 5e , Ssi��CO �s qp� 4 iac�e oRc ��' 'r4- is reo.0 a ceSiacR }io.\ comm�.ni-{�.�, , 1.ca53- s�mrnec cnn s'ermm6ec 5;tvc� ion iec3r�c'� 4, Sorry 4r -- w�� e;p c Y\eiti Or-5 nod (\C n oxa +o wo-S 1�SceV rr te tv\- mc' ..AIA Wteo AVE K� Tvn�a "JU-s givesz:c 9..idres hoc -}%c S�ccpie so X doo'� a�cce��l -thy Va�)t'Ns ruecd _�a be cR 1:00 Q.�n, `ACV�e eeDple wecc moo} bo- ;heccc� b� �e ccc\c� w. \� (�robab \y be by �-i,� i� 1 Page 2 2. Do you have enough information at this time? Yes :�_ No If no, what additional information would you like to see? 3. Have you attended any community meetings on the issue? Yes No 4. Other comments. (Please use available space on this letter or use a separate piece of paper.) Name INNNONEW Address Thank you for taking the time to respond. Stating your identity is optional, but it is important and will be confidential— promise. Please return your questionnaire to: Steve Bromberg, 620 Newport Center Drive, 11"' Floor, Newport Beach, 92660. St a Bromberg, Mayor P o em Councilman, 5r' 949 - 640 -2001 Fax: 949 -644 -1853 E -Mail: dandee @earthlink.net eiK"I ffzrP-r� 2 t` 15ir Yt 9C.0V +s U _ � lr I (h �1`V .C.-.i,Q/r.:�ti.�U L. r... T S J Page 2 2. Do you have enough information at this time? Yes _X__ No If no, what additional information would you like to see? 3. Have you attended any community meetings on the issue? Yes No _X 4. Other.comments. (Please use available space on this letter or use a separate piece of paper.) I' oil l o(, f tijoP ouP o-�' �/ e steeple /�e;511 fi -T-t- is so vhc l: h +after f ti a� a t.l y tell *" i'n Yti e arc-a 1f you mare A variA.�Ge fae a"e Irov(.7 ('6114 poi�rru+ryAi�c,'rFo, Name r s b Oct /a 6 e -jL o Code, er!!. Address Thank you for taking the time to respond. Stating your identity is optional, but it is important and will be confidential— promise. Please return your questionnaire to: Steve Bromberg, 620 Newport Center Drive, 11"' Floor, Newport Beach, 92660. St a Bromberg, Mayor P o em Councilman, 5a' District 949- 640 -2001 Fax: 949 - 6441853 E -Mail: dandee @earthlink.net 2AD r wrnxrn iempic Subject: mormon temple Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2002 21:14:58 -0700 MU Dear Mayor Pro Tern Bromberg: I am a Bonita Canyon resident responding to your letter dated April 12. 2002. Please forgive the e-mail in place of your questionnaire. In response to your questions: 1.) 1 do not approve of the project as planned. The steeple height will vastly exceed what code allows. This would become widely visible throughout the area, not merely from within Bonita Canyon; it would become the defining landmark of our neighborhood. This is clearly out of keeping of the residential neighborhood we all envisioned when we moved into our homes. 2.) 1 believe I have enough information to form a valid opinion. 1 know the project has been planned as a pure. . white structure with 24 hour lighting. 4real¢e the church has stated they will alter these plans. I am concerned once it is built there will be a desire to revert to their original vision. I have seen the Mormon Temples in Salt Lake, Los Angeles and La Jolla. These are not understated structures. I have seen the current LDS structure at the adjacent site; I have absolutely no objections if they desired a low lying structure of this nature. Based on their plans they are not interested in replicating the look of the current building. 3.) 1 have not attended a community meeting on this issue. I have only heard of one community meeting, which interfered with my work schedule. I have seen reports in the Daily Pilot that the community is not against the building, that only one or two people are concerned and no one will show up at a meeting. Without exception everyone 1 have talked to in our neighborhood is against the project as it is planned. Most of them are busy professionals who will have trouble finding time to become activists. If you do not hear from many homeowners, this does not mean they would Ike this property developed in this fashion. Please e-mail me in response if you do not have many responses to your letter, I will encourage my neighbors to write to you. 4.) Other comments are basically as above. This location is not appropriate for a large and prominent building of this nature and I suggest to you and other council members that this project should not be approved. Thank you for your attention. M__ April 15, 2002 I orl a� 411512002 9:40 M Page 2 2. Do you have enough information at this time? Yes k No If no, what additional information would you like to see? 3. Have you attended any community meetings on the issue? Yes No 4. Other.comments. (Please use available space on this letter or use a separate piece of paper.) Thank you for taking the time to respond. Stating your identity is optional, but it is important and will be confidential — promise. Please return your questionnaire to: Steve Bromberg, 620 Newport Center Drive, lPh Floor, Newport Beach, 92660. St a Bromber�, Mayor P o em Councilman, 5 District 949 - 640 -2001 Fax: 949 - 644-1853 E -Mail: dandee @earthiink.net �5 a Page 2 2. Do you have enough information at this time? Yes X If no, what additional information would you like to see? 3. Have you attended any community meetings on the issue? No No Yes 4. Other comments. (Please use available space on this letter or use a separate piece of paper.) Thank you for taking the time to respond. Stating your identity is optional, but it is important and will be confidential— promise. Please return your questionnaire to: Steve Bromberg, 620 Newport Center Drive, 11'h Floor, Newport Beach, 92660. St e Bromberg, Mayor P o em Councilman, 5 District 949 - 640 -2001 Fax: 949 -644 -1853 E -Mail: dandee @earthlink.net 51��1 i s Irv/ iov.4 11 YW)T 5 /O Wk/ CXUG�G}.L (t "Jr yo vi– VV GcUY)5) Page 2 2. Do you have enough information at this time? Yes No If no, what additional information would you like to see? 3. Have you attended any community meetings on the issue? Yes No 4. Other comments. (Please use available space on this letter or use a separate piece of paper.) ILI Thank you for taking the time to respond. Stating your identity is optional, but it is important and will be confidential— promise. Please return your questionnaire to: Steve Bromberg, 620 Newport Center Drive, 11"' Floor, Newport Beach, 92660. St a Bromberg, Mayor P o em Councilman, S"' District 949 -640 -2001 Fax: 949 -644 -1853 E -Mail: dandee @earthlink.net T iA.1fiL. OG i ako Page 2 2. Do you have enough information at this time? Yes No 1t If no, what additional information would you like to see? 1-26A-4 OrCsgwi^6J T&III-0 S7c✓ly 7X0*rP 1C- S7c//YI tc�16 3. Have you attended any community meetings on the issue? Yes No 4. Other comments. (Please use available space on this letter or use a separate piece of paper.) Name Thank you for taking the time to respond. Stating your identity is optional, but it is important and will be confidential— promise. Please return your questionnaire to: Steve Bromberg, 620 Newport Center Drive, 11"' Floor, Newport Beach, 92660. St a Bromberg, MayjPo m Co uncilman, 5t' Distric 949- 640 -2001 Fax: 949 -644 -1853 E -Mail: dandee @earthlink.net �q YUJR, r 7ffc OLV 7'laev /s MoklifoN 0'9V /V- 7a IAA olct- a'� Dear Mr. Bromberg, April 28, 2002 Thank you for letter asking the opinion of local residents about the proposed Mormon temple. We are vehemently opposed to it The overall vision of Newport Beach should not be altered simply because the head of a church in Salt Lake City requests it The existing architectural guidelines are in place for good reasons and so far they have served our city well. To give into pressure to alter them would be a tragedy. Enclosed is a computer image of how the proposed temple would look. if this picture doesn't speak clearly enough, let me offer a few more reasons why the proposed plans should be denied -Local residents did not spend millions dollars on their homes only to have a 12 story tower topped by a hideous gold angel blazing into a majority of their yards and windows. The potential devaluation of property is a serious concede. The Bonita Canyon development atone generates well over 3 million dollars a year in property taxes_ The city should keep that in mind when malting its decision. The proposed temple will obviously have a negative impact on the look and feel of this community. Loss of property value and tax revenue will soon follow. -On a recent visit to the La Jolla Teanple a Mormon `elder' proudly informed to us that over a quarter of a million of their total visitors come during Christmas week alone. A frightening thought when you add that to the traffic of the existing churches along Bonita Canyon. Having such an architectural monstrosity built in an already busy intersection will create tremendous traffic congestion. While we can't stop the devout from visiting the temple, we can at least deter curious gawkers who are merely drawn by the outrageous proportions of the tower. -The proposed temple is tmfair to the existing churches. They have built within guidelines and as a resu lt'church row' is a dignified enhancement to our community. To allow the Mormons to be the exception to existing guidelines will threaten the personality of our city. One of the great aspects of Newport Beach are the many religions represented here and no one should overpower the others. As evidenced by this image, such an enormous building will clearly draw a great deal of attention and identify Newport Beach as a predominantly Mormon community, which it is not -To approve the existing plans would set a dangerous precedent Tbink of the ramifications if the proposed structure is allowed. What's next? The Pope demanding a 124 -foot statue of the Virgin Mary be built on Coast Hwy? An enormous Star of David shining from a Jewish Temple? Would those be approved as long as they promised to cut the lights at 11 p.m.? Religious arrogance must not be allowed to interfere with the overall vision of our community. It's that simple. t cA I r. we April 27, 2002 Dear Mayor Pro Tern Bromberg: I wanted to thank you for taking the time to send out the letter dated April 12, 2002 to the residents of Bonita Canyon regarding the Mormon/LDS Temple project. My husband and I are totally opposed to the structure being built at that site for the following reasons: I. We bought a home in an area that would be a good investment for us as well as offer a safe and quiet area for us to raise our three children. As planned, the structure will be unsightly, over height code restrictions and will not blend with the community surroundings and atmosphere. It will bring in an extraordinary amount of traffic as it will be a regional facility; certainly had it been there when we were in the process of buying our home, we would not have purchased in Bonita Canyon. I venture to guess that you would have the same opinion. 2. We are not opposed to having a church of any denomination build on that site and welcome the opportunity to see that happen as long as it is in keeping with the structures in existence and enhances the neighborhoods around the site instead of detracting both visually and with increased noise from additional traffic. 3. We have been unable to attend a community meeting on this issue; to my knowledge, there has only been one meeting and we were out of the state when that occurred. We do feel that we are informed adequately to make the decision that we are against the temple being erected there. We feel that the crane being up for a week, while a nice try at easing some fears, did not quite reflect the enormity of the structure at completion. Maybe some 3 -D templates would be more appropriate to show the citizens the correct sizing of the structure; of course, I would assume the Temple committee would not want to do that as it would accurately show just how overpowering this building is going to be. Again, please realize that we are not against the Morman/LDS Temple project having a structure there for their congregation. But one that will be a beacon for those to see from afar for hours on end is just not what this community is about. Should they choose to redirect their building plans and develop a building that is in sync with the community, we would be happy to support their plans. Please feel free to contact us with any further questions. '1 1 � Page 2 2. Do you have enough information at this time? Yes No If no, what additional information would you like to see? 3. Have you attended any community meetings on the issue? Yes No 4. Other.comments. (Please use available space on this letter or use a separate piece of paper.) Na Thank you for taking the time to respond. Stating your identity is optional, but it is important and will be confidential— promise. Please return your questionnaire to: Steve Bromberg, 620 Newport Center Drive, 11"' Floor, Newport Beach, 92660. St a Bromberg, Mayor P o em Councilman, 5t' District 949- 640 -2001 Fax: 949 - 6441853 E -Mail: dandee @earthlink.net If Y\� 11( s °' o.r` �� ``� `.."� -4,b N"'`P"fk CZ4A .G— "�c1�r —Z Z 3 A, k-q , '`i1'LS'kS w' :�`J^" `vvyvc a„ O-O L.'r %c C_ Sri._ r�R er-_ . o9 i\ c-. r,,o e �..—�w .fi Q u , _ �: t 4--e � p c, i{ ; k- iA L cor. -(w o (,_ ( Ar. -tb�l \_ 1a-).) l Page 2 2. Do you have enough information at this time? Yes ✓ No _ If no, what additional information would you like to see? 3. Have yoy� attended any community meetings on the issue? Yes No V 4. Other comments. (Please use available space on this letter or use a separate piece of paper.) ... Thank you for taking the time to respond. Stating your identity is optional, but it is important and will be confidential— promise. Please return your questionnaire to: Steve Bromberg, 620 Newport Center Drive, 11"' Floor, Newport Beach, 92660. St a Bromberg, Mayor P o em Councilman, 5"' District 949 - 640 -2001 Fax: 949 -644 -1853 E -Mail: dandee @earthlink.net Page 2 2. Do you have enough information at this time? Yes No X If no, what additional information,wouldd yo Mike to see? h6vIr Q,0 mqa y i SOyi ac.a o_w_5fi 1�6VY1e__ sp 1 �— 3. Have you attended any community meetings on the issue? Yes No 4. Other comments. (Please use available space on this letter or use a separate piece of paper.) Na Thank you for taking the time to respond. Stating your identity is optional, but it is important and will be confidential— promise. Please return your questionnaire to: Steve Bromberg, 620 Newport Center Drive, 11"' Floor, Newport Beach, 92660. St a Bromberg, Mayor P o em Councilman, 5"' District 949 -640 -2001 Fax: 949 -644 -1853 E -Mail: dandee @earthlink.net � �5 Dear Mr. Bromberg: Thank you so much for taking the time to actually ASK us how we feel about our community. We were so surprised and elated to see your letter in the mail. One of the many reasons we choose to live in Newport Beach is our city's detailed attention to city planning and development. Leaders, city planners, and residents have put a lot of effort into developing a visionary plan that sculpts the overall ambiance and environment of our community. Our city is so unique in its characteristics, loved by both residents and visitors alike. Bonita Canyon and its outlying communities are very family orientated and very quiet. There is a special peacefulness that is unique in the hustle and bustle of Southern California life. Did you know that we can actually see the stars at night? The unusual ability to see the heavens is not a common feature in most Orange and LA county areas. Regrettably, the Mormon Temple project has forced us to defend our neighborhood. This enormous structure is literally being built in our backyards. In addition, the Mormon Church desires it to be pale in color and continuously lit until the late hours of the night, therefore causing it to "glow ". If the steeple is built, there is no escaping its presence. Its entire purpose is to attract attention from both near and far. I cannot express how strongly we are opposed to its construction. No organization, whether religious, corporate or private, should be permitted to construct a building that so completely dominates the area's surroundings. We hope that you and the council will consider our views. Like many constituents, we are quiet people, trusting our local government to enforce the codes and statutes our community has adopted, thus ensuring the continuity of the city and neighborhoods we love so much. Your decision will not only affect Bonita Canyon but other communities as well. If this steeple is constructed, no doubt other organizations will feel that our unique city codes are only a hurdle to surpass, not the guidelines that keep our city precious. Sincerely, r Page 2 2. Do you have enough information at this time? Yes No If no, what additional information would you like to see? 3. Have you attended any community meetings on the issue? Yes No )0( Z If-AVE 5-PDKC J 6,� 1V1,J M CL X4_j— �q fez -TCS a N 1 <_'D'41 --I � 'i � S Wig � fir' `T)l t[ 4. Other.comments. (Please use available space on this letter or use a separate piece of paper.) Thank you for taking the time to respond. Stating your identity is optional, but it is important and will be confidential— promise. Please return your questionnaire to: Steve Bromberg, 620 Newport Center Drive, 11"' Floor, Newport Beach, 92660. St a Bromberg, Mayor P o em Councilman, 5t' District 949 - 640 -2001 Fax: 949 -644 -1853 E -Mail: dandee @earthlink.net 11J ►ly Q�uNLD J-jt�sy 3E S-Ma0A�2DS' sc -.r-. �►�� TRAFr` K a.4CCr_Ep L i 6 H-T-S Page 2 2. Do you have enough information at this time? Yes No If no, what additional information would you like to see? 3. Have you attended any community meetings on the issue? Yes No 4. Other comments. (Please use available space on this letter or use a separate piece of paper.) Name Thank you for taking the time to respond. Stating your identity is optional, but it is important and will be confidential— promise. Please return your quesdonnalre to: Steve Bromberg, 620 Newport Center Drive, 11th Floor, Newport Beach, 92660. St a Bromberg, Mayor P o em Councilman, 5"' District 949 -640 -2001 Fax: 949 -644 -1853 E -Mail: dandee @earthlink.net Page 2 2. Do you have enough information at this time? Yes No If no, what additional information would you like to see? 3. Have you attended any community meetings on the issue? Yes No 4. Other comments. (Please use available space on this letter or use a separate piece of paper.) Nam Thank you for taking the time to respond. Stating your identity is optional, but it is important and will be confidential— promise. Please return your questionnaire to: Steve Bromberg, 620 Newport Center Drive, 11", Floor, Newport Beach, 92660. St a Bromberg, Mayor P o em Councilman, 5�' District 949 -640 -2001 Fax: 949 -644 -1853 E -Mail: dandee @earthlink.net V)OP2 y r isn4 corAij �o -E�.x� ld-} e.. �(1,9.. ��`, g`�S� (�✓ol�lQ�,, � arm t� � '� ��d�M$ial drea.. Mo�/►�vbv� - ��.�n,�(�.S a and � k 6 n i s YQ . �+ i }mss -�(jah d)l{(2_- . I rah (_oY) Wn fts o May 6, 2002 To: Steve Bromberg, Mayor Pro Tern Newport Beach From Re Mormon/LDS project Steve, I would like to state that we are against this proposed project. Our home backs up to the current meeting hall. When we purchased the property there was no indication that a Temple would be built. Had that been the case more thought would have been put into the decision to spend over 1 million dollars on that home. The current meeting hall does not bother us. The building blends in well with the landscape. And the new church across the street is also very unassuming. Obviously we have all seen Mormon temples and calling them a thing of beauty is matter of taste. I personally don't think that type of architecture is suitable for our neighborhood. And the 125 foot steeple is going to be quite high. When I put in my pool and back yard I set it up very open as to take advantage of the view of the hills behind us. If this project goes through I will be forced to spend additional money on my yard as we will not want to sit outside and have our main view that of a huge temple. Thank you f b { - _-Te., -oj -4 LU, irt pro poi{ ✓ - tv I r UY�U� l" A . A no- 11)" Project Subject: Mormon/LDS Project Date: Mon 6 May 2002 21:48:31 -0700 From: To: < andee(aearth m c.ne By E -Mail to : dandee @earthlink.net May 6, 2002 Mr. Steve Bromberg Councilman, 5th District Dear Mayor Pro Tem Bromberg: I am a Bonita Canyon resident responding to your letter dated April 12, 2002. 1. We disapprove of the project as we understand the proposal. See discussion at #9. 2. Yes, we believe we have enough information at this time. 3. Yes, we have attended a community meeting. 4. We wish to convey our strong opposition to the proposed temple and steeple adjacent to the current Church of LDS ("CLDS ") on Bonita Canyon Road. More specifically, we advocate the denial of the related application for a conditional use permit. We are not opposed to improvement of the property in a matter that does not adversely impact the community (lights, traffic, noise, etc.), and is consistent with the general plan. However, we believe that the proposed project, replete with a steeple that is well in excess of the designated height limit, is a selfish attempt by a group to serve their particular objectives at great detriment to the local community. It is our contention that the conditional use permit should be denied for a number of reasons. By any objective perspective, the proposed project must be considered a regional use, and accordingly, is inconsistent with the plan for the neighborhood. The fact that the next closest temples for this particular faith are located in Los Angeles and La Jolla serve as a warning that we can expect visitors from significant distance. I suggest building the temple in a location prepared to serve regional demands, such as near South Coast Plaza. Very simply, a facility providing regional utility does not belong in a neighborhood. In addition, what could possibly be the basis of approval for a structure whose height is 2.5 times the permitted height? Certainly the city council would not permit signage or any other man made structure to - pollute" the sightlines of this residential community. The fact that the 73 Tollroad frames the proposed location on one side does not lessen the impact to our community. This is not just an "eye of the beholder" issue. The height limit exists for a reason: to ensure consistency in the neighborhood. The proposed addition to our neighborhood is inconsistent with the character of the neighborhood and must be considered offensive to anyone other than a member of the applicant group. Finally, I would challenge anyone to stand at any corner of Bonita Canyon 1 of2 5nI2002 990 onnr a project and MacArthur Blvd, Looking toward the site and imagine the proposed spire_ Highly offensive and objectionable, at best_ Thank you for your solicitation of input and consideration of same. Feel free to contact us if you have questions regarding our opinions as expressed here_ s law 2 of 2 3/7!1002 9:00 AA Page 2 2. Do you have enough information at this time. Yes No If no, what additional information would you like 3. a you attended any community meetings on the issue? Yes No 4. Other comments. (Please use available space on this letter or use a separate piece of paper.) Thank you for taking the time to respond. Stating your identity is optional, but it is important and will be confidential— promise. Please return your questionnaire to: Steve Bromberg, 620 Newport Center Drive, 11"' Floor, Newport Beach, 92660. St a Bromberg, Mayor P o em Councilman, 5"' District 949- 640 -2001 Fax: 949 -644 -1853 E -Mail: dandee @earthlink.net qy" ' " < < S Gl I Y� ew- a`� Page 2 2. Do you have enough information at this time? Yes -:�L Nc If no, what additional information would you like to see? 3. Have you attended any community meetings on the issue? Yes No N- 4. Other comments. (Please use available space on this letter or use a separate piece of paper.) Thank you for taking the time to respond. Stating your identity is optional, but it is important and will be confidential— promise. Please return your questionnaire to: Steve Bromberg, 620 Newport Center Drive, 11'J' Floor, Newport Beach, 92660. St a Bromberg, Mayor P o em Councilman, 5"' District 949-640 -2001 Fax: 949 -644 -1853 E -Mail: dandee @earthlink.net � �s 5 Page 2 2. Do you have enough information at this time? Yes V/ No If no, what additional information would you like to see? 3. Have you attended any community meetings on the issue? Yes No 4. Other comments. (Please use available space on this letter or use a separate piece of paper.) _ Name Address Thank you for taking the time to respond. Stating your identity is optional, but it is important and will be confidential— promise. Please return your questionnaire to: Steve Bromberg, 620 Newport Center Drive, 11"' Floor, Newport Beach, 92660. S/ e/r g, May or P o em Councilman, 5� District 949 -640 -2001 Fax: 949 -644 -1853 E -Mail: dandee @earthlink.net e J r7 `o ✓ �-+✓ o/ Clete �� (/�✓ 2Ccc%�✓ 2yefp 2P / /vb'LCi r/C We appreciate the opportunity to express our views. My wife and I have been residents of Newport Beach since 1976. 1. Churches and other places of worship are appropriate for residential neighborhoods, but temples and cathedrals are an eyesore. 2. Temples and cathedrals across our nation are located in metropolitan, commercial districts, not in residential neighborhoods. 3. If the Irvine Company or any other company wanted to build a commercial structure of this height, and light it every night, in a residential area, the city would reject the proposal hands down. Why isn't the city council using the same reasoning for this proposed structure? 4. The city council has always based their decisions on enhancing the beauty, safety, and esthetics of our city. Clearly, the Mormon community must be exercising extraordinary political pressure on you and the council for this proposal to get this far. 5. I strongly oppose the construction of a Mormon Temple in a Newport Beach residential community. Page 2 2. Do you have enough information at this time? Yes V No If no, what additional information would you like to see? / 3. Have you attended any community meetings on the issue? Yes V No 4. Other comments. (Please use available space on this letter or use a sevarate piece of paver.) —.. Name_ Address- Thank you for taking the.time to respond. Stating your identity is optional, but it is important and will be confidential— promise. Please return your questionnaire to: Steve Bromberg, 620 Newport Center Drive, 11"' Floor, Newport Beach, 92660. St a Bromberg, Mayor P o em Councilman, 5"' District 949 - 640 -2001 Fax: 949 - 644 -1853 E -Mail: dandee @earthlink.net 01 50 { Page 2 2. Do you have enough information at this time? Yes 4 No If no, what additional information would you like to see? 3. Have you attended any community meetings on the issue? Yes No A_u7s 0 7 k{ ' c'�Gzrrc'j C's t�nMcn.c �P7 %••"h �� 4. Other.comments. (Please use available space on this letter or use a senarate niece of oaoer.) _ Name Addres Thank you for taking the time to respond. Stating your identity is optional, but it is important and will be confidential— promise. Please return your questionnaire to: Steve Bromberg, 620 Newport Center Drive, 11"' Floor, Newport Beach, 92660. St a Bromberg, Mayor P o em Councilman, St' District 949 -640 -2001 Fax: 949 -644 -1853 E -Mail: dandee @earthlink.net ,s tia /o/»-°Pz:� 779 a�� Page 2 2. Do you have enough information at this tame? Yes No If no, what additional information would you like to see? 3. Have you attended any community meetings on the issue? Yes No 4. Other comments. (Please use available space on this letter or use a separate piece of paper.) p� a,�,�; Nt f Ac it `yTl questionnaire to: Steve Brbmberg,�620 Newport Cenfer Drive, Newport Beach, 92660. St a Bromberg, Mayor P o em Councilman, 5�h District 949 - 640 -2001 Fax: 949- 644 -1853 E -Mail: dandee @earthlink.net 11°1 Floo , P-e L» S Q a.e d-o u a �,a a� c Y4:a'w� i So `�-`I fA A-wwtb Gi v tL. 1F I�.GI. L4 _'.47n keJ�W_eP W W . 13otir -r.QC, yvnl eoNS�K ✓icy. o� V �� Page 2 2. Do you have enough information at this time? Yes No If no, what additional information would you like to see? 3. Have you attended any community meetings on the issue? Yes No 4. Other comments. (Please use available space on this letter or use a separate piece of paper.) A w-b CR EA-M 7'D'>t 146 t- Tic%jFFI@� NtT►jtn� C,tt�E �,zo�u►- �rt-j� -r� R£�tDEniTg1. � P/� -9PE�. ... Thank you for taking the time to respond. Stating your identity is optional, but it is important and will be confidential— promise. Please return your questionnaire to: Steve Bromberg, 620 Newport Center Drive, 11"' Floor, Newport Beach, 92660. St a Bromberg, MayojPo m C ouncilman, 5"' Distric 949 -640 -2001 Fax: 949 -644 -1853 E -Mail: dandee @earthlink.net 9 a A ' Page 2 2. Do you have enough information at this time? Yes No If no, what additional information would you like to see? 3. Have you attended any community meetings on the issue? Yes v No 4. Other comments. (Please use available space on this letter or use a separate piece of paper.) Name Addres Thank ` you for taking the time to re ond. 5Eat'in our identi is optional, but Y 9 s(?„ 9 Y tY P it is important and will be confidential— promise. Please return your questionnaire to: Steve Bromberg, 620 Newport Center Drive, 11"' Floor, Newport Beach, 92660. St a Bromberg, Mayor P o em Councilman, 5t' District 949 - 640 -2001 Fax: 949 -644 -1853 E -Mail: dandee @earthlink.net L-O MYY-' V tZ �� �1 -��` "�l� GY`u -C'r� WoP�i C1o� r'e.r�•2.C�� �YI�I�Q -�" �r am t\n-e. ja nr • n 't'h v off. a.r�t cv n ��, �� 4� -dew' -t�Y`u.- S-t— a.�dae.�-'[�sU1'v`v2J �•eX� �v�- - - �.e_h�c�l'�•}' l,�iml mac•• SureYlv ar lA.%7r +1-% morl a-V,Q r-, l� E r-CI , L� i� i'o e } tV, a o-r� - ! J Page 2 2. Do you have enough information at this time? Yes No If no, what additional information would you like to see? 3. Have you attended any community meetings on the issue? Yes No _ 4. Other comments. (Please use available space on this letter or use a Name Address Thank you for taking the time to respond. Stating your identity is optional, but it is important and will be confidential— promise. Please return your questionnaire to: Steve Bromberg, 620 Newport Center Drive, 11"' Floor, Newport Beach, 92660. 'f St a Bromberg, Mayor P o em Councilman, 5 District 949- 640 -2001 Fax: 949 -644 -1853 E -Mail: dandee @earthlink.net �O s 0..�� Jr SCrh�Lo q SQK A Ld �htCs m•eL`� Uicu...( if\*-eo ws . � al\ `i�P v .i t cJfnxvtc Cce s S.' VA of -eG %ertittS7 1 Z\(r 40 Vii -Cast Page 2 2. Do you have enough information at this time? Yes No If no, what additional information would you like to see? 3. Ha ou attended any community meetings on the issue? Yes NoC 4. Other comments. (Please use available space on this letter or use a separate piece of paper.) Nanie Address Thank you for taking the time to respond. Stating your Identity is optional, but it is important and will be confidential— promise. Please return your questionnaire to: Steve Bromberg, 620 Newport Center Drive, 11"' Floor, Newport Beach, 92660. St a Bromberg, Mayor P o em Councilman, 5"' District 949- 640 -2001 Fax: 949 -644 -1853 E -Mail: dandee @earthlink.net Page 2 2. Do you have enough information at this time? Yes No `! If no, what additional information would you like to see? 3. Have y attended any community meetings on the issue? Yes No 4. Other comments. (Please use available space on this letter or use a separate piece of paper.) _ N� A� I Thank you for taking the time to respond. Stating your identity is optional, but it is important and will be confidential— promise. Please return your questionnaire to: Steve Bromberg, 620 Newport Center Drive, 11"' Floor, Newport Beach, 92660. St a Bromberg, Mayor P o em Councilman, 5 District 949 -640 -2001 Fax: 949 -644 -1853 E -Mail: dandee @earthlink.net Coe Uri.- aq� Page 2 2. Do you have enough information at this time? Yes No If no, what additional information would you like to see? 3. Have you attended any community meetings on the issue? Yes_ No 4. Other comments. (Please use available space on this letter or use a separate piece of paper.) Name_ Ad&esc Thank you for taking the time to respond. Mating your"faefitiry is optional, but it is important and will be confidential— promise. Please return your questionnaire to: Steve Bromberg, 620 Newport Center Drive, 11"' Floor, Newport Beach, 92660. St a Bromberg, Mayor P o em Councilman, 5"' District 949 -640 -2001 Fax: 949 -644 -1853 E -Mail: dandee @earthlink.net Jar-. v ON 11V' )n5 Page 2 2. Do you have enough information at this time? Yes /No If no, what additional information would you like to see? 3. Have yq�1 attended any community meetings on the issue? Yes No �/ 4. Other comments. (Please use available space on this letter or use a separate piece of paper.) Name Thank you for taking the time to respond: Stating your identity is optional, but it is important and will be confidential— promise. Please return your questionnaire to: Steve Bromberg, 620 Newport Center Drive, 11"' Floor, Newport Beach, 92660. St a Bromberg, or P o em Councilman, 5"' District 949 -640 -2001 Fax: 949 -644 -1853 E -Mail: dandee @earthlink.net ^ ! i S 7'07 _(o r r 2.J G/ 2ri -r/- e d / e�y /¢ o°���-�` �i IV aka e s Dear Councilman Bromberg, Thank you for your interest in my opinion as a member of the Newport Beach community and an individual that will be affected by the proposed Mormon Temple. First, let me say that I am not opposed to the Temple per se. If the Mormons want to build their Temple in Newport Beach that is fine. However, I do have issue with some of the variances they are requesting. Obviously, I am opposed to the height of the steeple. At 124' it will be visible to so many homes that currently enjoy a very serene, canyon view. Here again, I am not opposed to a steeple. The current steeple on the Mormon Stake House is very acceptable. I just don't want to look at a twelve story structure every time I drive down Bonita Canyon. I am also concerned about the golden statue that will adorn the steeple and the spot lights required to light the entire steeple and statue. These will definitely be imposing on the surrounding neighborhoods. It is my understanding (please see the enclosed letter to the Daily Pilot) the Mormon Temple in Mesa, AZ doesn't even have a steeple and I know the Temple in Dallas has a much shorter steeple. I was in Dallas in March and specifically drove by the Temple to look at the steeple. It appeared to be more like 60' than 124'. The Mormons are telling the Bonita Canyon residents that the height of the steeple is not negotiable. I do not know if this is true or not. Which brings my second argument to light. Newport Beach has developed a city code which results in a beautiful city. This was not an accident. Prior planners and city leaders have determined what types of buildings, landscape, etc. will best enhance our city. Careful adherence to these codes have provided the residents of Newport Beach with a very attractive city. No one, including a religious organization, should be able to fracture this beauty. Code restrictions are simply that, restrictions against unwanted aesthetics. A 124' lighted structure does not fit in the current Newport Beach environment. If the Mormon church has to have a steeple for religious purposes, then they have to build it in a location which allows 124' structures. I don't think Newport Beach is the "Mecca" of the Mormon faith. Thank you again for your time and interest in our neighborhood and our city. April 24, 2002 RE: Mormon / LDS Temnle To Fro Thank you so much for your letter of April 12, 2002 !!! My husband and I have been residents of this city for 2 years, having moved from the East Coast. We chose the City of Newport Beach for many reasons, not least of which was the obvious care that is taken in growth and development. We were advised of constraints put on development by the Irvine Company, the City ofNewport Beach, and the individual communities such as the Bonita Canyon Development. We were also advised that there could be additional building at the Mormon site and were advised of zoning restrictions (50 foot building, with steeple). This would not be much different from the existing Stake Center, which conforms to the neighborhood. When we attended the meeting at the Stake Center to see the proposed building, it was amazing to us that the new temple was meant to be quite different from the surrounding environment. For a holy religious site, the planners have done an exceptional job. As a neighboring homeowner, it is quite distressing to think of a one hundred twenty four foot tower looming over our properties, to say nothing of the use of fight reflective building materials which are intended to be illuminated throughout the night. We will be confronted by this every time we enter the Mesa View entrance, every time we walk our street, anytime we head east on Bonita Canyon / Culver, or enter from that side. The tower will be visible, and its lighting most probably recognizable all night. This building will be visible from miles around, not what we had ever expected as a part of our neighborhood, nor what we believe our zoning requirements allow. I e- mailed the Planning Commissioners in February attempting to explain my position on tower height, lighting, etc. A copy of that e-mail is attached. We continue to be confused by the fact that this structure, as presented, seems to be so contrary to the zoning of Newport Beach, as depicted by: a 124 foot tower (far taller and wider than anything we would expect to be classified as a steeple), lighting that is to be bright and continuous, and exterior materials that are so very different than anything found in this area V �C�Yi 'r To underscore these issues, we received the Newport Beach Step Up To the Future brochure dated March 2002 that addresses issues including ones like this. It discusses a "Well- Designed Community" where "design principles and policies emphasize tasteful, appropriate and functional design characteristics that fit well within the community". This structure does not seem to fit into this community. It is intended, by its very nature, to be a regional center for the holiest of services. A gentleman at the Stake Center referenced that it be "architecturally significant ", with an oversized steeple intended as a `Beacon to God." This seems to be quite contrary to the vision statements found within the Vision for Newport Beach. This building is not intended to conform to the neighborhood. A tower of this magnitude seems to far exceed the "steeple" exception being sought by the Church of Latter Day Saints. We look to the Planning Commission and City Council to act on this issue using, not the pressure of public relations' campaigns, but the vision of Newport Beach that assures its residents the ability to five in a city that will contime to "successfully balance our `village' character with the needs of residents, workers, and business owners" (again quoting the Step Up To The Future progress report issued March 2002). We again thank you for the effort you have taken in this matter. Additionally, I have some pathetically amateurish pictures that emphasize the effect this tower would have on our City, our neighborhood, our home and very likely 0-9orth, that I can make available to you.. i t Page 1 of 2 Subj: Date: From: To: CC: Chairman Tucker: Thank you for reading this. Hopefully, I will be able to express my concern over the proposed building plans provided by the Church of Latter Day Saints. I apologize for the length, but it is a very important situation. First 1 need to introduce myself. I am a resident of the City of Newport Beach, frying with my family in the fairly recently annexed area known as Bonita Canyon. We moved to this area in full recognition that there may be further development of the property owned by the Mormon congregation. What we never presumed, is that there could possibly be anything built that would not be in keeping with the accepted planning regulations. For example, our home has a very minimally sloped roof, so as to conform to regulations. This keeps us from adding phone Ones and cable to areas we would wish to. It also creates difficulties with mechanicals. But, it does allow the neighborhood to have a great "look ", and it minimizes the visual impact of these homes to the area in general. if you look, you can see that our homes melt into the skyline. As my father always says "You have to give up something to get something' As well, our home and others in the area, have to conform to certain color restrictions. While any one of us may have made a different choice, our agreement to live within city and community guidelines provides us with a certainty that there will be a continuance of the "look, and hence the belief that we will enhance our city and its value (both aesthetic as well as monetary). We have a Planning Commission with guidelines and restrictions to assure that the City of Newport Beach will retain its character and property will retain or improve its value. This has been applied to mY home, and will hopefully be applied to all new building requests. Somehow, everything has been turned topsy -turvy with the presentation of the new Mormon Temple. All of a sudden those of us who wish to uphold the current agreed upon regulations have become obstructionists. We are now deemed to be against the Mormon Church and its desire to provide a sacred temple. How untrue that is!I i do feel it is totally inappropriate for any structure to be built in a manner that stands in the face of the conformity to which we have all agreed. That includes style, building materials, color, height, lighting, etc. I do not have any problem with the addition of a temple. The irony in all of these discussions is that what the Church of Latter Day Saints is attempting to erect is something that is very specifically architecturally Inconsistent with our City guidelines. They want to have a binding that is "architecturally significant" to quote their presentation at the stake center. The oversized steeple is intended as a "beacon to God" -again quoting their presentation. This has been 'ordained by the President as to design, placement and timing." It is my belief that our City Planning Com rnission Is here to provide that the structures in our City meet with design, placement and timing that has been agreed upon in our City agreements, laws and regulations, not biased by the needs and wants of any group (religious or otherwise). I would be glad to speak with any of you. Additionally, I have taken some video and pictures that dearly show the magnitude of the proposed temple steeple. Please consider that this is not merely the objection of one Bonita Canyon homeowner", but the concern of a City of Newport Beach resident. It is my befief that you are hearing mostly from residents of this community because we recognize the impact of this structure. Wednesday. April 24, 2002 America Online: C) Page 2 of 2 Again, I respectfully wish to emphasize that while there are all sorts of religious overtones, this is in fad another proposed building that ought to follow the rules of conformity already agreed upon - including height, color, building materials, fighting, traffic, etc. Again, I am not'againsr, but rather in favor of following current guldefines with a desire to maintain the architectural conformity of this community. Thank you. Wednesday, April 24, 2002 America Online: Page 2 2. Do you have enough information at this time? Yes 'X_ No If no, what additional information would you like to see? Atl w 3h addiNomi -t►-ai F� i vr, i'S also ✓leccssavd- 3. Have you attended any community meetings gs on the issue? Yes X No 4. Other comments. (Please use available space on this letter or use a separate piece of paper.) Name Addre Thank you Tor taKing me ume w =r s onu btauTiy y6uf iii ry is opnonai, out it is important and will be confidential— promise. Please return your questionnaire to: Steve Bromberg, 620 Newport Center Drive, 11"' Floor, Newport Beach, 92660. St a Bromber , Mayor P em Councilman, 5 District 949 -640 -2001 Fax: 949 -644 -1853 E -Mail: dandee @earthlink.net ;J Answer to Anril 17 . 1002 Questionnaire 4. Other Comments. The project is controversial because of the construction of a 124 -foot tower, which will be highly illuminated the large part of each day and night and will be seen from all directions and even beyond our community to cities outside Newport Beach. I am informed the Conditional Use Permit application for the tower indicates it will be visible from as far away as Anaheim to the north, from Tustin and north Irvine to the northeast, from Santa Ana to the north west and from the opposite side of the Newport Bay to the west. Indeed, the whole reason for the request to exceed the City's height limit is so the tower can be a beacon and to call out and bring attention to the site. This is antithetical to Newport Beach's historic and noted "village neighborhood" character. Another concern is the impact on the already taxed traffic flow. The traffic impact from the existing religious facilities in the area is significant at peak times, causing considerable congestion and necessitating additional police presence on a regular weekly basis. We also need to evaluate and plan for traffic impacts that may arise in connection with holiday or other seasonal displays. Please consider the issues that have arisen for the City of Costa Mesa since the construction of the Trinity Broadcasting project. Certainly the Mormon Church can operate at the site in harmony with its neighbors. The project should be kept on a scale that is appropriate for a predominately residential community with local parks and small retail businesses. Please do all you can to restrict the height of the tower to 50 feet or perhaps the height of the steeple on the existing Mormon Church and to limit the hours of lighting operation to coordinate with existing local activity. Page 2 2. Do you have enough information at this time? Yes k No If no, what additional information would you like to see? 3. Have you attended any community meetings on the issue? Yes -k No 4. Other comments. (Please use available space on this letter or use a separate piece of paper.) Name Addres Thank you for taking the time to respond. Stating your identity is optional, but it is important and will be confidential— promise. Please return your questionnaire to: Steve Bromberg, 620 Newport Center Drive, 11"' Floor, Newport Beach, 92660. St a Bromberg, Mayor P o em Councilman, 5t' District 949 -640 -2001 Fax: 949 -644 -1853 E -Mail: dandee @earthlink.net 71-k- �+vvtvP,+ b-vts Ko4-" CB-,:Fvr- o,+oi-fLL /acs. wMc, i «Tr -'+ 'to T a-re. old,, r4- VPlCa..y i a ��r Page 2 2. Do you have enough information at this time? Yes 1 No If no, what additional information would you like to see? 3. Have you attended any community meetings on the issue? Yes X No 4. Other comments. (Please use available space on this letter or use a separate piece of paper.) Name_ Address_ Thank you wi Bann Ay a is un tc w i caNvi'iu: " ;9 Ul iy"_ytiw nict wLy" ib UPLIOnal, our it is important and will be confidential— promise. Please return your questionnaire to: Steve Bromberg, 620 Newport Center Drive, 11"' Floor, Newport Beach, 92660. St a Bromber�q, Mayor P o em Councilman, 5 District 949 -640 -2001 Fax: 949 - 644 -1853 E -Mail: dandee @earthlink.net a r> a'. L5 �s Se.- ct, VC LC C01,� 0 (?lormo„ /LAS ^Tr- Fl,',, 1� L Page 2 2. Do you have enough information at this time? Yes ✓ No If no, what additional information would you like to see? 3. Have you attended any community meetings on the issue? Yes y No 4. Other. comments. (Please use available space on this letter or use a separate piece of paper.) Name_ Address_ i Thank you for taking the time to respond. Stating your identity is optional, but it is important and will be confidential — promise. Please return your questionnaire to: Steve Bromberg, 620 Newport Center Drive, 11"' Floor, Newport Beach, 92660. St a Bromberg, Mayor P o em Councilman, S"' District 949 - 640 -2001 Fax: 949 -644 -1853 E -Mail: dandee @earthlink.net N 0; W � •-ri �� /I Yet /l r �:' Page 2 2. Do you have enough information at this time? Yes _2L No If no, what additional information would you like to see? 3. Hav you attended any community meetings on the issue? Yes No 4. Other comments. ccoomments. (Please use available space on this letter or use a separate piece of paper.) Name Addre Thank you for taking the time to respond. Stating your identity is optional, but it is important and will be confidential— promise. Please return your questionnaire to: Steve Bromberg, 620 Newport Center Drive, 11"' Floor, Newport Beach, 92660. St a Bromberg, MayojPem Councilman, 5"' Distric 949 - 640 -2001 Fax: 949 -644 -1853 E -Mail: dandee @earthlink.net i I)o hot fezl s�OPG`- ;s K.(2, �ss� rt a// ►�,� -f - ;� l� ��� �c�;�L► ./�;�dt -,2� Cie "� . Sky L �7� is Cc.Q go eu) eai t/r / cn �t esty�zt irl-eSsUN.�t�c.� �✓ C2c a Se� �2�c,�,(� G Page 2 2. Do you have enough information at this time? Yes No If no, what additional information would you like to see? 3. Have you attended any community meetings on the issue? Yes ✓ No 4. Other comments. (Please use available space on this letter or use a separate piece of paper.) Name— Address- Thank you for taking the time to respond. Stating your identity is optional, but it is important and will be confidential— promise. Please return your questionnaire to: Steve Bromberg, 620 Newport Center Drive, 11"' Floor, Newport Beach, 92660. St a Bromberg, Mayor P o em Councilman, 5"' District 949- 640 -2001 Fax: 949 -644 -1853 E -Mail: dandee @earthlink.net 71 e c7xtPr ,6cr 1C/-17,S '-'7 d t� r rJP f �i�r�Oc�j l-P /PSO" 1�,1e fo c Dom. � 1 d u /cl �P or s e_ ✓ell Avg �Pg/�,45 G<Ji� -� ��� /� fly sL r ✓i�i� C' /rp D S/d�cC 4e15�A r-S 1jCrve S /yhP� / / A �r(i� Page 2 2. Do you have enough information at this time? Yes No X If no, what additional information would you like to see? A � {W4 3. Have you attended any community meetings on the issue? Yes No 4. Other comments. (Please use available space on this letter or use a separate piece of paper.) Name Addres Thank you for taking the time to respond. Stating your identity is optional, but it is important and will be confidential— promise. Please return your questionnaire to: Steve Bromberg, 620 Newport Center Drive, 11"' Floor, Newport Beach, 92660. St a Bromberg, Mayor P o em Councilman, 5"' District 949 - 640 -2001 Fax: 949 -644 -1853 E -Mail: dandee @earthlink.net 6K 61194 AW> Pf t_�CW5. (A--hrD nAy g-e,6 s) vfout b &t-y o6gzcf- `Co "jAj0gii d C/r OV H PQ0�r64"'C' WOO- t Af co m u o4Wc6 �o'tR- X-tcut.AlLU( � f(-�c�{r L+tMrt�4't7o�f . "TAA tau s April 22, 2002 Dear Mr. Bromberg: This is not a religious issue. This has to do with intelligent urban planning. Where does one begin on this subject? Yes we have been to all of the meetings both Church sponsored and community organized. It's really amazing how the Church, The Planning Commission (and you ?) is focusing on lot coverage. Most of the Bonita Canyon and other Newport Beach residents I speak with agree that they would be pleased to have built what the land is zoned for, specifically a "residential care facility or school ". We would be happy with 100% lot coverage because schools and residential care facilities don't have 12 story spires or lighting until 11:00 PM. They typically do not exceed one story or max. 2 stories. I could just imagine a superbly designed residential care building conceived to enhance and "fit" into our area like the one on PCH in Corona Del Mar just before Shorecliffs; now that's exceptional urban planning. Lot coverage has nothing to do with this; it is only another ploy and /or "concession" by the Church. The Mormons are proud of the fact that the purpose of the Temple "is to draw attention and to stand out". That's not the theme of our city and its architecture, which is micro - managed ably by The Irvine Co., the Planning Commission and the Council. This is not a religious issue. This has to do with intelligent urban planning. What a traffic nightmare. I trust Mayor Ridgeway has this project on his radar screen, as he seems to be very concerned with this city's ever burdening traffic. Has/ will the EIR, Planning and the Council take into consideration the Bonita Canyon Sports Park, the massive Newport Ridge development, Shady Canyon, Mariners Church, Harbor View Homes and our community etc. combined, all placing an intense stressful traffic toll on the Bonita Canyon area. Does the Planning Commission have a real understanding of the use of this Temple? The Church information states number of patrons is 150; 1 am told by Mormon friends that it is 150 on every hour or the Y2 hour during the hours of operation which they state as "app rox 5:30AM- 11:OOPM ". Do they not know the hours of operation, is it 5:30 AM to 11:OOPM or not. These hours are not acceptable in a residential neighborhood. We as residents of our community should not be subject to and forced to live with increased traffic and activity at 5:30 AM and until 11:00 PM. The lighting issue is also a real concern. Currently there is nothing on this site. Any amount of light in this area is going to be overwhelming if not completely screened which is not possible. It does not matter how many 'lumens" it is or how much the Church has already cut back or been advised to cut back. There should be no lighting allowed on the steeple and "gilded statue" and the only building lighting should be as required by code for safety. Their current meetinghouse is not lit. What a huge impact this will have on our community and many of our residences are squarely impacted. This is not a favorable impact. We have common area walk ways and lawn areas, which will be negatively impacted as well. Will the City Planners allow Holiday lighting extravaganzas here like the Trinity Broadcasting site? this activity should be disallowed in any C.U.P. granted. Would members of the community of Newport Beach, if they lived in Bonita Canyon react much differently to this proposed project if it were adjacent to their homes? Remember it is my understanding that Church leaders approached our Board of Directors, and now they don't like the Boards professional reaction and statements. The Church and its members express simply that our Board and anyone who opposes this project are church haters and they continue to paint this as a religious issue. This is not a religious issue. This has to do with intelligent urban planning. The reaction by our Board and their handling of this issue has been exceptional in my view. I understand they have spent countless hours studying this proposal, have interfaced with Planning, had contact with Council members and have arrived at conclusion "unanimously opposing it, as it is currently planned." The color of the structure is unappealing and does not fit into the theme of Bonita Canyon. Does it really matter what shade of pink it is? What happened to "light tan" or the warmer earth tones they once were speaking of? This can't be passed off as a Church concession from the color "white ". The church, their spokesman, and all at "the City' have repeatedly spoken of the concessions that they the Church have given. Please, when you come out of the blocks asking for all night lighting, a bright white building and originally a 143ft. or 147ft. steeple, then scale these absolutely unattainable combination of building characteristics down to what is still unacceptable, and pass it off as giving concession after concession after concession is quite unbelievable. Are the Planning Commission, and the Council really taken by this ploy? Again a Mormon friend states that this is their typical method of maneuvering. t This proposed development must be scaled down to conform to the area. Any developer would get shot down immediately if they submitted a project with these characteristics located in a residential neighborhood. A structure of 12 stories in a residential neighborhood with lighting before dawn (its dark at 5:30AM) and until 11:00 PM does not conform. The Church should be required to conform to the building code and intelligent building guidelines like everyone else. This is not a religious issue This has to do with intelligent urban planning. Mr. Bromberg I appreciate you taking the time to survey your constituents on this issue. Having an education and background in economics, business, and real estate there is no way that this proposed project will have but a negative impact on value to most of our community. Lack of conformity in a residential neighborhood does not enhance value. The President of our association stated at one of the meetings he had personally spoken to leading local reactors and heads of 3 of the powerhouse residential brokerage firms in Newport Beach, all without exception stated that this project would have a negative impact on value he reported. Everyone in Newport Beach should consider it next to their residence and truthfully ask themselves for their reaction. Maybe you should call these real estate professionals or the President of our association to find out more information. The Planning Commission should not be promoting /approving a project that could have detrimental impact on property owner's value or one, which simply does not conform to the surrounding residential neighborhood. Nor should the city be influenced by Sait Lake or the propaganda blitz that they are sending. This is not a religious issue. Its an issue having to do with intelligent urban planning. Sincerely, A very concerned Bonita Canyon Resident 31 �- Steve Bromberg Mayor pro Tern Councilman, 5' District 620 Newport Center Drive, 11t° Floor Newport Beach, CA 92660 20 April, 2002 Dear Mr. Bromberg: I am writing in response to your recent mailing of 12 April regarding the proposed Mormon Temple on Bonita Canyon Drive. For the record I am opposed to the construction project as it negatively impacts my view, threatens my property values, significantly contributes to ambient light pollution, will increase traffic congestion and overall decrease the quality of life for my family and neighbors. In addition I am extremely concerned by the tactics being used by members of the Mormon faith characterizing opponents of the proposed temple as being intolerant of the Mormon faith. This form of argument is highly inflammatory and completely inappropriate. It only serves as an attempt to deflect reasonable criticism of the propsed construction. Thank you for time and attention to this matter. /1 3 31 Page 2 2. Do you have enough information at this time? YessXNo If no, what additional information would you like to see? 3. Have you attended any community meetings on the issue? Yes No 4. Other comments. (Please use available space on this letter or use a separate piece of paper.) Name Address Thank you for taking the time to respond. Stating your identity is optional, but it is important and will be confidential— promise. Please return your questionnaire to: Steve Bromberg, 620 Newport Center Drive, 11"' Floor, Newport Beach, 92660. St a Bromberg, Mayor P o em Councilman, 5"' District 949 - 640 -2001 Fax: 949 -644 -1853 E -Mail: dandee @earthlink.net - -- - - -� �rG S7� fijUr�� A-) 1i7 TI"A \ 5 rt 0 K -r3 cry/ -TE­7 C✓� 5 °'„ t 1 3 Page 2 2. Do you have enough information at this time? Yes x No If no, what additional information would you like to see? 3. Have you attended any community meetings on the issue? Yes !� No 4. Other comments. (Please use available space on this letter or use a separate piece of paper.) We- arr. clacer�%�, 7 17ic za" /iLp~ rti le,5 L. +// .d- vt_z z, �, �!v's W,'f/ se S /Orectc� ' /ow o/7a-r- vtcns 7`O re7t4". -amt t7e�'tIJ1i�+ Name_ Address_ i 0 �1� lGS Thank yoL City is optional, but"c it is imp,,..,..., ..ease return your questionnaire to: Steve Bromberg, 620 Newport Center Drive, 11th Floor, Newport Beach, 92660. St a Bromberg, Mayor Po em Councilman, 5"' District 949 - 640 -2001 Fax: 949 -644 -1853 E -Mail: dandee @earthlink.net Page 2 2. Do you have enough information at this time? Yes ✓ No If no, what additional information would you like to see? 3. Have yqu attended any community meetings on the issue? Yes No 4. Other comments. (Please use available space on this letter or use a separate piece of paper.) _ Thank you for taking the time to respond. Stating your identity is optional, but it is important and will be confidential— promise. Please return your questionnaire to: Steve Bromberg, 620 Newport Center Drive, 11"' Floor, Newport Beach, 92660. St a Bromberg, Mayor P o em Councilman, 5"' District 949 - 640 -2001 Fax: 949 -644 -1853 E -Mail: dandee @earthlink.net _ VA� TV\o . r� 1 a. ne � o,.. c� -� �•�nJ 9-�„ �o rno �' U%A coo cep ©G iC CA�YnlrYwi� ( 1 `+ Wau, - AM C kt,4 � . � Page 2 2. Do you have enough information at this time? Yes h No If no, what additional information would you like to see? 3. Have you attended any community meetings on the issue? Yes No 4. Other comments. (Please use available space on this letter or use a separate piece of paper.) Name I`i h OK 4-he Gtr I�nS oj- ` I-<t: (i) is a rr- vocc� d awn , Address 15 iC) Thank you for taking the time to respond. Stating your identity is optional, but r1a'U- it is important and will be confidential— promise. Please return your JI-A questionnaire to: Steve Bromberg, 620 Newport Center Drive, 11"' Floor, yr ooh! Newport Beach, 92660. 6 I St a Bromberg, Mayor P o em Councilman, 5"' District 949 -640 -2001 Fax: 949 -644 -1853 E -Mail: dandee @earthlink.net 1� Page 2 2. Do you have enough information at this time? Yes _ No If no, what additional information would you like to see? 3. Have you attended any community meetings on the issue? Yes No 4. Other comments. (Please use available space on this letter or use a separate piece of paper.) Name Addre! Thank you for taking the time to respond:' Stating youf "identity is optional, but it is important and will be confidential— promise. Please return your questionnaire to: Steve Bromberg, 620 Newport Center Drive, 11"' Floor, Newport Beach, 92660. �f St a Bromber MayojPem Councilman 5' Distric 949 - 640 -2001 Fax: 949 -644 -1853 E -Mail: dandee @earthlink.net Al o Ice- sue, a T ) Page 2 2. 3. Do you have enough information at this time? Yes —Z No If no, what additional information would you like to see? / Yes t1 Have you attended any community meetings on the issue? No 4. Other comments. (Please use available space on this letter or use a separate piece of paper.) c n * SC a rvl h �f .a o41 0 kyl c /qnr� `ha �^m Name Address_ Thank you fi it is imporam onu' vrm vc Winiu"ctiUat —EA VII libc. YICdbc questionnaire to: Steve Bromberg, 620 Newport Center Drive, 11"' Newport Beach, 92660. St a Bromberg, MaI m Councilman, 5t' Dist 949 - 640 -2001 Fax: 949 -644 -1853 E -Mail: dandee @earthlink.net i l � /1 I 9 April 22, 2002 Steve Bromberg Mayor Pro Term City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 Dear Mayor Bromberg, Thank you for your inquiry dated April 12, 2002 regarding the Mormon /LDS Temple. As residents of Newport Beach in Bonita Canyon and business owners in Newport Beach, we are in favor of the proposed Temple. We believe the church building as proposed will add important value to the community and the surrounding areas. While we are In favor of this, I know our Bonita Canyon Board President, Steven Brombai, has come out against the Temple. We are disappointed in the Board's approach and surprised at some of Mr. Brombal's comments regarding churches in general. In an Orange County Register article on January 20, 2002, Mr. Brombal was quoted as saying "I don't see the benefits in giving in) a church neighborhood, quite frankly. There are issues with trafflic and noise.' We don't believe our community homeowners and civic leaders share his views. There have been two official meetings for the residents of Bonita Canyon. The first one was at the current Mormon church in Bonita Canyon, and the second was at a Board member's home. At each meeting, there were less than 10% of the total homeowners in attendance to voice their concern. Therefore, it is clear that 90% of the homeowners either were in favor of the project or had no objections to it. Initial comments were that the church is a good neighbor and that the majority of homeowners were not opposed to the Temple, but there were some concerns about the height of the steeple and questions on other Issues. However, at the meeting at a Board member's home in Bonita Canyon, the presentation of information was very "anti- Temple° and contained many inaccuracies. They stated that the new Temple would be lighted twenty -four hours a day, that the building was going to be pink, and that the lighting would be similar to lighting at the Trinity Broadcasting Center off Bear Street in Costa Mesa. We are very disappointed with the approach our Board has taken. They have stated Inaccuracies to stir up negative .feelings among a minority of our homeowners. When homeowners are presented the correct facts about the Temple and possible alternatives, they believe a church building is the best solution. The Bonita Canyon Board has represented themselves as a group against this project, and they, in fact, do not represent the Bonita Canyon communities. To date, the Board has never polled the homeowners In an effort to understand how our community feels. Most neighbors we talk AA ' � 3� _, to do not object to the new Temple. In addition, we have heard of no other homeowners associations stating any objection to the proposed Temple. We believe churches, schools and parks are important assets of any city or community. For our Board to come out against it purporting to represent Bonita Canyon is a misrepresentation of our homeowner's desires. We sincerely hope you and the council members approve the Mormon /LDS Temple to be built as presented. We would be happy to discuss this project with you further. The daytime office number is (949) 646 -0216, and our home number is (949) 856 -2520. Thank you, �3a1 Page 2 2. Do you have enough information at this time? Yes �\ �/ No If no, what additional information would you like tom 3. Have you tended any community meetings on the issue? Yes No �c 4. Other comments. (Please use available space on this letter or use a separate piece of paper.) Na Ad Thank you for taking the time to respond. Stating your identity is optional, but it is important and will be confidential— promise. Please return your questionnaire to: Steve Bromberg, 620 Newport Center Drive, 11"' Floor, Newport Beach, 92660. St a Bromberg, Mayor P o em Councilman, 5"' District 949 - 640 -2001 Fax: 949 -644 -1853 E -Mail: dandee @earthlink.net 1� -7 / ,74 le- J Page 2 2. Do you have enough information at this time? Yes No If no, what additional information would you like to see? 3. Have you attended any community meetings on the issue? Yes No 4. Other comments. (Please use available space on this letter or use a separate piece of paper.) Name_ I Address Thank you tor taking the time to respond. Stating your identity is optional, but it is important and will be confidential— promise. Please return your questionnaire to: Steve Bromberg, 620 Newport Center Drive, 11"' Floor, Newport Beach, 92660. �e St a Bromberg, Mayor P o em Councilman, 5"' District 949 - 640 -2001 Fax: 949 -644 -1853 E-mail: dandee @earthlink.net C`�►, �,�.e c� ate" "> Page 2 2. Do you have enough information at this time? Yes _Z No If no, what additional information would you like to see? 3. Have you attended any community meetings on the issue? Yes 1K_ No 4. Other comments. (Please use available space on this letter or use a separate piece of paper.) Name Address i Thank you for taxing the time to - respond. Stating your identity is optional, but it is important and will be confidential— promise. Please return your questionnaire to: Steve Bromberg, 620 Newport Center Drive, 11"' Floor, Newport Beach, 92660. St a Bromberg, Mayor P o em Councilman, 5"' District 949 - 640 -2001 Fax: 949 - 6441853 E -Mail: dandee @earthlink.net April 15, 2002 Mr. Bromberg, It has been my experience that people opposed to an issue will enthusiastically respond to an inquiry such as this. They will also attend council meetings, circulate petitions and rally to defeat the project. People in favor (or with no opinion) are usually somewhat lazy about becoming active, seldom attend meetings and find themselves "too busy" to stick a .34 cent stamp on an envelope. Our Board is opposed to this project and sometimes they give the impression that they represent the feelings of the entire community. There are about 289 homes in Bonita Canyon. Hopefully you will get a good response. I would like to bet that most of those who do not respond either "approve" or have "no opinion ". ; �I I 1 Page 2 2. Do you have enough information at this time? Yes —4— No If no, what additional Information would you like to see? 3. Have u attended any community meetings on the issue? Yes No 4. Other comments. (Please use available space on this letter or use a . senarate niece of oaoer_) Nam- "Merl Thank you for taking the time to respond. Stating your identity is optional, but it is important and will be confidential— promise. Please return your questionnaire to: Steve Bromberg, 620 Newport Center Drive, 11t" Floor, Newport Beach, 92660. St a Bromberg, Mayor P o em Councilman, 5"' District 949 - 640 -2001 Fax: 949 - 644 -1853 E -Mail: dandee @earthlink.net Page 2 2. Do you have enough information at this time? Yes _)Q_ No If no, what additional information would you like to see? 3. Have you attended any community meetings on the issue? Yes No —);0— 4. Other comments. (Please use available space on this letter or use a separate piece of paper.) Name_ Addres Thank you for taking the time to respond. Stating your identity is optional, but it is important and will be confidential— promise. Please return your questionnaire to: Steve Bromberg, 620 Newport Center Drive, 11"' Floor, Newport Beach, 92660. St a Bromberg, e=* m Councilman, 5"' D 949 - 640 -2001 Fax: 949 -644 -1853 E -Mail: dandee @earthlink.net we bel,eve i� �.»uld be a bl454 on 1 Av\&sc_ge �- Cov.�d have. a de,�4�n -E-as. e�{.� -�- �n a�,� ho,n•� 3 Page 2 2. Do you have enough information at this time? Yes 4L No If no, what additional information would you like to see? 3. Have you attended any community meetings on the issue? Yes No C-r- 61 -c 4. Other comments. (Please use available space on this letter or use a separate piece of paper.) Name_ Address Thank you for taking the time to respond. Stating your identity is optional, but it is important and will be confidential— promise. Please return your questionnaire to: Steve Bromberg, 620 Newport Center Drive, 11"' Floor, Newport Beach, 92660. St a Bromberg, Mayor P o em Councilman, 5"' District 949 - 640 -2001 Fax: 949 -644 -1853 E -Mail: dandee @earthlink.net 3 Page 2 2. Do you have enough information at this time? Yes X_ No If no, what additional information would you like to see? 3. Have you attended any community meetings on the issue? Yes No 4. Other comments. (Please use available space on this letter or use a separate piece of paper.) Name Thank you for taking the time to respond. Stating your identity is optional, but it is important and will be confidential— promise. Please return your questionnaire to: Steve Bromberg, 620 Newport Center Drive, 11"' Floor, Newport Beach, 92660. St a Bromberg, Mayor P o em Councilman, 5"' District 949 - 640 -2001 Fax: 949 -644 -1853 E -Mail: dandee @earthlink.net GrnK Um,) �vr 4Uri��n� -PYiis ww. 4+tere "S any -fns f J _jjv - cqn be 6ne a4 -+his pain+ to C,hUnSe Uny cF 4he -rhino -fllA+ The lr-_ai oW s qre concerned ahkA. Lk tS nice 4-D know �6o are a� t eus� 1144MiVVA +v whet+ peopL`7 have J� Mayor --% Tod W. Ridgeway Mayor Pro Tem Steven Bromberg Council Members Garold B. Adams Norma J. Glover John Heffernan Dennis D. O'Neil Gary L. Proctor CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH OFFICE OF THE CITY COUNCIL April 12, 2002 RE: Mormon /LDS Temple Dear Bonita Canyon Resident (song for the informality): The Mormon /LDS Temple project on Bonita Canyon Drive and Prairie Road is planned at 17,500 square feet (about 5% or so of the lot area) and has raised concerns with a number of residents in my council district, more specifically in Bonita Canyon. You probably observed the 124' crane, which was placed at the proposed temple site for a few days by the church. The purpose was to give everyone an idea of just what 124' actually looks like, although the crane and the steeple are of course quite different. The current application and plans submitted to the City reflect a light stone exterior surface on the building and steeple as well as lighting until 11:00 p.m. each night. A lighting consultant has suggested the lighting intensity be reduced by 50% and the church has agreed to this modification. Presently, the project is undergoing an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) that should describe the project and process, evaluate environmental impacts including height, lighting, and exterior color, project aesthetics, air quality, geology and soils, traffic and other items required by State and local regulations. The contents of this report will be available for the public and will be considered by the City when the public hearing before the Planning Commission is held on the Church's application for a Use Permit. At this point in time, the concerns that have been relayed to me by a number of residents in Bonita Canyon, as well as other areas of the City, in order of priority are: Steeple Height, Lighting, Exterior Building Color, and Traffic. I would like to hear from you. Therefore, I would appreciate your giving me the following input,, which will assist me if and when this issue is before the City Council. 1. Do you: Approve or Disapprove of the project? (Please elaborate with comments — #4) �(c u�l-i{ i F CU p_p,=� 1 61T L Nc !Ct{T WMtt P IS AP{i6p —lP -- rp.JIF tT tS -F—X09C -P City Hall • 3300 Newport Boulevard • Newport Beach, California 92663 -3884 t' www.city.newport- beach.ca.us ���� Exhibit No. 7. Additional correspondence received. " J Planning Department, City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92663 Re: Mormon Temple Dear Planning Department: Brian and Mary Donovan 2123 Yacht Yankee Newport Beach, CA 92660 RECEIVED By October 31, 2001 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF NEl'l,�,7; CEAOH AM NOV 2001 PM 7i81911011I1121112131415 6 The enclosed article from the Los Angeles Times last week describes a Mormon Temple planned for an area near (' /z mile) our house in the Sea View development that borders San Miguel. We object in the strongest possible terms to that structure. It is t2tgLy inconsistent with the area. We have seen similar structures in San Diego and in Washington D.C. and regard them as grandiose, over -blown architectural monstrosities in any setting. A building of white granite with golden statutes almost 100 feet high is obviously totally incompatible with the residential area for which this structure is proposed. When we moved to our house 22 years ago we never imagined that such an edifice, which is more appropriate in a government building or civic center setting, would be plopped down essentially in our back yard. Such a structure is not only incompatible with the residential area for which it is proposed, but also is inconsistent with the entire city of Newport Beach. There is nothing comparable in the city, and we do not say that in a complimentary way. We think the only appropriate design and one to which we would not object is similar to the current meeting house adjacent to the temple site. Anything even close to the proposed configuration is objectionable. Even if it is claimed that there is a religious reason for white granite, soaring towers, and golden statutes, such principles must give way to reasonable zoning practices and neighborhood considerations. Again, we object and are unalterably opposed to the structure proposed, or any structure consisting of massive walls of white granite or marble and 90 foot towers with golden statutes. Very truly yours, Brian and Mary Donovan 12 9 J �1 /I' Mormons Unveil a Towering 'Temple By WILLIAM LOBDELL TIMES STAFF WRITER Mormon officials released architectural renderings Tues- day of a dazzling white granite temple —with a 91 -foot tower — in Newport Beach as plans for the 17,500- square -foot building began city review. The one -story Art Deco build- ing will be accented with arches and elaborate window artwork. Towering over the 35 -foot temple will be the 83 -foot spire topped by an 8 -foot golden statue of the angel Moroni, blowing his trum- pet to "signify the restoration of the Gospel of Jesus." "The spire is the very essence of the building itself," said Jo- seph Bentley, an Orange County church leader. "Its whole func- tion is to symbolically raise man toward God. Without it, the whole significance of what hap- pens inside is lost." The golden angel spire is a standard feature on Mormon temples. The building will be sur- rounded by 5.5 acres of gardens. The site will be next to the church's 28,500- square -foot Newport Beach meeting house 'on Bonita Canyon Drive and Prairie Road. For Mormons, the meeting house is where regular Sunday services and other events are held. The sacred temple7is a bridge between heaven and Earth for members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter -day Saints. Cer- emonies such as weddings and baptisms take place at the tem- ple, which is off - limits to Every- one but church members in good standing. Mormon- officials began offi- cially meeting with city staff Tuesday and said they hope to have their project presented to planning commissioners near the end of the year. They said they are also meeting with local homeowners groups. If the proj- ect is approved, groundbreaking could begin by spring. Until the temple opens in Newport Beach, Orange - County's 45,000 Mormons will continue to drive to the much larger San Diego or Los Angeles temples for major religious cer- emonies. California has four temples, with three more — including the one in Newport Beach —on the drawing board. By favoring smaller buildings, the church has been able to build more than 90 temples in the last decade for its estimated II trillion members. Earthly Bridge A Mormon temple planned for Newport Beach will serve as a bridge between heaven and earth for members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter -day Saints. Ceremonies such as weddings and .baptisms take place at the temple, off-limits to everyone but church members in good standing. - Golden statue of angel Moroni CumenY g- Crouse. Granite - Instruction Veit room Celestial room exterior • rooms (where members (forreflectonand �. pass through to enter-, meditator) presence of God) Art glass .AN Offices �I Wedding rooms Dressing rooms for sacred ceremonies { L— Baptistry Reception amphx reporting by Entrance desk WILLIAM LORDELL / Los Angeles Times,- Source: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints PAUL 0. RODRIGUEZ / Los Angeles Tire. 333 Campbell, James From: Terri Green [tjlgreen @home.com] Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2001 8:56 AM To: JCampbell @city.newport- beach.ca.us Subject: Mormon Temple Notice List Jim, I visited you in your office last month regarding the Mormon Temple. You pulled the plans and were very helpful in determining heights and locations. Thank you! I had asked to be put on a notification list of the meetings regarding the temple, and am wondering now if perhaps you didn't ask for my email address. It is as above. Please add me to the list. I was also hoping that you or your staff would be able to provide height and width information of the current Mormon church - -it is a good reference for those trying to understand the impact of the proposed temple. Thanks so much! Terri Green 3� 3� Page 1 of 1 Campbell, James From: Gregory Dillion (thedillions @earthlink.net] Sent: Monday, December 10, 2001 7:33 AM To: JCampbell @city.newport- beach.ca.us Cc: jhff @aol.com Subject: Use Permit No. 2001 -036; Site Plan Review No. 2001 -05; Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints Ladies and Gentlemen: We wish to go on record as strongly objecting to the requested variance for the tower and spire at the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. At the proposed 91 feet, it is more than 180% of the height limit at which others are allowed to build. There simply is no quid pro quo that will mitigate the effect of the enormous tower and spire. No walking gardens, no muted lighting, no calming colors, no mature landscaping will minimize the size of the tower or how out of place it would be in our neighborhood. As comparison, let's suppose that in the wake of September 11, some patriotic group or governmental agency requested a height variance to erect a golden bald eagle or replica of the Statue of Liberty atop a lighted tower of similar height. Even with the current broad -based patriotic fervor, and even though such a symbol would reflect the beliefs and feelings of the entire community, such a structure would be equally out of place and objectionable. Such a tower and spire just do not belong in a residential neighborhood. There is nothing of similar height for miles around. The spire would dwarf most buildings in Newport Center and the Airport Area and serves only to trumpet and aggrandize the beliefs of a select few in the community. We have no doubt the church members may obtain a sense of pride, and even comfort from such a structure during the limited hours each month they visit the temple to attend services and other functions. It will be those who actually live around and near the church, however (most of whom are not Mormon), who will be forced to live with and look at the monolith 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 52 weeks a year, every year from here on out. Greg and Cindy Dillion 7 Bodega Bay Drive, Corona del Mar 92625 335 12/11/2001 RECEIVED BY Stephen A. Brahs pLANNING DEPARTMEN 2208 Port Lerwick CITY rc: NF`" ° _A.: Newport Beach, CA 92660 949 -644 -2948 Mr. Larry Tucker Newport Beach Planning Commission 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92663 Re: Proposed Mormon Temple Dear Mr. Tucker, rEC 1 AM 0 2001 ?1619110111112i1i21314i5i6 I would first like to say that the existing Mormon Church located on Bonita Canyon Road has been a wonderful addition to our community and a very sensitive neighbor, although I do not believe the proposed 124 foot high, light granite, Art Deco Temple is at all wonderful, or sensitive to its neighbors. Since my house overlooks the proposed Temple, I attended an unveiling on December 5h at the existing church The concerns I have are due to the 124' height and the light exterior granite. The height restriction of 50 feet was in place before the land was purchased from the Irvine Company and it continues to be in existence in the PC Text today. My point is that the Mormon Church new this restriction before they bought the property. I recognize that the height restriction does not limit chimneys and towers, but I do not believe this exclusion was intended to allow a spire that is ahnost four times the height of the proposed 32 -foot building. I recognize that the existing zoning does not allow a church use, but I do believe it is the best use assuming it is responsibly developed. An architect, or a planner's first responsibility is to develop each and every property so that it is compatible with its surroundings. The proposed height and the light color is clearly not compatible with its surrounding. I hope that you, as our Planning Commissioner, utilize your authority during the "conditional use permit" process to modify the height and the color of the proposed Temple so that each and every one of us in the community can welcome and anticipate its construction, not dread it. S, cerely, Sfephe'h A. Brahs 3;- N December 10, 2001 Mr. James W. Campbell, Senior Planner Planning Department 3300 Newport Blvd. City of Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 Subject: Mormon Temple Dear Mr. Campbell, RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OP Nr \�101cT "EACH AM DEC 1? 2001 PM 41819110111112111213141516 Our family and neighbors are unhappy about the proposed Mormon temple design and location. The specifics include: The height (124 feet from ground level) of the spire. This is above city limits and should not be allowed by the City as a variance. This temple is adjacent to many Newport Beach residential neighborhoods that will all be affected by this spire. It is absolutely not in keeping with anything else in the area and will reduce property values for anyone that has this in their view. 2. The proposed building is too opulent and garish in its outward appearance relative to everything else adjacent to it. A white structure with a 124 foot spire topped by a gold figure on top is ridiculous for this site. Having driven to San Diego on many occasions, I cannot help but notice the Mormon temple located off the freeway. It is absolutely out of keeping with the community and the surrounding neighborhoods. I fear the same thing for the Bonita Canyon site. 3. The 24 hour lighting of the temple grounds is unacceptable. Not even our neighboring parks have night time lighting. Those with views will not want this temple with its looming spire obstructing their views. The above points do not include issues such as increased traffic and congestion. Please recommend this temple be built near a business center such as the airport or the Fashion Island area where this edifice will not blight a neighborhood. We need to maintain the charm and beauty of Newport Beach and manage growth responsibly. This building, as proposed, will negatively impact this City and hurt-the property values of many of its residences. Thank you for your consideration. gm L nter 2232 Port Dumess Place Newport Beach, CA 92660 949 - 759 -9678 33') -V Mr. James W. Campbell, Senior Planner Planning Department City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 Re: Mormon Temple Dear Mr. Campbell, December 10, 2001 RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEP449TMENI CITY CAF N;:W0-%G„ ^EA;;H AM DEC 14 2001 PM 71819110111112111213141516 On October 24, 2001, 1 was contacted by Ralph Martin to host a community informational meeting at my home. The meeting was held on November 19. After patiently listening to Mr. Martin, Mr. Bentley and Dr. Clayton, I have chosen to write to you regarding this project. This building is being planned in a residential neighborhood. The apparent design (shown in the October 24, 2001 L.A. Times) is definitely not in keeping with the surrounding area. A 91 -foot "spire ", which in reality is 124 feet from ground level, is well over any city height limits and the light granite with a golden statue on top will significantly impact my neighborhood day and night. The lighting of the temple grounds, building and its spire is a critical issue that needs to be reviewed. This issue was discussed at my home and we were told the lighting would be mostly up lighting from the base of the structure and trees, and that the lights would be angled so as to not shine into anyone's home. Additionally, they would be turned on until 11:00 PM seven days a week. Now it is 24 hours. This is unacceptable in our neighborhood where even soccer and baseball fields are not lit. The 'off white" granite, while not blinding, is not in keeping with the surrounding area and the daylight glare from the spire and flat roof will be significant even with a textured surface. The 5.5 acres of gardens cannot camouflage something this large. Someone from Salt Lake City decided the location and design for the building. It does not reflect any understanding or consideration of the community and of the surrounding area. The Mormon representatives believe that bigger and brighter is better and they do not understand why people do not want to see their beautiful 'religious" icon, We do not all believe the way they do and this glaring structure will alienate many people in the area. As for increasing property values, while it may cost more for Mormons who desire to be close to the temple, the people in my neighborhood paid approximately 10% more for their unobstructed view of the Sierra Madre mountains and distant city lights. It is like buying tickets to the World Series and end up sitting with a pole between you and home plate - erected during the 7"' inning stretch, during a "perfect game". You're still at the game; you're just missing the beauty of the whole experience. The temple is mostly used for weddings, baptisms and rites of passage. Mormons have been traveling to Los Angeles and San Diego for many years. I can understand their desire for something closer. According to Mr. Bentley this was the only Orange County site considered for this temple. They looked at over twenty different locations in Riverside. There are other suitable areas in Orange County where this temple can be built without disrupting the residential neighborhoods of Newport Beach. The sketches, "photos" of what it would look like at night, photos not showing the complete view and inconsistent information regarding lighting and the height of this building are misleading the public and City officials. Please consider recommending this temple be built in another location. Sincer Peg r 2240 Port Durness Newport Beach, CA 92660 (949) 720 -9020 Photos enclosed (2) ?�JU A ILY . ........... J,� 0 Campbell, James From: Temple, Patty Sent: Monday, January 14, 2002 3:20 PM To: Campbell, James Subject: FW: Mormon Temple Another. - - - -- Original Message---- - From: GTP To: kskaiden @home.com Cc: Temple, Patty Sent: 01/14/2002 2:38 PM Subject: Fw: Mormon Temple Mr. Xaiden, I am forwarding my response to an email which I received from one of your neighbors. See you at our hearing on the Mormon Temple. Very Truly Yours, Larry Tucker - - - -- Original Message - - - -- From: GTP <mailto:gtp @ohill.com> To: charlene <mailto:charhl @home.com> lane Cc: Temple, Patty <mailto:ptemple @city.newport - beach.ca.us> Sent: Monday, January 14, 2002 2:35 PM Subject: Re: Mormon Temple Ms Lane, Thank you for your email regarding the Mormon Temple proposal. As chairman of the Planning Commission, I can assure you that you will have the opportunity to publically state your views before the whole Commission when this matter comes before us. To assure that your comments are relevant to the issues over which the Commission has jurisdiction, I would recommend that you review the staff report on this matter prior to deciding what your testimony will be. That report should be available on the City's web site the Friday before the meeting at which the Temple proposal will be on the agenda. The City's web address is www. city.newport- beach.ca.us Thanks again for your concern and I look forward to seeing you at our meeting. Very Truly Yours, Larry Tucker - - - -- Original Message - - - -- From: charlene lane <mailto:charhl @home.com> To: gtp @ohill.com <mailto:gtp @ohill_com> Sent: Sunday, January 13, 2002 4:20 PM Subject: Fw: Mormon Temple - - - -- Original Message - - - -- From: charlene lane <mailto:charhl @home.com> To: gtp @ohill.com <mailto:gtp @ohill.com> Cc: Charlene Helfend Lane <mailto:charhl @home.com> Sent: Sunday, January 13, 2002 4:19 PM Subject: Fw: Mormon Temple 3`�� Dear Mr. Tucker. After learning of the proposed Mormon Temple architecture I find I must state my opposition to such a structure being built in our residential community. 1. It asks to build higher than the 50ft. maximum height requirement that all of the rest of the community has adhered to. Clearly they wish it to be seen everywhere in the community surrounds. In doing so it will be a blight to this residential planned community. Indeed if allowed wouldn't that set a precedent for other structures to follow? 2. They request such structure to be lit all night. This would be totally commercial in appearance and different from the rest of the residential community. Again demonstrating their goal to be visible and stand out from all other structures in the neighborhood. This is against all the planning for our special family oriented neighborhoods. It would cause light encroachment to many of our residents. It would be a blight in this residential community. 3. They are asking to be totally different than all the other churches being built in our residential community. Why would we allow one church over another to be so garish and stand out in their proportions and lighting? 4. They basically need a commercial area to display the grandeur, the size, the height, the lighting, as well as the amount of cars they will accommodate. 5. They are attempting to come into our community with a blatant disregard for the standards set by the Irvine Company. Standards that all the citizens and our community have understood and benefited from. 6. I have seen the Temple on Santa Monica Blvd. in Los Angeles and I know the volume and lighting and presence they intend to make. It would be very grand in a commercial area, not a residential area. And surely not our Newport Beach /Irvine area that has become a testimonial to what a planned residential community can be. I urge you to consider all the above reasons for not allowing such a structure, regardless of who would want to build it. I have not met any neighbor, friend, or fellow Bonita Canyon Association members who wants this design to blight our community. Thank you for your attention to this very important community matter. I remain, Charlene Lane 21 San Antonio Newport Beach, CA. 92660 <mailto:charhl @home.com> charhl @home.com 34 2 01/22/2002 16:40 FAX 949 474 7521 BURKE R.E. GROUP BURKE REAL ESTATE GROUP FAX TO: Newport Beach Planning Department FAX. 6 y y- 32_2 9 RE: Mormon Temple on Bonita Canyon Drive REMARKS: I live at #35 Marble Sands in Bonita Canyon. Date: M1102 Number of Pages: 1 FROM: WOwn B. Burke BUREE REAL ESTATE GROUP Fax: (949) 474 -7521 Q 001 My wife and I strongly object to the steeple that & proposed with the Mornwn Church expansion on Bonita Carryon Drive If there is not already a height resniedon along "Church Row ". there should be We believe the presence of churches in the area, including the Mormon Church, is a good thing. We also beleve that, in the interest of conformity, good taste, preservation of residential landscape views m the area and good long term planning, the height of any structure along Church Row should not eYCeed that which has already been allowed as a precedent In fact, we believe no structure should be allowed which exceeds the present roof lines of other church structures in the area. We believe the proposed Mormon Temple steeple on Bonita Canyon Drive should not be permitted We respectfully request the City AathorWes require a redesign of the proposed church facility to eliminate the steeple Thank you W.B. and Patsy Jo Burke #35 Marble Sands Newport Beach, CA 92660 Phone: 644 -4292 43 1805 East Garry Ave. Suite 100, Santa Ana, CA 92705 (949) 474 -7710 Fax (949) 474 -7521, To the Planning Commission, RECEIVED BY W PANNING DEPART%�Eti CIV r~ OZ JAN 2 5 2U PM This letter is being written to express my concern an8i9�1p�11TlZt�iu�3�����g opposition to the proposed new mormon temple on Bonita Canyon Drive. It would obviously add more traffic to the local streets and a tall steeple would be out of place in that residential neighborhood. Please oppose the temple in the up- coming vote. Thank you for your consideration. R spey yours, , William Cool Page 1 of 2 From: "David and Karen Wolf' <wolf ies4 @ cox. net> To: <gtp@ohill.com> Sent: Friday, January 25, 2002 9:32 PM — Subject: The Mormon Church Dear Mr. Tucker, My name is David Wolf and I am a resident of Newport Beach. I am sending you this message to voice my deep concerns and objections for the proposed Mormon temple. My concerns and objections are mainly in the height, fighting, and congestion (both traffic and noise) that would occur should the temple be built to the proposed dimensions. Should the height be granted it would be one of the tallest buildings in our city and even in the county. Why should the Mormon's be granted a special variance "74 feet" above what the max. allowable height. It is not fair to the residents who would have to see it from most areas of the city. In discussions with the Mormons the have told me that the height of the steeple is important to them so they can feel closer to god. If that were the case then why don't three of their other temples, located in Laie Hawaii, Alberta Canada and Mesa Arizona, have a steeple? Is a 12 story steeple conforming to the community? I understand according to the paper that instead of the lights on 24/7 they have agreed to the lights be turned off at 11:00 PM. Why do they need lights on at all. To my knowledge none of the other religious structures along Church Row have lights that are on any part of the building. Why must they have them on and is it consistent with the rest of the community. Having just spent the Christmas season in Phoenix Arizona with my family, I went to the Mormon temple in Mesa. There for 7 weeks during the holiday season they put Christmas Lights on every tree and bush. The property looks similar to the Trinity Broadcasting facility in Costa Mesa. On the night that I was there were over 2000 people walking around looking at the lights and the traffic was congested for miles around. Hundreds of cars were parked where ever they could park them. I spoke to a person at the information booth there are he told me that this display and attendance happens at every temple as a way to attract visitors and recruit members. If this is correct can you only imagine what would take place if the Temple was in our city and the problems that could occur. What additional law enforcement would have to be hired and what kind of strain would that have in addition to the Boat Parade. Please do not let them have any kind of lighting on the building and on the property besides that needed for the parking lot. It is already the case that local police officers are periodically required to direct traffic on Bonita Canyon Dr., involving the well- attended Mariner's Church located in the so -far sparsely develcped area to the east of the tollway overpass. Our area to the west of the 73, however, is virtually all residential, with one already heavily - trafficked neighborhood shopping corner (originally built to handle the minimal traffic of the late 1960s). Beyond the necessary denial of the CUP, the project must include reasonable mitigation of the increased adverse traffic, congestion and noise that will invariably be introduced. Among other things, reasonable restrictions must apply to evening hours usage and holiday displays, especially since the latter might be created with the intent or effect of attracting a potentially large volume of out-of-area spectator traffic. Both by its imposing design and towering nature, if allowed by Newport Beach, this largely unwanted, artificial structure will completely and forever dominate the region. This presumptuous, force -fed architecture, representing the largely out -of -state preferences and directives of persons unfamiliar with our cherished area, by its sheer immensity and illumination will affect public views from all directions, especially that towards the broad and unblemished mountain range. For all of the above reasons, we collectively implore the City of Newport Beach to carefully consider what is permanently at stake for this entire northern portion of our unique and special city. I look forward to meeting you at a Planning meeting in the near future. I would appreciate any and all comments concerning this manner. I strongly urge you to come out to the area next week (Jan. 28 through Feb. Ij 01) to view the crane that is being put up to display the height of the steeple. 3 `l r 1/27/2001 Thank you for your time. David A. Wolf 14 Seabluff Newport Beach, CA 92660 Home Phone Number 949 - 721 -0309 Page 2 of 2 107/2002 3a� Page 1 of 1 GTP From: "Steven Brombal" <sbrombal@hpapts.com> To: <michael.kranzley@chase.com >; <emcdaniel@fullertoncb.com >; <edselich@adelphia.net >; <gtp@ohill.com >; <tridgeway@city .newport- beach.ca.us >; <gproctor@juvenildefenders .corn >; - <nglover@city .newport- beach.ca.us >; <garold_adams@hotmail.com >; <dandee@earthlink.net >; <doneil@hewittoneil.com >; <jhff@aol.com >; < jcampbell @city.newport- beach.ca.us >; <annegiff@cs.com >; <skiser@pacbell.net> Sent: Monday, January 28, 2002 3:48 PM Subject: FW: Mormon Temple and crane simulation I would like to introduce myself and invite you all into our community this week to view firsthand the imposing structure proposed adjacent out residences. My name is Steven C. Brombal and I am the President of the Bonita Canyon Homeowners Association. Hopefully you all know by now that the Mormon church has agreed to place a crane with a certified height of 124 ft. simulating the height of the planned steeple on their site this week.This has come about from our vigorous opposition to the "2 days and I night" timeframe originally planned by the Church. We the Board of Bonita Canyon urge all of you to visit out community and view for yourselves how out of place this proposed project is for our residential community and specifically the no- compromise temple steeple height of 12 stories. You have all been called into our main gate entrance and will be given a Pass for the entire week Please feel free to come in during the evening hours as well. I would be pleased to meet any of you personally in our community and encourage that as I will be able to give you a tour and access many vantage points including private yards. Our Board has passed a resolution unanimously opposing this development as proposed based upon steeple height ( are you aware not all temples have steeples ? ), increased traffic congestion, lighting, color ( Salisbury PINK!! % originally light tan or white, then a darker earth tone now Salisbury Pink- which is the actual stone color) and the negative precedent being set should this CPU be granted with the height as proposed. I am following this email up with a phone call to you all. Feel to call me at the below office number or at my home 949) 719- 9109 Steven C. Brombal (949) 223 -0606 steven @brombal.com 3`1 1/28/2002 01/29/2002 14:06 9496448192 PATSY JO BURKE PAGE 01 Newport Beach Planning Commission Attn: Planning Commission January 291° 2002 Yesterday January 28's we arrived back home to our Bonita Canyon Horne and I was shocked at the crane representing the Mormon Church Angel Moroni! I feel strongly that there is plenty of room in this world for many religions to live together in peace. However, l do not believe in "shoving" anyone's religion into ones face. This 24 how lite gold angel is shoving another religion, "In Your Face"!! In my home there is not one front window of our house either downstairs or upstairs, nor our front door, nor the entrance and exit of our driveway that is not directly and flagrantly exposed to this angel. It is not acceptable in a close knit residential neighborhood. I do not fly my Cross in the face of any Mormons. Hopefully the Newport Beach Planning Commission will consider and value all religious choices in their decision and not allow this one religious choice to spoil our peaceful neighborhood. Property values. When we go to sell our house I do not want to be locked into selling to Mormons only. I believe that takes away from our freedom. Please do not allow this Angel to be placed at this location. P.J. Burke 35 Marble Sands Newport Beach, Ca 42660 3 `� � Page 1 of 2 GTP From: "Michael Green" <michael@NewportSoftware.com> To: "Anne Gifford" <annegiff@cs.com >; "Steven Kiser" <skiser@pacbell.net >; "Michael Kranzley" <michael.kranzley@chase.com >; "Earl McDaniel" <emcdaniel@fullertoncb.com >; "EdwarcH3elich" <edselich@adelphia.net >; "Larry Tucker" <gtp@ohill.com >: "Tod Ridgeway" <tridgeway@city .newport- beach.ca.us >; "Gary Proctor" < gproctor @juveniledefenders.com >; "Norma Glover" <nglover@city .newport- beach.ca.us >; "Garold Adams" <garold_adams@hotmail.com >; "Steven Bromberg" <dandee@earthlink.net >; "Dennis ONeil" <doneil@hewittoneil.com >; "John Heffernan" <jhff@aol.com> Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2002 11:35 AM Subject: Mormon Temple proposed steeple City Council members and Planning Commission members, My name is Michael Green. I live in the Seawind community in Newport Beach. My home is located just south of the Newport Hills shopping center. My home has a a city and mountain view to the north of my property. I am very concerned about the proposed Mormon temple which is planned to be located at 2300 Bonita Canyon Drive. The plans for the temple include a steeple which extends over 12 stories high. At the top, they plan on having a 10 foot tall gilded statue. They plan to illuminate the steeple and the statue of an angel. I am very much opposed to the planned steeple height and illumination. From the prospective of my home, the steeple will be taller than the snow covered mountains behind the steeple. The steeple will also be taller than the mountain next to UC Irvine. Rather than conforming with the neighborhood and surrounding community, the height, design, and illumination will substantially detract from the natural beauty of our community. The structure will dominate the surrounding area and look very bad. They plan to illuminate the structure at night. If they are allowed to build the steeple as planned and illuminate it, I will be subjected to an eyesore both day and night. I am opposed to any plans for illuminating the steeple regardless of its height. I can not think of any reason that a steeple should be illuminated at night in a residential neighborhood. In the January 29, 2002 edition of the Daily Pilot, a front page article stated: Looking up at a dirty - yellow crane surrounded by 8.5 acres of barren land, Weatherford Clayton inhaled before exclaiming the sight was beautiful. "I don't see the crane," he said. "I'm seeing the top of the steeple, the lighting... It'll add such an ethereal, spiritual feeling here." My viewpoint is very different from Mr. Clayton's. I see our community being ruined by a temple that is advertising its presence for miles around. I see the destruction of peaceful views of the mountains and surrounding community. From my family room, I envision seeing an angel, day and night, suspended outside my home on top of a 11 story high perch. As I travel to and from my home, I envision seeing a structure and steeple that stick out as an eyesore to our community. The crane will be in place for another two days. I invite all of the council members and planning commission members to view the crane from my back yard. I think that it would be very beneficial if �j4 9 you could see the impact on our community from the viewpoint of a Newport Beach residence. Feel free to drop by any time in the next couple of days to view the crane from my yard. My address and y 1/30/2001 phone number are listed below. Thank you very much for your time. I welcome any of your comments or questions. Regards, Michael Green 2214 Port Carlisle Place Newport Beach, CA 92660 949 - 721 -1468 Page 2 of 2 1/30/2002 7 t)0 J GTP From: "Weatherford T. Clayton" <wtclayton@att.net> To: <gtp@ohill.com> Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2002 11:40 PM Subject: L.D.S. Temple Support January 30, 2002 Dear Mr. Tucker, As a seventeen year resident of Newport Beach, I am writing in enthusiastic support of the proposed 3Mormon2 temple planned for the 3church rowz section of Bonita Canyon Road. What a wonderful reflection of diversity in our community! Houses of worship where citizens exercise their right to freedom of religion and speech symbolize one of the many very right things about our country. I am happy to lend my voice to the many who say that a building of such high quality will lend a sophistication and beauty to the area. As the hills around the 73 are developed, the lovely churches along Bonita Canyon Road lend an anchoring point to the community, giving it stability, and in its diversity, sophistication. The temple itself will cover only 5% of the lot -- leaving acres for beautifully groomed grounds. The steeple, a reflection of the the beliefs of those building the temple, will become a lovely part of the landscape as the hills fill with homes. The temple will be in view of neighbors, but will not obstruct any view, as it is placed so carefully near church, civic and commercial buildings and not near homes. Please record my wholehearted support of the proposed building. Thank you, Lisa Thomas Clayton 1607 Port Abbey Place Newport Beach, CA 92660 (949) 721 -8384 Page 1 of 1 1/31/2002 351 Page 1 of 2 r� From: "Packer, John" <John.Packer@Pacificlife.com> To: "Agaianian, Shant" <newportbeach@ca.us >; "Gifford, Anne" <annegiff@cs.com >; "Kiser, Steven" <skiser@pacbell .net >; "Kranzley, Michael" <michael.kranzley@chase.com >; "McDaniel, Eerl" — <emcdanie1@fullertoncb.com >; "Selich, Edward" <edselich@home.com >; "Tucker, Larry" <gtp@ohill.com> Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2002 9:06 AM Subject: Proposed LDS Temple Dear City Planning Commission, I have worked in Newport Beach for over 15 years and have lived here for over 10 years. During the last 10 years, I have been very active in the community. I have coached Little League, refereed AYSO Soccer, helped found in 1995 and served from 1999 to 2001 as Co -Chair of the Corona del Mar High School Foundation, served a 2 year term on the school district's Citizens Budget Committee and was active with the group (including John Heffernan) that stopped the expansion of Anderson Elementary and helped turn the "banana strip" into parkland. Currently, and for the last two years, I have been the scoutmaster of Troop 746. This troop is sponsored by the LDS church and meets at the LDS Church on Bonita Canyon. It is a community troop; most of the scouts and half the leadership are not LDS, but live in the Harbor View neighborhood. I share this background to let you know that I care deeply about the quality of life and the moral fabric of our community. I care enough to have spent hundreds of hours, every year, in community service in Newport Beach. My family and I are thrilled about the proposed temple. My youngest daughter hopes to be married in this temple. I find it difficult to express how important a temple is to our faith and worship, but let me try. Temples are one of the defining beliefs in our religion. Our faith is centered on Jesus Christ and temples are where we make our most sacred and saving covenants with Jesus Christ. Temples have a significantly higher religious purpose than our regular church meeting houses. In addition to church services, we have basketball games, dances, plays, parties and rowdy Boy Scouts in our church meeting houses. Temples are only used for sacred, saving ordinances. Big difference. Our meeting houses are built to be functional, they are seldom architectural head turners. Temples are built to last 1000 years, use only the highest quality construction materials and are always magnificent and inspiring buildings. Another big difference. Landscaping around our meeting houses is tasteful. Landscaping around temples are beautiful, manicured gardens. Get the picture? Hopefully my comparisons have been helpful. I understand that there is a vocal minority who oppose the temple. I would hope that most of this vocal minority would not be opposed if they understood the facts as to size, usage, effects on neighboring property D values, lighting, landscaping and beauty. Most importantly, I would hope 1/31/2002 Page 2 of 2 that each of you will keep an open mind and take the time to gather the facts. There are 12 points in the Scout Law. The first point is, "a Scout is Trustworthy ". Please lend some trust to an Eagle Scout and active _ Scoutmaster as I make you three promises: 1) The temple and surrounding gardens will be a beautiful addition to our city; 2) The temple will strengthen families and strengthen the moral fabric of our community; and 3) When the temple is completed, the opposition to the temple will be diminimous and the consensus feelings of our community toward the temple will be positive. Sincerely, John W. Packer 1951 Port Weybridge Place Newport Beach, CA 92660 949 - 219- 3737(days) 949 - 644 -9191 (evenings) 1/31/2002 353 Page 1 of 1 Campbell, James From: David and Karen Wolf [wolfies4@cox.net] Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2002 9:46 PM To: jcampbell@city .newport- beach.ca.us Cc: hbludau@city .newport- beach.ca.us Subject: Thank you for your time Jun, On behalf of Mike Artigo and the Bonita Canyon Conservancy Assoc. I would like to thank you for meeting with us last Friday. I know your time is valuable. You asked that if we wanted to be put on any mailing lists concerning the :Nformon Temple to let you know. We are deeply concerned and very opposed about the Steeple height, the increase in traffic and night -time lighting. Please consider this E -Mail a request to put my name on the list of any notices of any future meetings concerning the Temple. Below is my address. Thank you again for your time last week and we look forward to working with you in the future. David A. Wolf 14 Seabluff Newport Beach, CA 92660 949- 721 -0309 35� 03/27/2002 Campbell, James From: Campbell, James Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2002 8:20 AM To: 'STGEORGESFIRE ®aol.com' Subject: LDS Temple project Rick, No problem. I do not anticipate hearings on the LDS Temple until July as we are preparing an environmental impact report that will discuss aesthetics /visual, traffic, air quality and water quality among other topics. The fact that we are preparing an EIR is not evidence that there will or will not be an impact on the environment. You will receive notice of the availability of the EIR when it is done. Jim - - - -- Original Message---- - From: STGEORGESFIRE @aol.com [mailto:STGEORGESFIRE @aol.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2002 6:11 AM To: JCampbell @city.newport- beach.ca.us Subject: Re: Morman Temple Jim, I appreciate your prompt response. This is my residential address. Thank you, Dr. Rick Letts 32 Marble Sands Newport Beach, CA 92660 355 Brian and Mary Donovan 2123 Yacht Yankee Newport Beach, CA 92660 (949) 833 -8893 December 10, 2001 Todd M. Weber Newport Beach Planning Dept. 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92663 Re: Mormon Temple Dear Mr. Weber: RECEIVED SY PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY CF N;=`Or)PT PEACH AM DEC 12 200L- PM 71819110111112111213141516 Attached is my letter of even date to Mr. Bentley, regarding his November 30, 2001 letter to us responding to our objections to the proposed Mormon Temple. His letter indicates you received a copy; if you did not, please so advise and I will send you one. As our enclosed letter emphasizes, we object to the architectural choice of white granite, 90 -foot towers, l0 -foot gold statutes, and all -night lighting as being completely inconsistent with this neighborhood. In our judgment, it is not even a close call. It is as if they proposed to install the Lincoln Memorial in the middle of a quaint New England village. While the Lincoln Memorial and presumably the Mormon temple both serve worthy purposes, the middle of a residential area is not a proper location. Nor is "church row ", as Mr. Bentley refers to the area in which they propose to install this structure. There is nothing remotely approaching the almost -gaudy appearance of this Temple on "church row." It is clearly designed to stand -out and to be visible from miles around, rather than being consistent with the neighborhood. We urge that the city deny permission for a white granite structure, a steeple that exceeds city maximums, a steeple with a large gold statute, and all -night lighting. Very truly yours, Brian and Mary Donov Brian and Mary Donovan 2123 Yacht Yankee Newport Beach, CA 92660 December 10, 2001 Joseph I. Bentley, Director Orange County Public Affairs Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints 61 Montecito Drive Corona Del Mar, CA 92625 -1018 Re: Temple Dear Mr. Bentley: Thank you for your letter of November 30, 2001 and its enclosures. It is a good thing that this temple is much smaller than the typical Mormon temple, but it is still a substantial structure. That fact, combined with the choice of white granite, "dazzling" or otherwise, capped with a 10 -foot gold statute on top of an 81 -foot steeple, a total of 123 -feet above floor level, leads to an inevitable conclusion that it is in no way even remotely "comparable" or consistent with the surrounding neighborhood or even the other religious facilities in the vicinity. The plan to have a light shining night and day on the steeple and statute simply exacerbates the problem. No amount of landscaping and open space can reduce the impact of such a structure in this neighborhood. Indeed, general layout as confirmed by the photograph that you enclosed indicates that the temple is designed to stand out and not to blend in or to be consistent with the area. It is difficult to understand why such a monument is needed to accommodate only 150 people! In our judgment, the proposed design is an architectural choice, of materials and configuration including the gold statute. I see no reason why your architectural choices cannot be more consistent with the area. Obviously, there are other outside building materials that will "last indefinitely" other than white granite. And, even if it is a tenet of the Mormon religion that temples must be built of granite and have towering gold statutes (which I find hard to imagine), I am sure that you will agree that such religious requirements must bow to reasonable governmental controls. The current meeting house is the style that is compatible with this neighborhood, not the proposed structure. We must respectfully reiterate our objections. We will continue to urge the city to exercise its discretion to deny a permit for the steeple, the gold statute, the white granite R building material, and the all -night lighting. In our judgment, it is not, as you say, a "strong enhancement" to the city of Newport Beach or this neighborhood. Very truly yours, Brian and Mary Donov Cc: Todd M. Weber Newport Beach Planning Dept. 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92663 Page 1 of 1 From: "Emerling" <tomtfg@home.com> To: "larry tucker" <gtp@ohill.com> Sent: Friday, February 01, 2002 10:02 AM — — Subject: Mormon Tower Please do not turn Newport into a freek town with proposed tower. The one in S. D. is enought for the state 2/1/2002 9 Huntington Court Newport Beach, CA 92660 February 1, 2002 Mr. Jim Campbell Planning Department City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY r 1c vc , AM FEB 0 4 2002 PM 7181911UIltll�lilz13141618 Subject: Comments on the proposed Latter Day Saints' Temple on Bonita Canyon Drive Dear Mr. Campbell: We have lived at this address for twelve years and have enjoyed every day of it. One of the principal reasons for that enjoyment has been the lovely, consistent and human -scale of the oommunitys planning and zoning. Things were put where they fit in and not at random. There are few exceptions. This is not the case with the proposed Temple on Bonita Canyon Drive. My wife and I have observed the crane and rods depicting the points of the proposed structure and find them to be completely out of both balance and character with everything else within this community. The tower is especially out of scale and must not be approved; it will ruin so much symmetry and scale as to be unimaginable. I applaud the Latter Day Church for selecting Newport Beach for their church but feel that they should build their temple in a more suitable setting that is not in the middle of a neighborhood of homes and churches that are balanced and similarly scaled. I can't think of a single reason for approving this templelmonument in Bonita Canyon. Please reject this request for a variance in the interests of maintaining a beautiful community that respects the balance that has been so carefully achieved over the past years. Maintain our existing standards and support those who would do the same. Please give a respectful "no" to the sponsors of this project'rf they insist upon the need for the design dimensions of the current structures. Respectfully, Timothy J. Ryan rt Page 1 of 1 From: "Roger Ham" <rham@home.com> To: "Steven Kiser" <skiser@pacbell.net >; "Michael Kranzley" <michael.kranzley@chase.com >; "Larry Tucker' <gtp@ohill.com >; "Edward Selich" <edselich@adelphia.net >; "Earl McDaniel" — — <emcdaniel@fullertoncb.com >; "Anne Gifford" <annegiff@cs.com> Sent: Saturday, February 02, 2002 2:52 PM Subject: Mormon Temple Steeple Dear Planning Commissioners: We are strongly opposed to the building of the 127 foot tower being proposed for the Mormon Temple to be built on Bonita Canyon Road. The developer of the Mormon Temple did erect a crane for 5 days to show the proposed height of the steeple. After seeing the crane, we believe that the height of the proposed steeple should not exceed the height of the existing steeple at the facility adjacent to this project. We have lived at 2336 Port Carlisle Place for over 12 years. During this time, we have observed strict building codes in our area to limit the height of housing and other buildings in order to maintain a low profile, aesthetically pleasing residential environment. We are strongly opposed to any variance given beyond the zoning and building codes of 50 feet in total height. We believe this steeple is inappropriate for a residential area and that any variance from this would have an adverse affect on our neighborhood, Many advertisers and advertising agencies may believe that large billboards are pleasing to all people who have to look at them, but as we know, many cities are prohibiting billboards from blighting their skylines. Just like billboards, we do not want to look at this steeple. If the Mormon church believes this steeple has to be higher that the existing steeple, then the Mormon Church should look for a new location to build this project. We have discussed this with many of our neighbors who also strongly oppose the building of this steeple. Special interest groups created this problem when they annexed this property (the Temple site) from the City Of Irvine since Irvine has stronger controls over their building codes and does not permit variances like the proposed Mormon Temple project. We know that the Planning Commission faces many difficult decisions. However, your first concern should be to the residents of this community. Sincerely, Roger and Gayle Ham 2336 Port Carlisle Newport Beach, CA 92660 2/4/2002 Page I of I From: "Richard M. Kettley" <rkettley@kettley.com> To: <gtp@ohill.com> Cc: <skiser@pacbell.net >; <emcdaniel@fullertoncb.com >; <annegiff@cs.com >; — – <michael.kranzley@chase.com >; <edselich @ home.com> Sent: Monday, February 04, 2002 10:23 PM Subject: Newport Beach Mormon Temple Dear Chairman Tucker, We appreciate all of the time and effort that you graciously give to our community. We believe that the Newport Beach Mormon Temple will greatly enhance the beauty of our city and our family looks forward to its completion. The beautifully manicured grounds will be an inspiration to people of all faiths where they can either sit and meditate or stroll in its peaceful surroundings. It is generally accepted that attending one's church or synagogue helps to strengthen the moral fiber of those who attend. We need more people of strong moral character in our city - people who will give of themselves to help others. We need good people to teach and coach our children in our schools and to sit in our governmental bodies. This Newport Beach Temple will only help make those who attend it better people. Dick and Sherry Kettley 2390 Redlands Dr. Newport Beach, CA 92660 rkettlev@kettlev.com 2/5/2002 3�z Page I of I From: "m.colo" <m.colo@cox.net> To: "Larry Tucker" <gtp @ ohill.com> Cc: "Edward Selich" <edselich@home.com >; "Michael Kranzley" <michael.kranzley@chase.com >;_ "Anne Giffford" <annegiff@cs.com >; "Earl McDaniel' <emcdaniel@fullertoncb.com >; "Steven Kiser" <skiser@pacbell.net> Sent: Monday, February 04, 2002 6:34 PM Subject: Temple Letter to Mayor.doc Dear Chairman Tucker, It is with respect that I write this letter to you as a concerned citizen. I am a resident of Newport Coast and have chosen to live in this area for family reasons. For the good of my family, I support the building of the Latter - Day -Saint Temple to be located on the comer of Bonita Canyon & Prairie St. in Newport Beach. I am a father of 2 children, a 5 -year -old daughter who attends Newport Coast Elementary and a 3 -'/2 year old son Joshua, who will begin pre- school this year. My wife Mary Anne is 5 months pregnant with our 3rd child. We moved to Newport Coast because we feel the area offers wonderful amenities for families. Having grown up in a one parent home has instilled in me the resolve to build a united front for our children driven by husband and wife committed to teaching our children correct and guiding principles of life. This is the central purpose of this Temple. It will be a symbol and tool to assist us in strengthening our home. Regards, Mark D. Colo 5 St. Laurent Newport Coast, CA 92657 2/5/2002 J� �y JT Page 1 of 1 Campbell, James From: Temple, Patty Sent: Monday, February 04, 2002 9:25 AM To: Campbell, James Subject: FW: - - - -- Original Message---- - From: GTP [mailto:gtp @ohill.com] Sent: Saturday, February 02, 2002 3:20 PM To: Jeffrey Weitz Cc: Temple, Patty Subject: Re: Thanks for your email. Larry Tucker, Planning Commission Chair - - - -- Original Message - - - -- From: Jeff rev Weitz To: gtp @ohill.com Sent: Friday, February 01, 2002 10:53 PM Subject: Fw: -- Original Message- - From: Jeffrey Weitz <iweitzl993@home.com> To: tridoeway (&city.newoort- beach.ca.us <tridgeway (& city. newport-beach ca us> Date: Friday, February 01, 2002 9:54 PM I am a resident of Bonita Canyon and was the first person to move in on my street. My wife and two children enjoy this peaceful friendly area of Newport Beach. We are very concerned about the negative impact the proposed 123 foot lighted tower at the Mormon temple will have on Newport Beach and in particular our community. We feel the height of the structure is out of proportion to any other structure in the area and inappropriate for a residential area. It would tower over all other buildings, trees and the neighboring hillsides. No other religious or non religious structure in this area is close to the height of this proposed lighted self aggrandizing tower. Its major function is a billboard to attract attention at the expense and detriment of its surroundings. If this is allowed, how can the city deny any other religious group the variance to build their own lighted 123 foot tower? As a long time resident of Newport Beach I respectfully request that you act on its best behalf and not allow this unprecedented lighted tower to be built. Thank you very much. Jeffrey Weitz MD 3(-rI J 02/05/2002 Page 1 of 2 Campbell, James From: Gregory Dillion [thedillions@earthlink.net] Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2002 10:34 PM To: Campbell, James Subject: Re: Community Commentary re Mormon temple steeple It was a Works file, I don't know why it didn't work - sorry. Here it is: Let the Mormon temple rise in Newport to a conforming height In response to Mr. Everson's Community Commentary, there are more than a "handful of folks" opposed to the steeple who out of respect for their neighbors and friends of the Mormon faith have kept to the sidelines. It seems particularly troubling that neighbors would seek to single out their particular religious symbols for such extraordinary recognition and thereby divide a community. After the tragic events of September 11, shouldn't we be looking toward the things that unite us and not creating issues to divide us? Shouldn't we be trying to find an acceptable solution, instead of bullying our neighbors into accepting the equivalent of a twelve story building by the corner market? Mr. Everson says that: "The things that go on in churches and temples foster goodness in people and strengthen the fundamental relationships that give life meaning and richness." Why does it follow that the things that go ON churches and temples, or tower above them for that matter, play any part in that result? Yes, churches, temples and mosques are positive attributes of a community as are schools and homes, but only if they fit into the surrounding neighborhood. A replica of the Statue of Liberty or a golden eagle atop a similar spire would be just as inappropriate as the proposed steeple. Mr. Everson believes the steeple will give our eye and soul a rest. Will our eyes and soul be more rested because the steeple is 120 feet high rather than 50 feet? He also claims we will be inspired and our spirits will be lifted. Would our spirits be lifted only half as much if the tower were half that height? As a final note, Mr. Everson states one can look at the data to see that churches and temples boost property values. Property values have increased over time, and do increase as a community is built out according to its plans; but there is no evidence to suggest that there is any correlation between steeple height and property value increases. In fact, judging from the comments in the grocery store the excessive height of the proposed steeple is more likely to reduce property values. In conclusion, this is not about building the Mormon temple, the community welcomes the temple. This is about erecting a gigantic steeple that is simply out of place in this neighborhood. I echo your thoughts, Mr. Everson, "bring on the churches, bring on the temples, bring on the gardens and parks, bring on the things that add real value to our community life," and if a steeple must come with those things that add real value, just bring on the steeple at a height that fits in with the neighborhood. Cindy Dillion Corona del Mar �S 949.759.0545 3 02/07/2002 Page 2 of 2 - - - -- Original Message - - - -- From: Campbell. James To: 'Gregory Dillion' Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2002 9:32 AM Subject: RE: Community Commentary re Mormon temple steeple Thank you for your message, however, the attached file was unrecognizable. I have no application that can make sense of it. Can you re -send the attachment in Word, Word Perfect or Html. You could also past the letter in an e-mail message. Jim Campbell, Senior Planner - - - -- Original Message---- - From: Gregory Dillion [mailto:thedillions @earthlink.net] Sent: Monday, February 04, 2002 7:43 AM To: dailypilot @latimes.com Cc: ] Campbell @city.newport- beach.ca.us; jhff @aol.com Subject: Community Commentary re Mormon temple steeple Ladies and Gentlemen: 1 submit the following in response to the Community Commentary of Sunday, February 3. 2002. Please do not eviscerate the response. Sincerely, Cindy Dillion Corona del Mar 949.759.0545 thedillions@earthlink.net 02/07/2002 DANA BIEBER 14 TIVOLI COURT NEWPORT COAST, CALIFORNIA 92657 February 9, 2002 Planning Department City of Newport Beach P. O. Box 1763 Newport Beach, CA 92658 RE: Mormon Temple — Bonita Canyon Road Thank you for putting up the crane to indicate the proposed height of the Mormon Temple steeple. What it demonstrated is that the height of the steeple would be completely out of scale with the surrounding structures and completely incompatible. What The Irvine Company has done to create a neighborhood of compatible structures — whether residential, commercial or religious — is what makes this part of the City of Newport Beach so desirable. Approving a structure of this height would be out of scale with the neighborhood, be an eyesore visible from everywhere in the vicinity and create a bad precedent for building heights. It would also open the city to religious discrimination lawsuits by allowing one religion to build a higher structure than other religions have been allowed to. Please uphold the zoning codes of the city that are applied fairly to all applicants, and require a lower height to this structure. Thank you for your consideration of this matter. Sincerely, Dana Bieber RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF N F: �A,., P.-) PT CEA.,H AM FEB 11 2002 PM 71819110111112111213141316 3('01 Stephen A. Brahs 2208 Port Lerwick Newport Beach, CA 92660 February 12, 2002 Mr. James Campbell Newport Beach Planning Department 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92663 Re: Proposed Temple Dear Mr. Campbell, RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OW NP:W) MT F:EACH AM FEB 14 2002 _PK 71819�1011111211�2i3i415i6 Thank you, for the recent return phone call. Attached are four existing Temples that I know of that do not have a steeple. On this website there are also numerous Temples that are completed with a more congruous red brick fagade and smaller towers that would fit in perfectly with the surrounding community (www.ldschurchtemples.com). I have also attached a picture of the Utah Temple that is beautiful and it would look great in our community. I would be very supportive if something similar to the Utah Temple was proposed. Regards, Stephen A. Brahs SAB:rh 3�LV Hone ^ Eastern Europe -w Copenhagen Denmark Temple - Prev I Next JOIN MAILING LIST VIAP REGION SUBMIT YOUR T XILIGHT PHOTOGRAPH CONSTRUCTION PHOTOGRAPH SUBMIT PHOTOGRAPH Copenhagen Denmark Temple As of September 1, 2001, demolition of the "Villa" is finally underway. A complaint and other obstacles delayed commencement of the project, but the issues are resolved and construction has begun. After much deliberation during the two vears that followed site dedicatory services, final plans for the Copenhagen Denmark Temple were finally approved in Summer ^001 Original Plans drawn for the temple had to be abandoned when desi,>ners discovered that the building's structure would not sunnort the intended features. Plans were redrawn. and it was determined that the "Villa" and ,_arage on site that once housed the mission ot?ice would be torn down. A replacement for the Villa had to he found before demolition could begin. Renovation is expected to last 114 years. The revises: plans call for the baptismal font to be built under the section of yard that stretches between the temple and the villa. Only a glass dome will be visible — matching the dome the rvill sit on the raised copper roof over the third tloor Celestial Room in the temple. Also on the third floor will be !orated the Endowment Room and Sealing Room. On the main floor_ patrons will enter the reception area to the recommend desk. Of ices will also be located on this floor. In the basement level will be Initiator; and passage to the Baptistry (Dmris11:Wisrion Horirer age1. The temple district is to include four stakes —two in Denmark and two Ic Annr 17 IV Grot and 24 A Sper C 3�y 0(3 2/7/02 1:04 PM Home - Southwest States n Mesa An7ona Temple + Prev I Next SCHEDULE 8: ADDRESSES DRIVING DiRECT10NS t 1,? REGION 1 E✓ICAiIi R`" PRA R VISITORS" CE\TER WI LI GHT PHOTOGR_ PH DAYLIGHT t.GALLPAPER t,Iesa Arizona Temple Pt "R T WENT DATA Site: 20 -acre site selected by President Heber J. Grant, Apostles David O. McKay and George F. Richards — purchased in 1921. Exterior Finish: Concrete reinforced with 130 tons of steel. Exterior is faced with glazed egg -shell colored terra cotta tiles. Temple Design: Modification of the classic style, suggestive of pre - Columbian temples and the Temple of Herod. Number of Rooms: Four ordinance rooms and nine sealing. Total Floor Area: 113,916 square feet. Discussion and _eneral plans for construction of a temple in %lesa were made as early as 1903 -1912. A final decision '.would not be reached at that time. however. due to the outbreak of World War 1. Plans were put back on the drawing board in 1913 with the end of the war The People of Arizona and the surrounding area were generous with their donations to the temple building fund. Even members of other churches donated $6.000. An excellent site near the transcontinental highwav was acquired making the ternpie visible to thousand's of tourists each near. In fact. t,.co hundred thousand visitors walked ihrouyah the temple during a special extended open house during the last two vears of construcron. E I Annour 3 Octal: Site De 23 Nov' Heber.. Grounc 25 April Heber ,. Dedica' 23 Octo Heber] Rededi 15-16 f Spence C ? �0 ol'2 2/7102 12:58 PM Home . Alphabetical Index - Cardston Alberta Temple . Prev I Negt SCHEDULE@ .ADDRESSES DRIVING DIRECTIONS PA AP REGION" DEDICATORY PRA";'ER TVV7L1G'_"T V i.V GHT WALLPAPER Cardston Alberta Temple ? E R T N E N1 T D .A T A I Site: In 1887, 8 acre site laid out and given to the Church by Charles Ora Card, leader over the first settlement of Mormons in Canada. It had been called the Tabernacle Block at the time. In the mid- 1950s,'the area was increased to more than 10 acres. Exterior. Finish: White granite quarried from a site near Kootenai Lakes in Nelson, British Colombia. Every stone was hand -hewn. Additions have been made of precast granite. Temple Design: Octagonal design with rib spire = similar to Maltese cross has Grecian massiveness and a Peruvian touch of Aztec influence with pyramid silhouette. Number of Rooms: Four ordinance rooms and five sealing. Total Floor Area: 88,562 square feet. The Cardston Alberta Tempie was the First temple to be erected outside of the United States. In t 888_ about one Year after the arrival of Mormon settlers to Canada, Eider John W. Taylor of the Council ofthe -Twelve -visited them to dedicate their land as a place of habitation for the Saints. Upon doin so. he made the followin•_ pronhetic statement "i now spear by the power of propheclvff and say that upon this vertu spot shall be erected a Temple n the name of Israel's God and nations shall come from far and b' Q � Tl: Annour 27 June Site De 27 July Joseph Grounc 9 Nover Da,y�;! i Dedica 25-29 Heber Rededi 2 July , Hugh B Rededi• 22-24. Gordon C F 3'11 off 217102 1253 PM LSIC nMO all Il' yw � uN.•••„�,,.IUJ�u ul�u,..iul•� ..�•.0 uNu�cJ ,.K�.IYIC Home � Alphabetical Index -' Laie Hawaii Temple . Prev I Next . SCHEDULE & ADDRESSES DRIVING DIRECTIONS MAP [LEGION DEDICATORY PR:aYER VISITORS' CENTER TWILIGHT PHOTOGR. -kPH DAYLIGHT WALLPAPER Laie HaNvall Temple T ?J E N T D A T A Site: Formerly a 6,000 -acre plantation purchased by the Church in 1865 as a gathering place for the Hawaiian Saints. The 11.4 acres upon which the temple now stands is part of this original property. Exterior Finish: Concrete made of native crushed lava rock and coral, reinforced with steel. It is dressed by pneumatic stone cutting tools to produce a white cream finish. Temple Design: Suggestive of the ancient temples found in South America — shaped like a Grecian cross,Wfth ..fo•Y"f,�r," Number of Rooms: Three ordinance rooms ant' so( sealing. Total Floor Area: 47,224 square feet. Joseph F Smith, an early missionary himself to the Hawaiian Islands. arrived in Hawaii in i 9l 5 on of icial business as president of the Church. after a meeting held in Laie. he invited Elder Reed Smoot and Bishop Charles W. Nibiev for an evening stroll in the nearbv tropical = rounds. Quite unexpectedly, he announced to the two men. "I feel impressed to dedicate this ground for the erection of a Temple to God, for a place where the peoples of th-, Pacific Isles can come and do their temple .work.. I think now is the time to dedicate the ground." Later. Elder Smoot commented. "I have E Annour 1 Octob Site De 1 June Joseph Dedica! 27 Nove Heber., Rededi• 13-15. Spence C ? 31� I of3 217102 12:55 PM Home - Utah � Vernal Utah Temple � Prev I Next SCHEDULE & ADDRESSES DRIVING DIRECTIONS /I:1P R =GlOt.\i DEDICATORY PRAYER WIT IGHT PHOTOGRAPH S'UB-NIIT YOUR DAYLIGHT PHOTOGRAPH ; v(2 TiftS l,UIX �zr��f ('VO,tIL Vernal Utah Temple c 'Z T I M E N T D A T A Site: 1.6 acres. Exterior Finish: Face brick. Temple Design: Adaptation of Uintah Stake Tabernacle. - Number of Rooms: Two ordinance rooms and three sealing. Total Floor Area: 38,771 square feet The Church did somethin- unique in the history of temple construction when it constructed the Vernal Utah Temple. The shell of the old stake tabernacle in Vernal, Utah, was restored to its original appearance and temple facilities were built inside. This is the first time an older building has been restored for use as a temple. ! ernnles to poi the T-w-th. v. 198). .)'eovrght _CO <by Nebmaster. At1 rights reserved. E E OPE T F Armour 13 Febr Groumi and Sits 13 May Goy dorr Dedica: 2--4 Nai G&dbr, F 3�3 off 2/7/02 1:24 PM ubj: Newport Temple )ate: 2120/02 2:40:27 PM Pacific Standard Time rom: Patricia3111 b: trdgeway @city. newport-beach. ca. us ust a note to tell you of our excitement of the coming construction of The Temple in our area. We went to the showing of the rchitect rendering of the Temple, the layout of the interior and the landscaping for the area. We were of impressed. Now we rive up to Los Angeles or to San Diego to attend the Temple. It is our hope you are able to OK the necessary plans so the onstruction can begin soon. 'ours truly, 'at and Bill Russell WtMam & Patr Rumff $111 GiegerApt A Cwta Mw% CA 92626 Date a�l �- Copies Sent To: Mayor �! until Member �I Manager ❑ Attorney ,aLk - El RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF NFkVP,)R.T DEA..H AM FEB 2 7 2002 PM 71819110111112111213141516 I 0 C� T >r yrn w ::;~ <n O v om m C) C- < m < co >r yrn w 0 Campbell, James From: Wiesinger, Barbara (BITECH /FUL] [ BarbaraWiesinger @bitechnologies.comj Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2002 9:33 AM To: 'jcampbell @ city.newport- beach.ca.us' Subject: Spire /Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints Dear Mr. Campbell, I wanted to write to voice my support of the city approving the spire proposed for the new Mormon temple. I do believe that it will enhance the immediate area around the temple and be a source of architectural pride as time goes on. As a member of Newport Harbor Lutheran Church, I do not have any real ties to the temple. I just believe that we need and deserve to have daily reminders of God in our lives - much like the Europeans have throughout their cities, by having a beautiful visual reminder in the form of a church spire. Regards, Barbara Wiesinger 398 Vista Baya Newport Beach, CA 92660 (949) 631 -1240 Disclaimer This e -mail and any files transmitted with it are intended for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. This communication may contain information which may be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, you are advised that you have received this e -mail in error and that any use, dissemination, forwarding, printing or copying of this email is prohibited. If you received this e -mail in error, please contact the sender and, in any event, delete the material from your system immediately. E -mail may be susceptible to data corruption, interception and unauthorised amendment, and no liability is accepted for any such corruption, interception or amendment, or the consequences thereof. No liability or responsibility is accepted for viruses - it is your responsibility to scan attachments (if any). 1 1 CCkU vav-Q- `�; RECEIVED BY i PLANNING DEPARTMEN CITY OF NF\VonF r;Ea..h FEB 2 7 2002 �1 UloillA11,21-1 41((:� V1S v Q d E _ y T C o C\ O .E�O O F -1 OOWD In CD J� CD m nm m z ^ m "< a m m� m � 3-) w RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT KENDALL W. EVERSON CITY OF NF:wpnRT EEACH 311Na cl : :u :Avenge Corona Del bfo ,, CA 91625 -J6,OS AM FEB 2 7 2002 PM 7181911Q1111121112i31415�6 �.-��� �°, �-D a , a_� , ���= Q 0�-- Ole" E ' o� 0 000 o m 7rJ no rn m (� , =' m m ,,z N oh � °c,) = m ry m v nx -"x 3�� :4,Vlr:oDjsy- PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY CF NP:WD -)Pr REACH AM FEB 2 7 2002 PM ���' "��) ?89101112123 S It u v x i 1 i v J .... ...... ..... ........... . RECEIVED B PLANNING DEPARTMER CITY OF NF\PqPOPT CEAC"l-I - uvy�9 - -- -------- LAA A-Q 3-)� 03, rIA GLQ m RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMEN1 Memo from CITY OF N7W: :!^ ^T r.'P: ACH DAVID CUTLER MAY 13 2002 yyj lD� 2001 AM PM 7i819i10111i1211i2i3�4i516 �CQ ✓J� / CLiu p�,a La �ry� / "G ovrttir� �UvU ��V 4�- . We- A4.� At," &JcLA � aiw v Z"� i �« x+ 3gl 0 M F BROWNING 508 Ventaja Newport Beach, CA 92660 August 8, 2002 Mr. James Campbell Planning Department City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. City of Newport Beach, CA 92663 Dear Mr. Campbell: RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTAIFNT CITY 0;: v�tvo�c.r rF�.;}I _ AM AUG 13 2002 PM 718,9110,11,12111213�ai8ig 1 have been a resident of Newport Beach for over thirty years and care a great deal about proper development in the City. The proposed Mormon Temple is a development that will be an asset to the City in general and I support its development. It is to be built on a parcel of land which has been owned for a number of years by the Church and I understand has been entitled for church use. The proposed temple will cover only about 5% of the site (far less than the entitlement) and will be heavily landscaped providing a park like appearance. The building itself is a relatively low profile structure again far less than permitted by the entitlement. The site is not directly adjacent to any residential areas but will of course be visible from residential communities and once built will be a beautiful landmark and addition to the community. The EIR done at the City's direction concluded that the Temple as proposed will not have any significant impact on the environment. The Temple will be in use for only five days a week (Tuesday through Saturday) and at any given time the occupancy of the Temple will only be approximately 150 people resulting very little impact on the traffic. It appears to me that the City has imposed just about every test to this project that can be addressed to a project. It seems to have met those tests with flying colors. The Mormons have built temples in many communities and they all seem to be extremely well done and received well by those communities in which they are located, including the traditional steeple. I favor the development of this Temple as it has been proposed and hope it will be promptly approved. Sincerely, chael F. Brownin "� I Main Identity From: "Christopher Jones" <ctiones @oox.net> To: "Jim Campbell' <icampbell@city.Newport- Sent: Friday, August 09, 2002 4:58 PM Subject: Temple Letter — A',/ August 9, 2002 Mr. James Campbell City Planning Department 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92663 Dear Mr. Campbell: AAW. EiEGENED BY PLANNING DE9C1R �c:A H CITY _ AUu 13 2��2 PPS NM 4 8igii0il? Il? , i21g1�1516 My wife and I are homeowners at 904 Spring Tide Drive in Harbor Cove. Our family has been a resident of Balboa Island since 1956 at 220 Collins Ave. Newport Beach has been an important part of our lives since I can remember. My earliest memory was participating in the Boy Scout Jamboree with my brother and father in 1954. I was in attendance at the recent EQAC meeting and was disappointed with some of the comments regarding the building of the LDS Temple on Bonita Canyon. I was surprised at the apparent disregard for the EIR. As I recall, it was called "woefully inadequate ". What a slap in the face to the city council that recommended and hired these objective third -party professionals. The comments and subsequent letter by David May Esq., regarding property values was particularly amusing. Where was he coming from with his "well thought out study "? I wish a homeowner from Bonita Canyon would submit a letter or study from any neighbor of an LDS Temple where property values have decreased. In fact, values have increased. Those neighbors whose homes have a direct view of the Temple will enjoy substantial appreciation due to excellent architecture and construction. Lastly, every study I know of regarding building in Newport deals with ideally downsizing structures from acceptable zoning. The LDS Church has gone far beyond what could be legally built to a much smaller edifice. We look forward to your support of this project. It will be an important religious structure in which the city can be proud. Sincerely, Christopher T. Jones Louise R. Jones 8/9/02 ,J Exhibit No. 8. Petition in opposition 3�q MThe Newport Beach Conservancy Preserving the Natural and Residential Quality of Life for our Community August 26, 2002 Mr. James Campbell, Sr. Planner Planning Commission Members City of Newport Beach City Hall 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92663 -3884 Re: Enclosure of first set of signed Petitions objecting to excessive height and nighttime lighting of proposed steeple at planned Mormon temple site in Newport Beach Dear Mr. Campbell: We are pleased to enclose the first set of signed Petitions in this most important matter. Based only upon the work of the initial volunteer group of eight to ten door-to- door signature gatherers, the enclosed conventional written signatures total several hundred. Additionally, enclosed electronic signatures via an independently managed web site at www.The Petition Site. com total over one hundred. Because we well understand the danger of bad precedent, our concerned and motivated members include residents from as far away as Newport Coast, Harbor View Homes Phase 2 (near the Gelson's market and Rogers' Gardens Nursery) Irvine Terrace (on the ocean side of PCH across from Fashion Island), Balboa, and Balboa Island. Following much discussion and careful crafting, we produced the concise and pointed Petition entitled: "Residents' Objection to Issuance of Conditional Use Permit at 2300 Bonita Canyon Dr., Newport Beach." The document makes clear that our objection is not directed to the planned Mormon temple itself, but only against the grossly excessive height and planned nighttime lighting of the proposed steeple. And, only because some in the Latter Day Saints (LDS) community have chosen to raise the fictitious issue of "religious intolerance /bias/discrimination," it bears repeating that the Mormon stakehouse has peacefully co- existed for years at the very parcel adjacent to the planned temple site. 9 From a variety of sources, the evidence suggests that the local and /or national LDS church has encouraged members from out of the area, including out of state, to interject pro - steeple letters (both conventional and e-mail) to city administrators and elected officials. Many would regard this as tantamount to "ballot box stuffing." Our opposition group, however, has believed from the outset that out -of -city interference is thoroughly unjustified; the very title of our Petition proves this point. We trust that such inappropriate and unethical efforts on the part of some steeple proponents will not go unnoticed by the city— and that all illegitimate letters will be summarily rejected and discarded by our municipal leaders. Simple fairness and common sense dictates that the affairs of Newport Beach must be discussed, debated and decided by those who are its officials, elected representatives and, above all, its residents. Finally, please remember that signature gathering continues by way of our subsequent teams of volunteer canvassers, and via email. We will submit these incoming materials periodically in the coming weeks. Very truly yours, Michael F. Arrigo and Kenneth A. Wong On behalf of all Petition signatories and other Newport Beach residents opposed to the excessive height and nighttime lighting of the proposed LDS steeple Enclosures The Newport Beach Conservancy (also dba The Bonita Canyon Conservancy), 1280 Bison Road, B9 -56 Newport Beach, CA 92660 www.bonitacanyonconservancy.org www.hewportbeachconservancy.org Resident's Objecting to Issuance of Conditional Use Permit @2300 Bonita Canyon Dr., Newport Beach RESIDENTS' PETITION OBJECTING TO THE ISSUANCE OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR 2300 BONITA CANYON DR., NEWPORT BEACH WE the undersigned residents of Newport Beach, submit this Petition to our city's Planning Commission and City Council. Recognizing that much of our city's appeal as a residential community and the protection of our property values are rooted in the reasonable conformity of style, architecture and permitted use of neighboring properties, we are extremely concerned with the planned development and Issuance of a Conditional Use Permit ( "CUP ") for the property located at 2300 Bonita Canyon Dr. Newport Beach, CA ( "Property"). The undersigned citizens of Newport Beach hereby submit to the Planning Commission and City Council their formal opposition to the planned development of the Property and appeal to our city's management to decline the approval and Issuance of the CUP In Its current form, as well as deviates from the general guidelines described below. 1. NON — CONFORMING EXCESSIVE HEIGHT OF 124 FEET The final height of the Property's building structure Including Its steeples(s) should not exceed the general 50' limitation applicable to other building structures located In the Bonita Canyon area. The current CUP applications calls for the temple steeple to rise to a height 124' above the Floor plate (approximately, TWELVE STORIES HIGH). 2. OBTRUSIVE DISPLAY LIGHTING No display lighting (as distinct from appropriate lighting for walkways, parking lots, and security) should be permitted to illuminate any part of the building structure's exterior Including Its steeple and glided statue. Other lighting should be designed so as not to directly or Indirectly Impact views, both public and private, or Intrude upon the privacy of the adjoining residential neighborhood during the evening hours. 3. TRAFFIC, NOISE, CONGESTION Proposed uses of the Property resulting in excessive traffic, noise, or congestion of the surrounding neighborhood should be restricted. Use adversely impacting the surrounding community Include, but are not limited to, business hours that extend beyond 9:00 p.m. and holiday displays that attract large volumes of spectator traffic. 4. COLOR SCHEME ' The building's exterior color scheme should be aesthetically pleasing to all, indistinct, and blend In with other structures in the neighboring community. We'are Informed and believe that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter -day Saints ( "LDS Church ") has chosen to use a Salisbury "pink" building material for most, If not all of the building's exterior surfaces. This choice of color does not harmonize well with the surrounding neighborhood and should be reconsidered. In conclusion, we are pleased that the LDS Church and other house of worship are located In our community. All building sites, however, should be required to conform to the current rules that govern the planned development for the Newport Beach community, and which create an expectation of conformity on the part of all residents. We believe that the requested variance establishes a bad precedent for future projects, Impinges upon resident's quality of life, and otherwise is grossly unfair to local residents. We therefore, respectfully request that this CUP be denied. 3�� RESIDENTS' PETITION Print Name UI Signature (Z4DWIf W. �Yzcs,i• Print Name z�� Signature Address z ;, 6 ate 4 Sea��4FF N4 Address Z 2� 02- Date Q2- "I.o6iJ✓eOO COY',j Address ZhOoz Date Ju)A , Addres Date 7 w r,�z rt,eo C�Part� car>gv� as 4 arm Address �[Q IDL F-11- Date .� Svc zust /,7 /Vi-e, /{/0 Signature Address —,a 9� 64 O Dae Print ame i s 5c1 rl,4 J J�✓�. ��� Sig' Lure Ne /LG (i yI, I Print Name Signature Print Name Date ddr s Date Address Si nat re TPrint Name Signature �i Qre( 2,��C1h Print Name Address /5a- � ' Date Address V sks L Date RESIDENTS' PETITION Nb, M /jd'i al, Signature /1 V. 1fel �Itnfi�f -L Print Illaino� �DM / alfv� s Print Name J �Q j7 /z r J&el kl�t, Ad dress gZaI4617, n/24•�c) Date Address b?/ b /e'2 Date n L � v Signatur� Address j("lo S%r' /L 4 Print Name 4 Signature Print Name igriatE -14A0 C, kt�,wu-n Print Name Signature Ali tti`fItnl�H Print Name ,9 r, Signature Print Name Signature Print Name Signature Print Name Signature Print Name Y/ IY/e.Y Date \ A °ddress �n1 Date 1-76 Awpr �1 Address q'/lt/ Date lPo� ,ter I fl�lfl or.. - Address �llv{ao� Date I V o p cwv,14 Pw15 Dr Ada Date Address Date Address Date Address 2q Date J `� RESIDENTS'PETITION ��tc Ie5 Signature Addrr D�tj A c21(X) Q I 1 L/ -�7 -va Print Name Date �You& N - g 5.P /tl.P.tG��_ Signa ure Addre Luck JVe,55 �P�ri�ri�t�N/ame p Sign ure J� �tii iX Print Name Signature Print Name ll�r�t'/I T� /IGs�r1,r v Signature t'7 -6Z Date I 1 -- �^J(LY✓- Address Date 24- G / Addrel9s z� v Dat Address nt Name Date Signature Address Print�me A-, �� Signature Print Name �✓vC2 } - /$C,I es- Signature riot Name Siggn"a'ture I P," PP�ni tt� Name Sign ire Print Name' Date j Address 0 Z 1.,2 -? () :, 570 Address // 27 a Z ate Address Date Address `>L 2� ov 3q1 ate RESIDENTS' PETITION - ii S27 =-fiis6 -`� S' Address / /��7•�� 7 Z7(st Print Name Date t4 11i -- t x Signature TAddress WIKr, - ( IF kADI KA- x Print Name Signature Address Print Na 1 Signature ,Signature riJP(V)U" VU PI7Z Print Name gnature e4 ii"z M -TD, Print Name 1 Al Address y. ,2 1 . Oa- Date I � � Po,�q Address Date Signature Address Mo(9?h �Od I nn" `( . -?7. T)Z Print Name Date Signature Address 27• di Date Address/ H - Z I.O Date L-� ` &j - ID Sehbli)W Signature Address Print Name Date Signature Address Print Name Date J RESIDENTS' PETITION Signatbro — Address Print Name Date Signature Address Print Name Date Signature Address Print Name Date Signature Address Print Name Date Signature Address Print Name Date Signature Address Print Name Date Signature Address Print Name Date Signature Address Print Name Date Signature Address Print Name Date Signature Address Print Name Date F1 1 �.Y V �J RESIDENTS' PETITION U nn a e r Signature // gnature Print Name Signature JUL, SheA'a le, /.(/J Print Name jn/ \J Signature T30 �-6 (ng- 0-170 We /'`" Print �Name �/ Signature O A ress °� J IAV —o2 ci J:!� Address I "1tn-- Date /A 4,0 z_ Address Date Address Date ?8 /Ylorble Stems �J�. ya66o Address //-30/02 1 ate Address {40 /Oy I'Date / /� /oz Address Print Name 'Date Signature (00 C-,-My�ry [�) . Signature Print Name c3 dd e Dat a� P�pRkZT RR Address Date Address ��- .Q�e�t►�ze Date q `� RESIDENTS' PETITION ignadve Address � Print Name Date Signature Address Al Print Name Date Oit %fj;G/c / f /r�M�9J 2Z !y%�L� S.ar•1r7S /I/•/� Signature Address ,l� 7ii�•� Print Name Signature r Print Name 'gnature ur 1 Print Name OT Signature L Z � Print Name _ �l 1'' l C'Q plc✓ c /.� �L v Signature Dae Address a�� 3-3 NIAK WC G1OAS /Y. Address ZLD L Date Address Dale Address ,)!� l o� DDate Address ZILIoI` Date Address L/6407, Date Address ate 2 �J Fr,lr,-,-) tAAS iA WI[YV ?e Print Name N P lure /J Cotl(ao bdySr Print Name Prim N me �� ature / c' Print Name Dae Address a�� 3-3 NIAK WC G1OAS /Y. Address ZLD L Date Address Dale Address ,)!� l o� DDate Address ZILIoI` Date Address L/6407, Date Address ate 2 �J d V O RESIDENTS' PETITION Si atu a �/ ddress -2-/ Date Address z Iz /Uv Dae Address �l Print Name /� aV e_ .(1/.C.cuxz �i % �Jri/7(liPrxi% Signature �— f Address / �P14e �o cuey � P in� Signature P'tN Signature Print Name Sioature @J a -a - oa, Date Address Date Address Date �Gtf /l UOG�ft .8.4'�.1�2 Address ate 1 A s �. —l0 2ORI Date q4?-( V S`'tnature Address Name Dale wwR 0 �4 Pc pP,, koR, Signature NUdress ?KIYA (�,Tti 2 -C -oi Print Name Date 1S 3 lb !jam RESIDENTS' PETITION © -; ,%� , Print Name 1446Z wdat', Signature Denise- Wei lanai. Pn'�t Name vSignature 22 %'fyt4 >nF� i�6 Address 1 -,o.,I Date I9,y-I /-tm..� sN rr2/� N18 Address 2 -u -OZ Date G Pm f oc Address f. f 2) 0 :II.0 Print Name Date a 3 t Po rf LCO uJ i r, /N 13 Signature Address (%C Al( .-DLtkILAt° Zll)(CZ Print Name Date sftl� 3l,7 P2v 1r�JL�v��ic U� T S' lure \ Address /I Al/IJy 02/1/12 Print 'Name Date �aa �,co✓ I R) —g (b,-:t i ci Signature Address Debi, e LC rtr. Print Na a Date �P 2 9 �a'f a�ya �T ature ddress Print Name Date Signature Address Print Name Date Signature Address Name Date Signature Address \ Print Name Date v 5 �— RESIDENTS' PETITION , -7 ANU NDA2F - Signature Address /</�✓A'E(Z- -TA� sso ✓ MAR. 23. zooz_ APE Date I,�h�E a 1. Signature Address SNC22c�Lk-c VJA, its t� doD Print Name Date* - -� Signature Address /�e�sA �. QiyTiVE�zaS // IA6 U, Print Name j6ate Signature Address ale/ ads y1( -�Z Print Nam Date eA Signature A d-ress 1 /Unac17111 l7w;V1 Pnnt N m Signs ree Print Name Date Address Dat P /.2 - ,12P'8 Add es C/ -//-02 Date Signature Address Print Name Date Signature Address Print Name Date Signature Address Print Name Date f RESIDENTS' PETITION Signature Address Signature Print Name Signature Print Name R) <,-A /. ,Ij Signature Print Name Signature C6 Fa Pn , It Name FX- ,3 ture ,� Print Name/ 61 gignaige---' r)ycp, E&VIld -Print Name Signature Address Date Address Date -ra l 6 e✓rv' pv, - Address I ,2 -6-- a 2--, Date Address -2- <S= Date 2-S ! i;i, Address - 13afe Address /00—, Date Address � ?�-? 7 -C--Q Date A,, Address Date Tq� I . Print Name Date o'- Signature Address Print Name Date Signature Print Name Signature Print Name R) <,-A /. ,Ij Signature Print Name Signature C6 Fa Pn , It Name FX- ,3 ture ,� Print Name/ 61 gignaige---' r)ycp, E&VIld -Print Name Signature Address Date Address Date -ra l 6 e✓rv' pv, - Address I ,2 -6-- a 2--, Date Address -2- <S= Date 2-S ! i;i, Address - 13afe Address /00—, Date Address � ?�-? 7 -C--Q Date A,, Address Date Tq� I . RESIDENTS' PETITION Signature Address Print Name Date i Signature Address Print Name j ' Date' Signature Address Print Name + Date Signature Address 5/ ,,-,, / /,-'( '/1 1 7 7-02 Pri tame Date '1 / ' Signature Addre s T7 --T lra, �o Y 3 11 � IUL Print Name Date �j � Signature y Y `I ur k (f ' Ci not Nartt Signature A dres 7 L Date Address Print Name Date Signature Address Print Name Date Signature Print Name Address Date n: RESIDENTS' PETITION 7< U Signature Address 0 5 6 T# Signature I CA y(,(t( Print Name Date Address t 23 FIJ5 u2 Date v Address Date / n Address Go"Y/ A , �z 36 z Print Name Dafe Signature Address Ev,c-x-v.✓ -TN-ol»R5 Print Name 9 r- 7-)V,5) et f 4 Date j'1 J Y t k4 i�gojE — ` (,kzJ , ,, ���Signature Address Print Name Date J � Signature Address O V% 6Z- Date o�/� 04, 441 T la3 /o.� afore Address Print Name Date SYv,n •c `l�G /� Mu ��I H 0 RESIDENTS' PETITION Signature K A. l S O 1D,,„ell C� Print Name Signature C �P'�R`��•t�. � dl \t �lS Print Name Signature %�i�Glt' (�/�it� ✓roc/ Print Name SI I4 ���LLC NA —t iS Signature Print Name / Signature Print Name O Address I- j9-o -L Date Address Date 1 Address I—L9 —oz Date r - -,�q - o 2 Address Date Address i- -79 -o2 Date AA c1nU :':) a.40Q 4 3 L011,46,-All N v3 Signature Address L\'I 7o4 Ip 1- z 9 - a z t Print Name Date Signature i fI Address k. chi r� u 1 �h�c Va -rklni nn I � `) 0a- I Print Name Date E� - nIti g (Uhlfctity St tore Address Print Name Date Signature Address in P, ��� e ICS I / ?q �0 Print Name �- Da e Signature Address L�-e�✓ r '/Z I /a-L- Print Name Date l� 2 M RESIDENTS' PETITION �X4RCv0 G t�� Sign -- at Print Name -Signature PW/ /bz- yl7os17 Print Na Signature Spr�v 0 ' 7 1? /l Print 31 kTGttMIz4& NPB Address 1/2 /OZ . nDate / 7 /<Par Ad ess /�2Y�oL 15ate Address / /9 //�2 'Date vo16 Address Date Address Date 76 VtCTaa (i9 Address )AMID F: cCK t- 3t- o z Print N me Date (�? u���r(worc-rtd- Signature Address Wi i 4eL- f qerat� 2 i _o-z_ O Print Name Date in re Address Print Name Date (wry \j Signature Address S..tio� �anT -rS 4g uµ,rCk�tL Print Warne I Date Signature Address ' Print Name Date `� 3 RESIDENTS'PETITION 20 � ALW &y(� 9z660 S gnature V Addres 10GU S�i,� 2 2 2- Print Name Date Signature Address Pn t e Date 6 Signature Address /(A z I iI'M z 3 122 z- 27t � Name ate �t - 9, t &�-o�2 Signature Address V(�lniU f v Z 3 oz Print Name Date 5 M. ■1 I kl� iD 8"P A-3a -+ So�J Address 2�� GnZ Date aignaturu Address —� LUndou A v� -2 "q- � \ Print Name— Date f F p) _� , > z C r Tame Q / ; ,� � c/SSLiTZ —— SinaOur Print Name -jJN( tln SIL'naty Address -03 Date d —v -oZ qm Address Date 2 -z- clL Address (!r Mac%c��v Pr4l. Date V i c -(V� i Gt. S. Address .i/r Ot ads �oz. a Pi ... Date d 4 IPA rl Q( RESIDENTS' PETITION �- � Z/ 2elr�r3 Signature ' Address STfit/GJ G. /32om/jO L 116 14 7-� // Print Name .7G dr y, N6 (A1 "z'60 Sign re Address �/ A%�All :z//�i z Print me Da el 1p V i s 4^- X� t N R /- c i G L 6 6 0 Signature Address Coh /Py L Sn yZ 2— 6 / Z Print Name Date ulbQ U bA&A Signature UAddress it, L �D g7�z Print Name Date I :l5 1 -1. Print Name Signature Print Name Signature Print Name Signature Print Name Signature Print Name % Address % Date Address Date Address Date Address Dale Address Date Signature Address Print Name I Date �b� RESIDENTS' PETITION Signature Address A(C" M LY . -S,4A — 34 tF L—JE - I �?O0 O� Print Name Date Signature 1 S- A-ItVI- PICP-�� Address L F:L E-Lz,. moo Date yP,%o, T Address v 2- e-, ( Date Address CA 92-t,6 Date k )y�ksf, IV- ,R. (,.�9��6 Address Date sm--* P eri�. rrev� rCa ?-M5° Address �-- Print Name Date Signature Name Date Signature Address Print Name Date Signature Address Name Date Signature Address Print Name Date , 3 RESIDENTS' PETITION Signature Address 0 114L&l/,7 %//i7-/-- i /Yd /0l0, Print Name Date lr AZy ,-J C�u�[ ,� ISt�� Part La e-en+ Signature Address 1 4 IV Co S%l2/in�� Cwse- i /3o /OZ- Print Name Date I �� c K 1�n -1oc1 ( bin of Signature ddress Print Name " Dat Qua l' Signature U Address Jr_n WFc-P, 0. JotJeS / kint N e Sign lure 4p--ot,/,z G,. bf FEfj, "1 ld Print Name 31 -o2. Date ()JI MAwW61t, OR, Address 1 -31-02- Date Signature Address Print Name Signature Date ULCL& 1707 Pd2T .U�tJPO,eT /3EA:'!/ Address 1712 far f /`TAn %i X Cir. Date 2'2-OZ Address Date 1706 -)Per7 Address -le- •t O Signa fire Print Name RESIDENTS' PETITION Address l% - N v Z� 1 / 62. Dae at� 4 zi 1131 paer 5f12uA(6 OUe6 Signature Address x 17TUQ Print Name -2 /a 16 ,), Date �I�l�i GJEi1n1L�i'Ly 7i�2�01i Address rfZV F't'.°jt1iNNG'�i Print Name Date A 17n ne+ •IdULI Signature Address d,.c Lam_. c Print Name� SiWture IfELCti � ��2SDS� Prin'tt Name Signature Print Name 1 Signature Lnrr3 , f- —,!/ o Print Name CIZ 81 � 6- � ature P ' Ne �- ignature DAV tD _boe Ns Print Name 1 Signature //�I ^ - H'��SDn (�I e 1 Print Name LI=-tp\ Date Address ate Address 2- x• o-. Date Address Date Pwr Address D� ',v Z 'cli I VIS-rA Pdrv1A N,B. Address Z, -z- -()i Date Z Z -aZ ddress I,,I_ io V BrT Date I �� L Ij V l 0 RESIDENTS'PETITION �92-,� /Sa7 fu- Signature Address Date L— Z Prnt —Name' " ° ' / / Date Signature dress Print Nam � Date Z ZIn7 Signature Address '5L,t SSE I?-)Q,5 Pero �siid,r.Ct� Date NN Pn- Address 2- o Y Dai e Address Date a-,2 -/,70a2- Address z: s A t� Signature 5Yi;A.4e- - Wood e-) 115y Port- Prifit Name Date M \ o A) Signaturgr Print Name Ad ress ZIA,AU02 Date Address .A46.)— Date / 7 ?0 le crl /0", , h li- Address Z - eve �y G Date U 1 RESIDENTS' PETITION 4M�" l Signature Print Name ��j�0 c ��t^t.t.hD. �•�, C4 Address �l2Lb -;L.- — -� to Signature Address Print Name Date Signature Print Name Signature Address Date Address Print Name Signature Date Address Print Name Date Signature Address Print Name Date Signature Address Print Name Date Signature Address Print Name Date Signature Address Print Name Date Signature Address Print Name 5 Date t�0 RESIDENTS'PETITION � &, (� -ignaturel Print Name I/ A 5 0 1 7� I() IO S'/-/i Q C F\/ I-Iu w r Signature -�,+LI Print NlIne Signature SU2NNNL ,�NG�/�.(14N Print Name ature J�5lt)" 2, -� Print Name �i�� Val %14in� Signature pk .P(A � GoLfifiolwk) ,(��' t Print) Name �1 I &da- A I (h%j4d 'may% Signature /1 IC� LIXNCC %a.Llo�. Print Name Signature77'' Print Name I I //��Signat``ure ICI ,5kq r tai [ uJ t'e, -Da, W�.,QA.e.e� Si L re 4tA o -N &v-i vu. Pint Name tgn ure Print Name Address 2 -14 -vz Date Address Date 6'00 / 11 ork�+eres`y� r% w,r +r5c�ce- A dress Date �z t ,9us uJ A<fdress L oz Datb Address A3 /Aa- Date X55 5fi� �./ade�,Netiv�rtl3e�� Address ass l/sr,4 Riisoex , /Z/�yf/ , Gf 92 be Date 2 2-Ve -z I Address Date Address '4, Date `f h�lUciSf�ne "i)I'_ Nuv� -� N,,eac6„cu� Address C12.(,( D -) -02- Date r� Address Date 411 y,. RESIDENTS' PETITION Signature ( Address Oate �- cVwm, NIA A-9 - 213 'ZIOPe? 1' Si nature Address 144! ringeSign 1 � " print Name — Signature le vii i( �I�f4rcll>✓ Print Na�e f /Signature Print Name CS ky /o Z nwe 7 o H-b /lvO , CD-L- z( a ZS Address o a � e , e al ci,�Wz � ddress 05031 o 2 Date for OICG�,CI �ri`e Cram 9a(o�� Address Og foyt) Z Dat y G / �, %%R(ral�.i7 � �'�4/ �/3 Ti:a2 ✓a �r✓.ionf�.r.�L�� �. Signature ess V6 Print Name Date F. 'ham ti z/a ioP"�z hpu-- ".6A C/f Signature Address William F WAYk Print Name Signature PriniCtt �Name t Signature�� do q Z ina�lgYt Print Name Signature Y Print Name i0 i NHS Q&w 7o5l%n.Gr}in arm O , c- l'7•IiJ�s� Address 3' 02 - -' Daattee I Address DiVe ` Q- RESIDENTS' PETITION lJ Sigdature �r4rn �inr S Print Name V 1 / Signature V�c�orn� n6nl'(2Qn .tr_ Print �me / C'�,c. ? ! tgnature Pri t Name Mx Signature Address 1- ' I Date Address � .1 I�IIti (�atiz K4,4 Date eJ //&A Addreks 3/ h�� / I Date 5 �C o,et6h Y k�� v£P _ s -di- o z Print Name Date Si ature Address �y' 266d —' Print Name / Date '(fir, `yam, Signature AcMrcss 1 6/6/ - ,o/-)-,,4S Print Name Signature Print Name xtlJ{,� I' nu. J. iSL, Pr N —3 lv / /GZ Date 1,5 14 Addre s ..° /o/ %' DateJ Address Date Address 3 /L IA Z— ,z 4 Address V.0 ( l ILL, 1 V : 1> LXJ j Date �� 3 I A I I 0 ill l0 �v RESIDENTS' PETITION Signature Address (� Print Name Date iENN� II 11('14jOPyF1/�J �. dq D.,7_ Signature Address IN3 PORT A;cL_ nt U AL4 i Print Name Date 6� &54tress !9/ 2A 1 "4 Add Date g,a. c 92L(0 Address Print Name ale n Signature Address - 4A-oa Date l,'Z.t , �c« - a. /o C) Address l-C�4f AA-c) /%zr%?. Print Name —� ate Sigrfature G[OftidelUN S. S/41r��1 Prin Name ,(VAia�-- gnature �ElIke C— egLimler Print Name v(6mig, "10 1 D Signature /"I/'a r)on kP ran r Print Name Signature J/ Sit ✓�'4"j- Print Nam -�s�- 3f%vou,DgLt; Address �1 =y/Qv Date Address 1/15/02- Daet I Address a Dae Address D e A\� RESIDENTS'PETITION lSU> /5Grtr- Signature Address /Z660 1N7 C -tl re/ 1TE2 Z 2-3 /0 Print Name Date Z Ll cALJtOLt,tsrzt tJgL3 Pear- cots f Signature Address 1Zt?'g2T ,c,HelstrAQ�zFL�ic Print me Date c-Z_ a,c J ,Signature '' Address C� r 0 da-n " n / —'5 /G Print Name Date Signature Address Print Name Date Signature Address Print Name Signature Print Name Signature Print Name Signature Print Name Signature Print Name Signature Print Name 3 Date Address Date Address Date Address Date Address Date Address Date �`� 7 RESIDENTS' PETITION r t l�Du� Address ,Z3 -o Date ARctf! A4 i d-,vf 1J� Address Signature Address Print Name Date Signature Address Print Name Date Signature Address Print Name Date Signature Address Print Name Date Signature Address Name Date Address Print Name Date Signature Address Print Name Date O 3 N P )4/�f, Pax 2- z:�--o-z Print Na a Date Signature A'Jdddiess Print Name Date Signature Address Print Name Date Signature Address Print Name Date Signature Address Print Name Date Signature Address Print Name Date Signature Address Name Date Address Print Name Date Signature Address Print Name Date O 3 N A 5 RESIDENTS' PETITION n Db- ',, I Signature Address s . la���A1 iC/� (' — 3(- Dom. Print Name /7 Date L sCL� •i' Signature Address -�7 Print Name Date Signature Address Print, Name Signature /I✓ C�� //r rte✓ Print Name Dale X26/ P o� Address Date Si anve Address Print Name Date t a hil '; _ 41 n9 Vt — Signature Address �I'Y.rrwn �i 0 t l Pt 1 1 '3l C Z Print Name Date Signature Adiddress wytlk f� I I- r ,� ( .3 [' ZJL -nt N e Gv� Date CfJ/cUSCr Signature Address ,cam kru'd (,-230/ ilrl &r6le q r Pn Nam X013 3 1 ' ^ Si ature &Y nL �✓ Address �31�0 y Print Name Date 10 e�X� 2-339 Pl�,aT CA24SCr fit✓ Signature Address ))AVID G. Lc:,d jG i Print Name Date RESIDENTS' PETITION (X 1 `L3`f 5 Por+ C4eIr5 I �. Signature Address Print a Dale Signature oZ� Addres � � P4 �- PrintName ��ale0 l / -3/ O §i ature Address f Name Dale 7XV 14 23Zi1°a,f S.inature I Address Ol f ¢ zl/ I ti^ 113110.-L-- Print Name —� Dale Signature Address Print Name Date Signature Address -��-- Print Name Date U,0 x ) 2 _p o r (art R[ I SSE Signature Address S a ti� A ti SkEy = i ANe-- Z /i /o L Print Name Date Signature Address Print Name Dale Signature Address Print Name Date Signature Address Print Name Date 3 7 RESIDENTS' PETITION Signature PI{i VC? Z- b ff!! Print Name Y� lit„ Signature �wr�e��I Signature A Print Name v \ Signature (x� ereUNP-�QreC e Print Name I b I YJ �C:/LL r�lfhC.G'`t 2� N 7cYL%F T Address �4ZG;Gc -3 i -oy- Date Address ii Date Date a-- /- ol-L� Address ROOM �. 187a dad F LU g-Q,(" R0.(o (Q 0 Address �I i o2— Date 5 ' Signature Address FA Al Print Name � /I /- },l o-),tiT I/1 "k Signature -JAuclana Print Name III wdom i �w %' / ja, Address q70 Address 2j3/o;Z, Dal /17/ A0id 64-, � Y C. Address Date aq2 tctIb(�rn l�I. Address �?/Z ID2 Dare �I tl nn 'kl, igna ct \Oolw ive l Print-Natne nn Siign lure .f�,�/ I rl '�, 7i % Il.'e. Print Name Signature Al Print Name � /I /- },l o-),tiT I/1 "k Signature -JAuclana Print Name III wdom i �w %' / ja, Address q70 Address 2j3/o;Z, Dal /17/ A0id 64-, � Y C. Address Date aq2 tctIb(�rn l�I. Address �?/Z ID2 Dare �I tl — pSignature P AA•nt N ame Siiggnnahue Print Name RESIDENTS' PETITION a-Oo / Krt&-5 l cr• Address a 102 II Date `A dress —�— ate S M�l .t A l =Gv ?t)'Pn �—Tnl /( Signature 0 Address a K�n�� Z• 4.0 }print Name Date Signature3 Address Print Name Date ` - 9-0 `11 1 on j�'va V2 vi c_A Address 1p� \G(/l ✓1 t �Signatutr_e/ r( V 1 l0. 7—.S.0'4— Print Name Date �&, l i%U f w ?71Y (d-V l S ature Address u1n 20cu-z z oll Print Name Date 1 22 M Ur-AOL- MARK Sitnature 7000, Address x•5,04 Print Name Date /9.1 S C 3 ��✓t ti Signature Address Print N re O Signalure Print Name Signa e rU Print ame �l Date 1926 Address .2/7 0 D to Address 4 � d� �I a 3 C F rat .j RESIDENTS' PETITION Signature // Address S�e�rAe L",,?<srr 2 1 81oz Print Name 'Date - Signature `r Address �a`�r,'cia �,VI4L ST�iJ z /8�OZ Print Name Date Signature (�//✓1?a`iiY G lUv,Aj Print Name Signature Address Date 2�9 Address / 11%lh°ll- mw"C(Ca Print Name Date Signature v Address Print Name Date Aki C` iol1e� -d Signature Address C it) II'eA � �gSSPort CaK c( kjn Print Name Date Signature % Address L-Yu5,(c, Signature ti , Print Name RW%�- Date 9 u ��� Address Date Address 2 - — (�2 Date l9 SQL �°•� �� Address Date l a 64 2 I RESIDENTS'PETITION �atl�i f�r� CArza�r4 -N Address zf � (cam Pnnt Name Date ),Sigptw,6 Address n Name Date 15/33 :ar�?/ m?, G Sig e Address / 0 t,rQ t lr' °J\Q, ow Print Name ag Date . /,4i Si Lure Address Pnn�ttNN, ,e Date /' j Signature Address tigcr K>S,vt -) zjg / ("Z Print Name Date ,VP�In �2-VZ� 2p(off- Srgnature Address 'f/wJ4 zed— l`I`ll ?w- 70,ffia c rl Pnnt Name Date �- 1 m(re ' y/ ,y Print Name ff i ature Print ame Signature Print Name 1 Sign ture 2vft�'r isvY3tRlLr Print Name l� Addre s �f O /vZl Date 166 ecy� Rzh � I)I. Address Date Yi 0 /U6 Addres a /0 Da (e t74l PokT &h%ULVrRi� ,7.0 Address 2111 L Z Date a wj U n RESIDENTS' PETITION Signalture Address Signature' CF,( S� —,,print me,� / u C;2- is -Oa. Da 40c) Address ie)q Rii jx i -A Date u -mg Addr ss -�- /3 0 DA, ty.ti. Address 'ZlJ'�lli ?, —ice —Date Address Date Address Maenje A)oo4owp6f a - « -oz Print Name Date Signature Address Date / Address q ��u +-h, r i ne. M c Csh e a(13 /d 2,- Print Name Date 6. rnc9 (QSZ P64 j9ovc4,toj Signature Address ` 0 ) Print Name Date /u27- A4f6A7-,- . Si ature Address Print Name Date "i oZ� 0 6 e RESIDENTS' PETITION Signature �� — Addres 12-lw a 11 .L Print Name v Signature T� ��bHIIA Print Name Date 7-7z., ?r� kq3 Address 2• (q- 02J Date M5 ?m- Address 2' 14--d1Y Date 157 Geis- f1 N& aignarure Address Print a Date S 1959 Poi' Atb�+�s nlg Signature Address PGIErz K P05-r a- its -D000) Print N,ame� Date 000 16,ct Signature Address GP4l�aJ SSE, P,r N�une / 1 N a ure s7, 46r Print Name A, Signature oti� W�l�c�rson. Print Name 2-15 -awZ- Date Address Date 17% f 4 S4an4,gae_ (Lek r ts.6. Address zt(,(oZ Date C,l Signa re Address S +a c(,, —/Z - 0 -2—� Print N e Date 176) (� 0.i ��, a - Ib - (0 -�. Pd /4- wea+burhe�/ Signature Address Do a,�e-1 0Jd q a -I6 -Oa 1 1 Print Name Date �� 7 o?f RESIDENTS' PETITION Z gnatura Print Name Signature jiAA Print Name IJ T') + t _— gnalure Yywr n ->ak . shwa ISYS JPa2r/_2e vwlcr_ Address zLq to z Dai I?lk rar4- P__.(l Address ,2 - /0- 02 Ill K Pa�� ->. Tlffi n L Address Signature Address Date �- o��W�a -Ii a,� 9,1 LIE (7C Print Name Address Cl, z .�-- ate IB2A20- Tam Address Date z "IZ -o� Ib� PurlTi�lw Address " YAM t iv deb I-LU / NiqName bate J)I,A A WAI loxf X ignature 'M a &� Address 241.07_ r' tt Name Date L c� .1 D 7"wZ —V -4- 1rDVaMC� Signature Address �- o��W�a -Ii a,� 2 • I'i- oz- Print Name Date Cl, 2021 .�-- 7gz-f�KDVF�uE Signature Address �kfniflwp, F n-yw 2-1102- Print Name Date Sigdbture p— JT2V2 �1 C'�Ge. / 9 Address Date 1939 2-Z -7—OZ RESIDENTS' PETITION Sigi iture trizv R�� Address &162Z 2ID l c�54 ?0(+I?en,ti4 t.k Address C �ow� I ' wGi �l4✓� a lG �GZ Print Name, Date Signature Address Print Name Date D�-"Zwt4' CAieRocl �/ (o /6Z� Siam ure Address r Date . j 114 % I, a -6 -e�g Address /o — ( /02 Date 1367 ��- Address /Date Address % D,Z Date o f &w ,�1 axvrre�Li i ( of ii1� i R t-.- PPrriinnt Name Ct--f Signature A,G /Z,) 2- Print Name /o — ( /02 Date 1367 ��- Address /Date Address % D,Z Date o f &w ,�1 axvrre�Li i ( of ii1� i R t-.- IS`15 �RanuL)tc� R . Address Signature D Qg- -b. MPr- MiLi-Aw A,G /Z,) 2- n/ Print Name 4Y�oCd°.cle Date 'P,7Yt RCAWlc.r 1pl. Signature Address aNALD L- MAcMrL"Al af9 /aa. day Print Name Date lI RESIDENTS' PETITION r Signatur gN E , Wo Print Name O ignature j>6GGr/ �U SI}9 >ie_ P ' ame i ature Print Name Name �J Signature /o r. !3 r� 22 L Pokr ,PweNESS 41, Address cTi4fl! 30, zooz._ Date 2;z yo Rde- 6QRfv4DS Address / /3r /oZ Date Address 1 I`�1l 02 Date Address Date Address L-//- 3 / -a Z �Print Nam Date Print Name 44� x)7. Signature Address -T rloo,eT �w2N�ss fc A)f- We047— 3Erfic.N 9zc�o Address 722-�me 1H / /3//d-L- Print Name Date i Si ature ((e Print Name / signal Prittt Name Address Date 113 / v ;I-- Addres Date C -3, -oz RESIDENTS' PETITION (S O l I A) v ' �uyrtli l /. Signature Address !6 0 IB (9 NOR rol 0 -31- 02 Date Address Pri;fNiime Date Sienature Address Print Name AhhcKr Masan/ SienaWre Si ature Print Nam Signature Date PC. Address 3 Date .2 /06 ?of-Z` 7u,-Aess P/, Z-z.00 Port D-,ry�c55 Address Address 3 ► 3 y4"/ Z Op`L Date z(oG rM7— Ovic'i���S Z /DD Address" �'0 ✓�(v�v1�p5S1 - -4� Date Signature �� Address n4ky jFnprr4cfs Ypmz -ooc4_ Date Z-z.00 Port D-,ry�c55 Address �'cf�arol E. Kvcckl— 1 -31 -oZ Printt Name Date -� - -4� N• 8 , Signature �� Address n4ky jFnprr4cfs Ypmz -ooc4_ 1 -31 -02 Print Name t /7 Pz z6 LDa , ' iile ?-.9 -a.e Signature Address t vi -,?• `6� XpE v .%° -Oaf �d Print Name Date f �J 3 C 6 RESIDENTS' PETITION SimatutE .rrs� r;..�-7jvY4ls5% 2 --f -off Address Z -f -O2 Date 7-zV9 Fbx DwtvscV R. NF, 9z"D Address /T /!�r ScHU��y,vr✓ Z�9�2 Print Name Date 5 Address �3Dg Pori— PI ND '7)-VC Address rzdwccrcLoLc�cj<—yo �,j{L(OL- Print Name Date J Signature Address rf" r/i61o.f Print Name Date Signature Address Print Name Date Signature Address LID t1 Name Date / RESIDENTS' PETITION 3z <u C' c4'2vt . Signature f Ad ress itl�r�rY K;zFltitcrYc ���(Da. Print Name Date —Sa— - Ac'AUn 61 ✓r_ r'J�M Signature Address 36 38 N i� L�rNn�t s-rHire z�i �nz, Print Name D# �P_ 235-0 Par •A/gerc �, x-,52 c a y, /�tgnature Address I�f z-t Y&5gi all a2ylj(OZ Print Name Date )LW7-� , D-ii'--t� Signature Print Name ,)OHp - -I,`ut-nl' —Lrr�, Print Name Signature I<1Vn SO- Ai2L271G. Print Name Nei i i� J� Name 2556 fa4 A o(P �N,3 g46-0 /Address 2-19 /0 2 Date o13I /// �ga 7- re Z F J ,c Y ) Address Date ?34u ?ed PI W 8 �avc Address Da/ 09 /0.1- Date ^^ � 2yzg' POK1 /�1}SEROtc' N Address 2-- - 9- OZ Date Z�53"� ���"� 11LSEFP�GN Address 2- y -oz Date VZM) rb& %elbeo Pl. Date 7 ti il. t ✓ D to q�5— / RESIDENTS' PETITION 04 v e_x [ (� .% 2 25D rorT A&rCifbJ PL Signature Address � Signature t'��J�'ih �s9Jat'G3(�l Print Name 4-7 WE 2 — /o- o 2- Date 6 l /_ J �W,A—d 2- in -07_ Date ^^ a2a� Po /��ero(Peq 01 Address a �0 -o,2 Date jJ-l- a n Address 'I - /0 - D -1-- Date Address z� v 92 6�60 Date �{�1N 2055 IlerretI W r(n� Signature (a, � - Print Name Q3 Date i azure Signature IJariJarye ©S-s ya,lf-T ,ate Print Name Print Name Signature Print Name v Signature 11 11 l ,l- IZYSTin)A /yi H;SEiL Print Name � Signature t'��J�'ih �s9Jat'G3(�l Print Name 4-7 WE 2 — /o- o 2- Date 6 l /_ J �W,A—d 2- in -07_ Date ^^ a2a� Po /��ero(Peq 01 Address a �0 -o,2 Date jJ-l- a n Address 'I - /0 - D -1-- Date Address z� v 92 6�60 Date �{�1N 2055 2212 Poe,( A94?r-Jc�e� r(n� Signature (a, � - Address 2 (!4 (o Z Print Name Date Signature IJariJarye ©S-s Address a--//¢16� —T Print Name 'Date Signature Address Print Name Date Signature Address Print Name Date Signature Address Print Name Date q ,J v `\ 1p Fil 9 RESIDENTS' PETITION Signature Print Name / l Signature PnnsJ>Iat� ' Signature Print Name �rI AA oitil I C 2.:7 N, Signature _. ' \C( (\n a n I �1044DDA- Print e Signature �m�i III - -- FTrint Name S' ur \ ' Print Nam Signature e%1HRr/ /'1/ /Y! SLYYI� Print Name Address /- 31-C -2 Date Address Date �/ri.�✓t�a /P AlB Address Address - ®a Date S M a d i.S0 h, IUI3 Address �4 ?/0--)-� Date ,7'71Z x A dy ss ->/-Y //O It- Date Signature Address Q Date 9 Address 7'=� � Zao7i Date ddress Q3D Date YI / >4i I RESIDENTS' PETITION IMMINTR � Date i ljG lip Z Z �%dZr >t-braT�y /�i�%2L60 Address Print Name Date Signature Address Print Name Date Signature Address Print Name Date Signature Address Name Date Signature Address Name Date Address Name Date Signature Address Print Name Date 3 -5 -? -67 Print Name Date� std S �f 'WArc� Signature Address —j eCA n e fle- -, u.a- 117/0 L Print Name Date gAror.4elc M6 �IJG(¢ti U),Signature Address Print Name Date Signature Address Print Name Date Signature Address Print Name Date Signature Address Name Date Signature Address Name Date Address Name Date Signature Address Print Name Date 3 RESIDENTS' PETITION A 5 l L v Ts2 S. LCJyLTe,-- Print Name � - _ 0& 0 u Signature —/7 -0 Date Address a -17-- () -� -Lb Hi�Z7 o Address 7 �I 4W Date Address 6 Dale Address Print Name / Dale ��; sa 62A Cr16Ee z 210 z ll'1 C z , ,.,,, -v, 2y 6. vkxN4e, 3 Address f�Ay GP- K, N G P ZA a"' b Z Print Name Date Signature Addles o b It� rVY Print Name Dale f I Signature Address Prin[ Name �� Signalbfe Address // / Print Name Date �R /_A Z Za / Signature Address A 5 l L v Ts2 S. LCJyLTe,-- Print Name � - _ 0& 0 u Signature —/7 -0 Date Address a -17-- () -� -Lb Hi�Z7 o Address 7 �I 4W Date Address 6 Dale Address Print Name / Dale ��; sa 62A Cr16Ee z 210 z ll'1 C z , ,.,,, -v, 2y 6. vkxN4e, 3 Address f�Ay GP- K, N G P ZA a"' b Z Print Name Date Signature Addles o b It� rVY Print Name Dale f I 3 q G 0 00 C3 RESIDENTS' PETITION 22 C- c K UA(j ?-(-- -�, Address 2 -1 / -o 2 rnm rvame Dale Signature Address Z/i i[ V Pnntt �Nampp 14,40 Date 16 �v d Signature Address Print Name y. t � Date Signature Address Le e Jam' �ignature 'Print`Name' y L6/�,� S. L Signature CI --Ls Ad W�- Signature U/�Z�iCIG� /Qlrvhhr� Print Name Signature Print Name Sign lure IC- O �r,.S'^, Print N me Date Address z -(7 - -o l... Date 7 cr Ce r t-ej^�d e.-t Address �- - / 7 -G z Date Address Date 7 /OZ 51Lo /1e-IF -1,4, Address 71b--�- Date Zo Pk,U,7 -zo Address 17/M- Date Address C, / /-/- Date I/ 5 1 C\ \a RESIDENTS' PETITION Print e 't Stgnatt re Print Name ` 4 v Signature c)vuiti<; lUo.,/ L. Print Name C&P -Peya ►-P— Signature Print Name Opp& z zo Address It Date Address -;� —18-0 a, Date Address Date l �� ry L ' Address Date a - /2-616 Address M DateU U D Ad ress d" Da ' Signfature - Address bo s 7L z r'ht Name D//, e '14 Signature Address i Pte, C/1 r-A / - n - - �L/J/.a Print Name Date n Sign re Address 2126 /.z_ Date 2-q GIV fk4�1 Address 1I (- Date t J RESIDENTS' PETITION 5 1 Signature Address 0,;2— Prin e u `K Cr rG r Date I 9v Qy/�t' 'L/& 83. Signature - Address P nt Name Dde Signature Address Name Date Signature Address Name Date Signature Address �3 Print Name r 7 < , — Zf 6k--/ %Y))is Signature Address n KICHfI�/ Ocsrw ?-Z& • OZ Print N Date Si ature Address ST�L q 6sx-r'.) Z Z�,- .02 Print Name Date rlrc,�yt cry 2-6 .6 2 Signature -G% � `~l Address la z 2 a %" z . 6? // Print Na // Date SiijpJ /1a uure A,L Address �ZZG f�•G�' /r.'. 6>11 �2 (74 PiintName Date 5 1 Signature Address 0,;2— Prin e u `K Cr rG r Date I 9v Qy/�t' 'L/& 83. Signature - Address P nt Name Dde Signature Address Name Date Signature Address Name Date Signature Address �3 Print Name r RESIDENTS' PETITION V 1 ' -�a_R+lsi, � � c.0�, 2r( �`-io.��i�.e Jcu k, �l – -� Signature Address MeuSSA Lyra 1 K c 21 2 `02 Print Name Date 1� r•� Pe Signature — T Address t - �it/�!� 7Z• �tcks y�L�a7� Print Name Date V �a..,a15 �• rnCCaarogck 1.`1 "Jukw- -- Sendt S' re Address ftt Name Date 0 \p Date Signat reo)�,,y-jjan elax.Nef Address 0 z Print Name Date 11`i9 POrf - 42M1P� Signature Address j;jP I,ry C:L4,tkrie Z -2--61 Print Name Date Signature Address ' Date A ✓L �I Rienatur Address Print Name Sign �+tre Print Name 1,-Z- 07--- 7i Address Z -Z. oz, Date 6(-- 7 v / �� r�r�� Date M kA �'� RESIDENTS' PETITION j �/ C� Signature Address Print Name Date 2 �1�' C t 4�� M :ShR�oK 0 c Signature Address 21 11 o O n t Name Date a� MM J.NA cs a �e, 01W W &o Signature A o 9- 6 0 /, Print Wa. Sig/n�attur I Prim Nam S gnature riot Name Signature Print Name gnature j QPrint Name 9 -- IIN��WXC/ i ature ��� Cor�en�l�y1 Z -2 -UZ Date Umlbh 51- Addres�S C� C1 � / O N2 cN LfoCi Date / 90� t,,( c //r h/%2 //f Address �OZ Date Address qZ /9y ale 32 L5kjywss7 /V6 (IA 9)ai Address a A /6-z Date Address � 13Iba- Date Z 2 1 /V( Address Z -3lpZ Print Name U Date kl V /o �dre 9�I n A ss fY'I L,'L; A-b'; l �� z,�_o L3 Print Nam Date `U z RESIDENTS' PETITION l Signat bre Address -p�a/ 1 pvx tJ FU& 3 'ZOOz Print Name Date � �l Signature ��nature YI�YL�1� Address t Name Signature Address rya4A? Print Na a Vate ,��`�Signature Address r1262S e��T`t".'1 SI�R� 79/0 Z_ Print Name Date TSignature A dr s USN 5 Ac{'— _ A of It Print Name Date / Si nature S / / Address �e 41y., C CSC , � - 153 1(a� ^Jr' C •J./,% 'Print Name Date Ofar ha�ar�a me ncx-t 1851 Poy+e>ct rmou -W, N3aa��a Signature —v Address 0 V LJ Lr6 'Tayrc- lFi-een Lan ta del Print Name / Signatu ►ZAw�a ���14P� Print Name Signature .11910y Date S-1 Pr,Al at �A2�trnu7G, Ng�i�6L� Address Date Address —� Oate A dress Dat, e A V RESIDENTS' PETITION GPialPh All, 1. --. ignal r Addr M MW r7A.M. w Signatur �g+vCC— Print ame Signature 6(k5(i(O ��� Print Name 4or/ ( 3�e�e�S�Pi�re/ Name a/79 /O,EZ ' 'Date a7 A q 4 �lu�J7� / Addr ss �!S /° -_? _ Date 1'7148 Po(-- ou -t Address a/g /z Date a351"�A7 s �f — at6 0970 Ad ress 90iC�.S Date (2, la� 1,77-2 z�,/ /Vc /s ,o Signature Address u Ale v✓p 0", fe c/ , t!q 9Z66 v e 1 Geiwso --7/,i /oa P ' t N e Date \\ O 0-7,- ignalur Address /Print Name Date '• At- t-ffv)-2d1Vv Signature Address r Aa, :- OF iUt�mAK) Pnnt'Name i /IQture Print Name Signature 4(1P k cp, 1) M�c C.o V- `J / Print Name c� xi ' • ' Date 171j Z Pb- &,5hf f�fie d �l Address 2 .9 - DL Date ��- A dre k q 66; '� to ��� RESIDENTS' PETITION © X �, Marl �%ti nw Signature Address c/arnr�. Shu% 'nt — �9 /ate P Name Date ec ,) 9 *Cift- LV1M111 `E'c� p Signature GCcl�7 -3 yz�CWS +r-A- ' Address 2I�(le, -z- Print Name Date ignature Address W07 Q -e.�%— not Name Date Signature y, Address Print Name Date 5 Signature Address Print Name Date OSignature eS Address vin c o Print a Da nSignature Address Print Name 'An n.t- F-o Ls Date k ee ] br. GD rl Signature AY,��`��`^ 2 �ddress f O L (� P nni Name Date A,f Signature Address l ' &NN Dale `.•..% l � —1%,n e dW fiadress P ' t Name Dat RESIDENTS'PETITION il0 b,_ mrr)r C<Vlf I � Signature v Address LY Print Name Z Signature Print Name Date Loch n oa r Ln Address .3- l8 - o--) Date �� � ignature Address Print Name Date Signature Address &tt,e Ih- fro rdi nipr 3b-o laa Print Name ' Date Signature Address Print Name Date Signature Address Print Name Date Signature Address Print Name Date Signature Address Print Name Date Signature Address Print Name Date Signature Address Print Name 14,A3 0 RESIDENTS' PETITION PRINT NAME /SIGNATURE: ADDRESS: IW4- 21y /pZ 1{ 1i Exhibit No. 9. Draft EIR (Separate Bound Volume) ,,ak Exhibit No. 10. Responses to Comments (Separate Bound Volume) �(�y ATTACHMENT H Excerpt of minutes from the September 5, 2002 Planning Commission meeting. 1, jU City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes September 5, 2002 Ayes: ord, Selich Noes: McDaniel Abstain : Tucker SUBJECT: Newport Beach LDS Temple (PA2001 -208) 2300 Bonita Canyon Drive A Use Permit and Site Plan Review to allow the construction and operatation of a place of religious worship on an 8.6 acre site within the Bonita Canyon Planned Community. The Temple is planned as a 17,575 square foot building in the center of the property, surrounded by 5.5 acres of gardens, walkways, and water treatments in the western portion of the project site and parking in the eastern and northeastern perimeters of the site. The request also includes consideration of a 124 -foot high steeple that would exceed the maximum allowable height of 50 feet. Chairperson Kiser noted that because of the noticing requirements to the EIR the Planning Commission would not take action on this item tonight, that will be deferred to the October 3111 meeting. We are going to have a presentation from the applicant, a summary presentation from staff and then public testimony. At the next meeting, we will open for brief public testimony and, if we are ready, will take action. We will have comments from the Planning Commissioners on the issues that have been raised during the public testimony tonight. Public comment was opened. Mr. Ralph Martin, president of R and M Architects and Planners, along with Ms. Leslie Lee made a Power Point presentation noting: • Location map - showing scale of the project on 8.6 acres; less than 5% of the project will cover the site; nearest homes to the project; shopping centers; recreational areas educational institutions and other churches some of which are yet to be built, that are served by Bonita Canyon Road. • Landscape Site Plan - shows floor plate of the proposed Temple (17,700 square foot building) largely in the middle of the site at the northeast corner of Bonita Canyon Drive and Prairie Road. Due to the concern of headlights at night projecting out into the open space and beyond into the neighborhood, we are proposing to bend the entrance drive to the 156 parking spaces. Plant materials and trees that will grow to about 35 feet+ will screen the Temple. • A slide of the placement of the Stake Center to the adjacent roadways compared to the proposed Temple at 125 feet above the floor plate was viewed and explained. • The preference is for a Temple height that would be about 124 feet above the floor plate. A 35 -foot high Temple facility is not as high as many of the other churches that service this area. We would like to keep the proportions INDEX Item 2 PA2001 -208 Continued to 10/03/2002 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes September 5, 2002 that have been designed. The width of the steeple at the base is about 24 feet and there are three different elements to the steeple and atop there is a twelve -foot statue of the Angel Moroni. Temple will be granite in two different textures, polished and flamed. The polished surface is proposed only for the 30" wainscot (the base of the building). The rest is to be clad in the flamed granite surface all the way to the top of the steeple. Comparisons were presented of the Temples at: Los Angeles, San Diego and Newport Beach. Site plan comparisons - potential for build out of the site with another use. Ron Zawadyzki, Consortium One, lighting consultant spoke for the applicant and noted: • Has worked with the City of Newport Beach in the past on lighting issues for the Fletcher Jones project and the Newport Beach library. • He noted the original light design was overpowering, the color of the light was wrong and the fixtures originally specified did not control the light well. • Our recommendations include warmer lighting and aiming fixtures. He then presented a slide depicting comparisons to local buildings. • The lower part of the proposed Temple will be lit at 1.5 candles, the majority of the steeple is proposed at 6 foot candles and the angel at the very top will be at 12 foot candles. The spots and fixtures to be used are louvered and will allow the control of light. Most of the light that misses the angel, will go upwards. On a foggy night, some of those light rays will appear on the fog and will be diffused and will be at 12 candles or less. The angle of the lights on the angel will be at approximately 60 to 75 degrees. Mr. James Campbell, Senior Planner noted the following: The General Plan permits governmental, educational and institutional facilities. The zoning is Bonita Canyon Planned Community; religious worship is permitted with a use permit. A site plan review application is required pursuant to the Bonita Canyon Planned Community, which acts as the zoning of the property. • One aspect of the use permit is for the height of the structure. The height limit for the district is 50 feet. However, with the approval of a use permit the height limit can be exceeded. • Staff has prepared an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) with assistance from our consultant LSA. That EIR addressed four major areas: aesthetics, hydrology and water quality, land use and traffic. The EIR concluded there are no significant impacts to the environmen. In the area of aesthetics, 15 view simulations were prepared relating to the existing conditions, the opening day conditions and the project after ten years. Simulations were validated on the crane that was installed in January that was certified as to the height and location. • Urban Crossroads prepared a traffic study under the direction of the City's INDEX t53 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes September 5, 2002 traffic engineer. The study concluded there would not be a significant impact from traffic. The expected Temple traffic will be less than 1% of the existing volume on the roadways. There are findings for the use permit and site plan for consideration by the Planning Commission. He then reiterated the listing contained in the staff report page 7 through 15 as well as mitigation measures. An edit was made to Item B on page 12 changing the distance of Seawind as 1200, not 600 feet from the project. He then presented the visual simulations prepared to provide a 'project opening' condition and a 'ten year' condition' in the EIR. A map of the area that the project would be visible from was presented. At Commission inquiry, Mr. Campbell answered: The Planned Community text refers to the Zoning Code if it does not give for guidance on a particular issue. Within the Code we go to the general heights limit chapter that provides an opportunity for a church to exceed the height limits. • The Planned Community Text does not include any procedure for deviation from the standards. Commissioner Tucker clarified: There is a use permit requirement because of a church use. • There is a use permit requirement because of exceeding the 50-ft height limit. There is a site plan review statutorily mandated for this particular PC zone. • CEQA review is a process that gets triggered anytime there is discretionary approval involved in a project. • The CEQA applicability is there, but it is primarily a disclosure law that says the City has to disclose and discuss potential impacts of a project that staff has identified. There were four of them in the EIR. The EIR concluded there was no significant impact, but that just discharges the CEQA part of the puzzle. • Even though there may be no issues under CEQA. we still look at the discretionary approvals that are involved with the use permit or conditions. • Even If the EIR is adequate and changes can still be made to the project. Ms. Temple added that even if an EIR finds no significant effect, doesn't mean you have to approve the project as submitted. Conversely, if there were significant effects left unmitigated, the Planning Commission would not be precluded from approving it. Commissioner Tucker noted that the purpose of CEQA is to have the disclosure and the discussion to inform the decision makers as to what all the possible impacts are. At that point the Planning Commission can reach their conclusions under the rest of the ordinances. Chairman Kiser asked for representative speakers from the various associations or INDEX t � City of Newport Beach ^ Planning Commission Minutes September 5, 2002 commissions. He then explained the Planning Commissioners have reviewed a comprehensive staff report and in addition have received written communications from members of the audience including email, faxes, memorandum and letters. These have been received through the Planning Department as well as directly in our offices and at home. We read all of them. I estimate that since last January, I have probably received 800 communications. Additionally, the draft EIR and the Response to Comments to the EIR have been reviewed by the Commissioners. When you do come up and speak, please focus your comments on the issues that are before us: aesthetics, traffic and parking, air qualify, hydrology and water qualify or general land use matters. We are not here to talk about things other than those particular issues. Each speaker will have two minutes to present his or her testimony. With the number of speakers here tonight, the important part is to give the Planning Commissioners information. Aesthetics is an important part of what we are doing. Public comment was opened. The first speakers will be: Bob Wynn, Steven Brombal and Weatherford Clayton Bob Wynn, 1617 Port Abbey Place noted in favor: • This project is a good land use. The experts who prepared the EIR have said it is. • The zoning PC text says that churches are a permitted use per Chapter 20.91 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code with three findings. • Also, Chapter 20.65.070G speaks to churches being exempt from height limits except if the steeple is higher than 35 feet, then you need a use permit. • He then handed a copy of a prepared statement to the Assistant City Attorney who may have an opinion by the 3rd of October. • If a use permit is granted consistent with this application we will be in full compliance with the three required findings. • Some letters received by the City have concluded that the Temple must meet the 50 -foot height requirement or seek some kind of special favor or variance. This is not correct. • All churches built in Newport Beach must first obtain a use permit. The EIR states that no variance or other special permit of any kind is required for the LDS steeple. • By satisfying our basic requirements for a use permit, our project will meet or exceed all city requirements. We are not asking for anything outside the Code. • The project will comply with all city regulations and policies, restrictions and conditions if the normal church use permit is issued. Commissioner Tucker noted that in the use permit findings, we must find that a use will not be detrimental to the properties or the improvements in the vicinity or the INDEX X55 City of Newport Beach ,. Planning Commission Minutes September 5, 2002 general welfare of the City. The Planning Commission has that discretion. Mr. Steven Brombal, 21 Regents spoke as the president of the Bonita Canyon Homeowners Association in opposition: • The church is building something of lasting prominence. • if the applicants would agree to abide by the 50 -foot height limit that everyone else must abide by, we certainly would not be here tonight. • We acknowledge that the Environmental Quality Affairs Committee (EQAC) generally stated that the EIR is woefully inadequate. • A survey done in our community of 287 homes by Councilmember Bromberg had a 45% response rate. 86% of those respondents disapprove of this project, 14% approved. • Lighting - EQAC suggested having a study done on a foggy night. Staff comments regarding light responses was due to the variable with the nighttime view simulations not providing clouds or moisture in the area and are not conclusive. • We feel the project is totally incompatible with the neighborhood. • The Board has a Resolution that unanimously opposes the project as it is currently presented. • He then clarified for the Commission that there are a number of specific characteristics of the project that the Association is not in favor of: color, lighting from 5 a.m. to dawn, etc., but are not opposed to the use of the Temple. Mr. Weatherford Clayton, President of the Newport Beach Stake of the Church of Jesus Christ Later Day Saints noted in favor: • The Stake has eight congregations. • Temples are not regular church houses and are superior in all aspects to the meetinghouses. • Only the President of our Church, whom we hold as a Prophet, has authority to designate the location and design of our Temples, including the steeples. • He has visited this site and we feel the plans he has designated for this Temple are just right. • Lighting and steeples serve as symbols of our faith on our Temples. • The EIR and the Planning staff report have found our lighting acceptable. • Newport Beach has no regulations restricting the hours of lighting. • Many local churches light their facades until 11:00 p.m. and some stay on all night. • We claim the same privileges as other churches in our City. • We agree to turn off the fagade lighting at 11:00 p.m. • The height of the steeples designates the Temples and not the regular meeting houses. Commissioner Tucker asked if the plans that were revealed to the president of the church showed a 200 foot tower, at what point does the City get to become involved in that decision making process. INDEX .� City of Newport Beach �.+ ? Planning Commission Minutes September 5, 2002 Mr. Clayton answered that there are Temples that have steeples that are significantly higher. Within the framework of this Temple, its size would not fit with what this should be` and would never be the case. The Temples in Los Angeles and San Diego are significantly higher. Commissioner Tucker asked where the 124 foot height came from. Mr. Clayton answered that as the architects worked to put a plan together that was approved by the Prophet, this is what has been deemed to be the right size and the right height. In that framework we support it. Commissioner McDaniel asked if the Planning Commission were to approve something at a lower height, would you make any change? Mr. Clayton answered this proposed plan is what we'd like approved. Kenneth Wong, 2264 Port Durness Place noted in opposition: • Chose the location of his home for the low key, unobtrusive character of the neighborhood. • When the LDS Stake President told our Seawind group the 125 -ft lighted steeple would be a 'showcase' it was precisely what we did not want to hear, let alone permanently have in our midst. • The issue has never been that our Mormon friends should not use the land they own or should not build a Temple or not have a steeple. • The proposed height is two and a half times greater than the 50 foot height limitation, night time lighting and if not negotiable, perhaps the LDS could consider other parcels of land elsewhere where this showcase gift would be welcomed. • Religious belief and justification no matter how sincere, never trumps either reasonable building restrictions or the broad and heartfelt objections of local residents, Commissioner Tucker stated that there is an 86 foot steeple on the current Stake House, St. Andrews church has a 97ft cross, why shouldn't the new Temple be able to fit somewhere in that range? Mr. Wong answered that the height limitation in our area is 50 feet. I am aware of the steeple on the Stake House that has not been a major issue to anybody. The building and facility has co- existed peacefully with the community for untold number of years. If the Mormon leadership had come to us and said that 86 feet is what we have now, we would like to ask for at least that plus a little more due to the Temple requirements, it is possible that none of us would be here tonight to protest this 124 -foot steeple. Mr. Joseph Bentley 61 Montecito, chairman and counsel of the local interim Newport Beach Temple Committee noted in support: Involved with acquiring the land and all the entitlement of the land that is INDEX 14 5-) City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes September 5, 2002 there for the facility. • A steeple reduction would impair one of our foremost project objectives, which is that of high visibility to the faithful who attend our Temples. • In our faith, the Stake Center is subordinate and should look subordinate. • Our Temple is a one -story building with an unoccupied steeple. • The Temple will disappear when the landscaping matures. • The President of our Temple designated the site for a small Temple. • A reduction of the steeple height would put the building out of balance and be disproportionate symmetrically. • As our holiest structure with the steeple as a religious symbol, it should not be re- designed. • He then submitted a written summary of his speech. Commissioner Gifford asked if the project objective is discretionary? Is it part of the overall religion? Mr. Bentley answered that the second project objective in the EIR is that it appear to the faithful as a superior facility, not only visible but superior to our other facility. That is part of our religious beliefs. It is part of our overall religion. Commissioner Tucker noted that staff indicated that a lower steeple of 100 feet would be visible from all the locations from which the proposed 124 -foot steeple would be visible. If the Church requires high visibility, it is still just as highly visible, is it not, from a lower steeple from the same places as the visibility would be available from the highest steeple? The problem we have is the high visibility for the faithful is also high visibility to others, that is where our problem is. Mr. Bentley answered that it would be visible. Visibility is a comparative thing. If it seems to be less significant than the other building, then that would impair our project objective. Commissioner Selich noted that in the correspondence he has received, there seems to be predominance of listed Temples that have square footages of 10,700 and a steeple height of 78 feet, is that a standard plan that is used in different areas. Mr. Bentley answered that there are many styles, sizes and heights according to the local and the particular vision the present president has. There are Temples without steeples designed by the president at that time who felt that was right for that place. The president today is responsible for more than half of the Temples built; all of them have steeples with the angel figure at the top. In terms of this particular height, there is no mathematical formula to arrive at that, it's what seemed proportional and right in his design capacity. Commissioner Selich asked if the president sketched out a design concept and gave it to the architect, or did the architect do a design or a series of designs and then the president picked one out of the series? How did that whole process occur? Does the president tell the architect what to do? Does the architect INDEX r.� City of Newport Beach > Planning Commission Minutes September 5, 2002 draw it up? INDEX Mr. Bentley answered that there are other Temples being built at this time that are quite similar to ours, Redlands has one that has a similar building but a considerably taller steeple. Because of some of the input given about this area and some possible opposition, the president may have designated something smaller. It is a combination of his confirming what is brought to him by the architect. I do not know, in some cases the presidents have told the architects. The president has been here twice and is familiar with the site and I suspect he took the setting and locality into account. John Long, 2745 Hillview Drive, president of Harbor Knoll Community Association noted opposition: • His association is the closest to the Temple site. • He then handed a visual simulation to the Commission. • The major concern is the lighting from the Temple and the light pollution into our neighborhood. • The additional lighting on the faqade, security and parking lot going on all night will create significant light pollution to our homeowners. • The lighting in the evening on my patio is prevalent. The Temple lights will impact my bedroom windows. • He suggested limiting the hours of lighting. A possible compromise could be when the Temple is occupied. • In the EIR the trees do not block the views because it is an emergency entrance to our property for the Fire Department. • I had worked with a number of people on the Stake Center and it was a smooth process. However, that did not happen with the current project. Donald Turner, 3839 Ocean Birch Drive spoke in favor of the project. • He is in charge of gathering petitions in support of the Temple project including the steeple. • In reading the staff report, we discovered that a negative petition was included as Exhibit 8. • He then submitted nearly 1,000 (not verified) signed petitions in support of the project. Commissioner Tucker commented that the Planning Commission is not a political body, we are not a policy setting body, we work for the City Council. We exercise our best judgment to administer codes, whether they are State or City Ordinances. Petitions don't mean much to me because that is not the business that I feel I am in. I am looking just at the technical aspect of an application. I read all the comments to the EIR. Staff includes in the staff report whatever the City receives. Mr. Michael Arrigo, 67 Wentworth spoke in opposition representing the Newport Beach Conservancy: • A sports park could not be built because of the lighting, why is the lighting that is proposed for this project allowed? l0 ,.t 59 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes September 5, 2002 If the steeple were not lit at all, a similar height to the Stake Center would be more acceptable. Height and'lighting are very significant to us. Richard Fuller, 45 Canyon Island distributed a worksheet on economic impact study and spoke In support of the project: • As an MAI real estate appraiser I am here to suggest to you that any estimate of diminution in real estate value should be quantified by market evidence. • He then explained his economic impact study handout that compared three Temples using polls, housing trends, economic analysis, property assessments and sales and resales. • He concluded by stating the proposed Temple would not have a negative impact on property values. Marion Bergeson, 1721 Tradewind Lane spoke in favor of the project noting the diversity in our suburban environment, beauty, workmanship and continuing high standards of maintenance. Mitigation concessions have provided extensive property line setbacks, landscaping, the reduced lighting intensity and the hours of usage. The EIR has been considered to be fair and thorough. The steeple is in balance with the architectural design of the facility that symbolizes the spiritual value of upward ascendancy. It will be tall and slender and is very important to a sizeable LDS population residing in the Newport Beach area. Robert Dyess, 8 Seabluff spoke in opposition and referred to a letter that was presented to the Commission that had statistical information on the existing LDS Temples. This information was obtained from the Internet. He noted the hours of operation and the steeple heights. He concluded asking for a compromise on the hours of operation and lighting. Jim DeBoom, 2085Bristol, #201, spoke as the Executive Director of the Interfaith Council and stated that the Board adopted a resolution supporting this project. Peggy Stair, 2240 Port Durness spoke in opposition due to the proximity of the project, the height and lighting. Rabbi Allen Krause, Temple Bethel in Aliso Viejo speaking for himself noted that the opposition is not in terms of religious issues. The LDS have been a support in our community. They have shown that they are good citizens. Allen Murray, 2330 Port Lerwick Place spoke in opposition noting the height and lighting. The Stake House was built when the property was first governed by the City of Irvine, the surrounding neighbors had no input on the construction whatsoever. The angel on top of the steeple is advertising and I would like to see some mitigation such as a height reduction and some way to switch off the lights. Jill Money, 1842 Port Barmouth spoke in support of the project. As a member of the homeowners association stated that the board decided to take no stand on the INDEX '��b ,. City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes September 5, 2002 INDEX Mormon Temple, neither support nor opposition. Gordon Benhard, 2301 Port Carlisle spoke in opposition of the proposed project for similarly stated reasons. The following speakers were in support of the project for reasons stated by previous speakers: Gwen Vieau, resident of Bonita Canyon. Peter Vidmar resident of Coto De Casa - will be taking the toll road and will be carpooling. Ken Everson, Jr., presented a featured article in the Architectural Digest dated September 2002 and noted that the well- designed Temple will create warmth and a sense of place and enhance the views and values in the surrounding community. Rick Nicholson, resident of Bonita Canyon, which is not a view community; the church had an existing right to build another structure: this is not a religious issue. Any dominance of light coming into the community is due to street lighting. Mr. Jamie White, resident of Seaview community favors the proposed project due to religious expression. The following speakers were not in support of the project for reasons stated by previous speakers: Laurie Kaiden, 5 Anondale - traffic and height concerns Vahid Ordoubadian, 2238 Port Aberdeen Raymond Piantanida, 2109 Yacht Daphne - head of the architecture committee for Seaview community. Barry Allen, 1021 White Sails Way - spoke as counsel on the threat of a lawsuit by the Temple if their plans were not approved as mentioned in meetings and in the press. He noted the Planning Commission should make their decision based on the information presented and not on the fear of any lawsuit. John Fransen, 2345 Port Carlisle Place - asked for a larger venue for the next meeting to accommodate the large crowd. Lewis Garber, 2706 Hillside Drive - concerned with the architectural features, height and lighting. He distributed a visual simulation taken from his driveway based on the crane height. 12 ��l City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes September 5, 2002 INDEX Following a brief intermission the meeting resumed. Chairperson Kiser noted that the Commission would not be taking action on this item tonight but would hopefully be able to at the continued meeting of October 3rd. Speaking in favor of the proposed project: Ron Hanson, 190 Newport Center Drive stated that this is a small building with a large landscape area that will be open to the public. The Temple in San Diego does not close until 11:00 p.m.; the first patrons go in at 5:00 a.m. Tacey Clausen, 320 'h Sapphire - freedom of use of property. Robert Eichenberg, One Collins Island noted the aesthetics of the proposed project. A shorter steeple would denigrate the project. Speaking in opposition of the proposed project: Imran Currim, 2300 Port Aberdeen not against the project but is opposed to the height and lighting. The proposed project will become my view as I am directly across from it. Dan Kassel, 10 Seabluff noted his objection to the way the LDS presented the plan to the community. The development is out of character to the neighborhood. Land planning is a process. The Planning Commission as a responsible steward of the land must keep the public's interest in mind. Melissa Lyn Hicks, 27 Marble Sands, questioned the aesthetics qualifications used by LSA. A structure can be overwhelming even though it looks very simple in a picture. Steve Brahs, 2208 Port Lerwick one of the closest homes to the Temple. The facility as proposed was designed for Redlands, CA and brought to our community. The Redlands Temple is under construction now. When the land was purchased, the PC text clearly determined that there was a 50 -foot height restriction, so when the applicants purchased this property they knew they were going into a 50 -foot height restriction. David Wolf, 14 Seabluff concerned with holiday lighting and traffic especially during the open house. Asked for something in writing that no extra lighting during the holiday would happen to alleviate possible traffic /parking impacts. Public comment was closed. Chairperson Kiser then asked the Commission for their comments on the EIR. 13 ltd � City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes September 5, 2002 INDEX Commissioner Tucker noted: • The EIR document is adequate. • The EIR sets forth the issues, which is the purpose of CEQA. The Final EIR is the Draft EIR with the response to comments and adequately describes the project. Chairperson Kiser noted: • The EIR notes that the issues are steeple height, lighting and proposed color of the structure. • These matters are aesthetics considerations. • 1 found no inadequacies in the EIR. Public comment was opened. Chairperson Kiser asked for the architect to approach the podium to answer specific questions. Commissioner Selich asked Mr. Martin to explain the process that he went through, did you come up with the design, were there parameters given to you by the Temple to come up with your design, and what are some of the design principles you used, is there some relationship to the height of the steeple to the length and width to the building, the size of the site? Educate us on this, because what we have is a situation where the basic height limit is 50 feet and beyond that the Planning Commission has discretion to evaluate whether the structure is proper in relationship to the surrounding environment. We need some further assistance from you in how you arrived at the height of the steeple. Mr. Martin answered: • We are associated architects with a firm in Salt Lake City that is the primary building designer. • We concur with the proportions and design that had been set forth by that process. • I don't believe that any one said make this 124 feet. It was a design that evolved with the objective of trying to have the best and proper relationship with the size of the building that is below the steeple, recognizing this is a subjective matt er. • An analogy to make it easier to accept the subjective nature of proportion - there are a bunch of tall ships coming in the harbor this weekend. This is a tall Temple. If we were to take a tall ship which has proportions that are guided by their design and reduce the height of the sails on them to squatty little dimensions, we would not have tall ships, we would have other kinds of things. The same thing happens with respect to the proportion between the building itself of 35 feet high Temple and the steeple height. • I have looked at an overlay reducing the height of that steeple to see what the affect would be. I was profoundly distressed that reducing that height significantly would really make it look unpleasant. 14 v'0 City of Newport Beach ( ^: Planning Commission Minutes September 5, 2002 INDEX No one could deny that the resistance to height or the approbation that people have given the issue of height is all subjective comments. Commissioner Selich clarified that an architect in Salt Lake City gave you some general direction for the Temple. You came up with your design and then presented a series of alternatives to the Temple? Mr. Martin answered I presented what was the result of that discussion with the architect in Salt Lake City as well as those people who weigh in at Salt Lake City. Commissioner Selich noted that this is the lead design that the president of the Temple dictated as the right design for the site. Was he involved in these meetings in Salt Lake, how did he get involved with this? Who would be the person to ask? Mr. Martin answered, the affiliate in Salt Lake City. Chairperson Kiser noted the way in which the decisions were made for the structure, the internal workings of the applicant and how they make decisions and who is in charge and who has the authority and such, is in my mind completely irrelevant to what we are doing here. We have a proposed structure and we are looking to make planning decisions. The way in which the decision was made for certain heights etc., if it has to do with internal Temple affairs, I don't think it is relevant and I don't think we should go that direction. We have a structure from a planning standpoint, we have a steeple and we have lighting. Staying with the issues means staying with those very things. Commissioner Selich noted it is relevant to the way he is looking at the issues. there is someone here who can answer, I would like to hear it. A brief discussion followed about the issues of the design process and criteria. Ms. Clauson stated that she doesn't know if the question results from the memorandum that came from our office regarding the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act. The memorandum discusses the concept of individualized assessment in land use decisions. it is up to the applicant to show a substantial burden on its religious exercise if the City denies their request. In this particular case, I think if there is a decision that the LDS Temple has to be a certain height and that there would be a substantial burden on their religious exercise if it can't be that height. To the extent that is the consideration for which Commissioner Selich is asking his question, it might be relevant to his determination or understanding of the reasoning of the height that has been applied for in this use permit application. Mr. Russell Platt, architect, noted that he had met with Mr. Martin, stated: Each of the Temples in the church is unique. The Redlands structure differs in the floor plan and outside details. The design of the structure is based on the site taken into consideration 15 l�ls� City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes September 5, 2002 INDEX and the landscaping that can be achieved on that site. • That basic scheme is presented to the Temple in Salt Lake, just the site plan with landscape form, not the whole building. • We went through 35-40 site plan renditions before they were pleased with what we came back. • We were working with Mr. Martin from your community for his input. • Once that was laid out, we took the building and built it in three - dimensional form on a computer and then scale modeling. At that point it is presented to the Temple for their approval. • We keep working on it until it is presented to President Hinkley. He looks at the plans and he will let us know if it fits the site the way he pictured it. • We don't want to abuse anybody. The Temples are the most beautiful things we can make. • Each time we have gone through this process it has been wonderful to go back when it is finished and have everybody come over for the open house and show them what is there. At Commission inquiry, Mr. Platt noted that the design is to the site. I was excited doing the pictures for the EIR with the landscape viewed from various points in the neighborhoods. At Commission inquiry, Mr. Weatherford Clayton noted that there are some large Temples that have lighting displays on the large grounds during the Christmas holidays. Our Temple is small to medium size and I don't believe it will be one of those. We are reticent to give up the privileges that all Churches have in Newport Beach, we are not planning on doing anything but we don't want to give up that privilege. Commissioner Tucker stated that he is referring to an elaborate holiday display as opposed to a simple display, for example the Trinity Broadcast display. There will be people going past the facility, so that is a legitimate concern. Mr. Clayton answered that he doesn't see that happening. Chairperson Kiser asked if there would be any flexibility in the hours of lighting for the morning and evening hours? Mr. Clayton answered the ultimate authority for determining what the Temple would be like is the head of the Temple. He has been here and knows what it is like and is a very busy individual. The lighting speaks that the building itself is sacred. As people leave the Temple having the light on it is appropriate to what we want the building to say. We feel that the evening hour is appropriate. There will be times people come to early sessions that start at 5:30 a.m. The Temple is small and has limited seating. There will never by times when huge numbers of people will be coming in after it is dedicated. The Temple is not opened Sundays or Mondays. We ask for the lighting times to remain as they are, as it is a symbol for us. 16 O65 ,., City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes September 5, 2002 INDEX Chairperson Kiser stated his understanding is that Mr. Clayton is not the decision maker on these things and if there was something proposed to change hours, etc., he would need to take it to the Temple hierarchy to get those decisions made. Mr. Clayton answered, exactly. What I do as the Stake President and lay person, Temples are not our purview, they are a privilege and that comes from authorities higher than us. Chairperson Kiser asked if there would be any flexibility on the steeple height. That has been discussed quite a bit and has been a subject of many communications that we have received. What we are trying to do is find a way on any of these issues that there could be movement by the applicant, Mr. Clayton answered that the steeple in Redlands is about five feet higher than what we have here. We feel the proportions are right, we will be pleased to pass on the concerns that have been expressed and that we have heard. Our desire is that it remain as it is. Commissioner McDaniel noted that when we come back to this, some flexibility and to what extent, might make the decisions easier to deal with. Commissioner Selich stated that in looking at the Planned Community Text for Bonita Canyon, it says that, '.. in cases where sufficient direction for Interpretation of these regulations is not explicit in this text, the Zoning Code shall provide direction, as determined by the Planning Director....' If you look in the height limit section it says 50 feet, no exceptions. You made the decision to go to section G covering Churches that says that 'Churches shall be exempt from the height limit except they need a use permit when they exceed 35 feet in height. This section of Bonita Canyon Code goes on to say that in cases of difference between this Planned Community Development Plan and the Newport Beach Municipal Code, the Planned Community Development Plan shall prevail. It would seem that you are back to the 50 -foot height limit that would force you into a variance or an amendment to the Specific Plan. Ms. Temple answered that if there were specific parking rules for a particular use within the Planned Community that were different from those in the Municipal Code, then those provisions in the PC text would supercede. In this particular case, there is a height limit established for a broad range of land uses and no specific provisions for exceptions or changes to those. Within the Municipal Code there is a separate and different provision, which applies specifically to only one of the uses in the range of land, uses in that planning area, which is Churches which allow for the specific exception from the height limits. It was on that basis that the applicability of the Section in Title 20 applied in this case. At Commission inquiry, Ms. Clauson noted that this has not been specifically discussed, although the interpretation makes sense. That provision of the Zoning Code applies to other Zoning Districts as well. It applies specifically to churches 17 ,. 44 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes September 5, 2002 not necessarily the Zoning Districts. INDEX Ms. Temple, at Commission inquiry, noted that the City of Irvine's zoning was their conventional zoning in the Zoning Code. This was a Planned Community Text developed to most nearly parallel their zoning regulations. The City of Irvine no longer uses the Planned Community system. The Stake facility was a use permit issued by the City of Irvine. St Mathews is the new church that Is going in and as part of their use permit included the height of their yet to be built chapel with steeple under the same interpretation that we are using here. Commissioner Gifford asked the Assistant City Attorney to address some of these issues like the difference in the Municipal Code of 35 feet and the fact that the PC text doesn't say it will govern over the Municipal Code except in the case of churches or anything like that. I would like to have a good discussion of that at the next meeting. Commissioner Tucker noted he would like to see wording for a condition on holiday lighting that allows a certain level, but not too much. Chairperson Kiser agreed and added this is a situation that begs for a compromise. I personally would not support the proposal as it is without some modifications in the way of lighting and height. There is a disparity of interests between the Church and its neighbors. The Church wants a bright and prominent beacon, and the neighbors want a facility that will be more in harmony with the neighborhood. Commissioner Tucker agreed with the previous comments on the issue of compromise. He expressed disappointment that the parties had not resolved their differences among themselves. He noted that it would be better for the parties to figure out a solution than to have six commissioners who did not live in the neighborhood do so. But he noted that if a resolution was not reached by the parties, the Planning Commission would indeed decide and that decision could be a big disappointment to one side or the other. He declined to say how he was inclined to vote at this time. Commissioner Agajanian noted he supports the use. The project as proposed seeks to attract attention and is intended to become a highly visible symbol. Attracting attention is permitted in our city with appropriate restrictions. The location of the project is in a low -rise community without prominent architectural elements in the area, therefore, I feel the project is not in keeping with the character of the community as it currently stands. I believe with some modifications to steeple height and lighting, a suitable compromise can be met between the needs of the Temple and the community. I could support staff's recommendations in the staff report. Motion was made by Chairperson Kiser to continue this matter to October 3rd, 18 (O ) City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes September 5, 2002 INDEX Ayes: Agajanian, McDaniel, Kiser, Gifford, Selich, Tucker Noes: None UBJECT: Wetherholt Residence Item 3 217 30th Street PA2002 -102 A Va nce request for 3 separate aspects of the proposed addition to an existing Continued to two-sto residential structure: to exceed the floor area limit, to exceed the 09/19/2002 establish maximum building height of 24 feet by 3 feet 3 inches associated with adding a t d level to the existing structure, and to continue to provide only 1 on- site parking s ce for the residence. The subject property is located at 217 30th Street. Ms. Temple reporte at the applicant has requested a continuance of this item to September 19, 2002. Motion was made by Co issioner Tucker to continue this item to September 19, 2002. Ayes: Agajanian, McDani Kiser, Gifford, Selich, Tucker Noes: None SUBJECT: Design Guidelines for lboa Village Item 4 Amendment to the previously approved Centra alboa Specific Plan #8 for the Continued to purpose of replacing the present design guidelin s with the proposed Balboa 09/19/2002 village Design Guidelines. Ms. Temple noted that staff requests that this item be co ' ued to September 19, 2002. Motion was made by Commissioner Tucker to continue this ite o September 19, 2002. Ayes: Agajanian, McDaniel, Kiser, Gifford, Selich, Tucker Noes: None ADDITIONAL BUSINESS: Additional Business a) City Council Follow -up - Ms. Wood noted that at the last Council meeting of August 27111, Council approved on second reading the amendment to the Hoag Hospital Planned Community District; approved Final Tract Map for the 19 q ('� 01 Jill t■■■■ ■■ looms ■■ 0.�u :' ° �IIIIIII���I�I >H� I, iliiii >;_rll IN gig a� �II!�IIIIII� 4. . �4 • i �� III II111 fa z � 5 G q - , ] m j �\ k R * ` \ Gy- rL1� r je B =ao= fi E o0 f }}aa j G > 14l �F N�yk3 H (OJF i r— YYYY i?4i FujO V R W Y °i yyiv j ii %Lddll�£ii i a 5 EE Iyy 9= el i I I II I I �I � u II y � Ln as 71-u u ( II n o-_ II II II I I I I p a a ��Ir fig,.. wo�'a, sTm �FR Lam:= oV° m� gg 4 43� 6. ✓.i ^^ .T(` aP �, �39y um'9aam' � ^9 m R � Z � U U "i R I v° Z � �V i-. 1 W F 4 40, a g �L I n R3 4 �� l o � 0 V G O ATTACHMENT J Revised and approved elevation and photo simulations o a•a� oT ��$p ra��J load �a Off§ r2oU W8��yg a 2mJr, Qmm 4'•�i �d Z � R a4 �A Ej z� wV �w 6fp m p Q� N N aWwn, W c+ w WZZ U p Zaa �} Ol �T�'• N aU Q Mt x: g3 N Z O F W W H N 'd` .1 lu- JF�. O O CD � O O CD CD u,y - 4-4 ct Lm I O O O O - 6-1 b�_ I I ; r. O O +fir Ty� JJ� O O N IF. J i j R.. 1 V� O� F� O O O O N � U O U O IF. i n' I•{ ,t O ct W O O F� N O O N 'rte' �Ilumn I� O PLAN l O N .7 ATTACHMENT K Environmental Impact Report (Separate and transmitted previously) ATTACHMENT K Environmental Impact Report (Separate documents available in the City Clerk's Office and the Planning Department, City Hall, 3300 Newport Boulevard) oat e 1 qLD u sent To: 1ppl yor munul Member anager ��� �Q i F C E. ,'4 r D 42 j e a--53 CIA rnev 0 �s eel I IT_ _ Rici< NicHni so\ 36 Ru k::_n Vwi oR I Rr.0 n -A 92660 November 6, 2002 Dear Mayor Ridgeway, C:1 -. i "Rf CIVVED AFTER AGENDA F?1;T I am a resident of Newport Beach and am aware of the recent efforts and compromises by the LDS church to have their Temple approved. A few more items I ask you to consider: I. The proposed location of the use is in accord with the objectives of the Zoning code for Public and Semipublic uses, and the Planning commission voted their support of the Temple and affirmed no adverse impact after 2 public hearings. 2. The proposed location of the use permit and the proposed conditions under which it would be operated or maintained will be consistent with the General Plan and the purpose of the district in which the site is located will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, or welfare of persons residing or working in or adjacent to the neighborhood of such use; and will not be detrimental to the properties or improvements in the vicinity or the general welfare of the city. 3. The Planning Commission concluded that the project would provide adequate separation of the Temple from its surroundings and assist in making the project more compatible with the community. 4. The site is not within a designated scenic vista and does not significantly block public views. I know that the Planning Commission considered many factors including the mistake on the height and I request your support of the LDS Temple as approved by the Planning Commission. Sincerely, Xhard E Newport Beach Resident cc: Mayor Pro Tern Steven Bromberg, Council Member Gary Proctor, Council Member Norma Glover, Council Member Gary Adams, Council Member Dennis O Neil, Council Member John Heffernan Dear Council Member; C", Jy I I :ir ,, 7 November.4,x 2002 I was very sad and sorry to hear that the approval for the Temple for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints had been appealed,although both sides were given equal opportunity to speak, and the Planning Commission approval was 4 to 1. Also, the Temple meets all Environmen- al Impact requirements. The LDS Church comprimised on several things, such as on the exterior color, with lighting, and with a reduced steeple height. The Architect even re- designed the driveway to reduce any possible glare from headlights. In other cities where LDS Temples have been built the pro- perty has gone up in value near the temple. The Temple and it's landscaping will be a beautiful and peace -.. ful spot in our city of Newport Beach Sincerely, i Marjorie Thomas 32 Sea Terrace Newport Coast Michael L. Michel Attorney at law Certified Family Law Specialist California Board of Legal Specialization November 4, 2002 Michel &Rhyne SpeciahmW in Family Law Redstone Plaza 4041 MacArthur Boulevard, Suitt 230 Newport Beach, California 92660 (949) 553.1223 • FAX (949) 752-0296 Karen A. Rhyne :. Attorney at Law , Certified Family Law Specialist California Board of Legal Specialization Gary Proctor 600 S. Main Street, Ste. 900 1lth Floor Orange, Ca 92868 Dear Gary: It is rare that I write city council members on anything relating to the city because I rarely object to what and how the city is managed. However, the Mormon Temple issue is a problem that needs resolution. I live in the neighborhood (2340 Port Durness Place) just two blocks away with a view of the site from my rear yard, and I object strenuously to having a 86 ft. high lighted spire in a residential neighborhood which clearly violates the city's own height restrictions. I recognize the religious overtones of this dispute from both sides and appreciate the difficulty the council may have with this appeal; but, I believe the city has a paramount obligation to its residents first and to the outsiders second. And, I object to consideration of such a major deviation from the city planning standards for what I believe is a purely religious issue. If the Mormon church wishes to build a temple in Newport Beach, lets welcome them. But, they should be required to adhere to our building standards and rules imposed on all of our residents and not receive an exemption or variance simply because of who they are. November 4, 2002 Page -2- In summary, I am asking you to grant the appeal and require the planning commission to reconsider the height limitations on the proposed temple. Sincerely, LAW OFFICE OF MICHEL & RHYNE By: i hael Michel MLM /gmt cc: Todd Ridgeway Date C Copies Sent To: �P7fayor 'Emuncil Member /Q Idanager A!!en K. Murray, Ph.D. (�� 2330 Port Lerwick Place attorney �) B-tlk Newport Beach, CA 92660 �= : i 0 (949)759 -7089 ��' 0 Ci C' September 29,`2db Newport Beach Planning Commission City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92663 RE: Newport Beach LDS Temple (PA2001 -208) SERIOUS MISREPRESENTATION IN DRAFT EIR AND STAFF REPORT INVALIDATES STAFF RECOMMENDATION Dear Members of the Planning Commission: A very serious misrepresentation of fact in the above referenced Draft EIR and Staff Report has come to my attention. The subject of this misrepresentation is, in fact, the height of the steeple on the present LDS Stake Center across Prairie from the proposed site for the LDS Temple. Since the Staff Report recommends a proposed height for the steeple on the Temple based on the height of the present steeple on the LDS Stake Center, the misrepresentation of the steeple height on the Stake Center completely undermines the basis for the recommendation. I will elaborate on the basis for my statements above: The Draft EIR and the Staff Report (9/05/02) state in several places that the height of the steeple on the LDS Stake Center is 86ft. above finished floor. Draft EIR, Page 4.1 -2 The existing LDS Church Stake Center is located immediately west of the project site. The steeple or tower at the Stake Center is approximately 86 feet high. Page 3, Staff Report The steeple on the existing Stake Center is 86 feet from the finished floor elevation of approximately 190 feet above mean seal level to its peak... Page 19, Staff Report Lowering the height of the project will reduce its visibility and visual impact, but lowering it below 86 fee; in staffs opinion, is questionable as the structure would be lower than the adjacent Stake Center, which Is a subordinate building within the religious practices of the LDS Church. 2 2.Simply due to my profession as a scientist I always verify data so I measured the height of the steeple on the Stake Center. My measurements with the sextant and measuring the distance on the ground are not going to be as accurate as a surveyor with state of the art equipment but an average of three measurements to the top of the steeple was 67.28 ft. By the convention used by the City and the LDS church on the drawings the lightning rod does not count in the height as it is not part of the structure. I should also mention that my fellow Seawind Board Member, Mrs. Peggy Stair also mentioned to me that she just didn't think the steeple looked like it was 86 ft. tall. 3. 1 spoke to Pam Davis, the Irvine Planner on the project. She told me that all of the materials had been transferred to the City of Newport Beach as part of the annexation. I checked the plans on file in the Newport Beach Building Department and found that they indicated a height of 86 ft for the steeple. I asked one of the Building Department personnel what the ramifications are if a building is not the height indicated on the plans. He told me that he did not know what the procedure was in Irvine since the building was built in Irvine. I called Pam Davis again and I asked her about the discrepancy in height between the plans and the building. She told me that they could build it lower with no problem just not higher. She went on to say, "Mr. Joe Bentley told me they built the steeple much lower than the 86ft. on the plans." 4. Peggy Stair provided me with a set of drawings for the LDS Stake Center that she had acquired from Mary Ann Weber, a Seawind resident. I have compared the drawing with a recent photograph of the Stake Center in Attachment 1. It is obvious, to even the untrained eye, that a significant portion of the steeple on the drawing was omitted from the actual constructed building. By the comparison, one can extrapolate a height for the steeple of 67.3ft. 5. 1 have asked several Seawind and Bonita Canyon residents if they have ever heard the LDS leaders describe the steeple on the Stake Center as being lower than the now claimed 86 ft. Several thought they recalled the LDS leaders describe the steeple as being near 70ft. tall at a meeting for residents held at the Stake Center last December. My fellow Seawind Board Member, Mr. Steve Brahs recalls distinctly that at the meeting, presented by Mr. Bentley, Dr. Clayton and Mr. Martin, it was stated that the steeple on the Stake Center was 71 ft. tall. In fact, all of the members of the Bonita Canyon Board of Directors remember from a number of meetings with the LDS Church officials that the steeple on the Stake Center was NEVER presented as being 86 ft. tall. 6. To verify the observations that the steeple is significantly lower than the height claimed in the Draft EIR and the Staff Report, we contracted California Surveying Corporation to determine the height of the steeple. The report from Mr. Theodore M. Krull, Professional Land Surveyor licensed by the State of California is Attachment 2. Mr. Krull determined the height of the steeple to be 67.08 ft. (67 ft., 1 in.). 3 7. The Use Permit Application signed and submitted to the City of Newport Beach by Ralph J. Martin on October 23, 2001. under Section I C. Environmental Setting it states that the steeple height of the Stake Center is 91 feet. Under Section IX, Land Use Planning, Adjoining Uses, it states that the steeple height of the Stake Center is 71 feet. It is interesting to note that on the last page, the Certification, states: I certify that the statements furnished above and In the attached exhibits are correct and complete to the best of my knowledge and belief. I am the legal owner of the property that is the subject of this application or have been authorized by the owner to act on his behalf regarding this application. I further acknowledge that any false statements of information presented herein may result in the revocation of any approval or permit granted on the basis of this Information. Selected sections of this application are contained in Attachment 3. I have summarized my findings in Table 1 below: Table 1. Stated Height of Steeple on Stake Center Heiahtift.) Date Source 86 2/27/92 Project Description, LSA Associates, Inc. 91 10/23/01 Use Permit Application, Ralph J. Martin 71 10/23/01 Use Permit Application, Ralph J. Martin 86 June 2002 Draft EIR, LSA Associates, Inc. 86 9/5/02 Staff Report, City of Newport Beach 67.28 9/14/02 Allen K. Murray, sextant 67.3 9/14/02 Allen K. Murray, photo & scanned plan 67.08 9/19/02 T.M. Krull, California Surveying Corp. I believe the items 2, 4 and 6 above and Attachments 1 and 2 provide ample evidence for me to state unequivocally that the stated steeple height of 86 ft is clearly a misrepresentation. Furthermore, the height of the steeple is, in fact, 67.08 ft, which is 18.92 ft. lower than we had previously been led to believe. Therefore the staffs opinion against lowering the steeple on the Temple below 86 ft., as stated on page 19 of the staff report is completely without basis. I feel that we, the residents of Newport Beach, have been seriously misled by the City Staff. Given the factual information presented above, I am sorely distressed that no one in the room at the Planning Commission meeting of September 5, 2002 spoke up to correct the City Staff on this very serious misrepresentation of the steeple height on the Stake Center. I take it as a complete insult that no one from LSA Associates, the City or any other entity involved was diligent enough to check the height of the steeple before entering such a critical number in the Draft EIR and the Staff Report. I am further insulted that no one anticipated that we homeowners would actually check the height of the steeple. I find it unacceptable that someone would try to finesse the 86 ft. number. This is not a card game but rather a quality of life issue concerning visual pollution of our daily vistas. ll In conclusion, I feel you have no choice but to reject the Staff recommendation of a height of 100 ft for the temple steeple. This project has been presented to us as having a steeple approximately 50% higher than the steeple on the Stake Center when, in fact, the proposed steeple is 86% higher than the steeple on the Stake Center. Since the present Stake Center steeple is really 67.08ft.tall and the pad for temple site is a few feet higher than the Stake Center a steeple height of 75 ft. would accomplish the objectives stated in the Staff Report. This option was rejected in the Staff Report based on the misrepresentation of the height of the steeple of the Stake Center. We can now state unequivocally, for the record, the steeple height on the Stake Center is 67.08 ft. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely yours, Attachments (1 -3) Cc: Members, Newport Beach City Council James Campbell, Senior Planner Patricia L. Temple, Planning Director Homer Bludeau, City Manager Dave Kiff, Deputy City Manager Pam Davis, City of Irvine, Planning Department Steve Brahs, Seawind Community Assn. Peggy Stair, Seawind Community Assn. Mary Ann Weber, Seawind Community Assn. o ?. v 3 D0 Zr 3 (D CD N = (a (Do O CD v � 3 � O � 3 CD O :3 3 p O CD a CD O CD :3 to m C CCD CD D O C n CD 3 = O 03 * CCD- 6 CC CCDD 70 �. CD O tV --h 0 r 3 � (7 CD D� m su -P CA v C) _ N : `/ 5; N N 4 N PO N O m CA m r 0 Z 'C7 Z7 O 2 O �(a7 D 2 O Z 2 I d Ayffift _Attachment 3 ARCHITECTS a PLANNERS E October 23. 2001 Mr. >im Campbell City of Newport Beach Planning Department 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92663 Dear Mr. Campbel: Wolter Richardson ?AM Ralph Martin MCv Robert Tyler MA Ss - W MaCe,.kk wA Ravi Varna MA We ate pleased to submit our application for the Newport Belch, CaUfornle Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints Temple. This later is accompanied by the following submittals. . 1. Liss Permit Application (1) 2. Site Plan Review Application (1) 3. Environmental Iofbtmation Form (1) A. Vioiniry Map b. Color photos of subject site and site vicinity (4) e. Original Property owner's labels plus'one copy and assessor parcel maps. Note. Items #4 -9 include 22 large size and 8 reductions at 11' x 174. 4. Site Plan (Plot Plan) 5. door Plans b. Elevations 7. Landscape Plan 8. Grading Plan 9. Building Elevations 10. Exterior Lighting Photometric Drawings (Large size only, 12 copies) and Letter Report (2 copies) 11 _ Traffic Study (previously submitted to City) 12. Soils and Geology Report (2 copies) 13. Legal Description'Lot Tine adjustmem & Parcel Map No. 91 -270 (2 huge & 2 small) We toots forward to worldns; with you on this exciting project_ Please let us know if you need any additional iufortnation. BC0 Reg a, TECTS ■ PLANNERS A Ralph J. Martin AICP President 949.752.1800 Fox 949.833.9603 4611 Tellor A"nue Newport Beach Collfornio 92660 USA infoBmmorcithecbplanvers.com ENVIRONMENTAL 04FORMATION FORM. oa�1 City of Newport )lfeech Planning De�eot _. 3300 Newport Boulevmrd, Newport Beach. CA 92663 eq +4wtl_f'� (949)644 -3200 A. Ceneml infnveno inn ��`� "SOLI, opS 1, Applicaut/Ageod RALPH L MARTIN, AI(P Phone: (949) 752-1600 Address RNM ARCM MM-PLANNERS, 4611 TJ7d-ER AVE., NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 2 Aopa WOwnea CORP. OF THE PRESIDING BISHC)P OF THE Phone: (801) 240 -3192 CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATIM -DAY SAINTS Address: 50 E. NORTH MOTE #1148, SALT LAI9 CITY. UTAH 84150 Plane attach the Mewing mata6au few the project - Vielvity Map - Plans drawn m scale - Proposed tevisiaas to zoning map - At least 3 difRaen give phoma moaned and art osiegnadedioe and on S 1/2 z II cardboard with akey map — atrJment notation, if applicable shoving the pboto locations and direction of view 1. Project name: NEWPORT BEACH CALIF TEMPLE 2 Projoct loeadou: ADJACENT TO 2150 BONMA CANYON DR.. NEWPORTDEAM CA 458- 153 -13, 458- 153-22 . 3. A ecesees parcel #: 458 - 453 46, 458 - 153-48 4. Permit gTHaadon fi _ Sa. Proposed use: A RELIGIOUS PAC4d77 i.e. TEMPLE 5b. Project Size (dwelling units, gross OW naa. tacj: _ 17.737 sq. M Sa Site size: 8.65 acres (376.794 SQ.FPJ 5d. Building bright 33 ft plus 91 R sttepte 6. Existing land nee dosigeations: General Plan: PUSLICAEbti/ Tula IC Specific Phm: Zdndog: PURLIC/SM41PUBLIC SUD -A)MA 7 LCP: 7. PrCAOW govt:rnmomal approvals CC1Y OF IRVINE ZONE C13ANM 1 B903 -ZC (6-11 -96); CUP NO.10396 -CPS (9-17 -92), INCLUDING MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION, CALIF. RWQ® 401 WAIVER OF CERTIFICATION (9/1702); C:ALIF.WATER RESOURCES BOARD RECFWr Of NOTICE TO DISCHARGE STORM WATER (1014192) S. Other govenwmu el approvals required: Federal: Regional-. 9. Begin construction: SPRING 2002 dam State: Local: USE PERMIT. SITE PLAN REVIEW, ENVIRONMFNiAL ASS655M6NT. TPO REVIEW Estimated occupancy: SPRING 20M dam Page I of 8 C. Envlronmennl Sertfnp 1. The 9.65 -acre site is a parcel of land adjacent to the Church's existing Stake Center on Bonita Canyon Drive; it currently contains several asphalt parking lots along with parking lot lighting. Prairie Road abuts the western edge of the site where it dead -ends. The site has been partially graded to axonmwdare the parking lots and slopes rise along the northeast portion ofthe site. The Church acquired the land for the temple in 1992 prior to acquiring the land for the existing Newport Beach Stake Center. The Church revegstated end donated mom than eight -apes to the City of Irvine in 1994 as a natural l habitat to prsserve the wildfife eeoloay in the area 2_ The existing 28,300 square foot Newport Beach Stake Center is located directly to the west of the Mw temple site across the Church's extension of Prairie Road This facility varies from 37.9 fen - to 35 &bet in height acrd has a steeple of9l feet. To the northwest of the site across the open wee pteaervc/canyon is a tow of s ngle-family homy in the Bonita Canyon development_ An active. City -own d park is planned to the southwest of the sire, end enmher church, St. Manhews, is planned to the southeast. The steeple at St. Matthews is planned to be 73 fret in height. D. Pom-6- 1-Erytroftel,e cal $freeta L ARSTHETICS The homes that ue located to the north and west of the site culmemy have a view south across the canyon toward the site and beyond In the immediate foreground weft existing Stake Center end the enb walls along the open space wise. Several of the homes +.till have direct views of the new temple which may be softened by trees and landscaping along the site's northern edge. From the sowh, the Cityro +aed sports park equipment and backstop fencing (row under construction) will obscene the views $em virtually all Harbor View homes toward the temple. Even though the temple grounds will be heavily landscapes the temple, most specifically the slander steeple, will alsu be visible gem the north and sumbew along the SR73 Tollway. The building will be lighted including the steeples The hours of lighting will probably be from dusk until sbom I I p.uL-Tho parking area will also be la with low- Imenstr3' security lighting similar to who now exists at the Stake Center. Landscaping within the parking area will reduce headlight glare off -she. Lighting consultants, Patrick Quigley and Heath Engineering have prepared a lighting study that include lighting measurements of key fight levels within the Stake House parking lot, Bonita Canyon Drive, adjacent residential 20M end pertinent local landmarks, Including St. Matthews end Mariner's Churches, and others on Bonita Canyon Dries. The study records relevant Otpade and steeple light levels as well as horizontal illumination. The study iaeludes a plan that shows landscape and architectural elements to be illuminated, to what light level and by what lighting techniques. Mitivation is included to appropriately dampen the lighting system's impact on neighbors such as shut -off time for steeple fighting, luminnim shielding, balding from landscape eta Exterior lighting will be shielded or directed downward to mimmim lighting impacts on adjaeem properties. Please refer to the attached study for dau7s. IL AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES Not Applicable- 2 of6 $tip -20-02 02 :01pe Frm-SYUR 0 Sec rao enuu ruse r.uuoruuc r -eu IX LAND USE AND PLANNING Existing Use The site ctarendy contains several asphalt parking lots with associated puking lot lighting that serve the adjoining Newport Beach Stake Cema. Adjolning Uses The existing 23.500 square foot Newport Beach Stake Center is looted directly to the west of the new temple site across Prairie Rond. This facility is 35 feu in height and has e steeple of 71 feet To the northwest of the site across the open space preserve/canyon is a row of single - family homes in the Bonita Carryon development An active park is planed to the southwest of the site and another church. St Mathews. is planned to the southeast. The steeple at St Matthews is planned to be 75 feet in height. Conformance with Existing Land Use Plans sad Regulations The site was zoned in the City of Irvine by Zone Change 18903.ZC (6 -11-96) and is a part of the Bonito Canyon Planned Community WC-50). The site was pert of land trade between the cities of Newport Beach and Irvine and is now in the City of Newport Beach. Iles proposed church is looted in the teen sorted Public/Sernipublie Sub•Ama 7 which allows churches through issuance of use Pemrit A Conditional Use Permit (No. 103W CPS. 9 -1792) including a Mitigated Negative Declaration was also issued for the property- Compatibility The temple will be moderately sized to accommodate an more than I So persons with a maximum square fbomgc of 17.757 square feet; this facility is only two- thirds the size of the existing Stake Center that adjoins this sire. Because this facility will not be open on Sunday when the Stake Center holds its week& services. this will minimize potential parking and traffic problems in the area. It will also be closed Mondays. operating only 5 days o week. The proposed nonple will be compatible with existing homes located to the north because a) the temple site is acpereed from the homes by an open space presmve/onyon; b) generous landscaping along the temple site's northern edge will mitigate views fiom the existing homes. and c) lighting will be designed to limit spillage off -site. The proposed temple is olso consistent with adjoining church uses to the west (existing Stake Center) and southeast (planted St. Matthews Church) and compatible with the Worts park planned to the southwest. X. MINERAL RESOURCES Not Applicable. X1. NOISE The project will gmeaate noise during the construction phase that will be mitigated by compliance with the City of Newport Beach noise control requirements. 4 Of 6 XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING Not Applicable. XIIL PUBLICSERVICFS e. Fnc Protection will be provided by the City of Newport Beech. b. Police Protection will be provided by the City of Newport Beach. c. Schools will not be affecud by the project. d. Roadways within the project will be privately maintained. XtV_ Rsereatton Not Applicable. XV. TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC The trvffrc eonsedeant. Urban Crossroads of True has completed a Transportation Phasing Ordummc study. Please refer to the study that etaarnepenics this application XVI. UTUATIES A SERVICE SYSTEMS • Natural Gas - Southern California Gas well provide gag service. Communication Sysumn, - Pacific Ball well provide phone serwix, and Cox Cable will provide cable ssvioe. Local or regional water treatment or distribution f militiea - Irvine Ranch Water Distrio[ will Provide watcrtamtment. • Sewer system or septic tanks - Irvine Ranch Water District will provide sewer • Sun. Water Deeioage Systems -City of Newpmt Heath will pnrvida for arum drainage. Solid Waste Disposal - Private trash contractors will provide for solid waste disposal. • Local or Regional Water Supplies - Water supply will be handled by Irvine Ranch Weser District- 5 of6 I cattfy that the statements famished above and in the attached exhibits are coned and complete to the best of my knowledge and belief. I am the legal owner of the property that is the subject of this application or have been authorized by the owner to act on his behalf regarding this application. I further acknowledge that any false statements or Information presented herein may result in the revocation of any approval or permit granted on the burls of this information. // Prim name of owner or representative and 71tk / Signature gar office Ilse Dote filed: Fet: Reoespt No: By: kutol 6 of 6 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER DAY SAINTS TEMPLE NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA L S A June 2OO2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER DAY SAINTS TEMPLE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Prepared for: City Of Newport Beach Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92658 Contact: James Campbell, Senior Planner (949) 644 -3210 Prepared by: LSA Associates, Inc. 20 Executive Park, Suite 200 Irvine, California 92614 -4731 (949) 553 -0666 LSA Project No. CNB230 LSA June 2002 I TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1 -1 1.1 INTRODUCTION/PURPOSE 1 -1 1.2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 1 -2 1.3 PROJECT LOCATION AND SITE CHARACTERISTICS I -2 1.4 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED I -3 1.5 AREAS OF CONCERN AND ISSUES TO BE RESOLVED I -3 1.6 POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECT MATRIX I -3 2.0 INTRODUCTION 2-1 2.1 PROJECT DISCRETIONARY ACTIONS 2-1 ' 2.2 PURPOSE AND TYPE OF EIR 2 -1 2.3 INITIAL STUDY AND NOTICE OF PREPARATION 2 -2 2.4 EFFECTS FOUND NOT TO BE SIGNIFICANT IN INITIAL STUDY AND NOT DISCUSSED IN DETAIL IN EIR 2 -2 2.5 EFFECTS DETERMINED NOT TO BE SIGNIFICANT 2 -5 2.6 SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS 2 -5 1 2.7 FORMAT OF EIR 2 -5 2.7 INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE 2 -7 3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 3 -1 3.1 INTRODUCTION 3 -1 3.2 PROJECT LOCATION 3 -1 3.3 PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS 3 -5 3.4 PROJECT DESIGN FEATURES 3 -12 3.5 PROJECT CONDITIONS AND MITIGATION MEASURES 3 -13 3.6 PROJECT OBJECTIVES 3 -13 ' 3.7 RESPONSIBLE AND TRUSTEE AGENCIES 3 -16 3.8 INTENDED USES OF THE DEIR 3 -16 4.1 AESTHETICS 4.1 -1 4.1.1 EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 4.1 -1 4.1.2 PROJECT DESIGN 4.1 -2 4.1.3 SELECTED VIEW LOCATIONS 4.1 -2 4.1.2 VIEW PROTECTION POLICIES IN THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 4.1 -5 4.1.3 PROJECT DESIGN FEATURES /STANDARD CONDITIONS 4.1 -5 4.1.4 IMPACT SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA 4.1 -6 ' 4.1.5 IMPACTS AND MITIGATION 4.1 -6 4.1.6 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS 4.1 -12 4.1.7 SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS 4.1 -13 i PACNB230\EIR\T0C 2.doc 0621102n P:\CNB23MMT0C 2.doc «06/21102)) 4.2 AIR QUALITY 4.2 -1 4.2.1 EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 4.2 -1 4.2.2 PROJECT DESIGN FEATURES /STANDARD CONDITIONS 4.2 -11 4.2.3 IMPACT SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA 4.2 -12 4.2.4 IMPACTS AND MITIGATION 4.2 -13 4.2.5 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS 4.2 -21 4.2.6 SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS 4.2 -21 4.3 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY 4.3 -1 4.3.1 EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 4.3.2 IMPACT SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA 4.3 -1 4.3 -16 4.3.3 PROJECT DESIGN FEATURES /STANDARD CONDITIONS 4.3 -16 4.3.4 ANALYSIS OF PROPOSED PROJECT 4.3 -19 4.3.5 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS 4.3 -23 4.3.6 SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS 4.3 -23 4.4 LAND USE 4.4 -1 4.4.1 EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 4.4 -1 4.4.2 EXISTING POLICIES AND REGULATIONS 4.4-3 4.4.3 IMPACT SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA 4.4 -5 4.4.4 PROJECT DESIGN FEATURES 4.4 -6 4.4.5 IMPACTS AND MITIGATION 4.4 -6 4.4.6 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS 4.4 -11 ' 4.4.7 SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS 4.4 -11 4.5 TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION 4.5 -1 4.5.1 EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 4.5 -1 4.5.2 IMPACT SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA 4.5 -8 4.5.3 IMPACTS AND MITIGATION 4.5 -8 ' 4.5.4 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS 4.5 -14 4.5.5 SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS 4.5 -16 ' 5.0 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT 5 -1 5.1 INTRODUCTION 5 -1 5.2 ALTERNATIVES WITHDRAWN FROM FURTHER CONSIDERATION 5 -2 5.3 ALTERNATIVES EVALUATED IN DETAIL 5 -3 5.4 PROPOSED PROJECT 5 -4 5.5 ALTERNATIVE 1 - NO PROJECT/NO BUILD ALTERNATIVE 5 -5 5.6 ALTERNATIVE 2 - REDUCED INTENSITY ALTERNATIVE 5 -6 5.7 SUMMARY OF ALL ALTERNATIVES 5 -8 5.8 ENVIRONMENTALLY SUPERIOR ALTERNATIVE 5 -10 P:\CNB23MMT0C 2.doc «06/21102)) ' 6.0 LONG -TERM IMPLICATIONS OF THE PROJECT 6 -1 6.1 SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS THAT CANNOT BE AVOIDED IF THE PROPOSED PROJECT IS IMPLEMENTED 6 -1 6.2 SIGNIFICANT IRREVERSIBLE ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGES THAT WOULD ' BE INVOLVED IN THE PROPOSED PROJECT SHOULD IT BE IMPLEMENTED 6 -1 6.3 GROWTH INDUCING IMPACT OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT 6 -1 7.0 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM 7 -1 7.1 INTRODUCTION 7 -1 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM 7 -2 ' 8.0 LIST OF PREPARERS 8.1 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 8 -1 8 -1 8.2 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. 8 -1 8.3 HUNSAKER & ASSOCIATES 8 -1 ' 8.4 URBAN CROSSROADS 8 -1 9.0 ORGANIZATIONS AND PERSONS CONSULTED 9 -1 10.0 REFERENCES 10 -1 I I I [. I I I I PACNB230\EMT0C 2.doc «06127102» ' FIGURES AND TABLES I FIGURES Figure 3.1: Regional Location 3 -4 Figure 3.2: Local Vicinity 3 -5 Figure 3.3: Surrounding Land Uses 3 -6 Figure 3.4: Conceptual Site Plan 3 -8 Figure 3.5: Elevations 3 -11 Figure 3.6: Interior Plan View 3 -12 IN ■ PACNB230\EIR \TOC 2.doc 4621102)) Figure 3.7: Landscape Plan 3 -13 Figure 4.1.1: Photo Locations 4.1 -14 Figure 4.1.2: View 1 4.1 -15 Figure 4.1.3: View 2 4.1 -16 Figure 4.1.4: View 3 4.1 -17 Figure 4.1.5: View 4 4.1 -18 ' Figure 4.1.6: Figure 4.1.7: View 5 View 6 4.1 -19 4.1 -20 Figure 4.1.8: View 7 4.1 -21 Figure 4.1.9: View 8 4.1 -22 ' Figure 4.1.10: View 9 4.1 -23 Figure 4.1.11: View 10 4.1 -24 Figure 4.1.12: View 11 4.1 -25 ' Figure 4.1.13: View 12 4.1 -26 Figure 4.1.14: View 13 4.1 -27 Figure 4.1.15: View 14 4.1 -28 Figure 4.1.16: View 15 4.1 -29 t Figure 4.1.17: Nighttime Simulations 4.1 -30 Figure 4.3.1: Existing Drainage 4.3 -2 Figure 4.3.2: Proposed Drainage 4.3 -20 Figure 4.4.1: Surrounding Land Uses And Adjacent Residential Communities 4.4 -2 Figure 4.4.2: General Plan Land Use Map 4.4 -4 ' Figure 4.5.1: Figure 4.5.2: Street Map Existing Average Daily Traffic (ADT) Volumes 4.5 -2 4.5 -4 Figure 4.5.3: Existing AM Peak Hour Volumes 4.5 -6 Figure 4.5.4: Existing PM Peak Hour Volumes 4.5 -7 ' Figure 4.5.5: Project AM Peak Hour Volumes 4.5 -11 Figure 4.5.6: Project PM Peak Hour Volumes 4.5 -12 IN ■ PACNB230\EIR \TOC 2.doc 4621102)) 1 1 1 TABLES Table 4.2.A: Health Effects Summary of the Major Criteria Air Pollutants Table 4.2.B: Ambient Air Quality North Coast Orange Air Monitoring Station Table 4.2.C: Ambient Air Quality Standards Table 4.3.D: Water Quality Objectives for Discharges Applicable to Bonita Creek Table 4.5.A: Existing Condition Level of Service Summary Table 4.5.B: Proposed Project Trip Generation Summary Table 4.5.C: One Percent Test — Study Area Intersections Table 4.5.D: One Percent Test for Intersection of Prairie Road at Bonita Canyon Drive Table 4.5.E: Intersection Analysis For Cumulative With Project Conditions P: \CNB230\EIR \TOC 2.doc «0621/0N 4.2 -2 4.2 -8 4.2 -10 4.3 -9 4.5 -5 4.5 -9 4.5 -13 4.5 -15 4.5 -15 v LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT JUNE 1001 CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER DAY SAINTS TEMPLE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ' 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1 ' 1.1 INTRODUCTION/PURPOSE This Executive Summary has been prepared for the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the proposed Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (LDS Church) Temple in the City of Newport Beach (City). This EIR has been prepared to evaluate potential environmental impacts associated with the proposed LDS Church Temple, also referred to herein as the proposed project, in the City of Newport Beach. The City of Newport Beach is the Lead Agency for the environmental review and, ' after the comment/response process, is the certifying agency for the Final EIR (FEIR). An Initial Study, prepared by the City of Newport Beach, indicated that the proposed project may ' have a significant effect on the environment on Aesthetics, Air Quality, Hydrology/Water Quality, Land Use and Traffic /Circulation and that a Focused EIR would be required to more fully evaluate potential adverse environmental impacts that may result from development of the project. All other ' environmental effects were determined to be less than significant or impact and are therefore not included in this EIR. ' As a result, this Focused EIR has been prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 (CEQA), as amended (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.), and the State CEQA Guidelines for Implementation of CEQA (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15000 et seq.). This Focused EIR also complies with the City of Newport Beach's procedures for implementation of CEQA. The purpose of this EIR is to inform decision makers and the general public of any significant adverse ' environmental impacts that may be associated with the planning, construction and operation of the proposed project, and to identify appropriate feasible mitigation measures, project design features and standard conditions of approval that may be adopted to reduce or eliminate these impacts. This ' Focused EIR also includes evaluation of reasonable alternatives to the proposed project, including a No Project/No Build Alternative and a Reduced Intensity Alternative. ' Proposed City Actions. The following actions are contemplated by the City of Newport Beach to implement the proposed project: 1. Certification of the Environmental Impact Report. ' 2. Consideration ofa Use Permit. The proposed project requires consideration of a Use Permit. The project site is located in an area zoned PC #50 (Bonita Canyon Planned Community) and designated Public /Semipublic Sub -Area 7, which allows churches with the issuance of a Use Permit. The applicant is requesting approval of a Use Permit (UP2001 -036) for a place of religious worship and exceedance of the 50 -foot height limit for the construction of a 124 -foot steeple pursuant to Section 20.65.070.G, Exceptions to Height Limits, Churches. 1 PACNJJ230\EIRISwion 1.O.doco0621 10N LEA ASSOCIATES. INC. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT JUNE 3003 CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER DAY SAINTS TEMPLE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ' 3. Adoption of a Mitigation Monitoring Program. ' 4. Consideration of Site Plan Review. The Bonita Canyon Planned Community text requires the approval of a Site Plan Review (SR2001 -004) application for the physical development of the ' site. Road, between MacArthur Boulevard and the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor (State Route 1.2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ' The Temple is planned as a 17,575 square foot building sited in the center of the property, surrounded ' by 5.5 acres of gardens, walkways, and water treatments in the western portion of the project site and parking in the eastern and northeastern perimeters of the site. ' Design of the proposed Temple includes a tiered light- colored earth tone granite building with a steeple, which will be illuminated during evening hours to 11:00 p.m. and between 5:00 a.m. and dawn. The building will be constructed with a two tiered fagade with the maximum height of the ' building at approximately 35 feet. The steeple element of the Temple will be situated on the building at the northern end of the structure. The base of the steeple at its widest point is 32 feet 6 inches wide, and at its narrowest point, at the base of the angel statue, is one foot six inches wide. The steeple at its highest point is 123 feet 9 inches above the finished floor elevation which will be 5'8" above natural grade. Access to the site is currently provided via one driveway with an entrance opposite Prairie Road, off Bonita Canyon Drive. This private driveway provides direct access to Bonita Canyon Drive, which provides access at a signalized intersection to nearby MacArthur Boulevard. MacArthur Boulevard is ' designated a Major Arterial Highway in the vicinity of the project. The project site is designated Governmental, Educational and Institutional facilities in the City General Plan and is located in an area zoned PC #50 (Bonita Canyon Planned Community). This land use category is applied to areas developed with uses that form the physical and social infrastructure of the community and are designated for educational facilities, municipal uses, hospitals and churches. ' The project goal and objectives are described in detail in Chapter 3.0, Project Description. ' 1.3 PROJECT LOCATION AND SITE CHARACTERISTICS The approximately 8.65 acre project site is located in the County of Orange, within the City of ' Newport Beach. The project site is shown in its regional context in Figure 3. 1, Regional Location. The proposed Temple will be located at the northeast comer of Bonita Canyon Drive and Prairie Road, between MacArthur Boulevard and the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor (State Route 73 or SR -73). The site is bounded by Bonita Canyon Drive to the south, the private extension of ' Prairie Road to the west, and open space to the north and east. The project site is located approximately three miles from the Coastal Zone and is at an elevation of approximately 180 feet above mean sea level (msl). The project site is currently vacant, with the exception of the two asphalt parking areas. The project site has been previously cleared and graded. Imported soils are being stored on site from an adjacent P.kCNB2301E1R\Secbon 1.0.doac06 121102» 1 -� ' LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT JUNE 0000 CHURCH OP JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER DAY SAINTS TEMPLE CITY OF NEM.C¢T BEACH ' site. Most of the site consists of a relatively level pad area with a uniform downward gradient towards the northwest and northeast. The topographic elevational differences on the portion of the site to be developed is approximately 15 feet. The topographic high point is in the center of the site at an elevation of approximately 189 feet above mean sea level (msl), and the topographic low is near the northwest comer of the site at an elevation of approximately 174 feet above msl. Ground surface cover throughout the majority of the site consists of a moderate g'r'owth of native weeds and grasses. 1 1.4 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED The analysis in Chapter 5.0, Alternatives to the Proposed Project, discusses two development alternatives to the proposed project: the No Project/No Build Alternative (Alternative 1) and the Reduced Intensity Alternative (Alternative 2). 1.5 AREAS OF CONCERN AND ISSUES TO BE RESOLVED 11 1 The Initial Study identified areas of concern and issues to be examined further in this EIR. These issues include: 1) aesthetics; 2) air quality; 3) hydrology /water quality; 4) land use, and 5) traffic and circulation. This EIR addresses each of these issues and concerns in detail. As detailed in this EIR, the applicant has responded to key environmental issues when designing the project and has incorporated Project Design Features (PDFs), in addition to the standard conditions of approval, to reduce or minimize potential environmental effects of the proposed project. As a result, implementation of the proposed project will not result in significant environmental impacts. Since the proposed project does not result in environmentally significant impacts, the alternatives discussion provides a reasonable range of alternatives to evaluate ways project objectives might be achieved, while further reducing environmental effects. 1.6 POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECT MATRIX The following matrix provides a summary of the projects potential environmental effects, the project design feature (PDF) and/or standard conditions (SC) identified for the project, and the level of significance with PDFs and/or SCs. P: \CN11230\EMSection 1.0.dota06l21/02u 1 1 1 1 1 VFC o_ -1 < �o zq a U 0 V o� w U a U w w O � a r m s � a o°o s N a y N ro C 17 > � ' _ � 3 r F rWz� a o I �� 40 ° Q rz "V I bo UO U q o U O� � O r8 O qqQ N d za o 2 w 2 00 of °a C C ah F C ° ° r_ C ° �'� „ itl bD C U N 7 b D C N yt„ E z 3 .o z �' m � N T N ao a C N N N 0 N° C bb bD z >- s o 2 c y bo .o .m � .m s C a atli c.°_ 3 0 y •m_ > z N i 3> a 0. -00 C° A— 2 o o 0. o °y oEU � s C o o o m W c ra °D 0c oo o N — soo N s C.'O = E ° 0 o o y Rs.= 3 o 0 > E ° - W 'S y o E N y C T y U Q C E .ai N N 'O y bD o N E ; 0. 0 0 ° x—to ° o � o cy o w a V I � \ \j 7}z � \ \� � \ I I I I I I I I \ 4 � / J / J / \ k � k =d \o i (ƒ 0 rz \ \ \ t `Q] \ ) \ \ \ { / k { 2 2 2 2 //\ 2 $ � .773 \} -§ \\ \; $r- ) \ \k `g\ r \]9� ^ \z/ _ �; _ = aaa; _ /] \!a /4\ p_ r / § E ( ) \\\> �j � \ \( }) 3 \- \§ !! -%$r a - \�- 0 $ ( > §2)\) \. /\�\ �0 u]) \ \ƒ\(f 2 // /} / ' Fc_ -me Y � ' 6 � �y0 :oc F fF. 0 . s- �0 Y 0 U 1 U 1 I I 1 0 -' <z I 1 G U C 00 N A C I U C 00 N � I i C U C 00 N A C 0 � b y ODD > G a y E o = V y N U O U tC E ❑ �. v r E 0 H o w 0 w o w °� o c o o a• o �$ c o o o g 0 o 0 ;� o o.o = e0 G U O e0 G M C QD -O E U OA •� OA .� .� 0. 'D .E z a E �•o R z � F z '� fi •o e>'d eUa 'O Y 00 Oto Y •� O -d '9 y G , _ y U y a m +5 E m i 3° o c 3 w Y o o CL rz �. U 3 0.�,� 0.`o R � ca o'to� a°,.a? C0 3 a-Oi R r y N �:.� C i 0 '� 7 OA _� y b0 >' o G d 0 •r, C a at.. r •y �, 0. 0 c` �" c U • N •Y o v ,L� L v d 4, '� y o 0 O b E y U C C 7 O- C E o ed V ctl 7 e0 i7 r R% y_ ate. C a P, oo R 0 0 Ce`d 0 0 on .? m .� 7 o is 0 y aEi .N e- = v =• •IC v p R G. .c ' o Of ort iF 6zi zwi rz .co ' is> Li= f 2`U 0 , s^ zs U a 'o U U I I I ry 0 0 0 c 0 y z m m U U b r Y y y U bo y rn y G 1.. � 1.. y L. Q Q DD oD E Q Q z z d Y O O 'n G O � O� C o 7 Q` e0 e0 as.+ a�. C .._ Q 4. a3+ d p eC7 7 10,0 � U. y y.. of '�-' s "0 � � d � s � V O � • ey0 � v D § V V '`-' O O s A s O O U 3 •C f eV0 y N y m -" j V 'U 'o C ou c o o, E F a F' C5 m o .E 2 c s c c o out a• o (� •C F" F" 'o �,.5 O eC y � E' '� Y via V Q y c• .`+ D.C. O � � U n 0- °4 c c E Imo 3 o C '+-, w O y m y c .? oC_D .Y p`p '�- C m° °c Y m y i in Q zsavo.m> 'v ossoxa°Di�no a h m y y y F- 3. a c ry 0 0 0 c 0 y z m m U ' LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. JUNE 1001 1 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER OAT SAINTS TEMPLE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2.0 INTRODUCTION ' This Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) has been prepared to evaluate environmental impacts that will result from the development of the proposed project, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints LDS Church (LDS Church) Temple, in the City of Newport Beach. The City of ' Newport Beach, designated as the Lead Agency, has the authority for preparation of the DEIR and, after the comment/response process, certification of the Final EIR (FEIR). The City of Newport Beach and relevant Responsible Agencies have the authority to make decisions on discretionary ' actions relating to the development of the proposed project. This EIR is intended to serve as an informational document to be considered by the City of Newport Beach and the Responsible Agencies during deliberations on the proposed project. 2.1 PROJECT DISCRETIONARY ACTIONS 1 I Cl Project implementation will require discretionary approvals from the Lead Agency, the City of Newport Beach. The applicant is requesting approval of a Use Permit (UP2001 -036) for a place of religious worship pursuant to the Bonita Canyon Planned Community test and exceedance of the 50- foot height limit for the construction of a 123 foot 9 inch steeple pursuant to Section 20.65.070.G, Exceptions to Height Limits, Churches. The Bonita Canyon Planned Community text also requires the approval of a Site Plan Review (SR2001 -004) application for the physical development of the site. Proposed project entitlements analyzed in this EIR are fully described in Chapter 3.0, Project Description. 2.2 PURPOSE AND TYPE OF EIR The purpose of this EIR is to inform decision makers and the general public of any significant adverse environmental effects associated with the proposed actions, and to identify appropriate feasible mitigation measures and alternatives that may be adopted to minimize or eliminate these effects. An evaluation of potential project alternatives is included in this EIR, including a No Project/No Build Alternative and a Reduced Intensity Alternative. This EIR has been prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 (CEQA), as amended (Public Resources Code, Section 21000 et seq.), and the State Guidelines for Implementation of CEQA (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15000 et seq.). This EIR also complies with the procedures for implementation of CEQA as required by the City of Newport Beach. The approach of this Focused EIR is described in Section 15179.5(b) of the State CEQA Guidelines. A Focused EIR shall be limited to a discussion of potentially significant effects on the environment P \CNR230\E1R \Smion 2.0.doca06/21/02N 2 -1 1 LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. JUNE 2002 1 1 1 I 1 1 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER DAY SAINTS TEMPLE CITY OF NEWPORT REACH and provides focused analysis on the changes in the environment that would result from development of the proposed project that have the potential to significantly impact the environment. This EIR examines all phases of the project, including. construction and operation of the project. 2.3 INITIAL STUDY AND NOTICE OF PREPARATION On March 11, 2002, a Notice of Preparation (NOP) was distributed by the City of Newport Beach for the proposed project. The State of California Clearinghouse issued a project number for the EIR, SCH No. 2002031048. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15082, the NOP was circulated to the agencies and groups listed in Appendix A for a period of 30 days, during which comments were solicited pertaining to environmental issues/topics that the EIR should evaluate. A summary of the NOP comment letters is provided in Appendix A along with the NOP and each NOP response letter received. Responses to the March 11, 2002, NOP were received from the following: • State of California Agency — Department of Transportation, District 12 • City of Irvine • Environmental Quality Affairs Advisory Committee, City of Newport Beach • Alex and Mary Beth Waniek, Newport Beach, California • David C. Grant, Newport Beach, California • David and Karen Wolf, Newport Beach, California 2.4 EFFECTS FOUND NOT TO BE SIGNIFICANT IN INITIAL STUDY AND NOT DISCUSSED IN DETAIL IN EIR As required by CEQA Guidelines, Section 15128, this EIR must identify effects of the proposed project determined to be insignificant and not discussed in detail in the EIR. The Initial Study pre- pared by the City of Newport Beach (see Appendix A) determined that the following environmental effects of the proposed project will not be significant: • Agricultural Resources • Biological Resources • Cultural Resources • Geology /Soils • Hazards & Hazardous Materials • Noise • Population/Housing • Public Services PACN6230MR \Section 2.0.docn0621102w 2 -2 LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. ENYIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT JUNE 3003 CHURCH OF JESOS CHRIST Of LATTER DAY SAINTS TEMPLE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Recreation • Utilities/Service Systems ' These effects are briefly discussed below along with reasons that these effects were determined not to be significant. For further information and additional discussion, please refer to the Initial Study and ' Notice of Preparation in Appendix A of this EIR. ' Agricultural Resources The project site is located in an urbanized area, and is not used for agricultural purposes. Since on- site agricultural uses are not present and the site is currently used as a parking lot and soil stockpile area, the proposed project does not conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or any use under ' a Williamson Act contract. The project would not result in the conversion of on -site or off -site farmland to a nonagricultural use. Therefore, this issue will not be discussed in the EIR. ' Biological Resources The project site has been previously graded and consists of parking lot, soil stockpiles, and vacant land devoid of habitat. There are no endangered, threatened, or rare species present on the project site and there is no wetlands, riparian habitat, or other habitat that would support sensitive species on the project site. The proposed project will not result in significant impacts to biological resources and this issue will not be discussed in the EIR. 1 Cultural Resources ' There are no historical resources located on the project site. Mass grading of the project site was completed and was monitored by a certified archaeologist, as required by the Mitigation Monitoring Plan developed for the site in 1992. With completion of the salvage and monitoring activities for the ' project site, no additional archaeological or paleontological work is required. Minimal grading, primarily consisting of fill, will be required for the project. Therefore, there is no potential for significant impacts to cultural or paleontological resources and this issue will not be discussed in the ' EIR. Geology /Soils ' The project site is not located within a currently designated Alquist- Priolo Earthquake Fault zone, a liquefaction potential hazard zone, or on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable or become unstable as ' a result of the project. All structures constructed on site will be designed and constructed to resist the effects of seismic ground motions as provided in the 1997 Uniform Building Code (UBC) or updated UBC. Additionally, with adherence to the geotechnical design considerations, site grading and site ' preparation recommendations as detailed in the Geotechnical Report, implementation of the proposed project will not result in significant impacts related to geology and/or soils on the site. Therefore, this issue will not be discussed in the EIR. PACN1123MMMSecuon 2.0.doca0&21 /02,I 2 -3 ' LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT JUNE 20 02 CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER DAY SAINTS TEMPLE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH L 7 Hazards & Hazardous Materials ' The project site is vacant and is not located within one - quarter mile of an existing or proposed school, and is not located within 2 miles of a public or private airport. The proposed Temple will not utilize ' or dispose of any hazardous materials in its typical operations, beyond substances used for landscaping. The project will not interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or evacuation plan. Building plans, including suitable emergency access routes will be reviewed by the City's Fire ' Department to ensure that they meet the Fire Department standards, including building materials, sprinklers, internal fire walls, access for emergency vehicles, and similar issues. This issue will not be discussed in the EIR, ' Mineral Resources ' According to the City's General Plan, there are no mineral resources of regional or Statewide importance within the City of Newport Beach. Therefore, there is no project related significant impact on any mineral resource and this issue will not be discussed in the EIR• 1 Noise 1 1 1 Although there would at times be high intermittent construction noise in the project area during project construction, construction of the project would not significantly affect land uses adjacent to the project site due to the substantial distance between the project site and existing residences. In addition, construction hours would be limited by the Newport Beach Municipal Code that regulates noise associated with construction activities. Long -term noise with project operation would not be substantially higher than the existing levels. Therefore, any potential impact would be short-term, would not be substantial or contribute to cumulatively considerable noise levels and, therefore, is considered less than significant. This issue will not be discussed in the EIR. Population/Housing The Temple is designed to serve existing church members in the surrounding communities. The project does not propose the development of new homes or businesses, and does not require the extension of surrounding infrastructure. There are no impacts related to population and housing and this issue will not be discussed in the EIR. Public Services The proposed Temple is an expansion of the LDS Church use of the adjacent site and is an infill project intended to serve existing church members in the surrounding community. No increase in crime is anticipated and no impacts related to fire protection services would result. The project is not PACNB230TIMSection 2.0.doca06/21 /02u 2 -4 LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT JUNE 200E CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER DAY SAINTS TEMPLE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ' growth inducing and therefore will not contribute to a demand for schools, parks or other public facilities. This issue will not be addressed in the EIR. 1 Recreation ' People utilizing the proposed Temple will be going to the site for the specific purpose of attending religious functions and gathering. An on -site outdoor passive garden areas will serve the passive recreation needs of those attending services. No impacts related to existing parks and recreation facilities will result from the proposed project. This issue will not be analyzed in the EIR. ' Utilities /Service Systems The required infrastructure, including utilities and service systems, are in place adjacent to the project site. The Irvine Ranch Water District will provide water supply and water treatment for the project ' site. Two 24 inch stormwater drains currently serve the site and a 16 inch domestic water line and an eight inch reclaimed water line are currently in place in Bonita Canyon Drive. Private trash contractors will provide solid waste collection service. Southern California Edison will provide electrical power to the project site. The Southern California Gas Company will provide natural gas service to the site. Telephone service will be provided by Pacific Bell, and cable service will be provided by Cox Cable. This issue will not be discussed in the EIR. 2.5 EFFECTS DETERMINED NOT TO BE SIGNIFICANT ' As detailed in this EIR, the applicant has responded to key environmental issues when designing the project and has incorporated Project Design Features (PDFs), in addition to the standard conditions of approval, to reduce or minimize potential environmental effects of the proposed project. As a result, ' implementation of the proposed project will not result in significant environmental impacts to Aesthetics, Air Quality, Hydrology/Water Quality, Land Use, or Traffic /Circulation. 2.6 SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS The proposed project will not result in any significant and unavoidable impacts. 2.7 FORMAT OF EIR Chapter 1.0 - Executive Summary Chapter 1.0 contains the Executive Summary of the EIR document, listing potential project effects, mitigation measures, project design features and standard conditions that have been recommended to ' reduce or minimize potential significant environmental impacts of the proposed project, and the level of significance of each impact. The summary is presented in a matrix (tabular) format. PACNB230XEMSection2.0AM 0621/02» 2 -5 LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT JUNE 2002 CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER DAY SAINTS TEMPLE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ' Chapter 2.0 - Introduction Chapter 2.0 contains a discussion of the required discretionary actions, purpose and intended use of ' the EIlt, background on the Initial Study and Notice of Preparation, as well as the document's format. A summary discussion of effects found not to be significant is also included in this chapter. ' Chapter 3.0 - Project Description Chapter 3.0 includes discussions of the project's geographical setting, background information on the ' site's prior uses, and the project's goals, objectives, characteristics, and components. ' Chapter 4.0 - Existing Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures Chapter 4.0 includes an analysis of the project's environmental impacts. It is organized into topical sections, including Aesthetics, Air Quality, Hydrology/Water Quality, Land Use, and Transportation/ ' Traffic. The environmental conditions discussions in Chapter 4.0, describe the "existing environmental setting" of the environment on the project site, and in the vicinity of the site, as it pertains tothe environmental issues being analyzed (Section 15125 of the CEQA Guidelines). The project impact discussions identify and focus on the significant environmental effects of the proposed project. The direct and indirect significant effects of the project on the environment are identified and described, ' giving due consideration to both the short-term and long -term effects as necessary (Section 15126.2[a] of the CEQA Guidelines). ' Cumulative impacts are based on the build out of the project and the surrounding area, including all other known projects in the surrounding area. t The discussions of mitigation measures identify and describe feasible measures that could minimize or lessen significant adverse impacts for each significant environmental effect identified in the EIR (Section 15126[c] of the CEQA Guidelines). The level of significance after mitigation is reported in each section. Unavoidable adverse effects are identified where mitigation is not expected to reduce the effects to insignificant levels. ' Chapter 5.0 - Alternatives to the Proposed Project In accordance with CEQA, the alternatives discussion in Chapter 5.0 describes a reasonable range of alternatives that could feasibly attain the basic objectives of the project, and that are capable of eliminating any significant adverse environmental effects or reducing them to a level of insignificance. Alternatives analyzed in the Chapter 5.0 include: No Project/No Build Alternative and a Reduced Intensity Alternative. ' Chapter 6.0 - Long -Term Implications of the Project Chapter 6.0 includes CEQA mandated discussions required by Section 15126 of the CEQA Guidelines, including a) significant environmental effects that cannot be avoided if the proposed PACNB230\EIR \SEEttion 20.dw ,0621102* 2 -6 1 LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT JUNE SBBS CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER DAY SAINTS TEMPLE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH project is implemented, significant irreversible environmental changes that would result from implementation of the proposed project, and the growth inducing impacts of the proposed project. ' Chapter 7.0 - Inventory of Mitigation Measures/Mitigation Monitoring Program Chapter 7.0 provides a listing of all proposed Project Design Features (PDFs), Project Conditions ' (PCs), and Mitigation Measures (MMs), defines the party responsible for implementation of the PDFs, PCs, and MMs, and identifies the timing for the implementation of each control measure. Chapters 8.0, 9.0, and 10.0 ' Chapters 8.0, 9.0, and 10.0 provide the organizations and persons contacted during preparation of the EIR, a list of the EIR preparers and technical report authors and other experts included in preparation of the EIR, plus a list of references used in this EIR. ' Appendices to the EIR are as follows: Appendix A — Notice Of Preparation/Initial Study Appendix B — Air Quality Model Data Appendix C — Hydrology Analysis Appendix D — Traffic Study 1 Appendix E — Lighting Study(s) Appendix F — Lloyd E. Platt Associates Methodology ' Appendix G — Konsortium 1 Letter 1 1 1 I 2.7 INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE Section 15150 of the CEQA Guidelines permits an EIR to incorporate by reference documents that provide relevant data. The documents below are hereby incorporated by reference, and the pertinent material is summarized throughout this EIR, where information is relevant to the analysis of impact of the proposed project. All documents incorporated by reference are available for review at the City of Newport Beach, attention: Mr. James Campbell, Senior Planner, City of Newport Beach, Planning Department, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, CA 92658. • City of Newport Beach General Plan Land Use Element, 1998. • City of Newport Beach General Plan Recreation and Open Space Element, 1998. • City of Newport Beach Municipal Code. • Bonita Canyon Planned Community Text, 1997. P1CN82300R \Section 2.0.docu06121 /0N 2 -7 ' LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT JUNE 2002 CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER DAY SAINTS TEMPLE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH fl ' 3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ' 3.1 INTRODUCTION ' The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (LDS) proposes to construct and operate a Temple in the City of Newport Beach (City). Under the requirements of the California Environmental Quality ' Act (CEQA) and its Guidelines, the City is the Lead Agency for environmental review and must evaluate the potentially significant environmental effects of the proposed Temple. Based on an initial review of the draft Initial Study prepared for the project, the City determined that a Focused ' Environmental Impact Report (EIR) must be prepared to assess the proposed project's effects on the environment, to identify potentially significant impacts, and to identify feasible mitigation measures to reduce or eliminate potentially significant environmental impacts. Topics to be discussed in the EIR include Aesthetics, Air Quality, Hydrology and Water Quality, Land Use, ' and Transportation/Circulation. ' This section of the EIR provides a thorough description of the proposed LDS Temple and the governmental actions necessary to carry out construction of the project. The analysis of project impacts in Section 4.0 of this EIR is based upon the description of the proposed LDS Temple ' provided in this section. 3.2 PROJECT LOCATION ' The approximately 8.65 acre project site is located in the County of Orange, within the City of Newport Beach. The project site is shown in its regional context in Figure 3. 1, Regional Location. The proposed Temple will be located at the northeast comer of Bonita Canyon Drive and Prairie Road, between MacArthur Boulevard and the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor (State Route 73 or SR -73). The site is bounded by Bonita Canyon Drive to the south, the private extension of Prairie Road to the west, and open space to the north and east. The project site is located approximately three miles from the Coastal Zone and is at an elevation of approximately 180 feet above mean sea level (msl). The project site is shown in its local setting in Figure 3.2, Local Vicinity. The project site is situated in the northern portion of the City in an area with urban development that ranges from residential development at densities of 3.3 to 6.6 dwelling units per acre to commercial, institutional, public parks, and open space land uses. Several churches currently exist or are planned for development in the vicinity of the project site. Single family homes in the Bonita Canyon Village development are located northwest and west of the site approximately 620 and 900 feet, respectively. Bonita Canyon Sports Park is approximately 200 feet southwest of the project site, across from Bonita Canyon Drive, and Saint Matthews Church, which is currently under construction, is approximately 150 feet from the project site located at the southeast comer of Bonita Canyon Drive and Prairie Road. A developmental pre - school is located south of Bonita Canyon Drive approximately 200 feet from the project site. The existing LDS Church Stake Center is located west of the project site across the main entrance driveway (an extension of Prairie Road). Surrounding land uses are shown in Figure 3.3. P:\CNB230MR\Secdon 3.0 R06/2I/02» 3 -1 I '6e -R Creek, 7 PROJECT LOCATION A 2 N.' j - ;47 0 1 L S A 0 00o Mo 1 M FFFT SOURCE: USGS 7.5' QUADS, TUSTIN& LAGUNA BEACH, CALIF. II:1CNB110\L..tio.,.& (2/51021 Ql" .. -..- PROJECT I Ne- LOCATION L I I`` L I'm FIGURE 3.1 Newport Beach Temple Regional Location I I 1 I 1 1 u 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 I I L S A 1� 1 0 500 1000 FF}T 1 L1CNB230\SWWMap,c*,621 /02) FIGURE 3.2 Newport Beath Temple Local Vicinity w i. Jtr Y r. t I c� w cc (C CD i Y G 'A t . ♦ ...$. ID z �i7 ' Fl V . • � •�1Ay di .�.�,•{ :S. -� �. 7TH` O ew j .. i ... may' • .w 1 !\ S z a �f PACN8230\BMSeaion 3 0 x0621/02» 3 -5 LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT JUNE 2002 CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER DAY SAINTS TEMPLE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH North of the project site is the Bonita Canyon Dam/Reservoir and scrub covered open space. The dam acts as a flood control retention basin and stores surface water runoff during a storm event. A low flow outlet structure drains the dam reservoir area to prevent the dam from maintaining a permanent pool of water. Storage capacity of Bonita Canyon Dam is approximately 15 acre-feet and, therefore, does not meet the minimum standards of a jurisdictional dam. Beyond the northern boundary of the site is a maintenance access road for dam maintenance and/or repairs. 3.3 PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS The Temple is planned as a 17,575 square foot building sited in the center of the property, surrounded by approximately 5.5 acres of gardens, walkways, and water treatments in the western portion of the project site and parking in the eastern and northeastern perimeters of the site. Referto Figure 3.4, tConceptual Site Plan. It is noted that the Church maintains a separate stake center, or "meeting house," directly adjacent to the proposed Temple site. For comparison, the proposed Temple building is approximately 40 percent, or 10,925 square feet, smaller than the existing stake center. The steeple on the existing stake center is 86 feet from floor elevation to its peak, and the Temple's steeple would be 123'9" from the finished floor level. The finished floor will be approximately 5 -8 feet above the ' existing grade. The proposed Temple functions in concert with the adjacent stake center, however, operations at each facility are distinctly separate. The Temple and the stake center will share parking and will utilize the same main access road. 3.3.1 Operational Characteristics The operational characteristics of an LDS church are very different from religious observances or places of worship. The Temple is a place for individual worship rather than group worship, and it is closed on Sundays when the Church's regular meetinghouses are at peak utilization. In a Temple, qualified Church members participate in the Church's most sacred ceremonies, which they believe can join families to God and to each other forever. These include eternal marriage (or "sealing ") and instructional ceremonies followed by an informal small group gathering or individual meditation in "Celestial "). 1 the Temple's largest lobby (or Room After receiving these ceremonies for themselves, members are encouraged to return as often as feasible to serve as living proxies on behalf of forbears who have died without receiving these ordinances. The above functions are in contrast to the large group activities held in other Church buildings like the adjacent stake center. These activities include regular Sunday worship services, Sunday school classes, and other age group organizations, weekly youth activity nights, adult leadership or administrative meetings and periodic women's meetings, college student classes and activities, athletic competitions, dances, wedding receptions, and other social or physical activities. In addition, there are regular weekday early morning scripture study classes for high school students. Twice each year "Stake Conferences" are held at the stake center, including music and talks by stake and general Church leaders. These are the Church's largest local worship services and are attended by approximately 1,000 members and friends each time. At present, the Newport Beach Stake consists ' of approximately 3,400 members. PACN8230\BMSeaion 3 0 x0621/02» 3 -5 `1 ■ � 1 kill I �t1 IV I 1 �• � fie. •. ';���11�, � � sue,✓ *ci • �� tIihli �� - �I� 5 1� 1 v RR I d 0 J � c e > M a ] o cn � w w d 0 J � c e > M ' LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT JUNE 1001 CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER DAY SAINTS TEMPLE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH The interior portion of the Temple consists of two instruction rooms with fixed seating for 48 persons, although it is anticipated that these rooms will not be completely filled for every session. This instruction lasts about 90 minutes, followed by informal small -group gatherings and individual meditation of indefinite duration in the Celestial Room. There are also three sealing rooms for performing marriage (or "sealing ") ceremonies, which may last from approximately 30 to 90 minutes. All of these rooms have high ceilings and carpets, drapes, fixtures, furnishings, and artwork of fine quality and workmanship. Besides certain mechanical equipment areas, the only significant facility located on a lower floor is a portion of the baptistry. This is used to perform baptisms by living proxies on behalf of forbears who have died without receiving this ordinance. A baptismal session for deceased persons lasts from 30 to 90 minutes. These sealings and baptisms are normally small, quiet ceremonies attended by immediate family and close personal friends who are qualified members of the Church in good standing. A typical wedding or sealing would involve approximately 10 to 30 persons, and a baptism would involve approximately 5 to 20 persons. Wedding receptions, which i may be attended by several hundred members and non - members alike, would take place in the adjacent stake center or in private homes, hotels, or other local reception facilities. I I I 1 I Other rooms in the Temple include offices, waiting areas, men's and women's dressing areas, storage areas, a laundry, bathrooms, closets and a mechanical room for air conditioning and heating (nor installed on the roof). Most rooms in the Temple are utilized in a sequential fashion, so that all rooms are not in use at the same time. Administrative staff for the Temple will include approximately 10 to 20 volunteers at a given time. They welcome and escort visiting members, perform religious services, and provide physical and business services such as grounds maintenance and bookkeeping, as needed. The Temple will be open Tuesday through Saturday with hours of operation that may range from approximately 5:00 a.m. to approximately 11:00 p.m. Activities will occur throughout the day; however, it is anticipated that Friday evenings and Saturday mornings will be the busiest times for Temple activities. It should be noted that no special event, i.e., "holiday lighting" activities are proposed for the Temple at this time. 33.2 Attendance and Projected Growth Each Temple is established to serve a "Temple District," consisting of several stakes. The LDS Church is geographically organized into stakes typically comprising between 2,500 and 6,000 members. The anticipated district for this Temple may include all 15 stakes in Orange County, although that will not be definitely confirmed until after Temple construction has commenced and before completion. There are approximately 48,000 members in Orange County. These are geographically distributed, but the largest concentration is in the South County area. Of the total membership, only about 20 percent are expected to be qualified as members in good standing with the LDS Church as persons entitled to attend any Temple, at their discretion. Total Church membership in Orange County is expected to exceed 50,000 at or about completion of the Temple. There is no statistical data available to enable projections beyond that time. PACNB2301E1RlSwion 3.0 «0621/02. 3 -7 ' L5A ASSOCIATES. INC. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT JUNE 2002 CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER DAY SAINTS TEMPLE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ' 33.3 Design Characteristics 0 ' Temple Exterior. The proposed Temple will be constructed as a two-tiered fagade, with a single steeple at the north end of the building. The height of the first parapet is 21.5 feet; the second parapet is at 32.75 feet and 35 feet above the finished floor of the Temple on the north and south ends, ' respectively; and the steeple at its highest point is approximately 123.75 feet above the finished ground elevation. The exterior of the building will be constructed with textured non - reflective light colored earth tone granite. Along the lower 30 inches of the building, the same colored polished granite will be used to provide a wainscoting effect. To further articulate the building fagade, a band of vertically scored granite runs along the upper edge of each parapet. Within the building fagade are a series of arched alcoves, some of which have art-glass and others clear windows. Atop the steeple, the statue will be finished in gold leaf. The Temple steeple is a symbolic architectural connection ' with the infinite; it must be high enough to be visible at a distance that identifies the Temple as a source of the Church's highest and holiest blessings. Figure 3.5 provides elevations of the Temple. tTemple Interior. The Temple contains approximately 15,625 square feet of interior space, with 14,962.7 square feet on the main floor and 662.5 square feet on the lower floor, comprised of the ' baptistery and mechanical rooms. The overall footprint of the building is approximately 208 feet x 110 feet. Spaces within the Temple are arranged to reflect the various activities described above. Areas within the Temple facility include instructional rooms, sealing rooms, baptismal area, waiting ' areas, men's and women's dressing areas, storage areas, bathrooms, closets, a laundry, a serving area, and administrative offices. Figure 3.6 provides the interior plan view of the Temple facility. Temple Surrounds/Landscaping. The proposed landscaping plan provides a variety of trees, shrubs, and vines along Bonita Canyon Drive and along the eastern and northern perimeters of the site. Additionally, clusters of mature landscaping will be provided in the northwest perimeter of the ' site to provide screening to residents of the Bonita Canyon Village development. The entry court to the north of the Temple entrance provides a landscaped courtyard extending along the perimeter of the Temple building. Rows of cypress trees will radiate outward from the Temple. Additionally, a ' buffer of planted pines will surround the property. Concrete pathways will provide circulation within the garden area and a connection to the adjacent Stake Center. A linear waterway connecting to an accent water feature is proposed in the western area of the garden. Figure 3.7, Landscape Plan, ' provides a plan view of the proposed landscaping including a plant palette. J I t In the Church's theology, according to the Official Statement, the statue atop the steeple represents an angelic messenger who helped to restore the gospel of Jesus Christ through Joseph Smith. It is reflective of the statement in Revelation 14:6: "And I saw another angel fly in the midst ojheaven, having the everlasting gospel to preach unto them that dwell on the earth, and to every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people." 2 Text from Official Statement of Temple Steeples and Lighting as Religious Symbols, prepared by the LDS Church, dated January 28, 2002. P: \CNB230\EIR\Section 3.0 «062M2), 3 -8 j \ � m � /\ % t aQ { » \ tk )\ \ �\ �) | � | [ | � 2 � LU ' - z - _ I L ) | ƒ ' I � � ) � � | — ! | a .. | \� | ui co § | � 2 o 2 � ? ( - « k 7! L LU | u LU LU 0 - 2 0 2! 2§ P. «| U �§ ' t § � \ � j \ � m � /\ % t aQ { » \ tk )\ \ �\ �) ►'f�l €, fe Ill., llol LGVI) oso r- ' LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT JUNE 9009 CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER DAY SAINTS TEMPLE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH I El 1 Cl I i 1 1 I i An approximately six foot high black tubular steel fence will enclose the active use areas of the Temple facility. This will supplement the security fence now separating the Temple site from the adjacent open space reserve area. Two access gates will be located in the garden area, and an additional access gate will be located at the interior access road. These gates will be open during regular Temple hours, and the garden area gates will be open during daylight hours on most Sundays for use and enjoyment by members attending Sunday worship services at the stake center and by visiting guests. The Temple facility includes 152 striped parking spaces. Temple Lighting. In accordance with Church tradition, the exterior of the Temple facility will be lighted. The Temple's exterior lighting system includes the following illumination categories: landscape elements, the building fagade, the building tower, and the angle figure. Security lighting will also be provided and includes four additional illumination categories: the roadway, parking lot, pedestrian pathways and property perimeter. The architectural lighting system plays a vital role in the expression of the Temple's religious symbolism. An ascending hierarchy of lighting levels is exhibited from the lower fagade progressively upward to the angel figure at the top of the tower. All lighting fixtures will be carefully aimed to only illuminate the landscape or low -level architectural surfaces, thus eliminating the light trespass into adjacent properties and reducing any `light pollution" into the night sky. Hours of illumination for the Temple will generally extend from 5:00 a.m. to dawn and from dusk to 11:00 p.m. Security lighting will extend from dusk to dawn. 33.4 Proposed City Actions The following actions are contemplated by the City of Newport Beach to implement the proposed LDS Temple: 1. Certification of the Environmental Impact Report. 2. Adoption of a Mitigation Monitoring Program. 3. Approval of Use Permit (UP2001 -036) for a place of religious worship and exceedance of the 50 foot height limit for the construction of a 124 foot steeple pursuant to Section 20.65.070.G, Exceptions to Height Limits, Churches. 4. Site Plan Review (SR2001 -004) application for the physical development of the site. 3.4 PROTECT DESIGN FEATURES The impact analyses in this EIR examine the proposed project as set forth by the LDS. This document includes specific design proposals of the applicant that have been incorporated into the proposed project to reduce its potential environmental effects. These design components are referred to in this EIR as "project design features" (PDFs). PACN11230\E1R\Section 3,0,(06/21102o 3 -12 ' LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT JUNE 2002 CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER DAY SAINTS TEMPLE CITY OF NEWPORT EEACH 1 The PDFs that apply to each environmental topic are listed in each section of Chapter 4.0. These features avoid or reduce impacts. Because these features are part of the project design, they do not constitute additional mitigation measures. In order to ensure accountability for implementation, the ' PDFs specify timing mechanisms, responsible parties, and other components, as appropriate. The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, when adopted with the Final EIR, will include specific implementation components, similar to mitigation measures, for each PDF. Each PDF will ' be included in Chapter 7.0, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP). ' 3.5 PROJECT CONDITIONS AND MITIGATION MEASURES In addition to the PDFs, the EIR specifies Project Conditions (PC) and additional mitigation measures for reduction of project impacts, if applicable. Project Conditions include compliance with State, federal, and/or local agency environmental regulation requirements that are frequently required independent of CEQA review, but that can also apply to offset or prevent specific impacts. Typical conditions include the Uniform Building Code, South Coast Air Quality Management District Rules ' 401, 403, etc., and other standard measures for development projects. Many of the Project Conditions are derived from the City's Standard Conditions of Approval. When utilized, the City's Standard Conditions have been modified to relate directly to Project Conditions and site conditions. ' The Project Design Features and Project Conditions identified in this EIR shall be imposed on the ' project and shall carry the same weight as the mitigation measures. As such, the project design ' features, project conditions, and mitigation measures are all included in the MMRP. Project specific mitigation measures are also prescribed as necessary to further mitigate project impacts beyond that provided by the PDFs and Project Conditions. There are not always applicable ' Project Conditions for each environmental effect of the project. For those impacts with no Project Conditions, mitigation measures in combination with PDFs will be implemented to reduce significant project impacts to the maximum extent possible. Each section of Chapter 4.0 provides a conclusion ' as to whether the project impacts are or are not reduced to below the level of significance with imple- mentation of a combination of PDFs, Project Conditions, an ' 3.6 PROJECT OBJECTIVES d mitigation measures Pursuant to Section 15 124 of the CEQA Guidelines, the description of the proposed project shall ' contain a statement of the objectives sought by the project applicant. The proposed Temple has been sited at this location in order to achieve several objectives. Each objective is stated below with a brief discussion to support the intent of the objective. • To provide safe and convenient access by proximity to primary regional highways, thereby encouraging its frequent usage by members who are qualified to receive their own holy Temple ceremonies and to provide similar benefits to others through repeated proxy service. The LDS Church purchased the property in 1992 as a place of holy worship for its members. ' Among site attributes that the Church found favorable were its size, topographic prominence, compatible neighboring uses, and accessibility to a well - planned transportation system. Since that time, the SR -73 San Joaquin Hills Toll Road has been built, along with Bonita Canyon Drive 1 P:\CNB230\EIR\s=son 3.0 R0621/02>, 3 -13 ' LSA OCIATES. INC. ENYIRONNENTAL IMPACT REPORT JUNE ASS ROOK CHURCH Of JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER DAY SAINTS TEMPLE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH and Newport Coast Drive as arterial highways. The project site's accessibility to these nearby regional highways enhances accessibility to the site for Church members living in fast - growing South Orange County and other coastal communities south or east of the site. Mac Arthur ' Boulevard, Jamboree Road, and other City streets are available for members coming from areas north and west to visit the Temple. ' Temple lighting is another symbol of the Church's theology. The Official Statement further states that Temple illumination reflects the statement of Jesus Christ that: "I am the light of the world. He that followeth me shall not walk in darkness" (John 8:12). There is an ascendancy of ' lighting, as intensity levels progressively increase farther up the building. The Church's official policy is that "the steeple should be kept illuminated during all normal operating hours, which may continue as late as 11:00 p.m." P:\CNB230\EIR \Section 3.0 .06/21/02>> 3-14 Proximity of the Newport Beach Temple to a large concentration of active, qualified adult members residing in Orange County should increase the frequency of return visits. The frequency of member visits to a Temple is generally proportionate to the driving time required. Although no specific survey data is available, experience at existing Temples indicates that ' members who reside within an hour's driving time visit the Temple an average of once or more per month, while members living much farther away may visit only one to two times annually, if at all. This is because of the time commitment required to complete a normal Temple experience, along with other difficulties associated with increasing traffic congestion. A Temple visit is regarded as a special occasion, uniquely different from other religious observances. As indicated above, the volume of Temple work expected to be done for deceased persons, drawing upon the genealogical research performed in various of the Church's Family History Centers located in Orange County and elsewhere, is one of the principal reasons for the ' Newport Beach Temple being built. • To provide a highly visible site and a distinctive Temple with a steeple sufficiently high and illuminated to be seen from a substantial distance, as a pinnacle of the faith and the source of perceived eternal blessings to the faithful. Consistent with Church guidelines, a Temple should be built so that the architecture impresses ' upon members coming to the Temple the high and holy nature of the experiences that occur inside. According to the Church's Official Statement of Temple Steeples and Lighting as Religious Symbols dated January 28, 2002: "Church members believe that the location and design of Temples are revealed by God to the president of the Church, whom members regard as a prophet. Thus, "greater emphasis is placed on the aesthetic beauty, serenity and design of Temples than any other Church facility." ' The steeple is considered to be "a symbolic architectural connection with the infinite, embodying the value of upward ascendancy. It must be high enough to be visible at a distance which identifies the Temple as a source of eternal blessings available to the faithful." Both literally and ' figuratively, the Temple is regarded as an earthly pinnacle of faith, intended "to exalt and enlighten the human soul." Ezra Taft Benson, a recent Church president, is quoted as saying: "..spires are symbolic of how our lives ought to be ever moving upward toward God." After visiting this site, the Church's president has specified or approved the Temple's design, including its proposed steeple height in relation to the overall building dimensions and other site features. ' Temple lighting is another symbol of the Church's theology. The Official Statement further states that Temple illumination reflects the statement of Jesus Christ that: "I am the light of the world. He that followeth me shall not walk in darkness" (John 8:12). There is an ascendancy of ' lighting, as intensity levels progressively increase farther up the building. The Church's official policy is that "the steeple should be kept illuminated during all normal operating hours, which may continue as late as 11:00 p.m." P:\CNB230\EIR \Section 3.0 .06/21/02>> 3-14 ' LEA A9EOCIATEE. INC. JUNE 3003 d 1 1 1 1 I 11 J ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER DAY SAINTS TEMPLE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH • To provide a tranquil setting for a Temple of fine workmanship and materials as a neighborhood enhancement, but separated and buffered from surrounding properties out of regard for the sensitivities of residents therein. The Church has made several accommodations to increase the Temple's compatibility with surrounding residential areas, out of regard for its most visible neighbors. Among other things, the intensity levels and hours of building illumination have been reduced. For architectural reasons, the Church reduced the steeple by approximately seven feet (seven percent) and its surface mass by a total of 18 percent. The exterior building material color will be a warm earth tone, rather than white or off -white typically associated with Temple construction. The primary site access route has been redesigned so as to direct oncoming vehicle headlights away from residences and toward the Temple. In addition to the extensive and mature landscaping already proposed, specific massed plantings are proposed as further buffer between the nearest residential units and the Temple. Among the neighborhood enhancements is the reduced size of the building and increased landscaped areas. After the Church's initial acquisition, this site was enlarged to 8 -1/2 acres with the original intent of constructing a much larger Temple. The Declaration of Special Land Use Restrictions, as amended by The Irvine Company on June 25, 1993, specifically entitles the Church to build facilities of up to 105,000 square feet in size. However, the First Presidency of the Church announced in April, 2001, that one of the smaller Temples would be built on this site, much smaller than had been originally contemplated. The proposed Temple now consists of 17,575 square feet, with a footprint of .4 acre, or 4.7 percent of the total site area. The remaining site area will enable the creation of additional generously landscaped areas, thereby further promoting the quiet serenity required for the Temple environment. Parking will be largely concealed on recessed, landscaped terraces to be situated behind and northeast of the Temple. Included in the nearly six acres of landscaped area surrounding the Temple are several acres of spacious gardens and plantings along the full westerly side of the Temple, to include interconnecting walkways and water treatments. Those areas will be open for public use and enjoyment during normal operating hours. The remaining sides of the Temple site will include extensive plantings of mature palm and pine trees. Although located in the vicinity of existing residential neighborhoods, this site is located at a greater distance from homes than from the adjacent church and civic, retail and service facilities. The existing LDS Stake Center will be approximately 160 feet from the Temple's proposed centerpoint. St. Matthew's Church will be at a distance of 150 feet, and adjoining pre - school facilities will be 200 feet away, both separated from the Temple by Bonita Canyon Drive. Also on the opposite side of that street are the City's extensive sports park facilities, starting at a distance of 200 feet from the Temple. Retail and service facilities lie farther beyond both Bonita Canyon Drive and Ford Road, starting 300 feet from the Temple. In contrast, the nearest houses are over 620 feet from the Temple's centerpoint. In addition, those residences are separated and buffered from the Temple by approximately seven acres of surrounding open space that was once owned and revegetated by the Church before being dedicated in perpetuity to the City of Irvine as a wildlife habitat preserve. To be in full compliance with all governing City guidelines and policies. P1CN1323MIMSection 3.0,(06/21/02D 3 -15 LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT JUNE 2002 CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST Of LATTER DAY SAINTS TEMPLE The project has been designed to comply fully with all City ordinances, objectives, and policies. The Temple has been set back 83 feet from Bonita Canyon Drive, or nearly three times the required minimum 30 foot front yard setback. The rear yard setback (north) of 189 feet and side ' yard setbacks of 291 feet (west) and 379 feet (east) greatly exceed the City's required 10 foot setback in each case. The combined proposed front, rear, and sideyard setbacks of 942 feet exceed the City's combined 60 foot minimums by a multiple of nearly 16. Landscaping of 63 percent gross parcel size exceeds the City's 15 percent minimum requirement. More parking spaces will be provided than the code requires. The project conforms to the City's Traffic Phasing Ordinance by not overburdening any key City intersection. 1 1 [1 1 I 11 As for the Temple itself, both the building size and lot coverage are less than 10 percent of the City's permitted limits. The proposed maximum building height (excluding steeple) of 35 feet is 33 percent lower than the permitted 50 foot height limit applicable to this subarea. Even the steeple is subject to the City's zoning ordinance height exemption for church structures, which may exceed any height limits if a Use Permit is obtained. No variance or other special permit of any kind is required for the steeple. 3.7 RESPONSIBLE AND TRUSTEE AGENCIES According to Sections 15050 and 15367 of the State's CEQA Guidelines, the City has been designated as the Lead Agency. Responsible agencies are those agencies that have discretionary approval over one or more actions involved with the development of a proposed project. Trustee agencies are State agencies having discretionary approval or jurisdiction by law over natural resources affected by a proposed project that are held in trust of the people of the State of California. No potential responsible and trustee agencies have been identified as of the preparation of this DEIR. 3.8 INTENDED USES OF THE DEIR The purpose of this EIR is to analyze the proposed development and activities described in the Project Description, Section 3.0, and is intended to apply to all listed project approvals as well as to any other approvals necessary or desirable to implement the project. This EIR is intended to inform decision makers and the public of the environmental effects of implementing the proposed project, and of the alteratives available that lessen or avoid significant impacts. This EIR analyzes and documents the impacts of the proposed LDS Temple project and all discretionary and ministerial actions associated with the project. The City of Newport Beach, as Lead Agency, will use this EIR in assessing the effects of the City actions detailed above. P: \CNB230\E1R\S=ttion 3.0.0621/02,, 3-16 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH The project has been designed to comply fully with all City ordinances, objectives, and policies. The Temple has been set back 83 feet from Bonita Canyon Drive, or nearly three times the required minimum 30 foot front yard setback. The rear yard setback (north) of 189 feet and side ' yard setbacks of 291 feet (west) and 379 feet (east) greatly exceed the City's required 10 foot setback in each case. The combined proposed front, rear, and sideyard setbacks of 942 feet exceed the City's combined 60 foot minimums by a multiple of nearly 16. Landscaping of 63 percent gross parcel size exceeds the City's 15 percent minimum requirement. More parking spaces will be provided than the code requires. The project conforms to the City's Traffic Phasing Ordinance by not overburdening any key City intersection. 1 1 [1 1 I 11 As for the Temple itself, both the building size and lot coverage are less than 10 percent of the City's permitted limits. The proposed maximum building height (excluding steeple) of 35 feet is 33 percent lower than the permitted 50 foot height limit applicable to this subarea. Even the steeple is subject to the City's zoning ordinance height exemption for church structures, which may exceed any height limits if a Use Permit is obtained. No variance or other special permit of any kind is required for the steeple. 3.7 RESPONSIBLE AND TRUSTEE AGENCIES According to Sections 15050 and 15367 of the State's CEQA Guidelines, the City has been designated as the Lead Agency. Responsible agencies are those agencies that have discretionary approval over one or more actions involved with the development of a proposed project. Trustee agencies are State agencies having discretionary approval or jurisdiction by law over natural resources affected by a proposed project that are held in trust of the people of the State of California. No potential responsible and trustee agencies have been identified as of the preparation of this DEIR. 3.8 INTENDED USES OF THE DEIR The purpose of this EIR is to analyze the proposed development and activities described in the Project Description, Section 3.0, and is intended to apply to all listed project approvals as well as to any other approvals necessary or desirable to implement the project. This EIR is intended to inform decision makers and the public of the environmental effects of implementing the proposed project, and of the alteratives available that lessen or avoid significant impacts. This EIR analyzes and documents the impacts of the proposed LDS Temple project and all discretionary and ministerial actions associated with the project. The City of Newport Beach, as Lead Agency, will use this EIR in assessing the effects of the City actions detailed above. P: \CNB230\E1R\S=ttion 3.0.0621/02,, 3-16 ' LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT JUNE 3003 CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER DAY SAINTS TEMPLE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 1 4.1 AESTHETICS The purpose of this visual aesthetic analysis is to establish the predominant visual characteristics of the project area, to describe existing views of the project site and the area beyond the site, and to evaluate the impact of the proposed project on these views. In order to complete this analysis, ' photographic simulations have been utilized. Aesthetic impacts must be considered in the CEQA analysis. However, such impacts are not necessarily significant unless the impact exceeds some threshold of significance. Impacts to ' designated scenic vistas are considered significant in the City of Newport Beach when protected public vistas are impacted. Impacts to private views are considered, but there is no threshold ' established to determine whether or not an effect on private views is significant. Any issue of aesthetic impact, especially an aesthetic impact to a view, tends to be subjective. Different individuals will have different opinions about aesthetics and visual impacts. However, the analysis in this section follows the requirements of CEQA, which focuses on an evaluation of evidence ' concerning the physical environment as measured against specific thresholds. ' 4.1.1 EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING The following discussion provides the existing visual context of the project site. The existing visual context in and around the project site is defined by on -site and off -site features and the various views from particular vantage points (i.e., "viewsheds ") that encompass those features. On -site and off -site aesthetic resources consist of both natural and urban elements occurring within the context of the existing land uses. 4.1.1.1 Project Site Conditions The project site is currently vacant of any structures. Elevations on the project site range from approximately 174 feet above mean sea level (amsl) to approximately 189 feet amsl, with a downward gradient towards the northwest and northeast. There is no unique or native vegetation on ' the site and the site has been previously graded. Two asphalt/concrete paved areas are located in the northern and western portions of the site and serve as overflow parking for the adjacent LDS Stake Center. Portions of the site have soil stockpiles. 1 4.1.1.2 Surrounding Visual Characteristics ' The project site is located approximately two miles inland of the Pacific Ocean, near the base of the San Joaquin Hills. The general area is characterized by the gently sloping San Joaquin Hills surrounding the project site, with some levels areas, that have been or are currently being developed. ' Development is also occurring in the hillsides southeast of the project site in the Newport Ridge residential development area, recently annexed into the City. Areas immediately surrounding the project site are predominately developed with the exception of the designated open space areas of 1 P: %CNB23M1R\See ion 4.1 Am.W21102,, 4.1 -1 ' LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT JUNE 2002 CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER DAY SAINTS TEMPLE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Bonita Creek Channel and the Bonita Creek Reservoir, which abut the project site along its northern and eastern boundary. P: \CNB23MER\Smtion 4. Ldoca06/21102 >, 4.1 -2 The existing LDS Church Stake Center is located immediately west of the project site. The steeple or tower at the Stake Center is approximately 86 feet high. Directly south of the project site is another church facility (Saint Matthews Church, currently under construction) with an approximately 75 foot high steeple. A developmental pre - school is adjacent to and east of Saint Matthews Church. ' Southwest of the site is the Bonita Canyon Sports Park (currently under construction). The sports park will consist of baseball fields, soccer fields, children's play areas, and picnicking areas. Ballfield lighting for the sports park is not planned; however, parking lot lighting and security lighting will be installed. Farther south of the project site is a commercial/retail center. The San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor ( SJHTC) runs northwest to southeast approximately 1,500 feet ' north of the project site. The Bonita Canyon single family residential development is located west and northwest of the project site approximately 620 and 900 feet, respectively. Additional residential development is located on ' the hillsides south and southeast of the project site. 4.1.1.3 Existing Light and Glare Conditions Currently, the site is not a source of light or glare; that is, no adjacent or nearby properties or receptors are exposed to any impacts associated with light and glare from the project site. There are ' no structures or lighting fixtures on the site. Areas south and west of the project site are illuminated by low levels of light and glare from street lighting and from the existing Stake Center parking lot lighting. Commercial and residential land uses, including parking lot lighting and residential street ' lighting, create light and glare sources from the south and the northwest. Areas directly north and east of the site are dark due to their open space condition and topography. The SJHTC is illuminated by roadway lighting. 4.1.2 PROJECT DESIGN ' The Temple is planned as a 17,575 square foot building sited in the center of the property, surrounded by approximately 5.5 acres of gardens, walkways, and water treatments in the western portion of the project site. The steeple element of the Temple will be situated on the building at the northern end of ' the structure. At its highest point the steeple is 123 feet 9 inches above ground elevation. Parking is proposed around the structure in the eastern and northeastern areas of the site. A detailed project description is provided in Section 3.0, Project Description. 4.1.3 SELECTED VIEW LOCATIONS ' Fifteen view locations were selected by the City of Newport Beach as representative of the view potential surrounding the project site. Locations were chosen by the City to best determine the ' potential change in views from the current condition to the proposed setting. P: \CNB23MER\Smtion 4. Ldoca06/21102 >, 4.1 -2 I 1 LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT JUNE 2002 CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER DAY SAINTS TEMPLE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH The fifteen views are grouped and categorized as follows: • West and northwest of the project site from the existing single family residential Bonita Canyon Village neighborhood (two locations). • Southwest of the project site from Bonita Canyon Sports Park (two locations). • South of the project site from the existing single family residential neighborhoods and from the roadways (four locations). • Southeast of the project site from new residential developments along Chambord Avenue (two locations). • Views from public roadways including Bonita Canyon Road (east and west), MacArthur Boulevard (west), and the SJHTC (north) (five locations). The following is a description of the fifteen view locations:) View 1. This view is taken from the Bonita Canyon Village, a single family residential development located west and northwest of the project site. The location of the photo is adjacent to a pathway that borders the easternmost area of the residential development. From this vantage point, the vacant project site is clearly visible, and the existing Stake Center is also clearly visible. The developed hills south of the project site are visible in the background. View 2. This view is taken from within the gated residential development of Bonita Canyon Village, The location of the photo is on Battersea, which provides access into and out of Bonita Canyon Village directly west of the existing Stake Center. The vacant project site is partially visible, and the existing Stake Center is also visible in the foreground and middleground. The hills west of the site are also visible from this vantage point. View 3. This vantage point is from Old Ford Road, south of the Bonita Canyon Sports Park. A portion of backstop fencing from the sports park is visible, as well as Saint Matthews Church, currently under construction. The project site is visible in the center of the view. The SJHTC soundwalls are also visible beyond the project site. The undeveloped hills north of the project site are visible in the background. ' View 4. This view is from Old Ford Road, southwest of the project site. Fencing for the Bonita Canyon Sports Park is visible. Through the fencing, the project site is visible, as well as the existing Stake Center. Background views are of the hills north of the project site. 1 It should be noted that the photographs utilized in the view simulations convey a more focused representation of the existing viewshed when compared to the view a person would witness standing at the location where the photograph was taken. P: 1CNE1230MMSection 4.1.doccM /21/02» I 1 1 1 LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT JUNE SODS CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER DAY SAINTS TEMPLE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH View 5. This view is from Harbor View Knoll, southeast of the project site. Although not visible from this vantage point, the project site is located beyond the residential development in the center of the photo. Existing landscaping obscures surrounding topographical features. View 6. View 6 is taken from south of the project site. The rooftops of the Newport Hills retail and service commercial area are visible as well as its parking lot. The project site, although not entirely visible from this vantage point, is located in the center of the view, beyond Saint Matthew's Church (under construction). Hills north of the project site and the mountains farther north of the site are visible in the background. View 7. This vantage point identifies the roadway, landscaped medians and parkways visible when ' traveling north on San Miguel Drive towards the project site. The project site is not visible from this roadway, but is located in the center of this view. Background views are of the hills and mountains north of the project site. 1 1 1 1 I 1 View 8. This view is of the project site taken from the hillside residential neighborhood south of and above the site. Background views from this vantage point extend to areas of Irvine north of the project site. Existing residential development is visible in the foreground. The project site and the existing Stake Center are visible in the middleground views in addition to the existing soundwalls on the SJHTC. Background views are of the development pattern surrounding the project site. View 9. This vantage point provides the view from southeast of the project site adjacent to Chambord Street. An open space area is visible south of Bonita Canyon Road, and the project site is visible north of Bonita Canyon Road. The existing Bonita Canyon residential development and the existing Stake Center are visible in the middleground. Background views from this vantage point are of the existing development pattern surrounding the project site. View 10. View 10 is from the apartment complex recently constructed on the hill southeast of the project site. Similar to View 9, this vantage point depicts the open space areas south and east of the project site. The existing Stake Center and the existing Bonita Canyon Village development are visible. Background views are of the development pattern surrounding the project site. View 11. This vantage point represents the view from Bonita Canyon Drive looking towards the ' west. Open space areas are located in the foreground adjacent to the existing roadway. The project site is clearly visible in the center of the view, and the existing Stake Center is visible beyond the vacant project site. 1 1 1 View 12. This view is from Bonita Canyon Drive looking east. The existing Stake Center is clearly visible, and the project site is also visible. The landscaped parkway along Bonita Canyon Road is also clearly visible from this view. Background views are of the hills north and northeast of the project site. P: \CNB230\EIR\Section 4.1.dm,(0621 /02)) ' LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT JUNE 2002 CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER DAY SAINTS TEMPLE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH tView 13. Taken from the intersection of Bonita Canyon Road and MacArthur Boulevard, this ' vantage point illustrates the development occurring west of the project site, which includes the Bonita Canyon Village development. The existing steeple of the Stake Center is just visible beyond the residential rooftops. The project site is located beyond the existing Stake Center, although not clearly ' visible from this vantage point. Hills and mountains are visible in the background. View 14. View 14 is from the Bison Road overpass of the SJHTC northwest of the project site in the ' City of Irvine. The SJHTC is visible in the foreground and middleground views. The existing Bonita Canyon Village residential development is visible as well as the existing Stake Center. The vacant project site is also visible. Recently constructed hillside homes, the San Joaquin Reservoir/Dam, and ' existing hillside residential developments are visible in the background views. ' View 15. This view is from the northbound SJHTC, south of Bonita Canyon Drive. This vantage point illustrates the existing residential development occurring west, northeast, and south of the project site. Southbound traffic on the SJHTC is visible as well as the travel lanes for northbound traffic. Bonita Canyon Drive is visible, with the project site located between Bonita Canyon Drive and the existing Bonita Canyon Village residential development. The existing Stake Center is also visible. ' 4.1.2 VIEW PROTECTION POLICIES IN THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH The City of Newport Beach Recreation and Open Space Element, Objective 6, addresses scenic vistas ' and resources in the City. The implementing policies support the provision of view parks and enhanced streetscapes along scenic highways and scenic drives. The Municipal Code of the City of Newport Beach does not contain any provisions to protect private viewsheds. Only public viewsheds ' from public parks, State designated scenic highways, or within the Coastal Zone are afforded some protection by existing City policy. The project site is not within the Coastal Zone. P5CNB230 \EIR\SeC6on 4. Ldo,:46Q I /0d1 4.1.3 PROJECT DESIGN FEATURES /STANDARD CONDITIONS 4.1.3.1 Project Design Features ' The proposed project has designed a variety of features to reduce or eliminate potential impacts to environmental resources. The following Project Design Features (PDF) are assumed when evaluating the characteristics of the proposed project. PDF 1 -1 The exterior of the Temple will be constructed with a textured non - reflective, light colored earth tone granite. The color of the stone is "Salisbury granite," which is a rosy shaded stone with fine grain accents. This color stone was chosen in lieu of a ' light colored stone or white granite, which is typical of Temple buildings. ' PDF 1 -2 Incorporate an extensive palette of mature trees, shrubs, and vines. Additionally, incorporate clusters of mature landscaping along the the northwest perimeter of P5CNB230 \EIR\SeC6on 4. Ldo,:46Q I /0d1 ' LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. ENYIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT JUNE 2002 CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER DAY SAINTS TEMPLE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH t ' project site to provide screening to residents of the Bonita Canyon Village development. PDF 1 -3 Minimize lighting effects by incorporating revisions to the original Lighting Plan, prepared by Heath Engineering Company, based on review and comments by Konsortum 1. Changes reduce the lighting levels for the nighttime lighting of the ' Temple fagade, while maintaining the expression of the Temple's religious symbolism. 1 4.1.3.2 Standard Conditions There are no applicable Standard Conditions. 1 4.1.4 IMPACT SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA The determination of whether an aesthetic impact is significant is subjective, and there is no universally adopted standard or set of criteria for this issue. The impact significance criteria used for this analysis are based primarily on the CEQA Guidelines. The proposed project will have a potentially significant impact if it results in one of the following: • Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings • Create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area Source: CEQA Guidelines Appendix G, Environmental Checklist Form. As stated in the Initial Study prepared for the proposed project, the site does not contain any natural physical features or rock outcrops, and there are no designated scenic resources or historic buildings located within or adjacent to the site. Additionally, no State scenic highways are within view of the ' project site. Therefore, these issues will not be further discussed in this EIR. ' 4.1.5 IMPACTS AND MITIGATION 4.1.5.1 Overview and Methodology The photographic representations depict the before and after project conditions. A total of 15 view simulations were prepared to represent the visual effect of project completion from a variety of perspectives and angles. The photographic simulations were developed from a combination of color ' photographs and a computer generated composite model of the Temple. The visual simulations provide existing and proposed views from selected vantage points that generally encompass the surrounding areas. I A complete discussion of the methodology utilized by Lloyd E. Platt Associates Architects, LC, to prepare the view simulations is provided in Appendix F. PACNB23MEMSeaion 4.1.do: 06 /21/02» ' LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT JUNE 200E CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER DAY SAINTS TEMPLE CITY OF NEWPORT REACH 1 ' View simulations were prepared to provide a "project opening" condition and a "ten year" condition. The project opening condition provides an illustration of the project as it will appear when the Temple is dedicated, with new landscaping planted at project completion. The ten year condition ' depicts the project site as it is anticipated to appear in approximately ten years, with the landscaping having matured and grown over time.1 ' 4.1.4.2 Impacts Determined Be Less to Than Significant Impacts to Scenic Vistas. There are no General Plan or other City designated scenic vistas in the ' immediate vicinity of the site. General Plan Objective 6 — Scenic Vistas and Resources, of the Recreation and Open Space Element — provides the implementing policies of the General Plan for the scenic character of the City. Objective 6 is stated as follows: "Maintain and enhance the scenic ' character of the City." Policy 6.1 — Public Vistas and Scenic Drives, provides for the preservation of view parks as identified in the Recreation and Open Space Plan Map. The policy additionally states the City's intent "to protect and enhance the streetscapes along all scenic highways and scenic drives as identified on the Recreation and Open Space Plan Map." The Recreation and Open Space Plan ' Map does not identify any public vistas, scenic highways, or scenic drives in the vicinity of the project site. The nearest "view park" to the project site is Spyglass Hill Park, located at the comer of Spyglass Hill Road and El Capitan in the Spyglass Hill residential development, approximately one 1 mile south of the site. Due to the distance of this view park from the project site, no impacts will occur to this designated view resource. Because there are no designated public vistas, scenic ' highways, or scenic drives in the vicinity of the project site, the proposed project will not result in an impact to scenic vistas and is therefore consistent with applicable General Plan policies regarding visual resources. ' Impacts to Existing Visual Character or Quality of the Site and Its Surroundings. This analysis will provide a discussion of the general effects expected from implementation of the proposed project ' and the effects of specific view locations surrounding the project site. ' General Aesthetic Effects. The proposed project will convert a vacant property to a developed condition with a Temple, gardens, and parking areas. This conversion will significantly alter the project site by improving its existing condition with a developed use, consistent with the General Plan ' and the Bonita Canyon Planned Community Specific Plan. Development of the project site is essentially an expansion of an existing religious center (LDS Stake Center) and is among other religious and public recreation facilities. With the existing development and development planned or currently under construction, the general aesthetic pattern of development in the area of the project site is established. Compatibility with the visual character of the site was incorporated into the design consideration for ' siting of the building on the property. The overall footprint of the building is 208 feet x 110 feet, with the mass of the building extending up to 35 feet at its maximum height. The building footprint will cover approximately ten percent of the gross area of project site. The front building setback from the ' 1 It should be noted that the ten year condition is an estimated representation of the landscaping on the project site after a ten year period. Actual growth of planted materials may vary. PACNB2301EIR\Sec[ ion 4.I AM46 /21 /0211 4.1-7 i ' LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT JUNE 1001 CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER DAY SAINTS TEMPLE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH L✓ ' property line to Bonita Canyon Drive is 83 feet, nearly three times the required 30 foot setback. The rear yard setback (north) is 189 feet, and side yard setbacks are 291 feet (west) and 379 feet (east), exceeding the City's required setbacks. As a result, the Temple will be situated at substantial ' distances from its property boundaries, while maintaining the aesthetic balance of the Temple design. The steeple element of the Temple will be situated on the building at the northern end of the structure. The base of the steeple at its widest point is 32 feet 6 inches wide, and at its narrowest point, at the base of the angel statue, is one foot six inches wide. The steeple at its highest point is 123 feet 9 ' inches above the finished ground elevation. Views of the steeple from surrounding neighborhoods will not substantially diminish the existing visual character of the areas. Because the steeple, by ' design, is a tapered structural element that diminishes in size as it extends upward, its effects on views and the aesthetic value of the surrounding community is less than significant. The exterior of the Temple will be constructed of warm, light- colored earth tone granite. The color of the stone is "Salisbury granite," which is a rose shaded stone with fine grain accents. This stone is ' designed to be non - reflective and was chosen to blend in with the surrounding community. Similar to the proposed project, much of the recently developed architecture in the surrounding community utilizes light, earth tone building materials, e.g., clay roof tiles, brick, and natural colored stucco. ' In addition to the physical building design considerations to ensure an aesthetically pleasing project, the landscape plan has been carefully crafted to provide a densely planted screen from neighborhoods to the west, north, and south. A dense planting of carrotwood trees, compatible with those already ' growing in the area, is planned along Bonita Canyon Road. The comers of the site entry at Prairie Road are accented with several species of pines, Canary Island date palms, and Ironbark eucalyptus. Along the eastern and northern site edges, pine and other coniferous trees effectively screen much of the site. Italian cypress line the walks through the landscaped, tiered parking lot, and on the western ' side of the Temple, a garden is planned with meandering walkways through flowering trees and shrubs to the central fountain, stream, and waterfall. This contemplative outdoor open space area is ' enhanced with seating and viewing areas. With incorporation of the project design features, including: reduced levels of architectural lighting, levels of lighting intensity, and reduced hours of building illumination; the use a warm, light earth ' tone exterior stone, rather than white or off -white typically associated with LDS Temple construction: a reduction in the allowable building size and lot coverage when compared to the City's permitted limits for the site; increased front, rear, and side yard setbacks; and landscaping on approximately 60 ' percent of the gross parcel size, the proposed project will provide a visual benefit to the project site. Because of the proposed setbacks, landscaping, warm earth tone exterior and reduced levels of ' architectural and security illumination, the proposed project will not create a community component or facility out of character with its surroundings or result in a detrimental aesthetic effect on the surrounding community. Therefore, the impact to the visual character or quality of the project site or ' the surrounding area is less than significant. ' Effects on Specific View Locations. The following discussion reviews the view locations described in the Existing Setting subsection. This discussion evaluates the effects of implementing the proposed project on the key views surrounding the project site by comparing the pre - project and post- ' P: \CNB230\EIR\.Section 4.1.doca0621/02n 4.1 -8 ' LEA ASSOCIATES. INC. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT JUNE 2002 CHURCH OPJESUS CHRIST OF LATTER DAY SAINTS TEMPLE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH project conditions. While the previous impact evaluations consider the general effects of implementing the project, review of the project from the view locations provides a graphic illustration of the project's effects on surrounding viewpoints. Figure 4.1.1, View Location Map, provides an ' overview of the view locations. Figures 4.1.2 through 4.1.16 provide the existing condition, project opening condition, and ten year condition of the project site. LJ View 5, View 6, View 7, and View 8. As illustrated from these four vantage points, aesthetic impacts to areas south of the project site will not be substantial. The majority of the developed project site will not be visible from these areas. The Temple steeple will be visible in the background views from these areas and will partially diminish the horizon lines. Because the steeple element narrows in width as it ascends upward the view impact is minimal. Similar to other area views, the aesthetic impacts from the visibility of the steeple are not considered significant. Due to the distance of the project site from these view locations and the lack of visible project area, aesthetic impacts to view locations from the south will be less than significant. View 9 and View 10. Views from these two vantage points will be altered with implementation of the proposed project. The Temple building and associated landscaping will be visible among the existing development surrounding the site. Because the area east of the project site is vacant, the Temple will become the prevailing view from these areas. The mass of the building is substantially greater than the residences that were previously visible; however, as illustrated in the view simulation, the overall aesthetic impact of the building is similar to that of the existing clusters of single - family homes. The prevailing view of the Temple from these vantage points is not considered to be a significant impact. PACN13230MMSection 4.1 AM.0621102. View 1 and View 2. View 1 and View 2 represent views from the west and northwest of the project site from the existing single family residential Bonita Canyon Village neighborhood. From View 1 the developed site including the Temple, landscaped garden, and parking lots will be clearly visible. The mass of the building will be partially obscured by the extensive landscaping surrounding the Temple facility and the perimeter of the site. From both Views 1 and 2, the horizon lines will be altered by the steeple, however, because the steeple at its greatest width is approximately 33 feet wide and tapers down to approximately two feet, and because this residential development at its closest location is more than 600 feet from the site, visual impacts to views from the Bonita Canyon Village will be less than significant. View 3 and View 4. The developed condition from View 3 and View 4 will be altered with ' construction of the Temple project. Post - project views from these vantage points will be a continuation of the existing development pattern adjacent to the project site. Surrounding structures, including the existing Stake Center, Saint Matthews Church, and the backstop fence of the Bonita Canyon Sports Park will continue to be visible. Development of the site will essentially fill in the pattern of development established around the project site. View of a church structure in an established church district would not be a surprising view. Horizon lines will be slighted altered by the Temple steeple; however, this is not considered a significant visual impact because of the tapered nature of the spire and the small area of visual obstruction of distant views. LJ View 5, View 6, View 7, and View 8. As illustrated from these four vantage points, aesthetic impacts to areas south of the project site will not be substantial. The majority of the developed project site will not be visible from these areas. The Temple steeple will be visible in the background views from these areas and will partially diminish the horizon lines. Because the steeple element narrows in width as it ascends upward the view impact is minimal. Similar to other area views, the aesthetic impacts from the visibility of the steeple are not considered significant. Due to the distance of the project site from these view locations and the lack of visible project area, aesthetic impacts to view locations from the south will be less than significant. View 9 and View 10. Views from these two vantage points will be altered with implementation of the proposed project. The Temple building and associated landscaping will be visible among the existing development surrounding the site. Because the area east of the project site is vacant, the Temple will become the prevailing view from these areas. The mass of the building is substantially greater than the residences that were previously visible; however, as illustrated in the view simulation, the overall aesthetic impact of the building is similar to that of the existing clusters of single - family homes. The prevailing view of the Temple from these vantage points is not considered to be a significant impact. PACN13230MMSection 4.1 AM.0621102. ' LEA ASSOCIATES, INC. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT JUNE 3003 CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER DAY SAINTS TEMPLE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ' View 11, View 12, View 13, View 14, and View 15. These five vantage points represent views from public roadways in the vicinity of the project site. As illustrated in these view simulations, ' development of the project site is a continuation of the exiting development pattern in and around the project site. The aesthetic value of the viewsheds from public roadways will not be significantly diminished. Aesthetic impacts to these views are considered less than significant. ' Implementation of the PDFs will ensure that the project's visual effects will be less than significant. ' Create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area. Because the project site is currently vacant, implementation of the proposed project will result in an increase in light and glare intensities from the project site. The following discussion provides a description the project lighting plan, typical effects from nighttime lighting and ' an analysis of the project effects to day or nighttime views in the area. Lighting Study. A lighting study was prepared for the project site that provided recommendations to the original lighting plan to reduce many of the lighting levels proposed in the original lighting study. As stated in the lighting report, architectural lighting plays an important role in the expression of the ' Temple's religious symbolism. In general, an ascending hierarchy of lighting levels is exhibited from the lower fagade progressively upward to the angel figure at the top of the tower. The lighting plan has two components: architectural lighting and security lighting. For a detailed discussion of the ' lighting plan, refer to Appendix E Lighting Study(s). The architectural lighting system is defined as all lighting installed to provide an enhancement of the architectural and landscape features of the project. This lighting system includes 1) landscape, ' 2) building fagade, 3) building tower, and 4) tower angel. Landscape lighting and the lower building fagade lighting consists of carefully selected landscape elements and low -level architectural elements illuminated with ground- mounted, low- wattage accent ' fixtures. The lower building fagade will be illuminated with ground- mounted, low- wattage (50 watt) wide accent light fixtures with metal halide lamping, and the upper building fagade is illuminated with roof - mounted, low- wattage (70 watt) wide flood accent light fixtures with metal halide lamping. ' The fixtures will be located in landscaped areas to hide them from public view and will be fitted with glare- reducing elements. ' The building tower and the angel element will be illuminated with low- wattage (100 watt), roof - mounted accent light fixtures with metal halide lamping. These fixtures will be configured with flood, narrow flood, and spot optics. All fixtures will be located behind architectural elements to hide them from public view and will be fitted with glare reducing louver elements. The security lighting system is defined, as all lighting required by federal, state and local agencies, to ' provide a safe public environment. The lighting system has been designed to provide only enough illumination to meet the minimum levels recommended by the City and by the Illumination Engineering Society (IES). The security lighting system can be described as follows: 1) roadway, 2) ' parking lot, 3) pedestrian pathway, and 4) perimeter property. P' \CN6230\E1R \Smtion 4.1.dw,0621102>1 ' LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT JUNE ROOK CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER DAY SAINTS TEMPLE ' CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH curb edges with fixtures utilizing an internal house -side shield to prevent any light from spilling onto ' neighboring properties. In the parking lot area, both single -head and double-head, sharp cutoff metal halide fixtures (175 watt) mounted on a 20 foot pole will be used. All of the perimeter location ' The roadway lighting leading to the Temple parking lot will be provided by a single head sharp cutoff metal halide fixture (175 watt) mounted on a 20 foot high pole. The roadway is illuminated from curb edges with fixtures utilizing an internal house -side shield to prevent any light from spilling onto ' neighboring properties. In the parking lot area, both single -head and double-head, sharp cutoff metal halide fixtures (175 watt) mounted on a 20 foot pole will be used. All of the perimeter location fixtures will be provided with an internal house -side shield to prevent light from spilling onto ' neighboring properties. The pedestrian pathways within the Temple grounds will be illuminated with a single -head, sharp cutoff metal halide fixture (100 watt) mounted on a ten foot high pole. The center courtyard seating ' areas, as well as the seating areas around the Temple will be illuminated with cutoff 42 inch high, louvered optic bollards. The entire security lighting system has been designed to prevent or limit the ' amount of "spill" lighting beyond the property lines, to fall well below the City of Newport Beach maximum allowable levels. ' Effects of Lighting. Light pollution is caused by an atmospheric phenomenon known as skyglow. This occurs because of poorly designed and improperly aimed light fixtures called luminaries. Luminaries that do not offer adequate shielding usually spill wasted light into the sky and across property lines. When light spills into the sky, it reflects off tiny airborne dust and moisture particles resulting in a condition called skyglow. Another form of light pollution is when illumination crosses property lines. Light pollution also occurs when too much illumination is applied to an area and a ' condition called glare results. Per IES definitions, glare is the sensation produced by luminances within the visual field that are sufficiently greater than the luminance to which the eyes are adapted, which causes annoyance, discomfort, or loss in visual performance and visibility. Almost all light sources produce glare if you look directly into the source and the source is not shielded. The type of glare depends on the intensity of the source and your distance from that source. Light and Glare. The proposed project will result in an increase in light and glare intensities when ' compared to its undeveloped condition. Many factors influence the overall perception of lighting of a structure. The site or setting of the building, the type and placement of fixtures, the composition of the surface being lit, the distance and angle from which the building is being viewed, and other ' sources of illumination all play a role in creating the night landscape. The proposed project will create light associated with an institutional use such as architectural lighting, landscape lighting, parking lot lighting, and security lighting. The Temple will display a ' range of lighting levels to complement various architectural elements and wash building surfaces without creating an unbalanced effect. Specific considerations have been applied to the lighting elements of the proposed project to ensure compatibility with the surrounding community. All of the ' lighting has been carefully designed to minimize illumination levels while maintaining the significance of architectural lighting consistent with the LDS Church theology. The lighting fixtures will be located so as to be integrated and/or hidden within the building design and landscaping. The t proposed landscape, architectural and security lighting will provide a soft and warm illumination of the Temple facility. 1 P:\CNB230\EIR \Section 4.1.doco06 /21 /0D, 4.1-11 LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT JUNE ROOK CHURCH Of JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER DAY SAINTS TEMPLE ' CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH The exterior fagade of the Temple will be a warm earth tone granite. This surface was chosen because of its textured non- reflective surface. At approximately 208 feet x 110 feet, with a maximum ' Lighting operation hours for the proposed Temple will generally extend from 5:00 a.m. to dawn and The exterior fagade of the Temple will be a warm earth tone granite. This surface was chosen because of its textured non- reflective surface. At approximately 208 feet x 110 feet, with a maximum ' height of approximately 35 feet, the mass of the building will not overwhelm the 8.65 acre project site. Additionally, the extended setbacks from the property lines will reduce lighting effects of the ' Temple. All lighting fixtures will be carefully aimed and shielded to illuminate only the desired surfaces, thereby eliminating light trespass into adjacent properties and reducing light pollution into the night sky. In addition, proposed landscaping within the project site and at its perimeters will t shield most of the proposed light sources and will not create a substantial amount of light and glare. It should be noted that the security lighting system has been designed to provide only enough ' illumination to meet the minimum levels required by the City. Nighttime simulations were prepared to provide an illustration of the proposed lighting of the Temple fagade.' Both the opening year condition and a ten year condition of the illuminated Temple demonstrate the ascending hierarchy of lighting levels proposed. These representations also illustrate the lighting design, which proposes to aim and shield all lighting fixtures to ensure that only the desired surfaces are illuminated. Nighttime simulations are provided as Figure 4.1.17. Nighttime simulations were reviewed by Raymond W. Swartz, PE, Konsortium 1. The nighttime simulations, including levels of architectural lighting of the Temple fagade, were deemed accurate. Verification letter from Konsortium I is provided in Appendix G. P: \CNB230\E1R\Sw1on 4.I.dota06/21/02» 4.1 -12 1 Lighting operation hours for the proposed Temple will generally extend from 5:00 a.m. to dawn and from dusk to 11:00 p.m. No architectural lighting is proposed past 1 1:00 p.m. Because the project site is not currently a source of nighttime lighting, nighttime views of the site will be perceivable from the surrounding neighborhoods. However, as discussed above, the proposed lighting fixtures and illumination levels have been designed to ensure compatibility with the surrounding community, ' while maintaining the expression of the Temple's religious symbolism. Additionally, the proposed landscaping plan will contain clusters of mature landscaping around the perimeters of the project site to provide screening of a majority of the Temple building from nearby residents. As stated t previously, the steeple is a tapered architectural element that diminishes in size as it extends upward. Although the steeple will be clearly visible in the surrounding area, its effect to nighttime views in the area will be less than significant. Because the exterior surface of the Temple fagade will be constructed of a textured non - reflective surface, daytime affects from glare will not be significant. As a result, implementation of the proposed project will not create a substantial source of light or glare that would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area. Impacts from light and glare will be less than significant. ' 4.1.6 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ' Cumulative visual impacts exist when visual resources throughout the affected area or region are reduced incrementally, thereby substantially negatively affecting the community -wide visual character. The project site is in an area that has been and is currently being developed. As a result, the existing visual character of the area, based on the pattern of development, is established. The ' proposed project, in conjunction with other approved development projects, will continue the existing Nighttime simulations were reviewed by Raymond W. Swartz, PE, Konsortium 1. The nighttime simulations, including levels of architectural lighting of the Temple fagade, were deemed accurate. Verification letter from Konsortium I is provided in Appendix G. P: \CNB230\E1R\Sw1on 4.I.dota06/21/02» 4.1 -12 1 ' LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT JUNE SODS CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER DAY SAINT& TEMPLE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ' visual pattern of the surrounding area. A less than significant cumulative visual impact will result with implementation of the proposed Temple. ' 4.1.7 SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS ' There will be no significant unavoidable adverse aesthetic impacts as a result of the proposed project. 1 1 1 1 1 P: \CNB230\EIR\$ection 4.1.doca06 /21/02» 1 EXISTING CONDITION PROJECT OPENING CONDITION TEN YEAR CONDITION L S A SOURCE: LLOYD E PLATT ASSOCIATES IdCNB230'M,wI Vices I cdr 16. IN: 021 FIGURE 4.1.2 Newport Beach Temple View i L S A F1 CURE 4.1 .3 Newport Beach Temple SOURCE: LLOYD F. PLATT ASSOCIATES View 2 -,('N62J0'•ViswINIe,s_2xdrl, IN 02) - -- — A. EXISTING CONDITION PROJECT OPENING CONDITION C - G. 1 - J 7 I� I� TEN YEAR CONDITION 5 A FIGURE 4.1 .4 Newport Beach Temple SOURCE: LLOYD E. PLATT ASSOCIATI S View `3 [?CNR230Nisua]Nmw 3 dr In H021 EXISTING CONDITION PROJECT OPENING CONDITION TEN YEAR CONDITION L J A FIGURE 4.1.5 Newport Beach Temple SOURCE LLOYD h PLATT ASSOCIATES View 4 L!CNB230,Visml View J.cd,(h 1 x. 021 -- -- - -- '- -- "— EXISTING CONDITION PROJECT OPENING CONDITION TEN YEAR CONDITION L S A SOURCE: LLOYD E. PLATT ASSOCIATES 1.\CNB230 \VISU.W.l . 5A, 16 IS 02) FIGURE 4.1 .6 Newport Beach Temple View 5 tk)- r- t LV 1' N- AN �11 r4ot- I k l4m"o �• ��S'i�.i:• i• S I: 1 T1 apA:: �, ( �P•. vllr�,a1 ��� +sly.. 1 t. P - r � r 1 �_ ..may` '`•. tr- IrnPPp'�. m 3 irr - .•- .. .r c _ - �.�� S. P �y :.� ��il�r .. ��:'� ✓mil �: r � r 1 �_ ..may` '`•. EX /ST /NC CONDITION °r_ -... AVIA 7. r, PROJECT OPEN /NC; CONDITION W_ LJA SOURCE LLOYD F.. PLATT ASSOCIATES L IC'NB2]0', Vi,U.l' View 9 cdr In I x 021 TEN YEAR CONDITION FIGURE 4.1 .10 Newport Beath Temple View g L 5 A FIGURE 4.1.11 SOURCE: LLOYD E. PLATT ASSOCIATES I:\CNB270',Vi.ual Vm 10 �d,ro 1 n. n_I Newport Beath Temple View 10 EXISTING CONDITION PROJECT OPENING CONDITION TEN YEAR CONDITION L 5 A SOUR( F: LLOYD L, PLATT ASSOCIATFS I'WNR230N,i ..LView II udr IG IM02) FIGURE 4.1.12 Newport Beach Temple View 11 EXISTING CONDITION PROJECT OPENING CONDITION TEN YEAR CONDITION L 5 A SOURCE: LLOYD E. PLATT ASSOCIATES I:ICNH230,Visua1,Vw. 12.cdr 16 IN 021 FIGURE 4.1 .13 Newport Beach Temple View [2 L 5 A FIGURE4.1.14 SOURCE LLOYD F PLATT ASSOCIATES L9CNR230'Nuu.I Vier 13.cdr 1618021 Newport Beach Temple View 13 EXISTING CONDITION PROJECT OPENING CONDITION TEN YEAR CONDITION L S A SOURCE LLOYD R PLATT ASSOCIATES I9CNB230'%Visual View 14sdr I6 IN 02) F1 CURE 4.1 .15 Newport Beach Temple View 14 OWL P�. Yp�N' Pr sue. Al l"9ee��iF;Yrr 'Ifl �i.' I �► w s w �w rw iw w� � w .� w .■� w w w .w w w� PROJECT OPENING CONDITION TEN YEAR CONDITION L S A SOURCE: LLOYD L. PLATT ASSOCIATES I ?CNB230'Nlauul Nighl.cdr In 1 N IC 1 FIGURE 4.1.17 Newport Beach Temple Nighttime Simulation ' LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT JUNE 2002 CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER DAY SAINTS TEMPLE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH I 4.2 AIR QUALITY 4.2.1.2 Climate/Meteorology The Basin climate is determined by its terrain and geographical location. The Basin is a coastal plain ' with connecting broad valleys and low hills. The Pacific Ocean forms the southwest border, and high mountains surround the rest of the Basin. The region lies in the semipermanent high pressure zone of the eastern Pacific. The resulting climate is mild and tempered by cool ocean breezes. This climatological pattern is rarely interrupted. However, there do exist periods of extremely hot weather, winter storms, and Santa Ana wind conditions. n P1cnb230 \eir \Section 4.2.doc <<06/21/0211 4.2 -1 The air quality assessment includes estimating emissions associated with short -term construction and ' long -term operation of the proposed project. Long -term impacts include impacts from pollutants with regional effects and pollutants with localized impacts. The impact analysis contained in this section was prepared in accordance with the methodologies provided by the South Coast Air Quality ' Management District (SCAQMD) in its CEQA Air Quality Handbook. Air quality model data are provided in Appendix B. ' 4.2.1 EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING ' 4.2.1.1 Regional Air Quality The project site is in the City of Newport Beach, an area within the South Coast Air Basin (Basin), which includes Orange County and the non - desert portions of Los Angeles, Riverside, and San Bernardino counties. Air quality conditions in the Basin are under the jurisdiction of the SCAQMD. Both the State and federal governments have established health based Ambient Air Quality Standards (AAQS) for six air pollutants. These pollutants are carbon monoxide, ozone, nitrogen dioxide(NO >), sulfur dioxide (SOD, lead, and suspended particulate matter (PM10). The Basin is currently ' designated as nonattainment for ozone, carbon monoxide (CO), and PM 10 and maintenance for NO2 relative to the federal standards. The Basin is in compliance with federal S02 and lead standards. The Basin is in attainment under the California standards for NO2, S02, lead (Pb), and sulfates and in ' nonattainment under the California standards for CO, ozone, and PM10. Table 4.2.A lists the sources and primary health effects of these six criteria air pollutants promulgated by the California Air ' Resources Board (CARB). These health effects would not occur unless the standards are exceeded by a large margin or for a prolonged period of time. 4.2.1.2 Climate/Meteorology The Basin climate is determined by its terrain and geographical location. The Basin is a coastal plain ' with connecting broad valleys and low hills. The Pacific Ocean forms the southwest border, and high mountains surround the rest of the Basin. The region lies in the semipermanent high pressure zone of the eastern Pacific. The resulting climate is mild and tempered by cool ocean breezes. This climatological pattern is rarely interrupted. However, there do exist periods of extremely hot weather, winter storms, and Santa Ana wind conditions. n P1cnb230 \eir \Section 4.2.doc <<06/21/0211 4.2 -1 1 1 r LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. JUNE 20 02 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER DAY SAINTS TEMPLE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Table 4.2.A: Health Effects Summary of the Major Criteria Air Pollutants Pollutant Source Primary Effect Ozone (03) Atmospheric reaction of organic gases with Aggravation of respiratory and cardiovascular nitrogen oxides in sunlight diseases Irritation of eyes Impairment of cardiopulmonary function Plant leaf injury Nitrogen 1 • Motor vehicle exhaust Aggravation of respiratory illness Dioxide (NO2) High - temperature stationary combustion Reduced visibility 1• Atmospheric reactions I• Reduced plant growth . • Formation of acid rain Carbon Monoxide (CO) Incomplete combustion of fuels and other Reduced tolerance for exercise carbon - containing substances, such as motor i• Impairment of mental function vehicle exhaust Impairment of fetal development '• Natural events, such as decomposition of I• Death at high levels of exposure organic matter i• Aggravation of some heart diseases (angina) Suspended Particulate Stationary combustion of solid fuels j• Reduced lung function Matter (PMIO) i• Construction activities Aggravation of the effects of gaseous Industrial processes pollutants • Atmospheric chemical reactions Aggravation of respiratory and cardio- respiratory diseases Increased cough and chest discomfort Soiling Reduced visibility Sulfur i• Combustion of sulfur - containing fossil fuels Aggravation of respiratory diseases (asthma. Dioxide (SO,) '• Smelting of sulfur- bearing metal ores emphysema) i• Other industrial processes 1- Reduced lung function �• Irritation of eyes • Reduced visibility j 1• Plant injury 1 Deterioration of metals, textiles, leather. '• finishes, coatings, etc. Lead Contaminated soil ,• Impairment of blood function and nerve construction • Behavioral and hearing problems in children Source: California Air Resource Board (CARS). 2000. P:\cnb230 \eir \Section 4.2.doc a06R l /02» 4.2 -2 rl J I 1 1 I LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT JUNE 2002 CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER OAT SAINTS TEMPLE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH The annual average temperature varies little throughout the Basin, ranging from the low to middle 60s, measured in degrees Fahrenheit. With a more pronounced oceanic influence, coastal areas show less variability in annual minimum and maximum temperatures than inland areas. The climatological stations nearest to the site that monitors temperature is the Newport Beach Harbor Station.] Monitored data are available between 1934 and 2000, with monthly average maximum temperature ranging from 54.5 °F to 67.9 °F. January is typically the coldest month in this area of the Basin. The majority of annual rainfall in the Basin occurs between October and March. Summer rainfall is minimal and generally limited to scattered thundershowers in coastal regions and slightly heavier showers in the eastern portion of the basin and along the coastal side of the mountains. The climatological station nearest the site that monitors precipitation is the Newport Beach Harbor Station. Average total rainfall measured at the Newport Beach Harbor Station between 1934 and 2000 varied from 2.4 inches in February to 0.29 or less between May and October. Moreover, monthly and yearly rainfall totals are extremely variable. Even though the Basin has a semiarid climate, air near the surface is generally moist because of the ' presence of a shallow marine layer. With very low average wind speeds, there is a limited capacity to disperse air contaminants horizontally. The dominant daily wind pattern is an onshore daytime breeze and an offshore night -time breeze. The typical wind flow pattern fluctuates only with occasional winter storms or strong northeasterly Santa Ana winds from the mountains and deserts north of the Basin. Summer wind flow patterns represent worst -case conditions, as this is the period of higher temperatures and more sunlight which result in ozone formation. I i 1 I 1 1 During spring and early summer, pollution produced during any one day is typically blown out of the Basin through mountain passes or lifted by warm, vertical currents adjacent to mountain slopes. Air contaminants can be transported 60 miles or more from the Basin by ocean air during the afternoons. From early fall to winter, the transport is less pronounced because of slower average wind speed and the appearance of drainage winds earlier in the day. During stagnant wind conditions, offshore drainage winds may begin by late afternoon. Pollutants remaining in the Basin are trapped and begin to accumulate during the night and the following morning. A low morning wind speed in pollutant source areas is an important indicator of air stagnation and the buildup potential for primary air contaminants. With persistent low inversions and cool coastal air, morning fog and low stratus clouds are common. However, 73 percent sunshine is recorded in downtown Los Angeles. This is an extremely important climatological factor considering the role of sunshine in the photochemical smog production process. Cloudy days are less likely in the eastern portions of the Basin and about 25 percent greater along the coast. The vertical dispersion of air pollutants in the Basin is limited by temperature inversions in the atmosphere close to the earth's surface. Temperature normally decreases with altitude, and a reversal of this atmospheric state, where temperature increases with altitude, is called an inversion. The height from the earth to the inversion base is known as the mixing height. Western Regional Climatic Center, May, 2001. P: \cnb230 \eir \Section 4.2.doc ((0621 102» u I] 1 1 I 1 IJ L3.1 .1350CI.1TE5. INC. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT JUNE 1005 CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER DAY SAINTS TEMPLE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Inversions are generally lower in the nighttime when the ground is cool than during the daylight hours when the sun warms the ground and, in turn, the surface air layer. As this heating process continues, the temperature of the surface air layer approaches the temperature of the inversion base causing heating along its lower edge. If enough warming takes place, the inversion layer becomes weak and opens up to allow the surface air layers to mix upward. This can be seen in the middle to late afternoon on a hot summer day when the smog appears to suddenly clear up. Winter inversions typically break earlier in the day, preventing excessive contaminant buildup. The combination of stagnant wind conditions and low inversion produces the greatest pollutant concentrations. On days of no inversion or high wind speeds, ambient air pollutant concentrations are lowest. During periods of low inversions and low wind speeds, air pollutants generated in urbanized areas are transported predominantly onshore into Riverside and San Bernardino counties. In the winter, the greatest pollution problems are carbon monoxide and oxides of nitrogen because of extremely low inversion and air stagnation during the night and early morning hours. In the summer, the longer daylight hours and the brighter sunshine combine to cause a reaction between hydrocarbons and oxides of nitrogen to form photochemical smog. 4.2.1.3 Air Pollution Constituents Both the State of California and the federal government have established health based AAQS for six air pollutants. These pollutants include ozone, carbon monoxide, NO2, SOZ, suspended PM10, and lead. In addition, the state has set standards for sulfates, hydrogen sulfide, vinyl chloride, and visibility reducing particles. These standards are designed to protect the health and welfare of the populace with a reasonable margin of safety. In addition to primary and secondary Ambient Air Quality air pollution standards, the State of California has established a set of episode criteria for ozone, carbon monoxide, NO2, SOz and PMio. These criteria refer to episode levels representing periods of short -term exposure to air pollutants that ' actually threaten public health. Health effects are progressively more severe as pollutant levels increase from Stage One to Stage Three. Ozone. Ozone (smog) is formed by photochemical reactions between oxides of nitrogen and reactive organic gases rather than being directly emitted. Ozone is a pungent, colorless gas typical of the 1 Pt \cnb230 \eir \Section 4.2.doc ,06/21/02,) 4.2 -4 The U.S. EPA established new national air quality standards for ground level ozone and fine PM10 in 1997. On May 14, 1999, the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit issued a decision ruling that the Clean Air Act, as applied in setting the new public health standards for ozone and PM10, was unconstitutional as an improper delegation of legislative authority to the U.S. EPA. On ' February 27, 2001, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the way the government sets air quality standards under the Clean Air Act. The court unanimously rejected industry arguments that the U.S. EPA must consider financial cost as well as health benefits in writing standards. The justices also rejected ' arguments that the U.S. EPA took too much lawmaking power from Congress when it set tougher standards for ozone and soot in 1997. Nevertheless, the court threw out the U.S. EPA's policy for implementing new ozone rules, saying the agency ignored a section of the law that restricts its ' decision making authority. It ordered the agency to come up with a more "reasonable" interpretation of the law. In addition to primary and secondary Ambient Air Quality air pollution standards, the State of California has established a set of episode criteria for ozone, carbon monoxide, NO2, SOz and PMio. These criteria refer to episode levels representing periods of short -term exposure to air pollutants that ' actually threaten public health. Health effects are progressively more severe as pollutant levels increase from Stage One to Stage Three. Ozone. Ozone (smog) is formed by photochemical reactions between oxides of nitrogen and reactive organic gases rather than being directly emitted. Ozone is a pungent, colorless gas typical of the 1 Pt \cnb230 \eir \Section 4.2.doc ,06/21/02,) 4.2 -4 LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT JUNE ROOK CHURCH Of JESUS CHRIST Of LATTER DAY SAINTS TEMPLE CITY Of NEWPORT BEACH ' Southern California type smog. Elevated ozone concentrations result in reduced lung function, particularly during vigorous physical activity. This health problem is particularly acute in sensitive receptors such as the sick, elderly, and young children. Ozone levels peak during the summer and ' early fall months. Carbon Monoxide. Carbon monoxide (CO) is formed by the incomplete combustion of fossil fuels, almost entirely from automobiles. It is a colorless, odorless gas that can cause dizziness, fatigue, and impairments to central nervous system functions. CO passes through the lungs into the bloodstream ' where it interferes with the transfer of oxygen to body tissues. ' Nitrogen Oxides. Nitrogen oxides (NOx) contribute to other pollution problems, including a high concentration of fine PMIo, poor visibility, and acid deposition. NO2, a reddish brown gas and nitric oxide (NO), a colorless, odorless gas, are formed from fuel combustion under high temperature or ' pressure. These compounds are referred to as NOx, or NO2. NOx is a primary component of the photochemical smog reaction. NO2 decreases lung function and may reduce resistance to infection. ' Sulfur Dioxide. S02 is a colorless irritating gas formed primarily from incomplete combustion of sulfur containing fuels. Industrial facilities also contribute to gaseous S02 levels in the Basin. SO; irritates the respiratory tract, can injure lung tissue when combined with fine PMIo, and reduces ' visibility and the level of sunlight. ' Reactive Organic Compounds. Reactive organic compounds (ROC) are formed from combustion of fuels and evaporation of organic solvents. ROC is a prime component of the photochemical smog reaction. Consequently, ROC accumulates in the atmosphere more quickly during the winter, when ' sunlight is limited and photochemical reactions are slower. P1cnb230 \eir \Section 4.2.doc x06/21102» Particulate Matter. PMio is the term used for a mixture of solid particles and liquid droplets found ' in the air. Coarse particles (larger than 2.5 microns but smaller than 10 microns, or PMIo) come from a variety of sources, including windblown dust and grinding operations. Fine particles (less than 2.5 microns, or PM2.5) often come from fuel combustion, power plants, and diesel buses and trucks. ' PM2.5 can also be formed in the atmosphere through chemical reactions. Coarse particles (PMIo) can accumulate in the respiratory system and aggravate health problems such ' as asthma. The EPA's scientific review concluded that PM2.5 at concentrations that extend well below those allowed by the current PMio standards, which penetrate deeply into the lungs, are more likely than coarse particles to contribute to the health effects listed in a number of recently published community epidemiological studies. These health effects include premature death and increased ' hospital admissions and emergency room visits (primarily the elderly and individuals with cardiopulmonary disease); increased respiratory symptoms and disease (children and individuals with cardiopulmonary disease such as asthma); decreased lung functions (particularly in children and individuals with asthma); and alterations in lung tissue and structure and in respiratory tract defense P1cnb230 \eir \Section 4.2.doc x06/21102» 1 LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPRT JUNE 20 02 CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER DAY SAINTS TEMPOLE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH mechanisms. Currently, there are no officially recognized or approved methods of modeling PM2.5 or quantifying these emissions. Therefore, there is no further discussion of PM2.5 in this EIR. ' 4.2.1.5 Existing Federal, State And Regional Policies And Regulations The 1976 Lewis Air Quality Management Act established the SCAQMD and other air districts ' throughout California. The Federal Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977 required that each state adopt an implementation plan outlining pollution control measures to attain the federal standards in nonattainment areas of the state. This requirement led to the local air quality planning processes in areas like the Basin. The CARB oversees activities of local air quality management agencies and is responsible for incorporating air quality management plans (AQMPs) for local air basins into a State Implementation ' Plan (SIP) for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) approval. CARB maintains air quality monitoring stations throughout the state in conjunction with local air districts. Data collected at these stations are used by CARB to classify air basins as "attainment" or "nonattainment" with respect to ' each pollutant and to monitor progress in attaining air quality standards. The SCAQMD and Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) are responsible for ' formulating and implementing the Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) for the Basin. Regional AQMPs were adopted for the Basin in 1979, 1982, 1989, 1991, 1994, and 1997. The SCAQMD's I California Air Resources Board database. May, 2000. P9cnb230 \eir \Section 4.2.doc «06/21/02» 4.2.1.4 Local Air Quality The site is located within SCAQMD jurisdiction. The SCAQMD maintains ambient air quality ' monitoring stations throughout the basin as shown in Figure 4.2.1. The North Coast Orange (formerly Costa Mesa) air monitoring station, the air quality monitoring station closest to the project site, monitors ozone, carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, and sulfur dioxide.' The Mission Viejo air monitoring station, the next closest air monitoring station, monitors PM10- S02 data are not listed here, because S02 standards have not been exceeded in the past ten years in the Basin. Air quality trends identified from data collected at these two air monitoring stations in the project area between 1997 and 2001 are listed in Table 4.2.13 and are discussed below. Carbon monoxide and ' NO2 levels have not equaled or exceeded the relevant state and federal standards in the past five years. Ozone has exceeded state standard in each of the five years and exceeded the federal standard ' in four of the past five years. Ozone exceeded the state one hour standard from one to five days a year during the last five years and exceeded the federal one hour standard from zero to two days a year. The PM10 finer than ten microns, or the PM10 level, in the areas surrounding the project area exceeded the State standard from one to two times in the past three years, but did not exceed the ' federal standards. ' 4.2.1.5 Existing Federal, State And Regional Policies And Regulations The 1976 Lewis Air Quality Management Act established the SCAQMD and other air districts ' throughout California. The Federal Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977 required that each state adopt an implementation plan outlining pollution control measures to attain the federal standards in nonattainment areas of the state. This requirement led to the local air quality planning processes in areas like the Basin. The CARB oversees activities of local air quality management agencies and is responsible for incorporating air quality management plans (AQMPs) for local air basins into a State Implementation ' Plan (SIP) for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) approval. CARB maintains air quality monitoring stations throughout the state in conjunction with local air districts. Data collected at these stations are used by CARB to classify air basins as "attainment" or "nonattainment" with respect to ' each pollutant and to monitor progress in attaining air quality standards. The SCAQMD and Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) are responsible for ' formulating and implementing the Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) for the Basin. Regional AQMPs were adopted for the Basin in 1979, 1982, 1989, 1991, 1994, and 1997. The SCAQMD's I California Air Resources Board database. May, 2000. P9cnb230 \eir \Section 4.2.doc «06/21/02» I I I I u I I I I I I I I I I r I I � ))) / § \0 cn g * ƒ/ / \3 / /) }/± ± �) ( \ ; 33 k ( ¥: # / ? is §§/ j)@2_ !f \ \ < / CD 04 x)`04 w /0 40 } }•0A 0 • )° (° w ` \ 2p . /b z { ! —! � / • ( w� w .k \° F� � < u. < <0 ou § < \0 ~° / L, °\ ®E _ < °\! ©©j k) 0000 -k \ \ \• \ < / 4 / y \ : » � 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 _ =UI aF<I UqQ yza Fri -yz � <a _OC zzy Z<U Y ; >Q �n U � I p i z I U I Z r l N 7 _V F W N V I 1 O .F I ! I f e o Y N � _ O A o Io Io to jo N r � C o E P oi, 'Z� n N ami O I F I cy n_ V _._e ••r O CI !% � pCIA IR, OGI N 10 t1 N N :N P — t1 � q!N O i0 0 10 O O O O =e ii U 6:I _ I ry 0 io ro o �o 0 0 ! l I i0 to o !o D IO o O e Q E a c E' 0 L IN IN Iz z IL i0 10 O Iz iz F cYYi I ! N S O CIA vU�l vi .P vi .z i z D\ IA Ih IP vi z z T N I I i N 6 i I 6 P N , � COL :PO O PO PO 'N ^ IP O P P IN N pF I I I E G aYi = !o •o io to to p o to to io II�.� I G 6 I 0 T V E p 1.b to •o to o :o s jo •o o to to ri 6 n I % C . IP :O O Z :NIN ,cp •P, :O I'1 0 A 'N Im O n1 O �O O P P P �_ •� O :O IP •P :P I� • � N N P IP P ,X V 'N IN P P P X W N V O .F f e o N � _ O N r � o P O N O F r, F I cy n_ V o _ � � I ry ✓: Z ;L i_V O LSA ASS OCIATES.INC. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPAC T REPORT JUNE ROOK CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER DAY SAINTS TEMPLE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ' effort to update the AQMP is delayed by CARB's delay in the emission model EMFAC2000 and related control strategy plan. SCAQMD expects to start up efforts to update its comprehensive AQMP in spring 2001. The 1997 AQMP was prepared pursuant to federal and State clean air legislation and addressed 1990 Clean Air Act (CAA) requirements with respect to PMIo standards. Underthe CAA, the AQMP must ' demonstrate attainment of PMIo standards by 2006 for both 24 hour and annual average ambient air quality standards. The 1997 AQMP responded to this requirement, relying mostly on the control measures outlined in the 1994 AQMP. The 1997 AQMP also updates the demonstration of attainment of the federal ozone and CO standards, and includes a maintenance plan for NO2, as the ' Basin now qualifies for attainment of the federal NO2 standard. Under the California Clean Air Act (CCAA), air districts that do not attain State air quality standards ' by 2000 must prepare a comprehensive plan update by December 31, 1997. The 1997 AQMP serves as the comprehensive plan update for the Basin. ' The 1997 AQMP carries forth the approach and key elements in the 1994 AQMP by focusing on market -based strategies and incentives versus command and control regulation. New elements to the 1997 Plan include: 1) improved emission inventory and current air quality information; 2) refined ' control strategy that allows for alternative approaches; 3) elimination of future indirect source measures; 4) amendments to the federal post -1996 Rate of Progress Plan and Federal Attainment Plans for ozone and CO; 5) a maintenance plan forNOx; and 6) an attainment demonstration and SIP ' revision for PMIo. Implementation of the AQMP is based on a series of control measures that vary by source type, such as stationary or mobile, as well as by the pollutant targeted. Similar to the 1994 AQMP, the Plan t proposes two tiers of control measures based on the availability and readiness of technology. Short and immediate term measures rely on known technologies and are expected to be implemented ' between 1997 and 2005. Long -term measures rely on the advancement of technologies and control methods that can be reasonably expected to between 2000 2010. occur and 1 1 Cl I The SCAQMD governing board approved the 1997 AQMP on November 15, 1996. After approval, the AQMP was submitted to CARB for its review and approval. CARB approved the ozone and PM10 portions of the 1997 AQMP on January 23, 1997, and submitted the plan to U.S. EPA as proposed revisions to the SIP. There is currently no SIP in place. Therefore, conformity with the AQMP is analyzed in this EIR. The EPA rejected the District's revision of its 1997 AQMP. The rejection, however, covered only the provisions of the AQMP designed to attain the federal ozone standard. As a result of the rejection, SCAQMD prepared a draft "Proposed 1999 Amendment to the 1997 Ozone SIP Revision for the South Coast Air Basin" on October 7, 1999, for public review and comment. The 1999 Amendment proposed to revise the ozone portion of the 1997 AQMP that was submitted to the U.S. EPA as a revision to the South Coast Air Basin portion of the 1994 California Ozone SIP. The SCAQMD Governing Board adopted the "1999 Amendment to the 1997 Ozone SIP Revision for the South Coast Air Basin" on December 10, 1999. In addition, the SCAQMD Governing Board settled with three environmental organizations on its litigation of the 1994 Ozone SIP. Table 4.2.0 lists the federal and State AAQS. PAcnb2301EMSec ion 4.2.doc ((06/21102» 4.2 -9 1 1 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC, JUNE 2002 Table 4.2.C: Ambient Air Quality Standards ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER DAY SAINTS TEMPLE Source: Cautomia Air Resources Board (CAKB), 2000. ppm = parts per million Mg/M3 = milligrams per cubic meter pg/m' - micrograms per cubic meter Insufficient amount to produce an extinction coefficient of 0.23 per kilometer due to particles when the relative humidity is less than 70 percent. Measurement in accordance with CARB Method V. P:\cnb230\E1R \Section 4,2.doc u06/21102» 4.2 -10 STATE FEDERAL Pollutant Averaging Time i Concentration Primary Secondary Ozone (Oz) 1 Hour 0.09 ppm 0.12 ppm Same as (180 pg/m') Primary Std. 8 Hour — 0.08 ppm (157 pg/m') Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) Annual Arithmetic Mean — 0.053 ppm Same as (100 pg/m') Primary Std. 1 Hour 0.25 ppm — (470 pg/m') Carbon Monoxide (CO) 8 Hour 9 ppm 9 ppm None (10mg/m') (10 mglm') 1 Hour 20 ppm 35 ppm (23 mg/m') (40 mg/m') Fine Particulate 24 Hour No Separate State 65 pg/m Matter Standard Same as (PM2.5) Primary Std. Annual 15 pg/m' Arithmetic Mean Respirable Particulate Annual 30 pg/m' — Matter Geometric Mean Same as (PM10) Primary Std. 24 Hour 50 pg/m' 150 pg/m Annual 50 pg/m Arithmetic Mean Sulfur Dioxide (S02) I Annual Arithmetic Mean — 0.03 ppm — (80 pg/m') 24 Hour 0.04 ppm 0.14 ppm — (105 pg/m') (365 pg/m') 3 Hour — -- i 0.5 ppm (1,300 gg/m') I Hour .25 ppm -- -- (6 55 pg/m') Lead 30 Day Average 1.5 pg/m'-- — Calendar Quarter — 1.5 pg/m' Same as Primary Std. Sulfates 24 Hour i 25 pg/m'-- — Hydrogen Sulfide I Hour 0.03 ppm -- — (42 11 m') Vinyl Chloride 24 Hour 0.010 ppm -- -- (chloroethene) (26 pg/nn ) Visibility Reducing Particles 8 Hour — — — (10 am -6 pm PST) Source: Cautomia Air Resources Board (CAKB), 2000. ppm = parts per million Mg/M3 = milligrams per cubic meter pg/m' - micrograms per cubic meter Insufficient amount to produce an extinction coefficient of 0.23 per kilometer due to particles when the relative humidity is less than 70 percent. Measurement in accordance with CARB Method V. P:\cnb230\E1R \Section 4,2.doc u06/21102» 4.2 -10 ' LSn ASSOCIATES. INC. JUNE 9001 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER DAY SAINTS TEMPLE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 4.2.2 PROJECT DESIGN FEATURES /STANDARD CONDITIONS 4.2.2.1 Project Design Features The proposed project does not include a project design feature related to air quality. 4.2.2.2 Standard Conditions Numerous controls are imposed on new developments through the permitting process. In general, public agencies regulate development under the requirements of local land use policies and zoning, and project specific mitigation measures. The following Standard Conditions (SC) are assumed to be in place when evaluating the characteristics of the proposed project and the potential environmental impacts resulting from its implementation. SC 2 -1 In order to reduce construction related fugitive dust, SCAQMD Rule 403 will be implemented during construction. The SCAQMD Rule 403 requires that fugitive dust be controlled with best available control measures so that the presence of such dust does not remain visible in the atmosphere beyond the property line of the emission source. Implementation of these dust suppression techniques as required by the SCAQMD can reduce the fugitive dust generation (and thus the PM10 component) by 50 to 75 percent. Implementation of the following measures will reduce short-term fugitive dust impacts on nearby sensitive receptors. • Apply non -toxic chemical soil stabilizers according to manufacturers' specifications, to all inactive construction areas (previously graded areas inactive for ten days or more). • Water active sites at least two times daily. (Locations where grading is to occur will be thoroughly watered prior to earth moving.) • All trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose materials are to be covered, or should maintain at least two feet of freeboard in accordance with the requirements of California Vehicle Code (CVC) section 23114 (freeboard means vertical space between the top of the load and top of the trailer). • Pave construction access roads at least 100 feet onto the site from main road. • Traffic speeds on all unpaved roads shall be reduced to 15 mph or less. Additional SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook Dust Measures: • Revegetate disturbed areas as quickly as possible. • All excavating and grading operations shall be suspended when wind speeds (as instantaneous gusts) exceed 25 mph. • All streets shall be swept once a day if visible soil materials are carried to adjacent streets (recommend water sweepers with reclaimed water). • Install wheel washers where vehicles enter and exit unpaved roads onto paved roads, or wash trucks and any equipment leaving the site each trip. P:lcnb2301E1R\Section 42.doc «0621 /02» 4.2-11 1 LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT JUNE 2002 CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER DAY SAINTS TEMPLE CITY OF NEWPORT REACH I I 4.2.3 IMPACT SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA Specific criteria for determining whether the potential air quality impacts of a project are significant SC 2 -2 Plan specifications shall include a statement that the contractor shall attempt to reduce VOC emissions by 1) using precoated/natural colored building materials, 2) using water based or low VOC coating, and 3) coating transfer or spray equipment with high transfer efficiency, such as high volume low pressure (HVLP) spray method, or manual coatings application, such as paint brush, hand roller, trowel, spatula, dauber, rag or sponge. The plan specifica- ' tions shall be approved by the Public Works Department. SC 2 -3 In order to reduce operational energy usage and reduce energy production air emissions, the project is required to comply with Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations established ' by the California Energy Commission regarding energy conservation standards. 1 4.2.3.2 Thresholds For Operational Emissions Specific criteria for determining whether the potential air quality impacts of a project are significant are set forth in the SCAQMD's CEQA Air Quality Handbook. The criteria include emissions thresholds. The daily operational emissions "significance" thresholds are as follows. PAcnb230 \E1R \Section 4.2.doc ,06/21/02,, 4.2 -12 4.2.3 IMPACT SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA Specific criteria for determining whether the potential air quality impacts of a project are significant are set forth in the SCAQMD's CEQA Air Quality Handbook. The criteria include daily emissions thresholds, compliance with State and national air quality standards, and conformity with the existing SIP or consistency with the current AMP. The following summarizes these thresholds, which were used in this document to determine whether or not a significant impact will occur. 4.2.3.1 Thresholds For Construction Emissions The following CEQA significance thresholds for construction emissions have been established by the 1 SCAQMD: 75 pounds per day of ROC or 2.5 tons per quarter ' • 100 pounds per day of NOx or 2.5 tons per quarter • 550 pounds per day of CO or 24.75 tons per quarter ' 150 pounds per day of PMIO or 6.75 tons per quarter • 150 pounds per day of sulfur oxides (SOx) or 6.75 tons per quarter Projects in the Basin with construction related emissions that exceed any of the emission thresholds should be considered to be significant. 1 4.2.3.2 Thresholds For Operational Emissions Specific criteria for determining whether the potential air quality impacts of a project are significant are set forth in the SCAQMD's CEQA Air Quality Handbook. The criteria include emissions thresholds. The daily operational emissions "significance" thresholds are as follows. PAcnb230 \E1R \Section 4.2.doc ,06/21/02,, 4.2 -12 I 1 I i I I I I I I 1 1 LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT JUNE 2002 CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER DAY SAINTS TEMPLE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Emissions Thresholds For Criteria Pollutants With Regional Effects. • 55 pounds per day of ROC 55 pounds per day of NOx • 550 pounds per day of CO 150 pounds per day of PM,. • 150 pounds per day of SOx Projects in the Basin with operation - related emissions that exceed any of the emission thresholds above would be significant. Localized Criteria Pollutants Concentrations Standards. • California State I hour CO standard of 20.0 ppm • California State 8 hour CO standard of 9.0 ppm The significance of localized project impacts depends on whether ambient CO levels in the vicinity of the project are above or below state and federal CO standards. If ambient levels are below the standards, a project is considered to have significant impacts if project emissions result in an exceedance of one or more of these standards. If ambient levels already exceed a state or federal standard, then project emissions are considered significant if they increase one hour CO concentrations by 1.0 ppm or more or eight hour CO concentrations by 0.45 ppm or more. The potential air quality impacts of the proposed project were assessed using guidelines developed by the SCAQMD in their adopted CEQA Air Quality Handbook, and using the CALINE CO hot spot analysis model. 4.2.4 IMPACTS AND MITIGATION The proposed project involves constructing a new temple on the project site. Air quality impacts associated with pollutant emissions during short -term construction of the project, long -term regional emissions, and long -term local CO hot spot analysis associated with the proposed project are discussed below. 4.2.4.1 Less Than Significant Impacts Regional Air Quality Impacts. Long -term air emission impacts are those resulting from the change in permanent usage of the project site. Mobile source emissions would result from vehicle trips associated with the proposed project. New traffic generated by the project would increase regional emissions, but would be below the SCAQMD significance standards. The proposed project includes the construction of a new temple. The projected vehicle trips are 106 during the weekend peak hour. The projected weekend daily trips are 770 (Urban Crossroads, Inc., P: \cnb230 \EIR \Section 4.2.doc «06/21/02,, 4.2 -13 ' LSA ASSOCI AT¢S. INC. ¢N VI0.0N MENTAL IMPACT REPORT JUNE ROOK CHURCH OP JESUS CHR1ST OF LATTER DAY SAINTS TEMPLE CITY OP NEWPORT BEACH ' October 2001). For a worst case scenario, this air quality analysis evaluated the opening year (2004) emissions when the emission factors would be higher than future years beyond 2004. Based on the latest URBEMIS7G air quality model and the SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook, the proposed ' land uses would generate criteria pollutant emissions as summarized in Table 4.2.D. I 1 Table 4.2.D: Project Related Mobile Source Emissions (Pounds/Day) Category COT ROC NOx SOx PMIo Total Proposed Project 66.98 7.96 i 11.90 4.28 CAQMD Thresholds 550 75 100 150 1 150 Significant Impact? No No No No No Source: LSA Associates, Inc., April 2002. Table 4.2.1) shows that emissions from project related mobile sources would not exceed the operational thresholds for any of the criteria pollutants. There would be no project related significant long -term air quality impacts. Regional air quality will be improved through the implementation of ' the Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) and other air quality rules and regulations. No mitigation measures are required for long -term air quality impacts. Local Air Quality Impacts. Vehicular trips associated with the proposed project would contribute to turn movements at intersections in the project vicinity. Local CO concentrations would increase as a result of the increase. However, modeling results show that no new CO hot spots would occur from timplementation of the proposed project. Ambient local air quality is most affected directly by carbon monoxide emissions from motor vehicles. CO is typically the contaminant of greatest concern because it is the pollutant created in greatest abundance by motor vehicles and it does not readily disperse into the air. Because CO does not readily disperse into the atmosphere, areas of vehicle congestion create "pockets" of CO called ' hot spots. These pockets have the potential to exceed the State one hour standard of 20 ppm and /or the eight hour standard of 9.0 ppm. ' CO transport is extremely limited; CO disperses rapidly with distance from the source under normal meteorological conditions. However, under certain extreme meteorological conditions, CO concentrations proximate to a congested roadway or intersection may reach unhealthful levels affecting local sensitive receptors (residents, schoolchildren, the elderly, hospital patients, etc). Typically, high CO concentrations are associated with roadways or intersections operating at unacceptable levels of service or with extremely high traffic volumes. In areas with high ambient ' I Calculated in winter for worst case scenario. ' 2 URBEMIS7G does not provide emissions estimate for SOx. The entire State of California has been to compliance with national and State SOx standards in the past ten years. P: \cnb230 \EIR \Section 41.doc u0621/02>> 4.2 -14 ' LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. JUNE 1002 1 I 1 I 1 1 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER DAY SAINTS TEMPLE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH background CO concentration, modeling is recommended in determining a project's effect on local CO levels. Existing CO concentrations in the immediate project vicinity are not available. Ambient CO levels monitored at the North Coast Orange station, the closest station with monitored CO data, showed a highest recorded one hour concentration of 9.0 ppm (State standard is 20 ppm) and a highest eight hour concentration of 7.1 ppm (State standard is 9 ppm) during the past five years (see Table 4.2.B). The highest CO concentrations occur during peak traffic hours; hence, CO impacts calculated under peak traffic conditions represent a worst case analysis. Modeling of the CO hot spot analysis was based on traffic volumes generated by the project traffic study (Urban Crossroads, Inc., October 2001), which identified the peak traffic levels generated in the project area with and without the proposed project. The impact on local carbon monoxide levels was assessed with the CARB approved CALINE4 air quality model, which allows microscale CO concentrations to be estimated along roadway corridors or near intersections. This model is designed to identify localized concentrations of carbon monoxide, often termed "hot spots." A brief discussion of input to the CALINE4 model follows. The analysis was performed for the worst case wind angle and wind speed condition and is based upon the following assumptions: • Selected modeling locations represent the intersections closest to the project site, with the highest project related vehicle turning movements and the worst level of service deterioration; • Twenty receptor locations with the possibility of extended outdoor exposure from 15 meters (approximately 49 feet) to 28 meters (approximately 92 feet) of the roadway centerline near intersections were modeled to determine carbon monoxide concentrations; • The calculations assume a meteorological condition of almost no wind (0.5 meter /second), a suburban topographical condition between the source and receptor, and a mixing height of 1,000 meters, representing a worst case scenario for CO concentrations; • CO concentrations are calculated for the one hour averaging period and then compared to the one ' hour standards. CO eight hour averages are extrapolated using a persistence factor of 0.7 and compared to the eight hour standards; 1 1 1 1 1 • Concentrations are given in ppm at each of the receptor locations; • The "at- grade" link option with speed adjusted based on average cruise speed and number of vehicles per lane per hour was used rather than the "intersection" link selection in the CALINE4 model. (Caltrans has suggested that the "intersection" link should not be used due to an inappropriate algorithm based on outdated vehicle distribution), and • The highest of the second highest CO concentrations from the past two years of monitoring at the North Coast Orange station were used as background concentrations, as recommended by the EPA. The "background" concentrations are then added to the model results for with and without the proposed project conditions. The projected ambient CO concentrations are 7.8 ppm for the one hour CO and 5.4 ppm for the eight hour CO. Data in Table 4.2.E show the projected CO levels under the year 2004 conditions with and without the proposed project. P1cnb230T1R \Section 4.2.doc 462110Z� 4.2 -15 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 i 1 1 1 1 i 1 LEA ASSOCIATES, INC. JUNE R4OR ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER DAY SAINTS TEMPLE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Table 4.2.E: Roadway Intersection Carbon Monoxide Concentrations (ppm)1 (1 hour /8 hour) Intersection Distance to 2004 No Project 2004 With Project ! Project Related Roadway Conditions Conditions Increase Centerline (m) Jamboree Road & 15 10.9/7.6 10.9/7.6 0.0/0.0 Ford Road 16 10.9/7.6 j 10.9/7.6 0.0/0.0 19 10.8/7.5 10.8/7.5 0.0/0.0 21 10.8/7.5 10.8/7.5 0.0/0.0 MacArthur 21 10.5/7.3 10.5/7.3 0.0/0.0 Boulevard & Bison j 26 10.4/7.2 10.4/7.2 j 0.0 /0.0 Avenue 26 10.4/7.2 10.4/7.2 0.0/0.0 28 10.4/7.2 10.4/7.2 0.0/0.0 MacArthur 19 14.8/10.3 14.9/10.4 0.1/0.1 Boulevard & Bonita 21 14.6/10.2 14.7/10.2 0.1/0.0 Canyon Road 26 14.5/10.1 14.5/10.1 0.0/0.0 28 14.5/10.1 14.5/10.1 0.0/0.0 MacArthur 20 11.9/8.3 11.9/8.3 0.0 /0.0 Boulevard & San 21 11.7/8.1 11.7/8.1 0.0 /0.0 Joaquin Hills Road 22 11.6/8.1 11.6/8.1 0.0/0.0 24 11.6/8.1 11.6/8.1 0.0/0.0 Source: LSA Associates, Inc., March 2002 - Include ambient I hr /8 hr CO concentrations of 7.8/5.4 ppm for future years. P: \cnb230\EIR \Section 4.2.doc .06/21/02. 4.2 -16 ' LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. ENVIR ON MENTAL IMPACT REPORT JUNE 20 02 CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER DAY SAINTS TEMPLE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH P: \cnb230 \E1R \Section 4.2.d0C «06/21/02,, 4.2-17 Construction of the proposed temple would not produce any new exceedances of either the State or ' federal CO standards for either the one hour or eight hour durations. The one hour CO concentration, 2004 With Project Conditions, near all four intersections analyzed ranges from 10.4 to 14.9 ppm, lower than the 20 ppm State standard. The eight hour CO concentration, 2004 With Project Conditions, ranges from 7.2 to 10.4 ppm, exceeding the 9.0 ppm State standard at the intersection of MacArthur Boulevard and Bonita Canyon Road. The exceedance of the 8 hour concentration at the t intersection of MacArthur Boulevard and Bonita Canyon Road, however, would occur in 2004 with or without the proposed project. With the proposed project, the exceedance of the 8 hour CO concentration at this intersection would continue. The proposed project would add 0.1 ppm or less to the one hour and eight hour CO concentrations. These changes are smaller than the 1.0 ppm and 0.45 ' ppm significant thresholds, respectively, for the I hour and 8 hour CO concentration changes recommended by the SCAQMD. Therefore, although CO hot spots would occur, the project related ' increase would be less than significant. No mitigation measures are required. ' The traffic volumes at each of the four analyzed intersections are expected to increase between ' opening year and the build -out year. However, the improvements in exhaust control technologies are expected to offset any increases in emissions associated with higher traffic volumes. Therefore, as the project will not generate any impacts in 2004, no air quality impacts would occur in the future. 1 construction equipment on site would result in localized exhaust emissions. Emissions associated Construction Air Quality Impacts. Air quality impacts would occur during the site preparation 1 including grading and equipment exhaust. Major sources of emissions during grading and site preparation include exhaust emissions from construction vehicles and equipment and fugitive dust generated by construction vehicles and equipment traveling over exposed surfaces, as well as by soil disturbances from grading and filling. The PM10 emissions threshold will be exceeded on a daily basis during construction. However, with the implementation of the standard conditions, the PM10 emissions will be reduced to below the threshold of significance. P: \cnb230 \E1R \Section 4.2.d0C «06/21/02,, 4.2-17 Grading and construction activities would cause combustion emissions from utility engines, heavy - ' duty construction vehicles, haul trucks, and vehicles transporting the construction crew. Exhaust emissions during grading and construction activities envisioned on site would vary daily as construction activity levels change. The applicant has specified that the following construction equipment will be utilized for construction activities: one scraper, one dozer, one motor grader, one water truck, and a foreman truck. Additionally, the construction equipment will not operate more than eight hours each day. Building construction will not begin until after grading is completed. Therefore, there will be no overlap in emissions from grading or building construction. It is anticipated that peak grading days would generate a larger amount of air pollutants than during peak building construction days. Construction Equipment Exhaust Emissions. Construction activities produce combustion emissions from various sources such as site grading, utility engines, on -site heavy -duty ' construction vehicles, equipment hauling materials to and from the site, and motor vehicles transporting the construction crew. Exhaust emissions during the construction activities envisioned on site would vary daily as construction activity levels change. The use of ' construction equipment on site would result in localized exhaust emissions. Emissions associated with grading were estimated based on the amount of soil /dirt expected to be excavated/moved / 1 P: \cnb230 \E1R \Section 4.2.d0C «06/21/02,, 4.2-17 11 11 1 11 LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT JUNE 30U3 CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER DAY SAINTS TEMPLE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH filled on the project site during the project's grading phase, and the specified equipment required to accomplish the work. The construction equipment exhaust emissions associated with the proposed project are summarized in Table 4.2.17 below. Appendix B includes the calculation sheets for construction equipment exhausts and fugitive dust emissions from grading activities. Table 4.2.F: Peak Day Project Emissions from Construction Equipment Exhaust and Related Construction Activities Hours of Source Operation CO (lbs /day) ROC (lbs /day) NOx Obs /day) sox (lbs /day) PMIo (lbs /day) Scraper 8 22.8 2.1 39.4 4.2 3.1 Dozer 8 17.5 3.2 36.7 3.2 1.6 Motor Grader 8 6.1 2.3 16.0 1.5 0.8 Water Truck 8 0.4 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 Foreman Truck 8 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Worker Commute 6.0 0.3 1.2 0.0 0.0 Total 52.9 7.9 93.5 8.9 5.5 SCAQMD Construction Emission Thresholds 550 75 100 150 150 Source: LSA Associates. Inc., 2002. As shown in Table 4.2.17, construction equipment emissions would not exceed the SCAQMD daily thresholds for criteria pollutants. Project emissions from construction equipment exhaust and construction activities will be less than significant, and no mitigation measures are required. Fugitive dust and architectural coating emissions are discussed below. I P: \cnb230 \EIWSection 4.2.doc «06/21 /011 4.2 -18 Fugitive Dust. Fugitive dust emissions are generally associated with demolition, land clearing, exposure, and cut and fill operations. Dust generated during construction activities would vary substantially, depending on the level of activity, the specific operations, and weather conditions. Nearby sensitive receptors and on -site workers may be exposed to blowing dust, depending upon ' prevailing wind conditions. A near balance of project related soil is anticipated. Therefore, a limited amount of debris will be imported or exported from the project site, minimizing the exhaust emissions from haul trucks and dust from soil transfer. tThe fugitive dust emissions associated with the proposed project are summarized in Table 4.2.G below. PMIo emissions would exceed the SCAQMD threshold of 150 pounds per day without the projects standard conditions during the construction phase. I P: \cnb230 \EIWSection 4.2.doc «06/21 /011 4.2 -18 1 1 1 1 [_1 1 1 1 11 1 1 I 1 LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. JUNE 2..2 ENVIRO N MENTAL IMPACT REPORT CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER DAY SAINTS TEMPLE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Table 4.2.G: Peak Day Project Fugitive Dust Emissions Source: LSA Associates, Inc., 2002. Table 4.2.G shows that, with the standard conditions to reduce construction related fugitive dust, PM10 emissions from construction activities are expected to be reduced by 50 percent. With the implementation of standard condition SC 2 -1 the PM10 emissions will be reduced to below a level of significance. Total Construction Emissions. Table 4.2.H summarizes the total emissions during project construction, under the controlled PM10 emissions scenarios. As shown, the total construction emissions will not exceed construction thresholds for criteria pollutants. No significant impact to air quality will occur, and no mitigation measures are required. Architectural Coatings. Architectural coatings contain volatile organic compounds (VOC) that are similar to ROC and are part of the ozone precursors. The VOC emissions associated with architectural coatings are the primary source of VOC during the construction of any residential housing tract. Emissions associated with architectural coating could be reduced by using precoated/natural colored building materials, using water based or low VOC coatings, and using coating transfer or spray equipment with high transfer efficiency. For example, a high volume low pressure (HVLP) spray method is a coating application system operated at air pressure between 0.1 and 10 pounds per square inch gauge (psig) with 65 percent transfer efficiency. Manual coatings application such as paint brush, hand roller, trowel, spatula, dauber, rag, or P: \tnb230\E1R \Section 4.2.dot u06M /02» 4.2 -19 1 i Amount ! No. I Uncontrolled PM10 ! Controlled PM10 Category I Source Per day Units j Emissions Emissions[ Excavation iScraper 1,075 I 10.4 5.2 c.y. i Ibs /day lbs /day Excavation Dozer 8 hours I 2.8 1.4 Its/Lay Ibs /day Hauling 11075 I 33.5 16.8 (Scraper c.y. Ibs /day Ibs /day Dumping/ Scraper 1,075 I 0.2 0.1 Reclamation c.y. Ibs /day Ibs /day Miscellaneous ; Grader 8 hours 1 45.9 23.0 Activities Ibs /day Ibs /day Wind Erosion I Exposed 6.92 acres 28.4 14.2 Area Its/day Ibs /day Vehicle Travel Light Heavy 10 Miles I j 26.3 13.1 Duty Trucks Ibs /day Ibs /day Vehicle Travel Light Duty (Trucks i 10 Miles 1 6.4 3.2 i lbs /day Ibs /day Total PM10 153.9 76.9 Emissions Ibs /day Ibs /day Source: LSA Associates, Inc., 2002. Table 4.2.G shows that, with the standard conditions to reduce construction related fugitive dust, PM10 emissions from construction activities are expected to be reduced by 50 percent. With the implementation of standard condition SC 2 -1 the PM10 emissions will be reduced to below a level of significance. Total Construction Emissions. Table 4.2.H summarizes the total emissions during project construction, under the controlled PM10 emissions scenarios. As shown, the total construction emissions will not exceed construction thresholds for criteria pollutants. No significant impact to air quality will occur, and no mitigation measures are required. Architectural Coatings. Architectural coatings contain volatile organic compounds (VOC) that are similar to ROC and are part of the ozone precursors. The VOC emissions associated with architectural coatings are the primary source of VOC during the construction of any residential housing tract. Emissions associated with architectural coating could be reduced by using precoated/natural colored building materials, using water based or low VOC coatings, and using coating transfer or spray equipment with high transfer efficiency. For example, a high volume low pressure (HVLP) spray method is a coating application system operated at air pressure between 0.1 and 10 pounds per square inch gauge (psig) with 65 percent transfer efficiency. Manual coatings application such as paint brush, hand roller, trowel, spatula, dauber, rag, or P: \tnb230\E1R \Section 4.2.dot u06M /02» 4.2 -19 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. JUNE R00R ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CHURCH Of JESUS CHRIST Of LATTER DAY SAINTS TEMPLE Table 4.2.11: Peak Day Project Construction Emissions Source: LSA Associates, Inc., 2002. P: \cnb230 \EIR \Section 4.2.doc «0621/02» 4.2 -20 CO ROC NOx sox PM10 (lbs /day) Obs /day) (lbs /day) (lbs /day) (lbs /day) Construction 52.9 7.9 93.5 8.9 5.5 Equipment Exhaust and Worker Commute Grading/Soil 76.9 Disturbance (Controlled Emissions) Total Project Emissions 52.9 7.9 93.5 j 8.9 82.4 SCAQMD 550 75 100 j 150 150 Construction Thresholds i Impact Significant? No No No No No Source: LSA Associates, Inc., 2002. P: \cnb230 \EIR \Section 4.2.doc «0621/02» 4.2 -20 I H 1 1 1 C] LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. ENVIRON M ENTAL IMPACT REPORT JUNE ]00] CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER DAY SAINTS TEMPLE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH sponge have 100 percent transfer efficiency. The exterior of the Temple will be constructed of granite. The combination of this project design feature and implementation of standard condition SC 2 -2, potential impacts related to architectural coatings will be reduced to below a level of significance. Air Quality Consistency Analysis. A consistency determination plays an essential role in local agency project review by linking local planning and unique individual projects to the AQMP. It fulfills the CEQA goal of fully informing local agency decision makers of the environmental costs of the project under consideration at a stage early enough to ensure that air quality concerns are addressed. Only new or amended General Plan elements, Specific Plans, and significantly unique projects need to undergo a consistency review due to the AQMP strategy being based on projections from local General Plans. The proposed project consists of constructing a new temple to accommodate the existing church members in the project vicinity and is not a growth inducing project. The proposed project would not result in any significant changes to the District's plan and SCAG's projection for the project site. Therefore, the project is considered to be consistent with the local AQMP. 4.2.5 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ' The project is not expected to result in any significant long -term air quality impacts. With the implementation of the standard conditions, short-term air quality impacts during construction would be reduced to a level considered less than significant. ' 4.2.6 SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS ' There will be no significant unavoidable adverse air quality impacts as a result of the proposed project. 1 1 FJ PACnb230MR \Section 4.2.doc «06/21 102» 4.2 -21 ' LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT JUNE 2002 CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER DAY SAINTS TEMPLE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ' 4.3 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY This section addresses surface hydrology, subsurface hydrology, flooding and erosion hazards, and ' surface and groundwater quality at the project site. Information presented in this section is based on the Hydrology Analysis for Parcel Map 91 -270, Parcel I, City of Newport Beach prepared by Hunsaker & Associates (H &A, 2002). ' 4.3.1 EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING I H 1 n 4.3.1.1 On -Site Conditions The project site is located within the Santa Ana River Water Quality Control Board (SARWQCB) jurisdiction, a State agency that regulates discharge into the State's waters, and is located within the Santa Ana River Basin. The site is currently vacant, with the exception of two asphalt parking areas, and has been previously cleared and rough graded. Most of the site consists of a relatively level pad area with a uniform downward gradient towards the northwest and northeast. Topographic relief on the main portion of the site is approximately 15 feet, with the high point located on the previously graded pad area at elevation 189 feet above mean sea level (msl) in the east central portion of the site and a topographic low elevation at 174 feet above msl located along the north property line near the northwest comer. The project site is rectangular in shape and approximately 8.65 acres in size. Ground surface cover throughout most of the site consists of uncovered soil stockpiled across much of the site, asphalt parking areas, and moderate growth of native weeds and gasses. The stockpiled soils are from an adjacent construction project and are currently being stored on site. Existing runoff can be expected to contain sediment, nutrients from decaying plant matter, and bacteria from wildlife. 4.3.1.2 Surface Water Hydrology The hydrology study for the site (H &A, 2002) delineates three main drainage areas: Area A, Area B, and Area C. Runoff from Area A flows north and drains to an existing desilting inlet of a 24 inch reinforced concrete pipe (RCP) in the northwest portion of the property (Line A) (Figure 4.3.1). Runoff from Area B flows north and drains to an existing desilting inlet of a 24 inch RCP in the northeast portion of the property (Line B). Runoff from Area C flows north to an existing catch basin at the western end of the property, and through an existing storm drain that runs through the existing church site, and drains into Bonita Creek, an unlined drainage. Lines A and B drain to riprap energy dissipators and then into Bonita Creek. Stormwater in Bonita Creek meets San Diego Creek just upstream of Upper Newport Bay (USGS, 1965). Table 4.3.A provides calculated flows for the 100 year storm event in the existing condition. P:\CNB230 \E1R \Section 4.3.doca06/211020 4.3 -1 V N Q -c b O U o G k1 I 0 O k :. N W F Q (J O N N Q W Y a N z ui N u � a N LL� d 3 0 m u N M LLI g o g o � ZoZ J fS fS � LS O U . N � m � VO i Q ` • O f ` V Q ' O r v ¢ . A 20 � Q C (i V N Q -c b O U o G k1 I 0 O k :. N W F Q (J O N N Q W Y a N z ui N u � a N LL� d 3 0 m u 11 LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT JUNE 3003 CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER DAY SAINTS TEMPLE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Table 4.3.A: Existing Condition Storm Water Runoff Flows -100 Year Storm Drainage Area (Acres) QJoo (CFS) Runoff Destination Area A 4.3 17.0 (Line A) Bonita Creek Area B 2.4 13.4 (Line B) Bonita Creek Area C 0.7 3.4 (existing catch basin) Bonita Creek Source: H &A, 2002 Notes: QI, =Flow for 100 year storm ' CFS = cubic feet per second The project site is not located within a 100 year flood hazard area (FIRM [Flood Insurance Map] No. 06059, Panel COO55E, September 15, 1989), the site has no historical evidence of flooding, and it is not subject to mudflows. The Bonita Canyon Dam/Reservoir is located directly adjacent to the northern boundary of the project site. Improvements have recently been completed to stabilize the structure in order to satisfy current California Division of Safety of Dams (DSOD) design standards. 4.3.1.3 Groundwater Hydrology Sandstone and siltstone of the Topanga formation and terrace deposits reportedly underlie the site (Southern California Geotechnical (SCG), 2001). Exploratory borings conducted at the site by SCG in September, 2001, to a maximum depth of approximately 40 feet below ground surface did not encounter groundwater. The Hydrology Analysis for the project site (H &A, 2002) characterized the on -site soil as belonging to Group D per the Orange County Hydrology Manual. Group D soils have a high runoff potential and a very slow infiltration rate when thoroughly wetted. 4.3.1.4 Surface Water Quality This section provides a discussion of water quality parameters, common pollutants in urban runoff, water quality objectives and guidance for receiving waters as well as permits for discharge to waters of the U.S., other water quality criteria, and local groundwater quality. 4.3.1.4.1 Water Quality Parameters. The physical properties and chemical constituents of water ' traditionally serve as the primary means for monitoring and evaluating water quality in receiving waters as they are measures of the degree of pollution in water. Water quality evaluations are based on physical, chemical, or biological characteristics. Water quality parameters for stormwater comprise a long list and are classified in many ways. Some of the physical, chemical, or biological characteristics that are used to evaluate the quality of the surface runoff are as follows: • Biological Oxygen Demand (BOD) - BOD is an index of the oxygen demanding properties of the biodegradable material in water. It is used as a measure of the degree of organic pollution of water. BOD is useful in assessing stream pollution loads and for comparison purposes. P: \CNB230UMSection 4.3.doca06/21/02>> 4.3 -3 ' LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT JUNE RYYR CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST Of LATTER DAY SAINTS TEMPLE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH IF Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD) - COD is a measure of the pollutant loading in terms of ' complete oxidation using strong oxidizing agents. It represents the weight of oxygen taken up by the organic matter in a sample of water. ' ' 43.1.4.2 Common Sources of Pollutants in Urban Runoff. There are several pollutants commonly associated with stormwater runoff, including sediment, nutrients, bacteria, oxygen demanding substances, petroleum products, heavy metals, toxic chemicals and floatables. The ' common sources of the more common pollutants in stormwater or urban runoff are reflected in Table 4.3.13. These pollutants and their impacts on water quality and aquatic habitat are described in more detail below. ' IF Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) — TDS is the amount of matter dissolved in water. Dissolved solids affect the ionic bonding strength related to other pollutants such as metals in water. TDS affects saturation concentration of dissolved oxygen and influences the ability of a water body to 'IF assimilate wastes. pH - pH is an indication of the balance of chemical equilibrium in water (acidity and alkalinity) ' and affects the availability of certain chemicals or nutrients in water for uptake by plants. The pH of water directly affects fish and other aquatic life. Many pollutants can alter the pH, raising or ' lowering it excessively (SARWQB, 1995). Generally toxic limits are pH values less than 4.8 and ' greater than 9.2; however, the Santa Ana River Basin Plan cites a pH of 6.5 to 8.5 as optimal. Turbidity - Turbidity indicates the clarity of water, which is an important indicator of water ' quality that relates to the ability of photosynthetic light to penetrate the water. It is affected by the amount of particulates in water (SARWQCB, 1995). • Nitrogen (N) - Nitrogen in stormwater results from organic matter or chemical additions. Ammonia and nitrate are important nutrients for growth of algae and other plants. Excessive nitrogen can lead to eutrophication (an excess buildup of nutrients). 'IF Phosphorous (P) - In many water bodies, phosphorus is the limiting nutrient that prevents additional biological activity (such as algal blooms) from occurring. The origin of this ' constituent in urban stormwater discharge is generally fertilizers and other industrial products. ' 43.1.4.2 Common Sources of Pollutants in Urban Runoff. There are several pollutants commonly associated with stormwater runoff, including sediment, nutrients, bacteria, oxygen demanding substances, petroleum products, heavy metals, toxic chemicals and floatables. The ' common sources of the more common pollutants in stormwater or urban runoff are reflected in Table 4.3.13. These pollutants and their impacts on water quality and aquatic habitat are described in more detail below. ' Sediments. Natural sediment loads are important to downstream environments by providing habitat, substrate, and nutrition; however, increased sediment loads can result in several negative ' effects to downstream environments. Excessive sediment can be detrimental to aquatic life by interfering with photosynthesis, respiration, growth, and reproduction. In addition, pollutants that adhere to sediment, such as nutrients, trace metals, and hydrocarbons, can have other harmful ' effects on the aquatic environment when they occur in elevated levels. ' Nutrients. Nutrients are typically composed of phosphorus and/or nitrogen. Elevated levels in surface waters cause algal blooms and excessive vegetative growth. As nutrients are absorbed, the vegetative growth decomposes, utlizing oxygen in the process and reducing dissolved oxygen ' levels. Dissolved oxygen is critical for support of aquatic life. The ammonium form of nitrogen (found in wastewater discharges) converts to nitrate and nitrite in the presence of oxygen, which further reduces the dissolved oxygen levels in water. P: \CNB230\EIR \Section 4.3.dooR062110N 4.3 -4 1 1 t LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. JUNE 20 02 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER DAY SAINTS TEMPLE Table 4.3.B: Common Sources of Pollutants in Urban Runoff Pollutant Automobile/ Atmospheric Deposit Urban Housekeeping/ Landscaping Practices Industrial Activities Construction Activities Nonstorm Water Connections Accidental Spills & Illegal Dumping SEDIMENTS X X X X NUTRIENTS X X X X X X BACTERIA & VIRUSES X X X X OXYGEN DEMANDING SUBSTANCES X X X X X PETROLEUM PRODUCTS X X X X X X METALS Chromium X X X Copper X X X Lead X X X Zinc X X X Iron X X Cadmium X X Nickel X X Manganese X X Paint X X X X TOXICS Fuels X X X X X PCBs X X X Pesticides X X X X X X Herbicides X X X X X Anti -freeze X X X X X Cleaners and Solvents X X X X X FLOATABLES X X X X Source: PBS &1(2001) as found in Minnesota PICA (1989); Berman, L., et al. (1991); Woodward -Clyde (1990); USEPA (1991); Schueler (1987); Beaton, J., et al. (1972); and Oberts, G. (1986). P \CNB230\E1R\Scction 43.docn06 /21102» 4.3 -5 ' LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. E NVIRON MENTAL IMPACT REPORT JUNE 2002 CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER DAY SAINTS TEMPLE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Trace Metals. Bioavailable forms of trace metals are toxic to aquatic life. The most common trace metals found in urban runoff are lead, zinc, and copper. Sources of heavy metals in surface waters include emissions and deposits from automobiles, industrial wastewater, and common ' household chemicals. Oxygen Demanding Substances. Oxygen demanding substances include plant debris (such as leaves and lawn clippings), animal wastes, and other organic matter. Microorganisms utilize dissolved oxygen during consumption of these substances, which reduces a waterbody's capacity to support aquatic life. Bacteria. Bacterial levels in urban runoff can exceed public health standards for water contact recreation. Bacteria levels in streams within natural watersheds also can exceed standards for water contact recreation. A common source of bacteria is animal excrement. ' Oil and Grease. Oil and grease contain a wide variety of petroleum hydrocarbons, some of which could be toxic to aquatic life even in low concentrations. These materials initially float on water and create a rainbow colored slick or film, which can impair oxygen transfer. Other Toxic Chemicals. Other toxic chemicals are generally related to hazardous wastes or industrial by- products and can be sometimes detected in stormwater, but are typically rare. The other toxic chemicals that do occur in measurable levels in tested stormwater include phthalate (plasticizer compound), phenols and creosols (wood preservatives), pesticides and herbicides, oils and greases, and metals. 4.3.1.4.3 Water and Sediment Quality Objectives and Guidance. The State Water Resources ' Control Board (SWRCB) sets objectives and criteria for the protection of water quality in various California water bodies, implementing the federal Clean Water Act and the State Porter - Cologne Water Quality Control Act through its nine regional boards. The SARWQCB is responsible for ' ensuring implementation and compliance with these acts within its jurisdiction, which includes most of Orange County and parts of Riverside County and San Bernardino County. ' No comparable criteria exist for the protection of aquatic life from contaminated sediments. The National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) published effects -based sediment quality values for evaluating the potential for constituents in sediment to cause adverse biological effects in Long and Morgan (1990). Those values are referred to as Effects Range -Low (ER -L) and Effects Range Median (ER -M). The ER -L concentrations are equivalent to the lower tenth percentile of available data screened by NOAA and indicate the low end of the range of concentrations at which adverse biological effects are observed or predicted in sensitive species and/or sensitive life stages. The ER -M values are concentrations based on the NOAA screened data at which effects are observed or predicted in 50 percent of the test organisms evaluated. The ER -L and ER -M concentrations were later updated based on an expanded data set by Long et al. (1995). Sediment samples in which all ' chemical concentrations are below ER -L values are not expected to be toxic (Chambers Group, Inc., 2000). The updated levels are provided in Table 4.3.C. P: 1CNB230\EIRxSwion 4.3.doc<,06/2 MN 4.3 -6 I 1 1 1 LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. JUNE 3003 Table 4.3.0 Sediment Effects Guideline Values ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER DAY SAINTS TEMPLE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Parameter Effects Range -Low (ER -L) Effects Range- Median (ER -M) Metals (mg/Kg) Antimony 2.0 2.5 Arsenic 8.2 70 Cadmium 1.2 9.6 Chromium 81 370 Copper 34 270 Lead 46.7 218 Mercury 0.15 0.71 Nickel 20.9 51.6 Silver 1 3.7 Zinc 150 410 Organics (µg/Kg) Acenaphthene 16 500 Acenaphthylene 44 640 Anthracene 85.3 1,100 Fluorene 19 540 2- Methyl naphthalene 70 670 Naphthalene 160 2,100 Phenanthrene 240 1,500 Low - molecular weight PAH 552 3,160 Benz(a)anthracene 261 1,600 Benzo(a)pyrene 430 1,600 Chrysene 384 2,800 Dibenzo(a h)anthracene 63.4 260 Fluoranthene 600 5,100 Pyrene 665 2,600 High molecular weight PAH 1,700 9,600 Total PAH 4,022 44,792 p,p' -DDE 2.2 27 Total DDT 1.58 46.1 Total PCBs 22.7 180 Source: Chambers Group, Inc., 2001, as reported in Long et al. (1995). ER -L = Concentration at lower tenth percentile at which adverse biological effects were observed or predicted. ER -M = Concentration at which adverse biological effects were observed or predicted in 50% of test organisms. mg/Kg = milligrams per kilogram gg/Kg = micrograms per kilogram P:\CNB2301EIRlSection 4.3.dm, (0621102» 4.3 -7 LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT JUNE SODS CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER BAY SAINTS TEMPLE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH The State Mussel Watch Program measures tissue contaminant concentrations in mussels and freshwater clams that reside in or are transplanted to various locations in California. The SWRCB introduced Elevated Data Levels (EDLs) as an internal comparative measure that ranks all the results for a species, exposure condition, and a given chemical from the highest concentration to records where the chemical was not detected. The 85th percentile (EDL 85) was chosen as an indication that a chemical is markedly elevated from the median. The EDLs are not directly related to potentially adverse human or animal effects, they do provide guidance as to how values from one area compare ' to the larger database of findings from all over the state (Chambers Group, Inc., 2001). 43.1.4.4 Comprehensive Water Quality Control Plan, Santa Ana River Basin (Basin Plan). The SARWQCB has adopted a Basin Plan for its region of responsibility, which includes the City of Newport Beach. The agency has delineated water resource area boundaries based on hydrological ' features. For purposes of achieving and maintaining water quality protection, specific beneficial uses and water quality objectives have been identified for each of the hydrologic areas within the Santa Ana River Basin. Beneficial uses and water quality objectives are presented and described in the Basin Plan. The Basin Plan also establishes implementation programs to achieve water quality objectives and requires monitoring to evaluate the effectiveness of that implementation. The Santa Ana River Basin Plan requires that both point source and nonpoint source pollution be controlled to protect designated beneficial uses of water. Beneficial uses of water are defined in the Basin Plan as those necessary for the survival or well being of humans, plants, and wildlife. Examples of beneficial uses include drinking water supplies, swimming, industrial and agricultural water supply, and the support of freshwater and marine habitats and their organisms. Bonita Creek is tributary to Newport Bay /San Diego Creek and is the only receiving water for the project. It is not used for municipal or domestic water supply, but has the following intermittent (seasonal) beneficial uses: L • Groundwater Recharge (GWR) — Includes areas that are used for natural or artificial recharge of groundwater for extraction, maintaining water quality, or preventing saltwater intrusion into freshwater aquifers. • Contact Water Recreation (REC -1) - Includes uses of water for recreational activities involving body contact with water, where ingestion of water is reasonably possible. These uses include, but are not limited to, swimming, wading, waterskiing, skin diving, scuba diving, surfing, white water ' activities, fishing, or use of natural hot springs. Noncontact Water Recreation (REC -2) — Includes the uses of water for recreational activities involving proximity to water, but not normally involving body contact with water, where ingestion of water is reasonably possible. These uses include, but are not limited to, picnicking, sunbathing, hiking, beachcombing, camping, boating, tidepool and marine life study, hunting, sightseeing, or aesthetic enjoyment in conjunction with the above activities. ' Wildlife Habitat (WILD) — Includes uses of water that support terrestrial ecosystems, including, but not limited to, preservation and enhancement of terrestrial habitats, vegetation, wildlife (e.g., mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, invertebrates), or wildlife water and food sources. ' The Santa Ana Basin Plan has established narrative water quality objectives for Inland Surface Streams such as Bonita Creek. These objectives are provided in Table 4.3.D. P'\CNB230\E1R \Section 43.doca06/21 /02» 4.3 -8 1 LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. JUNE 2001 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST Of LATTER DAY SAINTS TEMPLE Table 4.3.D: Water Quality Objectives for Discharges Applicable to Bonita Creek Parameter Objective Algae Shall not contribute to excessive algal growth Boron Concentrations shall not exceed 0.75 milligrams per liter (mg/L) as a result of controllable water quality factors Chemical Oxygen Demand COD levels shall not adversely affect beneficial uses (COD) Chlorine Chlorine residual shall not exceed 0.1 mg/L Color Shall not cause a nuisance or adversely affect beneficial uses Floatables Shall not contain floating materials including solids, liquids, foam or scum which cause a nuisance or adversely affect beneficial uses Oil and Grease Shall not result in a visible film or in coating objects in water which cause a nuisance or adversely affect beneficial uses Total Suspended Solids (TSS) Shall not cause a nuisance or adversely affect beneficial uses as a result of controllable water quality factors Sulfides Shall not be increased as a result of controllable water quality factors Surfactants Shall not result in foam in the course of flow or use of the receiving water or which adversely affects aquatic life Toxic Substances Concentration of toxic pollutants in water column, sediments, or biota shall not adversely affect beneficial uses Turbidity Shall not increase more than 20 percent of natural levels Fecal coliforms (bacteria) REC -1: log mean less than 200 organisms/ 100 milliliter (ml) based on five or more samples per 30 day period, and not more than 10 percent of the samples exceed 400 organisms/ 100 ml for any 30 day period. Source: SARWQCB (1995) P' \CNB230\E1R\S=ion 4.3.dau06/21/02), 1 4.3 -9 ' LEA ASSOCIATES, INC. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT JUNE 2002 CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER DAY SAINTS TEMPLE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ' 43.1.4.5 Clean Water Act National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System ( NPDES). Direct discharges of pollutants into waters of the United States are not allowed, except in accordance with the NPDES program established in Section 402 of the CWA. The major purpose of the NPDES ' program is to protect human health and the environment. Pursuant to the NPDES program, permits that apply to stormwater discharges from municipal storm drain systems, specific industrial activities, and large construction activities have been issued. NPDES permits establish enforceable effluent limitations on discharges, require monitoring of discharges, designate reporting requirements, and require the permittee to perform best management practices (BMPs). Industrial (point source) stormwater permits are required to meet effluent limitations; municipal permits are governed by the maximum extent practicable (MEP) application of BMPs. ' Municipal Stormwater Permit. The City of Newport Beach is a co-permittee under the Orange County Municipal Permit for the Santa Ana Region, Order No. R8- 2002- 0010(NPDES No. CAS618030). This permit stipulates that permittees shall determine the need to develop a revised Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) for new development and redevelopment projects. The permit encourages development of regional and/or watershed WQMPs. The following projects are subject to a WQMP: all significant redevelopment projects; home subdivisions often units or more; commercial developments of 100,000 square feet or more; automotive repair shops; restaurants where the land area of development is 5,000 square feet or more; all hillside developments on 10,000 square feet or more, which are located on areas with known erosive soil conditions or where the natural slope is 25 percent or more; developments of 2,500 square feet of impervious surface or more adjacent to (within 200 feet) or discharging directly into environmentally sensitive areas; and parking lots of 5,000 square feet or more exposed to stormwater. The goals of the WQMP are to ensure that urbanization does not significantly ' change the hydrology of a site, increase the urban runoff flow rates or velocities, or increase the pollutant loads. The WQMP should incorporate best available technology (BAT) and best control technology (BCT). In addition, the discharge of any pollutant to an impaired water body on the ' 303(d) list should not cause an exceedance of receiving water quality objectives. If the WQMP does not address these goals or if no approved WQMP is in place by October 1, 2003, then structural BMPs will be required to comply with specific numeric criteria. 1 P' \CNB23MEMSection 4.3.docR0621 /0255 4.3 -10 General Construction Activity Stormwater Permit. In accordance with NPDES regulations, to minimize the potential effects of construction runoff on receiving water quality, the State of California requires that any construction activity disturbing five acres or more of soil obtain a General Construction Activity Stormwater Permit. Permit applicants are required to submit a ' Notice of Intent to the S WRCB, prepare a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan ( SWPPP), and implement BMPs detailed in the SWPPP to reduce construction effects on receiving water quality by implementing erosion control measures using the best available or best conventional control technology. Because implementation of the proposed project will collectively involve more than five acres, it would be subject to permit requirements. Typical BMPs required for construction projects are provided in Table 4.3.E. ' SWRCB Resolution 2001 -046 has since modified the General Construction Permit to require specific sampling of runoff and analytical procedures if runoff from a construction site directly discharges into Clear Water Act Section 303(d) listed waters (refer to Section 4.3.1.3.6). ' Municipal Stormwater Permit. The City of Newport Beach is a co-permittee under the Orange County Municipal Permit for the Santa Ana Region, Order No. R8- 2002- 0010(NPDES No. CAS618030). This permit stipulates that permittees shall determine the need to develop a revised Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) for new development and redevelopment projects. The permit encourages development of regional and/or watershed WQMPs. The following projects are subject to a WQMP: all significant redevelopment projects; home subdivisions often units or more; commercial developments of 100,000 square feet or more; automotive repair shops; restaurants where the land area of development is 5,000 square feet or more; all hillside developments on 10,000 square feet or more, which are located on areas with known erosive soil conditions or where the natural slope is 25 percent or more; developments of 2,500 square feet of impervious surface or more adjacent to (within 200 feet) or discharging directly into environmentally sensitive areas; and parking lots of 5,000 square feet or more exposed to stormwater. The goals of the WQMP are to ensure that urbanization does not significantly ' change the hydrology of a site, increase the urban runoff flow rates or velocities, or increase the pollutant loads. The WQMP should incorporate best available technology (BAT) and best control technology (BCT). In addition, the discharge of any pollutant to an impaired water body on the ' 303(d) list should not cause an exceedance of receiving water quality objectives. If the WQMP does not address these goals or if no approved WQMP is in place by October 1, 2003, then structural BMPs will be required to comply with specific numeric criteria. 1 P' \CNB23MEMSection 4.3.docR0621 /0255 4.3 -10 1 H 1 1 1 LSA S OCIATES. INC. CN VIRONMCNTAL IMPACT REPORT JUNE AS R002 CHURCH OP JESUS CHRIST OP LATTER DAY SAINTS TEMPLE CITY OP NEWPORT BEACH Table 4.3.E: Typical Construction BMPs I C Typical Construction BMPs for incorporation, where applicable, E d o u into the WQMP and SWPPP and Submitted Prior to Issuance of a o w w Grading Permit Z Z a a O Soil and slope stabilization utilizing the appropriate combination of X X j X natural and synthetic mattings, geotextiles, mulches, and temporary and permanent seeding. Temporary desalting basins constructed where necessary and X X X consisting of ponds with outflow pipes designed to retain or detain i runoff sufficiently to allow sediment to settle. Storm drain inlet protection utilizing an appropriate combination of X X X Trash barrier devices such as sandbags, straw rolls, hay bales, fiber rolls, gravel, silt fencing, screens, and temporary drain signs (raising awareness and limiting construction wastes from entering the storm drain system). Energy dissipation devices installed where necessary and consisting X X X of physical devices such as rock, riprap, and concrete rubble intended to prevent scour of downstream areas. On -site dust control and street sweeping employed when and where X X X :Trash necessary, paying close attention to paved areas and areas susceptible to wind erosion (such as soil stockpiles). Stabilized construction entrance consisting of pads of aggregate and X X i located where traffic enters public rights -of -way; when and where necessary, wash racks or tire rinsing may be employed (titre rinse waters being directed through on -site sediment control devices). Diversion Structures consisting of devices such as silt fencing, X X Trash temporary or permanent channels, V ditches, earthen dikes, downdrains, straw bales, and sandbag check dams should be utilized where necessary to divert stormwater flows from disturbed areas. Adherence to Groundwater Extraction Permit conducting required X X testing, monitoring, and discharge provisions for activities, including dewatering and foundation dewatering. Construction housekeeping practices consisting of practices such as X X X Trash barricading catch basins and manholes during paving activities; j utilizing plastic sheeting, secondary containment, or bermed areas for construction materials when necessary; removing construction debris j in a timely fashion; designating and lining concrete wash out areas; and berming or locating sanitary facilities away from paved areas. j Fertilizer, pesticide, and soil amendment management, including X X not over - applying such materials and adhering to the County's Management Guidelines for such materials (located in Appendix F of the DAMP). PACNB230TIMSection 4.3.docR0621/02» 4.3-11 LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. UNE 1001 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER DAY SAINTS TEMPLE Orange County Drainage Area Management Plan (DAMP). The DAMP is the Countywide ' plan for implementing the NPDES permits. The current plan satisfies the requirements of the NPDES urban runoff permit program and identifies measures intended to reduce the discharge of pollutants to the maximum practical extent, using BMPs, control techniques and systems, ' engineering methods, and other appropriate provisions. An updated DAMP was submitted to the SARWQCB in 2000 but it has not yet been approved. City of Newport Beach Municipal Code. The following chapters of the Newport Beach Municipal Code provide requirements for new developments with respect to water quality. ' Chapter 14.17 Water - Efficient Landscaping • Chapter 14.36 Water Quality ' Chapter 15.10 Excavation and Grading Code These codes reiterate required BMPs listed in the DAMP and are also provided in City of Newport Beach City Council Policy L -18 Protection of Water Quality: Water Quality Lei 1 1 Management Plans for New Development and Redevelopment (refer to Table 4.3.F below) 43.1.4.6 Other Water Quality Criteria. This section includes criteria from the Clean Water Act, State Assembly Bill 41 1(1997), the California Toxics Rule, and the NPDES Storm Water Multi - Sector General Permit for Industrial Activities, as well as Event Mean Concentrations (EMCs) for stormwater runoff developed by several agencies. Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs). Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act requires that the State adopt water quality objectives for surface waters. The basin plan contains water quality objectives that are considered necessary to protect the specific beneficial uses it identifies. Section 303(d) specifically requires the State to develop a list of impaired water bodies and subsequent numeric TMDLs for whichever constituent(s) impair(s) a particular waterbody. These constituents include inorganic and organic chemical compounds, metals, sediment, and biological agents. The TMDL is the total amount of a constituent that can be discharged while meeting water quality objectives and protecting beneficial uses. It is the sum of the individual load allocations for point source (e.g., an industrial plant) inputs, load allocations for non -point source (e.g., runoff from urban areas) inputs, and natural background, with a margin of safety ( SARWQCB, 2002). Upper Newport Bay is on the most recent (1998) list of impaired waters due to metals, nutrients, pathogens, pesticides, and sedimentation. San Diego Creek Reach 1 (below Jeffrey Road) is listed for metals, nutrients, sedimentation, and pesticides. TMDLs for nutrients, sediment, and fecal coliforms have already been developed for the Newport Bay /San Diego Creek Watershed; TMDLs for metals and pesticides /unknown toxicity are expected to be in place this year' Santa Ana River Basin Plan Amendments (Resolution 98 -100, Resolution 98 -101, Resolution 99 -10) and Draft 2002 Impaired Water Bodies 303(d) List and TMDL Priority Schedule PACNB230\EIR \Sec iOn 4.3.dma0621102v 4.3 -12 1 1 I 1 11 1 I LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT JUNE 100$ CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER DAY SAINTS TEMPLE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Table 4.3.F: Required BWs for New Development P\CNB230\EIR \Section 43.doca0621/01, 4.3 -13 1 G q C y q I E y o u Z a a O Catch basin inspection and cleaning, including the inspection and X X Trash cleaning of privately owned catch basins prior to the rainy season (DAMP, Appendix G) Catch basin stenciling with "no dumping, drains to ocean" or j Hydrocarbons equivalent (DAMP Appendix G) Trash Landscape efficient irrigation system, consistent with County Water X i i X Conservation Resolution or City equivalent (Appendix G; Municipal Code; Policy L -18) Landscape fertilization and pesticide controls, including minimizing ! X X potential discharges by storing and applying such materials in accordance with County Management Guidelines for fertilizers and pesticides (DAMP Appendix F) Runoff minimizing landscape design by grouping plants with similar X X water requirements in order to reduce excess irrigation and promote j j surface filtration (DAMP Appendix G; Municipal Code) Litter control, including designing and implementing a litter control Trash; program that may include litter patrols, emptying of trash bins, ;Hydrocarbons maintaining trash bins, and educating tenants regarding litter reduction ! (DAMP Appendix G) j BMP Maintenance, including identification of responsibility for X X X X X Trash implementation of each nonstructural BMP and scheduled cleaning of all BMP structural facilities (Appendix G; Municipal Code: Polity L- 18) Energy Dissipaters, installing energy dissipaters at the outlets of storm ; X drains to prevent erosion (DAMP Appendix G) ! Title 22 CCR Compliance, regarding hazardous waste management X (DAMP Appendix G) Trash Container (dumpster) Areas, runoff from adjoining roofs and pavements shall be diverted around these areas. Trash bins must have solid covers (DAMP Appendix G; Policy L- 18) Filtration, surface runoff shall be directed to landscaped areas X X X X X wherever practicable (DAMP Appendix G; Polity L -18) Public education, including developing a public awareness program X i X X X X Trash; concerning water quality for maintenance personnel on topics such as Hydrocarbons the management of fertilizers, pesticides, chemicals; proper disposal of animal waste; not introducing oil, paints, and other pollutants into storm drains; effective cleaning practices; proper landscaping practices: and i impacts of over - irrigation (DAMP Appendix G) P\CNB230\EIR \Section 43.doca0621/01, 4.3 -13 LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT JUNE 1001 CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER DAY SAINTS TEMPLE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Bacteria. State Assembly Bill 411 (1997) requires weekly testing from April 1 to October 31 ' each year of all beaches and water contact sports areas that are visited by 50,000 people or more annually (17 CCR Group 10). Commencement of sampling was required no later than April, 1999. Newport Bay is included in the regulated areas. Within Orange County, the Health Care 1 Agency (OCHCA) conducts tests for total coliforms, fecal coliforms, and enterococcus bacteria and lists advisories and closure reports on its web site, as well as providing data to the SWRCB. Postings are issued when bacterial levels in ocean and bay waters exceed health standards. Closures are issued when an immediate health hazard is identified, such as a sewage spill. Long Term Ocean/Bay Postings for 2001 are provided on OCHCA's website. The 33 d Street Channel, 43rd Street Beach, and Harbor Marina in Newport Bay have been posted with advisories since ' 1997, 1999, and 1999, respectively. Harbor Patrol Beach, Lido Yacht Club Beach, and Rhine Channel were all posted in April, 2002. t The minimum protective bacteriological standards for waters adjacent to public beaches and public water contact sports areas shall not exceed: • 1,000 total coliform bacteria per 100 milliliters, if the ration of fecal/total coliform bacteria exceeds 0.1; or • 10,000 total coliform bacteria per 100 milliliters; or ' • 400 fecal coliform bacteria per 100 milliliters; or • 104 enterococcus bacteria per 100 milliliters. ' Based on the mean of the logarithms of the results of at least five weekly samples during any 30 day sampling period, the density of bacteria in water from any sampling station at a public beach or public water contact sports area, shall not exceed: ' 0 1,000 total coliform bacteria per 100 milliliters; or • 200 fecal coliform bacteria per 100 milliliters; or ' 35 enterococcus bacteria per 100 milliliters (17 CCR Group 10). Toxics. The SARWQCB employs water quality criteria from the California Toxics Rule (40 C.F.R. § 131.38) for potentially toxic constituents, primarily trace (heavy) metals and organic compounds, to determine whether beneficial uses are affected by storm and dry weather runoff. The SARWQCB also uses the EPA Parameter Benchmark Values from the NPDES Storm Water Multi- Sector General Permit for Industrial Activities (65 FR 64746), which also include criteria for constituents not considered to be toxic for the same purpose. Table 4.3.G, Runoff Water Quality Guidance Values, provides guidance values for constituents in runoff to assess whether beneficial uses of receiving waters may be impacted. Guidance values for total recoverable, hardness dependent trace metals are shown for four concentrations of hardness (100 mg/L — 400 mg/L). PACNB230\0R \SECrIDn 43AME06l2 ) /02» 4.3 -14 I 11 1 1 1 LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT JUNE ROOK CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER DAY SAINTS TEMPLE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Table 4.3.G: Runoff Water Quality Guidance Values Constituent Units Reference Source Water Quality Guidance Values Total P mg/l EPA Benchmark 2 Dissolved P mg/l Not listed N/A TKN mg/l Not listed N/A Nitrate -N mg/l EPA Benchmark 0.7 BOD mg/l EPA Benchmark 30 COD mg/l EPA Benchmark 120 Total Suspended Solids mg/l EPA Benchmark 100 Total Dissolved Solids mg/l Not listed H100 H2O0 N/A H300 H400 Acute Toxicity Freshwater Discharges Total Pb µg/1 I California Toxics Rule 65 140 210 280 Total Cu µg/1 I California Toxics Rule 13 26 38 50 Total Zn µg/1 California Toxics Rule 120 210 300 380 Total Cd µg/1 California Toxics Rule 4.3 9.0 14 19 Acute Toxicity Saltwater Discharges Total Pb µg/1 California Toxics Rule 78 190 310 450 Total Cu µg/1 California Toxics Rule 12 22 33 43 Total Zn µg/1 California Toxics Rule 1 110 200 290 370 Total Cd µg/l California Toxics Rule 4.3 9.3 I 15 20 Chronic Toxicity Freshwater Discharges Total Pb µg/l California Toxics Rule 1 2.5 5.3 8.1 11 Total Cu µg/1 California Toxics Rule 1 9.0 16 23 i 29 Total Zn µg/1 California Toxics Rule 120 210 300 380 Total Cd µg/1 California Toxics Rule 2.2 3.7 5.0 6.2 Chronic Toxicity Saltwater Discharges Total Pb µg/1 California Toxics Rule 3.0 7.3 1 12 18 Total Cu µg/1 California Toxics Rule 7.7 14 1 20 25 Total Zn µg/1 California Toxics Rule 110 200 290 270 Total Cd µg/1 California Toxics Rule 2.0 3.3 4.4 5.4 Source: USEPA, 2000x; USEPA, 2000b; PBS &l, 2001. Notes: I Guidance values are shown for concentrations of water hardness: H100mg/l, H2O0 mg/l, H300 mg/l. and H400 mg/l. The toxicity of trace metals in runoff varies inversely with the hardness of a receiving water. Total P = Total Phosphorus ' Dissolved P = Dissolved Phosphorus TKN = Total Kjedahl Nitrogen Cd = Cadmium Pb = Lead Cu = Copper Zn = Zinc BOD = Biological Oxygen Demand COD = Chemical Oxygen Demand µg/1 = Micrograms per Liter Nitrate -N = Nitrate as Nitrogen Mg/l = Milligrams per Liter Acute toxicity refers to the highest concentration of a pollutant to which aquatic life can be exposed for a short period of time ' without deleterious effects. Chronic toxicity represents the highest concentration of a pollutant to which aquatic life can be exposed for an extended period of time (four days) without deleterious effects (40 CFR § 131.38). "Water body uses should be protected if the criteria are not exceeded, on average, once every three year period" (40 CFR § 131.38). PACNB230XEIR'Section 4.3.doca0621 N 4.3 -15 LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT JUNE 3003 CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER DAY SAINTS TEMPLE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Land Use and Runoff Pollutants. In order to quantify the concentration of pollutants that run off a ' particular site during storms, stormwater runoff is sampled over a series of storms to determine the effect of a particular land use on a receiving water. The values are averaged and are designated event mean concentrations (EMCs) for a particular land use or receiving water. As expected, vacant, undeveloped ' land yields lower pollutant concentrations than developed land. Nationwide EMCs for specific land uses and EMCs Southern California areas are provided in Tables 4.3.1-1 and 4.3.I. ' 4.3.1.5 Groundwater Quality The project site is nestled within the San Joaquin Hills and is not located within a groundwater basin. ' There are no water quality objectives for the groundwater beneath the site (SARWQCB, 1995). ' 4.3.2 IMPACT SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA Under CEQA, each lead agency must determine which impacts it considers significant. For purposes of this analysis, the project may be deemed to have a significant water quality impact if it would: ' Create or contribute runoff water that would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems; • 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 that would result in substantial erosion, siltation, or flooding on- or off -site; tSubstantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater level; or ' Violate any water quality standards, waste discharge requirements, provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff, or otherwise substantially degrade water quality. ' Based on the Initial Study, it was determined that the proposed project is not within a 100 -year flood hazard area and would not place housing within a 10 -year flood hazard area or place structures within a 100 -year flood hazard area. Additionally, the project site is not within a dam inundation area and would ' not be affected by dam inundation hazards. The Initial Study also determined that the project would not be impacted by inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow. These issues are not addressed in the DEIR. 4.3.3 PROJECT DESIGN FEATURES /STANDARD CONDITIONS All applications submitted to implement the proposed project shall reflect, where applicable, the Project ' Design Features (PDFs) and Standard Conditions (SCs) described in this section. The City of Newport Beach shall ensure compliance through its standard procedures for the approval of permits and applications. MCN132301F WSection4.3.doc:46 /21/02. 4.3 -16 Cry LW, U -0 <za _ >z < =clx> o <0I :I >c U I 0 a U I 1 1 1 ' e w D c a A C 0 L M C d C U c �dI w W M a F T Cl Cl Cl N N N N N N Cl O N O O O O O Cl O Cl Cl Cl Cl Cl U E O O O O O O O q O O O O O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 sC O C Cl O O o0 00 00 m m m O l� V N E Cl o Cl Cl N1 NI NI O N1 � v 0 o o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ^ N = N _ � .y ^ N O U V � • E 8 N Cl O O o N v v v Cl 0 �n y pp Cl O O 1 0 O Cl Cl Cl Cl Cl Cl Cl Cl 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a Cl O Cl O o O^ l o0 00 00 .- ^ ^ o o Cl O n Ln P. E o to 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 n n n n n l n O n n n n n � 1 n Z E Cl o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cl Cl Cl Z �o No No Cl �c 00 „an, ".0 pp r'1 r'1 r'1 N1 r'1 N1 N N N NO M l� o I o o \O I � O O I O n ^ ^ l0 O O o o 0 o iO 0 0 0 0 0 0 aE F" Cl! N N 7 7 7 N N N O N 7 E O:Oolo:o 0 0 0;0 0 0 0 �V. E O O O I O O O O O O O Cl Cl Cl F 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NO � I i I a 0^0 00 0^0 1 c I w K �1 �-7 Cl c, o 00 00 o o 0� E oo I 00 CI � I I e W j e 1 0 C O I G C 0 C° O G L O 0 O O 0:0 O 0 O 0 O 0'00 O 0 GQ to �0 0 0 00 D\ i co co N I tC ' I y I•y ay=i I•Y d d H � =• by I 'C eq a~�-. V H� co T O � F `m 0 a E a O 3 « v 0 0 •v 0 U V a O N V N F a � o � v a� • E_ i c N 'd ^ N = N _ � .y ^ N O U V � • E 8 N N C v o N N m CL � L CJ U U m N � u z � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � \ � / } u k° � , | : u {.±pg r 3!]«,CD � \ § CD °� / k r- CD m r m 3'®\im 2�= _ @ §gy CD x'2 m ; U ■& � � » ZA z S = r - § |4 3 ■ w 3 = 4;R s J 2 �_�_�_ % \ r e.° _�___._ _ o � | =:w a 2�3 2 / ƒ f � • o_ R � R,@,g / u =% - - 3 E E E E,E,E ) § §2;j e 4 } ' LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT JUNE 9009 CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER DAY SAINTS TEMPLE CITY OF NEWPORT REACH I I 1 I I 4.3.3.1 Project Design Features PDF 3 -1 Structural Best Management Practices (BMPs) for the treatment of runoff prior to discharge to off -site locations will consist of a Stormceptor® Separator STC 900 Unit upstream of the connection to existing Line "A" and a STC 4800 Unit upstream of the connection to existing Line `B" (refer to Figure 4.3.2). These units are sized to treat runoff from the proposed drainage areas. 4.3.3.2 Standard Conditions Standard conditions are known, existing regulations, which the proposed project must comply with prior to certain activities. Compliance is typically assured because of the requirement of an additional discretionary or administrative review. ' SC 3 -1 All grading and construction activities associated with project implementation will adhere to the relevant conditions established by the City of Newport Beach Grading and Excavation Code. 1 F 1 u SC 3 -2 Any construction dewatering conducted at the site shall comply with the SARWQCB General Waste Discharge Requirements for Discharges to Surface Waters which pose an Insignificant (De Minimus) Threat to Water Quality, Order No. 98 -67 (CAG998001). SC 3 -3 A Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) will be prepared for the project in accordance with City Council Policy L -18 and shall be a condition of any planning approval. The WQMP shall provide a contingency plan in case the proposed Stormceptor® Separator do not perform as anticipated. 4.3.4 ANALYSIS OF PROPOSED PROJECT 4.3.4.1 Impacts Found to Be Less Than Significant Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems. The proposed storm drain system for Area A will consist of several inlets that will connect to a new 18 inch to 24 inch mainline that will connect to the existing Line A. Runoff flow during a 100 year storm from Area A will decrease from 17.0 cfs to 8.5 cfs in the developed condition. The proposed storm drain system for Area B will consist of two or more catch basins that will connect to a new 18 inch to 24 inch mainline that will connect to the existing Line B. Runoff flow during a 100 year storm from Area B will increase from 13.4 cfs to 21.7 cfs (refer to Tables 4.3.A and 43.J). Line B has a capacity of 151.5 cfs and, therefore, will be able to accommodate the additional 8.3 cfs in the developed condition. Both lines have enough capacity for the existing and developed 100 year storm flows. Runoff from Area C will drain to the existing catch basin, which will be reconstructed to match the new configuration of the street. Therefore, there are no significant impacts related to this issue. PACNB23M1R \Section 4.3.doc «06121 /02,1 4.3 -19 ;t F m Cd N W O cV �c C O � Q.0 OD Ea op y y F N Q Cd C to cV 3 tt %:z d O ECD i V ro E C O O \ CA d S\ z 0 rrr.r.....s N C N W O \ w y y 3 p 3 2 O� N m am U Q m y Oil t.y O w ¢¢ oLL y g o G y� y S T \ \ w I n \ Cpl \ II .1 • Q \ W \ E C O O \ CA d S\ OlJ rrr.r.....s N C N W O \ w w O 7 N Q . Oil t.y O ♦ i i \ b T \ \ I t I Cpl \ Q \ W \ \ i i V \ r O _ to E C O O CA d S\ OlJ 1 N C N W O \ w w O \ i \ Q •� / � W \ a ■ V W m Q t v U C'4 ? ri E C O cz Q o a r o U 'b w w O 7 N Q M O O w b T x N W r a v O N O N Q C W 1 N 7 J S 0 N 9 0 d v` 2 O m I I I I I I I 17 I I I 17 I I i LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT JUNE 2003 CHURCH OF JESUS US CHRIST OF LATTER DAY SAINTS TEMPLE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Table 4.3.J: Developed Condition Storm Water Runoff Flows -100 Year Storm Drainage Area (Acres) QJoo(CFS) Runoff Destination Area A 1.6 8.5 (Line A) Bonita Creek Area B 5.3 21.7 (Line B) Bonita Creek Area C 0.3 0.3 existing catch basin Bonita Creek Source: H&A, 2002 Notes: QI,0 = Flow for 100 year storm CFS = cubic feet per second 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, siltation or flooding on- or off -site. During construction, the proponent will adhere to the General Construction Activity NPDES permit and will utilize applicable BMPs in order to reduce erosion from the site and prevent siltation of receiving waters (refer to SC 3.1 and Table 4.31). In the developed condition, the drainage pattern will be altered slightly, the project site will be landscaped, and drainage will be directed to catch basins and new storm drain lines on site that will connect to existing lines to prevent on -site erosion. All drainage will discharge to the two existing 24 inch RCIPs as in the existing condition (Figure 4.3.2). The drainage area decreases from 7.4 acres (which included some off -site property) to 7.2 acres (on -site property only). Existing riprap at the discharge point of the two pipes will dissipate the energy of the water during a storm, reducing erosion potential. As stated above, the on -site drainage systems have the capacity to accommodate developed flows from the 100 year storm; project implementation will not result in flooding on site or off site. Therefore, impacts related to this issue are less than significant. Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater level. As stated earlier, the project is not located within a designated groundwater basin or recharge area. The hydrology analysis (H &A, 2002) determined that the on -site soils have a very slow infiltration rate. In addition, the runoff flow during a 100 year storm will be slightly less than the existing condition and will not significantly reduce the amount of water available for infiltration downstream within Bonita Creek. Therefore, the project will not interfere substantially with groundwater recharge or level. Violate any water quality standards, waste discharge requirements, provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff, or otherwise substantially degrade water quality. There are no specific water quality standards or waste discharge requirements for an individual development project in the City of Newport Beach. The City of Newport Beach is required under the municipal P:\CNB230\E1R \Section 4.3.doa<06/21 /02n 4.3 -21 I 1 LJ I I I I I I I I I� I II I LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. JUNE 1001 ENVIRON M ENTAL IMPACT REPORT CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER DAY SAINTS TEMPLE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH permit to protect the beneficial uses of its receiving waters (Section 4.3.1.3.4) by updating and enforcing its grading and/or erosion control ordinances and implementing the requirements of the DAMP, such as BMPs listed in Appendix G of the DAMP, in order to ensure that pollutant loads to waters resulting from urbanization are properly controlled and managed (SARWQCB, 2002). The pollutants of concern with development of the project are: nutrients (TMDL), sediment (TMDL), fecal coliforms (TMDL), pesticides /unknown toxicity (Section 303[d]), metals (Section 303[d] and proposed land use) and oil & grease (proposed land use), and trash (proposed land use). The Stormceptorg separators proposed for the project (PDF 3 -1) have been field tested at two developed properties; the results of the test are published on the company's website (www.stormceptor.com) and are provided in Table 4.3.K. In the developed condition, nutrients and toxics in runoff shall be controlled through compliance with Appendix F of the DAMP, Management Guidelines for the Use of Fertilizers and Pesticides. Sediment in runoff should be reduced due to construction of the temple and associated pavement and landscaping. In addition, stormwater runoff will be directed through an enclosed system to existing lines off site, which will reduce on -site erosion. Table 4.3.K: Field Monitoring Results for Stormceptor® Separators Constituent Average Percent Removal Rate (four storms in 1996, Edmonton, Alberta) Total Suspended Solids (includes sediment) 52.7 Lead 51.2 Oil & Grease 43.2 Copper 21.5 Zinc 39.1 Iron 52.7 Chromium 1 40.7 (six storms in 1997, Westwood, Massachusetts) Total Suspended Solids 193 Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons ! 82 Non - structural BMPs (Table 4.31) will be utilized to reduce bacteria and trash. The Stormceptorg separators have been shown to be effective in removing suspended solids (includes sediment), oil & grease, and metals during field tests. When comparing the EMCs for existing land use (vacant) and proposed land use (based on percent of impervious surface area) in Tables 4.3.H and Table 4.3.I to the runoff guidance values (Table 4.3.G) and factoring in the removal capability of the Stormceptorg separators (Table 4.3.K), it is evident that there will not be a significant increase in the discharge of sediment, metals, or oil & grease to Bonita Creek. Because of the potential release of pollutants into receiving waters during construction of the project, the proponent is required to comply with the waste discharge requirements of the Statewide General Construction Activity Stormwater Permit. The project will be required to develop and implement a S WPPP in accordance with the permit and an Erosion Control Plan as required by the City (Excavation and Grading Code). These plans will include measures to reduce runoff, retain pollutants on site, stabilize soils, remove sediment from site runoff, contain and clean up spills and leaks, and prevent other sources of pollution. Adherence to the requirements of the City of Newport Beach (SC PACN1323MEMSection 4.3.doca06 /2I /02B 4.3-22 4.3.6 SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS There will be no significant unavoidable adverse hydrology and/or water quality impacts as a result of the proposed project. P: %CNB230\E1R \Section 4.3.docn06 /21/02» 4.3 -23 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. ENVIRON M ENTAL IMPAC T REPORT JUNE 2002 CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST Of LATTER DAY SAINTS TEMPLE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 3 -1 to 3 -3) and the General Construction Activity Permit will prevent significant amounts of sediment and other pollutants from leaving the project site in runoff. The project will comply with the requirements of the City of Newport Beach and the State General Construction Activity NPDES Permit as described above. Compliance with water quality standards will reduce impacts to receiving waters to less than significant levels. 4.3.5 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS Cumulative Impacts Urbanization of undeveloped land has the potential to impact water quality due to the increase in impervious area, erosion during construction, and introduction of additional pollutants. As a result, regional regulations/programs such as the Municipal and General Construction Activity NPDES permits, the Orange County Drainage Area Management Plan, and the TMDL Program have been implemented to protect receiving waters in the State. Each new project has to comply with these regulations /programs as applicable in order to prevent further degradation of water quality in the water body that receives the project's runoff. In order to control and offset potential impacts, the proposed project, along with other projects within the City, is required to comply with City ordinances, Standard Conditions, and regional water quality programs, enforced through review of WQMPs and SWPPPs. Through compliance with these programs and in combination with the PDFs and SCs in this SEIR, project and cumulative impacts on water quality are addressed and effectively ' controlled. The cumulative study area includes the project site and downstream areas. Urban development in Newport Beach would act cumulatively with the urban development of the Temple project to contribute to urban runoff. Pollutant inputs to Bonita Creek, San Diego Creek, and Newport Bay would be expected to increase to some extent over existing conditions from continuing urban development. While increased development may impact water quality, standard conditions required under State and federal law are designed to avoid impacts to water quality, and the cumulative impact of the development of related projects should be mitigated by adherence to water quality measures. ' The proposed project is expected to have a minimal impact on water quality since it will reduce sediment loads to Bonita Creek, will reduce overall storm flows, and will maintain a relatively low percentage of impervious area (34 percent), as well as providing structural BMPs to treat runoff from the site. The other projects in the area would be expected to be reviewed by local and regional J urisdictions regarding project approvals; therefore, they would presumably comply with the same requirements as the proposed project, and would not substantially impact surface water quality. Therefore, the proposed project will not, either by itself or in combination with other reasonably foreseeable projects, cause a significant cumulative impact to water quality. The proposed project, with the PDFs and SCs included to control project contributions of pollutants to effectively no ` significant increase, will not contribute to significant cumulative impacts to water quality. 4.3.6 SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS There will be no significant unavoidable adverse hydrology and/or water quality impacts as a result of the proposed project. P: %CNB230\E1R \Section 4.3.docn06 /21/02» 4.3 -23 LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. EN VIR ONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT JUNE ROOK CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OP LATTER DAY SAINTS TEMPLE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH U r 4.4 LAND USE I r1 P: \CNB230T1R \Section 4.4.doc ,(06/21/025, 4.4- 4.4.1 EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 4.4.1.1 Existing On -Site Conditions The project site is currently an undeveloped vacant property located adjacent to the existing LDS Newport Beach Stake Center at the northeast comer of Bonita Canyon Drive and the private extension of Prairie Road near the northern boundary of the City. There are two temporary asphalt parking areas on the site to accommodate overflow parking from the adjacent Stake Center. Most of the site consists of level pad area with a uniform downward gradient towards the northwest and northeast. The topographic high point is in the center of the site at an elevation of approximately 189 feet above mean sea level (amsl), and the topographic low is near the northwest comer of the site at an elevation of approximately 174 feet amsl, resulting in a topographic difference on the portion of the site to be developed of approximately 15 feet. Ground surface cover throughout the majority of the site consists of a moderate growth of native weeds and grasses. 4.4.1.2 Surrounding Land Uses Religious institutions, public parks, commercial, residential, and open space characterize the area surrounding the project site. The existing LDS Church Stake Center is located west of the project site across a major entrance driveway (private extension of Prairie Road). Several churches currently exist or are planned for development in the vicinity of the project site, including Saint Matthews Church (currently under construction), located on Old Ford Road at the southwest comer of Bonita Canyon Drive and Prairie Road, approximately 150 feet from the centerpoint of the project site. Mariners Church and the Jewish Community Center and pre- school are located in the City of Irvine approximately one -half mile northeast of the site on Bonita Canyon Road. Single family homes in the Bonita Canyon Village development are located northwest and west of the site approximately 620 and 900 feet, respectively. Additional residential developments are located at greater distances south and southwest of the project site. These developments include Harbor View Knoll, Harbor View Homes (Phases I through III), and Harbor Ridge. Bonita Canyon Sports Park is approximately 200 feet south of the project site across from Bonita Canyon Drive. The Sports Park extends east/west from Prairie Road to Buffalo Road and north/south from Bonita Canyon Road to Old Ford Road. A developmental pre- school is located south of Bonita Canyon Drive approximately 200 feet from the project site, east and adjacent to Saint Matthews Church. Additional development south of the site includes the Newport Hills Center retail and service commercial area located south of the intersection of Prairie Road and Old Ford Road. North of the project site is the Bonita Canyon Dam/Reservoir and scrub covered open space. The dam acts as a flood control retention basin and stores surface water runoff during a storm event. North of the Dam/Reservoir is the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor (SR -73), which is approximately 1,500 feet from the project site. Surrounding land uses and adjacent residential communities are identified in Figure 4.4.1. r1 P: \CNB230T1R \Section 4.4.doc ,(06/21/025, 4.4- 4. CL is M 0 1� f Ol 10 ILL Ilk u t .vi C r3 Ol 10 ILL Ilk u t ' The General Plan designates land uses surrounding the project site as: Recreational, Environmental Open Space to the north and east, Single family detached to the north, Housing to the north and west, and Bonita Canyon Sports Park is designated "single family attached" but a park was developed. Figure 4.4.2 provides the City of Newport Beach General Plan Land Use Map. LSA A SSOCIATES. INC. EN VIRO N MENTAL IMPACT REPORT JUNE 20 02 CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER DAY SAINTS TEMPLE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ' General Plan program because it identifies the programmed distribution, location, and intensity of all ' 4.4.2 EXISTING POLICIES AND REGULATIONS 4.4.2.1 City of Newport Beach General Plan 1 Beach has developed as groupings of small communities primarily due to the natural geographic form The project site is designated Governmental, Educational and Institutional facilities in the City General Plan and is located in an area zoned PC #50 (Bonita Canyon Planned Community). This land use category is applied to areas developed with uses that form the physical and social infrastructure of 1 the community and are designated for educational facilities, municipal uses, hospitals and churches. ' The General Plan designates land uses surrounding the project site as: Recreational, Environmental Open Space to the north and east, Single family detached to the north, Housing to the north and west, and Bonita Canyon Sports Park is designated "single family attached" but a park was developed. Figure 4.4.2 provides the City of Newport Beach General Plan Land Use Map. PACNS230MR\Section 4.4.doc u062i /02o 4.4 -3 Land Use Element. The Land Use Element of the General Plan is considered to be the core of the ' General Plan program because it identifies the programmed distribution, location, and intensity of all land uses in the City. The Land Use Element presents a mix of land uses that achieve the basic Land Use Element goal and policies of preserving the integrity of the community. The City of Newport 1 Beach has developed as groupings of small communities primarily due to the natural geographic form of the bay, which provides both physical division and unity, in the sense of a common shared resources. Many of the newer developments, including the project site, have been based on a "Planned Community" concept. 1 4.4.2.2 City of Newport Beach Zoning Designation The City uses its Zoning Ordinance as the primary implementation tool for the Land Use Element. The Zoning Ordinance and Zoning Map identify specific types of land uses, intensity of uses, and development performance standards applicable to specific areas and parcels of land within the City. 1 The project site is zoned PC 950 (Bonita Canyon Planned Community), which signifies that the zoning for the areas, including the project site, is implemented through the Bonita Canyon Planned Community text. The Bonita Planned Community text was adopted by the City of Newport Beach in November of 1997 and became effective upon annexation of the area by the City of Newport Beach in 1998. The project site is located in the Bonita Canyon Planned Community area and is designated as Public /Semipublic Sub -Area 7. Permitted development types within Public /Semipublic Sub -Area 7 include: accessory use to a permitted use; agriculture; park; residential care facility; and public school. Land uses requiring a "Use Permit" include: accessory use to a use requiring a use permit; child care center; church; community facility; convalescent home; funeral home /mortuary; government facility; manufactured structure (over two years); manufactured structure permit (up to ' two years); outdoor vendor; public park facility (only in public parks); senior housing; and private schools. PACNS230MR\Section 4.4.doc u062i /02o 4.4 -3 m f 8 _ � ° d A 6 A l A O A �' A eY1 9j8 i O A El �•^• ° 00 V aC e .9 da Y N �• 0 • � A 0 N Q 8 w A° A° A" .5 °! s _ x x AL U CC p £ Z f y o9auE g9ag-°.9 Cd y �V u Y � �• � •YI ,1 ° A � T•yi G C O!!`ra.e M w u Y p _Y an _YA K uW Y p 4 _ 4 lL � W N A •i A' //�,,� d G Q pn� ° � G• m a a a e0 m u •• p Y Y Y d E E t W loponMIN b Y m ° Y � y o g r O a a H Q a r O a a Y v Y aII11'1 ^�I1''II 4 V A b n N a tl O � a r O C ° N � o e U O O F r. AL :t 'A a% T i JA = x G a � r wm_ / c O � T i JA = x G a � r wm_ c O � m z .. ^ P C7 o G v �z '. :mac 4 G tEe �Pi q d Y' o e a:N Doc ° ti : -_ U tu Ld o .0 Y P-4 z C; YF wU rte. "O ° O . �..y .�. O A a yY U U w -.r Q '- ° ° ° h A pu n q T. u o4 Ga O°?' l �a •r d3o- O T i JA cv = x G a � r c O � m b C7 o G v �z '. :mac 4 G ti : -_ U tu Ld a o .0 P-4 z C; e�1 m wU rte. "O ° O . �..y .�. O A a yY U U w -.r Q A T. •r O cv = x G a � A w O � m b C7 o G v �z 4 G R y s c r z O + - 3 e 7 F J O N K s LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT JUNE 1001 CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER DAY SAINTS TEMPLE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH f4.4.23 Site Development Standards The following site development standards apply to public /semipublic areas in the Bonita Canyon Planned Community: • Minimum lot size is .25 acre. • Maximum lot coverage is 50 percent. • Maximum building height is 50 feet; churches are exempt from this provision with a City approved use permit. • Minimum site landscaping is 15 percent. • Setbacks from streets. Front Setback: In public /semipublic districts that abut residential uses, building must be set back a minimum of 30 feet. Interior boundaries adjacent to non - residential uses have no setback requirement. Side Setback: Minimum side setbacks must equal two times the height of the building. Interior boundaries adjacent to non - residential uses must be set back 10 feet. ' - Rear Setback: Minimum rear setbacks must equal two times the height of the building. Interior boundaries adjacent to non - residential uses must be set back 10 feet. 4.4.2.4 Grading and Building Control Grading and erosion control are governed by the City's Grading Ordinance. Fire equipment access is governed and controlled by the City's Fire Department at the time of issuance of building permits. City building codes govern all construction through the City's use of the Uniform Building Code with any local amendments. The Drainage Master Plan and the National Pollution Discharge Elimination ' System requirements, as described in Section 4.3, Hydrology/Water Quality, also regulate grading and construction. 4.4.3 IMPACT SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA The effects of a project on existing or planned land uses are considered to be significant if the proposed project results in one or more of the following conditions: ' • Conflicts with: AI) General Plan land use or zoning designations, or A2) General Plan policies to the extent that physical effects on the environment will occur. • Conflicts with existing or planned land uses on -site or adjacent to the project site. ' As stated in the City Municipal Code, Chapter 20.65.070.G, Height Limits, church structures used for church purposes are exempt from Chapter 20.65, except that any such structure exceeding 35 feet in height shall require a use permit. PACN13230JEMSection 4.4.doc .06/21102,, 4; 1 1 LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT JUNE 1002 CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER DAY SAINTS TEMPLE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH City's required setbacks. I Source: City of Newport Beach General Plan, Land Use Element, and CEQA Guidelines, Appendix G (Environmental Checklist Form). ' Based on the Initial Study, it was determined that the proposed project would not physically divide an 1 established community. As a result of the City's analysis in the Initial Study, this issue is not addressed in the DEIR. The Initial Study also determined that the project would not have a significant land use impact with respect to any conflict with an applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan; therefore, this issue is not addressed in the DEIR. 1 4.4.4 PROJECT DESIGN FEATURES 4.4.5.1 Impacts Found To Be Less Than Significant General Plan Land Use Designation. The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan designation of Governmental, Education and Institutional Facilities, which permits the development of a church. This land use category has been applied to areas developed with uses for the physical ' and social "infrastructure" of the community. Infrastructure may include institutional facilities such as hospitals, churches, senior citizen housing facilities, etc. Therefore, the proposed Temple is consistent with this land use designation and no significant impact will occur. Bonita Canyon Planned Community Designation. The proposed project is consistent with the Bonita Canyon Planned Community designation of Public /Semipublic. Public /semipublic facilities are permitted subject to a site plan review approval under the provisions of Chapter 20.92 Newport P: \CNa230MR \Section 4.4.doc 06/21/0N 4.4- PDF 1 -1 The building is set back 83 feet from the property line adjacent to Bonita Canyon Drive, nearly three times the required minimum 30 foot setback. The rear yard setback (north) is 189 feet, and side yard setbacks are 291 feet (west) and 379 feet (east), exceeding the City's required setbacks. PDF 1 -2 The landscape plan for the project will provide landscaping on approximately 60 percent of the gross parcel size, exceeding the City's 15 percent minimum requirement. Additionally, proposed landscaping includes a significant number of mature trees to 1 enhance aesthetic quality and partially screen the lower portion of the proposed building. PDF 1 -3 The building footprint will be less than ten percent of the City's permitted limits. The building footprint covers approximately 5 percent of the property. (The maximum lot coverage for public /semipublic areas is 50 percent, as identified in the Bonita Canyon Specific Plan). ' 4.4.5 IMPACTS AND MITIGATION As discussed in Section 3.0 Project Description, the Temple is planned as a 17,575 square foot building sited in the center of the property with a steeple that stands approximately 123'9" from the finished floor level, surrounded by approximately 5.5 acres of gardens, walkways, and water feature in the western portion of the project site and landscaped parking around the eastern and northeastern perimeters of the site. 4.4.5.1 Impacts Found To Be Less Than Significant General Plan Land Use Designation. The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan designation of Governmental, Education and Institutional Facilities, which permits the development of a church. This land use category has been applied to areas developed with uses for the physical ' and social "infrastructure" of the community. Infrastructure may include institutional facilities such as hospitals, churches, senior citizen housing facilities, etc. Therefore, the proposed Temple is consistent with this land use designation and no significant impact will occur. Bonita Canyon Planned Community Designation. The proposed project is consistent with the Bonita Canyon Planned Community designation of Public /Semipublic. Public /semipublic facilities are permitted subject to a site plan review approval under the provisions of Chapter 20.92 Newport P: \CNa230MR \Section 4.4.doc 06/21/0N 4.4- f� LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPAC T REPORT JUNE 2002 CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER DAY SAINTS TEMPLE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Beach Municipal Code. Development of the project site will be in accordance with property development standards as set forward in Section 8 Public /Semipublic Sub -Area 7. Therefore, the proposed project is consistent with the Bonita Canyon Planned Community Development Plan and no significant impact will occur. Consistency Analysis: The project site is located approximately two miles from the harbor area of the City. Therefore, this policy is not applicable to the proposed project. Land Use Policy D: The siting of new buildings and structures shall be controlled and regulated to insure, to the extent practicable, the preservation of public views, the preservation of unique natural resources, and to minimize the alteration of natural land forms along bluffs and cliffs. P: \CNa2MEMSection 4.4 doc .06/21101, 4.4_7 General Plan Goals, Objectives, and Policies. The City of Newport Beach considers the development policies in the General Plan when considering whether a project is consistent with the intent of the General Plan. In order to determine whether or not the project complies with the General ' Plan, each of the City's General Plan Land Use Element Development Policies is analyzed below: Land Use Policy A: The City shall provide for sufficient diversity of land uses so that school, employment, recreation areas, public facilities, churches and neighborhood shopping centers are in ' close proximity to each resident of the community. ' Consistency Analysis: The proposed Temple is located in an area of varying land uses including residential, commercial, recreational, and other church uses. At present, the Church's adjacent Newport Beach Stake consists of approximately 3,400 members drawn from Newport Beach, Costa Mesa, and part of Irvine, with approximately 1,000 members residing in Newport Beach. By 1 providing a sufficient diversity of land uses, including Church uses intended to serve the community in which they are built, the City is presenting a mix of land uses that achieve the basic Land Use Element goal and policies of preserving the integrity of the community. The proposed project fulfills ' the intent of this policy by providing a complimentary use to the existing land uses adjacent to the site and in close proximity to residents of the community. Land Use Policy B: 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. 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 land uses. Consistency Analysis: This policy is not applicable, as the proposed project is not subject to any floor area limits. However, the intent of this policy is to ensure that traffic levels are not exceeded. The proposed Temple facility was analyzed in a traffic analysis report summarized in Section 4.5. As indicated in the traffic report, traffic is considered negligible, therefore, the proposed project is consistent with the intent of this policy. Land Use Policy C: Commercial, recreation or destination visitor serving facilities in 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 maintain the high quality of life and the unique and beautiful residential areas that border the harbor. Consistency Analysis: The project site is located approximately two miles from the harbor area of the City. Therefore, this policy is not applicable to the proposed project. Land Use Policy D: The siting of new buildings and structures shall be controlled and regulated to insure, to the extent practicable, the preservation of public views, the preservation of unique natural resources, and to minimize the alteration of natural land forms along bluffs and cliffs. P: \CNa2MEMSection 4.4 doc .06/21101, 4.4_7 I u I 11 I i I I I 1 !I I k LEA ASSOCIATES. INC. ENVIRONMEN TAL IMPACT REPORT JUNE 3003 CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST Of LATTER DAY SAINTS TEMPLE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Consistency Analysis: The Temple has been planned with a consideration of impacts to views from off -site viewpoints. The Church has made several accommodations, to the extent practicable, for the preservation of views from adjacent residential land uses. The architectural lighting, levels of lighting intensity, and hours of building illumination have been reduced from what was originally contemplated by the LDS Church. The exterior building material color will be a warm, light earth tone, rather than white or off -white typically associated with LDS Temple construction. The building size and lot coverage will be substantially less that the City's permitted limits for the site; the proposed lot coverage is approximately 5 percent, while the City allows 50 percent lot coverage. Additionally, the building setback from the property line to Bonita Canyon Drive is 83 feet, nearly three times the required 30 foot setback. Rear and side yard setbacks are also designed to be greater than the minimum required setbacks. The primary site access route has been redesigned so as to direct oncoming vehicle headlights away from residences and toward the Temple. At approximately 60 percent of the gross parcel size, the landscaping proposed for the project site is substantially greater than the 15 percent minimum required by the City. In addition to the extensive landscaping already proposed, specific massed plantings are proposed as further buffer between the nearest residential units and the Temple. Additionally, there are no designated scenic vistas or scenic highways located in the vicinity of the project site. As such, the project design is consistent with the intent of this policy. Land Use Policy E: Provisions shall be made for the encouragement or development of suitable and adequate sites for commercial marine related facilities so as to continue the City's historical and maritime atmosphere, and the charm and character such businesses have traditionally provided the City. Consistency Analysis: Because the project site is not located near the City's harbor area, the site is not suitable for a commercial marine related facility. This policy is not applicable. Land Use Policy F: The City shall develop and maintain suitable and adequate standards for landscaping, sign control, site and building design, parking and undergrounding of utilities and other development standards to insure that the beauty and charm of existing residential neighborhoods is maintained, that commercial and office projects are aesthetically pleasing and compatible with surrounding land uses and that the appearance of and activities conducted within, industrial developments are also compatible with surrounding land uses and consistent with the public health, safety, and welfare. Consistency Analysis: The proposed project is planned and designed to be consistent with or exceed all applicable minimum City standards for landscaping, sign control, parking and undergrounding of utilities and other development standards. The landscape plan has been carefully crafted to provide a densely planted screen from neighborhoods to the west, north, and south. The landscape plan provides approximately 60 percent coverage of the gross parcel size, exceeding the City's required 15 percent. The proposed landscaping plan also includes a significant number of mature trees to enhance the aesthetic quality. The project requires City review and approval of final development plans to ensure that the high standards being proposed in the concept site plan and concept landscape plan are carried through for implementation during project development. Additional project design features include expanded front, rear, and side yard setbacks, light earth tone exterior building material, and reduced illumination levels and hours of illumination. These project design featureswill ensure that PACNB230MMSection 4 4.doc a06/21/02» 4.4 -8 I I I LEA ASSOCIATES. INC. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT JUNE 2002 CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER DAY SAINTS TEMPLE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH there are not substantial negative affects on nearby and adjacent residences, including the adjacent Bonita Canyon Village, Harbor View Homes (Phases I through III), Harbor View Knoll, and Harbor Ridge neighborhoods. The use of shielded lighting; provision of landscaping along the periphery of the site; and the use of non - reflective building material proposed will ensure the physical compatibility of the proposed Temple with surrounding uses. Detailed consideration has been given to the proposed project to ensure a high quality, aesthetically pleasing project. As a result, the project is consistent with the intent of this policy. Land Use Policy G: Prohibit or restrict certain types of land use conversions or forms of ownership which, by their nature, reduce available housing, are incompatible with residential uses, or present police, health, or safety problems. ' Consistency Analysis: The proposed project is consistent with the land use and zoning designation and does not require land use conversion or a form of ownership that reduces available housing, therefore, this policy is not applicable. ' Land Use Policy H: Continue to oppose the lease of offshore tracts to oil producers and prohibit the construction of new onshore oil facilities except as may be necessary in conjunction with the operation of the West Newport oilfield. Consistency Analysis: The proposed project does not involve any offshore leases or the construction of onshore oil facilities. This policy is not applicable. Land Use Policy I: Restrict and control development in flood hazard areas. Consistency Analysis: The proposed project will not impact the Airport Settlement Agreement or the provisions of that Agreement. ' Land Use Policy L: The City shall encourage its community commercial districts to reflect and complement the high quality of its residential areas. The City shall promote the prosperity of its PXN8230TIR \Section 4.4.doc a06/21102>> Consistency Analysis: As discussed in Section 4.3, Hydrology/Water Quality, the proposed project is not within a flood hazard area and will not contribute to or generate any flood hazard. Land Use Policy J: City shall aggressively pursue annexation of territory within its sphere of ' influence with due consideration given to costs and benefits associated with incorporation. Consistency Analysis: The proposed project does not include annexation of territory and the project site was annexed into the City in 1998. This is not applicable to the policy project. Land Use Policy K: The land use designations and building intensity standards in the General Plan 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 1 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. Consistency Analysis: The proposed project will not impact the Airport Settlement Agreement or the provisions of that Agreement. ' Land Use Policy L: The City shall encourage its community commercial districts to reflect and complement the high quality of its residential areas. The City shall promote the prosperity of its PXN8230TIR \Section 4.4.doc a06/21102>> I �I LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. ENVISION M ENTAL IMPACT REPORT JUNE S00S CHURCH OP JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER DAY SAINTS TEMPLE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH several community commercial districts through the adoption and application of its planning, zoning, building and public works codes, regulations, policies and activities. Consistency Analysis: The project site is not located in a commercial district. This policy is not applicable to the proposed project. ' The following policy from the Recreation and Open Space Element is analyzed: Policy 6.1 Public Vistas and Scenic Drives: Provide and preserve view parks as identified in the Recreation and Open Space Plan Map. Protect and enhance the streetscapes along all scenic highways and scenic drives as identified in the Recreation and Open Space Plan Map. ' Consistency Analysis: The project site has no significant effect on view parks, streetscapes or scenic drives as identified in the Newport Beach Recreation and Open Space Plan (referto analysis in ' Section 4,1 Aesthetics). The nearest "view park" in the vicinity of the project site is Spyglass Hill ' Park, located at the corner of Spyglass Hill Road and El Capitan, at a distance of approximately one ' mile south of the site. No viewparks or scenic drives are identified within view of the project. Therefore, the project is consistent with this policy. 1 Temple site is essentially an expansion of an existing religious center and is among other religious ' As detailed above, the proposed project does not conflict with the General Plan land use or zoning designation and does not conflict with General Plan policies to the extent that physical effects on the environment will occur. Therefore, no significant impact will occur associated with General Plan ' consistency. ' 4.4.5.2 Conflicts with Existing or Planned Land Uses On Site or Adjacent to the Project Site Land use relates to both the physical use (and/or non -use) of property and the public policies that govern that use. Land use impacts, therefore, include both an assessment of the project's relationship to the physical environment and those proximal land uses located within the general project site (i.e., land use compatibility). With respect to compatibility, the physical relationship between land uses and potential impacts produced by their implementation is considered. Since similar land uses are generally assumed to be compatible, the placement of similar uses adjacent to one another generally ' would not result in significant issues on land use incompatibly. The planned land use of the project site as designated in the General Plan and the Bonita Canyon ' Planned Community Specific Plan is Public /Semipublic land use. The proposed Temple is consistent with this land use designation. Several churches currently exist or are planned in the future along Bonita Canyon Drive, in the general vicinity of where the Temple is planned. Because the proposed Temple site is essentially an expansion of an existing religious center and is among other religious ' and public recreation uses, the proposed project complements these other land uses and continues the land use pattern that has developed in the area. There could be the potential for visual conflict associated with the height of the steeple and light and glare which could affect the nearest residences within Bonita Canyon Village. However, the nearest residential development will be buffered from the site by the dedicated open space abutting the PACNB2300RISmion 4 4 doc .06/21/02. 4.4 -10 1 LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT JUNE 1001 CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER DAY SAINTS TEMPLE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH r L� r� I I I PACNB230EMSection 4 4.doc «06M /02,I 4.4-11 I northern boundary of the site and by the existing Stake Center directly west of the site. In addition, the project proposes PDFs that will provide additional buffering measures including clustering of mature landscaping at strategically located areas, and the proposed rear and side yard setbacks of 189 ' feet and 291 feet, respectively. As discussed in Section 4. 1, Aesthetics, aesthetic effects, including light and glare issues have been identified as less than significant. Therefore, conflicts with existing or planned land uses on site or adjacent to the project site are considered to be less than significant. 4.4.6 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ' The Bonita Canyon Planned Community, including the project site, was annexed into the City in 1998; with the development already planned or under construction continuing the pattern of urban development within this area of the City. Development of the project site will contribute to the long term development of vacant land to suburban and urban uses. This pattern of development is consistent with the City General Plan and the Bonita Canyon Planned Community, as well as the pattern of religious, commercial, institutional, recreation and residential uses in the area. The proposed Temple is located in the Bonita Canyon Planned Community and adjacent to similar public ' facility land uses, i.e., church, Stake Center, daycare center, and park. Therefore, because these patterns have been developed and the proposed project is a continuation of these patterns, the proposed project will not conflict with surrounding existing uses. The development of the site is an incremental contribution to cumulative land use intensification, but is not a significant cumulative impact, individually. Additionally, as indirect effects are more likely to result in compatibility ' impacts and the proposed project does not contribute to significant cumulative indirect traffic, noise, air quality, or visual effects, potential cumulative land use compatibility impacts are considered less than significant. 4.4.7 SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS There will be no significant unavoidable adverse land use impacts as a result of the proposed project. r� I I I PACNB230EMSection 4 4.doc «06M /02,I 4.4-11 I 11 1 LJ L 1 i 11 I I I LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT JUNE 1001 CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER DAY SAINTS TEMPLE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 4.5 TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION The purpose of this traffic impact analysis is to assess the potential circulation impacts associated with the development of the LDS Temple in the City of Newport Beach (City). As required by the City, all new development projects generating greater than 300 daily vehicle trips require preparation of a traffic analysis report. A traffic analysis report, titled The Mormon Temple Traffic Phasing Ordinance Analysis (May 10, 2002), was prepared by Urban Crossroads, Inc. under the direction of the City Traffic Engineer. This EIR section is based on the findings of that report, which is included in Appendix C. An increase in hazards due to a design feature is not anticipated, as all surrounding roadways are in place and will not be physically altered as a result of the proposed project. Emergency access to the project site will be provided from the southeast corner of the Temple parking lot onto Bonita Canyon Drive, and no impacts related to emergency access will occur. As the Temple is planned to serve no more than 150 people at any one time, the parking demand will be accommodated by the 152 striped parking spaces on the project site. Additionally, the project will not conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation. These issues are not addressed further in this DEIR. 4.5.1 EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING The project site is located at the northeast corner of Bonita Canyon Drive and Prairie Road, between MacArthur Boulevard and the San Joaquin Hills Corridor (SR -73). The project site is currently vacant with the exception of two paved asphalt parking lots that serve the adjoining LDS Church Stake Center across the private extension of Prairie Road. Northeast and east of the project site are open space areas, and northwest and west of the site is Bonita Canyon Village, a residential housing development. The Bonita Canyon Sports Park is southwest of the project site across Bonita Canyon Drive, and the Saint Matthews Lutheran Church, currently under construction, is located at the southeast corner of Bonita Canyon Drive and Prairie Road. 4.5.1.1 Existing Circulation System The site is bordered by Bonita Canyon Drive to the south and the private extension of Prairie Road to the west. Bonita Canyon Drive, San Miguel Road, Ford Road, and MacArthur Boulevard are Primary Roads in the vicinity of the proposed project. Regional access is provided primarily by Interstate 405 (I -405) Freeway and SR -73. Existing external roadways in close proximity to the project site are illustrated in Figure 4.5.1 and are summarized below. PACNB2300R\Settion 4.5.dm .06121/02)> 4.5 -1 1 1 �w Q v Cq'~ pELTAso w 73 S 40 8IS0ArAVE ✓09P G 2 9 rt tJ, �S �RT9 T IpNC PROJECT ODOR LOCATION pp�� 3 BONITA CgNJ 0NDR PRAIRIE RD 9 SMESA VIEW DR FORD RD ¢ b OgPG 44 SA_ � 4 LSA 1 o soo 1000 IMCNB230\Se M3p..& 1011111 FIGURE 4.5. I Newport Beach Temple Local Vicinity F1 L LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT JUNE ROOK CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER DAY SAINTS TEMPLE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Bonita Canyon Drive. This east -west Primary Road is currently a four lane divided roadway adjacent to the project site. The name of the roadway changes to Ford Road west of MacArthur Boulevard. The roadway connects to Prairie Road, which provides direct access to the project site via a signalized intersection. This roadway carries approximately 38,500 ADTs (Average Daily Trips). West of MacArthur Boulevard, Ford Road carries approximately 10,000 ADTs. Jamboree Road. This north -south Primary Road is currently a six lane divided roadway. Jamboree Road is a Principal Road north of Ford Road, with the capacity to serve a volume of 45,000- 60,000 ADTs. This roadway carries approximately 50,000 ADTs north of Ford Road and 60,000 ADTs south of Ford Road. MacArthur Boulevard. This north -south Major Arterial Highway is currently a six lane divided roadway south of Bonita Canyon Drive/Ford Road and an eight lane divided roadway north of Bonita Canyon Drive/Ford Road. The highway reduces to a six lane divided roadway north of Bison Avenue. This highway carries approximately 90,000 ADTs north of Bonita Canyon Drive and 80,000 ADTs south of Bonita Canyon Drive. Bison Avenue. This east -west arterial is currently a six lane divided roadway. This roadway carries approximately 12,000 ADTs west of MacArthur Boulevard and 6,000 ADTs east of MacArthur Boulevard. 1 7 L 1 The location of the study area intersections and existing ADT volumes are shown in Figures 4.5.1 and 4.5.2, respectively. PACN13230MMSection 4.5 doc ,,0621 /02» 4.5 -3 San Joaquin Hills Road. This east -west roadway is a six lane divided Major Arterial Highway between Jamboree Road and Spyglass Hills Road and a Primary four lane divided road between Spyglass Hills Road and Newport Coast Drive. Study 4.5.1.2 Area The study area was determined by the City Traffic Engineer, as required by the Traffic Phasing Ordinance analysis procedures. The study area intersections define the specific analysis locations within the city circulation system. The study area for the analysis of traffic impacts includes the following intersections: 1. Jamboree Road (NS) at Eastbluff Road/Ford Road (EW) 2. MacArthur Boulevard (NS) at Bison Avenue (EW) 3. MacArthur Boulevard (NS) at Ford Road/Bonita Canyon Drive (EW) ' 4. MacArthur Boulevard (NS) at San Joaquin Hills Road (EW) 1 7 L 1 The location of the study area intersections and existing ADT volumes are shown in Figures 4.5.1 and 4.5.2, respectively. PACN13230MMSection 4.5 doc ,,0621 /02» 4.5 -3 1 1 1 �w Q 44 0 J44 L) U °ELTASO�9� Cy w 73 629 s BI o s NAB ✓o9P 120 6.2 Gf� 63.9 tt� S �RTgT 49J IONC O 13.3 DOR 74A LOCATION 77 FORA 9.9 591 ONDR 36.7 9.9 PRAIRIE RD ,� n Y 66.7 x BUFFALO FORD RD A e� d s� o9P� 44 228 629 10.0 VEHICLES PER DAY (I OOWS) 39.7 20.3 LSA 0 7 500 '000 SOURCE: URBAN CROSSROADS. ' C1CNB230 \V.1um - Existing ADT &11 /5/02) FIGURE 4.5.2 Newport Beach Temple Existing Average Daily Traffic (ADT) Volumes ' LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT JUNE 2002 CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER DAY SAINTS TEMPLE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 1 1 1 1 1 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 C 1 C 1 4.5.1.3 Existing Traffic Volumes The intersection capacity utilization (ICU) methodology was used to evaluate the traffic volume of signalized intersections within the study area in comparison to the capacity of the intersection. The ICU methodology compares the volume to capacity (v /c) ratios of conflicting turn movements at an intersection, sums these critical conflicting v/c ratios for each intersection approach, and determines the overall ICU. The ICU value translates to a level of service (LOS) condition that is a relative measure of the operating performance of the intersection. Six levels of service are defined for intersection operations: LOS ICU A (ICU of 0.60 or less) B (ICU of 0.61 to 0.70) C (ICU of 0.71 to 0.80) D (ICU of 0.81 to 0.90) E (ICU of 0.91 to 1.00) F (ICU of 1.01 or greater) As stated in the Traffic Phasing Ordinance, the upper limits of LOS D, represented by an ICU value of 0.90 or lower, is considered satisfactory operation by the City. An ICU value in excess of 0.90, either LOS E or LOS F, is considered unsatisfactory. The existing ICU and LOS values are presented in Table 4.5A. Existing LOS calculations were determined based upon AM and PM peak hourl turning movement counts provided by the City of Newport Beach. Existing AM and PM peak hour volumes for study area intersections are shown in Figures 4.5.3 and 4.5.4. As Table 4.5.A indicates, all of the study area intersections are currently operating at acceptable levels of service. Table 4.5.A: Existing Condition Level of Service Summary Source: Urban Crossroads. May, 2002 AM Peak Hour: The four consecutive 15 minute periods between 7 -9 a.m. with the greatest volume; PM Peak Hour: The four consecutive 15 minute periods between 4 -6 p.m. with the greatest volume. P: \CNB230\BR \Section 4.5.doc ((06/21/02. 4.5 -5 1 A.M. Peak P.M. Peak Hour Hour ICU LOS ICU LOS Intersection Jamboree Rd. (NS) at • Ford Rd. (EW) 0.74 C 0.66 B MacArthur Blvd. (NS) • Bison Ave. (EW) 0.58 A 0.53 A • Ford Rd./Bonita Cyn. Rd. (EW) 0.71 C 0.85 D • San Joaquin Hills Rd. (EW) 0.81 D 0.81 D Source: Urban Crossroads. May, 2002 AM Peak Hour: The four consecutive 15 minute periods between 7 -9 a.m. with the greatest volume; PM Peak Hour: The four consecutive 15 minute periods between 4 -6 p.m. with the greatest volume. P: \CNB230\BR \Section 4.5.doc ((06/21/02. 4.5 -5 1 1 1 1 LSA 1 'o Soo '000 rr�r SOURCE: URBAN CROSSROADS. , I: \CNB230 \Volumes- &tisenSAM.cdr(3 /26/02) FIGURE 4.5.3 Newport Beach Temple Existing AM Peak Hour Volumes Q a U PFLTASO PCV 73 �4Q s C 4 BISp N`l� ✓ 09 �t on L--15 N n m —168 ll� L f— 110 r p T 416!4-1 t r°ta r AT 10A /C ODOR PROJECT LOCATION FORD 3 BONITA CgNI, RD O'VDR /• p4 y PRAIRIE RD 96 46 e s N L— 1421 N 505 V 7 a BUFFALO FORD RD y ?p \ ^, 513 i 'x G RD t I lA 221A�� y zi SA \ o9PG O� q11� 4 , LSA 1 'o Soo '000 rr�r SOURCE: URBAN CROSSROADS. , I: \CNB230 \Volumes- &tisenSAM.cdr(3 /26/02) FIGURE 4.5.3 Newport Beach Temple Existing AM Peak Hour Volumes 1 ' I:\CNB230 \Volumes - Existing PM.cdr(6/5 /02) FIGURE 4.5.4 Newport Beach Temple Existing PM Peak Hour Volumes L S A �w (N1 Q 500 1000 �r SOURCE: URBAN CROSSROADS. J4�O U g P ELTASO�D P� w 73 s 8I O 0 3 NAVE ✓�9 PG �Q No X17 Z Jl �It NNN f130 J I L 103 is 11 T Sf,O�T9 last 125 NNt r,ONC PROJECT ODOR I LOCATION FOk,o� 3 BONITA CgNl ONDR '5~ PRAIRIE RD \ Jj0 N4 ��� a, o -215 � ° � BUFFALO FORD RD J? \ x321 y, RD 9� 3� 289 C7 p 113-1 oqP� o� �v J 0.�Sb U ' I:\CNB230 \Volumes - Existing PM.cdr(6/5 /02) FIGURE 4.5.4 Newport Beach Temple Existing PM Peak Hour Volumes L S A (N1 500 1000 �r SOURCE: URBAN CROSSROADS. ' I:\CNB230 \Volumes - Existing PM.cdr(6/5 /02) FIGURE 4.5.4 Newport Beach Temple Existing PM Peak Hour Volumes ' LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. ENVIRON ENTAL IMPACT REPORT JUNE ROOK CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTM ER DAY SAINTS TEMPLE CITY OF NEWPORT REACH ' • Intersection capacity utilization (ICU) value for an intersection will exceed 0.90 with the addition of project traffic, or the ICU value increases when the project is added if the existing ICU value is in excess of 0.90. ' • Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the City of Newport Beach for designated roads or highways. Source: City of Newport Beach Traffic Phasing Ordinance, CEQA Guidelines, Appendix G, Environmental Checklist Form. ' 4.5.3 IMPACTS AND MITIGATION 4.5.3.1 Overview and Methodology Project Trip Generation. Trip generation represents the amount of traffic that is attracted and produced by a development. Table 4.53, Proposed Project Trip Generation Summary, shows the anticipated number of trips to be generated as a result of the proposed project. Trip rates were 1 P: \CNB230\E1R \Section 4.5.doc 46121/02» 4.5 -8 4.5.2 IMPACT SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA The Newport Beach Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO) was approved by the City Council as the method by which the City analyzes traffic impacts created by proposed projects. The TPO is the ' Congestion Management Plan (CMP) for the City of Newport Beach. The analyses completed under the TPO satisfy County of Orange CMP requirements for evaluation of the project's consistency with regional transportation plans and policies. The City of Newport Beach has adopted the TPO to guide analysis of projects and determine project impacts and the types of improvements required to address project related traffic impacts. Under the provisions of the ordinance, if project generated traffic is greater than one percent of the combined total of existing traffic, traffic from regional growth, and traffic from committed (approved) projects on any approach to any of the study area intersections, intersection capacity utilization (ICU) analyses ' are required for those intersections to determine project impacts. The One Percent Traffic Volume Analysis method required by the City's TPO and is used to determine if a project will potentially significantly impact study area intersections and require further analysis. The test uses AM and PM peak hours to analyze intersection and leg approach volumes at project intersections, thus determining the total projected traffic volume. Existing, committed projects and regional growth traffic is used to simulate traffic conditions during a designated analysis ' year, which is one year after project completion. If the project's contribution on each leg is less than one percent of the nonproject total in the analysis year, impacts to the intersection are considered ' negligible. Section C of the TPO lists a series of analysis exemptions, including "Any project that, during any morning or evening peak hour period, does not increase trips by one percent or more on any leg of any primary intersection." If a project satisfies the requirements for an analysis exemption there is no potential significant project impact and ICU analyses are not required. According to the TPO, the effects of the proposed project on the transportation and circulation system are considered to be significant if the project results in one or more of the following conditions: ' • Intersection capacity utilization (ICU) value for an intersection will exceed 0.90 with the addition of project traffic, or the ICU value increases when the project is added if the existing ICU value is in excess of 0.90. ' • Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the City of Newport Beach for designated roads or highways. Source: City of Newport Beach Traffic Phasing Ordinance, CEQA Guidelines, Appendix G, Environmental Checklist Form. ' 4.5.3 IMPACTS AND MITIGATION 4.5.3.1 Overview and Methodology Project Trip Generation. Trip generation represents the amount of traffic that is attracted and produced by a development. Table 4.53, Proposed Project Trip Generation Summary, shows the anticipated number of trips to be generated as a result of the proposed project. Trip rates were 1 P: \CNB230\E1R \Section 4.5.doc 46121/02» 4.5 -8 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 _L o�< 6CC UDC <?a �q3 -yz _eC icy zL_ Z . U C� �o U 7 0 U i Un Ory y Q O O O � 'O y m 61 7 7 O CC F l � X61 ayr v W.i N7 F is �O x O iF 0 x .. c C'4 7 x 61 a x 6 N x 0 F x is = O X a C a c o x x 7 F N rr< 1 b.r 5a O v x F d N x 33 «t C N N CV 0 0 N m vi m O U N e E o a� N E 7 3 � R � C L: 03 y O N R N CL � v Y U N � N � 3� a 0 N 0 z 9 a 0 z cu O m Z a I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ASSOCIATES. INC. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT JUNE 2002 CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER DAY SAINTS TEMPLE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH calculated using empirical traffic data' collected at a similar temple in the City of Reno. Trip distribution patterns were calculated based on the roadway system surrounding the project site and the geographic locations of LDS Stake Centers anticipated to utilize the Temple 2 Empirical trip rates and Temple square footage were used to determine the projected total trips per day. As indicated in Table 4.5.11, the project is anticipated to generate approximately 410 trips per day, with 25 trips during the AM peak hour and 26 trips during the PM peak hour for weekday conditions. The anticipated weekend project trip generation is 770 daily trips and 106 trips during the peak hour. ADT volumes for study area intersections were calculated using the data from the project trip generation summary. 4.5.3.2 Impacts Found To Be Less Than Significant The following transportation impacts were analyzed and found to be less than significant. Year 2004 With Project Traffic Volumes. The traffic volumes generated by the proposed project have been assessed for one year after the project is estimated for completion, at which time project traffic has had the opportunity to stabilize at its projected value. The data from Table 4.5.11 was used to analyze the four study area intersections for traffic impacts in the analysis year (2004). The One Percent Traffic Volume Analysis threshold was used to determine if the project would significantly impact each study area intersection. Weekday AM and PM peak hour volumes for study area intersections generated by the proposed project are shown in Figures 4.5.5 and 4.5.6. Existing, committed project and regional growth traffic was used to simulate traffic conditions during the 2004 analysis year. The results of the test, shown in Table 4.5.C, One Percent Test -Study Area Intersection, indicate that none of the project intersections will exceed the One Percent Test. As shown in Table 4.5.C, the intersection at MacArthur Boulevard and Ford Road/Bonita Canyon Drive will experience the highest volume of project trips. The southbound approach will generate approximately 9 project trips in the AM peak hour and 7 project trips in the PM peak hour. The projected peak hour volumes for the southbound approach in 2004 are 3,200 in the AM peak hour and 5,100 in the PM peak hour. The project trips in the AM peak hour (9) are less than one percent of the projected AM peak hour volumes (32), and the project trips in the PM peak hour (7) are less than one percent of the projected PM peak hour volumes (51). Therefore, the southbound intersection approach at MacArthur Boulevard and Ford Road/Bonita Canyon Drive will not exceed the One Percent threshold. Similarly, none of the remaining study area intersections exceed the One Percent threshold test. ' Source: Empirical data collection/trip generation analysis conducted by Solaegui Engineers, Ltd. (September 15, 2001) 2 Trip distribution patterns are graphically depicted in Exhibit 4 -A of the Traffic Phasing Ordinance Analysis in Appendix C. PACNB230\E1R \Smti0n 4.5.doc «0621102>> 4.5-10 I i i i i i i LSA o �I' 500 '000 BAN C SOURCE: URROSSROADS. iI: \CNB230 \Volmn l- Proiea AK.&,6/5l02) FIGURE 4.5.5 Newport Beach Temple Project AM Peak Hour Volumes �w e a� q4- o J CQ~ v pELTASO T� w 73 BIS 0 s 9 '�0 O� p NAVE y PG f� Z rin f-0 � I �Sp0�T U� 0 9T l O)VC PROJECT ODOR LOCATION FOB 3 �O BONITA CAyjvy 0 o oa PRAIRIE RD o 1.2 v BUFFALO FORD RD RD 2" d o—i s� o9P� 4� yf �Jw 5 o1>o^ 4 LSA o �I' 500 '000 BAN C SOURCE: URROSSROADS. iI: \CNB230 \Volmn l- Proiea AK.&,6/5l02) FIGURE 4.5.5 Newport Beach Temple Project AM Peak Hour Volumes ! ! lLSA 1� 0 500 '000 r� SOURCE: URBAN CROSSROADS. ! 1:\CN8230 \Vol.",ProjeOPM.cdr(6 /5/02) FIGURE 4.5.6 Newport Bench Temple Project PM Peak Hour Volumes �w .e a4 0 pELTASO v <vP 73 w 8IS0�AVE s ✓09 q � 0 2 f4 +f`c p 1rp I f0 f-0 J, �R- o�Itr SpO�T U 9T I01,C PROJECT 0D0R � LOCATION FOB 3 BONITA C A , ONDR o PRAIRIE RD L/0 0 ^ � 1.5 00` i o o i BUFFALO FORD RD 2 d o� s� �o 9pG a� o r\ � 0,�� OOH 0 ^ 0 4 lLSA 1� 0 500 '000 r� SOURCE: URBAN CROSSROADS. ! 1:\CN8230 \Vol.",ProjeOPM.cdr(6 /5/02) FIGURE 4.5.6 Newport Bench Temple Project PM Peak Hour Volumes ASSOCIATES. INC. JUNE 2002 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER DAY SAINTS TEMPLE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Table 4.5.C: One Percent Test — Study Area Intersections Source: Urban Crossroads, May, 2002 I Hundreds of trips P: \CNB230\E1R\Section 4.5.doc .06/2W2,, 4.5 -13 One Percent of Projected Peak Hour Volumes Project Peak Over One (2004) Hour Volume' Percent Test? AM PM AM PM AM PM Intersection Jamboree Rd. at Ford Road • Northbound 22 27 2 2 No No • Southbound 17 23 0 0 No No • Eastbound 8 5 0 0 No No • Westbound 7 3 I I No No MacArthur Blvd. at Bison Avenue • Northbound 25 31 2 5 No No • Southbound 31 25 9 7 No No • Eastbound 9 5 0 0 No No • Westbound 3 4 0 0 No No MacArthur Blvd. at Ford Rd./Bonita Cyn. Rd. • Northbound 23 28 2 2 No No • Southbound 32 51 9 7 No No • Eastbound 4 4 2 2 No No • Westbound 26 12 4 7 No No MacArthur Blvd. at San Joaquin Hills Rd. • Northbound 18 15 2 2 No No • Southbound 44 30 I I No No • Eastbound 4 13 0 0 No No • Westbound 34 6 0 0 No No Source: Urban Crossroads, May, 2002 I Hundreds of trips P: \CNB230\E1R\Section 4.5.doc .06/2W2,, 4.5 -13 ASSOCIATES.INC. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT JUNE 2002 CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER DAY SAINTS TEMPLE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH I Short-Term Construction Traffic Impacts. Short-term construction traffic impacts are expected to be insignificant due to the time of day when most construction traffic occurs and the relatively small 1 number of anticipated trips. The project site is located off of the private extension of Prairie Road, which provides direct access to the adjacent LDS Stake Center and the proposed Temple. Therefore, construction of the proposed Temple will not have a significant impact on the surrounding street system. Based upon the negative results of the One Percent Analysis, further analysis is not required. Therefore, the proposed project is considered exempt from the provisions of the TPO, and impacts related to traffic and circulation are considered less than significant. result from individually minor, but collectively significant actions, taking place over a period of time. The projects considered in the cumulative impact analysis for traffic and circulation that are not Site Access. Access to the site will be provided via the private extension of Prairie Road off of ' Bonita Canyon Drive. Weekend project trips from Table 4.5.B were used to assess the access requirements of the proposed driveway. As shown in Table 4.53, the site is expected to experience approximately 54 inbound trips! According to trip distribution patterns, approximately 65 percent of project traffic will enter the site from the west. The existing dual 230 foot eastbound left turn lanes will provide adequate stacking distance for the approximate 35 inbound trips expected to enter the site from the west during the peak hour. According to trip distribution patterns, approximately 30 percent of project traffic will enter the site from the east. A westbound right turn pocket is not recommended on Bonita Canyon Drive at the project entrance to accommodate the approximate 16 inbound trips expected to enter the site from the east during peak timeframes. Therefore, adequate stacking distance for inbound traffic is provided. Short-Term Construction Traffic Impacts. Short-term construction traffic impacts are expected to be insignificant due to the time of day when most construction traffic occurs and the relatively small 1 number of anticipated trips. The project site is located off of the private extension of Prairie Road, which provides direct access to the adjacent LDS Stake Center and the proposed Temple. Therefore, construction of the proposed Temple will not have a significant impact on the surrounding street system. • Saint Mark Presbyterian Church • Our Lady Queen of Angels Church ' Bluffs Commercial Center • Mariners Church I • Exodus Community Center and Tarbut V'Torah Expansion • Newport Coast Developments (County Approved) • Bonita Canyon/Newport Coast Residential Development To evaluate the site in terms of left turn pocket lengths, the weekend trip generation was used. P' \CNB230 \E1R \Section 4.5.doc ((0621/02» 4.5 -14 4.5.4 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS CEQA requires that the cumulative analysis discuss the impact of the project collectively with other past, present, or reasonably foreseeable planned and proposed projects. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor, but collectively significant actions, taking place over a period of time. The projects considered in the cumulative impact analysis for traffic and circulation that are not included in the City's Transportation Phasing Ordinance, as identified by City staff, are as follows: • Saint Mark Presbyterian Church • Our Lady Queen of Angels Church ' Bluffs Commercial Center • Mariners Church I • Exodus Community Center and Tarbut V'Torah Expansion • Newport Coast Developments (County Approved) • Bonita Canyon/Newport Coast Residential Development To evaluate the site in terms of left turn pocket lengths, the weekend trip generation was used. P' \CNB230 \E1R \Section 4.5.doc ((0621/02» 4.5 -14 I1 1 I I i I I 1 I ASSOCIATES. INC. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT JUNE 2002 CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER DAY SAINTS TEMPLE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH The a.m. and p.m. peak period traffic contribution has been added into the TPO database expressly for this cumulative impact assessment. Cumulative and cumulative plus project impacts, as determined by the TPO criteria, have been assessed for purposes of this cumulative analysis. The additional traffic generated from the cumulative projects will not change the results of the one percent test for the study area intersections shown in Table 4.5.C. Therefore, the proposed project plus cumulative projects do not exceed the City's TPO threshold and, therefore, do not contribute a cumulative impact at any study area intersection. The intersection of Prairie Road and Bonita Canyon Drive (a non -TPO intersection) was included in the cumulative impact analysis, per recommendation from City staff. The One Percent Traffic Volume Analysis was performed to determine whether this intersection would contribute greater than one percent of the projected peak hour volume and require further analysis. As shown in Table 4.5.D, the intersection of Prairie Road and Bonita Canyon Drive is anticipated to exceed the one percent test for both the southbound and eastbound legs of the intersection. Therefore, a level of service analysis was conducted at this intersection. Table 4.5.D: One Percent Test for Intersection of Prairie Road at Bonita Canyon Drive Intersection One Percent of Projected Peak Hour Volumes (2004) Project Peak Hour Volumes i Over One Percent Test? AM PM AM PM AM PM Prairie Road at Bonita Canyon Drive • Northbound 3 4 1 1 No No • Southbound 0 1 5 11 Yes Yes • Eastbound 8 16 13 10 Yes No • Westbound 19 13 6 5 No No Source: Urban Crossroads, May, 2002. Table 4.5.E summarizes the level of service analysis for the intersection of Prairie Road and Bonita Canyon Road, without improvements. As shown in Table 4.51, this intersection is anticipated to operate at an acceptable level of service during the AM and PM peak hours. Therefore, there are no significant cumulative impacts related to traffic and circulation for the proposed project, and no mitigation measures are required. Table 4.5.E: Intersection Analysis For Cumulative With Project Conditions INTERSECTION A.M. PEAK HOUR P.M. PEAK HOUR ICU LOS ICU LOS Prairie Road at Ford I 0.58 A 0.71 C Road/Bonita Canyon Drive Source: Urban Crossroads, May, 2002 PACN1323MEMSection 4.5.doc .06/21/02. 4.5 -15 ' ASSOCIATES.INC. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT JUNE ]00] CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER DAY SAINTS TEMPLE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 1 4.5.5 SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS ' There will be no significant unavoidable adverse traffic or circulation impacts as a result of the proposed project. C 1I L 1 1 1 1 I I 1 1 PACN62300R\Section 4.5.doc.06 /21/02D 4.5 -16 1 ' LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT JUNE 2002 CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER DAY SAINTS TEMPLE CITY OF NEWPORT OEACN r 5.0 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT I I 5.1 INTRODUCTION CEQA requires that an EIR describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the project, or to the location of the project, that could feasibly attain the basic objectives of the project while reducing or avoiding any of its significant effects. The purpose of the discussion of alternatives is to identify ways that significant environmental effects can be reduced or avoided. However, as detailed in this EIR, the applicant has responded to key environmental issues when designing the project and has incorporated Project Design Features (PDF's), in addition to the standard conditions of approval, to reduce potential environmental effects of the proposed project to a less than significant level. As a result, implementation of the proposed project will not result in significant environmental impacts. Therefore, this chapter will identify and analyze reasonable alternatives to the project that could attain the basic project objectives and result in further reduction or avoidance of environmental impacts on the community. iCEQA Guidelines state that an EIR must focus on alternatives that can avoid or substantially lessen a project's significant environmental effects. Key provisions of the CEQA Guidelines on alternatives 1 (Section 15126.6[a] through [f]) are summarized below to explain the foundation and legal requirements for the alternatives analysis in the EIR. IS "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" 15126.6(b). "The 'no IS specific alternative of project'shall also be evaluated along with its impact" 151266(e)(1). "The no project analysis shall discuss the existing conditions at the time the Notice of Preparation is published, and at the time the environmental analysis is commenced, as well as what would reasonably be expected to occur in the foreseeable future if the project were not approved, based on current plans and consistent with available infrastructure and community services. If the environmentally superior alternative is the 'no project' alternative, the EIR shall also identify an environmentally superior alternative among the other alternatives " 15126.6(e)(2). ' IS "The range of alternatives required in an EIR is governed by a 'rule of reason' that requires the EIR to set forth only those alternatives necessary to permit a reasoned choice. The alternatives ' shall be limited to ones that would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the 15126.669. project" IS "Among the factors that may be taken into account when addressing the feasibility of alternatives 1 are site suitability, economic viability, availability of infrastructure, general plan consistency, other plans or regulatory limitations, jurisdictional boundaries, and whether the proponent can P:\CNB230\E1R \Section 5.0.doc « 06/21/021 5 -1 I LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT JUNE 2 00 CHURCH Of JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER DAY SAINTS TEMPLE I reasonably acquire, control or otherwise have access to the alternative site (or the site is already owned by the proponent) " 15126.60 (1). 1 • For alternative locations, "only locations that would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project need he considered for inclusion in the EIR" 15126.60(2)(A). • "An EIR need not consider an alternative whose effect cannot he reasonably ascertained and whose implementation is remote and speculative" 15126 6(,9 (3). Because the proposed project will not result in significant environmental impacts, the range of options available for review is limited. There are four threshold tests for suitable alternatives. Potential alternatives are reviewed to eliminate proposals that: ' Cannot substantially reduce significant environmental impacts • Cannot attain most basic project objectives ' Are not potentially feasible • Are plainly unreasonable 5.2 ALTERNATIVES WITHDRAWN FROM FURTHER CONSIDERATION The following alternatives have been previously identified by the City of Newport Beach and/or the project applicant as part of prior environmental evaluations. These alternative have been determined to be infeasible as they do not accomplish most of the project objectives or avoid or substantially lessen identified significant impacts. These alternatives are discussed below: ' Off -Site Alternative Locations. Alternative locations are generally examined when implementation of the project at the proposed site would have significant unavoidable impacts and/or significant but mitigatable impacts, and when such impacts could be reduced or eliminated P1CNB2301ERlSection 5 0 doE «0621/02» 5 -2 This discussion identifies and analyzes reasonable alternatives to the project that attain the basic project objectives. Alternatives that do not attain most of the project objectives are also described and analyzed. Even where no significant environmental effects have been identified, because of the public interest in this project and as a result of the discussion of the visual impact of the steeple within Section 4.1 (Aesthetics), a reasonable range of alternatives is presented to evaluate ways the project's ' objectives might be achieved with reduced visual impacts. Each alternative is analyzed as follows: • A description of the alternative is provided; ' Impacts of the alternative and significance of those impacts (per the CEQA Guidelines, significant effects of an alternative shall be discussed, but in less detail than the effects of the project as proposed); • Comparison of the alternative relative to the proposed project, specifically addressing project objectives, feasibility, the elimination or reduction of impacts, and comparative environmental merits. 5.2 ALTERNATIVES WITHDRAWN FROM FURTHER CONSIDERATION The following alternatives have been previously identified by the City of Newport Beach and/or the project applicant as part of prior environmental evaluations. These alternative have been determined to be infeasible as they do not accomplish most of the project objectives or avoid or substantially lessen identified significant impacts. These alternatives are discussed below: ' Off -Site Alternative Locations. Alternative locations are generally examined when implementation of the project at the proposed site would have significant unavoidable impacts and/or significant but mitigatable impacts, and when such impacts could be reduced or eliminated P1CNB2301ERlSection 5 0 doE «0621/02» 5 -2 ' LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT JUNE 1009 CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST Of LATTER DAY SAINTS TEMPLE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 1 LJ ' by relocation of the development to another site, while also attaining basic project objectives. However, as the proposed project will not result in any significant environmental impacts, an alternative location would not reduce or eliminate any impacts associated with implementation of the project. In addition, relocation of the proposed project does not meet the basic project objectives. Therefore, any discussion of alternative locations would not meet the "rule of reason" addressed in the CEQA Guidelines and is, therefore, not addressed further in this EIR. ' Conclusion ' This alternative has been withdrawn from further consideration for the following reason: 1. There are no significant environmental effects identified in the proposed project that would be lessened by this alternative. ' No Projecti'Development of Project Site With Use Permitted by Right. Consistent with Section 15126.6 of the CEQA Guidelines, this alternative is the development of the project site with a use permitted by right. Uses permitted by right on the project site are 1) accessory use to a ' permitted use, 2) agriculture (interim use), 3) park, 4) residential care facility, and 5) public school. For the purpose of this analysis, a pubic school was chosen as the permitted alternative use. A public school facility on the project site would not avoid or substantially lessen any significant effects of the project and may potentially result in a significant environmental effect that would not result with implementation of the proposed project. In addition, development of a public school on this site would not meet the project objectives. ' Conclusion I 1 I I This alternative has been withdrawn from further consideration for the following reasons: 1. There are no significant environmental effects identified in the proposed project that would be lessened by this alternative. 2. This alternative cannot meet most of the project objectives. 5.3 ALTERNATIVES EVALUATED IN DETAIL The following alternatives to the proposed project were developed pursuant to the requirements of Section 15126 of the CEQA Guidelines. Alternatives to the proposed project will be evaluated as follows: • Alternative 1— No Project/No Build Alternative. Consistent with Section 15126.6 of the CEQA Guidelines, the No Build Alternative is the existing condition of the project site at the time the Notice of Preparation was published. Currently, the project site is vacant with the exception of two asphalt parking areas. The project site has been previously cleared and graded, with imported soils being stored on site from a nearby site. PACN6230EMSection 5.0.doc.0621102,, LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. BN V10. ONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT JUNE 2002 CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OP LATTER DAY SAINTS TEMPLE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH I ' • Alternative 2 — Reduced Intensity Alternative. This alternative assumes development of the proposed project site with the same use but with an approximately 20 percent reduction in the height of the steeple and a reduction in hours of illumination of the Temple. Alternative 2 ' includes a 100 -foot steeple and a reduction of hours of illumination for the architectural elements of the facility. ' perceived eternal blessings to the faithful. ' 5.4 PROPOSED PROJECT A summary of the proposed project, the objectives of the project, and impacts determined to be significant for the development as proposed are summarized in this section for reference in evaluating the comparative merits of the alternatives. ' 5.4.1 Description The Temple is planned as a 17,575 square foot building sited in the center of the property, surrounded by approximately 5.5 acres of gardens, walkways, and water treatments in the western portion of the project site and parking in the eastern and northeastern perimeters of the site. The overall footprint of the building is 208 feet x 110 feet, with the mass of the building extending up to 35 feet at its maximum height. The building footprint will cover approximately ten percent of the gross area of project site. The steeple element of the Temple will be situated on the building at the northern end of the structure. The steeple at its highest point is 123 feet 9 inches above ground elevation. The base of the steeple at its widest point is 32 feet 6 inches wide, and at its narrowest point, at the base of the angel statue, is one foot six inches wide. Proposed hours of illumination for the Temple are 5:00 a.m. to dawn and dusk to 11:00 p.m. ' 5.4.2 Project Objectives The objectives for the project, as detailed in Chapter 3.0, are as follows: P \CNB230TIRISection 5.0.doc «06111 101, • To provide safe and convenient access by proximity to primary regional highways, thereby encouraging its frequent usage by members who are qualified to receive their own holy Temple ceremonies and to provide similar benefits to others through repeated proxy service. • To provide a highly visible site and a distinctive Temple with a steeple sufficiently high and illuminated to be seen from a substantial distance, as a pinnacle of the faith and the source of perceived eternal blessings to the faithful. ' • To provide a tranquil setting for a Temple of fine workmanship and materials as a neighborhood enhancement, but separated and buffered from surrounding properties out of regard for the sensitivities of residents therein. To in full City • be compliance with all governing guidelines and policies. P \CNB230TIRISection 5.0.doc «06111 101, LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT JUNE 2002 CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER DAY SAINTS TEMPLE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH LI ' 5.43 Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Project As discussed above, a primary consideration in defining project alternatives is their potential to reduce or eliminate significant impacts compared to the proposed project. Because the proposed project will not result in significant environmental impacts, as detailed in this EIR, an alternative to eliminate significant environmental impacts will not be specifically discussed. Rather, the alternatives discussion that follows is provided to analyze how various alternatives may reduce or minimize environmental impacts. ' 5.5 ALTERNATIVE 1 - NO PROJECT/NO BUILD ALTERNATIVE 5.5.1 Description ' Consistent with Section 15126.6 of the CEQA Guidelines, the No Project/No Build Alternative is the existing condition of the project site at the time of the Notice of Preparation (NOP) was published. As stated in the NOP, the project site is an unimproved property with the exception of two asphalt parking areas. The project site has been previously cleared and graded, with imported soils being stored on site from an adjacent site. The site currently serves as an overflow parking area for the adjacent Stake Center. I L I The No Build Alternative would not provide the community with a Temple to serve as a pinnacle of the faith and the source of perceived eternal blessing to the Church faithful. No improvements to the property would occur. This alternative would realistically be an interim use of the site. The City's General Plan designates the site for development of public /semipublic facilities. The LDS Church as the landowner has the right to develop the property with a public /semipublic facility. 5.5.2 Attainment of Project Objectives The No Project/No Build Alternative would not meet any of the project objectives including to provide a highly visible and distinctive Temple with a steeple sufficiently high and illuminated to be seen from a substantial distance, and to provide a tranquil setting for a Temple of fine workmanship and materials as a neighborhood enhancement with safe and convenient access by proximity to primary regional highways, or to be in full compliance with governing City guidelines and policies. 5.5.3 Impacts 5.5.3.1 Aesthetics. The No Project/No Build Alternative will leave the project site in its existing undeveloped state. No development would occur on the site. Visual improvements to the site, including extensive landscaping, would not occur. The project site would not be landscaped, nor would the proposed 5 acre garden be created. Existing views from areas surrounding the project site would not be altered. The vacant project site would remain in its current disturbed condition, serving as an overflow parking area, with the two asphalt parking areas. 5.5.3.2 Air Quality. No air quality impacts would occur with the alternative. Similar to the proposed project, the No Project/No Build Alternative will not result in short-term or long -term PACNB2300R\Sec[ion 5.0.doc 46/21/02» 5 -5 LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT JUNE 2002 CHURCH OP JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER DAY SAINTS TEMPLE 1 ' impacts to air quality. Also similar to the proposed project, there would be no air quality emissions generated by short-term construction emissions or long -term operational and vehicular traffic trips. 1 5.5.3.3 Hydrology/Water Quality. The No Project/No Build condition would not change the existing hydrological condition of the site. Implementation of the project design feature and standard ' conditions of approval to filter surface water runoff and comply with local, regional and State water quality requirements would not occur. Untreated runoff from the project site would continue to drain into Bonita Creek with no infrastructure improvements to filter surface water runoff, which currently ' may contain heavy metals and hydrocarbons typically found in parking lot runoff. ' 5.5.3.4 Land Use. The No Project/No Build Alternative would not be consistent with the General Plan or Bonita Canyon Planned Community Specific Plan. The project site has been planned for development as a public /semi- public use. The No Project/No Build Alternative would not implement ' the City's goals and policies of the General Plan. 5.5.3.5 Traffic/Circulation. This alternative would not generate new vehicular traffic trips. Similar ' to the proposed project, the No Project/No Build Alternative would not result in impacts to traffic and circulation in the project vicinity or in long -term traffic noise impacts to off -site uses. ' 5.6 ALTERNATIVE 2 - REDUCED INTENSITY ALTERNATIVE ' 5.6.1 Description This alternative assumes development of the proposed project site with the same uses in the same configuration but with a 20 percent reduction in the height of the steeple and with the hours of illumination for the steeple reduced from the projects proposed schedule of illumination. Therefore, ' Alternative 2 proposes a 100 foot high steeple and a reduction in hours of illumination for lighting of the architectural elements of the Temple fagade. 5.6.2 Attainment of Project Objectives This alternative would be consistent with all of the project objectives. A 20 percent reduction in the height of the steeple would result in a slightly less visible steeple. However, based on an extensive visual survey conducted by City staff to determine the range of visibility of the proposed project, in particular the visibility of the steeple at the proposed 123'9" and at a reduced height of 100', it was determined that the reduced height of the steeple would not significantly reduce the range of visibility from surrounding areas such that the project objective to provide a highly visible site cannot be met. A reduction in steeple height may affect the symmetrical balance of the overall Temple design. Architecturally, the height of the steeple is proportional to the length and width of the building. With ' a reduced steeple height, the symmetrical design theme of the Temple and grounds may become out of balance. P:\CNB230\E1R \Section 5.0.doc a062402u 5 -6 1 LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT JUNE 2402 CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER DAY SAINTS TEMPLE ' CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH illuminated steeple, a tranquil setting for a Temple of fine workmanship and materials as a ' neighborhood enhancement with safe and convenient access by proximity to primary regional highways. This alternative would also be in full compliance with all governing City guidelines and ' The Temple would continue to be illuminated with this alternative, but the hours of illumination would be less than those proposed. This alternative would provide a distinctive Temple with an illuminated steeple, a tranquil setting for a Temple of fine workmanship and materials as a ' neighborhood enhancement with safe and convenient access by proximity to primary regional highways. This alternative would also be in full compliance with all governing City guidelines and policies with approval of the requested Use Permit. 5.6.3 Impacts ' 5.6.3.1 Aesthetics. This alternative, as well as the proposed project, would change the views of the existing site conditions. Surrounding residences and adjacent public viewpoints would be subject to short-term construction activity, including movement of construction trucks and vehicles. When ' compared to the proposed project, the proposed 20% reduction in the height of the steeple would result in similar aesthetic effects as the proposed project. The Temple fapade, including the steeple, would still be visible to the surrounding community but to a lesser extent. A reduction in hours of illumination may result in less visual imposition to nearby residences during later nighttime hours, however, as discussed in Section 4.1 Aesthetics, nighttime lighting of the project site would not result in an adverse aesthetic effect. Similar to the proposed project, this alternative would not result in an adverse effect resulting from illumination of the Temple fapade. 5.6.3.2 Air Quality. This alternative would not lessen or increase effects on short-term construction emissions when compared to the proposed project, since the projects are the identical from an earthwork or grading standpoint. Emissions generated by long -term vehicular traffic trips and ' stationary sources would be the same as those generated by the proposed project with no significant impacts related to air quality. 5.6.33 Hydrology/Water Quality. This alternative would result in the same development on the project site and, therefore, would create the same amount of impervious surfaces than the proposed ' project. The overall effects on hydrological conditions would be similar to the proposed project. The same project design features and project conditions would be implemented with this alternative. After implementation of the project design features and project conditions, this alternative and the ' proposed project do not create significant effects on hydrology. ' 5.63.4 Land Use. As with the proposed project, this alternative would be compatible with surrounding uses because of the low intensity of the use and buffer areas provided between new development and existing developmentluses adjacent to the project site. This alternative would also be consistent with the intent of the General Plan and Bonita Canyon Planned Community Specific 1 Plan. ' 5.63.5 Traffic/Circulation. Alternative 2 would contribute the same number of vehicular trips as the proposed project. As with the proposed project, all the intersections analyzed would continue to 1 PACNB230TWSmion 5.0.doc 0621/0A1 1 ' LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT JUNE 0000 CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER DAY SAINTS TEMPLE CITY OF NEWPORT REACH ' operate at acceptable levels of service. Impacts for both the proposed project and this alternative would be less than significant, and overall, are considered to be similar. ' 5.7 SUMMARY OF ALL ALTERNATIVES ' This section provides, in summary form, a comparison of the impacts of the alternatives to the proposed project. In this summary, impacts of each of the alternatives are addressed regarding whether they have a similar impact, greater impact, or lesser impact than the proposed project. As stated in Section 5. 1, the primary objective of the alternatives analysis is to focus on alternatives capable of eliminating identified significant environmental effects or of reducing them to a level of insignificance, even if those alternatives will not attain the basic project objectives or are more costly. ' Each environmental topic addressed in Chapter 4.0 is addressed in summary form below. For each topic presented, a conclusion is provided that identifies whether any of the proposed alternatives lessen the severity of the impacts associated with the proposed project. Table 5.7.A provides a ' summary matrix comparison of each alternative. L_J 1 H P1CNB230\E1R\Smtion 5.0.doc .06121/02>> 5 -8 1 t 1 LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. JUNE 2002 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER DAY SAINTS TEMPLE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Table 5.7.A: LDS Temple Alternatives Comparison of Impacts Alternative Impacts: S = Same as or similar to proposed project L = Less than proposed project G = Greater than proposed project For Proposed Project Impacts: s = Significant Unavoidable Impact I = Less Than Significant Impact PACN13230MMSection 5.0 a06R1/02R 5 -9 Proposed Project No Project/ No Build Reduced Intensity Proposed Project Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Attainment of Project Objectives All No All Aesthetics I L L Air Quality I L S Hydrology/Water Quality I S S Land Use I G S Transportation/Traffic I L S Alternative Impacts: S = Same as or similar to proposed project L = Less than proposed project G = Greater than proposed project For Proposed Project Impacts: s = Significant Unavoidable Impact I = Less Than Significant Impact PACN13230MMSection 5.0 a06R1/02R 5 -9 LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT JUNE ]00] CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER DAY SAINTS TEMPLE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH L1 ' 5.8 ENVIRONMENTALLY SUPERIOR ALTERNATIVE PACN1123MEMSection 5 0.doc «0621 /02,1 5 -10 1 Section 15126.6 (e) of the CEQA Guidelines requires an EIR to identify the environmentally superior ' alternative. If the environmentally superior alternative is the No Project Alternative, CEQA requires that the EIR identify an environmentally superior alternative among the other alternatives. Often, ' alternatives will reduce some impacts and increase others. When none of the alternatives is environmentally superior to the project, it should be sufficient to compare the significant effects of each alternative with those of the project. The analysis above discusses two development alternatives to the proposed project, the No Project/No Build Alternative and the Reduced Intensity Alternative. Alternative 2 (Reduced Intensity) has similar impacts compared to the proposed project but does incrementally lessen the visual and light/glare effects of the proposed project. Alternative 1, the No Project/No Build Alternative has less than significant impacts for Aesthetics, Air Quality, and Traffic /Circulation and greater impacts related to Land Use. Impacts to water quality may be somewhat greater under the existing condition compared with the proposed project. However, there would be increased runoff and additional ' nutrient loads from the landscaped area with the project site. Therefore, Alternative 1 impacts would be similar to the project impacts, which are less that significant. This alternative is environmentally superior to the development alternative but is infeasible because none of the project objectives are met. PACN1123MEMSection 5 0.doc «0621 /02,1 5 -10 1 LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT JUNE 2002 CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST LATTER DAY SAINTS TEMPLE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 6.0 LONG -TERM IMPLICATIONS OF THE PROJECT CEQA Guidelines Section 15126 requires that the Environmental Impact Report disclose the long- term implications resulting from the implementation of the proposed project. This chapter discusses significant unavoidable adverse impacts of the project, the significant irreversible environmental changes that would be involved in the proposed project, and the growth inducing impact of the proposed project, should it be implemented. t6.1 SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS THAT CANNOT BE AVOIDED IF THE PROPOSED PROJECT IS IMPLEMENTED ' As discussed in this EIR, implementation of the proposed project will not result in significant environmental effects. Therefore, there are no significant environmental effects that cannot be avoided if the proposed project is implemented. 6.2 SIGNIFICANT IRREVERSIBLE ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGES THAT WOULD BE INVOLVED IN THE PROPOSED PROJECT SHOULD IT BE ' IMPLEMENTED The proposed project will alter the project site by improving its existing condition with a developed ' use, consistent with the General Plan and the Bonita Canyon Planned Community Specific Plan. The proposed use will, however, permanently alter views of the site. The combination of the existing development and development planned or currently under construction has established the general ' aesthetic and land use pattern of development in the area. Therefore, implementation of the project would not result in significant irreversible environmental changes to the project site or surrounding area. 6.3 GROWTH INDUCING IMPACT OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT ' Implementation of the project will develop a vacant property with an approximately 17,575 square foot building, surrounded by 5.5 acres of gardens, walkways, and parking areas. The project is intended to serve the existing Church community in proximity to the site and will not create housing ' opportunities that will not in and of itself cause a growth inducing impact. Land surrounding the site is either developed or publicly owned land designated for parks /recreational uses and open space. Utilities to serve the project will be connected with existing facilities that can ' accommodate the project's development and no expansion of capacity or establishment of new sources of service is required to implement the project. P' \Cnb230\EIR \Sect 6.0.doc ' LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT JUNE 2002 CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER DAY SAINTS TEMPLE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 1 7.0 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM 1 7.1 INTRODUCTION The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Public Resources Code Section 21081, and Sections 15091 and 15097 of the CEQA Guidelines, require that a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) be adopted when the Lead Agency, in this case the City of Newport ' Beach (City), adopts an Environmental Impact Report. The purpose of the MMRP is to assign responsibility for the implementation, monitoring, and timing of each mitigation measure that has been identified to reduce an identified environmental impact to a less than significant level. ' However, as detailed in this EIR, the project proponent has responded to key environmental issues when designing the project and has incorporated Project Design Features (PDF's), in addition to the standard conditions of approval (SC's) to reduce potential environmental effects of the proposed project to a less than significant level. Therefore, this MMRP identifies PDF's and SC's intended to reduce potential environmental effects. The City is required to ensure compliance with each of the adopted PDF's and/or SC's outlined in the MMRP because additional significant environmental ' impacts could result from the project if these features and/or conditions are not implemented. The attached table lists each of the PDF's and SC's applicable to each of the environmental topics identified in the DEIR. The second column identifies the responsible party, i.e., the department(s) responsible for ensuring that the PDF or SC is implemented. The third column identifies the timing for the PDF and/or SC. Once the project is constructed, a report should be submitted to the approving ' body reporting on the project's compliance with the project design features and standard conditions. 1 1 1 1 PACN13230TIMSection 7(2).doc 062I/13N 1 I ' zl od 0 F. U� 6< S° O t i^ Sz 0� pz I >z I 0 i c z 1 1 1 1 I ` I z i o� y d L y i _ y cd G 0 V m i _ R U 00 00 c c y y c .0., y «O y .0. .y., � 3 3 0 00 � CL. m 0 a m 0 a m 0 O O O U U U C y w c y y c y .0., y «O y .0. .y., O 0 0 0 00 � I o 0 o` v N r c 0 L9 y m Is U I� m m E m E m E c c r c c t c v m m c v c v m 0 00 � CL. m 0 a m 0 a m 0 I o 0 o` v N r c 0 L9 y m Is U I� m N V N '� 1 >` O > s = G O 4 apL 0 00 � c ?p £ I vi .0-0--- A 0 Z W O D C CL 0 m 0 G U E •� C I s 3 m I, o O c o> .s N y � I m 3 c_ •a y a4 � 0 c 'y v� y O '> p 0 w> 'y N w y y R D v 00 N 00 p G s 'd .� •m m s y C 3 .0., b u o u E y "-' a• E '-0'0 d 0 A .0., 4. •p .0, O O N ap Ij U G'F 0 V U G N = C 00 N •_ o .p C C ODIC c L L' " 'ap E r' E c 3 ? � v ; N O" �, F yo m 0 p N 4. c pp N I�� 3 c c 0 N y v A (� I •C s0_9 V 0' N y d w C N 0 E W G. D E E c .00 F v .y .°. •+ N r1 o iz' iz' Ls. a a a aL I o 0 o` v N r c 0 L9 y m Is U I� I � I A I vi I s m I, y � I m O c y � b � U Ij r o o .p C C ODIC c L L' •� L r' I�� "III I I o 0 o` v N r c 0 L9 y m Is U I� 11 1 1 1 1 RZ C U a> ai .o iU f2 2< U. sz 2f O 1= 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1= 1 Un 1 d N N � v n c :n o � m o0 b0 �.• O U c L A W N O o O a _T L U U � � a3m'0 - m o m w oo v 3 r w n t m 3 ` u 4 U U F T d U M "' £ of N > y d v od N =0 , N c u v y o n o o v E m v c o OD- G Ci 'J' o n Em -0 y •L N U0 F am ,nDyv?yc� u0 �n gE>� w ` O y vy mm p > O L 'O C y N y _ :. fn o o U> U N L 2 N 4 O 4. y 0 N N Q Y o£ U 4 p N U t _ 'O U V1 U ow U mdcw�E odd oo N do A D m oa° u3 >T .4 t c N> c 3 m d oz N o > a N m K o n u 6£ u c C m A N v p .iii 1O I m m m x o y Y N o U o E A :E w � c o c y a v y .c . c m N e 0 y o i 3 r d U E 0€ Q 'a ,n c N 'm v n C Y > c N r 3 a v.5 Q 1 c N£ N o $ 'a 'o u v a v n o H s 0 o n .. c c 0.io �a I.n Q L I to I_m N � ou M I N 0 N z 9 I C 0 N tiI M d Z U I 1 c^ W y t^ O •E F' 10 .E O y y N O ., L o € •L N CL. n to O V y N O" L o � L N a. n o L O 00'« O U U 0 O U N 00 O L O o� •L ❑ a. ea to 1 e3 o W C O o L O L O t O to r. 00'« 00'« O U O= O U U C U C U C A O O O U U U N 00 N 00 N 00 Z C y C y C I O O O L O L O L O � o� •o� o� L❑ L❑ L � a. m a. m a. � yA A A A A A Y Y Y Y Y Y O G O C O C O = O C O C 3 mE 3 mE 3mE 3 to 3 to 3 mE CG i m 0 i m 0 i m 0 i m 0 i m 0 i m 0 N C O to to g �o •� m 30 •`-a U y •L y o U m 0 u 1O a'Y >. U« L v c o to n> o o ,�v oo Em o v w q U o n v n° •3 0°o co �vw w. . °_ °= EQv' 1O ° ?? c 'o °u m Lt m m o 0 0 0 n c to c m Eno= s w d « •y •3 y c 'a uO v m •' fn m E m •c q �+ o f y m 3 a. w _7 v L v E$ 1O °_o c y nm m ='-� y y mm dm o m °a m .°. q't o a .— ° o E U= N c = to N� °�«' °p 3-� 0 to— O n._ m m v o>`, u °U U >, v N to m O u °' 'y " n v °v U a. o y° O A l t A y' V- RL..c >, too c c o 0> d .o c o v E_ v° . °_ °c '� y .m E m c •„ d N U O ^ u o v m c— to o y L A N O U lO y L •_ N T U N Y U lO 3 m N U m O N to O O n °- °N' y n« a u N U C C O u >. Con G�°.' • E .:O ° d d v v c o° a «3 E U ,L1O, c w 0 W O L N o O y C. a u m «° a`Oi o f m« m .c. m •`-' °° o > U t d D m 3 an 3 `v o •_A > zz C L o °to n m C 1� U c v 0' y �o `v m m Y a d A N ii O —_ V O N N M .o+ �u!�'' A° o O L L R .� r L N O N 'E GI U « L 'c Ev Lx1 T Y °� Y to N O L L �' oa. dE 3 E d o eG —°o moo. y n° o — v °c ° Q m° v n «° Q Q 3 L° N a. _ v U o L m m z Q m m o = D v nv U U U rUn rUn j C6 I .Z o- U� u< Fi <Z C IU Fz ' z< I 0: 52 1C > AC O 0 2 UN C O A U m C 0 O � Q. A d d n O d C 9 A n CI Q d o 00 W U C U U O 0 U > p U O 1.. A .D O N N n M N O U C t n 1 3 ° > W N > U 'C} I m U oo ^ U C U N O N n '3 E y W C W O C � e 1n .D 7 O U O Y ' O > U v o 2 E F U Y 'V y A U U > .3 o E U w Q U Q Y d V A A a N y 0 O d F m U 3 m d � U d p t O O vi L � A y ' a > v � O a .-0 r n C .n c diO d N � icy G U � 6> v A m 0 OD U t Q U O OCO > N � Q A o V y 1 z! i d o > .. � o U C U U O 0 U > p U O 1.. A O O N N n M N O U A N 3 ° > 3 $ � ` > U 'C} A m m U oo m U C U N O N n '3 E y W C W A n e 1n .D W d U O Y y O > U v o F Y > F U Y 'V y A U U > .3 o E A y ... N E Q U Q Y d V d o >' d > C s v M N O U A N > U A m m e d n 3 1n N A U y O > U v o O U O U O A A a N y 0 y A C OUD r F m U 3 m d d p t O O vi A a > v � O a .-0 r n C .n c N � d U � 6> v A m 0 OD U t Q U N 0 N 0 0 a I^ � D � V IN I� 0 z I o` �o ZU �C Z2 0� si xZ YO 7 C 1 c 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 c j i <.n i i v I C p,E a 4 O 4 O 0 O U U U G W C W C W N N N N N o o o O .r0 .2 I C p,E a OCp= E me c= a dm'o a °c90c°E 'O mE c= a dm'o a OCp OpE 'O m c= a dm'o w N e O L y x E o of v na.E`•= ty � � c �� E Y A .0 W) N O C t: C N O E H U O •o u E W d —_ v im_ U _ c d c N U o p 3 3 a U v I U C v a v H c v 0 M W u w •o W a N o �° c eo L � V N oo N h t�°„ = i0 ° y •J' N V N u° W y y y 00 ° ° v Q. N •v W N� t C t .X C W F W° y V C O ° 'p •v H o. Dom °' N E m o _ °• o fi ep?+ C QE c o° In ° v c __.• v W —0-0 � d ° � '� ° •y � � V1 u trill � W ._ a=.r N W CJ W r a U6 c v F F ° 9 i R 0 C 0 0 9 N 0 y z u 0 D z U a ' LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. JUNE 2002 1 r ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER DAY SAINTS TEMPLE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 8.0 LIST OF PREPARERS ' 8.1 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH James Campbell, Senior Planner, Planning Department ' Patricia Temple, Planning Director 8.2 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. ' Rob Balen, Principal -in- Charge Maria Levario, Project Manager ' Lisa Williams, Assistant Project Manager— Water Quality, Hydrology Tony Petros, Principal — Transportation Analysis Tung -Chen (Tony) Chung, Ph.D., Associate — Air Quality/Noise Analysis Keith Lay, Assistant Engineer — Air Quality/Noise Analysis ' Maggie Brothers, Environmental Analyst ' 8.3 HUNSAKER & ASSOCIATES Philip P. Dowty, Project Manager ' 8.4 URBAN CROSSROADS ' Scott Sato, P.E., Traffic Engineer J J J I I I PAcnb230 \E]R\.Smt Kdoc 1 1 1 LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. JUNE 20 02 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER DAY SAINTS TEMPLE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 9.0 ORGANIZATIONS AND PERSONS CONSULTED City of Newport Beach Fire Department City of Newport Beach Police Department City of Newport Beach Public Works Department Konsortium 1 Lloyd Platt & Associates Lloyd Platt & Associates RNM Planners & Architects RNM Planners & Architects Southern California Geotechnical P:\cnb230\EIR \Sect 9AM Raymond Swartz Russell Platt Steven Platt Leslie Lee, AICP Ralph Martin John Seminara, GE ' LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. JUNE 2002 ENVIRONMRNTAL IMPACT REPORT CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OP LATTER DAY SAINTS TEMPLE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ' 10.0 REFERENCES ' California Code of Regulations, Part 17, Group 10. Camp Dresser & McKee, Larry Walker and Associates, Uribe and Associates, and Resources ' Planning Associates. 1993. California Storm Water Best Management Practice Handbooks, Municipal and Construction Activity. March. 1 Chambers Group, Inc. 2001. Final Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (E1S/E1R) for the Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Project. Prepared for U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles District, and the California State Lands Commission and United States Fish and Wildlife Service. Chambers Group, Inc., Irvine. City of Newport Beach Council Policy L -18, Protection of Water Quality: Water Quality Municipal plans for New Development and Redevelopment, 2002. City of Newport Beach General Plan Land Use Element, 1998 City of Newport Beach General Plan Recreation and Open Space Element, 1998 City of Newport Beach Municipal Code County of Orange, the Cities of Orange County, and the Orange County Flood Control District. 1993. Orange County NPDES Stormwater Program Drainage Area Management Plan. April. County of Orange, the Cities of Orange County, and the Orange County Flood Control District. 2001. Draft Orange County NPDES Stormwater Program Drainage Area Management Plan. January. County of Orange Health Care Agency. http: / /www.ocbeachinfo.com PBS &J. 2001. Bolsa Chica Upper Mesa Development - Water Quality Impact Analysis, County of Orange, California. Prepared for Hearthside Homes, Inc., Irvine, California. September 27. Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board. 1995. Water Quality Control Plan, Santa Ana River Basin. Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board. 1996. Waste Discharge Requirements for the County of Orange, Orange County Flood Control District and the Incorporated Cities of Orange County within the Santa Ana Region Areawide Urban Storm Water Run -off Orange County, Order No. 96 -31, NPDES No. CAS618030. March 8. P:knb230MRlsect I0.doc ' LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT JUNE 1001 HEADLANDS DEVELOPMENT AND CONSERVATION PLAN 1 Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board. 2001. Draft Waste Discharge Requirements for ' the County of Orange, Orange County Flood Control District and the Incorporated Cities of Orange County within the Santa Ana Region Areawide Urban Storm Water Run -off Orange County, Order No. 01 -20, NPDES No. CAS618030. June 1. ' Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board. Santa Ana River Basin Plan Amendments — Resolution 98 -100, Resolution 98 -101, Resolution 99 -10. ' Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board. Draft 2002 Impaired Water Bodies 303(d) List and TMDL Priority Schedule. ' State Water Resources Control Board. 1999. National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System ( NPDES) General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction Activity ' (General Permit). Stormceptor. 1994 and 1997. Testing summary field monitoring results. hap: / /stormceptor.com (I IMay, 2002) 1 I 1 I L� I k L� P:\cnb230\EIR\S= 10.doc I l_ I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I P:1CNB230\EIRVAppmdiccs Covers.docR06120102. i LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. EN V IRO N MENTAL IMPACT REPORT JUNE 2002 CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER DAY SAINTS TEMPLE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH APPENDIX A NOTICE OF PREPARATIONWTIAL STUDY l_ I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I P:1CNB230\EIRVAppmdiccs Covers.docR06120102. i 1� LSA ASSOCIATE], INC. JUNE 2002 ENVIED N MENTAI IMPACT RF.POR I' CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER DAY SAIN T S ' I EMPLC CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH SUMMARY OF NOP COMMENTS RECEIVED AND DISPOSITION OF ISSUES The Notice of Preparation was distributed on March 11, 2002 for a period of thirty days. The NOP comment period officially ended on April 10, 2002. However, the City of Newport accepted comments on the NOP until Friday, April 19, 2002. Letters Received Responses to the Notice of Preparation (NOP) were received by the following interested parties: Commentator Address Date Letter Sent Date Letter I i I Received David C. Grant Newport Beach, CA April 10, 2002 April 10, 2002 92660 Alex and MaryBeth Waniek Newport Beach, CA April 10, 2002 i April 10, 2002 92660 David and Karen Wolf Newport Beach, CA April 10, 2002 I � April 10, 2002 92660 Amy Urcis I City of Irvine April 10, 2002 April 11, 2002 Associate Planner 1 Civic Center Plaza, P.O. Box 19575 Irvine, Ca 92623 -9575 Robert F. Joseph, Chief Department of April 12, 2002 April 19, 2002 Advanced Planning Branch 1 Transportation District 12 3337 Michelson Drive Suite 380 i Irvine, CA 92612 -8894 •I Environmental Quality City of Newport Beach April 16, 2002 Affairs Advisory j Wrv02\projmc \=b230�Summary COmmen[OMAOC (062l/02) I I P I 11 I I I I I I i i II David C. Grant 33 Marble Sands Newport Beach, CA 92660 Telephone (949) 759 -3351 Facsimile (949) 759 -4782 April 10, 2002 BY FACSINHLE ONLY Mr. James Campbell Senior Planner City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92660 Facsimile No.: (949) 644 -3229 RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF N. A'DnnT CEACCH AM APR i D 2002 PV - 7�8i9�10�11i12i1i2i3i4i5i6 Re: Response to Notice of Preparation and Initial Study, Church of Jesus Christ of Latter -Day Saints Temple ( "Project "), City of Newport Beach Dear Mr. Campbell: I am a resident at the above - referenced address in Bonita Canyon and write this letter on my behalf and on the behalf of other residents in Bonita Canyon. The Project includes a proposed tiered building (32.75 feet high) with a steeple (123.75 feet above ground elevation), which will be illuminated during evening hours to 11:00 p.m. and between 5:00 a.m. and dawn. This proposed use requires the City's approval of a Use Permit for a place of religious worship and to exceed the permitted 50 foot height limit. The Notice of Preparation and Initial Study ( "Notice "), Church of Jesus Christ of Latter - Day Saints Temple, City of Newport Beach identifies numerous potentially significant impacts on the environment. Potentially Significant Aesthetic Impacts. The Notice identifies potentially significant aesthetic impacts that could substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings and create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area. The proposed height and lighting is exceptional and unprecedented in the City of Newport Beach. A recent article in the Orange County Register (January 2002) compared the steeple height to Disneyland's Matterhorn (which at 147 feet only exceeds the steeple by 23.25 feet). I Mr. James Campbell ' Senior Planner City of Newport Beach April 10, 2002 Page 2 1 The steeple will physically dominate the area. The nighttime lighting will, according to the Conditional Use Permit application, be visible from as far away as Anaheim to the north, from Tustin and north Irvine to the northeast, from Santa Ana to the north west and from the opposite side of the Newport Bay to the west. One can only surmise the very design of the Project is geared not to interact cohesively with the surrounding environment but to instead isolate the Project from its community surroundings and draw attention to the site from long distances. Consider that a fifty foot steeple is more than sufficient "to be visible at a distance" and to "identity the temple as a source of eternal blessings." (See the attached "Steeples and Lighting As Religious Symbols" which was enclosed with a December 12, 2001 letter from Mr. Joseph T. Bentley to Ms. Patricia Temple.) Anything more is flat out offensive and wholly out of sync with the surrounding and predominant uses. No attempt has been made to accommodate the height and lighting aspects of the Project with the surrounding community and implement it in accord with existing community standards. Also, the City must consider the extreme negative precedent set by approval of the proposed excessive height and lighting. Existing and future church (and potentially other commercial and residential) projects would have a legitimate expectation that they too would be entitled to an exemption from the 50' height limitation and nighttime lighting restrictions. Project approval without mitigation of the proposed height and lighting could quickly and effectively transform this area of Newport Beach. Potentially Significant Air and Water Quality Impacts. The Notice briefly identifies potentially significant air and water quality impacts. These impacts need to be sufficiently ' analyzed and mitigated. Mandatory Findings of Significance. The Notice finds (1) "the project has the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, i.e., aesthetics, air quality hydrology /water quality and transportation/traffic "; and (2) potential "increased traffic air pollutant emissions, alteration of views, the introduction of new lighting and glare sources, and traffic congestion may have effects on persons in the vicinity of the project site." These impacts need to be sufficiently analyzed and mitigated. Transportation/Traffic. The Notice finds either no impact or less than significant impact on transportation and traffic. This finding is cursory and unsupported by any traffic analysis. The �I Lr I I I Notice does indicate a traffic impact analysis report will be prepared at a later time (in connection with an Environmental Impact Report). Complete comment on this issue must be reserved until such report is available. However, the Project is proposed in an area where a number of religious facilities currently operate. The traffic impact from the existing facilities is already significant at peak times, causing considerable congestion and necessitating additional police presence on a regular weekly basis. In addition, the Notice fails to address any transportation and traffic impacts that may arise in connection with exploitation of holiday or other seasonal displays. This type of impact may be considered and evaluated in connection with analysis of the Trinity Broadcasting site in the City of Costa Mesa. The Notice correctly determines an Environmental Impact Report must be prepared to assess the proposed project's effects, identify potentially significant impacts and to identify feasible mitigation measures to reduce of eliminate these impacts. Certainly the proposed use of the site as a temple can be reconciled with the concerns raised in this letter. In particular, mitigation of the height and lighting issues by a significant reduction of the steeple height and permitted hours of illumination to comply with the existing i.f"91 FS'iI measure and should be sufficiently explored and implemented in the EIR. DCG:mtf Attachment V ly yours, vid C. Grant Mr. James Campbell Senior Planner City of Newport Beach April 10, 2002 Page 3 I I Notice does indicate a traffic impact analysis report will be prepared at a later time (in connection with an Environmental Impact Report). Complete comment on this issue must be reserved until such report is available. However, the Project is proposed in an area where a number of religious facilities currently operate. The traffic impact from the existing facilities is already significant at peak times, causing considerable congestion and necessitating additional police presence on a regular weekly basis. In addition, the Notice fails to address any transportation and traffic impacts that may arise in connection with exploitation of holiday or other seasonal displays. This type of impact may be considered and evaluated in connection with analysis of the Trinity Broadcasting site in the City of Costa Mesa. The Notice correctly determines an Environmental Impact Report must be prepared to assess the proposed project's effects, identify potentially significant impacts and to identify feasible mitigation measures to reduce of eliminate these impacts. Certainly the proposed use of the site as a temple can be reconciled with the concerns raised in this letter. In particular, mitigation of the height and lighting issues by a significant reduction of the steeple height and permitted hours of illumination to comply with the existing i.f"91 FS'iI measure and should be sufficiently explored and implemented in the EIR. DCG:mtf Attachment V ly yours, vid C. Grant I STEEPLES AND LIGHTING. AS RELIGIOUS SYMBOLS: Newport Beach California Temple of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter -day Saints Church members believe that the location and design of temples are revealed by God to the president of the Church, whom members regard as a prophet. 1. Temples As Holy Places. In our theology, temples are places of deep religious significance. The purpose of temples is to exalt and enlighten the human soul. Thus, greater emphasis is placed on the aesthetic beauty, serenity and design of temples than any other Church facility. 2. The Steeple. The temple steeple is a symbolic architectural connection with the infinite, embodying the value of upward ascendancy. It must be high enough to be visible at a distance which identifies the temple as a source of eternal blessings available to the faithful. A recent President of the Church said: "...spires are symbolic of how our lives ought to be ever moving upward toward God." 3. Illumination. Lighting of the steeple and the statue described below is also a symbol of our theology, reflecting the Savior's statement: "I am the light of the world. He that foltoweth me _ shall not walk in darbiess" (John 8:12). Illumination for the Newport Beach Temple is designed to be much more subdued than for the temples in La Jolla and West Los Angeles. The steeple should be kept illuminated daring all normal operating hours, which may continue as late as 11:00 pm. 4. The Angel. In our theology, the statue atop the steeple represents an angelic messenger who helped to restore the gospel of Jesus Christ through Joseph Smith. It is reflective of the statement in Revelation 14:6: "Andlsaw another angel fly in the midst of heaven, having the everlasting gospel to preach unto therm that dwell on the earth, and to every nation, and kindred, and tongue. and people." 1, I I I 11 i I April 10, 2002 Mr. Jim Campbell City of Newport Beach Planning Dept. 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92658 PLANNINGEDEPARTMENT BY CITY OF NPWDnor C. AM APR 10 2002 PM 7i819110111i12�1�G13�4�5 g Re: Notice of Preparation - 2300 Bonita Canyon Dr., Newport Beach, CA Dear Mr. Campbell, IThis letter is being written in response to the Notice of Preparation issued in connection with the proposed EIR for the property at 2300 Bonita Canyon Dr., Newport Beach, CA (hereinafter "LDS Temple "). I have included below my general comments regarding the scope of the EIR and certain key issues that remain to be addressed in the study. Firstly, I attach below the language contained in a petition that is currently being circulated throughout Newport Beach memorializing residents' objections to the proposed construction of the LDS Temple. At this time, several hundred persons have ' signed this petition and we expect to present the signed documents to the Planning Commission and City Council in the near future. The language of the petition reads as follows: ' "WE, the undersigned residents of Newport Beach, submit this Petition to our ' city's Planning Commission and City Council. Recognizing that much of our city's appeal as a residential community and the protection of our property values are rooted in the reasonable conformity of style, architecture and permitted use of neighboring properties, we are extremely concerned with the planned development t and issuance of a Conditional Use Permit ( "CUP") for the property located at 2300 Bonita Canyon Dr., Newport Beach, CA ( "Property "). The undersigned citizens of Newport Beach hereby submit to the Planning Commission and City Council their formal opposition to the planned development of the Property and appeal to our city's management to decline the approval and issuance of the CUP in its current form, as well as any and all future conditional use permit applications for the Property whose plan of construction deviates from the general guidelines described below. 1. NON - CONFORMING, EXCESSIVE HEIGHT OF 124 FEET 401 —d WZO'd 250 -1 d11 ONnOA 3 1SN43 -WOE d o[:t[ 2n- Ol -JdV The final height of the Property's building structure including its steeple(s) should not exceed the general 50' limitation applicable to other building structures located in the Bonita Canyon area. The current CUP application calls for the temple steeple to rise to a height 124' above the floor plate (approximately, TWELVE STORIES high). 2. OBTRUSIVE DISPLAY LIGHTING No display lighting (as distinct from appropriate lighting for walkways, parking lots, and security) should be permitted to illuminate any part of the building structure's exterior including its steeple and gilded statue. Other lighting should be designed so as not to directly or indirectly impact views, both public and private, or intrude upon the privacy of the adjoining residential neighborhood during the evening hours. 3. TRAFFIC, NOISE, CONGESTION Proposed uses of the Property resulting in excessive traffic, noise, or congestion of the surrounding neighborhood should be restricted. Uses adversely impacting the surrounding community include, but are not limited to, business hours that extend beyond 9:00 p.m. and holiday displays that attract large volumes of spectator traffic C COLORSCHEME The building's exterior color scheme should be aesthetically pleasing to all, indistinct, and blend in with other structures in the neighboring community. We are informed and believe that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter -day Saints ( "LDS Church ") has chosen to use a Salisbury "pink" building material for most, if not all, of the building's exterior surfaces. This choice of color does not harmonize well with the surrounding neighborhood and should be reconsidered. In conclusion, we are pleased that the LDS Church and other houses of worship are located in our community. ALL building sites, however, should be required to conform to the current rules that govern the planned development for the Newport Beach community, and which create an expectation of conformity on the part of all residents. We believe that the requested variance establishes a bad precedent for future projects, impinges upon residents' quality of life, and otherwise is grossly unfair to local residents. We, therefore, respectfully request that this CUP be denied." Residents of Newport Beach are clearly troubled with certain aspects of the proposed construction. Of particular importance are the issues surrounding the obstruction of 2 i0l -d b0 /E0'd 250 -1 dll 9NOOA 7 1SNS3 -Wtd =0[:ll ZO -01-add 1. I views because of the steeple's excessive height, nighttime lighting, traffic congestion, ' and conformity of the color scheme with the surrounding community. We would like to ensure that the EIR covers all of the topics and issues raised in the petition and would ask that the City of Newport Beach conform the scope of the EIR to address the matters referred to above. Of primary importance is the traffic situation and use of City facilities and resources. It is consistent among LDS temples generally to hold large holiday "lighting" displays at Christmas, similar to what is put on by Trinity Broadcasting in Costa Mesa. Because an 1 LDS temple is viewed as a unique facility within the Mormon Church, the temple in Arizona attracted almost 2,000 persons per evening during the Christmas season to view the temple's holiday lighting display. Over 50,000 Mormons currently reside within Orange County and the proposed LDS Temple no doubt will attract large numbers of persons of the Mormon faith to view the LDS Temple throughout the year and display lighting during the holiday season. When combined with the traffic that ' already will be generated as a result of new homes being constructed along Bonita Canyon Dr., the sports park, Church row, and the LDS Temple's own usage throughout the week and on Fridays and Saturdays, traffic congestion on Bonita Canyon Dr. will become a large burden to all and will require significant expenditure by the City in order to control the situation. Moreover, the resulting traffic, congestion and noise from these types of events will significantly impact the quality of life for residents in the surrounding communities. The Notice of Preparation indicates that the LDS Temple will not have a significant impact on traffic, noise and congestion, residents' views, etc. The residents of Newport Beach supporting this petition strongly object to the omission of these topics from the ' EIR and, respectfully, request that the scope of the EIR be expanded to include and address all of the issues raised in the petition. The holiday traffic situation, the on- going activities of the 50,000 Mormons who will be regularly visiting Bonita Canyon Dr., the nighttime lighting and holiday lighting that will intrude upon the privacy of persons living in the surrounding neighborhood, etc., all should be given closer scrutiny. We greatly appreciate your attention to these matters. Sincerely, Alex and MaryBeth Wanitek Newport Beach, CA 92660 ' Cc: Homer Bludau, City Manager I901 -1 H /Wd Z90 -1 d11 MCA 7 1SIQ3- 0Jd Mot: it ZO- nI -idV RECEIVED BY DEPARTMENT PLANNING CIT Y OF NFWpn - April 10, 2002 2002 APR1� �� Mr. Jim Campbell AM City Newport Beach of 7181911O1111121112i31415i6 Planning Dept. 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92658 1 Re: Notice of Preparation - 2300 Bonita Canyon Dr., Newport Beach, CA Dear Mr. Campbell, It was a pleasure meeting with you a number of weeps ago at pout office. At the meeting you provided me with a copy of the Notice of Preparation I have reviewed the NOP and would like to respond to several of the stews tbat on the outset seem won't be included in the BUR. ' Over the past number of months I have spoken to a number of my fellow homeowners in our Bonita Canyon development and other residents of Newport Bcach. Over 9011/6 are surprised that the LDS are allowed to build a Temple with the color, design and size of steeple (12 stories high) in a residential area. The only people who don't seem to be bothered by the project are those who are members of the Church. ' I w6uki like LSA to make sure in the EIR that the following issues are addressed and studied to the fullest. . ' 1) STEEPLE HEIGHT: The height will have a significant if not a detrimental impact to the area. Despite the efforts of the Church and them placing a crane up a couple of months ago, the actual look of a bulky steeple vs. a crane with no density did not do the jo6. It is imperative that the EIR "study" what an actual steeple would have on vistas f tom all the view points of the city, including the Toll Road, Bonita Canyon, San Miguel Dtive and MacArthur Blvd. I I have also noticed in the NOP that the EIR will be using pictures provided from the LDS's sources. Please make sure these pictures are not included because those ' pictures that I have seen provided by the LDS are not actual to scale. They took pictures behind trees 600 feet from the site and imposed a drawing of the Temple at least % mile away. These pictures "pink" 2) COLOR: The building is proposed to have a Salisbury color. The EIR must look into the impact the color will have to the community. Nowhere in the city of Newport does a building of this color csisit. This color will have detrimental effect to the conformity of the arcs. Imagine traveling throughout the city. A community where the city plannets have been very careful in building types, building design and building color to create a conforming, look only to come upon a building that stands out like a sort thumb. All through out the area buildings are built (including the Episcopal church across the street) which conform to the community. This LDS Temple will clearly NOT be conforming and the EIR must address this in the study what kind of Significant Impact the color will have On the local community. 3) TRAFFIC: The NOP states that the Temple will only setae 150 people at a time. I could sec this as riot having an impact on the community. However the NOP does not take into account other traffic problems such as the new park that is being constructed, the new church finishing up across the street, other developments that impact Bonita Canyon including ears that tum left Bonita Canyon from MacArthur Blvd because they don't want to pay the Toll Road fee. The NOP states that most of the activity at the Temple will be on Friday nights and Saturday from dawn to MOO p.m. These days and times would have considerable impact on the entire area that the EIR should consider. In addition, the LDS has not been upfront with the community as to the year round activities the Church plans with the Temple. Yes it is a fact that the Temple is only for those admitted into the Church (at least 10,000 in Orange County alone) but what about those in the general public who want to visit the grounds. Already I can see late into the night cars corning into the church property, stopping and looking at the site. Just imagine what it would be like to parking, and the stresses On the City Services if an event ac this would occur in anon commercial area of the city. The church members have encouraged the public to come and visit the grounds. To give you a couple of examples of the increase in traffic surrounding the Tctnplc: 1) At the dedication of a Temple in Columbia Rivet over 14,000 people attended. 2) In Mesa Arizona, San Diego and Los Angeles there are Chtistrnas petformanccs open to the public attended by thousands of people from Thanksgiving to Christmas. The EIR must address these situations and point blank ask in writing what are the intension of Church for the public use of the property. 4) LIGHTING: The NOP will address the Lighting issues but I feel it is my duty to continue to impress upon the EIR to study the impact the lighting would have on an area that is always dark at night Please make sure the EIR addresses the lighting during the Holidays (similar to the Trinity Broadcasting site in Costa Mesa) Ar4 Ote=oi OZO eat N0'113WWOM3 sz�st zm- rot -aav I A 1 1 Residents of Newport Beach are clesrly troubled with certain aspects of the proposed construction. Of particular importance arc the issues surrounding the obstruction of views because of the steeple's excessive height, nighttime lighting, traffic congestion, and conformity of the color scheme with the surrounding community. We would like to ensure that the EIR topers all of the topics and issues raised in the petition and would ask that the City of Newport Beach conform the scope of the EIR to address the matters referred to ' above. The impact of this Temple will effect everyone who lives and works in Newport Beach We greatly appreciate your attention to these matters. rSincerely, 1 David and Karen Wolf Newport Beach, CA 92660 1 ! I IJ 1 I I0te'01 07,0 gat NO'1'13W'N08a SL'St Z0 -0t -2ldtl I LI I 1971 ' April 10, 2002 I 1 I I J Community Development Department City of Irvine, One Civic Center Plaza, P.O. Box 19575, Irvine, California 92623 -9575 (949; 724 -6000 Mr. James W. Campbell City of Newport Beach Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMEANI CITY Or7 ^lrth!O l ^T ^rAh. ' 7 AM APR 11 2002 PM 718 (911011 l 112111213141618 SUBJECT: CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH NOTICE OF COMPLETION AND NOTICE OF PREPARATION /INITIAL STUDY FOR THE PROPOSED CHURCH OF LATTER DAT SAINTS TEMPLE Dear Mr. Campbell: The City of Irvine has received and reviewed the information on the above referenced project. The Community Development Department has consulted with the Public Works Department for possible comments on transportation issues. Based on their review, Transportation Services staff has the following comments: COMMENT 1 The DEIR should evaluate the cumulative traffic impacts resulting from the project and nearby church uses existing or under construction. � 1 I Due to the proximity of the proposed project to the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor, there should be an analysis of toll versus no toll operations and its impact on projected traffic volumes. COMMENT 3 Fair share contributions and/or construction of improvements to mitigate any project impacts in the City of Irvine need to be required of the project and clearly identified in the DEIR. The Mr. James Campbell March 10, 2002 Page 2 needed improvements to mitigate the project traffic could result from either project generated traffic and/or road system changes. COMMENT 4 In evaluating any intersection and roadway link deficiencies in the City of Irvine, please use the adopted City of Irvine performance criteria and roadway capacity assumptions in the Traffic Analysis section of the DEIR: For an ICU greater than the acceptable level of service, mitigation of the project contribution is required to bring the intersection back to acceptable level of service or to no project conditions if project contribution is 0.03 at CMP intersections, and 0.02 or greater in the City of Irvine. COMMENT 5 Please provide a copy of the DEIR for the Church of Latter Day Saints Temple when it becomes available. Thank you for the opportunity to review the project. We would appreciate information on any change in the project description as the planning process proceeds. If you have any questions, please contact me at (949) 724 -6546. Sincerely, "V lid IS Associate Planner cc: Leslie Aranda, Principal Planner Rick Sandzimier, Transportation Analysis Administrator Danny Wu, Senior Transportation Analyst My Documents \AUVARWewportBcachtlatte DaySaints.Itr L i I I I I I I I 1 I I 1 L -i L 1 I STATE OF CALIFORNIA— BUSINESS, TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING AGENCY GRAY DAVIS, Governor DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT 12 3337 Michelson Drive Suite 380 Irvine, CA, 92612 -8894 April 12, 2002 Mr. James Campbell City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92663 RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY (1C ^!`l� nnn- °CACH AM APR 19 2002 PM 7181911011111211121 16IGR/CEQA SCH #:2002031048 Log #: 1036 SR: 73 Subject: Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (LDS), Newport Beach Temple Dear Mr. Campbell; Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the Notice of Preparation (NOP) and Initial Study dated March 2002 for the above project. The NOP states that the proposed temple will be located at the northeast comer of Bonita Canyon Drive and Prairie Road, between MacArthur Boulevard and the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor (SR -73). Caltrans District 12 status is a reviewing agency on this project and has the following comments: 1. In the event of any traffic noise impacts from SR -73, mitigation measures will be the responsibility of the developer. 2. 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 project and other future developments that could potentially impact our transportation facilities. If you have any questions or need to contact us, please do not hesitate to call Maryam Molavi at (949) 724 -2267. ' S' c ely, 1 Robert F. Jo e Chi f Advanced Planning Branch cc: Ron Helgeson Reza Aurasteh, Environmental Engineering ' Joe El Harake, Toll Roads I L M E M O R A N D U M To: James Campbell, Planning Department, City of Newport Beach From: Environmental Quality Affairs Advisory Committee City of Newport Beach Subject: Notice of Preparation and Initial Study Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints Temple; City of Newport Beach Date: April 16, 2002 ' Thank your for the opportunity to comment on the NOP for the captioned Project. We Offer the following comments in the hopes of improving the EIR and the Project. EOAC NOP Comments and Probable Environmental Effects: Height & Lighting: The height of the building is of major concern to all affected parties due to the height and the contrast of the lighted steeple to the background. Alternative heights and lighting should be reviewed as part of the EIR including possibly a height similar to the other churches in the area. The Committee would like the EIR to include photos of the storyboard crane as a reference. Construction Time: The effect of grading, construction, truck routes and temporary air ' quality impacts on the area parks, daycare facilities and child safety should be examined and addressed. Limiting construction on weekends should be addressed. Parking: Currently 1000 people park on the site for Sunday services from the adjoining church site. The proposed Temple may detract or deplete parking necessary for the existing LDS church. Character of the Neighborhood: On page 8, under discretionary actions, paragraph no. 2 and paragraph no. B talks about the project not being detrimental to the properties or the character of the neighborhood. The effect on the neighborhood character should be addressed in the EIR. ' Financial Impact: The Environmental Checklist form on page 2 has noted there are no financial impacts from the project. The report does note that fire and police protection ' are being provided to the Project. The EIR should estimate costs for fire and police services. ' Scenic Vista: The Environmental Checklist form on page 4 notes that there is no impact on the scenic vista. This statement appears to be incorrect because of the height of the steeple and lighting that are proposed. The status of the local views as scenic vistas I should be reviewed and addressed, and effect of the steeple will have on all views assessed. Air Ouality: The Environmental Checklist form on page 5 - section (b) indicates the Project will have a potentially significant affect on air quality standards. Again on page 6, same section, the NOP talks about potentially significant impact from pollutants. The EIR must address these pollutants as well as their source and mitigation. Bonita Canvon Snorts Park: The Bonita Canyon Sports Park is located across the , street from the proposed Project. Will the Park have a disturbing effect on the actives at the proposed Temple? The EIR should contain a clear statement that there will be significant noise from the Park. In addition, the EIR should review the potential for ' complaints by the applicant about the noise from the Park so that the resource of the Park can be protected. Section 4.1 AESTHETICS: The comments are as follows: , a) At the bottom of page 1 the paragraph indicates: "Therefore, there is not potential of a significant impact to any visual, aesthetic or scenic resource." The Project consist of a large building which is going to be permanently lighted with a steeple that will be much higher than anything else ever built in the area. The EIR must address the scenic impact of this Project. , b) Under "Existing Conditions" additional residential developments are mentioned. The EIR should name these developments specifically. c) Under c) on page 2, the effects of the project on private vantage points is noted. , The EIR should list exactly which private vantage points will be affected by the proposed lighted, holiday lighting, and/or unlit 124 foot Project. This project, as proposed, would be the tallest building in the area. It is over 30 feet taller than the church being built across the street. Mitigation measures which should be considered in the EIR are: ' 1) having no steeple, 2) having a shorter steeple. d) Under (d) on page 2, the significant impacts of the steeple lighting is discussed. Given the fact that the lighting pollution from the project will be substantial, the turning off of the lights at 10:00 PM should be discussed in the EIR. ' Section 4.3 AIR QUALITY: The comments are as follows: a) Throughout the report statements are made that the Project will serve no more i than 150 people at one time. The NOP states, at page 35 under section 4.15 TRANSPORTATION / CIRCULATION, the Temple will provide services to , members of the Church primarily residing in Orange, Riverside, and San Bernardino counties. The EIR should consult with the representatives of the Los I 2 1 ' c) Under (d) on page 2, the significant impacts of the steeple lighting is discussed. Given the fact that the light pollution from the project will be substantial, the turning off of the lights at 10:00 pm vs. 11:00 pm should be discussed in the EIR. Section 4.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: The EIR should note the date of the last biological study to make sure current data is reflected in the EIR. Section 4:15 TRANSPORTATION: The box next to Transportation/Traffic has an X on the checklist for having at least one impact that is potentially significant, yet in the NOP all the effects are either less than significant or have no impact. Also, comment (a) under Section 4.3 above also applies. The EIR should address adverse traffic effects during holidays and special occasions. Section 4.16 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS: Page 37 comments on the Angeles and San Diego Temples to understand the usage patterns of these facilitates from residents outside of the community and the effect it has on their traffic and parking requirements. b) Under (e) on page 5, it is noted that construction activities are short — term. ' The EIR needs to be specific as to the timetable for construction once final approvals are granted. The NOP also concludes that the diesel fumes are not going to be mitigated. Given the proximity of the Project to the preschool, mitigation for the fumes should be at least considered. ' c) Under (d) on page 2, the significant impacts of the steeple lighting is discussed. Given the fact that the light pollution from the project will be substantial, the turning off of the lights at 10:00 pm vs. 11:00 pm should be discussed in the EIR. Section 4.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: The EIR should note the date of the last biological study to make sure current data is reflected in the EIR. Section 4:15 TRANSPORTATION: The box next to Transportation/Traffic has an X on the checklist for having at least one impact that is potentially significant, yet in the NOP all the effects are either less than significant or have no impact. Also, comment (a) under Section 4.3 above also applies. The EIR should address adverse traffic effects during holidays and special occasions. I 1 1 I u Section 4.16 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS: Page 37 comments on the storm drain capacity and makes reference to it in the CFS. The size of the pipe and the size of the storm that the specific pipe can accommodate when the project is completely built out should be note in the EIR. Also this section states that the proposed project will not result in a significant demand for water services. The proposed Project will have 9 acres of lush gardens and water treatment. Considering the potential water shortage problems that may develop in Southern California, the water usage of the Project should be discussed in the EIR. The data should state the Project water usage and compare it with the usage of by residential ' unit in Newport Beach. I 1 1 I u ' NOTICE OF PREPARATION AND INITIAL STUDY CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER DAY SAINTS TEMPLE ' CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ' SUMMARY The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (LDS Church) proposes to construct and operate a Temple in the City of Newport Beach (City). Under the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and its Guidelines, the City is the Lead Agency for environmental review and must evaluate the potentially significant environmental effects of the ' proposed Temple. Based on an initial review of the draft Initial Study prepared for the project, the City determined that an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) must be prepared to assess the proposed project's effects on the environment, to identify potentially significant impacts, and to identify ' feasible mitigation measures to reduce or eliminate potentially significant environmental impacts. Topics to be discussed in the EIR include Aesthetics, Air Quality, Hydrology and Water Quality, Land Use, and Transportation/Circulation. ' This Notice of Preparation (NOP) is being circulated pursuant to California Resources Code Section 21153(l) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15082. Public agencies and the public are invited to comment on the proposed scope and content of the environmental information to be included in the EIR. A 30 day comment period is provided to return written comments to the City. All comments should be directed to the City of Newport Beach at the following address: James W. Campbell, Senior Planner City of Newport Beach Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard ' P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, California 92658 -8915 1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING Project Location The approximately 8.65 acre project site is located in the County of Orange, within the City of Newport Beach. The project site is shown in its regional context in Figure 1. The proposed Temple will be located at the northeast comer of Bonita Canyon Drive and Prairie Road, between MacArthur Boulevard and the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor (State Route 73 or SR -73). The site is bounded by Bonita Canyon Drive to the south, the private extension of Prairie Road to the west, and open space to the north and east. The project site is located approximately three miles from the Coastal Zone and is at an elevation of approximately 180 feet above mean sea level (ms]). The project site is shown in its local setting in Figure 2. PACNB230VS.NDW0P Project Description.doc a03 /08/02» 1 _ i '✓ 'sue- -"'s�. <.- �'v .. o.. eA =_rrC'...�.. Creek PROJECT Oyco RIERD: f LOCATION � 1 i 9'flio �'Oys [LEV 47E O r v -{ >r Bnwr:ns;`` ��a j`- -. � � �• .:`j3.'o «; �C; .:,rte _� �:��N ; �.,. /San Jo¢qui� i rRes %i.0ir f , �j Q''P�tir � 1' � 1•�`r :, � /;I C �i`,1� � .- �fyl �f / p.�I r LSA 0 1000 2000 r-EEr SOURCE: USGS 7,5' QUADS, TUSTIN & LAGUNA BEACH, CALIF. I:IC1,162301 tion.cdr (7/5/02) PROJECT LOCATION 1 1 f i FIGURE I Newport Beach Temple Project Location 1 1 e �e � o J U y�v pELTASO 73 ww o� 8lSON.4 s �e 9PG rl, b� ls� S�RTRT PROJECT CO OR LOCATION FORDkD BONITAC "ONDR PRAIRIE RD 7 yBUFFALO FORD RD A d C d s� o9PG q� ��r`t `UJwv 5 LSA Soo 1000 i tt� F. \CNWWStw Map.cdr (214/02) FIGURE 2 Newport Beach Temple Street Map ' North of the project site is the Bonita Canyon Dam/Reservoir and scrub covered open space. The dam acts as a flood control retention basin and stores surface water runoff during a storm event. A low flow outlet structure drains the dam reservoir area to prevent the dam from maintaining a permanent pool of water. Storage capacity of Bonita Canyon Dam is approximately 15 acre -feet and, therefore, does not meet the minimum standards of a jurisdictional dam. Beyond the northern boundary of the site is a maintenance access road for dam maintenance and/or repairs. Site Conditions 11 1 1 L P J The project site is currently vacant, with the exception of the two asphalt parking areas. The project site has been previously cleared and graded. Imported soils are being stored on site from an adjacent site. Most of the site consists of a relatively level pad area with a uniform downward gradient towards the northwest and northeast. The topographic elevational differences on the portion of the site to be developed is approximately 15 feet The topographic high point is in the center of the site at an elevation of approximately 189 feet above mean sea level (msl), and the topographic low is near the northwest comer of the site at an elevation of approximately 174 feet above msl. Three retaining cribwalls are located directly adjacent to the northern project boundaries. The cribwalls were constructed during the grading of the site in 1995. Ground surface cover throughout the majority of the site consists of a moderate growth of native weeds and grasses. There are two areas of an asphalt- concrete paved parking lot in the northern and western portions of the site. These areas are used by the adjacent Church Stake Center for overflow parking. The parking lots are visible in the aerial photograph in Figure 3. PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS The Temple is planned as a 17,575 square foot building sited in the center of the property, surrounded by 5.5 acres of gardens, walkways, and water treatments in the western portion of the project site and parking in the eastern and northeastern perimeters of the site. Refer to Figure 4, Conceptual Site Plan. The Temple is the second phase of LDS Church use of the property adjacent to the LDS Church Stake Center built in 1997. Design of the proposed Temple includes a tiered light - colored granite building with a steeple, which will be illuminated during evening hours to 11:00 p.m. and between 5:00 a.m. and dawn. The P: \CNB230\IS.ND\NOP Project Description.doc 103/08/02» ftL A ASSOCIATES. INC. NOTICE OF PREPARATION M.1RCH 2002 CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST LITTER GAY SAINTS TEMPLE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH SURROUNDING LAND USES Religious institutions, public parks, residential, and open space characterize the general area surrounding the project site. Several churches currently exist or are planned for development in the vicinity of the project site. Single family homes in the Bonita Canyon Village development are located northwest and west of the site approximately 620 and 900 feet, respectively. Bonita Canyon Sports Park is approximately 200 feet south of the project site across from Bonita Canyon Drive, and ' Saint Matthews Church, which is currently under construction, is approximately 150 feet from the project site located at the southwest comer of Bonita Canyon Drive and Prairie Road. A ' developmental pre - school is located south of Bonita Canyon Drive approximately 200 feet from the project site. The existing LDS Church Stake Center is located west of the project site across a major entrance driveway (Prairie Road). Surrounding land uses are shown in Figure 3. ' North of the project site is the Bonita Canyon Dam/Reservoir and scrub covered open space. The dam acts as a flood control retention basin and stores surface water runoff during a storm event. A low flow outlet structure drains the dam reservoir area to prevent the dam from maintaining a permanent pool of water. Storage capacity of Bonita Canyon Dam is approximately 15 acre -feet and, therefore, does not meet the minimum standards of a jurisdictional dam. Beyond the northern boundary of the site is a maintenance access road for dam maintenance and/or repairs. Site Conditions 11 1 1 L P J The project site is currently vacant, with the exception of the two asphalt parking areas. The project site has been previously cleared and graded. Imported soils are being stored on site from an adjacent site. Most of the site consists of a relatively level pad area with a uniform downward gradient towards the northwest and northeast. The topographic elevational differences on the portion of the site to be developed is approximately 15 feet The topographic high point is in the center of the site at an elevation of approximately 189 feet above mean sea level (msl), and the topographic low is near the northwest comer of the site at an elevation of approximately 174 feet above msl. Three retaining cribwalls are located directly adjacent to the northern project boundaries. The cribwalls were constructed during the grading of the site in 1995. Ground surface cover throughout the majority of the site consists of a moderate growth of native weeds and grasses. There are two areas of an asphalt- concrete paved parking lot in the northern and western portions of the site. These areas are used by the adjacent Church Stake Center for overflow parking. The parking lots are visible in the aerial photograph in Figure 3. PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS The Temple is planned as a 17,575 square foot building sited in the center of the property, surrounded by 5.5 acres of gardens, walkways, and water treatments in the western portion of the project site and parking in the eastern and northeastern perimeters of the site. Refer to Figure 4, Conceptual Site Plan. The Temple is the second phase of LDS Church use of the property adjacent to the LDS Church Stake Center built in 1997. Design of the proposed Temple includes a tiered light - colored granite building with a steeple, which will be illuminated during evening hours to 11:00 p.m. and between 5:00 a.m. and dawn. The P: \CNB230\IS.ND\NOP Project Description.doc 103/08/02» LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. NOTICE OF PREPARATION ' MARCH 2002 CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST LATTER DAY SAINTS TEMPLE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH building will be constructed with a two tiered facade: the height of the first parapet is 21.5 feet; the ' second parapet is 32.75 feet high. Within the building facade are a series of arched alcoves, some of which have art -glass and others clear windows. An approximately 91 foot steeple is proposed atop the building. At its highest point, the steeple is approximately 123.75 feet above ground elevation. The Temple gardens include natural landscaping of flowering plants with a row of cypress trees radiating outward from the Temple. A concrete and/or decomposed granite pathway will provide , circulation within the garden area and a connection to the adjacent Stake Center. A linear waterway connecting to a large accent water feature is proposed in the western area of the garden. The proposed landscaping plan provides a variety of trees, shrubs, and vines along Bonita Canyon Drive , and along the eastern and northern perimeters of the site. The Temple will be utilized primarily for religious ceremonies, i.e., sealing, baptisms, and is designed to serve approximately 150 people at one time. Areas within the Temple facility include instructional rooms, sealing rooms, baptismal area, waiting areas, men's and women's dressing areas, storage areas, bathrooms, closets, laundry, serving area, and administrative offices. Rooms are utilized in a ' sequential fashion, so all rooms are not in use at the same time. The Temple will be open Tuesday through Saturday and is closed on Sundays and Mondays. Activities will occur throughout the day; however, it is anticipated that Friday evenings and Saturday mornings will be the busiest times for , Temple activities. Existing parking on the project site includes 159 striped parking spaces and 25 unstriped spaces. The proposed Temple will remove the existing parking lots and replace them with parking areas in the , northeast and east portions of the site with 152 striped spaces that will continue to accommodate overflow parking for the adjacent Stake Center. As the Temple is planned to serve no more than 150 people at any one time and attendance will be dispersed throughout the day, projected parking ' demand will be accommodated on the project site. The Stake Center will serve as overflow parking for the Temple should an occasion arise wherein all 152 Temple parking spaces are occupied, providing an additional 240 spaces within the Stake Center site. , Access to the site is currently provided via one driveway with an entrance opposite Prairie Road, off Bonita Canyon Drive. This private driveway provides direct access to Bonita Canyon Drive, which provides access at a signalized intersection to nearby MacArthur Boulevard. MacArthur Boulevard is ' designated a Major Arterial Highway in the vicinity of the project. ' Discretionary Actions The proposed project provides for development of an LDS Church Temple with ancillary parking and landscaped areas. The project site is located in an area zoned PC #50 (Bonita Canyon Planned ' Community) and designated Public /Semipublic Sub -Area 7, which allows churches with the issuance of a Use Permit. The applicant is requesting approval of a Use Permit (UP2001 -036) for a place of religious worship and exceedance of the 50 -foot height limit for the construction of a 124 -foot steeple , pursuant to Section 20.65.070.G, Exceptions to Height Limits, Churches. The Bonita Canyon Planned Community text also requires the approval of a Site Plan Review (SR2001 -004) application for the physical development of the site. PACNB230VS.NDW OP Project Description.doc «03/08/02» 7 ' LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. NOTICE OF PREPARATION Beach Municipal Code, are as follows: MARCH 3003 CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST LATTER DAY SAINTS TEMPLE ' The required findings of approval for a Use Permit, as stated in Section 20.91.035.A of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, are as follows: 1. That the proposed location of the use is in accord with the objectives of this code and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. ' 2. That the proposed location of the use permit and the proposed conditions under which it would be operated or maintained will be consistent with the General Plan and the purpose of the district in which the site is located; will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, peace, morals, ' comfort, or welfare of persons residing or working in or adjacent to the neighborhood of such use; and will not be detrimental to the properties or improvements in the vicinity or to the general welfare of the city. ' 3. That the proposed use will comply with the provisions of this code, including any specific condition required for the proposed use in the district in which it would be located. The standards for review of a Site Plan Review application, as stated in Section 20.92.030 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, are as follows: A. Sites subject to site plan review under the provisions of this chapter shall be graded and developed with due regard for the aesthetic qualities of the natural terrain, harbor, and landscape, giving special consideration to waterfront resources and unique landforms such as coastal bluffs ' or other sloped areas; trees and shrubs shall not be indiscriminately destroyed; B. 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; C. Development shall be sited and designed to maximize protection of public views, with special ' consideration given to views from public parks and from roadways designated as Scenic Highways and Scenic Drives in the Recreation and Open Space Element of the General Plan: ' D. Environmentally sensitive areas shall be preserved and protected. No structures or landform alteration shall be permitted in environmentally sensitive areas unless specific mitigation measures are adopted which will reduce adverse impacts to an acceptable level or the Planning ' Commission finds that the benefits outweigh the adverse impacts; E. No structures shall be permitted in areas of potential geologic hazard unless specific mitigation measures are adopted which will reduce adverse impacts to an acceptable level or the Planning Commission finds that the benefits outweigh the adverse impacts; F. Residential development shall be permitted in areas subject to noise levels greater than 60 CNEL ' only where specific mitigation measures will reduce noise levels in exterior areas to less than 60 CNEL and reduce noise levels in the interior of residences to 45 CNEL or less; �1 P: \CNB230US.ND\NOP Project Description.doc a03 /08/02» L S A ASSOCIATES. INC. NOTICE OF PREPARATION MARCH 2002 CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST LATTER DAY SAINTS TEMPLE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ' BACKGROUND AND HISTORY The project site is located in the Bonita Canyon Planned Community, which until early 1998 was in the City of Irvine. The site was part of a land trade between the cities of Newport Beach and Irvine, , G. Site plan and layout of buildings, parking areas, pedestrian and vehicular access ways, and other 1992 when the site was located in the City of Irvine. , site features shall give proper consideration to functional aspects of site development; development of a 25,489 square foot church facility (Stake Center) on the proposed Temple project ' H. Development shall be consistent with specific General Plan and applicable specific plan district parcel immediately to the west and modified the approvals to construct the Stake Center on the policies and objectives, and shall not preclude the implementation of those policies and present site. , objectives; ' I. Development shall be physically compatible with the development site, taking into consideration an Open Space Management and Conservation Plan (Plan) was developed for the project site. As part ' site characteristics including, but not limited to, slopes, submerged areas, and sensitive resources; ' J. When feasible, electrical and similar mechanical equipment and trash and storage areas shall be Consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), consultation with the U.S. Army ' concealed; , K. Archaeological and historical resources shall be protected to the extent feasible; community became established. The restoration project met the performance standards in May, 1997, L. Commercial development shall not have significant adverse effects on residences in an abutting , restoration area indicates that restoration site is in good condition. residential district. P: \CNB230US.ND\NOP Project Description.doc 43/08/02» 9 , BACKGROUND AND HISTORY The project site is located in the Bonita Canyon Planned Community, which until early 1998 was in the City of Irvine. The site was part of a land trade between the cities of Newport Beach and Irvine, , with the site now located in the City of Newport Beach. The LDS Church acquired the property in 1992 when the site was located in the City of Irvine. , In 1992, the City of Irvine approved Conditional Use Permit 10396 -CPS providing for the development of a 25,489 square foot church facility (Stake Center) on the proposed Temple project site. At that time, an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared for the proposed ' project. Subsequent to approval for development of the site, the LDS Church acquired the adjacent parcel immediately to the west and modified the approvals to construct the Stake Center on the present site. , Approval of Conditional Use Permit 10396 -CPS included conditions imposed upon the subject parcel to mitigate impacts to biological resources and cultural resources. In compliance with the conditions, an Open Space Management and Conservation Plan (Plan) was developed for the project site. As part ' of the Plan, the LDS Church revegetated and dedicated approximately eight acres to the City of Irvine in 1994 as permanent natural habitat. This mitigation site was revegetated under Section 7 Consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), consultation with the U.S. Army ' Corps of Engineers (Corps), and permitting authority of the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). The Plan included a Maintenance Program to monitor the revegetated area for a minimum of three years from the date of completion of revegetation, or on a year to year basis until the plant ' community became established. The restoration project met the performance standards in May, 1997, and was accepted by the CDFG and the City of Irvine. Additionally, a recent site review of the restoration area indicates that restoration site is in good condition. , P: \CNB230US.ND\NOP Project Description.doc 43/08/02» 9 1 1 I� LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. NOTICE OF PREPARATION MARCH '300'3 CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST LATTER DAY SAINTS TEMPLE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH To ensure compliance with the conditions of approval related to Cultural Resources, a Mitigation Monitoring Plan was implemented to reduce potential impacts to archaeological and paleontological resources during grading and construction activities, site surveys, and data recovery were implemented by the LDS Church and completed in January, 1993. A Salvage and Monitoring Activity Report was prepared for the project site in 1993. With completion of the salvage and monitoring activities, the applicant complied with all required cultural resources mitigation. RESPONSIBLE AND TRUSTEE AGENCIES According to Sections 15050 and 15367 of the State CEQA Guidelines, the City has been designated as the Lead Agency. Responsible agencies are those agencies that have discretionary approval over one or more actions involved with the development of a proposed project. Trustee agencies are State agencies having discretionary approval orjurisdiction by law over natural resources affected by a proposed project that are held in trust of the people of the State of California. No potential responsible and trustee agencies have been identified for the proposed project. Environmental Procedures ' This NOP for the proposed project will be submitted to the State Clearinghouse and other interested parties that have specifically requested a copy of the NOP. After the 30 day review period for the NOP is complete and all comments are received, a Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) will ' be prepared in accordance with CEQA as amended (Public Resources Code, Section 21000 et seq.), and the State Guidelines for Implementation of CEQA (California Code of Regulations, Section 15000 et seq.). 1 I L I Cl 1 I'"I The DEIR will examine the proposed project in the context of the City's existing General Plan. Detailed analysis will be conducted in order to ascertain the proposed project's effects on the environment and the relative degree of impact prior to implementation of mitigation measures. Where impacts are determined to be significant, mitigation measures will be prescribed with the purpose of reducing the project's effects on those impacts either completely or to the maximum degree feasible. An analysis of alternatives to the proposed project will also be included in the DEIR, including the No Project Alternative. Once the DEIR is completed it will be made available for public review and comment. Copies of the DEIR will be mailed directly to those agencies commenting on the NOP. P: \CNB230US.ND\NOP Project Description.doc ,(03/08/02)) 10 ' Environmental Checklist Form ' 1. Project title: Newport Beach Temple General plan designation: Public /Semipublic 7. Zoning: PC 450 Public /Semipublic Sub 2. Lead agency name and address: ' City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 ' 3. Contact person and phone number: James Campbell, Senior Planner, Planning Department (949) 644 -3210 ' 4. Project location: Northeast comer of Bonita Canyon Drive and Prairie Road in the City of Newport Beach in Orange County. The project site is approximately .25 mile west of the t SR -73 Tollway 5. Project sponsor's name and address: F. Keith Stepan, Church of Jesus Christ of Latter -Day Saints 50 East North Temple Street, 12 Floor Salt Lake City, Utah 84150 1 P: \CNB230\IS.NDWOP Project Description.doc «03/08/02» 6. General plan designation: Public /Semipublic 7. Zoning: PC 450 Public /Semipublic Sub ' Areal 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 proposed project includes the construction of a temple of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter -Day Saints (LDS Church) on approximately 8.65 acres owned by the LDS Church. The ' temple will be utilized primarily for religious ceremonies, i.e., weddings, baptisms, and is designed to serve approximately 150 people at one time. The temple is planned as a 17,575 square foot building and parking area with 5.5 acres of gardens, walkways, and ' water treatments. An approximately 91 foot steeple is proposed atop the building. 9. Surrounding land uses and setting: briefly describe the project's surroundings: The project site is currently vacant, with the exception of two parking areas in the northern and ' western portions of the site. The LDS Church Stake Center is to the west, Bonita Canyon Sports Park, a day care center and the Saint Mathews Church site are to the south, Bonita Canyon Village is northwest and west of the site, and open space areas are northeast and east of the ' site. 10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or ' participation agreement.) None 1 P: \CNB230\IS.NDWOP Project Description.doc «03/08/02» LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. NOTICE OF PREPARATION ' MARCH ]00] CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST LATTER DAY SAINTS TEMPLE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 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. 0 Aesthetics Agriculture Resources Air Quality ' ' Biological Resources I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, Cultural Resources Geology /Soils made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE ' DECLARATION will be prepared. ' I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an Hazards & Hazardous Hydrology / Water ' Land Use / Planning I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially Materials significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect l) has been Quality adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the Population / Housing ' effects that remain to be addressed. Mineral Resources 0 Noise C3 Public Services 0 Recreation 0 Transportation/Traffic ' Utilities/ Service Systems 0 Mandatory Findings of Significance DETERMINATION: (To be completed by the Lead Agency) ' On the basis of this initial evaluation: , I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ' I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE ' DECLARATION will be prepared. 0 I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. ' I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect l) has been , adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. ' I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. P. \CNB230VS.NDW0P Project Description.doC 03/08102» 1 1 F II 1 1 LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. MARCH RYYR NOTICE OF PREPARATION CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST LATTER DAY SAINTS TEMPLE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH &12,� yJ 01007- Date James Campbell, Senior Planner, City of Newport Beach Printed Name EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: 1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact' answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact' answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A 'No Impact' answer should be explained where it is based on project - specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project - specific screening analysis). 2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off -site as well as on- site, cumulative as well as project - level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. 3) Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. "Potentially Significant Impact' is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more 'Potentially Significant Impact' entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. 4) 'Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from 'Potentially Significant Impact' to a "Less Than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section XVII, "Earlier Analyses," may be cross - referenced). 5) Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following: a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. C) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated P: \CJB230\IS.NDW0P Project Dmription.doc v03/08/02>> 3 LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. NOTICE OF PREPARATION MARCH 2002 CHURCH OFJESUS CHRIST LATTER DAY SAINTS TEMPLE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Potentially Less Than Less Than Significant Significant with Significant Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporation No 'Impact 1. AESTHETICS -- Would the project: or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site- ' specific conditions for the project. a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a 6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information ' sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to b) Substantially damage scenic resources, the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. , 7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or including, but not limited to, trees, rock individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. ' 8) This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a state scenic highway? project's environmental effects in whatever format is selected. , 9) The explanation of each issue should identify: a) the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and ' b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance SAMPLE QUESTION 1 Issues: Potentially Less Than Less Than Significant Significant with Significant Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporation No 'Impact 1. AESTHETICS -- Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic 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? PACNB230\IS.NDW0P Project Description.doc 43/08/02» 1 [l 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. MARCH 2002 II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES: In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non- agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non - agricultural use? III. AIR QUALITY -- Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? P: \CNB230VS.ND\NOP Project Description.doc M03 108102» NOTICE OE PREPARATION CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST LATTER DAY SAINTS TEMPLE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant with Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporation 0 0 0 ❑x 0 0 ❑x I LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. MARCH ]00] NOTICE OF PREPARATION CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST LATTER DAY SAINTS TEMPLE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant with Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporation c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non - attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES -- Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? PACNB230\lS.NDW0P Project Description.doc e03/08/02n 6 1 t L S A ASSOCIATES. INC. MARCH 2002 NOTICE OF PREPARATION CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST LATTER DAY SAINTS TEMPLE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant with Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporation d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? V. CULTURAL RESOURCES -- Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS -- Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: PXNB230US.NDW0P Project Description.doc a03 /08/02» i LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. MARCH 2002 i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist -Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? iii) Seismic - related ground failure, including liquefaction? iv) Landslides? b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off -site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18 -1 -B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS — Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? NOTICE OF PREPARATION CHURCH OPJESUS CHRIST LATTER DAY SAINTS TEMPLE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Potentially Less Than Less Than Significant Significant with Significant Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporation 0 px No Impact ME 0 173 ❑x 173 173 0 1 ❑x 173 173 173 ❑X PACNB230US.NDW OP Project Description.doc <<03/08/02» 8 QX 0 173 ❑x 173 173 0 1 ❑x 173 173 173 ❑X PACNB230US.NDW OP Project Description.doc <<03/08/02» 8 I 1 1 � 1 1 1 lJ 1 1 1 1 I I 1 1 LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. MARCH 2002 NOTICE OF PREPARATION CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST LATTER DAY SAINTS TEMPLE. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant with Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporation 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 O a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f) For a project within the vicinity of a 0 private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? g) Impair implementation of or physically 0 171 0 interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY -- Would the project: PACNB230US.N1)W0P Project Descrip[ion.doc e03 /08/02» 9 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. NOTICE OF PREPARATION ' MARCH 2002 CHURCH OFJESUS CHRIST LATTER DAY SAINTS TEMPLE CITY OF NEWPORT 6EACH Potentially Less Than Less Than Significant Significant with Significant Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporation 1 No ' Impact a) Violate any water quality standards or 171 1 waste discharge requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre- existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off - site? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off -site? e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? i) 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? P: \CNB230U9.NDW0P Project Desctiption.doc 03/09102» 10 I LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. MARCH 2002 NOTICE OF PREPARATION CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST LATTER DAY SAINTS TEMPLE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant with Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporation 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 mudflow? IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING - Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, 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: PACNB230US.NDN0P Project Description.doc u03 /08/021, I I LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. MARCH 2002 NOTICE OF PREPARATION CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST LATTER DAY SAINTS TEMPLE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant with Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporation 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? c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING -- Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? PACNB230VS.NDW0P Project Description.doc «03/08/02» 12 r r 1 1 r LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. MARCH 2002 c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Fire protection? Police protection? Schools? Parks? Other public facilities? XIV. RECREATION -- a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? P: \CNB230VS.ND\NOP Project Description.doc 43/08/02» NOTICE OF PREPARATION CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST LATTER DAY SAINTS TEMPLE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant with Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact ❑1C 171 Incorporation ❑1C 171 171 0 ❑X 0 0 ❑X 171 0 px 171 171 ❑1C 171 171 ❑1C 0 Q 171 171 171 0 13 LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. MARCH 1001 XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC -- Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS — Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? NOTICE OF PREPARATION CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST LATTER DAY SAINTS TEMPLE Potentially Less Than Less Than Significant Significant with Significant Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporation C3 0 Q No Impact 0 0 0 p Q 171 0 171 p 171 171 171 0 0 0 171 171 171 0 P: \CNB230 \Is.ND\NOP Project Description.doc 43/08/02» 14 LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. NOTICE OF PREPARATION MARCH 3.03 CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST LATTER DAY SAINTS TEMPLE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant with Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporation b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? Require in c) or result the construction of 17) 0 ❑X 0 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 0 17) ❑X serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? 1 e) Result in a determination by the 17) ❑X 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 0 171 ❑X permitted capacity to accommodate the ' project's solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE -- a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, ❑X substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self - sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? P:\CNB230\lS.NDW0P Project Desaiption.doc 43/09/021, 15 i LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. NOTICE OF PREPARATION MARCH 2002 CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST LATTER DAY SAINTS TEMPLE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ( "Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Potentially Less Than Less Than Significant Significant with Significant Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporation 0 0 p E 0 17 No Impact 0 L P: \CNB230\IS.ND\NOP Project Desuiption.doc 43/08/02» 16 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. NOTICE OF PREPARATION MARCH 9002 CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST LATTER DAY SAINTS TEMPLE'. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH i a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? No Impact. Implementation of the proposed project will alter the existing visual character of the site by transforming vacant land to a 17,757 square foot building with associated landscaping, parking, ' and lighting. However, there are no designated scenic vistas in the vicinity of the project site. Therefore, no impact to scenic vistas will occur and no mitigation measures are required. b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including (but not limited to) trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a State scenic highway? No Impact. The project site is vacant and has been previously disturbed and graded. The site does not contain any natural physical features or rock outcrops. There are no designated scenic resources or historic buildings located within or adjacent to the site. Therefore, there is no potential of a significant impact to any visual, aesthetic, or scenic resource. State Route 73 is not a designated scenic highway. Because the site cannot be seen from any State scenic highway, there will be no 1 P:\CN3230US.NDW0P Project Description.doc «03108102» I 4.1 AESTHETICS Existing Conditions The project site is currently vacant, with two parking lots on a portion of the site and imported soils stored on the site from an adjacent location. The site is bordered by the Bonita Canyon Dam/Reservoir and open space to the north, open space to the northeast, the Bonita Canyon Village residential development to the northwest, the LDS Stake Center to the west, Bonita Canyon Drive to the south with the Bonita Canyon Sports Park, a day care center, and Saint Matthews Church south of the roadway, and open space to the east. The site is relatively flat with elevations on the project site range from approximately 174 feet above mean sea level (msl) to approximately 189 feet above msl, with a downward gradient towards the ' northwest and northeast. There is no unique or native vegetation on the site, and as stated previously, the site has been previously graded. Two asphalt concrete paved parking areas are located in the northern and western portions of the site, and serve as overflow parking for the adjacent LDS Stake Center. Bonita Canyon Drive, adjacent to the project site, is located at an elevation ranging from 180 feet above msl to 200 feet above msl, increasing from east to west. The primary view of the project site from Bonita Canyon Drive is of a vacant property. Bonita Canyon Sports Park is located f approximately 200 feet from the proposed project site. The closest residential units to the project site are the homes located in the Bonita Canyon Village development along the northwest and west of the site, approximately 620 feet and 900 feet from the site, respectively. Additional residential developments are located southeast and south of the site, approximately 1,900 feet and 750 feet from the site, respectively, at their closest locations. Environmental Checklist Responses The following Initial Study Environmental Checklist responses discuss and briefly analyze the potential impacts resulting from the proposed project. a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? No Impact. Implementation of the proposed project will alter the existing visual character of the site by transforming vacant land to a 17,757 square foot building with associated landscaping, parking, ' and lighting. However, there are no designated scenic vistas in the vicinity of the project site. Therefore, no impact to scenic vistas will occur and no mitigation measures are required. b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including (but not limited to) trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a State scenic highway? No Impact. The project site is vacant and has been previously disturbed and graded. The site does not contain any natural physical features or rock outcrops. There are no designated scenic resources or historic buildings located within or adjacent to the site. Therefore, there is no potential of a significant impact to any visual, aesthetic, or scenic resource. State Route 73 is not a designated scenic highway. Because the site cannot be seen from any State scenic highway, there will be no 1 P:\CN3230US.NDW0P Project Description.doc «03108102» I LA ASSOCIATES. INC. NOTICE OF PREPARATION MS 2002 CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST LATTER DAY SAINTS TEMPLE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH effect on any scenic highway resource. No impact will occur and no mitigation measures are required. c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? Potentially Significant Impact. Implementation of the proposed project will alter the existing visual character of the site by transforming vacant land to a 17,757 square foot building with a 91 foot high steeple with associated landscaping, parking, and lighting. Views from public vantage points including Bonita Canyon Drive and Bonita Canyon Sports Park, and private vantage points in the adjacent residential developments southeast, south, west, and northwest of the project site, may be affected. An assessment of visual impact will be conducted to evaluate the proposed project's potential effect on existing views from uses in close proximity of the project, and will be included in the EIR. d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? t Potentially Significant Impact. The site presently has no lighting. The proposed project includes illumination of the Temple, including the steeple and the gardens. The hours of lighting are proposed from dusk to 11:00 p.m. and 5:00 a.m. to dawn. Parking lot lighting is also proposed with low intensity security lighting. Potential impacts related to light and glare issues, aesthetics, and building height impacts will be evaluated in the EIR. This analysis will include an evaluation of the proposed project in relation to surrounding property and how it may be visually impacted. L PACNB230VS.ND\N0P Project Description.doc 43/08/02» 2 1 LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. MARCH 9002 I NOTICE OF PREPARATION CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST LATTER DAY SAINTS TEMPLE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 1 4.2 AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non - agricultural use? 1 No impact. The project site is not used for agricultural activities. No impact will occur, and no mitigation measures are required. I I I I I I I I I I b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? No impact. The site has a zoning designation of Public- Semipublic use. The property is not zoned for agricultural use, is not currently in agricultural use, and is not subject to a Williamson Act contract. The proposed development is consistent with this zoning. Therefore, there are no impacts to land zoned for agricultural use or under a Williamson Act contract. No impact will occur, and no mitigation measures are required. c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non - agricultural use? No impact. The property is within an urbanized environment interspersed with remnant open space areas dedicated to flood control and drainage facilities or habitat open space reserves. Farmland does not exist on the site or in the immediate area. The proposed project does not involve any significant changes to the environment that could result in conversion of farmland to non - agricultural use. Therefore, there are no impacts related to this issue, and no mitigation measures are required. P: \CNB230 \IS.NDW0P Project Description.doc (103/08/02)) LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. NOTICE OP PREPARATION MARCH 2002 CHURCH OP JESUS CHRIST LATTER DAY SAINTS TEMPLE CITY OP NEWPORT BEACH 4.3 AIR QUALITY ' Regional Setting The project site is located in coastal central Orange County, an area of the South Coast Air Basin (Basin) where the air quality is administered by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). The regional climate of most of Southern California is strongly influenced by the strength and , location of a semipermanent, subtropical high pressure cell over the Pacific Ocean. With very low average wind speeds, there is a limited capacity to disperse air contaminants hori- I zontally. The dominant daily wind pattern is an onshore 8 to 12 miles per hour (mph) daytime breeze and an offshore 3 to 5 mph nighttime breeze. The typical wind flow pattern fluctuates only with occasional winter storms or strong northeasterly Santa Ana winds from the mountains and deserts northeast of the Basin. Summer wind flow patterns create atmospheric inversions and the accumulation of air pollution, including creation of smog. Pollutant accumulation is more significant in the summer, as this is the period of higher temperatures and more sunlight, which results in ozone formation and inversions that do not disperse air contaminants. _ Local Setting The project area is in coastal Orange County. Generally, this area has better air quality than other parts of the Basin, except during Santa Ana wind days when particulate matter negatively affects ' local air quality. Current site conditions do not contribute to air pollution, with the exception of the soil stockpiling on site, which contributes to creation of airborne dust during times of high winds. ' Criteria For Determining Significance A project would normally be considered to have a significant effect on air quality if it would violate any ambient air quality standard, contribute substantially to an existing air quality violation, expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations, or conflict with adopted environmental plans and goals of the community in which it is located. Environmental Checklist Responses a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? Less than Significant Impact. The proposed project is consistent with the City's General Plan and zoning. The project would serve existing LDS Church members; therefore, there is no population or significant employment associated with the project. The proposed project is not regionally significant and is consistent with local and regional growth projections and the Basin Air Quality Management Plan. I P. \CNB230US.NDIN0P Project Description.doc 43/08102D 4 1 e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project will utilize diesel operated machinery during construction activities. The use of diesel may produce odors that may affect adjacent residences. Construction activities are short -term in duration and therefore potential objectionable orders are not considered significant. No significant impact will occur and no mitigation measures are required. I PACN13230US.NDW0P Project Descripdon.doc.03 /08/02» LSA ASSOCI ATES. INC. NOTICE OF PREPARATION MARCH ROOK CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST LATTER DAY SAINTS TEMPLE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? Potentially Significant Impact. Construction and operation of the project site has the potential to generate significant air quality impacts. A technical air quality analysis will be prepared in accordance with the SCAQMD CEQA Handbook. The report will describe ambient air quality and ' evaluate construction emissions, regional emissions, and local carbon monoxide emissions consistent with CEQA air quality analysis standards. The technical air quality analysis will be summarized in the EIR and included in the EIR appendices. c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non - attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? Potentially Significant Impact. Construction and operation of the project site has the potential to generate significant air quality impacts. A technical air quality analysis will be prepared consistent with the requirements of the SCAQMD. The report will describe ambient air quality and evaluate ' construction emissions, regional emissions, and local carbon monoxide emissions consistent with CEQA air quality analysis standards. The technical air quality analysis will be summarized in the EIR and included in the EIR appendices. d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? 1 Potentially Significant Impact. Construction and operation of the project site has the potential to generate significant air quality impacts. A developmental pre - school and church pre - school are located across Bonita Canyon Road approximately 125 feet from the project site. A technical air quality analysis will be prepared consistent with the requirements of the SCAQMD. The report will describe ambient air quality and evaluate construction emissions, regional emissions, and local carbon monoxide emissions consistent with CEQA air quality analysis standards. The technical air quality analysis will be summarized in the EIR and included in the EIR appendices. e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project will utilize diesel operated machinery during construction activities. The use of diesel may produce odors that may affect adjacent residences. Construction activities are short -term in duration and therefore potential objectionable orders are not considered significant. No significant impact will occur and no mitigation measures are required. I PACN13230US.NDW0P Project Descripdon.doc.03 /08/02» LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. NOTICE OF PREPARATION MARCH 2002 CHURCH OFJESUS CHRIST LATTER DAY SAINTS TEMPLE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 4.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES , Existing Conditions The project site is currently vacant and has been previously graded and disturbed. The site does not currently support habitat or vegetation. Previous Biological Conditions , And Approvals As discussed in the Project Description, the project site was previously approved for development of an LDS Church Stake Center. Prior to commencement of construction activities, the LDS Church moved the building location to the adjacent parcel (the existing Stake Center). As a condition of approval for development of the site, mitigation was determined necessary to alleviate the impact to biological resources. An Open Space Management and Conservation Plan was prepared for the project site. The LDS Church donated approximately eight acres to the City of Irvine to preserve sensitive plant communities within the property and to mitigate the impact to 0.83 acre of Coastal Sage Scrub (CSS). To accomplish this mitigation, approximately 1.78 acres were restored with CSS ; on ten different areas in the dedicated property located north of the project site. The restoration site was monitored, was deemed to have met the performance standards in May, 1997, and was accepted by the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) and the City of Irvine. A recent site review of the restoration site conducted by an LSA biologist (January, 2002) indicated that the restoration site is in good condition and that all of the native vegetation appears to be healthy , and robust. Three pairs of California gnatcatchers were observed nesting in and adjacent to the restoration site and frequently foraging through the restoration area. The Gnatcatchers' utilization of the restored CSS is an indication of success in the restoration effort. a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Less Than Significant Impact. There are no endangered, threatened, or rare species present on the project site and there is no habitat on the project site that would support sensitive species. The project site does not support sensitive biological species identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Construction activities for the proposed project are not anticipated to result in significant impacts to the adjacent restoration site.' To ensure that the restoration site is not disturbed during grading and ; construction activities, the applicant has incorporated the use of fencing, signage, and a 50 foot buffer zone. A chain -link fence currently restricts access to and from the northern, eastern, and souther boundaries of the project site. During construction activities, access to the restoration site will continue to be restricted by the existing fencing. Additionally the applicant will include signage on , I Based on discussion with LSA Principal Biologist, Art Hontrighausen, February 19, 2002. PACNB230VS.NDW0P Project Description.doc «03/08/02)1 6 i I I I I I I I LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. NOTICE OF PREPARATION MARCH 2002 CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST LATTER DAY SAINTS TEMPLE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH the fencing stating that access to areas north and east of the project site is prohibited. The applicant has also incorporated a 50 -foot buffer along the northern and eastern perimeter of the site, adjacent to the restoration area and open space areas, to prohibit the placement of fill, stockpile, and building materials within 50 feet of these perimeters during construction activities. Therefore, no significant impacts to candidate, sensitive, or special status species will result from the proposed project and no mitigation measures are required. b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Less Than Significant Impact. The project site does not support riparian habitat or other sensitive community. Impacts to the project site from the previously proposed development were mitigated to the satisfaction of CDFG, USFWS, Corps, and the City of Irvine. Additionally, the off -site restoration project is functioning at a level commensurate with the performance standards as stated in the Final Open Space Management and Conservation Plan (October, 1992). Development of the project site will not have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community. No significant impacts will occur, and no mitigation measures are required. c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? I No Impact. There are no wetlands on the project site. Therefore, no significant impacts related to federally protected wetlands are anticipated as a result of the proposed project. No mitigation measures are required. d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fisb or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? Less Than Significant Impact. The project site does not contain habitat that provides a linkage for wildlife movement. The site is, however, located south of the Central/Coastal Subregional Natural Communities Conservation Plan (NCCP), administered by the Nature Reserve of Orange County. The NCCP designates the Bonita Canyon Creek and Reservoir adjacent to the site as a Habitat Linkage area. This area provides wildlife movement between Upper Newport Bay and the San Joaquin Hills along lower Bonita Creek. Due to the vertical separation and distance of the project development area from the creek and reservoir, and because the project site does not contain habitat, ' no significant impact to the existing habitat linkage area north of the development area will occur. Additionally, the project development design includes low - intensity building and parking lot lighting with illumination directed onto the Temple and the parking lot area. The proposed lighting plan includes light fixtures designed to prevent glare and reduce light spill onto adjacent areas. The Architectural lighting of the Temple will be turned off at 11:00 p.m. Diffused parking lot lighting P: \CNB230\IS.NDWOP Project Description.doc R03 /08/02» I LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. NOTICE OF PREPARATION MARCH 2002 CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST LATTER DAY SAINTS TEMPLE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH will be provided during nighttime hours for safety. With the proposed lighting plan and reduction of lighting at 11:00 p.m., the proposed project's lighting will not impede nocturnal wildlife movement.] Therefore, the wildlife movement function of Bonita Canyon Creek and Reservoir as a Habitat Linkage area is expected to continue, and the project impacts on wildlife movement are considered to be below the level of significance. No mitigation measures are required. e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? No Impact. There are no protected biological resources on the project site. Therefore, no impacts to biological resources are anticipated as a result of the proposed project. f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is located south of the existing NCCP. The NCCP has been developed to protect the diversity of natural wildlife within Orange County. The proposed project will not conflict with the NCCP. Implementation of the proposed project will not result in significant impacts, and no mitigation measures are required. Based on discussion with LSA Principal Biologist, Art Homrighausen, February 19, 2002. P: \CNB230\IS.NDW0P Project Descrlption.doc <<03/08/02. 1 II I I I I 1 I 11 I J L I I I I I II LJ I I L_1 J LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. NOTICE OF PREPARATION MARCH 2002 CHURCH Of JESUS CHRIST LATTER DAY SAINTS TEMPLE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 4.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES Existing Conditions The project site was previously graded for development. An Archaeological Assessment and a Paleontologic Resource Assessment were completed for the project site in February, 1992, and was included in the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration approved by the City of Irvine. The Archaeological Assessment determined that no unique or significant resources exist within the proposed project site. However, there was potential for small, slightly - disturbed features that could produce archaeological artifacts. A Mitigation Monitoring Plan was implemented to reduce potential impacts to archaeological resources during grading and construction activities. Archaeological monitors supervised the initial mass grading of the project site. If significant archaeological resources were discovered during site disturbance activities, the archaeologist temporarily redirected all construction activities in the vicinity of the resource. All recovered artifactual materials are required to be housed in an Orange County repository as recommended by a certified archaeologist. The salvage and monitoring activities revealed 57 artifacts, including chipped stone tools, a core and flakes, numerous manos, several metates, an abrader, and two pestles. After completion of the salvage and monitoring activities, all requirements of the mitigation plan were met. According to the Paleontologic Resource Assessment included in the 1992 -1993 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration, the Topanga Formation and Pleistocene terraces that underlie the project site are rated as having potential for high paleontologic sensitivity. Grading, trenching, and other earth moving activities in the Pleistocene terrace and the Los Trancos Member of the Topanga Formation were anticipated to impact fossil resources. A Mitigation Monitoring Plan was implemented in order to reduce projected impacts to paleontological resources. A Certified Paleontologist supervised the monitoring and salvage procedures during grading. The monitors observed the grading and trenching activities. Any paleontological resources recovered during construction activities are required to be housed in an appropriate repository. a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5? No Impact. There are no historical resources located on the project site. No impact will occur with implementation of the proposed project, and no mitigation measures are required. b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5? No Impact. Mass grading of the project site was monitored by a certified archaeologist, as required by the Mitigation Monitoring Plan developed for the site in 1992. With completion of the salvage and monitoring activities, the applicant complied with all required cultural resources mitigation. No further archaeological or paleontological work is necessary on the project site. Implementation of the proposed project will not result in an impact to archaeological resources and no mitigation measures are required. P:\CNB230US.NDWOP Project Description.doc R03 /08/02» LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. NOTICE OF PREPARATION .' MARCH 2002 CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST LATTER DAY SAINTS TEMPLE I c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site, or unique geologic ' feature? No Impact. Mass grading of the project site was monitored by a certified archaeologist, as required by the Mitigation Monitoring Plan developed for the site in 1992. With completion of the salvage and monitoring activities, the applicant complied with all required cultural resources mitigation. No further archaeological or paleontological work is necessary on the project site. Implementation of the proposed project will not result in an impact to paleontological resources and no mitigation measures are required. d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside formal cemeteries? ' Less Than Significant Impact. No human remains are known to exist on the project site. The site has been previously graded, and the proposed temple does not require further significant excavation. The standard provision provided below will be implemented if human remains are encountered on the site. Therefore, impacts related to this issue are less than significant. Standard Condition • If human remains are encountered, State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 requires that no , further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has made a determination of origin and disposition pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. The County Coroner must be notified of the find immediately. If the remains are determined to be prehistoric, the Coroner is required to notify the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), which will determine and notify a Most Likely Descendant (MLD). With the permission of the owner of the land or his/her authorized representative, the descendant may inspect the site of the discovery. The descendant shall complete the inspection within 24 hours of notification by the NAHC. The MLD may _ recommend scientific removal and nondestructive analysis of human remains and items associated with Native American burials. I I I I P: \CNB230\IS.NDWOP Project Description.doc «03/08/02» 10 I "A ASSOCIATES. INC. MARCH 2002 1 ' 4.6 GEOLOGY AND SOILS I [1 I I I I I 1 NOTICE OF PREPARATION CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST LATTER DAY SAINTS TEMPLE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Existing Conditions Geologic Setting. Southern California Geotechnical, Inc. was contracted by the applicant to conduct a geotechnical investigation of the proposed LDS Temple (September, 2001). The preliminary report evaluated the engineering properties of the on -site soil and bedrock materials and provided conclusions and recommendations for design and construction of the proposed development. The findings of the Southern California Geotechnical report are summarized below. The report is contained in Appendix A. An addendum to the geotechnical report was prepared on March 8, 2002, to address a revised conceptual grading plan for the project site. The addendum is provided in Appendix B. The City of Newport Beach, including the project site, is located along the southwesterly edge of the Los Angeles basin. The underlying geology of the project site consists of sandstone and siltstone of the Topanga formation and terrace deposits. The soils encountered during the exploratory borings consist of 4 to I I feet of previously placed fill soils underlain by native terrace deposits. The underlying terrace deposits consist of medium dense to dense silty fine to medium sand, fine sandy silt, and stiff to very stiff silty clay, clayey silt, and sandy clay extending to at least the maximum depth of 40 feet. Depth to groundwater is in excess of 50 feet below ground surface and liquefaction potential is low. The project site is not located within a currently designated Alquist - Priolo Earthquake Fault zone (Southern California Geotechnical, 2001). The primary seismic hazard affecting the project site will be ground shaking from a regional seismic event (earthquake) along a known active fault in the Southern California area. Ground shaking is the primary cause of structural damage during an earthquake. The duration and frequency of ground shaking will vary depending on the distance to the epicenter, the depth of shock, and the magnitude of the earthquake. The nearest active fault is the Newport- Inglewood Fault, which is approximately two miles to the southwest. A blind thrust fault model has recently been hypothesized to explain regional uplift of the nearby San Joaquin Hills. The thrust fault runs roughly between the 405 Freeway and the ocean from the City of Huntington Beach to the intersection of the 1 -405 and 1 -5 Freeways, then south under the San Joaquin Hills to Dana Point. On the basis of the current data, the existence and location of such a fault are primarily a matter of conjecture. Potential seismically inferred from this blind thrust hypothesis is within the range of that for the nearby Newport- Inglewood fault zone, which is the fault structure that will govern seismic design for the project. Environmental Checklist Responses The following Initial Study Environmental Checklist responses discuss the implementation of the proposed Temple and briefly analyze the subsequent potential impacts. The primary seismic hazard affecting the project site will be ground shaking from a regional seismic event (earthquake) along a known active fault in the Southern California area. Ground shaking is the primary cause of structural damage during an earthquake. The duration and frequency of ground shaking will vary depending on the distance to the epicenter, the depth of shock, and the magnitude of the earthquake. The nearest active fault is the Newport- Inglewood Fault, which is approximately two P: \CNB230US.ND\NOP Project Description.doc 43 /08102)) 11 LSA ASSOC I ATES. INC. NOTICE OF PREPARATION MARCH 2002 CHURCH OP JESUS CHRIST LATTER DAY SAINTS TEMPLE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH miles to the southwest. A blind thrust fault model has recently been hypothesized to explain regional , uplift of the nearby San Joaquin Hills. The thrust fault runs roughly between the 405 Freeway and the ocean from the City of Huntington Beach to the intersection of the I -405 and I -5 Freeways, then south under the San Joaquin Hills to Dana Point. On the basis of the current data, the existence and location of such a fault are primarily a matter of conjecture. Potential seismically inferred from this blind thrust hypothesis is within the range of that for the nearby Newport- Inglewood fault zone, which is the fault structure that will govern seismic design for the project. I 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. Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is not located within a currently designated Alquist - Priolo Earthquake Fault zone (Southern California Geotechnical, 2001). Therefore, the potential for fault rupture on the site is considered less than significant. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? Less Than Significant Impact. The primary seismic hazard affecting the project site will be ground shaking from a regional seismic event (earthquake) along a known active fault in the Southern California area. Ground shaking is the primary cause of structural damage during an earthquake. The duration and frequency of ground shaking will vary depending on the distance to the epicenter, the depth of shock, and the magnitude of the earthquake. The nearest active fault is the Newport- Inglewood fault, which is approximately two miles to the southwest. A blind thrust fault model has recently been hypothesized to explain regional uplift of the nearby San Joaquin Hills. The thrust fault runs roughly between the 405 Freeway and the ocean from the City of Huntington Beach to the intersection of the I -405 and I -5 Freeways, then south under the San Joaquin Hills to Dana Point. On the basis of the current data, the existence and location of such a fault are primarily a matter of conjecture. Potential seismically inferred from this blind thrust hypothesis is within the range of that for the nearby Newport- Inglewood fault zone, which is the fault structure that will govern seismic design for the project. Given the distance of the nearest fault, the Newport Inglewood Fault (approximately two miles southwest of this site), the hazard due to fault rupture from earthquake movement is considered to be low. Damage to the proposed Temple and seismic hazards to the Temple members are considered to be less than significant with the construction of the project to current building standards. All of the structures within the site will be designed and constructed to resist the effects of seismic ground motions as provided in the 1997 Uniform Building Code (UBC) or updated UBC. PACNB230VS.NDW0P Project Description.doc a03 /08102» 12 LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. NOTICE OF PREPARATION MARCH 2002 CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST LATTER DAY SAINTS TEMPLE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 1 iii) Seismic - related ground failure, including liquefaction? Less Than Significant Impact. Liquefaction occurs when water saturated sediments, mainly sand and silt, become particularly suspended and flow. This temporary transformation of the soil to a fluid mass can be a result of earthquake vibrations. Soil boring tests show that the depth to groundwater is in excess of 50 feet below ground surface in the project site, and the soils underlying the project site have a low potential for liquefaction (Southern California Geotechnical, 2001). The site is not located within a liquefaction potential hazard zone as identified by the California Division of Mines and Geology or the City of Newport Beach. 1 Therefore, the likelihood of seismic ground failure is low, and impacts due to liquefaction or seismic related ground failure are considered less than significant. 1 iv) Landslides ' Based on the performance of the higher portions of the existing cribwalls at the project site and the adjacent site, the stability of the 30 foot high cribwall along the easterly property line may be prone to distress. The results of the preliminary geotechnical analysis indicate that consideration should be given to either removal and replacement of this wall, lowering of the wall and ' replacement with a 2h:v1 slope, and /or establishment of significant structural setback from the top of the cribwall. The existing cribwall on the easterly side of the project is to remain in place. A recommendation from the report is to provide a structural setback from the wall that would be equal to the height of the wall, which is approximately 30 feet high. The proposed building is set back approximately 325 feet from the existing wall; the nearest edge of the parking lot is set back approximately 45 feet from the existing wall. In addition to the proposed setbacks, elevations behind the wall have been lowered approximately four feet, reducing existing forces on the existing wall. The concerns ' raised regarding the existing 30 foot high cribwall will be alleviated by the proposed building setback from the wall. P: \CNB230\IS.ND\NOP Project Description.doc «03/08/02» 13 1 Less Than Significant Impact. The project site was previously graded and is predominately level with no slopes occurring within the development envelope. Some of the cribwalls previously constructed on the project site are currently exhibiting signs of distress related to movement of the cribwalls. Tension cracks were observed behind the existing 15 foot high cribwall located near the northwest corner of the site. As indicated by Southern California Geotechnical in their letter dated March 8, 2002 (included in Appendix B), based on the revised conceptual grading plan (March 7, 2002), the existing 15 foot high cribwall will not be removed ' and replaced. The applicant has redesigned the interior access road, including a grade change in the northwest corner of the property to eliminate stress on the existing cribwall. The geotechnical engineer recommends that the structural setback be equal to the height of the wall. Based on the recommendation of the geotechnical engineer, the horizontal distance of the access road will be 1 set back approximately ±30 feet from the cribwall and as such will alleviate concerns related to movement and stress in the northwest corner of the project site. It is also recommended that the applicant provide periodic maintenance to repair and seal cracks within the asphalt concrete I pavements and any other hardscape improvements. ' Based on the performance of the higher portions of the existing cribwalls at the project site and the adjacent site, the stability of the 30 foot high cribwall along the easterly property line may be prone to distress. The results of the preliminary geotechnical analysis indicate that consideration should be given to either removal and replacement of this wall, lowering of the wall and ' replacement with a 2h:v1 slope, and /or establishment of significant structural setback from the top of the cribwall. The existing cribwall on the easterly side of the project is to remain in place. A recommendation from the report is to provide a structural setback from the wall that would be equal to the height of the wall, which is approximately 30 feet high. The proposed building is set back approximately 325 feet from the existing wall; the nearest edge of the parking lot is set back approximately 45 feet from the existing wall. In addition to the proposed setbacks, elevations behind the wall have been lowered approximately four feet, reducing existing forces on the existing wall. The concerns ' raised regarding the existing 30 foot high cribwall will be alleviated by the proposed building setback from the wall. P: \CNB230\IS.ND\NOP Project Description.doc «03/08/02» 13 1 LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. NOTICE OF PREPARATION MARCH 2002 CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST LATTER DAY SAINTS TEMPLE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH - The site is not in a known landslide area or a seismically active area, and the site is not identified as being prone to liquefaction or landslides on the newest California Department of Mines and Geology seismic hazards map. With adherence to the geotechnical design considerations, implementation of the proposed project will not result in significant impacts related to landslides. b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is relatively flat and will require minimal excavation. Soil stockpiling has occurred on site to provide additional fill to make the site entirely flat and suitable for the proposed parking lot, garden, and floor pad for the Temple structure. The proposed project will comply with the City Excavation and Grading Code, as well as the Development Project Guidance requirements of Chapter 14.36 of the Municipal Code, including implementing applicable Best Management Practices during construction activities. Therefore, significant impacts related to soil erosion will not result from the proposed project, and no additional mitigation measures are required to reduce geologic impacts of the project. c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off -site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? Less Than Significant Impact. With the exception of the surficial weathered soils and the recently stockpiled fill soils, the existing fills and the underlying ten•ace deposits are considered suitable for support of the foundations and floor slabs of the new structure. Within the Temple building pad area, fills of approximately 4 to 1 1 feet will be required to achieve the proposed grade elevation of 192 feet above msl. As the site is underlain by documented structural fill soils, significant overexcavation is not expected. However, the removal of the recently placed stockpiled fills and the surficially weathered fill soils is recommended prior to placement of new fills. Borings on the project site were taken before the stockpiled fills were placed on the site. To ensure that soils not suitable for structural bearing will be removed as determined by the geotechnical engineer, grading recommendations presented in the Geotechnical Report should be implemented. With adherence to the site grading recommendation as detailed in the Geotechnical Report, potential impacts will be reduced to a level below significance. d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18 -1 -B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? Less Than Significant Impact. Based on laboratory testing, the on -site soils and the proposed import soils are considered to possess low to medium expansion potential. The preliminary geotechnical investigation includes standard grading and building practices to address potential impacts of expansive soils following standards for compaction. Implementation of these standard site preparation procedures will reduce impacts from expansive soils to less than significant levels. PACNB230US.NDtN0P Project Description.doe s03 /08/02» 14 I IL7 I I I I [1 U 1 I 1 I I I LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. NOTICE OF PREPARATION MARCH 2002 CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST LATTER DAY SAINTS TEMPLE CITY OF NEWPORT RFACH Standard Measures • Fill soils should be placed in thin (6' inches), near - horizontal lifts, moisture conditioned to two to four percent above optimum moisture content, and compacted. IS On -site soils may be used for fill, provided they are cleaned of any debris to the satisfaction of the geotechnical engineer. • All grading and fill placement activities should be completed in accordance with the requirements of the Uniform Building Code and the requirements of the City of Newport Beach. • All fill soils should be compacted to at least 90 percent of the ASTM D -1557 maximum dry density. Fill soils should be well mixed. • Compaction tests should be performed periodically by the geotechnical engineer as random verification of compaction and moisture content. These tests are intended to aid the contractor. Since the tests are taken at discrete locations and depths, they may not be indicative of the entire fill and therefore should not relieve the contractor of his responsibility to meet the job specifications. e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? No Impact. The project site will connect to the Irvine Ranch Water District (IRWD) sewer system, and alternative wastewater disposal systems are not required for the proposed project. Therefore, no significant impacts to soils from alternative wastewater disposal systems will result from the proposed project, and no mitigation measures are required. P: \CNB230US.ND \N0P Project Deuription.doc (A03/08/02)1 15 LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. NOTICE OF PREPARATION , MARCH 3002 CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST LATTER DAY SAINTS TEMPLE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 4.7 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS 1 Existing Conditions The project site is vacant and has been disturbed by clearing, grading, and parking lot construction activities. In addition, the site is currently being used to stockpile excess soils from an adjacent construction site. No chemical odors, disturbed areas, closed depressions, or other visual evidence of illegal dumping or other adverse environmental conditions were observed. I Environmental Checklist Responses The following Initial Study Environmental Checklist responses discuss and briefly analyze the potential impacts resulting from the proposed project. a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? No Impact. The proposed Temple will not utilize or dispose of any hazardous materials in its typical operations. Substances used for landscaping, such as fertilizer and pesticides, will be subject to all applicable regulations. No impacts will occur, and no mitigation measures are required. ' b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonable foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? No Impact. Project construction consists of limited grading and trenching for the building foundation, garden, parking lot, and construction activities related to the 17,575 square foot Temple. , These activities on the 8.65 acre site involve typical construction methods and equipment on site for a relatively limited and short duration. Construction equipment will include diesel and gasoline powered engines. A very small (incalculable) risk is present from gasoline or diesel tank rupture. However, compliance with construction site safety regulations limits the risk of upset to less than significant levels. Also, because of the limited and short duration of these activities, there is minimal risk of spillage. Development of the proposed project will not create a health hazard or the potential for a health hazard related to pollutants. Therefore, no impacts related to the release of hazardous , materials will result from the proposed project. c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, ' or waste within one - quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? No Impact. The proposed Temple is not located within one - quarter mile of an existing or proposed school. Therefore, no impacts related to this issue will result from the proposed project. I P[ \CNB230USND\N0P Project Description.doc R03/08/02)1 16 1 LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. NOTICE OF PREPARATION MARCH 2002 CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST LATTER CAP SAINTS TEMPLE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH I ' d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the puhlic or the environment? No Impact. The project site is currently vacant and has not been developed. The property is not identified on a list of hazardous materials sites. Therefore, no impacts related to this issue will result from the proposed project. ' e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not heen adopted, within two miles of a puhlic airport or puhlic use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? No Impact. Orange County /John Wayne Airport is located approximately three miles from the project site. The project site is not located within an area subject to an airport land use plan. The site is not within two miles of a public airport or public use airport. Therefore, no impacts related to this issue are anticipated as a result of the proposed project. fj For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? No Impact. The project is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip. Therefore no impacts related to this issue will result from the proposed project. ' g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? No Impact. The City of Newport Beach Emergency Operations Plan (EOP) provides the basic framework for reaction to disasters. MacArthur Boulevard is identified as a major evacuation route in ` Figure 7, Major Evacuation Routes Potential Hazard Map in the General Plan Public Safety Element. Implementation of the proposed project will not interfere with using adopted emergency response or evacuation plans. No impacts related to the EOP will result from the proposed project. 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? I No Impact. The proposed project site is located in an urbanized area and is surrounded by residential development, parks, and open space, and public /semipublic uses. The vicinity of the project site is considered to have a moderate to high fire hazard. Fire risk is dependent upon the moisture level in ' the plants and the presence of incendiary sources. Although fire is a risk for any type of structure, the proposed Temple would not be at any greater risk than other uses adjacent to the site. The building plans, including suitable emergency access routes, will be reviewed by the City's Fire Department to P:%CNB230US.NDWOP Project Dmription.doc a03/08/02>1 17 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. NOTICE OF PREPARATION , MARCH 9002 CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST LATTER DAY SAINTS TEMPLE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ensure that they meet the Fire Department standards, including building materials, sprinklers, internal , fire walls, access for emergency vehicles, and similar issues. Therefore, the proposed project will not expose people or Structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires. No impact will occur, and no mitigation measures are required. P:\CNB2.30\IS.ND\NOP Project Description.doc a03 /08 /02» 1 18 LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. OTICE OF PREPARATION MARCH ROUT CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST LATTER OAY SAINTS TEMPLL CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH I L ' a) Violate Any Water Quality Standards or Waste Discharge Requirements? ' Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is under the jurisdiction of the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), a state agency that regulates discharges into the State's waters. The proposed project will increase the amount of urbanized runoff generated from the project site. This issue will be addressed in the EIR. 4.8 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Existing Conditions The project site has been previously rough graded, and most of the site consists of a relatively level pad area with a uniform downward gradient towards the northwest and northeast. Topographic relief ' on the main portion of the site is approximately 15 feet, with the topographic high point located on the previously graded pad area at elevation 189 feet above mean sea level (msl) in the east central portion of the site and a topographic low elevation at 174 feet above msl located along the northerly property line near the northwest comer. The project site is rectangular in shape and approximately 8.65 acres in size. Ground surface cover throughout most of the site consists of uncovered soil ' stockpiled across much of the site, parking lot and moderate growth of native weeds and grasses. The stockpiled soils are from an adjacent construction project and are currently being stored on site. ' alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off -site? Environmental Checklist Responses ' The following Initial Study Environmental Checklist responses discuss and briefly analyze the potential impacts resulting from the proposed project. ' a) Violate Any Water Quality Standards or Waste Discharge Requirements? ' Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is under the jurisdiction of the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), a state agency that regulates discharges into the State's waters. The proposed project will increase the amount of urbanized runoff generated from the project site. This issue will be addressed in the EIR. I� b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater level (e.g. the production rate of pre - existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have ' been granted)? Less Than Significant Impact. The static water table in the area of the project site is considered to exist at a depth in excess of 50 feet. The proposed project will not deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge. No significant impact will occur, and no mitigation measures are required. c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the ' alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off -site? Less Than Significant Impact. Implementation of the proposed project will alter the existing ' drainage pattern of the site. The conversion of vacant land to developed uses will result in an increase in the rate and amount of stormwater runoff generated from the increase in impervious surface on site. PACNB230VS.NDW0P Project Description.doc ((03/08/02)) 19 I� LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. NOTICE OF PREPARATION MARCH 2002 CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST LATTER DAY SAINTS TEMPLE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH However, the drainage pattern will continue to flow north into the two existing 24" storm drains north of the project site. No significant impact will occur, and no mitigation measures are required. d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off -site? Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project will alter the existing drainage pattern of the site. The conversion of vacant land to developed uses will result in an increase in the rate and amount of stormwater runoff generated from the increase in impervious surface on site. This issue will be addressed in the EIR. e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project will alter the existing drainage pattern of the site. The conversion of vacant land to developed uses will result in an increase in the rate and amount of stormwater runoff generated from the increase in impervious surface on site. Due to the increase in urban uses on site as a result of the project, the project has the potential to increase the amount of pollution flowing to Bonita Creek, Upper Newport Bay, and the ocean. This issue will be addressed in the EIR. f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? Potentially Significant Impact. Implementation of the proposed project would result in an increase in the rate and amount of stormwater runoff generated from the increase in impervious surface on site. The source water could be negatively affected by typical urban pollutants such as pesticides, fertilizer and vehicle grease. This issue will be addressed in the EIR. A Hydrology Analysis will be prepared for the proposed project, and the findings of the report will be incorporated into the EIR. The EIR will describe potential water quality impacts from construction activities and from long -term operation of the project, including project facilities designed to mitigate these effects. g) Place housing within a 10 -year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? No Impact. The proposed project does not include the construction of new housing, and the project site is not located within a 100 -year flood hazard area. No impact will occur, and no mitigation measures are required. P: \CNB230\JS.NDW0P Project Desaiption.doc «03/08/02» 20 LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. NOTICE OF PREPARATION MARCH 2002 CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST LATTER DAY SAINTS TEMPLE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH I ' h) Place within a 100 year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? No Impact. The project site is not within a flood hazard zone nor is it within a designated floodway and, therefore, would not be affected by flood hazard or alter flood flows. No impact will occur, and no mitigation measures are required. i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death, involving ' flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? No Impact. The project site is not within a dam inundation area and, therefore, would not be affected by dam inundation hazards. No impact will occur, and no mitigation measures are required. j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? No Impact. Because the project site is located at a distance of approximately three miles from and 180 feet above the Pacific Ocean, the probability of flooding due to a tsunami or seiche is considered negligible. The Bonita Canyon Dam/Reservoir is located directly adjacent to the northern boundary of the project site. Improvements have recently been completed to the dam to stabilize the structure ' to satisfy current California Division of Safety of Dams (DSOD) design standards. The project site is not subject to mudflows or other flood hazards. Therefore, there are no impacts related to this issue, and no mitigation measures are required. I II� I 1 I P:\CNB23WS.NDW0P Project Description.doc I OYW02a 21 LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. NOTICE OF PREPARATION ' MARCH 2002 CHURCH OP JESUS CHRIST LATTER DAY SAINTS TEMPLE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 4.9 LAND USE Existing Conditions The proposed project site is bounded by Bonita Canyon Drive to the south, an access drive and the existing Stake Center to the west, and open space to the north and east. Single family homes in the Bonita Canyon Village development are located northwest of the site, across from the open space preserve/canyon to the north. Bonita Canyon Sports Park is south of the project site, across from Bonita Canyon Drive. The Saint Mathews Church is currently under construction at the southwest corner of Bonita Canyon Drive and Prairie Road. The project site is currently vacant, with the exception of two asphalt- concrete paved areas in the northern and western portions of the site used by the adjacent Stake Center for overflow parking. Environmental Checklist Responses a) Physically divide an established community? No Impact. The proposed project is being developed on a vacant parcel surrounded by religious institutions (including the existing LDS Church Stake Center), a public park, open space, and residential development. There will not be a division of existing residential communities, as the nearest homes are located across the open space preserve to the northwest. The Temple is proposed along Bonita Canyon Drive, where several churches currently exist or are planned in the future. Because the proposed Temple site is essentially an expansion of an existing religious center among other religious and public recreation uses, the proposed project complements these other land uses and continues the land use pattern that has developed in the area. Therefore, no impact related to this issue will result from the proposed project. b) Conflict with applicable land use plans, 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? Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is currently designated as Public /Semipublic in the City's General Plan, and is zoned Public /Semipublic Sub -Area 7. The Public /Semipublic Sub -Area 7 zoning designation allows churches through the issuance of a (Conditional) Use Permit. Use permits are required for use classifications typically having special site development features, or operation characteristics requiring special consideration, so that they may be designed, located, and operated compatibly with uses on adjoining properties and in the surrounding area. The project requires the approval and issuance of a use permit. An evaluation of the project's compatibility with existing land uses and relevant environmental plans and policies in the City's General Plan will be included in the EIR. P: \CNB230VS.ND\N0P Project Description.doc <(03109/02)) 22 I 1 I I 1 1 I I C 1 LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. NOTICE OF PREPARATION MARCH ]00] CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST LATTER DAY SAINTS TEMPLE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation? No Impact. The proposed project is located adjacent to an existing NCCP. As discussed in Section 4.4, Biological Resources, the project site has little or no habitat value due to existing site conditions. Project implementation will not conflict with the existing plan or any other applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation. No impact will occur, and no mitigation measures are required. PACNB230US.NDNJ0P Project Description.doc «03/08/02» 23 LsA ASSOCIATES, INC. NOTICE OF PREPARATION ' MARCH 2002 CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST LATTER DAY SAINTS TEMPLE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 4.10 MINERAL RESOURCES The following Initial Study Environmental Checklist responses discuss and briefly analyze the potential impacts resulting from the proposed project. a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? No Impact. There are no known mineral resources identified in the City General Plan. Therefore, no , significant impacts related to mineral resources will result from the proposed project, and no mitigation measures are required. b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? No Impact. The project site is not delineated as a locally important mineral resource recovery site in the City's General Plan. Therefore, no significant impacts related to a locally important mineral resource recovery site will result from the proposed project, and no mitigation measures are required. PACNB230US.NDW0P Project Description.doc 43/08/02» 24 LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. NOTICE OF PREPARATION MARCH 2002 CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST LATTER DAY SAINTS TEMPLE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH t4.11 NOISE 1 I I J 1 i Also stated in Ordinance No. 1 0.26, Section 10.26.040, is that "No person shall, while engaged in construction, remodeling, digging, grading, demolition, painting, plastering, or any other related building activity, operate any tool, equipment, or machine in a manner which produces loud noise that disturbs, or could disturb, a person of normal sensitivity who works or resides in the vicinity, on any weekday except between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 6:30 p.m., nor on any Saturday except between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m." In addition, any such noise is prohibited on Sundays and holidays (as identified in the noise ordinance). Community Noise Degradation In addition to the criteria discussed above, another consideration in defining impact criteria is based on the degradation of the existing noise environment. A project would normally have a significant effect on the environment if it increases substantially the ambient noise levels for adjoining areas. A noise impact is considered "generally not significant" if no noise - sensitive sites are located in the project area, or if increases in community noise level with the implementation of the project are expected to be 3 dBA or less at noise - sensitive locations, and the proposed project will not result in violations of local ordinances or standards. P: \CNB230US.ND\NOP Project Description.doc «03/08/02» 25 Existing Conditions ' The noise environment in the project area is typical of a suburban community, with residential traffic and other community activity as the main noise sources. Traffic on Bonita Canyon Drive and the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor (SR -73) generates the majority of the ambient noise in the ' project area. Traffic on MacArthur Boulevard also contributes to ambient noise in the western portion of the project site. Occasional aircraft overflight and motorcycle drivebys generate relatively high noise levels, but are not the major noise events in the project study area. Regulatory Requirements The City of Newport Beach General Plan's Noise Element, adopted October 15, 1974, requires that noise - sensitive land uses not exceed an interior noise level of 45 dBA CNEL. "Sensitive" land uses typically include residences, parks, churches, schools, and hospitals. The City does not have an exterior noise standard for outdoor church uses. While the Noise Element sets guidelines for transportation- related noise impacts, the Newport Beach ' Noise Control Ordinance sets standards to regulate the operation of stationary noise sources. As stated in Ordinance No. 10.26, Section 10.26.010, "It shall be unlawful for any person to willfully make, continue, or cause to be made or continued, any loud or unreasonable noise which disturbs the peace or quiet of any person or neighborhood, or which causes discomfort or annoyance to any reasonable person of normal sensitivity residing in the area." 1 I I J 1 i Also stated in Ordinance No. 1 0.26, Section 10.26.040, is that "No person shall, while engaged in construction, remodeling, digging, grading, demolition, painting, plastering, or any other related building activity, operate any tool, equipment, or machine in a manner which produces loud noise that disturbs, or could disturb, a person of normal sensitivity who works or resides in the vicinity, on any weekday except between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 6:30 p.m., nor on any Saturday except between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m." In addition, any such noise is prohibited on Sundays and holidays (as identified in the noise ordinance). Community Noise Degradation In addition to the criteria discussed above, another consideration in defining impact criteria is based on the degradation of the existing noise environment. A project would normally have a significant effect on the environment if it increases substantially the ambient noise levels for adjoining areas. A noise impact is considered "generally not significant" if no noise - sensitive sites are located in the project area, or if increases in community noise level with the implementation of the project are expected to be 3 dBA or less at noise - sensitive locations, and the proposed project will not result in violations of local ordinances or standards. P: \CNB230US.ND\NOP Project Description.doc «03/08/02» 25 LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. NOTICE OF PREPARATION ' MARCH ]00] CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST LATTER DAY SAINTS TEMPLE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Checklist Responses The following Initial Study Checklist responses discuss the implementation of the proposed project, and briefly analyze the potential impacts resulting from the proposed project. , a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in , the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? Less Than Significant Impact. Short-term. Although there would at times be high intermittent construction noise in the project area during project construction, construction of the project would not significantly affect land uses adjacent to the project site, with adherence to the City's General Plan Noise Element and Noise Ordinance, as described at the end of this section. Long -term. Implementation of the proposed project would result in an increase in daily traffic trips in the project vicinity from the project site; therefore, there would be potential increases in traffic noise along access roads leading to the project site. This increase is analyzed below. The project site is located at the northeast comer of Bonita Canyon Drive and Prairie Road. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) highway traffic noise prediction model (FHWA RD -77- 108) was used to evaluate the highway traffic noise conditions in the vicinity of the project site. This model requires various parameters, including traffic volumes, vehicle mix, vehicle speed, and roadway geometry to compute typical equivalent noise levels during daytime, evening, and nighttime hours. The average daily traffic (ADT) volumes in the area were taken from the traffic report prepared for this project by Urban Crossroads, Inc. (October 29, 2001). The traffic volumes on SR -73 were taken from Average Annual Daily Traffic for All Vehicles on California State Highways (Caltrans, 2000). The resultant noise levels are weighted and summed over 24 hour periods to determine the CNEL values. Tables 4.1 LA and 4.1 LB provide the noise levels on the roadways adjacent to the project site for the opening year traffic conditions with and without the project. These noise levels represent the worst case scenario. The specific assumptions used in developing these noise levels and model printouts are provided in Appendix C. The data in tables 4.1 LA and 4.1 LB show that there is very little change in the traffic related noise levels associated with the implementation of the project. Although land use along Bonita Canyon Drive, MacArthur Boulevard, and SR -73 would continue to experience noise levels exceeding 65 dBA CNEL, as the project does not create a significant increase in traffic noise, no mitigation is required for off -site sensitive areas. Noise monitoring was conducted adjacent to Bonita Canyon Drive within the proposed project site on February 15, 2002. At a distance on 50 feet from the centerline of the near travel lane, the traffic on Bonita Canyon Drive was measured to generate a noise level of 65 dBA LBq. It is observed that when the dominant noise source is from traffic, CNEL would be equal to the peak hour LBq plus three to five decibels. Therefore, the existing traffic volume on Bonita Canyon Drive would generate a noise P: \CNB230 \1S.ND\N0P Project Descdption.doc «03/08/02» 26 LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. NOTICE OF PREPARATION MARCH 2OY2 CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST LATTER J DAY SAINTS TEMPLE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH I ' level of 68 to 70 dBA CNEL at 50 feet from the centerline of the near travel lane. This noise level is similar to the results of the traffic noise modeling shown in Tables 4.1 LA and 4.1 I.B. ' Table 4.11.A: Opening Year Traffic Noise Levels Without Project I 11 Roadway Segment ADT Distance from Roadway Centerline to Noise Contour (feet) CNEL at 50 feet from centerline of outermost travel lane 70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL Bonita Canyon Drive Bonita Canyon Drive dBA CNEL or lower. However, with windows open, there is a potential for interior noise to exceed the 45 dBA CNEL standard (e.g., 65 dBA - 15 dBA = 50 dBA). The proposed project includes an air i Btw MacArthur Boulevard and Prairie Road 39,800 75 155 331 70.1 East of Prairie Road 39,800 75 155 331 70.1 MacArthur Boulevard 332 70.1 0.0 MacArthur Boulevard North of Bonita Canyon Drive 94,100 254 539 1.157 77.0 State Route 73 63,000 224 474 1,016 76.1 ' Table 4.11.11: Opening Year Traffic Noise Levels With Project 11 i Roadway Segment ADT Distance from Roadway Centerline to Noise Contour (feet) CNEL at 50 feet from centerline of outermost travel lane Increase over No Project Level (dBA) 70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL Bonita Canyon Drive dBA CNEL or lower. However, with windows open, there is a potential for interior noise to exceed the 45 dBA CNEL standard (e.g., 65 dBA - 15 dBA = 50 dBA). The proposed project includes an air i Btw MacArthur Boulevard and Prairie Road 40,100 75 156 333 70.1 0.0 East of Prairie Road 39,900 75 155 332 70.1 0.0 MacArthur Boulevard North of Bonita Canyon Drive 94,300 254 540 1,159 77.0 0.0 State Route 73 63,000 224 474 1,016 76.1 0.0 Adherence to the City's General Plan Noise Element and Noise Ordinance will ensure that interior ' noise levels do not exceed 45 dBA CNEL. With a combination of walls, doors, and windows, the church building would provide 25 dBA in exterior to interior noise reduction with windows closed and 15 dBA or more with windows open. With windows closed, interior noise levels would be 45 dBA CNEL or lower. However, with windows open, there is a potential for interior noise to exceed the 45 dBA CNEL standard (e.g., 65 dBA - 15 dBA = 50 dBA). The proposed project includes an air i P: \CNB230\IS.ND\NOP Project Description.doc ((03/08/02)1 27 LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. MARCH 2002 NOTICE OF PREPARATION ' CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST LATTER DAY SAINTS TEMPLE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH conditioning system. Therefore, an air conditioning system, a form of mechanical ventilation, will ensure that windows can remain closed for a prolonged period of time. The project site is approximately 400 feet from the closest residential land uses to the northwest. Noise generated on site, such as public gatherings or parking lot activity, would not impact these sensitive receptors. b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ground borne vibration or ground borne noise levels? Less That Significant Impact. Short-term construction of the project would not result in significant groundborne vibration or groundborne noise in the project vicinity. Furthermore, long -term operation of the proposed project will not generate significant groundborne noise and vibration. Therefore, no mitigation measures are required. C) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? Less Than Significant Impact. Implementation of the proposed project would result in an increase in daily traffic trips in the project vicinity from the project site and, therefore, would potentially increase traffic noise along access roads leading to the project site. However, as discussed in 4.1 1(a), above, the increase would be small and imperceptible to humans and would not be considered significant. d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? Less Than Significant Impact. Although there would at times be high intermittent construction noise in the project area during project construction, construction of the project would not significantly affect land uses adjacent to the project site. In addition, construction hours would be limited by the Standard Condition provided below. Long -term noise with project operation would not be substantially higher than the existing levels. Therefore, any potential impact would be short-term and considered less than significant. Standard Condition IS Hours of construction shall be limited to 7 a.m. and 6:30 p.m. on weekdays and 8 a.m. and 6 p.m. on Saturdays. No construction shall be permitted on Sundays or holidays. Adequate noise control measures at all construction sites shall be ensured through the provision of mufflers and the physical separation of machinery maintenance areas from adjacent uses. P: \CNB230 \IS.ND\NOP Project Demription.doc «03 /08/02» 28 I J I 1 L� I �I L L 1 I I LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. NOTICE OF PREPARATION MARCH 2002 CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST LATTER DAY SAINTS TEMPLE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project is approximately three miles southeast of John Wayne Airport (SNA). However, the project site is not within the 60 dBA CNEL aircraft noise contour. Therefore, impacts due to aircraft noise will be below a level of significance. f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? ' No Impact. The project site is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip. Therefore, there are no impacts related with this issue. 1 11 1 1 11 P: \CNB230US.NDW0P Project Dmription.doc 43 /08/02» 29 LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. MARCH 2002 4.12 POPULATION AND HOUSING Existing Conditions NOTICE OF PREPARATION ' CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST LATTER DAY SAINTS TEMPLE The project site is located at the northeast corner of Bonita Canyon Drive and Prairie Road, between MacArthur Boulevard and the SR -73 toll road. The site is bounded by Bonita Canyon Drive to the south, the LDS Stake Center to the west, and open space to the north and east. A single - family housing development, Bonita Canyon Village, is located northwest and west of the project site. Environmental Checklist Responses a) Induce substantial population growth in an area either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? No Impact. The proposed Temple is designed to serve existing church members in the surrounding communities. The project does not propose the development of new homes or businesses, and does not require the extension of surrounding infrastructure. Therefore, no significant impacts related to inducing a substantial population growth will result from the proposed project, and no mitigation measures are required. b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? No Impact. The proposed project site is currently vacant, with the exception of two paved parking areas. The project will not require the removal replacement of any housing structures. Therefore, there are no impacts related to this issue, and no mitigation measures will be required. c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? No Impact. The proposed project site is currently vacant, with the exception of two paved parking areas. The project will not require the removal/replacement of any housing structures. Therefore, there are no impacts related to this issue, and no mitigation measures will be required. PACNB230US.NDNN0P Project Dmription.doc «03/08102» 30 I 1 I LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. NOTICE Of PREPARATION MARCH RRRR CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST LATTER DAY SAINTS TEMPLE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 4.13 PUBLIC SERVICES Existing Conditions ' The 8.65 acre project site is vacant, with the exception of two asphalt parking lots with associated parking lot lighting that serve the adjacent Stake Center. The project site does not currently require service from schools, parks, and other facilities. Fire and police protection that serves the surrounding community is described below. ' Fire Protection The City of Newport Beach Fire Department currently serves the project site. The Fire Department provides emergency fire protection, non - emergency service calls, paramedics, inspections, and ' hydrant inspections. The nearest facility serving the project site is Station No. 3, at 868 Santa Barbara Drive, near Fashion Island. Station No. 3 currently houses one 3- person fire engine company, one 4- person truck company, one 2- person paramedic unit, and one battalion chief with driver. Secondary response and emergency medical aid is provided by one of the remaining seven fire stations in the City of Newport Beach, based upon availability and service capacity] ' Police Protection The City of Newport Beach Police Department provides all levels of law enforcement to the project ' site. The police department for Newport Beach is located at 870 Santa Barbara Drive in Newport Center. Environmental Checklist Responses The following Initial Study Environmental Checklist responses discuss and briefly analyze the ' potential impacts resulting from the proposed project. a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the public services: ' i) Fire protection? No Impact. The City of Newport Beach Fire Department currently serves the site. The Temple is an expansion of LDS Church use of the adjacent site, within an area dedicated to church, ' religious, recreation and day care uses. The project site has been designated for public /semipublic uses on development plans for the past ten years. The proposed project is an infill project intended to serve existing church members in the surrounding community and will Per conversation with City of Newport Beach Fire Department on February 15, 2002. P: \CNB23WS.ND\N0P Project Description.doc 43108102» 31 LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. MARCH 2002 NOTICE OF PREPARATION ' CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST LATTER DAY SAINTS TEMPLE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 1 not require additional fire protection services. Therefore, no impacts related to fire protection services will result from the proposed project. ii) Police protection? No Impact. The City of Newport Beach Police Department currently serves the site. No increase in crime is anticipated with implementation of the proposed project. Therefore, no impacts related to police protection services will result from the proposed project. iii) Schools? No Impact. The proposed project will not contribute to a demand for schools in the surrounding community. People utilizing the Temple will be going to the site for the specific purpose of attending religious functions and gatherings. Therefore, no impacts related to public schools will result from the proposed project. iv) Parks? No Impact. The proposed project will not contribute to a demand for parks or other recreational facilities. People utilizing the Temple will be going to the site for the specific purpose of attending religious functions and gatherings and to avail themselves of the on -site garden amenities. Because the Temple grounds will be improved with a substantial garden, there will be outdoor opportunities for Temple visitors at the site. Therefore, no impacts related to park or recreation services will result from the proposed project. v) Other public facilities? No Impact. The proposed project will not affect other public facilities in the surrounding community. Therefore, no impacts related to public facilities will result from the proposed project. P: \CNB230US.ND\NOP Project Description.doc «03/MON 32 LSA ASSOCI RTES. INC. NOTICE OF PREPARATION MARCH R00R CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST LATTER DAY SAINTS TEMPLE Environmental Checklist Responses The following Initial Study Environmental Checklist responses discuss the construction of the ' proposed residential development and briefly analyze the potential impacts resulting from the proposed Temple. ' CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur ' 4.14 RECREATION Existing Conditions The proposed project site is located in the northeast comer of the City of Newport Beach. Residential uses nearest the project site are northwest and west, in Bonita Canyon Village. The community is served by existing recreational facilities, including 309 acres of park and active beach recreation areas in the City and vicinity. An active sports park is located across the street from the Temple site (across ' Bonita Canyon Drive). Environmental Checklist Responses The following Initial Study Environmental Checklist responses discuss the construction of the ' proposed residential development and briefly analyze the potential impacts resulting from the proposed Temple. ' 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? No Impact. The proposed project will not increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks due to the nature of the proposed development. People utilizing the proposed Temple will be going to the site for the specific purpose of attending religious functions and gatherings. On -site outdoor passive garden areas will serve the passive recreation needs of those attending services. Therefore, no impacts related to existing parks and recreational facilities will result from the proposed ' project. ' b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? No Impact. The proposed project does not include any public or common area recreational areas. The proposed gardens would function as an on -site passive recreation amenity. No additional demand for recreational facilities is predicted. As stated above, people utilizing the Temple will be ' going to the site for the specific purpose of attending religious functions and gatherings. Therefore, there will be no environmental impacts related to this issue. 1 PACNB230US.NDW0P Project Description.doc ROYO&02» 33 L S A ASSOCIATES. INC. MARCH 2442 4.15 TRANSPORTATION /CIRCULATION Existing Conditions NOTICE OF PREPARATION ' CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST LATTER DAY SAINTS TEMPLE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH The site of the proposed project is currently vacant with the exception of two paved asphalt parking lots that serve the adjoining Stake Center. The site is bordered by Bonita Canyon Drive to the south and the private extension of Prairie Road to the west. Bonita Canyon Drive, San Miguel Road, Ford Road, and Jamboree Road (south of Ford Road) are Primary Roads in the vicinity of the project, with the capacity to serve a volume of 20,000- 30,000 Average Daily Trips (ADT). Prairie Road provides access to Bonita Canyon Drive, which provides access to nearby MacArthur Boulevard. MacArthur Boulevard and San Joaquin Hills Road are both Major Arterial Highways in the vicinity of the project, with the capacity to serve a volume of 30,000 - 45,000 ADTs. Access to the site is currently provided via one driveway, which is an extension of Prairie Road north of Bonita Canyon. The intersection of this driveway that is shared with the existing Stake Center is signalized. Environmental Checklist Responses The following Initial Study Environmental Checklist responses discuss the proposed project and briefly analyze the potential impacts resulting from the proposed residential development. a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? Less Than Significant Impact. Implementation of the proposed project will increase the existing traffic load and capacity of the surrounding roadways. A traffic impact analysis will be prepared as required by the City of Newport Beach for all new development projects exceeding 10,000 square feet and generating greater than 300 ADTs. The report will assess the potential impacts to the circulation system and will conform to the Traffic Phasing Ordinance analysis procedures specified by the City. Impacts to the existing traffic load and capacity of the surrounding street system will be summarized in the EIR, and the report will be included in the EIR appendices. b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? Less Than Significant Impact. Implementation of the proposed project may exceed the designated level of service standard for the surrounding roadways. As discussed in response 4.15 a) above, a traffic impact analysis will be prepared to address the potential impacts to the existing circulation system. Impacts to designated level of service standards will be summarized in the EIR. I ILJ 1 1 1 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? , 1 Jamboree Road is a Principal Road north of Ford P: \CNB230VS.ND\NOP Project Description.doc a03/08/02u 34 �_ J I 1 1 I 1 L S A ASSOCIATES. INC. NOTICE OF PREPARATION MARCH ]00] CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST LATTER DAY SAINTS TEMPLE CITY OF NEWPORT RFAr.H No Impact. Impacts to air traffic patterns are not anticipated due to the nature of the proposed project. The Temple will provide service to members of the Church primarily residing in Orange, Riverside, and San Bernardino Counties. As the Temple is planned to serve no more than 150 members at any one time, the project will not result in a substantial safety risk due to an increase in air traffic levels. Therefore, there will be no impact to air traffic patterns, and no mitigation measures are required. d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? No Impact. Access to the site will be provided via Prairie Road off of Bonita Canyon Drive. All surrounding roadways are in place and will not be physically altered as a result of the proposed project. Therefore, there will be no impacts related to this issue and no mitigation measures are required. e) Result in inadequate emergency access? No Impact. The proposed project will not alter emergency access to nearby uses. Access to the site will be provided via Prairie Road off of Bonita Canyon Drive. Emergency access to the project site will be provided from the southeast comer of the Temple parking lot onto Bonita Canyon Drive. Therefore, there will be no impacts related to emergency access and no mitigation measures are required. t) Result in inadequate parking capacity? No Impact. Existing parking on the project site includes 159 striped parking spaces and 25 unstriped spaces. The proposed Temple includes 152 striped spaces that will continue to accommodate overflow parking for the adjacent Stake Center. As the Temple is planned to serve no more than 150 people at any one time and attendance will be dispersed throughout the day, the parking demand should be accommodated on the project site. The Stake Center will serve as overflow parking for the Temple, providing an additional 210 striped spaces and 30 spaces along curbs within the Stake Center site. During the Temple construction period, when area -wide conferences or other occasional special events are scheduled, those events will be held at another facility. Therefore, there will be no impacts related to inadequate parking capacity and no mitigation measures are required. 1 g) Conflict with adopted policies plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? ' No Impact. There are no impacts to public transportation resulting from the proposed project. No mitigation measures are required. Id P: \CNB230\IS.ND\NOP Project Description.doc ((03/08/02)) 35 LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. MARCH 2002 4.16 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS Existing Conditions NOTICE OF PREPARATION ' CHURCH OFJESUS CHRIST LATTER DAY SAINTS TEMPLE The project site is currently vacant. The required infrastructure, including utilities and service systems, are in place adjacent to the project site. Two 24 inch stormwater drains currently serve the site. Utilities and service systems that will provide service to the project site are identified below. Wastewater The Irvine Ranch Water District (IRWD) will provide wastewater collection and treatment for the project site. An eight inch sewer line is currently in place in Bonita Canyon Drive. Water Resources The IRWD will provide water supply and water treatment to the project site. The City of Newport Beach will provide stormwater drainage systems. The City of Newport Beach currently provides 75 percent of the water to customers within the city limits, while the Metropolitan Water District (MWD) provides the remaining 25 percent. A 16 inch domestic water line and an eight inch reclaimed water line are currently in place in Bonita Canyon Drive. Solid Waste Private trash contractors will provide solid waste collection service. Electrical Service Southern California Edison (SCE) will provide electrical power to the project site. Natural Gas The Southern California Gas Company will provide natural gas service to the project site. Communication Systems Telephone service to the project site will be provided by Pacific Bell, and cable service will be provided by Cox Cable. P: \CNB230US.ND\NOP Project Descripuon.doc «03/08/02» L�J 1 1 1 1 1 1 36 ' LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. NOTICE OF PREPARATION MARCH 2002 CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST LATTER DAY SAINTS TEMPLE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 1 1 1 1 1 1 Environmental Checklist Responses The following Initial Study Environmental Checklist responses discuss and briefly analyze the potential impacts resulting from the proposed project. a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? No Impact. The proposed Temple will generate conventional wastewater, which will be collected by the existing sewer and storm drain systems. Wastewater will be treated to acceptable standards in IRWD treatment facilities prior to being released to water bodies. Therefore, no impacts related to water quality will result from the proposed project and no mitigation measures are required. b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? ' No Impact. The existing sewer facilities will adequately accommodate the wastewater generation of the proposed project. Therefore, no impacts related to wastewater treatment will result from the proposed project. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? Less Than Significant Impact. Development of the vacant 8.65 acre project site will result in an increase in impervious surface. Stormwater runoff from the project site will be engineered to drain into two existing 24 inch reinforced concrete pipes located north of the site. The two existing storm drains have sufficient capacity to accommodate storm water runoff. Existing line "A" (westerly storm drain) has a proposed peak storm drain runoff of 8.5 cubic feet per second (cfs). The capacity of this 24" pipe is 45.2 cfs. Existing line `B" (easterly storm drain) has a proposed storm drain runoff of 21.7 cfs and a full flow capacity of 151.5 cfs. As indicated, the existing storm drain facilities are adequately sized for this development.' Expansion of existing or construction of new stormwater drainage facilities will not be required. Therefore, impacts related to storm drainage facilities will be less than significant, and no mitigation measures will be required. d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? No Impact. The proposed project will not result in a significant demand for water service. Therefore, no impacts related to water supplies will result from the proposed project. I Based on storm drain calculations provided by Hunsaker & Associates, Inc. March 1, 2002. PACNB230QS.NDW0P Project Dmription.doc a03 /08/02» 37 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. MARCH 2002 NOTICE OF PREPARATION ' CHURCH OP JESUS CHRIST LATTER DAY SAINTS TEMPLE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 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 projects projected demand in addition to the providers existing commitments? No Impact. The proposed project will not generate significant amounts of wastewater. Therefore, no significant impacts to the wastewater system are anticipated as a result of the project. f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the projects solid waste disposal needs? No Impact. The proposed project will be served by County of Orange landfills. The proposed project would not generate a significant amount of solid waste, and there is adequate landfill capacity to meet the waste disposal needs of the area. Therefore, no impacts related to landfills will result from the proposed project. g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? No Impact. The City's solid waste collection provider would properly dispose of all solid waste generated by the project. All regulations governing solid waste disposal will be complied with. Therefore, no impacts related to this issue will result from the proposed project. PACNB230US.ND\N0P Project Description.doc «03/08/02» 1 1 1 1 II 1 1 1 — 1 38 1 I 1 1 1 LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. NOTICE OF PREPARATION MARCH 2002 CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST LATTER DAY SAINTS TEMPLE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 4.17 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self - sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major proceeds of California history or prehistory? Potentially Significant Impact. No sensitive resources were identified at the project site. However, the project has the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, i.e., aesthetics, air quality, hydrology /water quality, and transportation/traffic. This issue will be evaluated in the EIR. ' b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? "Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other ' current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project is not anticipated to result in significant ' cumulative impacts. However, an assessment of cumulative impacts will be included in the EIR, as required by CEQA. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Potentially Significant Impact. Increases in traffic air pollutant emissions, alteration of views, the introduction of new lighting and glare sources, and traffic congestion may have effects on persons in the vicinity of the project site. The EIR will assess the level of these effects generated by the proposed project. P:\CNB230\IS.NDW OP Project Description.doc ,(03/08/02» 39 LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. NOTICE OF PREPARATION MARCH ROOK CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST LATTER DAY SAINTS TEMPLE CITY OF NRWPORT PNACH I 1 APPENDIX A 1 GEOTECHNICAL REPORT 1 1 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 h P: \CNB230US.NDW0P Project Desviption.doc,M /08/02» 1 I 1 I I I i 1 I I I I I I I 1 n I I GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION PROPOSED LDS TEMPLE 5142 Bonita Canyon Drive, Newport Beach, California for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter -Day Saints PJ 1 I 1 Southern California Geotechnical The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter -Day Saints Go Hunsaker and Associates 3 Hughes Irvine, California 92618 Attention: Mr. Phil Dowty ' Subject: Geotechnical Investigation Proposed LDS Temple 5142 Bonita Canyon Drive INewport Beach, California September 26, 2001 Project No. 01G192 -1 Gentlemen: In accordance with your request, we have conducted a geotechnical investigation of the subject site. We are pleased to present this report summarizing the conclusions and recommendations developed from our investigation. We sincerely appreciate the opportunity to be of service on this project. We look forward to providing additional consulting services during the course of the project. If we may be of further assistance in any manner, please contact our office. Respectfully Submitted, ,��RO� /0,� - I 1260 North Hancock Street, Suite 101 • Anaheim, California 92807 -1951 • (714) 777 -0333 • Fax (714) 777-0398 nia Geotechnical, Inc. c5! Ne.2294 z Exp. 12 31102 rr OFCAU�� ara, GE 2294 JeMitchell, eer -WAUk-� GE 2364 eer Distribution: (4) Addressee (2) The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter -Day Saints, Temple Construction Department, Attention: Mr. Allen Erekson I 1260 North Hancock Street, Suite 101 • Anaheim, California 92807 -1951 • (714) 777 -0333 • Fax (714) 777-0398 L I TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1 ' 2.0 SCOPE OF SERVICES 2 3.0 SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION 3 3.1 Site Conditions 3 3.2 Proposed Development 4 3.3 Background and Previous Studies 4 C 4.0 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION 4 Grading Guide Specifications 4.1 4.2 Scope of Exploration /Sampling Methods Geotechnical Conditions 4 4 ' ' 5.0 LABORATORY TESTING 4 Project No. 01 G 192 -1 6.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 4 6.1 Seismic Design Considerations 4 6.2 Geotechnical Design Considerations 4 ' 6.3 Site Grading Recommendations 4 6.4 Construction Considerations 4 6.5 Foundation Design and Construction 4 6.6 Floor Slab Design and Construction 4 6.7 Exterior Flatwork Design and Construction 4 6.8 Landscape Wall Construction 4 6.9 Planters and Planter Walls 4 6.10 Pavement Design Parameters 4 7.0 GENERAL COMMENTS 4 APPENDICES A Plate 1: Site Location Map B Plate 2: Boring Location Plan Boring Logs C Laboratory Test Results D Grading Guide Specifications E UBCSEIS Computer Program Output ' Southern California Geotechnical LDS Temple— Newport Beach, CA Project No. 01 G 192 -1 I j 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1 Presented below is a brief summary of the conclusions and recommendations of this investigation. Since this summary is not all inclusive, it should be read in complete context with the entire report. Site Preparation • The asphaltic concrete pavements in the existing overflow parking lots should be demolished and either removed from the site or crushed for use within structural ' fills. • The proposed building area is covered with a layer recently placed stockpiled fill soils underlain by previously documented engineered fill soils. The previously documented fill soils possess generally favorable consolidation characteristics and are expected to provide adequate support for the proposed improvements. ' • After stripping and demolition are complete, the exposed subgrade soils should be evaluated by the geotechnical engineer to identify any areas of soft or otherwise unsuitable soils. After any areas of unsuitable soils are removed, the exposed ' subgrade should then be scarified to a depth of 12 inches, moisture conditioned and recompacted. Any low areas may then be raised to grade with compacted structural fill. Building Foundations • Conventional Shallow Foundations, supported in existing or newly placed compacted structural fill. • 2,500 psf maximum allowable soil bearing pressure. • Reinforcement consisting of at least four (4) No. 5 rebars (2 top and 2 bottom) in strip footings due to the presence of medium expansive soils; additional reinforcement may be necessary for structural considerations. ' Building Floor Slab • Conventional Slab -on- Grade, 5 -inch minimum thickness. • Reinforcement consisting of at least No. 3 bars at 18 inches on center in both directions, due to the presence of medium expansive soils; additional reinforcement may be necessary for structural considerations. 1 Pavements • Asphaltic Concrete: ' • Auto Parking Stalls: 3 inches asphaltic concrete over 4 inches aggregate base. • Auto Drive Lanes: 3 inches asphaltic concrete over 7 inches aggregate base. • Portland Cement Concrete (PCC): • Autos Only: 5'/: inches PCC over compacted subgrade. 1 ' Southern Callfomla Geotechnical Los Temple— Newport Beach, CA F� Project No. 01 G192 -1 Page 1 I 2.0 SCOPE Of SERVICES 1 The scope of services performed for this project was in general accordance with our Proposal No. 01P242-3, dated August 10, 2001 and Proposal No. 01P242-4, dated 1 September 4, 2001. The scope of services included a visual site reconnaissance, subsurface exploration, laboratory testing and geotechnical engineering analysis. These data were used to provide criteria for the design of the building foundations, building floor slabs, and parking lot pavements. Also included in this report are site preparation recommendations and construction considerations for the proposed development. The evaluation of environmental aspects of this site was beyond the scope of services for this geotechnical investigation. n iJ 1 r i 1 1 11 1 1 1 1 Southern Callfornla Geotechnncal Los Temple— Newport Beach, CA ' Project No. 01 G192 -1 Page 2 3.0 SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION 1 3.1 Site Conditions ' The subject site is located on the northeast corner of the intersection of Bonita Canyon Drive and Prairie Road in the city of Newport Beach, California. The site is bounded to the south by Bonita Canyon Drive, to the west by Prairie Road, and to the north and ' east by open space. The general location of the site is illustrated on the Site Location Map, included as Plate 1 in Appendix A of this report. ' The subject site is a roughly rectangular shaped property, approximately 8± acres in size. At the time of subsurface exploration, ground surface cover throughout most of the site consisted of a moderate growth of native weeds and grasses. Two asphaltic concrete paved areas were observed in the northern and western portions of the site. These areas appear to be overflow parking for the existing adjacent LDS meeting hall site. Immediately subsequent to our subsurface exploration, we observed several end dump trucks importing soil from an adjacent site which is understood to be necessary for earthwork balance on the subject site. These soils were being stockpiled in the central portion of the site. The subject site has been previously graded to its present configuration. Based on topographic information provided on the Hunsaker and Associates preliminary grading and site plan, most of the site consists of a relatively level pad area with a uniform downward gradient towards the northwest and northeast. Topographic relief on the main portion of the site is on the order of 15f feet with the topographic high ' point being a relatively level previously graded pad area at El. 189± feet mean sea level (MSL) in the east central portion of the site, and a topographic low at El. 174± feet MSL near a desilting basin entrance located along the northerly property line near the ' northwest comer. An additional desilting basin was observed near the northeast comer of the property. Three cribwalls are present on the site, apparently constructed as part of the previous mass grading of the subject site. A 15± foot high cribwall was constructed between the open space and the subject site near the northwest comer of the site, a 12± foot high cribwall was constructed near the southerly property line in the southwest approximately one- quarter of the site, and a 30± foot high cribwall was constructed along the easterly property line adjacent to the open space. Asphaltic concrete pavements behind the 15± foot high cribwall located near the northwest comer of the site were observed to exhibit cracking which appears to be related to movement of the cribwall. These cracks ' are semi - arcuate and are located at a distance behind the top of the cribwall which ' Southern California Geotechnical LDS Temple— Newport Beach, CA Project No. Ot G192 -1 Page 3 would indicate movement within the active failure wedge of the cribwall. No distress could be observed behind the easterly 30t foot high cribwall or the northerly 12+ foot high cribwall. However, it should be noted that this area is unimproved exposed soil with no hardscape improvements, and any distress that may have occurred might not be readily apparent. With the exception of the two overflow parking areas, the only other improvements on the site include below grade storm drains which were reportedly installed during previous grading of the site. 3.2 Proposed Development Information regarding the proposed development has been obtained from a preliminary grading exhibit prepared by Hunsaker and Associates, Inc. This plan indicates that the proposed development will consist of a new temple building with a footprint area of 20,000± ftz, and surrounding landscape, flatwork, and parking areas. The building is anticipated to be of steel frame or concrete construction and several stories in height. The building is also anticipated to be supported by a conventional shallow foundation system. This plan indicates that the existing 15± foot high cribwall located in the northwest comer of the site is scheduled to be removed and replaced with a geogrid reinforced Verdura wall. Based on the proposed elevations indicated on this plan, cut and fill grading will be required to achieve the proposed elevations. It appears that the majority of the fills will generally be located in the northwest portion of the site, with maximum fill depths on the order of 10 to 12+ feet. Cuts of up to 6± feet are proposed in the east central portion of the site to achieve the desired elevations. These estimates are exclusive of site preparation and overexcavation requirements. We should be notified if the proposed site grades are modified significantly from those stated above, since revision to the geotechnical recommendations may be appropriate. 3.3 Backciround and Previous Studies Based on the fact that the site was previously rough graded to its current configuration, we conducted research at the City of Irvine and the City of Newport Beach in an effort to obtain the compaction reports related to the subject site. Although the project was originally graded under the purview of the City of Irvine, the subject site and surrounding area has now been incorporated into the City of Newport Beach. Representatives of the Building Department of the City of Irvine indicated that all records relative to this project were forwarded to the City of Newport Beach. Information contained in the files for this site at the City of Newport Beach were incomplete. The reports which were contained in the City of Newport Beach's file include portions of a preliminary geotechnical investigation for the adjacent Parcel 2 (meeting hall site), portions of a rough grading compaction and geologic report for southern California Geotechnical Los Temple— Newport Beach, CA Project No. 01G192 -1 Page 4 I I I I I Un 1 I I F� LA u I I Parcel 2 (meeting hall site), and two addendum reports for on -site paving and flatwork recommendations. Hunsaker and Associates also found a supplemental geotechnical investigation for Parcels 1A and 2 within their records and forwarded it to our office for review. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints provided us with a copy of the rough grading compaction and geologic report for Parcel 1 (subject site). All of the above mentioned reports were prepared by John A. Sayers and Associates and were dated between 1993 and 1994. With the exception of the rough grading compaction and geologic report for Parcel 1, the aforementioned reports are not applicable to the subject site but were prepared for the adjacent parcel where the LDS meeting hall has been constructed. The report which documents the existing fills on the subject site is entitled "Rough Grading Compaction and Geologic Report including Cribwall and Storm Drain Backfills, Parcel 1, Parcel Map 91 -TP -270, City of Irvine, California", for Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, Work Order 305 -2 -04, dated April 20, 1993, prepared by John A. Sayers and Associates. This report documents the observation and testing services provided during rough grading between the dates of November 3, 1992 and March 15, 1993. Compaction testing related to the cribwalls and the storm drains is also contained in this report. Remedial grading reportedly consisted of stripping of all vegetation and other debris and overexcavation of surficial soils which included topsoil, loose fills, alluvium, colluvium, and highly weathered terrace deposits and weathered bedrock to expose firm ground considered suitable for fill placement. A canyon subdrain was reportedly installed in the deeper fill area located in the northwest comer of the site, and keyways were reportedly excavated for the proposed fill slopes. The previously proposed building pad area was reportedly overexcavated 4 feet and rebuilt with a select fill material with expansion indices between 15 and 30. A crushed rock blanket and subdrain was reportedly constructed at the base of this select fill within the previously proposed pad location. Underlying geology of the site is reported to consist of sandstone and siltstone of the Topanga formation and terrace deposits. No faults or landslides were observed by Sayers and Associates during the grading. Observations made during construction of cribwalls included a 5 -foot thick mat of compacted crushed aggregate base underneath the cribwall and a 2 -foot wide zone of backfill of select material with an expansion index between 15 and 30. Fills placed on site consisted of native and import soils and were reportedly placed in thin lifts, moisture treated and compacted to at least 90 percent of ASTM D1557 maximum dry density. Fills were reportedly benched wherever the natural ground was steeper than 5h:1v. The maximum depth of fill documented in this report is 30 feet. In the foundation construction recommendations section of this report it is noted that the building site had been moved to the adjacent parcel to the west (Parcel 2). Based on our review of the maps contained in this report and the currently proposed configuration, it appears the new temple building will not be located within the previously constructed pad area as documented in the previous report. Southern California Geotechnical LDS Temple— Newport Beach, CA Project No. 01G192 -1 Page 5 4.0 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION 4.1 Scope of Exploration /Sampling Methods The subsurface exploration conducted for this project consisted of eighteen (18) borings advanced to depths of 5 to 40± feet below currently existing site grades. The borings were logged during drilling by a member of bur staff. The borings were advanced with hollow -stem augers, by a truck- mounted drilling rig and with manually advanced hand augers in areas of limited access. Representative bulk and in -situ soil samples were taken during drilling. Relatively undisturbed in -situ samples were taken with a split barrel "California Sampler" containing a series of one inch long, 2.416± inch diameter brass rings. This sampling method is described in ASTM Test Method D- 3550. In -situ samples were also taken using a 1.4± inch inside diameter split spoon sampler, in general accordance with ASTM D -1586. Both of these samplers are driven into the ground with successive blows of a 140 -pound weight falling 30 inches. The blow counts obtained during driving are recorded for further analysis. Bulk samples were collected in plastic bags to retain their original moisture content. The relatively undisturbed ring samples were placed in molded plastic sleeves that were then sealed and transported to our laboratory. The approximate locations of the borings are indicated on the Boring Location Plan, included as Plate 2 in Appendix A of this report. The Boring Logs, which illustrate the conditions encountered at the boring locations, as well as the results of some of the laboratory testing, are included in Appendix B. 4.2 Geotechnical Conditions The soils encountered in the exploratory borings consist of 4 to 11± feet of previously placed fill soils underlain by native terrace deposits. The fill soils consist of interbedded medium dense silty fine to medium sand, fine to medium sand, clayey fine to medium sand, and stiff to very stiff fine to medium sandy clay. The underlying terrace deposits consist of medium dense to dense silty fine to medium sand, fine sandy silt, and stiff to very stiff silty clay, clayey silt, and sandy clay extending to at least the maximum depth explored of 40± feet. Free water was not encountered during drilling. Based on the conditions encountered during drilling, and the moisture contents of the recovered soils samples, the static groundwater table is considered to have existed at a depth in excess of 40± feet at the time of the subsurface exploration. Southern California Geotechnical Los Temple— Newport Beach, CA ' Project No. 01 G192 -1 Page 6 I J J 1 1 'I 1 1 5.0 LABORATORY TESTING The soil samples recovered from the subsurface exploration were returned to our laboratory for further testing to determine selected physical and engineering properties of the soils. The tests are briefly discussed below. It should be noted that the test results are specific to the actual samples tested, and variations could be expected at other locations and depths. Classification All recovered soil samples were classified using the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS), in accordance with ASTM D -2488. Field identifications were then supplemented with additional visual classifications and /or by laboratory testing. The USCS classifications are shown graphically on the Boring Logs and are periodically referenced throughout this report. In -situ Density and Moisture Content The density has been determined for selected relatively undisturbed ring samples. These densities were determined in general accordance with the method presented in ASTM D -2937. The results are recorded as dry unit weight in pounds per cubic foot. The moisture contents are determined in accordance with ASTM D -2216, and are expressed as a percentage of the dry weight. These test results are presented on the Boring Logs. Consolidation Selected soil samples have been tested to determine their consolidation potential, in accordance with ASTM D -2435. The testing apparatus is designed to accept either natural or remolded samples in a one -inch high ring, approximately 2.416 inches in diameter. Each sample is then loaded incrementally in a geometric progression and the resulting deflection is recorded at selected time intervals. Porous stones are in contact with the top and bottom of the sample to permit the addition or release of pore water. The samples are typically inundated with water at an intermediate load to determine their potential for collapse or heave. The results of the consolidation testing are plotted on Plates C -1 through C -8 in Appendix C of this report. Maximum Dry Density and Optimum Moisture Content A representative bulk sample has been tested for its maximum dry density and optimum moisture content. The results have been obtained using the Modified Proctor procedure, per ASTM D -1557. These tests are generally used to compare the in -situ densities of undisturbed field samples, and for later compaction testing. Additional testing of other soil types or soil mixes may be necessary at a later date. The results of the testing are plotted on Plate C -9 in Appendix C of this report Southern Calif omia Geotechnical LDS Temple— Newport Beach, CA Project No. 01G192-1 Page 7 Expansion Index The expansion potential of the on -site soils was determined in general accordance with Uniform Building Code (UBC) Standard 18 -2. The testing apparatus is designed to accept a 4 -inch diameter, 14n high, remolded sample. The sample is initially remolded to 50± 1 percent saturation and then loaded with a surcharge equivalent to 144 pounds per square foot. The sample is then inundated with water, and allowed to swell against the surcharge. The resultant swell or consolidation is recorded after a 24 -hour period. The results of the El testing are as follows: Sample Identification B -1 @ 0 to 3 feet Proposed Import "A" Proposed Import "B" Soluble Sulfates Expansion Index 23 59 34 Expansive Potential Low Medium. Low A representative sample of the near - surface soils was submitted to a subcontracted analytical laboratory for determination of soluble sulfate content. Soluble sulfates are naturally present in soils, and if the concentration is high enough, can result in degradation of concrete which comes into contact with these soils. The results of the soluble sulfate testing are presented below and are discussed further in a subsequent section of this report. Sample Identification B -1 @ 0 to 3 feet Proposed Import "A" Proposed Import "B" Soluble Sulfates (%) 0.023 0.006 0.011 Sulfate Classification Negligible Negligible Negligible i 1 1 1 I I 1 I 1 1 Southern California Geotechnical Los Temple— Newport Beach, CA ' Project No. 01G192-1 Page 8 ' 6.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Based on the results of our field exploration, laboratory testing and geotechnical ' analysis, the proposed development is considered feasible from a geotechnical standpoint. The recommendations contained in this report should be taken into the ' design, construction, and grading considerations. The recommendations are contingent upon all grading and foundation construction activities being monitored by the geotechnical engineer of record. The Grading Guide Specifications, included as ' Appendix D, should be considered part of this report, and should be incorporated into the project specifications. The contractor and/or owner of the development should bring to the attention of the geotechnical engineer any conditions that differ from those ' stated in this report, or which may be detrimental for the development. 6.1 Seismic Design Considerations ' The subject site is located in an area which is subject to strong ground motions due to ' earthquakes. The completion of a site speck seismic hazards analysis is beyond the scope of services for this geotechnical investigation. However, it should be noted that numerous faults capable of producing significant ground motions are located near the subject site. Due to economic considerations, it is not generally considered reasonable to design a structure that is not acceptable to earthquake damage. Therefore, significant damage to structures may be unavoidable during large earthquakes. The ' proposed structures should, however, be designed to resist structural collapse and thereby provide reasonable protection from serious injury, catastrophic property damage and loss of life. ' Faulting and Seismicity Research of available maps indicates that the subject site is not located within an Alquist -Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone. Therefore, the possibility of significant fault rupture on the site is considered to be low. ' Seismic Design Parameters ' The proposed development must be designed in accordance with the requirements of the latest edition of the Uniform Building Code (UBC). The UBC provides procedures for earthquake resistant structural design that include considerations for on -site soil ' conditions, seismic zoning, occupancy, and the configuration of the structure including the structural system and height. The seismic design parameters presented below are based on the seismic zone, soil profile, and the proximity of known faults with respect to the subject site. Soathem California Geotechnicai LDS Temple— Newport Beach, CA Project No. 01G192-1 Page 9 I The 1997 UBC Design Parameters have been generated using UBCSEIS, a computer , program published by Thomas F. Blake (January 1998). The table below is a compilation of the data provided by UBCSEIS, and represents the largest design values presented by each type of fault. A copy of the output generated from this program is included in Appendix E of this report. A copy of the Design Response Spectrum, as generated by UBCSEIS is also included in Appendix E. Based on this output, the ' following parameters may be utilized for the subject site: • Nearest Type A Fault: Cucamonga (56 km) ' • Nearest Type B Fault: Newport- Inglewood (Offshore) (7 km) • Soil Profile Type: SD • Seismic Zone Factor (Z): 0.40 , • Seismic Coefficient (Ca): 0.44 • Seismic Coefficient (C„): 0.71 • Near - Source Factor (Na) 1.0 • Near - Source Factor (N„) 1.1 The design procedures presented by the Uniform Building Code (UBC) are intended to ' protect life safety. Structures designed using these minimum design procedures may experience significant cosmetic damage and serious economic loss. The use of a significariby higher lateral acceleration (Ca factor) such as 0.6 to 0.8 would be ' necessary to further reduce the risk of economic loss. However, since these values are much higher than those specked by the UBC, owners and structural engineers often ' regard them as impractical for use in structural design and with respect to the economics of the project. Ultimately, the structural engineer and the project owner must determine what level of risk is acceptable and assign appropriate seismic values to be used in th , e design of the proposed structure. Liquefaction , Liquefaction is the loss of strength in generally cohesionless, saturated soils when the pore -water pressure induced in the soil by a seismic event becomes equal to or exceeds the overburden pressure. The primary factors which influence the potential for liquefaction include groundwater table elevation, soil type and grain size characteristics, relative density of the soil, initial confining pressure, and intensity and duration of , ground shaking. The depth within which the occurrence of liquefaction may impact surface improvements is generally identified as the upper 40 feet below the existing ground surface. Liquefaction potential is greater in saturated, loose, poorly graded fine ' sands with a mean (d5o) grain size in the range of 0.075 to 0.2 mm (Seed and Idriss, 1971). Clayey (cohesive) soils or soils which possess clay particles (d <0.005mm) in excess of 20 percent (Seed and Idriss, 1982) are generally not considered to be , susceptible to liquefaction, nor are those soils which are above the historic static groundwater table. 1 Southern California GeoteChnlCal LDS Temple— Newport Beach, CA ' Project No. 01 G192 -1 Page 10 tThe subsurface conditions encountered at the subject site are not conducive to liquefaction. These conditions consist of stiff cohesive soils, and dense well- graded granular soils, and the absence of a static water table within the upper 40 feet. In addition, the static water table in this area is considered to exist at a depth in excess of 50—+ feet. Furthermore, the subject site is not located in a State of California Department ' of Mines and Geology designated liquefaction hazard zone. Based on these considerations, liquefaction is not considered to be a significant design concern for this project. ' 6.2 Geotechnical Design Considerations General ' The subsurface profile at the subject site generally consists of engineered fill soils extending to depths of 4 to 30± feet, underlain by dense terrace deposits. More ' specifically, the area of the proposed temple building is underlain by 8 to 11± feet of engineered fill. Subsequent to our subsurface exploration, stockpiled fills have been placed across the proposed building site in 4± foot high piles. With the exception of the surficial weathered soils and the recently stockpiled fill soils, the existing fills and the underlying terrace deposits are considered suitable for support of the foundations and floor slabs of the new structure. The suitability of the engineered fill soils is based on the data obtained from the borings as well as our review of the ' previously submitted rough grade compaction report for the subject site. Some of the cribwalls on the subject site and on the adjacent site are currently exhibiting signs of distress related to movement of the cribwalls. As previously discussed herein, tension cracks were observed behind the existing 15t foot high cribwall located near the northwest comer of the subject site. It is understood that this cribwall is scheduled for removal and replacement. It is not known whether this wall will be replaced with a segmental retaining wall or a conventional cantilever concrete retaining wall. Based on the poor performance of the higher portions of the existing cribwalls at the subject site and the adjacent site, we have significant concerns regarding the stability of the 30± foot high cribwall along the easterly property line of the subject site. Consideration should be given to either removal and replacement of this ' wall, lowering of the wall and replacement with a 2h:1v slope, and /or establishment of a significant structural setback from the top of the cribwall. At a minimum, the horizontal distance of the structural setback should be equal to the height of the wall. ' Settlement ' The results of the consolidation/collapse testing indicate that the existing fill soils are not subject to significant collapse upon moisture infiltration. In addition, the existing fill soils do not exhibit significant consolidation when exposed to load increases in the ' range of those that will be imposed by the new foundations. Provided that the ' Southern Callfamla Geoteehnical LDS Temple— Newport Beach, CA Project No. 01 G 192 -1 Page 11 recommendations contained within this report are implemented in the structural design - and construction of the proposed facility, the post - construction settlements are expected to be within tolerable limits. Expansion Based on laboratory testing of the on -site soils and the proposed import soils, they are considered to possess low to medium expansion potentials. The conclusions and recommendations of this report are based on these conditions. Sulfates The results of the soluble sulfate testing indicate soluble sulfate concentrations ranging from 0.006 percent to 0.023 percent. These concentrations are considered to be negligible with respect to UBC guidelines. Based on these concentrations, no specialized concrete mix designs are expected to be necessary, for sulfate protection purposes. It is recommended that additional sulfate testing be performed at the completion of rough grading to verify the concentrations that are present in the actual building pad subgrade soils. 6.3 Site Gradinq Recommendations The grading recommendations presented below are based on the subsurface conditions encountered at the boring locations and our understanding of the proposed development. We recommend that all grading activities be completed in accordance with the Grading Guide Specifications included as Appendix D of this report, unless superseded by site specific recommendations presented below. Site Stripping and Demolition Site stripping should consist of removal of all existing vegetation and debris. Initial site preparation should consist of demolition of all existing improvements that are not to be reused with the proposed development. This should include the existing pavements. Pavements that are not to be reused should be demolished and removed from the site, or pulverized to a maximum 3 -inch particle size for later use as structural fill or as new pavement subbase. Any surficial organic soils should be removed and disposed of off - site. The geotechnical engineer should determine the actual extent of stripping. Treatment of Existing Soils: Building Pad The preliminary grading plan prepared by Hunsaker and Associates, indicates that fills of 4 to 11 feet will be necessary in the temple building pad area to achieve the proposed pad grade of El. 192 feet. As the site is underlain by documented structural fill soils, significant overexcavation is not expected. However, removal of the recently Southem California Geotechnical Los Temple— Newport Beach, CA ' Project No. 01G192 -1 Page 12 placed stockpiled fills and the surficially weathered fill soils is recommended prior to - placement of new fills. After completion of site stripping and demolition, as well as removal of the existing stockpiled fills and surficially weathered soils, the exposed subgrade soils within the ' building area should be evaluated by the geotechnical engineer to verify their suitability to serve as the structural fill subgrade, as well as to support the foundation loads of the ' new structure. This evaluation should include proofrolling with a heavy rubber -tired vehicle to identify any soft, loose or otherwise unstable soils that must be removed. Some localized areas of overexcavation may be required if soft, porous, or otherwise ' unsuitable fill soils are encountered at the exposed subgrade elevation. Any such soils should be removed to a level of suitable bearing native or existing fill soils, as determined by the geotechnical engineer. These excavations should then be backfilled ' with compacted structural fill. The exposed subgrade soils should then be scarified to a depth of 12 inches, ' thoroughly moisture conditioned (or dried as necessary) to 2 to 4 percent above optimum, and recompacted to at least 90 percent of the ASTM D -1557 maximum dry density. ' Treatment of Existinq Soils: New Parking and Drive Areas ' Subgrade preparation in the new parking areas should initially consist of removal of all soils disturbed during stripping operations and any stockpiled fill soils. The geotechnical engineer should then evaluate the subgrade to identify any areas of additional ' unsuitable soils. The subgrade soils should then be scarified to a depth of 12+ inches, moisture conditioned to 2 to 4 percent above optimum, and recompacted to at least 90 percent of the ASTM D -1557 maximum dry density. ' Fill Placement ' . Fill soils should be placed in thin (6± inches), near - horizontal lifts, moisture conditioned to 2 to 4 percent above optimum moisture content, and compacted. I a On -site soils may be used for fill provided they are cleaned of any debris to the satisfaction of the geotechnical engineer. All grading and fill placement activities should be completed in accordance with the requirements of the Uniform Building Code and the requirements of the City of Newport Beach. • All fill soils should be compacted to at least 90 percent of the ASTM D -1557 I maximum dry density. Fill soils should be well mixed. • Compaction tests should be performed periodically by the geotechnical ' engineer as random verification of compaction and moisture content. These tests are intended to aid the contractor. Since the tests are taken at discrete locations and depths, they may not be indicative of the entire fill and therefore should not relieve the contractor of his responsibility to meet the job ispecifications. ' Southern California Geotechnical LDS Temple— Newport Beach, CA III Project No. OIG192 -1 Page 13 Imported Structural Fill All imported structural fill should consist of low to medium expansive (El <60), well graded soils. Additional specifications for structural fill are presented in the Grading Guide Specifications, included as Appendix D. Utilitv Trench Backfill In general, all utility trench backfill should be compacted to at least 90 percent of the ASTM D -1557 maximum dry density. As an alternative, a clean sand (minimum Sand Equivalent of 30) may be placed within trenches and flooded in place. Compacted trench backfill should conform to the requirements of the local grading code, and more restrictive requirements may be indicated by the City of Newport Beach. The geotechnical engineer should witness all utility trench backfills. The trench backfill soils should be compaction tested where possible; probed and visually evaluated elsewhere. Utility trenches which parallel a footing, and extending below a 1h:1v plane projected from the outside edge of the footing should be backfilled with structural fill soils, compacted to at least 90 percent of the ASTM D -1557 standard. Sand or pea gravel backfill should not be used for these trenches. 6.4 Construction Considerations Moisture Sensitive Subqrade Soils The near surface soils generally consist of silty to clayey sands and sandy clays. These soils will become unstable if exposed to significant moisture infiltration or disturbance by construction traffic. The site should, therefore, be graded to prevent ponding of surface water and to prevent water from running into excavations. Groundwater Based on readings taken within the borings at the completion of drilling and the in -situ moisture contents of the recovered soil samples, the static groundwater table is considered to have existed at a depth in excess of 40t feet below grade. Therefore, groundwater is not expected to impact the proposed grading or foundation construction activities. Expansive Soils Expansion index testing indicates that the on -site soils possess a low to medium expansive potential. Therefore, care should be given to proper moisture conditioning of all building pad subgrade soils to a moisture content of 2 to 4 percent above optimum moisture during site grading. All imported fill soils should have low to medium expansive (El <60) characteristics. soothem Callfomla Geotechnical Los Temple— Newport Beach, CA ' Project No. 01 G 192 -1 Page 14 ' Due to the presence of medium expansive soils at this site, provisions should be made - to limit the potential for surface water to penetrate the soils immediately adjacent to the structures. These provisions should include directing surface runoff into rain gutters and area drains, reducing the extent of landscaped areas around the structure, and sloping the ground surface away from the buildings. Other provisions, as determined ' by the civil engineer may also be appropriate. Excavation Considerations ' Based on the presence of predominantly granular soils near the surface, minor caving of shallow excavations may occur. Flattened excavation slopes may be sufficient to t mitigate caving of shallow excavations. All excavation activities on this site should be conducted in accordance with Cal -OSHA regulations. 6.5 Foundation Design and Construction ' Based on the preceding grading recommendations, it is assumed that the new building pad will be underlain by newly placed structural fill soils used to raise site grades which are in turn underlain by existing documented structural fill soils. Subsequent to ' completion of the proposed grading, engineered fill soils are expected to extend to depths of 12 to 20± feet below foundation bearing grades. Based on this subsurface profile, the proposed structure may be supported on a conventional shallow foundation ' system. Foundation Design Parameters ' New square and rectangular footings may be designed as follows: • Maximum, net allowable soil bearing pressure: 2,500 Ibs /ft2 • Minimum wall /column footing width: 14 inches /24 inches • Minimum longitudinal steel reinforcement within strip footings: Four (4) No. 5 rebars (2 top and 2 bottom), due to the presence of medium expansive soils on this site. • It is recommended that a grade beam footing be constructed across all exterior doorways. This footing should be founded at a depth similar to the adjacent building foundations. Any flatwork adjacent to the exterior doors should be doweled into this grade in a manner determined by the structural engineer. • Minimum foundation embedment: 12 inches into suitable existing or newly placed fill soils, and at least 18 inches below adjacent exterior grade. Interior column footings may be placed immediately beneath the floor slab. ' Southern California Geoteehnieal LDS Temple— Newport Beach, CA III Project No. 01G192-1 Page 15 The allowable bearing pressure presented above may be increased by 1/3 when - considering short duration wind or seismic loads. The actual design of the foundations, including thickness and reinforcing should be determined by the structural engineer. Foundation Construction The foundation subgrade soils should be evaluated at the time of initial grading, as discussed in Section 6.3 of this report. It is further recommended that the foundation subgrade soils be evaluated by the geotechnical engineer immediately prior to steel or concrete placement. Soils suitable.for direct foundation support should consist of newly placed structural fill soils. Any unsuitable materials should be removed to a depth of suitable bearing soils, with the resulting excavations backfilled with compacted fill soils. As an alternative, lean concrete slurry (500 to 1,500 psi) may be used to backfill such isolated overexcavations. The foundation subgrade soils should also be properly moisture conditioned to 2 to 4 percent above the Modified Proctor optimum, to a depth of at least 12 inches below bearing grade. Since moisture conditioning of the foundation subgrade soils after completion of rough grading is typically not practical, care should be taken to maintain a proper moisture content within these soils, after rough grading is complete. Estimated Foundation Settlements Post - construction total and differential static movements (settlement or heave) of a building supported on a shallow foundation system designed and constructed in accordance with the recommendations provided in this report are estimated to be less than 1.25 and 0.75 inches, respectively. Differential movements are expected to occur over a 20 -foot span, thereby resulting in an angular distortion on the order of 0.003 inches per inch, which is considered within tolerable limits for the proposed structure, provided that the structural design adequately considers this distortion. Lateral Load Resistance Lateral load resistance will be developed by a combination of friction acting at the base of foundations and slabs and the passive earth pressure developed by footings below grade. The following friction and passive pressure may be used to resist lateral forces: • Passive Earth Pressure: 250 Ibs /ft3 • Friction Coefficient: 0.30 A one -third increase in these values may be used for short duration wind or seismic loads. When combining friction and passive resistance, the passive pressure component should be reduced by one - third. These values assume that footings will be poured directly against existing or newly placed structural fill soils. The maximum allowable passive pressure is 2500 Ibs /ftz. Southern Callfornla Geotechnlcal LDS Temple— Newport Beach, CA Project No. 01G192 -1 ' Page 16 I 6.6 Floor Slab Design and Construction ' Subgrades which will support the new floor slabs should be prepared in accordance with the recommendations contained in the Site Grading Recommendations section ' of this report. Based on the anticipated grading which will occur at this site, the floors of the new structures may be constructed as conventional slabs -on -grade supported on newly placed structural fill. Based on geotechnical considerations, the floor slabs may be designed as follows: • Minimum slab thickness: 5 inches • Minimum slab reinforcement: No. 3 bars at 18 inches on center in both directions, due to the medium expansive potential of the soils at the site. The actual floor slab reinforcement should be determined by the structural engineer, based on the imposed loading. • Slab underlayment: 2 inches of sand overlain by a 10 -mil vapor barrier, overlain by 2 inches of clean sand. Where moisture sensitive floor coverings are not anticipated, the vapor barrier and the upper 2 -inch layer of sand may be eliminated. • Moisture condition the floor slab subgrade soils to within 2 to 4 percent above optimum moisture content, to a depth of 12 inches. • Proper concrete curing techniques should be utilized to reduce the potential ' for slab curling or the formation of excessive shrinkage cracks. The actual design of the floor slab should be completed by the structural engineer to verify adequate thickness and reinforcement. 6.7 Exterior Flatwork Design and Construction Subgrades which will support new exterior slabs -on -grade for patios, sidewalks and driveways should be prepared in accordance with the recommendations contained in ' the Grading Recommendations section of this report. Based on geotechnical considerations, exterior slabs on grade may be designed as follows: • Minimum slab thickness: 5 inches • Minimum slab reinforcement: Driveway slabs or other flatwork should include No. 3 bars at 18 inches on center, in both directions. ' Moisture condition the flatwork subgrade soils to a moisture content of 2 to 4 percent above optimum moisture content, to a depth of at least 12 inches. ' Southern Callfornla Geoteehnleal LDS Temple— Newport Beach, CA Project No. 01G192-1 Page 17 • Proper concrete curing techniques should be utilized to reduce the potential for slab curling or the formation of excessive shrinkage cracks. • Control joints should be provided at a maximum spacing of 8 feet on center in two directions for slabs and at 4 feet on center for sidewalks. Control joints are intended to direct cracking. Minor cracking of exterior concrete slabs on grade should be expected. • Expansion or felt joints should be used at the interface of exterior slabs on grade and any fixed structures to permit relative movement. Thickened Edqes Where the outer edges of concrete flatwork are to be bordered by landscaping, consideration should be given to the use of thickened edges to prevent excessive infiltration and accumulation of water under the slabs. Thickened edges, if used, should be 6 to 8 inches wide, extend 12 inches below the finish slab surfaces, and be reinforced with a minimum of two No. 4 bars, one top and one bottom. Thickened edges are not mandatory; however, their inclusion in flatwork construction adjacent to landscaped areas will significantly reduce the potential for vertical and horizontal movements and subsequent cracking of the flatwork related to expansive soils. 6.8 Landscape Wall Construction Foundations Foundations for landscape walls should be founded at a minimum depth of 12 inches below the lowest adjacent final grade. The footings should also be reinforced with a minimum of four No. 4 bars, two top and two bottom. Construction Joints In order to minimize the potential for unsightly cracking related to the effects of expansive soils, construction joints should be provided in the walls at horizontal intervals of approximately 20± feet, and at each comer. The separations should be provided in the blocks and should not extend through the foundation. Foundations should be poured monolithically with continuous reinforcement along the entire length of the wall. A joint to provide positive separation between the wall face and adjacent flatwork is also recommended. A '/z+ inch thick felt joint may be used for this application. SoOthem Callfornla Geotechnloal Los Temple— Newport Beach, CA ' Project No. O1 G192 -1 Page 18 I 1 1 I 1 1 6.9 Planters and Planter Walls Area drains should be extended into all planters that are located within 5 feet of building walls, foundations, retaining walls and landscape walls to minimize infiltration of water into the adjacent foundation soils. The surface of the ground in these areas should also be sloped at a minimum gradient of 2 percent away from the walls and foundations. A drip irrigation system is also recommended to prevent overwatering and subsequent saturation of the foundation walls. Planter walls should be supported by continuous concrete footings designed and constructed in accordance with the recommendations presented for landscape walls. 6.10 Pavement Design Parameters Site preparation in the pavement area should be completed as previously recommended in the Site Grading Recommendations section of this report. The subsequent pavement recommendations assume proper drainage and construction monitoring, and are based on either PCA or CALTRANS design parameters for a twenty (20) year design period. However, these designs also assume a routine pavement maintenance program to obtain the anticipated 20 -year pavement service life. Pavement Subgrades It is anticipated that the new pavements will be supported on the existing soils that consist of silty to clayey sands and sandy clays, or similar imported materials. These soils are considered to possess fair pavement support characteristics, with estimated R- values of 20 to 30. Since R -value testing was not included in the scope of services for this project, the subsequent pavement design is based upon an assumed R -value of 20. Any fill material imported to the site should have support characteristics equal to or greater than that of the on -site soils and be placed and compacted under engineering controlled conditions. It may be desirable to perform R -value testing after the completion of rough grading to verify the R -value of the as- graded parking subgrade. If the subgrade soils possess higher R- values, a thinner pavement section could be utilized. Asphaltic Concrete Presented below are the recommended thicknesses for new flexible pavement structures consisting of asphaltic concrete over a granular base. An alternate pavement section has been provided for use in parking stall areas due to the anticipated lower traffic intensity in these areas. However, truck traffic must be excluded from areas where the thinner pavement section is used; otherwise premature pavement distress may occur. The pavement designs are based on the traffic indices Southern California Geotechnical LDS Temple— Newport Beach, CA ' Project No. 01G192 -1 Page 19 (TI's) indicated. The client and /or civil engineer should verify that these TI's are representative of the anticipated traffic volumes. ASPHALT PAVEMENTS Materials Thickness (inches) Auto Parking TI = 4.0 Auto Drive Lanes TI = 5.0 Asphalt Concrete 3 3 Aggregate Base 4 7 Aggregate Subbase — — Compacted Subgrade 1 12 12 The aggregate base course should be compacted to at least 95 percent of the ASTM D- 1557 maximum dry density. The asphaltic concrete should be compacted to at least 95 percent of the Marshall maximum density, as determined by ASTM D -2726. Portland Cement Concrete The preparation of the subgrade soils within Portland cement concrete pavement areas should be performed as previously described for proposed asphalt pavement areas. The minimum recommended thicknesses for the Portland Cement Concrete pavement sections are as follows: • Automobile Parking and Drive Areas 5'/2 inches Portland Cement Concrete over 12 inches compacted subgrade (95% minimum compaction) The concrete should have a 28-day compressive strength of at least 3,000 psi. Reinforcing within all pavements should be designed by the structural engineer. The maximum joint spacing within all of the PCC pavements is recommended to be equal to or less than 30 times the pavement thickness. 1 1 fl 1 LJ� Southern California Geotechnical LDS Temple— Newport Beach, CA III Project No.OIG192 -1 , Page 20 7.0 GENERAL COMMENTS This report has been prepared as an instrument of service for use by the client in order 1 to aid in the evaluation of this property and to assist the architects and engineers in the design and preparation of the project plans and specifications. This report may be provided to the contractor(s) and other design consultants to disclose information relative to the project. However, this report is not intended to be utilized as a specification in and of Itself, without appropriate interpretation by the project architect, structural engineer, and /or civil engineer. The reproduction and distribution of this report must be authorized by the client and Southern California Geotechnical, Inc. Furthermore, any reliance on this report by an unauthorized third party is at such party's sole risk, and we accept no responsibility for damage or loss which may occur. The analysis of this site was based on a subsurface profile Interpolated from limited discrete soil samples. While the materials encountered in the project area are considered to be representative of the total area, some variations should be expected between boring locations and sample depths. If the conditions encountered during construction vary significantly from those detailed herein, we should be contacted immediately to determine if the conditions alter the recommendations contained herein. This report has been based on assumed or provided characteristics of the proposed development. It is recommended that the owner, client, architect, structural engineer, and civil engineer carefully review these assumptions to ensure that they are consistent ' with the characteristics of the proposed development. If discrepancies exist, they should be brought to our attention to verify that they do not affect the conclusions and recommendations contained herein. We also recommend that the project plans and ' specifications be submitted to our office for review to verify that our recommendations have been correctly interpreted. ' The analysis, conclusions, and recommendations contained within this report have been promulgated in accordance with generally accepted professional geotechnical engineering practice. No other warranty is implied or expressed. iJ 1 ' Southern California Geotechnical LDS Temple— Newport Beach, CA Project No. 01G192 -1 Page 21 I I I 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1. APPENDIX A SITE LOCATION MAP BORING LOCATION PLAN 17 7 r• icM'A m . ''./ ..,•: -� � �'• 'o " /•`n S T ry "'• 9� a of ..00 � 0.Y ,! ? ■""m 9 R�d�ew Vk �. ■ 4 0- .+1' / �Qp c±/ . u,wmo rc w 9 '8 aqb ��`u! V�� � / ..X OILV — � �'�r •� ` cep ^s� S41 VV � .,,•p r tmvra . xeGscar at% ' '' • Frua } vst,.A °7 �°•o .•� EGIXL6ILfC Y S'Sa s ': . �- e 17- �"s^ l l 9;C "` '� •, �i L+'►M iI � � "� •` BI i Po m CAI.IfORNIA" S a �M ZRV3NE 1s- g uFwo ' 4• `�'9�ti g o f E g S,gN �.�, .r' � � m � c�� � ,i � � � J •.ray ..�' «rw ; • r eoxtTA FOM .t (NE11 NR91� 8 ^s WIT R ` � t n1 1 li : G .rI � .p '.fd�- "!(.:'_r!' .Y � � {19 _ MAIR4 Q/'. '� •i'..�',. 11 )L0.i \ • 4 � � - � � � X�' � ' : its fM10.Y. r M1 \1 - lf, t 6 tyEf'i�3'' An-, _ WAIT if P am $ (Y \ •q¢ a L9G1lfRI us . W • ' t y e � yam y 3 t a • t f 'F^nha n0w/ SITE LOCATION MAP PROPOSED LATTER -DAY SAINTS TEMPLE NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA SOURCE ORANGE COUNT/ 240P �yy THOMAS GUIDE, 2�, � Southern Californi a Geotechnical : JAS LDRA ROECT 1260 North Hancock Street• Suite 101 792 -1 TE 1 Anaheim, Califomia 92807 Phone: (714) 777 -0333 Fax: (714) M-0398 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 H 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 APPENDIX B BORING LOGS I I I I I I I BORING LOG LEGEND SAMPLE TYPE GRAPHICAL SYMBOL SAMPLE DESCRIPTION AUGER Sample Type as depicted above. SAMPLE COLLECTED FROM AUGER CUTTINGS, NO FIELD MEASUREMENTS OF Number of blows required to advance the sampler 12 inches using SOIL STRENGTH. (DISTURBED) CORE refusal ( >50 blows) at 3 inches. WH indicates that the weight of the ROCK CORE SAMPLE: TYPICALLY TAKEN WITHA DIAMOND- TIPPED CORE BARREL hammer was sufficient to push the sampler 6 inches or more. POCKEN PEN.: TYPICALLY USED ONLY IN HIGHLY by the pocket penetrometer. CONSOLIDATED BEDROCK GRAB SOIL SAMPLE TAKEN WITH NO EQUIPMENT, SUCH AS FROM �/�+� MOISTURE CONTENT: A STOCKPILE A STOCKPILE OR THE GROUND SURFACE the dry weight. (DISTURBED) CS PLASTIC LIMIT: CALIFORNIA SAMPLER: 2-1/2 INCH I.D. SPLIT BARREL SAMPLER. LINED WITH 14NCH HIGH PASSING #200 SIEVE: The percentage of material finer than the #200 standard sieve. BRASS RINGS. DRIVEN WITH SPT HAMMER The shear strength of a cohesive soil sample, as measured in the (RELATIVELY UNDISTURBED) N R O DID RECOVERY: THE SAMPLING ATTEMPT NOT RESULT IN RECOVERY OF ANY SIGNIFICANT SOIL OR ROCK MATERIAL SPT STANDARD PENETRATION TEST: SAMPLER 1S A 1.4 INCH INSIDE DIAMETER SPLIT BARREL, DRIVEN 18 INCHES WITH THE SPT HAMMER. (DISTURBED) S. ■ SHELBY TUBE: TAKEN WITH THIN WALL SAMPLE TUBE, PUSHED INTO THE SQIL AND THEN EXTRACTED. (UNDISTURBED) VANE SHEAR TEST: SOIL STRENGTH OBTAINED USING A 4 BLADED SHEAR VANE 10 DEVICE. TYPICALLY USED IN SOFT CLAYS -NO SAMPLE RECOVERED. COLUMN DESCRIPTIONS DEPTH: Distance in feet below the ground surface SAMPLE: Sample Type as depicted above. BLOW COUNT: Number of blows required to advance the sampler 12 inches using a 140 lb hammer with a 30 -inch drop. 50/3" indicates penetration refusal ( >50 blows) at 3 inches. WH indicates that the weight of the hammer was sufficient to push the sampler 6 inches or more. POCKEN PEN.: Approximate shear strength of a cohesive soil sample as measured by the pocket penetrometer. GRAPHIC LOG: Graphic soil symbol, as depicted on the following page. DRY DENSITY: Dry Density of an undisturbed or relatively undisturbed sample. MOISTURE CONTENT: Moisture content of a soil sample, expressed as a percentage of the dry weight. LIQUID LIMIT: The moisture content above which a soil behaves as a liquid. PLASTIC LIMIT: The moisture content above which a soil behaves as a plastic. PASSING #200 SIEVE: The percentage of material finer than the #200 standard sieve. UNCONFINED SHEAR: The shear strength of a cohesive soil sample, as measured in the unconfined state. SOIL CLASSIFICATION CHART MAJOR DIVISIONS SYMBOLS TYPICAL DESCRIPTIONS GRAPH LETTER GRAVEL AND CLEAN GRAVELS ' ��:' �� GW WELL- GRADED GRAVELS, GRAVEL - F ND MIXTURES, LITTLE OR NO GP POORLY- GRADED GRAVELS, GRAVEL - SAND MIXTURES, LITTLE OR NO FINES GRAVELLY SOILS (LITTLE OR NO FINES) COARSE GRAINED SOILS MORETww50% OF COARSE GRAVELS WITH FINES I GM SILTY GRAVELS, GRAVEL -SAND- SILT MIXTURES FRACTION RETAINED ON NO. 4 SIEVE (APPRECIABLE AMOUNT OF FINES) �.`. CLAYEY GRAVELS, GRAVEL - SAND - CLAY MIXTURES SAND AND CLEAN SANDS SW sWaELL- LRADEED S NO 0 F GRAVELLY MORE THAN 50% OF MATERIAL IS :.; 'SP POORLY- GRADED SANDS, GRAVELLY SAND, LITTLE OR NO FINES LARGER THAN NO. 200 SIEVE S� SANDY $OILS (LITTLE OR NO FINES) L SANDS WITH FINES SM SILTY SANDS, SAND- SILT MIXTURES MORE THAN 50% OF COARSE FRACTION PASSING ON NO. 4SIEVE AMOUNT CIAB ES) SC CLAYS SANDS, SAND -CLAY INORGANIC SILTS AND VERY FINE ML SANDS, ROCK FLOUR SILTY OR CLAYEY FINE SANDS OR CLAYEY SILTS WITH SLIGHT PLASTICITY CL INORGANIC CLAYS OF LOW TO MEDIUM PLASTICITY, GRAVELLY CLAYS, SANDY CLAYS, SILTY CLAYS, LEAN CLAYS FINE GRAINED SOILS SILTS LIQUID LIMIT AND LESS THAN 50 CLAYS _ _ - - - OL ORGANIC SILTS AND ORGANIC SILTY CLAYS OF LOW PLASTICITY MORE THAN 50% OF MATERIAL IS MH INORGANIC SILTS, MICACEOUS OR DIATOMACEOUS FINE SAND OR SMALLER THAN NO. 200 SIEVE SILTY SOILS SIZE SILTS LIQUID LIMIT AND GREATER THAN 50 CLAYS CH INORGANIC CLAYS OF HIGH PLASTICITY OH ORGANIC CLAYS OF MEDIUM TO HIGH PLASTICITY, ORGANIC SILTS HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS — „ „ ., ,. „ PT PEAT, HUMUS, SWAMP SOILS WITH HIGH ORGANIC CONTENTS NOTE: DUAL SYMBOLS ARE USED TO INDICATE BORDERLINE SOIL CLASSIFICATIONS I I I j 1 1 F a s w 0 S N a' g `o 0 m ~TEST BORING LOG Southern California Geotechnical BORING NO. B -1 JOB NO.: 01G192 DRILLING DATE: 8/17/01 WATER DEPTH: Dry PROJECT: LAS Temple DRILLING METHOD: Hollow Stem Auger CAVE DEPTH: 24' LOCATION: Newport Beach, California LOGGED BY: Romeo Babas READING TAKEN: at Completion FIELD RESULTS CD ° a CD DESCRIPTION SURFACE ELEVATION: 187 feet MSL LABORATORY RESULTS 0 w a o rn � M ow cYic a >- o a w T 2 0 5� o f v ~�� IL� w N a zw oa D rn FILL: interbedded Brown to Red Brown Silty fine to medium Sand, some Gravel; Light Brown fine to medium Sand, medium dense to stiff - moist 123 7 34 122 5 5 28 118 12 21 114 13 68 112 10 10 TERRACE DEPOSITS: Gray Brown mottled Silty fine to medium Sand, occasional coarse Sand, medium dense to dense Brown Silty fine to medium Sand, trace fine Gravel, medium dense - moist 41 94 7 15 Brown to Gray Brown Silty Clay to Clayey Slit, calcareous coatings, very stiff to hard - moist 52 112 17 20 28 10 Gray Brown fine Sandy Silt, mottled, medium dense - moist 25 Brown Clayey Silt, trace fine Sand, calcareous materials, stiff to very stiff - moist 28 10 30 Interbedded Silty fine Sand and fine Sandy Silt, medium dense - damp to moist 24 9 35 Brown fine to medium Sand, trace Silt, medium dense - damp 23 7 Boring Terminated at 40' PLATE B -1 R Southern California Geotechnical BORING.NO. , B -2 JOB NO.: 01G192 DRILLING DATE: 8117101 WATER DEPTH: Dry PROJECT: LDS Temple DRILLING METHOD: Hollow Stem Auger CAVE DEPTH: 11' LOCATION: Newport Beach, California LOGGED BY: Romeo Balbas READING TAKEN: at Completion FIELD RESULTS CD CD DESCRIPTION SURFACE ELEVATION: 183 feet MSL LABORATORY RESULTS v W a o W vai O m F LL Q. > z >LL oaa. Wz FF NZ 2� °- 5F Zzi o NF a7 e V'w ZN N aV zt Z� UW Zu=i Fes: Interbedded Brown to Red Brown Silty fine to medium 31 Sand; Brown to Dark Brown Clayey fine to medium Sand, trace coarse Gravel and fine to medium Sandy Clay, medium dense to still - moist 5 Disturbed Sample 23 117 13 5 29 117 13 32 120 9 53 117 11 10 TERRACE DEPOSITS: Brain to Dark Brown Silty Clay to Clayey Silt, trace fine Sand, calcareous coatings, very stiff to hard - moist 38 15 15 43 9 Boring Terminated at 20' TEST BORING LOG PLATE B -2 ' 1 0 0 d w 0 @ a 0 r, 0 J F TEST BORING LOG Southern California Geotechnical BORING NO. B -3 JOB NO.: 01G192 DRILLING DATE: B/17/01 WATER DEPTH: Dry PROJECT: LDS Temple DRILLING METHOD: Hollow Stem Auger CAVE DEPTH: 14' LOCATION: Newport Beach, California LOGGED BY: Romeo Balbas READING TAKEN: at Completion FIELD RESULTS ° S a CD DESCRIPTION SURFACE ELEVATION: 184.5 feet MSL LABORATORY RESULTS W i 0 W = a M J o rn � U 30 M a W L) a t m W �a o a Wa W nz t cOi �� Z Z t= m� a� w Z W mo o- o zm Z K oa Z X FILL: Interbedded Brown Silty fine to medium Sand; Light 20 Brown fine to medium Sand, little Silt, some Gravel and Brown Clayey fine to medium Sand, medium dense to stiff - moist 121 10 22 121 10 5 26 126 9 23 118 12 43 8 Disturbed TERRACE DEPOSITS: Brown Silty fine to medium Sand, 10 medium dense - damp to moist Sample Gray Brown Clayey Silt, trace fine Sand, calcareous materials/coatings, very stiff - moist 30 13 15 Gray Brown fine to medium Sandy Silt to Silty fine to medium Sand, dense - damp to moist 39 8 20 30 9 Boring Terminated at 25' PLATE B-3 i c a C :L Southern California Geotechnical BORING NO. , B-4 JOBNO.: 01G192 DRILLING DATE: 8117/01 WATERDEPTH: Dry PROJECT: LDS Temple DRILLING METHOD: Hollow Stem Auger CAVE DEPTH: 12.6 LOCATION: Newport Beach, California LOGGED BY: Romeo Balbas READING TAKEN: at Completion FIELD R RESULTS L cJOi D DESCRIPTION z LABORATORY R RESULTS z W o r� m o a a c z z z z c 0� g U cv W 3 3 P z FILL: Interbedded Brown Silty fine to medium Sand, some 12 1 1.75. � � ` G Gravel; Dark Brown Clayey fine to medium Sand and fine to 1 119 3 3 18 1 119 1 11 5 2 23 1 118 1 14 33 1 121 7 7 27 T 7 TERRACE DEPOSITS: Gray to Gray Brown fine Sandy Silt, 7 10 m medium dense, calcareous nodules - moist 27 1 13 15 29 9 9 Boring Terminated at 20' TEST BORING LOG PLATE B-4 Southern California Geotechnical MMWWMVF��� BORING NO. B -5 JOB NO.: 01G192 DRILLING DATE: 8!17/01 WATER DEPTH: Dry PROJECT: LDS Temple DRILLING METHOD: Hollow Stem Auger CAVE DEPTH: 15.5' LOCATION: Newport Beach, California LOGGED BY: Romeo Balbas READING TAKEN: at Completion FIELD R RES L LTS1 L U Y DESCRIPTION z LABORATORY R RESULTS W D H U Y o W W o O O W U U W QW. v = W W 7 7W U U Z ZW Z Zo: It W a n nJ O O U ULL N NZ j jH W W y yo U UW W W t ( SURFACE ELEVATION: 187 feet MSL o o o M M 0 7 7 f a a f a a U D D W 0 0 W C Co Q Q t (9 S FILL: Interbedded Red Brown Silty fine to medium Sand, 34 B Brown fine to medium Sand, little Slit, some Gravel and Brown 1 122 8 8 to Dark Brown Clayey fine to medium Sand, trace coarse Gravel, medium dense - moist 38 1 121 1 10 5 3 38 1 115 1 10 36 1 120 1 12 36 1 119 6 6 10 r DEPOSITS: Gray Brown Clayey Silt, calcareous ry stiff - moist 30 1 14 15 26 1 rod D 14 20 Silty fine Sand, medium dense - damp 26 7 7 Boring Terminated at 25' s i i i i i 0 TEST BORING LOG PLATE B -5 Southern California Geotechnical BORING.NO. B -6 JOB NO.: 01G192 DRILLING DATE: 8/17101 WATER DEPTH: Dry PROJECT: LDS Temple DRILLING METHOD: Hollow Slem Auger CAVE DEPTH: 12' LOCATION: Newport Beach, California LOGGED BY: Romeo Balbas READING TAKEN: at Completion FIELD RESULTS ° co DESCRIPTION SURFACE ELEVATION: 188.5 feet MSL LABORATORY RESULTS z Lu o LL x a o W i y o O m F ULL a t z W o Ua Rz 5 U ° (3 qNqF 3 �W No a Ift OVQ Q z y flLL: Interbedded Brown to Red Brown Silty fine to medium 30 Sand, Brawn Silty fine Sand, some Gravel; Brown to Dark Brown Clayey fine Sand and fine to medium Sandy Gay, 113 8 medum dense to stiff - moist 27 113 8 5 27 119 12 35 106 7 43 99 11 10 TERRACE DEPOSITS : Gray Brown fine Sandy Clay, very stiff - moist 36 9 15 Dark Brown Silty Clay, very stiff - moist 31 15 Boring Terminated at 20' m TEST BORING LOG PLATE B -6 1 I F I 1 1 LI 11 i r I I Southern California Geotechnical Wgmm M SWIM BORING NO. B -7 JOB NO.: 01G192 DRILLING DATE: 8/17/01 WATER DEPTH: Dry PROJECT: LDS Temple DRILLING METHOD: Hollow Stem Auger CAVE DEPTH: 1T LOCATION: Newport Beach, Califomia LOGGED BY: Romeo Balbas READING TAKEN: at Completion FIELD RESULTS ° LABORATORY RESULTS W o ° o a o DESCRIPTION Fn WIC- °� LLt z = W a U H x a °u^ Z 9� U wi W mo OW 3 5- - o aa m SURFACE ELEVATION: 187.5 eet ° zi a a V 5 m v n FILL Interbedded Brown to Light Brown Silty fine to medium 39 Sand, some Gravel; Brown to Dark Brown Clayey fine to 109 12 medium Sand and fine to medium Sandy Gay, medium dense to stiff - moist 29 118 9 5 31 111 16 24 110 15 29 117 11 10 TERRACE DEPOSITS: Brown fine to medium Sandy Gay, very stiff - moist 23 4.5+ 10 15 Broom Silty Clay, very stiff - moist 28 4.5+ 13 Boring Terminated at 20' r I 1 1 TEST BORING LO PLATE B -7 0 0 d w 0 QJ U N 'a a IV O 0 O Q F Southern California Geotechnical BORING NO. B -8 JOB NO.: 01G192 DRILLING DATE: 8121/01 WATER DEPTH: Dry PROJECT: LDS Temple DRILLING METHOD: Hollow Stem Auger CAVE DEPTH: 7.5' LOCATION: Newport Beach, California LOGGED BY: Romeo Balbas READING TAKEN: at Completion FIELD RESULTS DESCRIPTION LABORATORY RESULTS Z LL U F z Zt = W irZ 0 � W a 3 Y.-, o. oLL y� �� y� yN 0 O� W ran m a t 0 SURFACE ELEVATION: 186 feet MSL a OZ 00 a a a 3t 5 rn a FILL: Interbedded Brown Silty fine to medium Sand, some 11 Gravel; Brown to Dark Brown Clayey fine to medium Sand, 7 trace coarse Gravel and fine to medium Sandy Clay, medium dense to stiff - damp to moist 20 8 5 16 14 TERRACE DEPOSITS: Interbedded layers of Brown to Gray Brown mottled fine Sandy Clay to fine sandy Silt with Clay, stiff to very stiff - moist; Brown Silty Clay, trace fine Sand, 24 4.5+ calcareous lenses, very stiff to hard - moist 13 10 28 4.5+ 13 Boring Terminated at 15' TEST BORING LOG PLATE B -8 ' I I I I -I LJ 1 I e F Southern California Geotechnicai BORING NO. B -9 JOB NO.: 01G192 DRILLING DATE: 8/21/01 WATER DEPTH: Dry PROJECT: LDS Temple DRILLING METHOD: Hollow Stem Auger CAVE DEPTH: 17 LOCATION: Newport Beach, California LOGGED BY: Romeo Balbas READING TAKEN: at Completion FIELD RESULTS1 pL C DESCRIPTION SURFACE ELEVATION: 186 feet MSL LABORATORY RESULTS gZ O C W w o W Q. Q m U ° m F Y ON a C Z LU KV OIL Er Z oo 20 a J J gi a zi W? ¢a° a t z= W FILL: Interbedded Brown Silty fine to medium Sand, some 33 Gravel; Brown to Dark Brown Clayey fine to medium Sand, trace manse Gravel and fine to medium Sandy Clay, medium 108 2 dense to stiff - damp to moist 41 117 8 5 39 118 9 42 121 13 TERRACE DEPOSITS: Interbedded layers of Gray Brown fine to medium Sandy Clay, stiff to very stiff - moist: Light 10 47 4.5+ Brown to Gray Brown Silty fine Sand to fine Sandy Silt, some Clay, dense - moist 115 12 Brown Silty fine to medium Sand, dense - moist 46 11 Boding Terminated at 15 TEST BORING LOG PLATE B -9 E v C a t C u C 0 Southern California Geotechnical BORING NO. ' B -1 o JOB NO.: 01G192 DRILLING DATE: 8121101 WATER DEPTH: Dry PROJECT: LDS Temple DRILLING METHOD: Hollow Stem Auger CAVE DEPTH: 12' LOCATION: Newport Beach, California LOGGED BY: Romeo Balbas READING TAKEN: at Completion FIELD RESULTS v __ ,°� 0 DESCRIPTION SURFACE ELEVATION: 184 feet MSL LABORATORY RESULTS z W c0� w 4 0 W IL a. a. w D 0 O m a F' ld- 0u. a t z W �LL 0 a� Z W Z i c0.� ]1- Z � V si- a� Lu 0 W ro a 3t o,. ?t Z UW � w Interbedded Brown Silty fine to medium Sand and fine 20 to medium Sandy Clay, medium dense to stiff - damp to moist 5 14 12 5 20 15 30 4.5+ 11 ' TERRACE DEPOSITS: Brown to Gray Brown Silty Clay, trace fine to medium Sand, very stiff to hard - moist 10 Gray Brown mottled fine Sandy Silt with Clay to fine Sandy Clay, very stiff - moist 32 4.5+ 13 Boring Terminated at 15' i TEST BORING LOG PLATE 6 -9 U 11 I I 1 C] I I 1. Southern California Geotechnical BORING NO. B -11 JOB NO.: 01G192 DRIWNG DATE: 8121/01 WATER DEPTH: Dry PROJECT: LDS Temple DRILLING METHOD: Hollow Stem Auger CAVE DEPTH: S LOCATION: Newport Beach, California LOGGED BY: Romeo Balbas READING TAKEN: at Completion FIELD R RESULTS L o D DESCRIPTION Z LABORATORY R RESULTS W M M a a o Z z ?� z 0 U W 0� ? a 3 3 Y Y a a i iLL Z Z 5 5t= M M� N No � �� W m m t t S SURFACE ELEVATION: 189 feet MSL o o a ° ° zi � � i a a M M� i i3 FILL: Light Brown Silty fine to medium Sand, trace Gravel/Cobbles, loose to medium dense - dry to damp 45 8 8 1 ILL. Brown Silty fine to medium Sand, dense - damp 5 51 8 8 Boring Terminated at 7.6 i c i i 0 TEST BORING LOG PLATE B -11 Southern California Geotechnical BORING NO. ' B -12 JOB NO.: 01G192 DRILLING DATE: 8121/01 WATER DEPTH: Dry PROJECT: LDS Temple DRILLING METHOD: Hollow Stem Auger CAVE DEPTH: 3' LOCATION: Newport Beach, California LOGGED BY: Romeo Balbas READING TAKEN: at Completion FIELD RESULTS LABORATORY RESULTS W a o v DESCRIPTION z z� W z U ° 3 Y.. a °LL —� 'ate rid �N �a w a ° oN t SURFACE ELEVATION: 183.5 feet MSL �° ° a oo 2 5� Zi a° z= o ° m (L O J J o. FILL: Brown Silty fine to medium Sand, medium dense - 24 damp 8 FILL Brown to Gray Brown fine Sandy Sift with some Clay, medium dense to dense - moist 13 Boring Terminated at 5 TEST BORING LOG PLATE 8 -12 I 1 1 LI I a C c Southern California Geotechnical Iry BORING NO. B -13 JOB NO.: 01G192 DRILLING DATE: 8/21/01 WATER DEPTH: Dry PROJECT: LDS Temple DRILLING METHOD: Hollow Stem Auger CAVE DEPTH: 5' LOCATION: Newport Beach, California LOGGED BY: Romeo Balbas READING TAKEN: at Completion FIELD RESULTS1 ° DESCRIPTION LABORATORY RESULTS W a W W z = W J U F- W V = W 7 0 U 0 �j Z U. Z d' Z W a ° oW 9 fJ ' W f„ Z 0� F- 5 y 55 q 0 W a m m Et 0 SURFACE ELEVATION; 189 feet MSL 06208 J J a � a = m 8 ILL,: Interbedded Light Brown Silty fine to medium Sand, trace Gravel; Dark Gray fine Sandy Silt and Brown Silty fine to medium Sand, medium dense - damp to moist 13 9 5 25 a TERRACE DEPOSITS: Broom fine to medium Sand, some 18 Silt, medium dense - moist 10 Boring Terminated at 10' TEST BORING LOG PLATE B -13 Southern Callfornia Geotechnical BORING NO. B -14 JOB NO.: 01G192 DRILLING DATE: 8/21/01 WATER DEPTH: Dry PROJECT: LDS Temple DRILLING METHOD: Hollow Stem Auger CAVE DEPTH: 3.5' LOCATION: Newport Beach, California LOGGED BY: Romeo Balbas READING TAKEN: at Completion FIELD RESULTS D 0 LABORATORY RESULTS w r Z z - o v c, F DESCRIPTION a� v W Z Z 0 C7 W u t z w Ow d z� oZ g aC" o c� SURFACE ELEVATION: 185.5 feet MSL c0 28 o_' MM z 8 y m at a=1 a Mur r. FILL: Brown Silty fine to medium Sand, trace coarse Sand and Gravel, medium dense - damp to moist 9 TERRACE DEPOSITS: Light Brown to Brown fine to medium Sand some Silt medium dense - damp to moist Boring Terminated at 5' P TEST BORING LOG PLATE B -14 , 1 i i 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 Southern California Geotechnical BORING NO. B -15 JOB NO.: 01G192 DRILLING DATE: 8/21/01 WATER DEPTH: Dry PROJECT: LDS Temple DRILLING METHOD: Hollow Stem Auger CAVE DEPTH: 3.5' LOCATION: Newport Beach, California LOGGED BY: Romeo Balbas READING TAKEN: at Completion FIELD R RESULTS L v D DESCRIPTION Z LABORATORY R RESULTS W o o a a v Z� � ?� J D D W W S w = =W D D ? �> ? Z w w d i i O O D DLL R S w }w N NZ = == ~ ~~ N Np o ow W r m D Do. t o o S SURFACE ELEVATION: 182 feet MSL o o& 2 2 U a a� o o- :3 0 0-9 5 5 ra L LDS ra m FILL: Brown to Dark Brown fine to medium Sandy qay, 15 2 2.5 m medium stiff to stiff - very moist 1 13 18 2 2.0 1 13 Boring Terminated at 5' TEST BORING LOG PLATE B -15 m r 0 d G w J I U O m 'a O O 0 J m F Southern California Geotechnical BORING NO. ' 9 -16 JOB NO.: 01G192 DRILLING DATE: 6/21/01 WATER DEPTH: Dry PROJECT: LDS Temple DRILLING METHOD: Hollow Stem Auger CAVE DEPTH: 3' LOCATION: Newport Beach, Caltfomia LOGGED BY: Romeo Balbas READING TAKEN: at Completion FIELD RESULTS m LABORATORY RESULTS a° W F DESCRIPTION z z W - r= W w w � o zz❑ o: oa Q 0 'V C4 Q ZW 2 ❑ U) m a t m SURFACE ELEVATION: 179 feet MSL 2 CL 9 U) v FILL• Brown Silty fine to medium Sand with some Gravel, 12 loose - moist 12 EILL_: Broom to Dark Brown fine to medium Sandy Clay, very stiff - moist 16 4.5+ 13 i Boring Terminated at 5' TEST BORING LOG PLATE B -16 ' I CJ 1 1 1 Y a c c c 1 u C' F 0 ' a 6 a Y Southern California Geotechnical BORING NO. B -17 JOB NO.: 01G192 DRIWNG DATE: 8/21101 WATER DEPTH: Dry PROJECT: LDS Temple DRILLING METHOD: Hollow Stem Auger CAVE DEPTH: 3.5' LOCATION: Newport Beach, California LOGGED BY: Romeo Balbas READING TAKEN: at Completion FIELD RESULTS DESCRIPTION LABORATORY RESULTS z w o a z w� LLu c�> F 0. YLL 0. �LL N~ OF NF NN On OQ Ow M XL) MU zi7 a� o U) m at (9 SURFACE ELEVATION: 174feet MSL 11a a �y FILL: Gray to Gray Brown fine to medium Sandy Clay, stiff to 20 4.5+ very stiff -moist 10 22 2.75 13 Boring Terminated at 5 1 TEST BORING LOG PLATE B -17 E "c a t i C C C u Southern California Geotechnical BORING NO. ' B -18 JOB NO.: 01G192 DRILLING DATE: 8/21/01 WATER DEPTH: Dry PROJECT: LDS Temple DRILLING METHOD: Hollow Stem Auger CAVE DEPTH: 5 LOCATION: Newport Beach, Califomia LOGGED BY: Romeo Balbas READING TAKEN: at Completion FIELD R RESULTS L 0 � LABORATORY R RESULTS � e e�^o a a W W u. W D D a a v v D DESCRIPTION Z Z W W V o LL 0 ow L F_ 0 ULL 4 4. } }LL N N� O OF N z y t t)— C O 0 m O U a t � � S SURFACE ELEVATION: 177.5 feet MSL 0 0 a N N v 3 3 � Q Q. � a a a D D r=n 0 0 2 Indies soillroot mat layer 20 F FILL: Light Brown to Brown Silty fine to medium Sand and 1 10 fine to medium Sandy Gay, loose to medium dense -dry m dam FILL: Interbedded layers of Brown Silty fine ro medium Sand, trace Gravel; Brown Clayey fine to medium Sand and Dark Gray Brown fine to medium Sandy Clay, medium dense to 21 4 4.5+ ; ; .: ; ; V Very still - moist 1 13 Boring Terminated at 65 i I I I 1 i I i TEST BORING LOG PLATE 5-15 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 II 1 1 1 1 APPENDIX C LABORATORY TESTING I 1 [1 I 1 1 Consolidation/Collapse Test Results Water Added .— ..`..': at 1600 psfuy; y t 2 v A X Adam 4. i 51 , n o T y. )fi,tt'� :'.S >/ l�f ' _ 3 f+• 4 3 �y 1 sy l is 10 0.1 1 10 100 Load (W Classification: FILL: Brown Silty fine to medium Sand, trace Clay Boring Number: B -1 Initial Moisture Content ( %) 8 Sample Number: — Final Moisture Content ( %) 15 Depth (ft) 1 to 2 Initial Dry Density (pcf) 125.1 Specimen Diameter (in) 2.4 Final Dry Density (pcf) 124.1 Specimen Thickness (in) 1.0 Percent Collapse ( %) 0.42 LDS Temple Southern California Geotechnical Newport Beach, California Project No. 01G192 1260 North ftnceak Sheet, sWt.,°, PLATE C- 1 Anaheim, 7-0333 Fax (714) vnw,e: ��a{ maau Pec (7u { manse 1 1 1 1] Cl [l I Consolidation /Collapse Test Results R yam• Water Added OF at 1600 psf 4'. VN O 6,, �w Y C 6... .,' : a .w.,x, 4 �?+1 •. 10 0.1 1 10 100 Lead (ksf) Classification: FILL: Brown Clayey fine to medium Sand Boring Number: B -1 Initial Moisture Content ( %) 5 Sample Number: — Final Moisture Content ( %) 13 Depth (ft) 3 to 4 Initial Dry Density (pcf) 122.0 Specimen Diameter (in) 2.4 Final Dry Density (pcf) 124.5 Specimen Thickness (in) 1.0 Percent Collapse ( %) 1.40 LDS Temple Southern California Geotechnical Newport Beach, California Project No. 01 G1 92 12WK.MH=o kSV.LSWW1O1 PLATE C- 2 Anah Nm Cdffcffda 92607 Fm: out m -0= F= : f7141 m -0ae 1 1 1 1] Cl [l I I 1 1 I 11 1 1 1 1 L1 Consolidation/Collapse Test Results 0 .. - Water Added .. "'�• :, - -' at 1600 psf _ ' I I 2 .. x ••�: w f T x I z p' Aye .� •SAY. i f'} N t_ M 9 '1 • FAoY *4a ' i -i. C 6 V:f . � �,.� �~ S 541 t }� c( ., •. �- a h •N'. v. t 10 0.1 1 10 100 Load (kA Classification: FILL: Brown fine to medium Sandy Clay Boring Number: B -1 Initial Moisture Content ( %) 13 Sample Number: -- Final Moisture Content ( %) 14 Depth (ft) 5 to 6 Initial Dry Density (pcf) 116.4 Specimen Diameter (in) 2.4 Final Dry Density (pcf) 123.8 Specimen Thickness (in) 1.0 Percent Collapse ( %) 0.30 LDS Temple Southern California Geotechnical Newport Beach, California Project No. 01 G192 1260 NoM Hancock SO tSuka 101 PLATE C- 3 AnaMlm,333 Fla 914) vnooe: pla)m -0322 Faa: peal m -0a9e Consolidation /Collapse Test Results 0 14 Sample Number. — Final Moisture Content ( %) 13 Depth (ft) 7 to 8 Initial Dry Density (pcf) 115.0 Specimen Diameter (in) 2.4 Final Dry Density (pcf) 134.6 Specimen Thickness (in) 1.0 Percent Collapse ( %) 1.02 t t.:'p. � \ � J l�r ♦ - ��x2w• .F � - S' �k 4��'v -iRn. ''Y 2 6i: M. Water Added "* at 1600 psf r a e � a +Y' C 4 5 b � - H O NIZ 9 ° 4 dA' J y ° 6 0 � +4 t "A U K RV 8 F •i F� � 1. ry li J rl Y't rf 'y]y� t .tY hh- Y. 10 0.1 1 10 100 Load (ksf) Classification: FILL: Brown fine to medium Sandy Clay to Clayey fine to medium Sand Boring Number: B -1 Initial Moisture Content ( %) 14 Sample Number. — Final Moisture Content ( %) 13 Depth (ft) 7 to 8 Initial Dry Density (pcf) 115.0 Specimen Diameter (in) 2.4 Final Dry Density (pcf) 134.6 Specimen Thickness (in) 1.0 Percent Collapse ( %) 1.02 t t.:'p. � \ � J l�r ♦ - ��x2w• .F � - S' �k 4��'v -iRn. ''Y 6i: Water Added "* at 1600 psf r a � a +Y' 5 b � - 4 dA' J y � +4 t "A K F •i F� � 1. ry li J rl Y't rf 'y]y� t .tY hh- Classification: FILL: Brown fine to medium Sandy Clay to Clayey fine to medium Sand Boring Number: B -1 Initial Moisture Content ( %) 14 Sample Number. — Final Moisture Content ( %) 13 Depth (ft) 7 to 8 Initial Dry Density (pcf) 115.0 Specimen Diameter (in) 2.4 Final Dry Density (pcf) 134.6 Specimen Thickness (in) 1.0 Percent Collapse ( %) 1.02 LDS Temple soutnern t:alitornia Ueotecnmcai Newport Beach, California W ' Project No. 016192 1260 a*M Hancxt street surce 10+ PLATE C- 4 ?Ue M.333 F W (?14) Phan: (714) lrr -0333 Fax: rr14) lrr -0398 I i 1 1 1 1 11 1 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 L� 1 Consolidation/Collapse Test Results 0 - .•t, ° :. Water Added _ at 1600 psf 2 F I B V zG "fir z r. ' 8 +� 5 • -yt, � + t'1. .� , S. is � .. _ 10 0.1 1 10 100 Load(ksQ Classification: FILL: Light Brown Silty fine to coarse Sand, some Gravel Boring Number: B -5 Initial Moisture Content ( %) 9 Sample Number: — Final Moisture Content ( %) 13 Depth (ft) 1 to 2 Initial Dry Density (pcf) 119.4 Specimen Diameter (in) 2.4 Final Dry Density (pcf) 126.2 Specimen Thickness (in) 1.0 Percent Collapse ( %) 0.56 LDS Temple Southern California Geotechnical Newport Beach, California Project No. 01 G 192 1260 North He k Sb t, Suite 101 PLATE C- 5 Anahelm.°atlfornta 92307 Phone: (713) 771 -0733 Fa:: (7U) 771 -0393 Consolidation/Collapse Test Results 0 9 Sample Number: — Final Moisture Content ( %) 14 Depth (ft) 3 to 4 Initial Dry Density (pcf) 121.1 Specimen Diameter (in) 2.4 Final Dry Density (pcf) 127.5 Specimen Thickness (in) 1.0 Percent Collapse ( %) 0.59 ' WaterAdded 2 at 1600 psf k� y �1 lj Sn M 1 f to -y to - r.: s cC. '+..c, ?7 F- fi ak y .M1> - N - 6 - - , 1. -i- ^x 1 .( I�'tJYa .\Si 21 �' ✓11 x ' r lM 10 0.1 1 10 100 Load (ksf) Classification: FILL: Light Brown Silty fine to medium Sand, trace Clay Boring Number: B -5 Initial Moisture Content ( %) 9 Sample Number: — Final Moisture Content ( %) 14 Depth (ft) 3 to 4 Initial Dry Density (pcf) 121.1 Specimen Diameter (in) 2.4 Final Dry Density (pcf) 127.5 Specimen Thickness (in) 1.0 Percent Collapse ( %) 0.59 Newport Beach, California Project No. 01 G 192 PLATE C- 6 1260 North Natte9ok street, su0e 101 M hehe, California 92897 Phem: (714) 777-0333 Fm: n14) m4998 I 1 1 1 1 Cl 1 I Consolidation /Collapse Test Results ' 1 2 .t. a, n.'� Water Added• T. at 1600 psf F A, r 2 _ y i 1 1' A T. 'f t< .. 'i rte. ,•.x .. ,'�. „ -.y • _ tl B ,. _ n 10 0.1 1 10 100 Load (ksf) Classification: FILL: Brown Silty to Clayey fine to medium Sand Boring Number: B -5 Initial Moisture Content ( %) 9 Sample Number: -- Final Moisture Content ( %) 14 Depth (ft) 5 to 6 Initial Dry Density (pcf) 118.2 Specimen Diameter (in) 2.4 Final Dry Density (pcf) 124.3 Specimen Thickness (in) 1.0 Percent Collapse ( %) 0.08 LDS Temple Southern California Geotechnical Newport Beach, California Project No. 01 G 192 1260 North Hancock Street. S.R. 101 PLATEC -7 Phone: p11) 777 -0333 Fax: p112 777 -0399 714)T77-0333oFa (714) Consolidation/Collapse Test Results Initial Moisture Content ( %) 0 Sample Number: — Final Moisture Content ( %) 13 Depth (ft) 7 to 8 Initial Dry Density (pcf) 121.2 Specimen Diameter (in) 2.4 Final Dry Density (pcf) 126.7 Specimen Thickness (in) 1.0 Percent Collapse ( %) 0.75 at 1600 psf 2 ti Aq � r '1 C 4 N C O 3 9 � O 0 6 v 8 r tit 10 0.1 1 10 100 Load (ksf) Classification: FILL: Brown Clayey fine Sand Boring Number: B -5 Initial Moisture Content ( %) 7 Sample Number: — Final Moisture Content ( %) 13 Depth (ft) 7 to 8 Initial Dry Density (pcf) 121.2 Specimen Diameter (in) 2.4 Final Dry Density (pcf) 126.7 Specimen Thickness (in) 1.0 Percent Collapse ( %) 0.75 at 1600 psf � r '1 3 � r Classification: FILL: Brown Clayey fine Sand Boring Number: B -5 Initial Moisture Content ( %) 7 Sample Number: — Final Moisture Content ( %) 13 Depth (ft) 7 to 8 Initial Dry Density (pcf) 121.2 Specimen Diameter (in) 2.4 Final Dry Density (pcf) 126.7 Specimen Thickness (in) 1.0 Percent Collapse ( %) 0.75 LDS Temple southern Gainornia ueozecnmcaii Newport Beach, California Project No. 01 G 192 1260 cram Hancock swag sulp 101 PLATE C- 8 Malwkn, WOwNa (714) Pho�ro: (/14JTTl-0RO Fax: p14J TT)-0098 W47-r.v-.T;.iavno r I 1 I 1 I I I 1 1 I H 1 f I 1 1 APPENDIX D GRADING GUIDE SPECIFICATIONS I ' Grading Guide Specifications GRADING GUIDE SPECIFICATIONS I Page 1 ' These grading guide specifications are intended to provide typical procedures for grading operations. They are intended to supplement the recommendations contained in the ' geotechnical investigation report for this project. Should the recommendations in the geotechnical investigation report conflict with the grading guide specifications, the more site specific recommendations in the geotechnical investigation report will govern. ' General 1 • The Earthwork Contractor is responsible for the satisfactory completion of all earthwork in accordance with the plans and geotechnical reports, and in accordance with city, county, and Uniform Building Codes. • The Geotechnical Engineer is the representative of the Owner/Builder for the purpose of implementing the report recommendations and guidelines. These duties are not intended to relieve the Earthwork Contractor of any responsibility to perform in a workman -like manner, ' nor is the Geotechnical Engineer to direct the grading equipment or personnel employed by the Contractor. • The Earthwork Contractor is required to notify the Geotechnical Engineer of the anticipated work and schedule so that testing and inspections can be provided. If necessary, work may be stopped and redone if personnel have not been scheduled in advance. • The Earthwork Contractor is required to have suitable and sufficient equipment on the job - site to process, moisture condition, mix and compact the amount of fill being placed to the specified compaction. In addition, suitable support equipment should be available to conform with recommendations and guidelines in this report. 1 • Canyon cleanouts, overexcavation areas, processed ground to receive fill, key excavations, subdrains and benches should be observed by the Geotechnical Engineer prior to placement of any fill. It is the Earthwork Contractor's responsibility to notify the Geotechnical Engineer of areas that are ready for inspection. • Excavation, filling, and subgrade preparation should be performed in a manner and ' sequence that will provide drainage at all times and proper control of erosion. Precipitation, springs, and seepage water encountered shall be pumped or drained to provide a suitable working surface. The Geotechnical Engineer must be informed of springs or water seepage encountered during grading or foundation construction for possible revision to the recommended construction procedures and/or installation of subdrains. Site Preparation 1 • The Earthwork Contractor is responsible for ail clearing, grubbing, stripping and site preparation for the project in accordance with the recommendations of the Geotechnical ' Engineer. • If any materials or areas are encountered by the Earthwork Contractor which are suspected of having toxic or environmentally sensitive contamination, the Geotechnical Engineer and Owner /Builder should be notified immediately. • Major vegetation should be stripped and disposed of off -site. This includes trees, brush, ' heavy grasses and any materials considered unsuitable by the Geotechnical Engineer. Grading Guide Specifications Page 3 11 equipment effectiveness and site conditions. The Earthwork Contractor is responsible for compaction as required by the Geotechnical Report(s) and governmental agencies. • After compacted fills have been tested and approved by the geotechnical engineer, the contractor should moisture condition the soils as necessary to maintain the compacted moisture content. Compacted fill soils that are allowed to become overly dry or desiccated ' may require removal and/or scarification, moisture conditioning and replacement. Soilswith medium to high expansion indices are especially susceptible to desiccation. Sandy soils that are allowed to dry can also lose density • Fill areas unused for a period of time may require moisture conditioning, processing and recompaction prior to the start of additional filling. The Earthwork Contractor should notify the Geotechnical Engineer of his intent so that an evaluation can be made. ' • Fill placed on ground sloping at a 5-to-1 inclination (horizontal- to-vertical) or steeper should be benched into bedrock or other suitable materials, as directed by the Geotechnical Engineer. Typical details of benching are illustrated on Plates G -2, G-4, and G -5. ' • Cut/fill transition lots should have the cut portion overexcavated to a depth of at least 3 feet and rebuilt with fill (see Plate G -1), as determined by the Geotechnical Engineer. • Al cut lots should be inspected by the Geotechnical Engineer for fracturing and other bedrock conditions. If necessary, the pads should be overexcavated to a depth of 3 feet and rebuilt with a uniform, more cohesive soil type to impede moisture penetration. , • Cut portions of pad areas above buttresses or stabilizations should be overexcavated to a depth of 3 feet and rebuilt with uniform, more cohesive compacted fill to impede moisture penetration. • Non - structural fill adjacent to structural fill should typically be placed in unison to provide lateral support. Backfill along walls must be placed and compacted with care to ensure that ' excessive unbalanced lateral pressures do not develop. The type of fill material placed adjacent to below grade walls must be properly tested and approved by the Geotechnical Engineer with consideration of the lateral earth pressure used in the design. Foundations I • The foundation influence zone is defined as extending one foot horizontally from the outside edge of a footing, and then proceeding downward at a %z horizontal to 1 vertical (0.5:1) inclination. ' • Where overexcavation beneath a footing subgrade is necessary, it should be conducted so as to encompass the entire foundation influence zone, as described above. footings least 12 inches • Compacted fill adjacent to exterior should extend at above foundation bearing grade. Compacted fill within the interior of structures should extend to Fill Slopes the floor'subgrade elevation. ' • The placement and compaction of fill described above applies to all fill slopes. Slope compaction should be accomplished by overfilling the slope, adequately compacting the fill ' in even layers, including the overfilled zone and cutting the slope back to expose the compacted core. • Slope compaction may also be achieved by backrolling the slope adequately every 2 to 4 ' vertical feet during the filling process as well as requiring the earth moving and compaction equipment to work close to the top of the slope. Upon completion of slope construction, the 1 1 Subdrains • Subdrains may be required in canyons and swales where fill placement is proposed. Typical Grading Guide Specifications Page 4 subdrain details for canyons are shown on Plate G -3. Subdrains should be installed after approval of removals and before filling, as determined by the Soils Engineer. • Plastic pipe may be used for subdrains provided it is Schedule 40 or SDR 35 or equivalent. Pipe should be protected against breakage, typically by placement in a square -cut (backhoe) slope face should be compacted with a sheepsfoot connected to a sideboom and then grid trench or as recommended by the manufacturer. rolled. This method of slope compaction should only be used if approved by the approved by the Geotechnical Engineer for the specific site conditions. Clean 3 /-inch Geotechnical Engineer. crushed rock may be used provided it is wrapped in an acceptable filter cloth and approved • Sandy soils lacking in adequate cohesion may be unstable for a finished slope condition and and 6 inches for the downstream continuations of longer runs. Four -inch diameter pipe may therefore should not be placed within 15 horizontal feet of the slope face. be used in buttress and stabilization fills. • All fill slopes should be keyed into bedrock or other suitable material. Fill keys should be at least 15 feet wide and inclined at 2 percent into the slope. For slopes higher than 30 feet, ' the fill key width should be equal to one -half the height of the slope (see Plate G -5). • All fill keys should be cleared of loose slough material prior to geotechnical inspection and ' should be approved bythe Geotechnical Engineer and governmental agencies prior tofilling. • The cut portion of fill over cut slopes should be made first and inspected by the Geotechnical Engineer for possible stabilization requirements. The fill portion should be adequately keyed through all surficial soils and into bedrock or suitable material. Soils should be removed from the transition zone between the cut and fill portions (see Plate G -2). ' Cut Slopes • All cut slopes should be inspected by the Geotechnical Engineer to determine the need for stabilization. The Earthwork Contractor should notify the Geotechnical Engineer when slope ' cutting is in progress at intervals of 10 vertical feet. Failure to notify may result in a delay in recommendations. • Cut slopes exposing loose, cohesionless sands should be reported to the Geotechnical Engineer for possible stabilization recommendations. • All stabilization excavations should be cleared of loose slough material prior to geotechnical inspection. Stakes should be provided by the Civil Engineer to verify the location and dimensions of the key. A typical stabilization fill detail is shown on Plate G -5. ' • Stabilization key excavations should be provided with subdrains. Typical subdrain details are shown on Plates G -6. 1 Subdrains • Subdrains may be required in canyons and swales where fill placement is proposed. Typical subdrain details for canyons are shown on Plate G -3. Subdrains should be installed after approval of removals and before filling, as determined by the Soils Engineer. • Plastic pipe may be used for subdrains provided it is Schedule 40 or SDR 35 or equivalent. Pipe should be protected against breakage, typically by placement in a square -cut (backhoe) trench or as recommended by the manufacturer. • Filter material for subdrains should conform to CALTRANS Specification 68 -1.025 or as approved by the Geotechnical Engineer for the specific site conditions. Clean 3 /-inch crushed rock may be used provided it is wrapped in an acceptable filter cloth and approved by the Geotechnical Engineer. Pipe diameters should be 6 inches for runs up to 500 feet and 6 inches for the downstream continuations of longer runs. Four -inch diameter pipe may ' be used in buttress and stabilization fills. u CUT LOT s� / jjpTEF1A�c �'/ COMPACTED . FILL I L OVEREX CAVATE AND J RECOMPACT COMPETENT MATERIAL ACCEPTABLE TO THE SOIL ENGINEER 3' MIN.' CUT FILL LOT (TRANSITION) COMPACTED FILL - / ear, COMPETENT MATERIAL ACCEPTABLE TO THE SOIL ENGINEER TRANSITION LOT DETAIL PLATE G -1 l �PpUE OVEREXCAVATE AND T MIN.'S RECOMPACT DEEPER OVEREXCAVATION MAY BE RECOMMENDED BY THE SOIL ENGINEER IN STEEP TRANSITIONS. Southern California Geotechnical I 11 i I CUT /FILL CONTACT SHOWN ON GRADING PLAN CUT /FILL CONTACT TO BE SHOWN ON'AS•BUILr NATURAL GRADE -•� _ 1� CUT SLOPE -� CUT SLOPE TO BE CONSTRUCTED PRIOR TO PLACEMENT OF FILL KEYWAY IN COMPETENT MAT- ERIAL MINIMUM WIDTH OF 15 FEET OR AS RECOMMENDED BY THE SOIL ENGINEER COMPETENT BEDROCK OR APPROVED COMPETENT MATERIAL FILL ABOVE CUT SLOPE DETAIL PLATE G -2 COMPACTED FILL VARIABLE . - �.. MIN. MINIMUM HEIGHT OF BENCHES IS 4 FEET OR AS RECOM• MENDED BY THE SOIL ENGI- NEER MINIMUM V TILT BACK OR 2% SLOPE (WHICHEVER IS GREATER) Southern California Geotechnical I I � 18" MIN °aad a 0 ° 24" MIN oyo $oa ° o d aC * °o�ovo O a°0o Oda* Oo do *0 go� o0 a o 0�°o o 000 °o,° MINUS 1" CRUSHED ROCK COMPLETELY SURROUNDED 1e" 4" MIN BY FILTER FABRIC, OR Mill CLASS II PERMEABLE MATERIAL G' DIAMETER PERFORATED PIPE - MINIMUM 1% SLDPE PIPE DEPTH OF FILL MATERIAL OVER SUBDRAIN ADS CORRUGATED POLETHYLENE B TRANSITE UNDERDRAIN 2D PVC OR ABS: SDR 35 35 SDR 21 1DD CANYON SUBDRAIN DETAIL PLATE G -3 SCHEMATIC ONLY NOT TO SCALE Southern California Geotechnical ORIGINAL GROUND ' COMPACTED FILL / V. / ' •• • • �- ao °o° a °j° °a i°aopo a• ' , CLE?a9DU7 FIRM 6" MIN' a0ja °o °Oao�1°p8$•° °os�po EXCAVATION NATURAL GROUND oa00 oo�oa �0°0a oo °° °•o °oa oRr°oi° oa8oi ,?o-Oa: . 18" MIN °aad a 0 ° 24" MIN oyo $oa ° o d aC * °o�ovo O a°0o Oda* Oo do *0 go� o0 a o 0�°o o 000 °o,° MINUS 1" CRUSHED ROCK COMPLETELY SURROUNDED 1e" 4" MIN BY FILTER FABRIC, OR Mill CLASS II PERMEABLE MATERIAL G' DIAMETER PERFORATED PIPE - MINIMUM 1% SLDPE PIPE DEPTH OF FILL MATERIAL OVER SUBDRAIN ADS CORRUGATED POLETHYLENE B TRANSITE UNDERDRAIN 2D PVC OR ABS: SDR 35 35 SDR 21 1DD CANYON SUBDRAIN DETAIL PLATE G -3 SCHEMATIC ONLY NOT TO SCALE Southern California Geotechnical 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 r 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 OVERFILL REQLR PER PLATE NO.4 TOE OF SLOPE SHOWN ON GRADING PLAN PROJECT SLOPE GRADIENT (1:1 MAXI' BACKCUT– VARIES T MINIMUM. KEY DEPTH PLACE COMPACTED BACKFILL TO ORIG- IRAL GRADE COMPETENT MATERIAL COMPACTED FILL VARIABLE • ����EW,►,lE� MIN. tlE�_a� MINIMUM HEIGHT OF BENCHES LS 4 FEET OR AS RECOM- MENDED BY THE SOIL ENGI- MINIMUM P TILT BACK NEER —Z– OR 2% SLOPE (WHICHEVER IS GREATER) KEYWAY IN COMPETENT MAT- ERIAL. MINIMUM WIDTH OF IS FEET OR AS RECOMMENDED BY THE SOIL ENGINEER. KEYWAY MAY NOT BE REQUIREO IF FILL SLOPE IS LESS THAN S' IN HEIGHT. AS RECOMMENDED BY THE SOIL ENGINEER. FILL ABOVE NATURAL SLOPE DETAIL PLATE G-4 NOTE BENCHING SHALL BE REQUIRED WHEN NATURAL SLOPES ARE EOUAL TO OR STEEPER THAN 5:1 OR WHEN RECOMMENDED BY THE SOIL ENGINEER. Southern California Geotechnical FACE OF FINISHED SLOPE T TYPICAL BLANKET FILL IF RECOMMENDED BY THE SOIL ENGINEER 15' Minimum COMPACTED FILL MINIMUM 1• TILT BACI OR p PERCENT N SLOP (WHICHEVER IS GREATEF COMPETENT MATERIAL I ACCEPTABLE TO THE I( SOIL ENGINEER MINIMUM HEIGHT OF BENCHES IS 4 FEET OR AS RECOM- MENDED BY THE SOIL ENGI- NEER 15' Minimum or : Slope Height STABILIZATION FILL DETAIL Southern California Geotechnical PLATE G -5 I I LI 1 I DESIGN FINISH SLOPE OUTLETS TO BE SPACED AT 100' MAXIMUM INTER- VALS. EXTEND 12 INCHE5 BEYOND FACE OF SLOPE AT TIME OF ROM GRAD- ING CONSTRUCTION. BUTTRESS 10' MIN, 'BLANKET FI SIOENILL� 25' MAX ' ; FILL FILL IF RECOMMENDED 15 BY SOIL ENGI- MAX NEER 2 w 4RCH DIAMETER NON PERFORATED 7 OUTLET PIPE TO BE LOCATED IN FIELD CLEAR BY THE SOIL ENGINEER 'FILTER MATERIAL' TO MEET FOLLOWING SPECIFI- CATION OR APPROVED EQUIVALENT: (CONFORMS TO EMA STD. PLAN 323) SIEVE SIZE PERCENTAGE PASSING 1" 100 3/1' 90 -100 3187 40.100 NO.4 25•!0 NO.8 18.33 NO. 30 5.15 NO. so 0.7 NO. 200 0.3 OUTLET PIPE TO BE COW NECTED TO SUBORAIN PIPE WITH TEE OR ELBOW - NOTES: I. TRENCH FOR OUTLET PIPES TO BE BACKFIUEO WITH ON -SITE SOIL STABILIZATION FILL SUBDRAINS PLATE G -6 'GRAVEL' TO MEET FOLLOWING SPECIFICATION OR APPROVED EQUIVALENT. MAXIMUM SIEVE SIZE PERCENTAGE PASSING I W 100 No.4 50 No. 200 8 SAND EOUIVALENT — MINIMUM OF 50 FILTER MATERIAL — MINIMUM OF FIVE CUBIC FEET PER FOOT OF PIPE SEE ABOVE FOR FILTER MATERIAL SPECIFI- CATION. ALTERNATIVE: IN LIEU OF FILTER MAT- ERIAL FIVE CUBIC FEET OF GRAVEL PER FOOT OF PIPE MAY BE ENCASED I IN FILTER FABRr_ SEE ABOVE FOR GRAVEL SPECIFICATION. FILTER FABRIC. SHALL BE MIRAFI 140 OR EQUIVALENT. FILTER FABRIC SHALL BE LAPPS A MINIMUM OF 12 INCHES ON ALL.JOINTS. MINIMUM !-INCH DIAMETER PVC SCH 40 OR ASS CLASS SOR 35 WITH A CRUSHING STRENGTH OF AT LEASE 1.000 POUNDS WITH A MINIMUM OF 8 UNIFORMLY SPACED PERFORATIONS PER FOOT OF PIPE INSTALLED WITH PERFORATIONS ON BOTTOM OF PIPE. PROVIDE CAP AT UPSTREAM ENO OF PIPE SLOPE AT 2 PERCENT TO OUTLET PIPE. ' I I Southern California Geotechnical I I I 1 1 1 j 1 1 1 I I I 1 1 1 APPENDIX E UBCSE�S COMPUTER PROGRAM OUTPUT I 1 1 1 �l Q JV O 1 � a, O ' CO � N �^W 1 I LO o LO o LO o N N l- l- O O (5) uoijejejeooy leiloodS O LO Lq d' 19 LO M O Cl) M 0 U to O N U) O N 0 0. LO 0 LO 6 0 0 I 1 IJ JOB NUMBER: 01G192 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** * U B C S E I S * Version 1.03 COMPUTATION OF 1997 UNIFORM BUILDING CODE SEISMIC DESIGN PARAMETERS ' JOB NAME: LDS Temple NB 1.0 FAULT- DATA -FILE NAME: CDMGUBCR.DAT ' SITE COORDINATES: 1.1 SITE LATITUDE: 33.6285 SITE LONGITUDE: 117.8478 ' UBC SEISMIC ZONE: 0.4 UBC SOIL PROFILE TYPE: SD 0.71 0.647 NEAREST TYPE A FAULT: 0.129 NAME: CUCAMONGA ' DISTANCE: 56.3 km NEAREST TYPE B FAULT: NAME: NEWPORT - INGLEWOOD (Offshore) ' DISTANCE: 7.2 km * NEAREST TYPE C FAULT: ' NAME: DISTANCE: 99999.0 km SELECTED UBC SEISMIC COEFFICIENTS: DATE: 08 -25 -2001 * adjusted as needed, before they are used in design. Na: 1.0 ' Nv: 1.1 Ca: 0.44 Cv: Ts: 0.71 0.647 To: 0.129 * CAUTION: The digitized data points used to model faults are * limited in number and have been digitized from small- * scale maps (e.g., 1:750,000 scale). Consequently, ' * the estimated fault- site - distances may be in error by * several kilometers. Therefore, it is important that * the distances be carefully checked for accuracy and * adjusted as needed, before they are used in design. --------------------------- SUMMARY OF FAULT PARAMETERS --- ---------- -------------- ' Page 1 _ _ ------------------ -- ----- -- - - -- • -'--'---------- --------'-----'- APPROX.ISOURCE I MAX. � SLIP FAULT IDISTANCEI TYPE I MAG. I RATE TYPE ' ABBREVIATED I (an) I(A,B,C)I (Mw) I (mm/Yr) I(SS,DS,BT) FAULT NAME B j 6.9 I 1.50 I SS NEWPORT- INGLEWOOD (Offshore) I 7.2 I NEWPORT- INGLEWOOD (L•A.Basin) I B 7.1 3.00 I SS PALOS VERDES AVE. (Elsinore) I 26.4 I 29.4 I B I 6.7 I 1.00 I DS EN CHINO- CENTRAL I 30.6 I B I 6.8 I 2.50 I SS ELSINORE- WHITTIER B I 6.8 I 5.00 I SS ELSINORE -GLEN IVY I 31.7 I B I 7.4 I 3.00 I SS CORONADO BANK ; 40.7 I 45.8 I B I 6.5 I 0.50 I DS ' SAN JOSE ELSINORE- TEMECULA I B 6.8 I I 5.00 3.00 I SS I DS SIERRA MADRE (Central) I 55.9 j B I A 7.0 I 7.0 I 5.00 I DS CUCAMONGA 56.3 I ; 60.6 I B I 6.5 I 0.50 I DS ' RAYMOND 62.6 B I 6.5 I 0.50 I DS CLAMSHELL - SAWPIT i 62.7 i B 16 7 I 0.50 I DS VERDUGO I 65.0 I B 16 5 I 1.00 I DS ' HOLLYWOOD ROSE CANYON I 67.9 I B B I 6.9 I I 6.7 I 1.50 12.00 SS I SS SAN JACINTO -SAN BERNARDINO I 69.9 I B 6 9 I 12.00 I SS SAN JACINTO -SAN JACINTO VALLEY I 71.2 I B 16 6 I 1.00 I DS SANTA MONICA 72 3 I I B I 6.7 I 0.30 I DS ' MALIBU COAST 77.6 I i 80.4 I A I 7.4 I 24.00 I SS SAN ANDREAS - Southern A I 7.8 I 34.00 I SS SAN ANDREAS - 1857 Rupture I 81.4 I A 17 1 I 5.00 I SS ' ELSINORE- JULIAN I 82.2 I SIERRA MADRE (San Fernando) I 6.5 I 3.00 I SS I 83.8 I B I CLEGHORN I 86.5 I B I 7.0 I 1.00 I SS SAN GABRIEL I 87.1 I A I 7.2 I 12.00 I SS ' SAN JACINTO-ANZA 87.8 I B 17 3 I 3.00 I DS ANACAPA-DUME (West) I 9.8 I B I 7. I 1.00 I DS NORTH FRONTAL FAULT ZONE B I 6.6 6 I 5.00 I DS ' SANTA SUSANA 977.8 I 106.7 I I B 6.5 I 0.40 I DS HOLSER I 114.6 I B I 7.0 2.50 I SS PINTO MOUNTAIN I 114. I B I 6.7 7 I .00 I DS SIMI -SANTA ROSA I 115.1 1 I B I 6.9 I 40 I DS ' OAK RIDGE (Onshore) 0-50 DS NORTH FRONTAL FAULT ZONE (East) I I 7.1 I 0.60 I SS HELENDALE - S. LOCKHARDT I 122.5 B I 6.8 I 6.00 I DS ' SAN CAYETANO CREEK I 123.4 I B I 6.8 I 4.00 I SS SAN JACINTO- COYOTE 127.3 B 16 5 I 2.00 I SS EARTHQUAKE VALLEY I 7.3 0.60 SS LENWOOD- LOCKHART -OLD WOMAN SPRGS I 6.5 I 0.60 I SS BURNT MTN. I 140.7 143.1 I B I B I I 7.0 I 2.00 I SS SANTA YNEZ (East) I 143.8 I B I 6.8 I 1.00 I DS VENTURA - PITAS POINT 8 I 6.5 I 0.60 I SS EUREKA PEAK 145.0 i 145.2 I I B I 7.3 I 0.60 I SS LANDERS JOHNSON VALLEY (Northern) 146.9 I B I 6.7 0.60 I SS --------------------------- SUMMARY OF FAULT PARAMETERS ---- ---------------- - - - - - -- Page 2 APPROX.ISOURCE I MAX. I SLIP I FAULT ABBREVIATED IDISTANCE1 TYPE I MAG. I RATE I TYPE FAULT NAME I (km) I(A,B,C)l (Mw) I (mm /yr) I(SS,DS,BT) M.RIDGE- ARROYO PARIDA -SANTA ANA 1 153.8 B 6.7 0.40 DS ELSINORE - COYOTE MOUNTAIN 156.1 B 6.8 4.00 SS EMERSON So. - COPPER MTN. 157.5 B 6.9 0.60 SS RED MOUNTAIN 158.1 B 6.8 2.00 DS SANTA CRUZ ISLAND 159.5 B 6.8 1.00 DS SAN JACINTO - BORREGO 160.4 B 6.6 4.00 SS GRAVEL HILLS - HARPER LAKE 162.4 B 6.9 0.60 SS GARLOCK (West) 162.7 A 7.1 6.00 SS PLEITO THRUST 165.1 B 6.8 2.00 DS CALICO - HIDALGO 167.3 B 7.1 0.60 SS BIG PINE 170.5 B 6.7 0.80 SS BLACKWATER 173.2 B 6.9 0.60 SS PISGAH - BULLION MTN.- MESQUITE LK 174.5 B 7.1 0.60 SS GARLOCK (East) 184.9 A 7.3 7.00 SS WHITE WOLF ! 187.8 B 7.2 2.00 DS SANTA YNEZ (West) 190.8 B 6.9 2.00 SS SUPERSTITION MTN. (San Jacinto) 191.8 B 6.6 5.00 SS SANTA ROSA ISLAND 195.6 B 6.9 1.00 DS ELMORE RANCH 196.2 B 6.6 1.00 SS SUPERSTITION HILLS (San Jacinto) 198.3 B 6.6 4.00 SS BRAWLEY SEISMIC ZONE 200.7 B 6.5 25.00 SS ELSINORE- LAGUNA SALADA 207.9 B 7.0 3.50 SS So. SIERRA NEVADA 211.0 B 7.1 0.10 DS LITTLE LAKE 221.0 B 6.7 0.70 SS IMPERIAL 225.3 A 7.0 20.00 SS TANK CANYON 230.5 B 6.5 1.00 DS LOS ALAMOS -W. BASELINE 233.6 B 6.8 0.70 DS PANAMINT VALLEY 237.3 B 7.2 2.50 SS OWL LAKE 237.6 B 6.5 2.00 SS LIONS HEAD 251.0 B 6.6 0.02 DS DEATH VALLEY (South) 257.4 B 6.9 4.00 SS SAN JUAN 258.5 B 7.0 1.00 SS SAN LUIS RANGE (S. Margin) 259.6 B 7.0 0.20 DS CASMALIA (Orcutt Frontal Fault) 268.6 B 6.5 0.25 DS OWENS VALLEY 285.2 B 7.6 1.50 SS DEATH VALLEY (Graben) 286.6 B 6.9 4.00 DS LOS OSOS 289.3 B ( 6.8 0.50 DS HOSGRI 296.9 B 7.3 2.50 SS RINCONADA 309.1 B 7.3 1.00 SS HUNTER MTN. - SALINE VALLEY 318.9 B 7.0 2.50 SS INDEPENDENCE 320.3 B 6.9 0.20 DS DEATH VALLEY (Northern) 336.6 A 7.2 5.00 SS SAN ANDREAS (Creeping) 364.3 B 5.0 34.00 SS BIRCH CREEK 375.0 B 6.5 0.70 DS WHITE MOUNTAINS 381.2 B 7.1 1.00 SS DEEP SPRINGS 401.0 B 6.6 0.80 DS Ll 1 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 SUMMARY OF FAULT PARAMETERS --------------------------- Page 3 I APPROX.ISOURCE I MAX. I SLIP I FAULT ABBREVIATED IDISTANCEI TYPE I MAG. I RATE I TYPE FAULT NAME I (km) I(A, B, C)I (Mw) I (mm /yr) I(SS, DS, BT) ROUND VALLEY (E. of S.N.Mtns.) I 408.4 I B I 6.8 I 1.00 I DS DEATH VALLEY (N. of Cucamongo) I 410.0 I A I 7.0 I 5.00 I SS FISH SLOUGH I 418.1 I B I 6.6 I 0.20 I DS HILTON CREEK I 434.0 I B I 6.7 I 2.50 I DS ORTIGALITA I 448.6 I B I 6.9 I 1.00 I SS CALAVERAS (So.of Calaveras Res) I 454.0 I B I 6.2 I 15.00 I SS MONTEREY BAY - TULARCiTOS I 456.9 I B I 7.1 I 0.50 I DS HARTLEY SPRINGS I 457.2 I B I 6.6 I 0.50 I DS PALO COLORADO - SUR I 458.3 I B I 7.0 I 3.00 I SS QUIEN SABE I 467.2 I B I 6.5 I 1.00 I SS ZAYANTE - VERGELES I 485.7 I B I 6.8 I 0.10 I SS SAN ANDREAS (1906) I 490.9 I A I 7.9 I 24.00 I SS SARGENT I 491.0 I B I 6.8 I 3.00 I SS MONO LAKE I 492.7 I B I 6.6 I 2.50 I DS ROBINSON CREEK I 523.6 I B I 6.5 I 0.50 I DS SAN GREGORIO I 532.0 I A I 7.3 I 5.00 I SS GREENVILLE I 540.8 I B I 6.9 I 2.00 I SS MONTE VISTA - SHANNON I 541.0 I B I 6.5 I 0.40 I DS HAYWARD (SE Extension) I 541.1 I B I 6.5 I 3.00 I SS CALAVERAS (No.of Calaveras Res) I 560.8 I B I 6.8 I 6.00 I SS HAYWARD (Total Length) I 560.8 I A I 7.1 I 9.00 I SS ANTELOPE VALLEY I 563.4 I B I 6.7 I 0.80 I DS GENOA I 587.8 I B I 6.9 I 1.00 I DS CONCORD - GREEN VALLEY I 608.6 I B I 6.9 I 6.00 I SS RODGERS CREEK I 647.2 I A I 7.0 I 9.00 I SS WEST NAPA I 648.1 I B I 6.5 I 1.00 I SS POINT REYES I 665.8 I B I 6.8 I 0.30 I DS HUNTING CREEK - BERRYESSA I 670.8 I B I 6.9 I 6.00 I SS MAACAMA (South) I 709.8 I B I 6.9 I 9.00 I SS COLLAYOMI I 726.8 I B I 6.5 I 0.60 I SS BARTLETT SPRINGS I 730.6 I A I 7.1 I 6.00 I SS MAACAMA (Central) I 751.3 A I 7.1 I 9.00 I SS MAACAMA (North) I 810.8 A I 7.1 I 9.00 I SS ROUND VALLEY (N. S.F.Bay) I 817.4 I B I 6.8 I 6.00 I SS BATTLE CREEK I 843.7 I B I 6.5 I 0.50 I DS LAKE MOUNTAIN I 875.7 I B I 6.7 I 6.00 I SS GARBERVILLE - BRICELAND I 892.5 I B I 6.9 I 9.00 I SS MENDOCINO FAULT ZONE I 948.4 I A I 7.4 I 35.00 I DS LITTLE SALMON (Onshore) I 955.5 I A I 7.0 I 5.00 I DS MAD RIVER I 958.6 I B I 7.1 I 0.70 I DS CASCADIA SUBDUCTION ZONE I 961.9 I A I 8.3 I 35.00 I DS McKINLEYVILLE I 969.0 I B I 7.0 I 0.60 I DS TRINIDAD I 970.6 I B I 7.3 I 2.50 I DS FICKLE HILL I 970.9 I B I 6.9 I 0.60 I DS TABLE BLUFF I 976.0 I B I 7.0 I 0.60 I DS LITTLE SALMON (Offshore) I 989.3 I B I 7.1 I 1.00 I DS I --------------------------- SUMMARY OF FAULT PARAMETERS --------------------------- Page 4 ---------------------------------------------- ' --------------------------------- APPROX.ISOURCE I MAX. I SLIP I FAULT ABBREVIATED IDISTANCEI TYPE I MAG. I RATE I TYPE FAULT NAME I (km) I(A,B,C)l (Mw) I (mm /yr) I(SS,DS,BT) ' BIG LAGOON - BALD MTN.FLT.ZONE 1007.5 B 7.3 0.50 DS ' L I J iii 1 ' LA ASSOCIATES. INC. NOTICE OF PREPARATION MSARCH 2002 CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST LATTER DAY SAINTS TEMPLE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH APPENDIX B ' SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GEOTECHNICAL ADDENDUM LETTER I P: \CNB230\IS.ND\NOP Project Description.doc ®03/08/02)) ' MAR-08 -2002 1250 HUNSAKER 8 ASSOCIATES 949 583 0759 P.01i01 Southern California Geotechnical �aGtornia Geotechnlcat, Inc. IIII I1 / J mare, GE 2294 j 0� 4 No. 2294 P n. !near E*- 12„31102 ' Distributi� , (4) Addressee 1 1260 North Hancock Street, Suite 101 • Anaheim, California 92807 -1951 - (714) 777 -0333 • Fax(714)777-0398 TOTAL P.01 The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter -Day Saints March 8, 2002 c/o Hunsaker and Associates Project No. 01G192 -2R ' 3 Hughes Irvine, California 92618 ' Attention: Mr. Phil Dowty Subject: Revised Conceptual Grading Plan Review Proposed LDS Temple ' 5142 Bonita Canyon Drive Newport Beach, California Gentlemen: In accordance with the request of Mr. Phil Dowty of Hunsaker and Associates, we have reviewed the revised conceptual grading plan dated March 7, 2002, with respect to geotechnical conditions. Based on our review of this plan and conversations with representatives of Hunsaker and Associates, it is understood that the revisions consist of driveway and sidewalk realignment, grade changes and establishment of a 30t foot horizontal setback in the northwest property comer adjacent to the existing crib wall. The crib wall in this area was originally scheduled to be removed and replaced due to observed movement related distress in the existing asphalt driveway, and in order to accommodate the proposed Improvements. ' Based on our review of this plan, it is our opinion that the proposed structural setback will reduce the potential for further distress to hardscape improvements in areas adjacent to crib walls on the site. With respect to the proximity of the proposed temple building to the existing crib walls, it ' is further our opinion that any crib wall movement related distress will not affect the temple building. ' We sincerely appreciate the opportunity to be of service on this project. We look forward to providing additional consulting services during the course of the project. If we may be of further assistance in any manner, please contact our office. Respectfully Submitted, �aGtornia Geotechnlcat, Inc. IIII I1 / J mare, GE 2294 j 0� 4 No. 2294 P n. !near E*- 12„31102 ' Distributi� , (4) Addressee 1 1260 North Hancock Street, Suite 101 • Anaheim, California 92807 -1951 - (714) 777 -0333 • Fax(714)777-0398 TOTAL P.01 i 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 P: \CNB230US.ND\NOP Project Description.doc «03/08/02» LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. NOTICE OF PREPARATION MARCH 2442 CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST LATTER DAY SAINTS TEMPLE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 1 1 APPENDIX C 1 FHWA ROADWAY NOISE LEVEL ANALYSIS i 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 P: \CNB230US.ND\NOP Project Description.doc «03/08/02» 1 1 1 TABLE TEMPLE NP1 FHWA ROADWAY NOISE LEVEL ANALYSIS RUN DATE: 02/12/2002 ROADWAY SEGMENT: BONITA CANYON RD BTW MACARTHUR AND PRAIRIE NOTES: OPENING DAY NO PROJECT * * ASSUMPTIONS * * AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC: 39800 SPEED (MPH): 40 GRADE: .5 TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION PERCENTAGES DAY EVENING NIGHT - -- - - - - - -- - - - -- AUTOS 75.51 12.57 9.34 M- TRUCKS 1.56 0.09 0.19 H- TRUCKS 0.64 0.02 0.08 ACTIVE HALF -WIDTH (FT): 24 SITE CHARACTERISTICS: SOFT * * CALCULATED NOISE LEVELS * * CNEL AT 50 FT FROM NEAR TRAVEL LANE CENTERLINE (dB) = 70.11 DISTANCE (FEET) FROM ROADWAY CENTERLINE TO CNEL 70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL 55 CNEL - - - - - -- - - - - - -- 75.1 155.1 331.0 711.5 TABLE TEMPLE NP2 FHWA ROADWAY NOISE LEVEL ANALYSIS RUN DATE: 02/12/2002 ROADWAY SEGMENT: BONITA CANYON EAST OF PRAIRIE NOTES: OPENING DAY NO PROJECT * * ASSUMPTIONS * * AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC: 39800 SPEED (MPH): 40 GRADE: .5 TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION PERCENTAGES DAY EVENING NIGHT - -- - - - - - -- - - - -- AUTOS 75.51 12.57 9.34 M- TRUCKS 1.56 0.09 0.19 H- TRUCKS 0.64 0.02 0.08 ACTIVE HALF -WIDTH (FT): 24 SITE CHARACTERISTICS: SOFT * * CALCULATED NOISE LEVELS * * CNEL AT 50 FT FROM NEAR TRAVEL LANE CENTERLINE (dB) = 70.11 DISTANCE (FEET) FROM ROADWAY CENTERLINE TO CNEL 70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL 55 CNEL - - - - - -- - - - - - -- - - - - - -- - - - - - -- 75.1 155.1 331.0 711.5 TABLE TEMPLE NP3 FHWA ROADWAY NOISE LEVEL ANALYSIS RUN DATE: 02/12/2002 ROADWAY SEGMENT: MACARTHUR BLVD NORTH OF BONITA CANYON NOTES: OPENING DAY NO PROJECT * * ASSUMPTIONS * * AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC: 94100 SPEED (MPH): 60 GRADE: .5 TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION PERCENTAGES DAY EVENING NIGHT - -- - - - - - -- - - - -- AUTOS 75.51 12.57 9.34 M- TRUCKS 1.56 0.09 0.19 H- TRUCKS 0.64 0.02 0.08 ACTIVE HALF -WIDTH (FT): 48 SITE CHARACTERISTICS: SOFT * * CALCULATED NOISE LEVELS * * CNEL AT 50 FT FROM NEAR TRAVEL LANE CENTERLINE (dB) = 76.97 DISTANCE (FEET) FROM ROADWAY CENTERLINE TO CNEL 70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL 55 CNEL 253.7 538.8 1156.9 2490.2 1 1 t TABLE TEMPLE NP4 FHWA ROADWAY NOISE LEVEL ANALYSIS RUN DATE: 02/12/2002 ROADWAY SEGMENT: SR -73 NOTES: OPENING DAY NO PROJECT * * ASSUMPTIONS * * AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC: 63000 SPEED (MPH): 65 TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION PERCENTAGES DAY EVENING NIGHT - -- - - - - - -- - - - -- AUTOS 75.51 12.57 M- TRUCKS 1.56 0.09 H- TRUCKS 0.64 0.02 ACTIVE HALF -WIDTH (FT): 48 GRADE: .5 9.34 0.19 0.08 SITE CHARACTERISTICS: SOFT * * CALCULATED NOISE LEVELS * * CNEL AT 50 FT FROM NEAR TRAVEL LANE CENTERLINE (dB) = 76.13 DISTANCE (FEET) FROM ROADWAY CENTERLINE TO CNEL 70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL 55 CNEL - - - - - -- - - - - - -- - - - - - -- - - - - - -- 224.0 473.7 1016.1 2186.8 1 TABLE TEMPLE P1 FHWA ROADWAY NOISE LEVEL ANALYSIS RUN DATE: 02/12/2002 ROADWAY SEGMENT: BONITA CANYON RD BTW MACARTHUR AND PRAIRIE NOTES: OPENING DAY WITH PROJECT * * ASSUMPTIONS * * AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC: 40100 SPEED (MPH): 40 GRADE: .5 TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION PERCENTAGES DAY EVENING NIGHT - -- - - - - - -- - - - -- FAIJC•N, 75.51 12.57 M- TRUCKS 1.56 0.09 H- TRUCKS 0.64 0.02 ACTIVE HALF -WIDTH (FT): 24 9.34 0.19 0.08 SITE CHARACTERISTICS: SOFT * * CALCULATED NOISE LEVELS * * CNEL AT 50 FT FROM NEAR TRAVEL LANE CENTERLINE (dB) = 70.14 DISTANCE (FEET) FROM ROADWAY CENTERLINE TO CNEL 70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL 55 CNEL 75.4 155.9 332.7 715.1 TABLE TEMPLE P2 FHWA ROADWAY NOISE LEVEL ANALYSIS RUN DATE: 02/12/2002 ROADWAY SEGMENT: BONITA CANYON RD EAST OF PRAIRIE NOTES: OPENING DAY WITH PROJECT * * ASSUMPTIONS * * AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC: 39900 SPEED (MPH): 40 GRADE: .5 TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION PERCENTAGES DAY EVENING NIGHT - -- - - - - - -- - - - -- AUTOS 75.51 12.57 9.34 M- TRUCKS 1.56 0.09 0.19 H- TRUCKS 0.64 0.02 0.08 ACTIVE HALF -WIDTH (FT): 24 SITE CHARACTERISTICS: SOFT * * CALCULATED NOISE LEVELS * * CNEL AT 50 FT FROM NEAR TRAVEL LANE CENTERLINE (dB) = 70.12 DISTANCE (FEET) FROM ROADWAY CENTERLINE TO CNEL 70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL 55 CNEL - - - - - -- - - - - - -- - - - - - -- - - - - - -- 75.2 155.4 331.6 712.7 1 r 1 1 1 r r TABLE TEMPLE P3 FHWA ROADWAY NOISE LEVEL ANALYSIS RUN DATE: 02/12/2002 ROADWAY SEGMENT: MACARTHUR BLVD NORTH OF BONITA CANYON NOTES: OPENING DAY WITH PROJECT * * ASSUMPTIONS * * AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC: 94300 SPEED (MPH): 60 GRADE: .5 TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION PERCENTAGES DAY EVENING NIGHT - -- - - --- -- - - - -- AUTOS 75.51 12.57 9.34 M- TRUCKS 1.56 0.09 0.19 H- TRUCKS 0.64 0.02 0.08 ACTIVE HALF -WIDTH (FT): 48 SITE CHARACTERISTICS: SOFT * * CALCULATED NOISE LEVELS * * CNEL AT 50 FT FROM NEAR TRAVEL LANE CENTERLINE (dB) = 76.98 DISTANCE (FEET) FROM ROADWAY CENTERLINE TO CNEL 70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL 55 CNEL 254.0 539.5 1158.5 2493.7 ' LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT JUNE 2002 CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER DAY SAINTS TEMPLE 1 APPENDIX B 1 AIR QUALITY MODEL DATA I 1 I I I 1 1 I I I 1 I PACNB23MEMAppendices Covers.doca06120/01l 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i i Page: 1 URBEMIS 7G For Windows 5.1.0 File Name: C: \Program Files \URBEMIS 7G For Windows \Projects \NBTemple.urb Project Name: Newport Beach Temple Project Location: South Coast Air Basin (Los Angeles area) SUMMARY REPORT (Pounds /Day - Winter) AREA SOURCE EMISSION ESTIMATES ROG NOx CO PM10 SOX TOTALS(lbs /day,unmitigated) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 OPERATIONAL (VEHICLE) EMISSION ESTIMATES ROG NOx CO TOTALS (ppd, unmitigated) 7.96 11.90 66.98 PM10 4.28 Page: 2 URBEMIS 7G For Windows 5.1.0 File Name: C: \Program Files \URBEMIS 7G For Windows \Projects \NBTemple.urb Project Name: Newport Beach Temple Project Location: South Coast Air Basin (Los Angeles area) DETAIL REPORT (Pounds /Day - Winter) AREA SOURCE EMISSION ESTIMATES (Winter Pounds per Day, Unmitigated) Source ROG NOx CO PM10 SOX Natural Gas 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - Wood Stoves 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Fireplaces 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Landscaping - No winter emissions Consumer Prdcts 0.00 - - - - TOTALS(lbs /day,unmitigated) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 I 1 11 I I 1 [1 I i Page: 3 UNMITIGATED OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS ROG NOx CO PM10 Place of worship (weekend 7.96 11.90 66.98 4.28 TOTAL EMISSIONS (lbs /day) 7.96 11.90 66.98 4.28 Includes correction for passby trips. Does not include double counting adjustment for internal trips. OPERATIONAL (Vehicle) EMISSION ESTIMATES Analysis Year: 2004 Temperature (F): 50 Season: Winter EMFAC Version: EMFAC7G (10196) Summary of Land Uses: Unit Type Trip Rate Size Total Trips Place of worship (weekend 44.10 trips / 1000 sq. ft. 17.46 769.99 Vehicle Assumptions: Fleet Mix: Vehicle Type Percent Type Non - Catalyst Catalyst Diesel Light Duty Autos 75.00 1.16 98.58 0.26 Light Duty Trucks 10.00 0.13 99.54 0.33 Medium Duty Trucks 3.00 1.44 98.56 - Lite -Heavy Duty Trucks 1.00 19.56 40.00 40.44 Med. -Heavy Duty Trucks 1.00 19.56 40.00 40.44 Heavy -Heavy Trucks 5.00 - - 100.00 Urban Buses 2.00 - - 100.00 Motorcycles 3.00 100.00% all fuels Travel Conditions Residential Commercial Home- Home- Home - Work Shop Other Commute Non -Work Customer Urban Trip Length (miles) 11.5 4.9 6.0 10.3 5.5 5.5 Rural Trip Length (miles) 11.5 4.9 6.0 10.3 5.5 5.5 Trip Speeds (mph) 35.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 B of Trips - Residential 20.0 37.0 43.0 i of Trips - Commercial (by land use) Place of worship (weekend) 3.0 1.5 95.5 ?age: 4 :hanges made to the default values for Area Che wood stove option switch changed from on to off. Che fireplcase option switch changed from on to off. Che area souce mitigation measure option switch changed from on to off. 2 hanges made to the default values for operations Che mitigation option switch changed from on to off. The operational emission year changed from 2000 to 2004. The travel mode environment settings changed from both to: none C4$. out CALINE4: CALIFORNIA LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL ' JUNE 1989 VERSION PAGE 1 I ' Page 1 JOB: NB Temple 2004 Existing RUN: Houz 1 (WORST CASE ANGLE) POLLUTANT: Carbon Monoxide 1 I. SITE VARIABLES ' U= 5 M/S Z0= 100. CM ALT= 15. (M) BRG= WORST CASE VD= .0 CM /S CLAS= 7 (G) VS= .0 CM /S ' MIXH= 1000. M AMB= .0 PPM SIGTH= 10. DEGREES TEMP= 10.0 DEGREE (C) 1 II. LINK VARIABLES ' LINK * LINK COORDINATES (M) * EF H W DESCRIPTION * X1 Y1 X2 Y2 * TYPE VPH (G /MI) (M) (M) - --- ------------ *-------------------------*------------------------------ A. Jmbree NBA * 12 -150 12 0 * AG 2130 6.7 .0 13.5 B. Jmbree NBD * 12 0 12 150 * AG 2046 6.7 .0 11.8 C. Jmbree NBL * 9 -150 0 0 * AG 378 6.7 .0 10.0 ' D. Jmbree SBA * -11 150 -11 0 * AG 2025 6.7 .0 17.0 E. Jmbree SBD * -11 0 -11 -150 * AG 2421 6.7 .0 13.5 F. Jmbree SBL * -5 150 0 0 * AG 52 6.7 .0 10.0 ' G. Ford EBA * -150 -7 0 -7 * AG 443 6.7 .0 10.0 H. Ford EBD * 0 -7 150 -7 * AG 316 6.7 .0 10.0 I. Ford EBL * -150 -5 0 0 * AG 49 6.7 .0 10.0 ' J. Ford WBA * 150 9 0 9 * AG 162 6.7 .0 11.8 K. Ford WBD * 0 9 -150 9 * AG 620 6.7 .0 10.0 L. Ford WBL * 150 5 0 0 * AG 166 6.7 .0 10.0 ' M. Jmbree NBAX * 12 -750 12 -150 * AG 2508 6.7 .0 13.5 N. Jmbree NBDX * 12 150 12 750 * AG 2048 6.7 .0 11.8 O. Jmbree SBAX * -11 750 -11 150 * AG 2077 6.7 .0 17.0 P. Jmbree SBDX * -11 -150 -11 -750 * AG 2421 6.7 .0 13.5 Q. Ford EBAX * -750 -7 -150 -7 * AG 492 6.7 .0 10.0 I ' Page 1 C4$ out R. Ford EBDX * 150 -7 750 -7 * AG 316 6.7 .0 10.0 S. Ford WBAX * 750 9 150 9 * AG 328 6.7 .0 11.8 T. Ford WBDX * -150 9 -750 9 * AG 620 6.7 .0 10.0 CALINE4: CALIFORNIA LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL JUNE 1989 VERSION PAGE 2 JOB: NB Temple 2004 Existing RUN: Hour 1 (WORST CASE ANGLE) POLLUTANT: Carbon Monoxide III. RECEPTOR LOCATIONS Page 2 * COORDINATES (M) RECEPTOR * X Y Z ------------ *--------------------- 1. SE * 21 -14 1.8 2. NW * -21 15 1.8 3. SW * -19 -14 1.8 4. NE * 20 16 1.8 5. ES mdblk * 150 -14 1.8 6. WN mdblk * -150 15 1.8 7. WS mdblk * -150 -14 1.8 8. EN mdblk * 150 16 1.8 9. SE mdblk * 21 -150 1.8 10. NW mdblk * -21 150 1.8 11. SW mdblk * -19 -150 1.8 12. NE mdblk * 20 150 1.8 13. ES blk * 600 -14 1.8 14. WN blk * -600 15 1.8 15. WS blk * -600 -14 1.8 16. EN blk * 600 16 1.8 17. SE blk * 21 -600 1.8 18. NW blk * -21 600 1.6 19. SW blk * -19 -600 1.8 20. NE blk * 20 600 1.8 Page 2 ' C4$ out 1 Page 3 CALINE4: CALIFORNIA LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL ' JUNE 1989 PAGE 3 VERSION JOB: RUN: NB Temple Hour 1 2004 Existing (WORST CASE ANGLE) POLLUTANT: Carbon Monoxide ' IV. MODEL RESULTS (WORST CASE WIND ANGLE ) ' * * PRED * CONC /LINK * BRG * CONC * (PPM) RECEPTOR * (DEG) * (PPM) * A B C D E F G H -- -------* ------- *------- *---------------------------------------- 1. SE * 351. * 2.8 * .3 1.3 .0 .2 .0 .0 .0 .1 2. NW * 171. * 3.0 * .2 .0 .0 .3 1.3 .0 .1 .0 ' 3. SW * 171. * 2.9 * .2 .0 .0 .0 1.8 .0 .0 .0 4. NE * 188. * 3.1 * 1.4 .4 .1 .0 .2 .0 .0 .0 S. ES mdblk * 276. * 1.1 * .0 .0 .0 .1 .0 .0 .0 .3 6. WN mdblk * 98. * 1.3 * .1 .0 .0 .0 .1 .0 .0 .0 7. WS mdblk * 83. * 1.2 * .0 .1 .0 .1 .0 .0 .4 .0 8. EN mdblk * 264. * 1.0 * .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 ' 9. SE mdblk * 351. * 2.9 * 1.7 .1 .2 .3 .2 .0 .0 .0 10. NW mdblk * 172. * 2.6 * .3 .1 .0 1.4 .2 .0 .0 .0 11. sw mdblk * 8. * 3.0 * .2 .3 .0 .2 1.8 .0 .0 .0 ' 12. NE mdblk * 188. * 2.9 * .2 1.7 .0 .2 .3 .0 .0 .0 13. Es blk * 276. * .9 * 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14. WN blk * 97. * 1.2 * 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ' 15. ws blk * 63. * 1.1 * 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16. EN blk 264. .9 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17. SE blk * 352. * 3.1 * o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ' 18. NW blk 173. 2.6 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 19. sw blk * 8. * 3.0 * 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ' 20. NE blk * 188. * 2.8 * o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Page 3 C4$ out CALINE4: CALIFORNIA LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL JUNE 1989 VERSION PAGE 4 JOB: NB Temple 2004 Existing RUN: Hour 1 (WORST CASE ANGLE) POLLUTANT: Carbon Monoxide IV. MODEL RESULTS (WORST CASE WIND ANGLE) (CONT.) * CONC /LINK * (PPM) RECEPTOR * I J K L M N O P Q R S T ------------ *------------------------------------------------------------ 1. SE * .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .2 .5 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 2. NW * .0 .0 .3 .0 .5 .0 .0 .2 .0 .0 .0 .0 3. SW * .0 .0 .0 .0 .6 .0 .0 .3 .0 .0 .0 .0 4. NE * .0 .0 .0 .0 .3 .0 .0 .5 .0 .0 .0 .0 5. ES mdblk * .0 .0 .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 6. WN mdblk * .0 .0 .6 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 7. WS mdblk * .0 .0 .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 8. EN mdblk * .0 .2 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 9. SE mdblk * .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .2 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 10. NW mdblk * .0 .0 .0 .0 .3 .0 .0 .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 11. SW mdblk * .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .2 .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 12. NE mdblk * .0 .0 .0 .0 .1 .0 .0 .2 .0 .0 .0 .0 13. ES blk * .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .4 .2 .0 14. WN blk * .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .2 .0 .0 .7 15. WS blk * .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .6 .0 .0 .3 16. EN blk * .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .1 .4 .0 17. SE blk * .0 .0 .0 .0 2.1 .0 .0 .6 .0 .0 .0 .0 18. NW blk * .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .5 1.7 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 19. SW blk * .0 .0 .0 .0 .6 .0 .0 2.1 .0 .0 .0 .0 20. NE blk * .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 1.9 .6 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 Page 4 C4$ out �.1 CALINE4: CALIFORNIA LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL ' JUNE 1989 VERSION PAGE 1 ' Page 1 JOB: NB Temple 2004 Existing RUN: Hour 1 (WORST CASE ANGLE) POLLUTANT: Carbon Monoxide I. SITE VARIABLES U= .5 M/S 20= 100. CM ALT= 15. (M) BRG= WORST CASE VD= .0 CM /S CLAS= 7 (G) VS= .0 CM /S MIXH= 1000. M AMB= .0 PPM SIGTH= 10. DEGREES TEMP= 10.0 DEGREE (C) II. LINK VARIABLES ' LINK * LINK COORDINATES (M) * EF H W DESCRIPTION * X1 Y1 X2 Y2 * TYPE VPH (G /MI) (M) (M) - --- ------------* -------------------------*------------------------------ A. MacArthr NBA * 16 -150 16 0 * AG 2786 5.6 .0 20.5 B. MacArthr NBD * 16 0 16 150 * AG 2884 5.6 .0 17.0 C. MacArthr NBL * 9 -150 0 0 * AG 202 5.6 .0 10.0 ' D. MacArthr SBA'* -16 150 -16 0 * AG 2331 5.6 .0 20.5 E. MacArthr SBD * -16 0 -16 -150 * AG 2337 5.6 .0 17.0 F. MacArthr SBL * -9 150 0 0 * AG 25 5.6 .0 10.0 ' G. Bison EBA * -150 -12 0 -12 * AG 233 5.6 .0 13.5 H. Bison EBD * 0 -12 150 -12 * AG 263 5.6 .0 10.0 I. Bison EBL * -150 -9 0 0 * AG 211 5.6 .0 10.0 ' J. Bison WBA * 150 12 0 12 * AG 147 5.6 .0 13.5 K. Bison WBD * 0 12 -150 12 * AG 554 5.6 .0 10.0 L. Bison WBL * 150 9 0 0 * AG 103 5.6 .0 10.0 M. McArthr NBAX * 16 -750 16 -150 * AG 2988 5.6 .0 20.5 N. McArthr NBDX * 16 150 16 750 * AG 2884 5.6 .0 17.0 0. McArthr SBAX * -16 750 -16 150 * AG 2356 5.6 .0 20.5 ' P. McArthr SBDX * -16 -150 -16 -750 * AG 2337 5.6 .0 17.0 Q. Bison EBAX * -750 -12 -150 -12 * AG 444 5.6 .0 13.5 ' Page 1 C4$ Out R. Bison EBDX * 150 -12 750 -12 * AG 263 5.6 .0 10.0 S. Bison WBAX * 750 12 150 12 * AG 250 5.6 .0 13.5 T. Bison WBDX * -150 12 -750 12 * AG 554 5.6 .0 10.0 CALINE4: CALIFORNIA LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL JUNE 1989 VERSION PAGE 2 JOB: NB Temple 2004 Existing RUN: Hour 1 (WORST CASE ANGLE) POLLUTANT: Carbon Monoxide III. RECEPTOR LOCATIONS Page 2 * COORDINATES (M) RECEPTOR * X Y Z ------------ *--------------------- 1. SE * 28 -19 1.8 2. NW * -28 19 1.8 3. SW * -26 -21 1.8 4. NE * 26 21 1.8 5. ES mdblk * 150 -19 1.8 6. WN mdblk * -150 19 1.8 7. WS mdblk * -150 -21 1.8 8. EN mdblk * 150 21 1.8 9. SE mdblk * 28 -150 1.8 10. NW mdblk * -28 150 1.8 11. SW mdblk * -26 -150 1.8 12. NE mdblk * 26 150 1.8 13. ES blk * 600 -19 1.8 14. WN blk * -600 19 1.8 15. WS blk * -600 -21 1.8 16. EN blk * 600 21 1.8 17. SE blk * 28 -600 1.8 18. NW blk * -28 600 1.8 19. SW blk * -26 -600 1.8 20. NE blk * 26 600 1.8 Page 2 I 1 Cl 1 1 L C4$ out CALINE4: CALIFORNIA LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL JUNE 1989 VERSION PAGE 3 1 JOB: NB Temple 2004 Existing RUN: Hour 1 (WORST CASE ANGLE) POLLUTANT: Carbon Monoxide 1 IV. MODEL RESULTS (WORST CASE WIND ANGLE ) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 in J 1 1 1 Page 3 * * PRED * CONC /LINK * BRG * CONC * (PPM) RECEPTOR * (DEG) * (PPM) * A B C D E F G H ------------- *------- *------- *---------------------------------------- 1. SE * 351. * 2.4 * .3 1.2 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 2. NW * 170. * 2.4 * .1 .0 .0 .3 1.0 .0 .0 .0 3. SW * 8. * 2.4 * .0 .0 .0 1.0 .4 .0 .0 .0 4. NE * 188. * 2.6 * 1.2 .5 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 5. ES mdblk * 276. * .9 * .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .2 6. WN mdblk * 99. * 1.0 * .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 7. WS mdblk * 81. * .8 * .0 .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 .2 .0 8. EN mdblk * 264. * .8 * .0 .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 9. SE mdblk * 351. * 2.5 * 1.5 .2 .0 .2 .0 .0 .0 .0 10. NW mdblk * 172. * 2.3 * .2 .0 .0 1.2 .2 .0 .0 .0 11. SW mdblk * 9. * 2.4 * .0 .3 .0 .1 1.4 .0 .0 .0 12. NE mdblk * 189. * 2.6 * .2 1.7 .0 .0 .3 .0 .0 .0 13. ES blk * 276. * .7 * .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 14. WN blk * 97. * .9 * .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 15. WS blk * 83. * .8 * .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 16. EN blk * 264. * .6 * .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 17. SE blk * 352. * 2.6 * .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 18. NW blk * 172. * 2.3 * .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 19. SW blk * 8. * 2.4 * .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 20. NE blk * 188. * 2.7 * .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 Page 3 C4$ out CALINE4: CALIFORNIA LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL JUNE 1989 VERSION PAGE 4 JOB: NB Temple 2004 Existing RUN: Hour 1 (WORST CASE ANGLE) POLLUTANT: Carbon Monoxide IV. MODEL RESULTS (WORST CASE WIND ANGLE) (CONT.) * CONC /LINK * (PPM) RECEPTOR * I J K L M N O P Q R S T ------------ *------------------------------------------------------------ 1. SE * .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .2 .4 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 2. NW * .0 .0 .2 .0 .5 .0 .0 .2 .0 .0 .0 .0 3. SW * .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .5 .2 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 4. NE * .0 .0 .0 .0 .3 .0 .0 .4 .0 .0 .0 .0 5. ES mdblk * .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 6. WN mdblk * .0 .0 .5 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 7. WS mdblk * .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 8. EN mdblk * .0 .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 9. SE mdblk * .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .1 .2 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 10. NW mdblk * .0 .0 .0 .0 .3 .0 .0 .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 11. SW mdblk * .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .3 .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 12. NE mdblk * .0 .0 .0 .0 .1 .0 .0 .2 .0 .0 .0 .0 13. ES blk * .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .3 .0 .0 14. WN blk * .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .1 .0 .0 .5 15. WS blk * .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .4 .0 .0 .1 16. EN blk * .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .2 .0 17. SE blk * .0 .0 .0 .0 1.9 .0 .0 .4 .0 .0 .0 .0 18. NW blk * .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .4 1.5 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 19. SW blk * .0 .0 .0 .0 .5 .0 .0 1.6 .0 .0 .0 .0 20. NE blk * .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 1.9 .4 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 Page 4 C4$ out C] 11 ' CALINE4: CALIFORNIA LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL JUNE 1989 VERSION ' PAGE 1 JOB: NB Temple 2004 Existing ' RUN: Hour 1 (WORST CASE ANGLE) POLLUTANT: Carbon Monoxide I. SITE VARIABLES ' U= .5 M/S Z0= 100. CM ALT= 15. (M) BRG= WORST CASE VD= .0 CM /S CLAS= 7 (G) VS= .0 CM /S ' MIXH= 1000. M AMB= .0 PPM SIGTH= 10. DEGREES TEMP= 10.0 DEGREE (C) ' II. LINK VARIABLES ' LINK * LINK COORDINATES (M) * EF H W DESCRIPTION * X1 Y1 X2 Y2 * TYPE VPH (G /MI) (M) (M) ---------------- *------------------------- *------------------------------ ' A. MacArthr NBA * 16 -150 16 0 * AG 2620 10.9 .0 20.5 B. MacArthr NBD * 16 0 16 150 * AG 2627 10.9 .0 17.0 C. MacArthr NBL * 9 -150 0 0 * AG 74 10.9 .0 10.0 ' D. MacArthr SBA * -16 150 -16 0 * AG 3592 10.9 .0 20.5 E. MacArthr SBD * -16 0 -16 -150 * AG 3964 10.9 .0 17.0 F. MacArthr SBL * -9 150 0 0 * AG 1232 10.9 10.0 G. Bonita EBA * -150 -12 0 -12 * AG 402 10.9 .0 .0 13.5 H. Bonita EBD * 0 -12 150 -12 * AG 2067 10.9 .0 10.0 ' I. J. Bonita EBL * Bonita WBA * -150 150 -9 12 0 0 0 * 12 * AG AG 9 819 10.9 10.9 .0 .0 10.0 13.5 K. Bonita WBD * 0 12 -150 12 * AG 411 10.9 .0 10.0 L. M. Bonita WBL * McArthr NBAX * 150 16 9 -750 0 16 0 * -150 * AG AG 321 2694 10.9 10.9 .0 .0 10.0 20.5 N. McArthr NBDX * 16 150 16 750 * AG 2627 10.9 .0 17.0 ' O. P. McArthr SBAX * McArthr SBDX * -16 -16 750 -150 -16 -16 150 * -750 * AG AG 4824 3964 10.9 10.9 .0 .0 20.5 17.0 Q. Bonita EBAX * -750 -12 -150 -12 * AG 411 10.9 .0 13.5 i ' Page 1 R. Bonita EBDX * 150 S. Bonita WBAX * 750 T. Bonita WBDX * -150 -12 750 12 150 12 -750 C4$ out -12 * AG 12 * AG 12 * AG 2067 10.9 1140 10.9 411 10.9 CALINE4: CALIFORNIA LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL JUNE 1989 VERSION PAGE 2 JOB: NB Temple 2004 Existing RUN: Hour 1 (WORST CASE ANGLE) POLLUTANT: Carbon Monoxide III. RECEPTOR LOCATIONS Page 2 0 10.0 0 13.5 0 10.0 * COORDINATES (M) RECEPTOR * X Y Z ------------ *--------------------- 1. SE * 28 -19 1.8 2. NW * -28 19 1.8 3. SW * -26 -21 1.8 4. NE * 26 21 1.8 S. ES mdblk * 150 -19 1.8 6. WN mdblk * -150 19 1.8 7. WS mdblk * -150 -21 1.8 8. EN mdblk * 150 21 1.8 9. SE mdblk * 28 -150 1.8 10. NW mdblk * -28 150 1.8 11. SW mdblk * -26 -150 1.6 12. NE mdblk * 26 150 1.8 13. ES blk * 600 -19 1.8 14. WN blk * -600 19 1.8 15. WS blk * -600 -21 1.8 16. EN blk * 600 21 1.8 17. SE blk * 28 -600 1.8 18. NW blk * -28 600 1.8 19. SW blk * -26 -600 1.8 20. NE blk * 26 600 1.8 Page 2 0 10.0 0 13.5 0 10.0 I 1 1 C4$ out CALINE4: CALIFORNIA LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL JUNE 1989 VERSION PAGE 3 ' JOB: NB Temple 2004 Existing RUN: Hour 1 (WORST CASE ANGLE) POLLUTANT: Carbon Monoxide IV. MODEL RESULTS (WORST CASE WIND ANGLE ) 1 I I u 1 1 u Page 3 * * PRED * CONC /LINK * BRG * CONC * (PPM) RECEPTOR * (DEG) * (PPM) * A B C D E F G H ------------ *------- *------- *---------------------------------------- 1. SE * 349. * 6.8 * .7 2.1 .0 .4 .0 .3 .0 1.4 2. NW * 171. * 5.9 * .2 .0 .0 .9 3.0 .0 .1 .0 3. SW * 9. * 6.7 * .0 .2 .0 2.8 1.3 .5 .3 .0 4. NE * 189. * 6.2 * 2.2 .9 .0 .0 .3 .0 .0 .6 S. ES mdblk * 282. * 4.4 * .0 .3 .0 .4 .0 .2 .0 2.8 6. WN mdblk * 96. * 2.8 * .2 .2 .0 .3 .2 .1 .0 .4 7. WS mdblk * 84. * 2.7 * .2 .1 .0 .1 .3 .0 .6 .3 8. EN mdblk * 257. * 3.0 * .3 .0 .0 .0 .4 .0 .1 .5 9. SE mdblk * 351. * 5.5 * 2.8 .3 .0 .6 .1 .3 .0 .2 10. NW mdblk * 170. * 6.2 * .6 .1 .0 3.7 .3 .4 .0 .1 11. SW mdblk * 9. * 6.7 * .1 .5 .0 .4 4.3 .3 .0 .1 12. NE mdblk * 189. * 5.6 * .3 3.0 .0 .2 .7 .3 .0 .1 13. ES blk * 278. * 4.4 * .0 .2 .0 .2 .0 .0 .0 .0 14. WN blk * 96. * 1.8 * .2 .0 .0 .0 .2 .0 .0 .0 15. WS blk * 84. * 1.8 * .0 .1 .0 .2 .0 .0 .0 .0 16. EN blk * 262. * 3.3 * .2 .0 .0 .0 .2 .0 .0 .0 17. SE blk * 352. * 5.2 * .0 .0 .0 .0 .2 .0 .0 .0 18. NW blk * 172. * 7.0 * .0 .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .1 19. SW blk * 8. * 6.6 * .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .1 20. NE blk * 188. * 5.5 * .0 .0 .0 .2 .0 .0 .0 .0 Page 3 C4$ out CALINE4: CALIFORNIA LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL JUNE 1989 VERSION PAGE 4 JOB: NB Temple 2004 Existing RUN: Hour 1 (WORST CASE ANGLE) POLLUTANT: Carbon Monoxide IV. MODEL RESULTS (WORST CASE WIND ANGLE) (CONT.) * CONC /LINK * (PPM) RECEPTOR * I J K L M N O P Q R S T ------------ *------------------------------------------------------------ 1. SE * .0 .3 .0 .1 .0 .3 1.2 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 2. NW * .0 .0 .3 .0 .9 .0 .0 .6 .0 .0 .0 .0 3. SW * .0 .0 .1 .0 .0 .9 .6 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 4. NE * .0 .5 .0 .1 .4 .0 .0 1.1 .0 .0 .0 .0 5. ES mdblk * .0 .2 .1 .2 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 6. WN mdblk * .0 .2 .6 .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .4 .2 .0 7. WS mdblk * .0 .2 .0 .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .3 .3 .0 8. EN mdblk * .0 1.1 .0 .3 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 9. SE mdblk * .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .2 .7 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 10. NW mdblk * .0 .0 .0 .0 .5 .0 .0 .2 .0 .0 .0 .0 11. SW mdblk * .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .5 .3 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 12. NE mdblk * .0 .0 .0 .0 .2 .0 .0 .6 .0 .0 .0 .0 13. ES blk * .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 3.0 .6 .0 14. WN blk * .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .2 .1 .0 .8 15. WS blk * .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .7 .0 .0 .2 16. EN blk * .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .8 1.8 .0 17. SE blk * .0 .0 .0 .0 3.3 .1 .2 1.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 18. NW blk * .0 .0 .0 .0 .2 .8 5.3 .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 19. SW blk * .0 .0 .0 .0 .9 .1 .1 4.8 .0 .0 .0 .0 20. NE blk * .0 .0 .0 .0 .1 3.4 1.3 .2 .0 .0 .0 .0 Page 4 1 i 1 1 C4$ out CALINE4: CALIFORNIA LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL JUNE 1989 VERSION PAGE 1 JOB: NB Temple 2004 Existing RUN: Hour 1 (WORST CASE ANGLE) POLLUTANT: Carbon Monoxide ' I. SITE VARIABLES ' U= .5 M/S Z0= 100. CM ALT= 15. (M) BRG= WORST CASE VD= .0 CM /S CLAS= 7 (G) VS= .0 CM /S ' MIXH= 1000. M AMB= .0 PPM SIGTH= 10. DEGREES TEMP= 10.0 DEGREE (C) ' II. LINK VARIABLES ' LINK * LINK COORDINATES (M) * EF H W DESCRIPTION * X1 Y1 X2 Y2 * TYPE VPH (G /MI) (M) (M) ---------------- *------------------------- *------------------------------ ' A. MacArthr NBA * 14 -150 14 0 * AG 1411 8.3 .0 17.0 B. MacArthr NBD * 14 0 14 150 * AG 2435 8.3 .0 13.5 C. MacArthr NBL * 9 -150 0 0 * AG 36 8.3 .0 10.0 ' D. MacArthr SBA * -14 150 -14 0 * AG 2156 8.3 .0 17.0 E. MacArthr SBD * -14 0 -14 -150 * AG 1864 8.3 .0 13.5 F. MacArthr SBL * -9 150 0 0 * AG 647 8.3 .0 10.0 ' G. SnJqun EBA * -150 -12 0 -12 * AG 468 8.3 .0 13.5 H. SnJqun EBD * 0 -12 150 -12 * AG 1066 8.3 .0 11.8 I. SnJqun EBL * -150 -9 0 0 * AG 729 8.3 .0 10.0 ' J. SnJqun WBA * 150 9 0 9 * AG 582 8.3 .0 13.5 K. SnJqun WBD * 0 9 -150 9 * AG 707 8.3 .0 10.0 L. SnJqun WBL * 150 5 0 0 * AG 43 8.3 .0 10.0 M. McArthr NBAX * 14 -750 14 -150 * AG 1447 8.3 .0 17.0 N. McArthr NBDX * 14 150 14 750 * AG 2435 8.3 .0 13.5 0. McArthr SBAX * -14 750 -14 150 * AG 2803 8.3 .0 17.0 ' P. McArthr SBDX * -14 -150 -14 -750 * AG 1864 8.3 .0 13.5 Q. SnJqun EBAX * -750 -12 -150 -12 * AG 1197 8.3 .0 13.5 I Page 1 C4$ out R. SnJqun EBDX * 150 -12 750 -12 * AG 1066 8.3 .0 11.8 S. SnJqun WBAX * 750 9 150 9 * AG 625 8.3 .0 13.5 T. SnJqun WBDX * -150 9 -750 9 * AG 707 8.3 .0 10.0 CALINE4: CALIFORNIA LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL JUNE 1989 VERSION PAGE 2 JOB: NB Temple 2004 Existing RUN: Hour 1 (WORST CASE ANGLE) POLLUTANT: Carbon Monoxide III. RECEPTOR LOCATIONS Page 2 * COORDINATES (M) RECEPTOR * X Y Z ------------ *--------------------- 1. SE * 24 -20 1.8 2. NW * -24 15 1.8 3. SW * -22 -21 1.8 4. NE * 22 17 1.8 5. ES mdblk * 150 -20 1.8 6. WN mdblk * -150 15 1.8 7. WS mdblk * -150 -21 1.8 8. EN mdblk * 150 17 1.8 9. SE mdblk * 24 -150 1.8 10. NW mdblk * -24 150 1.8 11. SW mdblk * -22 -150 1.8 12. NE mdblk * 22 150 1.8 13. ES blk * 600 -20 1.8 14. WN blk * -600 15 1.8 15. WS blk * -600 -21 1.8 16. EN blk * 600 17 1.8 17. SE blk * 24 -600 1.8 18. NW blk * -24 600 1.8 19. SW blk * -22 -600 1.8 20. NE blk * 22 600 1.8 Page 2 11 C4$.out CALINE4: CALIFORNIA LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL JUNE 1989 VERSION PAGE 3 ' JOB: NB Temple 2004 Existing RUN: Hour 1 (WORST CASE ANGLE) POLLUTANT: Carbon Monoxide 1 1 k I 1 IV. MODEL RESULTS (WORST CASE WIND ANGLE ) Page 3 * * PRED * CONC /LINK * BRG * CONC * (PPM) RECEPTOR * (DEG) * (PPM) * A B C D E F G H ------------- *------- *------- *---------------------------------------- 1. SE * 351. * 3.9 * .3 1.6 .0 .2 .0 .1 .0 .6 2. NW * 171. * 3.3 * .1 .0 .0 .4 1.4 .0 .1 .0 3. SW * S. * 4.1 * .0 .2 .0 1.5 .5 .2 .2 .0 4. NE * 351. * 3.6 * .0 2.3 .0 .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 5. ES mdblk * 278. * 2.3 * .0 .1 .0 .1 .0 .0 .0 1.2 6. WN mdblk * 97. * 2.1 * .0 .0 .0 .1 .1 .0 .0 .2 7. WS mdblk * 80. * 1.9 * .0 .2 .0 .1 .0 .0 .5 .0 8. EN mdblk * 264. * 1.9 * .0 .1 .0 .1 .0 .0 .1 .0 9. SE mdblk * 352. * 2.9 * 1.3 .2 .0 .3 .0 .1 .0 .0 10. NW mdblk * 9. * 3.5 * .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 11. SW mdblk * 7. * 3.4 * .0 .3 .0 .3 1.8 .1 .0 .0 12. NE mdblk * 190. * 3.7 * .1 2.3 .0 .2 .3 .2 .0 .0 13. ES blk * 277. * 2.1 * .0 .1 .0 .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 14. WN blk * 97. * 1.9 * .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 15. WS blk * 83. * 2.2 * .0 .1 .0 .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 16. EN blk * 263. * 1.7 * .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 17. SE blk * 352. * 2.6 * .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 18. NW blk * 172. * 3.8 * .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 19. SW blk * 7. * 3.0 * .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 20. NE blk * 188. * 3.8 * .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 Page 3 C4$ out CALINE4: CALIFORNIA LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL JUNE 1989 VERSION PAGE 4 JOB: NB Temple 2004 Existing RUN: Hour 1 (WORST CASE ANGLE) POLLUTANT: Carbon Monoxide IV. MODEL RESULTS (WORST CASE WIND ANGLE) (CONT.) Page 4 * CONC /LINK * (PPM) RECEPTOR * I J K L M N O P Q R S T ------------ *------------------------------------------------------------ 1. SE * .0 .2 .0 .0 .0 .3 .7 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 2. NW * .2 .0 .4 .0 .4 .0 .0 .2 .0 .0 .0 .0 3. SW * .2 .0 .2 .0 .0 .6 .4 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 4. NE * .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .3 .8 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 5. ES mdblk * .1 .0 .2 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .1 .0 .0 .1 6. WN mdblk * .2 .0 .8 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .2 .0 .0 7. WS mdblk * .4 .1 .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 8. EN mdblk * .2 .6 .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .2 .0 .0 .1 SE mdblk * .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .2 .4 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 NW mdblk * .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .7 2.8 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 11. SW mdblk * .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .3 .2 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 12. NE mdblk * .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .2 .0 .0 .0 .0 13. ES blk * .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 1.3 .3 .0 14. WN blk * .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .5 .0 .0 .9 15. WS blk * .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 1.4 .0 .0 .3 16. EN blk * .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .4 .8 .0 17. SE blk * .0 .0 .0 .0 1.6 .0 .1 .5 .0 .0 .0 .0 18. NW blk * .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .6 2.7 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 19. SW blk * .0 .0 .0 .0 .4 .1 .0 2.1 .0 .0 .0 .0 20. NE blk * .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 2.6 .8 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 Page 4 C4$.out ' CALINE4: CALIFORNIA LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL ' JUNE PAGE 1989 1 VERSION ' JOB: RUN: NB Temple Hour 1 2004 w/ (WORST Project CASE ANGLE) POLLUTANT: Carbon Monoxide 1 I. SITE VARIABLES ' U= .5 M/S Z0= 100. CM ALT= 15. (M) BRG= WORST CASE VD= .0 CM /S ' CLAS= 7 MIXH= 1000. (G) M VS= AMB= .0 .0 CM /S PPM SIGTH= 10. DEGREES TEMP= 10.0 DEGREE (C) 1 II. LINK VARIABLES ' LINK * LINK COORDINATES (M) * EF H W DESCRIPTION * X1 Y1 X2 Y2 * TYPE VPH (G /MI) (M) (M) - --- ------------ *-------------------------*------------------------------ A. Jmbree NBA * 12 -150 12 0 * AG 2132 6.7 .0 13.5 B. Jmbree NBD * 12 0 12 150 * AG 2048 6.7 .0 11.8 C. Jmbree NBL * 9 -150 0 0 * AG 378 6.7 .0 10.0 ' D. Jmbree SBA * -11 150 -11 0 * AG 2025 6.7 .0 17.0 E. Jmbree SBD * -11 0 -11 -150 * AG 2422 6.7 .0 13.5 F. Jmbree SBL * -5 150 0 0 * AG 52 6.7 .0 10.0 ' G. Ford EBA * -150 -7 0 -7 * AG 443 6.7 .0 10.0 H. Ford EBD * 0 -7 150 -7 * AG 318 6.7 .0 10.0 I. Ford EBL * -150 -5 0 0 * AG 49 6.7 .0 10.0 ' J. Ford WBA * 150 9 0 9 * AG 162 6.7 .0 11.8 K. Ford WBD * 0 9 -150 9 * AG 620 6.7 .0 10.0 L. Ford WBL * 150 5 0 0 * AG 167 6.7 .0 10.0 M. Jmbree NBAX * 12 -750 12 -150 * AG 2510 6.7 .0 13.5 N. Jmbree NBDX * 12 150 12 750 * AG 2048 6.7 .0 11.8 0. Jmbree SBAX * -11 750 -11 150 * AG 2077 6.7 .0 17.0 ' P. Jmbree SBDX * -11 -150 -11 -750 * AG 2422 6.7 .0 13.5 Q. Ford EBAX * -750 -7 -150 -7 * AG 492 6.7 .0 10.0 ' Page 1 C4$ out R. Ford EBDX * 150 -7 750 -7 * AG 318 6.7 .0 10.0 S. Ford WBAX * 750 9 150 9 * AG 329 6.7 .0 11.8 T. Ford WBDX * -150 9 -750 9 * AG 620 6.7 .0 10.0 CALINE4: CALIFORNIA LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL JUNE 1989 VERSION PAGE 2 JOB: NB Temple 2004 w/ Project RUN: Hour 1 (WORST CASE ANGLE) POLLUTANT: Carbon Monoxide III. RECEPTOR LOCATIONS Page 2 * COORDINATES (M) RECEPTOR * X Y Z ------------ *--------------------- 1. SE * 21 -14 1.8 2. NW * -21 15 1.8 3. SW * -19 -14 1.8 4. NE * 20 16 1.8 -. ES mdblk * 150 -14 1.8 WN mdblk * -150 15 1.8 7. WS mdblk * -150 -14 1.8 8. EN mdblk * 150 16 1.8 9. SE mdblk * 21 -150 1.8 10. NW mdblk * -21 150 1.8 11. SW mdblk * -19 -150 1.8 12. NE mdblk * 20 150 1.8 13. ES blk * 600 -14 1.8 14. WN blk * -600 15 1.8 15. WS blk * -600 -14 1.8 16. EN blk * 600 16 1.8 17. SE blk * 21 -600 1.8 18. NW blk * 721 600 1.8 19. SW blk * -19 -600 1.8 20. NE blk * 20 600 1.8 Page 2 C4$ out 1 1 CALINE4: CALIFORNIA LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL ' JUNE 1989 VERSION PAGE 3 ' Page 3 JOB: NB Temple 2004 w/ Project ' RUN: Hour 1 (WORST CASE ANGLE) POLLUTANT: Carbon Monoxide IV. MODEL RESULTS (WORST CASE WIND ANGLE ) ' * * FRED * CONC /LINK * BRG * CONC * (PPM) RECEPTOR * (DEG) * (PPM) * A B C D E F G H ' ------------- *------- *------- *----------------------------------------- 1. SE * 351. * 2.8 * .3 1.3 .0 .2 .0 .0 .0 .1 2. NW * 171. * 3.0 * .2 .0 .0 .3 1.3 .0 .1 .0 ' 3. SW * 171. * 2.9 * .2 .0 .0 .0 1.8 .0 .0 .0 4. NE * 188. * 3.1 * 1.4 .4 .1 .0 .2 .0 .0 .0 5. ES mdblk * 276. * 1.1 * .0 .0 .0 .1 .0 .0 .0 .3 ' 6. WN mdblk * 98. * 1.3 * .1 .0 .0 .0 .1 .0 .0 .0 7. WS mdblk * 83. * 1.2 * .0 .1 .0 .1 .0 .0 .4 .0 8. EN mdblk * 264. * 1.0 * .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 ' 9. SE mdblk * 351. * 2.9 * 1.7 .1 .2 .3 .2 .0 .0 .0 10. NW mdblk * 172. * 2.6 * .3 .1 .0 1.4 .2 .0 .0 .0 11. SW mdblk * 8. * 3.0 * .2 .3 .0 .2 1.8 .0 .0 .0 ' 12. NE mdblk * 188. * 2.9 * .2 1.7 .0 .2 .3 .0 .0 .0 13. ES blk * 276. * .9 * .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 14. WN blk * 97. * 1.2 * .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 15. WS blk * 83. * 1.1 * .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 16. EN blk * 264. * .9 * .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 17. SE blk * 352. * 3.1 * .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 ' 18. NW blk * 173. * 2.6 * .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 19. SW blk * 8. * 3.0 * .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 20. NE blk * 188. * 2.8 * .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 ' Page 3 C4$ out CALINE4: CALIFORNIA LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL JUNE 1989 VERSION PAGE 4 JOB: NB Temple 2004 W/ Project RUN: Hour 1 (WORST CASE ANGLE) POLLUTANT: Carbon Monoxide IV. MODEL RESULTS (WORST CASE WIND ANGLE) (CONT.) Page 4 * CONC /LINK * (PPM) RECEPTOR * I J K L M N O P Q R S T ------------ *------------------------------------------------------------ 1. SE * .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .2 .5 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 2. NW * .0 .0 .3 .0 .5 .0 .0 .2 .0 .0 .0 .0 3. SW * .0 .0 .0 .0 .6 .0 .0 .3 .0 .0 .0 .0 4. NE * .0 .0 .0 .0 .3 .0 .0 .5 .0 .0 .0 .0 5. ES mdblk * .0 .0 .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 6. WN mdblk * .0 .0 .6 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 7. WS mdblk * .0 .0 .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 8. EN mdblk * .0 .2 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 9. SE mdblk * .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .2 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 10. NW mdblk * .0 .0 .0 .0 .3 .0 .0 .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 11. SW mdblk * .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .2 .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 12. NE mdblk * .0 .0 .0 .0 .1 .0 .0 .2 .0 .0 .0 .0 13. ES blk * .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .4 .2 .0 14. WN blk * .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .2 .0 .0 .7 15. WS blk * .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .6 .0 .0 .3 16. EN blk * .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .1 .4 .0 17. SE blk * .0 .0 .0 .0 2.1 .0 .0 .6 .0 .0 .0 .0 18. NW blk * .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .5 1.7 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 19. SW blk * .0 .0 .0 .0 .6 .0 .0 2.1 .0 .0 .0 .0 20. NE blk * .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 1.9 .6 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 Page 4 I C4$.out CALINE4: CALIFORNIA LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL JUNE 1989 VERSION PAGE 1 JOB: NB Temple 2004 w/ Project RUN: Hour 1 (WORST CASE ANGLE) POLLUTANT: Carbon Monoxide I. SITE VARIABLES U= .5 M/S Z0= 100. CM ALT= 15. (M) BRG= WORST CASE VD= .0 CM /S CLAS= 7 (G) VS= .0 CM /S MIXH= 1000. M AMB= .0 PPM SIGTH= 10. DEGREES TEMP= 10.0 DEGREE (C) II. LINK VARIABLES LINK * LINK COORDINATES (M) * EF H W DESCRIPTION * X1 Y1 X2 Y2 * TYPE VPH (G /MI) (M) (M) r * ------------------------- *------------------------------ A. MacArthr NBA * 16 -150 16 0 * AG 2791 5.6 .0 20.5 B. MacArthr NBD * 16 0 16 150 * AG 2889 5.6 .0 17.0 ' C. MacArthr NBL * 9 -150 0 0 * AG 202 5.6 .0 10.0 D. MacArthr SBA * -16 150 -16 0 * AG 2338 5.6 C 20.5 E. MacArthr SBD * -16 0 -16 -150 * AG 2344 5.6 .0 17.0 F. MacArthr SBL * -9 150 0 0 * AG 25 5.6 .0 10.0 G. Bison EBA * -150 -12 0 -12 * AG 233 5.6 .0 13.5 H. Bison EBD * 0 -12 150 -12 * AG 263 5.6 .0 10.0 I. Bison EBL * -150 -9 0 0 * AG 211 5.6 .0 10.0 J. Bison WBA * 150 12 0 12 * AG 147 5.6 .0 13.5 K. Bison WBD * 0 12 -150 12 * AG 554 5.6 .0 10.0 1 L. Bison WBL 150 9 0 0 * AG 103 5.6 .0 10.0 M. McArthr NBAX * 16 -750 16 -150 * AG 2993 5.6 .0 20.5 N. MCArthr NBDX * 16 150 16 750 * AG 2889 5.6 .0 17.0 0. McArthr SBAX * -16 750 -16 150 * AG 2363 5.6 .0 20.5 P. McArthr SBDX * -16 -150 -16 -750 * AG 2344 5.6 .0 17.0 Q. Bison EBAX * -750 -12 -150 -12 * AG 444 5.6 13.5 .0 Page 1 C4$.out R. Bison EBDX * 150 -12 750 -12 * AG 263 5.6 .0 10.0 S. Bison WBAX * 750 12 150 12 * AG 250 5.6 .0 13.5 T. Bison WBDX * -150 12 -750 12 * AG 554 5.6 .0 10.0 CALINE4: CALIFORNIA LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL JUNE 1989 VERSION PAGE 2 JOB: NB Temple 2004 W/ Project RUN: Hour 1 (WORST CASE ANGLE) POLLUTANT: Carbon Monoxide III. RECEPTOR LOCATIONS Page 2 * COORDINATES (M) RECEPTOR * X Y Z ------------ *--------------------- 1. SE * 28 -19 1.8 2. NW * -28 19 1.8 3. SW * -26 -21 1.8 4. NE * 26 21 1.8 5. ES mdblk * 150 -19 1.8 6. WN mdblk * -150 19 1.8 7. WS mdblk * -150 -21 1.8 8. EN mdblk * 150 21 1.8 9. SE mdblk * 28 -150 1.8 10. NW mdblk * -28 150 1.8 11. SW mdblk * -26 -150 1.8 12. NE mdblk * 26 150 1.8 13. ES blk * 600 -19 1.8 14. WN blk * -600 19 1.8 15. WS blk * -600 -21 1.8 16. EN blk * 600 21 1.8 17. SE blk * 28 -600 1.8 18. NW blk * -28 600 1.8 19. SW blk * -26 -600 1.8 20. NE blk * 26 600 1.8 Page 2 C4$ out fo I CALINE4: CALIFORNIA LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL JUNE 1989 VERSION PAGE 3 I I Page 3 JOB: NB Temple 2004 w/ Project RUN: Hour 1 (WORST CASE ANGLE) POLLUTANT: Carbon Monoxide IV. MODEL RESULTS (WORST CASE WIND ANGLE ) * * PRED * CONC /LINK * BRG * CONC * (PPM) RECEPTOR * (DEG) * (PPM) * A B C D E F G H ------------- *------- *------- *---------------------------------------- 1. SE * 351. * 2.4 * .3 1.2 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 2. NW * 170. * 2.4 * .1 .0 .0 .3 1.0 .0 .0 .0 3. SW * 8. * 2.4 * .0 .0 .0 1.0 .4 .0 .0 .0 4. NE * 188. * 2.6 * 1.2 .5 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 5. ES mdblk * 276. * .9 * .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .2 6. WN mdblk * 99. * 1.0 * .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 7. WS mdblk * 81. * .8 * .0 .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 .2 .0 8. EN mdblk * 264. * .8 * .0 .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 9. SE mdblk * 351. * 2.5 * 1.5 .2 .0 .2 .0 .0 .0 .0 10. NW mdblk * 172. * 2.3 * .3 .0 .0 1.3 .2 .0 .0 .0 11. SW mdblk * 9. * 2.4 * .0 .3 .0 .1 1.4 .0 .0 .0 12. NE mdblk * 189. * 2.6 * .2 1.7 .0 .0 .3 .0 .0 .0 13. ES blk * 276. * .7 * .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 14. WN blk * 97. * .9 * .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 15. WS blk * 83. * .8 * .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 16. EN blk * 264. * .6 * .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 17. SE blk * 352. * 2.6 * .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 18. NW blk * 172. * 2.3 * .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 19. SW blk * 8. * 2.4 * .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 20. NE blk * 188. * 2.7 * .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 I I Page 3 C4$.out CALINE4: CALIFORNIA LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL JUNE 1989 VERSION PAGE 4 JOB: NB Temple 2004 w/ Project RUN: Hour 1 (WORST CASE ANGLE) POLLUTANT: Carbon Monoxide IV. MODEL RESULTS (WORST CASE WIND ANGLE) (CONT.) Page 4 * CONC /LINK * (PPM) RECEPTOR * I J K L M N O P Q R S T ------------ *------------------------------------------------------------ 1. SE * .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .2 .4 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 2. NW * .0 .0 .2 .0 .5 .0 .0 .2 .0 .0 .0 .0 _. SW * .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .5 .2 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 4. NE * .0 .0 .0 .0 .3 .0 .0 .4 .0 .0 .0 .0 5. ES mdblk * .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 6. WN mdblk * .0 .0 .5 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 7. WS mdblk * .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 8. EN mdblk * .0 .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 9. SE mdblk * .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .1 .2 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 10. NW mdblk * .0 .0 .0 .0 .3 .0 .0 .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 11. SW mdblk * .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .3 .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 12. NE mdblk * .0 .0 .0 .0 .1 .0 .0 .2 .0 .0 .0 .0 13. ES blk * .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .3 .0 .0 14. WN blk * .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .1 .0 .0 .5 15. WS blk * .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .4 .0 .0 .1 16. EN blk * .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .2 .0 17. SE blk * .0 .0 .0 .0 1.9 .0 .0 .4 .0 .0 .0 .0 18. NW blk * .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .4 1.5 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 19. SW blk * .0 .0 .0 .0 .5 .0 .0 1.6 .0 .0 .0 .0 20. NE blk * .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 1.9 .4 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 Page 4 A I I I I C4$.out CALINE4: CALIFORNIA LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL JUNE 1989 VERSION PAGE 1 JOB: NB Temple 2004 w/ Project RUN: Hour I (WORST CASE ANGLE) POLLUTANT: Carbon Monoxide I I 1 I i I .1 I Z0= 100. CM ALT= 15. (M) VD= .0 CM /S VS= .0 CM /S AMB= .0 PPM TEMP= 10.0 DEGREE (C) LINK * LINK COORDINATES I. SITE VARIABLES U= .5 M/S W BRG= WORST CASE X1 CLAS= 7 (G) * MIXH= 1000. M (M) SIGTH= 10. DEGREES *------------------------------ II. LINK VARIABLES I I 1 I i I .1 I Z0= 100. CM ALT= 15. (M) VD= .0 CM /S VS= .0 CM /S AMB= .0 PPM TEMP= 10.0 DEGREE (C) Page 1 LINK * LINK COORDINATES (M) * EF H W DESCRIPTION * X1 Y1 X2 Y2 * TYPE VPH (G /MI) (M) (M) ---------------- *------------------------- *------------------------------ A. MacArthr NBA * 16 -150 16 0 * AG 2622 10.9 .0 20.5 B. MacArthr NBD * 16 0 16 150 * AG 2632 10.9 .0 17.0 C. MacArthr NBL * 9 -150 0 0 * AG 74 10.9 .0 10.0 D. MacArthr SBA * -16 150 -16 0 * AG 3592 10.9 .0 20.5 E. MacArthr SBD * -16 0 -16 -150 * AG 3965 10.9 .0 17.0 F. MacArthr SBL * -9 150 0 0 * AG 1239 10.9 .0 10.0 G. Bonita EBA * -150 -12 0 -12 * AG 404 10.9 .0 13.5 H. Bonita EBD * 0 -12 150 -12 * AG 2078 10.9 .0 10.0 I. Bonita EBL * -150 -9 0 0 * AG 9 10.9 .0 10.0 J. Bonita WBA * 150 12 0 12 * AG 825 10.9 .0 13.5 K. Bonita WBD * 0 12 -150 12 * AG 412 10.9 .0 10.0 L. Bonita WBL * 150 9 0 0 * AG 322 10.9 .0 10.0 M. McArthr NBAX * 16 -750 16 -150 * AG 2696 10.9 .0 20.5 N. McArthr NBDX * 16 150 16 750 * AG 2632 10.9 .0 17.0 O. McArthr SBAX * -16 750 -16 150 * AG 4831 10.9 .0 20.5 P. McArthr SBDX * -16 -150 -16 -750 * AG 3965 10.9 .0 17.0 Q. Bonita EBAX * -750 -12 -150 -12 * AG 413 10.9 .0 13.5 Page 1 C4$ out R. Bonita EBDX * 150 -12 750 -12 * AG 2078 10.9 .0 10.0 S. Bonita WBAX * 750 12 150 12 * AG 1147 10.9 .0 13.5 T. Bonita WBDX * -150 12 -750 12 * AG 412 10.9 .0 10.0 CALINE4: CALIFORNIA LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL JUNE 1989 VERSION PAGE 2 JOB: NB Temple 2004 W/ Project RUN: Hour 1 (WORST CASE ANGLE) POLLUTANT: Carbon Monoxide III. RECEPTOR LOCATIONS Page 2 * COORDINATES (M) RECEPTOR * X Y Z ------------ *--------------------- 1. SE * 28 -19 1.8 2. NW * -28 19 1.8 3. SW * -26 -21 1.•8 4. NE * 26 21 1.8 5. ES mdblk * 150 -19 1.8 6. WN mdblk * -150 19 1.8 7. WS mdblk * -150 -21 1.8 8. EN mdblk * 150 21 1.8 9. SE mdblk * 28 -150 1.8 10. NW mdblk * -28 150 1.8 11. SW mdblk * -26 -150 1.8 12. NE mdblk * 26 150 1.8 13. ES blk * 600 -19 1.8 14. WN blk * -600 19 1.8 15. WS blk * -600 -21 1.8 16. EN blk * 600 21 1.8 17. SE blk * 28 -600 1.8 18. NW blk * -28 600 1.8 19. SW blk * -26 -600 1.8 20. NE blk * 26 600 1.8 Page 2 C4$ out I I 11 I CALINE4: CALIFORNIA LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL JUNE 1989 VERSION PAGE 3 ' Page 3 JOB: NB Temple 2004 w/ Project RUN: Hour 1 (WORST CASE ANGLE) POLLUTANT: Carbon Monoxide IV. MODEL RESULTS (WORST CASE WIND ANGLE ) * * PRED * CONC /LINK * ERG * CONC * (PPM) RECEPTOR * (DEG) * (PPM) * A B C D E F G H -- -------* ------- *------- *---------------------------------------- 1. SE * 349. * 6.9 * .7 2.1 .0 .4 .0 .3 .0 1.4 2. NW * 171. * 6.0 * .2 .0 .0 .9 3.0 .0 .1 .0 3. SW * 9. * 6.7 * .0 .2 .0 2.8 1.3 .5 .3 .0 4. NE * 189. * 6.2 * 2.2 .9 .0 .0 .3 .0 .0 .6 5. ES mdblk * 282. * 4.4 * .0 .3 .0 .4 .0 .2 .0 2.8 6. WN mdblk * 96. * 2.8 * .2 .2 .0 .3 .2 .1 .0 .4 7. WS mdblk * 84. * 2.7 * .2 .1 .0 .1 .3 .0 .6 .3 8. EN mdblk * 257. * 3.0 * .3 .0 .0 .0 .4 .0 .1 .5 L 9. SE mdblk * 351. * 5.5 * 2.8 .3 .0 .6 .1 .3 .0 .2 10. NW mdblk * 170. * 6.2 * .6 .1 .0 3.7 .3 .4 .0 .1 11. SW mdblk * 9. * 6.7 * .1 .5 .0 .4 4.3 .3 .0 .1 12. NE mdblk * 189. * 5.6 * .3 3.0 .0 .2 .7 .3 .0 .1 13. ES blk * 278. * 4.4 * .0 .2 .0 .2 .0 .0 .0 .0 14. WN blk * 96. * 1.8 * .2 .0 .0 .0 .2 .0 .0 .0 15. WS blk * 84. * 1.8 * .0 .1 .0 .2 .0 .0 .0 .0 16. EN blk * 262. * 3.3 * .2 .0 .0 .0 .2 .0 .0 .0 17. SE blk * 352. * 5.2 * .0 .0 .0 .0 .2 .0 .0 .0 18. NW blk * 172. * 7.1 * .0 .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .1 19. SW blk * 8. * 6.6 * .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .1 20. NE blk * 188. * 5.5 * .0 .0 .0 .2 .0 .0 .0 .0 ' Page 3 C4$ out CALINE4: CALIFORNIA LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL JUNE 1989 VERSION PAGE 4 JOB: NB Temple 2004 w/ Project RUN: Hour 1 (WORST CASE ANGLE) POLLUTANT: Carbon Monoxide IV. MODEL RESULTS (WORST CASE WIND ANGLE) (CONT.) Page 4 * CONC /LINK * (PPM) RECEPTOR * I J K L M N O P Q R S T ------------*------------------------------------------------------------ SE * .0 .3 .0 .1 .0 .3 1.2 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 _. NW * .0 .0 .3 .0 .9 .0 .0 .6 .0 .0 .0 .0 3. SW * .0 .0 .1 .0 .0 .9 .6 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 4. NE * .0 .5 .0 .1 .4 .0 .0 1.1 .0 .0 .0 .0 5. ES mdblk * .0 .2 .1 .2 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 6. WN mdblk * .0 .2 .6 .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .4 .2 .0 7. WS mdblk * .0 .2 .0 .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .3 .3 .0 8. EN mdblk * .0 1.2 .0 .3 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 9. SE mdblk * .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .2 .7 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 10. NW mdblk * .0 .0 .0 .0 .5 .0 .0 .2 .0 .0 .0 .0 11. SW mdblk * .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .5 .3 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 12. NE mdblk * .0 .0 .0 .0 .2 .0 .0 .6 .0 .0 .0 .0 13. ES blk * .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 3.1 .6 .0 14. WN blk * .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .2 .1 .0 .8 15. WS blk * .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .7 .0 .0 .2 16. EN blk * .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .8 1.8 .0 17. SE blk * .0 .0 .0 .0 3.3 .1 .2 1.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 18. NW blk * .0 .0 .0 .0 .2 .8 5.3 .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 19. SW blk * .0 .0 .0 .0 .9 .1 .1 4.8 .0 .0 .0 .0 20. NE blk * .0 .0 .0 .0 .1 3.4 1.3 .2 .0 .0 .0 .0 Page 4 IC4$ out I I I CALINE4: CALIFORNIA LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL JUNE 1989 VERSION PAGE 1 r- i L ' Page 1 JOB: NB Temple 2004 W/ Project RUN: Hour 1 (WORST CASE ANGLE) POLLUTANT: Carbon Monoxide I. SITE VARIABLES iU= .5 M/S Z0= 100. CM ALT= 15. (M) BRG= WORST CASE VD= .0 CM /S CLAS= 7 (G) VS= .0 CM /S MIXH= 1000. M AMB= .0 PPM SIGTH= 10. DEGREES TEMP= 10.0 DEGREE (C) II. LINK VARIABLES ' LINK * LINK COORDINATES (M) * EF H W DESCRIPTION * X1 Y1 X2 Y2 * TYPE VPH (G /MI) (M) (M) - ----------- ----* -------------------------*------------------------------ 1 A. MacArthr NBA * 14 -150 14 0 * AG 1413 8.3 .0 17.0 B. MacArthr NBD * 14 0 14 150 * AG 2437 8.3 .0 13.5 C. MacArthr NBL * 9 -150 0 0 * AG 36 8.3 .0 10.0 D. MacArthr SBA * -14 150 -14 0 * AG 2157 8.3 .0 17.0 E. MacArthr SBD * -14 0 -14 -150 * AG 1865 8.3 .0 13.5 F. MacArthr SBL * -9 150 0 0 * AG 647 8.3 .0 10.0 G. SnJqun EBA * -150 -12 0 -12 * AG 468 8.3 .0 13.5 H. SnJqun EBD * 0 -12 150 -12 * AG 1066 8.3 .0 11.8 I. SnJqun EBL * -150 -9 0 0 * AG 729 8.3 .0 10.0 J. SnJqun WBA * 150 9 0 9 * AG 582 8.3 .0 13.5 K. SnJqun WBD * 0 9 -150 9 * AG 707 8.3 .0 10.0 L. SnJqun WBL * 150 5 0 0 * AG 43 8.3 .0 10.0 M. McArthr NBAX * 14 -750 14 -150 * AG 1449 8.3 .0 17.0 N. McArthr NBDX * 14 150 14 750 * AG 2437 8.3 C 13.5 O. McArthr SBAX * -14 750 -14 150 * AG 2804 8.3 .0 17.0 P. McArthr SBDX * -14 -150 -14 -750 * AG 1865 8.3 .0 13.5 Q. SnJqun EBAX * -750 -12 -150 -12 * AG 1197 8.3 .0 13.5 r- i L ' Page 1 C4$.out CALINE4: CALIFORNIA LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL JUNE 1989 VERSION PAGE 3 JOB: NB Temple 2004 w/ Project RUN: Hour 1 (WORST CASE ANGLE) POLLUTANT: Carbon Monoxide IV. MODEL RESULTS (WORST CASE WIND ANGLE ) Page 3 * * PRED * CONC /LINK * BRG * CONC * (PPM) RECEPTOR * (DEG) * (PPM) * A B C D E F G H ------------- *------- *------- *---------------------------------------- 1. SE * 351. * 3.9 * .3 1.6 .0 .2 .0 .1 .0 .6 .. NW * 171. * 3.3 * .1 .0 .0 .4 1.4 .0 .1 .0 3. SW * 8. * 4.1 * .0 .2 .0 1.5 .5 .2 .2 .0 4. NE * 351. * 3.6 * .0 2.3 .0 .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 5. ES mdblk * 278. * 2.3 * .0 .1 .0 .1 .0 .0 .0 1.2 6. WN mdblk * 97. * 2.1 * .0 .0 .0 .1 .1 .0 .0 .2 7. WS mdblk * 80. * 1.9 * .0 .2 .0 .1 .0 .0 .5 .0 8. EN mdblk * 264. * 1.9 * .0 .1 .0 .1 .0 .0 .1 .0 9. SE mdblk * 352. * 2.9 * 1.3 .2 .0 .3 .0 .1 .0 .0 10. NW mdblk * 9. * 3.5 * .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 11. SW mdblk * 7. * 3.4 * .0 .3 .0 .3 1.8 .1 .0 .0 12. NE mdblk * 190. * 3.7 * .1 2.3 .0 .2 .3 .2 .0 .0 13. ES blk * 277. * 2.1 * .0 .1 .0 .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 14. WN blk * 97. * 1.9 * .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 15. WS blk * 83. * 2.2 * .0 .1 .0 .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 16. EN blk * 263. * 1.7 * .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 17. SE blk * 352. * 2.6 * .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 18. NW blk * 172. * 3.8 * .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 19. SW blk * 7. * 3.0 * .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 20. NE blk * 188. * 3.6 * .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 Page 3 IC4$ out I CALINE4: CALIFORNIA LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL JUNE 1989 VERSION PAGE 4 JOB: NB Temple 2004 W/ Project RUN: Hour 1 (WORST CASE ANGLE) POLLUTANT: Carbon Monoxide IV. MODEL RESULTS (WORST CASE WIND ANGLE) (CONT.) * CONC /LINK 1 I Page 4 * (PPM) RECEPTOR * I J K L M N 0 P Q R S T ------------ ------------------------------------------------------------ ;. SE .0 .2 .0 .0 .0 .3 .7 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 <. NW * .2 .0 .4 .0 .4 .0 .0 .2 .0 .0 .0 .0 3. SW * .2 .0 .2 .0 .0 .6 .4 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 4. NE * .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .3 .8 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 5. ES mdblk * .1 .0 .2 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .1 .0 .0 .1 6. WN mdblk * .2 .0 .8 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .2 .0 .0 7. WS mdblk * .4 .1 .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 I 8. EN mdblk * .2 .6 .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .2 .0 .0 .1 9. SE mdblk * .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .2 .4 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 10. NW mdblk * .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .7 2.8 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 11. SW mdblk * .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .3 .2 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 12. NE mdblk * .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .2 .0 .0 .0 .0 13. ES blk * .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 1.3 .3 .0 . 14. WN blk * .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .5 .0 .0 .9 15. WS blk * .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 1.4 .0 .0 .3 16. EN blk * .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .4 .8 .0 17. SE blk * .0 .0 .0 .0 1.6 .0 .1 .5 .0 .0 .0 .0 18. NW blk * .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .6 2.8 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 19. SW blk * .0 .0 .0 .0 .4 .1 .0 2.1 .0 .0 .0 .0 20. NE blk * .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 2.6 .8 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 1 I Page 4 1 LSA ASSOCIATES. INC EN VIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT JUNE 1001 CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER DAY SAINTS TEMPLE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH I ' APPENDIX C ' HYDROLOGY ANALYSIS I I 11 I E1 I I I I I I I ul P' \CNB230\ElMAppendices Covers.docP06 /20102» I I I 1 I i I I I I I HYDROLOGY ANALYSIS FOR PARCEL MAP 91 -270, PARCEL 1 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH = -, CJF`SSh) /v ') q� U PREPARED UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF: E. Barnhart, R.C.E. 25167 Exp. 12/31/05 Date 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION--- - -- -- - - - - -- SECTION 1 A. PROJECT LOCATION B. STUDY PURPOSE C. METHODOLOGY D. DISCUSSION E. SOIL MAP F. VICINITY MAP HYDROLOGY CALCULATIONS- - - - - - -- ----- - - - - -- SECTION 2 100 -YEAR STORM (DEVELOPED CONDITION) HYDROLOGY MAP - - -- - - - -- - - - -- SECTION 3 STORMCEPTOR SPECIFICATIONS---------------- - - - - -- SECTION 4 REFERENCES---- - - - - -- -------------- - - - - -- SECTION 5 STORM DRAIN PLANS FOR LINES "A" & `B" i 1 ' INTRODUCTION ' A. PROJECT LOCATION The project site is Parcel Map 91 -270, Parcel 1 and is located in the City of Newport Beach, ' County of Orange and is north of Bonita Canyon Drive, east of Battersea (see attached Vicinity Map). SB. STUDY PURPOSE ' The purpose of this study is to provide a developed hydrology analysis for this site to determine the 100 -year peak storm runoff to be utilized as the basis of design requirements Parcel Map 91- ' 270, Parcel. 1 C.METHODOLOGY The hydrology calculations were prepared using the 1986 Orange County Flood Control District ' Hydrology Manual as incorporated in the Advanced Engineering Software (AES) "RATSC" program. The Hydrologic Classification of Soils map contained in the Orange County Hydrology Manual was used to determine the hydrologic soil types. 1 D. DISCUSSION Water Quantity - Existing Condition The existing site is vacant with two temporary paved parking areas covering approximately 1.4 1 acres. The total site area is approximately 8.65 acres. Most of the site has a uniform gradient towards the north. There is approximately 15 feet of elevation difference across the site with the ' higher elevations adjacent to Bonita Canyon Road to the south. A majority of the site has recently received stockpiled soil from the construction site across Bonita Canyon Road. The existing site includes three drainage areas. The westerly area is approximately 0.7 acres, 1 mostly consists of the existing entry -road from Bonita Canyon Road. This area drains into an existing catch basin and storm drain facility. The existing storm drain runs to the north through ' the existing church site and outlets through and existing energy dissipater into Bonita Creek. Runoff from the middle area flows overland to an existing desilting inlet into a 24 -inch storm drain, Line A, and outlets through an energy dissipater structure into Bonita Creek. This area is approximately 4.3 acres. Runoff from the easterly area flows overland to an existing desilting inlet into and existing 24- inch storm drain, Line B, and outlet through an energy dissipater structure into Bonita Creek. This area is approximately 2.4 acres. Water Quantity — Proposed Condition The project site consists of three watersheds, Area "A ", "B" and "C ". Area A (1.6 acres) consists of mostly landscaped area west of the Temple building. Area B (5.3 acres) roughly corresponds to the existing easterly drainage area and includes the Temple building and the parking areas. Area C (0.3 acres) roughly corresponds to the existing westerly drainage area and consists of half of the entry road. All three watersheds flow in the northern direction. The proposed storm drain system for Area "A" will consist a proposed 18 " -24" storm drain with 3 or more inlets . The proposed storm drain for this drainage area will convey storm runoff to an existing 24" storm drain line, Line "A ", that is currently flowing open channel with a peak storm runoff of 17.0 cfs (See Section 5 for Reference Storm Drain Plans of Line "A "). Under the proposed condition, the peak storm runoff for a 100 -year storm has decreased to 8.5 cfs and therefore, can be accommodated within the existing capacity of the down stream storm drain system. The proposed storm drain system for Area `B" will consist of 2 or more catch basins, which will connect to an 18" -24" mainline. The proposed storm drain for this drainage area will convey storm runoff to an existing 24" storm drain line, Line `B ", that is currently flowing open channel with a peak storm runoff of 13.4 cfs (See Section 5 for Reference Storm Drain Plans of Line `B "). Under the proposed condition, the peak storm runoff for a 100 -year storm has increased to 21.7 cfs. Line `B ", at full flow (100 1/6) capacity is 151.5 cfs, and therefore, is able to accommodate the additional 8.3 cfs due to development (See Section 5 for Channel Depth and Full Flow Calculations for Line `B "). Storm runoff from Area "C" will flow into a reconstructed catch basin connecting to the existing storm drain located northwest of the project site (See Section 3 for the Proposed Hydrology Map). The catch basin will be reconstructed to match the new configuration of the street. The I existing storm drain flows through the parking area for the existing Church site and outlets through and existing energy dissipater structure into Bonita Creek. ' Water Quality - Methodology The main impact on water quality that results from this development is urbanization. The increase of human activities within the watershed increases the potential for pollutants. The pollutants are transported in runoff and subsequently discharge to flood control facilities and ultimately, to the ocean. In order to minimize or prevent the pollutants from entering the coastal fwaters, "Source Control BMP's" will be utilized. For water quality control, the proposed storm drain system for Area "A" & Area `B" will include stormceptors, which will be located just before joining the existing Lines "X'& "B "(See Section ' 4 for Stormceptor Specifications). The stormceptor is a water quality device used to remove suspended solids (TTS) and oil free (TPI) from stormwater run -off and ultimately prevents hazardous spills and non -point source pollution from entering downstream lakes and rivers. 1 Conclusion This report has provided hydrological information to properly design the drainage facilities for the project. The design of the drainage facilities must take into account the "quality" and ' "quantity" of runoff and how if effects downstream properties to ensure that there are no adverse effects. The "quality" of the runoff has been addressed through the use of stormceptors to treat ' the runoff from the proposed development. I I I I F I HYDROLOGY CALCULATIONS 11 I 17 L I I I I I I I I 1 11 f I PROPOSED CONDITION ! 100 -YEAR STORM I I 1J I u 1 I 1 1 I I 1 I 1 I ............................................. ............................... RATIONAL METHOD HYDROLOGY COMPUTER PROGRAM PACKAGE (Reference: 1986 OCEMA HYDROLOGY CRITERION) (c) Copyright 1963 -2001 Advanced Engineering Software (aes) Ver. 8.0 Release Date: 01 /01 /2001 License ID 1239 IAnalysis prepared by: ' GLOBAL STREET FLOW -DEPTH CONSTRAINTS: 1. Relative Flow -Depth = 0.50 FEET as (Maximum Allowable Street Flow Depth) - (Top -of -Curb) ' 2. (Depth) *(Velocity) Constraint = 6.0 (FT *FT /S) *SIZE PIPE WITH A FLOW CAPACITY GREATER THAN OR EQUAL TO THE UPSTREAM TRIBUTARY PIPE.* *USER- SPECIFIED MINIMUM TOPOGRAPHIC SLOPE ADJUSTMENT NOT SELECTED ' ******************************2***DD ****TO **NODE ****** * * * * 9* * DD * * * * IS * * * ** * * * *** * * * * * * * * ** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE .. CODE = 21 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ' - -»»> RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS « «< >>USE TIME -OF- CONCENTRATION NOMOGRAPH FOR INITIAL SUBAREA<< ------- - - - - - -- ----------------------------------------- ------------------------------ INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW- LENGTH(FEET) = 135.00 ' ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 200.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 183.00 Tc = K *[(LENGTH ** 3.00) /(ELEVATION CHANGE)) * *0.20 SUBAREA ANALYSIS USED MINIMUM Tc(MIN.) = 5.000 ' * 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH /HR) = 6.187 HUNSAKER & ASSOCIATES Irvine, Inc. ' Planning * Engineering * Surveying Three Hughes * Irvine, California 92618 * (949) 583 -1010 DESCRIPTION OF STUDY * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** • 100 -YEAR HYDROLOGY STUDY (DEVELOPED CONDITION) * The Church of Jesus Christ for Latter Day Saints • P.Abarca ' FILE NAME: JC.DAT TIME/DATE STUDY: 11_03- 01/18/2002-- ' -OF- -- - - - - - -- ----------------------- HYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULIC MODEL INFORMATION: - - - - -- USER SPECIFIED -------------- --------------------------- -- *TIME -OF- CONCENTRATION MODEL*-- ' USER SPECIFIED STORM EVENT(YEAR) = 100.00 SPECIFIED MINIMUM PIPE SIZE(INCH) = 18.00 ' SPECIFIED PERCENT OF GRADIENTS(DECIMAL) TO USE FOR FRICTION SLOPE *DATA BANK RAINFALL USED* = 0.90 *ANTECEDENT MOISTURE CONDITION (AMC) III ASSUMED FOR RATIONAL METHOD* *USER- DEFINED STREET - SECTIONS FOR COUPLED PIPEFLOW AND STREETFLOW MODEL* HALF- CROWN TO STREET- CROSSFALL: CURB GUTTER - GEOMETRIES: MANNING WIDTH CROSSFALL IN- / OUT- /PARK- HEIGHT WIDTH LIP HIKE FACTOR NO. (FT) (FT) SIDE / SIDE/ WAY (FT) (FT) (FT) (FT) (n) f1 22.0 11.0 0.020/0.020/0.020 0.67 2`00 0.0312 0.167 0.0150 2 13.0 6.0 0.020/0.020/0.020 0.50 1.50 0.0312 0.125 0.0150 ' GLOBAL STREET FLOW -DEPTH CONSTRAINTS: 1. Relative Flow -Depth = 0.50 FEET as (Maximum Allowable Street Flow Depth) - (Top -of -Curb) ' 2. (Depth) *(Velocity) Constraint = 6.0 (FT *FT /S) *SIZE PIPE WITH A FLOW CAPACITY GREATER THAN OR EQUAL TO THE UPSTREAM TRIBUTARY PIPE.* *USER- SPECIFIED MINIMUM TOPOGRAPHIC SLOPE ADJUSTMENT NOT SELECTED ' ******************************2***DD ****TO **NODE ****** * * * * 9* * DD * * * * IS * * * ** * * * *** * * * * * * * * ** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE .. CODE = 21 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ' - -»»> RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS « «< >>USE TIME -OF- CONCENTRATION NOMOGRAPH FOR INITIAL SUBAREA<< ------- - - - - - -- ----------------------------------------- ------------------------------ INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW- LENGTH(FEET) = 135.00 ' ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 200.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 183.00 Tc = K *[(LENGTH ** 3.00) /(ELEVATION CHANGE)) * *0.20 SUBAREA ANALYSIS USED MINIMUM Tc(MIN.) = 5.000 ' * 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH /HR) = 6.187 SUBAREA Tc AND LOSS RATE DATA(AMC III): DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH /HR) COMMERCIAL D 0.70 0.20 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH /HR) _ SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 0.10 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 3.89 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.70 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) IJ Ap SCS Tc (DECIMAL) CN (MIN.) INTENSITY(INCH /HR) = 0.10 91 5.00 1 0.20 RATE DATA(AMC III): 3.89 FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 9.00 TO NODE 6.00 IS CODE = 31 »»>COMPUTE PIPE -FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA « «< »»>USING COMPUTER - ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON- PRESSURE FLOW) « «< ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 183.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 182.00 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 160.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013 ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) INCREASED TO 18.000 DEPTH OF FLOW IN 18.0 INCH PIPE IS 8.9 INCHES PIPE -FLOW VELOCITY(FEET /SEC.) = 9.99 ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 18.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1 PIPE- FLOW(CFS) = 3.89 PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.60 Tc(MIN.) = 5.60 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 2.00 TO NODE 6.00 = 295.00 FEET. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + ++ FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 6.00 TO NODE 6.00 IS CODE = 10 » » >MAIN- STREAM MEMORY COPIED ONTO MEMORY BANK # 1 « «< +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + ++ FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 8.00 TO NODE 10:00 IS CODE = 21 » » >RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS « «< >>USE TIME -OF- CONCENTRATION NOMOGRAPH FOR INITIAL SUBAREA<< INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW- LENGTH(FEET) = 95.00 ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 195.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 183.00 Tc = K *[(LENGTH ** 3.00) /(ELEVATION CHANGE)]* *0.20 SUBAREA ANALYSIS USED MINIMUM Tc(MIN.) = 5.000 * 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH /HR) = 6.190 SUBAREA Tc AND LOSS RATE DATA(AMC III): DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS Tc LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH /HR) (DECIMAL) CN (MIN.) COMMERCIAL D 0.90 0.20 0.10 91 5.00 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH /HR) = 0.20 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 0.10 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 2.22 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.90 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 2.22 FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 10.00 TO NODE 6.00 IS CODE = 31 »»>COMPUTE PIPE -FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA « «< »»>USING COMPUTER - ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON- PRESSURE FLOW) « «< ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 183.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 182.00 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 39.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013 ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) INCREASED TO 18.000 I DEPTH OF FLOW IN 18.0 INCH PIPE IS 4.5 INCHES PIPE -FLOW VELOCITY(FEET /SEC.) = 6.36 ' ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 18.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1 PIPE- FLOW(CFS) = 2.22 PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.10 Tc(MIN.) = 5.10 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 8.00 TO NODE 6.00 = 134.00 FEET. ' +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ + + + + + + + + ++ +++++ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + ++ FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 6.00 TO NODE 6.00 IS CODE = 11 - -»»> CONFLUENCE MEMORY BANK # 1 WITH THE MAIN- STREAM MEMORY « «< ** MAIN STREAM CONFLUENCE DATA ** ' STREAM Q Tc Intensity Fp(Fm) Ap Ae HEADWATER NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH /HR) (INCH /HR) (ACRES) NODE 1 2.22 5.10 6.137 0.20( 0.02) 0.10 0.4 8.00 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 8.00 TO NODE 6.00 = 134.00 FEET. ' ** MEMORY BANK # 1 CONFLUENCE DATA ** STREAM Q Tc Intensity Fp(Fm) Ap Ae HEADWATER NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH /HR) (INCH /HR) (ACRES) NODE ' 1 3.89 5.60 5.880 0.20( 0.02) 0.10 0.7 2.00 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 2.00 TO NODE 6.00 = 295.00 FEET. ** PEAK FLOW RATE TABLE ** STREAM Q Tc Intensity Fp(Fm) Ap Ae HEADWATER NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH /HR) (INCH /HR) (ACRES) NODE 1 5.92 5.10 6.137 0.20( 0.02) 0.10 1.0 8.00 2 6.01 5.60 5.880 0.20( 0.02) 0.10 1.1 2.00 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 1.10 COMPUTED CONFLUENCE ESTIMATES ARE AS FOLLOWS: ' PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) - 6.01 Tc(MIN.) = 5.601 EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 1.10 AREA - AVERAGED Fm(INCH /HR) = 0.02 AREA- AVERAGED Fp(INCH /HR) = 0.20 AREA- AVERAGED Ap = 0.10 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 1.10 ' LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 2.00 TO NODE 6.00 = 295.00 FEET. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + ++ FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 6.00 TO NODE 6.00 IS CODE = 12 » »>CLEAR MEMORY BANK # 1 « «< +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ + ++ + ++ +++ ++ + ++ +++ ++ + + + ++ ++ ++ +++ FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 6.00 TO NODE 12.00 IS CODE = 31 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- > > >>>USING COMPUTER- TRAVEL - TIME -THRU- NON- PRA««E FLOW)---------- - - - - -- »»>USING COMPUTER - ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON- PRESSURE FLOW) ««< ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 182.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 181.00 ' FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 158.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013 DEPTH OF FLOW IN 18.0 INCH PIPE IS 11.7 INCHES PIPE -FLOW VELOCITY(FEET /SEC.) = 4.94 ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 18.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1 ' PIPE- FLOW(CFS) = 6.01 PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.53 Tc(MIN.) = 6.13 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 2.00 TO NODE 12.00 = 453.00 FEET. 1 FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 12.00 TO NODE 12.00 IS CODE = 10 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- »»>MAIN- STREAM MEMORY COPIED ONTO MEMORY BANK # 1 « «< SCS SOIL AREA +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + ++ FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 14.00 TO NODE 16.00 IS CODE = 21 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- »»>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS « «< >>USE TIME-OF- CONCENTRATION NOMOGRAPH FOR INITIAL SUBAREA<< INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW- LENGTH(FEET) = 200.00 ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 195.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 192.00 Tc = K *[(LENGTH ** 3.00) /(ELEVATION CHANGE)]* *0.20 SUBAREA ANALYSIS USED MINIMUM Tc(MIN.) = 5.862 * 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH /HR) = 5.745 SUBAREA Tc AND LOSS RATE DATA(AMC III): DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS Tc LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH /HR) (DECIMAL) CN (MIN.) COMMERCIAL D 0.50 0.20 0.10 91 5.86 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH /HR) = 0.20 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 0.10 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 2.58 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.50 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 2.58 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + ++ FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 16.00 TO NODE 12.00 IS CODE = 31 »»>COMPUTE PIPE -FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA « «< » » >USING COMPUTER - ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON- PRESSURE FLOW) « «< ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) 192.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) 191.00 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 8.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013 ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) INCREASED TO 18.000 DEPTH OF FLOW IN 18.0 INCH PIPE IS 3.3 INCHES PIPE -FLOW VELOCITY(FEET /SEC.) = 11.62 ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 18.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1 PIPE- FLOW(CFS) = 2.58 PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.01 Tc(MIN.) = 5.87 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 14.00 TO NODE 12.00 = 208.00 FEET. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + ++ FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 12.00 TO NODE 12.00 IS CODE = 11 »»> CONFLUENCE MEMORY BANK # 1 WITH THE MAIN- STREAM MEMORY « «< ** MAIN STREAM CONFLUENCE DATA ** STREAM Q Tc Intensity Fp(Fm) Ap Ae HEADWATER NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH /HR) (INCH /HR) (ACRES) NODE 1 2.58 5.87 5.739 0.20( 0.02) 0.10 0.5 14.00 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 14.00 TO NODE 12.00 = 208.00 FEET ** MEMORY BANK # 1 CONFLUENCE DATA ** STREAM Q Tc Intensity Fp(Fm) NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH /HR) (INCH /HR) 1 5.92 5.64 5.861 0.20( 0.02) 2 6.01 6.13 5.605 0.20( 0.02) LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 2.00 TO NODE Ap Ae HEADWATER (ACRES) NODE 0.10 1.0 8.00 0.10 1.1 2.00 12.00 = 453.00 FEET. ** PEAK FLOW RATE TABLE ** STREAM Q Tc Intensity Fp(Fm) Ap Ae HEADWATER ' NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH /HR) (INCH /HR) (ACRES) NODE 1 8.99 5.69 5.861 0.20( 0.02) 0.10 1.5 8.00 2 8.59 5.87 5.739 0.20( 0.02) 0.10 1.6 19.00 3 8.53 6.13 5.605 0.20( 0.02) 0.10 1.6 2.00 ' TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 1.60 COMPUTED CONFLUENCE ESTIMATES ARE AS FOLLOWS: PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 8.59 Tc(MIN.) = 5.879 EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) 1.57 AREA - AVERAGED Fm(INCH /HR) = 0.02 AREA - AVERAGED Fp(INCH /HR) = 0.20 AREA- AVERAGED Ap - 0.10 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) _ " "'1.60 '.. LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 2.00 TO NODE 12.00 = 953.00 FEET. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 12.00 TO NODE 12.00 IS CODE = 12 ' - - » »> CLEAR - MEMORY - BANK - # -I <<<< < \\ Q ---- - - - - -- xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx -- FLOW - PROCESS -FROM NODE 12.00 TO NODE 18.00 IS CODE = 31 »» >COMPUTE PIPE -FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA««< » » >USING COMPUTER - ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON- PRESSURE FLOW) ««< ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 191.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 182.00 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 53.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013 ' ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) INCREASED TO 18.000 DEPTH OF FLOW IN 18.0 INCH PIPE IS 5.6 INCHES PIPE -FLOW VELOCITY(FEET /SEC.) = 18.35 ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 18.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1 PIPE- FLOW(CFS) _ ' 8.59 PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.05 Tc(MIN.) = 5.92 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 2.00 TO NODE 18.00 = 506.00 FEET. ' xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx - -FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 30.00 TO NODE 32.00 IS CODE = 21 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- » » >RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS««< - ->>USE- TIME_OF- CONCENTRATION - NOMOGRAPH - FOR _INITIAL - SUBAREA - - - - - -- - - - -- INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW- LENGTH(FEET) = 300.00 ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 200.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 186.00 ' Tc - K *[(LENGTH ** 3.00) /(ELEVATION CHANGE)]* *0.20 SUBAREA ANALYSIS USED MINIMUM Tc(MIN.) = 5.999 * 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH /HR) = 5.935 SUBAREA Tc AND LOSS RATE DATA(AMC III): DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS Tc LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH /HR) (DECIMAL) CN (MIN.) ' COMMERCIAL D 1.30 0.20 0.10 91 5.99 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH /HR) = 0.20 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 0.10 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 6.92 ' TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 1 -.30 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 6.92 xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 32.00 TO NODE 39.00 IS CODE = 51 1 ------------------------------------------------------ --- ------------- - - - - -- » » >COMPUTE TRAPEZOIDAL CHANNEL FLOW « «< »»>TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA (EXISTING ELEMENT) « «< ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) 186.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 173.50 CHANNEL LENGTH THRU SUBAREA(FEET) = 510.00 CHANNEL SLOPE = 0.0245 CHANNEL BASE(FEET) = 26.00 "Z" FACTOR = 0.200 MANNING'S FACTOR = 0.015 MAXIMUM DEPTH(FEET) = 0.50 CHANNEL FLOW THRU SUBAREA(CFS) = 6.92 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET /SEC) = 3.06 FLOW DEPTH(FEET) = 0.09 TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 2.77 Tc(MIN.) = 8.27 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 30.00 TO NODE 34.00 = 810.00 FEET. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + ++ FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 34.00 TO NODE 34.00 IS CODE = 81 »»>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW « «< MAINLINE Tc(MIN) = 8.27 * 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH /HR) = 4.673 SUBAREA LOSS RATE DATA(AMC III): DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH /HR) (DECIMAL) CN COMMERCIAL D 1.50 0.20 0.10 91 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH /HR) = 0.20 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 0.10 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 1.50 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 6.28 EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 2.80 AREA - AVERAGED Fm(INCH /HR) = 0.02 AREA - AVERAGED Fp(INCH /HR) = 0.20 AREA- AVERAGED Ap = 0.10 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 2.80 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 11.72 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + ++ FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 34.00 TO NODE 34.00 IS CODE = 10 »» >MAIN- STREAM MEMORY COPIED ONTO MEMORY BANK # 1 « «< +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + ++ FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 36.00 TO NODE 38.00 IS CODE = 21 » »>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS « «< >>USE TIME -OF- CONCENTRATION NOMOGRAPH FOR INITIAL SUBAREA<< - ------------------------------------- _------ _= _____= _____________ INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW- LENGTH(FEET) = 300.00 ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 185.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 182.30 Tc = K *[(LENGTH ** 3.00) /(ELEVATION CHANGE)]* *0.20 SUBAREA ANALYSIS USED MINIMUM Tc(MIN.) = 7.636 * 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH /HR) = 4.860 SUBAREA Tc AND LOSS RATE DATA(AMC III): DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH /HR) COMMERCIAL D 0.90 0.20 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH /HR) _ SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 0.10 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 3.92 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.90 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) Ap SCS Tc (DECIMAL) CN (MIN.) 0.10 91 7.64 0.20 = 3.92 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + ++ FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 38.00 TO NODE 34.00 IS CODE = 51 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- »» >COMPUTE TRAPEZOIDAL CHANNEL FLOW« «< 1 » » >TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA (EXISTING ELEMENT) « «< ' ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 182.30 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 173.50 CHANNEL LENGTH THRU SUBAREA(FEET) = 270.00 CHANNEL SLOPE = 0.0326 CHANNEL BASE(FEET) = 29.00 "Z" FACTOR = 0.200 MANNING'S FACTOR = 0.015 MAXIMUM DEPTH(FEET) - 0.50 ' CHANNEL FLOW THRU SUBAREA(CFS) = 3.92 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET /SEC) = 2.81 FLOW DEPTH(FEET) = 0.06 TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 1.60 Tc(MIN.) = 9.29 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 36.00 TO NODE 39.00 = 570.00 FEET. 1 ********************************************* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 39.00 TO NODE 39.00 IS CODE = 81 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ' » » >ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW « «< MAINLINE Tc(MIN) = 9.29 * 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH /HR) = 9.385 ' SUBAREA LOSS RATE DATA(AMC III): DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH /HR) (DECIMAL) CN COMMERCIAL D 0.30 0.20 0.10 91 ' SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH /HR) - 0.20 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 0.10 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 0.30 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) 1.18 ' EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 1.20 AREA - AVERAGED Fm(INCH /HR) = 0.02 AREA - AVERAGED Fp(INCH /HR) = 0.20 AREA- AVERAGED Ap = 0.10 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 1.20 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 9.71 I l_ 1 I i 1 1 - -FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 39.00 TO NODE 39.00 IS CODE = 11 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- » »> CONFLUENCE MEMORY BANK # 1 WITH THE MAIN- STREAM MEMORY « «< ** MAIN STREAM CONFLUENCE DATA ** STREAM Q Tc Intensity Fp(Fm) Ap Ae HEADWATER NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH /HR) (INCH /HR) (ACRES) NODE 1 9.71 9.29 9.385 0.20( 0.02) 0.10 1.2 36.00 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 36.00 TO NODE 39.00 = 570.00 FEET. ** MEMORY BANK # 1 CONFLUENCE DATA ** STREAM Q Tc Intensity Fp(Fm) Ap Ae HEADWATER NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH /HR) (INCH /HR) (ACRES) NODE 1 11.72 8.27 9.673 0.20( 0.02) 0.10 2.8 30.00 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 30.00 TO NODE 39.00 = 810.00 FEET. ** PEAK FLOW RATE TABLE ** STREAM Q Tc Intensity Fp(Fm) Ap Ae HEADWATER NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH /HR) (INCH /HR) (ACRES) NODE 1 16.22 8.27 9.673 0.20( 0.02) 0.10 3.9 30.00 2 15.71 9.29 9.385 0.20( 0.02) 0.10 9.0 36.00 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 9.00 COMPUTED CONFLUENCE ESTIMATES ARE AS FOLLOWS: PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 16.22 Tc(MIN.) = 8.268 EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 3.87 AREA - AVERAGED Fm(INCH /HR) = 0.02 AREA - AVERAGED Fp(INCH /HR) = 0.20 AREA - AVERAGED Ap = 0.10 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) - 9.00 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 30.00 TO NODE 39.00 = 810.00 FEET. ............................................. ............................... FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 34.00 TO NODE 34.00 IS CODE = 12 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- »» >CLEAR MEMORY BANK # 1 ««< ********************************************* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 34.00 TO NODE 34.00 IS CODE = 10 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- »»>MAIN- STREAM MEMORY COPIED ONTO MEMORY BANK # 1 ««< ********************************************* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 40.00 TO NODE 42.00 IS CODE = 21 »»>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS««< >>USE TIME -OF- CONCENTRATION NOMOGRAPH FOR INITIAL SUBAREA<< INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW- LENGTH(FEET) = 260.00 ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 193.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 181.00 Tc = K *[(LENGTH ** 3.00) /(ELEVATION CHANGE)]* *0.20 SUBAREA ANALYSIS USED MINIMUM Tc(MIN.) = 5.200 * 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH /HR) = 6.087 SUBAREA Tc AND LOSS RATE DATA(AMC III): DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH /HR) COMMERCIAL D 1.30 0.20 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH /HR) _ SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 0.10 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 7.10 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 1.30 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) Ap SCS Tc , (DECIMAL) CN (MIN.) 0.10 91 5.20 0.20 = 7.10 ********************************************* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 42.00 TO NODE 34.00 IS CODE 31 »»>COMPUTE PIPE -FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA««< »»>USING COMPUTER - ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON- PRESSURE FLOW) ««< ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 181.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 173.50 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 83.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013 ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) INCREASED TO 18.000 DEPTH OF FLOW IN 18.0 INCH PIPE IS 6.0 INCHES PIPE -FLOW VELOCITY(FEET /SEC.) = 13.88 ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 18.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1 PIPE- FLOW(CFS) = 7.10 PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.10 Tc(MIN.) = 5.30 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 40.00 TO NODE 34.00 = 343.00 FEET. ********************************************* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 34.00 TO NODE 34.00 IS CODE = 11 »»> CONFLUENCE MEMORY BANK # 1 WITH THE MAIN- STREAM MEMORY««< ** MAIN STREAM CONFLUENCE DATA ** STREAM Q Tc Intensity Fp(Fm) Ap Ae HEADWATER NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH /HR) (INCH /HR) (ACRES) NODE 1 7.10 5.30 6.035 0.20( 0.02) 0.10 1.3 40.00 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 40.00 TO NODE 34.00 = 343.00 FEET. I 1 1 I r �I 1 ** MEMORY BANK # 1 CONFLUENCE DATA ** STREAM Q Tc Intensity Fp(Fm) NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH /HR) (INCH /HR) 1 16.22 8.27 4.673 0.20( 0.02) 2 15.71 9.24 4.385 0.20( 0.02) LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 30.00 TO NODE ** PEAK FLOW RATE TABLE ** STREAM Q Tc Intensity Fp(Fm) NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH /HR) (INCH /HR) 1 20.54 5.30 6.035 0.20( 0.02) 2 21.71 8.27 4.673 0.20( 0.02) 3 20.87 9.24 4.385 0.20( 0.02) TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 5.30 Ap Ae HEADWATER (ACRES) NODE 0.10 3.9 30.00 0.10 4.0 36.00 34.00 = 810.00 FEET. Ap Ae HEADWATER (ACRES) NODE 0.10 3.8 40.00 0.10 5.2 30.00 0.10 5.3 36.00 COMPUTED CONFLUENCE ESTIMATES ARE AS FOLLOWS: PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 21.71 Tc(MIN.) = 8.268 EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 5.17 AREA - AVERAGED Fm(INCH /HR) = 0.02 AREA- AVERAGED Fp(INCH /HR) = 0.20 AREA- AVERAGED Ap = 0.10 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) _ .!'-5.30 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE -- -- °30.00 TO NODE 34.00 = 810.00 FEET. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + ++ FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 34.00 TO NODE 34.00 IS CODE = 12 ------------- MEMORY BANK # 1 « «< --------------------- »»>CLEAR ------------------------------ ----------- - - -�OTiR (1 �____________ +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + ++ FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 34.00 TO NODE 44.00 IS CODE = 31 ----------------------------- ------------- ---- -- - - - -- -- ------ - - - - -- » » >COMPUTE PIPE -FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA ««< »»>USING COMPUTER- ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON- PRESSURE FLOW) « «< ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 173.50- DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 173.00 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 22.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013 DEPTH OF FLOW IN 21.0 INCH PIPE IS 16.5 INCHES PIPE -FLOW VELOCITY(FEET /SEC.) = 10.73 ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 21.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1 PIPE- FLOW(CFS) = >' 21.71 PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN'.)` = 0.03 Tc(MIN.) 8.30 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 30.00 TO NODE 44.00 832.00 FEET. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + ++ FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 50.00 TO NODE 52.00 IS CODE = 21 »»>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS««< >>USE TIME -OF- CONCENTRATION NOMOGRAPH FOR INITIAL SUBAREA<< -------- -- - -- INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW- LENGTH(FEET) = 300.00 ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 201.50 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 189.50 Tc = K *[(LENGTH ** 3.00) /(ELEVATION CHANGE)]* *0.20 SUBAREA ANALYSIS USED MINIMUM Tc(MIN.) = 5.666 * 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH /HR) = 5.846 SUBAREA Tc AND LOSS RATE DATA(AMC III): DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS Tc LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH /HR) (DECIMAL) CN (MIN.) COMMERCIAL D 0.20 0.20 0.10 91 5.67 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH /HR) = 0.20 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 0.10 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 1.05 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.20 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 1.05 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + ++ FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 52.00 TO NODE 59.00 IS CODE = 62 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- »»>COMPUTE STREET FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA « «< » » >( STREET TABLE SECTION # 1 USED) « «< UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 189.50 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 185.50 STREET LENGTH(FEET) = 76.00 CURB HEIGHT(INCHES) = 8.0 STREET HALFWIDTH(FEET) = 22.00 DISTANCE FROM CROWN TO CROSSFALL GRADEBREAK(FEET) = 11.00 INSIDE STREET CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = 0.020 OUTSIDE STREET CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = 0.020 SPECIFIED NUMBER OF HALFSTREETS CARRYING RUNOFF = 1 STREET PARKWAY CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = 0.020 Manning's FRICTION FACTOR for Streetflow Section(curb -to -curb) = 0.0150 Manning's FRICTION FACTOR for Back -of -Walk Flow Section = 0.0199 * *TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING ESTIMATED FLOW(CFS) = 1.30 STREETFLOW MODEL RESULTS USING ESTIMATED FLOW: STREET FLOW DEPTH(FEET) = 0.22 HALFSTREET FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) = 3.30 AVERAGE FLOW VELOCITY(FEET /SEC.) = 9.37 PRODUCT OF DEPTH &VELOCITY(FT *FT /SEC.) = 0.98 STREET FLOW TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.29 Tc(MIN.) = 5.96 * 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH /HR) = 5.697 SUBAREA LOSS RATE DATA(AMC III): DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH /HR) (DECIMAL) CN COMMERCIAL D 0.10 0.20 0.10 91 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH /HR) - 0.20 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 0.10 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 0.10 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.51 EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 0.30 AREA - AVERAGED Fm(INCH /HR) = 0.02 AREA- AVERAGED Fp(INCH /HR) = 0.20 AREA- AVERAGED Ap = 0.10 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.30 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 1.53 END OF SUBAREA STREET FLOW HYDRAULICS: DEPTH(FEET) = 0.29 HALFSTREET FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) = 9.07 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET /SEC.) = 9.31 DEPTH *VELOCITY(FT *FT /SEC.) = 1.03 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 50.00 TO NODE 59.00 = 376.00 FEET. END OF STUDY SUMMARY: �Pr TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.30 TC(MIN.) = 5.96 EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 0.30 AREA- AVERAGED FM(INCH /HR)= 0.02 AREA - AVERAGED Fp(INCH /HR) = 0.20 AREA- AVERAGED Ap = 0.10 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) _ `-1.5a ---------------------------------------------------------------------- END OF RATIONAL METHOD ANALYSIS LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT JUNE 1002 CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER DAY SAINTS TEMPLE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 1 1 APPENDIX D 1 TRAFFIC STUDY 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1] 1 Cl 1 1 1 P: \CNB230 \EMAppendices Covers doce0620 102n 1 1 1 1 1 1 MORMON TEMPLE TRAFFIC PHASING ORDINANCE ANALYSIS (REVISED) NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA Prepared for: Mr. Richard Edmonston CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 Prepared by: Urban Crossroads, Ii 41 Corporate Park, Suit Irvine, CA 92606 John Kain, AICP Scott Sato, P.E. October 29, 2001 May 10, 2002 (Revised) JK:SS:pr 00384 -04 r 1 1 t 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION PAGE 1.0 INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND ........................... ............................... 1 -1 1.1 Introduction 1.2 Background 1.3 Analysis Methodology 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ................................................ ............................... 2 -1 3.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS .................................................. ............................... 3 -1 3.1 Study Intersections 3.2 Existing Traffic Volumes 4.0 PROJECTED TRAFFIC ..................................................... ............................... 4 -1 4.1 Project Trip Generation 4.2 Project Trip Distribution 4.3 Project Trip Assignment 5.0 OPENING YEAR TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS .............. ............................... 5 -1 5.1 Traffic Phasing Ordinance Committed Projects 5.2 Regional Traffic Growth 5.3 Determination of Impacted Intersections 5.4 Cumulative Project Analysis 6.0 SITE ACCESS ISSUES ..................................................... ............................... 6-1 6.1 Site Access 7.0 SUMMARY ......................................................................... ............................... 7 -1 APPENDICES EXISTING TRAFFIC COUNTS /ICU ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS . ............................... A LEVEL OF SERVICE DEFINITION ................................................ ............................... B TRIP GENERATION STUDY ......................................................... ............................... C TRIPDISTRIBUTION DATA ............................................................ ............................... D COMMITTED PROJECT TRIPS ....................................................... ............................... E ONE PERCENT TEST ....................................................................... ............................... F CUMULATIVE TRAFFIC ANALYSIS ICU WORKSHEETS ............... ............................... G 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 LIST OF EXHIBITS EXHIBIT PAGE 1 -A LOCATION MAP ..................................................... ............................... 1-2 2 -A SITE PLAN .............................................................. ............................... 2 -2 4 -A PROJECT TRIP DISTRIBUTION ........................... ............................... 4 -7 2 LIST OF TABLES TABLE PAGE 3 -1 INTERSECTION ANALYSIS FOR EXISTING CONDITIONS ................. 3 -2 4-1 SUMMARY OF EMPIRICAL TRIP GENERATION DATA ..................... 4 -2 4 -2 TRIP GENERATION RATES .................................... ............................... 4-4 4-3 NEWPORT BEACH MORMON TEMPLE TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY ............................. ............................... 4 -5 5-1 TRANSPORTATION PHASING ORDINANCE (TPO) ONE PERCENT TEST ............................................ ............................... 5-4 5-2 CUMULATIVE PROJECT ANALYSIS ONE PERCENT TEST ............. 5 -6 5-3 INTERSECTION ANALYSIS FOR CUMULATIVE WITH PROJECT CONDITIONS ............................. ............................... 5 -7 I ' MORMON TEMPLE TRAFFIC PHASING ORDINANCE ANALYSIS (REVISED) ' NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA ' 1.0 INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND ' 1.1 Introduction ' This revised report presents the traffic impact analysis for the proposed Mormon Temple located at the northeast corner of Bonita Canyon Road at Prairie Road in the City of Newport Beach. Exhibit 1 -A illustrates the location of the proposed project with respect to the surrounding roadway system. As required in the City of Newport Beach for all new development projects exceeding 10,000 square feet or generating greater than 300 daily vehicle trips, a traffic analysis is required. Therefore, this analysis has been prepared to address the potential impacts to the circulation system and conforms to the Traffic Phasing Ordinance analysis procedures specified by the City. Additionally, uncommitted developments that are expected to be developed in the near future that are in a close proximity to the site, have been included /analyzed in the "Cumulative Projects" scenario. 1.2 Background The Traffic Impact Analysis format requires that project traffic impacts be presented in progressive analysis steps. Following a description of the project location and site plan, the trip generation and distribution for the proposed project are presented. Traffic impacts at intersections are then determined for AM and PM peak hours. This study analyzes traffic conditions at a timeframe one year after the proposed completion of the project. This time frame was selected because traffic from the 1 -1 EXHIBIT 1 -A LOCATION MAP ' 0 1 -2 ' project is assumed to have reached a stabilized flow condition that is typical of project traffic conditions. Traffic from other projects, which have been previously ' approved by the City of Newport Beach (committed projects) but which are not completed or currently generating traffic, has been included in the analysis. Information on committed projects and their traffic were furnished by the City. Arterial roadways in the City which carry a regional traffic component are also identified by the City. Because the traffic volume which represents the regional traffic component increases without regard to the approval of projects within the city, the regional traffic growth component must be accounted for separately. As with committed project traffic, the annual regional growth rate for the study area is specked by the City. With the completion of this project contemplated in the Year 2003, assuming approval by the City, the analysis year for this project has been assumed to be 2004. Project traffic is then combined with existing, committed project and regional growth traffic to simulate traffic conditions during the analysis year. The City of Newport beach has requested an additional analysis scenario that includes existing, committed project and regional growth traffic and other developments that are expected to occur in the near future. 1.3 Analysis Methodology The ICU methodology expresses intersection performance in terms of the degree of capacity utilization for critical lane groups of an intersection. Capacity utilization is expressed as a volume -to- capacity (V /C) ratio in decimal percent for each approach lane group. Critical lane groups, whose movements conflict with each ' other (i.e., must move independently under the control of a unique signal phase) and have the highest V/C ratios, are then identified. The sum of V/C ratios for the 1 -3 I critical lane groups constitutes the ICU value for the intersection. ICU calculations assume a lane capacity value of 1600 vehicles per hour of green time for both through and turn lanes and do not include a factor for yellow clearance time. ICU calculations are presented rounded to two decimal places. To operate an acceptable level of service, the Traffic Phasing Ordinance generally requires the ICU value for an intersection to be less than 0.90 with the contribution of project traffic. In situations where the ICU will exceed 0.90, the project must propose an improvement which will restore an acceptable level of service. For the purposes of the analysis, the incremental increase in intersection capacity due to the improvement must be limited to 70 percent of its value to insure some reserve capacity. In addition to the intersection analysis, the report provides a review of on -site traffic circulation, and site access from the adjoining street system. iC! I 1 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project site, located at the northeast comer of the intersection of Prairie Road at Bonita Canyon Road in the City of Newport Beach, is proposed for development as a Mormon Temple. The site plan for the proposed site is shown in Exhibit 2 -A. The site is currently vacant and does.not generate a significant amount of traffic. A Mormon Church currently exists and is located adjacent to the proposed temple site. The proposed Temple will share access off the Prairie Road north of Bonita Canyon Road. As shown on the site plan, the project includes a 17,460 square foot Temple facility to accommodate seating for 100 persons. The project site includes a total of approximately 147 on -site parking spaces. I I I l] I LA C 2 -1 I EXHIBIT 2 -A A SITE PLAN I M MORMON TEMPLE TRAFFIC PHASING ORDINANCE Newport Beach 00384.76 URBAN 2 -2 1 I I 3.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS This section of the report identifies the existing traffic conditions in the study area in terms of traffic volumes and roadway geomethcs /traffic controls. 3.1 3.2 Study Intersections Because the Traffic Phasing Ordinance focuses on the impacts to intersections during peak periods, the study intersections define the specific analysis locations within the city circulation system. These following intersections have been designated by the City staff for analysis in this report: Jamboree Road (NS) at: • Eastbluff Road/ Ford Road (EW) MacArthur Boulevard (NS) at: • Bison Avenue (EW) • Ford Road/ Bonita Canyon Road (EW) • San Joaquin Hills Road (EW) Existing Traffic Volumes Existing peak hour traffic operations have been evaluated for study area intersections. The results of this analysis are summarized in Table 3 -1, along with the existing intersection geometrics and traffic control devices at each analysis location. Existing intersection level of service calculations are based upon manual AM and PM peak hour turning movement counts provided by the City of Newport Beach. Traffic count worksheets are included in Appendix "A ". Levels of service definitions are provided in Appendix "B ". 3 -1 TABLE 3.1 INTERSECTION ANALYSIS FOR EXISTING CONDITIONS When a right turn is designated, the lane can either be striped or unstriped. To function as a right turn lane there must be sufficient width for right turning vehicles to travel outside the through lanes. . �� L = Left; T = Through; R = Right >> = Free Right Turn Lane i z ICU - Intersection Capadty Utilization and level of service calculated using the following analysis software: Traffic, Version 7.5 (2001). ' TS = Traffic Signal U:\ UcJobs \00384\exceh[00384-06,xls]T 3-1 1 0 3 -2 r INTERSECTION APPROACH LANES' NORTH- SOUTH - EAST. WEST- LEVEL OF TRAFFIC BOUND BOUND BOUND BOUND ICU SERVICE INTERSECTION CONTROL' L T R L T R L T R L T R AM PM AM L.PMj Jamboree Rd. (NS) at: • Ford Rd, (EW) TS 2 3 0 1 3 1 1 1 1» 1.5 1.5 1 0.74 0.66 C B MacArthur Blvd. (NS) • Bison Ave. (EW) TS 2 4 1» 2 4 1 2 2 1» 2 2 1 0.58 0.53 A A • Ford RdJBonita Cyn. Rd. (EW) TS 2 4 1» 2 4 1 2 2 1 2 2 1» 0.71 0.65 C D • San Joaquin Hills Rd. (EW) TS 2 3 1 2 3 1» 2 3 0 1 2 1» 0.81 0.61 D D When a right turn is designated, the lane can either be striped or unstriped. To function as a right turn lane there must be sufficient width for right turning vehicles to travel outside the through lanes. . �� L = Left; T = Through; R = Right >> = Free Right Turn Lane i z ICU - Intersection Capadty Utilization and level of service calculated using the following analysis software: Traffic, Version 7.5 (2001). ' TS = Traffic Signal U:\ UcJobs \00384\exceh[00384-06,xls]T 3-1 1 0 3 -2 r I ' For existing traffic conditions, all study area intersections currently operate at Level of Service "D" or better during the peak hours. Existing ICU calculation Iworksheets are provided in Appendix "A ". 3 -3 4 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 3-4 I I J I ,1 i r 1 I A i >t J 11 11 I 1 4.0 PROJECTED TRAFFIC This section of the report discusses project trip generation, distribution, and assignment to the roadway system. Trip generation rates, which are appropriate for the project, are identified and the resulting trip generation is determined. Urban Crossroads, Inc. has obtained empirical data from a trip generation study prepared for a Mormon Temple in the City of Reno. The trip generation study is included in Appendix "C. The trip distribution patterns based on the residences of Temple members will be used for routing project traffic on the roadway network. 4.1 Proiect Trip Generation The project site is located on the northeast comer of the intersection of Prairie Road /Bonita Canyon Road. The site is currently vacant and does not generate a significant amount of traffic. As shown previously on the site plan (Exhibit 2 -A), the project includes a 17,460 square foot Temple to accommodate seating for 100 persons. The project site includes a total of 147 on -site parking spaces. The project trip generation has been based upon empirical traffic data collected at a similar temple in the City of Reno. Table 4 -1 summarizes the number of vehicles entering and exiting the site during the AM peak hour (7 -9 AM), the PM peak hour (4-6 PM), and for the entire day. Tuesday through Thursday are considered typical days in which to collect traffic data. However, due to the peaking characteristics that were observed on Friday, this data was also included in the analysis to ensure a conservative "worse case" scenario. 4 -1 TABLE 4 -1 SUMMARY OF EMPIRICAL TRIP GENERATION DATA WEEKDAY SUMMARY TIMEFRAME TUESDAY (9/11/01 ) I WEDNESDAY (9/5/01 THURSDAY 9/6/01 FRIDAY (9/8/01 ) AVERAGE IN I OUT IN OUT IN I OUT IN I OUT IN I OUT AM PEAK HOUR 7:00 -8:00 AM 0 0 1 0 11 6 3 1 4 2 8:00 -9:00 AM 2 2 25 0 1 9 19 1 12 3 PM PEAK HOUR 4:00 -5:00 PM 6 0 4 6 5 4 16 4 8 4 5:00 -6:00 PM 14 7 2 2 1 2 22 12 10 6 DAILY 124 124 115 109 97 97 169 169 126 125 VALUES USED FOR TRIP GENRATION PURPOSES PEAK HOUR 12 3 PM PEAK HOUR 1 10 6 DAILY 126 125 WEEKEND SUMMARY TIMEFRAME SATURDAY (9/8/01) IN 1 OUT PEAK HOUR 34 32 DAILY 236 1 236 ' Source: Empirical data collection /trip generation analysis conducted by Solaegui Engineers, LTD (September 15, 2001) U:1U W obs 1003&4lexcel\[00384- 06.xlsJT4 -1 4 -2 IAs indicated in Table 4 -1, an average of 251 weekday daily trips were observed with 15 trips (12 in/3 out) occurring during the AM peak hour and 16 trips (10 in /6 out) occurring during the PM peak hour. Similarly, a total of 472 weekend daily trips were observed with 66 (34 in /32 out) occurring during the peak timeframe. Data regarding the number of inbound and exiting trips has been correlated to both the square footage of the existing building and the number of available seats. The surveyed Temple contained a total of 80 seats and was approximately 10,700 square feet in size. The number of trips were divided by these values to determine the trip generation rate by seats and thousands of square feet. The subsequent daily, AM, and PM peak hour rates used for this study are included in Table 4 -2. Based upon the empirically derived trip generation rates, the project trip generation was calculated and is shown in Table 4 -3. As indicated in Table 4 -3 the amount of trips vary based on the specific land use analyzed. For calculating the number of trips based on square footage (in thousands), the proposed use would generate approximately 410 trips per day with 25 trips during the AM peak hour and 26 trips per hour during the PM peak hour. Similarly, the project trips based on available seats would generate approximately 314 trips per day with 19 trips during the AM peak hour and 21 trips per hour during the PM peak hour. A weekend trip generation analysis has also been determined to assess the access requirements of the proposed driveway. Again, based on the empirical traffic data, the expected project trips based on square footage (in thousands) would be 770 daily trips and 106 trips during the peak hour. Similarly, the project trips based on available seats would generate approximately 590 trips per day with 83 trips during the peak hour. 4 -3 r TABLE 4 -2 TRIP GENERATION RATES' WEEKDAY CONDITIONS LAND USE PEAK HOUR TRIP RATES DAILY RATE AM OUT PM I IN I OUT I INI OUT Morman Temple Rates Based on: 2.99 ji 44.11 Seats 1 0.43 1 0.40 Thousand Square Feet 1.12 0.28 0.93 0.56 23.46 Seats 0.15 0.04 0.13 0.08 3.14 WEEKEND CONDITIONS LAND USE PEAK HOUR TRIP I DAILY RATE IN OUT Morman Temple Rates Based on: Thousand Square Feet 3.12 2.99 ji 44.11 Seats 1 0.43 1 0.40 1 5.90 Source: Empirical data collection /trip generation analysis conducted by Solaegui Engineers, LTD (September 15, 2001) U: kUcJobsW03841 exceKO0384-06.xis]T4 -2 4 -4 I r J TABLE 43 NEWPORT BEACH MORMON TEMPLE TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY WEEKDAY LAND USE QUANTI UNITS' PEAK HOUR DAILY AM PM IN OUT IN OUT Morrison Temple Thousand Square Feet 17.46 TSF 54 52 770 Thousand Square Feet 17.46 TSF 20 5 16 10 410 Seats 100 Seats 15 4 13 8 314 WEEKEND LAND USE j QUANTITY UNITS PEAK HOUR DAILY IN OUT Morrison Temple Thousand Square Feet 17.46 TSF 54 52 770 Seats 100 Seats 43 40 590 ' TSF = Thousand Square Feet u:luclobs1003841exoeK [00384- 06.xIsIT4 -3 4 -5 To assess a conservative, worst case" condition, Urban Crossroads, Inc. recommends that the square footage rates and forecasts be used in estimating the projects traffic due to the higher trip generation forecasts. 4.2 Project Trip Distribution Trip distribution represents the directional orientation of traffic to and from the project site. The trip distribution patterns and percentages have been based on the roadway system surrounding the site and the residences of temple members (or stakes) in relation to the site. Appendix "D" contains the information regarding the location of the stakes and the logical route that would be used to access the proposed site. Exhibit 4 -A illustrates the project distribution percentages. 4.3 Project Trip Assignment The assignment of traffic from the site to the adjoining roadway system has been based upon the site's trip generation, trip distribution, and surrounding arterial highway and local street systems. n i M 1 1 4 w y Ll EXHIBIT 4 -A PROJECT TRIP DISTRIBUTION LEGEND: 10- PERCENT TO /FROM PROJECT 0 MORMON TEMPLE TRAFFIC PHASING ORDINANCE Newport Beach 00384.02 URBAN 4 -7 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 4 -8 n I I I 5 I I I I 1 5. OPENING YEAR TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS t,r 11 This section of the report discusses the impact of project traffic determined in the previous report section. Project impacts are assessed one year after the project is estimated for completion so that the project traffic has the opportunity to stabilize at its projected value. Because the overall level of traffic which will occur at that time is made up of different components, each traffic component is estimated separately and then combined to forecast the total level of traffic at each study intersection. 5.1 Traffic Phasing Ordinance Committed Proiects One of the components of evaluating future traffic volumes is the inclusion of committed project traffic. Committed projects are defined as projects which have been approved by the City of Newport Beach under the Traffic Phasing Ordinance. Because these projects are potentially under construction or are in their one -year maturity period, they are either not currently or are only partially generating traffic. Therefore, their traffic impacts are not reflected in the peak hour intersection traffic counts provided by the City. To account for this traffic component, the City maintains a database which tracks the committed projects traffic at each City intersection. The City then provides this committed projects traffic for the analysis year of the proposed project to the traffic consultant preparing the report. A list of committed projects and their respective traffic volumes are provided in Appendix "E ". Pursuant to the City staff, 80% of the trip generation is assumed for all the committed projects at one year after the opening of the proposed project as a result of the potential interaction of these projects. 5 -1 5.2 »K? Regional Traffic Growth Another component of future traffic which must be determined for the traffic analysis is the amount of traffic which occurs due to regional growth. The regional traffic component represents traffic which essentially passes through the city on roadways within the City of Newport Beach. This traffic component maintains a growth trend which is not related to project approvals by the City of Newport Beach. The amount of annual growth is identified by the City for segments of roadways which carry regional traffic and is expressed as a percentage of the total traffic which was counted. An annual growth rate of 1 percent per year along Jamboree Road and MacArthur Boulevard has been used to estimate Year 2004 ambient conditions. Determination of Impacted Intersections The first assessment of the project's traffic is made to determine if the project significantly impacts an intersection. This is accomplished by analyzing intersection leg approach volumes at study intersections during the AM and PM peak hours. This assessment is referred to as the "One Percent Test ". During these peak timeframes, the total traffic volume, estimated to occur in the traffic analysis year, on each leg of each study intersection is determined. The project's traffic contribution to the intersection leg is also identified and is compared to the total non - project traffic volume. If the project's contribution on each leg is less than one percent of the non - project total, the analysis for that intersection for that time period is concluded and no further analysis is required. However, if the one percent threshold is equaled or exceeded, the intersection is said to be 5 -2 ' impacted by the project, and a peak hour analysis for that time period must be performed to determine the intersection capacity utilization at the intersection. The results of the One Percent Test are shown in Table 5 -1. Analysis worksheets for each intersection are included in Appendix "F". The results of the analysis indicate all study area intersections will not exceed the one percent test and further analysis is not required by the Transportation Phasing Ordinance. 5.4 Cumulative Project Analysis The City of Newport Beach has requested that additional traffic analysis be performed to address potential impacts of uncommitted, cumulative developments in the study area. This analysis includes existing traffic, committed projects, regional growth, and other projects identified by City staff that is not currently included in the City's Transportation Phasing Ordinance (TPO). These projects include the following: • Saint Mark Presbyterian Church Our Lady Queen of Angels Church • Bluffs Commercial Center • Mariners Church • Exodus Community Center and Tarbut V'Torah Expansion • Newport Coast Developments (County Approved) • Bonita Canyon /Newport Coast Residential Development The intersection of Prairie Road and Bonita Canyon Road (a non -TPO intersection) has been included in this analysis for this scenario based on discussions with City staff. A one percent test has been performed on this 5 -3 1 TABLE 5.1 TRANSPORTATION PHASING ORDINANCE (TPO) ONE PERCENT TEST INTERSECTION ONE PERCENT OF PROJECTED PEAK HOUR VOLUMES PROJECT PEAK HOUR VOLUME OVER ONE PERCENT TEST? AM PM I AM PM AM PM Jamboree Rd. at Ford Rd.: • Northbound 22 27 2 2 No No • Southbound 17 23 0 0 No No • Eastbound 8 5 0 0 No No • Westbound 7 3 1 1 No No MacArthur Blvd. at Bison Ave. • Northbound 25 31 2 5 No No • Southbound 31 25 9 7 No No • Eastbound 9 5 0 0 No No • Westbound 3 4 0 0 No No MacArthur Blvd. at Ford RdJBonita Cyn. Rd. 23 28 2 2 No No 32 51 9 7 No No rEasthound 4 4 2 2 No No 26 12 4 7 No No MacArthur Blvd. at SanJoaquin Hills Rd. • Northbound 18 15 2 2 No No • Southbound 44 30 1 1 No No • Eastbound 4 13 0 0 No No • Westbound 34 6 0 0 No No U:\UCJobd\00364\exce11100384 -06.x1 s]TS -1 5 -4 intersection to determine if a measurable project impact (greater than one percent of the projected peak hour volume) is anticipated at this intersection. The additional traffic due to the cumulative projects will not (from a mathematical standpoint) change the results of the one percent test for the TPO intersections identified on Table 5 -1. However, Table 5 -2 summarizes the one percent test calculated for the cumulative project analysis at the intersection of Prairie Road /Bonita Canyon Road. As indicated on Table 5 -2, this intersection is anticipated to exceed the one percent test for both the Southbound and Eastbound legs of the intersection. Therefore, a level of service analysis is required at this location. Appendix "F" contains the one percent analysis worksheet for this intersection. for the intersection Prairie Table 5 -3 summarizes the level of service analysis of Road /Bonita Canyon Road with the proposed project, without improvements. As indicated in Table 5 -3, this intersection is anticipated to operate at an acceptable Level of Service during both the AM and PM peak hours. Therefore, no improvement measures are necessary with the development of the proposed project. Appendix "G" contains the level of service worksheets. TABLE 5 -2 CUMULATIVE PROJECT ANALYSIS ONE PERCENT TEST INTERSECTION ONE PERCENT OF PROJECTED PEAK HOUR VOLUMES PROJECT PEAK HOUR VOLUME OVER ONE PERCENT TEST? AM PM AM PM AM PM Prairie Road at SanJoaquin Hills Rd. • Northbound 3 4 1 1 No No • Southbound 0 1 5 11 Yes Yes • Eastbound 8 16 13 10 Yes No • Westbound 19 13 6 5 1 No No U: \UWobs \00384 \exoel\[0038"6.x sj75 -2 5 -6 I I 1 1 ll E 11 i r I� 1 I I i TABLE 5 -3 INTERSECTION ANALYSIS FOR CUMULATIVE WITH PROJECT CONDITIONS INTERSECTION TRAFFIC CONTROL' INTERSECTION APPROACH LANES' ICU= LEVEL OF SERVICE NORTH- BOUND SOUTH - BOUND EAST- BOUND WEST- BOUND L T R L T R L T R L T R AM PM AM PM Prairie Rd. (NS) at • Ford RdJBonita Cyn. Rd, (EW) I TS t 1 2 1 1 0 2 2 0 2 2 0 1 0.56 0.71 1 A C ' When a right turn is designated, the lane can either be striped or unstriped. To function as a right turn lane there must be sufficient width for right turning vehicles to travel outside the through lanes. L = Left: T = Through; R = Right; >> = Free Right Turn Lane 2 ICU = Intersection Capacity Utilization and level of service calculated using the following analysis software: Traffix, Version 7.5 (2001). TS = Traffic Signal U:VUeJobs1003841excelt [00384 -06.xls]T5 -3 5 -7 I I I I I LJ . 1 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 1 I i r r r r 5 -8 I 1 6.0 SITE ACCESS ISSUES ' This section of the report presents a discussion of issues related to vehicle movement at the site including site access and on -site circulation. 6.1 Site Access As shown on the site plan, the project is located on the northeast comer of the rintersection of Prairie Road at Bonita Canyon Road. Entry to the site will be via the existing intersection of Prairie Road at Bonita Canyon Road. ' To evaluate the needs of the site in terms of left turn pocket lengths, the weekend trip generation has been referenced. This timeframe has been chosen due to the higher expected traffic volumes to the site. As indicated previously on Table 4 -3, the site is expected to experience approximately 54 inbound trips. Approximately 65 percent of the project traffic will enter the site from the west (as illustrated previously on Exhibit 4 -A). Therefore, a 150 foot (minimum) eastbound left turn into the site on Bonita Canyon Road will provide adequate stacking distance for inbound traffic. It should be noted that dual 230 foot eastbound left turn lanes are currently provided at this location and will provide adequate stacking for the proposed project. A westbound right turn pocket is not recommended on Bonita Canyon Road at the project entrance due to the relatively minimal volumes expected during the peak timeframes. L �I I 6 -1 I THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 6 -2 I I I 11 1 I 5 LJ F 1 L 1 7.0 SUMMARY The project site, located at the northeast comer of the intersection of Prairie Road at Bonita Canyon Road in the City of Newport Beach, is proposed for development as a ' Mormon Temple. The proposed project will include a 17,460 square foot Temple facility to accommodate seating for 100 persons. The project site includes a total of 147 on -site ' parking spaces. ' Entry to the site will be via the existing intersection of Prairie Road at Bonita Canyon 1 Road. 1 The proposed use is anticipated to generate approximately 410 trips per day with 25 trips during the AM peak hour and 26 trips per hour during the PM peak hour for weekday conditions. The expected weekend project trip generation based on square footage (in thousands) would be 770 daily trips and 106 trips during the peak hour. 1 A 150 foot (minimum) eastbound left turn into the site on Bonita Canyon Road will provide adequate stacking distance for inbound traffic. It should be noted that dual 230 foot eastbound left turn lanes are currently provided at this location and will provide adequate stacking for the proposed project. A westbound right turn pocket is not recommended on Bonita Canyon Road at the project entrance due to the relatively minimal volumes expected during the peak timeframes. 7 -1 I THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 7 -2 u I I I L! I 11 J I I I I L 1 1 APPENDIX A EXISTING TRAFFIC COUNTS /ICU ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS R JA4980 I ' I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: JAMBOREE ROAD & EASTBLUFF DRIVEIFORD ROAD 4980 EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC WINTERISPRING 12001 AM I EXISTING I PROPOSED I EXISTING I EXISTING I REGIONAL I COMMITTED I PROJECTED I PROJECT I PROJECT I Movement I Lanes I Lanes I PK HR I V/C I GROWTH I PROJECT I V/C Ratio I Volume I V/C I Capacity I Capacity I Volume I Ratio I Volume I Volume I w/o Project I I Ratio I I I I I I I I Volume I I I NIL I 3200 I I 400 I 0.125 ' I I 0.125 I I 0.125 NT I I 1528 I I I I } 4800 - - - - - - -- - - -- } 0.338 - - - - - - -- - -- } 0.338 - - -- } 0.338 I NR I I 95 I I I I SL I 1600 � - - - -� -- 48 I 0.030 � - - - - -- � - - - -- � 0.030 I - -- I -- 0.030 I ST I 4800 I I 1465 I 0.305 ' I I 0.305 I I 0.305 I SR I 1600 I I 46 I 0.029 I I I 0.029 I I 0.029 I EL I 1600 176 I 0.110 I ;:0.110 I I 0.110 I ET I 1600 I - - - - -� - -- I 175 I - - - - - -- -- 0.109 I - - - - -- -- 0.109 - -- - -- 0.109 I ER I 1600 I I 420 I 0.263 I I 0.263 I I 0.263 I - -- - WL I 2400 I -- - - -- I 165 I - -- - - - -- - - - ---- 0.069 I I --- -- - - - -- - I 0.069 I I -- -- - - - - -I 0.069 I WT I 2400 I I 468 I 0.195 I 0.195 I I 0.195 I W I 1600 I 66 I 0.041 I I I 0.041 I I 0.041 I EXISTING I.C.U. I 0.735 I I EXISTING +REG GROWTH +COMMITTED W /PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. I I I EXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U. I I Split Phase E/W direction 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 7 FORM It _ Description of system improvement: PROJECT JA4980AM 7 FORM It JA4980 INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: JAMBOREE ROAD & EASTBLUFF DRIVE/FORD ROAD 4980 EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC WINTERISPRING 2001 PM' I I EXISTING I PROPOSED I EXISTING I EXISTING I REGIONAL I COMMITTED I PROJECTED 1 PROJECT I PROJECT Movement I Lanes I Lanes I PK HR I WC I GROWTH I PROJECT I V/C Ratio I Volume I WC 1' I I Capacity I Capacity 1 Volume I Ratio I Volume I Volume I w/o Project 1 I Ratio I I I I I I I I I Volume I I I 1 NL 1 3200 1 1 378 1 0.118 ' 1 1 0.118 1 1 0.118 1� I NT 1 1 1976 I 1 1 I I -- j 4800 - - - - -- - j 0.444 - - -- - 0.444 - ) 0.444 1 I NR 1 1 154 I 1 1 SL 1 1600 1 1 52 1 0.033 I 1 1 0.033 1 I 0.033 1 1 ST 1 4800 1 1 1922 1 0.400 1 1 0.400 1 1 0.400 I' SR - 1 1600 1 1 103 1 0.064 I 1 1 0.064 1 1 0 -064 1 1 EL I 1600 1 1 49 1 0.031 I I I 0.031 I 1 0.031 1 ET 1 1600 1 1 110 1 0.069 1 1- 0.069 -- 0.069 1 1 1 ER 1 1600 1 1 333 1 0.208 I I I 0.208 1 1 0.208 1' 1 WL 1 2400 1 1 166 0.066 0 .oss i I o.oss 1 1 1 WT 1 2400 1 1 139 0.058 I I I 0.058 1 1 0.058 1 1 WR I 1600 1 1 23 1 0.014 I 1 I 0.014 1 1 0.014 1 1 EXISTING I.C.U. 1 0.656 1 1 1 EXISTING + REG GROWTH + COMMITTED W/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. 1 1 I 1 EXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT LC.U.- Split Phase E/W direction -- - - -1 - - -1' LI Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 090 L1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 LI Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w /systems improvement wilt 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 JA4980PM FORM II I IMA4995AM 11 I I INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: MACARTHUR BOULEVARD & BISON 4995 EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC WINTER/SPRING 2000 AM I I EXISTING I PROPOSED I EXISTING I EXISTING I REGIONAL I COMMITTED - - -- -- I PROJECTED I PROJECT[ PROJECT I I Movement I Lanes I Lanes I PK HR I V/C I GROWTH I PROJECT I V/C Ratio I Volume I V/C I I I Capacity I Capacity I Volume I Ratio I Volume I Volume I w/o Project I I Ratio I I I I I I I I I Volume I I I I NIL 1 3200 I 1 205 I 0.064 ' I I 0.064 I I 0.064 1 I NT I 6400 I I 2077 1 0.325 I I I 0.325 I I 0.325 I NR I N.S. 1 I 631 I I I I I I I SL 1 3200 I 1 65 I 0.027 I I -- i -- -0.027 0.027 27 1 I ST 1 6400 I I 2520 1 0.409 1 I- -- I 0.409 I 1 0.409 1 - -- ---'-- - -- — I SR I N.S. I 2641 I I I I 1 I I EL 1 3200 I I 164 I 0.051 I I Il.051 I 1 0.051 1 ET I 3200 I 1 127 I 0.040 I I I 0.040 I I 0.040 I ER I N.S. I I 4661 I I I I I WL I 3200 I 1 110 1 0.034 I I I 0.034 1 1 0.034 1 - - - - - -- - - - - - - -- - - - - - -- I WT I 3200 1 1 158 1 0.053 1 - - - - - -- 1 0.053 1 - - - -• 1 -- -0.053 1 I W R I 1500 I 1 15 1 0.009 I I I 0.009 I 0.009 — - - ----- -- I EXISTING I.C.U. 1 0.577 I — I EXISTING +REG GROWTH + COMMITTED W /PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. I I I I EXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U. I I I I LI 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 CI 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 MA4995AM FORM II MA4995PM INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS 1 I I INTERSECTION: MACARTHUR BOULEVARD & BISON 4995 ' PROJECT FORM II EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC WINTERISPRING ' 2000 PM — I EXISTING I PROPOSED I EXISTING I EXISTING I REGIONAL I COMMITTED I PROJECTED 1 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 1 I Capacity I Capacity I Volume I Ratio I Volume I Volume I w/o Project I I Ratio I I I I I I I I Volume I I I NI- 1 3200 1 202 1 0.063 I I I 0.063 I 1 0.063 1, NT 1 6400 1 -- I 2656 1 0.415 ' - -- — — 0.415 1 1 — 0.415 I NR 1 N.S. 1 1 1301 SL 1 3200 I — 1 - - -25 I -- 0.008 ' - - -- 0 .008 I— 1 0.008 I I — ST 1 6400 I 1 2109 I 0.330 - -- - -- 0.330 - - -- 0.330 SR 1 N.S. I- --- - -1 222 I - - -- i ------ i- -– i - - -- I— I— I I — EL � -- 3200 1 - - - - -- I —211 1 0.066 ' - -_— � - _ - - - -_ � — � �� 0.066 � .0.034 -- � 0.066 1' ET 1 —3200 1 -_ - -- I -- 108 1 0.034 � - - - - -_ � -- � - -- � 0.034 1 ER 1 N.S. I I 125 — WL I -_ -3200 I - - -1 — 103 I 0.032 I - - -_ -- I - - -- I —_— 0.032 1 1 0.032 I 1 - WT I -- 3200 I ----- i - -130 1 -- 0.041- - - - - -- i - ----- i -- 0.041 i o.o I at 1 .— W R 1 —1600 I_ —_ —_— 17 1 0.011 0.011 1 —I �— I 0.011 1 EXISTING I.C.U. I 0.530 1 I' EXISTING +REG GROWTH +COMMITTED W /PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. I I I - -- - - - -- - -- - - - - -- - - - -- - - - -- - — - EXISTING +COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U. -- ---- -- - -- - - -- - U Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 0 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 FORM II MA4995PM ' iMA4985 i ' INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS 'INTERSECTION: MACARTHUR BOULEVARD & FORD ROAD 4985 EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC WINTER/SPRING I I EXISTING I PROPOSED I EXISTING I EXISTING I REGIONAL I COMMITTED Movement I Lanes I Lanes I PK HR I V/C I GROWTH I PROJECT Capacity I Capacity I Volume I Ratio I Volume I Volume I I I I I I NIL I 3200 I I 140 I 0.044 I I NT I 6400 I I 1934 I 0.302 I NR ( N.S. I I 1051 I I SL I 3200 I I 50B I 0.159 - I ST I 6400 I I— 2521 j 0.394 I I SR I 16001 I 121 0.008 I I EL I 3200 I I 46 I 0.014 I I ET I 3200 1 I 221 I 0.069 I ER I 1600 I I 84 I 0.053 WL I 3200 1 I 573 1 0.179 - I WT I 3200 I I 505 1 0.158 1_ I WR I N.S. I I 1427 1 I I EXISTING I.C.U. I 0.709 I EXISTING + REG GROWTH + COMMITTED W/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. EXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U. — IJ Projected + project traffic I.C.U. %ill be less than or equal to 0.90 U Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 U Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w /systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 U Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will be less than I.C.U. without project Description of system improvement - - - - —� PROJECT MA4985AM i FORM It 2001 AM PROJECTED I PROJECT I PROJECT I V/C Ratio I Volume I V/C I I w/o Project I I Ratio Volume I I I o.D44 I I I o.D44 0.302 I I - I 0.302 I I I I I 0.159 I I 0.159 I I 0.394 I I 0.394 I I I I I I 0.014 I; . I I 0.014 I I 0.069 I I I 0.069 I I 0.053 I I 0.053 I I 0.179 I I I 0.179 I - - I 0.158 I I I I I I 0.158 I I i FORM It MA4985 INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: MACARTHUR BOULEVARD & FORD ROAD 4985 EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC WINTER/SPRING 2001 PM I EXISTING I PROPOSED I EXISTING I EXISTING I REGIONAL I COMMITTED I PROJECTED I PROJECT I PROJECT 1 Movement I Lanes I Lanes I PK HR I V/C I GROWTH I PROJECT I V/C Ratio I Volume I V/C 1 I Capacity I Capacity I Volume I Ratio - 1 Volume I volume I w/o Project I I Ratio I I I I I I I I I Volume I I I NL I 1 32001 1 741 0.023 I I I 0.023 I 1 0.023 1 I NT 1 6400 1 2074 1 0.324 ' I I 0.324 I I 1 0.324 1 I NR I N.S. 1 1 5461 I I I I I I SL 1 3200 I 1 1082 1 0.338 1 I 0.338 1 1 0.338 1 I ST I 1 64001 1 24301 0.380 I I I 0.380 I 1 0.380 1 I SR 1 1600 I 1 62 1 0.039 I I 1 I I I I I EL 1 32001 1 91 0.003 I I I 0.003 I I 0.003 1 I ET 1 3200 I 1 289 1 0.090 I I 0.090 1 1 0.090 1 I ER 1 16001 1 1131 0.071 I I I 0.071 I I 0.071 1 I WL 1 32001 1 321 1 0.100 I I 0.100 1 I 0.100 1 I WT 1 32001 1 2751 0.086 I I I 0.086 I 0.086 I WR I N.S.1 1 5441 I I I I I I I EXISTING I.C.U. 1 0.852 1 1 I EXISTING +REG GROWTH + COMMITTED W/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. 1 I I I EXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U. I I I I LJ Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 LJ Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 D Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w /systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 LJ Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will be less than I.C.U. without project Description of system improvement: PROJECT MA4985PM FORM II , I, I MA5070 INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: MACARTHUR BOULEVARD & SAN JOAQUIN HILLS ROAD 5070 EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC WINTER/SPRING I — I EXISTING I PROPOSED I EXISTING I EXISTING I REGIONAL 1 COMMITTED I PROJECTED 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 Capacity I Capacity I Volume I Ratio I Volume I Volume I w/o Project I 1 I I I f I I Volume I I LI Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 I_I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 I I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w /systems Improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 �LI Projected +project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will be less than I.C.U. without project Description of system improvement PROJECT -- MA5070AM 0.029 0.334 0.011 0.209 0.392 I 0.034 I I } 0.049 - --- -- } I - -- 0.029 _ -- — i 0.235 I I - --- ------ i ------ -- 2001 AM PROJECT V/C Ratio Px*4ll 0.334 0.011 0.209 0.392 0.034 0.049 0.029 0.235 FORM II NIL 1 3200 1 1 93 1 0.029 1 1 — NT 1 4800 1 - 1 - -- 1601 1 0.334 ' - - - -- NR 1 1600 1 1 17 1 0.011 I I SL I 3200 I _ - -- I -- 668 1 0.209 - - - -- ST 1 4800 1 1 1881 1 0.392 1 1 SR I N.S. 1 1 1727 1 1 1 EL I 3200 1 -- 1 108 1 - 0.034 I - - - -- - - - - - - -- - -- — - - - - -- -- ET 1 - - - -- I 216 I I 4800 ' - - -- -- -- } 0.049 - --- --' -- --- ER I I 20 I I - -- -- - - - - WL 1 1600 -- - - ! - - -- - - - -- - - -- I -------- ! — — - --! WT 1 3200 1 ----47 - 1 752 I -0.029 - 0.235 I -- -- ---- N.S. 1 I - - — — — 2489 I - - — --- — I --- -- ---WR--- ---- -- - -- --' EXISTING I.C.U. --- 1 ------ —' — — 0.812 1 _ EXISTING +REG GROWTH + COMMITTED W /PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. EXISTING+ COMMITTED+ REGIONAL GROWTH +PROJECT I.C.U. ENV Directional Split Phasing LI Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 I_I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 I I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w /systems Improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 �LI Projected +project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will be less than I.C.U. without project Description of system improvement PROJECT -- MA5070AM 0.029 0.334 0.011 0.209 0.392 I 0.034 I I } 0.049 - --- -- } I - -- 0.029 _ -- — i 0.235 I I - --- ------ i ------ -- 2001 AM PROJECT V/C Ratio Px*4ll 0.334 0.011 0.209 0.392 0.034 0.049 0.029 0.235 FORM II MA5070 INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: MACARTHUR BOULEVARD & SAN JOAQUIN HILLS ROAD 5070 EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC WINTERISPRING 2001 PM I EXISTING I PROPOSED I EXISTING I EXISTING I REGIONAL I COMMITTED I PROJECTED I PROJECT I PROJECTI 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 Capacity I Capacity I Volume I Ratio I Volume I Volume I w/o Project I I Ratio I I I I I I I I Volume I I I NL I 3200 I I 36 I 0.011 I I 1 0.011 I I 0.011 1 NT I 4800 i I 1395 I 0.291 I y I— 0.291 -- 0.291 I NR I 1600 I I 16 I 0.010 I I I 0.010 I I 0.010 I SL I 3200 I I 647 I 0.202 ' —- - - - - -- — 0.202 - - - -- 0.202 I ST I 4800 I i 1756 I 0.366 I I I 0.366 I I 0.366 I SR -- ------- I N.S. 1 I - --- -- 4001 EL ---- 3200 I I --- -- --- -- ----- ' - - -- 729 I 0.228 I I - --- ------ 0.228.1' 1 I 0.228 1 ET I I 403 I I I 1 - - - - -- } 4800 - -- - - - - -- - - - - -- } 0.098 - - - - - - -- - -- - - - - -- } 0.098 - - - - - -- } 0.098 I ER I I 65 I I I I WL 1 1600 I i 43 I 0.027 I I I 0.027 I I 0.027 WT I 3200 I I 271 I 0.085 I I - - -- 0.085 I I 0.085 I WR I N.S. 1 I 3111 I I I I I I EXISTING I.C.U. I 0.806 I I EXISTING + REG GROWTH +COMMITTED W /PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. I I I EXISTING +COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U. I I I I ENV Directional Split Phasing LI Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 I-J Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 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 MA5070PM FORM II I i i i - i i i iAPPENDIX B 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 1 LEVEL OF SERVICE DEFINITION I I I I 11 1 I [1 I I`) Service Level General Definition LEVEL OF SERVICE - DEFINITIONS* A Free flow. Individual users are virtually unaffected by the presence of others in the traffic stream. Freedom to select desired speeds and to maneuver within the traffic stream is extremely high. The general level of comfort and convenience provided to the motorist, passenger, or pedestrian is excellent. B Stable flow, but the presence of other users in the traffic stream begins to be noticeable. Freedom to select desired speeds is relatively unaffected, but there is a slight decline in the freedom to maneuver within the traffic stream from LOS A. The level of comfort and convenience provided is somewhat less than at LOS A, because the presence of others in the traffic stream begins to affect individual behavior. C Stable flow, but marks the beginning of the range of flow in which the operation of individual users becomes significantly affected by interactions with others in the traffic stream. The selection of speed is affected by the presence of others, and maneuvering within the traffic stream requires substantial vigilance on the part of the user. The general level of comfort and convenience declines noticeably at this level. Freeways Criteria for measurement Density (cars per lane -mile) Free flow operations. Average travel speeds near 60 mph generally prevail on 70 -mph freeway elements. Vehicles are almost completely unimpeded in their ability to maneuver within the traffic stream. The average spacing between vehicles is about 440 ft, or 22 car - lengths, with a maximum density of 12 cars/miAn. The effects of minor incidents or breakdowns are easily absorbed at this level. Although they may cause a deterioration in LOS in the vicinity of the incident, standing queues will not form, and traffic quickly returns to LOS A on passing the disruption. Reasonably free -flow conditions, and speeds of over 57 mph are maintained on 70 -mph freeway elements. The average spacing between vehicles is about 260 ft, or 13 car- lengths, with a maximum density of 20 cars/mOn. The ability to maneuver within the traffic stream is only slightly restricted. The effects of minor incidents and breakdowns are still easily absorbed, though local deterioration in service would be more severe than for LOS A. Stable conditions, but flows approach the range in which small increases in flow will cause substantial deterioration in service. Average travel speeds are still over 54 mph. Freedom to maneuver within the traffic stream is noticeably restricted at LOS C, and lane changes require additional care and vigilance by the driver. Average spacings are in the range of 175 ft, or 9 car - lengths, with a maximum density of 30 cars/miAn. Minor incidents may still be absorbed, but the local deterioration in service will be substantial. Queues may be expected to forth behind any significant blockage. Additional vigilance by driver required for safe operation. Arterials Criteria for measurement: Average travel speed (mph) Primarily free flow - operations at average travel speeds usually within 90 percent of the free flow speed. Vehicles are completely unimpeded in their ability to maneuver within the traffic stream. Stopped delay at signalized intersections is minimal. Unimpeded operations at average travel speeds usually within 70 percent of the free flow speed. The ability to maneuver within the traffic stream is slightly restricted and stopped delays are not bothersome. Stable conditions. Ability to maneuver and change lanes in midblock locations may be more restricted than in LOS B, and longer queues and/or adverse signal coordination may contribute to lower average travel speeds of about 50 percent of the average free flow speed. D High - density, but stable, flow. Speed and freedom to maneuver are severely restricted, and the driver or pedestrian experiences a generally poor level of comfort and convenience. Small increases in traffic flow will generally cause operational problems at this level. E Operating conditions at or near the capacity level. All speeds are reduced to a low but relatively uniform value. Freedom to maneuver within the traffic stream is extremely d'rfflcult, and it is generally accomplished by forcing a vehicle or pedestrian to "give way" to accommodate such maneuvers. Comfort and convenience levels are extremely poor, and driver or pedestrian frustration is generally high. Operations at this level are usually unstable, because small increases in flow or minor perturbations within the traffic stream will cause breakdowns. Level -of- Service F. Forced or breakdown flow. This condition exists wherever the amount of traffic approaching a point exceeds the amount which can traverse the point Queues form behind such locations. Arrival flow exceeds discharge flow. Borders on unstable flow. In this range, small increases in flow cause substantial deterioration in service. Average travel speeds of 46 mph or more can still be maintained on 70- mph freeway elements. Freedom to maneuver within the traffic stream is severely limited. Even minor incidents can be expected to create substantial queuing, because the traffic stream has little space to absorb disruptions. Average spacings are about 125 ft, or 6 car- lengths, with a maximum density of 42 carstmifin. The boundary between LOS D and LOS E describes operation at capacity. Operations in this level are extremely unstable, because there are virtually no usable gaps in the traffic stream. Vehicles are spaced at approximately 80 ft, or 4 car- lengths, at relatively uniform headways. This, however, represents the minimum spacing at which stable flow can be accommodated. Any disruption to the traffic stream, such as a vehicle entering from a ramp, or a vehicle changing lanes, causes following vehicles to give way to admit the vehicle. At capacity, the traffic stream has no ability to dissipate even the most minor disruptions. Any incident can be expected to produce a serious breakdown with extensive queuing. The range of flows encompassed by LOS E is relatively small compared to other levels, but reflects a substantial deterioration in service. Maneuverability within the traffic stream is extremely limited. Average travel speeds at capacity are approximately 30 mph. Level F describes forced or breakdown flow. Such conditions generally exist within queues forming behind breakdown points. Breakdown occurs when the ratio of actual arrival flow rate to actual capacity or the forecasted flow rate to estimated capacity exceeds 1.00. Operations at such a point will generally be at or near capacity, and downstream operations may be better as vehicles pass the bottleneck (assuming that there are no additional downstream problems). The LOS F operations observed within a queue are the result of a breakdown or bottleneck at a downstream point. Source: "Highway Capacity Manual, Specific Report 209" Transportation Research Board, Washington D.C., 1985 Borders on a range on which small increases in flow may cause substantial increases in approach delay and, hence, decreases in arterial speed. This may be due to adverse signal . progression, inappropriate signal timing, high volumes, or some combination of these. Average travel speeds are about 40 percent of free flow speed. Significant approach delays and average travel speeds of one -third the free flow speed or lower. Such operations are caused by some combination or adverse progression, high signal density, extensive queuing at critical intersections, and inappropriate signal timing. Arterial flow at extremely low speeds below one -third to one - quarter of the free flow speed. Intersection congestion is likely at critical signalized locations, with high approach delays resulting. Adverse progression is frequently a contributor to this condition. I I I I APPENDIX C TRIP GENERATION STUDY m i SOLAEGUI ENGINEERS BY' Re: Reno Temple of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter— Day Saints Dear Scott: We have completed the traffic data collection effort per the requirements of our agreement. We counted ingress and egress traffic at the Reno Temple from September 5, 2001 through September 12, 2001. The attached summary sheets show' the hourly volumes throughout the count period. ' The Reno Temple is located in northwest Reno, Nevada. The Temple was dedicated in April, 2000. The structure is approximately 10,700 square feet in size. It has facilities for ' baptisms, marriages and other instructional services. The same services will be offered in the Newport Beach Temple. The Reno Temple is open Tuesday through Saturday. It is closed Sunday and Monday, however we note that people visit the site during hours when the Temple is closed. The Reno Temple serves Church members from Nevada and California. Nine church units or stakes are assigned to attend the Reno Temple. Stakes are geographic entities that consist of a number of local congregations that may extend to other areas or towns. The following table lists the nine stakes and their current membership. Auburn California 3,876 Carson City Nevada 4,708 Fallon Nevada 2,918 Fallon Nevada South 2,135 Quincy California September 14, 2001 i 3,750 Reno Nevada North Mr. Scott Sato Sparks Nevada Urban Crossroads Winnemucca Nevada 41 Corporate Park, Suite 210 Irvine, California 92606 Re: Reno Temple of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter— Day Saints Dear Scott: We have completed the traffic data collection effort per the requirements of our agreement. We counted ingress and egress traffic at the Reno Temple from September 5, 2001 through September 12, 2001. The attached summary sheets show' the hourly volumes throughout the count period. ' The Reno Temple is located in northwest Reno, Nevada. The Temple was dedicated in April, 2000. The structure is approximately 10,700 square feet in size. It has facilities for ' baptisms, marriages and other instructional services. The same services will be offered in the Newport Beach Temple. The Reno Temple is open Tuesday through Saturday. It is closed Sunday and Monday, however we note that people visit the site during hours when the Temple is closed. The Reno Temple serves Church members from Nevada and California. Nine church units or stakes are assigned to attend the Reno Temple. Stakes are geographic entities that consist of a number of local congregations that may extend to other areas or towns. The following table lists the nine stakes and their current membership. Auburn California 3,876 Carson City Nevada 4,708 Fallon Nevada 2,918 Fallon Nevada South 2,135 Quincy California 1,821 Reno Nevada 3,750 Reno Nevada North 4,142 Sparks Nevada 4,290 Winnemucca Nevada 2.972 ITotal Membership 30,612 I Solaegui Engineers Ltd. • 715 H Street • Sparks, Nevada 89431 • 775/358 -1004 • FAX 775/358 -1098 Civil & Traffic Engineers e -moil: psolcegui (gcol.com The Temple provides instructional services to church members in the nine stakes on an ' appointment basis only. These services are the largest regularly scheduled functions held in the Temple. They are offered in two rooms, each containing 40 seats. The design of the rooms and the format of the instruction, limit the number of attendees to 40 people per , one hour and fifteen minute block. The largest number of instruction services are scheduled in the Reno Temple on Saturday, with Friday the second busiest day and the ' midweek days having the fewest services. The current schedule of the instructional services is summarized below. Tuesday; 3:45, 5:00, 6:15 and 7:30 PM ' Wednesday; 10:00, and 11:15 AM, 12:30 and 1:45 PM, Thursday; 6:00, 8:00 and 10:00 AM ' Friday; 10:00 and 11:15 AM, 12:30, 3:45, 5:00, 6:15 and 7:30 PM Saturday; 8:30, 9:45 and 11:00 AM, 12:15, 2:30, 3:45, 5:00 and 6:15 PM We calculated trip generation rates for the Reno Temple for weekday, Friday and , Saturday operation. Trip generation rates have been determined for average daily traffic as well as the peak hour periods for the various days. The independent variables are ' instructional room seats, based on the 40 seat hourly maximum and 1,000 square feet of gross floor area, based on the 10,700 square feet structure. The peak hour periods occurred at 2:00 PM Saturday and 9:00 PM Tuesday and Friday. ' Trip Generation Rates Day- Variable Day Peak ' Total Hour Saturday — Trips Per 1,000 Square Feet 44.1 6.2 Saturday — Trips Per Instructional Room Seat 11.8 1.7 ' Friday — Trips Per 1,000 Square Feet 31.6 3.4 Friday — Trips Per Instructional Room Seat 8.5 0.9 Weekday — Trips Per 1,000 Square Feet 23.2 4.4 ' Weekday —Trips Per Instructional Room Seat 6.2 1.2 We trust that this letter will provide adequate documentation of our findings. Please , contact us with any further questions or concerns. Sincerely, , SOLAEGUI ENGIN RS, Paul W. Solaegu' E. President ' LETTERS. RENO. TEMPLE P 1 i IM I I u 1 Cl 1 RENO TEMPLE Traffic Count Summary Sheets LOCATIoN Rrno, NcvaAi Tcmplc,'I he Church of ]csus Christ of Lallcr•Da Saints DIRECTION Ingress driccway *Wednesday data midnight to 9 AM eolloeled 911212001 DATV 9/5/2001 4'62001 9/7/2001 91W2001 7192001 91111.2001 0111;2001 Arcrap DAY WCGI. Thurs. l ri Sat. sun. Mnn. Tucs. Da T1Mli 2400 • 0100 0 U 0 0 1 0 0 0 0100.0200 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0200-0300 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0300-0,100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0400 • 0500 0 19 0 0 1 0 0 3 0500 • 0600 0 16 0 0 0 0 0 2 0600.0700 0 1 0 7 1 0 0 1 0700 -11800 1 11 3 28 2 2 0 7 0800-0900 25 1 19 21 1 () 2 10 0900- 1 000 24 18 8 23 1 0 G 11 1000- I IN 12 1 10 18 2 1 3 7 1100 • 1200 3 4 3 10 2 0 2 3 1200- 13:00 12 3 10 16 4 0 3 7 1300- 1.100 11 5 11 23 0 0 6 8 1400- 1500 1 2 15 34 4 2 21 11 1500 • 1600 3 3 14 9 3 1 13 7 1600- 1700 4 5 16 1 18 2 0 6 7 1700. 1 X00 2 1 22 1 12 5 1 14 8 1800-1900 6 1 22 8 2 2 26 10 1900 -2000 5 2 10 4 2 3 14 6 2000-2100 4 1 0 3 3 l 5 2 2100-2200 0 2 5 1 7 3 2 3 2200-2300 2 1 0 I 1 0 1 0 I 23cw - 2400 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 U 1 0 TQ'l'A]. 115 97 1 169 236 1 45 19 1 124 115 Wednesday ingressle Tess totals do not balance, data collected two days 1 )RENO 7EN1!•LE IN r RENO TEMPLE Traffic Count Summary Sheets LOCATION Reno, Nesada Tcm le, The Church orlesus Cluist or latter -Day Sninls DIkL(`I'IOV E -gicss dri %sway *Wednesday data midnight to 9 AM colkxied 9(12(01 DATE 9;5/2001 9W2001 91'712001 W0001 9/9120(11 9110;2001 9:11 ;'2001 Average DAY Wcd. Thurs. I-Ii. Sat. Sun. Mon. Tues. Da 7•I M li 2400 -0100 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0100-0200 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0200.0300 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0300 •0400 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0400.0500 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0500-0600 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0600 -0700 0 l 0 0 1 0 0 0 0700 -Oh00 0 6 1 4 1 0 0 2 0900-0900 0 9 1 13 2 0 2 4 0900 -1000 5 2 1 6 1 0 0 2 1000-1100 10 17 2 17 2 3 4 8 1100-1200 12 8 11 14 2 0 5 7 1200 - I MCI 14 30 15 19 3 0 5 l2 1300- 1400 12 5 14 17 1 0 4 8 1400.1500 7 3 18 32 3 2 2 10 15(H)- 1(1)0 24 3 1 20 3 1 1 8 1600 - 17M G 4 4 I6 2 0 0 5 1700 - 1800 2 2 12 is 4 1 7 6 1800 - 1900 2 1 8 21 2 2 9 6 1900 - 2000 U 2 15 Is 2 2 8 6 20(H) - 2 I G 1 31 25 3 2 27 14 2100.2200 7 2 31 1 4 2 45 13 2200 - 2300 2 1 3 I 5 1 4 2 2300 - 2400 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 T(1•I'AL 109 97 169 1 236 1 45 1 19 124 114 Wcdjwsday ingress /egress [Wills do not balance, data collected two days UtEW TD411.I :.1N I 11 I� V L L . 1 L 1 1 1 I I� IAPPENDIX D I 11 I II TRIP DISTRIBUTION DATA i IIF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS PLEASE CALL (949) 752 -6923 11 i ROBERT L. WYNN MUNICIPAL MANAGEMENT CONSULTANT WYNN 6 ASSOCIATES (949) 752 -6923 1601 DOVE STREET cell (949) 294 -0499 SUITE 115 fax (949) 833 -1810 NEWPORT Beach, CA 92660 DATE: Alignat IF,. 9nn1 ' NUMBER OF PP.GES: 2 TO:_,Tanet nivan ' FAX NUMBER: 644 -33]8 ' COPY: COPiMENTS ' Janet: the attached are actuale attendance figures for 2000 involving the Stakes'Temple attendance. Of the total 112 average dailey attendance, I have tried to show that the Stakes in south county will use Culver Dr., hiway 73. or Newport ' Coast Drive to reach the Temple. I don't think they will use Macarthur Blvd. Also Spyglass Hill, and Port Streets will not use Macarthur and Bonita Canyon intersection. If you think ' these figures will help your traffic engineer consultant, please use them. Also you may know that all members of the Church do not have Temple Recommends to attend. the Temple. This is one difference from our Chaples. All can attend our Chaples but only those with Temple recommends can attend the Temple. Finally all the Stakes listed in the attached constitute our Temple District. Members are encouraged to attend the Temple in their District. Orange County members now go to the Los Angeles Temple with the South County Cities going to the San Diego Temple. Visitors can attend any Temple and I am sure we will get summer visitors who will want to attend the Newport Beach Temple, but I have no way of estimating the number. If you have any questions please call at 752 -6923. Thanks. Bob Wynn IIF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS PLEASE CALL (949) 752 -6923 11 i NEWPORT BEACH CALIFORNIA TEMPLE DISTRICT STAKE ANAHEIM CALIFORNIA EAST STAKE ANAHEIM CALIFORNIA STAKE CYPRESS CALIFORNIA STAKE FULLERTON CALIFORNIA STAKE GARDEN GROVE CALIFORNIA STAKE HUNTINGTON BEACH CALIFORNIA NORTH STAKE HUNTINGTON BEACH CALIFORNIA STAKE IRVINE CALIFORNIA STAKE LAGUNA NIGUEL CALIFORNIA STAKE MISSION VIEJO CALIFORNIA STAKE ,NEWPORT BEACH CALIFORNIA STAKE ORANGE CALIFORNIA STAKE PLACENTIA CALIFORNIA STAKE SANTA ANA CALIFORNIA SOUTH (SPANISH) STAKE SANTA MARGARITA CALIFORNIA STAKE AUGUST 15, 2001 ' # Of members 2,865 2,823 2,722 2,963 2,881 2,413 3,493 1,793 5,363 2,575 3,304 3,990 3,006 3,919 3,897 48,007 Dai yqZmpis Attendance 7 5 7 8 5 5 B 5* 13* 7* 6 2 ** 10 8 5 11* 74 38 v !i - *STAKES USING CULVER DR. HIWAY 73, AND /OR NEWPORT COAST DRIVE TO BONITA CANYON DR. RIGHT TURN IN AND LEFT TURN OUT OF TEMPLE. _ * *SPYGLASS HILLS, PORT STREETS, AND HARBOR VIEW WILL USE FORD RD., SAN MIGUEL, AND PRAIRIE RD. TO THE TEMPLE. THEY WILL GO STRAIGHT THROUGH BONITA CANYON. ALL STAKES WITH NO * WILL PROBABLY USE MACARTHUR AND BONITA CANYON DR. INTERSECTION. SOURCE: NORTH AMERICA WEST AREA ANNUAL STATISTICAL REPORT FOR YEAR 2000. I C' 1 1 1 I I L, I I 1 1 ' APPENDIX E 1 I I I I 1] 1 COMMITTED PROJECT TRIPS r Traffic Phasing Data 05 SEP -01 Projects Less Than 100% Complete Project Number Project Name page: 1 Percent 129 HOAG HOSPITAL EXTENSION 62% 147 BALBOA BAY CLUB EXPANSION 0% 148 FASHION ISLAND EXPANSION 36% 154 TEMPLE BAT YAHM EXPANSION 0% 157 FORD REDEVELOPMENT 85% 159 FOUR SEASONS EXPANSION 0% 162 HOLTZE HOTEL 30% 555 CIOSA- IRVINE PROJECT 91% 910 NEWPORT DUNES 0% 935 IRVINE DEVELOPMENT 1999 0% i`►L�� ti1 c6mv, uw-% 000 I L) LU U) < Z 2 W Z 0 0 > 0 W re 2%§ U) U) IL w LU U) X05w 1 0: go= �— LL IL —Z W IL IL 03 U) E: 0 Z: z f U) E: z C-4 4—: R:m C-4 LU:C-4 0 Lu:, C-4 u):m m U): C-4 U) _J: 10 co co 0) ) \m 0 Of 0 w w It 0 LL I LL LL E: £! r W E: 0 =% CO Z: r: LU: LU: ,e LU: it: u): 'E: C-4 Z/ _J: z :C-4 00 n C-4 0 m n (D aI 03 E: Z: 0 LL E: =: CO z of: C14 LU: Lu% —J:co LU: co CD U) _j: CD m CD Z: —J,:C.4 (D C-4 �4 CD m 0 5 m NP, 22 < IL 03 W < E: M: Z Z 0 U) E; z 1% 12 (D 04 � co N cc Lu:.t Lu:� cc u): w4 cc u):C.4 -0 _J: U):C.4 Cc Z:® w:m cr, Z:m LF, _J: z :C.4 cr. co m C-4 m aI Fl I `! IAPPENDIX F I I 11 I I I 1 I i I ONE PERCENT TEST 1 i I I I I I I I 1 I I% TRAFFIC VOLUME ANALYSIS INTERSECTION. JAMBOREE ROAD & EASTBLUFF DRIVE/FORD ROAD 4980 (Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average fFtnfer/Spring 1007 AM) APPROACH DIRECTION EXISTING PEAK HOUR VOLUME PEAK HOUR REGIONAL GROR- H VOLUME APPROVED PROJECTS PEAK HOUR VOLUME PROJECTED PEAK HOUR VOLUME 1% OF PROJECTED PEAK HOUR VOLUME PROJECT PEAK HOUR VOLUME Northbound 2023 61 .80 2164 22 2 Southbound 1559 47 153 1759 18 0 Eastbound 771 0 6 777 8 0 Westbound 699 0 19 718 7 1 OX Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes. Project Traffic is estimated to be equal to or greater than 1 % of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis Is required. I% TRAFFIC VOLUME ANALYSIS INTERSECTION. JAMBOREE ROAD & EASTBLUFF DRIVE/FORD ROAD 4980 (Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Tf <nter/Spring 1001 PM) APPROACH DIRECTION EXISTING PEAK HOUR VOLUME I PEAK HOUR REGIONAL GRORTH VOLUME APPROVED PROJECTS PEAK HOUR VOLUME PROJECTED PEAK HOUR VOLUME I %OF PROJECTED PEAK HOUR VOLUME PROJECT PEAK HOUR VOLUME Northbound 2508 75 166 2749 27 2 Southbound 2077 62 132 2271 23 0 Eastbound 492 0 5 497 5 0 Westbound 328 0 13 341 3 1 OX Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1 % of Projected Peak Hour Traffic volumes. 0 Project Traffic is estimated to be equal to or greater than 1 % of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PROJECT. MORMON TEMPLE DATE: 10/25/2001 I % TRAFFIC VOLUME ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: MACARTHUR BOULEVARD & BISON 4995 (Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average H Inter /Spring 2000 AM) APPROACH DIRECTION EXISTING PEAKHOUR VOLUME PEAK HOUR APPROVED PROJEC REGIONALGROWTH PEAK HOUR VOLUME VOLUME PROJECTED PEAKHOUR VOLUME 1 %OFPROJECTED PEAKHOUR VOLUME PROJECT PEAKHOUR VOLUME Northbound 2366 71 112 2549 25 2 Southbound 2969 89 36 3094 31 9 Eutbound 779 23 70 872 9 0 Westbound 293 9 35 337 3 0 X Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1 % of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes. 0 Project Traffic is estimated to be equal to or greater than 1 % of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. 1 % TRAFFIC VOLUME ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: MACARTHUR BOULEVARD & BISON 4995 (Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average R inter/Spring 2000 PM) APPROACH DIRECTION EXISTNG PEAKHOUR VOLUME PEAK HOUR APPROVED PROJE REGIONALGROWTH PEAK HOUR VOLUME VOLUME PROJECTED PEAK HOUR VOLUME I %OF PROJECTED PEAKHOUR VOLUME PROJECT PEAKHOUR VOLUME Northbound 2988 90 68 3146 31 5 Southbound 2356 71 94 2521 25 7 Eutbound 444 13 32 489 5 0 Westbound 250 8 138 396 4 0 XX Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes. Project Traffic is estimated to be equal to or greater than 1 % of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PROJECT, MORMON TEMPLE DATE: 10/25/2001 I I I I I [1 I I I 1 I I% TRAFFIC VOLUME ANALYSIS INTERSECTION. MACARTHUR BOULEVARD & FORD ROAD 4985 (Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average linter /Spring 2001 AM) APPROACH DIRECTION EXISTING PEAK HOUR VOLUME PEAKHOUR APPROVED PROJE REGIONAL GROWTH PEAK HOUR VOLUME VOLUME PROJECTED PEAK HOUR VOLUME 1 %OFPROJECTED PEAK HOUR VOLUME PROJECT PEAK HOUR VOLUME Northbound 2179 65 b0 2304 23 2 Southbound 3041 91 59 3191 32 9 Eastbound 351 Il 25 387 4 2 Westbound 2505 75 37 2617 26 4 0 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1 % of Projected Peak Hour Traffic volumes. 0 Project Traffic is estimated to be equal to or greater than 1% of Projected Peak Hour Traffic volumes. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. I% TRAFFIC VOLUME ANALYSIS INTERSECTION. MACARTHUR BOULEVARD & FORD ROAD 4985 (Existing Tralfu Volumes Based on Average Winter/Spring 2001 PM) APPROACH DIRECTION EXISTING PEAK HOUR VOLUME PEAK HOUR APPROVED PROJECT REGIONAL GROWTH PEAK HOUR VOLUME VOLUME PROJECTED PEAK HOUR VOLUME I %OF PROJECTED PEAK HOUR VOLUME PROJECT PEAK HOUR VOLUME Northbound 2694 81 70 2845 28 2 Southbound 3574 107 135 3816 38 7 Eastbound 411 12 9 432 4 2 Westbound 1140 34 13 1187 12 7 OX Project Traffic is estimated to be less than I% of Projected Peak Hour Traffic volumes. 0 Project Traffic is estimated to be equal to or greater than I% of Projected Peak Hour Traffic volumes. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. I % TRAFFIC VOL UME ANALYSIS INTERSECTION. • MACARTHUR BOULEVARD & SAN JOAQUIN HILLS ROAD 5070 (Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average ffinter/Spring 2001 AM) APPROACH DIRECTION EXISTING PEAK HOUR VOLUME PEAK HOUR APPROVED PROJEC REGIONALGROWTHI PEAK HOUR VOLUME VOLUME PROJECTED PEAK HOUR VOLUME 1% OF PROJECTED PEAK HOUR VOLUME PROJECT PEAK HOUR VOLUME Northbound 1711 51 13 1775 18 2 Southbound 4276 128 46 4450 45 1 Eastbound 344 10 19 373 4 0 Westbound 3288 99 28 3415 34 0 XD Project Traffic is estimated to be less than t % of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes. 0 Project Traffic is estimated to be equal to or greater than t% of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. 1 % TRAFFIC VOL UME ANALYSIS INTERSECTION. MACARTHUR BOULEVARD & SAN JOAQUIN HILLS ROAD 5070 (Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average 11 rnter/Spring 2001 PM) APPROACH DIRECTION EXISTING PEAK HOUR VOLUME PEAK HOUR APPROVED PROJECT REGIONAL GROWTH PEAK HOUR VOLUME VOLUME PROJECTED PEAK HOUR VOLUME 1 10/6 OF PROJECTED PEAK HOUR VOLUME PROJECT PEAK HOUR VOLUME Northbound 1447 43 11 1501 15 2 Southbound 2803 84 70 2957 30 1 Eastbound 1197 36 54 1287 13 0 Westbound 625 19 6 650 7 0 O Project Traffic is estimated to be less than t % of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes. 0 Project Traffic is estimated to be equal to or greater than 1% of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. I I I I I I I I I LJ I I I % TRAFFIC VOLUME ANALYSIS FOR CUMULATIVE PROJECTS INTERSECTION. PRAIRIE ROAD & BONITA CANYON ROAD (Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average B <nter/Spring 2007 AM) APPROACH DIRECTION EXISTNG PEAKHOUR VOLUME PEAK HOUR APPROVED PROJECT REGIONAL GROWTH PEAK HOUR VOLUME VOLUME PROJECTED PEAK HOUR VOLUME I% OF PROJECTED PEAK HOUR VOLUME PROJECT PEAK HOUR VOLUME Northbound 263 8 59 330 3 1 Southbound f 0 0 1 0 5 Eastbound 383 If 369 763 8 13 Westbound 1063 32 823 1918 19 6 0 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes. 0 Project Traffic is estimated to be equal to or greater than 1 % of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. I 1% TRAFFIC VOLUME ANALYSIS FOR CUMULATIVE PROJECTS INTERSECTION. PRAIRIE ROAD & BONITA CANYON ROAD ( Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Vin 2007 PM) APPROACH DIRECTION EXISTING PEAKHOUR VOLUME PEAK HOUR APPROVED PROJEC I REGIONAL GROWTH PEAK HOUR VOLUME VOLUME PROJECTED PEAK HOUR VOLUME I %OF PROJECTED PEAK HOUR VOLUME PROJECT PEAK HOUR VOLUME Northbound 327 10 78 415 4 1 Southbound 10 0 0 10 1 11 Eastbound 809 24 759 1592 16 10 Westbound 725 22 561 1308 13 5 O Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1 % of Projected Peak Hour Traffic volumes. 0 Project Traffic is estimated to be equal to or greater than 1 % of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. I I I H I u I I I I I I J 1 I I I 1 APPENDIX G CUMULATIVE TRAFFIC ANALYSIS ICU WORKSHEETS IMA4985 IINTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: PRAIRIE ROAD & BONITA CANYON ROAD traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 IJ Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 U Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w/systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 L1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will be less than I.C.U. without project EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC WINTER /SPRING 2002 AM — — COMMITTED & 11 I EXISTING I PROPOSED EXISTING I EXISTING I REGIONAL I CUMULATIVE I PROJECTED I PROJECT I PROJECT I I Movement I Lanes Lanes I PK HR I V/C -1 GROWTH I PROJECT I V/C Ratio I Volume I V/C I I Capacity I Capacity Volume I Ratio I Volume I Volume I w/o Project I I Ratio I Volume I I I 'I I I NL I 1600 I I 104 I 0.065 ' 3 1 2 1 0.068 ' 0 1 0.068 0 NT I 16001 I 01 0.000 I 01 1 0.000 I 1 1 0.001 I �I I NR I 3200 I I 159 i 0.050 1 5 1 57 I 0.069 i 0 1 0.069 0 I SL I 1600 I I 0 1 0.000 1 01 1 0.000 i 2 1 0.001 0 0.003 o 1 31 1 0 0.000' I ST I 1600 I 01 0.001 0 1 1— 0.001 0 1 ' i SIR I 11 I of f I EL I 3200 I 1 0 0.000 0 1 1 ' 13 1 0.004 67 0 ' I ET I 3200 { I 330 I 0.120 I 10 I 3 I 0.097 1 01 0.097 1 54 1 0.502 0 1 0.504 of 1 61 1 0.571 0.579 0.239 I I of I 1 0.239 i I I ER I o1 - -I— 531 I 21 21 I WL 1 32001 1 2351 0.073 1 71 69 I WT I 3200 1 I 827 I 0.259 ' - -- 25 I 7 ' I WR I I I 11 I of I EXISTING I.C.U. I 0.324 I I I EXISTING + REG GROWTH + COMMITTED W/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. I I I I — EXISTING +COMMITTED +REGIONAL GROWTH +PROJECT I.C.U. 1X1 Projected + project Description of system improvement: PROJECT FORM II U:kUcJobsk00384kexCeK[pr.2001 formulas2.xls]ICUAM [1 I Description of system improvement: PROJECT FORM II U:kUcJobsk00384kexCeK[pr.2001 formulas2.xls]ICUAM [1 I MA4985 INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: PRAIRIE ROAD & BONITA CANYON ROAD EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC W INTERISPRING 2002 PM — COMMITTED & I EXISTING I PROPOSED 1 EXISTING I EXISTING I REGIONAL I CUMULATIVE I PROJECTED I PROJECT I PROJECT i , 1 Movement I Lanes i Lanes I PK HR I VIC _ I GROWTH I PROJECT I VIC Ratio I Volume I VIC I I I Capacity I Capacity I Volume I Ratio I Volume I Volume I w/o Project I I Ratio I I I I I I I Volume 1 I I 1 NL I 1600 I I 46 1 0.029 1 1 1 0 1 0.029 1 01 0.029 11'� NT I 1600 I I 0 1 0.000 1 0 1 0 1 0.000 1 1 1 0.001 1 NR I 3200 I 281 1 0.088 8 l 78 1 0.115 Of 0.115 ' SL I 1600 1 I 1 1 0.001 0 1 0 1 0.001 31 0.003 ST I 1600 1 1 0 1 0.006 I 0 1 0 1 0.006 I 1 1 0.011 1 i SR 1 1 1 9 1 1 0 1 a 1 1 71 I' EL 1 32001 1 2 1 0.001 1 0 1 0 1 0.001 1 101 0.004 1 I ET I 3200 I 1 746 1 0.252 22 1 759 1 0.497 Of 0.497 I ER I 01 I 611 1 21 0l 1 01 1 I WL 3200 1 1 237 1 0.074 7 1 65 1 0.097 Of 0.097 I WT I 3200 1 I 488 1 0.153 1 15 1 WR I I of I of I EXISTING I.C.U. 1 0.415 I EXISTING + REG GROWTH + COMMITTED W /PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. I EXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U. 496 1 0.312 1 0 1 0.314 o I+ I� 51 ' 0.709 0.711 1X1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 LJ Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 LJ Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w /systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 LJ Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will be less than I.C.U. without project Description of system improvement: PROJECT U: \U W obs \00384 \excel \[pr.2001 formulas2.Xls]ICUPM 1 I I I FORM tl I �I LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. E NYIR ON M ENTAL IMPACT REPORT JUNE 2002 CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF ON DAY SAINTS TEMPLE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH I ' APPENDIX E LIGHTING STUDY(S) I I i iJ I I PACNB230TWAppendices Covers.dmvO620 /02II I 1 1 I I I January 25, 2002 Mr. James W. Campbell, Senior Planner Newport Beach Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 Re: Newport Beach Temple Lighting Study KonsortumlJob #1075 -00 -276 Dear Mr. Campbell: We have been engaged by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter -Day exterior lighting systems for the proposed Newport Beach Temple, to be Drive. We have worked closely with Lloyd E. Platt & Associates, Arch architects) and Heath Engineering Company (the Church's main I engineers), both located in Salt Lake City, as well as RNM Architects Architects, and Hunsaker & Associates — all Orange County consultants as local architects, land planners, landscaping architects and engineers. -1 nl Saints to evaluate the proposed situated at 2300 Bonita Canyon tects (the Church's maim outside ighting consultants / electrical Planners, Urban Arena, Larsson engaged by the Church to serve The attached report will focus on lighting design issues that are particularly relevant to the City of Newport Beach planning approval process. It also supersedes entirely, but at the same time incorporates key elements from, the study dated November 11, 2001 and amended December 5, 2001 that was prepared by Heath Engineering and subsequently submitted to you by RNM. ' The attached Lighting Design Study summarizes the main elements of the temple's exterior lighting system, along with recommendations for changes to many lighting levels as proposed in the original Heath Engineering Company study. In general, the study will describe both the proposed architectural lighting system as well as the proposed security lighting system. Included in the architectural lighting system are four main categories of illuminated objects: landscape elements, the building fagade, the building tower, and finally the angel figure. The security lighting system includes four additional illumination categories: the roadway, parking lot, pedestrian pathways and property perimeter. In addition, we have provided tables and graphic exhibits comparing the illuminance values of these various systems with other recognizable facilities in the Newport Beach area. Please contact me if you have any questions or comments regarding this study. Sincerely, KONSORTUMI ' aymond W. Sw E resident ' FAID7SLettes\D201001Jm DOC ' Attachments Lighting Design Study 'KONSORTUM 1 17891 Sky Park Circle, Suite B Irvine, California 92614 Tel (949) 221 -0432 (949) 221 -0430 Fax I ' THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER DAY SAINTS NEWPORT BEACH TEMPLE LIGHTING DESIGN STUDY January 25, 2002 T. INTRODUCTION: The following text summarizes the proposed lighting systems for the Newport Beach Temple of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints to be situated at 2300 Bonita Canyon Drive in the City of Newport Beach. The lighting of the project can be broken down into two main ' categories: Architectural Lighting Security Lighting Each of these lighting systems has been carefully designed with the surrounding residences and ' properties in mind. This study is based upon the following, as supplied by Heath Engineering to the City of Newport Beach: Exterior Lighting System Basis of Design (11105101) Sheet ES -101 Electrical Site Plan (9117101) Sheet E -106 Electrical Roof Plan (9117101) Sheets E -201 through E -205 Building Photometric Plans (9117101) II. ARCHITECTURAL LIGHTING SYSTEM: General Description The architectural lighting system is defined as all lighting installed to provide an enhancement of the architectural and landscape features of the project. In general, this lighting system includes the following categories: tLandscape Lighting Building Fagade Lighting Building Tower Lighting Tower Angel Lighting The architectural lighting system plays a vital role in the expression of the Temple's religious symbolism. In general, an ascending hierarchy of lighting levels is exhibited from the lower fagade progressively upward to the angel figure at the top of the tower. Landscape Lighting Various carefully selected landscape elements and low -level architectural elements will be illuminated with ground- mounted, low- wattage accent fixtures with (39 watt) metal balide ' tamping. These fixtures will be located in landscape areas to hide them from public view and they will be provided with glare- reducing louver elements. i 15Y �xy ?ark Circle, Suite B Irvine, Tel (949) KONSORTUM 1 (949) 221 -0430 Fax 1 The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints - Newport Beach Temple Lighting Design Study January 25, 2002 Page 2 , All landscape lighting fixtures will be carefully aimed to only illuminate the landscape or low - level architectural surfaces — thus eliminating the light trespass into adjacent properties and any "light pollution" into the night sky. Lower and Upper Building Facade Lighting ' The lower building fagade is also illuminated with. ground-mounted, low- wattage (50 watt) wide flood accent light fixtures with metal halide lamping. These fixtures also will be located in landscape areas to hide them from public view and will be provided with similar glare- reducing , louver elements. The upper building fagade is illuminated with roof - mounted, low- wattage (70 watt) wide flood , accent light fixtures with metal halide lamping. These fixtures will be located behind architectural elements to hide them from public view and will be provided with glare- reducing louver elements. All building fagade lighting fixtures will be carefully aimed to illuminate only the wall surfaces — thus eliminating light trespass into adjacent properties and "light pollution' into the night sky. Building Tower Li tins Following the theme of higher walls being increasingly illuminated, the building tower element will be illuminated with somewhat more powerful low- wattage (100 watt), roof - mounted accent ' light fixtures with metal halide lamping — configured with flood, narrow flood, and spot optics. These fixtures will be located behind architectural elements to hide them from public view and they will be provided with glare reducing louver elements. , All tower lighting fixtures will be carefully aimed to only illuminate the wall surfaces — thus eliminating the light trespass into adjacent properties and into the night sky. , Angel Figure Lighting The angel element, on top of the tower, will be illuminated with more powerful low- wattage (100 1 watt), roof - mounted accent light fixtures with metal halide lamping — with a narrow spot optics. The darker gold plating on this figure will not reflect as much light as the tower surface, which requires fixtures with a greater lumen output, and more focused distribution. These fixtures will ' be located behind architectural elements to hide them from public view and they will be provided with glare- reducing louver elements. All accent lighting fixtures will be carefully aimed to illuminate only the angel figure — thus ' eliminating any light trespass into adjacent properties and into the night sky. Recommended Lamp Selection , Ceramic metal halide type lamps should be utilized for this project in lieu of the previously specified standard metal halide lamp. The color - rendering index of this type of lamp is much higher (81 to 85 CRI versus 65 CRI), the lamp color temperature is much warmer (3000K versus , 4100K), and the color consistency is much greater (200K shift versus 600K shift). The recent selection of a darker, earth -tone fagade and tower material makes this lamp choice even more important based upon the superior spectral performance of the ceramic metal halide lamp. ' KONSORTUM 1 17891 Sky Park Circle, Suite B Irvine, California 92614 Tel (949) 221 -0432 (949) 221 -0430 Fax , The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints - Newport Beach Temple Lighting Design Study January 25, 2002 ' Page 3 III. ARCHITECTURAL BUILDING LUMINANCE VALUE COMPARISONS: All proposed luminance levels are derived from the Illumination Engineering Society of North America ( "IES ") as well as our best judgment as to what is appropriate for the immediate surroundings and the overall residential neighborhoods in the general vicinity of the Temple. ' The following table summarizes the proposed illuminace values for the various Architectural Lighting elements at the Temple project. Architectural Lighting System Controls Average Illuminance Each category of the architectural lighting system will be independently controlled via a low - 1.5 Footcandles voltage lighting control panel. The proposed individual control zones and their respective control sequences are as follows: 6.0 Footcandles ' Angel Figure 12.0 Footcandles Evenin Morning ' Architectural Lighting System: Time On: Time Off. Time On: Time Off: example of the hierarchy of illuminance values of the architectural lighting systems for Angel Figure Dusk 1 1:00 pm 5:00 am Dawn Building Tower Dusk 11:00 pm 5:00 am Dawn Beach area, with various measured / calculated average illuminace levels: Building Facade Dusk 11:00 pm 5:00 am Dawn ' Landscape Dusk 11:00 pm 5:00 am Dawn III. ARCHITECTURAL BUILDING LUMINANCE VALUE COMPARISONS: All proposed luminance levels are derived from the Illumination Engineering Society of North America ( "IES ") as well as our best judgment as to what is appropriate for the immediate surroundings and the overall residential neighborhoods in the general vicinity of the Temple. ' The following table summarizes the proposed illuminace values for the various Architectural Lighting elements at the Temple project. KONSORTUM 1 17891 Sky Park Circle, Suite B Irvine, California 92614 Tel (949) 221 -0432 (949) 221 -0430 Fax Architectural Lighting System Average Illuminance Lower Building Facade 1.5 Footcandles Upper Building Facade 3.0 Footcandles Building Tower 6.0 Footcandles ' Angel Figure 12.0 Footcandles Note: Please see the attacked Exhibit "A" which provides a graphic representation of the proposed average illuminance values. This exhibit is intended to provide a graphic example of the hierarchy of illuminance values of the architectural lighting systems for the project. For comparison purposes, the following is a summary of recognizable facilities in the Newport Beach area, with various measured / calculated average illuminace levels: Architectural Illuminace Existing Local Area Proiect: Parade: Feature: Sage Hill High School Tower N /A. 40.0 Ftc. Corona Del Mar Plaza 45.0 Ftc.* 50.0 Ftc. ** Fletcher Jones Motorcars 22.0 Ftc. * ** N/A Union 76 Station 24.0 Ftc # N/A St. Andrew's Church - Cross N/A 20.0 Ftc. ## Newport Harbor High - Tower N/A 6.0 Ftc. Fashion Island Pylons @ PCH N/A 40.0 Ftc. Newport Bluffs - Entry Tower 15.0 Ftc. # ## 25.0 Ftc. #### KONSORTUM 1 17891 Sky Park Circle, Suite B Irvine, California 92614 Tel (949) 221 -0432 (949) 221 -0430 Fax I The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints - Newport Beach Temple Lighting Design Study January 25, 2002 Page 4 Note: Please see the attached Exhibit "B" which provides a graphic representation of the proposed average illuminance values for the Newport Beach Temple tower element as ' compared to some well known existing Newport Beach facilities. Within the parking lot, both single -head and double -head, sharp cutoff metal halide fixtures (175 ' Indicates illuminance of the storefront fapade facing MacArthur Boulevard. Indicates illuminace of signage / canopy elements facing MacArthur Boulevard. , Indicates illuminace of rear wall of interior showroom viewed Jamboree. "# Indicates illuminance of the station fapade facing San Miguel Drive. , "##" Indicates illuminance of architectural cross element. "###" Indicates illuminance at the lower portion of the tower. , " ### #" Indicates illuminance at the upper portion of the tower. , IV. SECURITY LIGHTING SYSTEM , General Description The security lighting system is defined as all lighting required by federal, state and local agencies to provide.a safe public environment. For this project, the security lighting system can be described in the following categories: Roadway Lighting , The roadway lighting leading to the Temple parking lot will be provided by a single head sharp cutoff metal halide fixture (175 watt) mounted on a 20' high pole. The roadway is illuminated from the curb edges with fixtures utilizing an internal house -side shield to cut-off any light from spilling onto neighboring properties. The lighting system has been designed to provide only enough illumination to meet the minimum levels required by the City of Newport Beach. ' Parking Lot Lighting: Within the parking lot, both single -head and double -head, sharp cutoff metal halide fixtures (175 ' watt), mounted on a 20' high pole, will be used. The double -head fixtures will be located in the middle parking islands, while the single -head fixtures will be located around the perimeter of the parking lot. All of the perimeter location fixtures will be provided with an internal house -side , shield to eliminate any light from spilling onto neighboring properties. The lighting system has been designed to provide only enough illumination to meet the minimum ' levels required by the City of Newport Beach, Pedestrian Pathway Lighting , The pedestrian pathways within the Temple grounds will be illuminated with a single -head, sharp cutoff metal halide fixture (100 watt) mounted on a 10' high pole. The center courtyard seating area, as well as the seating areas around the Temple will be illuminated with cutoff 42" high, louvered optic bollards. KONSORTUM 1 17891 Sky Park Circle, Suite B Irvine, California 92614 Tel (949) 221 -0432 (949) 221 -0430 Fax I ' The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints - Newport Beach Temple Lighting Design Study January 25, 2002 1 Page 5 The lighting system has been designed to provide only enough illumination to meet the minimum levels recommended by the IES for pedestrian pathways with low levels of activity. Perimeter Proi)erty Light The entire security lighting system has been designed to prevent or limit the amount of "spill" lighting beyond the property line to fall well below the City of Newport Beach mairimmn allowable levels. ' Security Lighting System Controls Each category of security lighting system will be independently controlled via a low voltage ' lighting control panel. The proposed individual control zones and their proposed respective control sequences are as follows: ' Evening Morning Security Lighting System: Time On: Time Off: Time On: Time Off: ' Pedestrian Pathway Lighting Dusk 11:00 pm 5:00 am Dawn' Roadway / Parking Lighting Dusk 11:00 pm 5:00 am Dawn* A small number of carefully positioned pedestrian pathway fixtures and roadway / ' parking lighting fixtures will remain on from 11:00 pm to dawn for security purposes only. ' The following table summarizes the proposed illuminace values for a variety of Security Lighting elements at the Temple project. ' Security Lighting System Average Illuminance Roadway Lighting 1.0 Footcandles Parking Lot Lighting 3.0 Footcandles Pedestrian Pathway Lighting 0.8 Footcandles Security Area Illuminance ' Existing Local Area Proiect: Parking-: Pathways. Sage Hill High School 4.0 Ftc. 4.0 Ftc. Corona Del Mar Plaza 4.2 Ftc. 7.5 Ftc. Fletcher Jones Motorcars 63.0 Ftc. N/A Union 76 Station 16.0 Ftc N/A St. Andrew's Church 2.2 Ftc. 1.0 Ftc. V. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS / RECOMMENDATIONS The following are highlights of the proposed lighting system for the Newport Beach Temple: ' All of the lighting has been carefully designed with the surrounding residences and properties in mind. In all cases, the proposed lighting for this facility is much lower than other Temple facilities in Southern California. ' 1 Circle, Suite B Irvine, 92614 Tel (949) 221 KONSORTUM1 (949) 221 -0430 Fax The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints - Newport Beach Temple Lighting Design Study January 25, 2002 Page 6 • The proposed light source will provide a soft and warm illumination of the Temple facility. This is in contrast to the "bright white" lighting effect at other Temple facilities in Southern California. • All lighting fixtures will be carefully aimed / shielded to illuminate only the desired surfaces — thus eliminating light trespass into adjacent properties and "light pollution" into the night sky. • All proposed luminance levels were derived from the recommendations of the Illuminating Engineering Society of North America ( "IES ") as well as our best judgment (based on local knowledge) as to what is appropriate for the immediate surroundings and the overall residential neighborhoods in the general vicinity of the Temple. • The security lighting system has been designed to provide only enough illumination to meet the minimum levels required by the City of Newport Beach. • All lighting, except minimal security lighting, will be turned off by 11:00 pm. - -END -- KONSORTUM 1 ' 17891 Sky Park Circle, Suite B Irvine, California 92614 Tel (949) 221 -0432 (949) 221 -0430 Fax 1 1 1 s ,� ., ;a ii m i� 'a i ;� 'm i� �z �o � a '3 .� � Z F 0 N z s L a n E-� 'r_ :i L :i z 3 :J i 0 n a :J a s z :� a a :J F V Q Q 0 1 1 1 C F O X y a I � IF oa 5 IF ;x ; is .3 ;z z z = o _ y a z � o � Z � Z � O G z_ r Q Z s :7 Z J i _ ,i.7. Z F m 7 vi Q z N a L 3 y z z F Z J Z 's: "1 F Q O = ° F x i a 3 O z z a a Q 3 z zu 3F z o= _ N n N F O � x z m a Q Q N :J Q J C Z � Q m = � r N C Z v x z s z z � o i ' HEATH Engineering Company Mechanical/ Electrical Consultants 1 December 1, 2001 I RE: NEWPORT BEACH TEMPLE SITE LIGHTING BASIS OF DESIGN ' Dear Russ The paragraph on page 3 entitled "Lighting Controls" should be modified as follows: Lighfiniz Controls The lighting for each type of lighting will be independently controlled. The control zones and their proposed respective control sequences are as follows: Evening Morning Zone: Time On: Time Off: Time On: Time Off: ' Facade Lighting Dusk 11:00 pm ** 5:00 am Dawn Landscape lighting Dusk 10:30 pm 5:00 am Dawn Walkway lighting Dusk --- - - - Dawn Parking lighting Dusk 10:30 pm 5:00 am Dawn These control zones will be capable of being programmed separately to give the utmost in versatility ' in the control of the overall system. The zones will be controlled by a time clock working integrally with a photocell. ' ** The facade lighting will be reduced at 11:00 pm with the lights for the upper levels of the steele remaining on through the night. Please note the change. Call if you have any further questions. Thank you. Sincerely, ' HEATH ENGINEERING COMPANY ' Nolan E. Johnson, P.E. ' NEJ J: \WorkUobs\ 3476\ Wordprocessing \Correspondence\.Site Lighting Revisions Letter.wpd 377 West 800 Nonn • Salt Lake Qty. Ulan 84103 • Tel: 801.322.�i487 • Fax: 801 322.0490 • Emaa: heath @heathenc,com C. Lewis Wilson Larry D. ve,gal • victor S.'Nales • Rancad T. Vemel • Jeffrey S, Anderson - B. Bryce Gardner Mr. Russell Platt PLATT & ASSOCIATES ' 4645 Highland Drive Holladay, UT 84117 I RE: NEWPORT BEACH TEMPLE SITE LIGHTING BASIS OF DESIGN ' Dear Russ The paragraph on page 3 entitled "Lighting Controls" should be modified as follows: Lighfiniz Controls The lighting for each type of lighting will be independently controlled. The control zones and their proposed respective control sequences are as follows: Evening Morning Zone: Time On: Time Off: Time On: Time Off: ' Facade Lighting Dusk 11:00 pm ** 5:00 am Dawn Landscape lighting Dusk 10:30 pm 5:00 am Dawn Walkway lighting Dusk --- - - - Dawn Parking lighting Dusk 10:30 pm 5:00 am Dawn These control zones will be capable of being programmed separately to give the utmost in versatility ' in the control of the overall system. The zones will be controlled by a time clock working integrally with a photocell. ' ** The facade lighting will be reduced at 11:00 pm with the lights for the upper levels of the steele remaining on through the night. Please note the change. Call if you have any further questions. Thank you. Sincerely, ' HEATH ENGINEERING COMPANY ' Nolan E. Johnson, P.E. ' NEJ J: \WorkUobs\ 3476\ Wordprocessing \Correspondence\.Site Lighting Revisions Letter.wpd 377 West 800 Nonn • Salt Lake Qty. Ulan 84103 • Tel: 801.322.�i487 • Fax: 801 322.0490 • Emaa: heath @heathenc,com C. Lewis Wilson Larry D. ve,gal • victor S.'Nales • Rancad T. Vemel • Jeffrey S, Anderson - B. Bryce Gardner 1 1 1 t SITE LIGHTING AND FACADE LIGHTING BASIS OF DESIGN FOR THE NEWPORT BEACH TEMPLE OF THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER -DAY SAINTS ROUGH DRAFT NOVEMBER 2, 2001 Prepared by: Heath Engineering Company 377 West 800 North Salt Lake City, UT 84103 (801) 322 -0487 (801) 322 -0490 Fax I 1 1 1 Newport Beach Temple Exterior Lighting System Basis of Design General The lighting buildings and outside areas is directedby several organizations, namelythe Illumination Engineering Society (IES), local ordinances, and what is acceptable to the specific location to maintain an appropriate level of lighting to offer people a safe environment and to offer a design that is not offensive to the surrounding neighbors. Light offense occurs in two ways, offensive glare (the brightness of a lamp shining directly into someone's eye ) and offensive brightness (light spilling onto the ground of a neighbor). IES publishes recommended practices for the design of exterior lighting systems to accomplish all of the above goals. The standards used in the design of this system were IES- RP -33 -99 (Lighting for exterior environments) IES -RP -8 (Lighting for roadways), and the 8`s edition handbook. Another concern in the design of exterior lighting systems is the contribution of light fixtures to the loss of "dark sky". If thousands of fixtures within a city all loose light directly into the sky, then the resident's view of the stars is greatly diminished The design of the lighting system takes into ' account the issue of maintaining a dark sky by directing light in a downward direction or directly at the facade being lighted. Roadway Lightine The roadway lighting leading up to the Temple parking lot will be a fixture type `1742'. A single head 20' tall 175 Watt Metal Halide fixture. The manufacture is `Kim Swept Arm Mount' and the model number for the fixture head is `RA25FC /250MH120'. It is a bell shape for the Optical housing. This ' particular Luminaire has a good cutoff characteristics that produce less light pollution and distributes a great portion of the output into usable lighting areas. As light levels fall off with the square of the distance, low poles offer optimum light levels on the walkway without the use of high wattage, ' bright lamps. The roadway and parking lot will be lighted from the edges with fixtures utilizing house -side shields to cut -off any light from spilling onto neighboring property. The fixture will throw the light into the center of the road or parking lot where the light is needed. The model for ' the pole is `SAL -IA'. The average footcandle level on the surface of the roadway will be 0.2fc - 0.5fc in accordance with the IES handbook for a low to medium use parking lot. ' Within the parking lot a single head and double head 20' tall 175 Watt Metal Halide fixtures will be used. The double head fixture will be used in the middle parking island and the single head fixture around the perimeter. The location of the perimeter lighting were placed on 20' poles so that it would ' push the light into the center of the parking lot and away for the residential neighborhoods. There will be no light lost to the sky as the chosen fixtures are strictly downward in the delivery of light. 1 Page 1 of 3 Walkway (Sidewalk) Lighting The Temple grounds area willbe lighted with a single head fixture on a 10' tall pole with a 100 Watt Metal Halide lamp. Short poles will not interfere with the view from surrounding areas of the temple building. These short poles also offer very good cut -off photo- metrics and will deliver the recommended .5 F.C. on the walkway without lighting trespass. Glare viewed from surrounding areas will be minimized by the short pole height. There will be no light lost to the sky as the chosen fixtures are strictly downwardly in the delivery of light. Facade Lighting All facade lighting has been designed per IES standard RP- 33 -99. These standards indicate the illuminance levels for lighting buildings and monuments. This page is attached. The lower facade will be lighted to an average of 2.5 F.C. This is a relatively low lighting level, however, the intent is to set the facade apart from the surroundings. The lighting levels increase with the height of the tower. The facade is lighted with ground mounted vertical flood light fixtures w/ 100 Watt Metal Halide lamps. The upper facade will use roof mounted vertical flood light fixtures w/ 100 Watt Metal Halide lamps. The upper facade willbe lighted to a level of 3.4 F.C. thus following the theme of higher walls being lighted brighter. There will be very little light lost to the sky, as the fixtures are directly aimed at the facade. These fixtures are located inside of any walkways, thus eliminating the chance of glare for passing visitors. Tower Lighting The tower lighting will utilize roofmounted floodlights w/ 250 Watt Metal Halide lamps. The angel at the top of the tower will use 3 roof mounted spotlight fixtures w/ 250 Watt Metal Halide located at 120 degree's to each other in the horizontal plane. The tower will be lighted to an average of 7.8 foot - candle. The angel on top will be slightly higher (9.9 F.C). The IES recommended lighting level of 10 foot -candle for lighted surroundings with a medium light surface has been followed as a maximum allowed illuminance level. The higher wattage fixtures have all been designed on the roof of the building, thus eliminating the possibility of glare to passing visitors. There will be some light lost to the sky from these fixtures as they are grazing the facade of a relatively small tower and statue. Garden Area Lighting The walkways in the Garden area will be lighted to the same level as the walk way around the temple. The center court seating area and the seating areas around the temple will be lighted with low level bollard fixtures. These fixtures utilize a very small light source which lights the area for pedestrian use. Page 2 of 3 1 1 1 Lightinu Controls The lighting for each type of lighting will be independently coi proposed respective control sequences are as follows: Zone: Time On: Time Off: Time On: Facade Lighting Dusk 10:30 pm 5:00 am Landscape lighting Dusk 10:30 pm 5:00 am Walkway lighting Dusk --- Parking lighting Dusk 10:30 pm 5:00 am strolled. The control zones and their Time Off: Dawn Dawn Dawn Dawn These control zones will be capable of being programmed separately to give the utmost in versatility in the control of the overall system. The zones will be controlled by a time clock working integrally with a photocell. 1:\ WorkUobsQ47aWp\ComspondenceLLc=r w RNM.wpd Page 3 of 3 IESNA RP -33 -99 Once these manual estimates have been completed, a computer calculation will help refine the design. Step 1: Choose a tentative floodlight on the basis of light source (type), shape of beam (round or rectangular), beam distribution options (wide, medium, or narrow) and the wattage or light output (beam lumens) of the source. Select a setback dimension which is determined by actual field condi- tons. These field conditions may include restrictions due to landscape, hardscape, or property lines. Optimum setbacks allow floodlights to be operated as intended without obstructions or difficult to obtain aiming angles. Step 2: Select an illuminance level. For floodlighting, the Illuminating Engineering Society of North America recommends the average maintained levels shown in Table 2, which were arrived at by committee consensus. Consider the brightness of other surroundings so that the illuminance is appropriate. Step 3: Estimate what percentage of available light reaches the building surface. If the building facade height (transverse dimension with respect to the lighting system) is less than 2.5 times the setback dimension (distance between building and flood- lights), then the typical system utilization is likely to range from 40 to 45 percent. When the building height is 2 to 4 times the setback dimension, system utilization is typically 45 to 55 percent. If the building height is greater than 4 times the setback dimension, the utilization can reach 60 percent, which is approaching the luminaire efficiency. The total initial lamp lumens required for the whole area being floodlighted is derived from a calculation of illu- minance required by the area of the building, divided by the floodlight beam utilization and light loss factor. Total initial lamp lumens = (Illuminance)(Area) (Percent utilimton)(Llght toss factor) Step 4: Floodlight spacing along the facade (longi- tudinal dimension) is 2 to 2.5 times the floodlight setback dimension from the facade. Any greater spacing invites noticeable "scalloping" shadows along the base of the building at the ground line. The first floodlight location from the end of the building should range from 'hto 1 setback dimension, depending on the minimum illuminance calculation at the end of the building (see Figure 27). For building heights less than to 2.5 times the set- back dimension, start with a "wide beam" floodlight with a National Electrical Equipment Manufacturer's (NEMA) type 5 or type 6 vertical field angle of 63 to 68 degrees. (See Figure 20 for NEMA field angle beam descriptors.) If buildings are higher than 2.5 times the setback dimension, more floodlights may be required to reach higher elevations. For the building portion 2 to 4 times the setback dimension, use a "medium beam" floodlight with a NEMA type 2 vertical field angle of 12 to 15 degrees. If buildings are taller than 4 times the setback dimen- sion, add additional floodlights to reach heights of 4 to 6 times the setback dimension. Use a NEMA type 1 or narrow NEMA type 2 floodlight with only 5 degrees vertical field angle. Please note that there may be up to three floodlights in one location, each a different NEMA type and aimed at different elevations on the building (see Figure 28). It is extremely difficult'to light buildings higher than six times the setback distance (dimension). Attempting to do so with ground- mounted floodlights only is not recommended. Many sites provide setback distances generous enough to eliminate the need for more than one floodlight at each location. Conversely there are sites that force floodlight locations so close that a normal approach to estimating utilization and uniformity has little utility (see Figure 29). Table 2: Illuminance Levels for Floodlighting Buildings and Monuments Area Description Average Target Illuminance (vertical) (lux/footcandles) Bright Surroundings and Light Surfaces 50/5 Bright Surroundings and Medium Light Surfaces 70/7 Bright Surroundings and Dark Surfaces 100/10 Bright Surroundings and Light Surfaces 20/2 Dark Surroundings and Medium Light Surfaces 30/3 Dark Surroundings and Medium Dark Surfaces 40/4 Dark Surroundings and I jark Surfaces 50/5 30 ' 112 low. These levels reflect both traffic and pedestrian activity and are illustrated by, but not limited to, the following examples: 1 1 1. 1 • Neighborhood shopping • Industrial employee parking • Educational facility parking • Church parking If the level of nighttime activity involves a large num- ber of vehicles, then the examples above for low and medium activity properly belong in the next higher level. ROADWAY LIGHTING Covered Parking Facilities. Four critical areas can be identified within covered parking facilities: general parking and pedestrian areas; ramps and comers; en- trance areas; and stairways. These critical areas can require lighting both day and night. The first of these areas is considered to be the same as for an open parking facility. The second area is self - explanatory. The third area (entrance) is defined as the entryway into the covered portion of the parking structure from the portal to a point 15 in (50 ft) beyond the edge of covering on the structure. The fourth area again is self - explanatory. Illuminance Recommendations. Recommendations have been established for both open parking facilities (outdoor) and covered parking facilities (structures), as shown in figure 24 -23. These recommendations are given to provide for the safe movement of traffic, for satisfactory vision for pedestrians and for the guidance of both vehicles and pedestrians. They are the lowest acceptable levels consistent with the seeing task in- volved and the need to deter vandalism while at the same time meeting energy constraints. Customer con- venience, closed circuit television surveillance and cus- tomer attraction may require a higher level of lighting in some circumstances. In open parking facilities, a general parking and pedestrian area is defined as one where pedestrian conflicts with vehicles are likely to occur. A vehicular use area (only) is defined as one where conflicts with pedestrians are not likely to occur. These are areas such as service areas or access roads. It should be noted that, whereas figure 24 -23 speci- fies average levels for the vehicular area in open park- Fig. 24.23. Recommended Maintained Horizontal Illuminances for Parking Facilities Open Parking Facilities General Parking and Pedestrian Area Vehicle Use Area (only) Footcandles Footcandles Level of Lux (Minimum (Minimum on Uniformity Ratio Lux (Average on (Average on Uniformity Ratio Activity on Pavement) Pavement) (Average:Mimmum) Pavement) Pavement) (Average:Minimum) High 10 09 4:1 22 2 3:1 edium 6 0.6 4:1 11 1 3:1 wswLow' 2 0.2 4:1 5 OS 4:1 (b) Covered Parking Facilities High activity: • Major league athletic events • Major cultural or civic events ' • Regional shopping centers Night • Fast food facilities Lux (Average Medium activity: Lux (Average • Community shopping centers ' • Office parks (Average • Hospital parking areas (Average • Transportation parking (airports, commuter Areas Pavement)t lots, etc.) on Pavement) • Cultural, civic or recreational events • Residential complex parking ' Low activity: 1 1 1. 1 • Neighborhood shopping • Industrial employee parking • Educational facility parking • Church parking If the level of nighttime activity involves a large num- ber of vehicles, then the examples above for low and medium activity properly belong in the next higher level. ROADWAY LIGHTING Covered Parking Facilities. Four critical areas can be identified within covered parking facilities: general parking and pedestrian areas; ramps and comers; en- trance areas; and stairways. These critical areas can require lighting both day and night. The first of these areas is considered to be the same as for an open parking facility. The second area is self - explanatory. The third area (entrance) is defined as the entryway into the covered portion of the parking structure from the portal to a point 15 in (50 ft) beyond the edge of covering on the structure. The fourth area again is self - explanatory. Illuminance Recommendations. Recommendations have been established for both open parking facilities (outdoor) and covered parking facilities (structures), as shown in figure 24 -23. These recommendations are given to provide for the safe movement of traffic, for satisfactory vision for pedestrians and for the guidance of both vehicles and pedestrians. They are the lowest acceptable levels consistent with the seeing task in- volved and the need to deter vandalism while at the same time meeting energy constraints. Customer con- venience, closed circuit television surveillance and cus- tomer attraction may require a higher level of lighting in some circumstances. In open parking facilities, a general parking and pedestrian area is defined as one where pedestrian conflicts with vehicles are likely to occur. A vehicular use area (only) is defined as one where conflicts with pedestrians are not likely to occur. These are areas such as service areas or access roads. It should be noted that, whereas figure 24 -23 speci- fies average levels for the vehicular area in open park- Fig. 24.23. Recommended Maintained Horizontal Illuminances for Parking Facilities Open Parking Facilities General Parking and Pedestrian Area Vehicle Use Area (only) Footcandles Footcandles Level of Lux (Minimum (Minimum on Uniformity Ratio Lux (Average on (Average on Uniformity Ratio Activity on Pavement) Pavement) (Average:Mimmum) Pavement) Pavement) (Average:Minimum) High 10 09 4:1 22 2 3:1 edium 6 0.6 4:1 11 1 3:1 wswLow' 2 0.2 4:1 5 OS 4:1 (b) Covered Parking Facilities Day Night Lux (Average Fcoicandles Lux (Average Foolcandles on (Average on (Average Uniformity Ratio Areas Pavement)t on Pavement)t on Pavement) (Average:Mmimum) General parking and Pedestrian areas 54 5 54 5 4:1 Ramps and corners 110 10 54 5 4:1 Entrance areas 540 50 54 5 4:1 Stairways This recommendation is based on the requirement to maintain security at any time in areas where there is a low level of nighttime activity, * Sum of electric lighting and daylight. See Chapter 11, Illuminance Selection. thetics, safety, and environmental conditions, as well as appropriate material and equipment. The design process follows these major steps: (a) Determination of roadway classification and abutting land uses along the specific road section to be lighted (Fig. 1). If the pavement classification is unknown, use the R3 values of Table 2. (6) Selection of the level and uniformity of pavement luminance and assessment of the rela- tionship between the veiling luminance and the a erage pavement luminance, as recommended t Table 2(a) for each different land use along the sec- tion, or (c) Determination of roadway pavement clas- sification, desired average horizontal levels of illu- minance, and uniformity for design as recommended in Table 2(b). (d) Selection of several tentative luminaires and light sources. (e) Selection of one or more tentative lighting system geometric arrangements, including mounting heights and lateral luminaire positions, which may provide an acceptable design based on recommended level, uniformity, and /or veiling luminance con- trol. (f) Calculation of pole spacing for the various luminaire -lamp combinations under study (if for a new system) or of lamp output requirements (if ex- isting poles are to be used), based on illuminance values. Variables of mounting height or lateral lu- minaire positions may also be considered to verify meeting the requirements of Table 2(a) or 2(b). (9) When luminaires have been selected, bor- derline situations quickly become evident during the application stage. In. most cases skilled judgment must be exercised when considering luminaires for a specific system. It may not be appropriate to specify only one light distribution when it is obvious that Several luminaire light .distributions will provide equivalent performance for a specific application. Table 3. Recommended maintained illuminance design levels for high mast lighting.•t Horizontal Illuminance (E,� ) in Lux Commer- Inter- �esi- Road cial mediate dential Classification Area Area Area Freeways 6 6 6 Expressways 10 8 6 Major 12 9 6 Collector 8 6 6 *Recommended uniformity of illumination is 3 to 1 or better; average -to- minimum for all road classifications at the illuminance levels recommended above. `These design values apply Only to the travelled portions of the roadway. tnterchange roadways are treated individually for pur- poses of uniformity and illuminance level analysis. Table 4. Recommended average maintained illumi- nance levels for pedestrian ways' in lux. Sidewalks (roadside) and Type A bikeways: Commercial areas 10 22 Intermediate areas 6 11 Residential areas 2 5 alkways distant from roadways and Type B bikeways: Walkways, bikeways, and stairways 5 5 Pedestrian tunnels 43 54 'Crosswalks traversing roadways in the middle of long blocks and at street intersections should be provided with additional illumi- nation. tSee Section 2.1. tFor pedestrian identification at a distance. Values are 1.8 meters above walkway. (h) Selection of final design or reentry of the design process at any step above to advise on optimal design. (i) Selection of luminaire supports (pole and bracket) which results in an acceptable esthetic ap- pearance, adherence to traffic safety practice, low initial construction cost, and minimal operation and maintenance expenses. (j) Recommended illuminance values for high mast lighting are shown in Table 3. For separate walkways or bicycle routes, recommended illumi- nances are shown in Table 4. The steps to develop optimal design are similar to those given above. (4) The formation of a tentative design concept involves many variables. The choice of light source, the extent to which available electrical distribution facilities are used, and the types of poles, brackets and,luminaires selected are some of the factors that will influence the economics of lighting. Any con- sideration of appearance is ultimately resolved by professional judgment; however, elaborate or ornate designs, purely for the purpose of satisfying an es- thetic desire, cannot be justified unless the basic re- quirements of good visibility have first been attained. It is important that roadway lighting is planned on the basis of traffic information, which includes the factors necessary to provide for traffic safety and pedestrian security. Some of the factors applicable to the specific problems that should be considered are: (a) Type of land use development abutting the roadway or walkway (see Section 2.2, "Area Classi- fications") (b) Type of route (see Section 2.1, "Roadway, Pedestrian Walkway, and Bikeway Classifications) Average Vertical Minimum Levels For Average Special Walkway Horizontal Pedestrian and Bikeway Levels Security Classificationt (E.�.) (E.�Jt Sidewalks (roadside) and Type A bikeways: Commercial areas 10 22 Intermediate areas 6 11 Residential areas 2 5 alkways distant from roadways and Type B bikeways: Walkways, bikeways, and stairways 5 5 Pedestrian tunnels 43 54 'Crosswalks traversing roadways in the middle of long blocks and at street intersections should be provided with additional illumi- nation. tSee Section 2.1. tFor pedestrian identification at a distance. Values are 1.8 meters above walkway. (h) Selection of final design or reentry of the design process at any step above to advise on optimal design. (i) Selection of luminaire supports (pole and bracket) which results in an acceptable esthetic ap- pearance, adherence to traffic safety practice, low initial construction cost, and minimal operation and maintenance expenses. (j) Recommended illuminance values for high mast lighting are shown in Table 3. For separate walkways or bicycle routes, recommended illumi- nances are shown in Table 4. The steps to develop optimal design are similar to those given above. (4) The formation of a tentative design concept involves many variables. The choice of light source, the extent to which available electrical distribution facilities are used, and the types of poles, brackets and,luminaires selected are some of the factors that will influence the economics of lighting. Any con- sideration of appearance is ultimately resolved by professional judgment; however, elaborate or ornate designs, purely for the purpose of satisfying an es- thetic desire, cannot be justified unless the basic re- quirements of good visibility have first been attained. It is important that roadway lighting is planned on the basis of traffic information, which includes the factors necessary to provide for traffic safety and pedestrian security. Some of the factors applicable to the specific problems that should be considered are: (a) Type of land use development abutting the roadway or walkway (see Section 2.2, "Area Classi- fications") (b) Type of route (see Section 2.1, "Roadway, Pedestrian Walkway, and Bikeway Classifications) C C ALIFIL1431 ARCHITECTURAL FLOODLIGHTS 70-175W HID • SCOW HALOGEN - --X� -� OL 143M LIGHTING z NL ARCHITECTURAL AFL1 SERIES E i �IA ilV 041rwAIA OAI Design Flexibill y Architectural Floodlights 70 to 175'XI MIDI 5�00W Halogen Performance, Versatility, Quality and Aesthetics The Kim AFL10 Series offers compact scale with robust good looks. Solid die- cast construction and a wide range of options satisfy the most demanding low wattage floodlighting need. _' I Beam Properties These illustrations are representations of the beam spreads produced by each optical system. They are Intended to help you visualize the performance differences between each model without having to analyze photometric charts. AFL11 through AFL15, and the AFL17 In beam patterns are shown in identical scale. The AFL16 beam pattern is shown at 'h scale due to page constraints. I Main Beam AFL11 Wide Flood Main Beam The AFL11 horizontal beam pattern is engineered to illuminate surfaces that are more horizontal than vertical, or wider areas when wall mounted. The AFL11 is designed for broad illumination with the fixture relatively close to the lighted surface and maintains excellent uniformity throughout its beam ' pattern. Recommended distance from the lighted surface is 3'to 20' depending on lamp and wattage. 1 1 i • AFL12 Vertical Flood The AFL12 vertical beam pattern is engi- neered to illuminate taller surfaces when grade mounted or deeper areas when wall mounted. Recommended distance from the lighted surface is 6'to 29 depending on lamp and wattage. I The AFL1 2 The AFL1 1 The AFL17 0 Vertical Flood Wide Flood Horizontal Spot softly illuminates provides illumine- illuminates the c la !ion for the tall. this low and upper building narrow facade of wide ouilding facade without his entry. surmce. glare in the glass s-Loreiront below. I F 1J re rdia J - 333 33J �� J7a1 —:o :F. 175 MH 120 LLine Volts Lamp Type: MH = Metal Halide See AFL20 Series Catalog for 250 to 400 Watt Architectural Floodlights, and HPS = High Pressure Sodium AFL30 Series Catalog for 750 to 1000 Watt Architectural Floodlights. HAL = Halogen Lam° Watts L Fixture Ordering Example: p Factory installed with flush sensor • on side of housing. Caution: Use Fixture must be ordered by a e �yoa .y \5 only in locations where adjacent single catalog number consisting �-1Q a Fc capes a of Fixture Type. Electrical Mode, lighting will not affect operation of .e �� .e °s1 �` Fixture Finish, and Optional Heavy +`O �e° +�° OQea Q` photocell. Select photocell with same Duty Swivel and /or Optional �' P 'Z' O line volts as fixture. Photocell, if desired. Optional Photocell: Options shown on pages 13 Cat. No. Line Volts through 17 must be ordered AFL11 / 150HPS120 / DB -P / HDS / A -30 A_300 120V '�6\ separate from fixture. A -32 240V A -33 277V Sensor A -35 347V Notes: All lamps must be rated for Fixture Type and Electrical Mode: Note: Refer to page 6 -7 for beam properties chart. 11 I 11 11 I I I I I I "Universal Burning Position.' 15UMHJ47 347 ISOMH347 1SOMH347 175 MH 120 175 M H 120 Clear lamps are recommended for 120 175MH720 175MH120 175MH2O8 175MH2O8 Meta' Halide optimum performance. 175MH2O8 175MH2O8 175MH240 215 ED17 Medium. Base 240 For lamp/ballast information outside 175MH240 2 +5 0 78 ANS Code M57 277 175MH277 of the U.S.A. and Canada, please consult your local Kim representa- C 65 SOOHAL120 500HAL120 347 175MH347 175MH347 tive. 5C0'.vatt Maximum '20 SOOHAL120 500HAL120 See page 18 for U.L and C.U.L. Hatoge- 7-4 rnm: ='an certification for line voltage listed Fixture Finishes: Electrical Data below. AFL11 Wide Flood AFL12 Vertical Flood AFL15 Spot AFL16 Narrow Spot AFL17 Horizontal Spot I Biacx Line Line Maximum Lamp (by others) Volts Electrical Made Electrical Made Electrical Made Electrical Made Electrical Made : Watts Amps 70 Watt Clear 120 70HPS120 70HPS120 70HPS120 70HPS120 70HPS120 88 1.45 High Pressure Sodium 208 70HPS208 70HPS208 70HPS208 70HPS208 70HPS208 88 0.85 E17 Medium Base 240 70HPS240 70HPS240 70HPS240 70HPS240 70HPS240 88 0.80 ANSI Code S62 277 70HPS277 70HPS277 70HPS277 70HPS277 70HPS277 88 0.75 347 70HPS347 70HPS347 70HPS347 70HPS347 70HPS347 93 0.65 100 Watt Clear 120 100HPS120 100HPS120 100HPS120 100HPS120 100HPS120 118 2.20 High Pressure Sodium 208 100HPS208 I 100HPS208 100HPS208 100HPS208 100HPS208 130 1.27 E17 Medium Base 240 100HPS240 100HPS240 100HPS240 100HPS240 100HPS240 130 1.20 ANSI Code S54 277 I to0HPS277 100HPS277 100HPS277 100HPS277 100HPS277 130 ! 1.10 347 to0HPS347 100HPS347 100HPS347 100HPS347 100HPS347 130 0.85 150 Watt Clear 120 150HPS120 150HPS120 110HPS12 100HPS347 100HPS347 170 2.80 High Pressure Sodium 208 150HPS208 150HPS208 1SOHPS20: 150HPS208 150HPS208 188 1.60 E17 Medium Base 240 150HPS240 150HPS240 1SOHPS240 150HPS240 150HPS240 788 1.53 ANSI Code S55 277 150HPS277 150HPS277 150HPS277 150HPS277 150HPS277 188 1.40 347 1SOHPS347 ISOHPS347 150HPS347 150HPS347 150HPS347 168 1.25 70 Watt Clear 120 70MH120 j 7OMH120 7OMH120 70MH120 70MH120 89 1.80 Metal Halide 208 7OMH2O8 70MH2O8 I 70MH2O8 70MH2O8 70MH2O8 89 1.00 ED17 Medium Base 240 70MH240 I 7OMH240 70MH240 70MH240 70MH240 89 0.90 ANSI Code M98 277 70MH277 7OMH277 7OMH277 70MH277 70MH277 89 0.80 347 70MH347 70MH347 I 70MH347 70MH347 7OMH347 94 0.65 100 Watt Clear ! 120 100MH120 100MH120 ! 10OMH120 t00MH120 t00MH120 129 2.60 Metal Halide 208 10OMH2O8 10OMH2O8 10OMH2O8 IOOMH2O8 10OMH2O8 129 1.50 ED17 Medium Base 240 JOOMH240 10OMH240 10OMH240 10OMH240 10OMH240 729 1 30 ANSI Code M90 277 j IOOMH277 ! 10OMH277 10OMH277 1OOMH277 10OMH277 129 1.15 347 10OMH347 10OMH347 1 10OMH347 1OOMH347 10OMH347 129 0.90 150 Watt Clear ! 120 j 1SOMH120 ! 1SOMH120 i 1SOMH120 1SOMH120 1SOMH120 185 i 3.65 Metal Halide 208 ISOMH2O8 1SOMH2O8 1SOMH2O8 1SOMH208 1SOMH2O8 185 2.10 ED17 Metlium Base 240 150MH240 1SOMH240 1SOMH240 ISOMH240 1SOMH240 185 1.50 ANSI Code M102 277 1SOMH277 - 1SOMH277 1SOMH277 I 1SOMH277 1SOMH277 185 1 .58 W ISOMH347 15UMHJ47 347 ISOMH347 1SOMH347 175 MH 120 175 M H 120 175 'Natt Clear 120 175MH720 175MH120 175MH2O8 175MH2O8 Meta' Halide 208 175MH2O8 175MH2O8 175MH240 215 ED17 Medium. Base 240 175MH240 175MH240 2 +5 0 78 ANS Code M57 277 175MH277 175MH277 C 65 SOOHAL120 500HAL120 347 175MH347 175MH347 5C0'.vatt Maximum '20 SOOHAL120 500HAL120 Hatoge- 7-4 rnm: ='an Fixture Finishes: Cat. No. Color Sneer TGIC thermoset ooryester poweer coo+, carat BL -P Biacx acplied over a chromate conversion coating WH -P White W ISOMH347 15UMHJ47 15UMHJ47 16b i :_eo 175 MH 120 175 M H 120 175 MH 120 1 215 1 80 175MH2O8 175MH2O8 175MH2O8 2 15 104 175MH240 175MH240 175MH240 215 0.90 175MH277 175MH277 175MH277 2 +5 0 78 175MH347 175MH347 175MH347 2'0 C 65 SOOHAL120 500HAL120 SOOHAL120 507 u 17 Cat. No. Color -G -P •_.cnt Gray DB -P OarK Bronze reserr.c!es 313 Duranodic' color. Option irf6r- atic-_ . Heavy Duty Swivel (HDS) Recommended for vandal resistant requirements. Heavy cast aluminum with locking teeth, aiming range of 200° vertical in 50 increments and 3600 horizontal rotation. The swivel mounts directly to a 2" pipe -size tenon, with heavy duty 3 /e' stainless steel set point screws provided to firmly lock the fixture in place. Barn Doors (BD) Extruded nhimin,m rinnrc with Anti- wai- Cat. No. Color I I I I Fixed Hood (FH) Formed ' /,s thick aluminum. Mounts to • predrifled door frame holes. Can be mounted along the top or bottom of the fixture to shield the lamp and lens from view. Available in four Super TGIC thermoset polyester powder coat finishes. Polycarbonate Lens Shield (AFL -LS) p /,s' clear convex U.V. stabilized vacuum formed polycarbonate with gasket. Mounts over lens to predrilled door frame holes and may be used with BD Barn Door or FH Fixed Hood option. Note: Use only when vandalism is antici- pated. Useful fife is limited by U.V. discoloration from sunlight and metal halide lamps. Grid Louver for AFL15 & AFL16 (GL4): Formed ' /,s" thick aluminum available in four Super TGIC thermoset polyester powder coat finishes. Mounts to predrilled door frame •holes. Provides glare control for AFL15 and AFL16 Spots while maintaining beam effi- ciency and uniformity. For use with AFL15 and AFL16 only. �4 -� 14 -� 14" L�o __ 7 j 3/4' GaL NO. Cat. No. Color FH/BL -P HDS Furnished to FH/DB -P match selected FH/LG -P fixture color 7' /x White Note: Heavy Duty Swivel (HDS), factory assembled to fixture, must be included in the fixture order number. (See 2 3's" / \ 2 3a" page 12 for more information.) wai- Cat. No. Color I I I I Fixed Hood (FH) Formed ' /,s thick aluminum. Mounts to • predrifled door frame holes. Can be mounted along the top or bottom of the fixture to shield the lamp and lens from view. Available in four Super TGIC thermoset polyester powder coat finishes. Polycarbonate Lens Shield (AFL -LS) p /,s' clear convex U.V. stabilized vacuum formed polycarbonate with gasket. Mounts over lens to predrilled door frame holes and may be used with BD Barn Door or FH Fixed Hood option. Note: Use only when vandalism is antici- pated. Useful fife is limited by U.V. discoloration from sunlight and metal halide lamps. Grid Louver for AFL15 & AFL16 (GL4): Formed ' /,s" thick aluminum available in four Super TGIC thermoset polyester powder coat finishes. Mounts to predrilled door frame •holes. Provides glare control for AFL15 and AFL16 Spots while maintaining beam effi- ciency and uniformity. For use with AFL15 and AFL16 only. �4 -� 14 -� 14" L�o __ 7 j 3/4' GaL NO. G01Or FH/BL -P Black FH/DB -P Dark Bronze FH/LG -P Light Gray FHMH -P White Note: Hood may applied as shown for downward aiming only. Cat. No. Color AFL -LS Clear Not for use with the GL4 Louver or CFA1 color filter options. Cat. No. Color GL4 /BL -P Black GL4 /DB -P Dark Bronze GL4 /LG -P Light Gray GL41WH -P White QL[(0 Limp Kim Lighting 13 VL ICK UGHTING Beam Properties These illustrations are representations of the beam spreads produced by each optical system. They are intended to help you visualize the performance differences between each model without having to analyze photometric charts. AFL21 through AFL25 beam patterns are shown in identical scale. The AFL26 beam pattern is shown at 'h scale due to page constraints. Main Beam 50% so% Main Beam AFL21 Wide Flood The AFL21 produces a very wide horizontal beam pattern designed to yield maximum fixture spacings and exceptionally uniform illumination when the units must be located close to the lighted surface. As a ground mounted fixture for facade lighting, the ideal fixture -to- surface distance is 10'to 30', or two - thirds the height of the illuminated surface, depending on the desired light level. AFL22 Vertical Flood The AFL22 produces a unique distribu- tion in which the peak intensity occurs above the aiming line and rapidly reduces below the aiming line to generate outstanding uniformity of illumination on vertical surfaces when the fixture is at optimum 500 tilt. As a pole or wall mounted luminaire, the AFL22 has very low brightness at high angles for increased visibility. Main Beam 46011. AFL23 Medium Flood The AFL23 is designed to bridge the gap between wide and narrow flood distributions. It is a mid -range luminaire designed for lighting surfaces from distances of 20' to 60', with low aiming angles generating excellent uniformity of illumination. I I I i I I I LI i I I I I I I a 11 I I fJ F1 I i P Main Beam r �J AFL24 Narrow Rood The AFL24 bridges the gap between medium flood and spot distributions. It is a mid -range luminaire designed for lighting architecture from distances of 20' to 80', with low aiming angles gen- erating excellent uniformity of illumination. It can also be used in combination with other AFL20 Series models to extend their range or reshape the overall light pattern. Main Beam r� `J AFL25 Spot The AFL25 produces a very concen- trated beam capable of lighting architecture from distances up to 120', or creating very high light levels to high- light building features or flags from mid -range distances of 40' to 80'. The AFL25 may also be located close to structures using a high grazing angle to highlight building reliefs and projections, or to accentuate surface texture. It can also be used used in combination with other AFL20 Series models to extend their range or reshape the overall light pattern. Main Beams NOTE: AFL26 beam is rendered at '/2 scale to the other AFL20 Series spreads on this page. AFL2u Narrow Spo The AFL26 narrow spot beam pattern is designed to illuminate and highlight small architectural details, tree tons, and parapets from long distances. This pencil thin beam is further refired by an arc tube glare shield which reduces spill light outside of the beam width. Recommended distance from the illuminated surface is 60' to 150', depending on lamp and wattage. Z1 The AFL21 Wide Flood provides Olumination for'he broad facade of me butld!ng I SO Large sculpture, statuary and monoliths require strong. accurate. and even ,Ilum,nauon as orovide0 by ine AFL23 Medium Flood �J Towering palm trees no longer pose an illumination problem The AFL26 Narrow spot throws a poweriui beam uo to 50' ;mn laser accuracy. J 1 O O O I �I 1 r—I L 51 IN DD Q i r i 1P O The AFL25 Spot has the reach and narrow beam spread to perfectly illuminate these 6C banners. By grazing the light coward. the ban ,,er Is washed :r. light. Kim recognizes that prober floodlighting requires a wide variety of beam spreads to accomplish the task. Used alone or in arrays, the AFL20 Series offers the right distributions for the application as illustrated in this example. �J Evenly illuminating tall facades is an easy task for arrays of the AFL22 Vertical Flood (center), the AFL24 Narrow Flood (left), and the AFL25 Spot Flood (right). As the Vertical Flood pattern drops off with the increasing height. the Narrow Flood takes over working as a team with the Spot until the entire vertical facade s even!y illuminated. AFL20 Series reflectors are thus engineered to work In harmony with each other to produce extremely uniform floodligming. U • Fixture Ordering Information See AFL10 Series Catalog for 70 to 175 Watt Architectural Floodlights, and AFL30 Series Catalog for 750 to 1000 Watt Architectural Floodlights. Fixture Ordering Example: Factory installed with flush sensor on e" side of housing. Caution: Use only in Fixture must be ordered by a locations where adjacent lighting will single catalog number consisting of ��° cy \Qr° not affect operation of photocell. Fixture Type, Electrical Mode, Finish Select photocell with same line volts and Optional Photocell if desired. +`J fix°` +`J OQ`°c as fixture. Optional Photocel Options must be ordered separate Cat. No. Line Volts from fixture (except photocell). Do A -30 120V o not add options to fixture number. AFL21 / 400HPS277 / DB- P/A -33 A -31 2 A -32 24040V V A -33 277V A -35 347V 480V (Not Available) Senenr Fixture Type and Electrical Mode: Note: Refer to page 6 -7 for beam properties chart. • Fixture Finishes: Super TGIC thermoset polyester powder coat paint applied over a chromate conversion coating. Cat. No. Color BL -P Black DB -P Dark Bronze, resembles 313 Duranodic° color LG-P Note: For lamp/ballast WH -P White 'reformation outside of the U.S.A. and Canada, please consult your local Kim If 9 1? representative. AFL21 Wide Flood AFL22 Vertical Flood AFL23 Medium Flood AFL24 Narrow Flood AFL25 Spot AFL26 Narrow Spot Electrical Data Line Une M Lamp (by others) Volts Efectrical Mode Electrical Mode Electrical Mode Electrical Mode Electrical Mode Electrical Made Watts Am 120 250HPS120 250HPS120 250HPS120 250HPS120 250HPS120 250HPS120 295 2.7 250 Watt Clear 208 250HPS208 250HPS208 250HPS208 250HPS208 250HPS208 250HPS208 295 1.5 High Pressure Sodium 240 250HPS240 250HPS240 250HPS240 250HPS240 250HPS240 250HPS240 295 1. E18 Clear Mogul Base 277 250HPS277 250HPS277 250HPS277 250HPSZ77 250HPS277 250HPS277 295 1.15 ANSI Code S•50 347 250HPS347 250HPS347 250HPS347 250HPS347 250HPS347 250HPS347 295 0.9 480 250HPS480 250HPS480 250HPS480 250HPS480 250HPS480 250HPS480 295 0.6 120 400HPS120 400HPS120 400HPS120 400HPS120 400HPS120 400HPS120 457 3.80 400 Watt Clear 208 400HPS208 400HPS208 400HPS208 400HPS208 400HPS208 400HPS208 457 2.2� High Pressure Sodium 240 400HPS240 400HPS240 400HPS240 400HPS240 400HPS240 400HPS240 457 1.9 E18 Clear Mogul Base P77 400HPS277 400HPS277 400HPS277 400HPS277 400HPS277 400HPS277 457 1.70 ANSI Code S•51 347 400HPS347 400HPS347 400HPS347 400HPS347 400HPS347 400HPS347 457 1.31 480 400HPS480 400HPS480 400HPS480 400HPS480 400HPS480 400HPS480 457 1. 250 Watt Clear 120 25OMH120 ZWMH120 250MH120 250MH120 250MH120 250MH120 295 2.fi( 208 250MH2O8 250MH2O8 250MH2O8 250MH2O8 250MH2O8 250MH2O8 295 1.5 Metal Halide BT28 Clear Mogul Base 240 25OMH240 25OMH240 25OMH240 25OMH240 25OMH240 25OMH240 295 1.3 Universal Burning 277 25OMH277 25OMH277 25OMH277 25OMH277 25OMH277 25OMH277 295 1.1� ANSI Code M -58 347 250MH347 250MH347 250MH347 250MH347 25OMH347 250MH347 290 0.9 480 250MH480 250MH480 250MH480 250MH480 2SOMH480 250MH480 295 0.6.. 400 Watt Clear 120 400SMH120 400SMH120 400SMH120 400SMH120 400SMH120 400SMH120 458 4.) Metal Halide 208 400SMH2O8 400SMH2O8 400SMH2O8 400SMH2O8 400SMH2O8 400SMH2O8 458 2.3 E028 Clear Mogul Base 240 400SMH240 400SMH240 400SMH240 400SMH240 400SMH240 400SMH240 458 2.0 Special Reduced Size Outer Jacket. 277 400SMH277 400SMH277 400SMH277 400SMH277 400SMH277 400SMH277 458 1.7 Universal Burning 347 400SMH347 400SMH347 400SMH347 400SMH347 400SMH347 400SMH347 458 1.4 ANSI Code M -59 480 400SMH480 400SMH480 400SMH480 400SMH480 400SMH480 400SMH480 458 1.0 • Fixture Finishes: Super TGIC thermoset polyester powder coat paint applied over a chromate conversion coating. Cat. No. Color BL -P Black DB -P Dark Bronze, resembles 313 Duranodic° color LG-P Light Gray WH -P White i a 70 400 WATT 1. JAL [mot[, -'%t Kim Theory of Relativity Integration of Luminaire Design and Site Architecture RA25 Large Era" RA25 RA17 Small Era" LTV Lightvault® VRB Vandal Resistant Bollard �tmigair �F74/4 . OeS, RF RA17_ a gn anaS a e �RMq�/CF Ralativ a to Positz0 /7 0R; 70A1 Within Site Archite cture .�: JI I LJ F `1 11 1. r SITE/ROADWAY ZONE PEDESTRIAN ZONE RA25 Larce Eras on 20 - 30 poles provide site and roadway areas the illuminance RA17 Small Eras on 10'- 16' poles provide ano uniiormay required for safety and security. Efficient cutoff optics improve pedestrian areas increased visibility and ' risibility anc reduce light trespass. accent. The reduced fixture scale maintains design continuity. View of Architecture: unobstructed by poles r SITE/ROADWAY ZONE PEDESTRIAN ZONE RA25 Larce Eras on 20 - 30 poles provide site and roadway areas the illuminance RA17 Small Eras on 10'- 16' poles provide ano uniiormay required for safety and security. Efficient cutoff optics improve pedestrian areas increased visibility and ' risibility anc reduce light trespass. accent. The reduced fixture scale maintains design continuity. J HE I L] I I I AFL Architectural Floodlight WF Wall Fornn` KIM THEORY OF RELATIVITY At Kim. product is developed in context, as it relates to Detail, Performance and Proportion. Detail to connect fixture appearance to the site and architectural elements. Performance to provide high visibility while using energy efficiently. Proportion to reflect the proximity to structures as well as site occupants. As illustrated below, each zone leading to a structure presents a unique set of criteria. The Site/Roadway Zone requires large scale sources, mounted high and spaced widely. to provide uniform illumination. Pedestrian Zone luminaires are more visible, mounted lower and provide higher illumination levels to draw WF Wall Fo;mm WD Wall Director' attention, and enhance security. The Landscape/Path Zone requires fixtures closest to occupants, delineating paths and connecting the site with the structure itself. The Building/Perimeter Zone requires design intimate with physical architectural elements while providing texture and highlight, drawing attention to entries, and producing a sense of security. Lighting practice is a blend of aesthetic design, performance and effect. Integrating Outdoor Lighting with Site Architecture is the Kim Theory of Relativity. traffic palterr s and establish a sense of welarre and ma ity. LTV LighNauP, in -grade landscape lighting proides Ivghlioht wilr W visual obsn ction. WD Wall Directors provide an uo or downhghl func:ion while mamlaining aesthetic continuity. WF Wall Forms© highlight entries and facades wrnle enha.ncmg architectural style. WF Wall Forms also provide unobtrusive stair and perimeter walk Illumination. Integrated Design ' 1W Wall Mount 4 =ter -� i ti Complimentary Detailing Integration CSS / CSL CAS / CAL SAS / SAL Era design approaches all Single Top Crook Side Mount Crook Swept Arm Mount detailing as integral pieces of the whole. From the use of its clean bell shape for the Optical Housing and exposed cooling surfaces on the Ballast Housing, to the detailing of the mounting arms and poles, Era is complete. Combining proven mechanical _ features with a highly styled package without sacrificing either performance or aesthetic design is a difficult task. Era , answers this challenge. with i flexibility to satisfy a wide range of architectural tastes. I� The luminake, mounting arms, and 1 poles were developed with shared I II detailing and complimentary 7 p mating components. This approach produces a complete design that is robust in style and mechanical Integrity. 3 1W Wall Mount 4 =ter -� i ti . . . . . . . . . . . . I -alai I I Adaptability and Control` Rotatable Optics All asymmetric reflectors are field rotatable in g0° increments. This allows design flexibility in producing very high illumination levels for special applications or for maintaining a consistent fixture orientation throughout the site. To facilitate field rotation, each reflector is labeled to show the orientation of the light pattern. Horizontal Vertical Lamp Lamp Type II Asymmetric Type III — F3 Type IV I , Cutoff Control Luminaires with good cutoff characteristics produce less light pollution and distribute a greater portion of their output into usable lighting zones. This is not only more efficient, produces a more conscientious and environmentally friendly lighting design. Rotatable reflectors offer a degree of refinement in fixture orentation when the architecture and site demand perfection. When the twin- mounted luminaires are used for site lighting using Types 11, III or IV distributions, the combined effect from the twin mount is a rectangular light pattern. To change the orientation of the rectangular pattern, you normally change the orientation of the twin mount. An alternative to this is shown at right, where the fixture orientation remains constant and the internal reflectors rotate to change the orientation of the rectangular light pattern. This can maintain identical fixture orientations throughout the site. For applications demanding high light levels, such as tennis courts and automobile dealerships, reflectors can be rotated in parallel to double the light levels. Houseside shields can be added to the fixtures for reducing spill light into unwanted areas behind the luminaires. See page 19. *t • i ... LIGHTING I I I I i 1 I I I 11 U L Swept Arm 10 L SAS /SAL Swept A, :-r, Mcu-lt r. The umit 3a:rF !Ylltec! to the arm I !\,, large < <RZ�� 4 staimuss , lm a: Available Configurations U The cast arm is attached to a cast pole -top Eater with large stainless steel bolts. 711S p.-de St.--,, SIIIG"1 IS v v,,elri�d 13 KIM Luminaire Ordering Information RA17 ' 70 to 175 Watt EraTM Series 150 to 0Wat Moun6g Fixture Electrical Mo4ule Finish Options I-- Pole , Ordering Example: For Standard Fixture and Pole 1 Mounting: 2 Reflector: See the Kim Site /Roadway Optical Systems Catalog for detailed information on reflector design and application. 3 Electrical Module: HIPS = High Pressure Sodium MH = Metal Halide PMH = Pulse Start Metal Halide Lamp Lamp Line Watts Type Volts 400 HIPS 277 1A / RA173 / 175MH277 / LG -P / A -33 / CSS14- 534188A / LG -P 1 2 3 4 5-11 12 , See pages 20 - 25. Omit for 1 W Wall Mount. Plan View: 9:0 01 Wall Mount , (RA17 only) CaL No.: 1A 28 3Y 4C 1W EPA 17 ": 0.8 1.6 2.4 2.8 n/a EPA 25 ": 1.5 3.0 4.5 5.2 n/a NOTE: 1A, 2B, 3Y and 4C mounting arms are part of the Pole Assembly (pages 20 - 25) or Slipfitter Mount (page 19). 1W Wall Mount includes arm, available for RA17 Luminaire only. Horizontal Lamp Flat Lens Light Distribution: Type II Type III Type IV Type V rawa,4 tru. s4La'e Cat No.: 17" RA172 RA173 RA174 RA175% 25" RA252 RA253 RA254 RA255 ' Vertical Lamp e � � Convex Lens Light Distribution: Asymmetric SymmeMc Square Cat. No.: 17" RA17F3 RA17F5 25" RA25F3 RA25F5 RA17 17' Housing RA25 25" Housing 150HPS480 175MH480 70HPS120 10OMH120 150HPS120 175MH120 175PMH120' '175PMH lamp not 70HPS208 10OMH2O8 150HPS208 175MH2O8 175PMH2O8' for use in horizontal 70HPS240 10OMH240 150HPS240 175MH240 175PMH240' lamp reflectors. 70HPS277 100 MH 277 150HPS277 175 MH277 175P MH277' 250HPS347 70 HPS347 10OM H347 150HPS347 175MH347 250HPS480 25OMH480 9 M 150HPS480 175MH480 100HPS120 15OMH120 250HPS120 250MH120 25OPMH120 100HIPS208 15OMH2O8 250HPS208 25OMH2O8 25OPMH2O8 100HPS240 15OMH240 l 250HPS240 25OMH240 25OPMH240 100HPS277 150MH277 250HPS277 250MH277 250PMH277 100HPS347 15OMH347 250HPS347 Z50MH347 250HPS480 25OMH480 150HPS120 175MH120 I 400HPS120 400MH120 40OPMH120 150HPS208 175MH2O8 400HPS208 40OMH208 40OPMH208 150HPS240 175MH240 1 400HPS240 40OMH240 400PMH240 150HP5277 175MH277 400HPS277 400MH277 400PMH277 150HPS347 175MH347 400HPS347 40OMH347 40OPMH347 9 M I I I J I I I i� L I 11 I L1 I 1 4 Finish: Color: Black Dark Bronze Light Gray Platinum Silver White 'Custom Colors Super TGIC powder coat paint Cat. No.: BL -P DB -P LG -P PS -P WH -P CC -P over chrornafe conversion coating. 'Consult representative for custom colors. 5 Optional Glow Ring: Cat. No.. GR Diffuse tempered glass securey, held between the Ballast Housing and the Reflector Housing with stainless steel fasteners and silicone 2t-- Glow Ring gaskets. 6 Optional Photocell: Line Volts: 120V 208V 240V 277V 480V 347V One per fixture required. Cat. No.: A -30 A -31 A -32 A -33 A -34 A -35 7 Optional Convex Glass Cat. No.: CGL Tempered convex glass lens replaces standard flat lens. For Lens: horizontal lamp Type II, Type III, Type IV, and Type V distributions. For Horizontal Lamp Optical NOTE: Convex lens is standard on all Vertical Lamp Optical Systems. Systems. Comex Lens 8 Optional Polycarbonate Cat No.: LS Polycarbonate Shield replaces standard tempered glass lens. 250 Shield: watt maximum. May be used with 400HPS in outdoor locations where ambient air temperature during fixture operation will not exceed 85°F. See'CAUTION' on page 19. Polycarbonate Shield 9 Optional Houseside Cat. No.: HIS Recommended for use with clear lamps only Effectiveness is Shield: reduced for coated lamps. Not for use with Type V (horizontal lamp) or symmetric (vertical lamp) light distributions. Cat. No.: HSC For use with all fixtures with convex glass lens. Nat for use with ,r Type V or symmetric light distributions. HIS for HSC for flat lens convex lens 10 Optional Fusing: Line Volts: 120V 208V 240V 277V 347V 480V Cat. No.: SF DF DF SF SF DF 11 Optional Slipfitter RA17 Single Crook Arm Side Arm Crook Swept Arm Arm Mounting: Configuration: 1A CSS -TM 1A CAS -TMI 1A SAS -TM1 and Cat. No.: 213 CAS -TM2 2B SAS -TM2 See page 19 for complete Requires 2' (21/e' O.D.) 3Y CAS -TM3 3Y SAS -TM3 details and configurations Steel Tenon 4C CAS -TM4 4C SAS -TM4 available. RA25 Single Crook Arm Side Arm Crook Swept Arm Configuration: 1A CSL -TM 1A CAL -TMI 1A SAL -TMt and Cat. No.: 26 CAL -TM2 2B SAL•TM2 Requires 21/2' (2'/' O.C.) 3Y CAL -TM3 3Y SAL -TM3 Steei Tenon 4C CAL -TM4 4C SAL -TM4 12 Poles See pages 20 - 25 for complete ordering and specification information. KIM LIGHTING 17 Luminaire Specifications Era" Models Dimensions RA17 16'/2" f with with optional Glow Ring 17'/" and Convex Lens 1 RA25 RA25 with optional Glow Ring and Comex Lens 1 8 J I Housing: The Ballast Housing is a one piece die -cast aluminum component with integral cooling fins. The Reflector Housing is one piece die -cast aluminum. The Ballast Housing attaches to the Reflector Housing with stainless steel fasteners and is sealed with ' a silicone gasket. Lens Frame: One piece cast aluminum. Stainless steel hinges provided for attachment to the Reflector Housing. Stainless steel threaded fasteners provide easy access, concealed from normal view. The 3/,c' thick clear flat or convex tempered glass lens seals against the reflector flange by a one piece extruded silicone gasket with fused searn, to produce a fully sealed optical chamber. Mounting: Stainless steel bolts are provided to attach the luminaire to the crook arm or swept arm mounting. Reflector Module: Specular AlzaO optical segments are rigidly mounted within an aluminum enclosure which attaches to the Reflector Housing as a one piece module. Reflectors are field rotatable in 900 increments. All sockets are factory prewired with a quick- disconnect plug for the ballast module, with wires passing through a silicone gasket to maintain sealed optical chamber integrity. The optical segments are positioned so that reflected light does not pass through the lamp arc tube. For the RA17, the reflector modules are equipped with medium base sockets rated 4KV. For the RA25, the horizontal metal halide lamp reflectors are equipped with a pin - oriented mogul base socket with a molded silicone lamp stabilizer. All vertical reflectors, HPS horizontal reflectors, and Pulse Start reflectors are equipped with a mogul base socket rated 4KV. All optical systems are interchangeable within the housing. Electrical Module: All electrical components are UL and CSA recognized, mounted on a single plate and factory prewired with quick- disconnect plugs for attachment to the incoming wires and the socket wires. The module attaches inside the housing using keyhole slots. All ballasts are high power factor with starting temperatures of —40 °F for HPS and —20 °F for MH lamp modes. See lamp and electrical data on pages 28 - 29 for ballast types and characteristics. Finish: Super TGIC thermoset polyester powder coat paint, 2.5 mil nominal thickness, applied over a chromate conversion coating; A.S.TM. 2500 hour salt spray test endurance rating. Standard colors are Black, Dark Bronze, Light Gray, Platinum Silver, or White. Custom colors are available and subject to additional charges, minimum quantities and longer lead times. Consult representative, Certification: UL Listed to U.S. and Canadian safety standards for wet locations. Fixture manufacturer shall employ a quality program that is audited to IS09001 standards. I I I IU L I 2'/- CAUTION: Fixtures must be grounded in accordance with local ' codes or the National Electrical Code. Failure to do so may result in serious personal injury. Option Specifications See pages 16 -17 for complete ordering information Wall Mounting: Cast aluminum wall mounting plate pre - attaches to wall with bolts (by others). A cast cover with crook attachments hangs on mounting plate during field wiring and fastening. Splice cover supplied. Available for RA17 luminaire only. See photo on page 4. Glow Ring: Diffuse tempered glass securely held between the Ballast Housing and Reflector Housing with stainless steel fasteners Photocell Control and silicone gaskets. Extruded aluminum spacers extend Ballast Housing to Reflector Housing connections. See photo on page 9. Photocell Control: Factory installed fully gasketed sensor. Convex Glass Lens: The 3/ thick clear convex tempered glass lens replaces the standard flat glass lens in horizontal lamp fixtures. Provides increased lens presence and provides a subtle improvement in uniformity where pole spacing is extreme. NOTE: Convex Lens is standard on all Vertical Lamp Optical Systems. Polycarbonate Shield: One piece vacuum formed, clear, UV stabilized convex polycarbonate, fully gasketed, replacing the standard tempered glass lens. 250 watt maximum. May be used with 400 watt HPS in locations where ambient air temperature during fixture operation will not exceed 85 °F. CAUTION: Use only when vandalism is anticipated to be high. Useful life is limited by UV discoloration from sunlight and metal halide lamps. Houseside Shield: (Types II, III, IV, and Asymmetric distributions only). The cutoff horizontal reflectors are available with stamped aluminum lowers that pass streetside light and block houseside light, and a blackened panel added to the reflector to reduce houseside reflections. The vertical reflectors and horizontal reflectors with the optional convex glass lens are available with a formed aluminum shield that passes streetside light and blocks houseside light, and a blackened panel added to the reflector to reduce houseside reflections. q M 122' —A — Glow Ring Houseside Shield for flat lens Fusing: High temperature fuse holders factory installed. Fuse is included. Slipfitter Mounts: For steel tenons only j Cast aluminum CH' tenon adapter, RA17 - 26' bolted to extruded RA25 - 37' and formed arm. CH' Secured by four ' /a arm. Secured by thru stainless steel set RA25 - 46' point alien screws. Pole Top Tenon RA17 7 RA25 - 7 /is' Pole Top Tenor. i Convex Glass Lens or Polycarbonate Shield Houseside Shield for convex lens Cast aluminum tenon adapter and arm. Secured by four 3 /e' stainless steel set SH' point alien screws. RA17 .22' RA25 - 28' Pole Top Tenon i CSS fits 2- steel pipe -size tenon CAS `ts 2" stee. pipe -size tenon SAS fits 2" steel pipe -size tenon CSL fits 21/2' steel pipe -size tenor. CAL fits 21h" steel pipe -size tenon SAL fits 21/2' steel pipe -size tenon 'NOTE: CH and SH Detailing and Arm Spacing Dimensions match corresponding pole arm designs, see pages 20 - 24. K,M 613MTING 19 CH' Cast aluminum tenon RA17 - 26' adapter, bolted to RA25 - 37' extruded and formed arm. Secured by thru bolt and four 3/6 stainless steel set RA17 - 173/.' RA25 - 239/-s' point al!en screws. Pole Top Tenor. i Convex Glass Lens or Polycarbonate Shield Houseside Shield for convex lens Cast aluminum tenon adapter and arm. Secured by four 3 /e' stainless steel set SH' point alien screws. RA17 .22' RA25 - 28' Pole Top Tenon i CSS fits 2- steel pipe -size tenon CAS `ts 2" stee. pipe -size tenon SAS fits 2" steel pipe -size tenon CSL fits 21/2' steel pipe -size tenor. CAL fits 21h" steel pipe -size tenon SAL fits 21/2' steel pipe -size tenon 'NOTE: CH and SH Detailing and Arm Spacing Dimensions match corresponding pole arm designs, see pages 20 - 24. K,M 613MTING 19 Pole Ordering Information and Specifications SAS / SAL Stepped Aluminum Pole for Swept Arm Mounts Ordering Example: For Standard SAS / SAL Pole 1 Pole Catalog Numbers: SH x1 Y2 Pole Step Y1 Hand Hole Base Cover 2 Mounting Arrangements: Pole CaL No. and Mouning Finish Opfion Plan View' SAS10- 5341888 / DB -P / DR I Mounting Cat. No.: A B 1 -2 3 4 EPA'. RA17 0.8 1.6 2.4 2.8 RA25 For RA17 Luminaires only 3.0 4.5 5.2 ALLOWABLE POLE EPA' N 'NOTE: ALLOWABLE POLE EPA for ,obsia wind conditions must be ecual to or greater than fixture [11 C C 00 N d m mu m O c v = m c° o c o o o U.E ~ U m E co- c U n Pole 0 y Q ¢ 0 Catalog 3 m Number X I X1 I X2 JY1 Y2 y a m SAS10-534188 10' 6.5' 3.5' 5' 3.4'.18T 81W 2Y 231/i 3.7 3/4'x15' +3' 17 3' 26 20 15 12 10 SAS12- 534188 17 8" 4' S' 3.4' .188' 8' /i 3.2' 3/4'x15;.7 12' 3' 21 16 12 9.7 7.9 SAS14- 534188 14' 9.3' 4.T 5. 3.4' .188' 8' /i 3.2' 3/4'x15+3' 12' 3' 18 13 9.8 7.7 6.3 SAS16- 534188 16' 10.5'1 5.5' 5' 3.4' .188' 8'h' U2Z231W 3.2' 3/4)30'+4' 12' 3' 14 10 7.7 6.0 4.8 SAS20- 534188 19S 13' 6.4' 5' 3.4' .188' 8'h' 32' 3'"0'+4' 12' 3' 9.4 6.5 4.7 3.5 2.8 For RA25 Luminaires only ALLOWABLE POLE EPA* .��- g' m rn o° 0 C m I m 2 c �` o L U O. m E U Sa o 0 m Pole - _ m < Catalog og m° N Number X X1 X2 Y1 Y2 y a m SAL20 -64188 SAL25. 64250 25' 16.T 8.3 6' 4' .250'- 10 %i 28' 30' 3.2' 3/4X30'+4' 14' S' 14 9.8 7.0 5.2 4.( SAL30 -64250 30 2d 1a 6' 4' 250' 10'"h 28' 30' 32' �/i x30'+4' 14' S' 11 7.1 4.7 3.2 2.: SAL30-64400 I W 1127 119 6' 4' JAW1101,1il 28' 1 30' 13Z 3 /;x30 -+4' 14' 1 5' 118 112 19.116.715.' NOTE: All allowable pole and fixture EPAs (Effective Projected Area, which Gusting Wind Equivalent - e is Fixture Area x Drag Factor) are derived from the AASHTO standard (American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials). Wind Map Steady Wind - ° Responsibility lies with the specifier for correct pole selection based on local codes and standards for the job location (See page 26). ' Thickness at Y1 section, Y2 section is .188. ' Pole reinforced, to 40 'above base, to .400', remaining Y1 section is .250', Y2 section is .188 . I Plan View' I Mounting Cat. No.: A B Y C EPA'. RA17 0.8 1.6 2.4 2.8 RA25 1.5 3.0 4.5 5.2 'NOTE: ALLOWABLE POLE EPA for ,obsia wind conditions must be ecual to or greater than fixture mount EPA. - – 3 Pole Finish: Color Black Dark Bronze Super TGIC powder coat paint Cat. No.. BL -P DB -P over crmmate conversion dung. 'Consult representative for custom colors. l SAS / SAL $ Stepped Aluminum Pole 1 for Swept Arm Mounts Light Gray Platinum Silver White 'Custom Colors LG -P Ps -P WH -P CC -P 4 Optional Duplex Mounted opposite the handhole In a cast aluminum box, internally welded and sealed with a gasketed self - Receptacle closing cover and locking bracket. DR Duplex Receptacle rated 15A., 125V. DR -GFI Duplex Receptacle with Ground Fault Circuit Interrupter rated 15A.. 125V. Specifications Pole Construction: Seamless round extruded aluminum tube of alloy 6063 -T6, welded to top and bottom of aluminum base casting of alloy 356. Base has a two Base Cover piece cast aluminum full cover of 319 alloy and is secured by stainless steel screws. ' Plan View ,_ o o �, l5o F— Handhole: 18" up from base, with a gasketeC cover and ground lug. Longitudinal o o , Circle Mounting Accessories: Four galvanized anchor bolts provided complete with eight nuts, eight flat washers, reference line. Bolt template. Orient parallel Diameter and a pressw00d to curb or walkway. Strength: Poles shall withstand steady winds as listed in chart (see opposite page) when luminaires are mounted Conduit Opening per fixture installation instructions. CAUTION: Do not install poles without luminaires or ® strength guarantee is voided. Any unauthorized accessories secured to pole shall void strength �• Presswood template guarantee. Finish: Super TGIC thermoset polyester powder coat paint applied over a chromate conversion coating. ' Standard colors are Black (BL -P), Dark Bronze (DB -P), Leveling nut Light Gray (LG -P), Platinum Silver (PS -P), and White and washer (WH -P). Custom colors are available and subject to additional charges, minimum quantities and longer lead Anchor Bolt times. Projection Base Detail tfo'oting' Grout must be packed under pole base to insure full contact with footing and prevent loosening of leveling nuts. Concrete to Provide a channel through the grout for be designed by drainage from the pole interior. others. I KIM LIGI-ITiNG �'`' WF33C W L]l Shallow Cutoff Face For Concrete Walls For Hollow Stud Walls _amp 50W or 70W Metal Halide, ED17 Med. Base P. 14 -15 Recess Mount (Meets ADA requirements when mounted below 80" height.) Photometrics Modes 50W or 70W High Pressure Sodium, ED17 Med. Base p. 16-17 10OW Incandescent, A19 Med. Base p. 18 1SOW Halogen, T4 Mini Can Base P. 19 it 13W or 22W Compact Fluorescent, Double Twin Tube p. 20 -21 Y32W Compact Fluorescent, Triple Tube p. 22 Light distribution perpendicular to wall. Light distribution parallel to wall. See pages 24 and 25 for ordering information. — 10 " -24 1�/ TRIM ---1 FLANGE �5' I 1 5 -3 � — ADJUSTABLE STUD RAGUNi SFrC:!E c 'H" MODEL 7jNLY. EAC'� '•['_c -.,cam 115TAi_�,' TiC � D'cTAIL3. Specifications Face Plate: Die cast aluminum with solid upper half protruding 33/4" from housing and solid concave lower half. Vertical and horizontal double ribs are minimum 5 /e" depth and 3/� thickness. Face plate secured to housing with four captive stainless socket head screws. Lens: Flat tempered 3 /e" glass with internal sandblast. Retained in face plate and sealed with a one piece molded silicone gasket. Housing: Die cast low- copper aluminum with clear anodize under powder coat finish to match face plate. Integral J -box with 3/- NPT conduit taps. Presswood niche cover supplied as temporary protection against moisture. '•H" model supplied with adjustable stud mount brackets plus insulation detector in place of one side conduit tap (MH. HPS and Incand.). Quick disconnect plug supplied for electrical module. Socket: HID ana Incand. - 4KV medium base: Halogen - mini can; Fiuore=_ceni - 3W GX23 -2 pin, 22W GX32o -2 pin. 32iN GX24q -3 4GC7cr Ballast: "ID -HpF -40'F starting for HPS. -20'= for fAH: _"':acsulaiea with thermal Stcrrr: Z-_.;� ?_ _ ` ^' "20V: 22W HF= _�.:F 5 "c.';•cC. 32: ^! O=F. _ Finish: � n �j- -- 2- -..,_r Se!i SCraV:Bia C,� = ="Cr. C:rr_3. _.Grit Cenification: ':L _•stec [C U.S. anc CanaC:an sE;=!,,- :anciarps 'a. lac:77ar snall be re^yisia.rec !p I'-C' _-D i y WET PROTECTED PROTECTED PROTECTED Option SF Single Fusing. Light distribution perpendicular to wall. Light distribution parallel to wall. See pages 24 and 25 for ordering information. — 10 " -24 1�/ TRIM ---1 FLANGE �5' I 1 5 -3 � — ADJUSTABLE STUD RAGUNi SFrC:!E c 'H" MODEL 7jNLY. EAC'� '•['_c -.,cam 115TAi_�,' TiC � D'cTAIL3. Specifications Face Plate: Die cast aluminum with solid upper half protruding 33/4" from housing and solid concave lower half. Vertical and horizontal double ribs are minimum 5 /e" depth and 3/� thickness. Face plate secured to housing with four captive stainless socket head screws. Lens: Flat tempered 3 /e" glass with internal sandblast. Retained in face plate and sealed with a one piece molded silicone gasket. Housing: Die cast low- copper aluminum with clear anodize under powder coat finish to match face plate. Integral J -box with 3/- NPT conduit taps. Presswood niche cover supplied as temporary protection against moisture. '•H" model supplied with adjustable stud mount brackets plus insulation detector in place of one side conduit tap (MH. HPS and Incand.). Quick disconnect plug supplied for electrical module. Socket: HID ana Incand. - 4KV medium base: Halogen - mini can; Fiuore=_ceni - 3W GX23 -2 pin, 22W GX32o -2 pin. 32iN GX24q -3 4GC7cr Ballast: "ID -HpF -40'F starting for HPS. -20'= for fAH: _"':acsulaiea with thermal Stcrrr: Z-_.;� ?_ _ ` ^' "20V: 22W HF= _�.:F 5 "c.';•cC. 32: ^! O=F. _ Finish: � n �j- -- 2- -..,_r Se!i SCraV:Bia C,� = ="Cr. C:rr_3. _.Grit Cenification: ':L _•stec [C U.S. anc CanaC:an sE;=!,,- :anciarps 'a. lac:77ar snall be re^yisia.rec !p I'-C' _-D i LA 1 '' Recessed Installation Details Fully Recessed The following are typical wall sections that will allow a fully recessed housing. �6 Gp.l REINFORCING STEEL AS - U .o. f{ REQUIRED. CAN BE USED TO SUPPORT HOUSING DURING POUR. d. HOUSING. KIM SUPPLIES A PRESSWOOD COVER FOR ALL RECESSED HOUSINGS TO PROTECT o. AGAINST MOISTURE ENTRY UNTIL THE FACE PLATE IS INSTALLED. Semi- Recessed The following are typical wall sections where a lack of depth only allows a semi - recessed housing. In this case the housing trim flange is used as the finish- ing edge which can protrude up to 13/i from the wall. REINFORCING STEE: AS - REOUIRED CAN BE USED TO SUPPORT HOUSING DURING POUR HOUSING. SEE ABOVE. PLASTER SHEATHING — HOUSING. SEE — DESCRIPTION AT LEFT AND BELOW.' ALL'H' MODELS — ARE SUPPLIED WITH ADJUSTABLE STUD MOUNT BRACKETS FOR SUPPORTING THE HOUSING BETWEEN STUDS. INTERIOR DRYWALL —6'----------1 :a o. 2'x6' STUD SHEATHING HOUSING. N i L� J r i P � P HOUSING. SEE DESCRIPTION AT LEFT AND BELOW.' ADJUSTABLE - STUD MOUNT BRACKET. SEE DESCRIPTION AT LEFT. INTERIOR DRYWALL 2" a' OR 2x6 F-- STUD --1 L 'Ji i • T- io 2'X B' STUD WALL STUD WALL WITH BRICK FACE 'Note: All "H" recessed models are supplied with an insulation detector (HID and incandescent). No insulation is permitted above the housing or within 3" of sides and bottom. Detector will cut power if fixture overheats due to insulation. 2'x A' STUD SHEATHING HOUSING. SEE DESCRIPTION ABOVE.' ADJUSTABLE STUD MOUNT BRACKET SEE DESCRIPTION ATABOVE DRYWALL :III v I I'I 2'X 4' STUD W TALL • • Notes: A 347V available only on recessed mounted "C" fixtures for concrete walls. A On Cutoff Face models specify black finish for minimum fixture brightness. Conversely, specify white finish for greater fixture brightness and upward light. A Due to inherent variations in chemical distribution within the arc tube, Kim recommends the use of coated Metal Halide lamps for the most uniform color and light distribution on the wall. Full Face Recess Mount WF30C w& "�"" WF30H Mo P. 9 P Prismed S Smooth 5OMH120 or 277A 70MH120, 277 or 347A A 50HPS120 or 277 70HPS120, 277 or 347A t ODINC120 150HAL120 13CFL120 (32°F starting) 13CFL277 (o °F starting) 22CFL120 ( -2(rF starting) 32CFL120 (0 °F starting) 32CFL277 (0 °F starting) BL -P Black DB -P Dark Bronze LG -P Light Gray WH -P White SF t]S 1 Ilk -!.-Irw Half Face Recess Mount WF31C � " WF31H atrORio='h P. 10 P Prismed S Smooth 5OMH120 or 277A 70MH120, 277 or 347A A 50HPS120 or 277 70HPS120,277 or 347A t001NC120 150HAL120 13CFL120 (32°F starting) 13CFL277 (0°Fsmmng) 22CFL120 ( -20°F starting) 32CFL120 (o °F starting) 32CFL277 (0°F starting) BL -P Black DB -P Dark Bronze LG-P Light Gray WH -P White SF t]S Cutoff Face Recess Mount WF32C `".. WF32H Z"°'O P. 11 (Flat Tempered Glass Only) 5OMH120 or 277A 70MH120, 277 or 347A A 50HPS120 or 277 70HPS120,277 or 347A t00INC120 150HAL120 13CFL120 (32°F starting) 13CFL277 (0°F starting) 22CFL120 ( -ZrF starting) 32CFL120 (0°F starting) 32CFL277 (0-F starting) BL -P Black A DB -P Dark Bronze LG-P Light Gray WH -P White SF (Not Available) t_. Shallow Cutoff Face ADA compliant Recess Mount WF33C W`ARUTS Nc"" WF33H F'�. p. 12 (Flat Tempered Glass Only) 5OMH120 or 277A 70MH120, 277 or 347A A 50HPS120 or 277 70HPS120, 277 or 347A 1 OOINC 120 150HAL120 13CFL120 (32°Fstarting) 13CFL277 (0°F starting) 22CFL120 ( -20 °F starting) 32CFL120 (o °F starting) 32CFL277 ((°F starting) BL -P Black A DB -P Dark Bronze LG -P Light Gray WH -P White SF (Not Available) K I M $ LIGHTING I Photometrics WF20 WF30 Full Face ITL Test No. ' 43117 WF21 ' WF31 Half Face ITL Test No. ' 43125 1 'WF22 WF32 Cutoff Face ITL Test No. 43276 1 ' WF33 Shallow Cutcl Face 'TL Test No 43359 Lateral Distance in Mounting Heights t 3 Longitudinal z Distance in Mounting Heights Lateral Distance in Mounting Heights LongiNdinal 2 Distance In Mounting Heights Lateral Distance in Mounting Heights 4 Long'wd,nal 2 - Distance in Mounting Heights Latera; Distance m Mounting Height=- ono¢ucanai D;stance in ;,mounting Heights 50W Metal Halide OSeenoteonp.24 (� ED 17 Clear, Medium Base (L °l� 3130 Initial Horizontal Lumens 2390 Mean Horizontal Lumens ANS1 Code M11OTM -50 ' 2 • 7' 8' 9' 10" .70 .51 4 A 1.5 1.0 .70 .51 .26 g B .75 .50 .35 .26 w D C .30 .20 .14 .10 E .07 > D .15 .10 .07 .05 Vertical J 2.6 2.0 1.3 J Mounting K 1.3 1.0 .79 .64 J 2.6 2.0 1.6 1.3 N O a T Z K 1.3 1.0 .79 .64 0 N Mounting 0 L .66 .50 .40 .32 O .07 Height ¢ M .26 .20 .16 .13 � o N .13 .10 .08 .06 Typical u r 2 a Hair 4 * A 7 8 9 10 1.5 1.0 .70 .51 C< 8 .75 .50 .35 .26 P C .30 .20 .14 .10 w D .15 .10 .07 .05 Vertical Surface E .07 .05 .04 .03 A J 2.6 2.0 1.6 1.3 J Mounting K 1.3 1.0 .79 .64 M �< Height Z N O ¢ M .26 .20 .146 .33 0 N .13 .10 .08 .06 .,. O .07 .05 .04 .03 Typical V r 2 a 4 * 7 8 9 10 Halt A 1.5 1.0 .70 .51 -u B .75 .50 .35 .26 U C .30 .20 .14 .10 cc D .15 .10 .07 .05 Surface > E .07 .05 .04 .03 OAB F .03 .02 .01 .01 MouT ting J 2.6 2.0 1.6 1.3 M N 0 P Height Q K 1.3 10 .79 .64 Z L .66 .50 .40 .32 o M .26 .20 .16 .13 al ¢ N .13 .10 .08 06 = O .07 .05 .04 .03 4 P .03 .02 .02 .01 Typical G r Z * 2.5' 3.0" 1 3.5' 1 4.0' Half 3 4 ¢ A .67 .50 .32 .21 i B ' .35 .20 .13 .08 X1.17;.101.06.04 > ven:cal. J 1.4 110 7.3 5.6 Surf ace ¢ K 7.2 5.0 3.7 2.8 A� 1 z 2.9X2.0 1.5 11 -6 C � M 1.4 1.0!.731 56 J]: Mourmg ,. L� , He;a:,: C` N , .72 .50 .37 28 M N O p �� - 01 .29 .20 1 .15 P!.1a .101 .07; 06 Honzor.t" Surface * "+;;ef'/,n oa. 2,o Hora ^ja- Fotozncles AOL 0) Specifications LTV730 Series Accent or Wall Wash LTV730,LTV731,LM34 k Architectural Trees Accent LN732, LTV733 LTV El I LTV730 = z:_. _ =-'-= F11YO- DIA O 360` Optical Adlusirnent 30 — F45 Eyeball Retaining Ring: Cast bronze, natural finish. Eight captive sls blackened stainless steel hex - socket cap screws. Eyeball: Cast bronze, natural finish. 360° rotation within retaining ring. Holds optical assemblies at 300 from vertical. Lens Ring: Cast bronze, natural finish, beveled for water runoff. Four captive 1/+" blackened stainless steel hex - socket cap screws. Lens: Clear tempered flat glass, 3 /e" thick. Lens Gasket: One piece molded silicone, Uchannel wraps completely around lens edge. Housing: Two piece cast bronze, 3/,s min. wall thickness upper and lower housing continuously soldered together. No top lip to trap dirt and moisture. Separate splice and ballast compartments, individual cast aluminum internal covers with one piece molded silicone gaskets. Two 3/: NPT in bottom of 33 cu in. splice area. Modular reverse draft housing design (top smaller than largest bottom diameter). Optical System: SP and NF - Spot or Narrow Flood spun aluminum reflectors, specular Alzak', black Duranodic' arc tube glare shield on SP only. PR - for PAR38 reflector lamps, or PAR36 and AR111 12V lamps in LTV734 only. All optical systems yoke mounted, 360° rotation, s15° vertical adjustment (150 to 450 from 00 vertical), locking screws, black anodized gimble ring. WW - one piece hydroformed reflector, specular Alzak', 3600 rotation and screw locks, Wall Wash distribution. All medium base sockets rated 4KV,, mini -can socket for halogen lamps. Electrical Module: High power factor ballast, -20 °F starting, factory mounted to gasketed compartment cover, LTV730 and LTV732 only. 120V to 12V core and coil stepdown transformer, LTV734 only Wiring: Anti - siphon barriers on all wiring to and from ballast compartment. All components wire linked for ground, quick - disconnect for removal of optical system. Certification: UL listed to U.S. and Canadian safety standards for wet locations. Fixture manufacturer shall be registered to ISO 9001. Weight: Halogen - 84 lb H.I.D. - 91 lb —3%z- -/ AIL\ :APT I Ordering Example: LTV732 / WW ! 150HPS277 / GM30 Fixture Optics Lamp Mode Optlons Ordering Information i Fixture Optics Lamp Mode' Options See page 20 LTV730 SP Spot PR PAR 70MH120 15OMH120 TR10 Lamp 70MH2O8 150MH2O8 H.I,D. NF Narrow 701MH240 1501MH240 Trim Ring for flush mounting in Accent Flood 701MH277 15OMH277 concrete. brass. 70MH347 15OMH347 \ 100MH120 175MH120 GM30 Yoke mounted Yoke mounted 100MH208 175MH2O8 Grout Mask for fixture support reflector and medum base 100MH240 175MH240 during concrete pour, galvanized .' medium base sooxet for reflector 100MH277 175MH277 steel. socket for sock reflector H.I.D. lamp. lamp 100MH347 175MH347 Includes TR10 Trim Ring I • LTV731 PR PAR 250HAL120 Halogen Lamp 250W maximum. g Accent lower wattage lamps may be used. Yoke mounted medium base socket for PAR38 halogen reflector IMP. LTV732 WW Wall 7OMH120 70HPS120 H.I.D. Wash 70MH2O8 70HPS208 ' Wall Wash 7OMH240 70HPS240 7OMH277 70HPS277 7OMH347 70HPS347 . 1COMH120 100HPS208 Hydmfonned 100MH2O8 100HPS208 reflector and 100MH240 100HPS240 medium case 100MH277 1DOHPS277 socket for se H.I.D. lamp. 100MH347 100HPS347 15OMH120 150HPS120 150MH2DB 150HPS208 15OMH240 150HPS240 ' 15OMH277 150HPS277 15OMH347 150HPS347 175MH120 ' 175MH2O8 175MH240 175MH277 175MH347 ' LTV733 WW Wall 250HAL120 Halogen Wash 25OW maximum. Wall Wash g lower wattage lamps may be used. I Hytl tl ' reflector ct¢ an an i socket for T-- 4 3 Halogen minivan lamp. `175 MH 120 ' LTV734 PR PAR 10OLV120 —Lne Vots Low Voltage Lamp 100LV277 Lamp Type: MH = Meta' Haiide Accent 2V :amps with 120V o: 277V HPS = Ht h Pressure moot to fixture. 9 Sopvm • \,N i -o ^'N maximum. HAL = Halogen over wattage lamps may os osed. -V = LOW Voltage Lamo'vYatts Yoke and sir ' ! wire tabs for iPAR36 or AP111 Lamps by others -see page 37 fo: 12V lamp. i i lame grade Application Guide Spot Visual Guideline: The Bronze Lightvault" product eo' line offers a wide range of optical systems and lamps, capable of lighting diverse -70' architectural and landscape 9� objects. To all but the most tented lighting professional, 6 it is 0 ® L , it is difficult to visualize the application capabilities by _so' simply reading the photometric charts on pages 27-36. This two page spread has been _ao' created as a visual reference and general guideline for ' selecting the proper Bronze -30' Lightvault® fixture. In every case, verification that selected zo' ' fixtures and layout meet the lighting criteria must be made from published photometric to' data. See page 26 for a guide I ® 1 to understanding and using the data. Recommended Fixtures: The listed Fixtures, Optics, and Lamp Modes should be considered general guidelines. Selection of the proper fixture, number of fixtures and spacing should be based on photometric data. Photo Reference: In addition to the diagrams above and the photometric charts on pages 27 -36, it helps to see the actual lighting effect and beam width. In order to make meaningful comparisons, the same wall was used for all fixtures. The Spot (SP) and Narrow Flood (NF) Accent lights are shown grazing a smooth wall surface to demonstrate the effectiveness of these fixtures for grazing light up columns and textured walls, which can be very dramatic. Trees, flags and overhangs reflect light back to the viewer just like 'the moldings in these photographs. The highlight on the molding Indicates the iignt intensity that mla_ht occur on !eaves and fleas as their surface anoles chance in the wino. It also indicates the Fixture: LM10 LTV710 LTV710 LTV730 LTV750 LTV760 LTV710 Optics: SP SP NFor SP SP PR PR PR or MR PR Lamp: 150MH 175MH intensity of light on overhangs and ceilings, which reflect light more directly toward the viewer. All photographs are of individual fixtures, and therefore are not indicative of multiple fixture layouts with overlapping beams. 1 SOMH 70MH 50HAL 175MH 10OMH 75HAL 15OMH 250HAL 175MH 175MH MLJGKTNG r � �Bol�a�c(s _ %ngtd & MLJGKTNG Performance and Strength VRB1 Single Function Luminaire 3600 Horizontal Louvers — 3600 65 0Louver Angle Compact glass lamp enclosure allows deep horizontal louvers with a high angle for greater light throw. Closed vertical spacing eliminates direct viewing of the light source above horizontal, ensuring glare -free, efficient illumination. Above 90° High -Angle Light Throw Excellent light uniformity and fixture spacing is achieved as a result of the high -angle light throw. Peak candlepower is at 67.5°. Shadowless Lighting Internal flutes in the glass lamp enclosure eliminate shadows by refracting light around structural supports and vertical louvers. Phosphor coated lamps are recommended, and VRB2 models should be located at least 10' from the vertical surface for best results. VRB2 Dual Function Luminaire 2100 Horizontal Louvers, 1500 Vertical Louvers I. 210 Vertical Wash Option (VRB2) 1 I 50' , 150° of unobstructed illumination provides accent light on building facades, walls or landscaping. Vertical louvers provide protection and shielding along this non- cutoff segment of the fixture. Vertical Section Honzontal Section at Light Center Internally fluted. tempered and gasketed glass lamp enclosure. r1 7, u i II 1 1 LJ CI n I� EI L� 1 I LI J I L I F F J I ILI ul Fl VRB1 VRBIC VRBC Single Function Luminaire —Aluminum Shaft Single Function Luminaire — Concrete Shaft Unlighted Concrete Bollard Specifications: VRB1 • Certification shall be Underwriters Laboratories listed (for 120, 208, 240 and 277 Volt only) and Canadian Standards Association certified (for 120 and 347 Volt only) for wet locations. Top Cap shall be a one piece aluminum casting 3 /t6 minimum thickness, secured to louvers by concealed allen screws in keyhole slots. For relamping access, allen screws shall not require com- plete removal. Louvers shall be a one piece aluminum casting with vertical sup- port ribs at 90° intervals. Horizontal louver blades shall have a 13/4' depth, a 650 upward pitch and provide light source cutoff above horizontal. Louver casting shall be secured to shaft by four internal tie rods. Lamp Enclosure shall be one piece tempered molded glass with internal flutes and full gasketing at bottom edge. Socket shall be porcelain medium base rated 4KV for H.I.D. and incandescent. Fluorescent is plastic. Fixture Head shall allow flow- through ventilation around and above the lamp enclosure. Shaft shall be one piece extruded aluminum, .125" wall thickness with a heavy cast aluminum twist -lock anchor base concealed within the shaft. Concealed set screws shall lock shaft onto the cast anchor base. Ballast shall be high power factor for —20 °F. starting, factory mounted to the anchor base and prewired. Wiring shall be supplied from the socket for field connection to the prewired ballast components. Anchor Bolts shall be four IA' x 10 "+ 2' zinc plated L- hooks, each with two nuts, washers and a rigid pressed board template. Finish shall be Super TGIC thermoset polyester powder coat paint • applied over a chromate conversion coating. Available colors are black, dark bronze, light gray or white. Specifications: VRB1 C same as VRB1 except: Shaft cement shall conform to current specifications for 'Portland Cement." ASTM C150, Type I or II. Aggregates shall meet current requirements of "Specifications for Concrete Aggregates." ASTM C33. Water shall be clean and free from deleterious amounts of silt, oil, acids• alkalies or organic materials. Wire for reinforcement shall conform to ASTM A185. Steel for lugs and plates shall conform to ASTM A36, or A283 grade D. Ballast shall be high power factor for —20 °F starting, factory mounted to a rigid harness for field wiring and suspension from fixture within the concrete shaft. Surface shall be medium sand - blasted with anti - graffiti sealer. Available colors are Charcoal, Brown, Natural Gray or White, integral in concrete mix. Cure and Strength shall allow for completion of the hycration process, and result in a 28 day compressive strength of not less than 4.500 psi. Manufacture shall be by fiberglass molds to insure uniform parts. Mold parting lines may be slightly visible in finished parts. Anchorage shall be by four steel mounting tabs for installation on four 'h' x 10' + 2' zinc electroplated L -hook anchor bolts. Each archor bolt is supphed with two nuts, two washers, and a r.gid pressed board template. Shipment snail be pallettzec with adequate hod -Gowns to prevent load movement i.n transit. • Specifications: VRBC same as VRB'C except ne fixture. siectncal elements or conduwt openings. Warning: Pxtures must be grounded in accordance with iocal codes or the Nanona: E.ecuicai Code. Failure to co so may result in serious personal injury. Ordering Guide . Luminare Motlel Bemncat Module Finish VRB1 /100MH120 /BL -P Example: Single Function Luminaire — Aluminum Shaft • • Lumnom Concrete Model Electrical Mocule Finish Rnsh VRB1 C 1100MH120 /BL- P /CH -C Example: Single Function Luminaire — Concrete Shaft Mte Model Rrtish VRBC /CH -C Example: Unlighted Concrete Bollard Lurninaire Finish (aluminum shaft finished to match) Super TGIC thermoset polyester powder coat paint. Note: Black and Dark Bronze colors will produce slightly less louver brightness than Light Gray or White. See page 8. Cat. No. Color BL -P Black. DB -P Dark Bronze. LG -P Light Gray. WH -P White. Concrete Finish Available colors are integral in concrete mix. See page 8 for suggested combinations of concrete and luminaire finishes. Cat. No. Color CH-C Charcoal. BR-C Brown. NG-C Natural Gray. WH -C White. i Electrical Mode Note: See page 4 for UL and CSA certifical 120 for line voltages below. Metal Halide IOOMH208 Electrical 129 1.5 ED17 Medium Base Lamp Mode Mode Line Line Max. (Lamps by others) Cat. No. Volts Watts AmIll 100MH347 70HPS120 120 91 1.45 70 Watt Coated 70HPS208 208 91 0.I High Pressure Sodium 70HPS240 240 91 0. E17 Medium Base 70HPS277 277 91 0. 32PL120 70HPS347 347 91 0.62 32PL277 100HPS120 120 130 2. 100 Watt Coated 100HPS208 208 130 1.2 High Pressure Sodium 100HPS240 240 130 1.10 E17 Medium Base 100HPS277 277 130 0.85 100HPS347 347 130 0.7 70 Watt Coated 70MH120 120 90 1.8 Metal Halide 70MH208 208 90 1.00 ED17 Mad. Base 70MH240 240 90 0.9 70MH277 277 90 0.8� 70MH347 347 90 0.6 100 Watt Coated 100MH120 120 129 2.6 Metal Halide IOOMH208 208 129 1.5 ED17 Medium Base 100MH240 240 129 1.3 100MH277 277 129 1.15 100MH347 347 129 0.9ib 100 Watt 100INC 120 100 0.8 Incandescent, A21 I.F. Medium Base 32 Watt 32PL120 120 35 0.3 Compact Fluorescent 32PL277 277 35 0.1 GX24q•3 Base _ Note: For lamp/ballast information outside of the U.S.A. and Canada, please consult your local Kim representative. VRB1 VRB1 C VRBC -30' or 36' overall height available. Consult Kim representative. BASE Pt.w Bose Puw 1'_ VRB1 �6_ VRBICNRBC - O 33/a* Conduit ;yir 8' Dia. Opening 30' ' o It (VR61C 4 " 0 Minimum only.) ± ;} o Height ° ° u ° Above:;, -0: Grade 42' 42' -82. Maximum oo,.... o "?rte Maximum 3'/<' S' Height " 9%i - 9 Conduit Bolt Height Above 8' Bolt Above' Circle Light Opening Diameter Grade ' Dia. Circle Grade Center �� 16 Diameter `.i Height _ 16' Maximum _ Burial Depth �lli• P/i �I t,�ii ; IAnchor Bolt Projection II' , 1 1 1 1 i i i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPOR- JUNE 2002 CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER DAY SAINTS TEMPLE. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH APPENDIX F LLOYD E. PLATT ASSOCIATES METHODOLOGY P: \CNB230 \EIR\Appendices Cov m.docR0620 102» 1 11 I I Via Fax/Mail Mr. James Campbell Senior Planner, Planning Department City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8015 Dear Mr. Campbell: 1 hereby certify to you as follows: LLOYD E. PLATT ASSOCIATES A R C H 1 T E C T S, L C www.IIoydpIatt.com 4645 Highland Drive Holladay Utah 84117 phone 801.272.9065 fax 801.278.6058 June 17, 2002 1. 1 am a principal with Lloyd E. Platt Associates Architects, LC. a professional firm with our main place of business at the address shown above. 2. Our firm is under contract dated July 16. 2001 with The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter -day Saints (the "Church ") to prepare all working drawings for the Church's Newport Beach Temple, to be built at 2300 Bonita Canvon Drive, Newport Beach. California. Among other plans. we have prepared elevations. sections and floor plans showing all exact exterior building dimensions of the temple. 3. All drawings done for this project have been done using Autocad LT 2000. a program made by AutoDesk. 4. Using Datacad as a separate computer program supplied to us by Datacad LLC. we created a composite computer model of the temple. This was done using the exact dimensions of the temple drawings. This model illustrated the visual appearance of the completed temple with detail sufficient to be rendered at close range. 5. We received from RNM Architects Planners in Newport Beach. on or about May 13. 2002, by email. 15 photographic images of the temple site, as taken from different locations and directions surrounding the site. These were read by us. using a Windows 98 PC. The photos were supplied at 300 dpi by Jay Larsson of Larsson Architects and James Campbell of the City of Newport Beach. (Our simulations were supplied at 300 dpi.) 6. All but one of these photographs included clear images of a crane with a telescoping boom that was supposedly extended to the same height as the proposed temple steeple. We understand that the exact horizontal and vertical location of the top of this crane was surveyed on .January 28. 2002 and again on February 1. 2002. and was verified both times by a registered professional engineer employed by Hunsaker & Associates. 7. Using Architectural Desktop (AutoDesk) along with Acculkeuder (Robert McNeel & Asso- ciates). each of these photographs was inserlcd as the background. 'Ihe computer - generated temple model was then scaled to match the height orthe crane as positioned in each photo. Ira unrs.r"", ?hl re2nunl w,,;sm 1 r.,.a I S. Using those photographs that showed as much of the full length, height and angle of the crane , boom as possible, plus the ground level at the anticipated building base, we verified those photos with mathematical accuracy within a deviation of approximately two feet. (We did this part of , the verification process along with Phil Dowty and Bob Ebstein of Hunsaker & Associates.) Next, we added landscaping to this composite model at densities, sizes and locations specified by RNM and its landscaping subcontractor, Urban Arena. This was mainly based on the landscape plan provided in order to position trees and large plantings on the site of similar densities and sizes to those shown on the plan. This landscaping was shown in two separate sets of growth maturity, being approximately as of the time of temple completion and at full maturity, or , approximately ten years after completion. 10. All 15 photographic images were brought into Corel Photo Paint, a computer program made by Corel. These photographs contain the original photo (showing the actual terrain features) along ' with the temple model inserted. Each of the 15 photos has been rendered twice (with and without landscaping). For the color used, the Corel number on their standard chart is No. 240,213,200. ' 11. Camera specifications for the photographs were provided to us by Jay Larsson and James Campbell. These were then matched to the Global Positioning System coordinates that were provided to us by Mr. Campbell, showing precise locations from where each photograph was , taken. This enabled us to ensure the accuracy of both the horizontal and vertical position from which the photos were taken. 12. Using Corel Photo Paint, foreground by building the same any objects covered the model are brought back in front of the building so as to simulate the actual foreground —both as to views without any direct project landscaping and views with landscaping added. This is done by copying an element from the original photo to the clipboard and then pasting it over the top of the ' new photo (which contains the rendered temple). 13. Each of these composite visual simulations was then saved as both BMP and TIFF, standard file , formats for Windows 98. 14. Both sets of final BMP and TIFF images (with and without project landscaping) were then sent ' by CD or emailed to representatives from RNM Architects, Hunsaker & Associates and to the Church for visual approval before being sent by CD or email to you and to your consultant, LSA Associates. ' If you have any questions regarding these matters, please call me at your convenience. Sincerely, ' LLOY . L ASSOCI S<� TE CTS, LC ' ussell J. Platt, Arch tee Maria Levario (LSA Associates) ' Leslie Lee (RNM Architects) loseph 1. Bentley (Latham & Watkins) ' I 0C DO( S 497Xi2.6JW2frtWJ 06%1x,0206' 3's 1 LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT JUNE R00R CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER DAY SAINTS TEMPLE CITY OF NEWPORT REACH ' APPENDIX G KONSORTIUM 1 LETTER 1 I 1 PACNB230 \EIRWppcndices Covers.do,: 06/20/02» 1 I ' June 18, 2002 ' Mr. James W. Campbell, Senior Planner Newport Beach Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 Re: Newport Beach Temple Lighting Study ' Konsortum I Job41075 -00 -276 Dear Mr. Campbell: ' As you know, we have been engaged by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter -Day Saints to evaluate the proposed exterior lighting systems for the proposed Newport Beach Temple, to be situated at 2300 Bonita ' Canyon Drive. We have reviewed the recent computer renderings, entitled "Nightime Simulations ", intended to represent the expected nighttime appearance of the Temple, as prepared by Lloyd E. Platt & Associates, Architects (the Church's main outside architects) and Heath Engineering Company (the Church's main lighting consultants / electrical engineers). We find that the representative images accurately depict the recommendations summarized in our January 25, 2002 letter to your attention. Please contact me if you have any questions or comments regarding this study. ' Sincerely, KONSORTUMI ' aymond W. Swartz, resident ' /rws FAI075Uxtters \0206001 DOC U I KONSORTUM 1 17891 Sky Park Circle, Suite B Irvine, California 92614 Tel (949) 221 -0432 (949) 221 -0430 Fax 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT VOLUME II: RESPONSE TO COMMENTS CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER DAY SAINTS TEMPLE NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA SCH #20020310¢8 L S A August 2002 1 1 1 1 1 1 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT VOLUME II: RESPONSE TO COMMENTS CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER DAY SAINTS TEMPLE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH SCH #2002031o48 Prepared for: City of Newport Beach Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92658 Contact: James Campbell, Senior Planner (949) 644 -3210 Prepared by: LSA Associates, Inc. 20 Executive Park, Suite 200 Irvine, California 92614 -4731 (949) 553 -0666 LSA Project No. CNB230 LSA August zooz ' LSA ASSO C IATES. INC. DEIR RESPONSE TO COMMENTS AUGUST ➢009 CC ORCH OE JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER DAY SAINTS TEMPLE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ' TABLE OF CONTENTS IINTRODUCTION INDEX OF COMMENTS RECEIVED .................................................................... ..............................2 FORMAT OF RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ......................................................... ..............................4 GENERALRESPONSES ......................................................................................... ..............................4 GENERAL RESPONSE I- AESTHETICS ............................................................ ..............................4 ' GENERAL RESPONSE 2 -LIGHT AND GLARE ................................................ ..............................6 1. COMMENTS FROM STATE OF CALIFORNIA GOVERNOR'S OFFICE OF PLANNING AND RESEARCH............................................................................................... ............................... 1-1 1. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS FROM STATE OF CALIFORNIA GOVERNOR'S OFFICE OF PLANNING AND RESEARCH ................................................................ ............................... I -4 2. COMMENTS FROM DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, DISTRICT 12 ..................... 2 -1 2. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS FROM DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, DISTRICT 12 ................................................................................................................ ............................... 2 -3 3. COMMENTS FROM AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION .................... ............................... 3 -1 3. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS FROM AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION ......................3 -1 4. COMMENTS FROM CITY OF IRVINE, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ' DEPARTMENT......................................................................................... ............................... 4-1 4. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS FROM CITY OF IRVINE, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT .......................................................... ............................... 4 -5 5. COMMENTS FROM ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY AFFAIRS ADVISORY COMMITTEE, CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ........................................ ............................... 5 -1 5. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS FROM ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY AFFAIRS ADVISORY COMMITTEE, CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH .................. ............................... 5 -9 6. COMMENTS FROM HARBOR VIEW KNOLL .......................................... ............................... 6 -1 6. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS FROM HARBOR VIEW KNOLL ................ ............................6 -4 7. COMMENTS FROM SEAWIND COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION ............. ............................... 7 -1 7. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS FROM SEAWIND COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION .............. 7 -6 8. COMMENTS FROM BONITA CANYON MAINTENANCE ASSOCIATION ......................... 8 -1 ' 8. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS FROM BONITA CANYON MAINTENANCE ASSOCIATION....................................................................................... ............................... 8-10 9. COMMENTS FROM BONITA CANYON CONSERVANCY ..................... ............................... 9 -1 9. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS FROM BONITA CANYON CONSERVANCY ......................9 -5 ' 10. COMMENTS FROM E.B. AKINS ............................................................ ............................... 10 -1 10. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS FROM E.B. AKINS ............................... ............................... 10 -5 11. COMMENTS FROM WILLIAM BURKE ................................................ ............................... 11 -1 11. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS FROM WILLIAM BURKE ................... ............................... 11-3 12. COMMENTS FROM GORDON AND INA BENHARD .......................... ............................... 12 -1 ' 12. 13, RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FROM GORDON AND INA BEN14ARD ............................. COMMENTS FROM KAY BROWN ........................................................ ............................... 12 -3 13 -1 13. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FROM KAY BROWN ............................. ............................... 13 -3 14. COMMENTS FROM TOM AND ARABELLE BROWN ........................ ............................... 14 -1 ' 14. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FROM TOM AND ARABELLE BROWN ............................ 14 -3 15. COMMENTS FROM M.F. BROWNING .................................................. ............................... 15 -1 15. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FROM M.F. BROWNING ....................... ............................... 15 -3 P.\CNB130 \RTC \RTC.dm x08129!02. LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. DEIR RESPONSE TO COMMENTS AUGUST ROOK CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER DAY SAINTS TEMPLE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 16. COMMENTS FROM WEATHERFORD CLAYTON, M. D ..................... ............................... 16 -1 ' 16. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FROM WEATHERFORD CLAYTON, M.D ......................... 16 -3 17. 17. COMMENTS FROM FRANK P. CHIRICO ............................................. ............................... RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FROM FRANK P. CHIRICO .................. ............................... 17 -1 17 -4 _ 18. COMMENTS FROM GARY AND SUSAN CALL .................................. ............................... 18 -1 18. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FROM GARY AND SUSAN .................. ............................... 18 -3 19. COMMENTS FROM LISA T. CLAYTON ............................................... ............................... 19 -1 ' 19. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FROM LISA T. CLAYTON .................... ............................... 19 -3 20. COMMENTS FROM CRAYTON V. CLARK .......................................... ............................... 20 -1 20. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FROM CRAYTON CLARK .................... ............................... 20 -3 ' 21. COMMENTS FROM BRIAN AND MARY DONOVAN ............................ ...........................21 -1 21. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FROM BRIAN AND MARY DONOVAN .......................... 21 -14 22. COMMENTS FROM GREGORY DILLION ............................................ ............................... 22 -1 22. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS FROM GREGORY DILLION ................... ...........................22 -3 ' 23. COMMENTS FROM ALBERT AND FAYE ECCLES ............................ ............................... 23 -1 23. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS FROM ALBERT AND FAYE ECCLES ... ...........................23 -3 24. COMMENTS FROM JERI EFFINGER ..................................................... ............................... 24 -1 , 24. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS FROM JERI EFFINGER ....................... ............................... 24 -3 25. COMMENTS FROM JOE FOX ................................................................. ............................... 25 -1 25. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS FROM JOE FOX ....................................... ...........................25 -3 26. COMMENTS FROM NANCY FULLER .................................................. ............................... 26 -1 26. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS FROM NANCY FULLER ..................... ............................... 26 -4 27. COMMENTS FROM RICHARD A. FULLER .......................................... ............................... 27 -1 ' 27. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS FROM RICHARD A. FULLER ................ ...........................27 -3 28. COMMENTS FROM JOHN AND ALISON FAIRBANKS .......................... ...........................28 -1 28. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FROM JOHN AND ALISON FAIRBANKS ......................... 28 -3 ' 29. COMMENTS FROM SUSAN FREITAS ...................................................... ...........................29 -1 29. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FROM SUSAN FREITAS ........................... ...........................29 -3 30. COMMENTS FROM GRANT GOODSON .............................................. ............................... 30 -1 30. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FROM GRANT GOODSON ................... ............................... 30 -3 31. COMMENTS FROM CAROLYN GOODSON ............................................. ...........................31 -1 31. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FROM CAROLYN GOODSON .............. ............................... 31 -3 32. COMMENTS FROM MALI GULLEDGE ....:........................................... ............................... 32 -1 ' 32. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FROM MALI GULLEDGE ..................... ............................... 32 -4 33. 33. COMMENTS FROM LEWIS AND MICHELLE GARBER .................... ............................... RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FROM LEWIS AND MICHELLE GARBER ........................ 33 -1 33 -5 ' 34. COMMENTS FROM MICHAEL GREEN ................................................ ............................... 34 -1 34. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FROM MICHAEL GREEN ......................... ...........................34 -5 35. COMMENTS FROM JEFFREY AND SARA HAVRANEK .................... ............................... 35 -1 35. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FROM JEFFREY AND SARA HAVRANEK ....................... 35 -3 36. COMMENTS FROM TON] HANCOCK .................................................. ............................... 36 -1 36. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FROM TON] HANCOCK ........................... ...........................36 -3 ' 37. COMMENTS FROM F. SCOTT HEINEMANN, M. D ............................. ............................... 37 -1 37. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FROM F. SCOTT HEINEMANN, M. D .. ............................... 37 -3 38. COMMENTS FROM KENNETH D. AND J. KRISTEN HUBBS ............ ............................... 38 -1 38. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FROM KENNETH D. AND J. KRISTEN HUBBS ............... 38 -3 ' 39. COMMENTS FROM RANDY HUNTER ................................................. ............................... 39 -1 PACNBI3D \RTC \RTC.doc (M25IM2 II L 1 I 1 I j LSA ASSOCIATES. INC nE1R RESPONSE TO COMMENTS A lI GU T 2002 CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LAT'T'ER DAY SAINTS TEMPIT,, CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 39. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FROM RANDY HUNTER ...................... ............................... 39 -7 40. COMMENTS FROM LISA JARVIE ......................................................... ............................... 40 -1 40. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FROM LISA JARVIE .............................. ............................... 40 -5 41. COMMENTS FROM BILL JOHNSON ..................................................... ............................... 41 -1 41. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FROM BILL JOHNSON ......................... ............................... 41 -3 42. COMMENTS FROM CHRISTOPHER T. JONES .................................... ............................... 42 -1 42. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FROM CHRISTOPHER T. JONES ......... ............................... 42 -4 43. COMMENTS FROM DANIEL M. LIVINGSTON ....................................... ...........................43 -1 43. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FROM DANIEL M. LIVINGSTON ............ ...........................43 -3 44. COMMENTS FROM BETTY LOU LAMOREAUX .................................... ...........................44 -1 44. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FROM BETTY LOU LAMOREAUX ..... ............................... 44 -3 45. COMMENTS FROM JILL T. MONEY ..................................................... ............................... 45 -1 45. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FROM JILL T. MONEY .......................... ............................... 45 -3 46. COMMENTS FROM KEITH E. MCCULLOUGH ................................... ............................... 46 -1 46. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FROM KEITH E. MCCULLOUGH ........ ............................... 46 -5 47. COMMENTS FROM BRUCE D. MAY ........................................................ ...........................47 -1 47. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FROM BRUCE D. MAY ....................... ............................... 47 -12 48. COMMENTS FROM MELISSA L. HICKS AND THOMAS F. MCCORMACK .................. 48 -1 48. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FROM MELISSA L. HICKS AND THOMAS F. MCCORMACK....................................................................................... ............................... 48 -9 49. COMMENTS FROM ALLEN K. MURRAY ............................................ ............................... 49 -1 49. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS FROM ALLEN K. MURRAY ............... ............................... 49 -3 50. COMMENTS FROM DR. AND MRS. RICHARD D. NEWCOMER ...... ............................... 50 -1 50. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS FROM DR. AND MRS. RICHARD D. NEWCOMER ....... 50 -3 51. COMMENTS FROM RICHARD E. NICHOLSON .................................. ............................... 51 -1 51. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FROM RICHARD E. NICHOLSON ....... ............................... 51 -3 52. COMMENTS FROM KIM NICHOLSON ................................................. ............................... 52 -1 52. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FROM KIM NICHOLSON ...................... ............................... 52 -3 53. COMMENTS FROM BRYAN NICKEL ................................................... ............................... 53 -1 53. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FROM BRYAN NICKEL ........................ ............................... 53 -3 54. COMMENTS FROM WILLIAM AND MELINDA O' BRIEN ................. ............................... 54 -1 54. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FROM WILLIAM AND MELINDA O'BRIEN .................... 54 -3 55. COMMENTS FROM DOUGLAS OWEN ................................................. ............................... 55 -1 55. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FROM DOUGLAS OWEN ..................... ............................... 55 -3 56. COMMENTS FROM JOHN W. PACKER, MAI ...................................... ............................... 56 -1 56. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FROM JOHN W. PACKER, MAI ........... ............................... 56 -3 57. COMMENTS FROM MR. AND MRS. MORRIS B. PARKER 111 ........... ............................... 57 -1 57. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FROM MR. AND MRS. MORRIS B. PARKER 111 .............. 57 -3 58. COMMENTS FROM TONY PREMER ..................................................... ............................... 58 -1 58. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FROM TONY PREMER ......................... ............................... 58 -3 59. COMMENTS FROM CAR] SCHRECK .................................................... ............................... 59 -1 59. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FROM CAR] SCHRECK ........................ ............................... 59 -3 60. COMMENTS FROM MICHAEL SCHRECK ............................................... ...........................60 -1 60. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FROM MICHAEL SCHRECK ................ ............................... 60 -3 61. COMMENTS FROM STEPHEN P. SANDLAND .................................... ............................... 61 -1 61. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FROM STEPHEN P. SANDLAND ......... ............................... 61 -3 62. COMMENTS FROM SCOTT J. SMITH ................................................... ............................... 62 -1 P: \CNBI30\RTC \RTC.doc,08/29 /02. 111 LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. AU CU ST 2002 62. ' DEIR RESPONSE TO CONNF.NTS 63. CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER DAY SAINTS TEMPLE 63 -1 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FROM LEIGHTON J. SMITH, M.D. 62. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FROM SCOTT J. SMITH ........................ ............................... 62 -3 63. COMMENTS FROM LEIGHTON J. SMITH, M.D., AND JEANNE H. SMITH, M.D.......... 63 -1 63. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FROM LEIGHTON J. SMITH, M.D. ANDJEANNE H. SMITH, M. D ............................................................. ............................... 63 -3 64. COMMENTS FROM J. DONALD TURNER, D. D. S ............................... ............................... 64 -1 64. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FROM J. DONALD TURNER, D. D. S .... ............................... 64 -3 65. COMMENTS FROM J.S. TAYLOR .......................................................... ............................... 65 -1 65. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FROM J.S. TAYLOR .............................. ............................... 65 -3 66. COMMENTS FROM THEODORE H. TRUESDELL .............................. ............................... 66 -1 66. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FROM THEODORE H. TRUESDELL ... ............................... 66 -3 67. COMMENTS FROM JERRY AND GWEN VIEAU ................................ ............................... 67 -1 67. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FROM JERRY AND GWEN VIEAU ..... ............................... 67 -3 68. COMMENTS FROM ROGER L. VOETTINER ....................................... ............................... 68 -1 68. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FROM ROGER L. VOETTINER ............ ............................... 68 -3 69. COMMENTS FROM SEAN VOLPETTI ...................................................... ...........................69 -1 69. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FROM SEAN VOLPETTI ....................... ............................... 69 -3 70. COMMENTS FROM ALEXANDER L. WANIEK ................................... ............................... 70 -1 70. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FROM ALEXANDER L. WANIEK ....... ............................... 70 -9 71. COMMENTS FROM MADELEINE WALBURGER ................................... ...........................71 -1 71. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FROM MADELEINE WALBURGER .... ............................... 71 -3 72. COMMENTS FROM E.T. "TOMMY" WARNER .................................... ............................... 72 -1 72. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FROM E.T. "TOMMY" WARNER ........ ............................... 72 -3 73. COMMENTS FROM JAMES R. WHITE ................................................. ............................... 73 -1 73. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FROM JAMES R. WHITE ...................... ............................... 73 -3 74. COMMENTS FROM DAVID AND KAREN WOLF ............................... ............................... 74 -1 74. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FROM DAVID AND KAREN WOLF .... ............................... 74 -3 P: \CNB 130 \RTC\RTC.doc « 08129/02. 11 1 1 I H LSA .13SO C IATES. INC, DEIR RESPONSE TO COMMENTS AUO US'F ROOK CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER OAT SAINTS TEMPLE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 1 ' RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ' INTRODUCTION As required by CEQA Guidelines Section 15087, the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for ' the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints Temple was circulated for public review for a period of 45 days, from June 24, 2002, to August 7, 2002. The comment period was extended to August 16, 2002, to accommodate comments from a responsible agency. The Notice of Availability (NOA) was ' also published in the Daily Pilot on June 26, 2002. The DEIR was also made available on the City's Web site at www .city.newport- beach.ca.us/home. Copies of the DEIR were mailed to all responsible agencies and state agencies and were made available for public review at the Newport Beach ' Planning Department and the Newport Beach Central Library. Copies of the DEIR were also made available for purchase through the City Planning Department. b) The written response shall describe the disposition of significant environmental issues raised (e.g., revisions to the proposed project to mitigate anticipated impacts or objections). In particular, major environmental issues raised when the lead agency's position is at variance ' with recommendations and objections raised in the comments must be addressed in detail, giving the reasons that specific comments and suggestions were not accepted. There must be good faith, reasoned analysis in response. Conclusory statements unsupported by factual information will not suffice. P. \CNB2301RT0RTC d" -08/29/02. A total of 74 comment letters was received during the public review period. Comments were ' received from State and local agencies, interested parties, and private citizens. Thorough responses are provided for all comments that address environmental issues. In some cases, corrections to the DEIR are required or additional information is provided for clarification purposes. However, some of the comments do not address the adequacy or completeness of the DEIR, do not raise environmental ' issues, or do request the incorporation of additional information not relevant to environmental issues. Such comments do not require a response, pursuant to Section 15088(a) of the CEQA Guidelines. ' Many comments raise similar or identical issues. To address these comments, a single response is provided the first time the issue is raised, and subsequent responses refer to the initial response. In addition, general responses to specific environmental issues have been included to provide a response to important or common environmental topics brought up in several of the comments. Section 15088 of the state CEQA Guidelines, Evaluation of and Response to Comments, states: a) The lead agency shall evaluate comments on environmental issues received from persons who reviewed the draft EIR and shall prepare a written response. The lead agency shall ' respond to comments received during the noticed comment period and any extensions and may respond to late comments. b) The written response shall describe the disposition of significant environmental issues raised (e.g., revisions to the proposed project to mitigate anticipated impacts or objections). In particular, major environmental issues raised when the lead agency's position is at variance ' with recommendations and objections raised in the comments must be addressed in detail, giving the reasons that specific comments and suggestions were not accepted. There must be good faith, reasoned analysis in response. Conclusory statements unsupported by factual information will not suffice. P. \CNB2301RT0RTC d" -08/29/02. LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. AU CU ST 2002 DEIR RESPONSE TO COMMENTS CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER DAY SAINTS TEMPLE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH c) The response to comments may take the form of a revision to the draft EIR or maybe a separate section in the final EIR. Where the response to comments makes important changes in the information contained in the text of the draft EIR, the lead agency should either: I. Revise the text in the body of the EIR; or 2. Include marginal notes showing that the information is revised in the response to comments. Information provided in this response to comments clarifies, amplifies, or makes minor modifications to the DEIR. No significant changes have been made to the information contained in the DEIR as a result of the response to comments, and no significant new information has been added. Therefore, this response to comments is being prepared as a separate section of the EIR, and is included as part of the Final EIR, for consideration by the City prior to a vote to certify the Final EIR. INDEX OF COMMENTS RECEIVED The following is an index list of the agencies, groups, and persons who commented on the Draft EIR, prior to the close of the public comment period or immediately thereafter. The comments received have been organized in a manner that facilitates finding a particular comment or set of comments. Each comment letter received is indexed with a number below. I# Name Date I Terry Roberts, State Clearinghouse August 8, 2002 2 Robert F. Joseph, IGR/Community Planning July 15, 2002 3 Joan S. Golding, Airport Land Use Commission August 16, 2002 4 Amy Urcis, City of Irvine July 3, 2002 5 Environmental Quality Affairs Advisory Commit of Newport Beach July 17, 2002 6 Harbor View Knoll Community Association August 6, 2002 7 The Seawind Board of Directors August 8, 2002 8 Bonita Canyon Maintenance Association's Board of Directors August 8, 2002 9 Mike Arrigo, The Bonita Canyon Conservancy August 9, 2002 10 E. B. Akins July 29, 2002 11 W. B. & P. J. Burke July 12, 2002 12 Gordon and Ina Benhard July 24, 2002 13 Kay Brown July 29, 2002 14 Tom & Arabelle Brown August 2, 2002 15 Michael F. Browning August 8, 2002 16 Weatherford Clayton, M.D. July 25, 2002 17 Frank P. Chirico July 26, 2002 18 Gary and Susan Call August I, 2002 19 Lisa T. Clayton August 5, 2002 20 Crayton V. Clark August 9, 2002 21 Brian & Mary Donovan August 6, 2002 22 Cindy & Greg Dillion August 9, 2002 23 Albert & Faye Eccles August 5, 2002 24 Jerri Effinger I August 6, 2002 P:\CNB230\RTC \RTC.doc u09/29/02u 1 it i �I 1 1 ' LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. PEI. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS .1U GUST 9009 CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER DAY SAINTS TEMPLE Joe & Kathy Fox Mary Fuller CITY OF NEWPORT REACH I Ll [J 1 # Name Date 25 Joe & Kathy Fox Mary Fuller July 17, 2002 26 July 30, 2002 27 Richard A. Fuller July 3 1, 2002 28 John & Allison Fairbanks August 2, 2002 29 Susan Freitas _ August 6, 2002 30 Grant Goodson July 26, 2002 31 Carolyn Goodson July 28, 2002 32 Mali Gulledge July 31, 2002 33 Lewis and Michelle Garber August 9, 2002 34 Michael Green I August 9, 2002 35 Jeffrey & Sarah Havranek July 30, 2002 36 Toni Hancock August 5, 2002 37 F. Scott Heinemann, M.D. I August 5, 2002 38 Kenneth & J. Kristen Hubbs August 7, 2002 39 Randy Hunter i August 9, 2002 40 Lisa Jarvie 1 July 25, 2002 41 Bill Johnson August 6, 2002 42 Christopher T. & Louise R. Jones August 9, 2002 43 Daniel M. Livingston July 24, 2002 44 Betty Lou Lamoreaux August 5, 2002 45 Jill T. Money July 26, 2002 46 Keith E. McCullough _ July 29, 2002 47 Bruce D. May _ July 31, 2002 48 Melissa Hicks & Thomas F. McCormack August 8, 2002 49 _ Allen Murray August 9, 2002 50 Dr. & Mrs. Richard D. Newcomer July 28, 2002 51 Richard E. Nicholson I July 29, 2002 52 Kim Nicholson July 31, 2002 53 Bryan Nickel August 6, 2002 54 William & Melinda O'Brien July 23, 2002 55 Douglas Owen _ August 8, 2002 56 John W. Packer July 20, 2002 57 Mr. & Mrs. Morris B. Parker III August 2, 2002 58 Tony Premer I August 13, 2002 59 1 Can Schreck July 30, 2002 60 _ Michael Schreck j August I, 2002 61 i Stephen P. Sandland i August 2, 2002 62 , Scott J. Small August 8, 2002 63 Leighton J. & Jeanne H. Smith August 8, 2002 64 J. Donald Turner July 25, 2002 65 J.S. Taylor July 29, 2002 66 Theodore H. & Janice T. Truesdell _ August 2, 2002 67 Jerry & Gwen Vieau July -24,2002 July 27, 2002 68 Roger L. Voettiner 69 Sean & Kari Volpetti July 29, 2002 P: \CNB230 \RTC\RTC.dOC «08/29/02. 3 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. AUGUST 2002 DEIR RESPONSE TO COMMENTS t CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER DAY SAINTS TEMPLE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH # i Name Date 70 Alexander & Mary Beth Waniek August 7, 2002 71 Madeleine Walburger August 8, 2002 72 E. T. "Tommy" Warner August 9, 2002 73 James R. White August 9, 2002 74 David Wolf August 9, 2002 FORMAT OF RESPONSE TO COMMENTS Responses to each of the comment letters are provided on the following pages. The comment letter number is provided in the upper right -hand comer of each comment letter, and individual points within each letter are numbered along the right -hand margins of each letter. Comments not requiring any response are not numbered. The City's responses to each comment letter immediately follow each letter and are referenced by the index numbers in the margins. GENERAL RESPONSES The following are general responses provided to address important common issues raised by commentors related to Aesthetic and Light and Glare issues. Aesthetics Light and Glare GENERAL RESPONSE 1- AESTHETICS Several commentors raised similar concerns regarding the significance of aesthetic impacts of the proposed project. In response to these concerns, the following discussion of determining an aesthetic impact based on defined thresholds is provided. This general response is intended to respond to several comment letters. Aesthetic impacts must be considered in the CEQA analysis. However, such impacts are not necessarily significant unless the impacts exceed a threshold of significance. Any issue of aesthetic impact, especially an aesthetic impact to a view, tends to be subjective. The analysis in the EIR follows the requirements of CEQA, which focuses on an evaluation of evidence concerning the physical environment as measured against specific thresholds. The City of Newport Beach Recreation and Open Space Element, Objective 6, addresses scenic vistas and resources in the City. The implementing policies support the provision of view parks and enhanced streetscapes along scenic highways and scenic drives. The Municipal Code of the City of Newport Beach does not contain any provisions to protect private viewsheds. Only public viewsheds from public parks, State designated scenic highways, or within the Coastal Zone are afforded some protection by existing City policy. The project site is not within the Coastal Zone nor is the project site within a designated scenic vista. PACNB230 \RTC\RTC.dK R08l29102» L 1 1 1 CJ 11 I 11 1 LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. OEIR RESPO NsE TO COM MEN'B AUCUST 9009 CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER DAY SAINTS TEMPLE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH The City of Newport Beach impact significance criteria for aesthetic impacts used for this analysis are based on the CEQA Guidelines, the City of Newport Beach General Plan, and the Municipal Code. The following are the significance criteria utilized to determine if the proposed project would have a potentially significant aesthetic impact: • Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista • Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings • Create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area To assist in evaluating visual impacts, view simulations were prepared to provide a "project opening" condition and a "ten year" condition. The project opening condition provides an illustration of the project as it will appear when the Temple is dedicated, with new landscaping planted at project completion. In the majority of the view simulations prepared for the proposed project, the new Temple is visible within the built environment and does not dominate the existing views. Additionally, as illustrated in the majority of the view simulations prepared for the project, proportionately, only a small percentage of viewable area will be impacted. The Temple does appear larger in some of the view simulations taken from close proximity to the project site. The area most impacted would be the southeasterly residents of Bonita Canyon Village. Due to the proximity of this area to the project site, the Temple will be a more visible feature, occupying a higher percentage of "viewable area" that exists from other vantage points. It is acknowledged in Section 4. 1, Aesthetics, of the EIR that the Temple steeple will be visible to the surrounding community and that the new Temple will be more prominent than the existing built environment. The project site is bordered both on the west and south with similar architectural structures, i.e., a building with a steeple element (existing Stake Center and Saint Matthews Church). At 123 feet 9 inches, the finished height of the steeple element will be the tallest structure in the project vicinity. However, the steeple element is not a large, bulky mass; rather, it is a relatively narrow tapered element that at its highest point is approximately 18 inches wide. Additionally, the degree of prominence to any affected views is dependent upon the location and distance of the viewer from the project site. It is recognized that any issue of aesthetic impact, especially an aesthetic impact to a view, is subjective. Different individuals will have different opinions about aesthetics and visual impacts. However, based on CEQA Guidelines Section 15064 f(5) and Section 15065 h(3), the level of significance is defined by the threshold. The analysis in the EIR provided an objective analysis pursuant to requirements of CEQA, which focuses on an evaluation of evidence concerning the physical environment as measured against specific thresholds. Based on the significance criteria approved by the City, development of the Temple on the project site will result in a less than significant aesthetic impact. The commentors' statements are acknowledged; however, the commentors do not provide support for such a finding and only express an opinion on a subjective issue. The comments do not provide specific evidence or new information to show that the information contained in the EIR is inadequate. ' In the absence of data or substantiating evidence to the contrary, the conclusion of the EIR may be relied upon. The comments will be forwarded to the decision makers. P \CNB230 \RTC\RTC.doc ¢08/29/02. 5 1 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. DEIR RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ' AVCVST 2002 CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER DAY SAINTS TEMPLE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH _J GENERAL RESPONSE 2 -LIGHT AND GLARE ' Several similar comments were received regarding the light and glare impacts of the proposed project. ' In response to these concerns, the following discussion of light and glare issues is provided. This general response_ is_prouided.to.respond to sevzral comment letters. Aesthetic impacts, including light and glare, must be considered in the CEQA analysis. However, ' such impacts are not necessarily significant unless the impacts exceed an identified threshold of significance. Any issue of aesthetic impact, especially an aesthetic impact to a view, tends to be subjective. Various individuals will have various opinions about aesthetics and visual impacts. ' However, the analysis in the EIR follows the requirements of CEQA, which focus on an evaluation of evidence concerning the physical environment as measured against specific thresholds. For the purpose of light and glare impacts, the following significance threshold from the CEQA Guidelines was used Create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect day or nighttime ' views in the area Development of a new Temple on the project site will result in an increase in light and glare ' intensities when compared to the existing undeveloped condition of the site. The project site and surrounding area are exposed to ambient nighttime lighting from existing institutional, commercial, residential uses, and roadway lighting. Areas south and west of the project site are illuminated by low ' levels of light and glare from street lighting and from the existing Stake Center parking lot lighting. Commercial and residential land uses, including signage, parking lot lighting, and residential street lighting, create light and glare sources from the south and the northwest. Areas directly north and , east ofthe site are dark due to their open space condition and topography. The San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor (SJHTC) is illuminated by roadway lighting. As a result of the existing development in the project vicinity, areas surrounding the project site are ' exposed to existing ambient nighttime lighting. Lighting of the proposed Temple will incrementally increase the existing nighttime light levels. A nighttime view simulation was prepared to depict the proposed lighting of the Temple facade, as illustrated in Section 4.1, Aesthetics, Figure 4.1.17. The nighttime simulation provides an accurate representation of the levels of architectural lighting planned for the Temple facade. As illustrated in ' the simulation, the lighting levels on the building facade increase progressively upward to the angel figure at the top of the steeple. It should be noted that this simulation fails to illustrate the existing ambient lighting from surrounding areas such that the Temple as shown in the exhibit is out of ' context with the surrounding environment. This illustration shows a greater contrast of the lighted Temple against a completely dark sky, which is not consistent with the existing nighttime condition of the project site. Therefore, the simulation provides a "worst case" representation and is not an ' accurate depiction of how the project will be perceived by viewers. Due to the variety of variables associated with nighttime view simulations, i.e. moisture in the air, ' levels of exiting ambient lighting, clouds, natural moonlight, etc., nighttime view simulations were not provided for vantage points surrounding the project site. PACNB230\RTC \RTC.doc n08129/0N 1 LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. DEIR RESPONSE TO COMMENTS AO COST 2002 CDURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LA "f'I ER DAY SAINTS TEMPLE. CITY OF NE. WPORT BEACH ' Several steps have been taken on this project to limit "light pollution." Specifically, the steeple and angel lighting system has been carefully designed to include current methodologies, as recommended ' by the Illuminating Engineering Society (IES) of North America's "Lighting for Exterior Environments" (RP- 33 -99). These are described as follows: ' I. The proposed steeple and angel lighting fixtures are designed with a highly efficient optical system that greatly reduces the amount of stray light not strictly focused on the illumination target. These fixtures will not only be carefully aimed and adjusted but also will have adjustable shielding that will minimize stray light. The security lighting system has been ' designed to provide only enough illumination to meet the minimum levels recommended by the City and by the IES. 2. These proposed fixtures are sited at the base of the steeple and will be aimed nearly straight upward, especially those that illuminate the angel figure. This configuration provides the least possible contribution to any "skyglow" effect and was recommended in Arthur R. Upgren's article entitled "Dissecting Light Pollution," as published in the February 2002 issue of Sky and Telescope magazine. The following is an excerpt from that article: ' "A light ray aimed straight up is usually not the worst kind. It escapes into space quickly, passing through what astronomers call one `air mass.' A ray aimed 10 degrees above the horizon, on the other hand, passes through 5.6 times as much atmosphere - 5.6 air masses ' polluting all the way." 3. In addition, by locating the fixtures near the base of the steeple, the apparent size of the so-called "skyglow" effect will also be minimized to the surrounding environment. During ' "foggy" conditions, any light spill will be reflected and diffused by the fog creating a "skyglow" effect. Because the amount of reflection and diffusion will vary with the density and altitude of the fog, predicting the illuminance effect of the light spill is very difficult in ' general. The existing ambient light levels occurring in the project vicinity also make it difficult to quantify the effect of light spill emanating from the project site during a "foggy" condition. With a fog bank at or just above the steeple, the effects of light spillage are limited to the fog directly above the steeple. As the level of the fog rises, the opportunity for viewing the ' "skyglow" effect from nearby residences increases. However, the intensity of the effect diminishes as the height of the fog increases. All of the lighting rays will be carefully concentrated in a nearly uniform upward direction, which will minimize any "spread" of the ' resultant minimal stray light in the night sky. The lighted steeple will be clearly visible in the evening and nighttime hours; however, as described above, the lighting plan has been engineered to limit any light pollution onto adjacent properties or into the night sky. As discussed in EIR Section 4. 1, Aesthetics, architectural lighting operation hours for the proposed Temple will generally extend from 5:00 a.m. to dawn and from dusk to 11:00 p.m. ' No architectural lighting, including lighting of the angel, is proposed past 11:00 p.m. The proposed lighting fixtures and illumination levels have been designed to limit extraneous sources of light in order to enhance the project's compatibility with the surrounding community. The exterior of the ' building will be constructed of a textured, nonreflective material. Additionally, the proposed landscaping plan will contain clusters of mature landscaping around the perimeters of the project site to provide screening of the Temple building from nearby residents, further reducing direct exposure P. \CNB230\RTC\RTC.doc ,0829102,1 7 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. OE1R RESPONSE TO COMMENTS , AUGUST 2002 CHURCH OF JESUS CHRI ST OF LATTER DAY SAINTS TEMPLE ' CITY OF NEWPORT !EACH Building Tower 6.0 Footcandle ' Angle Figure 12.0 Footcandle 1 to lighting sources. Based on the significance criteria established to define an impact, the proposed ' project's effect to nighttime views in the area will be less than significant. Konsortum I was recommended by the City to the Applicant to conduct a review of the original lighting plan submitted to the City. As provided in the Konsortum I lighting design study (provided in Appendix E of the EIR) the following table summarizes the proposed illuminance values for the , various architectural lighting elements of the proposed Temple. Architectural Lighting System Average Illuminance ' Lower Building Facade 1.5 Footcandle ' Upper Building Facade 3.0 Footcandle Building Tower 6.0 Footcandle ' Angle Figure 12.0 Footcandle Prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy, an evening inspection by the City of Newport Beach Code Enforcement Division will be required to ensure compliance with these provisions. , For comparison purposes, the Konsortum I report both quantitatively and graphically provides illuminance values for several recognizable facilities in the Newport Beach area. The following table provides a summary of some of the facilities with their various measures /calculated average , illuminance levels: Existing Local Area Project Architectural Illuminance ' Facade Feature Sage Hill High School Tower N/A 40.0 Footcandle Union 76 Station 22.0 Footcandle2 N/A ' St. Andrews Church —Cross N/A 20.0 Footcandle3 Newport Harbor High —Tower N/A 6.0 Footcandle Newport Bluffs —Entry Tower 15.0 Footcandle° 25.0 Footcandle5 This comparison may provide the reader with a reference of local facilities in the project vicinity that are similarly lit and may assist in gauging the level of illuminance that will result from development of the new Temple. It should be noted that the comparative analysis was not used in the EIR to , determine the significance potential for light and glare impacts and is provided for reference purposes only. ' The thresholds utilized to determine impacts to visual resources were approved by City staff, and the analysis in Aesthetics Section follows the requirements of CEQA, which focus on an evaluation of evidence concerning the physical environment as measured against specific thresholds. Based on the above, the additional light and glare emanating fr ' om the project site would not substantially affect existing ambient nighttime views in the area. I International unit of illumination. The intensity of light falling on a sphere arranged one foot ' away from a source of light of one candlepower. ' 2 Indicates illuminance of the station facade facing San Miguel Drive. 3 Indicates illuminance of architectural cross element. 4 Indicates illuminance at the lower portion of the tower. 5 Indicates illuminance at the upper portion of the tower. ?ACNB230 \RTC\RTC.doc 48/29/02,, 8 ' LSA ASSO C FATES, INC. HEIR RESPONSE TO COMMENTS AU CU ST 9005 CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LAi rER Al H SAINTS l'EMPLE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 1 1 II 1 1. COMMENTS FROM STATE OF CALIFORNIA GOVERNOR'S OFFICE OF PLANNING AND RESEARCH P \CNB230\RTC\RTC doc ,,0829/02. 1 ` LETTER 1 ' STATE OF CALIFORNIA°�"r►� Governor's Office of Planning and Research i\ ' State Clearinghouse Gray Davis August82012 RECEIVED BY TalFinney ' GOVERNOR PLANNING DEPARTMEN-f INTERIMnIaEC.POa ti !n 7 ter. rA.- CITY or: ' James Campbell AUG 13 1002 pM City of Newport Beach AM 3300 Newport Boulevard 71819110111112111213141516 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Subject: Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (LDS), Newport Beach Temple SCH#: 2002031048 ' Dear James Campbell: The State Clearinghouse submitted the above named Draft EIR to selected state agencies for review. The t review period closed on August 7, 2002, and no state agencies submitted comments by that date. This letter . acknowledges that you have complied with the State Clearinghouse review requirements for draft environmental documents, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act. 1 -A ' Please call the State Clearinghouse at (916) 445 -0613 if you have any questions regarding the environmental review process. If you have a question about the above -named project, please refer to the ten -digit State Clearinghouse number when contacting this office. Sincerely, '�TerryRoberts Director; State Clearinghouse I 1400 TENTH STREET P.O. BOX 3044 SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 95812 -3044 ' 916 - 445-0611 FAX 916-121 -1018 www.opr.C&90V "0°°11e11Yetallonclaw" ATTACHMENT 1 ' state Clearinghouse Data Base SCH# 2002031048 Project Title Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (LDS), Newport Beach Temple Lead Agency Newport Beach, City of Type EIR Draft EIR Description The Temple is planned as a 17,575 square foot building on approximately 8.65 acres surrounded by approximately 5.5 acres of gardens, walkways, and water treatments in the western portion of the project site with parking in the eastern and northeastern perimeters of the site. Lead Agency Contact Name James Campbell Agency City of Newport Beach ' Phone 949 6443210 Fax email Address 3300 Newport Boulevard City Newport Beach State CA Zip 92663 Project Location County Orange City Newport Beach Region Cross Streets Bonita Canyon Drive and Prairie Road Parcel No. 458 - 153 - 13,22,48,44 Township 6S Range 9W Section 92 Base U.S.G.S. Proximity to: , ■ Highways SR -73 Airports ' Railways ' Waterways Schools Land Use Vacant Governmental, Educational and Institutional Facilities, ' Public Semipublic Sub -Area7 ■ Project issues Drainage /Absorption: Traffic/Circulation; Water Quality; Landuse; Cumulative Effects; Air Quality Reviewing Resources Agency; California Coastal Commission; Department of Conservation; Department of Fish , Agencies and Game, Region 5; Office of Historic Preservation; Department of Parks and Recreation; California Highway Patrol; Caltrans, District 12; Regional Water Quality Control Board, Region 8; Native American Heritage Commission; State Lands Commission ' Date Received 06/24 /2002 Start o /Review 06/24/2002 Endo /Review 08107/2002 Note: Blanks in data fields result from insufficient information provided by lead agency. 7 J i 1 i 1 1 i 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 i 1 i 1 1 LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. AUGUST Roan HE RESPONSE 10 COMMENTS CIIIIRDD OF JESVS CHRIST OF LATTER DAY SAINTS TEMPLE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 1. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS FROM STATE OF CALIFORNIA GOVERNOR'S OFFICE OF PLANNING AND RESEARCH 1 -A The commentor states that the public review period closed on August 7, 2002, and no state agencies submitted comments by that date. The comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision makers. P \CNB230 \RTC \RTC doc ,,08/29/02,, I I I I I I 1 I I I 1 1 LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. AUCUST 2002 DFIR RESPONSE TO COMMENTS CHURCH OF' JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER DAY SAINTS TE MILt CITY OF NEW PORI BEACH 2. COMMENTS FROM DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, DISTRICT 12 P: \CNH230\RTC \RTC.doc A8 /29102» 2 -1 I I 1 I I I I I h I I I I I LETTER 2 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION District 12 3337 Michelson Drive, Suite 380 Irvine, CA 92612 -8894 RECEIVE fS`yO°rpo —I PLANNIN- DE�/`,f#TRlV' T` CITY OF .._., c ^._.- rc'"::H July 15, 2002 Mr. James Campbell City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92663 Ah1 jUl 19 2002 PM 718191101,-1141? 12;3141516 A File: IGR/CEQA SCH #: 2002031048 Log #: 1036A SR: 73 Subject: Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (LDS), Newport Beach Temple Dear Mr. Campbell; Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) dated June 2002 for the above project. The (EIR) states that the proposed temple will be located at the northeast corner of Bonita Canyon Drive and Prairie Road, between MacArthur Boulevard and the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor (SR -73). Caltrans District 12 status Is a reviewing agency on this project and has no comments at this time. Please continue to keep us informed of this project and other future developments that could potentially impact our 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, ( i4J ui Robert F. Joseph, Chief IGR/Community Planning C: Terry Roberts, OPR Ron Helgeson, HDQRTRS Planning El Harake, Toll Roads "Calnans improves mobility across California" PAGA r I I I LI 11 I i I I I Cl LEA nsSOCI.ArYS. INC. AUCU9'1'RBl 2 -A DEIR RESPONSE TO C0MMEN'rs CHURCH OF JESUS CHRISl'OE LATTER DAY SAI N TS 'TEMPLE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS FROM DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, DISTRICT 12 Caltrans District 12 has no comments at this time. The comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision makers. P: \CNB230 \RTC\RTC.dm 48/29 /ON I 1 1 I I I [ I I 1 I 3. COMMENTS FROM AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION P \CNB230\RTC\RTC.doc a08/29102» i -1 LSA ASS CILTES. INC. OEIR RESPONSE TO COMMENTS AUGUST 2002 CHURCH OF'JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER pAY SAINTS TEMPLE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH I 1 1 I I I [ I I 1 I 3. COMMENTS FROM AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION P \CNB230\RTC\RTC.doc a08/29102» i -1 ' AUG.2U'2UO2 19:bb 949 b44 3229 CNS PLANNING LETTER 3 11 I I 1 I 11 I [J I I MANUICOMM 424bU P.UU2 /UUJ AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION FOR ORANGE COUNTY 3160 Airway Avenue Costa Mesa, Callfbmla 92626.949.252,5170 fax: 99'9.252.6012 August 16,202 Mr. James Campbell, Senior Planner City of Newport Beaob 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 SUBJECT: Newport Beach FIR For LDS Temple Dear Mr. Campbell: REC @''%SD BY PLANNING rjfFARTMEN7 CITY OF 1 _ ncAL:N AM ab : D 492 PM Thank you for providing the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) with a copy of your MR for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (LDS) Temple (SCH #2002031048) on August 1, 2002. A policy discussion of the issue of the referral of specific projects from an Inconsistent Agency to ALUC for reviews and findings of consistency or inconsistency. with the local Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP) was included on the Commission's August 15, 2002 agenda. This item was agendized for Commission discussion in light of the fact that ALUC is a responsible agency under CEQA for the subject EIR. During its regular meeting of August 15, 2002, the Airport Land Use Commission for Orange County discussed the policy issue set forth on its agenda and the following motion was moved, seconded, and adopted by the Commission. The Executive Officer was directed to draft a letter to the City of ' Newport Beach indicating that under PUC Section 21676.5, rather than under the Newport Beach Municipal Code Section 20.65.080, the ALUC requests that the LDS Temple project be referred to the Airport Land Use Commission, once the Form 7460 Determination ' has been received from the FAA for a Finding of Consistency/ Inconsistency. ' As Executive Officer of the Commission and as part of our normal procedures for commenting on environmental documents, I am submitting comments (along v4th the Commission's action) on your subject MR for inclusion in that documetrt I LJ 3 -A AUG.20'2002 19:56 949 644 3229 Letter. to James Campbell August 16,2002 Page 2 Please include the following: CNB PLANNING LETTER 3 (CONT) #2460 P.003/003 ' The LDS Temple project is approximately 16,000 feet from the southerly end of Runway 19R, and the FAR Part 77 Notification Imaginary Surface traverses the site at about 35 feet above the existing ground level. Any construction that would exceed approximately 35 feet above ground level would be within the FAR Part 77 Notification Area and the AELUP Height Restriction Zone for John Wayne Airport (JWA). The project site is outside of the Part 77 Obstruction Imaginary Surfaces for JWA. PUC Section 21676.5(a) provides that "If the Commission finds that a local agency has not revised its general plan or specific plan or overruled the Commission by a two-thirds vote of its governing body after making specific findings that the proposed action is consistent with the purposes of this article as stated in Section 2I670, the Commission may require that the local agency submit all subsequent actions, regulations, and permits to the Commission for review until its general plan or specific plan is revised or the specific findings are made. If, in the determination of the Commission, an action, regulation, or permit of the local agency is inconsistent with the Commission plan, the local agency shall be notified and that local agency shall hold a hearing to reconsider its plan. The local agency may overrule the Commission after the hearing by a two-V&& vote of its governing body if it makes specific finds that the proposed action is consistent with the purposes of this article as stated in Section 21670." Please contact me at 949 -252 -5170 if you require additional details or information regarding the Commission's action or these comments. For the Commission, lwaw'�<C� . A4XL?O� Joan S. Golding, Executive Airport Land Use Commission Idstempie/JSciol cc: Newport Beach City Manager Newport Beach City Attorney Robert Wynn for the LDS Temple 3 -A CONT I ' LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. Au COST 2002 1 1 Cl I 1 1 I I I C] 1 1 DbIR RESPONSE TO COMMENTS CHURCH OE JEWS CHRIST Ol LATTER DAY SAINTS TEMPI.F. CITY CY NY.WPORT BEACH 3. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS FROM AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION 3 -A The commentor states, "under PUC Section 21676.5, rather than under the Newport Beach Municipal Code Section 20.65.080, the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) requests that the LDS Temple project be referred to the ALUC, once the Form 7460 Determination has been received from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) for a Finding of Consistency/Inconsistency." The Applicant has submitted Form 7460 to the FAA and is awaiting their response. ALUC requests that the following be included in the Final EIR: The LDS Temple project is approximately 16,000 feet from the southerly end of Runway 19R, and FAR Part 77 Notification Imaginary Surface traverses the site at about 35 feet above the existing ground level. Any construction that would exceed approximately 35 feet above ground level would be within the FAR Part 77 Notification Area the Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP) Height Restriction Zone for JWA. The project site is outside of the Part 77 Obstruction Imaginary Surfaces for JWA. The requested clarification is acknowledged and herewith incorporated into the record. The comments provide clarification regarding the jurisdiction of the ALUC. The clarification does not alter the analysis or conclusions in the EIR. P \CN8230 \RTC \RTC.dm a08129/02P 3 -4 1 1 LSB ASSOCIATES. INC. AUCUST ]00] DE 1R RESPONSE TO COMMENTS CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LA'F'FER DAY SAINTS TEMPLE. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 1 4. COMMENTS FROM CITY OF IRVINE, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Lj 1 i I L I 1 i I 1 1 1 I 1 P NCNB230NRTC\RTC doc .0M9/02S 1 U 1 July 3, 2002 LETTER 4 Gorrriunop Dc,,e:onmen! Departme Mr. James W. Campbell ' City of Newport Beach Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard ' P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 RECEIVED BV PLANNING DEPARTMEN1 �.,. nr CITY OF N E \.>'1%'- A.1-H - - - - -- --JUL-1 6 2na2_PM -- AM..;. SUBJECT: CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH DRAFT EIR FOR THE PROPOSED CHURCH OF LATTER DAY SAINTS TEMPLE Dear Mr. Campbell: The City of Irvine has received and reviewed the information on the above referenced project. The ' Community Development Department has consulted with the Public Works Department for possible comments on transportation issues. Based on their review, Transportation Services staff has the following comments: 1 The following comments are made on the Traffic Study included in Appendix D, titled Mormon Temple Traffic Phasing Ordinance Analysis (Revised) Newport Beach, CA dated May 10, 2002 by ' Urban Crossroads, Inc. If revisions to the Traffic Study are made, the corresponding changes should also be made to Section 4.5 Traffic and Circulation of the EIR. COMMENT 1 ' Pages 2 -1 and 6 -1: Include text which states that the intersection of Bonita Canyon Road and Prairie Road has an existing traffic signal. (The only location in this Traffic Study where the I 4-A 1 type of traffic control at this intersection is mentioned is in Table 5 -3). COMMENT 2 Section 3.1 Study Intersections: The trip distribution on Exhibit 4 -A on Page 4 -7 shows that 30% 4 - B of the project traffic will be to and from the east along Bonita Canyon Road into Irvine. Please I LETTER 4 (CONT) Mr. James Campbell July 3, 2002 Page 2 explain why the study area intersections of Bonita Canyon Road and the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor ramps were omitted from the study area boundary. COMMENT 3 Table 5 -3, Appendix G: Provide a reference on Table 5 -3 that explains that the data is taken from Appendix G. This comment is made because Table 5 -3 does not contain the turning volumes at I the intersection of Bonita Canyon Road and Prairie Road and it was unclear where the information was provided in the report. COMMENT 4 Page 6 -1 and Page 7 -1: The analysis on page 6 -1 evaluates the Project Only traffic inbound and outbound volumes. The volumes do not appear to include the Background traffic. The Background Traffic should include volumes for the existing Stakes Center, which is described elsewhere in the EIR as a gathering place for larger groups of people than the temple will accommodate, particularly on weekends. Please revise or add explanation. COMMENT 5 Page 61 Site Access and 7.0 Summary: The left turning lanes need to be sized for the entire volume of traffic at the intersection, not just the project traffic. The summary on Page 7 -1 does not appear to include the Background plus Project traffic volumes. Please revise. COMMENT 6 Because the gardens at the proposed Temple are described as being an attraction for visitors, it may be advisable to include a discussion of the expected number of trips that the gardens alone would be expected to generate. COMMENT 7 Additional analyses may be useful in understanding the operational characteristics of the Temple. Because the Stakes Center is located adjacent to the proposed Temple, and it is currently using a portion of the proposed temple parking lot, it may be advisable to provide the results of a Shared Parking Study, for example, so that the impacts of concurrent use of both facilities are evaluated. The pedestrian and vehicular circulation between the two sites should be evaluated if the two sites will be used simultaneously. This comment is made because there exists the potential for interaction to occur, for example, if the Stakes Center provides classes or childcare services for the children of the adults who are attending instructional sessions at the Temple. LETTER 4 (CONT) 1 Mr. James Campbell July 3, 2002 Page 3 ' Thank you for the opportunity to review the project. We would appreciate information on any change in the project description as the planning process proceeds. If you have any questions, please contact me at (949) 724-6546. Associate Plai-wer 1 cc: Leslie Aranda, Principal Planner Rick Sandzimier, Transportation Analysis Administrator Timor Rafiq, Principal, Rafiq & Associates, Inc. 1 Diane Jakubowski, P.E., Rafiq & Associates, Inc. My DocuiP= M\ALAIARW ewportaeach"tterDaySainu.DEIRItr 1 i I i 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 F I LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. AUGUST 2001 HEIR RESPONSE TO COMMENTS CHURCH Of JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER HAY SAINTS TEMPLE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 4. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS FROM CITY OF IRVINE, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT J I- L 1 I 4 -C The requested clarification is acknowledged and herewith incorporated into the record. The comments provide clarification as to the location of specific data within the technical study appendices. The clarification does not alter the analysis or conclusions in the EIR. As a result, the suggested change to the text is unnecessary. No environmental issue is raised in the comment. Therefore, no further response is warranted. 4 -D The analysis for Project Only traffic volumes was intended to evaluate the adequate stacking distance for inbound project traffic during peak time periods. Based on information provided to Urban Crossroads, Inc., the Stakes Center is not intended to operate concurrently with the proposed Temple except for two Sundays throughout the year. Furthermore, the adjacent garden is intended to be an ancillary use for the Temple and is not expected to generate a significant amount of new trips. 4 -E Please refer to Response to Comment 4 -D. 4 -F Please refer to Response to Comment 4 -D. 4 -G As indicated previously, the peak usage of the Staker Center and the proposed Temple is not intended to operate simultaneously. P \CNB230 \RTC\RTC.doc S09/29/02n 4 -A The requested clarification is acknowledged and herewith incorporated into the record. The comments provide clarification regarding the type of traffic control characteristics of this ' intersection by adding text in addition to data provided in Table 5 -3. The clarification does not alter the analysis or conclusions in the EIR. As a result, the suggested change to the text is unnecessary. No environmental issue is raised in the comment. Therefore, no further response is warranted. 4 -B The study area intersections were selected based on discussions with City of Newport Beach ' staff and staffs observation of acceptable operations at these locations. The SR -73 ramps at Bonita Canyon Drive were not included in the study based upon field observations of acceptable operations at these locations. J I- L 1 I 4 -C The requested clarification is acknowledged and herewith incorporated into the record. The comments provide clarification as to the location of specific data within the technical study appendices. The clarification does not alter the analysis or conclusions in the EIR. As a result, the suggested change to the text is unnecessary. No environmental issue is raised in the comment. Therefore, no further response is warranted. 4 -D The analysis for Project Only traffic volumes was intended to evaluate the adequate stacking distance for inbound project traffic during peak time periods. Based on information provided to Urban Crossroads, Inc., the Stakes Center is not intended to operate concurrently with the proposed Temple except for two Sundays throughout the year. Furthermore, the adjacent garden is intended to be an ancillary use for the Temple and is not expected to generate a significant amount of new trips. 4 -E Please refer to Response to Comment 4 -D. 4 -F Please refer to Response to Comment 4 -D. 4 -G As indicated previously, the peak usage of the Staker Center and the proposed Temple is not intended to operate simultaneously. P \CNB230 \RTC\RTC.doc S09/29/02n I I 1 1 1 I LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. AUCUSI 2..2 DE1R RESPONSE TO COMMENTS CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER DAY SAINTS TEMPLE CITY OF NC WPORT BEACH 5. COMMENTS FROM ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY AFFAIRS ADVISORY COMMITTEE, CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH P' \CNB230 \RTC\RTC doc ,,08/29/02. i 5 -1 I I LETTER 5 MEMORANDUM RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH JUL 1 7 2002 AM PM 41819110111112111213 i 41518 To: James Campbell, Planning Department, City'of Newport Beach t From: Environmental Quality Affairs Advisory Committee City of Newport Beach ' Subject: Draft - Environmental Impact Report Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints Temple, Newport Beach, California — Dated June 2002 ' Dated: July 17, 2002 ' The Environmental Quality Affairs Advisory Committee, City of Newport Beach (EQAC) offers the following comments and recommendations for further revisions to the subject report: ' 1.2 Project Description The height description of the building and the steeple is a little confusing. The building height is stated at 35 feet above finished floor grade which is 5'8" above the natural ' grade. Doesn't this make the height of the building 40'8 "? The same question can be asked about the height of the steeple. Instead of being 123'9 ", the steeple should be described as being 1297". The EIR must be amended to indicate the height of the building and steeple from a know reference point. EQAC recommends the main floor of the adjacent Stake Center as the reference point. Further, EQAC recommends the height measurements of the proposed project be consistent with the height definition contained in zoning code. These measurements must be used to describe the height of the building and the height of the steeple throughout the entire EIR to eliminate any confusion. ' 1.6 Potential Environmental Effect Matrix Section 4.1 Visual Changes: states the steeple is 123'9" above ground elevation which is not consistent with Section 1.2, Project Description. This section further states the implementation of PDF 1 -1, use of light colored granite, and PDF 1 -2, incorporation of mature landscaping, will reduce the proposed project's visual impact on the area. PDF 1- ' 1 or PDF 1 -2 are not directly related to the height of the steeple and the visual effect the construction of a 129 ft tower will have on surrounding residential community. Therefore ' the statements "No mitigation is required" and the level of significance are "less than significant" are not correct and must be restated as "significant ". Light and Glare: This section states the potential environmental effect of the proposed project is an increase in light and glare intensities when compared with the existing Ll 5 -A I5 -C 4.2 Air Quality 1 LETTER 5 (CONT) ' undeveloped condition of the project site. This section further states the implementation effects of construction emissions on the park and day care facility are not addressed in the of PDF I -3 will reduce the proposed project's effect on area light and glare intensities. EIR as requested by the EQAC comments to the NOR The EIR is lacking the data ' PDF I -3 references Appendix E Lighting Study(s). Appendix E does not present data on include the requested data. the project's effect on area light and glare intensities. Instead, it compares the lighting of 4.5 Traffic and Circulation 5-1 other structures throughout the City to the proposed project's lighting. Further, the study result in a 17,575 sq. ft building, 129 ft. tower and extensive landscaping when the presents specification sheets on different lighting fixtures, but it does not indicate the ' , exact fixtures to be -used by-the project. In addition, the setback of the fixtures the this conclusion. The statements "No mitigation required" and the impact level is "less number of fixtures to be used, which are key element in the cause or prevention of than significant" must be deleted from the EIR until the estimated time to complete the 5- lighting pollution due to particulates in the air, are not stated. CO The lighting expert for the proposed project, during the March 18, 2002 EQAC review meeting, stated light pollution will result from moisture/fog in the night sky. But, the Light Study(s) appear to be based on a clear night condition. , The EIR at page 4.2 -3 describes the project climate; "With persistent low inversions and cool coastal air, morning fog and low stratus clouds are common." The Lighting Study does not include any mitigation for light pollution caused by fog and low stratus clouds. , Therefore, the statements "no mitigation required" and the level of significance from light and glare are "less than significant" are inaccurate. The EIR must be amended to include a study of potential light pollution caused by fog/moisture in the night sky. , 4.2 Air Quality Short -Term Construction Emissions: It is difficult to draw the same conclusion, "No , mitigation required" and the level of significance are "less than significant" since the effects of construction emissions on the park and day care facility are not addressed in the EIR as requested by the EQAC comments to the NOR The EIR is lacking the data ' related to these important community facilities; therefore, the EIR must be amended to include the requested data. 4.5 Traffic and Circulation 5-1 Short -term Construction Traffic: The proposed project is located on 5.5 acres and will result in a 17,575 sq. ft building, 129 ft. tower and extensive landscaping when the proposed project is completed. The EIR concludes the construction related traffic will not ' have a significant impact on the surrounding street system yet no short -term construction traffic data or the time allocated to complete the project is contained in the EIR to support this conclusion. The statements "No mitigation required" and the impact level is "less , than significant" must be deleted from the EIR until the estimated time to complete the project is provided; and, the construction traffic impact on the existing traffic circulation system is made available. ' 2.4 Effects found Not To Be significant In Initial Study And Not Discussed In Detail , In EIR Noise: Construction noise could be a potential problem for the day care facility and should be reviewed in the revised EIR. I .5-1 Recreation. The NOP review by EQAC requested the subject EIR contain a specific I , request; "Will the Park (Bonita Canyon Sport Park) have a disturbing effect on the 5-1 1 I 1 U 1 rl l� n �J LETTER 5 (CONT) activity at the proposed Temple? The EIR should contain a clear statement that there will be recreational noise from the Park. In addition, the EIR should review the potential for 5 - F complaints by the applicant about the noise from the Park so that the resource of the Park can be protected." The revised EIR Recreation Section must be expanded to include this C ONT EQAC requested study. 2.5 Effects Determined Not To Be Significant The EIR statement, "As detailed in this EIR, the applicant has responded to key environmental issues when designing the project and has incorporated Project Design Features (PDF's) - - - -- to reduce or minimize potential environmental effects of the proposed project. As a result, the implementation of the proposed project will not result 5-G in significant environmental impact - - - -." is not a correct statement. This statement must be stricken from the subject EIR until the noted deficiencies are reviewed and corrected in a revised EIR. 2.6 Significant and Unavoidable Impacts The EIR statement, "The proposed project will not result in any significant and unavoidable impacts" is not correct and must be stricken from the EIR until the 5 - 1"1 deficiencies noted in the EQAC review of the subject EIR are corrected. Figure 3.5 — Elevations A review of the Elevation figure 3.5 shows the proposed Temple steeple, based on the 1:30 scale, to be 61.5% taller than the steeple on the LDS Stake Center. Currently the Stake Center steeple is the predominate structure in the area and is widely visible in the community as shown in EIR Figures 4.1.2, 4.1.3, 4.1.5, 4.1.9, 4.1.10, 4.1.11, 4.1.12, and 4.1.16. The Elevation Figure 3.5 supports a conclusion that the proposed Temple steeple will impose a "significant visual impact" on the community. The Stake Center steeple is approximately 86 feet in height and is highly visible to the surrounding community. The 129 foot proposed steeple will become the dominating feature in the existing view points. 4.1 Aesthetics The EIR states impacts to scenic vistas occur in Newport Beach when protected public vistas are impacted. The report further states that private views are considered, but there is no threshold established to determine whether or not effect on private views is significant. The DEIR referenced "designated scenic vistas" is incorrectly applied in this case. The very real concern is, that regardless of an official designation of a "scenic vista ", the view of the area from various view points will be disturbed by the size and lighting of the steeple. This is very significant community concern and must be addressed in more detail in a revised EIR. 5 -1 5 -J 4.1.4 Impact Signi£cance Criteria The EIR at Section 4.1.1.3 states; "Currently, the site is not a source of light or glare; that is, no adjacent or nearby properties or receptors are exposed to any impacts associated I 5 - K with light and glare from the project" LETTER 5 (CONT) Section 4.1.4 states; "The proposed project will have potentially significant impact if it results in one of the following: - -- * Create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area." The lighting of a large 40 foot building and a 129 foot tower in the middle of a residential community will create a new source of substantial light and glare and will have an adverse effect on the views of many of the homeowners in the community. At Section 4.1.4.2 states; "Because there are no designated public vistas, scenic highways, or scenic drives in the vicinity of the project site, the proposed project will not result in an impact to scenic vistas and is therefore consistent with applicable General Plan policies regarding visual resources." The EIR for the proposed project makes a strong argument that the project will create a source of light and glare for the adjacent or nearby properties. Second, it states a proposed project is considered to have a "significant impact" if it creates a new source of light and glare and will adversely effect the nighttime views. How can the EIR then conclude since public vistas are not affected, since there are no designated public vistas in the vicinity of the vroiect, the proposed proiect's impact is determined to be 'less than significant"? The various view points in the surrounding community will be disturbed by the size and lighting of the steeple and must be addressed in more detail in a revised EIR. 4.1.4.2 Impacts Determined to be Less Than Significant This section concludes with; "Because of the proposed setbacks, landscaping, warm earth tone exterior and reduced levels of architectural and security illumination, the proposed project will not create a community component or facility out of character with its surroundings or result in a detrimental aesthetic effect on the surrounding community. Therefore, the impact to the visual character or quality of the project site or the surrounding area is less than significant." The opinion of the EIR authors about the proposed color of the building differs from the residents surrounding the proposed project. The preparers of the EIR must confirm that the proposed color of the project is consistent with the character of the surrounding neighborhood. Effects on Specific View Locations: This EIR section discusses the effects of implementing the proposed project on the key views surrounding the project site by comparing the pre- project and post- project conditions. Again the authors of the EIR conclude; "Implementation of the PDF's will ensure that the project's visual effects will be less than significant" The EIR authors provide the following commentary on several of the figures contained in EIR Section 4: 1. View 1 and View 2 "From both View 1 and 2, the horizon lines will be altered by the steeple, however, because the steeple at its greatest width is approximately 33 feet wide and tapers down to two feet, and because this residential development at its closest location is more than 600 feet, - - - - -- the visual impact will be less than significant" 4 1 5 -M CONT 5 -N LETTER 5 (CONT) 1 2. View 3 and View 4 "Horizon lines will be slightly altered by the Temple steeple; however, this is not considered a significant visual impact because of the tapered ' nature of the spire and the small area of visual obstruction of distant views." 3. View 5, View 6, View 7, and View 8 "The Temple steeple will be visible in the background views from these areas and will partially diminish the horizon lines. Because the steeple element narrows in width as it ascends upward the view impact is minimal" 4. View 9 and View 10 "Because the area east of the project site is vacant, the Temple will become the prevailing view from these areas. - - - - -- The prevailing view of the Temple from these vantage points is not considered to be a significant impact." ' Each of these excerpts state the Temple steeple will have an effect on the line of sight, but, because the steeple narrows in width as it ascends upward the impact on the view is less than significant. In many of simulated pre - project views the Stake Center steeple is highly visible as the predominate structure in the sight line. How can one conclude that a structure that is more than 40 feet taller than the Stake Center steeple will not have a significant impact on the prevailing views? The various view points will be disturbed by the size and lighting of the Temple steeple. The EIR must be revised to reflect the ' significance of this impact and address other possible mitigations other than the narrowing of the width of the steeple as it ascends upward over 129 feet above natural grade of the proposed project. The extreme height and lighting of the steeple are the key ' issues concerning the surrounding community. They must be adequately addressed in a revised EIR. ' Create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area. ' The EIR authors state; "Because the project site is currently vacant, implementation of the proposed project will result in an increase in light and glare intensities from the project site." The EIR authors conclude; "Although the steeple will be clearly visible in the surrounding area, its effect to nighttime views in the area will be less than ' significant" This conclusion is based on the discussion of the lighting of the proposed project, EIR pages 4.1 -10 through 4.1 -12, as follows: Lighting Study ' "For a detailed discussion of the lighting plan, refer to Appendix E Lighting Study(s)." A review of the Appendix E study indicates that the building and steeple will be illuminated with roof - mounted accent light fixtures with metal halide lamping — configured with flood, narrow flood, and spot optics." IESNA RP- 33 -99, which is a part of Appendix E, states; "If buildings are taller than 4 times the setback dimension, add additional floodlights to reach heights of 4 to 6 time setback dimension." But, the EIR Lighting Study(s) contains no information on the setback distance of the lighting fixtures or the number of fixtures. In terms of a technical report it lacks specific data to substantiate its conclusion that lighting pollution will not occur in the adjacent community. Further, the Lighting Study(s) references St. Andrew's Church as a recognizable Newport Beach facility that is lighted at night. The pollution from the lighting of the cross at St. ' Andrew's is very noticeable on a foggy night to the surrounding community. Yet, the 1 5 -M CONT 5 -N 45.3 Impacts and Mitigation , 45.3.1 Overview and Methodology Project Trip Generation Table 4.5B: Proposed Project Trip Generation Summary , Table 4.5.B footnote ]states the weekend peak hour is Saturday between 2:00 p.m. and I 3:00 p.m. Does Table 4.5B reflect data for the pre - project or the post- project peak hour? If the footnote 1 reflects the post- project it is in conflict with EIR page 3 -7; "Friday I 5 _ 1 evenings and Saturday mornings will be the busiest time for Temple activities." A revised EIR must clarify this issue. E 11 1 1 LETTER 5 (CONT) ' Appendix E, Lighting Study(s), does not state whether the "less than significant" impact from the proposed project is based on "clear night" or "foggy night" studies. If the Lighting Study is based on "clear night" conditions only, it must be revised to include the ' effect of fog on the proposed project's lighting scheme and the noticeable light pollution it may cause to surrounding view vistas. The second issue with Appendix E is the June 18, 2002 letter from Konsortum 1. The ' letter certifies a computer rendering entitled "Nighttime Simulations" as "intended to 5 - N represent the expected nighttime appearance of the Temple ". But, again it does not state the night time conditions used to create the "Nighttime Simulation ". One can only COOT assume that a clear night condition has been depicted. The EIR must be revised to reflect the "foggy" night condition since it is a regular night time condition for the proposed project's location. ' The proposed project site is adjacent Bonita Creek Wild Life Corridor linking the San Joaquin Hills with the Upper Newport Bay; but, the EIR does not comment on the effect the lighted project will have on the Corridor. The preparers of the EIR must confirm the , proposed project's lighting will not disturb the wild life. The City of Newport Beach would be well served by obtaining an independent study from a lighting consultant not associated with the proposed project. ' 4.2.4 Impacts and Mitigations 4.2.4.1 Less Than Significant Impacts Construction Equipment Exhaust Emissions , The EIR states the air quality impacts from construction are "below threshold of significance" because construction equipment will not operate more than eight hours per day. The EIR does not state whether the operation is 7 days a week. Also, the effect ' construction will have on the park directly across the street and the day care facility is not discussed. The revised EIR must address these issues. 5 Architectural Coatings The proposed project is to be constructed from granite. Is a coating going to be applied to the granite surfaces? If the granite surface is going to be sprayed, precaution must be taken, due to the height of the project steeple, to prevent contamination of the ' surrounding community. A revised EIR must comment on this concern. 45.3 Impacts and Mitigation , 45.3.1 Overview and Methodology Project Trip Generation Table 4.5B: Proposed Project Trip Generation Summary , Table 4.5.B footnote ]states the weekend peak hour is Saturday between 2:00 p.m. and I 3:00 p.m. Does Table 4.5B reflect data for the pre - project or the post- project peak hour? If the footnote 1 reflects the post- project it is in conflict with EIR page 3 -7; "Friday I 5 _ 1 evenings and Saturday mornings will be the busiest time for Temple activities." A revised EIR must clarify this issue. E 11 1 ' LETTER 5 (CONT) ' 5.3 Alternatives Evaluated in Detail Alternative 2 discusses a Temple steeple that has been reduced to a height of ' approximately 100 feet. Why a 100 foot steeple alternative? Why not a 75 foot or a 50 foot steeple alternative? 1 1 1 [] 1 5.6 Alternative 2 — Reduced Intensity Alternative 5.6.3 Impacts 5.6.3.1 Aesthetics The EIR authors state, "A reduction in hours of illumination may result in less visual imposition to nearby residences during later nighttime hours, however, as discussed in Section 4.1 Aesthetics, nighttime lighting of the project would not result in an adverse aesthetic effect." The EIR authors have stated a conclusion that is not supported by facts. A revised EIR must be issued addressing the potential lighting impacts discussed in this Memorandum and the mitigation to be taken by the applicant prior to permitting the project. Appendix A Summary of NOP Comments Received and Disposition of Issues Environmental Quality Affairs Advisory Committee (EQAC) The following EQAC requests in response to the NOP were not addressed in the EIR: 1. Construction Time: Other than attaching standard construction conditions, the construction time impact on the park and the day care facility were not examined. 2. Financial Impact: The EIR makes no comments about the financial impact of providing fire and police services. 3. Bonita Canyon Snorts Park: Will the park have a disturbing effect on the activities at the proposed Temple? 4. Biological Study: Authors of the EIR should note the date of the last biological study to make sure current data is reflected in the EIR. 5. Water Services: The proposed project will not result in a significant demand for water services. 5 -Q 5 -R 5 -S 1 5 -T 5 -U 5 -V 15 -W ' LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. UEIR RESPONSE TO COMMENTS AUCUST ROOK CHURCH OPJESUS CHRIST OF LAr.:ER DAY SAINTS TEMPLE Cl'Y OF NEWPORT BEACH �l �l 1 1 1 5. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS FROM ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY AFFAIRS ADVISORY COMMITTEE, CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 5 -A The height of the building and steeple at its highest point is 123 feet 9 inches. As indicated in Figure 3.4, Site Plan, the proposed finished floor elevation (floor elevation after construction) of the Temple is 193 feet 6 inches above mean sea level. When the Temple is constructed, the top of the angel will be at an elevation of approximately 317 feet 4 inches above mean sea level. The height of the steeple would not increase. As stated in Section 20.65.030 of the Zoning Code, grade, for the purpose of measuring height, shall be the unaltered natural vertical location of the ground surface. Additionally, as stated under 20.65.030.B.1, "For sites that were developed without or prior to the requirement for a grading plan or map, the Planning Department shall exercise its best effort to determine the location of grade for the purpose of measuring height. In so doing, the Planning Department shall use existing on -site elevations and contours of adjoining and nearby properties to determine the natural profile of the site." Because the project site's natural grade is a downward gradient towards the northwest and northeast and the topographic elevational differences on the portion of the site to be developed is approximately 15 feet, the exact elevation of the natural grade was difficult to establish. As a result, an estimation of 5 to 8 feet above the natural grade was utilized. Therefore, it is accurate to say that the maximum height of the steeple will be approximately 132 feet above natural grade. To further clarify the height of the proposed Temple building and steeple, the following discussion provides a comparison of the height of the adjacent Stake Center to the height of the proposed Temple. As discussed above, the finished floor elevation of the proposed Temple is approximately 193 feet 6 inches and the steeple on the Temple is proposed at 123 feet 9 inches. The finished floor elevation of the Stake Center is approximately 189 feet and the steeple on the Stake Center is 86 feet above the finished floor. The elevational difference in the finished floor levels of the Stake Center and the proposed Temple is approximately 4 feet 6 inches. The difference in the height of the Temple steeple and the Stake Center steeple is approximately 37 feet 9 inches. Taking into consideration the elevational difference of approximately 4 feet 6 inches between the two facilities, ultimately the top of the Temple steeple will be approximately 42 feet 4 inches taller than the existing Stake Center steeple. 5 -B Please refer to the Response to Comment 5 -A above for a clarification of the height of the steeple. The commentor's statement that PDF I -1 and/or PDF 1 -2 are not directly related to the height of the steeple is correct. The conclusion in Section 4. I, Aesthetics, of the Draft EIR, which finds that aesthetic impacts are less than significant and that no mitigation measures are required, refers to the overall aesthetic and visual impact of the project. The commentor's statements are not substantiated by the technical analysis included in the Draft EIR. In the P TNB23MTC\RTC.dOC «08/29/02„ LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. DEIR RESPONSE TO COMMENTS AU CU S'F 2002 CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER DAY SAINTS TEMPLE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH absence of data or substantiating evidence to the contrary, the conclusion of the EIR may be , relied upon. 5 -C Please refer to the Light and Glare General Response for a discussion of light and glare ' impacts. Project Design Feature (PDF) 1 -3 reads as follows, "Minimize lighting effects by incorporating revisions to the original Lighting Plan, prepared by Heath Engineering Company, based on review and comments by Konsortum 1. Changes reduce the lighting ' levels for the nighttime lighting of the Temple facade, while maintaining the expression of the Temple's religious symbolism." Appendix E Lighting Studies consists of the original Lighting Plan prepared by Heath ' Engineering Company and the Lighting Design Study prepared by Konsortum 1. Konsortum ' I was recommend to the Applicant by City staff to evaluate the proposed exterior lighting system for the Temple. The Konsortum I report incorporates many of the key elements of ' the original lighting plan, while reducing the lighting intensity levels from the original plan. The comment is an opinion that the EIR is inadequate, and is based upon the author's opinion ' that the impact is significant and should be revised. However, the comment does not raise substantial evidence that the EIR is inadequate in satisfying the requirements of CEQA. foreman truck. The construction equipment will not operate more than eight hours each day. ' 5 -D Short-Term Construction Emissions EIR Section 4.2, Air Quality, provides a complete discussion of potential air quality impacts including short-term construction emissions. As discussed on pages 4.2 -17 through 4.2 -19, ' grading and construction activities would cause combustion emissions from utility engines, heavy -duty construction vehicles, haul trucks, and vehicles transporting the construction crew. Site preparation and grading activity impacts were estimated to occur over a six week ' period. The applicant has specified that the following construction equipment will be utilized for construction activities: one scraper, one dozer, one motor grader, one water truck, and a foreman truck. The construction equipment will not operate more than eight hours each day. ' As indicated in Table 4.2.H: Peak Day Project Construction Emissions, page 4.2 -20 of the EIR, the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) criteria pollutant threshold for CO, ROC, NOx, SOx, or PM 10 would not be exceeded during construction ' activities. Therefore, project emissions from construction equipment exhaust and construction activities would be less than significant, and no mitigation measures are required. The thresholds were developed by SCAQMD based on federal and State standards for criteria pollutants. Although not specifically stated, the conclusion that short-term ' construction emissions would be less than significant is applicable to all surrounding land uses, including Bonita Canyon Sports Park and the developmental preschool south of the project site. The comment is an opinion that the EIR is inadequate and should be revised and ' recirculated. However, the comment is not substantiated by the technical analysis included in the EIR. In the absence of data or substantiating evidence to the contrary, the conclusion of the EIR may be relied upon. ' As discussed in Section 4.5, Traffic and Circulation, page 4.5 -14, short-term construction impacts are expected to be insignificant due to the time of day when most construction traffic , occurs and the small number of anticipated trips. Exterior and interior building construction PACN6230\RTC \RTC.doc OM9 /02n D- I O ' LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. HEIR RESPONSE TO COMMENTS AUGUST 2.02 CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER HAY SAINTS TEMPLE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH I ' activities are anticipated to occur over an 18 month period. During the 18 month construction period, the project would result in trips by private automobiles and trucks to and from the site as a result of several activities. Construction workers would travel to and from the site daily. ' They would arrive in private vehicles and in some of the trucks that would be used during construction. It is estimated that 50 to 150 construction workers would be on the site at any one time.' It is anticipated that construction workers would he arriving/departing at varying times of the day depending upon the type of construction and /or building activity occurring, 1 e.g., framing, masonry, painting, plumbing, etc. The intersection of Bonita Canyon Drive/Prairie Road is currently operating at an acceptable level of service during a.m. and p.m. peak hours. Impacts due to construction traffic would not be significant due to the small ' number of anticipated trips. ' 5 -E The Initial Study prepared for the proposed project, and included as Appendix A of the EIR, provided a discussion of potential noise impacts. As stated on page 6 of the Initial Study, "Although there would at times be high intermittent construction noise in the project area during project construction, construction of the project would not significantly affect land ' uses adjacent to the project site, with adherence to the City's General Plan Noise Element and Noise Ordinance." City construction noise regulations apply equally to all land uses; therefore, a differentiation of impacts to the adjacent developmental preschool is not ' warranted. Short-term construction noise impacts were determined to be less than significant and were therefore not evaluated in the EIR. 5 -F It is not the role of the EIR to anticipate complaints of the applicant or to address potential ' noise impacts to the proposed church use. The applicant is aware of the existing surrounding land uses, including the Bonita Canyon Sports Park. In addition, as discussed in the Initial Study, page 27, "Adherence to the City's General Plan Noise Element and Noise Ordinance ' will ensure that interior noise levels do not exceed 45 dBA CNEL. With a combination of walls, doors, and windows, the church building would provide 25 dBA in exterior to interior noise reduction with windows closed and 15 dBA or more with windows open. With windows closed, interior noise levels would be 45 dBA CNEL or lower." Additionally, the proposed project includes an air conditioning system. Therefore, the potential for interior noise to exceed the 45 dBA CNEL standard is negligible. As the applicant will be required to ' construct the project consistent with the Noise Element Ordinance, which requires evaluation of potential noise sources, no additional analysis specific to the park is warranted. 5 -G The commentor's statement is an opinion that the EIR is deficient. The commentor's ' statements are acknowledged; however, the commentor does not provide support for such a finding. In the absence of data or substantiating evidence to the contrary, the significance conclusion of the EIR may be relied upon. The comment will be forwarded to the decision ' makers. 1 5 -H The commentor's statement is an opinion that the EIR is deficient. The commentor's statements are acknowledged; however, the commentor does not provide support for such a finding. In the absence of data or substantiating evidence to the contrary, the conclusion of the EIR may be relied upon. The comment will be forwarded to the decision makers. I Based on personal communication with Russell Platt, LDS Church architect, August 21, 2002. P'.\CN6230 \RTC\RTC.doc .08/29/02. 5 -11 LSA ASSO C IATES. INC. DEIR RESPONSE TO CONVENTS AUCUST 9009 CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER DAY SAINTS TEMPLE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ' and the analysis in the Aesthetics section follows the requirements of CEQA, which focuses 1 on an evaluation of evidence concerning the physical environment as measured against ' 5 -I As discussed in Response to Comment 5 -A, the proposed Temple steeple will be approximately 42 feet 4 inches (approximately 49.2 percent) taller than the existing Stake , Center steeple. It is acknowledged that the Temple steeple will be visible to the surrounding ' community and that the new Temple will be more prominent than the existing built environment. The degree of prominence to any affected views is dependent upon the location ' and distance of the viewer from the project site. As discussed and illustrated in Section 4.1, Aesthetics, of the EIR, the proposed Temple is an articulated structure that diminishes in size ' as it extends upwards. In the majority of the view simulations prepared for the proposed project, the new Temple is visible within the built environment and does not dominate the existing views. Any issue of aesthetic impact, especially an aesthetic impact to a view, tends ' to be subjective. Different individuals will have different opinions about aesthetics and visual impacts. However, the analysis in the EIR follows the requirements of CEQA, which focuses on an evaluation of evidence concerning the physical environment as measured , against specific thresholds. The comment will be forwarded to the decision makers. ' 5 -1 The thresholds utilized to determine impacts to visual resources were approved by City staff, ' and the analysis in the Aesthetics section follows the requirements of CEQA, which focuses on an evaluation of evidence concerning the physical environment as measured against specific thresholds. The comment that designated scenic vistas are incorrectly applied is inaccurate, as the City does have designated scenic vistas but not in the vicinity of the project , site. The commentor's statements regarding impacts to private views are acknowledged, however, the commentor does not provide support for the inappropriateness of the threshold criteria and finding. In the absence of data or substantiating evidence to the contrary, the ' conclusion of the EIR may be relied upon. The comment will be forwarded to the decision makers. ' 5 -K It is acknowledged that the proposed project will create a new source of light and glare. However, the context and intensity of the nighttime lighting have not been determined to be significant. All of the lighting has been carefully designed to minimize illumination levels, , and all lighting fixtures will be located so as to be integrated and /or hidden within the building design and landscaping. There will be no direct lighting on public or private property. Additionally, all architectural lighting will be turned off at 11:00 p.m. ' To reiterate a key element of the commentor's concerns, there are no designated scenic vistas in the vicinity of the project site. Therefore, there would be no impacts to designated scenic ' vistas. Consistent with CEQA guidelines, based on the thresholds of significance, the overall ' aesthetic impact of the proposed project has been determined to be less than significant. The comment is an opinion that the EIR is inadequate and should be revised. However, the , comment and the subsequent discussion do not raise substantial evidence that the EIR is inadequate in satisfying the requirements of CEQA. The comment will be forwarded to the decision makers. P TNB230 \RTC\RTC.doc R08129102o 5 -12 , 1 F 1 1 I I LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. OEIR RESPONSE TO COMMENTS AIICHST RODS CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIS "f OF LATTER DAY SAINTS TEMPLE CITY OF NFWPDRT REACH 5 -L The request for additional analysis is acknowledged. However, the EIR includes sufficient data and analysis from which conclusions regarding the level of impact can be derived. A more exhaustive analysis may provide additional information that may be of interest to the EQAC; however, the analysis requested is beyond that required by CEQA Guidelines for a well reasoned and informed analysis of project impacts. 5 -M The level of significance of the proposed project is based upon thresholds established by the City. Based on thresholds approved by the City, aesthetic impacts were determined to be less than significant. It is acknowledged that the proposed Temple will be visible from the surrounding community and, for some property owners, horizon lines and existing views will be altered. As illustrated in the majority of the view simulations prepared for the project, only a small proportion of viewable area will be impacted. The comment is an opinion that the EIR is inadequate and is based upon the author's opinion that the impact is significant and should be revised. However, the comment and the subsequent discussion do not raise substantial evidence that the EIR is inadequate in satisfying the requirements of CEQA. The comment simply states that the aesthetic impact is understated. Any issue of aesthetic impact, especially an aesthetic impact to a view, tends to be subjective. Different individuals will have different opinions about aesthetics and visual impacts. However, the analysis in the EIR follows the requirements of CEQA, which focuses on an evaluation of evidence concerning the physical environment as measured against specific thresholds. The comment will be forwarded to the decision makers. 5 -N Please refer to the Light and Glare General Response, which addresses the commentor's concerns related to lighting impacts. The Initial Study prepared for the proposed project provided a discussion of the Central /Coastal Subregional Natural Communities Conservation Plan (NCCP). It was determined that due to the vertical separation and distance of the project development area from the creek and reservoir, and because the project site does not contain habitat, no significant impact to the existing habitat linkage area north of the development area will occur. Additionally, the project development design includes low- intensity building and parking lot lighting with illumination directed onto the Temple and the parking lot area. The proposed lighting plan includes light fixtures designed to prevent glare and reduce light spill onto adjacent areas. The architectural lighting of the Temple will be turned off at 11:00 p.m. Diffused parking lot lighting will he provided during nighttime hours for safety. With the proposed lighting plan and reduction of lighting at 11:00 p.m., the proposed project's lighting will not impede nocturnal wildlife movement.' Therefore, the wildlife movement function of Bonita Canyon Creek and Reservoir is expected to continue, and the project impacts on wildlife movement are considered to be below the level of significance. 5 -0 Refer to Response to Comment 5 -D for a discussion of short-term construction impacts. As SCAQMD has established a daily threshold, the analysis is presented in this manner. In reference to the comment related to building material, the granite utilized in the construction of the Temple, including the steeple, will be delivered to the project site in its finished Based on discussion with LSA Principal Biologist, Art Homrighausen, February 19, 2002. PACNB230\RTC \RTC.doc ,08/29/021 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. AU OUST 2339 HEIR RESPONSE TO COMMENTS CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER HAY SAINTS TEMPLE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH condition. That is, the granite will not require architectural coating. This standard condition is generally applied to all new construction projects. 5 -P Table 4.5.13, Proposed Project Trip Generation Summary, provides the anticipated number of trips to be generated as a result of the proposed project. Generated trips were determined to contribute a less than one percent increase to adjacent intersections and would not result in significant effects to existing levels of service. The commentor's reference to weekend peak hour conflicting with the busiest time for Temple activities is incorrect. The term "peak hour" in traffic analysis refers to the time period, generally between 7 -9 a.m. and 4-6 p.m. Monday through Friday, with the greatest traffic volumes to provide a "worst- case" analysis. The weekend peak hour was determined to be from 2 -3 p.m. It is noted that the busiest times for the Temple are anticipated to be Friday evenings and Saturday mornings. A revised EIR is not required to clarify this issue. 5 -Q The 100 -foot steeple alternative was selected as it is believed that it would satisfy the following project objective: "To provide a highly visible site and a distinctive Temple with a steeple sufficiently high and illuminated to be seen from a substantial distance. " This belief is based upon an extensive field survey of the general area conducted in late January of 2002, when a crane was installed at the site to simulate the height of the steeple. Additionally, the alternative height was selected as it would incrementally lessen aesthetic impacts of the project due to the height of the steeple. A 100 -foot steeple will be higher than that of the adjacent LDS Stake Center (86 feet), making it more prominent than the adjacent Stake Center steeple based upon height alone. The height difference of approximately 17.5 feet between the top of the Stake Center steeple and a 100 -foot high Temple steeple will be perceptible from Bonita Canyon Drive and SR -73. It is acknowledged that a Temple steeple of equal height to the Stake Center steeple may appear visually more prominent due to the difference in architectural styling, lighting, and building color. It is further acknowledged that a Temple steeple of equal height to that of the Stake Center, given the difference in architectural styling, lighting, and building color, may also meet the project objective stated above. Any reduction in height will reduce the visibility of the project. Alternative heights of 75 feet or 50 feet were rejected due to a belief that a Temple steeple of this height would not satisfy the project objective stated above. 5 -R Refer to the Aesthetics General Response and Light and Glare General Response. The commentor's statements are acknowledged; however, the commentor does not provide support for such a finding. The comment does not provide specific evidence or new information suggesting that the information contained in the EIR is inadequate. In the absence of data or substantiating evidence to the contrary, the conclusion of the EIR may be relied upon. The comment will be forwarded to the decision makers. 5 -S Refer to Response to Comment 5 -D for a discussion of short-term construction impacts. 5 -T As stated in the Initial Study prepared for the project, pages 31 and 32, the proposed Temple is located within an area dedicated to church, religious, recreation, and day care uses. The proposed project is an infill project intended to serve existing church members in the surrounding community. No increase in crime is anticipated, and no impacts related to police P'. \CNB230\RTC\RTC.doc 0812910N 1 1 11 1 I I I I ' LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. DP.IR RESPONSE' TO COMMENTS AUCUST 1001 CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER DAY SAINTS TEMPLE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 1 F 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 or fire protection services would result. Therefore, this topic did not require further evaluation in the EIR. The commentor has not provided evidence to the contrary. 5 -U Refer to Response to Comment 5 -F for a discussion of potential noise impacts from Bonita Canyon Sports Park on the proposed project. 5 -V A Biological Resources EIR section was not prepared for the proposed project. As discussed in the Initial Study, pages 6 through 8, because the project site does not support habitat that would sustain endangered, threatened, or rare species, impacts to biological resources were determined to be less than significant. Additionally, as indicated in the Initial Study, page 6, a recent site review of the restoration site conducted by an LSA biologist (January, 2002) indicated that the restoration site is in good condition and that all of the native vegetation appears to be robust. The restoration site was part of the approximately eight acres donated by the LDS Church to the City of Irvine in 1994 as mitigation for impacts to 0.83 acre of coastal sage scrub (CSS). 5 -W As discussed in the Initial Study prepared for the project, pages 36 through 38, the proposed project will not result in significant demand for water service. The required infrastructure, including utilities and service systems, are in place adjacent to the project site. The Irvine Ranch Water District will provide water and water treatment for the project site. The commentor has not provided evidence to the contrary. This issue was not discussed in the EIR. P.\CNB230 \RTC \RTC doc «0829/02, 5-15 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. DEIR RESPONSE TO COMMENTS AUGUST 2009 CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER DAY SAINTS TEMPLE. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 6. COMMENTS FROM HARBOR VIEW KNOLL P'. \CNB230UZTC,RTC.doc «08/29/021 I 1 I I Harbor YIew Knoll August 6, 2002 James W. Campbell, Senior Planner Planning Department City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard P.O. Bmc1766 Newport Beach, CA 62656 -6915 LETTER 6 Clo Common tmmed¢. Inc. 3551 c:amino Moo Caad SuIM N San Clawnba, CA 92671 RE Draft OR for the Proposed Mormon Temple IDear Mr. Campbell RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMEN1 CITY C` N!— ,1Am -17— AM AUG 0 9 2002 PM 715191iUlllili±li121314i516 I I • Residents of the Harbor View Knoll Community Association are very concerned over the architectural features of the proposed Monson Temple adjacent to our quiet community of 64 homes. We strongly object to the proposed height of the steeple and the fighting of the Temple. The Draft SR forthe proposed Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints Temple dearly states that the City has established the limpad significance criteria' regarding aesthetics as 'substantially degrade the ®fisting visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings' (page 4.1-6). Although the Draft El includes discussion indicating the City has no obligation to protect views from private locations, the Citys own -impact significance criteria- does not distinguish between views from pudic places (parks, etc.) from private locations (Harbor View Knoll, eta). Figures 4.1E view simulation deady shows that the Temple steeple will be a major element in views from Harbor View Knoll and would *mbstantialy change the existing visual character of the area' adjacent to the Temple. While the Temple would be in the background of views from Harbor View Knoll, the steeple would be highly visible because of its exdrerne height. The steeple will essentially cut current views from the Harbor View Knoll in half vertically, dividing what would otherwise be an uninterrupted panoramic view. The Draft EIR conclusion that the change in views is not significant is not supported in the Draft EIR texit. While the assessment of aesthetics impacts may be subjective, the simulation photos speak for themselves in ' temps of the obvious, substantial change in views from Harbor View Knoll. Attached are additional simulation photos that further support the significant change in views that the Temple will have on our community. ' it is hereby requested that the City change Its detemrination and declare that the views of the Temple steeple from Harbor Mew Knoll would be signitkanl and adverse because it substantially affects existing open views and views to the distant mountains. The PDFs (Project Design Features) identified ' in the Draft SR (page 4.1-5) would do nothing to mitigate or reduce the effects of the views of the steeple from Harbor Mew Knoll. The City either needs to substantially reduce the height of this steeple or acknowledge that this is a significant unavoidable adverse impact under CEQA law. Concluding that views from Harbor Mew Knoll are not significant and adverse based on the City's General Plan, City policies (page 4.1 -7) and the PDFs does not come dose to acknovtAedging the substantial change in views, which is what the Citys own 'impact significance criteria' says would be significant. The City needs to acknowledge the significance of this adverse impact and properly acknowledge that it is not 1 nftable to below a level of significance. This would require the City to adopt a Statement of I I • LETTER 6 (CONT) rr Page 2 August 6, 2002 Overriding Considerations under CEQA law, it the City Is to proceeds with the project as currently planned. The night fighting issue is even more obvious. Figure 4.7 -07 dearly shows that the steeple fighting win be visible from a large area, and will dominant the night sky for any viewers including viewers from Harbor View Knot. The so cared mitigation (lighting from dusk to t t PM and from 5 AM to dawn) Is not mitigation at at because most viewers would be seeing this view in the evening or early morning hours and not in the middle of the night while they are steeping. It is hereby requested that the City change its detemdnation and declare that the views of the Temple steeple from Harbor View Knoll would be significant and adverse because the lighted Temple would dearly'creste a new scums of substantial right ... that would adversely affect.... nighttime views in the area' (impact significance criteria', page 4.74�. The Draft EIR does not actmowledge this new source of substantial light, although Figure 4.1 -17 dearly shows how visible the lighted steeple would be, for the evening and early moming hours, when most viewers would be awake and likely to see the steeple. it is disingenuous of the City to draw the conclusion that the addition of this steeple Is not a significant or an adverse impact to views and night fighting. The project would require a variance to allow the 123 That steeple, from the existing City frrd of 50 That madmum height. This steeple Is more than twice as tan as the edsting emit. How can this then not be a significant and adverse impact in a residential area of mostly one and two story homes? Fnaty, it Is strongly recommend that the City seriously consider on behatr of the surrounding community, reducing the overall height of the steeple to the 50 -foot wdsting height Wdt and eliminating the night fighting at together. Therefore, the Harbor View Knot Community Association would like to go on record asking the City to either, • Change the significance detemdnaton for aesthetics and lighting and adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations, or, • Substantially reduce the height of the steeple or eliminate the steeple at together, and eliminate the night fighting, to reduce or avoid the significant adverse aesthetic and lighting impacts Sincerely, HARBOR VIEW KNOLL COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION P Gamble Vice President i 6.1 Corr s1 LJ� I I II 1 11 I i ' LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. OEIR RESPONSE TO COMMENTS AUGUST RuOR CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LAi.TER DAY SAINTS TEMPLE CI "TY OF NEWPORT BEACH 1 are not substantiated by the technical analysis included in the EIR. In the absence of data or 1 6. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS FROM HARBOR VIEW KNOLL 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 I 1 1 P.\CNB230 \RTC \RTC.Ooc „08/29/02,, 1 6 -A The comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision makers. 6 -13 Please refer to the Aesthetics General Response for a discussion of the significance criteria used for the aesthetic impact analysis. The commentor's statements are acknowledged but are not substantiated by the technical analysis included in the EIR. In the absence of data or substantiating evidence to the contrary, the conclusion of the EIR may be relied upon. 1 6 -C Please refer to the Light and Glare General Response for a discussion of the light and glare analysis. 1 6 -13 The commentor's statements recommending that the City consider reducing the overall height of the steeple to 50 ft. and eliminating nighttime lighting are acknowledged. The comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision makers. 1 1 1 i 1 1 I 1 1 P.\CNB230 \RTC \RTC.Ooc „08/29/02,, 1 ' LSR RSSO 0IRTES. INC DEIR RESPONSE TO CUM MFNTS AUGUST 2..2 CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER DAY SHIN I'S "I'LMPLF. CITY OY NEWPORT BEACH 1 7. COMMENTS FROM SEAWIND COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION 1 1 1 1 I I I I I I I P: \CNB230 \RTC \RTC.doc .0829/02. 1 -, 7-T I � IJ LETTER 7 ' SEAWIND BOARD OF DIRECTORS Seawind Community Association Newport Beach, CA 92660 I I II LJ u August 8, 2002 Planning Commission Members City of Newport Beach City Hall 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92663 -3884 Hon. Mayor Tod W. Ridgeway Hon. Mayor Pro Tem Steven Bromberg Newport Beach City Council Members RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY CF: F e•c or orq „y � AUG 0') 2002 AM PM 4181911011111;;1;813141818 I Re: Objection to Draft EIR and Conditional Use Permit sought by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (LDS) at 2300 Bonita Canyon Dr. To avoid redundancy, we'll leave other issues to the many excellent rebuttals already submitted to you by our concemed neighbors in this and numerous other local communities. By specific example, we refer to and fully incorporate by reference the July 31, 2002 letter of Bruce D. May, Esq., a homeowner resident of the nearby Bonita Canyon development. One particular ' issue, however, demands immediate and direct confrontation: the notion that the widespread and increasing objection to the 12 -story, lighted steeple has anything to do with religious bias, intolerance or discrimination. �I u 1 7 -A MU Ladies and Gentlemen: Truly remarkable. We've just completed reading the 2” thick Draft EIR (June 2002), and it's unfortunate that the authors could not see fit to attempt even minimal balance in their work. Whether or not the preparer, LSA Associates, Inc., is an LDS owned, managed or majority populated private firm, it's difficult to imagine a more slanted pro- temple, pro - steeple and pro- steeple lighting work. By any objective assessment, the saturating bias is revealed by the consistent explaining -away and minimalization of any and all problems, issues, disputes and controversies. Because so little effort has been made to 1 render a balanced work, the Draft EIR is substantially inadequate at best and mere promotional literature at worst. To avoid redundancy, we'll leave other issues to the many excellent rebuttals already submitted to you by our concemed neighbors in this and numerous other local communities. By specific example, we refer to and fully incorporate by reference the July 31, 2002 letter of Bruce D. May, Esq., a homeowner resident of the nearby Bonita Canyon development. One particular ' issue, however, demands immediate and direct confrontation: the notion that the widespread and increasing objection to the 12 -story, lighted steeple has anything to do with religious bias, intolerance or discrimination. �I u 1 7 -A MU I LETTER 7 (CONT) w The LDS and its supporters should hear this very clearly: this critically important dispute has never been about any issue of religious faith or anyone's , opinions regarding cults. Neither Mormons nor any other group should ever insult the many fine and diverse people who rightfully say "no!" to their selfish and presumptuous requests... and who make no apologies for imploring and , expecting our city government leaders and officials to do the right thing by denying same. After all, is not "the proof of the pudding in the tasting ?" Should not the Mormon proponents be the first to recognize that the LDS stakehouse adjacent to the proposed tower site has co- existed completely peacefully with the community for years? This is, however, all about fundamental matters of universal height ' restrictions, architectural compatibility, local control, community impact and yes — whether the LDS truly has any desire to be a good neighbor. If legitimacy is of any concern to the Mormon proponents, it should be seff- evident that they have no more basis to hoist the flag of "religious discrimination" "race than O.J. Simpson's sycophants had any basis in playing the card." 7 Frankly, these kinds of noises from some in the LDS camp are contemptible, and function as nothing more than a "red herring." Such callow attempts to bait the C� minds and opinions of city officials and the public are beneath the presumed ethics and integrity of their storied, tax- exempt organization. We've heard rumor that some LDS leader, member or supporter has suggested that if they don't get their way, suit would be brought against the city on "religious discrimination" grounds. On the assumption that the LDS may, in fact, be contemplating such "scorched earth" tactics, two truths should be immediately understood. Firstly, this issue is completely distinguished from the recent land litigation between the City of Cerritos and a local evangelical Christian church (outrageously, that city sought to condemn the church's undeveloped land by eminent domain, and then make the site available to a third , party for commercial retail instead). Secondly, the LDS should salvage some honor and integrity by staying solely on the issue. The proponents should dump the arrogance and siege mentality, and fully accommodate the heartfelt concerns of thousands of increasingly troubled and angered neighbors. As long ago set forth in our Petition against the LDS's Application for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to allow their substantial height variance and nighttime lighting of the steeple, we steadfastly reject: 7 1) any steeple structure above the applicable and existing 50' height restriction (whether 12- stories or otherwise); and 2) any lighting at any time from or upon any part of the steeple's external , surface or its gilded angel atop. I 1 N LETTER 7 (CONT) Sometimes popular slogans seem to be invested with 'truth," simply ' because they are so often repeated— of course, the one that comes to mind in this dispute is: "rules are made to be broken." No... they are not. The city s height and nighttime lighting restrictions were validly enacted for good cause, have been adhered to for many years and have served the city well. Given the profound and extraordinary negative effect that would be created by Newport Beach granting the CUP, the city would logically then have to question why it has the restrictions on the books at all. And, if the city will not enforce its own reasonable and established rules, then "all bets are off- and everyone's church, synagogue or mosque can stretch for the heavens and fully expect CUP approval; after all, our fair city would not want to be accused of earlier favoritism to the LDS. ' Very truly yours, The Seawind Board of Directors IPeggy Stair, President IKaz Ochi, Boardmember ' Allen Murray, Boardmember ' Phil Herrington, Boardmember St ve rahs, Boardmember Kenneth A. Wong, Esq. 1 Seawind Resident I 1 Sao, Sometimes popular slogans seem to be invested with "truth,' simply because they are so often repeated— of course, the one that comes to mind in this dispute is: 'rules are made to be broken.' No... they are not The city's height and nighttime lighting restrictions were validly enacted for good cause, have been adhered to for many years and have served the city well. Given the profound and extraordinary negative effect that would be created by Newport Beach granting the CUP, the city would logically then have to question why it has the restrictions on the books at all. And, if the city will not enforce its own reasonable and established rules, then 'all bets are off"— and everyone's church, synagogue or mosque can stretch for the heavens and fully expect CUP approval; after all, our fair city would not want to be accused of earlier favoritism to the LDS. Very truly yours, The Seawind Board of Directors Peggy Stair, President Kaz Ochi, Boardmember Allen Murray, Boardmember Phil Herrington, Boardmember Steve Brahs, Boardmember Kenneth A. Wong, Esq. Seawind Resident ' LSA ASSOCIATES. INC, HEIR RESPONSE. TO COMMENTS AUCUST ]0a] CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER HAY SAINTS TEMPLE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 7 -A The comment is an opinion that the EIR is biased and inadequate. The commentor's ' 7. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS FROM SEAWIND COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION 7 -B Please refer to Response to Comments 47 -A through 47 -H, which address the Bruce May ' 7 -A The comment is an opinion that the EIR is biased and inadequate. The commentor's statements are acknowledged; however, the commentor does not provide support for such a finding. The comment will be forwarded to the decision makers for consideration. 7 -B Please refer to Response to Comments 47 -A through 47 -H, which address the Bruce May comment letter. The commentor does not raise any specific environmental concerns; ' therefore, no response is necessary. The comment will be forwarded to the decision makers for consideration. I L I I H 7 -C Please refer to the Aesthetics and Light and Glare General Responses regarding the methodology and assessment of visual impacts. The commentor's issue related to processing of the Conditional Use Permit through established City of Newport Beach processes is an administrative matter outside the purview of CEQA. These issues will be addressed in the Staff Report prepared by the City of Newport Beach Planning Department. 7 -D The commentor does not raise any specific environmental concerns; therefore, no response is necessary. The comment will be forwarded to the decision makers for consideration. P1CNB230 \RTC \RTC.doc .0829/02,, 1 I I I I I I I 1 LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. DE IR RESPONSE TO C0MMtN'I'tl AVCVST 1001 CHURCH OF PESOS CHRIST Oh' LATTER DAY SAINTS T A EMPLE CITY OF NEWFOR "I' EECH 8. COMMENTS FROM BONITA CANYON MAINTENANCE ASSOCIATION P' \CNB230 \RTC\RTC doc ,,08/29/02» 1 1 1 I I 1 I 1 I �I CTTCD Q MAINTENANCE ASSOCIATION Managed by MERIT PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, INC. August 8, 2002 James Campbell Senior Planner Planning Department City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 Re: Draft Environmental Impact Report Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints Temple Dear Mr. Campbell: RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF NrWPORT BEACH AUG 0 9 2002 AM PM 71 B 19110111112111213 i 4161 The undersigned constitute the entire Board of Directors of Bonita Canyon Maintenance Association, which is the homeowner's association for the 287 homes located adjacent to the site of the Newport Beach Temple proposed by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (the "Church "). We hereby submit our comments to the Draft Environmental Impact Report ( "DEIR ") prepared for the Church by LSA Associates, Inc. ( "LSA" ). The following comments are representative of every member of the Bonita Canyon Maintenance Association's Board of Directors, and the undersigned Directors all believe emphatically that the comments expressed in this letter are in the best interests of the membership of Bonita Canyon. However, these opinions are not representative of all homeowners within our community. In a recent survey of our community, conducted by Mayor Pro Tern Steven Bromberg, 86 percent of the 106 homeowners responding objected to the Temple as currently proposed. Incorporation of EOAC Comments. We hereby endorse and incorporate by this reference the comments and recommendations made by the Environmental Quality Affairs Advisory Conunittee of the City of Newport Beach ( "EQAC ") in its memorandum to you dated July 17, 2002. 25910 Acero Street, 2nd Floor • Mission Viejo, CA 92691 • (949) 465 -5555 • ME LETTER 8 (CONT) James Campbell Re: Draft Environmental Impact Report Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints Temple August 8, 2002 Page 2 of 8 Perceived Bias of DEIR. Some of us attended a meeting with you at City Hall on January 17, 2002, at which the proposed Temple was discussed among representatives of the Church and various homeowner associations. At that meeting, representatives of LSA were introduced as consultants to the Church. We understand that the EIR is supposed to be an unbiased document prepared on behalf of the City. Significant parts of the DEIR appear to have been either written or heavily edited by members of the Church and are extremely subjective in its support of the Temple. We believe that the City must require drastic modifications to the DEIR to ensure an unbiased EIR. Aesthetics. The DEIR concludes that there will be no significant unavoidable adverse aesthetic impacts as a result of the proposed Temple. We strongly disagree with this conclusion, and believe that the conclusion is logically inconsistent with the statements contained in the DEIR. Specifically, Section 4.1.4 of the DEIR provides that a proposed project will have a potentially significant impact under CEQA Guidelines if the project results in one or more of the following: a. A substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista; b. A substantial degradation of the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings; or C. The creation of a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area. We submit that the proposed project violates all of these criteria. In the DEIR the Church lists as one of its key objectives "to provide a highly visible site and a distinctive Temple with a steeple sufficiently high and illuminated to be seen from a substantial distance." We agree that the Temple and its steeple would be the most dominant edifice in the surrounding community, which is clearly intended. In our opinion, the color, design, height and lighting of the Temple and its steeple would have an adverse effect on the scenic views of many persons living in, and passing through, our community. The EQAC report addresses this issue in great detail. Moreover, at the January 17, 2002 meeting at City Hall, proponents of the Temple presented samples of the Salisbury Pink granite to be used in construction of the Temple. The DEIR describes the granite without using the word "pink" in its description. Rather, the DEIR uses such inconsistent terms as "warm, light- colored earth tone granite" and "rose shaded stone with fine grain accents" to describe the color. The EIR should contain color palettes of the intended granite for everyone to see. We are not aware of any J ' LETTER 8 (CONT) James Campbell Re: Draft Environmental Impact Report ' Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints Temple August 8, 2002 ' Page 3 of 8 structures in the surrounding neighborhood of a similar color. The EIR should provide more specifics as to how the color and design is consistent with the surrounding ' neighborhood, and the Planning Department should not make a decision without considering such important information. We believe that the color and gothic design of the proposed structure is inconsistent with any other building in the entire community. ' Further, it is our opinion that the proposed structure will substantially degrade the existing visual character of the neighborhood. ' The EQAC report points out the inconsistencies used by the Church to describe the actual height of the proposed steeple. It now appears that the proposed steeple is approaching 130 feet in height, equivalent to a thirteen -story building. The Church has always stated that the floor plate of the proposed Temple and the existing Stake Center ' are approximately the same, when in fact there is a significant difference. We agree that the EIR should be consistent with its base line description of the size of the steeple. Moreover, the EIR should contain a certification of the height of the crane used to depict the height of the steeple. The certification should also relate to the common base line. Adding trees and shrubs, or landscaping of any kind, to the site would not mitigate the imposing height of the steeple, which is entirely out of conformity with the residential neighborhood. ' Without question the proposed lighting of the structure would create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect nighttime views in the area. Among our primary concerns are the intended nighttime and morning hours during which the Temple and steeple would remain illuminated. The DEIR states the hours of lighting ' will be from dusk to 11:00 pm and from 5:00 am until dawn. Appendix E to the DEIR contains a conflicting letter dated December 1, 2001 from Heath Engineering Company that states in a footnote that the' facade lighting will be reduced at 11:00 pm with the lights of the steele (sic) remaining on through the night." The EIR should clarify the hours of intended lighting, and a decision should not be made in the face of this conflicting information. The EIR should address in more detail the impact on our residential neighborhood of lighting the Temple and steeple until 11:00 am at night and at 5:00 am in the morning. We believe that the proposed lighting schedule is completely out of place in a residential ' neighborhood. It is also an intrusion of homeowners' privacy. We especially find the proposed lighting of the Temple and steeple in the early morning hours to be outrageous. In previous discussions with Church representatives, we were led to believe that no t lighting would occur after 11:00 pm. As most would, we understood this to be until daylight. The DEIR is the first disclosure of the Church's intent to light the structure ' before sunrise. At the very least, any conditional use permit should prohibit morning J 1. CONT OHM low James Campbell LETTER 8 (CONT) Re: Draft Environmental Impact Report Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints Temple August 8, 2002 Page 4 of 8 lighting of the steeple. We also strongly object to lighting the Temple and steeple past 9:00 pm, which is a reasonable bedtime hour for the many children in the adjacent residential communities. We agree with the EQAC report that the City should obtain an independent study from a lighting consultant not associated with the proposed Temple. The lighting study should analyze the glare, halo effects, and other adverse effects of the lighting of the steeple on foggy nights, which are prevalent in our neighborhood. We are very concerned about the glare and light emanating from such an imposing edifice in the midst of our residential neighborhood. We also believe it would not be appropriate for the Planning Commission to base its decision on anything less than accurate, complete and unbiased information. Holiday lighting is also a principal concern from both a traffic and aesthetics standpoint. Other LDS Temples are notorious for holiday lighting displays and events attended by thousands nightly. We believe that holiday lighting would overwhelm our residential community. Although the DEIR states no such activities are currently contemplated, we believe that any conditional use permit should contain strict restrictions on holiday lighting and events. There is historical precedence regarding the effects of excess lighting in our residential neighborhood. We understand that prior to the completion of our homes in Bonita Canyon, the homeowners of Harbor View Homes successfully challenged the lighting of Bonita Canyon Sport Park, which occupies the space between Bonita Canyon and Harbor View Homes. Recognizing the effects of excess lighting on our neighborhood, the City agreed not to light the sport park. The site of the proposed Temple is across the street from the sport park. Another concern is the ability of the Church to keep its commitment regarding lighting hours. The current Stake Center located adjacent to the proposed Temple site has substantial lighting in its parking lot. Several homes in our community are located below the plane of the parking lot and are especially affected by the lights. Frequently the lights are left on beyond the 11:00 curfew agreed upon by the Church. Any conditional use permit should contain enforcement procedures for requiring the lighting to be extinguished at the required times. It is our opinion that the construction of the Temple as proposed will adversely impact our property values. The marketability of homes located near such an imposing structure would be limited. Most of the homes in our community and the neighboring communities have valuations in excess of one million dollars. For many homeowners, II James Campbell LETTER 8 (CONT) Re: Draft Environmental Impact Report Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints Temple August 8, 2002 Page 5 of 8 this represents their life savings. The City should obtain independent appraisals or other ' reports of the impact on property values in the community from such a nonconforming structure. 1 1 mitigate this fact. The City must apply its own policies to this project The project also appears to be inconsistent with the City's Recreation and Open Space Element Policy 6. 1, related to public vistas and scenic drives. The DEIR does not address the relationship between the proposed Temple and Bonita Canyon Sport Park which is currently under construction. The views from the sport park and Bonita Canyon Drive provide rare vistas of the foothills, which vistas would be dominated by the pink, thirteen -story tower of the Temple. 8 -K CONT �• 8 -M iL The DEIR fails to address whether or not the project would have any conflict with an applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan. The site is adjacent to Bonita Creek Wildlife Corridor, which is the home for numerous forms of 8-0 wildlife. We concur with the EQAC report that the EIR should address the effects of the project lighting on wildlife. When we purchased our homes, we were advised that our Land Use. We believe that the proposed project is inconsistent with the City's ' land use policies as described in the DEIR. The City of Newport Beach Land Use Policy D provides that the sitting of new buildings and structures shall be controlled and regulated to insure, to the extent practicable, the preservation of public views, the ' preservation of unique natural resources, and to minimize the alteration of natural land forms along bluffs and cliffs. The EQAC report describes many concerns about the effect of the project on public views. In Section 4.4.5.1 of the DEIR, the Church states that it has made several accommodations, to the extent practicable, for the preservation of ' views from adjacent residential land uses. The so- called accommodations made by the Church are ineffective. Any serious attempt by the Church to mitigate the domination of the steeple and its illumination is in direct conflict with the Church's stated objectives. The Church has stated that there is no flexibility in reducing the height of the steeple. Rather, the steeple continues to grow as the project comes under greater scrutiny. ' The City's Land Use Policy F provides that the City shall develop and maintain suitable and adequate standards for site and building design, parking and other ' development standards to insure that the beauty and charm of existing residential neighborhoods is maintained. It is our belief that the color, design, height and lighting of the proposed structure would adversely alter the beauty and charm of our residential neighborhood. The current color, design, height and lighting is grossly out of place in the neighborhood. There is very little dressing that any modifications to the EIR could add to 1 1 mitigate this fact. The City must apply its own policies to this project The project also appears to be inconsistent with the City's Recreation and Open Space Element Policy 6. 1, related to public vistas and scenic drives. The DEIR does not address the relationship between the proposed Temple and Bonita Canyon Sport Park which is currently under construction. The views from the sport park and Bonita Canyon Drive provide rare vistas of the foothills, which vistas would be dominated by the pink, thirteen -story tower of the Temple. 8 -K CONT �• 8 -M iL The DEIR fails to address whether or not the project would have any conflict with an applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan. The site is adjacent to Bonita Creek Wildlife Corridor, which is the home for numerous forms of 8-0 wildlife. We concur with the EQAC report that the EIR should address the effects of the project lighting on wildlife. When we purchased our homes, we were advised that our James Campbell LETTER 8 (CONT) Re: Draft Environmental Impact Report Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints Temple August 8, 2002 Page 6 of 8 community is built near, or over an ancient Native American burial ground. The EIR should also address whether or not the proposed site is near or disturbs the burial ground. Traffic and Circulation. The traffic analysis contained in the DEIR is grossly inadequate. The use of the Reno Temple as a comparison of traffic pattern because of the Reno Temple's square footage is misplaced. Reno is described as a community with approximately 30,000 LDS members. Orange County is described as a community with approximately 50,000 LDS members. There are no surrounding communities of any size within close proximity to Reno. Orange County is adjacent to Los Angeles, Riverside and San Diego Counties. It should be expected that the proposed Newport Beach Temple will draw worshipers and public visitors from all of Southern California. In the Mormon Temple Traffic Phasing Ordinance Analysis dated October 29, 2001, Robert L. Wynn states "visitors can attend any Temple and I am sure we will get summer visitors who will want to attend the Newport Beach Temple, but I have no way of estimating the number." The proposed Temple is a regional facility in a residential location. It is our opinion that any traffic comparison with another Temple should be based upon the population of potential visitors. We believe that data from the San Diego and Los Angeles Temples would provide a more relevant comparison, and that such data must be included in the EIR. The EIR should contain a more detailed description of the proposed visitor turnover use of the Temple. The DEIR states that the Temple is designed to serve approximately 150 people at a time. The DEIR further states that activities will occur throughout the eighteen hours of daily operations. However, the DEIR provides no quantitative information as to whether visitor turnover will occur every half hour, every hour, or upon other intervals. If maximum turnover capacity is reached on an hourly basis, this would mean as many as 2,700 visits.per day, which would constitute 2,700 entrances and 2,700 exits during the Temple's eighteen hour day. The EIR should emphatically state how many worshipers will use the Temple during its daily eighteen hours of operations. Moreover, the EIR should confirm that the 159 parking spaces set aside for Temple use is adequate to handle such turnover. If the Temple's maximum occupancy is 150, then we question whether the extra nine spaces is sufficient to handle public visitors as well as ingress and egress turnover. Hours of operation is a primary concern to our community. We do not believe that traffic from distant communities from the dark hours of the morning until almost midnight is appropriate in a residential neighborhood. The EIR should justify the need for the Church's extreme hours of operation. In our opinion, any conditional use permit should limit the hours of operation to no earlier than 8:00 am and no later than 6:00 pm_ ' James Campbell LETTER 8 (CONT) ' Re: Draft Environmental Impact Report Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints Temple August 8, 2002 Page 7 of 8 The limited amount of traffic predicted by the DEIR does not justify keeping the Temple ' open eighteen hours per day. Further, we cannot find any analysis of the traffic impact for 5:00 am or 11:00 pm, much less realistic arrival times preceding 5:00 am and departure times after 11:00 pm. Certainly any increased traffic at those hours would be reasonably considered a significant impact for a residential community, and should be ' necessary information in the evaluation of whether to grant a conditional use permit. 8 -R CONT , There is not sufficient information in the DEIR to support the conclusions of the ' traffic analysis. The DEIR is not specific in its analysis of the traffic impact caused by the proposed Temple in conjunction with current and proposed nearby developments. There is a significant amount of development occurring in surrounding areas directly fed by Bonita Canyon Drive. These developments include, without limitation, new housing and large apartment communities in Newport Coast, Newport Ridge, and new housing and apartment communities in Irvine, such as Turtle Ridge and Shady Canyon, and significant expansions of the facilities of Mariner's Church and Exodus Community ' Center and Tarbut V'Torah in Irvine. Turtle Ridge and Newport Ridge alone account for more than 3,000 dwelling units. The City should demand a more detailed analysis of the traffic impact of these proposed developments that affect Bonita Canyon Drive. More importantly, the DEIR fails to address the potential traffic conflict between the proposed Temple and Bonita Canyon Sport Park. The peak hours of the sport park directly coincide with the stated peak hours of the Temple on Fridays and Saturdays. The EIR should contain quantitative information on the expected combined traffic impact. A comparison of the Bonita Canyon Sport Park to the traffic and parking patterns of the ' Costa Mesa "Farm" sports facility on Fairview Drive in Costa Mesa would prove compelling evidence of the congestion which will occur in this residential neighborhood. Traffic counts should include MacArthur Boulevard, Ford Road, Bonita Canyon Drive, ' Mesa View, Prairie Road, San Miguel Road, and Old Ford Road. Alternatives to the Proposed Project. Most of us were in attendance at the EQAC meeting held at the Police Station on July 15, 2002 at which EQAC's comments ' to the DEIR were discussed. In that meeting EQAC agreed to add a provision in its report to request that the EIR contain a discussion of a "no steeple" alternative for the project. Somehow, the final draft of the EQAC report failed to request a discussion of the ' "no steeple" alternative. We hereby make that request. We understand that several LDS Temples have no steeples, including the Temple in Mesa, Arizona. ' We also request that the EIR contain a serious discussion of a reduced alternative, including a steeple with a height to conform with the City's current 50 foot height limitation, lighting between dusk and 9:00 pm only, and hours of operation between 8 -R CONT , LETTER 8 (CONT) , James Campbell , Re: Draft Environmental Impact Report Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints Temple ' August 8, 2002 ' Page 8 of 8 Mayor Tod W. Ridgeway Council Member Gary Proctor ' 8:00 am and 6:00 pm. We understand that a recently built LDS Temple in Detroit, Michigan, which is billed as a model prototype of new Mormon Temples, has a steeple of , just 29 feet in height. The EIR should state why smaller steeples or no steeples are 8- acceptable to the Church in other Temple locations but not in our residential community. CO The Church and the DEIR rests the significance of the steeple height and lighting on the Church's Official Statement of Temple Steeples and Lighting as Religious Symbols, which was just adopted on January 28, 2002. However, the characteristics of these other , Temples are apparently in direct conflict with this Statement. We do not have the resources of the Church and must rely on City officials to ' represent the interests of our community by either demanding or producing an unbiased EIR, and by performing a complete review of the proposed Temple, based on all of the 8 - available information, and not just a one -sided presentation. We appreciate your consideration of our comments and we look forward to your response. Respectively submitted, ' 4Steven C. B n Robert W ess, Jr. ckk L. Letts p �' 'Kai en ' Sheila Walters , cc Planning Commissioner Steven C. Kiser (Chairman) Planning Commissioner Earl McDaniel (Vice Chairman) , Planning Commissioner Shant Agajanian (Secretary) Planning Commissioner Anne K. Gifford Planning Commissioner Edward Selich ' Planning Commissioner Larry Tucker Mayor Tod W. Ridgeway Council Member Gary Proctor ' Council Member Norma J. Glover Council Member Garold B. Adams Mayor Pro Tern Steven Bromberg , Council Member Dennis D. O'Neil Council Member John Heffernan I I 1 I LlL I 1 1 1 LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. AUGUST 2002 DEIR RFSPONSE TO COMMENT'S CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTFR DAY SAINTS TEMPLE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 8. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS FROM BONITA CANYON MAINTENANCE ASSOCIATION 8 -A The comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision makers for consideration. 8 -13 Please refer to Responses to Comments 5 -A through 5 -W, which address the EQAC comment letter. The comment is noted for the record. 8 -C Development of the project description and project objectives is based on information provided by the project applicant. LSA Associates, Inc. is under contract to the City to prepare the environmental documentation for the proposed Temple. City staff reviewed and approved the Draft EIR prior to circulation. The commentor's statements are acknowledged but are not substantiated. The comment will be forwarded to the decision makers for consideration. 8 -D Please refer to the Aesthetics General Response for a discussion of the methodology of aesthetic impact analysis. The commentor's statements are acknowledged; however, the commentor does not provide support for such a finding. The comment does not provide specific evidence or new information suggesting that the information contained in the EIR is inadequate. In the absence of data or substantiating evidence to the contrary, the conclusion of the EIR may be relied upon. Also, please refer to Responses to Comments 5 -A through 5- W, which address the concerns raised by the EQAC. The comment will be forwarded to the decision makers. 8 -E The commentor is correct that the manufacturer's name for the exterior Temple material is "Salisbury Pink "; however, the Draft EIR was using language to describe the color of the actual material viewed by the EIR preparers. As illustrated in the view simulations prepared to assist in the aesthetics evaluation, the color of the Temple is similar in tone and shade to the surrounding development. The request for additional analysis for color and design is acknowledged. However, the EIR includes sufficient data and analysis from which conclusions regarding the level of impact can be derived. A more exhaustive analysis may provide additional information that may be of interest to the commentor; however, the analysis requested is beyond that required by CEQA Guidelines for a well - reasoned and informed analysis of project impacts. The commentor's opinion that the proposed structure will substantially degrade the existing visual character of the neighborhood is acknowledged; however, the comment does not provide specific evidence or new information suggesting that the information contained in the EIR is inadequate. In the absence of data or substantiating evidence to the contrary, the conclusion of the EIR may be relied upon. The comment will be forwarded to the decision makers. 8 -F Please refer to Response to Comment 5 -A for a discussion of the height of the steeple. The height and location of the top of the crane was surveyed by Hunsaker & Associates and P:\CNB23MRTQRTC doc.08 /29/02. LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. DEIR RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ' AUGUST 2002 CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER DAY SAINTS TEMPLE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 1 determined to be accurate within approximately 2 feet of the top of the proposed Temple. A The commentor does not raise any specific environmental concerns; therefore, no response is letter certifying the accuracy of the survey is on file at the City. The commentor's opinion that the proposed project is out of conformity with the residential neighborhood is acknowledged; however, the comment does not provide specific evidence or new information refer to the Light and Glare General Response regarding excess or extraneous light at the suggesting that the information contained in the EIR is inadequate. In the absence of data or substantiating evidence to the contrary, the conclusion of the EIR may be relied upon. The ' comment will be forwarded to the decision makers. , 8 -G Please refer to the Light and Glare General Response for a discussion of light and glare impacts. As described in Section 3.0 of the EIR, Project Description, the proposed hours of illumination are from dusk to 1 1:00 p.m. and from 5:00 a.m. to dawn. The project, including , hours of illumination as described in the EIR, will be subject to City approval. On December 8 -K I, 2001, when the Health Engineering Company report was prepared, the proposed hours of illumination were as stated in their report and were subsequently reduced prior to circulation ' of the Draft EIR. The request for a new light and glare analysis prepared by another consultant is acknowledged. However, the EIR includes sufficient data and analysis from which conclusions regarding the level of impact can be derived. ' 8 -H The commentor's concern related to restricting holiday lighting through the Conditional Use 8 -L Permit process is an administrative matter outside the purview of CEQA. This matter will be , undertaken by the decision makers. comments, in particular Response to Comment 5 -A relating to the steeple building height. 8 -1 The commentor does not raise any specific environmental concerns; therefore, no response is ' necessary. The comment will be forwarded to the decision makers for consideration. Please refer to the Light and Glare General Response regarding excess or extraneous light at the project site. ' 8 -1 The commentor's issue related to processing of the Conditional Use Permit through established City of Newport Beach processes is an administrative matter outside the purview of CEQA. , 8 -K The commentor provides no evidence to substantiate their assertion that the proposed Temple will reduce property values of adjacent residences. CEQA does not require the City to obtain property valuation reports for projects under environmental review. The comment will be forwarded to the decision makers for consideration. 8 -L Please refer to Responses to Comments 5 -A through 5 -W, which addresses the EQAC II comments, in particular Response to Comment 5 -A relating to the steeple building height. The commentor's statements are acknowledged but are not substantiated by the technical analysis included in the EIR. In the absence of data or substantiating evidence to the contrary, the conclusion of the EIR may be relied upon. The comment will be forwarded to the decision makers. II 8 -M The proposed Temple will adhere to all required City development standards. Also, please refer to the Aesthetics General Response and the Light and Glare General Response. The commentor's statements are acknowledged but are not substantiated by the technical analysis II PACNB230 \RTC\RTC.d0C 48/29/02u 1 I 1 1 r, LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. DE IR RESPONSE TO COMMENTS AUCUST 8001 CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER DAY SAINTS TEMPLE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACD included in the EIR. In the absence of data or substantiating evidence to the contrary, the conclusion of the EIR may be relied upon. 8 -N Section 4. 1, Aesthetics, of the EIR provides view simulations from areas south of the Bonita Canyon Sports Park, in Views 3 and 4. Views I I and 12 provide view simulations from Bonita Canyon Drive. As discussed in Section 4.1.4.2, aesthetic impacts to these views are considered less than significant. The purpose of the park is active recreation and is not designed to provide public views or scenic vistas. 8 -0 Please refer to Response to Comment 5 -N for a discussion of the Bonita Creek Wildlife Corridor in relation to the proposed project. The Initial Study prepared for the proposed project analyzed the proposed project's potential impacts to cultural resources. As discussed on pages 9 and 10 of the Initial Study, no human remains are known to exist on the project site. The site has been previously graded, and the proposed temple does not require further significant excavation. If human remains are encountered on site during construction, the standard provision provided on page 10 of the Initial Study will be implemented. 8 -P The City of Newport Beach Public Works Department reviewed and approved the Traffic Study prepared to analyze traffic impacts of the proposed project. The Reno Temple was used to determine a trip generation rate because it offers the same religious services, i.e., baptism, marriages, and other instructional services as the proposed Temple. The trip generation rate for the proposed Temple was calculated using the results of the trip generation survey of vehicles arriving/departing the Reno Temple for weekday and Friday and Saturday operation based on the square footage of that facility. The generation rate is based on the number of trips calculated for the Reno site divided by the total square footage. Therefore, the trip generation rate based on the Reno Temple is empirical and can be applied to any size Temple, assuming similar operational characteristics. The commentor's statements are acknowledged but are not substantiated by the technical analysis included in the EIR. In the absence of data or substantiating evidence to the contrary, the conclusion of the EIR may be relied upon. The comment will be forwarded to the decision makers. 8 -Q Section 3.3.1, Operational Characteristics, of the Draft EIR provides a discussion of the religious functions typically occurring at a Temple. This section also provides an approximate time period in which these functions may occur. Because of the type of religious functions occurring at the Temple, i.e., baptisms, marriages, etc., and the difficulty in determining when weddings, baptisms, etc. will occur, it is difficult to provide quantitative information on visitor turnover. The capacity of the Temple is 150 persons; it is not expected that maximum turnover will occur every hour from 5:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. As discussed on page 35 of the Initial Study, the proposed Temple includes 152 striped spaces. As the Temple is planned to serve no more than 150 people at any one time, and attendance will be dispersed throughout the day, the parking demand is expected to be accommodated on the project site. The Stake Center will serve as overflow parking for the Temple, providing an additional 210 striped spaces and 30 spaces along curbs within the Stake Center site. Based on the analysis in the Initial Study, it was determined that there will be no impacts related to inadequate parking capacity, and no mitigation measures are required. This issue was not discussed in the EIR. P'\CNB230 \RTC \RTC doc ,,08/29/02. LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. UEIR RESPONSE TO COMMENTS 'I AUGUST 1001 CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER DAY SAINTS TEMPLE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 8 -11 The City of Newport Beach Public Works Department reviewed and approved the Traffic 'I Study prepared for the proposed project. The EIR utilized the approved Traffic Study, which included a cumulative project analysis. Section 4.5.4, Cumulative Impacts, provides a I' discussion of the impact of the proposed project collectively with other past, present, or reasonably foreseeable planned and proposed projects. Also, please refer to Response to Comment 4 -G. The request for additional analysis is acknowledged. However, the EIR I� includes sufficient data and analysis from which conclusions regarding the level of impact can be derived. However, the analysis requested is beyond that required by CEQA Guidelines for a well reasoned and informed analysis of project impacts. 8 -S A "no steeple" alternative was not analyzed, as it would not meet most of the projects I' objectives. Please refer to Response to Comment 5 -Q for a discussion of the reduced intensity alternative. Development of the project description and objectives is based on II information provided by the project applicant documenting the "purpose" for and design of the proposed facility. CEQA does not require an EIR to evaluate the validity of project objectives. The comment is noted and will be forwarded to the decision makers for II consideration. 8 -T The comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision makers. II PACNB230 \RTC\RTC.dm R08/29/0N ' 9. COMMENTS FROM BONITA CANYON CONSERVANCY 1 1 1 I 1 P' \CNB230 \RTC\RTC doe ,08/29/02» LS.. ASSO CLATER. INC. DEIN RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ..0 CUB RnOR CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF I...TTER DAY SAINTS TEMPLE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ' 9. COMMENTS FROM BONITA CANYON CONSERVANCY 1 1 1 I 1 P' \CNB230 \RTC\RTC doe ,08/29/02» I Message Page 1 of 3 LETTER 9 Campbell, James From: Mike Arrigo [manigo @cox.net) Sent: Friday, August 09, 2002 1:24 PM To: jcampbell @city.newport- beach.ca.us Subject: Bonita Canyon Conservancy comments on Draft EIR for Project at 2300 Bonita Canyon / Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints Temple The Bonita Canyon Conservancy Preserving the Natural and Residential Quality of Life for our Community 1280 Blson Road, B9-56, Newport Beach CA 92660 August 9, 2002 ' Mr. James Campbell Senior Planner Planning Department City of Newport Beach ' 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 l� Cl Subject: Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints Temple Dear Mr. Campbell: RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF NIF:XMD-W.T r'E -A',;H AM AUG 0 9 2002 PM 716 i9 I10I11I1211I2; 3I4IS I6 I The Bonita Canyon Conservancy maintains a web site at www.bonitacanyonconservancy.org. Our purpose is to provide a voice for homeowners in Newport Beach on important issues that affect the community. We respectfully call your attention to the following facts: 1. Homeowners disagree with DEIR findings. In response to the DEIR, we would like to call your attention to I 9-A the linked web site: http:// www. thePetitionSite .com/takeaction/925754526 There you will find the publicly Viewable comments of residents who disagree with the findings of the DEIR. 2. Precedent shows residents do not want brightlV lit structures or areas around Bonita CanVpn. The City of Newport Beach commissioned the Bonita Canyon Sports Park for children and agreed not to light it after dark because of the objections of local residents in Harbor View Hills. We would like to cite this as a key issue 9 - B overlooked by the DEIR that has already been acknowledged by the City in other projects in the immediate vicinity. The EQAC report in July 2001 suggested that the City should obtain an independent study from a lighting consultant not associated with the proposed Temple. We endorse this recommendation. 3. Adverse aesthetic impact. We support diversity in our community, however we believe that the existing reasonable planning measures must be adhered to in order to maintain the character of our community. We live in an area with natural beauty and structures that harmonize with one another, rather than stand out from the surrounding area. Further, it is the opinion of homeowners who have publicly stated their views on the Internet that the proposed structure will substantially degrade the existing visual character of the 9 - C neighborhood, as referenced in item 1, above. It is clear that the color, height, and lighting of this propose project are designed not to harmonize but to stand out in an abrupt manner that forces homeowners to notice it by exception to the planning guidelines in existence: a. At the January 17, 2002 meeting at City Hall, Temple advocates showed proposed Salisbury Pink 08/09/2002 Message Page 2 of 3 11 LETTER 9 (CONY) granite construction material for the Temple. The DEIR describes the granite not as pink but as "warm, 9 _ light - colored earth tone granite" and "rose shaded stone with fine grain accents." Is the EIR a sales brochure or a factual study? The EIR should contain color palettes of the intended granite for CONT homeowners so that they can see the color for themselves. There are no pink structures in the area II that we know of. b. We were surprised to learn that the proposed steeple is approaching 130 feet in height. The Church I 9-11 I 9 the same, when in fact there is a significant difference. 4. Endangered Species - California Gnatcatcher (Poliopfile c. califomica) is a federally threatened subspecies I I' inhabiting the coastal sage scrub community in southern California. You have personally acknowledged that the area surrounding the building cite is a habitat for the Gnatcatcher, but that "...they are doing just fine..." I The DEIR has no basis in fact as to whether this population will be affected or not. I' a. A project involving the analysis of the dynamics of the California Gnatcatcher in central and coastal Orange County, California was conducted by RAMAS Ecological & Environmental Software. The results were published in 1997 and appear at htto: //www.ramas.com/calgnat.htm For this analysis, 9 9-11 08/09/2002 1 1 1 1 Message LETTER 9 (CONT) Finally, we request that two options be seriously explored in the EIR: a. A conforming 50 foot steeple b. A "no steeple' aftemative Sincerely, /s Michael F. Arrigo Managing Director The Bonita Canyon Conservancy cc Mayor Tod W. Ridgeway All Council Members All Planning Commissioners Mayor Pro Tern Steven Bromberg Newport Beach Homeowners 08/09/2002 Page 3 of 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i i 1 LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. HEIR RESPONSE TO COMMENTS AII.0 2002 CHURCH Of JESUS CHRIST OF LAl'THR HAY SAINTS TEMPLE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 9. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS FROM BONITA CANYON CONSERVANCY 9 -A The comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision makers. 9 -B The condition of the Bonita Canyon Sports Park is not the subject of the EIR. Please refer to Response to Comment 5 -C. The comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision makers. 9 -C The EIR uses City standards to address visual and light and glare impacts. The commentor's statements are acknowledged; however, the commentor does not provide support for such a finding. The comment does not provide specific evidence or new information suggesting that the information contained in the EIR is inadequate. In the absence of data or substantiating evidence to the contrary, the conclusion of the EIR may be relied upon. Please also refer to Response to Comment 8 -E. The comment will be forwarded to the decision makers. 9 -D Please refer to Response to Comment 5 -A for a discussion of the height of the steeple. 9 -E As stated in Section 2.0, Introduction (pages 2 -3 of the EIR), there are no endangered, threatened, or rare species present on the project site, and there is no habitat on the project site that would support sensitive species. The commentor is correct in the statement that Bonita Canyon Creek and Reservoir are important areas for the California gnatcatcher. However, the project site is located adjacent to the Bonita Canyon Creek and Reservoir and is therefore not located within the CentraUCoastal Subregional Natural Communities Conservation Plan (NCCP). The proposed project is consistent with the NCCP, which is administered by the Nature Reserve of Orange County. Additionally, no work is planned in the Bonita Canyon Creek and Reservoir area. The area is presently fenced and no access is required to implement the project. Please also refer to Response to Comment 5 -N. It was determined in the Initial Study that the proposed project would not result in significant impacts to on- or off -site biological resources and no further analysis was required. This issue was not addressed in the EIR. 9 -F The comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision makers. 9 -G The comment in opposition to the project and in support of a lower or no steeple alternative is acknowledged and will be forwarded to the decision makers for consideration. P: \CNB230U MRTC.doc.08 /29/02„ 9-5 1 ' LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. .91. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS AUGUST 2001 CHURCII OF JESUS CNRISI OF LATTER DAY SAINTS TEMPLE CITY OF NEWPORT REACH L I 1 1 10. COMMENTS FROM E.B. AKINS PACNB23MRTC\RTC doc x08 /29/02,, LETTER 10 ' E. B. AKINS ' July 29, 2002 RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEFARTNIFNT Mr. James Campbell, Senior Planner CITY 0` H City of Newport Beach Planning Department 2002 3300 Newport Blvd, AUG 0 P N1 CA 92663 718 19 110 1111121 112,341516 Re: Proposed Mormon Temple Dear Mr. Campbell, First let me explain that we reside in Bonita Canyon and are not members of the Mormon Church. I feel we have all been well informed about the proposed Temple. Last November residents of Bonita Canyon received an informative letter and fact sheet regarding the Temple from the President of the Newport Beach Stake. I am also aware of the Environmental Impact Report and agree with its findings. It has been reported that the Bromberg survey of Bonita Canyon found that 106 residents were opposed to the project. There are 288 homes in Bonita Canyon. The Planning Commission should be aware that over sixty five percent of our residents either favor the project or apparently had no objection. Steeple height, "views" and "lot premiums" seems to be the major concern. Every buyer of property in Bonita Canyon signed Disclosure Statements stating that "you have no rights concerning preservation of view" and that "the payment of any premium for a lot or unit is based solely upon the location of the lot and does not create a representation concerning the view ". (See attached) I also understand that the law may be on their side and that there has been precedents set by the City regarding church steeple height in the past Hopefully the Planning Commission will put this issue to rest with their affirmative vote. Sincerely, E. B. Akins 29 Palazzo, Newport Beach, California 92660 Tel (949) 856 -2365 - Fax (949) 856 -2361 EBAkins@aol.com 1 10 -A 1 =11 ATTACHMENT 10 ,I DISCLOSURE STATEMENT REGARDING NO GUARANTEE OF VIEW 11 You may enjoy some unique view potential from your property depending on location. 'I However, any view currently enjoyed from your property will be impaired and obstructed by the construction of other homes, fences, walls, infrastructure facilities and other improvements in Bonita Canyon and adjoining communities and public areas, and the addition and growth of landscaping within such communities, areas and adjacent roadways and medians. The landscaping will grow in height and width, and additional landscaping and other facilities and infrastructure improvements may be added at any time. The payment of any "premium" for a II lot or unit is based solely upon the location of the lot and does not create a representation or warranty by Seller, either express or implied, concerning the view, if any, a particular lot or unit will enjoy. You are responsible for analyzing any location advantage of your residence. �I Architectural and landscaping controls for residences in Bonita Canyon are regulated by the Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, Restrictions and Reservation of Easements for Bonita Canyon Maintenance Association and any applicable Design Guidelines. These documents may give you certain rights to enforce architectural and landscaping regulations over other residences in Bonita Canyon. Except as detailed in these documents, you have no rights concerning 1� preservation of view. Please indicate that you have received a copy of this Disclosure Statement and have read and �I understand it by signing below. You acknowledge that your decision to purchase a residence in Bonita Canyon is not based on any representation concerning the matters described herein other than as provided in this Disclosure Statement. Buyer(s) Date:;;,::.._' 19., Bonita Carryon All Proieas • 7/20/99 i 20 i55i7 -2A Lot/Unit No. Tract No. I I -1 I I I I 1 Lucera Disclosure Statement ATTACHMENT 10 (CONT) Page 3 of 11 should be binned in the fireplace. The use of pressed logs is not advised. Over time the glue in the pressed logs builds up in the chimney flue and could eventually stain the exterior chimney stucco. The upstairs fireplace (if applicable) is a non -wood burning, gas appliance fireplace with switch, much like a gas cooktop. The gas appliance fireplace does include gas logs and the glass doors cannot be opened, as this is strictly an aesthetic feature. Wood cannot be`bumed in this fireplace. Buyer is advised to review the manufacturer's guidelines concerning the fireplaces in their home. 15. Decks. In the instance where decks are offered, Buyer should b6 aware that the design ' of decks will vary from plan to plan. Please see your Sales Representative for specifications. 16. Exterior Trim Details. There are instances where the material being used for exterior trim details (windows, door surrounds, pot - shelves, etc.) has been fabricated out of a high grade Poly- Styrene foam material. These trim details were designed and constructed for aesthetic purposes only, and are not designed to act or perform as a structural part of your home. Special care needs to be taken when working in these areas, as this material is fairly soft and can be damaged easily. 17. Model Homes. The model homes have been professionally decorated and landscaped. Items such as wallpaper, custom paint colors, custom carpet and draperies, mirrors, 1 paneling, as well as furnishings and many exterior landscape elements are for display only. Certain items may be available as options. Please consult your Sales Representative for details. 18. Lot Improvements. All lots within Lucera are subject to various ordinances and policies of the local governing agency which will affect structures built on the lots in the future by lot owners. Buyer is responsible for conforming to these requirements of the agency. 19. View. Seller makes no representation or warranty, express or implied, of any kind with regard to view. Even if the Property currently enjoys a unique view or view potential, and even if Buyer is paying a premium because of this view or view potential, there is no guarantee that this view or view potential will continue in the future. Any existing view or view potential may be altered or impaired at any time by future development, construction of new homes, improvements to existing homes, construction of any other improvements, planting of trees or other vegetation, growth of trees or other vegetation, or other activities. There are no easements, express or implied, appurtenant to the 1 Property for view purposes, or for the passage of light or air over the Property. No salesperson, employee or agent has the authority to. make any representations which contradict or modify the foregoing statements. Buyer acknowledges that Buyer has not relied on any representations made by any such persons, or by anyone, in the purchase of the Property. BUYERS INITIAL HERE TO VERIFY THAT THEY UNDERSTAND AND ACKNOWLEDGE THE ABOVE &:i %: % 4-'. I i 1 r 1 r i 1 i LS.1 ASSOCIATES, INC. AUCUST 9009 DEIR RESPONSE TO COMMENTS CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER DAY SAINTS TEMPLE CITY OF NF WPORT" BEACH 10. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS FROM E.B. AKINS 10 -A The commentor expresses support of the proposed project and agreement with the conclusions of the Draft Environmental Impact Report. No environmental issues were raised by the commentor, and further response is not required. The comment will be forwarded to the decision makers for consideration. 10 -B The comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision makers for consideration. P. \CNB230 \RTC \RTC.doc ,08 /29/02F, ' LSA ASSOCIATES. INC OF.IR RESPONSE TO COMMENTS AUCUST 20.2 CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER DAY BAIN "I'S TEMPLE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 1 11. COMMENTS FROM WILLIAM BURKE I I I 1 I I I 1 I L I I I P. \CNB230 \RTC \RTC.doc R08/29/02n I i i -i LETTER 11 Campbell, James CeEI +e +EB B +i From: WILLIAMBBURKECaol.com PLANNING DEPARTMENT ' Sent: Y Frida JuIY 72 2002T55AM CITY OF NEWI-'1..oT rEACH To: Sublect: . jcampbell ® city. newport- beach.ca. us Mormon Church DEIR Attention: Mr. James Campbell, Senior Planner City of Newport Beach, CA Gentlemen: AM JUL 12 2002 PM 71 B 19110111112111213141516 I ' We approve the subject Church, but we STRONGLY DISAPPROVE THE STEEPLE! It is obvious that the steeple will have a very strong visual impact on the 1 1 - A surrounding residential developments. To the advocates and some others, it will be a religious positive. To me and many others, it will be an ' outrageous intrusion into our visual environment. It is apparent, therefore, that the EIR should conclude that the steeple element will have a negative impact on our environment and should be excluded 1 from the proposed development. Respectfully submitted, W.B. & P.J. Burke #35 Marble Sands Newport Beach, CA 12660 I 11 1 1 I I I 1 1 1 I ' LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. BE 1R RESPONSE TO COMMENTS AUGUST 2002 CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST" OF LATTER DAY SAINTS TEMPI.E CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 1 11. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS FROM WILLIAM BURKE L ' I I -A Please refer to the Aesthetics General Response for a discussion of visual impact methodology and assessment. The commentor's statements are acknowledged but are not substantiated by the technical analysis included in the EIR. In the absence of data or substantiating evidence to the contrary, the conclusion of the EIR may be relied upon. The commentor's opposition to the steeple element of the proposed project is acknowledged and will be forwarded to the decision makers. I I L i I I P' \CNa230 \RTC \RTC.doc rt08/29102. I 1 -3 1 L 1 11 1 I I 1 I I LSA A39OCIATCS. INC. DEIR RESPONSE TO COMMENTS AUGUST 9003 CHURCH Of JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER DAY SAINTS TEMPLE CITY Or NEWPORT BEACH 12. COMMENTS FROM GORDON AND INA BENHARD P \CNB230 \RTC \RTC doc «0829/02. 12 -1 LETTER 12 ' An open letter to the Newport Beach City Council July 24, 2002 (Mr. James Campbell, Senior Planner) ' My wife and I are 30 -year residents of Newport Beach and we have lived in the same Seawind community home for the past 28 years. Our home is 3 streets away from the proposed LDS church location but, because of our elevation, we can see over adjoining homes directly to the LDS site. D L 'u U i 'J u I We have been very concerned with the steeple height and lighting since the first announcement of this proposed project. It was a specific topic of conversation at the Seawind homeowners meeting (119 homes) held on May 23, 2002 where a number or residents discussed our mutual concerns. We were therefore surprised to read the June 27 articles in both the Daily Pilot and the LA Times that suggested that a review of the proposed temple "finds no big problems ". This viewpoint appeared to contrast sharply with the opinions of adjoining homeowners. For that reason, I attended the meeting of the city's Environmental Quality Affairs Committee (EQAC) on July 15, 2002 to determine first hand why the Newport Beach planning commission was not understanding the same concerns that so many surrounding residents express with this project. It was a long meeting but I was relieved to discover that EQAC was indeed concerned with the project, and with many more issues than simply the 125 foot height and its lighting. I had been prepared to offer whatever testimony might be solicited at this meeting but found it unnecessary since the overflow attendance of community neighbors covered the subject in great detail. I was even more gratified when the July 17 Daily Pilot presented for the first time the strong concern (and opposition) that so many feel regarding this project. However on Thursday July 18 another Daily Pilot article identified a Religious Land Use Act enacted in 2000 which might give latitude to any church's wishes over those of the surrounding community or its elected representatives. Frankly, I find this reasoning inequitable and totally unacceptable. I believe the personal sentiment of the surrounding community and the deliberate evaluation and reasoning of EQAC must prevail in any such controversy. I further believe that all elected representatives have a professional obligation to uphold the beliefs of their constituents. On a personal note, my wife and I made the decision in 1999 invest many thousands of dollars into a complete remodel of our existing home. We were quite pleased with our decision when we completed the remodel in 2000. Now we and many other neighbors are confronted w an issue that we believe affects the quality of our life and the value of our homes. Please be aware that, in all this commentary, the single issue is the proposed buildings height and lighting (although EQAC certainly identified a number of other issues such as traffic, noise intrusion from the surrounding park, etc.). There is no issue as to religion or general building utilization since we would have the same concern of its height and lighting if it were a different church or a school or even a supermarket. We respectfully request that you4)ft(y�6§�sideration to our views as you deliberate on this very important issue. PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF nict,l'= cr rl�EAC H Sincerely, Are JUL 2 1 2002 PN1 71819 10 1111112111213 It, 1816 Gordon and Ina Benhard 12- ' LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. DFIR RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ADGOST 1001 CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OE LATTER DAY SAI HI.9 TEMPLE CITY Of NEWPORT BEACH light and glare impacts. Additionally, please refer to Response to Comments 5 -A through 5- 12. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FROM GORDON AND INA BENHARD 1 12 -A Please refer to the Aesthetics General Response for a discussion of the visual impact methodology and assessment, and the Light and Glare General Response for a discussion of light and glare impacts. Additionally, please refer to Response to Comments 5 -A through 5- ' W, which address the EQAC comment letter. The additional comments do not raise any specific environmental concems; therefore, no response is necessary. The commentor's opposition to the building height and lighting plan is acknowledged and will be forwarded to ' the decision makers for consideration. I L I I C] I I I I PACNB230\RTC \RTC.doc aO8 /29YO2. ' LSiI i\SSOCI iITES. INC. UGIR RESPONSE TO COMMEN "FS AUCUST R0 0R CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER DAY Sill N'rS TEMPLE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH [1 ' 13. COMMENTS FROM KAY BROWN 11 u 1 i L✓ I P \CNB230 \RTC\RTC doc a08/29/02n I 1 I� 1 L' LETTER 13 304 -33rd Street Newport Beach, CA 92663 29 July 2002 Mr. Jim Campbell Senior Planner City of Newport Beach Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 Re: Propposed LDS Temple in Newport Beach 1 Dear Mr. Campbell, RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPART&IENT CITY nP T r A IL, AAA AUG U 0 2002 769''Ois,I�,i P I I 1- r�13141516 A 1 I have followed with interest the pros and cons regarding the building of the LDS temple on Bonita Canyon Drive in Newport Beach, and would like to add my support to the construction as has been planned, of this edifice. 1 I have seen other LDS temples in various states and places and have found them to be a quiet and positive attribute to their surrounding environments. 1 I had an opportunity to see the EIR report and was most impressed with its thorough look into the project. I believe the spire as planned will be a lovely piece of architecture and that with its surrounding acreage of gardens, will bring credit 1 to Newport Beach . I have lived here for over 56 years, and look forward to seeing this temple come to fruition. 1 Thank you for your efforts and continued interest in keeping our town one I am proud to reside in. 1 V�ery % truly yours, Kay Brown i 1 1 1 ISM 1 1 LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. AUCU ST 2002 OE IR RESPONSE '1"O COMMEN'15 CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER CRY SAINTS 'I EMPLE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 13. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FROM KAY BROWN 13 -A The commentor expresses support of the proposed project and agreement with the conclusions of the Draft Environmental Impact Report. No environmental issues were raised by the commentor, and further response is not required. The comment will be forwarded to the decision makers for consideration. P.\CNB23MTC \RTC doc 1108124102,, ' LSA AS9OCIOATES. INC. OPIR RESPONSE TO COMMENTS AV GUS '1" RUR CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER DAY SAINTS "IE MPLF. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ' 14. COMMENTS FROM TOM AND ARABELLE BROWN 1_ 1 1 1 u 1 1 1 P9CNB230 \RTC\RTC.doc R08/29102,e Tom kLTa %elle4Brown 4 Vintage Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 (949) 673 -9829 ' James Campbell RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPAR T P.IFNT Senior Planner CITY 0 E AC,H City Planning 3300 Newport Blvd. AM AUG 0 L 20102 �� Newport Beach, CA 7 6 9 i0 1 i 12 1112 3 4 5 6 92663 I I I I' I i I I I tDear Mr. Campbell, We watched with keen interest editorials and articles written in The Daily Pilot ' about the proposed Mormon temple. We will admit, we had concerns about the proposed temple being built in the same district as our home. Things like bright lighting and traffic concerned us. We have read the environmental impact study and it has answered all of our questions and concerns. The location of the building and the grounds sound like a perfect addition to our community. We completely support the EIR conclusions. We are satisfied with the results they gathered. ' Please add our names to the list of those who support the findings included in the Environmental Impact Report. ' cerel n ' &-Cz� Tom & Arabelle Brown 1 11 14 -A 11 1 I 1 1 LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. HE OR RESPONSE TO COMMENTS AUGUST 1001 CIIVRCII OF JESCS CHRIST OF LATTER DAY SAE N'FEE T MPLE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 14. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FROM TOM AND ARABELLE BROWN 14 -A The commentor expresses support of the proposed project and agreement with the conclusions of the Draft Environmental Impact Report. No environmental issues were raised by the commentor, and further response is not required. The comment will be forwarded to the decision makers for consideration. P' \CNB230 \RTC \RTC doc «08/29/02,1 ' LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. DE:R RESPONSE TO COMMMN'1 "S AUGUST 2.0R CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OP LATTER DAY SAINTS TEMPLE CITY OF NEWPORI BEACH 11 I 1 [J 1 1 LJ I 15. COMMENTS FROM M.F. BROWNING P �CNB230NRTORTC.doc .08/29/02. L' 1 1 d I LETTER 15 M F BROWNING 508 Ventaja Newport Beach, CA 92660 August 8, 2002 Mr. James Campbell Planning Department City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. City of Newport Beach, CA 92663 Dear Mr. Campbell: RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT ,,!TV nc Y=IIIpr.nT n =A`H AM AUG 0 g 2002 PM 7181911011111uill i4 IAB I have been a resident of Newport Beach for over thirty years and care a great deal about proper development in the City. The proposed Mormon Temple is a development that will be an asset to the City in general and I support its development. It is to be built on a parcel of land which has been owned for a number of years by the Church and I understand has been entitled for church use. The proposed temple will cover only about 5% of the site (far less than the entitlement) and will be heavily landscaped providing a park like appearance. The building itself is a relatively low profile structure again far less than permitted by the entitlement. The site is not directly adjacent to any residential areas but will of course be visible from residential communities and once built will be a beautiful landmark and addition to the community. The EIR done at the City's direction concluded that the Temple as proposed will not have ' Sincerely,� /� �chael F. Bro 1 1 15 -P any significant impact on the environment. The Temple will be in use for only five days ' a a week (Tuesday through Saturday) and at any given time the occupancy of the Temple will only be approximately 150 people resulting very little impact on the traffic. ' I It appears to me that the City has imposed just about every test to this project that can be addressed to a project. It seems to have met those tests with flying colors. The Mormons ' h have built temples in many communities and they all seem to be extremely well done and received well by those communities in which they are located, including the traditional steeple. I favor the development of this Temple as it has been proposed and hope it will be promptly approved. Sincerely,� /� �chael F. Bro 1 1 15 -P ' LRA ASSOCIATES. INC. OEIR RESPONSE TO COMMENTS AUCVST ROOK CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER DAY SAINTS TEMPLE. CITY OF NEWPORT PEACH 1 L I [l CI 1 1 15. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FROM M.F. BROWNING 15 -A The commentor expresses support of the proposed project and agreement with the conclusions of the Draft Environmental Impact Report. No environmental issues were raised by the commentor, and further response is not required. The comment will be forwarded to the decision makers for consideration. P'\CNB230 \RTC \RTC.doc 08 /29/02» ' LSB ASSOCIATES, INC. DEIR RESPONSE TO COMMENTS AUGUST 2002 CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER DAY SAINTS TEMPLC CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 16. COMMENTS FROM WEATHERFORD CLAYTON, M.D. 1] 1 1 I I [1 1 I I 1 P: \CNB230 \RTC \RTC.doc E08/29 /02. lrai I 1 1 1 JuI.25. 2002 1 :29PM WEATHERFORD CLAYTON MO LETTER 16 To. James Campbell Senior Planner City Planning Department No 1623 P. RECDVED Sy PLANNING DEPARTt,! CiTy CF. AM ,IUL 2S %0102 718!91101!1!1 ; Re: Newport Beach Temple for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter -Day Stints tDear I& Campbell, I am impressed with the careful analysis and visuals contained in your June 2002 EIR. t Section 4.1.2 of the EIR makes it clear that there are no "scenic vistas" designated by the city Newport Beach in the area of Bonita Canyon. t As seen in the EIR photos, the temple as planned will be in the view of those who live near it but it won't obstruct their views. It will pierce the skyline for some of the home owners but it won't obstruct the skyline because of its narrow width. As I understand it, therefore, no t public policies will be violated so far as any views or other aesthetics are concerned. This is consistent with Bonita Canyon homeowners' own CC&.R's recorded February 5, 1998, which provide in Section 7.20 that "There are no views in the Properties which are protected t any extent by this Declaration, and no Owner who becomes subject to the terms hereof shall thereby obtain any view rights whatsoever." tI think the EIR was well done, especially in this area of evaluation. Sincerely, t Weatherford Clayton, President, Newport Bead California Stake Church of Jesus Christ of Latter -Day Saints 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 16 -A 1 1 LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. AUGUST 1001 OEIR RESPONSE TO COMMENTS CHURCH Of JESUS CHRIST Of LATTER DAY SAINTS TEMPLE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 16. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FROM WEATHERFORD CLAYTON, M.D. 16 -A The commentor expresses support of the proposed project and agreement with the conclusions of the Draft Environmental Impact Report. No environmental issues were raised by the commentor, and further response is not required. The comment will be forwarded to the decision makers for consideration. P' \CNB230 \RTC\RTC doc .08/29/02n 16 -3 I F 1 1 I I I F7 U I I LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. OEIR RESPONSE TO COMMENTS AUCOS 2u 2 CHURCH OE JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER DAY SAINTS TEMPLE CITY Of NEWPORT BEACH 17. COMMENTS FROM FRANK P. CHIRICO P \CNB230 \RTC \RTC doc a08 /29/02,, I LETTER 17 1 July 26, 2002 James Campbell Senior Planner Planning Department 1 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92658 1 Re: Church Of Jesus Christ ' Of Latter Day Saints Temple 1 Mr. Campbell, RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY nc ".;r a ar ra C;; H AM JUL 3 1 2002 PM 71B;91i0;ii1121i12;3141516 ' As a resident of the Seawind Community for over nineteen years, I was astonished to become aware of the controversy over the 1 construction of the proposed Mormon Temple at Bonita Canyon Road and Prairie Street. I am a practicing Roman Catholic and an active member of Our Lady Queen of Angles Church. I am sure that you will agree with 1 me that one of the great freedoms we enjoy in America is the freedom of worship. 1 Every religion has certain defining characteristics which make their faith recognizable both In construction and worship. It seems that some neighbors of this project are alarmed by the steeple and the lighting both of which are instrumental to that faith. lAfter considerable review of the Environmental Impact Report from sources hired by the City of Newport Beach, I am in FULL SUPPORT of all proposals submitted by the Church Of Jesus i 1 17 -A LETTER 17 (CONT) Christ of Latter Day Saints in regards to the steeple, lighting and all other construction proposals. The steeple Is by no means a "dominant" feature at an approximate width of 1112 feet at the top as some In the Seawind Community would lead you and others to believe. From all of the visuals 1 have seen, both renderings and actual photos, from many different vantage points, 1 can not believe how well It blends to the surroundings. In addition the projected landscape plans are very well thought out. I am sure with your experience on the Planning Commission It is Inherent that quite often peoples' opinions are self motivated by a whole host of personal reasons rather than what will be an asset to the community. In my opinion, the completion of this structure as presently proposed will be a beautiful and eye pleasing testament to our community and the freedoms our American way of life afford all of us. Please give It the favorable treatment it deserves. Feel free to contact me with your questions or concerns: 2421 Port Whitby Place Newport Beach, Ca. 92660 (949) 289 -9100 Sincerely, Frank P. Chlrico I I I 17 -f C OPTI I F h I I I L F i I I �I 1 I I 1 LSA /ASSOCIATES. INC. AUGUST 2.02 UEIR RESPONSE: TO COMMENTS CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER DAY SAINTS TEMPLE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 17. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FROM FRANK P. CHIRICO 17 -A The commentor expresses support of the proposed project and agreement with the conclusions of the Draft Environmental Impact Report. No environmental issues were raised by the commentor, and further response is not required. The comment will be forwarded to the decision makers for consideration. P: \CNH230 \RTC\RTC.dm P0829/02. 17-4 I I I I I I I 'Ll I �1 I I LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. DEIR RESFONSE TO COMMENTS All CO ST 9009 CHURCH OF JESDS CHRIST OF LATTER DAY SAINTS TEMPLE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 18. COMMENTS FROM GARY AND SUSAN CALL P' \CNB230 \RTC \RTC doc,M29M. I 1 I 1 i 1 I LETTER 18 August 1, 2002 Mr. James Campbell, Senior Planner City Planning Department 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92663 Dear Mr. Campbell: RECENEu 6V PLANNING DEPARSf 1F.N�M 6V AUG 0 6 na pM AM glgji011111w1- 1213141616 Yesterday, we took the opportunity to view the LDS Temple EIR at the Mariners Branch Library. We found it to be extremely beneficial in answering all of our questions regarding the proposed structure. The report was complete with pertinent information especially in regards to the steeple and lighting. The photo pages showing the current site compared with computer- enhanced photos of the completed project and the 10 -year projections were of the most benefit. These photos satisfied all of our questions regarding the steeple and lighting. We agree with the EIR's findings of "no significant impact" in every area of potential concern. We have lived in Corona del Mar and Newport Beach for the past twelve years and enjoy this beautiful city's diversity in religious structures. We feel the EIR was complete in showing that the LDS Temple will become an aesthetic asset in Newport Beach. Sincerely, ' a and Call 1417 Mariners Drive ' Newport Beach, CA 92660 949/646 -4142 LI 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. AUGUST 2001 UF.IR RESPONSE TO OM MENTS CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER DAY SAINTS TEMPI - CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 18. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FROM GARY AND SUSAN 18 -A The commentor expresses support of the proposed project and agreement with the conclusions of the Draft Environmental Impact Report. No environmental issues were raised by the commentor, and further response is not required. The comment will be forwarded to the decision makers for consideration. P' \CNB230 \RTC \RTC.doc 10829/02, 1 LS.S ASS O CI.STES. INC. OF.IR RESPONSE. TO COMMENTS .SU CU ST PYOP CHURCH Of JESUS CHRIST OF L.STTER U.SY SAINTS TEMPLE CITY OF NEWPORT BFACH 19. COMMENTS FROM LISA T. CLAYTON P \CNB230 \RTC \RTC.doc 48/29/01I I 1 I I I1 IJ 1 LETTER 19 Dear Mr. Campbell, August 5, 2002 I took occasion to review the EIR regarding the proposed Latter -day Saint temple on Bonita Canyon Drive. I was pleased and impressed with its thoroughness and especially appreciated the pictures that were included showing the various views. As I looked at the pictures and read the text I agreed with the finding that there is "no significant impact" on the views and neighborhood. I was particularly interested in the information regarding the lighting and traffic impact The proposed lighting appears to be much less bright than many other existing neighborhood and business lighting. And the description of use shows that the traffic impact will be negligible, as it isn't a building designed to accommodate large numbers of people. I have lived in Newport Beach for 17 years and now reside less than a mile from the temple site and look forward to having this beautiful building in my view each day as I navigate the neighborhood. • .1 Sincerely, PRECEIVED BY LANNING DEPARTMENT Lisa T. Clayton CITY nF nrA,'H AM AUG 12 2002 PNII 71819 110 il 1112,112,314 1616 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 t 1 LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. AUCUST 2002 DEIR RESPONSE 1'0 COMMENTS CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER DAY SAINTS TEMPLE CITY OF MC WPOR'r BEACH 19. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FROM LISA T. CLAYTON 19 -A The commentor expresses support of the proposed project and agreement with the conclusions of the Draft Environmental Impact Report. No environmental issues were raised by the commentor, and further response is not required. The comment will be forwarded to the decision makers for consideration. P: \CNB230\RTORTC.doc ,,08/29 /02,, 1 1 1 1 1 LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. AUCUST 2002 DEIR RESPONSE TO COMMENTS CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER DAY SAINTS TEMPLE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 20. COMMENTS FROM CRAYTON V. CLARK P 1CNB2301RTC\RTC. doc .08/29/02. 20 =11 I 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 LETTER 20 LAW OFFICES OF CRAYTON CLARK 4570 CAMPUS DRIVE SUITE 28 NEWPORT BEACH. CALIFORNIA 92660 August 9, 2002 Mr. James Campbell- Senior Planner City Planning Department 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92663 Re: EIR —LDS Church Temple Dear Mr. Campbell: PHONE (949) 261 -0300 FAX (949) 261 -0191 cvcdark®yahoo.com RECEUNED BY PLANNING DEPARWEN i CITY r'- ai- Vii\ ,H Hub g 2002 Ah9 girl 716 (911011111u i 11213141516 -j. 1 I have been a resident of Newport Beach since 1993, and reside at 2601 Vista Drive with my wife and two children. The purpose of this letter is to voice my support for the findings of the EIR for the LDS Church Temple. I am pleased to learn that "implementation of the proposed project will not result in significant environmental impacts." Candidly, I had certain questions regarding the impact of locating a temple within Newport Beach. However, the EIR allayed such issues. Specifically, I had questions regarding possible intrusion by the temple steeple on neighbors' views. However, per the EIR, surrounding neighbors' views will not be obstructed. I also had concerns regarding an influx of visitors to the area resulting in increased traffic congestion. I am pleased, however, to team that because the capacity inside the temple is one hundred and fifty people, "impacts related to traffic and circulation are considered less than significant." Thank you for all of your work on behalf of the City. Very tmly yours, V. r�� Crayton V. Clark 20 -A t t LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. AUCUS'r 2. 2 DFIR RESPONSF TO COMMENTS CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER DAY SAINTS TEMPLE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 20. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FROM CRAYTON CLARK 20 -A The commentor expresses support of the proposed project and agreement with the conclusions of the Draft Environmental Impact Report. No environmental issues were raised by the commentor, and further response is not required. The comment will be forwarded to the decision makers for consideration. P: \CNB230 \RTC \RTC doc S08/29/02e 20 -3 ' LS A ASSOCIATES. CI ATES. INC. UEIR RESPONSE TO COMMP.NTS AU COS. S..2 CHURCH OPJESUS CHRIST OF LA'f TER DAY SAINTS TEMPLE Cl l'Y OF NEWPORT BEACH LJ i I 21. COMMENTS FROM BRIAN AND MARY DONOVAN P \CNB230 \RTC \RTC.doc .08/29/02. t LETTER 21 Brian and Mary Donovan ' 2123 Yacht Yankee ' Newport Beach, CA 92660 (949) 833 -8893 FAX (949) 833 -7555 ' August 6, 2002 ' James Campbell, Senior Planner Planning Department City of Newport Beach ' 3300 Newport Blvd. P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY QF NF-1�19 ° °A CH AM AUG U U 2002 PM ' Re: Comments On Draft Environmental Impact Report For Mormon Temple Dear Mr. Campbell: ' These are our comments on the referenced DEIR for the Mormon Temple dated June 2002 prepared by your office and LSA Associates, Inc. ' 1. Summary ' The DEIR is a fundamentally flawed document. It accepts without question seemingly dubious claims that religious considerations require that the temple be made of light granite blocks arranged in a monument like structure with a large ' tower topped by a golden statue and uses that as the starting point for its analysis. The conclusion that there is no significant impact flows almost inevitably from that extremely erroneous premise and starting point. In fact, any reasonable ' person viewing this massive structure, whose stated purpose is to be seen for miles around, would conclude that it will have an extremely significant aesthetic impact. It is totally unlike any surrounding religious structures, unlike the residential area ' in which it sits, and unlike any building in the entire city. This location is not the place for this structure. A fair and objective DEIR would have reached this ' conclusion. The city should deny permission for a granite structure with a tower and gold statue which exceeds city maximums and which is illuminated for any portion of the night. 1 I C 21 -A James Campbell, Senior Planner LETTER 21 (CONT) August 6, 2002 ' Page 2 We will address the specifics of the items listed in section 1.6, Potential ' Environmental Effect Matrix, below. While section 2.0 opening paragraph states that the DEIR " is intended to ' serve as an informational document," its wording and its repetition of conclusions without any facts to support them belies this description. Further, it presents ' information using a technique calculated to distract from the clear facts that make this structure unacceptable, e.g., describing massive blocks of granite as having "warm" tones while ignoring the fact that a monolithic granite block structure is totally out of character for this area. 21 JC Section 2.1 notes the city's discretion to grant or not to grant a waiver of ' City Ordinances regarding the 124 foot tower with the gold statue on top, well in excess of the limit required by current law. As noted above there is absolutely no discussion of when, if ever, such waivers have been granted in the past, nor any ' discussion of the circumstances and related considerations. The slant of the DEIR is approval without any good reason, as discussed in more detail below. 2 1 t 2. Detailed comments: Our comments are directed to specific sections of the DEIR in the order in ' which they appear. Regarding Section 1.1 and the Proposed City Actions, not only is the DEIR ' deficient for the reasons stated below, but in any event the dispensation from the law in Newport Beach, by granting a use permit to exceed the 50 foot height limit, should be denied in any event. ' The overall tone of the DEIR is, in our opinion, slanted towards approval of this structure which is completely incompatible with the neighborhood for which it ' is proposed. This slant begins in the Summary section 1.5 which concludes that because of the Project Design Features (PDFs) implemented, this project will "not result in significant environmental impacts." Yet, nowhere in the DEIR does there appear any discussion of why the Mormon Temple should have a waiver of the 50 21 - limit, and other city codes as well as Land Use Policies. Are these requirements ' routinely ignored? Has any other religious group's structure ever been granted such a waiver and, if so, what were the circumstances and facts surrounding the waiver and what was the extent of the waiver? This is a fundamental flaw of the ' DEIR, one of several in our opinion. We will address the specifics of the items listed in section 1.6, Potential ' Environmental Effect Matrix, below. While section 2.0 opening paragraph states that the DEIR " is intended to ' serve as an informational document," its wording and its repetition of conclusions without any facts to support them belies this description. Further, it presents ' information using a technique calculated to distract from the clear facts that make this structure unacceptable, e.g., describing massive blocks of granite as having "warm" tones while ignoring the fact that a monolithic granite block structure is totally out of character for this area. 21 JC Section 2.1 notes the city's discretion to grant or not to grant a waiver of ' City Ordinances regarding the 124 foot tower with the gold statue on top, well in excess of the limit required by current law. As noted above there is absolutely no discussion of when, if ever, such waivers have been granted in the past, nor any ' discussion of the circumstances and related considerations. The slant of the DEIR is approval without any good reason, as discussed in more detail below. 2 1 21 -C 21 -E LETTER 21 (CONT) James Campbell, Senior Planner ' August 6, 2002 Page 3 ' The DEIR seemingly confuses what should be objective descriptions of physical characteristics of the architecture proposed with apparent theology of the Mormon Religion. The DEIR interjects theological considerations where they are ' not relevant. Then, it fails to discuss at all why this totally inappropriate structure should be imposed on us and the other residents of the area adjoining this ' structure. The first such example is section 3.3.3 "Design Characteristics." It describes the 124 foot tower and the granite structure and refers to the tower as the "symbolic architectural connection with the infinite; it must be high enough to be ' visible at a distance that identifies the Temple as a source of the Church's highest and Holiest blessings," referencing a footnote citing some "Official Statement" of this group. Without intent to be flippant, the basic question is, who cares why this religion wants to violate city codes and construct something that is totally different ' from every other religious building in the area and certainly totally incompatible with the residential tone of the entire area? This temple is designed purposefully to be `visible at a distance" and to stand out (like the proverbial sore thumb in our ' opinion) and the DEIR accepts the purported religious reason as sufficient reason to ignore city ordinances and its obvious visual impact on the area. ' Certainly, this structure, lighted during all waking hours will be the center of attraction visible from virtually every major intersection as shown in the ' Figures/ "Views" in section 4 included with the DEIR. In short, this temple is a billboard for the Mormon religion, and we object, as we would to any advertising. Apparently, the authors of the DEIR have bought the proposition that since God apparently has directed 124 foot steeples with gold statues, the City of Newport Beach should accept that basic premise and ignore everyone else's rights and bend over backwards to accommodate it. That is seriously inappropriate. The issue is ' whether this structure is aesthetically consistent with its surroundings. The answer is clearly "no ". Consideration of the religious philosophy or alleged requirements of any religion should play no role other than for deciding if the project meets ' basic use requirements for the area, in this case, a church type structure. Apparently what has happened here is that this applicant has portrayed what is purely an architectural choice or preference as something divinely directed. We ' find it very difficult to believe that the religion has such requirements. In any event, the City's acceptance of the DEIR's acceptance of this basic premise as a major reason to give a dispensation from current law has serious implications, ' possibly even of constitutional dimensions, e.g. unwarranted Governmental support for a particular religion in what should be a purely secular decision. ' Reasonable architectural and zoning requirements and related rules that have been in place for many years should be applied objectively. That is the basic problem with the DEIR —it is not objective or reasonable regarding aesthetics. 21 -C 21 -E James Campbell, Senior Planner LETTER 21 (CONT) ' August 6, 2002 ' Page 4 A similar tone of deference to alleged religious requirements appears , regarding the description of "Temple Lighting" on p. 3 -12. The DEIR notes that "lighting plays a vital role in the expression of the Temple's symbolism ", etc. Therefore, the DEIR implies, we all must support that symbolism during all ' waking hours (beginning at 5 a.m., and until 11 p.m.); that is unreasonable and wrong. ' Section 3.6 Project Objectives notes, candidly we must admit, that what the Mormon Church wants is a billboard. The stated objective "is to have easy freeway access, a "highly visible site" with a steeple "sufficiently high and illuminated to ' be seen from a substantial distance ...." In this section, on p. 3 -14, a document generated by the Mormon Church called an "Official Statement" is quoted, saying that the design of temples is revealed by God to the President of the Church. We ' find it hard to believe that God is specifying architectural features. This communication is dated January 28, 2002, following negative comments that I know were received prior to that date, including our own letters dated October 31 , and December 10, 2001 to Todd Weber of the Planning Department. The inference we draw is that when presented with rational objections, both as to the nature of the structure and its incompatibility with the area and its imposition and 21 IF those who live here, the Mormon Church issued the "Official Statement" to tell us that the city should not require them to abide by reasonable city laws and ordinances because their religion says we can't. This section of the DEIR also ' quotes the former Secretary of Agriculture under President Eisenhower, Ezra Taft Benson, apparently also a church official, to the effect that steeples are important ' to Mormons. All of this is fine, but frankly we find the imposition of the "Official Policy" and the "theology" on us to be generally offensive and totally irrelevant to the zoning and land use issues that are involved here. ' Continuing with the theme that implies we in Newport Beach should be grateful to have this structure in our midst, p. 3 -15 says that the church has made , several "accommodations" by reducing the intensity of the lighting and changing the color of granite to a `warm earth tone." That phrase is used repeatedly throughout the DEIR. Obviously, the terminology is designed to distract from the ' fact that it is describing a massive granite structure unlike anything else for miles around. To use the words `warm earth tone" in conjunction with big chunks of granite is the ultimate in oxymorons. The DEIR implies that we should be ' appreciative because this `warm earth tone" granite is a "concession" from the white or off -white typically used by the Mormon Church. We suppose that this alternative is better than "dazzling white" as a prior iteration of the Temple ' planning was called in the newspaper. But again, to associate "warmth" with the word "granite" is preposterous. Ultimately it is the basic block structure and design that is offensive. The figures including 4.1.2, 4.1.3, 4.1.4, 4.1.5 and 4 , ' James Campbell, Senior Planner LETTER 21 (CONT) August 6, 2002 Page 5 particularly 4.18 show the invasive nature of this basic design. The latter Figure shows the view that we will look at virtually every day of our lives as long as we continue to live at our current address. We object. "Aesthetics" Section 4.1 is the section most focused on this offensive design. It purports to evaluate the impact of the design, but it does so in a manner clearly slanted to give excessive deference to the religious overtones and assertions of the applicants. The DEIR discussion of Views 1 -15, illustrated in the Figures, is again deceptive. For example, its description of View 7 (Figure 4.1.7) and View 13 notes that the project site is not visible, obviously ignoring the fact that the massive and overwrought steeple is clearly visible and stands out like a beacon (or a sore thumb). Of course that is the ultimate objective, and that is what is objectionable. The city wouldn't approve a billboard of this dimension in that location, but that is what this temple amounts to. The Mormon Church brought this property in 1992 according to the DEIR, and they knew the law and code restrictions in the city of Newport Beach and could readily see the architectural characteristics of the area. Nonetheless, they have ignored all of this and insist on installing something that is more appropriate to a Governmental center than to a residential area. The existing meeting house is obviously far more compatible with the area than this temple. If they want a temple it should be in the same general scheme as the meeting house and no more, or it should be located somewhere else. Page 4.1 -5 describes PDF 1 -1 as use of a light colored "earth tone" granite instead of white. Again, it is still granite and it is still being used in massive block format more appropriate to Governmental buildings and monuments than a structure installed in a residential area, next to other religious facilities which are compatible with the area. Page 4.1 -6 describes PDF 1 -3 as a reduction in lighting during the night. Why does there have to be any light at night, other than to serve as advertising for the Mormon Temple and the Mormon Church? We frankly do not want to be known as "living near the Mormon Temple ", just as we don't want to be known as living next to any other structure. Lighting at any hour proposed is unacceptable and totally inconsistent with this residential area. Section 4.1.4 lists the criteria for determining what constitutes a "significant impact." This structure clearly qualifies under all three criteria, namely, a substantial adverse effect on the scenic vista, it degrades the visual character of the area, and it creates new source of substantial light or glare. The ensuing pages of the DEIR try to explain in a distinctly slanted fashion why the I 1 21 -F CONT 21 -G 21 -H 21 -1 James Campbell, Senior Planner August 6, 2002 Page 6 LETTER 21 (CONT) minimal changes from what the Mormon Church really wants means that the impact is not "significant". Section 4.1.4.2 states that there are no impacts on scenic vistas. But, it is limited to discussion of general plan and "designated scenic vistas" while ignoring totally the views and aesthetics whether or not they have been "designated ". The "Views" in section 4 illustrate just how dominant and intrusive this structure will be. This section also says that the temple is essentially an "expansion" of the existing meeting house. It is far more than an "expansion ", it is a quantum leap in architectural inconsistency with the entire area; it does not resemble the meeting house in the slightest respect. The first full paragraph on p. 4.1 -8 says that since the steeple is "tapered" its impact on aesthetics is `less that significant." We totally disagree and we don't think any objective, rational person would agree with that statement. As stated in the Church's goals and objectives, the very purpose is to impact views: gold angels standing 124 feet in the sky are a significant impact no matter how tapered the granite is on which it perches. Also, as disclosed in the various "Views," the degree of "tapering" is minimal at best —it is still a bulky granite tower. The second paragraph on the same page continues the oxymoronic theme of describing the granite block structure as "warm" and "earth tone" granite, again seeking to mitigate the undeniable fact that this type of structure is totally inconsistent with the area. The fourth paragraph refers to "reduced" levels of lighting. What other structure in this area, or in any area of Newport Beach, is lighted to the extent that this structure will be? I think the answer is "none ". Therefore, whether the lighting is "reduced" or not is besides the point —there should not be any lighting. The ultimate conclusion in the fifth paragraph on p. 4.1 -8, that the "warm" and "earth tone" exterior and "reduced" level of lighting has no detrimental aesthetic effect and is not out of character with the area is, by any professional, objective, rational, or a reasonable evaluation, untrue. How anyone could describe the massive, block, granite, structure as consistent with anything other than Governmental buildings such as the Ziggurat in Laguna Niguel defies belief. The Temple is totally out of character even with its adjoining Mormon Church structure. The conclusion of the DEIR is biased or ill in- formed or indicates lack of objectivity, or all of the above. C1 I21 '7 CO, 21 21 -� i 2101 I James Campbell, Senior Planner LETTER 21 (CONT) ' August 6, 2002 Page 7 The comment on p. 4.1 -9 under the heading "View 3" and "View 4" referencing Figures 4.1.4 and 4.1.5, says: f"View of a church structure in an established church district would not be a surprising view. Horizon lines will be slighted [sic] altered by the Temple steeple; however, this is not considered a significant visual impact because of the tapered nature of the spire and the small area of visual obstruction of distant views." Emphasis added. I I L i I I I I 7 U 11 I This statement defies comprehension. This church structure is very "surprising" in this established church district because it is totally different and totally out of character, and it has very "significant visual impact." One would expect no less since the very objective of the steeple and the temple have been stated by the Mormon church, to be is to attract attention. None of the other religious structures in the area are so designed. And as far as the "tapered" nature, the Washington Monument is also "tapered" but surely no one would contend that such a structure would be appropriate in this area of Newport Beach (even on a scaled down basis.) At p. 4.1 -9, in commenting on "View 5, View 6, View 7, and View 8" (Figures 4.1.6 through .9), the DEIR argues that the steeple will be visible and will "partially" diminish horizon lines but that the "view impact is minimal." Again, this is an illogical and unreasonable statement. View 7 shows that as one drives down San Miguel one is consistently hit in the face with this particular religions de facto billboard. Obviously, the view impact is substantial, not minimal, because of its large size and "blocky" design in this residential area. The evaluation of Views 11 -15 on pp. 4.1 -10 again reaches the obviously irrational conclusion that aesthetic impacts are less than significant. To the contrary, these Views illustrate how dominant this structure will be, particularly View 11. They also illustrate how this area of Newport Beach will becomes known as the "Mormon area" or something similar because of the dominance of this monolithic, block granite structure, with a golden angel statue at the top. The statement that the implementation of PDF's ensure visual effects are "less than significant" really defies description. That is not a rational, unbiased conclusion. The "Lighting Study" paragraph on p. 4.1 -10 essentially concludes that because lighting the steeple at all hours is allegedly a tenet of the Mormon Religion ( "lighting plays an important role in the expression of the Temple's religious symbolism "), the lighting scheme proposed of the facade, tower and golden angel is acceptable. See particularly, last paragraph on p. 4.1 -11 where the DEIR says that the lighting has been designed to "minimize" illumination but still support the Mormon Church "theology" which supposedly has a commandment or 7 21 -L CON- 21- James Campbell, Senior Planner LETTER 21 (CONT) ' August 6, 2002 ' Page 8 other scriptural requirement for lights. Again, it is hard to believe that this is a principal of the Mormon Religion, but in any event, that is not a basis for approving something that no other structure religious or otherwise has received in 1 the city of Newport Beach, at least of this height and for other than safety reasons 21 �V in a residential area. This last paragraph also describes the. lighting as" a soft and warm illumination of the Temple facility." Besides being a value judgment in- COQ appropriate to a professional DEIR, let us be realistic: lighting is lighting, and any lighting on this block granite structure with a golden statue obviously will make the structure visible for miles around, accomplishing the Mormon Church's goal but imposing on residents of the city in this area unwanted and unwarranted intrusion on the views and on the very character of the neighborhood. Whether the lights are "soft and warm" or any other adjective one chooses is besides the ' point. Page 4.1 -12 top paragraph again continues the slanted character of the DEIR by describing the block granite structure of the temple as "warm earth tone granite." Again, there is nothing "warm" about granite, especially when lighted at night; it will stand out no matter what the "tone" of the granite. The nighttime simulation provided by Figure 4.1.17 illustrates this fact. It makes the case that this is a totally objectionable structure, that the lighting does not cure the problem, whether it is "warm" or not, and should be rejected. Anyone objectively viewing ' that Figure cannot reach any conclusion other than that this is totally incompatible with the area and is aesthetically offensive. 21 1n To summarize, the nature of the structure, block granite, with this large steeple and a golden statue, is objectionable. And, even if it was acceptable, which it is not, lighting for any period of night as shown in Figure 4.1 -17 is totally objectionable. We do not want to look at the structure during the day, and certainly not at night. If a Temple is desired in Newport Beach, it should conform with the laws that everyone else must conform to and that every other religious group apparently has had no problem with. It should not exceed the 50 foot height limit and should not be illuminated at night, whether the lighting is considered by DEIR authors as "soft" or not. The third paragraph on p. 4.1 -12 reaches the conclusion that the lighting "ensures compatibility with the surrounding community while maintaining the expression of the Temple's religious symbolism." That is not true. It is totally incompatible with the surrounding community; all it does is maximize the religious symbolism, at least as recently represented by the Mormon Church, and imposes it on everyone else whether they like it or not. We object. 1 1 Tames Campbell, senior Planner LETTER 21 (CONT) August 6, 2002 Page 9 ' Paragraph 4.1.6 "Cumulative Impacts" continues the approach of reaching a conclusion without facts to support it. While noting that the visual character of the area "is established" it then says that the Mormon Temple "will continue the existing visual pattern of the surrounding area." I suggest the city take a survey of anyone by showing them all of these pictures and ask them, is this massive granite block structure with a 124 foot high tower and a golden statue similar to anything in the area or for miles around other the perhaps the Ziggurat in Laguna Niguel? This conclusion is obviously faulty and this entire portion (section 4.1) of the ' DEIR should be rejected out of hand for that reason. Obviously the ultimate conclusion in 4.1.7 that there will be no significant "unavoidable adverse aesthetic impacts" is false. There are significant aesthetic impacts and they are clearly avoidable by eliminating the block granite structure nature of the temple and especially the tower with the golden statue, and by eliminating lights at night. Section 4.4 Land Use has sections addressing legal requirements and impacts. Section 4.4.5.1 beginning at p. 4.4:6 discusses "Impacts Found to Be Less than Significant", in view of city Land Use Policies. The discussion of consistency with Land Use Policy D beginning at p. 4.4 -7 argues that the temple has been planned with a consideration of "View Impacts" and that the Mormons have made "several accommodations, to the extent practicable, for the i preservation of views from adjacent residential land uses," referring to the level ■ and hours of lighting demanded and the `warm, light earth tone" granite. We disagree strenuously that there has been any "consideration" of view impacts. ' Obviously, this structure will stand out and totally impact all views. That is its purpose and reason for existence. In addition, the conclusion that 1 "accommodations to the extent practicable" make it acceptable is irrational. It is as if we should be grateful to the Mormon Church for not demanding a bigger and brighter structure, even more impacting that the current version. As applicants, it is their obligation to conform to reasonable laws and ordinances; the "accommodations" required are for them to comply with the law, not for them to do only what they have proclaimed to be "practicable." Obviously, the project is totally inconsistent with Land Use Policy D. Similarly it is inconsistent with Land Use Policy F, that developments "ensure [that] the beauty and charm of existint; residential neighborhoods is ' maintained .... [and that developments] are aesthetically pleasing and compatible with surrounding land uses..." Clearly, this project does not comply. The ' Consistency Analysis is totally irrational. It cites the "light earth tone" granite material and "reduced" illumination and hours. Obviously, that begs the question. Any illumination is totally inconsistent with the existing residential neighborhood and a block granite structure with a tower and a gold statue that stands out as this one will, acting as a billboard for this particular religion, is inconsistent with this 9 I 21 -C 21 -P 21 -Q James Campbell, Senior Planner August 6, 2002 Page 10 LETTER 21 (CONT) residential neighborhood. The Consistency Analysis that this use is consistent with Land Use Policy F illustrates why the DEIR is fundamentally flawed and biased. In section 4.4.5.2 of the Land Use discussion, the DEIR cites the fact that the temple is in the vicinity of other churches. It then says that the proposed temple `compliments" these other land uses and "continues" that pattern of use but also acknowledges at the bottom of p. 4.4 -10 that there "could" be the potential for visual conflict associated with the height of the steeple and light and glare. Obviously, there is no other structure like this monument in the proposed location or anywhere else in Newport Beach. It is totally different from the other churches and does not `compliment" them. And, there is a `visual conflict" for everyone who lives in this area and who must use the roads bounding the project which amount to virtually all roads leading to, passing through, and passing by Newport Beach. See Figures in Section 4. The ultimate conclusion of 4.4.7 that there will "be no significant unavoidable adverse land use impacts" because of this project is obviously unreasonable and unsupported by the facts. There are "significant" adverse aesthetic /view impacts and they are totally avoidable by eliminating the granite block structure and tower and the golden statue and the li ghting and by making this group comply with the law that every other religious group has apparently complied with. Section 5.0 "Alternatives To The Proposed Projects" proceeds from the unsupportable conclusion that there are no significant impact. Specifically, p.5 -2 begins the discussion by saying "Because the proposed project will not result in significant environmental impacts, the range of options available for review is limited ". From this opening remark, the reader obviously knows where this portion of the DEIR is headed; the conclusion that only this design is acceptable, and nothing less. That inference is validated by the subsequent text. The conclusion is irrational. First, p. 5 -2 to p. 5 -3 doesn't even consider any "alternative locations" because of the faulty premise that there are no significant environmental impacts; as discussed above, there certainly are. Indeed, this is a very viable alternative. This massive structure might be compatible with the Newport Center area of Newport Beach since there are other structures of similar magnitude in that area. Or, obviously, other portions of Orange County would be acceptable and more compatible than this particular residential neighborhood. The Mormon Church clearly knew the nature of the neighborhood in which they were buying in 1992 and they should not be permitted to allow their faulty choice of locations guide the 10 I 21- CONT I 1 21 -R I 21� i 1 21 Discussion of Alternative 1, no project/no build at p. 5 -5 third paragraph of 5.5.1, notes that the Mormon Church "as the land owner has the right to develop James Campbell, Senior Planner LETTER 21 (CONT) August 6, 2002 Page I I City's decision regarding this structure and whether it should be exempted from rules applicable to everyone else. ' Section 5.3 describes the alternatives examined in detail, the "no project" and the "reduced intensity" alternatives. But again, it begins the discussion in ' evaluating these alternatives by first describing the Proposed Project and the "Project Objectives" at section 5.4.2 on p. 5-4 in terms which tell the reader what 1 the inevitable conclusion will be. The Mormon objectives are again stated, at p. 5- 4, as providing easy freeway access, and "a highly visible site and a distinctive Temple with a steeple sufficiently high and illuminated to be seen from a ' substantial distance." The DEIR accepts this objective without question as the starting point for the "analysis," and does not note the obvious, that that objective is totally incompatible with the residential area. The starting point should be compatibility and the architectural choice proposed, not what this group says it ' wants. Discussion of Alternative 1, no project/no build at p. 5 -5 third paragraph of ' The reduced intensity alternative is discussed at the beginning of p.5 -6 and consist of a 20% reduction in height of this tower and the hours of illumination. It concludes, as we understand it, that the "Mormon Church's objectives would be accomplished but also notes that "nighttime lighting would not result in an adverse aesthetic effect " —a statement that is obviously wrong. See Figure 4.1 -17 and compare that with anything else in the vicinity for miles around. Nothing looks remotely anything like this structure. It will stand out, as it is designed to, and impose on all residents of the city in this area. Ultimately, this alternative is ' II 21 -T CONT 21 -U 21 -V 21 -W 5.5.1, notes that the Mormon Church "as the land owner has the right to develop the property with a public /semipublic facility" in the event that the temple is not approved. Thus, the ensuing statement/conclusion at 5.5.3.1 that the no project/no build alternative would leave the project site in its existing "undeveloped" state is false. The project site could be compatible with the surrounding area either by a different temple design or some other use, or simply landscaping for the benefit of ' church members and the surrounding community. Similarly, the conclusion at 5.5.3.4 that the no project/no build alternative would not be consistent with the ' General Plan is wrong. It says that the site "has been planned for development as a public /semi - public use." But then it erroneously concludes that the no -build alternative would "not implement the city's goals and policies of the General 1 Plan," obviously contradicting the common sense statement at 5.5.1 that the Mormon Church has "the right to develop this property." They cannot reasonably complain if they are prohibited from building the massive structure proposed under this alternative; they well knew that such use was totally incompatible with ' this area —anyone looking at the area could see that obvious fact! ' The reduced intensity alternative is discussed at the beginning of p.5 -6 and consist of a 20% reduction in height of this tower and the hours of illumination. It concludes, as we understand it, that the "Mormon Church's objectives would be accomplished but also notes that "nighttime lighting would not result in an adverse aesthetic effect " —a statement that is obviously wrong. See Figure 4.1 -17 and compare that with anything else in the vicinity for miles around. Nothing looks remotely anything like this structure. It will stand out, as it is designed to, and impose on all residents of the city in this area. Ultimately, this alternative is ' II 21 -T CONT 21 -U 21 -V 21 -W ' 1 James Campbell, Senior Planner LETTER 21 (CONT) August 6, 2002 ' Page 12 unacceptable. The DEIR participants obviously are starting with the premise that they are going to approve a block granite structure with a tower and a golden statue. That is where the DEIR misses the point and, we believe, violates the law 21 -E. and perhaps even the constitution. Properly drafted, the DEIR should have COI considered an alternative which provided for a temple that is unlit, and complies with city codes and regulations, and is consistent with the surrounding area including churches. The failure to include such a common sense alternative is a major fundamental defect of the DEIR. 3. Conclusion The DEIR is fundamentally flawed by its obvious predisposition to approve some form of block granite structure with a tower and golden statue, illuminated for all or some portion of every night during the year. Such a structure might be compatible with a Civic Center area or business area, e.g., the new Catholic t Cathedral in downtown Las Angeles adjacent to other large buildings in the Music 21 it Center and adjacent. But the current plan is totally incompatible with this area. The DEIR erroneously concludes, against all reason, that the current plan or any I ' similar plan, does not cause significant adverse environmental impacts, principally aesthetic. The DEIR is a flawed document and cannot serve as a basis for approval of this structure or any waiver or deviation from city laws and I ' ordinances. Very truly yours, ' i Brian and Mary Donova , I 12 1 i I I I LSA ASSOCI ATE S. INC. DEIR RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ADCOST So 2 CHURCH Oh' JESUS CHRIST Oh' LATTER DAY SAINTS TEMPLE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 21. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FROM BRIAN AND MARY DONOVAN 21 -A The commentor raises objections to the design and height of the proposed Temple structure and requests denial of the project. The comment does not raise substantial evidence that the EIR is inadequate in satisfying the requirements of CEQA. The commentor's opposition to the project will be forwarded to the decision makers. 21 -B The commentor's concerns relate to the processing of the Conditional Use Permit through established City of Newport Beach processes, which is an administrative matter outside the purview of CEQA. These issues will be discussed in the Staff Report prepared by the City of Newport Beach Planning Staff. The EIR identifies all discretionary actions required for project approval, consistent with Section 15124(d)(1)(b) of the CEQA Guidelines. 21 -F Please refer to Response to Comment 21 -E (project objectives) and the Aesthetics and Light and Glare General Responses (visual impact methodology and assessment.). The commentor's statements related to visual impacts of the structure are acknowledged; however, the commentor does not provide support for its finding. The commentor does not P: \CN8230\ RTC \RTC doc.08 /29/02,, --------- `- ' - - - -- - -- 21 -1 21 -C Please refer to Response to Comment 21 -B regarding the Conditional Use Permit processing and relationship to CEQA. Please refer to the Aesthetics General Response regarding the visual impact methodology and conclusions. 21 -D The commentor raises concerns related to the project description and objectives. Both the project description and project objectives have been developed consistent with Section 15124 of the CEQA Guidelines. Section 15124(b) of the CEQA Guidelines requires that: "...The statement of objectives should include the underlying purpose of the project..... ". CEQA does not require an EIR to evaluate the validity of project objectives. Development of the project description and objectives is based on information provided by the project applicant ' documenting the "purpose" for and design of the proposed facility. Given that the design of the building is based on achieving identified objectives, it is appropriate to utilize the information provided by the applicant as a starting point for environmental analysis. 21 -E The commentor express many opinions regarding the compatibility of the project with the surrounding area. These comments will be forwarded to the decision makers for consideration. Additionally, please refer to Responses to Comments 21 -D (project objective) and 21 -B (Conditional Use Permit process), and Aesthetics and Light and Glare General Responses (visual impact methodology and assessment). The commentor's statements are acknowledged but are not substantiated by the technical analysis included in the EIR. The ' comment does not provide specific evidence or new information suggesting that the information contained in the EIR is inadequate. In the absence of data or substantiating evidence to the contrary, the conclusion of the EIR may be relied upon. The comment will be forwarded to the decision makers. 21 -F Please refer to Response to Comment 21 -E (project objectives) and the Aesthetics and Light and Glare General Responses (visual impact methodology and assessment.). The commentor's statements related to visual impacts of the structure are acknowledged; however, the commentor does not provide support for its finding. The commentor does not P: \CN8230\ RTC \RTC doc.08 /29/02,, --------- `- ' - - - -- - -- 21 -1 LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. AVCUST 2002 OEIR RESPONSE TO COMMENTS CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER DAY SAINTS TEMPLE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH provide specific evidence or new information suggesting that the information contained in the EIR is inadequate. In the absence of data or substantiating evidence to the contrary, the conclusion of the EIR may be relied upon. The commentor's objections to the height, style and lighting of the structure will be forwarded to the decision makers. 21 -G Please refer to Response to Comment 21 -D (project objectives) and the Aesthetics and Light and Glare General Responses (visual impact methodology and assessment.). The commentor's statements related to visual impacts of the structure are acknowledged; however, the commentor does not provide support for its finding. The commentor does not provide specific evidence or new information suggesting that the information contained in the EIR is inadequate. In the absence of data or substantiating evidence to the contrary, the conclusion of the EIR may be relied upon. The commentor's objections to the height, style and lighting of the structure and support for a structure similar to the existing Stake Center will be forwarded to the decision makers. 21 -H Please refer to the Aesthetics and Light and Glare General Responses regarding the methodology and assessment of visual impacts. The commentor's objection of the lighting program will be forwarded to the decision makers. 21 -I Please refer to the Aesthetics and Light and Glare General Responses regarding the methodology and assessment of visual impacts. The commentor's statements related to visual impacts of the structure are acknowledged; however, the commentor does not provide support for its finding. The comment does not provide specific evidence or new information suggesting that the information contained in the EIR is inadequate. In the absence of data or substantiating evidence to the contrary, the conclusion of the EIR may be relied upon. The commentor's concerns regarding the conclusions of the visual assessment will be forwarded to the decision makers. 21 -J Please refer to the Aesthetics General Response for a discussion of the significance criteria used to determined aesthetic impact. The commentor does not raise any specific environmental concerns in the latter portion of the comment; therefore, no response is necessary. The comment will be forwarded to the decision makers for consideration. 21 -K Please refer to the Aesthetics and Light and Glare General Responses regarding the methodology and assessment of visual impacts. The commentor's statements related to visual impacts of the structure are acknowledged; however, the commentor does not provide support for its finding. The reference to "reduced lighting" levels refers to the Applicant's original lighting concept to light the Temple 24 hours a day. The comment does not provide specific evidence or new information suggesting that the information contained in the EIR is inadequate. In the absence of data or substantiating evidence to the contrary, the conclusion of the EIR may be relied upon. The commentor's opinion regarding the visual assessment in the EIR may be forwarded to the decision makers. 21 -L Please refer to the Aesthetics and Light and Glare General Responses regarding the methodology and assessment of visual impacts. The commentor's statements related to visual impacts of the structure are acknowledged; however, the commentor does not provide support for its finding. The comment does not provide specific evidence or new information P: \CNB230\RTC\RTC.doc 08 /29102» i i I I O I I 11 I I I LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. AUDOST TOOK DEIR RESPONSE TO COMMENTS CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER DAY SAINTS TEMPLE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH suggesting that the information contained in the EIR is inadequate. In the absence of data or substantiating evidence to the contrary, the conclusion of the EIR may be relied upon. The commentor's concerns regarding the conclusions of the visual assessment will be forwarded to the decision makers. 21 -M Please refer to Light and Glare General Response regarding the methodology and assessment of visual impacts. The commentor's statements related to visual impacts of the structure are acknowledged; however, the commentor does not provide support for its finding. The comment does not provide specific evidence or new information suggesting that the information contained in the EIR is inadequate. In the absence of data or substantiating evidence to the contrary, the conclusion of the EIR may be relied upon. The commentor's opinion regarding the lighting of the proposed facility will be forwarded to the decision makers. 21 -N Please refer to Response to Comments 21 -B (Conditional Use Permit process) and 21 -D (project objectives), and the Aesthetics and Light and Glare General Responses (visual impact methodology and assessment.). The commentor's statements related to visual impacts of the structure are acknowledged; however, the commentor does not provide support for its finding. The comment does not provide specific evidence or new information suggesting that the information contained in the EIR is inadequate. In the absence of data or substantiating evidence to the contrary, the conclusion of the EIR may be relied upon. The commentor's opinion regarding the height and lighting of the proposed facility will be forwarded to the decision makers. 21 -0 Please refer to the Aesthetics and Light and Glare General Responses (visual impact methodology and assessment.). The commentor's statements related to visual impacts of the structure are acknowledged; however, the commentor does not provide support for its finding. The comment does not provide specific evidence or new information suggesting that the information contained in the EIR is inadequate. In the absence of data or substantiating evidence to the contrary, the conclusion of the EIR may be relied upon. The commentor's objection to the height, architectural design and lighting of the proposed facility will be forwarded to the decision makers. 21 -P Please refer to Response to Comment 21 -D (project objectives) and the Aesthetics and Light and Glare General Responses (visual impact methodology and assessment.). The commentor's statements related to visual impacts of the structure are acknowledged; however, the commentor does not provide support for its finding. The comment does not provide specific evidence or new information suggesting that the information contained in the EIR is inadequate. In the absence of data or substantiating evidence to the contrary, the conclusion of the EIR may be relied upon. The commentor's opinion regarding the height, design and lighting of the proposed facility will be forwarded to the decision makers. 21 -Q Land use compatibility impacts identified by the commentor focus on visual impacts associated with the proposed structure. Please refer to the Aesthetics and Light and Glare General Responses regarding the methodology and conclusions of the visual impact assessment. The commentor's statements are acknowledged but are not substantiated by the technical analysis included in the EIR. In the absence of data or substantiating evidence to P' \CNB230 \RTC \RTC doc .09/29102. LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. AUGUST 2009 the contrary, the conclusions of the EIR may be relied upon. The commentor's opinion regarding land use compatibility is acknowledged and will be forwarded to the decision makers. _ 21 -R Land use compatibility impacts identified by the commentor focus on visual impacts associated with the proposed structure. Please refer to the Aesthetics and Light and Glare General Responses regarding the methodology and conclusions of the visual impact assessment. The commentor's statements are acknowledged but are not substantiated by the technical analysis included in the EIR. In the absence of data or substantiating evidence to the contrary, the conclusions of the EIR may be relied upon. The commentor's opinion regarding land use compatibility is acknowledged and will be forwarded to the decision makers. 21 -S Land use compatibility impacts identified by the commentor focus on visual impacts associated with the proposed structure. Please refer to the Aesthetics and Light and Glare General Responses regarding the methodology and conclusions of the visual impact assessment. The commentor's statements are acknowledged but are not substantiated by the technical analysis included in the EIR. In the absence of data or substantiating evidence to the contrary, the conclusions of the EIR may be relied upon. The commentor's opinion regarding land use compatibility is acknowledged and will be forwarded to the decision makers. 21 -T The alternatives analysis provided in Section 5.0 of the EIR is consistent with the requirements outlined in Sections 15126.6(a) through (f) of the CEQA Guidelines. The commentor's statements are acknowledged but are not substantiated by the technical analysis included in the EIR. Please refer to the Aesthetics General Response regarding the significance criteria utilized to assess visual impacts. In the absence of data or substantiating evidence to the contrary, the conclusion of the EIR may be retied upon. The commentor's suggestion that the proposed Temple would be more compatible with Newport Center is acknowledged and will be forwarded to the decision makers. 21 -U Please refer to Responses to Comments 21 -D (project description/objectives) and 21 -T (alternatives). 21 -V The No Project/No Build Alternative identified in Section 5.3 of the EIR evaluated no development on the project site. Implementation of this condition would not implement the General Plan objectives. Consideration of a No Project/Development of Project Site with Use Permitted by Right Alternative in Section 4.2, which would have included an alternative public use on site and would assist in implementing the General Plan objectives, was withdrawn from consideration since 1) there were no significant impacts to be lessened by this alternative, and 2) it did not meet most of the project objectives. Hence, the statement provided in the EIR relating to the No Project/No Build Alternative is correct. 21 -W Please refer to Responses to Comments 21 -D (project description/objectives) and 21 -T (alternatives), and the Light and Glare General Response. As described in Section 5.0 of the EIR, assessment of alternatives that did not meet the project objectives were not considered. The commentor's statements are acknowledged but not substantiated by the technical analysis P: \CNB230 \RTC\RTC.dm 08/29/02, 21-17 1 7 I 11 L L n LJ I I [_J I ' DEIR RESPONSE TO COMMENTS CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER DAY SAINTS TEMPLE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH the contrary, the conclusions of the EIR may be relied upon. The commentor's opinion regarding land use compatibility is acknowledged and will be forwarded to the decision makers. _ 21 -R Land use compatibility impacts identified by the commentor focus on visual impacts associated with the proposed structure. Please refer to the Aesthetics and Light and Glare General Responses regarding the methodology and conclusions of the visual impact assessment. The commentor's statements are acknowledged but are not substantiated by the technical analysis included in the EIR. In the absence of data or substantiating evidence to the contrary, the conclusions of the EIR may be relied upon. The commentor's opinion regarding land use compatibility is acknowledged and will be forwarded to the decision makers. 21 -S Land use compatibility impacts identified by the commentor focus on visual impacts associated with the proposed structure. Please refer to the Aesthetics and Light and Glare General Responses regarding the methodology and conclusions of the visual impact assessment. The commentor's statements are acknowledged but are not substantiated by the technical analysis included in the EIR. In the absence of data or substantiating evidence to the contrary, the conclusions of the EIR may be relied upon. The commentor's opinion regarding land use compatibility is acknowledged and will be forwarded to the decision makers. 21 -T The alternatives analysis provided in Section 5.0 of the EIR is consistent with the requirements outlined in Sections 15126.6(a) through (f) of the CEQA Guidelines. The commentor's statements are acknowledged but are not substantiated by the technical analysis included in the EIR. Please refer to the Aesthetics General Response regarding the significance criteria utilized to assess visual impacts. In the absence of data or substantiating evidence to the contrary, the conclusion of the EIR may be retied upon. The commentor's suggestion that the proposed Temple would be more compatible with Newport Center is acknowledged and will be forwarded to the decision makers. 21 -U Please refer to Responses to Comments 21 -D (project description/objectives) and 21 -T (alternatives). 21 -V The No Project/No Build Alternative identified in Section 5.3 of the EIR evaluated no development on the project site. Implementation of this condition would not implement the General Plan objectives. Consideration of a No Project/Development of Project Site with Use Permitted by Right Alternative in Section 4.2, which would have included an alternative public use on site and would assist in implementing the General Plan objectives, was withdrawn from consideration since 1) there were no significant impacts to be lessened by this alternative, and 2) it did not meet most of the project objectives. Hence, the statement provided in the EIR relating to the No Project/No Build Alternative is correct. 21 -W Please refer to Responses to Comments 21 -D (project description/objectives) and 21 -T (alternatives), and the Light and Glare General Response. As described in Section 5.0 of the EIR, assessment of alternatives that did not meet the project objectives were not considered. The commentor's statements are acknowledged but not substantiated by the technical analysis P: \CNB230 \RTC\RTC.dm 08/29/02, 21-17 1 7 I 11 L L n LJ I I [_J I 1 r 1 1 1 r r r 1 1 1 1 r 1 r LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. AUGUST 2002 O¢IR RESPONSE TO COMMENTS CHURCH OE J¢SVY CIi R1Y"F OF LATTER DAY SAINTR TEMPLE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH included in the EIR. In the absence of data or substantiated by evidence to the contrary, the conclusions of the EIR may be relied upon. The commentor's opinion regarding the alternatives analysis is acknowledged and will be forwarded to the decision makers. 21 -X Please refer to Response to Comment 21 -Q regarding the compatibility of the proposed facility with surrounding land uses, and Response to Comment 21 -B regarding the Conditional Use Permit processing. P' \CNB230 \RTC\RTC.dM 110829102- -- - 21 -18 i 1 i I 1 I I 1 [J 1 I I 1 1 E] 1 1 1 LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. AD COST zoos CRIS RESPONSE "1'0 COMMENTS CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER DAY SAINTS TEMPLE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACU 22. COMMENTS FROM GREGORY DILLION P: \CN8230 \RTC \RTC.doc 1,0829/021 Page 1 of 1 LETTER 22 Campbell, James From: Gregory Dillion [thedillions @earthlink.net] Sent: Friday, August 09, 200210:27 PM ' To: Campbell, James Cc: jhff @aol.com Subject: RE: Use Permit No. 2001 -036; Site Plan Review No. 2001 -05; Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints ' Ladies and Gentlemen: ' After having reviewed the EIR, we renew our objection to the height of the steeple for all of the reasons stated in previous correspondence. ' We note further that is patently offensive for our "neighbors" to threaten litigation at every turn to thwart community involvement in and education on this issue. Obviously, the homeowners' associations and individuals opposing the steeple are not as organized, well funded or politically connected as the proponents of the steeple. The Federal legislation ultimately at issue was intended to prohibit discrimination against religious institutions ' based on zoning regulations. Clearly, this is not the case here where this particular religious institution already enjoys an exception to local zoning for its current structure, and several religious institutions are located within a short distance of this site. Moreover, the legislation was not intended to enable religious institutions to trample the freedoms and rights of their neighbors nor to grant religious institutions immunity from reasonable zoning controls ' consistently applied. We would hope that the Applicant would respect its neighbors and would not seek to impose this extraordinary 12 story structure in the middle of a community of two story buildings. ' Very truly yours, ' Cindy and Greg Dillion Corona del Mar i RECEIVED BY I PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY 0c: h1 F1.1 p nCn:.H AM AUG I! 7. 2002 PM 7181911011' 112111218141516 1 1 1 08/12/2002 22- 1 1 1 LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. AUGUST 2002 DEIR RESPONSE TO COMMENTS CHURCH OF JF.SCS CHRIST Of LATTER DAY SAINTS TEMPI. F. CITY OF NEWPORT REACYI 22. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS FROM GREGORY DILLION 22 -A The commentor expresses opposition to the proposed height of the project. No environmental issues were raised by the commentor, and no further response is required. The comment will be forwarded to the decision makers for consideration. PACNB230 \RTC \RTC doc .08/29/02» -- 22 -3 ' LS.1 ASSOC1.1TRS. INC. DEIR RESPONSE TO COMMI,N"FS .1U C UST ROOK CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF L.1T"1'tR DAY S.11NTS TEMPLE CITY OF NE WPOR "F BEACH 1 1 23. COMMENTS FROM ALBERT AND FAYE ECCLES 11 1 LJ F] U L� I [] I I P.\CNB230 \RT0RTC.doc .08/29/02,, I I I F_ 1 ' I 1 LETTER 23 ALBERT ECCLES, JR & FAYE S. ECCLES 1527 Dorothy Lane Newport Beach, CA 92660 (949) 642 -1123 REGEIVEP &RTMV'II 1 Fax 642 -1161 Email fecclesQadelohia .net P�NpF August 5, 2002 G,� pub 3 1002 PM A 8gllolllll�lll�l�14616 inn Campbell, Senior Planner ZI l City Planning Dept.' 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92663 Re: Environmental Impact Report (EIR) Temple at Bonita Canyon Dr. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter -day Saints (LDS Temple) ' , Dear Mr. Campbell: We have been residents ofNewport Beach for 37 years. We have always voted in all elections and been most interested in our community, as well as taken part in community affairs. All five of our children graduated from Newport Harbor High School. A daughter and her husband are also residents ofNewport Beach. The quality of life in Newport Beach is very important to us and our family. We feel that churches (of all denominations) represent good moral values in the community. We have noted that churches in residential neighborhoods are attractive and keep up the property values. We take pride in the look of our city, its homes, its architecture, its safety and particularly as a community of families. We have read the EIR regarding the LDS Temple and were particularly pleased to see the computerized pictures showing how it will look. We feel it will represent a fine example of attractive architecture as well as be a good example for the community. We note the proposed park around the temple will be a lovely place for people to spend time and enjoy the beauties of nature. The fighting in the evening, as with other buildings, should enhance the attractiveness of the area. We have many friends and conduct business in the Bonita Canyon area, so we can not imagine anything but positive things will come from the LDS temple building and its surroundings. We highly urge that you favorably consider recommending to the City Council the granting of the permits to build this fine LDS temple structure. .1� 23 -A 1 1 LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. AUCOST 20 DEIR RESPONSE TO COMMENTS CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER OAY SAINTS TEMPLE. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 23. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS FROM ALBERT AND FAYE ECCLES 23 -A The commentor expresses support of the proposed project and agreement with the conclusions of the Draft Environmental Impact Report. No environmental issues were raised by the commentor, and further response is not required. The comment will be forwarded to the decision makers for consideration. PACN3230 \RTC \RTC.doc 80829/02,, 23 -3 ' LSA ASS O CIATES.INC. HEIR RESPONSE TO COMMENTS AUCOST ROOK CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER pAV SA1 Nl'R TEMPLE. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 1 1 J 11 I 11 24. COMMENTS FROM JERI EFFINGER P. \CNB230 \RTC \RTC.doc a0829102. 1 1 1 1 1 Jeri Effmgw August 8, 2002 James W. Campbell, Senior Planner Planning Department City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard P.O. Box 1788 Newport Beach, CA 82858 -8915 LETTER 24 2764 Nnhiew DTI" Newport Bench, CA 92660 RE Draft EIR for the Propomed Mormon Temple PLANNING RECEIVED CITY nF NFU1vnpT rcACH AM AUG 12 2002 PM �t8t9t1011111211.1$I$I¢1516 Dear Mr. Campbell As a long time residents of the Harbor View Knoll Community Association, I am very concerned over the impact that the architectural features of the proposed Mormon Temple adjacent to my home will have on me. I strongly object to the proposed height of the steeple and the lighting of the Temple. I wish to go on record requesting that the height of the steeple be no more than 50 feet and that the steeple not be fit at night Sincerely, JerlEffinger 24 -A 1 1 1 1 1 1 LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. AUCUST 2002 pE1R RFPON SE TO COMMENTS CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST S OF 1. AT DAY SAINTS l'EMPLE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 24. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS FROM JERI EFFINGER 24 -A The commentor expresses opposition to the proposed height of the steeple and the lighting of the Temple. The comment is noted and will be forwarded to the decision makers for consideration. PACN6230WORTC doc .08291021 24 -3 ' LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. DEIR RESPONSE. TO COMMENTS AU CUST 9009 CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER DAY SAINTS TEMPLE CITY OF NF WPORT BEACH 1 I CJ 1 25. COMMENTS FROM JOE FOX P.\CN8230\RTC \RTC.doc 808/29/02,, ' LETTER 25 ' Campbell, James From: JOE FOX Ofoxosagef hotmail.com] ' Sent: To: Wednesday, July 17, 200211:56 AM jcampbell @city .newport- beach.ca.us Subject: MORMON TEMPLE IN NEWPORT BEACH L 1 1 I I GOOD MORNING MR. CAMPBELL The purpose of this message is to inform you that I am strongly opposed to the Mormon Temple (tall tower /steeple). My wife and I have lived at 2226 Port Lerwick Place in Harbor View since December, 1973. A tall structure would block our view, and, besides, it would simply be unnecessary. Please pass this information on to the appropriate persons. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. Joe & Kathy Fox 2226 Port Lerwick P1 Newport Beach, CA 92660 -5423 Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http: / /messenger.msn.com 1 25 -A ' L9h h99p CIhTE9. INC. OEIR RESPONSE TO COMMENTS AUCII ]0 0] CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER DAY SAINTS TEMPLE. CITY OF NEWPORT PEAOH [1 ' 25. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS FROM JOE FOX ' 25 -A The commentor expresses opposition to the height of the proposed project. No environmental issues were raised by the commentor, and further response is not required. 1 1 1 1 F [1 1 1 1 1 P: \CNB2WRTC\RTC.doc .08/29/021 ' LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. DEIR RESPONSE TO COMMENTS AUCUST 7007 CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER DAY SAINTS TENPLE CITY OF NEWPORT REACH I F L I H n H I u 1 I H u 26. COMMENTS FROM NANCY FULLER ' P' \CNB230 \RTC \RTC.docu08Q9 /02n 26 -1 u d 1 LETTER 26 1 I 1 RcCENED B TrrFM1 ' i�1iG U `, 2002 Pt�'1 1C7�7`iy`�j�Et1� �cCt1 �1 �GZ�J,�/1�.//C�rJu�u�i -, • ,,�,��- `F /�'�nr+�= I , lei�c� _. 1 I 1 +QsM, LETTER 26 (CONT) ./%iv Z�iuJ e � o�ik�1A. I I 11 I 1 I I I 1 ti I I I I LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. DEIR RESPONSE 1'0 COMMLNTS AUGUST 2042 CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST Of LATTER DAY RAIN TS 'TEMPLE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 26. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS FROM NANCY FULLER 26 -A The commentor expresses support of the proposed project and agreement with the conclusions of the Draft Environmental Impact Report. No environmental issues were raised by the commentor, and further response is not required. The comment will be forwarded to the decision makers for consideration. P'\CNa230 \RTC\ RTC doc ,,08/29/02,, 1 ILIA ASSOCIATES. INC. CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF E LATTER DAY L SAIIN`,ISN"FEMPI.F AUGUST ROOK J CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 1 1 27. COMMENTS FROM RICHARD A. FULLER 1 1 i 1 i I I I I I 1 1 1 1 P1CNB230 \RTC\RTC.dm 1,08129/021, I 1 MEMOEq. APPgA15AL INSTITUTE • MEMBER. COUNSELORS OP PEAL ESTATE • CERTIFIED GENERAL APPRAISE- ' July 31, 2002 I I_1 1 I 1 LETTER 27 FULLED CONSULTING RICHARD A. FULLER, MAI, CRE REAL ESTATE • CONSULTATION • vALUAT.O. 4910 CAMPUS DRIVE PSlVP BB L CALtHOB 926 21IH0 • TELEPNONG 19491 6M4W0 • FACSIMILE: 19491660'70')6 • EMAIL RFyLLER6i'ULLCON.COM RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY n.. AUG 0 ', 2002 PM 761 ° 71E191:011111' MItlyl 3 I 113 16 IL RE: PROPOSED LDS TEMPLE As someone who lives T/2 mile from the proposed LDS Temple, it is my understanding that a consultant (LSA Associates) was retained by the City of Newport Beach to prepare an unbiased and impartial EIR. It is also my understanding that after reviewing all pertinent issues, including traffic, steeple height, views, lighting and color, this consultant concluded that the construction of the proposed LDS Temple would have "no significant impact." As a resident of Newport Beach since 1965 and as the owner of a real estate appraisal business in Newport Beach since 1970, and a former City of Newport Beach Planning Commissioner, I am satisfied that the EIR has addressed all issues in an unbiased and impartial manner. I would suggest that we not lose sight of the bottom line "no significant impact' means exactly that, "no significant impact!" The City, the proponents and the opponents should adhere to the conclusions of this neutral, unvested expert. yours, Iler RAF:sIg • FORENSIC VALUATION • EXPERT WITNESS • ESTATES AND TRUSTS • PROPERTT ACOUISITION • UTIGATION SUPPORT • EMINENT DOMAIN • ARBITRATION • PROPERTY DISPOSITION 27 -1 Mr. James Campbell Senior Planner City Planner Department ' 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92663 Dear Mr. Campbell: I I_1 1 I 1 LETTER 27 FULLED CONSULTING RICHARD A. FULLER, MAI, CRE REAL ESTATE • CONSULTATION • vALUAT.O. 4910 CAMPUS DRIVE PSlVP BB L CALtHOB 926 21IH0 • TELEPNONG 19491 6M4W0 • FACSIMILE: 19491660'70')6 • EMAIL RFyLLER6i'ULLCON.COM RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY n.. AUG 0 ', 2002 PM 761 ° 71E191:011111' MItlyl 3 I 113 16 IL RE: PROPOSED LDS TEMPLE As someone who lives T/2 mile from the proposed LDS Temple, it is my understanding that a consultant (LSA Associates) was retained by the City of Newport Beach to prepare an unbiased and impartial EIR. It is also my understanding that after reviewing all pertinent issues, including traffic, steeple height, views, lighting and color, this consultant concluded that the construction of the proposed LDS Temple would have "no significant impact." As a resident of Newport Beach since 1965 and as the owner of a real estate appraisal business in Newport Beach since 1970, and a former City of Newport Beach Planning Commissioner, I am satisfied that the EIR has addressed all issues in an unbiased and impartial manner. I would suggest that we not lose sight of the bottom line "no significant impact' means exactly that, "no significant impact!" The City, the proponents and the opponents should adhere to the conclusions of this neutral, unvested expert. yours, Iler RAF:sIg • FORENSIC VALUATION • EXPERT WITNESS • ESTATES AND TRUSTS • PROPERTT ACOUISITION • UTIGATION SUPPORT • EMINENT DOMAIN • ARBITRATION • PROPERTY DISPOSITION 27 -1 ' LS A ASSOCIATES. INC. OEIR RESPONSE 'rO COMMENTS AU CUST 2008 CIIURCII OF JESUS CII RIST OF LATTER DAY SAINTS TEMPLE' CITY OF NEWPORT aEAUII ' 27. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS FROM RICHARD A. FULLER I ' 27 -A The commentor expresses support of the proposed project and agreement with the conclusions of the Draft Environmental Impact Report. No environmental issues were raised by the commentor, and further response is not required. The comment will be forwarded to the decision makers for consideration. I I I 1 1 [l i P' \CNB230 \RTC\RTC.doc a08/29/02n LSA ASSOCIAT25. INC. OEIN RESPONSE TO COMMENTS AUGUST 200] CHURCH OFJESUS CHRIST OP LATTER DAY SAINTS TEMPLE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 1 ' 28. COMMENTS FROM JOHN AND ALISON FAIRBANKS 1.1 I 1 P9CNB2301RTORTC.doc 0.08/29/02» J 28 -1 ' James Campbell LETTER 28 Senior Planner ' 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 ' Dear James Campbell, ' I admit that I had questions concerning the proposed temple being built in my neighborhood earlier this year. I also followed the controversy surrounding lighting, traffic and how the proposed temple would `fit in' to our area. I have seen the San Diego temple off the freeway and I wondered if that is the building we would eventually see built here. I 11 J I have reviewed the Environmental Impact Report and it has answered all of my questions and concerns. I see no reason to object to the findings of the report. No light `spillage', the `footprint' of the building would only be 5% of the area. These things help me support the report's conclusions. I fully support the findings and conclusions that the Report found. Thank yo t;,- ohn and Alison Fairbanks 65 65 Old Course Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 District 5 (r7 y t) '76k - SCI 2 6 RECEIVED By PLANNING DEPLRTMENT r1 A.CH AI I� u � soot nn� AM �. ISIA IJ�IU � R el�liV 111!:I '�i A IV -x 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 LSA ASSO C IATES. INC. AUGUST 2009 DFIR RESPONSE TO COMMENTS CHURCH OF JESUS CDRIST OF LATTER DAY SAINTS TEMPLE CITY OF NE WPOR'F BEACH 28. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FROM JOHN AND ALISON FAIRBANKS 28 -A The commentor expresses support of the proposed project and agreement with the conclusions of the Draft Environmental Impact Report. No environmental issues were raised by the commentor, and further response is not required. The comment will be forwarded to the decision makers for consideration. P' \CNB230 \RTC \RTC. doc .08/29/02. ' L9A A990CI A'FG 9. INC. DGIR RC9PON9C TO COMMFNT9 AUGUST 9. 02 CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIS "1' OP LATT F.R DAY SAINTS TEMP I. F. CITY OF NFWPORT BFAI:H ' 29. COMMENTS FROM SUSAN FREITAS I 11 II F P: \CNB230 \RTC \RTC.doc ,08/29102» LETTER 29 ' Susan Freitas 2027 Yacht Defender Newport Beach, CA 92660 August 6, 2002 1 1 5 Jim Campbell, Senior Planner City Planning Dept. 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92663 Dear Mr. Campbell, RECEIVED f3y PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF rJFtvcndr PEA0H AM AUG 12 2002 PM 718i9il0illi12111a�3i4�a y I would like to comment on the environmental report regarding the Mormon temple to be built in my neighborhood. The computer generated pictures were wonderfully helpful in clarifying what the temple will really be like as part of our view. I was struck most of all by how small and unobtrusive it looks in the pictures. I am now puzzled by the vehemence of the opposition to the building, and particularly to the steeple. I think of steeples as a good addition, not a bad one. New England is justifiably famous for its beautiful steeples and the charm they lend to the landscape. I believe that this building will be a lovely addition, too. As to the lighting, opposition to it also puzzles me. After all, our views are exciting because of the lights we see out there. The very handsome new Episcopal Church across the street from the temple site is lighted at night, and is enhanced by that lighting, I think. , However, I believe lighting on both buildings may really be irrelevant, because the street lights on Bonita Canyon Drive at night are extremely bright, and outshine everything around them. Seeing this report has made me feel that there is really no reasonable cause to oppose this building. Sincerely, Susan Freitas r 1 1 1 1 LS�I ASS O CRATES, INC. AU CUST 2002 UEIR RESPONSE TO COMMFN'IS CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OP LITTER DAY SAINTS TEN PLL' CITY OF NEWPORT BENCH 29. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FROM SUSAN FREITAS 29 -A The commentor expresses support of the proposed project and agreement with the conclusions of the Draft Environmental Impact Report. No environmental issues were raised by the commentor, and further response is not required. The comment will be forwarded to the decision makers for consideration. PACNB230 \RTC\RTC.doc .09/29/02. 29 -3 LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. DEf IR RESPONSE TO COMM O ENTS AUGUST 2S 2 CHURCH Of JESUS CHRIST LATTlR DAY SAINTS TEMPLE. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ' 30. COMMENTS FROM GRANT GOODSON 11 1 I 1 1 1 P: \CNB230 \RTC \RTC.dm .08/29102,, ' Dear Mr. Campbell: ' For the past few months I have been following the mild controversy involving the building of the Mormon Temple in our Newport Beach neighborhood. I have been involved in projects similar to this building for the past 35 years, so it was with interest that I recently had the opportunity to read the Environmental Impact Study of the proposed Temple. ' I have rarely seen a review of this nature that was as well done or that covered the environmental issues as completely as this one has. Every potential concern was adequetly addressed, reviewed, and finalized. The visual images provided good evidence that there ' is minimal view elimation for the surrounding community and the report sustains that there are literally no environmental issues involved. It would be difficult for anyone to dispute or contradict the results of this report. As a resident and a business owner in Newport Beach I would lice to add my support for ' what I am sure will be an approval for the construction of this Temple. ' Sincerely, ' Grant Goodson 80 Anjou • Newport Coast, CA 92657 • (949) 375.1318 • Fax: (949) 719 -9798 • e -mail: GKTTMj ©aot.com KI LE R 30 1 Goodson Consultants RECEIVED EY G DEPcR ?�1Frl ' PU,,NMN, H CITY " N.=,," 0 July 26, 2002 Qdu Q 2[lC}Z Pll� ' AM gIg1911011111�I:I�131:IG16 ' Tim Campbell City Planning Department City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Beach Blvd. ' Newport Beach, CA. 92663 ' Dear Mr. Campbell: ' For the past few months I have been following the mild controversy involving the building of the Mormon Temple in our Newport Beach neighborhood. I have been involved in projects similar to this building for the past 35 years, so it was with interest that I recently had the opportunity to read the Environmental Impact Study of the proposed Temple. ' I have rarely seen a review of this nature that was as well done or that covered the environmental issues as completely as this one has. Every potential concern was adequetly addressed, reviewed, and finalized. The visual images provided good evidence that there ' is minimal view elimation for the surrounding community and the report sustains that there are literally no environmental issues involved. It would be difficult for anyone to dispute or contradict the results of this report. As a resident and a business owner in Newport Beach I would lice to add my support for ' what I am sure will be an approval for the construction of this Temple. ' Sincerely, ' Grant Goodson 80 Anjou • Newport Coast, CA 92657 • (949) 375.1318 • Fax: (949) 719 -9798 • e -mail: GKTTMj ©aot.com KI LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. UEIR RESPONSE "f0 COMMENTS AUGUST 20 2 CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LAl'l'CR DAY SAINTS TEMPI.F CITY OF NEWPORT REACH I ' 30. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FROM GRANT GOODSON I ' 30 -A The commentor expresses support of the proposed project and agreement with the conclusions of the Draft Environmental Impact Report. No environmental issues were raised by the commentor, and further response is not required. The comment will be forwarded to ' the decision makers for consideration. 1 1 1 P \CNB230 \RTC\RTC.doc 1108/29/02» ' LSA ASSOCIAIES. INC. DEIR RESPONSE TO COMMEN T9 AUCUST .. 2 CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LA'f'1 "ER DAY SAINTS TEMPLE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 1 1 1 1 1 31. COMMENTS FROM CAROLYN GOODSON PACNB230\RTC\RTC.dcc A08 /29/02. i f U I I I I I I I I I 1 i LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. 0E:R RESPONSE TO COMMENTS AU OUST ROOK CUURCH Of JESUS CHRIST OF LA TI'E0. DAY 9AI NTS TCM PLF. CITY OF NEWPORT REACH 31. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FROM CAROLYN GOODSON 31 -A The commentor expresses support of the proposed project and agreement with the conclusions of the Draft Environmental Impact Report. No environmental issues were raised by the commentor, and further response is not required. The comment will be forwarded to the decision makers for consideration. P: \CNB230 \RTC \RTC.doc .08/29/02. I 1 I I I I I I I 1 I I I 1 1 LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. DEIR RESPONSE TO C0MMEN rS AUCUST ROOK CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER DAY SAINTS TE YPLF. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 32. COMMENTS FROM MALI GULLEDGE PACNB230 \RTC \RTC.doc «08/29/02» 32 -1 1 I LETTER 32 Mali Gulledge 3081 Corte Marin Newport Beach, CA 92660 (949) 720 -9800 (home) (949) 500 -4399 (cell) July 31, 2002 Mr. James Campbell Senior Planner City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 Re: Mormon Temple RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTA7ENT CITY Pr-- —� °°A:,N AM AUG U -) 2002 PM 716191i011111211121314,516 Dear Mr. Campbell: I have been a resident of Newport Beach since 1975 and currently live very close to the proposed cite of the Mormon Temple on Bonita Canyon. I have raised six sons here, all of whom attended Corona Del Mar High School and have grown to be upstanding citizens. I write this letter in vehement opposition to any efforts by the City to block the building of the Mormon Temple. I have reviewed in detail the Environmental Impact Report and have found nothing therein that would remotely justify any decision by the City of Newport Beach against the building of the Temple. I have worked as a Realtor for the past twenty years and know hundreds, if not thousands, of people in the City. I am also a member of Prudential's Chairman Circle Gold and am very knowledgeable in the area of real estate values in Newport Beach and surrounding communities. ' Contrary to the view of the few people opposed to the building of the Temple, the Temple will only serve to enhance the community and offer beautiful and tranquil grounds for the enjoyment of the public at large. I understand that the Temple itself will only occupy approximately seven percent of the land belonging to the Mormon Church. With the exception of a small additional space devoted to parking, the rest of the land will be developed into lush and beautiful grounds that everyone in the City will be able to enjoy. The Temple itself is not very large and will not be able to accommodate large size crowds. Thus, any concerns regarding any noise and/or parking problems are simply misplaced. Moreover, statistical data has established that real estate values rise on properties surrounding the site of a Mormon Temple. I I 32- Mr. James Campbell LETTER 32 (CONT) City Planner 7/31/02 Page 2 of 2 Every one I have talked to about this matter is appalled at the concept that the City would attempt to interfere with the plans for the building of the Temple. Any such efforts by City residents and/or the City will only serve to perpetuate Newport Beach's image as intolerant, exclusionary and elitist. This is not what our city is all about. Let us not take steps that are not warranted by fact and data and are inconsistent with the true spirit of this great city. I urge you and the City to support the building of the Mormon Temple. LSA ASSOCIATE'S. INC. DFIR RESPONSE TO COMMENTS AUGUST 9008 CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER DAY SAINTS TEMPLE CITY OF NFWPORT PEACH 1 32. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FROM MALI GULLEDGE ' 32 -A The commentor expresses support of the proposed project and agreement with the conclusions of the Draft Environmental Impact Report. No environmental issues were raised by the commentor, and further response is not required. The comment will be forwarded to the decision makers for consideration. I I 1 L] P' \CNB230NRTCMZTC doc .08/29/021, LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. AUCU ST 1001 HEIR RESPONSE TO COMMENTS CHURCH VP JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER DAY SAI N'1'S TEMPLC CITY OF' NEWPOR'1 BEACH 1 33. COMMENTS FROM LEWIS AND MICHELLE GARBER LJ 1 I 11 11 I I I P \CNB230 \RTC\RTC.doc .08/29/02„ James W. Campbell, Senior Planner Planning Department City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 62658 -8915 ' RE: Draft EIR for the Proposed Mormon Temple RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT ' LETTER 33 CITY Qe vF�vc.�GT "EACH ' AUG 0 9 2002 ' AM PM 71819110111 � � 2:l ,2,3141618 ' August 9, 2002 James W. Campbell, Senior Planner Planning Department City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 62658 -8915 ' RE: Draft EIR for the Proposed Mormon Temple Dear Mr. Campbell: We live at 2706 Hillside Drive in the Harbor View Knoll community and are extremely concerned over the architectural features of the Mormon Temple proposed to be built ' adjacent to our home. We strongly object to the proposed height of the steeple and the lighting of the steeple. ' Figures 4.1 -6 view simulation of the DEIR clearly shows that the Temple steeple will be a major element in views from my home at 2706 Hillside Drive and would "substantially change the existing character of my views. Enclosed is an additional view simulation of the proposed steeple from the front of are home. While the Temple would be in the ' background of views from my home, the steeple would be highly visible because of its extreme height. We strongly feel that the steeple does present a significant impact to the quality of our surrounding views and request that the City require that the steeple be ' reduced to the General Plan height limit of 50 feet. That would thereby mitigating the significant impact that the steeple has on the views from my property. ' The night lighting issue is even more obvious. Figure 4.1 -17 of the DEIR clearly shows that the steeple lighting will be visible from a large area, and will dominant the night sky for any viewers including views from my home. The so called mitigation (lighting from ' dusk to 11 PM and from 5 AM to dawn) is not mitigation at all because most viewers would be seeing this view in the evening or early morning hours and not in the middle of the night while they are sleeping. 1 33 - A nm James Campbell LETTER 33 (CONT) August 9, 2002 Page Two , In conclusion, we strongly recommend that the City cwt permit the steeple to be built ' higher than the 50 -foot existing General Plan height limit and not allow any night lighting 133 - C of the steeple. ' Sincerely, i Lewis and Michelle Garber 2706 Hillside Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 , Enclosure: View Simulation at 2706 Hillside Drive, Newport Beach, CA ' h 1 LJ LJ I 1Y I I 1 I 1 1 1 LSA ASSO C IATE9. INC.. OFIR RESPONSE TO COMMENTS AOCOST 9.09 CHURCH OF JESUS CHR191' OF LATTER DAY SAINTS TEMPLE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACU 33. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FROM LEWIS AND MICHELLE GARBER 33 -A Please refer to the Aesthetics General Response for a discussion of the significance criteria used to determined aesthetic impact. The commentor's statements are acknowledged; however, the commentor does not provide support for such a finding. The comment does not provide specific evidence or new information suggesting that the information contained in the EIR is inadequate. In the absence of data or substantiating evidence to the contrary, the conclusion of the EIR may be relied upon. The commentor's opposition to the building height is acknowledged and will be forwarded to the decision makers. 33 -B Please refer to the Light and Glare General Response for a discussion of light and glare impacts. The commentor is correct that the Temple lighting will be turned of from 11:00 p.m. to dawn, however, this is not a mitigation measure; it is considered part of the project design. 33 -C The commentor's opposition to the steeple height and lighting is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision makers. Attachment 33 -1 The source of the view simulation provided by the commentor, including input specifications, has not been provided for the City to verify the accuracy of the photo simulation. Therefore, the analysis of the EIR may be relied upon. P' \CNB230\RTC \RTC doc,,0829102,1 ' LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. DE 1R RESPONSE TO COMMENTS AUGUST ..UR CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER DAY SAINTS TEMPI., CITY OF NF. WPORT PEACH 1 1 t 1 34. COMMENTS FROM MICHAEL GREEN 1'dCNB230 \RTClRTC.doc 0.08/29/02. 1 �J 34 -A 34 -B LETTER 34 RECEIVED BY To: Planning Department PLANNING DEPARTAIENT CITY OF NFivon, -r Attn: James Campbell nEACH ' 3300 Newport Boulevard AUG 0 9 2002 Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 AM PM 71519�10i11�12111213141516 From: Michael Green 2214 Port Carlisle Place Newport Beach, CA 92660 ' Subject: Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (LDS Church) Temple in the City of Newport Beach ' Date: August 9, 2002 I live at 2214 Port Carlisle Place in Newport Beach. I am writing in response to the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (LDS Church) Temple in the City of Newport Beach. ' I attended Newport Beach's Environmental Quality Affairs Committee meeting on July 15, 2002. I agree with the conclusion reached at that meeting that the draft EIR has numerous deficiencies and that the proposed development would have adverse environmental impacts. I am strongly opposed to both the height and lighting of the proposed steeple. The ' conclusion in section 4. 1, which states that the temple and steeple will have a "less than significant" visual impact and "less than significant" light and glare impact, is simply not supported by the facts. The proposed lighted steeple, at over 120 feet high, will dominate the skyline and will substantially degrade the scenic views provided to Newport Beach residents and visitors. Rather than conforming with the neighborhood and surrounding community, the height, design, and illumination will substantially detract from the natural ' beauty of our community. The structure will dominate the surrounding area. Below is a nighttime picture taken from my rear yard. The light, which is shining substantially higher than all of the other Orange County lights in the picture, is the light that was placed atop the crane erected at the proposed development site. Clearly, both the daytime and nighttime skyline will be substantially changed by the proposed ' development. The Draft contains figure 4.1.17 which shows a nighttime view of the proposed development. The Draft EIR does not contain any pictures showing the adverse affect that the lighted steeple will have on surrounding views. The EIR should address ' the adverse impacts of nighttime views surrounding the temple. 1 �J 34 -A 34 -B LETTER 34 (CONT) Section 5.6 of the Draft describes "Alternative 2 — Reduced Intensity Alternative ". This alternative suggests an alternative where the height of the steeple would be reduced by 20% as well as reducing the hours of illumination of the steeple. In this alternative, the Draft states that all of the project objectives will still be met and that the impact on views would be reduced. This alternative, which meets all project objectives, shows that the height of the steeple and lighting hours can be reduced without adversely affecting the proposed used of the temple. The EIR should contain an alternative steeple height which is similar to the height of the existing LDS stake house. I believe that this alternative would still meet all project objectives yet it would have substantially less impact on the surrounding community. The steeple, at the height of the existing LDS stake house steeple, would still be visible for a substantial distance. In addition, the reduced height steeple would be visible from the 73 toll road, where more than a half million cars pass by each week. This option would balance the environmental impact of an oversized lighted steeple with the LDS church's desire for the temple to be seen by a large number of people. Regards, Michael Green r 1 34 -r r r 34 r r r 1 r r r r r r 1 r <' t R c-00*- IR 1 LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. CE 1R RESPONSE TO COMMENTS A 1.11 ST TOOT CHURCH Ot JtSVS CHRIST OF I. ATTER DAY SAINTS TEMPLE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 1 34. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FROM MICHAEL GREEN ' 34 -A Please refer to the Aesthetics General Response for a discussion of the significance criteria used to determine aesthetic impact and to the Light and Glare General Response for a discussion of light and glare impacts. The commentor's statements are acknowledged; ' however, the commentor does not provide support for such a finding. The comment does not provide specific evidence or new information suggesting that the information contained in the El R is inadequate. In the absence of data or substantiating evidence to the contrary, the conclusion of the EIR maybe relied upon. The commentor's opposition to the height and lighting of the steeple is acknowledged and will be forwarded to the decision makers. ' 34 -B Please refer to the Light and Glare General Response for a discussion of nighttime views of the proposed project. 34 -C Please refer to Response to Comment 5 -Q for a discussion of alternatives analyzed in the EIR. The comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision makers. 34 -D CEQA requires that an EIR describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the project, or to the ' location of the project, that could feasibly attain the basic objectives of the project while reducing or avoiding any of its significant effects. CEQA does not require an exhaustive analysis of all ranges of alternatives. A steeple height similar to the height of the existing LDS Stake Center (86 feet) may not be consistent with the project objective of, "providing a highly visible site and a distinctive Temple with a steeple sufficiently high and illuminated to be seen from a substantial distance, as a pinnacle of the faith and the source of perceived eternal blessings to the faithful." An 86 foot high steeple would incrementally lessen aesthetic impacts and will reduce the project visibility. The comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision makers. Attachment 34 ' The source of the view simulation provided by the commentor, including input specifications, has not been provided for the City to verify the accuracy of the photo simulation. Therefore, the analysis of the EIR may be relied upon. The photographs will be forwarded to the decision makers for consideration. 1 P \CNB230 \RTC\RTC doc R08 /29/02» 34 -5 LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. OEI. YF.PONSF. TO COMMPNTS A U C UST 2.02 CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER DAY SAINTS TEMPLE CITY OF NF. WPORT BEACH 1 1 35. COMMENTS FROM JEFFREY AND SARA HAVRANEK 1 1 1 11 1 1 1 1 1 11 1 1 p 1 1 PACNB230\RTC\RTC doc 1,08/29/02» 1 LETTER 35 RECEIVED BY ' PLANNING DEPARTMFNT CITY P =1= ,, �.- °EA -,-H JEFFREY & SARA HAVRANEKAM AUG 052002 304 DAHLIA PI ,. F�>7 Corona del Mar, CA 92625 '�1819ii011111u1!IGI$141516 ' James Campbell 30 July 2002 ' City Planning City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd Newport Beach, CA 92663 RE: Environmental Impact Report We agree with the analysis and findings of the most recent Environmental Impact Report 35 - A on lighting and Traffic on Bonita Canyon Drive. We agree that there will not be a significant impact to the area near the proposed site for the LDS temple. We believe the ' report was accurate and complete in its findings regarding the lighting and traffic. Thank you, /Jeavranek 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 11 I I I 1 I I I I I LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. AUCU S'F x002 DUR RESPONSE TO COMMENTS CHURCH OF JESUS CIIRIST OF LATTER DAY SAINTS TEMPL! CITY OF NF. W PORT BLACH 35. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FROM JEFFREY AND SARA HAVRANEK 35 -A The commentor expresses support of the proposed project and agreement with the conclusions of the Draft Environmental Impact Report. No environmental issues were raised by the commentor, and further response is not required. The comment will be forwarded to the decision makers for consideration. P: \CNB230\RTC \RTC doc ,,08 /29/02. ' LSA ASROCIATES. INC. OEIR RESPONSE TO COMMENTS AO COST 7. 7 CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER DAY SAINTS TEMPI. H CITY OF NP.WPORT BEACH 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 36. COMMENTS FROM TONI HANCOCK 1 P' \CNB230 \RTC \RTC.dm ((08/29/02,, Sincerely, L ' Toni Hancock 1 1 • ' LETTER 36 RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF NF1VO; IGT PEACH ' AUG 0 p 2002 AM PM ' 71819110111112111213141616 Aug. 5, 2002 ' Toni Hancock 1833 Highland Dr. Newport Beach, 92660 Mr. Jim Campbell, Senior planner City planning Dept 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92663 ' RE: Environmental Impact Report for Latter Day Saint Temple Dear Mr. Campbell: 1 I have had the opportunity to review the Environmental Impact Report for the Latter Day Saint Temple on Bonita Canyon Dr. I am impressed with the design of the structure, including the steeple. The photos show the structure to be complimentary to the area and it does not seem to detract from ' any cnmmmting areas. The lighting is understated, especially when compared to other locations in Newport Beach. The views many are concerned ith include a freeway and new construction on the neighboring hillside. The temple would seem to enhance that view, especially with the landscaping ' as it is planned We are constantly concerned with having more green space and open areas. With over 8 acres, 63% ' of which will be forested landscape, the value of this project in our area seems immeasurable. As a Realtor, I can only see property values rapidly increasing for the surrounding homes. ' My husband and I have lived in this community for 39 years, during which he has taught school in Newport Beach, I have worked as a Realtor and raised our children here. I cannot see after reading this report that there would be any reason for denying this project to go forward I strongly agree with the report that the lighting and traffic, as well as the views, will not be impacted by this ' structure. Sincerely, L ' Toni Hancock 1 1 • I 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 11 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. AUCUS'r 202 OF IR RESPONSE TO COMMENTS CHURCH Or JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER OAY SAINTS TEMPLE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 36. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FROM TONI HANCOCK 36 -A The commentor expresses support of the proposed project and agreement with the conclusions of the Draft Environmental Impact Report. No environmental issues were raised by the commentor, and further response is not required. The comment will be forwarded to the decision makers for consideration. PACNB230\RTCI,RTC dm P08/29102>, I 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 lJ 1 1 i 1 1 1 LSA ASSOCIATES. INC, AUGUST 2..2 OEIR RESPONSE TO COMMENTS CHURCH OF JEStIS CHRIST OF LATT P.R DAY SAINTS "TEMPLE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 37. COMMENTS FROM F. SCOTT HEINEMANN, M.D. 1 P kCNB2301RTC\RTC doc a08/29/0N 37--1 I k I 11 1 LETTER 37 August 5, 2002 Mr. James Campbell City planning Department 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92663 Dear Mr. Campbell: RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTWN1 01Ty OF NEWPr.)P.T EEAC`i AM AUG 12 2002 PM 7181911011111211i2i314i616 I have lived in Newport Beach since 1989, and moved into the Bonita Canyon community two years ago. I am writing now to recommend that you approve the Environmental Impact Report for the proposed Mormon temple on Bonita Canyon Road. When I first heard about plans to build a temple building on the site adjacent to the ' current Mormon church building I had visions of a San Diego temple -like building and. had concerns about impact on traffic, views, and, especially, property values. Now that I have reviewed the EIR, my concerns have been put to rest. The 16 view simulations in the EIR especially persuade me that the temple as proposed will not have a negative impact on the appearance of the neighborhood. On the contrary, the extensive landscaping planned will undoubtedly beautify the neighborhood and probably result in ' increased property values. I am satisfied that the building as proposed will blend into the neighborhood given its relatively small size and light earth -tone color. ' Impact on traffic should be negligible since the building will be closed on Sundays and has a capacity of only 150 (EIR section 4.4). It is my understanding that if the temple project does not go through, a much larger building up to 5 stories high could be built on the site. I believe the proposed temple is going to be Bonita Canyon's best opportunity for attractive development of that site. I urge you to approve the EIR for the proposed Mormon temple on Bonita Canyon Road. ' Sincerely, r� / './i,— I, -b. F. Scott Heinemann, M.D. 7 Marble Sands Newport Beach, CA 92660 I 37 -A 1 LSA ASSO Clh "f ES. INC. DEIR RESPONSE l'O COMMENTS AU CURT 2009 CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER DAY SAINTS TEMPLE CITY Of NE WPOR'I'BEACH F L 1 37. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FROM F. SCOTT HEINEMANN, M.D. 1 1 37 -A The commentor expresses support of the proposed project and agreement with the conclusions of the Draft Environmental Impact Report. No environmental issues were raised 1 by the commentor, and further response is not required. The comment will be forwarded to the decision makers for consideration. L i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 i 1 P: \CNB230 \RTC \RTC.duc 08/29/02» ' LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. UEIR RESPONSE TO COMMENTS AUGUST 2002 CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER DAY SAINTS TEMPLE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 1 38. COMMENTS FROM KENNETH D. AND J. KRISTEN HUBBS I 1 I I [J 1 PACNB230XRTCVtTC.doc.08 /29/021 3 I 1 .. [l 1 LETTER 38. KENNETH D. HUBBS RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTh9FNT .. CITY:OF NFf.VD YrtT MEACH . AUG, 2` 2002 AM... PM . ?iBi9i1011liiZ�11213�4181g August 7, 2002.. ... Mr. Tim Campbell City Planning Depaitment. 3300 Newport Bjvd:. NewpokY$cachyCA' 92663 Dear Mr. Campbell;`.:, As residents of Newport Coast, we have reviewed the EIR that was recently conducted relating to the temple on Bonita Canyon. Driye and we find it extremely comprehensive and thorough. _ We . completely agree with the findings of the report, -especially given the numerous view simulations of the temple that'were:included: 38-A J. With regard:to l& height :of the steeple, please keep in . mind, that it is' a symbol shared by many religions, and as it is asp'i're, it does not involve'ocqupied'.stories. in addition, th'e building occupies only SOW of the eniiue N% acre lot, with a good portion of the lot dedidated tcj trees and:foliage that will . have'a'scieynutg effeci over time: ,We kno}v.that upon completion,`the people of Newport Beach will look to it as ajandmark building, one= wilj blend in �vitli its surroundings arid be compjgni entary in all aspects with'ou',community. Again, we would like to express our support of the EIR and.its'conclusions. Sincerely; .....`.: Kennethb. Hubbs` r: Kristen, Hubbs 1 1 1 1 LS.\ ASSOCIATES. INC AUGUST 1.o➢ DEIR RESPONSE TO COMMENTS CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER DAY SAINTS TEMPLE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 38. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FROM KENNETH D. AND J. KRISTEN HUBBS 38 -A The commentor expresses support of the proposed project and agreement with the conclusions of the Draft Environmental Impact Report. No environmental issues were raised by the commentor, and further response is not required. The comment will be forwarded to the decision makers for consideration. P:\CNB230 \RTC\RTCdoc 108/29/02» 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 LSB ASSOCIATES. INC. AUGUST 2.02 DEIR RESPONSE TO COMMENTS CHURCH OF JESUS CH0.1ST OF 1 ATTER DAY SAINTS TEMPLE CITY Of NEWPORT BEAC11 39. COMMENTS FROM RANDY HUNTER PACNB230 \RTC \RTC.doc u08/29/0N 39 -1 I 1 1 I J LETTER 39 August 9, 2002 RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY j1C tdr: .!_'1CT'AC -H Mr. James W. Campbell, Senior Planner AM AUG U 9 1002 PM Planning Department 71s191101n.1- i �I?I4IbIG City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 Subject: Draft — Environmental Impact Report Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints Temple, Newport Beach, CA Dated June 2002 Dear Mr. Campbell, I am a nearby homeowner to the proposed temple. I offer the following comments and recommendations to further the subject report: General Comment The approval of Conditional Use Permit (CUP) is discretionary. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (LDS Church) cannot build whatever they want regardless of the impact on neighbors. The City has the right, and the obligation, to uphold restrictions in our City's existing zoning laws that limit height, size, parking, and open space on a lot. The City's duty to the citizenry, especially residents directly impacted by this proposed project, is to enforce the General Plan that is intended to promote and enhance the well- being of residents and property owners within Newport Beach Exceeding the 50 -foot height limit will result in destruction of property values. Therefore, it should not be granted in this case. Many homes in the area, including my own, have a view premium of between 10 and 15 percent associated with the value of the property. There are 16 homes on my street alone that have a valuation of more than one million dollars. If the City allows a 12 -story steeple to be constructed it would negatively impact the views of most homes — including mine. The simple math shows that the damage quickly runs into millions of dollars. This does not include the ripple effect to homes that do not have views, but whose value is pegged to the higher priced homes in the neighborhood. A qualified real estate appraiser should be consulted to adequately determine the full financial impact to homeowners. Who will compensate homeowners for the lost valuation in the event a 12 -story steeple is approved? SECTION 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Page 1-4 of the study excludes the visual impacts from midway up Spyglass Hill on Port Dumess Place. There are 16 residences on my street and all are negatively impacted by the proposed steeple height. Since the study completely excluded view perspectives from this area, the finding of no significance is flawed. The visual impact to view.properties on Port Dumess Place must be thoroughly studied by a real estate appraiser with strong 39 - A R • LETTER 39 (CONT) knowledge of the area and the adverse visual impacts to the residences must be clearly understood, quantified and included. In my opinion, the visual impacts to nearby homeowners fails to identify the "Worst case" and the resulting impacts. The DEIR is flawed for this reason. SECTION 3 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 'Page Sec. 3.3.1. Change the last three words, "...at this time." to "...at anytime,-present or in the future." Section 3.3.3 There are three Temples in North America that have no steeple. This does three things: 1) It establishes precedent for a steepleless Temple, 2) it renders the very recent cited document less potent, and 3) It renders any argument from the LDS Church for a tall steeple ineffective, or less effective. A close examination of Temples constructed around the world demonstrates that there is no clear guideline or standard for the design and construction of a Temple. LDS Temples are like snowflakes --each one is unique. As mentioned previously, several temples have no steeple at all. Some have Steeples that are short and thick, while yet others are tall and slender. Some Temples have multiple steeples. The argument for a 12 -story steeple based on any design standard is baseless and ineffective in view of the number and wide range of Temple styles and configurations in place around the world. Section 3.3.3 Temple Lighting. The hours of lighting are unacceptable. The lighting should be limited to one hour after dusk and no sooner than 7:00 am. This precedence is in keeping with restrictions placed on JWA endorsed by the City to mitigate impacts to the citizenry of Newport Beach. Again, there is a precedent and the City should remain consistent with its past positions and decisions. There is a need to define security lighting as it states that it will remain on all night —the number of lamps position, light intensity, etc. This aspect of the DEIR is flawed due to omissions. Page 3 -15. This last paragraph fails to address property owners on Spy Glass Hill and their unique perspective of the proposed steeple. The DEIR fails to consider the view from Port Dumess place a street midway up Spy Glass Hill and facing north directly toward the proposed steeple. This view is one of the most severely impacted with a proposed 12 -story steeple front and center to most homeowners. The proposed height of the steeple severely severs the view resulting in a disjointed view that would destroy a panoramic vista of mountains, distant cityscape and ocean. Section 3.6 Last paragraph on page 3 -13: Delete the words "...compatible neighboring uses." Clearly, the residences in the area do not view the project as compatible with a proposed 12 -story high steeple 1 39-1 ICONT 139 IL 39-1 1 3911 ' LETTER 39 (CONT) ' Section 3.6 General comment: The church should have begun their planning with a ' steepleless temple in the fast place. To begin a negotiation with a `what's mine is mine and what's yours is mine" approach will make any subsequent concessions seem benevolent. This is a false precept. Any steeple above the height of the existing Stake House is unacceptable. Any lighting one -hour after dusk and before 7:00 a.m. is unacceptable. ' Figure 4.1.9 view 8. This view is taken on top of spyglass and misrepresents the true impact of destruction of views because from this perspective (looking Down) it shows less severing of views. From Port Dumess, the severing is quite severe and represents a destruction of views. It is unacceptable. It's unfortunate that there were no perspectives from the most damaged area of SpyGlass (that being mid way up , i.e. port Dumess.) This perspective should be included in the study. 1 Figure 4.1.17 Shows night lighting. Lighting until 11 PM is unacceptable. Residents in the area should not be forced to loose sleep due to the lighting after dark. The lighting issue is not only one of aesthetics, but one of Health and welfare of nearby residents. Residents should not be forced to "pull the shutters closed" in order to get a good nights sleep. The lighting scheme will cause harm to the health of our citizenry due to sleep depravation, especially the children. Studies have shown that children with sleep depravation do not learn at the same rate as those with adequate sleep. There may also be economic losses to due absenteeism and tardiness and poor on the job performance associated with sleep depravation. The Lighting should be no lighting from one hour after dusk to 7:00 a.m. since the Temple is located in the heart of a complex of residential subdivisions. 39 -J 39 -K 39 -L 1916-M MA I note that the discussions on "sensitivity" and " concessions" are very - peculiar. This ' type of language has no place in an EIR It should be deleted entirely. Page 3 -16. Delete the fast sentence. It has not been determined, or clearly established, ' that the project is in full compliance. SECTION 4 AESTHETICS Figure 4.1.2 View 6 is the only view taken that clearly shows a severing of mountain and ' city views by the proposed 12 -story steeple height that exceeds the height of the mountains in the background. Almost all of the photos were taken with the intent of showing a minimal impact of a 12 -story steeple. This is clearly unacceptable. I object to the perspective of these photos. They were taken from a vantage point that is both misleading and inaccurate. The point of perspective is low relative to the steeple height and therefore depicts a minimal visual impact. Also the photos look in a direction that does not depict the true damage to vistas. The direction of the shoot was selected to not represent the true condition. Additional shoots should be included from Port Dumess looking north. It will clearly demonstrate the actual damage to views. From my ' vantage point on Spyglass hill the steeple is front and center and is certain to result in destruction of view and property valuation. ' Figure 4.1.9 view 8. This view is taken on top of spyglass and misrepresents the true impact of destruction of views because from this perspective (looking Down) it shows less severing of views. From Port Dumess, the severing is quite severe and represents a destruction of views. It is unacceptable. It's unfortunate that there were no perspectives from the most damaged area of SpyGlass (that being mid way up , i.e. port Dumess.) This perspective should be included in the study. 1 Figure 4.1.17 Shows night lighting. Lighting until 11 PM is unacceptable. Residents in the area should not be forced to loose sleep due to the lighting after dark. The lighting issue is not only one of aesthetics, but one of Health and welfare of nearby residents. Residents should not be forced to "pull the shutters closed" in order to get a good nights sleep. The lighting scheme will cause harm to the health of our citizenry due to sleep depravation, especially the children. Studies have shown that children with sleep depravation do not learn at the same rate as those with adequate sleep. There may also be economic losses to due absenteeism and tardiness and poor on the job performance associated with sleep depravation. The Lighting should be no lighting from one hour after dusk to 7:00 a.m. since the Temple is located in the heart of a complex of residential subdivisions. 39 -J 39 -K 39 -L 1916-M MA LETTER 39 (CONT) General: Delete all statements regarding no adverse impact to view. This is false. The study failed to consider the view impact to private views. The DEIR fails to contemplate this and is therefore flawed. SECTION 5.0 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT Sec 53 • Sell the land and develop where steeple height and resulting loss of property valuation is not an issue. • Build a steepleless temple • Build a steeple no higher than the existing church BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES I note herein that a section on Biological Resources was omitted. This is a standard part of the CEQA process and is applicable to the proposed project. 1. Environmental Impact: The Project may have direct and indirect impacts on the following species, including but not limited to, coastal sage scrub (CSS), federal and state listed species and NCCP/HCP covered and conditionally covered species as follows: California gnatcatcher and Black shouldered kite. PUBLIC SAFETY I note herein that a section on Public Safety was omitted. This is a standard part of the CEQA process and is applicable to the proposed steeple height due to its proximity to John Wayne Airport. Public Safety Impact: In 1996, a joint helicopter program (ABLE) was established between Costa Mesa Police Department and Newport Beach Police Department. The ABLE program provides frequent night patrols over the SpyGlass Hill area. This is a valued law enforcement service and must not be placed in jeopardy in any manner. With certain wind conditions combined with the rising terrain in the area, pilots will have extraordinary difficulty navigating aircraft safely over and around a 12 -story steeple thereby creating a serious Public Safety concern. The DEIR fails to address inherent safety problems associated with frequent night flights by a patrolling helicopter. This issue must be thoroughly evaluated to demonstrate that the safety of pilots, aircraft passengers and residents adjacent to the 12 -story tall steeple are not jeopardized by a 12- story tall steeple. During the day, small private aircraft frequently fly low over the Spy Glass Hill area (it is a favorite route) nearly continuously during the hours of operation at John Wayne Airport (JWA). The proposed 12 -story steeple lies directly between JWA and Spyglass Hill. JWA is home base for approximately 575 general aviation aircraft. General aviation activity accounts for approximately 80% of the Airport's total number of operations (takeoffs and landings). The Airport's general aviation facilities serve small private aircraft and corporate aircraft. With certain wind conditions combined with the rising terrain in the area, pilots will have extraordinary difficulty navigating aircraft safely over 39 1 39 39 1 1 39 -Q ' LETTER 39 (CONT) and around a 12 -story steeple thereby creating a serious Public Safety concern. Also, there are many inexperienced, student, infrequent and possibly impaired pilots. This ' combined with the rising terrain and under certain wind conditions creates a hazard to the public. This issue must be thoroughly evaluated by the FAA to demonstrate that the safety of residents adjacent to the 12 -story tall steeple is not jeopardized by private ' aircraft. Thank you for considering these comments to the DEIR 2 ly'4 dy Hue l ' 2232 Port Dueness Place Newport Beach, CA 92660 LI 1 39 -Q CONT Ll 1 I I I 1 LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. AUGUST 2002 "FIR RE+SPONSF' TO COMMENTS CHURCH OF JESUS CIIRIST OF LATTCR DAY SAINTS TF. MPLE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 39. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FROM RANDY HUNTER 39 -A The commentor's issue related to processing of the Conditional Use Permit through established City of Newport Beach processes is an administrative matter outside the purview of CEQA. The latter portion of the comment refers to property valuation, which is not required in the CEQA process; therefore, no response is required. 39 -B The request for additional visual analysis is acknowledged. However, the EIR includes sufficient data and analysis from which conclusions regarding the level of impact can be derived. As determined by City Staff, a total of 15 view simulations were prepared to assist in the visual impact analysis, including four views from areas south of the project site. All 15 vantage points were selected and approved by City Staff. A more exhaustive aesthetic impact analysis may provide additional information that may be of interest to the commentor; however, the analysis requested is beyond that required by CEQA Guidelines for a well reasoned and informed analysis of project impacts. Also, please refer to the Aesthetics General Response. 39 -C The commentor's statements regarding the completeness of the visual assessment are acknowledged but are not substantiated by the technical analysis included in the EIR. In the absence of data or substantiating evidence to the contrary, the conclusion of the EIR may be relied upon. The comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision makers. 39 -D Please refer to Response to Comment 39 -B related to the visual analysis methodology. 39 -E Please refer to Response to Comment 5 -Q for a discussion of the alternatives analyzed in the EIR. 39 -F The commentor's opposition to the lighting plan is acknowledged. It is unclear what precedents the commentor is citing related to John Wayne Airport (J WA). There are currently no lighting restrictions at JWA. Also, please refer to Response to Comment Letter No. 3, which addressees the jurisdiction of the Airport Land Use Commission. 39 -G As stated on page 4.1 -10, Section 4.1 of the EIR, Aesthetics, the security lighting system is designed, as is all lighting required by federal, state and local agencies, to provide a safe public environment. The lighting system has been designed to provide only enough illumination to meet the minimum levels recommended by the City and by the Illumination Engineering Society (IES). Additional analysis related to security lighting would not change the conclusions of the EIR. The comment is an opinion that the EIR is inadequate. However, the comment does not raise substantial evidence that the EIR is inadequate in satisfying the requirements of CEQA. Also, refer to the Light and Glare General Response. The comment will be forwarded to the decision makers. P- \CNB230\RTC\RTC doc a0829102P LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. AUGUST 2002 39 -H The comment reiterates the concerns addressed in Response to Comment 39 -13. Please see Response to Comment 39 -13. 39 -I The comment is noted for the record. 1 39 -J The commentor expresses opposition to the steeple height and building lighting. Please refer "E" BES PO TO COMMENTS CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER DAY SAINTS TEMPLE ' CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH comment will be forwarded to the decision makers for consideration. 39 -H The comment reiterates the concerns addressed in Response to Comment 39 -13. Please see Response to Comment 39 -13. 39 -I The comment is noted for the record. 1 39 -J The commentor expresses opposition to the steeple height and building lighting. Please refer to Response to Comment 21 -D regarding project description and project objectives. The ' comment will be forwarded to the decision makers for consideration. 39 -K The commentor makes statements related to the project description and does not raise any ' specific environmental concerns; therefore, no response is necessary. The comment will be forwarded to the decision makers for consideration. , 39 -L The comment reiterates the concerns addressed in Response to Comment 39 -13. Please see Response to Comment 39 -13. 39 -M Please refer to the Light and Glare General Response. Also, the commentor provides no ' evidence to support the statements related to lighting intensity /extraneous lighting and effects on adjacent neighborhoods, nor is evidence provided that the conclusions of the EIR are inadequate. In the absence of data or substantiating evidence to the contrary, the conclusion ' of the EIR may be relied upon. The comment will be forwarded to the decision makers. 39 -N Please refer to the Aesthetics General Response for a discussion of the significance criteria , used to determine aesthetic impact. The comment is an opinion that the visual analysis in the EIR is inadequate. However, the comment and the prior discussion do not raise substantial evidence that the EIR is inadequate in satisfying the requirements of CEQA. The comment ' will be forwarded to the decision makers. 39 -0 Please refer to Response to Comment 5 -Q regarding alternatives. The comment indicates ' alternatives that should be considered. 39P The comment reiterates the concerns addressed in Response to Comment 5 -V and Response , to Comment 9 -E. Please see Response to Comment 5 -V and Response to Comment 9 -E. 39Q Public Services were addressed in the Initial Study, as discussed in Section 2.0, Introduction, , of the EIR. Also, please refer to Response to Comment Letter No. 3, which addressees the jurisdiction of the Airport Land Use Commission. P: \CNB230\RTC\RTC.doc 08/29/02u ' LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. DEIS RESPONSE TO COMMENTS AU CU ST 2002 CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST Ok LATTER DAY SAINTS TEMPLE, CITY ON NEWPORT BEACH 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 40. COMMENTS FROM LISA JARVIE P- 1CNB2301RTC\RTC.doc «08/291021 1 I I I I I I I I I I 1 1 1 1 LETTER 40 Lisa Jarvie 1918 Port Cardiff Place Newport Beach, CA 92660 James Campbell Senior Planning Commissioner City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, Ca 92663 Dear Mr. Campbell: RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY nc r.ic,.,^ ^EACH AM �UL 2 5 2002 PM 718191iDI? ? 112111c1314151G I attended the Monday, July 15, meeting regarding the proposed temple plans for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter -Day Saints. The Environmental Impact Report was criticized on several points. I have reviewed the report myself, and have reached a conclusion that it was both complete and accurate on all points. I will address just a few. 1. The main objection continues to be the height of the steeple. The people who object to the temple most vehemently continue to refer to it as the equivalent to a 12 -story building. It is not a building at all. A slender spire is something that disappears into the horizon, (much like a telephone pole or streetlight) unless you are specifically looking for it To those of the LDS faith it is a beautiful expression of their desire to ascend spiritually out of the everyday world, and devote themselves to a higher being. 2. The Sub- Committee was curiously concerned about danger to aircraft The Aviation height restrictions in Newport Beach are at 200', well above the proposed steeple height. The proposed temple site does not sit in an air traffic lane, and the surrounding hills on the south side are much higher than the proposed steeple. 3. The Lighting. The surrounding residents are appropriately concerned about the lighting of the temple. I recently visited some friends in Fresno, and passed a new temple that is right in the middle of a residential housing tract (See attached photo) The nearest home is only about 100' from the temple. It was impressive to note that the minimal lighting on the temple walls created a soft glow that lit the temple sufficiently, but did not bounce out into the surrounding neighborhood at all. Furthermore, the church is trying to be a good neighbor by coming to an agreement on limited hours of lighting, as there are no city regulations in Newport Beach regarding such. 4. Street Congestion: The temple will be closed on Sundays when other churches will have traffic issues. 5. Environmental Issues: It is almost humorous to me when I hear the people in the Bonita Creek housing tract speak of their strong ties to the environmental issues involved After all, 5 years ago, I was looking out my back window at cows where their houses now sit They weren't looking to preserve open space then. ,M LETTER 40 (CONT) ' It is disheartening to see a project stalled by a very few squeaky wheels. The anti- temple web- site (Bonita Canyon Conservancy) that they established in February still has had only 21 people sign the petition, and several of those live out of the city, with 3 out 4 40 of state. Without going into all other issues raised by the sub - committee as they declared C Corr Lisa Jarvie ' III 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Fresno California Temple: Twilight Photograph ATTACHMENT 40 Home G Sierra Mountain States Y Fresno California Temple ► Twilight Photograph Schedule & Addresses Fresno California Temple Twilight Photograph Driving Directions Map Region Dedicatory Prayer Twilight Photograph Twilight Wallpaper Page 1 of 1 r Prev I Next! O Copyright 1998 -2002 by Webmaster. All rights reserved. DISCLAIMER: This Web site has no legal relation, explicit or implied, with The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter -day Saints. The information contained in these pages is considered reliable but not official. http: / /www.ldschurchtemples. com/cgi- bin /gallery.cgi ?fresno &geographical 7/21/02 I I I 1 1 L 1 I I I 1 LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. AU COS 1 1001 DFIR RESPONSE TO COMMENTS CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER DAY SAINTS TEMPLE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 40. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FROM LISA JARVIE 40 -A The commentor expresses support of the proposed project and agreement with the conclusions of the Draft Environmental Impact Report. No environmental issues were raised by the commentor, and further response is not required. The comment will be forwarded to the decision makers for consideration. Attachment 40 The attached photograph will be forwarded to the decision makers. P: \CNB230 \RTC \RTC.doc 408129/02» I i 11 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 41. COMMENTS FROM BILL JOHNSON P: \CNB230\RTC\RTC doc (,08/29/02» 41-1 1 LSA ASSOCIATE%. INC. BE IR RESPON 9P TO COMMENTS AUGUST U0R CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER DAY SAINTS l'EMPLE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH I i 11 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 41. COMMENTS FROM BILL JOHNSON P: \CNB230\RTC\RTC doc (,08/29/02» 41-1 1 I I I i I L I I 1 LETTER 41 Campbell, James From: Johnsonl944@webtv.net Sent: Tuesday, August 06, 2002 10:17 AM To: jcampbell @city.newport- beach.ca.us Subject: Mormon Temple Steeple We live in Harbor View Knoll and strongly object to the Mormon Temple Steeple because o 41 -� the height of the steeple, the lighting, and the negative impact it will have on our community. Bill Johnson RECEIVED BY PLANNING D= PARTIA ". . CIV AM AUti U 200L PI;l 718191iG 11;12111215,4116 LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. DE IR RESPONSE TO COMMENTS AUCUST S.0] CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER BAY SAINTS TEMPLE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 41. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FROM BILL JOHNSON 41 -A The commentor's opposition to the proposed height of the steeple, Temple lighting, and negative impact thereof is acknowledged. Please refer to the Aesthetics General Response and to the Light and Glare General Response. The comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision makers for consideration. I I U 1 1 I I P' \CNB230 \RTC\RTC.dM 08/29/02» 1 LBA ASSOCIATES. INC. BE IS RESPONSE. TO COMMENTS AUGUST 2002 CHURCH OF JESUS CHR19T Of LATTER BAY SAINTS TEMPLE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 1 42. COMMENTS FROM CHRISTOPHER T. JONES I 1 1.1 �l i L P'.\CNB230\RTC\RTC.doc x08129102,1 I a2 =1 August 9, 2002 LETTER 42 ' Campbell, James From: Christopher Jones [ctjones @cox.net] Sent: Friday, August 09, 2002 4:58 PM To: Jim Campbell I I I Subject: Temple Letter August 9, 2002 Mr. James Campbell City Planning Department 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92663 Dear Mr. Campbell: Page I of I RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY C1F I rWP..1CT PEACH AM AUG C g 2002 PM �iglgl�plt s I��I•_:.gl¢Iglg My wife and I are homeowners at 904 Spring Tide Drive in Harbor Cove. Our family has been a resident of Balboa Island since 1956 at 220 Collins Ave. Newport Beach has been an important part of our lives since I can remember. My earliest memory was participating in the Boy Scout Jamboree with my brother and father in 1954. ' I was in attendance at the recent EQAC meeting and was disappointed with some of the comments regarding the building of the LDS Temple on Bonita Canyon. I was surprised at the apparent disregard for the EIR. As I recall, it was called "woefully inadequate ". What a slap in ' the face to the city council that recommended and hired these objective third -parry professionals. 11 1 The comments and subsequent letter by David May Esq., regarding property values was particularly amusing. Where was he coming from with his "well thought out study"? I wish a homeowner from Bonita Canyon would submit a letter or study from any neighbor of an LDS Temple where property values have decreased. In fact, values have increased. Those neighbors whose homes have a direct view of the Temple will enjoy substantial appreciation due to excellent architecture and construction. Lastly, every study I know of regarding building in Newport deals with ideally downsizing structures from acceptable zoning. The LDS Church has gone far beyond what could be legally built to a much smaller edifice. We look forward to your support of this project. It will be an important religious structure in which the city can be proud. Sincerely, Christopher T. Jones Louise R. Jones 08/09/2002 42— ATTACHMENT 42 Main Identity From: "Christopher Jones" <cQones@cox.net> To: 'J'un Campbell° <jpmpbell@city.Newport- Sent Friday, August 09, 2002 4:58 PM Subject Temple Letter fiGf% August 9, 2002 Mr. James Campbell City Planning Department 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92663 Dear Mr. Campbell: pLANNING DEPART�FERCFI CITY OF tJF \�1> AUG 13 2002 PM NM 123468 71Bt9tlQtlltl2t t t t t t My wife and I are homeowners at 904 Spring Tide Drive in Harbor Cove. Our family has been a resident of Balboa Island since 1956 at 220 Collins Ave. Newport Beach has been an important part of our lives since I can remember. My earliest memory was participating in the Boy Scout Jamboree with my brother and father in 1954. I was in attendance at the recent EQAC meeting and was disappointed with some of the comments regarding the building of the LDS Temple on Bonita Canyon. I was surprised at the apparent disregard for the EIR. As 1 recall, it was called 'woefully inadequate': -What a slap in the face to the city council that recommended and hired these objective third -party professionals. The comments and subsequent letter by David May Esq., regarding property values was particularly amusing. Where was he coming from with his 'well thought out study'? I wish a homeowner from Bonita Canyon would submit a letter or study from any neighbor of an LDS Temple where property values have decreased. In fact, values have increased. Those neighbors whose homes have a direct view of the Temple will enjoy substantial appreciation due to excellent architecture and construction. Lastly, every study 1 know of regarding building in Newport deals with ideally downsizing structures from acceptable zoning. The LDS Church has gone far beyond what could be legally built to a much smaller edifice. We look forward to your support of this project. It will be an important religious structure in which the city can be proud. Sincerely, Christopher T. Jones Louise R. Jones 8/9/02 I I 1 I I 1 I I I I I I I I LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. AUCUST ROOK DEIR RESPONSE TO COMMENTS CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER DAY SAIN'1'f '1 "EMPLE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 42. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FROM CHRISTOPHER T. JONES 42 -A The commentor expresses support of the proposed project. No environmental issues were raised by the commentor, and further response is not required. The comment will be forwarded to the decision makers for consideration. P: \CNB23MTC \RTC doc ,,08/29/0201 LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. UEIR RESPONSE TO COMMENTS AUGUST 9009 CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LA "FT ER DAY SAINTS TEMPLE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Ll 1 43. COMMENTS FROM DANIEL M. LIVINGSTON I 1 II I� u 1 L' CI P \CNB230 \RTC\RTC.doc .08/29/02. I 11 I LETTER 43 2328 Arbutus Street Newport Beach, CA 92660 949 - 851 -1100 (office) 949 - 760 -6580 (home) July 24, 2002 Mr. James Campbell Senior Planner City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY Op v ;=Ivr- - AM JUL 2 g 2002 PM 718191 i01111121:IG13141516 Re: Proposed Newport Beach Temple — Church of Jesus Christ of Latter -day Saints Dear Mr. Campbell: I recently carefully reviewed the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the above project. It seems to me very complete and persuasive. Because much of the public comment seemed to be focused on the steeple height, I was interested to see that the extensive professional analysis of the property found the steeple not only would have no significant impact on the surrounding properties, but that any reduction in the proposed steeple height would impair the symmetrical and architectural balance ofthe proposed structure. The Newport Beach Temple will greatly enhance our community and I would strongly urge that it ' be approved. St cerely, ' Daniel M. Livingston II J 43 -E I note that the City codes set no height limits on church steeples and that no variance or other special permit of any kind is required for the steeple. The proposed steeple is only about 113 higher than the steeple on the existing Stake Center, but this difference is important to the temple's symbolic purpose. ' The EIR clarifies that the temple's purpose is higher than that of the Stake Center. It states that Project Objective #2 is: "To provide a highly visible site and a distinctive Temple with a steeple sufficiently high and illuminated to be seen from a substantial distance, as a pinnacle of the faith and the source of perceived eternal blessings to the faithfur, (p. 3 -14). The point of a high steeple, then, is not to dominate the neighborhood, as many have said. Rather, it is to represent symbolically the closest possible point to God and the source of man's highest blessings. Therefore, the temple must both be in balance and appear higher than the adjacent LDS structure. ' The ElR is a factual and objective professional analysis, not the emotional, unscientific and too often heated rhetoric which the opponents of the temple have employed. No objective reader of the EIR could find ' any legitimate basis for denying the church permission to construct this beautiful and significant symbol of faith, which includes the tall steeple and angel figure. The Newport Beach Temple will greatly enhance our community and I would strongly urge that it ' be approved. St cerely, ' Daniel M. Livingston II J 43 -E 1 1 1 LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. AUCUST 2.02 DGIR RESPONSE TO CO MMF.N "FS C kIU0.CH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LITTER DAY AAINTS TEMPLE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 43. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FROM DANIEL M. LIVINGSTON 43 -A The commentor expresses support of the proposed project and agreement with the conclusions of the Draft Environmental Impact Report. No environmental issues were raised by the commentor, and further response is not required. The comment will be forwarded to the decision makers for consideration. P: \CN13230\RT0RTC.doc .08 /29/02. 43 -3 LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. DE IR RESPONSE TO COMMENTS AUGUST ]Oa] CHURCH OP JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER DAY SAIN "I "S 'TEMPLE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 1 44. COMMENTS FROM BETTY LOU LAMOREAUX 1 11 I I 11 P:\CNB230\RTC\RTC.doc .08/29/02. 1_I 1 1 RECEIVED 6Y LETTER 44 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF: K1;:kV "r--T REACH AM AUG 13 2002 PM August 5, 2005 71819110111112111213141616 James Campbell City Planning Commission 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, Ca. 92663 Dear Mr. Campbell: As a resident near the site of the L.D.S. Temple, I had concerns that it might be as big and as bright as the Salt Lake Temple. After reviewing parts of the E.I.R. my concerns were satisfied. Therefore, I do hope you will approve and accept the E.I.R. There is no "view' that the spire will obstruct except the freeway: Most cordially, A 41,�o Betty Lou Lamoreaux Judge (Ret), Superior Court 44 -A [7 1 I i 1 1 1 1 fl LSA ASSO CIAIKS. INC. AOCV ST 9002 OEIR RESPONSE TO COMMENTS CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER DAY SAINTS TEMPLE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 44. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FROM BETTY LOU LAMOREAUX 44 -A The commentor expresses support of the proposed project and agreement with the conclusions of the Draft Environmental Impact Report. No environmental issues were raised by the commentor, and further response is not required. The comment will be forwarded to the decision makers for consideration. P: \CNB230\RTC\RTC.d0C .09129/02u ' P.\CNB230 \RT0RTC.doc.08 129/02» LEA ASSOCIATES. INC. OEIR RESPONSE 'FO COMMENTS AUGUST 90SE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER DAY SAINTS TEMPLE' CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 11 1 1 1 1 I 1 45. COMMENTS FROM JILL T. MONEY P.\CNB230 \RT0RTC.doc.08 129/02» ' 1 LETTER 45 Jill T. Money ' 1842 Port Barmouth Place Newport Beach, CA 92660 RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT July 26, 2002 CITY D7 ` 7 ° ^`,y ' A69 JUL 3 0 2002 PM 718191i01111121112131�1516 Mr. James Campbell City Planning Department 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92663 Dear Mr. Campbell, I have examined the Environmental Impact Report for the Temple of the Church ' of Jesus Christ of Latter -day Saints, and I agree with its findings. I have particularly studied the aesthetics section and am very pleased to discover that the ' issues of lighting and vista views will have no significant impact on our surrounding community. ' I am a member of the Harbor View Community Association board, and our community is very close to the temple project. We have been appraised of the progress of the temple as board members, and the EIR substantiated my feelings ' of its impact. I believe that it will fit in beautifully in our community and will be a benefit to our home values with its high quality building materials and landscaping. ' Thank you for your work on this project. Sincerely, L Jill T. Money 1 1 5 1 45 -A 1 1 1 t LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. AUGUST RU OR O R EI RESPONSE TO COMMENTS CIIIIRCH OF JESUS CHRISI' OF LAT'T'ER DAY SAINTS "TEMPLE CITY OF NEWPORT REACH 45. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FROM JILL T. MONEY 45 -A The commentor expresses support of the proposed project and agreement with the conclusions of the Draft Environmental Impact Report. No environmental issues were raised by the commentor, and further response is not required. The comment will be forwarded to the decision makers for consideration. P: \CNB230\RTC \RTC.d0C a08 /29/01, I L i C 1 1 11 I u 11 u E 1 L S A ASSOCIATES. INC. AUGUST 2001 OFIR RP.SPONSE '1'U COMMENT) CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER DAY SAINTS TEMPLE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 46. COMMENTS FROM KEITH E. MCCULLOUGH ' PA"B230 \RTCV2TC.doca08/29 /02S 46 -1 ' LETTER 46 Keith E. McCullough ' 151411ighland Drive Newport Beach, CA ' July 29, 2002 ' Via email and First Class Mail James Campbell, Senior Planner City Planning Department ' City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92663 I I 1 I I Jcampbell @city.newport — beachca us RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTN1EN7 CITY nr7 AUG C 6 2002 AM PM 718191101111121112 i 3141616 Re: Mormon Temple Draft Environmental Impact Report and Use Permit Consideration Dear Mr. Campbell: I understand that you were designated by the Lead Agency (City of Newport Beach) to accept comments on the Draft EIR concerning the Mormon Temple to be located on Bonita Canyon Drive in the City. Up until this point I have received much of my information concerning this proposed project through the media and occasional informative meetings at the Mormon Stake Center adjacent to the Temple site. However, with the announcement of the preparation of a Draft EIR I took a greater interest in the City's consideration of the proposal. In my legal practice with McCormick, Kidman & Behrens, LLP I frequently deal with CEQA compliance, land use considerations, zoning ordinances, and public law. I have represented public agencies and private entities numerous times in these areas. It is with this backdrop that I reviewed the Draft EIR (DEIR). I know the firm, which performed the DEIR for the City, and they hold a good reputation for professional competence, fairness and objectivity. Their workproduct in this instance meets the same high standard of performance, which their reputation supports. In this case, LSA Associates, Inc. has concluded that there will be no significant environmental impact associated with the Temple as studied. The record and review referenced in the DEIR supports that conclusion. In my experience I do not recall seeing a DEIR with this level of detail and analysis for a project of this size. I gather from comments in the media that the one remaining politically controversial issue associated with the proposed Temple is the height of the steeple. Certainly the DEIR undertook an extensive and thorough review of any visual impacts associated with the steeple. Nevertheless, apparent political controversy cannot be allowed to overwhelm a properly conducted analysis and a well- supported conclusion in the DEIR that there will be no significant environmental impact associated with the LETTER 46 (CONT) ' Temple, including the height of the steeple. Indeed it is apparent that the narrowing architectural design of the steeple, to the point that it is only eighteen inches wide at its ' highest point, cannot reasonably be said to block or impair any view, vista or viewscape. With the preparation of the EIR complete, it is now incumbent upon the City to adopt the EIR as prepared unless there is a patent lack of support for the conclusion of no ' -- significant impact. There is no such lack of support in the record The project.(Le.:-the Temple as proposed) cannot be altered. To propose alterations of any significance would constitute a new project and a different CEQA review. In this instance, the requirements ' of CEQA have been applied and the finding is one of no significant impact. It also appears through media reports that some in the public do not understand ' the procedure for obtaining a use permit, nor the City's zoning regulations in relation to the same. Indeed all church buildings are subject to a use permit in the Bonita Canyon Planned Community area in which the Temple will be located. Churches are permitted in , this zone, albeit with a use permit. As has been the universal condition in the many other cities in which I have worked, churches are permitted in certain zones but under a use permit. In other words, churches generally cannot simply be built with only a building ' permit in any zone in which they may be found. Instead they must apply for and obtain a use permit. This is true for all churches. So the Mormons are being treated like all the 46 other churches in this City. cowl Furthermore, the use permit covers all aspects of the proposed church structure in all jurisdictions in which I have experience. The same holds true in the City of Newport ' Beach. In other words, and as you know, there is no separate use permit that concerns only height limitations. The height of the steeple, together with the other elements of the Temple such as set back, landscaping, etc. will be reviewed as part of one use permit. , Dwelling on the height of the steeple a moment longer, under Section 20.65.070(G) of the City's Code, all churches are exempt from specific height limitations. This does not mean that church building heights will not be subject to ' review, rather simply that the height of the structure, in this instance the steeple of the Temple, will be part of the use permit review process. However, no specific height parameter applies. As the Mormon Temple is going through this same procedure for a 1 use permit, why does there seem to be a misconception that the Mormons are asking for something special related to the height of the steeple? ' The reason for the church exemption from height restrictions is apparent. Churches are often of different architectural design than more common residential or commercial structures to which the general zoning code is more easily uniformly t applicable. In eminent domain law, an area in which I spend a significant part of my legal practice, churches are designated as "special use" properties and accorded special treatment due to their typically unique architectural designs and lack of easy adaptation to ' other uses. Cities often grant churches an exemption from height limits because church structures tend to have non - functional steeples or other elevated architectural features. In this regard, the City of Newport Beach is no exception. , 1 I LETTER 46 (CONT) ' I have seen the plans and architectural design of the Temple. From the many view simulations of the Mormon Temple contained in the DEIR, it seems to be a unique and inspiring structure. ' There are other unique and inspiring religious structures in the City of Newport Beach where the height limit exemption has been applied. These other structures are ' beautiful landmarks in our City. For instance, the cross at St. Andrews, the steeple at the new St. Matthews building right across from the Temple site, Mary Queen of Angels on the peninsula, and the cross at the Lutheran church at 16m and Dover all are quite tall, ' notable structures. They are meaningful edifices that I am sure lend peace, solace and direction to the congregations and City constituents whom they serve. The same holds true with the steeple of the Mormon Temple. It would seem unfair to deny approval to ' the Mormon Temple on the height of the steeple when there are many other religious structures in the City well in excess of generalized height regulations. Of course, a church's right to be treated on par with other religious and non religious facilities and to have its rights of religious free exercise respected are fimddamental constitutional rights. doubt that Newport Beach will treat on group or its appropriate religious facility any worse than others now existing in the City. The Mormon Temple seems to be, on balance, a net positive for the City. It will be located in an area near the new Bonita Canyon Park, near other churches, on a well - traveled thoroughfare. The Temple will be set back from the roadway with its par" ' hidden. The plans depict lush landscaping and water treatments that will bring a further peace and serenity to the neighborhood. It looks hike the type of project which City leaders would welcome as part of a great city. I appreciate this opportunity to comment on the DEIR and to address some fiuther comments on the broader zoning and use permit issues. Thank you. WeithE.YM s,ullough 1 Cc: Members of the City Council ' Members of the City Planning Commission I 46 -A CONT 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. A U C II ET ROOK DEIR R%RON EE TO COMMENTS CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER DAY SAINTS TEMPLE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 46. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FROM KEITH E. MCCULLOUGH 46 -A The commentor's issue related to processing of the Conditional Use Permit through established City of Newport Beach processes is an administrative matter outside the purview of CEQA. These issues will be discussed in the Staff Report prepared by the City of Newport Beach Planning Staff. The commentor expresses support of the proposed project and agreement with the conclusions of the Draft Environmental Impact Report. The comment will be forwarded to the decision makers for consideration. P: \CN8230 \RTC \RTC.dM .0829102» 46 -5 I I I I I I I �J I I I ' P. \CNB230RTC\RTC.doc 1108/29/01 4 LSA ASS O CISTES.INC. UY.IR RESPONSE TO COMMENTS AUCOST 1002 CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER DAY SAINTS TEMPLE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH I I I I I I I �J I I I ' P. \CNB230RTC\RTC.doc 1108/29/01 4 I 1 I I I 1 I L i BRUCE D. MAY DIRECT DIAL: (949) 725 -6126 9MAYQSYCR.COM LETTER 47 STRADLING YOCCA CARLSON & RALITH A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION ATTORNEYS AT LAW 660 NEWPORT CENTER DRIVE. SUITE 1600 NEWPORT BEACH. CA 926808122 TELEPHONE (949) 725-4000 FACSIMILE (949) 7254100 July 31, 2002 Planning Commissioners Larry Tucker, Chairman Steven C. Kiser, Vice President Earl McDaniel, Secretary Edward Selich Shant Agajanian Anne K. Gifford Michael C. Kranzley City of Newport Beach City Hall 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach CA 92663 -3884 SAN FRANCISCO OFFICE 44 MONTGOMERY STREET. SUITE 4200 SAN FRANCISCO. CALIFORNIA041M TELEPHONE (415) 250.2240 FACSIMILE (415) 2522255 SANTA BARBARA OFFICE 502 OLIVE STREET SANTA SARSARA, ULIfORNI' 95101 TELEPHONE 48M) 584-00115 F/RCEIMILE ORA) 584.1844 ncG�IV R �'•/ PLANN!N GITY n= a Re: Application of The Church Of Jesus Christ of the Latter Day Saints Dear Planning Commission Members: I have lived at 22 Seabluff in Bonita Canyon in Newport Beach since it was built in April 1999. This letter concerns the Draft Environmental Impact Report prepared by LSA Associates regarding the application of The Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter Day Saints ( "LDS ") for a conditional use permit to build a Temple on Bonita Canyon Drive with a steeple at least 121 feet high and to illuminate it from 5 am until 11 pm. For myself and my family, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, I believe that the Draft EIR is seriously flawed, and that the LDS's application should be denied because it requests an unwarranted exception to the City's long standing regulations. I DOCSOC\913269v 1 \19999.0000 47 - A LETTER 47 (CONT) I Planning Commissioners City of Newport Beach ' July 31, 2002 Page Two �I also believe the application, if granted, would amount to an unconstitutional establishment of religion. Simply stated, the proposed height, lighting, and color of the Temple are inappropriate for the residential neighborhood in which the site is located, and the LDS's request for an exemption is not supported by the record. You will recall that I wrote to 47 Mayor Bromberg with copies to each of you on July 11, outlining my concerns. Attached is a copy of that letter, which I incorporate by this reference. I would ask that you review it again, and take my concerns to heart. This week I received a colorful mailer from the City of Newport Beach entitled "Step Up To The Future" which reports on the progress of the City's efforts to update its General Plan. I read this mailer with great interest, as I had taken the time to participate in one of the open forum meetings on the subject at City Hall in March of this year. I am struck by how even the initial reports in that mailer reinforce the very objections 1 and my neighbors have asserted to the height, lighting and color of the proposed LDS Temple. In particular, the first of the mailer declares: , page " Mansionization: There is a strong feeling that the City should restrict building large homes that change the character of neighborhoods.' 47 With all due respect to the Mormon faith, their application is mansionization in the extreme. If I were to seek permission for a five story house in my neighborhood of two story homes, I would expect the City to deny my request, even if I had the full support of my neighbors. Why then should any applicant be allowed a second exemption Ithe first being the height of the existing Stakehouse) to build a Temple that far exceeds the height and lighting restrictions, when a large chorus of neighbors object? ' I understand the LDS contends that its application should be granted, based on the contention that the denial infringes their free exercise of religion. I can only hope that the members of the Planning Commission and the City Council, and the City Attorney, recognize how profoundly fallacious this contention is. The fact is, in Book nothing the of Mormon, the LDS Doctrines and Covenants, or any other bona fide expression of Mormon belief dictates or implies that the Temple in the City of Newport Beach must be 121 feet tall, or any other specific height, or that it be lighted from 5 am to 11 pm, or any other particular hours. These are arbitrary esthetic choices, concerning secular matters of building height and lighting, not religious beliefs. I OOCSOC1913269v 1119999.0000 1 ' Allowing this conditional use permit on the grounds it is dictated by religious freedom would allow a religious order to build a structure 120 stories high, on Balboa 47 - D Island, and illuminate it with searchlights. The LDS's interpretation of religious freedom proves too much: No church can run roughshod over the City's power to regulate zoning issues of purely local concern such as building height and hours of lighting. LETTER 47 (CONT) Planning Commissioners City of Newport Beach July 31, 2002 Page Three I am also dismayed that the Draft EIR contains no discussion of the environmental ' Even acknowledging that the LDS wishes to create a structure that brings them closer to the heavens, or symbolizes affinity with their God, limiting the height and hours of lighting does not substantially burden the exercise of those beliefs. All Mormon 47 - C ' Temples constructed prior to the latter part of the 19' century were built without electric CONT ' lighting, which did not exist until 1850. Well into the 20' Century the LDS has built ' temples in Mesa, Arizona, and elsewhere which have no steeple at all. ' Allowing this conditional use permit on the grounds it is dictated by religious freedom would allow a religious order to build a structure 120 stories high, on Balboa 47 - D Island, and illuminate it with searchlights. The LDS's interpretation of religious freedom proves too much: No church can run roughshod over the City's power to regulate zoning issues of purely local concern such as building height and hours of lighting. Finally, you must note that the Draft EIR acknowledges that a shorter temple, with reduced lighting, would pose less environmental impact, and yet still be consistent with the 47 - C LDS's stated objectives. This is proof positive that the height and lighting of the temple are not dictated by any bona fide principle of religious expression, but are purely secular concerns. More importantly, this element of the Draft EIR lays bare the need for compromise. ' I welcome the LDS to the neighborhood. I ask only that they live by the same basic ( 47 - H rules as all my neighbors. My neighbors and I do not have the resources of the LDS, and ' DOCSOC \913269v1 \19999.0000 Of greater concern are the numerous substantive deficiencies in the Draft EIR as identified by the City's own Environmental Quality Affairs Committee as summarized in their report to James Campbell dated July 17, 2002. 1 incorporate that report by this 47 - E reference, and assert all objections it contains on my behalf and that of all persons similarly situated. I am also dismayed that the Draft EIR contains no discussion of the environmental ' impact on the spectacular wildlife found immediately adjacent to the site in Bonita Canyon, which feeds directly into Back Bay. Is this not part of a protected habitat for the gnatcatcher, the least tern, and countless other birds, animals, and flora? ' Last month, as I was walking my dog late one night on the pathway at the end of 47 - F Marble Sands overlooking the LDS site, I heard a ruffle of feathers, and then watched in ' awe at the sight of an adult white owl, with a wingspan of several feet, as it alighted from the ground, and flew silently across Bonita Canyon in the dead of night. I had to strain my eyes to see this magnificent creature take flight in the darkness. Has anyone considered the impact that the proposed lighting will have on wildlife? This strikes me as a fatal defect in the Draft EIR. Finally, you must note that the Draft EIR acknowledges that a shorter temple, with reduced lighting, would pose less environmental impact, and yet still be consistent with the 47 - C LDS's stated objectives. This is proof positive that the height and lighting of the temple are not dictated by any bona fide principle of religious expression, but are purely secular concerns. More importantly, this element of the Draft EIR lays bare the need for compromise. ' I welcome the LDS to the neighborhood. I ask only that they live by the same basic ( 47 - H rules as all my neighbors. My neighbors and I do not have the resources of the LDS, and ' DOCSOC \913269v1 \19999.0000 L Planning Commissioners LETTER 47 (CONT) City of Newport Beach July 31, 2002 Page Four LJ I IF u 1 1 DOCSOM9132690 119999.0000 , 1 so we must rely on you to take account of our interests, and enforce all laws even- ' 47 handedly. If the LDS will not compromise main, n asic neighborhood parameters for 1 architecture and lighting, then the Commissio ould any thi lication. c.Uri I V(e_ytrul your , l ' Bruce D. May BDM:mt Enclosure/ cc: Mayor Tod W. Ridgeway, tridgewav @citv.newoort- beach.ca.us Council Member Gary Proctor, gproctor @iuveniledefenders.com Council Member Norma J. Glover, nglover @citv.newoort - beach.ca.us , Council Member Garold B. Adams, garold adams @hotmail.com Mayor Pro Tem Steven Bromberg, dandee @earthlink.net Council Member Dennis D. O'Neil, doneilC@hewittoneil.com Council Member John Heffernan, ihff @aol.com ' LJ I IF u 1 1 DOCSOM9132690 119999.0000 , 1 ATTACHMENT 47 STRADLING YOCCA CARLSON & RAUTH A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION SAN FRANCISCO OFFICE ATTORNEYS AT LAW N MONTGOMERY STREET, SUITE 42M SAN FRANCISCO. CALIFORNM 99109 p� 860 NEWPORT CENTER DRIVE. SUITE 1600 TELEPHONE 191s) x9a -ago N \DCE D. MAY FACSIYO.E (.13)x0a -2. ' DIRECT DIAL' 949 725 -4124 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660422 ( ) SANTA BARBARA OFFICE 9YAY ®SYLR.COY TELEPHONE (949) 725 -4000 a0x RA. STREET FACSIMILE (949) 7254100 SANTA TELEPHONER (805) 5"4045 t01 FACSIMILE 1505) 544.10.9 July 11, 2002 rr Via MesservceR AND Emrait — dandee @earthlink.net RECENF,G pLANNINC JI . p,RTt<1EN iH Steve Bromberg CITY CF Mayor Pro Tern JUG Pit City of Newport Beach City Hall r: gli.�(17.11.21I121u141516 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach CA 92663 -3884 t ' Re: Mormon Temple Dear Mayor Bromberg: Thank you for your letter of April 12 concerning the architectural issues arising from the application of The Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter Day Saints ( "LDS ") for a conditional use permit to build a Temple with a 121 foot temple on Bonita Canyon Drive. I previously sent you a copy of your April 12 letter indicating my concerns. This letter elaborates on my objections to the proposed height and lighting of the Temple. I have lived at 22 Seabluff in Bonita Canyon with my wife Joan and children Natasha, Alex, and Jackson since the house was built in April 1999. Our home sits on a ' small promontory with the back of the house overlooking Battersea facing the toll road and LICI. The existing LDS Stakehouse and its lighted parking lot are directly visible from the back of our house and our backyard. The proposed Temple will be equally visible from all of the rooms at the back of our office and our backyard also be in plain view as well. Enclosed is a 4 x 6 inch photograph that I took from the deck on my bonus room at ' approximately 8 p.m. during the week the lighted crane was in place to simulate the Temple height. This picture shows the same essential view we will have of the Temple from my upstairs master bedroom, master bath, and studio, as well as my kitchen and family room downstairs, and my entire back yard. It is an understatement to say the Temple will be visible from my house. If built and lighted as planned, it will dominate the landscape and overwhelm the view, especially in the early morning hours and at night. Though the crane was topped with a single light I00CSOC18955010119999.0000 ATTACHMENT 47 (CONT) Steve Bromberg July 11, 2002 Page Two in the enclosed photo, you can see how it stands out dramatically against the night sky This is because the Temple would be far and away the tallest structure in a residential —This with minimal ambient lighting, which is the basis for all our objections. My house represents my life savings. I paid a premium of about 5100,000 for my lot, because of the view. I paid an additional premium of about $100,000 for a bonus room above the garage with a small deck overlooking Battersea. 1 spent more than another 5100,000 on a spa, hardscape, and landscaping in the backyard. Even using the modest assumption that 500 homes are in direct view of the site, we are talking about at least a half billion dollars in real estate that will be directly impacted. When I moved into the neighborhood, I was well aware of the LDS Stakehouse that was already built on Bonita Canyon. The Stakehouse is relatively much larger than anything in the neighborhood, and I understood that a variance had been granted for the LDS to exceed the height limit, but the dark earth tones of the Stakehouse allowed it to blend in with Bonita Canyon. More importantly, the Stakehouse already existed, so when made the choice to buy my house it was part of the decision. I also was well aware of the floodlights in the Stakehouse parking lot, which for reasons 1 have never understood are kept on until at least 10 pm every night, even though you will rarely see any activity at the Stakehouse on a typical night after business hours. Yet the lighting of the parking lot was called out to me when I bought the house, and even though it provides much greater illumination than the Bonita Canyon streetlights, it was there when I moved in and I accepted it as part of the price of my house. What 1 never imagined is that the City would allow anyone to build a structure next door to the Stakehouse of the size now proposed by the LDS, light it at 5 am and keep it lighted until 11 p.m. As the enclosed photograph shows to the naked eye, a lighted Temple will stand out in the night sky because there is nothing but relatively low level street and house lamps in the surrounding vicinity. Indeed, UCI has a small astronomical observatory located down the road on Bonita Canyon across from Tarbut V'Torah. Obviously that site was selected because of the low ambient light. There is simply no legitimate reason why the City should allow any non - conforming structure of this size in a residential neighborhood, or allow it to be lighted during hours that that would overwhelm the early morning and night sky and disrupt the sleep and daily life patterns of local residents. To begin with, it is self- evident that the justification proffered by the LDS for the lighting is not based on any bona fide principle of religious belief or expression. Electric lighting did not exist when the Book of Mormon was written in the 1830's, roughly half a DOCSOC\895501 v1 \19999.0000 I Steve Bromberg ATTACHMENT 47 (CONT) July 11, 2002 Page Three 00csoc\895501v 1 \19999.0000 century before Thomas Edison perfected incandescent lighting. Electric lighting is a purely secular concern, and neither the LDS nor any other faith can make any plausible claim that their faith dictates electric lighting of any magnitude for any hours. To the contrary, 1 electric lighting is a particularly local concern where the City's power to regulate is beyond question. ' Indeed, allowing a special exemption for the lighting requested by the LDS, when all the other structures (including churches) in the area conform to reasonable lighting standards, would be showing favor to a single faith, and constitute an unlawful ' establishment of religion and a violation of State and U.S. Constitution by the City and its officers. More precisely, allowing the LDS a special exemption as requested would (1) have no secular purpose, (2) have a primary effect that advances a religious purpose, and (3) foster an excessive governmental entanglement with religion. This constitutes an unlawful establishment of religion. See Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602, 687 -88 (1971), and ' County of A//eghanY v. ACLU, 492 U.S. 573 (1989). As a homeowner suffering tangible harm, I could clearly have standing to sue on such a claim. ' There is no functional need for the lighting the Temple from 5 a.m. until 11 p.m., since we are told it will be used only during the day, for small groups of people. For the same reason, there is no safety concern, such as lighting to deter crime in an underground parking structure. There is no practical necessity, as with the need to light the only gas station on a ' stretch of lonely highway. ' The fact is, the proposed lighting is solely to attract attention to the structure. Anyone who has seen a Mormon Temple, such as in La Jolla, Westwood, the Oakland foothills, knows that they are not lighted to blend into the neighborhood. They are lighted to stand out. They are intended to capture the eye, rather than disappear into the night sky. This is fact, and not a swipe at Mormonism. In other words, electric lighting of the Temple is simply a form of signage, which 1 the City has plenary power to regulate. Light pollution is a real concern, both esthetically and in terms of safety and health. This Temple will be situated in a residential neighborhood. Children (and adults) are ' sleeping at 5 a.m. and 11 p.m. The lighting should conform to reasonable residential hours. 1 00csoc\895501v 1 \19999.0000 Steve Bromberg ATTACHMENT 47 (CONT) July 11, 2002 Page Four , The issue of lighting cannot be separated from the height of the tower, which ' would also require a substantial departure from the established standards that have served the community so well. , As with the proposed lighting, the proposed height of the Temple is an arbitrary choice by the LDS, and is not dictated by any bona fide religious principle. The recent draft Environmental Impact Report prepared and paid for by the LDS states in pertinent ' part: "The Temple steeple is a symbolic architectural connection with the infinite; it must be high enough to be visible at a distance that identifies the Temple as a source of the Church's highest and holiest blessings." (Draft EIR dated June 2002 at page 3 -8.) Taking this assertion at face value, it does not in any way dictate that the Temple steeple be 121 feet. Indeed, it proves too much: The same logic would justify a 1,200 foot steeple. Or a 50 foot steeple. ' More to the point, even the LDS's own draft EIR endorses the alternative of making the steeple shorter and curtailing the lighting. Pages 5 -6 of the Draft EIR state that "...Alternative 2 proposes a 100 foot high steeple and a reduction in hours of illumination for lighting of the architectural elements of the Temple facade." No explanation is given for this 100 foot figure. It could just as logically be 50 feet. In short, even the LDS acknowledges that the Temple can be made shorter, and the , lighting reduced, consistent with its own asserted religious objectives. This points the way to an obvious solution. Reduce the height of the steeple. , Make It no taller than the existing LDS Stakehouse. Reduce the amount and size of the lights to a minimum, and allow them to be turned on only from dusk until a reasonable hour, such as 8 p.m. ' This is not only a fair and reasonable compromise, but it also avoids the grave Constitutional issues I have outlined above. , Newport Beach is an exquisite oceanfront town, a resort, a Riviera. It is also a place for houses of worship, but the Temple as proposed by the LDS exceeds all rational standards for a residential neighborhood. I am counting on you and the other elected City officials to protect my interests as a home owner and parent. I do not have the wealth, personnel, and resources of the LDS ' to make sure the basic design parameters of our neighborhood are protected. This is where I need your help as my elected representatives. ' In closing, I want to emphasize that I am a deeply religious person and I respect all faiths, including the Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter Day Saints I have reached out to Joe Bentley and Bob Wynn to discuss these issues in a rational manner. I also have , DOCSOC%89550101 19999.0000 ' 1 I ' ATTACHMENT 47 (CONT) Steve Bromberg July 11, 2002 Page Five ' conveyed my concerns to Doug Higham, a member of the Mission Viejo LDS Stake Presidency, who happens to be a childhood friend. I also have befriended Rick and Kim Nicholson who are fine neighbors that support the Temple. I have gone out of my way to assure them that my opposition to the current plans for the Temple flows not from any ideological differences but from concern over neighborhood and property values. 1 I I I I I welcome the Temple as a r standards as all other neighbors. BDM:mt Enclosure 1y the same cc: Mayor Tod W. Ridgeway, tridgeway@city.newport- beach.ca.us Council Member Gary Proctor, gproctor @iuveniledefenders.com Council Member Norma J. Glover, nglover @city.newport - beach.ca.us Council Member Garold B. Adams, garoid adams@hotmail.com Mayor Pro Tern Steven Bromberg, dandee @earthlink.net Council Member Dennis D. O'Neil, doneil @hewittoneil.com Council Member John Heffernan, ihff @aol.COm Planning Commission Member Shant Agajanian Planning Commission Member Anne K. Gifford, annegiff @cs.COm Planning Commission Member Steven Kiser, skiser @packbell.net Planning Commission Member Michael C. Kranzley, michael.kranzlev @chase.com Planning Commission Member Earl McDaniel, emcdaniel @fullertoncb.com Planning Commission Member Edward Selich, edselich @adelphia.net Planning Commission Member Larry Tucker, gtp @ohill.com DOCSOC1695501 VI %19999-0000 - � I .I LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. UEIR RESPONSE TO COMMENTS AUCUST 2002 CHURCH OF JP.SDS CHRIST Ot LA'll ER DAY SAINTS TEMPLE. CITY Of NEWPORT REACH ' 47. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FROM BRUCE D. MAY ' 47 -A The first portion of the comment is an opinion that the EIR is inadequate. However, the The commentor's issue related to processing of the Conditional Use Permit through comment and the subsequent discussion do not raise substantial evidence that the EIR is inadequate in satisfying the requirements of CEQA. The comment will be forwarded to the ' decision makers for consideration. The latter portion of the comment related to processing of of CEQA. These issues will be discussed in the Staff Report prepared by the City of Newport the Conditional Use Permit through established City of Newport Beach processes and is an administrative matter outside the purview of CEQA. r47 -B Please refer to the Aesthetics General Response for a discussion of the significance criteria Please refer to Responses to Comment Letter No. 5, which addresses the concerns raised by used to determine aesthetic impact and to the Light and Glare General Response for a discussion of light and glare impacts. The commentor's statements are acknowledged; however, the commentor does not provide support for such a finding. The comment does not provide specific evidence or new information suggesting that the information contained in the 47 -F EIR is inadequate. In the absence of data or substantiating evidence to the contrary, the conclusion of the EIR may be relied upon. The comment will be forwarded to the decision ' makers. 47 -C The commentor does not raise any specific environmental concerns; therefore, no response is necessary. The comment will be forwarded to the decision makers for consideration. P' \CNB230RTMTC doc ((06/29/031 47 -12 47 -D The commentor's issue related to processing of the Conditional Use Permit through ' established City of Newport Beach processes is an administrative matter outside the purview of CEQA. These issues will be discussed in the Staff Report prepared by the City of Newport ' Beach Planning Staff. 47 -E Please refer to Responses to Comment Letter No. 5, which addresses the concerns raised by ' the EQAC. The commentor's support of the EQAC concerns is acknowledged and will be forwarded to the decision makers. 47 -F The concerns raised by the commentor are similar to concerns addressed in Response to ' Comment 5 -V and Response to Comment 9 -E. Please refer to Response to Comment 5 -V and Response to Comment 9 -E. ' 47 -G Please refer to Response to Comment 5 -Q for a discussion of the alternatives analyzed for the proposed project. The comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision makers. 47 -H The comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision makers. P' \CNB230RTMTC doc ((06/29/031 47 -12 I.SA ASSOCIATES. INC. DEIS RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ' AUGUST 2002 CHURCH OF JESUS PURIST OF LATTER DAY SAINTS TEMPLE. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Attachment 47 The attached comments are noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision makers ' for consideration. The source of the view simulation provided by the commentor, including input specifications, has not been provided for the City to verify the accuracy of the photo simulation. Therefore, the analysis of the EIR may be relied upon. The photograph will also be forwarded to the decision makers for consideration. The commentor provides no evidence , to substantiate their assertion that the proposed Temple will reduce property values of adjacent residences. Please refer to Responses to Comments 5 -Q (alternatives), 21 -D (project objective), and 21 -B (Conditional Use Permit process), and Aesthetics and Light and Glare , General Responses (visual impact methodology and assessment). I 1 [1 LI u L P: \CNB230RTMTC.doc 08/29/031 1 LS.. ..YSOCL.TE3. INC. DEIR R SPONSF TO COMMENTS ..VCV ST 2002 CNVRCH OF JESVS CHRIST OP L..TTP.p DAY S..I NT9 it MPLE CITY OF NEWPORT BEA. D ' 48. COMMENTS FROM MELISSA L. HICKS AND THOMAS F. MCCORMACK 1 1 1 1� 1 h 1 P:\CNB230\RTC\RTC.doc X08/29/02. 11 i 1 1 LETTER 48 August 8, 2002 To: Planning Coaanissioners & Staff City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTR4EN H CITY 0 s,i -n -T rr FNr1.- AIA AUG U 9 2002 PM 718 110 ill 11 ?1- 1`16141GIG From: Melissa Hicks & Thomas F. McCormack 27 Marble Sands, Newport Beach CA 92660 Newport City Beach residents residing in the Bonita Canyon Development ' Subject: DEIR - Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints Temple Public Comment 1 First, let us thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Draft Environmental Impact Report 1 for the proposed LDS Temple. My husband and I reviewed its contents at the public library, reading most of it, but admittedly skimming some of the technical & supply oriented appendices. ' Secondly, neither of us has any background regarding building processes, zoning, planning, etc. We come to this as homeowners, taxpayers and residents deeply concerned about appropriate development within our city, and more specifically within our neighborhood. A copy of our April ' 24 letter to Mr. Bromberg is attached, which we ask you to consider as part ofthis commentary. None of the information contained within the DEIR causes those comments to be altered. Thirdly, we are somewhat floundering as to how to both efficiently and effectively comment on our perception of the "accuracy" of the DEM, as there are questions, concerns, and general comments. So, we'll just plow on using a bullet format. 1 Looking at many of the simulated "Views"that were presented - assuming they are accurate representations, a point we question - we feel that the determination of " less than significant impact" on the daytime aesthetics of the area is totally inaccurate. iFor example, View 4.1.2 shows a hugely towered structure that is overwhelming to our neighborhood, clearly having a significant impact on the neighborhood. 1 View 4.1.9 shows a building that clearly stands out due to the overwhelming tower, significantly impacting the area. 1 View 4.1.10 is a representation of the ability this structure would have to not blend in, due to its size and its coloration, changing the nature of this neighborhood, significantly ' impacting our lives. 1 -I- I 1 Eon, -2- 1 1 J LETTER 48 (CONT) ' ► And, View 4.1.17 is the only one that alludes to the lighting issue, which is one that involves not only "lighting pollution" and glare, those this certainly is a significant issue, even by the results of the DEIR. We, feel the lighting of a structure of this height and size , will have a significant negative impact on the aesthetics of the area. ► There are no representations of how this proposed structure would look at night from the , — "Views" that were used for daylight simulations. This is a•serious emission in our estimation, as the nighttime effects will be negatively significant!! , ► All of the simulated views are daytime views, and as previously indicated, we feel that a structure of this size is clearly not in keeping with the desire to "maintain and enhance the scenic character of the City". This proposed structure would impact our lives ' dramatically. Our roofs were pitched ahnost flat so they would fall within city zoning 48-A guidelines, and now a tower is to be built that will overwhelm our homes, decimate our views and physically change the nature of our neighborhood, having a considerable CO'l negative impact. This would certainly not be a situation that should be classified as having less than a significant impact. ' ► And how overwhelming will this structure be in the evening, at night and early morning when it will clearly be the dominant focus. Nowhere is this effect simulated. Regardless of the strength of lighting, it will be highly visible - that is the intent. Not at all in keeping , with a residential neighborhood!!!! Why is this never addressed in the DEIR? And were it to be, it would surely have a significant impact on the aesthetics of the area. , ► Are these superimpositions accurate? Knowing the height of the steeple of the Stake Center, it has never seemed that the crane rose another 40 feet above it. And, at the Stake Center unveiling to our neighborhood, one of the representatives of the LDS (the ' architect, I believe) was asked a question using technical terminology which alludes me, but the explanation was that the floor of the proposed temple would be at the same height as the floor of the existing stake center. That appeared to match the renderings within the , DEIR, but surely does not match the placement of the crane. ► There is commentary by the firm doing the superimposition referencing that they are ' assuming the crane tip represents the accurate final height - a question that is tantamount to much of this and yet one that seems never to be truly answered. , ► In the Notice of Availability issued by Mr. Campbell, Senior Planner, it reads "finished floor elevation, which will be 5 -8 feet above natural grade'... 48f I ► On page 12 of the Southern California Geotechnical Report it reads "shows grade fill of 4 to l l feet" - not reference finished floor elevation, just to start ... 1 -2- 1 1 J 11 Cl 1 -3- ' LETTER 48 (CONT) ► And, more curious is page 15 of the Geotechnical Report that indicates "fill soils expected ' to extend to depth of 12 to 20 feet below foundation bearing grades".. . ► What is the actual finished floor elevation? And, how will this effect perceptions of this DEIR's simulated "views"? ► If the crane height does not accurately represent the finished elevation of the tower, then ' all of the simulated "Views" are erroneous... and should be redone??? ► Additionally, how can one assume that the superimposition (assuming it is accurate) could possibly simulate the effect a structure has on its surroundings? Have you not snapped ' pictures of the Grand Canyon, or other similarly astounding place, only to find yourself saying "the pictures just don't do it justice ". That is very much how we feel these 48 - B ' "Views" need to be considered. The very nature of the proposed structure and its location is to assure that it is the focal point of the vista. It surely would have a significant impact CONT on the aesthetics of the neighborhood, a situation LSA seems to overlook. ► In Section 4, LSA indicates that in views 3 & 4 that this "church structure could not be a surprising view ". We very much disagree, believing that the imposition of a structure with 1 an oversized tower in this setting would be extremely unexpected! This is a village -like atmosphere in this area. There are homes and structures that support families who live in this neighborhood. The stores are not regional stores that shine their lights to attract an ' influx of shoppers. So, this type oversized structure would very much be out of step with this area and its use. planned ' ► On page 3.15 the proposed DEIR indicates that "although located in the vicinity of existing residential neighborhoods, this site is located at a greater distance from homes than from the adjacent church and civic, retail and service facilities ". This infers that this is other than a residential area We disagree with the inference of this statement. While 48-C ' our homes are in a newly developed, more recently annexed area of the city, they should be recognized as a neighborhood as much so as those that have been here longer, or those that afforded ocean views. Our homes are very near to this structure, both in measurable ' distance and in visible distance! ► The pictures that show the superimposition of the proposed temple and its tower, were D ' taken by one firm and the superimposition was apparently done by another. Are both of 148- these firms unbiased? 11 Cl 1 -3- LETTER 48 (CONT) Does LSA have a bias? There was significant commentary regarding the project and the conclusions of this organization that brought up this question. For example, there are numerous almost deferential references to the "symbolic architectural connection with the infinite, high enough to be visible at a distance that identifies it as a source of the Church's highest and holiest blessing" that are provided as fact without quotations or source, and yet when the effect on the City and its residents and homeowners are referenced the prose reads in a much more sterile manner, such as "Impacts to privat -views are considered, but there is no threshold established to determine whether or not an effect on private views is significant" This latter is interesting in a City where trees are consistently topped to maintain the "private view" of residents... By the "Aesthetics" qualifications used by LSA one could place virtually any structure, of any size, on this site and it would be allegedly be consumed by the overall visual vista, and be considered of less than significant impact. Why then would one home, or one tree, interfere with an ocean view - as the ocean is so vast? To those of us who live here, the imposition of such an overwhelming structure would certainly have a very negative effect on us. We, therefore, believe that this proposed structure would provide a significant negative impact on the aesthetics of this area. This is proven out in LSA's determination that there would be negligible effect noted with the reduction the proposed tower height to 100 feet. Assuming good architectural design, this would necessitate reducing some of the mass of the tower as well, which would reduce but not eliminate the negative impact to our neighborhood. What defines a steeple? Both the height and mass of this structure seem to fall far outside any boundaries of common sense. This is not addressed in the DEIR per se, but as the area has been zoned to allow a 50 foot building, with accompanying steeple (via Use Permit) the City Planning Commission must have felt these qualifications constituted an acceptable impact to this area_ How then could a structure that clearly falls well outside of this be considered to have other than a significant negative impact? 48 The DEIR references the approval of the Bonita Canyon Site Plan Review as well as a Use Permit needed for a steeple in excess of the 50 foot height restriction, does this DEIR 48 answer to both of these issues? We also question the LSA report's consistent reference to the stone as being earth toned, leading one to expect it to be a brown, as are most other buildings in the area, but in fact it 48 is a light "rosy" shade, which is not in keeping with the aesthetics of this neighborhood Again a fact of significant impact when exacerbated by the oversized nature of the structure. 1 1 F7 LJ 1 J 1 I -4- 1 J Cl 1 'I i LETTER 48 (CONT) To again quote the DEIR this proposed building is to have "symbolic architectural connection with the infinite, high enough to be visible at a distance, that identifies it as a 48 - H source of the Church's highest and holiest blessing ". It is obviously intended to have an overwhelming visual impact - one that we feel will negatively impact our home, our lifestyle, our neighborhood and our community. 1 We believe that the steps necessary to mitigate the negative impact to this area would include the significant reduction of the height and mass of the proposed tower, reduction of lighting, and a possible change in building materials (dependent on other modifications). 1 The addition of another Church structure in and of itself is not the issue. It is rather the effect that this proposed structure would have on our environment, one that we could not possibly have foreseen given the Zoning restrictions that currently exist. 1 We have tried to identify the areas of the DEIR we believe to be inaccurate or in question. Our ' disagreements, with the exception of actual tower height, all revolve around perspective. The DEIR seems to minimize the perspective of local homeowners, it seems to minimize the perspective an oversized structure in a neighborhood, it seems to minimize the perspective of 1 differentiated building materials within an existing palate, it ignores that buildings that are closer dominate the perspective of a view, and that which is lit dominates the perspective of the darkened night. This is no doubt why there is a period for commentary from other perspectives. 1 Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, 1 Melissa L. Hicks Thomas F. McCormack 27 Marble Sands 27 Marble Sands 1 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Newport Beach, CA 92660 1 attachment: 4/4/02 letter to S. Bromberg cc: Steven Bromberg, Mayor Pro Tern, City of Newport Beach 1 Steven Brombal, President, Bonita Canyon Development Board of Directors 1 -5- 1 1 ,; 48 -J I 1 II 1 1 1 1 1 1 IJ I April 24, 2002 ATTACHMENT 48 RE: Mormon / LDS Temple To: Steve Bromberg, Mayor Pro Tern Councilman, 5'" District From: Melissa Hicks & Thomas McCormack 27 Marble Sands, Newport Beach CA 92660 Newport Beach City Resident residing in the Bonita Canyon Development Thank you so much for your letter of April 12, 2002 ! ! ! My husband and I have been residents of this city for 2 years, having moved from the East Coast. We chose the City of Newport Beach for many reasons, not least of which was the obvious care that is taken in growth and development. We were advised of constraints put on development by the Irvine Company, the City of Newport Beach, and the individual communities such as the Bonita Canyon Development. We were also advised that there could be additional building at the Mormon site and were advised of zoning restrictions (50 foot building, with steeple). This would not be much different from the existing Stake Center, which conforms to the neighborhood. When we attended the meeting at the Stake Center to see the proposed building, it was amazing to us that the new temple was meant to be quite d!fferent from the surrounding environment. For a holy religious site, the planners have done an exceptional job. As a neighboring homeowner, it is quite distressing to think of a one hundred twenty four foot tower looming over our properties, to say nothing of the use of light reflective building materials which are intended to be illuminated throughout the night. We will be confronted by this every time we enter the Mesa View entrance, every time we walk our street, anytime we head east on Bonita Canyon / Culver, or enter from that side. The tower will be visible, and its lighting most probably recognizable all night. This building will be visible from miles around, not what we had ever expected as a part of our neighborhood, nor what we believe our zoning requirements allow. I e- mailed the Planning Commissioners in February attempting to explain my position on tower height, lighting, etc. A copy of that e-mail is attached. We continue to be confused by the fact that this structure, as presented, seems to be so contrary to the zoning of Newport Beach, as depicted by: + a 124 foot tower (far taller and wider than anything we would expect to be classified as a steeple), + lighting that is to be bright and continuous, and + exterior materials that are so very d!fferent than anything found in this area - - M_ ATTACHMENT 48 (CONT) ' To underscore these issues, we received the Newport Beach Step Up To the Future brochure , dated March 2002 that addresses issues including ones hike this. It discusses a "Well- Designed Community" where "design principles and policies emphasize tasteful, appropriate and functional , design characteristics that fit well within the community". This structure does not seem to fit into this community. It is intended, by its very nature, to be a regional center for the holiest of services. A gentleman at the Stake Center referenced that it be "architecturally significant ", with an oversized steeple intended as a "Beacon to God." This seems to be quite contrary to the vision statements found within the Vision for Newport Beach. This building is not intended to conform to the neighborhood. , A tower of this magnitude seems to far exceed the "steeple" exception being sought by the Church of Latter Day Saints. , We look to the Planning Commission and City Council to act on this issue using, not the pressure of public relations' campaigns, but the vision of Newport Beach that assures its residents the t ability to five in a city that will continue to "successfidly balance our `village' character with the needs of residents, workers, and business owners" (again quoting the Step Up To The Future progress report issued March 2002). ' We again thank you for the effort you have taken in this matter. Additionally, I have some pathetically amateurish pictures that emphasize the effect this tower would have on our City, our , neighborhood, our home and very likely its worth, that I can make available to you. I Melissa Hicks & Thomas McCormack , 27 Marble Sands 949 - 717 -6643 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 LSA ASS O CIATEY. INC. DEIS RESPONSE "1'O COMMENTS AUCUBY 1001 CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER DAY SAINTS TEMPLE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 48. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FROM MELISSA L. HICKS AND THOMAS E MCCORMACK 48 -A Please refer to the Aesthetics General Response for a discussion of the significance criteria used to determine aesthetic impact and to the Light and Glare General Response for a discussion of light and glare impacts. Also refer to Response to Comment 8 -F for a discussion related to the height of the crane, and to Response to Comment 21 -D for a discussion of the project objectives. The comment expresses opinions that the EIR is inadequate and is based upon the author's assertion that the impact is significant and should be revised. However, the comment and the subsequent discussion do not raise substantial evidence that the EIR is inadequate in satisfying the requirements of CEQA. The comment simply states that the aesthetic impact is understated. Any issue of aesthetic impact, especially an aesthetic impact to a view, tends to be subjective. Different individuals will have different opinions about aesthetics and visual impacts. However, the analysis in the EIR follows the requirements of CEQA, which focuses on an evaluation of evidence concerning the physical environment as measured against specific thresholds. The comment will be forwarded to the decision makers. 48 -B Please refer to Response to Comment 5 -A for a discussion of the height of the steeple, and to Response to Comment 8 -F for a discussion of the height of the crane. As stated in Section 4. 1, Aesthetics, of the EIR, a complete discussion of the methodology utilized in the preparation of the view simulations is provided in Appendix F of the EIR. Please refer to the Aesthetics General Response for a discussion of the aesthetic impact methodology and assessment. 48 -C As stated on page 4.4 -3 of the EIR, Section 4.4, Land Use, the project site is designated Governmental, Educational and Institutional facilities in the City General Plan and is located in an area zoned PC #50 (Bonita Canyon Planned Community). This land use category is applied to areas developed with uses that form the physical and social infrastructure of the community and is designated for educational facilities, municipal uses, hospitals, and churches. It is recognized that residential development occurs in areas to the west, south, and southeast of the project site. The comment will be forwarded to the decision makers for consideration. 48 -D The view simulations were prepared by Lloyd E. Platt and Associates with vantage points photographed by City staff and the project architect. The photographs were selected by City staff to serve as the basis for the visual simulations used in the EIR. 48 -E LSA Associates, Inc. is under contract to the City of Newport Beach to prepare the environmental documentation for the proposed Temple. Please refer to Response to Comment 21 -D for a discussion of the project description and project objectives utilized in the environmental analysis. Please refer to the Aesthetics General Response for a discussion P'1CNB2301RTC\RTC.doc .08/29/02,, LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. DEIR RESPONSE TO COMMENTS AD CAST 2002 CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER DAY SAINTS TEMPLE CITY OF NEWPORT 6EACH ' of aesthetic impact criteria. Please refer to Response to Comment 5 -Q for a discussion of the ' reduced intensity alternative analyzed in the EIR. 48 -F The commentor's issue related to processing of the Conditional Use Permit through ' established City of Newport Beach processes is an administrative matter outside the purview of CEQA. These issues will be addressed in the Staff Report preparettty tha ity of Newport Beach Planning Department. ' 48 -G Please refer to Response to Comment 8 -E for a discussion of the building material for the proposed Temple. , 48 -H The comment raises similar concerns as Comment 48 -E. Please refer to Response to Comment 48 -E. ' 48 -1 The comment raises similar concerns as Comment 48 -E. Please refer to Response to Comment 48 -E. The commentor's support for reduced height and lighting of the Temple is acknowledged and will be forwarded to the decision makers. ' 48 -J The comment is an opinion that the EIR is inadequate and should be revised and recirculated. However, the comment and the subsequent discussion do not raise substantial evidence that ' proves the EIR is inadequate in satisfying the requirements ofCEQA. The comment will be forwarded to the decision makers for consideration. 1 Attachment 48 The attached comments are noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision makers for consideration. 1 1 1 1 P: \CNB230 \RTC \RTC.doc o0829/02* 1 I LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. DEIR RESPONSE TO COMMENT'S AUGUST 9002 CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LA"1'T ER DAY SAINT'S TEMPLE CITY OF NEwP ORT BEACH 49. COMMENTS FROM ALLEN K. MURRAY P.\CNB230\RTC \RTC doc ,08/29 /02>I 49 -1 I 1 1 1 1 LETTER 49 Campbell, James Page 1 of 1 From: Allen Murray [amurray@glycozyme.com] PLANNING DEPARTMENT Sent: Friday, August 09, 2002 5:03 PM CITY CAF N15`" L "c- orAC; z To: jcampbell @city.newport- beach.ca.us AM AUG 0 9 2002 PM Subject: Comments on Mormon Temple Draft EIR 7181911011111�11;u;5141516 Dear Mr. Campbell 1. 1 completely support the objections to the EIR raised by EQAC. 2. There are no simulated photographs of the temple showing a night view effect on the view. 3. 1 see no mechanism to enforce the restricted lighting hours of the steeple. This should 149 - A require a cut -off switch in a locked box accessible by the police similar to emergency cut -off switches in gas stations for the fire department. That way if the lights are on past the permute time and a complaint is called in to the police, the patrol officer could shut off the lighting just like a disturbing the peace call. 4. 1 find the phrase of no significant impact on the view used throughout the draft EIR to be unjustified. Allen K. Murray 2330 Port Lerwick Place Newport Beach, CA 92660 949 - 759 -7081 w 949 - 261 -9664 email: amurray@glycogyme.com Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti -virus system (http:/ /www.grisoft,com). Version: 6.0.372 / Virus Database: 207 - Release Date: 6/20/02 1 ' 08/09/2002 1 LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. AUCOST ]002 DEIR RESPONSE TO COMMENTS CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LA "r "1 "ER DAY SAIN'IS'rEMPLE CI'T'Y OF NEWPORT BEACH 49. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS FROM ALLEN K. MURRAY 49 -A Please refer to Responses to Comments 5 -A through 5 -W, which address the EQAC comment letter. Please refer to the Light and Glare General Response for a discussion of light and glare impacts, including nighttime view simulations. The commentor's opposition to the project is noted and will be forwarded to the decision makers for consideration. P: \CNn230 \RTC \RTC.doc ,08129102. 49-3 ' LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. DEIR RESPONSE TO COMMENTS AU CUST 2..2 CHURCH OF fERUS CHRIST OF LATTER DAY SAINTS T M PI.E CITY OF NE WPOR'f BEACH 1 50. COMMENTS FROM DR. AND MRS. RICHARD D. NEWCOMER I I 1 I I 1 I I I I P: \CNB230 \RT0RTC.doc 1,08/29/02» 1 I RECEIVED ey LETTER 50 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY CC rncA','H July 28, 2002 AM AUG 0 G 2002 PM 718191101111121111213141518 ' Mr. Jim Campbell` Senior Planner City Planning Department 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92663 Re: LDS Temple Dear Mr. Campbell, My wife Susie and I are 32 year residents of Newport Beach and have seen the city grow and evolve considerably during that time. Thanks at least in part to required EIRs, most of this growth has been reasonable and beneficial. We have had an opportunity to review the EIR submitted by LSA Associates, Inc. regarding the proposed LDS Temple on Bonita Canyon Road and believe it to be thorough, complete, and very competently written. It addresses our pertinent concerns regarding potential increase in traffic, air and water quality issues, and the aesthetic impact of-the project on our community. We are pleased and satisfied that the traffic, air, and water issues are essentially insignificant. After viewing the three comparative pictures showing the site before, immediately after construction, and ten years later after maturation of the landscaping, we are more than satisfied that the ' proposed Temple will not only be visually unobtrusive, but an appealing asset to our community. The LDS church has obviously made a genuine effort to address the concerns of the surrounding community by making recommended changes in the color and lighting of the Temple. The spirit with which these changes were made is encouraging and appreciated. We believe the EIR should be accepted as written and the project approved by the city. 1 I I 50-A V truly Dr. & Mrs. Richard D. Newcomer 2507 Bmrya St. 1 Newport Beach, CA 92660 1 I I 50-A i 1 1 1 1 i 1 LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. AUCUST 2002 DEIR RESPONSE TO COMMENTS CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF I. ATTER DAY SAINTS TEMPLE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 50. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS FROM DR. AND MRS. RICHARD D. NEWCOMER 50 -A The commentor expresses support of the proposed project and agreement with the conclusions of the Draft Environmental Impact Report. The comment will be forwarded to the decision makers for consideration. P\CNB230\RTC\RTC.doc .08/29102» 50 -3 1 1 LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. AUCUST 20O2 DEER RESPON9E TO COMMENTS CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST Of LATTER DAY yA1NTA TEMPLE CITY OF NEWPORT REACH 51. COMMENTS FROM RICHARD E. NICHOLSON P' \CNB230 \RTC \RTC.doc a08 /29/02,, I d I 1 I I 1 I \f r1Fi LETTER 51 ESTCLIFF MEDICAL LABORATORIES, INC. July 29, 2002 Mr. Jim Campbell Senior Planner City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport MY& Newport Beach, CA 92663 Dear Mr. Campbell, Richard E. Nichalaon, president Clark IL Chow, Bioanalyst RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY nr ri =v,. - °=A: H AM AUG U 5 2002 PM 7i &19ii011ili2iii�18i41G16 As a resident and business owner with multiple offices in Newport Beach, i wish to write in support of building the Marmon Temple as proposed and supported by the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) study. I believe the, Temple as proposed and evaluated in the EIR has minimized the impact to views, traffic and other concerns. It is clear the church has made accommodations to protect the surrounding environment and neighborhood. As a community based business since 1963, 1 support the balance of land use for homes, church buildings and parks. 1 believe it is important to build parks that accommodate the recreational needs of the community and to allow churches to utilize their land for facilities that help people better understand their religion. From my review of the EIR, it is apparent the study was extensive and showed there would not be significant impact regarding steeple height, lighting, traffic and open areas. To continue to build Newport Beach into a great area to live and work in, and, To Continue to faster relations between Newport Beach and different faiths and businesses within the community, I recommend support of the EIR findings and approval of the proposed Mormon Temple. Sincerely, Rich President and CEO 1 REN /bh I aril Hospital Road. Sniie 322 a Newport Reach. California 9,2663 a (949) 646-0216 a Fax: (949) 631 -1721 51 -A 1 r t r 1 r i 1 1 r r r LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. AU CU ST 2002 DE 1R RESPON SF: TO COMMENTS CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER DAY SAINTS TEMPLE. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 51. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FROM RICHARD E. NICHOLSON 51 -A The commentor expresses support of the proposed project and agreement with the conclusions of the Draft Environmental Impact Report. No environmental issues were raised by the commentor, and further response is not required. The comment will be forwarded to the decision makers for consideration. P 1CNa23MTCVdTC dot ,,0829/02), 5] -3 LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. CE1R RF.SPON SE TO COMMENTS AUGUST ROOK CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER DAY SAINTS TEMPLE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 1 I 1 1 I1 I I I 1 52. COMMENTS FROM KIM NICHOLSON P \CNB230 \RMRTC.doc .09/29/02. i 1 I I 11 LETTER 52 Ui Ir sUlr Km NICHOLSON 36 PALA__O NEWPORT BEACH CA 9 6 ��G D D BY t'LANNIN DEPARTA1FN1 CITY r• July 31, 2002 Mr. Jim Campbell Senior Planner City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd Newport Beach, CA 92663 Dear Mr. Campbell, AM AW 0 "1002 PM 718191iui Ili 1u1 ;;141616 As a resident in Bonita Canyon, I have become aware of the concerns regarding the proposed LDS Temple. I have reviewed an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) that was completed to study the impact on the neighborhood and surrounding areas. It is obvious the study was a very thorough process. I understand the Temple would occupy less than 10% of the total 8-acre site and that the setback will exceed requirements. I believe the church had made its best efforts to respond to neighborhood concerns. My concerns regarding the impact of the steeple height, lighting and traffic have been satisfied. When I purchased my property in 1999, the developer informed me that Bonita Canyon was not considered view property, and that the church owned land next to their current property and may build on it in the future. I agree with the EIR's conclusion that the proposed Temple will ' not result in an impact to scenic vista, and is therefore consistent with applicable General Plan policies regarding visual resources. 1 I 1 The proposed project would improve a vacant property by building an aesthetically pleasing church building with landscaped gardens. After reviewing the EIR, I recommend that the Temple be allowed to proceed as proposed. I feel this project will add value to the city, the surrounding neighborhood and my property in Bonita Canyon. Sincerely, Ki�� 52 -A I [J 11 I 1 LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. AUGUST 2 002 DEIR RESPONSE TO COMMENTS CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OE LATTER DAY SAINTS TEMPLE ., TY OF NEWPORT BEACH 52. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FROM HIM NICHOLSON 52 -A The commentor expresses support of the proposed project and agreement with the conclusions of the Draft Environmental Impact Report. No environmental issues were raised by the commentor, and further response is not required. The comment will be forwarded to the decision makers for consideration. P: \CNB230\RTC\RTC.doc «08/29 /02» 1 1 LSA ASSOCIATES. INC AUGUST 1007 DEIR RFSPONSC l'O COMMENTS CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER DAY 5AIN"FS TEMPI.F CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 53. COMMENTS FROM BRYAN NICKEL P'\CNB230\RTC \RTC.doc «08/29/02» 53 -1 I u C' 1 LETTER 53 Bryan Nickel 1821 Port Sheffield Newport Beach, CA 92660 August 6, 2002 James Campbell Senior Planner, City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92663 Re: 2300 Bonita Canyon Dr. Newport Beach RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTNIFNT CITY n= ^`A.:H AM AUG U 0 2002 Pi19 718i91iUIllII21i1213i41616 ' Dear James, This letter is written in support of the LDS Church's planned building at the above address. ' Additionally, 1 write in support of architectural diversity in our city. Towns and cities around the world are recognized for buildings that are constructed for reasons other than economics. In Europe many towns are centered around elaborate church structures (back when the Catholics had money). The Transamerica tower in San Francisco stands out because the economics of high rise office building were suspended. Our own Fashion Island skyline, including the stainless steel skin buildings, would not be built today as the spreadsheet says two story "Flex -tech" concrete tilt up is the correct answer. The LDS Church seems willing to underutilized a prime 8 acre site and spend way too much money to put up a high quality 18,000 S.F. structure (half the size of a small "flex-tech' across the freeway) with extensive landscaping. I say — more power to them. Alternatively I fear that the economics of the site are better suited to apartments and have no doubt that the Irvine Company ' has a buyback provision running with the property and would *work' the city until approval. I grew up in West Los Angeles and remember the "Mormon Temple" on Santa Monica Blvd. with ' it's expansive lawn in the middle of the urban hustle and the golden angel in contrast to the skyline of square office buildings and high rise apartments. Down the street from our house was a facility called 'Shrine Lake" with a mosque like structure visible from Sunset Blvd. I still am not sure what the function of the facility is, but it is a bit offbeat and cool. 1 am an alumni of U.C. Santa Barbara, the dominate feature of the campus is Stork Tower visible from the top of San ' Marcos Pass some 25 miles away. It's a great tower. I live on the first street off Ford Road in Harbor View Homes. I am not a member of the LDS church. I have reviewed the EIR and welcome the proposed land use down the street from my ' house. In a county of largely milktoast architecture and overdense land use dictated by traditional economics the proposed temple will add a bit of diversity and space to the apartment -scape that is now being build as the south-eastern entrance to our city. Very Truly Yours, 1 Bryan Nickel 53-1 LSA ASS O CIATES.INC. UEIR RESPONSE TO COMMENTS AU CU ST 900] CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTHR DAY SAINTS TEMPI.0 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ' 53. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FROM BRYAN NICKEL 53 -A The commentor expresses support of the proposed project and agreement with the conclusions of the Draft Environmental Impact Report. No environmental issues were raised by the commentor, and further response is not required. The comment will be forwarded to ' the decision makers for consideration. 1 P: \CNn230 \RTC\RTC.d" «08/29/02. 1 1 1 LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. AUGUST ]00] DF.IN RESPONSE TO COMMENTS CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTFR DAY SAINTS TEMPI.E CITY OF NE WPORI' EEACII 54. COMMENTS FROM WILLIAM AND MELINDA O'BRIEN P' \CNB230\RTC\RTC.doc .08/29/02,, 54 -1 LETTER 54 ' WILLIAM & MELMA O'BRIEN 12 SEABLUFF ' NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTA1Ft)., July 23, 2002 CITY Pc nir- .,....,�_ - . •.,. ' AM )UL 2 6 2002 PM James Campbell, Senior Planner ul—lal0141816 City Planning Department = 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 ' Re: Proposed LDS Temple at 2300 Bonita Canyon Drive, Newport Beach ' Dear Mr. Campbell: My wife Melinda, our two children and I live in the community of Bonita ' Canyon. In fact, our home at 12 Seabluff is as close as any home in our community to the existing LDS building, referred to in the EIR as the Stake Center. We are not Mormon, but we do have friends who are and we have a very healthy respect for that ' faith. My wife and I have reviewed the EIR and we both want to compliment you and your staff on compiling a very thorough report. After reviewing and discussing the project's design features, significant adverse impacts and suggested mitigation measures, we want to encourage you and the planning staff to recommend approval of the LDS Temple and give your support for this project as it is now proposed. One of the most compelling reasons for our support is that the current zoning on the site allows for a much more intensive and intrusive land use than the proposed LDS ' Temple. Legally permitted uses such as a public school or a care facility would pose a greater negative impact on the community of Bonita Canyon than the proposed Temple. ' These alternative uses would generate more traffic, more pollution, more noise, be used more days of the week, be less aesthetically pleasing and generally have more of a negative impact on our community than the proposed LDS Temple ever would. This leaves mainly the steeple as an object for complaint. However, your visual simulations dispel any notion that it will be unduly intrusive or obstructive of any views. ' For these and other reasons, we strongly urge you to support the proposed LDS Temple and recommend its approval to our Planning Commission and City Council. ' Sincerely, t r' mill O'Brien--/ 'Brien Melinda O'Brien 1 54- t t 1 1 1 1.S.\ ASSOCIATES. INC. AUGUST 2.02 UEIµ RES PONE l'O CUM MENI'S CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF 1..\T TEµ DAY SHIN "1 "S'I'EMPI.P. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 54. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FROM WILLIAM AND MELINDA O'BRIEN 54 -A The commentor expresses support of the proposed project and agreement with the conclusions of the Draft Environmental Impact Report. No environmental issues were raised by the commentor, and further response is not required. The comment will be forwarded to the decision makers for consideration. P' \CNB23MRTC\RTC.d0C 808129/02» 54 -3 ' LSA ASSOCI Al ES. INC. UGIR RESPONSE TO COMMENTS AO GO ST So oR CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIS"1 OF LET.rER DAY SHIN "YS TEMPLE Oily OF NEWPORT BEACH I 1 55. COMMENTS FROM DOUGLAS OWEN P'\CNB230 \RTC\RTC.doc 4829M. I 1 i �7 M ADVISO REALTY LETTER 55 Medical Real Estate Services �J ADVLSORS ' RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMIFNT CITY OF t. mar.,.- .,r N 'H ' AM AUG U 9 2002 PM August 8, 2002 71t� i i II i l lj iwiSi4 i8 �6 Mr. James Campbell City Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 ' Dear Mr. Campbell, I am a resident of Newport Beach California and have watched with interest the proposed ' development of an LDS Temple to be located adjacent and across the street from the existing churches, parks, and neighborhood shopping center. I attended a meeting at the Newport Beach Police Department offices where the EIF, on the Temple project, was ' reviewed by EQAC. At the conclusion of the meeting I had some questions about the proposed Temple relating to landscaping, building color, site coverage, lighting, traffic impact, and steeple height. I obtained a copy of the EIR and reviewed some of the ' concerns voiced during the EQAC meeting, thinking all issues had not been adequately addressed in the EIR- ' After a thorough review of the EIR I am satisfied that all issues were appropriately addressed with regard to all of the above mentioned issues and many more. I am satisfied with the findings of the EIR which clearly state that the LDS Temple Project does not pose a problem with respect to any environmental issue or the health and safety of the community. Therefore, I would encourage the city to approve the Temple Project as modified and currently designed. ' Sinc ..1 oug Owen 1 1 1601 Dove Street, Suite 115 • Newport Beach, California 92660 • (949) 833 -1174 Facsimile (949) 833 -1810 55 -A LS.S ASSOCIATES. INC OP.IR RESPONSE. TO COMMENTS AO GOST ROOK CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER DAY SAINTS TEMPLE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACII 1 ' 55. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FROM DOUGLAS OWEN 1 55 -A The commentor expresses support of the proposed project and agreement with the conclusions of the Draft Environmental Impact Report. No environmental issues were raised by the commentor, and further response is not required. The comment will be forwarded to the decision makers for consideration. 1 11 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 P: \CNH230 \RTMTC.doc .08129/021 1 ' LEA ASSOCIATES, INC. DEIR RESPONSE TO C0MMY.NT'S AUCII ST ]0 0] CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER DAY SHIN "fS TEMPLE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH i i I I I I I I I I I I I I 56. COMMENTS FROM JOHN W. PACKER, MAI P' \CNB230 \RTC \RTC.doc n08 /29/02» 1 11 1 I 1 LETTER 56 PACIFIC LIFE July 20, 2002 JOHN W. PACKER RECEIVED BY Regional Director James Campbell, Sr. Planner pLANNING DEpARTNiENT Central Region City of Newport Beach CITY CIF ^-'•"i'+ Real Estate Division 3300 Newport Blvd. p ZQ�2 FM Ni wpori Beach, CA 92663 AUG a Re: Mormon Temple gr81911011111211101�is16 Dear Mr. Campbell: J ' I have worked in the Real Estate Division of Pacific Life for 24 years. My family and I are 11 -year residents of Newport Beach. We live in one of the neighborhoods (Harbor View Homes) adjacent to the proposed Temple. I have read the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and have the following comments: Traffic: After extensive study, the traffic impact is projected to be as very minimal and below any reasonable level of concern; so it should be a non - issue. ' Lighting: Every church in the city has some lighting; the proposed Temple is no exception. A lighting study was conducted and as a result lighting levels have been reduced to the point that lighting will not spillover or cast any shadows on neighboring properties. The report also compares the lighting of the proposed Temple to Sage Hill High School, local shopping centers and St. Andrews church. The proposed Temple's lighting is less than half of these other buildings. Steeple: Most churches have steeples that exceed the height of the church building. Most church steeples in the city appear to be over 50 feet in height. 124 feet does seem very high, even though it is narrow (only 18 inches wide at the top). Whether a steeple is too high or not is very subjective. Many homeowners are complaining about the height. I will not be able to see the Temple steeple from my home, but if I could I can understand their concern. ' In my neighborhood the building height limit is 30 feet, but building set backs are very tight. My home is 10 feet froru my side neighbor, about 35 feet from my backyard neighbor and 90 feet from my neighbor across the street. According to the report, the 33 foot high Temple with ' the 124 foot high steeple (18 inches wide at the top) will be 620 feet from the nearest home. Proportionally, that is like my neighbor, 90 feet across the street from me, having a 5 foot high house with an 18 foot flagpole, (3 inches wide at the top). I can now understand why the EIR ' concluded that the steeple did not create a significant impact. Other Uses: The Temple site is currently unattractive and growing weeds. A 17,500 square foot Temple with the proposed gardens will be more attractive and less intrusive to my neighborhood than a ' school or any 180,000 square foot building that could legally be built on this site. ohn W. Packer, MAI ' PACIFIC LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY 700 Newport Center Drive, Newport Beach, California 92660 -6397 Tel(949)219 -3737, Fax(949)219 -0517 1 LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. OEIR RESPONSE TO COMMENTS AU GO ST 2002 CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER DAY SAINTS TEM I'LE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 1 1 56. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FROM JOHN W. PACKER, MAI i 1 56 -A The commentor expresses support of the proposed project and agreement with the conclusions of the Draft Environmental Impact Report. The comment will be forwarded to the decision makers for consideration. 1 1 I k 11 1 F 1 1 L 1 1 P: \CNB23MRTCMTC.doc .08/29/02. 1 LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. DE10. 0.EYPONRE '1 V CVMM ENTY AIICUST 9009 CH VRCII OF JESUS CHRIST OF LA EN DAY SAINTS TlMYLE Cll "Y OP Nc WPORT BEACH ' 57. COMMENTS FROM MR. AND MRS. MORRIS B. PARKER III 1 1 P'\CNB230 \RTC \RTC doc a08 /29/021 I F- L LETTER 57 Mr. -� Mrs. Morris F>. Parer III August 2, 2002 James Campbell ' City Planning Department 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92663 ' Dear Mr. Campbell, -51 waLwut street, Newport $each, Gfl92663 RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTNIENT CITY OT- N AM AUG U G 2002 PN1 71819110111112111213141510 As residents of Newport Beach for 34 years, we have been active in our community, faithful voters and tax payers, and have a vital interest in our city"s beauty and well- being. We are familiar with the Endings of the Environmental Impact Report compiled with regard to the ' building of the temple for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter -day Saints on Bonita Canyon Drive. We have taken note that the study indicates there would be no significant impact on the area "s traffic, view or lighting, and feel that the study was thorough and persuasive. ' We have also noted that without exception, LDS temples throughout the world are beautifiilly constructed and always well maintained. These structures make good neighbors because wherever ' they are built the values of surrounding properties consistently appreciate. Those who attend the temple are people of good character and integrity, thoughtfid neighbors and good citizens. We have seen the plans for this structure and believe that the beauty of the building and the 1 grounds will greatly enhance the community. We also believe the steeple height and the modest lighting to be appropriate considering their significance to Latter -day Saints. ' We strongly urge you to approve this project. Sincerely, ' Mr. & Mrs. Morris B. Parker III 57 -A 1 1 L S A ASSOCIATES. INC. AUGUST ..0. DEIR RESPONSE TO COMMENTS CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER DAY SHIN "!S'1'EMPLE CI l'Y Of NEWPORT BEACH 57. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FROM MR. AND MRS. MORRIS B. PARKER III 57 -A The commentor expresses support of the proposed project and agreement with the conclusions of the Draft Environmental Impact Report. No environmental issues were raised by the commentor, and further response is not required. The comment will be forwarded to the decision makers for consideration. P.\CNB230 \RTC\RTC doe 808129/02. ' LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. UEIR SE PONS '1'0 (:UM MEN IS AUGUST 2002 CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER DAY SAINTS TEMPLE oil.Y OF NEWPORT BEACH 1 1 1 I 1 I I 11 1 1 58. COMMENTS FROM TONY PREMER P: \CNB230\RTC\RTC.doc S09/29/02p 58 -] 17 1 �I 1.1 Campbell, James LETTER 58 From: Wood, Sharon Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2002 12:21 PM To: Campbell, James Subject: FW: Comments to EIR for Proposed Mormon Steeple - - - -- Original Message---- - From: Premer, Tony [mailto: Tony. Premer@Pacif iclif e. com) Sent: Friday, August 09, 2002 10:13 AM To: 'swood@city.newport- beach.ca.us' Cc: 'dandee@earthlink.net' Subject: Comments to EIR for Proposed Mormon Steeple Ms. Wood - I was unable to locate an e-mail address for Mr. James Campbell, Senior Planner. ' Please forward my accompanying comments on the EIR for the proposed Mormon Steeple Project to Mr . James Campbell and any other appropriate personnel at the city. 1. Section 4.5 Traffic and Circulation, introduction,'2nd paragraph ' Report references 152 parking spaces as adequate for Temple that is planned to sery 58 - E no more than 150 people at any time. Is the amount of parking adequate for users of Templ and extensive Gardens which will be open to public? ' 2. Section 4.5.1.3 Existing Traffic Volume Do traffic measures in this report consider cumulative effects of traffic as increased by completion and occupancy of homes and apartments on Newport Ridge? Do traffig measures in this report consider cumulative effects of traffic as increased by 58-1 ' opening and occupancy of Bonita Canyon Sports Park, particularly during peak hours of usage? 3. Section 4.5.3.1 Overview and Methodology ' Report references similar temple in the City of Reno as a source of empirical 58-( traffic data. Is such temple of the same size and offering the same public garden area? ' 4. Section 4.5.3.2 Site Access Report references "658 of project traffic will enter the site from the west'. The temple is a regional facility which would suggest non - conforming traffic patterns. In order to avoid toll charges on 73 Toll Road, visitors from north (heading south on 73 Tol Road) would likely exit MacArthur or Bison (last "free" exits) to avoid toll incurred by exiting on Bonita Canyon. Accordingly, the report should address the likelihood that a 58 -I disproportionate number of visitors will traverse the MacArthur Blvd /Bonita Canyon Road intersection and to enter the site from the west. ' 5. Section 5.5.2 Attainment of Project Objectives Referenced project objective to "provide a highly visible and distinctive Temple with a steeple sufficiently high and illuminated to be seen from a substantial 58-1 distance..." is inconsistent with reports conclusion that project will not have a significant impact. Please feel free to contact me should you require any clarification on any of these points. ' Tony Premer 20 Molino Newport Beach, CA 92660 cc: Steve Bromberg ' 1 I LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. AUGUST 2..2 UCIR RESPONSE TO COMMENTS CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER DAY SAINTS TEMPLE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 58. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FROM TONY PREMER 1 58 -E Please refer to Response to Comment 21 -D for a discussion of the project objectives utilized in the environmental analysis. P1CNB230 \RTC \RTC.doc 08/29102o 58 -3 58 -A A parking study was not prepared for the proposed Temple; however, the proposed development will provide an adequate number of parking spaces to meet the City's code requirements (146 spaces). Also, please refer to Response to Comment 8 -Q. ' 58 -B The traffic study was based on cumulative projects provided to Urban Crossroads, Inc. at the time the traffic study was being prepared. These cumulative projects include all ' developments included in the City Transportation Phasing Ordinance (TPO). 58 -C The proposed temple is larger than the facility in Reno (17,460 square feet vs. 10,700 square feet). The trip generation assumptions have taken into account the difference in capacity to ' determine the appropriate new trips that are expected to occur. Section 4.0 in the traffic study provides a further explanation regarding the trip generation methodology. The public garden area is intended to be an ancillary use for the Temple and is not expected to generate a ' significant amount of new trips. 58 -D The trip distribution patterns are disproportionate as indicated on Exhibit 4 -A of the Traffic ' Study. The majority of the traffic traversing the MacArthur Boulevard/Bonita Canyon Road intersection has taken into account potential tolls avoidance. 1 58 -E Please refer to Response to Comment 21 -D for a discussion of the project objectives utilized in the environmental analysis. P1CNB230 \RTC \RTC.doc 08/29102o 58 -3 LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. DE IR RESPONSE TO COMMENTS AUCUFT 7003 CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST' OF LATTER DAY SAINTS TEMPLE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 1 1 59. COMMENTS FROM CARI SCHRECK F L L 1 J D D d 1 p p 0 0 1 P' \CNB230 \RTC \RTC.doc ,,08/29/02, 59 -1 C LETTER 59 Cari jchreck RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT 8 WhitesanJs Drive CITY Or: nic . ' -, .•• ' Newport Coast, CA 92657 AM AUG 13 2002 PM I -1 I I I ' July 50, 2002 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 I kavc reviewed tkc E.IK wkick was very detailed and tkorougk, regarding tkc proposcd Mormon tcmplc in Ncwport beack. I find its content very tborougb and its conclusions very compelling. I kavc beard from a few of my fellow town mem6ens, 6otk support for and some concern, a6out tkc temple's size and traffic issues. Upon rcadingtkc E.IK I now know tkattkcsc concerns arc unfounded. Would tkcsc a6utting komcowncrs ratkcr kavc tkc traffic and ugliness of a pu6lic care facility or otkcr kig6- traffic development'. Or arc tkcy rcally looking to keep this land undeveloped, as it bas been for many years? My sense is that it is tkc latter based on tkc findings of tkc E.IR. The E.IK shows that tke Mormon tcmplc utilizes a minimum amount of the zoned land. IYs also nestled among otkcr ckurckcs on tkc street, so it certainly blends into tkc area. I think tkc simulated pictures in tkc E.IK rcally tell tkc story persuasively. It's a very small structure (even relative to the ckurckcs already around it) and is surrounded 69 landscaping in suck a way that it is not a kigkly conspicuous building at all, but ratker a beneficial enkancement to a currently barren dirt lot. Tkc E.IR also notes tkat tkc building is closed on Sundays and is not projected to kavc any mcasura6lc traffic impact I appreciate tkc tkorougkncss of tkc E.IK and tkc city's commitment to do its komcwork in o6taining tkc needed data rcgardingtkc proposcd building. Sinccrcly, L' Mr. Jim Campbell ' Senior rlanncr City Planning Department ' 5500 Ncwport P5oulcvard Newport [)cack, CA 92663 ' Dcar Mr. Campbell, 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 I kavc reviewed tkc E.IK wkick was very detailed and tkorougk, regarding tkc proposcd Mormon tcmplc in Ncwport beack. I find its content very tborougb and its conclusions very compelling. I kavc beard from a few of my fellow town mem6ens, 6otk support for and some concern, a6out tkc temple's size and traffic issues. Upon rcadingtkc E.IK I now know tkattkcsc concerns arc unfounded. Would tkcsc a6utting komcowncrs ratkcr kavc tkc traffic and ugliness of a pu6lic care facility or otkcr kig6- traffic development'. Or arc tkcy rcally looking to keep this land undeveloped, as it bas been for many years? My sense is that it is tkc latter based on tkc findings of tkc E.IR. The E.IK shows that tke Mormon tcmplc utilizes a minimum amount of the zoned land. IYs also nestled among otkcr ckurckcs on tkc street, so it certainly blends into tkc area. I think tkc simulated pictures in tkc E.IK rcally tell tkc story persuasively. It's a very small structure (even relative to the ckurckcs already around it) and is surrounded 69 landscaping in suck a way that it is not a kigkly conspicuous building at all, but ratker a beneficial enkancement to a currently barren dirt lot. Tkc E.IR also notes tkat tkc building is closed on Sundays and is not projected to kavc any mcasura6lc traffic impact I appreciate tkc tkorougkncss of tkc E.IK and tkc city's commitment to do its komcwork in o6taining tkc needed data rcgardingtkc proposcd building. Sinccrcly, L' I.SA ASSOCIATES. INC. DE IR RESPONSE. TO COMMENTS AU .0 ST 2002 CHURCH OF JESUS CHRISI OY LATTER DAY SAINTS TFMPLE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 59. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FROM CARI SCHRECK 1 ' 59 -A The commentor expresses support of the proposed project and agreement with the conclusions of the Draft Environmental Impact Report. No environmental issues were raised by the commentor, and further response is not required. The comment will be forwarded to the decision makers for consideration. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 PACNB230UZTC\RTC doc x08/29/02n ' LS'A ASSOCIATES. INC. DEER RESPONSE TO COMMENTS AUGUST 3003 CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER DAY SAINTS TEMPLE C I'I'Y OF NEWPORT BEACH 1 1 1 1 iI 1 1 1 1 k 1 1 1 1 60. COMMENTS FROM MICHAEL SCHRECK P \CNB230 \RTCTTC.doc .08/29/02. 60-1 1 ' LETTER 60 GENERAL CATALYST PARTNERS August 1, 2002 RECEIVED BY ' PLANNING DEPARTMENT Mr. Jim Campbell CITY CF tJMNJOrlC'T rEACH Senior Planner AUG 13 2002 City Planning Department AM PM 3300 Newport Boulevard 71819110111112 1 1 2s 4 6 8 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Dear Mr. Campbell, I am writing to express my gratitude for commissioning such a thorough Environmental Impact Report (EIR) regarding the proposed Mormon temple in Newport Beach. I've reviewed the study, its exhibits, and simulated site pictures and find it very credible. Having recently relocated my family and private equity firm to Newport Beach from Boston, I have seen the importance of a comprehensive EIR in exactly this situation. The Mormon Church recently finished a temple in our former home town of Belmont, MA. There was a similar vocal minority who went to great lengths (legal, PR, etc.) to derail its ' construction. It was the factual EIR that assisted both the city officials and town members to discern between hype and facts. I believe the EIR will do the same here in Newport Beach. ' I've heard some of the concerns of the abutting neighbors here (they are the same here as they were in Boston) - the steeple height and potential light pollution, etc. It appears that the steeple issue is simply a red herring for "no development near my house," as it was in Boston. The EIR addresses these potential concerns with actual data, not conjecture or fear. I find it very convincing. Regarding the steeple, it is a religious tradition in this county to have them atop many churches. So much so, such religious expression is frequently protected by city and state laws throughout the United States. There already is a steeple ' on the church next door and on many churches throughout the area. Why would a steeple therefore not be entirely appropriate for this building as well? ' 450 Newport Center Drive. Suite 370 . Newport Beach, CA 92660 P 949.219.0745 . F 949.219.0749 . www.generaicatalyst.com .1 ` Thank you once again for having completed a detailed EIR. It will undoubtedly help our city embrace the facts and allow our elected officials and town citizens to move on to other, more meaningful issues that affect our quality of life, our safety and our children's education. Sincerely, Michael Schreck ' 450 Newport Center Drive. Suite 370 . Newport Beach, CA 92660 P 949.219.0745 . F 949.219.0749 . www.generaicatalyst.com .1 ` LSA ASS OCIATES. INC. UEIR RESPONSE TO COMMENTS 11 60 -A The commentor expresses support of the proposed project and agreement with the conclusions of the Draft Environmental Impact Report. No environmental issues were raised by the commentor, and further response is not required. The comment will be forwarded to ' the decision makers for consideration. I I I I F P 1CNB2301RTC\RTC doc R08 /29/02. 1 AUCUST YOOI CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER DAY SAINTS TEMPLE CITY OF NEWPORT DEAPH 1 60. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FROM MICHAEL SCHRECK 11 60 -A The commentor expresses support of the proposed project and agreement with the conclusions of the Draft Environmental Impact Report. No environmental issues were raised by the commentor, and further response is not required. The comment will be forwarded to ' the decision makers for consideration. I I I I F P 1CNB2301RTC\RTC doc R08 /29/02. 1 1 LSI. ASS CILIES. INC. OF IR RESPONSE TO COMMENTS A GUST 9009 CHURCH OF JESUS CHR19T OF LA TTER DAY SAINTS TEMPLE CITY OF NEWPORT BELCH 1 1 61. COMMENTS FROM STEPHEN P. SANDLAND 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 r- 1 1 1 1 P: \CNB230 \RTC\RTC.doc ,08/29/021 1 I 1 F I i I _I LETTER 61 Stephen P. Sandland 2049 Port Bristol Newport Beach, CA 92660 August 2, 2002 James Campbell, Senior Planner CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 RE: DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT RECEIVED PLANNINGDEPART111FNT CITY n= AM AUG 0 G 2002 7;8i9i1Qil 1i12�1i2i3�4i3i6 CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST of LATTER DAY SAINTS TEMPLE Dear Mr. Campbell, As a 24 -year resident of Harbor View Homes and an architect, I am very interested in any development in our area. I am not a member of the LDS Church. I have reviewed the above referenced Draft EIR and found that it presents a thorough review of all the potential impacts of the project, as I would expect from LSA, Inc, one of the premier consulting firms here in Orange County. I support the assessment in the Draft EIR that this project would have no significant impacts. In my opinion, the key facts that should be considered in the evaluation of this project include: ' ❑ The project is in consistent with the General Plan Land use designation, Zoning designation, and the Bonita Canyon Planned Community designation. ❑ The project does not trigger any requirements of the Green Light Initiative. In fact, it generates ' less traffic than any other land use. ❑ The building will cover approximately 10% of the site, which is far less than any other land use. ❑ The project will install runoff control devices that will improve the quality of the water flowing 1 into the bay. Approximately 60% of the site will be landscaped. ❑ The building will be approximately 600 -feet away from the closest residence. ❑ No designated public vistas or scenic drives are adversely affected. ❑ The building will be constructed with non - reflective, light colored earth tone granite. ❑ Lighting levels have been reduced and will be turned off between 11 PM and 5 AM. ' I believe that the Draft EIR should be certified and the project approved. Sincerely, ' phen P. Sandland ' cc. City Clerk, for distribution to City Council members I 1 DEM" LSA ASSOCIAT ES. INC. DFIR RESPONSE TO COM MFNTS AUGUST 1001 CHURCH OP JESUS CHRIST OF LATTPR DAY SAINI "S TEMPLE CI "rY Of NEWPONT OLACH I r 61. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FROM STEPHEN R SANDLAND 11 61 -A The commentor expresses support of the proposed project and agreement with the conclusions of the Draft Environmental Impact Report. No environmental issues were raised by the commentor, and further response is not required. The comment will be forwarded to ' the decision makers for consideration. I r r I I I I I I P' \CNB230 \RTC\RTC.dM .08/29/02. 1 LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. DEIR RESPONSE TO COMMENTS AUCUS I' 2002 CHIIRCH OF JES11S CHRIST OF LATTER DAY SAINTS TEMPLE CITY OP NE WFOST EA.II 1 i 1 1 1 I I 1 1 D 1 L 1 1 1 1 1 62. COMMENTS FROM SCOTT J. SMITH PACNB2301RTCVRTC.doc (0812910N ' LETTER 62 RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT James Campbell CITY n= v- • ^ =At;H ' City Planning Department AM AUG 0 2002 PM 3300 Newport Blvd Newport Beach, Ca 92663 7181911011 i 1121 i 1213 41516 Dear James, ' I had questions about the proposed temple being built within minutes of my home. The controversy highlighted in The Daily Pilot about the color and lighting, traffic also ' concerned me. I have read the Environmental Impact Study and it has answered all of my questions and ' concerns. I completely support the studies conclusions and see no reason to worry about the issues that have been raised. I am satisfied by the findings and conclusions that the study found. I I J 62 -A 1 1 1 r 1 1 1 r r r r r r r r r r r 1 LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. AU COST 9002 DE IR RESPONSE TO COMMENTS CHURCH Ok JESUS CHRIST Of LATTER DAY SAINTS TF.M F LF: CITY OF NEWPORT PEACH 62. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FROM SCOTT J. SMITH 62 -A The commentor expresses support of the proposed project and agreement with the conclusions of the Draft Environmental Impact Report. No environmental issues were raised by the commentor, and further response is not required. The comment will be forwarded to the decision makers for consideration. P. \CNB230 \RTC \RTC doc R08/29/02Y - 62 -3 LSF ASSOCIATES. INC. DLIR RESI'ONSE TO COMMENTS AUGUST 1009 CHIIRCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER DAY SAINTS TEMPLE CITY OF NEWPORT PFAGII ' 63. COMMENTS FROM LEIGHTON J. SMITH, M.D., AND JEANNE H. SMITH, M.D. I 1 1 J 1 1 1 P \CNB230 \RTC \RTC doc 08129102. n i F I 1 1 1 F-' LETTER 63 August 8, 2002 Mr. James Campbell City Planning Department 3300 Newport Blvd- Newport Beach, CA 92663 Dear Mr. Campbell, RcCEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF: h Ftv? t . r-EA' -H AM AUG 13 2002 PM 718191i0111i12111213i415i6 We are writing to express our support for the Newport Beach Temple for the Church of Jesus Christ ofLatter -day Saints. We have Ueen=sideuts oftm Harbor View des area, near the proposed temple site, for four years and are not members of the church. Having reviewed the Environmental Impact Report (EIR), we agree withihe findings that t zmwilLbe` no- significant impact" on our community in terms of lighting, views, and traffic. Sincerely, I [ 0,-/3 Leighton J. Smith, NLD: Jeanne FL Smith, NLD. I951 Port Bishop Place Newport Beach, CA 92660 63 -A 1 1 1 1 1 LEA ASSOCIATES. INC. AU COST 2002 UCIR RESPONSE TO COMMENTS CHVRCII OF JESOS CHRIST OF LATTER DAY SAINTS TEMPLE CITY OF NE WPORI' BEACH 63. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FROM LEIGHTON J. SMITH, M.D. AND JEANNE H. SMITH, M.D. 63 -A The commentor expresses support of the proposed project and agreement with the conclusions of the Draft Environmental Impact Report. No environmental issues were raised by the commentor, and further response is not required. The comment will be forwarded to the decision makers for consideration. P \CNB230\RTCC\RTC.dOC ,08/29/02. -3 LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. CEIR RESPONSE TD COMMENTS NUGUSI 2001 ...RCH OF JES.. CHR.SlOF LATTER DAY SNI N "I'S TEMVLE CI'T'Y OF NEWPORT FFACD 11 ' 64. COMMENTS FROM J. DONALD TURNER, D.D.S. 1 1 P: \CNB230 \RTC\RTC.dm.08 /29/02, 64 -1 p 1 I 1 1 J. DONALD TURNER, D. D. S. LETTER 64 p A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION GENERAL DENTISTRY 400 NEWPORT CENTER DRIVE - SUITE 205 July 25, 2002 NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92660 (949) 644 -0032 Fax (949) 644 -1507 Mr. James Campbell, Newport Beach City Senior Planner RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTNIENT 3300 Newport Blvd. CITY OP �, rr:,;;H Newport Beach, CA 92663 JUL 31 2902 FM Dear Mr. Campbell, AM 71B181i0 III 1121i1213141516 )-have been very interested in the controversy regarding the proposed Mori}ton Temple project on Bonita Canyon Drive. Having served as president of the Spyglass Ridge Community Association in Corona Del Mar for ten years, I can appreciate the process of thoroughly reviewing the concerns of all interested parties. The recently completed Mormon Temple EIR does just that for this project. I support the findings that address the issues in an informative and accurate way. For instance, neither the narrow 123 -foot steeple nor the three -story building heights obstruct the intended scenic vista of any homeowner. That's an issue I am intimately acquainted with. Surely there would be afar greater concern if the structure were to be expanded to the full height and square footage permitted in that zone. The EIR "Aesthetics" section does not condemn the purposed steeple. Therefore, the city should permit it as part of an attractive religious symbol and structure in our religiously diverse community. Steeples are a common component of such edifices. The photographs depicting various views of the structure were particularly impressive. ' They demonstrated how unobtrusive the structure would be from several viewpoints, even with the steeple. It could be expected to become more so with landscape maturity. ' Sincerely,, q J. Donald Tuer, D.D.S�`_��`' J rn ' JDTlsil N. Also, the lighting study reveals that the revised and reduced building illumination plans are low key and compatible with other similar structures within the city. Hopefully, the lighting "glow" produced on low clouds at night will not be an issue. If so, Fashion ' I Island merchants, as well as others, would be required to shut down on such nights. Finally, the report is clear that the temple structure is properly located. It will be a ' b beautiful and tranquil addition to the Bonita Canyon Drive "church row" that extends into our neighboring city of Irvine. Much larger religious structures are p planned t I commend the city for conducting a thorough EIR process. I believe the study has ' I satisfactorily dealt with all required issues. It should establish, for all concerned, that the planned Mormon Temple project upholds environmental standards for the area. Sincerely,, q J. Donald Tuer, D.D.S�`_��`' J rn ' JDTlsil N. ' LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. OEIR RESPO N SP. TO COMMENTS AUGUST 2002 CHURCH OF Jesus CHRIST OP LATTER DAY SAINTS TEMPLE: CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 1 1 1 k 1 1 1 1 64. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FROM J. DONALD TURNER, D.D.S. 64 -A The commentor expresses support of the proposed project and agreement with the conclusions of the Draft Environmental Impact Report. No environmental issues were raised by the commentor, and further response is not required. The comment will be forwarded to the decision makers for consideration. P:\CNB230\RTC\RTC.dm e08/29/02,1 64 -3 1 1 LEA ASSOCIATES. INC AUGUST 9009 OE1R RESPONSE T'O COMMENTS CIIURCII Vi JESIIR CHRIRT Of LATTER DAY SAINTS 1'41APLE CITY OF NEWPORT BL'ACN 65. COMMENTS FROM J.S. TAYLOR P \CNB230\RT0KTC.duc ((09/29/021, I I LETTER 65 I S. T A Y L O R ' RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT July 29, 2002 CITY o= nl�fle,., 77 nrA" H AM AUG 0 a 2002 PM James Campbell 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 City Planning Department ' 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, Ca. 92663 ' Dear Mr. Campbell: Re: E.I.R. Of The Proposed Mormon Temple I have lived in Newport Beach for 28 years. Our family home is close to ' the site of the proposed development and I am very interested in any factors that would affect our way of life. ' After carefully studying the E.I.R. this is my conclusion: I find that there would be no significant impact to our neighborhood by the proposed development. F 1 u Respectfully, , 2005 Port Albans Circle �1-Z � Newport Beach. CA 92660 (949)640 -5558 65 - A LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. DEER RFCPON SE TO COMMENTS AD COST i. CHURCH OF JESUS CHNIST OF LATTER DAY SAINTS TEMPI E CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 1 65. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FROM J.S. TAYLOR ' 65 -A The commentor expresses support of the proposed project and agreement with the conclusions of the Draft Environmental Impact Report. No environmental issues were raised by the commentor, and further response is not required. The comment will be forwarded to the decision makers for consideration. I I I P'\CNB230\RTC\RTC.doc ,,08/29/02. ' I.SA ASSOCIATES. INC. DE:R RESPONSE TO COMMENTS AU OUST 2002 CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER DAY SAIN'T'S TEMPLE CITY OF NEWPORT" BEAUN ' 66. COMMENTS FROM THEODORE H. TRUESDELL I I I 1 I I Il I n I I I P: \CNB230 \RTC\RTC.dcc «08/29/02. I I 1 I 1 I11 LETTER 66 Theodore H. Truesdell August 2, 2002 Mr. James Campbell, Sr. Planner CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING DEPARTMENT 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92663 RE: Mormon Temple Dear Mr. Campbell: RECEIVED E`! PLANNING DEP<:RTN1FN7 CITY or AM AUG 0 G 2802 Ph9 011,11,11,19 :1516 We have been observing the progress of the New Mormon Temple planned on Bonita Canyon Road. We are concerned that there seems to be an unusually high degree of emotional objections to the project; as if those who object have a slanted negative bias. 1 After reviewing the Environmental Impact Report, it appears the church has been responsive to neighbor objections on two important issues: (1) The color of the building has been muted from white to earth tone and (2) The lighting has been altered in both time and direction. Further, those who object seem to fit the profile of a "moving target ". They now call the narrow steeple "12 stories" (a deliberate exaggeration); which should not blur the fact that it is only an unoccupied narrow steeple typical of many churches. They also voice ungrounded concern that the temple will reduce property values; when, by actual provable historic fact, the residential property values improve in the neighborhood of a Mormon Temple. The Environmental Impact Report is positive about the project. We urge those who will ultimately pass judgement on the relevant issues to separate the emotional from the rational and the political from the objective and see this temple through to its successful completion. Sincerely, Theodore H. Truesdell Janice esdell ' 17 Rue Saint Cloud, Newport Beach, CA 92660 tel: (949) 644 -4486 and (949) 64411451, fax: (949) 6444462 n 1 ' LSA ASS O CIATES.INC. UE1R RESPONSE TO COMMENTS AUGUST 9009 CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST Of LA'1 "1'ER DAY SAINTS TEMPLE CITY OF N W1'OR"1 BEACH I I 66. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FROM THEODORE H. TRUESDELL I 66 -A The commentor expresses support of the proposed project and agreement with the conclusions of the Draft Environmental Impact Report. No environmental issues were raised by the commentor, and further response is not required. The comment will be forwarded to the decision makers for consideration. I 1.1 I r- I I C 1 I I I I P' \CNB230 \RTC \RTC.doc ,,08/29/02,1 I 1 LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. DFIR RESPONSE TO COMMENTS AUCUST 2009 CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTCR DAY SAINTS TEMPLE CITY OF NEWPORT' BLACO 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 i 67. COMMENTS FROM JERRY AND GWEN VIEAU P \CNB230\RTC \RTC.dm 0.08/29/02» 67 -1 1 I I L_.I I 1 I I 1 I I LETTER 67 Jerry 8: Gwen Vieau 11 Westridge Newport Beach, CA 92660 949 - 854 -7604 July 24, 2002 Newport Beach Planning Department Attention: James Campbell, Senior Planner 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 Subject: Draft Environmental Impact Report Church of Jesus Christ of LDS Temple Newport Beach Dear Mr. Campbell: RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY nc , A "'eno- n.FACH AM JUL 31 2002 PM 71619 ii0111112111213141616 We recently reviewed the Environment Impact Report for the Mormon Temple proposed for construction on Bonita Canyon Road. We are residents of the Bonita Canyon community located adjacent to the site. We have read with interest the information appearing in the Los Angeles Times and the Daily Pilot and the documents sent to our home regarding the temple. We saw the site when the crane was on display several months ago showing the height of the steeple. Although the steeple is higher than other buildings in the surrounding area, the photographs in the E9t alleviated our height concerns because -the steeple/angel are so slender. In addition, the size (footprint) of the proposed building appeared much smaller than we anticipated. The EIR stated that the new facility will hold about 150 people at its peak usage (significantly smaller than the 2,000+ at Mariners Church even before it expands). The draft EIR prepared by the City of Newport Beach was extremely helpful in visualizing the finished project. The proposed building, lighting, steeple /angel and landscape fit in well with the surrounding area including Bonita Canyon Road's other places of worship (current and nearing completion). The church administration seems to have taken residents' concerns into consideration and compromised by changing the paint color, decreasing the lighting and increasing the landscaping. The photographs taken from the perspective of Bonita Canyon homes (with the computer - generated temple /steeple added) were proof that the building would be a tasteful addition to the community as is the expansion of Our Lady Queen of Angels, which is the church we attend. With so many negative comments in the press about the proposed temple, we wanted to make a point of expressing our support of the church and encouraging the City of Newport Beach to approve the project, including issuing the conditional use permit needed for the steeple. Sincerely, Jerry a we eau cc: Newport Beach City Council (via e-mail) Newport Beach Planning Commission (via e-mail) 67 -A L S A ASSOCIATES. INC. AUGUST 2002 OF RESVONRF. l'0 COMMY.NTS CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OP LATTER DAY SAINTS TEMPLE CITY OF NE WORT PEACH 67. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FROM JERRY AND GWEN VIEAU 67 -A The commentor expresses support of the proposed project and agreement with the conclusions of the Draft Environmental Impact Report. No environmental issues were raised by the commentor, and further response is not required. The comment will be forwarded to the decision makers for consideration. P lCNB230\RMRTC.doc x08/29/02. 1 L I- 1 1 I n U 1 LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. DEIR RESPONSE TO COMMENTS AUGUST 9002 CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER DAY SAINTS TEMPLE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 68. COMMENTS FROM ROGER L. VOETTINER P' \CNB230 \RTC \RTCom ,,08/29/02,, 1 ' RECEIVED By PLANNING DEPARTMIENT CITY C)F.. ' LETTER 68 AM P.UG U 5 2002 Phi July 27, 2002 , 11 ,1 1 ' Dear W. Campbell, ' I am writing on behalf of the proposed L.D.S. Temple. I have been a resident of Newport Beach for fourteen years, and have worked in the field of architecture and landscape architecture for over 25 years. My family includes myself my_wife.and three ' children, 9, 13, 15. We have lived in Harbor View Homes in Newport Beach and have enjoyed the quality of life that this area provides. ' Over the recent years there have been many changes to the area. I used to enjoy the open space, the grazing cattle, and the bison on my way to work in the morning. I must admit I wasn't too happy when the new apartments and homes replaced my pastoral views along Ford Road. Being a landscape architect, probably makes me a little more ' sensitive to such things. Part of the on -going development in this area involves the proposed L.D.S. Temple. I have read the newspaper articles and the Environmental Impact Report. From what I have gathered, other than the controversy over the height of the steeple exceeding the city limit, everything about the project seems to be in compliance with existing 68 - A ordinances. My understanding is that the property is zoned for even higher land use than what is proposed. The proposed project appears to include a significant amount of open space and landscaping around it, which certainly is preferable to the weed patch that now exists on the site, or another "sea of homes" like the adjacent developments. It is human nature to be reluctant to change. In my profession, I am familiar with ' the exclusionary "I've got mine" mentality that people sometimes develop once they move into a formerly undeveloped area. Growth is inevitable in a city as desirable as Newport Beach. Our neighborhood has watched the homes and apartments expand at a frantic pace over the last several years. It seems to me that the addition of a temple of religious worship, even if the ' height exceeds the city limits (other existing churches have exceeded the height limit as well) is far more preferable to perhaps other higher density land uses on the site. In light of recent world and national events I much prefer to err on the side of religious tolerance rather than against it. By the way, I am not a member of the L.D.S. church nor am I involved with it in any way professionall . Si ly, Ro er L. V � 1800 Port Kimberly Place ' Newport Beach, CA 92660 I LSA ASSOCIATCS. INC. DEIR REERON RE TO COMMENTS AUGUST R0 0R CHURCH OP JESUS CHRIST OV LATTER DAY SAINTS TEMPLE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ' 68. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FROM ROGER L. VOETTINER 68 -A The commentor expresses support of the proposed project and agreement with the conclusions of the Draft Environmental Impact Report. No environmental issues were raised by the commentor, and further response is not required. The comment will be forwarded to ' the decision makers for consideration. 1 11 1 I 1. 1 P'\CNB230 \RTC\RTC doc .0829/02» LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. O¢IR RESPONSE TO COMMENTY AUGUST 2002 CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER DAY SAINTS TEMP' CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH C 1 1 I ID I 1 1 69. COMMENTS FROM SEAN VOLPETTI P: \CNB230\RTC\RTC.doc a08 /29/02» I LETTER 69 Campbell, James From: Sean Volpetti [hometownsportst @yahoo.comj Sent: Monday, July 29, 2002 11:09 PM To: JCampbell @city.newport- beach.ca.us Cc: Volpetti@pimoo.com Subject: Mormon Temple ' Dear Mr Campbell, We recently had the opportunity to review the Newport Beach Temple Environmental Impact Report (EIR) that was completed over the past month. My wife and I both work and live in our great city and have done so for the last I years. We have come to love and respect this wonderful area and hope to have many years ahead of us. As residents and one who will be looking to buy a home here, we have watched and listened with great curiosity to the arguements for both sides and can see ' how each have valid points. Many concerns have been voiced against the building of it and they are concerns for which, We can understand and empathize with. However, we thought the EIR was quite insightful ' and seemed to answer a great deal of those concerns and was quite positive toward the temple being built. One item of importance caught our eye: The concern that the temple will add more traffic to a highly concentrated area of traffic already found on Bonita Canyon. ' The EIR answered in the affirmative that there would not be any significant impact to the area at all. The temple being closed on Sunday, does not add to any ' other congregational traffic the area may already encounter. One reason we enjoy this city so much, is the quiet, peaceful place it can be. We appreciate the relatively low traffic that it receives on a daily basis and were gratfeul to see that the impact would be very low if not at all. We offer our support for the building of the temple and feel our community - based on the EIR - could only benefit from having it among us. Sincerely, Sean and Kari Volpetti 1114 Baypointe Drive 1 RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTI IFNT CITY OF WPVJI —,1) T LEACH AM JUL 2 9 2002 PM '181511011? 11211(213141516 Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Health - Feel better, live better http: / /health.yahoo.com 1 DOE I 1 I I L S....S S O C I ATE S. INC. AC cv ST xo ox DEIR RESPONSE TO COMMENTS CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER DAY SAINTS TEMPLE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 69. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FROM SEAN VOLPETTI 69 -A The commentor expresses support of the proposed project and agreement with the conclusions of the Draft Environmental Impact Report. No environmental issues were raised by the commentor, and further response is not required. The comment will be forwarded to the decision makers for consideration. P: \CNB230\RTC\RTC.dOC R08/29/02u 1 LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. OEIR RESPONSE 'f0 COMMENTS AUGUST REO9 CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIS'C OF LAFTER DAY SAINTS TEMPLE CITY OF NEWPORT BEAC11 i 1 1 1 1 1 11 1 i 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 70. COMMENTS FROM ALEXANDER L. WANIEK P: \CNB230 \RTC\RTC doc 1,08/29/02» 1 II 1 I I Li LETTER 70 Alexander L. Waniek Attorney At Law 16 Boardwalk, Newport Beach CA August 7. 2002 Planning Commissioners Larry Tucker. former Chairman Steven C. Kiser. Chairman Farl McDaniel. Vice Chairman Edward Selich Shant Agajanian. Secretary Anne K. Gifford Michael C. Kranzley Jamca Campbell. Senior planner City of Newport Beach City l lall 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92663 -3984 VIA MCSIMILE, RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OE NEw -lnO, T LEACH AM AUG 0 9 2002 FM 71819 110111112111815141616 2t Re: Application of the Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter Day Saints Temple Dear Mr. Campbell and Planning Commission Members: This letter is being submitted in response to the Draft Environmental Impact Report ( "EIR ") prepared by LSA Associates regarding the application of The Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter Day Saints ("LDS") for an exemption from the City's zoning regulations in order to build a Temple on Bonita Canyon Drive ( "Temple "). The comments that follow arc my own and those of my wife. Mary Beth Waniek. acting in our capacities as concerned homeowners living in Bonita Canyon. Newport Beach. I shall be brief in my comments regarding the EIR. Several other civic minded groups and citizens already have voiced their concerns with respect to the conclusions drawn in the EIR and their opposition to the Temple's plan of ' construction. Ar. a preliminary matter. my wife and I would like to extend our support to the findings contained in the report submitted by the City's own 1 2'd *202 9sa s *s 1 MaiuvM doe•[O 20 s0 Snu C LETTER 70 (CONT) , Planning Commission August 7. 2002 Environmental Quality Affairs Committee dated July 17, 2002. Secondly, with ' equal force, we support citizens like Bruce May, whose letter we attach hereto, and second his concerns. The concerns set forth in both the EQAC report and ' May Ietter are representative of a large number of persons living in the communities immediately impacted by the Temple's construction - a more-or less "Silt nt Majority" troubled by the Temple's potential impact on their qualify of life , and its economic impact on over $500 million in property values. EIR Comments , Aside from its failure to disclose that the Temple's exterior color is Salisbury ,pink, and those other matters described in the EQAC and May responses, one topic was buried and sununarily dismissed in the MR. Namely, the issue surrounding, 70 traffic, noise, lighting and congestion associated with holiday display lighting. In my original response to the NOP dated March 11, 2002,1 outlined the on -going , practice of LDS temples across the country of erecting large holiday lighting displays, much like 'trinity Broadcasting in Costa Mesa. The EIR addressed this issue in one sentence stating "[ijt should be noted that no special event, i.e., ' "holiday lighting" activities are proposed for the Temp1P at thiti time. "2 I am unable to provide pictures of some of the LDS holiday displays at this time, ' however, the Mesa, Arizona display, which I have seen photographs of, is said to attract over 3,000 persons per evening during the Christmas holiday period. With the number of Murntons living in Orange County estimated to be over 50,000, I 70 would expect a large percentage of them and others to travel to Newport Beach to view any holiday lighting display that might be erected at the only Mormon Temple in Orange County. The resulting traffic jams, lighting issues, and burden on the City of Newport Beach's resources, when added to other holiday events including the boat parade, undoubtedly would be significant and should be addressed in the EIR. , While the L.DS Church has apparently represented that it has no immediate plans to erect holiday lighting, its response is inapposite and leaves open the possibility , for it to change its mind in the future. Not wanting to fight too many battles at ' section 1.2, Project Description refers to the Temple's color as a''ticrcd light colored earth tone t granite building...." Section 3.3 -3. Design Characteristics also refers to its color as being an "earth tone.- The formal name of the granite slime selected by the LDS Church is Saliubury pink It is safe to say that this stone has a pinkish tone and that Newport Beach wt111wve it+ very first pink, ' 12 -story building, if the'rentple is constructed. 2 Section 3.3.1, Operational Characteristics (last sentence). E•d *202 9se 646 %4aFueM d0ett0 20 60 gnu ' LETTER 70 (CONT) Planning Commission August 7, 2002 ' one time, the LDS Church is being disingenuous in responding to the issue and the BIR should not allow this matter to be glossed over. ' The LDS Church should step -up and state whether it will or will not erect holiday display lighting. If it does not intend to decorate the Temple with lighting displays, then the special use permit should include a condition specifically proscribing such use on the property. If however the LDS Church does intend to erect displays, this issue should be debated now before the Planning C:nmmission and reviewed in the EIR. If the Planning Commission is sincere in achieving its "Step Up To The Future' ' vision for Newport Beach, the scope of the Temple's construction must be more closely scrutinized and aspects including steeple height, color, and holiday lighting should be modified and curtailed. I speak for most persons when I say that this is not a religions issue. but one of conforming the Temple to the surrounding neighborhood. A well- crafted balance can be achieved and I strongly urge Commission members to pursue all avenues with the LDS Church ' in arriving at a satisfactory resolution to the issues surrounding the Temple's construction. Sincerely, Alexander Wanlek Mary Beth Waniek Enclosure. cc_ Mayor Todd W. Ridgeway Council Member Gary Proctor Council Member Norma J. Glover Council Member Garold B. Adams Mayor Pro Tern Steven Bromberg James Campbell Council Member Dennis D. O'Neil Council Member John Heffernan Mr. Bruce May, Esq. Vzo2 9sa 6*6 3 70 -B CONT 70 -C NaiueM doe:10 20 6o 9nu q d Sincerely, Alexander Wanlek Mary Beth Waniek Enclosure. cc_ Mayor Todd W. Ridgeway Council Member Gary Proctor Council Member Norma J. Glover Council Member Garold B. Adams Mayor Pro Tern Steven Bromberg James Campbell Council Member Dennis D. O'Neil Council Member John Heffernan Mr. Bruce May, Esq. Vzo2 9sa 6*6 3 70 -B CONT 70 -C NaiueM doe:10 20 6o 9nu I 1 J 1 1 1 I 1 1 I 1 I ATTACHMENT 70 STRADLING YOCCA CARLSON & RAUTH A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION ATTORNEYS AT LAW BRUCE D. MAY SOD NEWPORT CENTER DRIVE, SUITE 1600 DIRECT DIAL: (949) 723.4124 NEWPORT BEACH. CA 926ED.6422 SMAY®SYCA.COM TELEPHONE (949) 725-9000 FACSI AILE (949) 725-1100 July 11. 20t7J Planning Commissioners Larry Tucker, Chairman Steven C. Kiser, Vice President Earl McDaniel, Secretary Edward Selich Snant Aga)anlan Anne K_ Gifford Michael C. Kranzley City of Newport Beach City Hall 3300 Newpnrt Roulevard Newport Beach CA -92663 -3884 SAN FRANCISCO OFFICE 4I MON TOOMENT STREET. SMITE 4200 SAN FRANCISCO. C ..IFORNIA GAIN TILXP"NL I4IAI F11121240 FACSIMILE 14IH 2S122AE SANTA SARSARA OFFICE 2AF nUVI srn44T &AMTA "ftA A. CALITOMNIA W101 fLLEPNOME (MMISIU OW: FACSIMILE NIAI M4I➢AI Re: Application of The Church Of Jesus Christ of the Latter Day Saints Dear Planning CommiRsinn Members. 1 have lived at 22 Seabluff in Bonita Canyon in Newport Beach since it was built in April 1999. This letter concerns the Draft Environmental Impart Repnrt prepared by LSA Associates regarding the application of The Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter Day Saints ( "LDSN) for an exemption from the City's zoning regulations in order to build a Temple on Bonita Canyon Drive with a steeple at least 121 feet High and to illuminate it from S am until 11 pm. For myself and my family, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, I believe that the Draft EIR is seriously flawed, and that the LDS's application should be denied because it requests an unwarranted hxraption to the City's long standing regulations. I also believe the application, if granted, would amount to an unconstitutional establishment of religion. Simply stated, the proposed height, lighting, and color of the Temple are Inappropriate for the residential neighborhood in which the site is located, and the LDS's request for an exemption is not supported by the record. You will recall that I wrote Lu Mayor Bromberg with copies to each of you on July _, outlining my concerns. Attached Docsoae+ a2B9. n 1 aRRR.nnnc A *-acA FFneN f S'd bZOZ 9SB 6b6 Naiuem doe210 20 60 2nd 1 I ATTACHMENT 70 (CONT) ' Steve Bromberg July 11, 2002 Page Two ' is a copy of that letter, which I incorporate by this reference. I would ask that you review ' it again, and take my concerns to heart. This week 1 received a colorful mailer from the City of Newport Beach anLltled "Step ' Up To The Future" which reports on the progress of the City's efforts to update its General Plan. I read this mailer with great interest. as I had taken the time to participate in one of the open forum meetings on the subject at City Hall in March of this year. I am struck by how even the initial reports in that mailer reinforce the very ' objections 1 and my neighbors have asserted to the height. lighting and color of the proposed LDS Temple. In particular. the first page of the mailer declares: ' "Mansionization: There is a strong feeling that the City should restrict building large homes that change the character of neighborhoods." With all due respect to the Mormon faith. their application is manslonization in the extreme. If I warn to seek permission for a five story house in my neighborhood of two story homes. I would expect the City to deny my request, even if I had the full support of ' my neighbors. Why then should any applicant be allowed a second exemption (the first _ being tiie height of the existing Stakehousc) to build a Temple that far exceeds the height and PigFung restrictions: When a substantial choru3 of neighbors object? I understand the LOS contends that its application must be granted. based on tine contention that the denial infringes their free exercise of religion. I can only hope that the members of the Planning Commission and the City Council, and the City Attorney. ' recognize how profoundly fallacious this contention is. The fact is. nothing in the Book of Mormon, the LDS Drintrines and Covenants. or ' any other bona fide expression of Mormon belief dictates or implies that the Temple in the City of Newport Beach must be 121 feet tall, or any other height. or that it be lighted from S am to 11 pm. or any other hours. These are arbitrary esthetic choices. not religious beliefs. Now matter how loudly LDS may protest. there is nothing in their faith that , dictates any particular height or hours of lighting. Even acknowledging that the LDS wishes to create a structure that brings them ' closer to the heavens. or xymholizas affinity with their God. limiting the height and hours of lighting does not substantially burden the exercise of that belief. All Mormon Temples constructed prior to the latter part of the 19 '' century were built without electric lighting. ' which did slut exist until 1850. Well into the 20'" Century the LDS has built temples in Mesa. Arizona. and elsewhere which have no steeple at all. Any other conclusion would allow a religious order to build a structure 120 stories ' high, on Balboa Island, and illuminate it with searchlights. This is not a swipe at DOCSOM9132690119999.0000 �IIr+IGr1MBN� � ' 9'd bZOZ SSG 6*6 >1a1Uan dtE =t0 ZO 60 Znu I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 1 1 ATTACHMENT 70 (CONT) Steve Bromberg July 11. 2002 Page Three Mormonism. It simply points out that their claim of religious freedom proves too much, If a church, any church. can override architectural parameters by a self - serving proclamation from its head, then the City will-have abdicated all its powers of regulation. No court in this land would agree with that interpretation. As for the Draft EIR. 1 question first whether the authors are truly objective. 1 do not have the resources to investigate LSA. but it is clear from. the tone and content of the Draft EIR that they have a subjective bias in favor of the Temple as planned. How else does one explain the plAiniv subjective. even romantic descriptions of the proposed Temple found in that report? Of gredler concern are the numerous substantive deficiencies in the Draft FIR Ac identified by the City's own Environmental Quality Affairs Committee as summarized in their report to James Campbell dated July 17, 2002. 1 incorporate that report by this reference. and assert all objections it contains on my behalf and that or all persons similarly situated. 1 am also dismayed that the Draft EIR contains no discussion of the environmental impact on the spectacular wildlife found immediately adjacent to the site in Bonita Canyon. Is this slot a protected habitat for the gnatcatcher. the least tern. and countless other birds, animals. and flora? Last month. as 1 was walking my dog late one night on the pathway of the end of Marble Sands overlooking the LDS site, I heard a ruffle of feathers. and then froze in awe At the sight of an adult white owl. with a wingspan of several feet. as it alighted from the ground. and flew silently across Bonita Canyon in the dead of night. I had to strain my eyes to see this magnificent creature Has anyone considered the impact that the proposed lighting will have on wildlife? Without any mention of this subject. the Draft EIR is woefully inadequate. 1 Finally. you must note Mat the Draft EIR eoknowledges that a Rhortertemple. with reduced lighting. would pose less environmental impact. and yet still be consistent with the LDS 's stated objectives. To begin with. this is proof positive that the height and lighting of the temple are not dictated by any bone fide principle of religious expreabion. but are 1 purely secular concerns. More importantly. this element of the Draft EIR lays bare the need for compromise. I welcome the LDS to the neighborhood. I ask only that they live by the same basic rules as all my neighbors. 1 1 1 1 Z. •d 1 I am but uiie resident of this beoutiful city. but I can only hnpe you hear my and my neighbors' voices. We do not have the resources of the LDS. and so we must rely on you to speak for us, as you enforce all laws even - handedly. If the LDS will not compromise to maintain basic neighborhood parameters for architecture and lighting. then tho Commission should deny this Application. DCiCfnnA 132690 119999.D000 4#4CA niMf 1 b202 99B 6*6 Nasuem dTC:TD 2D 6D 9ny Steve Bromberg ATTACHMENT 70 (CONT) July 11, 2002 Page Four Very truly yours, Bruce D. May BDM:mt Enclosure cam: Mayor Tod w. nidgewey, tridgownv@citv.newport- beach.ca.us Council Member Gary Proctor, wroctor @iuveniledefenders.com Council Member Norma J. Glover, nalover@citv.newporLbeach.ca.us Council Member Garold B. Adams, 9aroic adams0hotmall.corn Mayor Pro Tem Steven Bromberg, dandee@earthlink.net Council Member Dennis D. O'Neil, doneil@hewittoneil.com Council Member John Heffernan, ihff @aol.com DOCSOC1913269V 1119999.0000 0'd bZOZ 9se sips A01URM 1 1 1 1 1 dtE =to Zo so gnu 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. OE IS RESPONSE TO COMMENTS AUGUST 2002 CHURCH Of JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER DAY SAINTS TEMPLE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 70. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FROM ALEXANDER L. WANIEK 70 -A Please refer to Response to Comment 8 -E for a discussion of the building color. In reference to the latter comment, no holiday lighting is proposed for the Temple. 70 -B No holiday lighting is proposed for the Temple facility. The commentor's concern related to restricting holiday lighting through the Conditional Use Permit process is an administrative matter outside the purview of CEQA. The comment will be forwarded to the decision makers for consideration. 70 -C The commentor does not raise any specific environmental concerns; therefore, no response is necessary. The comment will be forwarded to the decision makers for consideration. 70 -D The commentor does not raise any specific environmental concerns; therefore, no response is necessary. The comment will be forwarded to the decision makers for consideration. Attachment 70 -1 Please refer to Responses to Comments No. 47 -A through 47 -H, which address the concerns of Bruce D. May. 1 P: \CNB230\RTC\RTC.doc «09/29/02° 70 -9 ' LSA ASSOCIATES. ING, HP.IR RESPONSE TO COMMENTS A ll GO ST ]00] CIIHACH OE JESUS CHRIST OF LATT ER DAY SAINTS TEMPLE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 i 71. COMMENTS FROM MADELEINE WALBURGER P \CNB230\RTC\RTC.dot x08/29/02» 71 -1 1 I 1 Newport Beach is my "home town." I am very concerned about maintaining the beauty and value - both aesthetic and financial - of this area for my family and my neighbors. As a result, I was particularly interested in the.Eat.'s analysis regarding lighting. and the f iti impact on resident's views. As illustrated in the EIR, the proposed lighting and structural designs appear to not present a significant impact on local neighbors. Thank you very much for your time, consideration, and leadership regarding this matter. ' Sincerely, ' Madeleine Walburger I I I 1 71 -A LETTER 71 RECEIVED BY August 8, 2002 PLANNING FN DEPART N-T CITY 0 PEACH. Mr. James Campbell AUG 13 2002 PM Senior Planner AM 71B19110111112111213141616 City Planning Department 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92663 Dear Mr. Campbell: I had the opportunity to review the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) regarding the proposed temple for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter -day Saints, and I feel the third -party author of the report presented a thorough, complete analysis of the future impact of the temple on the local area Upon reviewing the specifics of the report, I agree with its conclusion the temple should not have a significant impact on its neighbors. Newport Beach is my "home town." I am very concerned about maintaining the beauty and value - both aesthetic and financial - of this area for my family and my neighbors. As a result, I was particularly interested in the.Eat.'s analysis regarding lighting. and the f iti impact on resident's views. As illustrated in the EIR, the proposed lighting and structural designs appear to not present a significant impact on local neighbors. Thank you very much for your time, consideration, and leadership regarding this matter. ' Sincerely, ' Madeleine Walburger I I I 1 71 -A 1 i 1 1 LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. AUGUST RYOR DE 1R RESPONSE TO COMMENTS CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER DAY SAINTS TEMPLE CITY OF NF.WPO R BEACH 71. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FROM MADELEINE WALBURGER 71 -A The commentor expresses support of the proposed project and agreement with the conclusions of the Draft Environmental Impact Report. No environmental issues were raised by the commentor, and further response is not required. The comment will be forwarded to the decision makers for consideration. P: \CN8230 \RTCUtTC doc 108/29/02,, 1 LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. DE IR RESPONSE. TO COMMENTS AUGUST Sons CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF I, ATTFR DAY SAINTS TEMPLE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I II i 1 1 1 72. COMMENTS FROM E.T. "TOMMY" WARNER P' \CNB230\RTC \RTC.doc R0824/02r. 1 LETTER 72 Campbell, James 1 From: ET Wamer [etwamer @aircrafteng.comj Sent: Friday, August 09, 2002 4:26 PM To: 'jcampbell@cfty.newport-beach.ca.us.' Subject: CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER DAY SAINTS TEMPLE MR JAMES CAMPBELL, SENIOR PLANNER; MY NAME IS E.T. WARNER AND I LIVE IN BONITA CANYON. I FEEL THAT YOU HAVE PRESENTED A FINE REPORT. I BELIEVE ALL THE DO- GOODERS HAVE COST THE CITY TOO MUCH AND OTHERS AS WELL. THE TEMPLE WILL BE BEAUTIFUL, AND TWILL INCREASE THE 72 -/ VALUE OF NEARBY PROPERTIES. FAR MORE THAN THE SPORT PARR WILL, ALSO IT WILL NOT CREATE TH 1 TRAFFIC OR NOISE OR MESS THAT THE SPORT PARK WILL CERTAINLY DO. THANK YOU FOR A GOOD JOB, AND MOVE ON WITH THE PROJECT, 1 SINCERELY RECEIVED BY E.T. "Tommy' Warner PLANNING DEPARTMFNT PRESIDENT CITY OF U= �"r ^ ='T i':'_/;..H Aircraft Engineering Corporation 1 15500 Texaco Ave. * Paramount, CA 90723 -3937 AUG 0'3 2Mz (562) 634 -2401 / Fax (562) 531 -8394 Ar� PM etwarner@aircrafteng.com „ -112 1 ;3 i�lol6 7i6 °011? www.aircrafteng.com 11x. 1 L 1 1 1 1 P 1 E II i 1 1 r LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. AUGUST 1001 OR IS RPSPONSE TO COMM EN Ts CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATT Y.R DAY SA1 FITS TEMPLE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 72. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FROM E.T. "TOMMY" WARNER 72 -A The commentor expresses support of the proposed project and agreement with the conclusions of the Draft Environmental Impact Report. No environmental issues were raised by the commentor, and further response is not required. The comment will be forwarded to the decision makers for consideration. P: ICNB2301RTCIRTC.doc .08129102» 72 -3 ' LSA AS]OCIATES. INC DEIR RESPONSF. TO COMMENTS AV CV]'I' ].U] CIiVR[:I{ OF JESUS CHRIST RIRT OF LATTER DAY SAINTS TEMPLP. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH [1 ' 73. COMMENTS FROM JAMES R. WHITE 1 1 i 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 i 1 1 P: \CNB230 \RTORTC.doc B08/29/02. 1 08/08/2002 23:24 7147606136 P resently designed. My reasoning Follow PAGE 01 RECEIVED E1' PLANNING DEPART "TENT ER 73 CITY CF NF.;VP.— = .cy nes R. white AM AUG 0 ' 20102 Yacht Mischief PM ;ach, California 92660 7 i 8 l, 9 110 1 11. 1 12,12.13 I I 5 I 6 19) 759 -1434 4 BY FAX 949- 644 -3229 August 9, 2002 CLDS temple proposal including the steeple as ' The City of Newport Beach some time ago with the appropriate planning deliberation chose to zone this property for religious building purposes. This fact is readily available to anyone wishing to purchase residential property in the immediate area. Therefore a neighbor of the any such t zoned property should not oppose the cot struction of a religious building proposed to -e constructed on property with such zoning subject to prudent and reasonable review by the Newport Beach planning commission or City Council. To do so, it seems to me, is somewhat unneighborly. Newport Beach is a comet nity of well informed citizens of good character and together we should allow well planned de elopments to occur, particularly ones that involve an expression of our religious beliefs. Our tion was, after all, founded on some extremely ' important freedoms one of the most sign cant of which is freedom of religion. Ignoring that fact is, I strongly believe, very dangerous terri ory. ' In keeping with my desire to submit to yo an informed opinion, I have reviewed the plans contained in the environmental impact re ort and have physically walked the neighborhood areas and I conclude that the proposed steeple, . hich seems to be the only issue of objection does not pierce the horizon of any neighbors view.. For this reason it seems to me that the project does not ' infringe on anyone's view and should be pported by the community at large. Thank you for the opportunity to be hear . I 73 -A 200 Newport l August 9, 2002 Mr. James Campbell, Senior Planner City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard ' 3 Newport Beach, California 92663 RE. Church of Latter Day Saints temple Dear Mr. Campbell, ' T This letter is to express my support for tt designed. My reasoning Follow PAGE 01 RECEIVED E1' PLANNING DEPART "TENT ER 73 CITY CF NF.;VP.— = .cy nes R. white AM AUG 0 ' 20102 Yacht Mischief PM ;ach, California 92660 7 i 8 l, 9 110 1 11. 1 12,12.13 I I 5 I 6 19) 759 -1434 4 BY FAX 949- 644 -3229 August 9, 2002 CLDS temple proposal including the steeple as ' The City of Newport Beach some time ago with the appropriate planning deliberation chose to zone this property for religious building purposes. This fact is readily available to anyone wishing to purchase residential property in the immediate area. Therefore a neighbor of the any such t zoned property should not oppose the cot struction of a religious building proposed to -e constructed on property with such zoning subject to prudent and reasonable review by the Newport Beach planning commission or City Council. To do so, it seems to me, is somewhat unneighborly. Newport Beach is a comet nity of well informed citizens of good character and together we should allow well planned de elopments to occur, particularly ones that involve an expression of our religious beliefs. Our tion was, after all, founded on some extremely ' important freedoms one of the most sign cant of which is freedom of religion. Ignoring that fact is, I strongly believe, very dangerous terri ory. ' In keeping with my desire to submit to yo an informed opinion, I have reviewed the plans contained in the environmental impact re ort and have physically walked the neighborhood areas and I conclude that the proposed steeple, . hich seems to be the only issue of objection does not pierce the horizon of any neighbors view.. For this reason it seems to me that the project does not ' infringe on anyone's view and should be pported by the community at large. Thank you for the opportunity to be hear . I 73 -A I 73 -A 1 1 1 1 LSA ASSO CIATES. INC. A CU ST 2..2 DEIR RESPONSE TO COMMENTS CPIURCII OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER DAY SAINTS TEMPLE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 73. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FROM JAMES R. WHITE 73 -A The commentor expresses support of the proposed project and agreement with the conclusions of the Draft Environmental Impact Report. No environmental issues were raised by the commentor, and further response is not required. The comment will be forwarded to the decision makers for consideration. P: \CNB23MTC \RTC doc.08 /29/02. ' LSA ASSO CI ATG9. INC. OEIR RESPONSE TO COMMENTS AU EST R00R CHURCH OF JESUS CIIRIST OF LA "1'TER CAP SAINTS IEMPLE CITY OF NEw PORT "BEACH ' 74. COMMENTS FROM DAVID AND KAREN WOLF 1 V 1 1 [J Ll, P:U4LR130 \RTC \RTC doe .08/29102. I Page 1 of 1 ' LETTER 74 Campbell, James From: David and Karen Wolf [woffies4 @cox.net] Sent: Friday, August 09, 2002 9:16 PM To: jcampbell @city.newport- beach.ca.us; hbludau @city.newport- beach.ca.us Cc: tridgeway @ciity.newport- beach.ca.us; gproctor @juveniledefenders.com; nglover@city.newport- beach.ca.us; garold_adams @hotmail.com; dandee @earthlink.net; doneilfhewittoneil.com; fjhff @aol-com; annegiff @cs.com; skiser @pacbell.net; rrichael.kranzley @chase.com; ' emcdaniel @fullertoncp.com; edselich @adelphia.net Subject: Draft EIR ' Dear Jim and Homer, Please consider this letter to you as a response to the Draft EIR that was prepared over a month ago. I am not an expert in the conditions EIR's are to be prepared however it is very dear that this DEIR is written with a position in favor of the Church and ' not an independent point of view. My reasoning only comes a concern as how an "independent report" can include words such as RADIATE OUTWARD(page 3 $ :Temple surrowds /Landscape)!,for example. The entire document includes adjectives favoring the temple. It is my belief that ' a document for the city should be independent of any favorable adjectives, similar to bow a real estate appraisal should be prepared. ' The entire document favors the church and there views and not any of the homemm rs views. I must object to the entire DEIR as a report that was paid for and written for the Mornton's. I request from LSA a cmfimaation in writing and notarized that they have never consulted for the LDS church on this site in the past. Second I believe that it is important that LSA remove any adjectives favoring the Mormons position as to why lighting and height are important to them Lastly I am attaching a letter from a fellow resident, Brace May that was sent to you recently. This letter also confirms ' my position on this matter. In addition, EQUAC's comments recently submitted to the Planning Commission and your office, voicing their concerns over the DEIR are views I agree strongly with and would like a response from ISA over those matters. p Once again I would like to voice my approval for a temple bang built in our community. However it is impossible for a stmcturl 74 — B to be built that exceeds the city height and lighting laws that were set up to protect the community. Imagine if this were propose in your area. Would you want it in your backyard? Thank you for your time in this matter. E 08/12/2002 RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY DF NE1aJPnPT LEACH AUG 12 2002 AM PM 7181911011111211!213!41516 David Wolf ' 14 Seabhrff Newport Beach, CA 92660 ' 949- 721 -0309 1 E 08/12/2002 RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY DF NE1aJPnPT LEACH AUG 12 2002 AM PM 7181911011111211!213!41516 1 1 1 1 1 I.SA ASSOCIATES. INC AVCV SI' ROUR DE RESPONSE TO COMMENTS CHURCH OP fESV3 CHRIST OF I. ATTER DAY SAINTS TEMPLE CITY OF NEWPORT PEACH 74. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FROM DAVID AND KAREN WOLF 74 -A The language used in the project description to describe the Temple landscaping was not intended to convey religious connotation. The overall form of the landscape plan is circular and the phrase "radiate outward" was used for descriptive purposes. The commentor's statements regarding the preparers of the EIR are not environmental issues, and no response is required. 74 -B The comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision makers. P1HLR 130 \RT0RTC.doc ,(0829/02» 74 -3 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT VOLUME III: SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO COMMENTS CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER DAY SAINTS TEMPLE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH SCH #2002031048 Prepared for: City of Newport Beach Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92658 Contact: James Campbell, Senior Planner (949) 644 -3210 Prepared by: LSA Associates, Inc. 20 Executive Park, Suite 200 Irvine, California 92614 -4731 (949) 553 -0666 LSA Project No. CNB230 LSA October 2002 LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. OCTOBER 1001 INTRODUCTION SUPPLEMENTAL DEIR RESPONSE TO COMMENTS CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER DAY SAINTS TEMPLE CITYOF NEWPORT BEACH TABLE OF CONTENTS INDEX OF COMMENTS RECEIVED 2 FORMAT OF RESPONSES TO COMMENTS 2 A. COMMENTS FROM DAVID SONKE 1 -1 A. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS FROM DAVID SONKE 1 -3 B. COMMENTS FROM JENNIFER SONKE 2 -1 B. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS FROM JENNIFER SONKE 2 -3 C. COMMENTS FROM DEBRA S. BENDHEIM 3 -1 C. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS FROM DEBRA S. BENDHEIM 3 -3 D. COMMENTS FROM MARYMARGARET BENDHEIM 4 -1 D. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS FROM MARYMARGARET BENDHEIM 4 -3 E. COMMENTS FROM CANDACE E. JACKSON 5 -1 E. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS FROM CANDACE E. JACKSON 5 -3 F. COMMENTS FROM MARK C. DOYLE, TREDWAY, LUMSDAINE & DOYLE, LLP 6 -1 F. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS MARK C. DOYLE, TREDWAY, LUMSDAINE & DOYLE, LLP 6 -4 G. COMMENTS FROM DAVID GUDER 7 -1 G. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS DAVID GUDER 7 -4 H. COMMENTS FROM LISA JARVIE 8 -1 H. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS LISA JARVIE 8 -3 I. COMMENTS FROM ROGER GILBERT 9 -1 I. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ROGER GILBERT 9 -3 J. COMMENTS FROM PHIL AND BARBARA KILMER 10 -1 J. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS PHIL AND BARBARA KILMER 10 -3 K. COMMENTS FROM ALLEN K. MURRAY, PH.D. 11 -1 K. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ALLEN K. MURRAY, PH.D. 11 -9 P: \CNB230 \RTC\Sopplemenml RTC.doc (10/02/02» LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. SUPPLEMENTAL DEIR RESPONSE TO COMMENTS OCTOBER 3003 CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER DAY SAINTS TEMPLE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO COMMENTS INTRODUCTION This Supplemental Responses to Comments document was prepared to respond to additional comment letters received on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints Temple. The public review period for the DEIR was extended to allow a public Notice of Availability (NOA) of the DEIR for the proposed project to be filed with the Orange County Clerk for a 30 day review period. The additional 30 day review extended the public review period to September 30, 2002. A total of I I comment letters was received during the supplemental public review period. Comments were received from interested parties and private citizens. Comments that address environmental issues are thoroughly responded to. In some cases, corrections to the DEIR are required or additional information is provided for clarification purposes. However, some of the comments do not address the adequacy or completeness of the DEIR, do not raise environmental issues, or do request the incorporation of additional information not relevant to environmental issues. Such comments do not require a response, pursuant to Section 15088(a) of the CEQA Guidelines. Many comments raise similar or identical issues to those comments received and responded to during the initial 45 day public review period. To address those comments, the commentor is referred to a response in the Response to Comments document. In addition, general responses to specific environmental issues were included to provide a comprehensive response to important or common environmental topics brought up in several of the comments. Section 15088 of the state CEQA Guidelines, Evaluation of and Response to Comments, states: a) The lead agency shall evaluate comments on environmental issues received from persons who reviewed the draft EIR and shall prepare a written response. The lead agency shall respond to comments received during the noticed comment period and any extensions and may respond to late comments. b) The written response shall describe the disposition of significant environmental issues raised (e.g., revisions to the proposed project to mitigate anticipated impacts or objections). In particular, major environmental issues raised when the lead agency's position is at variance with recommendations and objections raised in the comments must be addressed in detail, giving the reasons that specific comments and suggestions were not accepted. There must be good faith, reasoned analysis in response. Conclusory statements unsupported by factual information will not suffice. c) The response to comments may take the form of a revision to the draft EIR or may be a separate section in the final EIR. Where the response to comments makes important changes in the information contained in the text of the draft EIR, the lead agency should either: PACN13230WMSupplemental RTC.doco I0=102B LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. OCTOBER 9009 SUPPLEMENTAL DEIR RESPONSE TO COMMENTS CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER DAY SAINTS TEMPLE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 1. Revise the text in the body of the EIR; or 2. Include marginal notes showing that the information is revised in the responses to comments. Information provided in this Supplemental Response to Comments document clarifies or makes minor modifications to the DEIR. No significant changes have been made to the information contained in the DEIR as a result of the responses to comments, and no significant new information has been added. Therefore, this Supplemental Response to Comments document is being prepared as a separate section of the EIR, and is included as part of the Final EIR, for consideration by the City Council, prior to a vote to certify the Final EIR. INDEX OF COMMENTS RECEIVED The following is an index list of the persons who commented on the Draft EIR, prior to the close of the supplemental 30 day public comment period. The comments received have been organized in a manner that facilitates finding a particular comment or set of comments. Each comment letter received is indexed with a number below. # Name Date A David Sonke September 1, 2002 B Jennifer Sonke September 1, 2002 C Debra S. Bendheim September 3, 2002 D MaryMargaret Bendheim September 3, 2002 E Candace E. Jackson September 3, 2002 F Mark C. Doyle September 4, 2002 G David Guder September 6, 2002 H Lisa Jarvie September 13, 2002 I Roger Gilbert September 21, 2002 J Phillip S. Kilmer September 24, 2002 K Allen K. Murray, Ph.D. September 29, 2002 FORMAT OF RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Responses to each of the comment letters are provided on the following pages. The comment letter number is provided in the upper right hand corner of each comment letter, and individual points within each letter are numbered along the right -hand margins of each letter. Comments not requiring any response are not numbered. The City's responses to each comment letter immediately follow each letter and are referenced by the index numbers in the margins. PdCNB230\RTC\Supp1emenm1 RTC.dmo 10/02/02n LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. OCTOBER 9001 SUPPLEMENTAL DEIR RESPONSE TO COMMENTS CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER DAY SAINTS TEMPLE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH A. COMMENTS FROM DAVID SONKE PACNB230aTOSupplementBl RTC.docu l 0/02102» LETTER A 2905SUVer LCIM Nevport geaCh, CA92660 September 1, 2002 Dear Chairman Kiser, I am a Newport Beach resident and am whole - heartedly in support of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints building of the temple. This should not be an issue of religion, but simply stated a land use issue. It is my understanding that the extensive study that the city requested, concluded there to be NO ]VEGATIVEIMPA.CT, on the community or the aesthetics of the surrounding neighborhoods. Please allow the temple to be built the temple as the plans currently state, its not like the issue is excessive noise as is the concern of the neighbors of the Village Inn, The LDS temple goers consider the temple grounds to be scared and thus are typically reverently respectful. The temple will not "block" anyone's view, as is the concern of the neighbors of the Butler Home on W. Bay. The large spire and angel atop will not prevent the views of their neighbors or serve as an eyesore. The Temple grounds will be beautifully landscaped and from the pictures in the report, it clearly shows that the spire will only be slightly higher than the existing spire. (When I hold a pencil six inches away from my face, it does not block my view of the beach behind it, and such is the case of the angel on top.) Respectfully, 0-- David Sonke 2905 Silver Lane Newport Beach, CA 9260 RECEIVED BY PLANNING t DEPARTMENT CITY 0 AM SEP 0 G 2002 PNl ?1819110111112111213141516 A -1 1-SA ASSOCIATES. INC. OCTOBER 3003 SUPPLEMENTAL DE1R RESPONSE TO COMMENTS CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER DAY SAINTS TEMPLE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH A. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS FROM DAVID SONKE A -1 The commentor expresses support of the proposed project and agreement with the conclusions of the Draft Environmental Impact Report. No environmental issues were raised by the commentor, and further response is not required. The comment will be forwarded to the decision makers for consideration. P: \CNB230\RTC\Supp1emente1 RTC.docR10 /02/02), LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. OCTOBER 1005 SUPPLEMENTAL DEIR RESPONSE TO COMMENTS CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST Of LATTER DAY SAINTS TEMPLE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH B. COMMENTS FROM JENNIFER SONKE PACNB230 \RTC\SupplememRl RTC.doco 10/02/02» LETTER B JenK. fer sonize 29055UVer L-am Newport Beach, CAJ2660 September 1, 2002 Dear Chairman Kiser, I am a Newport Beach resident and am whole- heartedly in support of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints building of the temple. This should not be an issue of religion, but simply stated a land use issue. It is my understanding that the extensive study that the city requested, concluded there to be NO NEGATIVE IMPACT, on the community or the aesthetics of the surrounding neighborhoods. Please allow the temple to be built the temple as the plans currently state, its not like the issue is excessive noise as is the concern of the neighbors of the Village Inn. The LDS temple goers consider the temple grounds to be scared and thus are typically reverently respectful The temple will not "block" anyone's view, as is the concern of the neighbors of the Butler Home on W. Bay. The large spire and angel atop will not prevent the views of ]heir neighbors or serve as an eyesore. The Temple grounds will be beautifully 'gndscaped and from the pictures in the report, it clearly shows that the spire will only be sightly higher than the existing spire. (When I hold a pencil six inches away from my e, if does not block my view of the beach behind it, and such is the case of the angel �p top) Respeetfirlly, �JleruuferSonke 2905 Silver Lane Newport Beach, CA 92660 r,ECE}VED by pIANNING�EPARTNIE I CITY 07 N' ` SEp 0 6.2002 PM AM. 71819 i iD 11111211,2 131°' 1616 B -1 LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. OCTOBER 0000 SUPPLEMENTAL DEIR RESPONSE TO COMMENTS CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER DAY SAINTS TEMPLE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH B. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS FROM JENNIFER SONKE B -1 The commentor expresses support of the proposed project and agreement with the conclusions of the Draft Environmental Impact Report. No environmental issues were raised by the commentor, and further response is not required. The comment will be forwarded to the decision makers for consideration. PACN13230\RMSupplementBl RTC.doca 10/02/02, LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. OCTOBER 1001 SUPPLEMENTAL DEIR RESPONSE TO COMMENTS CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER DAY SAINTS TEMPLE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH C. COMMENTS FROM DEBRA S. BENDHEIM PACNB23MRMSupplememel RTC.doc«10 /02/02» LETTER C Debra S. Bendheim 2313 Fairhill Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 September 3, 2002 Mr. Steven Kiser Chairman — Planning Commission City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd Newport Beach, CA 92663 Dear. Mr. Kiser: RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF NEWPORT LEACH AM SEP ° 6 2002 PM 2iE19ii011i112iii2i314i618 I am writing to express my support for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter - Day Saints and their desire to build a temple in our great city. I think that it will be a wonderful building, one of beauty and serenity. I think it will be a great benefit to the community and look forward to its construction. I have looked at the Environmental Impact Study and found it to be complete and satisfactory in its conclusions. As a resident of this city for over 20 years, I want to publicly voice my support for the temple. Sincerely yours, C -1 LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. OCTOBER 2001 SUPPLEMENTAL DE1R RESPONSE TO COMMENTS CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER DAY SAINTS TEMPLE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH C. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS FROM DEBRA S. BENDHEIM C -1 The commentor expresses support of the proposed project and agreement with the conclusions of the Draft Environmental Impact Report. No environmental issues were raised by the commentor, and further response is not required. The comment will be forwarded to the decision makers for consideration. P: \CNB230\RTC\Supp1emenMi RTC.doca 10/02/02B LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. OCTOBER 2002 SUPPLEMENTAL DEIR RESPONSE TO COMMENTS CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST Of LATTER DAY SAINTS TEMPLE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH D. COMMENTS FROM MARYMARGARET BENDHEIM PACNB230 \RMSupplemental RTC.docnl0 /02/02» LETTER D WaryWargaret Bendheim 2742 Bayshore give Newport Beath, CA 92663 Septem6er3, 2002 Wr. Steven Kiser Chairman — (Planning Commission City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd Newport Beach, CA 92663 ,DearWr. Kiser. RECEIVED By of nr"'N'G DEPARTMENT r, ,i F AA9 S_r 0 6 [UUZ �,.,,,.,;Il i112111213t416 PM 8 I am writing to a .7ress my support far the Church oflesus Christ of LatteroaySafnts and their desire to 6udd a temple in our great city. I think that it wifl6e a wonderful 6udStng, one of beauty and serenity. I think it wifh6e a gnat benefit to the community and lookforward to its construction. I have hooked at the Environmentallmpact Study andfoundit to be complete and satisfactory in its conclusions. As a resident of this city for over 20 years, I want to puWy voice my support for the temple. Sincerely yours, J� T-\V�tol& &&64\j D -1 LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. OCTOBER 2002 SUPPLEMENTAL DEIR RESPONSE TO COMMENTS CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER DAY SAINTS TEMPLE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH D. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS FROM MARYMARGARET BENDHEIM D -1 The commentor expresses support of the proposed project and agreement with the conclusions of the Draft Environmental Impact Report. No environmental issues were raised by the commentor, and further response is not required. The comment will be forwarded to the decision makers for consideration. P: \CNB230\RTC\SuPP1emenM1 RTC.doca 10 /02/02. LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. OCTOBER 9009 SUPPLEMENTAL OEIR RESPONSE TO COMMENTS CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER DAY SAINTS TEMPLE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH E. COMMENTS FROM CANDACE E. JACKSON P: \CNB230\RTC\Supplementel RTC.doca10 /02/02u LETTER E Candace E. Jackson 1545 Cum6errand 9lfewport BeacA CA 92660 Septem6er3, 2002 a2r. Steven Kiser Chairman — rPlannhV Commission C.i. of `Newport Beach 3300 Newport Brvd Newport Beach, CA 92663 ,DearWr. 7(iser: RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF NEWPORT LEACH AM SEP 0 6 2002 PM 718191 i 01111121 i 1213141816 I am writing to express my support for the Church of-7esus Christ of Latter-0ay Saints and theirdesire to buMa temple in ourgreat city. I thinkthat it wff6e a wonderful buLgvg, one of beauty andserenity. I thinkit wid &- agreat 6m eft to the community and roof( forward to its construction. I have fookedat the' EnvironmentaClmpact Study andfoundt2 to 6e compreu and satisfactory in its conclusions. As a resident of this city forover20 years, I want to pu&ic6i voice my support for the temple. 2313 Fairhill Drivq Ncvsport Bach, Califomia 92660 E -1 LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. OCTOBER 2002 SUPPLEMENTAL DEIR RESPONSE TO COMMENTS CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER DAY SAINTS TEMPLE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH E. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS FROM CANDACE E. JACKSON E -I The commentor expresses support of the proposed project and agreement with the conclusions of the Draft Environmental Impact Report. No environmental issues were raised by the commentor, and further response is not required. The comment will be forwarded to the decision makers for consideration. PACNB230lRTC\Supplemental RTC.doco 10/02/020 LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. OCTOBER ROOK SUPPLEMENTAL DEIR RESPONSE TO COMMENTS CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER DAY SAINTS TEMPLE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH F. COMMENTS FROM MARK C. DOYLE, TREDWAY, LUMSDAINE & DOYLE,LLP PACNE1230 \RMSupplemental RTC.doca10 /02102* JOSEPH A. LUMSDAINE- MARK C. DOYLE MICHELE S. PATTERSON MICHAEL A. IANPHERE MATTHEW L KINLEY DANIEL R. GOLD JOAN PENFIL' SHANNON M. SILVERMAN ROY A JIMENEZ FRANCIS A. JONES MONICA GOEL REZA MANSOURI 'Of Comaal "Proteulonal law COM. AUTHORS E-MAL mdoNea9dlaw=M James Campbell LETTER F TREDWAY LUMSDAINE ® DOYLE LLP Senior Planner City of Newport Beach. 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 Lawyers September 4, 2002 1920 MAW STREET, SUITE 1009 IRVINE, CALIFORNIA 92614 (949) 756-0694 FAX (949) 756 -0596 DOWNEY OFFICE DOW NEY. CALIFORNIA 90241 (562) 923-0971 FAX (562) 8594607 LONG BEACH OFFICE LONG BEACH, CALIFORNIA 90902 (562) 903$140 FAX (562) 9938141 www.ddlaw.cmfl HAROLD T. TREDWAY RETIRED (1984) REPLY TO: IRVINE Via.Facsim:le arA First Class Mail RECEIVED BY PLANNNIG DEPARWIENT CITY C += "J -- 1n:c1RT t•,EA::H Re: Draft Environmental Impact Report SEP D 6 2002 Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Da Saints Temple A�ti9 P %� Y ��gigli0illi121ilai3i415i6 Dear Mr. Campbell: I am a resident of Bonita Canyon and a member of the Bonita Canyon Maintenance Association. I am writing to voice my objection to the Draft Environmental Impact Report published by the Church and express the support of the Bonita Canyon Maintenance Association position as stated in their letter to you of August 8, 2002. I am aware that recent legislation has caused additional concern regarding restrictions upon religious institutions. It is important to note that construction of a steeple tower approaching 130 feet in height is not essentiai to the practice of a religious belief. Instead the height of the temple acts as a marketing /public relations device to promote the church to all those within view of it including those on the 73 Freeway. Perhaps this would be acceptable in a Commercial area with similar height buildings but it is clearly not acceptable and inconsistent with the general plan for a steeple of that height to be constructed in a residential neighborhood. I urge the planning commission to carefully consider the comments of the Bonita Canyon Maintenance Association which represent the many residents living adjacent to this proposed site and require the Draft Environmental Impact Report to be modified accordingly. Further, based on the current plans submitted by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints Temple the conditional use permit should be denied. 0043864.1 99999 F -1 F -2 LETTER F (cont.) James Campbell September 4, 2002 Page 2 Should the City accept the Draft Environmental Impact Report and issue the conditional use permit for construction of the tower, I will consider legal action challenging both the F -3 Environmental Impact Report and the City's issuance of a conditional use permit. Thank you for your consideration. Respectfully submitted, TRREEDDWAY, LUMSDAINE & DOYLEup Mark CqDoy MCD:jij cc: Bonita Canyon Maintenance Association Board of Directors 0043864.1 99999 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. OCTOBER 2002 SUPPLEMENTAL DEIR RESPONSE TO COMMENTS CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER DAY SAINTS TEMPLE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH F. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS MARK C. DOYLE, TREDWAY, LUMSDAINE & DOYLE, LLP F -1 Please refer to Responses to Comments 8 -A through 8 -T in the Response to Comments document, which address the Bonita Canyon Maintenance Association comment letter. The commentor does not raise any specific environmental concerns; therefore, no response is necessary. The comment will be forwarded to the decision makers for consideration. F -2 The comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision makers. F -3 The comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision makers. PACNB230\RTCISupplememal RTC.doca10 /02/02B LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. OCTOBER ]00] SUPPLEMENTAL DEIR RESPONSE TO COMMENTS CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER DAY SAINTS TEMPLE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH G COMMENTS FROM DAVID GLIDER PACNB230 \RT0ISupplememBl RTC.doca 1 0/02102» LETTER G Planning Commission City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92658 September 6, 2002 RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY Or NF1aJPr)rT PEACH Re: SOMETIiING NEW H1!1 AM SEP 13 2002 PM Draft £IR LDS Temple 718191tQ11P112iiiu13i41916 Dear Commissioners:' I attended the PC meeting last night My card was not chosen to speak and I would like to supply you with something that you may not have heard before. Like Mr. Fuller, who spoke last night, I too am an appraiser with much experience in Southern California. I am also a resident of Bonita Canyon. As you know, appraisers can have a multitude of opinions. After all, that is what an appraisal is — an opinion. I disagree with Mr. Fuller and his findings regarding the value of the homes in the adjoining areas. I have attached an article for you and the Planning Commission to read on "The Impact of Detrimental Conditions on Property Values ". This article (from The Appraisal Journal) notes many factors that are both realized and perceived to decrease or damage real property and its value. To many of the homeowners in Bonita Canyon, this temple will be (and is) perceived as a future detrimental condition. You had pointed out at the beginning of the meeting that it would be your responsibility to ensure that the project would not be detrimental to the neighborhood. In this article, the most applicable DC would be Roman Numeral V — Imposed Conditions. The article that was included in the DEIR referred to "churches" and I would argue would not be similar to gigantic temples. I would like to see a copy of what Mr. Fuller submitted to you. I can't imagine that property values would increase in the vicinity of structures such as is proposed (unless you are a member of that church). Regardless, while I do not object to the existing church or even a temple that conforms to the existing zoning regulations, the proposed structure is completely unacceptable. I am also worried that the City of Newport Beacb might just "roll over" and accept anything that the LDS church wishes. The city attorney may be fearful of fighting the LDS church with the recent ruling in Boston and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA). As is noted in several articles, RLUIPA will likely be tested in courts and its constitutionality may be questioned (as the RFRA was declared unconstitutional in 1997). The edicts of the temple (steeple height, color, design, lighting) are all "revealed to the president of the LDS church" and are therefore set. That may be fine for believing mormons, but is that edict fair to be thrust on the citizens of Newport Beach? I think not G -1 G -2 LETTER G (cont.) Among the effects of the proposed temple that would impact the surrounding properties would be: ✓ Adverse effect on the scenic vistas ✓ Degradation of the existing visual character of the surroundings ✓ Addition of substantial light pollution, and ✓ Increase of traffic. The values of the homes in the Bonita Canyon development can easily be recorded and noted for a diminution in value after the temple is built. The City or the church could then be found to be the source of the diminution and could further be held liable for damages. Factors for the economy and any other outside influences can be separated from the impacts of the temple to determine a net damage to the residences. The EIR is also woefully inadequate in the measurement of traffic impacts on the area. A much more detailed analysis of the traffic in and out of the temple must be presented. What are the traffic patterns and visitor /member traffic patterns at other temples in the nation'? The LDS church should be forced to present daily /monthly and annual traffic counts for at a minimum the Los Angeles and San Diego temples. I'm sure this data can be presented with little effort — if the church wished to. I am convinced that the traffic impacts as presented in the EIR are grossly incorrect. In addition, I would propose that any permit be conditioned upon working with the City of Newport Beach, City of Irvine, and the Transportation Corridor Agencies /OCTA in baving the Bonita Canyon Drive off ramp from the Route 73 be cbanged to a "Non -Toll" ramp, with the Toll Road beginning south of this ramp. Traffic from Shady Canyon, Newport Coast and the Turtle Rock area all routinely use Bonita Canyon Drive to MacArthur simply to avoid paying the toll. This causes unnecessary congestion, noise and pollution in our residential area. Traffic is a regional problem and should be conditioned upon any permit that is granted. I also object to the lighting. In summary, I cannot object to the temple being built but can object to its conformity to the standards set by the City of Newport Beach and that of the community in which we live. Sincerely, David Guder 30 Whitehall Newport Beach, CA 92660 Cc: Bonita Canyon Maintenance Association G -3 G -4 G -5 G -6 LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. OCTOBER RBUR SUPPLEMENTAL DEIR RESPONSE TO COMMENTS CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER DAY SAINTS TEMPLE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH G. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS DAVID GUDER G -I The commentor does not raise any specific environmental concerns; therefore, no response is necessary. The comment will be forwarded to the decision makers for consideration. G -2 The commentor does not raise any specific environmental concerns; therefore, no response is necessary. The comment will be forwarded to the decision makers for consideration. G -3 The commentor's statements are acknowledged, however, the commentor does not provide support for such a finding. The comment does not provide specific evidence or new information that the information contained in the EIR is inadequate. In the absence of data or substantiating evidence to the contrary, the conclusion of the EIR may be relied upon. The comment will be forwarded to the decision makers. G -4 The comment refers to property valuation, which is not required in the CEQA process; therefore, no response is required. G -5 The City of Newport Beach Public Works Department reviewed and approved the Traffic Study prepared for the proposed project. The EIR analysis utilized the approved Traffic Study. The request for additional analysis is acknowledged, however, the EIR includes sufficient data and analysis from which conclusions regarding the level of impact can be derived. The analysis requested is beyond that required by CEQA Guidelines for a well reasoned and informed analysis of project impacts. G -6 Please refer to General Response 2 —Light and Glare in the Response to Comments document for a discussion of the project's light and glare impact. The comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision makers. P:\CNB2WRTC\Supp1emenW1 RTC.docc 10 /02/02* LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. OCTOBER 2002 SUPPLEMENTAL DEIR RESPONSE TO COMMENTS CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER DAY SAINTS TEMPLE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH H. COMMENTS FROM LISA JARVIE PACNB230\RTC\Supplemenwl RTCAmil0/02/02% LETTER H Newport Beach City Council Newport Beach Planning Commission 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 September 13, 2002 Dear Council Members and Commissioners, REGEIVE013Y PANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF NEWPORT EEACH AM SEp 112002 FM 71819 110 11I112 i 11213141618 I' I first moved to Newport Beach, 38 years ago, at the age of 7. At the time it was just hills between CdM and the airstrip we now know as John Wayne Airport. No Fashion Island, Newport Center, Big Canyon, Harbor View Homes, Spyglass Hill, Belcourt, etc. There was the little neighborhood of Harbor View, seen for miles at Christmas time with its blue and green Christmas lights and a huge white star on every house. We moved into Eastbluff when it was new and ran down the hill and across the big field that is now the Bluffs to explore the old salt mine in the back bay. Slowly, the open land disappeared. One field after another was developed, and the city has grown more and more beautiful over the years. Now my church would like to build a temple on a small parcel at the edge of town. The main objectors to the project are new residents who somehow think they have a right to "conserve" the city now that they are comfortably sitting on a bluff that 5 years ago offered grazing cattle and a panoramic view all across the county towards Brea. I don't understand the logic. Only a handful of people in Bonita Canyon will even be able to glimpse the temple from their property. The temple will be beautiful. Every temple project meets with strong opposition, with most of the roots found in doctrinal opposition. For example, a few years ago, when our chapel opened, our youth distributed flyers inviting the public to an open house. One Seawind resident, Randy Hunter, sent a letter to our stake president threatening to have any Mormon arrested who stepped foot on his property again, and furthermore, that we "don't have the right to call ourselves a church." I notice he is now one of the main spokespeople for the opposition. Please don't let a very few squeaky wheels convince you to turn down something that will add so much peace and beauty to the city. This topic has gotten plenty of press, and a very few residents of the city have bothered to speak out in opposition- ] back up to Bonita Canyon road —and where ] once saw cows and city lights, I now see 500 yards plus of Irvine -like adobe houses, with associated street lighting, house lighting and traffic. I would like to see a temple in my view too, please. Lisa Jarvie 1918 Port Cardiff Place H -1 LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. OCTOBER 9009 SUPPLEMENTAL OEIR RESPONSE TO COMMENTS CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER DAY SAINTS TEMPLE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH H. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS LISA JARVIE H -1 The commentor expresses support of the proposed project and agreement with the conclusions of the Draft Environmental Impact Report. No environmental issues were raised by the commentor, and further response is not required. The comment will be forwarded to the decision makers for consideration. P: \CNB230\RTC\Supp1cmenm1 RTC.doco 10/02/02* LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. OCTOBER 2002 SUPPLEMENTAL OEIR RESPONSE TO COMMENTS CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER DAY SAINTS TEMPLE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH I. COMMENTS FROM ROGER GILBERT PACNB230 \RTOSupplemental RTC.doca 10/02/02,, LETTER I Campbell, James From: Roger Gilbert Docegil @adelphia.net) Sent: Saturday, September 21, 200211:45 AM To: Jim (James) Campbell Subject: My Thoughts re "Spire " - - -- Hi There Dear Mr. Campbell -- after speaking to a very nice, polite person in the Planning Department, I decided to follow her recommendation and send a note re the Mormon Spire -- I believe that if that is one of the things that is important to the Mormon "Way of Worship" than they should be allowed to have their Spire be the number of feet that they so desire......... I simply cannot believe that it will interfere with the view (visual or opinionated) of some homeowners -- do they walk around with their heads pointed upward all the time? If they are driving they should be looking out the front window of their car -- and if they are walking they should be looking at curbs, bumps in the sidewalk, or else smiling and talking to their companion..... I also think that such negativism is intolerant and what does that teach one's children - - - - -- normally I do not write "letters" or opinions even though I have strong thoughts on most everything -- but this seemed like such a nit picky thing on the part of some people that I am putting "my two cents in ....... I had c4lled Mr. Bromberg. our city council rep, and he said that if the Mormons got their way than all the other churches might raise their steeples too (and actually no one should mind if they did) -- I presume he was talking just a rhetorical scenario...... well, this note is much to long but I just get a bit weary of reading how petty some of the issues are that some segments of our city complain about when there are more important things going on in this world of ours....... Sincerely. Jocelyn Gilbert........ 1 -1 LSA ASSOCIATES INC. OCTOBER 2002 SUPPLEMENTAL OEIR RESPONSE TO COMMENTS CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OP LATTER OAV SAINTS TEMPLE CITV OF NEWPORT BEACH I. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ROGER GILBERT I -1 The commentor expresses support of the proposed project and agreement with the conclusions of the Draft Environmental Impact Report. No environmental issues were raised by the commentor, and further response is not required. The comment will be forwarded to the decision makers for consideration. PACNB230\RTC\Supp1emenM1 RTC.docul0/02/02» LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. OCTOBER ]00] SUPPLEMENTAL DEIR RESPONSE TO COMMENTS CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER DAY SAINTS TEMPLE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH J. COMMENTS FROM PHIL AND BARBARA KILMER PACN5230\RTCVSupp)emenmJ RTC.doca10 /02/02u LETTER J Campbell, James From: phil and barbara kilmer[barill ®pacbell.net] Sent: Tuesday, September 24, 2002 5:03 PM To: jcampbell ®city.newport•beach.ca.us Subject: Moorman Temple Please take a moment to read my note, it is of great concern to me. Thank You. I reside in "Harbor View homes ", in the Immediate proximity of the purpose Mormon temple. The crane was viewed and did little to show the true impact of temple on the surrounding communities. The only way to understand the impact on our community is to see a similar Mormon Temple. Hopefully you have viewed one of these temples, if not you should observe the Mormon temple on the way to San Diego, on the left next to the freeway, you cannot miss ft. After speaking with James Campbell, the Senior Planner assigned to this project, I felt very little resistance to this project from the planning Department, thus my note to you. CONCERNS I understand that religious organizations have some leeway in the variance process, but this project has gone considerable past the normal exception that may be considered. This proposed Temple is in the middle of a residential district. The structure exceeds maximum height and illumination requirements. The fact they may consider turning off or lowering the lights on the lower portion of the building, except their angle on top of the steeple, which will remain illuminated all night does not warrant an exception. If the city waives the height and lighting requirements, what about the other churches in the immediate area? If they request to add excessive steeples will the city allow them the exception? Maybe we could have a steeple build contest. Joking. Frankly the temples excessive height and illumination would be an unwanted intrusion in the lives of the residence of our community. Rememberthe FLETCHER JONES affair? Lastly, I don't see any real benefit to the City, unless it receives some kind of tax revenue from the project, or the community. One of the major religious believes is to love thy neighbor and do unto others as you would have them do to you. With that in mind, how can a particular religious group attempt to force an unwanted structure on any community? The word "force" may seem harsh, but in reality I understand that the Mormon Church has and is prepared to do what ever it takes to accomplish their goal, including litigation. Guess who pays the legal fees? The City and ultimately the taxpayers. I know you are aware of the above, but please remember the people of the communities involved when decision must be made on this matter. Thank You Phillip S. IGlmer 09/27/2002 J -1 LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. SUPPLEMENTAL DEIR RESPONSE TO COMMENTS OCTOBER 2002 CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER DAY SAINTS TEMPLE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH J. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS PHIL AND BARBARA KILMER J -1 The commentor does not raise any specific environmental concerns; therefore, no response is necessary. The comments opinions will be forwarded to the decision makers for consideration. P: \CNB230\RTC\Supp1emenM1 RTC.docuI10 /02/02D LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. OCTOBER 9009 SUPPLEMENTAL DEIR RESPONSE TO COMMENTS CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER DAY SAINTS TEMPLE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH K. COMMENTS FROM ALLEN K. MURRAY, PH.D. P: \CNB230 \RT0SUpplEmenml RTC.doacl0 /02/02» LETTER K Allen K Murray, Ph.D. 2330 Port Lerwicft Place Newport Beach, CA 91660 (949)769 -7081 September 29, 2002 Newport Beach Planning Commission City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92663 RE: Newport Beach LDS Temple (PA2001 -208) SERIOUS MISREPRESENTATION IN DRAFT EIR AND STAFF REPORT INVALIDATES STAFF RECOMMENDATION Dear Members of the Planning Commission: A very serious misrepresentation of fact In they above referenced Draft EIR and Staff Report has come to my attention. The subject of this misrepresentation is, in fed the height of the steeple on the present LDS Stake Center across Prairie from the proposed site for the LDS Temple. Since the Staff Report recommends a proposed height for the steeple on the Temple based on the height of the present steeple on the LDS Stake Center, the misrepresentation of the steeple height on the Stake Center completely undermines the basis for the recommendation. I will elaborate on the basis for my statements above: The Draft EIR and the Staff Report (9/05/02) state In several places that the height of the steeple on the LDS Stake Center Is 8K above finished floor. Draft EIR, Page 4.1-2 The WWhy LDS Church Stake Center is l6cated immediately west of the project 5 tc: The steeple or tower at the Slake Center is approximately 86 feet high. Page 3, Staff'Report The steeple on the existing Stake Center Is 88 feet from the finished noor e/evanoo of approxfmaeiy 190 feet above mean seal levelto Ns peak... Page 19, Staff Report Lowering the height of the project will reduce its visibility and visual lmpa4 but lowering B below 86 fee; In stalls op/nlon, Is questloriable as the structure would be lower then the adjacent Stake Center, which is a subordinat2 building within the religious precbces or the LDS Church. K -1 2 LETTER K (cont.) 2.Simply due to my profession as a scientist I always verify data so I measured the height of the steeple on the Stake Center. My measurements with the sextant and measuring the distance on the ground are not going to be as accurate as a surveyor with state of the art equipment but an average of three measurements to the top of the steeple was 67.28 ft By the convention used by the City and the LDS church on the drawings the lightning rod does not count in the height as It is not part of the structure. I should also mention that my fellow Seawind Board Member, Mrs. Peggy Stair also mentioned to me that she just didn't think the steeple looked like It was 86 ft. tall. 3. 1 spoke to Pam Davis, the Irvine Planner on the project. She told me that all of the materials had been transferred to the City of Newport Beach as part of the annexation. I checked the plans on file in the Newport Beach Building Department and found that they Indicated a height of 86 ft for the steeple. I asked one of the Building Department personnel what the ramifications are If a building Is not the height indicated on the plans. He told me that he did not know what the procedure was in Irvine since the building was built in Irvine. I called Pam Davis again and I asked her about the discrepancy in height between the plans and the building. She told me that they could build it lower with no problem just not higher. She went on to say, 'Mr. Joe Bentley told me they built the steeple much lower than the 86fL on the plans." 4. Peggy Stair provided me with a set of drawings for the LDS Stake Center that she had acquired from Mary Ann Weber, a Seawind resident I have compared the drawing with a recent photograph of the Stake Center in Attachment 1. It is obvious, to even the untrained eye, that a significant portion of the steeple on the drawing was omitted from the actual constructed building. By the comparison, one can extrapolate a height for the steeple of 67.3% 5. 1 have asked several Seawind and Bonita Canyon residents if they have ever heard the LDS leaders describe the steeple on the Stake Center as being lower than the now claimed 86 % Several thought they recalled the LDS leaders describe the steeple as being near 70ft. tall at a meeting for residents held at the Stake Center last December. My fellow Seawind Board Member, Mr. Steve Brahs recalls distinctly that at the meeting, presented by Mr. Bentley, Dr. Clayton and Mr. Martin, It was stated that the steeple on the Stake Center was 71 ft. tall. In fact, all of the members of the Bonita Canyon Board of Directors remember from a number of meetings with the LDS Church officials that the steeple on the Stake Center was NEVER presented as being B6 ft tali. 6. To verify the observations that the steeple is significantly lower than the height claimed in the Draft EIR and the Staff Report, we contracted California Surveying Corporation to determine the height of the steeple. The report from Mr. Theodore M. Krull, Professional Land Surveyor licensed by the State of California is Attachment 2. Mr. Krull determined the height of the steeple to be 67.08 % (67 ft., 1 In.). K -1 cont. LETTER K (cont.) 3 7. The Use Permit Application signed and submitted to the City of Newport Beach by Ralph J. Martin on October 23, 2001. under Section I C. Environmental Setting it states that the steeple height of the Stake Center is 91 feet. Under Section IX, Land Use Planning, Adjoining Uses, it states that the steeple height of the Stake Center is 71 feet. It is interesting to note that on the last page, the Certification, states: I certify that Me statements furnished above and in the attached exhibits are coned and complete to vie best of my Anowledpe and belief. I am the legal owner of the property that Is the subject of this application or have been aulhorized by die owner to act on his behalf regarding Otis application. I further acknowledge that any false statements of In/ormeBOn presented herein may result In the revocation of any approval or permit granted on dm bests of this information. Selected sections of this application are contained in Attachment 3. I have summarized my findings in Table 1 below: Table 1. Stated Height of Steeple on Stake Center Hei ht(ft. ) Date Source 86 2/27/92 Project Description, LSA Associates, Inc 91 10/23/01 Use Permit Application, Ralph J. Martin 71 10/23101 Use Permit Application, Ralph J. Martin 66 June 2002 Draft EIR, LSA Associates, Ina. 86 915/02 Staff Report, City of Newport Beach 67.28 9114102 Allen K Murray, sextant 67.3 9/14/02 Allen K Murray, photo 8 scanned plan 67.08 9/19/02 T.M. Kroll California Surveying Corp. I believe the items 2, 4 and 6 above and Attachments 1 and 2 provide ample evidence for me to state unequivocally that the stated steeple height of 66 ft is clearly a misrepresentation. Furthermore, the height of the steeple is, in fact, 67.06 ft, which 15 1.8.92 ft. lower than we had previously been led to belirave. Therefore the staffs opinion against lowering the steeple on the Temple below 86 ft., as stated on page 19 of the staff report is completely without basis. 1 feel that we, the residents of Newport Beach, have been seriously misled by the City. Staff. Given the factual information presented above, 1 am sorely distressed that no one In the room at the Planning Commission meeting of September 6, 2002 spoke up to correct the City Staff on this very serious misrepresentation of the steeple height on the Stake Center. I take it as a complete insult that no one from LEA Associates, the City or any other entity involved was diligent enough to check the height of the steeple before entering such a critical number in the Draft EIR and the Staff Report. I am further insulted that no one anticipated that we homeowners would actually check the height of the steeple. I find it unacceptable that someone would by to finesse the 86 ft. number. This Is not a card game but rather a quality of life issue concerning visual pollution of our daily vistas. K -1 cont. LETTER K (cont.) 4 In conclusion, I feel you have no choice but to reject the Staff recommendation of a height of 100 ft for the temple steeple. This project has been presented to us as having a steeple approximately 50% higher than the steeple on the Stake Center when, In fact, the proposed steeple is 86% higher than the-steeple on the Stake Center. Since the present Stake Center steeple is really 67.013k, tall and the pad for temple site is a few feet higher than the Stake Center a steeple Height of 75 ft. would accomplish the objectives stated in the Staff Report This option was rejected in the Staff Report based on the misrepresentation of the height of the steeple of the Stake Center. We can now state unequivocally, for the record, the steeple height on the Stake Center is 67.08 ft. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely yours, avan, X Attachments (1 -3) Cc. Members, Newport Beach City Council James Campbell, Senior Planner Patricia L. Temple, Planning Director Homer Bludeau, City Manager Dave Krff, Deputy City Manager Pam Davis, City of Irvine, Planning Department Steve Brahs, Seawind Community Assn. Peggy Stair, Seawind Community Assn. Mary Ann Weber, Seawind Community Assn. K -2 o z• vm t7 D � CD y �v n w �m �o0 o o � 0 0 co �CD. a' o 7 m C o, N � � n S � C A Q -7 � 0 co O co [Q fD y �p Q ? 97 CD N fD O � y C7 N D V i A CA O N 7 v .+ N N N 0 ATTACHMENT K p m m a z T O v z 0. Q 2 -n X co rn 1-SA ASSOCIATES. INC. OCTOBER 2002 SUPPLEMENTAL DEIR RESPONSE TO COMMENTS CHURCH Of JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER DAY SAINTS TEMPLE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH K. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ALLEN K. MURRAY, PH.D. K -1 Based on the plans originally submitted to and approved by the City of Irvine, the. height of the Stake Center was determined to be approximately 86 feet high. After reviewing the commentors letter referencing discrepancies in the stated height of the Stake Center, the City's Department of Public Works survey crew completed a survey of the tower element on the Stake Center. Based on City's survey, the maximum height of the Skate Center is in fact approximately 68 feet high. The height of the State Center, as stated in the DEIR, was based on a review of the plans approved by the City of Irvine. It is unclear as to why the height of the Stake Center was reduced, however, it is acknowledged that the height of the Stake Center as stated in the DEIR (86 feet) is not accurate. The actual height of the adjacent Stake Center is approximately 68 feet high. The requested clarification is acknowledged and herewith incorporated into the record. The comments provide clarification as to the height of the adjacent Stake Center. The clarification does not alter the analysis or conclusions in the EIR. No environmental issue is raised in the comment. The commentor's issue related to the Staff Report prepared by the City of Newport Beach Planning Department is an administrative matter outside the purview of CEQA. These issues will be addressed in the Staff Report presented to the Planning Commission on October 3, 2002. K -2 The commentor's statements are acknowledged. These issues will be addressed in the Staff Report presented to the Planning Commission on October 3, 2002. The comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision makers for consideration. P1CNB230\RTC\Supp1emenra1 RTC.doca 10/02/02» Ave/vt Ocmbc 23, 2001 W. rpm Cm pba1 City of Newport Bpmnh Plaon'npg Departmmll 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Baal:b. CA 92663 ARCHITECTS a RLANNERa Attachment 3 Wolter R•idwrdwn F . Palo W^fT •ro Reb.rl Tyler • Srw. W. MaC�1.1r Av Rev; 4nrw n.1 DW Mr. Campbell: We arc plea w to subadt our uppuutlon fol The Newport Paaeb, ad"bmh Cburgl et IMS Christ oriarta EV SO= Teatple. This leant is aceapapanied by the ibnowing RubmiTTale. 1. Use PanpitApylhsdon(1) 2. Sits Plan Review Appscasion (1) 3. 7:'rTViroT>merpFSl InO mmlion Form (1) a. Ywffiky Map b. Coiw photos of subjea afire and tam vidpdty (4 a a Wainal Propvty cr o lobda pba'em copy and ansm arcel ov p m p, Nom: Iums flag k4ude 12largn sbe and B redueoom at W x 1T. a. Slim Plan (Psot PlMQ S. now Plum 6. Mewstions 7. I.i, WwApePlan . a. GlL&;IgPlan 9. IhAdlag Mevadm a 10. Fxrtaiar Ughtiag Pism msvlc D"v ftu CLAMo siss oNyr 12 c*vz) and i O*W Report (2 cop'Ies) I1. T"Me STudy (ppr4cualy submift6toCity) 12. Sons end Qoology Report (2 coples) 13. Legal DeacdOon4x1lim LONObucM & PWTd MW 140.91 -270 (2 large $ 2 Foa0) . We look forward To vmAdny with You on this c =Slog ytpjeel. Plo Its ou ioww ifyou need Spry admond WbrME601L WMutin ■ PLANNERS Pr aideR a 949.732.ta1I0 9e. 949.633.9603 4617Tdlw Avenue M.wporra.edr Callioele 92660 USA Inl.brnmrdrprafp6imn.ese "`0►. V4NWN743.'TA L MKIRMATIION FORM. C74' of Newpmc Bamb PIR miva Dq-mx d �4 3300Ncwp=p8valcr 4wporBmch.CA92665 P�2�ct -YOB 5�� -oos A. �ncdlnt®dma 1, APp&.mlAp= WJ" L MARTTN, ATCIP Pbow- 2949)732.1800 AM,MX RNM AR0ffIWM- rjANTML% 4611 TTJZM AY2:., NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 2 Prop wO►pa CCIRP.Q7TH:S311<S7D0Wtl HISROP OFTH& Fh 0802 )2/0.3192 cHuyiCli OF JESUS CHRIST OFLITTIER DAY SAINTS Addtca 50 E- NORTH T VIX 0114—% MT!&g C W. UTAH 84LM r. Mon AU96Ibe fdlowfap wmftb for the ptojax -"CWWHW - ftopm widow to awhl9 Pup =4 t=t s>d —memo notadao. If spPlfodtle 1. - elms&r maaae - At huM 3 dlftlaa"photos m V" ma 8 1/2111 [adbetad wi* a Ims PEP *owing dw Pbow tomdocs add dhwdoo Urvlc+ 2 FIW= locve . ADIACUTt TO 2150 PONITA CANYON DR- NPR7l7RTA ACX G 459- 15343. 4WI33.22 . 3. . A m wl.Pnml p: 431-4" 46`LSB -IS -ta 4. Pamk -pFUtsdm 0: Sa. Ptopoed me A RII1GlOU8 PMCQ.2TY le. TWwanx 36. Frcjrrt da 2d4cdlap delta gsrn (lpm aq a c): 27.737 W. ft. Sc Stx she 6.65 me ( 776.794 9Q.Ff.) Sd. H aOdmQ batSbt 3J h Nm 91 6. gd.dn6l.ra.� ees[�ooe: Uavval PIM: rmz- lclsxb®t.TM-TC Zening: PUA1.L' SENMUM C&UP -AXtGl'7 6praf" +c P7sa 11x: 7. Pxvlom tovQT=Kv l approv4L CITY OF mvm zom C IL NGS 1 M3.w T6 I-m CUP M.103964CPS V-17-M, )NCLLMINO MmGATED NEGATM f7ECI A TIOIQ, CALIF. Rw4acM 407 wATvER OF CERT)FICAT1ON On?/94: t:ALIF.WATER RIESOVRLES BOARD RFC 7 T Or N0710E TO DISCHARGE STORM R'AT)iR GOOMM & Odw E- a=n=md .ppnvaL ngo4rod: Fadmt: Stame Local: USE PERMIT. SITEP2JIN RPV1ETr: pvvv�RONNnsnu.I�sssssMVrr. 9. Drill cemceedm: SmygG 21102 urd=vd oempaocy: SPRING 200] dam 4m Pepe 1 418 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT ERRATA CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER DAY SAINTS TEMPLE NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA L S A October 3, 2002 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT ERRATA CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER DAY SAINTS TEMPLE NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA Submitted to: City of Newport Beach Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92658 Contact: James Campbell, Senior Planner Prepared by: LSA Associates, Inc. 20 Executive Park, Suite 200 Irvine, California 92614 (949) 553 -0666 LSA Project No. CNB230 LSA October g, 2002 li TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ................................. ............................... 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT ........ ............................... 2 3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION, PAGE 3 -5 ........................ . ................. 2 4.1 AESTHETICS, PAGE 4.1 -2 ................... ............................... 2 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS .......... ............................... . ............ 3 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FROM ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY AFFAIRS ADVISORY COMMITTEE, CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, LETTER 5, Page 5 -9 ................. 3 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FROM ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY AFFAIRS ADVISORY COMMITTEE, CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, LETTER 5, Page 5 -14 ................ 4 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FROM MICHAEL GREEN, LETTER 34, Page 34 -5 ........ 4 P.\cnb230 \Final E1R \Erta\a.wpd ((1013/02>> CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER DAY SAINTS TEMPLE ERRATA INTRODUCTION This Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints Temple EIR Errata is provided to clarify information for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints Temple Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) and response to comments (RTC). The EIR and RTC changes clarify the height of the adjacent Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints Stake Center as stated in the EIR and RTC, based upon the information and concerns raised by commentors during the public comment period. None of the information contained in this EIR Errata constitutes significant new information or changes the analysis or conclusions of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints Temple DEIR. The information included in the Errata resulting from the public comment process and the City's normal planning process does not constitute substantial new information that requires issuance of a subsequent EIR. As identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, an EIR shall be revised and recirculated should certain criteria be met. Additional information, in and of itself, does not require a subsequent EIR. A subsequent EIR is required only when changes to the proposed project, changes in circumstances, or new information not previously known will result in new or increased significant effects. The new information and discussion included in this Errata demonstrate that these changes do not trigger the need for a subsequent EIR, based on the following criteria (CEQA Guidelines Section 15162): • No substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact will occur. The changes to the DEIR included in this Errata do not constitute substantial new information indicating that there would be 1) any new, significant impact or a substantially more severe impact than previously analyzed and discussed in the DEIR; 2) any substantial increase in severity of impacts; or 3) any new feasible alternative or mitigation measure that would avoid an identified significant impact. An Errata to the DEIR is the appropriate document to address the changes to the DEIR, because some clarification and additions to the DEIR are necessary, but none of the conditions triggering preparation of a subsequent EIR are present. For simplicity, the errata below are in the same order that they are found in the EIR. (New text is underlined; deleted text is shown with strikeou .) P'\cnb230 \Final EIR�Ertam.wpd K10 /3/02)) I.SA ASSOCIATES. INC. EIR ERRATA OCTOBER 211.2 CHURCH OF JCSUS CNRIS'1 OF LATTER DAY SAINTS TEMPLE PROJECT CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION, PAGE 3 -5 3.3 Project Characteristics It is noted that the Church maintains a separate stake center, or "meeting house," directly adjacent to the proposed Temple site. For comparison, the proposed Temple building is approximately 40 percent, or 10,925 square feet, smaller than the existing stake center. The steeple on the existing stake center is approximately 684Wfeet from floor elevation to its peak, and the Temple's steeple would be 123'9" from the finished floor level. The finished floor will be approximately 5 -8 feet above the existing grade. The proposed Temple functions in concert with the adjacent stake center; however, operations at each facility are distinctly separate. The Temple and the stake center will share parking and will utilize the same main access road. The change to the DEIR is a clarification of the height of the adjacent Stake Center. The clarification has no substantive effect on the analysis or findings of the EIR. 4.1 AESTHETICS, PAGE 4.1 -2 4.1.1.2 Surrounding Visual Characteristics The existing LDS Church Stake Center is located immediately west of the project site. The steeple or tower at the Stake Center is approximately A8 4&feet high. Directly south of the project site is another church facility (Saint Matthews Church, currently under construction) with an approximately 75 foot high steeple. A developmental pre- school is adjacent to and east of Saint Matthews Church. Southwest of the site is the Bonita Canyon Sports Park (currently under construction). The sports park will consist of baseball fields, soccer fields, children's play areas, and picnicking areas. Ballfield lighting for the sports park is not planned; however, parking lot lighting and security lighting will be installed. Farther south of the project site is a commercial /retail center. The San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor (SJHTC) runs northwest to southeast approximately 1,500 feet north of the project site. The change to the DEIR is a clarification of the height of the adjacent Stake Center. The clarification has no substantive effect on the analysis or findings of the EIR. P: \cnb230 \Final EIR \EITata.wpd «10/3/02» 1 S ASSOCIAI ES. INC. EIR ERRATA OCTOBER 1001 CHURCII OF JESUS CHRIS "I' OF LA'1 "l'kR IIAY SAINTS TEMPLE PROJECT CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH RESPONSE TO COMMENTS RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FROM ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY AFFAIRS ADVISORY COMMITTEE, CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, LETTER 5, Page 5 -9 Response 5 -A The height of the building and steeple at its highest point is 123 feet 9 inches. As indicated in Figure 3.4, Site Plan, the proposed finished floor elevation (floor elevation after construction) of the Temple is 193 feet 6 inches above mean sea level. When the Temple is constructed, the top of the angel will be at an elevation of approximately 317 feet 4 inches above mean sea level. The height of the steeple would not increase. As stated in Section 20.65.030 of the Zoning Code, grade, for the purpose of measuring height, shall be the unaltered natural vertical location of the ground surface. Additionally, as stated under 20.65.030.B.1, "For sites that were developed without or prior to the requirement for a grading plan or map, the Planning Department shall exercise its best effort to determine the location of grade for the purpose of measuring height. In so doing, the Planning Department shall use existing on -site elevations and contours of adjoining and nearby properties to determine the natural profile of the site." Because the project site's natural grade is a downward gradient towards the northwest and northeast and the topographic elevational differences on the portion of the site to be developed is approximately 15 feet, the exact elevation of the natural grade was difficult to establish. As a result, an estimation of 5 to 8 feet above the natural grade was utilized. Therefore, it is accurate to say that the maximum height of the steeple will be approximately 132 feet above natural grade. The change to the response to comments is a clarification of the height of the adjacent Stake Center. The clarification has no substantive effect on the analysis or findings of the EIR. P'knt,230 \Final EIR \Eaata.wpd ((10/3/02)) kk The change to the response to comments is a clarification of the height of the adjacent Stake Center. The clarification has no substantive effect on the analysis or findings of the EIR. P'knt,230 \Final EIR \Eaata.wpd ((10/3/02)) LSA ASSOCIATES. INC EIR ERRATA OCTOBER 2002 CHURCH OF JFSDS UHRIST OP LATTER DAY SAINTS 'TEMPLE PROJECT CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FROM ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY AFFAIRS ADVISORY COMMITTEE, CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, LETTER 5, Page 5-14 Response 5 -Q The 100 -foot steeple alternative was selected as it is believed that it would satisfy the following project objective: "To provide a highly visible site and a distinctive Temple with a steeple sufficiently high and illuminated to be seen from a substantial distance. " This belief is based upon an extensive field survey of the general area conducted in late January of 2002, when a crane was installed at the site to simulate the height of the steeple. Additionally, the alternative height was selected as it would incrementally lessen aesthetic impacts of the project due to the height of the steeple. A 100 -foot steeple will be higher than that of the adjacent LDS Stake Center (68.8&feet), making it more prominent than the adjacent Stake Center steeple based upon height alone. The height difference of approximately 3 5.5-7 -3 feet between the top of the Stake Center steeple and a 100 -foot high Temple steeple will be perceptible from Bonita Canyon Drive and SR -73. It is acknowledged that a Temple steeple of equal height to the Stake Center steeple may appear visually more prominent due to the difference in architectural styling, lighting, and building color. It is further acknowledged that a Temple steeple of equal height to that of the Stake Center, given the difference in architectural styling, lighting, and building color, may also meet the project objective stated above. Any reduction in height will reduce the visibility of the project. Alternative heights of 75 feet or 50 feet were rejected due to a belief that a Temple steeple of this height would not satisfy the project objective stated above. The change to the response to comments is a clarification of the height of the adjacent Stake Center. The clarification has no substantive effect on the analysis or findings of the EIR. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FROM MICHAEL GREEN, LETTER 34, Page 34 -5 Response 34 -D CEQA requires that an EIR describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the project, or to the location of the project, that could feasibly attain the basic objectives of the project while reducing or avoiding any of its significant effects. CEQA does not require an exhaustive analysis of all ranges of alternatives. A steeple height similar to the height of the existing LDS Stake Center (68 46-feet) may not be consistent with the project objective of "providing a highly visible site and a distinctive Temple with a steeple sufficiently high and illuminated to be seen from a substantial distance, as a pinnacle of the faith and the source of perceived eternal blessings to the faithful." An 68-M foot high steeple would incrementally lessen aesthetic impacts and will reduce the project visibility. The comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision makers. The change to the response to comments is a clarification of the height of the adjacent Stake Center. The clarification has no substantive effect on the analysis or findings of the EIR. P1cnb230 \Fina1 E1R\Ernta.wpd ((10/3/02»