The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutDRAFT EIR 508A_SANTA ANA HEIGHTS SPECIFIC PLAN111111111 lill 111111111111111111111111111111111 lill *NEW FILE* DRAFT E 1 R 508A SANTA ANA HEIGHTS SPECIFIC PLAN 1 ' • 1' • I 1 I' • ' • ' I : •1 County of Orange Environmental Management Agency i ' SCREENCHECK EIR (Submitted: April 15, 1986) DRAFT EIR (Accepted: August 4, 1986) PROPOSED FINAL EIR (Approved: ' FINAL EIR (Certified Complete ' STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NUMBER: 83113009 DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT #508A SANTA ANA HEIGHTS SPECIFIC PLAN I 1 ' PREPARED BY: PHILLIPS BRANDT REDDICK ' 18012 Sky Park Circle Irvine, California 92714 ' ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION FOR USE BY: COUNTY OF ORANGE, CALIFORNIA ' LEAD AGENCY: ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT AGENCY ENVIRONMENTAL AND SPECIAL PROJECTS DIVISION P.O. Box 4048 Santa Ana, California 92702-4048 ' Contact Person: Kari Rigoni (714) 834-5561 II t TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1 2.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 8 3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 14 4.0 EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING, IMPACTS 17 AND MITIGATION MEASURES 4.1 Hydrology 17 4.2 Land Use 19 4.3 Relevant Planning 20 4.4 Transportation/Circulation 24 4.5 Air Resources 37 4.6 Acoustic Environment 51 4.7 Aesthetics 60 4.8 Recreation 62 4.9 Light and Glare 64 4.10 . Public Services and Utilities 68 4.11 Cumulative Impacts 91 5.0 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT 92 6.0 INVENTORY OF MITIGATION MEASURES 96 7.0 UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS 114 8.0 GROWTH -INDUCING EFFECTS 115 9.0 THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LOCAL SHORT-TERM USES 116 OF MAN'S ENVIRONMENT AND THE MAINTENANCE AND ENHANCEMENT OF LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY 10.0 IRREVERSIBLE ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGES INVOLVED 117 IN THE PROPOSED ACTION i TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont'd) Section Page 11.0 PERSONS AND ORGANIZATIONS CONSULTED 118 12.0 REFERENCES 120 13.0 APPENDICES A. Notice of Preparation/Initial Study B. Service Agency Responses C. Public Works Improvements Final Report D. Traffic/Circulation Final Report E. Air Quality Technical Analyses F. Acoustical Analysis Final Report G. Miscellaneous ii L P I r I I I I I LIST OF TABLES No. Title Page No. 1 Projected New Development 15 2 Comparison of Existing Daily Traffic 25 with Estimated Roadway Capacity 3 Existing Intersection Capacity Utilization 26 4 Future Intersection Capacity Utilization 28 5 Future Intersection Utilization with Mitigation 29 6 Circulation Improvement Phasing Program 32 7 Ambient Air Quality 40 8 Ambient Air Quality Standards 41 9 Existing "Worst Case" CO Concentrations 43 10 Project -Generated Emissions 46 11 Project Emissions Compared with SRA 18 Emissions 46 12 Comparison of "Worst Case" CO Concentrations 48 (Existing Versus Existing Plus Project) 13 Nonresidential Indoor Noise Standards 52 14 Existing Traffic Noise Levels 53 15 Future Traffic Noise Levels 56 16 Change in CNEL Noise Levels Due to Specific Plan 57 Implementation 17 Sewer Pump Station Facilities 71 18 Santa Ana Heights Water Company Ultimate Land Use 76 19 Santa Ana Heights Water Company Projected 77 Water Demand 20 Water Distribution System Design Criteria 78 21 Proposed Water Service Improvements and Construction 78 Costs 22 Sewer Facilities Impacted by Proposed Development 80 23 Santa Ana Heights Ultimate Sewer Flows 81 and Deficiencies 24 Proposed Sewer Improvements and Preliminary Costs 81 25 Ultimate Flow Quantities and Improvements 83 26 Proposed Drainage Improvements and Construction 84 Costs 11 iii LIST OF EXHIBITS Following Exhibit No. Title Page No• 1 Regional Location/Vicinity Map 14 2 Land Use Element 14 3 Land Use Plan (Community Profile) 14 4 Land Use/Traffic Analysis Zones 15 5 Existing Land Use 19 6 Existing Roadway Characteristics 24 7 Existing Traffic Volumes 24 8 Circulation Plan 29 9 Acoustical Insulation Program 59 10 Residential Entry Treatment 60 11 Residential/Equestrian Trail Design 60 12 Business Park/Residential Equestrian Buffer Design 60 13 Recreation Plan 62 14 Water Distribution Improvements 78 15 Sewer Improvements 79 16 Drainage System Improvement Plan 82 17 Circulation Alternative 1 92 18 Circulation Alternative 2 94 iv I 1.0 INTRODUCTION ' In conformance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), as well as state guidelines and County procedures relating to CEQA, this docu- ' ment presents an assessment of the individual and collective environmental impacts associated with a proposed specific plan for Santa Ana Heights (hereafter referred to as "the project") located south of John Wayne Airport in unincorporated Orange County. Background In February 1985, the Orange County Board of Supervisors approved both the John Wayne Airport Master Plan and the Land Use Compatibility Program for Santa Ana Heights and certified•a final environmental impact report (EIR 508-SCH 83113009) for both plans. The Board also adopted a Land Use Element amendment and Community Profile amendment for Santa Ana Heights. 1 These actions have established the basic land use patterns for the ' community. The Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan is intended to implement the adopted land use plan for Santa Ana Heights by establishing land use regulations and other implementation programs tailored to the community. The County of Orange is the lead agency for preparation of the environmental docu- mentation for the Specific Plan. This documentation is in the form of a tiered supplement to Final EIR 508. Intended Uses of the Supplemental EIR This Supplemental EIR may be used by different County agencies, State ' agencies and special districts to make future decisions regarding the study area. The County will use the EIR to: Grant approvals for subsequent development projects. ' Plan and construct public .facilities and public improvements within the specific plan area. Supplemental Tiered EIR The concept of EIR tiering is used when an EIR has been prepared earlier in the process which adequately discusses the broad effects of a program or a plan. Subsequently, tiered EIRs are prepared to address the nar- rower, more site -specific impacts associated with implementation of that plan or program, but incorporates by reference the general discussion of impacts from the previous EIR. Tiering is an effort to focus the environ- mental review to issues which are relevant to the approvals being consi- dered. The current EIR is being prepared as a tiered supplement to Final EIR 508 for the John Wayne Airport Master Plan and Santa Ana Heights Land Use Com- patibility Program. The tiered supplement will address any physical envi- ronmental effects of the Specific Plan not already addressed.in EIR 508. Topics to be addressed, as identified in the Initial Study (Appendix A), include: 1. Air quality 2. Drainage 3, Aesthetics 4. Land use 5. Traffic/circulation 6. Recreation 7. Acoustics 8. Light and glare 9. Public services/utilities Incorporation by Reference The Final Environmental Impact Report 508 and Final Environmental Impact Statement for the John Wayne Airport Master Plan and Santa Ana Heights Land Use Compatibility Program, State Clearinghouse Number 83113009, is hereby incorporated by reference. FEIR 508 was certified complete by the Orange County Board of Supervisors on February 26, 1985. FEIR 508 is available for public review at the following office: 2 I County of Orange Environmental Management Agency Environmental and Special Projects Division 400 Civic Center Drive, Room G-24 Santa Ana, California 92702 ITelephone (714) 834-5550 FEIR 508 evaluated the potential environmental impacts of a two -,phased increase in the number of operations at John Wayne Airport to 73 average daily departures by commercial jet aircraft and associated construction of parking, terminal areas and related facilities, and analysis of an associa- ted Land Use Compatibility Program (LUCP) for the Santa Ana Heights area. ' The LUCP proposed land use plans for the area adjacent to the airport which would comply with state airport noise regulations (Title 21 of the California Administrative Code). Implementation programs for the LUCP were to be developed through the specific plan and other planning pro- grams. Twenty-one alternatives to operations at John Wayne Airport (JWA) were identified and evaluated in FEIR 508. In addition, eight land use scen- arios were developed for the purpose of achieving compatibility between ' land uses and aircraft noise levels. Scenario 8, the proposed LUCP pro- ject in FEIR 508, differs from the adopted Land Use Element (see Exhibit 2 ' in Section 3.0), which serves as the basis for the Specific Plan. While Scenario 8 proposed the conversion of most residential uses to employment uses west of Irvine Avenue, the adopted Land Use Element retains almost all residential uses in this area. The adopted LUCP also reduces the acreage of employment uses east of Irvine Avenue through retention of more residential uses. Another land use scenario addressed in FEIR 508, Scenario 3, is similar but less intensive than the adopted Land Use Element. Compared with Scen- ario 3, the adopted Land Use Element increased the acreage devoted to employment uses along Birch Street and designated a 4.2-acre parcel adja- cent and west of Irvine Avenue for employment uses. The eight land use ' scenarios evaluated in FEIR 508 covered a wide range of land use options, 1 3 some similar to the adopted Land Use Element and some with potential envi- ronmental impacts of greater magnitude than those associated with the adopted Land Use Element. Therefore, FEIR 508 serves as an appropriate base for evaluating the potential environmental impacts for the Specific Plan. The summary of impacts for FEIR 508 indicates that air quality impacts of the airport expansion are a significant unavoidable adverse effect, and that JWA expansion will have a long-term cumulative impact on traffic as a result of its growth -inducing impacts. The conversion of land uses resulting from JWA expansion and implementa- tion of the proposed LUCP was also considered a significant long-term impact. Some population growth associated with increased employment oppor- tunities was expected and displacement of area residents would occur because of land conversion and unacceptable noise levels. A potential reduction in recreational opportunities due to increased noise was noted. An increased demand for fire services and expansion of other public ser- vices may also result in some traffic and noise disruption. Cumulative impacts related to continued urbanization, traffic noise and air quality impacts were also listed. The Executive Summary of FEIR 508 contains the complete listing of potential impacts, as opposed to the brief description provided above. The adopted Land Use Element, which covers only unincorporated territory, encompasses a smaller geographical area than the LUCP study area evaluated In FEIR 508. The specific plan area coincides with the adopted Land Use Element except for generally those areas east of Orchid Street, west of Santa Ana Avenue and south of Mesa Drive. These areas are not included within the Specific Plan boundary because existing zoning is consistent with the adopted Land Use Element. FEIR 508 included analysis of potential environmental impacts of implemen- tation of the LUCP program (Scenario 8). Key conclusions from FEIR 508 for each topical area are isolated and summarized below. (Discussion of the mitigation measures proposed in FEIR 508 for these impacts is included in Section 6.00 Inventory of Mitigation Measures. Page references from FEIR 508 are included in parentheses). u I Air Quality (Volume 1, page 4.2-39) If LUCP development plans create more traffic -intensive land uses, such plans are possibly inconsistent with the AQMP until the AQMP is updated in 1985 to reflect those changing patterns of land use. The overall regional emissions are basically the same with or without the JWA/SAH project. Hydrology (Volume 1, page 4.3-4) Changes in the existing drainage patterns would occur as a result of alterations of land uses in Santa Ana Heights. The major effects ' would be an increase in the square footage of impervious surface and the subsequent increase of storm runoff quantities. The impacts of the increased runoff activities, however, is not expected to be signi- ficant because of drainage improvements in Santa Ana Heights that would be required in conjunction with development. Biology (Volume 1, page 4.4-8) Construction and habitat alteration associated with Santa Ana Heights land use changes occur in areas of relatively low habitat value characterized by a high degree of human disturbance. Cultural/Scientific Resources (Volume 1, page 4.5-2) tUnexpected archaeological deposits may be uncovered in areas where the surface has not been highly disturbed. 1 Aesthetics (Volume 1, page 4.7-9) The visual character of the area will be altered by implementation of ' the LUCP. Energy (Volume 1, page 4.8-10) The shift from residential use to office/commercial uses indicated in ' the LUCP will result in increased use of energy. 5 I Land Use (Volume i, Implementation • use conversion page 4.9-14) of the proposed LUCP will result in significant land impacts to existing land uses. Transportation/Circulation (Volume 1, page 4.10-30) More intensive development of increased traffic at all of the Santa Ana Heights will contribute to key intersections evaluated. , Population (Volume 1, page 4.11-11) Any inconsistency between, Orange County and SCAG growth projections resulting from project -related development will occur only until the projections are revised. i Housing (Volume 1, page 4.12-91 Relocation of construction workers seeking housing in the project area as a result of the project is unlikely. Employment in Santa Ana Heights commercial and business park buildings will create additional demand for housing units in the five -city area (Costa Mesa, Irvine, Newport Beach, Santa Ana, Tustin). However, with the loss of existing , residential units, the overall impact within the LUCP area is a loss of units. (Net housing impacts for the adopted LUCP differ from the j analysis of FEIR 508 and are discussed in Section 4.24) Recreation (Volume 1, page,4.13-7) Implementation of the LUCP (Scenario 8) will eliminate some commercial and private equestrian stables in Santa Ana Heights. Public Health and Safety (Volume 1, page 4.14-6) Office/commercial redevelopment of portions of Santa Ana Heights will , lead to an increased concentration of persons under airport approach and departure paths. 6 1 i 1 t _l I 1 1 It 1 1 d f 1 i P Acoustics (Volume 1, page 4.15-93) While the LUCP is a mitigation measure for the impact of the Master Plan for JWA and aircraft noise, the land use plan has traffic noise implications of its own. Generally, however, it does not appear that the project will have a significant effect on traffic -generated noise levels. Light and Glare (Volume 1, page 4.16-1) Light and glare produced by exterior lighting of commercial/office development could have adverse impacts on residents of adjacent homes. Police and Fire (Volume 1, page 4.17-3 and 4.17-6) Land conversion in Santa -Ana Heights resulting from Scenario 8 develop- ment should not significantly impact the provision of police services but will increase the demand for fire services. Schools (Volume 1, page 4.17-7) No significant impact on the Newport -Mesa Unified District schools is expected from implementation of the LUCP. Utilities (Volume 1, page 4.17-13) The land use changes proposed in the LUCP may pose serious capacity problems for both County Sanitation Districts No. 6 and No. 7, and upon the Costa Mesa Sanitary District. 1 7 2.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The proposed project consists of preparation of a Specific Plan to imple- ment the Board -adopted Land Use Element and Land Use Compatibility Program for Santa Ana Heights. The Specific Plan includes regulations for exist- ing land uses, business park uses and residential equestrian uses within the study area as well as community design guidelines for all new develop- ment. The plan also includes circulation, public works and recreation 1 plans for the study area. I I I F1 2.1 Project Summary 2.1.1 Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan Implementation of the Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan will occur by a com- bination of public and private actions. Related future physical improve- ments within the specific plan area include: Improvement of arterials within the specific plan area. Improvement and realignment of local collector roads. Installation or improvement of public services and utilities to serve existing and new development. Development of a range of land uses including low-rise offices, commer- cial uses, recreational facilities and equestrian trails. Design and construction of structures consistent with a community design program. 2.1.2 Land Use Compatibility Program The Board -adopted Land Use Compatibility Program (LUCP) for Santa Ana Heights includes the Land Use Element, a Community Profile, an Acoustical Insulation Program and a Purchase Assurance Program. These programs will result in compliance with state airport noise regulations. Residential I E I t uses are to be eliminated in some areas and residential equestrian uses encouraged in others, Office uses will be established in areas where resi- dential uses are eliminated. The Acoustical Insulation Program involves the County paying for insulation improvements to approximately 460 eligi- ble dwelling units in exchange for the property owners granting the County an avigation easement. The Purchase Assurance Program designates approxi- mately 360 parcels as eligible for purchase by the County, Both programs are voluntary. The Orange County Development Agency, in conjunction with the Santa Ana Heights Redevelopment Plan, will help to fund implementation of the public , improvements identified in the Specific Plan. These improvements may also be funded through assessment districts and developer contributions. , 2.1.3 Alternatives to the Pr000sed Project , Three alternatives to the proposed Specific Plan are identified. The "no project" alternative was evaluated in previous environmental documentation and would have retained residential uses throughout the area. Two addi- tional circulation alternatives are evaluated, which primarily involve dif- fering arterial systems to provide access to the proposed business park and the separation of business park and residential traffic. 2.1.4 Ar"s of Controversy/Issues to be Resolved Areas of controversy and issues requiring resolution in the Specific Plan include: Separation of business park and residential traffic. Provisions for landscape buffers between residential and office areas. Retention of residential equestrian uses and provision for equestrian trails. Identification of future public improvements. ' 9 , RCharacter of future development. Potential development of a public equestrian center. The environmental impacts associated with these issues are addressed in Section 4.0. Potential growth -inducing effects of the project are ad- dressed in Section 8.0. Sections 9.0 and 10.0 compare the advantages of near -term versus long-term development of the area and irreversible envi- ronmental changes involved in the proposed action. 2.1.5 Matrix of Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Level of Significance ' after Mitigation ' The matrix which follows summarizes the environmental impacts, mitigation measures and level of significance after mitigation related to 'the pro- posed project. I 10 ■. w M r M IMPACTS Hydrology WIR M M M M M MITIGATION MEASURES Increases in runoff due to in- creased paved surfaces will occur with development. Transportation/Circulation Implementation of the Specific Plan will result in a net in- crease of 15,140 trip ends. Ap- proximately 2,000 trips will occur in the a.m. peak hour and 2,000 trips in the evening peak hour. Air Quality . The applicant shall implement Best Management Practices (BMPs) included in the Upper Newport Bay "208" Water Quality Control Plan. Street improvements in conform- ance with the Circulation Plan of the Specific Plan will be con- structed concurrently with pro- ject construction. . Coordination of signal phasing along Irvine Avenue near the pro- ject shall be considered to facil- itate peak flows from the busi- ness park. A traffic monitoring program shall establish the phasing of recommended circulation improve- ments. A final access plan for the Zen- ith Avenue residential lots shall be adopted at subsequent levels of approval. LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION . Insignificant adverse impact. . Insignificant adverse impact. . Short-term air quality impacts Development within the specific Insignificant adverse impact. will result from construction and plan area shall comply with all grading activities during con- SCAQMD rules and regulations. struction. to M M In IMPACTS MITIGATION MEASURES Acoustics r = W = s » r LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION . Noise levels will increase along The Specific Plan recommends Insignificant adverse impact. project arterials; including in- widening of Birch and Acacia creases of more than 3 dBA on Streets to 48 feet and proposes Acacia Street and Birch Street. business park uses along these streets. . Existing residential uses will The Acoustical Insulation Program Insignificant adverse impact. continue to be exposed to exces- shall be available for approxi- sive aircraft noise levels. mately 365 dwelling units. Aesthetics . Aesthetic view impacts for the The Specific Plan includes a Com- Insignificant adverse impact. business park -residential inter- munity Design Program to buffer face are considered significant, residential uses from the busi- ness park. N . Viewshed impacts upon scattered A landscape buffer and building Insignificant adverse impact. residential lots remaining within setbacks are required to screen the business park are considered and soften views from existing significant. residential uses to business park uses. Recreation . Localized impacts on equestrian The Specific Plan designates a Insignificant adverse impact. facilities within the designated Residential Equestrian District, business park will occur. includes a local equestrian trail and encourages site acquisition for a public equestrian center. M W M 1• am M M11111111=1111111 i IMPACTS Light and Glare Adjacent residences may experi- ence increased light and glare from business park development. Public Services/Utilities Implementation of the Specific Plan will require water service improvements to meet ultimate ser- vice demands. . Future sewer service demands will require improvements to lines and W pump stations. MITIGATION MEASURES Architectural and landscape guide- lines shall require siting, mater- ials and lighting which reduce light and glare impacts. . The Public Services/Utilities Plan requires line improvements concurrently with project develop- ment. . The Public Services/Utilities Plan requires line and pump improvements concurrently with project development. 1W M M W 11111111 LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION . Insignificant adverse impact. . Insignificant adverse impact. . Insignificant adverse impact. . Proposed land use changes will The Public Services/Utilities Insignificant adverse impact. require area storm drain improve- Plan requires catch basin and ments. line improvements concurrently with project development. M r L� 3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Area Specific Plan Study The Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan covers approximately 175 acres of unincorporated territory south of John Wayne Airport in Orange County (Exhibit 1). The specific plan study area is generally bounded by South Bristol Street to the north, Mesa Drive to the south and Santa Ana Avenue to the west and residential property lines along Cypress Street to the east. Most properties with zoning already consistent with the adopted land use plan were not included in the specific plan area to simplify the planning process. The Specific Plan includes regulations for existing land uses, business park and residential equestrian uses within the study area and a public works improvement plan. The Specific Plan also dis- cusses the interface with recreation uses, existing circulation and public utility systems adjacent to the study area. Land Use Compatibility Program The Board -adopted Land Use Element designations for Santa Ana Heights reflect either existing or proposed land uses consistent with the approved Land Use Compatibility Program (Exhibit 2). Existing land uses include single family and multifamily residential, commercial and open space designations. Proposed land uses are concentrated in approximately 50 acres designated for employment uses. The Board also approved guidelines which further define the land uses in the study area east of Irvine Avenue. I II I Under these guidelines, the areas designated "employment" will consist of business park uses and the areas designated "suburban residential" will be limited to residential equestrian uses. The Specific Plan will develop land use regulations and other implementation programs consistent with the adopted land use plan and guidelines. Land uses approved for the study area are shown in Exhibit 3. 14 I LJ I I Ll F I LJ �I I REGIONAL LOCATION / VICINITY MAP ' SANTA ANA HEIGHTS SPECIFIC PLAN/EIR •. EXHIBIT 1 IM M M= w= w M� r t1 M M M M Ml M M Im y Ors 1B Suburban Residential 1C Urban Residential Q� 2A Community Commercial 3 Employment Z" 5 Open Space LAND USE ELEMENT SANTA ANA HEIGHTS SPECIFIC PLAN/EIR SOURCE: COUNTY OF ORANGE EMA 0 = EXHIBIT 2 LAND 'USE PLAN (COMMUNITY PROFILE) SANTA ANA HEIGHTS SPECIFIC PLAN /EIR -� EXHIBIT 3 n 1 u LJ I k I I I I Based on the adopted Land Use Element, a projection of future development for the specific plan area was completed for use in the traffic analysis. This growth projection can be considered a maximum development scenario. This scenario may not be achieved since it is dependent upon extensive lot consolidation. The analysis zones used for the growth projection are shown in Exhibit 4. Table 1 lists projected new development by analysis zone. The total new development estimated is 9 single family dwelling units, 77 multifamily units, 1.05 million square feet of office uses and an equestrian center. (This data represents new development only; implementation of the LUCP may result in the demolition or removal of 181 homes within the specific plan area.) Table 1 PROJECTED NEW DEVELOPMENT Analysis Zone Land Use Dimensions F-1 Office park 110,000 square feet F-2 Multifamily residential 77 dwelling units I Office park 108,500 square feet J-1 Office park 154,000 square feet J-2 Single family residential 3 dwelling units K Single family residential 4 dwelling units L-1 Office park 85,500 square feet 0 Office park 156,500 square feet P-1 Office park 137,500 square feet Single family residential 1 dwelling unit P-2 Office park 134,000 square feet Q Office park 127,500 square feet S Single family residential i dwelling unit or equestrian center 2 acres Single family residential 9 dwelling units Multifamily residential 77 dwelling units Office park 1,013,500 square feet Equestrian center 2 acres* * In lieu of one single family dwelling unit. Source: Basmaciyan Darnell, Inc. 15 I LAND USE/TRAFFIC ANALYSIS ZONES " SANTA ANA HEIGHTS SPECIFIC PLAN/EIR �`'-`�-' EXHIBIT 4 4 Phasing of new development within the specific plan area is not estab- lished but is' anticipated to occur over the next five to fifteen years. The actual phasing of development is dependent upon homeowner response to the Purchase Assurance Program, installation of public improvements, lot consolidation by private actions and future development proposals. The Acoustical Insulation Program and the Purchase Assurance Program are components of the Land Use Compatibility Program adopted by the Board of Supervisors. Both programs are discussed in Section 4.6. The Specific Plan includes a Public Services/Utilities Plan which identi- fies needed improvements for the water distribution, drainage and sewer systems. The proposed circulation realignments and modifications also result in the need for utility relocations, realignments or abandonments. ' Public service/utility improvements are discussed in Section 4.10. I 1 I I I 16 P r 1 i� 4.0 EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES 4.1 HYDROLOGY 4.1.1 Existing Conditions The specific plan area drains primarily into the Santa Ana -Delhi Flood Control Channel through a system of improved underground• structures and unimproved above ground channels.1 Existing local drainage structures are adequate to serve the area and do not contribute significantly to regional water quality problems. A 1980 EMA water quality study of Newport Bay and subsequent monitoring programs indicate that contaminant levels in the Santa Ana -Delhi Channel do not exceed acceptable standards.2 Localized ponding during heavy rainstorms occurs at the rear of several lots along Birch and Cypress Streets. A drainage analysis was compiled by Berryman Stephenson Industries (BSI) and is summarized in Section 4.10. Flows from the area are ultimately conveyed to either the San Diego Creek Channel or the Santa Ana -Delhi Channel. 4.1.2 Project Impacts Implementation of the LUCP, as detailed in the Specific Plan, will result in increased runoff volumes. Increases in runoff due to increased paved surfaces in business park areas will result with implementation of the Spe- cific Plan. On those 48.7 acres, the total acreage devoted to paved sur- faces may increase from between 10 and 20 percent to between 35 and 50 percent. Based on general infiltration/runoff characteristics, runoff will increase from between 10 to 20 percent of the total precipitation to 30 percent. Similarly, the amount of deep infiltration of precipitation may decrease from 21 to 25 percent of total precipitation to 15 percent. Storm water runoff will be intercepted by onsite drainage systems and discharged into either the San Diego Creek Channel or the Santa Ana -Delhi Channel. Appendix F includes an exhibit of general infiltration/runoff characteristics and how runoff volumes increase with increased land area 1 FEIR 508, p. 4.3-4. 2 Op. cit., p. 4.3-3. 17 devoted to paved surfaces. Changes in the existing area drainage patterns will occur with alterations of land uses and the development of additional impervious surfaces. Minor short-term impacts occurring during phasing of office/commercial construction will occur but are not considered signifi- cant. Increased ponding on rear lots along Birch and Cypress Streets may occur with business park development along street frontages. Increases in impervious surfaces are not expected to decrease local groundwater re- charge significantly, because of the dominance of low infiltration -clay soils.l However, there will be an incremental increase in urban dis- charges, oil, grease, heavy metals, etc. These impacts are not considered significant. The amounts of sediment transported to the channel will de- crease with increased impervious surfaces in the area. FEIR 508 included an analysis which found that sediment contributions to Upper Newport Bay decrease with increased urbanization. implementation of both the LUCP and JWA expansion was expected to reduce the sediment load to the Bay, rather than increase it-2 Areas requiring drainage improvements and estimated construction costs are also included in Section 4,10. Installation of con- crete lining is also planned for the Santa Ana -Delhi Channel. That por- tion of the channel north of Irvine Avenue to Santa Ana Avenue located in the specific plan area is scheduled for completion in 1987.3 4.1,3 Mitigation Measures 1. Construction methods which minimize soil loss, including minimizing the surface area exposed at one time, berms, stormwater retention basins and temporary sand bags for erosion$ shalt be used as appropri- ate. 2. Future private development projects in Santa Ana Heights under County jurisdiction are subject to the Orange County Grading and Excavation Code (Section 7-1-80 of the Codified Ordinances). 1 FEIR 508, op. cit., p. 4.3-5. 2 Op. cit., p. 5-14. 3 Op. cit.$ 4.3-5 and telephone conversation with Mike Gutierrez, Berry- man Stephenson, Inc. IN 3. Private development projects shall be in conformance with the proposed Orange County Flood Control improvement plans for the Santa Ana -Delhi Channel. 4. Short-term erosion and sedimentation impacts can be minimized by imple- menting erosion control measures such as: ' Temporary vegetative measures Retention basins to trap sediment ' 5. All parking lots and other onsite paved surfaces in the commercial areas shall be vacuum swept and cleaned weekly to reduce debris and ' pollutants carried into the drainage system and ultimately to the San Diego or Santa Ana -Delhi Channels. ' 6. During construction, the applicant shall implement Best Management Practices (BMPs) contained in the Upper Newport Bay "208" Water Qual- ity Control Plan. ' 7. Improvements to minimize localized ponding on rear lots along Cypress and Birch Streets, as recommended in the Specific Plan, shall be ' installed concurrently with business park development. 4.2 LAND USE The environmental impacts of a range of land use scenarios were evaluated in FEIR 508. The Initial Study for the Specific Plan indicates potential land use conflicts between some existing or planned land uses. Existing land uses are shown in Exhibit 5. This analysis focuses on the potential ' conflict between areas designated for employment uses and existing sub- urban residential areas. 4.2.1 Existing Conditions ' Three areas in which the Specific Plan designates business park uses adja- cent to residential uses are of concern (Exhibit 3). The 4.2-acre area west of Irvine Avenue designated for future employment uses is currently 19 SINGLE FAMILY TRACT (More than 16 dwelling units/acre) MIXED USES ON LARGE AGRICULTURAL LOTS (Single family and multiple family residences, s nurseries, schools and other small businesse EXISTING LAND USE SANTA ANA HEIGHTS SPECIFIC PLANIEiR COMMERCIAL/OFFICE RECREATION/OPEN SPACE .......... .......... uou.u. 1� VACANT EXHIBIT 5 occupied by a veterinary hospital, a vacant stable and one single family residence and is adjacent to single family residential areas to the west and an apartment complex (Vista del Mesa) to the south. I E H The larger 44.5-acre area designated for employment uses east of Irvine Avenue is currently in residential and agricultural uses. The quality of the residential units varies greatly within the future employment area, with units of lower market value located along Birch Street immediately south of Orchard and along Acacia Street. Dwelling units south of the future employment area along Mesa Drive are of higher value. A small area between South Bristol Street and Zenith Avenue west of Spruce Street also is designated for employment uses. This area will be bordered by existing community commercial uses on the west and residential uses on the south and east. Most residential uses in this area have been or are being removed. ' 4.2.2 Project Impacts ' The development of business park uses adjacent to existing residential uses may result in local circulation, acoustical, light and glare, aesthe- tic and viewshed impacts. The magnitude of these impacts and proposed mitigation measures are discussed in the appropriate topical sections. 4.2.3 Mitigation Measures ' Appropriate mitigation measures are included in other sections of this report and are listed in Sections 4.4-4.9 and Section 6.0, Inventory of ' Mitigation Measures. 4.3 RELEVANT PLANS ' The Board of Supervisors has already adopted the LUCP, incorporating the Land Use Element and Community Profile for Santa Ana Heights. The rela- tionship of the Land Use Compatibility Program to relevant plans is ' evaluated in FEIR 508. The Specific Plan represents the principal imple- mentation mechanism for the LUCP. 1 20 SANTA ANA HEIGHTS REDEVELOPMENT PLAN Several projects for the Santa Ana Heights area may be undertaken by the Orange County Development Agency. These projects would be subject to individual environmental analyses, including this analysis. Potential projects for the area include; Noise compatibility programs Neighborhood improvement programs Public improvement programs - streets, water, sewer and drainage and sanitation systems PREANNEXATION ACTIVITIES The City of Newport Beach has initiated actions to consider annexation of the Santa Ana Heights specific plan area east of Irvine Avenue. The legal settlement between the County and the City constrains the City of Newport Beach to adopt the County -adopted LUCP for the areal An amendment to the City of Newport Beach General Plan is being processed; prezoning prior to annexation would be required. The City of Newport Beach is developing a companion specific plan to be used for annexation purposes and has adopted an ordinance to allow the County to include incorporated territory within the redevelopment project area for Santa Ana Heights. The Newport Beach City Council will consider annexation of the area when the County's Spe- cific Plan is complete. These actions will ensure consistency between the County and City land use plans and may result in annexation of the area to the City of Newport Beach at a later date. MASTER PLAN OF REGIONAL RIDING AND HIKING TRAILS The Santa Ana Heights Equestrian Trail is included in the County's Master Plan of Regional Riding and Hiking Trails (Segment 74). The trail begins at the junction of the Irvine Coast Trail (43) and Peters Canyon Trail (45), extends westerly along the San Diego Creek channel, continues north- 1 County of Orange v. Air California, et al., Case No. CV 85-1542 TJH; December 13, 1985. 21 LJ ' westerly outside the edge of the Upper Newport Bay Ecological Reserve and continues north on the Santa Ana -Delhi Flood Control channel through Santa Ana Heights to Santa Ana Avenue. The trail proceeds northwesterly along ' Mesa Drive to the Orange County Fairgrounds stable facilities. MASTER PLAN OF REGIONAL RECREATION FACILITIES ' The proposed Upper Newport Bay Regional Park is included in the County's ' Master Plan of Regional Recreation Facilities (Exhibit 13). The proposed County park consists of land adjacent to the State Ecological Reserve, and the Newport Beach Golf Course. This proposed regional park may complement the State Ecological Reserve with more active uses and will serve as a buffer from adjacent land development. The portion of the existing golf ' course northerly of Irvine Avenue is within the specific plan area. ' The City of Newport Beach has proposed rezoning 110 acres of the proposed regional park as open space. If the rezoning is approved, it is anticipa- ted that the property owner will dedicate the land to the county for inclu- sion in the proposed regional park. There are no plans in the near future ' to dedicate the existing Newport Beach Golf Course for inclusion in the proposed Upper Newport Bay Regional Park. The golf course is currently owned by the County and leased to a private company.1 ' MASTER PLAN OF COUNTYWIDE BIKEWAYS ' Bike Route 53, as identified on the County's Master Plan of Countywide ' Bikeways, extends along Redhill Avenue from Bryan Avenue in Irvine souther- ly to the Corona del Mar (73) Freeway where the existing bikeway ends. The bikeway is proposed to continue down Redhill Avenue/Santa Ana Avenue to Del Mar Avenue, where it will intersect with Bike Route 40. ' Route 53 is a Class II trail, designated on both sides of the street with striped lanes. The Santa Ana Heights specific plan area is bordered on 1 Conversation with Bonnie Herman, Advanced Planning, County of Orange, July 10, 1986. 1 22 its western boundary by the proposed extension of Route 53 along Santa Ana ' Avenue. The County of Orange has no immediate plans for the extension of the proposed section of Route 53.1 L]] E H r1 1 Conversation with Mike Wellborn, Transportation Planning and Art Wood, Transportation Program Division, County of Orange, July 8, 1986. , 23 ' 4.4 TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION ' Basmaciyan-Darnell, Inc. completed a traffic study for the specific plan ' area in July 1986. The findings of this study are summarized below, with the complete report included in Appendix D. ' 4.4.1 Existing Conditions ' The major roadways in the vicinity of the specific plan area are South Bristol Street, Jamboree Boulevard, MacArthur Boulevard, Birch Street, t Campus Drive/Irvine Avenue and the Corona del Mar Freeway (SR-73). The number of existing through -lanes and signal locations is shown in Exhibit 6. Roadways to the interior of the study area are generally two-lane residential streets. However, Irvine Avenue is a four -lane divided roadway and Santa Ana Avenue north of Mesa Drive is four lanes. I L The extension of the Corona del Mar Freeway (SR-73) to MacArthur Boulevard opened in February 1986. This improvement is changing previous circula- tion patterns in the study area and new traffic counts for the immediate area were gathered for the City of Newport Beach. Existing traffic vol- umes are shown in Exhibit 7. EXISTING ROADWAY CAPACITY Roadways within the specific plan area are currently operating within their LOS C capacity (Table 2). Existing volumes on the interior streets of the study area are quite low, due to the residential character of the area. However, Irvine Avenue has existing volumes near the specific plan area which result in volume/capacity ratios above 0.80. The existing vol- ume/capacity ratio at Level of Service (LOS) C for Irvine Avenue between South Bristol Street and Mesa Drive is 0.90 and the ratio for Irvine Avenue from Mesa Drive to University Drive is 0.84. ' Several arterial roadways within the surrounding area are operating at or above their LOS C capacity. Irvine Avenue south of University Drive has a ' volume/capacity ratio of 1.03, Jamboree Road north of East Bluff Drive to Bristol Street has a ratio of 1.11 and Jamboree Road from Bristol Street to MacArthur Boulevard has a volume/capacity ratio of 1.15. ' 24 n n 1.1 I u I n n I n n I n n I n I I J C 1 1 [1 0 1 1 1 71 1 1 I 1 1 SOURCE: BDI EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES SANTA ANA HEIGHTS SPECIFIC PLAN/EIR E = EXHIBIT 7 I Table 2 ' COMPARISON OF EXISTING DAILY TRAFFIC WITH ESTIMATED ROADWAY CAPACITY Existing Existing Capacity Volume at LOS "C" Existing Volume/ Capacity Ratio BRISTOL STREET: (a) SR-55 to Red Hill Avenue 27,000 30,000 0.90 JAMBOREE ROAD: n/o East Bluff Dr. to Bristol St. 49,900 45,000 1.11 Bristol St. to MacArthur Blvd. 51,600 45,000 1.15 MacArthur Blvd. to Campus Drive 24,100 45,000 0.61 MACARTHUR BOULEVARD: Bonita Cyn. Dr, to SR-73 Fwy. 51,400 45,000 1.14 Jamboree Road to Campus Drive 27,400 45,000 0.61 CAMPUS DRIVE/IRVINE AVENUE 0.78 MacArthur Blvd. to Bristol St. 23,300 30,000 Bristol Street to Mesa Drive 27,000 30,000 0.90 Mesa Drive to University Drive 25,300 30,000 0.84 s/o University Drive 31,000 30,000 1.03 ' (a) Average daily traffic volume information since the opening of Route 73 ' between Campus Drive and MacArthur Boulevard is not yet available. MacArthur Boulevard from Bonita Canyon Drive to SR-73 has a volume/capa- city ratio of 1.14. Bristol Street from SR-55 to Red Hill Avenue also had a volume/capacity ratio of 0.90. However, traffic volumes since the open- ing of SR-73 from Campus Drive to MacArthur Boulevard are not yet avail- able. Volume and capacity data for all roadway segments in the specific plan area is listed in Table 2 in Appendix D. Traffic volume count data along the SR-73 extension is not yet available. However, two locations monitored along Bristol Street since SR-73 opened t indicate traffic volumes along the Bristol Street couplet are within the estimated roadway carrying capacity. 25 0 EXISTING INTERSECTION CAPACITY Several intersections near the specific plan area approach or operate at ' unacceptable levels of service (ICU ■ 0.90), During the morning peak ' period, all intersections operate at acceptable levels, except Irvine Avenue at University Drive (Table 3). During the evening peak period, five intersections operate at LOS D and three operate at LOS E. Table 3 1 EXISTING INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION AM Peak PM Peak Intersection ICU LOS ICU LOS , NORTH BRISTOL STREET at: Campus Drive/Irvine Avenue 0.66 B 0.89 0 Birch Street 0.59 0.66 A B 0.83 0.85 D D Jamboree Road SOUTH BRISTOL STREET at: Campus Drive/Irvine Avenue 0.67 B 0.86 D Birch Street 0.66 0.65 B B 0.58 0.54 A A Jamboree Road JAMBOREE ROAD at: MacArthur Boulevard 0.65 B 0.89 D Birch Street 0.37 A 0.42 A B , Campus Drive/Irvine Avenue 0.64 9 0.59 MACARTHUR BOULEVARD at: Campus Drive/Irvine Avenue 0.63 8 0.93 E ' Birch Street 0,46 A 0.62 B IRVINE AVENUE at: Orchard Drive NA NA Mesa Drive 0.80 C 0.91 E E University Drive 1.02 F 0.93 NA - Not Available , TRANSIT Several Orange County Transit District bus routes (Routes 53, 61, 71 and 76) serve the Santa Ana Heights area. Transit service is available on ' Bristol Street, MacArthur Boulevard -Jamboree Road and on Irvine Avenue. i I 26 1 E H I l� 11 I I I! I I L I 1 BIKEWAYS Existing and proposed bikeways in the specific plan area are discussed in Section 4.3 and Section 4.8. 4.4.2 Project Impacts REGIONAL TRAFFIC IMPACTS Future circulation system improvements are defined in the County of Orange Master Plan of Arterial Highways (MPAH). The most significant improvement to the transportation system in the vicinity of Santa Ana Heights is the construction of the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor from Mac- Arthur Boulevard to the I-5 near Crown Valley Parkway. Most of the road- ways in the vicinity of Santa Ana Heights are constructed to their MPAH standard, with the exception of Irvine Avenue, University Drive between the Costa Mesa Freeway and Irvine Avenue, and portions of MacArthur Boule- vard and Jamboree Road. Needed improvements are described in Section VI of the complete traffic report in Appendix D. Direct freeway access to the John Wayne Airport by a system of ramps, con- sistent with year 2005 conditions described in FEIR 508, is assumed in the traffic analysis of future conditions for the specific plan area. An analysis of including or excluding the extension of University Drive from Irvine Avenue to Jamboree Road was also completed. Future roadway capacity (year 2010), future volume/capacity ratios for key roadway segments, and morning and evening peak hour turning movements for the critical intersections within and surrounding Santa Ana Heights were projected.) Trip distribution for the area was based on the County of Orange Environmental Management Agency's OCTAM traffic model, and the traffic forecast models of the cities of Irvine and Newport Beach. The transportation planning software TRANPLAN was used for subarea traffic analysis. Without improvements, several intersections will operate at unacceptable levels of service (Table 4). i See Table 5 of the traffic report (Appendix D). I PA Table 4 FUTURE INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION AM Peak PM Peak Intersection V/C LOS V/C LOS NORTH BRISTOL STREET at: Campus Drive 0.79 C 0.96 E Birch Street 0.72 C 0.59 A Jamboree Road 0.56 A 0.77 C SOUTH BRISTOL STREET at: Irvine Avenue 0.16 C 0.98 E Birch Street 0.92 E 1.40 F Jamboree Road 0.61 B 0.95 E Red Hill Avenue 0.72 C 1.04 F JAMBOREE ROAD at: MacArthur Boulevard 0.86 D 0.93 E Birch Street 0.56 A 0.70 B Campus Drive 0.65 B 0.77 C MACARTHUR BOULEVARD at: Campus Drive 0.88 D 1.14 F Birch Street 0.82 D 0.80 C IRVINE AVENUE at: Orchard Drive 0.75 C 0.73 C Mesa Drive 0.94 E 1.31 F University Drive* 0.89 D 1.09 F * Traffic volume projections and expected lane configurations are based on the extension of University Drive from Irvine Avenue to Jamboree Road, If no intersection improvements are implemented beyond the current configu- ration, nine of the fifteen intersections analyzed are expected to operate at unacceptable levels of service (ICU greater than 0.90) during one or both peak hours. These include: Bristol Street North at Campus Drive Bristol Street at Santa Ana/Redhill Avenue Bristol Street at Irvine Avenue Bristol Street at Birch Street Bristol Street at Jamboree Road Jamboree Road at MacArthur Boulevard MacArthur Boulevard at Campus Drive Irvine Avenue at Mesa Drive Irvine Avenue at University Drive I I I I I I I i I I L I.1 I 1 If the improvements identified in the traffic report (Appendix D) are implemented, the level of service at key intersections is projected to be generally acceptable during the AM peak hour. The Bristol Street North/ Campus Drive intersection is projected at LOS D (Table 5). Traffic condi- tions are less acceptable during the PM peak hour. Two intersections have projected LOS E, which is above the acceptable level (ICU = 0.90) of ser- vice. Table 5 FUTURE INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION WITH MITIGATION AM Peak PM Peak Intersection V/C LOS V/C LOS NORTH BRISTOL STREET at: Campus Drive 0.87 D 0.89 D BRISTOL STREET at: Santa Ana/Redhill Avenue 0.67 B 0.84 D Irvine Avenue 0.69 B 0.91 E Birch Street 0.71 C 0.94 E Jamboree Road 0.62 B 0.76 C MACARTHUR BOULEVARD at: Jamboree Road 0.76 C 0.84 D Campus Drive 0.70 C 0.88 D IRVINE AVENUE at: Mesa Drive 0.79 C 0.86 D University Drive 0.64 B 0.89 D Estimated Specific Plan -related traffic was derived based on the projected land use changes to each zone. (Traffic analysis zones are shown in Exhi- bit 4.) This analysis resulted in an estimate of a net increase of 15,140 trip ends. Approximately 2,200 trips would be added in the a.m. peak hour and 2,300 trips added in the p.m, peak hour. The Specific Plan proposes both modifications and improvements in the local circulation system (Exhibit 8). Acacia Street, Birch Street, Mesa Drive from Irvine Avenue to Acacia Street, and Orchard Drive from Irvine Avenue to mid -block between Birch and Cypress Streets are all proposed to be widened to provide four travel lanes (48 feet curb -to -curb) and no park- ing. Cypress Street from Mesa Drive to just south of South Bristol Street and Mesa Drive east of Acacia Street are proposed to provide two travel 29 1 CLOSURE OF ORCHAR I WITH CUL DE SAC Xrm WASTa ONE -WA RJR o\ �--- SIGNAL AT \ 1�1� INTERSECTION DR A CLOSURE OF CYPRESS ST I WITH CUL DE SAC I !CHARD DR. ROW ACACIA/MESA LINK INTERSECTION REALIGNMENT1 I f\\ O IMPROVEMENT FEATURE (see text) CLOSURE OF ORCHID ST WITH CUL DE .SAC —P CIRCULATION PLAN SANTA ANA HEIGHTS SPECIFIC PLAN /EIR ROW NARROWS - ZENITH AVE. ROW OSURE OF BIRCH ST. WITH CUL DE SAC' ABANDON BIRCH ST. ROW EXHIBIT 8 I I I I I I I I I I I I 11 lanes and two parking lanes (36 feet curb -to -curb) with a 12-foot eques- trian trail. Additionally, six improvements modifying existing circula- tion patterns in the area are proposed (see Exhibit 8). Each of these improvements is discussed below. 1. Installation of Orchard Drive Cul-de-sac A cul-de-sac at the eastern end of Orchard Drive west of Irvine Avenue will effectively separate residential and future office traffic. Existing public right-of-way will be abandoned and all access to the employment uses at the end of Orchard Drive will be restricted to Irvine Avenue. No significant impacts on the residential area to the west results from this circulation improvement. 2. Signalization of Irvine Avenue/Orchard Drive Intersection Installation of the recommended signal at Irvine Avenue and Orchard Drive will facilitate access to employment uses east of Irvine Avenue. However, stacking of vehicles on Orchard Drive at Acacia Street exiting to Irvine Avenue during the evening peak hours may occur. Since restriction of traf- fic flow is not unusual in urban areas, and the intersection is projected to operate at LOS C, the impact is not considered significant; however, monitoring of the intersection will take place to ensure acceptable levels of service. 3. Realignment of Acacia Street/Mesa Drive Intersection The realignment of Acacia Street to facilitate traffic flow to Mesa Drive provides a second signalized access (existing) at Irvine Avenue to the business park area and discourages through traffic from traveling east along Mesa Drive through residential areas. The realignment configuration also minimizes the current sight distance problem at Birch Street result- ing from changes in elevation along Mesa Drive. While residential traffic flow west along Mesa Drive to Irvine Avenue is more restricted, the impact is not considered significant. I 30 The conceptual design for the realignment traverses through the existing residence on the northwest corner of the Mesa Drive/Acacia Street intersec- tion. Interim improvements which may divert through traffic from the resi- dential area east of Acacia Street are identified in the complete traffic report in Figure 18 of Appendix 0. A detailed engineering alignment study will determine what realignment of Acacia Street and Mesa Drive is consis- tent with the ultimate roadway geometrics. Potential financial instruments for right-of-way acquisition include direct financing by the Orange County Redevelopment Agency, assessment fees, developer fees or developer exactions. 4. Installation of Birch Street Cut -de -Sac The circulation plan proposes a cul-de-sac on Birch Street just north of Mesa Drive. Traffic from employment uses would be restricted to a north- erly access along Birch Street and residential traffic along Mesa Drive would not retain northerly access along Birch Street. Since Cypress Street, Acacia Street and Irvine Avenue provide northerly access, the elim- ination of Birch Street access is not considered significant. Access to Mesa Drive for residential properties off Birch Street will be maintained via easements or other agreements. A Birch Street cul-de-sac further limits potential land use conflicts between employment and residential I uses. 5. Installation of Cypress Street Cul-de-sac and Development of Alley Between Birch Street and Cypress Street The proposed alley between Birch and Cypress streets is intended to pro- _ vide one-way access from the commercial uses along South Bristol Street and Cypress Street to Birch Street, The proposed Cypress Street cul-de- sac prevents commercial traffic from intruding into the Cypress Street residential area. The cul-de-sac will impact residents along Cypress Street by limiting egress to Orchard Drive or Mesa Drive. No significant impacts of the alley/cul-de-sac improvements on Cypress Street residents are anticipated since northerly access is readily available on Birch Street. r 31 1 The more circuitous route, along Orchard Drive, Orchid Street, Azure Avenue and Spruce Avenue also provides northerly and easterly access., I6. Installation of,Orchid Street Cul-de-Sac Installation of a cul-de-sac at the north end of Orchid Street and abandon- ment of Zenith Avenue between Orchid Street and Spruce Avenue are proposed to discourage through traffic on these residential streets. As a private street, residential uses along the south side of Zenith Avenue would obtain access from the Orchid Street cul-de-sac or Spruce Avenue. Residential access from Orchid Street to South Bristol Street is altered by the improvements to Zenith Avenue and the Orchid and Cypress Street cul- de -sacs. However, loss of residential access at this location is not considered significant since northerly access is available on Birch 1 Street. An alternative to abandonment of Zenith Avenue and creation of an Orchid Street cul-de-sac would be the closing of Spruce Avenue north of Zenith Avenue. This would totally eliminate the potential of through traffic in the residential area, but would result in approximately 750 additional vehicles on Orchard Drive and Birch Street north of Orchard Drive. In- creased traffic on Orchid Drive and Azure Avenue may also occur. A phasing program has been developed to ensure timely implementation of the above circulation improvements, including a monitoring program to determine their effectiveness. The program is described in Table 6 below. Table 6 CIRCULATION IMPROVEMENT PHASING PROGRAM priority Improvement I 1. Construct traffic signal at Irvine Avenue/Orchard Drive and intersection improvements on Orchard Drive approach. 2. Construct Cypress Street cul-de-sac. 3. Implement Orchid Street cul-de-sac. 32 Table 6 (cont'd) 4. Construct temporary cul-de-sac on Birch Street. 5. Monitor Phase I improvements to determine effective- ness in eliminating through traffic in residential neighborhoods. II 6. Prepare detailed engineering alignment study for widen- ing Mesa Drive and the realignment of Mesa Drive/ Acacia Street. 7. Improve Cypress Street south of Bristol Street to Mesa Drive. 8. Improve Mesa Drive east of Acacia Street. 9. Widen Birch Street between•Bristol Street and Orchard Drive. 10. Widen/improve Orchard Drive between Irvine Avenue and Cypress Street. 11. Monitor traffic generated by business park development to determine timing for Phase III improvements. III 12, Widen Acacia Street south of Orchard Drive. 13. Widen and construct Mesa Drive from Irvine Avenue to connect with Acacia Street. IV 14. In conjunction with development, widen Birch Street south of Orchard Drive and construct permanent cul-de- . sac. 15. In conjunction with development, construct Orchard Drive cul-de-sac (west of Irvine Avenue). TRANSIT The Circulation Plan will facilitate provision of transit service in the specific plan area by improving local streets, Provision for additional bus stops will be addressed during the site plan review process. I BIKEWAYS ' Implementation of the Specific Plan will not impact the proposed bike route (Route 53) on Santa Ana Avenue. 33 1 I CUMULATIVE IMPACTS the FEIR 508 identified regional impacts associated with implementation of LUCP. The circulation improvements proposed in FEIR 508 were reviewed by the traffic consultants for usefulness and feasibility in improving traf- fic flow at projected locations of future traffic congestion. 4.4.3 Mitigation Measures Regional mitigation measures, identified in FEIR 508 and recommended as necessary to maintain acceptable traffic flow along roadways in the vicinity of Santa Ana Heights, are listed below. 1. Irvine Avenue, from Bristol Street to University Drive, shall be upgraded from a primary to a modified six -lane major arterial highway on the Master Plan of Arterial Highways. If necessary, standard acous- tical mitigation measures for acoustical impacts due to increased traf- fic levels shall be implemented. 2. Bristol Street North at Campus Drive - Convert second southbound ' right -turn lane to optional right-turn/through lane. Convert west- bound through lane to second westbound left -turn lane, maintaining three westbound through lanes. 3. Bristol Street at Santa Ana/Redhill Avenue - Convert eastbound right - turn lane to optional right-turn/third through lane. 4. Bristol Street South at Irvine Avenue - Convert eastbound right -turn lane to optional right-turn/fourth through lane. 5. Bristol Street at Irvine Avenue - Provide second northbound lane. 6. Bristol Street at Jamboree Road - On the eastbound approach, provide left -turn lane, one through lane, and two right -turn lanes. Ione 7. MacArthur Boulevard at Jamboree Road - On the northbound approach, provide one left -turn lane, one optional left-turn/through lane, two through lanes and one right -turn lane. ' 34 B. MacArthur Boulevard at Campus Drive - Provide second eastbound left turn lane. Provide fourth southbound through lane. 9. Irvine Avenue at Mesa Drive - Add third northbound through lane. Add third southbound through lane. Eliminate parking along eastbound approach and stripe eastbound right -turn lane. 10, Irvine Avenue at University Drive - Add third northbound through lane. Add northbound right -turn lane. Add third southbound through lane. On the eastbound approachi provide two left -turn lanes, two through lanes and an optional through/right-turn lane. On the westbound approach, provide two left -turn lanes, one through lane and one optional through right -turn lane. 11. Santa And/Del Mar (University Drive) intersection - Add westbound and eastbound (Del Mar) left -turn lanes; add northbound and southbound through lanes. 12. Santa Ana/Mesa intersection - Modify eastbound and westbound (Mesa) approaches to be one right/through lane, and one left -turn lane. 13. Installations of traffic signals and additional lane improvements at the intersections of Santa Ana Avenue at Del Mar/University Drive and at Mesa Drive should be coordinated with the City of Costa Mesa. 14. A coordinated program of improvement phasing and implementation should be accomplished through the Inter -City Liaison Committee (ICLC), com- posed of the cities of Irvine, Costa Mesa, Santa Ana, Newport Beach and the County of Orange. The ICLC should establish procedures for priorities, funding participation and other project implementation matters. 15. Transportation System Management (TSM) strategies that can be effec- tive in reducing traffic volumes should be implemented including: 35 I P Car and van pooling =Bus pooling or subscription bus service Staggered or flexible work hours = Improved transit service and facilities Integrated pedestrian/vehicular circulation facilities - Parking management programs to favor car.and van pools. The improvements included in the Specific Plan Circulation Plan are mitiga- tion measures for project impacts. Additional mitigation measures recom- mended to implement the Specific Plan Circulation System include: 1 16. Prior to issuance of grading permits, the applicant must submit plans to the'Manager, EMA/Development Services, that street improvements are in conformance with the Circulation Plan of the Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan. 17. Coordination of signal phasing along Irvine Avenue shall be considered to facilitate peak evening flows from Orchard Drive and Mesa Drive. 18. Signage for the proposed alleyway between Cypress and Birch Streets shall be installed. 1 II Il I 19. "No through street" signs shall be installed on Birch Street, Cypress Street, Orchid Street and Orchard Drive to inform drivers of the pro- posed cul-de-sacs. 20. An access plan for the Zenith Avenue and Birch Street residential lots shall be adopted prior to the installation of the Orchid Avenue and Birch Street cul-de-sacs. 21. A program for the funding, phasing and construction of circulation system improvements within Santa Ana Heights shall be formulated by the County and administered through the Orange County Development Agency. I 01 I I M I I I I I 11 I II Il I 4.5 AIR QUALITY 4.5.1 Existing Conditions Climate The climate in the Santa Ana Heights specific plan area, as with all of southern California, maintains moderate temperatures and comfortable humidities, and limits precipitation to a few storms during the winter "wet" season. Temperatures are normally mild with rare extremes above 100°F or below freezing. Winds in the area are almost always driven by the land/sea breeze circulation system. Regional wind patterns are dominated by daytime onshore sea breezes. At night, the wind generally slows and reverses direction traveling towards the sea. Southern California frequently experiences temperature inversions which inhibit the dispersion of air pollutants. Inversions may be either ground based or elevated. Ground based inversions are most severe during clear cold early winter mornings. Under conditions of a ground based inversion, very little air mixing occurs, and high concentrations of primary pollu- tants may collect near major roadways. Elevated inversions act as a lid over an area and restrict vertical air mixing; however, below the elevated inversion, pollutant dispersion is not restricted. Mixing heights for elevated inversions are lower in the summer than in cooler months. This low summer inversion puts a lid over the South Coast Air Basin and is responsible for the high levels of ozone observed during summer months in the air basin. Air Quality Management Regionally, the proposed project is located in the South Coast Air Basin and lies within the jurisdiction of the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) and the California Air Resources Board (CARB). The SCAQMD sets and enforces regulations for stationary air pollutant sources in the basin. The CARB is charged with controlling motor vehicle emis- sions. RYA The SCAQMD, in coordination with the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), has developed and revised an Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) for the air basin. The AQMP has the goal of achieving health- ful levels of air quality by 1987, and is mandated by state and federal taws. Included in the plan are new stationary and mobile source controls, ride -sharing programs, and energy conservation measures. The AQMP is designed to accommodate a moderate amount of new development and growth throughout the basin. Orange County has developed a "Subregional Element for the 1982 Regional Air Quality Management Plan." The Orange County subelement encourages new development to incorporate commercial/industrial uses near residential communities to reduce trips and trip lengths. The element also encourages several parking management strategies, carpool and bus alternatives, and the promotion of bicycle racks. Ambient Air Quality Air quality at any site depends on both the regional ambient or surround- ing air quality and local sources of air pollutants. Regional air quality results from the release of pollutants throughout the air basin. Mobile or vehicular sources are considered the major source of emissions in the South Coast Air Basin. Existing surrounding air quality conditions for the Santa Ana Heights LUCP Area are evaluated in Section 4.2.2.4 of FEIR 508, FEIR 508 includes a screening model analysis to test aircraft emission impacts on ambient air quality near six sensitive receptor locations immediately outside of the specific plan area. Except for the former Bayview school site and the University YMCA, the sensitive receptor locations are near the Intersec- tion of Santa Ana Avenue and Del Mar Avenue. The air quality analysis completed for FEIR 508 concludes that ambient air quality standards in the Santa Ana Heights area are not significantly im- pacted by airport operations. The screening analysis also did not predict any significant impacts in the downwind sensitive receptor community.) 1 FEIR 6080 p. 4.2-24. I i I I I I ,t I L I I II U The South Coast Air Quality Management District divides the air basin into Source Receptor Areas (SRAs) in order to compare the air pollutant emis- sions generated by a project with the emissions currently generated in the area. The proposed project is located within Source Receptor Area 18. The nearest air quality monitoring station in this SRA is located in Costa Mesa-, approximately two miles southwest of the specific plan area. The data collected at this station is considered to represent air quality in the vicinity of the project. Annual air quality data for 1981 through 1985 for the Costa Mesa station is provided in Table 7. State and federal ambient air quality standards are provided in Table 8. The air quality data indicate that ozone is the air pollutant of primary concern in the area. Ozone is not directly emitted, but is the result of chemical reactions of other pollutants, most importantly hydrocarbons and nitrogen dioxide in the presence of bright sunlight. Motor vehicles are major sources of hydrocarbons and nitrogen dioxide. Pollutants emitted from upwind areas react during transport downwind to produce the ozone concentrations. The Santa Ana Heights area itself was noted as a substan- tial pollution contributor from traffic it generates. The SAH LUCP was estimated to generate approximately 39,800 existing trips per day or 398,020 vehicle miles traveled on a daily basis.l The conversion of land uses in immediate proximity to existing residential uses was considered a potential significant air quality impact in FEIR 508. Because air quality at a particular site also depends largely upon local pollutant sources, local air quality is more realistically described in. terms of local pollutant sources plus ambient air quality. Carbon monox- ide (CO) is directly emitted by motor vehicles and is used as an indicator of local air quality near a roadway network. The CO monitored at the Costa Mesa station probably reflects the station's local area, and may not be representative of the roadway network adjacent to the project area. Existing CO levels at intersections near the site are estimated from data 1 FEIR 508, p. 4.2-24. I 39 Table 7 AMBIENT AIR QUALITYI Number of Days State/Federal Standard Exceeded; [Maximum ,W Concentration12 Pollutant Locally 3 Countywide Ozone 1981 28/6 [.20] 107/69 [.33] 1982 25/6 [.18] 79/42 [.32] 1983 41/15 [.25] 110/65 [.30] 1984 29/.7 [,25] 107/65 [.32] 1985 33/17 C.211 101/63 [.34] Carbon monoxide 1981 1/5 [151 4/21 [221 1982 1/5 [211 1/12 [211 1983 0/1 [141 1/8 [221 1984 0/1 [131 1/6 [211 1985 0/5 [191 2/8 [221 Nitrogen dioxide 1981 2*/NA [.29] 9/NA [.36] 1982 0/NA C.231 1/NA [.281 1983 1/NA .271 4/NA .331 1984 0/NA C.221 2/NA C.251 1985 0/NA [.24] 2/NA [.30] Sulfur dioxide 1981 0/NA [.08] 0/NA [.08] 1982 0/NA [.06] 0/NA [.08] 1983 0/NA C.041 0/NA [.051 1984 0/NA [.04] 0/NA [.08] 1985 0/NA [.05] 0/NA [.05] Particulates4 1981 .42/.0 [2341 .64/.03 [6021 1982 .03/.02 [[2621 .28/.O1 [262] 1983 101984 14151 .11/0 [1791 .41/0 1985 .37/0 [100] .59/0 [144] 1 Air Resources Board, California Air Quality Data, 1981-1985, Vol$. XIII-XVII. 2 Particulates indicated in ug/m3. All other concentrations indicated in ppm. 3 Data from Costa Mesa Monitoring Station. 4 Expressed as percentage of samples taken; data from El Toro Station (Costa Mesa Station did not monitor). * An insufficient number of data points were collected to meet EPA and/or ARB criteria for representativeness. 40 TABLE 8 AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS California Standards, National Standardaz Pollutant Averaging T nts Pnrnary ss fieeonGrYs•e Methods enlrabona Method a Dx,tlan{10 1 hour 00 ug) Ultraviolet PhotometryOzone r(2 0.12 Pom Same as Primary Ethylene 1 hour — 1235ug/ms) Standard Chemiluminescence Carbon Monoxide 6 hour 9.0 ppm 0 mg/m3) Non•Oispersive Infrared 9 0 pPm 11a mg/ms) Same as Primary Non•Dispersive Infrared Spectroscopy Spectroscopy Standards 35 Dom (40 nK/m3) 1 hour • (NDIR1 (NDIR) 123 g/ma) Nitrogen Dioxide Annual Average Gas Phase 100 ug/mz (0.05 ppml Same as Primary Gas Phase Chemilum,• Standard Chemiluminescence 1 hour 0.25 pom — nascence (470 uglmll Sulfur Dioxide Annual Average So uq/ma 10.03 Pam) — Ultraviolet Pararosanilint , 24 hour 0.05 ppm (131 ug/ms)e 365 ug/ms 10.14 ppml — Fluorescence 3 hour — • 1300 uglms (0.5 ppm) 1 hour 0.25 ppm (655 ug/ma) — Suspended Annual Geometric — — Particulate Man 30 uglma Matter (PMIo) PMto 24 hour 50 ug/ms — ' Suspended Annual Geometric — 75 ug/ma 60 ug/ms High Volume Sampling Particulate Mean — Matter 24 hour — 260 ug/ms 150 uglms Sulfatn 24 hour 35 ug/ma Turbidimetric 6anum — — Sulfate Lead 30 day 15 ug/m3 Atomic — — — Average Absorption Calendar - 1.5 ug/ms Same as Pri• Atomic • Ouarter mary Standard Abso,obon Hydrogen 1 hour 003 ppm Caomium Hydrox• — — — Sulfide 1 (42 ug/ma) ide STRactar, Vinyl Chloride 24 hour 0010 Dom Tedlar Bag IChlorotthenel 26 uglms) Collection. Gar — — _ Cnromatograp^, Visibility lobservatipn Insufficient amount to I Reducing reduce the prevailing visibility$ — — — Particles to Ins than 10 rtidn when the relative humidity is Ins Imam 701 APPLICABLE ONLY IN THE LAKE TAHOE AIR BASIN: Carbon Monoxide a hour 6 porn - (7 mgims) Visibility 1 observation In sufficient amount to Reducing I reduce the prevailing vniodnv9 — — Particles to Ins than 30 miles when the i relative humidity is less :ham 701. Source: California Air Resources Board, California Air Quality Data, Volume XVII,1985 41 ' at the Costa Mesa Station and by modeling traffic emissions with a compu- ter dispersion model. A discussion of the computer dispersion modeling results is included in the following section. Local Air Quality The CALINE3 computer model is used to estimate air quality conditions cur- rently and with the future project.1 The CALINE3 model is based upon ambient CO levels and CO resulting from motor vehicles. Assumptions used in the model are based upon "worst case" conditions. A 9.3 ppm background CO concentration is added to the results under 1986 conditions. Future ambient CO concentrations are expected to decrease due to anticipated improvements in automobile emissions. A complete list of assumptions and calculations can be found in Appendix E; a brief discussion of inputs to the model follows: The intersections chosen for modeling should have the highest vol- ume links in the project vicinity and be located near sensitive receptors. Concentrations are reported in the unit of parts per million (ppm) at distances of 15 meters, 30 meters, and 45 meters from the high- way centerline. The calculations further assume a meteorological condition of almost no wind (2 mph) and a topographic condition of flat topo- graphy between the source and receptor. Since the one -hour state standard rarely, if ever, is exceeded, the CO concentrations are calculated for an eight -hour averaging period and then compared to the state and federal eight -hour standard. An ambient CO concentration of 9.3 ppm which is the average of the past three years, second highest annual eight -hour maximum concentration for the Costa Mesa Air Quality Monitoring Station is assumed. 1 CALINE3 was developed by the California Department of Transportation (FHWA/CA/TL-79/23, November 1979). 1 42 1 I r I I I it 1 II 11 I I I ,1 II I Table 9 lists the results of the CALINE3 model. Note that at the site and offsite at nearby intersections, the state and federal eight -hour standard of 9 ppm is exceeded under worst case conditions prior to consideration of additional vehicular emissions. This is due to the high ambient background CO concentration which is added to the results. Table 9 EXISTING "WORST CASE" CO CONCENTRATIONS Distance Maximum 8-Hour Roadway Intersections From Roadway (m)1 Concentration (ppm)2 Bristol St./Birch St. 15 10.1 30 9.7 45 9.5 Irvine Ave./Orchard Dr. 15 10.3 30 9•7 45 9.5 Mesa Dr./Acacia St. 15 9.6 30 9.4 45 9.4 4.5.2 Impacts Ambient Air Quality Short-term temporary air quality impacts as well as long-term impacts that endure for the life of the project, will occur when the project is developed. Short-term impacts will result• from construction and grading activities associated with the conversion of land uses in the specific plan area to other uses, including more intensive employment uses. Fugitive dust is 1 Measured from centerline of roadway. 2 Concentrations include a 9.3 ppm 8-hour average background CO concen- tration. 43 generated during grading and excavations. In addition, grading and con- , struction requires the use of heavy diesel -powered machinery and trucks which add to local air contaminant emissions. Detailed construction equipment emissions were not calculated due to the ' lack of specific construction information. The numbers and types of con- struction equipment that will be operated over the development phasing period is not known. However, these emissions are temporary and the mobile nature of the sources will not cause exposure to a single receptor for long periods. Any noticeable effects on the surrounding community will be occasional nuisances, and are not considered to impact state and federal air quality standards adversely. Nearby areas may be impacted by fugitive dust which could be considered a nuisance. Because the dust is filtered readily by human breathing pas- sages and is chemically inert, it does not pose an adverse health impact. The LUCP involves a conversion of approximately 52 acres (7.3 acres in the western section and the 44.5-acre business park). Based on a controlled fugitive dust generation rate of approximately 0.6 tons/acre/month of dis- turbance.1 at an average construction duration of eleven months per indi- vidual commercial project,2 conversion activity will generate 343 tons of dust, Dust emissions from public facility improvements (eg., streets, sewers) will increase this estimate but the resulting fugitive dust emis- sions from public facility improvements are estimated to be minimal. Machine and fugitive dust impacts are not anticipated to be significant , for the following reasons. The 52-acre area is relatively level terrain which has been previously graded. However, new development will result in surface grading and excavation for building supports or tuck -under park- , ing. In addition, SCAQMD Rule 4U3 requires the application of water twice daily which is estimated to reduce total fugitive dust by 50 percent. I I 1 FEIR 5UB, p. 4.2-37. 2 Up. cit. 44 ' F Long-term air contaminant emissions for the specific plan area and in the vicinity will occur from both mobile and stationary emissions sources. Since there are no known major stationary emittors in the vicinity, most stationary emissions in the area will continue to occur from combustion of ' natural gas for water heating and space heating in buildings. In addi- tion, the electricity used onsite will add to emissions from fossil fuel combustion to generate electricity at power plants located outside the project vicinity. Stationary source air pollutant emissions generated by the conversion of land uses in the specific plan area will be very small in comparison to generated mobile source emissions. Mobile source emissions considered to result from buildout of the specific plan area are vehicular pollutants released by increased vehicular traffic•to and from the project. Several pollutants are directly emitted from motor vehicles. Most notable are ' carbon monoxide (CO), oxides of nitrogen (NOx), hydrocarbons (HC), and particulates. Carbon monoxide is the primary pollutant of major concern along roadways since air quality standards for CO along roadways are exceeded more frequently than the other pollutant standards. Table 10 shows estimated annual emissions above existing emissions which will result from buildout (conversion and new development) of the adopted Land Use Element as specified in Section 3.0, Project Description. Sta- tionary source emissions were estimated using AQMD emissions factors for land use types based on average consumption rates for electricity and natural gas. Mobile source emissions were derived using CARB's URBEMIS#1 air quality modeling program. The URBEMIS#1 model estimates vehicular ' emissions based on average trip lenyth, number and speed associated with the location and types of land uses planned. The estimates do not include emissions from existing land uses which are not converted. 1 1 45 Table 10 PROJECT -GENERATED EMISSIONS (Tons/Year)1 Stationary Mobile Total Pollutant Sources2 Sources3 Emissions CO 1.44 396 397.4 NOx 13.71 33 46.7 HC .85 42 42.9 ParticulateS4 1.06 NA NA Buildout of the specific plan area will incrementally add to the total emissions released in Source Receptor Area 18. The project's contribution to total SRA 18 emissions is very small in and of itself. Table 11 com- pares total future (year 2000) project -generated emissions as a percentage of estimated emissions for SRA 18. Table 11 PROJECT EMISSIONS COMPARED WITH SRA 18 EMISSIONS SRA 18 Contribution Pollutant Emissions !tons/year)5 By Project CO 78,661 0.51% NOx 13,932 0,34% HC 14,089 0.30% Since emissions contributed by the project are a fraction of total SRA 18 emissions, the buildout of the project will not significantly impact ambient air quality. 1 Includes net change in existing site emissions and site traffic emissions due to implementation of the specific plan; see Appendix E for assumptions. 2 Derived using SCAQMD Air ualit Handbook for Environmental Im act Reports, revised December 8 . 3 elfin ved'using CARB URBEMISNI model. 4 Particulates are not included in URBEMISNI model. 5 Based on 1987 average summer weekday emissions given by SCAQMD Air Quality Handbook, December 1983. ER I' i !' I 11 I L' l_ r 11 11 I I Air Quality Management Air quality forecasts in the Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) are gen- erally based upon buildout of local general plans and the traffic associa- ted with those land uses. Buildout of the proposed specific plan is anti- cipated to generate approximately 15,000 more trips per day than existing uses within the Santa Ana Heights area. As illustrated in Table 7, the project will contribute less than six -tenths of one percent of total SRA 18 emissions, and no ultimate significant conflict with the AQMP is antici- pated. When the AQMP is revised to incorporate more intensive land uses for the specific plan area, the project will be consistent with the AQMP. Local Air Quality As mentioned previously, carbon monoxide (CO) concentrations are consi- dered appropriate indicators of local air quality as impacted by roadways. Again, local air quality conditions are projected using the CALINE3 compu- ter model. Worst -case factors are assumed. Table 12 provides a compari- son of existing "worst case" CO concentrations with project -induced concen- trations. Note that a background CO concentration of 9.3 parts per mil- lion (ppm) is added to the results in Table 12. The results of the model indicate that the state and federal 8-hour average of 9 ppm will continue to be exceeded at all modeled locations; however, the project -related traffic will result in a 1.7 percent average increase in carbon monoxide. concentrations at Bristol Street/Birch Street, a 2.0 percent average increase at Irvine Avenue/Orchard Drive and a 1.0 percent increase at Mesa Drive/Acacia Avenue. The small magnitude of the increases at Bristol ,. Street/Birch Street and Mesa Drive/Acacia Avenue makes them insignificant. Because the 2.0 percent increase in CO concentrations at Irvine Avenue/ Orchard Drive only affects a small localized portion of the adjacent golf course, this increase is also considered insignificant. An analysis of local air quality at the Irvine Avenue/Orchard Drive loca- tion without assuming the University extension was also completed. Although the traffic volumes on Irvine Avenue increase, the local air qual- ity impacts remain insignificant. 47 Table 12 COMPARISON OF "WORST CASE" CO CONCENTRATIONS (EXISTING VERSUS EXISTING PLUS PROJECT) Existing Distance Existing + Project Roadway From Maximum 8-Hour Maximum 8-Hour Percentage Intersections Roadwa m 1 Concentration (ppm)2 Concentration (ppm)2 Increase Bristol St./ Birch St. 15 10.1 10.4 3.0 30 9.7 9.8 1.0 45 9.5 9.6 1.1 Irvine Ave./ Orchard Or. 15 10.3 10.8 4.9 30 9.7 9.7 0 45 9.5 9.6 1.1 Mesa Dr./ Acacia St. 15 9.6 9.7 1.0 30 9.4 9.4 0.0 45 9.4 9.4 0.0 1 Measured from centerline of roadway. 2 Concentrations include a 12.6 ppm 8-hour average background CO concen- tration. M ' Buildout of the project will generate trips which will cumulatively add to local and regional vehicular emissions. Although the project -generated trips will not significantly affect SRA 18 air quality, the increase in emissions will incrementally degrade local air quality in the project's general vicinity. Due to improvements anticipated in individual vehicular emissions, local air quality is expected to improve in the future, even with additional vehicle trips. Although many small projects do not in themselves create a significant impact on air quality, a large number of projects may contribute toward a cumulative impact. 4.5.3 Mitigation Measures ' 1. Development within the specific plan area shall comply with all SCAQMD 1 rules and regulations; development should apply, to the extent feasi- ble, all AQMP recommendations for commercial and office land uses including: ' a. developer -provided bus turnouts, bus shelters and bicycle racks; and, b, all Title 24 standards for energy conserving structures, heating/ cooling systems, lighting systems, appliances, etc. 2. At precise planning stages, the developer shall investigate implement- ing, where appropriate, the "six reasonably available control mea- sures" which the Orange County Board of Supervisors adopted to support on April 15, 1980: Energy -conserving street lights; Traffic light synchronization; Preferential carpool parking; ' Modified work hours; Ridesharing; Bicycle/pedestrian facilities to reduce vehicle miles traveled. 1 49 3. The associated transportation system shall be designed to improve traffic flow or reduce traffic volumes. Developer -provided improve- ments shall include the following: a. Installation of traffic signal at Irvine Avenue and Orchard Drive. b. Construction of direct access to business park via Acacia Street from Mesa Drive. , c. Implementation of recreation plan, including bicycle and eques- trian trails, to minimize vehicle miles traveled. 4. The impact of construction -generated dust shall be reduced to the extent feasible by periodically sprinkling with water, and by paving the area proposed for parking as soon as possible. 5. Orange County's vehicular emissions will be reduced through legisla- tive exhaust emissions controls and the provision of both mass transit in the area and the creation of closer employment centers (le., 50-acre business park). 50 LJ 4.6 ACOUSTIC ENVIRONMENT 4.6.1 Existing Conditions ' A noise assessment for the specific plan area was prepared by Mestre-Greve Associates in April 1986. The complete report is included as Appendix E and a summary of the report is provided below. The proposed project site is currently impacted by roadway and aircraft noise sources. The project site is exposed to noise generated by aircraft operations associated with the John Wayne Airport. Additionally, the site is exposed to traffic noise from a number of roadways including Irvine Ave- nue and Mesa Drive. ' The analysis identifies the traffic noise impacts internal to the Santa Ana Heights area. Regional traffic noise impacts and aircraft noise impacts have been addressed previously in FEIR 508/EIS. ' The document identifying Orange County noise policies is the Noise Element of the General Plan. The general policy statements in the Noise Element have been transformed into standards and criteria for implementation. The Orange County noise standards can be categorized into indoor and outdoor standards, and may be further divided into residential and nonresidential ' projects. The standards are based on the combined noise levels of all noise sources. For residential areas, the County standards require that ' the noise levels in exterior living areas (eq., rear yards, patio areas, and balcony areas) do not exceed 65 CNEL, and for interior living areas the noise level shall not exceed 45 CNEL.1 The indoor noise level criter- ' ion for nonresidential projects varies for type of use, and is in terms of the 12-hour Leq.2 Table 13 shows the indoor noise level standards for various types of nonresidential developments. ' 1 Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) averages ambient sound levels and adds a weighting penalty to sounds occurring during evening and night hours. 2 The equivalent noise level (Leq) is the average noise level on an ener- gy basis for any specified time period. The Leq for one hour is the energy average noise level during the hour, specifically, the average noise based on the energy content of the sound. It -can be thought of as the level of a continuous noise which has the same energy content has the as the fluctuating noise level. The equivalent noise level units of dBA, therefore, a sound measured for one hour may be ex- pressed as a one -hour Leq of 57 dBA. 51 Table 13 NONRESIDENTIAL INDOOR NOISE STANDARDS Typical Use Le h 1 Private office, church sanctuary, college, preschool, 45 schools (grade K-12)9 board room, conference room, etc. General office, reception, clerical, etc. 50 Bank lobby, retail store, restaurant, typing pool, etc. 55 Manufacturing, kitchen, warehousing, etc. 65 EXISTING AIRCRAFT NOISE LEVELS The specific plan area is located south of John Wayne Airport. At its nearest location the area is approximately 2,000 feet south from the south end of the main airport runway (Runway 19R). There are three noise moni- toring facilities operated by airport officials in the project vicinity. Stations M6 and M7 are located inside the specific plan boundaries and Station M1 is located 400 feet south of the area. According to the 1983 CNEL contours for John Wayne Airport developed by the County of Orange, the specific plan area was exposed to noise levels ranging from less than 65 CNEL to as high as 73.5 CNEL at the northern end of the Newport Beach Golf Course. The current 1985 annual noise levels within the specific plan area range from less than 65 CNEL to approximately 71 CNEL at the northern end of the Newport Beach Golf Course. The major flight tracks for the airport near the specific plan area and the 1983 noise contours are included in Appendix E. EXISTING TRAFFIC NOISE LEVELS The highway noise levels projected in the technical analysis were computed using the Highway Noise Model published by the Federal Highway Administra- tion ("FHWA Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model," FHWA-RD-77-1080 Decem- ber 1978). The FHWA model uses traffic volume, vehicle mix, vehicle 1 Noise Element, Orange County General Plan. 52 I ' speed, and roadway geometry to compute the "equivalent noise level." The analysis is conservative since no future vehicle noise reduction was assumed for future traffic noise levels; although existing legislation includes quieter vehicle standards for future production. Existing traffic volumes and posted speed limits used to estimate existing noise levels adjacent to the specific plan area are included in Appendix E. Traffic volumes were obtained from the traffic study performed by ' Basmaciyan-Darnell, Inc. The traffic mix and time distribution used are considered typical for roadways in southern California. in the The distances to the 60, 65 and 70 CNEL contours for the roadways specific plan area are given in Table 14. These represent the distance ' from the centerline of the road to the contour value shown. The width of existing paving, except for Irvine Avenue is approximately 15 feet on each ' side of pavement centerline. The analysis- does not include the effect of aircraft noise. Table 14 EXISTING TRAFFIC NOISE LEVELS Distance to Contour from Centerline of Roadway (Feet) Roadway 70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNELI Irvine Avenue 279 s/o Bristol St. RW 129 Mesa Drive w/o Irvine Ave. 24 51 110 Irvine Ave, to Acacia St. RW RW RW 65 61 Acacia St. to Birch St. RW ' Birch St. to Cypress St. Cypress St. to Orchid St. RW RW RW RW 49 30 Orchard Drive Irvine Ave. to Acacia St. RW 32 68 Acacia St. to Birch St. RW RW 56 Birch St. to Cypress St. RW RW 47 Acacia Street Mesa Drive to Orchard Dr. RW RW 20 Birch St. 35 Mesa Dr. to Orchard Dr. RW RW Orchard Dr. to Bristol St. RW 32 68 RW - Indicates contour falls within road right-of-way. i Distance to contour is listed; irrespective of the location of the ' road right-of-way. ' 53 F Table 14 (cont'd) Cypress Street RW RW 35 Mesa Dr. to Orchard Dr. RW RW 48 Orchard Dr. to Bristol St. Spruce Avenue RW RW 11 s/o Zenith Zenith Ave. Ave. to Bristol St. RW RW 26 The data in Table 14 indicate that traffic noise levels for some areas may currently exceed 65 CNEL. Residential areas along Irvine Avenue and Mesa Drive may experience outdoor traffic noise levels in excess of 65 CNEL. It should be noted that the aircraft noise levels along Irvine Avenue are In the range of 65 to 70 CNEL, and the aircraft noise levels along Mesa Drive are in the range of 60 to 70 CNEL. 4.6.2 Project Impacts Potential noise impacts are often divided into two groups: temporary and long-term. Temporary impacts are usually associated with noise generated by construction activities. Long-term impacts are further divided into aircraft and traffic noise impacts. CONSTRUCTION NOISE LEVELS Construction noise represents a short-term impact on ambient noise levels. Noise generated by construction equipment, including trucks, graders, bull- dozers, concrete mixers and portable generators can reach high levels. The greatest potential for problems exists at the residential areas adja- cent to the specific plan area. Construction equipment noise comes under the control of the Environmental Protection Agency's Noise Control Program (Part 204 of Title 40, Code of Federal Regulations). Some equipment noise will impact local residential areas. Noise levels generated by typical construction equipment may range from below 7U dBA to over 100 dBA at 50 feet. Construction noise is commonly controlled through the application of the County Noise Ordinance, which limits the hours of construction to weekdays and daytime hours. 54 7 I I i' I II 11 Traffic associated with construction activities can generate excessive ' noise levels, and if routed through residential areas, can be annoying to local residents. Therefore, construction traffic should not be routed through residential areas whenever possible. FUTURE AIRCRAFT NOISE LEVELS The future CNEL contours for John Wayne Airport developed by Orange County ' are based on 73 ADD (average daily departures) which represent the highest number of future operations allowed by the County. Based on future noise ' projections, the •specific plan area will be exposed to noise levels rang- ing from less than 65 CNEL to as high as 74.2 CNEL. ' FUTURE TRAFFIC NOISE LEVELS ' Future development in the specific plan area will generate traffic and may alter the noise levels in surrounding areas. Potential increases in road- way noise along streets within the specific plan area was evaluated to assess the impact of implementation of the Specific Plan on adjacent land uses (Table 15). These roadways were modeled for existing traffic condi- tions and existing plus project -generated traffic. ' Traffic data used for noise projections were taken from the traffic study prepared by Basmaciyan-Darnell, Inc. Traffic mix and time distributions ' were assumed to remain the same as those used for existing conditions. Future traffic volumes and speeds are listed in Appendix E. ' The FHWA Highway Traffic Noise Model was used to project future unmitiga- ted noise levels for the community. The modeling results are reported in Table 15 in the form of distances to the 60, 65, and 70 CNEL contours. These projections do not take into account any existing barriers or topo- Igraphy that may reduce noise levels. I 1 55 Table 15 FUTURE TRAFFIC NOISE LEVELS Distance to Contour from Centerline of Roadway (Feet Mesa Drive Irvine Ave. to Acacia St. RW 31 67 Acacia St. to Birch St. RW RW 39 Birch St. to Cypress St. RW RW 33 Cypress St. to Orchid St. RW RW 27 Orchard Drive RW RW 60 e/o Santa Ana Ave. Irvine Ave. to Acacia St. RW 32 68 Acacia St. to Birch St. RW RW 56 Birch St. to Cypress St. RW RW 47 Pegasus Street e/o Santa Ana Ave. RW RW 19 Acacia Street n/o Mesa Drive RW RW 46 s/o Orchard Dr. RW RW 66 Birch St. s/o Orchard Dr. RW 32 69 Orchard Dr. to Bristol St. 27 58 125 Cypress Street Mesa Dr. to Orchard Dr. RW RW 15 n/o Orchard Dr. RW RW 13 Orchid Street s/o Orchard Dr. RW RW 15 n/o Orchard Dr. RW RW 13 Spruce Avenue s/o Zenith Ave. RW RW 10 Bayview Avenue RW RW 14 s/o Zenith Ave. RW - Indicates contour falls within road right-of-way. The results show that traffic noise levels with implementation of the Spe- cific Plan will increase over existing levels for some roadways and will decrease for other roadways. The projected changes in the CNEL noise levels due to plan implementation are presented in Table 16. 1 Distance to contour is listed, irrespective of the location of the road right-of-way. 56 5 Table 16 ' CHANGE IN CNEL NOISE LEVELS DUE TO SPECIFIC PLAN IMPLEMENTATION Roadway Segment Change in CNEL (dBA) Mesa Drive Irvine Ave. to Acacia St. +0.1 Acacia St. to Birch St. Birch St. to Cypress St. -2.9 -2.5 Cypress St, to Orchid St. -0.9 Orchard Drive Irv-ine Ave. to Acacia St. +2.5 Acacia St. to Birch St. +1.4 Birch St. to Cypress St. -1•B Acacia Street +5.4 n/o Mesa Drive s/o Orchard Drive +7.7 Birch St. s/o Orchard Dr. +4.5 Orchard Dr. to Bristol St. +3.9 Cypress Street Mesa Dr. to Orchard Dr. n/o Orchard Dr. -5•7 -8.5 Spruce Avenue s/o Zenith Ave. -0•B ' Zenith Ave. to Bristol St. -1.3 In community noise assessment, changes in noise levels greater than 3 dBA are often identified as significant, while changes less than 1 dBA are not discernible to local residents. In the range of 1 to 3 dBA, residents who are very sensitive to noise may perceive a slight change. No scientific evidence is available to support the use of 3 dBA as the significance I threshold. In laboratory testing situations, humans are able to detect noise level changes of slightly less than 1 dBA. However, in a community noise situation the noise exposure is over a long time period, and changes in noise levels occur over months or years, rather than the immediate com- parison made in a laboratory situation. Therefore, the level at which changes in community noise levels is discernible is greater than 1 dBA, and 3 dBA is appropriate for most people. The data indicates CNEL noise levels will increase by more than 1 dBA for Orchard Drive from Irvine Avenue to Birch Street, and will increase by more than 3 dBA for Acacia Street and Birch Street. All other roadway seg- 4A r ments in this study will experience a decrease in noise or an increase of less than 1 dBA. Therefore, for all other roadways, no significant traf- fic noise impacts are anticipated. In fact, residents along Cypress Street and portions of Mesa Drive will experience a significant decrease in traffic noise. Along Acacia Street, the increase in noise is 5.4 to 7.7 dBA. Along Birch Street, the increase in noise is 3.9 to 4.5 dBA. The Specific Plan calls for the widening of both of these roadways to 48 feet (within existing 60-foot right-of-way) and the conversion of existing residential uses to offices. The future noise levels for these roadways was given in Table 15. The projected traffic noise levels for these roadways are compatible with the proposed office uses. Another roadway which will experience a significant increase in noise will be Orchard Drive near Irvine Avenue. This roadway will be widened to 48 feet (within existing 60-foot right-of-way) and existing residential uses along the roadway will be converted to office uses. The projected traffic noise levels for this roadway are compatible with the proposed office uses. In summary, all streets with projected increases in noise levels will be bordered by proposed professional -administrative office uses. These land uses are compatible with the future noise environment. COMBINED FUTURE NOISE LEVELS The combined noise impacts are determined by adding aircraft and traffic noise levels. For this project, traffic noise levels will increase along roadways bordering proposed office uses, and noise levels will decrease along roadways bordering residential land uses. This is mainly due to modifying the existing street network by changing some existing through streets into cul-de-sacs. Thus, traffic noise impacts on the nearby resi- dences will be insignificant. The dominant noise source in the specific plan area will continue to be aircraft operations from John Wayne Airport. The aircraft levels are not r k 1 11 L' I L_ J r r r r L' i m i expected to vary greatly from existing levels. Along major roadways, traffic noise levels will contribute to the total noise environment. For the remainder of the area, aircraft noise levels will constitute the noise environment. These levels are compatible with the proposed office uses. For any existing residential uses exposed to excessive aircraft noise IrIn� L..I I I I F Il levels, the County -approved Acoustical Insulation Program will be offered to mitigate indoor noise levels. Approximately 365 dwelling units located within the specific plan area are eligible for the Acoustical Insulation Program (Exhibit 9). Under this voluntary program, the County will pay for the improvements in exchange for the property owner granting the County an avigation easement. The acoustical insulation improvements will make interior living areas less susceptible to aircraft noise and satisfy requirements of the California Airport Noise Standards. 4.6.3 Mitigation Measures 1. All construction activities must comply with local regulations regard- ing noise nuisance. 2. Construction -related traffic should not be routed through existing residential areas. 3. For existing residential land uses exposed to excessive aircraft noise levels, the County -approved Acoustical Insulation Program will be offered to mitigate indoor noise levels. 59 7 1 11 11 4.7 AESTHETICS 4.7.1 Existing Conditions The visual character of the specific plan area is dominated by one- and two-story residential units, with scattered vacant lots, stables, nurser- ies and other business operations. A diverse mix of housing units, rang- ing from Georgian homes to ranch structures, modest bungalows, apartments and a subdivision with kennels exists in the specific plan area. Commer- cial uses predominate along South Bristol Street near the intersection of Irvine Avenue and Orchard Drive. A narrow viewshed along Mesa Drive extends toward the Santa Ana -Delhi Channel and across the Newport Beach Golf Course. The rural ambience and suburban character of the area is accentuated by the lack of street lights, curb and gutter and other public improvements. Unattractive aesthetic aspects of the area are overhead telephone/electrical lines, dilapidated dwelling units and outdoor storage of vehicles. Parking of commercial vehicles and equipment occurs in sev- eral areas. 4.7.1 Project Impacts Implementation of the Specific Plan will alter the visual character of the area. Low rise business park development will replace residential uses in East Santa Ana Heights on 44.5 acres. This area will be transformed into a low density urban office center. Two locations where residential uses are adjacent to proposed employment uses present potential aesthetic impacts. Employment uses along South Bristol Street abut homes on Zenith Avenue and the proposed business park area abuts residential lots west of Cypress Street and north of Mesa Drive. Aesthetic view impacts for the employment -residential interface are considered significant. However, these impacts are mitigated by the proposed buffer and landscape treatments. Illustration of the residential entry treatment, streetscape/equestrian trail design for Cypress Street and buffer treatment from the Specific Plan are shown in Exhibits 10-12. m = = = m i==== m m m 60' ROW ENTRY WALL 36' MONUMENTATION _ PAVED ENTRY ACCENT PLANTING VAWJ i o ORO otwo RESIDENTIAL ENTRY TREATMENT SANTA ANA HEIGHTS SPECIFIC PLANIEIRS EXHIBIT 10 12' EQUESTRIAN TRAIL 4' L 8' 60' ROW 10' 36' PAVED 0' 8' PARKWA I I I I 1 0.1 RESIDENTIAL/ EQUESTRIAN TRAIL DESIGN SANTA ANA HEIGHTS SPECIFIC PLAN/EIR (ONE SIDE ONLY) CYPRESS STREET FACING NORTH EXHIBI1 11 oc i ona.n tw i a i u.uuu o.r. vn uncw i cm BUSINESS PARK / RESIDENTIAL EQUESTRIAN BUFFER DESIGN SANTA ANA HEIGHTS SPECIFIC PLAN/EIR .. EXHIBIT 12 Since scattered residential lots may remain in the Proposed business park area for years, the impacts of office development on residential uses is not confined to the boundaries. Viewshed impacts upon remaining residen- tial units by development of new office structures is considered signifi- cant. ' Viewshed impacts between residential and agricultural districts also occur in the specific plan area west of Irvine Avenue. Street parking of vehi- cles or equipment on Orchard Drive is a potential significant impact. ' Development will result in beneficial aesthetic impacts in the specific plan area by removal of dilapidated structures, public improvements to ' streets and addition of sidewalks, etc. Resolution of the land uses for each area will also facilitate new development, rehabilitation and a more unified design theme in the area. ' 4.7.3 Mitigation Measures The following mitigation measures are included in the Specific Plan to address the aesthetic impacts of business park development on residential areas: ' 1. A 45-foot setback, including a 10-foot landscape buffer, between residential and employment uses shall be provided for structures up to ' 30 feet in height. A 75-foot setback, including a 10-foot landscape buffer shall be provided for structures up to 35 feet in height. ' 2. Architectural guidelines of the Specific Plan shall specify materials and design themes to unify the area aesthetically. ' 3. The streetscape plan of the Specific Plan shall include plant palettes ' and design guidelines to promote area identity. 61 ' 4.8 RECREATION 4.8.1 Existing Conditions Section 4.13 of FEIR 608 described the existing regional and local recre- ational facilities within the Cities of Costa Mesa, Irvine, Tustin, New- port Beach and Santa Ana. Local equestrian facilities in Santa Ana Heights and recreational needs were assessed in FEIR 508. A moderate deficiency in riding trails and equestrian centers was projected for 1995. This deficiency would be reduced when planned staging areas and equestrian trails are developed.) Commercial stables, riding clubs and private stables are scattered through- out agricultural -zoned areas of the community. The County's local park policy strives to provide 2.5 acres of local park land for every 10000 County residents. A 1983 local parks inventory did not identify any parks in Regional Statistical Area F, which includes the project area. 4.8.2 Project Impacts The Board -adopted LUCP reduced the area designated for employment uses east of Irvine Avenue from the proposed project (Scenario 8) evaluated in FEIR 508. As a result, existing equestrian facilities along Cypress Street will not be eliminated by the Specific Plan. Potential impacts of the Specific Plan on equestrian facilities will be more localized to the Acacia and Birch Street business park area. Residential population declines associated with development of the speci- fic plan area will result in a reduction in recreational demand in the area. However, development of office uses will generate additional day- time demand for recreational facilities. All existing public open space areas within the specific plan area are retained in the Board -adopted LUCP. The Specific Plan proposes an equestrian trail along Cypress Street and Mesa Drive (see Exhibit 13). The trail connects with proposed 1 FEIR 508, p. 4.13-4. 62 I 1 n 1 1 1 E J d C� GOLF COURSE SPECIFIC PLAN i AREA RECREATION PLAN SANTA ANA HEIGHTS SPECIFIC PLAN /EIR OOOOO � ��V• Vvrr BIKE TRAIL ❑❑❑❑❑ PROPOSED EQUESTRIAN TRAIL PROPOSED COUNTY REGIONAL PARK EXHIBIT 13 ' regional trails along Upper Newport Bay and along the Santa Ana -Delhi Channel. The County is considering the acquisition of a vacant parcel south of Mesa Drive between Cypress and Birch Streets for development of a ' public equestrian center. The Specific Plan includes 38 acres in a medium low residential designa- tion which permits equestrian uses. Equestrian uses in the area will be stablized. One lot south of Mesa Drive is designated for low density resi- dential equestrian uses and may be developed as one residential equestrian estate or as an equestrian center. However, development of an equestrian center would be subject to the County or Development Agency acquiring the property for that purpose. While existing equestrian uses in the designated business park area will be eliminated, the retention of existing open space areas and implementa- tion of the Recreation Plan will result in additional recreational opportu- nities in the specific plan area. Implementation of the Specific Plan will result in the net loss of approximately 80 dwelling units, with a cor- responding decline in population of 200-250 persons. No significant adverse impact on recreation facilities is expected. Since the Specific Plan designates the Newport Beach Golf Course site as ' recreation, opportunities for development of the proposed Upper Newport Bay Regional Park are not precluded. However, the County has no current plans for acquisition or development of the park. The proposed equestrian trail along the Santa Ana -Delhi Channel would be developed concurrently ' with park development. The proposed on -street bike trail along Santa Ana Avenue (Route 53) would be developed concurrently with street improvements. However, since no improvements to Santa Ana Avenue are included in the Circulation Plan and ' no adjacent land will recycle soon, development of the bike trail is contingent upon future planning in the area. Conflicts between equestrian activities and vehicular traffic is a poten- tial significant impact. Potential conflicts may occur along Cypress Street and Mesa Drive, and for the regional riding and hiking trail 1 63 through the area, along Santa Ana Avenue. These concerns are addressed in the circulation and recreation components of the Specific Plan through the proposed circulation design, entry monuments, equestrian trail design, and recommended traffic monitoring program. 4.8.3 Mitigation Measures The recreation and circulation components of the Specific Plan include pro- visions for minimizing conflicts between equestrian activity and vehicles, including: 1. Development of an equestrian trail along Cypress Street and Mesa Drive to link the residential equestrian community with regional trails within the Upper Newport Bay area and along the Santa Ana -Delhi Chan- nel. 2. Implementation of entry treatments to identify residential areas and to discourage business park vehicular traffic in residential areas in accordance with the Specific Plan guidelines. 3. Implementation of the circulation plan to separate local residential and business park traffic, thereby minimizing traffic near equestrian activities. 4. If necessary, construction of special signage, pavement crossing and circulation design elements to provide for a safe equine crossing of Mesa Drive at Cypress Street. 4.9 LIGHT AND GLARE 4.9.1 Existing Conditions Existing sources of light within Santa Ana Heights are limited to street lights in scattered areas, private residential outdoor lighting, limited commercial lighting primarily along South Bristol Street, and night light- ing on the Newport Beach Golf Course. 64 I Existing street lighting is generally located in areas west of Irvine Ave- nue and north of Orchard Drive. The remaining interior streets, with the exception of Orchard Drive between Irvine Avenue and Birch Street, is not lighted. Existing lighting from John Wayne Airport is not readily apparent from the residential sections of the specific plan area 1 Currently, traffic signals are located only at Mesa Drive/Irvine Avenue, Irvine Avenue/South Bristol Street, Birch Street/South Bristol Street and Santa Ana Avenue/ Bristol Street. I I 11 I I 11 L The Airport Land Use Planning Handbook includes special planning consider- ations near airports and marking and lighting of obstructions required by the Federal Aviation Agency (FAA). Visual hazards include distracting lights (particularly lights which can be confused with airfield lights), glare, and sources of smoke. Most ALUC plans identify the following as incompatible -uses in airport safety zones: Any use, which would direct a steady light or flashing light of red, white, green, or amber colors associated with airport operations toward an aircraft engaged in a straight final climb following takeoff or toward an aircraft engaged fn a straight final approach toward a landing at an airport, other than an FAA approved navigational signal light or visual approach slope indicator. Any use which would cause sunlight to be reflected toward an aircraft engaged in an initial straight climb following takeoff or toward an aircraft engaged in a straight final approach toward a landing at an airport. 1 FEIk 508, Section 4.16. I 65 1�1 The FAA usually recommends marking and lighting if a structure is over 200 feet tall; however, the FAA cannot require the sponsor to install the necessary equipment. ALUC plans should indicate the need for marking and lighting of any structure over 200 feet tall or where otherwise recom- mended by the FAA. Marking and lighting should also be recommended for any development within the airport traffic pattern that is significantly higher than existing structures. Marking and lighting would normally be conducted in accordance with FAA Advisory Circular AC 70/7460-1F, "Obstruc- tion Marking and Lighting" (Reference 37). 4.9.2 Protect Impacts Implementation of the adopted LUCP will result in new office/commercial uses in proximity to residential uses, Lighting in parking areas, outdoor building security tights, traffic lighting, indoor office lighting, and lighted signs may be regarded as a significant impact by nearby residents. While evening office use is anticipated to be minimal, light intrusion into residential areas may occur. , A new traffic signal is recommended at Irvine Avenue/Orchard Drive. Any additional light and glare resulting from a signal at this location will not impact residential uses. The installation of additional street lights and office/commercial lighting will add to the light and glare for the flight path for John Wayne Airport. However, the impact of increased light and glare in the specific plan area upon flight operations is not expected to be significant. Confusion between airfield lights and lights from new development in the specific plan area is not likely, similarly, Specific Plan regulations limit building height to 35 feet; well below 200 feet, Potential reflec- tive glare is minimized by the architectural guidelines, which recommend building materials and reflective glazing criteria. 4.9.3 Mitigation Measures ' I. Landscape buffers included in the specific plan area shall be imple- mented to reduce light and glare impacts of office/commercial uses adjacent to residential uses. 66 i 1 2. The design element of the Specific Plan requires that office/commer- cial structures be constructed of materials which reduce glare. 3. Light fixtures on private facilities and in public right-of-way shall direct light downward to avoid creating hazards for air traffic. 4. Roofs and exterior walls shall be constructed of low -reflective mater- ial, and mechanical equipment.shall be screened architecturally. 5. Office windows in areas where night lighting may protrude into residen- tial areas should be glazed in accordance with Specific Plan guide- lines. However, glazing shall not contribute to daytime reflective glare. 6. Office buildings located west of Cypress Street and north of Mesa Drive shall be sited and designed with minimal window areas facing the adjacent residential lots to minimize interior office lighting intru- sion. 7. Lighting of signs shall be minimized in accordance with Specific Plan standards. 8. Marking and lighting of development within the airport traffic pattern that is significantly higher than existing structures shall comply with FAA advisory guidelines (AC 70/7460-1F). 1 1 67 I I I I t J �1 I II I I 1 1 11 4.10 PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES 4.10.1 Existing Conditions This chapter identifies the Specific Plan's potential impact on a variety of public service and utility agencies. Services examined include fire protection and emergency services, police protection, water, wastewater, solid waste disposal, natural gas, electricity, telephone and cable ac- cess. Each service agency was contacted concerning the project's poten- tial impact on their present ability to provide services. Agency re- sponses are contained in Appendix B and are summarized in the following discussion. Berryman and Stephenson, Inc. prepared a comprehensive plan for public works improvements in March 1986, which includes most of the information discussed below and is included in its entirety as Appendix C. Fire and Emergency Service The orange County Fire Department currently provides fire protection and emergency medical care to the Santa Ana Heights area. The nearest station to service the area is Station 27, located at 19459 South Airport Way, Irvine. This engine company also services John Wayne Airport and consists of an engine company, one foam utility unit (for airport use) and three paid personnel. Approximate response distance is one mile with estimated response time at two to three minutes. This engine company is under a 50/50 contract with the City of Newport Beach, with an automatic aid agree- ment for response to the Santa Ana Heights area. A Newport Beach response is from Station 3, located at 868 Santa Barbara Avenue, Newport Beach. The station consists of one engine company, one truck company and one para- medic unit, with a total - of nine paid personnel. The approximate distance to the project area is 2-1/2 miles, with a response time estimated at five to six minutes. There are no projections for expansion of the service level for the area.1 1 Correspondence with Gene Hutain, Fire Protection Planner, Orange County Fire Department, March 1986 (see Appendix B). m I I Police Protection The Orange County Sheriff -Coroner Department headquarters facility is ■ located at 550 North Flower Streets Santa Ana. The average driving time from the headquarters is approximately twenty minutes. The response calls for service, however, do not originate from headquarters facilities. Patrol deputies maintain patrol in the County's area of responsibility on a 24-hour basis, Response goals are five minutes for emergency calls and twenty minutes for non -emergencies, Ten deputies are assigned on the mid- ' night shifts eleven deputies on day shift and twenty deputies are on eve- ning shift. Deputies are augmented by helicopter and canine patrol ser- vices. There are no plans for expansion of services in the area.1 Solid Waste The Santa Ana Heights area is currently served by Orco Disposal Service, under contract with the Costa Mesa Sanitary District. Although *only ser- vice to single family residential units is covered by the contract, Orco does service multifamily and commercial projects. Currently, Orco Dispo- sal services 110022 residential customers and 15 commercial customers in the specific plan area.2 All solid waste in the area is disposed of in Coyote Canyon Sanitary Land- fill, which is located between Turtle Rock in Irvine and the northeast por- tion of Newport Beach. The Coyote Canyon landfill is scheduled for clos- ure in 1988. The remaining capacity of the landfill is estimated at 7.2 million cubic yards. Upon closure of Coyote Canyon, solid waste will be disposed of at Bee Canyon, near the 91 Toro Marine Corps Air Station east of the City of Irvine. Water Service r The specific plan area is located within the Santa Ana Heights Water Company service area, which services approximately 1,200 acres within 1 Correspondence with Captain Vito Felanto, North Operations Division, Sheriff -Coroner Departments Orange County, February 1986 (see Appendix B). ' 2 Correspondence with Robert W. Kuznik, president, Jaycox disposal, Feb- ruary 1986 (see Appendix B). 69 ' Orange County, Costa Mesa and Newport Beach. The Santa Ana Heights Water Company has no active wells, and obtains water through inter -connections with the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California and the Mesa Consolidated Water District. The water distribution system transports water to the service area through a grid of 6-inch mains. Larger 8, 10 and 12-inch transmission mains convey water from the sources of supply at ' South Bristol Street and Santa Ana Avenue, along South Bristol Street, Santa Ana Avenue, and Mesa Drive from Santa Ana Avenue to Acacia Street. Waste Water The specific plan area is located within the Costa Mesa Sanitary District (CMSD). It is also located within the boundaries of County Sanitation District No. 7. Currently, District No. 7 has no facilities south of the Corona del Mar Freeway, and any developments south of the freeway receive regional collection and treatment from County Sanitation District No. 6. Extensive offsite facilities are required to drain to District No. 7, and annexation to the City bf Newport Beach could be required.1 The existing Santa Ana Heights area sewer system consists of numerous drainage subareas which collect and transport sewer flows by gravity into sewer pump stations. The flows are transported by existing 8-inch mains throughout the Santa Ana Heights area except for 10-inch and 12-inch trunk lines which run along the Santa Ana -Delhi Channel from Santa Ana Avenue to Mesa Drive. At Mesa Drive and Irvine Avenue, Sewer Pump Station No. 11 transports the sewer, flows from the Santa Ana Heights area by pressure pipe to Sewer Pump Station No. 10 located at Mesa Drive and Elden Avenue. From Sewer Pump Station No. 10, the sewer flows are transported within the Costa Mesa Sanitary District's trunkline system to its ultimate point of ' disposal. The facilities and capacities of Sewer Pump Stations No. 10 and it are listed in Table 17. ' 1 Correspondence with Hilary J. Baker, Senior Administration Assistant, Orange County Sanitary District, March 10, 1986 (see Appendix B). 70 Table 17 SEWER PUMP STATION FACILITIES Station Number of Number Location Pumps GPM1 10 Mesa and Elden 2 20300 11 Mesa and Irvine 2 11200 Storrs Drain The existing storm drain system consists of a network of reinforced con- crete pipes, catch basins and curb and gutter systems which transport runoff flows from the specific plan area into the Santa Ana -Delhi and San Diego Creek channels. These channels eventually transport the runoff flows into the Upper Newport Bay. The western portion of the specific plan area consists of various catch basins which collect storm runoff from street flow. The street flow is conveyed by curb and gutter on all public streets within this area. The catch basins which collect the storm runoff drain into the Santa Ana -Delhi Channel at various inlet locations along the channel. The golf course area disposes of storm runoff by infiltration into the soil, evaporation in the lakes, and by various drainage structures located at low elevation points which also drain into the Santa Ana -Delhi Channel. The eastern portion of the specific plan area contains two major storm drain systems consisting of various catch basins which also collect storm runoff from street flow. The system on South Bristol Street collects storm runoff from the specific plan area as well as the areas east of the study area. This system consists of a 66-inch to 78-inch reinforced con- crete pipe which eventually drains into the San Diego Creek Channel. A smaller system on Birch Street transports storm runoff from a low point at the intersection of Orchard Drive and Birch Street southerly, which bleeds 1 Gallons per minute. 71 back onto Birch Street and then flows by conduit across Mesa Drive into an ' open area south of Mesa Drive. Street flow in this area is conveyed along natural terrain without curb and gutter. ' The existing Santa Ana -Delhi Channel consists of an 80 to 100-foot-wide, earthen, trapezoidal flood control channel with an average depth of 16 feet. There are plans to reconstruct and concrete -line the channel. tTransit The Orange County Transit District (OCTD) currently operates service to several streets within the specific plan area, including Irvine Avenue, Mesa Drive, Orchard Drive and Bristol Street. Routes servicing the area include the 61 Santa Ana -Newport Beach; 71 and 71A Orange -Irvine -Costa Mesa; and the 76/76A Irvine -Huntington Beach. Stops on those streets are as follows: NB Irvine Avenue/NS Mesa Drive; NB Irvine Avenue/FS Orchard Drive; NB Irvine Avenue/NS Bristol Street South; SB Irvine Avenue/FS Bristol Street South; SB Irvine Avenue/NS Mesa Drive (NB, SB indicates northbound or southbound direction of travel on arterial and NS, FS indi- cates location of stop at nearside or farside of intersection).1 Electric The specific plan area is located within the service territory of the Southern California Edison Company. The majority of transmission lines within the area are located above ground. 1 Natural Gas The specific plan area is located within the service territory of the Southern California Gas Company. The gas distribution facilities within ' the study area are located below grade along all street rights -of -way. 1 Correspondence with Christine Huard -Spencer, Environmental Coordina- tor, OCTD, February 1986 (see Appendix B). 72 Telephone The specific plan area is located within the service territory of pacific Bell Company. The major telephone facilities within the area are located above ground. Cable Television The specific plan area is located within the service territory of the Group W Cable Company. The cable television facilities within the area are located above ground as well as underground. Library The specific plan area is served by the Orange County public library system. The nearest' Orange County libraries to the area are the Costa Mesa branch, 2969 Mesa Verde Drive East, Costa Mesa; and the Irvine Univer- sity Park branch at 4512 Sandburg, Irvine. The Costa Mesa library on Park Avenue is being replaced by a new and enlarged facility at the same address and is currently under construction. This 7,500-square foot build- ing is projected for completion in October 1986.1 schools The Newport Mesa Unified School District serves the specific plan area. The following schools serve the area. Mariners Elementary School has a current enrollment of 598 with school capacity of 716. Ensign Middle School has current enrollment of 676 students with school capacity at 933 students, Newport Harbor High School's current enrollment is 1,708, with a total enrollment capacity of 2,920 students. The school district is currently operating below enrollment capacity.2 1 Correspondence with Irmgard Bassen, Public Services, Orange County Public Library, February 1986. 2 Conversation with Helen Dietz, Newport Mesa Unified School District, March 1986. 73 Hospital Care Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian, located at 301 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, has an emergency care unit (ECU) staffed 24 hours a day. Hoag is a first -hour facility for heart attack victims as well as a neuro receiving center for brain and spinal cord injuries. The FASTAID Center, located within the ECU, is available for minor emergencies. The hospital is also equipped with a state -approved emergency heliport. Hoag Hospital, ' however, is not a trauma center. The emergency room has traditionally treated industrial injuries. An average of approximately thirty workers' compensation visits in the ECU per month is noted. Primary ambulance service is contracted for the speci- fic plan area with Seals and with Doctor's Ambulance Service as the second- ary. .I F I 11 I I 1 I I Total number of beds available at Hoag is 471, with the hospital's current licensed occupany ranging between 60 and 70 percent.1 4.10.2 Impacts Fire and Emergency Service According to Gene Hutain, Fire Protection Planner, Orange County Fire Department, the existing fire station locations provide an adequate response time to the project area and additional stations are not required. However, the project will contribute to the cumulative need for additional manpower and equipment due to the increased number of responses and the likelihood of simultaneous and greater alarm incidents because of the development of additional business park uses in the specific plan area. The existing fire station locations provide an adequate response time and additional stations will not be required. 1 Correspondence with May Kay Meltvedt, Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyter- ian, March 21, 1986. 74 I The fire department indicated that appropriate fire protection features such as smoke detectors, water reservoirs and automatic sprinkler systems will be required during design review for business park uses. A detailed review of building design will occur in subsequent stages of processing. Other concerns such as emergency vehicle access provisions and fire hydrant locations within the business park area will also be reviewed at later stages of processing. Police Protection Development of business park uses can be assumed to generate an increase in crime activity during project construction and after occupancy. During construction, theft of construction materials, auto theft, burglary of construction offices and vandalism can be anticipated. Although the Sher- iff -Coroner Department has no current plans to expand services in the study area, the department continues to monitor growth and reevaluate deployment of resources. The business park, if fully developed, may require additional staffing. Future decisions will be based on the demo- graphics of the actual development.l Solid Waste Orco Disposal has no current plans to increase service in the area but has the ability to meet any additional demand. Development within the speci- fic plan area is not anticipated to have a significant impact upon service 1evels.2 Increases in solid waste generated at the site will incrementally add to increases in solid waste tonnage disposed at the Coyote Canyon Sanitary 1 Correspondence with Captain Vito Ferlantos North Operations Division, Sheriff -Coroner Department, Orange County, February and Aprils 1986 (see Appendix B). 2 Correspondence with Robert W. Kuznik, President, Jaycox Disposal, February 1986 (see Appendix B). 75 f Landfill. Unanticipated increases in disposal at the landfill will shorten the landfill lifespan. Due to the low capacity remaining at Coyote Canyon and rapid growth in the area, the project could have a cumu- latively significant impact on County solid waste disposal facilities. However, assuming the approval and opening of the Bee Canyon Landfill, no significant impact to solid waste disposal facilities is anticipated. Water Service the Santa Ana In anticipation of land use changes resulting from the LUCP, Heights Water Company retained Boyle Engineering Corporation to prepare a water system master plan in October 1984. The report addressed the effects of proposed land use changes within the Santa Ana Heights area. The report also discussed future water demands, and made recommendations to remedy deficiencies resulting from the land use changes. to The water requirements of the specific plan area must' be identified determine the adequacy of a water distribution system. Factors such as ' land use, area, population, water duty factors, and fire flow requirements must be identified. These factors, characteristic to the study area, tend to change as a community develops, requiring evaluation of the system to meet existing and future requirements. Ana Heights Water Table 18 shows the ultimate land use within the Santa Company district as projected in its master plan. The proposed land use plan essentially converts residential areas along Acacia Street, Birch Street, Cypress Street, Orchard Drive and Mesa Drive to professional office uses. Table 18 SANTA ANA HEIGHTS WATER COMPANY ULTIMATE LAND USE1 Existing Ultimate Change Land Use Acreage Acreage % R1 300.7 144 -52 R1A 18.0 18 0 +48 R2 228.8 338 R3 0.0 39 +100 r 1 76 Table 18 (cont'd) R4 36.8 0 -100 AG 117.4 0 -100 Mixed 85,5 49 -43 C 64.0 243 +380 Open space 149,8 157 +5 Golf courses 199.0 212 +7 TOTAL 10200.0 10200 Table 19 shows the estimated population, water duty factors and average annual demand projected based on the ultimate land use for the district. Table 19 SANTA ANA HEIGHTS WATER COMPANY PROJECTED WATER DEMAND Land Area Area (acres) Estimated Population Density (people/acre) Population Water Duty Factor (gal/acre/day) Average Annual Demand (gpm) R1 144 10.2 10467 1,520 152 R1A R2 18 338 37.8 14.9 680 5,036 40175 1,760 52 413 R3 39 35.2 10373 39345 91 Mixed 49 7.5 368 - 1,110 3s000 38 524 C 243 - 0 0 Open space 157 - - Santa Ana golf course 129 - - 1,200 108 Newport golf 120 7 course 82.7 - - TOTAL 1s200.O 8,924 10385 The effectiveness of the existing water system is determined by comparison of guidelines or design criteria, Design criteria selected for the master plan study are in conformity with general criteria appropriate for water districts throughout the United States. The design criteria listed in Table 20 were used to develop the system facility requirements for water main sizing for current and ultimate water demands for the specific plan area. 1 Boyle Engineering Corp., Water System Master Plan, October 1984. 77 I 1 'I Table 20 WATER DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM DESIGN CRITERIA Mains All water mains sized to carry the greater of peak demand or maximum day demand plus fire flow. Maximum head loss is 20 feet per 1,000 feet; maximum velocity is 10 fps. i I I LJ I L- I I I I1 I Residential areas Minimum main size is six inch. Commercial, industrial and multifamily areas Minimum main size is eight inch. Fire flow Orange County Fire Department requirements. System pressures Maximum Minimum (non -fire) 80 30 psi psi Minimum (fire flow) 20 psi The recommended improvements listed in Table 21 and shown on Exhibit 14 are based on the proposed land use development, Orange County fire flow requirements and the listed design criteria. These improvements will elim- inate the deficiencies created upon implementation of the Specific Plan. Some improvements are also required to relocate facilities due to the proposed realignments of streets. Table 21 PROPOSED WATER SERVICE IMPROVEMENTS AND CONSTRUCTION COSTS Proposed, Pipe Improvementl Diameter Length Costs Pipe Location (inches) (feet) ( $ ) 1. Acacia from Bristol to Mesa 8 2,450 77,715 2. Mesa from Acacia to Cypress 8 1,400 44,100 3. Mesa from Acacia to within 500' 8 500 15,750 4. Orchard onsite to Irvine 8 700 22,050 5. Irvine to Mesa (Option A) 8 1,000 31,500 6. Fire hydrant relocations/new approved installations standard 8 each 24,000 7. Riverside Drive 6 650 17,225 8. Kline Drive 6 700 18,550 Total construction costs (excluding Option B) $ 251,000 1 Pipe construction costs are $26.50 and $31.50 per foot for 6-inch and 8-inch pipe, respectively; $3,000 for each fire hydrant, with ENR-LA = 5,000, and 25 percent for engineering and contingencies. I m .�! �. rl ,r r .�!� tr .■n tnrr�l tr ■i � r � rt7ii rl r rl !1� �.. -- ----- — -------------- -"—"—" —" ------ ........."�'•'—'• ---. .—..—..—..— ---• --- —. srsm; sastaL -- � t HL r ( t r ry, 1 di �. i _ F 1 • 1-.j. L •L_ l_LJ �. -__J +-L_L-: I '••i p PEG43U".. �.r1_- STiEEf �+),--•'. t ''''i jj -�( I--'_---_e I__' it r __, �_��E •-1—J r_J 1 1 t( it J; 8 / _y- __ . 1 t L _`_t _♦ r —�� —! � i t . 1 is ,� ^„ - "/ �'----• _"---;'-'"---•fir`-'i'--'---rK;"_----- r h.'tFiE AVFtA£ i"-- it q ! r- � . r '_- E _ ___ ' i. _ __ u�Y s�.Y H'ea�i C31 s• 8 -------------- EXISTING WATER MAIN AND FIRE HYDRANT ! s `• ; _ ____-_-__, ax WATER MAIN AND HYDRANT IMPROVEMENT ' ! O IMPROVEMENT FEATURE ) SOURCE: BSI (see text) WATER DISTRIBUTION IMPROVEMENTS SANTA ANA HEIGHTS SPECIFIC PLAN/EIR N EXHIBIT 14 I I 11 i I I I 'I J i 1 II •I G Wastewater In anticipation of the proposed land use changes resulting from the LUCP, the Costa Mesa Sanitary District (CMSD) prepared a Santa Ana Heights sewer study in April 1983. The report addressed the effects of proposed land use changes within the Santa Ana Heights area, listed the future sewer demands, and made recommendations to remedy deficiencies resulting from the land use changes. The CMSD sewer study analyzed four areas of probable commercial develop- ment having impact on the system. Only two areas, Areas 3 and 4, are loca- ted within the specific plan area. The four areas are shown on Exhibit 15 and described as follows: 1. A small area just west of South Bristol Street, south of the Corona del Mar Freeway, and west of the Newport Freeway. Approxi- mately twelve acres, and originally master planned as low density residential. This area is outside the specific plan area. 2. Approximately ten acres located south of South Bristol Street and east of Santa Ana Avenue. The area was originally master planned as open space and is located outside the specific plan area. 3. That portion of the Santa Ana Heights area served off Bristol Street. Approximately 70 acres, originally master planned as low density residential, is located within the specific plan area. 4. Thirty acres of the Santa Ana Heights area served off Mesa Drive. Originally master planned as low density residential and located within the specific plan area. The land uses evaluated in the April 1983 CMSD study are not those of the Specific Plan. The study assumed commercial development throughout Area 3 and Area 4. The Specific Plan proposes office uses for most of this area but retains residential uses along Mesa Drive and along Cypress Street. Since generation factors for commercial uses (5,000 gpd/acre) greatly exceed those for medium density (15 units/acre) residential uses (2,525 C 79 �II� Ills m man m m M AM NO m m m r m m m m y� &z -1* 'mayYb1—. �, „1 o II SOURCE: BSI SPEC FIC PLAN (BOUNDARY GHTS IMPROVEMENT FEATURE uu■ CMSD SERVICE CMSD ANALYSIS AREAS AREA BOUNDARY SEWER SYSTEM IMPROVEMENT PLAN SANTA ANA HEIGHTS SPECIFIC PLAN /EIR n EXHIBIT 15 I 1 gpd/acre) the CMSD study oversizes the facilities required in the specific plan area and overestimates ultimate flows and improvement costs. The dis- trict has stated the April 1983 study is a preliminary study only and a ' final study will not be prepared until potential annexation of the specific plan area to other service districts is resolved.1 I 1 I LJ The sewer facilities to be impacted by future development (as identified in the CMSD April 1983 sewer study) were analyzed and are listed in Table 22 by CMSD line number. They are shown on Exhibit 15. Table 22 SEWER FACILITIES IMPACTED BY PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT Line Number/ Station Location A Santa Ana -Delhi Channel w/Santa Ana B Bristol -Cypress to SAD channel C Santa Ana Delhi Channel area D Sewer Pump Station No. 11 E Sewer Pump Station No. 10 F Fair Drive east of Fairview Road Exist. Dia. in. r 12 24 Exist. Exist. apacity Flow, 0.38 0.38 1.02 1.68 6.62 5.89 0.34 0.41 0.55 1.68 5.28 5.28 As shown, line B is the only sewer main flowing at or above capacity under existing conditions. Lines A, C and F and both pump stations would be ' impacted by development and rezoning of various areas within the CMSD sewer system. Table 23 lists the ultimate flow quantities of the defi- cient areas as determined in the CMSD Sewer Study. As shown, the ultimate projected flows exceed the capacities of the existing sewer mains. I 1 Letter from BSI Consultants, Inc. to Phillips Brandt Reddick, April ' 14, 1986 (Appendix C). 80 Table 23 SANTA ANA HEIGHTS ULTIMATE SEWER FLOWS AND DEFICIENCIES Line Number/ Station Location Existing Capacity (MGD) Ultimate Flow (MGD) A Santa Ana -Delhi Channel w/Santa Ana 0.38 0.45 B Bristol -Cypress to SAD channel 0.38 1.04 C Santa Ana Delhi Channel area 1.02 1.38 2.69 D Sewer Pump Station No. 11 1.68 E Sewer Pump Station No. 10 6.62 6.29 6.29 F Pair Drive east of Fairview Road 5.89 Line A is located on the north side of the Santa Ana -Delhi Channel and con- veys sewer flows from Area 1 along South Bristol Street to Santa Ana Ave- nue and continues south along the channel. Line B is located along South Bristol Street and conveys flows from the specific plan area westerly to the 12-inch sewer lines which flow south along the channel. Line C is located along the Santa Ana -Delhi Channel and conveys sewer flows from Areas I, 2, and 3 south toward Mesa Drive to Sewer Pump Station No. 11 (Station D). From Pump Station No. 11, the flows are transported to Sewer Pump Station No. 10 (Station E) and then pumped along the 24-inch trunk line (Line F) to its ultimate point of disposal (see Exhibit 15). Table 24 lists the proposed facilities and costs to eliminate deficiencies within the specific plan area and other outlying areas. The sewer improve- ment costs listed in Tables 19 and 20 reflect those recommended by CMSD staff in discussions with BSI Consultants in April 1986.1 Table 24 ■ PROPOSED SEWER IMPROVEMENTS AND PRELIMINARY COSTS Line Proposed Improvementl Number/ Dia. Length Costs , Station Location (in.) (feet) ( E ) A Santa Ana -Delhi Channel w/Santa Ana 10 980 206,600 B Bristol -Cypress to SAD channel 15 2,865 1,086,300 C Santa Ana Delhi Channel area 18 2,460 6120680 0 Sewer Pump Station No. 11 upgrading 387,520 E Sewer Pump Station No. 30 upgrading 769960 , F Fair Drive east of Fairview Road 15 prll. 10900 421,760 Total Preliminary Construction Costs $2.791:820 ' 1 2 BSI Consultants letter, ibid. Preliminary costs are based on a five percent increase of May 1983 costs estimated in the CMSD sewer study. See correspondence dated ' April 14 from BSI Consultants in'Appendix C. 81 , CJ 1 i I 1 1 11 I I r 1 i 1 1 1 1 Improvements for the sewer pump stations include the upgrading of the existing facilities such as new pumps, controls, electrical service, and moderate remodeling of the existing wet well. The preliminary costs identified in Table 24 must be updated to reflect the land uses in the Specific Plan and projected construction costs. Until a new study is completed, a reliable estimate of sewer system improvement costs is not available. Either Orange County Sanitation Dis- trict No. 6 or No. 7 may ultimately receive sewage flows from the specific plan area. The Orange County Sanitation District No. 6 system, which lies generally west of the specific plan area, is overloaded at this time, and additional discharge to that system would have to be evaluated carefully. The major- ity of the specific plan area has been master planned by the districts for low -density residential development, using flow coefficient of 1,550 gal- lons per day, per acre. Any higher flows anticipated from the specific plan area should be analyzed and discussed with the County Sanitation District.1 Storm Drain The areas requiring improvement due to the proposed land use change include Birch Street from Orchard Drive to Mesa Drive, Area 1, Cypress Street from the proposed cul-de-sac to South Bristol Street, Area 2, and Orchard Drive from the proposed cul-de-sac to the Santa Ana -Delhi Channel, Area 3 (Exhibit 16). Listed in Table 25 are runoff flows, contributing area and proposed drain- age facilities for each of these areas. 1 Correspondence with Hilary Baker, Orange County Sanitation District, March 1986 (see Appendix B). Lys 1 m m m w m m m m m m m m m =111 m m m = m 3-0 —RCP 1-- - :;5 INi {mot-, � L•i�l ��_ � '�'��s".....;.��!—' _ � �`_,' i EXISTING RCP AND i L ------- - - - CATCH BASIN 3aol RCP IMPROVEMENT CATCH BASIN IMPROVEMENTS IMPROVEMENT FEATURE (see text) DRAINAGE SYSTEM IMPROVEMENT PLAN SANTA ANA HEIGHTS SPECIFIC PLAN/EIR AMM I SOURCE: BSI N� EXHIBIT16 i J 1 Table 25 ULTIMATE FLOW QUANTITIES AND IMPROVEMENTS • Flow Area Area (cfs) (acres) Proposed Facilities — 1 32.7 16.0 14-foot catch basin at Orchard Drive and Birch 1 Street; 30-inch RCP on Birch Street from Orchard Drive to Mesa Drive; 14-foot catch basin at proposed cul-de-sac; 7-foot catch basin at Mesa Drive to drain southerly; and 30-inch RCP from Mesa Drive to Santa Ana -Delhi Channel (600 feet) 2 54.4 39.6 30-inch RCP on Cypress Street from proposed cul-de-sac to South Bristol Street; 2-14-foot catch basins at cul-de-sac 3 21.1 12.8 14' catch basin at cul-de-sac on Orchard ' Drive; and 30-inch RCP from cul-de-sac to Santa Ana -Delhi Channel 11 II Table 26 summarizes the discussion of proposed facilities and estimates the costs required to construct the recommended drainage improvements. The estimate assumes a vertical trench of eight feet in a paved street for reinforced concrete pipe. All unit costs include material and labor adjus- ted for local conditions, a 15 percent increase for construction contingen- cies, and a 28 percent increase for engineering, inspection and administra- tion.) 1 Unit costs were based on the 1985 Lee Saylor, Inc., Current Construc- tion Costs-22nd Edition. B] Table 26 PROPOSED DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS AND CONSTRUCTION COSTS Total Costs Area Location Proposed Facilities ( E 1 Orchard and Birch 14-foot catch basin 3,000 Birch from Orchard to Mesa 30-inch RCP - 1,400 feet 120,260 Birch at proposed cul-de-sac 14-foot catch basin 3,000 Mesa at Birch 7-foot catch basin 2,500 Mesa to Santa Ana -Delhi Channel 30-inch RCP-600 feet 51,500 2 Cypress from proposed cul-de- sac to Bristol 30-inch RCP - 200 feet 17,180 Cypress at proposed cul-de- sac 2-14-foot catch basins 6,000 3 Orchard at cul-de-sac 14-foot catch basin 3,000 Orchard cul-de-sac to Santa Ana -Delhi Channel 30-inch RCP - 350 feet 300000 Total construction costs $236,400 Transit According .to Christine Huard -Spencer, Environmental Coordinator for OCTD, development of nonresidential uses in the Santa Ana Heights area could result in the generation of significant levels of trip activity, particu- larly in the peak hours. Several additional streets have been identified as candidates for transit service in the future, based on the proposed land uses in the area. The streets proposed for service are Birch Street between Mesa Drive and South Bristol Street and South Bristol Street between Route 73 and Jamboree Boulevard,l Electric As indicated in the response letter of December 19, 1984 to the Orange County Environmental Management Agency with respect to the John Wayne Airport Master Plan/Land Use Compatibility Program, the Southern Califor- nia Edison Company indicated, "that the electric loads of the project are within parameters of projected load growth which Edison is planning to meet in this area" (see Appendix B). 1 Correspondence with Christine Huard -Spencer, Environmental Coordina- tor, OCTD, February 1986 (see Appendix B). 3l P The relocation or realignment of overhead and/or underground power lines due to street realignments and abandonments will not be required unless permanent structures are placed within allowable clearance limits as out- lined in the General Order No. 95 of the State Infractions Law. The Southern California Edison Company would require a 10-foot easement within vacated streets if facilities are to remain. Any relocation or realign- ment costs will be the responsibility of the developer. ' Southern California Edison Company has no plans to relocate existing over- head power lines to underground locations. Load requirements and improve- ments will be evaluated on an individual basis as development occurs. This is not considered a significant impact upon electrical resources. ' Natural Gas ' Southern California Gas Company indicated that existing facilities are sized to meet current zoning and that future facilities would be evaluated ' on an individual development basis. The relocation of underground gas transmission lines due to street realign- ments and abandonments will not be required unless permanent structures are placed within allowable clearance limits. The Southern California Gas ' Company would require a 25-foot easement within vacated streets if facili- ties are to remain. The gas fines located within street abandonments can be abandoned unless the lines are providing gas service to a particular ' parcel. Any abandonments and relocation costs are absorbed by the Southern California Gas Company. Any required main extension cost will be ' the responsibility of new development projects. ' Telephone II As indicated in the response letter of January 28, 1986, existing Pacific Bell (see Appendix B) facilities are sized to meet current zoning. How- ever, rezoning of the area would require reevaluation of existing facil- ities. Replacements, changes, and/or reinforcements would then be tied to new development projects as they occur. rp L�� I The relocation or realignment of overhead and/or underground telephone ' transmission lines due to street realignments and abandonments will not be required unless permanent structures are placed within allowable clearance limits as outlined in the General Order No. 95 of the State Infractions ' Law, The Pacific Bell Company would possibly also require a 10-foot ease- ment within vacated streets if facilities are to remain. ' Cable Television Implementation of the Specific Plan may increase demand for cable services and facilities. The relocation or realignment of underground or overhead , cable transmission lines due to street realignments and abandonments will not be required unless permanent structures are placed within allowable clearance limits. The Group W Cable Company would require an easement within vacated streets if facilities are to remain. Additional service or change in facilities in this area is not anticipated to be a significant , impact. Library The' library facilities master plan does not project additional library r buildings in the subject area. Service to the area is not anticipated to be greatly impacted by the proposed land use changes.l ' Schools Implementation of the Specific Plan will result in a reduction in the , number of residential units. No significant impact upon the school dis- trict is anticipated. 1 Correspondence with Irmgard Bassen, Public Services, Orange County Public Library, February 1986. 86 1 Hospital Care ' The proposed intensification of development in the specific plan area should not adversely affect Hoag Hospital's ability to continue providing ' quality health care to the residents of the area. Hoag will continue pro- viding industrial injury services in its emergency care unit as needed for this service area. Hoag Hospital will begin a chemical dependency program at the end of 1986. Although there are current plans to expand particular services (cancer services, for example) on property adjacent to the hospi- tal, these services have no completion date scheduled. ' 4.10.3 Mitigation Measures ' Fire Protection and Emergency Services ' 1. The Specific Plan shall be implemented in conformance with all appli- cable building codes in order to ensure maximum fire protection. 2. The Orange County Fire Marshal shall review future detailed design plans prior to the issuance of building permits for accessibility of emergency fire equipment, fire hydrant location and other construction features. ' 3. Fire -retardant building materials and landscaping shall be used wher- ever possible. 4. Built-in fire protection features, such as automatic fire sprinklers, shall be included wherever appropriate, subject to review and approval by the Orange County Fire Marshal. Police Protection 1. To enhance police protection services to the specific plan area, it is recommended that the Sheriff -Coroner Department review all security and circulation aspects of any future development prior to building permit issuance. 87 r I- 1 L; Solid Waste 1. Trash compactors should be installed in all buildings to reduce the ' frequency of need for solid waste disposal service. 2. Adequate access to solid waste storage areas shall be subject to site plan review and approval by the Manager, Current Planning and Develop- ' ment Assistance. Water Service The following mitigation measures will reduce water use through cohserva- tion. ' 1. Landscaping irrigation systems should be automatically controlled to ensure watering during early morning or evening hours to reduce evapo- ration losses. 1 2. Plumbing fixtures to reduce water usage and loss shall be utilized (ie., low -volume toilet tanks, flow control devices for faucets and shower heads, etc.) in accordance with Title 24 of the California ' Administrative Code. 3. The use of drought -tolerant plant species and drip irrigation systems should be considered in order to reduce water usage. ' 4. All water lines and facility updates shall be in conformance with the Ana Heights Spe- ' Public Services/Utilities Plan outlined in the Santa cific Plan. Wastewater Service 1. All sewer line and pump facilities updates shall be in conformance with the Public Services/Utilities Plan outlined in the Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan. Efforts shall be made in cooperation with the ' Orange County Sanitation District and other agencies to implement the master plan for the area to reflect the proposed land use plan ensur- ing effective planning within the area. 88 ' 2. Prior to or concurrently with adoption of the Specific Plan, plans to receive regional collection and treatment from OCSD No. 6, which requires annexation to the City of Newport Beach, or plans to receive service from OCSD No. 7 shall be finalized. If service from OCSD No. ' 7 is selected, additional mitigation measures may be required and shall be identified prior to Specific Plan adoption. A final sewer improvement plan shall be prepared if the Costa Mesa Sanitary District serves the specific plan area and appropriate mitigation measures ' identified prior to Specific Plan adoption. ' Storm Drain 1. All proposed drainage lines and facility updates shall be in conform- ance with the Public Services/Utilities Plan outlined in the Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan. Transit 1 1. New transit stops should be provided in subsequent development propo- sals at locations recommended by the Orange County Transit District. Electrical Services 1. In addition to compliance with Title 24, which has already been noted, ' the following measure is suggested: Where economically feasible, building design should make maximum ' use of alternative energy sources (eg., solar) to supplement water and space heating requirements. Natural Gas 1. Future developers should consult with the Southern California Gas Company to review energy conserving systems and design features. 2. All buildings shall comply with standards contained in Title 24 of the California Administrative Code. 89 1 Telephone Services 1. Appropriate easements shall be provided for any new telephone facili- ties required. , Cable Television ' 1. Appropriate easements shall be provided for any new cable television facilities required. ' Library , No mitigation measures are required. , schools ' No mitigation measures are required. ' Hospital Care No mitigation measures are required. 1 90 ' L_I 1 1 1 I71I L� F 4.11 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS Cumulative impacts for the John Wayne Airport Master Plan and the Santa Ana Heights Land Use Compatibility Program were addressed in Section 4.18 of FEIR 508 (pages 4.18-1 ff). The anticipated development of the LUCP was included in the analysis (Table 4.18.6 of FEIR 508). Implementation of the Specific Plan will result in the development of approximately 1.09 million square feet of office use compared with the 6.46 million square feet of office/commercial space indicated for the LUCP in FEIR 508. The incremental effects of implementation of the Specific Plan are not considered cumulatively significant. However, the cumulative impacts of all projects identified in FEIR 508 remain significant. Those impacts considered cumulatively significant in FEIR 508 and mitigation measures for cumulative impacts included in FEIR 508 are listed in Section 6.0. 5.0 ALTERNATIVES Alternative land uses for the Santa Ana Heights area were addressed in eight land use scenarios in FEIR 508. The Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan/EIR addresses the adopted land use plan for the area resulting from the alternatives analysis in FEIR 508. Therefore, the "no project" alter- ' native has already been addressed, as well as a reasonable range of alter- natives for the specific plan area. Several circulation design alternatives were completed in the refinement of the design for the adopted land use plan. These alternative internal ' circulation system designs were developed to separate business park and residential traffic effectively. Two internal circulation system designs were selected for comparative environmental impact analysis. INO PROJECT The "no project" LUCP alternative was evaluated in FEIR 508. This alterna- ' tive retained residential uses throughout the area. The school use on the north corner of the Orchard Drive/Cypress Street intersection was re- tained. Six scattered residential parcels, four immediately south of Orchard Drive and west of Acacia Street, were designated for employment ' uses. Title 21 compliance would be achieved through acoustical insula- tion, avigation easements or variances. The Board of Supervisors rejected ' this alternative to reduce impacts on individual parcels and adopted the current LUCP. ' CIRCULATION ALTERNATIVE 1 ' Alternative 1 includes a cul-de-sac at the southern terminus of Acacia Street within the business park area (Exhibit 17). All other components of Alternative 1 are identical to the project circulation plan. Since access to the southern interior of the business park is from Orchard Drive and Birch Street, with no through -streets to Mesa Drive, traffic volumes on Mesa Drive near Irvine Avenue for Alternative 1 are substantially lower than the project circulation system or Alternative 2. Alternative 1 would result in higher intersection capacity utilizations at the Irvine Avenue/ Orchard Drive intersection compared to the project or Alternative 2. ' 92 I 1 1 J If stacking occurs at the Irvine Avenue/Orchard Drive signalized intersec- tion during p.m. peak hour, some traffic from the business park may intrude into residential areas by selecting an alternate route to, reach the signalized Irvine Avenue/Mesa Drive intersection. The alternate route may be Orchard Drive to Cypress Street to Mesa Drive to Irvine Avenue. Therefore, traffic impacts on this route may be greater than in the pro- ject, which discourages business park traffic on Mesa Drive. Both the project circulation plan and Alternative 2 result in business park traffic south of Orchard Drive using primarily the intersections at Irvine Avenue/Mesa Drive and Irvine Avenue/Orchard Drive. The results of the traffic analysis (see Appendix D) indicate the primary impacts on Santa Ana Heights traffic of the buildout of the specific plan area -with the Acacia Street cul-de-sac on existing Santa Ana Heights traf- fic are on Orchard Drive, immediately east of Irvine Avenue, on Acacia Street, immediately south of Orchard Drive and on Mesa Drive immediately east of Irvine Avenue. At Orchard Drive near Irvine Avenue, the projected specific plan area traffic volumes will increase from 4,410 to 9,640 aver- age daily trips (ADT). On Acacia Street, volumes will increase from 687 to 4,430 ADT. On Mesa Drive, projected traffic volumes will decrease from 4,097 ADT to 2,020 ADT; as existing by- pass traffic on Mesa Drive -Cypress Street is minimized. When the traffic volumes projected for the specific plan area are added to projected through -traffic volumes, an analysis can be made of the total impact of the Acacia Street cul-de-sac on local traffic circulation. The net traffic volumes attributable to the Specific Plan development under Alternative 1 were added to existing volumes which had been modified to reflect the diversion of traffic expected to occur upon construction of the proposed cul-de-sacs. Comparison of the total volumes for Alternative 1 with the project circulation system indicates that projected traffic on Orchard Drive east of Irvine Avenue could increase by nearly 2,000 ADT. Projected traffic on Mesa Drive east of Irvine Avenue could decrease by over 2,000 ADT. Volumes on Acacia Street would increase by 300 ADT. Traf- fic volumes for Alternative 1 are shown in Figure 12 in Appendix D. Alternative 1 does not provide public access from the business park via 1 93 I Acacia Street to Mesa Drive; therefore, Orchard Drive volumes increase, ' Alternative 1 does not propose a circulation design which will intrude on the existing residential lot west of Acacia Street and north of Mesa Drive. t Alternative 1 should be considered during the review process. , CIRCULATION ALTERNATIVE 2 ' Alternative 2 proposes Birch Street south of Orchard Drive to be realigned to facilitate access through the business park to Mesa Drive/Irvine Avenue , (Exhibit 18). A portion of the existing Birch Street south of Orchard Drive is realigned to intersect with the new alignment and a portion is ' abandoned and becomes a private street. Acacia Street is realigned to intersect with Birch Street extended. ' Alternative 2 facilitates traffic flow through the southern portion of the business park and, like the project circulation plan, diverts traffic to ' the two Irvine Avenue signalized intersections at Mesa Drive and Orchard Drive. , Alternative 2 may have the greatest impact on up to four residential lots ' along Mesa Drive east of Acacia Street. Traffic volumes on the realigned Birch Street near these lots for Alternative 2 is higher than for Alterna- tive 1 or for the proposed project circulation plan, so noise and air qual- ity impacts will be greater. The results of the traffic analysis (see Appendix D) indicate that the pri- mary impacts on Santa Ana Heights traffic of the buildout of the specific ' plan area with Birch Street realignment are on Orchard Drive, immediately east of Irvine Avenue; on Acacia Street, immediately south of Orchard Drive; and on Mesa Drive, immediately east of Irvine Avenue. On Orchard ' Drive near Irvine Avenue, the projected Santa Ana Heights traffic volumes would decrease from 4,410 to 2,520 average daily trips (ADT). On Acacia ' Street, volumes would increase from 687 to 890 near Orchard Drive. On Mesa Drive, projected traffic volumes would be approximately double, from ' 4,097 to 9,650 trips near Irvine Avenue. 94 1 I While Alternative 2 results in substantially lower traffic volumes at the ' Orchard Drive/Irvine Avenue intersection, the volumes at the Irvine Ave- nue/Mesa Drive intersection increase substantially. Volumes on Irvine ' Avenue and on South Bristol Street are comparable for all circulation alternatives. ' Existing traffic volumes, as modified to reflect changes in the internal roadway system resulting from construction of Alternative 2, were added to ' the project Specific Plan traffic to determine the total traffic volumes. Comparison of Alternative 2 traffic volumes with the project circulation ' system indicates that traffic volumes on Orchard Drive between Birch Street and Irvine Avenue could decrease by 4,000-5,000 ADT, while traffic ' volumes on Birch Street could increase dramatically along most of its length between South Bristol Street and Orchard Drive. In addition, traf- fic on Acacia Street south of Orchard Drive could decrease by nearly 3,000 ' ADT, while traffic on Mesa Drive just east of Irvine Avenue could increase by nearly 5,000 ADT. ' Alternative 2 should be considered in the review process. E 1 95 I I 1 I II I 1 1 1 6.0 INVENTORY OF MITIGATION MEASURES Listed below are all the mitigation measures considered feasible in carry- ing out the Specific Plan. This list provides a ready reference for future actions/permit approvals associated with implementation of the specific plan. These measures are organized by topical category. Mitigation measures included in FEIR 508 applicable to the specific plan area are listed in regular typeface. Additional mitigation measures recommened in this analysis (DEIR 508A) are listed in boldface type. Since the enactment of CEQA, Orange County has incorporated many mitiga- tions for impacts associated with land development into its general plan elements, its codified ordinances, and standard conditions applied at the site plan/tentative tract level. Each of the mitigation measures in the topical categories below has been given two parenthetical codes: 1. A Roman numeral code identifying responsibility for implementa- tion: I. Responsibility of Orange County as project proponent; includes cost and construction subject to the permission of the appropriate agency with jurisdiction. II. Responsibility of Orange County using or its discretionary powers (such as plan review and approvals) regulatory powers (such as code enforcement). III. Responsibility of an agency other than Orange County, such as a Responsible Agency, agency with jurisdiction by law, or an agency with special planning or implementation responsibilities regarding primary or secondary effects of the project. IV. Specific responsibility is undetermined, or only partially determined, at this time because such detail is available only at later planning stages. 96 J Mitigation measures included in FEIR 508 applicable to the specific plan area are listed in topical categories in regular typeface. (Minor editing and evaluation of responsibility for implementation may have resulted in revisions from FEIR 508.) Additional mitigation measures recommended as a result of this environmental analysis are included in boldface type. Note: Certain mitigation measures fall into more than one category because, while the responsibility may be readily identified at this level, the actual proportionate share of implementation activities can- not be precisely determined at this time. 2. An alphabetic timing or phasing code to indicate the point during project implementation or phasing at which the mitigation measure will or should be implemented: A. As specified in the mitigation measure itself. B. Continuous throughout implementation of the Land Use Element. C. Prior to or as part of building design and cpnstruction. D. Prior to or as a part of site plan approval. 6.1 Hydrology Mitigation Measures 1. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the applicant must submit to the Manager, EMA Development Services, for review and approval an ero- sion control program which indicates that proper control of siltation, sedimentation and other pollutants will be implemented as required in the Orange County Grading Code and Grading Manual. (II) (A) 2. To protect grading within the specific plan area done between October 15 and April 15, an erosion control system will be developed and construction methods will be used that minimize soil loss. These methods commonly include minimizing the amount of surface exposed at any one time, temporary diking with sand bags, temporary berms, and stormwater detention basins. (II) (C) 11 P L I H I I I I 1 97 I 3. A detailed hydrologic analysis meeting the approval of the Manager, 1 Development Services, will be conducted to determine the size, capa- city, alignment, and design of any flood control facility necessary to 1 protect the site from design flood level. The studies will also deter- mine any changes in downstream conditions as a result of these improve- ments. Where increased runoff could significantly impact downstream conditions which are currently experiencing flood problems, onsite mea- sures shall be considered to ensure mitigation of offsite impacts. (II) (D) 4. Future private -development projects in the specific plan area will be 1 regulated by excavation and grading ordinances adapted from Chapter 70 of the Uniform Building Code. Grading of land under County jurisdic- tion is subject to the requirements of the Orange County Grading and Excavation Code (Section 7-1-80 of the Codified Ordinances). (I, III) 1 (B) 1 5. Drainage structures for new development will be designed in accordance with requirements of the jurisdiction in which they are located. With- in the County, prior to issuance of a building permit, the following improvements shall be designed and constructed in a manner meeting approval of the Manager, EMA Development Services. (II) (C) a. All provisions for surface drainage; and 1 b. All necessary storm drain facilities extending to a satisfactory 1 point of disposal for the proper control and disposal of storm runoff. 6. Stormwater quantities will be estimated in accordance with Orange County's Hydrology Manual. Plans will be approved by either the appli- cable city engineer's office or the Orange County Environmental Manage- ment Agency. (II, III) (D) 7. Construction methods which minimize soil loss, including minimizing the surface area exposed at one time, berms, stormwater retention ' basins and temporary sand bags for erosion, shall be used as appropri- ate. (II) (C) ' 97a 8. Future private development projects in the specific plan area under ' county jurisdiction are subject to the Orange County Grading and ' Excavation Code (Section 7-1-80 of the Codified Ordinances). (II) (0) 9. Private development projects shall be in conformance with any Orange r County Flood Control District's proposed improvement plans for the Santa Ana -Delhi Channel. (II) (0) 10. Short-term erosion and sedimentation impacts can be minimized by imple- menting erosion control measures such a$: Temporary vegetative measures Retention basins to trap sediment (II) (D) 11. All parking lots and other onsite paved surfaces in the commercial areas shall be vacuum swept and cleaned weekly to reduce debris and ' pollutants carried into the drainage system and ultimately to the San Diego or Santa Ana -Delhi Channels. (IV) (A) 12. During construction, the applicant shall implement Best Management Practices (BMPs) contained in the Upper Newport Bay 12080 Water Qual- ity Control plan. (II) (C) ' 13, Improvements to minimize localized ponding on rear lots along Cypress and Birch Streets, as recommended in the Specific Plan, shall be installed concurrently with area development. (II) (A) ' 6.2 Land Use Mitigation Measures Impacts on surrounding land uses from implementing the Specific Plan will ' be mitigated as follows: 1. An open space/landscape buffer area will be established in accord- ' ance with Specific plan regulations between the residential and ' business park areas to mitigate potential incompatibilities of use. (I, II) (B, C) 98 ' 2. Special design requirements will be imposed on business park devel- opment adjacent to existing residential areas. Specific building setback, height limitation, and landscaping requirements will be prepared to ensure compatibility along these sensitive edges per Specific Plan regulations. (I, II) (B, D) 3. Site plan review will be required for all proposed multifamily and business park uses, to ensure compatibility with adjacent single family residence areas and provide a vehicle for the implementa- tion of proposed site specific mitigation measures. (II) (B) 4. The full implementation of the land use compatibility plan (I, II) (D) can itself be considered a land use mitigation measure in the sense that it will: ' a. Eliminate land use/noise incompatibility b. Provide an open space/landscape buffer to separate business ' park and residential uses c. Ensure uses which are compatible with existing uses in and the policies of surrounding jurisdictions 6.3 Relevant Planning Mitigation Measures INo measures are required. ' 6.4 Transportation/Circulation Mitigation Measures Regional mitigation measures, identified in FEIR 508 and recommended as necessary to maintain acceptable traffic flow along roadways in the vicinity of Santa Ana Heights, are listed below. 1. Irvine Avenue, from Bristol Street to University Drive, shall be upgraded from a primary to a modified six -lane major arterial highway on the Master Plan of Arterial Highways. If necessary, standard acous- tical mitigation measures for acoustical impacts due to increased traf- fic levels shall be implemented. 99 1 2. Bristol Street North at Campus Drive . Convert second southbound right -turn lane to optional right-turn/through lane. Convert west- bound through lane to second westbound left -turn lane, maintaining three westbound through lanes. ' 3. Bristol Street at Santa Ana/Redhill Avenue - Convert eastbound right - turn lane to optional right-turn/third through lane. t 4. Bristol Street South at Irvine Avenue - Convert eastbound right -turn ' lane to optional right-turn/fourth through lane. 5. Bristol Street at Irvine Avenue - Provide second northbound lane. 6. Bristol Street at Jamboree Road - On the eastbound approach, provide ' one left -turn lane, one through lane, and two right -turn lanes. 7. MacArthur Boulevard at Jamboree Road - On the northbound approach, provide one left -turn lane, one optional left-turn/through lane, two , through lanes and one right -turn lane. B. MacArthur Boulevard at Campus Drive - Provide second eastbound left turn lane. Provide fourth southbouhd through lane. 9. Irvine Avenue at Mesa Drive Add third northbound through lane. Add third southbound through lane. Eliminate parking along eastbound ' approach and stripe eastbound right -turn lane, 10. Irvine Avenue at University Drive - Add third northbound through lane. , Add northbound right -turn lane. Add third southbound through lane. On the eastbound approach, provide two left -turn lanes, two through lanes and an optional through/right-turn lane. ' On the westbound approach, provide two left -turn lanes, one through lane and one optional through right -turn lane. ' 11. Santa Ana/Del Mar (University Drive) intersection - Add westbound and ' eastbound (Del Mar) left -turn lanes; add northbound and southbound through lanes. ' 100 I 12. Santa Ana/Mesa intersection - Modify eastbound and westbound (Mesa) approaches to be one right/through lane, and one left -turn lane. ' 13. Installations of traffic signals and additional lane improvements at the intersections of Santa Ana Avenue at Del Mar/University Drive and at Mesa Drive should be coordinated with the City of Costa Mesa. ' 14. A coordinated program of improvement phasing and implementation should ' be accomplished through the Inter -City Liaison Committee (ICLC), com- posed of the cities of Irvine, Costa Mesa, Santa Ana, Newport Beach and the County of Orange. The ICLC should establish procedures for priorities, funding participation and other project implementation ' matters. 15. Transportation System Management (TSM) strategies that can be effec- tive in reducing traffic volumes should be implemented including: ' - Car and van pooling Bus pooling or subscription bus service - Staggered or flexible work hours ' - Improved transit service and facilities - Integrated pedestrian/vehicular circulation facilities - Parking management programs to favor car and van pools. The improvements included in the Specific Plan Circulation Plan are mitiga- tion measures for project impacts. Additional mitigation measures recom- mended to implement the Specific Plan Circulation System include: 16. Prior to issuance of grading permits, the applicant must submit plans ' to the Manager, EMA/Development Services, that street improvements are in conformance with the Circulation Plan of the Santa Ana Heights Spe- cific Plan. (II)(A) ' 17. Coordination of signal phasing along Irvine Avenue shall be considered to facilitate peak evening flows from Orchard Drive and Mesa Drive. (II)(B) 1 101 18. Signage for the proposed alleyway between Cypress and Birch Streets shall be installed. (II)(C) 19. "No through street" signs shall be installed on Birch Street, Cypress ' Street, Orchid Street and Orchard Drive to inform drivers of the pro- posed cul-de-sacs. (II)(C) ' 20. An access plan for the Zenith Avenue and Birch Street residential lots ' shall be adopted prior to the installation of the Orchid Avenue and Birch Street cul-de-sacs. (11)(D) 21. A program for the funding, phasing and construction of circulation sys- tem improvements within Santa Ana Heights shall be formulated by the County and administered through the Orange County Development Agency. (I)(B). (II1)(B) , 6.5 Air Resources Mitigation Measures The two principal sources of pollutants relative to SAH identified in FEIR 508 are aircraft and motor vehicles. This section discusses several miti- gation measures that will be used to reduce emissions from these sources, 1. A long-range Transportation Systems Management (TSM) action plan will be developed in conjunction with LUCP plans to define targets, goals and mitigation effectiveness. Transportation control measures (TCMs) ' have been successfully implemented in the airport area where major employers promote$ subsidize and monitor such programs. The Air Re- sources Board suggests that a significant percentage of single -passen- ger automobile trips can be diverted to ridesharing programs with cor- responding significant reductions in regional vehicular emissions. Accordingly$ the long-range TSM plan for the LUCP area will include the following components. Ridesharing ' Transit Preferential parking Facilities for non -motorized vehicles , 102 ' ' Mixed land uses (recreation, child care, shopping and commercial ' support) Flex schedules (for off-peak hour travel) ' (I, II, III) (A) 2. In addition to these TSMs, the transportation improvements that mini- mize airport/non-airport traffic conflicts and those measures that 1 improve access to Santa Ana Heights (upgrade access roadways on the Master Plan of Arterial Highways and widen accordingly) will similarly ' reduce emissions for most pollutant species by shifting traffic into more efficient modes. (I, III) (A) ' 3. Development within the proposed specific plan area shall comply with all SCAQMD rules and regulations; development should apply, to the ' extent feasible, all AQMP recommendations for commercial and office land uses including (III) (B), (C) r i I 1 1 I II ,, 1 a) employer -provided incentives for ridesharing, .modified work sche- dules such as "flex -time," and utilization of public transporta- tion; b) developer -provided bus turnouts, bus shelters and bicycle racks; and, c) all Title 24 standards for energy conserving structures, heating/ cooling systems, lighting systems, appliances, etc. 4. The associated transportation system shall be designed to improve traf- fic flow or reduce traffic volume, to include the following (II) (B): a) Installation of traffic signal at Irvine Avenue and Orchard Drive. b) Construction of direct access to business park via Acacia Street from Mesa Drive. c) Development of bike and riding trails. d) Implementation of recreation plan to minimize vehicle miles traveled. 1 103 5. The impact of construction -generated dust shall be reduced to the extent feasible by periodically sprinkling with water, and by paving the area proposed for parking as soon as possible. (II) (C) 6. The AQMP should be updated to reflect the changing pattern of land use in the specific plan area. (III) (B) 6.6 Acoustic Environment Mitigation Measures 1. Construction Site Noise Mitigation: Construction site noise can be reduced by introducing noise control measures. Possible measures include replacing noisy operations with less noisy operations, selec- ting quiet equipment, scheduling loud operations at times when back- ground levels are highest, maximizing the distance between noise source and receiver, and providing enclosures and/or barriers. Combi- nations of these measures can be very effective in controlling and reducing noise levels. (II) (C) 2. All construction activities must comply with local regulations regard- ing noise nuisance. (II) (0) 3. Construction -related traffic should not be routed through existing residential areas. (II) (B) 4. For existing residential land uses exposed to excessive aircraft noise levels, the County -approved Acoustical Insulation Program will be offered to mitigate indoor noise levels. (1I) (B) 6.7 Aesthetics Mitigation Measures 1. The landscape requirements of the Specific Plan will provide for sub- stantial planting of low fuel native vegetation, other drought -toler- ant species, water conservation irrigation techniques, and sculptured effects. (II) (C) 2. Prior to the issuance of final certificates of use and occupancy, the landscaping improvements must be installed and certified by a licensed U 11 Ij n r I 1 I I I 104 landscape architect as having been installed in accordance with a cer- tified plan. The certification shall be furnished in writing to the Manager, Building Inspection Division. (I, II) (A) A community design program is included in the Specific Plan. (II) (A) 3. The Design Element (II) (A) shall include the following: A. Proposed design theme for Santa Ana Heights Business Park to include: i. Proposed building design concept and materials to be used. ii. Use of nonreflective materials in building designs. ' iii. Proposed landscaping concept plan including plant palette consistent with the area. B. Site plan review of individual projects to ensure consistency with the Design Element. (II) (A) 4. A 45-foot setback, with a 10-foot landscape buffer, between residen- tial and employment uses shall be provided for structures up to 30 feet in height. A 75-setback, with a 10-foot landscape buffer shall ' be provided for structures up to 35 feet in height. (II) (D) 5. Architectural guidelines of the Specific Plan shall specify materials 1 and design themes to unify the area aesthetically. (II) (A) 6. The streetscape guidelines of the Specific Plan shall include plant palettes and design guidelines to promote area identity. (II) (A) Measures 6.8 Recreation Mitigation 1. Additional open space resources created through implementation of the LUCP should be considered as potential sites for public equestrian ' facilities. (I) (B) ' 105 r 2. Additional open space created through implementation of the LUCP ' should be considered for the large-scale sport field complex/picnic/ general recreation facilities now indicated in the Newport Beach Gen- eral Plan for the Bayview Elementary School/J.M. Peters property. (II) (B) 3. Development of an equestrian trail along Cypress Street and Mesa Drive f to link the residential equestrian community with regional trails within the Upper Newport Bay area and along the Santa Ana -Delhi Chan- , nel. (1I) (C) ' 4. Implementation of entry treatments to identify residential areas and to discourage business park vehicular traffic in residential areas in accordance with the Specific Plan guidelines. (II, IV) (C) ' S. Implementation of the Circulation Plan to separate local residential , and business park traffic, thereby minimizing traffic near equestrian activities. (1I) (B) , 6. If necessary, construction of special signage, pavement crossing and circulation design elements to provide for a safe equine crossing of Mesa Drive at Cypress Street. (II) (D) 6.9 Light and Glare Mitigation Measures 1. Open space buffers will be placed and designed to reduce the parking and exterior building lighting impact of office/commercial uses on adjacent residential uses. (II) (C, D) 2. The specific design plan guidelines shall include a requirement that the buildings in the business park be designed with nonreflective materials to reduce glare impacts. (II) (A) , 3. Light fixtures on private facilities and in public rights -of -way will ' be of a type that directs light generally downward in order to avoid creating a possible hazard to air navigation. (II) (C, 0) 106 , rl 1 4. Landscape buffers in the specific plan area shall be implemented to reduce light and glare impacts of office/commercial uses adjacent to residential uses. (II) (D) 5. The design element of the Specific Plan requires that office/commer- cial structures shall be constructed of materials which reduce glare. (II) (D) 6. Light fixtures on private facilities and in public right-of-way shall direct light downward to avoid creating hazards for air traffic. (II) 1 (C) 7. Roofs and exterior walls shall be constructed of low -reflective materi- al, and mechanical equipment shall be screened architecturally. (II) (C) 1 r I 1 1 C_1 I 1 �I 8. Office windows in areas where night lighting may protrude into residen- tial areas should be glazed in accordance with specific plan guide- lines. However, reflective glazing shall not contribute to daytime reflective glare. (II) (C) 9. Office buildings located west of Cypress Street and north of Mesa Drive shall be sited and designed with minimal window areas facing the adjacent residential lots to minimize interior office lighting intru- sion. (II) (C) 10. Lighting of signs shall be minimized in accordance with Specific Plan standards. (II) (B, C) 11. Marking and lighting of development within the airport traffic pattern that is significantly higher than existing structures shall comply with FAA advisory guidelines (AC 70/7460-1F). (II) (C) (III) (C) 6.10 Public Services and Utilities 1. Installation of automatic fire sprinkler systems in new structures in the LUCP area would help reduce the demand on fire protection services and also reduce fire flow requirements. (II) (C, D) 1 107 1 I 2. Requirements for provision of private security services in new commer- cial and business park complexes will eliminate the need for increases in sheriff department personnel to provide service in the LUCP area. (II) (B) ' 3. Project proponents will contribute the funds necessary for public -ser- ving water facilities, and will continue to support cost-effective efforts to assure the adequacy of southern California's water supply including conservation and reclamation. Private project developers' compliance with the requirements and fee schedules of the appropriate agency will help offset the cost of needed facilities. (II, III) (B) 4. The collection system operated by the Costa Mesa Sanitary District will have to be expanded in extent and capacity to serve the proposed land use changes expected to occur through the year 2000. The cost of facility expansion will be borne, by developers of business parks and related developments in the Santa And Heights area as the land use com- patibility program is implemented. The Sanitary District has sugges- ted several alternative methods for financing these improvements, including a special assessment district. (III) (B, D) 5. The capacity of the sewer system serving the specific plan area sim- ilarly will have to be increased by the Orange County Sanitation Dis- trict. These improvement costs will be shared between the airport pro- ject and business park users. (I, II) (B), (III) (B) ' 6. As mitigation, project proponents will contribute to the necessary wastewater facility expansion in proportion to the capacity needed to serve public elements of the project. Private project developers will comply with the requirements and fee schedules of the appropriate sew- ering agency to help offset the cost of needed facilities. (II) (0), (III) (B) , 7. The Specific Plan shall be implemented in conformance with all appli- cable building codes in order to ensure maxlmum fire protection. (II) 108 1 I LJ I I I I 1J I 8. The Orange County Fire Marshal shall review future detailed design plans prior to the issuance of building permits for accessibility of emergehcy fire equipment, fire hydrant location and other construction features. (II) (D) 9. Fire -retardant building materials and landscaping shall be used wherever possible. (II) (D) 10. Built-in fire protection features, such as automatic fire sprinklers, shall be included wherever appropriate subject to review and approval by the Orange County Fire Marshall. (II) (D) 11. To enhance police protection services to the specific plan area, it is recommended that the Sheriff -Coroner Department review all security and circulation aspects of any future development prior to building permit issuance. (II) (D) 12. Trash compactors should be installed in all buildings to reduce the frequency of need for solid waste disposal service. (IV) (B) 13. Adequate access to solid waste storage areas shall be provided and subject to review and approval by the Manager, EMA/Current Planning and Development Assistance. (II) (D) 14. Landscaping irrigation systems should be automatically controlled to ensure watering during early morning or evening hours to reduce evapo- ration losses. (II) (C) 15. Plumbing fixtures to reduce water usage and loss shall be utilized (ie., low -volume toilet tanks, flow control devices for faucets and shower heads, etc.) in accordance with Title 24 of the California Administrative Code. (II) (D) 16. The use of drought -tolerant plant species and drip irrigation systems should be considered in order to reduce water usage. (II) (D) 109 17. All water lines and facility updates shall be in conformance with the Public Services/Utilities Plan included in the Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan. (II) (0) 18. All sewer line and pump facilities updates should be in conformance with the Public Services/Utilities Plan outlined in the Santa Ana Heights Specific Plain. Efforts shall be made in cooperation with the Orange County Sanitation District and other agencies to implement the master plan for the area to reflect the proposed land use plan ensur- ing effective planning within the area. (II) (D), (III) (B) 19, prior to or concurrently with adoption of the Specific Plan, plans to receive regional collection and treatment from OCSD No. C. which requires annexation to the City of Newport Beach, or plans to receive service from OCSD No. 7 shall be finalized. If service from OCSD No. 7 is selected, additional mitigation measures may be required and shall be identified prior to Specific Plan adoption. A final sewer improvement plan shall be prepared if the Costa Mesa Sanitary District serves the specific plan area and appropriate mitigation measures identified prior to Specific Plan adoption. (II) (A) 20. All proposed drainage lines and facility updates shall be in con- formance with the public Services/Utilities Plan outlined in the Specific P1anb (II) (D). (III) (C) 21. New transit stops should be provided in subsequent development pro- posals at locations recommended by the Orange County Transit District. (II) (0) 22. In addition to compliance with Title 24, which has already been noted, the following measure is suggested (II) (0): Where economically feasible] building design should make maximum use of alternative energy sources (eg., solar) to supplement water and space heating requirements. 110 r' I I I I Ll I I F L 23. Future developers should consult with the Southern California Gas Company to review energy conserving systems and design features. (IV) (A) 24. All buildings shall comply with standards contained in Title 24 of the California Administrative Code. (II) (C) 25. Appropriate easements shall be provided for any new telephone facili- ties required. (II) (D) 26. Appropriate easements shall be provided for any new cable facilities required. (II) (D) 6.11 Cumulative Impacts Mitigation Measures The following measures and programs can provide mitigation for the cumula- tive impacts identified in FEIR 508: Air Quality. Mitigation of cumulative regional air quality impacts (eg., ozone) is addressed at the state and regional level by the Air Quality Man- agement Plan (AQMP) for the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB). The AQMP out- lines measures for controlling stationary and mobile source emissions with the goal of meeting state and federal air quality standards by 1987 or 2000. Emissions projections used for modeling air quality are based on local agency general plans which predict levels of growth within the region. To the degree that regional growth is consistent with the AQMP, the measures included in the AQMP should achieve the desired air quality improvement. Further mitigation measures may be required if regional growth exceed anticipated levels. (I) (B), (II) (B) Local agencies can influence cumulative local air quality impacts (eg., carbon monoxide) through transportation measures, such as improved public transportation or bicycle facilities, traffic signal synchronization and encouraging carpooling. (I) (B), (III) (B) Water Quality. Mitigation of cumulative regional water quality impacts in the Upper Newport Bay watershed is addressed at the local level by indivi- ill dual cities and the County of Orange, and at the regional level by the Santa Ana Regional Water• Quality Control Board, and the Southern Califor- nia Association of Governments. An extensive study of the existing sedi- mentation problem in the San Diego Creek watershed was recently completed (May 1983) for the Cities of Irvine and Newport Beach and the Southern California Association of Governments (Boyle Engineering, San Diego Creek Comprehensive Stormwater Sedimentation Control Plan, May 1983). The San Diego Creek watershed constitutes a majority of the Upper Newport Bay watershed. The Santa Ana -Delhi Channel is the other major tributary to the bay. This report contains "best management practices" for construc- tion and agricultural activities which, when appliod, will help reduce the amount of sediment being contributed by construction sites and agricul- tural areas. Implementation of these or similar measures by the jurisdic- tions in the Upper Newport Bay watershed would reduce the amount of sedi- ment reaching the bay. Cities in the watershed have been requested to adopt water quality protection as an explicit goal of their grading ordi- nances and to develop erosion/sediment control programs for reducing sedi- ment generation and transport. (III) (B) The best method of reducing the water quality impacts associated with urban pollutants is to control these pollutants at their source. Many of the components of typical urban runoff are related to automobiles and, for this reason, street sweeping is an effective means of mitigating this impact. Because of the seasonal nature of rain in southern California, these pollutants tend to build up in the streets during the dry spring and summer months. Street sweeping in early fall (eg., September), therefore, is particularly effective. The individual jurisdictions in the study area should program their street sweeping programs to coincide with fall. The inclusion of debris basis and catch basins in storm drainage facilities and the regular cleaning of these basins will also help reduce the amount of organic and inorganic debris contributed from urban areas. Individual cities in the study area, the County, and the Orange County Flood Control District should implement these measures in the Newport Bay watershed. (I) (B), (III) (B) Land Use. The update of local land use plans and policies in response to these land use changes is the most appropriate mitigation measure. (I) (B, C), (III) (B) 112 I I I I Transportation/Circulation. Mitigation of regional cumulative transporta- tion impacts is addressed by the Orange County Transportation Commission (OCTC). The Commission prepares transportation plans for the County as a whole and coordinates the process of applying for state and federal grants.• OCTC has identified a series of transportation system improve- ments that would relieve traffic congestion. Many of these improvements would be needed if the airport remained at its current level of opera- tions. The affected jurisdictions in the cumulative impact study area should cooperate with OCTC in seeking methods to fund these major improve- ments. Other typical transportation system management measures to reduce traffic congestion include restriping lanes to provide additional capa- city, synchronization of traffic lights to maintain traffic flow and restricting turning movements on major thoroughfares. (I) (B,D), (III) (B. D) Noise. Cumulative traffic -related noise impacts are not anticipated to be significant. Given the estimated increase in traffic -related noise (2 to 3 dBA), several categories of mitigation measures could be applied to new structures in affected areas to mitigate these impacts (p. 4.18-33 of FEIR 508). Implementation of these measures can be encouraged or required by the individual jurisdictions (Orange County, Cities of Newport Beach and Irvine) in which the primary impacts occur. Typical mitigation measures include site planning measures (setbacks, building locations) and noise barriers (walls, earthen berms) which can reduce noise levels up to 15 dBA. In addition, it should be noted that typical types of construction (woodframe, masonry) can reduce interior noise levels 10 to 35 dBA. Mitigation of single event exposure can be obtained on through adoption of measures described in the alternatives discussion. (I) (D), (III) (D) Public Health and Safety. The cumulative effect on public health and safety would be significant. The only method available for eliminating any increased potential hazards associated with public health and safety would be not to allow development within proximity of the airport. Obvi- ously, there is already considerable growth associated with the area as well as considerable and anticipated growth which is described in Section 4.18:Cumulative Impacts of FEIR 508. The correlation between proximity to the airport, particularly where businesses are located off the flight track, has not been established, but because of the possibility the impact ,has been identified as significant. (I) (B), (III) (B) 113 7.0 UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS Project -related impacts which are considered to be both unavoidable and adverse in nature are listed below. The summary section contained at the beginning of this report (Section 2.0) provides a listing of all signifi- cant project impacts and mitigation measures. The project will incrementally intensify the urban character of the area and will result in increased traffic, air pollutant emissions, and noise levels within the immediate vicinity. The project will result in approximately 4,050 additional permanent employees.) While it can be assumed that a major portion of new employees will be provided through the local labor market, a certain portion will be drawn from outside and will thus increase demand for housing, partially within the "affordable" range. The project is anticipated to generate approximately 15,000 additional ' daily vehicle trips of which 2,000 will occur in the a.m. peak hour and 2,000 in the p.m. peak hour (Section 4.4.2). Temporary congestion may occur in the immediate area and area intersections will be at or beyond their design capacity. ' Project implementation will incrementally add to demand for major new infrastructure in the area including circulation improvements, fire ' protection, water systems and electrical facilities. ' Project implementation will add to the cumulative demand for finite resources such as energy and water. r 1 Based on projected new office development -of 1.01 million square feet (Table 1) and 250 square feet per employee. ' 114 I 1 1 8.0 GROWTH -INDUCING EFFECTS Implementation of the Specific Plan, as indicated in the Initial Study in Appendix A is not expected to result in significant inducement of urban growth. The potential growth inducement impacts of the Land Use Compati- bility Program were evaluated in Section 5.0 of FEIR 508. FEIR 508 acknowledged that the LUCP is itself a secondary effect of the JWA expansion project. The transition of land uses in the specific plan area from lower to higher intensity uses has occurred independently of the LUCP for many years. The general sequence of growth -inducing effects identified in FEIR 508 resulting from implementation of the LUCP included: 1. A relatively minor demand for replacement of housing would occur as existing residential uses transition to more intensive uses. 2. Development of employment -generating uses in the LUCP area would result in some net generation of new employees, which would generate a subsequent demand for housing, schools and other related public services and utilities. 3. Development of business park uses as a result of the LUCP would accom- modate employees whose jobs are created by other economic stimulation. The total wages of employees cannot be considered reduced by the LUCP. Implementation of the LUCP was recognized to create additional pressures for conversion of residential uses to office/commercial uses and, in con- junction with lot expansion, may pose economic pressure for further office/commercial development in the area. A possibility that office/com- mercial uses resulting from the LUCP may increase demands for expansion of JWA was also noted. Since evaluation of these economic forces is specula- tive, estimating the likelihood of such an occurrence is impossible. The airport agreement effectively severs the direct link between regional economic growth and airport facility expansion. As noted in FEIR 508, com- munity plans, zoning and other land use controls also may restrain conver- sion of adjacent areas to higher uses. 115 ' 9.0 THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SHORT-TERM USES OF THE ENVIRONMENT AND THE ' MAINTENANCE AND ENHANCEMENT OF LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY The primary effect of this project is to stabilize residential equestrian uses and convert some residential uses to more intensive business park ' land uses. The proposed conversion of the specific plan area to mixed land uses consistent with the adopted Land Use Compatibility Program will increase the specific plan area's productivity in terms of land efficiency and greater economic return. Though the project would increase the produc- tivity and human use of the land, implementation of the project may incre- mentally contribute to the permanent loss of suburban residential uses which may have unforeseen long-term impacts. L_I Development of the Specific Plan, in terms of its anticipated 50- to 75-year lifespan, is a short-term use of man's environment. However, implementation of the project would 'represent a relatively long-term com- mitment to more intense use since it is unlikely that the land will revert to less intense uses. It is logical to assume that the various components of the specific plan area gradually will be replaced by more productive activities as redevelopment of the land occurs in response to Implementa- tion of the Specific Plan and to future human needs. Advantages to near -term implementation of the Specific Plan include greater economic .productivity from the land, stabilization of land uses, and an increased revenue base for Orange County. The conversion of resi- dential uses to business park uses in the specific plan area will further lessen the "noise problem" now experienced around the airport. A noise abatement program designed by John Wayne Airport to reduce the noise impact on the remaining residential uses within the 65 CNEL zone will also lessen the problem. Advantages of postponing the implementation of the Specific Plan are difficult to analyze since the long-term alternatives for urban uses of the property are largely unpredictable. Future develop- ment would likely entail similar impacts to the physical environment as does the current project proposal. These include traffic/circulation, air quality and public service impacts. Future conditions may preclude the same level of public improvements as proposed currently due to intensified land scarcity and rising value. 116 IJ t I� 10.0 IRREVERSIBLE ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGES INVOLVED IN THE PROPOSED ACTION The significant irreversible environmental changes related to adoption of the Land Use Compatibility Program were addressed in Section 5.2 of FEIR 508. While the adopted Board Land Use Element results in less land use conversion than evaluated in FEIR 508, the implementation of the LUCP will result in an irreversible change in land uses to business park use for 50 to 75 years. The implementation of the LUCP will also result in the demolition or removal of 181 homes within the specific plan area by 2000. However, this loss is partially offset by designation of 3.1 acres for multiple family residential uses in the western section of the specific plan area. Approximately 77 multifamily units will be constructed in this area. 117 11.0 PERSONS AND ORGANIZATIONS CONSULTED 11.1 PARTICIPANTS The PBR personnel who participated in the preparation of this Supplement include: Principal -in -Charge Phillip R. Schwartze Director of Environmental Services Thomas F. Holm, AICP Project Manager Sidney A. Lindmark, AICP Environmental Analysis Timothy Lattimer Marianne Kearney Jayna Moore Word Processing Barbara Heath Carole Watson 11.2 CONSULTANTS The.consultants who participated in the preparation of this EIR include: Basmaciyan-Darnell, Inc. Berryman Stephenson, Inc. Mestre-Greve Associates Bill Darnell Catherine Higley Michael A. Gutierrez Fred A. Greve, P.E. 11.3 OTHER ORGANIZATIONS AND PERSONS CONSULTED County of Orange Project Planning Division Richard Adler Lynn Dosheery Environmental and Special Projects Kari Rigoni Jaycox Disposal Newport Mesa Unified School District Robert Kuznik Helen Dietz 118 1 I, Southern California Edison W.P. Erickson Sheriff -Coroner Department, ' Orange County Captain Vito Ferlanto Orange County Sanitation District Hilary Baker ' Orange County Fire Department Gene Hutain ' Orange County Public Library Irmgard Bassen Huard -Spencer Orange County Transit District Christine ' Orange County, General Services Agency Mike Luke ' Costa Mesa Medical Center Hospital Norman Martin Hoag Memorial Hospital -Presbyterian Diane Laird Mary Kay Meltvedt 1 1 119 n n 1 n n 12.0 REFERENCES Basmaciyan-Darnell, Inc., Santa Ana Heights Transportation/Circulation Analysis, March 1986. BSI Consultants, Inc., Santa Ana Heights Comprehensive Plan for Public Works Improvements, March 1986. California Air Resources Board, Air Quality Analysis Tools, March 1983. California Air Resources Board, California Air Quality Data, Vols. XIII- XV, 1981-1983. California Department of Transportation -Division of Aeronautics, et al., Airport Land Use Planning Handbook, Revised January 1985. County of Orange EMA, Oran a County General Plan, Master Plan of Regional Parks, December 19 County of Orange EMA, Orange County General Plan, Master Plan of Riding and Hiking Trails, Septem er 1984. County of Orange EMA, Orange County General Plan, Recreational Element, December 1984. County of Orange EMA, Orange County General Plan Transportation Element, November 1985. South Coast Air Quality Management District, Air Quality Handbook for Environmental Impact Reports, December 19$ . South Coast Air Quality Management District and Southern California Association of Governments, Air Quality Management Plan, August 1982. U.S. Department of Transportation, FHWA-RD-77-108, FHWA Highway Traffic I 1 1 1 1 i 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 APPENDIX A i 1 1 1 1 LEI IJ I 1 0 1 n 1 1 I 1 i H 1 1 1 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT AGENCY P.O. BOX 4048 SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA 92702-4048 NOTICE OF PREPARATION Date: January 15, 1986 Subject: Notice Of Intent To Prepare A Draft Environmental Impact Report # sogA Project Title: Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan Applicant: county of orange The Orange County Environmental Management Agency has conducted an Initial Study for the subject project and has determined that an Environmental Impact Report is necessary. The County of Orange will be the Lead Agency for the subject project and will prepare the EIR. In order for the concerns of your agency to' be incorporated into the Draft EIR, we need to know the views of your agency as to the scope and content of the environmental information relevant to your agency's statutory responsibilities in connection with the proposed project. Your agency must consider the EIR prepared by the County of Orange when considering your permit or approval for the project. The project description, location, and an analysis indicating the probable environmental effects of the proposed action are contained In the attached materials. Pursuant to Section 21080.4 of CEQA, your response must be sent as soon as possible but not later than 30 days after receipt of this notice. If any significant changes in the proposed project occur, we will advise you. If you have need for additional information, contact Kari Rigoni of the Env, and snecial Protects Division at 834-5550 Attachment: Initial Study Submitted by: r i Iriv/ �-Mm 1 Fozso'iW MISS .1 1 Mvflce cr PkSYA ano ' sOrPti NW To FnAL = 508 MR sa m Ask axam" MWIC no ' log ekgr - ' in February 1985, the Board of Supervisors approved both the Airport Master Plan and the Land Use Compatibility Program for Santa Ana Heights and certified a Final uvironmental Impact report (HIE 508rSCe 83113009) for both ' Plans. The Board also adopted Land Use Ylement and Community Profile amendments for Santa Ana Heights. Theme actions hew established the basic ism use patterns for the Community. ' The Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan is intended to implement the adopted land use plan for Santa Ana Heights by establishing land use regulations and other ' implementation programs tailored to the Community. The County of orange is the lead agency for preparation of environmental documentation for the Specific Plan which is proposed to be a ' 2.0 specific Plan Stmax Area The Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan includes 173 acres of unincorporated ' territory south of John Mayne Airport in orange County (exhibit 1). The Specific Plan study area is generally bounded by Bouth Bristol Street, Mesa Drive and Santa Ana Avenue (exhibit 2). Most properties with soning already consistent with the adoptad land use plan were not included in the specific 1 plan area to simplify the planning process. The specific Plan will include regulations for existing land uses, business park and residential equestrian recreation uses within the study area. The plan Will also discuss the interface with recreation uses, existing circulation and public utility ' systems adjacent to the study area. 2.0 Land We Compatibility Proarm The Board -adopted Land Use element designations for Santa Ana Heights reflect either existing or proposed land uses consistent with the approved Land Use , Compatibility Progrea. existing land uses include residential, commercial and space designations. Proposed land uses are concentrated in approximately open 50 acres designated for employment Uses. The Board also approved guidelines which further define the land uses in the study area eat of Irvine Avenue- , 1 I 0 PROJECT �I A �. :•NII '(� •::,4.iJ. 1n:Yr fu.•rT/1. a wr ( f I. Regional Location ' SANTA ANA HEIGHTS SPECIFIC PLAN/EIR ' COUNTY OF ORANGE i •1 ir \,i 41 ofZIP Salt .. EXHIBIT 1 I• ORANGE COUNTY Q1B Suburban Residential 1C Urban Residential ® 2A Community Commercial 3 Employmant •i.-•L 5 Open Space NEWPORT BEACH Low oenalty Residential ® Admin„ Prof. 6 Man. Commercial Admin., Prof. A Finn. Commercial/ Retail 3 Service Commercial ® Govern., Educat., & Institutional Facilities Recreational ti Environ. Open Space COSTA MESA General Commercial M •M BOARD ADOPTED LAND USE ELEMENT Unincorporated Areas ■nswassi Specific Plan Study Area boundary Land Use Compatibility Program EXHIBIT 2 Under these guidelines, the areas designated Smployment will consist of business park uses and the areas designated Suburban Residential will be limited to residential equestrian uses. The specific Plan will develop land use regulations and other implementation programs consistent with the adopted ' land use plan and guidelines. 4.0 specific Plan Components ' The specific Plan will consist of the following components: o Land Use Regulations Component which defines the types of uses permitted and appropriate development standards for existing uses, business park and residential equestrian uses. ' o Circulation Component which utilizes existing roads, provides for roadway improvements, and ensures that business park and residential traffic are separated to the maximum extent possible. o Public Works Component which provides improvement plans for adequate water supply, sewage treatment, drainage, and road and sidewalk maintenance services. o Recreation Component which emphasizes development of equestrian facilities and local parks. ' o Community Design Component which presents a community design theme(s) to provide a cohesive visual character to land uses in the community. [l i I f L 5.0 Intended Uses of the Supplemental SIR The SIR may also be used by different County agencies, State agencies and special districts to make future decisions regarding the study area. The County will use the SIR to: o Grant approvals for subsequent development projects. o Plan and construct public facilities and public improvements within the Specific Plan area. 6.0 Project Alternatives Alternative land uses for the study area were addressed in Final SIR 508. The Santa Ana Heights specific Plan/SIR addresses the adopted land use plan for the area resulting from previous planning efforts. -. ". J- - k "{^ i,"a &+-•-" - ram_. Alternative i .e iss4Vmrwill be examined in order to effectively separate business park and residential traffic. 7.0 Content of Tiersd/Snpplemntal Sat The concept of SIR tiering is used when an SIR has been prepared earlier in the process which adequately discusses the broad effects of a program or a plan. Subsequently, tiered SIRs are prepared to address the narrower, more .2_ I site-spacific ispacts seacciated with isp3saantation of that plan or program, but incorporates by reference the general discussion of impacts from the previous SIR. Tiering is an effort to focus the environaantal review to issues which are relevant to the approvals being considered. The Current SIR is being prepared as a tiered supplement to Final SIR $09 for r the John Wayne Airport Nester Plan and Santa Ana Seights Land Ose Compatibility Program. The tiered supplement will address any physical environmental effects of the Specific plan not already addressed in SIR SOS. Topics to be addressed, which are clarified in the attached Initial Study, include: 1. Air Quality 2, Water 3. Aesthetics 4. Land Use ' S. Traffic/Circulation S. Racreation 7. Acoustics a. Light and glare 9. Public Services/Utilities J I 17 Lam' I 1 RRrbarM2-29 6017 L...# IPBS-I04 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT AGENCY V 'ROJ. REF, -SANTA /WA N9I644'r6 P. 0. BOX 4048 8ANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA 92702-4048 ENVIRONMENTAL .ANALYSIS CHECKLIST I MILL THE PROPOSAL RESULT IN lu mm 112 4p• [kQy tC1L_t[f j� WILL ING lu am !o �iC Arrcctto Lr: �OSAL [f—t ULT�M: A. UNSTASLE EARTH CONDITIONS OR IN O A. CHANGE IN THE DIVERSITY Of OR MAN/EA M MIT SPECIES NUNS[*O CHANGES IN GEOLOGIC fuu RUCTURCSt = B. DISRUPTIONS, DISPLACEMENTS, COM- © UDING M ILK, OR (RNCIUDING OF TREES, SHAYfS, GRASS, CROPS, OYLRCOY[RING OF THE SOIL! MICROFLORA, AQUATIC PLANTS) BIROS, FACTION 04 LAND ANIMALS, REPTILES, FISH AND C. CHANGE IN TOPOGRAPHY OR AROUND ® SHELLFISH. OR BENTMIMMRGMISMS, — ES?COVERING DESIRE FEATUDESTRUCTION, - 0 THEACE COVERING - D. THE TION OFt ANY MODIf ICATtON OF ANT ONIW[ GEO- B. REDUCTION TI INK NUMBERS Of ANY HMIWL, KSTNfTICALL7 SIGNIFICANT, PHYSICAL FEATURES? RARE OR ENDANGERED SPECIES OF PLANTS �; LOGIC OR OR ANIMALS? — E. KIT IK%tASt IN WIND OR WATER ' EROSION OF SOIL$, EITHER ON OR OFF 0 C. INTRODUCTION OF NEW SPECIES OF TTHE— SITtt PLAITS Olt ANIMALS INTO AN AREA, OR IN A BARRIER TO THE NORMAL ACPLEN- OF EXISTING I. CHANGES IN DEPOSITION OR IROS- ISNIKNT OR MIGRATION ION OF REACH SANDS, OR CHANGES IN SPICIEST SILTATION, DEPOSITION OR EROSION WHICH MAT MODIFY INC CHANNEL OF A D. REDUCTION IN ACREAGE 0/ ANY RIVER OR STREAM Oil TNL BED OF THE . AGRICULTURAL CROFT — —. ' OCEAN OR MY RAT, INLET OR WRt t. OEtlRtORATtON OF LxI37IMG F1fN (� B. EXPOSURE OF PEOPLE OR PROPERTY OR WILDLIFE HABITAT! — TO GEOLOGIC HAZKOS SUCH AS IKTN- S. CULTREALASC/[N71r IC RESOURCES QUAXEf, LANDfLIOR3, MUDSLIORS, $ROINID FAILURE, OR SIMILAR HAZARDS? IRA All WILL TN[ NROfOA SIGNIFICANT ALTERATION Of A 31GMIF ITAM7 KCMK- [. an WILL THL PROPOSAL RESULT IN: OLOGICAL OR HISTORICAL SITE, STRUC- TURL. OBJ[C7 OR WILDING, ►ALEON- IMPORTANT e A. INCREASEDAIR EMISSSOR ITis TOLOGICAL SITE, OR OTHER TION AONQUALITY? — CULTURAL/SCIENT I PIC RtSWRC27 ' B. THE CREATION W O6.NLtt10NABl[ DOORS? S. !�l OM1066AIAR fI Il WILL THL xO10fAl RESULT IN: [, ALTERATION OF AIR MOVEMENT, A. IMCRFASE IN TH! RATE OF USE Of MOISTUA! OR TEMPERATURE, OR ANY ANY NATURAL RESOURCE? — ' CHANGE IN CLIMATE, EITHER LOCALE, OR REGIONALLY? B. DEPLETION OF ANY UR UENEYARL- MAtARAI R, INCLUDING ACRI- D. ExrofUR! OfP[RSONf 70 LOCALLY � — CULTURAL f01 Lf fHR OPEN fFACLT — SOILI CLEVATEO LEY[LS OF AIR POLLUTION? — t• WILL THE PROPOSAL S. g7jS WILL TIE FROPOIAL RESULT IN: liII11lI1Lt SUL TIN[ OR ANC ' A. CHANGES IN TE TM[ R VIEW OPEN PUBLIC VISTA OR VIEW OFFM TO TIME VI RESULT, OR WILL THEEAT PROPOSAL OF AN TIIONLOff, CDURSL ON DIRECTION ON WATER MOPE- IN [Ii11LR "MINE OR FRLfN • RESULT THE IN TINE OFFENSIVE ORFLNfIYL UTE OPEN • ANTS, WATERS? TO IYBLIC VIEW? To PUBLIC D. CHANCES IRA 04 THE RATES, 0 OR tMt RATE AND B. j�iSjfL WILL THE PEOrofK RESULT IN: (/) PA PATTERNS, ORAINAG[ PATTRANS, MOUNT OF SURFACE WATER RUNOFF? — A. USE OF NIGH AMOUNTS • — — ENERGY? Of fYLI OR lIKRG7T �}. C. ALTERATIONS t0 THE COURSE OR rn ' FLOW Of FLO00 WATERS? — — — S. INCREASE DEMAND UPON EXISTING D. CHAMOE IN THE AMOUNT OF SUE- S9V90Pums a ENERGY, OR REQUIRE OF 711E /—� O[VELONHEMT Of NEW SOURCES OR t, • N b ' FACE WATER IN MY WATER BOOT? — — [NLNirT — — {Vpl I. DISCHARGE INTO SURFACE WATERS, •, L&12 = WILL THE PROPOSAL 1 OR IN PAT ALIENATION OF SURFACE fYL IRA: WATER QYALIir. INCLUDING BUT NOT DISSOLVED OR GIN - •� TD LIMITED ITY X. CON/LILT WITHZONING ORIGIN OR TURBIDITY? — — — [RAL PLAN D[f IIONS FOR TN[ I. ALTERATION OF INC DIRECTION OR` WATERS? — — PROPERTY? — ADJACENT, EXIST- KATE Or FLOW OF GROUND G. CHANGE IM THE QUANTITY ON DUAL- D. CONFLICT WITH INS OR PLANED LAND USLST �. ITT OF GROUND WATLNS, EITHER THROUGH C. INDUCEMENT OF UR/MN GROWTH? — OIxECT ADDITIONS OR WITHDRAWALS, 0/ THROUGH INTERCEPTION OF AN AQUIFER It. TNKOPORTATION/CIRCULATION WILL BY CUTS OR [XCAVATIOSI — — — UIB PROPOSAL RESULT IN: H. REDUCTION OF IN THE ABLE GRNERA7ION a A001Ti0WAL Y[MI- 7 F WATLN OTHERWISE AVAILABLE FOR WI CA.0 — CYLAN MW[MtNit wnlc WATER surnua B. LITE, ON EXISTING PARKING I. EXPOSURE PEOPLE OR PROPERTY FACILITIES, OR DEMAND Pat New TO WATER RCLTI HAZARDS lUCH A3 PARKING?— rL0001NG Olt TIDAL WAVES?— r� /ltti r u. � m WI • t. IINtt 1►111 t11NIM a ALAMM► KwIrtITAtIw IKitMt Mtw, w NwLr iM AA are a�,tlt 11 KKN► NNIa1 NT A►T M "a ' ►. am owsw AAftnN 04111. t►IL on A11Nt M rMM/f 1►If0 M 011r1A AM/ • — _ A. nN rMK.1Iwt � YTn MLI11tNN. YIL M A11 ,1 ►. /Kla OWN 110 ter. A itT A. "No"t .... v"MIjAMN �MIIMRtMIMa 1f/. • � ►AN/ N RMa aWN111M1 iLl/laI i MMilk ^ _ � 1. tNATlwI K 1111t/1AfL tINYM•{Tlar Iw W111�1tM/�1 MNb _ •, 'i tips A1tMMT — — tl. NM�lyAA�tlA�y ♦. t111A I$ Wf — — 001T. Ot ON" FAIL W 111lwr . w1I11%9 YK w rl! ft*d 11 1. 1wM,tYTIM 1MTMM1 — MMWI ttAMNlw M w ANAL OW101P, M. WTMf yyy it. loom NLL "a Atp"% 1. team a Walt fANtt A. ,Mat nutlM IAIYIMII. N • 1111M1 M MIt11Yt A. stop am tYIYNt = "llosiMf w _ A. 1Mb WK M ►IMMMf -... utMw1t t $004" int _ _ * ' L. wMNalattwtw _ It' A1tA1A�l� 1,,iNT MYAIM a n. .ns.. e.In.Art. AtIrL7T 1r0 WAL. I" w twMrl" 111ANTwl Nw. 0Ny..L...uL.W1 ATIIYL 1 "011111t1 . . r L IA. WAIr. W AYAh MILL s A. IMIMI TN 1194 Y tMtwlw w MI NLtAN M PAIAWA wM ICMMIf4% MwWIA�141ItKIT1tIMlr _ — 1. t1/Nt MAMM w AMtt" K 1114. /IN ILLIAN NMItivol �-- II. am MILL IN r►trNAL NNLT IMt twt.w..ru u.ly e.�re,e. A. INNM N 1AIN1N MIN A Ltwut t. ANMwt M At1AU Is ?MIN we's w anu w t/wrn ITM- — Ni YKI �- Z� It. MILL TN M. ` W L M tWW R tt1 _ A. MCI ?MR MAVE THE POTENTIAL TO OtGRADE , Mt QUALOY OF THE -ENVIROENT, SUBSTANTIALLY REDUCE THE MABITAT OF A FISH OR WILDLIFE NM a POPULATION TO DROP KLOW SELF-SUSTAINING LEVELS, THREATEN TO ELIM- INATE A PLANT OR ANIMAL COMMUNITY, REDUCE THE NUMBER OR RESTRICT THE *AMOK OF A RARE LNOANGtREO PLANT OR ANIMAL OR ELIMINATE IMPORTANT 4 ExAMPLES OF THE M/WOR PERIOD/ OF CALIFORNIA HISTORY OR PREHISTORY? ... /.Dots THE PROJECT HAVE THE POTENTIAL TO;ACMtEVE SHORT-TERM, TO THE DISADVANTAK OF LONG-TERM, ENVIRONMENTAL GOALS? (A SHORT-TERM IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT IS ONE WHICH OCCURS IN A RELATIVELY BRIEF, DEFINITIVE PERIOD of TIME WHILE LONG-TERM IMPACTS WILL ENDURE WELL �� INTO THE PUTURE.) M C. DOES THE PROJECT HAVE IMPACTS WHICH ARE INDIVIDUALLY LIMITED, NN „} CUMULATIVELY CONSIDERABLE? CA PROJLCTrMAY IMPACT ON TWO Olt MOVE SEPARATE RESOURCES WHERE THE IMPACT ON EACH RESOURCE IS RELATIVELY ODUT WHINE KFFNTT'OF THE TOTAL OF THOSE IMPACTS ON THE EMALIL, THE Is • D.ODEf THE PROJECT MADE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS WHICH WILL CAUSE W/- STANTtAL AMR$[ EFFECTS ON HUMAN SEINCS, EITHER DIRECTLY OR IN- DIRECTLY? ... ON THE BASIS OF THIS INITIAL EVALUATION:;/ ' I PINO THE PROPOSED PROJECT COULD NOT MAYS A SIGNIFICANT EFFECT ON THE �.... BNVIRGNMGNTA AND A NEGATIVE OCLAMATION WILL K PREPARED. I FIND THAT ALTHOUSH THE 1ROPOSED PROJECT COULD HAVE A SIGNIFICANT EFFECT ON THE ENVtROM KMTA THERE WILL NOT K A SIGNIFICANT EFFECT IN THIS CASE BECAUSE THE MITIGATION MEASURES KSCRIKD ON AN ATTACMEO SHEET HAVE BEEN ADDED TO THE PROJECT. A HISATIVE DECLAMATION WILL K PREPARED. • � MENTFIND oAND ANTHE RtNV01ROWNTALPROJECT IMPACTAREPPORTIISIREQUIREOFICANT EFFECT ON THE tNV1RON� ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT AGENCY I L I I I I.S.# IP85-104 PROJ. REF Santa ilaa Heights ENVFK*&IENTAL MANAGEMENT AGENCY P.O. BOX 4048 SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA 82702 RONMENTAL ANALYSIS EXPLANATIONS/MITIGATION DISCUSSION SUPPLEMENT TO CWCKUST FORM NO. F02W-3W Final EIR 508 was previously prepared for the John Wayne Airport Master Plan and Land Use Compatibility.Program (LUCP) for Santa Ana Heights. Impact's in the Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan area were analyzed in this Program EIR. The impact areas which were addressed thoroughly in EIR 508 will be incorporated by reference into the supplement and include: 1. Earth 2. Biological Resources 3. Cultural/Scientific Resources 4. Natural Resources 5. Energy 6. Public Health and Safety 7. Population S. Housing Other impact areas -analyzed in EIR 508 were discussed -at a more general level because detailed information was not available at the time. The supplement to be prepared will, therefore, be a second tier to EIR 508 addressing Specific Plan impacts in categories where more detailed information now exists. The analysis which follows discusses the project impacts shown on the preceding checklist. ANALYSIS 2. A.B.D. 3.3 7. is #IP85-104 AIR Persons living in and adjacent to the Specific Plan area will be exposed to elevated air pollution levels due to emissions from increased traffic in the business park area. Additionally, short term impacts will include increased air emissions and possible objectionable odors created by construction vehicles and equipment. ` WATER Drainage patterns may be impacted as circulation and road improvements are Wade. Short term drainage impacts may also result due to construction activities. Residential areas may be impacted due to the introduction of the business park and associated parking lots in close proximity. ®ww-na u/41) Rnvirmuental Analysis Explanation/Mitigation Discussion Page I ' 9.3.C. LAND USE The business park may conflict with residential and open space urea within and adjacent to the study area. Without adequate regulations unorderly development of the business park may occur, increasing the potential for conflict. , 10.A.B.C.D.f. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION Land use intensification due to business uses will result in a significant , increase in local vehicle trips. , This traffic is added to an adjacent road network that already experience congestion during peak periods and constitutes a significant impact., The internal circulation system will be redesigned in some areas to separate business and residential uses. This may impact most access alternatives for residents. Parking associated with business uses may utilise adjacent residential areas. Equestrians say be impacted by traffic, especially during road improvement phasesi 13: RECREATION Development of business park uses say impact the existing equestrian recreational opportunities in Santa Ana Heights. Short -tern impacts associated with con- atruction and road improvement activities may require rerouting of equestrian routes. 15.A. NOISE increased traffic noise Development of the business park area will result in levels for adjacent residential uses. Noise created by construction activities will also create impacts to existing residences. 16. LIGHT & CLARE Creation of business park use may increase the number of new light sources, possibly impacting adjacent residential uses. 17.A.B.D.P.G.H.I.J. PUBLIC SERVICE$ AND UTILITIES Implementation of the Specific plan will, to varying degrees, affect the public services and utilities indicated on the checklist. Police and fire protection may be impacted by changes in the internal circulation system. Recreation ' say be impacted during construction of the proposed equestrian facilities. Power, telephone, cable, water, sewer and stork drain facilities may need to be relocated as a result of construction and circulation-isprovements. ERimm/jb(r0/04S) 6017 I 1 1 i i 1 1 1 1 1 1 i 11 1 1 i 1 1 1 'ATE OF CALIFORNIA—CFFICa- OF THE GOVERNOR GEORGE OEUKMEJIAN, 00r I r 1 I I 11 11 11 )PEKE CF.PLANNING AND RESEARCH 4o0 1 rHTH siAEH„r %0AMEWO•• CA 9S814 "�' DATE: January 24, 1986 M: Reviewing Agencies RE: The County of Orange's NOP for Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan SCH# 83113009 Attached for your commnent is the County of Orange Notice of Preparation of a draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan Project. Responsible agencies niet tran-srait t eir concerns and C^, z—ants on t':e sccCe and content of the End, focusing cn s.-cific infor-a--4cn related to own statutory responsibility, within 30 days of reCei t of t.'is notice. We encourage cc=mnting agencies to respond to t.is notice and express their concerns early in tl:e emrirorn ntal review prccess. Please 4irect your ccmJezts to: Kari Rigoni County of Orange P.O.Box 4048 Santa Ana, CA 92702-4048 with a cozy to the office of Planning and Pzzearc . Please re-fer to t.:e SG niter noted above in all correspondence conce=ing t:". project. if you rave any questions atcut t:.e rwiew prcc—s, call Glenn Stober at 916/445-0613. Sincerely, John B. O1anian Chief Deputy Director At}actrrnats cc: Kari Rigoni �ECE6VE® JAN 2.9 1986 f o ORANGE COUNTY EhiA JAN 28 1986 ENVIRONMENTAL & SPECIAL EMA PROJECTS pm ..,t of 11'an+tor�atim District t"= Pish and Cam - Petirnat CCioee can Caestock A. Maylor, Pe Cral :"arager Department of Transportation O Arpar �mt of ?tin IM :,ars' ODistrict 1 601 Ul. 1456un `n Street PadCnCA 36C01 Orreka, CA 95501 916/225-23co 707/442-2313 P. Jensen, PegiCnal !4ra,9r DDppart{e t at Trnraportacion Department or ?!An And Car•{e ODistrict 2 1701 Nicbus ?tad, 51u:e A �CA 96001v* O Rum 55-0922VA, CA 35670 916/225-2308 r Arlan J, faith B. Uter, ?e5!oral 'hna;er Department or Traruporaticn O Depar m9ett of ? sn srd L * O Dlatr!ce 7329 Silr-rice :'rlS. `spa, CA 34553 y rtet Ca 95901 707/944-2011 ,arysv111e, 916/741-4277 Jr. N. E1110 Q. 4okes, :ag!anal °ar•.a49r Department of Tranaporaticn ;.epattaenc of Ptah a1.d Caxe O District 4 1234 Past a0aa Uenue . x 31D ?-sea, CA 93,26 San Francisco, CA 94120 209/222-3761 415/SST4532 Jere! Leaner ?red A. Worn' e% Jr., ?e;,. 'rara;ar Department of RrXmpor•aation Alfr^ent or Pun er•d lase OO,�Sat,M��cc� Q 245 last .-., :A ay 5o riLiueCS SCr'eet Ian; Use.-., ..A IC802 San Luis Cbispo, JA 33401 213/5'30-4113 105/549-3161 Mart Parlier ?01f it. ':111 tepartt nc of ^n-4or•tatien Maine Aeseurt9a ODlMIR 6 245 Nest ?r`.ava% N-73(* "i2516 O Long !'man, :A 7rism. CA 93r! 209/086-4088 Nays 8a11antine State Aster ?ascuroes Control Beard Cepar�arnfe of Transporat!cn aer!ce t Jean Jun�cian © apria; Str_et i� State aatar 'eac•.rss :ar.::ol Base,tea Ar;eln, CA 9no12 v ::•r!aicn f ::em '4::r J. Intl 213/629-5335 8.0. sox IN Sac=ento, 1A 3;3C1 Robert Pots 916/1222-141.1 Depu'tresft of Transporaticn District 3 d Antan Nt ird StreaE State Water ?escur.9s 'Ant-ml Scar: So 3er+xMLa, CA 92'103 Civtltm of dater aral!ty ' 714/383-4150 0. sox 100 ZOM Depat•trent of snepac aeion �ld/445-95:2 O C!str!c' 3 Jerr! Jcnra ' 4aLi S.mt Srnce Water ?eacures :,;ntrol 3card 8ichop, CA 94514 Cel:a '.rt: 714/573-2290 0 ?.0. sox A= Saerim"Wi �A o5:0 hn Ca3 Jo;1.larm ?16/322-98.o wpartmmt of--wsportaticn At 'faros Di O stro.ct 10 state Water ?rscutss Ccnt:hl Aar: on X-tisiYr Water R.4ft= Stockton...* 35201 -)at ? s.r9ss , 209/948-7815 3xc-seen"a, :* i5Al' 3151324.5115 JL't Cheenire O:t-partront of '"rws;cmaticn District 11 © .'egicnal Wa:_r' earl!:r: % :ontrol Sca, San Diego, CA 72138 ^e;Son ate- CL:y 714/231-i755 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIAN COMPANY ' ORANGE COUNTY DIVISION . P 0 BOX 3334. ANAHEIM. CALIFORNIA 92803-3334 ' Jan. 24, 1986 I Environmental Management Agency P.O. Box 4048 Santa Ana, CA 12712 Attn: Kari Rigoni Subject: EIR - Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan #508A This letter is not to be interpreted as a contractual commitment to serve the proposed project, but only as an information service. Its intent is to notify you that the Southern California Gas Company has facilities to the area where the above named project is proposed. Gas service to ' the project could be provided by a main extension from an existing main shown on the attached atlas sheet without any significant impact on the environment. The service would be ' in accordance with the Company's policies and extension Utilities qules on file with the California Public Commission at the time contractual arrangements are made. 1 I I I The availability of natural gas service, as set forth in this letter, is based upon present conditions of gas supply and regulatory policies. As a public utility, the Southern California Gas Company is under the jurisdiction of the federal regulatory agencies. It these agencies take any action which affects gas supply or the condition under which service is available, gas service will be provided in accordance with revised conditions. residential (System Area Average) Single-family 1095 Multi -family 4 or less units 640 Multi -family 5 or less units 580 Yearly therms/year/dwelling unit therms/year/dwelling unit therms/year/dwelling unit RECEIVED r?$A 1986 i I 1 These estimates are based on gas consumption in residential ' units served by Southern California Gas Company during 1975 and it should not be implied that any particular home( apartment or tract of homes will use these amognts of energy. This is particularly true due to the State's new insulation requirements and consumers' efforts toward energy conservation. We have developed several programs which are available, upon , request, to provide assistance in selecting the most effective applications of energy conservation techniques for a particular project. if you desire_ further information on any of our energy programs, please contact this office for assistance. Sincerely, r L. F. Hurlbutt Technical Supervisor LA/du , attachment 1 I I 1 I 1 1� RCCEIVED ' r I I I I I J 11 Southern Callfornla Edison Company P. O. BOX 2069 7333 SO{,$A AVENUE WESTMINSTER, CALIFORNIA 92683-1269 February 3, 1986 County of Orange Environmental Management Agency P.O. Box 4048 Santa Ana, CA 92702-4048 Attention: Rari Rigoni Env. & Special Projects Subject: E.I.R. — Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan, 175 acres,— S/O John Wayne A/P bounded by So. Bristol St., Mesa Dr. & Santa Ana Ave., Orange County Gentlemen: This is to advise that the subject property is located within the service territory of the Southern California Edison Company and that the electric loads of the project are within parameters of projected load growth which Edison is planning to meet in this area. Unless the demand for electrical generating capacity exceeds our estimates, and provided that there are no unexpected out— ages to major sources of electrical supply, we expect.to meet our electrical requirements for the next several years. Our total system demand is expected to continue to increase annually; however, excluding any unforeseen problems, our plans for new generation resources indicate that our ability to serve new loads during peak demand periods will be adequate during the decade of the '80s. Current conservation efforts on the part of Edison's customers have resulted in energy savings. Optimization of conservation measures in this project will contribute to the overall energy savings goal. Very truly yours, -�� V Lim-/J�i7t✓ W. P. Erickson(;" Service Planner WPE:da . ,.' `: i) FEB -5 1986 _::'.A DISTRICT OFFICE SERVING. CORONA DEL MAR. COSTA MESA - FOUNTAIN VALLEY - HUNTINGTON BEACH MIDWAY CITY NEWPORT BEACH - ROSSMOOR -SEAL BEACH -SUNSET BEACH - WESTMINSTER COSTA MESA January 28, 1986 Ms. Kathleen Brady-Rebella County of Orange/EMA P.O. Box 4048 Santa Ana, CA 92702-4048 DISTRICT RE: DRAFT EIR N508A, SANTA ANA HEIGHTS SPECIFIC PLAN Dear Kathleen: DIRECTORS James A. Wahnar, hnMant orma 0. Crank, Vlaa Fra,idant Rohn Hanson, Swartary Harry S. arm" Jim* a. Oallachn Subject property under consideration is in the Costa Mesa Sanitary District and is served by existing sewer lines. The capacity of the system will not handle sewage flows generated from the proposed zoning, and additionally, the District does not have adequate funds to construct the necessay improvements. Therefore, the developers of projects in this area will be required to participate in the cost of upsizing the local and downstream sewers. The above is in addition to the normal payment of fees and processing requirements of the District. If you desire any additional information regarding this matter, please call me at (714) 631-1731. Si cerel . 'w,3 . ROBIN B. HAMERS District Engineer RBH/kc cc. Bruce Mattern Roy June RE0EiVED JAN 3 01986 EMA F. 0. BOX 1200, COSTA MESA, CALI FORNIA 926294200 4 77 FAIR DRIVE a Ill 4)164n843 UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS MARINE CORPS AIR BASES. WESTERN AREA EL TORO ISANTA ANAL CALIFORNIA 92709 IN REPLY REFER TQ 11103 AQ 30 JAN 1986 Kari Rigoni Environmental and Special Projects Division Orange County Environmental Management Agency P.O. Box 4048 Santa Ana, Ca. 92702-4048 SANTA ANA HEIGHTS SPECIFIC PLAN Dear Ms. Rigoni: The Notice of Preparation of the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan has been reviewed and we have no comments at this time. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Sincerely, ELTON Colonel, U.S. Marine Corps Community Plans and Liaison Officer By direction of the Commander 't RECEIVED FEB 3 19860 -:MA STATE 0 CI }I►QIIIMA—M131NE55 AND TRANS►ORTAVON AGENCY _ GEORGE DEUKMVIAN, 09wM s area _ DEPARTMENT Of TRANSPORTATION DISTMCT 7, 9.o. SOX 2SW, LOS ANGELES 9W31 9(213) 620-5335 February 25, 1986 Notice of Preparation Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan SCH #83113009 Ms. Kari Rigoni County of Orange P. 0. Box 4048 Santa Ana, CA 92702 Dear Ms. Rigoni: We have reviewed the Notice of Preparation for the above referenced project. Caltrans would be a Responsible Agency for any proposed work within the state right of way on Route 73 which borders the project on the north side. At such time specific projects are proposed, Caltrans should be involved in the planning process to avoid delays in the process of obtaining Encroachment Permits at a later date. Contact person for our agency will be Ron Kosinski at (213) 620-3755. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this NO?. Very truly yours, -W. B. BALLANTIN , of Environmental Planning Branch STATE Of CAUFORNIA—BUSINESS, TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING AGENCY GEORGE DEUKMEJIAN, Gownor ' DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DIVISION OF AERONAUTICS 1130 K STREET- 4TH FLOOR y MAIL: P.O. BOX 1499 SACRAMENTO,CA 95607 (916) 322.3090 HQ TOD 323.7665 February 21, 1986 ' Ms. Kari Rigoni County of Orange P. 0. Box 4048 Santa Ana, CA 92702-4048 Dear Ms. Rigoni: The County of Orange's NOP for the Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan Project; SCH #83113009 (In Vicinity of John Wayne Airport) The Department of Transportation, Division of Aeronautics, has reviewed the above -referenced document with respect to those areas germane to its statutory responsibilities. The following ' suggestions are offered for your consideration. Because of the close proximity of the project site to the ' airport, the DEIR should address the project's potential impact on airport operations as well as airport -related noise and safety impacts on the project. Consideration given to the issue of compatible land uses in the vicinity of an airport should help to relieve future conflict between airports and their surroundings. Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this ' proposal. The Division looks forward to reviewing the DEIR. Sincerely, JACK D. KEMMERLY, Chief Division of Aeronautics 1 4aTr andy�iesnard Environmental Planner RECEIVED FEB 281986 EMA A A!lOCIATI _ Goo loath Commonwealth Rwnu* *full* 1000 * lot Any*Ni • Collfownla * 90005 * 218/585-KW DATE: February 24, 1986 I 1, u nI, L TO: Ms. Karl Rigoni ' County of Orange Environmental Management Agency P. 0. Box 4048 Santa Ana, CA 92702-4048 FROM: Metropolitan Clearinghouse SUBJECT: DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT N508A -- SANTA ANA HEIGHTS SPECIFIC PLAN , SCAB FILE NO. OR-35306-NR Thank you for submitting the Notice to Prepare the environmental document for the referenced project for SCAG review. SCAG staff does not have comments at this time but looks forward to reviewing the environmental , document when available. Sincerely, I Clearinghouse Officiae WAM:wp2 ' CE V E D J ' RECEIVED ; BAR 0 3 MQ STATE OF CALIFORNIA—RESOURCES AGENCY GEORGE DEUKMEJIAN, Governor DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES P.O. Box 6598 ' LOS ANGELES (a90055 FEB 14 19M ' County of Orange Post Office Box 4048 Santa Ana, CA 92702-4048 Attention: Kari Rigoni Notice of Preparation of• DEIR for Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan, dated January 24, 1986, SCH 83113009. The Department of Water Resources' recommendations on the subject document are attached. The recommendations are related to water conservation and flood damage prevention. Consideration should also be given to a comprehensive program to use reclaimed ' water for irrigation purposes in order to free fresh water supplies for beneficial uses requiring high quality water. For further information, you may wish to contact John Pariewski at 213-620-3951. Sincerely, Robert Y. D. Chun, Chief Planning Branch ' Southern District Attachments ' cc: Office of Planning and Research State Clearinghouse 1400 Tenth Street ' Sacramento, CA 95814 :n4 � Department of Water Resources Recommendations for Water Conservation and Water Reclamation To reduce water demand, the following water conservation measures should be implemented: Required by law: i. Low -flush toilets (see Section 17921,3 of the Health and Safety Code). 2. Low -flow showers and faucets (California Administrative Code, Title 24, Part 6, Article 1, T20-1406F). 3. Insulation of hot water lines in water recirculating systems (California Energy Commission regulations). Recommendations to be implemented where applienble: Interior: 1. Supply line pressure: recommend water pressure greater than 50 pounds per square inch (psi) be reduced to 50 psi or less by means of a pressure-r^',.ing valve. 2. Flush valve operated water closets: recommend 3 gallons per flush. 3. Drinking fountains: recommend equipped with self -closing valves. 4. Pipe insulation: recommend all hot water lines in dwelling be insulated to provide hot water faster with less water waste and to keep hot pipes from heating cold water pipes. 5. Hotel rooms: recommend posting conservation reminders in rooms and rest rooms.* Recommend thermostatically -controlled mixing valve for bath/shower. 6. Laundry facilities: recommend use of water -conserving models of washers. 1. Restaurants: recommend use of water -conserving models of dishwashers or retrof tting spray emitters. Recommend serving drinking water upon request only.* Exterior: 1. Landscape with low water -consuming plants wherever feasible. 2. Minimize use of lawn by limiting it to lawn dependent uses, such as playing fields. *The Department of Water Resources or local water district may aid in developing these materials. I 3. Use mulch extensively in all landscaped areas. Mulch applied on top of soil will improve the water —holding capacity of the soil by reducing evaporation and soil compaction. 4. Preserve and protect existing trees and shrubs. Established plants are often adapted to low water conditions and their use saves water needed to establish replacement vegetation. 5. Install efficient irrigation systems which minimize runoff and evaporation and maximize the water which will reach the plant roots. Drip irrigation soil moisture sensors and automatic irrigation systems are a few methods of increasing irrigation efficiency. 6. Use pervious paving material whenever feasible to reduce surface water ' runoff and aid in ground water recharge. 7. Grading of slopes should minimize surface water runoff. S. Investigate the feasibility of utilizing reclaimed waste water, stored rainwater, or household grey water for irrigation. 9. Encourage cluster development which can reduce the amount of land being converted to urban use. This will reduce the amount of impervious paving created and thereby aid in ground water recharge. 10. Preserve existing natural drainage areas and encourage the incorporation of natural drainage systems in new developments. This would aid in ground water recharge. 11. Flood plains and aquifer recharge areas which are the best sites for ground water recharge should be preserved as open space. CJ 1 Department of Water Resources Recommendations for Flood Damage Prevention In flood -prone areas, flood damage prevention measures required to protect a proposed development should be based on the following guidelines: 1. All building structures should be protected against a 100-year flood. It is the State's policy to conserve water. Any potential loss to ground water should be mitigated. 2. In those areas not covered by a Flood Insurance Rate Map or a Flood Boundary and Floodway Map, issued by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the 100-year flood elevation and boundary should be shown on the Environmental Impact Report. 3. At least one route of ingress and egress to the development should be available during a 100-year flood. 4. The slope and foundation designs for all structures should be based on detailed soils and engineering studies, especially for all hillside developments. 5. Revegetation of the slopes should be done as soon as possible. 6. The potential damage to the proposed development by mudflow should be assessed and mitigated as required. 7. Grading should be limited to dry months to minimize problems associated with sediment transport during construction. � pF iql. A January 29, 1986 ' Kari Rigoni Environmental Management Agency ' P.O. Box 4048 Santa Ana, CA 92702-4048 RE: SANTA ANA HEIGHTS SPECIFIC PLAN NOTICE OF PREPARATION ' Dear Ms. Rigoni: Thank you for giving us the opportunity to review the subject NOP. The City of Irvine has no comments at this time. We look forward to reviewing the draft EIR during the ' forthcoming review and comment period. sincerely, i Ea oore, AIC ~ ' Principal Planner/Environmental Coordinator EM/ss ' cc: John Murphy Mary Roush ' Disk: Kari Rigoni RECEIVED FEB g - 1986 FMA 11 United States Department of the Interior FISH AND WILpLIFE SERVICE LAGUNA NIGUEL FIELD OFFICE 24000 Avila Road Laguna Niguel, California 92656 February 3, 1986 Environmental Management Agency P.O. Dox 4048 Santa Ana, California 92702 Re: Notice of Intent to Prepare Draft Environmental Impact Statement #508A for Santa Ana Heights Specific Platt Dear Sir: We have examined the subject document, provided to us on January 15, 1986 and offer no comments. Sincerely yours, "- Nancy M. Kaufman Project Leader FEt3 G 1aEG '- �� 1122 4.E. Bristol ' Santa Ana, California 92707 (714) 545.1060 or545.4050 ' February 3, 1986 County of Orange Environmental Management Agency ' P. 0. Box 4048 Santa Ana, Ca. 92702-4048 ' RE: Draft EIR =508A Gentlemen: ' The project site discussed in the supplement to Final EIR -4508 for the Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan is.within the service area of the Santa Ana Heights Water Company. Minor improvements will be required in the water distribution system to meet fire flow requirements when commercial elements of the plan are fully developed. Very truly yours r Louis E. Clem ' President LEC:ms r t 6 1366 r'AA� RECEIVED February 6, 1986 hEB 10 1986 ' Environmental 14ananement Arenc,y FMA ' P 0 Box 4048 Santa Ana, CA 92702-4048 Dear Kathleen Brady Rebella, ' In December 1984, the Riverside Drive kennel Owners Group submitted to the Orange County Poard of Supervi:;or, a petition wrhich wrns prepared by our attorney at laver, fir. Robert V. l'aldron. Approximately seven hundred fifty signatures were collected from some of our ' clientele (only registered Orange County Voters wrero allowre(I to sirn) with An 84.66% participation of the Licensed Kennel Businesses within the boundaries of Tract 21)k;1 of .`:nnta Ana llei.rZhts. In that netition ' the following objection was stated: "we wish to express our most emphatic oi)jcction to any alternative (scenario) that would eliminate the commercial kennel facilities of Riverside Drive in Santa Ana lleiphts, whether by acoui.sition, (including, condemnation), annexation, redevelopment, rezoning, or by any other means". ' In your "Notice of Preparation" received by me Janunry 27, 1986, by Certified and Registered (tail, subject: Notice of intent to prepare a draft environmental impact report :,508A; we would offer the following; comments and objections: ONE. 3.0 Land Use Compatibility Program, Pare 2 states: "Under these guidelines, the areas desinnated employment will con- sist of business park uses and the arens desinnated suburban resid- ential will be limited to residential equestrial uses". Once again we object to any language that would not specifically state that our Tract 2581 would remain an island of A-1 yoninr with residential commercial kennel businesses. This would allow us to pull permits to make improvements to our residences (such as addit- ions) and also improve our businesses. ' T1;10. Specific Plan Components: I'arc 2, First Parar..raph: "Business park and residential equestrian uses". ' Should also include residential commercial kennel businesses. TIIREE. we feel the Environmental Analysis Checklist, as submitted, does not reflect the true impact of the proposed project and, for reasons known only to you, is understated, so much so as to border on ludicrous. FOUR. Environmental Analysis - Explanations/1•itigation Discussion; Supplement to Checklist Form Plo. F 0250-338: While in ,your ana' •+sis the woud "IiAY" i c u:.ed a : a hrond adjective ' rather than a ver in Item 17 A,11,D,F,G,11,I and J- Public Services and Utilities; the first sentence says "li-plementation of the Specific Plan :SILL, to varying rlerrees, affect the Public services and utilities indicated on the checklist." Then, through the re- mainder of the paragraph you have the lurlacity to state by name each of these services (poliece, fire, ro�:,er, telephone, cable, crater, sewer, etc.) and use the term 111:AY be impacted". There is absolutely no doubt about it. tt simply enn not he. It is too obvious that these services 1:ILL bo impnoted. All you have to do is take a look at the new slaline directly adjacent to the airport. Orange County is full into the hi -rise boilclinp husiness. The load on the fire suppression service liar, nlrendy far exceeded its call- ibality to be effective in a norms l emerrenc;; in typical hi -rise operations. Should an aircraft (like the frontier 111) PO that lost part of its engine exhaust system and started some thirteen roof fires last year, which committed the entire Newport Reach Fire riept. plus mutual aid from other fire depts.) have a major prolwlem, and find it necessary to return to JP:A under emergency conditions, it is possible that the loss of control of that aircraft nould nlnce it at the tenth or eleventh story level of one of the man,., hi -rise buildings directly adjacent to J41A. With one three man pumper company from Campus and Dove, which may be on another run or out of position on a fire prrventior inspection, Ornnr;e Count„ is courting disaster. A person residinr! in the :ants Aria lleirhts area durinn such a time of emergency and in need of fire suppression services will have to rely heavily on his own nrownns. I point this one service out to you because I have experience in these matters and your attention to all these matters need re-examination, not cursor;; mention. The Orange County Tioarcl of :supervisors would rather know at the start that it will be necessary to ereot n necr fire station in the immediate area. It shonid have a minim:un of one 10u1' serial ladder with a five man crecr, one IF= gpm pumper with a four man crew and one paramedic vehicle with a two man crew. This will cost the County nothing if a "Users Tax" of approximate]+; one dollar ner passenger is implemented for "Airport Safety lieasure�q or whatever. Sincerely, � 6� r 6 11.rtin R. South Jr., Representative Riverside Kennel Owners Croup 20332 Riverside Drive Santa Ana Heights, CA 92707 Phone: Bus, 546-644E lies. 545-3830 Xerox: Rich Adler I H LJ U I C 1, L I I I 1 i� I I1 C)F RECEIVED MAR 171986 G F— '" COwnA ANA INC.iBm ORANGE COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT 180 SOUTH WATER STREET P.O. BOX 86, ORANGE, CALIFORNIA 92666-0D86 1714) 5383551 March 14, 1986 Michael A. Gutierrez B.S.I. Consultants, Inc. 1415 E. 17th St. Santa Ana, CA 92701 SUBJECT: SANTA ANA HEIGHTS WATER IMPROVEMENT STUDY LARRY J. HOLMS DIRECTOR OF FIRE SERVICES SERVING THE UNINCORPORATED AREAS OF ORANGE COUNTY AND THE CITIES OF. CYPRESS IRVINE LA PALMA LOS ALAMITOS PLACENTIA SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO SEAL BEACH TUSTIN VILLA PARK YORBA LINDA Considering that the information provided is somewhat "general" in content, we cannot give a specific fire flow for system design, but we'are providing a reference sheet which should assist you and give you a base for determining fire flow. Should you have any questions, please contact Art Pereida at 538-3551. Sincerely, Gene Hutain Fire Protection Planner GH:AP:eb Attachment ' SMOKE DETECTORS SAVE LIVES .j . .. . .T .1 i, - SLIT =: iYrefiow Mdremamts based on Land Use Dsscriptians ri"OSE: rMuently engineers will aak for firanow requirwants based on land use designations for preliminary design of water systems. Actual structural conditions datermiae firsflow requirements Durk the following estimated fireflows an be used for paslimir+aty water systat design purposes. 6 OF $MIUNTS 1. Single faw"y detached (1-sto j 1000 2 l 2. Duplexes, 2-story single family 1500 2 l detached , 3. Matiple - family - 2-story (Apts. t tondos; Light Camnrrial 2 i Industrial; elementary sc�uools 2000 4 2500 2 4. 3-story, suultiple fardly; neighbOriuood I came-4ty =,11mmials medium kAmtrial; intermediate i high sduools. 3000 - 4000 3-4 3-4 S. RlgiWAI skipping centers and 4500 - 6000 4-6 heavy industrial. 1idfES: a. Add $00 pm for oonDustiblt roof covairV. b. Yireflow to be available at 20psi residual pressure in urban atlas or 30 psi in hazwftm wildland amass- C . Yireflow am be reduced by $01 for fire sprWar protection- 4-6 I 11 11 11 I r I I I RECEIVED FEB 1 9 1986 Jaycox DISPOSAL ' February 18, 1986 ' Ms. Marianne R. Kearney Environmental Analysis ' Phillips Brandt Reddick 18012 Sky Park Circle Irvine, CA 92714 Subject: Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan/EIR Dear Ms. Kearney: ' This is in response to your request of January 31, 1986 regarding information about solid waste collection services to the subject area. Orco Disposal services this area under contract with the Costa Mesa Sanitary District. Although only service to single family residential ' units is covered by this contract, Orco does service multi -family and commercial projects. Orco Disposal currently services 11,022 residential customers and 15 commercial customers in the subject area. All solid waste generated in this service area is disposed of at the Coyote Canyon landfill operated by the County of Orange. For planning purposes, residential properties generate between 50 and 90 pounds• per week depending upon a variety of factors including density, persons per unit, maturity of landscaping and family income. It is difficult to project similar information for commercial establishments because the factors vary greatly depending upon the ' type of business. ' Orco Disposal has no plans to increase service in the area but is committed to serving the needs of its customers whatever they may be. n -1- ' 1016 East Katella Avenue, P.O. Box 4468, Anaheim, CA 92803-4468 - 714/634-4551 n JOYCOX DISPOSAL Ms. Marianne R. Kearney Environmental Analysis Page 2 - Continued February 18, 1986 The project's compliance with applicable community development standards will address any mitigation measures appropriate for the project. We hope you find the above Information responsive to your request. Should you have questions or require additional information, please feel free to contact me. VgIr'y)truly yours, r 90BERT W. President RWK/mr PMJECT: Santa Ana Heights bounded by So. Bristol Street, Mesa Dr. and Santa Ana Ave. Elesentary, middle and high schools that service the sub- ject area, along with current enrollment/capacities for the schools. School School of _ Current School Level Attendance School Capacities Enrollment Elem. Mariners 598 716 Middle Ensign 676 933 High Newport Harbor 1708 2920 High School Q�� D RECEIVED FEB 0 6 1986 ORANGE COUNTY TRANSIT DISTRICT February 5, 1986 Mr. Tom McCabe Transportation Planning Section Environmental Management Agency P.O. sox 4048 Santa Ana, CA 92702-4048 Dear Tbm: SUBJECT: PROPOSED SANTA ANA HEIGHTS REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA AND NOP DEIR 508A SANTA ANA HEIGHTS SPECIFIC PLAN We have reviewed thess two proposed projects as described in these documents and have the following comments: • OCTD currently operates service on several streets in the Santa Ana Heights area, as shown on the attached route maps. The existing bus stops in the Specific Plan and redevelopment areas are shown in Table 1. • In addition to this existing service, several additional streets have been identified as candidates for transit service in the future, based on the proposed land uses in the area. The streets proposed for service are: - Orchard Drive between Santa Ana Avenue and Birch Street - Birch Street between Mesa Drive and Bristol Street - South Bristol Street between Route 73 and Jamboree Boulevard • In order to ensure accessibility to the available transit services for residents, employees, and visitors in the area, the following transit features should be incorporated in development in the area: - The project buildings should be located as close to the transit streets identified above as possible. Barriers to pedestrian access such as walls, sloped landscaping and parking lots between the bus stops and project buildings should be minimized. Paved, lighted, and handicapped accessible pedestrian walkways should be provided between the bus stops and the project buildings. - Each bus stop should include a paved passenger waiting area, a bench, and a shelter. Eight feet of clearance on the sidewalk, 11222 ACACIA PARKWAY . P.O. SOX 0006. GARDEN GROVE. CALIFORNIA 92642. PHONE (714) 971 6200 11 I 11 u I E 1 Mr. Tom McCabe February 5, 1986 Page Two from the curb, should be provided for safe operation of the wheelchair lifts currently in use on OCTD's large buses. ' • Development of non—residential uses in the Santa Ana Heights area could result in the generation of significant levels of trip activity, particularly in the peak hours. We suggest that the County ' incorporate provisions for the promotion of rideshare in the Specific Plan and other projects in the study areas. OCTD is the rideshare agency for Orange County, and we can assist the County and the project developers in developing rideshare programs for this area. For this assistance, please contact: Mr. Gary Edson Program Manager, Commuter Network Orange County Transit District P.O. Box 3005 Garden Grove, CA 92642 (714) 971-6560 ' We appreciate the opportunity to review these projects and to provide input to this DEIR. We would also appreciate receiving a copy of the DEIR when it is released for public review. If you have any questions, or require additional information, please• call me or Sina Zarifi at (714) 971-6549. Sincerely, Christine Huard —Spencer Environmental Coordinator 1 CHS:AEA Attachments: 1. Maps and schedules for OCTD Routes 61, 71, and 76 2. Table 1: Existing Bus Stops in the Specific Plan and Redevelopment Areas cc: Larry Parrish, Orange County Development Agency, with attachments jari Rigoni, EMA Environmental and Special Projects, with attachments Marianne R. Kearney, Phillips Brandt Reddick, Inc., with attachments 1 1 1 1 EXISTING OCTD BUS STOPS IN THE SANTA ANA HEIGHTS SPECIFIC PLAN AND REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREAS SPECIFIC PLAN AREA NB Irvine Avenue/NS Mesa Drive NB Irvine Avenue/FS Orchard Drive NB Irvine Avenue/NS Bristol Street South SB Irvine Avenue/FS Bristol Street South SB Irvine Avenua/NS Mesa Drive REDEVELOPMENT AREA (in addition to stops shown above) NB Irvine Avenue/FS University Drive SB Airport Way North at bus shelter (John Wayne Airport) NB, SB: Direction of travel on arterial - northbound, southbound NS, FS: Location of stop relative to intersection between transit street and cross street - nearside or farside of intersection 020586CHSARA 0 i 0 7 I I I I I J Orange County Public Library February 5, 1986 Marianne R. Kearney Environmental Analysis Phillips Brandt Reddick 18012 Sky Park Circle Irvine, CA 92714 Dear Ms. Kearney: I ELIZABETH MARTINEZ S '� • - COUNTY LIBRARIAN 431 CITY DRIVE SOUTH ORANGE, CALIFORNIA 92668 17141 634.7841 1 This is in response to your letter of January 31, 1986 regarding the Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan/EIR. The nearest Orange County libraries to the proposed Mesa branch, 1855 Park Avenue, Costa Mesa, 92627; t 2969 Mesa Verde Drive'East, Costa Mesa, 92626; and Park branch, 4512 Sandburg Way, Irvine, 92715. The Park Avenue is being replaced by a new and enlarged address) and is currently under construction. This is projected for completion in October 1986. site are the Costa ie Mesa Verde branch, the Irvine University Costa Mesa library on facility (same 7500 sq. ft. building The Library Facilities Master Plan does not project additional library buildings in the subject area. The attached brochure describes the services of the Orange County Public Library. If you have any further questions please contact me at (714) 634-7824. Yours truly, Irmgard Bassen Chief, Public Services IB:vj cc: E.M. Smith, County Librarian, OCPL Enclosure 6349016L !W NSMMW OOJG MatvMIfAVUD� WY O ANMM. 690A0 fOONLVNVA GAAOWOIIOVOCMlMW QMWGA MIONAL VOJtOMMGM OMNNOMAG{M116AWWHA OIVMWNIVYURV W UNADG UA M IAlALMA MMNW M70 SWOLLM M MNGRTNIWOM MN" Y.O.�ILL� a+.r lMCIOIIWSM0011•Mri A1wM1101 YU.IMCWMARYW N WVMA00 VT N U= VNJ.AMM W6itMM5 P n i I1 I I 11 91 J n RECEIVED ?BAR 10 19,96 Y C)r N G E ORANGE COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT 180 SOUTH WATER STREET P.O. BOX 86, ORANGE, CALIFORNIA 92666.0086 (714) 538.3551 March 6, 1986 Marianne Kearney Phillips Brandt Reddick 18012 Sky Park Circle Irvine, CA 92714 SUBJECT: SANTA ANA HEIGHTS SPECIFIC PLAN/EIR LARRYJ.HOLMS DIRECTOR OF FIRE SERVICES SERVING THE UNINCORPORATED AREAS OF ORANGE COUNTY AND THE CITIES OF: CYPRESS IRVINE LA PALMA LOS ALAMITOS PLACENTIA SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO SEAL BEACH TUSTIN VILLA PARK YORBA LINDA This is in response to your request for information regarding the subject property. The subject property is in unincorporated Orange County and fire protection and emergency medical care is provided by the Orange County Fire Department. The stations servicing the area are: Station 27, 19459 S. Airport Way, Irvine (John Wayne Airport) 1 Engine Company 3 Paid Personnel 1 Foam Utility The approximate response distance is 1 mile. The approximate response time is 2-3 minutes. This engine company is under a 50/50 contract with the City of Newport Beach with an automatic aid agreement for response to subject property also in effect. Newport Beach response: Station 3, 868 Santa Barbara, Newport Beach 1 Engine Company 3 Paid Personnel 1 Truck Company 4 Paid Personnel 1 Paramedic Unit 2 Paid Personnel The approximate response distance is 21 miles. The approximate response time is 5-6 minutes. There are no projections for expansion of the service level for the area. SMOKE DETECTORS SAVE LIVES I Marianne Kearney ' March S. 1986 Page 2 This project would contribute to the cumulative need for additional t manpower and equipment due to the increased number of responses and the likelihood of simultaneous and greater alarm incidents. The existing fire station locations provide an adequate response time and additional stations will not be required. Built-in fire protection features, such as automatic fire sprinklers, ' would reduce the demand on fire protection services. The t!ater company sirvinn the ar?a will be able to provide information regarding the water system capabilities to provide the fire flow requirements. The fire department uses the Insurance Services Office (I,S.O.) guidelines for the proposed land use. If you have any further questions, you may contact me at (714) 538-3551. Sincerely, Gene Hutain Fire Protection Planner GH:eb I J 11 I ' RECEIVED MAR 12 1988 n COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA P.O. BOX 8127, FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CALIFORNIA 92728-8127 'V•�+`+ 10844 ELLIS, FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CALIFORNIA 92708-7018 +.vat cou (714) 962-2411 March 10, 1986 Ir1 ' Phillips Brandt Reddick 18012 Skypark Circle Irvine, CA 92714 Attention: Marianne R. Kearney Environmental Analysis Subject: Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan/EIR The Districts appreciate the opportunity to comment on subject project. The proposed project area is within the boundaries of County Sanitation District No. 7, however, that District has no facilities south of the Corona Del Mar Freeway. Currently, existing developments south of the freeway receive local sewer ser- vice from the Costa Mesa Sanitary District and regional collection and treat- ment from County Sanitation District No. 6. While the area does lie within District No. 7, extensive offsite facilities would be required to drain to that system and annexation to the City of Newport Beach could be required. The District No. 6-system which lies generally to the west of the property is over- loaded at this time, and additional discharge to that system would have to be carefully evaluated. For your information, the majority of the area within the Specific Plan study boundary has been master planned by the Districts for low -density residential development using a flow coefficient of 1,550 gallons per day, per acre. Any higher flows anticipated from the project should be carefully analyzed and discussed with this office. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to call. Hilary J. Baker Senior Administrative Assistant HJB:Ib cc: County of Orange, Environmental Management Agency I SHERIFF -CORONER DEPARTMENT COUNTY OF ORANGE CALIFORNIA BRAD GATES SHERIFF -CORONER Marianne R. Kearney Phillips Brandt Reddick 18012 Skypark Circle Irvine, California 92714 RE: Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan/EIR Dear Ms. Kearney: February 11, 1986 The closest Sheriff's facility to your proposed project is located at 550 N. Flower Street, Santa Ana. The average driving time from the Headquarters facility is approximately 20 minutes. As you must be aware, however, our response to calls for service does not originate from the Headquarters facility. We maintain patrol deputies in our areas of responsibility on a 24-hour basis. Our response goals are 5 minutes for emergency calls and 20 minutes for non -emergencies. We normally field 10 deputies on midnight shift, 11 deputies on day shift, and 20 deputies on evening shift. These deputies are augmented by helicopter and canine patrol services. Although the Sheriff -Coroner Department has no current plans to expand services in the study area, the Department continues to monitor growth and reevaluate deployment of resources. It is difficult to determine precisely at what point additional resources will be required because a major factor in this determination is called for services. Experience dictates that any increase in population affects our capabilities. The project site is in an area where our current staffing has not reached its maximum capabilities. However, any further development will require reevaluation. Sincerely, BRAD GATES 5HERIFF-CORO NER Vito eriauto, Captaih North Operations Division VF:dp I I i I I L' i I I I F 550 N, FLOWER STREET - P.O. BOX 449, SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA 92702 - (714) 834.3000 I Southern Ca/lforn/a Ed/son Company P. O BOX 2069, - 7333 BOLSA AVENUE 1 �ag6 p ( F WESTMINSTER• CALIFORNIA 92683-1269 !� V, INC. March 6, 1986 SSJ CONA\ AFN.4 BSI Consultants 1415 E. 17th St. Santa Ana, CA 92701 Attention: Mike Gutierrez Subject: E.I.R. — Santa Ana Heights Gentlemen: This is to advise that the subject property is located within the service territory of the Southern California Edison Company and that the electric loads of the project are within parameters of projected load gsowth which Edison is.planning to meet in this area. At the present time, the Edison Company has no plans to alter any of their overhead or underground facilities in the subject area. Any conversions or additions to our existing system will be dealt with as they arise. Very truly yours, / ,a/ 'to�i(�p�iV W. P. Ericksof;Z Service Planner WPE:da 11 DISTRICT OFFICE SERVING. CORONA DEL MAR ■ COSTA MESAS FOUNTAIN VALLEY ■ HUNTINGTON BEACH I MIDWAY CITY 0 NEWPORT BEACH 0 ROSSMOOR 0 SEAL BEACH 8 SUNSET BEACH 8 WESTMINSTER RECEIVED SHERIFF -CORONER DEPARTMENT COUNTY OF ORANGE CALIFORNIA BRAD GATES SHERIFF -CORONER Mr. Sid Lindmark Phillips Brandt Reddick 18012 Skypark Circle Irvine, CA 92714 April 110 1986 Subject: Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan/EIR Dear Mr. Lindmark: In your request for additional information dated April 8, 1986, you supplied data which indicates a net loss of 100 single family resi- dential units, the addition of 77 multi --family units, a two acre equestrian center and the development of approximately 1.09 million square feet of office space. On the surface, it appears the loss of the single family units and their replacement with multi -family units represents no significant loss or gain in population. The equestrian center should not require any change in our current staffing. The addition of the office space, if fully developed, may require additional staffing. We would make that decision based on the demographics of the actual development. If I can be of further assistance as your development progresses, please do not hesitate to let me know. Sincerely, BRAD GATES, SHERIFF -CORONER / f-7' V o lauto, Captain rt Aerations Divisi VF:GAJ:mj 550 N. FLOWER STREET - P.O. BOX 449, SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA 92702 (714) 834.3000 1 RECEIVE HOAG MEMORIAL HOSPITAL PRESBYTERIAN 301 NEWPORT BOULEVARD • BOXY • NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92663 • PHONE (714) 645.8600 March 21, 1986 Marianne R. Kearney Environmental Analyst Phillips Brandt Reddick 1802 Sky Park Circle Irvine, CA 92714 Dear Ms, Kearney: Attached is a summary of the information you requested pertaining to the Environmental Impact Report for the Santa Ana Heights ' area. Also included is an inventory of the hospital services we currently provide. I apologize for the delay in providing this information. If you have any questions, please feel free to call me at (714) 760- 2394. Sincerely, Mary Ray Meltvedt Administrative Assistant MKM:bw enc. I I I ' A NON-PROFIT COMMUNITY HOSPITAL ACCREDITED BY THE JOINT COMMISSION ON ACCREDITATION OF HOSPITALS 1. 2. HOAG MEMORIAL HOSPITAL PRESBYTERIAN SUMMARY OF INFORMATION SANTA ANA HEIGHTS AREA Emergency Services Hoag Hospital's Emergency Care Unit (ECU) is staffed 24 is first hour facility for heart hours a day. Hoag a attack victims as well as a neuro receiving center for brain and spinal cord injuries. The FASTAID Center, located within our ECU, is available for minor emergencies. The hospital is also equipped with a state approved emergency heliport. Hoag Hospital is not a trauma center. The Emergency Room has traditionally treated industrial approximately 30 workers' compensation injuries. We average visits in the ECU per month. We have the capacity to continue providing industrial injury services to the Santa Ana Heights area after the proposed development. Captain Steve Werth of the Orange County Fire Department has provided me with the following information: Santa Ana Station 27 Engines and Paramedics respond to the Santa Ana Heights area as far south as Santa Isabel. Their response time is one to four minutes. Newport Beach Station Six M, Engines and Paramedics respond south of Santa Isabel. Their response time is approximately three minutes to the Santa Ana Heights area. The primary ambulance service contracted the for that area is Seals, with Doctors Ambulance as secondary. Number of Beds and Vacancy Rates classificationB Medical/Surgical 340 Mental Health 36 Perinatal 46 Pediatrics 41 Intermediate Nursery .B Total 471 Hoag Hospital's current licensed occupancy ranges between 60 and 70 percent. I I SUMMARY OF INFORMATION (Continued) Page 2 3. Impact of Proposed Development The proposed intensification of development in the Santa Ana Heights area should not adversely affect Hoag Hospital's ability to continue providing quality health care to the residents of the area. As stated before, Hoag will continue providing industrial injury services in its Emergency Care Unit as needed for this service area. 4. Service Expansion As indicated on the Services Inventory, Hoag Hospital will begin a Chemical Dependency Program the end of 1986. Although there are current plans to expand particular services (Cancer Services, for example) on property adjacent to the hospital, these services will not be completed within the year. MRM:bw 1 1 I I 1 i 1 I llea 01: - -- .:.._ .e�a...t.a.0 AnvCtvlUtiY I I I I r 1 r u+ 111116 11WITAT s@T7t6 �;`, Cede awry W6 D111T msMAL sEATICES b.,at I.arinhf Cme AKILSAAT UWCES arms, teen &O*n 2 CIVIC SMICES G•6a,r1 6 O10 walrk Inrolw Cam 7 LAW I%. St• ktt Gnt MH.ni OtS Oarre Ixueiw Car 6Mttmat, Orrin Cer"u Csm*v,icH4 anent Ca SO&A lmardw Cyr Avasn" Sem:et Dtmuloten C25 so"I Imrtnlw ere anal S.mtr Wattle! W Wz bobs. Ir:bninf We tadxar. lot"'" Can Rem? S:• n (%warn: Suitt, 2Alle• 7 Ye:nalie I F Do t7R>titl'R Iwatr Ir"mnlw fie 6 1 2MrvMI Ids RIww7lope>ne tie Rnu: Swarm 2 1`163w: i _ 6S7 Caamaaca►k D:wwe ideb� Cxf Sur Kx Der Cae 16. MpnaHl 1 IAS fnl,Crw Faelxw We Orntpl,rlc Salea7 RRn�x•ic �+ IMS MAIM Lbleena.at GM a Irldw/ Tlnita im SfTCH 6awttlrKs Cis Uri Cat 1 Z on. MeM SuMr, Serum Mnutrxlf i 070 O7s I A1n>Axiw Cat (. bairn Ge ~ Custadr OafO Ilea! CAMISle•itt from, se,ict Ontescor7 Sallee I 2 lemumarc Am, 1 b Ot0 I labsk let Mar, Sul Summ 7 OrawHK F CIS Aa.b,M &,serf teM btax.earrc Unity 2Trauma P.:na M larr"ll Immirl ler•Ir7 elm araco.dk SurM ClDbaaalnel,t7 ass R lutim Murye•7 Cart 2 Rani 041n s Sewn OfekMntkU D 700 stroke We Annlbal, Sawn—Su7Kal h6atr7 I ICS MwMN Asvte GM Z SwstMlit St,r.I>.- AIttlo 8 Dena b Ito tat palm Ca•e ANloerk Rt. 1-fic Semites 2 I Ak W,w t US Rwtixrie Adele Call Aarmaxo c St,kas Z I Gild 0411:2ls 120 M.xrK AMP We O'"Al M,r.%Ill Sewn 2 1 b+N lmavmr: 12S CdrittrK MOE Cam ltrala 't Stm:tl Olut A} -'It 130 WdKx AMe GM TtalNin'I St,i:H 2 I really TtuH, 1 115 Sumk4l MAE Gre Wcnllearrn Sewn 7 1 Crave Thaw, I SAO skilled IPuu IEAtand Cam Mwro,lr semcrt OTMEll SERVICES Tninl, dNlytlr M: 145 R lettk S,npRma Gr< Rlmun I*Stmets 1 150 Tutuulaus lorq•Tera G•e a, Un1 Oyu AH:h,• Inle I ISS ktrnrfute Care Wood Sl,t ). G,:n7furo•!e u:, I 1W Itbtliliatwn Cart [M:xirtah+bt•Hbc Eaailr Ran+in ILS 170 ITS 110 Suidentw1casta6x We - Starlet ifWdsha Gre Self Cut Mx,lea 6 6Sip Otetr,Nrdrot'I:nr [IMrc .n•r Hp EJew�Nher TMrwi ). I I GntU: Canehy 1 DKtetk Ca,s l., I parer" Traimnr CIHS I Mallet.: 7tal"t Clns I 9 133 190 195 PUTIAL 61T CUE 10=114tric VICH Cat ' Raehis!nt Cer Cie 6 6 Cetatt TMra:n I pNl Mal1 THMr CnI 1 46um b w,my PLalfrar,11c tadns:t»t I tullk Mu::n Clas Ibdcat kale.•:• I r, �, ZM 205 WK CIE SISM= Meat •pl Vall eMa Cam 6 TM4ow4e Lwanatwe IIMMILL EDI '-IC'1 tAXWS Amn,rd studt+:r CwLyltrltad Aaal TomormeAr, 210 Ib,a Swix Uwrw Cut 6 RW Z 1 Awrewd IntrrL+:: ris I tarme Din Trxw hnw 2 1 Ater,". Eel '�' 220 1 lil tan A I placmIr, Wirt t isteMd Nw+.wntI I tnnKun I AHm•: 1 a5 I RRl.ndf Ewlu Mine Cam 6 1ttu nac7 Wirt ass,zaared 1eaMucat 6 1 ill SSO Iarnu Murunr GM 6 1 Cbucal tbaauc*A%: Sernicas 1) 1 LV71 273 240 pE7tCnIC7 SQTIC6 lakerSeen Rea. Senn 1 ts7c'.oranol ktl 7Mrw7 Z 1 MYMc ANImenl: 1Mck 11Mrw7 YH:uI Tec>'+oloc:t: 2l5 ArdiaaSince katTMrwr INUUInntM:wnc n 1 250 I10601 Grow Call Serra Ct7a henx two" Wragaiaut iMmn1 25S falld4stric Exerteact Stria A2 Send! TMm7 12 pea Imam so Erverfolic, Oblalm 2 9;Zh0I1n TLtrnf 9 rankar 1M•unt ZU tan Caw•rf.CxirwSillfar LV.7Mm7 I Wul,.t TO&N, •I: f I 270 Treace Tile : E O ", 4:.S A 0,410: Mr t L• 1 2A5 1 OVEolefc fealortrvel Srnra, i (Denial Rrdlot let Areas I Atr+innirrgn tn.at,cr T 1 !, 27C red>aeCpe C,ea+•.aaiaelwr pan Oeurwi Sall=ts 141aat IN'.01 T&O :x t:.i 1 23:5 Exalarpmy /Ylsa , Saao va"rar TM•w7 Social worker !AOOmIt.4 War sew", paa.rdre lek+war,, 315 skied Warclem end Rae.0 2>D fatilarid fwrkaq ..- � . - 225 tM...cr tl.d Me System 2fa Plarlaart IV Addna. Star" SOME E 1.7+k'+h ory►'•'al 251K aJ Epl»ti Wl e(7ka►W r/t — iatb 14'eairl ar flegFal tomko Ca.ratted bn Routed Sle..t _ Saab iaeL.ed Small wtawo C:eewv nd fart Ibrlol and { _ sank, ad F.wdd ar Olavu ba Lared role Array Me;" Mile brew: Saran Mal AwSHe. 7.- CYaic SaMia, as taawa.AI Mvr.d.d sr Me ea.rteep a.tar ti a.....u7.w7 art• I•OteM 01 bwogAA.ed jaoj ra a raroaY.L :amsce ,...a i:.�TSi ZK wl lad bah t*CyC� A Combined with E.R. B Combined with Nursing Educatio, C Combined with Laboratory D Combined'with Inhalation Thera E Combined with occupational The F Combined with Pharmacy G Combined with Radiology H Combined with Dietary 1 Combined with Administration 9 .► rne•ht:fpd with 'aedical Records I 1 1 1 i i E i 1 11 k I I I 1 i 1 APPENDIX C 1 I I If 1 PHILLIPS BRANDT REDDICK SANTA ANA HEIGHTS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR PUBLIC WORKS IMPROVEMENTS FINAL REPORT MARCH 31, 1986 BSI CONSULTANTS, INC. 1415 East Seventeenth Street Santa Ana, California 92701 (714)558-1952 I I L i CONSULTANTS, INC. Consultants to Governmental Agencies March 31, 1986 Phillips Brandt Redding 18012 Sky Park Circle Irvine, California 92714 Attn: Mr. Phillip R. Schwartze SUBJECT: Santa Ana Heights Comprehensive Plan for Public Works Improvements Gentlemen: We are pleased to submit herewith, our Final Report entitled "Santa Ana Comprehensive Plan for Public Works Improvements" as proposed in our proposal dated October 29, 1985. It has been a pleasure serving Phillips Brandt Redding and we hope to be of futher assistance -in their future needs and requirements. If there are any questions relating to the information contained herein, we shall be pleased to respond to such requests at your convenience. Sincerely, BSI Consultants, Inc. 1 ' Michael A. Gutierrez, E. Project Engineer Enclosures f� I 1415 East Seventeenth Street • Santa Ana, California 92701 • f714] 558-1952 A Berryman & Stephenson Industries Company 11 k SANTA ANA HEIGHTS SPECIFIC PLAN EXECUTIVE SUMMARY A. INTRODUCTION The County of Orange has retained Phillips Brandt Redding (PBR), to prepare a Specific Plan and Environmental Documentation for the Santa Ana Heights area. In preparing the Specific Plan, PBR has retained BSI Consultants to prepare the Public Works Improvement Plan for the Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan area. This Public Works Improvement Plan is intended to review the existing public works facilities, determine it's adequacy to provide service under existing and ultimate demand requirements, and specify proposed improvements required to meet future demand requirements of the community. B. WATER SYSTEM The Santa Ana Heights Water Company presently provides adequate water service to the Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan area under the existing land uses. The ultimate land use changes will require additional fire protection thus requiring 7,400 linear feet of 6 inch and 8 inch water mains including fire hydrants. The total costs of water system improvements is estimated at $251,000. C. SEWER SYSTEM The Costa Mesa Sanitation District presently provides sewer service to the Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan area. Various ' sewer mains are currently'£lowing at or near capacity and in order to incorporate the ultimate land use changes into their system 8,215 linear feet of 10 through 18 inch sewer mains including pump station 'upgrading will be required. Total costs of assessments �! required by the CMSD which include costs of improvements and increase in energy costs is $1,648,900. , D. DRAINAGE SYSTEM The existing storm runoff collection system within the Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan area is adequate throughout the area except for areas of proposed circulation realignments and modifications which will alter street drainage patterns. The ultimate land use changes and circulation improvements will require the construction of 2,550 linear feet of 30" RCP mains, and catch basins for a total estimated costs of $236,400. E. ELECTRIC TELEPHONE GAS AND CABLE TELEVISION Relocation of ultilities due to circulation improvements are not anticipated. Upgrading of service to the ultimate land use development will be assessed as development occurs. F. CIRCULATION In order to improve circulation and provide adequate commercial traffic flows, the Traffic Report of this Specific Plan has provided improvements and/or modifications to circulation which include street abandonments, realignments and cul—de—sacs. The total costs for these improvements is estimated at $113,500. 11 I TABLE OF CONTENTS Page PART A. GENERAL INFORMATION SECTION I. INTRODUCTION Purpose and Scope of Study 1 II. DESCRIPTION OF STUDY AREA Study Area Location and Description 2 Existing Land Use Ultimate Land Use 2 2 Figure 1: Vicinity Map 4 Figure 2: Location Map 5 Figure 3: Existing Zoning 6 Figure 4: Ultimate Land Use 7 Figure 5: Community Profile 8 ' . PART B. WATER SYSTEM I. WATER REQUIREMENTS 10 Existing and Ultimate Water Requirements 10 Table 1: SAHWC Ultimate Land Use 10 Table 2: SAHWC Projected Water Demand 11 Fire Requirements 12 �. Table 3: Orange Co. Fire Dept. Fire Flow Requirements 12 Table 4: Orange Co. Fire Dept. Fire Hydrant Spacing 13 II. SOURCE OF SUPPLY 14 III. EXISTING WATER SYSTEM Distribution System 14 IV. COMPUTER SIMULATION OF DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM General 15 Computer Simulation Cases 15 Output of the Computer Analysis 15 ' V. WATER DISTRIBUTION IMPROVEMENTS AND CONSTRUCTION COSTS Design Criteria 18 Table 5: Water Distribution Design Criteria 18 Water Distribution System Improvements and Costs 18 Table 6: Water System Improvements and Construction Costs 19 Figure 6: Water Distribution Improvements 20 I TABLE OF CONTENTS ont d PART C. SEWER SYSTEM' page ' I. SEWER SYSTEM DEMANDS - 22 ' Existing and Ultimate Sewer Demands 22 System Design and Replacement Criteria 23 II. REVIEW OF EXISTING SYSTEM Description of Existing Sewer System 24 Table 7: CMSD Sewer Pump Station No. 10 and 11 Facilities 24 Existing Flow Quantities and Deficiencies 24 Table 8: CMSD Sewer Facilities Impacted by Ultimate Development 25 III, REVIEW'OF ULTIMATE SYSTEM Ultimate Flow Quantities and Deficiencies 27 Table 9: SAX Ultimate Flows and Deficiencies 27 IV. SEWER SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS 28 Table 10: Savor System Improvements and Costs 28 Table 11: Santa Ana Heights Specific , Plan Sewer System Improve— nant Costs Figure 7: Sewer Syntax Improvements 29 30 PART D. DRAINAGE SYSTEM I. PLANNING AND DESIGN CRITERIA r Ultimate Land Uses 32 Hydrology 32 Hydraulic Design 33 II. REVIEW OF EXISTING SYSTEM Description of Existing Drainage System 34 Figure 8: Hydrology Map 35 III. REVIEW OF ULTIMATE SYSTEM Ultimate Flow Quantities and Deficiencies 36 Table 12: Drainage System Ultimata Flow , Quantities and Improvements 37 Figure 9: Drainage System Improvements 38 IV. DRAINAGE SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS AND CONSTRUCTION COSTS Drainage System Improvements and Cost 39 Table 13; Drainage Syntax Improvements and Construction Costs 39 � � 1 I I I rn i� I I I I i I I I I I i 1 Ll TABLE OF CONTENTS (font rd) Paste PART E. ELECTRIC TELEPHONE GAS AND CABLE TELEVISION SERVICE Electric 41 Telephone 41 Gas 42 Cable Television 42 Figure 10: Utility Conflict Areas 43 PART F. CIRCULATION 45 Table 14: Circulation Improvements and/or Modification Costs 45 Figure 11: Circulation Map 46 APPENDIX 1. Santa Ana Heights Water Company "Water System Master Plan" 2. Santa Ana Heights Water Company Correspondence 3. Costa Mesa Sanitary Dis't•rict "Santa Ana Heights Sewer Study", April 1983 4. Costa Mesa Sanitation District "Master Plan Update", June 1983 5. Costa Mesa Sanitation District Correspondence ' 6. Pacific Bell Correspondence 7. Irvine Ranch Water District Correspondence 8. Southern California Edison Company Correspondence 9. Orange County Fire Department Correspondence 10. Orange County Sanitation District Correspondence I J I I I I I 1` I I I 1 P PART A GENERAL INFORMATION Ii I SANTA ANA HEIGHTS --- PUBLIC WORKS IMPROVEMENT PLAN SECTION A —I INTRODUCTION Purpose and Scope of Study The County of Orange has retained Phillips Brandt Redding (PBR), an urban design and planning research firm located in Irvine, to prepare a Specific Plan and Environmental Documentation for the Santa Ana Heights area. This Specific Plan will be used to implement the Board of Supervisors' adopted Land Use Compatibility Program (LUCP) and Land Use Element and Community Profile amendments for areas south of the John Wayne Airport and Santa Ana Heights, respectively. The Specific Plan will establish land use regulations and other implementation programs tailored to the unique requirements of the Santa Ana Heights Community. The Redevelopment Plan, to be developed concurrently with the Specific Plan, will serve as the framework for redevelopment of Santa Ana Heights through the mechanism of a redevelopment agency. In preparing the Specific Plan, PBR has retained BSI Consultants, Incorporated to prepare the Public Works Improvement Plan which is a Specific Plan Task. The Public Works Improvement Plan is intended to indentify the adequacy of the existing public works facilities to meet existing and ultimate demand requirements and to determine the required public works facility improvements needed to meet the Board Approved land use plan. The following tasks will be performed to complete the Public Works Improvement Plan: 1. Contact local utility companies and agencies to collect data on existing and future system facilities and demand requirements. 2. Review the data obtained as well as the approved land use plan to determine future demand requirements for the various public works facilities. 3. Determine the adequacy of existing facilities to meet existing and future demand requirements, and identify the improvements required to meet future demand requirements of the community. 4. Prepare a Public Works Improvement Plan to specify proposed improvement construction, costs, and phasing (by agency). 1 PAGE 1 I I r SANTA ANA HEIGHTS -- PUBLIC WORKS IMPROVEMENT PLAN SECTION A -II DESCRIPTION OF STUDY AREA Study Area Location and Description is located in territory Orange , The study area an unincorporated of County south of the Sohn Wayne Airport and is bounded on the north, east and south by the City of Newport Beach and on the west by the City of Costa Mesa as shown on Figure 1. The study area which represents the area covered by the Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan is bounded by South Bristol Street on the north, an irregular boundary formed by property lines on the east, ' Mesa Drive and the County/City of Newport Beach boundary on the south and Santa Ana Avenue and property lines on the west as shown on Figure 2. Existinx Land Use The existing land uses within the study area are quite varied and, for the most part, conform to the existing zoning as shown in Figure 3. The approximate half -acre parcels along Acacia, Birch and Cypress Streets and the north side of Mesa Drive continue to be zoned General Agricultural (Al). These parcels consist; of single-family residential, small multi -family units, equestrian facilities, nurseries and small businesses. Properties on the south side of Mesa Drive are also currently zoned Al but consist of two acre or larger estates. South Bristol Street includes office, commercial and residential uses in Cl, CC and R1 zones. Birch Street between South Bristol and Orchard includes mostly residential uses, including a 52-unit apartment complex on R4 zoned lots. The western section of the study area, west of Irvine Avenue, consists of a mixture of residential, commercial and recreational uses. They include the Newport Beach Golf Course, a small commercial center, apartment complexes from 32 to 180 units, single family residences, nurseries, kennels, a horse stable and a Veterinary clinic. Ultimate Land Use ' The ultimate land use element referenced in this study refers to the General Plan Land Use Element for the Santa Ana Heights area adopted by•the Board as part of the Land use Element Amendment , 85-1•on February 26, 1985 as shown on Figure 4. It reflects the Board's decision to retain a large portion of the residential uses within Santa Ana Heights. Most of the residential areas are designated Suburban Residential (1B), although some of the larger, ' more dense apartment complexes were changed to reflect a more appropriate designation, Urban Residential (1C). The areas along PAGE 2 r I I I .1 l FJ SANTA ANA HEIGHTS -- PUBLIC WORKS IMPROVEMENT PLAN Acacia, Birch and Irvine where converted from residential to Employment uses (3). Existing commercial uses along South Bristol Street are designated Community Commercial (2A) and the golf course and commerical nurseries are designated Open Space (3). The Orange County Community Profile for Santa Ana Heights, which was also amended by the Board on February 26, 1985, includes designations which are consistent with the Land Use Element (Figure 5). Residential densities for the most part, are reflective of existing development. Non—residential designations are similarly reflective of existing uses, with the exception of the Professional —Administration designation (3.2) for the areas to be converted from existing residential use. The Professional — Administration land use is intended to be consistent•with the ultimate land use pattern in this area, a low—rise (2-3 story) business park, with a density ratio of 0.50. PAGE 3 i m m r m= W m M m r m m m m.m m � 55 l ti w�na�wrat SANTA ANA- W'mN HEIGHTS SAt^ ANA FV S4i.r 5 ?05 numa GToAf 56. �RVY+E BEAC" COlfA Nsw or ' VICINITY MAP -Figure 1 OORANGE CouNry i.�..l Ri MCN ® Rt(SR) ®CI(SRl ® FWSM =] CI(ACXSM EXISTING ZONING Q R4 ffM CASK) �.. BPaCIBa Man Study Area Boundary ® RIM ® PA(SR) „�_.T] RKSH) M Al CC(SR) r AI(SR) NEWPORT BEACH I� RI 1�..:.7 PRO ® OS CIH RIB ® AP B U M AP" COSTA MESA MCI EXISTING ZONING -Figure 3 p.L...gwWWM xMen ftd.dd _ ®tA a...dlp e.n�«er a a0+.w.� ©I °"" ""' BOAFID ADOPTED ANDD USE LEM DU NVNFW MAN ton, o.Argeooft"d U *mm waled Areas A++aw.t&n..c..■.-da elec Vow ewb Am ll..dol ® am"-, E4cv . t wwr..d room" p"ammorW i Ew sm. Opm Trw COCTA MESA Alwwwft M Papal seek M c.cep d knave ® aMMd Cwomm.dd ULTIMATE LAND USE -Figure 4 s r= m t m� m m m m� m� m m m m m WN W.1,1061-1.1 Min Imrr^u... n.a n ILLIL 1.2 LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL 1.3 MEDIUM LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL O 1.4 MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL I� 1.8 MEDIUM HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL 1.0 HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL 2.1 COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL JIM 2.11 LOCAL COMMERCIAL UMIIHM 3.2 PROFESSIONAL -ADMINISTRATIVE 4.1 PUBLIC FACILITIES ••••••••• 8.11 AORICULTURE 8.12 CONSERVATION }ii •��. 5.2 RECREATION AN�ls of poposad roads ars coMsplul In Maws BOARD APPROVED COMMUNITY PROFILE Unincorporated Areas �� 8peclRc Pion Study Arco Boundory COMMUNITY PROFILE Figure 5 I n C 1 I PART B WATER SYSTEM SANTA ANA HEIGHTS --- PUBLIC WORKS IMPROVEMENT PLAN SECTION B—I WATER REQUIREMENTS The Santa Ana Heights -Specific Plan area referred to in this study as study area, is located within the Santa Ana Heights Water Company service area which services an area of approximately 1200 acres within Orange County, Costa Mesa and Newport Beach. In anticipation for the proposed land use changes resulting from the adopted Land Use Compatibility Program and Community Profile the Santa Ana Heights Water Company retained Boyle Engineering Corporation to prepare a "Water System Master Plan" in October, ' 1984. The report addressed the effects of proposed zone changes within the study area. It also discussed future water demands, and made recommendations to remedy deficiencies resulting from the rezoning. ' This section reviewed the previous report to comply with the adopted land use plan as well as make additional recommendations to meet anticipated water demands resulting from the rezoning. Existing and Ultimate Water Requirements In order to determine the adequacy of a water distribution system t the water requirements of the study area must be determined. In determining the water requirements various factors must be identified such as land use, area, population, water duty factors, and fire flow requirements. .These factors are characteristic to ' the study area and tend to change from time to time as a community develops thus requiring the evaluation of the adequacy of the system to meet existing and future water requirment's. ' Table 1 shows the Ultimate Land Use within the Santa Ana Heights Water Company as projected in their Master Plan. As discussed in Section II, the ultimate land use will essentially convert ' residential areas along Acacia, Birch, Orchard and Mesa to commercial/professional uses. TABLE 1 SANTA ANA HEIGHTS WATER COMPANY ULTIMATE LAND USE * Existing Ultimate Land Use Acreage Acreage % Change R1 300.7 144 —52 R1A 18.0 18 0 R2 228.8 338 +48 ' R3 0.0 39 +100 • PAGE 10 J 3 SANTA ANA H91GHTS --- PUBLIC WORKS IMPROVEMENT PLAN TABLE 1 SANTA ANA HEIGHTS WATER COMPANY ULTIMATE LAND USE (Cont'd) Land Use Existing Acreage Ultimate Acreage K Change R4 36.8 0 -100 AG 117.4 0 -100 Mixed 85.5 49 -43 C 64.0 243 +380 Open Space 149.8 157 +5 Golf Courses 199.0 212 +7 TOTAL 1,200.0 1,200 * Boyle Engineering Corp. "Water System Master Plan" Oct. 1984 Table 2 below shows the estimated population, water duty factors and average annual demand projected based on the ultimate land use for the study area. TABLE 2 SANTA ANA HEIGHTS WATER COMPANY PROJECTED WATER DEMAND Estimated Average Population Water Duty Annual Area Density Factor Demand Land Use (acres) (people/acre) Population (gal/acre/dav) (Rom) R1 144 10.2 1,467 1,520 152 RlA 18 37.8 680 4,175 52 R2 338 14.9 5,036 1,760 413 R3 39 35.2 1,373 3,345 91 Mixed 49 7.5 368• 1,110 38 C 243 --- --- 3,000 524 Open Space 157 --- --- 0 0 S.A. Golf Course 129 --- --- 1,200 108 Nwprt.Golf Course ' 82.7 --- --- 120 7 TOTAL 1,200.0 8,924 1,385 PAGE 11 u ' SANTA ANA HEIGHTS --- PUBLIC WORKS IMPROVEMENT PLAN ' Fire Requirements Fire protection within the study area in provided by'the County of ' Orange Fire Department, To suppress a fire, water in sufficient quantity and pressure must be provided in close proximity to the fire. An analysis of fire hydrant spacing as well as the ability of the system to provide adequate fire suppression water is of vital importance. The pressure required for any fire is 20 pounds ' per square inch (psi) at the fire hydrant. This allows adequate pressure for line loss to the fire hose or to an intermediate pumper. To minimize the line loss in the fire hydrant lateral, a ' maximum flow is withdrawn at any one fire hydrant. The quantity of flow required to fight a fire is dependent on the ' type of construction, the size of the building, proximity with other structures, and type of usage among other factors. Research has developed formulas to determine exactly the fire requirements for any site, but only generalized quantities can be applied in a planning study. The fire flow requirements shown on Table 3 ' represent the requirements followed by the Orange County Fire Department and California Department of ForOstry which cbmply with the Insurance Services Office (ISO) fire insurance rating oraganization. These requirements were used in this study. TABLE 3 ORANGE COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT FIRE FLOW REQUIREMENTS Fire Flow Numlier of Hydrants Land Use (stem @ 20psi) Duration Furnishing Flow Single Family detached, one—story dwellings. 1,000 2hr 1 Duplexes,2—story,single ' family detached. 1,500 2hr 1 Multi—fam., 2 story, lt. commercial & industrial, 2,000— ' elementary schools. 2500 2hr 2 3—story, multi—fam., neigh— borhood commercial, medium indust., intermediate and high schools. 3,000- 4000 3-4hrs 3-4 ' Regional shopping centers and heavy industrial. 4,500- 6000 4-6hrs 4-6 PAGE 12 SANTA ANA HEIGHTS --- PUBLIC WORES IMPROVEMENT PLAN NOTES: a. Add 500gpm for combustible roof coverings. b. Fireflows to be available at 20 psi residual pressure in urban areas or 30 psi in hazardous wildland areas. c. Fireflow can be reduced by 50% for fire sprinkler protection. In addition to the fire flow requirements listed in Table 3 the fire department also requires maximum fire hydrant spacings as listed in Table 4 below. TABLE 4 ORANGE COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT FIRE HYDRANT SPACING REQUIREMENTS Fire Hydrant Spacing Land Use Cfaet) Single Family detached, one-story dwellings. 500 Duplexes,2-story,single family detached. 500 Multi-fam., 2 story, It. commercial & industrial, elementary schools. 300-400 3-3tory, multi-fam., neigh- borhood commercial, medium indust., intermediate and high schools. 300-400 Regional shopping centers and heavy industrial. 300-400 PAGE 13 P �J SANTA ANA HEIGHTS --- PUBLIC WORKS IMPROVEMENT PLAN ' SECTION B—II SOURCE OF SUPPLY The Santa Ana Heights Water Company has no active wells and it's only source of supply -is from purchased water from four supply sources as follows: Supply Source Location Capacity HGL OC-7 Bristol 800'w/Santa Ana 3140 gpm 220' '• 12" MCWD Bristol 475'w/Santa Ana 1800 gpm 220' 6" MCWD 23rd St. @ La Linda P1. 1340 gpm 225' ' 10" MCWD Bristol and Irvine 1350 gpm 220' These sources are inter —connections with the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California and the Mesa Consolidated Water ' District. The main source of supply to the system is the MWD OC-7 connection. The 12" and 6" MCWD connections serve as a back—up source of supply. The 10" MCWD connection is an emergency manual inter —connection. ' SECTION B—III EXISTING WATER SYSTEM ' Distribution System The water distribution system transports water to the service area customer from the sources of supply. The large substantial grid of 6 inch mains distribute the water to the user. The larger 8, 10 and 12 inch transmission mains convey water from the sources of supply to the general service area with a minimum foss of pressure. The water mains must be of sufficient size and thereby capacity to provide the desired water flow at an acceptable pressure. The larger the required flows or the more critical the pressure constraints, the larger the water main required. The capacity of a water pipe is also dependent on the roughness of the pipe. In this analysis, the coefficient used was 120. This coefficient normally depend on•the age and material of the pipe. The existing water distribution system within the Santa Ana Heights area consist of a network of asbestos cement pipe (ACP) ranging in sizes from 4" to 12" as well as control valves and fire ' hydrants as shown on Figure 6. The larger 12", 10" and 8" mains serve as the back —bone of the system and are located along Bristol, Santa Ana Avenue, and Mesa Drive from Santa Ana Avenue to ' Acacia. The balance of the system consists of a network of 6" mains with 4" mains located on Riverside and Kline Drives.• There is one pressure zone in the system with normal supply pressure maintained between 60 and 70.psi. The inter —connections discussed under Sources of Supply dicharge water directly into the distribution system which function as a "closed" system since there are no elevated tanks to control the hydraulic grade line ' (HGL). PAGE 14 7 SANTA ANA HEIGHTS --- PUBLIC WORKS IMPROVEMENT PLAN ' SECTION B-IV COMPUTER SIMULATION OF DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM ' General The existing and ultimate water system facilities were modeled , using a microcomputer network analysis program based on the Hardy Cross iterative process. All mains were analyzed within the Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan area. ' Computer Simulation Cases The computer analysis consisted of modeling the existing water ' system under existing and ultimate demands. This analysis determined the adequacy of the existing system to meet existing and ultimate.demands and thus identified the areas of deficiency. A second computer analysis was done after the computer model was ' modified to incorporate improvements to the system which eliminated the deficiencies and developed a master plan of water , system improvements to meet ultimate land use development. Output of the Computer Analysis The four sources of supply introduce flow into the distribution ' system at a fixed HGL. This analysis used the OC-7 and MCWD connections on Bristol west of Santa Ana Avenue as a sole source of supply being that the other connections are standby/emergency , connections. The conditions modeled were as follows: ' 1. File SAHTSI: The existing system was modeled simulating a 1000gpm fire flow at Bayview and Mesa Drive. This simulation represents existing conditions in that no land use changes are proposed at this site. The sources of supply were the OC-7 and ' MCWD 12 inch connections at Bristol w/ Santa Ana. Results: The MCWD supplied 1000gpm. The pressure at the fire ' flow location was 68 psi which was satisfactory. No supply problems were evident as also indicated on the Santa Ana Heights Water Company (SAHWC) Water Master Plan. , 2. File SAHTS2: The existing system was modeled simulating a 3000gpmfire flow at Cypress and Mnar. This simulation represents ultimate conditions in which existing residential land uses will be converted to commercial/professional land use. The sources of ' supply were OC-7 and MCWD connections on Bristol. Results: The MCWD connection provided 3000gpm. The pressure at the fire flow location was 0 psi or less than the minimum ' requirement of 20 psi. This condition indicates that the 3000gpm 1 PAGE 15 SANTA ANA HEIGHTS --- PUBLIC WORKS IMPROVEMENT PLAN fire flow could not be met. Extensive head losses in existing 6 '• inch lines were identified. These results concurred with the results of the SAHWC Master Plan. 3. File SAHTS3: The existing system was modified by replacing ' the 6 inch mains on Acacia from Bristol to Mesa and on Mesa from Acacia to Cypress with 8 inch. This replacement eliminated the ' pipes with the highest headloss. The 3000gpm fire flow at Cypress and Mesa was again simulated. Results: The MCWD connection provided 3000gpm. The pressure at ' the fire flow location was 28 psi thus indicating that the 3000gpm was met. These results concurred with the SAHWC Master Plan. 4. File SAHTS4: The modified system was modeled simulating a ' 3000gpm fire flow at Birch and Cypress. This computer run simulated a fire at the proposed commercial/professional area incorporating the water system improvements included in Run $3. The sources of supply were OC-7 and MCWD connections on Bristol. ' Results: The MCWD•r-onnection provided 3000gpm. The pressure at the fire flow location was 44 psi thus indicating that the 3000gpm ' was met. This condition indicates that the recommended improvements are adequate to meet the fire flow requirements of the ultimate commercial/professional development. ' 5. File SAHTS5: The modified system was modeled simulating a 3000gpm fire flow at Orchard and Kline. This simulation represents ultimate conditions in which the existing horse stables and veterinary clinic will be converted to commercial/professional land use. The sources of supply were OC-7 and MCWD connections on Bristol. ' Results: The MCWD connection provided 3000gpm. The pressure at the Eire flow location was 0 psi or less than the minimum requirement of 20 psi. This condition indicates that the 3000gpm fire flow could not be met. Extensive head losses in existing 4 ' and 6 inch lines were identified. The 4 inch lines on Kline and Riverside Dr. are undersized and inadequate to properly contribute adequate flow circulation. ' 6. File SAHTS6: (Option A) The existing system was modified by recommending an 8 inch line from the end of the 6 inch line on Orchard through the, proposed development property onto Irvine ' Avenue then southerly to connect to the 8 inch line on Mesa Dr. The 3000gpm fire flow at Cypress and Mesa was again simulated. Results: The MCWD connection provided 3000gpm. The pressure at The fire flow location was 26 psi thus indicating that the 3000gpm was met. The recommended connection provided additional fire flow through the 8 inch line and thus diverted flows from the 4 and 6 inch lines. PAGE 16 ' SANTA ANA HEIGHTS --- PUBLIC WORKS IMPROVEMENT PLAN 7, File SAHT57: (Option B) This computer run simulated the same ' conditions as-kun N6 except that the location of the recommended 8 inch line on Irvine Avenue was changed. This option proposes the , 8 inch line on Irvine to connect to the recommended 8 inch line on Acacia instead of the 8 inch line on Mesa. Results: The resulting fire flows were identical to the results from Run #6. Option A was determined to be more cost effective in that Option B requires construction of the new main to cross the Santa Ana Delhi Channel at Irvine Avenue. , PAGE 17 1 I E SANTA ANA HEIGHTS --- PUBLIC WORKS IMPROVEMENT PLAN SECTION B-V WATER DISTRIBUTI.ON IMPROVEMENTS AND CONSTRUCTION COSTS ' Design Criteria In order to properly analyze the effectiveness of the existing water system in serving its customers, it is necessary to compare the system with certain guidelines or design criteria, which are indicative of a properly -sized, efficient water system. The design criteria selected for this study is in conformity with general criteria recognized as appropriate for water communities throughout the United States. ' The design criteria listed in Table 5 were ultilized to develop the system facility requirements for water main sizing for current and ultimate water demands for the Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan ' area. TABLE 5 ' WATER DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM DESIGN CRITERIA ' Mains All water mains'sized to carry the greater of peak demand or Maximum Day Demand plus fire flow. Maximum head loss is 20 ft. per 1,000 ft.; maximum velocity is 10 fps. Residential Areas Minimum main size is 6 inch. ' Commercial, Industrial and Multi -Family Areas Minimum main size is 8 inch. Fire Flow County of Orange Fire Department Requirements. ' System Pressures Maximum 80 psi Minimum (Non Fire) 30 psi Minimum (Fire Flow) 20 psi ' Water Distribution System Improvements and Costs The recommended improvements listed in Table 6 and shown on Figure ' 6 represent the conclusions from the computer analyses which were based on the proposed land use development, Orange County fire flow requirements and the design criteria described above. These ' improvements are required to eliminate the deficiencies which will be created once the Santa Ana Heights•Specific Plan is implemented. Other improvements are also required to relocated facilities due to proposed realignments in street right-of-ways. PAGE 18 SANTA ANA HEIGHTS --- PUBLIC WORKS IMPROVEMENT PLAN TABLE 6 WATER SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS AND CONSTRUCTION COSTS Proposed Pipe Improvement Diameter Length Costs Pipe Location (inches) (feet) ( $ ) 1. Acacia from Bristol to Mesa 8 2450 77,715 2, Mesa from Acacia to Cypress 8 1400 44,100 3. Mesa from Acacia to w/500' 8 500 15,750 4. Orchard onsite to Irvine 8 700 22,050 5. Irvine to Mesa (Option A) 8 1000 31,500 6. Fire hydrant relocations/new appraved installations standard 8 ea. 24,000 7. Riverside Drive 6 650 17,225 8. Kline Drive 6 700 18,550 Total Construction Costs $ 251,000 * Pipe construction costa are $ 26.50 and $ 31.50 per foot for 6-inch and 8-inch pipe, respectively, $3,000 for each fire hydrant, with ERR -LA • 5,000, and 25% for engineering and contingencies. PAGE 19 lr:; . , I 0. ill l- ?t . . ! . uw /� I J1J� � 1 u ' Ir•''-�y '. G 4 ICI {iJ,�} 8 t�` !. f-- i 1 _ki _ a ;I;..,.' .,'�I`{ 6• t' --, : I r`a■ V_91� .. 1 : 1 I Iy11 � 1 I � U � rt ary _Exlatlnp Water Main and 8 — Firs Hydrant 0� Water Main and 8 Hydrant lmprOvemeni 1 Improvement Item (See Table tU i 1 ' " ' I ` I HTS SPECIFIC WATER DISTRIBUTION GM ROVEMEN S PLAN. FIGURE 6 I I II PART C SEWER SYSTEM i 1 I I I II c I I I SANTA ANA HEIGHTS --- PUBLIC WORKS IMPROVEMENT PLAN SECTION'C—I SEWER SYSTEM DEMANDS The Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan area referred to in this study I as study area, is located within the Costa Mesa Sanitary District (CMSD) Sewer System. In anticipation for the proposed land use changes resulting from the adopted Land Use Compatibility Program and Community Profile and also to assess the existing conditions ' within it's sewer system the Costa Mesa Sanitary District prepared a "Santa Ana Heights Sewer Study" in April, 1983 and a Master Plan Update in June, 1983. The reports addressed the effects of ' proposed zone changes within the study area. It also listed the future sewer demands, and made recommendations to remedy deficiencies resulting from the rezoning. ' This section reviewed the previous studies to comply to the adopted land use plan as well as make additional recommendations to meet anticipated sewer demands resulting from the rezoning. Existing and Ultimate Sewer Demands Wastewater flows are made up and derived from two general sources. Some flows, called infiltration, enter the system from illegal storm drain connections, and submergence of manholes during storms. The primary purpose of the system, however, is to collect and transport the spent water supply of the community. The infiltration flows into the sewer system should be kept to a minimum to effectively utilize the capacity of the sewer system. Through the use of rubber gasketed pipe connections, concrete ' sealed manholes, and closed manhole lids, infiltration flows can be reduced. The primary demands on the sewer system are the community flows from residential areas and commercial/manufacturing usage. The residential flows are a function of population as determined by land use density and actual developments. Multiple Family ' residential/commercial/industrial flows are based on land usage type and usable area. In the study conducted by the Costa Mesa Sanitary District the commercial developments were assessed on a square footage basis of commercial floor space as opposed to an acreage assessment. The projected sewage flows were based on 25,000 S.F. of office space per gross acre, which is consistent with the commercial land use density ratio of 0.50 adopted by the Board of Supervisors. ' PAGE 22 I SANTA ANA HEIGHTS --- PUBLIC WORKS IMPROVEMENT PLAN System Desian and Replacement Criteria Sewer capacities are depended on many variable factors. These include roughness of the pipe, allowable flow depths, limiting velocities, and slope of pipe. Manning's equation: Q = [1.486 / n * A * R**(2/3)) * S**(1/2) , is used to determine uniform flow conditions, where, Q peak flow rate in cfs R = hydraulic radius , n Manning's roughness coefficient S = pipe construction slope A = pipe area in sq.ft. Manning's roughness coefficient "n" for vitrified clay sewer pipe varies from 0.011 (smooth) to 0.017 (rough). This study uses 0.013 as a representative design roughness coefficient for all VCP pipe within the CMSD system. The flown in a gravity sewer should maintain a free water surface for proper operation. The depth of flow should also provide an adequate margin of excess capacity to handle sharp peaks in flow and greater than anticipated demands in the smaller drainage .areas. The smallest sewer laterals of 6" diameter are not considered economical for use in carrying domestic sewer demands and allow adequate excess capacity. The collection mains of 8" thru 18" are designed to flow half (SO%) at peak flow; 21" and larger are designed to flow at 91% at peak flow. Part of the Manning's equation, 1.486/n*A*R**(2/3), is a constant number for a particular pipe size and design depth. Manning's equation therefore relates the peak flow in any pipe as a function of pipe slope only. The steeper the slope the more flow the pipe can carry. t PAGE 23 ' SANTA ANA HEIGHTS --- PUBLIC WORKS IMPROVEMENT PLAN SECTION C—II REVIEW OF EXISTING SYSTEM Description of Existing Sewer System The existing Santa Ana Heights area sewer system consists of numerous drainage subareas which collect and transport the sewer flows by gravity into sewer pump stations. The flows are transported by existing 8" mains throughout the Santa Ana Heights area except for 10", 12" and 13" trunk lines which run along the Santa Ana Delhi Channel from Santa Ana Avenue to Mesa Drive. At Mesa Drive and Irvine Avenue, Sewer Pump Station No. 11 transports the sewer flows collected from the Santa Ana Heights area by pressure pipe to Sewer Pump Station No. 10 located at Mesa Drive and Elden Avenue. From Sewer Pump Station No. 10 the sewer flows ' are transported within the Costa Mesa Sanitary Districts trunkline system to it's ultimate point of disposal. Three parcels located south of Mesa Drive and eas.t of the Santa Ana Delhi Channel have been recently annexed by CMSD. There are no other sewer agencies in'the adjacent area other than CMSD to transport sewer flows from these areas. The facilities and capacities of Sewer Pump Stations No. 10 and 11 are listed in Table 7 below. TABLE 7 ' COSTA MESA SANITATION DISTRICT SEWER PUMP STATION NO. 10 & 11 ' FACILITIES No. of MOTOR Sta.No. Location Pumps Model GPM TDH MAKE, HP 10 Mesa and Elden 2 Chicago 2300 64' U.S.,60,ea. 11 Mesa and Irvine 2 Flygt 1200 78' 47 ea. Existing Flow Quantities and Deficiencies The CMSD Sewer Study analyzed four (4) areas of probable commercial development having impact upon their sewer system. They are shown on Figure 7 and are described as follows: PAGE 24 SANTA ANA HEIGHTS --- PUBLIC WORKS IMPROVEMENT PLAN ' t AREA . DESCRIPTION 1. A small area just west of Bristol Street, south of the Corona Del Mar Freeway, and vast of the Newport Freeway. Approximately 12 acres, and originally Master Planned as low density residential. Area is outside the Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan area. 2. Approximately 10 acres of land located south of Bristol Street and east of Santa Ana Avenue. Area originally Master Planned as open space and is located outside the , Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan area. 3. That portion of the Santa Ana Heights area served off Bristol Street. Approximately 70 acres, originally Master Planned as low density residential and located within the Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan area. ' 4. 30 acres of the Santa Ana Heights area served off Mesa Drive. Originally Master Planned as low density residential and located within the Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan area. Of these areas, 1.5 acres of Area 2, 60.5 acres of Area 3 and all of Area 4 are located within the Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan. The sewer facilities to be impacted by the ultimate developments were analyzed and are listed in Table 8 and also shown on Figure 7. TABLE 8 COSTA MESA SANITATION DISTRICT ' SEWER FACILITIES IMPACTED BY ULTIMATE DEVELOPMENT Exist. Exist. Exist. Line Dia. Capacity Plow No. Location (in.) (MGD) (MGD) A Santa Ana Delhi Channel w/Santa Ana 8 0.38 0.34 B Bristol --Cypress to SAD channel 8 0.38 0.41 C Santa Ana Delhi Channel area 12 1.02 0.55 D Sewer Pump Station No. 11 - 1.68 1.68 E Sewer Pump Station No. 10 - 6.62 5.28 F Fair Drive a/Fairview Road 24 5.89 5.28 NOTES: a. Line A is located on the north side of the Santa Ana Delhi channel and conveys sewer flows from Area 1 along Bristol to Santa Ana ' Avenue and continues south along the channel. This main does not convey sewer flows from Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan. ' PACE 25 i I SANTA ANA HEIGHTS --- PUBLIC WORKS IMPROVEMENT PLAN b. Line B is located �• along Bristol Avenue and conveys flows from the Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan area westerly to the 12" sewer lines which flow south along the channel. This main serves as a major sewer trunkline serving the Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan ' area. C. Line C is located along the Santa Ana Delhi Channel and conveys sewer flows from Areas 1, 2, and 3 south towards Mesa Drive to Sewer Pump Station 11 (Line D). Portions of Areas 2 and 3 are located within the Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan and contribute flow to this main. d. Line D (Pump Station 11) collects sewer flows from Areas 1, 2, 3, and 4 and pumps to Sewer Pump Station 10 (Line E). Portions of Areas 2, 3, and 4 are located within Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan. e. Line E (Pump Station 10) pumps sewer flows from Areas 1, 2, 3, and 4 to the 24" sewer trunkline along Fair Drive (Line F) which flows into CMSD sewer system and ultimately to a final point of disposal. Portions of Areas 2, 3, and 4 are located within Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan. f. Line F is the 24" trunkline located along Fair Drive which transports flows from Pump Station 10 to CMSD sewer system. Santa Ana Heights contributes sewer flows along this main as well. ' As shown in Table B, line B which is located on Bristol and serves the Santa Ana Heights Specific plan is currently flowing beyond existing main capacity. All other sewer facilities are flowing within design cpacities under existing demands. I I II IPAGE 26 I I SANTA ANA HEIGHTS --- PUBLIC WORKS IMPROVEMENT PLAN SECTION C-III REVIEW OF THE ULTIMATE SYSTEM Ultimate Flov Quantities and Deficiencies As described in Section C-II lines A through F would be impacted with development and rezoning of various areas within the CMSD sewer system. The following Table 9 lists the ultimate flow quantities within deficient mains as determined by the CMSD Sewer Study. TABLE 9 SANTA ANA HEIGHTS ULTIMATE FLOWS AND DEFICIENCIES Exist. Ult. Line Capacity Flow No. Location (MGD) (MGD A Santa Ana Delhi Channel w/Santa Alta 0.38 0.45 B •Bristol --Cypress to SAD channel 0.38 1.04 C Santa Ana Delhi Channel area 1.02 1.38 D Sewer Pump Station No. 11 1.68 2.09 E Sewer Pump Station No. 10 6.62 6.29 F Fair Drive a/Fairview Road 5.89 6.29 As shown above ultimate development will increase existing sewer flows which will exceed existing sewer facility capacities. The increase flows will be attributed to the development of Areas 1 through 4 as described previously and which include Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan. The development of Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan will contribute increase flows to all sewer facilities listed above except Line A, which serves Area 1 exclusively. PAGE 27 I I r I I _J I 11, I I I 1 I SANTA ANA HEIGHTS --- PUBLIC WORKS IMPROVEMENT PLAN SECTION C—IV SEWER SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS IThe deficiencies listed in Section C—III determined by the CMSD Sewer Study will be created by the increase flows that will be generated by the developments within Areas 1 through 4 which include the Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan area. The following Table 10 lists the sewer system facilities and costs required to eliminate the deficiencies discussed. These costs are total costs of each improvement which need to be distributed among the four areas of development. The improvements within the sewer pump stations include the upgrading of the existing facilities such as ' new pumps, controls, electrical service, and moderate remodeling of the existing wet well. TABLE 10 SEWER SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS AND COSTS Proposed Improvement Line Dia. length Costs No Location (in.) (feet) ( $ ) A Santa Ana Channel W/Santa Ana 10 980 121,894 B Bristol Cypress wester-ly 15 prll. 2,885 640,917 C Santa Ana Delhi Channel area 18 prll. 2,450 361,481 D Sewer Pump Station No. 11 upgrading 228,637 E Sewer Pump Station No. 10 upgrading 45,406 ' F Fair Drive E/Fairview Road 15 prll. 1,900 248,838 *Costs are based on a 6% inflation increase per year from the May 1983 costs estimated in the CMSD Sewer Study and consistent 1 with the 1985 Dodge Construction Costs Guide. The CMSD has indicated in their Sewer Study that construction costs for these facilities will be funded by the developers under CMSD Ordinance No. 16 as they develop their properties. Ordinance No. 16 basically provides for developer participation in the construction of sewer improvements required when developers increase land use intensity beyond that of District planned land use in their 1978 Master Plan. Table 11 below shows the total tributary area for each improvement ' as well as the tributary area within the Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan area. The percentage of the Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan tributary area to the total tributary area is applied to the cost of improvments in order to determine the cost of improvments to be assessed to the Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan area. An energy cost associated with increasing the size of the sewer pumps to handle the increased sewer flows may be assessed to developers as indicated in the CMSD Sewer Study Report. This assessment was calculated by CMSD as $4,212.76 per acre (May 83' ' PAGE 28 1 . [1 SANTA ANA HEIGHTS --- PUBLIC WORKS IMPROVEMENT PLAN dollars). or $4,971.06 per acre (1986 dollars based on 6% inflation per year.) TABLE 11 SANTA ANA HEIGHTS SPECIFIC PLAN ' SEWER SYSTEM IMPROVEMENT COSTS Total ' Improvement SAHSP Total Percent SAHSP Line Cost Trib.Area Trib.Area SAHSP/ COSTS NO a lacrea/ acrea/ +vlua w _ ,'I A 121,894 0.0 12.0 0.0 -0- B 640,917 60.5 70.0 86.4 553,752 C 361,481 61.0 92.0 67.4 243,638 D 228,637 92.0 122.0 75.4 172,392 E 45,406 92.0 122.0 75.4 34,236 F 248,838 92.0 122.0 75.4 187,624 Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan Improvement Cost $ 1,191 600 Energy Cost Assessment (92 acres x $4,971.06) 4 ,300 TOTAL SEWER SYSTEM ASSESSMENT $ 1,648,900 ' The above cost are costs of improvements required to upgrade existing sewer facilities in order for the Costa Mesa Sanitation District to provide adequate sewer service. Also the Orange County Sanitation District would need to access their facility capacities in accepting additional flows from CMSD., One other option which could be addressed is the option of redirecting flows from the Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan area to the east. The Irvine Ranch Water District currently provides sewer service to the area east of the Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan area. Any redirection of flows would require major trunkline reconstruction within the Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan area, as well as extensive offsite facility construction. The Irvine Ranch Water District has no facilities within the Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan and has no plans of annexation. I PAGE *29 ' LEGEND MORON GMSD Service Area Boundary wea"aO Santa Ana Specific Plan Boundary `s commercial 's,�..y`• Development A Sewer Improvements (See Table 10) SANTA ANA SPECIFIC PLAN � SEWER SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS -FIGURE 7 I I I I I. I PART D DRAINAGE SYSTEM I I I I I T I I I SANTA ANA HEIGHTS --- PUBLIC WORKS IMPROVEMENT PLAN SECTION D—I PLANNING AND DESIGN CRITERIA IUltimate Land Uses The drainage analysis is based on the ultimate land use within the study area which represents the adopted Land Use Compatibility Program and Land Use Element and Community Profile for the Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan area. As improvements and/or land use changes occur within undeveloped ground surfaces, the infiltration capacities of parcels decrease and subsequently the runoffs from the developed parcels increase. Because the change in the physical characteristics of the land surface is dependent on the type of development, the quantity and rate of runoff are dependent on the types of development as well as the extent of developments. Maximum or peak runoff reflecting ultimate development are used in the design of this drainage analysis. Hydrology The hydrologic analyses in this study was performed by using the Rational Method which is the method approved by the Environmental Management Agency of Orange County and described in detail in the Orange County Flood Control District Hydrology Manual dated 1973. The objective of this method is to estimate the peak runoff rates from a drainage area with varied physical characteristics. The ' rational method equation relates rainfall intensity, a runoff coefficient, and drainage area size to the direct peak runoff rate and is expressed by the equation: Q = CIA where, Q = peak runoff rate in cubic feet per second (cfs) C - coefficient fo runoff I - average rainfall intensity corresponding to the time of concentration A - drainage area in acres The coefficient of runoff "C" is defined to be a value depended on rainfall intensity, soil type and cover, percentage fo impervious area, antecedent moisture conditions, etc. It can be determined by using the 'coefficient of runoff curves included in the O.C.F.C.D. r Hydrology Manual. 1� The average rainfall intensity "I" is determined using intensity —duration curves developed by O.C.F.C.D. ' PAGE 32 i SANTA ANA HEIGHTS --- PUBLIC WORKS IMPROVEMENT PLAN I The area "A" is determined by planimetering each drainage subarea which is plotted on a topographic map. The drainage subareas analyzed within the Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan area as well as direction of flows are shown on Figure 8. The 25—year frequency storm was used in this analysis to determine runoff quantities. Hydraulic Design The preliminary hydraulic design calculations followed the O.C.F.C.D. criteria, as presented in their Design Manual. The flow rates established by the hydrologic studies were used to determine the types and sizes of the required facilities. Thus, ultimate facilities are sized for a 25—year frequency storm. The Manning's equation was used to compute friction head losses, a major factor in determining the required size of conduit. Roughness coefficients 0,013 was used for reinforced concrete pipe• I 1 I 1 I I 11 1 PAGE 33 IJ SANTA ANA HEIGHTS --- PUBLIC WORKS IMPROVEMENT PLAN SECTION D—II REVIEW OF EXISTING SYSTEM Description of Existing Drainage System The existing storm drain system consists of a network of reinforced concrete pipes, catch basins and curb and gutter systems which transport runoff flows from the Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan area into the Santa Ana Delhi and San Diego Creek Channels. These channels eventually transport the runoff flows into the Upper Newport Bay. The existing storm drain systems located throughout Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan area are shown on Figures 8 and 9. The western portion of the study area consists of various catch basins which collect storm runoff from street flow. The street flow is conveyed by curb and gutter on all streets within this area. The catch basins which collect the storm runoff drain into the Santa Ana Delhi Channel at various inlet locations throughout the channel. The golf course area disposes of storm runoff by infiltration into the soil, evaporation in the lakes, and by various drainage structures located at low elevation points which also drain into the Santa Ana -Delhi Channel. The eastern portion of the study area consists of tw.o major storm drain systems consisting of various catch basins which also collect storm runoff from street flow. The system on South ' Bristol Street collects storm runoff from the Santa'Ana Heights Specific Plan area as well as the areas east of the study area. This system consists of a 66—inch to 78—inch RCP which eventually drains into the San Diego Creek Channel. A smaller system on Birch transports storm runoff from a low point at the intersection of Orchard and Birch southerly, which bleeds back onto Birch and then flows by conduit across Mesa into an open area south of Mesa Drive. Street flow in this area is conveyed along natural terrain without curb and gutter. The existing Santa Ana Delhi Channel consists of an 80 to 100 feet wide, earthen, trapezoidal flood control channel with an average depth of 16 feet. The Orange County Environmental Management Agency has recently retained BSI CONSULTANTS, INC. to prepare construction plans to reconstruct and concrete —line the channel. Phase II of the reconstruction project which lies between Mesa Drive and Santa Ana Avenue is scheduled to go to bid by May, 1986 and estimated to be completed by October, 1986. PAGE 34 �2 a 7 >y 7 f LEGEND —•--iPacilic Plan DorndarY L1N k}[ •�� . All � 3 I � ' ' 1 l WC : Drainaso Damon Dooadary ' •'t w( - fr •s Catch Baalaa "Do'. Direction of Plow SANTA ANA HEIGHTS SPECIFIC PLAN HYDROLOGY MAP -FIGURE 8 t o M M M! ■■► M Mao to !o M M MM a M ;J �J SANTA ANA HEIGHTS --- PUBLIC WORKS IMPROVEMENT PLAN SECTION D—III REVIEW OF ULTIMATE SYSTEM Ultimate Flow Quantities and Deficiencies The areas requiring improvement due to the ultimate land use change are shown on Figure 9 and listed as follows: 1. Birch Street from Orchard to Mesa Drive. 2. Cypress from cul—de—sac to Bristol. 3. Orchard from cul—de—sac to the Santa Ana Delhi Channel. The deficiencies in Area 1 consists of a low point at the intersection of Orchard and Bristol. The existing 18" RCP on Bristol is inadequate to convey the flows south towards Mesa. Also street flows will be obstructed with the construction of the cul—de—sac at Bristol just north of Mesa. Currently storm runoff is diverted south of Mesa into open space. This area has experienced excessive runoff frouq Mesa and Bristol and has eroded considerably. Runoff flows need to be transported from Mesa to the Santa Ana Delhi Channel by means of storm pipe instead of allowing continued erosion. The deficiencies in Area 2 consists of the obstruction of street flows that will be created with the construction of the cul—de—sac at Cypress. A system of catch basins and storm drain pipe need to be constructed to transport storm runoff from the ultimate commercial area to the storm drain system on South Bristol Street. The deficiencies in Area 3 consists of street flows being obstructed by the construction of the cul—de—sac at Orchard. Storm runoff flows will need to be transported to the Santa Ana Delhi Channel by means of a catch basin and storm drain pipe system. Listed below in Table 12 are the runoff flows, contributing areas and recommended drainage facilities for Areas 1 through 3. ' PAGE 36 E SANTA ANA HEIGHTS PUBLIC WORKS IMPROVEMENT PLAN TABLE 12 DRAINAGE SYSTEM ULTIMATE FLOW QUANTITIES AND IMPROVEMENTS Flow Area Area (cfs) (acres) Recommended Facilities 1 32,7 16.0 14' catch basin at Orchard and Birch 30" RCP on Birch from Orchard to Mesa 14' catch basin at cul-de-sac 7' catch basin at Mesa to drain southerly 30" RCP from Mesa to flood control channel 2 54.4 39.6 30" RCP on Cypress from cul-de-sac to Bristol 2-14' catch basins at cul-de-sac 3 21.1 12.8 14' catch basin at cul-de-sac on Orchard 30" RCP from cul-de-sac to Santa Ana Delhi Channel PAGE 37 11 T J I I I I I Ji V I !_ 1 r I; I SANTA ANA HEIGHTS --- PUBLIC WORKS IMPROVEMENT PLAN SECTION D—IV DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS AND CONSTRUCTION COSTS Drainage System Improvements and Construction Costs The following Table 13, summarizes the discussion of recommended facilities and estimates the costs required to construct the recommended drainage improvements. The improvements are also shown on Figure 9. Unit costs were based on the 1985 Lee Saylor, Inc. Current Construction Costs, 22nd Edition. The estimate assumes a vertical trench of 8 feet in a paved street for reinforced concrete pipe. All unit costs include material and labor adjusted for local conditions, a 13% increase for construction contingencies and a 28% increase for engineering, inspection, and administration. TABLE 13 DRAINAGE SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS AND CONSTRUCTION COSTS Total Costs Area Location Recommended Facilities ($) i Orchard and Birch 14' catch basin 3,000 Birch from Orchard to Mesa 30" RCP — 1400' 120,250 Birch at cul—de—sac 14' catch basin 3,000 Mesa at Birch 7' catch basin 2,500 Mesa to SAD Channel 30" RCP — 600 " 51,500 2 Cypress from cul—de—sac to Bristol 30" RCP — 200' 17,180 Cypress at cul—de—sac 2-14'catch basins 6,000 3 Orchard at cul—de—sac 14' catch basin 3,000 Orchard cul—de—sac to Santa Ana Delhi Channel 30" RCP — 350' 30,000 Total Construction Costs $ 236,400 30" RCP unit cost/ft. _ $85.89 PAGE 39 I 1 J 1 71 I ' ELECTRIC, 1 I i 1 i 1 1 i 1 1 1 PART E SANTA ANA HEIGHTS --- PUBLIC WORKS IMPROVEMENT PLAN The street realignments, vacations and cul—de—sac improvements 1 and/or modifications discussed in the Traffic Report for the Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan are shown on Figure 10. These areas may or may'not require utility'relocations, realignments or abandonments as discussed below. Electric ' The Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan area is located within the service territory of the Southern California Edison Company. The majority of transmission lines within the study area are located above ground. As indicated in the response letter of December 19, 1984 to the Orange County Environmental Management Agency with respect to the John Wayne Airport Master Plan/Land Use Compatibility Program the Southern California Edison Company indicated "that the electric loads of the project are within parameters of projected load growth which Edison is planning to meet in this area". ' The relocation or realignment of overhead and/or underground power lines due to street realignments and abandonments will not be required unless permanent structures are placed •within allowable clearance limits as outlined in the General Order No. 95 of the State Infractions Law. The Southern California Edison Company would require a 10 foot easement within vacated streets if facilities are to remain. Any relocation or realignment costs will be the resposibility of the developer. The Southern California Edison Company has no plans to relocate existing overhead power lines to underground locations. Also, any improvements required to serve future load requirements are assessed on an individual basis as development occurs. Telephone The Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan area is located within the service territory of the Pacific Bell Company. The major telephone facilities within the study area are located above ground. As indicated in the response letter of January 28, 1986 Pacific Bell, "existing facilities are sized to meet current zoning, however, rezoning of the.area would require re—evaluation of existing facilities. Replacements, changes, and/or reinforcements would then be tied to new developer projects as they occur." The relocation or realignment of overhead and/or underground telephone transmission lines due to street realignments and abandonments will not be required unless permanent structures are placed within allowable clearance limits as outlined in the General Order No. 95 of the State Infractions Law. The Pacific ' Bell Company would possibly also require a 10 foot easement within vacated streets if facilities are to remain. PAGE 41 _n EsUttq RCP a cats► to• , Jt� Is+pron�sants 300 RCP A catok Basta I DRAINSANTA ANA HEIGHTS SPECIFIC PLAN AGE SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS -FIGURE 8. J m m m r s mom M� m i m m m r m m m m SANTA ANA HEIGHTS --- PUBLIC WORKS IMPROVEMENT PLAN The Pacific Bell Company has no plans to relocate existing aerial telephone facilities to underground locations. Also they can only assess load requirements and improvements on an individual basis as development occurs. Gas The Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan area is located within the service territory of the Southen California Gas Company. The gas distribution facilities within the study area are located below grade along all street right—of—ways. The Southern California Gas Company indicated that existing facilities are sized to meet current zoning and that future facilities would be evaluated on an individual development basis. The relocation of underground gas transmission lines due to street realignments and abandonments will not be required unless permanent structures are placed within allowable clearance limits. The Southern California Gas Company would require a 25 foot ' easement within vacated streets if facilities are to remain.' The gas lines located within street abandonments can be abandoned unless the lines are providing gas service to a particular parcel. Any abandonments and relocations costs are absorbed by the Southern California Gas Company. Any required main extension cost will be the responsibility of the developer. ' Cable Television The Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan area is located within the service territory of the Group W Cable Company. The cable television facilities within the study area are located above ground as well as underground. The relocation or realignment of underground or overhead cable transmission lines due to street realignments and abandonments will not be required unless permanent structures are placed within allowable clearance limits. The Group W Cable Company would require an easement within vacated streets if facilities are to remain. I r, I 1 PAGE 42 LJ '� ,� I 1 I 1 1. 1 1 1. 1 1 1 1 1 SANTA ANA HEIGHTS --- PUBLIC WORKS IMPROVEMENT PLAN Circulation A Traffic Study was conducted by Basmaciyan - Darnell, Inc. in which the circulation component of the Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan was developed. It addressed the need for roadway improvements and/or modifications as shown in Figure 11 in order to serve existing and projected traffic levels as well as discourage as much as possible commercial traffic flow into residential areas. Listed below in Table 14 are the areas of improvements and/or modification as well as costs to construct these projects. Construction costs are based on current 1986 unit bid costs for similar projects. Street construction costs are based on 40 foot wide sections, no curb and gutter, no sidewalks, 6 inch -AC ' construction on compacted subgrade, costs of removal of existing street included. Cul-de-sacs costs are based on a 32 foot radius cul-de-sac, curb and gutter, 6 inch AC construction on compacted ' subgrade, costs of removal of existing street included. Access road costs are based on 25 foot wide section using 4 inch AC construc- tion on compacted subgrade. TABLE 14 CIRCULATION IMPROVEMENTS AND/OR MODIFICATION COSTS ' Improvements and/or Costs Area Location Modifications $ 1 Acacia and Mesa 1,000 lin.ft. 6 inch AC pavement 52,583 2 Birch north/Mesa. Cul-de-sac construc- tion 10,724 3 Orchard west/Channel it it 10,724 4 Orchid and Zenith it it 10,724 5 Cypress south/Bristol Cul-de-sac construc- t , tion, and 850 lin.ft. access road 28,780 TOTAL CIRCULATION IMPROVEMENT COSTS $ 113,500 II PAGE 45 APPENDIX M ' ACUUFI . Zra ptl#q water (911. y1122 S.E. Bristol -Palisades Santa Ana, California 92707 (714) 545.1060 or 545.4050 January 22, 1986 'RECG: 9@I�a-r 23 iegc AN GSI CONSULTANTS, IN" Mr. Frank Gerard "A\TA ANN BSI Consultants, Inc. 1415 East Seventeenth Street Santa Ana, Ca. 92701 SUBJECT: Comprehensive Plan for Public Works Improvement Within Santa Ana Heights , ' Dear Mr. Gerard: a ' Santa Ana Heights Water Company supplies water to the Santa Ana Heights ' community for which you are preparing a comprehensive plah for public works improvements. ' I am enclosing zerox copies of the portion of our service area under study. Boyle Engineering Corporation prepared a WATER SYSTEM MASTER PLAN for Santa Ana Heights Water Company in October 1984. I am enclosing copies of pages 2-6 through 2-8 which discuss the effect of proposed zone changes south of John Wayne Airport, pages 3-7 and 3-8 which discuss future water demands with airport rezoning and pages 5-2 through 5-7 showing results of computer model projections. Conditions 7 and 8 pertain to the aree under consideration. Recommendations to remedy deficiencies as a result of rezoning are contained on page 6-5. Very truly yours, ' SANTA ANA HEIGHTS WATER COMPANY C. 0. Reinhardt ' Vice -President COR:ms 1 ' Enc. II u i i W iJLB. JAN231986 W iJLB. JAN231986 TABLE 2.-5 SANTA ANA HEIGHTS WATER COMPANY ' PROJECTED POPULATION ,.: Estimated a 'Population . ' Area !%Density. '. Zoning acres (people/acre) Pooulation ' 11 148 ' :'10.2... 1,510 R1A ;.�_ 22.7 117.8 858 R2 477.8 14.9 7,119 ' R3 ' 80.3 35.2 21826 Mixed ". 48.8 7.5 366 TOTAL 12,679, say 12,680 ' D. ProJected Land Use and Pooulation With Airport Rezoni , The county of Orange proposes several options for rezoning the,area south of John Wayne Airport, a firm decision on , which is expected in 1985. From a water supply standpoint, that rezoning scenario which would impose the heaviest demand on the supply system is "Scenario B." Scenario 8, as ' described in the "Land Use Compatibility Program for Areas South of Jahn Wayne Airport," July 1984, by Orange County i Environmental Management Agency, calls for mostly oommercial/professional use from Bristol Street to Mesa I ' Drive. Table 2-6 lists ultimata land use assuming Scenario 8 is adopted to the County of Orange General Plan. This ' scenario is explored here so that the Company may project the Impact , of redevelopment on their supply and distribution system. The Company is advised to follow the rezoning issue through to its formal adoption by the Orange County Board of Supervisors so that any necessary system modifications , 2-6 ' fl I E I resulting from added demand or fire flow requirements may be incorporated into this master plan. TABLE 2-6 SANTA ANA HEIGHTS WATER COMPANY ULTIMATE LAND -USE WITH AIRPORT REZONING* Existing Ultimate Land Use Acreage Acreage S Change R1 300.7 144 -52 R1A 18.0 18 0 R2 228.8 338 +48 R3 R4 0 36.8 39 0 +100 AG .117.4 0 -100 --43 Mixed 85.5 49 C Open Space 64.0 149.8 243 157 +380 +5 Golf Courses 199.0 212 +7 TOTAL 1,200 11200 *Assumes Scenario 8, as described in the County of Orange "Land Use Compatibility Program for Areas South of John Wayne Airport," July 1984, is adopted to the General Plan. Noteworthy anticipated zoning changes are: o Dramatic increase in commercial zoning. o Shift from R1 to R2 zoning. o Appearance of R3 zoning. All trends result in an anticipated increase in water demand. Population densities for various ultimate land uses were assumed to be the same as existing (Table 2-7). With these densities, the population at ultimate development with 2-7 1 than ' airport rezoning is 80920.•.This is slightly less current estimated population and is a result of the ' conversion of residential to commercial land use. TABLE 2.7 3ANTA ANA HEIGHT3 WATER COMPANY ardrPROJECTED POPULATION KITH AIRPORT REZONING ' Estimated Area Population Density •Zonin acres people/acre? Population i R1 144 10.2 1,467 , R1A R2 18 338 37.8 14.9 680 51036 R3 35.2 1c373 , Mixed 439 ' 7.5 . 368 81924 sayr 81920 ' I ' t t 2-8 I TABLE 3-2. SANT PROJECTED HEIGHTSWATER COMPANY DEMAND Estimated Average Population Water Duty Annual Area Density Factor Demand Land Use (acres) (people/acre) (Sal/acre/day) ($1 Ri 148 10.2 1,520 157 175 R1A 22.7 37.8 760 584 66 1 R2 477.8 14.9• ,760 186 R3 80.3 35.2 3,345 Mixed 48.8 7.5 3;000 193* C 64.--- 0 0 Open 146.1 Santa Ana Golf 1,200 108 Course 129.0 Newport Beach Golf Course 82_7 --- 120 7 1,298 TOTAL 1,200 say, 1,300 *Includes demand for hotels/motels along Newport Boulevard. Projected average annual water demand at the indicated projected ultimate development is 1,300 gPm, a 19 percent increase from 1984. At the projected population of 12,680 (Table 2-5), the projected gross per capita consumption is 147 gpcd. F. Future Water Demand With Airport Rezonin Future water demand was based on projected land use throughout the service area 1£ Scenario 8 were adopted to the County General Plan (Table 2-6). Anticipated water demand under these conditions is shown in Table 3-3. 3-7 TABLE 3-3 SANTA ANA HEIGHTS WATER COMPANY PROJECTED WATER DEMAND WITH AIRPORT REZONING Land �+ R1 11A B3 Mixed C Open Space Santa Aria Golf Courses Neport Beach Golf Course TOTAL Estimated Average Population Density Water Duty Factor Annual Demand Arita, , acres) QL*ool� !) (gal/acre/day) (Rpm) 144 10.2 •• 1,520 152 18 34 37.8 4,175 1,760 453 39 375-2 1,310 91 38 .5 N 3,000 524 e 157 -- 0 0 129 -- 1,200 108 82.7 120 7 1,200 Say, 1,385 1,390 eIncludes demand for hotels/motels along Newport Boulevard. Projected average annual water demand at the indicated projected ultimate development is 1,390 gpm+ a 28 percent increase from 1984. At the projected population of 8,920 (Table 2—T), the projected gross per capita consumption is 224 gpcd. 3-8 fNv .• t4• , r _ . 'A' Input necessary to moder'the existing system includes the node and.'pipe Idataq demand.di3tributionp and imported water sourc"'data. Data on each of these parameters follows. B. Pipe Grid Mesa atlas maps, which include the Company's system, were used to determine line locations, size, material, and length. This information was used to create pipe and node records; these records are found in computer printouts, Appendix B. C. Demand Loading Demand loading of the network was determined by applying historical water consumption to the various land -use areas (Chapter 3). Demands were determined by approximating the area to which each pipe delivers water. These areas were then multiplied by the water duty factors (Table 3-1) to determine total demand. Demands appear in the node records of the computer file (see Appendix B). D. Modeling of Supply Sources The four supply sources (three existing, one proposed) introduce flow into the distribution system at a fixed HGL- Each source was modeled as a fixed head reservoir with elevation equal to the downstream pressure setting: 5-2 Pressure Setting HCL Supply Source(psi) (feet) OC-7 80 220 6-inch Mesa 65 225 12-inch Mesa 80 220 New 10-inch Mesa 73 220 E. Computer Run Summaries For present and future conditions, various high demand conditions were simulated with the water system model to determine problem areas or deficiencies within the distribution system. Summaries of these computer runs follow, Appendix B contains actual computer printouts. Peak hour demand, -existing conditions. OC-T set at 80 psi, 6-inch Mesa set at capacity (1,340 gpm). Peaking factor (PF) a 4,00. Results: OC-T supplying 2,650 gpm. All flow velocities 7 fps or less. System pressure about 62 psi. No supply problems evident. i 2. Condition 2 j Maximum day demand plus fire flow at Heather Lane, Required flow is 2,000 gpm at 20 psi. Existing ,-conditions. PF : 2,00, OC-T set at 80 psi. 6-inch Mesa , set at 1,340 gpm. Results: Available fire flow is 1,650 gpm, falling short of the 2,000 gpm required. This concurs with the Newport 5-3 I&: Beach Fire Department hydrant flow tests conducted in I �.• April 1984 in which available flow was calculated to be !: y., 1,700 gpm at 20 psi. Approximately 11600 feet of 6-inch line should be constructed along Tustin Avenue from 23rd Street to about 300 feet north of Santa Isabel Street to P improve fire flow into the area. 3. Condition 3 ' Maximum day plus fire at Anniversary Lane. 19500 gpm at 20 psi required. OC-7 set at. 80 psi; 6-inch Mesa at 65 psi. Existing conditions. PF = 2.00. Results: •11500-gpm demand could- not be supplied. Approximately 850 feet of 8-inch line should .b.e constructed along Anniversary Lane from Irvine Boulevard to Golden Circle to improve fire flow into the area, or c! : ,approximately 620 feet of 6-inch line should be constructed from Anniversary Lane and Golden Circle to Mesa and Acacia across the golf course to improve fire flow. 4. Condition 4 , Current maximum day demands plus 1,000-gpm residential �.•:ali` �r.r fire flow at Bay View Avenue and Mesa Drives.' OC-7 set at 80 psi; 6-inch Mesa set at 65 psi; new 10-inch• Mesa included at 73 psi. The new connection was included since it is expected to be active by early 1985. IF 1 5-4 Results: Residual pressure at fire location is 56 psi. OC-T supplying 858 spa; 6-inch Mesa supplying 828 gpm; new Mesa connection supplying 1023 spa. No supply problems evident. Projected demands were modeled throughout the service area. Recommended line replacements on Tustin Avenue and Anniversary Lane were modeled. The new connection with Mesa at Bristol Street and.Campus Drive was modeled at a hydraulic setting of 220 feet (73 psi). The Elden Avenue/Newport Boulevard transmission main was modeled at a new alignment along Newport Boulevard at an initial size of 16 inches plus an 8-inch* section from Santa Isabel to 23rd Street along Newport Boulevard.. With these provisions, future demand conditions were modeled to determine if further system modifications would be needed. S. Condition 5 , Future peak hour demand. 16-inch line modeled along Newport Boulevard. New connection at Bristol Street and Campus Drive set at 73 psi; OC-7 set at 80 psi; 6-inch Mesa set at 65 psi. Results: Pressures everage.about 63 psi. OC-T supplying 2,090 Spa. 6-inch Mesa suppling 1,140 gpm. New connection supplying 1,350 spa. No supply problems evident. 5-5 1] 6. Condition 6 Future maximum "day" demands plus fire flow at 92-unit motel at 2450 Newport Boulevard- Fire flow required is 61000 gpm at 20 psi, Set supply sources at 110 percent of nominal capacity., New connection at Campus Drive set at 73 psi. Results: Residual pressure it fire location is 31 New con" psi. eo w on at Campus Drive flowing at 1,400 gpm, No. sup 1 A y problems evident., 16-inch Newport Boulevard line replacement appears adequate. Projected demands with the Airport Rezoning Scenario 8 were modeled to determine if further system modifications would be necessary. Condition 7 Future peak hour demands (including airport rezoning) Plus 3,000-gpm commercial fire flow at Cypress Street and Mesa Drive. OC-7 set at 80 psi; 6-inch Mesa set at 65 psi; new Mesa connection set at 73 psi. Results: 3,000-gpm fire flow could not be met. Extensive head losses in existing 6-inch lines. Replacement or parallel of lines along Acacia and Mesa Drives'to improve fire flow appears necessary. 8. Condom $ Same as Condition 7 but with 8- inch parallel lines modeled along Acacia and Mesa Drives, totaling 4,200 L.F.- 5-6' Results: Residual pressure at fire location is 39 psi. No supply problems evident. �r 5-7 of the propeller meter is 1,500 gpm. Future fire flow requirements may require as much a3.3,200 gpm from this connection. Although the pressure regulator is designed to handle this flow, the propeller meter is not. It may be necessary to replace the•6-inch with a 10-inch meter to safely handle future flows. Aware of this limitation, the Company plans to install a larger propeller meter and vault piping to accommodate larger flows. The need .for future system improvements south of John Wayne Airport depend upon the area rezoning. The "worst case" scenario from a water supply standpoint calls for commercial development from Bristol Street to Mesa Drive (Scenario 8). If this development is realized, Santa Ana Heights should " parallel 4,200 L.F. of line with 8-inch A.C.P. This is recommended along Acacia from Bristol to Mesa' and along Mesa from Acacia to Cypress. These parallel sections are needed to improve fire flow into the area. 300 Z I 6-5 i ' March 21, 1986 ZZ=CIAjS A 6 BSI + CCNSULTA"7:s, h ' Michael A. Gutierrez, P. E. a;:;A AN- BSI CONSULTANTS, INC. 1415 East Seventeenth Street Santa Ana, California - 92701 I I n 1122 S.E. Bristol Santa Ana, California 92707 (714) 545.1060 or545.4050 SUBJECT: SANTA ANA HEIGHTS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR PUBLIC WORKS IMPROVEMENTS Dear Mr. Gutierrez: The draft report entitled "Santa Ana Heights Comprehensive Plan for Public Works Improvements" enclosed with your letter of March 19, 1986, adequately evaluated the SANTA ANA HEIGHTS WATER COMPANY distribution system improvements necessary to supply development envisioned by the County of Orange Santa -Ana Heights Redevelopment Plan. It is suggested that section B-V text be expanded to explain the need to replace lines on Riverside Drive and Kline Drive - Items 8 and 9 Table 6. I appreciate the opportunity to review this draft report. Please provide SANTA ANA HEIGHTS WATER COMPANY with a copy of the final report. Sincerely, C. 0. Reinhardt Vice Pr•esidedt COR:ms 01 JAN 1415E ' ITA . IrA.� � COSTA MESA April 26, 1983 I DISTRICT DOMMORS=4= , srry s. C~ SANTA ANA HEIGHTS SEWER STUDY Development and rezoning of areas served by the Santa Ana Heights ' sewer system will necessitate the construction of improvements as shown in this study. Four areas of probable commercial development having impact on the system are as follows: ' 1. A small area just west of Bristol Street, south of the Corona Del Mar Freeway, and west of the Newport Freeway. Approximately 12 acres, and originally Master Planned as , low density residential. 2, Approximately 10 acres of land located south of Bristol ' Street and east of Santa Ana Avenue. Area originally Master Planned as open space, 3. That portion of the Santa Ana Heights area served off ' Bristol Street. Approximately 70 acres, originally Master Planned as low density residential. 4. 30 acres of the Santa Ana Heights area served off Most Drive. Originally Master Planned as low density residential. The major portions of the sewer system that would require additional construction are as follows: A. 980 L.F. of 8" VCP sewer north of the flood control channel ' and east of Santa Ana Avenue will require reconstruction with 10" VCP. ' Estimated construction cost is 82,500, B. 22885 L.F. of parallel sewer alonngg Bristol Street as previously `i proposed under CMSD Project 1112100-62 in 1980. Estimated construction cost is $486,000.** 1 C. 2,450 L.F. of 12" VCP parallel to the Santa Ana -Delhi Channel will require reconstruction with 18" VCP. Estimated construction cost is $211,500, ' ** As estimated in 1980-81 by D.E. Stevens, District Engineer ' F.O. ooX 12oo,OOSTA MESA.CAUFORW Qi$2e 0 77 FAIR OFWK • Vi4) 75445343 IJ I I n ITA co COSTA MESA Sewer Study April 26, 1983 Page 2 of 3 DISTRICT DIRECTORS )ama A. Wahna, Pteaident Ocma O. Cmnk, Vice Ptaident Shin Hutehiaoa, Saetetuy Hutt' S. Gma D. Tustin Avenue Pumping Station will require new pumps, controls, electrical service, and moderate remodelling of the existing wet well. Pump horsepower will be 120 H.P. Estimated construction cost is $ 161,000. E. Elden Avenue Pumping Station will require a similar increase in capacity as Tustin due to the stations pumping in tandem. Estimated construction cost is $ 322000. F. The existing 2411 main in Fair Drive will be inadequate and will require a new, parallel 1511 main. Estimated construction cost is $ 175,250. Total estimated construction cost is $ 1,148,250; The above computed costs include 15% for engineering and other contingencies. These construction costs will be funded by the developers as they develop their properties under CMSD Ordinance No. 16. Since commercial developments tend to vary greatly in size and intensity, a more feasible approach is to assess each development on a square footage basis of commercial floor space as opposed to an acreage assessment. The projected sewage flows are based on 25,000 S.F. of office space per gross acre. The following table shows the cost breakdown for each line: Line No. Exist.Cap. MGD Old Flow MGD New Flow MGD Imp.Cost $ Trib.Area No. Acre $/Acre $/1,000 S.F. A 0.38 0.34 0.45 82,500 12 6,875.00 275.00 B 0.38 0.41 1.04 4862000 C3J 70 62942.86 277.71 C 1.02 0.55 1.38 211500 1,2 n 4.' 92 122 2,298.91 1,319.67 91.96 52.79 D 1.68 •1.68 2.69 161:000 1,2;�_ E - - - 323000 1,2,;31,< 122 262.30 10.49 F 5.89 5.28 6.29 1753250 122,3y4; 122 1,436.48 57.46 ' P.O. BOX 1200,COSTA MESA, CAUFORNIA 92525 . 77 FAIR DRIVE 9 (714) 754.5343 I ITA COSTA MESA Sewer Study April 26, 1983 Page 3 of 3 The cost for each area is as follows: DISTRICT Area Assessment/acre Assessment/1000 S.F. 1 12192.50 487.70 2 5:317.50 212.70 3 12260.25 490.41 4 3:018.50 120.74 wascross he" A.wakewi N " I � w !=X, One cost not included in the figures above is the energy cost associated with increasing the size of the pumps in Tustin Avenue Pumping Station. The ultimate electrical demand for the station is presently estimated to be 14,500 kw hrs/month for a total electrical cost of $1,130.75/month. �;,*ti �+� maw & mm►ergtAl...developments, the potential demand may reach 29,300 kw hrs/month for a total electrical charge of $2,254.95/month. The difference, $1,124.20/month, may be provided for in the assessment. The present value of this cost, for a 25 year period at 6% interest, is $174,483.56, or either $1,430.19/ acre, or $57.21/1000 S.F. This additional amount may be assessed to developers in these four areas. �%eZINZL 0o��/ District Engineer I 11 F 1 I I I I t I P.O. BOX 12W. COSTA MESA.CAUFOF"A 92M * 77 FAii OPMVE • (714) 784.8343 7P. ,`•�,�� : 'lot.66"i . Am- Aw" A /o 3 isoo • i . 12 6 543, )To 3; 90 G 30(v, S40 1,2,3 92 D 19 31 940 z, it 4 )22 t 3S,gW 4' -S 14 1 z2 YAct- 8Go8 =' 3,321 98 1, S88 r= 31 S ai 11'I26. sr ' M4A Gca$i ,45-j/AC-U LNGRoy f!»% tit 1 t�� sus zs 4,z12 �� 4 3, G3Z 'Z •'� 1 TucwDem� stay cos'r ; i4FLAnon4 1 f�rooSF 'S44 ss Stoll 133 i9 I2 `Z rOtAL /AcA.[ R28 ?,mi. ag s/16fs3 C2 R2� Ong R2 ARY DISTRICT TEM - ICt LtIGIN[L1t tan umm sou"W" .Aw. C2 +, 11*,,, N.R �IN A; • �• .a,, i,T :� R. r..�r. 3 jr' s y. II . 11 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page i SECTIONI — INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Purpose Scope Service Area SECTION 11 — FINANCING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Ordinance No. 16 Proposed User Fee Assessment SECTION III — DESIGN CRITERIA . . . . . . . . . . . • • • • • • • 3 Flow Measurements Storm Water Inflow Peak Flow SECTION IV — RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-6 TABLES, FIGURES, AND PLATES TABLES 1 FLOW MEASUREMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 2 UNIT FLOW COEFFICIENTS FOR VARIOUS EXISTING LAND USES . . . 7 3 UNIT FLOW COEFFICIENTS FOR VARIOUS ULTIMATE LAND USES . . . . . 8 4 STORM INFLOW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 5 PEAK AND AVERAGE FLOW MEASUREMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 6 ULTIMATE LAND USE SERVICE AREAS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9. 10 7 20 YEAR PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 FIGURES 1 RESIDENTIAL LAND USE FLOW COEFFICIENTS . . . . . . . 12 PLATES 1 EXISTING SEWER SYSTEM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (in pocket) 2 EXISTING SERVICE AREAS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (in pocket) 3 RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (in pocket) r I J L_J I SECTION I INTRODUCTION PURPOSE: The Board of Directors of the Costa Mesa Sanitary District has authorized studies of the District in 1969, 1971 and 1976 with an attempt to keep the District aware of land use effects on the sewer system and future improvements required to assure safe and adequate handling of liquid waste. In 1980 the Board authorized an update of the 1976 study to reflect the various General Plan Amendments as proposed and adopted by the City of Costa Mesa, whose boundary is approximately contiguous with the boundary of the Sanitary District. SCOPE: The study conducted in 1976, and subsequently published in 1978, was addressed to developing a longterm construction program where future capacity deficiencies as well as existing deficiencies could be exposed and properly planned for. The intent of the study presented herein is to update the District's Master Plan with regard to City of Costa Mesa, County of Orange, and City of Newport Beach General Plan Amendments occuring between the 1976 study and the present, and the continued monitoring and rehabilitation of existing,facilities. . As a first step towards updating the Master Plan, the Board of Directors in 1980 authorized a sewage flow metering program whereby sewage flow coefficients used in projecting sewage flows from various land uses could be updated. The data from the program is shown in Table 1, and also shown in graph form for residential uses in Figure 1. SERVICE AREA: The present District boundaries include most of the City of Costa Mesa, portions of the unincor- porated areas of the County of Orange and portions of the City of Newport Beach. At the present . time the District is in .the process of detaching a portion of the District That lies within the City of Newport Beach, roughly that portion of the District south of the City of Costa Mesa boundary and west of Newport Boulevard. For purposes of this study the whole of the City of Costa Mesa and portions of the County of Orange and the City of Newport Beach, excluding the detachment, are designated the service area and are included within the scope of this report. The limits of the service area, amounting to 10,200 acres, are shown on Plate 2. Existing facilities, consisting of 316 miles of sewer and 20 pumping stations, are shown on Plate 1. I I SECTION it ' FINANCING , Financing new sewer improvements has been accomplished by the District's Facilities Revolving Fund, a fund established in;1969 providing a connection fee s"le to accumulate adequate r funds to allow new construction. With the passage of Proposition 13, the District's share of revenue was greatly reduced to a , level where sufficient operating funds where not available, and the District'stotal yearly expen- ditures exceeded the yearly revenue. The Board of Directors than acted on two separate methods of deriving revenue. ORDINANCE NO.16: In 1982 the District adopted Ordinance No. 16, an ordinance providing for developer participation in the construction of sewer improvements required when developers increase land use intensity beyond what the District planned for in the 1978 Master Plan,. In effect, Ordinance No.16 establishes January 1978 as the bass year for expected future development. The District accepts the financial responsibility to provide adequate sewer capacity -for ultimate land development at shown in the 1978 Master Plan, but the cost of additional sewer capacity needed for more intense and higher density projects, will be borne by the developers proposing such projects. , The need for Ordinance No. 16 beams clear when it was realized that the majority of District sewer lines were at or near capacity with the ultimate land use sewage flow. This causes any additional development to necessitate the construction of new facilities, and in many cases, not just local sewer mains, but extensive downstream portions of the system. Since without then newly proposed high density developments,,no wow improvements would be required, it appears appro- priate to have two responsible for the Improvements bear the cote. , PROPOSED USER FEE ASSESSMENT: In 1983 the District plans to implement a District wide user fee sseessment to all property owners within the District boundary. Each property will be assessed yearly, in direct proportion to the amount of strain placed on the sewer system. Revenue derived from this program will be used in maintenance and rehabilitation of the existing system. ' I� I I SECTION III ' DESIGN CRITERIA 1 FLOW MEASUREMENTS. An investigation of the pump station logs was conducted for this report and the results corre- lated with the earlier flow meter data. As a result of this comparison, the District's flow coefficients were updated to reflect current trends. Non-residential land uses, especially com- mercial and industrial uses, were of special concern in deriving flow coefficients for this study. Recent developments and trends in commercial and industrial land use tend to be towards more ' intense, higher density, retail and commercial developments. Therefore, the District's coeffi- cients for commercial and industrial land users was increased accordingly, in an effort to make realistic predictions on future capacity demands on the system. Existing flow coefficients are shown in Table 2, and new ultimate flow coefficients are shown in Table 3. STORM WATER INFLOW: ' Based on the studies of the sewage pumping station logs during periods of dry weather and rain storms, a storm water inflow of 800 GPD has been adopted for this study. This figure is con- sistent with previous data collected during 1969.1973. It is believed that storm water inflow through submerged manholes and illegal connections make up the only significant non -sewage inflow. Data collected from the pumping station logs is shown in Table 4. PEAK FLOW: 1 Flow metering data gathered for the report, and shown in Table 5, confirmed the peak to average flow relationship established in previous studies. The peak flow generally occurs daily, except ' Sunday, at 10:00 a.m. The peak flow is approximately 1.5 to 2.0 times the average flow and more accurately computed as shown in Table 5. SECTION IV ' RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS jIn addition to the recommended improvements based on ultimate land use, included is a reha- bilitation schedule for the District's pumping stations. The District currently has 20 pumping stations, of which after the 1982.83 fiscal year, 13 stations will be the newer, standardized, submersible stations. The remaining seven stations are the older wet well -dry well stations. The newer, submersible stations allow personnel to observe the station in operation while at street level, and by design, submersible pumps require very little maintenance. The wet well - dry well stations require descent down a 20 foot vertical ladder to observe pump operation and these pumps require daily observance to check various components such as seals, packing glands, etc. dangerous As an attempt to standardize the pumping station equipment and to'minimize a situation the District will begin a rehabilitation and conversion program where the remaining seven wet well -dry well stations will be converted to submersible stations. The program is designed to coincide with the stations normal maintenance and rehabilitation requirements. An analysis of the flows and line capacity is compiled in Table 6, and the recommended im- provements based on the analysis are shown on Plate 3. A proposed 20 year construction schedule is shown in Table 7. t. 3 r The following is a brief discussion of each proposed improvement, after which is a list of pumping stations proposed for conversion. Note that all dollar amounts are estimated construction costs only, computed in 1983 dollars. LINE NO. 1 The existing 8 inch VCP line from Cypress St northwesterly along Bristol St. then crossing the flood control channel is unable to handle a projected ultimate dry weather peak flow of 0.41 MGD. Current capacity is only 0.38 MGD. Parallel construction of 2,885 feet of new sewer at projected costs of up to $486,000, Including right cf•way purchase, was determined to be unacceptable by the District In 1980, At the present time there are plans by the County of Orange to possibly rezone the Santa Ana Heights area for commercial use. This rezoning would further aggravate the system of which Line No. 1 is a part, by Increasing the ultimate flow to 1.2 MGD. Developments in this area would have a detrimental affect on not only Line No. 1, but the 12 inch VCP lines along the Santa Ana -Delhi Channel, the recently remodeled Tustin Avenue Pumping Station, and possibly the Elden Avenue Station and the 24 inch line in Fair Drive. An indepth further study of this area is recommended before'any new construction is undertaken. LINE NO.2 Ultimate medium density residential zoning in the Orchard DrNe•Riverside Drive am will cause a section of 10 inch VCP line adjacent to the Santa Ana•Delhi Flood Control Channel to be inadequate for handling ultimate flow. Existing capacity is 0.63 MGD while ultimate flow will be as high as 0.84 MGD. Total estimated cost of 220 feet of 12 inch VCP and 765 feet of 10 inch VCP is 588,500. LINE NO.3 The existing 12 inch VCP line in Flower Avenue from Santa Ana Avenue to Raymond Avenue was fopnd to have less than required ultimate *#city. Although the ultimate flow of 1.43 MGD exceeds the existing capacity of 1.23 MGD by only .20 MGD, the possibility of a critical situation exists. Total estimated cost of 060 feet of parallel 12 inch VCP line is $65,500. LINE NO.4 The 8 inch VCP sewer in Santa Ana Avenue from 17th Place to 18th Street has a capacity of 0.47 MGD. The ultimate flow is 0.57 MGD forthe line. The estimated cost of 990 feet of parallel 8 inch VCP is 554,700. LINE NO.5 At the present time Congress Pumping Station has a capacity of 100 GPM. Ultimate flow for its tributary area will place a demand as high as 155 GPM on this station. An increase to required capacity means the replacement of existing pumps by new, larger capacity pumps+ Total cost of this replacement is estimated at $220300. An alternative to the replacement of the pumps would be to eliminate Congress Pumping Station altogether by constructing 1,490 feet of 8 inch VCP gravity sewer between Wilson Street and Congress Street, thereby diverting the flow to Canyon Pumping Station. This alternative would not add significantly to the flow through the Wilson Street system, which is already in need of new construction, but would eliminate the need for any additional work on the President Pumping Station•Hamilton Street system. The construction and maintenance savings of eliminating a pumping station would make the higher -present cost of this alternative more feasible. The estimated constructed cost Is $80,000. I I I I I I r J 1 r I L 4 ' LINE NO. 6 3 s Congress Pumping Station Flow is subsequently pumped again by President Pumping Station. The increased flow from Congress Pumping Station will place additional demands on the station. The present capacity is 400 GPM while ultimate demand is 540 GPM. To increase to 540 GPM capacity, President Pumping Station will require only a piping remodel at an estimated cost of $5,500. LINE NO.7 1 President Pumping Station flow is pumped into a gravity line on Hamilton Street east of Placentia Avenue. Total cost of replacing the existing lines with 2,700 feet of 18 inch VCP is estimated at $210,000. LINE NO. 8 This short line in Newport Boulevard northeast of Victoria Street, conveys the flow from 800 ' upstream acres into the Fairview Trunk. Capacity of this line is 2.71 MGD while ultimate flow may Peach as high as 4.56 MGD.. Total estimated cost of adding 325 feet of parallel 18 inch line is $98,000. LINE NO. 9 The existing lines in Wilson Street between Placentia Avenue and the Wilson Pumping Station just west of Harbor Boulevard are inadequate to handle an ultimate flow of 2.25 MGD. The estimated cost of replacing one of the lines with 3.750feet of 18 inch VCP is estimated at $282,000. LINE NO. 10 Country Club Drive south of Gisler Avenue has an ultimate flow of .42 MGD. Present capacity in the 8 inch line is 0.36 MGD. Cost of adding 3,080 feet of parallel 8 inch VCP is $164,700. LINE NO. 11 Harbor Boulevard between Adams Avenue and the District No. 6 Trunk near Gisler Avenue has the capacity to barely handle ultimate dry weather flow. However, a trend toward increased density developments in the large tributary area to this line will eventually cause severe capacity problems. This, combined with storm water inflows of up to 0.55 MGD, will necessitate the construction of 1,200feet of 21• inch VCP sewer to divert the flow south of Adams into the Fairview Trunk at Adams Avenue. The estimated cost of construction is $180,000. LINE NO. 12 The line in Pomona -Avenue south of 17th Street, connecting to the County Sanitation District '. Trunk, has a capacity of 3.30 MGD. Ultimate flow•is predicted as high as 3.94 MGD. Estimated cost of a parallel 18 inch VCP line is $64,700. I PUMPING STATION CONVERSIONS. f Santa Ana Harbor • Gisler Eiden President California South Coast No. t ' Experiencing severe storm water inflow , w ' • 8 J I TABLE i COSTA MESA SANITARY DISTRICT' FLOW MEASUREMENTS LOCATION AREA° DWELLING UNITS DENSITY (UNITS/AC.I AVERAGE DAILY FLOW(MD) AV RAG UNI I FLOW (GAL/AC/DAYI RESIDENTIALb ' Iowa Pumping Station 8.8 141 1&0 .023 2615 Gisler Pumping Station 72.0 339 4.7 D86 1195 Fair Drive 1226 473 3.9 .1I0 S00 Irvine Avenue 81.5 246 3.0 .07 860 Flower Street 146.2 1154 29 .230 1575 Newport Boulevard 12.8 258 20.2 .04 3140 COMMERCIAL Bristol Street 14.9 .014 940 E 171h Street 70.6 .066 972 E. 171h Street 372 D36 968 W.19th Street 44.4 D43 968 INDUSTRIAL Pullman Avenue 123.1 206 2320 *,Area actually connected to sewer. b'Data from 1972-1980 TABLE 2 COSTA MESA SANITARY DISTRICT UNIT FLOW COEFFICIENTS FOR VARIOUS EXISTING LAND USES 1972 LAND USE AVERAGE UNIT FLOW COEFFICIENTS Residential (see TABLE V Commercial...............................................................................1,000 gpd/acre Industrial................................................................................2,000 gpd/acre Parks, Recreation and Public Land...............:............................................. ... 190 gpd/acre General Hospital.......................................................................... 23 ed/ 5 q/b doy Convalescent Hospital...........................................................................70 g/bed/day Schools.................................................................................. 25 9/student/day Inflow....................................................................................800 gpd/acre f TABLE 3 I COSTA MESA SANITARY DISTRICT UNIT FLOW COEFFICIENTS FOR VARIOUS ULTIMATE LAND USES I AVERAGE UNIT PLOW IIN LANO USE COEFFICIENTS Lee Dmdty Rwiw"M (to wat/wre)..................................... y.....................1,S45 lWam M odk oo own" ReeW001el (15.0 wdM/aw) :.......................................................2,S2S yy OW* NOom*y Ree11w w (30.0 eblte/aae)......................................... ................ 4,925 owure dkewoLl.........................................................................50000 OdPouv krewlriM.................................................................................3,500 pd/ocra Parke,Reer*s0m wd Public Lod ...............................................................200 vd/we Steno kMlar............................................................................... Soo gyd/xn TABLE 4 COSTA MESA SANITARY DISTRICT STORM INFLOW STATION LOCATION MEASURED INFLOW RATE (KIL136) AREA (ACRES) UNIT PLOW COEFFICIENT (EPO/AC.) 1 MENDOZA PIMPING STATION AT to$ 305 2 GISLER PUMPING STATION .11 72 4130 S CANTON PUMPING STATION AS 174 430 9 VICT0111A PUMPING STATION 2b 143 4400 II TUSTIN PUMPING STATION 2T 334 $OS 12 SANTA ANA PUMPING STATION 24 417 STS 13 23rd STREET PUMPING STATION .09 104 490 TABLE 5 COSTA MESA SANITARY DISTRICT PEAK AND AVERAGE FLOW MEASUREMENTS METER RECOROING N0. LOCATION PLOW (MOO) AVERAGE PEAK 37 Herber SOW. bl Pak Drive 77 L53 39 Irvkw Aw, at Mew Drive .33 .64 43 SaMa Arta W loth Street .I6 22 44 F%vw SNeat et Reyteaad 24 .70 47 ftViso TtwA et baker 3*W L36 420 46 Fairview Trwk eI Fair Otive .64 1.33 49 Neo wt 6lvd. at Coast Hwy, 1.43 2.30 50 Darer Orlw al Cillf Drive I.57 Leo D r i r r 1 r I LJ r ADOPTED PEAK FLOW EQUATION, Peak Fkw (MGD) • 1.64 x Awtade Flow(MGO)0.sz B am M M AM = -� COSTA MESA SANITARY DISTRICT ULTIMATE LAND USE SERVICE AREAS M M = = M M M SERVICE RESIDENTIAL COMM INO- TOTAL AVG. PEAK STORM EXISTING LINE DIA. SLOPE CAPACITY LINE NO. AREA LINE LOW MED HIGH ACRES ACRES OTHER ACRES FLOW FLOW INFLOW TOTAI.' 1 s Is 4 e e p 1 Santa Ana S.W. of 18th 48 13 - 35 - - 96 .28 .57 .08 .65 1.62 8 12 .0035 ' .47 4.23 4 3 1 Flower S.E. of Santa Ana 95 39 34 71 - - 239 .76 1.43 .19 .03 .17 10 .0028 .0020 .63 2 Raymond N.E. of Flower 39 34 71 - - .39 339 .06 .92 .14 1.71 .27 1.98 15 .0019 1.83 - 1-4 lit Alley N.E. of Flower 1135 49 29 - - 154 .71 .12 .83 16 AM 1.25 5.7 Irvine N.E. of 17th 105 20 - - 82 .36 13 .28 .07 .35 8 .0029 .42 10 Tustin S.W. of Walnut 82 - - - - - 140 .1 i .56 10 .0009 .25 - 10-11 Irvine at costa Mesa 140 - - - 29 - - - 204 .22 A3 .45 .86 .16 1.02 /5 .0009 1.26 - 68 Irvine at Flower 155 20 - - 563 1.37 2A6 .44 2.90 15.18 .0009 3.36 - ' 1-11 Irvine S.W. of 19th 350 69 34 100 - 13 23rd St. P.S. 173 11 - - - - 25 184 378 .30 .60 1.27 .15 .28 .76 1.55 12 A04o .65c 1.46 - 13-14 Santa Ana N.E. of 23rd 301 52 - - - 25 442 .61 1.50 .33 1.83 - 11.80c - 13,14 Santa Ana P.S. 336 81 - - 7 - - 11 128 .73 .19 41 .09 50 8 .0024 .38 1 20 Bristol N.W. of Acacia 110 - - 3 46 - 128 243 .43 .84 .09 93 10 .0020 .63 2 -20 F.C.-Channel S.E.of Kline 9 57 17 - 63 182 .27 .65 .10 65 12 .0020 1.02 - 20 _ So. 12' East of Tustin P.S. 112 - - 46 - 138 263 45 .89 10 99 A- 1.02 - 20 .'. '� .. No. A2" East of Tustin P.S. 9 67 3 73 - 201 637 1.68 .27 1.96 - 1.68c - 20 Tustin P.S. 185 345 70 177 8 - - - 37 559 .90 .99 2.33 A2 2.76 /8 A024 6.14 - 13.15 Santa Ana S.W. of Mass 37 635 1.18 2.68 As 3.16 18 .0020 3.03 - 13.17 Mesa S.E. of Elden 346 263 - - 13 - - - 71 A4 .06 .50 8 .0040 .60 - I 18 Elden S.W. of Wilson - 58 - 17 - - 102 .21 .61 .08 .69 10 A040 90ED - 18 Elden at Mesa No. 10" - 65 - 37 .30 .24 8 .0040 .60 18 Elden at Mesa So. 8" • - 37 - - 53 - - - 37 804 .09 1.76 .21 3.39 .03 .61 4.00 - - 3.60c 13.19 Elden P.S. 346 369 5 21 21st S.E. of Orange 4B 30 - - - - 76 168 36 As a1 .06 .37 1.08 8 10.10 .0020 - .35 1.28 - , - .21 21st at Newport at 72 72 16 16 19 at - - - - 230 .69 .93 1.30 .15 .18 1.48 10.15 - 2.01 - 21 Newport at Victoria 81 22 Congress P.S. 49 2 3 1 - - 55 .10 .22 .04 .26 - - - • .14c 8 6 22 President P.S. 193 2 , 12 47 1 1 1 1 - 209 307 .37. .69 1.14 .17 .25 .86 1.39 - 8.10j .0028 .BBC 1.17 7 22.24 Hamilton West of Harbor 239 19 19 1 - 332 .64 1.36 .27 1.63 16"' .0016 1.68 - 22-25 Hamilton at CLof Harbor 239 19 54 38 1 - 355 .77 1.66 .28 1.84 i6 .0016 1.68 - 22.26 Hamilton East of Harbor 239 22 55 38 1 - 369 .87 91 1.63 .30 1.93 15 .0016 1.68 - 22.28 Thurin South of Victoria i15"i 243 27 60 64 1 - 414 1.10 1.98 .33 2.29 18 4016 2.71 - 22-29 Victoria at Newport UB"1 247 33 79 30,31 Victoria P.S. 39 49 47 1 9 - 143 A4 .86 1.24 .11 .97 1.37 - 12 - 1.08c 92 - - 30.34 Victoria East of Harbor 39 55 62 7 9 9 - 7 160 206 .51 1.64 .13 1.70 12 .0016 .0016 - 3D-34 Victoria at Newport 112"1 44 60 62 24 .66 .16 .92 21.34 Newport N.E. of Victoria (18" 1 372 166 167 139 10 7 650 2A5 4.66 .67 6.23 18 ' .0016 2.71 8 , .. . . a- Includes parks, fairgrounds, hospitals, cemeteries, golf courses f- Inches b- Excludes parks, cemeteries, golf courses, freeways g- Feet per foot c- Pumping capacity h- Flowing full, Manning n - .013 d- See plate 3 1- Not cross connected at present e- Sea plate 2 i t a ft[VIC[ N[fip[NTML tOMM INO• TOTAL AVO. PEAK STORM TOTAL [[ISTING Low CIA. SLOPS CA►LrcT ►tN[ AREA LINE LOW "Ka IRON ACRES ACRES OTN[II ACRES PLOW SLOW INFLOW a a a 35 An"m South of rA~ 4 - 66 59 - - 129 157 .61 74 1.16 1.39 .10 1.26 1.52 12.19 12.15 .0012 .0016 2.37 Z49 - - 35,36 loth Waa of Gatmom 4 4 - - 94 10I 6o 56 - 24 - - 196 .88 1.64 .13 16 1.00 SS A025 2.10 - 37 38 17th EaN d Paraana 12th WntofldonMAM 16 12 12 - r - 100 36 .70 A3 .79 10.15 12 - AO/o 1.73 - - 36 Sikh Ertl ffunov 4ll7'1 76 12 12 - N - 106 73 .35 26 70 A3 A6 A6 79 10 A012 .73 45 - 39 /Ith Ertd MonroYio lto"i 10 - 17 2 2 44 6 - - 38 A3 .60 .46 t0 .0024 .ID - 40 17th Wort d Pomau 110'•) - - 31 - 192 - - .36 1.31 1.43 12,10 ,0040 1.49 30.39 Placentia southo7lothit7'i - - - - - - - U - .36 _ A3 t A040 46 _ 39 17th Wat of Placentia - - - - - 250 - 1.511 - 1.99 12 AM SASS - 30,39 t7M Ertd fiacrHia 117'1 - - - -� - - 269 - 1.02 - 2.04 12 .. .0160 2.30 - 38,39 17th Wnt d Pomona (1711 - 26 - 12 - 63 - 4 - 203 - 3011 1.00 2.00 26 2.26 - 3" 1711% Wrt ofPomona i 5 - 13 A6 .13 At 14 - - - - 41 Pomona hank at17th - 30 - 12 179 63 232 - 516 2.03 3.63 AS 3.94 It A024 3.30 12' 3541 Pomona SotRhofl7th ,I •• 42 16thWat of/4aWfort - - 3 20 t5 3 ?17 ]2 t A060 As - 1� 6o 4 75 34 - /0 183 .67 1.26 .0 .14 1.40 f0 A163 1.76 - ,44 O jywpatt*A 1 5 2 400 SI7 .56 1A6 .14 1.10 1.15 46 46.47.411 Canyon Or. P.i WWow yy r,"'S" aeanta 67 00 06 06 29 29 5 2 400 611 .59 1.13 '•6 16 1.29 7'6 70,E AM 1.56 46,47,4/ Wiaah EsatdPlacenta i10.1 67 94 16 4a Its A7 .0 12 A024 1.1133 9 r •+ 45 Woww EnN d Planrtta (12") 27 4 - 12 - 1'A9 7556 12 AM 1.� 9 4s,4�7. ,60 %i Il i 1 2 f - 1179 223 A7 AM Wi Wrte 3�B 163 41 it 30 4" 063 11.09 2.19 29 2.4t 2•� 46-50 WotanPA. 106 129 in 74 t6 30 4" "a 1.61 ].]2 .3® 3.7t 10.21 A012 4A6 ^ 46-50.67 WIMan East of larbat .at PHrba �5 30 42 - 2 420 259 746 .63 1.03 1.21 SAID .21 .26 1.42 2.15 15 It AM A026 l.ti 3.49 - - 51-54 Soutof Adrkt h 1951 - 72 62 - 15 218 At 19 AD - - 72e . 55 W67 Adana P.S. Aduat Wrtd abbot 252 - 16 31 - i5 ]14 .32 A2 11.74 SASS 3.25 24 ts7 3.72 i5 It 4 AM AM 3A6 3.46 it 61-66 Nuber Ssudh of gala Way 447 - of 102 110 139 - - 435 436 1060 1122 1.94 2.66 .52 AS 4.74 1t A030 3.71 it 514i0 Harbor Horeb of SAW 417 447 - - 102 144 - 435 112o is? 3.64 .56 4.19 to AM ].71 tt 51-61 Harbor h30" C;*uW no 64 Country Chub at GMr 106 6 •- - - 141 141 252 368 21 A2 .76 A9 19 At A4 t 10.12 AM AM .3111 1.85 10 64.66 GMr at Owmuda 221 6 - - • 6 - - 141 496 .3I 1.13 en 1.41 10,12 AM SAM - 644i6 Glitter at GNwmltor 333 6 - .59 71 PauWMo Ertl bMoi 6 - 31 50 74a1 1 min tt f6r - - R 2f0 •2f ,�4• AsA6 •7.671„K ./T •� �.7� 15 AM 222 ^ 71.72 S.A.CMmW0Gisler Trunk 6 74 •' Handoaa PAL 191 34 - 4 - 711 306 .42 22 .16 SAO •' - 122c - 63 GMtr P.S. 72 - - - -• - 72 .11 24 AB .30 - - 26 „jl apt m m r�M m m m m=� M air r m m m m TABLE 7 20 YEAR PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE' 3 LINE NO. ESTIMATED COST' TOTAL 1983-i987 1 S 486,000. 3 65,500. 6 98,000. 12 64,700. S 714,200 1988-1992 2 S 88,500. _ 4 54,700. 7 210,000. 9 282,000. S 635,200 1993-2003 • ' 5 • S 22,300. 6 7,500. 10 164,700. ' 11 180,000. S 374,500 - $1,723,900 •PUMPING STATION CONVERSIONS NOT INCLUDED "INCLUDES CONSTRUCTION COSTS ONLY. 11 ' 4 FIGURE 1 3 2 EQUAT140R0U/MtW+425 I 2 3 4 f 4 7 f f 10 11 12 13 14L. 13 If 17 N If 20 21 22 Z3 24 OYIELLINO UNIT3 PER OROl3 ACHE RESIDENTIAL LAND USE FLOW COEFFICIENTS COSTA MESA SANITARY DISTRICT OF ORANGE COUNTY CALIFORNIA 12 ' 31fi6Hedhtll PACIFIC VASELL. Costa Mass, California 92626 V 3 January 289 1986 AN �, FD %9 86 ' AN% 1NR BSI Consultants, Incorporated ' 1415 East Seventeenth Street Santa Ana, California 92701 ' ATTN: Mr. Frank Gerard I 1 SUBJECT: Comprehensive Plan for Public Works Improvement within Santa Ana Heights Dear Mr. Gerard: Per our telephone conversation on January 24, 1986 I have returned one marked copy of your map which depicts the basic locations of the major telephone facilities within your study area. In addition, you requested data relating to future demand requirements. As I previously stated to you, this forecasting process has many variables and the prime ingredient is the land use zoning determined by the local government agency. Current zoning regulation for this study area are primarily for residential use. Our exiting telephones facilities were sized and placed to fit this zoning plan. We do not anticipate any large replacements or changes to these facilities based on this current zoning. However, should the governmental agency rezone any of this area it would then be necessary for us to re-evaluate all of our existing facilities. All new required replacements, changes, and/or reinforcements would then be tied to new developer projects as they occur. If I may be of any further assistance comprehensive study plan within Santa Ana (714) 966-6243. Sin%c�e relyl� S.C. Randall Engineer, Pacific Bell SCR: as to you regarding your Heights, please call on i S � GrSVLaa-� 199E RANCH WATER- DISTRICT P.O. Box D-1 a 18802 Bardeen Ave. • Irvine, Calif. 92716.6025 (714) 833-1223 March 4, 1986 1087TM3/86 PL 0 Mr. Michael A. Gutierrez, P.E. ' BSI Consultants 1415 E. Seventeenth St. Santa Ana, CA 92701 ' SUBJECT: SANTA ANA HEIGHTS SPECIFIC PLAN Dear Mr. Gutierrez: The Irvine Ranch Water District (IRWD) has reviewed your letter requesting information on water supply in the Santa Heights Area. ' This development is located just outside District boundaries; therefore, IRWD is not the responsible agency in regards to either water supply or water facilities. In addition, to clarify a misunderstanding in your letter,•IRWD does not supply water to the Santa Ana Heights Water Company. This confusion may ' stem from the fact that IRWD does supply water and sewer service to the Peters Bayview Development located within District boundaries just east of 'Santa Ana Heights. However, water is delivered directly,from IRWD's domestic water system and not through any connections to the Santa Ana Heights Water Company. If you should have any further questions regarding this matter, please feel free to contact the undersigned. Sincerely, ' IRVINE RANCH WATER DISTRICT . Keith Lewinger Assistant Director of Planning iTM/KL:sjo r Soulhsm Callfomle Ed/son Company F w 1 �s * D F. o. sox awr 1333 SOUM AVCHUlt •W[iTNINsT[II. CUFWNIA $1443.1240 �'�U4TAt p* March 6, 1986 CAto ANA r r u BSI Consultants , 1415 E. 17th St. Santa Ana, CA 92701 Attention: Mike Gutierrez r Subject: E.I.R. — Santa Ana Heights Gentlemen: , •; This is to advise that the subject property is located within r the service territory of the Southern, California Edison Company and that the electric loads of the project are within parameters of projected load growth which Edison is planning to meet in this area. r At the present time, the Edison Company has no piatta to alter any of their overhead or underground facilities is the subject area. Any conversions or additions to our existing system will be dealt with as they arias. Very truly yours, r 6v 1° �'"� W. P. Ericksofiz Service Planner ' WPE:da r 1 r �TMIDWAY CITY N, [WI PONTC S[ANCN 0 0 N110NMCC11 0 SCAL ACH 0 SUNKt CACN auWKITNIN/Tt�N OF RECEIVED MAR 171986 �+ 1B1 CONSULTANTS, INC. V1 E SANTA ANA ORANGE COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT 180 SOUTH WATER STREET P.O. BOX 86, ORANGE, CALIFORNIA 92666-OM (714) S38-3SS1 March 14, 1986 Michael A. Gutierrez B.S.I. Consultants, Inc. 1415 E. 17th St. Santa Ana, CA 92701 SUBJECT: SANTA ANA HEIGHTS WATER IMPROVEMENT STUDY LARRY J. HOLMS DIRECTOR OF FIRE SERVICES SERVING THE UNINCORPORATED AREAS OF ORANGE COUNTY AND THE CITIES OF: CYPRESS IRVINE LA PALMA LOS ALAMITOS PLACENTIA SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO SEAL BEACH TUSTIN VILLA PARK YORBA LINDA Considering that the information provided is somewhat "general" in content, we cannot give a specific fire flow for system design, but we are providing a reference sheet which should assist you and give you a base for determining fire flow. Should you have any questions, please contact Art Pereida at 538-3551. Sincerely, Gene Hutain Fire Protection Planner GH:AP:eb Attachment SMOKE DETECTORS SAVE LIVES SUBJECT: rimflsw requirwants based an land Ilse Dascripti" p ll0'OSi: r qusntly ma's ti'� ask for fireflow requi�tss bass la7a uss designations for prelimirucy dasi3n of tinter rjst wa. Actual structural conditions dsterndrx firvflow requisaments but the follwint estimated firefl" can be used for pr+liminas)I 'ester systam design purposes: M or lifilPAI.TS iIREi' nw (cam) DllltAS ) _ �� us: z�tcrza�ox 1. Single fw.11y detached U-stoQ'y) lODO Z 1 2. Duplexes 2-story,sinale family 1600 2 1 detached 3. Multiple -Condos; Leily i�i Cmiar vial �ytrial; elementary schools Z000 • 2500 Z 2 4. 3-story, multiple family; nIj*Oioil=d t oersar:itY ooc^nr'cial+ madium indusudal; intera i high 3000 - 4000 3-4 3-4 schools. Y• 5. Reticnal shopping Cmtera and heavy ind'.:strial. 4500 - 6000 4-6 WM. a. Add 500 6Pm for ocubustiblt =fpsoo"rinp. b. F� a 30 ppssi �lhazaido Ztiri7.�a aaron. :r1a�e is tiabaa c. 1-inflow can be reduced by 501 for Are sprinkler Protection. 4-6 ' I 1 I I A 1 • •�••�� c� rw)c 1 2 15$6 COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA �g�+t P.O. BOX 8127. FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CALIFORNIA 92728.8127 10844 ELLIS. FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CALIFORNIA 92708-7018 (714) 962-2411 I rl J March 10, 1986 ' Phillips Brandt Reddick 18012 Skypark Circle Irvine, CA 92714 11 J Attention: Marianne R. Kearney Environmental Analysis Subject: Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan/EIR The Districts appreciate the opportunity to comment on subject project. The proposed project area is within the boundaries of County Sanitation District No. 7, however, that District has no facilities south of the Corona Del Mar Freeway. Currently, existing developments south of the freeway receive local sewer ser- vice from the Costa Mesa Sanitary District and regional collection and treat- ment from County Sanitation District No. 6. While the area does lie within District No. 7, extensive offsite facilities would be required to drain to that system and annexation to the City of Newport Beach could be required. The District No. 6 system which lies generally to the west of the property is over- loaded at this time, and additional.discharge to that system would have to be carefully evaluated. , For your information, the majority of the area within the Specific Plan study boundary has been master planned by the Districts for low -density residential development using a flow coefficient of 1,550 gallons per day, per acre. Any higher -flows anticipated from the project should be carefully analyzed and discussed with this office. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to call. HJB:lb cc: County of Orange, Environmental Management Agency Hilary J. Baker Senior Administrative Assistant March 31, 1986 COSTANM Mr. Michael Gutierrez BSI Consultants, Inc. 1415 E. 17th Street Santa Ana, CA 92701 RECEIVED APR 21986 1101 CONSULTANTS. INC. DISTRICT AANTA ANA RE: SANTA ANA HEIGHTS PUBLIC WORKS IMPROVEMENT PLAN Dear Mr. Gutierrez: DIRECTORS Offim A. Weh"a, Frowda"t ors". o. CrwA, Vie. F sW&nt NoWn Humn, Sovewy Nwry E. Grnn JowomaoN' I Thank you very much for submitting a draft report of your study entitled "Santa Ana Heights Comprehensive Plan for Public Works Improvements" in advance of preparation of the final report. Enclosed please find a xerox copy of the section pertaining to the sewer system, redlined with the District's comments. In addition to the comments, the District has two concerns that should be included in the final report. The study as prepared by your office is basically a rearrangement of the Costa Mesa Sanitary District's 1983 study that was based on an anticipated commercial density of 25,000 square feet of office space per gross acre for certain areas. Construction costs included in the District's study reflected this proposed density. In addition to the land use maps, the final report prepared by your, office should contain information relating to the location and magnitude of the density the County is considering and what impact this has on the construction costs contained in the CMSD Study. The CMSD Study was only a preliminary study, and was Completed prior to the County adopting the current land use program. Secondly, the construction costs in the 1983 study should be updated according to current costs. Applying A standard yearly inflation factor for the three years since the study was completed will stilt leave the costs far below those which are currently being charged by contractors. It may be more appropriate to double the costs shown in the study. Additionally, the costs should also include the energy costs associated with the increase in pumping station size. Thank you again for your concern in this matter. Please furnish this office with five copies of the final study upon completion. If can provide any additional information, please cal me at (71 ) 631-1731. Sincerely L it 08I 8. HAMERS cc. Bruce Mattern District Engineer Roy June r I� I F L L I I L 1 F L F. 0. 90X 1200, COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA 9262E-110007 FAIR DRIVE a (7141754.5343 BSI CONSULTANTS, INC. Consultants to Governmental Agencies' April 14, 1986 Phillips Brandt Reddick 18012 Sky Park Circle Irvine, California 92714 ' Attention: Sid Lindmark Subject: Santa Ana Heights Public Works Improvement Plan Addendum ' Dear Sid: This letter is to submit Addendum No. 1 which should be included ' with the Santa Ana Heights Comprehensive Plan for Public Works Improvements — Final Report. The Addendum No. 1 reflects changes to be made to the Sewer Section of the report after discussing with Robin Hamers, District Engineer for the Costa Mesa Sanitation District (CMSD), various items within the report. As indicated in the Final Report, the recommended sewer ' improvements included in the Final Report were based on the recommendations made in the CMSD's April 1983, Sewer Study. These recommendations were based on proposed commercial developments within the Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan area which were reviewed and are consistent with the commercial land use development adopted by the Board of Supervisors. Based on the telephone conversation with Mr. Hamers on April 10, 1986, it appears that the Santa Ana Heights Sewer Study of April 26, 1983 prepared by the CMSD was a preliminary study only and the ' District would prefer that the recommendations made in the study be reevaluated before being adopted within the Final Report. A final study was scheduled by the CMSD last year but it has not been prepared due to intentions by the County of Orange to allow annexation of the Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan area by other municipalities. ' Therefore, in order to properly assess the sewer facilities within the Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan area a detailed study must be conducted which should address not only local sewer facility capacities within the Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan area but also regional capacities. 1415 East Seventeenth Street • Santa Ana, California 92701 • 1714) 558-1952 ' A Berryman & Stephenson Industries Company Santa Ana Heights Public Works Improvement Plan Addendum ' Page 2 If the CMSD will continue to operate and maintain the sewer system ' within the Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan area they have indicated that such a study would be prepared by the District in order to address other adjacent problem areas within their sewer system as well as within the Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan area. Another item discussed was the estimated costs shown on Tables 10 ' and 11 of the Final Report. These costs represent reasonable current construction costs based on the 1985 Dodge Construction , Costs Guide for sewer construction. The CMSD had indicated that costs shown are low based on their experience. Current local construction costs for sewer facilities have doubled since the estimates shown on the April 1983 Sewer Study. ' In order to submit a preliminary estimate on required sewer facilities for the Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan area, the recommendations included in the Final Report should be adopted except for updated costs included in Addendum No. 1. Furthermore, a final sewer improvement plan is required to properly determine the local as well as regional sewer facility needs. This cannnot ' be prepared until various issues concerning the CMSD are addressed by the County of Orange. Sincerely, ' BSI CONSULTANTS, INC. , ` 0 1 Michael A. Gutierrez, P ' Project Engineer Enclosures ' 1 1 i I ' SANTA ANA HEIGHTS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR PUBLIC WORKS IMPROVEMENTS ' ADDENDUM NO. 1 ' Include the following items in the "Santa Ana Heights Comprehensive Plan for Public Works Improvements - Final Report" as follows: 1. (insert in Section C-I; Sewer System Demands, page 22, after 2nd paragraph): ' The proposed recommendations included in this section where reviewed by the Costa Mesa Sanitation District (CMSD) staff and in no way imply their acceptance or approval. The recommendations ' are based on a preliminary study by the CMSD and are included in this study to provide a basis for required sewer system improvements. Further studies are required to assess the sewer t system needs, and which at this time cannot be conducted until various issues are addressed with regards to annexations, and service territories between various parties. 2. (replace dollar ($) amounts under "Improvement Costs" in Table 10, "Sewer System Improvements and Costs", page 28 with ' the following): Line No * Improvement Costs ($) ' A 206,600 B 1,086,300 C 612,680 ' D 387,520 E 76,960 F 421,760 * Costs dre based on local sewer construction costs within the Costa Mesa area. F u Addendum No. 1 Page 2 3. (replace dollar ($) amounts under "Total Improvement Coat", and "SAHSP Costs" in Table 11, "Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan Sewer System Improvement Costs", page 29 with the following): Line No. Total Improvement Cost SAHSP Costs A 206,600 -0- B 1,086,300 9380874 C 6129680 412,893 D 387,520 292,228 E 76,960 58,035 F 421,760 318,049 Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan Improvement Costs $ 2 020 000 Energy Costs Assessment (92 acres x $4,971.06) 570300 TOTAL SEWER SYSTEM ASSESSMENT $ 2,477,300 11 11 11 11 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 APPENDIX D 1 .1 1 1 I i J 1 n 1 1 1 I 1 i 1 1 1 SANTA ANA HEIGHTS SPECIFIC PLAN TRAFFIC ANALYSIS Prepared for: PHILLIPS BRANDT REDDICK 18012 Sky Park Circle Irvine, CA 92714 Prepared by: BASMACIYAN-DARNELL, INC. 3190 Airport Loop Drive Suite C-1 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 (714) 557-5780 August 3,1986 SANTA ANA HEIGHTS SPECIFIC PLAN TRAFFIC ANALYSIS TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION I - INTRODUCTION PAGE NO. BACKGROUND . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-1 STUDY OBJECTIVES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-1 SPECIFIC PLAN STUDY AREA DESCRIPTION . . . . . . . I-1 SECTION II - EXISTING CONDITIONS ROADWAY CHARACTERISTICS . . . . . . . . . . . II-1 EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-2 EXISTING ROADWAY CAPACITY . . . . . . . . . II-2 EXISTING INTERSECTION CAPACITY . . . . . . . . . II-7 EXISTING PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION SERVICE II-7' SECTION III - FUTURE CONDITIONS ROADWAY CHARACTERISTICS . . . . III-1 FUTURE TRAFFIC VOLUME FORECASTS . . . . . . . . . III-3 FUTURE ROADWAY CAPACITY . . . . . . . . . . . . . III-5 FUTURE INTERSECTION CAPACITY . . . . . . . . III-9 SECTION IV - SANTA ANA HEIGHTS REGIONAL TRAFFIC IMPACTS TRIP GENERATION AND DISTRIBUTION . . . . . . . . . IV-1 ESTIMATED PROJECT IMPACTS . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-1 UNIVERSITY DRIVE EXTENSION . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-6 SECTION V - SANTA ANA HEIGHTS LOCAL CIRCULATION PLAN EXISTING CONDITIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-1 Internal Roadway Characteristics . . . . . . . V-1 Existing Internal Traffic Volumes . . . . . . . V-2 Existing Traffic Controls . . . . . . . . . . . V-2 Existing Land Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-2 TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) SPECIFIC PLAN TRIP GENERATION . . . . . . . . . . V-5 SPECIFIC PLAN TRIP DISTRIBUTION/ASSIGNMENT . . . . V-5 INTERNAL CIRCULATION ALTERNATIVES . . . . . . . . V-9 DESIGN STANDARDS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-14 TRAFFIC CONTROL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-23 SECTION VI - MITIGATION MEASURES AREA WIDE REGIONAL MITIGATION MEASURES . . . . . . VI-1 Roadway Improvements . . . . . . VI-2 Intersection Improvements . . . . . VI-4 TRANSPORTATION MAMAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS . . . . . VI-5 SPECIFIC PLAN MITIGATION MEASURES . . . . . . . . VI-7 PHASING OF IMPROVEMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . VI-8 n I LIST OF FIGURES PAGE NO. FIGURE 1 - SANTA ANA HEIGHTS SPECIFIC PLAN AREA ANDVICINITY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-2 FIGURE 2 - LAND USE COMPATIBILITY PROGRAM . . . . . I-4 FIGURE 3 - SANTA ANA HEIGHTS SPECIFIC PLAN TRAFFIC ANALYSIS ZONES . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-5 FIGURE 4 - EXISTING ROADWAY CHARACTERISTICS . . . . II-3 FIGURE 5 - EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES . . . . . . . . II-4 FIGURE 6 - MASTER PLAN OF ARTERIAL HIGHWAYS . . . . III-2 FIGURE 7 - YEAR 2010 AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUME FORECAST . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III-6 FIGURE 8 - EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES . . . . . . . . V-3 FIGURE 9 - EXISTING INTERSECTION TRAFFIC CONTROL V-4 FIGURE 10 - TOTAL NEW SANTA ANA HEIGHTS TRAFFIC LESS REPLACED EXISTING TRAFFIC . . . . . . . V-10 FIGURE 11 - EXISTING PLUS SPECIFIC PLAN DEVELOPMENT TRAFFIC VOLUMES WITH PROPOSED CIRCULATION SYSTEM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-11 FIGURE 12 - EXISTING PLUS NET SANTA ANA HEIGHTS DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUMES ALTERNATIVE 1 . . . . . V-12 FIGURE 13 - EXISTING PLUS NET SANTA ANA HEIGHTS DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUMES ALTERNATIVE 2 . . . . . V-13 FIGURE 14 - CIRCULATION ELEMENT COMPONENTS . . . . . V-15 FIGURE 15 - ORCHID/ZENITH/SPRUCE CUL-DE-SAC/ROAD CLOSURE ALTERNATIVES . . . . . . . . . . V-17 FIGURE 16 - CYPRESS STREET CUL-DE-SAC ALTERNATIVES V-19 FIGURE 17 - RECOMMENDED ROADWAY GEOMETRICS . . . . . V-20 I LIST OF FIGURES (Continued) FIGURE 18 - MESA ACACIA/ACACIA STREET INTERIM IMPROVEMENTS . . . . . . . . . . V-22 FIGURE 19 - RECOMMENDED INTERSECTION TRAFFIC CONTROL V-24 FIGURE 20 - IRVINE AVENUE GEOMETRICS . . . . . . . VI-3 FIGURE 21 - IMPROVEMENTS PHASING PLAN . . . . . . VI-9 LIST OF TABLES TABLE 1 - SUMMARY OF SANTA ANA HEIGHTS PROPOSED NEW DEVELOPMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-3 TABLE 2 - COMPARISON OF EXISTING DAILY TRAFFIC WITH ESTIMATED ROADWAY CAPACITY . . . . . . . II-5 TABLE 3 - SUMMARY OF EXISTING INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-8 TABLE 4 - SUMMARY OF OCTD TRANSIT SERVICE . . . . . II-9 TABLE 5 - COMPARISON OF FUTURE DAILY TRAFFIC WITH FUTURE ROADWAY CAPACITY . . . . . . . . . III-7 TABLE 6 - SUMMARY OF FUTURE INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III-11 TABLE 7 - SUMMARY OF EXISTING INTERSECTION LANE CONFIGURATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . III-12 TABLE 8 - SUMMARY OF ESTIMATED TRIP MAKING TO/FROM SANTA ANA HEIGHTS . . . . . . ... . . . . IV-2 TABLE 9 - COMPARISON OF SANTA ANA IiEIGHTS TRAFFIC FORECASTS TO YEAR 2010 FORECASTS . . . . IV-4 TABLE 10 - COMPARISON OF YEAR 2010 AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUMES WITH AND WITHOUT THE UNIVERSITY DRIVE EXTENSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-7 TABLE 11 - SANTA ANA HEIGHTS TRIP GENERATION RATES . V-6 TABLE 12 - SANTA ANA HEIGHTS SUMMARY OF TRIP GENERATION GROWTH OVER EXISTING LAND USE . . . . . . V-7 TABLE 13 - SUMMARY OF FUTURE INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION WITH MITIGATION . . . . . . VI-6 TABLE 14 - SANTA ANA HEIGHTS SPECIFIC PLAN IMPROVEMENT PHASING PROGRAM . . . . . . . . . . . . . VI-10 1 SECTION I INTRODUCTION ' BACKGROUND ' In recent years land use planning in Santa Ana Heights has been closely linked with preparation of a Master Plan for John Wayne Airport. On February 26, 1985, the Board of Supervisors adopted a Master Plan for the airport and a Land Use Compatibility ' Program for Santa Ana Heights, and certified a comprehensive environmental impact report covering both. I The Land Use Compatibility Program focused on methods to achieve compliance with state airport noise regulations, as well as methods to develop a comprehensive land use plan for Santa Ana Heights. The adopted Land Use Compatibility Program indicates areas in which residential land uses will be eliminated. The Board of Supervisors has set in motion the land use conversion process by adopting appropriate changes to the General Plan Land Use Element and to the County's Community Profile. However, land use regulations have not been developed. Instead, the Board directed that a Specific Plan and accompanying environmental documentation be prepared to implement the adopted land use changes. The Specific Plan is to establish land use regulations and other implementation programs tailored to the unique requirements of the Santa Ana Heights Community. A major element of the Specific Plan is the circulation component. STUDY OBJECTIVES The purpose of this report is to develop the circulation component of the Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan. The circulation component will address the need for roadway ' improvements and/or modifications in order to serve existing and projected traffic levels. This report will ensure that the analysis of circulation needs in Santa Ana Heights is consistent with the analysis of needs in the surrounding area. An important aspect of this study will be to ensure that business and residential traffic is separated as much as possible. ' SPECIFIC PLAN STUDY AREA DESCRIPTION The area to be covered by the Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan is approximately 175 acres of unincorporated territory south of John ' Wayne Airport. The Specific Plan study area and its immediate vicinity are illustrated in Figure 1. This area is bounded by ' South Bristol Street Mesa Drive, property on the north; lines and the property lines on the east; County/City of•Newport Beach boundary on the south; and Santa Ana Avenue and property lines on the west. I-1 0API I A AMA nGR7n 10 Lj 4PS!MW PLAN AREA SPECIFIC PLAWEIR USMACIYAN-DARNELLttINC. 1-2 FIGURIE 1 `3WOC-1 AIRPORT LOOP OR. SANTA ANA HEIGHTS 1se'r-�6M SPECIFIC PLAN AREA AND VICINITY __ I The Santa Ana Heights Community Profile, illustrated in Figure 2, indicates the specific land uses approved by the Board of Supervisors for this area. These land uses differ from the alternatives previously analyzed for the Airport Master Plan and Land Use Compatibility Program. In particular, the land uses approved by the Board of Supervisors for Santa Ana Heights ' represent a significant reduction in the intensity of development potential within the area (a reduction of approximately 2 million square feet of office space use) compared to the scenario 8 analyzed in the E.I.R. 508. Consequently, the development of the Specific Plan circulation component required a new analysis of the traffic implications of the approved uses. This analysis will be based on the information contained in Figure 2 and ' Table 1. Figure 3 illustrates the location of each of the Santa Ana Heights Analysis Zones referenced in Table 1. ITABLE 1 SUMMARY OF SANTA ANA HEIGHTS PROPOSED NEW DEVELOPMENT (a) Analysis Zone Land Use Dimensions E=1 Multi -Family Residential 25 dwelling units F-1 Office Park 110,000 sq. ft. ' F-2 Multi -Family Residential 77 dwelling units I Office Park 108,500 sq. ft. J-1 Office Park 154,000 sq. ft. J-2 Single -Family Residential 3 dwelling units R Single -Family Residential 4 dwelling units L-1 Office Park 85,500 sq. ft. O Office Park 156,500 sq. ft. ' P-1 Office Park 137,500 sq. ft. Single -Family Residential 1 dwelling unit P-2 Office Park 134,000 sq. ft. Q Office Park 127,500 sq. ft. S Single -Family Residential or 1 dwelling unit Equestrian Center 2 acres Single -Family Residential 9 dwelling units Multi -Family Residential 102 dwelling units Office Park 1,013,500 sq.ft. Equestrian Center 2 acres(b) ' (a) Based on Board of Supervisors Adopted Land Use Plan for Santa Ana Heights ' (b) In lieu of 1 single-family dwelling unit. H I-3 H 1 a GEW HAL FLAW LAND USE ELEMENT ORANGE COIMTY is srl., R "Adew d M is ulb" R sidew" HIED ?A ca mmft Cwwowdd iii 1 2 tad Q S OPM two NEWPORT sEACM 03 Lon Dmmft NNW@Wd �.. Awlllo.. Pro& i FYult Cawr�weMl ®Adwln. Pro& i RWL COWAMCMv fWW a SwrlW COMWAWCW OMWR.. Edwa. i MuftAw 1 Fatmon QRswMMwld • ErAb GPM spo COSTA MESA Owurol Coxwiwdd So "'Na Plan Steft Am SowAwy Alpff wft o1 17e0 roods a cwmwimd b MWe Land Use Compatibility Program FIGURE 2 SANTA ANA HEIGHTS SPECIFIC PLAN / EIR " SANTA ANA -HEIGHTS SPECIFIC PLAN 1�` • • TRAFFIC ANALYSIS ZONES I ' SECTION II EXISTING CONDITIONS The primary purpose of this section is to document and discuss the existing circulation system in the vicinity of the Specific Plan area. Included in this discussion are existing roadway characteristics, traffic volumes, and roadway and intersection levels of service. Discussion of roadway facilities and traffic volumes within the Specific Plan study area has been incorporated ' into Section V, in order to consolidate all local circulation issues and recommendations in one location. ROADWAY CHARACTERISTICS The circulation system in the vicinity of Santa Ana Heights presently consists of Birch Street, Campus Drive/Irvine Avenue, Bristol Street, Jamboree Road, MacArthur Boulevard (SR-73), and the Corona del Mar Freeway (SR-73). Bristol Street operates as a one-way couplet between Red Hill Avenue and MacArthur Boulevard. There are three westbound travel lanes on Bristol Street west of Jamboree Road narrowing to two ' lanes at the SR-73 off -ramp. From the off -ramp to Campus Drive, there are four westbound through lanes. In the eastbound direc- tion, there are three travel lanes from Campus,Drive to west of the SR-73 off -ramp where the road narrows to two lanes. From the off -ramp to Jamboree Road, the road has four through lanes. The right-of-way for the Corona del Mar Freeway separates the east ' and westbound travel lanes of Bristol Street. Bristol Street north of Red Hill Avenue is a four -lane divided roadway. Birch Street lies east of and parallel to Campus Drive between ' Bristol Street and Jamboree Road. Along this segment, Birch Street has four travel lanes with a painted median. South of Bristol Street, Birch Street is a two-lane residential street. Campus Drive/Irvine Avenue has two travel lanes in each direction and a two-way left=turn lane between Bristol Street and MacArthur Boulevard. From MacArthur Boulevard to Jamboree Road, Campus Drive consists of two travel lanes in each direction, separated by a raised/painted median. South of Bristol Street, Irvine Avenue generally provides two travel lanes in each direction including a painted median. The Corona del Mar Freeway (SR-73) is constructed between the San Diego Freeway (I-405) and MacArthur Boulevard. This portion of the freeway has two lanes in each direction with added lanes in interchange areas. In the long-term future, the Corona del Mar Freeway will be extended east of MacArthur Boulevard where it will transition into the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor (SJHTC). 1 Jamboree Road, one of three major north/south links between Coast Highway and the San Diego Freeway, provides regional access to/from the City of Newport Beach. (The other two thoroughfares are Newport Boulevard and MacArthur Boulevard). North of Coast Highway, Jamboree Road varies from a four -lane divided road to a six -lane divided road at various locations. Immediately adjacent to Santa Ana Heights, Jamboree Road is improved to provide three lanes in each direction. As presently constructed, MacArthur Boulevard (SR-73) is a partially improved four -lane divided roadway between Jamboree Road and Coast Highway, with added lanes at some locations. The southern terminus of MacArthur Boulevard forms a "T" intersection with Coast Highway and provides dual left -turn lanes and a right - turn lane onto Coast Highway. North of Jamboree Road, MacArthur Boulevard is generally a six -lane facility with added lanes at some locations. MacArthur Boulevard was the adopted alignment for the State Route 73 Freeway, which would have extended between the I-405 Freeway and the formerly proposed Coastal Freeway. The concept of a Coastal Freeway has been abandoned, and the freeway designation for Route 73 has been changed to consist of the existing Route 73 segment between I-405 and MacArthur Boulevard and the proposed San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor (SJHTC). Thus, MacArthur Boulevard has been serving regional travel patterns, and is expected to continue to do so until the SJHTC is placed in service. The number of through lanes for existing roadways and existing intersection controls are presented in Figure 4. EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES The existing winter weekday average daily traffic volumes for the streets in the vicinity of Santa Ana Heights are presented in Figure 5. Most of these traffic volumes were obtained from the City of Costa Mesa 1985 Traffic Volume Map; the City of Newport Beach 1985 traffic volume data; and the October 1984 Orange County Traffic Flow Map. Data along Bristol Street has been obtained from counts taken by the City of Newport Beach after the February 1986, opening of the SR-73 Freeway. Data at selected locations in Santa Ana Heights on Birch Street, Mesa Drive and Orchard Drive was obtained from EIR 508, prepared in conjunction with the Airport Master Plan and Land Use Compatibility Program. EXISTING ROADWAY CAPACITY One very general method for assessing traffic flow conditions in an area is to compare average daily traffic volumes along selected roadway segments to the estimated daily capacity for those segments. This comparison method results in a volume -to - capacity (V/C) ratio value that helps identify potential areas of congestion. Table 2 is a comparison of estimated existing roadway capacity and average daily traffic based on the traffic volumes previously identified. [_1 I I I I II-2 Dj\ BASMACIYAN-DARNELL, INC. FIGURE 4 EXISTING ROADWAY CHARACTERISTICS II- \� BASMACIYAN•DARNELL, INC. FIGURE 5 EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES I I TABLE 2 COMPARISON OF EXISTING DAILY TRAFFIC WITH ESTIMATED ROADWAY CAPACITY Roadway Segment BRISTOL STREET NORTH: w/o Campus Drive Campus Drive to Birch St Birch Street to Jamboree Rd BRISTOL STREET:(a) SR-55 to Red Hill Avenue w/o Campus Dr Campus Drive to Birch St Birch St to Jamboree Road Existing Existing Volume/ Existing Capacity Capacity Volume at LOS "C" Ratio (a) 25,000 (a) 2,500 16,300 25,000 27,000 30,000 (a) 25,000 (a)• 25,000 17,300 25,000 JAMBOREE ROAD: n/o East Bluff Dr to Bristol St. 49,900 45,000 Bristol St to MacArthur Blvd 51,600 45,000 MacArthur Blvd to Campus Dr 24,100 45,000 MACARTHUR BOULEVARD: Bonita Cyn Dr to SR-73 Fwy 51,400 45,000 Jamboree Rd to Campus Dr 27,400 45,000 CAMPUS DRIVE/IRVINE AVENUE: MacArthur Blvd to Bristol St Bristol Street to Mesa Drive ' Mesa Drive to University Dr s/o University Drive 23,300 30,000 27,000 30,000 25,300 30,000 31,000 30,000 ' BIRCH STREET: Jamboree Rd to MacArthur Blvd 7,400 30,000 MacArthur Blvd to Bristol St 12,000 30,000 Bristol St to Orchard Dr 4,400 10,000 ' Orchard Dr to Mesa Dr 1,600 10,000 ORCHARD DRIVE: ' Irvine Ave to Birch St Birch St to Cypress St e/o Santa Ana Avenue ' CYPRESS STREET: Bristol St to Orchard Dr Orchard Dr to Mesa Dr 0.65 0.90 0.69 1.11 1.15 0.54 1.14 0.61 0.78 0.90 0.84 1.03 0.25 0.40 0.44 0.16 4,400 10,000 0.44 2,300 10,000 0.23 3,600 10,000 0.36 2,600 10,000 0.26 1,600 10,000 0.16 II-5 1 TABLE 2 - (Continued) , Existing Existing Volume/ Existing Capacity Capacity t Roadway Segment_ Volume at LOS "C" Ratio___ MESA DRIVE: Irvine Ave to Birch St 41100 10,000 0.41 ' Birch St to Cypress St 2,400 10,000 0.24 SANTA ANA AVENUE: ' Bristol Street to Mesa Avenue 14,000 20,000 0.70 South of University Drive 6,100 10,000 0.61 CORONA DEL MAR FREEWAY (SR-73):(a) ' SR-55 to Campus Drive (a) 65,000 ---- Campus Drive to Jamboree Road (a) 65,000 ---- ' (a) Average daily traffic volume information since the opening of Route 73 between Campuas Drive and MacArthur Boulevard it not yet available. 1 I I ' Review of Table 2 shows roadways within the Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan area are operating within their LOS "C". capacity. However, several arterial roadways within the surrounding area are operating at or above their LOS "C" daily capacity. Irvine Avenue south of University Drive has a V/C ratio of 1.03, Jamboree Road South of Bristol Street V/C = 1.11, Jamboree Road ' between Bristol Street and MacArthur Boulevard, V/C = 1.15, and MacArthur Boulevard south of SR-73 V/C = 1.14. Traffic volume count data since the opening of the Route 73 Freeway between Campus Drive and MacArthur Boulevard is only available at one location along Bristol Street and one location along Bristol Street North. This data seems to indicate that traffic volume along the Bristol Street Couplet since the opening of the Route 73 Freeway extension are within the estimated carrying capacity of each roadway. Traffic volume count data along the Route 73 extension is not yet available. ' EXISTING INTERSECTION CAPACITY Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) analyses for the major intersections on Campus Drive/Irvine Avenue, Birch Street, MacArthur Boulevard, Jamboree Road and Bristol Street were performed using the most recently available traffic information. All intersections along Bristol Street and at the intersection of Jamboree Road and MacArthur Boulevard were calculated using data obtained after the opening of the SR-73 Freeway from Campus Drive to MacArthur Boulevard. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) is a technique- used to ' assess the operation of an intersection. To calculate an ICU, the volume of traffic using the intersection is compared to the capacity of the intersection. ICU is usually expressed as a ' percent. The percent represents that portion of the hour required to provide sufficient capacity to accommodate all intersection traffic if all approaches operate at capacity. An intersection is considered to operate acceptably if its ICU is ' 0.90 or less. The ICU's for existing intersections in the vicinity of Santa Ana Heights are shown in Table 3. Review of Table 3 shows that, at the present time, the ' intersection of MacArthur Boulevard at Campus Drive operates at unacceptable levels (ICU = 0.93) during the evening peak hour. The intersection of Irvine Avenue at Mesa Drive is also ' approaching unacceptable levels (ICU = 0.91) during the evening peak hour. Irvine Avenue at University Drive has an ICU ratio greater than 0.90 during both peak hours. ' EXISTING PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION SERVICE Several bus routes (Routes 53, 61, 71, and 76) in the Orange County Transit District's (OCTD) Route System serve the general vicinity of Santa Ana Heights. Table 4 summarizes these routes II-7 TABLE 3 SUMMARY OF EXISTING INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION (a) AM Peak PM Peak intersection --------- ICU LOS --------- ICU LOS BRISTOL STREET N at: Campus Drive/Irvine Ave 0.66 B 0.89 D Birch Street 0.59 A 0.83 D Jamboree Road 0.66 B 0.85 D BRISTOL STREET at: Irvine Avenue/Campus Dr 0.67 B 0.86 D Birch Street 0.66 B 0,58 A Jamboree Road 0.65 B 0.54 A Red Hill Avenue NA NA JAMBOREE ROAD at: MacArthur Blvd 0.65 B 0.89 D Birch Street 0.37 A 0.42 A Campus Drive 0.64 B 0.59 A 14ACARTHUR BLVD at: Campus Drive 0.63 B 0.93 E Birch Street 0.46 A 0.62 B IRVINE AVENUE at: orchard Drive NA NA Mesa Drive 0.80 C 0.91 E University Drive 1.02 F 0.93 E (a) ICU Worksheets are included in Appendix A of this report NA - Not Available II-8 TABLE 4 SUMMARY OF OCTD TRANSIT SERVICE Approximate Route Weekday Headways Number General Areas Served Peak Non -Peak 53 Balboa to Mall of 20-25 20-40 Orange minutes minutes 61 Santa Ana Station . 1 1 to Fashion Island hour hour 71 Orange to Irvine 1 hour/ 1 hour/ 30 min. 30-35 min. Streets Used in Study Area Bristol Street MacArthur Blvd. Jamboree Road Campus Drive 76 Huntington Beach to 25 30 Irvine Avenue UCl/Saddleback minutes minutes Birch Street Campus North* Bristol Street *Route destination alternates between these locations. II-9 J I F I SECTION III FUTURE CONDITIONS In this chapter, the projections are presented and development. Future and compared to projected traffic resulting from new ROADWAY CHARACTERISTICS areawide long-term traffic volume within the context of regional growth roadway characteristics are discussed, traffic volumes, including estimated development in Santa Ana Heights. The County of Orange Master Plan of Arterial Highways (MPAH) generally defines the future circulation system throughout the County. It includes all arterials and their functional classifications, existing freeways and adopted freeway alignments, and future regional facilities for which precise alignments are still being coordinated. Figure 6 depicts the adopted MPAH for the area. The most significant improvement to the transportation system expected in the future in the vicinity of Santa Ana Heights, is the construction of the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor (Route 73) from MacArthur Boulevard to the I-5 (San Diego) Freeway in San Juan Capistrano along with. interchanges and connection arterials. At the present time,. Route 73 extends between I-405 and MacArthur Boulevard. The segment between Campus Drive and MacArthur Boulevard opened to traffic early in February, 1986. • The completion of the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor from MacArthur Boulevard to the San Diego Freeway is expected to relieve congestion along Coast Highway and the I-405 and I-5 Freeways. Most of the roadways in the vicinity of Santa Ana Heights are constructed to their MPAH configuration with the exception of a portion of Irvine Avenue, University Drive between the Costa Mesa Freeway and Irvine Avenue, and portions of MacArthur Boulevard and Jamboree Road. ' Irvine Avenue is designated as a primary arterial (four -lane divided) on the MPAH. The roadway is generally constructed to the MPAH standard, except that the median area between Bristol ' Street and University Drive is painted rather than raised. Also, a portion of the curb adjacent to the golf course is not constructed and the bridge crossing the flood control channel on Irvine Avenue has not yet been widened to its ultimate width. North of Mesa Drive, the easterly curb of Irvine Avenue has not been constructed at its ultimate location. ' MacArthur Boulevard north of San Joaquin Hills Road to University Drive North, and Jamboree Road north of Coast Highway to Bristol Street are both designated as Major Arterials in the MPAH and are to be constructed to major 6-lane divided facilities. Some III-1 ♦Are t rrr"op I / r✓ r + ♦� i • r ' ' I ♦ , ♦♦ 14 \1 ' p\ ., A ' Z� EALAIONDUSHEMENTD C PROPOSED mmmm ,. .--} s MAJOR ' \ �� i0 MODFIEO MAJOR ------- 0\ t PRIMARY ------ !� MOVED PRIMARY --•—---------' SECONDARY -------- ' - COMMUTER .................. FIGURE 8 BASMACIYAN,DARNELL, INC. MASTER PLAN OF ARTERIAL HIGHWAYS ' III-2 portions of MacArthur Boulevard and Jamboree Road have been constructed to Master Plan configuration; in fact some segments along these facilities have more than six lanes. The portion of Santa Ana Avenue between Bristol Street and University Drive/Del Mar Avenue is included on the MPAH as a secondary arterial and is to provide two travel lanes in each direction. In its existing condition, Santa Ana Avenue consists of four lanes between Bristol Street and Mesa Drive and then narrows to one lane in each direction south of Mesa Drive. Santa ' Ana Avenue provides access to/from the residential development in the western portion of Santa Ana Heights and serves as an alter- native to Newport Boulevard during congested peak traffic periods. University Drive names a segment of an arterial which extends ' from Harbor Boulevard to east of Irvine Avenue. Between Harbor Boulevard and Newport Boulevard the arterial is called Fair Drive and consists of two lanes in each direction with turn lanes. ' From Newport Boulevard to the City of Costa Mesa eastern city limits (approximately Santa Ana Avenue) Fair Drive becomes Del Mar Avenue with one lane in each direction. East of Santa Ana Avenue to its terminus east of Irvine Avenue (in the vicinity of ' the Newport harbor/Costa Mesa Y.M.C.A.) Del Mar Avenue is called University Drive. The MPAH designates the existing length of this arterial from Harbor Boulevard to east of Irvine Avenue, a ' Primary Arterial. The MPAH also includes the extension of University Drive to intersect with Jamboree Road, MacArthur Boulevard and California Road. It also provides an alternative ' to Bristol Street couplet or Coast Highway for "around the Bay" travel. FUTURE TRAFFIC VOLUME FORECASTS ' Future traffic volume forecasts have been developed for Santa Ana Heights and the surrounding area through the use of a computer modelling process on an IBM PC. The Santa Ana Heights Travel Forecast Model is based on the Orange County Environmental Management Agency's (OCEMA) OCTAM traffic model. The basic elements of the process used for the development of the Santa Ana ' Heights Travel Forecast Model are discussed in summary manner in this report. The general methodology for the development of Santa Ana Heights Travel Forecast Model consists of a subarea analysis. In the subarea analysis technique, the area of interest, called the "Study Area," is extracted from a regional travel model and becomes the subject of intensive analysis. The OCTAM model, developed by the Orange County Environmental Management Agency, provided the regional base from which the study area has been extracted. The Study Area has been defined as the area bounded by the Pacific Ocean, the Santa Ana River, First Street, in Santa Ana, the I-5 Freeway and Laguna Canyon Road. III-3 L 7 The Study Area consists of a "Primary Study Area" and a "Secondary Study Area." The "Primary Study Area" is the area of immediate interest, and is analyzed in great detail. The "Secondary Study Area" acts as a "buffer zone," and is analyzed in less detail. The Primary Area in the Santa Ana Heights Travel Forecast Model is bounded generally by the Coast Highway, Route 55/Newport Boulevard, Main Street, San Diego Creek, and MacArthur Boulevard. Within the Primary Area, OCTAM Traffic Analysis Zones (TAZ's) were disaggregated into smaller areas of land use. Estimates of trip making within the primary area were compared to the recently developed traffic forecast data provided by the Cities of Newport Beach and Irvine. Each of these cities maintains a traffic forecast model which includes a much greater level of detail within their respective jurisdictions than the County's regional travel forecast models. Estimates of tripmaking from the cities' models were compared to OCTAM estimates. Adjustments were made to the OCTAM trip generation process to more accurately reflect anticipated future trip making within the John Wayne Airport/Irvine Business Complex area. The OCTAM model was rerun with the adjusted trip generation and the Santa Ana Heights Model Subarea was extracted. The resulting subarea highway network and the triptable were transferred to the IBM PC and converted to a format compatible with the micro computer transportation planning software package, TRANPLAN. Once on the micro computer, the circulation system was further detailed to reflect current roadway characteristics and future assumptions which would be important to the evaluation of the John Wayne Airport and Santa Ana Heights area. in general, the future conditions network within the SAH modelling area is based on the Orange County MPAH. in some instances, in the vicinity of Santa Ana Heights, roadways which do not appear on the MPAH have been added. In particular these roadways include, Santa Ana Avenue south of University Drive, Mesa Drive, Birch Street, and Santa Isabel Avenue. In the SAH Travel Forecast, assumptions for John Wayne Airport are consistent with Year 2005 conditions analyzed in EIR 508 for John Wayne Airport Master Plan and Santa Ana Heights Land Use Compatibility Program. This includes direct freeway access to/from the airport via a system of ramps (see Appendix B of this report.) o Ramp A - A direct entrance ramp linking eastbound SR-73 to the airport on the south. o Ramp E - An airport exit ramp to westbound SR-73. o Ramp F1 - An entrance ramp from southbound SR-55 to the airport terminal building. I 1 I Ij M 1 M III-4 7, L-1 1 1 o Ramp B - An entrance ramp from northbound I-405 to the airport terminal building. o Ramp D1 - An exit ramp from the airport to southbound I-405 The roadway network and tripmaking assumptions for the Secondary Study area are based on those contained in the OCTAM model. To validate the ability of the modelling process to generate reasonable future traffic volume projections which are consistent with the OCTAM regional model, traffic volume forecasts output from the model were compared to the OCTAM traffic volume forecasts. The traffic volume forecasts for Year 2010, including development assumptions consistent with the Land Use Plan approved by the Board of Supervisors are presented in Figure 7. In addition to the Santa Ana Heights traffic model used in this study and the OCTAM model on which it is based, there are several computer models which provide traffic projections for the areas including the John Wayne Airport/Irvine Business Complex area and Santa Ana Heights. These models, including the City of Irvine ITAP, City of Newport Beach Traffic Model, and the County of Orange SOCCS model, are important tools in the planning process, because they provide additional information about what traffic volumes might be expected in the long-range future. Variations in traffic volume forecast's between models are inevitable, because of differences in input data assumptions and modelling methodology. Differences among model results can also be attributed to the area of focus addressed in the - planning process (regional compared to subarea). Generally, a model is considered to be most reliable for the area of its primary focus. In summary, the model results (from the Santa Ana Heights, as well as the other models) should be considered to be an indication of likely future conditions and changes, to be used as a planning tool, rather than an absolute forecast of the exact number of vehicles on a specific roadway segment twenty years from now. FUTURE ROADWAY CAPACITY Year 2010 average daily traffic volume forecasts have been compared to estimated daily capacities for selected roadway segments in and surrounding Santa Ana Heights. Table 5 summarizes the results of this comparison. In Year 2010, traffic volumes along Route 73 (the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor) in the vicinity of Santa Ana Heights are forecast to exceed the capacity of an eight -lane freeway. Since the SJHTC is being planned to include an HOV lane in each direction, the volume -to -capacity ratio should be better (lower) than indicated in this report. III-5 e l00,S00 U" MMOW MT "N B% 9A5MACIYAN-DAKNELL; INC. ',-aft 1 49,700 eL 4ENo XX,XXX - YI!AR 2010 DAILY TRAFFIC FIGURE 7 YEAR 2010 AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUME FORECAST III-6 TABLE 5 COMPARISON OF FUTURE DAILY TRAFFIC WITH FUTURE ROADWAY CAPACITY Roadway Segment BRISTOL STREET NORTH: w/o Campus Drive Campus Drive to Birch St Birch Street to Jamboree Rd BRISTOL STREET: ' SR-55 to Red Hill Avenue w/o Campus Dr Campus Drive to Birch St Birch St to Jamboree Road Future Future Volume/ Future Capacity Capacity Volume at LOS "C" Ratio 16,800 25,000(a) 0.67 26,100 25,000 1.04 21,600 25,000 0.86 18,200 30,000 0.61 13,700 25,000 0.55 26,500 25,000 1.06 24,500 25-,000 0.98 JAMBOREE ROAD: n/o East Bluff Dr to Bristol St 34,200 45,000 Bristol St to MacArthur Blvd 33,900 45,000 MacArthur Blvd to Campus Dr 29,900 45,000 0.76 0.55 •0.66 MACARTHUR BOULEVARD: Bonita Cyn Dr to University Drive North 37,400 45,000 0.83 University Drive North to Jamboree Road 26,800 45,000 0.60 ' Jamboree Rd to Campus Dr 31,700 45,000 0.70 CAMPUS DRIVE/IRVINE AVENUE: MacArthur Blvd to Bristol St 31,100 30,000 1.04 Bristol Street to Mesa Drive 35,400 30,000 1.18 Mesa Drive to University Dr 32,000 30,000 1.07 s/o University Drive 29,000 30,000 0.97 BIRCH STREET: Jamboree Rd to MacArthur Blvd MacArthur Blvd to Bristol St 21,500 16,500 30,000 30,000 0.72 0.55 Bristol St to Orchard Dr 10,800 20,000 0.54 Orchard Dr to Mesa Dr 4,500 20,000 0.23 ORCHARD DRIVE: Irvine Ave to Birch St 7,700 10,000 0.77 Birch St to Cypress St 1,650 10,000 0.17 e/o Santa Ana Avenue 3,600 10,000 0.36 CYPRESS STREET: Bristol St to Orchard Dr 400 10,000 0.04 Orchard Dr to Mesa Dr 400 10,000 0.04 III-7 TABLE 5 - (Continued) , Future Future Volume/ Future Capacity Capacity Roadway Segment Volume at LOS "C" Ratio ' MESA DRIVE: Irvine Ave. to Acacia St. 41200 10,000 0.42 , Acacia St. to Cypress St. 10900 10,000 0.19 SANTA ANA/REDHILL AVENUE: Mesa Dr. to Bristol St. 19,900 20,000 1.00 ' Bristol St, to Baker St. 27,600 30,000 0.92 UNIVERSITY DRIVE: ' Santa Ana Ave. to Irvine Ave. 29,900 30,000 0.97 Irvine Ave, to Jamboree Rd. 20,800 30,000 0.69 CORONA DEL MAR FREEWAY (SR-73): ' SR-55 to Campus Drive 189,500 115,000 1.65 Campus Drive to Jamboree Road 159,700 145,000 1,10 ' (a) The average daily carrying capacity for Bristol Street and Bristol Street North is based on one-half of the capacity of two 6-lane divided roadways (45,000 vehicles per day) plus ' 10 percent. An additional 10 percent is added to reflect the potential increased carrying capacity of a one-way roadway compared to a two-way roadway, due to the reduction of possible vehicular conflict. 1 I ' The Bristol Street couplet, between Campus Drive and Birch Street is also expected to approach its estimated daily capacity. Traffic volume projections along Irvine Avenue from south of University Drive to Bristol Street approach or exceed that roadway's estimated daily carrying capacity. �I r� L� D �I I In Year 2010 including the new development within Santa Ana Heights, Santa Ana Avenue between Del Mar Avenue and Bristol Street is expected to carry traffic volumes equal to its estimated daily capacity as a Secondary 4-lane undivided arterial. In the SAH Travel Forecast model, University Drive is assumed to be extended from east of Irvine Avenue to Jamboree Road. West of Irvine Avenue, in Year 2010, University Drive/Del Mar Avenue is forecast to carry traffic volumes approaching the capacity of a Primary Arterial. The University Drive extension is discussed in detail in Section IV of this report. In summary, with the levels of development expected to occur in the John Wayne Airport/Santa Ana Heights area, traffic volumes along several roadways would approach or exceed estimated future roadway capacity. Most notably, the SR73 corridor, including the Bristol Street couplet is forecast to carry traffic volumes in excess of capacity. Irvine Avenue, Santa Ana/Red Hill Avenue, and University Drive west of Irvine Avenue are all projected to carry traffic volumes which would approach or exceed their MPAH roadway classification carrying capacity. FUTURE INTERSECTION CAPACITY The SAH Travel Forecast model provides Year 2010 traffic volume projections for morning and evening peak periods, as well as for the average daily condition. Based on the SAH model output, morning and evening peak hour turning movements for the critical intersections within and surrounding Santa Ana Heights have been developed. Projected peak hour operations at each of the critical intersections in the area provides a better indication of traffic flow conditions which might be expected in Year 2010 along the roadways within and surrounding Santa Ana Heights. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) analyses have been performed for the morning and evening peak hour at selected intersections along the Bristol Street couplet, Jamboree Road, MacArthur Boulevard and Irvine Avenue. The results of these analyses are summarized in Table 6. Review of Table 6 shows that if no intersection improvements are implemented beyond the present day configuration, 8 of the 15 intersections analyzed would be expected to operate at unacceptable levels (ICU greater than 0.90) during one or both peak hours. These include: Bristol Street N. at: Bristol Street at: Jamboree Road at: MacArthur Blvd at: Irvine Avenue at: Campus Drive Irvine Avenue Birch Street Jamboree Road MacArthur Boulevard Campus Drive Mesa Drive University Drive Table 7 is a summary of the number of lanes assumed for each intersection. it should be noted that the traffic volume projections used for these analyses are based on a circulation system which includes the extension of University Drive between Irvine Avenue and Jamboree Road and development within Santa Ana Heights, which is consistent with the Board -Approved Land Use Plan. 1 I 1 t I 1 11 I TABLE 6 SUMMARY OF FUTURE INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION (b) AM Peak PM Peak Intersection --------- V/C --- LOS --- --------- V/C --- LOS --- ------------------- BRISTOL STREET N at: Campus Drive 0.79 C 0.96 E Birch Street 0.72 C 0.59 A Jamboree Road 0.56 A 0.77 C BRISTOL STREET at: Irvine Avenue 0.76 C 0.98 E Birch Street 0.92 E 1.40 F Jamboree Road 0.61 B 0.95 E Red Hill Avenue 0.72 C 1.04 F JAMBOREE ROAD at: MacArthur Blvd 0.86 D 0.93 E Birch Street 0.56 A 0.70 B Campus Drive 0.65 B 0.77 C MACARTHUR BLVD at: Campus Drive 0.88 D 1.14 F Birch Street 0.82 D 0.80 C IRVINE AVENUE at: Orchard Drive 0.75 C 0.73 C Mesa Drive 0.94 E 1.31 F University Drive (a) 0.89 D 1.09 F (a) Traffic volume projections and expected lane configurations are based on the extension of University Drive from Irvine Avenue to Jamboree Road. ICU ratios based on future volume projections and existing lane configurations would be considerably higher. (b) ICU Worksheets are included in Appendix A of this Report. Intersection BRISTOL STREET N AT: Campus Drive Birch Street Jamboree Road BRISTOL STREET at: Irvine Avenue Birch Street Jamboree Road Red Hill Avenue H 1-4 JAMBOREE ROAD at: f, MacArthur Blvd (N-S) Birch Street Campus Drive MACARTHUR BLVD at: Campus Drive Birch street IRVINE AVENUE at: Orchard Drive Mesa Drive University Drive (a) n TABLE 7 SUMMARY OF EXISTING INTERSECTION LANE CONFIGURATIONS Northbound Southbound Left Right Thru Left Right Thru 1 NA 2 NA 2 2 1 NA 2 NA 2 1 1 NA 1(c) NA 0 4(b) Eastbound Westbound Left Right Thru Left Right Thru NA NA NA 1 0 4(b) NA NA NA 0 0 4(c) NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 1 3 1 NA 3 1 1 3(a) NA NA NA NA 0 1(b) 1 NA 2 0 0 4(c) NA NA NA NA NA 5 NA NA 3 1 2 1(d) NA NA NA 1 0 2(b) 2 1 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 t 0 3(b) 1 Free 3 2 1 3 2 1 3 1 0 3(b) 1 Free 3 1 1 1(b) 0 0 1(c) 1 1 3 2 3(b) 0 Free 3(a) 1 1 2 NA 0 2(b) 1 NA 2 NA NA NA 1 0 1(6) 1 0 2(b) 1 0 2(b) 0 1 1(a) 1 0 1(b) 1 0 2(b) 1 1 2 1 0 1(b) 0 0 1(c) (a) 1 lane is optional turn or through (b) 1 lane is optional right -turn or through lane (c) 1 lane is optional left-turn/through lane, is optional right-turn/through lane ' SECTION IV SANTA ANA HEIGHTS REGIONAL TRAFFIC IMPACTS ' TRIP GENERATION AND DISTRIBUTION ' As described earlier in this report, the Santa Ana Heights Land Use Compatibility Program was developed to complement the John Wayne Airport Master Plan. In this role, it has focused on ' methods to achieve compliance with State airport noise regula- tions while developing a viable comprehensive land use plan for Santa Ana Heights. The Orange County Board of Supervisors ' adopted Land Use Plan replaces existing residential land uses within Santa Ana Heights with some business park uses, which would be more compatible with the Master Plan expansion of John Wayne Airport immediately to the north. ' Section V provides a detailed discussion of the trip generation for the adopted land uses within Santa Ana Heights. The conver- sion of existing residential uses is estimated to generate approximately 15,140 more average daily trip ends than the existing uses on those sites. ' The EIR 508 for the John,Wayne Airport Master Plan and Santa Ana heights Land Use Compatibility Program (LUCP) provided an estimate of vehicle trip generation within the Santa Ana Heights LUCP area as existing in 1983. For reference, Table 4.10-3 from the EIR 508 is included in Appendix C of this report. As it existed in 1983, the LUCP area generated an estimated ' 39,800 average daily trip ends. Approximately 1,645 trip ends were estimated to occur during the morning peak hour and 4,345 during the evening peak hour. The LUCP area, as defined in EIR ' 508, encompassed a slightly larger area than the Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan area being studied in this report. Upon completion of the conversion and the occupancy of the resulting new development, the Santa Ana Heights LUCP area would be expected to generate approximately 53,085 average daily trip ends. Approximately 3,650 trip ends would occur during the morning peak hour and approximately 6,390 would occur during the evening peak hour. Table 8 provides a summary of estimated total tripmaking for Santa Ana Heights. ' ESTIMATED PROJECT IMPACTS Table 5, presented in the previous section, compares future traffic volumes including Santa Ana heights traffic, to estimated future roadway capacities. Table 9 compares the estimated volume ' to/from Santa Ana Heights to the total projected traffic volume along selected roadway segments. ' IV-1 TABLE 8 SUMMARY OF ESTIMATED TRIP MAILING TO/FROM SANTA ANA HEIGHTS AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour ------------ ------------ Daily In Out In Out ----- ---- ---- ---- ---- Existing Tripmaking for Santa Ana Heights (a) 39,800 720 920 21430 11920 Additional to be added by New Development in Santa Ana Heights(b) 15,235 2,000 170 400 1,860 Existing Development to be Removed (-1,950) (- 50) (-110) (-140) (- 80) TOTAL Future Tripmaking ------ 53,085 ----- 2,670 --- 980 ----- 2,690 ----- 31700 for Santa Ana Heights (a) EIR 508; Appendix C (b) The Orange County Board of Supervisors adopted Land Use Plan would replace existing residential uses within Santa Ana Heights with alternate uses, primarily business park uses (see Table 12). IV-2 I ' Review of Table 9 shows that Santa Ana Heights traffic would be expected to have the greatest impact on roadways which are within Santa Ana Heights itself (Orchard Drive, Cypress Street, Birch Street, Mesa Drive) or which are immediately adjacent to and provide access to/from the area. Along Orchard Drive, Cypress Street and Mesa Drive east of Irvine ' Avenue, only a small amount of non -Santa Ana Heights traffic (through -traffic) would be expected. ' Santa Ana Heights traffic is forecast to comprise approximately 20 percent of the total Year 2010 traffic volume along the Bristol Street couplet between Campus Drive and Red Hill Avenue/Santa Ana Avenue. Santa Ana Heights traffic is estimated ' to comprise more than 50 percent of the total Year 2010 forecast along the segment. 7 1 1 F On Irvine Avenue/Campus Drive between Mesa Drive and MacArthur Boulevard, Santa Ana Heights traffic represents approximately one-third of the projected traffic volume. The percentage of Santa Ana heights traffic along Irvine Avenue decreases quickly south of Mesa Drive. Traffic to/from the Santa Ana Heights area represents only a minor percentage (less than 5 percent) of the total traffic along MacArthur Boulevard and Jamboree Road north of the Bristol Street couplet and along the Route 73 Freeway in the vicinity of Santa Ana Heights. Estimates of peak hour traffic volume turning movements forecasts for traffic travelling to/from Santa Ana Heights in Year 2010 are not available. However, based on the review of average daily conditions, it would be expected that Santa Ana Heights traffic would significantly impact several critical intersections in the immediate vicinity of the project. These would include: Bristol Street at: Bristol Street N at: Irvine Avenue at: Santa Ana Avenue at Santa Ana Avenue Red Hill Avenue Irvine Avenue Birch Street Jamboree Road Campus Drive Birch Street Jamboree Road Orchard Drive Mesa Drive University Drive Mesa Drive Del Mar/University Drive IV-3 TABLE 9 COMPARISON OF SANTA ANA HEIGHTS TRAFFIC FORECASTS TO YEAR 2010 FORECASTS Roadway Segment BRISTOL STREET NORTH: w/o Campus Drive Campus Drive to Birch St Birch Street to Jamboree Rd BRISTOL STREET: Santa Ana Heights Forecasts as Santa Ana Heights Year 2010 Percent of Year Daily Volume Daily Volume 2010 Forecasts 8,900 16,800 53 5,400 26,100 21 41700 21,600 22 SR-55 to Red Hill Avenue 2,100 18,200 12 w/o Campus Or 7,700 13,700 56 Campus Drive to Birch St 5,400 26,500 20 Birch St to Jamboree Road 4,700 24,500 19 JAMBOREE ROAD: n/o East Bluff Or to Bristol 2,300 34,200 7 Bristol St to MacArthur Blvd 1,400 33,900 4 MacArthur Blvd to Campus Or 700 29,900 2 MACARTHUR BOULEVARD: Bonita Cyn Or to SR-73 Fwy 700 37,400 2 SR-73 Fwy to Jamboree Road NOM 26,800 NOM Jamboree Rd to Campus Or NOM 31,700 NOM CAMPUS DRIVE/IRVINE AVENUE: MacArthur Blvd to Bristol St 10,500 31,100 34 Bristol Street to Mesa Drive 4,400 34,000 12 Mesa Drive to University Or 41200 32,000 13 s/o University Drive 2,300 29,000 8 BIRCH STREET: Jamboree Rd to MacArthur Blvd 2,100 21,500 10 MacArthur Blvd to Bristol St 2,100 16,500 13 Bristol St to Orchard Or 9,100 10,820 84 Orchard Or to Mesa Or 4,500 4,500 100 ORCHARD DRIVE: Irvine Ave to Birch St 6,820 7,740 88 Birch St to Cypress St 1,650 1,650 100 e/o Santa Ana Avenue 3,600 3,600 100 CYPRESS STREET: Bristol St to Orchard Or 360 360 100 Orchard Or to Mesa Or 430 430 100 IV-4 ' TABLE 9 - (Continued) ' Santa Ana Heights Forecasts as Santa Ana Heights Year 2010 Percent of Year Roadway Segment Daily Volume Daily Volume 2010 Forecasts ' ---------------- ---- MESA DRIVE: Irvine Ave to Santa Ana Ave 2,800 10,400 27 Irvine Ave to Acacia St 3,420 4,200 81 ' Acacia St to Cypress St 1,750 1,750 100 CORONA DEL MAR FREDiAY (SR-73): ' SR-55 to Campus Drive 17,100 189,500 9 1 Campus Drive to Jamboree Road 2,100 159,700 SANTA ANA/REDHILL AVENUE: Mesa Dr. to Bristol St. 4,600 20,300 23 Bristol St. to Baker St. 2,100 27,600 8 ' UNIVERSITY DRIVE: Santa Ana Ave. to Irvine Ave. 2,300 25,900 9 Irvine Ave. to Jamboree Rd. 230 20,800 1 IV-5 I The impacts of Santa Ana Heights traffic on the intersections of MacArthur Boulevard at Campus Drive and at Birch Street and on the intersections of Jamboree Road at MacArthur, at Campus Drive and at Birch Street would be expected to be minor. UNIVERSITY DRIVE EXTENSION As discussed in Section III of this report, the extension of University Drive from Irvine Avenue to Jamboree Road is included' on the Orange County MPAH. For this reason, it has also been included in the circulation system assumptions input to the SAH Travel Forecast model for Year 2010. However, the timing of the implementation of the University Drive extension is very uncertain. Environmental concerns have been expressed about the project. Also, the City of Newport Beach has removed the University Drive extension from their Local Coastal Plan (LCP). Because of this, there is some uncertainty as to whether the extension will be implemented. Therefore, an analysis of projected Year 2010 traffic flow conditions on arterials in the vicinity of Santa Ana Heights, if University Drive is not extended, has been performed. University Drive is forecast to carry approximately 20,800 vehicles per day along the extension. If University Drive were not extended, this traffic would travel along other roadways, thereby increasing the traffic along these alternate routes. Table 10 provides a comparison of traffic volumes along roadway segments which are roughly parallel to the University Drive extension. These roadways would be likely to carry traffic which would otherwise use University Drive if it were extended. Review of Table 10 shows that if the University Drive extension is not completed, the greatest impacts would be expected along the Bristol Street couplet. In Year 2010 an increase of approximately 14,000 vehicles per day, is forecast along the Bristol Street couplet, if the University Drive extension were not implemented. To a lesser degree, projected traffic volumes along Route 73 between Campus Drive and University Drive North, and along Pacific Coast Highway between MacArthur Boulevard and Dover Drive would be expected to increase if the extension of University Drive were not implemented. Traffic volumes along Irvine Avenue between University Drive and Bristol Street would also be expected to increase from approximately 32,000 to 34,000 vehicles per day to approximately 40,700 to 44,500 vehicles per day if University Drive were not extended. At the present time, the Orange County Environmental Management Agency (EMA) is performing an analysis of the University Drive extension. The intent of the study is to provide deoision-makers complete information about the implications of the University Drive extension. When completed, the EMA study will provide greater depth and detail of information than is possible within the scope of this study. I I 1 1 LJ H C IV-6 I TABLE 1.0 COMPARISON OF YEAR 2010 AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUMES WITH AND WITHOUT THE UNIVERSITY DRIVE EXTENSION With University Without University Roadway Drive Extension Drive Extension Difference ---------- -------------- Bristol Street --------------- ------------------ Couplet 36,000 50,600 -14,600 Route 73 159,700 162,500 - 2,800 University Drive Extension 20,600 0 +20,600 H Pacific Coast C Highway 58,600 60,400 - 1,600 Others 1,600 0 - 1,600 I ' SECTION V SANTA ANA HEIGHTS LOCAL CIRCULATION PLAN 1 The purpose of this section is to develop a local circulation plan for• the Santa Ana Heights area which identifies and ' mitigates the traffic impacts of proposed land conversion activi- ties. This section focuses on the Specific Plan area itself, leaving the discussion of regional traffic -related impacts to Section IV. Section V addresses the traffic -related implications of the substantial proposed changes in land use, projects future ' internal traffic volumes, analyzes internal circulation system alternatives in order to limit the intrusion of business -related traffic into residential areas, and recommends roadway and traffic control improvements. This evaluation has been carried ' out using the manual analysis techniques described in the following paragraphs. ' EXISTING CONDITIONS ' Internal Roadway Characteristics The existing roadway system within the Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan area is illustrated in Figure 9. with the exception of Irvine Avenue, which bisects this area; Bristol Street on the north; Mesa Drive to the south; and Santa Ana Avenue to the west; all roadways in the study are two-lane residential streets. ' Irvine Avenue has two travel lanes in each direction with a painted median. Left -turn channelization is provided at.Orchard Street and at Mesa Drive. Irvine Avenue is designated as a t primary arterial (four -lane divided) in the Master Plan of Arterial Highways. The street is generally constructed to the MPAH standard except that the median area is not raised. Also a portion of the curb adjacent to the golf course is not construc- ' ted and the bridge crossing the flood control channel has not yet been widened to its ultimate width. North of Mesa Drive, the ' easterly curb of Irvine Avenue has not been constructed at its ultimate location. Mesa Drive is a two-lane road which extends between Newport Boulevard and east of Bayview Avenue in Santa Ana Heights. The segment of Mesa Drive from Newport Boulevard to west of Irvine Avenue is within the City of Costa Mesa and is classified as a Commuter roadway on that City's Circulation Element. In the ' study area this road provides direct access to abutting land uses which are primarily residential. The street also serves to collect and funnel Santa Ana Heights traffic to/from destina- ' tions to the south and west. 1 V-1 I As discussed in Section IV, University Drive presently terminates ' east of Irvine Avenue, south of Santa Ana Heights. In its existing configuration, University Drive/Del Mar Avenue is a two- lane roadway. The MPAH designates this roadway a Primary Arterial, and includes its extension to east of MacArthur Boule- vard. The University Drive extension would provide an alterna- tive to the Bristol Street couplet or Coast Highway for trips around the Bay. For purposes of the analysis contained in this section, it has been assumed that the University Drive extension would not be constructed. Section IV discusses the regional implications of this roadway extension. Santa Ana Avenue is a four -lane road north of Mesa Drive and a two-lane road to the south. In the MPAH, Santa Ana Avenue has been designated as a Secondary Arterial and serves to channel residential traffic in and south of Santa Ana Heights to/from Bristol Street and Red Hill Avenue. ' Existing Internal Traffic Volumes Figure 8 also depicts the existing average daily traffic volumes for the streets within the Santa Ana Heights study area, These traffic volumes were obtained from the Orange County Environmen- tal Management Agency and from data available in the John Wayne ' Airport Master Plan and Land Use Compatibility Program. Peak hour traffic volume turning movement counts at the intersection of Irvine Avenue and Orchard Drive were collected for BDI. Peak hour traffic volume turning movements at the intersection of Irvine Avenue at Mesa Drive, and along Bristol Street at Campus Drive/Irvine Avenue and at Birch Street were obtained from the City of Newport Beach. , Existing Traffic Controls Figure 5 illustrates the location and type of existing intersec- tion traffic control devices in the Santa Ana Heights study area. Multi -phase traffic signals are located at the intersections of Bristol Street and Santa Ana Avenue, Bristol Street at Irvine Avenue/Campus Drive, Bristol Street at Birch Street, and Irvine Avenue at Mesa Drive. All -Way STOP signs are located at the intersections of Santa Ana Avenue at Mesa Drive, and Birch Street at Orchard Drive. Acacia Street, Birch Street, Cypress Street, and Upper Bay Drive are all stop -controlled at their intersec- tions with Mesa Drive. Orchard Drive is stop -controlled at Cypress Street, Irvine Avenue, and Santa Ana Avenue. Acacia ' Street is stop -controlled at Orchard Drive. Existing Land Use ' As it presently exists, Santa Ana Heights is largely a resi- dential area, with a commercial strip along Bristol Street, and offices along the east side of Irvine Avenue between south of Bristol Street and Orchard Drive. The Newport Beach Golf Course , straddles the curve in Irvine Avenue between Bristol Street and Mesa Drive. Several additional land use types are scattered at ' V-2 sourH srosra.��- smrEr -� -- - - - - -- tj T 1 ZEMH AVENUE `i iL �T _ E T g 3•. I' '1 i .•`?ice' 'Er s1' .. ti -901� 1 L I -� �N�'`� ,� ��_ ` vL •'� I---y IN-i----.—_NaFL--_' —�I— 3 �PEGASJS _ AE/ I IT U-i r, -'`;' 4 r 4437�— — •2803 i 1 380 � d .!. 1090 0- 41 r ear_- - i-C- - _ , -1-- �.1.. - I �s8 L 1 i J—g) 1582 _ o f�s44b '4 1 AVErxx t IT 1 -._-•L _. _ _...^s!:_�.i - Drava.` r.Esa Fxnve . • ---- - 9000 40971 I I 240 1330E j 1 Y, I - I FIGURE 8 SANTA ANA HEIGHTS SPECIFIC PLAN �� •• EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES i DFM Ilk ol PAM ka cow O O ii-- LEGEND .i ® TRAFFIC SIONAL Q LOCATION OF STOP SWM a+�vrt dF" DAIVE �- Ot MUM � - -i{ -- - -i,- IIiE61I-J FIGURE 9 SAWA AM HEIGHTS SPECIFIC PLAN M� •• EXISTING INTERSECTION TRAFFIC CONTROL I various locations in veterinary hospital, hospital. Evaluation formed the basis for of the proposed land the Specific Plan area including stables, a nurseries, a pre-school, and a convalescent of the existing land uses in the study area analysis of the traffic-related•implications conversion activities. ' SPECIFIC PLAN TRIP GENERATION The trip generation rates used studies of similar land uses and presents a summary of the trip analysis. F I I t F 1 in this analysis are based on projects in the area. Table 11 generation rates used in this The trip generation rates were applied to the proposed land uses described in Table 1 for each of the Analysis Zones illustrated in Figure 3. This mathematical computation provided an estimate of the traffic which would be generated by the new land uses. In order to determine the actual increase in traffic volumes which would be experienced, it was necessary to reduce this estimate by the amount of traffic currently generated by the existing land uses which would be replaced. Table 12 provides a summary of the expected net daily and peal: hourly traffic generation to/from each Analysis Zone in the Specific Plan area. Those zones, which would not be affected by land conversion activities, are not included in this table, as they are reflected in the existing traffic volumes. As indicated in Table 12, the proposed land conversion activities are expected to generate a net increase of 15,140 trip ends per day on the local circulation system. A trip end is considered a one-way movement either toward or away from an individual analysis zone. During the morning peak hour, approximately 2,200 trips would be attracted to/from the study area, while the evening peak hour would be expected to .generate i, over 2,400 vehicle trips to/from the area. SPECIFIC PLAN TRIP DISTRIBUTION/ASSIGNMENT In order to determine the traffic volume increases which might be anticipated as a result of the proposed development, the generated trip ends for each zone must be distributed and assigned to individual roadways in the study area. Trip distri- bution has been based on the results of a select zone loading from the Newport Beach Traffic Model. This model compares the spatial relationship between land uses in Santa Ana Heights and the surrounding area, and indicates the directional attractive- ness of trips between Santa Ana Heights and these areas. V-5 Land Use Category Office/Business Park Single -Family Residential Multi -Family Residential TABLE 11 SANTA ANA HEIGHTS TRIP GENERATION RATES AM Peak PM Peak Units Daily --------- In Out --------- In out ksf 15.0 1.87 0.22 0.44 1.76 du 10.0 0.21 0.55 0.63 0.37 du 6.6 0.10 0.40 0.40 0.20 Note: ksf means thousand square feet du means dwelling unit V-6 It I TABLE 12 SANTA ANA HEIGHTS SUMMARY OF TRIP GENERATION GROWTH OVER EXISTING LAND USE AM Peak PM Peak Analysis --------- Zone Land Use Units Daily ----- In -- Out --- In -- Out --- ------- E-1 ---------------- Existing ----- - Vacant Proposed - MF Residen. 25 du 165 3 10 10 5 Net Increase ---- 165 ---- 3 --- 10 --- 10 --- 5 F-1 Existing - SF Residen. 2 du 20 1 1 1 1 Animal Hosp. -- 100 3 2 4 6 & Stables Proposed - Office Park 110 ksf 1650 206 ---- 24 ---- 48 --- 194 --- Net Increase ---- 1530 202 21 43 187 F-2 Existing - SF P•.esiden. 8 du 80 2 4 5 3 Proposed - MF Residen. 77 du 508 8 30 30 15 Net Increase ---- 428 ---- 6 ---- 26 --- 25 --- 12 I Existing - SF Residen. 21 du 210 4 10 12 7 Proposed -Office Park(a)141.5ksf 2123 265 31 62 249 Net Increase ---- 1913 ---- 261 ---- 21 --- 50 --- 242 J-1 Existing - SF Residen. 11 du 110 2 6 7 4 MF Residen. 52 du 343 5 21 21 10 Proposed - Office Park 154 ksf 2310 288 34 68 --- 271 --- Net Increase ---- 1857 ---- 281 ---- 7 40 257 J-2 Existing - Vacant --- --- Proposed - Residential 3 du 30 1 2 2 1 Net Increase 30 1 2 2 1 K Existing - Vacant -- Proposed - SF Residen. 4 du 40 1 2 3 2 Net Increase --- 40 --- 1 --- 2 --- 3 --- 2 L-1 Existing - SF Residen. 19 du 190 4 12 13 8 Proposed - Office Park 85.5 ksf 1283 162 19 38 --- 150 Net Increase ---- 1093 --- 158 --- 7 25 142 V-7 TABLE 12 (Continued) AM Peak PM Peak -------- ------- Analysis Zone Lund Use Units Daily In Out In Out ------- -`--`----------- N-1 Existing - Vacant 1 Proposed - SF Residen. 1du 10 1 1 1 Net Increase 10 1 1 1 1 0 Existing - SF Residen. 20du 200 4 11 13 7 Proposed - Office Park 156.5ksf 2348 293 34 69 275 Net Increase 2148 289 23 56 268 P-1 Existing - SF Residen. 18du 180 4 10 11 7 Proposed - office Park 137.5ksf 2063 257 30 61 242 SF Residen. 1du 10 0.2 0.6 0.6 0.4 ---- Net Increase ---- 1893 --`- 253 ---- 21 ---- 51 235 P-2 Existing - SF Residen. 20du 200 4 11 13 7 Proposed - Office Park 134ksf 2010 251 29 59 236 Net Increase 1810 247 18 46 229 Q Existing - SF Residen. 18du 180 4 10 11 7 Proposed -Office Park 153.5ksf(b)2303 287 --- 34 --- 68 --- 270 --- Net Increase ---- 2123 283 24 57 263 S Existing - Vacant Proposed - Sr Residen. OR 1du 10 1 1 1 1 Equestrian 5ac 100 3 2 4 6 Center --- ----- ----- ---- ----- Max. Net Increase 100 3 2 4 6 ----- TOTAL NET INCREASE IN TRIP ENDS __`-- 15,140 ----- 1989 ----- 185 ---- 413 2000 (a) $ncludes 33,000 square feet of office presently under construction. (b) Includes 26,000 square feet of office presently under construction. V-8 I Based on the zonal distribution patterns which were developed, the net increase in traffic volumes attributable to the Specific Plan was then assigned to the local street system. The estimated Specific Plan -related traffic is presented in Figure 10. This traffic was then added to existing volumes and the results are presented in Figure 11. It should be noted that in this figure, existing volumes have been modified to reflect the diversion of traffic expected from the construction of the various proposed cul-de-sacs as indicated. INTERNAL CIRCULATION ALTEP.NATIVES The traffic volume assignments depicted in the preceeding sub -section illustrate one of several potential alternative local roadway configurations for the Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan area. In this sub -section, two additional alternatives are explored to identify their traffic circulation consequences. Alternative 1 is illustrated in Figure 12. This alternative is identical to the roadway system previously illustrated, except that it includes an additional cul-de-sac near the south end of Acacia Street just north of its existing intersection with Mesa Drive. Figure 12 also depicts the traffic volume assignments I attributable to the proposed land use conversion activities. in Santa Ana Heights which have been redistributed to account for this new cul-de-sac. Comparison of this figure with Figure 11 indicates that the primary impact of the Acacia Street cul-de-sac on Santa Ana Heights traffic will be experienced on Orchard Drive just east of Irvine Avenue, on Acacia Street just south of Orchard Drive, and on Mesa Drive immediately east of Irvine Avenue. At the first two locations, the projected Santa Ana 1 Heights traffic volumes are expected to increase by approximately 1,900 average daily trips (ADT) on Orchard Drive and 300 ADT on Acacia traffic Street. volumes'would On Mesa Drive east of Irvine Avenue, projected be approximately 2,000 ADT less. The Specific Plan roadway configuration proposed under Alternative 2 is illustrated in Figure 13. This alternative includes the same roadway configuration as Alternative 1, except as follows. First, Birch Street would be realigned between Orchard and Mesa Drives, and extended southwesterly to meet with Mesa Drive and Acacia Street in the vicinity of their existing intersection. This improvement would allow Birch Street to function as a minor through street. Second, Acacia Street would be diverted to connect at a "T" intersection with the realigned segment of Birch Street. Finally, the existing segment of Birch Street between Orchard and Mesa Drives would be redesigned to connect at a 900 and terminate in angle a cul-de-sac with the proposed Birch Street extension, north of Mesa Drive. I 1 V-9 2001r102/42.71/012 ---- ---- -- same •.---MMOLzEwrH _ smEEr • • . Til _ - - - -- - sree�. 2991AM44 FOU426• --- - r f: lr`Zs57 � f ', 4141AMW3a�1 414241 F�- r�_i rat. - j1_! _l _1 _ �- _ 74/264283 0 62%2�• �,0.2/4.f/2, ! _ -- -- onawn _ °FIVE _ �wO - nave _ 414 r— __ ir.N' ss•44•vat t - ,or, < 1031400 u( I +1Z1XE a I - -i awx.M�rn2 g. --- s4•iAot/42.440374 0 f' -- - f1.2•/ti0 �------ - - - - II t} }'--� 242,2/ _ ;` k -- - —= •l."oY a..Rr 0••.Oi/!»n ( ,04,•tlti.' 122o.2 0% ' / . ifi"'•�. , I 1 f ( _ !(21/l4_L _L1 _ tt .I 1 _ ITi1 �1I h£'•: OF11YE '+. _ _'� ' � RE9l LINE - - -- 122Qt51t1ssuI" ( — - - , ,.IA M 1 t 2o7.41t2.0t2, 220,.4411SO. W41 •� FIGURE 10 +` : I `E°E"° (DMLY.AM DUOUT, PM NUOUT) TOTAL NEW SANTA ANA HEIGHTS TRAFFIC LESS REPLACED EXISTING TRAFFIC SANTA ANA HEIGHTS SPECFIC PLAN ti. • • ! r i m Im s" IMI m m m r m so IM m � � I. r r w in " Imo. m s m m SgfiH 8f9STq. STWETi ��--- 1 f I10820 3GPEW:Wl , STfiEEit�4F-8�0 800 I i _i I. _ _ I y'774- 1660 ! 1100— • wavE �-,I (— � TT �T >s ;, ntu1E . AVEME F 'zi -- :. 000 :t2400 — i w --I �rL4220 60•. J—h� 1080 EOEND 28600 •r' --- - l 1\i l i ! �' \X,l XXX— DAILY TRAFFIC adav-pAa. VOLUMES i I FIGURE 11 SANTA ANA HEIGHTS SPECIFIC PLAN EXISTING PLUS SPECIFIC PLAN DEVELOPMENT TRAFFIC VOLUMES TAl1T1_1 nm^nnnrn *nsm^111 AT1l1wl QVQTC\A mom.. 0• m r w" m m m r art r r >• i CA ANA HEIGHTS SPECIFIC PLAN EXISTING PLUS NET SANTA ANA HEIGHTS DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUMES ALTERNATIVE 2' Comparison of the net Santa Ana Heights traffic projected under Alternative 2 with the traffic volumes illustrated in Figure 13 indicates that a significant decrease in traffic would be , expected on Irvine Avenue between South Bristol Street and Mesa Drive, and on Acacia Street south of Orchard Drive. By the same token, a major increase in traffic would be expected on Birch Street, particularly south of Orchard Drive and on Mesa Drive just east of Irvine Avenue. Traffic volumes on Orchard Drive between Birch Street and Irvine Avenue are projected to decrease by 41000 - 51000 ADT, while , traffic volumes on Birch Street would be expected to increase dramatically along most of its length between South Bristol Street and Orchard Drive. In addition, traffic on Acacia Street south of Orchard Drive is forecast to decrease by nearly 3,000 ADT, while traffic on Mesa Drive just east of Irvine Avenue is expected to increase by nearly 5,000 ADT. DESIGN STANDARDS The Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan Circulation Component was developed to separate Business Park and through traffic from residential traffic. The major area of concern raised by the residential community is the existing through traffic on Mesa Drive, Cypress Street, Orchard Drive, Bayview Avenue, Orchid , Street, Zenith Avenue, and Spruce Avenue. In an effort to minimize through and Business Park traffic in the residential areas, and to discourage traffic generated by commercial development along Bristol Street 'from using the residential streets to return to the west and north, the , installation of cul-de-sacs at specific locations was identified and incorporated into the Circulation Plan for the Santa Ana Heights. The circulation plan and corresponding cut-de-sac's, street widenings, equestrian trail and roadway realignments are presented on Figure 14. Four (4) cul-de-sac opportunities are presented on Figure 14. , Cul-de-sac "A" is located on Birch Street north of Mesa Drive. The final location of this cul-de-sac will depend on the consolidation of individual Business Park parcels and specific access needs. At this time, cul-de-sac "A" is located near the southerly end of the Business Park. When developed, the remaining roadway can be vacated to the adjacent properties for development. It should be noted here that easements for public utilities will have to be retained. Also, at Mesa Drive, ingress/egress access rights for the adjacent residential properties will need to be maintained. A major concern raised at the community workshops on this design involved the most southerly Business Park parcel on the west side of Acacia Street. The owner advised that she intends to stay for I V-14 rl%aainv. • -r SANTA ANA HEIGHTS SPECIFIC PLAN CIRCULATION ELEMENT COMPONENTS Mesa ' a length of time and would desire to take access towards Drive, rather than northerly. This can be accomplished, by maintaining access to/from Mesa Drive via easement serving the residential properties, however, the County should carefully , review the implications of this possibility and its ramifications on Business Park property consolidation and access. Another minor issue is the development of a specific access plan for the residential properties at Mesa Drive and the potential continued residential uses in the Business Park. The specific design criteria and specific location of the cul-de-sac will have to be addressed during the early stages of Business Park development. Cul-de-sac components "B" and "C" have been designed to separate and discourage through traffic within the residential community. The cul-de-sac of Cypress Street ("B") will significantly reduce through traffic by forcing commercial traffic presently using the route to find an alternate route for their travel desires. The primary impact of this cul-de-sac will be on the commercial businesses on Bristol Street (i.e., National Car Rental, Dollar Car Rental, McDonald's, etc.). Traffic from these businesses currently uses Cypress Street to reach Orchard Drive and Birch Street to return to the north, west and south. With the cul-de- sac constructed, traffic on Cypress Street is expected to be "B" ' reduced significantly. The construction of Cul-de-sac requires acquisition of adjacent property to build the cul-de- sac.. Alternative designs are presented on Figure 15 and in Appendix D. The selection of a specific design can be completed during the actual design phase for the project. To offer the business community a return route, the plan shows the potential of constructing a one-way alley from Cypress Street to Birch Street along the southerly boundaries of the commercial properties and vacating a portion of Cypress Street. in the event the one-way alley is not acceptable to the local businesses, a hammerhead turn -around or a cul-de-sac of Cypress Street south of Bristol Street would be required. A possible hammerhead design alternative is presented in Appendix D. ' Cul-de-sac "C" is proposed on Orchid Drive at Zenith Avenue. In conjunction with the cul-de-sac reconstruction, Zenith Avenue between Orchid Street and Spruce Avenue is proposed for reconstruction. The reconstruction of Zenith Avenue is necessary to provide access to the adjacent residential properties, as well as to eliminate through traffic. in addition, it may be feasible to use some of the excess right-of-way to create additional buffering of the adjacent office development from the residential uses. During the community meetings on the Specific Plan, several residents requested consideration of eliminating the Orchid cul-de-sac, and closing Spruce Avenue north of Zenith Avenue. This option would totally eliminate the potential of through traffic in the residential area, but would result in ' approximately 750 additional vehicles on Orchard Drive and Birch Street north of Orchard Drive, in addition, increased traffic on Orchid Drive and Azure Avenue might be expected. This latter V-16 , �.. n.. • .ii i - Ir , , !,.. ST • --- .......... ... '° It i ri I 1�` 7 wis O •�� MERCI L' —•? IIECOM6T11U6T CLO E• • ::%O. Yi w•. nii +, +.` w ' ......_ C G7 ®ROADWAY `•' n., r /i I m ' o ®RECONSTRUCT ROADWAY TO PROVIDE ACCESS I• 71 7 TO ZENITH AVENUE Si PROERTIES _ J ' j; i+k ONSTRUCT� A ,'` YI-OE-UO ,i_ -��+, is-�,Ni AVE ..•. L �_ 'I „11 •. I W t•I N,, r'i � Y' li Mi. 9.; 4 1 6 r• iY. ST r• �i r, �' , N. IS Q ,�, ' ' I M•i .. ri I ri •' , f ®RECONSTRUCT AND r ❑ --' f•__� \$ r. ` _ CLOSE SPRUCE AVORR \ t ZENITH r• YY --- `"� � AW \\ FIGURE 15 ORCHID/ZENITH/SPRUCE BASMACIYAN-DARNELL, INC. CUL-DE-SAC /ROAD CLOSURE request to close Spruce rather than install a cul-de-sac on Orchid at Zenith is feasible, however, it should not be considered without additional neighborhood input. In addition, both the Orchid Drive and Spruce Avenue closures could be studied on a trial basis. Figure 16 depicts the recommended roadway geometries and the alternative of closing Spruce Avenue north of Zenith Avenue. Cul-de-sac "D" is located on Orchard Drive (west of Irvine Avenue) at the end of the presently improved roadway. The cul- de-sac as shown is proposed in the vicinity of the Kline property, and has been shown to provide a proper turn -around and provide emergency access capability to the Business Park development adjacent to Irvine Avenue (existing stables and veterinary uses). The remaining portion of Orchard Drive from the end of the cul-de-sac to the Santa Ana Delhi Channel can be vacated. A major design component of the Specific Plan is the widening of Mesa Drive to four lanes east of Irvine Avenue and realigning the roadway to create a "T" intersection of Mesa Drive/Acacia Street with Mesa Drive east of Acacia Street and the improvement of the narrow section of Mesa Drive east of Acacia Street. This concept is presented on Figure 14 as design component "E". The Mesa Drive/Acacia realignment is shown with a 550-foot centerline radius conforming to the County's requirements for collector streets. The realignment concept also permits improvement to the existing Mesa Drive alignment and opportunity to develop signage and entry treatment opportunities. The 550-foot radius design is identified as being needed to comply with County of Orange design criteria, to provide adequate sight distance at the Mesa/Acacia "T" intersection and act as a buffer to discourage through traffic from using Mesa Drive as an alternate route to reach Bristol Street. Also the realignment provides alternate access to Irvine Avenue for Business Park Development on Acacia Street. Also presented on Figure 14 is the designation of four -lane and two-lane roadways and an equestrian trail along Cypress Street and Mesa Drive. To accomplish the four -lane and two-lane equestrian trail designs, existing rights -of -way for Acacia Street, Birch Street, Orchid Drive, Mesa Drive and Cypress Street were formulated for construction within each roadway's existing 60-foot right-of-way. The resulting recommended geometries are presented on Figure 17. Acacia Street, Birch Street, Mesa Drive (Irvine to Acacia) and Orchard Drive are each recommended to be widened to provide four travel lanes (48 feet curb -to -curb) and no parking. Cypress Street and Mesa Drive east of Acacia Street are recommended for two travel lanes and curb -side parking (36 feet curb -to curb) pedestrian facilities on one side of the roadway, and an off -road equestrian trail along the opposite side. I M I LJ 1 I 1 lJ L I I 1 V-18 --- ! , J- pcaprM MAOWAV TO I .1 ©nrorAt=" w eMn jj J � � ra w�istun 1 � iJ Dj\ BASMACIYAN-DARNELL, INC. !1 ! ..... 1 I SST 1 © •WAT TO FOR �. 11 1 •• •� 1 I ST} t ... .. ......e.. ©1 ,AO,OA AT, KM1;O Te IIIOYp pIH I1CClp I♦ Ip�Cµ�-pl-pl-p0 1 G FIGURE 16 CYPRESS STREET CUL—DE—SAC ALTERNATIVE SECTION A —A ACACIA STREET, BIRCH STREET$ MESA DRIVE AND ORCHARD DRIVE so' 6' 46' i' 18' 11' 1ft1' is*,WALK 'l Iil WALK SECTION 8-0 MESA DRIVE— E/O BIRCH STREET 10' �.. s'` 4' be •' 10' 10' i' _...--- ECUEpTMU1N WALK S ` TRAIL L L SECTION C-C CYPRESS STREET — MESA DRIVE TO 6/0 BRISTOL STREET sa' 14• �' lot it 10' 10' i' EQUESTRIAN � � RCC TRAIL 3 WALK B% FIGURE 17 AECCM+IMENDEO ROA DWAY GEOMETRICS KASMACIYAN•DARNELL, INC. • . V—lU The circulation plan proposes the connection of Mesa Drive between Irvine Avenue and Acacia Street to Acacia Street via a 550 centerline radius curve with Acacia Street and Mesa Drive east of Acacia Street intersecting the new roadway to form a "T" intersection (see figure 14). The roadway design is intended to 1 provide Business Park traffic and through traffic a direct route to/from Irvine Avenue and to minimize that traffic east of Acacia Street on Mesa Drive along Mesa Drive. The 550 centerline radius curve design is needed to provide proper sight distance through the curve and to be consistent with the County of Orange collec- tor street design criteria. ' To implement this design will require the acquisition and/or dedication of a portion of the property on the northwest corner of the intersection of Mesa Drive and Acacia Street. The conceptual design will traverse through the existing residence situated on the property. During the workshops on the project the affected property owner advised that she may live on the property for several years and requested consideration of alter- native designs aimed at reducing the impact on her property. To accomplish this request, the specific timing and need for constructing the Mesa/Acacia curve was examined to determine what short term improvements could be accomplished. Also it should be • noted that an examination of the Mesa/Acacia curve identified the need to widen Mesa Drive from Irvine Avenue to the Mesa/Acacia curve as one project. The topography of the area and the pending widening of the Santa Ana Delhi flood control crossing of Mesa Drive indicates that Mesa Drive between Irvine Avenue and Birch Street should be completed as a single project. The magnitude of grading operations -and the physical realignment of the roadways would indicate the need to build the project at one time. With this understanding, the Mesa/Acacia intersection- was examined to identify minor improvements that could be constructed to act as a diverter of through traffic from the residential area east of Acacia Street and maintain use of the residence at the ' northwest corner of the intersection: The suggested interim improvements are presented on Figure 18. I fJ I Further evaluation of the interim improvements presented on Figure 18 in conjunction with the recommended ultimate roadway geometrics for Mesa Drive, and the Mesa/Acacia realignment identify the need to prepare a detailed alignment study for the future roadway improvements. The detailed study is needed to be assured that any interim improvements fit into the ultimate roadway geometrics and do not require land acquisition and/or reconstruction of significant roadway improvements. The short-term need for the improvement will depend on the level of development along Acacia Street and the success of the neighborhood cul-de-sac improvements and traffic signal at Irvine Avenue and Orchard Drive. Therefore, it is recommended that the County complete the engineering alignment study prior to proceeding with any short-term improvements at Mesa/Acacia. V-21 1� I' � � CEYSf ( ! •t `� �� 1 1 ' -;,1 1 f TOMQiaaQ\ f�0 O STf / , aez ' ' � .: 1 � •ram°.c -' DR Z 0 � mallo FIGURE 18 MSMA"""`°""MLL.W` MESA AVENUE/ACACIA STREET INTERIM INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS IJ ITRAFFIC CONTROL ' The implementation of the Specific Plan necessitates that upon build -out of the area, minor changes in stop sign control and installation of a traffic signal at Irvine Avenue and Orchard Drive will be necessary. The recommended traffic controls are presented on Figure 19. It should be noted that at Cypress Street and Mesa Drive, conflicts may occur with equestrian and vehicular traffic, as well as pedestrian traffic. This location should be monitored by the County after installation of the various cul-de-sacs and equestrian trail to determine if Mesa Drive should be stopped at Cypress Street. 1 1 I I I L� I V-23 WAffim C t A .+� ivy � .-- ��-�'�� •� 010 ® TRAFFIC DONAL. LOCATIONS ^ � ---' ' • �� l r o LOCATION OF STOP slams (Q WTERSECTION TO BE MONITORED FOR ALL —WAY STOP CONTROL FIGURE 19 SANTA ANA HEIGHTS SPEC PLAN RECOMMENDED INTERSECTION TRAFFIC CONTROL iof;;� pbr I SECTION VI MITIGATION MEASURES AREA WIDE REGIONAL MITIGATION MEASURES The Environmental Impact Report for the John Wayne Airport Master ' Plan and Santa Ana Heights Land Use Compatibility Program (EIR 508) included a list of roadway and intersection improvements to mitigate the anticipated impacts of the John Wayne Airport expansion and the Santa Ana Heights Land Use Compatibility Program. As discussed previously, the intensity of development assumed within Santa Ana Iieights in the EIR 508 was significantly greater than the levels included in the Board -adopted Land Use ' Plan. Therefore, the estimated impacts on the surrounding roadways were greater, requiring extensive mitigation. The improvements proposed in EIR 508 have been reviewed for usefulness in improving traffic flow at projected locations of traffic congestion and for feasibility of implementation. ' At the time the analysis was performed for EIR 508, the extension of Route 73 to MacArthur Boulevard was in the late design stage. Therefore, the impacts of this improvement on surrounding roadways, particularly the Bristol Street couplet could only be estimated. The extension of the Route 73 Freeway was completed and open to traffic in February, 1986. Traffic volume count data was collected at the signalized Bristol Street Couplet intersections (Campus Drive, Irvine Avenue, Birch Street, Jamboree Road) by the ' City of Newport Beach in Spring, 1986. It has, therefore, been possible to evaluate existing and projected future operations at these intersections based on their "improved" configurations. Section III of this report provided a discussion of projected traffic flow conditions along roadways in and around Santa Ana Heights in Year 2010. The traffic volume estimates were based on ' levels of development within Santa Ana Heights which are consistent with the Board of Supervisors' Adopted Land Use Plan for the area. John Wayne Airport is assumed to be expanded and improved to the ultimate levels analyzed in EIR 508, including the construction of the airport/freeway ramp access system. Based on an analysis of Year 2010 average daily traffic volume forecasts compared to expected future capacity of roadways in the area, (see Table 5), the following roadway segments are projected to carry traffic volumes in excess of estimated capacity: o Bristol Street North - Birch Street to Campus Drive o Bristol Street.South - Irvine Avenue to Birch Street o Campus Drive/Irvine Ave - MacArthur Blvd to University Drive o Corona del Mar Freeway - SR-55 to Jamboree Road VI-1 Morr,ing and evening peak hour Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) analyses have also been performed for fifteen critical intersections in the Santa Ana Heights area, based on projected Year 2010 levels of traffic. Table 6, presented previously, presented the estimated ICU ratios and accompanying Levels of Service (LOS) expected at each intersection if no improvements were made to existing intersection configurations. Based on the , information presented in Table 6, the following intersections will require improvements to accommodate projected Year 2010 traffic volumes: , o Bristol Street N. at: Campus Drive o Bristol Street at: Irvine Avenue Birch Street Jamboree Road Red Hill Avenue o Jamboree Road at: MacArthur Boulevard o MacArthur Blvd. at: Campus Drive ' o Irvine Avenue at: Mesa Drive University Avenue ' The following roadway and intersection improvements, some of which were recommended in EIR 508, are estimated to be necessary to maintain acceptable traffic flow conditions along roadways in , the vicinity of Santa Ana Heights. Roadway Improvements , o Irvine Avenue, from Bristol Street to University Drive shall be upgraded from a primary to a modified 6-lane major arterial highway on the Master Plan of Arterial Highways. Figure 20 depicts the recommended cross-section for Irvine Avenue. Future traffic volumes along this segment of Irvine Avenue r are estimated to be 32,000 to 34,000 vehicles per day. These forecasts assume University Drive to be extended from Irvine Avenue to MacArthur Boulevard. If the University Drive extension were not to be constructed, traffic volume along Irvine Avenue between University Drive and Bristol Street would be approximately 40,700 to 44,500 vehicles per day. In either condition, forecasted traffic volume would ' be satisfactorily accommodated by a six -lane major arterial. (Level of Service "C" capacity is 45,000 vehicles per day.) ' Although this mitigation will accommodate projected regional and area -generated traffic, it may have its own adverse effects on adjacent residential units Including: ' VI-2 ' EAST .PROPERTY LINE loo, 8' 4' 14' 11' 11' 12' 11' 11' 14' IN } 3 W < . Q < > R > `W > > R > R < 6 6 cc cc R RECOMMENDED GEOMETRIC WITHIN 100' R/W AND PARKING PROHIBITED EAST PROPERTY LINE OS' as 921 G� 18' 11' 11' 12, 11' • 11' ISO '= T < J W W W Wt W W W W Y Q W < < < Em < < < Y Q Y b ,m t f t 6� t F f- @ G .i RECOMMENDED GEOMETRICS WITH ON -STREET BIKE LANES AND PARKING PROHIBITED T.FIGURE \\ 20l --- IRVINE AVENUE GEOMETRICS BASMACIYAN•DARNELL, INC. Increased noise levels during construction and from r projected increased traffic. Standard acoustical mitigation measures will be applied to reduce these effects. ' Locally increased levels of air pollution during construc- tion and from projected increased traffic. , Intersection Improvements o Bristol Street North at Campus Drive -- Convert second southbound right -turn lane to optional right-turn/through lane. Convert westbound through lane to second westbound left -turn lane, maintaining three westbound through lanes. , o Bristol Street at Santa Ana Avenue/Redhill Avenue -- Convert eastbound right -turn lane to optional right-turn/third through lane. r o Bristol Street South at Irvine Avenue -- Convert eastbound right -turn lane to optional right-turn/fourth through lane. Convert northbound through lane to optional right- ' turn/through lane. Extend length of the existing northbound right -turn pocket. o Bristol Street South at Birch Street -- Provide second , northbound lane. o Bristol Street South at Jamboree Road -- on the eastbound approach, provide one left -turn lane, one through lane, and two right -turn lanes. o MacArthur Boulevard at Jamboree Road -- On the northbound r approach, provide one left -turn lane, one optional left- turn/through lane, two through lanes and one right -turn lane. ' o MacArthur Boulevard at Campus Drive -- Provide second eastbound left -turn lane. Provide fourth southbound through , lane. o Irvine Avenue at Mesa Drive -- Add third northbound through lane. Add third southbound through lane. Eliminate parking , along eastbound approach and stripe eastbound right -turn lane. r o Irvine Avenue at University Drive -- Add third northbound through lane. Add northbound right -turn lane. Add third southbound through lane. , On the eastbound approach, provide two left -turn lanes, two through lanes and an optional through/right-turn lane. On westbound approach, provide two left -turn lanes, one through lane and one optional through/right-turn lane. r VI-4 r 1-1 ' o Santa Ana/Del Mar (University) intersection -- Add westbound and eastbound (Del Mar) left -turn lanes; add northbound and southbound through lanes. o Santa Ana/Mesa intersection -- Modify eastbound and westbound (Mesa) approaches to be one right/through lane, and one left -turn lane. Ana Avenue Del At the present time, the intersections of Santa at Mar/University Drive and at Mesa Drive are unsignalized intersec- tions controlled by four-way stop signs. Improvement projects to provide additional lanes at either of these intersections should also include the installation of traffic signals at each location. The projects should be coordinated with the City of Costa Mesa. Table 13 presents the results of ICU analyses at each intersection if the improvements identified above were implemented. ' Review of Table 13 shows that even with the improvements identified, the intersection of Bristol Street at Irvine Avenue and at Birch Street are expected to operate at unacceptable levels during the evening peak hour (ICU ratios are 0.91 and 0.94 ' respectively.) Because the ICU values at these intersections are only slightly above the acceptable (ICU = 0.90) levels further mitigation measures have not been identified at these locations. In the future, if traffic operational problems were to develop at these locations, further improvements may be necessary. ' The roadway and intersection improvements identified above would be necessary to accommodate anticipated future travel demand, on an areawide basis, in the vicinity of John Wayne Airport, Santa Ana Heights and the Irvine Business Complex. To ensure the orderly development of circulation system improvements in the area, a coordinated program of improvement phasing and implementation is necessary. Such inter -agency coordination ' could be accomplished through the Inter -City Liason Committee (ICLC), composed of the cities of Irvine, Costa Mesa, Santa Ana, Newport Beach and the County of Orange. The ICLC would establish procedures for priorities, funding participation and other project implementation matters. ' TRANSPORTATION MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS Transportation System Management (TSM) techniques, designed to reduce single occupant and/or private automobile usage, have been long recognized as effective means of reducing traffic volumes in and around major activity centers such as John Wayne Airport, Irvine Business Complex and Santa Ana Heights. Transportation ' System Management strategies that can be effective in reducing traffic volumes include: VI-5 TABLE 13 SUMMARY OF FUTURE INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION WITH MITIGATION Intersection ------------ BRISTOL STREET NORTH at: Campus Drive BRISTOL STREET at: Santa Ana/Redhill Avenue Irvine Avenue Bitch Street Jamboree Road MacARTHUR BOULEVARD at: Jamboree Road Campus Drive IRVINE AVENUE at: Mesa Drive University Drive AM Peak PM Peak -------'-- V/C LOS --------- V/C LOS 0.87 D 0.89 D 0.67 B 0.84 D 0.69 B 0.91 E 0.71 C i 0.94 E 0.62 B 0.76 C 0.76 C 0.84 D 0.70 C 0.88 D 0.79 C 0.86 D 0.64 B 0.89 D VI-6 LI E I I I I I - Car and van pooling - Bus pooling or subscription bus service Staggered or flexible work hours - Improved transit service and facilities Integrated pedestrian/vehicular circulation facilities - Parking management programs to favor car and van pools Alternative modes of travel, other than the single occupant automobile, should be further encouraged through programs designed to facilitate the use of alternative modes. Contact should be maintained with OCTD to ensure continued convenient bus service to/from the area. Improvements to circulation within Santa Ana Heights, which would provide improved pedestrian access between the office developments and commercial establishments should be persued to reduce internal auto tripmaking. Programs which facilitate car and van pooling and provide incentives for participation should be promoted. SPECIFIC PLAN MITIGATION MEASURES The redevelopment of Santa Ana Heights in accordance with the Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan adds traffic to and changes traffic conditions in and around Santa Ana Heights. The Specific' Plan•'proposes several modifications to the existing circulation system within Santa Ana Heights. The modifications are proposed to ensure a circulation system which will complement the land uses included in the Specific Plan and which will better serve anticipated travel demand within Santa Ana Heights. The various roadway improvements required to implement the Specific Plan Circulation System include: o Widen Birch Street, Orchard Drive,and Acacia Street to 48 feet between curbs as depicted in Figure 17. o Widen Mesa Drive to 48 feet between curbs east of Irvine Avenue and realign Mesa Drive to connect with Acacia Street. The specific widening improvements and realignment of Mesa Drive and Acacia Street will require a detailed engineering alignment study to be conducted by the County. The align- ment study will be needed to determine the precise allign- ment, feasibility, identify alternatives, and related costs. o Widen and improve Cypress Street and Mesa Drive east of Acacia Street to provide the roadway, pedestrian and eques- trian facilities depicted on Figure 17. o Construct traffic signal on Irvine Avenue at Orchard Drive. o Construct a cul-de-sac on Orchard Drive in the vicinity of Kline Property (w/o Irvine Avenue) and vacate the excess rights of way to the adjacent property owners. o Construct Cul-de-sac on Cypress Street south of Bristol Street (see Figure 16). VI-7 o Implement Orchid StreetCul-de-sac. (see Figure 16). o install traffic control improvements depicted on Figure 14. o Determine location of Birch Street Cut -de -sac north of Mesa Drive and method of providing access to Mesa Drive for residential properties off Birch Street. o Monitor improvements to determine their effectiveness. it is recommended that a program for the funding and construction of circulation system improvements within Santa Ana Heights, as outlined above, be formulated by the County and administered through the Orange County Development Agency. PHASING OF IMPROVEMENTS The phasing and implementation of Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan improvements have been reviewed and categorized on a priority basis rather than a specific time table. The various improvements were evaluated and ranked to represent a program to improve neighborhood circulation and to allow for redevelopment within the plan area. The priority phasing program is depicted on Figure 21 and is summarized on Table 14. VI-8 Y -I .. ulYl DIG91(t I •.Mil 1' €. I I a - 1 1 I 1 � t 11 x IIIlilllllll a QW0 m ❑oo❑ Laev In Conjunction With Dovolopmaut I tt IARD VV,; .+vi I �V" , I i AMdVCRSARY _ _ W1C I J 1 � ` I I ,� I ' yy I�1 FIGURE 21 SANTA ANA HEIGHTS SPECIFIC PLAN C� • • A•,.- IMPROVEMENTS PHASING PLAN TABLE 14 SANTA ANA HEIGHTS SPECIFIC PLAN IMPROVEMENT PHASING PROGRAM PRIORITY IMPROVEMENT I 0 Construct traffic signal at Irvine Avenue and Orchard Drive. Construct intersection improvements on Orchard Drive approach. o Construct Cypress Street cul-de-sac. 0 Implement Orchid Street cul-de-sac o Construct temporary cul-de-sac on Birch Street. o Monitor Phase I improvements to determine effectiveness in eliminating through traffic in residential neighborhoods. TI 0 Prepare detailed engineering alignment study for widening Mesa Drive and the realignment of Mesa Drive/Acacia Street. 0 Improve Cypress Street south of Bristol Street to Mesa Drive. o Improve Mesa Drive east of Acacia Street. 0 Widen Birch Street between Bristol Street and Orchard Drive. 0 Widen/improve Orchard Drive between Irvine Avenue and Cypress Street. o Monitor traffic generated by business park development to determine timing for Phase III improvements. 111 o Widen Acacia Street south of Orchard Drive. 0 Widen and construct Mesa Drive from Irvine Avenue to connect with Acacia Street. In o Widen Birch Street south of Orchard Drive and Conjunction construct cul-de-sac (to be done in with conjunction with development). Development o Construct Orchard Drive cul-de-sac (west of Irvine Avenue). VI-10 i 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 LJ i Cl 1 1 1 i 1 !J APPENDIX A - Intersection Capacity Utilization Worksheets i INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYISIS INTERSECTION: Bristol Street North O Campus Drive (2010 with Mitigation) 2010 With Santa Ana Heights No. ----------------------- AM Peak ------------------------- Crit. PM Peak Crit. Moveent Lanes Cap. Vol. V/C Mvet. Vol. , V/C Mvmt. NL 1 1600 250 0.16 0 257 0.16 1 NR NA NA 0 NA 0 0 NA 0 NT 2 3200 1918 0.57 1 1404 0.44 0 SL NA NA 0 NA 1 0 NA 0 SR 1 1600 82 0.05 0 370 0.24 0 ST 3 4800 433 0.09 0 1606 0.33 1 EL NA NA 0 NA 1 0 NA I ER NA NA 0 NA 0 0 NA 0 ET NA NA 0 NA 0 0 NA 0 WL 2 3200 254 0.08 0 839. 0.26 0 WR NA NA 90 NA 0 80 NA 0 WT 3 4000 1338 0.30 1 1805 0.39 t N/S Component: 0.57 N/S Component: 0.50 E/W Component: 0.30 E/W Component: 0.39 Rt. Component: 0.00 Rt. Component: 0.00 ICU: 0.87 ICU: 0.89 INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILITATION ANALYISIS INTERSECTION: Bristol Street North ! Campus Drive (2010) , 2010 With Santa Ana Heights ,Ph +Crit.� No. AN Peak Crit. Peak Moveant Lanes Cap. Vol, VIC Mvmt. Vol. VIC Nvmt, NL 1 1600 250 0.16 0 257 0.16 1 MR NA NA 0 NA 0 0 NA 0 NT 2 3200 1818 OX 1 1404 0.44 0 ' SL NA NA 0 NA 1 0 NA 0 SR 2 3200 82 0.03 0 378 0.12 0 ST 2 3200 433 0.14 0 1606 0.50 1 ' EL NA NA 0 NA 1 0 NA 0 ER NA NA 0 NA 0 0 NA 0 ET NA NA 0 NA 0 0 NA 1 , WL WR 1 NA 1600 254 NA 90 0.16 NA 0 838 0 80 0.52 NA 1 0 ' NT 4 6400 I338 0.22 1 1805 0.29 0 ' NIS Component: 0.57 HIS Component: 0.66 E/W CoMponent: 0.22 E/W Component: 0.29 Rt. Component: 0.00 Rt. Component: 0000 , ICU: 0.79 ICUs 0.96 INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYISIS INTERSECTION: Bristol Street North @ Birch Street (2010) 2010 With Santa Ana Heights No. --------------- ------ AM Peak ----------------------------- Crit. PM Peak Crit. Moveont Lanes Cap. Vol. V/C Nut. Vol. VIC Mvmt. NL 1 1600 55 0.03 1 251 0.16 0 NR NA NA 0 NA 0 0 NA 0 MT 2 3200 1079 0.34 0 840 0.26 1 SL NA NA 0 NA 0 0 NA 1 SR 2 3200 76 0.02 0 671 0.21 1 ST 1 1600 530 0.33 1 120 0.08 0 EL NA NA 0 NA 1 0 NA i ER NA NA 0 NA 0 0 NA 0 ET NA NA 0 NA 0 0 NA 0 WL NA NA 477 NA o 119 NA 0 WR NA NA 210 NA 0 22 NA 0 WT 4 6400 1550 0.35 1 1953 0.33 1 N/S Component: 0.37 NIS Camponent: 0.26 E/W Component: 0.35 E/W Component: 0.23 Rt. Component: 0.00 Rt, Component: 0.00 ICU: 0.72 ICU: 0.59 INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYISIS INTERSECTIONt Bristol Street North 8 Jamboree Road (2010) 2010 With Santa Ana Heights No. AN Peak CM. PM Peak Crit, Moremnt Lanes Cap. Vol. Y/C Nvmk. Vol. VIC Nvmt, NL 1 1600 627 0.39 1 619 0.39 1 NR NA NA 0 NA 0 0 NA 0 NT 10 16000 1404 0.09 0 2063 0.11 0 SL NA NA 0 NA 0 0 NA 0 ER NA NA 716 NA 0 707 NA 0 ST 4 6400 380 0.17 1 1120 0.38 l EL NA NA 0 NA 0 0 NA 0 ER NA NA 0 NA 0 0 NA 0 ET NA NA 0 NA 0 0 NA 0 WL NA NA 0 NA 0 0 NA 0 WR NA NA 0 NA 0 0 NA 0 VT NA NA 0 NA 0 0 NA 0 HIS Componentt 0.56 MIS Component: 0.77 E/W Components 0.00 E/W Component: 0.00 Rt. Components 0.00 Rt. Componentt 0.00 ICU: 0.56 ICU: 0.77 INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYISIS INTERSECTION: Santa Ana/Redhill Ave @ Bristol Street (2010 with Mitigation) 2010 With Santa Ana Heights No. -------------------------------------------------- AM Peak Crit. PM Peak Crit. Movemnt Lanes Cap. Vol. VIC Nut. Vol. VIC Nvmt. NL 1 1600 165 0.10 0 116 0.07 1 NR NA NA 51 NA 0 42 NA 0 NT 2 3200 1272 0.41 1 555 0.19 0 SL 2 3200 151 0.05 1 800 0.25 0 SR 1 1600 63 0.04 1 213 0.13 0 ST 2 3200 24 0.01 0 1341 0.42 1 EL 2 3200 51 0.02 133 0.01 0 ER NA NA 5 NA 0 103 NA 0 ET 3 4800 799 0.17 0 1470 '0.33 1 WL 2 3200 30 0.01 0 70 0.02 1 WR 1 1600 530 0.33 1 361 0.23 0 WT 2 3200 609 0.19 1 924 0.29 0 NIS Component: 0.46 NIS Component; 0.49 E/W Component: 0.21 E/W Component: 0.35 Rt. Component: 0.00 Rt. Component: 0.00 ICU: 0.67 ICU: 0.84 INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYISIS INTERSECTIONS Santa Ana/Redhill Ave ! Bristol Street (200) 2010 With Santa Ana Heights No, ---... --------------------------- --------~-...... AM peak Cr14. PM Peak Crit, Noveant Lanes Cap. Vol, V/C Nvat. Vol, V/C Nvat, NL 1 1600 165 0.10 0 116 0.07 1 NR NA NA 51 NA 0 42 NA 0 NT 2 3200 1272 0.41 1 555 0.19 0 SL 2 3200 15i 0.05 1 800 0.25 0 SR 1 1600 63 0.04 1 213 0.0 0 ST 2 3200 24 0.01 0 1341 0.42 l EL 2 3200 51 0.02 0 33 0.01 0 ER 1 1600 5 .00 0 103 0.06 0 ET 2 3200 799 0.25 1 1470 0.46 1 WL 2 3200 30 0.01 1 10 0.02 1 WR 1 1600 530 0,33 1 361 0.23 0 WT 2 3200 609 0.19 0 924 0.29 0 NIS Components 0.46 NIS Component: 0,49 E/W Components 0.26 E/W Component: 0,48 At. Components .00 At. Components 0.06 Mill 0.72 ICUs 1.04 INTERSECTION CAPACI7Y UTILIZATION 411ALYISIS INTERSECTION: Bristol Street 6 Irvine Avenue I2010 with Mitigation) 2010 With Santa Ana Heights No. -------------------------------------------UH.- AM Peak Crit. PM Peak Crit. Movemrt tanes Cap. Vol. VIC Mvnt. Vpi. VIC Mvmt. NL 11A NA 0 NA 0 0 NA 1 11F 1 IWO 631 0.39 1 376 0.24 0 HT 3 4B00 1713 0.36 1 Ml 0.30 0 SL 1 1600 20 0.01 1 144 0.09 0 SR HA 0 0 NA 0 0 IIA 0 ST 3 4800 667 0.14 0 2300 0.48 1 EL 1.0 1600 v53 0.22 0 283 0.18 0 ER NA NA 185 NA 0 336 NA 0 ET 4.0 6400 1970 0.32 1 2412 0.43 1 WL NA NA. 0 NA 1 0 NA 1 RR NA NA 0 NA 0 0 NA • 0 M NA -NA 0 NA NA 0 NA NA N;S Component: 0.37 11I5 Component: 0.46 EIW Conponent: 0.32 EIW Component: 0.43 Rt. Component: 0.00 Rt. Component: 0.00 ICU: 0.69 ICU: 0.71 INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYISIS INTEASECTIONI* Bristol Street 8 Irvine Avenue (2010) 2010 With Santa Ana Heights No. �y��Cr�_��w--�PR AM Ptak it. Peak Crit, Moveent Lanes Cap. Vol. VIC Mvst. Vol. VIC "vat. NL NA NA 0 NA 0 0 MA I Nit 1 1600 631 0.39 1 316 0,24 0 MT 3 4800 1713 0.36 1 1419 0.30 0 SL 1 1600 20 0.01 1 144 0.09 0 SR HA 0 0 NA 0 0 NA 0 ST 3 4800 667 0.14 0 2300 0448 1 E: 1.0 1600 353 0.22 0 283 0.19 0 ER 1 1600 185 0112 0 336 0.21 0 E7 3.0 4800 1870 0.39 1 2412 0.50 1 W" NA NA 0 NA l 0 NA i NB NA NA 0 NA 0 0 NA 0 9r NA NA 0 NA NA 0 MA NA MiE Component: 0.37 HIS Component: 0,48 E/N Component: 0.39 E/W Component: 0,50 Rt, Cesponentl 0.00 Rt. Component: 0.00 ICU: 0.76 ICU: 0.98 INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYISIS INTERSECTIONt Bristol Street 0 Birch Street (2010 with Mitigation) 2010 With Santa Ana Heights No. --------------------- AM Peak ------------ Crit. ---------------- PN Peak Crit. Moveent Lanes Cap. Vol. VIC Mvmt. Vol. VIC MVmt. NL NA NA 0 NA 1 0 NA 0 NR NA NA 25 NA 0 360 NA 0 HT 2 3200 165 0.06 0 802 0.36 1 SL 1 1600 154 0.10 0 176 0.11 1 SR NA 0 0 NA 0 0 NA 0 ST 2 3200 856 0.27 1 194 0.06 0 EL NA NA 1038 HA . 0 289 NA 0 ER NA NA 300 NA 0 53 NA 0 ET 4.0 6400 1477 0.44 I 2648 0.47 : NL NA NA 0 'NA 1 0 NA I WR NA NA 0 NA 0 0 NA 0 WT NA NA 0 NA NA 0 NA NA HIS Compcoent: 0.27 HIS Cooponent: 0.47 E/W Component: 0.44 EIW Component: 0.47 Rt. Component: 0.00 Rt. Component: 0.00 ICU: 0.71 ICU: 0.94 INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYISIS 1NTERSECTIUM: Bristol Street t Birch Street i20101 2010 Nith Santa Are Heights No. -----------~------------------------------------- AN Peek Crit. PN Peak Crit, Noveent Lanes Cap. Vol. We Not. Val. VIC Nvet. NL NA MA 0 NA 1 0 NA 0 MR MA NA 25 NA 0 360 NA 0 NT 1 1600 165 0.12 0 902 0.73 1 SL 1 1600 154 0.10 0 176 0.11 1 SR NA 0 0 NA 0 0 NA 0 ST 2 3200 856 0.21 1 114 0.06 0 EL 1.0 1600 1039 0.65 1 201 0.40 0 ER NA NA 300 MA 0 33 NA 0 ET 3.0 4900 1477 0.37 0 2649 0.56 1 ML NA MA 0 NA 0 0 NA l MR NA MA 0 MA 0 0 NA 0 MT NA MA 0 MA NA 0 NA MA HIS Cooponent: 0.27 MIS Cocponent: 0.94 E/W Cosponent: 0.65 E/N Coeponent: 0.56 Rt, Coeponent: 0.00 it, Cceponenti 0.00 ICU: 0.92 ICU: 1.40 INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYISIS INTERSECTION: Bristol Street @ Jamboree Road (2010 with Mitigation) 2010 With Santa Ana Heights No. AM Peak - ----------------------------- Crit. PM Peak Crit. Movemnt Lanes Cap. Vol. VIC Mvmt. Vol. VIC Mvmt. NL NA NA 0 NA 0 0 NA 0 NR NA NA 0 NA 0 179 NA 0 HT 5 6000 2053 0.26 1 2571 0.34 1 SL NA NA 0 NA t 715 NA t SR NA 0 0 NA 0 0 NA 0 ST 3 4800 392 0.08 0 1011 0.21 0 EL 1.5 2400 176 0.07 0 400 0.17 0 ER 2.0 3200 926 0.29 1 1318 0.41 1 ET 1.5 2400 189 0.08 1 619 0.26 1 WL NA NA 0 NA 1 0 NA 1 WR NA NA 0 NA 0 0 NA 0 WT NA NA 0 NA NA 0 NA NA NIS Component: 0.26 NIS Component: 0.34 E/W Component: 0.08 E/W Component: 0.26 Rt. Component: 0.29 Rt. Component: 0.15 ICU: 0.62 ICU: 0.76 INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYISIS INTERSECTION: Bristol Street 8 Jamboree Road (2010) 2010 With Santa Ana Heights No. ------------------»----.......» ---------------�-- AM Peak Crit, PN Peyk Crit. Noveant Lanes Cap. Vol. VIC Hyatt Vol. VIC Hyatt NL NA NA 0 NA 0 0 NA 0 NR NA NA 0 NA 0 179 NA 0 NT 5 8000 2053 0.26 1 257t 0,34 1 SL NA NA 0 NA 1 715 NA 1 SR NA 0 0 NA 0 0 NA 0 $T 3 4800 392 0.08 0 toll 0.21 0 EL 2.0 3200 176 0.06 0 408 0.13 0 ER NA NA 926 NA 0 1319 NA 0 ET 2.0 3200 iB9 0435 1 618 0.61 1 WL NA NA 0 NA 1 0 NA 1 NR HA NA 0 NA 0 0 NA 0 WT NA NA 0 m NA 0 NA NA NIS Component: 0,26 HIS Component: 0.34 E/W Coaponent: 0.35 E/W Component: 0.61 Rt. Components 0.00 Rt. Component: 0.00 ICUs 0.61 ICU: 0.95 INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYISIS INTERSECTION: MacArthur Blvd. (N-S) 0 Jamboree Rd. (E-W) (2010 with Mitigation) 2010 With Santa Ana Heights No. -------------------------------------------------- AM Peak Crit. PM Peak Crit. Movemnt Lanes Cap. Vol, VIC Mvmt. Vol. VIC Mvmt. NL 1.5 2400 634 0.26 0 426 0.10 1 MR 1.0 1600 680 0.43 1 361 0.23 0 NT 2.5 4000 1321 0.33 1 1206 0.30 0 SL 1 1600 108 0.07 1 214 0.13 0 SR 10 16000 221 0.01 0 1198 0.07 0 ST 3 4800 471 0.10 0 1494 0.31 1 EL 2 3200 944 0.30 1 731 0.23 1 ER 1 1600 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0 ET 3 4000 575 0.12 0 454 0.09 0 WL 2 3200 200 0.06 0 597 0.19 0 WR 1 1600 130 0.09 0 157 0.10 0 WT 3 4000 330 0.07 1 589 0.12 1 NIS Component: 0.40 E/W Component: 0.36 Rt, Component: 0.00 ICU: 0.76 NIS Component: 0.49 E/W Component: 0.35 Rt. Component: 0.00 ICU: 0.64 INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYISIS INTERSECTION: MacArthur Blvd. (N-S) B Jaaboree Rd. (E-N) (2010) 2010 With Santa Ana Heights No. ..._ ._._..., .�. AM Peak Crit. PM Peak Crit. Moveant Lanes Cap, Vol. VIC bat. Vol. VIC MYat. NL 1 1600 634 0.40 1 426 0.27 ' 1 MR NA MA 690 NA 0 361 NA 0 NT 3 4800 1321 0.42 0 1206 0.30 0 SL I 1600 108 0.01 0 214 0.13 0 SR !0 16000 221 0.01 0 1198 0.07 0 ST 3 4000 471 0.10 1 1494 0.31 t EL 2 3200 944 0.30 1 731 0.23 1 ER 1 1600 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0 ET 3 4800 575 0.12 0 454 0.09 0 WL 2 3200 200 0.06 0 597 0.19 0 WR 1 1600 130 0.08 0 157 0.10 0 VT 3 4800 330 0.07 1 589 0.12 1 NIS CoNponent: 0.49 NIS Coaponent: 0.58 E/W Coaponentt 0.36 EIW Coaponentt 0.35 Rt. Coaponentt 0.00 Rt. Coaponentt 0.00 ICUs 0.86 ICU: 0.93 INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYISIS INTERSECTIONt Jamboree Road @ Birch Street (2010) 2010 With Santa Ana Heights No. ---------------------------------- AM Peak Crit. --------------- PM Peak Crit. Moveont Lanes Cap, Vol. V/C "vat. Vol. VIC Mvmt, NL 1 1600 274 0.17 1 60 0.04 1 NR NA NA 0 NA 0 0 NA 0 NT 3 4800 1075 0.22 0 1244 0.26 0 SL 1 1600 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0 SR NA NA 753 NA 0 188 NA 0 ST 3 4900 898 0.34 1 121S 0.29 1 EL 1.5 2400 62 0.03 1 670 0.2B 1 ER 1 1600 25 0.02 0 141 0.09 1 ET 0.5 900 0 0.00 0 1 .00 0 WL NA NA 0 NA 0 0 NA 0 WR NA NA 0 NA 0 0 NA 0 WT 1 1600 0 0.00 NA 0 0.00 NA NIS Component: 0.52 NIS Component: 0.33 E/W Component: 0.03 E/W Component: 0.28 Rt. Component: 0.02 Rt. Component: 0.09 ICU: 0.56 ICU: 0.70 INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYISIS INTERSECTIONt Jahoree Road ! Caapus Drive (2010) 2010 With $anti Ana Heights No. ---- ... ....---- AN Peak Crit. PH Peak Crit. Noveant Lanes Cap. Vol, V/C Nvot. Vol, V/C Hvmt. NL 1 1600 65 0.04 1 31 0.02 0 MR NA NA ll NA 0 163 NA 0 NT 4 6400 1061 0.17 0 1720 0.29 1 SL 2 3200 344 0,11 0 313 0.10 1 SR NA NA 404 NA 0 367 NA 0 ST 3 4800 1405 0.39 1 1267 0,34 0 EL 3 4200 291 0.09 1 703 0.27 1 ER 10 16000 8 .00 0 98 0.01 0 ET NA NA 121 NA 0 534 NA 0 WL t 1600 233 0.15 0 42 0.03 0 WR 1 1600 189 0.12 0 444 0.28 1 WT .2 3200 478 0.15 1 307 0.10 1 H/S Component: 0.42 H/S Cooponentt 0.39 E/W Components 0.24 E/W Cooponent: 0.37 Rt. Component: .00 Rt. Cooponentt 0.01 ICUs 0.65 ICU: 0.77 INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIIATION ANALYISIS " INTERSECTION: MacArthur Blvd. 0 Campus Drive (2010 with Mitigation) 2010 With Santa Ana Heights No. -------------- AM Peak --- ----------------------------- Crit. PM Peak Crit. Movemnt Lanes Cap. Vol. VIC Mvmt. Vol. VIC Mvmt. NL 1 1600' 69 0.04 0 33 0.02 0 NR 1 1600 1 .00 0 0 0.00 0 NT 4 6400 1724 0.27 1 2130 0.33 1 SL 1 1600 l81 0.11 1 240 0.15 l SR 1 1600 495 0.31 0 904 0.57 0 ST 4 6400 1022 0.16 0 2623 0.41 0 EL 2 3200 568 0.18 1 557 0.17 1 ER NA NA 107 NA 0 102 NA 0 ET 2 3200 858 0.30 0 1019 0.35 0 WL 1 1600 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0 WR 1 1600 167 0.10 0 283 0.18 0 WT 2 3200 459 0.14 1 711 0.22 1 NIS Component: 0.38 HIS Component: 0.48 E/W Component: 0.32 E/W Component: 0.40 Rt. Component: 0.00 Rt. Component: 0.00 ICU: 0.70 ICU: 0.88 INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYISIS 1NTERSECTIONs MacArthur Blvd. B Campus Orive (2010) 2010 With Santa Ana MOMS No. -•---------------i---.---------------^•--------'-- AM Peak Crlt. PM Peak Crit. Novemnt Was Cap. Vol. VIC Nvmt. Vol. VIC Nvmt. NL 1 1600 69 0.04 0 33 0.02 1 NR 1 1600 1 .00 0 0 0.00 0 NT 4 6400 1724 0.27 1 2130 0.33 0 SL 1 1600 181 0.11 1 240 0.15 0 SR 1 1600 495 0.31 0 904 0.57 0 ST 3 4800 1022 0.21 0 2623 0.55 1 EL 1 1600 568 0.36 1 557 0.35 1 ER NA NA 107 NA 0 102 NA 0 ET 2 3200 858 0.30 0 1019 0.35 0 NL 1 1600 . 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0 WR 1 1600 167 0.10 0 293 0,18 0 WT 2 3200 451 0.14 1 711 0.22 1 NIS Componentf 0.38 NIS Components 0.57 E/W Components MO E/N Componenti 0.37 Rt. Components 0.00 Rt; Component. 0.00 ICUs 0.89 ICU! 1.14 INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYISIS INTERSECTION: MacArthur Blvd. 0 Birch St. (2010) 2010 With Santa Ana Heights No. - --- -------------------------------------------- AN Peak Crit. PH Peak Crit. Moveant Lanes Cap. Vol. V/C HYIlt. Vol. V/C Mvat. NL 1 1600 52 0.03 0 22 0.01 0 MR t0 16000 532 0.03 0 99 0.01 0 NT 3 4900 1722 0.36 1 1795 0.37 1 SL t 1600 264 0.17 t 176 0.11 1 SR NA NA 17 NA 0 • 29 NA 0 ST 4 6400 748 0.12 0 2520 0.40 0 EL ER ET WL WR WT INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYISIS INTERSECTION: Irvine Avenue I Orchard Drive (2010) 2010 With Santa Ana Heights No. �AM Ptak Crit. PN Peak Crit. Noveant lanes Cap. Vol. V/C Nvmt. Vol. VIC Nvat, NL NA NA 0 NA 0 0 NA I NR 1 1600 132 0.08 0 56 0.04 0 NT 3 4800 2208 0.46 1 1590 0.33 0 SL 1 1600 331 0.21 1 161 0.11 0 SR NA 0 0 NA 0 0 NA 0 ST 3 4900 742 0.15 0 2430 0.51 1 EL NA NA 0 NA 1 0 NA i ER HA NA 0 NA 0 0 NA 0 ET NA NA 0 NA 0 0 NA 0 WL 1 1600 33 0.02 0 -F +1 0.09 0 OR NA NA 135 NA 0 3% NA 0 WT 1 1600 0 0.08 I 0 0.22 1 NIS Component: 0.67 NIS Components 0.51 E!W Components 0.08 EI4 Component: 0.22 Rt, Component: 0.00 Rt. Component: 0.00 ICUs 0.75 ICU: 0.73 INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYISIS INTERSECTION: Irvine Avenue O Mesa Drive (2010 with Mitigation) 2010 With Santa Ana Heights No. ----------------------------------------- AM Peak Crit. PM Peak ------- Crit. Movennt Lanes Cap. Vol. VIC Mvmt. Vol. VIC Mvet. NL 1 1600 297 0.19 0 112 0.07 1 NR NA NA 354 NA 0 122 NA 0 NT 3 4000 1826 0.45 1 1442 0.33 0 SL 1 1600 3 .00 t 7 .00 0 SR 1 1600 99 0.06 0 108 0.07 0 ST 3 4800 673 0.14 0 2390 0.50 1 EL 1 MOO 339 0.21 1 199 0.12 1 ER 1 1600 135 0.08 0 278 0.17 1 ET 1 1600 151 0.09 0 52 0.03 0 ZI2 WL 2 3200 98 0.03 0 *t't 0.13 0 WR NA NA 59 NA 0 145 NA 0 WT t 1600 8 0.04 I 13 0.10 1 N/S Component: 0.46 NIS Component: 0.57 E/W Component: 0.25 E/W Component: 0.22 Rt. Component: 0.08 Rt. Component: 0.07 ICU: 0.79 ICU: 0.86 INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYISIS INTERSECTION: Irvine Avenue I Mesa Drive (2010) 2010 With $anti Ana Heights No. .... ........,.. AM Ptak Crit, PM Peik Crit. Novimet lines Cap. Vol, VIC Nvat. Vol, VIC Nvmt. NL 1 1600 297 0.19 0 112 0.07 1 MR NA NA 334 NA 0 122 NA 0 NT 2 3200 1026 0.69 1 1442 0.49 0 SL 1 1600 3 .00 1 1 .00 0 SR NA NA 99 NA 0 108 NA 0 ST 2 3200 673 0.24 0 2390 0J8 1 El 1 1600 239 0.21 1 199 0.12 0 ER NA NA 135 NA 0 278 NA 0 ET 1 1600 151 0618 0 52 0.21 1 ZIZ WL 1 1600 98 0.06 0 +2- 0.26 1 WR NA NA 59 NA 0 145 NA 0 NT 1 t600 8 0.04 1 13 0:10 0 NIS Component: 0.68 HIS Component: 0.85 E/W Components 0.25 E/N Component: 0,46 Rk. Component: 0.00 Rt. Component: 0.00 ICU: 0.94 ICU: 1.31 INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYISIS INTERSECTION: Irvine Avenue 8 University Drive (2010 with Mitigation) 2010 With Santa Ana Heights No. ---------------- AM Peak -------------------------------- Crit. PM Peak Crit. Movemnt Lanes Cap, Vol. VIC MYmt. Vol. VIC Mvmt. NL 1 1600 143 0.09 0 136 0.09 1 NR 1 1600 341 0.21 0 691 0.43 1 NT 3 4800 1360 0.28 1 953 0.20 0 SL 1 1600 2 .00 1 177 0.11 0 SR 1 1600 175 0.11 0 623 0.39 0 ST 3 4800 484 0.10 0 1892 0.39 1 EL 2 3200 552 0.17 1 520 0.17 0 ER NA NA 75 NA 0 122 NA 0 ET 3 4900 625 0.15 0 1270 0.29 1 WL 2 3200 204 0.06 0 395 0.12 1 WR NA NA 137 NA 0 121 NA 0 WT 2 3200 439 0.18 1 674 0.25 0 NIS Component: 0.20 HIS Component: 0.46 E/W Component: 0.35 E/W Component: 0.42 Rt. Component: 0.00 Rt. Component: 0.00 ICU-. 0.64 ICU: 0.89 INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYISIS INTERSECTION: Irvine Avenue 0 University Drive (2014) 2010 With Santa Ana Heights No. Crit.+.......... .AN Peak .... PH Peak Crit.w Novemnt Lanes Cap. Vol. V/C Mvmt. Vol. VIC Hut. NL 1 1600 173 0.11 0 166 0.10 1 MR NA NA 341 NA 0 691 NA 0 NT 2 3200 1360 0,53 1 953 0.51 0 SL 1 1600 2 .00 1 177 0.11 0 BR 1 1600 175 0.11 0 623 0.39 0 ST 2 3200 404 0.15 0 1092 0,59 1 EL 1 1600 552 0.35 1 529 0.33 0 ER NA MA 75 NA 0 122 NA 0 ET 1 1600 625 0,44 0 1278 0.8B I WL 1 1600 204 0.13 0 395 0,25 1 MR NA NA 137 NA 0 121 NA 0 WT 1 1600 439 0.36 1 674 0.50 0 HIS Component: 0.53 NIS Components 0.70 E/W Components 0.71 E/W Components 1.12 Rt. Component: 0.00 Rt. Component: 0.00 ICUs 1.24 ICUs 1.82 I I u I I I I I I I I H I APPENDIX $ - John Wayne Airport Freeway Access Concept I FIGURE 4.10-8 r7JiOHAYNEN WAIRPORT ��,? . PRoPosto FREEWAY ORANGE COUNTY SHILL AIRPORT ACCESS RAMP MITIGATION I 1 1 i C 1 L, i 1 1 1 i 1 1 I 1 i 1 1 Table 4.10-3 ' EXISTING (1983) VEHICLE TRIP GENERATION SANTA ANA HEIGHTS AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Vehicle Percent Percent Land -Use Types Quantities Trip Rates Trips/Day of Daily Trips of Daily Trips Single Family 840 D.U. 10.2 V.T,/D.U. , 8,570 8.0 685 11.0 940 Multiple Family 658 D.U. 6.5 V.T/D.U. 4,275 8.0 340 11.0 470 Agricultural -Commercial 4 acres 200/acre 800 4.0 30 8.0 65 Retail Commercial 346,304 sq ft 70/1000 sq ft 24,240 2.0 485 11.0 2,665 Business Park 74 employees 3.3 employee• 245 17.0 40 15.0 35 Recreational 193.5 acres 7.4/acre 1,430 4.0 55 10.0 245 Public Facilities 4 acres 60/acre 240 4.0 10 10.0 25 Total Vehicle Trips 39,800 1,645 -4,345 D.U.: Dwelling Unit V.T./D.U.: Vehicle Trips/Dwel' q Unit Sources: Orange County EMA, 1983 Transportation Research Board, 1978 CH2M HILL 1984 CVR89/040-1 i I 1 1 1 I 1 I 1 I 1 I 1 I 1 [-1 1 1 �r r r� r r r r r r �r r� >� r� r r� ■r r �r rIr _ I q it �' l}��• � S ' � I _ -_ r-�-a.-rw.f . r-_x— _.r_ x _xn % • r !> ' lY� �„>' .. r, fi , F� I 1 ; i (j1 j • ; o- ii o z�I. i 1 aD cz x • -------------• ------- - - a z' PX 1 O M O Y U GYPR�Sa� - .-.?: s�5; a X dui i ---------------- I _ _1 RECONSTRUCT ROADWAY TO PROVIDE DRIVE ACCESS ZE I -o� a ADDITIONAL R/W m \ I IFOR CUL—DE—SAC Y I 1 1 11 1 1 Ia LTERNATIV Ir. t%—x-I-------- ------ ------ - • Y % % y '..la.P II 1 1 I7 I EXHIBIT D-1 47 ❑z© a j 14 1 1 Tr) ---------- ---- 3 �{ h�� 1 j r �.... �•*� pECONaTp!!CT ROADWAY TO PROVIDE DRNE ACCESS i AooTwNAL RAV -SAC .=1 FOR CUL-DE ` it e 1 r I i 1 ALTERNATI 2 t -- EXHIBIT D-2 I It � Izo •- r cim _ i /w }I r X y I • � N'9N , \ 1 1 x I • 1 •.. o s _ ---------- Q ------------------------------ v // ST --- X \ ........... ---------------- N � � N ; ` �-!• RECONSTRUCT ROADWAY TO PROVIDE DRIVE ACCESS f; I l I I I I ® ADDITIONAL R/W In I ;coxc xP N 1 FOR CUL-DE-SAC ODD 11 II Oy: A x I ♦ 1, ; I 1' X N I LTERNATIVE 3 1 1 _____ 1 x N 1 V I 1 1 F jI ; 1 l Y7 �% I X 1 1' XY• Y. I ' I 1 — 1 1 1 EXHIBIT D-3 ST 1 -- i n•_-—'ri.— I i I I J lJ>- • Imo. , , �j!; �� • 1}•1r • `1 \ i xs! S I t r , s xsz ®AECO14STRUCT AND CLOSE ;\ ROADWAY ! <I ®RECONSTRUCT ROADWAY TO PROVIDE ACCESS TO ZENITH AVENUE PROERTIES CT C -DE-SAC I � m, = m� m r i m m m an m m r m� M M J m m m = = m m .m M�! m m m r m m m m --------------------------- - xSl f xs: , ASPO .1. --, - - BR x'•S 6 EGH •TASVH / ST x53 a xsn r �`-------------- ----------- --------------------- EXHIBIT D-5 M I 11 I 1 I rl SUMMARY OF AIR POLLUTANT EMISSIONS (Tons Per Year) MOBILE SOURCE CO HC NOX SOX PARTS. (URBEMIS#1) 458 49 36 NA* NA* (Less Existing Emissions from uses to be removed) (62) (7) (3) (NA) (NA) Subtotal 396 42 33 NA NA STATIONARY SOURCE 1.63 0.95 15.13 9.01 1.16 (Less Existing Emissions from uses to be removed) (0.19) (0.10) (1.42) (0.74) (d.16) Subtotal 1_44 0_85 13.71 ' 8.27 1_06 TOTAL NET EMISSIONS 397.44 42.85 46.71 NA NA * The URBEMIS#1 model does not calculate particulate and sulfur dioxide emissions. PROJECT :SAId1A ANt4 HEIGHTS SPECIFIC PLAN/EIR PREPARED BY 2tPL CLEARING HOUSE NUMBER 2 0 PROJECIION YEAR 2 20UV DHIE :07/2418b URBEMIS #1 IYFE OF UNIT SiCIGLE FAMILY HOUSING HPHRrMENI UFFlCE PARK NONHOME BASED TRIPS NONWORK 152u WORK: 13682 rOIAL HOME EASED IRIPS HOME WORK: 165 HOME—SHUP 1::6 HOPIE—OTHER SOS M rAL 59; WOWHOME BASED EKIIS5IOWS CARBON MONOXIDE (T/Y)= 437 HYDROI.NRBONS , (T/v)= 47 NIrROGE14 OXIDES (r/Y)= 35 FUEL CONSUKIPIION (GAL/Y.EHR)= ICIB42b9 HOME BASED EMISSIONS L"RBUN MONOXIDE (I/Y)= 21 H.DRUCHRBDKIS (r/Y)= 2 1111RUSEN OXIDES (I/v)= 1 FUEL CUNSUhIPIION t8AL/YEHR)= 46098 taSSUMES rEWPERAIURE = 55 SIZE 9 ' /UNITS 77 /UNITS 1013500 /SOFT vMT S284 11096i 119245 vm r 1432 406 iz95 —3435— PROJECT :SANTA ANA HEIGHTS SPECIFIC PLAN/EIR PREPARED BY :JLM CLEARING HOUSE NUMBER : 0 PROJECTION YEAR : 2000 DATE :04/25/86 'TYPE OF UNIT SIZE SINGLE F'AMI1_Y HOUSING 180 /UNITS N13NHOIYIE BASED TRIPS VMT NONWORK 0 WORK rO rAL HOME BASED TRIPS VMT HONE WORK 49-1 43'3 HOME -SHOP 3,79 .1224 HOP^.E•-OTHER 927 4801 TOTAL • 1799� 10',359 NONHOME BASED EMISSIONS CARBON MONOXIDE (T/Y)= 0 HYDROCARBONS (T/Y)= 0 NIrROGEN OXIDES (T/Y)= 0 FUEL CONSUMPTION (GAL/YEAR)= 0 HOME BASED EMISSIONS CARBON! MONOXIDE (T/Y)= 62 HYDROCARBONS ('T/Y)= 7 NITROGEN OXIDES (T/Y)= 3- FUEL CONSUMPTION (GAL/YEAR)= 131265 ASSUMES TEMPERATURE = 55 PROJECT sSANTA ANA HEIGHTS SPECIFIC PLAN/EIR PREPARED BY sOLM CLEARING HOUSE NUMBER s 0 PROJECTION YEAR s 2000 DATE :04/25/86 rYPE OF UNIT 3XI.OSLE rF:M1LY HOUSINn NONHOME BASED TRIPS I'vONWORP. 0 WORK rQ rNL r1 HOME BASED TRIPS HOME WORK 493 HOME -SHOP 379 HOtlC-OTHER 927 TOTAL 1799 NONHOME BASED EMISSIONS CARBON MOVIOXIDE (T/Y)m 0 H'YDROCAPBONS (T/Y)= 0 NIrnocN OXIUES (r/Y)= 0 FUEL CONSUMPTION (GAL/YEAR)= 0 HOME BASED EMISSIONS CARBON MOWOXIDE (T/Y)* 62 HYDROCARBONS (r/Y)= 7 NITROGEN OXIDES (T/Y)= 3 FUEL CONSUMPTION (SAL/YEAR)= 131265 ASSUMES TEMPERATURE : 155 SIZE ie0 /UNITS VMT 4371, 1224 4801 0:159 AIR QUALITY CALCULATIONS PHILLIPS DRANDT REDDICK DATE:JULY 24, 1986 RANGE:(A1..J85) 11JV NOTES: STATIONARY SOURCE EMISSIONS ___---_ SOurCe:SCAQMD Air Quality Handbook for EIRs. Dec,1983; t from 1980 Handbook. ELECTRICAL ENERGY USAGE TYPE RESIDENTIAL OFFICE RETAIL INDUSTRIAL OTHER POLLUTANT CO NOX SOX PARTS HC UNITS SO FT ------ ---------86 - 1,013,500 0 0 0 POWER PLANT EMISSIONS LS/MWH TONS/YR 0.21 1.4 2.10 13.5 1.40 9.0 0.18 1.2 0.13 0.8 NATURAL GAS CONSUMPTION TYPE UNITS SO FT SINGLE FAMILY 9 MULTIFAMILY04) 77 OFFICE 1.013,500 RETAIL O INDUSTRIAL 0 OTHER O KWH/YR/UNIT M 5,838 12.2 12.3 36.6 R 0.0 TOTAL CF/MO/UNIT 3,665 3.918 2.0 2.9 3.3 t 0.0 TOTAL MWH/YR 502.1 12a364.7 . 0. 0 0.0 0.0 12,866.B TOTAL MCF/YR 0.4 3.6 24.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 28.3 NATURAL OAS EMISSIONS POLLUTANT LB/CF MCF/YR-__-- TONS/YR- ------ _`__`-20 O.3 CO NOX dam 80 i� NOX em1 120 y �4.O NOX total 0.0 1.5 0.0 SOX PARTS NEOL. 0.15 28.3 .0 HC a 28.3 0.1 TOTAL STATIONARY SOURCE EMISSIONS ----------------------------------- POLLUTANT EMISSIONS (TONS/YR) ------- ---- --- .63 CONOX 15.1: SOX 9.01 PARTS 1.16 HC 0.95 AIR QUALITY CALCULATIONS PHILLIPS BRANDT REDDICK DATE:APRIL 25. 1985 RANGE:(A1..J85) MJV NOTES: STATIONARY SOURCE EMISSIONS --------------------------- SOUrce:SCAQMD Air Quality Handbook for EIR%. Dec.1983: i from 1980 Handbook. ELECTRICAL ENEFGY USAGE TYPE UNITS SO FT KWH/YR/UNIT '-IWHI*YR RESIDENTIAL isO �", 8.'•8OFFIC 1..550.8 �� (2.2 11.0 ETAI RETAIL 0 12 C 0.0 INDUSTRIAL 76.6 * 0.0 OTHER 0 0.0 0.0 • TOTAL 1.050.8 • POWER PLANT EMISSIONS POLLUTANT LB/MWH TONS/YR CO 0.21 0.1 NOx 2.10 1.1 Sax 1.40 0.7 PARTS 0.16 ').1 HC 0.13 0.1 NATURAL GAS CONSUMPTION TYPE UNITS SO FT CF/MO/UN:T TOTAL MCFi lR SIMGLE FAMILY 180 5.665 7.9 MULTIFAMILY(54) 0 3,918 0.0 OFFICE 0 =.Q Cf.0 RETAIL 0 2.9 0.0 •INDUSTRIAL 0 .,.3 t 0.0 OTHER 0 0.0 0.0 TOTAL 7.9 NATURAL 13AS EMISSIONS POLLUTANT LH/CF MCF.YR --------------- IONS/YR ------I..-- ---------- CO --------- 20 7.9 0.1 NOX dom SO 7.9 0.3 NOX cml 120 0.0 0.0 NOX total 0.3 SOX NEGL. 0.0 0.0 PARTS 0.15 7.9 _ .0 HC S 7.9 .0 TOTAL STATIONARY SOURCE EMISSIONS .---------------------- POLLUTANT EMISSIONS (TONS/YR) ------ ------------------- CO 0.19 1•JOX 1.42 SOX 0.74 PARTS 0.10 HC 0.10 #1 CAL INE3 RUN :SANTA ANA HEIGHTS St. Birch St. Conditions: Existing Bristol at 1.0 SITE VARIABLES ' U= 2 M/S BRG= 0 DEGREES CLASS= 6 MIXH= 1000 M ATIM= 60 MINUTES AMB= 0 PPM ZO= 175 CM VS= 0 CM/S VD= 0 CM/S 2.0 LINK -VARIABLES LINK COORDINATES (M) LINK * X1 Y1 X2 Y2 -----*----------------------------------* ' 1 * 0 1000 0 -1000 2 * -1000 0-------1000-- 0 -----#------------- --------* n F I LINK DESCRIPTORS LINK * TYPE VPH EF H W -----*------------------------* 1 # AS 1661 20.48 0 20 2 # AS 2057 20.48 0 16.2 --_ -----#-------------- -----* 3.0 RECEPTOR COORDINATES, SM> RECEPTOR X Y Z -----------#-------------------* 1 * -15 15' 1.3 2 * -30 30 1.3 .3 * -45 45 1.3 ----------- #-------------------* 4.0 MODEL RESULTS *CO/LINK RECEPTOR * 1 2 1 * 1.1 0 2 * .5 0 3 * .3 O *TOTAL * PPM * 1.1 * .J * .3 Total Existing Total 8 Hr. Ambient 1 Hr. PPM ------------------------------- 9.3 10.4 10.1 9.3 9.8 9.7 9.3 9.6 .9.5 h N2 CALINE3 WN :SANTA ANA HEIGHTS Conditions% Existing + project Bristol St. at Birch St. l.0 SITE VARIABLES U= 2 M/S BRS- 0 DEGREES CLASS= 6 MIXH= 1000 M ATIM= 60 MINUTES AMB= 0 PPM ZO= 175 CM VS- 0 CM/S VD= 0 CM/S Z.0 LINK VARIABLES LINK COORDINATES (M) # LINK # X1 Y1 X2 Y2 # ---------------------------------- 1 # 0 1000 0 -1000 2 # -1000 0 1000 0 ---------------------------------- LINK DESCRIPTORS # LINK * TYPE VPH EF H W # ---_ ------------------------ I # AS 2348 20.48 0 20 2 # AS 3202 20.48 0 20.6 ---- #------------------------* 3.0 RECEPTOR COORDINATES {M) RECEPTOR * X Y Z ----1�------*" -`--* -15 15 1.3 2 * -30 30 1.3 3 # -45 45 1.3 ----------- *-------------------* 4.0 MODEL RESULTS *CO/LINK *TOTAL RECEPTOR * 1 2 * PPM ---------- ----------------- 1 * 1.5 0 * 1.5 2 * .7 0 * .7 3 * .4 0 * .4 Total Existing Total 8 Hr. Ambient 1 Hr. PPM ------------- _»__.._..._..- . 9.3 10.8, 10.4 9.3 10.0 9.8 9.3 9.7 9.6 7 Lr LJ L r G P #3 CALINE3 F,UN :SANTA ANA HEIGHTS Conditions: Existing Irvine Ave. at Orchard Dr. 1.0 SITE VARIABLES U= 2 M/S BRG= 0 DEGREES CLASS= b MIXH= 1000 M ATIM= 60 MINUTES AMB= O PPM ZO= 175 CM VS= 0 CM/S VD= 0 CM/S 2.0 LINK VARIABLES LINK COORDINATES (M) LINK X1 Y1 X2 -----*------------------------ 1 0 1000 0 2 * —1000 0 1000 -----*------------------------ LINK DESCRIPTORS LINK * TYPE VPH EF H W -----*------------------------* 1 * AG 2371 15.07 0 27.3 2 AS 440 20.48 0 18.2 -----#------------------------* 3.0 PECEPTOR COORDINATES (M) rECEPTOR * X Y Z • # -----------*-------------------* 1 —15 � 15 . 1.—a 2 # —30 30 1.3 3 # —45 45 1.3 ----------- ------------------- t7 Y2 # —1000 0 4.0 MODEL RESULTS Total *CO/LINK *TOTAL Existing Total 8 Hr. RECEPTOR * 1 2 * PPM Ambient 1 Hr. PPM ----------*----------------- ------------------------------------ 1 * 1.4 0 * 1.4 9.3 10.7 10.3 2 * .b 0 * .6 9.3 9.9 9.7 3 * .3 0 * .3 9.3 9.6 9.5 M4 RUN CALINE3 :SANTA ANHi HEIGHTS , Conditions: Existing + project Irvine Ave. at Orchard Dr. 1.0 SITE VARIABLES U= 2 M/S BRG- 0 DEGREES CLASS- 6 MIXH- 1000 M ATIM- 60 MINUTES AMB- 0 PPM 2O- 175 CM VS- 0 CM/S VD- 0 CM/S , 2.0 LINK VARIABLES ' LINK COORDINATES (M) # LINK # X1 Y1 X2 Y2 # -----#----------------------------------# 1 # 0 1000 0 1000 ' 2 * -1000 0 1000 0 -----#----------------------------------# ' LINK DESCRIPTORS # LINK # TYPE VPH EF H W # -.---#------------------------* 1 # AS 2934 13.07 0 33.3 2 # AS 1069 20.48 ' 0 20.6 ----- #------------------------ # :,0 RECEPTOR.000RDINATES (M) RECEPTOR # X Y Z # ----1-------##---- - --- --# ' 15 1.3 t 2 # -30 • 30 1.3 3 # -45 45 1.3 ' -----------#---------- -------- 4.0 MODEL RESULTS Total *CO/LINK *TOTAL Existing Total 8 Hr. RECEPTOR # 1 2 # PPM Ambient 1 Hr. PPM ---------- #--..----------------- ---------------------------------�� 1 # 2.2 0 # 2.2 9.3 11.5 10.8 2 # .8 0 # .8 9.3 10.1 9.7 3 # .4 0 # .4 9.3 9.7 9.6 ' #5 CALINE3 RUN- -SANTA ANA HEIGHTS ' Conditions: Existing Mesa Dr. at Acacia St. j,C, SITE VARIABLES ' U= 2 MIS BRG= 0 DEGkEES CLASS= 6 MIXH= 1000 M ATIM= 60 MINUTES AMS= 0 PPM ZO= 175 CM VS= 0 CM/S VD= 0 CM/S ' 2.0 LINK VARIABLES LINK COORDINATES (M) LINK * X1 Y1 X2 Y2 -----*----------------------------------* 1 # 0 1000 0 -1000 -_2 -1000 01000 0 ----------- ---- ' LINK DESCRIPTORS LINK TYPE VPH EF H W ' --*------------------------* 1 AS 780 20.48 0 13.3 2 # AS 160 20.48 ------------------------ ' 3.0 RECEPTOR COORDINATES (M)- RECEPTOR * X Y Z -----=-----*-------------------* 1 -15 15 1.3 2 # -30 30 1.3 3 # -45 45 1.3 ' ----------- #-------------------* 4.0 MODEL RESULTS Total ' *CO/LINK *TOTAL Existing Total 8 Hr. RECEPTOR * 1 2 * PPM Ambient 1 Hr. PPM ----------*----------------- ----------------------------------- ' 1 * .4 0 * .4 9.3 9.7 • 9.6 2 * .2 0 * .2 9.3 9.5 9.4 3 * .1 •0 * .1 • 9.3 9.4 9.4 11 06 CALINE3 .UN -SANTA ANA HEIGHTS Conditions: Existing + project Mesa Dr. at Acacia 5t. 1.0 SITE VARIABLES U= 2 M/S BRG= 0 DEGREES CLASS- 6 MIXH= 1000 M ATIM= 60 MINUTES AMS= 0 PPM ZO- 175 CM VSw 0 CM/S VD= 0 CM/S 2.0 LINK VARIABLES LINK COORDINATES (M) # LINK # X1 Y1 X2 Y2 -----#----------------------------------# 1 * 0 1000 0 -1000 2 -1000 0 1000 0 -----#--------------------------------y--# LINK DESCRIPTORS # LINK * TYPE VPH EF H W # -. ,--*------------------------# 1 * AS 458 20.48 0 16.2 2 # AG 327 20.48 0 20.6 ---�_#- ----------------k 5.0 f oCEPTOR COORDINATES (M) RECEPTOR # X Y Z ----1------#- --1�----* -15 1.3 2 * -30 30 1.3 3- # -45 45 1.3 --- ----- ------------- ------# 4.0 MODEL RESULTS NCO/LINK *TOTAL RECEPTOR * 1 2 * PPM ---------- ----------------- 1 # .5 0 # .5 2 # .2 0 .2 3 # .1 0 # .1 i Total Existing Total 8 Hr. Ambient 1 Hr. PPM ........................_..M.._. 9.3 9.8 9.7 9.3 9.5 9.4 9.3 9.4 9.4 FJ I 1 I 7 �I C F Lr IL LALINE3 -(UN :SANTA ANA HEIGHTS Existing + Project Irvine Avenue at Orchard Dr. w/o University Dr. Extension 1.0 SIIE VARIABLES U= 2 M/S BRG= 0 DEGREES CLASS= 6 MIXH= 1000 M ATIM= 60 MINUTES AMB= 0 PPM ZO= 175 CM VS= 0 CM/S VD= 0 CM/S �.O LINK VARIABLES LINK COORDINATES (M) LINK: * X1 Y1 X2 Y2 ---------------------------------------* 1 # 0 1000 0 -1000 2 * -1000 0 1000 Q L114K DESCRIPTORS LINK: -TYPE VPH EF H W -----*------------------------* 1 * AS 3840 15.07 O 35. 2 * AS 1068 20.48 0 20.6 -----------------------------* 3.0 RECEPTOR COORDINATES (M) RECEPTOR * X Y Z -----------*-------------------* 1 * -15 15 • 1.3 2 * -.:A 30 1.3 3 * -45 45 1.3 -----------'------------ ------- 4.0 MODEL RESULTS *CO/LINK RECEPTOR * 1 2 ---------- ---------- 1 * 3 0 2 * 1 0 y. * .6 0 *TOTAL EXISTING TOTAL TOTAL * PPM AMBIENT 1 HR. 8 HR. PPM -- * 3' ------------------------------------ 9.3 12.3 11.4 * 1 9.3 10.3 10.0 * •6 9.3 9.9 9.7 u '1 F 1 J J p I i 1 NOISE ASSESSMENT FOR THE SANTA ANA HEIGHTS SPECIFIC PLAN 1 COUNTY OF ORANGE F 1 1 I J 1 0 i iJ 1 April 8, 1986 Report #86-8-4 Prepared By 1 Fred Greve, P.E. MESTRE GREVE ASSOCIATES 280 Newport Center Drive Suite 230 1 Newport Beach, CA 92660-7528 714/760-0891 1 1 1 I u 1 I n I I NOISE ASSESSMENT FOR THE SANTA ANA HEIGHTS SPECIFIC PLAN COUNTY OF ORANGE 1.0 EXISTING NOISE ENVIRONMENT The proposed project site is currently impacted by roadway and aircraft noise sources. The project site is exposed to noise generated by aircraft operations associated with the John Wayne Airport. Additionally, the site is exposed to traffic noise from a number of roadways including Irvine Avenue and Mesa Drive. This report identifies the traffic noise impacts internal to the Santa Ana Heights area. Regional traffic noise impacts and aircraft noise impacts have been addressed previously in the EIR 508/EIS for the John Wayne Airport. 1.1 Definitions and Standards. Community noise levels are measured in terms of the "A -weighted decibel," abbreviated dBA. A -weighting is a frequency -correction that correlates overall sound pressure levels with the frequency response of the human ear. The "equivalent noise level," or Leq is the average noise level on an energy basis for any specified time period. The Leq for one hour is the energy average noise level during the hour, specifically, the average noise based on the' energy content of the sound. It can be thought of as the level of a continuous noise which has the same energy content as the fluctuating noise level. The equivalent noise level has the units of dBA, therefore, a sound measured for one hour may be expressed as a one hour Ieq of 57 dBA. Several rating scales have been developed for measurement of community noise. These account for: (1) the parameters of noise that have been shown to contribute to the effects of noise on man, (2) the variety of noises found in the environment, and (3) the variations associated with the time of day. The predominant rating scale now in use in California for land use compatibility assessment is the Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL). The CNEL scale represents a time weighted 24 hour average noise level based on the A -weighted decibel. Time weighted refers to the fact that noise that occurs during certain sensitive time periods is penalized for occurring at these times. The evening time period (7 p.m. to 10 p.m.) penalizes noises by 5 dBA, while nighttime (10 p.m. to 7 a.m.) noises are penalized by 10 dBA. These time periods and penalties were selected to reflect people's increased sensitivity to noise during these time periods. The day -night or Id n scale is similar to the CNEL scale except that evening noises are not penalized. A CNEL noise level may be reported as a "CNEL of 60 dBA," "60 dBA CNEL" or simply "60 CNEL." The premier document identifying Orange County noise policies is the Noise Element of the General Plan. The general policy statements in the Noise Element have been transformed into standards and criteria for implementation. The Orange County noise standards can be categorized into indoor and outdoor standards, and may be further divided into residential and non-residential -1- I projects. The standards are based on the combined noise levels of all noise sources. For residential areas the County standards require that the noise t levels in exterior living areas (a.g.; rear yards, patio areas, and balcony areas) do not exceed 65 CNEL, and for interior living areas the noise level shall not exceed 45 CNEL. The indoor noise level criterion for non-residential projects varies for type of use, and is in terms of the 12 hour laq. Exhibit 1 shows the indoor noise level standards for various types of non-residential developments. 1.3 Existing Aircraft Noise levels The proposed project site is located south of John Wayne Airport. At its ' nearest location the site is approximately 2000 feet south from the south and of the main airport runway (Runway 19R). The are three noise monitoring facilities operated by airport officials in the project vicinity. Stations M6 And M7 are located inside the project boundaries and Station M1 is located 400 feet south of the project site. The project site, according to the 1983 CN$L contours for John Wayne, Airport developed by the County of Orange, is exposed to noise levels ranging from less than 65 CNEL to as high as 73.5 , CNEL (Exhibit 2). The major flight tracks for the airport which pass near the proposed project site ares (1) departures from the main runway (Runway 19R), (2) departures ' from Runway 19L, (3) the training pattern used for touch and got on Runway 19R, (4) the training pattern used for touch and Sox on Runway 19L, and (5) arrivals on runway 01L. Runway 19R is used mainly by commercial aircraft. The flight tracks for departures from this runway are straight above the site. Runway 19L is used by light general aviation aircraft, and the flight track turns slightly to the left just before the site: the training patterns associated with Runways 19R and 19L are used only by light general aviation aircraft. The pattern consists of a departure from Runway 19L and then a large 180 degree turn (right or left) in the vicinity of Bristol Street. If the aircraft* turn after Bristol Street they will pass over the site. Runway OiL is used for arrival in case of northeasterly winds* the flight tracks for ' arrivals on this runway are straight above the site. Flight tracks in the project vicinity are shown in Exhibit 3. 1.4 Existing Traffic Noise levels The highway noise levels projected in this report were computed using the Highway Noise Model published by the Federal Highway Administration ("FHWA Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model," FNWA-Rb-77-108, December, 1978). The FHWA Model uses traffic voluma, vehicle mix, vehicle speed, and roadway ' geometry to compute the "equivalent noise level." A computer code has been written which computes equivalent noise levels for each of the time periods used in the calculation of CNEL. Weighting these noise levels and summing them results in the CNEL for the traffic projections used. CNEL contours are found by iterating over many distances until the distances to the 600 650 and 70 CNEL contours are found. For future traffic noise levels, no future vehicle noise reduction was assumed in spite of legislation requiring quieter vehicles at the time of manufacture. Traffic volumes and speeds (Table 1) were used to estimate existing noise ' levels adjacent to the the project site. Traffic volumes were obtained from -2- 1 TYPICAL USE Leg (h) Private Office, Church Sanctuary. College, 45 Preschool, Schools (Grade K-12), Hoard Room, Conference Roan, etc. General office, Reception, Clerical, etc. 50 Schools (Grades K-12) 52 Hank Lobby, Retail Store, Restaurant, 55 Typing Pool, etc. Manufacturing, Kitchen, warehousing, etc. 65 MESTRE GREVE ASSOCIATES Exhibit 1- Orange County `°"a"'"' USNOS Commercial Noise Standards I - .1>• - r rba•?Yj< !(,,��y' t <��{ �. �y.zt \�','jj��±ems •► .,\ `�.i' a \ It°tyX r•�. \ •�. � \y;�h •' ,+ �" 1 •� �.. �, m•, � • t� . V � F ti�V Ce�/''4. �i ` .`t, y C'\<••'.S �te�J� n!' �`` \ y•\ �i� w .. .N� .n 7j, '' •1 "�•F`�'- n\, �i/ <'� '.2Cr 11 •' t'�ii '` v t��y �� ♦ I "b4� sf -may •� + -ice ;+•r•r <, c.r • i'�^' 9 Iyt• In �. ♦ •;�• Tt %f/u `\, w� •.+'' k .t'�. s .. y "•✓ :!� \ ;R" r� � , • •,�,z f. ,, _ � /yam c� �, �,•. /' ' 1 •'t� �. � ' •a�< w, •, . " t. .� (•.T � •C •`� �r Oy '.�# :_• ��!�.'SA' ., .,• l'�„ f'� i`. !' �%.. \\j.p \ <��v �f't. ' ` 'Y, • �•: ✓�#i• '. y - P' �;L .`�. `<^�•��,` 6•. RRi; �, L �,y/ jr�}I� _-`� ` � '_' 'y.x "�/4, �• itt\`at ,t` r. e •. ��<• a, ' „sSiX,}•.•.•s � � .�" "-1. '. i' ma`s`- �a i �\ \t,�{=/ k\��ff1A 'r� .,• ,> ,.. �< W } j�. j i /: !• t �� 'lf / i $. (5 •• -5.• ` �/('>\,..1- ! {9.�'• �. ,i/ • �� .> J`J , r"�• y ,� .c1, 1-•ni1. •. j:3@r>y, <!'` -♦` ,` ; �: o{l A �pjl,<ja{ _ 'er�,�'*_• ,� n <d ✓, •. j< o c t � .♦. �- =e _ fin, �. J T � i'` J'{ , _ ��i,. .� �' �'41 < '< + ♦' RO Y::•�iD' 'n. 1 i � tia ii y 'C:,t�` �.. "< • - _� �'�� „ �. t. P�. �1: %" ` 1' �•.�� • �` "K�dt�•v/�� ' Tom' r �t ti� \ -.� ��jN�\/ � •'� ��t aw �,• i • � \ 5?��•. N �\ :- �✓', -�'�;' • . ��` jam` �tT't• 1� aM• c %wi �� `s'h ; :'ly?/ �, 1 'ryd �:YO.-� *'��•` nt i at.s � -PV � 1_ �2'� I`.f� ; �• �� j �:� �: Y ,'•qI V"\.� �!r ♦ • ,'., s ''J<�,1. •' j �%`y�1 �'. +.k f 4• /��y . '� �a�-•s'i' � ��••� `/R< j�'y�� t t• 1 r.:I �tV. O �"!y\:- % �"'� - __ ' i.% i': hv'v •: < "-%Y � � \' `f' °_�<j ''. 6 4:. .\. w, � ;� / ` •`'C'n _y. •�, •S'�.�G`„�i �s '. , 4% %s �!•s <�`ry•�i �a a •\ , ?�.•` ` .' � . c" �i��•� j�L�F�ay-•`/,ASS\ �j �4•s 4: <,� tr��= n%• ' �•, `R _f "J+1 r ', 'S� t 't •`"a- €'."\'�?IC.' i• ♦ �' - �: ,� `'�`i�`•f t _ tit-' � �14i' err• \ a j, ca• `i✓ m � s. - ...: _ . yr' l i 1: e � "7` `��,•- . j i � � 1 i \ •` '> :.a.`�' . •lam '\ i �'% e - � •^ �� y4 ` t' � 1�;�•[ I\11: � l,. Y "�'9i y •:1� _ :��". �;!" 7J• ,• ' J-[+�{:7 I "^ � _ _ t( .+�:: �• l� e' ; e� . .. �` y�'Sx••a'c ' 't :.iY:-d + ♦i - :!' 7•y--•�1 �'•`Y� :i <: K L. v f <�. _ - _ �� •� i , .-0 ,i ♦t A tt \°� G' n ati'. ,,n �'�y Ct � _ •.A • ti!i�' O ;t..,•'1 l ,'\i .:. `s 1 s.11 _. �'• - ! � 2`so 1 •.rr.+ �• t _ a • b'P i .ft.i ':♦ f•• p �na..+"' •.: ' u: �� r , CI. t. {T'i- '� . , :.: J :. :; -i:j. 1 >� � •s}v; iC• sjy too .\ •Z• • s "'� F r / ti �J .. `�-C-• ��ryY o')j '� •r J 1`+i 1 , t u x � y _i _ tt>�� Q�� ; 2'. '^ R" F n t\t�'> � n i i ,� t •� ' � ail � tt t �'•••C •d',:/ x �'• � f + i.: a' - t ^• 'I y jl a -> I^..^. •Y•{��•<.��,.fT��y�.� q ♦ '< `,\ 1 �•',.�5\ C. 1^ '��•��•�y's }\\ �';M• ` •: n v y I '(•�".� 1 ,�I !_ 4�_. i • s" / - �, •e ti .. -■era •Vi• i , 1, is .�� _ ��ii■,�� A''a/ � \ t ttG\� ..�� • � v j R a C � � �C tt't^T. n .'4"< 4`t . >r� L. N ..T•`�•-`.-`., ..j k. 4:� •_ !'� _ _ • • ' .f`,'�r ` a� .. t-s Q tin\• . i y. ~0' � •:Y �i• •' . 1t• ; ..$ i ' 4 .< �V 11� !J'V !-} �• • ;•/N .f,::��f■+♦: •. ,yF � ; Y�'" .,L+�''Y:t� I �•�f •-y dog• �'f t, % '\ _•... ' ' /'}1�( •� „a•-2 tin. ,.c 1 ,/• ✓t` fit' �t+4� � • • t q e�5• �` ,e _ �� '.L ��'J � Y F t: `J 1 +_• • r . •• a � _ J •"t ei �' i•'^>Mc?4'� i < ' �•'" •' _.!, s� '? l.`a•A �!�•� .n :ate• e ; •. �` ' L! s '- 1`�E 1 \� • �^ _�1< .3_' �hlj • �t > _ ��_ �-i `•6�.t�Nl, __�'_ .1� �"•c •R •.. �� F �'".' -eq.\J"'S � < t � '_' N r _ ..��.M<i � � a � „_ _ I• ` _.u�" -t..r' //�.171t1 Y • 8._fG ,,U'r= • N' �� piss+t � i" • ' a '_`� 4 y � s .. � � .`. Nsrrositi' ; e•r < _„ • � - - 4 It % I .1 � � _ '_! .h1 � � _ a � .. r• yes <:;,-aeY`y-' ��e._EC -. �".I , n _ �� ` i ®' r� �� T \ . .4 '?\e \ � bur -i ', si. .n_'> q.-1.1 • I ' � "4a � _ ''•-'�i11� • 44 ' ��'T'-tta ' � IA�,•..r �1ia !jl J .! � r5•t {�` ` _ 1 'tti- = Z; i'�: " ,-,�. " j ' 3i 0 k.., �, C _ =Y,. , It 1. ; •.t ie_ �r ! ,. .M. I.i yy)) • '. .i•:� • e .�? '\ 1�: " a ' ° • •.i: + II.••y 6r� • 1 ii• •S ~ rti f^FLU Y a. •1 a?: ^t £ n•' 6-C'1'•T' / 11tw n� �i'',� ♦�-; ,,._ 1 1 tom}- "��.99 i • a-�t• f , �1 �" ,.-. 'S� `i"- •o•,_c.� '� � a t r• • ;. •. IL-ia�f• '� `='e_bJ• �•..r•�!� :. •f �-�` ° S < •:5 •t p{' s' ,s> � r �! i• .•'!I `1."' I• ry ...n {`R r_ '.,t�i'�. e.: ':': Ys C ,i "-` ,♦ „ .4,A �' J I 1 t i 1 .S: i 1 j'� 1-� ♦•„ .-� IiM/Y .�--ii k'l��/'Y}' /T '�'.L t'i'.'T%`�•j<•�.i .y- .. 1 %. :< � ` s +<s _ . � � • _ _SZ �.i 4 z� t< tae'rn� - , �ej _ t s i � s-i"��' �-s- I ■ i � ®:_: � `•� s �_� � y�1 � � �� .4:' 5 - � : f f. ti'�d-K�p....� s }1•• � c ?� Irit•--• +y ••E {' 1 C �` /'1•�� TcN 4 �s �t �, • _ 1 � q: '�. . •..�..'}��' �\E:. �S': �,_�Ir':` V�i 1i14 .0 '!'� ;:'; Ro<'. .,/�i\"' _ �^ �'�Ii •<••'�'i� '' �O•'1i:^ e�� •• '•'I• t �\U n••��< "-_ �.�,^�•"....�`� �ai1•` N4 \`: 5 eo. )�Q� __ 161�J, + ��• �(�r r`'J � :�'_ L�'¢' %�� t � 6,'�p ! � g! !: r �'i f <• .!_:."• •. y��•- n Z 'f Fqj >p b.'''-EpF •` ' _ •r ,j•i • : " �o sx .,1,-•' �,,.� - f _ i! , ri k-•J�"'MI• s '.."j,..'•°�a`�, i "�; f f o ._ - :�'J 7't • 1 y �•i �6 • .`:'2 �c'J'+Ji• ' y '^'qJ $i .- ;�. -r. ^Z . t+ I _ ♦ CNE ■ • _ i r F 1•` Z., a, J• �' r ` K / l P � ♦\'' T ' '•-<1.=r„` �.+., - • Uy � f 4 •t) � t � • 7 Fy :1f K-//i�J.% 0•.•3 is+'� : y.,� \ i r '! --••F ' • tis ` , 2 , t , 411 / •�•• .•% � I•. Jr nt 7' �� ., r •��y�� 15, ��f � ��•s'Sl�%/• ` •. os � 1 .., =1 `, \ �^`, � S.-' I `i - �q i'n�i � • �.• • 1/, r XL \� <• l �1• /Yl ! r'i -. ' " 3' "iEl /- � r *.+..9 : t0.: • `\` \ 1 �.s , 5 - T -//�L_'�`�:'I�•'r:} �•t-1(a......:... •' l1•rk got _ i1 1 ; a+ ''>•:J _ �, a`(7r=: i''�* • __//`UU ��S •'• � � ��y �'� � � �•� • �'/• X.�=.'�'•9 % lb j ; ((ff t o � I t�, T, � ``�`.l •:e ''•"`•r. .F � � PPP `` 1+: •-e._._. E.�• . ► ++' _.::_'aS •• fi •l�i� /yjp'� U" '�i ✓ .�_ .'e.. /� p �' i� 61 S ' j p1 Ti' _ lv / "'FF`•-• �� y'` hA• S . •�� t /�r�n4 CS '14/,�v+.'�ii `�'�C'i41 s "{ t• ��..•%2.`s`.< e `-�.y�+! t " j •._• �.t<t 1 �, -y a�v •fit . ,. ,1 �. / :c- G ..'."'_.i � G �`, \ ry ' i. ",.-.'\9',- ' ^ <�'-'�.`• � �\� � � • so al.-' > � ./i ! \ d"+ � U'� ^-�.� + �i . ' � rf i e ,�1 +/ / 2 ...... -. • ��a: as• 1�""•�i •.i.•r� ♦ \ / •.,� n �^. '1. w :4. \ " to _ - �-�'�'+�<... t 1 -. .i, h.• I 1.... 1 SOURCE:MAP BACKGROUND CONSISTS Of PORTIONS MAPS OF NEWPORTBEACH, G A "GUNAEACH, IN SERIES QUTUSTIN AND ORANGE, CAE FORNIA--EACH rHOTOREVISED IN 1981 Z 4000 O 4000 4000 SCALE IN FEET 1 YEAR 1988 1 REM GRM Ass LATEs Exhibit 2• 1 COWULTYI6ENGU M John Wayne Airport Existing CNEL Noise Contours ' 1 I -_•-• 1 � \y1 � V "+, 1 .y� :A[ � t v „ s J 'L _l-.# \ \ :.^ r� � qY vt' f, t t �3t a1 1'•\ � 61FG1# R�•1<•• tNl, I ` \` \t:I r � .♦ S I !� �♦/• i ¢• J• A t (`r p" #`��6' s=r ••ii`(`+'�� ,a•�'/V-. rr �_ �� i s\ 4- a( .. - 1..Y, ': 00 '•` a� `9•' �' ,'�j.� N �\ •�,�� ;\. IjreF � ." •7- 3•r r• to � ...'\ �• f \ yC\� t'a/° .. //• ?• # � a `i_ r•2t ` Y' �� a`• V• riw.,' ,iy. . Y /:_ �•�♦.♦a �t•\it'i � -�.,` \`/1'ji '''�\\:�� 1' o�A ~ !'\ _ _ y F • {" ` •:t3•� _ ` a� I .�9 / • .' /<� "'^°l^� `�y�<. ;•rM4 / 8D : sf lit ®• a �� " r QI .. �. 1 t •: � \ •= �' . � �'` , r• '.: • ♦j f l iFt r 10ii' . \, . � •tt �/ 2 1 _ • r ! t a ! l,� 1 _ \ �. ..a. r A.- ri ro _ l .�,{ r •\t /•;n M � .. � .r. - , Spa 90 e.a�', - i� i1 _3V`'. T � : "`•�f.7 '< t L✓r.\ `� r.+`,:.\ta`� I ,fit A t`•:.. 4�i.4T .ly+'' ..S• �' "_ S i i" -S I 1 f, � •♦ •.� ,s'\ . ,.\ i "„'` ,y i ! f•""1 is e• � �_ •. s O !" ,,\:, a . ?r;! �� • vi i. „ I '�! ' rl :r�- I �n I �` 't+t .fi ` � �a'T/T.j y !H. `yr ♦ dp,� l Z . ,_,,• �/•r�.•,_,� � � ' ;� .1 s_ ,t, ,"t 5,..,-i• _Ir r• '' ,S.Li-v ._ _ `,S S �^ -;, 4,i{�t ♦'��.T•.• � f e`er' � �'�:� e�a�'',•��\�\y. i� \\\AJ'y:.t {S^- '% °E /1!� � T'f'F• t )�i[T� �•)1 •R "� � i■ta =in; ^ •�- 1 \\. •ten \ c-c ac�3t: •<y \��\••Y a q.:�. i� .i �� < _n" wf�'L `• q \\� • •. i y, . ei13},t F•.�'°� - c1 1 ."�l i • 1 +'��•�_ \� i •, ` —y i�fy�tM �..� �• l�.ilii• W. �`=r♦ •fj' �' , �:r, .� .• tDO` 4::'• i��a�*}.E, ' _ ';-` t.t ti l _ - _• i7 �t.�/�♦.�F�7"`.'� r■1•�•Et �L� � •l�s�'�'�>�: a.• ` s �' �^,. • i�96g ., �- �' ` _�i _r_ ..zs -�%V . �- jt': `r'. 1.I k� ti' �' s •aJ 'Z'>.�i /, •`,^ '- ��` al 1 .a, w � - � 4 ,� a: �� • ■_ rti .. . ' _ ._- .\!` 's a•. jr ?` '.•/" z ♦ �., >!�. 1 i'y_ �� tY Jam. A�rr . • `^:'''� ♦ •. \ •' - s \ )' a i _ , �: r I�-a__ �■! I�jh:�.1t.: '1�1. +JI !'!�I , ' �..,+ rt, •S� �. �0' •M '; � � } y :l- :gym, ,a: � F +�� -'°e-� am. ': a;.. .!Ei � J�i(r ..lgt`i i�tt�. �. ' 'r - y'�• �%{r . ..� �.. � � - _ _ -�i t _ .��:—._.,• r a ./ 1' 1 ■ R � 9 •,<•\ ��''C "' ' c . tug: t F- It 'r-^ r uaroar .'•it �•, r� ..y4rr■�: I�� 8 =1{ `'v Y:i ♦ __ p ..tit �Ar• .11 �^ •ct =]C':_ - - --1 i ` N : Y �•' f 3 �:. ■w a;•S lJ/r• . s - - i `'•• r. /[�� ' / - i ` �•T� ..��(' w-:y,� arrttr .-si-^ 'kF �5o t rc 1.�` ,..-�-�t is �.. �< 1e •Sr: ��Q,.;! ,(�.� f.. i y��.��•�A• �j. ,,��""��vv �Y' a ;`: � � �'':�6�: .B �- 4� / 3i t r•'r�;yS�y Ot.Etr�.''.,4 _ �� :1 :r; Y 11�ILi :Ee J;,L' �� r Bl�i��_e �, '��` <t1'. a \ ^ P `T,C 'C\ "✓ --'%." �••P,._,,!rp•.i ' ,se ;. _ ,•^Y,.. K --,' `• f�. +' °' r �✓.� 1Q -v„, _ ..�%' - _J + - ''¢,:Rssu ':. i\''YF. rl§4�:ycat cr>n\ 7r n� •Oats?t'ylie��fl�°�o'f ` ✓�-r,.,`•>''.a'�r„�.1�y 7'` �-.._ _ 7 3! ..''y♦�.jAe�•--� '. ��a�'rIJI'it rp'.9itsi_ �1p'. :-�: i1 �.j� trol .�7,itr■rP I` -, :aij �t ,O,�s,ar^''Gs S.t\,��Za�F►•r ai♦ yr.G,tE l j��/r!(•e.�f�Lit eT tr a~•+ny" %"�ITtT••I�(+2:k� '�Ptx. ""_,'eA�wmsyIl%p jj,.Si<� 3 _ •'k~•-00 IV7a.�■ A • �� 1. Y5•%,�.' \ t i._, � .1 n -\.-'M ,, n - t<4 ' ',• � • ry. Alt r...�I Y r, 'i ��ryy .G,�G Y i G � i-:., .+` ,"'^i�� - 't ', , ``: -, 5 ea: • i-•1 a . r t-..,� , „ •. _ = l `, •>i ai "-i :.�,r 8 __ ' - _ __••,� ' . •• • ' .1 s .'v !!! 1'• ( t� :'''3' 3, oy gS a ..• .. � 1 !P .:'•� ` 7 g2 �n>�K(L• }3" • a. .I_�i � ~ (:�_t� � pj: `^ )P'� 1 •� i ' y<�'"�/ �^�0 i � a '��"�°4S_�S�M• F•.•i:1 °7 r • '-.�,.�` '_9__{� �- � :'�:. � �t•.r p '•c, •' i, / / • <r ^� 1 •✓� _ IRS .�`• ..I raR �..� °. _; -'•' l- � ••' • ` •. alt.r �x'"'..` � \ wyi e 1 r r •� 's� •� �Vi'�� n '.,w �0'' � _ � •^ T 3 _ 1 / i. s I .^ 13C '\ t�4�,\ `•�~t_«.+� �Y �} �• � r ' ♦°♦ar rsi J (l L;•� iV afl L - N' 'N.._.....: rr# i q ,\ it 1• I e r . (.;' l 60 4 ♦re •� �-" Y ,c f •n•;qy V i R � t - ` ^�� sO -e._.` bb • 4 9 i .1 Y. � i� � O ,`'61 I.i it 1 f �'� " F�..�•.. x , 4, t j•�4 n \a .� G - t '_ t ; ' r •�. ' L% :C• • � . •.\' ; �V-hr"95 a�l -.: •• . �• „_. / { r :. / " !tv � a :�: _ .L - .: �.�_ ' ! ....` � �Y. • , \ '4 y \. iKs � •_. -� _ `\i : _�� .•�,{V _ as�{1 / \ \ f.' i.=' "5: F� :.., ) .. �"NN• s° �'_ .'a :t.•. � �.siri . • t. % �T' , -+ . `�•w,._ s � \ � I' :s a tll� -��? Ail .'/ J • � . MAP BACKGROUND CONSISTS OF PORTIONS OF UCS 7-3 MW- SERIES QUADRANGLE MAPS OF NEWPORT BEACH, LACUNA BEACH. TUSTIN AND ORANGE, CALUORNIA^EACH PHOTOREVISED W a!7_ 2000 O 2000 4030 SCALE 04 FEET I NSM crEvE Ass IATEs Exhibit 3 CONUM ROM John Wayne Airport Flight Tracks LJ I n I I I I I I I I i U I I i I I the traffic study performed by Basmaciyan—Darnell Inc. (March 1986) for the project. Speeds utilized are the posted speed limits. TABLE 1 EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES AND SPEEDS ROADWAY ADT SPEED Irvine Avenue s/o Bristol St 27,000 45 Mesa Drive w/o Irvine Ave 9,000 40 Irvine Ave to Acacia St 4,100 40 Acacia St to Birch St 3,700 40 Birch St to Cypress St 2,700 40 Cypress St to Orchid St 1,300 40 Orchard Drive Irvine Ave to Acacia St 4,400 40 Acacia St to Birch St 3,300 40 Birch St to Cypress St _ 2,500 40 Acacia Street Mesa Drive to Orchard Dr 690 40 Birch Street Mesa Dr to Orchard Dr 1,600 40 Orchard Dr to Bristol St 4,400 40 Cypress Street Mesa Dr to Orchard Dr 1,600 40 Orchard Dr to Bristol St 2,600 40 Spruce Avenue s/o Zenith Ave 400 35 Zenith Ave to Bristol St 19000 40. The traffic mix and time distribution utilized are presented in Table 2. These data were developed by the Orange County Environmental Management Agency and are considered typical for roadways throughout Southern California. I —3— TABLE 2 TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION (IN PERCENT) TIME OF DAY TYPE OF VEHICLE DAY EVENING NIGHT Automobile 75.51 12.57 9.34 Medium truck 1.56 0.09 0.19 Heavy Truck 0.64 0.02 0.08 The distances to the CNEL contours for the roadways in the vicinity of the project site are given in Trble 3. These represent the distance from the centerline of the road to the contour value shown. 9hey do not include the effect of the aircraft noise. —4— TABLE 3 EXISTING TRAFFIC NOISE LEVELS DISTANCE TO CONTOUR FROM ' CENTERLINE OF ROADWAY (FEET) ROADWAY 70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL Irvine Avenue s/o Bristol St 60 129 279 Mesa Drive w/o Irvine Ave 24 51 110 ' Irvine Ave to Acacia St RW 30 65 Acacia St to Birch St RW 28 61 Birch St to Cypress St RW 23 49 Cypress St to Orchid St RW RW 30 ' Orchard Drive Irvine Ave to Acacia St RW 32 68 Acacia St to Birch St RW 26 56 ' Birch St to Cypress St RW 22 47 Acacia Street Mesa Drive to Orchard Dr RW RW 20 Birch Street Mesa Dr to Orchard Dr RW RW 35 Orchard Dr to Bristol St RW 32 68 Cypress Street Mesa Dr to Orchard Dr RW RW 35 Orchard Dr to Bristol St RW 22 48 Spruce Avenue s/o Zenith Ave RW RW 11 Zenith Ave to Bristol St RW RW 26 ' —RW-- Indicates contour falls within road 'right of way. The data in Table 3 indicate that traffic noise levels for some portions of ' the site may currently exceed 65 CNEL. Residential areas along Irvine Avenue and Mesa Drive may experience outdoor traffic noise levels in excess of 65 CNEL. It should be noted that the aircraft noise levels along Irvine Avenue ' are in the range of 65 to 70 CNEL, and the aircraft noise levels along Mesa Drive are in the range of 60 to 70 CNEL. I I —5— 2.0 POTENTIAL NOISE IMPACTS Potential noise impacts are long term. Temporary impact construction activitieso lon and traffic noise impacts. 2.1 Construction Noise Levels s g commonly divided into two groups; temporary and are usually associated with noise generated by term impacts are further divided into aircraft Construction noise represents a short term impact on ambient noise levels. Noise generated by construction equipment, including trucks, graders, bulldozers, concrete mixers and portable generators can reach high levels. The greatest potential for problems exist at the residential areas adjacent to the site. Wnetruction equipment noise comes under the control of the Environmental Protection Agency's Noise Oontrol Program (Part 204 of Title 409 Code of Federal Pagulations). Some equipment noise will impact local residential areas. Exhibit 4 presents the noise levels generated by typical construction equipment. Construction noise is commonly controlled through the application of the (bunty Noise Ordinance which limits the hours of construction to weekdays and daytime hours. Traffic associated with construction activities can generate excessive noise levels, and if routed through residential Areas) can be annoying to local residents. Therefore, construction traffic should not be routed through residential areas whenever possible. 2.2 Future Aircraft Noise Levels The future CNEL contours for John Wayne Airport developed by the (bunty of Orange are presented in Exhibit S. These contours are based on 73 ADD (average daily departures) which represents the highest number of future operations allowed by the (bunty. According to Exhibit 5, the project site is exposed to noise levels ranging from lase than 63 CNEL to as high as 74.2 CNEL. 2.3 Future Traffic Noise Levels The proposed project will generate traffic, and as a result may alter noise levels in surrounding areas. To assess the impact of the proposed residential project on land uses adjacent to streets that will serve the project, the increases in roadway noise along these streets woo determined. These roadways were modeled for existing traffic conditions and existing plus project generated traffic. Traffic data used for noise projections were taken from the traffic study for this project by Dasmaciyan-Darnell Inc. (March 1986). Traffic aix and time distributions were assumed to remain the anse as used for existing conditions (Table 2). The traffic volumes and speeds are presented in Table 4. I " FI LJ n iJ I I I -6- a_meA..U. -,i cnne.A T.1 MRL1 wt .rill fPpt 60 70 80 s0 100 110 Compact (rollers) Front loaders Backhoes Tractors Scrapers, graders Pavers Trucks Concrete mixers Concrete pumps Cranes (movable) Cranes (derrick) Pumps Generators Compressors Pneumatic wrenches Jackhammers and drills Pile drivers (peak levels) Vibrators Saws _ ' Source: "Handbook of Noise Control," by Cyril Harris, 1979. MESTRE GREVE ASSOCIATES Exhibit 4 tM"Tm9010" Construction Equiptment Noise E t 5•• +•�\ J� t� * t - aaa• 1: •� '�/rj•+ < �, -.. .' 4` + ems` as psi `:,. e E I A �.. ` ,. ,! %:r : QQ\\\ , r'� ' -.i`�/ • �. 1 ' . ' ;l.Y°" . a IC 4 \ - �' t . � s' 2 �'Y%� e. Y' •�J,. •S•r v'�.tS' v - ti�'�.''';ti � Y .•S- •I = a` .•!'• '� •.'Y� 1 + '� w / LL~" i�:p 11a;: a . ; \ •r �y. �Li y r J; /�, h , � -.� :: '-r _ G1 ,•S '. 1. Y •\ a - _ � � t� � •'+• t t�,•�t i •�•' N� ' '..!' / ��,�•~ t.• • �� t •�ab •• �l • ♦ 'ram.. �' ��' r -� 2 'ti t ••r � � 1 !<« � `• 1t'� � t � a-� = .� ',' '. /�- �aP -bt"s �w t t \ �'' _ii*.- r�ir/. \r.Q ' a_ P wr! ( v �'�% 1• X ly� 1:}.D!'' � a at.';: „S..' � •� r "`,,: '1,,. ''� •it ,,; �`t. �, '' ••y�.j% / � ` `l�;t-- � .f" � I `i ' . :., _ — r {...; , • r„ - �\ •t s � ,. �ta�'k'"�/,+' J� 1 c - jam; `'• .., , • c .tea,';. �/��//` _ :�: / j(sll \��' _c r,t �:1' y _ •Pa • p •fl i 7 a i j S =..`, A+ �•'_' ••. * • • t- .,�� • lc�C`4./ L.Af J. /' r . a\\ \ % i\! • 14i y �LSIP ti X s t^ 2 � yi:�•/ y 3 'Tf� G T ' + I s � \: i fav a•�, .. c � ., .,� ..• - r.•_e 4 •♦ rt,:•: •- �?L' ya i• ♦ •�` i`'C� p 4'{ !' '� `+`� :`= ' 1 �Y l: a , .r-: 't{-' i :•cf , - .":9�,�-',,�.r ':: `� ;? Y1 • 1 �Yi:•. •M �1 ,.. p y�' c - ,' . - S' ! .� - �, i) , [Fy •t Ar./ � � _ - , _^ pu = %%i':I • � r �'t`� '-i• - �•�' ♦ S�: ;-'its t�'bG.GOT•la "+'• ;\ tti t_ �? f�'Z:i s'' « ti ! - n .i I f 17 F� " � - .i _-+`• ' \.\� ,'x_ 3 '• � �`' ?\;.� , `' ' �'��`�i,:•.':. jai �.e�¢�,� • •ter. F/ ,•�, � t t r f ' 1. 1 .•N � . via- +! • vim' ,L s i \ t. �±,t: .: R+. v `` \ r �.• _b\\� �••• e \\ . w, . f : � 1 f ' a.« -•s�+9 1 • y {{• ._. _ `) ' i-•' a 1;�.`•. '!• it �\,,y�: •� vt,},at - V✓. :. i \ yAJ r ^ '4 =' � �_ fe er � ;�; - \ : R.r<� �.:, ; , +� . ,•3 t • . • ' •::.v .��r :y �t w;::: `�\ � •77 •J ,.� ,t� d Q_,.•�,-'i. „' `� a °.P :F? .-o: •:q }, �-a'.'' , p f - � ` � .n• + ,�/u t-• � ��.a•�.,, `._ rr- .a.• •Y`4� ter• r •• ��j6a �" f ar .. ! O',_ Y _ at 1�� _ S-.. � � '••b _ __ •1• • �� ••� ..\��i v\ ..0:� f�' •' .y i��/,L "\'; ? ''• F � 1 L v .N , � �^�' �:. ,:J _ `� mod' ... J 'v _..vM, .Y T /I T C rrw� � a��, \`.�•''a`,a•� > • +1 }' i.-'�- t. _ Y t .� }rOtY� Y� 11Y y _ _ • w 1 :S'?�V. .•+'' y W 4 i •u�J L(+�L • 'Y ',r : x '.cx. \ 1 urr,F� 4;`.'°• v• _ �.. :�• .7: •; ` +•90E.::(a �ir � � '��: aTid ;!ed` _ ' f+�' fr. o rI`��. ! � � �� ~`a � ' 1 t z 'a,... sz. •_. r�,. i 3i ��' .. ' , � • , �., r Qr'�� t. � w. . . ..�i ' iC� •' � '� .,� os� �, ♦ jtl \s�•`i;if i 'fiafa•� ._ Bag �v$l� + � .'�a"•�"' :1 t+ '• . :wp Za y / • { n. NF' ; /7 j•FY• • , 1 .i'1• I �'� '+� „V'FS_it--: �i A'. _ + •. ? � ♦ 1 rr. f1- �rt 11 •�,-..-:y i. rL ••i•. _+w.ac `n • a � I 11�. /. n ._ �•:.�. ./ � � ! 1 ( `8 ♦ i o • 1 " Y 1 1 •. as f i7/ K, �- \ E ► i LL T i, �.� .- '1' <"S • ' '� M3 •. /� .'? is •c+r u, 91.,!r ,r`i1` . ,� p •. We �: '^-.fie i . �';•_-. 'yam r • ti. b O �tiv '^_ `^d' ,, .0 •} cos '. ,,__S=T• sA\' jam'' 71it•l _•�_ I�Dii �t�,.v+lj9 _.1m` _ 11`y �1�i� J__ •�.(-•�!!!_N___I " _ „f �Q)5;.� �t .... ... � " .TQ : `+ a \ i ,!' l . • �.�c :• � :O � S r.: >f• r �I. �,,,, � / -4�l ii i 94 s �''.-ai wl��s .t.. � � `i' Vic'+'` - •�_� }� R } ;t• \•, ,._ � rTi�' •F IBi, % ��. dv• • v '' /I ^-1✓`•."/.• 1 :may j II ��i a�`i_'•'.+..-• �•r�� ^I -#`�Y y-•-_� •.. '' •"�. �.L+'itifFv, �'"�-'• ``: C' ,a - aa� 5 ' ca.-,�_. - \�:.F``' b� , .I ' _` • • ha: «al«�.t • so• 4�-'` i'•` « ••.y�i.• �.._..',tiw; �(� • _ ,�tl sT i' i 7O 6. .. Nrt, ■ • ..' • 9�i:.!A, 'b.f a - t ,«?' S +�.• -t •jam a - l �i• ',ir '- {•' _'f��/ t 1 � � �%�'r• fi r !_-• Jf ,^�.( • L`�� '� <a•j K tf 1/ K 'f' f \ EEi 'ia�i -� I.• IFS d) '� S _S _..�' t a/ ;i;. ::1 • ,E uN` .� /"'� ` ` p mar, Ir: 7�i�L'.�� M�I IS .''s, a 'l azL. �j :t •. `: A'g� /�7f' .-r 'if=.�. ;i•l' C •., '• • .,C\ / -'9• 1 ✓`�'i*.fir*' , �� , e L_i �+c J 7 a +t at(--•a--�. £•ja ��`•o `I O f' ..� 8 �. �•,�AP •�•[ 'T /y/1(� •• � <�/1 —'�.1 � � A �� 1. �I!/�'°•�`� 13`� �i% s~ �..• • p s� ,J� � la •. •c' ; �; 1 t /a' 'Zile . •.•.. 4�.;I 1 a •„d/,f t'A-r---.a,.!! IS r. -�+,�t ! •;''1jJ., :u R • '3r� •.•- l;� •aF-,.«q .J ,�• eu as ,;: •. I' 1!O f a �. a„ .., .!? _ f. 1 Apd .•• ) `d s j4i_ � t' � r..- e•"� rT'� • � \ C �`•� �•��",�: �rf '� "T ; r / _ d,Lt e• j •�a. ° ,. , r`Y ./.. ,1,\\ �[�j.*\ \l y °o ; %% c I + ice£ < t ;. ' _ • s_i,`i:. •'i.l'"v 'If-.''�i?ai<"i;'�'.a�. n :4. L s. n ,.� «+._ `� SOURCE: 1 MAP BACKGROUND CONSISTS OF FORM.5 OF USGS 7 S MIN SERIES ` 1053 NOISE CONTOURS QUADRANGLE MAPS OF NEWPORT BEACH, LACUNA REACH, TUSTIN AND SOURCE: IOHN VMfHE AIRPORT ORANGE, CAUFORNIA—EACH PHOTOREVISED IN19K1- NOISE ABATEMENT CENTER Z MA QUARTERLY REFORT-1943 2 O 2 A 00 ' SCALE U1 FEET BASED ON 73 ADD ' MSM GRM AMIARs Exhibit 5' L0ME' MIGNUR John Wayne Airport Future CNEL Noise Contours L 7 L 7 J TABLE 4 FUTURE TRAFFIC VOLUMES ROADWAY ADT SPEED Mesa Drive Irvine Ave to Acacia St 4,220 40 Acacia St to Birch St 10920 40 Birch St to Cypress St 1,500 40 Cypress St to Orchid St 1,060 40 Orchard Drive e/o Santa Ana Ave 3,600 40 Irvine Ave to Acacia St 7,740 40 Acacia St to Birch St 4,480 40 Birch St to Cypress St 1,650 40 Cypress St to Orchid St 1,100 40 Pesagus Street e/o Santa Ana Ave 900 35 Acacia Street n/o Mesa Dr 2,400 40 s/o Orchard Dr 4,130 40 Birch Street s/o Orchard Dr 4,500 40 Orchard Dr to Bristol St 10,820 40 Cypress Street Mesa Dr to Orchard Dr 430 40 n/o Orchard.Dr 360 35 Orchid Street s/o Orchard Dr 600 35 n/o Orchard Dr 490 35 Spruce Avenue s/o Zenith Ave 330 35 Zenith Ave to Bristol St 750 40 Bayview Avenue s/o Zenith Ave 410 40 The FHWA Highway Traffic Noise 11bdel was used along with the above traffic volumes to project future unmitigated noise levels for the community. The modeling results are reported in Table 5 in the form of distances to the 60, 65, and 70 CNEL contours. These projections do not take into account any existing barriers or topography that may reduce noise levels. —7— TABLE 5 FUTURE TRAFFIC NOISE LEVELS DISTANCE TO CONTOUR FROM CENTERLINE OF ROADWAY (FEET) ROADWAY 70 CIEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL Mesa Drive Irvine Ave to Acacia St RW 31 67 Acacia St to Birch St RW 18 39 Birch St to Cypress St RW 16 33 Cypress St to Orchid St RW RW 27 Orchard Drive e/o Santa Ana Ave RW 28 60 Irvine Ave to Acacia St 22 46 100 Acacia St to Birch St RW 32 69 Birch St to Cypress St RW 17 36 Cypress St to Orchid St RW 1W 21 Pesague Street a/o Santa Ana Ave RW IV 19 Acacia Street n/o Mesa Dr RW 21 46 s/o Orchard Dr RW 30 66 Birch Street s/o Orchard Dr RW 32 69 Orchard Dr to Bristol St 27 58 125 Cypress Street Mesa Dr to Orchard Dr RW RW 15 n/o Orchard Dr RW RW 13 Orchid Street s/o Orchard Dr RW RW 15 n/o Orchard Dr RW RW 13 Spruce Avenue s/o Zenith Ave RW RW 10 Zenith Ave to Bristol St RW RW 21 Bayview Avenue s/o Zenith Ave RW RW 14 RW — Indicates contour falls within road right of way. The results show that traffic noise levels with the project hill increase over existing levels for same roadways and will decrease for other roadways. The projected changes in the CEL noise level due to the project are presented in Table 6. CJ I 1 J I 1 IJ —8— I ' TABLE 6 --- CHANGE IN CNEL NOISE LEVELS DUE TO THE PROJECT-� ROADWAY SEGMENT CHANGE IN MEL (DBA) Mesa Drive- Irvine Ave to Acacia St + 0.1 Acacia St to Birch St - 2.9 Birch St to Cypress St - 2.5 Cypress St to Orchid St - 0.9 Orchard Drive Irvine Ave to Acacia St + 2.5 Acacia St to Birch St + 1.4 Birch St to Cypress St - 1.8 Acacia Street ' n/o Mesa Dr + 5.4 s/o Orchard Dr + 7.7 Birch Street s/o Orchard Dr + 4.5 Orchard Dr to Bristol St + 3.9 Cypress Street Mesa Dr to Orchard Dr - 5.7 ' n/o Orchard Dr - 8.5 Spruce Avenue ' - Zenith Av Zen Zenith Ave to Bristol St - - . 1 .3 ' In community noise assessment changes in noise levels greater than 3 dBA are often identified as significant, while changes less than 1 dBA will not be ' discernible to local residents. In the range of 1 to 3 dBA residents who are very sensitive to noise may perceive a slight change. No scientific evidence is available to support the use of 3 dBA as the significance threshold. In laboratory testing situations humans are able to detect noise level changes of slightly less than 1 dBA. However, in a community noise situation the noise exposure is over a long time period, and changes in noise levels occur over years, rather than the immediate comparison made in a laboratory situation. Therefore, the level at which changes in community noise levels become discernible is likely to be some value greater than 1 dBA, and 3 dBA appears to be appropriate for most people. ' The data indicates that the CNEL noise levels will increase more than i dBA for Orchard Drive from Irvine -Avenue to Birch Street, and will increase more than 3 dBA for Acacia Street and Birch Street. All other roadway segments in ' this study will experience a decrease in noise or an increase of less than 1 dBA. Thus, for all other roadways, no significant traffic noise impacts are anticipated. In fact, residents along Cypress Street and portion of Mesa: Drive will experience a significant decrease in traffic noise. Along Acacia Street the increase in noise is 5.4 to 7.7 dBA. Along Birch Street the •increase in noise is 3.9 to 4.5 dBA. The project calls for the -9- r r widening of both of these roadway to 60 feat and changing land uses to commercial. The future noise levels for these roadways are given in Table 4. The projected traffic noise levels for this roadway are compatible with the proposed commercial land use. Another roadway which will experience a significant increase in noise will be Orchard Dcive near Irvine Avenue. This roadway will also be widened to 60 foot and land use along roadway will be changed to commercial. The projected traffic noise levels for this roadway are compatible with the proposed commercial land use. ' In summary, all streets with increases in noise levels will be bordered by proposed professional —administrative land uses. These land uses are compatible with the future noise onviroment. 2.4 (bmbined Future Noise Levels r The combined noise impacts are determined by adding aircraft and traffic noise levels. Lbr this project, traffic noise levels will increase along roadways bordering proposed commercial land uses, and noise levels will decrease along roadways bordering residential land uses (see section 2.3 , Future Traffic Noise Levels). This is mainly due to modifying the existing street network by changing some existing through streets into cul—da—sacs. Thus traffic noise impacts on the nearby residences will be insignificant. , The dominant noise source in the project area will continde to be aircraft operations from John Wayne Airport. The aircraft levels are not expected to , vary greatly from existing levels. Along major roadways traffic noise levels will contribute to the total noise environment. Lbr the remainder of the site aircraft noise levels will constitute the noise environment. These levels are compatible with the proposed commercial land uses. xbr any existing r residential land uses exposed to excessive aircraft noise levels, the Gbunty approved noise insulation program will be used to mitigate indoor noise levels. r r F L r r r r —10— 1 II 3,0 MITIGATION MEASURES The following mitigation measures are recommended. If these measures are implemented then no significant impacts will result. 1. All construction activities must comply with local regulations regarding noise nuisance. 2. GUnstruction—related traffic should not be routed through existing residential areas. 3. For existing residential land uses exposed to excessive aircraft noise levels, the County approved noise insulation program will be used to mitigate indoor noise levels. —11— IF r- I 1 J RUNOFF SHALLOW INFILTRATION 30% EVAPO- TRANSPIRATION DEEP INFILTRATION 36-50% PAVED SURFACES 15% INFILTRATION/RUNOFF CHARACTERISTICS NATURAL A25% 21% GROUND COVER �% w k111-1 30% 75.100% PAVED 311% 10-20% PAVED SURFACES 21% SOURCE: WILLIAMSON AND SCHMID ' &R.County of Orange ' .4 tsar & T0: F.W. Olson, Manager, EMAR ny�2ironmental Special Projects FROM: Bryan G. Speeg�, onager, EMA/Advance Planning Division RE: Comments on Screencheck EIR 508A - Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan Ll IJ 1 J MUD Advance Planning Division Staff has reviewed the subject screencheck EIR and the following comments are provided thereon. 1. Page 8 - Executive Summary - three additional sections are required in the executive summary (see CEQA Guidelines Section 15723): - Summary of Alternatives - Areas of controversy known to the Lead Agency - Issues to be Resolved in the Planning Process 2. Page 15 - Land Use Mitigation Measures - section should specifically reference mitigation measures in other sections which mitigate land use impacts rather than referring the reader to a laundry list in the mitigation summary. 3. Page 47 - Light & Glare Mitigation Measures - are there any FAA mandated mitigation measures related to the type and direction of outdoor lighting near an airport? This should be investigated and appropriately referenced in this section if necessary. 4. Page 74 - Alternatives - it would be useful for the reader if a table were prepared comparing the project with Alternatives A and B for certain key links and intersections in the project vicinity. Since this is the major consideration in the alternatives, it would be extremely useful for the reader and decision -makers in comparing the relative merits of the alternatives vis-a-vis the project. 5. Page 82 - Cumulative Impacts - There are mitigation measures for cumulative impacts at this location, however, there is no discussion of cumulative impacts in the screencheck EIR. There should be a discussion of cumulative impacts in Section 4 of the EIR, even if it says only that cumulative impacts were considered and determined to be insignificant. The better case, however, would be to update the cumulative impacts discussion and Tables 4.18-1 - 4.18-4 in EIR 508. The data in these tables are over one year old and significant changes have probably occurred. Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this screencheck EIR. Please forward this Division a copy of the draft EIR when it becomes available. If you have any questions about these comments, please contact Dan Fricke of the Land Planning Staff at x5380. DLF:flh (5/7) ' F850.788(3/84) 4 County n• s oun of Orange MUD �MAY 5 1W6 File: DR-EIR UN-Adm. TO: F. W. Olson, Manager, EMA-ESP FROM: Manager, EMA-Parks and Recreation, Program Planning SUBJECT: Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan Supplemental EIR 508A , Program Planning staff has reviewed subject EIR and offers the following: ' 1. Relevant Plans (Section 4.3) discussion Master Plan Local Parks ' Subject report should contain an extensive of the of (Local Park Code), Master Plan of Regional Recreation Facilities and Master Plan of Rid- ing and Hiking Trails of the Recreation Element relative to subject project. ' a. Subject project includes portions of the proposed Upper Newport Bay Regional Park. Discussion should be provided indicating that said Regional Park exists within the project area and provisions should be made for its preservation and enhancement (i.e., urban edge trastmanto structural setbacks, landscaping, ate.). b. The Santa Ana Heights! Trail (Segment 74) is identified by the Master Plan of Regional Riding and Hiking Trails and is along the Delhi Channel from the Upper ' Newport Bay Ecological Reserve to the Orange County Fairgrounds. c. Subject report should address the Local Park Code requirements for subject project. Does sufficient park land currently exist? When subject project is complete, will ' the Local Park Code requirements be satisfied? 2. Recreation (Section.4.8) I a. The Specific Plan must by law implement the requirements of the Gensral Plan as indi- cated in Item 1 above. The Recreation Element identifies a proposed regional park and regional riding and hiking trails. ' b. A decrease in residential population as proposed by subject plan Will not reduce the ' demand for recreation within the project area. The completion of the Upper Newport Bicycle Trail, creation of a new local park within the Bayvisw Development, and com- pletion of the Santa Ana Heights Trail will increase the demand for recreation. Said demand will occur in the form of local trail connectors and staging areas to facili- tate better access by the regional and local user population as well as improvements to existing parks to respond�recteation needs.and access to State Ecological Reserve. ?t 'c. Exhibit 13 contains a "sip" pattern which is not labeled. d. Add mitigation measure to enhance pedestrian and bicycle circulation to existing and proposed regional trails and parks. ' Should you have any questions, please contact Gary deiros at x3148. iL R. F. Wi rd GM:sk t rnargwnn ' County of Orange MM) File: FO1 APR 2 4 1986 MS21.00 tTO: F. W. Olson, Manager EMA/Environmental Special Projects FROM: J. M. Natsuhara, Manager EMA/Flood Program Division SUBJECT: Santa Ana Heights Screencheck Supplemental EIR Flood Program Division has reviewed the Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan Screencheck Supplemental EIR 508A. We have also met with EMA/Project Planning staff on April 22 regarding this project. We have the following comments on the Screencheck EIR: 1. On page 5 of the EIR, there is a statement that existing local drainage structures for the LUCP are adequate to serve the Santa Ana Heights area. This contradicts later recommendations in the EIR to construct new drainage structures. 2. The hydrology map on Figure 8 in Appendix C does not adequately define the subarea boundaries as discussed in our meeting with Project Planning Staff;ft was agreed at that meeting that BSI should revise their hydrology study to reflect topographic features of the watershed. The recommended new drainage structures may change as a result of the revised hydrology •study. J. M. Datsuhara MAS:lccll-7 1 ' F880.188(3/84) County of Orange MUD April 30, 1986 TO: F. W. Olson, Manager, Environmental and Special Projects FROM: Jerry E. Bennett, Manager, Transportation Planning SUBJECT: Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan Supplemental EIR 508A The Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan includes 175 acres of unincorporated land south of John Wayne Airport generally bounded by South Bristol Street, Mesa Drive and Santa Ana Avenue. The specific plan includes regulations for existing land uses, business park and residential equestrian recreation uses within the area. It also discusses the interface of recreation uses, existing circulation and public utility systems adjacent to the study area. We have reviewed this document and have the following comments: Circulation, Long Range ° We are working with the project's traffic consultant to provide baseline data that would be incorporated in the overall circulation analysis of the project. Circulation, Short Range ° We have no new comments at this time. Air Quality ° Page 27, Table 4: Air quality levels measured at Costa Mesa Ambient Air Monitoring Station should include levels for the year 19859 and sulfate and sulfur dioxide emissions even though standards were not exceeded. Monitored levels for hydrocarbons from the neatest air quality monitoring station that data are available should also be included. ° Page 28, Table 5: Note that the standard for suspended particulate matter (PM 10) has been updated from 100 ug/m3 for 24 hours to 50 ug/m3 for 24 hours. ° Page 29, Ambient Air Quality: Further description and/or a sample calculation should be included in the document of the fugitive dust emissions estimated to be generated. In addition, a quantitative estimate should be made of emissions to be generated from the use of heavy diesel —powered machinery and trucks. ° Page 31, Table 6: Footnote "1" for this table refers to an unspecified appendix ("Appendix __") for assumptions necessary for calculations shown in the table. ° Page 31: Total project emissions should also be compared with SCAQMD's Source keceptor Area 18. While the project's emissions may be insignifi— cant from it regional perspective, they could be significant at the local level. I 1 Fsea:sa��s+� 11 F. W. Olson Page 2 ° Pages 32 and 33: Mitigative measures described should detail how and when these measures will be implemented and what the contingencies are. ' Bikeways ° The Master Plan of Countywide Bikeways (MPCB) depicts the following bike- ways in the project vicinity. Red Hill Avenue is shown as a Class II Bikeway (on road, striped lanes) paralleling the airport and terminating at Del Mar Avenue. Del Mar Avenue is shown as Bikeway #40, an off road ' facility that connects Fairview Regional Park to Peters Canyon Wash and beyond. Irvine Avenue is depicted as a Class II Bikeway terminating at Del Mar Avenue, and the Back Bay Bikeway (#55) is a Class I facility along the water line also terminating at Del Mar Avenue. Bikeway #64 on Von Karman Avenue and Campus Drive is a Class II Bikeway. in the document, Exhibit 13 depicts the Bikeway on Red Hill Avenue extending beyond Del Mar ' Avenue, and it also shows a Bikeway on Baker Street off Red Hill, which is likely to have been intended to be an Paularino Avenue as Bikeway #50. These inconsistencies should be resolved. The document should include an assessment and implementation program for the extension of the Bikeways on Del Mar Avenue from Newport Boulevard across Irvine Avenue and the Back Bay to the connection with San Diego ' Creek; and on Red Hill Avenue from Bristol Street to Del Mar Avenue. These two bikeways are the core of the system in the Santa Ana Heights area. Bikeway facilities such as local trails, lockers, and racks should also be identified and located on the exhibit. These facilities are mitigation ' measures to reduce traffic congestion, vehicular noise and air pollution by encouraging the use of bicycles as an alternative mode'of transportation. Such measures would be in compliance with the Air Quality Management Plan ' 1982 Revision, adopted by the Orange County Board.of Supervisors on September 279 1983. '�__ r5►"E Bennett, mtanager tans rtBenneation Planning ' TM/LM/RP:sls 1