Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutANNEXATION EIR 277_SUPPLEMENTAL DEIR 403Illllblflllllllllll*NEW FILE* Annexation EIR 277 u SCREENCHECK EIR (Submitted June 16, 1981 DRAFT EIR (Submitted September 30, 1981 PROPOSED FINAL EIR FINAL EIR (Certified April 6, 1983 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT ACACIA OFFICES EIR 277 Screencheck and Draft EIR Prepared by: THE PLANNING CENTER 240 Newport Center Drive, Suite 215 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Contact Person: Keeton K. Kreitzer 714-640-4911 For: OXFORD PROPERTIES, INC. 700 S. Flower Street Suite 1222 Lo.s Angeles, CA 90017 LEAD DIVISION/DEPARTMENT EMA/CURRENT PLANNING AND -DEVELOPMENT TABLE OF CONTENTS • ACACIA OFFICES PAGE I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION .............................I II. EXISTING CONDITIONS/POTENTIAL IMPACTS/ MITIGATION MEASURES .............................6 A. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES.. ................. .6 B. ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES...................10 C. PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES..................12 D. HYDROLOGY/WATER QUALITY....................14 E. VISUAL/AESTHETIC QUALITY...................17 F. TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION ....................21 G. AIR QUALITY.. ..................26 H. NOISE/LIGHT/GLARE/SAFETY...................31 I. RECREATION/OPEN SPACE......................43 J. RELEVANT PLANNING ..........................46 1. LAND USE 2. ZONING 3. SANTA ANA HEIGHTS SPECIFIC PLAN III. UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS....................52 • IV. ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT ........... 53 V. RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LOCAL SHORT- TERM USES OF MAN'S ENVIRONMENT AND THE MAINTENANCE AND ENHANCEMENT OF LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY .........................56 VI. IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENT OF ENERGY SUPPLIES AND OTHER RESOURCES SHOULD THE PROJECT BE IMPLEMENTED.................................57 VII. GROWTH -INDUCING IMPACTS... e ..................58 VIII. AGENCIES AND PERSONS COASULTED.................59 IX. APPENDIX.......................................60 A. Biological Investigation B. Archaeological/Paleontological Investigation C. Hydrology Study D. Traffic Analysis E. Acoustical Analysis F. Air Quality Mobile Source Emissions Assumptions PROJECT DESCRIPTION • Location The subject property encompasses less than two acres in unincorporated Orange County, approximately 40 miles south of Los Angeles and CO miles north of San Diego. Exhibit 1 shows the location of the site in relation to Orange County and the Southern California region. The small Orange County site is bounded on the north by an undeveloped, irregularly -shaped parcel and Irvine boulevard; on the east by Acacia Street; resi- dential development abuts the property on the south- west, while the Irvine Golf Course in the City of Newport Beach is located immediately to the northwest. A local vicinity map is depicted in Exhibit 2. Exhi- bit 3 is the Plot Plan which reflects the existing residential and equestrian -oriented residential land use of the property. Description Oxford West Development Company, owner of the subject property, proposes to construct four separate two- story office buildings on the site. Total floor area of the proposed buildings is 26,000 square feet. The development proposal includes a request for a change of zone from the existing Al(SR) zone - General Agri- culture with sign restrictions to a PA (Professional and Administrative Office) Zoning District. In addi- tion, a PD (Planned Development) combining district overlay is requested which will enable the developer to create separate ownerships of the proposed build- ings. Implementation of such a planned development will result in the creation of an association composed of building owners which would provide continued operation and maintenance of the commonly owned facilities (e.g., parking lots, landscaped areas, etc.). Exhibit 4 reflects the site plan as proposed by Oxford West Development Company. Implementation of the Acacia Offices will result in elimination of the existing houses, appurtenant structures, and landscap- ing identified in Exhibit 3. 0 LO S` ANGELES 0ANTA ONICA • 'LONG BEACH SANTA REGIONAL EXHIBIT 1 SAN BERNARDINO RIVERSIDE LOCATION • i I Y Bear $p PAU4ARtA } 1• squaa n<ne tsapua � �oORo /+ Q• � I �900 caJdlb_P.REs1O R ' Fat .h II i, ; p, •T �t NLE Davu�vh; i ' PARS F'I 'Y IpIRG UNOS / z 72 .5U. M• ° < ;o1leRei�, :',69 f\ 0v c. --70 t i lli .' •, II •TheateS/ /J�nr, .,N� 1 'N,. - - AVE �a ti• 3 \JO ` Santa Ana wD Country Club,t 49 // t � ♦ � I E `` � : l i.rA// ,tip, .` � .-I�♦ r 40 41, Rllport 0 water ; F)re SWO• ��• r�; /* XiL P'c A R63 9 v,5 • + o " 1 vin G , g lil JOaquin ..h �� •',e s�ti+�efNrveo�r o �; i ��•� �r�!`,/. / I lii .� ._._.._.,._...T.. d. ham^ ��'`� � e,�' �� ;�/•' �•�:�+ ' `\ •' .�-...--f\\yam U: '� a.� ,�' ..,r'. le% _ \ �;, -to=>•`' \�\ ' % � ,si,: � +1 i� Q.� ✓- Salt /\ � 1\. P Evapora rs e� v y, n I .43 yTank ,t►, IleEGY 10 EACH:-: i'Y..Kik� ,vss •,Zvi. :, ^ 123 ' SS � e 4% r•�`�� } ,,/`� .1 t,� ,(I I� -1'C Q'...1 •a:.-•4P/r ,4P`:✓f, •\ -/ �Ll� \"'\ v. > G 1 1II' I » \��\�-.i'•'Pi .sty' !\�^��. you ..i+' ;/!b�.���/�/I 11 the,'I'd i;%r� i\��'•'�htc.�,�(p!/♦J%lJ2A�'-Fe lsti/-': `e( 1 arrows :•�..i ,'�-j� I' li.Wr!iS._( P/V4, ♦� F•I ` ` \�� ` �j� ^..t •+` s' \.M-1+�/ Q• 4-,. :t" N `�`f•,• � --• 1V ,I. /2 N t-�-�ri/1 . /y, z r fl °¢ (� . • 4 �niO1'�l`: - 'con 4 1 I i•`- _ f/ ,t'ma del Inr ICI l I� •�. w� �,\ L � C • 1 i� .__-' •Fue to, law • urin0m; 4�i MARI—F=�'• Bi���\\- Y .r/9 • `� 1 1 I. l' ■ ■ MAPLIVAY E. •\ 1 "da5� iN IL. S • __-'�'''-'1 V _EXHIBIT 21 + ,__s � V ` � ��• , i \` �\ 1 �.`- •�/� 1 ' RD Canyon/'„L Gala le View .i q \ Y/• e/Q ,`_nti' - ao f o- " Farb L�'" ��'� _'Y \/� Ck - J�•, - 1 . s.- ; - 0 MINE MAP, MCY[ATY MUIR / AWLICANT CIVIL MINIM, 1..1. W l.." Y [LIL E[ICRRlIOX� LIIRL NOIFS. EXISTING PLOT PLAN EXHIBIT 3 IRVI14E ►VENUE 'Alpo r - KI / \ tt . SCAICH•4R• 0 IT PROPOSED SITE PLAN EXHIBIT 4 pILLPVbMJ 2Y.N0 Sf _ � N7 'I ,�' PP114N61CCOYIpLO IOi NtiSS �. � �! �� I PnMwb S•IiY1V IW 9MY.:5 0 A SOURCE: HILL-PINCKERT ARCHITECTS Nw o cu@Td II. EXISTING CONDITIONS/POTENTIAL IMPACTS/MITIGATION MEASURES • A. BIULUUICAL RESOURCES Existing Conditions Vegetation. The project site contains biological resources typical of an older residential neighborhood with associated equestrian facilities. These resources include mature horticultural plantings which consist of several species of mature trees, shrubs and vines, resi- dential lawns and around the stables, a thick growth of a variety of weed species. On -site fauna include a variety of birds and several wild or feral mammal species asso- ciated with human habitation. A variety of mature shade and fruit trees grow on the project site, including Chinese elm, California pepper, apricot, olive, etc. A complete listing of these species is included in Appendix A. A variety of ornamental shrubs and vines also grow on the property. Some shrubby species noted include bamboo, bottlebrush, privet•, and box. Bougainvillia, and honey- suckle are among vines occurring. An additional horticultural resource includes the lawns • around existing residences. Bermuda is the typical lawn grass used; some wintergrass occurs. Lawns are somewhat invaded by weedy species such as dandelion, South American horseweed, common sowthistle, etc. Between the riding ring and the northwest edge of the property, a dense growth of ruderals edges stable build- ings and extends onto a small vacant lot at the western corner. Runoff of fertilizing, nitrogenous materials derived from animal excrements is undoubtedly responsible for the vigor of weed growth in this locale. Such species as puncture vine, Russian thistle, cheeseweed, wild radish, and foxtail barley occur. Wildlife. Several species of birds common in lower den- sity suburban settings are common in the project area. These include mockingbirds, house finches, house sparrows, starlings, mourning doves and common crows. The vacant lot at the western corner of the site contained a number of gopher burrows. Ground squirrels may also occur here. Because of food resources made available through the stable operation, house mice, roof rats, and Norway rats may live on the site. Because of the intensity and long duration of human use of • the project site, no indigenous biotic community remains here. The value of the site as habitat lies mainly with C its mature tree and shrub plantings and in the weedy avi- faunal foraging areas. No rare or rare and endangered biota are known to occur on or visit the site. 40 Potential Impacts The project, as proposed will cause both on -site and off - site impacts, including the removal of most or all of the horticultural plantings and grass lawns on the site. This would reduce the cumulative total area of suburban habitat inhabitated by bird species such as those identified above. A positive impact of the Acacia Offices project will be the removal of several horses from the property. Excre- ments from these animals may contribute significantly to the scenario of organic pollutant percolation in the local setting. It is not known whether, either by surface run- off or thorugh water table contamination, on -site gener- ated organic pollutants reach Upper Newport Bay. Such materials would contribute to accelerated algae growth and outrophication within the estuary ecosystem. A 104 space parking lot is proposed as part of the proj- ect. It is predicted that the project wiII generate 40U vehicle trips per day into and out of the site. Automo- bile use of the site will produce an unquantified amount of pollutant material consisting of the heavy metals lead • (from gasoline), zinc (from tires), other heavy metals and various compounds and organic substances derived from gasoline and motor oil. The amount of pollutants contri- buted by the project is but a minor part of the pollutant load produced in the regional urban watershed. It does, however, serve to bring into the watershed, new traffic and can be considered to contribute in as minor way to the cumulative degradation of Upper Newport Bay water quality. The cumulative impacts on Upper Newport Bay biota would be most severe during the first storm flush of contaminants. Most impacts would be at a sublethal point but would adversely affect the composition and health of ecosystem constituents. Heavy Metals. Heavy metals are toxic to phytoptankton although some species are more tolerant than others. Over a period of time, strains evolve which are increasingly tolerant. Certain metals, such as copper and zinc inter- act synergistically, increasing their toxicity impact. Heavy metals are also toxic to zooplankton. Zooplankton take up heavy metals by absorption or by phytoptankton food consumed. Zooplankton can also loose heavy metals by moulting or by excretion. A substantial amount of heavy metal material contained in fecal pellets settles on the . bottom and becomes incorporated in sediments. Since heavy metals become incorporated in -the food chain, • impacts are predicted on higher life forms, such as fish and birds. The role of the Bay as a fish spawning ground and waterbird winter resting locality could cause these impacts to be significant within the larger regional eco- system. Hydrocarbons. Environmental degradation of petroleum y rocar ons takes place in the aquatic environment. Hydrocarbons are physically dispersed by waves, currents, temperature, wind and depth, and many are eventually incorporated in benthic sediments. Yeasts, fungi, aerobic and anaerobic bacteria, as well as photochemical oxidation reduces these materials to more simple substances. Those hydrocarbons remaining can have an adverse impact on Bay biota. Carcinogens have been identified in lighter, aromatic fractions of hydrocarbons. Hydrocarbons may pos- sibly biomagnify in the food chain/web. Microalgae, plankton such as copepods, sponges, polychaete worms, snails, mussels, scallops, oysters, clams, crabs and sea stars take up hydrocarbon pollutants which are of a chronic source nature. (Many of these organisms can rid themselves of pollutants if placed in a clean environ- ment.) • Fish and birds also receive accumulated hydrocarbons from lower life forms. Biological Oxygen Demand (BID). Oxygen consuming materi- als can cause a reduction in the dissolved oxygen level in the estuary. Near drainage discharge points, this reduc- tion can reach critical levels. Nutrients. An increase in algal bloom and eutrophication occurs as the phytoplankton and other estaurine algae are fertilized. This eventually can lead to an increase in BOD substances which deplete available dissolved oxygen. Debris and Floatables. These materials probably have a minor impact on most Bay biota, but detract from the aesthetic and recreational character of this body of water and its shores. Mitigation Measures If possible, it is recommended trees on the site be retained landscape plan for the office possible, new shrub and tree should be installed as soon as • vide replacement habitat for utilizing the site. that some of the mature and incorporated in the project. If this is not plantings and lawn areas feasible. This will pro - local avifauna presently Refer to "Hydrology/Water Quality" section for mitigation measures for implementation which may satisfactorily miti- gate site generated impacts on water quality and, subse- quently, Upper Newport Bay biota. • 0 ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES • Existing Conditions The project area is .located within the ethnographic Gabrielino tribal boundaries, an area which generally encompasses the Los Angeles and Santa Ana River Basins, Catalina Island, and the foothill region of the San Gabriel Mountains. A discussion of features and characteristics of this ethnographic group is presented in Appendix B. A records check revealed that no archaeological sites had been previously recorded on the subject property. A total of 27 sites exist within a 2 kilometer radius; however, 14 of those sites have been either destroyed or disturbed to such an extent that scientific data are not attainable.) The 27 sites are classified as either sedentary habitation sites, ephemeral camp- sites, and processing areas with unknown amenities. The major categories, sedentary habitation sites, includes those sites which can be assumed to have been major village complexes (e.g., burials, sites with artifact assemblages associated with village settle- ments, etc.). Four of the sites discussed above fall within this category. • Six sites are contained in the category "ephemeral campsites". This group encompasses sites which have evidence of extensive use for food processing and preparation. The final category includes eighteen sites which appear to have once contained minor food processing areas. • The field survey resulted in the location of an archaeological site encompassing approximately one acre of the Acacia Offices study area. The entire western portion of the "L"-shaped parcel contains an aboriginal shell midden, evidence that the area was utilized in prehistoric times for processing shell- fish. Evidence of the shell midden was also observed along several edges of the subject property, and in and among residential and house stable facilities. The aboriginal shell areas contain different shell species than those included in the imported sand; the shell is fragmented and in a weathered condition. I Scientific Resources Surveys, Inc., Records. 10 Inspection of the cut banks along the periphery of the parcel resulted in the' discovery of one diagnostic arti- fact, a large millingstone frament protruding from the bank along Irvine Avenue. The millinqstone is about 50% complete and is situated approximately one foot in depth below the present surface. This site probably once ex- tended beyond Irvine Avenue and encompassed portions of the Golf Course directly west of the subject property. This evidence suggests that the area had been used for minor shell shucking activities during the time period 0 A.D. to 1000 A.D. and that the site is probably associated with the two known major village complexes located slight- ly inland of the present Bay shores. Further records investigation revealed the existence of a large site (Strandt 107), located in work which took place in 1921, which encompassed an area at the intersection of Acacia and Mesa Streets. It is likely, because of its proposed location, that the archaeological deposit on the proposed Acacia Offices property is the last remaining vestige of Strandt Site 107. Potential Impacts Grading and development of the proposed two-story profes- sional office complex will cause additional impacts to the archaeological resources which have been identified on the . property. However, this site, as a result of previous development (i.e., existing residences, road cuts, etc.), is presently in a highly disturbed condition. Mitigation Measures Due to the highly disturbed condition of the site preser- vation is not a viable recommendation; therefore, the fol- lowing measures are recommedded for implementation by the project sponsor; 1. The site should be field tested to determine the areal extent, depth, nature and content of the resource. This could be accomplished by the excavation of a series of trenches (utilizing a backhoe with attendant spot screening) and the hand excavation of a minimum of six 1 meter x 2 meter units. 2. Prepare a report which would give the results of the tests and evaluation of the resource. The report should also contain recommendations for further sal- vage excavation, if necessary. a 11 C. PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES • Existing Conditions Although the subject property is located in the vicinity of Upper Newport Bay where a large number of fossils have been uncovered, a records check revealed that no paleontological sites are known to exist there. A fuels survey determined that the project area is underlain with deposits of alluvium (Qac) and marine terrace sediments (Qtm) which are discussed below. Alluvium (and colluvium), which consist of sands and silts, overlie Palos Verdes Sand. Fossils have been uncovered during pit excavations for roads, housing developments, and quarries in the Los Angeles Basin in similar deposits. Remains of La Brea type animals such as elephants, horses, bisons, sabertooth cats, deer, and sloths are known from the earthmoving activities described above. However, no fossils were observed during the course of the field inspection in the alluvium deposits and there is only a low poten- tial for the existence of fossils on the subject site. Marine terrace deposits (Palos Verdes Sand) are under the soil horizon of the property and are exposed along is Irvine Blvd. The best exposures of this late Pleisto- cene (100,000 years ago) marine sandstone can be seen in a large west -facing cut in the Golf Course parking lot. This rock unit consists of a very fine grayish sand- stone with minor amounts of caliche. Historically the Palos Verdes Sand, in the Newport Bay area, is very fossiliferous and has yielded numerous species of marine mollusks (clams and snails), fish and sharks and marine mammals. In addition, remains of Pleisto- cene land mammals such as rodents, insectivores, rab- bits, dire wolf, elephant, horse and bison are known from these marine sands. However, no fossils were found in this formation during the survey and the likelihood of discovering sceintifically important fossils in the Palos Verdes Sand on the site is also low. Potential Impacts Although the possibility of uncovering paleontological resources is low as expressed in the previous section, direct impacts to such resources may result from future construction activities necessary to implement the proposed project. 12 Mitigation Measures The following measures are recommended: • 1. A qualified paleontologist should be present at the pre -grade meeting and should be available to make two spot-checks of alluvial material, especially prior to recompaction. 2. In light of their potential importance, any vertebrate fossils discovered in the future on the subject prop- erty should be donated to the Vertebrate Paleontology Section on the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County (LACM) or the Department of Earth Sciences, University of California, Riverside. Other fossils should be donated to the most appropriate educational/ research institution (e.g., Natural History Foundation of Orange County or the Department of Earth Science, California State University, Fullerton). • 0 13 D. HYDROLOGY/WATER QUALITY • Existing Conditions The 1.7-acre property is within the Upper Newport Bay watershed which is drained by the Santa Ana -Delhi Flood Control Channel. The Santa Ana -Delhi Flood Control Channel F01 origi- nates at Warner Avenue in Santa Ana. It is joined by F03 from the Orange Coast College and County Fair- grounds, near the Newport Freeway. It crosses MacArthur Boulevard and Bristol Street, where tribu- tary channels F02 from Segerstrom and Alton Avenues, and F01S01 from Red Hill Avenue and the Newport Free- way join it. The main channel continues south, cross- ing the Newport and Corona del Mar freeways, Santa Ana Avenue and Irvine Avenue and finally empties into Upper Newport Bay in the vicinity of Anniversary Lane within the City of Newport Beach. The Santa Ana -Delhi Flood Control Channel drains about 17 square miles (11,210 acres), according to the "208 Areawide Waste Treatment Management Planning Program." The amount of impervious surface in the urbanized watershed is a factor in its high runoff potential. • The flow rate in the channel varies from 2 cubic feet per second (cfs) in the dry season to 1200 cfs during storm flow. The project site, in comparison, gener- ates at present 3.21 cfs (refer to Appendix C, Pre- liminary Hydrology Study). This figure represents less than one percent of the storm flow volume. Water quality in this watershed is affected by such factors as traffic, waste solids and pollution sources such as organic fertilizers, rural wastes, rainwater, (trace metals from air pollution), etc. A complete discussion of these wastes and their composition is included in Appendix C. Potential Impac The amount of impervious surface in the urbanized watershed will be increased by 1.7 acres. This amount will result in an increase of 1.08 cfs to 4.29 cfs, an increase of 0.097 percent over the total flow in the Santa Ana- Delhi Flood Control Channel. The Acacia Offices project is located in a sub -area of the Santa Ana -Delhi watershed known in the 208 reports as Sampling Area 9. This portion of the watershed contained in 1977, 55.5 acres of streets and other impervious surfaces. (The figure has increased since that time because •of improvements to Bristol Street, 14 the construction of the Corona del Mar Freeway and the . increase of commercial and professional facilities in the area.) Sampling Area 9 produced about 15 tons of waste solids per year, or an average of 541 pounds per impervi- ous acre. (The overall solid waste average for the entire watershed is 424 pounds per acre.) About 1.03 acres of parking area is provided in connection with the Acacia Offices project. At a maximum it could be projected that this surface would accumulate around 557 pounds of waste per year. (Refer to Appendix A for a list of contaminants in discharged waste). For actuality, as a non -street impervious surface, its annual accumulation should " be much less. (The effects of this discharge on the Upper Newport Bay Estuary biota is discussed in the "Biological Resources" section of this document.) Mitigation Measures Appropriate runoff barriers should be installed during the construction phase of the project to prevent the entry of silts, grease and oil into the watershed. It is recom- mended that construction take place during the summer months to prevent accidental silt runoff. Though the impact of the project is predicted to be minor • and insignificant within the regional urban watershed, several mitigation measures to lessen the impacts of site - generated pollutants which enter Upper Newport Bay are suggested. The list presented is in a way a choice of alternatives, one or more which may satisfactorily miti- gate site -generated impacts on regional water quality. 1. Divert parking lot runoff onto adjacent permeable sur- faces. Adjacent surfaces allowing percolation of run- off into underlying sediments include the golf course northwest of Office Building No. 1, the vegetated median strip north of Office Buildings No. 1 and No. 2 and the triangle of vacant land between Office Build- ings No. 2 and No. 3. 2. Install a permeable strip between Acacia Street and paved portions of the parking lot. 3. Install parking lot -level or sublevel planter areas and drains from the parking lot to these and other vegetated portions of the site. 4. Use porous paving material. is 15 5. Install a subsurface gravel bed beneath the lot to • receive storm runoff and divert it into underground sediments. • • 6. Regularly clean parking lot surfaces with a vacuum - type street sweeper able to reach curb -sides. K E. VISUAL/AESTHETIC QUALITY Existing Conditions The proposed site is at the edge of a residential tract with a rural character. Adjacent non-residen- tial parcels include a golf course, an arterial street and a 3-story smoked glass office building, recently constructed. The homes are single story detached with detached garages. In addition other outbuildings, horse stables and a riding arena are situated on the prop- erty. Several horses are boarded on the property and are exercised on the adjacent streets. The general upkeep of the buildings and property is below average. The buildings are showing signs of disrepair and the yards appear generally unkept. There are a few mature trees on each lot, however, the overall site appears sparsely planted. The street pavement edge is roughly finished. Curbs, gutters and sidewalks are not installed along Acacia at the project site, however some properties further along the street and across the street do have them installed. The newly constructed Newport -Irvine Center building is highly contrasting visually with the residential area. The structure is three stories in height and constructed of steel and bronzed glass. The rectangu- lar architectural style is typical of buildings in the office commercial area adjacent to the airport and north of Bristol Street. In this setting, however, the building appears out of scale, dominating the structures nearby, and its modern urban style is in sharp contrast to the rural character of the adjacent neighborhood. Irvine Avenue to the north of the site, is a four lane divided roadway. The view of the site from the road- way includes: a sparsely planted slope from curb level to metal fenced horse stabs, some of which are covered, at the property edge. Further south on Irvine Avenue is the parking lot for The Irvine Country Club. This parking lot is also at a lower elevation than the site and receives a similar view of the site. Potential Impacts Development of the proposed project will modify the visual character of the area. 0 r 17 w.o�wnn•oa�wne�iry ___ -._. - riw+= �-nn...i "' � , w"MA0"a, ssanal anal mau Kqra I uanl �vsl suntl au; enn{ nnF I �g::.�!� • ••s1& nns•.{ nnn{ nuu� UMI suml Man, 4(� i 1' g.RJOI.� EXHIBIT 5 U) L v c ■� CL • fiP%�. MW�aJ3a FW�i•PP 11;r G;;L-:�), . �3 4 /+� VJMTN Wtl ttKll. �'�nS bONb IYrYN. �-[ICM�i1VRE Pw�'TYfu+ EXHIBIT 6 y d sc to m cc ow c ■m CL The impacts will be similar to that of the Newport -Irvine • Center building, but of a much smaller magnitude. As can be seen the architectural style of this project is very different from that of the Newport -Irvine Center building. The visible building materials are called out on Exhibits 5 & 6 as wood siding, brick, cedar shake roof and bronze glass in dark bronze frames. The character of the build- ings is much closer to the neighborhood character with the use of natural building materials which will tend to blend with the landscaping and surrounding environment, rather than make the structures stand out as "statements" on their own. • In Exhibit 5, the north elevations indicate the major visual impact to Irvine Avenue. The south elevations would be seen from Acacia Street, across the parking lot (see Site Plan, Exhibit 4). The east elevations shown in Exhibit 6 would be the major view from Orchard Street, while the west elevation would be visible from the parking lot. Overall the greatest negative the parking lot from Acacia surface will be the most out site in terms of blending in textures. Mitiqation Measures impact will be the view of Street. This large paved of character element on the with the surrounding visual Special attention should be paid to landscape planting and design. The building elevations as proposed have the potential to fit in with the existing visual pattern. This potential can only be fulfilled if the site land- scaping provides adequate transition from the rural character of the existing neighborhood to the more intense use proposed. The most critical element of the landscape plan will be that .of the parking lot. As previously mentioned it is the single most dissimilar element between the proposed project and the adjacent visual forms. The landscape design should break up the visual impact of the lot into smaller, more aesthetically pleasing units. This could be accomplished with planted medians and islands within the lot sufficiently large and with adequate planting to screen sections of the lot from any single view point. A berm and/or planting along Acacia Street should also be considered to mitigate this impact. 20 F. TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATIUN Existing Conditions • Tne circulation system which provides both direct and indirect access to the subject property includes Irvine Avenue/Campus Drive, Orchard Drive, and mesa Drive. The County's Master Plan of Arterial Highways (MPAH) reflects Irvine Avenue (south of Bristol Street) as a Primary High- way, having an ultimate right-of-way of IOU feet; Campus Urive (north of Bristol Street) is designated a Secondary highway with an 80-foot right-of-way. Bristol Street has been designated a Major Highway; the right-of-way of this roadway is 12U feet. Acacia Avenue and Orchard and Mesa Drives are local streets. The following text describes the existing street system. Irvine Avenue/Cam us Drive. In the vicinity of the proj- ect site, s s a four -lane divided north -south roadway having left turn channelization at Orchard Drive. North and south of the project site this road becomes a four - lane undivided roadway. Although no signal exists, traf- fic utilizing Irvine Avenue in the vicinity of Orchard Drive (approximately 25,000 vehicles per day) warrant a signal at the intersection of those streets. Bristol Street (North and South). This is an east -west eight -lane d v e roadway —with the two four -lane segments . separated by the Corona Del Mar Freeway right-of-way. Irvine Avenue -Campus Drive have signalized crossings at bristol. Acacia Avenue. This is a two-lane north -south roadway With oh -street parking serving residential and horse stable uses. There are curb and gutter improvements along portions of this roadway. Access to the project site is proposed on Acacia. Orchard Drive. This is a two-lane east -west roadway serv- ing reside al uses forming the northeast boundary of the project site. Mesa Drive. This is a two-lane east -west roadway without curbs or gutters. It has a signalized intersection with Irvine Avenue. Presently, the project site contains four (4) single- tamily residences and a horse stable. Access to and from the existing uses is taken at Orchard and Acacia. It is estimated that these uses generate approximately 1UO vehicle trips per day. Exhibit 7 depicts the existing daily traffic volumes along the streets described above. In addition, several intersections were analyzed to deter- • mine the present intersection capacity utilization (ICU). 21 • CA EXISTING TRAFFIC CONDITIONS Legend e�e Intersection Capacity Utilization Level of service 04400+60 Existing Plus Project Daily Traffi c (TWo-Way) EXHIBIT 7 The intersections studied and their respective levels of • servicel during morning and evening peak hours are re- flected below as well as shown in Exhibit 7. Irvi,ne Avenue and Orchard - "A" in the morning and "A" in the evening Irvine Avenue and Mesa - "B" in the morning and "C" in the evening Irvine Avenue and Bristol North - "E" in the morning and "F" in the evening Irvine Avenue and Bristol South - "'C" in the morning and "C" in the evening As presently illustrated above and in Exhibit 7, three of the. four intersections studied are operating at Level of Service "C" or better. The intersection which is current- ly operating at Level of Service "E" in the morning and "F" in the evening is Irvine Avenue and Bristol North. This will continue to be the situation until the Corona Del Mar Freeway is completed easterly of Irvine Avenue, anticipated in 1984 (funding) with completion possibly by the end of 1985.2 However, the State has a shortage of approximately 1 billion dollars to accomplish improvements in the State Transportation Improvement Program. County . EMA staff does not foresee the completion of this freeway by the 1995 date. All indications from CalTrans staff show that this freeway may be completed by the latter part of the decade.3 Potential Impacts Traffic generation as a result of the development of the Acacia Offices project is based on Orange County EMA Traffic Section data4 which recommend 15 trips per 1000 square feet of floor area for the use proposed. Based on that figure, a total of 390 automobile trips will be generated when the project is completed, an increase of 290 trips over the estimated 100 trips per day from the existing residential and equestrian uses. 1 Refer to Appendix B of the Acacia Offices Traffic Study (Appendix D of the Draft EIR). 2 In CalTrans Budget for 1984. 3 Jerry Bennett, EMA Transportation Planning. 4 Trip Generation Rates by Land Use", Orange County EMA, • November 1977. 23 Approximately 75 percent of the traffic anticipated will be northbound along Irvine Avenue and Birch Street (from Orchard Drive) where 35 percent will proceed southbound and 30 percent northbound on Bristol Street; 10 percent will remain in Campus Drive in a northerly direction. The remaining 25 percent of the trips will travel southerly on Irvine Avenue (from Acacia Street and Mesa Drive). The impact of the Acacia Offices traffic on the roadways is reflected in Exhibit 8. Although intersection capacity utilization increases slightly as a result of the additional traffic, the levels of service previously described remain the same except for Irvine Avenue and Mesa Drive which will change from level of service "C" to "D". (If, however, a westbound left turn lane were added to Mesa Drive, the level of service would return to "CO.) The impacts to these intersections are reflected below. Irvine Avenue and Orchard - "A" in the morning and "A" in the evening Irvine Avenue and Mesa - "8" in the morning and "D" in the evening Irvine Avenue and Bristol North - "E" in the morning and "E" in the morning Irvine Avenue and Bristol South - "C" in the morning and "C" in the evening Mitigation Measures All roadways abutting the project site should be improved to ultimate cross-section. Install a traffic signal at Irvine Avenue and Orchard Drive. The signal is warranted today, and will remain warranted after the project is complete. Driveways should be at least 28 feet wide, and preferably 30 to 35 feet wide, so that an entering vehicle does not interfere with an exiting vehicle. Narrower driveways lead to conflict between entering and exiting vehicles, causing one to stop and wait for the other. The first parking stall which is perpendicular to a drive- way should be at least 40 feet back from the curb. The reason for this recommendation is to provide a queueing area off of the street so that if a vehicle is parking or unparking in the stall nearest the street, there is room for at least one vehicle to queue while waiting for the other vehicle to park. Without this provision, vehicles will queue into the street. 24 • • EXISTING PLUS PROJECT TRAFFIC CONDITIONS Legend 0 Traffic Signal t Stop Sign 04 Number of Through Travel Lanes •2010 Daily Two -Way Traffic Volume ! W 1 Intersection Capacity Utilization -PM revel of Service EXHIBIT 8 G. AIR QUALITY Existinq Conditions • The subject property lies within the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB), which includes all of Orange County and portions of Los Angeles, San Bernardino and Riverside Counties. The basin is bounded on the west by the Ventura County line and on the north by the San Gabriel, San Bernardino, San Gorgonio and San Jacinto Mountains. These ranges form a chain separating the South Coast Climatic Zone from the Great Basin valleys and the Southeast Desert. Information regarding pollutant concentrations, pollutant trends and comparisons with air quality standards for the South Coast Air Basin on a regional scale is contained in Summary of Air Quality in the South Coast Basin of Cali- fornia 9 9 and Air Quality Trends in the South Coast Air Basin. Locally, the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) operates and maintains six monitoring stations in Orange County, including those in Anaheim, La Habra, Costa Mesa, E1 Toro, Los Alamitos, and Santa Ana Canyon. The monitoring station nearest the Orange County Airport is at Costa Mesa. The pollutants that have been monitored at this station are carbon monoxide, oxidant (ozone), nitro- gen dioxide, sulfur dioxide, particulate and lead. Table i reflects the number of days state standards were ex- ceeded and provide a comparison of ambient air quality • measured at the six locations in Orange County. As is evident from the information in that table, the Costa Mesa station reported the fewest days on which the state stand- ard was exceeded. TABLE 1 Number of Days State Standards Were Exceeded and Annual Maximum Hourly Averages (1979) CARBON SULFUR NITROGEN OZONE MONOXIDE DIOXIDE DIOXIDE Station Location Days Max. Days Max. Days Max. Days Max. Anaheim 61 0.33 14 19 O .019 8 0.33 La Habra 112 0.38 2 20 0 .035 0 0.24 Costa Mesa 26 0.21 5 21 0 .018 4 0.29 E1 Toro 57 0.32 NM NM O .022 NM NM Los Alamitos 50 0.26 NM NM 0 .038 NM NM Santa Ana C. 95 0.39 NM NM O .005 NM NM aDays - number of days exceeding state standard for indicated pollutant. bMax. - single highest 1-hour (for S02 24-hour) average of the year in parts per million, cAll exceedances are of the 12-hour standard. The 1-hour standard was not exceeded. • dAll exceedances and maximum are of the 24-hour standard. The 1-hour standard was not exceeded. NM - Not Measured SOURCE: SCAQMD "Summary of Air Quality i•n the South Coast Air basin of California 1979. 26 Because the site is presently being utilized, pollutants are also being generated by automobile usage as well as • from natural gas and electrical consumption. Automobile- relatfd emissions contribute approximately 80 pounds (0.04 tons) to the air basin; stationary source emissions are essentially negligible. The total emissions resulting from the proposed project, as a percentage of total forecast emissions (stationary and mobile on -road sources) in the South Coast Air Basin for selected years are given in Table 2 below.2 TABLE 2 PROJECT EMISSIONS AS PERCENTAGE Of SCAB EMISSIONS Year CO THC NOx sox TSP 1982 .0034% .0013 .0013 .0022 .0009 1986 .0032 .0012 .0011 .0021 .0008 1990 .0031 .0012 .0009 .0022 .0008 SOURCE: SCAB forecast from: Air Quality Management Plan, January 1979 SCAQMD. Potential Impacts Development of the site as proposed will result in the • removal of the existing residential/equestrian uses and the construction of 26,000 square feet of professional and administrative office space. As a result, impacts to the ambient air environment will occur from three sources: 1) during construction; 2) from automobile emissions created b vehicular traffic after completion of the project; and 3� from demand for energy resources for heating, lighting and cooling. Site preparation and construction are characterized by grading operations and material transfer using heavy duty equipment (e.g., bull dozers, graders, fill trucks, etc.) that results in dust and other particulate matter and pollutants beinq dispersed into the air environment, it is not possible to assess the air quality impact ac- curately because essential information (number and type of 1 Assumes 13 trips per dwelling unit with an average trip length of 6.9 miles and 50 trips for the existing stable with an average trip length of 7.2 miles. • 27 equipment used, gasoline/diesel consumption, vehicle miles • traveled, etc.) necessary to quantify such an impact is not available. These impacts will be short-term in nature and result in the generation of particulate matter as well as other mobile source pollutants, depending on the nature of the equipment utilized. When the site preparation/construction phase has been completed, additional pollutants will be generated. The following discussion analyzes air quality impacts result- ing from mobile source emissions after the project is completed and fully occupied. Based on a traffic study prepared, by William Kunzman Associates (refer to Appendix C), a total of 390 trips will result when the project is fully occupied. Assuming an average trip length of 9.8 miles,l the project will result in a total of 3822 miles being traveled each day. The pollutant emissions resulting from the proposed project are reflected in Table 3. TABLE 3 PROJECT RELATED MOBILE -SOURCE EMISSIONS* YEAR CO THC NO Sox TSP • 1982 297.3 28.2 19.9 1.7 3.0 1984 248.0 23.2 17.7 1.7 3.0 1986 222.8 21.3 15.8 1.7 2.7 1988 202.6 19.6 14.6 1.7 2.6 1990 192.8 19.0 13.8 1.7 2.6 • *Al1 figures in pounds per day. See Appendix F for assumptions used in these calculations. The 1982 pollutant emissions represent an increase of approximately 270 pounds per day over that which is pres- ently occurring. 1 William Kunzman Associates. m In addition to emissions resulting from mobile sources, pollutants will also be produced by electric power generat- ing plants and by natural gas combustion required to pro- vide space heating and water heating and other miscellane- ous heating or air conditioning needs. These pollutants are not emitted directly by the project but, rather as a result of the demand for energy resources. Thus, these emissions contribute to the total regional burden as well as to the localized pollutant concentrations. Stationary source emissions are based on projected energy resources demand. Resultant yearly demands for these re- sources total approximately 890,000 kwh of electricity and 1,0920000 cubic feet of natural gas. Utilizing these figures, it is possible to estimate the stationary source emissions reflected in Table 4. TABLE 4 PROJECT RELATED STATIONARY SOURCE EMISSIONS* CO THC NO SO TSP Electricity 0.5 0.4 5.6 12.9 1.0 Natural Gas 0.06 0.02 0.4 Neg 0.05 *All figures in pounds per day. SOURCE: "Air Quality Handbook for Environmental Impact Reports", (Revised October 1980), SCAQMD. The proposed project will result in the addition of only 20 pounds of contaminants daily. Although these pollutants will add to the cumulative impacts created by all proposed development, stationary source pollutant impacts of this project will be negligible. Mitigation Measures Mitigation of air pollutant effects from the proposed proj- ect is difficult to achieve because the primary pollution source is the automobile. However, in order to reduce short-term air pollution im- pacts which will result from grading and construction activities, the following measures are recommended: .-Keeping the site and area traversed by vehicles, includ- ing trucks and other construction equipment and machin- ery, sprayed and watered sufficiently to suppress dust. --Restricting all such vehicles and equipment to travel . along established and properly watered roadways. 29 --Requiring that all vehicles hauling dirt or other • particulate material be sprayed and moistened prior to their leaving the construction site. --Requiring that operations which tend to create dust be suspended when the wind velocity is sufficient to cause such problems. Stationary source emissions can be lessened by: --Conformance with the State's new insulation standards and recognition of consumer's efforts toward energy conserva- tion. Implementation of additional mitigation measures aimed at reducing stationary and mobile source emissions are beyond the control of the project sponsor and lie within the realm of other governmental agencies. For instance, the South Coast Air Quality Management District and the Southern California Association of Governments have adopted the Air Quality Maintenance Plan (AQMP) which recommends control measures necessary to attain federal and state pollution levels. To this end, the following strategies are outlined in the AQMP which may be applicable to the proposed proj- ect: improved emission controls for motor vehicles, future improvement of technological controls for stationary sources, energy conservation from street lighting, alter • the design of new residential space and water heaters, traffic signal synchoronization and improved public trans- portation. (The latter measure could be accomplished by the developer working closely with the Orange County Tran- sit District to improve service from project area to shop- ping and employment centers.) • 30 H. NOISE/LIGHT/GLARE/SAFETY Existing Conditions • The proposed project is situated approximately 3500 feet south of runway 19R of John Wayne Airport. Consequently, the site is subject to excessive noise levels caused by takeoffs and landings by both commercial air carriers and smaller, private aircraft which utilize that facility. In 1980, the firm of Bolt, Beranck, and Newman, Inc., devel- oped the base noise contours for the airport which are depicted on Exhibit 9. The subject property is bisected by the (existing) 75 CNEL contour. As previously discussed the site is comprised of four residential parcels; the largest of the existing lots includes facilities for the keeping of horses. According to the "Suggested Land Use Compatibility Chart for Com- munity Noise in Orange County" Exhibit 10), these exist- ing residential uses are not compatible in this noise - impacted zone. In fact, recent amendments to the County's Noise Elementl have changed that element's language so as to expressly prohibit development of residential uses within the 65 dB CNEL contour. Existing residential uses within that limit are treated as non -conforming to the General Plan. In addition, the Orange County Noise Element defines a • Noise Referral Zone. Such a zone is defined as the area within the 60 d8 CNEL contour (65 dB CNEL for Commercial uses), the level at which either State or Federal taws and standards related to land use become important and, in some cases, supersede local laws and regulations. The intent of the Noise Referral Zone is to act as a trig- gering mechanism for any proposed change such as a zone change, subdivision, or building permit in an area affected by adverse noise levels. If a proposed land use change falls in a Noise Referral Zone, the change would be referred to the appropriate county agency for evaluation and review. John Wayne Airport is subject to California noise stand- ards which provide that there will be no incompatible land uses within the 70 dB CNEL contour under present condi- tions and under the 65 dB CNEL contour by January 1, 1986. 1 October 1979. • 31 The airport is currently operating under a variance from • the standards.) Another important factor to be considered is the impact of neighboring land uses and structures on the safe operation of the airport. The major issues within this topic are height limitations, excessive glare and light, visibility reducing emissions, electromagnetic radiation and hazard- ous materials. Regulations specifying the maximum allowable height of objects surrounding an airport are defined in Federal Aviation Regulation, (FAR) Part 77, Objects Affecting Navigable Airspace, 1975. The following imaginary surfaces define these height restrictions for airports. 1. A Primary Surface with the same elevation as the run- way centerline whose width varies according to the classification of runway and type of instrument approach, if any, and with a length extending 200 feet beyond each end of the runway (for hard surface run- ways). 2. Approach Surfaces longitudinally centered along the extended runway centerline and extending outward and • upward from each end of the primary surface at an angle and distance which varies according to the clas- sification of runway and type of instrument approach, if any. 3. Transitional Surfaces ex4ending outward and upward from the primary surface and approach surfaces. 4. A Horizontal Surface, a plane 150 feet above the established airport elevation generally within 10,000 feet of the airport. 5. A Conical Surface, a surface extending outward and upward from the periphery of the horizontal surface at a slope of 20:1 for a horizontal distance of 4,000 feet. • Master Plan Draft Report October 1980, p. S-5. 32 for John Wayne Airport, AVl,9E laptlet� ■ i CAa"7/�j t UYIF P. r........ r. < �f•Y••♦M �•1 "r iTheat r •�••••:•••• I � Sehr,{ �.••.�IFj ■ of ' ♦ u �• •�••I•yA,•••••• m•• f�• 9 I I' ♦• •i•w•••••• •• +��\--��___• _L its ril; r•'i �•., •l�•ii••rf`�\••••, ••• r° I... / I'. ••• ••• ••ylV.•yF.• .. —ice • is • M1_" r bowl ✓r •✓•y/. �. i0;0 i,• •rV. J mile 9pO� ' •55 � I• • //. • �• r our r r.:i:.• (• OW Wi ty F � '• •:• • ni/ 7 f K ..� r•'.••p ••. • • r r ` Santa An.. ea4C `•c. •;••y • •A • 4.5� • ♦ ♦i• . (fir p •yw...Ar•....�._/ ��..ii•,%•�... •♦.. aYview� i.c 1 O Salt porators Wk_ I SUGGESTED LAND USE COMPATIBILITY CHART FOR COMMUNITY NOISE IN ORANGE COUNTY • LAND USE CATEGORIES NOISE CNEL VALUE IN DECIBELSc SENSITIVITY 45 50 55 60b 65 70 75 AO RANK 1. RESIDENTIAL EXTERIOR INTERIOR 1.1 Low Density I III IIIIIIIIIIIIilll11111III MIN ■■ 45 1.2 Medium Low 1 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIII IIII IIIIIto /■ 45 1.3 Medium 1 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIfIIfIIIIIII INME 45 1.4 High I IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIII IIII INN ■' 45 1.5 Heavy t IIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIII ifIIIII IIINN ■ 45 2. COMMERCIAL 2.1 Local 2 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII1111111111111111111111!■■� 2.2 Community 3 111111111111111ifIIIfIII IIIII111111111HINN N■■■E� 2.3 Regional 3 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIifIII IIIIIIIIIfIIIIfIIIfINN Now NN■� 3. INDUSTRIAL ' 3.1 Industrial Park 3 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII111■■■ONMEN MR 3.2 Light 4 1111111111111111111IfI[III IIIIIIIIIIIfIIItIf1111111■■■■■■1 3.3 Heavy 4 IIIII11111111111111illlll11111111111111111111111111■■EON■$ 4. PUBLIC FACILITIES 4.1 Public • Schools 1 Ilillllllllllllllllllllllllllll■/■ Libraries t Illllltllllilllllllllllllllllll■/■■■■� Civic Buildings 3 illllllllllllllllllilllllllllllllllllllll■■■■■/� Fire and Police Activities 3 Illllitllllllllllllllillllllllllillllllll�■■■■■■� 4.2 Quasi -Public Churches 2 III1111111111111111111111111111■/■ Hospitals 2 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIN■■ Power -Water - Waste Facilities 3 IIIIIIIIIII1111111111111111111111111111111111111111■■/■■■N 5. OPEN SPACE 5.1 Natural Resources 4 11111111111111111111fill 1111111111IIIIIfill lllllllllllllll[fill mum 5.2 Agriculture Exclusive 4 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII111111111111111111111 General 3 Illllllllfllifillllllllllllllllllllllllll■■■■■NEON$ 5.3 Recreation 2 IIIII111111111111111111111111111111111111■■■Nunn MEN Tourist -Recreation 3 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII■■/■■■■■■■ 5.4 Other Open Spaces 4 IIIIIItIIIIIIIII111111111111111II11111111111111111111111111111i111111111 Conservation 1 11111111111111111111111111111111111111film MEN ■■Noun LEGEND aRank• of 1, most sensitive; 4 least sensitive. I111111111111 I bNoise Referral Zone on Noise Contour Maps. 1■EN$ II • cRefers to the unattenuated noise level. III EXHIBIT 10 New structures should not be allowed to penetrate these • imaginary surfaces. "Ubstructions" penetrating these sur- faces require special FAA aeronautical studies to deter- mine whether or not they constitute "Hazards to Air Navi- gation". • • The FAA has also developed criteria to enhance the safety of aircraft in flight and persons on the ground. These criteria are: 1) Runway Safety Areas, 2) Clear Zones and 3) Approach Protection Areas. These are shown with the project site in Exhibit 11. As can be seen from the Exhi- bit, the site lies within the Approach Protection Area. The FAA defines Runway Safety Area as: a cleared, drained and graded area abutting the edges of a usable runway and symmetrically located about the runway, conforming with FAA criteria in effect at the time of construction of the runway.l This area should be clear and free of struc- tures, objects, abrupt surface irregularities, ditches, soft spots and ponding areas. Statistics for air carrier operations show an occurrence of one overrun or undershoot incident for each 550,000 landings. Ninety percent of these incidents occur within 1,000 feet (300 m) of the runway end. Development of an extended runway safety area will enhance safety for air- craft that undershoot or overrun the runway and provide greater accessibility for fire, crash, and rescue equip- ment necessary during such incidents. The runway safety area (extended) for John Wayne Airport lies entirely within Airport property (Exhibit 11) and meets all the required standards. The next zone is known as a runway clear zone which is defined in Federal Aviation Regulations Part 152 as fol- lows: An area at ground level that begins at the end of each [Part 77] primary surface ... of this chapter and ex- tends with the width of each [Part 77] approach surface ... to terminate directly below each approach surface slope at the point, or points, where the slope reaches a height of 50 feet above the elevation of the runway end or 50 feet above the terrain at the outer extremity of the clear zone, whichever distance is shorter. i John Wayne Airport, Master Plan Draft IX-5. 35 Report, p. Runway clear zones are established at airports receiving federal development aid in order to prevent the construc- tion of close -in obstructions which would seriously hamper airport operations. Airports accepting federal airport development funds must normally agree to obtain an adequate property interest in all clear zones necessary to prevent the penetration of objects above the imaginary airport surfaces specified by FAR Part 77, another requirement for receipt of federal funds to address the need for compatible adjacent land use. An applicant for funds must state in its application the action that it has taken to restrict the use of land adjacent to or in the immediate vicinity of the airport to activities and purposes compatible with normal airport operations, It has been this need that has led the FAA to develop the concept of an Approach Protection Area. According to FAA Order 5100.36, Approach Protection Areas constitute: Land necessary to restrict the use of, in areas adja- cent to, or in the immediate vicinity of the airport, airport to activities and purposes compatible with nor- mal airport operations as well as to meet current and anticipated development at the airport. As mentioned previously, the project site lies within the • Approach Protection Area south of John Wayne Airport. Because of this, airport management and safety interests have concerns with development occurring there. This is expressed by two commissions: the Airport Land Use Com- mission and the Orange County Airport Commission which conduct development proposal reviews and encourage devel- opment compatible with the current and planned airport operations. These commissions make recommendations to the appropriate decision making body based on their analysis of the proposed development. Another safety concern is the potential of the site being affected by an aircraft accident. The information in the following discussion is from the John Wayne Airport Master Plan Draft Report. The analysis of accidents at the airport was based on National Transportation Safety Board records from 1964 to 1980. The percentage of on -airport accidents closely parallels the U.S. average. Off -airport accidents tend to be concentrated closer to the airport than the national average. Most of the accidents tend to be caused by equipment failure, ground loops/swerves, retracted gear and collision with other aircraft. LJ T. a IE ME Bi �U4Af. IBnPtlet '■ 1 —CAgry3 Of particular importance is the occurrence and location of • aircraft accidents occurring off Airport property. Al- though the accidents number considerably less than those on Airport property, they are often more serious and are more important from the standpoint of safety of persons and property on the ground. There have been only 3 acci- dents involving fatality or injury to persons on the ground since 1964. The only accident involving a fatality of a person on the ground was an on -airport accident caused by a ramp agent walking into a propeller. The majority of off -airport accidents have occurred within the Airport traffic pattern. Total general aviation accidents in recent years have averaged less than those of the middle to late 1960's, even though general aviation operations at John Wayne Airport have increased substantially from the 1960's. This is reflected in a significant decline in the overall accident rate per million operations at John Wayne Air- port. A corresponding decline in the general aviation accident rate for the nation has occurred over the same time period. The reduction in accident rates is probably due to better navigational equipment, improved training procedures, and improved air traffic control procedures. The rate of fatal accidents per million operations for general aviation in the nation has likewise decreased over • the past 10 years. Because the number of fatal accidents is relatively small at John Wayne Airport, the fatal acci- dent rate fluctuates widely and no apparent trend is visible. Although the total accident rate for the Airport is well below the national average, the fatal accident rate has exceeded the national average in 1976 and 1978. Air carrier accident rates for the nation have also declined over the past 10 years. The total accident rate per 100,000 departures has averaged about 0.4 in recent years while the fatal accident rate has declined to less than 0.1 fatal accident per 100,000 departures. The loca- tion of air carrier accidents relative to the runway loca- tion was analyzed to identify the location of greatest accident potential for John Wayne Airport. From 1971 through 1976, the great majority of the accidents occurred within 1/4 of a mile from the end of the runway. Also accidents tend to occur on or close to the centerline of the runway. Few- air carrier accidents occur beyond several several hundred feet of the centerline. The occurrence of accidents at John Wayne Airport was cal- culated on the basis of current accident rates to obtain an order -of -magnitude estimate of the potential for future general aviation, commuter, and air carrier accidents. Accident occurrences were calculated on the basis of • general aviation accident rates obtained from John Wayne m Airport statistics and accident rates for commuter and air carrier accidents derived from national averages. The average accident rates experienced over the last three years were used as a basis for calculations. The current number of annual departures was also used as a basis of calculation. On the average, approximately 6 general aviation accidents occur per year, with 2 to 3 of these being fatal acci- dents, based on current rates. On the other hand, com- muter accidents, would occur at John Wayne Airport once every 7 years with a fatal accident occurring once in 20 years; air carrier accidents would occur once in 17 years, with a fatal accident occurring once in 83 years. Since 1964, only one accident has occurred within the vicinity of the site, off airport property. That incident was on September 9, 1974 when a small private plane collided with trees on Cypress Street approximately 1,500 feet south of the site. Overall, the site is near the extended centerline of run- way 19R and is normally subject to overfly on takeoff from John Wayne Airport and hence more likely to be affected by an aircraft accident than other nearby areas further from the centerline. The location of John Wayne Airport air- craft accidents appears to be random and historical data does not lend itself to statistical analysis to define accident potential zones. However, some statistics indi- cate the distance of the site from the end of the runway (35001) is sufficient to reduce the hazard. Military air- craft operation statistics indicate 60% of accidents occur on landing, as compared with 40% for the take -off phase. These statistics also indicate over 60% of accidents occur within 3000 feet of the end of the runway and 58% occur within 2000' feet. These statistics indicate a crash hazard does exist, but it should not be considered undue or highly restricting. Potential Impacts The project site lies at the 75 dB CNEL contour lines on the Existing Noise Contours Exhibit (Exhibit 11). The John Wayne Airport ANCLUC Report recommends procedures to lessen the airports noise impact on the community to the levels shown in Exhibit 12, Projected Noise Contours. On this map the project falls between the 65 and 70 dB CNEL contours at about 67 d8 CNEL. For land use planning in County areas within the 65 dB CNEL, the Land Use Compatibility Chart for Community Noise in Orange County is the accepted guideline for reviewing 1 March Air Force Base AICUZ Study 0 0 • 39 • vli 0 a I� Ifs"`=�'•��� Q '�-•-�-_*-*/ryLLuuw•fh � i � • • • • i • •�J � • ,,77���� •n ,T;.. ft '� �: �•.. �f lM1eal i \; •••••i••• qP .'l"3 Wel \ f � z, �+�y_..... 17 �. Ij J4?1�:�t-39 r ii •.•.i�r•••• •• _59-U19ft[N-O_ n_.111 Ve:_i _ �' •.ty •t•. .v; •. _�• }••••y r••• •• ate•. I...__•I••'• •.J '%��' p � ♦ �. �' •, •••• • hv. Baptist y ♦ •.1••N1. ! •Z e � •� % '� r� �)! .. ¢•�i� • .// r��� 71 ti I14w wit •d .I ••f' 'l♦ <a z•. i • • p• • • :i see e a Wate, w• •• "�. % ! �Sa :,Tan • J ° L s9t>,� A • /. �/ •G• •••N � \ � /..-r✓' .. - � fern •• •• � !•4/ ta'Ahe ...40.• =•. •�i' r •'� • • • � ' / a , CAL I � • V.^q • • � I •�• • ,% k 1s '�_-_ I .�.:: a 1 ° .Nip\ . .Horeb '�. �l. • .,RW e compatible land uses and noise levels. This is shown in . Exhibit 10, and for each land designation, CNEL levels are classified into the following three review categories: "I - Noise levels in the exterior environment are com- patible with the proposed land uses and will not create annoyance and activity interference. If a land use falls in this category, no additional noise studies or attenuation measures should be imposed on the builder. II - Noise levels in the exterior environment are great enough to require study on the compatibility of the proposed land use. The proposed land use should be evaluated through the design, environmental review and site plan process to assess whether additional noise attenuation measures should be imposed. III - Noise levels in the exterior environment are severe requiring a detailed analysis of the noise envi- ronment in relationship to the compatibility of the proposed land use. Noise attenuation features will be necessary in the basic design to insure the protection of persons occupying the land use (County of Orange, 1975)." As is evident in the Compatibility Chart, the proposed land use falls into the third review category: requires detailed analysis to assess compatibility and mitigation measures. This is true for the existing noise contours. The proposed, reduced contours would place the project in Category II. An Acoustical Analysis and Recommendation Report has been prepared by Hilliard and Bricken and is attached as Appen- dix E. This report details the existing noise impacts to the site and estimates noise reduction requirements. Sug- gestions are made as to building materials and construc- tion techniques to achieve the required noise reductions. The conclusion of the report is that "it is possible to meet the most stringent design requirement of the County even in this location." The project is not expected to generate any adverse im- pacts due to excessive light, glare or emissions reducing pilot or control tower visibility. Conversations with Ms. Shirley Reithard, Airport Engineer, John Wayne Airport, indicate that as long as the proposed buildings are limited to two stories in height, the project will be in conformance with the requirements of Part 77 of the Federal Aviation Regulations. In addition, the project is not expected to generate any electromagnetic radiation which might interfere with the navigational aids of the • airport or encourage the introduction of any hazardous materials into the general airport area. 41 Mitigation Measures • In order to create an acceptable office environment and comply with County noise standards, the project design will require certification by an acoustical engineer. The guidelines suggested in the Acoustical Analysis or their equivalent should be implemented. These include: double - paned windows with 4" airspace, specific roof/ceiling and wall construction techniques, entry ways with a vestibule door with a 4' to 6' vestibule and other architectural designs such as large roof overhangs and special treatment of all building penetrations. The project should be reviewed at the final design stage to insure no excessive light or glare emissions that would impair aircraft operations and no excessive electrical emissions would be generated. The project should be no greater than two stories in height and the project sponsor should work closely with the Airport and Airport Commission to insure the project's compatibility with the airport's operations. In addition, an avigation easement should be acquired by the Airport over the subject property. Such an easement provides for a right-of-way over the property, allowing the owner of the easement to control the height of struc- • tures, to make overflights and to generate noise. Aviga- tion easements can be acquired t rough several methods as described in the ANCLUC Report. That most likely here is by dedication. The requirement of relinquishing an avigation easement can be made a part of the regulation governing the subdivision of land for development or re- development or in exchange for some other government bene- fit. The Board of Supervisors of the County of Orange has adopted the policy of requiring the voluntary dedication of an avigation easement within the 65 dB CNEL contour or subject to overflights as part of discretionary project processing by the Environmental Management Agency. The application of standard condition of approval A8 is appro- priate. Further, a Declaration and Notification of Aircraft Noise and Environmental Impacts should be made to prospective purchasers or end users of the property per the Orange County Noise Element Addendum, October 1979 and standard condition of approval A6. 1 John Wayne Airport ANCLUC Draft Report p. VIII-1,2 0 42 I. RECREATION/OPEN SPACE • Existing Conditions The site in its current use provioes some recreation opportunities and open space enjoyment. As previously noted, equestrian facilities including a small riding arena exist on the site. Part of the site is current- ly a boarding stable where horses are kept by owners who live off -site. These horses are ridden for recreational enjoyment on the site and through the adjacent neighborhood, a practice which would be unacceptable in most other neighborhoods in the County. The parking, lot of a public golf facility is located adjacent to the site to the west. This golf facility is included in the proposed Upper Newport Bay Regional Park (See Exhibit 13). The upper bay area is noted primarily for its importance as a significant wildlife habitat. This area could be utilized for the most part as an ecological preserve with the golf course. Other compatible use would be picnicking, wildlife education center and museum.1 The proposed park is in priority group three in the Master Plan of Regional Parks which has a 1985-1990 time frame.2 In its current configuration, the golf course does not pro- vide access to the Back Bay area for horseback riders. This is accomplished via public streets and rights -of - way. It is unlikely the golf course could provide equestrian trails compatible with golf activities. The current open space qualities of the site are limited. The basic character is rural residential. The open yards of the residences are, for the most part, screened from view by fencing and vegetation. Hence, although the rural, open character of the site is apparent to passersby, the open areas themselves are only visually enjoyed directly by.the residents. Potential Impacts The development of the project as proposed would eliminate the recreational use presently available on the site. The rural character would also be lost, to a more intense developed use than currently. exists on adjacent parcels, with the exception of the Koll office building. 1 Orange County General Plan, Recreation Element, May 1977 • 2 The Master Plan of Regional Parks, Amendment No. 3, July 1972 43 Mitigation Measures The design of the prof gation to buffer the intense development. scaping and site desi Use Sections). ect should i project from These measu gn (See Visu nclude appropriate the surrounding, es would include al/Aesthetics and r miti- less land - Land Alternative projects with greater recreation/open space emphasis should be considered (See Alternatives Section). 0 • 44 llli F�•� y _-_,Theat F 5 Seer ffi . ':� ::Y t�Ll�l� •• % ✓ i 0�_� $St t .V.LARU.CQch —�:f r A ut�_ Q ri I�� ail■ f• i' i3y / .i; �J TC73 —f70 0'�- I�•j / r 41, Y 4� q I%(fit, •• G •. , J/ ,.l• •_ � * i o o our LEr I� PA I wi M A, / 40 . inCM/gND3 J. LAND USE AND RELEVANT PLANNING • Existing Conditions Land Use - The 1.7 acre property currently is divided into four Mots, each with an existing single family residence and appurtenant garage. Some lots also contain out build- ings and horse stables as is typical in the neighborhood. One lot also includes a riding arena. Adjacent land uses include a golf course, a newly con- structed office building and other single family resi- dences, some with equestrian facilities. Immediately west of the site is the Irvine Golf Course which also extends north of the site across Irvine Blvd. A three story office building complex has been recently completed by the Koll Company on the property to the notheast across Orchard Drive (Newport -Irvine Center). Properties to the southeast and southwest exhibit existing residential uses of the same character as that existing on the project site. Zoning - The property is currently zoned A71 SR GPI (gen- eral agriculture with sign restriction, General Plan Implementation District - See Exhibit 14). Single family residential, one building per building site is a permitted use in this zone. However, the minimum size for a build- ing site is 4 acres, hence the existing residential use is a non -conforming use, inconsistent with current zoning. The GPI district is discussed below. General Plan - The General Plan designation for the parcel is currently 5.0, Open Space, which is consistent with the zoning district. The current residential uses is in con- flict with this General Plan Land Use designation. Non -conforming uses are prevalent in the Santa Ana Heights area. This is due to the fact that the current zoning and land use designations reflect desired land uses to be com- patible with the current and planned use of John Wayne Airport which generates considerable noise impacts on the neighborhood, while the Santa Heights neighborhood uses were established when the airport generated noise impacts of a much smaller magnitude. In an attempt to provide a plan for future development incorporating the desires of the current residents and•the need to mitigate the impacts of the airport, the Board of Supervisors has directed that a Specific Plan be developed for the entire Santa Ana Heights area. A draft of this Plan is due to be completed by the end of this year (1981). Because of the existing conflicts between zoning districts and land use designation, the GPI district overlay has • been implemented in the area. This district indicates • i 1 1• 2 \ � Imo`•:, 7? _ .... We �PBr Sur I III{IPlii • �,F y /�.. i._ Oi ♦j� I^ { ' i35 UJ.A_R)n12f—�I� ii i 9 AEpw vE.i�_nl I /� • •• ° B 1 1: 7 • III-, �� ,:� .�. ` / i o n IVEePtlet�.. .I�.Y .+I,.' ..� 'j•�,• j ♦�,� ♦ I I r� //'+, �; .. t"�`. _moo "YI ' i Zh PO mila PO / 1�✓/rs S0� , lout U of khp rt •T LE � • n / 1 '\/ • that the Land Use Designation should be the standard to which a project is held when considering the appropriate- ness of the proposed land use. This district is expected to continue until the adoption of the Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan. Potential Impacts Land Use - Construction of the proposed project will c ange the land use on the site from single family resi- dential with equestrian facilities to a two -building pro- fessional office complex with a significant portion of the site devoted to a paved parking lot (See Exhibits 3 and 4. This use would be consistent and compatible with the Newport -Irvine Center office building northeasterly of the site. The compatibility of the project with the other adjacent land uses is not directly apparent. No compati- bility problems are anticipated with the golf course, but the residential area will be impacted by the increased traffic, noise, etc, of a more intensive land use. How- ever, the best ultimate use for the site and the surround- ing neighborhood is, at this point, undetermined as ex- plained in the existing conditions section. Zoning - The proposed office commercial project is incon- • sistent with the current zoning. General Plan - The proposed project has been found to be inconsistent with the current General Plan Land Use Ele- ment and Open Space Element designation for .the site. Consistency or inconsistency of the project with the Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan cannot be determined because the plan has not been sufficiently developed at this time. Additionally, the project has been considered for Transi- tional Land Use Policy treatment which would allow land use not ordinarily permitted under the predominant agri- cultural zoning without General Plan Amendment. County staff has found these policies inapplicable to this proposal. In the ANCLUC Plan for the John Wayne Airport, a Recom- mended Ultimate Land Use Plan is presented.) (This plan was reviewed,by but not adopted by the Board of Super- visors.) This plan is proposed as a preliminary planning tool for guiding ANCLUC compatible land use planning which would ultimately result in a combination of land uses 1 John Wayne Airport ANCLUC Plan Draft Report, October • 1980 - p. XIII-2. M well -suited to the area's environmental resources and land use constraints. The plan largely suggests maintenance of open space and recreation -oriented residential character of Santa Ana Heights. This plan proposes that the Acacia Street area, including the project site, be converted to low intensity non-residential use that would be compatible with adjacent commercial open space (e.g. golf course), the Back Bay, proposed regional park and the existing rural, equestrian -oriented nature of the community. Uses such as commercial stables and riding/training stables would continue existing uses prevalent on Acacia and other Santa Ana Heights streets. The proposed project could be compatible with the aims of this plan and with sensitive design provide a buffer between the residential and com- mercial recreation areas. The equestrian orientation of this residential community could, however, be a source of conflict. In regard to the other major planning effort for the area, the Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan, again, it is too early in the process to know the consistency of this pro- posed project with the plan. Mitigation Measures Land Use - In order to maximize the compatibility of the proposed project with the surrounding land uses, sensitive • site, architectural and landscape design should be used to integrate the commercial project with the existing rural residential uses. This would include the use of natural building materials such as brick, wood siding and shake roofs in contrast to the steel and glass construction of the nearby Newport -Irvine Center office building. Landscaping and/or setbacks should be used to soften the edges of the site, especially where the golf course abuts the property. In addition, the streetscape along Acacia should be landscaped to convey the same rural character of the adjacent properties. This landscape treatment should also somewhat screen the parking Tot from the street to minimize the impact of the large paved area on the neigh- boring areas. All of these measures are designed to pro- vide a buffer and orderly transition from the tow inten- sity existing land uses to the higher intensity profes- sional/office use proposed by the project. Zoning - A zone change from A-1 SR to PA (professional/ a m n strative) will make the project an allowable use on the site. General Plan - The project as proposed contains no mitiga- tion measures for inconsistency with the General Plan. The project sponsor should make efforts to insure that the • 49 Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan recognizes the proposed • project and delineates compatible land uses in the sur- rounding area as appropriate. As previously stated the ANCLUC Plan for the John Wayne Airport recommends Commercial Open Space or Other Compat- ible Low -Intensity Use for the project site. The value of the land may be too great, however, to warrant conversion to Open Space. The project could -be viewed as a comprom- ise solution between the existing unacceptable use (due to noise impacts) and the uneconomic open space proposal. As indicated in the Noise section of this report, with proper mitigation measures in construction, the project can be an acceptable usl under the guidelines presented in the ANCLUC report. u • 1 John Wayne Airport, ANCLUC Draft Report. p. 11-12. M1 • • III. UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS Short Term (Construction Related) Project construction will affect the wildlife in the area. It will also impacts normally associated with activities such as dust, noise and traffic. These activities will also porary adverse visual impact. Long Term activities of generate other construction construction create a tem- Visual Character - The visual character of the site will be permanently altered by the introduction of a more urban office land use into a previously rural residential landscape. Biological Resources - The development of the site will result in a loss of existing vegetation and limited wildlife habitat. Hydrology - There will be an increased amount of runoff due to the covering of portions of the ground with impermeable materials. In addition, there will be a reduction in runoff quality due to urban con- taminants, which will minimally contribute to the cumulative degradation of water quality. No signi- ficant amount of runoff is expected to affect any local or downstream water systems, however. Traffic and Circulation - The project will slightly increase intersection capacity utilization. Air Quality - The vehicular traffic generated by the proposed project will contribute to the cumulative degradation of the ambient air quality. 52 IV. ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPUSEU PROJECT Three alternatives to the proposed project are dis- cussed. They include: 1) no project, 2) alternative location, 3) alternative land use commercial stable. No Project If no redevelopment is undertaken, the adverse impacts of the project, including altered visual per- ception of the site, loss of housing stock and increased traffic, will not occur. This alternative would not alter existing landforms or structures. However, the current use is incompat- ible with the noise impacts from airport operations and is non- conforming to the County's General Plan. The continuation of this situation is not in the best interests of the citizens of the County. Alternative Site In this alternative the project would be constructed at another location. The impacts of such an alterna- tive would to a great extent depend on the character- istics of the alternate site. However, generally speaking, the impacts of the project on the environ- ment would be transferred with it. The impacts, such • as increased traffic, visual alteration and potential loss of open space if the alternate site is undevel- oped, could be marginally more or less significant at another location. however, this alternative again leaves the proposed site with uses incompatible with the airport opera- tions and requiring some action to alleviate the situation. Commercial Recreation Use One aspect of the current use of the site is the equestrian boarding facilities now in use. Thi's project alternative discusses devoting the entire site to a commercial recreation use focusing on an equestrian facility. It is estimated the site could provide facilities for stable rentals for 10-12 horses. The best available information regarding the possibility of a commercial stable operation is that gathered for evaluation of proposed equestrian facilities at Caspers Regional Park. The follow- ing discussion is based on that report which was based on interviews with a number of people with ex- perience and expertise in the equestrian field. 1 Gary Cook, Orange Guunty General Services Agency 53 The major findings of the report were: 1. Most horse enthusiasts are 10 to 18 year -old females who rely on parents for transportation. 2. Horse rentals are not economically feasible primarily because of high insurance costs. 3. Horse show facilities are in demand; however, this demand is being met by the $1.8 million facility at the Orange County Fairgrounds. 4. There are no equestrian camping facilities in the County. In light of the first finding, this site is ideal since it is in close proximity to large residential areas with families affluent enough to own horses. The nearby Newport Beach residential areas are within easy biking or walking distance of the site. This makes the site very accessible to the primary user group. The second finding indicates that the facility would most likely be a boarding facility only, without horses for rent to the general public. In this way, this project alternative would be similar to the current equestrian facilities on the site. This limits the direct benefit of • the project to the 10-12 horse owners who would have their horses board there. The third finding has little relation to this proposed project alternative since the project site is too small for a horse show facility of the type described. Also with the fourth finding, adequate space for camping facilities neither currently exists or is proposed on or near the site. This site is not of sufficient size to accommodate the facilities most commercial operators require. This is evidenced by the City of Santa Ana's consideration of an equestrian facility at Centennial Park. After soliciting informal proposals, they abandoned the concept since most potential operators desired 7 to 10 acres of land which was more than the City was willing to devote to those uses. The project site, at 1.7 acres is much smaller than the area'desired by those operators. Other factors also affecting this alternative are the compatibility of such an equestrian center with future land uses in adjacent areas. As discussed in the Biology section, the current equestrian boarding activity has generated negative impacts to the environment. Excrements from the horses, may contribute significantly to the • scenario of organic pollutant percolation in the area; 54 potentially reaching upper Newport bay. Additionally, because of food resources made available through the stable operation, house mice, roof rats and Norway rats • may live on the site. The County Health Uepartment Requirements for Commercial Stables also identifies dust control and vector control as potential problem areas. Presumably, exercise and riding would continue to occur on neighborhood streets due to the limited size of the site. This activity is a source of potential conflict with future development in the area. Overall, this alternative appears unfeasible because of the size of the site, the numerous potential conflict areas with future surrounding land uses and the limited benefits it would afford. n LJ • 55 • V. THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LOCAL SHURT-TERM USES OF MAN'S ENVIRONMENT AND THE MAINTENANCE AND ENHANCEMENT OF LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY Projects which accommodate the unavoidable adverse impacts of development and enhance the quality of•life for the community as a whole also improve the overall community environment. Economic and social pressures for growth in Orange County are such that complete protection of the environment at the expense of com- munity growth and well- being is not practical. Therefore, a balance must be sought that accommodates the needs of the growing population of the Southern California region, while maintaining the integrity of the environment. It is the degree to which this balance is achieved in a given development that estab- lishes the relationship between local short-term uses of man's envi.ronment and the maintenance and enhance- ment of long-term productivity. Development of the subject property in accordance with the proposed plan will intensify the short-term use of man's environment. Professional and administrative office uses have been proposed for the site. The long-term productivity of the project • present state is not of great value to the community except as it provides equestrian facilities and limited residential use. i ment of the site, in accordance with t. productivity of the site while providing compatible use with the operations of John port. • 56 site in its surrounding recreation he develop- ie proposed a long-term Wayne Air- VI. IRREVERSIBLE AND IkRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENT OF ENERGY SUPPLIES AND OTHER RESOURCES SHOULU THE PROJECT BE • IMPLEMENTED The construction of the proposed project will entail the commitment of natural resources, energy resources and human resources. This commitment of energy, per- sonnel and building materials will be commensurate with that of other projects of similar magnitude. On -going maintenance of the project site by the occu- pants will entail further commitment of energy re- sources in the form of natural gas and electricity generated by coal, hydroelectric power or nuclear energy. This commitment will be a long-term obliga- tion in view of the fact that, practically speaking, it is impossible to return the land to its original condition once it has been developed or redeveloped. Since the site has been previously developed no sig- nificant natural resources will be eliminated. • L� 57 VII. GROWTH INDUCING IMPACTS Development of the project proposed will continue the current trend, in the Santa Ana Heights area, of redeveloping residential parcels to small case office/professional uses. The growth inducing impacts of this project result not because of a need to extending public facilities or infrastructure but due to the precedent it will set and impacts to future planning efforts for the area. Since a Specific Plan for the Santa Ana Heights area is only in initial preparation at this time, the approvals of the proposed project could induce further development proposals for the same type of development before the Specific Plan takes effect. Such projects would add incrementally to the impacts presented in this report. Additionally, the implementation of this project would require the Specific Plan now being prepared to assign the approved land use to the site and to place compatible uses on adjacent areas. This could induce further development. This project would also contribute to the cumulative increase in demand for aviation services at John • Wayne Airport as it is generally recognized that such demand is related to trends in population, levels of employment and personal income in the area which this project will affect. • �3 VIII. AGENCIES AND PERSONS CONSULTED Airport Land Use Commission Alfred Brady John Wayne Aiport Shirli Reithard John Wayne Airport - Tower Ralph Odenwald Federal Aviation Administration Western Regional Branch Elly Stanson Orange County Health Department Orange County General Services Agency Gary Cook Southern California Edison Company Chet Wright Southern California Gas Company Jeanne Woods Pacific Telephone Company Steve Randall Costa Mesa Sanitary District Donald E. Stevens Santa Ana Heights Water Company Eleanor A. Fuller K.A. Lawler & Associates Kerry Lawler Karlin G. Marsh Biological Consultant Scientific Resource Surveys, Inc. Roger J. Desantels Kunzman Associates William Kunzman Hilliard and Bricken Gordon L. Bricken University of California, Los Angeles Institute of Archaeology 59 n u E BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT i ACACIA OFFICES PROJECT (Oxford Properties) ORCHARD AND ACACIA STREETS, SANTA ANA HEIGHTS ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA PREPARED FOR THE PLANNING CENTER by KARLIN G. MARSH MAY 7, 1981 • Karlin G. Marsh Biological Consultant 30262 Acorn Lane, P.O. Box 404, Silverado, California 92676 7141649-2027 �l a. a 1.0 PHYSICAL SETTING The proposed Acacia Offices project is located on 1,7 acres at the southwest corner of Orchard and Acacia Streets in the unincorporated Orange County community of Santa Ana Heights. The Santa Ana Heights community is characterized by medium and low density older residential development with a moderate number of equestrian small estate lots. The community is situated atop bluffland overlooking Upper Newport Bay. The project site is presently occupied by four residential structures with associated outbuildings, and a stable and riding ring. It is situated on level ground overlooking Irvine Avenue and a golf course parking lot. The project is within the Upper Newport Bay watershed and is located about 2000 feet from the edge of the Bay. Runoff from the project area can enter the Delhi Flood Control Channel, a tributary to the Bay at two points: the Mesa Drive storm draln located south of the Mesa -Irvine Avenue junction, and the Irvine Avenue bridge crossing the channel. 2,0 METHODS Approximately two hours were spent conducting a survey of the project site and environs on May 6, 1981, Horticultural tree plantings were mapped and Identified. Areas of ruderal density were located, and weed species Inventoried. On -site faunal use was also recorded, The off -site survey included location of drainage pathways into Upper Newport Bay and assessment of surrounding land uses which might mitigate potential impacts of the project. 3.0 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES The project site contains biological resources typical of an older residential neighborhood with associated equestrian facilities, These resources include mature horticultural plantings which consist of several species of mature tress, shrubs and vines, residential lawns and around the stables, a thick growth of a variety of weed species. On -site fauna Include a variety of birds and several wild or feral mammal species associated with human habitation. • 3.1 VEGETATION 3.1.1 Horticultural Plantings A variety of mature shade and fruit trees grow on the project site. These include the following genera or species: Shade and Ornamental Trees - numbers of specimens Chinese elm (Ulmus parvifolla) - 8 Italian Cypress (Cupressus sempervirens) - 5 Shamal Ash (Fraxinus uhdei) - 5 Brazilian pepper (Schinus terebinthifolius) - 5 California pepper ch nus molle - London plane tree (sycamore) (Platanus acerifolia) - 4 various pines (Pinus spp.) - 4 Chinese juniper (Juniperus chinensis) - 3 Rusty -leaved fig icus rubigi+ now 3 Purple -leaved plum (Prunus cerasifera) var. (pissardi) - 2 Silk oak (Grevillea robusta—I Blue gum eucalyptus ucalyptus globulus) - I Acacia (Acacia sp.) - I Flowering pear (Pyrus cf. kawakamii) - I Coral tree (Erythr—i a sp.) - I • Fruit Trees - numbers of specimens Apricot - 5 Peach - 2 Olive - 2 Pomegranate - 2 Loquat - I Apple - I Citrus - I A variety of ornamental shrubs and vines also grow'here. Some shrubby species noted include bamboo (Phyilostachys bambusoides), bottlebrush (Callistemon citrinus), privet (Ligustrum japonicum) and box (Pittosporum sp.). Bougainvillia (Bougainvilliaia sp.), star jasmine Trachelospermum jasminoides) and honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica) are among vines occurring. An additional horticultural resource includes the lawns around existing residences. Bermuda (Cynodon dactylon) is the typical lawn grass used. Some wintergrass (Poa annua) occurs. Lawns are somewhat invaded by weedy species such as dandelion (Taraxacum officinale), South American horseweed (Conyza bonariensis), common sowthistle (Sonchus oleraceus) and petty spurge (Euphorbia pepius) Dallis grass (Paspal,um dilatatum), foxtail barley (Hordeum leporinum), bristle grass(5eteria cf. lutescens) and o Fier weedy • grasses also invade these lawns. 3.1.2 Ruderals Between the riding ring and the northwest edge of the property, a dense growth of ruderals edges stable buildings and extends onto a small vacant lot at the western corner. Runoff of fertilizing, nitrogenous materials derived from animal excre- ments is undoubtedly responsible for the vigor of weed growth in this locale. The following weed species were inventoried; Forbs Nettle -leaved goosefoot (C__h__e��n__o�po__di��um murals) Cheeseweed (Melva parviflora Puncture vine (TrI u us terrestris) Prickly lettuce ac uca serrToTei� Indian Clover (Me otus n7 dTcus�T Common sow thisTTe Prickly sow thistle (Sonchus asper) Bermuda buttercup (Oxa s pes�capr_aae_) Wild radish (Ra hams sativus) London rochet S sy_m r u rlo) Tomato (L so erg coT n escufen-Tum) White -stemmed filaree RU um moschatum) Common knotw0ed (PPolygon�um avl�cu ar'T�e) Sand spurrey (S er u— -iarla v o1Tf sa) Russian thistle a so a i er ca Lamb's quarter (Chenopodlum al bu New Zealand spinach C' extra —on a ex ansa) Mexican tea (Chenopod um am roslo es Grasses Poxtail barley Canary grass (Phalaris minor) Rescue grass ( romus wi enovii) 3.2 FAUNA Several species of birds common In settings are common in the project mockingbirds, house finches, house mourning doves and common crows, lower density suburban area. These Include sparrows, starlings, The vacant lot at the western corner of the site contained a number of gopher (Thomom ss bottas) burrows. Ground squirrels (Citellus beecFey ) may also occur here. Because of food resources ma e a TTable through the stable opera- tion, house mice (Mus musculus)0 roof rats (Rattus rattus) and Norway rats (Rat tus norvegicus) may live on the site, 0 E 11 3.3 SIGNIFICANCE OF ON -SITE BIOTA Because of the intensity and long duration of human use of the project site, no indiginous biotic community remains here. The value of the site as habitat lies mainly with its mature tree and shrub plantings and in the weedy avi- faunal foraging areas. No rare or rare and endangered biota are known to occur on or visit the site. 4.0 PROJECT IMPACTS 4.1 ON -SITE W PACTS The project as proposed may requi horticultural plantings and grass would reduce the cumulative total inhabited by bird species such as re removal of most of the lawns on the site. This of area suburban habitat those enumerated above. 4.2 OFF -SITE IMPACTS 4.2.1 Beneficial . The project will remove ( ) horses from the property. Excrements from these animals may contribute significantly to the scenario of organic pollutant percolation in the local setting. It is not known whether, either by surface runoff or through water table contamination, on -site gener- ated organic pollutants reach Upper Newport Bay. Such materials would contribute to accelerated algae growth and eutrophication within the estuary ecosystem. 4.2.2 Adverse A 104 space parking lot is proposed as part of the project. It is predicted that the project will generate 400 vehicle trips per day into and out of the site. Automobile use of the site will produce an unquantified amount of pollutant material consisting of the heavy metals lead (from gasoline), zinc (from tires), other heavy metals and various compounds and organic substances derived from gasoline and motor oil. The amount of.poliutants contributed by the project is but a minor part of the pollutant load produced in the regional urban watershed. It does, however, serve to bring into the watershed, new traffic and can be considered to contribute in a minor way to the cumulative degradation of Upper Newport Bay water quality. 4.2.2.1 Project Area Overview to better comprehend Its cumulative impacts on Upper Newport Bay biota it is informative to relate the project to the urban setting of its watershed, the Santa Ana -Delhi Flood Control Channel. ph sicai Settin The Santa Ana -Delhi Flood Control ianne or ginates at Warner Avenue in Santa Ana. It Is Joined by F03 from the Orange Coast College and County Fair- grounds, near the Newport Freeway. It crosses McArthur Boulevard and Bristol Street, where tributary channels F02 from Sagerstrom and Alton Avenues, and FOISOI from Red Hill Avenue and the Newport Freeway Join It. The main channel continues south, crossing the Newport and Corona del Mar Freeways, Santa Ana Avenue and Irvine Avenue and finally empties into Upper Newport Bay in the vicinity of Anniversary Lane within the City of Newport Beach. The Santa Ana -Deihl Flood Control Channel drains about 17 square miles (11,210 acres), according to Pomeroy, Johnston and Bailey, 1977, (the 11208" Reports). Traffic Volume Average daily traffic flow on some roads near the pro ect site, according to WSA, 1980, In VTN, 19800 • are as follows: Newport Freeway . . . . . . . . . . . 149,000 San Diego Freeway . . . . . . . . . 169,000 McArthur Boulevard . . . , . . . . 370000 Red Hill Avenue . . . . . . . . . . . 240000 Bristol Street (north of freeways). . 41,000 Corona del Mar Freeway . . . . . . . 41,000 Bristol Street (south of freeways), 45,000 Campus Drive . . . . . . . . . 21,000 Irvine Avenue . . . . . . . . . . . . 180000 The most significant of these traffic figures In relation to the cumulative Impacts of the proposed project are the figures for Bristol Street south of the freeways and Irvine Avenue. Runoff The amount of impervious surface in the urbanized watershed is a factor in its high runoff potential. The flow rate in the channel varies from 2 cubic feet per second (cf/s) in the dry season to 1200 cf/s during storm flow. The project site,in comparison, generates at present 3.21 cf/s and is projected to generate 4.29 cf/s of storm runoff, increasing the total flow in the channel about .097%. 0 • Waste Solids The annual discharged load of waste solids from the watershed is 2370 metric tons, or 423.7 pounds/acre of street surface/year. 900 metric tons of waste solid are removed from the channel and discharged into Upper Newport Bay in the "first flush" of a typical storm. Street surfaces are considered to be the primary pollutant contributors. Runoff from non -street impervious surfaces, like parking lots, though they contTte significant amounts of runoff, Is considered to be unpolluted and merely acts as a dilution factor, according to Pomeroy, Johnston and Bailey (208-15e, p. 19). The principal accumulation areas on surface streets are along curbs (Charles Pilcher, EDAW, pars. comm. 5-81). Waste Solids in Project Area The Acacia Offices project is located in a sub -area of the Delhi watershed known in the 208 reports as Sampling Area 9. Sampling Area 9 includes that portion of the channel watershed from Santa Ana Avenue south to Upper Newport Bay. The area includes Bristol Street southeast of the Corona del Mar Freeway, Irvine Avenue, and the residential streets in Santa Ana Heights and nearby portions of Costa Mesa and Newport Beach. This portion of the watershed contained in 1977, 55.5 acres of streets and other impervious surfaces. (The figure has • increased since that time because of improvements to Bristol Street, the construction of the Corona del Mar Freeway and the increase of commercial and professional facilities in the area.) Sampling Area 9 produced about 15 tons of waste solids per year, or an average of 541 pounds per impervious acre. (The overall solid waste average for the entire watershed is 424 pounds per acre.) About 1.03 acres of parking area is provided in connection with the Acacia Offices project. At a maximum it could be projected that this surface would accumulate around 557 pounds of waste per year. For actuality, as a non -street impervious surface, its annual accumulation should be much less. Composition of Wastes The following types of contaminants are identified from the Santa Ana -Delhi watershed, in pounds per acre per year: BOD (Biochemical Oxygen Demand) 8.4 Iron . . . . . . . 9.3 COD (Chemical Oxygen Demand) . 59.2 Lead . . . . . . . 0.77 Orthophosphate . . . . . . . . 0.2 Manganese . . . . 0.18 Other Phosphates . . . . . . . 1.0 Nickel . . . . . . 0.024 Nitrate . . . . . . . . . . . 0.3 Strontium . . . . 0.006 Ammonia . . . . . . . . . 1 . 1 Zinc . . . . . . . 0.16 • Organic Nitrogen . . . . . . . 1.2 Cadmium 0.002 Chromium . . . . . . . . . . . 0.09 Copper . . . . . . 0.033 Fecal Coliforms . . . (not computed) Other Coliforms . . . (n6t computed) The levels of the toxic heavy metals cadmium, cromium, copper, lead and zinc can fluctuate widely and while the average concentrations of these materials may be below the toxicity threshold level of Bay blota, maximum concentrations can be predicted to cause adverse impacts, especially In areas near the channel outlet. Element Mean ug/I Maximum ug/I Cadmium 18.4 300 Cromium 45.8 560 Copper 25.8 96 Lead 196 1100 Zinc 160 610 (Source: 208-13d) Pollution Sources The following are identified as sources of the pollutants enumerated: Organic fertilizers . . (bacterial contamination) Urban runoff . . . . . (bacterial contamination, trace metals) Rural wastes . . . . . (bacterial contamination) Agricultural irrigation return . . (trace metals) Rainwater . . . . . . . (trace metals from air pollution) • Point source discharges . . . . . (trace metals) (Source: 208-13d) 4.2.2.2 Impacts on Estuary Biota Impacts on Upper Newport Bay blota would be most severe during the first storm flush of contaminants. Most impacts would be at a sublethal point but would adversely affect the composition and health of ecosystem constituents. Heavy Metals Heavy metals are toxic to phytoplankton. Some species are more tolerant then others. Over a period of time, strains evolve which are Increasingly tolerant. Certain metals, such as copper and zinc Interact synergistically, increasing their toxicity impact. The types of effects of heavy metals on phytoplankton Include the following: • increase of cell membrane permeability . increase in cell size as lethal concentrations are approached • inhibition of photosynthesis • population decrease of sensitive species; population increase in other species • • Heavy metals are toxic to zooplankton. Zooplankton take up heavy metals by adsorption or by phytoplankton food consumed. Zooplankton can also loose heavy metals by moulting or by excretion. A substantial amount of heavy metal material con- tained in fecal pellets settles on the bottom and becomes incorporated in sediments. Sublethal effects of heavy metals on zooplankton include: . alteration of metabolic activity . impact on feeding and ingestion rates • impact on growth and development . impact on fecundity . impact on light response - an important behavioral trait in connection with feeding or predator avoidance • impact on swimming activity • combined impact with other types of stress such as low OZ availability and increase in water temperature - also documented to possibly adversely impact fish larvae • reduction in numbers as concentration increases Zooplankton incorporate heavy metals in their biomass. However biomagnification from phytoplankton to zooplankton has not been proven for those metals tested. . (Source: Davies, 1978.) Since heavy metals become incorporated in the food chain, impacts are predicted on higher life forms, such as fish and birds. The role of the Bay as a fish spawning ground and waterbird winter resting locality could cause these impacts to be significant within the larger regional ecosystem. Hydrocarbons Environmental degradation of petroleum hydro- carbons takes place in the aquatic environment. Hydrocarbons are physically dispersed by waves, currents, temperature, wind and depth, and many are eventually incorporated in benthic sediments. Yeasts, fungi, aerobic and anaerobic bacteria, as well as photo- chemical oxidation reduces these materials to more simple substances. Those hydrocarbons remaining can have an adverse impact on Bay biota. Carcinogens have been identified in lighter, aromatic fractions of hydrocarbons. Hydrocarbons may possibly biomagnify in the food chain/web. Microalgae, plankton such as copepods, sponges, polychaete worms, snails, mussels, scallops, oysters, clams, crabs and sea stars take up hydrocarbon pollutants which are of a chronic source nature. (Many of these organisms can rid themselves of pollutants if placed in a clean environment.) • Fish and birds also receive accumulated hydrocarbons from lower life forms. The kinds of impacts on organisms from hydrocarbon pollution • include the following: . interference with feeding and reproduction . abnormal growth and behavior . susceptibility to predation . lessening ability to colonize . changes in populations; shifts in species composition and diversity . delayed cellular division in phytoplankton . decreased survival/reproduction in polychaetes. Increase of nonsensitive species such as �CaCa itel�la ca itata . reduced chemotactic feeding response�n sna s en crabs inhibited mating responses to feromones In male crabs . abnormal fish spawn. Adult fish exhibit tumors, especially bottom feeding species (like sole). Fish show digestive interference, slowing heart beat. . accumulation of pollutants In the vital organs of birds, including the brain impacts on plants include damage to phytoplankton and benthtc species and exploitation by tolerant groups such as blue-green algae. An algal "bloom" can indicate serious hydrocarbon pollution. (Source: Connell and Miller, 1980-81) Biological Ox en Demand (BOD) Oxygen consuming materials • can cause a re uc on n the dissolved oxygen level in the estuary. Near drainage discharge points, this reduction can reach critical levels. Nutrients An increase In algal bloom and eutrophication occurs as the phytoplankton and other estuarine algae are fertilized. This eventually can lead to an increase in BOD substances which deplete available dissolved oxygen. Debris and Floatables These materials probably have a minor mpact on most ay biota, but detract from the aesthetic and recreational character of this body of water and its shores. 5.0 IMPACT MITIGATIONS 5.1 WATER QUALITY - UPPER NEWPORT BAY Though the impact of the project is predicted to be minor and insignificant within the regional urban watershed, several mitigation measures to lessen the amounts of site -generated pollutants which enter Upper Newport Bay are suggested. The list presented is in a way a choice of alternatives, one or more which may satisfactorily mitigate site -generated impacts on regional water quality. 0 1. Divert parking lot runoff onto adjacent permeable surfaces. Adjacent surfaces allowing percolation of runoff into under- lying sediments include the golf course northwest of Office Building No. 1, the vegetated median strip north of Office Buildings No. I and No. 2 and the triangle of vacant land between Office Buildings No. 2 and No. 3. 2. Install a permeable strip between Acacia Street and paved portions of the parking lot. 3. Install parking lot -level or sublevel planter areas and drains from the parking lot to these and other vegetated portions of the site. 4. Use porous paving material. 5. Install a subsurface gravel bed beneath the lot to receive storm runoff and divert it into underground sediments. 6. Regularly clean parking lot surfaces with a vacuum -type street sweeper able to reach curb -sides. 5.2 CONSTRUCTION IMPACT MITIGATIONS Appropriate runoff barriers should be installed during the • construction phase of the project to prevent the entry of silts, grease and oil into the watershed. it is recommended that construction take place during the summer months to prevent accidental slit runoff. 5.3 LOCAL AVIFAUNA If possible, it is recommended that some of the mature trees on the site be retained and incorporated in the landscape plan for the office project. If this is not possible, new shrub and tree plantings and lawn areas should be installed as soon as feasible. This will provide replacement habitat for local avifauna presently utilizing the site. • 6.0 REFERENCES CITED Connell, D.W. and G.J. Miller, carbons in Aquatic Ecosystems: Sublethal Concentrations. Part Reviews Vol. II, No. I and No. 1980-81. "Petroleum Hydro - Behavior and Effects of I, Part 11." CRC Critical 20 1980-81. Davies, Anthony G., 1978. "Pollution Studies with Marine Plankton, Part II" in Advances in Marine Biolo Yol. 15, Academic Press, London, Now York, an ranc sco, 1978, pp. 382-517. Pomeroy, Johnston and Bailey, 1977. 208 Arsawide Waste Treatment Mana ement Plannin Program- as , Marin ater ua ty - , as - ssessment of Surface Water Quality - NIWA (208-14d), Task 5 - Surface Runoff Wasteload Assessment - NIWA (208-15e). Southern California Association of Governments, 1977. VTN Consolidated, 1980. EIR 232 John Wayne Airport. Orange County EMA, October . • APPENDIX B ARCHAEOLOGICAL/PALEONTOLOGICAL • • ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY REPORT ON THE ACACIA OFFICES PROJECT, OPI-1 LOCATED IN THE SANTA AM HEIGHTS AREA OF THE COUNTY OF ORANGE FOR THE PLANNING CENTER 240 NEWPORT CENTER DR. SUITE 215 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 ATTN: MR. KEETON KREITZER BY SCIENTIFIC RESOURCE SURVEYS, INC. 2770-F SOUTH HARBOR BLVD. SANTA ANA, CA 92704 MAY 15, 1981 0 0 L. FV TABLE OF CONTENTS ly INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . I LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 METHODS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 r' ETHNOGRAPHIC/CULTURAL SETTING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 LITERATURE AND RECORDS CHECK . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 FIELD SURVEY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 MITIGATION MEASURES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 APPENDIX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. General Location of Project Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 2. Specific Location of Property Boundary . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3. Present Condition of Study Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 4. Photographic Documentation of Disturbance to the I:» Subject Property . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 5. Ethnographic Location of Project Area . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 l_ 6. Photo Documentation of Aboriginal Shell Deposit on the Subject Property . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 7. Photographic Documentation of Archaeological. Artifact on OPI-1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 LIST OF TABLES l.. Table 1. Classification of Site Types for Upper Newport Bay Sites 9 L f4 '1 INTRODUCTION The following report is submitted at the request of Mr. Keeton Kreitzer of the Planning Center to conduct an archaeological survey of the project known as The Acacia Offices, OPI-1, located in the Santa Ana Heights area of the County of Orange. The survey was conducted to fulfill the requirements of the Environmental Management Agency, County (� of Orange in accordance with the County Cultural Resource Guidelines. LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION CThe project area consists of a 1.7± acre parcel of land located in the Santa Ana Heights Area of the County of Orange.(Figure 1). The parcel is situated north of the present extent of Upper Newport Bay, south of the Orange County Airport, west of Bayview School and east of the Santa Ana Country Club. (Figure 2). Specifically the study area encompasses the southwestern corner of the intersection of Acacia and Orchard Streets (Figure 3). l� The property presently contains a total of eighteen structures as well as several concrete slabs, driveways, and wooden and cyclone fencing ( (Figure 3). Disturbance to the property is also evident in the areas of introduced trees for landscaping which inclilde ash, sycamore, cypress apricot, and eucalyptus. Two-thirds of the property is being utilized as residential housesites. The remaining one-third of the parcel contains a fenced in corral, stables and tack and feed facilities. Figure 4A shows a panorama of the western property boundary line depicting the stable structures. I� The entire corral area has been covered with imported beach sand (Figure Q). Several local residents indicated that the sand was introduced and the presence of bean clam in the sand deposits indicates that the shell remains are natural (Figure 4C). • s L 'y'l fAruel n i:. L.a Gy jicj:py "Ud Wnll•.' L I fAfV/Gl:i `irl;/ •� ^?`;liollov+'�'.I� i�'s �.; __ •y-J •,I.r.'_ _ >!i' ' rir'ti{�r c3lrr�J".'\''o; .•r�rrr, ,•S �n r4�. i... it i1. U:rilr '^���:� /',rW4ry �In \�U '•r •�' rr ,; t; I�iRrv.r'fii•a •'rJl.yaNk 6•P'.ry./ \'I � 1 Ir Wmarpili CaJwn Canyon,, •rl ✓I)� `u1lW.�,: I�r/f •�' y' J a r rld ' • ' Yorbpt Lin ANNta1��:;,� \a 'Awn.. .on Lid •,11 • i a W u• pc•r.jir I i--�'rrr.,�.v.,-1,y%'�. ,.- *" 1 :�+ •___•'.Y r....::r --,—:•ram"' IAi'. :' ._.�.1 Ip"It•t/'1 SICkRA IPFAK•111t31mp/� 1•r.r�w unit r �• C,•rn,,Jdln fa•ooriot;jj�/r rh'tr (r:f I i r.r ' � ♦i� may/ /, l ii .. ;.'llrranl :Wnnr\ r ell l PA'YiVa yard' I'.1. \ 1 SSI 11 {luny V 1 � it \a:;•, r, %"_t I � . � �( t �I I I•r.IlalKb•'I If Jonrtrn r',a• Mlrl'b lhr''ll�y i i '% r l I 1 oaJ,il '• r •_: d, U31in••♦1 Si r npn ♦ / r7 i Nu1nnl . N 14, Irvin,•y)�h'-—rL�-irM„•,f--r 1• r+1V'• :r",. : ^-- • rvrnr" It 1CA. (,_I oou)))U•• D i . V, Via 6p61• _III r,• A�� a ♦N'r.�//.rJNtl I r 1 \ „-J � r...5 + 'o "t• WN�Jell lx I 'll,^ \\ �_ s �'11\T"RA;G•I I�trd,F`.,`l•if Ana del delM1laq .^ i^r urmu (•_',' /__,k V-.L _��� I ♦ �� 1 �',/ r"'WlnJmrl— I�- wW n` P'v�,, �:, lei/a��1,/n I\I rr .wnai� � •vim ! A:allyan 14i•;3 \I , Yfatn l •� N- I J !• yr C� •„� ° tYnxut. ,� '/, �Pmaoo 1duf.un w, rold DayL' • '?,,. I ,d juObl the Wnrld, \. i.7 9Una bpgclr. i Wmnmm , t `\�'^r�17(�`'InNi• L.t'a}I �:Y I^ac •,\,' ` '\I• �14r / IiFIIItIra1N%�✓r... • la1 . r Dana Poml,i •,•f fYW 1. . Figure 1 - General Location of Project ,Area From Greater Western USGS Long Beach (1957) and Santa Ana (1975) Quads. Scale 1:250,000. L 2 - M e nnr•r .r,uu., it l... i,t : � ,r+r i 1 •r•=' • r"1 is k yr _r am'n�.m9'JOwh, dylun, —'r (iriyMr�-1,-,, •.. .• tit : I li !. •• \ �I i r /w i _ in rM �.• / ♦ •. «.M� yca• % , I,/JrO/'%,/" •� LOr / b J `.b-r.Y�....•a; � CNAIfNC y � 'rl� r ,� / ♦ rbIt V \ / Cq '- 4 n Slr+�•aa• H.yf1� y'n'NOy�.1 %%.' , _PI.' /( r " /�+ �p -�n0� � �' /( Q� �X, ' B � d; 'N. C tr♦nu r ! •! I+r r � � . /� .e vip Four �I...- ur• N(;/ lt�� ,1 f( i G7• /' / ♦�v+w' F. \/ N °�-u'.9r '•r� 'f .•' ♦.i ri V /O of N •art... ..w.:. 1.... Ririx f L7©.r� kit u; 1�. Parr, . • 1, r of -owl ertwjNKLi! 1 Uar'L^i. • �IARn ;`*�. •«y,;. ol'r ,✓a�y'd / �, ♦ °+ ,6 \\ p�.r '7 , r `•• a Wi1rrN,,„�l' �, �, 10� lr 0! 1 .P •, 1 low 1+ ORAMOL C6Ndir,' VtY hJAtRGNOUND5 , * �•' "\ ' �' / '14 'n 10 of ivC 6j n+ u/ ,r\\• , COYRVY CIW� r •�'Is" :yam % //'l> yP �' O j r to q; ,,,u ' � �' h ,�./ ���" � \ ,. ( '�,•, ,raj ,r-'��sa '•, PRO Eli �BogN RY ` V aP1�1 L1•'ii�/b' YM 41`Y , �i.�♦ ( /♦` 1i } 'i rt •: --._ � f'+'., I� ,/r T .. 'i� ••- • Via +�l iyy .. /+ �• r \ i �� r %Du or J/ +°edi✓'.,:,� X/X v-ral»nu,Y i �O�"''` i al, r�' � . k �nn�YYrrwl Santy�Ana'I ei bts.•�` �7 `r r �, \ . , r ±' r t:' I r ." ` ` �• , Il 1 •, a•�� iY 1 /✓a ,% f rAI , . 'rj `�Tj�f , �1 I r� r' JD♦rltir it �+ +/ V' ' � a �i. ,(//r ♦`•� i r 4•`, ♦a •.Y/ i ,, b:R'r Duo Club! j\J 4�♦"�yY �.✓ � /�J/�l/ � , 'v l' •��-\'1� 'w"jj ./0 �! '/�-''fA'.'�r'ti •',yri�i♦ '4-�'`%titA r`•''.�i tit ni' N f. sill 1Cr4YNiiNf MUD r EA,CH C� • SKI M''i »� 1�'r �' r� ! •4i yrny. •'. ` AAY-rut y' r, ,, ir, ' •r t•, t ,'J' r,rr, •l , 1 r 1 / •�r. y + ..1 ..' rn,. l.•I• IN Js. Y` `.''f i 'a ii'i, q 2„ f(\ . •�.•,f/� f n o 'V } Sy.,,)^'J. / :. vY�y'4,'•��y„ Ar4 4)� /P� i� J, iy4j�'rr ..FniO/�y+4r , •, •; t , vAl l �!•„V y r } 1 1 ' r / r D� �f�'. ,'', , y1i��r.1� . l.b. Th r, y ! \tl'„ �• ,M ♦. •rti. / i i r �, J4 ��y �' �r. _r �. �� f,� .'alJorrowi � t..4t !�'• r�•i�� �i� �, r/i r i � � s • y�' • '+�.I , i 1„�•.., r s ry •, \.\` "', _�xa '�/,''.e•':�: yo:4 111I�,r��',;a,\,.�,. ,y,�rj „o' •!� :`r-" `- r v '. tia- i / �'. ',4) •a.i ',' i :•� Tl i r r, p a� I ,, 1„ /iAr ,✓ i• i , , �1 t\ y •,' ' .,•\a ,., , nrnua -» r 11W c - 2a v�+c, Figure 2: Specific Location of Property Boundary from USGS Tustin (1965) and Newport Beach (1965) Quads. Scale 1.24,000. . 3 - f� ate,-T� "�.. l ..r .t- >.. .M1 •'; ��p`; METHODS I An archaeological records check was requested and received from the Archaeological Survey Office at the University of California, Los Angeles 1 (Appendix A). SRS Master Records for Orange County Archaeology and History were consulted for additional information. The property was physically surveyed on May 7th by Roger J. Desautels, n Dr. Nancy A. Whitney-Desautels, and Jack Collins of SRS. Portions of the property were photographed and resurveyed on May llth by Dr. Whitney- _ Desautels and.Karen Gasser (SRS Archaeologist). The report was written l� by Dr. Whitney-Desautels and typed by Becky Allen of SRS. The type of survey conducted was the non-exclusive deployed surface �. survey with background research (King 1978). Specifically, this means that the inspection was confined to the ground surface only and that l' no attempt was made to clear obstructions such as brush, grasses, leaves and other materials. The crew members were deployed over the landscape in a prescribed manner, using background research to identify areas of high potential for archaeological sites. (: Ethnographic/Cultural Setting The project area is located within the ethnographic Gabrielino tribal boundaries as defined by Kroeber in his Handbook of California Indians in 1925 (Figure 5). The Gabrielino territory basically encompasses the Los Angeles River Basin, the Santa Ana River Basin, Catalina Island and the foothill region of the San Gabriel Mountains. Geographically these areas are interconnected and provided easy lines of communication and trade with the entire ethnographic group. I L E •w/ F«lYalb 'S.;Nw«1 r+• �1`.ILy 41 �. Kra.•.. .M�1\Y'M1 r11 "r oAYMi1\ !Y"OAaHH r r\'aMbtrnnrdlne r� /"4� s.t.f ij Ytlal s tAbmonw MAµR• 4�" dt& Ar.t\IA /% tRNIY1di Yiww.i i / Y.MM •«.... snlvile rre sa.r / Agar OBwnts'Anw �aPROJE Wrt /M Mar.... .I iJIrAwM.•NI [sis.WMI o MAMA w �rry y c"Mw.:.•..h .r Nwww L• rww 4 ' •�1 ✓SI "All %• ` � w �,. ,rl•/YNAN YNV::w. `•.wMr.M.M• «+.+�. �'M V.N. Iti'.•wrI •� AM" rIw \ YSM�w \lA"N. Pa. haw tt.C% IMI\Or41dt ..N Y. .Iw.N.• YI • M.NN� •"�. •• �"'Y • SrMN.I N..I 4 MM ul\ul 4\NI N•'MIM41 MM •w ... 3"r , Y.w .11 .rw. awn (. YMII4n W.Iw Figure 5: Cthnographic Location of ProjI-ct Area from Kroebur (1925). . The Gabrielino typically lived in scattered bands composed of multiple family units related by clan or lineage ties. Villages varied in size from 20 to as many as 600 or more individuals depending upon the avail- ability of local resources. These villages were occupied for much of the t year. However, periodically the village group would segment into smaller social units, and disperse themselves across the countryside in scattered I" camps to optimally exploit certain seasonally available food resources. The Gabrielino were not agriculturalists nor horticulturalists. They subsisted on a wide variety of wild food products including acorns, sage seeds, and grass seeds, cattail tubers and shoots, various berries, and �+ greens in addition to numerous others. Animals important to their diet included deer, rabbits, a variety of small rodents, fish and shellfish; f. birds, reptiles and insects were also consumed. Shelter construction materials were obtained from the local environment. Houses were typically composed of a circular domed framework of willow poles or oak branches covered with tules, grasses, brush, or bark. Basketry of many shapes and sizes were imported elements used. Other tools (. included wooden digging sticks, throwing sticks, bow and arrows, fishing gear (bone and shell fish hooks), bone awls and stone hammers, choppers, scrapers, and knives. Hard seeds were processed on milling stones with a hand-held grinding stone. Acorns and other vegetable products and some animals were pulped -pounded with mortars and pestles. The local Indians interacted over a wide area and were involved in extensive trade networks. These included the exchange of foodstuffs, animal products, tool materials (steatite, obsidian), finished tools (stone bowls, corrals) and status and other soci-religious objects such as beads, ceramic and ( stone pipes and various esoteric items. This network extended from the Channel Islands and coastal areas into the mountains and eventually to the desert as far east as Arizona. 1� Literature and Records Check 0 The records check revealed that no archaeological sites had been previously recorded on the subject property (Appendix). However, a total of 27 (_ archaeological sites are known within a two kilometer radius of the parcel and an additional 56 sites within a four kilometer radius. Fourteen of the sites within two kilometers of the study area have been either �- destroyed or disturbed to such an extent that scientific data is unattainable (SRS Records). The majority of the sites are in close proximity to the shores of present Upper Newport Bay. Two site complexes have been previously recorded which I. are situated north of the bay and back from the bluffs. These are in the immediate vicinity of the subject property. Previous research by SRS on the settlement and subsistence patterns of Upper Newport Bay categorized all 27 sites according to a type classi- fication as shown in Tablo 1 (SRS 1978). ( Table 1: Classification of Site Types for Upper Newport Bay Sites. is t I. Sedentary Habitation Sites 1` A. Sites with burials 1 Ora-77, 174A, 194(687) B. Sites with sedentary assemblages Ora-169 1 II. Ephemeral Campsites A. Sites with rock alignments (Firepits, Features) Ora-168, 166, 164, 193 B. Processing areas with vertical/horizontal concentrations I Ora-172, 1748, 193 M. Processing Areas With Unknown Amenities bra-171, 191, 173, 170, 43, 347, 348, 351, 192 Ora-55, 54, 91, 90, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97 The major category "sedentary habitation" lists those sites which can be assumed to have been major village complexes. The category inciudr!s sites with known buridls (onto ur more) and sites ilith tvcifaut ns.fsmbLigr; which are associated with village settlements, such as complete procurement and processing tool units and ceremonial itens. Four site complexes have been included in this category. t 9 L r Six sites are contained in the category "ephemeral campsites". This group encompasses sites wnich have evidence of extensive use for food processing and preparation. The final category includes eighteen sites which appear to have once contained minor food processing areas. 1 Chronologically, SRS postulated in the previous study that the sites located directly adjacent to the present day shores of Upper Newport fBay were late prehistoric sites where the inhabitants utilized the bay resources when the bay was at its lowest water level (close to present level). The two inland complexes were in use earlier than the immediate shore sites as indicated by dating on the Spiller Site by SRS when the Bay extended further inland (SRS 1978). Review of the literature allowed SRS to postulate that if a resource La were located on the survey of the subject property the site would at least contain evidence that the area had been used for minor shell shucking activities during the time period of approximately 0 A.D. to 1000 A.D.. The site would probably be associated with the two known major village complexes located slightly inland of the present Bay shores. Field Survev I_ The field survey resulted in the location of an archaeological site encompassing approximately one acre of the Acacia Offices study area. ( The entire western portion of the "L"-shaped parcel contains an aboriginal shell midden, evidence that the area was utilized in prehistoric times for processing shellfish. Figure 6 (below) shows the location of shell L- in the native soil on the subject property. The shell was observed next I to a tree trunk, where the soil had been recently turned in preparation l_ for flower planting. Evidence of the shell midden was also observed along several edges of the subject property, and in and among residential and house stable facilities. The aboriginal shell areas contain different shell species than those included in the imported sand; the shell is fragmented and in a weathered condition. L. 10 L 1.: ZL • General I • Figure 6. Photo Documentation of Aboriginal Shell Deposit on the Subject Property. j- In addition to the presence of aboriginal shell, one diagnostic artifact was located during the field survey. Inspection of the cut banks along ! the periphery of the parcel resulted in the discovery of a large milling - stone fragment protruding from the bank along Irvine Avenue. The milling - stone is at least 50% complete and was situated approximately one foot in depth below the present surface. The soil matrix surrounding the artifact consists of a dark brown loam which differs in color and texture from the red clay soil base of the parcel and light yellow imported sand in the corral areas. The soil is consistent with archaeological midden deposits 1 located in the upper Newport Bay area. Figure 7 photroirdphicdlly documents the lucation of the millingaune. The I. tigure shows that the site probably once extended beyond Irvine Avenue and encompassed portions of the Golf Course directly west of the subject property. . 11 L� u < A. Panorama Looking Northeast Along Irvine Avenue. Stables on Right Situated on Subject Property. Arrow indicates Location of Millingstone in Cut Bank. Photo Shows That Bank Was Cut By Construction of Irvine Avenue. < D. Top view Showing Millingstone Protruding From Cut Bank. 0 Figure 7: Photographic DocumentAtion of Archaeological Artifact on DPI-1 i 12 Upon completion of the field survey SRS reviewed survey records from • archaeologists working in the County of Orange from the 1920's to the 1940's. Review of the literature revealed that Herman Strandt had indicated a large site labelled "107" roughly encompassing the area of the intersection of Acacia and Mesa Streets. The site, Strandt 107, has never been accurately located since his recordation in 1921. Because several sites exist in the immediate vicinity, archaeologists have attributed at least three of these to the Strandt number. The newly recorded site located on the Acacia Offices Property, and its probable extension into the Golf Course, is the closest recorded site to the early Strandt location. The Strandt map symbol indicates that the site was, in his opinion, Early Shoshonean, which corresponds with the SRS hypothesis that sites slightly inland of the Bay are earlier than bay shore sites. The archaeological deposit on the Acacia Offices property is probably the last remaining vestige of Strandt Site 107. MITIGATION MEASURES Due to the highly disturbed condition of the site preservation is not • a viable recommendation: SRS therefore recommends the following measures: I. The site should be field tested to determine the areal extent, depth, nature and content of the resource. This could be accomplished by the excavation of a series of trenches (utilizing a backhoe with attendant spot screening) and the hand excavation of a minimum of six I meter x 2 meter units. 2. Prepare a report which would give the results of the tests and an evaluation of the resource. The report should also contain recommendations for further salvage excavation if necesszry. Scient,if1c Resource Surveys, Inc. Date r J 13 REFERENCES King, Thomas F. 1978 The Archaeological Survey: Methods and Uses. Heritage Conservation and Recreation Service. U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington. lI Kroeber, A.L. 1925 Handbook of the Indians of California. California Book, Berkeley: 1953. Scientific Resource Surveys, Inc. 1978 Archaeological Report: Surface Collection/Index Sample On site,.CA-Ora-174, The Spiller Property, Located in the Santa Ana Heights Area of the County of Orange. Ms on file at SRS, Santa Ana, CA. • r L* • L 14 APPENDIX 15 0 California Archaeological Site Survey Archaeological Survey Institute of Archaeology ORANGE ' University of California, Los Angeles LOS ANGELES Los Angeles, CA 90024 VENTURA (213) 825.7411 Scientific Resource Surveys, Inc. (y 2770-F South harbor Blvd. 1 Santa Ana, CA 92704 Attention: Roger J. Desautels RE: Archaeolo-oical Records Check U.S.G.S. Ref: Newport Reach j" Dear `tr. Desautels: May 5, 1981 for The Planning Center 7.510 #RC-31-9 pursuant to vour request of April 30, 1951, 1 have checked records on file at the Survey relevant to the above -referenced parcel, also indicated on the enclosed man. Our maps do not show any recorded archaeological sites within the boundaries of the property. Twenty-seven recorded archaeological sites are located within two kilometers of the parcel, ho:aever (Ora-43, 44, 45, 54, 55, 56, 57(77), 90, 91, 93, 94, 95, 96, 164, 166, 165, 170, 172, 174, 191, 192, 193, 194, 347, 343, 351, 637). Fifty-six additional sites are located within four kilometers of the property. •11nirtepn of the sites within two kilometers of the property have been reported destroyed. Excavations have been conducted at 12 of the 27 sites. Less than 1/4 of the area within a two kilometer radius has been previously surveyed, as shown on the enclosed map. 71ne majority of the area shown as surveyed ,also lacks documentation at this office. A check of the historic topographic man for this area, U.S.C.S, Santa Anna 15' 1396 and 1901 editions, showed no record of historic structures on the property. A check of the National Reoister and the California Inventory of Historic Resources was also negrative for the parcel. Should ,you have any questions regarding the above records check, do not hesitate t to contact this office. Sincerely, T l) Survev, 1Fc?taeo o zst •encs. -/ 16 L ^eferences #OR273 Archaeological Report on the Spilior Site S.R.S. May 197E #OR190 Archaeological Field Test Report on the Bristol street Associatos Proposed Developnont on Bristol Street in the Newport Beach Area of the County of Orange, California S.R.S. ,Tuna 1977 JOR360 An Archaeological Cvaluation of Ora-193, .Newport Bay, Orange County, California I. Lyneis February 1079 NOR561 Ora-193 on Newport Bay: Implications for oabrielino Subsistence Systems M. Lyneis March 1973 NOR364 Report on Archaeological Investigations at CA-Ora-192 A.R.I. February 1977 MR406 Archaeological Excavations conducted at the Bristol Street site, CA-Ora-657, Locus I and Locus II A.R.k1.C. ;fay 1975 "0R413 I.astbay: Archaeological Resourcas Investigation. A.R.:1.C. n.d. +0R427 Test -Level Investi„ations North Bluffs of Upper Newport 3av, .:ewport Beach, CA A.P.C. Jima 1979 OOR437 Canort on Archacoloptcal 11onitoring of Grading and Construction: CA-Ora-174: The Spiller Site 5.::.5. JuIv 1979 r 9 17 L Scientific Resource Surveys, Inc. LAND BRANCH: 2770-F South Harbor Blvd., Santa Ana, CA 92704 714/979-3981 May 20, 1981 MAY 21.1981 Keeton Kreitzer - Project Manager Planning Center 240 Newport Center Drive Suite 215 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Reference: Paleontology on OP1-1 (1.7 acre parcel), Santa Ana Heights, Orange County, CA. Dear Mr. Kreitzer, This letter is to inform you of the results of'a paleontology field survey and assessment of a 1.7 acre parcel in the Santa Ana Heights Area. A records check revealed no known paleontological sites on the • property, but indicated a large number of localities around Upper Newport Bay. (Figure 1). The project area is underlain with deposits of.alluvium (Qac) and marine terrace sediments (Qtm). Palos _Verdes Sand (Qtm) Palos Verdes Sand under the soil horizon of the property and is exposed along Irvine Blvd. The best exposures of this late Pleistocene (100,000 years ago) marine sandstone can be seen in a large west -facing cut in the Golf Course parking lot. This rock unit consists of a very fine grayish sandstone with minor amounts of caliche. Historically the Palos Verdes Sand, in the Newport Bay area, is very fossiliferous and has yielded numerous species of marine mollusks (clams and snails) (Bruff 1946; Kanakoff and Emerson 1959: Peska 1975), fish and sharks Fitch 1970); birds (Howard 1948, 1958; Miller 1971), and marine mammals (Miller 1971). In addition, remains of Pleistocene land mammals such as rodents, insectivores, rabbits, dire wolf, elephant, horse and bison are known from these marine 'sands (Miller 1971; Lance 1948), No fossils were found in this formation during the survey. The likelihood of discovering scientifically important fossils in the Palos Verdes Sand is low. 0 Alluvium and Colluvium (Qac) is These deposits, which consist of sands and silts, soils overlie the Palos Verdes Sand. Fossils are known from pit excavations for roads, housing developments, and quarries in the Los Angeles Basin (Miller 1971) in similar deposits. Remains of La Brean type animals such as elephants, horses, bison, sabertooth cats, deer, and sloths are known from these earthmoving activities. However, there is a low potential for these types of fossils in alluvial deposits on the subject property. No fossils were observed during the course of the field inspection in these deposits. .Recommended Mitigation Direct impacts on paleontological resources buried within the parcel may result from future construction activities. Although there are a number of localities in the surrounding area, the likelihood of fossils an the project area is low. The following recommendation is suggested. A qualified paleontologist be present at the pregrade meeting and make one or two spot checks of alluvial removal, especially prior to recompaction. Bruff, S.C. 1946 The paleontology of the Pleistocene molluscan fauna of the Newport Say area, California. University of California Publication Geologic Society Bulletin, 27:213-240. is Fitch, John E. 1970 Fish Remains, Mostly Otoliths and Teeth, from the Palos Verde Sand (Late Pleistocene) of California. Los Angeles Co. Mus. Contributions in Science, 199:1-141. Howard, H. 1948 Later Cenozoic avian fossils from near Newport Bay, Orange County, California. Geol. Soc.-Amer. Bull. 59:1372-1373. 1958 Further records from the Pleistocene of Newport Bay Mesa, California. Condor, 69:136. Kanakoff, G.P. and W.K. Emerson 1959 Late Pleistocene Invertebrates of the Newport Bay Area, California Los Angeles County Museum Contributions in Science, 31. Lance, J.F. 1948 Mammals from the Palos Verdes Pleistocene. Geol. Soc. Amer. Bull. 59:1375. Miller, Wade E. 1971 Pleistocene Vertebrates of the Los Angeles Basin and Vicinity (Exclusive of Rancho La Brea). Bulletin of the Los Angeles Peska, F. 1975 A Late Pleistocene molluscan fauna from Costa Mesa, CA. Preliminary • Report. Bull. of S. CA. Paleontological Society 7(11):141-145. Mark A. Roeder -;v4X' - 04• Paleontologist • I• OAT � ']( PSI i'' •„ " I•IILI 9' L- '�'' II / II II W"- � r�ANOVGV�fOR9 j'I II _ ' �-'ll I ¢•"� p COUNTY FAIRGROUNDS RP I j q i �( �I ONlVE :, ,• 1= 69 I • �� LR , // I(sll i '1 '' li�p II hl Vl((AN VA •��`� m•• 7T IP1� I O' II ° � 1\� y'; p IiUinrh 111Lf s�•• 11 it r1 �a llnrhPr x• • y y� LhVVPIn CtP C 11�I TTndPfit 0V 4 C+1 II II I ?artfp�•.. AC04217 v ©C OST4 E I •1 •''•AVCCAOO sr .} LEGEND Qac Alluvium Qtm + Qac Marine terrace deposits plus �P alluvium. krllell nry,L � � 4 a] Y%w11.i:41 Jig / . r •''�;ar =•' �'••. o D.W IPf • as �. ¢. / °fie �� KUM- Shop �% 7 .�� ••z .i •may/ `�� >, i O /� EIeights Sw ! y/ • 1 tfy"yl •'r\�iVfl/sJ1^`b'•t•fI,��•;• / CC! •, 11 s ' 4 r bMV,I I ghr.l r �w ' '4U' ,I' AuM tlrr ♦ 5Jhh1 ATI •I f counby ('1uL . ,yam•\ `�•'T': N�e O iff I . 4) .. PROJECT.9AR A3� 41 '. !4 UCMP'-4VW33' '=ate y///,% AAw�- J•v& MUD / 1 L CM 100 i+LACh(`32¢� UCMP-A-3134 QP LAC M 6801 l� +, r �� 4422, LACM/P o� F•4 4ACMf6,475 T 7� !/ hb •♦ n/ q. .� .r,. rliwe.a u'�+ 23 Ca ^ LJ4CM (q1 b0 331p3 : mrG •� brl: \ rl� jf (�.•.i P • Figure 1: Specific Area of Project Site Showing Associated Geologic Formations and Known Paleontological Sites. From USGS Newport Beach (1965) Quad Scale: 1:24,000. APPENDIX C PRELIMINARY HYDROLOGY STUDY 0 E 0 • U z vJ W Q U O jU) VJ Q 2632 WALNUT AVENUE^ STE. A- TUSTIN- CA- 5266O 123-21 May 12, 1981 The Planning Center 240 Newport Center Drive, Suite 215 Newport Beach, California 92660 Attention: Mr. Keaton Kreitzer Subject: Preliminary Hydrology Study Acacia Street Properties Dear Keaton: 714.730.04O1 Pursuant to your recent request, our office has performed a preliminary hydrology study in an effort to determine the amount of incremental storm runoff which would result from implementation of an Administrative/Professional development upon the subject properties. A copy of our preliminary study is included with this correspondence. • ❑ Our findings are as follows: Z 1. The properties, in their present single-family usage, exhibit a storm runoff (during the ten-year frequency storm) of Q 3.21 cubic feet per second. 2. Upon implementation of the proposed Administrative/Professional development scheme, the ten-year frequency storm runoff would increase to 4.29 cubic feet per second. The increase, (r of course, is due to the loss of permeable soil area which LL would result by virtue of development. W3. The resulting incremental increase of 1.08 cubic feet per second, or a 33.6 percent increase over the existing runoff, is envisioned to be so minimal as to have virtually no effect \ upon downstream properties or drainage facilities. Please call us is we may be of further assistance in the matter. Sincerely, J Kerry W. Lawler, President cc: MP. Gary Campbell, Oxford Properties Encl. 123-21 PRELIMINARY HYDROLOGY STUDY FOR ACACIA STREET PROPERTIES (At the southwesterly corner of Acacia Street and Orchard Drive, County of Orange, California) Prepared May 12, 1981, in the office of: K.W. LAWLER AND ASSOCIATES, INC. 2832 Walnut Avenue, Suite A Tustin, California 92680 (714) 730-0401 0 Reference: Orange County Flood Control District, Hydrology Manual Purpose of the study: To determine the incremental amount of storm runoff resulting from the subject property in its presently single- family developed state, as compared with a proposed Professional/Adminis- trative use upon the property, Existing Single -Family developed State: 1. The subject property lies within the "Valley" zone of seasonal precipitation and consists of type "D" hydrologic soils, per plates . A and 8-16, respectively, of the HV�r__o__l__o__��yy Manual. 2. For a difference of elevation, `�,�etween ends of the initial area equaling approximately 2 feet, a length, L, of the initial area equaling approximately 300 feet, and a single-family use, the time of concentration, Tc, equals 10.5 minutes (per plate E-1). 3. For Tc = 10.5 minutes, intensity for the 10-year frequency storm, I10, equals 2.37 inches per hour (per plate E-2a). 4. For 110 - 2.37 and a single-family use, the coefficient of runoff, CID equals 0.778 (per plate E-5d). 5. The area of the property, A, equals 1.717 acre, 6. The total runoff from the property for the 10-year frequenty storm, Q10 equals CIA, or 0.788 x 2.37 x 1,717, or 3.21 cubic feet per second. 7. Thus, the runoff from the property in its existing single-family developed state equals 3.21 CFS for the 10-year frequency storm. PROPOSED ADMINISTRATIVE/PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT: 1. For H = 2 feet, L - 300 feet, and a commercial use, Tc - 8.0 minutes (per plate E-1). 2. For Tc = 8.0 minutes, 110 2.95 inches per hour (per plate E-2a). 3. For I10 - 2.95 and a commercial use, CIO = 0.846 (per plate E-5d). KWL . 4. Q10= CIA =0.846x2.95x1.717=4.29CFS. 5. Thus, the runoff from the property in its proposed Administrative/ Professional use equals 4.29 CFS for the 10-year frequency storm. 6. This presents an incremental increase of 1.08 CFS, or 33.6%, over the runoff from the property in its existing state. • KW L APPENDIX D ACACIA UFFICES TRAFFIC STUDY 0 C, C • �unaman L4ssociates Transportation Manning *Traffic Engineering May 20, 1981 Mr. Keeton K. Kreitzer The Planning Center 240 Newport Center Drive Suite 215 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Dear Mr. Kreitzer: We are pleased to present the Acacia Offices Traffic Study. This report summarizes our methodology, analysis, findings, and recommended mitigation measures. We trust that this report will be of immediate as well as continuing value to you and the County of Orange. it has been a pleasure working with you. Should you have any questions, or if we can be of further assistance, please feel free to call. Sincerely, KUNZMAN ASSOCIATES 7AA0611 William Kunzman, P.E. 4664 Berrance Parkway « Irvine. CA 92714 • (714) 559-4231 11 Fable of Contents • Section Page No. 1. Findings ............................................ 2 - Existing Traffic Conditions - Existing Plus Traffic Conditions - Mitigation Measures 2. Project Description ......................... I....... 4 - Project Location - Proposed Development 3. Existing Traffic Conditions 5 - surrounding Street System - Existing Traffic Volumes - Existing Intersection Capacity Utilization 4. Project Traffic ................ I ...... .............. 7 • - Traffic Generation - Traffic Distribution 5. Existing Plus Project Traffic Conditions ............ 10 - Traffic Volumes - Intersection Capacity Utilization - Average Trip Length - Vehicle Miles of Travel 6. other Considerations ................................ 14 - Access Appendices A. Glossary of Transportation Terms B. Explanation and Calculation of Intersection Capacity Utilization • • List of Tables Table No. Title Page No. 1 Trip Generation ................................ 9 2 One -Way Trip Length by Land Use ................ 11 3 Vehicle Miles of Travel ........................ 12 4 Signal Warrant Volumes ......................... 13 • • List of Figures 1 i Following Figure No. Title Page No. 1 Site Plan .................................... 4 2 Existing Traffic Conditions .................. 6 3 Project Traffic Distribution and Assignment outbound 9 4 Project Traffic Distribution and Assignment Inbound 9 5 Existing Plus Project Traffic Conditions .....13 • u Acacia Offices Traffic . Study This report contains the traffic impact analysis of the proposed Acacia Offices development. The project site lies at the south- east corner of Irvine Avenue and Orchard Drive in the unincorpor- ated area of Orange County south of the John Wayne Airport. The project is proposing office uses on approximately 1.7 acres. The traffic report contains documentation of existing traffic conditions, traffic generated by the project and distribution of the project traffic to surrounding roads. Each of these topics is contained in a separate section of the report. The first section is "Findings", and subsequent sections expand upon the findings. In this way, information on any particular aspect of the study can be easily located. Although this is a technical report, every to write the report clearly and concisely. with those terms unique to transportation of terms is provided in Appendix A. effort has been made To assist the reader engineering, a glossary 1, Findings 1 • r This section summarizes existing traffic conditions, existing plus project traffic conditions, and suggested mitigation measures. Existing Traffic Conditions a. The project site contains four single family residences and a horse stable. b. Access to and from the existing uses is taken at Orchard and Acacia. c. It is estimated that the existing uses generate approximately 100 vehicle trips per day. d. The intersections studied are operating at the following Levels of Service during the morning and evening peak hours: 1. Irvine Avenue and orchard - "A" in the morning and "A" in the evening 2. Irvine Avenue and Mesa - "B" in morning and "C" in the evening • 3. Irvine Avenue and Bristol North - "E" in the morning and "P" in the evening 9. Irvine Avenue and Bristol South - "C" in the morning and "C" in the evening Existing Plus Project Traffic Conditions a. The project will add 290 vehicle trips daily. b. The project will add 3,117 vehicle miles of travel daily, c. The intersections studied will operate at the following Levels of Service during the morning and evening peak hours: 1. Irvine Avenue and orchard - "A" in the morning and "A" in the evening 2. Irvine Avenue and Mesa - "B" in the morning and "D" in the evening 3. Irvine Avenue and Bristol North - "E" in the morning and "8" in the evening 0 • • 11 4. Irvine Avenje and Bristol South - "C" in the morni_ix and "C" in the eveninc Mitiaation Measures a. All roadways abutting to ultimate cross -sect b. Parking stalls perpend placed a minimum of 40 C. Install a traffic sign The signal is warrante after the project is c 2. Project Description Project Location The project site is located in an unincorporated area of Orange County south of the John Wayne Airport. The irregularly shape property is bounded by Irvine Avenue on the north, Orchard Drive on the northeast, Acacia on the east, and residential uses to the south. Proposed Development The 1.7 acre site is to be developed for office uses. Four sep- arate buildings containing a total of 26,000 square feet are proposed. Figure l depicts the Site Plan for the proposed devel- opment. 0 J • • j<uIlaVAQh c-ASSOCiates Figure 1 Site Plan 3. Existing Traffic Conditions • This section discusses the surrounding street system, daily traffic volumes and intersection capacity utilization. Figure 2 illustrates the existing traffic conditions. Surrounding Street System Local and regional access will be provided for the project traf- fic from the following roadways. Acacia Avenue. This is a two-lane north -south roadway with on - street park ng serving residential and horse stable uses. There are curb and gutter improvements along portions of this roadway. Access to the project site is proposed on Acacia. Orchard Drive. This is a two-lane east -west roadway serving residential Uses forming the northeast boundary of the project site. Irvine Avenue (Cam us Drive). In the vicinity of the project site, t is is a our- ane divided north -south roadway having left turn channelization at Orchard Drive. North and south of • the project site this road becomes a four -lane undivided roadway. Irvine Avenue forms the project's northerly boundary. Bristol Street (North and South). This is an east -west eight - lane divided roadway w1th the two four -lane segments separated by the Corona Del Mar Freeway right-of-way. Irvine Avenue - Campus Drive have signalized crossings at Bristol. Mesa Drive. This is a two-lane east -west roadway without curbs or gutters. It has a signalized intersection with Irvine Avenue. Existing Traffic Volumes The existing daily traffic volumes are based upon traffic counts made in the spring of 1981 and the October 1980 County Traffic Flow Map. These volumes are depicted in Figure 2. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) ICU is essentially a measure of the portion of an intersection's total capacity being utilized by the traffic volumes. An explana- tion of ICU and Levels of Service is included in Appendix B. rJ F1 • Using the existing evening peak hour traffic volumes and current intersection geometrics, the existing Intersection Capacity Uti- lization (ICU) was calculated for the intersections in the vici- nity of the project site. As illustrated in Figure 2, three of the four intersections studied are operating at Level of service "C" or better. The intersection which is currently operating at Level of service "E" in the morning and "F" in the evening is Irvine Avenue and Bristol North. This will continue to be the situation until the Corona Del Mar Freeway is completed easterly of Irvine Avenue. • • Figure 2 Existing 'Traffic Conditions • Legend 0 Traffic Signal 0 Stop Sign 04 Number of Through Travel Lanes 9201O Daily Two -Way Traffic Volume eIntersection Ca acit Utilization -PM c Leve o Service ` 6113rnalt UkROCIateg • 4 Project Traffic To estimate project -related traffic volumes at various points on the street network, a three -step process is utilized. First, the traffic which will be generated by the proposed development is determined. Secondly, the traffic volumes are geographically distributed to major attractions of trips, such as commercial developments, residential areas, and recreation centers. Finally, the trips are assigned to specific roadways, and the project - related traffic volumes are determined on a route -by -route basis. Traffic Generation The traffic generated by the project is determined by multiply- ing appropriate trip generation rates by the land use quantities. Trip generation rates are expressed in terms of trip ends per person, trip ends per employee, trip ends per acre, or trip ends per thousand square feet of floor space. If a particular land use generates six outbound trips per acre in the morning peak hour, then six vehicles are expected to leave the site in the morning peak hour for each acre of development. • Significant research efforts have been made by CalTrans, the Institute of Transportation Engineers, Kunzman Associates, the County of Orange, and others to establish the correlation be- tween trips and land use. From this body of information, trip generation rates can be estimated with reasonable accuracy for various land uses. Trip generation rates are predicated on the assumption that energy costs, the availability of roadway capa- city, the availability of vehicles to drive, and our life styles remain similar to what we know today. A major change in these variables may affect trip generation rates. Trip generation rates for this project were derived from a November, 197T EMA "Trip Generation Rates -by Land Use" table. By multiplying the traffic generation rates by the type and amount of land use, the traffic volumes were determined as shown in Table 1. For commercial office uses, EMA recommends 15 trips per 1,000 square feet of floor area be utilzed. It should be noted that Table 1 takes into consideration the existing and future traf- fic from the project site, thereby providing the actual amount of new traffic generated. Traffic Distribution and Assignment Traffic distribution is the determination of the directional orientation of traffic. It is based on the geographical loca- tion of commercial, business, residential, and recreational opportunities. 7 Traffic assignment is the determination of which specific route • the project traffic will use, once the generalized traffic dis- tribution is determined. The basic factors affecting route se- lection are minimum time path and minimum distance path. Quite often the minimum time and distance paths are one and the same. When the two paths are different, the minimum time path will usually take precedence, assuming all other considerations are equal. Other considerations might be aesthetic quality of alternate routes, grades, and so forth. It should be noted that the minimal time path is cognizant of congestion. As a roadway's volume approaches capacity, operating speeds decrease. Ultimately, congestion on the shortest distance path will de- crease the speed until an alternate path has a shorter time path, then traffic will divert to the shorter time path. Figures 3 and 4 contain the directional distribution and assion- ment of both outbound and inbound project traffic. 0 COtal :r day 15 13 50 390 50 50 290 • 0 0 • Figure 4 Project Traffic Distribution And Assignment Inbound 30 20 30 35 60 15 5 Site 'Jt 25 20 2e P Legend •25 Percent of Project Traffic U1U{ipian VtSSouateg s. Existing Plus Project Traffic Conditions Once the project -related traffic is assigned to the existing street network and added to existing volumes, the traffic impact can be assessed. Figure 5 illustrates the existing plus project traffic conditions. Traffic Volumes Upon occupancy of the project, the expected daily project traf- fic along with existing volumes will approximate those presented in Figure 5. Intersection Capacity Utilization It can be noted by comparing Figure 2 and Figure 5 that the intersection capacity utilization increases slightly; however, the Levels of Service remain the same except for Irvine Avenue and Mesa Drive which changed from a Level of Service "C" to "D". If a westbound left turn lane were added to Mesa Drive, the Level of Service would return to "C". Average Trip Length Table 2 provides information on average trip length for various land uses. For this project the 9.8 mile employment trip length was used. Vehicle Miles of Travel Since there are existing land uses generating vehicle miles of travel, Table 3 was prepared to illustrate actual new vehicle miles of travel added by the project. Signal Warrants In reviewing Table 4,Signal Warrant Volumes, in conjunction with Figure 5, it can be noted that the intersection of Irvine Avenue and Orchard Drive does meet the "Interruption of Continous Traf- fic Flow" warrant volumes, whether the project is constructed or not. In calculating signal warrant volumes it is necessary to divide • the average daily traffic volumes by two in order to approximate the one-way volumes. Using Irvine Avenue as an example,an aver- age daily traffic of 25,000 vehicles can be interpreted as 12,500 vehicles going south and 12,500 vehicle going north. 10 L7J n LJ L� TABLE 2 ONE-WAY TRIP LENGTHS BY LAND USE Land Use Residential Commercial Employment High School Elementary School All Trips Trip Length Miles 6.9 3.5 9.8 (estimated) 2 (estimated) 1 (estimated) 7.2 SOURCE: Los Angeles Regional Transportation (LARTS) Base Year Report with the "estimated number f„rnished by T9illiam Kunzman and Associates. * LARTS data indicated the home -to -work trip is 10.5 miles and all "other" trips to place of employment is 8.3 miles. The 9.8 assumes two work trips for each "other" trip. 11 Table 3 VEHICLE MILES OF TRAVEL Land Use Trips per day Trip Length Total Miles Existing Houses 50 6.9 345 Stable 50 7.2 360 -Existing Existing Tota 705 Proposer] Office Uses 390 9.8 3,822 New Vehicle Miles of Travel 3,117 12 • LJ r1L Table 4 SIGNAL VOLUME WARRANTS Warrant Minimum Volumes Entering Minimum Vehicular Interruption of Intersection Volume Continuous Warrant Traffic Warrant Urban* Rural Urban* Rural Major Street (Add Both Approaches) . 1 lane approaches Daily Volume 8,000 5,600 12,000 8,400 Eight Highest, Hours Volume 500 350 750 525 Peak Hour Volume 800 560 1,200 840 2 or more lane approaches 9,600 6,720 14,400 10,800 Daily Volume Eight Highest Hours Volume 600 420 900 630 Peak Hour Volume 960 672 1,440 1,080 Minor Street (Highest Volume Approach) 1 lane approaches Daily Volume 2,400 1,680 1,200 850 Eight Highest Hours Volume 150 105 75 53 Peak Hour Volume 240 168 120 85 2 or more lane approaches 3,200 2,240 1,600 1,120 Daily Volume Eight Highest Hours Volume 200 140 100 70 Peak Hour Volume 320 224 160 112 * Use rural warrant,if speed is greater than 40 miles per hour on any leg Source: CalTrans and Federal Highway Administration adopted signal warrants 13 Figure 5 Existing Plus Project Traffic Conditions �c 23000+3o 3'10�+ID 4 toe 30470+ 33200+30 x 7e C 2elMq+3D e / D +� 2e000 +10 2e000+170 M S" JI 22e0+10) J� y 2Dae.1.+40 +220 4. 2e000+70 '4 eDDec.+ 4400+e0 Legend Intersection Cap�acit�.Utilization C Level. of Service 94400+eo Existing plus Project Daily Traffic(Two-way) LI<u11plalt t.tSSOcfafeS r� \J . 6. Other Traffic Considerations Access The width, spacing, and location of access points is an important traffic consideration in the design of an office development. In reviewing the project site plan, the following criteria were used. 1. The distance between driveways or driveways and an intersec- tion should be 200 feet or greater. 2. Driveways should be at least 28 feet wide, and preferably 30 to 35 feet wide, so that an entering vehicle does not interfere with an exiting vehicle. Narrower driveways lead to conflict between entering and exiting vehicles, causing one to stop and wait for the other. 3. The first parking stall which is perpendicular to a driveway should be at least 40 feet back from the curb. The reason for this recommendation is to provide a gueueing area off of the street so that if a vehicle is parking or unparking in the stall nearest the street, there is room for at least one • vehicle to queue while waiting for the other vehicle to park. Without this provision, vehicles will queue into the street. Project access as proposed on Acacia appears to be approximately 250 feet southerly of Orchard. This exceeds the criteria 1 rec- commendation. Without benefit of a scale noted on the site plan, it appears that criteria 2 and 3 may not be met. With only one access point there may be concern as to its capa- city to accommodate project traffic. Table 1 indicates that dur- ing the peak hour, approximately 40 vehicle trips will use the driveway with a 25 to 75 percent directional split. If the even- ing peak hour were used as an example, one vehicle would be exit- ing the site every two minutes and one vehicle would be entering the site every six minutes. Driveway capacity information is scarce. However, the Transpor- tation and Traffic Engineerinq Handbook by the Institute of Trans- portation Engineers indicates that self -parking garages have a capacity of 500 to 600 vehicles per hour per lane with 400 vehicles per lane per hour being the typical design capacity. Comparing the parking garage capacities with the project peak hour vehicle trips reveals that the single access point proposed with this development will accommodate the project traffic. 14 Appendices Appendix A - Glossary of Transportation Terms Appendix H - Explanation and Calculation of Intersection Capacity Utilization 0 0 APPENDIX A GLOSSARY OF TRANSPORTATION TERMS • Glossary of Transportation Terms COMMON ABREVIATIONS ADT: Average Daily Traffic CalTrans: California Department of Transportation DU: Dwelling Unit ERA: Environmental Management Agency FAU: Federal Aid Urban FHWA: Federal Highway Administration ICU: Intersection Capacity Untilisation LOS: Level of Service TSF: Thousand Square Feet V/C: Volume/Capacity VMT: Vehicle Miles Traveled TERMS AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC: The total volume during a year divided by the number of days in a year. Usually only weekdays are included. BANDWIDTH: The number of seconds of green time available for through traffic in a signal progression. BOTTLENECK: A constriction along a traveled way which limits the amount of traffic which can proceed downstream from its location. CAPACITY: The maximum number of vehicles which can be reasonably expected to pass over a given section of a lane or a roadway in a given time period. CHANNELIZATION: The separation or regulation of conflicting traffic movements into definite paths of travel by the use of pavement markings, raised islands, or other suitable means to facilitate the safe and orderly movements of both vehicles and pedestrains. CLEARANCE INTERVAL: Same as yellow time. CORDON: An imaginary line around an area across which vehicles, persons, or other items are counted (in and out). CYCLE LENGTH: The time period in seconds required for one complete cycle. CUL-DE-SAC STREET: A local street open at one end only, and with special provisions for turning around. DAILY CAPACITY: The daily volume of traffic which will result in a volume during the peak hour equal to the capacity of the roadway. DAILY TRAFFIC: Same as average daily traffic. DELAY: The time consumed while traffic element over which it has no control, vehicle. U<U113nialt uAggoetateg is impeded in its movement by some usually expressed in seconds per • LJ • DEMAND RESPONSIVE SIGNAL: Same as traffic -actuated signal. DENSITY: The number of vehicles occupying a unit length of the through traffic lanes of a roadway at any given instant. Usually expressed in vehicles per mile. DETECTOR: A device that responds to a physical stimulus and transmits a resulting impluse to the signal controller. DESIGN SPEED: A speed selected for purposes of design and correlation of those features of a highway, such as curvature, superelevation, and sight distance, upon which the safe operation of vehicles is dependent. DIRECTIONAL SPLIT: The percent of traffic in the peak direction at any point in time. DIVERSION: The rerouting of peak hour traffic to avoid congestion. FIXED TIME SIGNAL: Same as pretimed signal. FORCED FLOW: Opposite of free flow. FREE FLOW: Volumes are well below capacity. Vehicles can maneuver freely and travel unimpeded by other traffic. GAP: Time or distance between successive vehicles in a traffic stream, rear bumper to front bumper. HEADWAY: Time or distance spacing between successive vehicles in a traffic stream, front bumper to front bumper. INTERCONNECTED SIGNAL SYSTEM: A number of intersections which are connected to affect progression. LEVEL OF SERVICE: A qualitative measure of a number of factors, which include speed and travel time, traffic interruptions, freedom to maneuver, safety, driving comfort and convenience, and operating costs. LOOP DETECTOR: A vehicle detector consisting of a loop of wire imbedded in the roadway, energized by alternating current and producing an output circuit closure when passed over by a vehicle. MINIMUM ACCEPTABLE GAP: Smallest time headway between successive vehicles in a traffic stream into which another vehicle is willing, and able to merge. MULTI -MODAL: More than one mode. OFFSET: The time interval in seconds between the beginning of green at one intersection and the beginning of green an adjacent intersection. ORIGIN -DESTINATION SURVEY: A survey to determine the point of orgin and the point of destination for a given vehicle trip. cJ<Ult5mam (ASSOcIQteS PEAK HOUR: The 60 consecutive minutes with the highest number of vehicles. PLATOON: A closely grouped componenet of traffic that is composed of several vehicles moving, or standing ready to move, with clear spaces ahead and behind. PRETIMED SIGNAL: A type of traffic signal which directs traffic to stop and go on a predetermined time schedule without regard to traffic conditions. PROGRESSION: A term used to descride the progressive movement of traffic through several intersections. SCREEN -LINE: An imaginary line or physical feature across whieh all trips are counted, normally to verify the validity of mathematical traffic models. SIGNAL COORDINATION: Same as interconnected signal system. SIGNAL CYCLE: The time period in seconds required for one complete sequence of signal indications. SIGNAL PHASE: The part of the signal cycle allocated to one or more traffic movements. STARTING DELAY: The delay experienced in initiating the movement of queued traffic from a stop to an average running speed through a signalized intersection. TRAFFIC -ACTUATED SIGNAL: A type of traffic signal which directs traffic to stop and go in accordance with the demands of traffic, as registered by the actuation of detectors. TRIP: The movement of a person or vehicle from one location (orgin) to another (destination). For example from home to store to home is two trips, not one. TRIP -END: One end of a trip at either the orgin or destination; i.e. each trip 'has two trip -ends. A trip end occurs when a person, object, or message is transferred to or from a vehicle. TRIP GENERATION RATE: The quantity of trips produced and/or attracted by a specific land use stated in terms of standard units such as per dwelling, per acre, and per 1,000 square feet. TRUCK: A vehicle having dual tires on one or more axles, or having more than two axles. UNBALANCED FLOW: Heavier traffic flow in one direction than the other. VEHICLE MILES: A measure of the amount of usage of a section of highway, obtained by multiplying the average daily traffic by length im miles. V6113I11QtI u4noCi(IFeS 0 Ll EXPLANATION OP INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION (ICU) The ability of a roadway to carry traffic is referred to • as capacity. The capacity is usually greater between intersections and less at intersections because traffic flows continuously between them and only during the green phase at them. Capacity at intersections is best defined in terms of vehicles per lane per hour of green. If cap- acity is 1600 vehicles per lane per hour of green, and if the green phase is 50 percent of the cycle and there are three lanes, then the capacity is 1600 times SO percent times 3 lanes, or 2400 vehicles per hour. The technique used to compare the volume and capacity of an intersection is known as Intersection Capacity Utiliza- tion (ICU). ICU, usually expressed as a percent, is the proportion of an hour required to provide sufficient capa- city to accommodate all intersection traffic if all approa- ches operate at capacity. If an intersection is operating at 80 percent of capacity, then 20 percent of the signal cycle is not used. The signal could show red on all indi- cations 20 percent of the time and the signal would just accommodate approaching traffic. ICU analysis consists of (a) determining the proportion of signal time needed to serve each conflicting movement of traffic, (b) summing the times for the movements, and (c) comparing the total time required to the total time available. For example, if for north -south traffic the northbound traffic is 1600 vehicles per hour, the south - bound traffic is 1200 vehicles per hour, and the capacity of either direction is 3200 vehicles per hour, then the northbound traffic is critical and requires 1600/3200 or 50 percent of the signal time. If for the east -west traf- fic 30 percent of the signal time is required, then it can be seen that the ICU is SO plus 30, or 80 percent. when left turn phases exist, they are incorporated into the analysis. The critical movements are usually the heavy left turn movements and the opposing through movements. Level of service is used to describe the quality of traf- fic flow, Levels of service A to C operate quite well. Level of service C is typically the standard to which rural roads are designed, and level of service D is the standard to which urban roadways are typically designed, Level of service D is characterized by fairly restricted traffic flow. Level of service E is the maximum volume a facility can accommodate and will result in possible stoppages of momentary duration. Level of service F occurs when a facility is overloaded and is characterized by stop -and -go traffic with stoppages of long duration. A description of the various levels of traffic service ap- pears on the following page, along with the relationship r� U between ICU and level of traffic service. The ICU calculation assumes that an intersection is sig- nalized and that the signal is ideally timed. Although calculating ICU for an unsignalized intersection is in- valid, the presumption is that a signal can be installed and the calculation shows whether the geometrics are capable of accommodating the expected volume. It is possible to have an ICU well below 100 percent, yet have severe traffic congestion. This would occur if one or more movements is not getting sufficient time to satis- fy its demand, and excess time exists on other movements. This is an operational problem which should be remedied. Capacity is often defined in terms of roadway width; however, standard lanes have approximately the same capacity whether they are 11 or 14 feet wide. Our data indicates a typical lane, whether a through lane or a left turn lane, has a capacity of approximately 1700 vehicles per hour, with nearly all locations showing a capacity greater than 1600 vehicles per hour per lane. This finding is published in the August, 1978 issue of ITE Journal in the article entitled, "Another Look at Signalized —Intersection Capa- city" by William Kunzman. For this study, a capacity of 1600 vehicles per hour per lane will -be assumed for both through and left turn lanes. • The yellow time can either be assumed to be completely used and no penalty applied, or it can be assumed to be only partially usable. Total yellow time accounts for less than 10 percent of a'cycle, and a penalty up to five percent is reasonable. On the .other hand, during peak hour traffic operation the yellow times are nearly completely used. If there are no left turn phases, the left turn vehicles com- pletely use the yellow time. If there are left turn phases, the through traffic continues to enter the intersection on the yellow until just a split second before the red. In this study no penalty will be applied for the yellow because the capacities have been assumed to be only 1600 vehicles per hour per lane when in general they are 1700. The ICU technique is an ideal tool to quantify existing as well as future intersection operation. The impact,of adding a lane can be quickly determined by examining the effect the lane has on the intersection rapacity utilization. 0 LEVEL OF SERVICE DESCRIPTIONS Level of Service Traffic Flow Quality Nominal Range of ICU (a) A Low volumes; high speeds; speed not restricted by other vehicles; all signal cycles clear with 0.00 - 0.60 no vehicles waiting through more than one signal cycle. B Operating speeds beginning to be affected by other traffic; between one and ten percent of 0.61 - 0.70 the signal cycles have one or more vehicles which wait through more than one signal cycle during peak traffic periods. C Operating speeds and maneuverability closely controlled by other traffics between 11 and 30 0.71 - 0.80 percent of the signal cycles have one or more vehicles which wait through more than one signal cycle during peak traffic periods; recommended ideal design standard. D Tolerable operating speeds; 31 to 70 percent of the signal cycles have one or more vehicles 0.81 - 0.90 which wait through more than one signal cycle during peak traffic periods; often used as design standard in urban areas. E Capacity; the maximum traffic volume an inter- section can accomodate; restricted speeds; 71 0.91 - 1.00 to 100 percent of the signal cycles have one or more vehicles which wait through more than one signal cycle during peak traffic periods. F Long queues of traffic; unstable flow; stoppages of long duration; traffic volume and traffic Not Meaningful speed can drop to zero; traffic volume will be less than the volume which occurs at Level of Service E. (a) Although the Highway Capacity Manual recommends the above relationship between Level of Service and volume to capacity ratios, field observa- tion shows that a more appropriate relationship would be as follows: A, 0.00 to 0.80; B, 0.81 to 0.85; C, 0.86 to 0.90; D, 0.91 to 0.95; and E, 0.96 to 1.00. Source: Highway Capacity Manual, Highway Research Board Special Report 87, National Academy of Sciences, Washington D.C., 1965, page 320. 0 0 L_J • Intersection: Campus/Irvine Avenue and North Bristol Traffic Assignment (Percent of Zone traffic making intersection Movements are multiplied 1,., 7.nna Vnl nmPC _ and summed to determine Vehicle Movements) Move- ment Project Zone vehicle Volume In Out AM PM NT 10 1 3 NR NL 1 30 3 9 ST 10 1 3 1 SR SL ET ER EL WT WR WL 7-0 6 2 *Entries are percents making movements. Zone Volumes AM' 0 PM 10 30 Move- ment Lanes Capa city (C) Hourlv Volume (V) V/C Ratio Existing W V/C Ratio w/Project W Existing Project Total AM PM I AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM NT 2 3200 1890 890 5 5 1895 8 * 28 5* 28 NR NL 1 1600 220 340 5 10 225 -isn 14 21* 14 21* ST 2 3200 220 1240 5 5 225 1245 07 39* 07 3 * SR 1 1600 150 490 150 490 09 31 09 31 SL ET ER EL WT ** 7200 2250 3280 2_9501 3280 32* 46* 32* I 46* WR 30 50 30 50 WL ** 1:5 2400 + 90 340 I 10 5 100 345 07 14 07 14 , A L ICU Level of Service 1 1V V E F E F ICU is sum of critical movements, denoted by asterisk (*) N = North, S = South, E = East, W = West • T = Through, R = Right, L = Left ** Includes one lane combination of left and through Intersection: Campus/Irvine Avenue and South Bristol Traffic Assignment (Percent of Zone traffic making intersection Movements are multiplied bV Zone Volumes, and summed to determine Vehicle Movements) Move- ment Project Zone Vehicle Volume In Out AM PM 17T 40 4 1 12 NR 20 2 6 NL ST 30 9 3 SP SL ET ER 30 9 3 EL WT WR WL *Entries are percents making movements, Zone Volumes AM 30 1 10 1 PM T..+n.-cnn+i nw Vn�nmac anA P. Ar4*v tlti l{va+-inn Move- ment Lanes Capa city (C) Hour1 Volume (V) V/C Ratio Existing W V/C Ratio W/Project M Existing Project Total AM I PM I AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM NT 2 3200750 1 5 10 915 760 2 * 23 29* 24 NR 1 1600 220 1 150 1 5 10 225 160 14 09 14 10 NI ST 2 3200 120 1280 10 5 130 1285 07 40* 07 40* SR SL 1 1600 30 90 30 90 07* 07 07* 07 ET ** 3.5 5600 2380 2010 2390 2010 43* 1 36* 43* 36* ER 1 1 1600 100 420 10 5 117 4251 07 1 26 Of 27 EL ** 1.5 2400 350 280 350 2801 15 1 12 5 12 WT WR WI, ro io iy eo ICU Level of service ICU is sum of critical movements, denoted by asterisk (*) N = North, S = South, E = East, W = West T = Through, R = Right, L = Left ** Includes one lane combination left and through • • 0 • • Intersection: Irvine Avenue and Mesa Drive Traffic Assignment (Percent of Zone traffic making intersection Movements are multiplied v,.. 7..,..o v�i„mPG_ and summed to determine vehicle Movements) Move- ment Project Zone Vehicle Volume In out AM PM NT 05 2 1 NR 20 6 NL ST 05 1 2 SR SL £T ER EL WT WR wL 20 2 6 *Entries are percents making movements. Zone Volumes AM 30 10 PM 10 30 Move- Lanes Capa Hourly Volume (V) V/C Ratio V/C Ratio Existing Project Total ment city Existing W w/Project M (C) AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM NT 2 3200 1280 NR 1 1600 50 in s 170 55 10 07 1107 NL 1 1600 2 * 16 07* ST 2 32 0 260 4 265 1425 08 44* nR 45* sR 1 1600 10 120 1 10 12006 07 SL ET ** 1 1 1600 1600 10 90 10 40 10 90 10 40 * 14* 07 * 07* * 07* ER ** 0 0 30 40 30 40 EL ** 0 0 100 30 1^0 30 23* wT ** 1 1600 50 90 50 90 07* 22* 07* WR ** 0 0 10 20 10 20 wL ** 0 0 30 240 5 10 35 250 en R7 ICU Level of Service vg C Vg D ICU is sum of critical movements, denoted by asterisk (*) N = North, S = South, E = East, W = West T = Through, R = Right, L =.Left ** Combined for ICU calculations: ET+ER+EL WT+WT+WL Intersection: Irvine Avenue and Orchard Traffic Assignment (Percent of Zone traffic making intersection Movements are multiplied by Znne Vnlumes. and slumped to determine Vehicle Movements) *Entries are percents making movements. %nne Volumes T«4evcnnt ie.« %Y111Mue a«A r"znnri *v 11+-i l i:w+-inn Move- ment Lanes Capa city (C) Hourly Volume (V) V/C Ratio Existing W V/C Ratio w/Project (a) Existing Project Total AM PM AM PM AM PM AM I PM AM PM NT 2 3200 1280 750 128 NR 1 1600 90 so 5 5 95 55 07 07 07 07 NL ST 2 3200 260 1550 260 1550 08 48* 08 4 * SR SL I 1600 20 20 20 10 40 30 07* 07 07* 07 ET ER EL WT wR 16001 40 40 10 20 50 60 07 07 07 07 wL 600 20 30 5 5 25 135 07* OB* 07* 08* ICU Level of Service 74 DO 7Y 7O A A A A ICU is sum of critical movements, denoted by asterisk (*) • 0 N = North, S - South, E = East, W = West T = Through, R = Right, L = Left • APPENDIX E C, J • HILLIARD & BR John HIIIIard • Consultlnq Acoustl"I S ■nerdy tngineere • 0*Mon Srloken August 6, 1981 Oxford West Development Company 4435 Jamboree Boulevard Suite 100 Newport Beach, California 92660 Subject: Transmittal of Acoustical Report and Recommendations, Acacia Street Properties, County of Orange. Gentlemen: Attached is the revised report. any questions. Thank you. Gordon L. Bricken Vice President /dem Attachment Please advise us if you have 163t1 East Fourth Street ❑ Franklin Square ❑ Santa Ana, CoUtomis 92701 ❑ (714) 586.3725 Mombor of the Notional Council of Aeoueftal Consunonb Los Anyolm Uowm M143 Acoustical Analysis, Acacia Street Properties County of Orange 1.0 Purpose The purpose of this report is to -develop building design objectives suitable to satisfy the acoustical design requirements of the County of Orange. 2.0 Location The site is located as shown in Exhibit 1. It is directly under the departure path of Runway 19R of the'Orange County Airport. 3.0' County'Design Requirements The County of Orange requires the interior of commercial buildings meet the requirements of Table 1, for combined noise of all sources. • Table 1 (1) County of Orange Interior Noise Requirements (1) for Commercial Buildings in L eq(12) Private Offices 45 General Offices, Reception, Clerical, etc. 50 Bank Lobby, Retail Stores, Restaurants, Typing Pool etc. 55 Other Areas for Manufacturing, Assembly, Test Warehousing, etc. 65 (1) See Noise Rating Methods, Application Note 46,.for explanation of acoustical terminology. In addition, the energy average of the maximum levels of the loudest 30% of intrusive sounds occurring during a 24 hour period shall not exceed 65 dBA as measured in • unoccupied spaces. Page 2 4.0 Definition of Design Noise Levels The County design requirements is really twofold, addressing both the average noise level (Lq(12)) and the maximum noise level (iBAM ). Both condition must be satisfied simultaneousy.y. The Airport maintains a noise monitoring system which is used to generate noise contours for the Airport. A report is prepared each quarter describing the noise conditions of the Airport. The most recent noise man is attached as Exhibit 2. The site is shown to be 75 CNEL. The CNEL index is a type of noise average, another index that will be discussed in this report is L which is similar to CNEL. Both Ld and CNEL can be convertA to L q(12). The generalized form 8t the noise exposure equation i, NEL = SENEL + 10 log W - X (Equation 1) Where W = ND + C I N E + C 2 N N ND - no. of operations loam to 7pm NE - no. of operations 7pm to lOpm NN = no. of operations lOpm to 7am X =, C and C2 factors dependent of noise exposure form being calculated. SENEL average single event noise exposure level. Ldn , CI = 0, C2 - 10, X - 49.4 For CNEL C1 = 31 C2 = 10, X - 49.4 Leq(12) C1 = 0= C21 X = 46.4 Thus, 0 • CNEL = SENEL + 10 log (ND + 3NE + ION N) = 49.4 (Equation 2) Leq(12) = SENEL + 10 Log ND - 46.4 (Equation 3) Ldn = SENEL + 10 log (ND + NE + ION NI 49.4 (Equation 4) The Airport reported the following operational data. 0 Pace 3 Table 2 • Reported Operational Data Average Daily Jet Departures = 50.50 Average Departures Between lOpm-lam = 0.18 The Airport does not report the average daily operations for the 7am-10pm period. To obtain this data one can use the reported noise data at measurement stations Ml, M6, and M7. This is listed in Table 3. Table 3 Reported Noise Data Parameter Stations M1 M6 M7 CNEL 70.2 71.3 71.1 • "7c+ :z that SENEL is the same in all cases we find that L'dn - 10 log (ND + NE + 1ONN) = CNEL - 10 log (ND+3NE+10NN) (Equation 5) Substituting for CNEL and L and performing some algebraic manipulations yields the fact that ND = 46.93, NE = 3.39 NN = .18. Using these values we find that; CNEL = SENEL - 31.7 (Equation 6) Leq(12) = SENEL - 29.6 (Equation 7.) Leq(12) = CNEL + 2.04 (Equation 8) Thus, the defined Le��12) for this site would be Leq(12) = 78 in the previous quarr. To arrive at the dBAM value is also a somewhat complicated process since it is nod reported directly. Initially, it is necessary to solve Equation 7 for SENEL, using L���12� = 78. This value would be SENEL - 107.4. This is the n alue. The upper 30% can be approximated using the data reported on standard duration at Station M6 and M7. The average Page 4 standard duration is 2.3 dBA. Using a'nominal distribution or . + 1.15 dBA the upper 30% lies between 107.4 (upper 50%) and 108.6 (the upper 16.5%). Assuming a normal distribution the upper 30% SENEL value is 108.0. The SENEL value is always larger than the dBAMax` and may be represented by the general form; SENEL = dBAMax + 10 log Teq The quantity 10 log T is typically 6 to 8 at this proximity to the Airport. Thusggthe value would be 100-102 dBAMax` Some measurements were made by ourselves at a nearby location in 1978. The difference between SENEL and dBAMax was 7 dBA. (See Appendix 1 for data). For design purposes then Leq(12) = 78, dBAMax(30) = 102. 5.0 Definition of Noise Reduction Requirement It is understood that the proposal is for professional and administrative offices. In categories of Table 1, this would be an allocation of either private or general office. The noise reduction requirements are listed in Table 4. Table 4 • Noise Reduction Requirements Leq(12) dBAMax Private office 33 37 General office 28 37 By satisfying the 37 dBA noise reduction requirement all requirements are satisfied. 6.0 Definition of Building Design Requirements The typical building module at this point is a 6500 square footprint and two stories. Under Title 24, the California Energy Regulations, certain minimum design requirements must be met. Thus, we will define the building parameters as noted in Table 5 as typically what could be constructed under these regulations. 0 Page 5 • Table 5 Typical Building Parameters Area Type STC Floor (footprint) 6500 s.f. N.A. N.A. WindoJl�40% wall area) 2193 s.f. solar bronze 29 Wall 3289 s.f. 2x4 stucco 42 Roof 6500 s.f. built-up with 37 suspended ceiling (1) Includes doors. The noise reduction of a building is given by the equation: NR = -10 log10 (TeSe + TwSw + TdSd + TYSc) + 10 log10 a + K Where T = transmission coefficients of assemblies, e = walls, w = windows, d = doors, c = ceiling/roof. S = area of exposed surfaces. a = floor areas.in square feet. • K = -6 (jet aircraft departures). (Source: noise operations from E1 Toro MCAS, July 1970). This equation yields the average noise reduction. For the parameters of Table 5, NR = 25.7 dBA, near windows the reduction will be less. This is well below the 37 dBA needed. In order to increase the noise reduction two general steps must be taken 1) increase window noise reduction 2) increase roof noise reduction. Assume that windows are dual 1/4" with 4" airspace (rated STC=40), and roof modified for a 1/2" gypboard plaster ceiling (STC=43). With these changes, average reduction rises to 33 dBA. This is still short of the design goal. Another step that can be taken is to reduce window area to 20% of wall area but this only adds about 0.7 dBA to the average noise reduction. It is difficult to increase window noise reduction further. By modifying the walls and roof to rate STC = 50, using the STC = 40 windows, the average noise reduction can be increased to 38.7 dBA. Unfortunately, the minimum transmission loss of the windows, • would still be less than 37 dBA, at around 34 dBA. This can be handled by some design techniques in the building itself Page 6 that will be suggested in the section to follow that effectively i increases window noise reduction. In conclusion then, it is possible to achieve the 37 dBA with the performance parameters listed in Table 6. Table 6 Design Parameters for Proposed Buildings STC Wall 50 Roof 50 Window 40 with added building design treatment Window Area 20% wall area 7.0 Design Guidelines These guidelines are some suggested options which can be used to achieve results. Roof/Ceiling - `Shingles 5/8" plywood sheet, R-19 foam • insulation, 5/8" plywood sheet, attic space minimum 2 layers 1/2" gypsum drywall. 174 Cement tile, 5/8" plywood sheet, attic space with R-19 fiberglass, minimum 5/8" gypsum drywall suspended on resilient channel. Wall - Stucco, 2"x6" staggered stud, with R-19 insulation, 5/8" gypsum drywall, ION 6" concrete tilt up, R-11 insulation 1/2" gypsum drywall. Windows - Two (2) 1/4" glass spaced minimum 4" apart (shall be used in conjunction with auxiliary space design adjacent to windows). Exterior Architecture - Use large roof overhangs with balconies over walkways. Balcony openings shall contain 1/4" glass rather than be left open. As an option design interior . such that there are encircling corridors. Page 7 • LJ 0 Entry [flays - Use vestibule door with two (2).doors rated minimum STC=28, and with a 4' to 6' vestibule. Building Penetrations - All openings between exterior and interior shall be designed to provide a minimum attenuation of 45 dBA. These openings include, restroom vents, plumbing and electrical pipes, and ducts from the roof to the interior used for air handling equipment. Restroom vents shall include a 7 foot section of flexible fiberglass ducting having a minimum diameter of 5 inches. The air handling system shall include sound attenuation ducts and or baffles having 45 dBA of noise reduction between outside and room supply grills. These ideas are intended to provide guidelines. Actual design will require certification by the acoustical engineer along with additional consultation. 8.0 Conclusion It is possible to meet the most stringent design requirement of the County even in this location. Prepared b Ap " ��•. ,o,Z,� Ay0 Gordo L. Bricken K. Hill Vice President P Q�tica� ?dE Qa CA:S4�P� /dem Enclosures: Exhibits 1-2, Application Note #6 Appendix 1 cc: Jay Kniep The Planning Center 240 Newport -Center Drive Suite 215 Newport Beach, Cal. 92660 cc: Kerry Lawler 2832 Walnut Avenue Suite A Tustin, California 92680 7 , D.Sc. Exhibit 1 Site Location Map E Appendix 1 U • Table 7 Measured Noise Levels Event T}pe dBA SNEL Event myDe dEA SNEL 1 L 78 E3 51 L 72 81 2 L 74 82 52 L 85 91 3 L 71 81 53 L 74 81 4 L 74 81 54 Prop Jet 76 85 5 L 72 80 55 DC-9 96* 103* 6 L 74 84 56 L 77 83 7 L 80 85 57 737 98* 106* 8 737 99* 106* 58 L 80 88 9 L 78 85 59 L 72 79 10 L 82 87 60 L 72 79 11 L 76 89 61 Prop Jet 73 81 12 L 70 81 62 L 76 84 13 L 76 83 63 Jet 100* 107* 14 L 72 82 64 L 75 85 15 L 72 79 65 L 82 91 16 L 72 79 66 L 84 89 17 L 70 77 67 L 70 79 18 L 76 88 68 L 72 81 19 L 72 81 69 Prop Jet 70 79 20 L 76 84 70 L 70 81 21 L 76 84 71 L 84 92 22 L 76 84 72 L 84 91 23 L 72 80 73 Private Jet80 87 24 L 80 89 74 L 82 91 25 L 84 87 75 L 74 84 26 L 74 83 76 L 73 83 27 L 80 0-85 77 Private Jet76 83 28 L 74 81 78 L 74 83 29 L 84 86 79 L 72 83 30 L 74 83 80 737 98 105* 31 L 68 74 81 L 80 Be 32 L 77 83 82 Private Jet92 86 33 L 72 82 83 L 71 83 34 L 73 82 84 L 72 82 35 DC-9 98* 106* 85 L 80 87 36 L 76 82 86 Helio 79 90 37 L 78 86 87 L 82 87 38 L 72 81 88 Prop Jet 70 82 39 L 72 84 89 L 70 81 40 L •72 81 90 L 79 85 41 L 78 82 91 L 78 88 42 L 80 87 92 L 77 82 43 L 80 87 93 L 76 82 44 L 70 80 94 L 72 81 45 L 72 84 95 L 74 83 46 L 72 82 96 L 76 83 47 L 70 80 97 L 78 91 48 737 98* 103* 98 Jet 99 105* • 49 L 84 91 99 737 98 106* 50 L 76 81 'Average - oP n-Jet (90 a/c) 78 86 8 Jet (9 a/c) 98 105 7 APPLICATION NOTE #6 E-&LIARD & QRICKEN John Hilliard • Consulting Acoustical Engineers • Gordon Bricken NOISE RATING METHODS The A -weighted decibel of "A" scale on the sound level meter is most often used in the measurement of noise because the weighting characteristics of this scale approximates the subjective response of the human ear to a broad frequency band noise source by discriminating against the very low and the very high frequencies of the audible spectrum. Since community noise is seldom constant, varying from moment to moment and throughout the day, the "A" weighted noise level needs to be further described to provide meaningful data. The Environmental Protection Agency, Federal Department of Transportation, foreign countries and private consultants are now using three time -exceeded percentile figures -to describe noise: 1. L90 is the noise level which is exceeded 90% of any sample time period (such as 24 hours) and is used to describe the background or ambient noise level. 2. L50 is the noise level which is exceeded 50% of the time. It is the median level. 3. L10 is the noise level which is exceeded 10% of the time and is a good descriptor of fluctuating noise sources such as vehicular traffic. It indicates the near -maximum levels which occur from grouped single events. Being related to the subjective annoyance to community noise, it is a good design tool in the planning of acoustical barxiers. • More recent noise assessment methods are based on the equivalent energy concept where Leq (x) represents the averanc ?nergy content of a fluctuating noise source over a sample period. The subscript (x) represents the period in which the •onergy lsvcomputed and measured. Current practice references the quantity to either one hour, 8'hours or 24 hours. When referenced to'one hour, Leq is also sometimes called HNL (Hourly Noise Level). 1538 East Fourth Street ❑ Franklin Square 0 Santa Ana, California 92701 0 (714) 835.3728 NOISE MTING =THODS PAGE 2 Since L is the summation of the functional products of noise Mel and duration, many combinations of noise • level, duration time and time history can make up the same L value. Thus, an L (24) equals 50 means only that tR9 average noise leveigis 50 dB. During the 24 hour period there can be times when the noise level is higher than 50 d8 and many times when it is lower. if the period of the measurement is only a single event, the energy content is not averaged. The energy expression for a single event is amply the sum of the functional product of the noise level and duration time of the event. This term is called Le or SENEL (Single Event Noise Exposure Level). The summation of L values averaged over one hour is Leq(1) - Leq(8) and Leq (24)1 etc.). Leq is further refined into Ldn (Level Day -Night) and CNEL (Community Noise Equivalent Level) where noises that occur during certain hours of the day are weighted (or penalized) because they are considered subjectively more annoying during these time periods: 1. Ldn is the sound level in dBA which corresponds to the average energy content of the noise being measured over a 24-hour period including a 10 dBA weighting penalty for sound levels which occur during the nighttime hours of 1OPM to 7AM. This is a rating method recommended by the Environmental • Protection Agency because it takes into account those subjectively more annoying noise events which occur during the sleeping hours. 2. CNEL is the sound level in deA which corresponds to the average energy content of the noise being measured over a 24-hour period including a 3 d3A weighting penalty for noises that occur during the evening hours of 7PM to 1OPm, plus a 10 dBA penalty for noise events that occur during the nighttime hours of 1OPM to 7AM. For typical highway vehicular traffic situations, computer analysis has shown that CNEL and Ldn correlate within 0.5 dBA. The percentile figures L101 L5 and Lpp can be directly scaled from a graphical recording of the measured noise over a particular time period. They are also convenient to implement in automatic measurement equipment. Energy parameters Le, Le , Ld and CNEL require expensive and complicated equipment Rhat has only recently become ava..!.. :e on the commercial market. As a result, engineers have devised ways of estimating Le (and hence Ldn) using standard instrumentation and methods. 0 0 0 APPENDIX F AIR QUALITY MOBILE SOURCE EMISSIONS ASSUMPTIONS • Average Speed - 20 mph Ambient Temperature 75OF Vehicle Mix (percent of total) Light Duty Auto 80.4% Light Duty Truck 12.1% Med. Duty Truck 1.4% Heavy Duty Gasoline Truck 2.5% Heavy Duty Diesel Truck 2.5% Motorcycles 1.1% Operation Percentage - 1982 Cold Start 33.5% Not Start 13.6% Hot Stabilized 63.0% Crankcase Blowby 0.023 gm/mi 1984 Cold Start 34.5% Hot Start 12.5% • Hot Stabilized 53.0% Crankcase Blowby 0.013 gm/mi 1986 Cold Start 35.5% Hot Start 11.5% Not Stabilized 53.0% Crankcase Blowby 0.007 gm/mi Mr. Cold Start 36.0% Hot Start 11.0% Hot Stabilized 53.0% Crankcase Blowby 0.005 gm/mi 1990 Cold Start 36.0% Hot Start 11.0% Hot Stabilized 53.0% Crankcase Blowby 0.005 gm/mi SOURCE: SCAQMD Air Quality Handbook for Environmental Impact Reports, October, 1980. • EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This summary provides a brief description of the existing conditions, potential impacts and proposed or recommended mitigation measures. Biological Resources Environmental Setting The project site contains biological resources typical of an older residential neighborhood: mature horti- cultural plantings, weeds, a variety of birds and several wild or feral mammals asso- ciated with human habitation. Archaeological No archaeological sites have Resources been recorded on the site, though numerous exist within a 2 kilometer radius. Paleontological Resources Hydrology/Water Quality No known paleontological resources exist on the site which has been surveyed. The site is drained by the Santa Ana -Delhi Flood Control Channel. The project site currently generates 3.21 cfs in runoff for a 10-year fre- quency storm. Water quality is affected by traffic, waste solids, fertilizers and rural wastes. Project Impacts Most horticultural plantings will be removed. Increased automobile use of the site will produce additional heavy metal and hydrocarbon pollu- tants which may reach Newport Bay via water runoff. Any resources on site will be further disturbed by grading and development. Any resources on site will be further impacted. Site runoff will increase by 1.08 cfs to 4.29 cfs. Project parking lot will colject con- taminants and wastes which could reach the flood control system and Newport Bay. Mitigation Measures Removed plantings will be replaced in project land- scaping. Use of permeable surfaces to reduce runoff and associated pollutant transport. Conformance to standard County archaeology condi- tions will be required. Conformance with standard County conditions will be required. Appropriate runoff barriers will be installed during and after construction to prevent erosion. Permeable areas will absorb some run- off and contaninants on - site. Environmental Setting Project Impacts Mitigation Measures Visual/Aesthetic Site contains four residences Proposed project buildings Use of natural building Quality of semi -rural character with- will be larger and newer than materials will help blend out buildings and equestrian existing ones. Large parking buildings into cammunity facilities in a below average lot area will be adjourning a character. Landscaping will state of repair. A 3-story residential street. be used to screen and bronze and glass office build- enhance views of the project ing is sited across the street. from the street and neigh- boring residences. Traffic and Project access is via Acacia Project will generate 390 Roadways abutting project Circulation Street, a 2 lane roadway with automobile trips daily, an site will be improved to on street parking. Irvine increase of 290 ADT, ultimate cross-section. Avenue with a current ADT of Traffic signal at Orchard/ 25,000 is located a block Irvine intersection is away to the west, while Bristol warranted. Street (north and south) is located one block north (avg. 30,000 ADT both directions). Current uses on site generate 100 ADT. Air Quality Ambient air quality is re- Impacts to the ambient air Dust control measures will flected by data from the Costa environment will occur from mitigate short-term impacts. Mesa monitoring station_ The construction activities, auto Other energy conservation principal contaminants are emissions and stationary measures can further reduce ozone, carbon monoxide, sulfur sources. After development, air quality impacts. dioxide and nitrogen dioxide. stationary and mobile sources should total 126 pounds (1985). Noise/Light/Glare/ Safety Recreation/Open Space Land Use and Relevent Planning Environmental Setting Project is located approxi- mately 3,500 feet south of a runway at John Wayne Air- port. It is bisected by an existing 75 CNEL contour. The project is with the Approach Protection Area of the airport. New residential development is prohibited by Noise Element of the County General Plan. Site currently used for boarding and training horses. A golf course is an existing adjacent use which is included in the proposed Upper Newport Bay Regional Park. No public open space exists on -site. Current use is four single family residences, some with equestrian facilities. Now zoned A-1 SR GPI and General Plan designation 5.0 Open Space. Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan will include the site. Project Impacts Project will require special acoustical treatment due to noise. No adverse impacts due to excessive light, glare or emissions reducing visability are expected. Development would eliminate on -site recreational uses. Proposed use is office com- mercial. Proposed project is inconsistent with current zoning and General Plan designation. Proposed use is consistent with current draft Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan. Mitigation Measures Special acoustical treat- ment will be implemented. An avigation easement should be acquired by the airport. A Declaration and Notifica- tion of Aircraft Noise and Environmental Impacts should be made to purchasers or users. Appropriate landscaping and design features will buffer project and adjacent recreational facilities. Appropriate design and landscape will integrate project with adjacent uses. Change of zoning district to PA will permit project. Consistency with Specific Plan will supplant General Plan conflict. COMMENTS AND RESPONSES REGARDING DIER 277 ACACIA OFFICES (Zone Change Application ZC-82-04) Prepared for: The County of Orange Prepared by: CRTM 240 NW"T CENTER DMA SLATE 215 WWP;VT BEACH CA 92660 (114) 660-4911 • 0 • SECTION I: COMMENTS TO DEIR 277 The circulation of DEIR 277 ('in support of Zone Change Application ZC-82-04) generated numerous comments from various governmental agencies. The following agencies submitted written comments which have received responses in the following text: John Wayne Airport Airport Land Use Commission of Orange County California Department of Transportation California Regional Water Quality Control Board --Santa Ana Region Orange County Environmental Management Agency --Transportation/Flood Control Program Office --Cultural Resources City of Newport Beach Written comments were also received from the following agencies which did not require response: Orange County Environmental Management Agency --Land Planning Orange County Administrative Offices Santa Ana Unified School District • Copies of all comments received are reproduced on the following pages. Section II restates those comments requiring response individually with the response to each. 0 November 13, 1981 OUNTY OF a RANQK JOHN WAYNE AIRPORT 14741 AIRPORT WAY NORTH •ANTA ANA, CALIMORNIA 91701 (714) iO4•1400 MURRY L. CAGLE AIMPORT MANAGER _-V Mr. Kenneth E. Smith, Manager Environmental Management Agency Environmental Analysis Division P.O. Box 4048 Santa Ana, California 92702 Subject: DER 277, Oxford Properties/Acacia Offices. Dear Mr. Smith: Airport staff has reviewed the subject DEIR. There are several areas of special concern which relate to the compatibility of the proposed land use with the current and anticipated operations conducted at John Wayne Airport. Among these concerns are: acoustical insulation, an avigation easement, height and exterior treatment of the structures, and appropriate notice to buyers/tenants of airport impacts at the site. These matters have received adequate discussions in the subject report. However, there is anotner important issue which is raised by -the discussions in Section II-J, Land Use And Relevant ing (pp. 48-60). Tnis concerns the preparation of the Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan, which is well under way. The purpose of this County -directed project is to resolve long-standing land use problems within the Santa Ana Heights Community in a comprehensive manner. An Advisory Group has been formed to work with County staft. Concurrently, the County has instituted a General Plan Implementation district for the community to prevent incompatible development during the Specific Plan preparation. Both the Orange County Airport Commission and the Airport Land Use Commission have endorsed tnese actions and have representatives on the Advisory Group. We understand that all development projects proposed for Banta Ana Heights are to be reviewed by the Specific Plan Advisory Group. Such a review has not yet occurred for this project. Therefore, although the subject development, as presented in DER 07, appears to be a compatible land use, we believe it to be a premature proposal and cannot endorse it until it has been evaluated with regard to the Specific Plan. Thank you for the opportunity to review this important environmental document. Sincerely,. . Stephen v. Ko Jr. Plans 8 Programs Officer RECtt�tG i SVK:AB:vc NOV 171"1 cc: Rich Adler, Project Manager, Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan Alfred Brady, Secretary/Planner, Airport Land Use Commission rpr 09 AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION FOR ORANGE COUNTY -18741 Airport Way North, Santa Ana, Cal. 92707 Phone: 714 mi.292s November 10, 1981 Mr. Kenneth E. Smith, Manager E.M.A./ Environmental Analysis P.O. Box 4048 Santa Ana, CA. 92702 Subject: DEIR 277, Oxford Properties - Acacia Offices. Dear Mr. Smith, , As staff planner to the Airport Land Use Commission for Orange County, I have reviewed the subject DEIR. The various areas of Commission concern, such as acoustical insulation, building heights, notice of airport impacts, avigation easement, etc., have been adequately addressed by the draft report. In addition, several suggestions which I submitted during the screencheck review have been incorporated into the current document. There is,however, another Commission concern which cannot be overlooked. The Commission has endorsed both the Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan project and • the General Plan Implementation District recently instituted by the Orange County Board of Supervisors. Since the Specific Plan will be a comprehensive approach to the various community problems existing in Santa Ana Heights, including airport impacts, it must take precedence over individual development projects. The Airport Land Use Commission will review the Specific Plan upon its completion and will take into consideration the policies and programs to be promulgated by it. Although the subject DEIR is adequate to its particular purpose, it appears to be premature at this time. I believe that it should be submitted to the Specific Plan Advisory Group for review. This will help to determine the actual compatibility of the Acacia offices project within its future environ- ment. Thank you for the opportunity to review this important environmental document. Very truly yours, �� '✓Zee+! Y'.�l� A+�II�.V Alfred W. Brady Secretary/Planner AWB:vc cc: Stephen Kozak, Jr. - J.W.A. Rich Adler, E.M.A. 0 .� �'ttti: Tlt (�.:iT�If1tCT.'CCET • 1 du �a GOVERNOR'S OFFICE '!► i} OFFICE OF PLANNING AND RESEARCH • IeyY 1400 TENTH STREET -' SACRAMENTO OSS14 E-DMUNR G enowN .,a. :aYENNON November 23, 1981 Mark J. Goodman Orange County- EMA 400 Civic Center Drive Santa Ana, CA 92702 SUBJECTS SCHN 81082010 EIR 277- OXFORD PROPERTIES- ACACIA OFFICES Dear Mr. Goodman.: State agencies have commented on your draft environmental impact report (see attached). If you would like to discuss their concerns and recommendations, please contact the staff from the appropriate agencies. When preparing the final SIR, you must include all comments and responses (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15146). The certified SIR must be considered in the decision•makinq process for the project. In addition, we urge you to respond directly to the agencies' comments by writing to them, including the State Clearinghouse number on all correspondence. A recent Appellate Court decision in Cleary v. county of St"islaus clarified requirements for responding to review comments. Specifically, the court indicated that comments must be addressed in detail, giving reasons why the speci!ic comments and suggestions were not accepted and factors of overriding importance warranting an override of the suggestion. Responses to comments must not be conclusory statements but must be supported by empirical or experiment&! data, scientific authority or explanatory information of any kind. The court further said that the responses must be a good faith, reasoned analysis. Section 15003(f) of the CEQA Guidelines requires that a governmental agency take certain actions if an SIR shows substantial adverse environmental impacts could result from a project. These actions include changing the project, imposing conditions on the project, adopting plane or ordinances to avoid the problem, selecting an alternative to the project, or disapproving the project. In the event that the project is approved without adequate mitigation of significant affects, the lead agency must make written findings for each significant affect (Section 15088) and it must support its actions with a written statement of overriding considerations for each unmitigated significant effect (Section 13089). If the project requires discretionary approval from any state agency, the Notice of Determination must be filed with the Secretary for Resources, is well as with the County Clerk. Please contact Terry Roberts Sincerely, e&ephen illiamson tate C eariaghouse cc: San Fellows, WdR at (916) 445-0613 if you :have any 4uestions. • State of California Memorandum To Ann Barkley, Chief Division of Transportation Planning From : DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Dlvlslon of Aeronautics Business and Transportation AOseay Dote: October 20, 1981 File : Clearinghouse /John Wayne -Orange Count' Airport Subject: Project Review - SCH 81082010 - EIR 277 - Oxford Properties - Acacia Offices Project Description: Zone change from A-1 (Agricultural) to PA (Professional -Administrative) with planned development of four separate two-story office buildings - 26,000 square feet - on a 1.717 acre parcel, directly on the extended runway centerline for John Wayne -Orange County Airport. The Department of Transportation, Division of Aeronautics • has reviewed the Draft EIR for this project. On August 27, 1981 we commented on the Notice of Preparation of an ETR for this project and cited our concerns, i.e., noise, safety, land use compatibility, and the project's impact on the circulation network. Each of the issues with which we are concerned is addressed. The DEIR is well written. • The crucial factors as we assess them are airport -related noise and possible adverse safety implications. The DEIR concedes that the site is subject to excessive noise levels from aircraft oper,atinq at John Wayne -Orange County Airport. The project site is 3,500 feet out on the extended centerline of Runway 19R, and is bisected by the 75 dBa CNEL contour line. In the noise section of the DEIR, considerable effort is devoted to mitigating the noise impact on the site. Additionally, there are references to noise and avigation easements, and written notice to prospective tenants about the noise and safety aspects of the site. Those.are prudent measures, which do nothing to mitigate the noise level, but do serve to preclude legal action against the airport. Existing residential uses within the 65 dB CNEL eontour are treated as nonconforming to the General Plan. Would not the proposed professional/administrative office use be similarly treated? tiE07)OCT 21 01 Ann Barkley Page 2 October 20, 1981 As to safety aspects, the project sit^ lies within the Approach Protection Area for the airport. Any development in the project site area would be vulnerable to damage in the event of an aircraft accident. On page 48, there are further concessions that "...the proposed office commercial project is inconsistent with the current zoning...." and "the proposed project has been found to be inconsistent with the current General Plan Land Use Element and open Space Element designation for the site...." The ANCLUC Plan for the John Wayne Airport is quoted as recommending "...Commercial Open Space or other Compatible Low -Intensity Use for the project rite...." We find those recommendations to be reasonable and prudent measures to minimize possible conflicts between the airport and surrounding land uses. The favorable aspects of the proposed project are economic. The negative aspects would include displacement of existing residents, elimination of recreational uses and open space, a site heavily impacted by airport -related noise, vulnerability in the event of accidents, increased pollutants, and some adverse impact on the circulation network. John Wayne Airport is already subject to frequent complaints about noise from airport operations. The tenants of the proposed office buildings would probably add their complaints, to the disadvantage of the airport. We would suggest the County consider the existing noise problems at John Wayne Airport and not approve a project that will exacerbate an already untenable situation. Should the county determine to approve the project, we recommend that conditions fo'r such approval include the granting of noise and avigation easements over the project site in favor of the airport; requiring written advice from the proponent to prospective tenants as to noise and safety implications; and adequate acoustic treatment to reduce interior noise to acceptable levels. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. MARK F. MISPAGEL, Chief Division of Aeronautics t4 B rd Miller • Environmental Planner Attachment State of California Resources Agency of California Memorandum 0 To Terry Roberts State Clearinghouse 1400 Tenth Street, Room 121 Sacramento, CA 95814 Date: October 23, 1981 From : California Regional Water Quality Control Board —Santa Ana Region 6609 INDIANA AVENUE, SUITE 200. RIVERSIDE, CA 92306 8-632-4130 Subject: SCH# 81082010, Acacia Offices, DEIR Review of the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the Acacia Offices has been completed by this office. The DEIR does not adequately address erosion -siltation controls during the construction phase. A plan to prevent undue erosion -siltation should be submitted prior to the commencement of construction. Please feel free tb contact this office if there are any questions regarding these comment . Michael G. Serrato Staff Engineer MGS:kyb 0 aig ol:tLb" Oc-ire p; PLANNING e.RESEARCH M® Feso-+t .1 County of Orange Y'� I N 0 October 29, 1981 DATE: TO- Kenneth E. Smith, Manager DEPT/DIST: EMA/Environmental Analysis Division FROM: W. L. Zaun, Program Manager EMA/Transportation/Flood Program Office SUBJECT: DEIR 277, Oxford Properties, Inc. We have reviewed the Draft EIR for the Oxford West Development Company's Acacia offices. The project site is located westerly of the intersection of Acacia Street and Orchard Drive. Four separate two-story buildings are proposed for this site. The following cosments regarding the air quality and circulation sections should be addressed. Air Quality The percent of project emissions to total County emissions (as shown in Table 2) should be substantiated by showing and referencing the figures used in computing the percentages. Circulation The applicant has not addressed one of the comments on the Screen Check EIR outlined in the July 1981 memo from Jerry Sennett to Kenneth E. Smith. The comment is as follows: "The report should also address the impacts of the projects currently under construction, as wall as all of the approved projects • along the Corona Del Mar Freeway, in its analysis." W. L. Zaun, Program Manager EM/Transportation/rlood Program Office By: ' Jsrr� Bennett, Manager EMA/Transportation Planning Division MC:mlt 0 �/j ® FDDO-124.2 SCounty of Orange �`j�j N �`/� 0 DATE: 0A 1 S1 tq( Kenneth E. Smith, Manager To. Attn: Mark Goodman DEPT/DIST: WA/Environmental Analysis Division SUBJECT: DEIR 277 Oxford Properties/Acacia Offices The Cultural/Scientific Resource section and related appendices for the subject report are adequate. I agree with the recommendations. The applicant should be prepared to conduct the test early enough to accommodate further excavation, if necessary prior to grading. This is in the immediate vicinity of the archeo site/project of several years ago when proble - - --'-"-- threats, etc. As usual, I wil: RS:ds 0. • CITY OF -NEWPORT IiEACI I (714) 640-2197 November 13, 1981 Ken Smith, Manager Envirormental Analysis Orange County 0% P.O. Box 4048 Santa Ana, CA 92702 RE: Draft EIR Acacia Offices Dear Mr. Smith: The City of Newport Beach appreciates this opportunity to comment on Draft EIR 277, Acacia offices. As indicated in our previous correspondence, the project lies within the Newport Beach Sphere of Influence and is in conflict with the Newport Beach General Plan which designates the site for Loi+imsity • Residential Land Use. As stated in our letter of Septenber 91 1981? the City does not consider the proposed offices an appropriate use for the site. We have reviewed the DEIR and believe the following comments should be addressed if the document is to be considered adequate: 1. Housing - The DEIR class not address the incrimental loss of existing housing stock nor the increased demand for housing generated by etgloyees at the proposed offices. This should be addressed before the EIR proceeds to Final form. 2. Utilities - Since responding to the NOP on this project, the City of Newport Beach has received the attached letter from the Costa Mesa Sanitary District indicating that the sewer system is operating at or near capacity in the area and that i:tprovenents would be required to serve any new development in the area. Before the EIR is finalized, this problem should be investigated and solved. 3. Mitigation measures throughout the report are worded in terms of "should" instead of "will". Those mitigations that will actually be implemented should be distinguished from those that are merely suggested, and reasons given for the rejection of those measures not to be implemented. 4. Biological Resources (Page 7) - The DEIR states that "Excrements [sic] from the animals may contribute significantly to ... ,tIveao ('it, Hall `c• %port Bilide%aril. Nt%ptln Beath. Ualift intia 92fiti:3 •• 16 19611 CMA. • organic pollutant percolation ...". Please explain this in more detail. Would water in this area percolate to the water table or is it inhibited by soils not conducive to infiltration or blocked by an impervious layer? Do existing groundwater quality data indicate any problems which might be attributed to equestrian activities? 5. Biological Resources (Page 8) - BOD is the accepted abbreviation for biochemical oxygen demand. 6. Archaeology (Page 11) - The DEIR should state that the recannandations stated in the archaeologist's report will be implemented. The EIR should not be finalized until the archaeological test phase and report are complete. 7. Paleontological Resources (Page 13) - As a mitigation measure, it should be stated that if any resources are uncovered during site preparation, the area will be flagged off and thoroughly investigated before work proceeds. 8. Hydrology/Water Quality - Are local storm drainage facilities adequate to handle increased runoff? 9. Hydrology/Water Quality - Increased erosion due to increased runoff in unimproved drainages should be investigated as a_ part of the EIR and appropriate mitigation measures required. • lo. Hydrology/water Quality (Page 15) - Please explain the basis of the statement that "As a non -street impervious surface,. its annual accumulation [of pollutants] should be much less." 11. Hydrology/Water Quality (Page 15) - If parking lot runoff is diverted onto adjacent permeable surfaces, as suggested in the DEIR, what will be the effects on erosion in these permeable areas? 12. Hydrology/Water Quality (Page 15) - Is the use of porous paving material practical for this project? 13. Visual/Aesthetic Quality - Photos of the existing site should be included with an overlay showing the proposed project. 14. Visual Quality/Aesthetics - What will be the height of the proposed structure? 15. Visual Quality/Aesthetics (Pages 18 & 19) - The site renderings should be revised to show the proposed structure in the context of the surrounding residential area. This would better reveal the project's scale and relationship to the surrounding area. 16. Visual Quality/Aesthetics - As a mitigation measure, it should be required that a landscape plan be submitted by the applicant and • made subject to County approval. 2 17. Traffic and Circulation - The discussion of intersection • utilization does not include previously approved projects which will contribute significant amounts of traffic to local intersections when ompleted. At the same tiros, it does not include already cannitted improve ants which might help alleviate congestion inthe area. in order to adequately assess impacts on local roadways this should be included. In addition, the ICU analysis does not include yellow time. The City of Newport Beach usually expects 10 percent of the light cycle to be in yellow time. 18. Traffic and Circulation - An analysis of potential vehicle conflicts with pedestrian and equestrian circulation should be included. 19. Air Quality (Page 26) - If 1"0 air quality summaries are available, they should be presented. 20. Air Quality - impacts related to potential air pollution hot spots at congested intersection need to be examined as part of the EIR. 21. Air Quality (Page 27) - It seems that Table 2, "Project ibtasions" should be included under Eagacts rather than under Existing Conditions. Please clarify whether the table represents emissions associated with the existing site or the proposed project and whether the table represents emissions from mobile or stationary sources or both. Rather than show emiasions as a percentage of SCAB .missions, it might be nor e informative to show emissions as a percent of those in the Orange County sub- asin. 22. Air Qailty (Page 29) - The statement that "the proposed project will result in the addition of only 20 pounds of contaminants daily" is misleading in that it applies only to stationary source emissions. This should be clarified and the total of emissions from all sources should be presented. 23. Noise/Light/Glare/Safety - Noise inpacts of carmercial development on residences should be examined. This should include a discussion of the potential for increased traffic noise as well as noise from the proposed project site. 24. Noise/Light/Glare/Safety - Will the project result in increased hazards to young people riding horses in the area? 25. Rscreaticn/Open Spaoe (Page 43) - It should be pointed out that because horseback riding in the residential area "would be unacceptable in mDat other neighborhoods in the County" the equestrian nature of the ocnamity is a unique and valuable resource on which any impacts mast be viewed as highly significant. Any conflicts between the existing equestrian uses and the proposed development should be ow -Lined in detail before • the EIR is finalized. Kl 26. Land Use and Relevant Planning Programs - Because the subject property is in the Newport Beach Sphere .of Influence, the proposed project should be analyzed in light of the Newport Beach General Plan, which designates the site for low density residential use. This conflict should be examined in detail and the proposed project should be reviewed in terms of the various elements of the Newport Beach General Plan and Draft Local Coastal Program. 27. Land Use and Relevant Planning (Page 49) - Is is not reasonable to expect a reviewer to believe that an office building would be useful as a buffer between houses and a golf course. This section should be carefully reviewed as it is not adequate. 28. Land Use and Relevant Planning - The Draft EIR does not address the potential that approval of the proposed,, project has to prejudice the preparation of the Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan. This and the relationship of the proposed project to the preliminary recommendations of the Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan Advisory Conmi.ttee should be addressed in the Final EIR. 29. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts - This section is not adequate in that Unavoidable Adverse Impacts on Land Use, Recreation, and Housing are not discussed. 30. Alternatives (Page 53) - The DEIR states that the no project • alternative is not in the best interests of the citizens of the County." Please explain the justification for this statement and explain which "citizens" are implied. Those who live along Acacia and orchard? Those who keep horses in the area? 31. Alternatives (Page 54) - The DEIR states that "As discussed in the Biology section, the current equestrian boarding activity has generated negative impacts to the environment." Yet, the terminology in the Biology section is confined to phrases such as "may contribute" and "It is not known whether...". Justification for the statement on Page 54 should be provided if it is retained in the Final EIR. 32. Alternatives (Page 55) - While the Health Department identifies dust and vector control as potential problems which equestrian uses, Health Department also suggests means of controlling these problems. These should be discussed in the EIR. 33. Alternatives (Page 55) - The DEIR mentions potential conflicts between equestrian activities and future development. Due to the proliferation of equestrian uses in Santa Ana Heights and the uniqueness of this resource, it would be desirable to plan future development to acconnodate the equestrian use. It hardly seems logical to introduce a new use, inconsistent with the General Plan for the area in order to be compatible with other non-existent uses equally inconsistent with the General Plan 4 while at the same time increasing conflicts with existing equestrian uses in the area. Thus, this conflict should not be used as a reason for dismissal of the equestrian alternative in the MR. 34. Short-term Uses and Long-term Productivity (Page 56) - The DEIR states that "the project site in its present state is not of great value to the surrounding cm=mity except as it provides equestrian recreation facilities and limited residential use." Please explain why housing and the unique equestrian use in the area is not considered of great value. 35, Growth Inducing Impacts - The cotwersion of residential land to cYsnnarcial use should be analyzed in terms of its inducement of further oonversions and its effect on land use designations in the Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan now being prepared. The effect of the conversion on the orange Comity Airport and on ANCWC plans should be examined in the light of its irAx meant to further airport growth, i.e., the reduction of residential development which could reduce conflicts with the airport and potentially accelerate airport growth. 36. Growth Inducing Impacts (Page 58) - The DEIR states that "the proposed project will continue the current trend... of redeveloping residential parcels to... offios/professional uses." on what is this stateamnt based? The area is almost exclusively residential and agricultural, the enospticno being the strips along Bristol Street and Irvine Avenue north of Acacia, which have been designated oomrercial since at least 1973. A drive through the area reveals no "tread" toward owe ercial development elsewhere in eastern Santa Ana Heights. As currently submitted, DEIR 277 does not respond to a number of issues raised by the City of Newport Bsach in its response to the NDP. We will, therefore, consider this only a Preliminary Draft. Upon receipt of the final Draft EIR, the City will provide additional eamients. If you have any questions regarding any of these comments please call me at (714) 640-2197. Very truly Yaws, c r x• • •�� is �i'& 9S4UL"_! • I • • • • HT rse • 61 ,. r! • 11 • O> ITA� COSTA MESA October 13, 1981 Mr. Hal Krizan Assistant Director - Regulations County of Oranger EMA Post Office Box 4048 Santa Ana, California 92702 Dear Hal: DIRECTORS 4. Wahner, President ), Crank, Vice President futchison, Secretary Hanson i. Green The Costa Mesa Sanitary District Board of Directors has directed me to advise the County of a sewer condition in connection with the land use planning hearings which involve the Santa Ana Heights area. The area is within the jurisdictional boundaries of the. Costa Mesa Sanitary District, and the District has a transmission line in Bristol Street which serves the area. The line was initially sized and constructed in 1958, based on the land use designation in effect at that time. The line is at or near capacity and only a few additional connections can be allowed, if any. In actuality, a new line will be required even if all the vacant property is developed according to present land use designations whether or not the County makes any changes as a result of the present hearings. Allowing greater densities, or increased land use, will only compound this need and further burden the existing facilities. Last year the Board authorized a study to determine the needs for this area. It was found that a new line was needed and that it was not feasible to construct a new line in Bristol Street due to the presence of numerous existing facilities. Off-street right-of-way is required; however, the cost of obtaining easements from the County of Orange, Irvine Newport Golf Course site, made the project cost prohibitive. Because the subject area is in unincorporated County territory and under the sphere of influence of Newport Beach, the CMSD Board has decided against further consideration of any District initiated project. While the District is not in a financial position to provide addi- tional liquid waste carrying capacity, the Board has indicated they would be willing to consider other alternatives. P.O. BOX 1200,COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA 92626 • 77 FAIR DRIVE • (714) 754.5343 fir. Hal Krizan County of Orange October 13, 1981 Page Two Short of denying any further development regardless of land use designation, some of the alternatives are as follows: 1. Detachment from the Costa Mesa Sanitary District, which would allow the County and Newport Beach to handle the increased capacity needs. 2. Establish an improvement district, such as the Improvement District Acts of 1911, 1915, and 1913 provide. 3. Require the first developer to furnish at his expense the needed capacity and then by agreement, provide that the developer would be reimbursed as other properties develop and/or redevelop and connect to the new facility. It is not our intention to deny development but to bring to the appropriate agencies attention the need for additional sewer service capacity which the CHSD cannot financially provide, but which must be provided before additional development can occur. I feel that this information should be made part of the public record at the County's General Plan hearings for this area. If you or your staff has additional questions, please call me. 0 Sincerely, BRUCE D. MATTERN Manager BDM:bjp cc Roy June, Attorney Don Stevens, Engineer Joe Devlin, Utilities Director, N.B. Ben Nolan, Dir. Pub. Services, • t MEND ® F a50-124.2 County of Orange DATE: November 13, 1981 009 Ken E. Smith, Manager DEFT/DiST: EMA/Environmental Analysis Division FROM: Pat Lee, Chief - EMA/Land Planning Su 0 DEIR 277 - Oxford Properties Comments contributed by Land Planning on SCEIR 277 have been incorporated in DEIR 277. SL:sg O ® F 680-124.2 County of Orange MEMr DATE: October 7. 1981 TO. Ken Smith DEFT/DiST: EMA/EAD FROM: Tony Carstens. CAOMMAC ' SUBJECT: DEIR 277 - Oxford Properties We have no comments regarding this proposal. We would, however, like to retain the document for purpose of general information. If you need it back, call Doug Joyner at 5969. DJ:mgj EMA Santa Ana Unified School District .,. 1 ( .r: Howard R. Harrison, Ed.D., Suporintendant October 9, 1981 Orange County Environmental Management Agency Environmental Analysis Division P.O. Box 4048 Santa Ana, California 92702 Gentelmen: We are in receipt fo DEIR 277 -- oxford Properties - Acacia Offices. However, this property is not within the boundaries of the Santa Ana Unified School District. Therefore, we are returning the document without comments. Sincerely, 1 J Anthony J. Dnlessi Director Categorical Programs AJD:rm 00100 Or IMM""M II W"h iwwna. ►rwa.nr M w~' V" P-mm I Von" ) M", it , CWk M.ry J /Mr M~ Jan Wft~1 M~ r ReCEIYER OCT 1981 k. lVI. A. 1405 French Street Serra Am, Wknia 92701 TeWOm (71Q WWI CJ SECTION II: COMMENTS AND RESPONSES Comments from John Wayne Airport (letter to Kenneth Smith EMA/Environmental Analysis Division, dated November 13, 1981). Comment: Airport staff has reviewed 'the subject DEIR. There are several areas of special concern which relate to the com- patibility of the proposed land use with the current and anticipated operations conducted at John Wayne Airport. Among these concerns are: acoustical insulation, an avi- gation easement, height and exterior treatment of the structures, and appropriate notice to buyers/tenants of airport impacts at the site. These matters have received adequate discussions in the subject report. However, there is another important issue which is raised by the discussions in Section II-J, Land Use and Relevant Planning (pp. 48-50). This concerns the preparation o the Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan, which is well under way. The purpose of this County -directed project is to resolve long-standing land use problems within the Santa Ana Heights Community in a comprehensive manner. An Advisory Group has been formed to work with County staff. Concurrently, the County has instituted a General Plan • Implementation district for the community to prevent incompatible development during the Specific Plan prepara- tion. Both the Orange County Airport Commission and the Airport Land Use Commission have endorsed these actions and have representatives on the Advisory Group. r We understand that all development projects proposed for Santa Ana Heights are to be reviewed by the Specific Plan Advisory Group. Such a review has not yet occurred for this project. Therefore, although the subject develop- ment, as presented in DEIR 277, appears to be a compatible land use, we believe it to be a premature proposal and cannot endorse it until it has been evaluated with regard to the Specific Plan. Response: As discussed in the Land Use and Relevant Planning section of the DEIR, the Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan is being prepared by County planning staff at the direction of the Board of Supervisors. This plan, when adopted, will set land use specifications and development/re-development standards for the area. Since March 1981, County staff has been working with the Santa Ana Heights Community through the Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan Advisory Committee. A preliminary, staff -generated land use plan was presented • to the Advisory Committee on November 18, 1981. 19 According to County staff, work or and refinements are being made. calls for another presentation to in February 1982. A presentation sion is expected to occur in late cipated to be before the Board of of 1982. this plan is continuing The current schedule the Advisory Committee to the Planning Commis - May. The plan is anti - Supervisors by September The project site is located in an area designated on the November 18th plan for offices and office related commer- cial uses. The proposed project is consistent with this land use designation. As previously mentioned, refinements are continuing to be made to the Plan. These refinements are not expected to include any changes in the land use designation for the project site. l The Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan represents the most recent planning effort toward establishing compatible land uses with current and forecast operations of John Wayne Airport, arterial highway traffic, infrastructure avail- ability and environmental and community concerns. The ultimate plan, as well as the current draft, will repre- sent what is believed to be, by County decision -makers, the best compromise among the competing alternatives for land uses in the Santa Ana Heights neighborhood. In this light, the consistency of the proposed project with this Plan would appear to overwhelm the negative connotations of the project's inconsistency with the General Plan designation of the County and Newport Beach, which them- selves do not agree on the best use for the property. Telephone conversation with County EMA, January 28, 1982. 20 r Richard Adler, Orange C J • 1] Comments from the Airport Land Use Commission for Orange . County (letter to Kenneth Smith EMA/Environmental Analysis dated November 10, 1981). • • Comment: As staff planner to the Airport Land Use Commission for Orange County, I have reviewed the subject DEIR. The various areas of Commission concern, such as acoustical insulation, building heights, notice of airport impacts, avigation easement, etc., have been adequately addressed by the draft report. In addition, several suggestions which I submitted during the screencheck review have been incorporated into the current document. There is, however, another Commission concern which cannot be overlooked. The Commission has endorsed both the Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan project and the General Plan Implementation District recently instituted by the Orange County Board of Supervisors. Since the Specific Plan will be a comprehensive approach to the various community prob- lems existing in Santa Ana Heights, including airport impacts, it must take precedence over individual develop- ment projects. The Airport Land Use Commission will review the Specific Plan upon its completion and will take into consideration the policies and programs to be promul- gated by it. Although the subject DEIR is adequate to its particular purpose, it appears to be premature at this time. I believe that it shouldrbe submitted to the Specific Plan Advisory Group for review. This will help to determine the actual compatibility of the Acacia offices project within its future environment. Response: The project's proposed land use and the land uses proposed in the current draft Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan are discussed in the response to comments received from John Wayne Airport. The General Plan Implementation District mentioned in the comment is discussed in the DEIR on pages 46-47. 21 Comments from California Department of Transportation (Memorandum to Ann Barkley, Chief, Division of Transporta- tion Planning). i Comment A: The crucial factors as we assess them are airport -related noise and possible adverse safety implications. The DEIR concedes that the site is subject to excessive noise levels from aircraft operating at John Wayne -Orange County Airport. The project site is 3,500 feet out on the ex- tended centerline of Runway 19R, and is bisected by the 75 dBa CNEl contour line. In the noise section of the DEIR, considerable effort is devoted to mitigating the noise Impact on the site. Additionally, there are references to noise and avigation easements, and written notice to prospective tenants about the noise and safety aspects of the site. Those are prudent measures, which do nothing to mitigate the noise level, but do serve to preclude legal action against the airport. Existing residential uses within the 65 dB CNEL contour are treated as nonconforming to the General plan. Would not the proposed professional/ administrative office use be similarly treated? Response: This issue is discussed in the DEIR on pages 39-42. As • indicated there, the proposed project's land use falls into the third (of three) review categories which states: a detailed analysis is required to assess compatibility and mitigation measures. (Reference DEIR Exhibit 10.) Such an analysis has Been prepared and is included in the DEIR as Appendix E. The conclusion of the report is that "it is possible to meet the most stringent design require- ment of the County even in this location [with the pro- posed mitigation measures]". Should the recommended pro- cedures of the John Wayne Airport ANCLUC Report be imple- mented, the proposed land use would fall into the second review category which requires less stringent analysis than the third. These reduced noise levels would still preclude new residential development. Comment B: As to safety aspects, the project site lies within the Approach Protection Area for the airport. Any development in the project site area would be vulnerable to damage in the event of an aircraft accident. Response: This issue is discussed in the DEIR on pages 35-39. 22 Comment C: • On page 48, there are further concessions that "...the proposed office commercial project is inconsistent with the current zoning..." and "the proposed project has been found to be inconsistent with the current General Plan Land Use Element and Open Space Element designation for the site..." Response: The project's proposed land use and conflicts with plans proposing ultimate land uses for the site are discussed in the DEIR and in several comments and responses. (See com- ments from the City of Newport Beach and John Wayne Airport.) Comment D: The ANCLUC Plan for the John Wayne Airport is quoted as recommending " ..Commercial Open Space or Other Compatible Low -Intensity Use for the project site..." We find those recommendations to be reasonable and prudent measures to minimize possible conflicts between the airport and sur- rounding land uses. Response: • The ANCLUC Plan recommendations for ultimate land use and the plan's functions are discussed in the DEIR on pages 48 and 49. As a rpoint of information, the status of the ANCLUC Plan has recently changed. Since the preparation of the DEIR, the ANCLUC Plan and Airport Master Plan have been found to be supported by an inadequate Environmental Impact Report. Judge Bruce Sumner of the Orange County Superior Court, in a Memorandum of Intended Decision dated January 5, 1982 stated: "Because of the insufficiency of the Environment- al Impact Report, judgment is entered for the plaintiffs [City of Newport Beach] and an injunction shall issue forthwith restraining the defendants [County of Orange] from taking any further action to implement the Master or ANCLUC Plans until they prepare, circulate, consider and certify an adequate EIR in full compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act and Guidelines." Comment E: The favorable aspects of the proposed project are econom- ic. The negative aspects would include displacement of existing residents, elimination of recreational uses and open space, a site heavily impacted by airport -related • noise, vulnerability in the event of accidents, increased pollutants, and some adverse impact on the circulation network. 23 Response: These issues are discussed throughout the DEIR specifical- • ly in the Hydrology/Water Quality, Traffic and Circula- tion, Air Quality and Noise/Light/Glare/Safety sections. Comment F: John Wayne Airport is already subject to frequent com- plaints about noise from airport operations. The tenants of the proposed office buildings would probably add their complaints, to the disadvantage of the airport. We would suggest the County consider the existing noise problems at John Wayne Airport and not approve a project that will exacerbate an already untenable situation. Should the County determine to approve the project, we recommend that conditions for such approval include the granting of noise and avigation easements over the project site in favor of the airport; requiring written advice from the proponent to prospective tenants as to noise and safety implications; and adequate acoustic treatment to reduce interior noise to acceptable levels. Response: These mitigation measures are also suggested in the DEIR and discussed in detail on page 42. . 0 24 0 r Comment from California Regional Water Quality Control Board - Santa Ana Region (letter to Terry Roberts, State Clearinghouse, dated October 23, 1981). Comment: Review of the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR for the Acacia Offices has been completed by this office. The DEIR does not adequately address erosion -siltation con- trols during the construction phase. A plan to prevent undue erosion -siltation should be submitted prior to the commencement of construction. Response: Prior to commencement of construction the project sponsor will be required to submit a grading plan to the Orange County Environmental Management Agency and have that plan approved prior to the issuance of a grading permit. Such a plan must conform to the Orange County Grading and Excavation Code (Title 7, Division 1, Article 8 of the Codified Ordinances). Subarticle 13 of the code addresses erosion control requirements. , 25 Comments from Orange County Environmental Management Agency/Transportation/Flood Program Office (Memo to Kenneth E. Smith EMA/Environmental Analysis Division dated October 29, 1981). . Comment A: Air Quality The percent of project emissions to total County emissions (as shown in Table 2) should be substantiated by showing and referencing the figures used in computing the percent- ages. Response: Since the submission Resources Board has factors for specified ceded those previous the Orange County EMA These new factors are miles per hour. of the DEIR, the California Air updated the mobile source emission years. These factors have super - and their use has been requested by Transportation/Flood Program staff. given below and assume a speed of 30 EMFAC6C PROGRAM EMISSIONS FACTORS* YEAR CO THC NOx sox TSP 1982 17.59 1.65 2.39 0.2 0.36 1985 11.43 1.10 1.84 0.2 0.33 1987 9.11 0.91 1.62 0.2 0.32 1990 7.33 0.78 1.44 0.2 0.31 1995 6.28 0.70 1.34 0.2 0.30 2000 5.86 0.67 1.30 0.2 0.30 *All factors in grams per mile SOURCE: Orange County EMA Transportation/Flood Program Division Using these factors and an assumed miles traveled per day, the Project Emissions Table below was generated: 3,822 project induced Related Mobile -Source • M Project Related Mobile Source Emissions . (pounds per day) YEAR CO THC NO so TSP 1982 148.2 13.9 20.1 1.7 3.0 1985 96.3 9.3 15.5 1.7 2.8 1987 76.8 7.7 13.7 1.7 2.7 1990 61.8 6.6 12.1 1.7 2.6 1995 52.9 5.9 11.3 1.7 2.5 2000 49.4 5.6 11.0 1.7 2.5 Stationary source emissions were quantified in Table 4 of the DEIR. The combined mobile and stationary source daily emissions for selected years are given in the table below with the comparable total emissions for the SCAB. Emissions Inventory Comparison Project -and SCAB 1982=2000 (tons per day) 1982 CO HC NOx so TSP • Project .074 .007 .013 .007 .002 SCAB 5071 2320 1134 364 247 1987 Project .039 .004 .010 .007 .002 SCAB 4112 2176 1154 386 261 2000 Project .025 .003 .009 .007 .002 SCAB 3989 2113 1208 380 279 • SOURCE: SCAB Data - "Air Quality Management Plan", South Coast AQMD/SCA6; January 1979. These figures supercede the information sources and calcu- lations used to estimate the project's air quality impacts in the DEIR. 27 Comment B: Circulation • The applicant has not addressed one of the comments on the Screencheck EIR outlined in the July 1981 memo from Jerry Bennett to Kenneth E. Smith. The comment is as follows: "The report should also address the impacts of the proj- ects currently under construction, as well as all of the approved projects along the Corona Del Mar Freeway, in its analysis." Response: Environmental Management Agency staff indicates that there have been no projects recently approved in the unincorpor- ated area along the Corona Del Mar Freeway Corridor. During the latter part of 1980 - early part of 1981, there was a 100,000 square foot office complex considered by the County and sbusequently denied. All other approved projects along the Corona Del Mar Freeway Corridor, in the vicinity of DEIR 277, are within the City of Newport Beach. The cumulative traffic impacts of the Newport Beach projects are discussed in response to the City's DEIR 277 comments dated November 13, 1981 (Comment 17). • W. Comment from Orange County EMA/Cultural Resources (Memor- andum to Kenneth Smith, EMA/Environmental Analysis Division, dated October 15, 1981). Comment A: The Cultural/Scientific Resource section and related appendices for the subject report are adequate. I agree with the recommendations. The applicant should be pre- pared to conduct the test early enough to accommodate further excavation, if necessary, prior to grading. This is in the immediate vicinity of the archeo site/proj- ect of several years ago when problems were encountered that led to litigation, delays, vandalism, threats, etc. As Q T 0 usual, I will transmit the EIR to the Historical Comments received from the City of Newport Beach (letter from James D. HewickerI Planningg Department Director, to is Ken Smith, OCEMA dated November 13, 1981). Comment 1: Housing - The DEIR does not address the incremental loss of existing housing stock nor the increased demand for housing generated by employees at the proposed offices. This should be addressed before the EIR proceeds to Final form. Response: As shown in the Existing plot Plan, DEIR Exhibit 3 (p. 4), four homes will be demolished to clear the site for the proposed project. These represent less than one one - thousandth of one percent of the existing housing stock in the County of Orange estimated to be 737,578 units by the California Department of Finance as of January 1, 1981, Assuming an average of 375 square feet of office per employee, the 26,000 square foot project will contain approximately 69 employees. This suggests a potential of a 69 dwelling unit demand for housing. Residential build- ing permits totaled 6,974 in 1980, a sixteen year low. The 69 DU potential demand equals 1.0% of the total 1980 residential permits. This should be considered the maxi- mum impact because of the assumptions that ail employees will generate new housing demand and the very low 1980 residential building permit total. In the first three months of 1981 these permits totaled 3,252, a 39.4 percent increase over the same period of 1980 and the sixteen year average (1965-1980) is 11,904 permits per year. (Statistical source: Orange County Progress Report 1981- 82 vol. 18.) Comment 2: Utilities - Since responding to the NOP on this project, the City of Newport Beach has received the attached letter from the Costa Mesa Sanitary District indficating that the sewer system is operating at or near capacity in the area and that improvements would be required to serve any new development in the area. Before the EIR is finalized, this problem should be investigated and solved. Response: The letter from the Costa Mesa Sanitary District forwarded by the City of Newport Beach (dated October 13, 1981) represents the current position of the District. Tele- phone conversations with Bruce Mattern, District Manager, C confirm the potential problem of supplying sewer service . to this and other projects in the area which are placing more intense uses on the land. The District currently does not have the financial ability to construct addition- al facilities. The District Board is currently reviewing new ordinances regarding fees and new facility construc- tion financing. The alternatives stated in the letter are being considered: 1. Detachment from the Costa Mesa Sanitary District, which would allow the County and Newport Beach to handle the increased capacity needs. ct uch as the 2 Establish an Improvement District Acts nof 1911,�1915,s1913 provide. 3. 'Require the first developer to furnish at his expense the needed capacity and then by agreement, provide that the developer would be reimbursed as other prop- erties develop and/or redevelop and connect to the new facility. The District Management feels the District would be unable to provide a will serve letter or list conditions to be met for such a letter until March 1982, when the new ordinances and existing conditions have been sufficiently evaluated. Because of these conditions, the letter from • the District to the project proponent, (dated 10/22/80) offering a will serve letter and specifying improvements is no longer valid. The project must be re-evaluated under the new criteria to be adopted by the District in the near future. (Telephone conversation with Bruce Mattern, District Manager 1/28/82.) Comment 3: Mitigation measures throughout the, report are worded in terms of "should" instead of "will". Those mitigations that will actually be implemented should be distinguished from those that are merely suggested, and reasons given for the rejection of those measures not to be implemented. Response: Mitigation measures which are currently a part of the project as proposed are included in the report and worded as "will" or "shall". Other mitigation measures which are proposed or suggested by the EIR preparers are worded as "should" or "could". These measures can be implemented by conditional approvals requiring specific actions or fea- tures. It is the purpose of public and administrative re- view of development proposals, via EIR or other documenta- tion, to determine those additional mitigation measures 31 from the list of those recommended or suggested which will • provide adequate protection to the environment from devel- opment impacts. Adequacy in this regard is determined by the appropriate government body, i.e., Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors. Comment 4: Biological Resources (Page 7) - The DEIR states that "Excrements [sic] from the animals may contribute signifi- cantly to ... organic pollutant percolation ...". Please explain this in more detail. Would water in this area percolate to the water table or is it inhibited by soils not conducive to infiltration or blocked by an impervious layer? Do existing groundwater quality data indicate any problems which might be attributed to equestrian activi- ties? Response: As stated in the Biological Resources section of the DEIR, such organic pollutants as animal excrement, generated on -site, may reach Upper Newport Bay via surface runoff or through water table contamination. No published informa- tion is known to exist to confirm this existing potential water pollutant mechanism. Should such materials reach Upper Newport Bay, they would contribute to accelerated algae growth and eutrophication within the estuary eco- system. It should be noted that this possible pollutant mechanism currently exists on the site. The implementation of the proposed project would eliminate it and must be considered a potential beneficial impact of the proposed project. Comment 5: Biological Resources (Page B) - 000 is the accepted abbre- viation for biochemical oxygen demand. Response: This comment is noted. According to Webster's New C211v_s_at�e _Dictionary, BOD is an acceptable abbreviation �or-7iO bloc elm coal— and biological oxygen demand. The DEIR follows the biological consultant's usage in the Biological Assessment of the project site. Comment 6: Archaeology (Page 11) - The DEIR should state that the recommendations stated in the archaeologist's report will be implemented. The EIR should not be finalized until the archaeological test phase and report are complete. 32 Response: The County of Orange has established procedures to insure significant archaeological or paleontological resources are preserved. These proecedures are incorporated in the Standard Conditions of Approval, administered by the Orange County EMA, Regulation. Should the project be approved, it will be subject to these conditions which are consistent with those in the archaeologist's report. Processing of the EIR should not be halted to await such a test phase and report which are specifically addressed at another phase of development proposal processing under the County's jurisdiction. Comment 7: Paleontological Resources (Page 13) - As a mitigation measure, it should be stated that if any resources are uncovered during site preparation, the area will be flagged off and thoroughy investigated before work pro- ceeds. Response: As noted in the response to the previous comment, the County has specific guidelines to insure the preservation of significant cultural/scientific features found on site. . The Standard Conditions of Approval state: "If the cultural/scientific features are found to be sig- nificant, the cultural/scientific resource observer shall determine appropriate actions, in cooperation with the project developer, which insure that the resources will not be destroyed before exploration and/or salvage." Comment 8: Hydrology/Water Quality - Are local storm drainage facili- ties adequate to .handle increased runoff? Response: Local storm drainage facilities are adequate to handle the increased run-off of approximately 1.08 CFS. This repre- sents a 0.097 percent increase in total flow within the Santa Ana - Delhi Flood Control Channel Tocated' approxi- mately 1000 feet to the west. Although a drainage plan has not yet been prepared for the project, the increased runoff is not expected to significantly impact any exist- ing drainage facility. 33 Comment 9: Hydrology/Water Quality - Increased erosion due to in- . creased runoff in unimproved drainages should be investi- gated as a part of the EIR and appropriate mitigation measures required. Responses The project, if approved, will be subject to the rules, procedures and interpretations of the Orange County Grading and Excavation Code known as the Orange County Grading Manual. This manual contains the standards and requirements to which development projects in the County are held. In reference to this comment regarding the potential for increased erosion in unimproved drainages, the Grading Manual states: "All drainage facilities shall be designed to carry waters to the nearest practicable drainage way approved by the Building Official and/or other appropriate jurisdiction as a safe place to deposit such water. Erosion of ground in the area of discharge shall be prevented by installation of non -erosive downdrains, riprap, energy dissipators or other approved devices includin a return of flow to a natural sheet flow condition." Section 11.3) . Conformance to this provision will be determined at the time of grading plan review and approval. In addition the County's Standard Conditions of Approval state that: "The following improvements shalt be designed and con- structed in accordance with plans and specifications meet- ing the approval of the Assistant Director, EMA, Develop- ment: "All provisions for surface drainage, including a drainage study evidencing that proposed drainage patterns will not overload existing storm drains. All necessary storm drain facilities extnding to a satisfactory point of disposal for the proper control and disposal of storm runoff and the necessary easements therefore shall be dedicated to the County of Orange. "The developer shall submit to the Assistant Director, EMA, Development, detailed drainage studies indicating how the tract grading in conjunction with the drainage convey- ance systems including applicable swales, channels, street flows, catch basis, storm drains and flood water retarding • 34 will allow building pads to be safe from inundation from . rainfall runoff which may be expected from all storms up to and including the theoretical 1000-year flood." Although these conditions are not applied to the project at the current stage of processing, the existence of such requirements at later stages should provide adequate assurance that such potential impacts will be sufficiently mitigated, when the detailed plans are developed, via codified ordinances. Comment 10: Hydrology/Water Quality (Page 15) basis of the statement that "As a surface, its annual accumulation [of much less." Response: Please explain the non -street impervious pollutants] should be The comment refers to a statement that a parking lot is expected to accumulate less solid- wastes which are then washed into drainages than a street. This statement is taken from the Biological Assessment where it is sourced to 208 Areawide Waste Treatment Management Planning Program by Pomeroy, Johnston, an y ai �T 1977. . This statement is based on the fact that a parking lot is not subject to the traffic which a street is, and the associated deposition of solids. These include oil and gas deposits from leaking vehicles, rubber, asbestos from brake linings, litter and debris lost in transport. A parking lot while subject to some of the same impacts, likely receives regular cleaning more thorough than that given roadways and does not receive equal amounts of such deposits for an equal area. Comment 11: Hydrology/Water Quality (Page 15) - If parking lot runoff is diverted onto adjacent permeable surfaces, as suggested in the DEIR, what will be the effects on erosion in these permeable areas? Response: Such areas will receive runoff only at a rate acceptable under County standards which require erosion protection. See response to comment 9. Comment 12: Hydrology/Water Quality (Page 15) - Is the use of porous • paving material practical for this project? 35 Response: The use of porous paving material, such as gravel, in vehicle circulation areas, i.e., parking lot, is not prac- tical. However, portions of the pedestrian circulation areas could contain such materials and reduce increased storm runoff from the improved property. Comment 13: Visual/Aesthetic Quality - Photos of the existing site should be included with an overlay showing the proposed project. Response: Photos of the existing site are included in Appendix B, Archaeological/Paleontological Investigation. The exist- ing conditions portion of the Visual/Aesthetic Quality Section also provides a complete narrative describing the site and adjacent environment. The Site Plan and Eleva- tions, DEIR Exhibits 4, 6, and 6, with the narrative con- tained within the potential impacts section provide a com- prehensive description of the proposed structures and their location. Additional information is not required for the reader to adequately assess the visual qualities of the site as it currently exists and the proposed proj- ect. Comment 14: 0 Visual Quality/Aesthetics - What will be the height of the proposed structure? Response: The structures are proposed to be two stories or approxi- mately twenty-five feet in height. Comment 15: Visual Quality/Aesthetics (Page 18 6 19) - The site ren- derings should be revised to show the proposed structure in the context of the surrounding residential areas. This would better reveal the project's scale and relationship to the surrounding area. Response: See response to Comment 13. Comment 16: Visual Quality/Aesthetics - As a mitigation measure, it should be required that a landscape plan be submitted by . the applicant and made subject to County approval. 36 0 Response: According to Dave Maynard, Chief EMA/Area Site Planning, landscape plans are routinely required for developments such as this. The requirement is made a condition of approval by the Planning Commission based upon EMA staff recommendation. It is his opinion that this project would be subject to such a condition if approved by the Planning Commission. (Based on telephone conversation: 1/29/82.) Comment 17: Traffic and Circulation - The discussion of intersection utilization does not include previously approved projects which will contribute significant amounts of traffic to local intersections when completed. At the same time, it does not include already committed improvements which might help alleviate congestion in the area. In order to adequately assess impacts on local roadways this should be included. In addition, the ICU analysis does not include yellow time. The City of Newport Beach usually expects 10 percent of the light cycle to be in yellow time. Response: Information regarding previously approved projects which would contribute traffic to the DEIR 277 area along with any roadway improvements has been obtained from the City of Newport Beach and is discussed below. The City of Newport Beach provides Intersection Capacity Utilization information based upon existing plus committed project Is traffic. The list of committed projects include: Aeronutronic Ford Backbay Office Boyle Engineering Civic Plaza Corporate Plaza Koll Center Newport Campus/MacArthur National Education Office North Ford Orchard Office Pacific Mutual Plaza 3701 Birch Office Newport Place Shokrian Bayside Square Sea Island Baywood Apartments Harbor Point Homes Roger's Gardens Seaview Lutheran Plaza Marriott Expansion The above projects cause the intersections on Bristol 'and Campus to have an evening peak hour operation as follows: WA --Bristol Street North/Campus Drive - 1.12 percent --Bristol Street/Irvine Avenue - .84 percent . Other intersections along the Corona Del Mar Freeway Corridor on Bristol are operating at 1.01 percent or bet- ter. Whenever project traffic, committed development traffic, and regional growth traffic are added to the Bristol - Campus intersections the following evening peak hour intersection capacity utilization result: --Bristol Street North/Campus Drive - 1.48 percent --Bristol Street/Irvine Avenue - .99 percent In accordance with the procedures of the City of Newport Beach traffic Phasing Ordinance, both the "One Percent Traffic Volume Analysis" sheets and the "Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis" for the Bristol -Campus intersections sheets are included with this response. Previously approved City of Newport Beach projects have recommended new lane configurations for the Bristol inter- sections at Campus Drive and Irvine Avenue. These changes would add: --One southbound right turn lane and one combination through lane, right turn lane to the north leg of the is intersection. --One southbound through lane to the north and south legs of the Bristol -Irvine intersection. Lane additions as discussed above would cause the inter- sections to operate at the following evening peak hour intersection capacity utilization percentages: --Bristol Street North/Campus Drive - 1.48 percent --Bristol Street/Irvine Avenue - .87 percent The reason there is no change in Bristol Street North/ Campus Drive intersection capacity utilization after improvements have been added is due to the fact that the heaviest movement - southbound right, did not receive additional lane capacity. The intersections on Bristol along the Corona Del Mar Freeway Corridor have evening peak hour operations ranging from 63 percent to 112 percent. Any project along the corridor wall will impact intersection capacity utiliza- tion. There are recommended lane configurations which, by adding lanes, will assist in intersection capacity utili- zation reduction. 0 m The completion of the Corona Del Mar Freeway between Campus and Jamboree will further reduce intersection capacity utilization along Bristol. In discussions with CalTrans staff, it was indicated that the freeway link between Campus and Jamboree has funding for fiscal year 1983-184, with a three year construction schedule antici- pated. (Source: Kunzman Associates) Comment 18: Traffic and Circulation - An analysis of potential vehicle conflicts with pedestrian and equestrian circulation should be included. Response: With regard to pedestrian circulation/traffic conflicts, the on -site conditions are considered typical of office and/or commercial development, therefore, pedestrian - vehicle conflict is assumed to be at a minimum. To minimize the vehicle -equestrian conflicts, the follow- ing measures may be taken: --Post an "Equestrian Crossing" sign at the project access facing outbound project traffic. --Post "Equestrian Warning" signs along Acacia Avenue and Orchard Drive. (Source: Kunzman Associates) Comment 19: Air Quality (Page 26) - If 1980 air quality summaries are available, they should be presented. Respo Air q • Number of Days State Standards Were Exceeded and Annual Maximum Hourly Averages (1980) CARBON SULFUR NITROGEN OZONE MONOXIDE DIOXIDE DIOXIDE Station Location Days Max. Days Max. Days Max. Days Max. Anaheim 68 0.28 23 26 0 .019 17 0.43 La Habra 106 0.31 3 25 0 .023 5 0.42 Costa Mesa 20 0.16 2 17 0 .017 2 0.31 E1 Toro 65 0.34 NM NM NM NM NM NM Los Alamitos 49 0.22 NM NM 0 .029 NM NM Santa Ana C. 89 0.33 NM NM 0 .010 NM NM a Days - number of days exceeding state standard for indicated pollutant. aMax. - single highest 1-hour (for S02 24-hour) average of the year in parts per million. NM - Not Measured. SOURCE: California Air Quality Data (1980); California Air Resources oar Summary OT Air quality in the South Coast Air Basin of California 1979. Comment 20: Air Quality - Impacts hot spots at congested part of the EIR. Response: related to potential air pollution intersection need to be examined as This comment addresses the potential for carbon monoxide buildup at a congested intersection. These impacts are most usually associated with very high volumes of traffic (>200,000 ADT), congested on highways below grade and hot days with little wind. Intersections near the project are not likely to meet these criteria and are not expected to generate carbon monoxide hot spots. A worst case analysis has been calculated for the most congested and heavily trafficked intersection impacted by the project: Campus and North Bristol. The analysis technique used here is described in the Air Quaiity Handbook for Environmental Impact Repo_r_ts, SCAB-t`p. This analysis assumes wors me eoro og c-conditions of one meter per second wind speed and a 22-1/2 degree angle between wind idirection and highway direction. The concen- tration is estimated for a location 50 feet from the down- wind edge of the highway, at grade. The vehicle mix con- tains 10 percent heavy duty vehicles (over 60000 pounds gross weight). This method is assumed accurate for 1980. 11 • 40 The traffic report estimates a total ADT of 60,000 through • the intersection in question. The peak hour is assumed to be the worst congested period and to contain 10 percent of the total ADT. Thus, for this analysis the intersection is assumed to handle a 6,009 one -hour volume at an aver- age speed of 10 mph. Based on all of these assumptions the carbon monoxide concentration is calculated to be 25 parts per million (ppm) at the sampling location. The California one -hour standard is 40 ppm. It should be noted that SCAQMD data indicate a prevailing 6-8 mph wind in the afternoon at this location. A 6 mph wind (2.8 meters per second) would reduce the concentration by 70 percent which would be 17.5 ppm at the observation point. Comment 21: Air Quality (Page 27) - It seems that Table 2, "Project Emissions" should be included under Impacts rather than under Existing Conditions. Please clarify whether the table represents emissions associated with the existing site or the proposed project and whether the table repre- sents emissions from mobile or stationary sources or both. Rather than show emissions as a percentage of SCAB emis- sions, it might be more informative to show emissions as a percent of those in the Orange County sub -basin. Response: • Table 2 should be included in the potential impacts sec- tion. The table indicates total emissions (stationary and mobile) associated with the proposed project as a percent- age of forecast emissions for Orange County in 1987. Project emissions compared with those in the Orange County sub -basin for 1987 are given below. Project Emissions Compared with Orange County (Forecast for 1987) CO NO Sox TSP THC Project* - .03868 .00985 .00730 .00188 - .00406 Orange Co.* 737 107' 10 16 93 Project Percentage of O:C. .005% .009% .073% .012% .004% *tons per day . SOURCE: Orange County 1982 Forecast - telephone conversation with Mike Nazemi - May 22, 1981. :il Comment 22: Air Quality (Page 29) - The statement that "the proposed project will result in the addition of only 20 pounds of contaminants daily" is misleading in that it applies only to stationary source emissions. This should be clarified and the total of emissions from all sources should be presented. Response: The comment is correct in that in the 20 pound figure cited does only include stationary source emissions. Com- bining this figure with the mobile source emissions given in the response to Comment A from Orange EMA/Transporta- tion/Flood Program Office yields the following total emis- sions: Total Emissions (Stationary and Mobile Source) YEAR EMISSIONS 1982 206.9 pounds per day 1985 145.6 pounds per day 1987 122.6 pounds per day 1990 104.8 pounds per day • 1995 94.3 pounds per day 2000 70.2 pounds per day Comment 23: Noise/Light/Glare/Safety - Noise impacts of commercial development on residences should be examined. This should Include a discussion of the potential for increased traf- fic noise as well as noise from the proposed project site. Response: Except for increased traffic, the activities occurring on an office commercial site are not expected to generate noise greater than the current land use. An increase of 290 ADT is expected to make no calculable noise impact on adjacent properties. The overwhelming noise concern for all properties in the area is jet aircraft noise. Comment 24: Noise/Light/Glare/Safety - Will the project result in increased hazards to young people riding horses in the area? 42 Response: Increased traffic in the area could increase the potential hazard to all equestrian activities occurring on public roadways. See response to comment 18 for suggested miti- gation measures. Comment 25: Recreation/Open Space (Page 43) - It should be pointed out that because horseback riding in the residential area "would be unacceptable in most other neighborhoods in the County" the equestrian nature of the community is a unique and valuable resource on which any impacts must be viewed as highly significant. Any conflicts between the existing equestrian uses and the proposed development should be examined in detail before the EIR is finalized. Response: Conflicts between the existing equestrian uses and the proposed project are discussed in the EIR sections: Traffic and Circulation and Recreation/Open Space. 'This existing use is a unique and valuable resource which should be protected from encroaching urbanization where possible. These concerns are part of the input being pro- vided in the production of the Santa Ana Heights Specific . Plan. For a discussion of this project's relationship to that Plan see response to comment from John Wayne Airport. Comment 26: Land Use and Relevant Planning Programs - Because the sub- ject property is in the Newport Beach Sphere of Influence, the proposed project should be analyzed in light of the Newport Beach General Plan, which designates the site for low density residential use. This conflict should be examined in detail and the proposed project should be reviewed in terms of the various elements of the Newport Beach General Plan and Draft Local Coastal Program. Response: The project site is not located within the Coastal Zone, hence, the elements of the Santa Ana Heights Draft Local Coastal Program are not directly applicable. Development of the proposed project is not in conflict with any of the policies stated in the Local Coastal Program. The Newport Beach Land Use Element designates the subject property Low Density Residential with which the proposed use would conflict. If annexation were to occur the pro- posed project would be inconsistent with the General Plan L,K Land Use Element designation. The Noise Element of the City's General Plan specifies: the maximum allowable ex- terior noise level is 65 CNEL; maximum allowable interior noise level is 45 CNEL, for residential uses. Under this standard the current use and General Plan designated use are both non -conforming to the City's General Plan because of noise impacts from the airport. The City has no simi- lar standard for commercial or industrial uses within the City. The proposed project would be consistent with the City's Plan in this regard. These facts demonstrate a current inconsistency between the elements of the City's General Plan and operations at John Wayne Airport. Assuming operations at John Wayne Airport continue, at least at their current level, the land use designation of the City's General Plan cannot be implemented. The proj- ect as proposed, is consistent with other elements of the City's General Plan. Comment 27: Land Use and Relevant Planning (Page 49) - It is not reasonable to expect a reviewer to believe that an office building would be useful as a buffer between houses and a golf course. This section should be carefully reviewed as it is not adequate. Response: • Although office buildings in general may not be thought of as useful buffers between these uses, the scale and character of the proposed project makes such a function possible. As noted in the OEIR, the adjacent Newport - Irvine Center building would not serve such a function due to its steel and glass construction in a very urban style. Such a structure would be out of place 1n a primarily natural setting such as between residential uses and a golf course. The building is in sharp contrast to adja- cent structures on its site near the proposed project. The proposed project, howver, utilizes natural building materials and landscaping to create a setting more in harmony with adjacent uses. By minimizing the visual impacts, the proposed use can provide buffer functions such as protection from early morning maintenance or recreation activities noise and struck golf bails that may leave the course, without seriously detracting from the overall character and quality of the environment. 174 44 Comment 28: Land Use and Relevant Planning - The Draft EIR does not address the potential that approval of the proposed proj- ect has to prejudice the preparation of the Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan. This and the relationship of the proposed project to the preliminary recommendat ions of the Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan Advisory Committee should be addressed in the Final EIR. Response: The project's relationship to the Santa Ana Heights Speci- fic Plan is discussed in the response to comments received from John Wayne Airport. Comment 29: Unavoidable Adverse Impacts - This section is not adequate in that Unavoidable Adverse Impacts on Land Use, Recrea- tion, and Housing are not discussed. Response: Project approval will require a land use decision by responsible governing and administrative bodies. Prior to this decision, analysis regarding the proposed land will . be undertaken, as demonstrated in this document, to deter- mine impacts. As has been stated, the project is consist- ent with the current draft land use plan for the Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan and the potential impacts on adja- cent uses has been discussed. The proposed project and the uses proposed by other plans, Orange County General Plan, Newport Beach General Plan have been discussed in the DEIR and in response to comment 26. It is not evident that unavoidable adverse impact in the area of Land Use will occur with project approval. An unavoidable impact to existing housing stock will occur as discussed in response to comment 1. An unavoidable adverse impact to equestrian recreation facilities will occur and is discussed in the response to comment 25. Comment 30: Alternatives (Page 53) - The DEIR states that the "no project alternative is not in the best interests of the citizens of the County." Please explain the justification for this statement and explain which "citizens" are implied. Those who live along Acacia and Orchard? Those who keep horses in the area? 45 Response: The no project alternative would continue residential uses in an environment in which new residential development would not be allowed due to the noise impacts from the John Wayne Airport. The Noise Elements of both the City of Newport Beach and the County of orange indicate such. The no project alternative is not in the interest of citizens who demand jet air transportation from John Wayne Airport, desire a healthy living environmental for all residences and require office space for business activities. Those who currently enjoy keeping their horses on the property will not be benefited when this opportunity is lost, if the project is constructed. Comment 31: Alternatives (Page 54) - The DEIR states that "As dis- cussed in the Biology section, the current equestrian boarding activity has generated negative impacts to the environment." Vet, the terminology in the Biology section is confined to phrases such as "may contribute" and "It is not known whether...". Justification for the statement on Page 54 should be provided if it is retained in the Final EIR. Response: The statement assumes some of the negative impacts dis- • cussed in the Biology section do occur. These impacts are sufficiently numerous and severe that their consideration is justified even though they are not quantified or pre- cisely determined in the DEIR. The three sentences fol- lowing the statement quoted in the comment explain these concerns and are quoted below. "Excrements from the horses may contribute significantly to the scenario of organic pollutant percolation in the area; potentially reaching Upper Newport Bay. Additional- ly, because of food resources made available through the stable operation, house mice, roof rats and Norway rats may live on the site. The County Health Department Requirements for Commercial Stables also identifies dust control and vector control as potential problem areas." Comment 32: Alternatives (Page 55) - While the Health Department iden- tifies dust and vector control as potential problems which equestrian uses, Health Department also suggests means of controlling these problems. These should be discussed in the EIR. 0 46 Response: These potential problems were raised to indicate possible nuisance problems associated with equine stabling. The Health Department maintains operating standards for such operations to control these ,potential nuisances. These include general construction and maintenance requirements, proper manure management, food storage requirements, a program of continuous dust control, vector control and general cleanliness and sanitation provisions. Vigorous enforcement of the equine stable regulations will provide a compatible and healthful environment. However, these potential nuisance sources can become real when these standards are not strictly maintained and enforced. (Reference: Equine Standards for Commercial Stables Pursuant to Resolution No. 76-1610 Orange County Board of Supervisors October 26, 1976). Comment 33: Alternatives (Page 55) - The DEIR mentions potential con- flicts betweeen equestrian activities and future develop- ment. Due to the proliferation of equestrian uses in Santa Ana Heights and the uniqueness of this resource, it would be desirable to plan future development to accommo- date the equestrian use. It hardly seems logical to introduce a new use, inconsistent with the General Plan for the area in order to be compatible with other non- existent uses equally inconsistent with the General Plan while at the same time increasing conflicts with existing equestrian uses in the area. Thus, this conflict should not be used as a reason for dismissal of the equestrian alternative in the EIR. Response: As noted, the proposed project is consistent with the cur- rent draft of the Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan, a plan designated to supercede the current Orange County General Plan designations for the area. This plan preserves sig- nificant areas for continued equestrian/residential uses predominantly adjacent to Newport Back Bay and in the interior portions of the area away from heavily trafficked streets such as Bristol Street and Irvine Avenue. It should be noted that the equestrian alternative is dis- missed due to numerous conflicts and problems not solely due to General Plan conflicts. Comment 34: Short-term Uses and Long-term Productivity (Page 56) - The DEIR states that "the project site in its present state is not of great value to the surrounding community except as 40 47 it provides equestrian recreation facilities and limited residential use." Please explain why housing and the unique equestrian use in the area is not Considered of great value. Response: As noted in the OEIR, the project site receives signifi- cant noise impacts to such a degree that new residential development would not be allowed on the site by either the County of Orange or the City of Newport Beach. Housing in such a location would not seem to be of great value or worthy of preservation. The equestrian facilities on the site are valuable to the limited number of persons who are able to use them. In this context, the unique value of the site in its present use is evident, however, to the majority of the County's citizens this resource is inconsequential. Comment 35: Growth Inducing Impacts - The conversion of residential land to commercial use should be analyzed in terms of its inducement of further conversions and its effect on land use designations in the Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan now being prepared. The effect of the conversion on the Orange County Airport and on ANCLUC plans should be . examined in the light of its inducement to further airport growth, i.e., the reduction of residential development which could reduce conflicts with the airport and poten- tially accelerate airport growth. Response: It is very unlikely that the addition of 26,000 square feet of professional/administrative office (69 employees) will affect, to any measurable extent, the number of pas- sengers using John Wayne Airport. The past airport expan- sion created conflicts with adjacent land uses. These conflicts will not prevent further airport expansion, just as they did not prevent the expansion to current operation levels, generating the conflicts. The operations and facilities at John Wayne Airport would, logically, be bet- ter organized under an Airport Master Plan as is now being attempted. It would appear highly illogical to attempt to maintain non- conforming uses in order to "hold the air- port hostage" in terms of future operations. A much more sensible approach would be to establish a plan for airport operations and work to implement such a plan, including the reduction of land use conflicts to the greater public benefit. 0 LE Comment 36: Growth Inducing Impacts (Page 58) - The DEIR states that "the proposed project will continue the current trend... of redeveloping residential parcels to... office/profes- sional uses." On what is this statement based? The area is almost exclusively residential and agricultural, the exceptions being the strips along Bristol Street and Irvine Avenue north of Acacia, which have been designated commercial since at least 1973. A drive through the area reveals no "trend" toward commercial development elsewhere in eastern Santa Ana Heights. Response: The statement was based on the recent demolition of homes along Bristol Street and Irvine Avenue and redevelopment of these parcels with office commercial projects. These areas may have been designated commercial for some time but the conversions have occurred only in the last few years. The issue raised by the proposal is whether office use is now appropriate for the site. Conditions have changed considerably since 1973. It is entirely possible that these changes have made professional/administrative offices a more desirable use on the project site than residential uses. In fact, the current noise impacts from • airport operations preclude new residential development entirely. The most current planning effort in the area, the draft Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan, designates the site for office use and conversations with County Planners confirm that this site will most likely remain so desig- nated in any further refinement of the Plan.* El *Telephone conversation with Richard Adler, OCEMA January 28, 1982. BE SCREENCHECK EIR (Submitted June 10, 1983 ) DRAFT EIR (Submitted June 24, 1983 ) PROPOSED FINAL EIRFINAL STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NUMBER: 81082010 SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT GPA 83-2 ZC 82-4 ACACIA OFFICES EIR 430 SUPPLEMENT TO EIR 277 • Prepared by: THE PLANNING CENTER 240 Newport Center Drive, Suite 215 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Contact Person: Keeton K. Kreitzer 714-640-4911 Project Sponsor: HOLSTEIN INDUSTRIES, INC. 18017 Sky Park Circle Suite M Irvine, CA 92714 LEAD AGENCY: ORANGE COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT AGENCY Environmental Analysis Division P.O. Box 4048 Santa Ana, CA 92702 Contact Person: Raymond H.C. Brantley 714-834-5550 0 • n LJ 0 TABLE OF CONTENTS ACACIA OFFICES Page I. INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY .................... 1 II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION ........................ 4 III. EXISTING CONDITIONS/POTENTIAL IMPACTS/ MITIGATION MEASURES ...................... 12 A. Traffic and Circulation ................ 12 B. Noise. .............. ............... ... 18 C. Land Use/Relevant Planning ............. 29 IV. UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS ................ 33 V. ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT....... 34 VI. RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LOCAL SHORT-TERM USES OF MAN'S ENVIRONMENT AND THE MAINTENANCE AND ENHANCEMENT OF LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY .................. 37 VII. IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENT OF ENERGY SUPPLIES AND OTHER RESOURCES SHOULD THE PROJECT BE IMPLEMENTED........ 38 VIII. GROWTH -INDUCING IMPACTS .................... 39 IX. AGENCIES AND PERSONS CONSULTED ............. 40 X. APPENDIX A. Traffic Study LIST OF EXHIBITS • Exhibit Page 1 Regional Location ........................ 5 2 Vicinity Map ............................. 6 3 Existing Plot Plan ....................... 7 4 Proposed Site Plan ....................... 8 5 General Plan Amendment ................... 9 6 Community Profile Amendment .............. 10 7 Proposed Zoning .......................... 11 8 Existing Traffic ......................... 14 9 Existing Plus Project Traffic............ 16 10 Suggested Land Use Compatibility Chart for Community Noise in Orange County... 19 11 FAA Designated Safety Areas .............. 22 n • I. INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY • The supplemental environmental impact report (EIR) which follows has been prepared at the direction of and sub- mitted to the County of Orange in order to evaluate the environmental consequences resulting from the proposed general plan and community profile amendments. This supplemental EIR has been prepared in response to the proposed project in accordance with the most recently adopted guidelines (i.e., Section 15067.5) of the Cali- fornia Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as well as those of the County of Orange. EIR 277 was prepared and submitted to the County on June 16, 1981. That document assessed the impacts of the pro- posed zone change from A-1 (SR) to PA on the issues listed below: Biological Resources Archaeological Resources Paleontological Resources Hydrology/Water Quality Visual/Aesthetic Quality Traffic and Circulation Air Quality Noise/Light/Glare/Safety • Recreaction/Open Space Relevant Planning 0 EIR 277 was certified by the Orange County Planning Com- mission on April 6, 1983. As a result, Zone Change ZC 82-4 which proposed a change from the A-1 (SR) zone to PA(PD)(SR)/30 (COND) was recommended for approval by the Planning Commission. Further, the Planning Commission also determined that the project was consistent with the County's General Plan due to the applicability of the Transitional Use Policy of the Land Use Element. Environ- mental considerations, particularly noise impacts on uses, permitted the use of this policy. The proposal was for- warded to the Board of Supervisors, at which time that body required that the applicant apply for a general plan amendment. Since the date of certification of EIR 277 (for Acacia Offices), the John Wayne Airport Master Plan, EIR 232 and the planning effort underway for the Santa Ana Heights area (upon which some of EIR 277s assessment was based) were invalidated by a superior court decision. As a result of that action, the County has now determined that Supplemental EIR 430 be prepared which provides an update of the information included in the earlier document. 1 Specifically, the issues requiring additional information • and assessment include: (1) traffic and circulation; (2) noise, and (3) land use/relevant planning. For a discus- sion of previous issues, refer to EIR 277. The following summary provides a brief description of the existing conditions, potential impacts (if any), and the proposed and recommended mitigation measures. 0 0 w Traff lc Circul Noise Land Usc PI annit II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION . Location The subject property encompasses less than two acres in unincorporated Orange County, approximately 40 miles south of Los Angeles and BO miles north of San Diego. Exhibit 1 shows the location of the site in relation to Orange County and the Southern California region. The small Orange County site is bounded on the north by an undeveloped, irregularly -shaped parcel and Irvine Boule- vard; on the east by Acacia Street; residential develop- ment abuts the property on the southwest, while the Irvine Golf Course in the City of Newport Beach is located immediately to the northwest. A local vicinity map is depicted in Exhibit 2. Exhibit 3 is the Plot Plan which reflects the existing residential and equestrian -oriented residential land use of the property. Description Holstein Industries, proposes to construct four separate two-story office buildings on the site. Total floor area of the proposed buildings is 26,000 square feet (the site building area will be 13,000 square feet). Implementation . of such a planned development will result in the creation of an association composed of building owners which would provide continued operation and maintenance of the commonly owned facilities (e.g., parking lots, landscaped areas, etc.). Exhibit 4 reflects the site plan as proposed by Holstein Industries. Implementation of the Acacia Offices will result in elimination of the existing houses, appurtenant structures, and landscaping identified in Exhibit 3. Included in that development proposal is not only a zone change but also a general plan amendment. The change of zone will result in a rezone of the parcel from Al (SR), General Agricultural "Sign Restrictions" to PA(PD)(SR)/30 (COND), Professional and Administrative Office "Planned Development" "Sign Restriction" (30-foot maximum building height) (Conditional). In addition, the applicant is also requesting amendment of the Land Use Element of the General Plan and the Community Profile. The applicant is requesting that the existing Open Space (5) designation of the Land Use Element be changed to Employment (3); the Community Profile will also be redesignated to 3.2 (Professional/Administrative) from the existing Other Open Space (5.1) designation. Exhibits 5, 6 and 7 reflect the General Plan, Community Profile, and Zoning proposed by Holstein Industries. . u LOT ANGELES SANTA 0ONICA 'LONG BEACH SAN BERNARDINO RIVERSIDE A REGIONAL LOCATION EXHIBIT 1 =die• "' i ,dw: �'"''' _ Theilerf��rr j rb I � . W.' p���i � ( �► BMr�t �� IF•iKF �I� �,� ♦ ;!'!tO- ___-0 I 1 { ,'/ a Ave/ � I�r}.3YraFe ; CR SaitNM rr n Y +w� % ✓'ss `r •o i „' �Z, ro At. eaa Radio. / i j-.sr 1 J ?' Rlipoit r a'w -rl ! 77 \ PARR' aaq Z � a /,\'riTo— a / h TanW ip-� ! � fire St>,e ' i + 'f- 1A1R0(AUND5 '• ' "roRr /' a .� . l4c + Saida Ana V • I-' e ' �, C9uNrr_CIu1;='- ✓'� + ,�y'ia .S �A 1] t, kq 5 a%'_eS `,C`4- - ./ - of l �, • to _ 20 t P'�! 1 ///� '•d t Ir II/ I;t DUCK PONDS � �i y^' y I`•"s-, � � %,t, �' �~�M t' i'P r � � (� J_ - rr, i . III t lkh Q //� i 'fie ✓ r / .-k�+•ryv�� Oun Vuh .i... << Srh to ,g-1111F Sant I � �• MUD — YAWPO M t AV ai jo /!J ��, ♦r `�4 1r' rid � ��"". a i � r /�^ /1,�j` PK 41 j too lot 1t y+yjp `\ I � ��� Vl�i �j; ..-•a -/' J+ 'S" I .. e � .a0 \ayh v ,f I� 'i�.� h••/fQYA f }wnRJ.�' �y� � 1"�{ j- Y T . 1Jt ^ 19 �4 .b/� x,�� � - ' '': - �. ♦ter.• F' .r'�-u/ �' t`, '4� >, .. 'S r rV , ',1 '^ ``�a is �•a,f1 Q I %y 7 f'on '�; _ i, t �, � % \ 1 et ,na �k M Tei � � 'dye: MIRK Nel�. ' 1 1 4.y1" r '6 ` _ I i 23 J til y • "{t V J e 4] ♦ 4 LWA It 5 r\ All r �1 ao 1if View M 25 I 1 I IEYIME AYEYYE PRPM ME / EMUGYp m.m we vmwigr rawa.�rr� M MINIM aatriu rq n�vn is LULL E[SCEIM M EXISTING PLOT PLAN EXHIBIT 3 '4 • scEtE.r•Er 0 4 i} 4 acac"a ofifiices PROPOSED SITE PLAN EXHBR 4 V, olu (f@AQ ex Mew LL__`` -t.roe. fr eaiJ'kiMM{�T YY 0.`O � rn�wuse teals) >. x r+nr+�► eeounea w eesces nwwscw. eK touts 0 • • HOLSTEIN INDUSTRIES ,GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT COUNTY OF ORANGE / EMA / ADVANCE PLANNING I--,-'lB RCHARD 5 C im • I 1B SUBURBAN RESIDENTIAL 3 EMPLOYMENT 1 5 OPEN SPACE Exhibit 5 HOLSTEIN ' INDUSTRIES COMMUNITY PROFILE AMENDMENT COUNTY OF O"Im / NMA / ADIMNCE NANNIIIO 5.2 145 3.2 _._i 501 '1.2 LOW DENSITY M11101ENTIAL 1.4 MEDIUM DENOITY RESIDENTIAL 1.5 MEDIUM NNIN DENSITY REEIDEI H 1•ra001 tocxrm MOW SCALE 1A 1.2 2.2 MIIOPISSIONAI-ADMINISTMATIVII E.1 OTHER OPEN SPACE 6.2 'RECREATION Exhibit 6 • J 11 &ORANGECOUNTY HOLSTEIN INDUSTRIES PROPOSED ZONING NORTH 102!500' COUNTY OF ORANGE / EMA / ADVANCE PLANNING LOCATION MAP SCALE IMLE Al (SR) Al Al 'SR) (SF Al (SR) OPEN SPACE I Al (SR) -j! CNI CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH AC-Cl (SR) AC-C 1 CC COND. R 1 RP XSR N R4 (SR) PA (SR) A-PO COND. R4 Al Al (SR) (SR) (SR) R4 (SR) J RI (SR) Al Al R1 (SR) (SR) (SR) I A 1(SR) I EACH Of Exhibit 7, ADAMNISTRATIVE-PROFESSIONAL OFFICE III. EXISTING CONDITIONS/POTENTIAL IMPACTS/MITIGATION MEA- • SURES A. TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION A detailed traffic and circulation analysis was prepared by Kunzman Associates. This study assessed the traffic and circulation impacts of the proposed 26,000 square foot development. The findings and recommendations of that study are summarized below. The complete technical analy- ses has been included as Appendix A. Existing Conditions The circulation system which provides both direct and in- direct access to the subject property includes Irvine Avenue/Campus Drive, Orchard Drive, and Mesa Drive. The County's Master Plan of Arterial Highways (MPAH) reflects Irvine Avenue (south of Bristol Street) as a Primary Arterial Highway, having an ultimate right-of-way of 100 feet; Campus Drive (north of Bristol Street) is desiggnated a Secondary Arterial Highway with an 80-foot right-of-way. Bristol Street has been designated a Major Arterial with a right -of way of 120 feet. Acacia Avenue and Orchard and Mesa Drives are local streets. The following text describes the existing street system. Irvine Avenue/Campus Drive. In the vicinity of the pro- • ject site, this is a four -lane divided north -south roadway having left turn channelization at Orchard Drive. North and south of the project site this road becomes a four - lane undivided roadway. Bristol Street (North and South). This is an east -west eight -lane divided roadway w th the two four -lane segments separated by the Corona Del Mar Freeway right-of-way. Irvine Avenue/Campus Drive have signalized crossings at Bristol. Acacia Avenue. This is a two-lane north -south roadway with on -street parking serving residential and horse stable uses. There are curb and gutter improvements along portions of this roadway. Access to the project site is proposed on Acacia. Orchard Drive. This is a two-lane east -west roadway serving residential uses forming the northeast boundary of the project site. Mesa Drive. This is a two-lane east -west roadway without cur s or gutters. It has a signalized intersection with Irvine Avenue. • 12 Presently, the project site contains four (4) single- family residences and a horse stable. Access to and from the existing uses is taken at Orchard and Acacia. It is estimated that these uses generate approximately 100 vehicle trips per day. Exhibit 8 depicts the existing daily traffic volumes along the streets described above. In addition, several intersections were analyzed to determine the present intersection capacity utilization (ICU). The intersections studied and their respective levels of service during morning and evening peak hours are reflected below as well as shown in Exhibit 8. Irvine Avenue and Orchard Drive - LOS "A" in the morning and "B" in the evening Irvine Avenue and Mesa Drive - LOS "B" in the morning and "D" in the evening Irvine Avenue and Bristol North - LOS "C" in the morning and "F" in the evening Irvine Avenue and Bristol South - LOS "E" in the morning and "D" in the evening Three of the four intersections are operating at Level of Service "D" or better. The fourth intersection, Irvine Avenue and Bristol Street North is operating at Level of . Service "F" during the evening peak hour. This level of service will continue until the construction of the Corona Del Mar Freeway is completed. (Estimated completion of this freeway between Redhill and Jamboree is anticipated to be 1985-1986.) • As reflected on Exhibit 8, signals are located at the intersections of Irvine Avenue/Campus Drive and Bristol Street (north and south) and Mesa Drive. Although the major street (Irvine) warrant has been met, traffic on the minor street (Orchard) does not meet the required signal warrant and none exists at the Irvine/Orchard inter- section. Presently, only a boulevard stop sign controls traffic at that location. Potential Impacts Based upon the trip generation rate of 15 trips per 1000 square feet of commercial office space,1 implementation of the project would result in a total or 390 trips per day. However, the increase is actually 25 percent less 1"Trip Generation Rates by Land Use",, November, 1977, Orange County EMA. 13 EXISTING TRAFFIC UKWW. m Traffic Signal 0 Stop Sign 04 Number of Through Travel Lanes e1010 Daily Two -Way Traffic Volume e Tntersection Capacity Utilization -PM Level o ery ce SOURCE: Kunzman Associates C • • Exhibit 8 than that (i.e., 290 trips per day) due to the 100 trips • currently generated by the single family homes and the horse stable. The majority (75 percent) of inbound trips are projected to originate from the north, utilizing Irvine and Birch while the remaining 25 percent will be derived from southerly sources using Irvine and Acacia. The same distribution/split is generally true for the outbound trips. Figures 2 and 3 in Appendix A are reflective of this distribution. The impact of project -related traffic is shown in Exhibit 9. The ICUs for each of the intersections described in the previous section will remain at the existing level of service, even though volumes will increase slightly. In addition to the standard analyses, the traffic impacts relative to the Newport Beach Traffic Phasing Ordinance were also assessed.I The results of the three-phase analyses are described below: �( Phase 1: The one percent analysis revealed that the'i project's 2.5 peak hour traffic caused only the Irvine Avenue and Bristol Street intersection to exceed one percent. Phase 2: The peak hour ICU at the Irvine/Bristol intersection exceeds 90 percent (93.41 percent) when the projected regional growth, (proposed) committed (refer to Appendix A for a complete listing of committed projects) and project related traffic are considered. Phase 3: The Irvine Avenue/Bristol Street intersection \pl will operate at 108.35 percent once growth and committed traffic �\\ traffic is added, and 108.42 percent after project is added to existing, growth and committed traffic. It , p� 1�b . should be noted that the project only adds .07 percent to /� the ICU which is of little significance in the overall peak hour traffic volume. Mitigation Measures The following mitigation measures are recommended for implementation should the project be approved. 1. All .road,ways. abutting the project site should be improved to their ultimate cross -sections. 2. Because signal warrants at the Irvine/Orchard inter- section will be met in the future, that intersection IThis analysis was undertaken because the subject property is adjacent to the City of Newport Beach and a traffic from the project is of concern to that city. 15 EXISTING PLUS PROJECT TRAFFIC Upend ® Intersection Ca acitilization-pM tv Level o ar cUe • 04eoo+eo Existing Plus Project Daily Traffic(Two-Way) SOURCE: Kunzman Associates Exhibit 9 should be monitored to determine when a signal will be needed and the degree of participation, if any, should be by the applicant. 3. The project sponsor will ensure that adequate on -site --. - '- --- -- ---.._J_J .- ^^,...ua...,.,. ...4+k r-", +" ,+�.,_ r 1 u i B. Noise . Existing Conditions The proposed project is situated approximately 3500 feet south of runway 19R of John Wayne Airport. Consequently, the site is subject to excessive noise levels caused by takeoffs and landings by both commercial air carriers and smaller, private aircraft which utilize that facility. The County maintains a noise monitoring station at John Wayne Airport. Each year, data is collected and extrapo- lated by Bolt Beranek and Newman, Inc., to establish cur- rent ambient noise conditions in the airport environs.l As a result of this, it was determined that the 1.7-acre property is no longer located on the 75 CNEL contour but rather is now within the 70 CNEL (i.e., between 70 and 75 CNEL). As previously discussed the site is comprised of four residential parcels; the largest of the existing lots includes facilities for the keeping of horses. According to the "Suggested Land Use Compatibility Chart for Com- munity Noise in Orange County" (Exhibit 10), these exist- ing residential uses are not compatible in this noise - impacted zone. In fact, recent amendments to the County's Noise Element2 have changed that element's language so . as to expressly prohibit development of residential uses within the 65 dB CNEL contour. Existing residential uses within that limit are treated as non -conforming to the General Plan. In addition, the Orange County Noise Element defines a Noise Referral Zone. Such a zone is defined as the area within the 60 dB CNEL contour (65 dB CNEL for Commercial uses), the level at which either State or federal laws and standards related to land use become important and, in some cases, supersede local laws and regulations. The intent of the Noise Referral Zone is to act as a trig- gering mechanism for any proposed change such as a zone change, subdivision, or building permit in an area affected by adverse noise levels. If a proposed land use change falls in a Noise Referral Zone, the change would be referred to the appropriate county agency for evaluation and review. 1 Telephone conversation with Karen Robertson, Orange County EMA, Acoustics; May 27, 1983. 2 October 1979. om SUGGESTED LAND USE COMPATIBILITY CHART FOR COMMUNITY NOISE IN ORANGE COUNTY LAND USE CATEGORIES NOISE CNEL VALUE IN DECIBELS SEMISITIVITY 45 50 55 60b 65 70 75 AO RANK 1. RESIDENTIAL EXTERIOR 1.1 Low Density t IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII III I[IIIIIII ItMaa 1.2 Medium Low 1 IN on 1.3 Medium 1 IIt11111111111111111111111111110am 1.4 High 1 III III IIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIII IIIIIama 1.5 Heavy 1 III III IIIIIIIIII III11111111III10 0 2. COMMERCIAL 2.1 Local 2 111111111111111111111111111111111111111112aa 2.2 Community 3 IIIIIIIIIIIItIIItIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIII1111110aanMYIII® 2.3 Regional 3 Illlllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllltl■■EOaw� 3. INDUSTRIAL 3.1 Industrial Park 3 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII111111111onamf•trMEN I 3.2 Light 4 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIHIIIIIIIII[III]IIIIIIIINOE ON .3.3 Heavy 4 IIIIIIIIIIIIIII111111111111111111111111111111111111 HEM Emu 1 4. PUBLIC FACILITIES 4.1 Public Schools I III IIII Ililt IIIII IIIIIIII111111MEa Libraries 1 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIm■■EMO® Civic Buildings 3 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIHIIlilt IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIOmmoaa • Fire and police Activities 3 11111111111111111111111ItIII IIIIIII III IIism OWN ME 4.2 Quasi -Public Churches 2 11111111111111111111111111111110aa Hospitals 2 IIIIIIIIIIIIIII1111111111111111®I�■ Power -Water - Waste Facilities 3 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII�O�O■®� 5. OPEN SPACE 5.1 Natural Resources 4 11111111111]11111111111111111]III[ill II Ill IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIMEa 5.2 Agriculture Exclusive 4 111111IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII111111111[liIIIIIll 1111111111111111111Ill IIII111 General. 3 Illllllllllllfilllllllllllllllllllllllllltlt9f•smoon me 5.3 Recreation 2 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII11111111111111111110�Y��■■��1 Tourist -Recreation 3 lilt Ill IIIIIIIIIIIlilt IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIAnoMEOfOmaa 5.4 Other Open Spaces 4 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIll III]IIll IIIIIItill [lilt Ill Ill II Conservation I OWNER LEGEND aRank of 1, most sensitive; 4 least sensitive. IIIIIIIIIIIII I bNoise Referral Zone on Noise Contour Maps. I■ ■ ®1 II CRefers to the unattenuated noise level. ® III EXHIBIT 10 INTERIOR 45 45 ' 45 45 45 . i 0 John Wayne Airport is subject to California noise stand- ards which provide that there will be no incompatible land uses within the 70 dB CNEL contour under present condi- tions and under the 65 dB CNEL contour by January 1, 1986. Another important factor to be considered is the impact of neighboring land uses and structures on the safe operation of the airport. The major issues within this topic are height limitations, excessive glare and light, visibility reducing emissions, electromagnetic radiation and hazard- ous materials. Regulations specifying the maximum allowable height of objects surrounding an airport are defined in Federal Aviation Regulation, (FAR) Part 77, Objects Affecting Navigable Airspace, 1975. The following imaginary surfaces define these height restrictions for airports. 1. A Primary Surface with the same elevation as the run- way centerline whose width varies according to the classification of runway and type of instrument approach, if any, and with a length extending 200 feet beyond each end of the runway (for hard surface run- ways). 2. Approach Surfaces longitudinally centered along the • extended runway centerline and extending outward and upward from each end of the primary surface at an angle and distance which varies according to the clas- sification of runway and type of instrument approach, if any. 3. Transitional Surfaces extending outward and upward from the primary surface and approach surfaces. 4. A Horizontal Surface, a plane 150 feet above the established airport elevation generally within 10,000 feet of the airport. 5. A Conical Surface, a surface extending outward and upward from the periphery of the horizontal surface at a slope of 20:1 for a horizontal distance of 4,000 feet. New structures should not be allowed to penetrate these imaginary surfaces. "Obstructions" penetrating these sur- faces require special FAA aeronautical studies to deter- mine whether or not they constitute "Hazards to Air Navi- gation". 1] 20 The FAA has also developed criteria to enhance the safety • of aircraft in flight and persons on the ground. These criteria are: 1) Runway Safety Areas, 2) Clear Zones and 3) Approach Protection Areas. These are shown with the project site in Exhibit 11. As can be seen from the Exhi- bit, the site lies within the Approach Protection Area. The FAA defines Runway Safety Area as: a cleared, drained and graded area abutting the edges of a usable runway and symmetrically located about the runway, conforming with FAA criteria in effect at the time of construction of the runway. This area should be clear and free of structures, objects, abrupt surface irregularities, ditches, soft spots and ponding ,areas. • Statistics for air carrier operations show an occurrence of one overrun or undershoot incident for each 550,000 landings. Ninety percent of these incidents occur within 1,000 feet (300 m) of the runway end. Development of an extended runway safety area will enhance safety for air- craft that undershoot or overrun the runway and provide greater accessibility for fire, crash, and rescue equip- ment necessary during such incidents. The runway safety area (extended) for John Wayne Airport lies entirely within Airport property (Exhibit 11 and meets all the required standards. The next zone is known as a runway clear zone which -is defined in Federal Aviation Regulations Part 152 as fol- lows: An area at ground level that begins at the end of each [Part 77] primary surface ... of this chapter and ex- tends with the width of each [Part 77] approach surface ... to terminate directly below each approach surface slope at the point, or points, where the slope reaches a height of 50 feet above the elevation of the runway end or 50 feet above the terrain at the outer extremity of the clear zone, whichever distance is shorter. Runway clear zones are established at airports receiving federal development aid in order to prevent the construc- tion of close -in obstructions which would seriously hamper airport operations. Airports accepting federal airport development funds must normally agree to obtain an adequate property interest in all clear zones necessary to prevent the penetration of objects above the imaginary airport surfaces specified by FAR Part 77, another requirement for receipt of federal funds to address the need for compatible adjacent land 01 j( i �• �i j�&h � f � ;' Thaai ,rY I 'y„ y,,• I�lul `'`n< 9xT 1 '•% M J 'ry2Y1 la glU6AllINtl � 'jk:•: 1{ y„'•r AVER _ " �i, , I :��• n • ',. —.....�dlly[ �.y ..i•... .� M� / ♦ 4ilgy •� Ali=.,•• S 1� Y� _—_—�alAl4 frl' �T 11flrli <—. I #, ��. St•.. J'� r', n. Well .CNA I� 79 J li• /'�'a9' .S:Y• •' ' all wie itARM r .,tit:: ./�' �•d� rt •� Wot ion wro ,r ♦♦ �• �-�Yw:.i •i< t:eta:• k 44 •<,. Sant! AnnaZoo •o as IF 11A. vT "'s X �` A Calif 46 go 7tl a Cor • i- N�•I `. V x Jyl �a CC%+�"t/N Dt 4 i ` al ' ' � 'sC Nl It AYSAFE�Y� EA�(LIc ', -- - I I �rj n -10 ° XCH "'y } MuDtWPO F<EACH a 'l p, ` 4 / Al •tb • i 1 ito • •S• 4.1 v o \' •� M a rgrona Jet Yar 23 ALWA aaN , ay ' 0r gig A t- 1 '8OURC o� Fi ORT to use. An applicant for funds must state in its application the action that it has taken to restrict the use of land adjacent to or in the immediate vicinity of the airport to activities and purposes compatible with normal airport ,operations. It has been this need that has led the FAA to develop the concept of an Approach Protection Area. According to FAA Order 5100.36, Approach Protection Areas constitute: Land necessary to restrict the use of, in areas adja- cent to, or in the immediate vicinity of the airport, airport to activities and purposes compa.tible with nor- mal airport operations as well as to meet current and anticipated development at the airport. As mentioned previously, the project site lies within the Approach Protection Area south of John Wayne Airport. Because of this, airport management and safety interests have concerns with development occurring there. This is expressed by two commissions: the Airport Land Use Com- mission and the Orange County Airport Commission which conduct development proposal reviews and encourage devel- opment compatible with the current and planned airport operations. These commissions make recommendations to the appropriate decision making body based on their analysis of the proposed development. • Another safety concern is the potential of the site being affected by an aircraft accident. The information in the following discussion is from the. John Wayne Airport Master Plan Draft Report. The analysis of accidents at the airport was based on National Transportation Safety Board records from 1964 to 1980. The percentage of on -airport accidents closely parallels the U.S. average. Off -airport accidents tend to be concentrated closer to the airport than the national average. Most of the accidents tend to be caused by equipment failure, ground loops/swerves, retracted gear and collision with other aircraft. Of particular importance is the occurrence and location of aircraft accidents occurring off Airport property. Al- though the accidents number considerably less than those on Airport property, they are often more serious and are more important from the standpoint of safety of persons and property on the ground. There have been only 3 acci- dents involving fatality or injury to persons on the ground since 1964. The only accident involving a fatality of a person on the ground was an on -airport accident caused by a ramp agent walking into a propeller. The majority of off -airport accidents have occurred within the Airport traffic pattern. 23 Total general aviation accidents in recent years have averaged less than those of the middle to late 1960's, even though general aviation operations at John Wane Airport have increased substantially from the 1960 s. This is reflected in a significant decline in the overall accident rate per million operations at John Wayne Air- port. A corresponding decline in the general aviation accident rate for the nation has occurred over the same time period. The reduction in accident rates is probably due to better navigational equipment, improved training procedures, and improved air traffic control procedures. The rate of fatal accidents per million operations for general aviation in the nation has likewise decreased over the past 10 years. Because the number of fatal accidents is relatively small at John Wayne Airport, the fatal acci- dent rate fluctuates widely and no apparent trend is visible. Although the total accident rate for the Airport is well below the national average, the fatal accident rate has exceeded the national average in 1976 and 1978. Air carrier accident rates for the nation have also declined over the past 10 years. The total accident rate per 100,000 departures has averaged about 0.4 in recent years while the fatal accident rate has declined to less than 0.1 fatal accident per 100,000 departures. The loca- tion of air carrier accidents relative to the runway loca- • tion was analyzed to identify the location of greatest accident potential for John Wayne Airport. From 1971 through 1976, the great majority of the accidents occurred within 1/4 of a mile from the end of the runway. Also accidents tend to occur on or close to the centerline of the runway. Few air carrier accidents occur beyond several several hundred feet of the centerline. The occurrence of accidents at John Wayne Airport was cal- culated on the basis of current accident rates to obtain an order -of -magnitude estimate of the potential for future general aviation, commuter, and air carrier accidents. Accident occurrences were calculated on the basis of general aviation accident rates obtained from John Wayne Airport statistics and accident rates for commuter and air carrier accidents derived from national averages. The average accident rates experienced over the last three years were used as a basis for calculations. The current number of annual departures was also used as a basis of calculation. On the average, approximately 6 general aviation accidents occur per year, with 2 to 3 of these being fatal acci- dents, based on current rates. On the other hand, com- muter accidents, would occur at John Wayne Airport once 1] 24 every 7 years with a fatal accident occurring once in 20 years; air carrier accidents would occur once in 17 years, with a fatal accident occurring once in 83 years. Since 1964, only two accidents have occurred within the vicinity of the site, one off airport property. That incident was on September 9, 1974 when a small private plane collided with trees on Cypress Street approximately 1,500 feet south of the site. The second, a crash landing of a Boeing 737 jetliner, occurred in 1981 but did not result in any deaths. Overall, the site is near the extended centerline of run- way 19R and is normally subject to overfly on takeoff from John Wayne Airport and hence more likely to be affected by an aircraft accident than other nearby areas further from the centerline. The location of John Wayne Airport air- craft accidents appears to be random and historical data does not lend itself to statistical analysis to define accident potential zones. However, some statistics indi- cate the distance of the site from the end of the runway (35001) is sufficient to reduce the hazard. Military air- craft operation statistics indicate 60% of accidents occur on landing, as compared with 40% for the take -off phase. These statistics also indicate over 60% of accidents occur within 3000 feet of the end of the runway and 58% occur within 2000' feet.1 These statistics indicate a crash hazard does exist, but it should not be considered undue • or highly restricting. Potential Impacts Due to the Orange County Superior Court injunction which prohibits implementation on the ANCLUC Plan and John Wayne Airport Master Plan, no adopted noise contours for future conditions exist to determine the potential noise impacts from airport operations on the proposed office project. Because the airport is currently operating on a variance of the State noise requirements, the County/Airport is not permitted to affect airport operations in any way which would cause the ambient noise environment to deteriorate beyond the present conditions. For this reason, the existing noise contours referenced earlier in this section (i.e., the site is between the 70 and 75 CNEL contour) represent the -(future) worst case.2 I Marc-h Air Force Base AICUZ Study. 2 Telephone conversation with Karen Robertson, Orange County EMA, Acoustics; May 27, 1983. 25 For land use planning in County areas within the 65 dB . CNEL, the Land Use Compatibility Chart for Community Noise In Orange County is the accepted guideline for reviewing compatible land uses and noise levels. This is shown in Exhibit 10, and for each land designation, CNEL levels are classified into the following three review categories: "I - Noise levels in the exterior environment are com- patible with the proposed land uses and will not create annoyance and activity interference. If a land use falls in this category, no additional noise studies or attenuation measures should be imposed on the builder. II - Noise levels in the exterior environment are great enough to require study on the compatibility of the proposed land use. The proposed land use should be evaluated through the design, environmental review and site plan process to assess whether additional noise attenuation measures should be imposed. III - Noise levels in the exterior environment are severe requiring a detailed analysis of the noise envi- ronment in relationship to the compatibility of the proposed land use. Noise attenuation features will be s necessary in the basic design to insure the protection of persons occupying the land use (County of Orange, 1975)." As is evident in the Compatibility Chart, the proposed land use falls into the third review category: requires detailed analysis to assess compatibility and mitigation measures. This is true for the existing noise contours and for the projected contours, unless the proposed ANCLUC and Master Plan studies reveal lesser impacts in which case the project could be in Category II. An Acoustical Analysis and Recommendation Report has been prepared by Hilliard and Bricken and is attached as Appen- dix E of EIR 277. This report details the existing noise impacts to the site and estimates noise reduction require- ments. Suggestions are made as to building materials and construction techniques to achieve the required noise reductions. The conclusion of the report is that "it is possible to meet the most stringent design requirement of the County even in this location." The project is not expected to generate any adverse im- pacts due to excessive light, glare or emissions reducing pilot or control tower visibility. Conversations with Ms. Shirley Reithard, Airport Engineer, John Wayne Airport, indicate that as long as the proposed buildings are limited to two stories in height, the project will be in 26 conformance with the requirements of Part 77 of the Federal Aviation Regulations. In addition, the project is not expected to generate any electromagnetic radiation which might interfere with the navigational aids of the airport or encourage the introduction of any hazardous materials into the general airport area. Mitigation Measures The proposal shall meet the following measures to ensure consistency with the Noise Element of the General Plan: (1) All structures shall be sound attenuated against the combined input of all. present and projected noise to meet the following criteria: TYPICAL USE LEQ* (12)** Private Office, Church Sanctuary, Board Room, Conference Room, etc. 45 General Office, Reception, Clerical, etc. 50 Bank Lobby, Retail Store, Restaurant, Typing Pool, etc. 55 • Manufacturing, Kitchen, Warehousing, etc. 65 In addition, the energy average of the maximum levels of the loudest 30% of intrusive sounds occurring during typical occupancy period shall not exceed 65 dB(A). *LEQ is the equivalent sound level for a specified time period in dB(A). **Measured during typical hours of operation or other appropriate, approved time period. (2) Upon filing an application for building permits, an accredited expert or authority in the field of acoustics shall submit evidence in accordance with the following procedure which certifies that the aforementioned standards will be satisfied: (a) An acoustical analysis report describing in detail the exterior noise environment and the acoustical design features required to achieve the interior noise standard shall be submitted to the Manager, Enviromental Analysis Division, • for approval. 27 (b) Prior to issuance of building permits, satis- factory evidence shall be submitted to the . Manager, Development Services, which indicates that the sound attenuation measures specified in the approved acoustical re -port have been incorporated in the design of the project. (c) Prior to clearance for issuance of any building or grading permits, the owner of record of the property shall prepare and record a declaration that this property is subject to overflight, sight, and sound of aircraft operating from John Wayne Airport, Orange County, in a manner meet- ing the approval of the Manager, Environmental Analysis Division. (d) Prior to clearance for issuance of any building or grading permits, an avigation easement over this property shall be offered for dedication to the County of Orange in a manner meeting the approval of the Manager, Environmental Analysis Division. (e) Prior to sale, lease, or rental of any structure or portion thereof, the owner shall provide to each prospective purchaser, lessee, or tenant a notice that the property is subject to over- flight, sight, and sound of aircraft operating • from John Wayne Airport, Orange County. The form and method of distribution of said notice shall be as approved by the Manager, Environ- mental Analysis Division. 0 9.1 C. LAND USE/RELEVANT PLANNING Existing Conditions Land Use - The 1.7 acre property currently is divided into four lots, each with an existing single family residence and appurtenant garage. Some lots also contain out build- ings and horse stables as is typical in the neighborhood. One lot also includes a riding arena. Adjacent land uses include a golf course, a newly con- structed office building and other single family resi- dences, some with equestrian facilities. Immediately west of the site is the Irvine Golf Course which also extends north of the site across Irvine Blvd. A three story office building complex has been recently completed by the Koll Company on the property to the northeast across Orchard Drive (Newport -Irvine Center). Properties to the southeast and southwest exhibit existing residential uses of the same character as that existing on the project site. Zoning - The property is currently zoned A-1 (SR), General Agricultural "Sign Restrictions". Single family residential, one building per building site is a permitted use in this zone. However, the minimum size for a building site is 4 acres, hence the existing residential • use is a non- conforming use, inconsistent with current zoning. 0 General Plan - The Land Use Element designation of the General Plan for the parcel is currently 5, Open Space (versus 5.0 as identified on page 46 of EIR 277). Although this designation does not change the use, the County updated and adopted a Land Use Element during the general plan modernization program which resulted in a slightly different system of designating the land uses. In addition, a new category was established, the Community Profile, which designated the subject site as 5.1 (Other Open Space). The Planning Commission on April 6, 1983, determined that the proposed project was consistent with the Transitional Use Policy of the Land Use Element. The Transitional Use Policy allows the establishment of uses not specifically permitted by a Land Use Element land use category but which are determined to be appropriate under certain cir- cumstances. These circumstances are identified in the Land Use Element. However, the Board of Supervisors directed the applicant to file general plan and community profile amendments. 29 EIR 277 also refers to the Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan which had been undertaken at the time that document was prepared. When the Superior Court determined in 1982 that EIR 232 (prepared for the Airport Master Plan and the Airport Noise Control and Land use Compatibility Plan and approved by the Board of Supervisors in 1981) was inade- quate, an injunction was issued against the County which effectively halted planning and design activities in the Santa Ana Heights area. However, the Board of Super- visors, in May 1983, authorized work on a new John Wayne Airport Master Plan, a new Land Use Compatibility Plan, and the Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan along with the necessary environmental documentation. The Specific Plan will establish future land uses in the Santa Ana Heights area based, in part, on the proposed Airport Master Plan, and the Land Use Compatibility Plan. Potential Impacts Land Use - Construction of the proposed project will change f a land use on the site from single family resi- dential with equestrian facilities to a two -building pro- fessional office complex with a significant portion of the site devoted to a paved parking tot (See Exhibits 3 and 4. This use would be consistent and compatible with the Irvine Avenue office building northeasterly of the site and located within the City of Newport Beach. The com- patibility of the project with the other adjacent land uses is not directly apparent. No compatibility problems are anticipated with the golf -course, but the residential area will be impacted by the increased traffic, noise, etc. of a more intensive land use. However, the most appropriate ultimate use for the site appears to be office and/or commercial uses, based on the criteria and policies adopted by the County. �Zoning - The proposed office commercial project is incon- sistent with the current zoning. General Plan - The impact of the project (i.e., General Plan and Coffimunity Plan Amendments) is that its approval will precede the planning effort soon to be undertaken by the County for John Wayne Airport and Santa Ana Heights. It is possible, as a result of this, that such future planning efforts may be affected by earlier approval of this proposal. 0 RE Mitigation Measures • Land Use - In order to maximize the compatibility of the proms project with the surrounding land uses, sensitive site, architectural and landscape design should be used to integrate the commercial project with the existing rural residential uses. This would include the use of natural building materials such as brick, wood siding and shake roofs in contrast to the steel and glass construction of the nearby Irvine Avenue office building. • Landscaping and/or setbacks should be used to soften the edges of the site, especially where the golf course abuts the property. In addition, the streetscape along Acacia should be landscaped to convey the same rural character of the adjacent properties. This landscape treatment should also somewhat screen the parking lot from the street to minimize the impact of the large paved area on the neigh- boring areas. All of these measures are designed to pro- vide a buffer and orderly transition from the low inten- sity existing land uses to the higher intensity profes- sional/office use proposed by the project. In addition, the Planning Commission established and adopted conditions on March 21, 1983 which will offset adverse land use/compatibility impacts. These conditions, as stipulated below, shall be executed with project imple- mentation. Prior to the clearance for issuance of any building or grading permits, a use permit shall be approved by the Planning Commission as required by Section 7-9-110 of the Zoning Code. Said use permit shall be in the form and contain all of the information specified by Section 7-9-110 of the Zoning Code and any additional information prescribed by the Director, EMA. The purpose of the use permit in addition to those specified in the Zoning Code, is to provide assurance that development of the site is compatible with development on adjacent properties with regard to architectural/site design and landscaping, and consistent with the measures which ensure compliance with the Noise Element. Furthermore, the use permit shall address the potential for integration of an adjacent parcel (Assessors Parcel No. 119-231-21) with the develop- ment of the project site. Zoning - A zone change from A-1 (SR), General Agricultural S i Tgn Restrictions) District to PA(PD) (SR)/30 (COND), Professional and Administrative Office (Planned Develop- ment) (Sign Restriction) (30-foot maximum building height) (Conditional) District, will make the project an allowable use on the site. 31 General Plan - Redesignation of the project site to 3 (Employment) on the County's Land Use Element and 3.2 (Professional/Administrative) on the Community Profile Map will permit the development as proposed. The Community Profile requires that a supply/demand analysis of the market service area of the proposed development be provided to assist in determining its adequacy and appropriateness. This requirement has been satisfied through the economic feasibility analysis completed in February 1983 (Santa Ana Heights Economic Analysis of Redevelopment Alternatives) by Newport Economics Group. Finally, because the Land Use Element contains policies which require that all development must be phased with infrastructure, the following condition must be met: Prior to clearance for issuance of any building or grading permits, the owner of record of the property shalt obtain written evidence from the Costa Mesa Sanitary District which indicates that sewer capacity is adequate to accom- modate development of the project site and obtain approval of such evidence from the Director, EMA. • 32 IV. UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS • Short Term (Construction Related) Project construction will affect the activities of wild- life in the area. It will also generate other impacts normally associated with construction activities such as dust, noise and construction traffic. These activities will also create a temporary adverse visual impact. Long Term Visual Character - The visual character of the site will e permanently altered by the introduction of a more urban office land use into a previously rural residential land- scape. Nolo ical Resources - The development of the site will su t 1n a o s OT existing vegetation and limited wild- life habitat. Hydrology - There will be an increased amount of runoff ue�to the covering of portions of the ground with impermeable materials. In addition, there will be a reduction in runoff quality due to urban contaminants, which will minimally contribute to the cumulative degrada- tion of water quality. No significant amount of runoff is expected to affect any local or downstream water systems, • however. Traffic and Circulation - The project will slightly increase intersection capacity utilization. Air Quality - The vehicular traffic generated by the pro- pose project will contribute to the cumulative degrada- tion of the ambient air quality. ��� V. ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT Three alternatives to the proposed project are discussed. They include: 1) no project, 2) alternative location, 3) alternative land use commercial stable. A. No Project B. C. If no redevelopment is undertaken, the adverse impacts of the project, including altered visual perception of the site, loss of housing stock and increased traffic, will not occur. This alternative would not alter existing landforms or structures. However, the current use of the subject property is incompatible with the noise impacts from airport operations and is non- conforming to the County's General Plan. The continuation of this situ- ation is not in the best interests of the citizens of the County. Alternative Site In this alternative the project would be constructed at another location. The impacts of such an alterna- tive would to a great extent depend on the charac- teristics of the alternate site. However, qenerally speaking, the impacts of the project on the environ- ment would be transferred with it. The impacts, such as increased traffic, visual alteration and potential loss of open space if the alternate site is undevel- oped, could be marginally more or less significant at another location. However, this alternative again leaves the proposed site with uses incompatible with the airport opera- tions and requiring some action to alleviate the situ- ation. Commercial Recreation Use One aspect of the current use of the site is the equestrian boarding facilities now in use. This proj- ect alternative discusses devoting the entire site to a commercial recreation use focusing on an equestrian facility. It is estimated the site could provide facilities for stable rentals for 10-12 horses. The best available information regarding the possibility of a commercial stable operation is that gathered for evaluation of proposed equestrian facilities at Caspers Regional Park.1 The following discussion is 1 Gary Cook, Orange County General Services Agency • 34 based on that report which was based on interviews • with a number of people with experience and expertise in the equestrian field. The major findings of the report were: 1. Most horse enthusiasts are 10 to 18 year -old females who rely on parents for transportation. 2. Horse rentals are not economically feasible pri- marily because of high insurance costs. 3. Horse show facilities are in demand; however, this demand is being met by the $1.8 million facility at the Orange County Fairgrounds. 4. There are no equestrian camping facilities in the County. In light of the first finding, this site is ideal since it is in close proximity to large residential areas with families affluent enough to own horses. The nearby Newport Beach residential areas are within easy biking or walking distance of the site. This makes the site very accessible to the primary user group. • The second finding indicates that the facility would most likely be a boarding facility only, without horses for rent to the general public. In this way, this project alternative would be similar to the cur- rent equestrian facilities on the site. This limits the direct benefit of the project to the 10-12 horse owners who would have their horses board there. i The third finding has little relation to this proposed project alternative since the project site is too small for a horse show facility of the type described. Also with the fourth finding, adequate space for camp- ing facilities neither currently exists or is proposed on or near the site. This site is not of sufficient size to accommodate the facilities most commercial operators require. This is evidenced by the City of Santa Ana's consideration of an equestrian facility at Centennial Park. After soliciting informal proposals, they abandoned the con- cept since most potential operators desired 7 to 10 acres of land which was more than the City was willing to devote to those uses. The project site, at 1.7 acres is much smaller than the area desired by those operators. 35 Other factors also affecting this alternative are the compatibility of such an equestrian center with future . land uses in adjacent areas. As discussed in the Biology sec-tion, the current equestrian boarding -acifivi-ty�i, enerated negative impacts to the envi- ronment. Ex rements from the horses may contribute significantly to the scenario of organic pollutant percolation in the area; potentially reaching upper Newport Bay. Additionally, because of food resources made available through the stable operation, house mice, roof rats and Norway rats may live on the site. The County Health Department Requirements for Commer- cial Stables also identifies dust control and vector control as potential problem areas. Presumably, exercise and riding would continue to occur on neighborhood streets due to the limited size of the site. This activity is a source of potential conflict with future development in the area. Overall, this alternative appears unfeasible because of the size of the site, the numerous potential con- flict areas with future surrounding land uses and the limited benefits it would afford. n LJ • 36 VI. THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LOCAL SHORT-TERM USES OF • MAN'S ENVIRONMENT AND THE MAINTENANCE AND ENHANCEMENT OF LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY Projects which ac.commodate the unavoidable adverse impacts of development and enhance the quality of life for the community as a whole also improve the overall community environment. Economic and social pressures for growth in Orange County are such that complete protection of the environment at the expense of community growth and well- being is not practical. Therefore, a balance must be sought that accommodates the needs of the growing popula- tion of the Southern California region, while maintaining the integrity of the environment. It is the degree to which this balance is achieved in a given development that establishes the relationship between local short-term uses of man's environment and the maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity. Development of the subject property in accordance with the proposed plan will intensify the short-term use of man's environment. Professional and administrative office uses have been proposed for the site. The long-term productivity of the project site in its present state is not of great value to the surrounding community except as it provides equestrian recreation facilities and limited residential use. The development isof the site, in accordance with the proposed productivity of the site while providing a long-term compatible use with the operations of John Wayne Airport. 01A c J 37 VII. IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENT OF ENERGY • SUPPLIES AND OTHER RESOURCES SHOULD THE PROJECT BE IMPLEMENTED The construction of the proposed project will entail the commitment of natural resources, energy resources and human resources. This commitment of energy, personnel and building materials will be commensurate with that of other projects of similar magnitude. On -going maintenance of the project site by the occupants will entail further commitment of energy resources in the form of natural gas and electricity generated by coal, hydroelectric power or nuclear energy. This commitment will be a long-term obli- gation in view of the fact that, practically speaking, it is impossible to return the land to its original condition once it has been developed or redeveloped. Since the site has been previously developed no signifi- cant natural resources will be eliminated. m VIII. GROWTH -INDUCING IMPACTS • In addition to the discussion presented in EIR 277, the project could serve to stimulate growth on an interim basis until the Santa Ana Heights, Specific Plan is com- pleted and adopted (scheduled for fall 1984). Therefore, it is imperative that the County closely monitor develop- ment activities in the project environs and prior to approving similar projects, make determinations of consis- tency with the Transitional Use Policy and/or require general plan/community profile amendments to ensure that uncontrolled growth does not occur. 0 39 IX. AGENCIES AND PERSONS CONSULTED • County of Orange Raymond H.C. Brantley, Environmental Analysis Division Rich Adler, Project Planning Division Steven Lohr, Advance Planning Division Daniel Fricke, Environmental Analysis Division Karen Robertson, Environmental Analysis Division Kunzman Associates Bill Kunzman Holstein Industries Dan DeMille Eli] L Cy Ir Aunpu (.Assoclates Treneportetion Planning *Traffic Engineering January 10, 1983 Mr. Dan DeMille Holstein Industries 3001 Redhill Avenue Building 4, #200 Costa Mesa, CA 92627 Dear Mr. DeMille: we are pleased to present the Acacia Offices 'Traffic Study. This report summarizes our methodology, analysis, findings, and recommended mitigation measures. we trust that this report will be of immediate as well as continuing value to you and the County of Orange. it has been a pleasure working with you. Should you have any questions, or if we can be of further assistance, please. feel free to call. Sincerely, KUNZMAN ASSOCIATES William Kunzman, P.E. cc: Mr. David Neish Urban Assist, Inc. 3151 Airway Avenue, A2 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 4684 Sarrenca PerkWay * Irvine, CA 92714 * (7141 559-4231 • 0 0 E 11 Table of Contents Section Page No. 1. Pindings..............................................1 2 - Existing Traffic Conditions - Existing Plus Project Traffic Conditions - Mitigation Measures 2. Project Description .................................... 4 - Project Location - Proposed Development 3. Existing Traffic Conditions 5 - Surrounding Street System - Existing Traffic Volumes - Existing Intersection Capacity Utilization - Signal Warrants 4. Project Traffic ........................................ 8 - Traffic Generation . - Traffic Distribution 5. Existing Plus Project Traffic Conditions ...............11 - Traffic Volumes - Intersection Capacity Utilization - Average Trip Length - Vehicle Miles of Travel - Signal Warrants b. other Considerations ................ I., ... I ......... ...14 Access Guidelines 7. Traffic Phasing ordinance - City of Newport Beach ......15 - Phase I - Phase II - Phase III Appendices Appendix A - Glossary of Transportation Terms Appendix B - Explanation and Calculation of Intersection Capacity Utilization Appendix C - Traffic Phasing Ordinance Calculation Sheets • List of Tables Table No. Title Page No. 1 Signal Warrant Volumes ........................ 7 2 Trip Generation ............................... 10 3 One -Way Trip Length by Land Use ............... 12 4 Vehicle Miles of Travel ....................... 13 5 Committed Projects ............................17 I* • r List of Figures Figure No. 1 2 3 4 Title Following Page No. Existing Traffic Conditions 7 Project Traffic Distribution and Assignment Outbound ........0.............10 Project Traffic Distribution and Assignment Inbound .......................10 Existing Plus Project Traffic Conditions .....13 r 0 CJ 0 E l" Acacia Offices Traffic . Study • This report contains the traffic Acacia Offices development. The east corner of Irvine Avenue and ated area of Orange County south project is proposing office uses 0 impact analysis of the proposed project site lies at the south - Orchard Drive in the unincorpor- of the John Wayne Airport. The on approximately 1.7 acres. The traffic report contains documentation of existing traffic conditions, traffic generated by the project and distribution of the project traffic to surrounding roads. Each of these topics is contained in a separate section of the report. The first section is "Findings", and subsequent sections expand upon the findings. In this way, information on any particular aspect of the study can be easily located. Although this is a technical report, every effort has to write the report clearly and concisely. To assist with those terms unique to transportation engineering, of terms is provided in Appendix A. been made the reader a glossary 1. FindingsWOMMI i This section summarizes existing traffic conditions, existing plus project traffic conditions, and suggested mitigation measures. Existing Traffic Conditions a. The project site contains four single family residences and a horse stable. b. Access to and from the existing uses is taken at Orchard and Acacia. c. It is estimated that the existing uses generate approximately 100 vehicle trips per day. d. The intersections studied are operating at the following Levels of Service during the morning and evening peak hours: 1. Irvine Avenue and Orchard - "A" in the morning and "B" in the evening 2. Irvine Avenue and Mesa - "B" in morning and "D" in the • evening 3. Irvine Avenue and Bristol North - "C" in the morning and Or" in the evening 4. Irvine Avenue and Bristol South - "E" in the morning and r "D" in the evening Existing Plus Project Traffic Conditions a. The project will add 290 vehicle trips daily. b. The project will add 3,117 vehicle miles of travel daily. c. The intersections studied will continue to operate at the same levels of Service during the morning and evening peak hours as they currently do. 2 0 • Mitigation Measures ' a. All roadways abutting the project site should be improved to ultimate cross-section. 0 b. Follow the access guidelines presented in Section 6 of this report. c. Monitor the Irvine Avenue and Orchard Drive intersection for future possible signal installation. 3 Z, Project Description Project Location The project site is located in an unincorporated area of orange County south of the John Wayne Airport. The irregularly shape Property is bounded by Irvine Avenue on the north, Orchard Drive on the northeast, Acacia on the east, and residential uses to the south. Proposed Development The 147 acre sits is to be developed with 26,000 square feet of office uses. Traffic characteristics for office uses consist of pronounced traffic volumes during morning and evening peak hours as employees come to and depart from the site. 0 4 • 3. Existing Traffic Conditions This section discusses the surrounding street system, daily traffic volumes and intersection capacity utilization. Figure 1 illustrates the existing traffic conditions. Surroundina Street Svstem Local and regional access will be provided for the project traf- fic from the following roadways. Acacia Avenue. This is a two-lane north -south roadway with on - street parrkiNg serving residential and horse stable uses. There are curb and gutter improvements along portions of this roadway. Access to the project site is proposed on Acacia. Orchard Drive. This is a two-lane east -west roadway serving residential uses forming the northeast boundary of the project site. Irvine Avenue (Cam us Drive). In the vicinity of the project site, t is is a our- ane divided north -south roadway having left turn channelization at Orchard Drive. North and south of the project site this road becomes a four -lane undivided roadway. • Irvine Avenue forms the project's northerly boundary. Bristol Street (North and South). This is an east -west eight - lane divided roadway with a two four -lane segments separated by the Corona Del Mar Freeway right-of-way. Irvine Avenue - Campus Drive have signalized crossings at Bristol. Mesa Drive. This is a two-lane east -west roadway without curbs or. gutters. It has a signalized intersection with Irvine Avenue. Existing Traffic Volumes The existing daily traffic volumes are based upon traffic counts and the October 1982 County Traffic Flow Map. These volumes are depicted in Figure 1. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) ICU is essentially a measure of the portion of an intersection's total capacity being utilized by the traffic volumes. An explana- tion of ICU and Levels of Service is included in Appendix B. 0 Flyure 1 ExbtkV 1Faffb Conditions 102 f D 4 2700D 4 2 tll00 2 4 sft 4 2MM 2 20000 4e00 Waft 2 legend m Traffic Signal Stop Sign 04 Number of Through Travel Lanes e2010 Daily Two -Way Traffic Volume e intersection Ca acQ it, Utilization -PM —'Level oSe—rvice vG"311101t (ASOCiates 0 • Using the existing evening peak hour intersection geometrics, the existing Utilization (ICU) was calculated for vicinity of the project site. 9 traffic volumes and current Intersection Capacity the intersections in the Three of the four intersections are operating at Level of Service "D" or better. The fourth intersection, Campus Drive and Bristol Street North is operating at Level of Service "F" during the evening peak hour. This Level of Service will con- tinue until the construction of the Corona Del Mar Freeway is completed. Estimated completion of this freeway between Redhill and Jamboree is anticipated to be 1985-1986. Signal Warrants in reviewing Table 1, Signal Warrant Volumes, in conjunction with -Figure 1, it can be noted that the intersection of Irvine Avenue and Orchard Drive does not meet the "Interruption of Continuous Traffic Flow" warrant volumes. In calculating signal warrant volumes it is necessary to divide the average daily traffic volumes by two in order to approximate the one-way volumes. Using Irvine Avenue as an example, an average daily traffic of 27,000 vehicles can be interpreted as 13,500 vehicles going south and 13,500 vehicles going north. Both major and minor street volumes must be met in order to warrant a traffic signal. The minor street approach volume nearly meets while the major street approach volume does meet signal warrant volumes. Therefore, a signal is not warranted. However, the County should monitor the Irvine Avenue and Orchard Drive intersection. Table 1 SIGNAL VOLUME WARRANTS Warrant Minimum Minimum Vehicular Volume Interruption of Continuous Volumes Entering Intersection Warrant Traffic Warrant Urban* Rural Urban* Rural Ma or Street otAApproaches) 1 lane�a,�roac�hes ai Y volume Eight Highest 8,000 51600 12,000 81400 Hours Volume 500 350 750 525 Peak Hour Volume 800 560 1,200 $40 2 or more lane approaches Daily o ume 9,600 61720 14,400 10,800 Eight Highest Hours Volume 600 420 900 630 Peak Hour Volume 960 672 1,440 10080 Minor Street (Highest o ume Approach) 1 lane a roaches �3iI`p o ume 2,400 1,680 1,200 850 Eight Highest Hours Volume 150 105 75 53 Peak Hour Volume 240 168 120 85 2 or more lane approaches —Daily Volume 31200 2,240 11600 1,120 Eight Highest Hours Volume 200 140 100 70 Peak Hour Volume 320 224 160 112 * Use rural warrant if speed is greater than 40 miles per hour on any leg Source: CalTrans and Federal Highway Administration adopted signal warrants 7 G 0 4. Project Traffic To estimate project -related traffic volumes at various points on the street network, a three -step process is utilized. First, the traffic which will be generated by the proposed development is determined. Secondly, the traffic volumes are geographically distributed to major attractions of trips, such as commercial developments, residential areas, and recreation centers. Finally, the trips are assigned to specific roadways, and the project - related traffic volumes are determined on a route -by -route basis. Traffic Generation The traffic generated by the project is determined by multiply- ing appropriate trip generation rates by the land use quantities. Trip generation rates are expressed in terms of trip ends per person, trip ends per employee, trip ends per acre, or trip ends per thousand square feet of floor space. If a particular land use generates six outbound trips per acre in the morning peak hour, then six vehicles are expected to leave the site in the morning peak hour for each acre of development. Significant research efforts have been made by CalTrans, the Institute of Transportation Engineers, Kunzman Associates, the 40 County of Orange, and others to establish the correlation be- tween trips and land use. From this body of information, trip generation rates can be estimated with reasonable accuracy for various land uses. Trip generation rates are predicated on the assumption that energy costs, the availability of roadway capa- city, the availability of vehicles to drive, and our life styles. remain similar to what we know today. A major change in these variables may affect trip generation rates. Trip generation rates for this project were derived from a November, 1977 EMA "Trip Generation Rates -by Land Use" table. By multiplying the traffic generation rates by the type and amount of land use, the traffic volumes were determined as shown in Table 2. For commercial office uses, EMA recommends 15 trips per 1,000 square feet of floor area be utilzed. It should be noted that Table 2 takes into consideration the existing and future traf- fic from the project site, thereby providing the actual amount of. new traffic generated. Traffic Distribution and Assignment Traffic distribution is the determination of the directional orientation of traffic. It is based on the geographical loca- tion of commercial, business, residential, and recreational opportunities. 3 Traffic assignment is the determination of which specific route the project traffic will use, once the generalized traffic dis- tribution is determined. The basic factors affecting route se- lection are minimum time path and minimum distance path. Quite often the minimum time and distance paths are one and the same. When the two paths are different, the minimum time path will usually take precedence, assuming all other considerations are equal. Other considerations might be aesthetic quality of alternate routes, grades, and so forth. It should be noted that the minimal time path is cognizant of congestion. As a roadway's volume approaches capacity, operating speeds decrease. Ultimately, congestion on the shortest distance path will de- crease the speed until an alternate path has a shorter time path, then traffic will divert to the shorter time path. Figures 2 and 3 contain the directional distribution and assign- ment of both outbound and inbound project traffic. 0 • Figure 2 Project Traffic Distribution And Assignment Outbound f 30 �y �F 10 G 40 P 20 5 60 Site 65 ��� y � r � so 25 20 a Legend 025 Percent of Project Traffic • i (uapiah tAsoc(caeS Po" 3 Project Traffic Dlstftdlon Arid 1As=i -M 30 30 ai so 6 !IM esa Percent of Project Traffic aun3nian ssoctates 0 • • 0 Table 2 TRIP GENERATION Descriptor Trip AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Total In Out In Out Rate per day Commercial Office 15 per 1.3 .4 .5 1.2 15 1,000 sq.ft. Single Family 13 per unit .4 .7 .8 .5 13 Residential Stable 50 per 1 1 1 1 50 stable Trips Generated Office Trips 34 10 13 31 390 Generated (26,000 sq.ft.) Existing Single 2 3 3 2 50 Family Trips Generated (4 Units) Existing Stable 1 1 1 1 50 Trips Generated Actual New Traffic 30 10 10 30 290 Generated (Rounded) l3Existinp Plus Protect Traffic Conditions • Once the project -related traffic is assigned to the existing street network and added to existing volumes, the traffic impact can be assessed. Figure 4 illustrates the existing plus project traffic conditions. Traffic Volumes Upon occupancy of the project, the expected daily project traffic along with existing volumes will approximate those presented in Figure 4. Intersection Capacity Utilization It can be noted by comparing Figure 1 and Figure 4 that the intersection capacity utilization increases slightly; however, the Levels of Service remain the same. Average Trip Length Table 3 provides information on average trip length for various land uses. For this project the 9.9 mile employment trip length • was used. Vehicle Miles of Travel Since there are existing land uses generating vehicle miles of travel, Table 4 was prepared to illustrate actual new vehicle miles of travel added by the project. Signal Warrants With the addition of project traffic to the Irvine Avenue and Orchard Drive intersection, signal warrants still will not be met. However, with the signal warrant volumes almost being met, this intersection should be monitored. See previous discussion in Section 3, Existing Traffic Conditions. 11 Figure 4 Existing Plus Project Traffic Conditions • 0 TABLE 3 ONE-WAY TRIP LENGTHS BY LAND USE Land Use Trip Length Miles Residential 6.9 Commercial 3.5 Employment 9.8 (estimated) High School 2 (estimated) Elementary School 1 (estimated) All Trips 7.2 SOURCE: Los Angeles Regional Transportation (CARTS) . liam Xunzman and Associates. LARTS data indicated the home -to -work trip is 10.5 miles and all "other" trips to place of employment is 8.3 miles. The 9.8 assumes two work trips for each "other" trip. if • • • Table 4 VEHICLE MILES OF TRAVEL Land Use Trips per day Trip Length Total Miles Existing Houses 50 6.9 345 Existing Stable 50 7.2 360 Existing Total 705 Proposed Office Uses 390 9.8 3,822 New Vehicle Miles of Travel 31117 13 6, Other Traffic Conefduaatlons Access Guidelines The width, spacing, and location of access points is an important traffic consideration in the design of an office development; therefore, the following criteria are recommended. 1. The distance between driveways or driveways and an inter- section should be 200 feet or greater. 2. Driveways should be at least 28 feet wide, and preferably 30 to 35 feet wide, so that an entering vehicle does not interfere with an exiting vehicle. Narrower driveways lead to conflict between entering and exiting vehicles, causing one to stop and wait for the other. 3. The first parking stall which is perpendicular to a driveway should be at least 40 feet back from the curb. The reason for this recommendation is to provide a queueing area off of the street so that if a vehicle is parking or unparking in the stall nearest the street, there is room for at least one vehicle to queue while waiting for the other vehicle to park. Without this provision, vehicles will queue into the street. If only one access point is provided there may be concern as to • its capacity to accommodate project traffic. Table 2 indicates that during the peak hour, approximately 40 vehicle trips will use the driveway with a 25 to 75 percent directional split, if the evening peak hour were used as an example, one vehicle would be exiting the site every two minutes and one vehicle would be entering the site every six minutes. Driveway capacity information is scarce. However, the Transpor- tation and Traffic Engineering Handbook by the institute of Trans- portation Engineers indicates that self -parking garages have a capacity of 500 to 600 vehicles per hour per lane with 400 ve- hicles per lane per hour being the typical design capacity. com- paring the parking garage capacities with the project peak hour vehicle trips reveals that the single access point proposed with this development will accommodate the project traffic. 14 • • 7. Traffic Phasing Ordinance -City of Newport Beach Although the project site is in an unincorporated area, it is in close proximity of the City of Newport Beach. -In a previous re- view of a development proposal on the project site, the City of Newport Beach requested that their Traffic Phasing Ordinance be addressed. This section discusses the traffic impact of the proposed project development under the Traffic Phasing Ordinance criteria. Phase I The first phase of assessing traffic impact is to calculate if the project's 2.5 peak hour traffic volume adds more than one percent to any approach leg of a critical intersection. For this project, the only critical intersections evaluated are Campus Drive and Bristol Street North and Irvine Avenue and Bristol Street. Appendix C contains the one percent analysis calculation sheets as well as the intersection capacity utilization calcula- tion sheet. The one percent analysis revealed that the project's 2.5 peak hour traffic caused only the Irvine Avenue and Bristol Street inter- section to exceed one percent. Phase II Once an intersection has had one percent of an approach volume exceeded, it is then necessary to calculate peak hour intersection capacity utilization (ICU). The ICU calculation takes into account projected regional growth traffic, committed project traffic, and the proposed project's traffic. This peak hour traffic is then added to the existing peak hour intersection traffic to determine if the intersection capacity utilization is equal to or less than 90 percent. If the intersection will operate at 90 percent of capacity or less, it is not necessary to go onto Phase III. Whenever the intersection capacity exceeds 90 percent as does the Irvine Avenue and Bristol Street intersection, improvements are to be recommended that will reduce the intersection capacity utilization to 90 percent or less. Phase III The Irvine Avenue and Bristol Street intersection is operating at 93.41 percent of capacity today, will operate at 108.35 percent once growth and committed traffic is added, and 108.42 percent after project traffic is added to existing, growth and committed traffic. Table 5 contains a listing of committed projects. 13 The project only adds .07 percent to the intersections . capacity utilization which is of little significance in the overall peak hour traffic volume. Additional eastbound through lane and southbound through lane capacity would cause the intersection to operate at less than 90 percent capacity. However, room for additional lanes is not appropriate due to space constraints and the eventual construc- tion of the Corona Del Mar Freeway along Bristol Street between Redhill and Jamboree. Construction of this freeway link is expected to begin sometime in 1984 and completion is expected in late 1985 or early 1986. Completion of the freeway link between Redhill and Jamboree will greatly reduce traffic volumes and intersection capacity utilization along Bristol Street. 16 0 L Table 5 COMMITTED PROJECTS Aeronutronic Ford (residential) Amendment No. 1 Ford Aero TPP (industrial) Back Bay Office (office) Bank of Newport (office) Banning Newport Ranch (office, industrial, residential) Bayside Square (office) Baywood Apartments (residential) Boyle Engineering (office) Cal Canadian Bank (office) Campus/MacArthur (office) Civic Plaza (office) Coast Business Center (office) Corporate Plaza (office Far West Savings and Loan (office) Flagship Hospital Harbor Point Homes (residential) Heritage Bank (bank, office, medical office) • Hoag Hospital (community facility) Hughes Aircraft (industrial) Koll Center Newort (office, industrial) Koll Center Newport and No. 1 TPP (office) Martha's Vineyard (restaurant) National Education Office (office) Newport Place (office) North Ford (industrial) Orchard Office (office) Pacesetter Homes (office) Pacific Mutual Plaza (office) Park Lido (medical office) Quail Business Center (office) Roger's Gardens (commercial) Ross Mollard (medical office) Rudy Baron (office) Sea Island (residential) Seaview Lutheran Plaza (residential) Shokrian (office) Valdez - 3101 W. Coast Highway (office) 441 Newport Blvd. - (office) 3701 Birch Office (office) • 17 Appendices Appendix A - Glossary of Transportation Terms Appendix B - Explanation and Calculation of Intersection Capacity Utilisation Appendix C - Traffic Phasing Ordinance - City of Newport beach • 0 • E Intersection: Irvine Avenue (NS) Orchard Drive (EW) Traffic Assignment (Percent of Zone traffic making intersection Movements are multiplied by Zone Volumes, and summed to determine Vehicle Movements) ��1 � *Entries are percents making movements. 7nne Vnlnmas AM 30 10 PM 10 30 Intersection Volumes and Canacil-v i7tili�.atinn Move- ment Lanes Capa city (C) Hourl Volume (V) V/C Ratio Existing 0) V/C Ratio w/Project M Existing Project Total AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM NT 2 3200 1260 600 39* 19 39* 19 NR 1 1600' 90 50 5 5 95 55 07 07 7' 07 NL ST 2 3200 280 1880 260 1880 09 59* 09' 59* SR SL 1 1600 20 20 20 10 40 30 7* 07 7* o7 ET ER EL WT WR 1 1600 40 40 10 20 50 60 07' 07' 07 07 WL 1 1600 20 130 OF 05" 25 135 07* 08* 07* 08* ICU Level of Service 53 67 53 67 A B A B ICU is sum of critical movements, denoted by asterisk (*) N = North, S = South, E = East, W = West T = Through, R = Right, L = Left Intersection: Irvine Avenue (NS) Mesa Drive (EW) Traffic Assignment (Percent of Zone traffic making intersection Movements are multiplied by Zone Volumes. and summed to determine Vehicle Movements) *zntrles are percent* meking movements. gene Vnitfmsa AM 1 30 1 10 PM 1 10 1 30 Tnterswnieinn Vnlnm.r •nA M0 ©� . � r ei��i���A�e3��3a�_��S: l,1RT+•'�-�•e(1lei�-•f—l•la��i. ICU Level of Service 64 9e 64 9s a D a D ICU is sum of critical movements, denoted by asterisk (*) N = North, S - South, E - East, W - West T * Through, R - Right, L - Left • • 0 • 0 Intersection: Irvine Avenue (NS) and Bristol Street (EW) Traffic Assignment (Percent of Zone traffic making intersection Movements are multiplied by Zone Volumes, and summed to determine Vehicle Movements) *Entries are percents making movements. Zone Volumes AM 30 10 PM30 Intersection Volumes and Canacity Utilization Move- ment Lanes Capa city (C) HourlyVolume (V) V/C Ratio Existing W V/C Ratio w/Project W Existing Project Total AM I PM AM PM I AM PM AM PM AM PM NT 2 3200 1110 600 5 10 1115 610 35* 19 35* 19 NR 1 1600 220 240 ' 5 10 225 250 14 15 14 15 NL ST 3 4800 240 1340 10 5 250 1345 07' 28* 07 28* SR SL 1 1600 60 120 60 120 07* 08' 7* 08 ET 3.5 5600 2800 2660 2800 2600 52* 59* 52* 59* ER 100 650 10 5 110 655 - EL 1.5 2400 350 340 350 340 15 14 15 14 WT WR ICU Level of Service 94 87 94 87 E D E D ICU is sum of critical movements, denoted by asterisk (*) N = North, S = South, E = East, W = West T = Through, R = Right, L = Left Intersections Campus Drive (NS) and Bristol Street North (EW) Traffic Assignment (Percent of Zone traffic making intersection Movements are multiplied by Zone Volumes and summed to determine Vehicle Movements) *Entries are percents making movements. Zone Vnh]maa AM 130 10 PM 10 30 Intersection Volumaw and ranee{W v�se■��n��■w�■�r��r.�ssss ©© ... � ... mom© ..r�r.��rn■�ts ICU Level of Service 76 102 76 103 C r C F ICU is sum of critical movements, denoted by asterisk (*) N a North, S- South, E r East, W a West T r Through, R w Right, L- Left • 0 0 APPENDIX C TRAFFIC PHASING ORDINANCE - CALCULATION SHEETS • 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection BRISTOL STREET NORTH Q CAMPUS DRIVE (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/spring Approach Direction Existing Peak volulu mea Peak 24 Nour Regional Growth Yolme projects Peak N lour Voluea Projected Peak 24 Hour Volume 1% of Projected Projtet Peak 2% lour Teak h Hour volume Volume Northbound 2427 59 520 3006 30 25 southbound 3718 91 896 4705 47 3 Eastbound Westbound 10,075 127 2416 12,618 126 3 El Peak Traffic is estimated to be lest than 1% of Projected peak 2h Hour Traffic Volume O Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 2k Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. Acacia Offices • DATE! 1-7-83 PROJECT: FORM I 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection BRISTOL STREET @ IRVINE AVENUE (Existing Traffic Volumes based on verage Inter pring 2 Approach Direction Existing . Peak 2h Hour Volume Peak 2k Hour Regional Growth Volume Approved Projects Peak 2h Hour Volume Projected Peak 2h Hour Volume 10. of Projected Project Peak 24 Hour Peak 2k Hour Volume Volume Northbound 2072 29 210 2311 23 37 southbound 3218 79 146 3443 34 8 Eastbound 9464 1 119 1392 10,975 110 8 Westbound — — — — — Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 2k Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected • El Peak 235 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. Acacia Offices DATE: 1-7-83 PROJECT: FORM I INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS Intersection Bristol Street- Irvine Avenue ( Existing Traffic Volumes Bases on Average Daily Traffic Winter/Spring 19 84 Moo t EXISTING levee Cep. luwi Cop. Lanot Ca EXIST. PLIA. Vol EXIST, V/C Ratio AEOIDNAI. VWTN Volume CCMITTED ►AWECT Volume ►ADJECTl. Y/C Ratio rYolue/0 Projeet 1AWECT Volue PAQ1[CT Vic Ratio NL N7 3200 599 .1871 11 89 .2184 12 .2222 NR 1600 239 .1493 4 67 .1938 6 .1975 SL 1600 120 .0750 3 1 .07 .0775 ST 4800 1342 .2795* 37 76 .3031* 3 .0338 SR 1412 ET 4800 26620 ) .5546* 45 559 .6804* .68o4* ER 800 650 .8175 10 5 .8313 3 .8350 WL WT WR YELLOWTIME .1000* ' 1 I .1000* i i I 1 .1000* EXISTING INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION 9341 EXISTING PLUS COMMITTED PLUS /PROPM I INIPMOMMSI.C.U. EXISTING PLUS CO"TTEO PLUS REGIONAL son PLUS PROJECT I.C.U. 1.0842 ❑ Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 © Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 ❑ Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. with systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 - - - (1) Adjusted -to reflect total of EL, ET, and ER movement volumes at the Birch and Br Wol In ersectlom. scriPttiOn of system improvement: Acacia Offices DATE• 1-6-83 PROJECT FORM II CI • J CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH P.O. BOX 1768, NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658-8915 PLANNING DEPARTMENT (714) 644-3225 November 5, 1984 Mr. Tim Neely Manager, Current Planning & Development Assistance Division Orange County Environmental Management Agency 12 Civic Center Plaza Santa Ana, CA 92702 Subject: Land Use Element 84-3, Item 5 and Community Profile Amendment CPA 84-19 Dear Mr. Neely: The City of Newport Beach herein submits it's comments regarding Land Use Element 84-3, Item 5 (Superior Mini -Storage) and Community Profile Amendment CPA 84-19 (Fifth District). As was indicated in the City's letter of December 9, 1983, regarding the previously proposed Zone Change 83-37C (enclosed),`the site is within the Newport Beach Sphere of Influence. The City has initiated zoning studies for annexation of East Santa Ana Heights, and approval of the proposed land use conversion could prejudice the City's planning efforts. We are thus concerned that development be in conformance with the City's existing General Plan which designates the project site for Low Density Residential use. The proposed mini -storage facility conflicts with this designation. The proposed development intensity is significantly greater than what would be considered reasonable for any site in the area, let alone a site adjacent to residential uses. The degree of lot coverage necessary to achieve the proposed development intensity would result in a structure whose bulk would be seriously out of keeping with the surrounding area. The proposed density of 1.1 times the total site exceeds the maximum intensity permitted in the nearby commercial areas of Newport Beach along Campus Drive which is generally 0.5 times the buildable area. Intensities across Bristol in Koll Center and Newport Place are below 0.4 times the buildable area. It should be noted that basing permitted intensities on buildable area rather than total site area further reduces the amount of allowable development. It is our understanding that County staff had earlier recommended that an Environmental Impact Report be prepared for this project but that this was over -ruled by the Orange County Planning Commission on appeal of the applicant, and a Negative Declaration has been filed. It is our further understanding that local citizens have appealed the Negative Declaration. The City of Newport Beach concurs in the protests of the local citizenry. The proposed project could result in 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach Letter to T. Neely Page 2 November 5, 1984 significant impacts on the surrounding area, including, but not limited to, impacts on nearby land use, local growth, traffic, noise, drainage and water quality, light and glare, aesthetics, housing and infrastructure, particularly sanitary sewers. A decision made in the absence of in-depth information on these potentially serious impacts must, by its very nature, be somewhat arbitrary and would clearly violate the stated intent of the California Environmental Quality Act. The City of Newport Beach is concerned that zone changes continue to be processed for the Santa Ana Heights area while efforts to develop a Land Use Compatibility Plan for the area are ostensibly in progress. This is particularly distressing when the conclusion of this master planning effort appears imminent. Little time would appear to be gained by processing this project at this time, while the loss in terms of the irretrievable prejudice of long-term planning efforts for the area could be significant. It should be noted that the proposed project is inconsistent with six of the eight LUCP scenarios under consideration. By contrast, materials circulated with the Environmental Management Agency's September 12, 1984, staff report on Zone Change ZC84-18C and Use Permit UP84-77P for the proposed mini -storage facility indicate that "The proposed project is consistent with all f'asible relevant planning efforts being considered." For all p lic purposes, the orange County Board of Supervisors is considering eight, not two, land use alternatives and has not made a public determination as to the feasibility of any of the eight. One might, therefore, question the intent of the above quoted statement. If the LUCP process is to constitute a good faith effort to consider all relevant planning issues, consideration of this and all other land use alterations in the Santa Ana Heights area should be postponed until the LUCP is adopted. Very truly yours, PLANNING DEPARTMENT JAMES D. HEWICKER, Director By Sandy Geniis Associat Tanner SG: pj d Enc. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH P.U. BOX 1768, NEWPORT BEACH. CA 92663.3884 PLANNING DEPARTMENT (714) 640-2197 December 9, 1983 Gordon Lockett Zoning Administration Orange County Environmental Management Agency P.O. Box 4048 Santa Ana, CA 92702 Dear Mr. Lockett: The City of Newport Beach appreciates this opportunity to comment upon Zone Changes ZC 83-37C and ZC 83-38C. As you are probably aware, the two sites involved are located within the Newport Beach Sphere of Influence. Thus, we are concerned that any development be in confo6ance with the City's General Plan for this area. The Change of Zone notices received by the City of Newport Beach do not address environmental documentation for the proposed projects. Environmental Impact Reports for these zone changes must provide a comprehensive analysis of the potential impacts on the surrounding environment. The reports must examine both individual cumulative impacts of the proposed zone changes in the light of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future development conditions. The EIR's should address land use changes and conflicts, traffic, noise, impacts on infrastructure, drainage and water quality, light and glare, aesthetics, and housing at a minimum. The City will submit more comprehensive comments regarding environmental analysis upon receipt of a Notice of Preparation. The Land Use Element of the Newport Beach General Plan designates both sites for Low -Density Residential Use. The proposed'zone changes are in conflict with this designation. In addition, the proposed development intensity for the mini -storage area of 1.13 times the total site is far in excess of anything that should be considered for any site in the area, let alone a site adjacent to residences. The' maximum intensity permitted in the nearby commercial areas of Newport Beach along Campus -Drive and Irvine is 0.5 times the buildable area for offices, with a possible increase up to 1.0 times buildable if a finding is made that the proposed project would generate no more traffic than offices at 0.5. Intensities across Bristol in Koll Center and Newport Place are below 0.4 times the buildable area. It should be noted that basing permitted intensities on buildable area, which subtracts required building setbacks, further reduces the total amount of development. 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach M..A Y'I OCENA Page 2 December 9, 1983 The City of Newport Beach is concerned at the numerous zone changes being processed for Santa Ana Heights while efforts to develop a Land Use Compatibility Plan for the area are ostensibly in progress. Continued approval of such zone changes will irretrievably prejudice long term planning efforts for the area. It is interesting to note that ZC 83-37C is inconsistent with six of the eight land use scenarios now being considered and that ZC 83-38C is inconsistent with three of the eight scenarios. Additional consideration of these and any other zone changes should be postponed until the Land Use Compatibility Plan is adopted. Very truly yours, PLANNING DEPARTMENT JAMES D. HEWICKER, Director By 0 - -- FRED TALARICO Environmental Coordinator FT:nma 12CClleexC�ab r Plato -ants nr.0 02702 MUD DATE: 10/24/84 E R Zchi ff, Site Pxinning Section /DIST: 5U cC T: UP 84-104P - Holstein Ind./Warner Plaza - Acacia Office Park - Costa Mesa __.. Response Date: 11/7/84 PC Hearing Date: Planner Assigned: Mark J. Goodman — 834-2070 Project Charge No: C74710350 PROPOSAL: Construction of a 26,000 sq. ft. of office space divided into four buildings. LOCATION: Southwest corner of Acacia Street and Orchard Street in the Costa Mesa area. Please review the attached proposal and return any comments or recommendations which you might care' to offer. Returned continents, including a "no comment" are requested as an indication that you have received the proposal. Comments must be returned by the date indicated or it must be presumed that the proiect meets with your approval. If you indicate no comment we will not send revised plans for your review unless significant changes are incorporated in such plans or you ask that revised plans be provided. Please direct your comments to the planner assigned as noted above, or myself. Thank you for your cooperation. Y Initial Plans XXXXX No Comment: GL gPC01-24 10/14/82 Revised Plans Joan M. Sunderland, Section Chief Date Piled: 10/23/84 Comments as follows: See Attached: BY: PLEASE INDICATE TOTAL HOURS SPENT IN REVIEW o. A ti ENVIRONMENTAL ° M MANAGEMENT °9c JFp� AGENCY PROJECT NAME: Acacia Office Park LOCATION: S.W. Corner of Acacia St. & Orchard St. C-Osj.4 enex4 ACREAGE/SO.FT. 1.77 acres PLANNING APPLICATION tacrivEa (SEE FILING INSTRUCTIONS BEFORE C OMPLETNGFORM MUST BE TYPED) 17C + % ; ' C•WNER:- Holstein Industries/Warner Pla ADDRESS:18017 SkVaark Circle Ste, M Irvine, CA 92714 PHONE:( APPLICANT/AGENT: 5eAe- (IF NOT OWNER) FIRM: ADDRESS: PHONE: ll LUE ZONE:_ r,.A• Conditional P.C./S.P. SUPV. DIST: Srh CSTL. ZONE ❑ ON SITE AFFORD. HOUSING ❑ PREFILING MEETING: ❑ �n�rinw , rf" APPLICATION FOR CASE+ SUPPLEMENTAL* CHECK LIST DATE PERMIT INITIAL 9".05.17.22. i STUDY54- la5 REQUEST TO 1,2,19,20• SCIIEDULE OPA DENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT DDMM. PROFaE t202�, ALEroMEzlr ZONE CHANCE 3, 9,15,1 a,1 ], 19.20,21. r,ta•f6,19,29,21,23, FEATURE PLAN 6. 15. Ik 19. 20.21. 23, AREA PLAN TRACT MAP A, 10, PARCEL MAP 6.18. USE PERMIT ^ V. ; X 9,20,2t.20.6,19• y SITE DEV PERMIT 6,10.11.12115,fa.17. 19.20.21.13. VARIANCE O,t0.20. COASTAL DEV PERnm i DrrAA PLAN 8.20. CPI 020.23. PROJECT PROPOSAL: v,, r ./n. f rP �:1• J �y .:0•1 / f• Construct 26,000 sq. ft. of a condominium map. EXISTING. SITE' office Cori s[S1'i/7 OF y buildings with Four older houses (2 empty) and a horse stabel operation, PREVIOUS GOVERNMENT APPROVALS: Zone Change Case 82-4- -aM F0250-670 (3/83) (M T Of al MURRAYSTORM DIRECTOR, EMA ROBERT G. FISHER 4 i�—ao U NTY O F DIRECTOR OF PLANNING s (C3) " NGE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT AGENCY PLANNING FILE November 9, 1983 LOCATION: 811 NORTH BROADWAY SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA MAILING ADDRESS: P.O. BOX 4048 SANTA ANA, CA 92702-4048 Ms. Erma Batham 20451 Upper Bay Drive Santa Ana Heights, CA 92707 Subject: Land Use Element 83-2, Zone Change 82-4 -- Holstein Industries Dear Ms. Batham: As requested, here is a copy of the material transmitted to the Board of Supervisors on subject matter for their hearing on November 2, Please note that the materials include the following with respect to the position of Newport Beach on the -matter. 1. EMA/Advance Planning Report to Planning Commission of August 23, 1983 (Page 4 of Attachment 1). 2, EMA/Environmental Analysis Division Report to Planning Commission of September 20, 1983 (Page 2 of Response to Comments for DEIR 430). TELEPHONE: (714) 834-4643 These materials together with my oral statement on the subject at the November 2 hearing, seem to fully apprise the Board of the City's position. Very my yo s, Robert G, Fisher Director of Planning RGF:mh Attachments cc: Members, Board of Supervisors• f f } \ MURRAYSTORM DIRECTOR, EMA 4) _ OUNTY OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT AGENCY PLANNING 811 NORTH BROADWAY SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA (714) 8344643 October 3, 1983 Fred Talarico Planning Department City of Newport Beach P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92663-3884 FILE ROBERT G. FISHER DIRECTOR OF PLANNING MAILING ADDRESS: P.O. BOX 4048 SANTA ANA, CA 92702 SUBJECT: Response to Letter Dated September 27, 1983 Regarding Holstein EIR 430 Dear Mr. Talarico: This letter addresses those issues raised in the above referenced letter (Attachment A), in which you expressed concern regarding the County's "disregard for the spirit and intent of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) displayed in the responses" and the "cavalier response to the comments regarding the need for a Notice of Preparation (NOP)." The California Environmental Quality Act requires the public review of an Environmental Impact Report and the solicitation of comments to the EIR. CEQA does not, however, require the public circulation of the response to the comments received. The Response to Comments document becomes a part of the proposed final EIR, for review and consideration by the decision making body. For this reason, the Response to Comments document for EIR 430 were not circulated to commentors. They were, however, made available at the public hearing. When Draft EIR 430 was circulated for public review, it was accompanied by certified EIR 277 with an attached Comments and Response document to that EIR. The City of Newport Beach made some of the same comments on EIR 430 which it had made on EIR 277 and which had been responded to at length. Therefore, for those comments only, references were made to the earlier prepared and certified responses. t a ,J Fred Talarico Page 2 Because EIR 430 was prepared as a supplemental EIR to address only minor additions and changes to make EIR 277 adequate, a Notice of Preparation was not required. Attachment B to this correspondence is a letter from the State Office of Planning and Research verifying that fact. EIR 430 will remain a Draft EIR until, and if, the Board of Supervisors certifies it. Until then, the City of Newport Beach is invited to comment on its adequacy. Very truly yours, F. W. Olson, Manager Environmental Analysis Division RHCB/FM:jkj(Ll)013 Attachments cc: Orange County Planning Commission CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH P.U. BOX 1768, NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663-3884 PLANNING DEPARTMENT '(714) 640-2197 September 27, 1983 Mr. William Olson Environmental Analysis Division Orange County EMA Box 4048 Santa Ana, CA 92702-4048 Dear Mr. Olson: The City of Newport Beach has reviewed the County's Response to Comments, Acacia Offices, Draft EIR 430, and we are distressed at the disregard for the spirit and intent of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) displayed in the responses. Had the County formally transmitted the Response to Comments to the City Planning Department, we would have expressed our concerns earlier. However, as this was not the case, the City had its first opportunity to examine the document on September 26, 1983. Implicit in the public disclosure function of CEQA is the requirement that information be presented in a manner that can easily be deciphered by the average citizen. Responses to comments that merely refer the respondent to various pages in numerous documents violate this intent. The public participation and review process are the very heart of CEQA. We were therefore somewhat surprised at the rather cavalier response to our comments regarding the need for a Notice of Preparation (NOP), an essential part of the public participation process. As County staff is no doubt aware, an EIR cannot legitimately proceed to the Draft stage until a NOP has been circulated. The City of Newport will, therefore, continue to regard EIR 430 as a Preliminary Draft, and looks forward to reviewing the DE1R and all legally mandated notices. Before hearings are held on the proposed project, it is suggested that a meeting between City and County staffs be held so that these issues can be resolved on a cooperative, rather than a combative, basis. Sincerely, PLANNING DEPARTMENT JAMES D. HEWICKER, Director By 1AZz, WOU FRED TALARICO Environmental Coordinator jg 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT AGENCY REPORT DATE: September 26, 1983 I, TO: Orange County Planning Commission. l FROM: Environmental Analysis Division SUBJECT: Certification of EIRs CONTACT PERSON: Frank McGill at 834-5550 BACKGROUND: During your recent series of hearings, the Environmental Analysis Division has presented to you separate Draft EIRs, Responses to Co:rnents, and staff reports on the following: EIR 406: Country Nome/Lyon' Ranch GPA 83-2, CPA 82-9/82-22, ZC 82-14/82-59 �- EIR 420: Los Alisos R&D Park GPA 83-2, CPA 82-21, ZC 82-56 - EIR 419: Glenn Ranch 2 CPA 82-14, ZC 82-4b - EIR 426: Glenn Ranch 3 GPA 83-2, CPA 82-15, ZC 82-52 E - EIR 430: Holstein GPA 83-2, CPA 83-8, ZC 82-4 4 CEQ„ requires that prior to approving a project for which an EIR was prepared, the EIR be approved and certified. Attached are five separate draft resolutions for the certification of the above mentioned EIRs. RECOMMENDATION: Approve and recommend that the Board of Supervisors adopt the attached draft resolutions for the certification of the following EIRs: - EIR 406 - EIR 420 - EIR 419 - EIR 426 - EIR 430 Respectfully submitted, F. W. Olson, Manager ERA/Environmental Analysis Division FM:jkj(R1)018 c cF1�,Fo g RESPONSES 'IU COMMENTS RE ,at ACACIA OFFICES �, t0 DRAFT LIR 430 S�p26 �gg3 CIfY u' ,r N pCP&1V- J� 7ivededuring tthetpublic4reviewpperliodt including7those m Erma A. Batham (for the Concerned Persons of Santa Ana Heights) 20451 Upper Bay Drive Santa Ana Heights, CA 92707 City of Newport Beach Planning Department P.O. Box 1768 ' Newport Beach, CA 92663-3884 Responses to these comments are addressed below. Erma A. Batham (August 12, 1983) The process of a General Plan Amendment which would allow rezoning commercial horse stables to office buildings in Santa Ana Heights should not take place at this time. Comment so noted - no response necessary. 2. Due to uncertainties regarding John Wayne Airport expansion and the land use proposals in Santa Ana Heights consisting of seven differing plans by the County of Orange, it would be highly unethical to show specidl favoritism to a certain property owner, namely Holstein Industries (1.7 acres which lies (sic) within the approach protection area of JWA). Approving the Holstein's proposed change would be prejudicial and make selection of an unbiased land use plan for this area impossible. This changes Open Space in the Flight Path to office. It is possible this property would have to be purchased it the airport is expanded. As indicated in Draft I:IR 430 (refer to page 29), the County Planning Commission previously determined that the proposed project was consistent with the Transitional Use Policy of the Land Use Element; that policy allows the establishment of uses not specifi- cally permitted by the Land Use Element land use cate- gory but which are determined to be appropriate under certain circumstances. The request by the applicant for a General Plan Amendment is in response to a directive issued by the Board of Supervisors. With regard to the 1.7 acre property, approval of the General Plan Amendment and zone change would result in changing an existing residential/equestrian use (and not open space) to commercial office uses. 3. Furthermore, Acacia Offices DEIR 430 and EIR 277, prepared by fhe Planning Center, 240 Newport Center Drive; Newport Beach, California, contact person Keeton K. Kreitzer, including the traffic studies prepared by Kunzman Associates are incorrect and any decisions based on these documents would be placing an unjust burden on the Community. Without indications of specific deficiencies, inaccuracies, or inadequacies, a response to this com- ment is not possible. It must be stated, however, that Draft EIR 430 was prepared in accordance with County requirements and, further, by the appropriate divisions within EMA (e.g., Traffic, Transportation Planning, Advance Planning, Environmental Analysis etc.) to ensure -.Ircompliance''and adequacy. �p (lye re U R'�� v`�++/ Gl l ru � c City of Newport Beach (August 15, 1983) General Comments: 1. The City of Newport Beach appreciates this opportunity to comment upon Draft EIR 430 (Supplement to EIR 277). As stated in our previous correspondence (attached), the project lies within the Newport Beach Sphere of Influence and is in conflict with the Newport Beach General Plan which designates the site for Low Uensity Residential Usr±. The City does not consider the pro- posed offices an appropriate use for the site. Refer to Responses to Comments (Section 1I) for EIR 277. The response to Comment 26 (pages 43 and 44) provides a brief discussion of the City's relevant planning programs affecting the subject property. It must be pointed out that the standard adopted by the City in its Noise Element, is 65 CNEL exterior noise level. Both the existing residential development and the Low Density Residential use designation reflected on the Land Use Element are non-conforming/inconsis- tent, based on noise impacts from John Wayne Airport. 2. Annexation proceedings have been commenced for eastern Santa Ana Heights, whir.h includes the project site. The City is currently preparing pre -zoning for the area. This is not addressed in the DEIR. Approval of a change of use for the site at this time could prejudice the City's pre -Boning efforts. It is there- fore suggested that consideration of the proposed-_ orolect cease. Based on conversations with City staff, residents from Santa Ana Heights have initiated annexation proceedings (i.e., residents have submitted a petition to the City requesting annexation); however, no significant formal action has been undertaken and no definitive schedule to annex the area (of which the subject 1.7 acre property is a part) has been estab- lished. The City Council has set aside an amount which is to be used to partially pay for the Draft EIR on the annexation and pre -zoning, a proportionate or additional amount has been requested of Santa Ana Heights residents as well to pay for the EIR. It was indicated that the Draft EIR will not be undertaken until the additional money is received or the City elects to fund the entire study.1 Although no formal pre -zoning has been identified for the area, two alternative zoning classifications for the area have been discussed for future consideration as the study is undertaken. One of these is a resi- dential zone, recently implemented by the City, which accommodates residential equestrian uses; the other may reflect some office uses. It should be understood that neither of these alternatives have been studied in great detail and pre -zoning for the study area and the site specifically will be determined once the pre -annexation zoning is completed. Specific Comments 1. Traffic and Circulation - DEIR 430 states that "the project's . . . traffic caused only the Irvine Avenue and Bristol Street intersection to exceed one per- cent." This statement is unclear. Does the intersec- tion or the traffic increase one percent? To what does the one percent refer? Existing traffic or capacity? 1 Sandy Genis, Associate Planner, City of Newport Beach; telephone conversation on September 6, 1983. This statement (refer to paragraph 3, page 15 of Draft EIR 430) is intended to express a one percent increase in traffic at the Irvine Avenue/Bristol Street intersection. The one percent increase refers to the Newport Beach traffic phasing ordinance cri- teria and, specifically, a one percent increase over existing traffic. 2. Traffic and Circulation - Who will be responsible for widening adjacent roadways to ultimate cross -sections? What will the ultimate cross section be? The project sponsor will be responsible for improv- ing Acacia Street and Orchard Avenue to one-half of their ultimate cross -sections. The full, ultimate cross -sections are 60 feet, including 40 feet of pave- ment (curb -to -curb) and 5-foot sidewalks on both sides (with a 5-foot parkway on both sides). 3. Noise - The DEIR should discuss impacts of project generated noise on the nearby residence. Except for increased traffic, the activities occur- ring on an office commercial site are not expected to generate noise greater than the current land use. An increase of 290 ADT is expected to make no calculable noise impact on adjacent properties. The overwhelming noise concern for all properties in the area is jet aircraft noise. 4. Land Use - What is the potential that Parcel No. 119-231-21 will be "integrate" (sic) with the proposed project? If this is currently viewed as a potential portion of the proposed project, this should be so stated and impacts associated with more intensive use of the parcel should be examined in detail. The project as proposed encompasses only three par- cels, those depicted on Exhibit 3 of Draft 'EIR 430. No other parcels are proposed or presently contem- plated to be integrated with the present development request. Should development of the parcel referred to above be proposed, it will be subject to the same environmental review process which determined an EIR to be necessary for Acacia Offices; environmental impacts associated with more "intensive" development would be assessed at that time. 5. Land Use - It would seem that due to potential impacts, including "increased traffic, noise, etc. , the compatibility of thu proposed project with resi- dential usp.s would be "directly apparent" to a reason- ably perceptive individual. The DE III should state that there will exist a conflict between residential and commercial uses. The land use compatibility impacts referred to above should not be construed to be "directly apparent" as suggested by the City. Although traffic will increase substantially over that presently generated by the existing uses (i.e., 390 ADT compared to 100 ADT), the impacts can be adequately mitigated by implementing the measures identified on pages 15-17 of the Draft EIR. Other project -related impacts have likewise been mitigated to reduce tangible impacts, particularly the visual/aesthetic quality of the project. The archi- tectural and landscape design of the buildings attempts to substantially enhance the character of the office buildings and make them less obtrusive in the predominantly residential community, unlike the character created by the Newport -Irvine Center on Irvine Avenue (approved by the City of Newport Beach) in Santa Ana Heights. This building contrasts sharply with the surrounding residential area. The structure is three stories in height and constructed of steel and bronzed glass. The rectangular architectural style is typical of buildings in the office commercial area adjacent to the airport and north of Bristol Street. In this setting, however, the building appears out of scale, dominating the structures near- by, and its modern urban style is in sharp constrast to the rural character of the adjacent neighbor- hood. 6. Land Use - The projects relationship to the Newport Beach General Plan should be examined in detail. This comment was made on EIR 277 and was addressed in the Final EIR which was certified April 6, 1983. Refer to Section II: Comments and Responses of that document. The response to comment 26, contained on pages 43 and 44, discusses the relationship of the proposed project to relevant planning documents adopted by the City of Newport Beach. 7. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts - The list of long term unavoidable adverse impacts should include impacts on recreation and impacts on housing due to rein ovaI of existing units and increased demand from employees of the proposed offices. Unavoidable adverse impacts should include the loss of equestrian - oriented recreation amenities. However, the loss of four residences in an area severely impacted by noise emanating from John Wayne Airport is not significant and should not be considered an unavoidable adverse impact. Finally, it is assumed that the Cityis referring to increased demands for public services and utilities or other consumer needs. Because the majority of employees are expected to live in Orange County, significant increases for such services are not likely; hence, the associated impacts are not considered adverse and are not included in the category of unavoidable adverse impacts. 8. Alternatives for the Proposed Project - While it is recognized that potential iIII pdcts of equestrian activities might significantly affect the environment under certain circumstances, EIR 277 discussed such impacts on a speculative level using such phrases as "may contribute," "no published information is known to confirm this . potential," and "it is not known whether." Therefore, on the basis of information included in DEIR's 277 and 430 it cannot be stated with any degree of certainty whether or not "the current equestrian activity has (emphasis added) generated negative impacts to the environment. Comment so noted. 9. Growth Inducing Impacts - This section should discuss "the potential for integration of an adjacent parcel (Assessor's Parcel No. 119-231-21) with the develop- ment of the project site" mentioned in the Land Use Section. As indicated in a previous comment (comment 4, above), development of the parcel identified above is not included with the development proposal. This parcel is owned by the County of Orange and encom- passes less than 0.25 acre (10,000+ square feet). The northerly portion of this parcel comprises a slope bank along Irvine and Orchard Avenue, both of which are several feet below the mean elevation of the parcel. Access from Irvine Avenue is severely con- strained by the existence of the slope bank and dif- ference in elevation, causing the parcel to be "land- locked". Because of the constraints discussed above (e.g., property ownership, no access, etc.), the site would have limited utility for future development. It is possible that the southerly portion could be used for parking and/or landscaping; however, such use would certainly not be considered growth -inducing. In accordance with a condition of approval, the applicant shall be required to address the potential for integration of AP No. 119-231-21 prior to clearance for issuance of any building or grading permits (refer to page 31 of Draft EIR 430). Finally, the applicant is restricted by the zoning to a maximum of 26,000 square feet of floor area, precluding future development of that parcel. 10. Wastewater - At the time CIR 277 was certified, sani- tary sewers were at or near capacity, and the Costa Mesa Sanitary District was considering alternative methods of increasing service. Can the District currently provide additional service? Although facilities exist in the project environs, the line in Bristol Street which would serve the project is at or near capacity and only a few addi- tional connections can be allowed, if at all. In actuality, a new line will be required even if all the vacant property is developed according to present land use designations. Allowing greater densities, or increased land use, will only compound this need and further burden the existing facilities. While the district is not in a financial position to pro- vide additional liquid waste carrying capacity, the Board (of Directors of the CMSD) has indicated they would be willing to consider implementation of one of the following alternatives. o Detachment from the Costa Mesa Sanitary District, which would allow the County and Newport Beach to handle the increased capacity needs. o Establish an improvement district, such as the Improvement District Acts of 1911, 1915, and 1913 provide. o Require the first developer to furnish at his expense the needed capacity and then by agreement, provide that the developer would be reimbursed as other properties develop and/or redevelop and con- nect to the new facility. As a result, the following condition must be met: Prior to clearance for issuance of any building or grading permits, the owner of record of the property shall obtain written evidence from the' Costa Mesa Sanitary Ditrict which indicates that sewer capacity is adequate to accommodate development of the project site and obtain approval of such evidence from the Director, EMA (refer to page 32 of Draft EIR 430). General Comment: 1. the City of Newport Beach has received no Notice of Prepdration for DL'IR 430. As specified under State CEOA Guidelines, a Supplement to an EIR is subject to the same noticing requirements as the original EIR. We will, therefore, consider this only a Preliminary Draft. Upon receipt of the final Draft EIR, the City will provide additional comments. Continent so noted. t n 'ENVI'RONMENTA'L MANAGEMENT AGENCY REPORT E ti. SFAS DATE: September 20, 1983 ` 4 6106) TO: Orange County Planning Commission FROM:'- EMA/Piahningt+- Environmental:Analysis Division SUBJEL'T,''.Pi•6posed-Fiital;E'IR'436cj(Su�plement to Final-EIA 277) of Holstein r TridustrlOs; Incr,;'lir the Sahta'Anh Heights area'for GPA 83-2/ ge=i ZC,,82=4ybPA'83-8P.,'`' 10:"s CONTACT PERSON: Raymond H.C. Brantley/834-5550 BACKGROUND: Proposed Final Environmental Impact Report EIR 430 has been prepared to address thW impacts upon'•th.0 OTivirondteni'by the development proposed by General Plan Amendment CPA 83"2 and Community Profile Amendment CPA 83-8P. This'document is Supplemental to Environmental Impact Report EIR 277, which was prepared on the proposed Zone Change from A-l(SR) "General Agricultural (S1gri•1Rastrictiond)" Distriettto PA(PD)(SR)30/(COND) "Professional Administrative (Plannbd Development) (Sign Restrictions) -(Conditional)" District to, allow the construction of•a•four building complex totalling 26,000 square feet of office space: Ai its meeting of April 6•;l•1983, the Orange County Board of Supervisors certified EIRi277 as complete but continued ZC 82-4/CPA 83-8 until October 19, 1983 with the directive to the applicant to seek a General Plan Amendment. This Supplemental EIR is the result of a determination by County staff that a General Plan Amendment and Community Profile Amendment were'•not within the scope' of EIR 277. • Ir • ANALYSIS: EIR 277 adequately gddressed'the follb'wing'environmental issues: ' f Biological Resources; ArchaeologicalvResorAtces Paleontological Resources; Hydrology/Water Quality; Visual/Aebthetic'Quality; Light/Glare/Safety; and 4ecreAtion/Open Space " Draft'Stipplementa•1'EIR 430•examines-the impacts of the proposed project upon three(3) environmental issued: Traffic and Circulation; 1 Noise; and Land Use/Relevant Planning Orange county Planning Commission Pxge 2 7 S noRses of the discussions within the EIR and -its technical appendix are ds follows': ' - ' ' ' A. Traffic and ldirculation: " The4ubje'ct°sitd'•p-resently contains 'four W. single-family dwelling diYits and a ed6mercia•1' horse stable which generate approximately -100 vehicular trips per day. Based upon a trip generation rate of 15 trips "-per 1000 square feet of commercial office space, the implementation of the proposed project will generate 390 vehicular trips per day, an increase of 296 trips. Direct access''tti the"subjedt siiW is presently taken at both Orchard Drive and Acacia Street. Proposed access will be by Acacia Street. Indirect access includes Irvine Avenue, Mesa Drive and Bristol Street. Three of the four major intersections affected by the project operate at Level of'Service (LOS) "D" of better during the,evening peak'hours. The inter$ection of Irvine Avenue and Bristol operates at LOS "F"'during the evening peak hour. 'The proposed devdlopilent will add .07'percent bo the Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU)•to that intersection. C • Proposed Mitigation Measures: Measures to reduce the environmental impacts include the improvement of roadways abutting the project site to ultimate cross -sections and monitoring'the Irvine Avenue/Orchard Drive intersection for signalization.The PD "Planned Development" overlaj'distiict'will require a Use Permit prior to project development. The'Use Permit will assess on site parking per Section 7-9-145 of the Orange County'2oning Code. t Unavoidable Adverse Impacts: The proposed project will result in an increase of 290 average daily trips'and a�slight increase in intersection capacity utilization. - r t. Eloise: t The project site is located approximately 3500 feet south of runway 19R of Johh-Wayne Airport placing it within the 70 CNEL contour. Because of the high'noise imphWts associated with the 70 CNEL, the development of noise sensitive land uses, such as residences, is expressly prohibited ,by the Noise Element of the Orange County General Plan. The proposed use is compatible with the 70 CNEL contour. I'Pr'opo'se'd Mitigation Measures: Proposed measures to ensure compliance c-"with'the Noise Element consist of standard noise conditions of the County. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts: The implementation of therproj0ct will temporarily result in elevated levels,of noise associated='with grading and construction activities. ...«e't r4Perl✓,. ." ..j.., a. ...,_t y.r ::_ 0'4. u.up.u,, y.wt.,, ..i.. .t—,-." r Orange County Planning Commission Page 3 C. I" Land Use/.Relevant'kanning: The present land use consists of four ('4) single-family dwellings and equestTian,stables in a predominantly residential area undergoing a transition from residential to comdtercial'uses.""The 1.7 acre site is designated (5) Qpen Space in the Land Use Element, '(5.1) Other Open Space on the Community Profile'Map, and is regulated, by"the A-10R) "General Agricultural (Sign Restrictions)'District regulations of the Orange County Zoning Code. The existing u§ea ar`e compatible with surrounding land uses but constitute inconsistencies with zoning which requires a minimum 4-acre site. .c, The proposed project will reclassify the subject site to a more intense land use. Additionally, the proposed project will resolve site specific inconsistencies with the General Plan and compliance with zoning. The project will have adverse impacts upon neighboring residential uses. Proposed Mitigation'Measu=es: the EfR propdses a special rider to the regulir use permit 'requirement 'to assure compatibility with adjacent properties in'structure and site designs and landscaping. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts: The, implementation of the proposed project `will result in therfprtherance of commercial encroachment into an area previously limited to agricultural and residential uses. The project may undermine'planning efforts of the John Wayne�Airport and the Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan. ALTERNATIVES: The Caiifornia Environmental Quality Act requires the consideration of alter- natives to a proposed project which could reduce its environmental .impacts. If the decision -making body approves a.project with unavoidable adverse impacts, it must make a finding of the specific economic, social, or other considerations which make infeasible the project alternatives identified in the final EIR. '' Three (3) alternatives are addressed in the subject EIR. A brief synopsis of each is as, follows': ' A."No Project Alternative: This alternative asssumes that the existing General Plan designations and zoning district"regulations remain in effect. All impacts associated with the reclassification and development from a less intense land use to s more intensive land use would be avoided. the current land uses would remain incompatible with the Noise Element and non -conforming with A-l(SR) zoning district regulations. B. "Alternative Site" Alternative: This alternative assumes that the proposed project would be physically moved to another location. The impacts an the subject site would be the same as Alternative A, above. 'bringe `Cdiiaty 'Pl?annifig 'Cori ssion 'Pkge 4 C. "Comme=ci,k1 i6dreati(5:d Vie"' Alternative: This alternative -assumes that the entire project site would be developed ta's ah"equestklan facility. This alternative would result in less severe environmental impacts than the proposed project; however, t�e, aize of the eubj'ect ai`te would make'im �` leeniation of the alternative impYacticable. COMMENTS': c P=' CommAnts'taere teceivea'from thV dity'of=Newport Beach and Ms. Erma Batham prior `to the 'Planning Commission's hearing date. Those comments and responses to them are attached to Draft EIR 430. PROPOSED BENEFITS'.' The 'CHlifornia Envirbnpien'tai 'Quality Act requires the 'decision=maker ,to balance thepubli`c'''benefitssof 'a' proposad''project 'algainst' fts'unavoidable adverse'it*a'cta'in detei-�ining whether or not 'to approve that project. If the behefits outweigh the adverse impacts, the impacts may be considered acceptable. If the Board of Supervisors decides that the impacts of this project are•acceptable,''it is required'tb make specific findings of fact" to support 1a- decision based on Final EIk 430 and other information in the record. i The project proposed by the General Plan Amendment/Community Profile Amendment and Zone Change and addressed in Certified EIR 277 and proposed final EIR 430,"contains bdveral'•unavoiaable adverse environmental impacts as restated in the Analysis'Section of this report. The arguments which may justify approval of the,project and"override the adverse environmental impacts are as follows: A. The te4lival of noise sensitive "residential land uses from an area Heavily impActed by aircraft'noise from John Wayne Airport; B. The provision of a commercial - office facility will add to the employment B and economic base of the County; and C. The inclusion of ihfrasfi'uctdre improvements in the project, enhancing public facilities in the area. REC0hMENDATION: When the Advance Planning'Division's final recommendation becomes known, a draft resolution for the certification of EIR 430 will be,prepared and presented. Respectfully submitted, F:'W. Olson, Manager, Environmental 'Analysis Division RHCB: jkjU-1)0,l5 AtiCptcbnenLai:'�EZY 4 Dj" UR 277,'Coi ents and �Reaponrea ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT AGENCY REPORT DATE: September 20, 1983 /X.a 6'An, TO: Orange County Planning Commission FROM: EMA/Planning (Advance Planning Division) SUBJECT: Land Use Element 83-2 Item 5 and related projects, Holstein Industries. SYNOPSIS: A privately initiated request by Holstein Industries to amend the Land Use Element from Open Space to Employment, amend the Community Profile from Other Open Space to Professional Admini- strative, and to change the zoning from the General Agricultural (Sign Restriction) to the Professional and Administrative Office (Planned Development) (Sign Restriction) District subject to a 30 foot maximum building height for a 1.7 acre site located at the southwesterly corner of Orchard Drive and Acacia Street in the Santa Ana Heights area. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Holstein Industries proposes amendment of the Land Use Element from Open Space to Employment for a 1.7 acre site located at the southwesterly corner of Orchard Drive and Acacia street in the Santa Ana Heights area. Related projects include Community Profile Amendment 83-8, which proposes an amendment from Other Open Space to the Professional Administrative category and Zone Change 82-4, which proposes a change in zone from the A-1 (SR) General Agricultural (Sign Restric- tion) to the PA(PD)(SR)/30 Professional Administrative Office (Planned Develop- ment) (Sign Restriction) District subject to a 30 foot maximum building height. BACKGROUND On August 23, 1983, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on Land Use Element 83-2, which focused upon the Holstein Industry proposal. Testimony received from the public at the hearing indicated support and opposition to the proposal and focused primarily upon the potential affect of the proposal upon the Land Use Compatibility Program for the John Wayne Airport Master Plan. NOTIFICATION/COMMENT FROM OTHERS: As part of the original processing of Zone Change 82-4, public notices were mailed to property owners of record within a 300 foot radius of the subject property on March 1, 1982 and February 17, 1983, and a public notice was published in the Orange Coast Daily Pilot on March 5, 1982 and February 19, 1983. Additional referral informaiton was sent to the Airport Commission, Airport Land Use Commission, the Civil Aeronautics Board, the Santa Ana Heights Water Company, the City of Newport Beach, and the Costa Mesa Sanitary District. Comments received and staff responses to those comments are described in the attached August 23, 1983 EMA report. 1 Orange County Planning Commission W Page Two In addition, public notices relating to the August 23, 1983 public hearing on the proposed General Plan amendment and related projects for the subject property were mailed to property owners of record within a 300 foot radius of the property and various interested parties on August 10, 1983 and a public notice was published in the Saddleback Valley News on August 12, 1983. Legal Notices to the lsit of interested persons were also transmitted for the September 20, 1983 hearing on August 29, 1983 and a legal notice concerning the LU 83-2 items and concurrent projects published in the Orange Coast Daily Pilot on September 7, 1983. CEQA COMPLIANCE A staff report relating to Draft EIR 430, a supplement to EIR 277, has been prepared by the EAD and is attached. RECOMMENDATION 1. EMA recommends that the Planning Commission approve the proposed General Plan Amendment, Community Profile Amendment 83-8 and Zone Change 82-4, and continue the case to September 26, 1983 to allow preparation of a final draft resolution on LU 83-2 and concurrent proejcts for recommendation by the Commission to the Board of Sueprvisors. 2. EMA recommends that Zone Change 82-4 be approved subject to the conditions stipulated in the August 23, 1983 EMA report on this item. Respectfully submitted, JAdy Sp egle, Manager Planning Division PL:crn(R5)019 Attachments: Staff Report of August 23, 1983 Draft Ordinance for ZC 82-4 {. ATTACHMENT 1 DATE: August 23, 1983 TO: Orange County Planning Commission FROM: EMA/Planning (Advance Planning Division) SUBJECT: Land Use Element 83-21 Item 1 and related projects, Holstein Industries SYNOPSIS: A privately initiated request by Holstein Industries is proposed to amend the Land Use Element from Open Space to Employment, amend the Community Profile from Other Open Space to Professional Administrative, and to change the zoning from the General Agricultural (Sign Restriction) to the Professional and Administrative Office (Planned Development) (Sign Restriction) District subject to a 30 foot maximum building height for a 1.7 acre site located at the south- westerly corner of Orchard Drive and Acacia Street in the Santa Ana Heights area. Holstein Industries proposes amendment of the Land Use Element from Open Space to Employment for a 1.7 acre site located at the southwesterly corner of Orchard Drive and Acacia Street in the Santa Ana Heights area. Related projects include Community Profile Amendment 83-5, which proposes an amendment from Other Open Space to the Professional Administrative category and Zone Change 82-4, which proposes a change in zone from the (A-1)(SR) General Agricultural (Sign Restriction) to the PA(PD)(SR)/30 Professional Administrative Office (Planned Development)(Sign Restriction) District subject to a 30 foot maximum building height. A number of planning concerns in the Santa Ana Heights area prompted the County of Orange to begin the formulation of a specific plan for the area in April 1981. The specific plan was a direct outgrowth of previous planning for John Wayne Airport (JWA) and surrounding noise -impacted areas, including Santa Ana Heights. This planning culminated in Board of Supervisors' adoption of the John Wayne Airport Master Plan, the associated Airport Noise Control and Land Use Compatibility (ANCLU) Plan and Environmental Impact Report 232. The specific planning effort was well underway when EIR 232 was found inadequate in a Superior Court case brought by the City of Newport Beach and others. The court issued an injunction against the County's planning activities based on EIR 232, effectively halting progress on the Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan. In December 1982, the Board directed the Environmental Management Agency and John Wayne Airport staff to prepare a report on a full range of airport alter- natives, including a preliminary assessment of air transportation, noise/land Orange County Planning Commission Page 2 use, and other environmental impacts. The report was designed to permit Board selection of a project, around which airport land use and environmental planning could proceed once again. In April 1963, the Board selected a project which identified a phased expansion of facilities at John Wayne Airport, with phase one accommodating 55 daily jet air carrier departures and phase two accommodating 73. Land use planning for areas south of the airport, including Santa Ana Heights, is to be based upon the noise impacts from these flight levels. Work began in June 1983 on a new Master Plan for John Wayne Airport, an associated Land Use Compatibility Program and a comprehensive EIR. The Land Use Compatibility Program will include a land use plan component for Santa Ana Heights, along with possible recommendations for General Plan amendments and cone changes. Planning Commission hearings are tentatively scheduled to begin in March 1984, with Board action following in May. on February 28, 1983, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on Zone Change 82-4. Testimony which was received from the public indicated both support and opposition to the proposal and focused upon such issues as traffic generation, noise impacts, affect upon the character of the community and the viability of uses allowed under the current zoning within a high noise impacted area. The Commission determined that the proposal was consistent with the Transitional Use Policy of the Land Use Element of the General Plan and recommended approval of the proposal with conditions to the Board of Supervisors. Of note, the Transitional Use Policy provides that transitional uses which are not specifically permitted by a Land Use Element Category (i.e., office uses in an open Space designation) may be determined appropriate under certain circumstances and thus not require a Land Use Element amendment. The Planning Commission subsequently recommended approval of Community Profile Amendment 83-8 on April 4, 1983. on April 6, 1983, the Board of Supervisors continued Zone Change 82-4 and Community Profile Amendment 83-8 to enable the project proponent to return with an application to amend the Land Use Element to obtain a designation which reflects the precise usage proposed (i.e., office use). CITY SPHERES City of Newport Beach OWNERSHIP Holstein Industries Orange County Planning Commission Page 3 ,y SUBJECT PROPERTY AND SURROUNDING LANDS Community Profile .Existing Land Use Existing Zoning LUE Designation Designation subject Four single-fam- Al(SR) General 5 (Open Space) 5.1 (Other Site: ily residences Agricultural Open Space) and a horse stable (Sign Restriction) North Golf Courses Al(SR) 5 (Open Space) 5.2 (Recreation) *Office/Institu- *Adminis- *Adminis- *N/A tional trative/Pro- trative/Pro fessional fessional Office South Residences Al(SR) 5 (Open Space) 5.1 (Other Open Space) East Residences Al(SR) 1B (Suburban 1.4 (Medium Residential) Density Residential) Nest *Golf Course/ *Open Space *Recreation/ *N/A Clubhouse Environmental Open Space *Within City of Newport Beach NOTIFICATION/COMMENT FROM OTHERS: As part of the original processing of Zone Change 82-4, public notices were sailed to property owners of record within a 300 foot radius of the subject property on March 1, 1982 and February 178 1983, and a public notice was pub- lished in the Orange Coast Daily Pilot on March 5, 1982 and February 19, 1983. Additional referral information was sent to the Airport Commission, Airport Land Use Commission, the Civil Aeronautics Board, the Santa Ana Heights water Company, the City of Newport Beach, and the Costa Mesa Sanitary District. The following comments were received: Airport Land Use Commission: An avigational easement should be granted to the proper authority; height of all structures must conform to Section 7-9-129.3 of the Zoning Code; acoustical insulation is necessary for all building on this site; notice must be given to buyers/tenants of environmental hazards; the use must not pose a hazard to aeronautical operations. Costa Mesa Sanitary District: There is a concern over the capacity of the sewer transmission line which serves the area. Three alternatives are submit- tedt a) Detach from the Costa Mesa Sanitary District, allowing the County and Newport Beach to handle the increased capacity needs; b) Establish an improve- ment district; c) Require the developer to furnish the needed capacity with reimbursement to the developer as other properties connect. orange County Planning Commission Page 4 City of Newport Beach: The project site is located within the Newport Reach Sphere of Influence. The Land Use element of the Newport Beach General Plan designated the site for Low -Density Residential use. The proposed Professional and Office zoning is in conflict with this designation, and the proposed zone change is not appropriate for the site in question. Other Comments: Letters were received from Santa Ana Heights residents which expressed the following concerns: Change in the residential -equestrian nature of the community; the adequacy and accuracy of the EIR; inconsistency of the proposed zoning with the General Plant adequacy of infrastructure (i.e., sewers, roads) to accommodate the proposed land use, and action on zone change proposals should await the completion of the Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan. In addition, public notices relating to the August 23, 1983 public hearing on the proposed General Plan amendment and related projects for the subject pro- perty were mailed to property owners of record within a 300 foot radius of the property and various interested parties on August 10, 1983 and a public notice was published in the Orange Coast Daily Pilot on August kP, 1983. Draft EIR 430, a supplement to EIR 277, has been prepared for the proposed project to address its environmental impacts and mitigation measures. It is being presented to you with a recommendation for certification as to its com- pleteness and adequacy concurrent with your. consideration of the proposed pro- ject. QA R#Aaemf*Y AzriX � Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan Several proposals for the development of office uses in the Santa Ana Heights area may be before the Planning Commission in the future. Staff believes that issues associated with individual rezonings such as ZC 82-4 (i.e., compatibility with high noise levels and traffic related impacts) are best evaluated on a cumulative basis. The Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan was deemed the appropriate vehicle to evaluate land uses in the Santa Ana Heights area at that time. However, a delay in the formulation of a plan for the Santa Ana Heights area has occurred for reasons stated in this report. Because of this delay, staff recommends that evaluation of this General Plan Amendment and Zone Change appli- cation should proceed. Circulation A revised traffic study (January 10, 1983) submitted by the applicant indicates the rezoning would allow development of a 26,000 square foot office building. This would attract 390 daily vehicle trips as opposed to the 100 daily trips associated with existing uses. of the outbound trips, approximately 65 percent will use Orchard Drive to reach Irvine Avenue, 15 percent will use Orchard Drive and Birch Street to reach Bristol Avenue, and 20 percent will use Acacia Street and Mesa Drive to reach Irvine Avenue. orange County Planning Commission Page 5 Intersections studied in the traffic report are operating at the following y Levels of Service (LOS) during the morning and evening peak hours: o Irvine Avenue and Orchard Drive - 'A" in the morning and "B" in the evening. o Irvine Avenue and Mesa Drive - "B" in the morning and "D" in the evening. o Irvine Avenue and Bristol North - "C" in the morning and "F" in the evening. o Irvine Avenue and Bristol South - "E" in the morning and "D" in the evening. Irvine Avenue and Bristol North will continue to operate at LOS F in the evening peak hour, uhtil construction of the Corona del Mar Freeway is completed. Estimated completion of this freeway between Redhiil and Jamboree is anticipated to be 1985-1986. The proposed rezoning will increase traffic at the intersection of Mesa Drive and Irvine Avenue as well as Bristol Street North and Irvine Avenue by 1 percents however, the intersections will continue to operate at the same level of service. Infrastructure The Costa Mesa Sanitary District has stated concerns relative to the capacity of a sewer transmission line to serve future development in the Santa Ana Heights area. While the district is not in a financial position to provide additional waste carrying capacity, the district is willing to consider several alternatives: detachment from the Costa Mesa Sanitary District, allowing the County and Newport Beach to handle increased capacity needs; establishment of an improvement district; or a requirement that the developer furnish needed capacity at his expense with reimbursement to the developer as other properties connect to the new facility. Staff recommends that prior to issuance of a building permit or grading permit for the subject property, the applicant should furnish evidence that one of the above alternatives or another potential alternative has been pursued to the County's and the district's satisfaction. Land Use Compatibility The subject property abuts residential use to the south and east with office use to the north. Development of office use could affect the visual character of the area. However, with adequate landscape screening, utilization of a residential architectural style and limitation of the height of structures to 30 feet, such impact would be mitigated to acceptable levels. Consistency With Noise Element The project site is located within the 70 CNEL noise contour of John Wayne Airport and is thus affected by the following Noise Element policies: 1. "All noise sensitive uses (e.g., residential uses) shall be prohibited within the updated 65 CNEL line, where only non -noise sensitive uses will be considered compatible" (e.g., co mercial/office uses). 2. "An avigation easement across property that is subject to aircraft over- flight shall be required." orange County Planning Commission Page 6 a 3. "A Declaration and Notification of Aircraft Noise and Environmental Impacts shall be made available to prospective end users of property located within a noise referral zone or subject to aircraft overflight." Staff believes that approval of the proposal would facilitate compliance with the objective of the Noise Element to limit noise sensitive uses within the 65 CNEL noise contour by allowing for the conversion of the property from existing residential use to office use. However, staff recommends that conditions of approval be required related to aircraft overflight notice and avigation ease- ment dedication to implement the above mentioned policies of the Noise Element. of note, an avigation easement has been granted to the County of Orange for a portion of the subject property. An avigation easement condition would require dedication of an easement for the balance of said property. Conclusion Staff believes that the proposed project will facilitate consistency with the Noise Element of the General Plan and will be compatible with surrounding land uses provided that conditions of approval delineated below are adopted. CO[MlUNITY PROFILE AMENDMENT Community Profile Amendment 83-8 is proposed, which would redesignate the subject property from Other Open Space to Professional Administrative on the profile map for the "County Islands - E" area. The Community Profiles require that a supply/demand analysis of the market service area of property proposed for professional administrative use be pro- vided to assist in determining the appropriateness of such usage. This require- ment has been satisfied for the proposed General Plan amendment through an economic feasibility analysis completed as background information for the Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan. This study, dated February 1983 and entitled "Santa Ana Heights Economic Analysis of Redevelopment Alternatives," indicates that long term office space demand will increase in Orange County, including the John Wayne Airport area, due to the significant increase in office employment projected for the County between 1983 and 1990. ENA recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval by a straw vote of the proposed General Plan Amendment, Community Profile Amendment 83-8 and Zone Change 82-4, and continue the case to September 26, 1983 to be heard concurrent with LUE 83-1. Final vote would be taken when hearings are complete on all items included in LUE 83-1. ZMh recommends that Zone Change 82-4 be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. The proposal shall meet the following measures to ensure consistency with the Noise Element of the General Plan: (a) All structures shall be sound attenuated against the combined input of all present and projected noise to meet the following criteria: Orange County Planning Commission Page 7 TYPICAL USE LEO* (12)** Private Office, Church Sanctuary, Hoard 45 Roan, Conference Room, etc. General Office, Reception, Clerical, etc. .50 Hank Lobby, Retail Store, Restaurant, 35 Typing Pool, etc. Manufacturing, Kitchen, Warehousing, etc. 65 In addition, the energy average of the maximum levels of the loudest 300 of intrusive sounds occurring during typical occupancy period shall not exceed 65 dB(A). *LEQ is the equivalent sound level for a specified time period in dB(A). **Measured during typical hours of operation or other appropriate, approved time period. Upon filing an application for building permits, an accredited expert or authority in the field of acoustics shall submit evidence in accor- dance with the following procedure which certified that the aforemen- tioned standards will be satisfied. (1) An acoustical analysis report describing in detail the exterior noise environment and the acoustical design features required to achieve the interior noise standard shall be submitted to the Manager, Environmental Analysis Division, for approval. (2) Prior to issuance of building permits, satisfactory evidence shall be submitted to the Manager, Development Services, which indicates that the sound attenuation measures specified in the approved acoustical report have been incorporated in the design of the project. (b) Prior to clearance for issuance of any building or grading permits, the owner of record of the property shall prepare and record a decla- ration that this property is subject to overflight, sight, and sound of aircraft operating from John Wayne Airport, Orange County, in a manner meeting the approval of the Manager, Environmental Analysis Division. (c) Prior to clearance for issuance of any building or grading permits, an avigation easement over this property shall be offered for dedica- tion to the County of Orange in a manner meeting the approval of the Manager, Environmental Analysis Division. (d) Prior to sale, lease, or rental of any structure or portion thereof, the owner shall provide to each prospective purchaser, lessee, or tenant a notice that the property is subject to overflight, sight, and sound of aircraft operating from John Wayne Airport, Orange Orange county Planning Commission Page 8 County. The form and method of distribution of said notice shall be as approved by the Manager, Environmental Analysis Division. 2. Prior to the clearance for issuance of any building or grading permits, a use permit shall be approved by the Planning Commission as required by Section 7-9-110 of the Zoning Code. Said use permit shall be in the form and contain all of the information specified by Section 7-9-110 of the Zoning Code and any additional information prescribed by the Director, EMA. The purpose of the use permit in addition to those specified in the Zoning Code, is to provide assurance that development of the site is: 1) compatible with development on adjacent properties with regard to architectural/site design and landscaping, and 2) consistent with measures which ensure compliance with the Noise Element. 3. Prior to clearance for issuance of any building or grading permits, the owner of record of the property shall obtain written evidence from the Costa Mesa Sanitary District which indicates that sewer capacity is adequate to accommodate development of the project site and obtain approval of such evidence from the Director, EMA. Exhibits 1. Vicinity Map 2. Proposed Land Use Element 3. Proposed Community Profile 4. Proposed Zoning S. Noise Contours SL:rmdPA21-12 8/15/83 J LU 83-2 HOLSTEIN INDUSTRIES VICINITY MAP Coum OF ORANGE / EMI►, ADVANCE PLANNING JOHN WAYNE AIRPORT h T LOCATION MAP lW 1 1 I Lc I 16 1 OI PSRiOJECTr.=-0. 14 'LU 83-2 HOLSTEIN INDUSTRIES PROPOSED LAND USE ELEMENT COUNTY OF ORANGE / EW /ADVANCE PLANNING 5 3 mmm ORANGE LOCATION MAP 1B SUBURBAN RESIDENTIAL 3 EMPLOYMENT 5 OPEN SPACE 3 CPA 83-8 HOLSTEIN INDUSTRIES PROPOSED COMMUNITY PROFILE COUNTY OF ORANGE / EMA / ADVANCE PLANNING •Lz�•� 5.2 5.1 3.2 mmm 5.1 1.2 LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL 1.4 MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL 1.5 MEDIUM HIGH DENSfFY RESIDEI 1' LOCATION MAP 1A 1.2 8.2 PROFESSIONAL ADMINISTRATIVE 5.1 OTHER OPEN SPACE 5.2 RECREATION 1'mr500' SCALE A ZC 82-4 T HOLSTEIN INDUSTRIES PROPOSED ZONING PA (PD) (SR)/3 CHANGE COUNTY COtWff OF ORANGE / DtA / ADVANCE M ANWO LOCATION MAP NORTH 1 "W500' SCALE I CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH I I AC AC-Cl ON R l 8P I (SR) CWJD. R4 R 1 (SR) R Al I PA (SR) (SR) I A-P [D. CONR4 Al Al SR (SR) (SR) (SR) Al Al (R4 R1 (SR) (SR MAI Al J L (S� A1SITE (SR) Al Al R1�.. (SR) (SR) = SPACE , (SR) _ l r- CN I A1(SR) R 11 II / / * ADMINISTRATIVE -PROFESSIONAL OFFICE i x LU 83-2 HOLSTEIN INDUSTRIES NOISE CONTOURS COUITV OF ORANGE / EMA / ADVANCE PLAMP" 0 LOCATION MAP TM l'i,(500' SCALE SOURCE: JOHN WAVNE APPM. COMA Aff" HOOK zaMALMT LEVM (CNEU. ion w DRAFT ORDINANCE NO. _ AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNTY OF ORANGE, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTED PURSUANT TO THE STATE PLANNING AND ZONING LAW, RECLASSIFYING CERTAIN LAND IN THE SANTA ANA HEIGHTS AREA TO THE PA (PD) (SR) (30) (COND) PROFESSIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE (PLANNED DEVELOPMENT) (SIGN RESTRICTION) (30 FOOT MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT) (CONDITIONAL) DISTRICT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING CODE OF ORANGE COUNTY. The Board of Supervisors of the County of Orange, California, does ordain as follows: SECTION 1. Irvine Ranch Section Map 5 (Zone Change ZC 82-4) is hereby adopted as a zoning district map of the County of Orange and added to Section 7-9-48 of the Codified Ordinances of the County of Orange. SECTION 2. Conditions: A. Building height shall be limited to thirty (30) feet. B. The proposal shall meet the following measures to ensure consistency with the Noise Element of the General Plan: (1) All structures shall be sound attenuated against the combined input of all present and projected noise to meet the following criteria: TYPICAL USE LEQ* (12)** Private Office, Church Sanctuary, Board 45 Room, Conference Room, etc. General Office, Reception, Clerical, etc. 50 Bank Lobby, Retail Store, Restaurant, 55 Typing Pool, etc. Manufacturing, Kitchen, Warehousing, etc. 65 In addition, the energy average of the maximum levels of the loudest 30% of intrusive sounds occurring during typical occu- pancy period shall not exceed 65 dB(A). *LEQ is the equivalent sound level for a specified time period in dB(A). ** Measured during typical hours of operation or other appropriate, approved time period. Upon filing an application for building permits, an accredited expert or authority in the field of acoustics shall submit evidence in accordance with the following procedure which certifies that the aforementioned standards will be satisfied: -2- 0. (a) An acoustical analysis report describing in detail the exterior noise environment and the acoustical design features required to achieve the interior noise standard shall be submitted to the Manager, Environmental Analysis Division, for approval. (b) Prior to issuance of building permits, satisfactory evidence shall be submitted to the Manager, Development Services, which indicates that the sound attentuation measures specified in the approved acoustical report have been incorporated in the design of the project. (c) Prior to clearance for issuance of any building or grading permits, the owner of record of the property shall prepare and record a declaration that this property is subject to overflight, sight, and sound of aircraft operating from John Wayne Airport, Orange County, in a manner meeting the approval of the Manager, Environmental Analysis Division. (d) Prior to clearance for issuance of any building or grading permits, an avigation easement over this property shall be offered for dedication to the County of Orange in a manner meeting the approval of the Manager, Environmental Analysis Division. (e) Prior to sale, lease, or rental of any structure or portion thereof, the owner shall provide to each prospective pur- chaser, lessee, or tenant a notice that the property is subject to overflight, sight, and sound of aircraft operating from John Wayne Airport, Orange County. The form and method of distribution of said notice shall be as approved by the Manager, Environmental Analysis Division. C. Prior to the clearance for issuance of any building or grading permits, a use permit shall be approved by the Planning Commission as required by Section 7-9-110 of the Zoning Code. Said use permit shall be in the form and contain all of the information specified by Section 7-9-110 of the Zoning Code and any additional information prescribed by the Director, EMA. The purpose of the use permit in addition to those specified in the Zoning Code, is to provide assurance that development of the site is: 1) compatible with development on adjacent properties with regard to architectural/site design and landscaping, and 2) con- sistent with measures which ensure compliance with the Noise Element. Furthermore, the use permit shall address the potential for integration of an adjacent parcel (Assessors Parcel No. 119-231-21) with development of the project site. D. Prior to clearance for issuance of any building or grading permits, the owner of record of the property shall obtain written evidence from the Costa Mesa Sanitary District which indicates that sewer capacity is adequate to accomodate development of the project site and obtain approval of such evidence from the Director, EMA. I -3- SECTION 3. This ordinance shall take effect and be in full force thirty (30) days after passage and before the expiration of fifteen (15) days after -the passage thereof shall be published in the , a newspaper published in the County of Orange, State of California, together with the names of the members of the Board of Supervisors voting for and against the same. M --f, c. c CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH P.U. BOX 1768, NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663.3884 PLANNING DEPARTMENT (714) 640-2197 August 15, 1983 Mr. Raymond H. C. Brantley Environmental Analysis Division Orange County EMA Box 4048 Santa Ana, CA 92702 Dear Mr. Brantley: The City of Newport Beach appreciates this opportunity to comment upon Draft EIR 430 (Supplement to EIR 277). As stated in our previous correspondence (attached), the project lies within the Newport Beach Sphere of Influence and is in conflict with the Newport Beach General Plan which designates the site for Low Density Residential Use. The City does not consider the proposed offices an appropriate use for the site. Annexation proceedings have been commenced for eastern Santa Ana Heights, which includes the project site. The City is currently preparing pre -zoning for the area. This is not addressed in the DEIR. Approval of a change of use for the site at this time could prejudice the City's pre -zoning efforts. It is therefore suggested that consideration of the proposed project cease. The City has reviewed the DEIR and has the following additional comments which should be addressed if the document is to be considered adequate. 1. Traffic and Circulation - DEIR 436 states that "the project's . . . traffic caused only the Irvine Avenue and Bristol Street intersection to exceed one percent." This statement is unclear. Does the intersection or the traffic increase one percent? To what does the one percent refer? Existing traffic or capacity? 2. Traffic and Circulation - Who will be responsible for widening adjacent roadways to ultimate cross -sections? What will the ultimate cross section be? 3. Noise - The DEIR should discuss impacts of project generated noise on the nearby residence. 4. Land Use - What is the potential that Parcel No. 119-231-21 will be "integrate" with the proposed project? If this is currently viewed as a potential portion of the proposed project, this should be so stated and impacts associated with more intensive use of the parcel should be examined in detail. 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach Brantley C August 15, 1983 Page 2. 5. Land Use - It would seem that due to potential impacts, including "increased traffic, noise, etc.", the compatibility of the proposed project with residential uses would be "directly apparent" to a reasonably perceptive individual. The DEIR should state that there will exist a conflict between residential and commercial uses. 6. Land Use - The projects relationship to the Newport Beach General Plan should be examined in detail. 7. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts - The list of long term unavoidable adverse impacts should include impacts on recreation and impacts on housing due to removal of existing units and increased demand from employees of the proposed offices. 8. Alternatives for the Proposed Project - While it is recognized that potential impacts of equestrian activities might significantly affect the environment under certain circumstances, EIR 277 discussed such impacts on a speculative level using such phrases as "may contribute," "no published information is known to confirm this . . . potential," and "it is not known whether." Therefore, on the basis of information included in DEIR's 277 & 430 it cannot be stated with any degree of certainty whether or not "the current equestrian activity has (emphasis added] generated negative impacts to the environment. 9. Growth Inducing Impacts - This section slould discuss "the potential for integration of an adjacent parcel (Assesor's Parcel No. 119-231-21) with the development of the project site" mentioned in the Land Use Section. 10. Wastewater - At the time EIR 277 was certified, sanitary sewers were at or near capacity, and the Costa Mesa Sanitary District was considering alternative methods of increasing service. Can the District currently provide additional service? The City of Newport Beach has received no Notice of Preparation for DEIR 430. As specified under State CEQA Guidelines, a Supplement to an EIR is subject to the same noticing requirements as the original EIR. We will, therefore, consider this only a Preliminary Draft. Upon receipt of the final Draft EIR, the City will provide additional comments. If you have any questions regarding any of these comments please call me at (714) 640-2197. Very truly yours, PLANNING DEPARTMENT JAMESW CKE , Di ct , By FRED TALA ICO ENVIRONMENTAL COORDINATOR FT/jg Enclosure August 12, 19 Mr. Robert Fisher Director of Planning E.M.A. County of Orange P.O. Box 4.048 Santa Ana, CA 92702 190 -�r Re: DEIR 430, Supplement to EIR 277, ZC 82'-^4'--' Planning Commission Hearing August 23, 1983 SCH # 81082010 Dear Mr. Fisher: The process of a General Plan Amendment which would allow rezoning commercial horse stables to office buildings in Santa Ana Heights should not take place at this time. Due to uncertainties regarding John Wayne Airport expansion and the land use proposals in Santa Ana Heights consisting of seven differing plans by the County of Orange, it would be highly unethical to show special favoritism to a certain property owner, namely Holstein Industries (1.7 acres which lies within the approach protection area of JWA). Approving the Holstein's proposed change would be prejudicial and make selection of an unbiased land use plan for this area impossible. This changes Open Space in the Flight Path to office. It is possible this property would have to be purchased if the airport is expanded. Furthermore, Acacia Offices DEIR 430 and EIR 277, prepared by the Planning Center, 240 Newport Center Dr., Newport Beach, Calif., contact person Keeton K. Kreitzer, including the traffic studies prepared by Kunzman Assoc. are incorrect and any decisions based on these documents would be placing an unjust burden on the Community. Sincerely, ct. Erma A. Batham for the Concerned Persons of Santa Ana Heights 20451 Upper Bay Dr. Santa Ana Heights, CA 92707 cc: State Clearinghouse cc: Dept•. of Transportation cc: Division of Aeronautics cc: Orange County Supervisors cc, Judge Bruce Sunnier MURRAYSTORM DIRECTOR, EMA �o• o'CD UNTY OF NIC3/RANGE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT AGENCY PLANNING 811 NORTH BROADWAY SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA (714) 834.4643 June 27, 1983 TO: Distribution List SUBJECT: DEIR 430 (Supplement to EIR 277) Dear Recipient: ROBERT G. FISHER DIRECTOR OF PLANNING MAILING ADDRESS: P.O. BOX 4048 SANTA ANA, CA 92702 FILE DEIR 430 N .Ime�t t i g 1983g1'' VIA?,vxf�(OF IvEWPORS BEAO C 'r. CALIF' I State and County Environmental Impact Report regulations require that in the preparation of environmental documentation for a project, the "Lead Agency" shall consult with all public agencies having juris- diction over such projects and encourage consultation with others who may have special expertise relating to the project. In accordance with these requirements, a copy of the Draft EIR on the subject project is attached for your review and comment concerning both the project and the adequacy of this Draft EIR as it relates to your area of jurisdiction or expertise. Your comments will be incorporated into the EIR as appro- priate prior to finalization. While a specific date for Planning Commission consideration of the Final EIR has not yet been determined, to insure that all comments received during the review process are given due consideration in the Final EIR, we request that your comments be returned to the Environmental Managment Agency, ATTENTION: Environmental Analysis Division, Post Office Box 4048, Santa Ana, California 92702 no later than August 11, 1983. If you have any questions concerning this EIR, or the probable date of its consideration, you may expect prompt and courteous responses by contacting Ray Brantley at (714) 834-5550. Thank you very much for your cooperation and assistance in this matter. Very truly yours, Rk6gLn RHCB/mv Attachment .® 1.(4/81) w!� ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT AGENCY REPORT DATE: March 15, 1982 TO: Orange County Planning Commission FROM: EMA Planning (Advance Planning Division) SUBJECT: Zone Change 82-4 for Oxford Properties (5th District) SYNOPSIS: EMA staff recommends denial of a zone change from the General Agricultural (Sign Restriction) (General Plan Implementation) District to the Professional and Administrative Office (Planned Development) (Sign Restriction) District for 1.7 acres in the Santa Ana Heights area. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant, Oxford Properties, proposes a change of zone from the A-1(SR)(GPI) General Agricultural (Sign Restriction) (General Plan Implementation) District to the PA(PD)(SR) Professional and Administrative Office (Planned Development) (Sign Restriction) District for 1.7 acres at the southwest corner of Orchard Drive and Acacia Street. Approval of the proposal will require a finding of consistency with the General Plan. This finding can satisfy the intent of the GPI combining district and justify removal of the GPI district from the property. BACKGROUND: The presence of a number of planning -related concerns in the Santa Ana Heights area (e.g. transition to higher intensity uses, potential incompatibility of such uses with existing land uses, presence of high noise levels associated with John Wayne Airport, and inconsistencies between zoning and Land Use Element designations) prompted the County of Orange to begin the formulation of a specific plan for the area in October, 1981. Many of the planning assumptions utilized for the Specific Plan were established by the John Wayne Airport Master Plan and associated Airport Noise Control and Land Use Compatibility (ANCLUC) Plan adopted by the Board of Supervisors in February, 1981. The specific plan effort, with the aid of a citizen advisory committee, was well underway until a preliminary court order suspended planning efforts until an adequate Environmental Impact Report was prepared for the Master Plan. Pending completion of the specific plan, EMA and the Planning Commission have discouraged zoning applications to ensure that the preparation of the specific plan was not prejudiced by incremental land use planning decisions. A Orange County Planning Commission Page 2 SUBJECT PROPERTY AND SURROUNDING LANDS: Existing Land Use Existing Zoning LUE Designation Subject Site: Residences/Stables Al(SR) General 5.0 (Open Space) Agricultural (Sign Restriction) North: Golf Courses AI(SR) 5.1 (Recreation) *Office/Institutional Administrative/ Administrative/ Professional Professional Office South: Residence Al(SR) 5.0 (Open Space) East: Residential Al(SR) 1.3 (Medium Density Residential) West: *Golf Course/ Open Space Recreation/Environmental Clubhouse Open Space *Within City of Newport Beach NOTIFICATION/COMMENT FROM OTHERS: Public notices were mailed to property owners of record within a 300 foot radius of the subject property on March 1, 1982, and a public notice was published in the Orange Coast Daily Pilot on March 5, 1982 as required. Additional referral information was sent to the Airport Commission, Airport Land Use Commission, the Civil Aeronautics Board, the Santa Ana Heights Water Company, the City of Newport Beach, and the Costa Mesa Sanitary District. The following comments have been received to date: Airport Land Use Commission: An avigational easement should be granted to the proper authority; height of all structures must conform to Section 7-9-129.3 of the Zoning Code; acoustical insulation is necessary for all building on this site; notice must be given to buyers/tenants of environmental hazards; the use must not pose a hazard to aeronautical operations. Costa Mesa Sanitary District: There is concern over the capacity of the sewer transmission line which serves the area. Three alternatives are submitted: a) Detachment from the Costa Mesa Sanitary District, allowing the County and Newport Beach to handle the increased capacity needs; b) Establish an improve- ment district; c) Require the developer to furnish the needed capacity with reimbursement to the developer as other properties connect. Orange County Planning Commission Page 3 City of Newport Beach: The project site is located within the Newport Beach Sphere of Influence. The Land Use Element of the Newport Beach General Plan . designates the site for Low -Density Residential use. The proposed Professional and Office zoning is in conflict with this designation, and the proposed zone change is not appropriate for the site in question. Other Comments: Letters were received from Santa Ana Heights residents which expressed the following concerns: The change in the residential - equestrian nature of the community; the adequacy and accuracy of the EIR; inconsistency of the proposed zoning with the General Plan; and that action on zone change proposals should await the completion of the Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan. Copies of the letters received are attached. COMPLIANCE WITH CEQA: Draft EIR No. 277 has been prepared for the proposed project to address its environmental impacts and mitigation measures. It will be presented to you for certification as to its completeness and adequacy and for your consideration of the proposed project. GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY: The proposed office use is inconsistent with the General Plan. A copy of the General Plan consistency report is attached. ANALYSIS: Specific Plan Advisory Committee: As discussed in a memo from EMA/Community Planning (see attached), the Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan Advisory Committee recommends denial of ZC 82-4. The committee believes that approval of the proposal would set a precedent by allowing a particular land use in an area where the appropriate specific plan land use designation has not been determined. Furthermore, approval of the proposal would encourage similar rezoning proposals which the committee believes would reduce its ability to comprehensively plan for the area. Cumulative Impact: As mentioned previously, planning activities within the Santa Ana Heights area have been suspended indefinitely due to the recent court ruling. In the interim, several rezoning proposals which would provide for the development of office uses in the Santa Ana Heights area will be before the Planning Commission. Orange County Planning Commission Page 4 Issues associated with individual rezoning actions such as Zone Change 82-4 (i.e., compatibility with high noise levels, compatibility with surrounding land uses, and traffic -related impacts) cannot adequately be evaluated on an isolated basis. The impact of individual proposals could result in undesirable cumulative impacts on the community. Although the specific planning process is temporarily delayed, it is the appropriate mechanism for evaluating land uses in the Santa Ana Heights area. Change in Conditions: Horse stables and commercial recreational uses (subject to a use permit) are currently permitted on the Oxford property. These uses are also consistent with the current Land Use Element designation and site constraints. The applicant has shown no change in conditions which would warrant a reclassification of the site. Precedent Cases: The Planning Commission disapproved other similar zone change requests in the Santa Ana Heights area (i.e., ZC 80-15, 80-24, 81-6). Zone Change 80-15 was appealed to the Baord and again disapproved. There appears to be considerable precedence for denial. RECOMMENDATION: On the basis of the information available on the date this report was prepared, the following findings and actions are recommended: Findings: I. Find that Proposed Final EIR 277 is complete and adequately addresses the environmental impacts of the proposed project. Proposed Final EIR 277 consists of the following elements: A. Draft EIR 277. B. Environmental Analysis report of March 15, 1982. C. Minutes of Planning Commission meeting on the project. D. Comments received on Draft EIR 277 and responses to those comments. II. The various land uses authorized by the proposed zoning regulations are inconsistent with the objectives, policies, general land uses and programs specified by the General Plan, adopted pursuant to the State Planning and Zoning Law; III. The proposed project is incompatible with Section 7-9-119 of the Zoning Code with its objective of planned, orderly, and compatible growth since it may prejudice the outcome of the Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan; Orange County Planning Commission Page 5 IV. The applicant has shown no change in conditions warranting a reclassifcation. Actions: Disapprove Zone Change No. 82-4. Respectfully submitted, r, n peegle, Manager A a Planning Division MT/SL/BGS:sh Contact Person: Steve Lohr (x5380) Attachments: Vicinity Map Land Use Element Map Noise Contour Map Proposed Zoning Map General Plan Consistency Report EMA/Community Planning Memo Supervisor Riley's Memo Letters from Public Agencies Letters from the General Public ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT AGENCY REPORT DATE: MARCH 15, 1982 TO: ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS DIVISION SUBJECT: EIR 277: OXFORD PROPERTIES' ACACIA OFFICES ZONE CHANGE 82-4 CONTACT PERSON: MARK J. GOODMAN -- 834-2071 I. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND Proposed Final Environmental Impact Report 277 has been prepared to address the effects of the development of Acacia Offices, a 1.7 acre, four two-story office complex in the Santa Ana Heights area of unincorporated Orange County. Please refer to the Advance Planning Staff Report for a detailed discussion of the project location and characteristics. II. ANALYSIS Many environmental considerations were identified in the Initial Study and those having a potentially significant adverse impact were addressed in Draft EIR 277. Of these, only those concerns that are more consequential and more deserving of careful review are summarized beloGi. A. Hydrology/water guallty The project site is drained by the Santa Ana - Delhi Flood Control Channel. Project site runoff will increase from the current 3.21 cubic feet per second to 4.29 cubic feet per second. Runoff barriers will be installed to prevent erosion and permeable surfaces will be used to absorb some runoff and asso- ciated pollutants. B. Aesthetics The project site currently contains four residences with outbuildings, horce stables and a riding area. The proposed project calls for construction of four two-story office buildings and a large parking area. Use of natural building materials and landscaping is proposed to help the project blend into the community character. - .. -,-i"K _ 5 V Environmental Management Agency Report March 15, 1982 Page 2 E. Traffic and Circulation Access to the project site is via Acacia street, and current use of the site generates 100 ADT. The proposed project will generate 390 ADT; an increase of 290 ADT. Roadways abutting the project site will be improved to ultimate cross-section. A traffic signal at the Orchard/Irvine intersection is cur- rently warranted, and will remain so after project implementation. F. Air Quality Ambient air quality on and near the site will be impacted by construction acti- vities. After project implementation, stationary and mobile source emissions should total 126 pounds per day (1985). Dust control measures will be uti- lized to minimize short-term impacts. (Note: The air quality figures shown in the Text of EIR 277 are superceded by the figures shown in the Response to Comments Section. (Response to Com- ment from 0. C. ERA/Transportation/Flood Program office - memo of October 29, 1981). Since the submission of Draft EIR 277, the California Air Quality Re- sources Board has updated the mobile source emission factors for specified years. The figures used in the Response to Comments Section represent the utilization of these updated factors.) , G. Noise/Light/Glare/Safety The project site is located approximately 3,500 feet south of John Wayne Air- port and is bisected by the 75 CNEL contour. The project site is also within the Approach Protection Area of the Airport. Special acoustical treatment will be implemented to offset noise impacts, an avigation easement shall be acquired by the Airport, and a Declaration and Notification of Aircraft Noise and En- vironmental Impacts shall be made to prospective purchasers or users. H. Recreation/Open Space The project site is currently used for boarding and training horses. No pub- lic open space exists on -site. Development of the site for office use would eliminate on -site recreational uses and the potential use of the site for open space. Landscaping and design features are intended to buffer the pro- ject from adjacent recreational facilities. I. Land Use and Relevant Planning The site is located within an area designated for office and office related commercial uses on the preliminary County Staff - generated land use plan as presented to the Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan Advisory Committee on Novem- ber 18, 1981. (Note that recent court actions have contrained the County from continuing with its specific planning process in Santa Ana Heights.) A Environmental Management Agency Report March 15, 1982 Page 3 The change of zoning to PA will permit the project, while consistency with a specific plan will resolve conflict with the General Plan. The analysis contained in EIR 277 applies to the environmental impacts of four two-story offices. Any project that may have impacts greater than the project described in the EIR would not comply with CEQA without a supple- mental EIR. The specific zoning requested by the applicant, PA "Professional, and Administrative Office," would allow projects that may have greater im- pacts than those analyzed by the EIR. For example, offices of unlimited height and fast-food restaurants are allowed in the PA District with no fur- ther discretionary review. Therefore, the requested zoning must be.modified in order to be covered by the present EIR. For example, PA with a 35 foot height restriction and a condition requiring a site plan review. Of course, if the project is going to be denied, no CEQA action is required. III. ALTERNATIVES No Project: If the project is not undertaken the adverse effects identified in the EIR will not occur. However, the current use, would remain incompatible with the noise impacts from the Airport, and non -conforming with the General Plan. Alternative Site: If the project were constructed in another location, the impacts would be transferdd with it; the degree of significance of the impacts depend on the specific location. The project site would retain the incompatible and non- conforming uses. Commercial Recreation Use: This project alternative considers the use of the site for an equestrian facility, in response to the number of horse owners in the area. The small size of the project site, the limited number of people bene- fited, and the negative impacts associated with equestrian uses makes this alter- native economically infeasible. IV. COMMENTS Comments received from the following agencies and organizations prior to November 23, 1981 are responded to in the attached Response to Comments Section: 1. Sohn Wayne Airport (Letter of November 13, 1981) 2. Airport Land Use Commission of Orange County (Letter of November 10, 1981) 3. California Department of Transportation (Letter of October 20, 1981) 4. California Regional Water Quality Control Board - Santa Ana Region (Letter of October 23, 1981) 5. Orange County Environmental Management Agency - Transportation/Flood Control Program (Memo of October 29, 1981) 6. ' Orange County Environmental Management Agency - Cultural Resources (Memo of October 15, 1981) 7. City of Newport Beach (Letter of November 15, 1981) Environmental Management Agency Report March 15, 1982 Page 4 V. RECOMMENDATIONS The Environmental Analysis Division recommends that the following findings be made prior to action on the proposed project. A. Find that Proposed Final EIR 277 is complete and adequately addresses the environmental impacts of the proposed project. Proposed Final EIR 277 consists of the following elements: 1. Draft EIR 277. 2. Environmental Analysis report of March 15, 1982. 3. Minutes of Planning Commission meeting on the project. 4. Comments received on Draft EIR 277 and responses to those comments. B. Find that the social and economic benefits of the project, including conver- sion of the site to a less noise sensitive use and provision of additional employment override the adverse impacts on traffic and circulation, air quality, biological resources, hydrology, and aesthetics. Submitted by: Kenneth E. Smith, Manager Environmental Analysis Division MJG:crn/mh CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH P.U. BOX 1768, NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663-3884 (Planning Department - 640-2261) March 3, 1982 Mr. Steven Lohr Land Planning Orange County Environmental Management Agency ' P. 0. Box 4048 Santa Ana, CA 92702 SUBJECT: ZONE CHANGE NO. 82-4 Dear Mr. Lohr:_ The City of Newport Beach appreciates this opportunity to comment upon Zone Change No. 82-4. It is our understanding that the proposal was previously submitted as Zone Change No. 81-21. Copies of the City's correspondence on Zone Change No. 81-21 are enclosed. Also enclosed is a letter from the Costa Mesa Sanitary District regarding severe limitations on sewer service in the project area. As you are aware, the project site is located within the Newport Beach Sphere of Influence. Thus, we are concerned that any development be in conformance with the City's General Plan. The Land Use Element of the Newport Beach General Plan designates the site for Low -Density Residential Use. The proposed Professional and Administrative Office zoning is in conflict with this designation, and the proposed zone change is not appropriate for the site in question. Very truly yours, PLANNING DEPARTMENT JAMES D. HEWICKER, DIRECTOR By lX r (re.�%� wV Robert P. Lenard ' Advance Planning Administrator RL/pw enclosures 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach MURRAYSTORM 16 DIRECTOR. EMA 4 )--OUNTY OF 5 1 R 3 A ),RAN G E ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT AGENCY PLANNING 811 NORTH BROADWAY SANTA ANA. CALIFORNIA 014) 834A643 February 19, 1982 FILE ROBERT G. FISHER DIRECTOR OF PLANNING MAILING ADDRESS: P.O. BOX 4048 SANTA ANA. CA 92702 Re: Change of Zone Case No. ZC 82-4 Applicant: Oxford Properties, Inc. Location: Santa Ana Heights/Orchard Dr. between Irvine Blvd. and Acacia St. Proposal: Al(SR) General Agricultural (Sign Restrictions) to PA(PD) Professional and Administrative Office (Planned Development) Planner Assigned/Phone: Steven`Lohr/834-5380 Please review the attached proposal and return any comments or recommendations which you might care to offer. The proposal was previously submitted as ZC 81-21. We would appreciate additional comments on the proposal. Comments must be returned by the date indicated or they will not be included in the staff analysis and report to the Planning Commission. We will not send revised plans for your review unless significant changes are incorporated in such plans. Please direct your comments to the planner assigned as noted above by March 5, 1982. Thank you for your cooperation. MT:jkj Attachment Very truly yours, Bryan G. Speegle, Manager EMA/Advance Planning sY By: Patrick Lee, Chief Land Planning RECEIV€e'1. X T».;'fi'iin "I1 FEB 2 21982;I-- C' f4 11£S'iJ' n =iCH,, CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH (714) 640-2197 November 13, 1981 Ken Smith, Manager Environmental Analysis Orange County EMA P.O. Box 4048 Santa Ana, CA 92702 RE: Draft EIR Acacia Offices Dear Mr. Smith: The City of Newport Beach appreciates this opportunity to comment on Draft EIR 277, Acacia offices. As indicated in our previous correspondence, the project lies within the Newport Beach Sphere of Influence and is in conflict with the Newport Beach General Plan which designates the site for Law -Density Residential Land Use. As stated in our letter of September 9, 1981, the City does not consider the proposed offices an appropriate use for the site. We have reviewed the DEIR and believe the following comments should be addressed if the document is to be considered adequate: 1. Housing - The DEIR does not address the incremental loss of existing housing stock nor the increased demand for housing generated by employees at the proposed offices. This should be addressed before the EIR proceeds to Final form. 2. Utilities - Since responding to the NOP on this project, the City of Newport Beach has received the attached letter from the Costa Mesa Sanitary District indicating that the sewer system is operating at or near capacity in the area and that improvements would be required to serve any new development in the area. Before the EIR is finalized, this problem should be investigated and solved. 3. Mitigation measures throughout the report are worded in terms of "should" instead of "will". Those mitigations that will actually be implemented should be distinguished from those that are merely suggested, and reasons given for the rejection of those measures not to be implemented. 4. Biological Resources (Page 7) - The DEIR states that "Excrements (sic] from the animals may contribute significantly to ... City Hall • 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California 92663 organic pollutant percolation ...". Please explain this in more detail. Would water in this area percolate to the water table or is it inhibited by soils not conducive to infiltration or blocked by an impervious layer? Do existing groundwater quality data indicate any problems which might be attributed to equestrian activities? 5. Biological Resources (Page 8) - BOD is the accepted abbreviation for biochemical oxygen demand. 6. Archaeology (Page 11) - The DEIR should state that the recommendations stated in the archaeologist's report will be implemented. The EIR should not be finalized; until the archaeological test phase and report are complete. 7. Paleontological Resources (Page 13) - As a mitigation measure, it should be stated that if any resources are uncovered during site preparation, the area will be flagged off and thoroughly investigated before work proceeds. 8. Hydrology/Water Quality - Are local storm drainage facilities adequate to handle increased runoff? 9. Hydrology/Water Quality - Increased erosion due to increased runoff in unimproved drainages should be investigated as a part of the EIR and appropriate mitigation measures required. 10. Hydrology/water Quality (Page 15) - Please explain the basis of the statement that "As a non -street impervious surface, its annual accumulation [of pollutants] should be much less." 11. Hydrology/Water Quality (Page 15) - If parking lot runoff is diverted onto adjacent permeable surfaces, as suggested in the DEIR, what will be the effects on erosion in these permeable areas? 12. Hydrology/Water Quality (Page 15) - Is the use of porous paving material practical for this project? 13. Visual/Aesthetic Quality - Photos of the existing site should be included with an overlay showing the proposed project. 14. Visual Quality/Aesthetics - What will be the height of the proposed structure? 15. Visual Quality/Aesthetics (Pages 18 & 19) - The site renderings should be revised to show the proposed structure in the context of the surrounding residential area. This would better reveal the project's scale and relationship to the surrounding area. 16. Visual Quality/Aesthetics - As a mitigation measure, it should be required that a landscape plan be submitted by the applicant and rode subject to County approval. 17. Traffic and Circulation - The discussion of intersection utilization does not include previously approved projects which will contribute significant amounts of traffic to local intersections when completed. At the same tip, it does not include already committed improvements which might help alleviate congestion inthe area. In order to adequately assess impacts on local roadways this should be included. in addition, the ICU analysis does not include yellow time. The City of Newport Beach usually expects 10 percent of the light cycle to be in yellow time. 18. Traffic and Circulation - An analysis of potential vehicle conflicts with pedestrian and equestrian circulation should be included. 19. Air Quality (Page 26) - If 1980 air quality summaries are available, they should be presented. 20. Air Quality - Impacts related to potential air pollution hot spots at congested intersection need to be examined as part of the EIR. 21. Air Quality (Page 27) - It seems that Table 2, "Project Emissions" should be included under Impacts rather than under Existing Conditions. Please clarify whether the table represents emissions associated with the existing site or the proposed project and whether the table represents emissions from mobile or stationary sources or both. Rather than show emissions as a percentage of SCAB emissions, it might be more informative to show emissions as a percent of those in the Orange County sub -basin. 22. Air Quailty (Page 29) - The statement that "the proposed project will result in the addition of only 20 pounds of contaminants daily" is misleading in that it applies only to stationary source emissions. This should be clarified and the total of emissions from all sources should be presented. 23. Noise/Light/Glare/Safety - Noise impacts of commercial development on residences should be examined. This should include a discussion of the potential for increased traffic noise as well as noise from the proposed project site. 24. Noise/Light/Glare/Safety - Will the project result in increased hazards to young people riding horses in the area? 25. Recreation/Open Space (Page 43) - It should be pointed out that because horseback riding in the residential area "would be unacceptable in most other neighborhoods in the County" the equestrian nature of the community is a unique and valuable resource on which any impacts must be viewed as highly significant. Any conflicts between the existing equestrian uses and the proposed development should be examined in detail before the EIR is finalized. 26. Land Use and Relevant Planning Programs - Because the subject property is in the Newport Beach Sphere ,of Influence, the proposed project should be analyzed in light of the Newport Beach General Plan, which designates the site for low density residential use. This conflict should be examined in detail and the proposed project should be reviewed in terms of the various elements of the Newport Beach General Plan and Draft Local Coastal Program. 27. Land Use and Relevant Planning (Page 49) - Is is not reasonable to expect a reviewer to believe that an office building would be useful as a buffer between houses and a golf course. This section should be carefully reviewed as it is not adequate. 28. Land Use and Relevant Planning - The Draft EIR does not address the potential that approval of the proposed project has to prejudice the preparation of the Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan. This and the relationship of the proposed project to the preliminary recommendations of the Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan Advisory Comaittee should be addressed in the Final EIR. 29. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts - This section is not adequate in that Unavoidable Adverse Impacts on Land Use, Recreation, and Housing are not discussed. 30. Alternatives (Page ' 53) - The DEIR states that the no project alternative is not in the best interests of the citizens of the County." Please explain the justification for this statement and explain which "citizens" are implied. Those who live along Acacia and Orchard? Those who keep horses in the area? 31. Alternatives (Page 54) - The DEIR states that "As discussed in the Biology section, the current equestrian boarding activity has generated negative impacts to the environment." Yet, the terminology in the Biology section is confined to phrases such as "may contribute" and "It is not known whether...". Justification for the statement on Page 54 should be provided if it is retained in the Final EIR. 32. Alternatives (Page 55) - While the 'Health Department identifies dust and vector control as potential problems which equestrian uses, Health Department also suggests means of controlling these problems. These should be discussed in the EIR. 33. Alternatives (Page 55) - The DEIR mentions potential conflicts between equestrian activities and future development. Due to the proliferation of equestrian uses in Santa Ana Heights and the uniqueness of this resource, it would be desirable to plan future development to accomrodate the equestrian use. It hardly seems logical to introduce a new use, inconsistent with the General Plan for the area in order to be compatible with other non-existent uses equally inconsistent with the General Plan 4 while at the same time increasing conflicts with existing equestrian uses in the area. Thus, this conflict should not be used as a reason for dismissal of the equestrian alternative in the EIR. 34. Short-term Uses and Long-term Productivity (Page 56) - The DEIR states that "the project site in its present state is not of great value to the surrounding com unity except as it provides equestrian recreation facilities and limited residential use." Please explain why housing and the unique equestrian use in the area is not considered of great value. 35. Growth Inducing Impacts - The conversion of residential land to cony ercial use should be analyzed in terms of its inducement of further conversions and its effect on land use designations in the Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan now being prepared. The effect of the conversion on the orange County Airport and on ANCLUC plans should be examined in the light of its inducement to further airport growth, i.e., the reduction of residential development which could reduce conflicts with the airport and potentially accelerate airport growth. 36. Growth Inducing Impacts (Page 58) - The DEIR states that "the proposed project will continue the current trend... of redeveloping residential parcels to... office/professional uses." on what is this statement based? The area is almost exclusively residential and agricultural, the exceptions being the strips along Bristol Street and Irvine Avenue north of Acacia, which have been designated coimiercial since at least 1973. A drive through the area reveals no "trend" toward commercial development elsewhere in eastern Santa Ana Heights. As currently submitted, DEIR 277 does not respond to a number of issues raised by the City of Newport Beach in its response to the NOP. We will, therefore, consider this only a Preliminary Draft. Upon receipt of the final Draft EIR, the City will provide additional conments. If you have any questions regarding any of these comrents please call me at (714) 640-2197. Very truly yours, - PLANNING DEPARTr'= JAMES D. HEWICIM, Director �✓LC C� /Il.�}� F� - FRED TALARICO Environmental Coordinator FT:nma Comments received from the City of Newport Beach (letter (� e�ri,^;�i from James D. Hewicker, Planning Department Director, to o2a' 1� Ken Smith, OCEMA dated November 13, 1981). 1 •P��tJ G�, Comment 1: Housing - The DEIR does not address the incremental loss of existing housing stock nor the increased demand for housing generated by employees at the proposed offices. This should be addressed before the EIR proceeds to Final form. Response: As shown in the Existing Plot Plan, DEIR Exhibit 3 (p. 4), four homes will be demolished to clear the site for the proposed project. These represent less than one one - thousandth of one percent of the existing housing stock in the County of Orange estimated to be 737,578 units by the California Department of Finance as of January 1, 1981. Assuming an average of 375 square feet of office per employee, the 26,000 square foot project will contain approximately 69 employees. This suggests a potential of - a 69 dwelling unit demand for housing. Residential build- ing permits totaled 6,974 in 1980, a sixteen, year low. The 69 DU potential demand equals 1.0% of the total 1980 l� residential permits. This should be considered the maxi- mum impact because of the assumptions that all employees will generate new housing demand and the very low 1980 residential building permit total. In the first three months of 1981 these permits totaled 3,252, a 39.4 percent increase over the same period of 1980 and the sixteen year average (1965-1980) is 11,904 permits per year. (Statistical source: Orange County Progress Report 19.81- 82 vo1. 18.) Comment 2: Utilities - Since responding to the NOP on this project, the City of Newport Beach has received the attached letter from the Costa Mesa Sanitary District indficating that the sewer system is operating at or near capacity in the area and that improvements would be required to serve any new development in the area. Before the EIR is finalized, this problem should be investigated and solved. Response: The letter from the Costa Mesa Sanitary District forwarded by the City of Newport Beach (dated October 13, 1981) represents the current position of the District. Tele- phone conversations with Bruce Mattern, District Manager, 30 confirm the potential problem of supplying sewer service to this and other projects in the area which are placing more intense uses on the land. The District currently does not have the financial ability to construct addition- al facilities. The District Board is currently reviewing new ordinances regarding fees and new facility construc- tion financing. The alternatives stated in the letter are being considered: anitary 1p which would alIowhtheCosta CountyeSands Newport Beachto handle the increased capacity needs. 2. Establish an improvement district, such as the Improvement District Acts of 1911, 1915, 1913 provide. 3. Require the first developer to furnish at his expense the needed capacity and then by agreement, provide that the developer would be reimbursed as other prop- erties develop and/or redevelop and connect to the new facility. The District Management feels the District would be unable to provide a will serve letter or list conditions to be met for such a letter until March 1982, when the new ordinances and existing conditions have been sufficiently evaluated. Because of these conditions, the letter from the District to the project proponent, (dated 10/22/80) offering a will serve letter and specifying improvements is no longer valid. The project must be re-evaluated under the new criteria to be adopted by the District in the near future. (Telephone conversation with Bruce Mattern, District Manager 1/28/82.) Comment 3: Mitigation measures throughout the report are worded in terms of "should" instead of "will". Those mitigations that will actually be implemented should be distinguished from those that are merely suggested, and reasons given for the rejection of those measures not to be implemented. Response: Mitigation measures which are currently a part of the project as proposed are included in the report and worded as "will" or "shall". Other mitigation measures which are proposed or suggested by the EIR preparers are worded as "should" or "could". These measures can be implemented by conditional approvals requiring specific actions or fea- tures. It is the purpose of public and administrative re- view of development proposals, via EIR or other documenta- tion, to determine those additional mitigation measures 31 from the list of those recommended or suggested which will provide adequate protection to the environment from devel- opment impacts. Adequacy in this regard is determined by the appropriate government body, i.e., Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors. Comment 4: Biological Resources (Page 7) - The DEIR states that "Excrements [sic] from the animals may contribute signifi- cantly to . organic pollutant percolation Please explain this in more detail. Would water in this area percolate to the water table or is it inhibited by soils not conducive to infiltration or blocked by an impervious layer? Do existing groundwater quality data indicate any problems which might be attributed to equestrian activi- ties? Response: As stated in the Biological Resources section of the' DEIR, such organic pollutants as animal excrement, generated on -site, may reach Upper Newport Bay via surface runoff or through water table contamination. No published informa- tion is known to exist to confirm this existing potential water pollutant mechanism. Should such materials reach Upper Newport Bay, they would contribute to accelerated algae growth and eutrophication within the estuary eco- system. It should be noted that currently exists on th proposed project would a, potential beneficial Comment 5: e this possible pollutant mechanism site. The implementation of the eliminate it and must be considered impact of the proposed project. Biological Resources (Page 8) - BOD is the accepted abbre- viation for biochemical oxygen demand. Response: This comment is noted. According to Webster's New Colle fate Dictionary, BOD is an acceptable a revia ion for o biochemicaland biological oxygen demand, The DEIR follows the biological consultant's usage in the Biological Assessment of the project site. Comment 6: Archaeology (Page 11) - The DEIR should state that the recommendations stated in the archaeologist's report will be implemented. The EIR should not be finalized until the archaeological test phase and report are complete. 1.1 11 Response: The County of Orange has established procedures to insure significant archaeological or paleontological resources are preserved. These proecedures are incorporated in the Standard Conditions of Approval, administered by the Orange County EMA, Regulation. Should the project be approved, it will be subject to these conditions which are consistent with those in the archaeologist's report. Processing of the EIR should not be halted to await such a test phase and report which are specifically addressed at another phase of development proposal processing under the County's jurisdiction. Comment 7: Paleontological Resources (Page 13) - As a mitigation measure, it should be stated that if any resources are uncovered during site preparation, the area will be flagged off and thoroughy investigated before work pro- ceeds. Response: As noted in the response to the previous comment, the County has specific guidelines to insure the preservation of significant cultural/scientific features found on site. The Standard Conditions of Approval state: "If the cultural/scientific features are found to be sig- nificant, the cultural/scientific resource observer shall determine appropriate actions, in cooperation with the project developer, which insure that the resources will not be destroyed before exploration and/or salvage." Comment 8: Hydrology/Water Quality - Are local storm drainage facili- ties adequate to handle increased runoff? Response: Local storm drainage facilities are adequate to handle the increased run-off of approximately 1.08 CFS. This repre- sents a 0.097 percent increase in total flow within the Santa Ana - Delhi Flood Control Channel located approxi- mately 1000 feet to the west. Although a drainage plan has not yet been prepared for the project, the increased runoff is not expected to significantly impact any exist- ing drainage facility. 33 Comment 9: c Hydrology/Water Quality - Increased erosion due to in- creased runoff in unimproved drainages should be investi- gated as a part of the EIR and appropriate mitigation measures required. Response: The project, if ,approved, will be subject to the rules, procedures and interpretations of the Orange County Grading and Excavation Code known as the Orange County Grading Manual. This manual contains the standards and requirements to which development projects in the County are held. In reference to this comment regarding the potential for increased erosion in unimproved drainages, the Grading Manual states: "All drainage facilities shall be designed to carry waters to the nearest: practicable drainage way approved by the Building Official and/or other appropriate jurisdiction as a safe place to deposit such water. Erosion of ground in the area of discharge shall be prevented by installation of non -erosive downdrains, riprap, energy dissipators or other approved devices including a return of flow to a natural sheet flow condition." (Section 11.3) Conformance to this provision will be determined at the time of grading plan review and approval. In addition the County's Standard Conditions of Approval state that: "The following improvements shall be designed and con- structed in accordance with plans and specifications meet- ing the approval of the Assistant Director, EMA, Develop- ment: "All provisions for surface drainage, including a drainage study evidencing that proposed drainage patterns will not overload existing storm drains. All necessary storm drain facilities extnding to a satisfactory point of disposal for the proper control and disposal of storm runoff and the necessary easements therefore shall be dedicated to the County of Orange. "The developer shall submit to the Assistant Director, EMA, Development, detailed drainage studies indicating how the tract grading in conjunction with the drainage convey- ance systems including applicable swales, channels, street flows, catch basis, storm drains and flood water retarding 34 N will allow building pads to be safe from inundation from rainfall runoff which may be expected from all storms up it to and including the theoretical 1000-year flood." Although these conditions are not applied to the project at the current stage of processing, the existence of such requirements at later stages should provide adequate assurance that such potential impacts will be sufficiently mitigated, when 1the detailed plans are developed, via codified ordinances. Comment 10: Hydrology/Water Quality (Page 15) - Please explain the basis of the statement that "As a non -street impervious surface, its annual accumulation [of pollutants] should be much less." Response: The comment refers to a statement that a parking lot is expected to accumulate less solid wastes which are then washed into drainages than a street. This statement is _taken from the Biological Assessment where it is sourced to 208 Areawide Waste Treatment nn aaem_en�t Planning Program by Pomeroy, ohnston, and a y�r9T7. This statement is based on the fact that a parking lot is not subject to the traffic which a street is, and the associated deposition of solids. These include oil and gas deposits from leaking vehicles, rubber, asbestos from brake linings, litter and debris lost in transport. A parking lot while subject to some of the same impacts, likely receives regular cleaning more thorough than that given roadways and does not receive equal amounts of such deposits for an equal area. Comment 11: Hydrology/Water Quality (Page 15) - If parking lot runoff is diverted onto adjacent permeable surfaces, as suggested in the DEIR, what will be the effects on erosion in these permeable areas? Response: Such areas will receive runoff only at a rate acceptable under County standards which require erosion protection. See response to comment 9. Comment 12: Hydrology/Water Quality (Page 15) - Is the use of porous paving material practical for this project? 35 a Response: The use of porous paving material, such as gravel, in vehicle circulation areas, i.e., parking lot, is not prac- tical. However, portions of the pedestrian circulation areas could contain such materials and reduce increased storm runoff from the improved property. Comment 13: Visual/Aesthetic Quality - Photos of the existing site should be included with an overlay showing the proposed proj ect . Response: Photos of the existing site are included in Appendix B, Archaeological/Paleontological Investigation. The exist- ing conditions portion of the Visual/Aesthetic Quality Section also provides a complete narrative describing the site and adjacent environment. The Site Plan and Eleva- tions, DEIR Exhibits 4, 5, and 6, with the narrative con- tained within the potential impacts section provide a com- prehensive description of the proposed structures and their location. Additional information is not required for the reader to adequately assess the visual qualities of the site as it currently exists and the proposed proj- ect . Comment 14: Visual Quality/Aesthetics - What will be the height of the proposed structure? Response: The structures are proposed to be two stories or approxi- mately twenty-five feet in height. Comment 15: Visual Quality/Aesthetics (Page 18 & 19) - The site ren- derings should be revised to show the proposed structure in the context of the surrounding residential areas. This would better reveal the project's scale and relationship to the surrounding area. Response: See response to Comment 13. Comment 16: Visual Quality/Aesthetics - As a mitigation measure, it Should be required that a landscape plan be submitted by the applicant and made subject to County approval. 36 Y Response: 10 According to Dave Maynard, Chief EMA/Area Site Planning, landscape plans are routinely required for developments such as this. The requirement is made a condition of approval by the Planning Commission based upon EMA staff recommendation. It is his opinion that this project would be subject to such a condition if approved by the Planning Commission. (Based on telephone conversation: 1/29/82.) Comment 17: Traffic and Circulation - The discussion of intersection utilization does not include previously approved projects which wit*1 contribute significant amounts of traffic to local intersections when completed. At the same time, it does not include already committed improvements which might help alleviate congestion in the area. In order to adequately assess impacts on local roadways this should be included. In addition, the ICU analysis does not include yellow time. The City of Newport Beach usually expects 10 percent of the light cycle to be in yellow time. Response: ! Information regarding previously approved projects which would contribute traffic to the DEIR 277 area along with any roadway improvements has been obtained from the City of Newport Beach and'is discussed below. The City of Newport Beach provides Intersection Capacity Utilization information based upon existing plus committed project Is traffic. The list of committed projects include: 10 Aeronutronic Ford Backbay Office ' Boyle Engineering Civic Plaza Corporate Plaza Koll Center Newport Campus/MacArthur National Education Office North Ford Orchard Office Pacific Mutual Plaza 3701 Birch Office Newport Place Shokrian Bayside Square Sea Island Baywood Apartments Harbor Point Homes Roger's Gardens Seaview Lutheran Plaza Marriott Expansion The above projects cause the intersections on Bristol and Campus to have an evening peak hour operation as follows: 37 --Bristol Street North/Campus Drive - 1.12 percent --Bristol Street/Irvine Avenue - .84 percent Other intersections along the Corona Del Mar Freeway r Corridor on Bristol are operating at 1.01 percent or bet- ter. Whenever project traffic, committed development traffic, and regional growth traffic are added to the Bristol - Campus intersections the following evening peak hour intersection capacity utilization result: --Bristol Street North/Campus Drive - 1.48 percent --Bristol Street/Irvine Avenue - .99 percent In accordance with the procedures of the City of Newport Beach Traffic Phasing Ordinance, both the "One Percent Traffic Volume Analysis" sheets and the "Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis" for the Bristol -Campus intersections sheets are included with this response. Previously approved City of Newport Beach projects have recommended new lane configurations for the Bristol inter- sections at Campus Drive and Irvine Avenue. These changes would add: --One southbound right tur'h lane and one combination through lane, right turn lane to the north leg of the Bristol -Campus intersection. --One southbound through lane to the north and south legs of the Bristol -Irvine intersection. Lane additions as discussed above would cause the inter- sections to operate at the following evening peak hour intersection capacity utilization percentages: --Bristol Street North/Campus Drive - 1.48 percent --Bristol Street/Irvine Avenue - .87 percent The reason there is no change in Bristol Street North/ Campus Drive intersection capacity utilization after improvements have been added is due to the fact that the heaviest movement - southbound right, did not receive additional lane capacity. The intersections on Bristol along the Corona Del Mar Freeway Corridor have evening peak hour operations ranging from 63 percent to 112 percent. Any project along the corridor wall will impact intersection.capacity utiliza- tion. There are recommended lane configurations which, by adding lanes, will assist in intersection capacity utili- zation reduction. [cI Y 11 The completion of the Corona Del Mar Freeway between Campus and Jamboree will further reduce intersection capacity utilization along Bristol. In discussions with CalTrans staff, it was indicated that the freeway link between Campus and Jamboree has funding for fiscal year 1983-184, with a three year construction schedule antici- pated. (Source: Kunzman Associates) Comment 18: Traffic and Circulation - An analysis of potential vehicle conflicts with pedestrian and equestrian circulation should be included. Response: With regard to pedestrian circulation/traffic conflicts, the on -site conditions are considered typical of office and/or commercial development, .therefore, pedestrian - vehicle conflict is assumed to be at a minimum. To minimize the vehicle -equestrian conflicts, the follow- ing measures may be taken: --Post an "Equestrian Crossing" sign at the project access facing outbound project traffic. --Post "Equestrian Warning" signs along Acacia Avenue and Orchard Drive. (Source: Kunzman Associates) Comment 19: Air Quality (Page 26) - If 1980 air quality summaries are available, they should be presented. Response: Air quality summaries for 1980 are presented below: n 39 Number of Days State Standards Were Exceeded and Annual Maximum Hourly Averages (1980) CARBON SULFUR NITROGEN OZONE MONOXIDE DIOXIDE DIOXIDE Station Location Days Max. Days Max. Days Max. Days Max. Anaheim 68 0.28 23 26 0 .019 17 0.43 La Habra 106 0.31 3 25 0 .023 5 0.42 Costa Mesa 20 0.16 2 17 0 .017 2 0.31 E1 Toro 65 0.34 NM NM NM NM NM NM Los Alamitos 49 0.22 NM NM 0 .029 NM NM Santa Ana C. 89 0.33 NM NM 0 .010 NM NM a0ays - number of days exceeding state standard for indicated pollutant. aMax. - single highest 1-hour (for S02 24-hour) average of the year in parts per million. NM - Not Measured. SOURCE. California Air Quality Data (1980); California Air Resources Board "Summary of Air Qua I ity in the South Coast Air Basin of California 1979. Comment 20: Air Quality - Impacts related to potential air pollution hot spots at congested intersection need to be examined as part of the EIR. ' Response: This comment addresses the potential for carbon monoxide buildup at a congested intersection. These impacts are most usually associated with very high volumes of traffic (>200,000 ADT), congested on highways below grade and hot days with little wind. Intersections near the project are not likely to meet these criteria and are not expected to generate carbon monoxide hot spots. A worst case analysis has been calculated for the most congested and heavily trafficked intersection impacted by the project: Campus and North Bristol. The analysis technique used here is described in the Air Quality Handbook for Environmental Impact Reports, SCAQMD p. 37). Ys analysis assumes wors meteorologic conditions of one meter per second wind speed and a 22-1/2 degree angle between wind -direction and highway direction. The concen- tration is estimated for a location 50 feet from the down- wind edge of the highway, at grade. The vehicle mix con- tains 10 percent heavy duty vehicles (over 6,000 pounds gross weight). This method is assumed accurate for 1980. 40 r The traffic report estimates a total ADT of 60,000 through the intersection in question. The peak hour is assumed to be the worst congested period and to contain 10 percent of the total ADT. Thus, for this analysis the intersection is assumed to handle a 6,009 one -hour volume at an aver- age speed of 10 mph. Based on all of •these assumptions the carbon monoxide concentration is calculated to be 25 parts per million (ppm) at the sampling location. The California one -hour standard is 40 ppm. It should be noted that SCAQMO data indicate a prevailing 6-8 mph wind in the afternoon at this location. A 6 mph wind (2.8 meters per second) would reduce the concentration by 70 percent which would be 17.5 ppm at the observation point. Comment 21: Air Quality (Page 27), - It seems that Table 2, "Project Emissions" should be included under Impacts rather than under 'Existing Conditions. Please clarify whether the table represents emissions associated with the existing site or the proposed project and whether the table repre- sents emissions from mobile or stationary sources or both. Rather than show emissions as a percentage of SCAB emis- sions, it might be more informative to show emissions as a percent of those in the Orange County sub -basin. itResponse: Table 2 should be included in the potential impacts sec- tion. The table indicates total emissions (stationary and mobile) associated with the proposed project as a percent- age of forecast emissions for Orange County in 1987. Project emissions compared with those in the Orange County sub -basin for 1987 are given below. Project Emissions Compared with Orange County (Forecast for 1987) CO NO sox TSP THC Project* .03868 .00985 .00730 .00188 .00406 Orange Co.* 737 107 10 16 93 Project Percentage of O.C. .005% .009% .073% .012% .004% *tons per day SOURCE: Orange County 1982 Forecast - telephone conversation with Mike Nazemi - May 22, 1981. 80 Comment 22: Air Quality (Page 29) - The statement that "the proposed project will result in the addition of only 20 pounds of contaminants daily" is misleading in that it applies only to stationary source emissions. This should be clarified and the total of emissions from all sources should be presented. Response: The comment is correct in that in the 20 pound figure cited does only include stationary source emissions. Com- bining this figure with the mobile source emissions given in the response to Comment A from Orange EMA/Transporta- tion/Flood Program Office yields the following total emis- sions: Total Emissions Stationary and Mobile Source) YEAR EMISSIONS 1982 206.9 pounds per day 1985 145.6 pounds per day 1987 122.6 pounds per day 1990 104.8 pounds per day 1995 94.3 pounds per day 2000 70.2 pounds per day Comment 23: Noise/Light/Glare/Safety - Noise impacts of commercial development on residences should be examined. This should include a discussion of the potential for increased traf- fic noise as well as noise from the proposed project site. Response: Except for increased traffic, the activities occurring on an office commercial site are not expected to generate noise greater than the current land use. An increase of 290 ADT is expected to make no calculable noise impact on adjacent properties. The overwhelming noise concern for all properties in the area is jet aircraft noise. Comment 24: Noise/Light/Glare/Safety - Will the project result in increased hazards to young people riding horses in the area? E E 11 42 a 5 0 Response: Increased traffic in the area could increase the potential hazard to all equestrian activities occurring on public roadways. See response to comment 18 for suggested miti- gation measures. Comment 25: Recreation/Open Space (Page 43) - It should be pointed out that because horseback riding in the residential area "would be unacceptable in most other neighborhoods in the County" the equestrian nature of the community is a unique and valuable resource on which any impacts must be viewed as highly significant. Any conflicts between the existing equestrian uses and the proposed development should be examined in detail before the EIR is finalized. Response: Conflicts between the existing equestrian uses and the proposed project are discussed in the EIR sections: Traffic and Circulation and Recreation/Open Space. 'This existing use is a unique and valuable resource which should be protected from encroaching urbanization where possible. These concerns are part of the input being pro- vided in the production of the Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan. For a discussion of this project's relationship to that Plan see response to comment from John Wayne Airport. Comment 26: Land Use and Relevant Planning Programs - Because the sub- ject property is in the Newport Beach Sphere of Influence, the proposed project should be analyzed in light of the Newport Beach General Plan, which designates the site for low' density residential use. This conflict should, be examined in detail and the proposed project should be reviewed in terms of the various elements of the Newport Beach General Plan and Draft Local Coastal Program., Response: The project site is not located within the Coastal Zone, hence, the elements of the Santa Ana Heights Draft Local Coastal Program are not directly applicable. Development of the proposed project is not in conflict with any of the policies stated in the Local Coastal Program. The Newport Beach Land Use Element designates the subject property Low Density Residential with which the proposed use would conflict. If annexation were to occur the pro- posed project would be inconsistent with the General Plan 5191 Land Use Element designation. The Noise Element of the City's General Plan specifies: the maximum allowable ex- terior noise level is 65 CNEL; maximum allowable interior noise level is 45 CNEL, for residential uses. Under this standard the current use and General Plan designated use are both non -conforming to the City's General Plan because of noise impacts from the airport. The City has no simi- lar standard for commercial or industrial uses within the City. The proposed project would be consistent with the City's Plan in this regard. These facts demonstrate a current inconsistency between the elements of the City's General Plan and operations at John Wayne Airport. Assuming operations at John Wayne Airport continue, at least at their current level, the land use designation of the City's General Plan cannot be implemented. The proj- ect as proposed, is consistent with other elements of the City's General Plan. Comment 27: Land Use and Relevant Planning (Page 49) - It is not reasonable to expect a reviewer to believe that an office building would be useful as a buffer between houses and a golf course. This section should be carefully reviewed as it is not adequate. Response: Although office buildings in general may not be thought of as useful buffers between these uses, the scale and character of the proposed project makes such a function t possible. As noted in the DEIR, the adjacent Newport - Irvine Center building would not serve such a function due to its steel and glass construction in a very urban style. Such a structure would be out of place in a primarily natural setting such as between residential uses and a golf course. The building is in sharp contrast to adja- cent structures on its site near the proposed project. The proposed project, howver, utilizes natural building materials and landscaping to create a setting more in harmony with adjacent uses. By minimizing the visual impacts, the proposed use can provide buffer functions such as protection from early morning maintenance or recreation activities noise and struck golf balls that may leave the course, without seriously detracting from the overall character and quality of the environment. 11 M Comment 28: ® Land Use and Relevant Planning - The Draft EIR does not address the potential that approval of the proposed proj- ect has to prejudice the preparation of the Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan. This and the relationship of the proposed project to the preliminary recommendations of the Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan Advisory Committee should be addressed in the Final EIR. Response: The project's relationship to the Santa Ana Heights Speci- fic Plan is discussed in the response to comments received from John Wayne Airport. Comment 29: Unavoidable• Adverse Impacts - This section is not adequate in that Unavoidable Adverse Impacts on Land Use, Recrea- tion, and Housing are not discussed. Pesponse: Project approval will require a land use decision by responsible governing and administrative bodies. Prior to this decision, analysis regarding the proposed land will be undertaken, as demonstrated in this document, to deter- mine impacts. As has been stated, the project is consist- ent with the current draft land use plan for the Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan and the potential impacts on adja- cent uses has been discussed. The proposed project and the uses proposed by other plans, Orange County General Plan, Newport Beach General Plan have been discussed in the DEIR and in response to comment 26. It is not evident that unavoidable adverse impact. in, the area of Land Use will occur with project approval. An unavoidable impact to existing housing stock will occur as discussed in response to comment 1. An unavoidable adverse impact to equestrian recreation facilities will occur and is discussed in the response to comment 25. Comment 30: Alternatives (Page 53) - The DEIR states that the "no project alternative is not in the best interests of the citizens of the County." Please explain the justification for this statement and explain which "citizens" are • implied. Those who live along Acacia and Orchard? Those who keep horses in the area? 45 Response: The no project alternative would continue residential uses S in an environment in which new residential development would not be allowed due to the noise impacts from the John Wayne Airport. The Noise Elements of both the City of Newport Beach and the County of Orange indicate such. The no project alternative is not in the interest of citizens who demand jet air transportation from John Wayne Airport, desire, a healthy living environmental for all residences and require office space for business activities. Those who currently enjoy keeping their horses on the property will not be benefited when this opportunity is lost, if the project is constructed. Comment 31: Alternatives (Page 54) - The DEIR states that "As dis- cussed in the Biology section, the current equestrian boarding activity has generated negative impacts to the environment." Yet, the terminology in the Biology section is confined to phrases such as "may contribute" and "It is not known whether...". Justification for the statement on Page 54 should be provided if it is retained in the Final EIR. Response: The statement assumes some of th,e negative impacts dis- cussed in the Biology section do occur. These impacts are sufficiently numerous and severe that their consideration is justified even though they are not quantified or pre- cisely determined in the DEIR. The three sentences fol- lowing the statement quoted in the comment explain these concerns and are quoted below. "Excrements from the horses may contribute significantly to the scenario of organic pollutant percolation in the area; potentially reaching Upper Newport Bay. Additional- ly, because of food resources made available through the stable operation, house mice, roof rats and Norway rats may live on the site. The County Health Department Requirements for Commercial Stables also identifies dust control and vector control as potential problem areas." Comment 32: Alternatives (Page 55) - While the Health Department iden- tifies dust and vector control as potential problems which equestrian uses, Health Department also suggests means of controlling these problems. These should be discussed in the EIR. 40 Response: These potential problems were raised to indicate possible nuisance problems associated with equine stabling. The Health Department maintains operating standards for such operations to control these potential nuisances. These include general construction and maintenance requirements, proper manure management, food storage requirements, a program of continuous dust control, vector control and general cleanliness and sanitation provisions. Vigorous enforcement of the equine stable regulations will provide a compatible and healthful environment. However, these potential nuisance sources can become real when these standards are not strictly maintained and enforced. (Reference: Equine Standards for Commercial Stables Pursuant to Resolution No. 76-1610 Orange County Board of Supervisors October 26, 1976). Comment 33: Alternatives (Page 55) - The DEIR mentions potential con- flicts betweeen equestrian activities and future develop- ment. Due to the proliferation of equestrian uses in Santa Ana Heights and the uniqueness of this resource, it would be desirable to plan future development to accommo- date the equestrian use. It hardly seems logical to introduce a new use, inconsistent with the General Plan for the area in order to be compatible with other non- existent uses equally inconsistent with the General Plan while at the same time increasing conflicts with existing equestrian uses in the area. Thus, this conflict should not be used as a reason for dismissal of the equestrian alternative in the EIR. Response: As noted, the proposed project is consistent with the cur- rent draft of the Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan, a plan designated to supersede the current Orange County General Plan designations for the area. This plan preserves sig- nificant areas for continued equestrian/residential uses predominantly adjacent to Newport Back Bay and in the interior portions of the area away from heavily trafficked streets such as Bristol Street and Irvine Avenue. It should be noted that the equestrian alternative is dis- missed due to numerous conflicts and problems not solely due to General Plan conflicts. Comment 34: Short-term Uses and Long-term Productivity (Page 56) - The DEIR states that "the project site in its present state is not of great value to the surrounding community except as 47 it provides equestrian recreation facilities and limited residential use." Please explain why housing and the unique equestrian use in the area is not considered of great value. Response: As noted in the DEIR, the project site receives signifi- cant noise impacts to such a degree that new residential development would not be allowed on the site by either the County of Orange or the City of Newport Beach. Housing in such a location would not seem to be of great value or worthy of preservation. The equestrian facilities on the site are valuable to the Limited number of persons who are able to use them. In this context, the unique value of the site in its present use is evident, however, to the majority of the County's citizens this resource is inconsequential. Comment 35: Growth Inducing Impacts - The conversion of residential land to commercial use should be analyzed in terms of its inducement of further conversions and its effect on land use designations in the Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan now being prepared. The effect of the conversion on the Orange County Airport and on ANCLUC plans should be examined in the light of its inducement to further airport growth, i.e., the reduction of residential development which could reduce conflicts with the airport and poten- tially accelerate airport growth. Response: It is very unlikely that the addition of 26,000 square feet of professional/administrative office (69 employees) will affect, to any measurable extent, the number of pas- sengers using John Wayne Airport. The past airport expan- sion created conflicts with adjacent land uses. These conflicts will not prevent further airport expansion, just as they did not prevent the expansion to current operation levels, generating the conflicts. The operations and facilities at John Wayne Airport would,, logically, be bet- ter organized under an Airport Master Plan as is now being attempted. It would appear highly illogical to attempt to maintain non- conforming uses in order to "hold the air- port hostage" in terms of future operations. A much more sensible approach would be to establish a plan for airport operations and work to implement such a plan, including the reduction of land use conflicts to the greater public benefit. Comment 36: Growth Inducing Impacts (Page 58) - The DEIR states that "the proposed project will continue the current trend... of redeveloping residential parcels to... office/profes- sional uses." On what is this statement based? The area is almost exclusively residential and agricultural, the exceptions being the strips along Bristol Street and Irvine Avenue north of Acacia, which have been designated commercial since at least 1973. A drive through the area reveals no "trend" toward commercial development elsewhere in eastern 'Santa Ana Heights. Response: The statement was based on the recent demolition of homes along Bristol Street and Irvine Avenue and redevelopment of these parcels with office commercial projects. These areas may have been designated commercial for some time but the conversions have occurred only in the last few years. The issue raised by the proposal is whether office use is now appropriate for the site. Conditions have changed considerably since 1973. It is entirely possible that these changes have made professional/administrative offices a more desirable use on the project site than residential uses. In fact, the current noise impacts from airport operations preclude new residential development entirely. The most current planning effort in the area, the draft Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan, designates the site for office use and conversations with County Planners confirm that this site• will most likely remain so desig- nated in any further refinement of the Plan.* *Telephone conversation with Richard Adler, OCEMA January 28, 1982. 0 p 'TAB, COSTA MESA October 13, 1981 Mr. Hal Krizan Assistant Director - Regulations County of Orange, EMA Post Office Box 4048 Santa Ana, California 92702 Dear Hal: DIRECTORS k. Wah ner, President ). Crank, Vice President lutehison, Secretary Hanson i. Green The Costa Mesa Sanitary District Board of Directors has directed me to advise the County of a sewer condition in connection with the land use planning hearings which involve the Santa Ana Heights area. The area is within the jurisdictional boundaries of the, Costa Mesa Sanitary District, and the District has a transmission line in Bristol Street which serves the area. The line was initially sized and constructed in 1958, based on the land use designation in effect at that time. The line is at or near capacity and only a few additional connections can be allowed, if any. In actuality, a new line will be required even if all the vacant property is developed according to present land use designations whether or not the County makes any changes as a result of the present hearings. Allowing greater densities, or increased land user will only compound this need and further burden the existing facilities. Last year the Board authorized a study to determine the needs for this area. It was found that a new line was needed and that it was not feasible to construct a new line in Bristol Street due to the presence of numerous existing facilities. Off-street right-of-way is required; however, the cost of obtaining easements from the County of Orange, Irvine Newport Golf Course site, made the project cost prohibitive. Because the subject area is in unincorporated County territory and under the sphere of influence of Newport Beach, the CMSD Board has decided against further consideration of any.District initiated project. While the District is not in a financial position to provide addi- tional liquid waste carrying capacity, the Board has indicated they would be willing to consider other alternatives. P.O. BOX 1200.COSTA MESA.CALIFORNIA 92626 - 77 FAIR DRIVE - (714) 754.5343 J Mr. Hal Krizan County of Orange October 13, 1981 Page Two Short of denying any further development regardless of land use designation, some of the alternatives are as follows: 1. Detachment from the Costa Mesa Sanitary District, which would allow the County and Newport Beach to handle the increased capacity needs. 2. Establish an improvement district, such as the Improvement District Acts of 1911, 1915,'and 1913 provide. 3. Require the first developer to furnish at -his expense the needed capacity and then by agreement, provide that the developer would be reimbursed as other properties develop and/or redevelop and connect to the new facility. It is not our intention to deny development but to bring to the appropriate agencies attention the need for additional sewer service capacity which the CMSD cannot financially provide, but which must be provided before additional development can occur. I feel that this information should be made part of the public record at the County's General Plan hearings for this area. If you or your staff has additional questions, please call me. �Sinnccerely, BRUCE D. MATTERN Manager BDM:bjp cc Roy June, Attorney Don Stevens, Engineer Joe Devlin, Utilities Director, N.B. Ben Nolan, Dir. Pub. Services, N.B. ` - CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING DEPARTMENT (714) 640-2197 October 8, 1981 County of Orange Environmental Management Agency P.O. Box 4048 Santa Ana, CA 92702 Attn: Mark Goodman Subject: Response to "Notice of Preparation" Acacia Offices EIR Dear Mr. Goodman: The City of Newport Beach appreciates this opportunity to respond to your "Notice of Preparation" on the Acacia Office Project. It is the understanding of the City that the purpose of the notice is to allow a Responsible Agency such as the City the opportunity to review the scope and content of the environmental information that we would require in the EIR. Our concerns are discussed by topic below. 1. Soils and Geology: An erosion and siltation control plan should be prepared and analyzed. The presence of fill on the site should be investigated. If fill is present, its stability and proper compaction should be verified. 2. Air Quality: The air quality analysis should relate the proposed project to the South Coast Air Quality Management Plan. Additionally, a localized hot spot analysis should be performed for all. Specific attention should be paid to localized air quality impacts on congested arterial highways in the vicinity of the proposed project such as Bristol Street and Campus Drive. 3. Water Quality: The Environmental document should analyze the cumulative effects of the proposed project and any other projects in the area on drainage. The ability of local drainage systems to handle increased flows should be examined. The site's proximity to the Upper Newport Bay Ecological Reserve make any impacts on water quality of critical concern. The city of Newport Beach is heavily committed to the maintenance and City Hall • 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California 92663 improvement of water quality in the Upper Bay and therefore requests that any potential impacts related to increased urban pollution or siltation be analyzed in detail and appropriate mitigation measures or project alternatives be implemented to avoid this impact. 4. Biological Resources: Potential use of the site for forage by faunal species inhabiting Upper Newport Bay Ecological Reserve and impacts thereon should be discussed. The Initial Study indicates that avifauna on the site appear to be "indigenous" as opposed to introduced. It would thus appear that the site is less disturbed than one might expect for a previously developed site and biological resources should be examined carefully. 5. Cultural/Scientific Resources: A Resource Management Plan (RMP) should be developed as a part of the DEIR. This should deal with surface artifacts as well as any potentially uncovered during construction. 6. Natural Resources: The potential loss of open space should be examined. 7. Aesthetics: A discussion of how the proposed project will visually relate to nearby residential and open space areas and local roadways should be included. Land Use: Because the subject property is in the Newport Beach Sphere of influence, the proposed project should be analyzed in light of the Newport Beach General Plan, which designates the site for low density residential use. This conflict should be examined in detail. In order to accomplish a meaningful comparison, we would request that the development concept be translated into use categories consistent with the Newport Beach Land Use Plan prior to analysis and then reviewed in terms of the various elements of the Newport Beach General Plan and Draft Local Coastal Program. Potential conflicts with nearby uses should be examined. The conversion of residential land to commercial use should be analyzed in terms of its inducement of further conversions and its effect on land use designations in the Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan now being prepared. The effect of the conversion on the orange County Airport and on ANCLUC plans should be examined in the light of its inducement to further airport growth. 9. Transportation/circulation: The ability of local streets to handle increased traffic should be examined. The analysis of pedestrian circulation should include a possible sidewalk along Irvine Avenue. 10. Public Health and Safety: Any increase in the number of people exposed to airline crash hazards should be examined. Please see the following section for a discussion of noise. 2 11. Noise: Noise impacts of comrercial development on residences should be examined. This should include a discussion of the potential for increased traffic noise. The noise analysis should address the effect of aircraft noise on occupants of the proposed offices and appropriate mitigation measures should be outlined. 12. Pro-lect Alternatives: Alternatives examined should include residential, open space, and equestrian uses. The preparation of a Draft EIR for the Acacia Office Zone Change affords the County of Orange and the City of Newport Beach an excellent opportunity to inform the public decision -makers of each jurisdiction and the general public of the environmental effects of this proposed project. We look forward to working with you. If we can be of any assistance, please contact me at (714) 640-2197. Very truly yours, PUNNING DEPARUEM JAMES D. IMCKER, Director ET:SLG:nma MURRAYSTORM DIRECTOR, EMA Y OF N G E ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT AGENCY PLANNING ' 811 NORTH BROADWAY SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA (714) 834.4643 October 2, 1981 TO: Distribution List SUBJECT: DEIR 277 -- Oxford Properties -Acacia 0 Dear Recipient: ROBERT G. FISHER DIRECTOR OF PLANNING MAILING ADDRESS: P.O. BOX 4048 SANTA ANA, CA 92702 FILE RECEIVED s� Planning ' •hnent b OCT5 19810- CITY OF N&VPORT BEACH, ' 4„\ CALIF. State and County Environmental Impact Report regulations require that in the preparation of environmental documentation for a project, the "Lead Agency" shall consult with all public agencies having juris- diction over such projects and encourage consultation with others who may have special expertise relating to the project. In accordance with these requirements, a copy of the Draft EIR on the subject project is attached for your review and comment concerning both the project and the adequacy of this Draft EIR as it relates to your area of jurisdiction or expertise. Your comments will be incorporated into the EIR as appro- priate prior to finalization. While a specific date for Planning Commission consideration of the Final EIR has not yet been determined, to insure that all comments received during the review process are given due consideration in the Final EIR, we request that your comments be returned to the Environmental Managment Agency, ATTENTION: Environmental Analysis Division, Post Office Box 4048, Santa Ana, California 92702 no later than November 11, 1981. If you have any questions concerning this EIR, or the probable date of its consideration, you may expect prompt and courteous responses by contacting Mark J. Goodman at 834-2071. Thank you very much for your cooperation and assistance in this matter. Very tru yours, Kenneth E. Smith, Manager Environmental Analysis Division /mv(MJG) Attachment cRs 1. (4/81) CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING DEPARTMENT (714) 640-2261 September 9, 1981 Mr. Frank McGill Chief, Zoning Section Orange County Environmental Management Agency P.O. Box 4048 Santa Ana, CA 92702 RE: ZC 81-21 Dear Mr. McGill: The City of Newport Beach appreciates this opportunity to comment upon Zone Change ZC 81-21. As you are probably aware, the site involved is located within the Newport Beach General Plan for this area. ,The Land Use Element of the Newport Beach General Plan designates the site for Low -Density Residential Use. The proposed Professional -and Administrative Office zoning is in conflict with this designation, and the proposed zone ,change is not appropriate for the site in question. Very truly yours, PLANNING DEPARTMENT JAMES D..HEWICKER, Director �V 4 BY �_�YW( ROBERT P. LENARD Advance Planning Administrator RPL:SLG:nma City Hall • 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California 92663 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING DEPARTMENT (714) 640-2197 August 19, 1981 Ken Smith, Manager Environmental Analysis Division Orange County Environmental Management Agency P.O. Box 4048 Santa Ana, CA 92702 Subject: "Notice of Preparation" DEIR Zone Change - SCZC 1-81, Acacia Office Dear Mr. Smith: The City of Newport Beach has received the County's "Notice of Intent to Prepare a Draft Environmental Impact Report" for the project titled "Acacia Offices". As I discussed over the phone with Mark Goodman, of your office, on August 17, 1981, the notice includes neither a project location nor project description. It is thus impossible to prepare a meaningful response to this notice. It is the position of the City of Newport Beach that the forty-five day Early Consultation period will not begin until such time as the aforementioned become available. Until this occurs and an adequate public review period has been established, the EIR should not proceed to Draft EIR stage. We look forward to receiving the information requested so that we may commence our review of the environmental information needed for this project. Sincerely, PLANNING DEPARTMENT JAMES D. HEWICKER, Director By —FREED T RICO ` Environmental Coordinator PT:nma , City Hall • 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California 92663 ,7,:%/a%1D ENVIHONMENTALMANAGEMENTAGENCY ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION 1 PROJECT TITLE Zone Change Screen Check No. ; Please refer to the accompanying Addendum. 2 PROJECT LOCATION Please refer to the accompanying Addendum. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Please refer to the accompanying Addendum. 4 EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS Please refer to the accompanying Addendum. 0 LISTING OF ATTACHED SUPPORTING DATA . Location Map D.Plot Plan to accompany Petition for Zone . Section District Map Change . Preliminary Site Plan E.Site Photographs F.Preliminary Soils Investigation Report REVIOUS COUNTY ACTION OR ENVIRONMENTAL UOCUMENTATION one, to the knowledge of the author. OVERNMENT APPROVALS REQUIRED ease refer to the accompanying Addendum. CONTACT PERSON _ Chris Krug Oxford Properties, Inc. N (714) 752-1107 4425 Jamboree Blvd, Suite 100 Newport Beach, California 92660 m ;n CERTIFICATION: I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE STATEMENTS FURNISHED IN THIS FORM AND IN THE ATTACHED EXHIBITS PRESENT THE INFORMATION RE- QUIRED FOR THIS INITIAL EVALUATION TO THE BEST OF MY ABILITY AND THAT THE FACTS, STATEMENTS, AND INFORMATION PRESENTED ARE TRUE AND CORRECT TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF. l DATE z -31 v .ff. F0250 137 (l no) SIGNATURE ADDENDUM TO ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION 1. PROJECT TITLE The subject of this submittal is a petition for change of zone from the A-1 (SR) General Agricultural district to the PA Professional and Administrative Office district, with a PD (Planned Development) overlay. 2. PROJECT LOCATION The subject property is composed of four parcels situated at the southwesterly corner of Acacia Street and Orchard Drive in the Santa Ana Heights area of Orange County. Parcel address, with corresponding Assessor's parcel numbers, are presented as follows: Parcel no. Address Assessor's parcel no. 1 20271 Acacia Street 119-231-09 2 20291 Acacia Street ' 119-231-12 3 20241 Acacia Street 119-231-15 4 1972 Orchard Drive 119-231-19 3. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Oxford West Development Company, owner of the subject property, proposes to construct four separate two-story office buildings on the property; the total floor area of the proposed buildings equals 26,000 square feet, or approximately 34.8 percent of the total net site area of 1.717 acres. The. development proposal includes appurtenant driveways, 104 parking spaces, and landscaping areas. Proposed improvements are illustrated on the accompanying preliminary architectural site '-plan, prepared by Hill-Pinckert Architects. A PD (Planned Development) overlay is requested which will enable the developer to create separate ownerships of the proposed buildings. Assuming the implementation of a planned development, an association composed "of the building owners would be created in order to provide for continued operation' and maintenance of the commonly -owned facilities (such as parking lots and landscaping areas). Site grading is anticipated to be minimal- and will be performed in conformance with the recommendations as contained in the accompanying preliminary soils investigation report prepared by Action Engineering Consultants. A grading plan will be prepare and submitted for approval by the Environmental Management Agency Grading Division; any potential adverse environmental impacts associated with grading, such as dust control, drainage considerations, etc., will .be mitigated during the required grading plan check and permit issuance phase. Vehicular access to the development will' be achieved by virtue of the proposed driveway on the northwesterly side of Acacia Street, as illustrated on the accompanying preliminary site plan. Some curb and gutter, paving, and sidewalk construction within the public rights -of -way of Acacia Street and Orchard Drive are anticipated. Assuming approval of this requested zone change, these improvements are expected to be required by the County, Subdivision Committee at the time of tentative map processing. The rationale and points of justification for a proposal for a professional and administrative development upon , the subject property at this time are presented as follows: a. The Koll Company has recently completed a three-story office development to the northeast across Orchard Drive in the Cite of Newport Beach. Development of the subject property as proposed would seem to be a logical extension of the existing office uses in the John Wayne Airport area. b. Development . to the proposed use would increase the County tax revenues. , C. Development would result in the widening of Acacia Street and Orchard Drive to their ultimate width, thus improving vehicular movements to and from the existing office developments to the northeast. d. The Airport Noise Control and Land Use Compatibility (ANCLUC) Plan Draft Report indicates that residential uses (as presently exist on the property) are not capatible with the noise which is generated by aircraft departing the John Wayne Airport. The draft report further recom- mends (on page 1X-9) that either an Open Space (OS) or Exclusive Agrigultural (A-2) District be considered for the subject area since neither district provides for residential use. To quote the report, "Commercial stables would be permitted as a conditional use under an OS District and would be allowed under the A-2 District." The following points address the statements made .by the referenced report: (1) Reserving the property for open space would seem to be a very expensive and unwarranted proposition. The value of land in the immediate area is viewed as being too high for conversion to open .space; the County of Orange could potentially suffer from a decrease in tax revenuzs;' and the continuing high demand for office space in the area would not be served with: an open space option. (2) With regard to the alternative proposal for an Exclusive Agricultural use permitting commercial stables, it is difficult to imagine that a use relying so heavily upon outdoor activities could be suitable when we realize that residential uses have already been discouraged. In other words, if aircraft noises are too high' to allow , for residential uses, how can commercial stables, with an inherent entirely outdoor use, be considered as an acceptable substitute? (3) The owner envisions PA, Professional and Administrative Office, use to be the highest and best use for the property. Aircraft noise within the proposed office buildings can be mitigated through construction and architectural design techniques, as determined by Mr. Gordon Bricken, Hilliard and Bricken, Inc., Acoustical Engineers. . Mr. . Bricken is currently preparing a report for the property which will contain specific mitigating recommendations, and the report will be furnished to the reader immediately upon its completion. Conversations with Ms. Shirley Reithard, Airport Engineer, Airport Land Use Commission, indicate that, as long as the proposed buildings are limited to two storys in height, the project will be in conformance with the requirements of Part 77 of the Federal Avation Regulations. Thus, upon incorporating the recommendations of the acoustical engineer in the buildings and satisfying the FAR, Part 77 requirements, there do not appear to be any adverse environmental effects which would impact the proposal as a result of aircraft operations. I All applicable utility companies and sewer and water purveyors have been contacted and have indicated their ability to serve the proposed development (as' illustrated in the accompany utility company letters). No difficulties with capability or capacity were noted with regard to utilizing the existing facilities in the immediate area of the subject property. The owner plans to incorporate numerous features in design and construction of the project which will conserve energy and natural resources; these features include, but are not limited to, the following: a. The installation of double -pane glass and thermal building insulation per Title 24 requirements. •b. The use of fully -shaded glass to minimize solar heat gain. C. The provision of an economizer cycle on heating, venting, and air conditioning systems. d. The installation of water -saving toilets. Assuming approval of this petition for zone change and a subsequent tentative map and final grading and improvement plans for the development, Oxford West Development Company is prepared to commence construction operations immediately thereafter. Completion of the development is anticipated to require approximately six months (or less) after obtaining all required plan approvals. The Orange Co rR1�y Planning Commission will be meeting in January, 1981, to review and approve the ANCLUC study. Since the owner does not agree with the study recommendations for the subject property, and since a change of zone to PA is"considered as a superior use in comparison with those recommended in the study, it was felt that it would• be prudent to submit a request for zone change during the Planning Commission review phase (as opposed to waiting unitl the Commission has already adopted a use for the property). -4- r , 4. EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS a. Physical Features The subject property is relatively flat. Four existing residences, with appurtenant garages, outbuildings, horse stables, and riding arenas are situated on the property as illustrated on the accompanying plot plan. A man-made fill slope exists adjacent to the rear (north- westerly side) of the site; the slope is not on the property. As pointed out in the accompanying Action Engineering Consultants preliminary soils investigation, no geologic hazards have been identified; the site consists of medium to fine silty sands which are capable of supporting the proposed office buildings with minimal reworking. Any existing trees on the site which must be removed will be replaced in the proposed• landscaping areas of the development. b. Drainage ,• The site slopes very gently downward toward the north- westerly portion of the property. No streams exist on the property and,, considering the fact that the property is several feet higher than Irvine Avenue and Orchard Drive,`he possibility , for inundation due to storm flows is extremely limited. No flood hazards were noted by either the civil engineer or the soils engineer during their site investigations. As shown in Table 1 of the accompanying Action Engineering Consultants preliminary soilsz investigation report, no groundwater was encountered In borings as deep as twenty-seven feet. C. Biological Resources A total of twenty-five trees presently exist upon the site; the trunk diameters of the trees vary from four inches to a maximum of twenty-four inches; the following tree types were identified: eucalyptus, apricot, ash, cypress, coral, sycamore, and elm. All existing trees, with corresponding type and trunk diameter, are shown on the "Plot Plan to accompany Petition for Zone Change." Any existing trees which may be lost due to implementation of the proposal (due to conflicting horizontal alignments or vertical grade changes) will be replaced. within the proposed landscaping areas. The remaining existing vegetation on the site is limited to lawns, low grasses and weeds, etc. During several visits to the site, the only wildlife observed were birds assumed to be Indigenous to the Southern California area. d. Land Use Properties to the southeast and southwest of the subject properly exhibit existing , residential uses; the Irvine Golf Course is located northwest of the subject property; and existing office buildings recently completed by the Koll Company occupy the property to the northeast across Orchard Drive. -5- e. Services and Utilities As pointed earlier in this discussion, all applicable utility companies and sewer and water purveyors have been contacted and have indicated their ability to serve the proposed development. A listing of all utility companies having facilities in the area is presented as follows: (1) Costa Mesa Sanitary District P.O. Box 1200 Costa Mesa, California 92626 714-754-5343 (2) Santa Ana Heights Water Company 1122 S.E• Bristol -Palisades Santa Ana, Calfornia 92707 714-545-1060 (3) Southern California Gas Company P.O. Box 3334 Anaheim, California 92803 714-634-3173 , (4) Southern California Edison Company 7333 Bolsa Avenue , Westminster, California 92683 - y 714-835-3833 _ (5) Pacific Telephone Company 3420 Bristol Street, 7th Floor ' Costa Mesa, California 92626 714-546-3177. Each, of the utility companies listed above was contacted and has given a positive verbal statement as to •the ability of that company to serve the development. In addition, Costa Mesa Sanitary District, Santa Ana Heights Water Company, and Southern California Gas Company have provided written correspondence to this effect, copies of which are included with this submittal. -6- j 7. GOVERNMENTAL REQUIREMENTS Assuming that zone change for the property were achieved, approval of the following items would be required prior to the implementation of the project: a. Tentative Map., with associated environmental documentation b. A grading plan and permit C. Street improvement plans and permit for Acacia Street and Orchard Drive d. Building permits for proposed office buildings 0 1 I J VICINITY NOT TO SCREE l y { ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT AGENCY P.O. BOX 4048 SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA 92702 A City of Newport Beach _ ifl 3300 Newport Blvd/yr Newport Beach Ca 92660 R B 6 6 y„ g (a i =� AUG 12 1 0'- Subject: Notice Of Intent To Prepare A ti `•�' Draft Environmental Impact Report O v Project Title: Acacia Offices Applicant: Oxford West Development Company 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 15085.5 of the State EIR Guidelines, your response must be sent as soon as possible but not later than 45 days after receipt of this notice dated August 11, 1981. If any changes in the proposed project occur, we will advise you promptly. If you have need for information, contact Mark J. Goodman of the Environmental Analysis Division at 834-2071 . /mv(MJG) Submitted by, Kenneth E. Smith, Manager Environmental Analysis Division 103.(4/80) 4 TY O F AiN Gr= ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT AGENCY ADVANCE PLANNING 811 NORTH BROADWAY SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA (714) B344643 March 10, 1981 Mr. Christopher Krug Oxford Properties, Inc. 4425 Jamboree Blvd., Ste. 100 Newport Leach, California 92660 Subject: Zone Change for Oxford Properties SCZC 1-81 Dear Mr. Krug: MURRAYSTORM DIRECTOR ASSISTANT DIREC"::- ADVANCE PLA•: V R_> MAILING ADOPESS P.O. BOX 4G48 SANTA ANA, CA 02702 FILE I1/01010 REGE"FD P1.3..'ml AU0121981" An Initial Study has been conducted by this office for the subject proposal which reveals that the project, as proposed, may have a signi- ficant effect on the environment, thereby requiring the preparation of an EIR. The areas of concern are specified in the attached Analysis, which is part of the above -mentioned Initial Study. However, analysis by the Environmental Analysis Division staff in- dicates revision of your proposed project, incorporating measures which will mitigate the adverse environmental effects, may qualify the project for a Negative Declaration. Environmental Analysis Division staff can meet with you to discuss this possibility in more detail. The County will undertake no further action on the Environmental Analysis until a response to this letter is received. Your contact for all matters relating to this Analysis is Ronald E. Roluffs who can be reached at 834- 3759- RER:mlt /mv Attachment cc: K. 14. Lawler and Associates, Inc. 2832 Walnut Ave., Ste. A Tustin, CA 92680 Drank McGill, UTA/Zoning B. Speegle, EMA/Planning Very truly -yours, /10 Kenneth E. Smith, Manager Environmental Analysis Division 8.(ai80) 'fA COUNTY OF ORANGE PROJENVIRONMENTAL REF. OAuvrA ),.Y MANAGEMENT AGENCY: sczc i - Si 4"11Me"'N" rNTAL A AL6 IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE POLICIES OF THE ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS REGARDING IMPLEMENTATION OF THE CALIF URNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT OF 1970, THIS DOCUMENT COMBINED WITH THE ATTACHED "ENVI• RONMENTAL INFORMATION- FORM AND SUPPORTING DATA CONSTITUTES THE INITIAL STUDY ON THE SUBJECT PROJECT THIS INITIAL STUDY PF.OVIDES TIIE BASIS FOR THE DETERMINATION WHETHER THE PROJECT MAY HAVE A SIGNIFICANT EFFECT ON THE ENVIRONMENT. IF IT IS DETERMINED THAT THE PROJECT MAY HAVE A SIGNIFICANT FFFECT ON THE ENVIHOWALi.i, AN cNl,,JNMENTAL IMPACT REPORT WILL BE PREPARED WHICH FOCUSES ON THE AREAS OF CUN• CERN IDENTIFIED THIS INITIAL STUDY, l�IY CHi1.. C ,.B / \ IL.IsT • ITEMS NOT MARKED HAVE BEEN DETERMINED TO HAVE NO SIGNIFICANT EFFECT, 1. EARTH WILL THE PROPOSAL RESULT IN ].if MAYBE 4. WILL THE M MAYBE OR BE AFFECTED BY: PROPOSAL RESULT IN: A. UNSTABLE EARTH CONDITIONS OR IN A. CHANGE IN THE DIVERSITY OF CHANGES IN GEULOGIC SUBSTRUCTURES) SPECIES, OR NUMBER Of ANY SPECIES Of PLANTS OR ANIMALS (INCLUDtNG B. DISAVPTI ONS, DISPLACEMENTS, CON- a TREES, SHRUBS, GRASS, CROPS, PAC TION OR OVERCOVERINC OF INE SOIL? MICROFLORA, AQUATIC POURS: BIRDS, LAND AHWALS, REPTILES, FISH AND C. CHANGE IN TOPOGRAPHY OR WOUND SHELLFISH, BLNTHIC-ORGAMISMS, SURFACE RELIEF FEATURES? INSECTS OR MICROFAUNA)? T_• D. TH.E DESTRUCTION, COVERING OR B. REDUCTION Of THE NUMBERS Of My MODIFICATION OF ANT UNIQUE CEO- UNIQUE, AESTHETICALLY SIGNIFICANT, LOGIC OR PHYSICAL FEATURES? RARE OR ENDANGERED SPECIES OF PLANTS E. ANT INCREASE IN WIND OR WATER OR ANIMALS? EROSION OF SOILS, EITHER ON OR OFF C. INTRODUCTION Of NEW SPECIES OF THE SITE? PLANTS OR ANIMALS INTO AN AREA, OR P. CHANCES IN DEPOSITION OR EROS- IN A BARRIER TO THE NORMAL AEPLEN-- ISHMENT OR MIGRATION OF EXISTING ION Of BEACH SANDS, OR CHANCES IN SPECIES? SILTATION, DEPOSITION OR EROSION WHICH MAY MODIFY THE CHANNEL Of A D. -REDUCTION IN ACREAGE OF ANY RIVER OR STREAK OR THE BED OF THE AGRICULTURAL CROP? OCEAN OR ANT BAY, INLET OR LAKE? ' G. E. DETERIORATION Of EXISTING, FISH EXPOSURE OF PEOPLE 04 PO OR WILDLIFE HABITAT? SUCK EARTH-OPEATT TO GEOLOGIC HAZARDS SUCH AS EARTH- QUAKES, LANDSLIDES, MUOSLIDES, GROUND S. EULTVR AL/SCIFNTIFIC RESOURCES FAILURE, OR SIMILAR HAZARDS? WILL THE PROPOSAL RESULT IN AN ?. AIR WILL THE PROPOSAL RESULT IN: ALTERATION OF A. SICNIFICANT ARCXAF- OLOCICAL OR HISTORICAL SITE, STRVC- A. INCREASED AIR EMISSIONS OR DE- TURF, OBJECT OR BUILDING, PALEON- TOLOGICAL SITE, 04 OTHER IMPORTANT TERIORATICN OF AMBIENT AIR QUALITY} CULTURAL/SCIENTIf IC RESOURCE? S. THE CREATION OF OBJECT!ONASL( G. NATURAL RESOURCES WILL THE ODORS? ^ PROPOSAL RESULT IN: C. ALTERATION OF AIR MOVEMENT, A. INCREASE IN THE RATE OF USE OF MOISTURE OR TLMPERATURE, OR ANY ANY NATURAL RESWRCE? CHANGE IN CLIMATE, EITHER LOCALLY �- OR REGIONALLY? B. OEPLETIOH OF ANY NONRENEWABLE D. EXPOSURE OF PERSONS TO LOCALLY NATURAL RESOURCE, INCLUDING AGRI- CULTURAL f LEVATEO LEVELS 01 AIR POLLUTION? SOILS GR OPEN SPACE? 7. AESTHETICS WILL THE PROPOSALRESULT 3. AW T)R NICE THE PROPOSAL RESULT IN: IN THE OBSIAVCTION OF MY SCENIC VISTA OR VIE' OPEN TO THE A. LHANGES IN CVRPENTS, OR THE PUBLIC, OR WILL THE PROPOSAL COURSE OR DIRECTION OF WATER MOVE- RESULT IN THE CREATION OF AN ME NTS, IN EITHER MARINE OR FRESH AESTHETICALLY OFFENSIVE SITE OPEN WATERS? TO PUBLIC VIEW? _ B. CHANGES IN ABSORPTION RATES, X. ENERGY WILL THE PROPOSAL RESULT IN: DRAINAGE PATTERNS, OR THE RATE AND AMOUNT OF SURFACE WATER RUNOFF? a A. USE OF ABNORMALLY HIGH AMOUNTS C. At TERATIONS 10 THE COURSE OR - OF FUEL OR ENERGY? ' ^ FLOW OF FLOOD WATERS? _ B. INCREASE DEMAND UPON EXISTING 0. CHANGE IN THE AMOUNT OF SUR- SOURCES OF ENERGY, OR REQUIRE THE FACE WATER IN ANY WATER BODY? DEVELOPMENT OF NEW SOURCES OF ^ ENERGY? E. DISCHARGE, INTO SURFACE WATERS, 9. LAND USE WILL THE PROPOSAL OR IN ANT ALTERATION OF SURFACE RESULT IN: WATER QUALITY, INCLUDING BUT NOT , LIMITED TO TEMPERATURE, DISSOLVED A. CONFLICT WITH IONING OR GEN- OXTGEH OR TURBIDITY? ERAL PLAN OESIG IAtIOnS FOR THE or f. ALTf RATI ON Of THE OIRECTION OR PROPERTY? RATE Of FLOW Of GROUND WATERS? B, CONFLICT WITH ADJACENT, EXIST- C. CHANGE IN THE QUANTITY OR QVAL- - INC OR PLANNED LAND USES? ^ ITT Of GROUND WATERS, EITHER THROUGH C. INDUCEMENt OF URBAN CAOWTH? DIRECT AOD111CNS OR WITHDRAWALS, OR THROUGH INTERCEPTION OF AN AQUIFER 10. TRANSPOKTATION/CIRCULATION WILL BY CUTS OR EACAVATI ONS? THE PROPOSAL RESULT IN: H. RCDUCTION IN THE AMOUNT Of A. GENERATION Of ADDITIOnAL VEMI- WATER OTK(XWISE AVAILABLE FOR CVLAA MOVE MCNiT PUBLIC MATTA SUPPLIES! ^ 1. EXPOSURE Of PEOPLE OR PROPERTY B. EFFECTS ON EXISTING PARKING FACILtT T ES, OR OEMAND FOR MEW 10 WATIA NLLATED HAZARDS SUCH AS PARKPNGI ILL+ DING OR TIDAL WAVES? .�ml loxso-saa nna) , 0 0 y C. SPORT? YFw [.LISPING OR PLANH(0 It. WLIC S[0.V1cf: .r4 �l T RAHSIORIArIw SYSTEMS? — YILL I.LL •RWOSAI NAr[ . t :f,T + O. ALTCA PRESENT PATfC..j 01 CIA. UIw. 04 RESULT IN A NEED 10R H[W CULATIw 0R NO"TPLNr 01 PEOPL( AND/ OA AL LAIO SLR"Icts IN 4.1 Of THE 04 C0003? POLLOWINO A41AS: E. ALTER WAIEARWNL. AAIL OR AIR A. TIRO PAOTECfIwI — t"Prict t. POLICE PAOTECTIw? F. rtOIIC HA(AADS TO CQUE6TALW4, ® C. ICHWLSI — HOIOX vchictis, sic,cu CIS. M —. PLDCSIRims? 0. VAN%$ OR OTHtA AECA[ArI wAL G. (PEATIw 01 IMI(XNAL CI RCUNFACILITIES}• •� llw PfOCIlNit C. MAINTENWC[ W hLLiC PAC?- I It. POPULAT I WILL THE PAOIOSAL LIT111. INCWOING AOAOSt AUU IHt LOCATION, OIStRNUTIw, I. IOVE4 OR NATURAL CAI OCNSItT, W SAWN AAIE W ?HE -� NIIU[I POPULATION Of AN AREA? G. C6MwICATIONS SYSTEMS? _ It. HOUSIMC WILL THE PROPOSAL: M. YATLA? A. AFFECT JXI1TING E SING, 04 I. 1l Utt 00 SCPTIC TWLS? — CREATE A MILANO PER ADDITIONAL -- HCUSING) —, J. STOW WATER DRAINA4(1 _ t. PR(CLUW OPPOATUNITIES lot A. SOLID WASTE AND DISPOSAL? PAOVISM Of LO.(A INCONE MOUSING? — IL F[CYEATIw WILL THE PROPOSAL L. OtKR scavICEIT RESULT IN AH INFACT UPONTHE QVAL• II. OTHE4 CONCERNS I.L Tf OR QIIWTITY OF LAISIING atcat. AllAI OPPOIYN III I IA. PYOLIC HfALTN AND SAI[TT WILL THE IAOIOSAL: A. IWOLYL INC AISX 01 ERPLOSI61 OTH[I AO[NCI(S ASO If RSON5 CCNIACICO OR TH! RELEASE OF MA(AADWS SUl. ST AHCES INCLUDING OIL, PESTICIDES. CHEMICALS O4 AAOIATI w? — L EXPOSE PER$wi 01 PREIERTr TO HIGM f1AE HASAAO CONDITIONS? — IS. MOIS( WILL THE IAOIOSAL A(SULT IN: • 1111, A. IWCRt ASf Of fXIS1ING NO.SC t. EXPOSURE OF PEOPLE TO NOISE LEVELS IN EXCESS OF COUNT' SPAND- AAost IL. LIGM AND CUR[ WILL THE FAO- /y�L POSAL PRODUCE NEW LIGHT 04 GLARE? DATE: 1� FINDINGS: A. DOES THE PROJECT HAVE THE POTENTIAL TO DEGRADE THE QUALITY OF THE W m i R,' 'ENVIRONMENT, SUBSTANTIALLY REDUCE THE HABITAT OF A FISH OR WILDLIFE T POPULATION TO DROP BELOW SELF-SUSTAINING LEVELS, THREATEN TO ELIM- INATE A PLANT OR ANIMAL COMMUNITY, REDUCE THE NUMBER OR RESTRICT THE RANGE OF A RARE ENDANGERED PLANT OR ANIMAL OR ELIMINATE IMPORTANT EXAMPLES OF THE MAJOR PERIODS OF CALIFORNIA HISTORY OR PREHISTORY? B. DOES THE PROJECT HAVE THE POTENTIAL TO ACHIEVE SHORT-TERM, TO THE (, DISADVANTAGE 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 FUTURE.) C.DOES THE PROJECT HAVE IMPACTS WHICH ARE INDIVIDUALLY LIMITED, BUT w CUMULATIVELY CONSIDERABLE? (A PROJECT MAY IMPACT ON TWO OR MORE SEPARATE RESOURCES WHERE THE IMPACT ON EACH RESOURCE IS RELATIVELY SMALL, BUT WHERE THE EFFECT OF THE TOTAL OF THOSE IMPACTS ON THE ENVIRONMENT IS SIGNIFICANT.) D. DOES THE PROJECT HAVE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS WHICH WILL CAUSE SUB- STANTIAL ADVERSE EFFECTS ON HUMAN BEINCS, EITHER DIRECTLY OR IN- DIRECTLY? 0 ONLTHE BASIS OF THIS INITIAL EVALUATION: I FIND THE PROPOSED PROJECT COULD NOT HAVE A SIGNIFICANT EFFECT ON THE —.ENVIRONMENT, AND A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL BE PREPARED. / I FIND THAT ALTHOUGH THE PROPOSED PROJECT COULD HAVE A SIGNIFICANT EFFECT ON THE ENVIRONMENT, THERE WILL NOT BE A SIGNIFICANT EFFECT IN THIS CASE BECAUSE THE MITIGATION MEASURES DESCRIBED ON AN ATTACHED SHEET HAVE BE.4 ADDED TO THE PROJECT. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL BE PREPARED. I FIND THE PROPOSED PROJECT MAY HAVE A SIGNIFICANT EFFECT ON THE ENVIRON- MENT, AND AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT IS REQUIRED. ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMEN- LGENCY r COUNTY OF ORANGE I.S.#- ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT AGENCY PROD. REF ZONE Cli tii F-SCZCl-81 10/01010 EXPL.H{VHI 1UNS/M11T1 %Ai !ON DISCUSSION SUPPLEMENT TO CHECKLIST FORM NO. F0250-338 2. Air This development will result in increased air emissions and may expose persons to elevated levels of air pollution. 3. Water Urban usage of the site will result in increased storm runoff of degraded water. 4. Biological Resources This development will result in loss of open space and result in the potential to impact upper Newport Bay. 5. Cultural/Scientific Resources Development may impact archaeologically and paleontologically significant resources. 6. Natural Resources The project will result in loss of open space. 7. Aesthetics This project may result in an aesthetically displeasing site. 9. Land Use The site is currently designated open space on both the present Orange County General Plan and the ANCLUC Study. The requested zoning, therefore, may be in conflict with the General Plan designation. Further, it would seem to be in conflict with the present and projected surrounding uses. I10. Transportation/Circulation The project will require access from roadbeds which are projected to be over- loaded. 13. Recreation The project would result in loss of open space and recreational opportunities. 15. Noise The project may result in locally elevated noise levels and will expose people to noise in excess of County standards. F0250336.2 (3/79) e4Lge€2 Il/01010 t : 19. Light and Glare The project could result in increased light and glare in an extremely sensitive area. 18. Airport The project is located under the flight patterns of the John Wayne Airport and subject to the ANCLUC Study. The site has the potential for crash hazards resultant from these facts. RER:mlt quat- lso% r" EASs - :..: �'�:ii1` tit Q-,diforni.I T1\- y row ou Ci F mwN .n 1 :July 27, 1981 a h Wayne Johnson Environmental manage: wn Age- Cr'ar ge Count;; :'. G. Cox. 4048, Santa Ana, CA 9270. Dear Mr. Johnson: 1 am writing in respcn2e cc , rej _.. • • :a:: r` the notice requirements for sui ecu -•t o v ii-ract reoerts. Sutsequent EIRs are rec.ireo .:n.n -. _ . �.._. .,.,�:,, in a project or the env e.wir • c. -- --- --- tion becomes ec.::, �� � _• - =s:_r _ia: n.;lv infcr'rr•a- �� s availao,c, r: C•s once a s - is an entire necessitates! by L new EI:+ . h a:a.:•tt;• .•.,..f•,.. _.. . _. _.:' L,•c� render the entire EIR inadequate. Under those cil t the issues to be•�aad-escev ..e _ zL unsej e t EIR us •, .. .... •. i:135c .Jeflt EIR mUSL go throucn all 6f Lh•e stc;s'zy ;go ur: ji'la .•o n: On the other hand, a supp!6-en: t in EIR is :,enared when Only minor additions or changes ire necessjry to ouvc too EIR aaec,ate. Since supplements are only used ,or minor changes, there is no need to send a 'notice of Preparation to "rescope" the issues. NOW 102:1 (c) of he :hate EIR Guidelines does, however, require that a mpl--ant to ;!,on !no sere Diblic review as the original draft FIR receive:I. I hope this clar•ifics yo,r ccr.;.=rLg let no know. Vet truly ynurs, Ron ass Environmental Coordinator RB:nl V you iced further information, please R"ECAVEU lilt t; i981 •:•a„_A of Orange A l5 ldVl! D DATE July 23, 1981 TO. Distribution List DEPT/DIST: FROM: Frank McGill Chief Zoning Section/EMA SUBJECT: ZC 81-21 Please review the attached proposal and return any comments or recommendations which you might care to offer. Comments must be returned by the date indicated or it must be presumed that the proposal meets with your approval. we will not send,revised plans for your review unless significant changes are incorporated in such plans. Please direct your comments to the planner assigned as noted below. Thank you for your cooperation. PLANNER ASSIGNED/PHONE: Bob Drennan/834-5380 RESPONSE DATE: August 7, 1981 APPLICANT: Oxford West Development Company LOCATION: , Santa Ana Heights/Orchard Drive between Irvine Blvd. and Acacia Street. PROPOSAL: Al(SR) General Agriculture (Sign Restrictions) to PA(PD) Professional and Administrative Office (Planned Development) overlay. YOUR COM ENTS: BY: �h (� t�v� f Date: I � ■ VICINITY ' MAP NUT TO SCALE 0 PROPERTY OWNER / APPLICANT: OXFORD WEST DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, A CALIFORNIA GENERAL PARTNERSHIP 44ZS JAMBOREE BOULEVARD, SUITE IUD NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA 946613 .- 114-152.1107 CIVIL ENGINEER: K.W. LAWLER AND ASSOCIATES, INC. 2832 WALNUT AVENUE, SUITE A TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA 92650 114.130•D401 THISPLOTPLAN, AND THE BOUNDARY AND TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY SHOWN HEREON, WERE PREPAR- ED UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF KERRY W. LAWLER, R.C.E. 23921 DECEMBER 6, 19B0 LEGAL DESCRIPTION SITUATED IN UNINCORPORATED TERRITORY IN THE COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DES- CRIBED AS FOLLOWS* THE SOUTHEASTERLY SO FEET OF LOT 50 OF TRACT NO. 706% THE NORTHWESTERLY 11 FEET OF THE SOUTHEASTERLY 151 FEET OF LOT 50 OF TRACT NO.106i LOT 51 OF TRACT NU.1061 AND LOT 52 DF TRACT NO.106, EXCEPTING THEREFROM THE SOUTHWESTERLY 66 FEET OF SAID LOT 52; ALL AS SHOWN DN A MAP FOR SAID TRACT NO.106 RECORDED IN BOOK 21, PACE 25, OF M15CELLANFUUS MAPS, RECORDS OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. GENERAL NOTES= 1. EXISTING ZONING: A•1ESR], GENERAL AGRICUTURAL [WITH SIGN RESTRICTIONS]. 2. PROPOSED 20RINE' PA, PROFESSIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE, WITH A PO [PLANNED DEVELOPMENT) OVERLAY. 3. EXISTING GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION! 5A MISCELLANEOUS OPEN SPACE. THE PROPERTY 15 LOCATED WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES OF THE GENERAL PLAN IMPLEMENTATION DISTRICT, ILLUS- TRRTED IN ZONE CHANGE EXHIBIT 80-2S, ADOPTED BY ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPER- VISORS ON SEPTEMBER 24,1980,AS ORDINANCE NO.3215. 4. NET PROPERTY AREA: 14,510.31 SQUARE FEET, OR 1.117 ACRE. NOTE THAT THE NET AREA FIG- URE EXCLUDES THE PERIMETER PUBLIC STREET RIGHTS -OF -WAY. O - VINE AVENUE IR I i i _ .:Etk„471MG_C¢?(,£Rt7F -C4_R3 it CWTING A.G. SEW"{TER - = CIL RD PER Am 96 13II4 ;'kt,?itiG_C9ACAf?5 r _ If EXISTING BLANKET EAUMLN 15: 1. THE RIGHT TO USE ALL STREETS, ROADS, AND DRIVES SHOWN ON SAID MAP OF TRACT NO.706, FOR PIPE LINES, TELEPHONE, TELEGRAPH, POWER, AND ELECTRIC RAILWAY LINES AND THE PRO- VISIONS CONCERNING THE SAME CONTAINED IN THE DEED FROM THE IRVINE COMPANY, RECORD- ED JUNE 19,1924,IN BOOK 530,FACE it%, DEEDS. AFFECTS LOTS 50,51, AND 52. 2. RIGHTS OF WAY OVER AND AER055 SAID LAND FOR ELECTRIC LIGHT, POWER, AND TELEPHONE LINES WHICH SHALL FOLLOW AS NEARLY AS PRACTICABLE THE PROPERTY LIVE AS RESERVED IN THE DEED FROM TITLE GUARANTEE AND TRUST COMPANY, A CORPORATION, RECORDED NOVEM- BER 201 ISIS, IN BOOK 223, PAGE 3B, OF OFFICIAL RECORDS. AFFECTS LOT 52. 3. RIGHTS OF WAY FOR THE BENEFIT OF SANTA ANA HEICHTS WATER COMPANY ACROSS AND ALONG SAID LAND FOR PIPES AND DITCHES, WHICH SHALL FOLLOW AS NEARLY AS PRACTICABLE THE PROPERTY LINES AS RESERVED IN THE DEED FROM TITLE GUARANTEE AND TRUST COMPANY, A CORPORATION, RECORDED NOVEMBER 20,1928, IN BOOK 223, PACE 15,OF OFFICIAL RECORDS. AFFECTS LOT 52. 4. AN EASEMENT OVER SAID LAND FOR POLE LINES, CU1JDUIT5, AND INCIDENTAL PURPOSES,WHICH SAID POLE LINES SHALL FOLLOW AS NEARLY AS PRACTICABLE THE PROPERTY LINES AS RESER- VED BY TITLE GUARANTEE AND TRUST COMPANY, IN DEED RECORDED JULY 27,1929, IN BOOK 291,PACE 141, OFFICIAL RECORDS. AFFECTS LOTS 50 AND 51. S. AN EASEMENT FOR THE BENEFIT OF SANTA ANA HEIGHTS WATER COMPANY OVER SAID LAND FOR PIPES AND DITCHES, WHICH SHALL FOLLOW AS NEARLY AS PRACTICABLE THE PROPERTY LINES, AS RESERVED BY TITLE GUARANTEE AND TRUST COMPANY, IN DEED RECORDED JULY 21, 15291I11 BOOK 297,PAGE 141,OfFICIAL RECORDS. AFFECTS LOTS 5O AND 51. 6. AN AVIGATION EASEMENT OVER SAID LAND FOR USE BY AIRCRAFT, FROM OR TO THE ORANGE COUNTY AIRPORT, AS GRANTED TO THE COUNTY OF ORANGE BY DEED RECORDED SEPTEMBER 13, 1962,IN BDOK 6247, PACE 551,OFFICIAL RECORDS. AFFECTS LOT 50. 9 ; y FD. N iIN, ACCEPTED AS CIL ORCHARD PER ON IRV. 1`6,1344 EXISTING !/ i" \ 1. •'\\�\ No A -`NE Ti`ti:N40 G :CiFiiS GARAGE e� -Iq r ..'... \, "A S'�riG s,»d_= .. ;:• s � f^�� 40 =w ss.;ae wr➢ caRaR - G�, a rVE4 \� ! EXNT MOUSEji I ,7 `^ � k - •. P� ,'� EY.RiING s >, ,'��'' _ -� =ia'Er 1 '� o' - t'a ••t••• - - ,y�L \ GP.MCR`r.?E iL.A6 a" -o �..E'i ,rh"r`r (� �. �` '� '• ^i AND F➢S11ixt \\ \ - i \ \' LM w� 2d"EAc. --FD. SCLT, ACCEPTED /_, o F,sf 6AiADE6 / a° f✓/ AS Gfl1#T. ORCHARD mi-ND SNAG{ l>- ac - R� s;Aa ,a \ 4 , ACACIA PER AISW IH. P6.241. MiTING WMO G➢RAPE - h � '..5 •• _ iY=S r'i{5 Nr - /f tip/ �!. EX15T:�.5 Sid, �Fl ,�� +� / / / , YAY x a xac£ Ea ,, 1G <. S�Q �S• ■ I' WIDE EASEMENF PER IN5TRUMENT '6V5E / 1462 RECORDED NDY. 1, IN DDDK . 6307 PAGE 15 OFFICIAL RECORDS a,' ASH IIR 41,H - f "K110 :zlannc r GARAGE xh la- ArRiCIT -� - Elmlm Ile \ fI A" 4YaAfi4 Exis.i4S - / SS PAY T� �4 �" �l `_ CRIVEiYAY {��(;\; k -- f ,�-S11iT1"Ir WATER'mi£TER /\ Q, �� Gar �\� fj �■ ZY SCALE = ill: 201 i o 0 WI N TO ACCOMPANY JUL. 1 61981 — ■ ■ ■ VICINITY ' MAP NUT TO SCALE 0 PROPERTY OWNER / APPLICANT: OXFORD WEST DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, A CALIFORNIA GENERAL PARTNERSHIP 44ZS JAMBOREE BOULEVARD, SUITE IUD NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA 946613 .- 114-152.1107 CIVIL ENGINEER: K.W. LAWLER AND ASSOCIATES, INC. 2832 WALNUT AVENUE, SUITE A TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA 92650 114.130•D401 THISPLOTPLAN, AND THE BOUNDARY AND TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY SHOWN HEREON, WERE PREPAR- ED UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF KERRY W. LAWLER, R.C.E. 23921 DECEMBER 6, 19B0 LEGAL DESCRIPTION SITUATED IN UNINCORPORATED TERRITORY IN THE COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DES- CRIBED AS FOLLOWS* THE SOUTHEASTERLY SO FEET OF LOT 50 OF TRACT NO. 706% THE NORTHWESTERLY 11 FEET OF THE SOUTHEASTERLY 151 FEET OF LOT 50 OF TRACT NO.106i LOT 51 OF TRACT NU.1061 AND LOT 52 DF TRACT NO.106, EXCEPTING THEREFROM THE SOUTHWESTERLY 66 FEET OF SAID LOT 52; ALL AS SHOWN DN A MAP FOR SAID TRACT NO.106 RECORDED IN BOOK 21, PACE 25, OF M15CELLANFUUS MAPS, RECORDS OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. GENERAL NOTES= 1. EXISTING ZONING: A•1ESR], GENERAL AGRICUTURAL [WITH SIGN RESTRICTIONS]. 2. PROPOSED 20RINE' PA, PROFESSIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE, WITH A PO [PLANNED DEVELOPMENT) OVERLAY. 3. EXISTING GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION! 5A MISCELLANEOUS OPEN SPACE. THE PROPERTY 15 LOCATED WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES OF THE GENERAL PLAN IMPLEMENTATION DISTRICT, ILLUS- TRRTED IN ZONE CHANGE EXHIBIT 80-2S, ADOPTED BY ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPER- VISORS ON SEPTEMBER 24,1980,AS ORDINANCE NO.3215. 4. NET PROPERTY AREA: 14,510.31 SQUARE FEET, OR 1.117 ACRE. NOTE THAT THE NET AREA FIG- URE EXCLUDES THE PERIMETER PUBLIC STREET RIGHTS -OF -WAY. O - VINE AVENUE IR I i i _ .:Etk„471MG_C¢?(,£Rt7F -C4_R3 it CWTING A.G. SEW"{TER - = CIL RD PER Am 96 13II4 ;'kt,?itiG_C9ACAf?5 r _ If EXISTING BLANKET EAUMLN 15: 1. THE RIGHT TO USE ALL STREETS, ROADS, AND DRIVES SHOWN ON SAID MAP OF TRACT NO.706, FOR PIPE LINES, TELEPHONE, TELEGRAPH, POWER, AND ELECTRIC RAILWAY LINES AND THE PRO- VISIONS CONCERNING THE SAME CONTAINED IN THE DEED FROM THE IRVINE COMPANY, RECORD- ED JUNE 19,1924,IN BOOK 530,FACE it%, DEEDS. AFFECTS LOTS 50,51, AND 52. 2. RIGHTS OF WAY OVER AND AER055 SAID LAND FOR ELECTRIC LIGHT, POWER, AND TELEPHONE LINES WHICH SHALL FOLLOW AS NEARLY AS PRACTICABLE THE PROPERTY LIVE AS RESERVED IN THE DEED FROM TITLE GUARANTEE AND TRUST COMPANY, A CORPORATION, RECORDED NOVEM- BER 201 ISIS, IN BOOK 223, PAGE 3B, OF OFFICIAL RECORDS. AFFECTS LOT 52. 3. RIGHTS OF WAY FOR THE BENEFIT OF SANTA ANA HEICHTS WATER COMPANY ACROSS AND ALONG SAID LAND FOR PIPES AND DITCHES, WHICH SHALL FOLLOW AS NEARLY AS PRACTICABLE THE PROPERTY LINES AS RESERVED IN THE DEED FROM TITLE GUARANTEE AND TRUST COMPANY, A CORPORATION, RECORDED NOVEMBER 20,1928, IN BOOK 223, PACE 15,OF OFFICIAL RECORDS. AFFECTS LOT 52. 4. AN EASEMENT OVER SAID LAND FOR POLE LINES, CU1JDUIT5, AND INCIDENTAL PURPOSES,WHICH SAID POLE LINES SHALL FOLLOW AS NEARLY AS PRACTICABLE THE PROPERTY LINES AS RESER- VED BY TITLE GUARANTEE AND TRUST COMPANY, IN DEED RECORDED JULY 27,1929, IN BOOK 291,PACE 141, OFFICIAL RECORDS. AFFECTS LOTS 50 AND 51. S. AN EASEMENT FOR THE BENEFIT OF SANTA ANA HEIGHTS WATER COMPANY OVER SAID LAND FOR PIPES AND DITCHES, WHICH SHALL FOLLOW AS NEARLY AS PRACTICABLE THE PROPERTY LINES, AS RESERVED BY TITLE GUARANTEE AND TRUST COMPANY, IN DEED RECORDED JULY 21, 15291I11 BOOK 297,PAGE 141,OfFICIAL RECORDS. AFFECTS LOTS 5O AND 51. 6. AN AVIGATION EASEMENT OVER SAID LAND FOR USE BY AIRCRAFT, FROM OR TO THE ORANGE COUNTY AIRPORT, AS GRANTED TO THE COUNTY OF ORANGE BY DEED RECORDED SEPTEMBER 13, 1962,IN BDOK 6247, PACE 551,OFFICIAL RECORDS. AFFECTS LOT 50. 9 ; y FD. N iIN, ACCEPTED AS CIL ORCHARD PER ON IRV. 1`6,1344 EXISTING !/ i" \ 1. •'\\�\ No A -`NE Ti`ti:N40 G :CiFiiS GARAGE e� -Iq r ..'... \, "A S'�riG s,»d_= .. ;:• s � f^�� 40 =w ss.;ae wr➢ caRaR - G�, a rVE4 \� ! EXNT MOUSEji I ,7 `^ � k - •. P� ,'� EY.RiING s >, ,'��'' _ -� =ia'Er 1 '� o' - t'a ••t••• - - ,y�L \ GP.MCR`r.?E iL.A6 a" -o �..E'i ,rh"r`r (� �. �` '� '• ^i AND F➢S11ixt \\ \ - i \ \' LM w� 2d"EAc. --FD. SCLT, ACCEPTED /_, o F,sf 6AiADE6 / a° f✓/ AS Gfl1#T. ORCHARD mi-ND SNAG{ l>- ac - R� s;Aa ,a \ 4 , ACACIA PER AISW IH. P6.241. MiTING WMO G➢RAPE - h � '..5 •• _ iY=S r'i{5 Nr - /f tip/ �!. EX15T:�.5 Sid, �Fl ,�� +� / / / , YAY x a xac£ Ea ,, 1G <. S�Q �S• ■ I' WIDE EASEMENF PER IN5TRUMENT '6V5E / 1462 RECORDED NDY. 1, IN DDDK . 6307 PAGE 15 OFFICIAL RECORDS a,' ASH IIR 41,H - f "K110 :zlannc r GARAGE xh la- ArRiCIT -� - Elmlm Ile \ fI A" 4YaAfi4 Exis.i4S - / SS PAY T� �4 �" �l `_ CRIVEiYAY {��(;\; k -- f ,�-S11iT1"Ir WATER'mi£TER /\ Q, �� Gar �\� fj �■ ZY SCALE = ill: 201 i o 0 WI N TO ACCOMPANY JUL. 1 61981 — ■ ■ 1 Resolution of the Board of Supervisors of Orange County, California , 1983 On motion of Supervisor duly seconded and carried, the following resolution was adopted: WHEREAS,' proposed Final EIR 430 has been prepared to address the environmental effects, mitigation measures, and project alternatives associated with General Plan Amendment GPA 83-2, Zone Change ZC 82-4 and Community Profile Amendment CPA 83-8 for the Holstein Property; WHEREAS, proposed Final EIR 430 was distributed for public review, and all substantive comments have been responded to in the manner set forth in California Administrative Code Section 15146(b); and, WHERE, the Planning Commission has reviewed and considered the proposed Final EIR 430 and public testimony thereon; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors of the County of Orange adopts a Resolution certifying as complete Final EIR 430 for General Plan Amendment 83-2, Zone Change 82-4 and Community Profile Amendment 83-8 for the Holstein Property to include the following findings: 1. After receiving and considering all determinations and recommendations from the Planning Commission of the County of Orange as well as other appropriate public comments, the Board of Supervisors of the County of Orange hereby certifies as final Supplemental EIR 430, finding that it is complete, adequately addresses all environmental effects of proposed General Plan Amendment 83-2, Zone Change ZC 82-4 and Community Profile Amendment CPA 83-8 and have been considered in the Board's action on said project. Said environmental impact report is composed of the following elements: A. Draft EIR 277 B. Comments and responses on Draft EIR 277 C. Environmental Analysis Division reports of March 15, 1982 and February 28, 1983 D. Advance Planning Division reports of February 28, 1983 and April, 4, 1983 E. Minutes of Orange County Planning Commission meeting of March 15, 1982, February 28, 1982 and April 4, 1983 F. Draft Supplement EIR 430 G. Comments and responses on Draft EIR 430 H. Agency reports/minutes of August 23 and 30 and September 20 and 26, 1983 I. All attachments, incorporations and references delineated in A-H, above. 2. As a result of recommendations in EIR 277, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the proposed project which avoto or mitigate to acceptable levels the significant environmental effects identified in Final EIR 277. A summary of such changes or alterations, and the significant environmental effects to which they pertain is as follows: A. Biological Resources (1) Environmental Effects: Redevelopment of the property will result in the remove and/or replacement of natural vegetation associated with equestrian uses. this vegetation provides a limited habitat for several common species of birds and small mammals. (2) Changes_ or Alterations: Condition of Approval C requires the approval of a use permit. Said permit will require the submittal of a landscape plan (see E - Visual/Aesthetic Resources) which will provide for replacement or retention of plant species on the property. B. Archaeological Resources (1) Environmental Effects: Field survey of the property indicated e presence or an archaeological site encompassing approxi- mately one acre of the study area. Further investigation indicated that this may be the last manifestation of a larger site identified in 1921. (2) Changes or Alterations: (a) Project changes have been adopted to require a use permit prior to development (Condition C). Said use permit will be conditioned to require a field test to determine the area extent, depth, nature and content of the identified archaeological resources prior to issuance of grading permit. (¢) Said use permit will also be conditioned to require submittal of a report documenting the findings of the field test and recommendations for its disposal prior to issuance of a grading permit. -2- /t C. Paleontological Resources (1) Environmental Effects: No paleontological resources have been identified on the property. Underlying geologic structures, however, would indicate the potential for discovery of fossils. (2) Changes or Alterations: Project changes have been adopted to require a use pelt prior to development (Condition C). Said use permit will be conditioned to require that a paleontolo- gist be present during grading activities. The paleontologist will have the power to stop or redirect grading activities as necessary if fossils are discovered. D. Hydrology/Water Quality (1) Environmental Effects: The property is in an area drained by e Santa Ana -_5FW Flood Control Channel. Replacement of natural ground cover on this property with generally impervious surfaces will result in an increase in runoff from the property. (2) Changes or Alterations: Project changes have been adopted to use permit prior to development (Condition C). Specific drainage mitigation measures will be identified and applied as conditions of approval on said permit. E. Visual/Aesthetic Quality (1) Environmental Effects: The proposed project will result in the introduction of an office -commercial use on the edge of an established residential community. (2) Change or Alterations: (a) Project changes have been adopted which will require a landscape plan to screen incompatible uses, especially the parking lot, from adjacent residential uses. (b) Project design call for woodsiding, brick, and cedar shakes, which is generally in character with surrounding residential uses. F. Traffic and Circulation (1) Environmental Effects: The commercial office use proposed will increase tra c generated from the site by 290 average daily trips. -3- (2) Changes or Alterations: (a) Project changes have been adopted to require the approval of a use permit prior to development (Condition C). Specific traffic mitigation measures will be conditioned at that time. (b) The County of Orange has adopted specific design standards to insure efficient ingress, egress, and internal circulation.' These standards will be incorporated into the project design. G. Air Quality (1) Environmental Effects: Air Quality impacts will be derived rpm site preparat on activities, automobile emissions, and energy demand. The impact of this project alone will be negligible. (2) Chanaes or Alterations: The County of Orange has developed standards for construction activities to limit emitted pollutants. Said standards shall be enforced during construc- tion activities. H. Noise/Light/Glare/Safety (1) Environmental Effects: The project site is located within the 70 db N L noise contour from John Wayne Airport. The site also lies within the FAA adopted approach protection area. (2) Chancre or Alterations: (a) Condition 8B requires the implementation of noise attenuation measures on project design to insure that persons using the proposed office structure will not be exposed to noise levels in excess of County Standards. (b) The project is 30 feet in height so as to not violate FAA height restrictions for the area. (c) Condition 8B also requires that the owner record a declaration that the project is subject to site, sound, and overflight of aircraft operating at John Wayne Airport. (d) Condition 86 requires that the owner offer for dedication to the County, an avigation easement over the property. I. Recreation/Open Space (1) Environmental Effects: The project would eliminate the recreational use presently available on the site. -4- (2) Changes or Alterations: The landscape plan discussed in A and E will help to buffer the project from adjacent, less intensive recreationally oriented uses. J. Land use and Relevant Planning (1) Environmental Effects: Construction of the project will result in conflicts with some adjacent land uses. (2) Change or Alterations: The Planning Commission, in its recommendation of approval of the zone change, stated that the project is consistent with the General Plan by application of the County's Transitional Use Policies. 3. As a result of recommendations in Supplemental EIR 430, further changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the proposed project with avoid or mitigate to acceptable levels the significant environmental effects identified in the Final EIR 430. A summary of such changes or alterations, and the significant environmental effects to which they pertain is as follows: A. Traffic and Circulation (1) Environmental Effects: The project will generate 390 auTomobile trips daily, an increase of 290 ADT. There will not be a discernible reduction in intersection capacity as a result of this project. The Irvine/Bristol and Irvine/Mesa intersection's ICU's will be increased by one percent. (2) Chances or Alterations: Roadways abutting project site will be improved to ultimate cross-section. The Orchard/Irvine intersection must be monitored to determine when a signal will be required. Site access quidelines have been recommended. B. Noise: (1) Environmental Effects: Because the airport is operating under a variance to the State noise requirements, noise contours resulting from operations there cannot exceed those which presently exist. It is possible that noise impact will be less based on future flight operations and types of aircraft using the airport. (2) Chan es or Alterations: Special acoustical treatment will be implemented. avi gation easement should be acquired by the airport. A Declaration and Notification of Aircraft Noise and Environmental Impacts should be made to purchasers or users. -5- C. Land Use/Relevant Planning (1) Environmental Effects: The proposed use is office commercial. Proposed pro ect s nconsistent with current zoning and General Plan/Community Profile designations. (2) Changes or Alterations: Appropriate design and landscape will integrate project with adjacent uses. Change or zoning district to PA (PD)(SR)/30 (COND) will permit project. General Plan and Community Profile amendments to three (Employment) and 3.2 (Professional/Administrative) respectively, will be required for consistency. 4. Project A1ter_natives - Upon implementation of the changes or a terat ons escr bed above, some of the significant environmental effects identified in EIR 277 and referenced in EIR 430, although reduced to acceptable levels, will not be completely eliminated or avoided. These residual effects are considered unavoidable environmental impacts of the project and are summarized below. The mitigation measures specified economic, social or other considerations make the project alternatives identified in the environmental documentation (EIRs 277 and 430) infeasible to eliminate or redue the unavoidable impacts of the project. A discussion of the infeasibility of such project alternatives and a summary of the considerations pertaining at such unavoidable impact is as follows: A. Infeasibility of Project Alternatives (1) No Project Alternatives While this alternative would not permit the conversion of the site from residential to office -commercial uses, it would result in the continuance of a noise sensitive use in a highly noise impacted area. (2) Alternative Site This alternative would result in the transference of the project and its associated impacts from one location to another. The severity of those impacts would depend upon the alternative site selected. Again, however, this alternative would result in the continuance of a noise sensitive use in a highly noise impacted area. (3) Commercial Recreation Use This alternative would call for creation of a commercial equestrian operation on the site. While this alternative would remove the noise sensitive uses from the site, it would be infeasible because of the size of the property, potential future conflicts with surrounding land uses and limited benefits afforded. -6- 5. Statement of Overriding Considerations - The unavoidable environmental mpacts described in paragraphs 2 and 3 are acceptable, for they are outweighed and overriden by the significant benefits to be generated by the project in the areas of land use, employment economic growth, and infrastructure improvements, including: A. The removal of noise sensitive residential land use from an area heavily impacted by aircraft noise from the John Wayne Airport. B. The provision of a commercial - office facility will add to the employment and economic base'of the County. 6. The various land uses authorized by the zoning regulations as revised by this Board are compatible with the objective, policies, general land uses and programs specified by the General Plan, adopted pursuant to the State Planning and Zoning Law due to several factors, including but not limited to the following: A. General Plan Amendment 83-2 and Community Profile Amendment CPA 83-8P establish appropriate land use designations for the subject property which would permit the commercial office use proposed by the applicant. B. The proposal, which would allow for the removal of existing residential use of the property, complies with the objective of the Noise Element to limit noise sensitive uses (e.g., residential use) within the 65 CNEL noise contour. 7. The proposed Zone Change ZC 82-4 is consistent with the intent and provisions of the Zoning Code. 8. The following conditions are reasonably related to the use of the property and are necessary for appropriate development and operation of the uses permitted by the zoning ordinance. A. Building height shall be limited to thirty (30) feet. B. The proposal shall meet the following measures to ensure consistency with the Noise Element of the General Plan: (1) All structures shalt be sound attenuated against the combined input of all present and projected noise to meet the following criteria: -7- TYPICAL USE LEO* (12)** Private Office, Church Sanctuary, 45 Board Room, Conference Room, etc. General Office, Reception, 50 Clerical, etc. Bank Lobby, Retail Store, Restaurant, 55 Typing Pool, etc. Manufacturing, Kitchen, Warehousing, etc. 65 In addition, the energy average of the maximum levels of the loudest 30% of intrusive sounds occurring during typical occupancy period shall not exceed 65 dB(A). *LEQ is the equivalent sound level for a specified time period in dB(A). **Measured during typical hours of operation or other appropriate, approved time period. Upon filing an application for building permits, an accredited expert or authority in the field of acoustics shalt submit evidence in accordance with the following procedure which certified that the aforementioned standards will be satisfied. (a) An acoustical analysis report describing in detail the exterior noise environment and the acoustical design features required to achieve the interior noise standard shall be submitted to the Manager, Environmental Analysis Division, for approval. (b) Prior to issuance of building permits, satisfactory evidence shall be submitted to the Manager, Development Services, which indicates that the sound attenuation measures specified in the approved acoustical report have been incorporated in the design of the project. (c) Prior to clearance for issuance of any building or grading permits, the owner of record of the property shall prepare and record a declaration that this property is subject to overflight, sight, and sound of aircraft operating from John Wayne Airport, Orange County, in a manner meeting the approval of the Manager, Environmental Analysis Division. (d) Prior to clearance for issuance of any building or grading permits, an avigation easement over this property shalt be offered for dedication to the County of Orange in a manner meeting the approval of the Manager, Environmental Analysis Division. -B- (e) Prior to sale, lease, or rental of any structure or 'portion thereof, the owner shall provide to each prospective purchaser, lessee, or tenant a notice that the property is subject to overflight, sight, and sound of aircraft operating from John Mayne Airport, Orange County. The form and method of distribution of said notice shalt be as approved by the Manager, Environmental Analysis Division. C. Prior to the clearance for issuance of any building or grading permits, a use permit shall be approved by the Planning Commission as required by Section 7-9-110 of the Zoning Code. Said use permit shall be in the form and contain all of the information specified by Section 7-9-110 of the Zoning Code and any additional information prescribed by the Director, EMA. The purpose of the use permit in addition to those specified in the Zoning Code, is to provide assurance that development of the site is: 1) compatible with development on adjacent properties with regard to architectural/site design and landscaping, and 2) consistent with measures which ensure compliance with the Noise Element. Furthermore, the use permit shall address the potential for integration of an adjacent parcel (Assessors Parcel No. 119-231-21) with development of the project site. D. Prior to clearance for issuance of any building or grading permits, the owner of record of the property shall obtain written evidence from the Costa Mesa Sanitary District which indicates that sewer capacity is adequate to accommodate development of the project site and obtain approval of such evidence from the Director, EMA. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) )) ss. COUNTY OF ORANGE I, , Clerk of the Board of Supervisors of Orange County, Californ a, hem reby certify that the above and foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly adopted by the said Board at a regular meeting thereof held on the day of, , 1983, and passed by a vote of said Board. RB:emwPE09-15 -9- 9/22/83 r Zu 82-4 OXFORD PROPERTIES- ACACIA OFFICES NORTH REGIONAL LOCATION MAP NO SCALE COUNTY OF ORANGE / EMA / ADVANCE PLANNING ZC 82-4 OXFORD PROPEPTIES- ACACIA OFFICES VICINITY MAP COUNTY OF ORANGE / EMA / ADVANCE PLANNING ww1� w�� nwr, NORTH SCALE gT. i- - - - - - - - - JOHN WAYNE AIRPORTuj i a 'tJq LLi o� I eqq w d I TAG m 1 I LL i a coR Iz 0 1 GRIST I DEL MAR FREEWAY ♦♦ O�GO OL S t" a Iw I ♦ i Ul I� i ♦♦♦ z i 1 i a ,- L. A I I O / - SITEECT _ IQ / �' ��--t ...—.J L...__DRIVE,Y -r9 f UPPER NEWPORT BAYS > , I r w r� z z L > J Lr cc r- ZC 82-4 OXFORD PROPERTIES ACACIA OFFICES LAND USE ELEMENT COUNTY OF ORANGE / EMA / ADVANCE PLANNING t LV%A%l tvn nwr F NORTH SCALE ZC 82-4 OXFORD PROPERTIES ACACIA OFFICES NORTH NOISE CONTOURS ORANGE COUNTY COUNTY OF ORANGE / EMA / ADVANCE PLANNING LOCATION -MAP SCALE 13RISTOL ST. E 5 flZENIH CNEL . I OR ARD ORCHARD DR p O N LU } ZURE I SITE 0 1 CNE ME i I 65 CNEL 70 77 ` EL SOURCE: EIRND EW BOLT, BERANCK,ANMAN, INC. NOISE CONTOURS -EXHIBIT 9 ZC 82-4 OXFORD PROPERTIES R €'_ i v ACACIA OFFICES r. a�w NORTH PROPOSED ZONING PA (PD) (SR) ORANGE COUNTY COUNTY OF ORANGE / EMA / ADVANCE PLANNING - LOCATION MAP SCALE ICITY OF NEWPORT BEACH AC-C1 AC-C,j RP COND. cc R1 (SR C! (SR) ZENITH ! Rp I R4 i (SR) Al i PA(SR) (SR) I A-P COND. R4 Al Al R4 (SR) (SR) (SR) i (SR) �; " R 1 • fSR) � ORCHARD ----; ORCHARD DR. p i .� PA z �O O� (SR) Al (SR) a AZURE s "E ~ (SR) Al Al Rl / < (SR) (SR) OPEN SPACE I A 1 (SR) i I MESA I ' i I i I � I IPART BEACH I IIt G, I?E ADMINISTRATIVE -PROFESSIONAL OFFICE DISCUSSION: Land Use — Uses allowed under the proposed zoning are inconsistent with the Land Use Designation for the site (5.0) Open Space. The Transitional Use Policy of the Land Use Element is inapplicable to this proposal. The required findings as detailed below cannot be made: a) That the adjacent area has developed into higher intensity residential, commercial or industrial uses; or, b) Environmental constraints, such as high noise levels, traffic levels or poor site configuration render the site no longer suitable for single family residential or open space uses; or, c) A conflict exists between policies of the General Plan in the area. Regarding these required findings, the adjacent area has not developed into higher intensity uses but remains single family residential on two sides, and a golf course on a third side. Environmental constraints, particularly noise, render the site quite suited to open space uses as per the LUE designation. There is no conflict between the elements of the General Plan regarding this site. In conclusion, the Transitional Use Policy does not apply to the proposed zone change. MODIFICATIONS TO ACHIEVE CONSISTENCY: None. • -^ 01'J\IO\ AND R£C(VNEN0AI'10\ C DATE* TO: FROM: March 8, 1982 Pat Lee ERA/Land Planning Bryan C. Speegle, ?tanager EMA/Advanre Planning PROJECT TITLE A`:O PR OPO%ENT: ZC 82-4 �— Proponent: Oxford Properties PROJECT DESCRIPTI-IN: Change of zone from A1(SR)(GPI) General Agricultural District Sign Restriction) (General Plan Implementation) to PA(PD)(SR) Professional and Administrative Office (Planned Development) (Sign Restriction) District on a 1.7 acre site. LOCATED VITH1:: A PC". (Circle): Yes No PROJECT LOCkT10-% (Please Include Specific PC Site, if applicable): Santa Ana Heights, corner of Orchard and•Acacia. LAIND USE ELFMCNT DESIG\ATIC+.`:(s)/PC -LIES -,G\:.TION(s): LUE 5.0 (Open Space) Zoning: Al (General Agricultural) CONSISTENT LAND USE CIRCULATION X CONSERVATION X HOeSI NG X IiOISE X OPEN SPACE X RECREATION X X SAFETY SCENIC HIGHWAYS _X_ _ INCO\S 1 STc::' X *See "Modifications to Achieve Consistency" CMt%1r:TS DLL OR INCLII:I)f_D FROM OT!,rR MISIO`:S: Rich Adler, EMA/Community Planning Project Planner Mark Tomich Reviewed By D A'dv. nce Planning Date: , 7 File: Santa Ana Heights ® F860.123.1 Yvu�I►v/10 Specific Plan 'County of Orange W{J I�JWW DATE: March 5. 19R2 TO- Pat Lee Chief DEPT/DIST: EMA/Land Piannin¢ — FROM: Ken Winter Chief EMA/Commun{* v1 Wino SUBJECT: Zone Change 82-4 Oxford Pro erties On February 17, 1982 the Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan Advisory Committee met to discuss several development proposals, including Zone Change 82-4 (a request for PA zoning on 1.717 acres at Orchard Drive, between Irvine Avenue and Acacia Street). The committee, by a vote of 6-2 (5 absent), recommended that the zone change be denied. The committee's rationale for the recommendation included the following: 1) the EIR would be incomplete without the inclusion of a completed specific plan, 2) approval of the proposal would preclude development of a specific plan for the property, and 3) approval of the proposal would set a precedent that could jeopardize the specific planning process throughout Santa Ana Heights. The two committee members who opposed the recommendation expressed concern that the heavy noise impacts at the site were not being taken into account and sug- gested that the requested office use was the only appropriate one for the property. The Advisory Committee, in a plan developed for a September 30, 1981 public meeting, had recommended residential uses for the property and limiting office uses to areas north of Orchard Drive. Community Planning, in a staff plan presented November 18, 1981, proposed office uses for the north end of Acacia Street (including the subject property). Attempts were being made to iron out the differences between the plans, when the specific planning process was halted by Judge Sumner's ruling against the County on the Airport EIR. RA:kc SUPERVISDR.rirTN DISTRICT THODIAS F. RILEY ORANGE COUNTY BOARO Of SUPERVISORS ORANGE COUNTY MALL OF ADMINISTRATION 10 CIVIC CENTER PLAZA, P. O. BOX 667. SANTA ANA.CALIFORNIA 92702 PHONE: 634-3SSO (AREA CODE 7141 February 17, 1982 Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan Advisory Committee c/o Community Planning Division 400 Civic Center Drive Santa Ana, California 92702 Dear Committee Members: I regret that I am compelled, on advice of counsel, to'report to you that the Superior Court's proposed judgment against the County in the matter of the master plan prohibits the County from continuing with its specific planning process in Santa Ana Heights. This judgment puts us in a very difficult position inasmuch as the County will surely be called upon to consider development permits, even while we are foreclosed from continuing with the planning process. I do forecast that we will request a modification of the judge's ruling at such time as it becomes final so that we can continue to address the significant land planning issues posed in Santa Ana Heights. However, in the meantime, we are not able to conduct any additional meetings, nor is the staff able to undertake further planning. This turn of events is most unfortunate. I have sought for all the years I have been a Supervisor to tame the airport as much as is possible, remembering that it is a countywide facility, and I believe the recently approved new master plan went a long way toward reducing the impacts of the airport on surrounding communities. However, the city council of Newport Beach felt that our efforts were not sufficient, and filed legal challenges against us. In a letter I sent to the city council, I advised against this course of action which the city thereafter undertook; nevertheless, because I thought'it had the chance of overturning the apple cart, which it indeed has done. I think this is all the worse for you since the most serious negative impacts of our inability to implement a master plan that calls for the reduction of noise is brought to bear on Santa Ana Heights. i am attaching a copy of my letter, which you will probably find rather prophetic. Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan Advisory Committee February 17, 1982 Page Two I want to reassure you that my determination to complete a specific plan is not diluted any by the legal circumstances. I will do my best to work out the present entanglements as quickly as possible so that we can get back to planning the future of your neighborhood. I'll Since Thomi Supei TFR:, Atta AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSIO FOR ORANGE COUNTY -18741 Airport Way North, Santa Ana, Cal. 9270. L=JPhone: 714 8., 5 834-6712 March 3, 1982 Mr. Steven Lohr, Planner EMA/Advance Planning P.O. Box 4048 Santa Ana, California 92702 Gentlemen: SUBJECT: ZONE CHANGE No. ZC 82-4, OXFORD PROPERTIES. In response to your recent communication regarding the subject project, the items checked below indicate specific areas of concern to the Airport land Use Commission for Orange County. Acoustical insulation is indicated for all buildings at this location. X The height of all structures must conform with F.A.R. Part 77 criteria and/or Section 7-9-129.3 of the Orange County Zoning Code. X The utilization and exterior rendering of the property must not pose a hazard to aeronautical operations.* Density of use restrictions indicated due to accident potential at this location. X An avigational easement should be granted to the proper authority. X Notice to buyers/tenants that property is subject to sight, sound and overflight by aircraft. % More complete and current analysis of the following items should be undertaken as they relate to the interests of the particular airport: Noise environment and mitigation Surface traffic environment and mitigation Height and exterior rendering of structures Proposed use of property as relates to aeronautical operations. Impact upon demand for commercial and private aviation services Existing or indicated avigational easement X Other: Project should not violate nor compromise the goals of th J, + iytlL Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan. EMA Page 2 i The above comments are being submitted now at the staff level for your considera- tion. The Commission will review the subject project at its next scheduled meet- ing on March 18, 1982 or thereafter. If you should wish further information or assistance concerning any of the items checked above, or with the Commission's anri-ipated review of your project, please do not hesitate to call this office of o41-292:#. Cordially, Allged W. Brady ,V Secretary and Planner AWB:es * The project should not emit excessive light or glare, nor produce or cause steam, smoke, dust or,electronic interference so as to interfere with or endanger aeronautical operations. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH P.U. BOX 1768, NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663.3884 (Planning Department - 640-2261) March 3, 1982 Mr. Steven Lohr Land Planning Orange County Environmental Management Agency P. 0. Box 4048 Santa Ana, CA 92702 SUBJECT: ZONE CHANGE NO. 82-4 Dear Mr. Lohr: The City of Newport Beach appreciates this opportunity to comment upon Zone Change No. 82-4. it is our understanding that the proposal was previously submitted as Zone Change No. 81-21. Copies of the City's correspondence on Zone Change No. 81-21 are enclosed. Also enclosed is a letter from the Costa Mesa Sanitary District regarding severe limitations on sewer service in the project area. As you are aware, the project site is located within the Newport Beach Sphere of Influence. Thus, we are concerned that any development be in conformance with the City's General Plan. The Land Use Element of the Newport Beach General Plan designates the site for Low -Density Residential Use. The proposed Professional and Administrative Office zoning is in conflict with this designation, and the proposed zone change is not appropriate for the site in question. very truly yours, PLANNING DEPARTMENT JAMES D. HEWICKER, DIRECTOR BY 00 Robert P. Lenard Advance Planning Administrator RL/pw enclosures RECEIVED MAR 5 1982 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach EM.A. COSTA MESA October 13, 1981 Mr. Hal Krizan Assistant Director - County of Orange, EMA Post Office Box 4048 Santa Ana, California Dear Hal: Regulations 92702 1�ri1Ll % fuUti�i iinst%s r(rt lr 19a1]' DIRECTORS James A. Wahner. President Orma O. Crank. Vice President Shin Hutchison, Secretary The Costa Mesa Sanitary District Board of Directors has directed me to advise the County of a sewer condition in connection with the land use planning hearings which involve the Santa Ana Heights area. The area is within the jurisdictional boundaries of the - Costa Mesa Sanitary District, and the District has a transmission line in Bristol Street which serves the area. The line was initially sized and constructed in 1958, based on the land use designation in effect at that time. The line is at or near capacity and only a few additional connections can be allowed, if any. In actuality, a new line will be required even if all the vacant property is developed according to present land use designations whether or not the County makes any changes as a result of the present hearings. Allowing greater densities, or increased land use, will only compound this need and further burden the existing facilities. Last year the Board authorized a study to determine the needs for this area. It was found that a new line was needed and that it was not feasible to construct a new line in Bristol Street due to the presence of numerous existing facilities. Off-street right-of-way is required; however, the cost of obtaining easements from the County of Orange, Irvine Newport Golf Course site, made the project cost prohibitive. Because the subject area is in unincorporated County territory and under the sphere of influence of Newport Beach, the CMSD Board has decided against further consideration of any District initiated project. While the District is not in a financial position to provide addi- tional liquid waste carrying capacity, the Board has indicated they would be willing to consider other alternatives. P.O. BOX 1200, COSTA MESA.CALIFORMA 92628 o 77 FAIR OPoV E a (7141754.5343 fir. Hal Krizan County of Orange October 13, 1981 Page Two Short of denying any further development regardless of land use designation, some of the alternatives are as follows: 1. Detachment from the Costa Mesa Sanitary District, which would allow the County and Newport Beach to handle the increased capacity needs. 2. Establish an improvement district, such as the Improvement District Acts of 1911, 1915, and 1913 provide. 3. Require the first developer to furnish at his expense the needed capacity and then by agreement, provide that the developer would be reimbursed as other properties develop and/or redevelop and connect to the new facility. It is not our intention to deny development but to bring to the appropriate agencies attention the need for additional sewer service capacity which the CIISD cannot financially provide, but which must be provided before additional development can occur. I feel that this information should be made part of the public. record at the County's General Plan hearings for this area. If you or your staff has ad Sincerely, BRUCE D. MATTERN Manager BDM:bjp cc Roy June, Attorney Don Stevens, Engineer Joe Devlin, Utilities L Ben Nolan, Dir. Pub. Sc ______ CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH �...,, ,s (714) 640-2197 November 13, 1981 Ken Smith, Manager Enviromrental Analysis Orange County EM& P.O. Box 4048 Santa Ana► CA 92702 RE: Draft EIR Acacia Offices Dear Mr. Smith: The city of Newport Beach appreciates this opportunity to ccmr t on Draft EIR 277, Acacia offices. As indicated in our previous correspondence, the project lies within the Newport Beach sphere of Influence and is in conflict with the Newport Beach General Plan which designates the site for Low -Density Residential Land Use. As stated in our letter of September 9, 1981, the City does not consider the proposed offices an appropriate use for the site. We have reviewed the DEIR and believe the following ccnm--nts should be addressed if the document is to be considered adequate: 1. Housing - The DEIR does not address the incrimental loss of existing housing stock nor the increased demand so generated by employees at the proposed housing addressed before the EIR proceeds to Final form. 2. Utilities - Since responding to the NOP on this project, the City of Newport Beach has received the attached letter from the Costa Mesa Sanitary District indicating that the sewer system is operating at or near capacity in the area and that ymprovenents would be required to serve any new development in the area. Before the EIR is finalized, this problem should be investigated and solved. 3. Mitigation measures throughout the report are worded in terns of "should" instead of "will". Those mitigations that will actually be implemented should be distinguished from those that are merely suggested, and reasons given for the rejection of those measures not to be implemented. 4. Biological Resources (Page 7) - The DEIR states that "Excrements [sic] from the animals may contribute significantly to ... City fIall 9 3300 Newport Boulevard. 'Newport Beach. California 92663 organic pollutant percolation ...". Please explain this in more detail. Would water in this area percolate to the water table or is it inhibited by soils not conducive to infiltration or blocked by an impervious layer? Do existing groundwater quality data indicate any problems which might be attributed to equestrian activities? S. Biological Resources (Page 9) - BM is the accepted abbreviation for biochemical oxygen demand. 6. Archaeology (Page 11) - The DEIR should state that the recommendations stated in the archaeologist's report will be implemented. The EIR should not be finalized •until the archaeological test phase and report are complete. , 7. Paleontological Resources (Page 13) - As a mitigation measure, it should be stated that if any resources are uncovered during site preparation, the area will be flagged off and thoroughly investigated before work proceeds. 8. Hydrology/Water Quality - Are local storm drainage facilities adequate to handle increased runoff? 9. Hydrology/water Quality - Increased erosion due to increased runoff in unimproved drainages should be investigated as a part of the EIR and appropriate mitigation measures required. 10. Hydrology/Water Quality (Page 15) - Please explain the basis of the statement that "As a non -street impervious surface, its annual accumulation [of pollutants] should be mach less." 11. Hydrology/Water Quality (Page 15) - If parking lot runoff is diverted onto adjacent permeable surfaces, as suggested in the DEIR, what will be the effects on erosion in these permeable areas? 12. Hydrolcgy/Water Quality (Page 15) - Is the use of porous paving material practical for this project? 13. Visual/Aesthetic Quality - Photos of the existing site should be included with an overlay showing the proposed project. 14. Visual Quility/Aesthetics - What will be the height of the proposed structure? 15. Visual Quality/Aesthetics (Pages 18 & 19) - The site renderings should be revised to show the proposed structure in the context of the surrounding residential area. This would better reveal the project's scale and relationship to the surrounding area. 16. Visual Quality/Aesthetics - As a mitigation measure, it should be required that a landscape plan be submitted by the applicant and made subject to County approval. 2 17. Traffic and Circulation - The discussion of intersection utilization does not include previously approved projects which will contribute significant amounts of traffic to local intersections when coapleted. At the same time, it does not include already committed improvements which might help alleviate congestion inthe area. In order to adequately assess inpacts on local roadways this should be included. In addition, the ICU analysis does not include yellow time. The City of Newport Beach usually expects 10 percent of the light cycle to be in yellow time. IS. Traffic and Circulation - An analysis of potential vehicle conflicts with pedestrian and equestrian circulation should be included. 19. Air Quality (Page 26) - If 1980 air quality summaries are available, they should be presented. 20. Air Quality - Impacts related to potential air pollution hot spots at congested intersection need to be examined as part of the EIR. 21. Air Quality (Page 27) - It seems that Table 2, "Project 'Emissions" should be included under Impacts rather than under Existing Conditions. Please clarify whether the table represents emissions associated with the existing site or the proposed project and whether the table represents emissions from mobile or stationary sources or both. Rather than show emissions as a percentage of SCAB emissions, it might be rare informative to show emissions as a percent of those in the Orange County sub -basin. 22. Air Quailty (Page 29) - The statement that "the proposed project will result in the addition of only 20 pounds of contaminants daily" is misleading in that it applies only to stationary source emissions. This should be clarified and the total of emissions Fran all .sources should be presented. 23. Noise/Light/Glare/Safety - Noise impacts of courrercial development on residences should be examined. This should include a discussion of the potential for increased traffic noise as well as noise from the proposed project site. 24. Noise/Light/Glare/Safety - Will the project result in increased hazards to young people riding horses in the area? 25. Recreation/Open Space (Page 43) - It -should be pointed out that because horseback riding in the residential area "would be unacceptable in most other neighborhoods in the County" the equestrian nature of the camlunity is a unique and valuable resource on which any impacts must be viewed as highly significant. Any conflicts between the existing equestrian uses and the proposed develoarnnt should be examined in detail before the EIR is finalized. 26. Land Use and Relevant Planning Programs - Because the subject property is in the Newport Beach Sphere ,of Influence, the proposed project should be analyzed in light of the Newport Beach General Plan, which designates the site for low density residential use. Thi.s,conflict should be examined in detail and the proposed project should be reviewed in terms of the various elements of the Newport Beach General Plan and Draft Local Coastal Program. 27. Land Use and Relevant Planning; (Page 49) - Is is not reasonable to expect a reviewer to believe that an office building would be useful as a buffer between houses and a golf course. This section should be carefully reviewed as it is not adequate. 28. hand Use and Relevant Planning - The Draft EIR does not address the potential that approval of the proposed project has to prejudice the preparation of the Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan. This and the relationship of the proposed project to the preliminary recommendations of the Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan Advisory connittee should be addressed in the Final EIR. in 29. UnavoidableUnavoidable Adverse Inpacts on Land Use, Recreationcts - This section is not , and Housing are not discussed. 30.' Alternatives (Page ' 53) - The DEIR states that the "no project alternative is not in the best interests of the citizens of the County." Please explain the justification for this statement and explain which "citizens" are implied. Those who live along Acacia and orchard? Those who keep horses in the area? 31. Alternatives (Page 54) - The DEIR states that "As discussed in the Biology section, the current equestrian boarding activity has generated negative impacts to the environment." Yet, the terminology in the Biology section is oonfined to phrases such as "may contribute" and "It is not known whether...". Justification for the statement on Page 54 should be provided if it is retained in the Final EM 32. Alternatives (Page SS) - While the Health Department identifies dust and vector control as potential problems which equestrian uses, Health Department also suggests means of controlling these problems. These should be discussed in the EIR. 33. Alternatives (Page 55) - The DEIR mentions potential conflicts between equestrian activities and future development. Due to the proliferation of equestrian uses in -Santa Ana Heights and the uniqueness of this resource, it would be desirable to plan future development to acc crate the equestrian use. It hardly seems logical to introduce a new use, inconsistent with the General Plan for the area in order to be canpatible with other non-existent uses equally inconsistent with the General Plan 4 while at the' same time increasing conflicts with existing t be equestrian uses in the area. Thus, this conflict alternatid ive in used as a reason for dismissal of the equestrian the EZR. 34. Short term Uses and Long-term Productivity (Page 56) -The DEIR states that "the project site in its present state is not of great value to the surrounding e=Mmity except as it provides equestrian recreation facilities an equestrianusein the please explain why housing aril the unique value. area is not considered of great 35. Growth Inducing Inpa� - The conversion of residential land to oa�snercial use should be analyzed in terms of its inducement 4f further conversions and its effect an land use designations he the Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan now being prepared. The effect of the conversion on the Orange County Airport and oto n �, plane should be examined in the light of of residentinducarential , i.e., the reduction the airport deve entfurther twwhi�could reduce conflicts and potentially accelerate airport growth. 36. Growth Inducing nspaats (Page 58) - The D��states stta t• "� props proj t will. continue the redeveloping residential parcels to... office/professional uses." On what is this statment based? The area is almost exclusively tural. the exceptions being the strips residential and agricul along Bristol Street and Irvine Avenue north of Acacia, which have been designated cmTmrcial since at least 1973, A drive through the area reveals no "trend" toward COMIerci.al development ere in eastern Santa Ana Heights. As currently submitted, DEIR 277 does not respond to a number of issues raised by the City of Newport Beach in its response receiptto the o£ the final therefore, consider this only a Preliminary Draft. Upon the City will provide additional coarents. If you have any questions regarding any. of these casments please call me at (714) 640-2197. very truly Yours, = • 'Y Ili 13- l7 "'' �% n �� B FRED LTAIF1t1- Co Environmental coordinator FT:r= 5 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING DEPARTMENT (714) 640-2197 August 19, 1981 Ken Smith, Manager Environmental Analysis Division Orange County Environmental Management Agency P.O. Box 4048 Santa Ana, CA 92702 Subject: "Notice of Preparation" DEIR Zone Change - SCZC 1-81, Acacia Office Dear Mr. Smith: The City of Newport Beach has received the County's "Notice of Intent to Prepare a Draft Environmental Impact Report" for the project titled Acacia Offices". As I discussed over the phone with Mark Goodman, of your office, on August 17, 1981, the notice includes neither a project location nor project description. It is thus impossible to prepare a meaningful response to this notice. It is the position of the City of Newport Beach that the forty-five day Early Consultation period will not begin until such time as the aforementioned become available. Until this occurs and an adequate public review period has been established, the EIR should not proceed to Draft EIR stage. We look forward to receiving the information requested so that we may commence our review of the environmental information needed for this project. Sincerely, PLANNING DEPARTMENT JAMES D. HEWICKER, Director Ey i i?FE"15'f]�La Environmental Coordinator FT:nma City Hall • 3300 Newport Boulevard. Newport Beach, California 92663 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING DEPARTMENT (714) 640-2261 I September 9, 1981 Mr. Frank McGill Chief. Zoning Section Orange County Environmental Management Agency P.O. Box 4048 Santa Ana, CA 92702 RE: ZC 81-21 Dear Mr. McGill: The ChangeitZCo81 21 PorAs Byouh arep probably aware pptheu site tonvcoolmmed tis plocated within the Newport Beach General Plan for this area. .The Land Use Element of the Newport Beach General Plan designates the site for Low -Density Residential Use. The proposed Professional -and Administrative Office zoning is in conflict with this designation, and the proposed zone change is not appropriate for the site in question. A Very truly yours, PLANNING DEPARTMENT JAMES D. HEWICKER, Director ri✓t By P. LEA D Advance Planning Administrator RPL:SLG:nma City Hall • 3300 Newport Boulevard. Newport Beach. California 92663 �Hol�t`e' March 8, 1982 Orange County Planning Staff c/o Mr. Steve Lohr, Advanced Planning Room 268 400 Civic Center Drive West Santa Ana, California 92701 Dear Staff: I am writing this letter to you as an introduction. We, at holstein Industries have recently consummated a purchase of property from the Oxford Company. The property is generally located on the southwest corner of the intersections of Acacia Street and Orchard Drive and is also the subject of a rezone hearing scheduled for March 15, 1982 at 1:30 p.m. with the County Planning Commission. This letter is to advise you that we at Holstein Industries plan to carry forth with Oxford's plans as previously sub- mitted to you. We plan on using the property for the same uses as proposed by Oxford and also using the same type of architectural theme, as well as height limitations. It is my understanding that the County Staff as well as the Santa Ana Heights Study Group has recommended that the site be limited to a two-story building and the site be utilized as a transition from the existing offices to the north, to the proposed residential sites, to the south. The architectural theme as submitted by Oxford will be followed closely in our final drawings for development of the property. We would at this time, state that 35 feet in height would allow a two-story building with a high pitched shake type roof and therefore submit that the height would not exceed the 35 feet limitation. (714) 966.9055 P.O. BOX 10855, 3001 REDHILL AVENUE, BLDG. 4, SUITE 220, COSTA MESA, CA 92626 LICEN:;! :40333 Orange County Planning Staff March 8, 1982 Page Two Holstein Industries has veen involved in the development of several properties in the County of Orange for the past 35 years. It is our intent to build an office complex that we ourselves can occupy as well as rent or sell additional space. Again, I will make myself available for any questions or additional information that is needed by the Staff or the Planning Commission. Please feel free to contact me at (714) 966-9056 or mail to: Holstein Industries, 3001 Red Hill Avenue, Bldg. 4, Suite 220, Costa Mesa, CA 92626. Very truly yours, Dan DeMille, Vice President Monday, March 1, 1982 To: Planning Commissioners County of Orange Re: Acacia Offices --proposed Zone Change 82-4, Draft EIR 277 Applicant: Oxford Properties Location: Santa Ana Heights/Orchard Dr., between Irvine Ave. and Acacia St. Copies to Stephen Lohr, Advanced Planning, Recording Secretary, Planning Commission, Ken Winter, Chief, Community Planning Section As you know, this has not been the best of times for the residents of Santa Ana Heights. We are all concerned about the future and what it holds for our community. I believe that the county wants to help us preserve what we have. The Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan Advisory Committee submitted their plan to the community September 30, 1981. This plan which largely maintained the residential/ rural character of the area was found acceptable by the vast majority of those attending and did not include office use on the Oxford property. The Specific Plan was undergoing revisions. It is now temporarily shelved. We are currently in an unenviable position. There is a minority of speculators, absentee owners and a few homeowners who would like to rezone all the Al area to PA. They are well -organized and noisy. To say that we feel particularly vulnerable is an understatement. Our community has been flooded with rumors and even lies regarding our future in an attempt to stampede 'the neighborhood. Speculators and absentee owners have deliberately let their properties become disgusting eyesores. Any zoning changes to PA would create problems and cause an RECEIVED MAR 2 1982 EMA -2- irreversible chain reaction and override the efforts of the Specific Plan Committee and the County Staff working with the committee. I am opposing the oxford Properties Zone Change for the following reasons: 1. The best ultimate use for the site and the surrounding neighborhood is, at this point, undetermined. 2. The proposed project is inconsistent with the current General Plan Land Use Element and Open Space Element designation for the site. 2.1 There are no mitigation measures for inconsistency with the General Plan. 2.2 The Draft EIR states that the "project sponsor should make efforts to insure that the Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan recognizes the proposed project and delineates compatible land uses in the surrounding area as appropriate." ISN'T THIS BACKWARDS? FIRST, a specific plan should be developed. THEN individual projects should be proposed that fit the plan. A land use plan for an entire area should not be written for the benefit of an .individual developer to cover a single project. I have some opinions that I would like to share with you. In the Draft EIR, "Alternatives to the Proposed Project" (p.•53), it states that 10-12 horses could be stabled on the site if it - were used as a commercial stable (a use compatible with its current open Space Designation). There are currently stalls r -3- for over twice that many horses. The EIR states that horses being exercised on the streets* are"in conflict with future development: How does the proponent of the project know how our future will develop --the future of the Al area of Santa Ana Heights has not been determined (as explained in the Potential Impacts, Land Use section of the EIR.(p. 48) This very unique, rural community, with its close ties to the Upper Bay, is uniting. We intend to preserve Santa Ana Heights and its equestrian orientation. The EIR frequently refers to "future development" and "current trend" in the area. This proposed zone change could start a trend in the Al zoned area by being the First project south of Orchard to obtain a zone change from Al to PA thus establishing the future growth pattern. The recreational uses throughout the neighborhood would be irretrievably lost. As far as co -existence, I quote from page 49: "The equestrian orientation of this residential community could, however, be a source of conflict." I agree. while the infastructure of water lines, roads, sewers,etc. might not be taxed for one project, the increase in demand for the "future development" of the area would be severe. *Horses are never exercised in the streets. They are on their way to the upper bay trails which now connect with the Orange County trail system winding through the canyons in Orange County, ending up on the Irvine Coast. The following quote is from page 58 of the SIR: The growth inducing impacts of this project ... are due to the precedent it will set and impacts•to future planning efforts for the area. Since a Specific Plan for the Santa Ana Heights area is only in initial preparation at this time, the approvals of the proposed project could induce further development proposals•for the same type of development before the Specific Plan takes effect. Such projects would add incrementally to the impacts presented in this report. Additionally, the implementation of this project wouldrequire the Specific Plan now being prepared to assign the approved land use to the site and to place compatible uses on adjacent areas. This could induce further development. There should be no zoning changes until the Specific Plan is completed. Then individual projects should be proposed that fit the Specific Plan - Sincerely, BeveMullan 2031 Mesa Dr. Santa Ana Heights, Calif. 92707 557-9359 Lao; office of Cisca 5tellhom March 3, 1982 County of Orange Planning Commission 400 Civic Center Drive West Santa Ana, CA 92702 RE. Oxford West Development Company Acacia Street Zone Change A-1 to PA Hearing March 15, 1982 Dear Board: This letter is written with regards to Oxford West Development Company's (Oxford) request for a zone change on their Acacia Street, Santa Ana Heights property from A-1 to PA. I have been a resident of Santa Ana Heights since January 1969. In fact, I lived on the subject property at one time. Presently I reside at 20292 Acacia Street, Santa Ana Heights, across the street from the subject property. My law office is a block up the street on Campus Drive. I am a member of the Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan Citizen's Committee. I have reviewed the Draft EIR i277 prepared for Oxford. There are several areas within the report which are incorrect or at least very misleading and need to be further clarified. 1) The character of this community is residential -equestrian - rural. 2) The new Knoll -Newport -Irvine Center (Knoll) building (located at Irvine and Orchard across the corner from the proposed site), (mentioned several times in the Draft) is outside of the residential -equestrian areas of the community. Ingress and egress are not within the community but are from Irvine Blvd. The land on which' the Knoll building was•constructed was mostly vacant for years prior to its completion. The Knoll site had a completely different character from the Acacia site. 3) The Acacia property has always been residential -equestrian (at least for the last 13 years). RECENLD MAR b 196Z 3822 Campus Drive, Suite 217 • Newport Beach, CA 92660 (714) 545.8411 EMA -county of Orange Planning commission March 3, 1982 Page 2 4) If PA development occurs on Acacia, traffic will be drastically affected. Right now the use of Acacia does not warrant enlargement of the street. The report states traffic will increase to 390 trips per day. I ride from my house to the back bay an average of 4 times per week between 6:30 a.m. and 8:00 a.m. After the Knoll building was completed, traffic on Acacia increased only slightly. However, this proposal has all ingress and egress coming off of Acacia. There is going to be a significant increase in traffic on Acacia. The street will have to be widened to accommodate traffic. Off -site parking will likely increase in an area where there is no room for additional off -site parking. There are few street curbs let alone gutters for the extra run off antici- pated. This proposal has to have a direct and negative effect on the current traffic situation in an existing resi- dential -equestrian area. 5) The plan states there are possible roof rats and other varmits on the property. I have never seen any such animals other than field mice, squirrels and your normal gophers. I:have personally talked with boarders at the Acacia property and they have never seen such. Of course, anything is possible, a mountain lion may live on the site. 6) The character of the property and area in general is run down. However, this is directly due to the county's unwillingness to make a final decision.on the fate of the area. Residents have continually expressed their willingness to remodel and fix their places up if only the county would allow them to. As soon as a decision is made on the currently proposed Specific Plan for the area, I'm sure a noticeable improvement will take place in the area. However, to build this type of a structure at this time on Acacia will totally destroy any hopes for improvements and upgrading of the residences. if this building is built it will pave the way for Acacia to go totally PA or commercial. No one will want to improve their residence if they feel it's a matter of time before they are rezoned PA as well. This type of spot zoning will deprive the Specific Plan committee from fulfulling their role. We as a committee want to develop• a well-rounded, balanced plan which will meet all of the community's needs. The committee has workated o pre - long and hard county. Itvshould gbe but oaishort plan t time before County of Orange Planning Commission !(arch 3, 1982 Page 3 a final revision is reached. This type of spot zoning will totally destroy the current character of the com- munity and put a great damper on our committee's efforts to come up with a truly balanced plan for the future of the area. (7) Sadly, it seems like money always talks. If all else fails, sell it with money. A sad state of affairs. Anyway, economics. The purpose of the county is not to protect the land speculator but the people of this county. If I buy stock and it turns out to be a bad investment, I lose. I can't run to my broker and say, "Gee, I only bought this stock because it was supposed to go up so I get my money back." With the same reason- ing, why should the land speculator (gambler as it were) be compensated just because he made a bad roll. Sure, the highest economic use may be to rezone PA, but so what.' There are lots of other uses for this property with a lot less impact. Such as: (a) Remain Residential -Equestrian. In the last 13 yearg, I know of one plane crash in the area. That was a private plane, stolen late one night. The pilot was the only person hurt or killed. (I have a friend in Huntington Beach who has had two planes crash within 30 feet of her residence in the last 8 years. (She is nowhere near an airport.) If we are talking about a plane crash on Acacia it should be considered that airport traffic is heaviest from 7:00 a.m. through 8:00 p.m.; that people are in office buildings from 7:00 a.m. through 6:00 p.m.; ther will be alot more people at any one time in an office building than the number that live on Acacia; and one would speculate that if there is a plane crash it will hit when the office building is in active use. I would expect more deaths in hitting an office building than resi- dences during the day when most people are at work or school. As far as noise is concerned, the county has to reduce ce the noise level from the airport significantly by (91), thus directly reducing the noise impact on Acacia. The county has stated that residences may stay; the issue is as to new development. it should be mentioned' that there is a housing tract on the other side of Irvine.(Pegasus) with the same impacts as Acacia, yet no one is attempting to build PA there. i County of Orange Planning Commission March 3, 1982 Page 4 Also, if I as a resident wish to reside under such noise that is a choice I have to make. No one forces the residents of Santa Ana Heights to live there. There are various areas throughout the county and other areas surrounding the airport where professional and commercial buildings may be constructed and/or al- ready exist and need to be rented. There are how- ever very few areas in this county where equestrian uses exist. We are not asking to establish an equestrian area but we ask to leave this existing residential equestrian area in tact. (b) pen S ace-E uestrian Facilit . There is no ou t equestrian ousing is needed in Orange County. Santa Ana Heights is a.prime area for equestrian use. It is totally and easily access- ible, we have beautiful trails (and a proposed new one which should be in within two years, which goes from the Back Bay to Crystal Cove State Park) and we have the land to keep horses on. Other stables in this county may keep up to 25 horses per acre which would allow Oxford to have 43 horses not the 10-12 which they state is the limit. The people who owned the subject site before Oxford (the gamblers) made money on boarding horses. Other stables in the area make money. The City of Hunt- ington Beach just approved a plan to put equestrian housing in their central park. The Orange County Fairgrounds has a waiting list to get in. Irvine Equestrian Center (located on PCH between Corona del Mar and Laguna) has to move and there will be people who need horse housing from that facility. - There is an obvious need for horse housing in this county. -it should be noted the horse industry in California is the 4the largest contributor to the state Economy. See.attached Exhibit A. (c) -Open S ace -Recreational. There is always a need or open space in this county. Too many people suffer from overcrowding. The climate and current atmosphere of this community is very conducive to relaxing. You can easily get away from the hectic pace of the remainder of the county by walking through the back bay. i Children who are actively involved with the responsibility of taking care of their horse(s) are less likely to get involved in street crimes, are therefore less of a burden to society and grow up to be more responsible adults. 14 •County of Orange Planning Commission March 3, 1982 Page. 5 (d)' Etc. My conclusion is that the proposed change in zoning from A-1 to P.A. on this Acacia property should not be granted. Any advantages there may bo to the county are far outweighed by the disadvantages of such a change. I as a resident see.no positive contribution to this community in the proposed change. The only entity that may benefit from this proposal would be Oxford Company. I for one see no reason why my com- munity should be adversely affected merely because a gambler wants to score. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. Sincerely, v Cisca Stellhorn Attorney cc: E.M.A. CS: kah J COMMENTS AND RESPONSES REGARDING DIER 277 ACACIA OFFICES (Zone Change Application ZC-82-04) Prepared for: The County of Orange Prepared by: ��CB\MR 240 NEWPORT CENTER DRNE SUITE 216, NEWPORT BEACH. CA 9266Q (714) 640.4911 SECTION I: COMMENTS TO DEIR 277 The circulation of DEIR 277 (in support of Zone Change Application ZC-82-04) generated numerous comments from various governmental agencies. The following agencies submitted written comments which have received responses in the following text: John Wayne Airport Airport Land Use Commission of Orange County California Department of Transportation California Regional Water Quality Control Board --Santa Ana Region Orange County Environmental Management Agency --Transportation/Flood Control Program Office --Cultural Resources City of Newport Beach Written comments were also received from the following agencies which did not require response: Orange County Environmental Management Agency --Land Planning Orange County Administrative Offices Santa Ana Unified School District Copies of all comments received are reproduced on the following pages. Section II restates those comments requiring response individually with the response to each. November 13, 1981 OUNTYOP C>:t^N0E JOHN WAYNE AIRPORT 18741 AIRPORT WAY NORTH SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA 92707 (714)834-2400 Mr. Kenneth E. Smith, Manager Environmental Management Agency Environmental Analysis Division P.O. Box 4048 Santa Ana, California 92702 Subject: DEIR 277, Oxford Properties/Acacia Offices. Dear Mr. Smith: MURRY L. CABLE AIRPORT MANAGER Airport staff has reviewed the subject DEIR. There are several areas of special concern which relate to the compatibility of the proposed land use with the current and anticipated operations conducted at John Wayne Airport. Among these concerns are: acoustical insulation, an avigation easement, height and exterior treatment of the structures, and appropriate notice to buyers/tenants of airport impacts at the site. These matters have received adequate discussions in the subject report. However, there is another important issue which is raised by -the discussions in Section II-J, Land Use And Relevant Planning (pp. 48-50). This concerns the preparation of the Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan, -which is well under way. The purpose of this County -directed project is to resolve long-standing 'land use problems within the Santa Ana Heights Community in a comprehensive manner. An Advisory Group has been formed to work with County staff. Concurrently, the County has instituted a General Plan Implementation district for the community to prevent incompatible development during the Specific Plan preparation. Both the Orange County Airport Commission and the Airport Land Use Commission have endorsed these actions and have representatives on the Advisory Group. We understand that all development projects proposed for Santa Ana Heights are to be reviewed by the Specific Plan Advisory Group. Such a review has not yet occurred for this project. Therefore, although the subject development, as presented in DEIR 477, appears to be a compatible land use, we believe it to be a premature proposal and cannot endorse it until it has been evaluated with regard to the Specific Plan. Thank you for the opportunity to review this important environmental document. Sincerely,,. Stephen V. KOz Jr. Plans & Programs Officer Mlyfr SVK:AB:vc cc: Kich Adler, Project Manager, Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan Alfred Brady, Secretary/Planner, Airport Land Use Commission Nov 171ao( F#Es AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION FOR ORANGE COUNTY 18741 Airport Way North, Santa Ana, Cal. 92707 Phone: 714 w-2925 'ti'W'3 I l�l November 10, 1981 014 rr,\o� Z-6 c 0o_.n r1'1 a3A13338 MJ' Mr. Kenneth E. Smith, Manager E.M.A./ Environmental Analysis P.O. Box 4048 Santa Ana, CA. 92702 Subject: DEIR 277, Oxford Properties - Acacia Offices. Dear Mr. Smith, As staff planner to the Airport Land Use Commission for Orange County, I have reviewed the subject DEIR. The various areas of Commission concern, such as acoustical insulation', building heights, notice of airport impacts, avigation easement, etc., have been adequately addressed by the draft report. In addition, several suggestions which I.submitted during the screencheck review have been incorporated into the current document. There. is,however, another Commission concern which cannot be overlooked. The Commission has endorsed both the Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan project and the General Plan Implementation District recently instituted by the Orange County Board of Supervisors. Since the Specific Plan will be a comprehensive approach to the various community problems existing in Santa Ana Heights, including airport impacts, it must take precedence over individual development projects. The Airport Land Use Commission will review the Specific Plan upon its completion and will take into consideration the policies and programs to be promulgated by it. Although the subject DEIR is adequate to its particular purpose, it appears to be premature at this time. I believe that it should be submitted to the Specific Plan Advisory Group for review. This will help to determine the actual compatibility of the Acacia offices project within its future environ- ment. Thank you for the opportunity to review this important environmental document. Very truly yours, Alf ed W. Brady Secretary/Planner AWB:vc cc: Stephen Kozak, Jr. - J.W.A. Rich Adler, E.M.A. M1 EDMUND G. BROWN JR. QOVERNOR Mark J. Goodman Orange County- EMA 400 Civic Center Drive Santa Ana, CA 92702 �sfate Jof &t1if.Q rdn GOVERNOR'S OFFICE OFFICE OF PLANNING AND RESEARCH 1400 TENTH STREET _ SACRAMENTO 95814 November 23, 1981 SUBJECT: SCH# 81082010 EIR 277- OXFORD PROPERTIES- ACACIA OFFICES Dear Mr. Goodman: State agencies have commented on your draft environmental impact report (see attached). If you would like to discuss -their concerns and recommendations, please contact the staff from the appropriate agencies. When preparing the final EIR, you must include all comments and responses (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15146). The certified EIR must be considered in the decision -making process for the project. In addition, we urge you to respond directly to the agencies' comments by writing to them, including the State Clearinghouse number on.all correspondence. A recent Appellate Court decision in Cleary v. County of Stanislaus clarified requirements for responding to review comments. Specifically, the court indicated that comments must be addressed in detail, giving reasons why the specific comments and suggestions were not accepted and factors of overriding importance warranting an override of the suggestion. Responses to comments must not be conclusory statements. but must be supported by empirical or experimental data, scientific authority or explanatory information of any kind. The court further said that the responses must be a good faith, reasoned analysis. Section 15002(f) of the CEQA Guidelines requires that a governmental agency take certain actions if an EIR shows substantial adverse environmental impacts could. result from a project. These actions include changing the project, imposing conditions on the project, adopting plans or ordinances to avoid the problem, selecting an alternative to the project, or disapproving the project. In the event that the project is approved without adequate mitigation of significant effects, the lead agency must make written findings for each significant effect (Section 15088) and it must support its actions with a written statement of overriding considerations for each unmitigated significant effect (Section 13089). If the project requires discretionary approval from any state agency, the Notice of Determination must be filed with the Secretary for Resources, as well as with the County Clerk. Please contact Terry Roberts Sincerely, y &46c o tephen illiamson State C earinghouse at (916) 445-0613 if you have any questions. State' of 1Califdrnia Business and Transportation Agency Memorandum To Ann Barkley, Chief , Division of Transportation Planning From : DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DIvlslon of Aeronautles Dotet October 20, 1981 File = Clearinghouse /John Wayne -Orange Count; Airport Subjed: Project Review - SCH 81082010 - EIR 277 - Oxford Properties - Acacia Offices Project Description: Zone change from A-1 (Agricultural) to PA (Professional -Administrative) with planned development of four separate two-story office buildings - 26,000 square feet - on a 1.717 acre parcel, directly on the extended runway centerline for John Wayne -Orange County Airport. The Department of Transportation, Division of Aeronautics has reviewed the Draft EIR for this project. On August 27, 1981 we commented on the Notice of Preparation of an ETR for this project and cited our concerns, i.e., noise, safety, land use compatibility, and the project's impact on the circulation network. Each of the issues with which we are concerned is addressed. The DEIR is well written. The crucial factors as we assess them are airport -related noise and possible adverse safety implications. The DEIR concedes that the site is subject to excessive noise levels from aircraft oper,iatiftq at John Wayne -Orange County Airport. The project site is 3,500 feet out on the extended centerline of Runway 19Rr and is bisected by the 75 dBa CNEL contour line. In the noise section of the DEIR, considerable effort is devoted to mitigating the noise impact on the site... Additionally, there are references to noise and avigation easements, and written notice to prospective tenants about the noise and safety aspects of the site. Those are prudent measures, which do nothing to mitigate the noise level, but do serve to preclude legal action against the airport. Existing residential uses within the 65 dB CNEL eontour are treated as nonconforming to the General Plan. Would not the proposed professional/administrative office use be similarly treated? FiE:, D OCT 21 Ml Ann Barkley Page 2 October 20, 1981 As to safety aspects, the project site lies within the Approach Protection Area for the airport. Any development in the project site area would be vulnerable to damage in the event of an aircraft accident. On page 48, there are further concessions that "...the proposed office commercial project is inconsistent with the current zoning...." and "the proposed project has been found to be inconsistent with the current General Plan Land Use Element and Open Space Element designation for the site...." The ANCLUC Plan for the John Wayne Airport is quoted as recommending "...Commercial Open Space or Other Compatible Low -Intensity Use for the project site...." We find those recommendations to be reasonable and prudent measures to minimize possible conflicts between the airport and surrounding land uses. The favorable aspects of the proposed project are economic. The negative aspects would include displacement of existing residents, elimination of recreational uses and open space, a site heavily impacted by airport -related noise, vulnerability in the event of accidents, increased pollutants, and some adverse impact on the circulation network. John Wayne Airport is already subject to frequent complaints about noise from airport operations. .The tenants of the proposed office buildings would probably add their complaints, to the disadvantage of the airport. We would suggest the County consider the existing noise problems at John Wayne Airport and not approve a project that will exacerbate an already untenable situation. Should,the County determine to approve the project, we recommend that conditions fo'r such approval include the granting of noise and avigation easements over the project site in favor of the airport; requiring written advice from the proponent to prospective tenants as to noise and safety implications; and adequate acoustic treatment to reduce interior noise to acceptable levels. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. MARK F. MISPAGEL, Chief Division of Aeronautics B rd Miller Environmental Planner Attachment Sfate of California Resources Agency of California Memorandum To Terry Roberts State Clearinghouse 1400 Tenth Street, Room 121 Sacramento, CA 95814 Date: October 23, 1981 From : California Regional Water Ouality Control Board —Santa Ana Region 6609 INDIANA AVENUE. SUITE 200, RIVERSIDE, CA 92506 8-632-4.130 Subject: SCH# 81082010, Acacia Offices, DEIR Review of the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the Acacia Offices has been completed by this office. The DEIR does not adequately address erosion -siltation controls during the construction phase. A plan to prevent undue erosion -siltation should be submitted prior to the commencement of construction. Please feel free tb contact regarding these comment. Michael G. Serrato Staff Engineer MGS:kyb this office if there are any questions 819TUI D vr" irr p; PLANNING g RESWCH MEND ® Fseo-iza.1 County of Orange October 29, 1981 DATE: TO. Kenneth E. Smith, Manager DEPT/DIST: EMA/Environmental Analysis Division FROM: W. L. Zaun, Program Manager EMA/Transportation/Flood Program Office SUBJECT: DEIR 277, Oxford Properties, Inc. We have reviewed the Draft EIR for the Oxford West Development Company's Acacia offices. The project site is located westerly of the intersection of Acacia Street and Orchard Drive. Four separate two-story buildings are proposed for this site. The following comments regarding the air quality and circulation sections should be addressed. Air Quality The percent of project emissions to total County emissions (as shown in Table 2) should'be substantiated by showing and referencing the figures used in computing the percentages. Circulation. The applicant has not addressed one of the comments on the Screen Check EIR outlined in the July 1981 memo from Jerry Bennett to Kenneth E. Smith. The comment is as follows: "The report should also address the impacts of the projects currently under construction, as well as all of the approved projects along the Corona Del Mar Freeway, in its analysis." W. L. Zaun, Program Manager EMA/Transportation/Flood Program Office By: y Be et , Manager /T sportation Planning Division MC:mlt t LIvu `7 U 0 ® r $50—iu,a �Ccwnfy, of Orange DATE: o� Kenneth E. Smith, Manager T0. Attn: Mark Goodman DEPT/DIST: EMA/Environmental Analysis Division FROM: Robert Selwav EMA/Cultural Resources SUBJECT: DEIR 277 Oxford Properties/Acacia Offices The Cultural/Scientific Resource section and related appendices for the subject report are adequate. I agree with the recommendations. The applicant should be prepared to conduct the test early enough to accommodate further excavation,if necessarylpriorto grading. This is in the immediate vicinity of the archeo site/project of several years ago when problems were encountered that led to litigation: delays, vandalism, threats, etc. As usual, I will transmit the EIR to the Historical Commission. RS:ds CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH is 001 . DIWI (714) 640-2197 November 13, 1981 Ken Smith, Manager Environmental Analysis Orange County EMA P.O. Box 4048 Santa Ana, CA 92702 RE: Draft EI-R Acacia offices Dear Mr. Smith: The City of Newport Beach appreciates this opportunity to comment on Draft EIR 277, Acacia offices. As indicated in our previous correspondence, the project lies within the Newport Beach Sphere of influence and is in conflict with the Newport Beach General Plan which designates the site for Low -Density Residential Land Use. As stated in our letter of September 9, 1981, the City does not consider the proposed offices an appropriate use for the site. We have reviewed the DEIR and believe the following cotrents should be addressed if the docim-eit is to be considered adequate: 1. Housing - The DEIR does not address the incrimental loss of existing housing stock nor the increased demand for housing generated by employees at the proposed offices. This should be addressed before the EIR proceeds to Final form. 2. Utilities.- Since responding to the NOP on this project, the City of Newport Beach has received the attached letter from the Costa Mesa Sanitary District indicating that the sewer system is operating at or near capacity in the area and that improvements would be required to serve any new development in the area. Before the EIR is finalized, this problem should be investigated and solved. 3. Mitigation measures throughout the report are worded in terms of "should" instead of "will". Those mitigations that will actually be implemented should be distinguished from those that are merely suggested, and reasons given for the rejection of those measures not to be implemented. 4. Biological Resources (Page 7) - The DEIR states that "Mcerements [sic] from the animals may contribute significantly to ... ;jivED City Hall • 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California 92663 '' 16 19811 EMA organic pollutant percolation ...". Please explain this in more detail. Would water in this area percolate to the water table or is it inhibited by soils not conducive to infiltration or blocked by an impervious layer? Do existing groundwater quality data indicate any problems which might be attributed to equestrian activities? S. Biological Resources (Page 8) - BM is the accepted abbreviation for biochemical oxygen demand. 6. Archaeology (Page 11) - The DEIR should state that the recammndations stated in the archaeologist's report will be implemented. The EIR should not be finalized until the archaeological test phase and report are canplete. 7. 'Paleontological Resources (Page 13) - As a mitigation measure, it should be stated that if any resources are uncovered during site preparation, the area will be flagged off and thoroughly investigated before work proceeds. . 8. Hydrology/Water Quality - Are local storm drainage facilities adequate to handle increased runoff? 9. Hydrology/Water Quality - Increased erosion due to increased runoff in unimproved drainages should be investigated as a part of the EIR and appropriate mitigation measures required. 10. Hydrology/Water Quality (Page 15) - Please explain the basis of the statement that "As & non -street impervious surface, its annual accumilation [of pollutants] should be much less." 11. Hydrology/water Quality (Page 15) - If parking lot runoff is diverted onto adjacent permeable surfaces, as suggested in the DEIR, what will be the effects on erosion in these permeable areas? 12. Hydrology/Water Quality (Page 15) - Is the use of porous paving material practical for this project? 13. Visual/Aesthetic Quality - Photos of the existing site should be included with an overlay showing the proposed project. 14. Visual Quality/Aesthetics - What will be the height' of the proposed structure? 15. Visual Quality/Aesthetics (Pages 18 & 19) - The site renderings should be revised to show the proposed' structure in the context of the surrounding residential area. This would better reveal the project's scale and relationship to the surrounding area. 16. Visual Quality/Aesthetics - As a mitigation measure, it should be required red that a landscape plan be , submitted by the applicant and made subject to County approval. 2 17. Traffic and Circulation - The discussion of intersection utilization does not include previously approved projects which will contribute significant amounts of traffic to local intersections when completed. At the same time, it does not include already committed improvements which might help alleviate congestion inthe area. In, order to adequately assess impacts on local roadways this should be included. In addition, the ICU analysis does not include yellow time. The City of Newport Beach usually expects 10 percent of the light cycle to be in yellow tine. 18. Traffic and Circulation - An analysis of potential vehicle conflicts with pedestrian and equestrian circulation should be included. 19. Air Quality (Page 26) - If 1980 air quality summaries are available, they should be presented. 20. Air Quality - Impacts related to potential air pollution hot spots at congested intersection need to be examined as part of the EIR. 21. Air Quality (Page 27) - It seems that Table 2, "Project Emissions" should be included under Impacts rather than under Existing Conditions. Please clarify whether the table represents emissions associated with the existing site or the proposed project and whether the table represents emissions from mobile or stationary sources or both. Rather than show emissions as a percentage of SCAB emissions, it might be more informative to show emissions as a percent of those in the Orange County sub -basin. 22. Air Quailty (Page 29) - The statement that "the proposed project will result in the addition of only 20 pounds of contaminants daily" is misleading in that it applies only to stationary source emissions. This should be -clarified and the total of emissions from all sources should be presented. 23. Noise/Light/Glare/Safety - Noise impacts of commercial development on residences should be examined. This should include a discussion of the potential for increased traffic noise as well as noise from the proposed project site. 24. Noise/Light/Glare/Safety - Will the project result in increased hazards to young people riding horses in the area? 25. Recreation/Open Space (Page 43) - It should be pointed out that because horseback riding in the residential area "would be unacceptable in most other neighborhoods in the County" the equestrian nature of the community is a unique and valuable resource on which any impacts must be viewed as highly significant. Any conflicts between the existing equestrian uses and the proposed development should be examined in detail before the EIR is finalized. 3 26. Land Use and Relevant Planning Programs - Because the subject property is in the Newport Beach Sphere ,of Influence, the proposed project should be analyzed in light of the Newport Beach General Plan, which designates the site for low density residential use. This conflict should be examined in detail and the proposed project should be reviewed in terms of the various elements of the Newport Beach General Plan and Draft Local Coastal Program. 27. Land Use and Relevant Planning (Page 49) - Is is not reasonable to expect a reviewer to believe that an office building would be useful as a buffer between houses and a golf course. This section should be carefully reviewed as it is not adequate. 28. Land Use and Relevant Planning - The Draft EIR does not address the potential that approval of the proposed project has to prejudice the preparation of the Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan - This and the relationship of the proposed project to the preliminary recommendations of the Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan Advisory Committee should be addressed in the Final EIR. 29. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts - This section is not adequate in that Unavoidable Adverse Impacts on Land Use, Recreation, and Housing are not discussed. 30. Alternatives (Page 53) - The DEIR states that the "no project alternative is not in the best interests of the citizens of the County," Please explain the justification for this statement and explain which "citizens" are implied. Those who live along Acacia and Orchard? Those who keep horses in the area? 31. Alternatives (Page 54) - The DEIR states that "As discussed in the Biology section, the current equestrian boarding activity has generated negative impacts to the environment." Yet, the terminology in the Biology section is confined to phrases such as "may contribute" and "It is not known whether..." Justification for the statement on Page 54 should be provided if it is retained in the Final EIR. 32. Alternatives (Page 55) - while the Health Department identifies dust and vector control as potential problems which equestrian uses, Health Department also suggests means of controlling these problems. These should be discussed in the EIR. 33. Alternatives (Page 55) - The DEIR mentions potential conflicts between equestrian activities and future development. Due to the proliferation of equestrian uses in Santa Ana Heights and the uniqueness of this resource, it would be desirable to plan future development to accommodate the equestrian use. It hardly seems logical to introduce a new use, inconsistent with the General Plan for the area in order to be compatible with other non-existent uses equally inconsistent with the General Plan 4 while at the same time increasing conflicts with existing equestrian uses in the area. Thus, this conflict should not be used as a reason for dismissal of the equestrian alternative in the EIR. 34. Short -tear Uses and Long-term Productivity (Page 56) - The DEIR states that "the project site in its present state is not of great value to the surrounding caammty except as it provides equestrian recreation facilities and limited residential use." Please explain why housing and the unique equestrian use in the area is not considered of great value. 35. Growth Inducing Impacts - The conversion of residential land to cony ercial use should be analyzed in terms of its inducement of further conversions and its effect on land use designations in the Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan now being prepared. The effect of the conversion on the Orange County Airport and on ANCLUC plans should be examined in the light of its inducement to further airport growth, i.e., the reduction of residential development which could reduce conflicts with the airport and potentially accelerate airport growth. 36. Growth Inducing Impacts (Page 58) - The DEIR states that "the proposed project will continue the current trend... of redeveloping residential parcels to... office/professional uses.'" on what is this statement based? The area is almost exclusively residential and agricultural, the exceptions being the strips along Bristol Street and Irvine Avenue north of Acacia, which have been designated commercial since at least 1973. A drive through the area reveals no "trend" toward c=rercial development elsewhere in eastern Santa Ana Heights. As currently submitted, DEIR 277 does not respond to a number of issues raised by the City of Newport Beach in its response to the NOP. We will, therefore, consider this only a Preliminary Draft. Upon receipt of the final Draft EIR, the City will provide additional comments. If you have any questions regarding any of these comments please call me at (714) 640-2197. very truly yours, By %r L�e-D /h4-Lo- FPED TAIMCO Environmental Coordinator HT:nma .! COSTA MESA October 13, 1981 Mr. Hal Krizan Assistant Director - County of Orange, EMA Post Office Box 4048 Santa Ana, California Dear Hal: 01TA.k 1, Regulations 92702 RS •, President Vice President Secretary The Costa Mesa Sanitary District Board of Directors has directed me to advise the County of a sewer condition in connection with the land use planning hearings which, involve the Santa Ana Heights area. The area is within the jurisdictional boundaries of the. Costa Mesa Sanitary District, and the District has a transmission line in Bristol Street which serves.the area. The line was initially sized and constructed in 1958, based on the land use designation in effect at that time. The line is at or near capacity and only a few additional connections can be allowed,• if any.' In actuality, a new line will be required even if all the vacant property is developed according to present land use designations whether or not the County makes any changes as a result of the present hearings. Allowing greater densities, or increased land use, will only compound this need and further burden the existing facilities. Last year the Board authorized a study to determine the needs for this area. It was found that a new line was needed and that it was not feasible to construct a new line in Bristol Street due to the presence of numerous existing facilities. Off-street right-of-way is required; however, the cost of obtaining easements from the County of Orange, Irvine Newport Golf Course si-te, made the project cost prohibitive. Because the subject area is in unincorporated County territory and under the sphere of influence of Newport Beach, the CMSD Board has decided against further consideration of any District initiated project. While the District is not in a financial position to provide addi- tional liquid waste carrying capacity, the Board has indicated they would be willing to consider other alternatives. P.O. BOX 1200. COSTA MESA. CALIFORNIA 92626. 77 FAIR DRIVE • (714) 754.5343 Mr. Hal Krizan County of Orange October 13, 1981 Page Two Short of denying any further development regardless of land use designation, some of the alternatives are as follows: 1. Detachment from the Costa Mesa Sanitary District, which would allow the County and Newport Beach to handle the increased capacity needs. 2. Establish an'improvement district, such as the Improvement District Acts of 1911, 1915, and 1913 provide. 3. Require the first developer to furnish at his expense the needed capacity and then by agreement, provide that the developer would be reimbursed as other properties develop and/or redevelop and connect to the new facility. It is not our intention to deny development but to bring to the appropriate agencies attention the need for additional sewer service capacity which the CMSD cannot financially provide, but which must be provided before additional development can occur. I feel that this information should be made part of the public, record at the County's General Plan hearings for this area. If you or your staff has additional questions, please call me. �Sinnccerely, BRUCE D. MATTERN Manager BDM:bjp cc Roy June, Attorney Don Stevens, Engineer Joe Devlin, Utilities Director, N.B. Ben Nolan, Dir. Pub. Services, N.B. `""' s CMHO ® F600—I2f.2 r ounty of Orange DATE: November 13, 1981_ TO. Ken E. Smith, Manager DEPT/DIST: EMA/Environmental Analysis Division F Pat Lee, Chief SUBJECT: DEIR 277 - Oxford Properties Comments contributed by Land Planning on SCEIR 277 have been incorporated in DEIR 277. SL:sg TO SUBJECT: DE.IR 277 - Oxford Properties 0 ® Fee0-124.2 MEM DATE: October 7. 1981 DEPT/DIST: EMA/EAD We have no comments regarding this proposal. We would, however, like to retain the document for purpose of general information. If you need it back, call Doug Joyner at 5969. DJ:mgj RECEIVED OCT U< 1981 EMA Santa Ana Unified School District .�Y ncr>°Yr;<� •.�.... �...:."C.x.:f ?'.J.. ��.."`." fiv^i � , r'.j :, �i . �:.t�` - 1 �. Howard R. Harrison, Ed.O.,., Superintendent..n.SY October 9, 1981 Orange County Environmental Management Agency Environmental Analysis Division P.O. Box 4048 Santa Ana, California 92702 Gentelmen: ♦x',`Y eRwv a "µr lCANDb-N CPF1CouCArION Ell,a00artaon, Prultlanl .+ ; ruy Warren, Vle- Pnr-Id"t ���, Volrxy P. Morin, Jr., Clarl, y�'Mrr L� Mary J. Pryer. M-mC-r Joan Wilkinson, Manor We are in receipt fo DEIR 277 -- Oxford Properties - Acacia Offices. However, this property is not within the boundaries of the Santa Ana Unified School District. Therefore, we are returning the document without comments. AJD:rm RECEIVE+? OCT 12 1981 A;- IVI- A. 1405 French Street Santa Ana, Calfomia 92701 Telephone:, (714) 558-5501;� SECTION II: COMMENTS AND RESPONSES Comments from John Wayne Airport (letter to Kenneth Smith EMA/Environmental Analysis Division, dated November 13, 1981). Comment: Airport staff has reviewed the subject DEIR. There are several areas of special concern which relate to the com- patibility of the proposed land use with the current and anticipated operations conducted at John Wayne Airport. Among these concerns are: acoustical insulation, an avi- gation easement, height and exterior treatment of the structures, and appropriate notice to buyers/tenants of airport impacts at the site. These matters have received adequate discussions in the subject report. However, there is another important issue which is raised by the discussions in Section II-J, Land Use and Relevant Planning (pp. 48-50). This concerns the preparation o the Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan, which is well under way. The purpose of this County -directed project is to resolve long-standing land use problems within the Santa Ana Heights Community in a comprehensive manner. An Advisory Group has been formed to work with County staff. Concurrently, the County has instituted a General Plan Implementation district for the community to prevent incompatible development during the Specific Plan prepara- tion. Both the Orange County Airport Commission and the Airport Land Use Commission have endorsed these actions and have representatives on the Advisory Group. We understand that all development projects proposed for Santa Ana Heights are to be reviewed by the Specific Plan Advisory Group. Such a review has not yet occurred for this project. Therefore, although the subject develop- ment, as presented in DEIR 277, appears to be a compatible land use, we believe it to be a premature proposal and cannot endorse it until it has been evaluated with regard to the Specific Plan. Response: As discussed in the Land Use and Relevant Planning section of the DEIR, the Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan is being prepared by County planning staff at the direction of the Board of Supervisors. This plan, when adopted, will set land use specifications and development/re-development standards for the area. Since March 1981, County staff has 'been working with the Santa Ana Heights Community through the Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan Advisory Committee. A preliminary, staff -generated land use plan was presented to the Advisory Committee on November 18, 1981. 19 According to County staff, work or and refinements are being made. calls for another presentation to in .February 1982. A presentation sion is expected to occur in late cipated to be before the Board of of 1982. this plan is continuing The current schedule the Advisory Committee to the Planning Commis - May. The plan is anti - Supervisors by September The project site is located in an area designated on the November 18th plan for offices and office related commer- cial uses. The proposed project is consistent with this land use designation. As previously mentioned, refinements are continuing to be made to the Plan. These refinements are not expected to include anj changes in the land use designation for the project site. The Santa Ana Heights Specific plan represents the most recent planning effort toward establishing compatible land uses with current and forecast operations of John Wayne Airport, arterial highway traffic, infrastructure avail- ability and environmental and community concerns. The ultimate plan, as well as the current draft, will repre- sent what is believed to be, by County decision -makers, the best compromise among the competing alternatives for land uses in the Santa Ana Heights neighborhood. In this light, the consistency of the proposed project with this Plan would appear to overwhelm the negative connotations of the project's inconsistency with the General Plan designation of the County and Newport Beach, which them- selves do not agree on the best use for the property. Telephone conversation with County EMA, January 28, 1982. Richard Adler, Orange 20 Comments from the Airport Land Use Commission for Orange County (letter to Kenneth Smith EMA/Environmental Analysis dated November 10, 1981). Comment: As staff planner to the Airport Land Use Commission for Orange County, I have reviewed the subject DEIR. The various areas of Commission concern, such as acoustical insulation, building heights, notice of airport impacts, avigation easement, etc., have been adequately addressed by the draft report. In addition, several suggestions which I submitted during the screencheck review have been incorporated into the current document. There is, however, another Commission concern which cannot be overlooked. The Commission has endorsed both the Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan project and the General Plan Implementation District recently instituted by the Orange County Board of Supervisors. Since the Specific Plan will be a comprehensive approach to the various community prob- lems existing in Santa Ana Heights, including airport impacts, it must take precedence over individual develop- ment projects. The Airport Land Use Commission will review the Specific Plan upon its completion and will take into consideration the policies and programs to be promul- gated by it. Although the subject DEIR is adequate to its particular purpose, it appears to be premature at this time. I believe that it should be submitted to the Specific Plan Advisory Group for review. This will help to determine the- actual compatibility of the Acacia offices project within its future environment. Response: The project's proposed land use and the land uses proposed in the current draft Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan are discussed in the response to comments received from John Wayne Airport. The General Plan Implementation District mentioned in the comment is discussed in the DEIR on pages 46-47. 21 Comments from California Department of Transportation (Memorandum to Ann Barkley, Chief, Division of Transporta- tion Planning). Comment A: The crucial factors as we assess them are airport -related noise and possible adverse safety implications. The DEIR concedes that the site is subject to excessive noise levels from aircraft operating at John Wayne -Orange County Airport. The project site is 3,500 feet out on the ex- tended centerline of Runway 19R, and is bisected by the 75 dBa CNE1 contour line. In the noise section of the DEIR, considerable effort is devoted to mitigating the noise impact on the site. Additionally, there are references to noise and avigation easements, and written notice to prospective tenants about the noise and safety aspects of the site. Those are prudent measures, which do nothing to mitigate the noise level, but do serve to preclude legal action against the airport. Existing residential uses within the 65 dB CNEL contour are treated as nonconforming to the General Plan. Would not the proposed professional/ administrative office use be similarly treated? Response: This issue is discussed in the DEIR on pages 39-42. As indicated there, the proposed project's land use falls into the third (of three) review categories which states: a detailed analysis is required to assess compatibility and mitigation measures. (Reference DEIR Exhibit 10.) Such an analysis has been prepared and is included in the DEIR as Appendix E. The conclusion of the report is that "it is possible to meet the most stringent design require- ment of the County even to this. location [with the pro- posed mitigation measures]". Should the recommended pro- cedures of the John Wayne Airport ANCLUC Report be imple- mented, the proposed land use would fall into the second review category which requires less stringent analysis than the third. These reduced noise levels would still preclude new residential development. Comment B: As to safety aspects, the project site, ties within the Approach Protection Area for the airport. Any development in the project site area would be vulnerable to damage in the event of an aircraft accident. Response: This issue is discussed in the DEIR on pages 35-39. 22 Comment C: On page 48, there are further concessions that "...the proposed office commercial project is inconsistent with the current zoning..." and "the proposed project has been found to be inconsistent with the current General Plan Land Use Element and Open Space Element designation for the site..." Response: The project's proposed land use and conflicts with plans proposing ultimate land uses for the site are discussed in the DEIR and in several comments and responses. (See com- ments from the City of Newport Beach and John Wayne Airport.) Comment D: The ANCLUC Plan for the John Wayne Airport is quoted as recommending " ..Commercial Open Space or Other Compatible Low -Intensity Use for the project site..." We find those recommendations to be reasonable and prudent measures to minimize possible conflicts between the airport and sur- rounding land uses. Response: The ANCLUC Plan recommendations for ultimate land use and the plan!s functions are discussed in the DEIR on pages 48 and 49. As a point of information, the status of the ANCLUC Plan has recently changed. Since the preparation of the DEIR, the ANCLUC Plan and Airport Master Plan have been found to be supported by an inadequate Environmental Impact Report. Judge Bruce Sumner of the Orange County Superior Court, in a Memorandum of Intended Decision dated January 5, 1982 stated: "Because of the insufficiency of the Environment- al Impact Report, judgment is entered for the plaintiffs [City of Newport Beach] and an injunction shall issue forthwith restraining the defendants [County of Orange] from taking any further action to implement the Master or ANCLUC Plans until they prepare, circulate, consider and certify an adequate EIR in full compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act and Guidelines-" Comment E: The favorable aspects of the proposed project are econom- ic. The negative aspects would include displacement of existing residents, elimination of recreational uses and open space, a site heavily impacted by airport -related noise, vulnerability in the event of accidents, increased pollutants, and some adverse impact on the circulation network. 23 Response: These issues are discussed throughout the DEIR specifical- ly in the Hydrology/Water Quality, Traffic and Circula- tion, Air Quality and Noise/Light/Glare/Safety sections. Comment l:: John Wayne Airport is already subject to frequent com- plaints about noise from airport operations. The tenants of the proposed office buildings would probably add their complaints, to the disadvantage of the airport. We would suggest the County consider the existing noise problems at John Wayne Airport and not approve a project that will exacerbate an already untenable situation. Should the County determine to approve the project, we recommend that conditions for such approval include the granting of noise and avigation easements over the project site in favor of the airport; requiring written advice from the proponent to prospective tenants as to noise and safety implications; and adequate acoustic treatment to reduce interior noise to acceptable levels. Response: These mitigation measures are also suggested in the DEIR and discussed in detail on page 42. 24 Comment from California Regional Water Quality Control Board - Santa Ana Region (letter to Terry Roberts, State Clearinghouse, dated October 23, 1981). Comment: Review of the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR for the Acacia Offices has been completed by this office. The DEIR does not adequately address erosion -siltation con- trols during the construction phase. A plan to prevent undue erosion -siltation should be submitted prior to the commencement of construction. Response: Prior to commencement of construction the project sponsor will be required to submit a grading plan to the Orange County Environmental Management Agency and have that plan approved prior to the issuance of a grading permit. Such a plan must conform to the Orange County Grading and Excavation Code (Title 7, Division 1, Article 8 of the Codified Ordinances). Subarticle 13 of the code addresses erosion control requirements. 25 Comments from Orange County Environmental Management Agency/Transportation/Flood Program Office (Memo to Kenneth E. Smith EMA/Environmental Analysis Division dated October 29, 1981). Comment A: Air Quality The percent of project emissions to total County emissions (as shown in Table 2) should be substantiated by showing and referencing the figures used in computing the percent- ages. Response: Since the submission of the DEIR, the California Air Resources Board has updated the mobile source emission factors for specified years. These factors have super - ceded those previous and their use has been requested by the Orange County EMA Transportation/Flood program staff. These new factors are given below and assume a speed of 30 miles per hour. EMFAC6C PROGRAM EMISSIONS FACTORS* YEAR CO THC NOX SOX TSP 1982 17.59 1.66 2.39 0.2 0.36 1985 11.43 1.1Q 1.84 0.2 0.33 1987 9.11 0.91 1.62 0.2 0.32 1990 7.33 0.78 1.44 0.2 0.31 1995 6.28 0.70 1.34 0.2 0.30 2000 5.86 0.67 1.30 0.2 0.30 *All factors in grams per mile SOURCE: Orange County EMA Transportation/Flood Program Division Using these factors and an assumed 30822 project induced miles traveled per day, the Project Related Mobile -Source Emissions Table below was generated: 26 I Project Related Mobile Source Emissions (pounds per day) YEAR CO THC NO SOX TSP 1982 148.2 13.9 20.1 1.7 3.0 1985 96.3 9.3 15.5 1.7 2.8 1987 76.8 7.7 13.7 1.7 2.7 1990 61.8 6.6 .12.1 1.7 2.6 1995 52.9 5.9 11.3 1.7 2.5 2000 49.4 5.6 11.0 1.7 2.5 Stationary source emissions were quantified in Table 4 of the DEIR. The combined mobile and stationary source daily emissions for selected years are given in the table below with the comparable total emissions for the SCAB. Emissions Inventory Comparison Project and SCAB 1982-2000 (tons per day) 1982 CO HC NOX SOX TSP Project .074 .007 .013 .007 .002 SCAB .5071 2320 1134 364 247 1987 Project .039 .004 010 .007 .002 SCAB 4112 2176 1154 386 261 2000 Project .025 .003 009 .007 .002 SCAB 3989 2113 1208 380 279 SOURCE: SCAB Data - "Air Quality Management Plan", South Coast AQMD/SCAG; January 1979. These figures supercede the information sources and calcu- lations used to estimate the project's air quality impacts in the DEIR. 27 Comment B: Circulation The applicant has not addressed one of the comments on the Screencheck EIR outlined in the July 1981 memo from Jerry Bennett to Kenneth E. Smith. The comment is as follows: "The report should also address the impacts of the proj- ects currently under construction, as well as all of the approved projects along the Corona Del Mar Freeway, in its analysis." Response: Environmental Management Agency staff indicates that there have been no projects recently approved in the unincorpor- ated area along the Corona Del Mar Freeway Corridor. During the latter part of 1980 - early part of 1981, there was a 100,000 square foot office complex considered by the County and sbusequently denied. All other approved projects along the Corona Del Mar Freeway Corridor, in the vicinity of DEIR 277, are within the City of Newport Beach. The cumulative traffic impacts of the Newport Beach projects are discussed in response to the City's DEIR 277 comments dated November 13, 1981 (Comment 17). 28 IP Comment from Orange County EMA/Cultural Resources (Memor- andum to Kenneth Smith, EMA/Environmental Analysis Division, dated October 15, 1981). Comment A: The Cultural/Scientific Resource section and related appendices for the subject report are adequate. I agree with the recommendations. The applicant should be pre- pared to conduct the test early enough to accommodate further excavation, if necessary, prior to grading. This is in the immediate vicinity of the archeo site/proj- ect of several years ago when problems were encountered that led to litigation, delays, vandalism, threats, etc. As usual, I will Commission. Response: transmit the EIR to the Historical These issues and mitigation measures are discussed in the DEIR on pages 10-13. 29 Comments received from the City of Newport Beach (letter from James D. Hewicker, Planning Department Director, to Ken Smith, OCEMA dated November 13, 1981). Comment 1: Housing - The DEIR does not address the incremental loss of existing housing stock nor the increased demand for housing generated by employees at the proposed offices. This should be addressed before the EIR proceeds to Final form. Response: As shown in the Existing Plot Plan, DEIR Exhibit 3 (p. 4)9 four homes will be demolished to clear the site for the proposed project. These represent less than one one - thousandth of one percent of the existing housing stock in the County of Orange estimated to be 737,578 units by the California Department of Finance as of January 1, 1981. Assuming an average of 375 square feet of office per employee, the 260000 square foot project will contain approximately 69 employees. This suggests a potential of a 69 dwelling unit demand for housing. Residential build- ing permits totaled 6,974 in 1980, a sixteen year low. The 69 OU potential demand equals 1.0% of the total 1980 residential permits. This should be considered the maxi- mum impact because of the assumptions that all employees will generate new housing demand and the very low 1980 residential building permit total. In the first three months of 1981 these permits totaled 3,252, a 39.4 percent increase over the same period of 1980 and the sixteen year average (1965-1980) is 11,904 permits per year. (Statistical source: Orange County Progress Report 1981- 82 Vol. 18.) Comment 2: Utilities - Since responding to the NOP on this project, the City of Newport Beach has received the attached letter from the Costa Mesa Sanitary District indficating that the sewer system is operating at or near capacity in the area and that improvements would be required to serve any new development in the area. Before the EIR is finalized, this problem s.hould be investigated and solved. Response: The letter from the Costa Mesa Sanitary District forwarded by the City of Newport Beach (dated October 13, 1981) represents the current position of the District. Tele- phone conversations with Bruce Mattern, District Manager, ME confirm the potential problem of supplying sewer service to this and other projects in the area which are placing more intense uses on the land. The District currently does not have the financial ability to construct addition- al facilities. The District Board is currently reviewing new ordinances regarding fees and new facility construc- tion financing. The alternatives stated in the letter are being considered: 1. Detachment from the Costa Mesa Sanitary District, which would allow the County and Newport Beach to handle the increased capacity needs. uch as the 2 Establish an Improvement District Acts nof 1911,�1915,s1913 provide. 3. Require the first developer to furnish at his expense the needed capacity and then by agreement, provide that the developer would be reimbursed as other prop- erties develop and/or redevelop and connect to the new facility. The District Management feels the District would be unable to provide a will serve letter or list conditions to be met for such a letter until March 1982, when the new ordinances and existing conditions have been sufficiently evaluated. Because of these conditions, the letter from the District to the project proponent, (dated 10/22/80) offering a will serve letter and specifying improvements is no longer valid. The project must be re-evaluated under the new criteria to be adopted by the District in the near future. (Telephone conversation with Bruce Mattern, District Manager 1/28/82.) Comment 3: Mitigation measures throughout the report are worded in terms of "should" instead of "will". Those mitigations that will actually be implemented should be distinguished froform those thtre merel those measuressuggested, not and reasons to be igiven Respanse: Mitigation measures which are currently a part of the project as proposed are included in the report and worded as "will" or "shall". Other mitigation measures which are proposed or suggested by the EIR preparers are worded as "should" or "could". These measures can be implemented by conditional approvals requiring specific actions or fea- tures. It is the purpose of public and administrative re- view of development proposals, via EIR or other documenta- tion, to determine those additional mitigation measures 31 from the list of those recommended or suggested which will provide adequate protection to the environment from devel- opment impacts. Adequacy in this regard is determined by the appropriate government body, i.e., Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors. Comment 4: Biological Resources (Page 7) - The DEIR states that "Excrements [sic] from the animals may contribute signifi- cantly to .. organic pollutant percolation ...". Please explain this in more detail. Would water in this area percolate to the water table or is it inhibited by soils not conducive to infiltration or blocked by an impervious layer? Do existing groundwater quality data indicate any problems which might be attributed to equestrian activi- ties? Response: As stated in the Biological Resources section of the" DEIR, such organic pollutants as animal excrement, generated on -site, may reach Upper Newport Bay via surface runoff or through water table contamination. No published informa- tion is known to exist to confirm this existing potential water pollutant mechanism. Should such materials reach Upper Newport Bay, they would contribute to accelerated algae growth and eutrophication within the estuary eco- system. It should be noted that this possible pollutant mechanism currently exists on the site. The implementation of the proposed project would eliminate it and must be considered a potential beneficial impact of the proposed project. Comment 5: Biological Resources (Page B) - BOO is the accepted abbre- viation for biochemical oxygen demand. Response: This comment is noted. According to Webster's New Collegiate Dictionar , BOD is an acceptable a rev a on for-601 6ioc em ca and biological oxygen demand. The DEIR follows the biological consultant's usage in the Biological Assessment of the project site. Comment 6: Archaeology (Page 11) - The DEIR should state that the recommendations stated in the archaeologist's report will be implemented. The Elk should not be finalized until the archaeological test phase and report are complete. 32 Response: The County of Orange has established procedures to insure significant archaeological or paleontological resources are preserved. These proecedures are incorporated in the Standard Conditions of Approval, administered by the Orange County EMA, Regulation. Should the project be approved, it will be subject to these conditions which are consistent with those in the archaeologist's report. Processing of the EIR should not be halted to await such a test phase and report which are specifically addressed at another phase of development proposal processing under the County's jurisdiction. Comment 7: Paleontological Resources (Page 13) - As a mitigation measure, it should be stated that if any resources are uncovered during site preparation, the area will be flagged off and thoroughy investigated before work pro- ceeds. Response: As noted in the response to th'e previous comment, the County has specific guidelines to insure the preservation of significant cultural/scientific features found on site. The Standard Conditions of Approval state: "If the cultural/scientific features are found to be sig- nificant, the cultural/scientific resource observer shall determine appropriate actions, in cooperation with the project developer, which insure that the resources will not be destroyed before exploration and/or salvage.." Comment 8: Hydrology/Water Quality - Are local storm drainage facili- ties adequate to handle increased runoff? Response: Local storm drainage facilities are adequate to handle the increased run-off of approximately 1.08 CFS. This repre- sents a 0.097 percent increase in total flow within the Santa Ana - Delhi Flood Control Channel located approxi- mately 1000 feet to the west. Although a drainage plan has not yet been prepared for the project, the increased runoff is not expected to significantly impact any exist- ing drainage facility. 33 Comment 9: Hydrology/Water Quality - Increased erosion due to in- creased runoff in unimproved drainages should be investi- gated as a part of the EIR and appropriate mitigation measures required. Response: The project, if approved, will be subject to the rules, procedures and interpretations of the Orange County Grading and Excavation Code known as the Orange County Grading Manual. This manual contains the standards and requirements to which development projects in the County are held. In reference to this comment regarding the potential for Increased erosion in unimproved drainages, the Grading Manual states: "All drainage facilities shall be designed to carry waters to the nearest practicable drainage way approved by the Building Official and/or, other appropriate jurisdiction as a safe place to deposit such water. Erosion of ground in the area of discharge shall be prevented by installation of non -erosive downdrains, riprap, energy dissipators or other approved devices including a return of flow to a natural sheet flow condition." (Section 11.3) Conformance to this provision will be determined at the time of grading plan review and approval. In addition the County's Standard Conditions of Approval state that: "The following improvements shalt be designed and con- structed in accordance with plans and specifications meet- ing the approval of the Assistant Director, EMA, Develop- ment: "All provisions for surface drainage, including a drainage study evidencing that proposed drainage patterns will not overload existing storm drains. All necessary storm drain facilities extnding to a satisfactory point of disposal for the proper control and disposal of storm runoff and the necessary easements therefore shall be dedicated to the County of Orange. "The developer shall submit to the Assistant Director, EMA, Development, detailed drainage studies indicating how the tract grading in conjunction with the drainage convey- ance systems including applicable swales, channels, street flows, catch basis, storm drains and flood water retarding 34 will allow building pads to be safe from inundation from rainfall runoff which may be expected from all storms up to and including the theoretical 1000-year flood." Although these conditions are notapplied to the project at the current stage of processing, the existence of such requirements at later stages should- provide adequate assurance that such potential impacts will be sufficiently mitigated, when the detailed plans are developed, via codified ordinances. Comment 10: Hydrology/Water Quality (Page 15) - Please explain the basis of the statement that "As a non -street impervious surface, its annual accumulation [of pollutants] should be much less." Response: The comment refers to a statement that a parking lot is expected to accumulate less solid wastes which are then washed into drainages than a street. ' This statement is taken from the Biological Assessment where it is sourced to 208 Areawide Waste Treatment Management Planning Program by Pomeroy, Johnston, and Baily, 9 . This statement is based on the fact that a parking lot is not subject to the traffic which a street is, and the associated deposition of solids. These include oil and gas deposits from leaking vehicles, rubber, asbestos from brake linings, litter and debris lost in transport. A parking lot while subject to some of the same impacts, likely receives regular cleaning more thorough than that given roadways and does not receive equal amounts of such deposits for an equal area. Comment 11: Hydrology/Water Quality (Page 15) - If parking lot runoff is diverted onto adjacent permeable surfaces, as suggested in the DEIR, what will be the effects on erosion in these permeable areas? Response: Such areas will receive runoff only at a rate acceptable under County standards which require erosion protection. See response to comment 9. -Comment 12: Hydrology/Water Quality (Page 15) - Is the use of porous paving material practical for this project? 35 Response: The use of porous paving material, such as gravel, in vehicle circulation areas, i.e., parking lot, is not prac- tical. However, portions of the pedestrian circulation areas could contain such materials and reduce increased storm runoff from the improved property. Comment 13: Visual/Aesthetic Quality - Photos of the existing site should be included with an overlay showing the proposed project. Response: Photos of the existing site are included in Appendix B. Archaeological/Paleontological Investigation. The exist- ing conditions portion of the Visual/Aesthetic Quality Section also provides a complete narrative describing the site and adjacent environment. The Site Plan and Eleva- tions, DEIR Exhibits 41 So and 61 with the narrative con- tained within the potential impacts section provide a com- prehensive description of the proposed structures and their location. Additional information is not required for the reader to adequately assess the visual qualities of the site as it currently exists and the proposed proj- ect. Comment 14: Visual Quality/Aesthetics - What will be the height of the proposed structure? Response: The structures are proposed to be two stories or approxi- mately twenty-five feet in height. Comment 15: Visual Quality/Aesthetics (Page 1 Response: See response to Comment 13 Comment 16: 9 Visual Quality/Aesthetics - As a mitigation measure, it should be required that a landscape plan be submitted by the applicant and made subject to County approval. 36 Response: According to Dave Maynard, Chief EMA/Area Site Planning, landscape plans are routinely required for developments such as this. The requirement is made a condition of approval by the Planning Commission based upon EMA staff recommendation. It is his opinion that this project would be subject to such a condition if approved by the Planning Commission. (Based on telephone conversation: 1/29/82.) Comment 17: Traffic and Circulation - The discussion of intersection utilization does not include previously approved projects which will contribute significant amounts of traffic to local intersections when completed. At the same time, it does not include already committed improvements which might help alleviate congestion in the area. In order to adequately assess impacts on local roadways this should be included. In addition, the ICU analysis does not include yellow time. The City of Newport Beach usually expects 10 percent of the light cycle to be in yellow time. Response: Information regarding previously approved projects which would contribute traffic to the DEIR 277 area along with any roadway improvements has been obtained from the City of Newport Beach and is discussed below. The City of Newport Beach provides Intersection Capacity Utilization information based upon existing plus committed project Is traffic. The list of committed projects include: Aeronutronic ford Backbay Office Boyle Engineering Civic Plaza Corporate Plaza Koll Center Newport Campus/MacArthur National Education Office North Ford Orchard Office Pacific Mutual Plaza 3701 Birch Office Newport Place Shokrian Bayside Square Sea Island Baywood Apartments Harbor Point Homes Roger's Gardens Seaview Lutheran Plaza Marriott Expansion The above projects cause the intersections on Bristol 'and Campus to have an evening peak hour operation as follows: 37 --Bristol Street North/Campus Drive - 1.12 percent --Bristol Street/Irvine Avenue - .84 percent Other intersections along the Corona Del Mar Freeway Corridor on Bristol are operating at 1.01 percent or bet- ter. Whenever project traffic, committed development traffic, and regional growth traffic are added to the Bristol - Campus intersections the following evening peak hour intersection capacity utilization result: --Bristol Street North/Campus Drive - 1.48 percent --Bristol Street/Irvine Avenue - .99 percent In accordance with the procedures of the City of Newport Beach traffic Phasing Ordinance, both the "One Percent Traffic Volume Analysis" sheets and the "Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis" for the Bristol -Campus intersections sheets are included with this response. Previously approved City of Newport Beach projects have recommended new lane configurations for the Bristol inter- sections at Campus Drive and Irvine Avenue. These changes would add: --One southbound right turn lane and one combination through lane, right turn lane to the north leg of the Bristol -Campus intersection. --One southbound through lane to the north and south legs of the Bristol -Irvine intersection. Lane additions as discussed above would cause the inter- sections to operate at the following evening peak hour intersection capacity utilization percentages: --Bristol Street North/Campus Drive - 1.48 percent --Bristol Street/Irvine Avenue - .87 percent The reason there is no change in Bristol Street North/ Campus Drive intersection capacity utilization after improvements have been added is due to the fact that the heaviest movement - southbound right, did not receive additional lane capacity. The intersections on Bristol along the Corona Del Mar Freeway Corrid-or have evening peak hour operations ranging from 63 percent to 112 percent. Any project along the corridor wall will impact intersection capacity utiliza- tion. There are recommended lane configurations which, by adding lanes, will assist in intersection capacity utili- zation reduction. m The completion of the Corona Del Mar Freeway between Campus and Jamboree will further reduce intersection capacity utilization along Bristol. In discussions with CalTrans staff, it was indicated that the freeway link between Campus and Jamboree has funding for fiscal year 1983-184, with a three year construction schedule antici- pated. (Source: Kunzman Associates) Comment 18: Traffic and Circulation - An conflicts with pedestrian should be included. Response: analysis of potential vehicle and equestrian circulation With regard to pedestrian circulation/traffic conflicts, the on -site conditions are considered typical of office and/or commercial development, therefore, pedestrian - vehicle conflict is assumed to be at a minimum. To minimize the vehicle -equestrian conflicts, the follow- ing measures may be taken: --Post an "Equestrian Crossing" sign at the project access facing outbound project traffic. --Post "Equestrian Warning" signs along Acacia Avenue and Orchard Drive. (Source: Kunzman Associates) Comment 19: . Air Quality (Page 26) - If 1980 air quality summaries are available, they should be presented. Response: Air quality summaries for 1980 are presented below: 39 Number of Days State Standards Were Exceeded and Annual Maximum Hourly Averages (1980) CARBON SULFUR NITROGEN OZONE MONOXIDE DIOXIDE DIOXIDE Station Location bays Max. Days Max. Days Max. Days Max. Anaheim 68 0.28 23 26 0 .019 17 0.43 La Habra 106 0.31 3 25 0 .023 5 0.42 Costa Mesa 20 0.16 2 17 0 .017 2 0.31 E1 Toro 65 0.34 NM NM NM NM NM NM Los Alamitos 49 0.22 NM NM 0 .029 NM NM Santa Ana C. 89 0.33 NM NM 0 .010 NM NM a0ays - number of days exceeding state standard for indicated pollutant. aMax. - single highest 1-hour (for S02 24-hour) average of the year in parts per million. NM - Not Measured. SOURCE: California Air Quality Data ('1980); California Air esources oar ummary r ua ity in the South Coast Air Basin of California 1979. Comment 20: Air Quality - Impacts related to potential air pollution hot spots at congested intersecti-on need to be examined as part of the EIR. Response: This comment addresses the potential for carbon monoxide buildup at a congested intersection. These impacts are most usually associated with very high volumes of traffic (>2009000 ADT), congested on highways below grade and hot days with little wind. Intersections near the project are not likely to meet these criteria and are not expected to generate carbon monoxide hot spots. A worst case analysis has been calculated for the most congested and heavily trafficked intersection impacted by the project: Campus and North Bristol. The analysis technique used here is described in the Air Quality Handbook for EnvironmentalImpact Reports, SCA p.� T s ana ysi-s assumes worst -me el aroiogic conditions of one meter per second wind speed and a 22-1/2 degree angle between wind direction and highway direction. The concen- tration is estimated for a location 50 feet from the down- wind edge of the highway, at grade. The vehicle mix con- tains l0 percent heavy duty vehicles (over 6,000 pounds gross weight). This method is assumed accurate for 1980, 40 The traffic report estimates a total ADT of 60,000 through the intersection in question. The peak hour is assumed to be the worst congested period and to contain 10 percent of the total ADT. Thus, for this analysis the intersection is assumed to handle a 6,009 one -hour volume at an aver- age speed of 10 mph. Based on all of these assumptions the carbon monoxide concentration is calculated to be 25 parts per million (ppm) at the sampling location. Th.e California one -hour standard is 40 ppm. It should be noted that SCAQMD data indicate a prevailing 6-8 mph wind in the afternoon at this location. A 6 mph wind (2.8 meters per second) would reduce the concentration by 70 percent which would be 17.5 ppm at the observation point. Comment 21: Air Quality (Page 27) - It seems that Table 2, "Project Emissions" should be included under Impacts rather than under Existing Conditions. Please clarify whether the table represents emissions associated with the existing site or the proposed project and whether the table repre- sents emissions from mobile or stationary sources or both. Rather than show emissions as a percentage of SCAB emis- sions, it might be more informative to show emissions as a percent of those in the Orange County sub -basin. Response: Table 2 sho.uld be included in the potential impacts sec- tion. The table indicates total emissions (stationary and mobile) associated with the proposed project as a percent- age of forecast emissions for Orange County in 1987. Project emissions compared with those in the Orange County cuh_hacin for 1987 are aiven below. Project Emissions Compared with Orange County (Forecast for 1987) CO NO Sox TSP THC Project* .03868 .00985 .00730 .00188 .00406 Orange Co.* 737 107 10 16 93 Project Percentage of O.C. .005% .009% .073% :012% .004% *tons per day SOURCE: Orange County 1982 Forecast - telephone conversation with Mike Nazemi - May 22, 1981. 41 4 � 1 Comment 22: Air Quality (Page 29) - The statement that "the proposed project will result in the addition of only 20 pounds of contaminants daily" is misleading in that it applies only to stationary source emissions. This should be clarified and the total of emissions from all sources should be presented. Response: The comment is correct in that in the 20 pound figure cited does only include stationary source emissions. Com- bining this figure with the mobile source emissions given in the response to Comment A from Orange EMA/Transporta- tion/Flood Program Office yields the following total emis- sions: Total Emissions (Stationary and Mobile Source) YEAR EMISSIONS 1982 206.9 pounds per day 1985 145.6 pounds per day 1987 122.6 pounds per day 1990 104.8 pounds per day 1995 94.3 pounds per day 2000 70.2 pounds per day Comment 23: Noise/Light/Glare/Safety - Noise impacts of commercial development on residences should be examined. This should include a discussion of the potential for increased traf- fic noise as well as noise from the proposed project site. Response: Ex-cept for increased traffics the activities occurring on an office commercial site are not expected to generate noise g9reater than the current land use. An increase of 290 AOT is expected to make no calculable noise impact on adjacent properties. The overwhelming noise concern for all properties in the area is jet aircraft noise. Comment 24: Noise/Light/Glare/Safety - Will the project result in increased hazards to young people riding horses in th.e area? 42 i ' D Response: Increased traffic in the area could increase the potential hazard to all equestrian activities occurring on public roadways. See response to comment 18 for suggested miti- gation measures. Comment 25: Recreation/Open Space (Page 43) - It should be pointed out that because horseback riding in the residential area "would be unacceptable in most other neighborhoods in the County" the equestrian nature of the community is a unique and valuable resource on which any impacts must be viewed as highly significant. Any conflicts between the existing equestrian uses and the proposed development should be examined in detail before the EIR is finalized. Response: Conflicts between the existing equestrian uses and the proposed project are discussed in the EIR sections: Traffic and Circulation and Recreation/Open Space. This existing use is a unique and valuable resource which should be protected from encroaching urbanization where possible. These concerns are part of the input being pro- vided in the production of the Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan. For a discussion of this project's relationship to that Plan see response to comment from John Wayne Airport. Comment 26: Land Use and Relevant Planning Programs - Because the sub- ject property is in the Newport Beach Sphere of bnfluence, the proposed project should be analyzed in light of the Newport Beach General Plan, which designates the site for low density residential use. This conflict should be examined in detail and the proposed project should be reviewed in terms of the various elements of the Newport Beach General Plan and Draft Local Coastal Program. Response: The project site is not located within the Coastal Zone, hence, the elements of the Santa Ana Heights Draft Local Coastal Program are not directly applicable. Development of the proposed project is not in conflict with any of the policies stated in the Local Coastal Program. The Newport Beach Land Use Element designates the subject property Low Density Residential with which the proposed use would conflict. If annexation were to occur the pro- posed project would be inconsistent with the General Plan 43 t Land Use Element designation. The Noise Element of the City's General Plan specifies: the maximum allowable ex- terior noise level is 55 CNEL; maximum allowable interior noise level is 45 CNEL, for residential uses. Under this standard the current use and General Plan designated use are both non -conforming to the City's General Plan because of noise impacts from the airport. The City has no simi- lar ,standard for commercial or industrial uses within the City. The proposed project would be consistent with the City's Plan in this regard. These facts demonstrate a current inconsistency between the elements of the City's General Plan and operations at John Wayne Airport. Assuming operations at John least at their current level, the City's General Plan cannot ect as proposed, is consistent City's General Plan. Comment 27: Wayne Airport continue, at the land use designation of be implemented. The proj- with other elements of the Land Use and Relevant Planning (Page 49) - It is not reasonable to expect a reviewer to believe that an office building would be useful as a buffer between houses and a golf course. This'section should be carefully reviewed as it is not adequate. Response: Although office buildings in general may not be thought of as useful buffers between these uses, the scale and character of the proposed project makes such a function possible. As noted in the DEIR, the ad.jacent Newport - Irvine Center building would not serve such a function due to its steel and glass construction in a very urban style. Such a structure would be out of place in a primarily natural setting such as between residential uses and a golf course. The building is in sharp contrast to adja- cent structures on its site near the proposed project. The proposed project, howver, utilizes natural building materials and landscaping to create a setting more in harmony with adjacent uses. By minimizing the visual Impacts, the proposed use can provide buffer functions such as protection from early morning maintenance or recreation activities noise and struck golf balls that may leave the course, without seriously detracting from the overall character and quality of the environment. 44 - . n Comment 28: Land Use and Relevant Planning - The Draft EIR does not address the potential that approval of the proposed proj- ect has to prejudice the preparation of the Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan. This and the relationship of the proposed project to the preliminary recommendations of the Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan Advisory Committee should bd addressed in the Final EIR. _ Response: The project's relationship to the Santa Ana Heights Speci- fic Plan is discussed in the response to comments recei-ved from John Wayne Airport. Comment 29: Unavoidable Adverse Impacts - This section is not adequate in that Unavoidable Adverse Impacts an Land Use, Recrea- tion, and Housing are not discussed. Response: Project approval will require a land use decision by responsible governing and administrative bodies. Prior to this decision, analysis regarding the proposed land will be undertaken, as demonstrated in this document, to deter- mine impacts. As has been stated, the project is consist- ent with the current draft land use plan for the Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan and the potential impacts on adja- cent uses has been discussed. The proposed project and the uses proposed by other plans; Orange County General Plan, Newport Beach General Plan have been discussed in the DEIR and in response to comment 26. It is not evident that unavoidable adverse impact in the area of Land Use will occur with project approval. An unavoidable impact to existing housing stock will occur as - discussed in response to comment 1. An unavoidable adverse impact to equestrian recreation facilities will occur and is discussed in the response to comment 25. Comment 30: Alternatives (Page 53) - The DEIR states that the "no project alternative is not in the best interests of the citizens of the County." Please explain the justification for this statement and explain which "citizens" are implied. Those who live along Acacia and Orchard? Those who keep horses in the area? 45 Response: The no project alternative would continue residential uses in an environment in which new residential development would not be allowed due to the noise impacts from the John Wayne Airport. The Noise Elements of both the City of Newport Beach and the County of Orange indicate such. The no project alternative is not in the interest of citizens who demand jet air transportation from John Wayne Airport, desire a healthy living environmental for all residences and require office space for business activities. Those who currently enjoy keeping their horses on the property will not be benefited when this opportunity is lost, if the project is constructed. Comment 31: Alternatives (Page 54) - The DEIR states that "As dis- cussed in the Biology section, the current equestrian boarding activity has generated negative Impacts to the environment." Yet, the terminology in the Biology section is confined to phrases such as "may contribute" and "It is not known whether...". Justification for the statement on Page 54 should be provided if it is retained in the Final EIR. Response: The statement assumes some of the negative impacts dis- cussed in the Biology section do occur. These impacts are sufficiently numerous and severe that their consideration is justified even though they are not quantified or pre- cisely determined in the DEIR. The three sentences fol- lowing the statement quoted in the comment explain these concerns and are quoted below. "Excrements from the horses may contribute significantly to the scenario of organic pollutant percolation in the area; potentially reaching Upper Newport Bay. Additional- ly, because of food resources made available through the stable operation, house mice, roof rats and Norway rats may live on the site. The County Health Department Requirements for Commercial Stables also identifies dust control and vector control as potential problem areas." Comment 32: Alternatives (Page 55) - While the Health Department iden- tifies dust and vector control as potential problems which equestrian uses, Health Department also suggests means of controlling these problems. These should be discussed in the EIR. Response: These potential problems were raised to indicate possible nuisance problems associated with equine stabling. The Health Department maintains operating standards for such operations to control these potential nuisances. These include general construction and maintenance requirements, proper manure management, food storage requirements, a program of continuous dust control, vector control and general cleanliness and sanitation provisions. Vigorous enforcement of the equine stable regulations will provide a compatible and healthful environment. However, these potential nuisance sources can become real when these standards are not strictly maintained and enforced. (Reference: Equine Standards for Commercial Stables Pursuant to Resolution No. 76-1610 Orange County Board of Supervisors October 26, 1976). Comment 33: Alternatives (Page 55) - The DE,IR mentions potential con- flicts betweeen equestrian activities and future develop- ment. Due to the proliferation of equestrian uses in Santa Ana Heights and the uniqueness of this resource, it would be desirable to plan future development to accommo- date the equestrian use. It hardly seems logical to introduce a new use, inconsistent with the General Plan for the area in order to be compatible with other non- existent uses equally inconsistent with the General Plan while at the same time increasing conflicts with existing equestrian uses in the area. Thus, this conflict should not be used as a reason for dismissal of the equestrian alternative in the EIR. Response: As noted, the propo,sed project is consistent with the cur- rent draft of the Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan, a plan designated to supercede the current Orange County General Plan designations for the area. This plan preserves sig- nificant areas for, continued equestrian/residential uses predominantly adjacent to Newport Back Bay and in the interior portions of the area away from heavily trafficked streets such as Bristol Street and Irvine Avenue. It should be noted that the equestrian alternative is dis- missed due to numerous conflicts and problems not solely due to General Plan conflicts. Comment 34: Short-term Uses and Long-term Productivity (Page 56) - The DEIR states that "the project site in its present state is not of great value to the surrounding community except as 47 it provides equestrian recreation facilities and limited residential use." Please explain why housing and the unique equestrian use in the area is not considered of great value. Response: As noted in the DEIR, the project site receives signifi- cant noise impacts to such a degree that new residential development would not be allowed on the site by either the County of Orange or the City of Newport Beach. Housing in such a location would not seem to be of great value or worthy of preservation. The equestrian facilities on the site are valuable to the limited number of persons who are able to use them. In this context, the unique value of the site in its present use is evident, however, to the majority of the County's citizens this resource is inconsequential. Comment 35: Growth Inducing Impacts - The conversion of residential land to commercial use should be analyzed in terms of its inducement of further conversions and its effect on land use designations in the Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan now being prepared. The effect of the conversion on the Orange County Airport and on ANCLUC plans should be examined in the light of its inducement to further airport growth, i.e., the reduction of residential development which could reduce conflicts with the airport and poten- tially accelerate airport growth. Response: It is very unlikely that the addition of 26,000 square feet of professional/administrative office (69 employees) will affect, to any measurable extent, the number of pas- sengers using John Wayne Airport. The past airport expan- sion created conflicts with adjacent land uses. These conflicts will not prevent further airport expansion, just as they did not prevent the expansion to current operation levels, generating the conflicts. The operations and facilities at John Wayne Airport would, logically, be bet- ter organized under an Airport Master Plan as is now being attempted. It would appear highly illogical to attempt to maintain non- conforming uses in order to "hold the air- port hostage" in terms of future operations. A much more sensible approach would be to establish a plan for airport operations and work to implement such a plan, including the reduction of land use conflicts to the greater public benefit. W Comment 36: Growth Inducing Impacts (Page 58) - The DEIR states that "the proposed project will continue the current trend... of redeveloping residential parcels to.., office/profes- sional uses." On what is this statement based? The area is almost .exclusively residential and agricultural, the exceptions being the strips along Bristol Street and Irvine Avenue north of Acacia, which have been designated commercial since at least 1973. A drive through the area reveals no "trend" toward commercial development elsewhere in eastern Santa Ana Heights. Response: The statement was based on the recent demolition of homes along Bristol Street and Irvine Avenue and redevelopment of these parcels with office commercial projects. These areas may have been designated commercial for some time but the conversions have occurred only in the last few years. The issue raised by the proposal is whether office use is now appropriate for the site. Conditions have changed considerably since 1973. It is entirely possible that these changes have made professional/administrative offices a more desirable use on the project site than residential uses. In fact, the current noise impacts from airport operations preclude new residential development entirely. The most current planning effort in the area, the draft Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan, designates the site for office use and conversations with County Planners confirm that this site will most _likely remain so desig- nated in any further refinement of the Plan.* *Telephone conversation with Richard Adler, OCEMA January 28, 1982. 49 me xu, Iucr nunc, Iucunnrn, rurrcn, mm [ccm mL nnarrm unu nnu ic rnu VISIONS CONCERNING THE SAME CONTAINED IN THE DEED FROM THE IRVINE COMPANY, RECORD- ED JUNE 19,1924, IN BOON 5311, PACE 128, DEEDS. AFFECTS LOTS 50,51, AND 52. 2. RIGHTS OF WAY BYER AND ACROSS SAID LAND FOR ELECTRIC LIGHT, POWER, AND TELEPHONE MAP U U ` LINES WHICH SHALL FOLLOW AS NEARLY AS PRACTICABLE THE PROPERTY LIVE AS RESERVED IN - VICINIT iv IYIAP * R ♦ �I THE DEED FROM TITLE GUARANTEE AND TRUST COMPANY, A CORPORATION, RECORDED NOVEM i ♦ 1 17 BER 20,152%, IN BOOK 223, PAGE 35, OF OFFICIAL RECORDS. AFFEE15 LOT 52. : NUT TO SCALE 3: RIGHTS OF WAY FOR THE BENEFIT OF SANTA ANA HEIGHTS WATER COMPANY ACROSS AND ALONG SAID LAND FOR PIPES AND OIICHE5, WHICH SHALL FOLLOW AS NEARLY AS PRACTICABLE THE PROPERTY LINES AS RESERVED IN THE DEED FROM TITLE GUARANTEE AND TRUST COMPANY A ' CORPORATION, RECORDED NOVEMBER 20,1928, IN BOOK 223, PAGE 35, OF OFFICIAL RECORDS. AFFECTS LOT 52. r.•'- 4. AN EASEMENT OVER SAID LAND FOR POLE LINES, CONDUITS," AND INCIDENTAL 0URPO5E5,WHICH EAU i is-- SAID POLE LINES SHALL FOLLOW AS NEARLY AS PRACTICABLE THE PROPERTY LINES AS RESER- VED BY TITLE GUARANTEE AND TRUST COMPANY, IN DEED RECORDED JULY 21 1929 IN BOOK 291,PALE 141, OFFICIAL RECBRDS. AFFECTS LOTS 50 AND 51. PAULARINO AVENUE- fRf£N y S. AN EASEMENT FOR THE BENEFIT OF 5AN1A ANA HEIGHTS WATER COMPANY OVER SAID LAND - BAKER STREET Q• AY - ;% FUR PIPES AND'DITCHES, WHICH SHALL FOLLOW AS NEARLY AS PRACTICABLE THE PROPERTY Q LINES, AS RESERVED BY TITLE GUARANTEE AND TRUST COMPANY, IN DEED RECORDED JULY 27, �r FO. k TIN. ACCEPTED A5 —� 19297 IN BOOK 297, PAGE 141, OFFICIAL RECORDS. AFFECTS LOTS 58 AND Si. A C. 9ERu o: Cll DRC13dD A14S�i dYtl- 6. AN AVIGATIDN EASEMENT OVER SAID LAND FOR USE BY AIRCRAFT, FROM OR TO THE ORANGE ro.T144 i{ AIRPORT, AS RECORDED M 13, COUNTY N BOOK fi247, PACE 581� OFFICIAL RECORDS�RA FECTS LOT 50 SEPTE BER ' - y J� �p • ya�� 9� .- - - - � s• �'L �otJ � \��� �5 fj�` � -\ `.: 4 _ � Q a``• +¢Q�yy N9gD \••� — '' P � , $o r JPor:. \� \\ \\ ` o� ¢� 9„f - - - FkyG - - _ _ - _ Iga, te `/plc - •'`� . , , - .Ltd �® ��\ �\ - _ - - _ - PROPERTY LOCATION 43. ` vex �, , — ---- — FD. N TIN. ACCEPTED AS CIC _ Af5N 1RY. P6•i144 t� _—EZlsrsys sTAat? �a�� ` \ EXISTING � / Zo' HOSE'- .. - - 'ti:"; Jsj;. � qi iR�t CHCHANC G&. ` " �/ � !\� \� r'A•\ \ PROPERTY OWNER / APPLICANT EEtiisAG'„T� OXFORD PROPERTIES INC. ��sa EXISTING v ,'` ONE WILSHIRE+ BOULEVARD SUITE 25DU ` F GARAGE LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90011 213.626.5433 :... �� .d �-.e Q�. r2• - - ,� + � M..J• ` � {'' =r! �{�_•'`• �u ;��. ";r� . ref \��t ti a [ae • }•• S� T�zt � wW R,Nt HO % 4FY :163IS DC _ � 4 r, CIVIL ENGINEER= _ x. K.W. LAWLER AND ASSOCIATES LNG. _ r 2632 WALNUT AVENUE, SUITE A >\' TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA 92680 tit av �i PD. u'BA%!i. ACEEPatil £#MEND v \ / A 114.13D• 0401 :.,y _ v �U 7 i `F \, Ai 1L [DF. iiRC6?At1S ACACIA PER AAA RV. t,,s THIS PLOT PLAN, AND THE BOUNDARY AND TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY SHOWN HERE➢N, WERE PREPAR- ED UNDER IRE SUPERVISION OF Al KERRY W. LAWLER, R.C.E. 23921 DECEMBER 6,1950 n � 5° in T -MM PER !X5TRi5 LNT / o EffiE4NNC s da" .. F � 4: i� K2K ROE1 11V. € mb? IN, BOOK LEGAL DESCRIPTION: 1 ¢ �izr=e ��� �* �' �; rr�s*qua s `� �t` ;'r CIO r FSCE SS OFFICIAL NiCDRii fi. ,i Jj� s'tsa . oar G;&C '. %s#s£;, ,, ap/ - ��✓. fr; </� ix'.kCSa: E;I 'm�,'cz SITUATED IN UNIVCURPURATED TERRITORY IN THE COUNTY OF ORANGE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DES- z tx si;c of • CRIBED AS FOLLOWS � � � THE SOUTHEASTERLY 80 FEET OF LOT 50 OF TRACT NO. 106; THE NORTHWESTERLY 11FEET OF THE SOUTHEASTERLY 151 FEET OF LOT SO OF TRACT NO.106; LOT 51 OF TRACT NO.706 s AND LOT 52 OF £X15TyYVG FSiSTiN TRACT NO.706, EXCEPTING THEREFROM THE 5DUTHWESTERLY 66 FEET OF SAID LOT 52; ALL AS HC'a4 GA;AGf ' xs �aNc E -s"xx i / / �Q SHOWN ON A MAP FOR SAID TRACT NO.106 RECORDED 1% BOOK 21, PACE 25, OF MISCELLANEOUS _q •.� sr p �y b�.v / ,/ MAPS, RECORDS OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALWORNIA. . 41 GENERAL NOTES • o , �� _ �... , �. \ , > � ,� �i.. kC NUM1 3F•'. ���b" x O,, \\� DAB / . 1. EXISTING 2DNING: A•1 ] [SR GENERAL R GRIC TURAL [WITH SIGN RESTRICTIONS]. '' \ O / 2. PROPOSED 20NINCz PA PR➢FESSIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE WITH A PD [PLANNED > \ XI DEVELOPMENT ] OVERLAY. 3. EXISTING GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION S-4 MISCELLANEOUS OPEN SPACE. THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED WITHIN THE BDUNDARIES OF THE GENERAL PLAN IMPLEMENTATION DISTRICT, ILLUS PAY TRATED IN 2DNE CHANGE EXHIOIT 89.25 ADOPTED BY ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPER f y ° ' 4\ // `x _ � in. ;«w£€ta; -"'�" � �`_� ..iiiFiRS v!ATER"PA.TER VISORS ON SEPTEMBER24,1980,A5 ORDINANCE NO. 321B. 4. NET PROPERTY AREA: 74,81➢.31 SOUARE FEET, OR 1.111 ACRE. NOTE THAT THE NET AREA FIG - ORE EXCLUDES THE PERIMETER PUBLIC STREET RIGHTS -BF -WAY. 5. REFER 10 E.I.R. NO.211 FOR ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION. '! t / - _ - - BIMN. WAS 1T9 - ER SCALE: ill: 201 �Y9 I 4 TO ACCOMPANY 0� 0 ZONE CHANGE CASE NO. ZC•R2.04 No. ICE81Y21I5E ORANGE COAST DAILY PILOT — December 25, 1983 Lawsuit filed to halt 2-story' office buildin A group of Santa Ana Heights residents edging they cannot tolerate life beneath the have filed suit in Orange County Superior flight path of departing jetliners, would i Court to block construction of a 2-story office see the community rezoned for co building approved in November by the Board development so they can sell their props of Supervisors for the rural, residential The lawsuit contends that enviro community. reports prepared for the project are -; The lawsuit filed by the Back Bay quate. Community Association asks the court to The future of Santa Ana Heights is invalidate the board's approval and impose a expected to be determined this spring, Alen restraining order to block construction of the supervisors are scheduled to select an 26,000-square-foot building planned for the expansion project that includes a decision corner of Orchard Drive and Acacia Street. land -use in the area. '7 Community residents are divided over the future of Santa Ana Heights, located near the end of John Wayne Airport's noisy main runway. And the proposed building has become the focal point of the debate over the area's future. Residents who filed the suit would like to see the heights retain the unique rural atmosphere that has characterized the residen- tial area while Orange County has grown up around it. Another group of residents acknowl- THE SANTA ANA REGISTER - December 21, 1983 Back Bay residents' group sues ,over proposed office building By Lynn O'Dell The Register The Back Bay Community Associa- tion has filed a lawsuit against the county, claiming that an office building ,.proposed for Santa Ana Heights would :encroach on what is otherwise a rural area. The association, made up of residents 'who want to keep the area residential, filed suit in Superior Court on Monday, teaming as defendants the county and : he -developer, Holstein Industries. W„ "dt's high time we did something. 'khrs is war. We are serious," said resi- :4ent Erma Batham. -Construction of a two-story office Building that county supervisors ap- 1j bved last month for the corner of Or- :Cprd Drive and Acacia Street is the ;ogalyst for the court action. The 26,000- :sttuai•e-foot building would replace four ;homes and a riding stable and set off a *Dh no effect, said Nancy Kaufman, at- toruey for the community association. • 4ficern about airport jet noise from ;John Wayne Airport has divided the ;coffirounity into two camps., one that wants the area to remain rural and an - ;other that is encouraging more business 3leVelopment. . The suit contends the environmental- 34hipact report the county used to ap- prove the office project was poorly done and contends that no project should have been approved because the county is in the middle of a massive planning effort for Santa Ana Heights. "The county says it is carefully con- sidering eight different plans for the area in good faith. At least three of them are inconsistent with this zone change," Kaufman said, Those plans, being considered in con- junction with expansion of the airport, range from leaving the area alone to razing it and redeveloping it as a com- bination business park and open space. "No changes should have been made at all. The Board of Supervisors espe- cially (Supervisor Thomas) Riley, has been saying for the past three years that piecemeal planning is bad and have repeatedly post-poned these ac- tions. "All of a sudden they decide to do it now," Kaufman said. Citing the lack of overall' planning, the county Planning Commission twice postponed a similar office development for the same property when it was un- der a different ownership, she said. The suit asks the court to set aside the supervisors' action and seeks a tempo- rary restraining order preventing con- struction. No court date has been set. pogo S. -Ths Newport Ensftu/Costa Mesa News/Irvine Today November 23, 1= � SA Heights Threatened By Zone Change, County Proposals- ' B b L' h coor- I Heights homes and replace I County by Eric Norris In a move feared by some as the first step in a major rezoning of the mostly residential Santa Ana Heights area, the County Board of Supervisors was ex- pacted to grant a commercial deaignation to a 1.7-acre parcel at its Nov. 16 meeting. MAt that time, supervisors were expected to repeat the result of a "straw vote" taken at a Nov. 2 meeting and rezone the land, located near the airport at Acacia Drive and Orchard Street, for Professional and Ad- ministrative Office use. The property is now in a General Agricultural zone. The predicted move by the board is viewed by some observers as the first of a series of actions to rezone the entire area. That would make it easier to market property there to developers while displacing residents, they claim. The controversy over the ssn- WE ing issue, now under considera- tion by the supervisors, has split residents generally along two lines. One group is fighting for a quieter ,John Wayne Airport while the other remains in favor of a land -use change that would allow them to sell their homes and leave. Dan DeMflle, a principal in the company which owns the parcel presently in question, however, feels the rezoning he has requested will not start a trend in the area. "It's not going to start a rush of rezoning," said DeMille last week. 'Basically, I think the supervisors felt our proposal would stand on its own, no matter what the eventual deci- sion on the Santa Ana Heights issue will be." DeMille, a former resident of Santa Ana Heights, also noted the zone change had already been placed in the works when his development company, Hols- tein Industries, bought the property several years ago. "If I owned land there now and wanted to build an office building, I would ask the super- visors to include it in their plans for the area," he said, adding he felt individual efforts at rezoning are now too costly and time- consuming. Meanwhile, the fight against a proposal under study by super- visors to relocate 1,052 households has escalated with the announcement that long- time airport foes, the Airport Working Group, has entered -the fray. ar ara rc man, dinating director of the group, which claims to represent 19 a area residents and businesses, said AWG's decision to throw its support behind homeowners wishing to stay reflects "a tremendous obligation' to the residents. "This is a group of people who deserve to keep their homes,,' Lichman saidin a telephone in- terview. "'#a felt a tremendous obliga- tion to these people. We felt someone should say something for a change before things happen.,' AWG's concern for the homeowners centers around a proposal presently under con- sideration by the supervisors to tear down 1,052 Santa Ana them with business pork -type developments. Lichman said the proposal reflects an incorrect application of noise standards to the takeoff zone for nearby John Wayne Airport - "What they're saying is, 'If you remove the homeowners, -is it sun =isy?"' According to Lichman, op- position to the plan, if it is ap- proved, will involve what she termed 'strong legal resistance," for the most part in- volving refusal on the part of residents to comply with orders to sell their property,. "We have contingency plans, and when - they (supervisors) make their decision, well know what to do," she said. estimates of the cost of the relocation project run at. about $240-million. Lichman has placed the actual cost at closer to $2-billion, citing an average selling price of $200;000 for the 1,052 ,homes. The proposal is one of eight now under study by the super- visors, who are seeking to resolve safety, noise and pollu- tion problems associated with having a residential area near a major airport. Other plans include a less drastic rezoning of parts of the area and changes in airport operations. The supervisors are working - towards a state -imposed 1988 deadline to eliminate either the problems or the residential areas. J ORANGE COAST DAILY PILOT - November 17, 1983 Office OK'd for Heights; , Supervisors approve commercial zone overresidents' protests By JEFF ADLER required because of a small error noise -compatible office buildings ofaws.arwasas made in public notices announcing interspersed with open space. Following a two-hour hearing the hearing. Supervisors Ralph "I personally do not .view it Wednesday that was louder than Clark and Harriett Wieder were (Wednesday's zone change) as a departing jets from John Wayne not present for the morning precedent to what's going to Airport, the Orange County Board meeting. happen in Santa Ana Hei I%ts," Supervisor Bruce Nestande told , of Supervisors approved the con- The zone change was contested struction of an office building in bitterlyb some area residents those who came to oppose the "I Santa Ana Heights. who claimed the supervisors' de- building's construction. don't agree it's a wedge in the future." Supervisors voted 3-0 togrant a cision dooms the rural nature of Nestande also urged residents j sotwehange request to permit the area, nestled between the gsnakuction of the first office airport and Upper Newport Bay. who believe they can live with 4 ng in the older sections of Supervisors are considering a airport noise and want to stay in their homes to organize."IfIwere+ enta Ana Heights, a range of broad land -use plans for poise -sensitive neighborhood Santa Ana Heights as part of its in your position, I would qulcldy near the end of the larger airport expansion project. get organized and buy off on the reality of the airport;' he sug- jd�aps&oWe runway. The alternatives range from leav- gested• Hoardmain members tentatively ing the area as it is to condemning ��ssv9a their approval to the plan about 1,000 raidenas and con- Supervisor Thomas Riley, Iiov. 9, but a second vote was verting the community to more whose district includes the airport and its surroundins nofsle-Conscious communities, oainmented thgt he was ii{ to learn from Santa Ana residents that the noise of depart - I ing jetliners didn't bother them. "I've learned for the first time in the nine years since I'vebeen a, supervisor and in the 11 yego rve lived here that airport noise is not a problem," Riley said. In protesting the zone change, residents spoke of their affection for the rural nature of Santa Ana Heights as compared with the county's urban surroundings. j "I'm too old to be moved anywhere," Violet Rime)la told the board. "I still think it's a wonderful'place to live. I love the birds... and they love the rural atmosphere in Santa Ana Heights." Debbie Carpenter, who lives across the street from the 1.7-acre property approved for the zone change, told board members the building will "mean the destruc- tion of the lifestyle that we love." She told supervisors her hus- band was raived in the house they now occupy and she and her husband would like to raise their children there. __---------� C14The FlegMer Thrsday, No vember 17, 1963 i Santa Ana (Heights residents, fear office building spells development. By Linda Gabler The Begister Inwhat residents view as a signal their neighbor- hood will be leveled to make way for i a business park, The Board of Supervisors Wednesday, approved plans for an office building in Santa Ana B (eights. The 3-0 vote marked the first time in three years that land in semi -rural Santa Ana He tights has been rezoged. The future of the neighborhi )od, which lies under the takeoff path for John Way4 to Airport, has been uncertain because it is tied to the , growth of the county -operated airport. The neighborhood, with homes rang! ing from mod- est to -Si million -plus, is exposed to jet ri oise levels the stateconsidered too loudfor homes and t schools. So the county, in an effort to end that incor. npatibility, is shaping alternate plans for the commd nity's future. The alternatives range from leaving � he homes but requiring that residents not seek damtages for jet noise;.to that the area and redeveloping it as.a , busiftas park. i The' alternatives are not scheduledfor formal pros @;ttion to the board until Februarl f. But,Wednesday supervisors took a vote on the office builaing that residents say is a harbinger • of things to comg-$upervisors assured the residents the office' builfag was not a first step in converting the neigh- borbood into a commercial development Tlikboard's action to rezone 1.5 acres a) t the corner of Orchard Drive and Acacia Street wa s part of a largprdecision to rezone nearly 2,000 acre s of land in vari#rs'sections of the county. As part of th at vote, the boar# approved plans for a high-tech re: search and dev ent park that its Lake Forest nei, ghbors say wou 4-firing toxic wastes into the area. Sp al¢ng out against the Santa Ana Heil ghts office ' buil Nancy Kaufman, spokeswoman fc�rthe Back -Bay emeowners Association, asked S, apervisors . Bruce Nestande and Harriett Wieder disqualify them- selves from the vote. Kaufman said a county ordi- nance excludes them because they have received campaign donations of more than $1,403 from firms that would benefit from the project. But Nestande, board chairman Roger Stanton and the board's attorney, Adrian Kuyper, said there was no evidence the companies benefit from the project. Supervisor Ralph C ark, however, voluntarily ex- cluded himself from t e vote because of campaign contributions. Wieder left the session to attend an- other meeting and did not vote on the issue. Nestande, Stanton and Riley remained and voted to rezone the property. Urging the board not to approve the Santa Ana Heights office building, resident Erma Batham said supervisors would be setting a precedent for future redevelopment by allowing the project. She said they might as well throw out the alternatives that are now being refined. "Let's not create a slum," Batham said. "Let's not build an office building and then have the rest of the homes sell out to speculation." The neighborhood is divided over its future. Some residents, like Cisca Stelhorn, who testified Wednes- day, say, they can tolerate the 12 minutes of noise generated daily by jet overflights in exchange for living in their equestrian -oriented homes. Others have vowed to stay but to fight against jet noise and airport expansion. But other residents, many of whom spoke at a board meeting.two weeks ago, want to sell their homes to office and commercial developers and move. Reassuring some of the residents Wednesday, Nestande said, "I personally do not view this as a precedent for what will happen to Santa Ana Heights or as a wedge for development." He told residents that if they want to remain in Santa Ana Heights they should organize and drop their opposition to airport noise because "office buildings and,industrial developers buy off on airport noise." Robert Fisher, planning director for the county Environmental Management Agency, told supervi- sors, "We don't see that this ties your hands on any- thing that would;determine the outcome for the larger area." Responding to residents' complaints about the of- fice building, the board suggested that access to the office building could be shifted from Acacia Street to Orchard Drive. The board also agreed the building should be designed to blend in with nearby homes. ORANGE COAST PILOT - November 3, 1983 SA lKeights residents' disagree on pro j ect The widening gap between Santa Ana Heights residents over the fate of their once idyllic equestrian community split further Wednesday as the Orange County Board of Supervisors ap- proved plans for construction of an office building in the area. The board's action marks the first time that a commercial struc- ture has been approved in the older portions of Santa Ana Heights and it demonstrated hoW deeply feelings run in the com- munity. Residents who spoke at the hearing argued both for and against the proposed office build- ing, to be situtated on a .1.7-acre parcel at the -southwestern corner of Orachard Drive and Acacia Street. The debate over the zone change and building plans fore- shadows the debate, over the community's future that super- visors are expected to take up next spring board must decide how the community can be tailored to fit into airport expansion plans. Supervisors will choose from eight alternatives ranging from leaving 'the community as it is to condemning and bulldozing more than 1,000 residences for business parks and open space. i One resident, arguing against the proposed two-story building. urged supervisors to take steps to protect the community's unique nature. "There's still time to save it," said Marianne Towersey. Others, represented by tide Back Bay Homeowners Associa- tion, told supervisors they oppose any commercial construction in Santa Ana Heights. On the other hand, residents Of one of, the noisiest sections of the heights applauded the supervisors decision and indicated their sup- port for plans to convert the community to office buildings and open space. Santa Ana Heights is located between John Wayne Airport's main runway and Upper Newport Bay. It lies directly, under the flight path of departing com- mercial jetliners. ;t DATLY WIN T IS ,'CONTINUED STORIES SANTA ANA HEIGHTS .:. From Page Al What has brought the question to the fore are the county's plans for expanding John Wayne Air- port to accomodate anywhere from 55 to 73 commercial flights per day. Sometime next spring, the h Board of Supervisors is expected Ito select an' airport expansion project. And among the decisions to be made is what to do with Santa Ana Heights. County planners have de- veloped eight alternativeplans for Santa Ana Heights, which falls into a special noise zone because of its location at the foot of the airport's runway. Each day, as noise -weary residents can readily attest, 41 commercial jetliners scream skyward over the com- munity with a deafening roar. But the alternatives planners developed for Santa Ana Heights have divided its residents. Some favor the alternative that rec- ommends leaving things as they are. Others back the so-called "Scenario 8," a plan in which 1,052 reddences would be condemned and replaced with noise -compatible office parks. Supervisor Thomas Riley, whose district includes both the airport and Santa Ana Heights, opposes themostradical approach, Scenario 8. "'We're unalterably opposed to It. We think Santa Ana Heights should remain, as much as poss- ible, the equestrian community it Is," said Ken Hall, a Riley aide., He said that while some super- visors' might favor it as the solution to a long-standing prob- lem; leveling the community to replace it with office buildings would have "serious LAX over- tones." Riley's views are shared by the' Newport Beach based Airport Working Group: Barbara Lichman, the groups, coordi- nating director, called a news conference Saturday to anno ce that the organization also is " - alterably opposed" to Scenario 8. "We're specifically opposed to any plan that demolishes a whole community," Lichman explained. "We understand there are those people who want, to be condemned and leave. For those who don't (want to leave), we will help." She said the anti -airport or- ganization will offer legal as- sistance to any Santa Ana Heights homeowners who want to resist county take-over efforts, should supervisors select Scenario 8 or soma similarplan. A,pd she pointed out that ' a 'diof homeowner mounting a legal challenge to the plan could tie it up in court for a long, long Reasons the Airport Working C�+P oPF the plan include the "immense expediture of tax- payer dollars" condemnation world ,require and the adverse effect business parks would have m remaining neighborhoods in the area, she said. Lichman added that while the group now boasts only a handful of members from Santa Ana Heights, she expect. the Santa Ana Heights Homeowners As- sociation soon will join the coali- tion given their common stands on, the issue. Jack Mullen, a 14-year resident of Mesa Drive,, typifies the Santa Heights homeowner who wants, more than anything, to remain in his home. "It's one of the nicest places I've lived anywhere and I've lived all, over the world. I'd like to see it stay the same," Mullen said, y He said that while he opposes ` Scenario 8 and its total conversion ` of the area to commercial purposes, he wouldfavor the plan over some of the other alterna- tives. "I don't want to be thrown out, but I also don't want to live next door to an office complex either, If it has to be destroyed, I'd rather it be done suddenly than piecemeal over anumber of years," Mullen, a local real estate agent, said. On the otheraide of theissue are those residents who begrudgingly admit that Santa Ana Heights' unique character has to change because the airport and its com- mercial jet traffic are there to stay. "How can you live under these conditions?" •asked Rita Jones, who has lived on a half -acre plot in Santa Ana Heights for the past 20 years. Besides the jet noise, she said ever-increasing amounts of traffic have changed the com- munity's nature. "The noise is getting worse, the traffic is worse and its dangerous to go riding around here," Jones said. "That' progress. You can't stop progress. What can you say?" But she did say that she could , support the county's Scenario 8 plan for the heights if it were administered "fairly" and home- owners were paid an equitable price for their properties. "Of course, that's a big if," Jones acknowledged. "But if that's what we have to do, let's do it." Neighbor William Warren, who has lived in Santa Ana Heights and operated a stable there for 37 years, is more emphatic. "I think it would, be a fine ; solution to the problem," he said, "I don't think trying to keep us here is the answer. I'd say put a ' nice business park here and let us go our own ways." Warren added, "It's ridiculous to sit here r;t these noise levels. It's jest not practical," He said that a neighb'grII� committee, called ABCC N the streets in alive-blockrAM managed to get signatures nap I 116 of 166 homeowners fa { Just the kindof buy-out arrangment So proposes. f ''ks the only alternative the county has," Warren said. '!h*M j solve a lot of problems here t4 a move these people out." l , &. 4W_ The Register Thursday, Oct. 20, 1983 ' . •, ,.1, y ' 1••' r^(', r'4h•', l' yr• �•' . .., ., ,•. Option to "raze .;Santa -A 4 "' ;Heights has residents" near airport buzzing By Lynn O'Dell ;n , I 1; i}Ii; i, The Register ,(v ° ; .Lt),,•i „i it"J'' i;;",41j;,,4! •, 'ti "( , Martha Durkee on Wednesday•got a,copy of,what, rl;, ,had been a secret county plan for the most drastic = ' \ solution to the problem of Santa Ana Heights: raze the "+ "' John:8 rural residential area and replace it with business g 1,d,;i lr•,.,i ", • ,.,:1 '.+-�`,,..4 Y,''.11 • parks. ;�' �':� � i ,. '•:iiQ� •,i•:. ;, it But what she got did not satisfy her. t:'•' oh_ y • }"I was handed a couple of not very explicit maps. "It looks like I become a business park or it could be,, ; '•, ;. partialhy a road.,My neighbor across the'street be +; ,_: ;;;,k <;;• CO f¢es open space," she said, adding that she has been.'•, r y jiiiormdmore information, but it may take three l`h,.." get. ✓i�"M.f is "1'' I r;a,n'r' iy'.9{a.• /+ •`''i s( Md� "cif i.':''+': The county is prepatwa'l gand'tise plan to m ake the;;Y� ?' to _ 5,: '•''s t Y ; s rto -conform to an airport'expansion program: ;'alternatives range from leaving the area „n l ar,is•called Scenarlo8 :levelin it.,j7p,o'I''� �yh g i•� �•I�'IY'll'+�r',,;lu� Ili,d'.P,„�� Ilo�n,��l' Y'I,,,,,� • ' 4+"v ('_t' ii."! i, I's'It li, , tR,�„9 II�~JG�,n k' Q�ficials stressed •Wednesday that including Sce:, �, 'm ,>�;�- �=e,;;,� � r�r•�, L•1�i�;-'/•p!,rl�='�s-, � „3 o�r YtiJ��` ,, IiY f{�'• C r�,i trh nano 8;in the plan does not meanscenario 8 will be' ; , ; s FF'„„ ,}� ,: P :e e i+:,+. "`+',:_',�t'I� t _ .:_"✓f,tli A,Gj I'i.,.��t. f;Hl;"!�,`,,P�t,1�1 5�.... ,,5q;� approved for the area, situated at the ;end of the i, ,Mes o`n,,ta ,ur4,',a l�l,lI ,Y;�;, y(/yly'ill'lyt;,�1liliiYrllq,,i;",iu"}I,I,J,I,III!'�i '' 1s j .., ., *,I, I`ly ri�1 �I`Iryry�` 'runway'atvJohn Wayne Airport.,'.' pqi .l,vy;, ', iM s; ,.:: opt ?4• ' County staff members took Scenario 8 to supeivi-' 7 ,a ° +�';•Ilr+,r t; „ y; ,," +� sors'last Week and Tuesday, after'countyplanners-' i ', • 'sr., . ".'; =wa; , •=F;,, 'r, P P P finished ublic re`sentations of seven land -use Tans . , 7forthe area.TheRegisteronTuesday obtainedacopy't't•;'• ^t'N I'(trat;" '�)t"'•p. �Iltlipl�;,1''{�IIC{I!!,"P�' ;,r,,. 'Yt,I�{C5. 7tl '•ii'�"' of 'the plan, which officials would not discuss. +:krr,r ,t, ; '- 7'' 4'Durkee and other•Tesidents of Santa Ana,Heights'.; . ; ;; :r;Y,s'' .•4E' tit;. are"angry about' the way the latest proposal to chtiage }' •'`> '1=•1. ;;the area surfaced. n'x'uC.-di•`; '•;:'. '.• ; '-"Suddenly,'there are;etght alternative's instead of i, seven. There should have been, another public meet; ,ting.J think we should have,been'nbtified, resident ;;r;• i!P+'��'G k"+` ;t '+'+ t.Erma Batham said . ,.I,,; # 1 & , ;, ,,',. , , -; ..,; s /, a,i, r . • 1 E,: F;, ; yt. As a result of The'Register`.report, Durkee and , Batham demanded copies of the' lan Wednesday."='rt' "At first; they refused. When I'insisted, (Planning..', %'Director) Bob Fisher -gave us'tiwopages and a .map Batlaarsaid. ;L J'� j,y rt1^'.'I}•3°'.. ,';� !-iFisherr e" reawho could notbched for commentlor ,�•". 'r7 I�, bt.,0. „y riY •.fC�ti,+."�'�.V, �qi ''i:}; ',the,' initial news 'report, said 'Wednesday ,that •a!ti' „I�•'i'SC yCYrC -.: 1,2. ,yr „7v.Y.,.: i;'n: a :packet of detailed information about the plan and the �,>i� •, ;y, , .,, •,.t,) ; •�• ��•• reasons for it was being prepared for supervisors and interested parties..f"+i','o',,:;,•Y%r,'i*i, 'Scenario 8 was a result of feedback from the coon- 0, attorneys, who said another alternative was ,';;,,�* Y h, a. ,. ,+ it Thomas wardlrh• R•ytst•r 'needed to comply with the terms of a Superior Court ' ;,.,,;','c tdge's ruling last year, b; ; ., ;'::r,'{:a, rr ,,' 'N-`:; "We have reworked the other seven as well," he. 'They said we really had to look at the worst case, a • said. r"tal land -use conversion or we were going to find the '- Batham, however, -said she learned Scenario 8 rhas 1 ,udge saying the same thing, that the EIR (Environ- :existed for more than two weeks. ,., tftental Impact Report)•is inadequate," Fisher said. `,,i, -He (Fisher) said eight is like seven but we don t know what seven is because they have modified itf� 8 6fficial notices that an impact report is being pre-' ,,,,,Durkee said. • :'-• s " ; •'.+:' ;l-j' '•;,' argd must go out soon so the -draft document can be , ,Scenario 8 would eliminate all the million -dollar impleted by Christmas. Environmental law requires ,, estates along Mesa Drive and condemn 1,000 homes the notices to identify a primary project, he said. ' • " situated in an area with airplane noise levels that the 8"48o I am forced to pick Scenario 8 as the primary ....state says are too high for homes or schools. The new plject even though it is not the alternative I prefer, ";,plan also talks about establishing a redevelopment and it probably won't ,be the one I recommend," ;,,program and making extensive street changes that Fisher said; �; ri• w : w :1k,M1;1 +,_ y �jnclude the extension of University Drive through the Scenarlo 8 was not presented to the'pubhc'along estates. a,:, rk'if+ t All that would be left of Santa Ana' Heights yvou7d with the other alternatives because it didn't exist then, ; . Sher' said > •�-sN":: be two long city. blocks, Batham said. _y Plan would raze Santa Ana Heights � for business parks By Lynn O'Dell The Register A $240 million plan to raze Santa Ana Heights and fill the rural, resi- dential area under the flight path of John Wayne Airport with office buildings has been quietly circu- lated to county supervisors. About 1,000 households, ranging from million -dollar estates to older homes with horse stables, would be condemned under the proposal. They would be taken down and re- placed by 175 acres of business parks surrounded by open space — uses county planners consider more compatible with airport jet noise. The proposal has been prepared by a committee of county officials, including Airport Manager Murry Cable, planning director Bob Fisher, John Shaddy, of the coun- ty's General Services Agency, and Deputy County Counsel Daniel Didier. "It would just about wipe out 1'as The Register Wed., Oct. 19, 1983 Santa Ana Heights," said Erma Batham, a resident who has been fighting airport noise for 12 years. County officials refused Tuesday to discuss the plan, which surfaced after seven other plans dealing with the same land area had been publicly presented to the commu- nity. But a two -page outline of the plan —called "Land Use Compati- bility Program, Scenario 8" --was obtained by The Register. Cable said county staff members had been "sworn to secrecy" about the plan because all of the staff work to develop plans for an envi- ronmental -impact report is not complete. Supervisor Thomas Riley, whose district includes the airport and Santa Ana Heights, would not dis, cuss Scenario 8 on Tuesday. But he confirmed that he had met with Cable and other members of an in- house committee who are deciding what should be studied in the envi- Please see PLAN/Be PLAN: Supervisors to weigh land -use options FROM B1 ronmental-impact report supervi- sors have ordered for the area. "They briefed us on their progress," Miley said. County planners are trying to make the area's mixed bag of land uses conform to an airport expan- sion plan supervisors selected last April. That plan calls for the phased addition of up to 71 flights a day. Currently, the limit at John Wayne is 41 daily flights. State noise laws, which the county currently violates, say schools and homes should not be located under noise levels as high as those affecting most of Santa Ana Heights. The last time the county tried to rezone the area, the effort was stopped by a Superior Court judge who tossed out the county's airport expansion plan, saying its EIR was inadequate. This time, the county has been s*vised by its lawyers to study the OW drastic land -use conversion, ae that the EIR will be legally de- hasible, Riley said. After the impact report is pre- pared, supervisors would decide which land use to select for Santa Ana Heights. Choices still range km leaving the area alone, to con- verting it to office buildings, Riley The county is forced to pick some alternative, however, to include in official notices due to be sent out to the public early next month. And Scenario 8 could be the recommen- dation the county committee makes to supervisors, Cable refused to say Tuesday whether a decision had been made, but Riley said officials have not yet decided which way to go in the is- sue. "I am trying not to alarm a lot of people," he said. "But if they told me it was going to be Alternative 8, I would have told them to jump out the window." Riley said the impact report will be developed based on a proposal that includes "the most all -encom- passing conditions" — a decision that he said makes him "un- happy." "I was unhappy the judge made the decision he did," Riley added. "The people in Newport Beach thought they'd won a victory, but I knew there was going to be some aspects that would be absolutely terrifying if we did what the judge said." When Judge Bruce Sumner tossed out the county's airport plan in 1982, the county's plan for Santa Ana Heights called for spending $12 million to insulate homes or buy out homeowners. It also called for the conversion of 112 homes on about 30 acres. Homeowners would have had their choice of granting the county the right to fly over their homes, or selling out. "I haven't seen this plan or heard of it. .But I can say with some amount of position that if' they are going to come in with re- development and look at con- demnation, I think they are looking at a lot of very concerned home- owners," said Roger Summers, who heads a group of property owners along Acacia, Birch, and Cypress streets and Mesa Drive. "They have played with our lives down here for so many years. Then to come along when they feel the time is right and force us to sell at their price, allowing a developer to come in here and make money on us ... our wrath would come," Sum- mers said. Batham, who would be just outer side the noise line and left stranded, next to office buildings, said she; had heard rumors of Scenario 8 but, had not seen the plan. "It would be devasting. I don't want it to be piecemeal. Either we all go, or leave us alone,'i she said. She predicted the issue would be{ decided by the courts. i THE NEWPORT ENSIGN - Editorial Page July 20, 1983 Sang Ana Heights We confess we don't know everything there is to know about the possible annexaton of Santa Ana Heights by the city of Newport Beach. We don't know if the majority of the persons who live there want it. We don't know if most of the landowners want it. We don't know how annexation would affect zon. ing of residential or commercial development. We don't know if residents would be able to keep their dog -and -horse, rural lifestyle. But we do know that the Heights is an isolated county island surrounded almost entirely by Newport Beach. We do know that the Heights is right off the end of the runway from John Wayne Airport and takes the lion's share of the airport noise. We also know that the county has proposed sound. insulating houses there and preventing new housing from being built. We don't know if the residents of the Heights would represent strong new allies to the city of Newport Beach in its efforts to stave off being blitzed by airport noise.' But it seems to us that Newport's position against the air- port would be stronger. It also seems tous that the residents there might prefer the alternative of being in Newport to that of being turned into an, airport flight -path "graveyard" by the county. There is much .we don't know about the annexation proposal. But we like the idea. —AA THE NEWPORT ENSIGN - July 13, 1983 NB Studies Annexing Santa Ana Heights The City of Newport Beach has taken the first step towards annexing the rural and unincor- porated community of Santa Ana Heights. The city has agreed to help fund an en- vironmental study that could lay the groundwork for the annexa- tion. City officials said, however, that the expenditure does not commit the city to annexing the small community which lies un- der the flight path of John Wayne Airport. Under the agreement between the city and Santa Ana Height residents, the city will put up $10,000 towards the total cost of the environmental report, Resident will fund the remaining $15,000. The study will focus on basic environmental questions as well as whether the annexation is financially beneficial to New- port Beach. i The study could be the first step toward annexing the com- munity, which has been divided for years over its future. Residents have long been con- cerned with preserving the rural, equestrian community and are afraid that the county will rezone the area, allowing commercial development. Newport Beach city manager Robert Wynn agreed that the county doesn't like residential areas in high noise zones. Wynn also said that the city doesn't have existing zoning to cover an agricultural and equestrian area like Santa Ana Heights, The Irvine Company, which owns a 16-acre site in Santa Ana Heights, has said that it will re- quest zoning that would permit multiple family residential use. According to Senior Vice Presi- dent Robert Shelton, the com- pany has plans for an 18-unit- per-acre apartment project on the site, located south of the Bayview School site. I' Residents who favor the annexation said being part of Newport Beach could be helpful in fighting airport expansion and noise. Wynn said that the en- vironmental report should be completed about four months after the residents have deposited their share of the 1 money. { THE REGISTER --- April 24, 1984 The oun st dpproval of an of- fice building in Santa Ana Heights, a rural community under the flight path of John Wayne Airport, was set aside Monday by Superior Court Judge Judith Ryan. Ryan criticized the project's environmental impact report for failing to meet the requirements of state laws. She said the report in- adequately addressed alternatives to the project as well as possible "mitigation" measures to offset the impact of construction upon a largely residential area. County supervisors had ap- proved construction of the two- story, 26,000-square-foot building in November. Residents of the area, who formed the Back Bay Community Association, filed suit to protect four homes and a riding stable that would have been elimi- nated for the project. The residents also said the Xwect, backed -by Holstein thus, would have triggered ine effect of piecemeal con tion projects in their neighborhood.