Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03 - St. Mark Presbyterian ChurchCITY OF NEWPORT BEACH COUNCIL AGENDA • CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT NQ 3 1 O -a Agenda Item No. October 12, 2004 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: Planning Department Gregg B. Ramirez, Associate Planner (949) 644 -3219 gram irez (il city. newport- beach. ca. us SUBJECT: St. Mark Presbyterian Church (PA2003 -085) General Plan Amendment No. 2003 -002, Planned Community Text Amendment No. 2003 -001, Use Permit No. 2003 -015, Traffic Study No. 2004 -004, Parcel Map No. 2004 -036 2200 San Joaquin Hills Road APPLICANT: St. Mark Presbyterian Church • ISSUE: Should the City Council: 1. Approve a proposed General Plan Amendment to change the land use designation from Recreational and Environmental Open Space (REDS) to Government, Educational and Institutional Facilities (GEIF)? 2. Approve a proposed amendment to the Big Canyon Planned Community Text to include the project site within it's boundaries, designate the site "Institutional and Nature Preserve' and adopt Planned Community District development regulations? 3. Approve a Use Permit to allow the construction of a new church complex with the main sanctuary building to exceed the base 32 foot height limit? 4. Approve a Traffic Study pursuant to the Traffic Phasing Ordinance? 5. Approve a Tentative Parcel Map to subdivide an existing 10.81 acre parcel into three parcels? The total proposed square footage for all structures is approximately 34,000 square feet St. Mark Presbyterian Church October 12, 2004 Page 2 of 5 Vicinity Map 2200 San Joaquin Hills Road PA2003 -085 Current Development: Vacant To the north: Big Canyon golf course & residential uses To the east/southeast: Residential uses and park land across MacArthur Boulevard To the west/southwest: Commercial uses including Newport Center and the OCTA trans ortation center To the south: Commercial use (Rogers Gardens • • • St. Mark Presbyterian Church October 12, 2004 Page 3 of 5 • RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council hold a public hearing and approve the project by taking the following actions: 1. Adopt Resolution No. 2004 - certifying the EIR; and 2. Adopt Resolution No. 2004 - approving the General Plan Amendment, Use Permit, Traffic Study and Parcel Map; and 3. Introduce Ordinance No. 2004- amending the Big Canyon Planned Community District Regulations and pass to second reading on October 26, 2004. DISCUSSION: On September 23, 2004, the Planning Commission voted to recommend that the City Council certify the EIR and approve the proposed project. Discussion at the Planning Commission hearing focused on site design, water quality, landscaping, vehicular site access, on -site circulation and parking, building height and CEQA documentation. As a result, the Commission included the following requirements as conditions of approval: • The height of the tower /cross feature shall be a maximum of 51 feet above existing grade, rather than the 56 -feet requested by the applicant. • The deceleration lane northerly of the MacArthur access driveway shall be extended northerly on to Parcel No. 1 to greatest length possible without causing the relocation or modification of the existing Southern California Edison power poles, as approved by the City Transportation /Development Services Manager. • A minimum of 220 parking spaces be provided, including the 15 spaces adjacent to the pre - school and 18 spaces adjacent to the expansion building, at phase one of the development. The Commission concluded that the proposed project is acceptable and voted unanimously (5 -0) to recommend that the City Council approve the project. As a result of their review, the Planning Commission determined that the environmental analysis has shown that all potential significant environmental effects can be mitigated to a less than significant level. A review of General Plan policies found that the proposed project complies with all applicable General Plan Policies and that although the site is designated as Recreational and Environmental Open Space, no plans for use of the site as a public park, open space or recreational facility have been included in the City's long range planning documents. Additionally, the site was not included within reserve boundaries of the regional Natural Communities Conservation Plan (NCCP), and therefore, removal of coastal sage . habitat can occur. The proposed provisions to be included within the Big Canyon Planned Community Text provide clear and simple land use regulations for the site consistent with the St. Mark Presbyterian Church October 12, 2004 Page 4 of 5 proposed change in land use. As outlined in the Planning Commission staff report and draft • City Council resolutions, staff believes all Use Permit findings can made for the proposed church campus and for the proposed increased building height, as well as all findings pertaining to approval of the parcel map. The attached Planning Commission Staff Report (Attachment E) includes a detailed discussion of all proposed applications. Environmental Review: Michael Brandman Associates prepared a Draft EIR (State Clearinghouse No. 2003101137) that focused upon the environmental issues identified as "potentially affected.' The DEIR was completed and circulated for a mandatory 45 -day review period that began on July 14, 2004 and concluded on August 31, 2004, and was previously transmitted to the Council. The City received several comment letters on the DEIR including comments from the City's Environmental Quality Affairs Committee and the City Traffic Engineer. The consultant and staff have prepared written responses to those comments. Staff and the Planning Commission believes that none of the comments raised significant new information that would lead to the conclusion that the DEIR is inadequate or would require significant revision. The DEIR concludes that no significant unavoidable impacts will result with the implementation of the proposed project with the implementation of all design features of the project and • mitigation measures. The Planning Commission concurred with this conclusion and voted to recommended that City Council certify the EIR. Attached to the EIR resolution are the final Findings of Fact and the Mitigation Monitoring Program which details the implementation of the mitigation measures included in the EIR. Public Notice: Notice of this hearing was published in the Daily Pilot, mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the property (excluding roads and waterways) and posted at the site a minimum of 10 days in advance of this hearing consistent with the Municipal Code. The environmental assessment process has also been noticed on two separate occasions in a similar manner and all mandatory notices per the California Environmental Quality Act have been given. Finally, the item appeared upon the agenda for this meeting, which was posted at City Hall and on the city website. CI C� Prepared by: ,D Gregg B. amirez, Associate fanner Attachments: • St. Mark Presbyterian Church October 12, 2004 Page 5 of 5 Submitted by: Patricia L. Temple, Planning g Director A. Draft City Council Resolution (EIR) B. Draft City Council Resolution (GPA, UP, TS, PM) C. Draft City Council Ordinance D. Draft Planning Commission Resolution E. Excerpt of the draft minutes from the September 23 2004 Planning Commission meeting. F. Planning Commission Staff Report G. Project Plans ATTACHMENT A Draft City Council Resolution (EIR) rI A, RESOLUTION NO. 2004- • A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH CERTIFYING THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND ADOPTING A MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM REGARDING THE SAINT MARK PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH PROJECT FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2200 SAN JOAQUIN HILLS ROAD (STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NO. 2003101137) WHEREAS, Saint Mark Presbyterian Church, has applied to the City of Newport Beach for approval of a General Plan Amendment No. 2003 -002, Planned Community Text Amendment No. 2003 -001, Use Permit No. 2003 -015, Traffic Study No. 2004 -004 and Parcel Map No. 2004 -036 necessary to develop an approximate 34,000 square foot church campus including a sanctuary, administration building, fellowship hall, pre - school buildings, expansion building and ancillary facilities on an approximate 7.38 acre site located at the northwesterly corner of MacArthur Boulevard and San Joaquin Hills Road. WHEREAS, in accordance with California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requirements, a Notice of Preparation (NOP) was filed with the State Clearinghouse, which assigned State Clearinghouse No. 2003101137. WHEREAS, the NOP and an Initial Study were distributed to all responsible and •trustee agencies and other interested parties for a 30 -day public review period commencing on October 27, 2003 and ending on November 26, 2003. WHEREAS, in accordance with CEQA requirements, a Notice of Completion (NOC) of a Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) was filed with the State Clearinghouse, and the Draft EIR was distributed to agencies, interested organizations, and individuals by the City. The distribution list is available at the City of Newport Beach Planning Department. WHEREAS, a 45 -day public review period for the Draft EIR was established pursuant to State law, which commenced on July 14, 2004 and ended on August 31, 2004. WHEREAS, all comments received during the public review period for the Draft EIR were responded to in the Response to Comments document dated September 17, 2004. WHEREAS, on September 23, 2004, the Planning Commission held a public noticed public hearing at which time the final Environmental Impact Report, comprised of the Draft Environmental Impact Report, a listing of persons and organizations that provided written comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report during the public circulation period, a compilation of the these comments, and responses to those comments, was considered. Notice of time, place and purpose of the public hearing was duly given and testimony was presented to and considered by the Planning Commission at the hearing. •WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the public hearing, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 1640, recommending that the City Council certify the EIR as complying with the requirements of CEQA. VN WHEREAS, the Final Environmental Impact Report identifies potential significant • impacts to the environment and certain mitigation measures designed to reduce or avoid these impacts to a less than significant level. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Newport Beach has reviewed and considered the information in the Final EIR, and in the full administrative record, prior to taking any action on the project. The documents and other material that constitute the record of proceedings on which the City Council's Findings and decision are based are located at Newport Beach City Hall, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California 92658. The custodian for these documents is the Planning Department Executive Secretary. This information is provided in compliance with Public Resources Code section 21081.6(a)(2) and CEQA Guidelines section 15091(e). The following documents area also attached to this resolution for ease of reference, and by reference made in part of this Resolution. EIR— 1 Draft Environmental Impact Report (Distributed separately due to bulk. Available for public review at the City's Planning Department.) EIR-2 Responses to Comments on Draft EIR dated July 2, 2004. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT THE City Council does hereby make the findings attached to this resolution as Exhibit "A" and certifies as follows.: 1. That the Saint Mark Presbyterian Church Environmental Impact Report (State • Clearinghouse No. 2003101137) has been prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the CEQA Guidelines. 2. That the EIR reflects the City Council's independent judgment and analysis. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED the City Council does hereby adopt the Mitigation Monitoring Program attached to this resolution as Exhibit "B ". ADOPTED this 12th day of October 2004, by the following vote, to wit: • q • AYES, COUNCIL MEMBERS NOES, COUNCIL MEMBERS ABSENT, COUNCIL MEMBERS ATTEST: CITY CLERK L� E MAYOR 0 EIR -1 Draft Environmental Impact Report for St. Mark Presbyterian Church including the Technical Appendix (SCH#2003101137) r- IL • • la .:. EIR -2 Re$ponses To Comments on the Draft Environmental. Impact, Report for st. Mark Presbyterian -Church state.CiearinOouse Number 200n1n1131 , Prepared for: City of Neviwport Beach Pfanriing Department 3300 Newport Boulevard.. Newport Beach, CA 92'659 949:644.3210 Contact: Gregg B :: Ramirez, Associate Planner Prepared By: . Michael. Brandman.Associates " 220 Commerce :Suite 200 Irvine, CA 92602 714.509.4100 Contact:.K6vin:B: Shannon, Project ivlarlager. . . • September, 17, 2004 - Responses To Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report for St. Mark Presbyterian Church State Clearinghouse Number 2003101137 Prepared for: City of Newport Beach Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard • Newport Beach, CA 92659 949.644.3210 Contact: Gregg B. Ramirez, Associate Planner Prepared By: Michael Brandman Associates 220 Commerce, Suite 200 Irvine, CA 92602 714.508.4100 Contact: Kevin B. Shannon, Project Manager September 17, 2004 • �R- • • u St Mark Presbyterian Church - Response to Comments on the Draft EIR Table of Contents TABLE OF CONTENTS Section 1: Introduction ....................................................................... ............................... 1 Purpose..................................................................................... ............................... 1 Section 2: List of Commentors ........................................................... ............................... 2 Comment Letters Received on the Draft EIR ............................. ............................... 2 Section 3: Responses To Comments ................................................. ............................... 3 Michael Brandman Associates ii 5:\00640021 - SL Mark Church\RTC\Fina1 RTCAd St Mark Presbyterian Church - Response to Comments on the Draft EIR SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION PURPOSE Introduction The Draft Environmental Impact Report for the St. Mark Presbyterian Church project was circulated for public review and comment beginning on July 14th, 2004, and ending August 31 st, 2004. As required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), this addendum responds to comments received on the Draft EIR. As required by Section 15132 of the State CEQA Guidelines, the final EIR must respond to comments regarding significant environmental points raised in the review and consultation process. This document provides responses to comments on significant environmental points describing the disposition of the issue, explaining the EIR analysis, supporting EIR conclusions, or providing new information or corrections, as appropriate. This document, however, need not, and should not, attempt to respond to comments about the merits of the project; nor should it attempt to resolve citywide planning issues that require full community input and City consideration on their own. This document is organized as follows: • Section 1. This section provides a discussion of the relationship of this document with the Draft EIR. It also discusses the structure of this document. • Section 2. This section lists the agencies /individuals that commented on the contents of the Draft EIR. • Section 3, This section includes the comments and the responses to the comments that were received on the Draft EIR. Michael Brandman Associates S:b0640021 - St. Mark Chur haTC\Final RTC.doc • r- IL • l St. Mark Presbyterian Church — Response to Comments on the Draft EIR List of • SECTION 2: LIST OF COMMENTORS A list of public agencies and organizations that provided comments on the Draft EIR is presented below. Each comment letter has been assigned an alphabetical designation (A through L). Each comment within each letter has been assigned a numerical designation so that each comment could be cross - referenced with an individual response. Responses follow each comment letter. COMMENT LETTERS RECEIVED ON THE DRAFT EIR A. State of California, Governor's Office of Planning and Research, State Clearinghouse B. City of Newport Beach, Environmental Quality Affairs Citizens Advisory Committee (EQAC), St. Mark Presbyterian Church Sub - committee C. State of California, Department of Transportation (Caltrans), District 12 D. State of California, State Water Resources Control Board E. Mr. Rod MacDonald • F. Bornstein Enterprises G. City of Irvine, Community Development Department H. Canyon Hills Community Association L Mr. Bernard Rome J. SPON K. Dr. Jan D. Vandersloot, M.D. L. City of Newport Beach, Public Works Department Michael Brandman Associates S. ^00640021 - St. Mark ChiachV TC\Final RTC.doc 2 St. Mark Presbyterian Church - Response to Comments on the Draft EIR Responses To Comments SECTION 3: RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Following are the responses to the written comments that were received during the public review period on the Draft EIR. Where a comment results in a change to the Draft EIR, the response provides specific page, paragraph, and sentence reference, along with the new EIR text. Michael Brandman Associates S:W0640021 - St. Mark ChwchaTC\Final RTCAO • • • 09/02/2604 09:56 9496443229 CNB PLANNING STATE OF CALIFORNIA • Governor's Office of Planning and Research State Clearinghouse and Planning Unit Arnold Schwarccnegger Governor August 30, 2004 ® RECEIVED BY PLANNG CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Gregg Ramirez SEP 02 2004 City of Ncwport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard 7 8 9 1 0 11 1 Z 1 Z 4 5 6 Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 (I I ( j ((� Subject: St. Mark Presbyterian Church SCR4; 2003101137 Dear Gregg Ramirez: PAGE 02 Jeri Boel Acting Director The State Clearinghouse submitted the above named Draft FUR to selected state agencies for review. On the enclosed Document Details Report please note that the Clearinghouse has listed the state agencies that reviewed your document The review period closed on August 27, 2004, and the continents from the responding agency (ies) is (are) enclosed_ If this commeutpacicage is not in order, please notify the State Clearinghouse immediately. Please refer to the projects ten -digit State Clearinghouse number in future correspondence so that we may respond prorgotly. • Please note that Section 21104(e) of the California Public Resources Code states that ``A responsible or other public agency shall only make substantive continents regarding those activities involved in a project which arc within an, area of, expertise of. the agency or which are required to be carried out or approved by the agency. Those comments shall be supported by specific documcatatim." These comments are forwarded for use in preparing your final environmcntal document. Should you need more information or clarification of the enclosed comments, we recommend that you contact the commenting agency directly. This letter aclrnowledges that you have complied with the State Clearinghouse review requirements for draft environmental documents, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act. Please contact the State Clearinghouse at (916) 445 -0613 if you have any questions regarding the environmental review process. Since /Are'ly,. , _ Terry Roberts Director, State Clcatingbouse Enclosures cc: Resources Agency 1400 TENT, H STREET P.O. BOX 3044 SAC%WZNT0, CALIFOIWIA 95812.3044 73L(916)445-D613 FAX (916) 3233018 W .aF.aagov Ai 11 09/02/2004 09:56 9496443229 CNB PLANNING PAGE 03 Document Details Report State Clearinghouse Data Base SCH# 2003101137 Project 77de St. Mark Presbyterian Church • Lead Agency Newport Beach, City of type EIR Draft EIR Description A general plan amendment and development of a church complex and preschool consisting of 9 buildings totaling approximately, 34,000 sf and preservation of a natural canyon feature on the site. Lead Agency Contact Name Gregg Ramirez Agency City of Newport Beach Phone 949 -644 -3219 Fax emafl Address 3300 Newport Boulevard City Newport Beach State CA Zip 92658 -8915 Project Location County Orange City Newport Beach Region Cross Sheets MacArthur Boulevard / San Joaquin Hills Road Parcel No. 442 -032 -62 Township 65 Range 9W Section 93 Ease SBBM Proximity to; Highways SR- Airports Railways • Waterways Newport Bay Schools High Schools: 2 Elementary Schools: 3 Land Use Undeveloped Z: P -C GP: Recreational and Errvironmental Open Space Projact Issues Flood PlainfRooding; Noise; Traffic/Circulation; Vegetation; Water Quality; Landuse; Cumulative Effects; Air Quality; Wildlife Reviewing Resources Agency; Reglonal Water Quality Control Board, Region 8; Department of Parks and Agencies Recreation; Native American Heritage Commission; Office of Historic Preservation; Department of Fish and Game, Region 5; Department of Water Resources; California Coastal Commission; Califnmia Highway Patrol; Caltrans, District 12; C21trans, Division of Aeronautics; State Lands Commission Date Received 07/14/2004 Start of Review 07/1412004 Erid oPReview 08/2712004 • Note: Blanks in data fields result from insufficient information provided by lead agency. 09/02/2004 09:56 9496443229 CNB PLANNING DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION •District 12 3337 Michelson [hive. Suitc 380 Tool: h-Anc� (9 9) 926-22674 LSTATE H E C E IVE D Tcl: (949) 27242267 Fax: (949) 724 -2592 L 2 7 2004 July 16, 2004 �'ARING HOUSE Mr. Gregg B. Ramirez Community & Economic Development Dep. City of Newport Beach P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92651 Subject: St. Mark's Presbyterian, Church Dear Mr. Ramirez, PAGE 04 0 energy 8r e rffictmrl File: IGRJCEQA SCH# 2003101137 L.og #: 1325A SR #: PCH, SR -55, SR -73 Thank you for the opportunity to review and comrnent on the Draft ?Environtnentatl Impact Report (DEIR) for the St. Mark Presbyterian Church Project dated July 2004. The project consists of the construction of a church sanctuary, fellowship hall, administration building and counseling center, preschool buildings, expansion building, nature center plaza, and related site improvements such as parking lots, driveways, site lighting, grading, landscaping, and utility connections. The project is located at the corner of Third Street and Mermaid Street in the City of • . Laguna Beach. The nearest State Routes to the project are Pacific Coast Highway (PCH), SR -55, and SR -73. Caltrans District 12 status is a reviewing agency on this project and has no comments at this time. However, in the event of any activity in Caltrans' right -of -way, an encroachment permit will be required. Applicants are required to plan for sufficient permit processing time, which may include engineering studies and environmental documentation. Please continue to keep us informed of this and other future developments, which could potentially impact the transportation facilities. If you have any questions or need to'contact us, please do not hesitate to call Maryam MolaVi at (949) 724 -2267. S' ce ly, B J SZiChlef LGR/Community Planning Branch C: Terry Roberts, Office of Planning and Research Terri Pencovic, Caltrans HQ 1GR/Communi.ty Planning • 'Calrra r improves mobility across California.. -` St Mark Presbyterian Church - Response to Comments on the Draft EIR Responses To Comments A. State of California, Governor's Office of Planning and Research, State Clearinghouse • Al. This correspondence is noted and acknowledges the closing of the public review period for the Draft EIR as required by law. No specific comments on the contents of the Draft EIR were provided. The correspondence indicates that the only state agency to respond was the State Department of Transportation (Caltrans). Refer to Response to Comment C regarding this comment letter. Michael Brandman Associates SA0064002) -St. Mark Ch=h\RTC\Fin0 RTCA.o C� J • �`O • MEMORANDUM To: Gregg Ramirez, Associate Planner From: Environmental Quality Affairs Citizens Advisory Committee Subject: The City of Newport Beach Draft Environmental Impact Report SCH # 2003 1 0 1 1 37( "DEIR ") for St Mark Presbyterian Church ( "The "Project'); SCH # 2003071089 Date: August 16, 2004 Thank you for the opportunity to provide these comments on the captioned DEIR for the Project. I. A Brief Summary of Our Concerns. Please note that the DEIR is to include all comments from the NOP. However the DEIR did • not include the comments of EQAC. To ensure that these comments are responded to, we are incorporating our comments on the NOP in our comments on the DEIR and should be attached. We are also concerned that pages from the Technical Appendices are missing i.e. (Pages 3 -14 & 3 -15), and the DEIR itself has pages that are either missing or numbered incorrectly. An example is Page 3 -13 in the DEIR, followed by three (3) exhibits (Pages 3 -5, 3 -6, & 3 -7) then followed by �{ Page 3 -21. How can it be known by anyone that the DEIR is complete? It is important that the Final EIR is complete. Concerns of the Committee include: (1) The Committee believes that there will be significant and unavoidable traffic impacts, which the Project does not fully mitigate. (2) The Project will create a loss of open space. (3) The extent of the Coastal Sage Scrub ( "CSS ") removal and replacement needs to be clarified. II. Introduction: EIR Standards. which: • An EIR constitutes the heart of CEQA: An EIR is the primary environmental document �l EQAC Page 2 August 16, 2004 • .. serves as a public disclosure document explaining the effects of the proposed Project on the environment, altematives to the Project, and ways to minimize adverse effects and to increase beneficial effects." CEQA Guidelines section 15149(b). See Califomia Public Resources Code section 21003(b) (requiring that the document must disclose impacts and mitigation so that the document will be meaningful and useful to the public and decision - makers.) Further, CEQA Guidelines section 15151 sets forth the adequacy standards for an EIR: "An EIR should be prepared with a sufficient degree of analysis to provide decision - makers with information which enables them to make a decision which takes account of the environmental consequences. An evaluation of the environmental effects of a proposed project need not be exhaustive, but sufficiency of an EIR is to be reviewed in the light of what is reasonably feasible. Disagreement among experts does not make an EIR inadequate, but the EIR should summarize the main points of disagreement among the experts. The courts have looked not for perfection but for adequacy, completeness, and a good faith attempt at full disclosure." • Further, "the EIR must contain facts and analysis, not just the agency's bare conclusions or opinions." Concerned Citizens of Costa Mesa, Inc. v. 32nd District Agricultural Association. (1986) 42 Cal. 3d 929 (Emphasis supplied.). In addition, an EIR must specifically address the environmental effects and mitigation of the Project. But "[t]he degree of specificity required in an EIR will correspond to the degree of specificity involved in the underlying activity which is described in the EIR." CEQA Guidelines section 15146. The analysis in an EIR must be specific enough to further informed decision making and public participation. The EIR must produce sufficient information and analysis to understand the environmental impacts of the proposed Project and to permit a reasonable choice of altematives so far as environmental aspects are concerned. See Laurel Heights Improvement Association v. Regents of the University of Califomia (1988) 47 Cal. 3d 376. Also, to the extent that an EIR proposes mitigation measures, it must provide specific measures. It cannot defer such measures until some future date or event. `By deferring environmental assessment to a future date, the conditions run counter to that policy of CEQA which requires environmental review at the earliest feasible stage in the planning process." Sundstrom v. County of Mendocino (1988) 202 Cal. App. 3d 296, 308. See Bozung v. Local Agency Formation Com.(1975) 13 Cal.3d 263, 282 (holding that "the principle that the environmental impact should be assessed as early as possible in govemment planning. "); Mount Sutro Defense Committee v. Regents of University of Califomia (1978) 77 Cal. App. 3d 20, 34 • (noting that environmental problems should be considered at a point in the planning process I EQAC Page 3 • August 20, 2004 "where genuine flexibility remains "). CEQA requires more than a promise of mitigation of significant impacts: mitigation measures must really minimize an identified impact. "Deferral of the specifics of mitigation is permissible where the local entity commits itself to mitigation and lists the alternatives to be considered, analyzed and possibly incorporated in the mitigation plan. (Citation omitted.) On the other hand, an agency goes too far when it simply requires a project applicant to obtain a biological report and then comply with any recommendations that may be made in the report. (Citation omitted.) Defend the Bay v. City of Irvine 2004 Cal. App. LEXIS 103lat 25 (Cal. Ct. App., 2004). III. Section 2: Executive Summary 2.2 Project Description The development component of the proposed Project consists of the following: Church Sanctuary, fellowship Hall, administration building and counseling center, pre - school buildings, expansion building, nature center plaza and related site improvements. The DEIR shows under Projection Description a Development Summary, Table 3 -2, Page 3.21 an Expansion Building of 5,183 sq. ft. and a fireside classroom of 924 sq. ft. The DEIR (32 • does not describe the use or hours of operation for these two buildings; therefore, is more mitigation necessary for noise or traffic for possible long hours of operation? Further, the DEIR does not state what will happen to the vacating site of St. Mark's Q3 Church. Will it become "Open Space" and possibly used to mitigate the loss of Open Space as a result of St. Mark moving to the proposed site? IV Section 5: Environmental Setting Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and Level of Significance After Mitigation. 5.1 Land Use and Planning: The property is currently designated as Open Space/Recreation and request a change in this designation to allow a Church to be built. The DEIR states that the site is at this time "not used for any purpose." Open Space is a use because it adds to the enjoyment of the area by residents and visitors. The DEIR does not recognize one of the alternatives to this development is disapproval of the Project and leaving the property in its current designation of Open Space/Recreation. The DEIR appropriately points out that across the street from this Project is the highly developed Newport Center and Fashion Island. To allow a small portion of Public Open Space/Recreation in this area of otherwise fully developed properties would seem to be an appropriate use. The DEIR indicates that one of the objectives of the Project is to "maintain the open space character of the site," and some believe that the best way to accomplish this is to leave the current designation of Open space/Recreation to in fact preserve that character. R11 13 EQAC Page 4 August 20, 2004 The DEIR states on Pages 5.1 -9 & 5.1 -15 that the site meets the definition of open space as follows: "Open space included passive and active open space areas, which do not function as public parks but do provide open space relief. Such areas may or may not be accessible to the general public." The DEIR then states that this site is not officially designated as such (open space). The Project site does not meet the definition of a park, and is also not designated for a future park site. The Church site is located in Service Area no. 8 (Belcourt-Big Canyon), which as of the publication of this DEIR has as of 1998 a deficiency of 14 acres and a projected deficiency of approximately 16 acres for the year 2010; therefore, by the year 2010, if this Project goes through and the Marina Park hotel goes through, then the. 10.81 acres and 8.1 acres (18.1 acres) would bring the deficiency of open space in the City to 34.1 acres without any mitigation. This is a Project that the DEIR indicates requires substantial discretionary approvals by the City in order to implement the proposed Project by the applicant. Those discretionary approval items are categorized as follows: General Plan amendment, an amendment to the Big Canyon Planned Community text, approval of a tentative parcel map, issuance of a use permit for particular activities that are to take place on the site even with the designation given, making sure the property meets with the traffic phasing ordinance, issuing grading permits o allow substantial grading to take place on the site, and obviously the issuance of building and all related permits to allow the construction of the Project. Should the decision makers believe that any of these discretionary items should be denied, it would leave this particular site as Open Space/ Recreational, and possibly at some time in the future, might be developed as some type of a passive park that could be enjoyed by residents and visitors. 5.2 Hydrology and Water Quality Table 5.2.1: Cumulative Peak Storm Water Runoff Summary (25 —year storm) The table shows for comparison: 11 V)I IXJ EXISTING CONDITIONS PROPOSED HYDROLOGY Area Node Area Node 1 A &B 7 A &B 13 DI 11 C 11 Are these comparisons for the same areas? In one case the Area is the same but with • different Nodes, and the exact opposite for the next set. Can this please be clarified as it is not 0 EQAC Page 5 • August 20, 2004 clear in the appendix? The November '03 NOP stated that the DEIR would include summaries of a hydrology study. This DEIR has only a "Preliminary Hydrology and Storm Management Study ". Is there a 13-7 complete study? When will it be. ready? Will it be ready for public scrutiny before the EIR is approved? Appendix D. Table H-4 Water Quality Site Source Contaminants and BMP Selection (Page 10) Vehicle use/on -site parking lot source for Pollutant Categories "Oil and Grease" and "Heavy Metals" is rated as Medium/low. Please verify the vehicular volumes and accuracy of the medium/low rating. The filters should be able to handle the level of vehicle discharge. 5.3 Biological Resources j3 90 While the DEIR concludes "the potential for the proposed Project to significantly affect Rq sensitive plant species is not considered significant," it does not fully identify and analyze the Project's impacts on the resources of the canyon itself. • 5.4 Transportation and Traffic The Committee has serious reservations about the Project impacts on traffic safety. The Project proposes a right turn entryway be allowed from MacArthur Boulevard. It also proposes a] 50 -foot lane leading up to this driveway. That sounds like a lot of room to handle decelerating cars trying to enter the site. However, MacArthur Boulevard is a 50 mile per hour roadway, and a vehicle traveling 50 miles an hour is traveling at 75 feet a second. Therefore, the 150-foot deceleration lane is a bare minimum requirement. It is indicated on some of the plans attached to the report that vehicles are going to be allowed to make a right turn from the Project onto MacArthur Boulevard. If that is allowed, in the short distance between that driveway and the intersection of MacArthur Boulevard and San Joaquin Hills Road, then you are going to have serious problems with vehicles traveling 50 miles per hour southbound on MacArthur, and some of them attempting to make a right turn onto San Joaquin Hills Road with both of those southbound -type vehicles conflicting with vehicles attempting to exit the Project site on MacArthur and get into lanes to either go southbound on MacArthur past San Joaquin. The EIR should analyze the potential traffic safety impacts of vehicles merging onto MacArthur Boulevard in the same lane as vehicles decelerating to make the turn onto San Joaquin Hills Road. ?,I O 3� 1 The Project location at the northwest corner of MacArthur Blvd. and San Joaquin Hills •Rd. is an already busy intersection, and particular attention must be given to maintaining traffic safety and smooth flow on these major arterials. The DEIR conducts thorough analyses of all f3k2 r5 EQAC Page 6 August 20, 2064 relevant intersections and concludes that, with application of nine traffic mitigation measures, there are no significant impacts. However, the Cormnittee believes that the evidence presented in the DEIR and the supporting Technical Appendix F (Traffic Phasing Ordinance Analysis) indicate that the best solution for this Project is to select the "Alternative Access" scenario which eliminates the MacArthur Blvd. ingress /egress point, and limits access to and from the Project to the San Joaquin Hills point. Following are the items from the DEIR which support the "Alternative Access" Solution: 1. DEIR Table 5.4 -4 shows that there were 58 reported accidents at the MacArthur Blvd. /San Joaquin Hills Rd. intersection from 1999 -2003. 31 of these were rear -end collisions resulting from inability to stop fast enough. 2. The DEIR recognizes that the MacArthur Blvd. entrance may not be able to be designed with the necessary 525 feet minimum sight distance for vehicles approaching at 55 mph. Mitigation measure TT -9 (Page 5.4 -29) recognized this issue and states that the Project must review sight distance standards with Caltrans at the time of preparation of the Project final Grading and Landscape plans. 3. Mitigation Measure TT -4 (DEIR Page 5.4 -29) tries to control southbound MacArthur Blvd. Traffic transition to San Joaquin Hills Rd. by installing a "15 mph" sign at the beginning of the curve. This mitigation measure should be investigated for adequacy. 4. Mitigation Measure TT -3 (DEIR Page 5.4 -29) proposes to facilitate southbound MacArthur Blvd. Traffic by eliminating the painted crosswalk in the right hand turn lane. This would not be necessary of the "Alternative Access' approach is selected. Also, removal of the painted crosswalk prevents pedestrian crossing of San Joaquin Hills Rd. toward the OCTA bus depot. 5. Technical Appendix F, Table 5 -7 (Page 5 -18) shows that the "Alternate Access' approach changes none of the Level of Service designations for any of the studied intersections. 6. Mitigation Measure TT -7 (DEIR Pages 5.4 -29) highlights the problems with the MacArthur Blvd. ingress /egress by imposing on the St. Mark pastoral staff a requirement to advise the congregation and visitors to use the San Joaquin Hills Rd. exit to facilitate traffic flow. The DEIR preparers have attempted to develop mitigation measures to resolve essential problems with the MacArthur Blvd. ingress /egress point when it would be safer and equally efficient to eliminate it from the plan. If it is kept in the plan, it does not appear that there are adequate distances for safe deceleration lanes, turnouts and appropriate signage to alert vehicles about the rapidly- approaching entrance. Finally, ten percent of the Project traffic is expected to depart from this point and weave across turn lanes and full -speed traffic lanes to get to the left and U -turn lanes on southbound MacArthur Blvd. at San Joaquin Hills Rd. (See Appendix F, Exhibit 4 -B, Page 4 -6 and DEIR Page 5.4 -19) f3 \2 a� EQAC Page 7 • August 20, 2004 In addition, the DEIR (Page 5.4 -27) states that 47,000 cubic yards of soil material will be removed during the excavation and grading phase. It estimates that 1,800 truck trips will be needed to remove this soil and promises compliance with Municipal Code Section 15.10.0060(H) to achieve less than significant traffic impacts. This requires more analysis related to traffic slow -downs and/or stoppages due to the "Truck Crossing" signs. "flag men" actions and/or roadway cleanup. Finally, the final FIR should analyze and clarify Project impacts to bikeways. (313 6.4 Cumulative Impacts The Committee asks for clarification as to the cumulative impacts to loss of open space as a result of the proposed Project, which would eliminate a site from the Recreational and (jIS Environmental Open Space category in a service area that the Recreation and Open Space Element already shows as deficient. Appendices • The Committee requests clarification for the noise contours for both traffic and construction �' b noise impacts. Please note DEIR Page 5. 6 -18 and 19. Conclusion Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the captioned document. For the foregoing reasons, we recommend that the DEIR be revised to address the issues raised above. 11 St. Mark Presbyterian Church - Response to Comments on the Draft EIR Responses To Comments B. City of Newport Beach, Environmental Quality Affairs Citizens Advisory Committee (EQAC). • B 1. The comment regarding the response to the Notice of Preparation is noted. The omission of this set of comments was the result of a printing error. The comments on the Notice of Preparation were incorporated into the preparation of the Draft EIR. The comment letter will be inserted into the Technical Appendices volume for the Final EIR. The comment regarding the missing pages is noted. The printing error on the Technical Appendices volume will be corrected in the production of the Final EIR. The Draft EIR is complete and no pages were omitted. Because the Draft EIR was produced as a double -sided document with graphics printed on single -sided pages that are inserted manually, the backs of certain pages are required to remain blank. Although these pages are blank, they retain the page numbering sequence of the section they are located in. In the present example, the back of page 3 -13 of the Draft EIR, although blank, represents page 3 -14 and Exhibit 3 -5 represents page 3 -15 and the back side of Exhibit 3 -5 represents page 3 -16 and continuing on through the back of Exhibit 3 -7, which represents page 3 -20. Refer to page vi for a list of exhibits and their corresponding page numbers. B2. The comment regarding hours of operation is noted. The Fireside classroom is part of the Administration Building and is not proposed for any uses not already described. The hours would be the same as that of the Administration Building in which it is located. The Expansion Building and intended uses are identified in Table 3 -5 of the Draft EIR. Table 34 of the Draft EIR identifies the hours of operation of • the Expansion Building. B3. The comment regarding the existing church site is noted. Section 3.4 of the Draft EIR identifies the relocation of the existing church to a location within the City as one of the project objectives. Should the City approve this project, St. Mark Presbyterian Church would then consider the subsequent use of the existing property. B4. The comment regarding open space is noted. Table 3 -1 of the Draft EIR identifies the existing land as undeveloped open space. Section 5.1.1 of the Draft EIR identifies existing, temporary, and permanent uses of the project site. Page 5.1 -15 of the Draft EIR references a potential additional use of the project site. The Draft EIR has accurately described the existing use of the project site. Section 7 of the Draft EIR identifies two versions of the No Project Alternative. As a matter of note, only one alternative scenario is required for inclusion in an Environmental Impact Report. Specifically, Section 7.1.1 of the Draft EIR identities an alternative, the No Project Alternative — No Development, which evaluates disapproval of the proposed project and without any further proposed uses for the project site. In addition, the second alternative, the No Project Alternative — Allowed Development, specifically identifies an alternative that evaluates disapproval of the proposed project with potential development of the project site by uses that are allowed under the existing general plan designation. The project site is not identified as open space on either Exhibit 5.1 -2 or Exhibit 5.1- 4 of the Draft EIR. The project site is not identified as an open space site by the • development agreement known as the Circulation Improvement and Open Space Michael 9randman Associates SA00640021 - S[ Mark ChurchU TC\Final RTCAm D/ a St Mark Presbyterian Church - Response to Comments on the Draft EIR Responses To Comments • Agreement, as described in Section 5. 1.1 of the Draft ETR. As referenced in Section 3.2 of the Draft EIR, the project site was designated as Recreational and Environmental Open Space due to its undeveloped character in 1973 when the City adopted the original general plan. Section 7.2 of the Draft EIR identifies the land uses that are allowed under the Recreational and Environmental Open Space designation. These land uses vary greatly in intensity and potential significant impacts. The objectives presented in Section 3.4 of the Draft EIR are not alternatives to the proposed project; they are objectives that relate to that which is being proposed. The statement on page 5.1 -9 of the Draft EIR is a reference to the General Land Use Plan Map, following page 121 in the Land Use Element of the City General Plan (note: this map does not have an exhibit number or page number), that is meant to reference the existing general plan designation (see Table 3 -1 of the Draft EIR). The statement on page 5.1 -15 of the Draft EIR reflects information contained in the Recreation Element of the City General Plan, not the Land Use Element. There is no contradiction between these references. The comment regarding open space zoning is noted. Table 3 -1 on page 3 -9 of the Draft ETR sets forth the existing and proposed zoning and general plan designations. For clarification, the existing zoning classification is PC District; the General Plan designation is Recreational and Environmental Open Space. Section 3.2 of the Draft ETR describes a brief history of the project site. Historically, there have not been any plans to develop the project site with park or recreational- related uses. In addition, there are no current plans to develop this site with any such uses. Section 5.1.1 of the Draft ETR states that no recreational uses occur on the project site other than undocumented use by area residents for underdetermined purposes (see footnote no. 4 on page 5.1 -15). Although the project site is designated as Recreational and Environmental Open Space by the Land Use Element of the City General Plan, it is not designated as such by the Recreation and Open Space Element of the City General Plan (see discussion on page 5.1 -15 and Exhibit 5.1 -4 of the Draft ETR). While the project site does provide open space relief as stated in the Draft EIR, it is not automatically considered a park (see discussion on page 5.1 -15 of the Draft ETR). In addition, the project site is not designated as a future park site. Moreover, the Planned Facilities section of the Recreation and Open Space Element of the City General Plan did not identify any suitable park sites within Service Area No. 8. The project site was not designated as an open space site or as a potential, future park site in the development agreement entered into between the City and The Irvine Company in 1978, which is known as the Circulation and Improvement and Open Space Agreement. Therefore, findings presented in the Draft ETR adequately identify the impacts that would result from project implementation. B5. The comment regarding approvals is noted. Section 3.5 of the Draft EIR lists the . various approvals associated with the proposed project in order to conform to the requirements of Section 15124 (d)(B) of the State CEQA Guidelines regarding contents of Environmental Impact Report documents. Michael Brandman Associates 5:\00640021 - St. Mark Ch=h1RTC\Fina1 RTCA.O 7� Vl St. Mark Presbyterian Church - Response to Comments on the Oran EIR Responses To Comments B6. The comment regarding stormwater runoff is noted. Exhibit 5.2 -1 of the Draft EIR depicts the existing conditions on the project site. Exhibit 5.2 -2 of the Draft EIR • depicts the proposed conditions for the project site. Table 5.2 -1 in the Draft EIR is summarizes the existing versus proposed conditions that included hydrology calculations for the 10 -year and 25 -year storm events for Drainage Areas A, B, C and D. This table shows that Drainage Areas A and B representing different acreages under the proposed project conditions, will continue to discharge to Big Canyon in approximately the same location, now named Node 13. Drainage Area C, under the existing conditions, is included within Drainage Area B under the proposed project conditions. Drainage Area D1, under the existing conditions, is included within Drainage Area C under the proposed project conditions. The analysis necessary to evaluate potential on -site impacts and potential off -site impacts is an evaluation of the entire project site, which was provided. B7. The comment regarding the hydrology study is noted. The statement in the Notice of Preparation was intended to reference the Preliminary Hydrological Study summarized in the Draft EIR. This level of hydrological study is customarily used for environmental review purposes. Final reports are prepared in association with grading and/or building permits. B8. The comment regarding water quality is noted. The information presented in the various tables in Appendix D of the Technical Appendices volume is comprised from various published sources, most typically the Environment Protection Agency. The rating of medium/low associated with vehicle use and parking lot activities is assumed to be accurate because of the source of the information. B9. The comment regarding biological resources is noted. The resources of the canyon • feature will be preserved and enhanced. The potential impact on the canyon was included in the overall analysis contained in the Biological Resources section. A portion of the canyon feature will be preserved (see Project Design Feature No. 3 in Section 3.3.4 of the Draft EIR). The canyon feature will continue to be used for the discharge of stormwater from the project site, adjacent roadways, and residential development across MacArthur Boulevard through the City easement and discharge outlet located in the canyon (see Exhibit 3 -3 in the Draft EIR). A view of the canyon will be preserved from MacArthur Boulevard (see Project Design Feature No. 7 in Section 3.3.4 of the Draft EIR). In addition, views of the canyon will be enhanced by members and visitors of the church facility by the inclusion of a nature center plaza with the proposed project (see Project Design Feature No. 7 in Section 3.3.4 of the Draft EIR). This distinction is important because if the canyon feature. as well as the entire project site, is currently used by area residents, they may in fact be trespassing due to the current private ownership of the property (see discussion on page 5.1 -15 of the Draft EIR). The Draft EIR evaluated the potential for the occurrence of special status plant communities on the entire project site, including the canyon, and concluded that none are present. The Draft EIR evaluated the potential for the occurrence of sensitive plant species on the entire project site, including the canyon, and concluded that none are present. The Draft EIR evaluated the potential for the occurrence of sensitive wildlife species on the entire project site, including the canyon, and concluded that of the nineteen species that have a potential to occur, fourteen of these do not occur due to a lack of suitable habitat. The remaining species were evaluated as having a low • potential to occur. However, because a portion of the canyon feature is being Michael Brandman Associates S^D0640021 - St. Mark Ch.h\RTC\Final RTC.doc J St. Mark Presbyterian Church — Response to Comments on the Draft EIR To Comments preserved, this potential, however remote, exists for species to access the canyon. • The potential for the project site, including the canyon, was evaluated for its potential for regional connectivity for wildlife movement and concluded that the project site does not provide any regional connectivity. Therefore, findings presented in the Draft EIR adequately identify the impacts that would result from project implementation. B 10. The comment regarding traffic safety is noted. Section 5.4.1 of the Draft EIR referenced existing geometric design standards relating to sight distance along roadways (standard STD -110 -L — Intersection Line of Site Requirements). Section 5.4.3 of the Draft EIR evaluated the potential impacts related to sight distance. The traffic analysis prepared for this project located in Appendix F of the Technical Appendices volume, contained an analysis of sight distance on page 6 -1 and included a graphical analysis (Exhibit 6 -A) on page 6 -3. Regarding the deceleration lane, advanced signage would be installed before the driveway locations. Individuals destined for the project site would merge into the right -turn lane and begin slowing prior to the 150 -foot right- turn/deceleration lane. Because of the existence of an 8- foot bike lane and a 14 -foot number 3 southbound lane, deceleration lanes in excess of 150 feet can be provided. The study concluded that, with the recommended mitigation measures or alternative designs or traffic safety devices approved by the City Public Works Department, less than significant impacts would result. Therefore, findings presented in the Draft EIR adequately identify the impacts that would result from project implementation. • B 11. The comment regarding traffic safety is noted. The information presented in Section 5.4.3 of the Draft EIR is intended to summarize information contained in the traffic study located in Appendix F of the Technical Appendices volume. Section 6.0 of the traffic study included an analysis of the weaving issues associated with the entry design and surrounding streets making specific recommendations to address the issue. The proposed MacArthur Boulevard access point would be designed to accommodate adequate sight distance and signage. Therefore, findings presented in the Draft EIR adequately identify the impacts that would result from project implementation. B 12. The comment regarding traffic safety is noted. See Response to Comment B l 1 for a discussion on traffic safety. The Committee's recornmendation regarding the alternative access scenario is acknowledged. The proposed MacArthur Boulevard access point provides alternative routes to and from the project site and distributes traffic to more driveways. Regarding item number 1, Table 5.4.4 of the Draft EIR, which summarizes information contained in the technical study located in Appendix F of the Technical Appendices volume, only discloses the type of accident that occurred, such as a rear- end collision. The contributing factors, which are myriad and may have included vehicular speed, are not included in the analysis. The traffic consultant has detailed reports for each accident and could conduct further analysis for accidents on • southbound MacArthur Boulevard. Michael Brandman Associates S:M640021 - SL Mark Ch=hTTCTF.al RTC.dx St Mark Presbyterian Church — Response to Comments on the Draft CIR Responses To Comments Regarding item number 2, the Draft EIR concluded that with the implementation of the recommended changes to roadway design and compliance with the mandatory • obligations relating to the sight distance standards, less than significant impacts would result from the proposed MacArthur Boulevard access point. Compliance with the City's Sight Distance Standard must be satisfied. Regarding items number 3, 4, and 6, the purpose of the traffic study, which was summarized in the Draft EIR, was to analyze the potential impacts of the proposed project and, if necessary propose mitigation measures. Therefore, findings presented in the Draft EIR adequately identify the impacts that would result from project implementation. B 13. The comment regarding construction traffic is noted. The purpose of the referenced Municipal Code section is to disclose the existence of mandatory obligations, or requirements, regarding the interaction of construction vehicles with the existing traffic during the short-term and temporary construction activities for all projects within the City. The referenced Municipal Code section is applicable to this project and would be enforced. Therefore, findings presented in the Draft EIR adequately identify the impacts that would result from project implementation. B 14. The comment regarding bikeways is noted. Section 5.4.1 of the Draft EIR identifies Class I and Class Il bicycle lanes adjacent to the project site. An existing bicycle lane is located in MacArthur Boulevard. The alignment of this bicycle lane will be • reviewed at the same time the geometric design for the deceleration lane is completed. Therefore, findings presented in the Draft EIR adequately identify the impacts that would result from project implementation. B15. The comment regarding open space is noted. Table 4 -1 of the Draft EIR specifically identifies the Marinapark hotel project. Section 5.1.4 of the Draft EIR discusses the cumulative impacts of the proposed project. The Draft EIR prepared for the Marinapark project evaluated the potential impacts related to its existing land use designation of Recreational and Environmental Open Space and concluded that less than significant impacts would result from approval of the project. The Marinapark project site is fully developed. The proposed use would retain the existing uses that are deemed consistent with the Recreational and Environmental Open Space land use designation. Disapproval of the Marinapark proposed project would allow the existing uses to continue although the mobilehome use eventually must be eliminated. A portion of the Bayview landing project site is designated as open space. The proposed project includes a park site that is consistent with the designation. The Newport Coast projects were planned under the jurisdiction of the County of Orange and annexed into the City. These developments included open space areas that are now designated as Recreational and Environmental Open Space that will be preserved. The remainder of the projects identified on Table 4 -1 of the Draft EIR are not designated as Recreational and Environmental Open Space. Therefore, findings presented in the Draft EIR adequately identify the impacts that • would result from project implementation. Michael Brandman Associates 5900640021 - St. Mark ChmchV TC\Fiml RTC.doc 59-- • St. Mark Presbyterian Church - Response to Comments on the Draft EIR To Comments.. • B16. The comment on contour lines is noted. The reference to the noise contour on page 5.6 -19 of the Draft EJR is in reference to the noise contour maps contained in the City's Noise Element. A review of these maps was necessary in order to determine if the project site was located with the geographic boundaries of the identified noise contour lines from John Wayne Airport. A review concluded that the project site was not located within these noise contour lines. Therefore, findings presented in the Draft EIR adequately identify the impacts that would result from project implementation. Michael Brandman Associates 5:\00640021 - St, Mark ChurchIRTC\Final RTC.dm 3� 08/16/2064 11:15 9496443229 CNB PLANNING PAGE 07 $ ATE OFCALIFr)RN1A— BllStPta55 TRANSPORTA7l9N ANp HOIISINC AGENCY _ _ ARNOIn g:UWA1t ,NF��FR C.,wn,vr DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION District 12 3337 Michelson Drive. Suite 380 Irvine. CA 92612 -8894 Fa :(94)x4 -2 Fax: (949 }724 -2592 �' July 16, 2004 Mr. Gregg B. Ramirez Community & Economic Development Dep. City of Newport Beach P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92651 Subject- St Mark's Presbyterian Church Dear Mr. Ramirez, PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH J'JL 2 3 2004 7181910)111121I1213141515 go F1ez you. power! Be Energy efj'iciend File: IGRJCEQA SCH #: 2003101137 Log #: 1325A SR #: PCH. SR -55. SR -73 Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the SL Mark Presbyterian Church Project dated July 2004. The project consists of the construction of a church sanctuary, fellowship hall, administration building and counseling center, preschool buildings, expansion building, nature center plaza, and related site improvements such as parking lots, driveways, site lighting, grading, landscaping. and utility connections. The project is located at the corner of Third Street and Mermaid Street in the City of Laguna Beach, The nearest State Routes to the project are Pacific Coast Highway (PCH), SR -55, • and SR -73. Caltrans District 12 status is a reviewing agency on this project and has no comments at this time. However, in the event of any activity in Caltrans' right -of -way, an encroachment permit C will be required. Applicants are required to plan for sufficient permit processing time, which may include engineering studies and environmental documentation. Please Continue to keep us informed of this and other future developments, which could potentially impact the transportation facilities. If you have any questions or need to contact us, please do not hesitate to call Maryam Molav; at (949) 724 -2267. S' ce ly, B .J aS, Cof IGR/Community Planning Branch C: Terry Roberts, Office of Planning and Research Terri Pencovic, Caltrans HQ 1GR/Community Planning `Capra r lmpraues mobility across California" L� �a St Mark Presbyterian Church - Response to Comments on the Draft EIR Responses To Comments • C. State of California, Department of Transportation (Caltrans), District 12 Cl. The comment regarding encroachment permits is noted. The project description does not include any activities within or adjacent to a state - designated right -of -way. Should the proposed project require any activity within a state - designated right -of- way, Caltrans will be contacted immediately. As a matter of note, the first paragraph of this response incorrectly identifies the location of the proposed project. However, it is clear from remainder of this paragraph and the reference to the correct State Clearinghouse number that the agency accurately identified the proposed project and considered information regarding the proposed project. As a matter of note, Section 3.5 of the Draft EIR identifies encroachment permits from the City of Newport Beach that are required for implementation of the proposed project. • Michael Brandman Associates 5 90 06 4 0 02[ - St. Mark ChwcMRTCTinal RTC.doc �S \ 06/16/2004 zm / � E � 11:15 ,a 44:22, c PLANNING ¥ § / \d) � §f ( 3\\ %§Q rL m CL co cc } }=§ \ (j 2f£ !E =2 \ a \/0 @ %77 / LU § 0 E \)j\ § § \ \ aR \ q m 0 \(} / / o \ { kk)E )$. p % ƒ§ °$) ) / 7 tee / §2 \ \ \/ ,\ 2 ) §)t f 2227 E ƒ 4 a \ ¢ �\� j \ { \i }0 f0�c �Vx /;\ / \� § / }\ §]t / / \/ f E �e ��� & =f Q�2 22\3ƒ jaf \/\ / ««6 §2 »It £££ §)t _)$67 CL s K (§£(f£ \ § \§£ \22 e ; °[r § U- co l2�5a � o :�a_a; § 3$E3 3 { ) PAGE + 0 � § k -0 )\ � St Mark Presbyterian Church — Response to Comments on the Draft EIR To Comments D. State of California, State Water Resources Control Board • D1. The comment regarding the Notice of Intent is noted. In conformance with the provisions of NPDES Permit No. CSA000002, a Notice of Intent for coverage under the General Permit for construction activity will be filed. • • Michael 9randman Associates S:m0640021 - SL Mark Ch=h\RTCTina1 RTC.doc I� 08/16/2004 11:15 9496443229 CNB PLANNING PAGE 04 ROD MACDONALD August 9, 2004 Mr. Gregg Ramirez City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA. 92659 Re: St. Marks Presbyterian Church Dear Gregg, As an arcbiteet and developer, I have never seen so munch data and infbrmation put together for a project approval that was so obviously the wrong project for a given C 1 site! This whole effort could be just as easily be subtitled "Where is Greenfight when you realgy need them?" or "how to put 10 #s in a 5# bag "I this site is zoned Open Space and sbould be kept just that. It is a perfect location for an urban park that should be used for lunch breaks for all of the workers in Fashion L Z Island, the Gelson's shopping Center, Roger's Gardens and the apartment complexes to the east and west. The objections that are clearly laid out in the Technical Appendices by the • adjacent neighbors. including the apartment owners to the west, the Big Canyon Community Association, Big Canyon Country Club, and various homeowners are 3 accurate and to the point. This project does not work and is not wanted by the people that should really decide, those people that live around the project and will be affected the most. OFt±SITES/Tk&MC No matter how you present the data, there is no way that access off and on to MacArthur can be accommodated. Forgetting for a moment the "deceleration from 55 mph to the driveway" problem, more problematic is in the lack of on site vehicle stacking and short throat of the driveway at the MacArthur entrance. People trying to get into the site and faced with the `light or leftT' decision once in the parking lot are going to back up the traffic. This is clearly unsafe. Anyone who has tried to safely make the turn in to the shopping center where Gulfstream is at the coast highway knows how difficult the maneuver really is! In the Gulfstream example, you are already slowing down for the signal at the coast highway but at the church, site, the "major arterial highway" is moving at full speed (posted at 55 mph). The access off of San Joaquin is even more problematic. I make the turn every day and refuse to see the logic in the mitigation measures. Think the "Christmas Tree Lot traffic" multiplied by a factor of 20. Compound that with someone's inevitable attempt to turn .left from northbound MacArthur to westbound San Joaquin and then into the proposed church lot. It's not going to work! • 9 Toney Pines Lane Newport Beach, CaiiFannia 92660 9494669 -8222 08/16/2004 11:15 9496443229 CNB PLANNING ROD MACDONALD PAGE 05 According to the reports, the parking lot for 247 spaces will ONLY be used for 52 worship services a year in the Sanctuary which seats 380 people, 10 weddings, 5 funerals, unspecified evening lectures, liturgical events and social functions, 5 days a week of preschool for 112 students, 8 -10 Alcoholics Anonymous' meeting per week, I Parkinson's support group meeting group per week and 1 homeowners association meeting per month. No way will they all get in and out of this site safely! SI'T'E PLANNING/ARCHITECTURE Let's see .... you are going to pave or roof over more that half of the site and drain the storm water ultimately into Big Canyon, build a parking lot and church the height equivalent of a 4 1/2 -story apartment tower (not counting the tower!) right next to some apartments (less than 60 feet away!) and loom it all over the pristine park -like setting of Big Canyon, you are going to screen the project with mostly 15 gallon and 24 inch box trees (average height 8 feetl)which in 30 years will blend in with the existing neighborhood, run 247 cars in and out every day of the week for all kinds of functions and let's not forget, you are going to use "deep earth tones in building colors that complement and blend -in with the natural color tones of the canyon feature". I am sorry, but considering the rich and articulate architectural tradition that the Irvine Company has brought to Newport and to Fashion Island, this planning effort should get C-or D+I • CONCLUSION Clearly a lot of money has been spent on the process and clearly a lot of important people want this to happen..... and I guess that as a developer, I should be encouraged since I make my living getting things approved and built. However, I also believe that common sense has always been one great American trait. T am asking the powers that be to exercise a little common sense and see this project for what it is -THF- RIGHT USE IN THE WRONG PLACE Ps: I would be happy to Chair a committee to design and building a park, nature area and open space that would benefit many more people that the proposed use. E `A • 9 Torrey pines Lane Newport Reach, California 92660 94®. 689 -8222 �'A St. Mark Presbyterian Church — Response to Comments on the Draft EIR E. Mr. Rod MacDonald To Comments El. The comment regarding Charter Section 423 is noted. The proposed project is not • subject to the provisions of City of Newport Beach Charter Section 423, commonly known as the Greenlight Initiative. The increase in floor area is below the 40,000 square foot threshold and the increase in the amount of traffic generated during the peak hour is below the 100 -trip threshold required to trigger the requirements of Charter Section 423. E2. The continent regarding open space is noted. Refer to Response to Comment B4 for a discussion on open space. E3. The comment regarding objections is noted. Section 3.5 of the Draft EIR states that the City has discretionary approval, or project approval, over the proposed project. For clarification, project approval would come from a combination of the City Planning Commission and the City Council. This section also lists various ministerial and discretionary approvals associated with the proposed project. The decision makers will also take all objections into consideration as the determination as to whether to approve, modify or deny the project is made. E4. The comment regarding traffic is noted. On -site vehicle stacking will be reviewed during the plan check process that would include a thorough on -site circulation review. Pavement markings and signage may be required that would assist drivers. For a discussion on traffic, please refer to Response to Comments B 10 to B 13, and Response to Comment F2. E5. The comments regarding stormwater drainage, building heights, vegetation, vehicle . trips, building colors, and The Irvine Company are noted. Section 5.2.1 of the Draft EIR states that Big Canyon currently receives the majority of the surface stormwater discharged from the project site and also receives stormwater from the adjacent roadway and development east of the project site via a City - installed storm drain outlet. Refer to Section 3.2 of the Draft EIR for a discussion on this strom drain outlet. The project proposes to direct stormwater generated on the project site to on- site detention basins and ultimately discharge the stormwater into Big Canyon at or below existing discharge levels. Refer to Section 5.2.3 of the Draft EIR for a discussion on proposed stormwater conveyance and discharge. Project Design Feature No. 6 in Section 3.3.4 of the Draft EIR represents a proposed design feature that lowers the building pad, in relation to existing surface grades, in order to reduce the visual prominence of the proposed buildings. Section 3.3.1 of the Draft EIR states that the building pad would be lowered from eight to twelve feet. Table 3 -3 and Exhibits 3 -11 through 3 -12 of the Draft EIR provide information on building heights. Project Design Feature No. 2 in Section 3.3.4 of the Draft EIR represents a proposed design feature that includes landscaped buffers adjacent to the existing roadways. These buffers are raised in elevation relative to the surrounding grade and include landscaping. In addition, landscaping is proposed along the northern perimeter of the project site, except for the portion of the project site retained as a canyon feature. Exhibit 3 -8 of the Draft EIR shows the location of the proposed landscape buffers and perimeter vegetation- Exhibits 3 -10 through 3 -12 of the Draft EIR depict the . proposed landscaping in relation to the existing and proposed development. Exhibit Michael Brandman Associates 5:\0064 21 - SL Mark Chu ch\RTC\Final RTC.doc nL St. Mark Presbyterian Church - Resoonse to Comments on the Draft To Comments 3 -8 of the Draft EIR contains a table that states the various types of landscaping • proposed and their corresponding sizes. For clarification, Section 3.3.2 of the Draft EIR identifies a total of 247 parking stalls proposed for the project. The comment regarding building colors is noted. Section 3.3.4 of the Draft EIR identifies certain features that have been incorporated into the design of the proposed project. The use of specific colors in order to match the natural colors of the canyon feature is identified as Project Design Feature No. 5. The purpose of choosing building colors that match the natural colors exhibited in the canyon feature is not to hide the project from public view. Rather, the colors were selected because the project proposes to retain a portion of the canyon feature and also incorporate this canyon feature into the overall site design (see Project Design Feature No. 3). Section 1.7 of the Draft EIR states that the project sponsor, or applicant, is St. Mark Presbyterian Church, not The Irvine Company. In its capacity as the project sponsor, St. Mark Presbyterian Church has proposed the site plan and architectural style. For clarification, Section 3.3 of the Draft EIR states that The Irvine Company currently owns the land. If the City approves this project, St. Mark Presbyterian Church would then acquire the land. Refer to Response to Continent F3 for a discussion on constraints to project site design. • Therefore, fridings presented in the Draft EIR adequately identify the impacts that would result from project implementation. • Michael Brandman Associates a\ S:\00640021 - St. Mark Ch.hWTC\Fin.1 RTC.dm 06/16/2004 11:15 9496443229 CNB PLANNING PAGE 02 August 10, 2004 Planning Department City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 Attention: Gregg Ramirez RE: St. Mark Presbyterian Church - DEIR Gentlemen: RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH AUG 12 2004 PM 7 819110111112111213141516 Essex Property Trust and Borstein Enterprises are owners of the Big Canyon Apartments located at 2 Pine Valley Lane, adjacent to the proposed St. Mark Church. While we have no fundamental objection to the adjacent land being occupied by the church, we have concerns about the placement of the structures and the lack of separation and/or mitigation measures at our mutual property line. On November 26, 2003, we set forth these concerns in a letter to you. We also spoke with Mr. John L. Brenner, the Chairman of the Entitlement Committee for St. Mark Church to express our specific concerns and suggested solutions. In reviewing the current DEER we note that no changes were made to the plan as it may affect our residents and that the DEM fails to even consider or evaluate the points raised in our letter of November 26, 2003. Our specific issues are as follows: An outdoor children's play area is corn. ected adjacent to the main ebumb sanctuary and located 55 feet from our nearest residential unit. This outdoor area, along with the church structure which is more than 40 feet in height, is proposed to be located only 5 feet from our property line. The DEER is silent as to the noise impact of this play area and especially since its use will most likely occur on weekend days when our residents will be athotne. !Fy BORSTEIN ENTERPRISES 2730 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 300 •Santa Monica. California 90403 • 310. 582.1991 • Fox 310.582 -1999 • • 10- 08/16/2004 11 :15 9496443229 CNB PLANNING PAGE 03 • Since the church site is elevated above our property, the five foot set back from the property line is mostly a slope and it will be very difficult to plant foliage which could help screen the bulk size of the church or mitigate the sound intrusion. We had suggested that the church structure and children's play area be set back a minimum of 15 feet and that heavy landscape be placed in the set back area. Again, the DEIR does not even mention this issue. �i 2. The main entrance off San Joaquin Hills Road and the main parking lot are both immediately adjacent to our other residential units. This Z proximity will cause noise, exhaust pollution and headlight intrusion for the adjacent residents, none of which problems were addressed iri the DEIR. This entire site is approximately 9 acres of which about 7 acres are useable. Since the actual building area comprises less than one - seventh of the useable land it �j • would seem very simple to site the offending elements to mitigate both noise and pollution into the adjacent residential neighborhood which has been in existence for more than thirty years. Very truly yours, rresinenr • a3 St. Mark Presbyterian Church — Response to Comments on the Draft EIR Responses To Comments F. Bornstein Enterprises Fl. The comment regarding the children's play area is noted. Exhibit 3 -13 of the Draft • EIR depicts the children's play area in relation to the property line. This setback conforms to the requirements of the proposed PC regulations. This same exhibit also depicts the setback to the Church building as 15 feet, consistent with the comment. This play area would be used by less children than would the pre - school. The following paragraph is added to page 5.6 -16 of the Draft EIR immediately following the paragraph entitled "Pre- School Activities ": Children's Play Area. The children's play areas are to be located adjacent to the Fellowship Hall and east of the Church. The area located adjacent to the Fellowship Hall is in excess of 300 feet from the nearest residents located across MacArthur Boulevard and noise would be less than that predicted for the pre- school activities noted above. These residents are protected by a masonry wall and play activity noise at these residents would be less than significant. The play area located east of the church is approximately 60 feet from the proximate residents located to the west. Again using the higher of the noise readings obtained at the Jenny Hart facility, noise at the most proximate resident is calculated at 57 dBA Leq. The play area is to include a 5.5 -foot masonry wall. Again assuming the minimum 5 dBA of reduction for the wall, the resultant noise at the resident is calculated at 52 dBA Leq. This value is less than the City's noise standard of 55 dBA for activities conducted between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. and the impact is less than significant. Additionally, reading NR- 4 obtained proximate to both the residents and this proposed play area showed an • Leq of 53.1 dBA. This measured value is higher than that for play area activities and based on the limited use of the play area, these activities would not substantially raise the ambient noise levels. Actual noise levels at the residents from play area activities would be further reduced by the grade separation between the project site and the residents as well as the smaller volume of children that are actually expected to use this area at any given time. Any potential impact would be less than significant. The project proposes landscaping adjacent to the north property line. Project Design Feature No. 13, identified in Section 2.2 of the Draft EIR, states that landscaping will be provided in order to provide a visual buffer to the adjacent property. Exhibit 3 -8 of the Draft EIR shows the proposed landscaping plan. The planting chart on this exhibit indicates that the northwest portion of the project site, adjacent to the residential properties, would receive the largest trees proposed for planting. In addition, Exhibit 3 -12 of the Draft EIR provides a cross section showing proposed landscaping and Exhibit 3 -14 of the Draft EIR depicts the proposed landscaping. Therefore, findings presented in the Draft EIR adequately identify the impacts that would result from project implementation. F2. The comment regarding the proposed entrance and parking lot is noted. The location of the proposed entrance off San Joaquin Hills Road was chosen in order to conform to the City's sight distance requirements from major roadways. This is an existing entrance to the project site when access is required and during the holiday season when the project site is used as a Christmas tree sales lot. In addition, this access • point was chosen so that it was located as far as possible from the San Joaquin Hills Michael Brandman Associates S100640021 - St. Mark Ch.cMRTCTinal RTC.dw vAA v St. Mark Presbyterian Church — Response to Comments on the Draft EIR To Comments Road/MacArthur Boulevard intersection as possible in order to accommodate • maximum allowable weaving opportunities. Refer to Section 5.4.3 of the Draft EIR for a discussion on sight distance requirements. Refer to the previous response (Response to Comment Fl) for a discussion on landscape buffers that would shield headlight intrusion. Section 5.6 -3 of the Draft EIR contains an analysis of noise - related impacts related to parking lot activities. Section 5.5.3 of the Draft EIR contained an analysis of both the short -term and long- term air quality impacts of the proposed project, which includes exhaust pollution from vehicles. Therefore, findings presented in the Draft EIR adequately identify the impacts that would result from project implementation. F3. The comment regarding the site acreage is noted. Section 3.3 of the Draft EIR, including Table 3 -1, identifies the overall site as containing 10.81 acres, of which, after two separate dedications of portions of the project site to entities other than the project proponent, results in approximately 7.4 acres available for the proposed development. The amount of "usable" land on the project site would be dependent on the actual development proposed. In the case of the proposed project, the project proponent has chosen to retain a portion of the existing canyon feature into the overall site design. Exhibit 3 -4 of the Draft EIR contains a project data table that • states the proposed buildings would cover approximately 10.5 percent of the portion of the project site proposed for development. However, as with most proposed developments, buildings do not represent the only improvements necessary to fulfill the objectives of a proposed project. In the case of the proposed project, parking lots, interconnecting vehicular drive aisles, and pedestrian walkways are a necessary part of the proposed project. In addition, as previously referenced, the project proponent has chosen to retain a portion of the existing canyon feature and include extensive landscaped buffers adjacent to the existing roadways as part of the overall project site design. The project proponent and their architect, prior to application to the City, evaluated various site development scenarios in order to determine the best arrangement of the elements of the proposed development on the project site. The primary site planning constraint governing the proposed layout was the retention of a portion of the existing canyon feature and the incorporation of this feature into the overall project site design. Because of this constraint, either of the two remaining generally level areas that would be available for development would not be of sufficient size to accommodate the required building space. As a result, the project proponent chose to propose multiple low -rise buildings across the project site with two parking areas. The additional parking was provided in order to facilitate vehicular and pedestrian movement across the project site. This resulted in an increase in the number of parking stalls. In addition to this primary constraint, the extensive landscaped buffers adjacent to the existing roadways and the proposed location of the San Joaquin Hills Road access point created additional site design constraints. Because of these constraints, the church and fellowship hall, representing the primary buildings, would be required to be placed in close proximity • to the canyon feature. Because of this primary constraint, and because of the requirement to place the San Joaquin Hills Road access point the maximum distance Michael Branoman Associates , 1 S:0"40021 - St. Mark Chwch6RTC inaf RTC.doc `i, St. Mark Presbyterian Church - Response to Comments on the Draft E/R To Comments from MacArthur Boulevard and the proposed landscaped buffers, were the constraints that resulted in the proposed location of the primary parking lot. • Therefore, findings presented in the Draft EIR adequately identify the impacts that would result from project implementation. Michael Brandman Associates S \W640021 - St. Mark Ch.h\RTC\Fina7 RTC A. CJ 0 4 06/24/2004 16:52 August 17, 2004 9496443229 CNB PLANNING PAGE 06 CoinrnunitV Deveiop-ne -G vo":.c;.irvine.--a.us City of Ir:ire, One Civic Center Plezu, F.0 Bor 19:"%5. 6-+:i,e. G= iiforqia 92f,2 975 (999) 724 -6000 Mr. Gregg B. Ramirez, Associate Planner City of Newport Beach Planning Deparhneat 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 RECEIVED SY PLANNING DEP4RTT4ENT CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH AUG 2 4 2004 PM 7 619110111112111213{41516 Subject: Notice of Availability of a Draft EIR— St. Mark Presbyterian Church Dear Mr. Ramirez: • The City of Irvine has received and reviewed the information on the above referenced project Based on our review, Planning Services staff has no specific comments at this time. G A Thank you for the opportunity to review the project. We would appreciate information on any Y change in the project description as the planning process proceeds. Tf you have any questions, please contact me at (949) 724 -6546 or aurcis ci.irvine.ca_us Since ly, vV "Vv Associate Planner ec: Barry Curtis, Principal Planner Farideh E. Lyons, Senjor Transportation Analyst File • -Al SL Mark Presbyterian Church - Response to Comments on the Draft EIR Responses To Comments G. City of Irvine, Community Development Department Gl. The comment regarding the project description is noted. The City of Irvine will be • notified if any changes to the project description occur. Michael Brandman Associates S^D06 21 - SL Mark ChuecbV TC\Fioal RTC.do • rIL 0 08/24/2004 16:52 9496443229 CNB PLANNING r'W rwn"-�„&J�- � 9.06�&ZmQa8 J"" August 19, 2004 Mr. Gregg B. Ramirez, Associate Planner Newport Beach Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 Re: DEIR for St. Mark Presbyterian Church Dear Mr. Ramirez: RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH AM AUG 2 4 2004 PM 19110111 112111213141516 PAGE 04 We have received your notice advising that comments for the subject DEM will be accepted. We are a homeowner association of 1.42 single- family lots in Big Canyon. Our concerns in the preparation of the Environmental Impact Report are basically limited to the issues of Transportation/Traffic as defined in the • DE1R. The subject site is ] ocated at a critical. location as it affects traffic ingress and egress from and to Big Canyon and Newport Center. In recent years the City of Newport Beach has expended considerable funds to improve the traffic capacity of MacArthur Blvd. In the planning of the subject site we are concerned that there not be features which compromise the efficiency of that very important arterial and its intersections. As you are aware, a deceleration lane exists for a free right turn onto San Joaquin. Bills Road. This existing feature greatly improves the capacity of that intersection and the flow of traffic. The concern is whether the friction introduced by eutering and exiting church traffic will significantly detract from the free flow of traffic. Attention should also be given to exiting traffic intending to travel easterly along San Joaquin Hills Road. Perhaps, the entry on MacArthur should be considered ingress only. Our other concerns are with the San Joaquin Hill Road. There, the ingress and access is located at the far end of the property with only a deceleratiou. lane proposed With the right turn only constraint, there are two concerns. One is the degree of friction caused by traffic to and from the church merging with left turn and right turn traffic from MacArthur Blvd.. The other concern is with the church exiting traffic, which desires to go easterly along San Joaquin Hills Road. As proposed, they may elect to make U-turns at either the driveway to the parkzng area across the street or at the next intersection. In periods of high traffic flow this can be. a concern. Would it be enough of a concern to prohibit these U -turn movements? In the study of these traffic issues, it would seem feasible for the Church to provide data indicating the likely direction of approach. for both attendance to church and for the school. This would seem to greatly enhance the ability to evaluate the traffic impacts. \ \Villa }eway03�yroiec¢ \Canyon Falls Oob\AdnmisnmSv *T)m Canery1MCCH OEM Lc fm SL Mark Pmkhylcrjnn Chumb 081904.doc �ki a�+ 09!24!2004 16:52 9496443229 CNB PLANNING PAGE 05 Mr. Gregg Ramirez, Associate Planner Newport Beach Planning Department Re: DEIR for St. Mark Presbyterian Church • August 19, 2004 Page Two In the DEIR, it was noted that the response concerning Result in Inadequate Emergency Access was "No Impact". It would seem that the EIR should address that issue. The nearest fire station is located near Jamboree Road. In the event a fire engine or paramedics were to approach the site, they apparently would either 1) travel on the wrong side of San Joaquin, 2) make a U -turn at MacArthur, or 3) travel on Jamboree to Ford Road and enter at either of the two proposed driveways. There is also a general concern. This proposed use is to change from an Open Space to a Church/School.� Has the land owner proposed an offsetting site to replace the loss of open space? To be clear, our association is not opposed to the church /school use. We are asking that the traffic issues noted above are tborouglrly evaluated in the preparation of the final Environmental Impact Report. Sincerely, The Board of Directors of Canyon Hills Community Association in Big Canyon • cc: Board of Directors • �ro r`.�illaecwey97rproJceu�C�nyan Hill, 008wdm+n s-P IOAdmin Corteanr2o04 n DER Lv for S Mari: Preabv¢ rim C h.h 081904.doe • • • St. Mark Presbyterian Church - Resoonse to Comments on the Draft EIR H. Canyon Hills Community Association To Comments H1. The comment regarding traffic is noted. For a discussion on traffic, please refer to Response to Comments B 10 to B 13, and Response to Comment F2. H2. The comment regarding emergency access is noted. Because the proposed driveways are not gate controlled or in some other way restricted, access to the project site by emergency vehicles would not be obstructed. The Newport Beach Fire Department has reviewed the project plans and has stated that the proposed access is adequate and that the project site can be accessed within thew established emergency response time. H3. The comment regarding open space is noted. For a discussion on open space, refer to Response to Comment B4. Michael Brandman Associates 5:\00640021 - $L Mark Ch=h\RTCTinal RTCAd 08!24!2004 16:52 9496443229 CNB PLANNING PAGE 02 Bernard Rome 3 Pinehurst Lane Newport Beach, Ca., 92660 August 23, 2004 J&. Gregg B. Ramirez, Associate Planner Newport Beach Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, Ca., 92658 Re: DEIR for St. Mark Presbyterian Church 0 RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH AUG 2 4 2004 AM PM I i12111213 41516 4 When the proposed project first came before the city council in Feb. 2001 many negative comments were voiced about the applicability of this location for a church site or for that matter anything other than the passive open space it presently has. The council took the position that the applicant should be given a chance to prove that the traffic problem can be resolved and managed effectively. Unfortunately we are now sitting here over three years later without a feasible solution. However now some have "forced" the issue to show traffic will not present an unsafe situation. tra . c stu Although a traffic study was performed it does not consider growth potential of the applicant or their stated ability to lease the facility out for other than normal church functions. Listed below are some summarized facts that were not addressed during the ffi d Y. 3: MacArthur Blvd. is a major arterial highway to Newport Center/Fasbion. • • Island (NC/FT) and mailings are made weekly to attract shoppers and visitors via the 73 freeway and turning onto San Joaquin Hills Road. No data was provided in the traffic study to account for this not only todav but in the next 5, 10 and 15 years from now. 2. Since applicant's major use on Sunday is for services will other events held on Sunday at NC/FI not be allowed? —ie 5K nms, special sales at = Z stores usually held on weekends, etc. 3. As Newport Coast develops further, San Joaquin Hills Road has become a main route to Big Canyon. and NC/Fl. The Traffic study does not take this i 3 into consideration but uses data primarily developed in 2003 which is significantly different than what will be experienced in 5 to 15 years from now. 4. Traffic study shows no accidents from "weaving" experienced on San Joaquin when coming from MacArthur Blvd and going east to either Big = y • 08!24!2004 16:52 9496443229 CNB PLANNING PAGE 03 • Canyon or NC/FI: however, the study does note people lost control of their vehicles. We know why they lost Control -- the weaving effect. Also IT-11 one light pole in the San Joaquin median was knocked down by a vehicle forced to move over when traffic tried to cross lanes. 5. The suggested procedure of handing out traffic route information for people to follow when they 1 eave the site and go through Newport Center T5 is an unworkable plan. Our Lady Queen Of Angeles church has tried this and they have admitted it does not work In summary it is obvious to many Newport Beach residents that this site is and has been a nightmare when reasonable vehicle access to and from is considered. To think that our planners and city council would bury their head in the sand and try to "shoe horn in" a facility at a site with dangerous traffic conditions is not using good sound judgment. Is this because of the lack of planning that has been experienced in the past? As an example Newport Coast was developed with a lot of expensive homes but without sites set aside to house religious places of worship. It is evident we are trying to mask our past mistakes by allowing this open space area to serve a select few at the expense of both safety and common sense. • Sincerely, Bernard Rome • 7 St. Mark Presbyterian Church - Response to Comments on the Draft EIR Responses To Comments Mr. Bernard Rome Il . The comment regarding traffic is noted. The traffic study prepared for this project . was completed in strict conformance with the provisions of the City's Traffic Phasing Ordinance that accounted for existing and future growth. Existing traffic generated by Newport Center/Fashion Island is accounted for in the traffic analysis. Additionally, a cumulative and general plan build -out traffic analysis was conducted, which accounts for future growth and resultant traffic increases. Acceptable levels of service are predicted. Therefore, findings presented in the Draft EIR adequately identify the impacts that would result from project implementation. 12. The comment regarding traffic is noted. The traffic study analyzes typical traffic conditions. Special events in Fashion Island require a Special Event Permit. If it is determined that any proposed events are deemed unsafe by the City or would negatively impact the area, then the event would not be permitted. Therefore, findings presented in the Draft EIR adequately identify the impacts that would result from project implementation. I3. The comment regarding traffic is noted. Table 4 -1 of the Draft EIR identified the Newport Coast projects. The Newport Coast developments were included in the cumulative project conditions and assumed full build -out. In addition, Section 5.4.3 of the Draft EIR included the developments on the Newport Coast area in its analysis. Also, refer to Response to Comment I1. • Therefore, findings presented in the Draft EIR adequately identify the impacts that would result from project implementation. I4. The comment regarding traffic safety is noted. Detailed traffic accident reports were evaluated for a 5 -year period. Based on this period, no vehicular conflicts on northbound MacArthur Boulevard turning left onto San Joaquin Hills Road and southbound MacArthur Boulevard free right turning vehicles were reported or observed. Refer to Response to Comment B 10 to B13 for a discussion on traffic safety. I5. The comment regarding traffic is noted. Refer to Response to Comments B 10 through B 12 for a discussion on traffic safety. Michael Brandman Associates S:\00640021 - SL Mark ChurchWTQFina1 RTC.d. l 1 Comments — Marinapark EIR Kevin Shannon - FW: St Mark EIR Comments W�1 - rt�w�: - ,...w,��.rez- . -z.r. _s a. r -,.- arcs:..- zr�.za,.,:- ..�. -�ea.m '*From: "Ramirez, Gregg" < GRamirez @city.newport- beach.ca.us> To: "Kevin B. Shannon (E- mail)" <kshannon @ brandman.com> Date: 8/31/2004 2:35 PM Subject: FW: St Mark EIR Comments Hi Kevin - T❑ Here's another comment letter. Thanks - - - -- Original Message---- - From: andylingle @sbcglobal. net [mailto:andylingle @ sbcglobal.net] Sent: Tuesday, August 31, 2004 2:31 PM To: gramirez @city.newport- beach.ca.us Subject: St Mark EIR Comments SPON P.O. Box 102 Balboa Island, California 92662 • August 31, 2004 City of Newport Beach Planning Department Gregg B. Ramirez, Associate Planner 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92658 Subject: St. Mark Draft EIR Dear Mr. Ramirez, Page 1 of 3 SPON appreciates the opportunity to comment on the Draft EIR for St Mark Presbyterian Church. 1. The conversion of Recreational and Environmental O en Space to Institution should be mitigated The Land Use and Planning section of the DEIR identifies the loss of Recreational and Environmental Open Space (REOS) land as an insignificant impact. SPON disagrees with this conclusion and believes that the appropriate conclusion is that the loss of REOS land is Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated. On its own, the St. Mark project has many features that would make it an attractive contribution to the City. However, approval of this project will come at the expense of open space. We believe that the DEIR has underestimated the potential for the site to serve as an important biotic habitat, 6� file:HC: \ Documents %20and %20Settings \KSha nnon \Local %20Settings \Temp \GW... 9/1/2004 Comments — Marinapark EIR Page 2 of 3 which represents one significant objective for REOS property. The November 25, 2003 letter written to the City by Dr. Jan Vandersloot concerning the Initial Study explains that this property, if allowed to naturalize, would serve as a more important biotic habitat than present. Therefore, we believe that while this property may appear to be a surplus remnant, under appropriate stewardship, it has the potential to support more widespread habitat for native flora and fauna in the Newport Beach area. SPON also believes that the property provides visual open space. In Newport Beach, and in Southern California in general, open space is a highly limited and diminishing resource. As the last remaining developable land in the City is built, there is increased pressure to use open space j Z for private and institutional uses. The Marinapark site is an obvious example of a hotel developer acquiring City property at below- market rates instead of paying market rates for private property in the area. SPON is dismayed that the City considers protection of REOS land a low priority, and utilizes it as discount property for future development. Article 10.5 of the 2004 Planning, Zoning, and Development laws of the State of California recognizes that open space is a limited and valuable resource that should be conserved whenever :S 3 possible. The State recognizes that discouraging conversion of open space to urban uses is a matter of public interest. SPON agrees with the Legislature of the State of California and believes that losing open space land without any mitigation for its loss is a significant impact. SPON disagrees that retaining 1.12 acres of open space could be considered mitigation for the loss of 7.38 acres of open space. To develop this 1.12 acre remnant would require expensive J earthwork to fill. The loss of valuable coastal sage scrub within this remnant would require extensive mitigation from the California Department of Fish and Game. As a result, the property left on -site as open space would remain as such under any development scenario. . In our view, an appropriate mitigation program would determine the value of the property when converted from open space to institutional, plus the value of the loss to the remnant 1.12 acre open space parcel as a viable habitat. The cumulative value of these two factors would be applied toward the purchase of an appropriate replacement parcel, or applied toward improving a REOS .SS site elsewhere in the City. SPON suggests that replacement property might be surplus property owned by the current landowner or the City in a non -REDS designation that could meet the criteria for a REOS designation following an environmental analysis. If the City used the funds for improving a REOS property for open space purposes, the Central park property next to the library, or the Marinapark property would be two good choices for those funds. The St. Mark project is being processed concurrently with the Regent Newport Beach Hotel project at Marinapark. The cumulative impacts section of the DEIR should also include an J to analysis of loss of REOS designations of other areas in the City, such as the Regent Newport Beach Hotel at Marinapark. If this significant impact is not mitigated, at a minimum, the Environmental Impact Report must j-1 include a Statement of Overriding Considerations that discusses the reasons why the importance of the project outweighs the public benefits from the open space. As a local environmental organization with a 25 -year history and hundreds of members throughout the City, SPON represents the hearts and minds of a large segment of the City's population. With this in mind, we look forward to your consideration of our input. . Sincerely, 5� file: / /C:\ Documents %20and %20Settings \KShan non \Local %20Settings \Temp \GW... 9/1/2004 Comments — Marinapark EIR Page 3 of 3 • Andy Lingle SPON Presiding Officer • • file://C. \ Documents %20and %20Settings \KShannon \Local %20Settings \Temp \GW... 9/1/2004 0 St Mark Presbyterian Church - Response to Comments on the Draft EIR J. SPON To Comments J 1. The comment regarding biological resources is noted. There are several objectives, • although not literally defined as such, identified in the description of the Recreational and Environmental Open Space designation on page 26 of the City's Land Use Element. This is reiterated in Section 5. 1.1 of the Draft EIR. The use of land carrying this designation, although not specifically identified in the definition, would be one of a wide range of potential uses. Section 5.3 of the Draft EIR presented a thorough description and analysis of the various plant communities existing on the project site. As shown on Exhibit 5.3 -1 of the Draft EIR, approximately half of the project site that is proposed for development contains disturbed areas. These areas are characterized by a lack of vegetative cover and poor soil quality and highly compacted. In this case, the disturbed areas are the result of road building activities. Re- colonization of Coastal Sage Scrub on these disturbed areas is highly problematic and extremely unlikely to occur. Section 3.2 of the Draft EIR identified a brief history of the project site. The project site is, in fact, a remnant piece of property resulting from the construction of road and surrounding residential, commercial and golf course developments. Therefore, findings presented in the Draft EIR adequately identify the impacts that would result from project implementation. J2. The comment regarding visual open space is noted. Table 3 -1 of the Draft EIR accurately identifies the existing use of the project site as undeveloped open space. Section 5.1 -1 of the Draft EIR identifies the development agreement between the City and The Irvine Company, as the current property owner (see Section 3.3 of the • Draft EIR for a discussion on transfer of ownership) known as the Circulation Improvement and Open Space Agreement wherein specific parcels of land were dedicated for open space uses. The project site is not identified in this agreement. Refer to Response to Comment for a discussion on open space. J3. The comment regarding open space is noted. The City is in conformance with the provisions of State law by the adoption of the Recreation and Open Space Element in June 1998. As a matter of clarification, Article 10,5 does not reference any specific impacts regarding the loss of open space land. Refer to Response to Comment B4 for a discussion on open space. J4. The comment regarding coastal sage scrub is noted. Section 5.3.3 and Exhibit 5.3- 1 of the Draft EIR identified the amount and extent of coastal sage scrub that would be removed and the amount that would be preserved as a result of project implementation. The portion of the coastal sage scrub located in the canyon feature is proposed for retention as part of the proposed project, not for development. This section of the Draft EIR also identified that the portion of coastal sage scrub to be removed as part of the proposed project is covered under the provisions of the Orange County Natural Community Conservation Plan/Habitat Conservation Plan (NCCPIHCP). The project site is identified as "non- reserve" parcel within the NCCP. As a signatory agency the City may only apply those mitigation measures related to construction activates to non - reserve parcels as specified by the NCCP/HCP Implementation Agreement. Off -site mitigation for the "take" of coastal sage scrub on non - reserve parcels was agreed upon and implemented by the signatory land owners and agencies of the NCCP, which includes the California Department of Fish • Michael Brandman Associates L, p S'\00640021 - SL Mark Ch. hQ TCTinz1 RTCdoc St. Mark Presbyterian Church - Response to Comments on the Draft EIR Responses To Comments • and Game (CDFG). The same provisions of the NCCP/HCP apply to the potential take of the California gnatcatcher. • E J5. The comment regarding property valuation is noted. The analysis contained in the Draft EIR concluded that changing the General Plan land use designation from the existing Recreational and Environmental Open Space to the proposed Governmental, Educational and Institutional Facilities resulted in less than significant impacts and therefore did not require mitigation measures. J6. The comment regarding open space is noted. For a discussion on the cumulative impacts, refer to Response to Comment B15. J7. The comment regarding potential impacts is noted. Section 1.2 of the Draft EIR discloses the potential for statements of overriding considerations. Michael Brandman Associates S:t00640021 - St. Mark Ch=h\RTCTinal RTCAtl lI}, 1''t' IT r 09/01/2004 09:43 9496443229 CNB PLANNING PAGE 02 JAN D. VANDERSLOOT, M.D. 2221 East t6`° Street OQicc Phone: (714) 848.0770 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Ol£icc Fax: (7 14) 848 -6643 Home Phone: (949) 548 -6326 Email: IonVIO)aol.Cem August 31, 2004 K Gregg B. Ramirez, Associate Planner Planning Department, Community and Economic Development City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 Re: Written Comments Draft Environmental Impact Report Project Title: St. Mark Presbyterian Church Project Applicant: St. Mark Presbyterian Church Dear Mr. Ramirez, RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH AUG 3 1 2004 PM AM 9110 11 l 1 2 11 1213141516 Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Draft EIR for the St. Mark Presbyterian Church project. Please put me on the distribution list for any notices concerning this project. I previously submitted comments on the Notice of Preparation and Initial Study dated November ,C A 25, 2003. I hereby resubmit those comments for the Draft EIR and request a Response To L Comments on each of the points I raised in the November 25 submission Additionally, I am requesting a re- evaluation of the Biological Resource Section 5.3, which states the potential for presence of the gnatewobcr is "considered very low" (p.5.3 -8), Actually, the potential is high due to the presence of gnatcatchers which have been identified in the nearby MacArthur /San Miguel parcel above the library. See attached letter that I sent to Sharon Wood, Assistant City Manager dated November 10, 2003, which has attached two reports from Robert Hamilton dated March 9. 1998, and Ju)y 16, 1998, documenting presence of the gnatcatcher on the library site. Loss of CSS on the site and its impact on the federally listed threatened gnatcatcner snouie oc considered significant. There is no evidence in the Draft EIR that a focused survey for the gnatcatcher has been conducted on the site. An aitemative site plan protecting all CSS onsite with buffers should be included in the EIR., Note that this site is adiacent to the golf course with large open space areas, increasing the viability of gnatcatchers utilizing the site. Additionally, the Draft EIR ignores the need for park space in this region, Region 8, which could be satisfied by developing an alternative in the EIR that places a park on die site, with both passive and active recreation opportunities. The current City of Newport Beach Recreation and Open Space Element dated 1998, states on page 2 -6 that there is a deficiency of 14 acres of parkland in this area, Service Area 8 — Big Canyon/Beicourt. The subject site is 10.81 acres, which would go a long ways towards J( 2 K3 K`A KS • • • �0 09/01/2004 09:43 9496443229 CN3 PLANNING PAGE 03 JAN D. VANDERSLOOT, M.D. • 2221 East 16� Street Office Phone: (714) 848 -0770 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Office Fax: (714) 648 -6643 Home Phone: (949) 548-66326 Email, JonV3 r�aol.com satisfying the park needs in this area. Sce attached "Service Area Needs" from the Recreation and KS Open Space Element. An alternative should be included in the Draft EIR that places a park on the site, consistent with the current REOS General Plan designation. Altemative mitigation sites for loss of this REOS acreage should be included in the Draft ETR. �L Loss of this site due to a change in the designation from REOS to GETF should be considered a K l significant impact under Land Use and Planning, because of the loss of potential parkland that is needed and the loss is unmitigated. A park plan should be considered the environmentally superior alternative because the CSS is regenerating itself on the site naturally, resulting in a larger area of CSS and a park can be built (��7 with buffers around the sensitive environmental habitat areas. The proposed project, on the other hand results in the loss of CSS that will decrease the potential for sensitive species like the gnatcatcher to survive on the site. Comments from the Department of Fish and Game are not included, and because of the sensitive K nature of CSS and the onsite wetlands, their input should be solicited, as well as the USFWS. • Thanks again for the opportunity to comment. Sincerely, 10Zlc) Jan D. Vandersloot, NM Attachments: November 25, 2003 letter to Gregg B. Ramirez, with biology reports November 10, 2003 letter to Sharon wood Rccrcati.on and Open Space Element, June 1998, page 2 -6 • vni.. uL LV VS 1/: uc y4y p44 SLLY �.N LS ✓LANK 1Nb JAN D. VANDERSLOO?, M.D. 2221 Fact lee Stroet Newport Beach, CA 92663 Home Phone: (949) 548 -6326 November 25. 2003 FK] Gregg B. Ramirez, Associate Planner Planning Department, Community and Economic Development City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 i]LYJ Y.VVJ /V11 Office Phone: (7I4) 848 -0770 Office Fax: (714) 848.6(143 Email: IonV3@aol_com RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARThIEI IT CITY Oc Nr-wor:c —, Pr-L,-,H ;ir�J 2 6 AM ?W PM 7181911011111211 l2 i 3141518 Re: Notice of Preparation (NOP) and Initial Study (IS) of a DraR Environmental Impact Report Project Title: St Mark Presbyterian Church Project Applicant: St. Mark Presbyterian Church Dear Mr. Ramirez, Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the NOP and IS for the St. Mark Presbyterian Churrht project Please put me on the distribution list for any notices concerning this project. I believe the Draft EIR should contain more information than the Initial Study_ indicates will be included in the DEIR. Under Section 1.4, Environmental Setting, it should he noted that the gently sloping pads bracketing the canyon feature contains a dense stand of coastal sage scrub (CSS), a type of vegetation community that is home to many threatened and endangered species and is a type of vegetation community that is very environmentally sensitive and disappearing. by development, causing measures to protect it to be implemented by the State. This dense native vegetation includes California sagebrush (Artemisia califomica), Coyote Brush (Baccharis pilularis), Coast sunflower (Encelia califomira), Buff Monkeyflower (Mimulus aurantiacus). Toyon, Lemonadebeny, etc. Moreover, the land adjacent to the existing dense vegetation is spontaneously restoring itself with species including California sagebrush and coyote brush, thereby expanding the restoration potential of this environmentally valuable land. • KL4 In addition, this site's adjacency to the Big Canyon Golf Course and Country Club, with open space connections through drainage to the mouth of Big Canyon and Upper Newport Bay, should Ki b be noted. This is not an isolated parcel. Exhibit 2, Local Vicinity Map. should show in darkly shaded gray the mouth of Big Canyon connecting Upper Newport Bay with Big Canyon Country Club, to illustrate this open space connectivity. The acreage occupied by this sensitive vegetation community should be mapped, calculated, and preserved, with an appropriate buffer. The project calls for only preserving the 1. I2 canyon feature_ while the amount of environmentally sensitive land on the site appears to be much larger. perhaps 50% of the site. Section 1.3.1 Parking. On page I -18, under Parking it is stated that there will be 247 uncovered parking stalls present The need for this large amount of parking should be clarified, since the previous Conceptual Site Masterplan called for 180 spaces. Large areas of the site are designated for parking. The acreage devoted to parking should be determined and alternatives such as a • ba' LEC. QZ' QQd I!: J9 949 044 3229 CNE PLANNING #5243 P.004 /011 JAN D. VANDERSLOOT, M.D. 2221 Fast le Street Office Phone: (714) 848 -0770 Newport Beads CA 92663 Office Fax: (714) 8486643 Home Phone: (1949) 5486326 Email: JonV3@aol.com • parking structure should be considered. Reducing the overall footprint of development, including the area designated for parking, would enable preservation of existing sensitive environmental habitat. Section 1.5.3. The environmentally sensitive portion of the site, including the CSS and riparian areas within the canyon, should be mapped and the acreage calculated, and preserved as the Open Space Preserve. This action would also lessen the impact of changing the General Plan Designation from REOS to Government (Educationainnstitutiorral. Section 1.5 4. land For Dedication. The areas designated as CSS plus the riparian carryon should be dedicated to the City as REDS, to partially mitigate the loss of REOS in the General Plan. Section 1.6 Cumulative Impacts. An analysis should be made of the cumulative impacts of loss of REOS, including the 10.81 acres of REOS from this project, and the 8.1 -acre loss of REOS from the concurrent project at Marinapark, the Regent Newport Beach Hotel. These two projects will cause the unmitigated loss of 18.91 of REOS from the City's General. Plan. Under Section 1.7, Alternatives to the Proposed Action, an alternative of creating a. passive park serving as a headwater to Upper Newport Bay through Big Canyon Country Club and Mouth of Big Canyon should be considered. A reduced density alternative that preserves the CSS on site with a buffer should also be considered, in tune with the St Mark's Church statements about wanting to be good environmental stewards of the land. • Under Section 1.8.1, Effects Not Found To Be Significant. the IS finds that impacts to recreation are less than significant or of no impact. However, the project changes the General Plan land Use designation from Recreational and Environmental Open Space to Government (Educational /institutional, resulting in loss of 10.81 acres of REDS. This is a significant impact and should be considered as such, including the cumulative impacts of loss of REOS designations of other areas in the City, such as the Regent Newport Beach Hotel at Marinapark. The St. Marks project is being processed concurrently with the Regent Newport Beach Hotel project, which will result in a loss of an additional 8.1. acres of REDS. The loss of 8.10 acres of REOS from the Regent Hotel plus 10.81 acres of REOS lost with St. Marks is a cumulatively significant loss of 18.91 acres that should be analyzed and mitigated. Replacement open space and mitigation should be thoroughly investigated, identified, and required. Analysis should include traffic and other environmental impacts from both projects since REOS open space is being convened w more intensive uses with more traffic, air quality, etc impacts than the REOS designation. Mitigation sites for replacement open space should include land such as the Lower Castaways site, an approximately 5 acre site currently owned by the current landowner of the St Mark's site, the Irvine Company. Other mitigation strategies such as retaining more open space in the project site that would retain the REDS designation should be considered, such as 50% retained as open space. Such a strategy, including replacement open space, should ensure that no net loss of REOS in the City occurs with either or both of these projects. is 2 1( tt. YJe 1<i4 m -� k -t h K L,k 1 -� �,3 u .U['eUVa lr[v9 Y49 D44 3229 CNS PLANNING JAN D. VANDERSLOOT, M.D. 2221 East Ie SUVa Newport Beach, CA 92663 Home Phone: (949) 54!16326 #5-'_43 P.0051G11 Office Phone_ (714) 848 -0770 Office Far: (714) 848{6643 Email: JonV3@aot..com Environmental Checklist, IV. Biological Resources, it is noted that 21) boxes ate checked indicating potentially sio6cant impacts, the only category to have all boxes checked. This shows the potential harm to the biologic resources on the site from the project. Since the St Mark Church considers itself an environmentally responsible church, it should be amcnabie to retaining and coddling the special environmental resources on the site, and facilitate replacement open space for the land it will build on. Ki> • Section 3, Discussion of Eaviromnemal Evaluation, Aesthetics. It should be noted that scenic KLk vistas of the hills and Saddleback Mountain from San Joaquin If Its Road may be impaired by the development and should be analyzed in the HEIR. Section 3, IV. Biological Resources. Where the off. -site mitigation areas are should be identified_ Nevertheless, loss of this environmentally sensitive land is not good environmental stewardship of the land. This site is not an urban infill site. It sits at the top of an. open space corridor extending to Upper Newport Bay. The DER should include a gnatcatcber survey at the proper time of year, since the CSS on the site is appropriate habitat for the threatened gnatcatcher. A site visit by me on November 23, 2003, found many bird species utilizing the site. This site is a vibrant ecological treasure that should be maintained and preserved by an environmentally responsible church such as St Mark. Thank you again for the opportunity to make comments and please put me on the distribution list for furtherr notices, including my email address of JonV3@aol_com. Sincerely, • Jan D. Vandersloot, MD • 2A St. Mark Presbyterian Church - Response to Comments on the Draft EIR Responses To Comments K. Dr. Jan D. Vandersloot, M.D. K1. The comment regarding the previous comment letter of November 25", 2003, is noted. Because this comment set includes responses to two separate letters, the responses to the November 25b letter will be addressed under this response to comment (Response to Comment Kl) with each comment alphabetically identified. The November 25" letter follows the August 3l s`, 2004, letter in order. a. Exhibit 5.3 -1 of the Draft EIR identifies the lateral extent of coastal sage scrub on the project site. Refer to Response to Comment J 1 for a discussion on re- colonization of the coastal sage scrub. b. Exhibit 3 -2 of the Draft EIR shows the project site in relation to the Big Canyon Country Club and the drainage feature that connects the Big Canyon Country Club to Upper Newport Bay. Although there are open space areas within Service Areas 8 and 9, as shown in the Recreation and Open Space Element that are in close proximity to each other, connectivity between these areas is unknown due to the barrier established by Jamboree Road and the fence between the project site and the Big Canyon Country Club property. c. The extent and acreages of the biological communities and the disturbed areas were calculated and mapped in Section 5.3 of the Draft EIR. For a discussion on the constraints in planning the proposed site, refer to Response to Comment F3. d. For a discussion on the parking ratios, refer to Response to Comment F3. Refer • to Response to Comment for a discussion on constraints to site development. e. For a discussion regarding the cumulative impact on areas designated as Recreational and Environmental Open Space, refer to Response to Comment B 15. f. For a discussion on project alternatives, refer to Response to Comment B4. g. For a discussion regarding the change in land use designation, refer to Response to Comment B4. h. Section 5.4.4 of the Draft EIR included an analysis of the Marinapark project, and other related projects. i. Section 5.1 of the Draft EIR analyzed the potential impacts related to the proposed change in land use designation and concluded that impacts would be less than significant without mitigation measures. j. The potential impacts on biological resources were evaluated in Section 5.3 of the Draft EIR. The proposed design, which incorporates preservation of a portion of the canyon feature into the overall site design, was presented in Section 3 of the Draft EIR. k. San Joaquin Hills Road is not a designated scenic vista and therefore impairment of the public view identified in the comment is not considered a significant • environmental impact based upon the threshold of significance identified in the aesthetic analysis contained within the initial study. Michael Brandman Associates L� 5:\00640021 - St Mark Ch=h\ RTCtFi.at RTCAc St. Mark Presbyterian Church - Response to Comments on the Draft EIR To Comments Section 4.1 of the Draft EIR describes the project site in relation to its surroundings. It is not classified or characterized as an urban infill site, but does • exhibit some of those characteristics. Refer to Response to Comment K l b for a discussion on open space corridors. For a discussion on gnatcatcher surveys, refer to Response. to Comment K3. The comments from the previous comment letter were adequately addressed in the Draft EIR. K2. The comment regarding other sites is noted. The purpose of the Biological Resources Survey Report was to determine conditions on the project site, not to evaluate conditions on other project sites within the City. Section 5.33 of the Draft FIR acknowledged the potential for gnatcatchers to occur on the project site. This may be the case regarding the other site referenced. The analysis contained in Section 5.3 of the Draft EIR concluded that the potential for the California gnatcatcher to occur on the project site is very low due to the small amount and condition of the coastal sage scrub located on the project site. A] so, see response J4 regarding the identification of the project site a non - reserve parcel by the NCCP/HCP and the potential take of CSS and the California gnatcatcher. K3. The comment regarding surveys is noted. The stated purpose of the Biological Resources Survey Report (Section 5.3.1 of the Draft EIR) was to ascertain the general conditions on the project site and to evaluate the potential suitability of any existing habitat. Section 5.3.3 concluded that because of the low quality of the • existing coastal sage scrub, isolated nature of the project site, and high -level of disturbance due to the proximity to the surrounding urban development, that it would be very unlikely that gnatcatchers would occupy the project site and therefore, focused surveys would be unnecessary. In addition, no gnatcatchers were observed during the reconnaissance -level survey. Because the development is required to comply with the construction minimization measures contained in the NCCPIHCP, focused gnatcatcher surveys would be required prior to development. This is contained in Mitigation Measure BR -2. K4. The comment regarding an alternative site plan is noted. For a discussion on project alternatives, refer to Response to Comment K8. K5. The comment regarding park requirements is noted. For a discussion on park planning, refer to Response to Comment B4. For a discussion on project alternatives, refer to Response to Comment K8 and Response to Comment B4. K6. The comment on the change in the land use designation is noted. For a discussion on the change in land use designation, refer to Response to Comment B4. K7. The comment regarding the ]and use designation is noted. For a discussion regarding park] and, refer to Response to Comment B4. K8. The comment regarding alternatives is noted. Section 7 of the Draft EIR identifies alternatives to the project, as proposed. Because the proposed project is a church and related ancillary facilities, the alternatives evaluated must be related to that which is • being proposed and be able to feasibly accomplish most of the objectives. Further, ,n Michael Brandman Associates S`00640021 - St. Mark Ch.b\ RTC\Finel RTCA. St. Mark Presbyterian Church — Response to Comments on the Draft EIR Responses To Comments the environmentally superior alternative must be selected from those alternatives • identified. Refer to Response to Comment B4 for a discussion on alternatives. CJ • Therefore, findings presented in the Draft EIR adequately identify the impacts that would result from project implementation. K9. The comments regarding the Department of Fish and Game are noted. Both the State of California Department of Fish and Game and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service were provided notice via certified mail of the Notice of Preparation of the Draft EIR and also, via certified mail, of the Notice of Availability of a Draft EIR. Neither agency submitted comments on the Notice of Preparation or on the Draft EIR. Michael Brandman Associates I S:`DW40027 - St. Mark Ch=h\RTC\Fina1 RTC.dx CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH • PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT 3300 NEWPORT BOULEVARD P.O. BOX 1768, NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92659 -1768 (949) 644 -3311 MEMORANDUM TO: Gregg Ramirez — Planning Department FROM: Rich Edmonston /David Keely — Traffic Engineering DATE: August 27, 2004 SUBJECT: St. Marks EIR Comments date July 2004 0 The following are comments related to the St. Marks EIR dated July 2004: • Section 5.4.1, Table 5.4 -1 —All references to Pacific Coast Highway shall be changed to either East Coast Highway or West Coast Highway. The last section of Jamboree Road LO should be Eastbluff Drive /Ford Road to MacArthur Boulevard instead of Pacific Coast Highway to MacArthur Boulevard • Section 5.4.1, MacArthur Boulevard/San Joaquin Hills Road — The text and table in this section describe the "existing intersection improvements" at MacAthur Boulevard/San L2- Joaquin Hills Road. This should be revised to indicate existing intersection geometry; improvements typically reference something that is planned in the future. • Section 5.4.1, Lane Weaving — A statement should be added to this section indicating that the distance between the MacArthur Boulevard /San Joaquin Hills Road and Santa �3 Rosa Drive -Big Canyon Drive /San Joaquin Hills Road is approximately 1600 feet, centerline to centerline. • Section 5.4.2, Thresholds of Significance — Transportation Phasing Ordinance shall be revised to read Traffic Phasing Ordinance. • Section 5.4.3, Opening Year (2006) Traffic Impact Analysis — The EIR or Etae port should indicat e that the proposed opening year is 2005, since as stated in ttion L5 "Project impacts are accessed one year after opening year". The TPO analyar is 2006. • Section 5.4.3, One Percent Test - Transportation Phasing Ordinance shall be revised to L cp read Traffic Phasing Ordinance. • le • Section 5.4.3, Alternative Access - The alternative access analysis should be discussed as part of each analysis scenario, similar to the TPO analysis prepared by Urban L? • Crossroads. • Section 5.4.3,Impacts Related to Off -site Transportation of Soil - Based on the information provided in the EIR each truck would be hauling approximately 26 the L Zi yards of soil material. Typical soil hauling vehicles carry between 10 to 15 cubic n of soil material. • Section 5.4.4, Cumulative Impacts - Cumulative Impact section of the report should be discussed prior to the long -range build -out analysis, since the cumulative analysis is still t-� for year 2006. • Section 5.4.5, Mitigation Measures - The traffic study recommended various improvements at the entrances and MacArthur Boulevard/San Joaquin Hills Road intersections. These improvements were not intended to be mitigations measures, but rather suggested improvements to be evaluated during the design stage of the project. Mitigations measures TT -2 through TT -4, should be rewritten to provide greater flexibility regarding the ultimate improvement(s) at this location. Below are the proposed changes to TT -2 through TT -4: TT -2: Re- stripe the southbound MacArthur Boulevard free right turn lane to provide a 10 -foot wide lane along the curve and install raised pavement markers at 10 -foot intervals or other improvements to reduce right- turning vehicular speeds. • TT -3: Eliminate the painted crosswalk within the southbound MacArthur Boulevard free right turn lane or other improvements to reduce right- turning vehicular speed. TT -4: Install a "15 MPH" sign at the beginning of the curve of the southbound MacArthur Boulevard free right turn lane or other improvements to reduce right turning vehicular speed. HMkeeh \Traffic Phasing Ordinance \TPO\St Marks\gr &27-04memo.doc • 7 Loo �P� St. Mark Presbyterian Church — Response to Comments on the Draft EIR Responses To Comments L. City of Newport Beach, Public Works Department Ll. The comment regarding highway names is noted. The first, fifth, and sixth rows of Table 5 4 -1 of the Draft FIR is replaced with the following, rows. Roadway Segment Classification Jamboree Road East Coast Highway to Major Road 6 Lane Divided Santa Barbara Drive Jamboree Road East Bluff Drive/Ford Road to Major Road - 6 Lane Divided MacArthur Boulevard MacArthur East Coast Highway to Major Road - 6 Lane Divided Boulevard San Miguel Drive L2. The comment regarding nomenclature is noted - The paragraph under the sub- heading "MacArthur Boulevard and San Joaquin Hills Road" on page 5.4 -3 of the Draft EIR is replaced with the following paragraph: The project site is adjacent to the intersection of MacArthur Boulevard and San Joaquin Hills Road. Table 5.4 -2 provides information on existing intersection geometry. The sub - heading entitled "Table 5.4 -2: MacArthur Boulevard/ San Joaquin Hills Road Improvements" is replaced with the following sub - heading: Table 5.4 -2: MacArthur Boulevard/ San Joaquin Hills Road Geometry L3. The comment regarding lane weaving is noted. The following sentence is added to the end of the paragraph under the sub - heading "Lane Weaving" on page 5.4 -3 of the Draft EIR: The distance between the MacArthur Boulevard/San Joaquin Hills Road and Santa Rosa Drive -Big Canyon Drive/San Joaquin Hills Road is approximately 1,600 feet, centerline -to- centerline. L4. The comment regarding nomenclature is noted. The paragraph containing the reference to the Transportation Phasing Ordinance on page 5.4 -18 of the Draft EIR is replaced with the following paragraph: The Traffic Phasing Ordinance has established thresholds for projects scheduled for completion within sixty months of project approval. No project shall be approved that would: L5. The comment regarding the opening year is noted. The sub - heading entitled "Opening Year (2006) Traffic Impact Analysis" on page 5.4 -20 of the Draft EIR is replaced with the following sub- heading: Opening Year (2005) Traffic Impact Analysis Michael Brandman Associates SA00640021 - St. Mark ChmCh\RTC\Rnal RTC.doc • • • �0 W St. Mark Presbyterian Church — Response to Comments on the Draft EIR Responses To Comments In addition, the following sentence is added to the end of the paragraph under this • sub- heading: With the completion of this project contemplated in the Year 2005, if the project is approved by the City, the analysis year for this project has been assumed to be 2006. L6. The comment regarding nomenclature is noted. The paragraph containing the reference to the Transportation Phasing Ordinance on page 5.4 -21 of the Draft EIR, under the sub - heading "One Percent Test ", is replaced with the following paragraph: The One Percent Test and further analysis is not required by the Traffic Phasing Ordinance for the following intersections: L7. The comment regarding the alternative access is noted. Section 5.4 of the Draft EIR is designed to summarize information contained in the stand -alone technical study prepared for this project, and is not intended to incorporate the entire study in the traffic section. The purpose for including various technical studies as part of an entire Environmental Impact Report is to allow access to the base information that was used in the preparation of individual sections for readers who desire a greater understanding of a particular issue. L8. The comment regarding truck capacity is noted. The comment notes that the off -site transportation of 47,000 cubic yards of dirt is not likely to take place with 1,800 truck • trips due to a 26 cubic yard truck capacity. The truck capacity of 20 cubic yards was used in the air quality assessment and therefore, larger trucks than typical, which are available, must be utilized during grading operations. Using this capacity, a total of 2,350 truck trips will be necessary as opposed to the 1,800 trips. Although this represents approximately a 31 percent increase, it does not change the fact that the truck safety evaluation was based upon a total of 49 truck trips per day. The increase in total trucks does not impact the daily truck traffic and therefore, the measure proposed will adequately address traffic safety during grading operations. The third sentence in the main paragraph on page 5.4 -27 of the Draft EIR is amended to read: This would result in approximately 2,350 total truck trips at a rate of 49 truck per day. L9. The comment regarding the order of the sections is noted. Section 5.4.4 of the Draft EIR is consistent with the other sections of the Draft EIR and is generally the order in the majority of Environmental Impact Reports prepared. L10. The comment regarding mitigation measures is noted. The comment suggests that the severity of the potential traffic safety impact may be overstated in the Draft EIR by requiring the recommended mitigation measures. The comment also indicates that there may be alternative designs or traffic safety devices that may be employed that will achieve the same avoidance of traffic safety impacts. In that case, the alternative language for the mitigation measures suggested by the City Public Works Department can be substituted for the draft recommended mitigation measures included in the Draft EIR. The inclusion of mitigation measures, or the reference to • the fact that none are required depending on the particular project and environmental issue, is a necessary part of the environmental analysis. Without mitigation Michael Brandman Associates 5:100640021 - SL Mark Ch.hvRTC\Hnal RTC dm St. Mark Presbyterian Church - Response to Comments on the Draft EIR Responses To Comments measures, it would be unknown if potentially significant impacts are able to be reduced below the level of significance through the implementation of mitigation • measures. In addition, mitigation measures are only proposed or recommended at this stage of the environmental review process. Mitigation measures such as these, are subject to modification or revision prior to certification of the Environmental Impact Report by the Lead Agency. Michael Brandman Associates S:`00640021 - S[. Mark Ch.h1RTC\Mna1 RTCAd • • 1� Exhibit "A" EIR Findings of Fact a] CEQA Findings and Findings of Fact forthe St. Mark Presbyterian Church Prepared for: City of Newport Beach Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92659 • Contact: Gregg B. Ramirez, Associate Planner Prepared by: Michael Brandman Associates 220 Commerce, Suite 200 Irvine, CA 92602 714.508.4100 Contact: Kevin B. Shannon, Project Manager September 28, 2004 • /)A St. Mark Presbyterian Church CEQA Findngs and Findings of Fact Table of Contents • TABLE OF CONTENTS Section 1: Introduction ....................................................................... ............................... 1 E • Section 2: Mitigated Project -Level and Cumulative Adverse Impacts ............................ 3 2.1 - Land Use and Planning ...................................................... ............................... 3 2.2 - Hydrology and Water Quality ............................................. ............................... 4 2.3 - Biological Resources ......................................................... ............................... 6 2.4 - Transportation and Traffic .................................................. ............................... 8 2.5 - Air Quality ........................................................................... .............................10 2.6 - Noise .................................................................................. .............................11 2.7 - Aesthetics ........................................................................... .............................11 2.8 - Cultural Resources ............................................................. .............................13 2.9 - Geology and Soils ............................................................... .............................14 2.10 - Hazards and Hazardous Materials .................................... .............................15 Section 3: Feasibility of Project Alternatives ..................................... .............................16 3.1 - No Project — No Development Alternative ........................... .............................16 3.2 - No Project — Allowed Development Alternative ................... .............................17 3.3 - Reduced Intensity Alternative ............................................. .............................18 3.4 - Alternative Site Alternative .................................................. .............................18 3.5 - Environmentally Superior Alternative .................................. .............................19 Michael Brandman Associates it C: \WINMWSDcsk1op\S1. Mark Fmdiagsfioal.d« n5 I St Mark Presbyterian Church CEQA Findings and Findings of Fact Introduction SECTION 1: • INTRODUCTION In compliance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the State CEQA Guidelines (Guidelines), the City of Newport Beach has conducted an environmental review of the proposed St. Mark Presbyterian Church project. An Initial Study was completed in conformance with CEQA and the Guidelines in October 2003. A Notice of Preparation (NOP) to prepare a Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was circulated for public review and comment beginning on October 27, 2003, and ending on November 27, 2003. This NOP included the Initial Study. The State Clearinghouse (SCH) acknowledged receipt of the NOP and assigned SCH No. 2003 101137 to the project. A Draft EIR was prepared in conformance with CEQA and the Guidelines and circulated for public review from July 14, 2004 through August 31, 2004. After receiving public comments on the Draft EIR, the City of Newport Beach prepared a document entitled "Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR." The "Responses" document includes exact copies of the original written comments received on the Draft EIR, a list of those entities who commented, and the City of Newport Beach's responses to the significant environmental points raised in the review and consultation process. In response to certain comments, the Draft EIR was modified, as set forth in the responses to comments. The Final • EIR for the St. Mark Presbyterian Church project consists of the Draft EIR, the "Responses" document, and supplemental information correcting minor errors identified by staff or in public hearings. These Findings are based upon the information in the record of proceedings, including the Final EIR, City of Newport Beach staff reports, the project applicant's materials, the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and testimony presented at public hearings. The City of Newport Beach Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on this project on September 23, 2004. CEQA provides in relevant part, at Public Resources Code Section 21081, that: No public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an environmental impact report has been certified which identifies one or more significant effects on the environment that would occur if the project is approved or carried out unless both of the following occur: (a) the public agency makes one or more of the following findings with respect to each significant effect: 1. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the • project, which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. Michael Brandman Associates 1 C: \WINDOWS\Desktop\St Mark Findingsfmal.dm W • St. Mark Presbyterian Church CEQA Findings and Findings of Fact Introduction 2. Those changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and have been, or can and should be, adopted by that other agency. 3. Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including considerations for the provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the environmental impact report. (b) With respect to significant effects, which were subject to a finding under paragraph (3) of subdivision (a), the public agency finds that specific overriding economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of the project outweigh the significant effects on the environment. Because the St. Mark Presbyterian Church project EIR identified significant effects that may occur as a result of the project, and in accordance with the provisions of CEQA and the Guidelines, the City Council of the City of Newport Beach hereby adopts these Findings. For each of the significant effects associated with the proposed project, as set forth in greater detail in these Findings below, the City of Newport Beach City Council makes the finding under paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) above. CEQA requires that the EIR reflect the City of Newport Beach's own independent judgment and review. Accordingly, the City of Newport Beach City Council expressly finds that the Final EIR for the St. Mark Presbyterian Church project reflects the City of Newport Beach's independent judgment. In accordance with the provisions of CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, the City Council of the City of Newport Beach has independently reviewed the record of proceedings and based on the evidence in the record adopts these Findings. Michael Brandman Associates 2 C:\WR4DOWS\DeSMM\S1. Mark Findingsfinal.dm 11 SL Mark Presbyterian Church CEQA Findings and Findings of Fact Mitigated Project -Level and Cumulative Adverse Impacts SECTION 2: • MITIGATED PROJECT -LEVEL AND CUMULATIVE ADVERSE IMPACTS The EIR identified potentially significant project -level adverse impacts of the proposed St. Mark Presbyterian Church Project, and proposed mitigation measures to avoid or substantially lessen those impacts. In addition, the proposed project includes various Project Design Features (PDFs) that are set forth in the EIR and made a part of and incorporated into the project. Those impacts and mitigation measures along with Project Design Features (PDFs) are set forth in the following sections. The Newport Beach City Council finds, based on the record and on the facts as set forth below, that the incorporation of identified mitigation measures, along will all applicable Project Design Features (PDFs) will mitigate or avoid all the identified significant project -level and cumulative adverse impacts to a level that is considered less than significant. 2.1 - LAND USE AND PLANNING (EIR Section 5.1) 2.1.1 - Potentially Significant Impact Implementation of the project has the potential to result in impacts related to land use plans, policies • and regulations. Finding Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project, which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. Changing the General Plan designation from Recreational and Environmental Open Space to Government, Education and Institutional Facilities is consistent with applicable General Plan policies. The project is consistent with Policy A that requires the City of Newport Beach to provide for a sufficient diversity of land uses that specifically identify churches among the identified land uses. The project adds to and does not impact the existing diversity of uses. The project is consistent with Policy B that allows for growth in the floor area limits provided that project - related traffic impacts do not exceed the Levels of Service desired by the City of Newport Beach. The project does not result in any significant cumulative Level of Service impacts. The project is consistent with Policy D that requires new buildings to preserve public views, preserve unique natural resources, and minimize alteration of natural landforms. The project retains the canyon feature, which may be considered a unique natural resource, and provides extensive landscaping. No public views exist through or across the project site. The project is consistent with Policy F that requires the City of Newport Beach to develop and maintain development standards that • provide for aesthetic qualities of developments that are compatible with surrounding development. Michael Brandman Associates 3 C:\V4ND0WS\Desktop\St. Mark pindingsfinal.don f / St. Mark Presbyterian Church CEQA Findings and Findings of Fact Mitigated Project -Level and Cumulative Adverse Impacts The project includes the adoption of development regulations specific to the project site and the • proposed development that will be included within the Big Canyon Planned Community. The development regulations include all the standards identified in this policy. The project is consistent with the Recreation and Open Space Element of the General Plan. The project proposes retention of the canyon feature as permanent open space and is located adjacent to the Big Canyon Country Club, which represents 191 acres of dedicated open space. The project site is not identified as a park or a potential park site by the Recreation and Open Space Element. In addition, the recently completed Bonita Canyon Sports Park is in close proximity to residents in the vicinity of the project site. Facts in Support of Finding Project Design Features (PDFs) are incorporated into the proposed project, potential impacts related to land use plans, policies or regulations are reduced below the level of significance. PDF -2 Use of large -scale landscape buffers on roadway frontages that minimize visual impacts from adjacent roadways and integrate with the planned open space. PDF -3 Retention of a majority of the canyon feature as open space and a nature preserve. • PDF -4 Inclusion of a nature center plaza in the project in order to create views of the canyon feature from the proposed development and to facilitate understanding of the nature preserve. PDF -7 A view corridor from MacArthur Boulevard to the canyon feature is incorporated into the project design. • PDF -10 Use of on -site stormwater detention ponds with Best Management Practice (BMP) features for regulation of off -site discharge. 2.2 - HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY (EIR Section 5.2 and Section 1.5) 2.2.1 - Potentially Significant Impact (EIR Section 5.2) Implementation of the proposed project has the potential to result in impacts to water quality standards, excessive off -site surface runoff, or erosion. Michael 6randman Associates 4 C: \WINDOWS\De ktop\St. Mark Findingsfinal.dm J'\ St Mark Presbyterian Church CEQA Findings and Findings of Fact Mitigated Project -Level and Cumulative Adverse Impacts However, because Project Design Features (PDFs) are incorporated into the proposed project, and mitigation measures are recommended, potential impacts related to hydrology and water quality are • reduced below the level of significance. Finding Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project, which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on water quality that could be caused by construction activities. The development of a Water Quality Management Plan, as required by a mitigation measure, will provide for the long -term control and treatment of stormwater generated on the project site prior to discharge off -site. Facts in Support of Finding The project -level and cumulative significant effects have been eliminated or substantially lessened to a level that is less than significant by virtue of the Project Design Features (PDFs) included in the project and the following mitigation measures as identified in the final EIR and incorporated into the project. PDF -3 Retention of a majority of the canyon feature as open space and a nature preserve. PDF -10 Use of on -site stormwater detention ponds with Best Management Practice (BMP) features • for regulation of off -site discharge. PDF -11 Use of landscaped medians and swales designed for infiltration and filtration that allow clarification of surface runoff prior to discharge off -site. H -1 Prior to the commencement of construction and the issuance of a grading permit, and as a condition of project approval, a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) must be approved by the City of Newport Beach. H -2 Prior to the commencement of construction and before a grading permit is issued; a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) shall be prepared and approved by the City of Newport Beach as the local permitting agency in accordance with the requirements of the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). The SWPPP shall include BMPs to eliminate and/or minimize stormwater pollution prior to, and during construction. F_ IL Michael Brandman Associates 5 C. \WINDOW S\Deskiap\St. Mark Findingsfinal.doc u� V St. Mark Presbyterian Church CEQA Findings and Findings of Fact Mitigated Project -Level and Cumulative Adverse Impacts 2.2.2 - Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation (EIR Section 1.5) Implementation of the project has the potential to result in impacts related to stormwater runoff that would exceed the existing or planned drainage system. Finding Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project, which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. Facts in Support of Finding The project -level and cumulative significant effects have been eliminated or substantially lessened to a level that is less than significant by virtue of the Project Design Features (PDFs) included in the project and the following mitigation measures as identified in the final EIR and incorporated into the project. PDF -10 Use of on -site stormwater detention ponds with Best Management Practices (BMP) features for regulation of off -site discharge. • PDF -11 Use of landscaped medians and swales designed for infiltration and filtration that allow clarification of surface runoff prior to discharge off -site. H -1 Require site construction to occur in stages and stabilized prior to disturbing other areas. E H -2 Construct temporary diversion dikes and basins to trap sediment from run -off and allow clarification prior to discharge. 2.3 - BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES (EIR Section 5.3) 2.3.1 - Potentially Significant Impact Implementation of the proposed project has the potential to impact biological resources by the removal of approximately 0.50 acres of non - native grassland and approximately 1.5 acres of coastal sage scrub. Michael lirandman Associates C: \WAIDDW S \Desktup\st. Mark Findmpfinal.do 6� SL Mark Presbyterian Church CEQA Findings and Findings of Fact Mitigated Project -Level and Cumulative Adverse Impacts Finding Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project, which mitigate or • avoid the significant effects on the environment. Facts in Support of Finding The project -level and cumulative significant effects have been eliminated or substantially lessened to a level that is less than significant by virtue of the Project Design Features (PDFs) included in the project and the following mitigation measures as identified in the final EIR and incorporated into the project. PDF -3 Retention of a major portion of the canyon feature as open space and a nature preserve. PDF -9 Blending of new, predominately native plant materials that are appropriate to the existing environment, with existing plant materials at the edge of the canyon feature. BR -I To the maximum extent practicable, no grading of CSS habitat that is occupied by nesting gnatcatchers will occur during the breeding season (February 15 through July 15). BR -2 Prior to the commencement of grading operations or other activities involving significant • soil disturbance, all areas of CSS habitat to be avoided under the provisions of the NCCP/HCP, shall be identified with temporary fencing or other markers clearly visible to construction personnel. Additionally, prior to the commencement of grading operations or other activities involving disturbance of CSS, a survey will be conducted to locate gnatcatchers and cactus wrens within 100 feet of the outer extent of projected soil disturbance activities and the locations of any such species shall be clearly marked and identified on the construction/grading plans. A minimum of three surveys will be conducted, at least one week apart, in order to determine the presence or absence of the coastal California gnatcatcher in conformance with the survey protocol issued on August 6, 1997, by the USFWS. These surveys may be conducted at any time during the year; however, surveys conducted between February 15 and August 30 are preferred. BR -3 A monitoring biologist, acceptable to the USFWS and CDFG shall be on -site during any clearing of CSS. The landowner or relevant public agency will advise the USFWS and CDFG at least seven calendar days, and preferably 14 calendar days, prior to the clearing of • Michael Brandman Associates 7 C: \WRiDOW S\DesktnP',St. Mark Findingsfinal.doc v O SL Mark Presbyterian Church CEQA Findings and Findings of Fact Mitigated Project -Level and Cumulative Adverse Impacts any habitat occupied by Identified Species to allow the USFWS and CDFG to work with • the monitoring biologist in connection with bird flushing and/or capture activities. BR -4 Following the completion of initial grading or earthmoving activities, all areas of CSS habitat to be avoided by construction equipment and personnel will be marked with temporary fencing or other appropriate markers clearly visible to construction personnel. No construction access, parking, or storage of equipment of materials will be permitted within the marked areas. 2.3.2 - Potentially Significant Impact Implementation of the proposed project has the potential to impact southern riparian scrub that could contain federally - designated wetlands. Finding Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project, which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. Facts in Support of Finding The project -level and cumulative significant effects have been eliminated or substantially lessened to a level that is less than significant by virtue of the Project Design Features (PDFs) included in the project in the final EIR and incorporated into the project. PDF -3 Retention of a major portion of the canyon feature as open space and a nature preserve. 2.4 - TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC (EIR Section 5.4) 2.4.1 - Potentially Significant Impact The proposed project has the potential to result in an impact related to a design feature from the proposed access point off MacArthur Boulevard. Finding Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project, which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. • Michael Brandman Associates 8 C: \WDWWS0 ktup\St. Mark Findmpfmal.dm C/� J St Mark Presbyterian Church CEQA Findings and Findings of Fact Mitigated Project -Level and Cumulative Adverse Impacts Facts in Support of Finding The significant effect has been eliminated or substantially lessened to a level that is less than • significant by virtue of the following mitigations measures as identified in the final EIR and incorporated into the project. TT -6 Provide the maximum length possible right turn pocket along MacArthur Boulevard at the project driveway. The turn pocket shall extend as long as necessary to meet standard traffic engineering requirements as determined by the Transportation/Development Services Manager, but is not required to be so long as to necessitate the relocation of the SCE power pole. TT -9 Sight distance at the MacArthur Boulevard access point shall be reviewed with respect to standard Caltrans and City of Newport Beach sight distance standards at the time of preparation of final grading, landscape and street improvement plans. 2.4.2 - Potentially Significant Impact The proposed project has the potential to result in an impact related to traffic weaving issues on San Joaquin Hills Road. Finding • Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project, which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. Facts in Support of Finding The significant effect has been eliminated or substantially lessened to a level that is less than significant by virtue of the following mitigations measures as identified in the final EIR and incorporated into the project. TT -1 Provide a right turn lane at the driveway along San Joaquin Hills Road to separate project traffic from the through traffic flows TT -2 Re -stripe the free right turn lane to provide a 10 -foot wide lane along the curve and install raised pavement markers at 10 -foot intervals or other improvements to reduce right - turning vehicular speeds. TT -3 Eliminate the painted crosswalk in the free right hand turn lane or other improvements to reduce right - turning vehicular speeds • Michael Brandman Associates 9 C. \W 1NDOW SOeskroF \St. Mark FindingsfiFW.dm St. Mark Presbyterian Church CEQA Findings and Findings of Fact Mitigated Project-Level and Cumulative Adverse Impacts TT -4 Install a "15 MPH" sign at the beginning of the curve of the free right hand turn lane in • order to reduce vehicular speeds or other improvements to reduce right - turning vehicular speeds. TT -5 Provide a minimum 150 -foot westbound right turn pocket along San Joaquin Hills Road at the project driveway. TT -7 The pastoral staff shall distribute to the congregation and visitors maps that depict the following exit route from the San Joaquin Hills Road access point: San Joaquin Hills Road to Santa Rosa Road to Newport Center Drive to San Miguel Drive to MacArthur Boulevard. TT -8 On -site traffic signing and striping shall be implemented in conjunction with detailed construction plans for the project site. 2.5 -AIR QUALITY (EIR Section 5.5) • 2.5.1 - Potentially Significant Impact The proposed project has the potential to result in impacts related to emissions exceeding the NOx threshold during the short-term construction period. Finding Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project, which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. Facts in Support of Finding The significant effect has been eliminated or substantially lessened to a level that is less than significant by virtue of the following mitigations measures as identified in the final EIR and incorporated into the project. AQ -1 Prior to construction of the proposed improvements, the project proponent will provide a traffic control plan that will describe in detail safe detours around the project construction • site and provide temporary traffic control (i.e. flag person) during demolition debris transport and other construction related truck hauling activities. Michael Brandman Associates 10 C: \WINDOWSM,,k10plS1. Mack Findingsfiwd.dm 5 St Mark Presbyterian Church CEQA Findings and Findings of Fact Mitigated Project-Level and Cumulative Adverse Impacts AQ -2 During construction of the proposed improvements, construction equipment will be properly maintained at an off -site location and includes proper tuning and timing of • engines. Equipment maintenance records and equipment design specification data sheets shall be kept on -site during construction. AQ -3 During construction of the proposed improvements, all contractors will be advised not to idle construction equipment on site for more than ten minutes. AQ -4 During construction of the proposed improvements, on -site diesel fueled construction equipment will be fueled with aqueous diesel fuel. 2.6 - NOISE (EIR Section 5.6) 2.6.1 - Potentially Significant Impact Implementation of the project has the potential to result in impacts related to noise levels in excess of City of Newport Beach standards. C Finding Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project, which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. Facts in Support of Finding Project Design Features (PDFs) are incorporated into the proposed project, potential impacts related to noise are reduced below the level of significance. PDF -2 Use of large -scale landscape buffers on roadway frontages that minimize visual impacts from adjacent roadways and integrate with the planned open space. PDF 6 Lowering of the building site pads relative to the adjacent roadways results in a lowering of the building elevations that result in residentially scaled development. 2.7 - AESTHETICS (EIR section 1.5) • Michael Brandman Associates 11 C: MNDOWS\DesktoP\St. Mark Finftgsfma1.&, St. Mark Presbyterian Church CEQA Findings and Findings of Fact Mitigated Project -Level and Cumulative Adverse Impacts 2.7.1 - Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation • Implementation of the project has the potential to result in impacts related to light and glare. • Finding Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project, which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. Facts in Support of Finding The project -level and cumulative significant effects have been eliminated or substantially lessened to a level that is less than significant by virtue of the Project Design Features (PDFs) included in the project and the following mitigation measures as identified in the final EIR and incorporated into the project. PDF -2 Use of large -scale landscape buffers on roadway frontages that minimize visual impacts from adjacent roadways and integrate with the planned open space. PDF -12 Use of lighting fixtures in parking areas that contain directional shielding and use of low lighting fixtures in pedestrian walkways that shield light from off -site properties. PDF -13 Use of landscape buffers on the rear portion of the site that shield the proposed development from adjacent residential development. A -1 Exterior on -site lighting shall be shielded and confined within site boundaries. No direct rays or glare are permitted to shine onto public streets or adjacent sites or create a public nuisance. "Walpak" type fixtures are not permitted. All exterior lighting fixtures shall have zero cut -off fixtures and light standards for the parking lot shall not exceed 20 feet in height. Light standards for exterior walkways shall not exceed 10 feet in height. Other exterior light sources shall be no higher than 4 feet. A -2 The applicant shall prepare a photometric study in conjunction with a final lighting plan for approval by the Planning Director prior to the issuance of a building permit. The building and grounds shall not be excessively illuminated based on the luminance recommendations of the Illuminating Engineering Society of North America, or, based on the opinion of the Planning Director, the illumination creates an unacceptable negative impact on surrounding land uses or environmental resources. The Planning Director may order the dimming of • light sources or other remediation upon finding that the site is excessively illuminated. Michael Brandman Associates 12 C:\WR4D0WS\Desk1op\St. Mark FindmpfinalAm St. Mark Presbyterian Church CEQA Findings and Findings of Fact Mitigated Project -Level and Cumulative Adverse Impacts 2.8 - CULTURAL RESOURCES • (EIR section 1.5) 2.8.1 - Less Than Significant Impact Implementation of the project has the potential to result in impacts related to cultural and palentological resources. Finding Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project, which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. Facts in Support of Finding The significant effect has been eliminated or substantially lessened to a level that is less than significant by virtue of the following mitigations measures as identified in the final EIR and incorporated into the project. C -1 Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall provide written evidence to the • Planning Director that a qualified archaeologist has been retained to observe grading activities and conduct salvage excavation of archaeological resources as necessary. The archeologist shall be present at the pre - grading conference, shall, establish procedures for archaeological resource surveillance, and shall establish, in cooperation with the applicant, procedures for temporarily halting or redirecting work to permit the sampling, identification and evaluation of the artifacts as appropriate. If additional or unexpected archaeological features are discovered, the archaeologist shall report such findings to the applicant and to the Planning Department. If the archeological resources are found to be significant, the archaeological observer shall determine appropriate actions, in cooperation with the applicant, for exploration and/or salvage. These actions, as well as final mitigation and disposition of the resources, shall be subject to the approval of the Planning Director. C -2 Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall provide written evidence to the Planning Department that a qualified paleontologist has been retained to observe grading activities and salvage fossils as necessary. The paleontologist shall be present at the pre - grading conference, shall establish procedures for paleontological resource surveillance, and shall establish, in cooperation with the applicant, procedures for temporarily halting or • redirecting work to permit the sampling, identification and evaluation of the fossils. If Michael Brandman Associates 13 C: \WINDOWS\DesMop\31. Mark Findingsfiva Am St. Mark Presbyterian Church CEQA Findings and Findings of Fact Mitigated Project -Level and Cumulative Adverse Impacts major paleontological resources are discovered which require long term baiting or redirecting of grading, the paleontologist shall report such findings to the applicant and to the Planning Department. The paleontologist shall determine appropriate actions, in cooperation with the applicant, which ensure proper exploration and/or salvage. These actions, as well as final mitigation and disposition of the resources, shall be subject to the approval of the Planning Director. 2.9 - GEOLOGY AND SOILS (EIR section 1.5) 2.9.1 - Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Implementation of the project has the potential to result in impacts related to seismic ground shaking and seismic events. Finding Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project, which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. 0 Facts in Support of Finding The significant effect has been eliminated or substantially lessened to a level that is less than significant by virtue of the following mitigations measures as identified in the final EIR and incorporated into the project. G -1 Project design must comply with the 1997 Uniform Building Code (UBC) seismic design criteria. G -2 Structure setback must comply with either the 1997 Uniform Building Code (UBC) or the Orange County Grading Manual. G -3 Require any imported soil for general grading have a Expansion Index of less than 60. G -4 Control site drainage. • G -5 Design footing embedments to resist the effects of expansive soil. Michael Brandman Associates 14 C: \WINDOWS\Dcskmp \St. Mmk Findingsfinal.dm (�( b 1 SL Mark Presbyterian Church CEQA Findings and Findings of Fact Mitigated Pro %ect -Level and Cumulative Adverse Impacts G -6 Maintain a proportionately high dead load component on foundations. G -7 Over- excavate and moisture soils condition below foundations, floor slabs and hardscape. • G8 Use of articulation and reinforcement of concrete slabs and footings. G-9 Use of rigid foundation and floor slabs. 2.10 - HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS (EIR section 1.5) 2.10.1 - Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Implementation of the project has the potential to result in impacts related to adopted emergency response plans or evacuation plans. Finding • Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project, which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. Facts in Support of Finding The significant effect has been eliminated or substantially lessened to a level that is less than significant by virtue of the following mitigations measure as identified in the final EIR and incorporated into the project. H -1 Construction vehicles shall not block roadways on any roads adjacent to the project site or any of the roads leading to or from the project site. E Michael Brandman Associates 15 C: \WINDOWS\Desktop \St. Mark FindwBSfinal.doc T St. Mark Presbyterian Church Additional Measures incorporated into the Project CEQA Rndngs and Findings of Fact to Further Reduce Less Than Significant impacts SECTION 3: FEASIBILITY OF PROJECT ALTERNATIVES CEQA and the Guidelines require that an EIR include an analysis of a reasonable range of feasible alternatives to a proposed project capable of avoiding or substantially lessening any significant adverse environmental impact associated with a proposed project. In addition, an EIR is required to include a discussion of the "No Project" alternative. Further, that an environmentally superior alternative must be identified. If the "No Project" alternative is the environmentally superior alternative, an environmentally superior alternative must then be identified from among the other alternatives. (CEQA Guidelines, section 15126.6.) As set forth in these Findings, the St. Mark Presbyterian Church project, with the Mitigation Measures and the Project Design Features (PDFs) incorporated, will have no remaining significant adverse environmental impact. Nonetheless, the City of Newport Beach has reviewed a range of potential alternatives to the proposed project, including two versions of the mandatory No Project Alternative. The EIR discussed the following four alternatives: the No Project —No Development Alternative; the No Project— Allowed Development Alternative; the Reduced Intensity Alternative; and the Alternative Site Alternative. Each was designed to reduce some of the impacts identified as • significant and adverse. The Newport Beach City Council rejects each of these four alternatives, on the basis that they are infeasible, fail to meet the stated objectives of the St. Mark Presbyterian Church project, or fail to avoid adverse environmental impacts, as set forth in greater detail below. 3.1 - NO PROJECT - NO DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVE This alternative evaluates, with the conditions existing at the time the Notice of Preparation was published, what would be reasonably be expected to occur in the foreseeable future if the project were not approved and without development that could be allowed under the existing general plan designation. This alternative compares the environmental effects of the property remaining in its current state against the environmental effects that would occur if the project is approved. If none of the uses allowed under the existing Recreational and Environmental Open Space designation were to be developed, the project site would remain in it's current vacant, undeveloped state and be used as a Christmas tree sales lot on an interim, undetermined period of time. The • canyon portion of the project site would continue to be used for the on -site and off -site discharge of stormwater. The existing vegetation on the project site would remain. Vehicle trips associated with Michael Brandman Associates C: \WINDOWS\Desktop \St. Mark FindingsfwLdm 16 l\ St Mark Presbyterian Church CEQA Findings and Findings of Fact Feasibility of Project Alternatives the interim Christmas tree sales lot would continue. This use could continue or be eliminated at some future point. In addition, a different interim use could be proposed for the project site that would • have a greater number of vehicle trips than does the sales lot. Based on the interim use of the project site, air quality impacts would remain approximately the same or could increase if a different interim use were to be proposed that would result in a greater number of vehicle trips than the sales lot. The use of the project site by residents in the vicinity, although not specifically known, would continue. However, because the project site is privately owned, access to the project site in the future could be restricted. This alternative is considered the environmentally superior alternative to the proposed project because it would either lessen or avoid any potentially significant effects in relationship to the proposed project. However, this alternative would not meet any of the stated objectives previously identified. 3.2 - NO PROJECT - ALLOWED DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVE This alternative evaluates, with the conditions existing at the time the Notice of Preparation was published, what would be reasonably be expected to occur in the foreseeable future if the project were not approved, but with development that could be allowed, based on current plans and consistent with available infrastructure and community services. Allowed used range from low - intensity to high- intensity. • For purposes of this analysis, a park and tennis courts and private recreational facilities is assumed. The recreational facilities would be located within the same areas proposed for development by the proposed project. The canyon drainage feature would be restricted in the same configuration as with the proposed project. Similarly, the nature center proposed by the church project would be retained with this recreation concept. Under the assumed allowed development alternative development, hours of operation could be greater than those of the proposed project. The canyon portion of the project site would continue to be used for the on -site and off -site discharge of stormwater. In addition, development under this scenario would require alterations to the project site topography and would require stormwater generated to be discharged into the canyon feature. Development under this scenario would have the potential to generate vehicle trips that could affect intersection capacity. Air quality impacts would result from short-term construction activities and long -term operational impacts. This scenario has the potential to generate noise levels in excess of the proposed project. This alternative is not considered the environmentally superior alternative to the proposed project because it would not lessen or avoid any potentially significant effects in relationship to the proposed project. Like the No Project Alternative - No Development, this alternative would not meet any of the objectives previously identified in this section. • Michael Brandman Associates C: \WINDOW 90csk"\SL Mark Findinpfiml.dm 17 W St Mark Presbyterian Church CEQA Findings and Findings of Fact Feasibility of Argect Altemat/ves 3.3 - REDUCED INTENSITY ALTERNATIVE • As described in the E1K, the proposed project is generally divided into two areas identified as the South Campus and the North Campus. A proposed drive aisle and pedestrian walkway link these two areas. In addition, the project proposes to retain approximately one acre of the canyon feature and has incorporated this feature into the overall design. The South Campus is the proposed location of the church sanctuary, administrative offices, parking, and a fellowship hall. The North Campus is the proposed location of the pre - school, expansion building and additional parking. Under this alternative, the North Campus portion of the project site would not be developed, resulting in elimination of the pre - school, expansion building, and approximately 50 parking stalls. The canyon portion of the project site would continue to be used for the on -site and off -site discharge of stormwater. In addition, development under this scenario would require alterations to the project site topography and would require stormwater generated to be discharged into the canyon feature. In addition to the portions of the plant communities proposed for retention with the proposed project, an additional approximately I -acre of coastal sage scrub, approximately 0.20 -acres of ornamental woodland, and approximately 0.25 -acres of non - native grassland in the North Campus portion of the project site would be preserved. The 1.67 acres proposed to be deeded to the Big Canyon Country Club as permanent, dedicated open space may not occur. Under this alternative, vehicle trips would be slightly reduced by the elimination of the uses associated with the expansion building and the pre- school. Short-term air quality impacts would be slightly reduced due to the reduction in the area that would need to be graded and the long -term operational impacts would also be slightly reduced due to the elimination of the uses associated with the pre - school and expansion building. Noise level may be slightly reduced under this alternative. If the environmentally superior alternative is the No Project Alternative, the State CEQA Guidelines require the selection an environmentally superior alternative from among the remaining alternatives. Therefore, this alternative is considered an environmentally superior alternative to the proposed project because it would be capable of further reducing the already less than significant effects associated with the proposed project. However, this alternative would not meet all of the objectives previously identified in this section. 3.4 - ALTERNATIVE SITE ALTERNATIVE Prior to selecting the project site, St. Mark Church surveyed areas within the City of Newport Beach to determine if any locations were available that could be developed as a church facility in conformance with the stated project objectives that reflects St. Mark Presbyterian Church's ministry dedicated to environmental values. The results of this survey were that no other locations were • available. Michael Brandman Associates 18 C \WINDOWSV)es op\St. Mark Findmg.final.dm � 5 St. Mark Presbyterian Church CEQA Findings and Findings of Fact Feasibility of Project Alternatives The requirements were that a potential site had to be a minimum of 4 acres in size and had to be vacant or undeveloped in order to eliminate the high -costs associated with structure removal or • potential relocation of businesses including the purchase of the business good will. The potential site had to be adjacent to residential neighborhoods and not located within industrial or commercial zones. The potential site had to be in close proximity (approximately one mile) from the existing location in Eastbluff so that the members and regular attendees of the church would be able to continue attending without traveling out of the City of Newport Beach or significant distances. In addition, the potential site had to be adjacent to major roadways. Moreover, a potential site had to have some type of physical feature on or adjacent to the site so that the church facility could incorporate this feature into the overall site design in order to reflect the environmental orientation of the ministry. The project site meets these criteria. First, the project site was undeveloped and would not require the removal of structures or dislocation of businesses. The Christmas tree sales lot is an interim use. Second, the project site is adjacent to and near residential neighborhoods. Third, this project site was located in the City of Newport Beach approximately one -mile from its current location in the Eastbluff area. Fourth, the project site is adjacent to two major roadways. Lastly, the presence of the canyon feature in the central portion of the site provided an opportunity to incorporate this feature into the overall design of the facility and dedicate a portion of it as permanent open space. The proposed development includes Project Design Features that allow it blend in with the surrounding environment and preserve views of the canyon feature from MacArthur Boulevard. • Therefore, this alternative would not result in avoiding or lessening any significant effects in relation to project site. 3.5 - ENVIRONMENTALLY SUPERIOR ALTERNATIVE Based on the previous analysis, the No Project Alternative - No Development would be the environmentally superior alternative because the less than significant impacts identified with the proposed project would be avoided altogether. Section 15126(e)(2) of the Guidelines states that if the environmentally superior alternative is the No Project Alternative, the EIR must identify the environmentally superior alternative from the remaining alternatives. Therefore, the Reduced Intensity Alternative would be an environmentally superior alternative because it is capable of further reducing the already less than significant impacts of the proposed project. However, neither the No Project - No Development Alternative nor the Reduced Intensity Alternative is capable of meeting the stated objectives of the proposed project. • Michael Brandman Associates 19 C: \W WD0WSDeskfoy \5t. Mark Findiogsfinal.doc � A P E E Exhibit "B" Mitigation Monitoring Program �5 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the St. Mark Presbyterian Church Prepared for: City of Newport Beach Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92659 949.644.3210 Contact: Gregg B. Ramirez, Associate Planner Prepared by: Michael Brandman Associates 220 Commerce, Suite 200 Irvine, CA 92602 714.508.4100 Contact: Kevin B. Shannon, Project Manager September 28, 2004 0 u • SL Mark Presbyterian Church — Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program • Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program When making "findings" pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code §21081 of the), the public agency "shall adopt a reporting or monitoring program for the changes to the project or conditions of project approval, adopted in order to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment." This monitoring and reporting plan complies with Section 21081.6 of the California Public Resources Code. • • The responsible parties for implementation of the mitigation measures are the City of Newport Beach and /or its designee, the California Department of Fish and Game, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The following table presents the mitigation measures organized by topical area. The section numbers provided in parentheses correspond to the section number in the Draft EIR. At the end of the table are the mitigation measures identified in the Initial Study. This program includes both monitoring and reporting. Section 15097(c) of the State CEQA Guidelines allows public agencies to develop and adopt a program that combines monitoring of mitigation measures and reporting on mitigation measures. Generally, Reporting consists of a written compliance review that is presented to the decision - making body or authorized staff person. Monitoring generally consists of oversight activities. Michael Brandman Associates M•1 F1USERS\PLN1.Sha red\ PA !s\PAs- 2003\PA2003- 085\City Coa H\Final EIR Dots \MNW- finat.dm Vn11 1 � ! � � \ � ) 3� E #a «| i ' 2423 I# &c 2 ° * \ �\ ktk } �/ k -sa � } \ \ \} \) ` /A@ ®§ ,« $ {)»If )C (De ]\ � i § /) /s cy� ) {§/e)ia °/� ;a2 N �{ )§ }) k a = �E ©�■ = )§® IS 0 ° ~E§N® E.a !2) x / ( � � \ � ) 3� N 3 3 �a s .a 3 a u: {�\ C C C m O a U D r- Nm2 a 0 O � N❑ Q �❑ � v N �- O >�� G m� U w °mac0 C.0 e9b Cm �N wNyrq - oq a�N c > O O�� T y � m N •O .H .f..f' V� w 'p t� d .� N� L u N = U O-u y p W 7 7 10 .� La y m U . O E s y O mr�. v F FNS C. vi y > eo�yu2�vU o m P. ac°O> H 7 v v H °- 3 .� 0 U -75 v C ti y T s w T E PP4 v °° y B y v y °' m 3 m c N CO o U �S m N C N o N N N m m O Q 2 �� v Z x y N s.• �, c o C7 c u a °• m e 3 y E ay °° 3 pU� s `o uo— d °' o N v v oU?�U a v U aUi o Z N o E p, E$ Em oq `� .m. v " '$ E .5 p ,7 � "E v w❑ .N m o IA E C v y a'HmEUUw a N O s O Q'OUFU Q �aD= wU3a3 tia m GO GO F 3 3 �a s .a 3 a u: {�\ U g • 3 9 3 N a jt� C SEE yy yy 3 E 3 3 3 3 3 3 E E E E b E E C6 C6 C6 C6 0.Q 0.Q �Q 0.Q 0.Q d 0.Q4�Q GQ y m eo N > d .5 m = a o dg-O N tvc E L OA ° D n — C O N d C j $ N C N 5 G_p Em U d 09>0 0 ° o �o m e �_ E 9 v c c O o m y E al C um o u.. N '.O y° p 3 y 0 O > x �d .. •C O " a O m — Q ; > o - ld 00 •y i tp� 0 to V E= U U ^ ° °•°.0 d 'n •p y� h to 44 o to g� 5E aoo DOaS=a� °az ens ° -19 y Y� D °�' 3 o f 5� v 'ate � U bi �O� Ea N o d� w3�SE OCN U p N ?> Y •O N enE •cYi °' '� c Y y Y > E V 3. E N C v Y z o N s> .5 �j, ° �U. tJ •p N ,p `" > a ate' N ov 'p N E•o •G Y �•d � ra :? �� ❑ N o y �.� d q $ v 5 �� � °• E v v v� � to Q C7 � .c � �C U a g N uiy •E Y ::E = °� �� �'o ^h Loy o3�r b� Noo 5 0 a� erb E a � ° � 0 0 c 'v'� WA w E S.5 > aw � � NF ° �•'a5� Ov ::ss • 3 9 3 N a jt� 0 N a u w (g T O 0 3 6 3 3 v ig c� c; IO v 3 ��W c DuOw c Du Ow c to°w c so°w c y 5 v �.S �. °_ .S .5 =u '7 V 7 =U 7 V CL .5: a@3dA 7 .> co33dA .5: w33dA .> ao3dA .> a a3dA .O O N 'O p C9'F N o c 3 E o m a rtu o 'p N =,Z: am .0 .2 N C N O C 9 t16 O N Y 6 W ?> 7 v Y N° O V V O° E ° .5 E 2 G N �. N N w .D ro y 3 .� p, ME; O N 'U6 N .dl NE d C O CN F C V .p V1 N d a. u v .5 ° 0 WE 0 ° ° v o v E m o v w .2,-- E c Qi 7.5 2 ._ .. o V - A JJ ^❑ .i 0 ° 7 5 ° v a >N , w E .0 E v E o U 'A - > cC > °O V o > c ro o 7 y c i _._ _a l0 O N U a N O O U M "O O t �❑y, C V ° % O N E U C N W a E N N 2 .O N y L' O o N 0- 5 -5 2 � o N E W ° o A E � oM p ° f o ° MO= I 0.'SCC O A �� o m 0 t � .S 7 s"N .5 y _. �g -0 =0 pC °� > er 'v ° N N M O U oaci O E ❑'R .5 E v 9 ._ a m.5 s A'°p N cj� C U y .�. W U N% .+ N> ttl u° N E w C V p N U ro V vi N '� N U t �` m U 'O U '� ° T 6 tq C O �• A r N p0 V �-. A V N l0 6 O m c 4 °p o pUp c C A dJ O '° m .S �. .5 N M 7 a a a a a a u w (g T O 0 3 6 3 3 v ig c� c; IO a R • v v x 0 Y] 16L u v aoi aoi aoi E E c � � A v v v a a GO GO LA o:o Hsu. y U yndn�m a =� ayi Q EU noaA y u 0 o E za C t0 a , pp p N ' N 'U N 7 C �_ NF N c t C U N.y _ > � N "�DppV U O C vii y �. y '^ PD C C y 6 ✓+ _ tC C a o6 ° x '.-. � « d � y d °' o � °' .5 � ;; `'• .: :'. a ° rte. 3 � u co aoaAO�io o ao ti o a o u o °' `o u o a1OO «°. v" ° E '_ v '_' a`Oi `'• t> '° v p 06 u 5 > u u a 5 °o `o a u d = a"O 'x '- °' `° CL e`b❑ i u 3 m �D m �D ° a.� SEa.. a.v LOU -w n.v w�s ono CJ N U V N CV V • v v x 0 Y] 16L L W y x a �G T U 4 S 3 8 g a ig lb1 c G G C G G G C G G G � 7 7 7 7 �" v U�� U❑ � w w w 3 w w w 7 watr) 7 oaatao 7 mMCyr) U U O V U b b N ° s � o N � • N •��' � Wq Clr .P NO G w O N 0 0 3 d ° °' 0 o �°• N o w a 0 d 0 ms U N b O O " U O O b 0 •y 0 0 E U CA O W y O Oq .Cs U O G p .14 v 0 o E a.o to o Yd o > o v '9 n. m 7 c 0 v E ci N w G a0 ` N p O v U r) v > ��' Or U N 5 U N 5 O 0 v'y N cG O 0 v-a h b t� OD O� ti ti ry x a �G T U 4 S 3 8 g a ig lb1 0 ATTACHMENT B Draft City Council Resolution (GPA, UP, TS, PM) 0 E `obi RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT • BEACH APPROVING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2003 -002, USE PERMIT NO. 2003 -015, TRAFFIC STUDY NO. 2004 -004 AND PARCEL MAP NO. 2004 -036 FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2200 SAN JOAQUIN HILLS ROAD (PA2003 -085). THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH HEREBY FINDS, RESOLVES AND ORDERS AS FOLLOWS: WHEREAS, an application was filed by Saint Mark Presbyterian Church for property identified as 2200 San Joaquin Hills Road located at the northwesterly corner of the intersection of San Joaquin Hills Road and MacArthur Boulevard. The application requests approval of a General Plan Amendment to change the land use designation from Recreational and Environmental Open Space (REOS) to Government, Educational and Institutional Facilities (GEIF) and establish a maximum development gross floor area of 34,000 square feet. The application also includes a Use Permit to allow the construction of a new church complex with the main sanctuary building with a tower /cross element to exceed the 32 -foot base height limit; approval of a Traffic Study pursuant to the Traffic Phasing Ordinance; and approval of a Tentative Parcel Map to subdivide the existing 10.81 acre site. WHEREAS, On September 23, 2004, the Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach held a noticed public hearing regarding this application. • WHEREAS, The Planning Commission voted unanimously (5 -0) to recommend approval this General Plan Amendment, Use Permit, Traffic Study and Parcel Map to the City Council. Prior to making the recommendation, the Planning Commission reviewed the Draft EIR (State Clearinghouse No. 2003 - 101137) comment on the DEIR and Responses to Comments and recommended certification of the DEIR as compliant with California Environmental Quality Act. WHEREAS, on October 12, 2004 the City Council held a public hearing in the City Hail Council Chambers, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California. A notice of time, place and purpose of the aforesaid meeting was given. Evidence, both written and oral, was presented to and considered by the City Council at this meeting. WHEREAS, as part of the development and implementation of the Newport Beach General Plan, the Land Use Element has been prepared which, sets forth objectives, supporting policies and limitations for development in the City of Newport Beach and designates the general distribution and general location and extent of the uses of land and building intensities in a number of ways, including floor area limitations. WHEREAS, the General Plan provides for a sufficient diversity of land uses so that schools, employment, recreation areas, public facilities, churches and • j6(0 City of Newport Beach City Council Resolution No. Page 2 of 17 neighborhood shopping centers are in close proximity to each resident of the community. The proposed amendment does not impact the diversity of land uses by allowing a religious institution on a site not previously designated for such uses. WHEREAS, the City's General Plan dictates that the City insure redevelopment of older or underutilized properties and preserve the value of property by allowing for some modest growth, while maintaining acceptable levels of traffic service. The project consists of an increase in the development allocation of 34,000 square feet, which will not result in undesirable levels of service of the circulation system based upon the traffic study prepared for the project. WHEREAS, the General Plan calls for the siting of new buildings and structures to be controlled and regulated to ensure, to the extent practical, the preservation of public views, the preservation of unique natural resources, and to minimize the alteration of natural landforms along bluffs and cliffs. The project proposes to develop a site that is partially disturbed and partially occupied by natural vegetation. The small canyon that may be considered a "unique natural resource" is proposed to be preserved in nearly its existing state. The proposed project provides extensive landscaping to soften the views of the proposed buildings by the public. No public views exist through or across the subject property. WHEREAS, the City's General Plan indicates that the City shall maintain suitable and adequate development standards to ensure that the quality character of residential neighborhoods are maintained and that non - residential projects are aesthetically pleasing and compatible with surrounding land uses. The City maintains and implements development standards through the Zoning Ordinance and through the adoption of Planned Community District Regulations. The proposed project includes the adoption of development regulations specific to the project site for inclusion within the Big Canyon Planned Community development regulations. The proposed regulations provide significant setbacks, building height limits, floor area limits, lot coverage limits, standards for accessory structures and signage. These are found to be satisfactory for the development and operation of the proposed church campus. WHEREAS, development of the site is required to comply with the adopted revised development regulations of the Big Canyon Planned Community District Regulations relating to building height, setbacks, landscaping, signage and required parking. The proposed project complies with the proposed development standards. WHEREAS, the Recreation and Open Space (REOS) Element of the General Plan indicates that Service Area 8 is deficient in active recreational area. The REOS Element does not identify the project site as a potential location for a park. The Big Canyon Country Club, which consists of approximately 191 acres of open space, is • located within Service Area 8 and provides recreational opportunities for the service \01 City of Newport Beach City Council Resolution No. Page 3 of 17 • area. The recently developed Bonita Canyon Sports Park and related facilities are in close proximity to the residents of Service Area 8. For these reasons, the change in the land use designation thereby eliminating the opportunity to develop the site as a park is not detrimental to the community. WHEREAS, with the approval of the proposed General Plan Amendment and Planned Community Regulations, the proposed location of the institutional use is in accordance with the objectives of the Municipal Code and the purposes of the PC district in which the site is located. Additionally, the Code recognizes that religious facility often have structures that traditionally exceed established height limits and that granting relief form the height restriction for facilities specifically identified as being used for religious purposes is appropriate. WHEREAS, the proposed location of the use and the proposed conditions under which it would be operated or maintained will be consistent with the General Plan and the purpose of the district in which the site is located; will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, or welfare of persons residing or working in or adjacent to the neighborhood of such use; and will not be detrimental to the properties or improvements in the vicinity or to the general welfare of the city for the following reasons: • 1. All potentially significant environmental effects will either be avoided or reduced to a less than significant level through the implementation of mitigation measures. 2. Approximately 90% of the site will be open space and approximately 50% of the site will be landscaped. A landscape buffer is planned between the south campus parking area and adjacent residential uses which will screen the area and block vehicle headlights from negatively affecting residents. 3. The project provides sufficient area to preserve a canyon feature (approximately 1.1 acres) in nearly its natural state. 4. The site provides parking in excess of the code requirement. 5. Access to the site can be provided safely from San Joaquin Hills Road and MacArthur Boulevard with the creation of deceleration lanes and additional traffic calming mitigation measures identified in the EIR and conditions of approval. 6. The average grade of the site will be lowered 8 -12 feet which will reduce the visibility of the site from adjacent public roadways. The lowering of the grade will reduce the height and mass of the buildings proposed for the south campus in relation to adjacent residential uses. 7. The increased height of the sanctuary building is not detrimental to adjacent properties given the setbacks proposed and separation from nearby residences. • L' City of Newport Beach City Council Resolution No. _ • Page 4 of 17 The taller, tower /cross feature is relatively small and located on the opposite side of the sanctuary further away from residences. 8. Conditions of approval have been included that will ensure that lighting is contained within the site to the maximum extent. WHEREAS, Charter Section 423 requires all proposed General Plan Amendments to be reviewed to determine if the square footage, peak hour vehicle trip or dwelling unit thresholds have been exceeded and a vote by the public is required. Voter approval project is not required as the project represents a projected increase of 71 — A.M. and 90— P.M. peak hour trips, 34,000 square feet of non - residential floor area and zero residential units. These increases do not cumulatively exceed Charter Section 423 thresholds for a vote as there are no previous amendments approved for Statistical Area L2. The project will be tracked as a prior amendment per Charter Section 423 and Council Policy A -18. WHEREAS, a Traffic Study was prepared by Urban Crossroads under the direction and supervision of the City Transportation /Development Services Manager in accordance with the requirements of the Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO). The study found that the proposed project would not cause the Level of Service of the eight study • intersections to deteriorate below a Level of Service D. WHEREAS, the proposed subdivision is consistent with the proposed General Plan Amendment, Planned Community amendment and the parcel map is consistent with the Newport Beach Subdivision Code (Title 19) and the Subdivision Map Act. WHEREAS, the Final Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse No. 2003101137) certified by City Council Resolution No. 2004- identifies potential significant impacts to the environment and certain mitigation measures designed to reduce or avoid these impacts to a less than significant level. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED Based on the aforementioned findings, the City Council hereby approves General Plan Amendment No. 2003 -002 per the revised estimated growth table and site description depicted in Exhibit "A" and revised Land use Map depicted in Exhibit "B ", Use Permit No. 2003 -015, Traffic Study No. 2004 -004 and Parcel Map No. 2004 -036 subject to the Conditions of Approval set forth in Exhibit "C ". This resolution shall take effect immediately upon adoption. Passed and adopted by the City Council of Newport Beach at a regular meeting held on the 12th day of October, 2004 by the following vote to wit: • `b6 AYES, COUNCIL MEMBERS NOES, COUNCIL MEMBERS ABSENT, COUNCIL MEMBERS 11Y.-We 7 ATTEST: CITY CLERK City of Newport Beach City Council Resolution No. Page 5 of 17 • • • jet) • 0 • City of Newport Beach City Council Resolution No. _ Page 6 of 17 Exhibit "A" The following language and amended table will be added to the Land Use Element and all other provisions of the Land Use Element shall remain unchanged: Big Canyon (Statistical Area 1-2) 18. Religious Institution Site. This 7.38 acre site located at the northwesterly corner of San Joaquin Hills Road and MacArthur Boulevard is designated for institutional facilities and is designated Government, Educational and Institutional Facilities (GEIF). Maximum development permitted is 34,000 square feet. The approximate 1.10 acre natural canyon feature cannot be altered or developed. \ \l ESTIMATED GROWTH FOR STATISTICAL AREA L2 Residential (in du's) Commercial (in sq. ft.) Existing Gen. Plan Projected Existing Gen. Plan Projected 01/01/1987 Projection Growth 01/01/1987 Projection Growth 1. Area 1 83 83 0 0 0 0 2. Area 2 17 17 0 0 0 0 3. Area 3 12 12 0 0 0 0 4. Area 4 66 66 0 0 0 0 5. Area 5 61 61 0 0 0 0 6. Area 6 61 61 0 0 0 0 7. Area 7 26 26 0 0 0 0 8. Area 8 34 34 0 0 0 0 9. Area 9 66 67 1 0 0 0 10. Area 10 5 21 16 0 0 0 11. Area 11 25 25 0 0 0 0 12. Area 12 117 117 0 0 0 0 13. Area 13 43 43 0 0 0 0 14. Area 14 74 74 0 0 0 0 15. Area 15 0 0 0 1,834 2,300 466 16. Area 16 0 80 80 0 0 0 17. BC Country 1 1 0 51,058 65,000 13,942 18. Religious Institution 0 0 0 0 34,000 34,000 TOTAL 691 788 97 52,892 101,300 48,408 Population 1,368 1,560 192 \ \l City of Newport Beach City Council Resolution No. _ • Page 8 of 17 Exhibit "C" CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2003 -002, USE PERMIT NO. 2003 -015, TRAFFIC STUDY NO. 2004 -004 AND PARCEL MAP NO. 2004 -036 1. The project is subject to all applicable City ordinances, policies, and standards, unless specifically waived or modified by the conditions of approval. 2. The development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved site plans, floor plans, and elevations marked as Attachment No. 5 to the City Council Staff Report for PA2003 -085 dated September 23, 2004. 3. This Use Permit may be modified or revoked by the City Council or Planning Commission should they determine that the proposed uses or conditions under which it is being operated or maintained is detrimental to the public health, welfare or materially injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity or if the property is operated or maintained so as to constitute a public nuisance. 4. The applicant is required to obtain all applicable permits from the City Building and • Fire Departments. The construction plans must comply with the most recent, City - adopted version of the California Building Code. 5. Any change in operational characteristics, expansion in area, or other modification to the approved plans, shall require an amendment to this Use Permit or the processing of a new Use Permit. 6. The applicant shall comply with all federal, state, and local laws. Material violation of any of those laws in connection with the use may be cause for revocation of this Use Permit. 7. This approval was based on the particulars of the individual case and does not in and of itself or in combination with other approvals in the vicinity or Citywide constitute a precedent for future approvals or decisions. 8. Use Permit No. 2003 -015 shall expire unless exercised within 24 months from the date of approval as specified in Section 20.91.050 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, unless an extension is otherwise granted. 9. Traffic Study No. 2004 -004 shall expire unless exercised within 24 months from the date of approval pursuant to Section 15.40.035 of the Newport Beach Municipal • Code. This approval shall be deemed exercised by the issuance of a building permit to construct the proposed church complex. \�5 City of Newport Beach City Council Resolution No. Page 9 of 17 • 10. Pursuant to the Traffic Phasing Ordinance, construction of all proposed buildings shall be completed no more than 60 months from the date of final approval of Traffic Study No. 2004 -004. 11. Should this site be sold or otherwise come under different ownership or be operated by a different entity than the applicant, any future owners, assignees or operators shall be notified of the conditions of this approval by the current owner or leasing company. 12. The facility shall be designed to meet exiting and fire protection requirements as specified by the Uniform Building Code and shall be subject to review and approval by the Newport Beach Building Department and the Fire Department. 13. The proposed project shall conform to the requirements of the Uniform Building Code, any local amendments to the UBC, and State Disabled Access requirements, unless otherwise approved by the Building Department. 14. All work conducted within the public right -of -way shall be approved under an encroachment permit issued by the Public Works Department. 15. The bridge/driveway between the north and south campus shall be capable of • supporting 72,000 pound total weight of fire apparatus including point design outrigger of 75 psi over a 2 square foot area. 16. The California registered professional engineer seal shown on the civil plan sheets shall bear the name of the professional responsible for said designs. 17. Prior to the final of building permits, per the City of Newport Beach Municipal Code and City Council Policies, new street trees shall be planted along the San Joaquin Hills Road frontage. 18. Prior to the issuance of building permits. the final design of all on -site parking, vehicular circulation and pedestrian circulation shall be subject to the approval of the Traffic Engineer. The location, number as dimensions of the parking spaces shall be in substantial conformance the approved site plans dated March 3, 2003. 19. A minimum of 237 parking spaces shall be provided on -site. Of these, all South Campus Spaces and the 15 spaces directly adjacent to the pre - school shall be provided during the first phase. All parking spaces shall be kept clear of obstructions and made available for the parking of vehicles at all times. • 14 0 • City of Newport Beach City Council Resolution No. Page 10 of 17 20. The 35 spaces adjacent to the expansion building site shall be installed when determined necessary by the City Traffic Engineer and Planning Director. 21. Prior to the issuance of grading /building permits, Fair Share Traffic Fees shall be paid in accordance with Chapter 15.38 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 22. Prior to the issuance of grading /building permits, transportation corridor fees shall be paid in accordance with the TCA Major Thoroughfare and Bridge Fee Program. 23. The operator of the facility shall be responsible for the control of noise generated by the subject facility. The noise generated by the proposed use shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 10.26 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. The maximum noise shall be limited to no more than depicted below for the specified time periods unless the ambient noise level is higher: 24. All mechanical equipment shall be screened from view of adjacent properties and adjacent public streets within the limits authorized by this permit, and shall be sound attenuated in accordance with Chapter 10.26 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, Community Noise Control. 25. All proposed signs shall be in substantial conformance with the with signs included in the approved set of plans dated March 21, 2003. The final location of the signs shall be reviewed by the City Traffic Engineer and shall conform to City Standard 110 -L to ensure that adequate sight distance is provided. 26. No temporary "sandwich" signs or similar temporary signs shall be permitted, either on -site or off -site, to advertise services provided. 27. Temporary signs shall be prohibited in the public right -of -way unless otherwise approved by the Public Works Department in conjunction with the issuance of an • encroachment permit or encroachment agreement. `�1 Between the hours of Between the hours of 7:OOAM and 10:OOPM and 10:OOPM 7:OOAM Location Interior Exterior Interior Exterior Residential Property 45dBA 55dBA 40dBA 50dBA Residential Property located within 100 feet of a commercial 45dBA 60dBA 45dBA 50dBA property Mixed Use Property 45dBA 60dBA 45dBA 50dBA Commercial Property N/A 65dBA N/A 60dBA 24. All mechanical equipment shall be screened from view of adjacent properties and adjacent public streets within the limits authorized by this permit, and shall be sound attenuated in accordance with Chapter 10.26 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, Community Noise Control. 25. All proposed signs shall be in substantial conformance with the with signs included in the approved set of plans dated March 21, 2003. The final location of the signs shall be reviewed by the City Traffic Engineer and shall conform to City Standard 110 -L to ensure that adequate sight distance is provided. 26. No temporary "sandwich" signs or similar temporary signs shall be permitted, either on -site or off -site, to advertise services provided. 27. Temporary signs shall be prohibited in the public right -of -way unless otherwise approved by the Public Works Department in conjunction with the issuance of an • encroachment permit or encroachment agreement. `�1 City of Newport Beach City Council Resolution No. Page 11 of 17 • 28. A Special Events Permit is required for any event or promotional activity outside the normal operational characteristics of the approved use, as conditioned, or that would attract large crowds, involve the sale of alcoholic beverages, include any form of on -site media broadcast, or any other activities as specified in the Newport Beach Municipal Code to require such permits. 29. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, Prior to the commencement of construction and before a grading permit is issued; a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan ( SWPPP) shall be prepared and approved by the City of Newport Beach as the local permitting agency in accordance with the requirements of the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). The SWPPP shall include BMPs to eliminate and /or minimize stormwater pollution prior to, and during construction. The SWPPP shall require construction to occur in stages and stabilized prior to disturbing other areas and require the use of temporary diversion dikes and basins to trap sediment from run -off and allow clarification prior to discharge. 30. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall prepare a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) specifically identifying the Best Management • Practices (BMP's) that will be used on site to control predictable pollutant runoff. The plan shall identify the types of structural and non - structural measures to be used. The plan shall comply with the Orange County Drainage Area Management Plan (DAMP). Particular attention should be addressed to the appendix section "Best Management Practices for New Development." The WQMP shall clearly show the locations of structural BMP's, and assignment of long term maintenance responsibilities (which shall also be included in the Maintenance Agreement). The plan shall be prepared to the format shown in "Attachment C" of the DAMP title "Water Quality Management Plan Outline" and be subject to the approval of the City. 31. To the maximum extent practicable, no grading of CSS habitat that is occupied by nesting gnatcatchers will occur during the breeding season (February 15 through July 15). 32. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, or other activities involving significant soil disturbance, all areas of CSS habitat to be avoided under the provisions of the NCCP /HCP, shall be identified with temporary fencing or other markers clearly visible to construction personnel. Additionally, prior to the commencement of grading operations or other activities Involving disturbance of CSS, a survey will be conducted to locate gnatcatchers and cactus wrens within 100 feet of the outer extent of projected soil disturbance activities and the locations of any such species shall be clearly marked and identified on the • City of Newport Beach City Council Resolution No. • Page 12 of 17 construction /grading plans. A minimum of three surveys will be conducted, at least one week apart, in order to determine the presence or absence of the coastal California gnatcatcher in conformance with the survey protocol issued on August 6, 1997, by the USFWS. These surveys may be conducted at any time during the year; however, surveys conducted between February 15 and August 30 are preferred. 33. A monitoring biologist, acceptable to the USFWS and CDFG shall be on -site during any clearing of CSS. The landowner or relevant public agency will advise the USFWS and CDFG at least seven calendar days, and preferably 14 calendar days, prior to the clearing of any habitat occupied by Identified Species to allow the USFWS and CDFG to work with the monitoring biologist in connection with bird flushing and/or capture activities. 34. Following the completion of initial grading or earthmoving activities, all areas of CSS habitat to be avoided by construction equipment and personnel will be marked with temporary fencing or other appropriate markers clearly visible to construction personnel. No construction access, parking, or storage of equipment of materials will be permitted within the marked areas. 35. Exterior on -site lighting shall be shielded and confined within site boundaries. No direct rays or glare are permitted to shine onto public streets or adjacent sites or create a public nuisance. "Walpak" type fixtures are not permitted. All exterior lighting fixtures shall have zero cut -off fixtures and light standards for the parking lot shall not exceed 20 feet in height. Light standards for exterior walkways shall not exceed 10 feet in height. Other exterior light sources shall be no higher than 4 feet. 36. Prior to the issuance of building permits, The applicant shall prepare a photometric study in conjunction with a final lighting plan for approval by the Planning Director prior to the issuance of a building permit. The buildings and grounds shall not be excessively illuminated based on the luminance recommendations of the Illuminating Engineering Society of North America, or, based on the opinion of the Planning Director, the illumination creates an unacceptable negative impact on surrounding land uses or environmental resources. The Planning Director may order the dimming of light sources or other remediation upon finding that the site is excessively illuminated. 37. Prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy or final of buildinq permits, the applicant shall schedule an evening inspection by the Code and Water Quality Enforcement Division to confirm control of light and glare specified in Condition • Nos. 35 & 36. `1A City of Newport Beach City Council Resolution No. Page 13 of 17 • 38. All trash shall be stored within the building or within dumpsters stored in the trash enclosure (three walls and a gate,) or otherwise screened from view of neighboring properties, except when placed for pick -up by refuse collection agencies. The trash dumpsters shall have a top, which shall remain closed at all times, except when being loaded or while being collected by the refuse collection agency. 39. The applicant shall ensure that the trash dumpsters and /or receptacles are maintained to control odors. This may include the provision of either fully self - contained dumpsters or periodic steam cleaning of the dumpsters, if deemed necessary by the Planning Department. Cleaning and maintenance of trash dumpsters shall be done in compliance with the provisions of Title 14, including all future amendments (including Water Quality related requirements). 40. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the trash enclosure design shall be approved by the Planning Department. The trash enclosure shall be enclosed by three walls, a self closing, self latching gate and have a have a decorative, solid roof for aesthetic and screening purposes. The design of the enclosure shall be integrated with the design of the other on -site buildings and structures. 41. All landscape materials and landscaped areas shall be installed and maintained • in accordance with the approved landscape plan. All landscaped areas shall be maintained in a healthy and growing condition and shall receive regular pruning, fertilizing, mowing and trimming. All landscaped areas shall be kept free of weeds and debris. All irrigation systems shall be kept operable, including adjustments, replacements, repairs, and cleaning as part of regular maintenance. 42. Prior to the issuance of a building permits, the applicant shall submit a landscape and irrigation plan prepared by a licensed landscape architect. These plans shall incorporate drought tolerant plantings and water efficient irrigation practices, and the plans shall be approved by the Planning Department, General Services Department and Public Works Department. All planting areas shall be provided with a permanent underground automatic sprinkler irrigation system of a design suitable for the type and arrangement of the plant materials selected. The irrigation system shall be adjustable based upon either a signal from a satellite or an on -site moisture- sensor. Planting areas adjacent to vehicular activity shall be protected by a continuous concrete curb or similar permanent barrier. Landscaping shall be located so as not to impede vehicular sight distance to the satisfaction of the Traffic Engineer. 43. Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy, the applicant shall schedule an inspection by the Code and Water Quality Enforcement Division to confirm • IP City of Newport Beach City Council Resolution No. Page 14 of 17 • that all landscaping materials and irrigation systems have been was installed in accordance with the approved plans. 44. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall provide written evidence to the Planning Director that a qualified archaeologist has been retained to observe grading activities and conduct salvage excavation of archaeological resources as necessary. The archeologist shall be present at the pre - grading conference, shall, establish procedures for archaeological resource surveillance, and shall establish, in cooperation with the applicant, procedures for temporarily halting or redirecting work to permit the sampling, identification and evaluation of the artifacts as appropriate. If additional or unexpected archaeological features are discovered, the archaeologist shall report such findings to the applicant and to the Planning Department. If the archeological resources are found to be significant, the archaeological observer shall determine appropriate actions, in cooperation with the applicant, for exploration and /or salvage. These actions, as well as final mitigation and disposition of the resources, shall be subject to the approval of the Planning Director. 45. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall provide written evidence to the Planning Department that a qualified paleontologist has been retained to • observe grading activities and salvage fossils as necessary. The paleontologist shall be present at the pre - grading conference, shall establish procedures for paleontological resource surveillance, and shall establish, in cooperation with the applicant, procedures for temporarily halting or redirecting work to permit the sampling, identification and evaluation of the fossils. If major paleontological resources are discovered which require long term baiting or redirecting of grading, the paleontologist shall report such findings to the applicant and to the Planning Department. The paleontologist shall determine appropriate actions, in cooperation with the applicant, which ensure proper exploration and /or salvage. These actions, as well as final mitigation and disposition of the resources, shall be subject to the approval of the Planning Director. 46. Prior to the issuance of grading /building permits, the applicant shall prepare a construction phasing plan and construction delivery plan that includes routing of large vehicles. The plan shall include a haul route plan for review and approval of the Public Works Department. Said plan shall specify the routes to be traveled, times of travel, total number of trucks, number of trucks per hour, time of operation, and safety /congestion precautions (e.g., signage, flagmen). Large construction vehicles shall not be permitted to travel narrow streets and alleys as determined by the Public Works Department. Traffic control and transportation of equipment and materials shall be conducted in accordance with state and local requirements. a� City of Newport Beach City Council Resolution No. Page 15 of 17 • 47. Construction vehicles shall not block roadways on any roads adjacent to the project site or any of the roads leading to or from the project site. 48. During construction of the proposed improvements, construction equipment will be properly maintained at an off -site location and includes proper tuning and timing of engines. Equipment maintenance records and equipment design specification data sheets shall be kept on -site during construction. 49. During construction of the proposed improvements, all contractors will be advised not to idle construction equipment on site for more than ten minutes. 50. During construction of the proposed improvements, on -site diesel fueled construction equipment will be fueled with aqueous diesel fuel. 51. Prior to the issuance of grading /building permits, the final design of all required off -site right of way improvements shall be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department and Traffic Engineer. These improvement shall include, but are not limited to the following: • Provide a right turn lane at the driveway along San Joaquin Hills Road to separate project traffic from the through traffic flows. • • Re- stripe the free right turn lane to provide a 10 -foot wide lane along the curve and install raised pavement markers at 10 -foot intervals or other improvements to reduce right- turning vehicular speeds. • Eliminate the painted crosswalk in the free right hand turn lane or other improvements to reduce right- turning vehicular speeds. • Install a "15 MPH" sign at the beginning of the curve of the free right hand turn lane in order to reduce vehicular speeds or other improvements to reduce right- turning vehicular speeds. • Provide a minimum 150 -foot westbound right turn pocket along San Joaquin Hills Road at the project driveway. • Provide the maximum length possible right turn pocket along MacArthur Boulevard at the project driveway. The turn pocket shall extend as long as necessary to meet standard traffic engineering requirements as determined by the Transportation /Development Services Manager, but is not required to be so long as to necessitate the relocation of the SCE power pole. • Sight distance at the MacArthur Boulevard access point shall be reviewed with respect to standard Caltrans and City of Newport Beach sight distance standards. 52. The pastoral staff shall distribute to the congregation and visitors maps that depict the following exit route from the San Joaquin Hills Road access point: San • l�� City of Newport Beach City Council Resolution No. • Page 16 of 17 Joaquin Hills Road to Santa Rosa Road to Newport Center Drive to San Miguel Drive to MacArthur Boulevard. 53. Prior the issuance of building permits, the project shall be reviewed by the Building Department to verify compliance with the following requirements related to geology and soils: • Project design must comply with the 1997 Uniform Building Code (UBC) seismic design criteria. • Structure setback must comply with either the 1997 Uniform Building Code (UBC) or the Orange County Grading Manual. • Any imported soil for general grading shall have a Expansion Index of less than 60. • Control site drainage. • Design footing embedments to resist the effects of expansive soil. • Maintain a proportionately high dead load component on foundations. • Over - excavate and moisture soils condition below foundations, floor slabs • and hardscape. • Use of articulation and reinforcement of concrete slabs and footings. • Use of rigid foundation and floor slabs. 54. A parcel map is required and shall be recorded within 3 years from the date of approval if the tentative parcel map unless an extension is granted by the Planning Director. Said map shall include the necessary easements for pedestrians and public utilities along the San Joaquin Hills Road and MacArthur Boulevard frontages and for public utilities within the development site. 55. A standard subdivision agreement and accompanying surety shall be provided in order to guarantee satisfactory completion of the public improvements if it is desired to record a tract map or obtain a building permit prior to completion of the public improvements. 56. A final map shall be recorded prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy. That the final map be prepared so that the Bearings relate to the State Plane Coordinate System. The final map shall be prepared on the California coordinate system (NAD83) and that prior to recordation of the final map, the surveyor /engineer preparing the map shall submit to the County Surveyor and to the City of Newport Beach a digital - graphic file of said map in a manner described in Section 7 -9 -330 and 7 -9 -337 of the Orange County Subdivision . Code and Orange County Subdivision Manual, Subarticle 18. That prior to J)"'5 City of Newport Beach City Council Resolution No. Page 17 of 17 • recordation of the final map, the surveyor /engineer preparing the map shall tie the boundary of the map into the Horizontal Control System established by the County Surveyor in a manner described in Section s 7 -9 -330 and 7 -9 -337 of the Orange County Subdivision Code and Orange County Subdivision Manual, Subarticle 18. Monuments (one inch iron pipe with tag) shall be set on each lot corner unless otherwise approved by the Subdivision Engineer. Monuments shall be protected in place if installed prior to completion of construction project. 57. All applicable Public Works Department plan check fees and inspection fees shall be paid prior to recordation of the parcel map. 58. The applicant shall be responsible for the payment of all administrative costs identified by the Planning Department within 30 days of receiving a final notification of costs or prior to the issuance of a Building Permit. 59. Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy, an emergency access road with a rolled curb and surface capable of supporting fire department apparatus shall be provided at or near the location of the proposed MacArthur access point shown on the approved plans. The final design shall be subject to the review and approval by the Fire Department, Public Works Department and Planning • Department. (This condition is only applicable in the event that the MacArthur Boulevard Access is not constructed.) 60. The tower /cross is limited to a maximum height of 51 feet above existing grade. 61. The property owner of Parcel 1, as shown on Parcel Map No. 2004 -004, shall be responsible for installing and maintaining landscaping between the existing sound wall an public right of way and any portion of Parcel 1 visible from public right of way. All landscape materials and landscaped areas shall be installed and maintained in accordance with a landscape plan approved by the Planning Director. All landscaped areas shall be maintained in a healthy and growing condition and shall receive regular pruning, fertilizing, mowing and trimming. All landscaped areas shall be kept free of weeds and debris. All irrigation systems shall be kept operable, including adjustments, replacements, repairs, and cleaning as part of regular maintenance. • 1a� E ATTACHMENT C Draft City Council Ordinance 0 0 Jas ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT • BEACH APPROVING PLANNED COMMUNITY TEXT AMENDMENT NO. 2003 -001 RELATING TO THE ADDITION OF DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS FOR THE PROPOSED RELIGIOUS INSTITUTION AND NATURE PRESERVE IN THE BIG CANYON PLANNED COMMUNITY DISTRICT REGULATIONS FOR PROPERTY LOCATED NORTHWESTERLY OF THE INTERSECTION OF MACARTHUR BOULEVARD AND SAN JOAQUIN HILLS ROAD (PA2003 -085) WHEREAS, on September 23, 2004, the Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach held a noticed public hearing regarding this code amendment. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommended approval of this code amendment to the City Council. WHEREAS, on October 12, 2004, the City Council of the City of Newport Beach held a noticed public hearing regarding this code amendment. WHEREAS, he proposed Planned Community Development Regulations specify detailed development standards for the Religious Institution and Nature Preserve site project include the adoption of development regulations specific to the project site for inclusion within the Big Canyon Planned Community development regulations. The • proposed regulations provide suitable and adequate standards relating to setbacks, building height limits, floor area limits, lot coverage limits, standards for accessory structures and signage. WHEREAS, the proposed Planned Community Development Regulations will maintain consistency between the proposed GEIF designation of the General Plan and Planned Community (Zoning Code) regulations. WHEREAS, the proposed Ordinance includes the designation of an approximate 1.7 acre parcel north of the newly created Religious Institution and Nature Preserve site as Golf Course and therefore subject to the existing Big Canyon Planned Community Golf Course regulations. WHEREAS, the Final Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse No. 2003101137) certified by City Council Resolution No. 2004- identifies potential significant impacts to the environment and certain mitigation measures designed to reduce or avoid these impacts to a less than significant level. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1: The Big Canyon Planned Community Development Regulations of the Newport Beach Municipal Code shall be amended to add Section X. Religious • 4D City of Newport Beach City Council Ordinance No. Page 2 of 6 • Institutional and Nature Preserve" and revise the Big Canyon Planned Community District land use plan map as provided in Exhibit "A ". SECTION 2: The Mayor shall sign and the City Clerk shall attest to the passage of this Ordinance. This Ordinance shall be published once in the official newspaper of the City, and the same shall become effective thirty (30) days after the date of its adoption. This Ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Newport Beach held on October 12, 2004, and adopted on the 26th day of October 2004, by the following vote, to wit: AYES, COUNCIL MEMBERS NOES, COUNCIL MEMBERS • ABSENT COUNCIL MEMBERS ATTEST: CITY CLERK u- •: 1�� City of Newport Beach City Council Ordinance No. Paae 3 of 6 Exhibit "A" • The following use and development regulations will be added to the Big Canyon Planned Community with all other provisions remaining unchanged. "SECTION X. Religious Institutional and Nature Preserve This area is intended to provide a site for religious institutional uses and a nature preserve within the site which is located at the northwest corner of MacArthur Boulevard and San Joaquin Hills Road. The institutional and nature preserve areas are depicted in the attached land use map. A. Permitted Uses 1. Religious institutional area: Subject to first securing a Use Permit from the Planning Commission, a church sanctuary and related accessory buildings and structures including administration buildings, ministry buildings, fellowship buildings, nature center, preschool or day care facilities and parking areas uses. 2. Nature preserve area: Nature center subject to a Use Permit and passive open space. B. Minimum Lot Size • All lots shall be a minimum of 7 acres. C. Building Area Total gross floor area shall not exceed 34,000 square feet. D. Building Height The maximum height for all buildings except the main sanctuary shall be thirty - two (32) feet as measured from the finish floor to the midpoint of a sloping roof, to the top of a parapet wall or to the top of a flat roof. Basements or partial basements are not included in the height measurement. The main sanctuary may exceed thirty -two (32) feet provided a Use Permit is first obtained. E. Setback from Street Structures shall be set back a minimum of one - hundred - twenty (120) feet from the back of the curb existing at both San Joaquin Hills Road and MacArthur Boulevard. This setback shall not apply to garden walls, retaining walls or fences. Parking areas shall be set back a minimum of forty -eight (48) feet and the parking area setback shall be landscaped. • 0 City of Newport Beach City Council Ordinance No. Paae 4 of 6 • F. Setback from other property lines Structures and parking facilities shall be set back from all other property lines a minimum of ten (10) feet. G. Building Lot Coverage Buildings shall not cover the lot in excess of eleven percent (11 %). Coverage shall include all areas within enclosed interior spaces and shall not include areas under overhangs, eves or open trellis areas. H. Fences and Site Walls Fences and site walls shall be limited to a maximum height of eight (8) feet from finished grade. Fences and site walls are allowed in all setback areas, except that fences and walls within street setback areas shall be limited to three and one -half (3' /z) feet. I. Trellises and Shade Structures Open trellis, overhangs and shade structures shall be of open beam construction and shall be permitted to attach to buildings or can be • freestanding. These elements may extend within three (3) feet of the side or rear property line. In rear or side yards, the maximum height shall be twelve (12) feet. These areas shall not be considered in calculating lot area coverage; however, the total area of open trellises, overhangs and shade structures shall not exceed 5 percent of the remaining open space of the developed lot. J. Parking Parking shall be not less than that required by the Zoning Code. All required parking shall be provided on site and the layout and design shall be subject to the review and approval of the Traffic Engineer. Parking for the disabled shall be provided in accordance with the California Building Code as adopted by the City of Newport Beach. K. Architectural Features Architectural features, limited to cornices or eaves, may extend two and one - half (2 -1/2) feet into any setback area. )� City of Newport Beach City Council Ordinance No. _ Paqe 5 of 6 L. Signage A maximum of three (3) monument signs for site identification purposes only may be permitted and the signs may be located within the street setback provided that they do not impede vehicular sight distance. One sign may be located near the intersection of MacArthur Boulevard and San Joaquin Hills Road. One sign may be located near each of the two proposed vehicular access location. On -site directional signs and building identification signs may be permitted within the project site. A sign program shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Director prior to the issuance of a building permit." • F_ IL • 01 • • • City of Newport Beach City Council Ordinance No. Paae 6 of 6 Revised Big Canyon Land Use Map to S- C 3 f,Q a Q ° 3 =a =' /^� c 3 i ATTACHMENT D Draft Planning Commission Resolution 9 13� RESOLUTION NO. • A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL CERTIFY THE SAINT MARK PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (SCH #2003101137) AND APPROVE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2003 -002, PLANNED COMMUNITY TEXT AMENDMENT NO. 2003 -001, USE PERMIT NO. 2003 -015, TRAFFIC STUDY NO. 2004 -004 AND PARCEL MAP NO. 2004 -036 FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2200 SAN JOAQUIN HILLS ROAD (PA2003 -085). THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH HEREBY FINDS, RESOLVES AND ORDERS AS FOLLOWS: WHEREAS, an application was filed by Saint Mark Presbyterian Church for property identified as 2200 San Joaquin Hills Road located at the northwesterly comer of the intersection of San Joaquin Hills Road and MacArthur Boulevard. The application requests approval of a General Plan Amendment to change the land use designation from Recreational and Environmental Open Space (REOS) to Government, Educational and Institutional Facilities (GEIF) and establish a maximum development gross floor area of • 34,000 square feet. The application also includes an amendment to the Big Canyon Planned Community Text to include the project site within its boundaries, designate the site "Religious Institutional and Nature Preserve" and adopt use and development regulations. The application also includes a Use Permit to allow the construction of a new church complex with the main sanctuary building with a tower /cross element to exceed the 32 -foot base height limit; approval of a Traffic Study pursuant to the Traffic Phasing Ordinance; and approval of a Tentative Parcel Map to subdivide the existing 10.81 acre site. WHEREAS, in accordance with California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requirements, a Notice of Preparation (NOP) was filed with the State Clearinghouse, which assigned State Clearinghouse No. 2003101137, indicating that a Environmental Impact Report would be prepared. WHEREAS, the NOP and an Initial Study were distributed to all responsible and trustee agencies and other interested parties for a 30 -day public review period commencing on October 27, 2003 and ending on November 26, 2003. WHEREAS, in accordance with CEQA requirements, a Notice of Completion (NOC) of a Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) was filed with the State Clearinghouse. WHEREAS, the Draft EIR was distributed to agencies, interested organizations, • and individuals by the City. The distribution list is available at the City of Newport Beach \33 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Resolution No. _ Page 2 of 24 Planning Department. The Draft EIR dated July 2004 was been distributed separately • due to bulk and is hereby designated as EXHIBIT EIR -1 of this Resolution as if fully set herein. WHEREAS, a 45 -day public review period for the Draft EIR was established pursuant to State law, which commenced on July 14, 2004 and ended on August 31, 2004. WHEREAS, all comments received during the public review period for the Draft EIR were responded to in the Response to Comments document dated September 17, 2004, distributed separately due to bulk and hereby designated as EXHIBIT EIR -2 of this Resolution as if fully set herein. The Planning Commission considered all comments and responses during its review of the Environmental Impact Report. WHEREAS, on September 23, 2004, the Planning Commission held a public noticed public hearing at which time the final Environmental Impact Report, comprised of the Draft Environmental Impact Report, a listing of persons and organizations that provided written comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report during the public circulation period, a compilation of the these comments, and responses to those comments, was considered. Notice of time, place and purpose of the public hearing was duly given and testimony was presented to and considered by the Planning Commission at the hearing. • WHEREAS, the Final Environmental Impact Report identifies potential significant impacts to the environment and certain mitigation measures designed to reduce or avoid these impacts to a less than significant level. WHEREAS, as part of the development and implementation of the Newport Beach General Plan, the Land Use Element has been prepared which, sets forth objectives, supporting policies and limitations for development in the City of Newport Beach and designates the general distribution and general location and extent of the uses of land and building intensities in a number of ways, including floor area limitations. WHEREAS, the General Plan provides for a sufficient diversity of land uses so that schools, employment, recreation areas, public facilities, churches and neighborhood shopping centers are in close proximity to each resident of the community. The proposed amendment does not impact the diversity of land uses by allowing a religious institution on a site not previously designated for such uses. WHEREAS, the City's General Plan dictates that the City insure redevelopment of older or underutilized properties and preserve the value of property by allowing for some modest growth, while maintaining acceptable levels of traffic service. The project consists of an increase in the development allocation of 34,000 square feet, which will • OA City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Resolution No. _ Page 3 of 24 • not result in undesirable levels of service of the circulation system based upon the traffic study prepared for the project. WHEREAS, the General Plan calls for the siting of new buildings and structures to be controlled and regulated to ensure, to the extent practical, the preservation of public views, the preservation of unique natural resources, and to minimize the alteration of natural landforms along bluffs and cliffs. The project proposes to develop a site that is partially disturbed and partially occupied by natural vegetation. The small canyon that may be considered a "unique natural resource" is proposed to be preserved in nearly its existing state. The proposed project provides extensive landscaping to soften the views of the proposed buildings by the public. No public views exist through or across the subject property. WHEREAS, the City's General Plan indicates that the City shall maintain suitable and adequate development standards to ensure that the quality character of residential neighborhoods are maintained and that non - residential projects are aesthetically pleasing and compatible with surrounding land uses. The City maintains and implements development standards through the Zoning Ordinance and through the adoption of Planned Community District Regulations. The proposed project includes the adoption of development regulations specific to the project site for inclusion within the Big Canyon Planned Community development regulations. The proposed regulations • (Exhibit C) provide significant setbacks, building height limits, floor area limits, lot coverage limits, standards for accessory structures and signage. These are found to be satisfactory for the development and operation of the proposed church campus. WHEREAS, development of the site is required to comply with the adopted revised development regulations of the Big Canyon Planned Community District Regulations relating to building height, setbacks, landscaping, signage and required parking. The proposed project complies with the proposed development standards. WHEREAS, the proposed Planned Community Development Regulations will maintain consistency between the proposed GEIF designation of the General Plan and Zoning Code regulations. WHEREAS, the Recreation and Open Space (REDS) Element of the General Plan indicates that Service Area 8 is deficient in active recreational area. The REOS Element does not identify the project site as a potential location for a park. The Big Canyon Country Club, which consists of approximately 191 acres of open space, is located within Service Area 8 and provides recreational opportunities for the service area. The recently developed Bonita Canyon Sports Park and related facilities are in close proximity to the residents of Service Area 8. For these reasons, the change in the land use designation thereby eliminating the opportunity to develop the site as a park is not detrimental to the community. X35 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Resolution No. Page 4 of 24 WHEREAS, with the approval of the proposed General Plan Amendment and • Planned Community Regulations, the proposed location of the institutional use is in accordance with the objectives of the Municipal Code and the purposes of the PC district in which the site is located. Additionally, the Code recognizes that religious facility often have structures that traditionally exceed established height limits and that granting relief form the height restriction for facilities specifically identified as being used for religious purposes is appropriate. WHEREAS, the proposed location of the use and the proposed conditions under which it would be operated or maintained will be consistent with the General Plan and the purpose of the district in which the site is located; will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, or welfare of persons residing or working in or adjacent to the neighborhood of such use; and will not be detrimental to the properties or improvements in the vicinity or to the general welfare of the city for the following reasons: 1. All potentially significant environmental effects will either be avoided or reduced to a less than significant level through the implementation of mitigation measures. 2. Approximately 90% of the site will be open space and approximately 50% of the site will be landscaped. A landscape buffer is planned between the south campus • parking area and adjacent residential uses which will screen the area and block vehicle headlights from negatively affecting residents. 3. The project provides sufficient area to preserve a canyon feature (approximately 1.1 acres) in nearly its natural state. 4. The site provides parking in excess of the code requirement. 5. Access to the site can be provided safely from San Joaquin Hills Road and MacArthur Boulevard with the creation of 150 foot deceleration lanes and additional traffic calming mitigation measures identified in the EIR. 6. The average grade of the site will be lowered 8 -12 feet which will reduce the visibility of the site from adjacent public roadways. The lowering of the grade will reduce the height and mass of the buildings proposed for the south campus in relation to adjacent residential uses. 7. The increased height of the sanctuary building is not detrimental to adjacent properties given the setbacks proposed and separation from nearby residences. The taller, tower /cross feature is relatively small and located on the opposite side of the sanctuary further away from residences. 8. Condition of approval have been included that will ensure that lighting is contained within the site to the maximum extent. • 131' City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Resolution No. Page 5 of 24 • WHEREAS, Charter Section 423 requires all proposed General Plan Amendments to be reviewed to determine if the square footage, peak hour vehicle trip or dwelling unit thresholds have been exceeded and a vote by the public is required. Voter approval project is not required as the project represents a projected increase of 71 — A.M. and 90— P.M. peak hour trips, 34,000 square feet of non - residential floor area and zero residential units. These increases do not cumulatively exceed Charter Section 423 thresholds for a vote as there are no previous amendments approved for Statistical Area L2. The project will be tracked as a prior amendment per Charter Section 423 and Council Policy A -18. WHEREAS, a Traffic Study was prepared by Urban Crossroads under the direction and supervision of the City Transportation /Development Services Manager in accordance with the requirements of the Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO). The study found that the proposed project would not cause the Level of Service of the eight study intersections to deteriorate below a Level of Service D. WHEREAS, the proposed subdivision is consistent with the proposed General Plan Amendment, Planned Community amendment and the parcel map is consistent with the Newport Beach Subdivision Code (Title 19) and the Subdivision Map Act. • NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED Section 1. The Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach does hereby find that Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse No. 2003101137) designated by reference as Exhibit EIR -1 & EIR -2 of this Resolution has been prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the CEQA Guidelines. In addition, the Planning Commission finds that the EIR adequately analyses project — related impacts, potential cumulative impacts, identifies feasible mitigation measures and discusses project alternatives, and that the Final EIR reflects the independent judgment of the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council certify Environmental Impact Report identified as State Clearinghouse No. 2003101137. Section 2. Based on the aforementioned findings, the Planning Commission hereby recommends approval to the City Council of General Plan Amendment No. 2003- 002 per the revised estimated growth table and site description depicted in Exhibit "A" and revised Land use Map depicted in Exhibit "B ", Planned Community Text Amendment No. 2003 -001 per the revised Big Canyon Planned Community District regulations depicted in Exhibit "C ", Use Permit No. 2003 -015, Traffic Study No. 2004 -004 and Parcel Map No. 2004 -036 subject to the Conditions of Approval set forth in Exhibit "D ". �J 1'1 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Resolution No. Page 6 of 24 • ADOPTED THIS 23rd DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2004. BY: Larry Tucker, Chairman AN AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Jeffrey Cole, Secretary is • 4 E 0 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Resolution No. Page 7 of 24 EIR -1 Draft Environmental Impact Report for St. Mark Presbyterian Church including the Technical Appendix (SCH #2003101137) 0 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Resolution No. Page 8 of 24 EIR -2 Responses to Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report for St. Mark Presbyterian Church including the Technical Appendix (SCH #2003101137) • IAb • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Resolution No. Page 9 of 24 Exhibit "A" The following language and amended table will be added to the Land Use Element and all other provisions of the Land Use Element shall remain unchanged: Big Canyon (Statistical Area 1-2) 18. Religious Institution Site. This 7.38 acre site located at the northwesterly comer of San Joaquin Hills Road and MacArthur Boulevard is designated for institutional facilities and is designated Government, Educational and Institutional Facilities (GEIF). Maximum development permitted is 34,000 square feet. The approximate 1.10 acre natural canyon feature cannot be altered or developed. tA\ ESTIMATED GROWTH FOR STATISTICAL AREA L2 Residential (in du's) Commercial (in sq. ft.) Existing Gen. Plan Projected Existing Gen. Plan Projected 01/01/1987 Projection Growth 01/01/1987 Projection Growth 1. Area 1 83 83 0 0 0 0 2. Area 2 17 17 0 0 0 0 3. Area 3 12 12 0 0 0 0 4. Area 4 66 66 0 0 0 0 5. Area 5 61 61 0 0 0 0 6. Area 6 61 61 0 0 0 0 7. Area 7 26 26 0 0 0 0 8. Area 8 34 34 0 0 0 0 9. Area 9 66 67 1 0 0 0 10. Area 10 5 21 16 0 0 0 11. Area 11 25 25 0 0 0 0 12. Area 12 117 117 0 0 0 0 13. Area 13 43 43 0 0 0 0 14. Area 14 74 74 0 0 0 0 15. Area 15 0 0 0 1,834 2,300 466 16. Area 16 0 80 80 0 0 0 17. BC Country 1 1 0 51,058 65,000 13,942 18. Religious Institution 0 0 0 0 34,000 34,000 TOTAL 691 788 97 52,892 101,300 48,408 Population 1,368 1,560 192 tA\ City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Resolution No. _ Page 11 of 24 • Exhibit "C" The following use and development regulations will be added to the Big Canyon Planned Community with all other provisions remaining unchanged. "SECTION X. Religious Institutional and Nature Preserve This area is intended to provide a site for religious institutional uses and a nature preserve within the site which is located at the northwest corner of MacArthur Boulevard and San Joaquin Hills Road. The institutional and nature preserve areas are depicted in the attached land use map. A. Permitted Uses 1. Religious institutional area: Subject to first securing a Use Permit from the Planning Commission, a church sanctuary and related accessory buildings and structures including administration buildings, ministry buildings, fellowship buildings, nature center, preschool or day care facilities and parking areas uses. 2. Nature preserve area: Nature center subject to a Use Permit and passive • open space. B. Minimum Lot Size All lots shall be a minimum of 7 acres. C. Building Area Total gross floor area shall not exceed 34,000 square feet. D. Building Height The maximum height for all buildings except the main sanctuary shall be thirty - two (32) feet as measured from the finish floor to the midpoint of a sloping roof, to the top of a parapet wall or to the top of a flat roof. Basements or partial basements are not included in the height measurement. The main sanctuary may exceed thirty -two (32) feet provided a Use Permit is first obtained. E. Setback from Street Structures shall be set back a minimum of one - hundred - twenty (120) feet from the back of the curb existing at both San Joaquin Hills Road and MacArthur Boulevard. This setback shall not apply to garden walls, retaining walls or fences. Parking areas shall be set back a minimum of forty -eight (48) feet and the . parking area setback shall be landscaped. `A.5 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Resolution No. Page 12 of 24 F. Setback from other property lines Structures and parking facilities shall be set back from all other property lines a minimum of ten (10) feet. G. Building Lot Coverage Buildings shall not cover the lot in excess of eleven percent (11 %). Coverage shall include all areas within enclosed interior spaces and shall not include areas under overhangs, eves or open trellis areas. H. Fences and Site Walls Fences and site walls shall be limited to a maximum height of eight (8) feet from finished grade. Fences and site walls are allowed in all setback areas, except that fences and walls within street setback areas shall be limited to three and one -half (3Yz) feet. I. Trellises and Shade Structures • Open trellis, overhangs and shade structures shall be of open beam construction and shall be permitted to attach to buildings or can be • freestanding. These elements may extend within three (3) feet of the side or rear property line. In rear or side yards, the maximum height shall be twelve (12) feet. These areas shall not be considered in calculating lot area coverage; however, the total area of open trellises, overhangs and shade structures shall not exceed 5 percent of the remaining open space of the developed lot. J. Parking Parking shall be not less than that required by the Zoning Code. All required parking shall be provided on site and the layout and design shall be subject to the review and approval of the Traffic Engineer. Parking for the disabled shall be provided in accordance with the California Building Code as adopted by the City of Newport Beach. K. Architectural Features Architectural features, limited to cornices or eaves, may extend two and one - half (2 -1/2) feet into any setback area. • �Ai City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Resolution No. _ Page 13 of 24 • L. Signage A maximum of three (3) monument signs for site identification purposes only may be permitted and the signs may be located within the street setback provided that they do not impede vehicular sight distance. One sign may be located near the intersection of MacArthur Boulevard and San Joaquin Hills Road. One sign may be located near each of the two proposed vehicular access location. On -site directional signs and building identification signs may be permitted within the project site. A sign program shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Director prior to the issuance of a building permit." • E \�5 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Resolution No. Page 14 of 24 Revised Big Canyon Map F t • • • Salo City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Resolution No. Page 15 of 24 • Exhibit "D" CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2003 -002, PLANNED COMMUNITY TEXT AMENDMENT NO. 2003 -001, USE PERMIT NO. 2003 -015, TRAFFIC STUDY NO. 2004 -004 AND PARCEL MAP NO. 2004 -036 1. The project is subject to all applicable City ordinances, policies, and standards, unless specifically waived or modified by the conditions of approval. 2. The development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved site plans, floor plans, and elevations marked as Exhibit No. 5 to Planning Commission Staff Report for PA2003 -085 dated September 23, 2004. 3. This Use Permit may be modified or revoked by the City Council or Planning Commission should they determine that the proposed uses or conditions under which it is being operated or maintained is detrimental to the public health, welfare or materially injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity or if the property is operated or maintained so as to constitute a public nuisance. 4. The applicant is required to obtain all applicable permits from the City Building and • Fire Departments. The construction plans must comply with the most recent, City - adopted version of the California Building Code. 5. Any change in operational characteristics, expansion in area, or other modification to the approved plans, shall require an amendment to this Use Permit or the processing of a new Use Permit. 6. The applicant shall comply with all federal, state, and local laws. Material violation of any of those laws in connection with the use may be cause for revocation of this Use Permit. 7. This approval was based on the particulars of the individual case and does not in and of itself or in combination with other approvals in the vicinity or Citywide constitute a precedent for future approvals or decisions. 8. Use Permit No. 2003 -015 shall expire unless exercised within 24 months from the date of approval as specified in Section 20.91.050 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, unless an extension is otherwise granted. 9. Traffic Study No. 2004 -004 shall expire unless exercised within 24 months from the date of approval pursuant to Section 15.40.035 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. This approval shall be deemed exercised by the issuance of a building • permit to construct the proposed church complex. 1Al City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Resolution No. Page 16 of 24 • 10. Pursuant to the Traffic Phasing Ordinance, construction of all proposed buildings shall be completed no more than 60 months from the date of final approval of Traffic Study No. 2004 -004. 11. Should this site be sold or otherwise come under different ownership or be operated by a different entity than the applicant, any future owners, assignees or operators shall be noted of the conditions of this approval by the current owner or leasing company. 12. The facility shall be designed to meet exiting and fire protection requirements as specified by the Uniform Building Code and shall be subject to review and approval by the Newport Beach Building Department and the Fire Department. 13. The proposed project shall conform to the requirements of the Uniform Building Code, any local amendments to the UBC, and State Disabled Access requirements, unless otherwise approved by the Building Department. 14. All work conducted within the public right -of -way shall be approved under an encroachment permit issued by the Public Works Department. 15. The bridge /driveway between the north and south campus shall be capable of • supporting 72,000 pound total weight of fire apparatus including point design outrigger of 75 psi over a 2 square foot area. 16. The California registered professional engineer seal shown on the civil plan sheets shall bear the name of the professional responsible for said designs. 17. Prior to the final of building permits, per the City of Newport Beach Municipal Code and City Council Policies, new street trees shall be planted along the San Joaquin Hills Road frontage. 18. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the final design of all on -site parking, vehicular circulation and pedestrian circulation shall be subject to the approval of the Traffic Engineer. The location, number as dimensions of the parking spaces shall be in substantial conformance the approved site plans dated March 3, 2003. 19. A minimum of 237 parking spaces shall be provided on -site. Of these, all South Campus Spaces and the 15 spaces directly adjacent to the pre - school shall be provided during the first phase. All parking spaces shall be kept clear of obstructions and made available for the parking of vehicles at all times. • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Resolution No. Page 17 of 24 • 20. The 35 spaces adjacent to the expansion building site shall be installed when determined necessary by the City Traffic Engineer and Planning Director • 21. Prior to the issuance of grading /building permits, Fair Share Traffic Fees shall be paid in accordance with Chapter 15.38 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 22. Prior to the issuance of grading /building permits, transportation corridor fees shall be paid in accordance with the TCA Major Thoroughfare and Bridge Fee Program. 23. The operator of the facility shall be responsible for the control of noise generated by the subject facility. The noise generated by the proposed use shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 10.26 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. The maximum noise shall be limited to no more than depicted below for the specified time periods unless the ambient noise level is higher: 24. All mechanical equipment shall be screened from view of adjacent properties and adjacent public streets within the limits authorized by this permit, and shall be sound attenuated in accordance with Chapter 10.26 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, Community Noise Control. 25. All proposed signs shall be in substantial conformance with the with signs included in the approved set of plans dated March 21, 2003. The final location of the signs shall be reviewed by the City Traffic Engineer and shall conform to City Standard 110 -L to ensure that adequate sight distance is provided. 26. No temporary "sandwich" signs or similar temporary signs shall be permitted, either on -site or off -site, to advertise services provided. 27. Temporary signs shall be prohibited in the public right -of -way unless otherwise approved by the Public Works Department in conjunction with the issuance of an encroachment permit or encroachment agreement. 'A� Between the hours of Between the hours of 7:OOAM and 10:OOPM and I 10:OOPM 7:OOAM Location Interior Exterior Interior I Exterior Residential Property 45dBA 55dBA 40dBA 5OdBA Residential Property located within 100 feet of a commercial 45dBA 60dBA 45dBA 50dBA property Mixed Use Property 45dBA 60dBA 45dBA 5OdBA Commercial Property N/A 65dBA N/A 60dBA 24. All mechanical equipment shall be screened from view of adjacent properties and adjacent public streets within the limits authorized by this permit, and shall be sound attenuated in accordance with Chapter 10.26 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, Community Noise Control. 25. All proposed signs shall be in substantial conformance with the with signs included in the approved set of plans dated March 21, 2003. The final location of the signs shall be reviewed by the City Traffic Engineer and shall conform to City Standard 110 -L to ensure that adequate sight distance is provided. 26. No temporary "sandwich" signs or similar temporary signs shall be permitted, either on -site or off -site, to advertise services provided. 27. Temporary signs shall be prohibited in the public right -of -way unless otherwise approved by the Public Works Department in conjunction with the issuance of an encroachment permit or encroachment agreement. 'A� City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Resolution No. Page 18 of 24 28. A Special Events Permit is required for any event or promotional activity outside • the normal operational characteristics of the approved use, as conditioned, or that would attract large crowds, involve the sale of alcoholic beverages, include any form of on -site media broadcast, or any other activities as specified in the Newport Beach Municipal Code to require such permits. 29. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, Prior to the commencement of construction and before a grading permit is issued; a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan ( SWPPP) shall be prepared and approved by the City of Newport Beach as the local permitting agency in accordance with the requirements of the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). The SWPPP shall include BMPs to eliminate and /or minimize stormwater pollution prior to, and during construction. The SWPPP shall require construction to occur in stages and stabilized prior to disturbing other areas and require the use of temporary diversion dikes and basins to trap sediment from run -off and allow clarification prior to discharge. 30. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall prepare a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) specifically identifying the Best Management Practices (BMP's) that will be used on site to control predictable pollutant runoff. The plan shall identify the types of structural and non - structural measures to be used. The plan shall comply with the Orange County Drainage Area • Management Plan (DAMP). Particular attention should be addressed to the appendix section "Best Management Practices for New Development." The WQMP shall clearly show the locations of structural BMPs, and assignment of long term maintenance responsibilities (which shall also be included in the Maintenance Agreement). The plan shall be prepared to the format shown in "Attachment C" of the DAMP title "Water Quality Management Plan Outline" and be subject to the approval of the City. 31. To the maximum extent practicable, no grading of CSS habitat that is occupied by nesting gnatcatchers will occur during the breeding season (February 15 through July 15). 32. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, or other activities involving significant soil disturbance, all areas of CSS habitat to be avoided under the provisions of the NCCP /HCP, shall be identified with temporary fencing or other markers clearly visible to construction personnel. Additionally, prior to the commencement of grading operations or other activities involving disturbance of CSS, a survey will be conducted to locate gnatcatchers and cactus wrens within 100 feet of the outer extent of projected soil disturbance activities and the locations of any such species shall be clearly marked and identified on the construction /grading plans. A minimum of three surveys will be conducted, at least one week apart, in order to determine the presence or absence of the • l�� City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Resolution No. _ Page 19 of 24 • coastal California gnatcatcher in conformance with the survey protocol issued on August 6, 1997, by the USFWS. These surveys may be conducted at any time during the year; however, surveys conducted between February 15 and August 30 are preferred. 33. A monitoring biologist, acceptable to the USFWS and CDFG shall be on -site during any clearing of CSS. The landowner or relevant public agency will advise the USFWS and CDFG at least seven calendar days, and preferably 14 calendar days, prior to the clearing of any habitat occupied by Identified Species to allow the USFWS and CDFG to work with the monitoring biologist in connection with bird flushing and /or capture activities. 34. Following the completion of initial grading or earthmoving activities, all areas of CSS habitat to be avoided by construction equipment and personnel will be marked with temporary fencing or other appropriate markers clearly visible to construction personnel. No construction access, parking, or storage of equipment of materials will be permitted within the marked areas. 35. Exterior on -site lighting shall be shielded and confined within site boundaries. No direct rays or glare are permitted to shine onto public streets or adjacent sites or • create a public nuisance. "Walpak" type fixtures are not permitted. All exterior lighting fixtures shall have zero cut -off fixtures and light standards for the parking lot shall not exceed 20 feet in height. Light standards for exterior walkways shall not exceed 10 feet in height. Other exterior light sources shall be no higher than 4 feet. 36. Prior to the issuance of building permits, The applicant shall prepare a photometric study in conjunction with a final lighting plan for approval by the Planning Director prior to the issuance of a building permit. The buildings and grounds shall not be excessively illuminated based on the luminance recommendations of the Illuminating Engineering Society of North America, or, based on the opinion of the Planning Director, the illumination creates an unacceptable negative impact on surrounding land uses or environmental resources. The Planning Director may order the dimming of light sources or other remediation upon finding that the site is excessively illuminated. 37. Prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy or final of building permits, the applicant shall schedule an evening inspection by the Code and Water Quality Enforcement Division to confirm control of light and glare specified in Condition Nos. 35 & 36. 38. All trash shall be stored within the building or within dumpsters stored in the trash 191 enclosure (three walls and a gate,) or otherwise screened from view of neighboring properties, except when placed for pick -up by refuse collection 15� City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Resolution No. Page 20 of 24 agencies. The trash dumpsters shall have a top, which shall remain closed at all • times, except when being loaded or while being collected by the refuse collection agency. 39. The applicant shall ensure that the trash dumpsters and /or receptacles are maintained to control odors. This may include the provision of either fully self - contained dumpsters or periodic steam cleaning of the dumpsters, if deemed necessary by the Planning Department. Cleaning and maintenance of trash dumpsters shall be done in compliance with the provisions of Title 14, including all future amendments (including Water Quality related requirements). 40. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the trash enclosure design shall be approved by the Planning Department. The trash enclosure shall be enclosed by three walls, a self closing, self latching gate and have a have a decorative, solid roof for aesthetic and screening purposes. The design of the enclosure shall be integrated with the design of the other on -site buildings and structures. 41. All landscape materials and landscaped areas shall be installed and maintained in accordance with the approved landscape plan. All landscaped areas shall be maintained in a healthy and growing condition and shall receive regular pruning, fertilizing, mowing and trimming. All landscaped areas shall be kept free of weeds and debris. All irrigation systems shall be kept operable, including • adjustments, replacements, repairs, and cleaning as part of regular maintenance. 42. Prior to the issuance of a building permits, the applicant shall submit a landscape and irrigation plan prepared by a licensed landscape architect. These plans shall incorporate drought tolerant plantings and water efficient irrigation practices, and the plans shall be approved by the Planning Department, General Services Department and Public Works Department. All planting areas shall be provided with a permanent underground automatic sprinkler irrigation system of a design suitable for the type and arrangement of the plant materials selected. The irrigation system shall be adjustable based upon either a signal from a satellite or an on -site moisture - sensor. Planting areas adjacent to vehicular activity shall be protected by a continuous concrete curb or similar permanent barrier. Landscaping shall be located so as not to impede vehicular sight distance to the satisfaction of the Traffic Engineer. 43. Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy, the applicant shall schedule an inspection by the Code and Water Quality Enforcement Division to confirm that all landscaping materials and irrigation systems have been was installed in accordance with the approved plans. 44. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall provide written evidence to the Planning Director that a qualified archaeologist has been retained to • �5a City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Resolution No. Page 21 of 24 • observe grading activities and conduct salvage excavation of archaeological resources as necessary. The archeologist shall be present at the pre - grading conference, shall, establish procedures for archaeological resource surveillance, and shall establish, in cooperation with the applicant, procedures for temporarily halting or redirecting work to permit the sampling, identification and evaluation of the artifacts as appropriate. If additional or unexpected archaeological features are discovered, the archaeologist shall report such findings to the applicant and to the Planning Department. If the archeological resources are found to be significant, the archaeological observer shall determine appropriate actions, in cooperation with the applicant, for exploration and /or salvage. These actions, as well as final mitigation and disposition of the resources, shall be subject to the approval of the Planning Director. 45. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall provide written evidence to the Planning Department that a qualified paleontologist has been retained to observe grading activities and salvage fossils as necessary. The paleontologist shall be present at the pre - grading conference, shall establish procedures for paleontological resource surveillance, and shall establish, in cooperation with the applicant, procedures for temporarily halting or redirecting work to permit the sampling, identification and evaluation of the fossils. If major paleontological resources are discovered which require long term baiting or redirecting of • grading, the paleontologist shall report such findings to the applicant and to the Planning Department. The paleontologist shall determine appropriate actions, in cooperation with the applicant, which ensure proper exploration and /or salvage. These actions, as well as final mitigation and disposition of the resources, shall be subject to the approval of the Planning Director. 46. Prior to the issuance of grading /building permits, the applicant shall prepare a construction phasing plan and construction delivery plan that includes routing of large vehicles. The plan shall include a haul route plan for review and approval of the Public Works Department. Said plan shall specify the routes to be traveled, times of travel, total number of trucks, number of trucks per hour, time of operation, and safety /congestion precautions (e.g., signage, flagmen). Large construction vehicles shall not be permitted to travel narrow streets and alleys as determined by the Public Works Department. Traffic control and transportation of equipment and materials shall be conducted in accordance with state and local requirements. 47. Construction vehicles shall not block roadways on any roads adjacent to the project site or any of the roads leading to or from the project site. 48. During construction of the proposed improvements, construction equipment will be properly maintained at an off -site location and includes proper tuning and • 0 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Resolution No. _ Page 22 of 24 timing of engines. Equipment maintenance records and equipment design • specification data sheets shall be kept on -site during construction. 49. During construction of the proposed improvements, all contractors will be advised not to idle construction equipment on site for more than ten minutes. 50. During construction of the proposed improvements, on -site diesel fueled construction equipment will be fueled with aqueous diesel fuel. 51. Prior to the issuance of grading /building permits, the final design of all required off -site right of way improvements shall be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department and Traffic Engineer. These improvement shall include, but are not limited to the following: • Provide a right turn lane at the driveway along San Joaquin Hills Road to separate project traffic from the through traffic flows. • Re- stripe the free right turn lane to provide a 10 -foot wide lane along the curve and install raised pavement markers at 10 -foot intervals or other improvements to reduce right - turning vehicular speeds. • Eliminate the painted crosswalk in the free right hand turn lane or other improvements to reduce right- turning vehicular speeds. • • Install a "15 MPH" sign at the beginning of the curve of the free right hand turn lane in order to reduce vehicular speeds or other improvements to reduce right- turning vehicular speeds. • Provide a minimum 150 -foot westbound right turn pocket along San Joaquin Hills Road at the project driveway. • Provide the maximum length possible right turn pocket along MacArthur Boulevard at the project driveway. The turn pocket shall extend as long as necessary to meet standard traffic engineering requirements as determined by the Transportation /Development Services Manager, but is not required to be so long as to necessitate the relocation of the SCE power pole. • Sight distance at the MacArthur Boulevard access point shall be reviewed with respect to standard Caltrans and City of Newport Beach sight distance standards. 52. The pastoral staff shall distribute to the congregation and visitors maps that depict the following exit route from the San Joaquin Hills Road access point: San Joaquin Hills Road to Santa Rosa Road to Newport Center Drive to San Miguel Drive to MacArthur Boulevard. 53. Prior the issuance of building permits, the project shall be reviewed by the Building Department to verify compliance with the following requirements related to geology and soils: • l5A City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Resolution No. Page 23 of 24 • Project design must comply with the 1997 Uniform Building Code (UBC) seismic design criteria. • Structure setback must comply with either the 1997 Uniform Building Code (UBC) or the Orange County Grading Manual. • Any imported soil for general grading shall have a Expansion Index of less than 60. • Control site drainage. • Design footing embedments to resist the effects of expansive soil. • Maintain a proportionately high dead load component on foundations. • Over - excavate and moisture soils condition below foundations, floor slabs and hardscape. • Use of articulation and reinforcement of concrete slabs and footings. • Use of rigid foundation and floor slabs. 54. A parcel map is required and shall be recorded within 3 years from the date of approval if the tentative parcel map unless an extension is granted by the Planning Director. Said map shall include the necessary easements for pedestrians and public utilities along the San Joaquin Hills Road and MacArthur • Boulevard frontages and for public utilities within the development site. 55. A standard subdivision agreement and accompanying surety shall be provided in order to guarantee satisfactory completion of the public improvements if it is desired to record a tract map or obtain a building permit prior to completion of the public improvements. 56. A final map shall be recorded prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy. That the final map be prepared so that the Bearings relate to the State Plane Coordinate System. The final map shall be prepared on the California coordinate system (NAD83) and that prior to recordation of the final map, the surveyor /engineer preparing the map shall submit to the County Surveyor and to the City of Newport Beach a digital - graphic file of said map in a manner described in Section 7 -9 -330 and 7 -9 -337 of the Orange County Subdivision Code and Orange County Subdivision Manual, Subarticle 18. That prior to recordation of the final map, the surveyor /engineer preparing the map shall tie the boundary of the map into the Horizontal Control System established by the County Surveyor in a manner described in Section s 7 -9 -330 and 7 -9 -337 of the Orange County Subdivision Code and Orange County Subdivision Manual, Subarticle 18. Monuments (one inch iron pipe with tag) shall be set on each lot corner unless otherwise approved by the Subdivision Engineer. Monuments shall be protected in place if installed prior to completion of construction project. '�5 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Resolution No. _ Page 24 of 24 57. All applicable Public Works Department plan check fees and inspection fees shall • be paid prior to recordation of the parcel map. 58. The applicant shall be responsible for the payment of all administrative costs identified by the Planning Department within 30 days of receiving a final notification of costs or prior to the issuance of a Building Permit. 59. Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy, an emergency access road with a rolled curb and surface capable of supporting fire department apparatus shall be provided at or near the location of the proposed MacArthur access point shown on the approved plans. The final design shall be subject to the review and approval by the Fire Department, Public Works Department and Planning Department. (This condition is only applicable in the event that the MacArthur Boulevard Access is not constructed.) 60. The tower /cross is limited to a maximum height of 51 feet above existing grade. 61. The property owner of Parcel 1, as shown on Parcel Map No. 2004 -004, shall be responsible for installing and maintaining landscaping between the existing sound wall an public right of way and any portion of Parcel 1 visible from public right of way. All landscape materials and landscaped areas shall be installed and • maintained in accordance with a landscape plan approved by the Planning Director. All landscaped areas shall be maintained in a healthy and growing condition and shall receive regular pruning, fertilizing, mowing and trimming. All landscaped areas shall be kept free of weeds and debris. All irrigation systems shall be kept operable, including adjustments, replacements, repairs, and cleaning as part of regular maintenance. • I�(D 0 ATTACHMENT E Excerpt of the draft minutes from the September 23 2004 Planning Commission meeting 0 X51 Planning Commission Minutes 09/23/2004 Page 5 of 23 SUBJECT: St. Mark Presbyterian Church (PA2003 -085) ITEM NO. 51 2200 San Joaquin Hills Road PA2003 -085 Proposed General Plan Amendment to change the land use designation from Approved Recreational and Environmental Open Space (REOS) to Government, Educational and Institutional Facilities (GEIF); amend the Big Canyon Planned Community Text to include the project site within it's boundaries, designate the site "Institutional and Nature Preserve" and adopt Planned Community District development regulations; Use Permit to allow the construction of a new church complex with the main sanctuary building to exceed the base 32 foot height limit; Traffic Study pursuant to the Traffic Phasing Ordinance; Tentative Parcel Map to subdivide an existing 10.81 acre parcel into three parcels. The total proposed square footage for all structures is approximately 34,000 square feet. Gregg Ramirez noted two letters received tonight. Staff is also submitting a condition of approval requiring an emergency access road be installed along MacArthur Boulevard if the project proceeds. He noted that the consultant who prepared the Environmental Impact Report may come in late and will be available for questions. In the meantime, staff is available to answer questions. John Benner, member of St. Mark church noted the following: • The church has been in the community for over 40 years and is presently ' located at the corner of Jamboree and East Bluff and has a membership of 423. • On a given Sunday, an average of 220 members attend service and simultaneously run the Sunday School program for youth and children that would have an average of 25 in attendance. • The preschool has been operated for children ages 2 to 5, Monday thru Friday with an enrollment of 68 and an average daily attendance of 48 because some of the children do not go all five days of the week. • The vast majority of the students are from the community as opposed to from our membership. • Additionally, a counseling center is run from our church facility that provides service to the community. Our facilities will be available for community groups to use such as AA, and League of Women Voters, associations, etc. • The property will be developed in an environmentally sensitive manner and we believe that our plans maintain and actually enhance the open space character. A group within our church involved with environmental issues has been involved with the environmentally sensitive projects of this process. We have done a number of environmental issues such as energy audits ' file: //H:\Plancomm \2004 \0923.htm 10/01/2004 Planning Commission Minutes 09/23/2004 Page 6 of 23 converting landscape to xeriscape, etc., and have provided forums for ' environmental education, which is a big part of the church activities. . We look forward to developing this property in an environmentally sensitive way and being a good neighbor in the process. Scott Barnard introduced Shelly Hyndman of Hyndman & Hyndman Architects, who will be explaining the site plan on their PowerPoint presentation: • Project design features - the project site is bound by MacArthur Boulevard, San Joaquin Hills Road and Big Canyon on the northeastern property lines. • Property designs were based on surrounding buildings around the canyon feature and maintain the canyon feature as a primary design element of the property- . The existing grades along San Joaquin and MacArthur are at about 250 feet in elevation. Most of the site will be cut an average 8 to 12 feet down so that the new buildings will be sunk into the property with landscape buffers varying from 50 to 64 feet wide along the perimeters to shield the structures from surrounding views. Richard Katzmaier of Katzmaier, Newall, Curb, landscape architect noted the following: ' Referring to the exhibit, noted that one portion of the site will be 1.67 acres and is intended to go to the Big Canyon Country club and will remain as it is today. . The next section noted is a portion of the canyon that will be retained as a natural habitat space and is about 1.3 acres, which is 15% of the entire 10.81 acres. • The remaining portion of 2.58 acres is the portion that is landscaped with ornamental landscaping with native species. • The three elements, Big Canyon portion, the canyon that will be preserved and the new landscaping within the campus totals 5.58 acres, which is 62% of the entire 10.81 acres. • There is 2.72 acres that is parking plaza and sidewalk with 3/4 of an acre with nine buildings on the campus. • The existing roadway at MacArthur is currently owned in fee by the Irvine Company but is encumbered by easements with the State, City and County for the existing road improvements out there today with one exception. A ' small piece of 1.76 is proposed deceleration /acceleration lanes. • Of the 9.05 acres, 62% of it is landscaping in some form. file: //H:\Plancomm \2004 \0923.htm 10/01 /2004 Planning Commission Minutes 09/23/2004 Page 7 of 23 Shelley Hyndman continued: • The buildings proposed for the property are smaller scale elements being sensitive to the neighborhood residential properties. • The sanctuary is approximately 10,500 square feet. • The fellowship hall is approximately 7,400 square feet. • The administration building is 4,000 square feet. • There are also several preschool buildings clustered into very small elements. • All the buildings have rooflines that are extremely low varying from 15 feet to 28 feet, and the church has low roofs and most of it is side areas with one ridge line at the center that is 45 feet. Mr. Katzmaier added: • There are three zones of landscaping for the proposed project. • There is the perimeter zone along MacArthur and San Joaquin. The landscape is a combination of plant material that has been selected working with The Irvine Company and Edison. There is a master plan for the streetscape along MacArthur that is comprised of evergreen pines and under the power lines the plant material is primarily native and can be maintained easily. Along San Joaquin there is some eucalyptus in an effort to blend what Big Canyon has further up the street. • There is the internal zone that is around the parking and the buildings. Within the interior areas there will be California natives around the buildings, oak and sycamore trees and flowering natives. The reason for the native plantings is to cut down on the fertilizer and water runoff. Having worked with natives a number of years, we can reduce both those elements of water and fertilizer and be better neighbors to downstream runoff, which goes ultimately to Newport Bay. • There is a native canyon area. Within the natural area there is an abundance of coastal sage scrub. There obviously will be construction around the edges and our goal is to reestablish the coastal sage scrub in this area and extend it back to around the sanctuary. There will also be heavy evergreen screening so that as neighbors to Big Canyon, we will be providing screening so that we don't become a neighbor with large buildings next to the golf course. • Referencing the exhibit he then noted the water drainage areas that take the water from the site and enters down into a natural area. • There are berms along the perimeter. Section A by San Joaquin, the cars are screened from parking so it will be quite a bit lower. There will be planting of tab file: //H:\Plancomm\2004 \0923.htm 10/01/2004 Planning Commission Minutes 09/23/2004 Page 8 of 23 evergreen and shrubs. ' Section B at the intersection has a large lawn area as required by The Irvine Company, mirrors presently what is going on at Rogers Garden, Newport Center and the apartments. . Section D at the connector between the two campuses with cars on MacArthur up and the bridge way sloping will have a green wall with plantings. . Looking into the natural area you will see the sanctuary. . Section E in the upper area by the children's facility has a little bit of berm with the use of excess soils from the site and will have native planting. . The campus is small and is intended to be user friendly and a comfortable place. . There is adequate screening and sound walls behind buildings in the children's area so that any activity and noise is contained within that cluster of buildings. . The church encourages people to come in through outreach programs. There is a nature facility with descriptive information around the site and a small amphitheater at the edge of the natural area that is part of the church programs. Kelly Nolan, of Nolan Consulting, civil engineer of the project, noted he has been involved with the grading, utilities and drainage design: • The project is part of the Big Canyon Watershed. • The main stream for Big Canyon actually runs to the north of the property. • Our site has a canyon that is a tributary to the main stream and our project plus the off site flow is coming through the project about 5% of what is the main stream in terms of flow comparisons. Our site itself is about 1% of the total confluence. • We have prepared a Water Quality Management Plan in accordance with the City's requirements and as a result we intend to implement three types of Best Management Practices (BMP). • The first source control BMP is educating the owners and tenants about what their responsibilities are with this BMP implementation. The source control amounts to custodianship of the site or maintenance of the site including litter control, maintaining trash receptacles, maintaining the infrastructure. file: //H:\Plancomm\2004 \0923.htm 10/01/2004 Planning Commission Minutes 09/23/2004 Page 9 of 23 • The second type is the site design BMP. That includes the use of landscape areas around the site and preserving natural areas such as the canyon and controlling runoff with detention basins and the use of slope erosion control • measures such as where we discharge into the canyon. • The third type is the treatment control BMP. We are utilizing two types, landscape swales in combination with infiltration trenches, two in the parking lot and one in the campus. The second type of treatment control is the catch basin inserts at three locations. Once the runoff has made its way down to the low points and through the landscape swales it will eventually get to the catch basins inserts where during the low flow events water is filtered through the catch basin system and goes out through the canyon. He discussed a cut away of the landscape swale. • The catch basin with the percolation filter inside would be sized to handle the appropriate design flow so that it would enter the unit before it would fill out and over top in a large storm event. • It then goes down into a solid pipe down into the canyon where it would discharge through the slope protection system. • Through the landscaping scheme the rock slope protection at the outlet point would be augmented by native materials to fit in with the existing canyon features. Barnard for • Scott speaking the applicant, continued the presentation: . St. Mark has applied to get a LEED Certification for the project and has been registered. The certification comes from different categories that are scored such as sustainable site planning, water quality, energy efficiency, materials and uses of resources and air quality. Gregg Ramirez gave a briefing on the series of application: • The application includes a request for a General Plan Amendment to change the land use designation from Recreational and Environmental Open Space to Government, Educational and Institutional Facilities; • A Planned Community Amendment to identify the subject parcel as part of Big Canyon Planned Community, the site is currently zoned PC but there are no PC regulations that govern the site, that will include development regulations that will specify how many square feet are allowed on the project site in this case it will be 34,000 with the typical development regulations found in the Zoning Code; • A Use Permit to obtain approval for the development and operation of a religious institution which include all the buildings and uses on site as covered within the applicant's previous presentation; there is a Use Permit for the • actual church buildings or portions of them to exceed the height limit that is � b a-- file: //H:\Plancomm\2004 \0923.htm 10/01/2004 Planning Commission Minutes 09/23/2004 Page 10 of 23 governed under the Exceptions to Height Limits Chapter in the Zoning Code ' that specifically allows religious institutions to apply for a use permit to exceed the height. That is limited to the buildings that are actually used for religious services. . A Parcel Map is a request for the subdivision of the property which is a little over ten acres and includes three parcels. One of which is existing MacArthur Boulevard right of way, one of which is the site that will be transferred over to the Big Canyon Country Club and become part of the golf course, and the largest site (7.3 acres) is proposed for the church development; . A Traffic Study is required pursuant to the Traffic Phasing Ordinance; . And, a review pursuant to CEQA. Commissioner McDaniel noted his concern regarding the run off. There are three areas for collection. It will come off the hardscape of the property and instead of flowing down the canyon, it will go to these three places, through the filters and then go into a pipe that will take it to the canyon. I am concerned about what happens at the end of the pipe. What is happening to those three collector pipes that are now concentrating the water flow.? How will that water be accommodated? Mr. Nolan answered that at the collection points there is a low flow treatment that aters the water before it goes into the pipes below. In a larger storm, there are ree detention basins on site. The runoff when it reaches its peak in a developed condition, the discharge into the canyon does not exceed the existing condition. The velocities are also attenuated by the use of energy dissipaters such as rocks at the discharge points. Riprap will also be used to dissipate the energy of the flow of the water into the canyon. Commissioner McDaniel questioned that you are comfortable that there will be no damage to the canyon during a heavy storm down stream caused by runoff from this project? He was answered yes. Referring to the presentation, Mr. Nolan pointed out the discharge points with impact basins. The design of the rocks is for removing the energy of water flow. The rate of flow discharging from the canyon is no greater than the existing use. That is what the detention basins are doing, they are holding it back and letting it out at a rate that does not exceed the existing rate. There is an increase due to the paved areas but that is retained on site and then over a period of time is drained through the piping. Chairperson Tucker asked how much coastal sage scrub from what is out there today is going to be removed in total when the project is completed. r. Katzmaier answered there is some being removed around the sanctuary and er to the left there is a canyon that is presently existing, part of which gets filled Some of that coastal sage is going to be removed but what we are going to do file : //H:\Plancomm\2004 \0923.htm 10/01/2004 Planning Commission Minutes 09/23/2004 Page I I of 23 on the left side of the canyon, we are replanting where coastal sage scrub does not presently exist and are adding it back in. In our calculations we feel we are in balance by the additional materials. There is some areas that are denuded right now that will be replanted as well. Chairperson Tucker noted that it would be helpful if between now and the time this matter ends up at the City Council you would file a letter with the City just for the record that shows what the net affect of the project will be after the project is completed. Kevin Shannon, Project Manager of Michael Brandman Associates noted that in round numbers the amount of coastal sage scrub is about 1.96 acres currently and after removal will be about 1.38 acres. There will be a transition top of the slope and blending with existing coastal sage scrub. Chairperson Tucker asked about a program or at least an application for a grant for a water quality improvement down where the Big Canyon Creek ends up at Newport Bay. Is this additional water that is going downstream have an additional impact on that plan, or does that plan account for the additional water? I see this mentioned in the City Manager's newsletter about every six months or so. He was told this is a Dave Kiff question. Continuing, he asked about the maintenance program for the filters in the catch basins. Is that something that will be part of your program? Mr. Katzmaier answered yes it is the rear section of the Water Quality Management Program. I believe the replacement period is annually and the recommendation is that a contract with the manufacturer for this program be implemented between the church and the manufacturer. Ms. Temple added that if lack of maintenance involved in any discharge beyond what is permitted, then our Code and Water Quality Enforcement people would step in and commence enforcement. Chairperson Tucker noted that on the plans there were alternative heights for where the cross is going to be located. One was 51 feet and one was 56 feet, what is the applicant asking for? Shell Hyndman answered that the applicant is asking for flexibility on that point and would like the opportunity to developing that tower height either way. That tower occupies about a 13 by 13 footprint on the property. At Commission inquiry, she answered that the applicant does not have a problem if the Commission designates the height at 51 feet. Chairperson Tucker noted that on the MacArthur entry and exit point, he is concerned about the safety. if a mistake is made by a driver the likelihood of a high speed accident and therefore a serious injury or death is much greater in my • opinion than on the San Joaquin Hills Road side, where I think the speeds would be typically less. I know staff is going to look at the site distance issues, in the EIR ,ba file: //H:\Plancomm\2004 \0923.htm 10/01/2004 Planning Commission Minutes 09/23/2004 Page 12 of 23 and traffic studies say the project works without the MacArthur entry and exit point. ,Could staff give us an overview of this situation. tr. Rich Edmonston noted that staff and the traffic consultant looked at that location. Is it an ideal set up, no, but it is reasonable. If all the access is concentrated on San Joaquin Hills Road then there is just that much more of a concentration at that point versus having two access points allow traffic coming south on MacArthur to enter the site without having to make that right onto San Joaquin and then decelerate then turn directly in to the property. On balance we looked at distancing the driveway from the intersection, and we felt that it was doable. There is no guarantee, but we felt it was reasonable. Chairperson Tucker asked if it was something where we could see operationally where the one point works on San Joaquin and then have the applicant come back if the applicant and staff feel it is not an optimal situation and need to try the MacArthur entry and exit point. Is it something where we could defer it and see if it is going to be needed? Mr. Edmonston answered that from the City's perspective, we could. If that is not to be a full access, we want some sort of emergency access for the fire department in that area anyway. The difference would be if the applicant is willing to spend the money to put in the deceleration lane and all the rest of the features associated with a full driveway that would be required for emergency access. We do anticipate one way or another that there will be some access although it would be gated if it as just for fire access. Chairperson Tucker then noted that dropping off children for pre - school, every parent drives and parks their cars and then walk the children in. There are fifteen parking spaces and that doesn't seem to be near enough when you have a maximum potential for 112 students. I am concerned where those cars are going to go when they all arrive at five minutes to nine to drop the kids off. I see a stacking problem. Mr. Edmonston answered that is correct. One of the things discussed, is there is a parking lot not terribly distant from that school entrance. We have noted that around the City, private schools such as this have a great deal more control over their parents than the public schools do because they have the threat of throwing the family out of the school. We tend to have a much greater problems with public schools than with private schools. Commissioner Toerge noted that on the MacArthur access point for the acceleration lane that goes southbound, the design shows that it forces the cars to merge into the path of travel of the traffic before they are allowed to veer right to make a right onto San Joaquin Hills Rd. Is there any reason why that acceleration lane can't just line up with the right hand turn lane onto San Joaquin Hills Rd.? Are there any studies that suggest a longer deceleration lane might be safer? 0 r. Edmonston answered that there is no reason it can't, again it was felt that if it as made longer people might stay in there longer and not realize until the last Jb� file: //H: \Plancomm\2004 \0923.htm 10/01/2004 Planning Commission Minutes 09/23/2004 Page 13 of 23 minute they were in a lane that is going to make a right turn and that might not be where they wanted to go. They could be blended together. There are some issues with the large Edison power pole line and that if you try to extend the roadway you , would run into some problems with the pole line falls in relation to the curb on MacArthur. Commission Toerge asked why there is not an acceleration lane on the San Joaquin exit? If the MacArthur exit is eliminated then all of the traffic will be leaving that location and it seems you would want to have an acceleration lane on the San Joaquin Hills exit. Is the project going to be phased and if so, what is the phasing plan on the building and parking lot constructions? Gregg Ramirez answered that basically the entire project will be constructed in the first phase except for the fourth pre - school building, the expansion building and the parking lot that is adjacent to the expansion building. There is proposed condition #20 relating to the number of parking spaces. There are approximately 200 spaces that will be installed with phase one that include the 15 spaces in front of the pre- school. That condition would give the Planning Director the authority to require the additional 37 spaces in front of the expansion building to be installed at any time if there is a parking demand problem. We could re -word a condition or re -craft a condition along the lines of if there is a problem with circulation with respect to the pick up and drop off of the pre - school students that we can require those 37 parking spaces be installed sooner. Commissioner Toerge noted he would be in favor of the expansion building parking be built in the first phase due to the narrow roadway and safety concerns. ' Chairperson Tucker then noted that tonight we are going to receive testimony from anybody who wants to talk about this item. However, if you are going to talk about the Environmental Impact Report then you will need to talk in terms of technical comments on a technical document. As I have indicated earlier the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines prohibit us from considering arguments, speculations, unsubstantiated opinion or narrative, or evidence that is clearly inaccurate or erroneous or evidence that is not credible. Substantial evidence shall include facts, reasonable assumptions predicated upon facts or expert opinions supported by facts. We have an Environmental Impact Report that we invite comments on and we have received a lot of very good written comments and staff has responded to those comments. You are also invited to make any other comments you would like to make on the project on its appropriateness of the project on the conversion of recreational environmental open space to a church and pre - school use. Public comment was opened. Craig Borstein, co -owner of the apartment complex property directly northwest of this property noted the following: . They have no fundamental objection to the church occupying the land. ' }IDD file: //H:\Plancomm\2004 \0923.htm 10/01/2004 Planning Commission Minutes 09/23/2004 . However, they are very concerned with the location of the buildings on the property related to their property line and the lack of mitigation measures associated with the location of the sanctuary and the outdoor play area. . The main sanctuary has an outdoor play area next to it that is 55 feet from the nearest residential structure. . The main sanctuary is planned at 40 feet in height and because the subject property is at a higher elevation than our property, the five foot setback that is being proposed is all slope. Therefore, it is almost impossible to shield the 40 foot structure with the slope and a five foot setback. . The outdoor play area is right next to the sanctuary that is located 5 feet from the property line. There will be too much noise. . In November of 2003 he had written a letter to the Planning Department indicating these concerns and suggested solutions and has spoken with John Brenner. . They have looked at and reviewed the EIR where it became obvious that their concerns were not addressed. . We had suggested in our letter that this outdoor play area have a setback of 15 feet instead of 5 feet so that mature landscaping could be placed to shield the structure and outdoor play area from the residential property. . The driveway on San Joaquin Hills Road is right on the property line and we suggest moving it back ten feet towards MacArthur. . It is a nine acre property, seven acres of the property is useable and the structures are 35,000 square feet. In other words, W of the property is being used for structures. It seems a reasonable solution to set it back 15 feet to be a good neighbor and to shield the noise impacts and the potential pollution impacts. Mr. Bernie Rome, resident of Newport Beach, noted the following: . Traffic is a problem that has yet to be resolved. There are a lot of cars that come into Newport Center. . Is it possible to come south down MacArthur Boulevard passing San Joaquin Hill Road and make another entry into Newport Center, say at the bus stop. That would alleviate a lot of the weaving on San Joaquin Hill Road as we have had a number of accidents. . This Commission and Council must recognize the traffic problems in this vicinity, including those from special events at Fashion Island. . The Church will be hosting other events such as the AA, etc. and that traffic is Page 14 of 23 W1 file: //H: \Plancomm\2004 \0923.htm 10/01/2004 Planning Commission Minutes 09/23/2004 Page 15 of 23 not counted. . There is a small piece of land that is 'no -man' land and I would urge that the applicant or the seller of the land (The Irvine Company) be required to landscape that piece of land. Public comment was closed. Commissioner Toerge, referring to page 2.2, stated one of the project design features PDF5 suggests the use of deep earth tones and building colors that compliment and blend in with the natural color tones of the canyon. Yet, it appears from the renderings on the screen and in the packet that the buildings are white. That doesn't seem to be consistent or in keeping with PDF5. Mr. Scott Barnard answered that the color board is the accurate depiction of the types of colors to be used. The artists rendering of white is wrong. Commissioner Cole noted that a view corridor was referenced in the EIR from MacArthur Boulevard to the canyon feature. Is there a particular view corridor as referenced in PDF7 in the EIR? Mr. Katzmaier answered by pulling up the presentation depicting the view corridor between MacArthur and the access road. The Irvine Company wanted screening of the sanctuary; however, there will still be a small view. • Chairperson Tucker then reviewed the letter presented by Dr. Vandersloot and noted the objections and the mitigation measures in place, the Bonita Canyon Sports Park in the surrounding area, topography of the site and the amount of parkland along MacArthur Boulevard. Ms. Clauson noted that this property isn't currently recreation and open space. It is currently undeveloped privately owned property that is zoned for recreation and open space. Chairperson Tucker then noted that the response to comments states that the City asked for a noise study be prepared and an analysis was done that determined that the noise from the project would not exceed the noise levels that are allowed. It complies with the notice requirements. Moving the project ten feet away and planting mature materials, yes there will be a slope, but I am not sure what moving an extra ten feet in will accomplish. Certainly on moving the access point ten feet further to the east, it may be good for the apartment project, but I don't think it is good for traffic, especially given the location. Mr. Rome's comments on how the City does its traffic study, does the trip generation rates and the surrounding land uses include special events to which he refers? Mr. Edmonston answered that special events go through their own process. Our traffic studies compare typical day traffic, morning and evening peak periods with and without the project. There is no specific criteria for evaluating weekend traffic • which is when most of the special events occur. On large special events, the 1b file: //H:\Plancomm\2004 \0923.htm 10/01/2004 Planning Commission Minutes 09/23/2004 Page 16 of 23 applicant is required to pay for all types of traffic controls and overtime police IFfficers, etc. to help ensure the event is carried off safely. Those requirements end to off site locations as well. Continuing, Chairperson Tucker noted that as far as the landscape strip, it is not before us today and is not part of this project area. We do not have the authority and the landscaping of that 'no mans' land is not tied to this project. I agree it should be dealt with but this is beyond the plan. Ms. Temple noted that on page A1.4B there is a line that depicts a retaining wall. If the area in question commences immediately north to the retaining wall then at least a portion of or perhaps all of that area is part of the parcel map that would go to the Big Canyon Country Club. If that is the case, as property owner they would obviously take on all the responsibilities and rights of the property and would perhaps improve that area with landscaping. However, I do believe that it would very unconventional to place a landscaping requirement on a Parcel Map. It is a parcel for transfer. Chairperson Tucker noted that we don't seem to have all the facts and indicated Mr. Rome could talk to the City Council about this matter when this is heard. Ms. Temple added that we can provide that information and have it available for the Council if you act tonight, or for the Commission at the next meeting. commissioner Toerge noted he sees two issues: . The landscape in the area north of the parcel being conveyed to St. Mark there appears to be landscape between the street and the road that is going to Big Canyon. Is that currently landscaped and maintained now? If it is not, I would like to include that it should be and done by either Big Canyon or the Parcel Map might be adjusted so that the property is in St. Mark property and they would do it. Ms. Temple noted that there was a many party agreement associated with the construction of the retaining /sound wall that was a requirement of the widening of MacArthur Boulevard. We are not sure who the obligated party is, but one of them is. Commissioner Selich noted that it would be appropriate as part of this project to require a landscape plan for the area between the wall and the street and make sure it is maintained in the future either by the church or the country club or whoever ends up with the property. As far as the 'no man' land off site, there is nothing we can do about that. Commissioner Cole asked about the no project alternative allowed development alternative that wasn't really addressed in the staff report and summary. I am i ssuming it was rejected because it did not meet the project objectives. s. Temple answered that the California Environmental Quality Act does require us file : //H: \Plancomm\2004 \0923.htm 10/01/2004 Planning Commission Minutes 09/23/2004 Page 17 of 23 to look at no project and no development alternatives. We did provide one alternative which would be development compatible with the existing General Plan • Land Use designation. One of the points of evaluation for a higher level of consideration of one of the alternatives is that it meets the project objectives, and obviously that did not meet the objective of the project applicant because they would not be able to construct the church. Despite that and what the Environmental Impact Report says what we have before us is a General Plan Amendment within which the City has the full discretion to approve or deny. If the City, for whatever reason, thinks this should not be changed to Governmental, Educational and Institutional Facilities designation and consistent zoning then you have the right to deny it. Mr. Kevin Shannon of Michael Brandman Associates added that in addition to what could be proposed for Recreation Facilities, there is no project application or proponent associated with that. Chairperson Tucker noted that comment about the traffic analysis not covering a built out condition, in the response to comments and traffic study it is clear that the build out analysis accumulative long term analysis was done. Under the City's traffic ordinances typical traffic methodology, all these studies are done based upon a level of service analysis that allows for a certain level of congestion as acceptable. Our traffic studies are done in great detail because we have a Traffic Phasing Ordinance so they really are scrutinized. While the addition of traffic in a.m. and p.m. peak changes the traffic situation where this project is located, it doesn't change it to the extent based upon the technical analysis that we have that • causes it to go beyond what is acceptable. It may not be desirable by some people but there is going to be some level of congestion that is allowed. Continuing he noted we had another letter opposing the project stating the project was not wanted by the people. There were only two people from Big Canyon who wrote letters. Canyon Hills Community Association wrote a letter that said while it had some concerns they stated that they are not opposed to the church, school use. We have had church projects that filled this room and the foyer and down the steps, continuing through several meetings. This project is not nearly like those projects. Continuing, the next phase in the environmental review is the decision if we have heard anything tonight that would lead us to believe the EIR needs to be modified in any substantial way and recirculated. No one on the Commission felt this was necessary. He noted that the issues have been addressed in the EIR and that there have been sophisticated comments on the EIR. The primary purpose of the EIR is to make sure the decision makers understand the nature of the project so that when they make the decision they actually understand what the consequences are to the environment of the project. In this case it is a relatively simple project and easy to understand what will happen if the is project were to be developed. There is no reason to re- circulate the EIR. Commissioner Selich noted: I • Ob file: //H:\Plancomm\2004 \0923.htm 10/01/2004 Planning Commission Minutes 09/23/2004 Page 18 of 23 • On the MacArthur acceleration /deceleration lane in the entrance, in the total ' evaluation of the project, it makes more sense to have two means of ingress and egress to this project. I support the solution that has been presented and I would not support trying to merge the acceleration lane out of the project into the deceleration lane going to San Joaquin Hills Road. • I agree with the concern of the parking and would be amenable to requiring that some of the parking in front of the expansion building be provided as part of the pre - school so there is sufficient parking. I don't believe that you will find people parking on the other side of the canyon area and walking back to the pre - school. Perhaps going in and doing a portion of the parking to provide overflow parking for the pre - school is warranted. Commissioner Toerge noted: • Looking at the Site plan All AB it appears the power pole is at least 60 to 80 feet north of the start of the current deceleration lane. • My suggestion is to extend the deceleration lane on MacArthur Boulevard to 200 feet or more in length as feasible with the limitation of the power pole. • Elimination of the requirement that the accelerating cars out of MacArthur have to flow into the traffic before they turn right. • There should be some form of acceleration lane out of San Joaquin Hills exit as it makes no sense why there isn't. You will have a lot of cars pouring out of that exit. • The tower feature of the sanctuary should be held at 51 feet. • I agree that maybe half or more of the parking for the expansion building be included in the initial phase to accommodate the pre - school. • Some requirement be included in the conditions to clear up this issue of landscape north of the parcel being conveyed to the Church and that area be landscaped and someone be made responsible for it. Chairperson reiterated: • The extension to the extent that it is feasible; • have that lane be basically continued as an acceleration lane out onto MacArthur that doesn't have to get back into the third lane of MacArthur and then cut back over to a right turn on to San Joaquin Hills Road, • you want an acceleration lane on the San Joaquin Hills Rd exit. 'r. Edmonston noted that: file: //H: \Plancomm \2004 \0923.htm 10/01/2004 Planning Commission Minutes 09/23/2004 Page 19 of 23 • The deceleration lane on MacArthur, we have always been concerned that we wanted the driveway as far away from the intersection as we could and to condition a developer with acquiring a right of way from another owner is • something we generally try to avoid as it puts them in an uncertain position. • That would also apply to the acceleration lane on San Joaquin Hills Road but in addition there are other unsignalized accesses to San Joaquin Hills road, particularly out of the Newport Center side that have greater traffic using them that do not have acceleration lanes. As far as I am aware we don't typically put in acceleration lanes based upon a particular situation. Here the concern was for providing the one on MacArthur as you come out of the driveway and try to get up to speed because there already is a right turn only lane and that is a different conflict you would have on San Joaquin Hills Rd where there is a straight through lane. • As far as the continuation of the acceleration lane on MacArthur to tie into the right turn lane, I would not be opposed to that. The proposed one is better, but either is acceptable. Commissioner Toerge then discussed the possibility of changing the property line to accommodate a longer lane; acquisition of right of way, constraints and safety. Chairperson Tucker noted he did not see the need to have an acceleration lane on the San Joaquin Hills Road side, especially with two access points. The wall is important to the community and to the Big Canyon Country Club, so it has to stay there. For safety purposes, if the deceleration lane on MacArthur Boulevard was • extended, I agree that we can put a condition on the St. Mark project, as it is to accommodate St. Mark and they should pay for it. The issue with the lengthening of the fourth lane if it is okay with the engineering department that is okay with me. If it turns out to be a problem, the City can modify that. At Commission inquiry, Mr. Edmonston noted that the City has few acceleration lanes from private property like this. Following debates with our consultants the decision was that it would help people with the design that is shown to accelerate and get up to some speed before they had to start moving over into southbound Macarthur through traffic. We don't have any adopted design criteria for acceleration and deceleration lanes. and we don't have very many of them but usually longer is better. Discussion continued on possibility, length of lane, power pole replacement costs, etc. Motion was made by Commissioner Toerge to recommend approval of the General Plan Amendment No. 2003 -002, Planned Community Text Amendment No. 2003 -001, Use Permit No. 2003 -015, Traffic Study No. 2004 -004, Parcel Map No. 2004 -036 and certification the Environmental Impact Report to the City Council with the following modifications to the conditions listed in the draft resolution: • . Extend the deceleration lane on MacArthur leading into the secondary access �Ia- file : //H:\Plancomm\2004 \0923.htm 10/01/2004 Planning Commission Minutes 09/23/2004 driveway as long as feasible without the necessity to move or modify the large Edison power poles. . Extend the acceleration lane to merge in a linear fashion with the deceleration lane for the right hand turn from southbound MacArthur to westbound San Joaquin Hills Road. . The sanctuary tower height is limited to 51 feet. . That a minimum of one half or more of the parking, if required by the Public Works Department, adjacent to the expansion building be built with the initial phase of the development. . That there is some form of surety that the property between the sound wall and MacArthur be continuously landscaped. Ms. Wood noted that when the sound wall was built there are a number of parties involved in the funding and construction and the installation of the landscaping. I believe that as part of that project responsibilities were assigned. I am concerned that if we put a condition on this project it might be in conflict with some other agreements that were reached when the wall was installed. Commissioner Selich noted this is one parcel that is now being split so the Commission has the ability to place a condition on this project and the parties to tat agreement can figure out how to deal with it. If it becomes impossible to element, the applicant can always come back and seek an amendment to the condition. Ms. Clauson noted another option is that more information may come up between now and the time this goes to City Council we can make some recommendations to the City Council. Commissioner Toerge agreed to this recommendation. Commissioner Selich noted he does not agree with the deceleration /acceleration lane recommended on MacArthur as it is not necessary. Following a brief discussion Commissioner Toerge modified his motion to eliminate the acceleration /deceleration lane merger for the right hand turn from sib MacArthur to w/b San Joaquin Hills Road. He also included the proposed added condition 59, 'Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy, an emergency access road with a rolled curb and surface capable of supporting fire department apparatus shall be provided at or near the location of the proposed MacArthur access point shown on the approved plans. the final design shall be subject to the review and approval by the Fire department, Public Works Department t and Planning Department. (This condition is only applicable in the event that the 1VIacArthur Boulevard Access is not constructed.)' file: //H:\Plancomm \2004 \0923.htm Page 20 of 23 X13 10/01/2004 Planning Commission Minutes 09/23/2004 Page 21 of 23 Ayes: Cole, Toerge, Tucker, Selich and McDaniel Noes: None Absent: Eaton Abstain: None St. Andrews Presbyterian Church Expansion (PA2002 -265) ITEM NO.6 600 St. Andrews Road I PA2002 -265 Request r a ener Gal Plan Amendment, Zone Change and Use Permit for the Continue to replaceme and construction of additional buildings and a below grade parking 10/21/2004 garage. The eneral Plan Amendment involves an increase to the maximum allowable buildi \ting ith no change to the existing land use designation. the Zone Change ge the zoning district from R -2 & R -1 to GEIF to be consistent with General Plan, Land Use element Designation. The Use permit involves tion of existing buildings, replacement of the existing fellowship hall a m building and the construction of a new multi - purpose gymnasium and te . The Use Permit also considers setting the maximum allowable buildif 40 et of the two proposed buildings. Ms. Temple noted that applicant s requested that this item be continued to October 21, 2004. Motion was made by Chairperson Tucke o continue this item to October 21, • 2004. Ayes: Eaton, Cole, Toerge, Tucker, Selich, cDanieI and Daigle Noes: None Absent: None Abstain: None ADDITIONAL BUSINESS: \ I ADDITIONAL BUSINESS ADDITIONAL BUSINESS: a. City Council Follow -up - Ms. Temple noted the following items: Revisions to Appeal and Call for Review Procedures Amendment approved Newly revised Zoning Amendment for Group Living Uses was reintroduced and will receive its second reading next Tuesday (9/28/04). Loss of Planning Commissioner Daigle to City Council - Appointment of the committee to consider applications will be made, and the application period will run through mid - October I-A file: //H:\Plancomm\2004 \0923.htm 10/01/2004 0 ATTACHMENT F Planning Commission Staff Report 0 E 1�� CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH • PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Agenda Item No. September 23, 2004 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Planning Department Gregg B. Ramirez, Associate Planner (949) 644 -3230, gram irez (a-)city.newport- beach. ca. us SUBJECT: St. Mark Presbyterian Church (PA2003 -085) General Plan Amendment No. 2003 -002, Planned Community Text Amendment No. 2003 -001, Use Permit No. 2003 -015, Traffic Study No. 2004 -004, Parcel Map No. 2004 -036 2200 San Joaquin Hills Road APPLICANT: St. Mark Presbyterian Church INTRODUCTION The applicant requests approval of a General Plan amendment, planned community text • amendment, use permit, tentative parcel map and traffic study for the construction of a new church complex. The subject property is a 10.81 acre parcel located northwesterly of the intersection of MacArthur Boulevard and San Joaquin Hills Road. The proposed church complex consists of a sanctuary, fellowship hall, administration building, counseling center, preschool buildings, nature center plaza and future expansion building, totaling approximately 34,000 square feet, and related site improvements including grading, parking lots, site lighting, landscaping and utility connections. The proposed plans and Draft Environmental Impact Report indicate that the project will be divided into two phases with the future expansion building, one of the preschool classrooms and possibly the MacArthur access to be constructed an unspecified future date. However, the project was analyzed in it's entirety as the applicant has recently indicated that construction of the various structures may differ from the phasing outlined. The proposed parcel map will divide the subject property into three areas. First, a 7.38 acre parcel will be devoted for the proposed church complex. Second, a 1.67 acre parcel will be incorporated in the Big Canyon Country Club and third, al.76 acre portion within the MacArthur Boulevard will be formally dedicated to the City as right of way. • • 0 • St. Mark Presbyterian Church September 23, 2004 Page 2 Vicinity Map 2200San Joaquin Hills Road (PA2003 -085 Current Development: Vacant To the north: Big Canyon golf course & residential uses To the east/southeast: Residential uses and park land across MacArthur Boulevard To the west/southwest: Commercial uses including Newport Center and the OCTA trans ortation center To the south: Commercial use (Rodgers Gardens 1l�1 St. Mark Presbyterian Church September 23, 2004 Page 3 • The project requires approval of a General Plan Amendment to change the land use designation of the 7.38 acre church site from Recreational and Environmental Open Space to Government, Educational and Institutional Facilities and allow 34,000 square feet of entitlement. The application also requires approval of a Planned Community Text Amendment (Big Canyon PC) to identify the subject parcel within the PC text and provide specific development regulations for the church site. The portion of the site to be deeded from the Irvine Company to the Big Canyon Country Club will retain the REOS General Plan land use designation and will be incorporated into the Big Canyon Planned Community as a part of the "Golf Course' Approval of a Use Permit is requested for the development and operation of the church and related facilities. The Use Permit also includes consideration of the church sanctuary to exceed the 32 foot height limit. The applicant proposes a building height of 40 feet above existing grade (46 feet above finished floor) at the highest point for the main church sanctuary. Additionally, approval is sought to allow a 256 square foot tower feature adjoining the main sanctuary to exceed the 32 foot height limit. The applicant has proposed two heights for the tower. The first is a 46 foot high tower (above existing grade) topped with a 5 foot bronze metal cross for a overall height of 51 feet above existing grade (59 feet above finished floor). The second option is a 51 foot high tower topped with the 5 foot bronze metal cross for an overall height of 56 feet above existing grade (64 feet above • finished floor). Church related structures may exceed the 32 foot height limit upon approval of a use permit pursuant to Section 20.65.070(G) of the Zoning Code. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the General Plan Amendment No. 2003 -002, Planned Community Text Amendment No. 2003 -001, Use Permit No. 2003 -015, Traffic Study No. 2004 -004, Parcel Map No. 2004 -036 and the Final Environmental Impact Report to the City Council by adopting the attached draft resolution (Exhibit No. 1). PROJECT DESCRIPTION Site Description The 7.38 acre parcel proposed for church development is naturally divided by a small canyon /waterway feature into what will be referred to as the north campus and south campus. The canyon feature is approximately 1.10 acres in area and the applicant has proposed that should the project be approved, the canyon feature will be retained in its existing natural condition. The topography of the areas proposed for the north and south campus is relatively flat gently sloping towards the northerly property line. Vegetation on site consists of a mixture of coastal sage scrub, non - native grassland, southern riparian scrub and ornamental woodland. A large portion of the site, approximately 4.37 acres, • 11� St. Mark Presbyterian Church September 23, 2004 Page 4 • has been identified as "disturbed areas" due to lack of vegetative cover. No permanent development exists on site and the only known use of the site is as a Christmas tree sales lot during the holiday season. Church Background St Mark church is currently located at 2100 Mar Vista Drive in Newport Beach and has been there for approximately 40 years. The applicant desires to obtain approval to re- locate their church to the subject property in order to provide adequate facilities to accommodate church growth at location near to their existing church. Proposed Construction As previously mentioned, the development will be divided in a north and south campus on both sides if the natural canyon that will be preserved. The grade over a majority of the south campus will be lowered approximately 8 -12 feet below the natural /existing grade while the north campus grade is proposed to remain relatively the same as the natural /existing grade. A 50 foot landscape buffer is provided between the San Joaquin Hills Road right of way and the proposed parking lot. A 49 — 67 foot landscape buffer is provided between MacArthur Boulevard and the proposed parking lot and road • connecting the north and south campus. Detailed sections of the landscape buffer are provided on sheet L2 of the proposed plans. The following table outlines the proposed development. St. Mark Development Summary South Campus Square Footage Building Height* Church Sanctuary 10,573 square feet Above FF: 46 feet Above NG: 40 feet Tower /Cross None Option 1 Above FF: 59 feet Above NG: 51 feet Option 2 Above FF: 64 feet Above: NG: 56 feet Fellowship Hall 7,413 square feet Above FF: 28 feet Above NG: 19 feet Administrative Building 4,666 square feet Above FF: 28 feet Above NG: 19 feet South Campus Total 22,652 square feet Natural grade building height is taken from lowest grade jj St. Mark Presbyterian Church September 23, 2004 Page 5 • North Campus Square Footage Building Height* Preschool Buildings (4 total) 4 @ 1,300 square feet 5,200 square feet total Above FF: 15 feet Above NG: 14 -15 feet Preschool Administration 832 square feet Expansion Building 5,183 square feet Above FF: 22 feet Above NG: 22 feet North Campus Total 11,215 square feet Grand Total 33,867 square feet ` Natural grade building height is taken from lowest grade The south campus will be the site of the main church sanctuary used for worship services. The sanctuary includes seating for 380 people. As of now, services are anticipated to occur at 9:30 a.m. each Sunday morning. However, the schedule may change in the future and additional services may be added. A sunken columbarium garden adjoins the sanctuary. The fellowship hall will be used for ancillary functions such as wedding receptions, bible studies, community meetings and social gatherings. The administration building contains offices for employees and volunteers and meeting rooms for counseling sessions. Attached to the administration building is a proposed fireside classroom and a small nature plaza that overlooks the canyon. The applicant has indicated that the nature plaza and picnic area will be open to the public. The north campus will be developed with four preschool buildings, containing two • classrooms each, and a small preschool administration building. When built -out, the preschool will accommodate approximately 112 children and will operate Monday — Friday, 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Sunday school will also take place in the preschool buildings. The south campus also includes an expansion building that will be constructed sometime in the future after the completion of the north campus and pre- school. It is anticipated the expansion building will be used for counseling, teaching, administrative function and social gatherings, meetings and religious activities. Proposed signage consists of three monument signs for identification purposes. A 5 -foot high, 40 -foot wide curved monument sign is proposed for the corner of MacArthur Boulevard and San Joaquin Hills Road and a 6 -foot 6 -inch high 20 -foot wide sign is proposed near each access drive. Sign design details can be found on sheet A1.2 of the proposed plans. Landscaping, including the canyon, will account for approximately 50% of the site when developed. Proposed tree species include sycamores, oaks and pines. Shrubs selected include many drought tolerant species native to Southern California including toyon, coyote brush, manzanita, California sage and California lilac. A conceptual landscape plan can be found on sheet L1 of the proposed plans. Final landscape plans will require the approval of General Services Department (Condition No. 41). • lib • St. Mark Presbyterian Church September 23, 2004 Page 6 The applicant has prepared a complete set of plans for review (Exhibit No. 5). A full and complete project description appears within the Draft Environmental Impact Report (SCH# 2003101137) on pages 3 -1 to 3-43. If the proposed project is approved, construction activities are planned to begin in 2005 with occupancy of the project anticipated early in 2006. DISCUSSION & ANALYSIS Environmental Review The City contracted with Michael Brandman Associates to prepare an Initial Study and EIR for the proposed project (Exhibit No. 2). The Initial Study was prepared in accordance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Based upon the analysis of the Initial Study, the following environmental topics were identified as potentially affected with the implementation of the proposed project: Land Use and Planning, Hydrology and Water Quality, Biological Resources, Transportation and Traffic, Air Quality and Noise. These topics were the subject of the EIR analysis. The issue areas that were determined to be affected at level of less than significant with mitigation in the Initial Study were Aesthetics, Cultural Resources, Geology and Soils, and • Hazards and Hazardous Materials. These topics were not discussed further in the EIR. The issue areas identified to be affected at either a less than significant level or that the project would have no impact: are Agricultural Resources, Mineral Resources, Population and Housing, Public Services, Recreation and Utility /Service systems. Michael Brandman Associates prepared a Draft EIR (State Clearinghouse No. 2003101137) that focused upon the environmental issues identified as "potentially affected." The DEIR was completed and circulated for a mandatory 45-day review period that began on July 14, 2004 and concluded on August 31, 2004, and was previously transmitted to the Commission. Comments were received by the Environmental Quality Affairs Committee and several interested parties. The items described within the initial study as "less than significant with mitigation are described in the initial study which is included within the DEIR as Appendix "A ". These mitigation measures were inadvertently left out of Table 2 -1 of the DEIR Executive Summary therefore, a revised Executive Summary including all proposed mitigation measures is attached to this report as Exhibit No. 3. The document discusses project alternatives as required pursuant to CEQA. These alternatives include a No Project Alternative, a No Project Alternative — Allowed Development that analyzed a hypothetical park and tennis court development and a Reduced Intensity Alternative which analyzed the proposed project without the .development of the north campus where the preschool and expansion building are proposed to be located. l�l St. Mark Presbyterian Church September 23, 2004 Page 7 The following discussion provides a summary of the significant environmental issues • evaluated in the DEIR. Land Use and Planning This section focuses upon whether or not the proposed project is consistent with established land use plans, zoning provisions and habitat conservation plans. The conclusion of the analysis is that the project can be found consistent with applicable land use plans and zoning provisions so long as the requested General Plan and Zoning Amendments are approved. Although he projects is within the boundaries of the Natural Community Conservation Plan (NCCP) it is identified as a "non- reserve" parcel and may be developed. The project site is also not identified as an open space dedication site within the Circulation and Open Space Agreement (CIOSA). A more detailed discussion regarding the proposed General Plan and Planned Community (zoning) amendments follows in this report. Hydrology and Water Quality This section focused on long term and short term impacts to hydrology and water quality. The analysis concluded that the design of the proposed project would not increase off -site discharge through the use of detention basins and other design features such as landscape medians and swales. • The water quality analysis included a review of a draft water quality management plan (WQMP) that is required to incorporate Best Management Features (BM P's) for the onsite treatment and filtration of water. The DEIR identifies Council Policy L -18, which requires that runoff be retained on site whenever possible and Council Policy L -22 requiring the approval of a WQMP by the City for projects determined to be a "Priority Project" by the Regional Water Quality Control Board. A mitigation measure has been included requiring approval of WQMP prior to the issuance of gradingibuilding permits as the proposed project is a "Priority Project ". Short term construction related impacts are addressed through the preparation and approval of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan ( SWPPP). A mitigation measure has been included requiring that a SWPPP be prepared that will eliminate or minimize the stormwater pollution prior to and during construction in accordance with Regional Water Quality Control Board requirements and approved by the City prior to the issuance of grading /building permits. Biological Resources A biological resources report was prepared by Michael Brandman Associates that included a literature review and a reconnaissance level survey of the site. The literature review included a search of the California Natural Diversity Database for information on recorded sightings and occurrences of sensitive plant and animal species. The review also • \�9, St. Mark Presbyterian Church September 23, 2004 Page B • included a search of the California Native Plant Society's "Electronic Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California" database. Searches of both databases included the project site and sites located within an approximate 7 mile radius of the site. The field survey included the identification and mapping of biological communities found on the site and an inventory of all flora (except annual grasses) and fauna observed on the site. The survey found that three natural communities (coastal sage scrub, southern riparian woodland and non - native grassland and two non - natural communities (ornamental woodland and disturbed areas) exist on the site. Twenty -three special status plant species and nineteen special .status wildlife species were considered to have the potential to occur on the project site. All are considered to have a low probability of occurring due to the small amount of coastal sage scrub (CSS) on the site and its lack of connectivity to other areas of CSS habitat. No special status species were observed on the site. Since the project site is identified as a non - reserve site within the NCCP, removal of coastal sage scrub (CSS) and the "take" of listed species is authorized by the California Department of Fish and Game and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service subject to the mitigation measures included in the NCCP environmental documents. These mitigation measures, relating to the requirement of focused surveys for California • Gnatcatchers and cactus wrens and the requirement that a biologist acceptable to the CDFG and USFWS be on -site during clearing of coastal sage scrub to flush or capture any identified CSS species in accordance with adopted protocol have been included in the DEIR. Transportation and Traffic including Access, Circulation, Parkinq A comprehensive study of all traffic related issues was performed by a qualified traffic consultant under the direction of the City Traffic Engineer. The traffic impact analysis was performed pursuant to Traffic Phasing Ordinance requirements and CEQA guidelines, which include Traffic Phasing Ordinance Committed Projects and Cumulative Project Trip Generation. Based on the analysis prepared, all of the studied primary intersections are forecasted to operate at Level of Service A, B or C when project related traffic is added to future growth except for the MacArthur Boulevard — San Joaquin Hills Road intersection, which is projected to operate Level of Service D. This intersection, however, is projected to operate at Level of Service D without the development of the proposed project. Therefore, the increase in traffic generated by the proposed project will not result in any significant cumulative Level of Service traffic impacts. Primary access to the site will be off San Joaquin Hills Road with a second access point . off MacArthur Boulevard. The San Joaquin access will be in the same location as the existing driveway and limited to right turn movement only. The second access will also 1Y3 St. Mark Presbyterian Church September 23, 2004 Page 9 be limited to right turn movements and located off MacArthur Boulevard. Both access • points include the development of 150 foot turn pockets /lanes to allow for safe deceleration. The final design of the turn pockets and other traffic calming improvements, such as advanced signage, to ensure safe access to greatest extent possible would be subject to the final review and approval of the City Traffic Engineer as specified by the proposed traffic mitigation measures. The project was evaluated with only one access point from San Joaquin Hills Road due to traffic safety concerns related to the proposed MacArthur Boulevard access driveway. This analysis concluded that the proposed project can be adequately and safely served with only the San Joaquin Hills access point. Internal circulation will be served by 26 -foot drive aisles that will also function as emergency access lanes. A total of 247 parking spaces are shown on the proposed plans. Of these, 197 are proposed for the south campus adjacent to the sanctuary, fellowship hall and administration building. The remaining 50 parking spaces are located on the north campus for the preschool buildings and expansion building. Required parking for religious assembly is either 1 parking space per each 3 seats or 1 parking space per each 35 square feet of the largest assembly area, the main sanctuary. The main sanctuary assembly is approximately 5,500 square feet resulting in 158 required parking spaces. The plans show 260 fixed seats and 118 non -fixed seats for a total of • 378 seats that result in a total of 126 required parking spaces (378/3). The proposed plans show a total of 247 parking spaces (including accessible spaces). The surplus spaces will ensure that adequate parking exists should any ancillary activities overlap with the church services which create the greatest parking demand. The 50 spaces for the north campus combined with the excess parking available on the south campus should provide sufficient spaces for the proposed preschool and functions in the future expansion building. The applicant has recently indicated that following discussions with the City Traffic Engineer, that several parking spaces may be lost when the final parking and circulation design is completed. Staff believes a modest reduction is acceptable and has included a condition of approval (no. 19) requiring that a minimum of 237 parking spaces be provided. 200 of said spaces are to be provided prior to the commencement of church services regardless of what other building are complete and occupied. Additionally, it is anticipated that the fourth preschool building and expansion building will be the final buildings constructed in Phase 2. The applicant has indicted a desire to possibly wait until that final construction to provide the 35 space parking lot adjacent to the expansion building site. Staff believes this is acceptable and a condition of approval (no. 19) has been included requiring that the remaining parking spaces be required prior to the occupancy of the fourth classroom building or the construction of the expansion building, whichever comes first. Additionally, a condition has been included (no. 20) allowing the Planning Director to require the installation of all the North Campus parking spaces prior to the development of any portion of Phase 2 if actual use of the facilities • 1�� E St. Mark Presbyterian Church September 23, 2004 Page 10 creates a parking demand beyond the 200 spaces provided with the development of Phase 1. The Public Works Department commented that the mitigation measures associated with the implementation of traffic calming measures for the free right turn from MacArthur Boulevard to San Joaquin Hills Road should be revised and that they are not necessarily mitigation measures at all. In that case, the Draft EIR may have overstated the severity of the impact by requiring the recommended mitigation measures. The comment also indicates that there may be alternative designs or traffic safety devices that may be employed that will achieve the same avoidance of traffic safety impacts. In that case, the alternative language for the mitigation measures suggested by the Public Works Department that is contained in their comment letter (Letter L within the Responses to Comments) can be substituted for the draft mitigation measures included in the DEIR. Air Qualiiy Long term impacts from emissions from operational activities of the church were found to be below the South Coast Air Quality Management District thresholds resulting in a less than significant impact therefore requiring no mitigation. Emissions related to construction activity have the potential to create a short term impact. • The potential impact arises from truck hauling activities related to excavation and export of the estimated 47,000 cubic yards of dirt to be removed from the site and construction vehicles and equipment. This impact can be mitigated by limiting the vehicle miles traveled per day. The air quality analysis estimated that 49 truckloads of dirt per day would be removed from the site. The analysis concluded that, when figuring in earthmoving and all other construction related activities, the construction of the proposed project would not exceed SCAQMD threshold of significance with standard mitigation measures relating to proper tuning of equipment and the use of sound grading and construction practices. Noise Noise associated with construction and operations of the project was evaluated. Construction related noise is controlled by existing provisions of the Municipal Code which prohibits construction- related noise between 6:30PM and 7:OOAM weekdays, 6:OOPM and 8:OOAM Saturday and all times on Sunday and holidays. This standard, which is applicable to any construction project within the city, would permit any construction related noise during the non - prohibited hours. Noise associated with increased traffic was also considered and was found to be less than significant due to the limited increase in traffic when compared to the noise generated by existing traffic. Finally, on -site parking lot noise and preschool noise was evaluated and found to be a level less than significant when the project design features were factored into the analysis. No mitigation measures relating to noise are required as project design and Municipal Code provisions address potential • noise related impacts 1�5 St. Mark Presbyterian Church September 23, 2004 Page 11 Alternatives As mentioned, the DEIR evaluated a No Project Alternative, a No Project Alternative — Allowed Development and a Reduced Intensity Alternative. The No Project Alternative is no development of the site with the site remaining in its current condition. The No Project Alternative — Allowed Development evaluated the development of a hypothetical park and tennis court consistent with the existing REOS land use designation. The Reduced Intensity Alternative evaluated the proposed project without the development of the north campus where the preschool and expansion building are proposed to be located. The analysis concludes that the No Project Alternative would be the environmentally superior alternative because all less than significant impacts associated with the project would be avoided. However, this alternative achieves none of the project objectives. In the instance that the No Project Alternative is identified as the environmentally superior alternative, CEQA requires the identification of the environmentally superior alternative from other alternatives evaluated. Of the remaining alternatives, the Reduced Intensity Alternative would also be environmentally superior. However, this alternative does not meet project objectives because the preschool facilities would be excluded from the project. • The DEIR concludes that no significant unavoidable impacts will result with the implementation of the proposed project with the implementation of all design features of • the project and mitigation measures. The City received several comment letters on the DEIR including comments from the City's Environmental Quality Affairs Committee and the City Traffic Engineer. The consultant and staff have prepared written responses to those comments (Exhibit No. 4). Staff believes that none of the comments raised significant new information that would lead staff to conclude that the DEIR is inadequate or would require significant revision. Additionally, a revised Executive Summary has been included in the Responses to Comments adding the mitigation measures that were included within the Initial Study and revising the mitigation measures pertaining to traffic as is discussed previously in the report and within the responses to comments document. General Plan Analysis Land Use Element The project site is located in Statistical Area L2 of the Land Use Element. The project proposes to change the General Plan land use designation of the 7.38 acre church site from Recreational and Environmental Open Space (REOS) to Government, Educational and Institutional Facilities (GEIF) and establish a 34,000 gross square foot floor area limit for the site. The amendment is necessary because the proposed religious institution use is not permitted within the REOS designation. The 1.67 acre parcel • proposed top be transferred to the Big Canyon Country Club will keep the existing l(�lo St. Mark Presbyterian Church September 23, 2004 Page 12 • REOS land use designation. The Land Use Element has 12 general policies to guide consideration of the potential amendments. The following discussion relates to those general land use policies that are applicable to the proposed project. A. The City shall provide for sufficient diversity of land uses so that schools, employment, recreation areas, public facilities, churches and neighborhood shopping centers are in close proximity to each resident of the community. The proposed project is located in an area of the City that has multiple uses presently. Newport Center, Fashion Island and Rogers Gardens are commercial areas located southwest of the site. Residential uses, comprised of both multi - family and single family homes, and the Big Canyon Country Club golf course are located northerly of the site. Multi- family and single family residential uses are located easterly of the site across MacArthur Boulevard. Changing the designation will allow a new religious institutional use in the area in close proximity to residents and the change of use doesn't impact the existing diversity of uses. B. To insure redevelopment of older or underutilized properties, and to preserve the value of property, the floor area limits specified in the Land Use Element allow for some modest growth. To insure that traffic does not exceed the level of service desired by the City, variable floor area limits shall be established based upon the • trip generation characteristics of the use or uses proposed for the site. Development of the new church campus as proposed is generally consistent with this policy, which suggests that some increase in floor area may be permitted if adequate capacity exists in the circulation system. Based on the traffic analysis that was prepared for the proposed project, all of the primary intersections are forecasted to operate at Level of Service A, B or C when project related traffic is added to future growth except for the MacArthur Boulevard — San Joaquin Hills Road intersection, which is projected to operate Level of Service D. However, this intersection is projected to operate at Level of Service D without the development of the proposed project. Therefore, the increase in traffic generated by the proposed project will not result in any significant cumulative Level of Service traffic impacts. D. The siting of new buildings and structures shall be controlled and regulated to ensure, to the extent practical, the preservation of public views, the preservation of unique natural resources, and to minimize the alteration of natural landforms along bluffs and cliffs. The project proposes to develop a site that is partially disturbed and partially occupied natural vegetation. The small canyon that may be considered a "unique natural resource' is proposed to be preserved in its existing state. The proposed project provides extensive landscaping to soften the views of the proposed buildings from the • public. No public views existing through or across the subject property; therefore, the project can be found consistent with this policy. Igo St. Mark Presbyterian Church September 23, 2004 Page 13 F. The City shall develop and maintain suitable and adequate standards for • landscaping, sign control, site and building design, parking and undergrounding of utilities and other development standards to ensure that the beauty and charm of existing residential neighborhoods are maintained, that commercial and office projects are aesthetically pleasing and compatible with surrounding land uses and that the appearance of, and activities conducted within industrial developments are also compatible with surrounding land uses and consistent with the public health, safety and welfare. Although this policy does not specifically mention institutional land uses, the general goal of the policy is applicable to any project. The City maintains and implements development standards through the Zoning Ordinance and through the adoption of Planned Community District Regulations. The proposed project includes the adoption of development regulations specific to the project site for inclusion within the Big Canyon Planned Community. The proposed regulations address setbacks, building height, lot coverage, accessory structure and signage. These regulations are discussed in the later in this report. If the regulations are found to be satisfactory for development of the church campus, the project can be found consistent with this policy. Staff believes that proposed amendment is consistent with all applicable general plan policies but, the Commission must determine whether a institutional use of the subject property is appropriate for the location. • Should the proposed amendment be approved, the Land Use element will be amended to add the 7.38 acre church site as a "Religious Institution Site" as follows: 18. Religious Institution Site. This area is designated for religious institutional facilities and is designated Government, Educational and Institutional Facilities (GEIF). Maximum development permitted is 34,000 gross square feet. The approximate 1.10 acre natural canyon may not be altered or developed and must be maintained as passive open space. The site will be added to the "Estimated Growth for Statistical Area L2" chart located on page 80 of the Land Use Element. The 1.67 acre site proposed to be deeded to the Big Canyon Country club would designate as REOS and added to the Big Canyon Country Club area of Statistical Area L2. Recreation and Open Space Element The subject property is located within Service Area No. 8 as identified by the Recreation and Open Space Element. This Service Area is bounded by MacArthur Boulevard, San Joaquin Hills Road, Jamboree Road and Ford Road. The ROS Element indicates that no public recreation facilities exist in this Service Area and therefore there is a deficiency of 14 acres of active recreational and park facilities should be provided in or near this Service Area. However, the ROS Element does not identify this site as a • l�D St. Mark Presbyterian Church September 23, 2004 Page 14 • potential location for a park. It should be noted that Service Area 8 includes the entire Big Canyon residential development and the Big Canyon Country Club which consists of approximately 191 acres of open space. This area is a private golf course and it does provide recreational opportunities for the Service Areas. Additionally, the recent development of the Bonita Canyon Sports Park and related facilities is in close proximity to the residents of Service Area 8. Based upon the factors discussed above and the retention of the canyon feature, which provides some permanent open space on site, and the fact that the site is not identified as a potential park site, the proposed amendment can be found consistent with the Recreation and Open Space Element. Charter Section 423 Analysis Council Policy A -18 requires that proposed General Plan amendments be reviewed to determine if the 100 peak hour trip, 40,000 square foot or 100 dwelling unit thresholds are exceeded. The proposed amendment requesting approval of 34,000 square feet of entitlement and does not include any dwelling units therefore it does not exceed these two thresholds. In order to determine if the peak hour weekday trips generated by the project would •exceed the 100 trip threshold, the traffic study prepared by Urban Crossroads, Inc. under the supervision of the City Transportation /Development Services Manager, included a project trip generation study. The study found that the project will create an average of 633 weekday daily trips. Of these, 71 trips are anticipated during the A.M. peak hour of 7:00 A.M. — 9:00 A.M. and 90 trips are anticipated during the P.M. peak hour of 4:00 P.M. — 6:00 P.M. Therefore, the proposed project does not exceed the 100 peak hour trip threshold specific by Council Policy A -18. Although the proposed project does not exceed any of the identified thresholds and is, therefore, a minor amendment not requiring a vote, Charter Section 423 requires that 80% of increases (units, area or traffic) from prior general plan amendments be added to the traffic generated by the project to see if cumulatively the three thresholds would be exceeded. No prior amendments have been approved in this Statistical Area, and therefore on the cumulative basis, a vote for the proposed GPA is not required. Should this project be approved, 80% of the area and traffic increase will be tracked for ten as noted. Planned Community Text Amendment The project site is designated as Planned Community but is not located within the adjacent Big Canyon Planned Community District and no Planned Community text or use permit has ever been considered for the site. Staff concluded it would be advisable . to amend the Big Canyon Planned Community District regulations to designate the I St. Mark Presbyterian Church September 23, 2004 Page 15 project site as being located within the Big Canyon Planned Community by creating a • new Planning Area entitled Religious Institutional and Nature Preserve. The draft Planned Community text establishes permitted uses and development regulations for the implementation of the St. Mark project and the associated preservation of the natural canyon feature. The proposed church site would be identified in the PC text as "SECTION X. Religious Institutional and Nature Preserve ". The development regulations are essentially tailored to accommodate the proposed project and the preservation of the canyon feature. Approval of a Use Permit is required for the church campus development and for the proposed to the proposed sanctuary and tower that exceed the 32 -foot height limit. If approved, the parcel going to the Country Club would be simply added to the "Golf Course" site and subject to the existing golf course regulations. The full text of the proposed regulations is included as Exhibit "B" of the draft Planning Commission Resolution (Exhibit No. 1). Use Permit Analysis The Use Permit application relates to the overall development plan and the height of the proposed sanctuary. The following general findings are applicable to any use that • requires the approval of a Use Permit. Additionally, since the proposed sanctuary is approximately 48 feet above existing grade and the proposed sanctuary tower /cross is proposed to be 51 feet or 56 feet above existing grade the same use permit findings must be made pursuant to Section 20.65.070 (Exceptions to Height Limits) of the Zoning Code. 1. That the proposed location of the use is in accord with the objectives of this code and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. The objective of the Zoning Code is "to promote the growth of the City of Newport Beach in an orderly manner and to promote and protect the public health, safety, peace, comfort and general welfare, and to protect the character and social and economic vitality of all districts within the City, and to assure the orderly and beneficial development of such areas." The proposed religious institutional use, as considered in the use permit application, with the approval of the pending General Plan Amendment and Planned Community Development Plan applications will comply with the provisions of the Zoning Code and this finding can be made. The proposed use permit to exceed the height limit is takes advantage of an allowable exception to height limits for church structures used for church purposes with the approval of a use permit. The Zoning Code recognizes that religious buildings often have structures that traditionally exceed established height limits and that granting relief • form the height limits may be acceptable provided that negative consequences are O'S St. Mark Presbyterian Church September 23, 2004 Page 16 • minimized or non - existent. The church sanctuary with its tower /cross symbol will exceed the height limit and staff believes that the application of the church height exemption for this structure is consistent with the intent of the Code. 2. That the proposed location of the use permit and the proposed conditions under which it would be operated or maintained will be consistent with the General Plan and the purpose of the district in which the site is located; will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, or welfare of persons residing or working in or adjacent to the neighborhood of such use; and will not be detrimental to the properties or improvements in the vicinity or to the general welfare of the city. The operation and maintenance of the proposed church campus is not anticipated to generate adverse impacts to the area. Staff believes that overall the project has been designed in a manner to be complimentary to the surrounding community. The site provides approximately 90% open space with 50% landscaped areas. A landscape strip will buffer the site from the adjacent residential development visually and it will be sufficient to block light from vehicle headlights. All environmental areas have been analyzed in the Initial Study and DEIR and potential impacts were found not to be significant with the incorporation of mitigation measures. Increased traffic, although not •predicted to be a significant environmental impact, will occur. Traffic calming improvements and deceleration lanes will be incorporated into the final project designs that are based on the recommendations of the traffic study and subject to the approval of the City Traffic Engineer. These improvements will ensure safe vehicular access to the site. The site provides parking in excess of minimum standards and it is distributed in close proximity to the buildings and uses they will serve. Short term noise and air quality impacts were found to be less than significant in the DEIR. With the approval of the requested applications with conditions of approval (including all mitigation measures) designed to minimize or avoid areas of concern, staff believes that the use can be found compatible with and not detrimental to the neighborhood or City. The building proposed to exceed the height limit is the main sanctuary with its tower /cross feature and it is not anticipated to create detrimental affects to the surrounding area. Religious institutional buildings are typically taller than surrounding buildings in the neighborhood. The proposed heights are not extreme when the heights of similar structures in the City are considered. The Fairway Apartments are located directly to the north of the project site. The closest residential structures are single story garages located approximately 30 feet away from the property line (45 feet from the church sanctuary) The closest dwelling units are located approximately 55 feet from the property line and approximately 60 feet from the sanctuary patio area identified as "Children's Play Area" on the phase one site plan (sheet A1.1A). The provided setbacks are equal to or greater than typical Zoning Code requirements for commercial districts abutting residential districts. Additionally, the proposed landscape plans show the use of • trees and shrubs to assist in screening parking areas, drive aisles and buildings of the St. Mark Presbyterian Church September 23, 2004 Page 17 proposed project from the apartment complex. Staff believes this finding can be made • as it relates to the height of the sanctuary building. 3. That the proposed use will comply with the provisions of this Code, including any specific condition required for the proposed use in the district in which it would be located. This finding can only be made with the adoption of the proposed General. Plan Amendment and PC Development Regulations. The site is designated Planned Community and has no development regulations adopted. The Zoning Code has no specific conditions related to religious assembly uses within the Planned Community district other than parking requirements. The proposed regulations that would be added to the Big Canyon Planned Community provide use and development regulations as specified by the PC district regulations and Zoning Code. Staff believes that the Use Permit for the development of the project, with the incorporation of the recommended conditions of approval contained within the attached draft resolution, can be found consistent with the Planned Community zoning designation of the site and the proposed PC district regulations. Traffic Phasing Ordinance As previously mentioned, a Traffic Study was prepared by Urban Crossroads under the • direction and supervision of the City Transportation /Development Services Manager in accordance with the requirements of the Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO). The study found that the proposed project would not cause the Level of Service of the eight study intersections to deteriorate below a Level of Service D. The TPO does require that projects be completed within a 60 month timeframe in order for approval TPO traffic study to remain valid. Therefore, a condition of approval (no. 9) has been included in the draft resolution requiring completion of the entire church project within 60 months or the preparation of a new TPO traffic study will be required. Parcel Map The subject property consists is a 10.81 acre parcel located northwesterly of the intersection of San Joaquin Hills Road and MacArthur Boulevard. The project includes a request to subdivide the property into three areas: • E St. Mark Presbyterian Church September 23, 2004 Page 18 '1 he right of way area to be dedicated is made up of existing MacArthur Boulevard street improvements, but never formally transferred to the City. Pursuant to Section 19.12.070 of the City Subdivision Code, the following standard findings must be made to approve the parcel map. If the Planning Commission determines that one or more of the findings listed cannot be made, the tentative parcel must be denied. 1. That the proposed map and the design or improvements of the subdivision are consistent with the General Plan and any applicable specific plan, and with applicable provisions of the Subdivision Map Act and this Subdivision Code. The proposed map is consistent with the proposed GEIF and existing REOS land • use designations. The Planned Community district has no minimum parcel size and the 7.38 acre parcel for the church meets the proposed 7 acre parcel size suggested in the draft PC district regulations. No specific plans are applicable to the site. Should the proposed GPA not be adopted, this finding cannot be made given the proposed design and improvements planned by the applicant. The Public Works Department has reviewed the proposed parcel map and believes that it is consistent with the Newport Beach Subdivision Code (Title 19) and applicable requirements of the Subdivision Map Act. Conditions of approval have been included to ensure compliance with Title 19. 2. That the site is physically suitable for the type and density of development. Parcel 1 is proposed to retain a General Plan land use designation of Recreational and Environmental Open Space and will become part of the Big Canyon Country Club. Parcel 1 is not proposed or approved for development. Parcel 2 is proposed for the development of the church site and is of sufficient size for the intensity of development and the site is physically suitable for the project. The approximate 7.38 acre site will have a maximum gross square footage of 34,000 square feet that equates to an approximate floor area ratio of 0.11. This floor area ratio is lower than the typical 0.5FAR commercial limit. Open space amounts to approximately 90% of the site based upon the submitted . plans, and with the inclusion of the 1.1 acre canyon feature to be preserved, landscaping will account for approximately 50% of the site. The project provides lq3 Proposed Use General Plan Big Canyon PC Designation Area Designation (approx.) Parcel 1 Golf Course REOS Golf Course 1.67 acres (Proposed) Parcel 2 Church Site GEIF Religious Institutional and 7.38 acres Proposed) Nature Preserve (Pro osed) Right of Public Right of No Change Not Applicable 1.76 acres '. Way! way (Existing) Prima Roadway) '1 he right of way area to be dedicated is made up of existing MacArthur Boulevard street improvements, but never formally transferred to the City. Pursuant to Section 19.12.070 of the City Subdivision Code, the following standard findings must be made to approve the parcel map. If the Planning Commission determines that one or more of the findings listed cannot be made, the tentative parcel must be denied. 1. That the proposed map and the design or improvements of the subdivision are consistent with the General Plan and any applicable specific plan, and with applicable provisions of the Subdivision Map Act and this Subdivision Code. The proposed map is consistent with the proposed GEIF and existing REOS land • use designations. The Planned Community district has no minimum parcel size and the 7.38 acre parcel for the church meets the proposed 7 acre parcel size suggested in the draft PC district regulations. No specific plans are applicable to the site. Should the proposed GPA not be adopted, this finding cannot be made given the proposed design and improvements planned by the applicant. The Public Works Department has reviewed the proposed parcel map and believes that it is consistent with the Newport Beach Subdivision Code (Title 19) and applicable requirements of the Subdivision Map Act. Conditions of approval have been included to ensure compliance with Title 19. 2. That the site is physically suitable for the type and density of development. Parcel 1 is proposed to retain a General Plan land use designation of Recreational and Environmental Open Space and will become part of the Big Canyon Country Club. Parcel 1 is not proposed or approved for development. Parcel 2 is proposed for the development of the church site and is of sufficient size for the intensity of development and the site is physically suitable for the project. The approximate 7.38 acre site will have a maximum gross square footage of 34,000 square feet that equates to an approximate floor area ratio of 0.11. This floor area ratio is lower than the typical 0.5FAR commercial limit. Open space amounts to approximately 90% of the site based upon the submitted . plans, and with the inclusion of the 1.1 acre canyon feature to be preserved, landscaping will account for approximately 50% of the site. The project provides lq3 St. Mark Presbyterian Church September 23, 2004 Page 19 over 100 parking spaces more than required by the Zoning Code. Access to the • site can be provided through the implementation of deceleration lanes and traffic control mitigation measures. Additionally, no earthquake faults or unstable soils were found on -site. Finally, significant grading is proposed to lower much of the South Campus by 8 -12 feet, which could lead to the conclusion that the site is not physically suitable for development. The project could be built without lowering the elevations resulting in less grading but the lowering of building pad elevations on the South Campus will result in a superior design by reducing the overall height of all proposed buildings thereby reducing the building height and mass of the church building as seen from adjacent streets and nearby residential developments. 3. That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage nor substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. However, notwithstanding the foregoing, the decision - making body may nevertheless approve such a subdivision if an environmental impact report was prepared for the project and a finding was made pursuant to Section 21081 of the California Environmental Quality Act that specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the environmental impact report. An EIR has been prepared and it concludes that no significant environmental • impacts will result with planned development of the site in accordance with the proposed subdivision map; therefore, staff believes this finding can be met. 4. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements is not likely to cause serious public health problems. Parcel 1 does not include any improvements and the development of Parcel 2 as a religious institutional use is not expected to cause serious public health problems given the use of typical construction materials and practices. The street dedication portion of the map has already been improved as a public street. 5. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of, property within the proposed subdivision. In this connection, the decision- making body may approve a map if it finds that alternate easements, for access or for use, will be provided and that these easements will be substantially equivalent to ones previously acquired by the public. This finding shall apply only to easements of record or to easements established by judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction and no authority is hereby granted to the City Council to determine that the public at large has acquired easements for access through or use of property within a subdivision. • \0 St. Mark Presbyterian Church September 23, 2004 Page 20 • Several public utility easements and a slope easement presently impact the site. Edison has a 25 -foot wide easement for the power transmission lines that are located at MacArthur Boulevard and the City holds the interest to a storm drain, sewer and a slope easement. These easements will be retained in place and all improvements proposed will require easement holder approval prior to construction. The Public Works Department sees no conflict between the City's easement and City easements. The applicant has met with Edison and has received preliminary approval for the improvements within their easement. 6. That, subject to the detailed provisions of Section 66474.4 of the Subdivision Map Act, if the land is subject to a contract entered into pursuant to the California Land Conservation Act of 1965 (Williamson Act)... The property in question is not subject to a Williamson Act contract. 7. That, in the case of a "land project' as defined in Section 11000.5 of the California Business and Professions Code: (a) there is an adopted specific plan for the area to be included within the land project; and (b) the decision - making body finds that the proposed land project is consistent with the specific plan for the area. • This finding is not applicable as the site is not subject to specific plan. 8. That solar access and passive heating and cooling design requirements have been satisfied in accordance with Sections 66473.1 and 66475.3 of the Subdivision Map Act. This finding is not applicable to Parcel 1 as no development is proposed in relation to the map. The design of the proposed subdivision does not impact solar exposure. All structures proposed for Parcel 2 are subject to Title 24 of the Uniform Building Code that requires new construction to meet minimum heating and cooling efficiency standards depending on location and climate. The Newport Beach Building Department enforces Title 24 compliance through the plan check and field inspection processes. 9. That the subdivision is consistent with Section 66412.3 of the Subdivision Map Act and Section 65584 of the California Government Code regarding the City's share of the regional housing need and that if balances the housing needs of the region against the public service needs of the City's residents and available fiscal and environmental resources. • Iq5 St. Mark Presbyterian Church September 23, 2004 Page 21 The Subdivision Map Act requires that the city consider regional housing needs • while balancing existing public services needs when considering proposed subdivisions. The site could be considered for residential development that could assist the City in meeting regional housing needs while not impacting existing public service demands of the City. However, such a project would require a General Plan and Zoning Amendment. 10. That the discharge of waste from the proposed subdivision into the existing sewer system will not result in a violation of existing requirements prescribed by the Regional Water Quality Control Board. The proposed project will generate sewage consistent with its institutional nature that is similar to residential sewage generation. This type of discharge not expected to generate waste that would cause a violation of RWQCB standards. 11. For subdivisions lying partly or wholly within the Coastal Zone, that the subdivision conforms with the certified Local Coastal Program and, where applicable, with public access and recreation policies of Chapter Three of the Coastal Act. The proposed subdivision is not located within the boundaries of the Coastal • Zone, and therefore this finding does not apply. PUBLIC NOTICE Notice of this hearing was published in the Daily Pilot, mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the property (excluding roads and waterways) and posted at the site a minimum of 10 days in advance of this hearing consistent with the Municipal Code. The environmental assessment process has also been noticed on two separate occasions in a similar manner and all mandatory notices per the California Environmental Quality Act have been given. Finally, the item appeared upon the agenda for this meeting, which was posted at City Hall and on the city website. CONCLUSION Staff believes that the environmental analysis has shown that all potential significant environmental effects can be mitigated to a less than significant level. A review of General Plan policies has found that the proposed project generally complies with all applicable General Plan Policies and that although the site is designated as Recreational and Environmental Open Space, no plans for use of the site as a public park, open space or recreational facility have been included in the City's long range planning documents. Additionally, the site was not included within reserve boundaries of the regional Natural Communities Conservation Plan (NCCP) and therefore removal of • coastal sage habitat can occur. As outlined in the report and draft resolution, staff p(D • • • St. Mark Presbyterian Church September 23, 2004 Page 22 believes all Use Permit finings can made for the proposed church campus and for the proposed increased building height, as well as all findings pertaining to approval of the parcel map_ In consideration of the overall project, the Planning Commission must first conclude that the change in land use from Recreational and Environmental Open Space to Governmental, Educational and Institutional Facilities is appropriate given the level of intensity sought by the applicant. Thirty -four thousand square feet of religious institutional use on a 7.38 acre site provides for a high percentage of open space, which is a characteristic of the site today that the community derives some benefit from. The second step the evaluation of the project is the development and use regulations proposed to be included within the Big Canyon Planned Community text. The suggested text is more detailed than the proposed language of the General Plan and it provides clear and simple land use regulations for the site consistent with the proposed change in land use. Lastly, the Use Permit is the most detailed portion of the request where the overall use of the site as depicted in the development plans including the overall height of the sanctuary must be found to be compatible with the area. Staff believes that project implementation as described will be adequately controlled through the application of conditions of approval that includes all environmental mitigation measures such that the project will not be detrimental to the neighborhood or the City. Prepared by: Gregg a irez, Associate Plan er Exhibits Submitted by: Patricia L. Temple, Planning Director ,�l 0 ATTACHMENT G Project Plans 0 0q • • • �O� HC21f1H3 NV1d3U8S3Nd l23HS 3 111 Us )ddvN 1S a i �33 WE�k° x S W es U NE O WszJoF55o��WO3�3 mE Z tog Wg »� 'S3 �SYug�S �'C 4aCa U mM ?< J 0- - - - -. __ o° Z k It 9 iie 88S E k3 e cae. oi a aFBea E= 3 io €` a a @ €$'eRR =' pp /p ¢¢ pp gg@@ QQppgqggp?? @@ y { �2 qE{ $¢@ zzy,aagggg ¢¢{{ppaa55 � g pp ggpqq$ AAryry ni�g� «�� Q�2�2trBFfEP¢� @�E� @6itR Si�Sii�E2�08E�E�t iAAAfB @¢AAAA2lIS� � @i @� @lfEiii�iipf - � ... • ..�_ .. 7 °u3: i ik .��.fff. °�E�[:¢. C: P6a @a6L:.:C:Si� �e7iEiEEE Slc3: ?�44 iEs n�Y.EY .F: d::4:[d1 Milli iggliigppf ¢i @ip : i�EEi &FFEEii��[F'lGPffgFEiPii¢�3E Q4i�lfP��i74 i$ @��E 7$i 5i� i$EEii59i 7�Yi�kf�Ei �444F `?7 •`E:�: ?E7[71 °0.06: ?7 & ^n3:eiE c:4ifa9tYi : S.aYiF IF. sa: ES;i3845; ia3i §SSSf .5::9 ..�. - ��� ¢ �aai '{� a. M gg¢ S E qeege �Ytg pp ��iE;�P9iiti�: fl0�pii��i3�i &6ti�i�i @iii��� $ §�ii¢is��� ■ na a e @ES �^ AAer- 9ii.. €:Si:a °s¢6: �4e�sa784s¢i�iiise .te ai$i€:e: €[d$ .,ie�_$8e¢_:.¢a§ '�'.• '� �'' W U P4 x P4 7 5p pY _6 7- ptl f� N �!� q o Y z�z Q '4 RYA R4 �31 =[ N-•1 ya SL .$� .°. St! Fn G w €Yi4f0. S SZ� OYRA 4._ H o ¢ Hit ee bR_ !n p !'11 W ff�g�gt } C$$ S ff 4 Y 4 S i� 6 o f gg +§ iRy¢ 3$g5y5 £0? gy�g5q94 Q $4 S €�kg €f p §g b3 �O� HJ8r1HJ VI831 B 31d it it It 0 5g � € � (" •\ il. 1: - ,.� \, ' r. , 1;�,,� tom•. f� a __ /.�\ � l,� �':_ "I , ..III•, , �'': �V _ n I r • o 11I I( o I I I LJ ill `a In _ • • • a0' • 7 • Ho8nHO W63U9S3id IV _ - Q V IU JS133V a N[ S=' N+ Jvw is Snld(,jddde _, Q _ Id J E 4 - � it t 1 of I� 111 I 1' 1 o m_ .. � It I i NyN ' I� _ "_ o_r/ `', 11 I 1 It A' 'r 7ti If pIt ! / _ I 0 1 .•,'•'� ..�� ail � '7 '� I I � ,' �;� �f, �. , it .I�I �I a a P3 v4 —,.,_ ,,,� _i�l.• :f � I` �,,. _- �.,, —_ _��L_San Joa u_H'Ils� -d' ,L` �.--«- `8 R it I t £/ 1. ,I 4 l '� , J n ( - . I ( < I f . ' � I 1 '-H `t,k0 6; EXISTING KFM Q °ED'4 " i PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH o CONDITIONS am n�a... or sa $tl i N� eErcn. cuaoaa i Iy rw wr ur mia �� �'� SCHEMATICS W A Ame W W ora WW'UQ MUM ow W 1. Pb y T Ame W W ora WW'UQ MUM ow W 1. Pb SoIIVW3H1S «»sy WAX z mrooirn� 'u>ne ,aoavan owu v.n ewi NVId 39VNI"O cv ¢ e -' wx •a wo w � 4+i xoa s ; Hoaf1HO VIVI iL 8S321d wdH J?1VNIWIl3i1d NLIVW 1S gf Is p2z LA N. � � A 9Y r� ^-- -PtSby sjlj 00n 65r ifDS 0 J • �b� DI A �•. SOIlVW3HOS�.y.ao��w _! ¢ hraowm 'Krie �ewaxaH ¢�¢a ms�aw .ra S11V130 30VNI"(I "? H38nHO NVIa31l9S3ad aVNIWll3ad 1iLIVW 1S � �g��mwxvM ! U / 0 Z _o / m ed a / / F / � s - � 8 o zti E�1{t•Fl 11E otlPI1 lilt? jq 5y 3 o JJII �t�� W s = a 5 3 I s m na �e `1 kz a tt f m Pit tg X01 SjllVW3HJS MNtl4ifTJ 'N�I3{ 1{pdM3N m NVId ,lLllll(1 13M e ; ` HJdnHJ NVI83ik8S36d a, ., WdM A2iVNIWil321d AWN 1S a +e mwenu � t 23J I 1 m I i p C ✓ S' ,. pU Y' t y 4v —� .� ro ` ry' A• Ijr � j r � I/ IIVJ, • U • P, 01 • • • I r 4F1bu 5=•, =1n 11 { 111 : IO Se�pSRa ji 1 l✓ � 1 ..-. 3 t<- 5 s- R I 1{ i d. jl , • r LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURAL SITE PLAN 1 Q \t I i eA in fi ........ LANDSCAPE SITE SECTIONS ........ 0 Ll • L A NOW I w I �- I 1. D z U C 11 •' III 111 �i .. 111 ��I 1 iI �� II , i qj Y i , I I I ICI I i I I; I I i I 1 I I I I I I I. In I I I{ , I t B b I I I 1 I I I I I I I I II I I- I I� 1 , I I , �,\\ I 2 §� Mi Rb Ma Urn 4 Z D z U C 11 •' III 111 �i .. 111 ��I 1 iI �� II , i qj Y i , I I I ICI I i I I; I I i I 1 I I I I I I I. In I I I{ , I t B b I I I 1 I I I I I I I I II I I- I I� 1 , I I , �,\\ I HD811HO NVW3U9S32d 0 Advn 1S u n y S �r z 0 z a NV Id 3lIS ]NO 3SVHd all @3 $ 11 �; +' �•� I �,1 ; it Nil.r �y { 3 z o EE T pE a is epep it £ '�6 6 Mai I I z 0 z a p�� 1� 4 NV Id 3lIS ]NO 3SVHd 11 �; +' �•� I �,1 ; it Nil.r �y { p�� 1� 4 ImmoI • • 0 J � I �y { I I �I.I I i ' llFi f" I I' I I I� . III , I , I I I I f+ 1 I I I I I I I Ii 1 I ImmoI • • 0 J � I r� L 0 � > " — = z Cori, \ ° sgan 9n� Am :IlE $6 m || ? qU \ ||\ § A fU e • |\ j / � /\ § - » y9 �z» \ 4T ^ y.� - � } ��d � ` » �. ,; • J ) �; /5 All, Ae IS Is el oe UP ta�3 �,,�` _"�' e+✓'•'.1�. _�yE.•.Y'Yr \f• \\ ���s1e� I ! z?, •S`� TT t GGG ti C �...,� �,,� � `i'� � 3 e ; • �w� �'' ���a� « = Y� irk � � 3 s fSF R�a1 :����';�_ •����- • �i�l�lll�i', �.� i 5 v A ce ays Af • • • dP a Q• i 1�. - t � t � s 1 I l• ' y. vet Y f dP L ��� � \ : � : i �`�� �,� NJan•�J NvIL3ue53 ad � � e U' Vill If -§ E Hd Ii.15 -Q lip W J4 old e ,t & rx "sa a e„I j�R • '. i i I ' A r x. a i r ��• ` \ \\ 11 .i� k I � _ it ,� is {• � � "i -': L. ID s . y ♦ _ F' o ID a1 �i r`L r 1 .1 _Ys rya v ■ a� c� • u • 0 0 � S%lA3a{ \ »Ga G N 3s5.! \ � \�\ \� \� @� -- \ - i ^ -- . —:7� \ C) C) �! /� F, I L • • a?v H08f1HO NV1831�8538d 3nll3]dSd]d = Q ' A&M 1S 3115 — — — P_ DL °w } W N q J O .. CD W U Z ` \. W IA W Ln •_ •i Z .. U � w5ho 1— 7 U Z x CD Z Y Y • O O - O 0 z W 0 U ~ d a �g ♦ �a N F, I L • • a?v E �. �\ � � \ SNGUVn 2 7! s ad good 2� e OOIJ HOdAHJ��~ � � ■ y2 § , �Q d ¢��>\ & } / :\ $ : ` l a 4 I � � ƒ ~\ - \ .. ƒ �� ! »m _31AS — < ,Aw J / � ( \ IS ma E �. �\ � � \ SNGUVn 2 7! s ad good 2� e OOIJ HOdAHJ��~ � � ■ y2 § , �Q d ¢��>\ & } / :\ $ : ` l a 4 I � � ƒ ~\ - \ .. ƒ �� _ SN0(IVA]�I )8 Nd H9Nl7HJ Ntl1831A9538d - - - -- - \u. 1i2JbW 1S - -- -- _ - N V�d X00a � 1 ¢ a qgHl Y [6 3+ y mw � gea[ff g � gSg3 >>qF W po z a � E i f: a ye5s z 0 0 0 J E a Q J c - J e¢ 9^ P a -x g>io a f f 5 o z z 0 Q ' W Q I b a < .-., .. . 2 4 . e 9 • • 11 2-aa ' • • fr1 E 3 HOil(1HO NtlR13U853iid SNOIIVA]�3 NVld � U -Jood a Q 'b00 -IJ NIWad 3 s y` c m € V. ry Y bi! W �G w0 � } _ F I • i I Z ZO O! ?. ,.._•�. v~i: �,'. I to in! O i k-1 Lq .Ili a SO wo ZO - Y � 5 Q = o �7 n7 �,a3 � I y 'A k'. R S cf m L� III] n �.J • K A aaa H�afIH� M/R13ll.B53Nd SN011v/�' 5�`•'i ��� - -— � 40021 �NVId MM Is -�-�0 /�OOHOS3bd�` ` W o Y� fly I y 'A k'. R S cf m L� III] n �.J • K A aaa • • • — SNORVATI —j 8MV d g i H08nHJ NVI63U9538d i{�dw IS :'sue— _ L A00� � �001J mss` - NOISNddXd € : H �Se a1 " =a MEN ~° wo \ 7 4F' — Iy a. � e i 1y. Z W ab �v7 q aq :03 b �GL i m �m iR F z Q\ 92