The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutSR - GPA-2014-02 - ORANGE PARK ACRES COMPROMISE SPECIFIC PLAN ATTACHMENT 5 ��p�� Planning �'ommission Gti�;.�� *� ��* A enda Item �: :�� . .,p�o� C�'•:!pm6,e�.••y c�U1VTY C� � January 19, 2015 TO: Chair Steiner and Members of the Planning Commi�sion THRU: Leslie Aranda Roseberry�' ] Planning Manager � FROM: Robert Garcia� Senior Planner SUBJECT PUSLIC HEARING: General Plan Amendment No. 2014-02, Zone Change No. 1259-11, Specific Plan No. SPLAN-0002, Design Review Committee No. 4209-07, &Envirorunental Review No. 1827-11 —Salem Lutheran Church and School, located at 6500 East Santiago Canyon Road. SUMMARY The applicant is proposing the Salem Lutheran Church and School Specific Plan, which provides for a redesign of the church and school campus with a new approximately 23,000 square foot worship center that includes a 590 seat sanctuary, conference/meeting rooms, the sacristy, offices, choir/music rooms, storage; childcare, and other ancillaiyladministrative roorris. In order to accommodate the new worship center, the existing 3,262 square foot sanctuary building and the existing 3,040 square foot preschool building will be demolished. Further, the existing on-site vacant structure (referred to as the "Fowler House" in the community) will be demolished, in order to provide additional parking and to accommodate the relocation of the preschool. The new preschool building is proposed to be 7,505 square feet. Seven classrooms of approximately 525 square feet are proposed. Existing on-site infrastructure related to storm water, water quality management, vehicle circulation, and parking design are also part of the redesign. As part of this proposed project, a General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, and environmental review are required. RECOMMENDED ACTION ATTACHMENT NO. 5 Adopt the following Resolutions: PC STAFF REPORT & ATTACHMENTS DATED 1/19/15 1. Planning Commission Resolution PC No. 02-15 entitled: SALEM LUTHERAN MARCH 10,2015 CC MTG. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ORANGE CERTIFICATION OF THE ADEQUACY OF FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Planning Commission Staff Report January 19, 2015 Page 2 NO. 1827-11) STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NO. 2011101046 INCLUDING ADOPTION OF THE FINDINGS OF FACT AND MITIGATION MONITORING REPORTING PROGRAM 2. Planning Commission Resolution PC No. 03-15 entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF � O�tANGE APPROVAI. OF GENEItAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2014-02, A REQUEST TO CHANGE THE GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION OF ESTATE LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (ESTR) TO PUBLIC FACILITIES AND INSTITUTIONS (PI) FOR SALEM LUTHERAN CHURCH AND SCHOOL LOCATED AT 6500 EAST SANTIAGO CANYON ROAD 3. Planning Commission Resolution PC No. 04-15 entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ORANGE APPROVAL OF ZONE CHANGE NO. 1259-11, A REQUEST TO CHANGE THE ZONING FROM RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY (R-1-40) TO SPECIFIC PLAN PUBLIC INSTITUTION (SP-PI) FOR SALEM LUTHERAN CHURCH AND SCHOOL LOCATED AT, 6500 EAST SANTIAGO CANYON ROAD 4. Planning Commission Resolution PC No. OS-15 entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ORANGE APPROVAL OF SPECIFIC PLAN NO. SPLAN-0002 AND DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE NO. 4538-11 AUTHORIZATION/GUIDELINES Orange Municipal Code (OMC) Sections 17.08.020 B.2.b.i, iii, and v authorizes the Planning Commission to review and make a recommendation on applications for General Plan Amendments, Zone Changes, Specific Plans and environmental documentation as described in the City's environmental review guidelines. Further, OMC Section 17.08.020 B.2.a. authorizes the Planning Commission to hear and decide on applications for Design Review. However, Footnote (b) of Table 17.08.020 - Reviewing Bodies of the OMC states that when more than one type of application is filed for a single project, the application requiring the highest level of approval shall dictate the review process for the entire group of applications. Therefore, the Planning Commission is acting as an advisory body to the City Council on all of the applications for the subject project, since the project requires certification of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), and approval of a General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, and Specific Plan. Planning Commission Staff Report January 19, 2015 Page 3 PUBLIC NOTICE On or before January 9, 2015, the City sent a Public Hearing Notice to a total of 63 property owners/tenants within a 300-foot radius of the project site, and persons specifically requesting notice. A notice was also published in the Orange City News newspaper on January 7, 2015, and the project site was posted in at least four locations with the notification on that same date. PROJECT �ACKGROUND Background The Salem Lutheran Church was established in 1965 in an unincorporated portion of Orange County. The property was acquired by the Southern California District of the Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod in 1966. In 1973, Salem Lutheran Church of Orange acquired the property from the Southern California District of the Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod in a land transfer. In 1980, Terrence and Roselie Fowler purchased one acre of land from the Lutheran Church. This property, known as the Fowler property, is now owned by the Salem Lutheran Church and when combined with the previously owned land, totals 6.03 acres. The Fowler property has been vacant the majority of the time the past five years. The existing buildings that house the sanctuary and preschool were built and first occupied in 1969. The preschool opened for students in 1976 followed by the opening of the elementary school in 1983 in modular buildings. The elementary school building was completed in 1984. In 1993, through Annexation No. 396, City Council Resolution No. 8147 (Attachment 8), the City annexed 29.23 acres of unincorporated property within the Orange Park Acres area. The annexation consisted of 22 unincorporated parcels including the Salem Lutheran Church property. In 1997, the Planning Commission approved Conditional Use Permit No. 2178-97 to allow the expansion of the school by allowing a modular building to be installed at the campus. In 1998, the City Council approved Conditional Use Permit No. 2213-98, by City Council Resolution No. 8974 (Attachment 9). The approval allowed for the expansion of the church and school, which included a new parish center, classroom buildings, and shared use of the parking for the church and school uses. The multi-purpose building and eight additional classrooms were completed in 2000. Conditional Use Permit No. 2213-98 allowed the following components, which currently make up the Salem Lutheran Church and School campus: • Increased the number of classrooms from 9 to 20 • Provided for a new classroom building o Provided for a new multipurpose building • Provided 151 paved parking spaces • Established the current circulation plan for Frank Lane which identifies the ingress and egress for the church and school as well as for the Frank Lane residents • Provided for separate lower and upper grade drop-off/pick-up areas e Established the maximum enrollment of 726 students with a maximum of 611 on campus • Established the occupancy for multipurpose building at a maximum of 382 persons • Allowed the church to exceed the,3 82 person maximum for special events throughout the year by submitting a Parking Management Plan. Planning Commission Staff Report January 19, 2015 Page 4 The proposed Salem Lutheran Church and School Specific Plan includes project background with numerous earlier plans that were prepared to address program criteria, sanctuary seating capacity and size, use distribution, site access and circulation, emergency access, parking and Frank Lane improvements. Each plan rendition built upon its predecessor in evaluating issues and providing solutions to address the concerns expressed. These plans act as chronological markers to the evolution of this project as proposed with this Specific Plan. These plans are: Preliminary Land Use Plan Submittal-Design Review Committee of May 5, 2006 An initial preliminary plan was submitted to the City in 2006. This plan was prepared in response to comments received from neighbors during initial outreach efforts regarding building placement, circulation and parking, and with program re-evaluation by the applicant. As part of the City's preliminary review, the Design Review Committee at their meeting of May 17, 2006, evaluated the plan. The plan that was presented proposed a 757 fixed-seat sanctuary and worship center of . approximately 24,000 square feet, the relocation of the preschool to the adjacent existing onsite vacant structure and parking for 200 vehicles on a paved surface and 112 vehicles on the grass playfield when necessary. Comments received during the Design Review Committee review included concerns regarding the size and number of seats in the sanctuary, conversion of the Fowler House, and location of the play courts. Community Alternative B Plan-July 2009 ^ In July 2009, a plan was prepared as a result of ineetings with neighbors and is referred to as Community Alternative B. This plan included substantial modifications from the plan that was presented to the Design Review Committee in May, 2006, including a change in the worship center location, a reduction in size of the worship center and the sanctuary's seating capacity (712 seats), site access considerations, and circulation improvements. This plan was described and analyzed in the Salem Lutheran Church and School Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR). Following the submittal of this plan, the applicant continued to engage with the community and made a number of modifications in response to the continued feedback. At the Design Review Committing meeting of April 18, 2012, the Committee reviewed the proposed Salem Lutheran Church and School DEIR and Specific Plan. The Committee provided general feedback on the proposal and made several recommendations to the applicant. Recommendations included: • Height of worship center to be 36 feet maximum • Enhance worship center elevations • Larger trees around the worship center to address mass and height • . Frank lane separation design • Directional signage at Frank lane/Orange Park Boulevard • All fencing to be square tubular steel • Sycamore trees to be the theme tree Salem Lutheran Church and School OPA Compromise Specific Plan-2014 As a result of the public comments received from the circulation of the Salem Lutheran Church and School DEIR and Specific Plan,the applicant continued to meet and work with the community in an attempt to resolve issues raised by the public comments. These meetings included the formation of a City Council Liaison Committee in order to facilitate a constructive dialog between the Planning Commission Staff Report January 19, 2015 Page 5 stakeholders. As a result of this extensive and collaborative outreach process, the Salem Lutheran Church and School Specific Plan (referred to as the Salem Lutheran Church and School OPA Compromise Specific Plan) has been modified to reflect solutions to issues of concern to the community. Much of the changes to the Salem Lutheran Church and School Specific Plan are reflected in the agreement forged between the applicant and OPA. Because all of the changes to the Specific Plan are designed to further reduce the project's (already insignificant) impacts, they do not create any impacts requiring additional analysis in the DEIR. All of the potential impacts of the project, as modified, were analyzed in the Project Alternatives section and/or in the body of the Impact Analysis throughout the DEIR. For a more detailed chronology, please see Table 4.1 Community Issues Comparison of the Salem Lutheran Church and School Specific Plan (Table 4.1 of the Specific Plan). SITE SUMMARY ---......_........................................_........._........_..................._..................._.........................--�--.�.---...._.._....._........_...._........._..._....._.........._....._........._._._......_....._._._._.........._............._.._.............................._._._.........._........................._...................................._........._._._....._..........., _A�plicant._ _ ___ ; Salem Lutheran Church and School � __.._......................?....._......._. ....._ ..-- -. ....._...._._........__....._..__._...._...---..... ' __...----....._....... ... _.._._....._.............._ ......_._...._........._..... PropeYty Owner.: _ __ ; Salem Lutheran Church and School � _. _...... . ..........------...._..._...._..._._..___.... _.. .. ....__._...._......_..._._..._ _....._..__._....__ _; .............................__... �_Property Location_:__ _ _ ` _6500 East Santiago_Canyon Road _.....___i ............ ....-....._.__..._._........................_._......._._.. _......._......._...._..............._..................._. _................._............................... � Existing General Plan i � Land Use Element desi natron ' ESTR(Estate Low Densit ' ;__...._...._........._.......----........_._..._..................._......__..........._$................._............:--.._.�_._....................... .................—._._._.._._..........._...................... ._Y_.)_..............._.............._........ ..._.... . . � _......................_.................... _....................................._.......; j Existing Zoning I '..._Classification.•...__...._....._...._....._._..._._..__................_......_.._...:....R-1_-40_(Single-Family.._Residential)--................_.._................_...._..----.___......_........_...._........................ . _....._.......; i Old Towne: ; No i ;...._...._....._...._......---_.._....._.............__...................._._.._..._...._......................._........_.......-__.._...---................................._................_..........................................._._.._......................_....................._..........._._............._................._.__..............._.........._........__....._............_.. ; Redevelopment Project Area.: No j f _..........:...._..............__._...�._...._.._........._.._..._....._.........__......_........._......__..........._.............._................_..............................----............_..............._......................._._.._......................................_................, ; S�eci ac Plan/PC.: _ _ _ ; Oran e Park Acres Area ; _.... ........................_ _......._......... _. ....._....._.._... _ ...._....................... _...._.._......._ ... ....--- ; ; Site Size: 6.03 acres :. .........................................................._........_........... _...._....._...._..........._..........._.....�._.._._........_......._........_.........._...__...----..........._...................._..............._._............................._....._.._.._.........................._....._............_......__.._........_....__......._............._; � Circulation: ; Ingress/egress driveway connects Frank Lane (Private Road� to � � _ ___ _ _ _ :_Orange_Park_Boulevard. � ; _ .. _ _........._........ ........._...---..._._........ .. __......._.........._..._.......,. _....... ; ' Existing conditions: The site is located within the boundaries of Orange Park Acres ' • ` (OPA). The site consists of 4 Parcels on the south side �f ; � Santiago Canyon Road, the west side of Orange Park � Boulevard, and the north side of Frank Lane. The rectangular ; shaped site contains 6.03 acres. The project site is currently � developed with the Salem Lutheran Church and School. The ; ` ' church and school campus site is comprised of two classroom ' � ; buildings, preschool, multipurpose building, grass multipurpose ; ; ; field, a sanctuary, and ancillary sporting facilities. Currently, � ; : regular church services are held in the multipurpose building ; � ; with smaller services held within the sanctuary. � �..... ............................................_..........................._.._..._._....._........._......_...........................,..._. , __......._..................____........................_....................._........._....._.__.................._.__._................._.........................................._................_............................_.._.........; i Surrounding land uses � Rural residential and equestrian-oriented developments ; ; and Zoning: : characterize the immediate vicinity of the project site including ; ' � the equestrian-oriented community of OPA. Land uses in the ; ! � vicinity of the project include large lot single-family dwellings, ; , � � recreational open space, urban development, and undeveloped ` ' land. The Mara Brandman Horse Arena and retail flower and ' ` vegetable__building are adjacent to the northwest site boundary. ; : ................................................. . _......_ _. . __............._................ _ ._.. . ...._._................. ......__..........................._...... ...., Planning Commission Staff Report January 19, 2015 Page 6 ......................................._........................_......_....._.__........_.._.._._...._...............----............__.........,._. ........._....._........_._............__....._._.__.................._....----..._....._....__..__._.._............._.._...._....---------......._......_...._........_..._.............._..._...._....................._..._....................... ; ; Residential uses are located along Frank Lane south of the site� � � and to the west at the end of Frank Lane. A commercial rock � � ; crushing operation is located northwest of the project site across � i� ......_. _._._...........................�...............__.._._�..._Santiago_Canyon Road...._....._____�_..__._.._._._...._..._......._......._.....__......._......_..__.............._._..............._----.............._..__....._.........._._! ._.._..............._......�........_.._.._..................._._. _.... ... � Previous There have been multiple entitlements granted to Salem Lutheran ; � Applications/Entitlements: �hurch and School. The entitlements listed below have been j ; granted to the Salem Lutheran Church and School since it was ; incorporated into the City in 1993. � I ' On August 18, 1997, the Planning Commission approved ' Conditional Use Permit No. 2178-978 to allow the expansion of � ' the school by allowing a modular building to be installed at the � campus. On July 14, 1998, the City Council approved Conditional Use ; Permit No. 2213-98, per Resolution No. 8974 for the expansion af tke church and school campus. ; PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Salem Lutheran Church and School Specific Plan provides for a redesign of the church and school campus with a new approximately 23,000 square foot worship center that includes a 590 seat sanctuaxy, conference/meeting rooms, the sacristy, offices, choir/music rooms, storage, childcare, and other ancillary/administrative rooms. In order to accommodate the new worship center, the existing 3,262 square foot sanctuary building, and the existing 3,040 square foot preschool building will be demolished. Further, the existing on-site vacant structure (referred to as the "Fowler House" in the community) will be demolished, in order to accommodate a new preschool building. The preschool building is proposed to be 7,505 square feet. Seven classrooms of approximately 525 square feet are proposed. Each classroom will have its own storage and toilet room. Existing on-site infrastructure related to improved vehicle circulation and parking design are also part of the redesign. The maximum student enrollment on campus and the maximum number of students allowed on campus at any one time will not change. The following summarizes the various project components: General Plan No. 2014-02 The applicant is requesting a General Plan Amendment to ensure that the project is consistent with the City's 2010 General Plan and Land Use Policy Plan. The applicant is requesting to change the general plan designation of Estate Low Density Residential (ESTR) to Public Facilities and Institutions (PI). Zone Change No. 1259-11 The proposal includes a request for a Zone Change to change the existing zoning classification on the entire project site from R-1-40 (Single-Family Residential) to SP-PI (Specific Plan/Public and Institutional)to accommodate a specific plan. Planning Commission Staff Report January 19, 2015 Page 7 Specific Plan No. SPLAN-0002 The proposal includes a request for a Specific Plan to provide a uniform set of development standards applicable to the entire site to implement the project. By pursuing this approach to the project, responsible redevelopment of the property can be ensured through the adoption of a development control mechanism through the Design Guidelines and Development Standards in the Specific Plan. The Specific Plan, as such, contains the necessary standards, guidelines, and procedures to implement the desired improvements to the Salem Lutheran Church and School property. The Specific Plan contains the modifications, which the applicant has agreed to as a result of their multiple meetings with the Orange Park Association, the neighbors, and the City. This includes the relocation of the preschool to a new building on the existing vacant structure portion of the site, construction of a new worship center building to house the 590 seat sanctuary, administrative offices and ancillary rooms, and the elimination of the Santiago Boulevard entry point. The Specific Plan will guide the development of the property and implementation of these proposed improvements, both short-term and long-term, while also addressing infrastructure improvements through Section 6.0 Design Guidelines and Section 7.0 Zoning and Development Regulations/Standards in the Specific Plan. The Design Review Committee reviewed the sections regarding aesthetics and recommended approval to the Planning Commission and City Council. The Salem Lutheran Church and School OPA Compromise Specific Plan has been revised extensively to reflect the new proposed site plan. The revised Specific Plan was made available to the public on January 9, 2015 in conjunction with this Planning Commission staff report. Provided below is a summary of key Development Standards Public Institution Proposed Specific Code Section District Re uirements Plan Standards Building Height 32 feet or 2-stories 36 feet maximum for 17.24.060 B within 120 feet of the Worship Center residentially zoned (25% max). property. Remaining building maximum height of 32 feet. Distance between structures N/A N/A N/A Fence height 42 inches in required Ranges in height, but 17.24.075 , front yard setback, 6 will exceed 6 feet in feet all other reguired height around children setback areas. Play areas as needed for security and ball control. Church Loading area 10 feet in width by 60 10 feet in width by 60 17.34.160 feet in length. feet in length. Building lot area 6,000 feet minimum 6+acres 17.24.050 Parking 146 Church 186 paved s aces 17.24.080 Setback, Front 10 feet minimum 10+ 17.24.070 Setback, ReaY 10 feet 10+ 17.24.070 Planning Commission Staff Report January 19, 2015 Page 8 Setback, Side Street 10 feet 10+ 17.24.070 Setback, Side interior 10 feet 10+ 17.24.070 Design Review Committee No. 4538-ll The proposal includes a request for design review �because the project includes the Design Guidelines and Development Standards in the Specific Plan for construction of new buildings, reconstruction of parking lots and the multipurpose field, and landscape improvements including construction of masonry walls. The project applicant proposes a DRC application for the proposed conceptual project elevations and landscape plan, reflective of the requirements of the proposed Salem Church and School Specific Plan. A subsequent DRC application would be submitted with the site plan review for the worship center. Environmental Impact Report No. 1827-11 The City of Orange determined that an EIR is required to analyze the potential environmental impacts of the project. An EIR has been prepared in accordance with California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the CEQA Guidelines. The City Council will consider certification of an EIR prior to taking final action on the requested approvals. APPLICANT COMMUNITY OUTREACH The applicant has conducted extensive outreach with the community for approximately eight years in an attempt to develop a plan that the community could support. This included conducting over 20 separate meetings with the neighbors and other various stakeholders through the earlier stages of the project. While these meetings were extremely productive and resulted in a number of modifications to the plan, a community consensus was not achieved. As such, at the suggestion of the City, a City Council Liaison Committee was established to facilitate further outreach in order to bridge the remaining gaps between the applicant and the community. The Committee consisted of two City Council members (Councilman Murphy and Councilman Alvaxez) with support from City staff. The Committee met on six separate occasions with the applicant and the various stakeholders, which included representatives from Orange Park Association as well as neighbors adjacent to the project. The purpose of this effort was to build consensus and resolve issues between the applicant and adjacent property owners as well as the Orange Park Association. Table 4.1 - Community Issues Comparison of the Salem Lutheran Church and School Specific Plan describes the evolution of the project(Table 4.1 of the Specific Plan). As a result of their extensive outreach efforts, an agreement between the applicant and the Orange Park Association was reached in June 2014 (Attachment 7). The agreement resulted in a number of positive changes to the submitted plan. The revised submitted plan also reflects comments that the applicant has received from the Staff Review Committee, Design Review Committee and from public comments during the environmental review period. The Salem Lutheran Church and School OPA Compromise Specific Plan includes the following highlights: • Reducing of the seating capacity in the proposed sanctuary from 757 seats to 590 fixed seats. • Lowering the proposed worship center building height to 36 feet as recommended by the DRC. Planning Commission Staff Report January 19, 2015 � Page 9 • Demolishing of the Fowler House in order to provide additional parking and to accommodate the relocation of a new building for the preschool. • Improving the west side of Orange Park Boulevard to accommodate a southbound right turn in lane onto Frank lane. • Including a demand light for equestrians at the intersection of Orange Park Boulevard and Frank Lane. • Incorporating raised pavement markers to separate traffic on Frank Lane for Salem Lutheran Church and School traffic and resident traffic. o Confining parking to the project site, including the Fowler House site and overflow parking on the multipurpose field for special events. • Incorporating a hammerhead turn around at the west end of Frank Lane. • Coordinating with Orange Park Association's Trail Subcommittee to ensure proper protection of the horse trail. • Adding a provision into the Specific Plan prohibiting construction inconsistent with the � Specific Plan. STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES As stated above, over the years the applicant has worked extensively with the community to resolve a number of concerns expressed by the various stakeholders. The following list highlights those concerns and the resolutions resulting from the comments received on the DEIR and Specific Plan and through the Agreement between Salem Lutheran Church and School and Orange Park Association. Issue 1: Worship Center Buildin� Original Proposal In the original proposal submittal to the City and analyzed in the DEIR, the applicant proposed the new worship center to be approximately 23,000 square feet which included a fixed-seat capacity of 712 seats. The proposed height of the Worship Center was up to 39 feet. The community and Design Review Committee exnressed concerns with the overall height as well as the number of seats in the sanctuary. Resolution—Through Agr�eement Between Salem Lutheran Church and School and OPA The applicant has lowered the height of the roof of the new sanctuary to 36 feet at its m�imum height. The seating capacity has also been decreased by 122 seats to 590 seats. The project proposes the construction of a new worship center building to be located in the same general area as the existing sanctuary and preschool buildings (E�ibit 4.6 of the Specific Plan). The new worship center will be approximately 23,000 square feet and will house the new sanctuary with a fixed-seat capacity of 590 seats. The new sanctuary will be located in the bottom center of the project site, south of the existing classroom buildings. The worship center is being built to accommodate the current worship member population, which has outgrown the existing sanctuary and is utilizing the multipurpose building's auditorium for church services. In addition to the sanctuary, conference and meeting rooms, the sacristy, offices, choir and music rooms, storage, child care, and other ancillary/administrative rooms will also be included in the new building. At this time, the applicant Planning Commission Staff Report January 19, 2015 Page 10 is only proposing a conceptual design approval. A separate Design Review Committee application along with the site plan review will be submitted for the final design of the proposed worship center and preschool. The final proposal must be consistent with the guidelines in the Salem Lutheran Church and School Specific Plan. Issue 2: Fowler House/Preschool Suildin� O�iginal Proposal In the original submittal to the City, the applicant was proposing to convert the existing vacant Fowler House into the preschool. The preschool would have been 5,981 square feet. The exterior fa�ade would have been maintained in its current characteristics. Seven classrooms were proposed, ranging in size from approximately 591 square feet to approximately 647 square feet. Each classroom would have its own storage and toilet room. The community expressed concerns regarding the use of the vacant structure as the preschool. Resolution—Through Agr�eement Between Salem Lutheran Church and School and OPA The existing vacant Fowler house on the western edge of the project site will be demolished to make room for a new 7,505 square foot one-story preschool building and additional parking (Exhibit 4.6 of the Specific Plan). The building will house seven classrooms of approximately 525 square feet each. Each classroom will have its own storage space and toilet room. The remaining portions of the building will be occupied with supporting facilities. Further, the location of the new preschool building will be placed away from the westerly boundary. This will create a buffer area between preschool and the residential properties to the west. Issue 3: On and Off Site Circulation Santiago Road Access Original Proposal The original proposal submitted to the City had two'ingress/egress points. The applicant was proposing to create a right turn-in and right turn-out lane on Santiago Canyon Road as originally was requested by the Frank Lane residents. The proposal would have had a dedicated right turn-in lane with an internal circulation, which would have allowed the school parents to drop-off/pick-up their children using the Santiago Canyon Road and Frank Lane entrances. However; the OPA • community had significant concerns about the disturbance to the equestrian trail, adjacent to Santiago canyon Boulevard. Resolution—Through Agreement Between Salem Lutheran Church and School and OPA The applicant has removed the Santiago Canyon Road entry point and instead will be providing a dedicated right turn-in lane on Orange Park Boulevard onto Frank Lane. Frank Lane Frank Lane is comprised of multiple access easements over the Salem Lutheran Church and School property and the residents' properties on the south side of Frank lane, which either front or back up to Frank Lane. The easement agreements date back to the early 1960's and are for reciprocal ingress Planning Commission Staff Report January 19, 2015 Page 11 and egress. These access easements have in essence created a private street (Attachment 12). The majority of the parcels utilize Frank Lane to access Orange Park Blvd. Frank Lane acts as the only entryway to the Salem site and some residential properties. Traffic during Salem School drop-off and pick-up times has been known to create traffic congestion that has been a source of concern to the residents that use Frank Lane. As part of the efforts by the City Council Liaison Committee, a significant amount of data was gathered and presented to the applicant and the stakeholders regarding the easements which helped clarify the history and intent of the easements. Orzginal Proposal The original plan showed the use of split rail fencing to separate traffic on Frank Lane for Salem Lutheran Church and School traffic and resident traffic. However, concerns were raised by some of the adjacent neighbors that the split rail fencing might prevent their ability to maneuver large recreational and equestrian vehicles in and out of their property. Resolution— Through Agreement Between Salem Lutheran Church and School and OPA Rather than split rail fencing, the applicant is incorporating raised pavement markers to separate traffic on Frank Lane for Salem Lutheran Church and School traffic and resident traffic. The raised pavement markers would be located 2 feet into Salem Lutheran Church and School property to allow additional drive lane area for the residents (Exhibit 6.6 of the Specific Plan). Proposed improvements to Frank Lane would provide Frank Lane residents' unobstructed ingress and egress to their homes and reflect a condition of two closely spaced but separate driveways, one for church and school use, and one for residents only (Exhibit 4.8 of the Specific Plan). Pavement markers (Botts' Dots) placed on the roadway would separate the resident lanes (2 lanes) from the church/school lanes (2-4lanes). To accomplish this, a 44-foot wide private drive for Salem Church and School will be added and will provide adjoining parking. As a result of this change, internal circulation and parking would be improved to allow for more efficient traffic movement during school day drop-off and pick-up periods. Offsite Equestrian/Pedestrian/Bicycle Circulation Perimeter equestrian trails run along Santiago Canyon Road and Orange Park Boulevard (Exhibit 4.1E ef the Cpecific Plan;. The portion of the equestrian trail located a:ong Santiago Canyon Road terminates where it intersects with the Mara Brandman Horse Arena adjacent to the project site. At Orange Park Boulevard, the trail runs north and south. Santiago Canyon Road and Orange Paxk Boulevard are designated as Existing Class II (On-Street) bikeways. The Class II bicycle lane runs along the site on Santiago Canyon Road and on Orange Park Boulevard, the Class II bicycle lane runs south of the Frank Lane. The bicyclists traveling along Orange Park Boulevard would continue to use the pedestrian crosswalks located at the Frank Lane/Orange Park Boulevard intersections as well as the Santiago Canyon Road/Orange Park Boulevard intersections. Original Proposal The original plan showed a right turn-in and right turnout lane on Santiago Canyon Road. This entry was creating a break in the equestrian trail and dedicated bicycle lane along Santiago Canyon Road. Concern with the Santiago Canyon Road access included the proposed changes to the existing equestrian trail and the bike lane. The Santiago Canyon Road entry posed a potential danger to equestrian riders;bicyclists, and pedestrians. Planning Commission Staff Report January 19, 2015 Page 12 Resolution— Through Agreement Between Salem Lutheran Church and School and OPA The applicant has removed the previously proposed Santiago Canyon Road entry point. Equestrian crossing signals are proposed to be installed on both sides of Frank Lane at Orange Park Boulevard that would require vehicles to stop. Riders approaching Frank Lane from either direction would be able to activate the crossing signal without dismounting (Exhibit 4.17 of the Specific Plan). The intersection at Santiago Canyon Road at Orange Park Boulevard is signalized and provides pedestrian push buttons and crosswalks for crossing maneuvers. At the intersection of Orange Park Boulevard and Frank Lane, a crosswalk will be added for pedestrian use across Frank Lane. Issue 4: Proposed On-site Vehicular Parking O�iginal Proposal The original proposal submitted to the City proposed 180 paved surface parking spaces and 113 overflow spaces on the multipurpose field for a total of 293 parking spaces. This parking proposal was based on 712 seats in the worship center, which reflected a surplus of 2 paved surface parking spaces. As provided for in the existing Conditional Use Permit No. 2213-98, Salem Lutheran has utilized the field for overflow parking for several years for special events, such as holiday church services and graduation. The community expressed concerns with utilizing the field for overflow parking. Resolution—Through Agreement Between Salem Lutheran Church and School and OPA The revised submittal has a total of 291 parking spaces, which includes 186 paved surface parking spaces and 105 overflow spaces on the multipurpose field. Although there is a net loss of 2 parking spaces, the revised proposal reflects a smaller sanctuary of 590 seats, which requires 148 parking spaces leaving a surplus of 38 paved surface parking spaces in the revised plans. Per City of Orange Zoning Ordinance 17.34.060 (1 space/4 seats), adequate parking will be provided 100 percent of the time. However, based upon analysis by the project's Traffic Engineer, due to special events during the year 15 percent of the time a Parking Management Plan(PMP) will be implemented allowing overflow parking to occur on the grass multipurpose field. Events anticipating the need for use of overflow parking on the grass field include holiday church services (Easter, Christmas, etc.), school graduations, special school-related events and services (such as opening school year church service, Christmas programs, grandparents day, etc.), occasional funerals and occasional weddings. Issue 5: General Plan Amendment/Suecific Plan Original Proposal The current General Plan designation for the site is Estate Low Density Residential (ESTR), which allows for the proposed development, is consistent with the current Zoning designation of Single- Family Residential (R-1-40), and would be consistent with the proposed Specific Plan/Public and Institutional (SP-PI) designation for the site. However, concern was expressed by the Orange Park Association regarding a perceived inconsistency between the OPA Plan which shows a designation of Public & Quasi Public and the General Plan Land Use Map. Planning Commission Staff Report January 19, 2015 Page 13 Resolution—Through Agreement Between Salem LutheYan Church and School and OPA The applicant is requesting a General Plan Amendment to ensure that the project is consistent with the City's 2010 General Plan and Land Use Policy Plan. The applicant has agreed to address the Orange Park Association's concerns about inconsistencies between the OPA Plan and the General Plan Land Use Map by agreeing�to seek a General Plan Amendment to amend the site's designation on the General Plan Land Use Map. The General Plan Amendment will make such designation consistent with the OPA Plan. Therefore, applicant is requesting to change the General Plan designation of Estate Low Density Residential (ESTR)to Public Facilities and Institutions (PI). ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Environmental Impact Report: The environmental impacts of the project and its project alternatives were evaluated through Environmental Review No. 1827-11 (DEIR) State Clearinghouse No. 2011101046 (Exhibit B), which was prepared in accordance with the provisions of CEQA per State CEQA Guidelines Section 15070 et seq. and in conformance with the Local CEQA Guidelines. The 45-day public review period was initiated on Februaxy 16, 2012 and would have ended on April 2, 2012. As a result of changes to the Notice of Availability (NOA), the applicant requested that the 45-day review period be extended. The public review period was extended to Apri123, 2012. Copies of the document were available for public review at each of the three libraries within the City limits, at City Hall, and were posted to the Department's web page on the City's web site. Additionally, the NOA and Notice of Completion (NOP) was filed with the State Clearinghouse, the Orange County Clerk, advertised in the Orange City News, posted at the site, and notices were sent to 63 individuals. The Initial Study prepared for the Salem Lutheran Church and School project determined that certain topical environmental issues would not be significantly affected by the implementation of the proposed project and did not require further analysis in the DEIR in accordance with Guidelines Section 15128. These sections were: Agricultural and Forest Resources, Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Geology and Soils, Mineral Resources, Population and Housing, Public Services, and Recreation. The DEIR has been prepareci to evaluate potential environmental effects attributable to the proposed project. The DEIR analyzed the following topical environmental issue areas: Aesthetics, Air Quality/Climate Change, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Hydrology and Water Quality, Land Use and Planning, Noise, Transportation and Traffic, Utilities and Service Systems. The analysis contained in the DEIR determined that implementation of the project may result in significant environmental effects to noise levels in the area without mitigation. CEQA Guidelines require that mitigation measures be identified for such impacts in an effort to reduce such impacts to a less than significant level and that mitigation be fully enforceable tluough permit conditions, agreements, or other legally binding instruments. The DEIR includes two mitigation measures. Incorporation of the mitigation measures into the project results in a reduction of significant impact to a less than significant level. Demolition of the existing sanctuary building, preschool building, Fowler house, and construction of the new worship center will produce a short-term negative aesthetic impact. These activities are short-term in nature and will cease at the completion of the project. The applicant believes that the Planning Commission Staff Report January 19, 2015 Page 14 project has been designed to minimize the long-term visual impacts to the community. The new worship center and offices are located on an interior portion of the site in the same general location of the aging preschool and sanctuary buildings being razed. Staff received ten written comment letter(s) during the public review period, and responses to those comments were prepared and forwarded to the respective authors of such comments in accordance with the requirements of CEQA, in advance of the City's consideration of any certification. A Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (Exhibit C) has been prepared in accordance with State CEQA Guidelines Section 15132. Copies of all comments and the City's response to those comments have been included for the Commission's consideration (Section 3 of the Final EIR). The City responses to the comments do not include any new information that would be determined as significant. The City Response to Comments is part of the DEIR under consideration by the Planning Commission. In response to the comments, the applicant made changes to the Salem Lutheran Church and School Specific Plan, including the site access and size of the proposed worship center (see "Applicant Community Outreach" and "Analysis/Statement of the Issues" sections of this staff report). The changes do not create the need for any new analysis or recirculation of the DEIR because all the issues and analysis are already addressed within the DEIR. As such, as noted in the EIR, the intent of the changes is to make the project even less impactful than indicated in the DEIR. The public comment letters and Response to Comments are included as Exhibit C. APPLICATION(S) REQUESTED/REQUIRED FINDINGS Environmental Review: The applicant is requesting certification of the adequacy of Final Environmental Impact Report. Required Findings: There are no required findings for an Environmental Impact Report since it is considered a legislative action. General Plan Amendment: The applicant is requesting a General Plan Amendment to ensure that the project is consistent with the City's 2010 General Plan and Land Use Policy Plan. Required Findings: There are no required findings for a General Plan Amendment since it is considered a legislative action. Zone Chan�e: The applicant is requesting a Zone Change from Single-Family Residential) to the Specific Plan/Public and Institutional to accommodate a specific plan. Required Findings: There are no required findings for a Zone Change since it is considered a legislative action. Snecific Plan: The proposal includes a request for a Specific Plan to provide a uniform set of development standards applicable to the entire site to implement the project. Required Findings: There are no required findings for a Specific Plan since it is considered a legislative action. Planning Commission Staff Report January 19, 2015 Page 15 Desi�n Review Committee: The applicant is requesting approval of a Design Review Committee application to provide a campus wide design theme and landscape/hardscape treatment. Required Findings: 1. In the Old Town Historic District, the proposed work conforms to the prescriptive standards and design criteria referenced and/or recommended by the Design Review Committee or other reviewing body for the project. 2. In any National Register Historic District, the proposed work complies with the Secretary of the Interior's standards and guidelines. 3. The project design upholds community aesthetics through the use of an internally consistent, integrated design theme and is consistent with all adopted specific plans, applicable design standards, and their required findings. 4. For infill residential development, as specified in the City of Orange infill residential design guidelines, the new structure(s) or addition are compatible with the scale, massing, orientation, and articulation of the surrounding development and will preserve or enhance existing neighborhood character. ADVI50RY BOARD RECOMMENDATION Staff lteview Committee: The Staff Review Committee (SRC) reviewed the conceptual plans, specific plan, initial study, and draft environmental impact report on multiple occasions. On February 08, 2012, the SRC reviewed the revised documentation and recommended approval with conditions. Design Review Committee: On March 7, 2012, the Design Review Committee (DRC j received a presentation on the Salem Lutheran Church and School Specific Plan from the applicant and their representatives. At that meeting, the DRC made several inquiries and suggestions about the overall project, both design and environmental reiated. The DRC then reviewed the subject proposal at the April 18, 2012 meeting, and recommended approval of the project subject to conditions, and recommended certification of the Final �IIZ through the Plannmg Commission to the City Council by a vote of five ayes. A copy of the final minutes from both meetings is provided as Attachment 10 and 11, respectively. ATTACHMENTS/EXHIBITS Attachments to Report: 1. Planning Commission Resolution PC No. 02-15 2. Planning Commission Resolution PC No. 03-15 3. Planning Commission Resolution PC No. 04-15 4. Planning Commission Resolution PC No. OS-15 . 5. Proposed Site Plan 6. Vicinity Map 7. Agreement Letter from Orange Park Association dated June 5, 2014 8. City Council Resolution No. 8147 9. City Council Resolution No. 8974 ' Planning Commission Staff Report January 19, 2015 Page 16 10. Minutes of the Design Review Committee Meeting, March 7, 2012 11. Minutes of the Design Review Committee Meeting,April 18, 2012 12. Frank Lane Easement Map Exhibits provided to the Planning Commission: A. Salem Lutheran Church and School Specific Plan dated November 14,2014 B. DEIR State Clearinghouse No. 2011101046 dated January 26, 2012 C. RTC Final EIR State Clearinghouse No. 2011101046 dated January 5, 2015 cc: Franklyn R. Elfend Elfend &Associates Inc. 18101 Von Karman, Suite 1280 Irvine, CA 92612 Michael Madden Jason Brandman Michael Madden Associates Michael Brandman Associates 24795 Eaton Lane 220 Commerce, Suite 200 Laguna Niguel, CA 92677 Irvine, CA 92602 RESOLUTION NO.PC OZ-15 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ORANGE CERTIFICATION OF THE ADEQUACY OF FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW NO. 1827-11) STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NO. 2011101046 INCLUDING ADOPTION OF THE FINDINGS OF FACT AND 1VIITIGATION MONITOI2ING REPORTING PROGRAM WH��AS, the Planning Commission has authority per Orange Municipal Code (OMC) Sections 17.10.20, 17.10.80, and 17.10.085 to make recommendations to the City Council to take action on Environmental Impact Report No. 1827-11, which was prepared to analyze the potentially significant environmental impacts of a proposed redesign of the Salem Lutheran Church and School campus located at 6500 East Santiago Canyon Road (hereinafter referred to as the "Project"); and WHEREAS, Draft EIR No. 1827-11 was circulated for public review and comment for at least 45 days, as required by CEQA, with the comment period beginning February 16, 2012 and ending April 23, 2012; and WHEREAS, responses to the comments received on Draft EIR No. 1827-11 have been prepared to the satisfaction of the City; and WHEREAS,the Planning Commission has reviewed Final EIR No. 1827-11; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a duly advertised public hearing on January 19, 2015, at which time interested persons had an opportunity to testify either in support of or opposition to the Project and for the purpose of considering General Plan Amendment No. 2014-02, Zone Change No. ZC 1259-11, Specific Plan SPLAN 0002, Design Review Committee No. 4538-11, and Environmental Impact Report No. 1827-11. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission finds and declaxes as follows: 1. Final EIR No. 1827-11 prepared for the Project has been completed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act, local CEQA Guidelines, and State CEQA Guidelines; and 2. The Planning Commission has carefully reviewed and considered the information contained in Final EIR No. 1827-11 prior to recommending that the City Council act upon the Project; and . ATTACHMENT NO. 1 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 02-15 SALEM LUTHERAN JANUARY 19,2015 PC MTG. 3. Final EIR No. 1827-11 reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the City of Orange; and 4. Based on the information contained in Final EIR No. 1827-11, the Planning Commission finds that the environmental impact report provides an adequate assessment of the potentially significant environmental impacts of the proposed Project and required discretionary permits; and 5. The Planning Commission recommends to the City Council the adoption of the CEQA Findings and Findings of Fact (Attachment A, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference), which documents and supports the conclusion that the proposed Project will not have any significant adverse environmental impacts after mitigation; and 6. The Planning Commission recommends to the City Council adoption of the Mitigation Monitoring Program (Attachment.B, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference), as the mitigation-monitoring program for the Project; and 7. Based on the foregoing, the Planning Commission recommends to the City Council that it certify and adopt Final EIR No. 1827-11, and that it approve the Project. I hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was adopted on , 2015, by the Planning Commission of the City of Orange by the following vote: Ayes: ' Noes: Absent: Abstain: ATTEST: William G. Steiner Date Chairman -2- Salem Lutheran Ci►urch and School Specific Plan CEQA Findings and Findings of Fact lntroduction CEQA Findings and Findings of Fact for #he Salem Lutheran Church and Schooi Specific Plan Prepared for: City of Orange EXHIBIT"A" � Salem Lutheran Church and Schoo/Specific Plan CEQA Findings and Findings of Fact Introduction SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION 1.1 - BACKGROUND In compliance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA)Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq and the CEQA Guidelines,the City of Orange has conducted an environmental review of the proposed Salem Lutheran Church and School OPA Compromise Specific Plan(the"Specific Plan"). A Notice of Preparation(NOP)was released for public review in October 2011. In March 2012,the Draft Environmental Report(EIR)(Draft EIR)was released.The City of Orange�City)received 10 written comments on the Draft EIR. The City prepared detailed responses to all comments,which are incorporated into the Responses to Comments section of the Final EIR. The Responses to Comments includes the verbatim comments received on the Draft EIlZ, a list of persons, entities,and agencies providing comments,and the various written responses to the comments prepared by the City's technical consultants and the City. These Findings are based upon the information contained in the record of proceedings, including the Final EIR, staff reports,the Project applicant's materials,the Mitigation Monitoring Plan,the testimony presented at public hearings,and all of the materials set forth in the Record of Proceedings, including Section 1.5,below. The Final EIR consists of the the Draft EIR and appendices thereto, as well as the following sections: Section 1: Introduction and Chronology; Section 2: OPA Compromise Plan; Section 3: Responses to Comments; Section 4: The Grayson Traffic Plan; and Section 5: Summary of Corrections and Additions to the Draft EIR. CEQA provides that"public agencies should not approve projects as proposed if there are feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures available which would substantially lessen the significant environmental effects of such projects[.]" (Public Resources Code Section 21002 [emphasis added].) The procedures required by CEQA"are intended to assist public agencies in systematically identifying both the significant effects of proposed projects and the feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures which will avoid or substantially lessen such significant effects." (Public Resources Code Section 21002.) CEQA's mandates and principles are implemented,in part,through the requirement that agencies adopt findings before approving projects for which EIRs are required. For each significant environmental effect identified in an EIR for a proposed project,the approving agency must issue a written finding reaching one or more of three conclusions: (1)that"[c]hanges or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into,the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the final EIR,"(2)"[s]uch changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding [and] 2 Sa/em Lutheran Church and School Specifrc Plan CEQA Findings and Findings ofFact Introduction [s]uch changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency,"or(3)"[s]pecific economic, legal, social,technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment oppoMunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the final EIR." (Public Res. Code Section 21081; CEQA Guidelines, 14 California Code of Regulations Section 15091.) CEQA defines"feasible"to mean "capable of being accomplished.in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time,taking into account economic, legal, environmental, social and technological factors." (Public Resources Code Section 21061.1; CEQA Guidelines, 14 California Code of Regulations 15364.) Because the Draft EIR identified significant effects that may occur as a result of the Project,and in accordance with the provisions of CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines,the City Council of the City of Orange hereby adopts these Findings and Findings of Fact. The the City Council of the City of Orange has independently reviewed the record of proceedings and based on the evidence in the Record of Proceedings adopts these Findings and Findings of Fact. 1.2 - PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposed Specific Plan provides for a redesign of the existing church and school campus to better serve its existing attendees and students(the"ProjecY'), and includes a new worship center that includes a sanctuary, conference and meeting rooms, and administrative offices, as well as a new preschool building and playground. The Project site("Site")contains 6.03 acres and is bounded by Santiago Canyon road to the north,Orange Park Boulevard to the east,and Frank Lane to the north. The site's address is 5500 East Santiago Canyon Road. The Project is more specifically described in the Specific Plan, Section 3 of the Draft EIR, and Section 2 (OPA Compromise Plan)of the Final EIR. 1.3 - PROJECT COMPONENTS Salem Lutheran Church and School is proposing to redesign its six-acre campus on the corner of Santiago Canyon Road and Orange Park Boulevard. T`he Project proposes the relocation of the existing preschool to a new building on the campus approximately 130-feet to the west, demolition of the aging preschool and sanctuaiy buildings.and the construction of a new sanctuary with administrative space,referred to as the worship center. Improved onsite parking and a new circulation design to improve the flow of traffic entering and exiting the Project are also part of the redesign.No new uses are proposed and all existing uses conform to the "Public/Quasi-public"designation for the site as specified in the Orange Park Acres Specific Plan,which serves as the City of Orange's Land Use Element of its General Plan for the geographic territory covered by the Specific Plan. 3 Salem Lutheran Church and School Specifrc Plan CEQA Findings and Findings of Facf Introduction The project will require the approval of the Specific Plan, a zone change,a general plan amendment, a lot line adjustment, and site plan review. 1.4 - PROJECT OBJECTIVES The proposed project meets the following project objectives. The goal numbers provided in parentheses correspond to the goals set forth in the Specific Plan. 1. Attain the most suitable land use pattern for the campus with a functional and aesthetic relationship of facilities while being responsive to the concerns and wishes expressed by surrounding residences and the City of Orange.(Specific Plan Goal No. 1.) 2. Ensure the quality appearance for Salem Church Campus with consistent design and visual improvements blending proposed facilities with existing facilities,thus continuing the visual character and appeal of the existing facility. (Specific Plan Goal No. 2.) 3. Have an efficient internal circulation system to alleviate unnecessary project-related traffic overflow onto adjacent streets while ensuring the functional access and parking needs of the campus. (Specific Plan Goal No. 3.) 4. Maintain comparable open space and recreational amenities of the campus while meeting the programmatic needs.(Specific Plan Goal No.4.) 5. Provide a comprehensive,well-rounded master plan for the property that addresses environmental,water quality, drainage, circulation and public facilities and services. (Specific Plan Goal No. 5.) 6. Create a water quality and drainage system that minimizes the impact to offsite receiving waters and ensures that runoff from smaller events is infiltrated or otherwise addressed as applicable,before entering Handy Creek and Santiago Creek. (Specific Plan Goal No. 6.) 7. Incorporate sustainable design techniques into the redesign plans for the campus. (Specific Plan Goal No. 7.) 1.5 - RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS For purposes of CEQA and these Findings,the Record of Proceedings for the proposed Project consists of the following documents and other evidence,at a minimum: • The Notice of Preparation(NOP)and all other public notices issued by the City in conjunction with the proposed Project; • The Final Environmental Impact Report for the proposed Project(Final EIR),which includes the Draft EIR,the technical appendices,and the Responses to Comments; a Sa/em Lutheran Church and School Speci�c Plan CEQA Findings and Findings of Fact Introducfion o All written comments submitted by agencies or members of the public during the public review comment period on the Draft EIlZ; • All responses to written comments submitted by agencies or members of the public during the public review comment period on the Draft EIR; o All written and verbal public testimony presented during a noticed public hearing for the proposed Project at which such testimony was taken; • The Mitigation Monitoring Plan(MMP}; • The documents,reports and technical memaranda included or referenced in the technical appendices of the Draft EIR and Final EIR; a All documents, studies, EIRs, or other materials incorporated by reference in the Draft EIR and Final EIR; • The Ordinances and Resolutions adopted by the City in connection with the proposed Project,and all documents incorporated by reference therein; • Matters of common knowledge to the City, including but not limited to federal, state and local laws and regulations and policy documents; e Written correspondence submitted to the City in connection with the Project; • All documents,City Staff Reports,City studies, and all written or oral testimony provided to the City in connection with the Project; • Any documents expressly.cited in these Findings; o The City's General Plan(including the Orange Park Acres Specific Plan)and Zoning Ordinance; • All testimony and deliberations received or held in connection with the Project; • Any other relevant materials required to be in the record of proceedings by Public Resources Code Section 21167.6(e)(excluding privileged materials), including materials submitted to the City by the applicant. 5 Salem Lutheran Church and Schoo/Specifrc Plan CEQA Findings and Findings of Fact lntroduction 1.6 - CUSTODIAN AND LOCATION OF RECORDS The documents and other materials which constitute the administrative record for the City's actions related to the Project are located at the City of Orange Planning Division, located at 300 East Chapman Avenue, Orange,California 92866,and much of the documents that constitute the record may be accessed on the City's website at www.cityoforange.org. The City Planning Division is the custodian of the record of proceedings for the Project. Copies of these documents,which constitute the record of proceedings,are and at all relevant times have been and will be available upon request at the office of the Planning Department. This information is provided in compliance with Public Resources Code section 21081.6(a)(2)and CEQA Guideline section 15091(e). 1.7 - ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW AND PUBLIC PARTICIPATION The City prepared an Initial Study(IS)for the proposed Project in October 2011. Based on that IS, the City determined that the proposed Project may have a significant effect on the environmental and that an EIR should be prepared to analyze the potential impacts associated with approval and implementation of the proposed Project. On October 13,2011 in accordance with Section 15082 of the Guidelines,the City distributed a Notice of Preparation(NOP)of an Environmental Impact Report to the State Clearinghouse, local and regional responsible agencies and other interested parties. Approximately 12 agencies and other interested parties responded to the NOP. A copy of the IS,NOP,and the responses received during the 30-day public review period,are contained in Appendix A to the Draft EIR. In March 2012,the Draft Environmental Report(EIR)(Draft EIR)was released.The City of Orange (City)received 10 written comments on the Draft EIR. The Draft EIR was circulated for public review and comment during the period March 1,2012 thru Apri123,2012. During the open public comment period on the Draft EIR, a total of 10 comment letters were received. The public comment period complied with the 45-day review period identified in CEQA Guideline section 15105. A Notice of Completion of the Revised Draft EIIZ was sent to the State Clearinghouse and the Draft EIR was circulated to State agencies for review through the State Clearinghouse,Office of Planning and Research(SCH.No. 2011101046). All of the comments received on the Draft EIR were responded to in writing in the Responses to Comments,which is a component(Section 3)of the Final EIR. s Salem Lutheran Church and School Specifrc Plan CEQA Findings and Findings of Fact Introduction There have been numerous opportunities for public review and comment concerning the proposed Project and the environmental documents prepared for it,including City of Orange Planning Commission and City Council Meetings. 1.8 - GENERAL FINDINGS • The City hereby finds as follows: • The City is the"Lead Agency"for the proposed Project evaluated in the Final EIR; • The Draft EIR and the Final EIR were prepared in compliance with CEQA and the Guidelines; • The City has independently reviewed and analyzed the Draft EIR and the Final EIR,and these documents reflect the independent judgment of the CounciUCity; • A MMP has been prepared requiring mitigation measures and/or the changes to the proposed Project,which the City has adopted and made a condition of approval of the proposed Project. The MN1P is incorporated herein by reference and is considered part of the record of proceedings for the proposed Project; • The MMP designates responsibility and anticipated timing for the implementation of mitigation;the City will serve as the MMP Coordinator; � • In determining whether the proposed Project has a significant impact on the environment, and in adopting these Findings pursuant to Section 21081 of CEQA,the City has complied with CEQA Sections 21081.5 and 21082.2; • The impacts of the proposed Project have fully been analyzed to the extent feasible at the time of certification of the Final EIR; • The City reviewed the comments received on the Draft EIR, and the responses thereto and has determined that neither the comments received nor the responses to such comments add significant new information regarding environmental impacts to the Draft EIR. The City has based its actions on full appraisal of all viewpoints, including all comments received up to the date of adoption of these Findings, concerning the environmental impacts identified and analyzed in the Final EIR; • The responses to the comments on the Draft EIR which are contained in the Final EIR, clarify and amplify the analysis in the Draft EIR; 7 Salem Lutheran Church and Schoo/Specifc Plan CEQA Findings and Findings of Fact Introduction • Having reviewed the information contained in the Draft EIR,Final EIR and the record of proceedings, as well as the requirements of CEQA and the Guidelines regarding recirculation of Draft EIRs, and having analyzed the changes to the proposed Project which have occurred since the close of the public review period,the City finds that there is no new significant information in the Final EIR and finds that recirculation is not required. • The City has further specifically analyzed the OPA Compromise Plan,and finds that all impacts associated with the OPA Compromise Plan will be similar or less than the impacts identified in the Draft EIR. Thus,the inclusion of the OPA Compromise Plan in the Final EIR does not constitute significant new information and does not require recirculation. • The City has made no decisions that constitute an irretrievable commitment of resources toward the proposed Project prior to certification on the Final EIR,nor has the City previously committed to a definite course of action with respect to the proposed Project; • The City has independently analyzed the Project and the EIR prepared for the Project, and has independently considered the imposition of mitigation measures and all other matters related thereto; • Copies of all the documents incorporated by reference in the Final EIR are and have been available upon request at all times at the offices of the City, custodian or record for such documents or other materials; • Having received,reviewed,and considered all information and documents in the record, the City hereby conditions the proposed Project as set forth in the Conditions of Approval and Mitigation Monitoring Program and finds as stated in these Findings of Fact. 1.9 - CONSISTENCY WITH GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING CODE The Site is located within Orange Park Acres, an area of the CiTy governed by the Orange Park Acres Specific Plan ("OPA Plan"),which the City adopted in 1973. Despite the fact that it is entitled a "specific plan,"the OPA Plan is part of the City's General Plan. Specifically, as clearly set forth in the resolution adopting said plan, it was intended to be"the land use element of the general plan"of the Orange Park Acres area. (City of Orange Resolution No. 3915.) Under the OPA Plan,the entire approximately 6 acre Site is designated for"Public/Quasi-public"use. (OPA Plan,pp. 113, 121-122.) As explained by the OPA Plan,the"Public/Quasi-public"land-use category includes church and school uses. (OPA Plan, pp. 117-18; see also pp. 121-122.) Thus,the 8 Salem Lutheran Church and Schoo/Specific Plan CEQA Findings and Findings of Facf lnfroduction existing(and proposed)use of the Site as a church and school is precisely that contemplated by the OPA Plan. Despite the Site's OPA Plan designation,which has never been changed,a land use map originally adopted by City as part of a City-wide 1989 General Plan update designated the Site as"Estate Low Density Residential." Consistent with that designation,but inconsistent with the Site's OPA Plan designation,the Site is currently zoned"residential"(R-1-40). The proposed Project would address the inconsistencies between the OPA Plan and the General Plan Land Use Map by changing the Site's designation on the General Plan Land Use Map to Public Facilities and Institutions(PFI), in order to make such designation consistent with the OPA Plan. In addition, it would make the Site's zoning consistent with the OPA Plan by rezoning the Site from residential to Specific Plan/Public arid Institutional"("SP-PI"). Thus,the Project is consistent with the City's General Plan and Zoning Code. 9 Salem Lutheran Church and School Specifc Plan Impacts Which are Less Than Signifrcant or CEQA Findings and Findings of Fact Can Be Mitigated to a Level of Insignificance SECTION 2: POTENTIAL ADVERSE PROJECT LEVEL IMPACTS WHICH ARE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT OR CAN BE MITIGATED TO A LEVEL OF INSIGNIFICANCE The Final EIR identified potentially significantproject-specific adverse impacts of the proposed project and proposed mitigation measures to avoid or substantially lessen those impacts where required. Those impacts and mitigation measures are identified in the following sections. The Orange City Council finds,based on the facts set forth in the record,which include but are not limited to the facts set forth below,that the following impacts will be less than significant or that the incorporation of the identified mitigation measures will mitigate the following identified significant project-specific adverse impacts to a level that is considered less than significant. 2.1 - AESTHETICS Impact 4.1-1 The project will not substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings. 2.1.1 - Potentially Significant Impact The potential for the Project to substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings was evaluated. The Final EIR indicates the Project will not substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings and that this potential impact is thus less than siguificant. Finding The Project will not substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site or its surroundings. Facts in Support of Finding The existing sanctuary has been on the property for over 40 years and the proposed project involves a redesign of existing onsite uses.The proposed Specific Plan is intended to integrate the proposed uses with the existing improvements. New construction will respect the existing style of buildings to remain onsite, while at the same time provide a more contemporary architectural style that blends in with the existing site. The Specific Plan includes design guidelines intended to establish a context for the future redesign of portions of the campus that ensures complimentary and compatible additions to the existing setting and community. The design guidelines define and reinforce the regulations and standards contained in �o Salem Lutheran Church and School Specific Plan lmpacts Which are Less Than Significant or CEQA Findings and Findings of Fact Can Be Mitigated to a Level of Insignificance the Specific Plan. These guidelines will be used by architects, landscape architects,and engineers, with assistance from Salem Lutheran Church,to assure a high quality campus appearance in use compatibility, architecture, and building placement. Further,the Specific Plan incorporates and implements aesthetics-related policies from the OPA Plan.The Project is consistent with all aesthetics policies contained in the OPA Plan. (See DEIR,Table 4.l.l [evaluating consistency of tlle Project with OPA Plan aesthetics policies].) A plant materials palette has been developed with consideration to the rural characteristics of this part of the City of Orange and the OPA community. The project has been designed to minimize visual impacts to the community. The new worship center and offices are located on an interior portion of the site in the same general location of the aging preschool and sanctuary buildings being razed, which maintains the existing character of the site as much as possible and reduces building massing and visual impacts from Santiago Canyon Road. References: Pages 4.1-16 through 4.1-25 of the Draft EIR and any documents referenced in or incorporated by reference in Section 4.1,Aesthetics,of the Draft EIR; Section 2(OPA Compromise Plan)of the Final EIR; Section 6 of the Specific�Plan. Impact 4.1-1 The project will not create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area. 2.1.2- Potentially Significant Impact � The potential for the Project to create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area was evaluated. The Final EIR indicates the Project will not create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area and that this potential impact is thus less than significant. Finding The Project will not create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area. Facts in Support of Finding Sources of light from the proposed Project include: parking lot lighting,temporary multipurpose field lighting,and security lighting.A lighting/photometric plan will define the location of light standards and will be prepared by a licensed electrical engineer and will be submitted to the City at the time of 11 Salem Lutheran Church and Schoo/Specific Plan Impacts Which are Less Tban Signi�cant or CEQA Findings and Findings of Fact Can Be Mitigated fo a Level of Insignificance Site Plan review. The building finishes(masonry and stucco in earth-toned colors)will not lead to glare.Additionally,the roofing system on site will have a matte(non-reflective)finish. Parking lot lighting.Light sources for the parking lots shall be shielded and adjusted to avoid light overspill(light trespass).All light direction shall be downward,rather than upward or sideways,to eliminate light pollution to the extent possible.Per City Building Security Standards Ordinance No. 7-79, open parking lots providing more than ten 10 new parking spaces for general use by the public, shall be provided with a maintained minimum of one foot-candle of light in the parking surface from dusk until the termination of business every operating day. Temporary Multipurpose field lighting.Lighting for the multipurpose field will occur when used for occasional overflow parking only. At no time will temporary lighting be used to illuminate the multipurpose fields for athletic events or other activities. Temporary portable light units will be used to illuminate the area and shall be shielded and adjusted to avoid light overspill(light trespass).All light direction will be downward rather than upward or sideways to eliminate light pollution to the extent possible.The areas illuminated shall be minimized but will comply with the City's minimum photometric requirements.Lighting for overflow parking will operate from dusk until no later than 10:30PM. It is anticipated that overflow parking requiring evening lighting will only occur up to three times a year for events such as Good Friday services and special children's events. Security lighting. Safety and security lighting for all areas around both existing and proposed buildings will assist the congregation, staff,visitors,and emergency service vehicles with safe,clear, unobstructed way-finding between the adjacent parking areas and the buildings. The style of light fixtures will complement the style of the building architecture and be mounted on building surfaces wherever suitable. Security lighting will be included with the addition of the new worship center and around the preschool,as required. All lighting will be indirect,with light sources concealed or shielded from view.All light direction will be downward,rather than upward or sideways to eliminate light pollution to the extent possible. The areas illuminated shall be minimized, but will comply with the City's minimum photometric requirements for such areas. Safety and security lighting will operate from dusk until dawn. References: Pages 4.1-26 through 4.1-31 of the Draft EIR and any documents referenced in or incorporated by reference in Section 4.1,Aesthetics,of the Draft EIR. 12 Salem Lutheran Church and School Specific Plan Impacts Which are Less Than Significant or CEQA Findings and Findings of Fact Can Be Mitigated to a Level of Insignifcance 2.2 - AIR QUALITY Impact 4.2-1 The project will not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan. 2.2.1 - Project-Specific 2.2.1.1 - Potentially Significant Impact The potential for the Project to conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan was evaluated. The Final EIR indicates the Project will not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan and that this potential impact is thus less than significant. Finding The Project will not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan. Facts in Support of Finding Consistency with an air quality management plan("AQMP") is typically determined by three criteria. The first is whether the Proposed Project would increase the frequency or severity of violation of existing air quality violations, or delay the timely attainment of air quality standards or interim reductions as specified in the AQMI'. The second is whether the Proposed Project would exceed the assumptions contained in the AQMP on tenns of housing,population,and vehicle miles traveled. The third criterion is compliance with the control measures specified in the AQMP.Each of these criteria is discussed below. Criterion 1: Project's Contribution to Air Quality Violations Accarding to the South Coast Air Quality Management District("SCAQMD"),the Project is consistent with the AQMP if the Project will not result in an increase in the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations or cause or contribute to new violations,or delay timely attainment of air quality standards or the interim emission reductions specified in the AQMP(SCAQNID 1993, page 12-3). As discussed in the Final EIR,the Proposed Project's construction or operation air emissions would not exceed any SCAQMD localized significance threshold or create a carbon monoxide hot spot. Therefore,the Proposed Project would not violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation. If a project's emissions exceed the SCAQMD regional significance thresholds for NOx,VOC,PMio, or PMZs, it follows that the emissions could cumulatively contribute to an exceedance of a pollutant for which the basin is in nonattainment(ozone,PMio,PMz.$)at a monitoring station in the basin. An exceedance of a nonattainment pollutant at a monitoring station would be inconsistent with the goals of the AQMP- to achieve attainment of air standards.The Final EIR indicates that the construction and operation of 13 Salem Lutheran Church and School Specific Plan Impacfs Which are Less Than Significant or CEQA Findings and Findings of Fact Can Be Mitigated to a Level of Insignificance the Proposed Project would not exceed any of the SCAQMD's regional emission significance thresholds,which are set to minimize the incremental air quality impacts of a project in attaining and maintaining air quality standards on a regional basis.Therefore,the Project does not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the AQMP under the first criterion. Criterion 2: Consistency with the AQMP Assumptions Consistency with the AQMP assumptions is determined by performing an analysis of the Project with the assumptions in the AQMP. The emphasis of this criterion is to ensure that the analyses conducted for the Project are based on the same forecasts as the AQMP. The Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide(RCPG)consist of three sections: Core Chapters,Ancillary Chapters, and Bridge Chapters. The Growth Management,Regional Mobility,Air Quality, Water Quality,and Hazardous Waste Management chapters constitute the Core Chapters of the document. These chapters currently respond directly to federal and state requirements placed on SCAG. Local governments are required to use these as the basis of their plans for purposes of consistency with applicable regional plans under CEQA. The AQMP assumptions are based upon projections from local general plans. Projects that are consistent with the local general plan are consistent with the AQMP assumptions.The proposed Project represents a redesign of an existing land use.The long-term emissions from the operation of the proposed Project are below the significance thresholds and are not considered to be regionally significant.Therefore,the emissions from the Project would be consistent with the AQMP assumptions.Therefore,the Project does not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the AQMP this criterion. Criterion 3: Control Measures The third criterion is compliance with the control measures in the AQMP.The AQMP contains a number of land use and transportation control measures including the following: the District's Stationary and Mobile Source Control Measures; State Control Measures proposed by ARB; and Transportation Control Measures provided by Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG).ARB's strategy for reducing mobile source emissions include the following approaches: new engine standards;reduce emissions from in-use fleet,require clean fuels, support alternative fuels and reduce petroleum dependency,work with EPA to reduce emissions from federal and state sources, and pursue long-term advanced technology measures.Transportation control measures provided by SCAG include those contained in the Regional Transportation Plans(RTP),the current of which is the 2008 RTP. The RTP has control measures to reduce emissions from on-road sources by incorporating strategies such as high occupancy vehicle interventions,transit,and information based technology interventions. The measures implemented by ARB and SCAG effect the Project indirectly by regulating the vehicles that the residents may use and regulating public transportation. �4 Salem Lutheran Church and Schooi Specific Plan Impacts Which are Less Than Significant or CEQA Findings and Findings of Fact Can Be Mitigated to a Level of Insignificance The project indirectly will comply with the control measures set by ARB and SCAG. As discussed in the section above,District Rules Applicable to the Project,the Project will comply with all of the District's applicable rules and regulations.Therefore,the Project does not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the AQMP under the this criterion. References: Pages 4.2-1 through 4.2-21 of the Draft EIR and any documents referenced in or incorporated by reference in Section 4.2,Air Quality,of the Draft EIR; Section 2(OPA Compromise Plan)of the Final EIR;Traffic Impact and Parking Demand Analysis Addendum(TIA Addendum). Impact 4.2-2 The project will not violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation. 2.2.2 - Project-Specific 2.2.2.1 - Potentially Significant Impact The potential for the Project to violate any air quality,standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation was evaluated. The Final EIR indicates the Project will not violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation and that this potential impact is thus less than significant. Finding Th'e Project will not violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation. Facts in Support of Finding Two criteria were used to evaluate the significance of this impact: (1)assessment of localized impacts and(2)assessment of the local CO hot spots. Localized Impact Analysis The localized construction analysis uses thresholds that represent the maximum project emissions that will not cause or contribute to an exceedance of the most stringent applicable national or state ambient air quality standard. If the Project results in emissions that do not exceed those thresholds, it follows that those emissions would not cause or contribute to a local exceedance of the appropriate ambient air quality standard. 15 Salem Lutheran Church and School Specifrc Plan lmpacts Which are Less Than Significant or CEQA Findings and Findings of Fact Can Be Mitigated fo a Level of Insignificance Short-term Local Construction Impacts Short-term impacts refer to emissions generated during construction because they occur on a short- term basis. Construction emissions can vary substantially from day to day, depending on the level of activity,the specific type of operation,and prevailing weather conditions. Construction emissions result from both onsite and offsite activities. Onsite emissions consist principally of e�chaust emissions(NOx, SOx,CO,VOC,PMio, and PMz.$)from heavy-duty construction equipment,motor vehicle operation,and fugitive dust(mainly PMio)from disturbed soil. Additionally,paving operations and application of architectural coatings will release VOC emissions. Offsite emissions are caused by motor vehicle e�aust fi�om delivery vehicles,worker traffic,and road dust(PMio and PM2.$).Major construction-related activities include the following: • Demolition of existing structures • Grading; • Trenching for utilities; • Building construction of the onsite structures; • Asphalt paving of parking lots; and • Application of architectural coatings on exterior and interior surfaces. The construction emissions from the Proposed Project were estimated based on the Urban Emissions Model,URBEMIS2007 Version 9.2.4(URBEMIS). A representative construction schedule was developed to estimate the construction einissions. Demolition emissions would be generated from the demolition of the existing sanctuary building,pre-school building,tot lot, and parking lot area on the east side of the Proposed Project. Trenching emissions would be generated by construction equipment necessary to construct the utilities and building footings while the asphalt paving emissions are associated with the paving of new parking lots at the east portion of the Proposed Project and adjacent to the relocated pre-school.The building construction and architectural coating emissions would be generated from the construction of the new worship center building and new preschool building. Table 4.2-7 of the Draft EIR summarizes the Proposed Project's short-term localized construction- related emissions by construction activity along with the respective localized significance threshold ("LST")for the Proposed Project.The information contained in Table 4.2-7 of the Draft EIR indicates that the construction emissions would not exceed any SCAQMD regional einission threshold. Therefore,the short-term emissions will have a less than significant impact. 16 Salem Lutheran Church and Schoo/Specific Plan lmpacts Which are Less Than Significant or CEQA Findings and Findings of Fact Can Be Mitigated to a Level of Insignificance Long-term Local Operationa!Impacts Because of the nature of the Proposed Project,virtually all of the Proposed Project's operational emissions arise from vehicle travel away from the proposed project site associated with vehicle trips on local roads over potentially long distances.As such,the emissions generated from onsite operational activities are minimal.The only onsite operational emissions would result from the combustion of natural gas for water heating and air heating and from the operation of landscape equipment. As a result,the operation of the Proposed Project is not expected to exceed the SCAQMD's LST during operations, and is a less than significant air quality impact. Carbon Monoxide Hot Spot Analysis A carbon monoxide(CO)hot spot is a localized concentration of CO that is above the state or national 1-hour or 8-hour CO ambient air standards.Localized high levels of CO are associated with traffic congestion and idling or slow-moving vehicles at congested intersections.The potential for the project to create a CO hot spot was analyzed following guidelines recommended by the CO Protocol (UCD 1997)and the SCAQMD. According to the CO Protocol, intersections with Level of Service (LOS)E or F require detailed analysis. In addition, intersections that operate under LOS D conditions in areas that experience meteorological conditions favorable to CO accumulation also require a detailed analysis.The SCAQMD recommends that a local CO hotspot analysis be conducted if the intersection meets one of the following criteria: 1)the intersection is at LOS D or worse and where the project increases the volume to capacity ratio by 2 percent,or 2)the project decreases LOS at an intersection from C to D. In addition,the City of Orange requires an arterial intersection performance standard of LOS D ar better. To examine potential CO hot spot traffic impacts from the Proposed Project, a traffic impact analysis report was prepared by Linscott,Law&Greenspan(Linscott,Law&Greenspan 2010).This study examined the traffic volumes and LOS at 3 key intersections surrounding the Proposed Project both with and without the Proposed Project-generated traffic. Traffic projections were made for the proposed project using a multi-step process consisting of estimating existing traffic generation, analyzing trip distribution patterns, and allocating project-generated trips on the street system. Table 4.2-8 of the Draft EIR identifies these impacted intersections and provides the peak morning intersection traffic volumes for Sunday assuming the peak/maximum Sunday service attendance level of 712 persons. Moreover,the Draft EIIZ overstates the amount of traffic generated by the Project, since the capacity of the proposed Sanctuary was subsequently reduced to 590 seats. As indicated by the Traffic Impact and Parking Demand Analysis Addendum(Linscott,Law&Greenspan 2014)the OPA Compromise Plan will result in up to 413 AM peak hour trips for a typical Sunday church service, representing a 30-percent net trip reduction in the number of AM peak hour trips analyzed in the Draft EIR. 17 Salem Lutheran Church and Schoo/Specific Plan Impacts Which are Less Than Significant or CEQA Findings and Findings of Fact Can Be Mifigated to a Level oflnsignifrcance Because the Levels of Service at the above intersections are all LOS A or B,the extent of traffic associated with the proposed Project did not warrant a detailed carbon monoxide hot spot analysis in accordance with the recommendations of the CO Protocol and the SCAQMD.Therefore,the emissions associated with the proposed Project are not expected to cause a CO hot spot and, consequently, not result in a violation of the State of federal air quality standards for carbon monoxide. References: Pages 4.2-21 through 4.2-25 of the Draft EIR and any documents referenced in or incorporated by reference in Section 4.2,Air Quality, of the Draft EIIZ; Section 2(OPA Compromise Plan)of the Final EIR; TIA Addendum.) Impact 4.2-3 The project wiil not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard(including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors). 2.2.3 - Potentially Significant Impact The potential for the Project to result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the Project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard(including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)was evaluated. The Final EIR indicates the Project will not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the Project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard(including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)and that this potential impact is thus less than significant. Finding The Project will not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the Project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard(including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors). Facts in Support of Finding The South Coast Air Basin is in nonattainment for PMio,PMz.s, and ozone. Therefore, if the Project exceeds the regional thresholds for PMio,or PMz.s,then it contributes to a cumulatively considerable impact for those pollutants.Additionally, if the Project exceeds the.regional threshold for NOx or VOC,then it follows that the Project would contribute to a cumulatively considerable impact for ozone. �s Salem Lutheran Church and School Specific Plan Impacts Which are Less Than Significant or CEQA Findings and Findings of Fact Can Be Mitigated to a level of Insignificance Short-term Regional Emissions/mpact Ana/ysis Table 4.2-9 of the DEIR summarizes the proposed Project's regional construction-related emissions by construction activity.The information shown in Table 4.2-9 indicates that the construction emissions would.not exceed any SCAQMD regional emission threshold. Therefore,the short-term emissions are considered to have a less significant regional impact. Long-term Regional Operational Emission Impacts Operational,or long-term, emissions occur over the life of the Project. Operational emissions include mobile and area source emissions.Area source emissions result from the use of consumer products, water and air heaters that consume natural gas,gasoline-powered landscape equipment, and architectural coatings(painting). Mobile emissions from motor vehicles are the largest single long- term source of air pollutants from the Project., The proposed Project represents a redesign of existing church and school uses and has two components: an educational component and a church component. The church component would include construction of a new worship center in the same general location as the aging preschool and sanctuary buildings being razed and would include a new 10,650 sq ft sanctuary(an increase from its current size of 3,262 sq ft)and 12,350 sq ft of conference and meeting rooms,the sacristy, offices, choir and music rooms, storage,child care and other ancillary/administrative rooms. In addition,an existing onsite vacant structure would be removed and replaced with a new parking area.An approximately 7,505 square foot(sq ft)preschool building and associated 7,921 sq ft play area will be built adjacent to the western portion of the existing Classroom Building B. The remaining classroom buildings and multipurpose building of the education component would remain at current levels.The proposed Project is not expected to change the student enrollment from current levels and,therefore, no change in vehicle trips associated with the school component are expected. As a result,the only changes in the current operations, and hence long-term emissions,would be associated with the redesign of the church portion of the Project site. Such increases in emissions would be associated with any increased traffic and natural gas and landscape equipment usage from the Project.A traffic impact study was prepared for the proposed Project(Linscott,Law,and Greenspan 2010)to provide estimates of the incremental changes in traffic associated with the redesign of the church component of the proposed Project.The traffic impact study focused on Sunday moming conditions when worship services would be held since the weekday traffic associated with the educational component would not change with the redesign. A typical or"design" Sunday worship service with an attendance of 400 persons(corresponds to the 85ci�percentile attendance level)was evaluated in the h•affic impact study for traffic impacts along with a 90c��percentile attendance of 556 persons, a 660-person attendance(evaluated in prior Specific Plan studies for the Church),and a"peak/maximum"event presuming full occupancy 95d�percentile attendance of 712 persons.For purposes of estimating Sunday emissions,focus was placed on the traffic associated with the Sunday peak/maximum church �s Salem Lufheran Church and School Speci�c Plan Impacts Which are Less Than Significant or CEQA Findings and Findings of Fact Can Be Mifigated to a Level of lnsigni�cance service attendance(712-person attendance at the 95n�percentile). For this attendance level,the traffic impact study estimates that the proposed Project would add approximately 280 new peak Sunday morning trips over the typical Sunday worship service.Using supporting information contained in the traffic impact study,the increase in daily trips amounts to a maximum increase of 679 trips per day from the proposed Project. The daily regional operational emissions generated from both onsite and offsite sources were derived from the URBEMIS20071and use emission model assuming the Sunday morning peak attendance (95ti,percentile)and are shown in Table 4.2-10 of the Draft EIR for the summer and winter seasons along with the SCAQMD daily regional emission significance thresholds assuming a build out year of 2011.As shown in this table,the proposed Project's emissions do not exceed any SCAQMD regional emission thresholds in either the summer or winter season and,therefore, are considered less than significant. Moreover,the Draft EIR overstates the amount of traffic generated by the Project,since the capacity of the proposed Sanctuary was subsequently reduced to 590 seats. As indicated by the Traffic Impact and Parking Demand Analysis Addendum(Linscott,Law&Greenspan 2014)the OPA Compromise Plan will result in up to 413 AM peak hour trips for a typical Sunday church service,representing a 30-percent net trip reduction in the number of AM peak hour trips analyzed in the Draft EIR. The regional significance analysis of construction and operational einissions demonstrated that emissions are below the SCAQMD regional significance thresholds.Therefore,the proposed Project does not contribute to a cumulative impact according to this criterion. Criterion 2:Plan Approach The geographic scope for cumulative criteria pollution from air quality impacts is the South Coast Air Basin, because that is the area in which the air pollutants generated by the sources within the basin circulate and are often trapped. The SCAQMD is required to prepare and maintain an AQMP and a State Implementation Plan(SIP)to document the strategies and ineasures to be undertaken to reach attainment of ambient air quality standards. While the SCAQMD does not have direct authority over land use decisions, it is recognized that changes in land use and circulation planning are necessary to maintain clean air. The SCAQMD evaluated the entire Basin when it developed the AQMP. According to the analysis contained in the Draft EIR's discussion of Impact 4.2-1 (discussed in detail above),the proposed Project is consistent with the most recent AQMP.Therefore,the proposed Project does not present a significant impact according to this criterion. 20 Salem Lutheran Church and School Specific Plan Impacts Which are Less Than Significant or CEQA Findings and Findings of Fact Can Be Mitigated to a Level of Insignifrcance Criterion 3: Cumulative Health Impacts The Basin is in nonattainment for ozone,PMio, and PM2.s,which means that the background levels of those pollutants are at times higher than the ambient air quality standards. The air quality standards were set to protect public health, including the health of sensitive individuals(such as the elderly, children, and the sick).Therefore,when the concentration of those pollutants exceeds the standard, it is likely that some sensitive individuals in the population will experience health effects. However,the health effects are a factor of the dose-response curve.Concentration of the pollutant in the air(dose), the length of time exposed,and the response of the individual are factors involved in the severity and nature of health impacts. If a significant health impact results from project emissions, it does not mean that 100 percent of the population would experience health effects. The regional analysis of construction and operational emissions indicates that the Project would not exceed the SCAQMD regional significance thresholds. The Project would not result in cumulative health impacts. References: Pages 4.2-25 through 4.2-29 of the Draft EIR and any documents referenced in or incoiporated by reference in Section 4.2,Air Quality,of the Draft EIR; Section 2(OPA Compromise Plan)of the Final EIR; TIA Addendum.) Impact 4.2-4 The project will not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. 2.2.4 - Potentially Significant Impact The Project will not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. Finding The potential for the Project to expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations was evaluated. The Final EIR indicates the Project will not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations and that this potential impact is thus less than significant. Facts in Support of Finding This impact was evaluated using the following criteria: • Localized Significance Threshold Impacts • CO Hot Spot Threshold Analysis 21 Sa/em Lutheran Church and School Specifrc Plan /mpacfs Which are Less Than Significant or CEQA Findings and Findings of Fact Can Be Mitigated to a Level of lnsignificance • Indoor Air Quality; and • Toxic Air Contaminants Criterion 1: Localized Significance Threshold Impacts As discussed in more detail above in connection with Impact 4.2-2,the construction and operational emissions from the proposed Project would not exceed any of the SCAQMD's localized significance thresholds. Consequently,the proposed Project would not have a significant localized air quality impact. Criterion 2: CO Hot Spot Threshold Analysis As discussed in more detail above in connection with Impact 4.2-2,the levels of increased traffic to be created by the proposed Project are not sufficiently large enough to warrant a detailed CO hot spot analysis in terms of additional traffic volumes and changes in LOS at nearby traffic intersections. Thus,the carbon monoxide emissions to be generated by the proposed Project would not create a CO hot spot,and consequently not result in a significant air quality impact. Criterion 3: Indoor Air Pollution The indoor air pollutants that may be associated with operation of the Project include VOCs from new carpets and fresh paints,mold spores,radon,cigarette smoke, and combustion sources. The air pollutants that are controlled by the construction of the Project include VOCs from carpets,paints, and radon. VOCs from new carpets and new paint are temporary impacts that can be reduced by proper ventilation after installation. The health impact from these sources is anticipated to be less than significant.Radon is a naturally occurring colorless,odorless,and tasteless radioactive gas originating from the radioactive decay of uranium in rock, soil, and groundwater. Radon gets inside a building primarily from soil under homes. It is a known human lung carcinogen and is the largest source of radiation exposure to the public.Most is rapidly e�aled;however,the inhaled decay products can deposit into the lung where they irradiate sensitive airway cells increasing the risk of lung cancer. According to the EPA map of radon zones,the proposed Project is within zone 3,which has the low potential for exposures to radon. In general,the inethod and speed of radon's movement through soil is controlled by three conditions: the amount of water present in the pore space(the soil moisture content),the percentage of pore space in the soil(the porosity),and the permeability of the pore spaces that determines the soil's ability to transmit water and air. Therefore,radon moves more rapidly through permeable soils such as coarse sand and gravel. The distance that radon moves before most of it decays is less than 1 inch in water-saturated rocks or soils,but it can be more than 6 feet, and sometimes tens of feet,through dry rocks or soils.Even though the City of Orange has no"real" source of uranium to produce radon gas,the permeability of the diy gravelly soils permits high indoor radon to occur. Indoor radon tests in the proposed Project's zip code,92869, indicate that 1 of the 37 samples measured in this zip code(less than 3 percent)contained radon concentrations in excess of. 22 Salem Lutheran Church and School Specific Plan Impacts Which are Less Than Significant or CEQA Findings and Findings of Fact Can Be Mitigated to a Level of Insignificance the EPA threshold of 4 pCi/l.The California Department of Public Health classifies zip codes with indoor radon concentrations greater than 4.0 pCi/1 as follows: 0 to 6 percent-low potential; 7 to 19 percent-moderate potential; 20 percent or more-high potential.Thus,based on these samples,the Project area could have a low potential for radon concentrations over 4.0 pCi/1.These samples are taken inside buildings,not in the open,as radon is easily dispersed.Indoor radon concentrations are of most concern in residential structures with basements because such structures are of lower pressure than surrounding outdoor conditions and,therefore,have the ability to suction radon indoors.The project will be installing ventilation fans that bring indoor air outdoors.Radon is removed fi•om a building through ventilation. Therefore,the fans and the windows will help to circulate the air and to prevent indoor radon concentrations from reaching significant levels. Slab-on-grade commercial structures have a much lower ability to suction radon indoors because they are much larger and are not below grade,which substantially reduces the pressure differential between indoors and outdoors. The retail and commercial portions of the Project would employ HVAC systems that would circulate air through the structure during operational hours. The system would be sufficient to disperse indoor radon concentrations,which would minimize the risk to human health. Criterion 4: Toxic Po/lutants The ARB Air Quality and Land Use Handbook contains recommendations that will"help keep California's children and other vulnerable populations out of harm's way with respect to nearby sources of air pollution"(ARB 2005), including recommendations for distances between sensitive receptors and certain land uses.ARB recommends avoiding siting new sensitive land uses within 500 feet of a freeway,urban roads with 100,000 vehicles per day, or rural roads with 50,000 vehicles per day. Epidemiological studies indicate that the distance from the roadway and truck traffic densities were key factors in the correlation of health effects,particularly in children.According to the traffic impact study prepared for the Proposed Project,the average daily weekday traffic(ADT)along the adjacent Santiago Canyon Road in the area of the proposed Project is projected to be in the range of 30,000 to 35,000 vehicles per day. On Sundays assuming the maximum attendance of 712-persons (95ci�percentile level of attendance),the average daily Sunday traffic is in the range of 13,000 to 17,000 vehicles per day.These levels of traffic are less than the siting recommendations from the ARB land use guide and,therefore,the traffic along Santiago Canyon Road would not cause a significant impact to any sensitive receptors located within the proposed Project. Moreover,the Draft EIR overstates the amount of traffic generated by the Project,since the capacity of the proposed Sanctuary was subsequently reduced to 590 seats. As indicated by the Traffic Impact and Parking Demand Analysis Addendum(Linscott,Law&Greenspan 2014)the OPA Compromise Plan will result in up to 413 AM peak hour trips for a typical Sunday church service,representing a 30-percent net trip reduction in the number of AM peak hour trips analyzed in the Draft EIR. 23 Sa/em Lufheran Church and Schoo/Specifrc Plan /mpacfs Which are Less Than Signifcant or CEQA Findings and Findings ofFact Can Be Mitigated to a Level of/nsignificance ARB also recommends avoiding siting new sensitive land uses within 1,000 feet of a distribution center. The closest existing or proposed distribution center to the Project is located more than 3 miles from the Project. ARB recommends avoiding new sensitive land uses within 300 feet of a large fueling station(a facility with a throughput of 3.6 million gallons per year or greater).A 50-foot separation is recommended for typical gas dispensing facilities. There are no large fueling stations within 300 feet of the proposed Project. ARB recommends avoiding siting new sensitive land uses within 300 feet of any dry cleaning operation that uses perchloroethylene.For operations with two or more machines,ARB recommends a buffer of 500 feet.For operations with three or more machines,ARB recommends consultation with the local air district.There are no dry cleaning operations within 500 feet of the proposed Project. References: Pages 4.2-29 through 4.2-32 of the Draft EIR and any documents referenced in or incorporated by reference in Sectiori 4.2,Air Quality,of the Draft EIR; Section 2(OPA Compromise Plan)of the Final EIR; TIA Addendum.) � 2.3 - GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS impact 4.3-1 Although the project would generate greenhouse gas emissions these emissions would not have a significant impact on the environment. ' 2.3.1 - Potentially Significant Impact The potential for the Project to generate greenhouse gas emissions that would have a significant impact on the enviromnent was evaluated. The Final EIR indicates greenhouse gas emissions generated by the Project will not have a significant impact on the environment and that this potential impact is thus less than significant. Finding Although the Project would generate greenhouse gas emissions these emissions would not have a significant impact on the environment. Facts in Support of Finding The Project would generate a variety of greenhouse gases during construction and operation, including several defined by AB 32 such as carbon dioxide,methane, and nitrous oxide.The City of 24 Salem Lutheran Church and School Speci�c Plan Impacts Which are Less Than Significant or CEQA Findings and Findings of Fact Can Be Mitigated to a Level of lnsignifrcance Orange guidance indicates, "...given that COz[carbon dioxide] is the most prevalent GHG [greenhouse gas] associated with land development,the URBEMIS model will capture the majority of project GHGs and is therefore a reasonable chaice"(City of Orange 2010).The City of Orange guidance also indicates that the inethodology for the inventory should follow recommendations in Chapters 3 and 4 of the SCAQMD's Interim Thresholds document.The guidance goes on to say that the emissions should include indirect sources and direct sources(including construction emissions amortized over a 30 year period)and operational emissions(mobile,building energy use, energy use fi•om water consumption, etc.).An inventory of greenhouse gas emissions generated by the Project is included in the Draft EIR. The emissions are converted to metric tons of carbon equivalents (MTCOze) using the formula: MTCOze=(tons of gas)x(global warming potential)x(0.9072 metric tons of gas) Short-term Operations The Project would emit greenhouse gases from direct sources such as construction equipment and worker and delivery mobile sources and from upstream emission sources. An upstream emission source(also known as life cycle emissions)refers to emissions that were generated during the manufacture of products to be used for construction of the Project.Upstream emission sources for the Project include but are not limited to the following: emissions from the manufacture of cement; emissions from the manufacture of steel;and/or emissions from the transportation of building materials to the seller(i.e.,URBEMIS only estimates the transportation of building materials locally). The upstream emissions were not estimated because they are not within the control of the Project and to do so would be speculative at this time. Additionally,the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association White Paper on CEQA and Climate Change(2008) supports this conclusion by stating, "The full life-cycle of GHG [greenhouse gas] emissions from construction activities is not accounted for ... and the information needed to characterize [life-cycle emissions] would be speculative at the CEQA analysis level."Therefore, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15144 and 15145,upstream/life cycle emissions are speculative. The emissions nf r,arbon d?oxide from pro;ect constructio»equipment,worker��ehicl_es,a?id haul trucks �re shewn in Table 4.3-3 of the Draft EIR.Emissions of nitrous oxide and methane are negligible. The emissions are from all phases of construction. Long-term Operations Operational or long-term emissions occur over the life of the Project.Mobile, area source, and indirect sources generate operational emissions.Mobile sources are e�aust emissions from the motor vehicles that would access the Project site. The increases in motor vehicles would only be on Sundays. There would not be increases in vehicle trips during the weekdays.Area source emissions are primarily from natural gas. Electricity refers to the emissions from power plants used to generate the increase in electricity to be used for the Project.An increase in building size may require an increase in air conditioning power. Refrigerants refer to leakages in refrigerants from the air 25 Sa/em Lutheran Church and School Specifrc Plan Impacts Which are Less Than Significan!or CEQA Findings and Findings of Fact Can Be Mitigated to a Level of Insignificance conditioning system. Table 4.3-4 of the Draft EIR summarizes the incremental increase in greenhouse gas emissions from the operation of the Project. Total Annualized Total annualized greenhouse gas emissions from the Project are derived by.amortizing the construction emissions over 30 years as recommended by the SCAQMD and adding the estimated annual operational emissions. The total annualized greenhouse gas emissions from the Project are summarized in Table 4.3-5 of the Draft EIR and amount to 266 MTCOze. As noted in the table,the annualized greenhouse gas emissions from the Project would not exceed the significance threshold of 3000 MTCOze accepted by the City of Orange. The City of Orange guidance indicates that the SCAQMD interim thresholds provide substantial evidence that the thresholds are consistent with the policy goals and greenhouse gas reduction targets set by the State. Specifically,the thresholds were set at levels that capture 90 percent of the greenhouse gas emissions from residential, commercial,mixed use, and industrial projects,consistent with the Executive Order S-3-OS target of reducing greenhouse gas emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050(or a 90 percent reduction from existing levels).Further,the threshold is a reasonable threshold because it will require medium and large projects to reduce greenhouse gas emissions,while allowing smaller projects(generally infill development)to proceed.The thresholds function as both project-level and cumulative-level thresholds.Emissions are thus less than significant. References: Pages 4.3-10 through 4.3-13 of the Draft EIR and any documents referenced in or incorporated by reference in Section 4.3, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, of the Draft EIR; Section 2 (OPA Compromise Plan)of the Final EIR; TIA Addendum. Impact 4.3-2 The project would not conflict with an applicable policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases. 2.3.2 - Potentialiy Significant Impact The potential for the Project to conflict with an applicable policy, or regulation adoptecl for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases was evaluated. The Final EIR indicates the Project will not conflict with an applicable policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases and that this potential impact is thus less than significant. 2s Sa/em Lutheran Church and Schoo/Specific Plan Impacts Which are Less Than Signifcanf or CEQA Findings and Findings of Fact Can Be Mitigated to a Level of Insignifcance Finding The Project would not conflict with an applicable policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases. Facts in Support of Finding The City of Orange General Plan contains a variety of climate change related policies. The policies that apply to the Project are listed in Table 4.3-6 of the Draft EIR.As shoyvn in the table,the Project is consistent with the applicable policies. There are no other plans that would be applicable to the Project, such as a Climate Action Plan prepared by the City of Orange. The Salem project is consistent with all applicable climate change policies in the General Plan.Although the Project emissions are under the City of Orange's significance thresholds,the following project features that are incorporated into the Project would reduce emissions. • New building construction and retrofitting the existing onsite vacant structure will incorporate energy Title 24 efficient measures including Part 11 -CALGreen. • Energy Star appliances and lighting will be incorporated into the Project. • Compact fluarescent lighting will be incorporated into the Project. o Low flush toilets will be incarporated into the new building construction and retrofitting the existing onsite vacant structure. • Recognize the City's Orange Goes Green policy and incoiporate elements of sustainable design. • Window and door placements allow for cross-ventilation and airflow through the building's interior space providing natural ventilation and reducing the dependency on mechanical air conditioning systems. • Faucets with flow reducers are provided. • High-efficiency irrigation systems with low-flow drip and weather-based controllers to reduce water consumption are provided. In addition to the features identified above,the following existing features will not be eliminated by the Salem Specific Plan and continue to be available that when used would reduce emissions. z� Sa/em Lutheran Church and Schoo/Specific Plan Impacfs Wbich are Less Than Significant or CEQA Findings and Findings of Fact Can Be Mitigafed to a Level of lnsignificance • An existing off-street equestrian trail along Orange Park Boulevard, along the east side of the Project site,runs west along Santiago Canyon Road and terminates where it intersects with the Sully-Miller Equestrian Arena adjacent to the Project site.Equestrian crossing signals are proposed to be installed at the northwest and southwest corner of Orange Park Boulevard and Frank Lane,for the safety of the horses crossing on the equestrian trail along Orange Park Boulevard. • The intersection at Santiago Canyon Road at Orange Park Boulevard is signalized and provides pedesh�ian push buttons and crosswalks for crossing maneuvers.At the intersection of Orange Park Boulevard and Frank Lane crosswalks will be added for pedestrian use. � • Additionally, Santiago Canyon Road and Orange Park Boulevard are designated as Existing • Class II(On-Street)bikeways. The bicyclists traveling along Orange Park Boulevard could use the pedestrian crosswalks located at the Frank Lane/Orange Park Boulevard intersections as well as the Santiago Canyon Road/Orange Park Boulevard intersections. References: Pages 4.3-14-through 43-17 of the Draft EIR and any documents referenced in or incorporated by reference in Section 4.3,Greenhouse Gas Emissions, of the Draft EIR. Impact 4.3-3 The project wouid not be significantly impacted by climate change induced impacts from a reduced water supply, increased wildfires,or flooding. 2.3.3 - Potentially Significant Impact The potential for the Project to be significantly impacted by climate change induced impacts from a reduced water supply, increased wildfires,or flooding was evaluated. The Final EIR indicates the Project will not be significantly impacted by climate change induced impacts from a reduced water supply, increased wildfires,or flooding and that this potential impact is thus less than significant. Finding The Project would not be significantly impacted by climate change induced impacts from a reduced � water supply, increased wildfires,or flooding. Facts in Support of Finding Reduction in Water Supply A vast network of human-made reservoirs and aqueducts captures and transports water throughout the state from northern California rivers and the Colorado River. The current distribution system relies on 28 Sa/em Lutheran Church and School Specifrc Plan Impacts Which are Less Than Significant or CEQA Findings and Findings of Fact Can Be Mitigated to a Level of Insignifrcance Sierra Nevada snowpack to supply water during the dry spring and summer months. Rising temperatures,potentially compounded by decreases in precipitation, could severely reduce spring snowpack, increasing the risk of summer water shortages. One of the major impacts of climate change is a loss of natural snowpack,particularly the Sierra Nevada snowpack. Snowmelt provides an annual average of 15 million acre-feet of water,released between April and July each year. The California Department of Water Resources projects that the Sierra snowpack will experience a 25 to 40 percent reduction from its historic average by 2050. Climate change is also anticipated to bring warmer storms that result in less snowfall at lower elevations, reducing the total snowpack. The Project wouid obtain a poriion of its water from the Sierra snowpack. Therefore, it is possible that impacts from climate change could deplete the ProjecYs water supply. However, Project features would reduce the Project's consumption of water resources(see Draft EIR pp.43-16 through 43-17 for a list of features).Therefore,this potential impact is less than significant. Increased Wildfires Climate change could result in increased wildfires. Warmer temperatures and longer dry seasons are the main reasons for the increasing trend in forest wildfire risk.Reduced winter precipitation and early spring snowmelt deplete the moisture in soils and vegetation, leading to longer growing seasons and drought. These increasingly dry conditions provide more favorable conditions for ignition. In . addition,higher temperatures increase evaporative water loss from vegetation, increasing the risk of rapidly spreading and large fires. If temperatures rise into the predicted medium warming range,the risk of large wildfires in California could increase by as much as 55 percent,which is almost twice the increase expected if tempera±ures stay in the lower warming range. The Project site is surrounded by existing urban development and infrastructure on four sides.Therefore,the Project would not be at risk of wildfires. F/ooding The combination of increasingly severe winter storms,rising mean sea levels, other climactic fluctuations like El Nino,and high tides is expected to cause more frequent and severe flooding, erosion,and damage to coastal structures. As precipitation falls in the form of rain rather than snow with greater storm intensity,high fi•equency flood events are projected to increase. Changes in soil moisture and watershed vegetation will change runoff and recharge patterns. Increased impenneable surfaces also contribute to more floods. Potential inct•eases in wildfires due to climate change would increase floods following fire.For the 29 Salem Lutheran Church and Schoo/Specifc Plan Impacts Which are Less Than Signifrcant or CEQA Findings and Findings of Fact Can Be Mitigated to a Level of lnsignificance -purposes of federal flood insurance,the Federal Emergency Management Agency has traditionally used the 100-year flood event,which refers to the level of flood flows that has a one-percent chance of being exceeded in any single year. As California's hydrology changes,what is currently considered a 100-year flood may strike more often; leaving many communities at greater risk.Moreover, as peak flows and precipitation change over time,climate change calls into question assumptions of "stationarity"that is used in flood-related statistical analyses like the 100-year flood. The California Department of Water Resources encourages planners to factor a new level of safety into the design, operation, and regulation of flood protection facilities such as dams, floodways,bypasses and levees, as well as the design of local sewers and storm drains.The Project is not located within a 100-year flood plain or other flood hazard area. In addition,the Project site has not been flooded since it was constructed in 1965.Impacts are less than significant. References: Pages 43-17-through 4.3-19 of the Draft EIlZ and any documents referenced in or incorporated by reference in Section 4.3, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, of the Draft EIR. 2.4 - HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Impact 4.4-1 The project will not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials. 2.4.1 - Potentialiy Significant Impact The potential for the Project to create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport,use or disposal of hazardous materials was evaluated. The Final EIR indicates the Project will not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials and that this potential impact is thus less than significant. • Finding The Project will not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials. Facts in Support of Finding Short-term Operatrons During the short-term site preparation construction phase,the proposed Project could involve the transport, use, or disposal of relatively small quantities of routinely used but potentially hazardous materials such as vehicle fuels, oils, and transmission fluids. 30 Salem Lutheran Church and School Specific Plan Impacts Which are Less Than Signifcanf or CEQA Findings and Findings of Fact Can B�Mitigated to a Level of Insignificance Long-term Operations There is the potential for some hazardous household materials to be used on site such as household cleaners to clean bathroom and kitchen facilities. Compliance with the mandatory obligations contained in Titles 8,22, and 26 of the California Code of Regulations(CCR), Chapter 6.95 of the California Health and Safety Code, and applicable federal, State, and local regulations pertaining to hazardous waste materials would result in less than significant impacts related to hazardous waste materials. The multipurpose field will be used for occasional overflow parking on Sundays,and during special events. The occasional use of the multipurpose field for overflow parking of motor vehicles would not expose the users of the field to fluids from the motor vehicles that are left on the field once the vehicles have gone because any fluids deposited on the grass surface would be taken-up by the grass and removed off-site when mowed. References: Pages 4.4-8-of the Draft EIR and any documents referenced in or incorporated by reference in Section 4.4,Hazards and Hazardous Materials, of the Draft EIR. Impact 4.4-2 The project will not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires,inciuding where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed writh wildlands. 2.4.2 - Potentially Significant Impact The potential for the Project to expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands was evaluated. The Final EIR indicates the Project will not expose people ar structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands and that this potential impact is thus less than significant. Finding The Project will not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands. Facts in Support of Finding The proposed Project site is located in an established urban area not adjacent to but near open brush. The community also has stands of mature vegetation throughout and portions of the Orange Park Acres plan area have experienced evacuation during wildfres. 31 Sa/em Lutheran Church and School Specific Plan Impacts Which are Less Than Signifcant or CEQA Findings and Findings of Fact Can Be Mitigated to a Level of lnsignifcance Short term Operations The Initial Study did not identify any short-term construction phase impacts from the proposed Project related to wildland fires. Thus,no construction phase impacts are anticipated in the short- term. Long-term Operations As detailed in the Initial Study prepared for the Project,the proposed Project site is not adjacent to but near open brush,the community has mature vegetation throughout and portion of the Orange Park Acres plan area has been evacuated during wildfires.The proposed Project site is approximately one- third of a mile from the nearest grassland/undeveloped area.Additionally,the City of Orange Fire Department was contacted to verify where the very high fire hazard zone and the high fire hazard zones are located. Doug Fackiner,Administrative Captain at the City of Orange Fire Department spoke with Margaret Partridge,Assistant Project Manager at Michael Brandman Associates(MBA) and based on that conversation,the Project are area is not within a fire hazard area because the Project site does not back up to grassland.The Project site and surrounding area is already developed with buildings, landscaping and homes and does not backup to grassland areas that could expose the Project site to a fire risk.Mr.Fackiner stated that areas north of Santiago Canyon Road fall within the wildland very high fire hazard area because fires come down from the hillsides and to the grassy areas north of Santiago Canyon Road(Fackiner,pers. comm.). . References: Pages 4.4-8 through 4.4-9 of the Draft EIR and any documents referenced in or incorporated by reference in Section 4.4,Hazards and Hazardous Materials, of the Draft EIR. 2.5 - HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Impact 4.5-1 The project will not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. 2.5.1 - Potentially Significant Impact The potential for the Project to violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements was evaluated. The Final EIR indicates the Project will not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements and that this potential impact is thus less than significant. Finding The Project will not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. 32 Sa/em Lutheran Church and Schoo/Specific Plan lmpacts Which are Less Than Signifcant or CEQA Findings and Findings of Fact Can Be Mitigated to a Level of►nsignificance Facts in Support of Finding Short-term Operations Construction activities could generate pollutants such as increased silt, ground rubber,oils from automobiles, debris,litter,chemicals; dust,and dissolved solids related to grading,excavation, building construction and painting. Since construction activities could result in increased pollutants to surface water,the proposed project could result in short-term potential to degrade water quality. This impact during construction activities is considered potentially significant. I�i order to minimize short- term construction related impacts,the Project will be required to deploy a minimum of BMPs including the following: � • • Ea�osioea Conta�ol: scheduling; preservation of existing vegetation; hydraulic mulch; hydroseeding; soil binders; straw mulch, as well as geotextiles and erosion control mats. • • Sediment Control: silt fence; fiber rolls; gravel berm; street sweeping/vacuuming,as well as storm drain and inlet protection • • Tracking Control: wind erosion control, stabilized construction entrance/exit • • Non-Storm Water Management: dewatering operations; illicit connection/illegal discharge detection and reporting;vehicle and equipment cleaning;vehicle and equipment fueling, as well as vehicle and equipment maintenance • ��Vaste Ii�anagement and IV�aterials Pollution Control: material delivery and storage; material use; stockpile management; spill prevention and control; solid waste management and sanitary/septic waste management Additional information regarding the above listed BMP categories can be found in the California Stormwater Best Management Practice Handbook, Construction,2009 Edition. Implementation of the SWPPP under the new requirements including the risk assessment,minimum Risk Level requirements, development of a construction site monitoring program and mandatory site inspections will reduce short term impacts to less than significant. Long-term Operations The proposed project is considered a Priority Project because it is a redevelopment project that involves the addition or replacement of 5,000 or more square feet of impervious surface on an already developed site(City of Orange 2010). Priority Projects have a greater potential to contribute pollutants in storm water discharges and therefore must incorporate a full range of Best Management Practices into the Project design. All Priority Projects must comply with the Orange County DAMP 33 Salem Lutheran Church and School Specific Plan Impacts Which are Less Than Signi�cant or CEQA Findings and Findings of Fact Can Be Mitigated to a Level of Insignificance and the City of Orange LIP requirements. Compliance requires the preparation of a Water Quality Management Plan(WQMP)to protect the receiving water bodies within the City.A Preliminary WQMP (Appendix F.2 to the Draft EIR)has been prepared for this Project in conformance with the City's LII'and Countywide DAMP. Based on the proposed site plan and the proposed LID features(see Draft EIR section 4.5.4 Post Construction Operations), infiltration galleries will be utilized to infiltrate the design capture volume based on the available soil information. Infiltration galleries will include primarily subsurface infiltration galleries(i.e., Contech ChamberM�x or equivalent), landscaping bioinfiltration and permeable pavement. In the event full infiltration of the design capture volume is not feasible, bioinfiltration BMPs within the landscaping areas will be utilized to maximize infiltration and then bio-treat the remaining volume. Harvest and use applications are not anticipated as the design capture volume far exceeds the irrigation demand and the water cannot be drawn down in 48 hours or less. Full infiltration of the design capture volume for water quality treatment along with the proposed site design and non-structuraUstructural controls will result in a significant reduction of anticipated pollutants discharging from the Project site into the local receiving waters.Based on the existing condition,which includes no BMPs for water quality,the proposed condition with the BMPs will represent a significant improvement over the existing condition.Based on the reliance on infiltration BMPs,which provide the highest quality of treatment,implementation of the proposed Project is not anticipated to violate water quality standards. References: Pages 4.5-30 through 4.5-31 of the Draft EIR and any documents referenced in or incorporated by reference in Section 4.5,Hydrology and Water Quality, of the Draft EIR. Impact 4.5-2 The project will not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river,in a manner which would result in a substantial erosion or siltation on-or offsite. 2.5.2 - Potentially Significant impact The potential for the Project to substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in a substantial erosion or siltation on-or offsite was evaluated. The Final EIR indicates the Project will not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river,in a manner which would result in a substantial erosion or siltation on-ar offsite and that this potential impact is thus less than significant. 34 Salem Lutheran Church and School Speci�c Plan lmpacts Which are Less Than Significant or CEQA Findings and Findings of Fact Can Be Mitigafed to a Level oflnsignificance Finding The Project will not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in a substantial erosion or siltation on-or offsite. Facts in Support of Finding Short-term Operations During the construction phases,drainage patterns will remain similar to existing conditions due to the nature of the preservation of many of the existing site features. For those areas of the Project that undergo redevelopment,proper erosion,sediment,housekeeping,tracking,non-storm water management and waste management BMPs will be employed for each phase of construction including demolition, grading,trenching and utilities,vertical construction and final landscaping to protect Handy Creek and ultimately discharges into Santiago Creek(Draft EIR E�ibit 4.5-3). In particular, a combination of erosion and sediment control BMPs will be utilized to minimize sediment runoff and reduce the potential for short-term erosion from the Project site into Handy Creek. With the implementation of the proper BMPs for each phase of construction, impacts of erosion onsite and downstream will be less than significant. Long-term Operations Under the post-construction phase,runoff rates will remain similar to the existing conditions(within 5%)but the onsite drainage pattern will be slightly altered to reduce localized flooding of Frank Lane along the southerly boundary of the Project site.In the proposed condition, a private storm drain system is proposed(Exhibit 2-2 to OPA Compromise Plan). This stonn drain system will pick up the majority of the Project site and convey flow toward Santiago Canyon Road where it will be picked up in an existing 36-inch reinforced concrete pipe(RCP)within Santiago Canyon Road. This 36-inch RCP conveys flows to the Handy Creek reinforced concrete box culvert under Santiago Canyon Road. This storm drain system will alleviate flooding which has occurred within the private drive westerly of the Project site.All project runoff ultimately ends up in Handy Creek, similar to existing runoff conditions and the potential for increased erosion downstream is considered less than significant. In addition,the impervious condition will also increase under the proposed condition approximately 14%thereby resulting in slightly lower potential for sediment yield generation onsite and lower potential for erosion onsite following the iinplementation of the proposed project. References: Pages 4.5-32 through 4.5-33 of the Draft EIR and any documents referenced in or incorporated by reference in Section 4.5,Hydrology and Water Quality, of the Draft EIR; Section 2 (OPA Compromise Plan)of the Final EIR,p. 3; Section 5.1.4 of the Specific Plan. 35 Salem Lutheran Church and School Specific Plan /mpacfs Which are Less Than Signi�cant or CEQA Findings and Findings ofFact Can Be Mifigated to a Level oflnsignificance Impact 4.5-3 The project will not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river,or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on-or offsite. 2.5.3 - Potentially Significant Impact The potential for the Project to substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on-or offsite was evaluated. The Final EIR indicates the Project will not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river,or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on-or offsite and that this potential impact is thus less than significant. Finding The project will not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area,including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river,or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on-or offsite. Facts in Support of Finding Short-term Operations As discussed above,during the construction phases,drainage patterns will remain similar to existing conditions due to the nature of the presezvation of many of the existing site features. For those areas of the Project that undergo redevelopment, proper erosion, sediment,housekeeping,tracking,non- storm water management and waste management BMPs will be employed for each phase of construction including demolition,grading,trenching and utilities,vertical construction and final landscaping to protect Handy Creek and ultimately discharges into Santiago Creek(Draft EIR Exhibit 4.5-3). In particular,a combination of erosion and sediment control BMPs will be utilized to minimize sediment runoff and reduce the potential for short-term erosion from the Project site into Handy Creek. With the implementation of the proper BMPs for each phase of construction, impacts of erosion onsite and downstream will be less than significant. Long-term Operations Implementation of the Project will result in negligible changes to runoff rates and volumes as compared to the existing condition and onsite and offsite flooding potential will remain similar to existing conditions. A private storm drain system is proposed(E�ibit 2-2 to OPA Compromise Plan). This storm drain system will pick up the majority of the Project site and convey flow toward Santiago Canyon Road where it will be picked up in an existing 36-inch reinforced concrete pipe (RCP)within Santiago Canyon Road. This 36-inch RCP conveys flows to the Handy Creek 36 Salem Lutheran Church and Schoo/Specif►c Plan Impacts Which are Less Than Significant or CEQA Findings and Findings of Fact Can Be Mitigated to a Level of lnsignificance reinforced concrete box culvert under Santiago Canyon Road. This storm drain system will alleviate flooding which has occurred within the private drive westerly of the Project site. In addition, all onsite storm drain improvements will be designed to provide 25-year level of flood protection consistent with City of Orange standards and Orange County Flood Control standards. References: Pages 4.5-32 through 4.5-35 of the Draft EIR and any documents referenced in or incorporated by reference in Section 4.5,Hydrology and Water Quality, of the Draft EIR; Section 2 (OPA Compromise Plan)of the Final EIR,p. 3; Section 5.1.4 of the Specific Plan. Impact 4.5-4 The project will not create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff. 2.5.4 - Potentially Significant Impact The potential for the Project to create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff was evaluated. The Final EIR indicates the Project will not create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff and that this potential impact is thus less than significant. Finding The project will not create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff. Facts in Support o#Finding Short-term Operations During construction,an array of BMPs selected for each major phase of construction will be deployed to minimize sediment migration and to control construction related runoff downstream. Other measures are identified in the discussion of Impact 4.5.1. Long-term Operations A discussion and assessment of the changes in project runoff rates and volumes as a result of the proposed project is provided in connection with Impact 4.5.3.A private storm drain system is proposed(E�ibit 2-2 to OPA Compromise Plan)as part of the Project. This storm drain system will pick up the majority of the Project site and convey flow toward Santiago Canyon Road where it will be picked up in an existing 36-inch reinforced concrete pipe(RCP)within Santiago Canyon Road. 37 Salem Lutheran Church and School Specifrc Plan lmpacts Which are Less Than Significant or CEQA Findings and Findings of Fact Can Be Mitigafed to a Level of Insignifrcance This 36-inch RCP conveys flows to the Handy Creek reinforced concrete box culvert under Santiago Canyon Road. This storm drain system will alleviate flooding which has occurred within the private drive westerly of the Project site. Therefore, less than significant impacts related to exceeding the capacity of the planned storm water system would result. References: Pages 4.5-30 through 4.5-36 of the Draft EIR and any documents referenced in or incorporated by reference in Section 4.5,Hydrology and Water Quality, of the Draft EIlZ; Section 2 (OPA Compromise Plan)of the Final EIR,p. 3; Section 5.1.4 of the Specific Plan.. Impact 4.5-5 The project will not otherwise substantially degrade water quality. 2.5.5 - Potentially Significant Impact The potential for the Project to substantially degrade water quality was evaluated. The Final EIR indicates the Project will not substantially degrade water quality and�hat this potential impact is thus less than significant. Finding The project will not otherwise substantially degrade water quality. Facts in Support of Finding Short-term Operations As discussed above, in connection with Impact 4.5-1, in order to minimize short-term construction � related impacts,the Project will be required to deploy BMPs including the following: • Erosion Control: scheduling; preservation of existing vegetation; hydraulic mulch; hydroseeding; soil binders; straw mulch,as well as geotextiles and erosion control mats. • Sediment Control: silt fence; fiber rolls; gravel berm; street sweeping/vacuuming, as well as storm drain and inlet protection � • Tracking Control: wind erosion control, stabilized construction entrance/exit • Non-Storm Water Management: dewatering operations; illicit connection/illegal discharge detection and reporting;vehicle and equipment cleaning;vehicle and equipment fueling,as well as vehicle and equipment maintenance 38 Salem Lutheran Church and School Specific Plan Impacts Which are Less Than Significant or CEQA Findings and Findings of Fact Can Be Mitigated to a Level of Insignificance • Waste Management and Materials Pollution Control: material delivery and storage; material use; stockpile management; spill prevention and control; solid waste management and sanitary/septic waste management Implementation of the SWPPP, including the above BMPs,will ensure that the construction of the Project will not substantially degrade water quality. Long-term Operations Implementation of the proposed project will result in changes in impervious/pervious conditions,the addition of new parking areas,landscaping enhancement and access improvements. With each area of improvement,the Project will implement infiltration BMPs. In addition,existing areas that will remain intact will also receive the benefit of infiltration BMPs based on the requirements to treat the entire project.Based on drainage area specific infiltration BMP implementation,degradation of water quality is not anticipated and long-term impacts to water quality are considered less than significant. See discussion under Impact Analysis 4.5-1. References: Pages 4.5-30 through 4.5-37 of the Draft EIR and any documents referericed in or incorporated by reference in Section 4.5,Hydrology and Water Quality, of the Draft EIR. Impact 4.5-6 The project will not potentially impact stormwater runoff from construction activities. 2.5.6 - Potentially Significant Impact The potential for the Project to impact stormwater runoff from construction activities was evaluated. The Final EIR indicates the Project will not impact stormwater runoff from construction activities and that this potential impact is thus less than significant. Finding The project will not potentially impact stormwater runoff from construction activities. Facts in Support of Finding During the short-term site construction phase,there would be the potential for surface water runoff to carry pollutants and sediment into offsite receiving waters such as Santiago Creek and the Santa Ana River. Table 4.5-14 of the Draft EIR identifies typical construction site activities and the associated Pollutants of Concern. 39 Sa/em Lutheran Church and Schoo/Specifrc Plan Impacts Which are Less Than Significant or CEQA Findings and Findings of Fact Can Be Mitigated to a Level oflnsignificance If pollutants or sediments enter the offsite receiving waters in excessive quantities,the water quality of these receiving waters could be negatively impacted potentially limiting the beneficial uses of these waters(refer to Table 4.5-15 of the Draft EIR for a list of beneficial uses). Typical erosion control BMPs used during the construction phase such as hydroseeding,bonded fibermatrix,mulch, geotextiles and mats and earth dikes and drainage swales protect the soil surface and prevent soil particles from being detached by rainfall,flowing water or wind. Sediment control measures such as silt fences, sediment traps, fiber rolls, sand bags, straw bales,and inlet protection control sediment from discharging from project sites and into local receiving waters such as Handy Creek and Santiago Creek. Other measures such as tracking controls,non-storm water management and waste management controls also serve to reduce the potential for sediment and other visible or non-visible pollutants from discharging from the site.Proper deployment of these types of BMPS as identified in the Project SWPPP will serve to protect storm water from construction-related pollutants. . Based on a preliminary analysis,the Project is anticipated to be a Risk Leve12 project. If the Project remains a Risk Leve12 following the final Risk Assessment,the Project will be required to follow all Risk Level 2 requirements including but not limited to weekly inspections, development of Rain Event Action Plans,pre/during/post rain event inspections,pH and turbidity monitoring and Annual Reporting requirements. Implementation of the SWPPP will result in less than significant impacts to storm water from construction related activities. References: Pages 4.5-37 through 4.5-40 of the Draft EIR and any documents referenced in or incorporated by reference in Section 4.5,Hydrology and Water Quality,of the Draft EIIZ. Impact 4.5-7 The project will not potentially impact stormwater runoff from post-construction activities. 2.5.7 - Potentially Significant Impact The potential for the Project to impact stormwater runoff from post-construction activitieswas evaluated. The Final EIR indicates the Project will not impact stormwater runoff from post- construction activitiesand that this potential impact is thus less than significant. Finding The Project will not potentially impact stormwater runoff from post-construction activities. 40 Salem Lutheran Church and Schoo/Specific Plan Impacts Which are Less Than Significant or CEQA Findings and Findings of Fact Can Be Mitigated to a Level of Insignifcance Facts in Support of Finding The approach to the protection of water quality post-construction is provided in Section 4.5.4—Long- Term Operations and discussed additionally in Impacts 4.5-1 and 4.5-3. Church and school related activities will remain consistent with existing conditions so impacts to storm water from intensification of use of the existing property is not anticipated.Prior to final grading permit,the Final WQMP will include a detailed Operation and Maintenance Plan(O&M Plan)with identified funding to maintain the proposed source control, structural control and LID features implemented. References: Pages 4.5-30 through 4.5-41 of the Draft EIR and any documents referenced in or incorporated by reference in Section 4.5,Hydrology and Water Quality, of the Draft EIR. Impact 4.5-8 Tt-�e project will not result�r�ihe��tentiai for discharge of stormwater to affect the beneficial uses of the receiving waters. 2.5.8 - Potentially Significant Impact The potential for the Project to result in the potential for discharge of stormwater to affect the beneficial uses of the receiving waters was evaluated. The Final EIR indicates the Project will not result in the potential for discharge of stormwater to affect the beneficial uses of the receiving waters and that this potential impact is thus less than significant. Finding The Project will not result in the potential for discharge of stonnwater to affect the beneficial uses of the receiving waters. Facts in Support of Finding ' Short-term Operations As described in more detail in Impact 4.5-1, a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan will be implemented,which incorporates Best Management Practices to reduce water quality impacts during project construction.Thus, short-term construction impacts related to impacting beneficial uses of receiving waters are anticipated to be less than significant with compliance with applicable City of Orange development standards and Specific Plan development standards for water quality. Long-term Operations Storm water generated onsite would be conveyed to Handy Creek,the onsite receiving water that ultimately discharges into Santiago Creek northwest of the Project site. Table 4.5-15 of the Draft EIR identifies the beneficial uses associated with Santiago Creek. 41 Salem Lutheran Church and School Specific Plan lmpacts Which are Less Than Significant or CEQA Findings and Findings of Fact Can Be Mitigated to a Level of Insignificance Implementation of the proposed project with the proposed LID infiltration features and WQMP (Appendix F.2 of the Draft EIR),as well as meeting the current MS4 Permit requirements for run-off management and quality assurance would result in less than significant impacts to beneficial uses of offsite receiving waters. References: Pages 4.5-30 through 4.5-42 of the Draft EIR and any documents referenced in or incorporated by reference in Section 4.5,Hydrology and Water Quality,of the Draft EIR. Impact 4.5-9 The project will not create the potential for significant changes in the flow velocity or volume of storrnwater runoff to cause environmental harm. 2.5.9- Potentially Significant Impact The potential for the Project to create the potential for significant changes in the flow velocity or volume of storrnwater runoff to cause environmental harm was evaluated. The Final EIR indicates the Project will not create the potential for significant changes in the flow velocity or volume of storrnwater runoff to cause environmental harm and that this potential impact is thus less than significant. Finding The Project will not create the potential for significant changes in the flow velocity or volume of storrnwater runoff to cause environmental harm. Facts in Support of Finding Short-term Operations Typical erosion control BMPs used during the construction phase such as hydroseeding, bonded fibermatrix, mulch, geotextiles and mats and earth dikes and drainage swales protect the soil surface and prevent soil particles from being detached by rainfall, flowing water or wirid. Sediment control measures such as silt fences, sediment traps,fiber rolls, sand bags, straw bales,and inlet protection control sediment from discharging from project sites and into local receiving waters such as Handy Creek and Santiago Creek. Other measures such as tracking controls,non-storm water management and waste management controls also serve to reduce the potential for sediment and other visible or non-visible pollutants from discharging from the site.Proper deployment of these types of BMPS as identified in the Project SWPPP will serve to protect storm water from construction-related pollutants. Long-term Operations 42 Salem Lutheran Church and School Specific Plan Impacts Which are Less Than Signifcant or CEQA Findings and Findings of Fact Can Be Mitigated to a Level of Insignifcance Long-term impacts of flow velocity and volume of storm water runoff are analyzed in Draft EIR Section 4.5-3 Surface Hydrology. The MS4 Storm Water Permit requires a detailed analysis of the two-year storm event to determine the potential for downstream hydrologic conditions of concern (HCOC)with respect to Santiago Creek.For the HCOC analysis,the 2-year existing condition versus proposed indicated an 8%increase in volume between the two conditions while the peak flow rates remained within 5%.The permit identifies changes in volume greater than 5%have the potential to cause environmental harm downstream and measures should be taken to reduce the runoff volume between the existing and proposed 2-year conditions.Quantification of this volume results in a 03 ac- ft difference between existing and proposed(1,307 cubic feet)conditions. Full infiltration of the water quality design capture volume will result in a reduction of 13,377 cubic feet of water as compared to the existing condition thereby exceeding the required retention volume for the HCOC requirements.Implementation of the proposed Project with the proposed runoff controls for the design capture volume will result in less than significant impacts to downstream receiving waters. References:Pages 4.5-30 through 4.5-43 of the Draft EIR and any documents referenced in or incorporated by reference in Section 4.5,Hydrology and Water Quality, of the Draft EIR. Impact 4.5-10 The project will not create significant increases in erosion of the project site or surrounding areas. 2.5.10- Potentially Significant Impact The potential for the Project to create significant increases in erosion of the Project site or surrounding areas was evaluated. The Final EIR indicates the Project will not create significant increases in erosion of the Project site or surrounding areas and that this potential impact is thus less than significant. Finding The Project will not create significant increases in erosion of the Project site or surrounding areas. Facts in Support of Finding Short-term Operations As discussed in more detail above, in order to minimize short-term construction related impacts,the Project will be required to deploy a minimum of BMPs including erosion and sediment control BMPs. Implementation of the SWPPP under the new requirements including the risk assessment, minimum Risk Level requirements, development of a construction site monitoring program and mandatory site inspections will reduce short term impacts to less than significant. 43 Salem Lutheran Church and School Specific Plan Impacts Which are Less Than Signifrcant or CEQA Findings and Findings of Fact Can Be Mitigated to a Level of Insignificance Long-term Operations As discussed above,the proposed Project is considered a Priority Project because it is a redevelopment project that involves the addition or replacement of 5,000 or more square feet of impervious surface on an already developed site(City of Orange 2010). Priority Projects have a greater potential to contribute pollutants in storm water discharges and therefore must incorporate a full range of Best Management Practices into the Project design. All Priority Projects must comply with the Orange County DAMP and the City of Orange LII'requirements.Compliance requires the preparation of a Water Quality Management Plan(WQMP)to protect the receiving water bodies within the City.A Preliminary WQMP(Appendix F.2 to the Draft EIR)has been prepared for this project in conformance with the City's LIl'and Countywide DAMP. Under the post-construction phase,runoff rates will remain similar to the existing conditions(within 5%)but the onsite drainage pattern will be slightly altered to reduce localized flooding of Frank Lane along the southerly boundary of the Project site.A private storm drain system is proposed(Exhibit 2- 2 to OPA Compromise Plan)as part of the Project. This storm drain system will pick up the majority of the Project site and convey flow toward Santiago Canyon Road where it will be picked up in an existing 36-inch reinforced concrete pipe(RCP)within Santiago Canyon Road. This 36-inch RCP conveys flows to the Handy Creek reinforced concrete box culvert under Santiago Canyon Road. This storm drain system will alleviate flooding which has occurred within the private drive westerly of the Project site. All project runoff ultimately ends up in Handy Creek, similar to existing runoff conditions and the potential for increased erosion downstream is considered less than significant.In addition,the impervious condition will also increase under the proposed condition approximately 14%thereby resulting in slightly lower potential for sediment yield generation onsite and lower potential for erosion onsite following the implementation of the proposed project. References: Pages 4.5-30 through 4.5-44 of the Draft EIR and any documents referenced in or incorporated by reference in Section 4.5, Hydrology and Water Quality,of the Draft EIR; Section 2 (OPA Compromise Plan)of the Final EIR,p. 3; Section 5.1.4 of the Specific Plan.. 2.6 - LAND USE AND PLANNING impact 4.6-1 The project will not conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project(including, but not limited to the general plan,specific plan,local coastal program,or zoning ordinance)adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. 2.6.1 - Potentially Significant Impact The potential for the Project to conflict with any applicable land use plan,policy,or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the Project(including,but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance)adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an . � Salem Lutheran Church and Schoo/Specific Plan lmpacts Which are Less Than Significant or CEQA Findings and Findings of Fact Can Be Mitigated to a Level of lnsigni�cance environmental effect was evaluated. The Final EIR indicates the Project will not conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the Project (including,but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance)adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect and that this potential impact is thus less than significant. Finding The Project will not conflict with any applicable land use plan,policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the Project(including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance)adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. Facts in Support of Finding The following plans,policies, and regulations were evaluated: • City Zoning District • OPA Plan • City General Plan • City Master Plan for Trails City Zoning District The Site is located within Orange Park Acres, an area of the City governed by the Orange Park Acres Specific Plan("OPA Plan"),which the City adopted in 1973. Despite the fact that it is entitled a "specific plan,"the OPA Plan is part of the City's General Plan. Specifically, as clearly set forth in the resolution adopting said plan, it was intended to be"the land use element of the general plan"of the Orange Park Acres area. (City of Orange Resolution No. 3915.) Under the OPA Plan,the entire approximately 6 acre Site is designated for"Public/Quasi-public"use. (OPA Plan,pp. 113, 121-122.) As explained by the OPA Plan,the"Public/Quasi-public"land-use category includes church and school uses. (OPA Plan,pp. 117-18; see also pp. 121-122.) Thus,the existing(and proposed)use of the Site as a church and school is precisely that contemplated by the OPA Plan. Despite the Site's OPA Plan designation,which has never been changed,a land use map originally adopted by City as part of a City-wide 1989 General Plan update designated the Site as"Estate Low 45 Sa/em Lutheran Church and School Speci�c Plan lmpacfs Which are Less Than Significant or CEQA Findings and Findings of Fact Can Be Mitigated to a Level of Insignificance Density Residential." Consistent with that designation,but inconsistent with the Site's OPA Plan designation,the Site is currently zoned"residential"(R-1-40). The proposed Project would address the inconsistencies between the OPA Plan and the General Plan Land Use Map by changing the Site's designation on the General Plan Land Use Map to Public Facilities and Institutions(PFI), in order to make such designation consistent with the OPA Plan. In addition, it would make the Site's zoning consistent with the OPA Plan by rezoning the Site from residential to Specific Plan/Public and Institutional"("SP-PI"). Thus,the Project is consistent with the City's General Plan and Zoning Code. Orange Park Acres Plan (OPA Plan) As indicated above, despite the fact that it is entitled a"specific plan,"the OPA Plan is part of the City's General Plan. Specifically, as clearly set forth in the resolution adopting said plan, it was intended to be"the land use element of the general plan"of the Orange Park Acres area. (City of Orange Resolution No. 3915.) The OPA Plan established 11 planning sectors(Sectors A through K).The project site is located within Sector D.The site is designated with the Public&Quasi-Public(OPA Plan)land use designation. The OPA Plan Land Use Table(number 4)lists the types of uses and total acreage for each of the five classifications of land uses in Orange Park Acres.The proposed Project site is designated as having 6 acres for pubic-quasi-public use. Table 4.6-2 of the Draft EIR provides a comparison of the Salem Lutheran Church and School project to the OPA Plan. As indicated by that table,the OPA Specific Plan contains 67 policies, of which 39 apply to the proposed project,and the proposed project consistent with all applicable policies of the OPA Plan(Draft EIR Table 4.6-2). The redesign of the school and church facilities would be in conformance with the site's land use designation in the OPA Specific Plan.Therefore, less than significant impacts would result from project implementation related to the policies of the OPA Specific Plan and the zone change. City General Plan The proposed Project would address the inconsistencies between the OPA Plan and the General Plan Land Use Map by changing the Site's designation on the General Plan Land Use Map to Public Facilities and Institutions(PFI), in order to make such designation consistent with the OPA Plan. The Planning Division of the City's Community Development Department requires analysis of each general plan element to determine whether a given policy applies to the proposed project and, if applicable,whether the proposed project conforms to the policy.The following tables contained in • 46 Salem Lutheran Cburch and Schoo!Specific Plan Impacts Which are Less Than Significanf or CEQA Findings and Findings of Fact Can Be Mitigated to a Level of Insignificance the Draft EIR evaluate the consistency of the proposed project to each element of the City's General Plan: • Table 4.6-3: Project Consistency with the City of Orange General Plan: Land Use Element • Table 4.6-4: Project Consistency with the City of Orange General Plan: Natural Resources • Table 4.6-5: Project Consistency with the City of Orange General Plan: Public Safety Element a Table 4.6-6: Project Consis±ency with±he City of Orange General Plar.: Circulation and Mobility Element • Table 4.6-7: Project Consistency with the City of Orange General Plan:Noise Element • Table 4.6-8: Project Consistency with the City of Orange General Plan: Cultural Resources and Historic Preservation Element • Table 4.6-9: Project Consistency with the City of Orange General Plan: Infrastructure Element • Table 4.6-10: Project Consistency with the City of Orange General Plan: Urban Design Element • Table 4.6-11: Project Consistency with the City of Orange General Plan: Growth Management Element s Table 4.6-12: Project Consistency with the City of Orange General Plan: Economic Development Element • Table 4.6-13: Project Consistency with the City of Orange General Plan: Housing Element , General Plan-Land Use Element Table 4.6-3 of the Draft EIR provides a comparison of the proposed project to each goal and policy of . the Land Use Element. As indicated therein,the City's Land Use Element contains 55 policies, of which 10 are applicable to the proposed project and the remaining 45 do not apply to the proposed project. The proposed project is consistent with the applicable 10 policies and is therefore consistent with the Land Use Element(Table 4.6-3) and is not in conflict with these goals and/or policies. 47 Salem Lutheran Church and School Specifrc Plan Impacts Which are Less Than Significant or CEQA Findings and Findings of Fact Can Be Mitigated to a Level of Insignifcance Therefore, less than significant impacts would result from project implementation related to the goals and policies of the Land Use Element. General Plan-Nafural Resources Element Table 4.6-4 of the Draft EIR provides a comparison of the proposed project to each goal and policy of the Natural Resources Element. As indicated therein,the City's Natural Resources Element contains 45 goals and policies, of which 10 are applicable to the proposed project and the remaining 35 do not apply to the proposed project.The proposed project is consistent with the applicable 10 policies and is therefore consistent with the Natural Resources Element(Table 4.6-4). Therefore,less than significant impacts would result from project implementation related to the goals and policies of the Natural Resources Element. General Plan-Public Safety Element Table 4.6-5 of the Draft EIR provides a comparison of the proposed project to each goal and policy of the Public Safety Element. As indicated therein,the City's Public Safety Element contains 41 policies, of which 8 are applicable to the proposed project and the remaining 33 do not apply to the proposed project. The proposed project is consistent with the applicable 8 policies and is therefore consistent with the Public Safety Element(Table 4.6-5). Therefore,less than significant impacts would result from project implementation related to the goals and policies of the Public Safety Element. Genera/Plan-Circulation and Mobility Elemenf Table 4.6-6 of the Draft EIR provides a comparison of the proposed project to�each goal and policy of the Circulation and Mobility Element. The City's Circulation and Mobility Element contains 32 policies, of which 4 are applicable to the proposed project and the remaining 28 do not apply to the proposed project. The proposed project is consistent with the applicable policies of the Circulation and Mobility Element(Table 4.6-6). Therefore, less than significant impacts would result from project implementation related to the goals and policies of the Circulation and Mobility Element. Genera/Plan-Noise Element Table 4.6-7 of the Draft EIR provides a comparison of the proposed project to each goal and policy of the Noise Element. As indicated therein,the City's Noise Element contains 25 policies, of which 7 are applicable to the proposed project and the remaining 18 do not apply to the Project.The proposed project is consistent with the applicable policies of the Noise Element(Table 4.6-7)Therefore,less than significant impacts would result from project implementation related to the goals and policies of the Noise Element. 48 Salem Lutheran Church and School Specific Plan Impacts Whici►are Less Than Significant or CEQA Findings and Findings ofFact Can Be Mitigafed to a Level oflnsignifcance General Plan- Cultural Resources and Historic Preservation Element Table 4.6-8 of the Draft EIR provides a comparison of the proposed project to each goal and policy of the Cultural Resources and Historic Preservation Element. As indicated therein,the City's Cultural Resources and Historic Preservation Element contains 25 policies, of which none are applicable to the proposed project.No policies of the Cultural Resources and Historic Preservation Development Element apply to the proposed project(Table 4.6-8).Therefore, less than significant impacts would result from project implementation related to the goals and policies of the Cultural Resources and Historic Preservation Element. Genera/Plan-Infrastructure Element Table 4.6-9 of the Draft EIR provides a comparison of the proposed project to each goal and policy of the Natural Resources Element. As indicated therein,the City's Infrastructure Element contains 25 policies, of which 4 are applicable to the proposed project and the remaining 21 do not apply to the Project.The proposed project is consistent with the applicable policies of the Infrastructure Element (Table 4.6-9). Therefore, less than significant impacts would result from project implementation related to the goals and policies of the Infrastructure Element. Genera/Plan- Urban Design Element Table 4.6-10 of the Draft EIR provides a comparison of the proposed project to each goal and policy of the Urban Design Element. As indicated therein,the City's Urban Design Element contains 28 policies, of which 4 are applicable to the proposed project and the remaining 24 do not apply to the Project. The proposed project is consistent with the applicable policies of the Urban Design Element (Table 4.6-10)Therefore, less than significant impacts would result from project implementation related to the goals and policies of the Urban Design Element. General Plan- Growth Management Element Table 4.6-11 of the Draft EIR provides a coinparison of the proposed project to each goal and policy of the Growth Management Element.As indicated therein,the City's Growth Management Element contains 18 policies,of which 2 are applicable to the proposed project and the remaining 16 do not apply to the Project.The proposed project is consistent with the applicable policies of the Growth Management Element(Table 4.6-11). Genera/Plan-Economic Deve%pment Element Table 4.6-12 of the Draft EIR provides a comparison of the proposed project to each goal and policy of the Natural Resources Element. As indicated therein, the The City's Economic Development Element contains 30 policies,of which none are applicable to the proposed project, because they are the responsibility of the City of Orange. The proposed project is consistent with the applicable policies of the Economic Development Element(Table 4.6-12). Therefore, less than significant 49 Salem Lufheran Church and Schoo/Specific Plan Impacts Which are Less Than Significant or CEQA Findings and Findings of Fact Can Be Mitigated to a Level of Insignificance impacts would result from project implementation related to the goals and policies of the Economic Development Element. Genera/Plan- Housing Element Table 4.6-13 provides a comparison of the proposed project to each goal and policy of the Natural Resources Element. As indicated therein,the City's Housing Element contains 41 policies, none of which are applicable to the proposed project.Therefore, less than significant impacts would result from project implementation related to the goals and policies of the Housing Element. City Master Plan for Trails There is an existing off-street multipurpose/equestrian trail along Orange Park Boulevard abutting the east side of the Project site,which runs west along Santiago Canyon Road abutting the north side of the Project site. The multipurpose trail terminates where it intersects with the Sully-Mi11er Equestrian Arena that is adjacent to the Project site. Table 4.6-14 of the Draft EIR provides a comparison of the proposed project to the goals and objectives of the Master Plan of Recreational Trails. As indicated therein,the City's Master Plan of Recreational Trails contains 15 goals and policies,of which four apply to the proposed project and 11 policies do not apply to the proposed project.The proposed project is consistent with all applicable policies of the Master Plan of recreational Trails(refer to Table 4.6-14). Therefore, less than significant impacts would result from project implementation related to the goals and policies of the Master Plan of Recreational Trails. References: Pages 4.6-6 through 4.6-76 of the Draft EIR and any documents referenced in or incorporated by reference in Section 4.6, Land Use and Planning, of the Draft EIR. 2.7 - NOISE Impact 4.7-1 The project will not expose persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance,or applicable standards of other agencies. 2.7.1 - Potentially Significant Impact The potential for the Project to expose persons to or generate noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance,or applicable standards of other agencies was evaluated. The Final EIR indicates that,with required mitigation,the Project will not expose persons to or generate of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise 50 Salem Lutheran Church and School Specific Plan Impacts Which are Less Than Significant or CEQA Findings and Findings of Fact Can Be Mitigated to a Level of Insignificance �ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies and that this potential impact is thus less than significant. Finding Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 (a)(1),changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into,the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Facts in Support of Finding The potentially significant project-specific environmental effect has been eliminated or substantially lessened to a level that is less than significant by virtue of the following mitigation measures as identified in the Final EIR and incorporated into the Project: MM NOI-1 Prior to the initiation of demolition activities a minimum 8- foot high temporary sound wall shall be constructed along the north side of Frank Lane from the existing classrooms to the existing parking lot with the play court overlays.The sound wall shall have a minimum STC 12 rating,which is equivalent to '/z"plywood and the sound wall shall be maintained through the completion of grading activities. Short-term Operations Construction noise represents a short-tenn increase in ambient noise.Noise from construction activities associated with the proposed project would be a function of the noise generated by construction equipment,equipment location, sensitivity of nearby land uses, and the timing and durat�on�f the const?-uction activit�es Construction activities for the proposed project are anticipated to include: demolition of the aging existing preschool and sanctuary buildings,tot lot,and a portion of the existing parking lot; demolition of the existing onsite vacant structure; construction of a new preschool building and associated play area adjacent to the western portion of the existing Classroom Building B; excavation and grading for the new worship center and parking areas;and building construction of a new worship center that includes a sanctuary, conference and meeting rooms,a sacristy, offices, choir and music rooms, storage, child care,and other ancillary/administrative rooms. Short-term noise impacts could occur during construction activities from either the noise impacts created from the transport of workers and movement of construction materials to and from the Project site,or from the noise generated onsite during: (1)demolition, (2)grading, and(3)building construction activities. In order 51 Sa/em Lutheran Church and Schoo/Specific Plan lmpacts Which are Less Than Significant or CEQA Findings and Findings of Fact Can Be Mitigated!o a Level of lnsigni�cance to determine the construction noise impacts onto the nearby sensitive receptors,these three phases of construction have been analyzed based on the construction equipment assumptions provided in the Draft EIR's Air Quality Analysis. For each phase,the construction equipment was analyzed as a point source eight feet above ground and placed at the nearest proximity of where they will operate to the nearby sensitive receptors. 1)Demolition Noise from demolition activities has been analyzed with the SoundPlan model was used to analyze noise from demolition activities and have been based on the simultaneous operation of a wheeled loader, excavator, and water truck. Table 4.7-10 of the Draft EIR shows the anticipated noise levels at the nearby receptors during demolition activities. The table shows that without mitigation the maximum average noise levels during the demolition operations may be as high as 76.5 dBA Leq and increase by as much as 19.8 dBA over the existing noise levels at the exterior areas of the nearby sensitive receptors.The demolition noise level at Receiver 9 would exceed 75 dBA, which would be considered a significant impact. Mitigation is proposed that would require the Project applicant to install a temporary 8-foot high noise barrier along the north side of Frank Lane from the existing classrooms to the existing parking lot with the play court overlays and through compliance with Section 8.24.070 of the Municipal Code,which places restrictions on when construction activities may occur. Table 4.7-18 shows recalculated noise impacts with the proposed mitigation, and demonstrates that,with such mitigation, demolition noise levels would not exceed 69.0 dBA Leq,and, thus, would be below the 75-dBA threshold of significance. 2) Grading Noise from grading activities has been analyzed with the SoundPlan model and has been based on the simultaneous operation of a grader, a rubber tired dozer,a water truck, and one of a tractor,loader, or backhoe. Table 4.7-11 of the Draft EIR shows the anticipated noise levels at the nearby receptors during grading activities. Table 4.7-11 shows that the m�imum average noise levels during the grading operations may be as high as 72.4 dBA Leq and increase by as much as 21.8 dBA over the existing noise levels at the exterior areas of the nearby sensitive receptors.The construction noise levels at the nearby residential uses would be below the 75-dBA threshold of significance. Therefore, through compliance with Section 8.24.070 of the Municipal Code,which places restrictions on when construction activities may occur,the grading-related noise impacts would be less than significant. 3)Building Noise from building construction activities have been analyzed with the SoundPlan model and have been based on the simultaneous operation of two forklifts,one crane, and one of a tractor, loader, or backhoe. Table 4.7-12 of the Draft EIR shows the anticipated noise levels at the nearby receptors during grading activities.Table 4.7-12 shows that the maximum average noise levels during the 52 Salem Lutheran Church and School Specific Plan /mpacfs Which are Less Than Significant or CEQA Findings and Findings of Fact Can Be Mitigated to a Level of Insignifrcance building construction operations may be as high as 73.6 dBA Leq and increase by as much as 20.5 dBA over the existing noise levels at the exterior areas of the nearby sensitive receptors.The construction noise levels at the nearby residential uses would be below the 75-dBA threshold of significance.Therefore,through compliance with Section 8.24.070 of the Municipal Code,which places restrictions on when construction activities may occur,the building construction-related noise impacts would be less than significant. Long-term Operations The on-going operation of the proposed project would result in a potential long-term increase in ambient noise levels. Potential noise impacts associated with the operations of the proposed Project are a result of Project-generated vehicular traffic on the Project vicinity roadways and from stationary noise sources associated with the proposed project.The long-term operations are discussed below under the following sub-headings: 1)Potential offsite vehicular noise impacts,2)Potential operational stationary noise impacts,and 3)Potential operational stationary and transportation noise offsite impacts. 1)Potential Offsite Vehicular Noise Impacts In order• for offsite roadway noise impacts created by the proposed Project's operations to be considered significant,the proposed project would need to increase the noise levels for a noise sensitive land use by(1) 5 dBA CNEL,where the without project noise level is less than 60 dBA CNEL; (2)3 dBA CNEL,where the without project noise level is greater than 65 dBA CNEL; or(3) any noise increase where the without project noise level is greater than 75 dBA CNEL.For a project to increase the noise level by 3 dBA CNEL,the volume of traffic on an impacted roadway would have to double.The proposed Project's onsite and offsite noise impacts have been analyzed for the weekday and Sunday conditions,which are discussed below. Weekday Conditio�zs The proposed Project's potential offsite noise impacts have been calculated through a comparison of the existing weekday scenario to the existing weekday with project scenario.The results of this comparison are shown in Table 4.7-13 of the Draft EIR. Since the proposed Project would not increase any roadway noise contours for the weekday conditions, a less than significant impact would occur. Sunday C'onditio�ts The proposed Project's potential ofFsite noise impacts have been calculated through a comparison of the existing Sunday conditions to the existing with 712-person attendance Sunday conditions.The results of this comparison are shown in Table 4.7-14 of the Draft EIR,which indicates that for the Sunday conditions the noise level contributions from the proposed project to the study area roadways 53 Salem Lutheran Church and Schoo/Specific Plan lmpacts Which are Less Than Significant or CEQA Findings and Findings of Fact Can Be Mitigafed to a Level of Insignifcance would range from 0.0 to 1.7 dBA CNEL. 1.7 dBA noise increases would occur on Frank Lane west of Orange Park Boulevard and Orange Park Boulevard south of Frank Lane,where the existing Sunday noise levels for these roadway segments are 56.1 and 61.1 dBA CNEL,respectively.All project noise increases are below the significance thresholds listed above. Therefore,for the Sunday with 712 person attendance conditions, less than significant noise impacts from project-related vehicle noise would occur along the study area roadways segments. Moreover,the Draft EIR overstates the amount of traffic generated by the Project, since the capacity of the proposed Sanctuary was subsequently reduced to 590 seats. As indicated by the Traffic Impact and Parking Demand Analysis Addendum (Linscott,Law&Greenspan 2014)the OPA Compromise Plan will result in up to 413 AM peak hour trips for a typical Sunday church service, representing a 30-percent net trip reduction in the number of AM peak hour trips analyzed in the Draft EIR. Thus, Sunday traffic noise would be even less than indicated in the Draft EIR. 2)Potential Operational Stationary Noise Impacts The City's Municipal Code has established performance standards to control stationary source/non- transportation related noise impacts.A stationary noise impact would be considered significant if the noise level exceeds 55 dBA LeQ or 70 dBA Lmax between 7 a.m:and 10 p.m. for exterior areas of the nearby residential uses. Since the proposed project does not propose any activities between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m.,the City's nighttime noise threshold is not applicable. Since the ongoing operations of the proposed Project would include multiple stationary noise sources, the SoundPlan Version 7.0 noise model was utilized to calculate the combined maximum average stationary noise levels and the FHWA-RD-77-108 model was used to calculate the L�naX at the nearby sensitive receptors for both the weekday and Sunday conditions. The Noise I�npact Analysis for the proposed project considered the following onsite areas/operations/activities when assessing potential operational stationary noise impacts: proposed driveway off Santiago Canyon Road,proposed parking lot,playground,rooftop mechanical equipment,proposed sanctuary open door and proposed fellowship reception. Refer to the Noise Impact Analysis for additional information regarding the above listed onsite areas. Average Noise Level(Leq)Impacts The worst-case stationary only average noise levels created by the proposed Project were calculated for the facades of the nearby existing homes. The results are summarized below in Table 4.7-15 of the Draft EIR,which shows that from the combined onsite noise sources,no receivers would exceed the City of Orange daytime stationary noise standard of 55 dBA Leq. Therefore, a less than significant average noise level impact from onsite sources would occur from the ongoing operations of the proposed project at the nearby sensitive receptors. 54 Sa/em Lutheran Church and Scbool Specific Plan lmpacts Which are Less Than Significant or CEQA Findings and Findings of Fact Can Be Mitigated to a Level of lnsignifcance Mcrximum Noise Level(L„taX)Impacts A Maximum noise level consists of the highest instantaneous noise level during a specified time. Maximum noise levels from the proposed project would typically occur from slamming of car doors, start up and shutdown of inechanical equipment,or from kids playing.The maximum noise levels typically will last around a second and only occur a few times a day. Therefore, it is very unlikely to have maximum noise levels from multiple sources occurring simultaneously.Due to this,the maximum noise level from each source has been analyzed separately using the FHWA-RD-77-108 model.Each source was analyzed as a point source since the L�„aX would occur from one action such as the slamming of a car door.The propagation of each point source was analyzed based on a "hardsite"drop off rate of 6 dB per doubling of distance. The results are shown in Table 4.7-16 of the Draft EIR, and indicate a worst-case scenario since attenuation from walls,buildings,and landscaping were not incorporated into the calculations. Table 4.7-16 shows that the maximum noise levels from the onsite noise sources at the t�earest sensi�ive receptors wouid not exceed the City daytime maximum noise standard of 75 dBA L,naX.Therefore,a less than significant maximum noise level impact from onsite sources would occur from the ongoing operations of the proposed project at the nearby sensitive receptors. In addition to the above analysis,the noise consultant for the proposed Project was contacted regarding potential noise from the portable generators that will be utilized to temporarily light the • multipurpose field when it is used for overflow parking.Lights similar to those used by the proposed Project to light the multipurpose field measure 70 dBA Leq at 10 feet from the generator. Based on standard drop-off rates,the lights would have to be a minimum of 60 feet from any nearby residence, which would result in a noise level of 54.4 dBA,which is within the City's 55 dBA Leq standard for 7 am to 10 pm(Tonkovich,pers.comm.).Exhibit 4.7-3 of the Draft EIlZ depicts the locations where the portable lights are placed on the multipurpose field.The locations of the lights on the multipurpose field have been approved by the City of Orange and as such, will be the location of temporary lights upon project completion(Ventura,pers comm. October 4, 2011).The distance of the temporary lights/generators from the walls of the nearest sensitive receptors(i.e. homes)are as follows: The temporary light located adjacent to Orange Park Boulevard is approximately 93 feet away from the nearest home across Orange Park Boulevard. The temporary light located adjacent to Frank Lane is approximately 222 feet from the nearest home across Frank Lane.The temporary light located near the middle of the field is approximately 347 feet from the nearest home across Frank Lane. Thus,the temporary lights/generators are placed and will continue to be placed in the locations shown on Exhibit 4.7-3 and will be a sufficient distance from nearby homes(i.e. greater than 60 feet from any nearby residence),resulting in noise levels which are within the City's 55 dBA Leq standard for 7am to l Opm. Therefore,a less than significant impact is anticipated regarding the use of temporary lights for overflow parking. 55 Sa/em Lutheran Church and Schoo/Specific Plan Impacts Which are Less Than Significant or CEQA Findings and Findings of Fact Can Be Mitigated to a Level of Insignificance 3)Potential Operational Stationary and Transportation Noise Offsite Impacts Since the sensitive receptors located near the Project site may be impacted by both onsite stationary noise and offsite traffic noise from the proposed Project,the potential noise impacts from the combined Project-related stationary and transportation noise sources have been analyzed. In order to determine the combined stationary and transportation noise impacts created by the proposed Project, the SoundPlan Model modeling software was utilized. Project Impacts The SoundPlan model was run based on the parameters above in order to calculate the combined stationary and transportation-related offsite noise impacts. In order for combined stationary and transportation-related noise impacts created by the proposed Project's operations to be considered significant,the proposed project would need to increase the noise levels for a noise sensitive land use by: (1)5 dBA CNEL,where the without project noise level is less than 60 dBA CNEL; (2)3 dBA CNEL,where the without project noise level is greater than 65 dBA CNEL; or(3)any noise increase where the without project noise level is greater than 75 dBA CNEL. The combined stationary and transportation noise levels created by the weekday and Sunday with project scenarios were calculated for the facades of the same nearby existing sensitive receptors that were analyzed for the existing conditions. The results are surrunarized below in Table 4.7-17 of the Draft DEIR,which shows that the proposed Projects' combined transportation and stationary noise impacts would create up to a 1.6 dBA CNEL noise increase at the nearby sensitive receptors.A 1.6 dBA noise increase,where the without project noise level is 50.6 dBA CNEL would be below the significance thresholds listed above. Therefore,a less than significant combined stationary and transportation noise impact would occur at the nearby sensitive receptors for both the weekday and Sunday conditions. Further,as indicated above,the Draft EIR overstates the amount of Sunday traffic generated by the Project, since the capacity of the proposed Sanctuary was subsequently reduced to 590 seats. References: Pages 4.7-21 through 4.6-34 of the Draft EIR and any documents referenced in or incorporated by reference in Section 4.7,Noise, of the Draft EIlZ; Section 2(OPA Compromise Plan) of the Final EIR,pp. 2-3. Impact 4.7-2 Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? 56 Salem Lutheran Church and Schoo/Specifrc Plan Impacts Which are Less Than Significant or CEQA Findings and Findings of Fact Can Be Mitigated to a Level of Insignificance 2.7.2 - Potentially Significant Impact The potential for the Project to expose persons to or generate excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels was evaluated. The Final EIR indicates the Project will not expose persons to or generate excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels and that this potential impact is thus less than significant. Finding The Project will not expose persons to or generate excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels. Facts in Support of Finding Short-term Operations Construction vibration represents a short-term increase in vibration levels.Vibration impacts from construction activities associated with the proposed Project would be a function of the vibration �generated by construction equipment, equipment location, sensitivity of nearby land uses,and the timing and duration of the construction activities. Construction activities can produce vibration that may be felt by adjacent uses.The primary sources of vibration during construction would be from bulldozers,backhoes,crawler tractors,and scrapers. As detailed in the Noise Impact Analysis, a large bulldozer would be the piece of equipment that would produce the largest amount of vibration on the Project site with a 0.089 inch per second PPV at 25 feet. The closest vibration sensitive land uses are the nearby single-family homes.The nearest residential structures are located approximately 70 feet west of the proposed area to be graded,which includes the distance from the edge of the proposed construction activities. It is anticipated that the vibration levels caused by a large bulldozer operating on the edge of the area to be graded during construction of the proposed project at the nearest structure will be around 0.029 inch per second PPV.A vibration level of 0.029 inch per second PPV would be slightly above the level of perception for a person sitting or lying down and may create groundborne noise such as the rattling of loose windows or dishes.This vibration level is below the 0.04 inch per second PPV threshold discussed and would not occur during the nighttime hours when people typically sleep.Therefore,the short-term construction- related vibration from the proposed Project would result in a less than significant short-term vibration impact. 57 Salem Lutheran Church and School Specific Plan lmpacfs Wi►ich are Less Than Significant or CEQA Findings and Findings of Facf Can Be Mitigated to a Level of Insignificance Long-term Operations Potential operational vibration impacts would result from passenger vehicle movements and occasional delivery trucks for the church and supplies.The Noise Impact Analysis(Appendix G of the Draft EIR)prepared for the proposed project determined that vibration impacts would not exceed the threshold for transient events, as presented in the Caltrans Transportation-and Construction- Induced Vibration Guidance Manual,June 2004.This manual was utilized because the City of Orange does not have specific vibration impact criteria for operations-related vibration levels. Therefore,a less than significant vibration impact is anticipated from the on-going operations of the proposed Project. References: Pages 4.7-34 through 4.6-35 of the Draft EIR.and any documents referenced in or incorporated by reference in Section 4.7,Noise, of the Draft EIR. impact 4.7-3 A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity is not above levels existing without the project. 2.7.3 - Potentially Significant Impact The potential for the Project to result in a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the Project vicinity was evaluated. The Final EIR indicates that,with the required mitigation,the Project will not result in a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the Project vicinity and that this potential impact is thus less than significant. Finding Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 (a)(1),changes or alterations have been required in,or incorporated into,the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Facts in Support of Finding The potentially significant Project-specific environmental effect has been eliminated or substantially lessened to a level that is less than significant by virtue of the following mitigation measure as identified in the Final EIR and incorporated into the Project: MM NOI-2 The project applicant shall require that a"windows closed" condition shall be provided for the proposed sanctuary.A"windows closed"condition requires a means of inechanical ventilation per the 58 Sa/em Lufheran Church and School Specific Plan Impacts Which are Less Than Significant or CEQA Findings and Findings of Fact Can Be Mitigated fo a Level of Insigni�cance Uniform Building Code standards. This shall be achieved with standard air conditioning or a fresh air intake system. Short-term Operations The proposed Project would involve demolition of the existing sanctuary and preschool buildings. Construction noise effects,although temporary,would result in potentially significant impacts.Noise during construction demolition activities may be a nuisance to sensitive receptors(i.e., surrounding residents and students on site).As discussed above in connection with Impact 4.7-1, implementation of Mitigation Measure NOI-1 will reduce temporary construction-related noise impacts to a less than significant level. Long-term Operations The Project proposes the redesign of an already existing church and school campus.Noise generated from the proposed Project would be typical of a public facilities/school development and would be similar to the ambient noise levels already generated on the Project site because no new or different land use is proposed onsite. Potential Operational Onsite Noise Impacts According to the City's General Plan,noise levels at places of worship shall be limited to 45 dBA CNEL for interior areas and no standard is provided for exterior areas.To determine the onsite noise level of the interior of the proposed sanctuary,the SoundPlan Model modeling software was utilized. As detailed in the General Plan Noise Element,new building construction typically provide 15 dB exterior to interior attenuation of 15 dB with windows open and 25 dB attenuation with windows closed.These attenuation rates have been used in the Project's Noise Impact Analysis to calculate the proposed sanctuary's interior noise levels.The results from the weekdays and Sunday noise scenarios are shown below in Table 4.7-20 of the Draft EIR,which shows that the exterior noise levels at the farades of the proposed sanctuary would be as high as 64.7 dBA CNEL,which would result in a required exterior to interior noise reduction of 19.7 dB. Since the windows open scenario would only provide 15 dB of attenuation,this would be considered a significant impact prior to mitigation. With implementation of the proposed mitigation requiring a"windows closed"condition,the interior noise levels of the proposed sanctuary would be reduced to 39.8 dBA CNEL,which is below the City's 45 dBA CNEL interior noise standard.Thus, implementation of Mitigation Measure NOI-2 above will reduce impacts in this regard to a less than significant level. References: Pages 4.7-35 through 4.7-37 of the Draft EIR and any documents referenced in or incorporated by reference in Section 4.7,Noise,of the Draft EIR. 59 Salem Lutheran Church and School Specific Plan Impacts Which are Less Than Signi�cant or CEQA Findings and Findings of Fact Can Be Mitigated to a Level of Insignificance 2.8 - TRANSPORTATION Impact 4.8-1 The project will not conflict with an applicable plan,ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system,taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system including but not limited to intersections,streets, highways and freeways,pedestrian and bicycle paths,and mass transit. 2.8.1 - Potentially Significant Impact The potential for the Project to conflict with an applicable plan,ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system was evaluated. The Final EIR indicates the Project will not conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system and that this potential impact is thus less than significant. Finding The Project will not conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system,taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system including but not limited to intersections, streets,highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit. Facts in Support of Finding To provide a quantitative basis for determining the significant traffic impact at a specific location, criteria were established to be used in the analysis of intersections for the Traffic Impact Analysis. The Project is considered to have a significant impact if the following criteria are met: For Signalized Intersections: the ICU value under"with project"conditions is 0.91 or greater(LOS E or F),and the ICU increase attributable to the Project is 0.01 or greater. For Stop-Controlled Intersections: the Total Intersection Delay value under"with project"conditions is 35.00 sec/veh or greater(LOS E ar F), and the Total Intersection Delay increase attributable to the project is 2.00 sec/veh or greater. As demonstrated by Table 4.8-5 of the Draft EIR,which shows the peak hour levels of service for the weekday AM intersection analysis,the Project is not expected to cause significant traffic impacts at any of the key study intersections during the weekday AM peak hour. Therefore, impacts are less than significant and no mitigation measures will be necessary under weekday AM peak hour conditions. so Sa/em Lutheran Church and School Specific Plan lmpacts Which are Less Than Significant or CEQA Findings and Findings of Fact Can Be Mitigated to a Level of Insigni�cance Similarly,Table 4.8-6 of the Draft EIR shows levels of service for the Sunday AM peak hour,and indicates that the Project is not expected to cause significant traffic impacts at any of the key study intersections based upon the application of the significance criteria described previously.Moreover, the Draft EIR overstates the amount of traffic generated by the Project, since the capacity of the proposed Sanctuary was subsequently reduced to 590 seats. As indicated by the Traffic Impact and Parking Demand Analysis Addendum(Linscott,Law&Greenspan 2014)the OPA Compromise Plan will result in up to 413 AM peak hour trips for a typical Sunday church service,representing a 30- percent net trip reduction in the number of AM peak hour trips analyzed in the Draft EIR. Thus, impacts are less than significant and no mitigation measures will be necessary under Sunday AM peak hour conditions. Because inadequate onsite parking capacity could have the potentiai_to affect the offsite circulation system resulting in potential conflicts with the circulation system effectiveness,a parking analysis was also included in the analysis of Impact 4.8-1. As indicated in Table 4.8-7 of the Draft EIR and in the TIA Addendum, based on the application of the City of Orange parking code ratio,as well as the empirical parking ratio consistent with the 2010 Parking Analysis for the 712-seat sanctuary scenario,the approximately 186 surface parking spaces plus 105 overflow parking spaces(291 total spaces)will provide adequate onsite parking. It should be noted that the 186 surface parking spaces will satisfy the City parking code requirement of 148 parking spaces aud implementation of a parking management plan(PMP)will be required to accommodate the empirical parking requirement of 259 parking spaces consistent with the 2010 Parking Analysis for the 712-seat sanctuary scenario. The PMP would generally consist of occasional overflow parking on the multipurpose field on the eastern portion of the site.The need for overflow parking is anticipated based upon past attendance records of events including holiday church services(Easter, Christmas, etc.), school graduations, special school-related events and services(such as opening school year church service,Christmas programs,grandparents day, etc.), occasional funerals and occasional weddings. Overflow parking on the multipurpose field will be set-up prior to the event and is anticipated to fulfill the parking need. Based on these considerations, it is concluded that adequate parking will be provided on site to accommodate parking needs on weekdays and Sundays. Therefore, impacts to the circulation system effectiveness that would not arise from the proposed parking. s� ' Salem Lutheran Church and Schoo/Specific Plan Impacts Which are Less Than Significant or CEQA Findings and Findings of Fact Can Be Mitigated to a Level of Insignificance References: Pages 4.8-8 through 4.8-22 of the Draft EIR and any documents referenced in or incorporated by reference in Section 4.8,Transportation, of the Draft EIR;TIA Addendum; Section 2 (OPA Compromise Plan)of the Final EIR,p. 4. Impact 4.8-2 The project will not conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including,but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways. 2.8.2 - Potentially Significant Impact The potential for the Project to conflict with an applicable congestion management program was evaluated. The Final EIlZ indicates the Project will not conflict with an applicable congestion management program and that this potential impact is thus less than significant. Finding The project will not conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways. Facts in Support of Finding � The Circulation and Mobility Element identifies only two Congestion Management Program intersections in the City:the Katella Avenue northbound and southbound ramps to the Costa Mesa � Freeway(SR-55). This intersection is not one of the study area intersections.Moreover,this intersection is not located near the Project site.Therefore, project implementation would not result in any impacts to or conflict with an adopted Congestion Management Program. References: Page 4.8-23 of the Draft EIR and any documents referenced in or incorporated by reference in Section 4.8,Transportation, of the Draft EIR. Impact 4.8-3 The project will not substantially increase hazards due to a design feature(e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections)or incompatible uses(e.g.,farm equipment). 2.8.3 - Potentially Significant Impact The potential for the Project to substantially increase hazards due to a design feature(e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections)or incompatible uses(e.g., farm equipment)was evaluated. The Final EIR indicates the Project will not substantially increase hazards due to a design feature(e.g., s2 Sa/em Lutheran Church and School Specific Plan Impacts Which are Less Than Significant or CEQA Findings and Findings of Facf Can Be Mitigated to a Level of Insignificance sharp curves or dangerous intersections)or incompatible uses(e.g., farm equipment)and that this potential impact is thus less than significant. Finding The project will not substantially increase hazards due to a design feature(e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections)or incompatible uses(e.g.,farm equipment). Facts in Support of Finding No existing hazardous design features exist onsite.During the peak drop-off and pick-up periods, staff inembers/adult volunteers help with implementing the school's traffic control plan for managing the staging area,directing traffic to move forward,opening vehicle doors to help children get into or out of their vehicles(when necessary)to expedite the drop-off ar pick-up,and controlling the vehicular and pedestrian conflicts on site. Based on the queuing observations performed during student drop-off and pick-up peak times on Thursday,March 25,2010, all vehicle queues were accommodated on site. During school arrivals/dismissals,the Project proposes a total of four lanes on Frank Lane(two entry lanes and two exit lanes)by utilizing the full paved surface area on the church property, combining the Frank Lane private road easement area with the onsite paved area immediately adjacent and parallel to the northern boundary of the easement.Residential traffic would be separated from project traffic with"TYPE AY"pavement markers along Frank Lane. Providing adequate internal circulation and loop movements within the site will ensure that queuing does not extend onto Orange Park Drive during school drop-off and pick-up periods on a typical weekday. References: Pages 4.8-23 through 4.8-24 of the Draft EIR and any documents referenced in or incorporated by reference in Section 4.8,Transportation, of the Draft EIR; Section 43 of the Specific Plan. Impact 4.8-4 The project will not result in inadequate emergency access. 2.8.4- Potentially Significant Impact The potential for the Project to result in inadequate emergency access was evaluated. The Final EIR indicates the Project will not result in inadequate emergency access and that this potential impact is thus less than significant. 63 Salem Lutheran Church and School Specific Plan Impacts Which are Less Than Signifcant or CEQA Findings and Findings of Fact Can Be Mitigated to a Level of lnsignifrcance Finding The project will not result in inadequate emergency access. Facts in Support of Finding Currently all access,including emergency access, is limited to the single entry via Frank Lane.This access will be retained and improved, including by the use of pavement markers to separate church and school traffic from residents south and west of the site.The redesign of Frank Lane will provide a more efficient emergency vehicle access to the interior of the site adjacent to the west side of Classroom Building B by including a proposed"hammerhead turn-around"for emergency vehicles (Exhibit 3-9 in the Draft EIR Project Description section).The redesign will retain emergency vehicle access to the residences west of the Project site. This access would be provided by a"knockdown bollard" and security chain,allowing emergency access to transition from the church and school travel lanes to the dedicated residents' travel lane. � References: Page 4.8-24 of the Draft EIR and any documents referenced in or incorporated by reference in Section 4.8,Transportation, of the Draft EIR; Section 43 of the Specific Plan. Impact 4.8-5 The project will not conflict with adopted policies, plans,or programs regarding public transit,bicycle,or pedestrian facilities,or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities supporting alternative transportation(e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks). 2.8.5- Potentially Significant Impact The potential for the Project to conflict with adopted policies,plans,or programs regarding public transit, bicycle,or pedestrian facilities,or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities supporting alternative transportation was evaluated. The Final EIR indicates the Project will not conflict with adopted policies,plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle,or pedestrian facilities,or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such fac'ilities supporting alternative transportation and that this potential impact is thus less than significant. Finding The project will not conflict with adopted policies,plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle,or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities supporting alternative transportation(e.g. bus turnouts,bicycle racks). 64 Salem Lutheran Church and Schoo/Specific Plan lmpacts Which are Less Than Significant or CEQA Findings and Findings of Fact Can Be Mitigated to a Level of/nsignificance Facts in Support of Finding Class II bicycle lanes(on-roadway.)are adjacent to the south side of Santiago Canyon Road and west side of Orange Park Boulevard, adjacent to the church property. In addition,off-roadway equestrian trails are located adjacent to the church property along both roadways. The project will enhance and protect the existing equestrian trail by including a demand light for equestrians at the�ntersection of Orange Park Boulevard and Frank Lane, and will not otherwise impact the existing bicycle lanes or equestrian trails.Thus,the Project will not conflict with any policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation. References: Page 4.8-25 of the Draft EIR and any documents referenced in or incorporated by reference in Section 4.8,Transportation, of the Draft EIR; Section 2(OPA Compromise Plan)of the Final EIR,pp. 1-2.) 2.9 - UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS Impact 4.9-1 The project will not require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment or collection facilities or expansion of existing facilities,the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects. 2.9.1 - Potentially Significant Impact The potential for the Project to require or result in the�construction of new water or wastewater treatment or collection facilities or expansion of existing facilities,the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects was evaluated. The Final EIlZ indicates the Project will not require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment or collection facilities or expansion of existing facilities,the construction of which could cause significant enviromnental effects,and that this potential impact is thus less than significant. Finding The Project will not require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment or collection facilities or expansion of existing facilities,the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects. Facts in Support of Finding Short-term Operations Water: During the short-term construction phase of the proposed project,water needed for construction will be provided via existing water lines on site. No new water treatment facilities are proposed or would be required during the construction phase of the Project. 65 Salem Lufheran Church and Schoo/Specific Plan Impacts Which are Less Than Significant or CEQA Findings and Findings of Facf Can Be Mitigated to a Level oflnsignificance Wastewater: During the short-term const�•uction phase,wastewater treatment for onsite construction workers would be provided by porta-potties or existing onsite restrooms.No new wastewater treatment facilities are proposed or would be required during the construction phase.Therefore,no impacts related to the provision of new water or wastewater treatment facilities during the construction phase would result. Long-term Operations Water supply to the site is currently provided by the Irvine Ranch Water District through an existing 6-inch diameter A.C.P line and an 8-inch D.I.P. line under Frank Lane.Additionally,three public laterals extend into the Project site,as depicted in EXhibit 4.9-1 of the Draft EIR.As detailed in the Water System Plan, future water services will be located in a similar location to the existing water service lines onsite.Therefore, less than significant impacts would result. Wastewater: As described in the site conditions section above, sewer service to the site is provided by the Orange County Sanitation District(OCSD)via a 21-inch diameter VCP main located in Frank Lane.This 21-inch main currently serves the Project site and is expected to serve the proposed project:The entire project site would continue to receive sewer service from the Orange County Sanitation District. The development of the proposed project would not result in a significant impact related to the wastewater conveyance facilities that serve the Project site because there is excess capaciiy in the conveyance facilities.Thus,the Project does not have the potential to require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities. References: Pages 4.9-10 through 4.9-11 of the Draft EIR and any documents referenced in or incorporated by reference in Section 4.9,Utilities and Service Systems,of the Draft EIR. Impact 4.9-2 The project will not require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities,the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects. 2.9.2 - Potentially Significant Impact , The potential for the Project to require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities,the construction of which could cause significant environmental effectswas evaluated. The Final EIR indicates the Project will not require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities,the ss Salem Lutheran Church and Schoo/Specific Plan Impacts Which are Less Than Significant or CEQA Findings and Findings of Fact Can Be Mitigated to a Level of Insignificance construction of which could cause significant environmental effects and that this potential impact is thus less than significant. Finding The Project will not require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities,the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects. Facts in Support of Finding Under existing conditions, approximately 5.4 acres of the site drains southwesterly to Frank Lane, where runoff is transmitted to Handy Creek(located approximately 4501inear feet from the Project site).Flows travel along Frank Lane and over private property before reaching Handy Creek. Approximately half an acre of the Project site drains over the northwesterly property line and"sheet flows"cross the equestrian properiy(located adjacent to the Project site)and then to Santiago Canyon Road, and ultimately into Handy Creek.Approximately 0.1 acre of the Project site flows directly onto Santiago Canyon Road from a frontage area Short term Operations No drainage facilities would need to be constructed during the short-term construction phase of the Project and no impacts would'result.A discussion of storm water run-off during the construction phase of the Project is included in the Hydrology and Water Quality section of the Draft EIR. Long-term Operations The proposed Project closely resembles the existing drainage patterns,rates and volumes.A private storm drain system is proposed for the Project(E�ibit 2-2 to OPA Compromise Plan). This storm drain system will pick up the majority of the Project site and convey flow toward Santiago Canyon Road where it will be picked up in an existing 36-inch reinforced concrete pipe(RCP)within Santiago Canyon Road. This 36-inch RCP conveys flows to the Handy Creek reinforced concrete box culvert under Santiago Canyon Road. This storm drain system will alleviate flooding which has occurred within the private drive westerly of the Project site. Small increases in flow are introduced to Frank Lane are a result of the application of new County of Orange hydrology manual criteria, however this small increase in flow will be offset because flows will also be redirected to Santiago Creek, as described above. References: Pages 4.9-11 through 4.9-12 of the Draft EIR and any documents referenced in or incorporated by reference in Section 4.9,Utilities and Service Systems, of the Draft EIR; Section 2 (OPA Compromise Plan)of the Final EIR,p. 3. s� Sa/em Lutheran Church and Schoo/Speci�c Plan Impacfs Which are Less Than Significant or CEQA Findings and Findings of Fact Can Be Mitigated to a Level of lnsignifrcance Impact 4.9-3 The project will have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources,or are new or expanded entitlements needed. 2.9.3 - Potentially Significant Impact The sufficiency of available water supplies to serve the Project from existing entitlements and resources was evaluated. The Final EIR indicates that sufficient water supplies are available to serve the Project from existing entitlements and resources and that this potential impact is thus less than significant. Finding The Project will have sufficient water supplies available to serve the Project from existing entitlements and resources,or are new or expanded entitlements needed. Facts in Support of Finding The water service provider for Salem Lutheran Church and School is the Irvine Ranch Water District (IRWD). IRWD owns both a 6-inch diameter A.C.P. main and an 8-inch diameter D.I.P. in Frank Lane. The project site is currently served by the 8-inch diameter main. Implementation of the Project would result in a slight increase in water demand over the existing conditions. Short-term Operations Water supply during the short-term construction phase would be available from the existing water supply lines,which currently service the Project site. Therefore, impacts related to water supply during this phase would be less than significant. Long-term Operations Water Supply.The Project is estimated to consume approximately the same amount of water as it does now. Water supply will be provided by the Irvine Ranch Water District.Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. Fire Flow Water Supply.The proposed project will comply with all applicable codes and requirements related to fire flow.Therefore, less than significant impacts required to fire flow water supply would result from Project implementation. References: Page 4.9-15 of the Draft EIR and any documents referenced in or incorporated by reference in Section 4.9,Utilities and Service Systems. 68 Sa/em Lutheran Church and School Specific Plan Impacts Which are Less Than Significant or CEQA Findings and Findings of Fact Can Be Mitigated to a Level of Insignificance Impact 4.9-1 The project will not result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has inadequate capacity to serve the projecYs projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments. 2.9.4 - Potentially Significant Impac# The potential for the Project to result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the Project that it has inadequate capacity to serve the Project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments was evaluated. The Final EIR indicates the Project will not result in such a determination and that this potential impact is thus less than significant. Finding The Project will not result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the Project that it has adequate capacity to serve the Project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments. Facts in Support of Finding � Impact Analysis Wastewater treatment for the proposed project is served by the Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD). As discussed in the Initial Study,the proposed Project includes building a new worship center that would house 590 people.Therefore,the proposed Project may require the expansion of existing treatment facilities to serve the Project site. The development of the proposed project would result in the generation of approximately the same amount of wastewater as it does now. Additionally,a sewage fee will be paid by the developer of the proposed project.A portion of the sewer fee(referred to as the Capital Facilities Capacity Charge)is given to the OCSD anci is used to pay ror improvements in tiie efficiency and effectiveness of O(:SD operations.This fee will be applied to the proposed project because it is a redesign of an existing facility.Therefore,the development of the proposed project would not result in a significant impact related to wastewater treatment facilities that serve the proposed project site and vicinity. Short-term Operafions During the short-term construction phase,wastewater treatment for onsite construction workers would be provided by porta-potties or existing onsite restroom facilities. Therefore,no impacts related to adequate wastewater treatment capacity during the construction phase would result. 69 Salem Lutireran Church and School Specific Plan lmpacts Which are Less Than Significant or CEQA Findings and Findings of Fact Can Be Mitigated to a Level of lnsignificance Long-term Operations The proposed project involves the development of a new worship building with the capacity to house 590 persons. As discussed previously,the amount of wastewater generated by the Project is approximately the same as the existing conditions.Therefore,no impacts related to adequate wastewater treatment capacity during the long-term operational phase would result. References: Page 4.9-15 through 4.9-16 of the Draft EIR and any documents referenced in or incorporated by reference in Section 4.9,Utilities and Service Systems; Section 2 of the Final EIR (OPA Compromise Plan),p. l.) SECTION 3: POTENTIAL CUMULATIVE IMPACTS WHICH ARE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT OR CAN BE MITIGATED TO A LEVEL OF INSIGNIFICANCE 3.1 - AESTHETICS 3.1.1 - Potentialiy Significant Impact The potential for the Project to contribute to a culmulatively significant aesthetic impact was evaluated. The Final EIR indicates the Project's aesthetic impacts are less than cumulatively considerable, and thus,this impact is less than significant. Finding The project will not contribute to a culmulatively significant aesthetic impact. Facts in Support of Finding Implementation of the proposed project would not result in significant and unavoidable impacts related to aesthetics.All of the impacts were less than significant. Each of the related projects identified in Table 5-2 of the Draft EIR would be required to comply with the City's Design Review Committee, if applicable. In addition,each of the related projects would be required to comply with applicable City zoning requirements that would provide the required setbacks. Negative aesthetic elements located on the Project during the construction period would be removed. Only the Rio Santiago related project is within�partial viewing range of the proposed project.The Rio Santiago related project proposes extensive landscaping and aesthetic enhancements designed to �o Sa/em Lutheran Church and Schoo/Specific Plan lmpacts Which are Less Than Significant or CEQA Findings and Findings of Fact Can Be Mitigated to a Level of Insignificance integrate and compliment the OPA community identity.Although not within viewing range of the propose project,the Ridgeline Equestrian Estates project related project is within the OPA community. This related project is specifically designed to integrate into the OPA community. Because the proposed project is also designed to preserve existing aesthetic elements that have been an integral part of the OPA community for approximately 40 years and the proposed plan includes Project Design Features that are specifically intended to integrate into the OPA community, adding the proposed project to the Rio Santiago and Ridgeline Equestrian Estates projects would not result in incremental impacts. References: Pages 5-2 through 5-4 and Section 4.1 of the Draft EIR and any documents referenced in or incorporated by reference in Section 4.1,Aesthetics or Section 5,Cumulative Impacts.) 3.2 - AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES 3.2.1 - Potentially Significant Impact The potential for the Project to contribute to a culmulatively significant impact to agriculture or forestry resources was evaluated. The Final EIR indicates the Project's impacts with regard to this issue are less than cumulatively considerable, and thus,this impact is less than significant. Finding The project will not contribute to a culmulatively significant impact to agriculture or forestry resources. Facts in Support of Finding No impacts to agricultural production or forestry production have been identified from the Project. Only the Peltzer Ranch related project is proposed for agricultural production or forestry production. Because no impacts are associated with the proposed project and any potentially significant impacts associated with the Peltzer Ranch related project would be mitigated below the level of significance, no incremental impacts would result from adding the proposed project to this related project. References: Pages 5-3 through 5-5 of the Draft EIR and any documents referenced in or incorporated by reference in Section 5,Cumulative Impacts.) �1 Sa/em Lutheran Church and Schoo!Specific Plan Impacts Which are Less Than Significant or CEQA Findings and Findings of Fact Can Be Mitigated to a Level of Insignificance 3.3 - AIR QUALITY 3.3.1 - Potentially Significant Impact The potential for the Project to contribute to a culmulatively significant impact to air quality was evaluated. The Final EIR indicates the Project's impacts related to air quality are less than cumulatively considerable, and thus,this impact is less than significant. Finding The project will not contribute to a culmulatively significant impact to air quality. Facts in Support of Finding Implementation of the proposed project would not result in significant and unavoidable impacts related to air quality.All air quality impacts were less than significant before mitigation. Each of the related projects would be required to comply with applicable air quality regulations and provide mitigation measures, if necessary. The environmental document prepared for the Ridgeline Equestrian Estates project identified a significant and unavoidable impact related to short-term construction impacts for the localized air quality threshold due to the close proximity to sensitive receptors.The proposed project would not result in significant impacts for the same criterion. Due to the distance between the Projects,the addition of the proposed project to the Ridgeline Equestrian Estates related project would not result in a cumulative impact for this criterion.Because the proposed project did not result in any cumulative impacts related to air quality and did not require mitigation measures, adding the proposed project to the related projects would not result in incremental impacts. References: Pages 5-5 and Section 4.2 of the Draft EIR and any documents referenced in or incorporated by reference in Section 4.2,Air Quality, or Section 5, Cumulative Impacts; TIA Addendum; OPA Compromise Plan,pp. 2-3.) 3.4 - BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 3.4.1 - Potentially Significant Impact The potential for the Project to contribute to a culmulatively significant impact to biological resources was evaluated. The Final EIR indicates the Project's impacts to biological resources are less than cumulatively considerable, and thus,this impact is less than significant. 72 , Sa/em Lutheran Church and School Specifc Plan Impacts Which are Less Than Significanf or CEQA Findings and Findings of Fact Can Be Mitigated fo a Leve/of Insignifcance Finding The project will not contribute to a culmulatively significant impact to biological resources. Facts in Support of Finding No impacts to biological resources have been identified from the Project. The related projects would result in no or less than significant impacts through the implementation of recommended mitigation measures, if required.Because no impacts are associated with either the proposed project or the related projects,no incremental impacts would result from adding the proposed project to the related projects. � References: Pages 5-3, 5-6 of the Draft EIR and any documents referenced in or incorporated by reference in Section 5,Cumulative Impacts.) 3.5 - CULTURAL RESOURCES 3.5.1 - Potentially Significant Impact The potential for the Project to contribute to a culmulatively significant impact to cultural resources was evaluated. The Final EIR indicates the ProjecYs impacts to cultural resources are less than cumulatively considerable,and thus,this impact is less than significant. Finding The project will not contribute to a culmulatively significant impact to cultural resources. Facts in Support of Finding No impacts to cultural resources have been identified from the Project. The related projects would result in no or less than significant impacts through the implementation of recommended mitigation measures, if required. Because no impacts are associated with either the proposed project or the related projects, no incremental impacts would result from adding the proposed project to the related projects. References: Pages 5-3, 5-6 of the Draft EIR and any documents referenced in or incorporated by reference in Section 5, Cumulative Impacts.) 73 Salem Lutheran Church and School Specifrc Plan Impacts Which are Less Than Signifrcant or CEQA Findings and Findings of Fact Can Be Mitigated to a Level of Insignifrcance 3.6 - GEOLOGY AND SOILS � 3.6.1 - Potentially Significant Impact The potential for the Project to contribute to a culmulatively significant impact related to geology and soils was evaluated. The Final EIR indicates the Project's impacts related to geology and soils are less than cumulatively considerable, and thus,this impact is less than significant. Finding The project will not contribute to a culmulatively significant impact related to geology and soils. Facts in Support of Finding No impacts related to geology and soils have been identified from the Project. Each of the related projects would be required to comply with the mandatory provisions of the City Grading Manual and recommendations from each project's geotechnical study that would reduce any potentially significant impacts below the level of significance. Because no impacts are associated with either the proposed project or any of the related projects,no incremental impacts would result from adding the proposed project to the related projects. References: Pages 5-3, 5-7 of the Draft EIR and any documents referenced in or incorporated by reference in Section 5, Cumulative Impacts.) 3.7 - GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS 3.7.1 - Potentially Significant Impact The potential for the Project to contribute to a culmulatively significant impact related to greenhouse gas emissions was evaluated. The Final EIR indicates the Project's impacts related to greenhouse gas emissions are less than cumulatively considerable,and thus,this impact is less than significant. Finding The project will not contribute to a culmulatively significant impact related to greenhouse gas emissions. 74 Salem Lutheran Church and School Specific Plan Impacts Which are Less Than Significanf or CEQA Findings and Findings of Fact Can Be Mifigated fo a Level of Insignificance Facts in Support of Finding . Implementation of the proposed project would not result in significant and unavoidable impacts related to greenhouse gas emissions.All of the impacts were less than significant and did not require mitigation. References: Pages 5-3, 5-7 and Section 4.3 of the Draft EIR and any documents referenced in or incorporated by in Section 4.3,Greenhouse Gas Emissions,or Section 5, Cumulative Impacts;TIA Addendum; OPA Compromise Plan,pp.2-3.) 3.8 - HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS 3.8.1 - Potentially Significant Impact The potential for the Project to contribute to a culmulatively significant impact related to hazards and hazardous materials was evaluated. The Final EIR indicates the Project's impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials are less than cumulatively considerable, and thus,this impact is less than significant. Finding The project will not contribute to a culmulatively significant impact related to hazards and hazardous materials. Facts in Support of Finding Less than significant impacts to hazards and hazardous materials issue were identified from the Proj ect. Each of the related projects would be required to comply with all applicable regulations related to hazards and hazardous materials and, if necessary, recommend mitigation measures to reduce potentially significant impacts below the level of significance.Because less than significant impacts are associated with either the proposed project or any of the related projects,no incremental impacts would result from adding the proposed project to the related projects. References: Pages 5-3, 5-8 and Section 4.4 of the Draft EIR and any documents referenced in or incorporated by reference in Section 4.4,Hazards and Hazardous Materials, or Section 5, Cumulative Impacts.) 75 Salem Lutheran Church and School Specifrc Pian Impacts Wbich are Less Than Significanf or CEQA Findings and Findings of Fact Can Be Mitigated to a Level oflnsignificance 3.9 - HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY 3.9.1 - Potentiaily Significant Impact The potential for the Project to contribute to a culmulatively significant impact related to hydrology and water quality was evaluated. The Final EIR indicates the Project's impacts related to hydrology and water quality are less than cumulatively considerable, and thus,this impact is less than significant. Finding The project will not contribute to a culmulatively significant impact related to hydrology and water quality. Facts in Support of Finding Implementation of the proposed project would not result in significant and unavoidable impacts related to this topical environmental issue.All of the impacts were either less than significant before mitigation or would result in less than significant impacts. Each of the related projects would be required to comply with all applicable regulations related to hydrology and water quality and, if necessary,recommend mitigation measures to reduce potentially significant impacts below the level of significance.Because less than significant impacts are associated with either the proposed project or any of the related projects,no incremental impacts would result from adding the proposed project to the related projects. References: Pages 5-3, 5-8 through 5-9 and Section 4.5 of the Draft EIR and any documents referenced in or incorporated by reference in Section 4.5,Hydrology and Water Quality, or Section 5, Cumulative Impacts; OPA Compromise Plan,p. 3.) 3.10 - LAND USE AND PLANNING 3.10.1 - Potentially Significant Impact The potential for the Project to contribute to a culmulatively significant impact related to land use and planning was evaluated. The Final EIlZ indicates the Project's impacts related to land use and planning are less than cumulatively considerable, and thus,this impact is less than significant. Finding The project will not contribute to a culmulatively significant impact related to land use and planning. �s Salem Lutheran C6urch and Schoo!Specific Plan Impacts Which are Less Than Signifrcant or CEQA Findings and Findings of Fact Can Be Mitigated to a Level of Insignifcance Facts in Support of Finding Implementation of the proposed project would not result in significant and unavoidable impacts related to land use and planning. Each of the related projects is either consistent with the applicable general plan designation and zoning classification or would be upon approval of a general plan amendment or change of zone.The proposed project is consistent with the City General Plan,OPA Plan,and zoning classification, is a redesign of exiting uses, and would result in less than significant impacts upon project implementation.Because less than significant impacts are associated with either the proposed project or any of the related projects,no incremental impacts would result from adding the proposed project to the related projects. References: Pages 5-3, 5-9 and Section 4.6 of the Draft EIR and any documents referenced in or incorporated by reference in Section 4.6,Land Use and Planning, or Section 5,Cumulative Impacts.) 3.11 - MINERAL RESOURCES 3.11.1 - Potentially Significant Impact The potential for the Project to contribute to a culmulatively significant impact related to mineral resources was evaluated. The Final EIR indicates the Project's impacts related to mineral resources are less than cumulatively considerable, and thus,this impact is less than significant. Finding The project will not contribute to a culmulatively significant impact related to mineral resources. Facts in Support of Finding Implementation of the proposed project would not result in any impacts to mineral resources. None of the related projects is used for mineral resource production nor zoned for such a use. Because no impacts are associated with either the proposed project or any of the related projects,no incremental impacts would result from adding the proposed project to the related projects. References: Pages 5-3, 5-9 through 5-10 of the Draft EIR and any documents referenced in or incorporated by reference in Section 5,Cumulative Impacts.) �� Sa/em Lutheran Church and Schoo!Specific Plan Impacts Which are Less Than Signifrcanf or CEQA Findings and Findings of Fact Can Be Mitigated fo a Level of Insignificance 3.12 - NOISE 3.12.1 - Potentiaily Significant Impact The potential for the Project to contribute to a culmulatively significant impact related to noise was evaluated. The Final EIR indicates the Project's impacts related to noise are less than cumulatively considerable, and thus,this impact is less than significant. Finding The project will not contribute to a culmulatively significant impact related to noise. Facts in Support of Finding All of the Project's noise impacts were either less than significant before mitigation or would result in less than significant impacts after implementation of the recommended mitigation measures. Each of the related projects will require short-term construction activities that will generate noise.The proposed project would result in short-term noise impacts related to construction but is able to reduce this impact below the level of significance with mitigation.Each of the other related projects would, depending on the construction activities specific to each,be less than significant or able to reduce the potential impact below the level of significance with mitigation.Due to the distance of the related projects from the proposed project and staggered construction schedules,adding the proposed project to the relate projects would not result in incremental impacts related to short-term construction noise. Long-term operational impacts would vary with each of the related projects due to the differing types of land uses.Incremental impacts resulting from traffic-generated noise would not be cumulative due to the distance from most of the related projects. The two nearest related projects(Ridgeline Equestrian Estates and Rio Santiago)would not result in incremental impacts. The environmental document prepared for the Ridgeline Equestrian Estates related project determined that,upon project implementation, a net reduction in traffic would occur resulting in a corresponding reduction in traffic-generated noise.The proposed project did require a mitigation measure to reduce below the level of significance potential impacts related to interior noise standards in order to be consistent with the City's General Plan noise threshold related to places of worship.This standard would be applicable to the other church related projects but is a site-specific condition.Due to the distance of the related projects from the proposed project, adding the proposed project to the three church related projects would not result in incremental impacts related to interior noise. ' �s Sa/em Lutheran Church and School Specifrc Plan Impacts Which are Less Than Significant or CEQA Findings and Findings of Fact Can Be Mitigated to a Level of lnsignifrcance References: Pages 5-3, 5-10 through 5-11 and Section 4.7 of the Draft EIR and any documents referenced in or incorporated by reference in Section 4.7,Noise,or Section 5, Cumulative Impacts; OPA Compromise Plan,pp. 2-3.) 3.13 - POPULATION AND HOUSING 3.13.1 - Potentially Significant Irnpact The potential for the Project to contribute to a culmulatively significant impact related to population and housing was evaluated. The Final EIR indicates the Project's impacts related to population and housing are less than cumulatively considerable, and thus,this impact is less than significant. Finding The projeot will not contribute to a culmulatively significant impact related to population and housing. Facts in Support of Finding Less than significant project impacts related to population and housing were identified in the Draft EIR. Both the Ridgeline Equestrian Estates and Rio Santiago related projects propose housing that would result in an increase in population.The Ridgeline Equestrian Estates related project proposes 39 residences. The Rio Santiago related project proposes 460 senior-living residences. The environmental document prepared for the Ridgeline Equestrian Estates related project determined less than significant impacts would result frorr�project implementation. In addition,the Rio Santiago project would also result in less than significant impacts through implementation of mitigation . measures, if required, and Project Design Features incorporated into that project. Because the proposed project does not have any impacts, no incremental impacts would result from adding the proposed project to the related projects. References: Pages 5-3, 5-11 of the Draft EIR and any documents referenced in or incorporated by reference in Section 5,Cumulative Impacts.) 79 Sa/em Lutheran Church and School Specific Plan Impacts Which are Less Than Signifcant or CEQA Findings and Findings of Fact Can Be Mitigated to a Level of Insignificance 3.14 - PUBLIC SERVICES 3.14.1 - Potentially Significant Impact The potential for the Project to contribute to a culmulatively significant impact related to public services was evaluated. The Final EIR indicates the Project's impacts related to public services are less than cumulatively considerable, and thus,this impact is less than significant. Finding The project will not contribute to a culmulatively significarit impact related to public services. Facts in Support of Finding Less than significant project impacts related to public services were identified in the Draft EIR. Each of the related projects has the potential to result in the need for new or altered governmental services. However,the existing related projects(Immanuel Lutheran Church, St. John Maron Church, and Coptic Orthodox Church)are not anticipated to result in the need for new altered governmental services due to the nature of this type of land use. Similarly,the Peltzer Ranch project, due to the nature of the proposed land use, is not anticipated to result in the need for new altered governmental services. The environmental document prepared for the Ridgeline Equestrian Estates related project determined less than significant impacts would result from project implementation. In addition,the Rio Santiago project would also result in less than significant impacts through implementation of mitigation measures, if required. Because the proposed project does not have any impacts,no incremental impacts would result from adding the proposed project to the related projects. References: Pages 5-3, 5-11 through 5-12 of the Draft EIR and any documents referenced in or incorporated by reference in Section 5,Cumulative Impacts.) 3.15 - RECREATION . 3.15.1 - Potentially Significant Impact The potential for the Project to contribute to a culmulatively significant impact related to recreation was evaluated. The Final EIR indicates the Project's impacts related to recreation are less than cumulatively considerable, and thus,this impact is less than significant. Finding The project will not contribute to a culmulatively significant impact related to recreation. so Salem Lutheran Church and Schoo/Specifrc Plan /mpacfs Which are Less Than Significant or CEQA Findings and Findings of Fact Can Be Mitigated to a Level of lnsignifrcance Facts in Support of Finding Less than significant project impacts related to recreation were identified iri the Draft EIR. Both the Ridgeline Equestrian Estates and Rio Santiago related projects include a recreation component.The Ridgeline Equestrian Estates related project proposes onsite multipurpose trails and a Ride-In Only Equestrian Arena. The Rio Santiago related project proposes private recreation facilities and onsite multipurpose trails.The environmental document prepared for the Ridgeline Equestrian Estates related project determined less than significant impacts would result from project implementation. In addition,the Rio Santiago project would also result in less than significant impacts through implementation of mitigation measures, if required,and Project Design Features incorporated into that project. Because the proposed project does not have any impacts,no increinental impacis would result irom adding tne proposed project to this related project. References: Pages 5-3, 5-12 of the Draft EIR and any documents referenced in or incorporated by reference in Section 5, Cumulative Impacts.) 3.16 - TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC 3.16.1 - Potentially Significant Impact The potential for the Project to contribute to a culmulatively significant iinpact related to transportation and traffic was evaluated. The Final EIR indicates the Project's impacts related to transportation and traffic are less than cumulatively considerable, and thus,this impact is less than significant. Finding The project will not contribute to a culmulatively significant impact related to transportation and traffic. Facts in Support of Finding Less than significant project impacts related to transportation and traffic were identified in the Draft EIR. Each of the related projects would be required to analyze traffic impacts.Depending on the potential amount of traffic,either a traffic letter report or full traffic study would be prepared,the latter requiring the execution of a scoping agreement between the applicant and City Traffic Engineer. Each of the proposed projects would be required to mitigate potentially significant impacts below the level 81 Salem Lutheran Church and School Specifrc Plan Impacts Which are Less Than Signi�cant or CEQA Findings and Findings of Fact Can Be Mitigated to a Level of Insigni�cance of significance, if applicable.Because the proposed project would not generate any new vehicular trips and therefore would result in an improved(i.e., lower ICU or stop sign delay values)condition over the existing condition for weekday and less than significant impacts for the Sunday condition, the long-term condition would not change and no incremental impacts would result from adding the proposed project to this related project. References: Pages 5-3, 5-13 and Section 4.8 of the Draft EIR and any documents referenced in or incorporated by reference in Section 4.8,Transportation and Traffic, or Section 5,Cumulative Impacts;TIA Addendum; Section 2(OPA Compromise Plan)of the Final EIR,p.4.) 3.17 - UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS 3.17.1 - Potentially Significant Impact The potential for the Project to contribute to a culmulatively significant impact related to utilities and service systems was evaluated. The Final EIR indicates the Project's impacts related to utilities and service systems are less than cumulatively considerable,and thus,this impact is less than significant. Finding The project will not contribute to a culmulatively significant impact related to utilities and service systems. Facts in Support of Finding Less than significant project impacts related to utilities and service systems were identified in the Draft EIR. Each of the related projects has the potential to result in the need for new or altered infrastructure facilities and utility services.However,the existing related projects(Immanuel Lutheran Church, St. John Maron Church, and Coptic Orthodox Church)are not anticipated to result in the need for new altered infrastructure facilities or utility services. Similarly,the Peltzer Ranch project,due to the nature of the proposed land use, is not anticipated to result in the need for new utilities or services. The environmental document prepared for the Ridgeline Equestrian Estates related project determined less than significant impacts would result fi•om project implementation. In addition,the Rio Santiago project would also result in less than significant impacts through implementation of mitigation measures, if required.Because the proposed project does not have any impacts,no incremental impacts would result from adding the proposed project to this related project. s2 Sa/em Lutheran Church and School Specific Plan /mpacfs Which are Less Than Signifrcant or CEQA Findings and Findings of Fact Can Be Mitigafed to a Level of Insignificance References: Pages 5-3, 5-13 through 5-14 and Section 4.9 of the Draft EIR and any documents referenced in or incorporated by reference in Section 4.9,Utilities and Service Systems, or Section 5, Cumulative Impacts.) SECTION 4: ADVERSE PROJECT-LEVEL AND CUMULATIVE IMPACTS THAT CANNOT BE MITIGATED TO A LEVEL OF lNSIGRlIFICANCE The Final EIR did not identify any impacts of the proposed project that cannot be mitigated to less than significant. As the Project will not have any significant impacts after mitigation, a Statement of Overriding Considerations is not required for the Project. 83 Sa/em Lutheran Church and Schoo/Specific Plan CEQA Findings and Findings of Fact Feasibility of Project Alternatives SECTION 5: FEASIBILITY OF PROJECT ALTERNATIVES CEQA requires 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 the Project. The discussion of alternatives is required to include the"No Project"alternative. CEQA requires further that the City identify an environmentally superior alternative. If the"No Project"alternative is the environmentally superior alternative, an environmentally superior alternative must be identified from among the other alternatives. (CEQA Guidelines, 14 California Code of Regulations Section 15126.6.) The City has reviewed a range of potential alternatives to the proposed Project. Three(3)alternatives to the Project are presented in the Draft EIlZ. In addition to the CEQA-mandated consideration of a "No Project"Alternative,the Draft EIIZ presents and evaluates a potential"Design Review Committee Land Use Plan of May 5,2006 Alternative"and a"Single Access Alternative." An Environmentally Superior Alternative has been selected from among the alternatives evaluated in the Revised Draft EIR. An alternative that is environmentally superior will result in the fewest or least significant environmental impacts and will achieve the Project objectives of the planning effort. The project objectives include: 1. Attain the most suitable land use pattern for the campus with a functional and aesthetic relationship of facilities while being responsive to the concerns and wishes expressed by surrounding residences and the City of Orange. 2. Ensure the quality appearance for Salem Church Campus with consistent design and visual improvements blending proposed facilities with existing facilities,thus continuing the visual character and appeal of the existing facility. 3. Have an efficient internal circulation system to alleviate unnecessary project-related traffic overflow onto adjacent streets while ensuring the functional access and parking needs of the campus. 4. Maintain comparable open space and recreational amenities of the campus while meeting the programmatic needs. 5. Provide a comprehensive,well-rounded master plan for the property that addresses environmental,water quality, drainage, circulation and public facilities and services. 6. Create a water quality and drainage system that minimizes the impact to offsite receiving waters and ensures that runoff from smaller events is infiltrated or otherwise addressed as � applicable,before entering Handy Creek and Santiago Creek. 7. Incorporate sustainable design techniques into the redesign plans for the campus. 84 Salem Lutheran Church and Schoo/Specific Plan CEQA Findings and Findings of Fact Feasibility of Project Alternatives The proposed Project was determined to be the Environmentally Superior Alternative,because all of the alternatives identified greater impacts when compared to the proposed Project. 5.1 - NO PROJECT/NO DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVE Under this alternative,the Project site would remain in its current state and the existing church and school uses currently approved and operating on the site will remain ongoing. The amenities included in the proposed Project would not occur.These proposed amenities include the proposed enhancements to Frank Lane, and the increased nuinber of parking spaces,which when combined provide for a safer and more efficient offsite vehicle access and onsite circulation system. In addition to the circulation amenities,the planting of additional trees would not occur nor would the improved storm water conveyance and water quality system that would reduce offsite flooding and improve water quality. The No Project/No Development Alternative would not achieve any of the project objectives. Thenegative concerns identified by the neighbors in particular and the community in general would remain. Therefore,concerns identified by the adjacent neighbors in a communique to the applicant dated September 22,2008 (refer to Appendix C.2 of the Draft EIlZ),and in subsequent discussions. Although no significant and unavoidable impacts are anticipated under this alternative, as set forth in Table 7-2 of the Draft EIR, impacts to Aesthetics,Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Hydrology and Water Quality,Traffic, and Utilities and Ser��ices would all be greater under the No Project/No Development Alternative,because none of the proposed features incorporated into the proposed Projectwould be implemented. Other impacts would be similar to the proposed Project. Thus,this alternative is not considered environmentally superior to the proposed Project. Further,the No ProjectlNo Development Alternative would not achieve any of the project objectives. 5.2 - DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE LAND USE PLAN OF MAY 5, 2006 ALTERNATIVE On May 17,2006,the City's Design Review Committee(DRC)conducted a preliminary review of a land use plan for the site referenced herein as the DRC Land Use Plan of May 5, 2006.The proposed plan consisted of the following: • Raze the existing church facilities. • Develop a new worship center that includes an 11,000 square foot sanctuary with 757 seats. 85 Salem Lutheran Church and School Specific Plan CEQA Findings and Findings of Fact Feasibilify of Project A/fernatives • Develop 11,000 square feet of offices and classrooms. • Redesign the parking lots south of the facility and extend the parking lot to provide � parking in the western portion of the site behind the existing onsite vacant structure. • Use the e.xisting grass field for temporary overflow parking. • Convert the existing onsite vacant structure into a preschool and add a playground with additional hardscaping. • Retain the shared access from Frank Lane. Although no significant and unavoidable impacts are anticipated under this alternative,the Design Review Committee Land Use Alternative of May 5, 2006 would result in greater impacts for the following six topical environmental issues: Aesthetics,Air Quality;Greenhouse Gas, Hydrology/Water Quality,Noise,Transportation/Traffic, and Utilities/Service Systems.Additionally, this alternative does not address the concerns identified by the adjacent neighbors in a September 22, 2008 e-mail to the applicant's representative as described in section 7.2.3 regarding Orange Park Boulevard and access off of Santiago Canyon Road. Other impacts would be similar to the proposed project. Thus,this alternative is not considered environmentally superior to the proposed Project. 5.3 - SINGLE ACCESS ALTERNATIVE � The Single Access Alternative eliminates the driveway off Santiago Canyon Road,thus proposing one point of access as per currently approved conditions. As a result of the comments received from the members of the Orange Park Acres(OPA)Board and other community residents this alternative also includes a dedicated right-turn lane into Frank Lane south of Santiago Canyon Road for church and school use(Exhibit 7-1).This alternative assumes implementation of all of the improvements associated with the proposed Project. The proposed uses are the same as the currently approved and existing uses for Salem Lutheran Church and School. Although the Draft EIR concluded the Single Access Alternative would result in greater impacts for the following four topical environmental issues: Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas,Noise, and Transportation/Traffic, all such impacts remain insignificant under this alternative. Further,through the cooperative efforts of the applicant and OPA,this alternative,with modifications as set forth in the OPA Compromise Plan,was determined to be the preferred alternative. Thus,a version this alterative,which includes additional features to further reduce impacts, is now the proposed Project. 86 Sa/em Lufheran Church and School Specific Plan CEQA Findings and Findings of Fact Feasibility of Project Alternafives 5.4 - ENVIRONMENTALLY SUPERIOR ALTERNATIVE CEQA requires that the City identify an Environmentally Superior Alternative. The proposed project evaluated in the Draft EIR was identified as the Environmentally Superior Altemative, because all of the alternatives identified greater impacts when compared to the proposed project. Therefore, based on the evaluation of the alternatives above,there is no alternative to.the proposed Project that is both environmentally superior to the proposed Project. Further,the proposed Project evaluated in the Draft EIR has been improved upon as a result of the OPA Compromise Plan. As a result of the changes included in that plan, including the approximately 22 percent reduction in the seating capacity of the new Sanctuary, all environmental impacts ' evaluated in the Draft EIR will be similar in nature or reduced based on the decreased intensity of the Project. Thus,the OPA Compromise Plan version of the Project is environmentally superior to the project evaluated in the Draft EIR,which was itself identified as the Environmentally Superior Alternative. 87 Sa/em Lutheran Church and Schoo/Specific Plan CEQA Findings and Findings of Facf Findings Regarding Growth Inducing Impacts SECTION 6: FINDINGS REGARDING GROWTH INDUCING IMPACTS The California Environmental Quality Act requires a discussion of the ways in which a project could be growth-inducing. (Pub.Resources Code, §21100, subd. (b)(5); CEQA Guidelines, § 15126, subd. (d), 15126.2, subd(d.).)The CEQA Guidelines identify a project as growth-inducing if it would foster economic or population growth or the construction of additional housing, either directly or indirectly, in the surrounding environment.New employees from commercial or industrial development,and new population from residential development represent direct forms of growth.These direct forms of growth have a secondary effect of expanding the size of local markets and inducing additional economic activity in the area.Under CEQA, growth inducement is not considered necessarily detrimental,beneficial,or of little significance to the environment. A project could indirectly induce growth by reducing or removing barriers to growth,or by creating a condition that attracts additional population or new economic activity.However, a project's potential to induce growth does not automatically result in growth. Growth can only happen through capital investment in new economic opportunities by the private or public sectors.Development pressures are a result of economic investment in a particular locality. These pressures help to structure the local politics of growth and the local jurisdiction's posture on growth management and land use policy. The land use policies of local municipalities and counties regulate growth at the local level. Impacts related to growth inducement would also be realized if a project provides infrastructure or service capacity which accommodates growth beyond the levels.currently permitted by local or regional plans and policies.In general, growth induced by a project is considered a significant impact if it directly or indirectly affects the ability of agencies to provide needed public services, or if it can be demonstrated that the potential growth significantly affects the environment in some other way. The Project proposes the demolition of the aging preschool and sanctuary buildings and the construction of a new worship center with a 10,650 square foot(sq ft)sanctuary and 12,350 sq ft of conference and meeting rooms,the sacristy, offices, choir and music rooms, storage, childcare, and other ancillary/administrative rooms.An existing onsite vacant structure will be razed to make way for a parking area,and the existing preschool will be relocated to a new 7,505 square foot(sq ft) preschool building and associated 7,921 sq ft play area to be constructed. 140 parking additional parking spaces will be provided(293 are proposed and 153 are currently on site). Existing water and wastewater infrastructure are available onsite.The proposed Project is a redesign of the church and school uses that have existed on site for over 40 years.No new uses are proposed. The proposed as Sa/em Lutheran Church and School Specific Plan CEQA Findings and Findings of Fact Findings Regarding Growth lnducing/mpacts Project does not involve the development of housing/residential land uses.Therefore, implementation of the Project would not induce growth not already envisioned by the City of Orange(City) 90 Salem Lutheran Church and School Specific Plan CEQA Findings and Findings of Fact SECTION 7: FINDiNGS REGARDING SIGNIFICANT IRREVERSIBLE ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGES The CEQA Guidelines § 15126,subd. (c), and 15127,require that an EIlZ must address significant irreversible environmental changes that would occur should the Project be implemented.An impact would fall into this category if • A project would involve a large commitment of nonrenewable resources; o The primary and secondary impacts of a project would generally commit future generations to similar uses; • A project involves uses in which irreversible damage could result from any potential environmental incidents associated with the project; or • The proposed consumption of resources is not justified(e.g.,the project results in wasteful use of energy). A project may result in significant irreversible effects should key resources be degraded or destroyed such that there would be little possibility of restoring them.No such degradation or destruction of resources is anticipated as a result of the Project.The Project site is already committed to the use proposed to be continued on the Site. Various natural resources, in the form of construction materials and energy resources, will be used in the construction of the Project,but their use is not expected to result in shorifalls in the availability of these resources. Further the Project will be required to comply with the California Green Building Standards Code,also referred to as the CALGreen Code. With the mandatory implementation of the provisions CALGreen, implementation of the project would not result in the inefficient,wasteful, and unnecessary consumption of energy. 91 Mitigation Monitoring Program Salem Lutheran Church and School OPA Compromise Specific Plan City of Orange, Orange County, California State Clearinghouse No. 2011101046 Prepared for: Salem Lutheran Church 6500 East Santiago Canyon Road Orange, CA 92869 City of Orange Community Development Department, Planning Division 300 East Chapman Avenue Orange, CA 92866-1591 Phone: 714.744.7220 Fax: 714.744.7222 �vvv.city�forange.Qrg Contact: Robert Garcia, Senior Planner Prepared by: Michael Brandman As�ociates 220 Commerce, Suite 200 Irvine, CA 92602 714.508.4100 Contact: Jason �randman, Project Director �� , ,� , 141ichael Brandman Associates January 8, 2015 City of Orange-Salem Lutheran Church and Schoo/OPA Compromise Specific Plan Mitigafion Monitoring Program Tab/e of Contents Table of Contents Section1: Introduction..........................................................:...........................................3 Section 2: Project Description ...........................................................................................3 Section 3: Mitigation Monitoring Program ........................................................................3 List of Tables Table 1: Mitigation Monitoring Program.................................................................................5 Michael Brandman Associates ii City of Orange—Salem Lutheran Church and School OPA Compromise Specifrc Plan Mitigation Monitoring Program Mitigation Monitoring Program SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION The following is a Mitigation Monitoring Program(MMP)for the Salem Lutheran Church and School Project("Project")that has been prepared pursuant to Section 15097 of the CEQA Guidelines and Section 21081.6 of the Public Resources Code. This MMP lists all applicable mitigation measures from the Draft Environmental Impact Report(EIR)prepared for the project dated January 26, 2012. The appropriate timing of implementation and responsible party are identified to ensure proper enforcement of the mitigation measures from the Draft EIR to reduce project impacts to less than significant levels. SECTION 2: PROJECT DESCRIPTION Salem Lutheran Church is proposing to redesign its six-acre campus on the corner of Santiago Canyon Road and Orange Park Boulevard.The plan proposes the relocation of the existing preschool to a new building on the campus approximately 130-feet to the west, demolition of the aging preschool and sanctuary buildings and the construction of a new sanctuary with administrative space, referred to as the worship center. Improved onsite parking and a new circulation design to improve the flow of traffic entering and exiting the project are also part of the redesign.No new uses are proposed and all existing uses conform to the"Public/Quasi-public"designation for the site as specified in the Orange Park Acres Specific Plan,which serves as the City of Orange's Land Use Element of its General Plan for the geographic territory covered by the Specific Plan. SECTiO�f 3: P�il�'iG�4�'iG�i iiif�N�i�f3�tiNG Fi�O�RAiiii Pursuant to Section 21081.6 of the Public Resources Code and Section 15097 of the CEQA Guidelines, Table 1•will be used by the City of Orange to enforce mitigation measures during both construction and operation of the Project. The City shall maintain monitoring documentation on each measure within City project files at the address listed below. The entity responsible for monitoring wil1.deper_d�n the specific requirements identified in each mi±igation measure. The timing of mitigation implementation is also listed. Lastly,the"Notes/Initial"column is to be used to record compliance for mitigation measure. When compliance with a mitigation measure has been demonstrated,documentation on the"Notes/Initial"column is to be provided and monitoring of the measure will be deemed to be satisfied and no further monitoring will be required for the completed mitigation measure. For a mitigation measure requiring monitoring during operation of the project, annual documentation on the"Notes/initial"column or a separate letter/memorandum shall be provided in the monitoring file that is kept at the City. The MMP will be kept on file at the following address: City of Orange Community Development Department, Planning Division 300 East Chapman Avenue Michael Brandman Associates 3 Cify of Orange-Sa/em Lutheran Church and Schoo/OPA Compromise Specific Plan Mifigation Monitoring Program Mitigation Monitoring Program Orange, CA 92866-1591 Michael Brandman Associafes 4 � � h � _ o � ' L N a � c o ' ' .o Z '------------- -__ __--- .. , , 'c o i , � , � o i I i � � i � � � .� .� ' w j � � , � � I � � � �, � � .?� io � , � � c ; � � o i � W � ! I •� � � i d � � ' � � i �'� � I � �� U) : � �'' � a3 i� Q. � i N � � �..I N � � � � o Q,� I o ' � aNi i .r, �. •� OC � i P� s�. � I a , , , , --- -----..___... � I ' � ; � '. : � � ; � o � � � a� � .9 � � 3 � , � � � ' ; � on -� � � � i i o •� � � �; '' 'fl .� � c�a ' ' � �'' � � '� :� ' � � �' a. � >G c� o i � a"•� � ; ; ?� � .� O � 1 `� s°�. E'+ O ' � F-+ � c'''j ( � � � ,' ' "��.+ �i :� :� ,� �,'i , � ! � �"' ��' � I '� 'C cd +-' ' = i op � � � '� � U O '�,�„ �� . � � , I� � � N > �O �I „ V � y ��, _ : . � a � -f". O I � 'O N � ��. I � � �/ � � � y . � � �II I .�"-I (Q O � •�O-I I O O U •� . � �', � 'G"r �. �,'� � i rn � bQ�R$ �� w �s �� 3 � � � � ' � ° a�i •� ol � 'd � �' ' m � ' j .Y :ti � � � i �3 �3 � � 'I q � i •> �r" .,�''ti �: Y i � " � �. � � i j •� � 33 ,� ; � � � �; " ° o an �' .� .� Q � �!, i � � � o i � �� p ' � � i •° � �� , .� � � b y � �; � • bq� N 'd 6, t�.�.� +� �' , � ~ �' i � � O.~ .� i d'�" � N � �' OO ; N i� �C..) af � � ,� ¢' � , � ! 4-� � � V�] 'f�' ', .� v�i ,O � '+-� cd I �n p �, 'C '��. V ; � i I L: � 'k '��' �" � C p,^�" ,b ,�; Q � �- � � .O 17 N a) � cd y„ +=� � .. . . i N j � � � � .� .9 i .� � � � Q '� � � j ..�.+�. p ."�-� ,,c'�• � Q„ N � cn �; O �� N � ,t�" U O '�'." F'. � �'� � .�." i .�'. ' Z �. � �;' �� N � v� � � � V � •V�+ �?� � � � � � � � � �" � � I N�,� id 'd �.., a � ! � � :a o ,� 3 � ° .ti � � c i � , i y �n � '� I O.•_, a� � : z � , � ~ � � � j ,� O � ^� � , � I P.� 3 U � � ; F+ p.O cVC , 3 I __._ _ ._I_ U i I. ,S", C ' O � I, j ��' � V N +'�.. � �� ; � � O S: i �•� � i9 J � � ' � p :� a�i i � � : p G�p. � j O ,� :� pq �1. ! � . C ,. �' s-• cd O , „�„ � - N C � i p •� �C .� ' � Q � C j= I p; .� � � (� o m � '� �----------------- � a� o a � � � G � N i O O � t�.. i j � � , m p � � � N ; N i Z' �. 'Z' �: � V� � � Z ' -/-� � � ..� c� RESOLUTION NO.PC 03-15 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ORANGE APPROVAL OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2014-02, A REQUEST TO CHANGE THE GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION OF ESTATE LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (ESTR) TO PUBLIC FACILITIES AND INSTITUTIONS (PI) FOR SALEM LUTHERAN CHURCH AND SCHOOL LOCATED AT 6500 EAST SANTIAGO CANYON ROAD WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has authority per Orange Municipal Code (OMC) Sections 17.10.10 and 17.10.20 to make recommendations to the City Council to take action on General Plan Amendment No. 2014-02; and WHEREAS, General Plan Amendment No. 2014-02 was filed by Salem Lutheran Church and School in accordance with the provisions of the City of Orange Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, General Plan Amendment No. 2014-02 was processed in the time and manner prescribed by state and local law; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has recommended the City Council certify and adopt Environmental Impact Report No. 1827-11, which was prepared to analyze the potentially significant environmental impacts of a proposed redesign of the Salem Lutheran Church and School campus located at 6500 East Santiago Canyon Road (hereinafter referred to as the "Project"), including General Plan Amendment No. 2014-02; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a duly advertised public hearing on January 19, 2015, at which time interested persons had an opportunity to testify either in support of or opposition to the Project, including General Plan Amendment No. 2014-02. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve General Plan Amendment No. 2014-02 based on the following findings: 1. In 1973, the City Council adopted Resolution 3915, which adopted the Orange Park Acres Specific Plan ("OPA Plan") as "part of the required land use element to be included in a General Plan for the City of Orange." Since the adoption of the OPA Plan, the Salem Lutheran Church and School site has been used and designated as "Public/Quasi-public" in the OPA Plan. Despite the fact that no amendment to the OPA Plan took place, a land use map originally adopted by City as part of a City-wide 1989 General Plan update designated the Site as "Estate Low Density Residential." ATTACHM�NT NO.2 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 03-15 SALEM LUTHERAN JANUARY 19,2015 PC MTG. 2. The applicant is requesting a General Plan amendment to change the land use designation for the Site from Estate Low Density Residential to Public Facilities and Institutions (PFI), in order to make such designation consistent with its use and designation in the OPA Plan. 3. The Planning Commission finds that the designation of the Site as "Public Facilities and Institutions (PFI)" on the General Plan land use map is consistent with the site's longstanding and controlling use and designation in the OPA Plan as "Public/Quasi-Public," and accordingly recommends approval of the proposed General Plan Amendment. I hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was adopted on , 2015, by the Planning Commission of the City of Orange by the following vote: Ayes: Noes: Absent: Abstain: ATTEST: William G. Steiner Date Chairman -2- � -- ,� J � - V ___ // i' I� �� t � ' .t . O __"__' Yt �P � �� ;: °�' h �� , ��r<� , �,_,,;�.,_. R , � � �� b � �� .�� _` '� ` ✓� 1634 i�z�� 6�0 .�b^' 'F.1�g ��/�{ /� � A t ;�N�.� ,� r 5 `� -J� �U% 0 b � � { �/ M� �{ � "� / � ;� ' �'� � '",� ' 1620 � 1617 f. / � 6`s�v i',--- --a-�-�`'--_ rr 1622 1619 , , _ __ — � ;� /� � i i" o� -�__, -- i l i N v' '��p'�- . � � I I � � �� `�� ; 1 6515 'i �, �O j� i E-('z�E N i �� ,%�� i �� 1578 i 1577 � N �o,\ ^€ � 6511 �i �i �� o � � �� ` � ----- f -- ---- ---- __ ,o.__._._.�.�---�----___.-� ��_ � N .�hbb \ 156� l \`` `\ � b�0 _ _ _---- � -- ------ ' _ - ----- � _--- � � ` , __`'- �,'`\ --_____ � _ . �� ' �`''- �� 1 ------'-- 'GCf� ---------- _ _ .. .. , � � ��, '----- t.�..��,�1A A'1�'�Rtl I i A ��` _ _ --------- • -------------------- N N N N � � a� _ _ ,r . N w� N N � p O �� ; - --------------- � �� o o a o ES�TR � N N 0 �i?�i �� \� o N N N N N N N `"� ESTR � � � N N I��jl p 1�� \`\\ N N N 0 O � � � N O O � O � � N '-Dc�i �� \� 10292 0 0 0 � '° � � \ � � A � � I - ' �� \�� ,��_____---------- FRANK ST i __ - li �i ' ----------- LDRr , ; - ,_---- N o 0 = - �'- \o; N o 0 0 � ;�� + N /j � �� //' '' \\�`�� N N N N o� W � -- � 1\�� N � i _` ` W � / ; , , — ��m, i � ..�.--•---+ '�1� ---�, �-' w �v`� 037 r, o No 0 0 s-� i �`�s �m�. � --�'� �, o � �\��\ o o °i l ,a 1�� r�s� � � N i= ��G` -------GI-ARK ST - :`� ;' � n v, w�,,'�_' �� ___---------- �,\�' •'� m ��= I"` / ? �\\ t r N N p : � �s.�:�. �+ � �f?�� N ��` 1�` p � rn N 1450 ~�a7 �� i O � � N N N Lot 5 �, •� � f CP \ \ � o � � 1420 ��` \�� \`i 10412 Lot 6 � " � ` = 10466 �. ESTR � � ESTR 132$ \�+ �� k�- ��`a' f Vacant Lot i+� �, `� � �.. � t � � \0 � �S �i �i i '� � 1 � !�9 � i / � ,� � � �i �i �285�,�� 10402 � ; `�� 650�i 1290 �� _----------; i � . _ �.�j �� ''�� i b i �i 1046 si °Rqa�b i o 6 / / `••� ; ' w oo�, `05° `/,.-___--__ '' `I 2 � � 1047 :" � F '" 1272 �i i ` 046 �� 10501 �C� 10512 i i � � M � i ��'�� i i i i 10531 \ 0502 N� 10511 : 1250 i � , � � i �i 10522 :` i i LEGE�iv General Plan Classification e Q6500 E Santiago Canyon Rd 300 ,so OFeet Project Site Existing= (ESTR) Estate Low Density Residential January,9th 2015 .y i;��ix3t�y a � +` : � �i �— p. �O ,,y " Y.�'�-�, "'',� ��,i� . � � O -----_-� ��.'�Yv '�4�R .z �`,.i . N _____ � >�;+�E .�zA"b � c /`f / . .`� ��'� �,: <_ .�. r�Y b � £ ».�i�s'�"'� r�= � �$� �� b33 .� a �p � �'�� 'a�'�,�.&��, � '�� 3 1634 �� 6�� ,- �b�' RA � ,,�y..'" .�� a�+,�§ a �Y �„� ; ��/ � � `�'„��'s� �° ` �,+ �oi �� °� �s:�$•. �� °� �;��`��`�� # �� .�� 1620 � 1617 � � ��` �# �� ' � �� x: i. �- � s T� r ��n a'� '�'�" r 4= 7��a �} ��` i_ ��,4 t� �r �� r, 4 ��`� �� , , 6`p! '----��_'� � 1622 1619 ttq`c � �� - 9 i'� - � q xrh� � �z4P'� � �{1@� � . ; / / P `` �� 5�,�t � s �.r6�"k .��'�`.;,.1 s l / � t� { � r'� '`F7 � r � I ! N �1 ��` :..i � r 5��'' • � a � 1 I � � /' 1� �'�� i Y � �+ " �'� . �� „ �: �, `q�.r r 6515 �i �� O % i � E CzLEN_ �� 1577 � A t�1'3 �� d'� �' �,� � �� 1578 ' �v �,�M � 5 �B '� ,>�.� i i ,. a�,� � � ` �i �i I O,\ e r' �r +t��,� � � ; 6511 i �\ '_� i -----t--i F- - ---------_ tt �--- ` - � N lhbb\ ,s6� . � , `` �� b`'�� __ -- - ---------- � _--- .---- __ ��, - , . ; '- -------- �..�..�..� � i �- � 'r : __---- `\ i � -�, ~ -_ ---__ �,�R ___-- , �� _----- ��A � �� `'`----`----------- t,�.. 'GO'�A ___-- I � �, ----- � I� �` \ � -, - �_ .J j'----------N w� 1J N p O � N �� , ----------- ---- - � ', o o g o ES;TR � N N �ZI . ��§a'=i�, \ \ O N � N nj N N N I�� ESTR `, `, N N N � � N i-CI \ \ N o N � o f J O 'i�i � � :. 1 � o p O p � N �{'i \ �� 10292 0 0� o� �, '° i �._ � � � i �� i P-I � �� - -------------- FRPNK ST � i , _____------- �� ,__----- t N o �� N LDR °� �� ' - �o; N o o g � �1 1 N / '' '� ,,-�� \ W N N N N li +� • P ' / �,- _��1 N �� 1 � i -�•'�.., �/�' _-=`P- _, - ,-' � �Y� �`��` 037 0 0 0 0 0 � � '�'� � _� � Jo� O �' `\'f`11 � p o' � \ --- = i1 � =�'� � � N v�,�\ W _----�RK ST� �� j s � N ,,-� , S��p�-- C ___-- .�\ � Q � w,-, ,--' �� ___ --- � . % . o -� -� �' i� _--- N �:\\ � � ��.�Yx= !d-'` N �\ < �, o 0 0 ' G' .if�F"-� .� � p o 2::r..� `� I � �� N N 1450 -�S �. ; � �� N N Lot 5 � p � � = o 1420 / � � `\�� 10412 Lot b � `� ESTR� �� ESTR � / 10466 �; �32a \ `, ��,�4.- �,�, � Vacant Lot � ` 432 � � 0 , --�..�.. ` � �► � � � . � � '�S �ti �i �� i i �� • f�92 '1 '�1 12\/ r�� 10402 � ; �� 6505 12901 i �.--------__; ..��,�(,��`� �� 5�6 � �i 'i J0462 503 �� 10 6 / � i ��O�� `------- �� +`x �V�F�,� `;✓'� t� � � 046 1047 ; 10501 �C��"' 10512 1272 �i � , i � i , �,� ' i ii i � 10531 \ 0502 � 10511 L 1250�i i � �� ---�•--'—�i i 10522 `:� i i LEGEl�ID General Plan Classitication e 6500 E Santiago Canyon Rd 300 ,so 0 Feef � Project Site proposed=(PI) Public Facilities �i Institutions January,9th 2015 RESOLUTION NO.Pe 04-15 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ORANGE APPROVAL OF ZONE CHANGE � � NO. 1259-11,A REQUEST TO CHANGE THE ZONING FROM RESIDENTIAL SIN�LE FAMILY (R-1-40) TO SPECIFIC PLAN PUBLIC INSTITUTION (SP-PI) FOR SALEM LUTHERAN CHURCH AND SCHOOL LOCATED AT 6500 EAST SAN'TIAGO CANYON ROAD WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has authority per Orange Municipal Code (OMC) Section 17.10.20 to make recommendations to the City Council to take action on Zone Change No. ZC 1259-11; and WHEREAS, Zone Change No. ZC 1259-11 was filed by Salem Lutheran Church and School in accordance with the provisions of the City of Orange Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, Zone Change No. ZC 1259-11 was processed in the time and manner prescribed by state and local law; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has recommended the City Council certify and adopt Environmental Impact Report No. 1827-1 l, which was prepared to analyze the potentially significant environmental impacts of a proposed redesign of the Sa1em Lutheran Church and School campus located at 6500 East Santiago Canyon Road (hereinafter referred to as the "Project"), including Zone Change No. ZC 1259-11; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a duly advertised public hearing on January 19, 2015, at which time interested persons had an opportunity to testify either in support of or opposition to the Project,including Zone Change No. ZC 1259-11. NOW, THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve Zone Change No. ZC 1259-11 based on the following findings: 1. The proposed zone change would make the Project site's zoning consistent with the Orange Park Acres Specific Plan ("OPA Plan"), which constitutes part of the land use element of the City's General Plan, as well as with the proposed change in the Project site's designation on the General Plan land use map (General Plan Amendment No. 2014-02), as required by law. 2. The proposed zone change would allow the implementation of the proposed Specific Plan No. SPLAN-0002, which contributes to the implementation of the City's General Plan. ATTACHM�NT NO.3 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 04-15 SALEM LUTHERAN JANUARY 19,2015 PC MTG. I hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was adopted on , 2015, by the Planning Commission of the City of Orange by the following vote: Ayes: Noes: Absent: Abstain: ATTEST: William G. Steiner Date Chairman -2- � � o -------- ;� �, -------- �% / � b3`� � � 1634 �_�♦ �6,�p .�b`� �\Vi �p � �O S � 1620 � 1617 / �;------,;�--__ - 1619 6sl9 / i�`` _ � 16� � . . �%�/ N � � ��%�\O _ � i P 6515 � � '�° �� ' �LEN_- �� ; �' � 1577 `� °� � � 1578 i ^ r, i � ;O� �o m / 6511 ;� '� T � i `i i �\ /" . � � � �� hbb Js6� --------------_ ----�� ----- -_ �• 1 �" �„ --_,, p ___---- �� ----� .. � b � _____------ �.�,-•.� -------- \�', ..�..`� -____P _ �` �' ---'� `_` ��`_`__ --__--'_--� .t� -___ -_ � � J ' ____--- i �� ____--- ��Vr` I � �,, '_______________ �� ___' - � � � ��-� ------- N N N NO I � • O � � � p ��-_ � �''- O o, ` N o � I -'- _ --�_ -•�+,\•� � N N p O � p � p � � i -�------------------ � 1 0 Q O � � N O N N N N N � � �� O N N N jzl � \ \ N N N II�I�i O / \�� \��- N N p � � � �{� � � \ \ N O � O ,�p O � N y�� \ �\ ��292 o O J �l � � w \\ \\ . _____----FRANKST i �ii � � � `----�-- --- - II i � __---------- N N I � - i�- N N O i� o` �- ��' \\Q�� NO O p O � � � � v N I N . m �, �� o cn o' N ��j I N /' D ,i'-, �y2\ N N N / °' i \�ni� -�. I � � �� -'� // ��\� I N j __-_,U' ,--' °' �►\�� 037 o No 0 0 0 � «�«,... --- �_ .- o l .o - ; �. �� .- - � ___, - -- � R � 40 � ��, � � � N � • � `'' �� RK ST � �� i;' `% '' �, �w c°�r "'-��!`�•�__---' GLP __-- i -' ,-' � 'r�\ i . � � .W;;-''� • �� ---`-- n� ♦` p` ' ' � � \ j `J N O '*�� W '=f��F��l~ N �� o � � � �4:.:r.. , • ,O '' c�i,l + \ w u' N N O �� N N 1450 " �� -'�o` -' w �� ot 5 � � i; p �� \ � .•� ' � �� \ 10412 Lot b � � / / w �� % 10466 `� "�`�"' �� \` \ ��A22 � Vacant Lot �, \ ��q32 '"�-•�..� �` � . � � � � + � N %/ ti f29� / 11i 1�1 � � � �28� / i' \ 6505 1290 i - _---� --;`_ 1285 ,:-j\ 10402 / i � � i� ( �O � � •.` � �-► 5p6 i 2 503 �� 10 6 J - � lN"p, 10 ;r-==' _-_____ ; ; 46 �,. � � 0 '- '' i �� p �' �/F `.:= � � ��, 1047.2.% � , � 1046?l / 10501 C� 10512 1272�j�i i � � i � i �`; , 1 i � ! � 10531 \ . 0502 � 10511 �/ � 1250 'i � �� ' L..�..�..,,�„�..�.-�- i i 10522 :� ' — � - LEGE101D Zoning Classification e � 6500 E Santiago Canyon Rd soo ,so 0 Feet Project Site Existing= (R-1-40)Residential Single Family January,9th 2015 � `_" �-- V _---- O � � ____ ,/ / � b�j� � � 1634 i�_�� 6�0 '.r ,�b'� � �� p S-G ' �� 1620 �� 1617 9 6S� , ---' �;, � 16 � 161 � 9;- _____________ __ - _1 -� „� � // i i N �. � ,'o -'�`'=' ii rn ,� �O �c�; --_,, r � 651 S �i �� 'O % i E-�aLEN_ � �i� ��i � 1578 i � 1577 ^ N i a� �° � 6511 �i �� _' i � � `, � y i , , v i � q� �bb �s6) ------------ _ ., � -------- _ ,' `\_ \ b�p1 1 � J___--------,.�..�• -------------__ � ---_ � �. - -_ �- -- �� -�- �`� -----__------ � I � ' ,, `''-__ _— �A.��C', __----- � ' o� '�� -`---------------- ,�,..� p,fi�'tSFtRtl�- � � � `�� t• - N I I� P �'- -'__ .r -------N N N � o O � � � � �-'--------------- � (1 N� NO p �O � p OO � .p O � � o p � � p. N N N �Z� \� \� O N W .N N N N �-� 1 \ N N N � �� R-1 -4 0 � `�, ��, N o � � 1 � �J O \ \ � O O N ID� \ 1 ��292 O � � � �O r�� w � � P�I �SP) � -- FRANKST i � \ - --- i •-_--- --- � ___ --- —1'� N A � � /�- ''/_i_" ',\\\O�,\�-`----� o o N N �j ' � � �� 2� N N N - . � + --_ � J ,_' ,.-' �� \�'c�� —� `'_`\ _ / /'' ''' \ N ' "� °' `�� 037 N N o 0 '� ��1� � ��` a o o � � i --- � '� %I ��• � __- �w � c.r� �� w A °� - � �\ - - � � W ..�� w � °c�n '-' ��G� _----- �RK S� •��\ �` � � w_-._,,''.��\O'___ _G__--- ,�� :// • p ,�= ,-'"' m \ ___------' N r � � � ��,��y� '� .�P �1\ t N p � •�':r.. , '� � ' / /'o' N �\� \� � � P N �45� - t� • \ I p • �� N N N � /� � � � �\ �` ot s i - 1� � % � � — � � — — ' �, �' \ \ �oa�2 - � � � Lot b � � � � ! 10466 �. \32$ \ \ �pq22 �=' .,'.• % Vacant Lot �; �1 � O �� ,�� % �432 �„ �� , �� l / •� � � J � f�9 � � �� I�� / � � 1 I � ` � �--, 1285/�j. 10402 `` � 6505 �;,� 1290 i � �'--- ---, �,� \ / �� i 6 ___ i �i 10462 -qR�D � � i l'V�''�. ��5� �----'_ �� S0�- c9 � 10 O6 J •�X �Op�ti. �- � ----- - i i �� 1047�� i �F ��% `✓'�� l� � � 046 � 10501 �C�R 10512 �2�2��i � .=' i i i �� i \\ � i �' � 10531/\ , 0502 �� / 1051t = 1250�i � , :;. � � ' i / � ` ��«�•-�•-" i �i 10522 LEGEI�D Zoning Classification e 6500 E Santiago Canyon Rd soo ,so 0 Feet � Project Site Proposed = (SP P-I) Specific Plan Public Institution January,9th 2015 RESOLUTION NO. PC OS-15 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ORANGE APPROVAL OF SPECIFIC PLAN NO. SPLAN- 0002 AND DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE NO. 4538-11 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has authority per Orange Municipal Code (OMC) Sections 17.10.10, 17.10.20, and 17.10.070 to make recommendations to the City � Council to take action on Specific Plan No. SPLAN-0002 and Design Review Committee No. 4538-11; and WHEREAS, Specific Plan No. SPLAN-0002 and Design Review Committee No. 4538- 11 were filed by Salem Lutheran Church and School in accordance with the provisions of the City of Orange Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, Specific Plan No. SPLAN-0002 and Design Review Committee No. 4538- 11 were processed in the time and manner prescribed by state and local law; and WHEREAS, on February $, 2012 the Staff Review Committee reviewed Specific Plan No. SPLAN-0002 and recommended that the application proceed; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has recommended the City Council certify and adopt Environmental Impact Report No. 1827-11, which was prepared to analyze the potentially significant environmental impacts of a proposed redesign of the Salem Lutheran Church and School campus located at 6500 East Santiago Canyon Road (hereinafter referred to as the "Project"), including Specific Plan No. SPLAN-0002 and Design Review Committee No. 4538- 11; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a duly advertised public hearing on January 19, 2015, at which time interested persons had an opportunity to testify either in support of or opposition to the Project and for the purpose of considering Specific Plan No. SPLAN-0002 and Design Review Committee No. 4538-11. NOW, THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve Specific Plan No. SPLAN-0002 and Design Review Committee No. 4538-11 based on the following findings: ATTACHMENT NO.4 ' PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION OS-15 SALEM LUTHERAN JANUARY 19,2015 PC MTG. SECTION 1—SPECIFIC PLAN Findings: . The Planning Commission finds that the adoption of the proposed specific plan contributes to the implementation of the City's General Plan, and accordingly recommends approval of the proposed Specific Plan. The proposed plan is � consistent with the General Plan, including the Orange Park Acres Specific Plan ("OPA Plan"). The proposed specific plan will implement the General Plan, including the OPA Plan, by providing specific.design standards for the Project site. SECTION 2—I)ESIGN][Z�VI�W COl0�Il0�IITT�E Required Findings: l. In the Old Towne Historic District, the proposed work conforms to the prescriptive standards and design criteria referenced and/or recommended by � the Design Review Committee or other reviewing body for the project. This finding is not applicable. The Project is not in Old Towne Historic District. 2. In any National Register Historic District, the proposed work complies with the Secretary of the Interior's standards and guidelines. This finding is not applicable. The Project is not is not in a National Register Historic District. 3. The project design upholds community aesthetics through the use of an internally consistent, integrated design theme and is consistent with all adopted specific plans, applicable design standards and their required findings. This finding is met. This Specific Plan, when adopted by ordinance becomes the plan that serves as the zoning ordinance for the subject property. Included in the Specific Plan document are land use regulations, infrastructure plans, zoning and development regulations, design guidelines and implementation measures to ensure that the project will be implemented in accordance with the goals and objectives established for the project area. All other City codes and ordinances shall continue to be applicable, unless inconsistent with this Specific Plan, in which case they are superseded. Proposed site plans, agreements and any other development approval must be consistent with this Specific Plan. 4. For infill residential development, as specified in the City of Orange infill residential design guidelines, tne new structure(s) or addition are compatible -2- with the scale, massing, orientation, and articulation of the surrounding development and will preserve or enhance existing neighborhood character. This finding is not applicable. The Project is not infill residential • development as defined by the City of Orange Infill Residential Development Design Guidelines. I hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was adopted on , 2015, by the Planning Commission of the City of Orange by the following vote: Ayes: Noes: Absent: Abstain: ATTEST: William G. Steiner Date Chairman -3- � � � � � � - - _ _ � �. r � � � : � >, � - � � : � � � -----Orange Par1:Boulevard � s____,,_ _ _ �'-a ..p ��,� .__ � _U.� �� OG C � , � U . ....____- V-y C G �' ^ / ..�-.._ ..____ � � �a 0 � O __' ..._. �^:F .7::. .-..] - ' � � �., u ' - � ._.__.._�.__'__ -"_' y_'-" � a ^ r� c�U f _ � / " ' " _ L7 U Q� ^n-+ m E � __ ' _ ' ' - ' � � _ . . . . . .. _ ' . . . .. _ _'_ "_' . . .. .'_'_.._.._.._"_'"_"_"_"'_"_"' � , ,•-••-•• '_ ___"i___'__"""'______""_""'_'___ .� � . j_""�� j • � � � o ; , � � 'I Q U � , , � � � , . � ,-� � t �� I I � � b ^y � , �, � � '�r �� ii�'I (�) � o ' � � � �'s a 'a� � (`-j ei o � m. � ' $� �� _, I 'I � c> J , � � : : � � ; ��j�� . � ;� � . , ,., ; � o � , � a 4�� 3 , � � � � H i ��S} � ' ;� I � � h� 4 1 U 1 . � C e g a� � ;�. li ! -_' �7/' � � , : J 1 1 F � 1 r-a � � C� � � i ��I � � 2 �7 ' - ---°- -- ---- -�- ----- --� ' _� -� � . (� a o --'- i " " .I `'� � �,,�..�- I �\ ~ � �� q �� 4„w� i � � i � L-•J �-7 � i . �i.:A�� ; {��j U _.. � !� , a�� . I (�} � i . � r ' . . -. � �� f�j � „ � � � .b' .x ...... � /� t r • � .-._..' - , •i �� r� � - I m'u' �_., . .4 I�\ i , — /- — �.�;�-� : � - ; C�t` '�� O 1�'-�-��1 .� -i-`� �} ° 'N-1 � � - � . ��_�aj� ��;� := � la;': �,' , � �.. i � � :� � , ► a� ii� z: . �}. �!- , a,i -iZ, `� �w. ��. �� : � ��i'3'J'n "��'.+.�c,�r �,I a�sa':. i �f�y �:-a+,�� .� i e ¢ �. y y l. �' S�e�'Ya G_ .� � I .! � .,40,, _ }� a` �' !4"�� i / � �_` � -~ �� ;��,J o � jk-�:.. � ';`� ,(„ �� ' :4�:II c� / '�':y' � :I � �� ;� :',� :I � -'a r i � r� � I o � r'�.=�' - I � . � r.� �� \� 5 �` r• , � -- i ;I \ I �/ •.�\ �� \I `.i L, ;i � �� I I ' �" `�; �� ';� a� - _. ' - �- -- - I �� ,'.� ------ - ` � �• a� = I O .> �, U�p i � � O v q� A _ . �� a. � O � � ` ° I ,� ' — _ o �� i � .:°;�� - I �,�� ' - �\�� i; C-1 :'� �� T� � a.. : ' 1: �;,k' ' �e� a _ _ r�" �1 �s � ;' i 8� ''�' - - ' - - --- - '� --- �h �- �r�' •v ° � F ' _ = - _ - =-_- _ _ � �'' - .�� ` '� � - , � . � I ; _ 3 - - - F� - _ �- �y�, .� I i J - _ _ - N _ - � �� . `�`` I ° _ _ a :: . -c. i - _ = =- = � °' ' I. _ C= F - A C _ _ _ �.} , �I a � y � O � E �1� _ b'�T." •y"'4.. '4:4' � I - .e� �� ATTACHMENT NO. 5 ° °= PROPOS�D SITE PLA10t ��5 SALEM LUTHERAI>I JANTTARV 1_2n15 p� tvrTr_ Vicinity Map General Plan Amendment No. 2014-02, Zone Change No. 1259-11, Specific Plan No. SPLAN-Q002, Design Review Committee No. 4209-07, & Environmental Review No. 1827-11 6500 East Santiago Canyon Road � i � �,� . •� ■�� ..��'� ' 4�' .._ , / y" .. ' R-1-8 f ' = =_=�1= 'Ra.r. �K'� ,�� . 1'.-.- � � � • � � � � � S-G ' - --- � S-G � �- - , : _ _ r , ; s� : = 3- - i µ ,. fr ar ew --� j � \ -' , ; � . � � , �� `� ; R- �40 A s j a•r'� �,�, �, � ; +� R-1 10_ a ,f1 -- - �_ _ _ - _',__\'� i��-°"`w— ��l�s�R 1 2Q � ' �1 I t ( � .'y . . , . - . ��I k � I f =�j �1 I�:�i i 7 � .. . � b � ��.�.� ` �.. ' _ _ S-G `,\_- � ,1 _-_`___ + , ��.� ; , , 8 - , _ '^ '�-1-4 '� _..�� x '�-� � ' ' ' ° �.,-- ;� � ��,R�t 20 ;.._ � � - - r- � j .��- ; —— � _1__:_—�-- �.. _ ,__ ��,�..�•• , ;10'f ; , .. , R'.� � '• + ' - 1 �i� �� R1,10 .� : ' �f��l-._ i ,� .ya: � ��1 ��. , � � ;� o�"•0""0 ,�o.�a � j ''�l, �; _ �`� 1��''-� __ �i`i 1 � � ..��- � , � � ;, � , S-G S-G yr. iy -" i N �s� '' '. + ,,I! h � . '''n . _ R,�, 4 O ; i� � ` , ' ' �wW _..1 �, «a°nu�ir.a. � � I I � � li ; f2-1$ � o --- _i �y'�` � 1� � �.� y ��;1 ; � � ! �,f�� 4�_-- r.- - -- � � .�-� � 6 aA R4 � '� p._.�a"'" . .., q,'1-�' � �!i Gi . 4 '� � ti �,j./ -- '�� -u.ve.d�,� ��` - 1 �R-��.. � 1 ,I . i�� _/i �� . Y a:. - � '8 .a� I /I �,% jt�� ` ` ; � } ,,..v ` I � b m w� ' � � `, �.w � b , � � I� � r- � ,, � � �� ¢� �<< '� i �--` ' • � � t�e� .� � �� '--�•�/ `� �,� � .�_. � i < _ A I '1 1 I / ' 1 ' � �� f��` "'`��,o S� �� r� �R'�'�� i� �� 1. �(\'1"T ' ��J A�.��- "� 0 1 � � � � S � `��'�� '- �_� � °� '� � � � � � A �� . `a ' -J � � � ,«co' t o S �R 1 2� �/. ! / ,�;' \ ' '� % --.~< _ - {iur�rr■ � p y �'. QY •. ! fl � • �'� `• � ; �cw`T �-�i � �'.41��8` + (� � � — '� i' / �� .._-- ! ,` � I ' ; ,' ��_ `'..- `` �—"` r y"!� ��, � •..\` 1 _ �,r ' . .� �'�'O. .+A, .'-.,� , � �) I� / •' �`_.�\�"'\ L.-_\ _.�_. i t �� l �� s....�.c. i 1 ll� � - -� � , � J� _R �� , �l � , � i o y t � �QI� VIS�B 4� ,,�'- ) � �V � _ �- ¢ I �`� � v � � � Efementary'�, � �e A�, � i�� „ ' , e �� I f� i —e �--'--!i /� / ,; �— P�c � School � ; �; 1 '\ 1 , _—�_-_=r--�,��-�. �=--.., ;�., , -�,�s��" � - � � � ' � g �� R-1-20 � 11��"��j ," � ' a � �� ,,��+ ' 1� P.U.D.� , �, f � � �, ; I 's � �` �,,,= 7 a g � � _ �� r � l �'- � � � . > � -- -� �: �'� l ..�1 ;r f�I , ' --� � i � ,�� `�_ _�,-�, ti�,;� ; ,%_ �_ _- � � � � �.�:g � � '�` `, , •'+�;-�,� I � - �r ,•l ��`- � ' �" � �r�_. ; s � � �; �;�40 i �.••• ' --f ; � , , .. , , �, ; �� _ � � ; �ti�... ��.t i , __ , - l ,.� , .. . J. � �. ' R.�,� R-1-40 1; 4,�' ;, ��t�. 1 r' — s- :� •.�... � ,,""� ��', P.U.D. 1 �-, .rj--' � ; ` \��jz'.K=9-4 '� fl '`�' �. f�� "` hIPJ�� S � ��'�i..--'�t'.�� _ � 1 I � \'' � \ t ��. : f�t i'�a \ � `'� — ATTACHMEIeTT NO. 6 VICINITY MAP SALEM LUTHERAN JANUARY 19,2015 PC MTG. 1 � -- �� Or�nge ParkAssoci�-Eion PO Sox 2293 Orange.CA 92809 Honorable Mayor and Members of the Orange City Council City of Oran�e 300 East Chapman Avenue Orange,CA 92866 Re: Salem Lutheran Pro'ect ', On behalf of the Orange Park Association("OPA"),as we]]as the undersigned individuals,we are writing to you regarding the Salem Lutheran Church and School("Salem") Project,which wi11 be presented to the Planning Commission and City Council for public hearing at some point in 2014. The Salem Lutheran Project consists of the following:a Resolution approving an Environmental Impact Report,State Clearinghouse No.ZOl I 101046;a Resolution approving a General Plan Amendmenc;a Resolution approvin�a Specific Plan;and an Ordinance approving a Zone Change. As you know,some of the residents of OPA have previously objected to the Projecl on various b ounds,including that it did not include a General Plan Amendment. in response to our objections,representatives of Salem have met with members of OPA and others and attempted to address our concerns,ir.cluding by agreeing lo seelc a General Plan Amendment that changes lhe designation for tl�e site to ensure that the Project is consistent with the City's ZO10 General Pla�i Land Use Policy Map. In addition,Salem and OPA have ab eed that the Project is consistent with and�overned by the Orange Park Acres Specific Plan. Salem also ao eed to make a number of concrete modifications to the Project,including dle following: • Reduction of the seating capacity of the Sanctuary from 757 to 590 fixed seats, excluding special events. • Parking for Project to be confined to Project Site,except for(i)additional parking on the site of the Fowler House(see item below)and(ii)other offsite venues that Salem has used for special event parking. The offsite venues referred to in section(ii)does not apply to City and County streets in the Orange Park Acres nei;hbod�ood adjacent to the Project site. Salem will continue to enforce its"good neighbor"policy,which � ATTACHMENT NO. 7 AGR�EMENT LETTER FROM OPA DATED JUNE 5,2014 SALEM LUTHERAN JANUARY 19,2015 PC MTG. encie�avars co�nsure fhat Saleia7's c�ng�•egatzon 4nd atlenc�t�s da not p�s-k an�ity and C:ounty streei:4. , Dematitsan of th�Fawle�•Hous�in ordar to�r�avid�additiatial parkin�and relaeation €af'th��re�cllot�l��}�a}�fi•on�tlie�r�e�ieely prc�perCy b��tndary. � Improvernent of th�west side of C3ran;�;�ar}:Sauaevar�to acca3nniodate an �:xclvsi��e soi�[Iti�ott�td ri�ht t.urn]ans ania F'rank!ane fa�r tf�e chur�h and se11oU1 use. Safem shall use�est effc�rt�ta�i�deavor tliat sue1�im�aro��ements lviit be con��t�ted as �von as�as:�il��e faUowin�tE�u cattamenccme�l�of eo�lstrucdini�of eii(�zr tlae 5,�nctuary or ScItaQI fx�cilities. UP:�iXu'kll0�'YICCIA�S 1I7�C SUCIl CQ�it�Wit}'1p1�3TOVCF11C11iS VVIII require aprra�als�rom tl�e City or[h�County al't3ran;e{"Caunty"}anc�tl�at Salern canr.ot guar�ncee how y�tickly the City or Co�nty�vil�ac't kca��pprave sucl�road��;�ay �n�pr�v�n�ant��lans. t}I'�,�hal!��i-ovic?e any�tatc[Uli dc.�c��171�nt��ti�n reque6F�cl l�y Salem tc�dc�nlm�Erate O��'s supp�rt c�f such road�vay impro��emenl:s. � Th�inclusion of a detnand li�llt for ec�uestrians at the inters�ction aP t�ra�i�e Park Enute�arci ant�Frai:�k L,ane,which in�prc�ve��7ent5 s1�a1.1 be c;cm��letect�s so�n as passFl�le f�IlativinR ihe com�ne��c�mant af can��ruction of`eitl3�r th�;Sa��:ivacy�c�r �ciroal Pacilitie5.4 " �ncarpc�ration at additic�nal c3irecti�nat si��tar�;at Frank Lane and{?ran��.Park �ou!��lr�i t�c!e[in�resiclent�o�ily trav�:l l�t�es anci Lhu:ch/sc3�oo]tt��ffic lanes,t�ll�icl7 impraten�e�7t slaalj be ccam�l�ted�riar to tixe issuaiece�f the ncc€��ncy�e�•i»it�for ci.ther ihe S�neivary ar Sett�ol faeili�ies. g i oi�erin;oP ttje�Vorslii�C�nter bui]t3in;It�iglat i.t�:i6 fe�:#as recomit�endcci.by tl�e City o�Or�n�e I�esig�j Re��ie��r Bo1r�(�TiC). � Incarparation af'a Itamira�:rhead tun��ounc3 ai tt�e��st en.cl c�f rr<�nk I.ane per�'ity standrircis,��hich improven�ent sl�all be com�leted prior to the iss�s?nce oi�accupancy perrr�its f�c 4itl��r the Sanct�i�.+ry�r�r Scncral l'acilities. � Prc�vision af"'��'PE�Y"(as clepicted in�'�iltr��its SCa3ida��c1 Plans,U.5.�usfomar}� Ur�il:;,ZOlO edition}raised pavemcnt.m�:rkers ta sc�a�•ate�rank I:aa�e into separnte 1an2s for re�id�nts anc3 Salem Church triffic,v✓I]IGfl Ii73�3it]V�fi7�q�SI1�I[�.j�CpCI1�JIe2�CI pricr ta the issu�nce of accupancy�e.r�liis fc�i•eiiher tC=e Sanctua�•y c�r 5chool ��iC1I1CPES. v Prie�r tc�the cantinence»Sent�f cansfir�ctio�3 oFtli�Sanr:tuary and Sclzool facilities, Salem ta ca�rdis�ate w�ith f�FA's Tz�.�il Sulac�ii�rnittee to e�is�re ap�r�priatz profiec;ti�na c�fhot's�lrail on Pra,ject site. `� [nci�rl�aratian Qf the Foltav✓�ng prckvi;;ios�Fnto th.��al�ij�Luthei-an C13urcCi and 5ci�o�1 ��ecii�c Plai�;"No ap}�lication iar a Luilding Fcrs�lit, use p��-mit,variance,or any s�tl�er encitle�ne��t au[horizi»�clevelo�ament c�r cr��wt�uctic»�iiic��.si�tent��it�i this SPecilic Pla�t�hall i7e appro�ed,t�r�eemed ts�he apprav��thr�u��li i;tactini�,lly the Git�•of Oran�e ar�uiy aE`ticer oz�en��lc�y�e ti�e��c4F." V We a��a��ciate S�ilein's«tillin�ness[o��jo�-k v�•itlt ti�e c�n�munit}�tu r�scal�c:s�ic�l issii�:s. Tl�e cE�an�es�o L�hicE��il�:m ha�agrc�,d rtsc�t��;all af ourp�•evio�is�bjectipns ta the Praject. r�ccarcii��gly.�1�,�e�id tlre artdc��;igne�3 h�r�:6y�uiih�lr�s�u�16 of�ur�riar�l�jections ta the i�rc�ject. ��ith the r��c��iiicat:i�ns cl�.scri�ec�above,tt�G I�elie��e thc�'roject is�veIl desig�ied a��cl��e i.�elieve[he I�a`ojcc[E�1�.E5�.i�ll c�cat��,ct�an�rel7�n:�i��e,asl�f co:�p6ies��itt�all a1'the ala1�lical�lG r�y�iir�:mei�E�oi�C'�Q��. �a Io�7��s cli�C'r��;ect inclacl�s tJie .�Seneral Pia»��erdna�nt ancl r}je al��,�e-listed�ncadi icatioa�s,C3ran�;e�ark Associ�tian a;�d the un�ersigEle.d inriividuats sup�ore ihe Frqjcct and wrl!�Sot c�ialiengi the Pro�ect�r tfie Prc�ject�,iR eitl3er f�efar�t3te.C:ity Coc�a�cil c�i in �taperi�r�'o�ar�. To thc contr�ry,,te arbe thG C'ity do�a��,�-aac.€fte 1'rit;e�:c. t'I�;as�fee:l free c�cQi�tact an;r�f us if y�ri l�av,�a�iy q�,c�ti�:is re�arrt��t��e f�e��c�iri�. Sirtce=.•G13�, ��T�I�_�� v �,'��1=� �',+a r��:: � f �r�nge Parl�:��s�ci�tir�n,a�!k�i�rnia ct�i��r�:cic�ri '�` .� � �'�'' �.r''`��`rf„�,}-1` ,,�,.� �l''�.'°"`_`� N�r�e:Lauia'�')t�m�+�� 1;tiv: t�resi�3ent ,-------. ��rr�: `� ,�o�� r�rt��t�q�=r��_1Ra�� . � ��1�� _.._................__..__.._.._...__.._.............._._.._..._..____�_._.�._._._.._...�......._ _ _ ,,�---'` ,/'�� },� �'�'`` / - .��-Y�:�s��a�i��: — - TitI�: �lice�'resi�i�;��t,C:�P'r'� �A`'�:l�: �-c�,�=..f`� 201�1- ?��TvT��;`IN;l�i��=:f:: tLn I�tdiv;t3�,ai �, �� '��=t%�' �--F",�-%'.��%".C% ,.�-�"�"�`��--�' k�2i11�:�,33tC�1�;(Tr2 � �zt!�: Rezarding S�crei.ar•,�,`�'t� . .._ _ _..__....._..............._._......___......................_.............................................._......_..__..._._................ . I7.t�.TET3: �;,.'`,;f �I=�' ,�Q1� S�.I�'d�.-��k��:�S�7I'; r'�:��Individual `��: �',� '�' f',.�;,t.,�. ... .__J t�Yarrie:3im a[hC�.r[ ,f � �Title: T�irector,t?P1�; �,�.'T'�I): �� .,� ,?�Y� �+tI�A�J'�� r.'�'��I3G�xVlf�7�1 ��+: �� e_Tcs3�x�co;t �-� 'tl�: i�irec[�r,QPA ��j J ��j ^ �1��: eJ '" ,��=� ��gi��}v�'��; I�i,Il�TlC�IVif�lt�� _..._.._. .. ... .. ._..... .. ..._. .. _.._....... . . .... ..... � ��'' ��- � arne:I�ef[h a' �t�rc�skv --__�__ Title: Uirec[�r, U�'A �A 1�U: ��' ,2{31 Y �' �;..1[��I'�I�i:�: ' �r�Indiviciu�l �y: �� 'f�=�--_... i�az��;:�ulie Hurster Y I3Y�C: 1�i3'i,CCLi', {��3h�. _........._...__.......__......................__.._......._._........._................_.............._......._.__._........... .. . . _ . 111��1_). �� y G191� �D.�.i�..i'.�.As�-Y�ry1��6.Y: t�n It�di��idu�l �Y� �s-Y�� i�Tam�:�il i�lc�vst�d `Z'it1�: l�irectcr.t3I'r�. ��T�1��: C.,�tS ,?t71� ��:ti?::�i�::t:��i��'� �� ;�.n InuitisUti�! � �'�' �� ,�,(:=�,� I�Ta.�ae:�ue Pliiiipg '� � f'itl�: UuLct�r,CaPr� �A�i'E�: �� .`.a ,20I�� '�`�Tt��':��"��.��Y: � rkn In�itirid�al _...............__.._...._........._.. .._. .._.._.... . __... ......... ... _...... . �------_._-------� t �3y: i�t�s-%�'Ts�rrt I�av?d�on ___�_ .� � Title: i�1e��ber,�Pr�.I�eal l�s�ate Cama��itte�. �ATE�: :'�.�"�`"�"�' �:i�l�, �'r.�:�L��i�i��: �1n Indi�idual � '�.a,��._,�.��.�i°L' �.��:.�� _ �r: T�'arr�;:7'heresa�e�-s � x a[1e: i��em.ber,{?�'='��eal�stxte Lc�m�nitC�i �;��;�E ry _ .. . ._ . __.. ... _ ... ._ . .. . � . . � _ RESOLUTION 8147 A RESOLUTIQN OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY QF ORANGE ORDERING TERRITORY DESIGNATED AS ANNEXATION �-_ NO. 396 (ORANGE PARK BOULEVARD) � ANNEXED TO THE CITY OF QRANGE. � . ( WHEREAS, the Local Agency Formation Commission of the County of Orange f. adopted its Resolution No. 92-23 on November 4, 1992, making determinations and approving the proposed annexation to the City of Orange of territory described in Exhibits A and B attached hereta and by this reference incorporafed herein; and WHEREAS, the terms and conditions of annexation as approved by the Local Agency Formation Commission are as follows: 1. Subject to the terms and conditions hereinafter speci�ed, said proposal is approved. 2. The boundaries of the territory proposed to be annexed to the City of Orange as specifically described in the legal description attacheti hereto, and by this reference made a part thereof, . Said territory is found to be inhabited and is assignecl the following shortform designation: ANNEXATION NO 39b TO THE CITY QF ORANGE. 3. The City of Orange is designated as the conducting authority and the legislative body thereof is hereby directed to initiate annexation proceedings in compliance with this resolution. 4. The City of Orange, as applicant, shall be liable and pay the applicable State Board of � Equalization filing and processing fee prior to the issuance of the final statement of boundary changes by the Executive Officer of the Local Agency Farmation Commission. WHEREAS, the reasons for this annexatiQn are: 1. Eiiminate part of a county island. 2. Provide municipal services while consolidating jurisdictional responsibilities. WHEREAS, the regular caunty assessment roll is utilized 6y this city; and WHEREAS, the affected territory will not be taxed for existing general bonded _ indebtedness of this city; and , WHEREAS, a public hearing on this annexation was called for and held by the City Council on January 19, 1993, and this Caancil finds and determines that the value of written protests filed and not withdrawn is less than 25% of the registered voters residing within the temtory proposed to be annexed and less than 25% of the number of owners of land owning less than 2S% of the number of owners af land owning less than 25% of the assessed value vf land within the territory. ATTACHMENT NO. 8 CC RESOLUTION NO. 8147 � ---� � - — SALEM LUTH�RAN JANUARY 19,2015 PC MTG. NOW, THEREFORE, BE TT RES�LVED that the City Council of the City of Orange hereby orders the annexation described in Exhibits A and B, annexed, and directs the City Clerk to transmit a certifiec! copy of this resolution with applicable fees required to the Executive Officer of the LAFCO of Orange County. ADOPTED this 9th day of February , 1993. ay of the ity of Orang ATTEST: � .� „�„�l�s� City Clerk o�e City of ge I hereby certify that the foregaing Resolution was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the City of Orange at a regular meeting thereof held an the 9th day of February , 1992 by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: SPURGEON. STETNER, MAYOR BEYER BARRERA, COONTZ NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NONE ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: NONE i City Clerk of e Cit f ange Reso No. 8 i47 -2- PSS RESOLUTI4N NO. 8974 — A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY C�UNCIL OF THE CITY OF ORANGE MAKING CERTAIN FINDINGS UNDER THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QY7ALITY ACT AND APPRQVING NEGATIVE DECLARATION 1550-98, DENYING APPEAL NO. 445 AND UPHOLDING THE ACTION OF THE PLANNING COMMI5SIC}N OF THE CITY OF OR�NGE UP�N C4NDITI�NAL USE PERMIT 2213-98 RELATING TO THE EXPANSION OF A CHURCH AND PRIVATE . SCHOOL IN A RESIDENTIAL ZONE WITH THE SHARED USE OF A SINGULAR PARHING FACILITY UPON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 6411 EAST FRANK LANE(A PRIVATE DRIVE). Appeal No.445 Negative Declaratiun 155Q-98 Conditional Use Permit 2213-98 Applicant: Salem Lutheran Church and School Appellant: Laura Thomas RECITALS: In response to the petition of Laura Thomas appealing the Apri120, 199$ decision of the Planning Commission and after due public hearing on June 23, 1998, as required by law, and after receiving and cansidering the action of the Planning Commission, granting approval by Resolution No. PC 26-98 of the expansion of a church and private school in a residential zone with the shared nse af a singular parking facility upon grivate property Iocated at 6411 East Frank Lane (a private drive), the City Council considered the appeal of Laura Thomas and determined that the appeal of Laura Thomas should be denied and that the action of the Plaiuiing Commission should be upheld, with madifications, and that Conditional Use Permit 2213-98 be approved, as modified by the City Council. The subject property is more particularly described as fallows: " Parcels 2, 3 and 4 of Parcel Map No. 79-143 in the County of Orange, State of Califoxnia, as filed in Boak 15I, Page 3 in the Office of the County Recorder of said county. During the public hearing upon the appeal, the City Council found the facts more particularly set forth as follows: 1. The applicant, Salem Lutheran Church and School, is proposing (a) to expand an existing church and private schooi within a residential zone, including a new parish ATTACHMENT NO.9 CC RESOLUTION NO.8974 SALEM LUTHERAN . JANUARY 19,2015 PC MTG. center and classroom buildings that would have the effect of increasing the number of elementary school classes from one (1)per grade leve� to two (2) per grade; and (b) ta establish shared parking facilities of a total of 151 parking spaces for church and school uses because, for the most part, parking dernand for church and school assemblies would not occur contemporaneously Ievei {herein referred to as the "project" or the - "proposed project"}. The proposed project includes an increase from the current nine(9) classrooms on the site to twenty (ZO). In this process, the moduiar classroom buildings would be removed and replaced with newly constructed classrooms. There would be a new two-story classroom building constructed to house some of those twenty classrooms. Each of these classrooms wouid have a design capacity of 3Q students -the maximum allowed by the Orange Municipal Cade. The proposed project alsa includes construction of a multi-purpose building (herein referred to as the "Multi-gurpose Building") having art assembly area of 4335 sq. ft. The proposed height of the Multi- purpose BuiIding is a maximum of 29 fee#. 2. The City prepared an Initial Study, dated March 11, 1998, to ascertain whether the proposed project will have a significant effect on the environment, and, pursuant to the findings contained therein,prepared Negative Declaration 1550-98 (collectively referred to herein as the"Negative Declaration"). 3. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on the propased project on April 20, 1998, at which appraximately 48 area residents spoke, 17 of whom expressed concerns with the proposed project and the remaining voiced support for the project. As a resuit of concern over the capacity of Frank Lane, the private entry street, and its ability to handle the volume of traffic associated with the proposed project, the Planning Commission added a condition requiring the entry road be widened from its cunent width to include two lanes in and two lanes out. Also included was a condition that required a one-way loop circulation drop-off system. 4. The Planning Commission recommended approval of the praject subject to certain conditions necessary to preserve the general welfare, including the placement of a cap upon student enrallment and the imposition af a phasing plan for the occupation of the additional classrooms. In recommending approval of the project, the Planning Commission found that {a) the proposed project, as conditioned, wiil not have a signif cant effect on the environment and will not have any patential for adverse effect on "wildlife" resources (as that term is defined in Section 711.2 of the California Fish and Game Code); (b) the proposed project is consistent with the City`s General Plan and, more specifically, the Orange Paxk Acres Plan, which was adopted�as part of the City's - General Plan; (c} the proposed project is responsive to educational services required by the local community; {d) the site is physically suitable for the proposed development; (e) the proposed project will not cause deterioration of the surrounding residential land uses or create special problems for the area in which it is located; and (f}the proposed project is granted upon sound principles of 3and use. Reso No. 8974 2 �. At the public hearing before the City Council held on June 23, 1998, approximately 47 area residents spoke, many expressing concerns with the proposed project in terms af traffic,parking,noise and the impact upon horses and other animals. � 5. The Initial Study and Negative Declaration were gresented to the members of the City Council and they have reviewed and duly considered the information contained therein, together with any comments or testimony received from the public, prior to taking any action to approve Canditional Use Permit 2213-98 and any ather actions, proceedings and matters related thereto. '7. In response to concerns expressed during the hearing, the City Council added four (4) new conditions relating to hours of activity and the nature and extent of activities to be conducted as part of the project. (� Conditions No. 20 - 23.) The City Council determined that none of the conditions raised new environmental issues not previously addressed. NOW, THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Orange as follows: I. The City Council finds and determines that the foregoing recitals are irue and correct. 2. The City Councit hereby adopts and incorporates by reference the findings of the Planning Commission regarding Conditional Use Pertnit 2213-98. 3. The City Council finds and determines in light of the whole record before it that there is no substantial evidence that the proposed praject, as described in fhe Initial Study and the Negative Declaration, will have a significant effect on the environment; nor will it have any potential for adverse effect on "wildlife" resources (as #hat term is defned in Sectian 711.2 of the California Fish and Game Code). 4. The City Council finds that the Negative Declaration has been prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act and that the Negative Declaration reflects its independent judgment and analysis. 5. The City Council hereby approves the Negative Declaration and authorizes and directs the City Clerk to complete and file with the Clerk of the County of Orange a Notice of Determination in accordance with Section 15075 of the State California Envirorunental � Quality Act Guidelines. 6. The City Council hereby denies the appeal of Laura Thomas and upholds the action of the Planning Commission granting approval of Conditional Use Permit 2213-98 relating to the expansion of a church and private school in a residential zone with the shared use of a singular parking facility upon property located at 6411 East Frank Lane (a private drive). 3 Reso No.8974 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Orange that Conditional Use 1'ermit 2213-98 be approved for the following reasons: 1. The project conforms to the General Plan. 2. The project is appropriate for the site. - 3. Conditional Use Permit 2213-98 should be granted upon the basis of evidence presented in the staff report and memoranda and testimony received at the public hearings before both the Planning Comrnission and this City Council and in response to educational needs that are required by the conununity. 4. The proposed project will not cause deterioration of surrounding single-family residential land uses, nor will it create special problems for the area in which the site is located. 5. This request was considered with respect to its effect on the City of Orange General P1an and, more specifically, the Orange Park Acres Plan, which was adopted as part of the City's General Plan and which, coilectively, are the only plans that pertain to the area in which the site is located. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Orange that the following conditians are imposed wiEh approval of Conditional Use Permit 2213-98: 1. Project approval is based upon the Iimited capacity of the paxking facility, which was designed to accommodate the maximum capacity of the Multi-purpose Building, which is to be used for school assemblies, conternporary worship services, wedding receptions and other social functions, the sanctuary, or the elementary school at various times of day or different days of the week. In order to not exceed the parking requirement for combined uses, the Multi-purpose Building wilI not be used for assembly at any time when worship services are scheduled in the sanctuary or the sanctuary is occupied for any other purpose of assembly. The Multi-purpose Buiiding will also not to be used for assembly purposes during school hours on school days, except for assemblies that are scheduled for Salem Lutheran School children. 2. Prior to final inspection or the issuance of Certificates of Occupancy, all modular buildings will be rernoved from the property. 3. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant will initiate and execute a lot line adjustment or lot consolidation to eliminate property line conflicts with approved buildings. _. 4. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant will provide evidence or documents that indicate an ability to construct the proposed building at the location proposed on the site plan, or to realign the easement granted to the Carpenter Irrigation District. 5. The site pIan and subsequent development will conform in substance to the plan approved by the Planning Commission. 6. Outdoor lighting will be provided to satisfy building security standazds. These standards also require that the parking area be illuminated ta a minimum, maintained level of.1.0 � Reso No.8474 4 foot-candles. The applicant will ensure that adjacent residential uses are protected from security Iighting. 7. With final architecture and landscape pIans,the applicant will submit a grading plan that � indicates the location of and finish materials praposed for the retaining wall near . Santiago Canyon Road. The Design Review Board will make a recornrnendatian to the City Council regarding whether the design is appropriate, and whether Iandscape plans need to be revised to better screen the structure from view on Santiago Canyon Road. The City Council shall have the final authority to review and approve the finaI architecture and landscaping plans for the retaining wall. 8. The applicant agrees to indemnify, hold harmless and defend the city, its officers, agents and employees from any and all Iiability or claims that may be brought against the city arising out of its approval of this pezmit, save and except that caused by city's active negligence. 9. The applicant shall compiy with all federal, state and local laws. Violation of any of , those laws in connection with the use will be cause for revocation of Conditional Use Permit 2213-98. 10. Vehicular access to the project site shall be improved by widening the north side of Frank Lane to provide two entry and two exit lanes during school arrival and dismissal periads, designed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. In addition, the schaol drop- off/pick-up plan shall be redesigned to pravide a one-way counter clockwise circulation pattem on site, with two separate and staff supervised drop- off/pick-up locations for lower and upper grades. The circulation plan will be communicated ta school families as part of the annual registratian process. Salem wili provide adequate supervision to ensure the safety of school children and efficient traffic flow. 11. The project will be phased to implement occupation of new classrooms, with an � additional2"d grade to be added in September, 1998, and an additional grade to be added (3 through 8) until the phasing is complete. An annual report, commencing in September, 1998, shall be submitted to the City Planning Directar which demonstrates the enroilment phasing has been complied with. 12. The applicant will meet with Planning and Public Works staff,as well as members of the community (including the OPA Trails Conunittee) ta determine what improvements shall be made for the equestrian trail crossing at Frank Lane. 13. The applicant will comp€y with all Iaws regarding construction traffic and operations, including the city's Noise Ordinance and permit requirements for any impvrt/export or _. materials hauling requirements exceeding fifty(50}cubic yards. 14. The total number of children enrolled at Salem Lutheran School shall not exceed 725 students, including day care, pre-school,pre-Kindergarten, Kindergarten and elementary school grades 1 through 8. At no time shall there be more than 611 students on campus at any one time. 15. The applicant wiIl meet with community members and develop a plan to strongly encourage all ingress and egress to the property be at Santiago Canyon Road and Orange Park Boulevard, to minimize the use of Orange Park Boulevard and other adjacent streets to lessen the impact on the community. 5 Reso Na.8974 16. Prior to certi�cate of occupancy, the applicant shall submit to the City of Orange a deed restriction for the property which includes the language of Condition No. 11 and Condition No. 14, as amended, restricting future growth and capping the student enrollment at 726 students and the 611 on campus respectively. This deed restriction shall be reviewed and approved by the City Attomey. - 17. The document entitled, "Salem Lutheran Church Parish Center Project Summary and Operating Plan", on fiIe as a public record in the Office of the City Clerk, in conjunction with the site plan and elevations presented to the Planning Commission and City Council, shall be deemed as the Master Plan of Development for purposes of this Conditional Use Permit. 18. As stipulated in the Master Plan af Development referenced in Condition No. 17, above, the maximum occupancy for the Multi-purpose Building shall be 382 persons. If at any time, the applicant wishes to conduct a speciai event in the Multi-purpose Building that would exceed the maximum occupancy of 382 persons, the applicant shall submit to the City's Director of Public Works for his or her review and approval prior to such an event, a Parking Management Plan which shall include circulatian and parking elements to insure all parking is onsite. 19. The Multi-purpose Building shall not be available for hire to the general public other than to Iocal community non-profit organizations. 20. No organized sports or sports events shall be allowed in the Multi-purpose Building other than those sponsored by the appIicant. 21. Except as otherwise provided below, there shall be a curfew of 10:30 p.m. for ali regularly scheduled events at the subject property, meaning that persons in attendance at sucli events must be off of the subject property by that time. This curfew shall not apply to the applicant's Board of Directors' rneetings that are held on a monthly basis or to youth sleep-over events that are held twice each year. 22. The outdoor basketball hoops and standards adjacent ta the horse trail sha11 be removed and the area set aside instead for overflow parking prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the Multi-purpose Building. THe following code provisions are applicable to this project and are included for information only. This is not a complete list of requirements, and other code proyisions may apply to the proj ect. • Two parking spaces located nearest the intersection of Frank Lane and Orange Park Baulevard will be eliminated and replaced with landscaping. Final landscape plans will be - revised to provide vegetation at that lacation, including shrubs or ground cover iimited to thirty-six(36) inches maximum growth. � • Prior ta issuance of building permits, the applicant shall pay all applicable development fees, including but not Iimited to: Transporta#ion System Improvement Program, Fire Facility, Police Facility, Sanitation District, School District, and Eastern Foothill Transportation Corridor, as required by law. • The approved structure and parking facility must satisfy Building Security Standards (Ordina.nce No. 7-79), as verified by the Police Department thraugh plan check. Reso No.8974 6 » Construction activities that have the potentiai to exceed the city's residential noise standard (including the operation of trucks and tractors, electric or gas-powered tools,hammers, etc.) are limited to the hours between 7:00 AM and 8:40 PM, Monday through Saturday. Such activities shall not occur on Sundays and Federal holidays. (OMC Section 8.24.070-E). ^ • Any conditional use permit or variance expires autamatically if it is abandoned or inactive for a period af twenty-four (24) months frorrt the date of approval. An extension of time may be permitted upon a written request,if received before the expiration deadline. ADOPTED this t 4tn day of Juiv , 1998. . ;� i � ) O �� ayo o�the City of Orange ATTEST: j' City Clerk of the ity of Orange I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the City of Orange at a regular meeting thereof held on the 14th day of July , I998,by the following vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: MURPHY, SLATER, COONTZ, SPURGEON NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Ar�vAx�z � ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: rrorrE ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NONE City Clerk of th ity of Orange 7 Reso No.8974 City of Orange—Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for March 7,2012 Page 9 of 34 (3) DRC No. 4538-11 - SALEM LUTHERAN CHURCH& SCHOOL • Proposal of a Specific Plan for Salem Lutheran. The Speci�c Plan provides for a redesign of the church and school campus with a new worship center that includes a sanctuary, conference and meeting rooms, and administrative offices. • 6500 E. Santiago Canyon Road • Staff Contact: Robert Garcia, 714-744-7231,rgarcia(a�cit oforange.o� • DRC Action: Recommendation to the P1amling Cominission � Chair Woollett stated that the proposed project was a conceptual proposal and they would not be reviewing the project for specific details. It was not in the puiview of the DRC to address Planning and Zoning issues that would be covered by the Planning Commission. The DRC would be reviewing the proposal for the aesthetic components and currently they were conceptual aesthetics. If the project should move forward the applicant would return at a subsequent date with a more detailed plan for review and conformance. Planning Manager, Leslie Aranda Roseberry, stated there were a couple of documents that were circulated through the DRC that were also available for public review; those were the Environmental Impact Repoi�t and the Specific Plan. The DRC's purview within those documents related to aesthetics, design guidelines and design standards. Those were components that the DRC would be looking at. The proposal was conceptual and the DRC would be reviewing the proposal for the guidelines for a future project. The project had two mare steps prior to a final outcome and those being Planning Commission and City Council review. Associ�ate Plamler, Robert Garcia,presented a project overview consistent with the Staff Report. Applicant, Michael Madden, address on file, stated he had reviewed the Staff Report, recommendations and conditions and they were in agreement with those; he was available to answer any questions. He was a Land Planner. Chair Woollett asked if there were any questions for clarification purposes on the proposal? Committee Meinber Fox asked where the property lines were? Mr. Madden pointed out the property lines on the drawings presented. Chair Woollett opened the itein for public comment. Public Coinment Tom Grayson, address on file, stated he was a resident of east Franlc Lane, directly across from Salem and the old Fowler House. There were aesthetics issues he wanted to address; in the proposed plan there were Bott's dots that were not aesthetically appealing nor would t�iey remedy the traffic situation on the resident's only ingress and egress road. Instead of a fence they proposed dots on the road. A pennanent fence would resolve the aesthetic and traffic ATTACHMENT 19�0. 10 MINUT�S OF DRC—3-7-12 SALEM LUTHERAI�1 .TANUARY 19.2015 PC MTG. City of Orange—Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for March 7,2012 Page 10 of 34 problems by separating the residential and Salem traffic. The Salem plan exhibit 3-9 page 329 titled Fire Department requirements also presented an aesthetic and safety issue, as well as an emergency access issue. Salem's ingress and egress lanes would be impacted with pick up and waiting vehicles twice daily and would take 25-30 minutes to clear. According to exhibit 3-9 emergency vehicles would need to drive through the mass of waiting vehicles, blasting �re engine horns and causing mass vehicle movement,with kids running between vehicles to waiting parent's cars; that he had observed. According to the Fire Department's plan the emergency vehicle would need to stop to unlock the gate to gain access to the proposed 20' fire lane at the west end of Frank Lane; which was directly south of the Fowler House. His wife's 911 call last year was a prime example of how the plan would not work. His solution would be to widen the proposed two lane ingress and egress road to a legal fire lane the entire length of east Frank Lane with a turn around at the west end of the Fowler property. It would benefit both residents and Salem. Chair Woollett stated it appeared to be a comment regarding traffic and he asked if that could be addressed at the DRC level? Ms. Roseberry stated the comment pertained to public safety and traffic; it could be addressed for the aesthetic portion of the proposal. Chair Woollett stated whether it worked or not was not in the purview of the DRC. Ms. Roseberry stated that was correct. Laura Thomas, address on file, president of the OPA Board and a member of the advisory committee to the City of Orange. There was a real estate committee that operated under the board and the real estate committee and the board had met with representatives from Salem on two different occasions. There was nothing structural and they were not clear to provide an opinion as it was a conceptual proposal. She was confused as to why the DRC was reviewing a conceptual proposal and a Specific Plan that would take the project out of the OPA plan, she asked if they were making a recommendation on the Specific Plan? Chair Woollett stated yes. There were general guidelines that would set the standard for any building and elevations that would come at a later date. They would judge them on the documents currently being presented. Ms. Thomas stated the real estate board and advisory committee were not clear as to why there was a Specific Plan that would take the property outside of the purview of the OPA Specific Plan? Ms. Roseberry stated the Orange Park Acres Plan is part of the General Plan and absolutely exists. What the applicant wanted to do with a Specific Plan was to prepare a long range development plan and guidelines for future expansion, rehabilitation for the site as a whole instead of looking at the site a piece at a time. The Specific Plan included the development regulations, to think of it as the zoning regulations for the site. It would not take it outside of OPA. If the document should be approved, it would guide the development for any new construction or rehabilitation of buildings on the site. City of Orange—Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for March 7,2012 Page 11 of 34 . Chair Woollett stated the plan included the height of the building and if the plan was approved and a building came to the City at a future date at the height designated in the plan, essentially the height would not be an issue as it would have been approved during the process of the Specific Plan approval. Ms. Roseberry stated that was correct. Ms. Thomas stated they were not in favor of creating a Specific Plan and they found challenges with Salem and the school being a small community church with a little day care center and now wanting more space and growth; she could appreciate that the Specific Plan might appear as the answer to that problem, but over time it had been stated that they wanted to just add a little more and it continued to grow. There had been a horse arena at the corner that was on the grass area and it had been communicated that it would remair� there forever, but it was now gone as Saieiii needed the space. There were challenges that the community had tried to work with. The previous plans had a height issue with being too tall and it had not fit in a community of low level buildings. The size of the building with 700 parishioners would create an impact to the community. It had started as a small community church and it was no longer that. There was a point that they realized the church was too big and could not continue to grow at its current site. What if the City Council chambers had to be 3 blocks bigger, how much could they grow in an area without being too intrusive to the neighbors? She wanted to address the building size, the Specific Plan and because they were an equestrian community with trails bordering their community they needed to take extra care in what happened on that particular parcel of land and what would be impacted. The Fowler House area was zoned residential 1 acre, all of the Salem land was residential 1 acre; the parcel that was the Fowler residence was an acre of land that the church sold and was out of the umbrella of the Specific Plan and now it had been purchased by Craig Olsen and some how had come back to Salem. It was a pai-t of a piece of land that was removed and now they would scoop it back in to make the Specific Plan bigger. There was an issue with that and how it was evolving. Expansion was the issue. Ms. Thomas stated there had been good discussion in their meetings and she wanted more specific information that the advisory board could review, and work with the Salem representatives along the way. There was an impact on the community with the conceptual plan. � Bobby Grayson, address on file, stated her family had owned the property on Frank Lane since 1945. She was addressing the project aesthetics with the proposed conshuction, Salem would be adduig more traffic to an already congested area with the proposed construction. Resident lanes must first be fixed before any other construction was done. The proposed fence must be in place before construction started. It must be explicitly stated in Salem's proposed plans. The traffic issues were supposed to have been addressed in the 1998 CUP and had never been resolved. It needed to be resolved first. She was willing to work with Salem, however, no Salem representatives had contacted her and her only contact with Salem were through belligerent Salem associates who parked on her ingress and egress blocking her access. She was supposed to have unobstructed access to her private road which Salem was using as their own. Ms. Grayson stated she wanted to also address Salem's activity at the vacant Fowler House. Numerous all day personnel were parking their vehicles at the Fowler House driveway and behind the garage. They were using her one lane road and sometimes blocking it so she was unable to drive her car out of her driveway. There had also been children entering the recycling City of Orange—Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for March 7,2012 Page 12 of 34 container at the back of the garage in an area that was prohibited to children. If Salem was supposed to be abiding by the 1998 CUP until the new proposal passed, why was there any activity at the vacant property? The residents needed a permanent divider in place before anything else was done. Christine Rosenow, address on file, stated she could talk for hours on the proposal before them. Her land extended 16' past her back fence and 150' wide, and 10' of her property on Frank lane. She was recently involved in Salem's expansion plan since 2004 and the neighbors had not been consulted since 2007. During the past few years she had few informal meetings with Church representatives which had been uninformative and casual touching-base meetings. One of the plans that had been put forth to the City was titled Community Alternative which claimed she had agreed to. She had not known what commun'ity they had conferred with,but it was not OPA and it wasn't her. She agreed with Tom and Bobby that the oversize Bott's dots were not aesthetically pleasing. She supported the fire lane. Ms. Rosenow stated she had reviewed countless plans and found the newest one to be the most uninformative of all. The skeletal structure of the plan gave no concrete information. Where would the actual sanctuary be located? Would it face her house or Santiago? Would people exit towards her home every Sunday? Would there be windows and would she hear Sunday music? If the church left the gym building what would become of the newly available space, would there be new classrooms? Had the height of the new worship center taken in the fact that the site was currently raised. There was too little information to address or to give her opinion; conceptually she was against the plan. She was concerned over the size of the proposed worship center and how it would affect ' the site's overall parking needs. Using the grass playfield for parking went against City code. The applicant showed a parking ratio of 1 space per 2.28 seats; in '98 it was 4 people per car. As soon as the Church had an occupancy of 57%the grass playfield would need to be used, and that was not taking in account the choir or o�her people behind the scenes. Was the business of the Church to maximize its facility to increase revenue and membership? What successful business would anticipate having only half the church filled? Page 22, section 4.8 read the need for other parking was intended to be anticipated on attendance records of events including holiday church services, school graduation and special events, and services such as Christmas programs, occasional funerals and weddings. What about open house, sing alongs, and other events, the grass was used a lot now. These events were normal activity for churches and schools and adequate parking should be provided. Simply put the expansion plan was too big for the site. Linda Cunningham, address on file, stated her home backed up to Salem. She was against the size of the Church. In 1998 the City unintentionally approved a striping plan for Frank Lane allowing Salem to entirely encroach on a private street. Her privately owned street. Salem with the City's approval had no authority to approve the changes unless it had been voted on with the 8 property owners and Salem. Since she had brought it to the City's attention in 2007, the City or Salem had never restriped Frank Lane or offered a solution. Due to Salem's encroachment the residents would not able to get to their homes and she was unable to get to the back of her property on a daily basis. Salem's new plan showed further encroachment and taking over of Frank Lane and dictating how it would be used. Salem had no legal right to do that. Salem's CUP required agreement with the neighbors, specifically in the use of Frank Lane and caused Salem to currently be in violation on a daily basis. In addition Salem's current plan had not reflected the huge legal issue. There was no mention of a fire lane at the dead end of Frank Lane. Once Franlc Lane was up to code the Fowler House garage and setbacks would not be City of Orange—Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for March 7,2012 Page 13 of 34 legal. Since Salem had not included the fire lane their plans needed to be rejected and redesigned. Liberty Grayson, address on file, stated he would discuss only 2 of the 8 major setback issues of the proposed plan. The grandfather clause expired once the Fowler House construction began. Proper road access and easements must be restored back to 10' with any new property construction. The plan for the Fowler House had not shown the major construction; nor a California legal residential turn about. Once the plan was corrected it would show the house was illegally situated in the minimum setback requirement from the road. Part of the house would require demolition. It would change the house design. None of the current plans could pass the City Council without that issue being corrected. Since Salem was in possession of the Fowler property it would violate Salem's agreement with the City, the residents and illegally violated the current 989 CUP, when the 989 CUP was drafted the Fowler property fence line was well established and was not within the boundary of the 989 CUP. Salem could not introduce the Fowler property into any plans connected to Salem. The Fowler House was outside of the 1998 CUP agreement, for setbacks, as the setback needed to maintain its original setbacks. Mr. Grayson stated he had not understood why the City had not seen the blatant setback violation. All current plans needed to be rejected and if continued it would be grounds for the City to terminate the current CUP with the property returning to individual residential lots. The City cannot change the terms of the CUP without resident's permission. He strongly disapproved of the proposed plans as Salern had not provided any information to the residents per the 1998 CUP agreement. Chair Woollett stated he had no further cards submitted for Public Comment and he reminded the members of the public that the DRC would be reviewing the proposal for aesthetic issues and they would not be able to address issues pertaining to parking or traffic. Peter Jacklin, address on file, stated he wished to make a comment. Chair Woollett asked that he fill out a speaker card in order to speak. Two other members of the public also came forward to submit speaker cards. Mr. Jacklin stated he was a resident almost 40 years in OPA. He was on the OPA board and Chair of the traffic committee. He had spent a lot of time reading the DEIR and they had the opportunity of speaking with the Salem representatives. There were 2 points that came to mind and there was a lot of confusion with the project, why it was happening and where the new parishners were coming from and how they would get to the property and the effects of traffic. It was not clear at all as to why a Specific Plan was needed. The Sully Miller property was asking for a Specific Plan change. The battle over Ridgeline had a situation where the City Attorney cut and pasted the Specific Plan to meet the needs of the developer. He was not certain the value of a Specific Plan and in pulling parts from the plan it became less valuable. There was confusion about the intent and why it needed to be done. Before the plan moved forward the City owed the community answers. There were questions in response to the NOP and in reviewing the DEIR and in the City's response section many of the questions were not answered. Mr. Jacklin stated on the traffic issue, and he could not speak about the details of traffic, but when speaking to people about the Salem project, traffic was the issue. There was traffic probleins currently. One was Santiago Road, there was the Meads curve and the other was the City of Orange—Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for March 7,2012 Page 14 of 34 intersection of Santiago, Frank Lane and Orange Park Blvd. He was not convinced that as it stood today that the traffic plans were the right answer. His question was when Ridgeline came before the City Council the Traffic Commission was not involved and was the City's process to have that Commission review plans? Chair Woollett stated after Public Comment he would have City Staff explain process. Mr. Jacklin asked if he understood it correctly that the proposal could be approved in its current state and was an option that the applicant would need to return with further details? Chair Woollett stated there were many components to the Speci�c Plan and one was aesthetics; the DRC dealt with those issues. One of the problems that a City had was what came first, "the chicken or the egg"kind of thing, some would want the traffic to be dealt with first and then the aesthetic issues. That created issues. Typically in the City of Orange the aesthetics came �rst and there was no explanation in Staff's presentation regarding the Specific Plan. Some of the questions that came up were included in the Specific Plan, but were not brought up as the DRC would not be dealing with those issues. Marilyn Drown, address on file, stated she lived on Frank Lane and had built a beautiful home and had spent a lot of time and money and loved making her home a wonderful place and she invited the DRC members to come and enjoy it, if they could make their way through the traffic. She shared a very long property line with the Fowler House, there was an over 200' property line and they had a single family dwelling, the Fowler House, it had not changed and had become dilapidated and it had not been cared for. It was a source of frustration for her as she drove by it everyday. If someone dangled the plan for a better aesthetic there, it was very tempting to say yes, make it beautiful; but the change would be froin a single family residence to a pre-school. Those were two very different things. The OPA was made up of single-family dwellings on minimum 1 acre lots and then there had been a church and school sharing a private road in OPA. She had tried to be a good neighbor, but no one had ever approached her in 30 years about any impacts, aesthetically or otherwise. She was opposed to any kind of vague plan that would not take into consideration the impacts to the neighborhood. Jone Oliver, address on file, stated she was closer to Chapman than she was to Salem. She was opposed and in favor as she had a child that went to pre-school many years ago and she had a grandchild that attended pre-school now. Once in a while she would pick up at the school and she understood the frustration that the neighbors had. There was no place to park to let her grandchild out of the car or to get her in. She loved the Lord and anytime anyone could find Jesus in a school experience, she was in favor of that. She had not known that the only thing they were speaking of was the aesthetics of the plan. If the City could resolve, what had caused the residents so much anger, was the traffic and then later work on the building, the City would have much less resistance. Before she had a grandchild at the pre-school she would get stuck in the traffic. She really liked the school and she would want some resolution with what was causing the residents so much heartache. If the DRC went out there during school start time they would understand it, she had not wimessed students darting in and out. There were 700 people in the church and that was on Sunday and there would not be church traffic with the school traffic and there were many issues that were being lumped together. She hoped they could pull the issues apart and work on the traffic first and that could be the answer. City of Orange—Design Reyiew Committee Meeting Minutes for March 7,2012 Page 15 of 34 Chair Woollett asked Staff to address the process. Ms. Roseberry stated back in 2006 Salem Lutheran had gone before the City with a request to amend their CUP to build a new worship center. At that time they had provided final design drawings for that project; that went before the DRC as a preliminary review and the application was withdrawn when Salem made the decision to go the Specific Plan route. There were different ways to implement an expansion for the church or any church and it was not the first church in the City to request a Speci�c Plan for their site. Some people might think of it as a master plan, a long range plan. What were contained in the Specific Plan were things such as zoning requirements that included building height restrictions, setbacks and parking. It went a step further with the architectural and landscape guidelines as it would be specific to the site and how development over time would play out. The applicant could have come back for a CUP for the worship cente: and another for the preschool; but what Salem wanted to accomplish was something more cohesive and coordinated. For their design standards they wanted something in place for the entire site. It was a different vehicle, as opposed to the vehicle they had started with years ago. The details were not included in the Specific Plan as it looked a the broader picture, the setbacks, height, design requirements and there would not be details such as earth tones using "Sherwin Williams Paint No. 5;"that would come later. A final design packet would need to be submitted for review if the project moved forward. What was before the DRC would set the framework and the construction and changes would be within the Specific Plan. Chair Woollett stated the community was concerned with the traffic and it was very clear; his perception was that the Specific Plan would deal with those issues and be addressed by the Planning Corrunission. If the DRC moved the project on, it would then go before the Planning Commission and that body would deal with the traf�c concerns. The matters that were brought forth through Public Comment would be heard and resolved at the Planning Commission level. Ms. Roseberry stated that was correct. The applicant understood the traffic issues that had been concerns of the neighbors and they had addressed those in the Specific Plan and those were delineation of Frank Lane and the secondary access off of Santiago Canyon, items that had been addressed in the DEIR. Those issues would be items that the Planning Commission and City Council could act on. Chair Woollett opened the item to the Committee for discussion. Committee Member Fox stated she wanted to speak to the CUP and there had been community members who had asked why there was a Specific Plan and that it was invalid and that sort of thing. She wanted to clarify beyond what Staff had shared. The current zoning on the lot was requesting to be changed from single-family residential, in its current zoning the applicant required a CUP for the church to be on that site; the trouble with that was the zoning on a single family residential had nothing to do with the specific problems that had been brought forth by community members. It was better to not handle everything that the church requested through the CUP process as there was not an overlying master plan in place that would provide for height limits, specific setbacks and traffic. When a Specific Plan was put in place the community would have the opportunity to control and manage the entire master plan for the site, rather than attempt to do it in little pieces. The CUP would be overridden by the Specific Plan. The City of Orange—Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for March 7,2012 Page 16 of 34 Specific Plan would do the management that the community was concerned with, because as it stood the CUPs had not managed the use very well. Mr. Grayson stated by definition the CUP was not currently valid? Chair Woollett stated that was a question for Staff. • Ms. Roseberry stated the church and school operated under their current entitlements and nothing had changed and would not change unless the City Council approved in some form the application before them. Mr. Grayson stated he had not believed they were. Committee Member Wheeler stated on Page no. 614 of the Design Guidelines it called for existing chain link fencing to be preserved and even extended behind the preschool. The dented fence along the east property line was the most significant visual problem for the whole project. The fences were terrible. He would want to discuss ways to eliminate the chain link fence and not add more. The OPA plan and policy stated on Page no. 4.1-19 of the DEIR promoted the use of wood rail fencing, either natural or painted white and restricted the use of block walls, chain link or other opaque fencing. He suggested getting rid of the chain link fencing. If higher fencing was required he would suggest pre-finished mesh fencing. Mr. Madden stated the chain link fence was existing. The kids used the playground, multi- purpose field for play. There were balls and other game pieces there. The fence was approximately 6' along Santiago and Orange Park Blvd. and balls went over the fence currently and it was a safety issue. How that was addressed would be something that would continue to be looked at. The chain link existed and parts of it would probably be impacted by grading. Whatever the outcome was it would need to be a fence that would protect the kids and traffic from balls and things rolling out. On the preschool, north of the parking, the chain link ended and split rail began. Committee Member Wheeler stated tubular steel would be more appropriate for the rest of the perimeter and if they needed something taller they could look at alternatives. He was opposed to adding more chain link and he would want to see them remove what was there. There was fencing that was in terrible condition on the site. On Page no. 614 it talked about the reconstruction of existing masonry wall,but he could not find the type of finish for that wall. Mr. Madden stated the specific finish had not been provided. The wall that existed had been finished on the neighbor's side with a split stone veneer and at the north end it would wrap. How that would get interfaced with the abutting wall would be looked at as the project went forward. It would come back with the site details and be complimentary to what existed. Cominittee Member Fox stated there were details on exhibit 6.7; it read masonry site wall at westerly property CMU plaster with stucco �nish and precast concrete pilaster cap. It also had the split rail fence detail and referenced Frank Lane wall. There were no Bott's dots and she asked if it was part of what was being approved? City of Orange—Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for March 7,2012 Page 17 of 34 Mr. Madden stated it was conceptual. With the site plan level there would be detailed material infonnation; the site plan listed material to be complimentary to what existed. The split rail fence was proposed to run along Frank Lane and complimented the split rail fence that ran along Orange Park Blvd. The Bott's dots that were referenced in the draft EIR were the results of conversations with community members; as to whether they wanted a physical separation or another type of visible separation that could be crossed if needed. In the draft EIR both options were provided. Chair Woollett stated in reviewing the information provided there would be a divider on Frank Lane with landscaping and other things; if the proposal was approved and something came back he would expect to use the criteria in the plan to judge whether it was in conformance or not. Mr. Garcia stated the split rail fence would run along the properly line at Frank Lane. Chair Woollett stated that would be the portion of Frank Lane that was reserved for the residents. Mr. Madden stated the split rail fence and raised median would be located between the church travel lanes and the resident's travel lane without landscape., Committee Member Wheeler stated the Specific Plan gave options for Bott's dots. Mr. Madden stated yes,there were options. Committee Member Wheeler suggested that they might want to look at different types of pavement to create a separation,rather than the use of Bott's dots. Mr. Madden stated there were many options and something to make it physically visible. Committee Member Wheeler stated if there was a textured strip there could also be a split rail fence with openings along the fence for residential driveway access. Committee Member McCormack stated in looking at Bott's dots with a split rail fence that would wrap the entire property and visually there would be designation. A split rail fence was a much better design choice. There were openings that could be accessed by �re and there could be safety and design. Applicant, Frank Elfland, address on file, stated currently there was not a definition of the two uses and in the context of their ongoing dialogue with the OPA Board, real estate committee and community members it would be a collaborative effort that would provide an aesthetic and traffic/safety resolution with access to the properties. The document would be general enough with an either or and possibility of options. It was an effort between the church and the neighbors. Committee Member Wheeler stated on signage, with Walgreens they had used signage painted on the pavement for directional purposes. Mr. Elfland stated they were open to wliat would work for all parties. City of Orange—Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for March 7,2012 Page 18 of 34 Committee Member Wheeler asked if they would then add a condition to study other options for the church and residential separation. They would not be stating that a specific material or structure was being approved,but to add information of what the options might be. � Committee Member Fox stated they should have on the conceptual site plan a clear definition of where the property line was. It was a debate on Frank Lane and it needed to be very clear and it would clarify how much of the lane was being used for what purpose as it was very vague for her in reviewing the proposal. The Committee Members reviewed the cross section for the property line designation. Committee Member McCormack stated in terms of designing an access road for the residents on Frank Lane, which would provide for a dual lane 16' wide with a 4' buffer, the things that got thrown in the blender with the design was the question of whether it was a legal fire access area? Those were the things to ask in designing something if those things were not put in first. He asked if it was 16'? Mr. Madden stated on exhibit 4.14 there was the designation for the fire and emergency access lanes which were on the north side. It had been presented to Staff and reviewed; he assumed the Fire Department had reviewed it as well. Fire access would be on the north side of the median. The Committee Members reviewed the exhibit and where the fire access area was located. Mr. Garcia stated the fire access plan had been reviewed by SRC and the Fire Department. There would be further compliance check points as the project moved along. Chair Woollett stated he was concerned with the divider. The fire access plan was for the church and he asked if fire access to the residents was off of Grayson? Mr. Madden stated there was emergency access to the residents. Chair Woollett stated the primary access was off of Grayson. He was concerned aesthetically, and right now it was a mess. There was a big wide area of asphalt and he was not surprised with the confusion when people drove onto that wide area; it was not very attractive for the residents in viewing it from the west or rear yards. As the area became a visual buffer to the church development,what happened in that space was important. Mr. Madden stated Frank Lane was a very tough design study and as Mr. Elfland had mentioned they wanted to provide as much flexibility as possible so as the design process proceeded with the church and the neighbors they could come up with the best solution. One difficulty was that the dimensions were fixed. Frank Lane and the program elements that went into that area created a snug fit; they would want to see a median that was wider, but there was no room for that. To provide a fence line was something they could do. Committee Member Wheeler stated what was needed was a request to see a detailed study of the access approach that would cover issues of fencing, approach, signage and pavement treatments. City of Orange—Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for March 7,2012 Page 19 of 34 Committee Member Fox stated she had to express her concern over Bott's dots and it was not only a visual concern, but there were disobedient parents who would park on the other side and block the street. A fence was a better solution. Mr. Madden stated they could add the condition language, as suggested by Committee Member Wheeler, that it could be a combination of both elements. With a barrier separation and strategically spaced openings. Committee Member McCormack stated that was a solution with the split rail and where there were openings there could be Bott's dots and there could be other paving elements and signage. All of those things could be designed into it to make the nice cheesecake. The split rail fence could carry the day and maybe in other areas the landscape could be enhanced. Committee Member Fox stated she had concerns with the edges. Cormnittee Member McCormack stated what was difficult was to have a tendency to have the landscape have a certain aesthetic. There was a specific aesthetic in OPA. The one thing that he felt the aesthetics needed to respond to was compatibility. There was also the proposed building which was a large mass area and that fact coupled with the fact that only 37 trees would be preserved and removing 78 trees would change the aesthetics of the site. Edges were important. With a small house a huge Sequoia tree would not be planted next to it, or a big huge Ficus tree and with the proposed larger scale project planting a small Sumac tree next to it would not be appropriate. That would appear odd. The landscape had to include a compliment to a large building, openings to see it, areas to frame it and that the ground plane needed to be large enough to support it. There were small little 4' squares on the drawings and outside the 4' squares was a 95% compacted soil area that they drove on. The planting areas had to be large enough to grow. Whether it be a tree well or an open area it needed to be big enough. The�rst thing he wanted to see was a plant palette that would replace the 78 trees and the aesthetic of a large building site and have it be appealing enough to have the aesthetic they were seeking. Mr. Madden stated two edges of the area, Orange Park Blvd. and Santiago were being replicated to what existed there and near the preschool they would introduce some new plant material. The landscape architect had recommended a variety of plant materials for the interior of the site to compliment the existing site and the fabric of the area. He asked if the specifics about which plants to use and what size would be addressed at a later date? Committee Member McCormack stated yes; and he was only talking about the trees. The trees would be the key of the landscape. He reviewed the plant choices and stated on column A instead of a Coast Live Oak tree he would recommend Alnus as it was a smaller tree and he would go through the choices in regard to tree sizes. It would be up to the designers to create the aesthetic of layering, if the ground plane was pushed out for use areas it le$a small ground plane area and left only room for a hedge. That would provide a different appearance. The aesthetic in OPA was not the formal hedge look, that being said he would want some of that flushed out. He would want to review the edge treatment. He would want to have more layering in the interior areas and frame the uses while providing plant screening. The other issue he had was that in reading the EIR for the reduction of heat island effect; it stated only on pedestrian paving City of Orange—Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for March 7,2012 Page 28 of 34 not work for them. If there were parts of the Specific Plan that through the DRC process needed to be changed they could simply show new language as it moved to the Planning Commission. For areas that the applicant might look at and not agree with the suggestions or conditions they could still recommend approval with certain items to be looked at further by the Planning Commission. The applicant would have an opportunity to see what worked for them and there were also items that might conflict with another code,they could look at those things too. Committee Meinber Fox asked if they would be looking at recommendations from the conceptual plan or from the Specific Plan? Ms. Roseberry stated it would be better if it was based on issues, such as the chain link fence. If there were changes needed, those areas of the Specific Plan would need to be flagged. Chair Woollett stated with an issue such as chain link that could be handled through one statement. There were bigger issues that they would want to look at again to understand how a specific issue had been resolved. Committee Member McCormack stated they had given so much information to the applicants in their discussion to looking at how they could deal with the mass issue that the applicants deserved another chance to see what they could come up with. Committee Member Wheeler stated there were so many interacting elements and a change in one area could lead to a cliange of another component of the project. Chair Woollett stated he was speaking from his experience as a church architect and the rest of the Committee Members could decide if his comments had any relevance. When he created a master plan he designed it for as many seats as he could get; it was a negotiation and he wanted to get as many seats for the congregation as he could. He would want the maximum amount of flexibility with the details of the design. They had to decide as a Committee where the envelope needed to be in terms of how much was appropriate for the site and taking in the concerns of the community and the City's regulations. He was concerned that the envelope was a little too tight for the reasons that they had discussed; the space around the building, the bulk and mass and the view from the street. Ms. Roseberry stated it would be helpful if they could hit each topic one by one and they would be recorded in the minutes as opposed to going through the discussion portion of the minutes that contained a vast amount of information and if they could summarize that would be helpful. If the DRC was looking toward a continuance, move to continue based on specific issues that would assist the applicant. Coinmittee Member Wheeler asked if they could go through the items that they were wanting to see before a motion was made and then in the motion to base the motion on the list that they created. Chair Woollett stated bulk and mass and landscaping and open space. City of Orange—Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for March 7,2012 Page 29 of 34 Committee Member Wheeler stated he had tried to keep a list of a few things I got chain link and there was a consensus on that. That we should see more study on the Frank Lane separator to incorporate other types of separators that might be textured pavement, that might be split rail fence in sections,whatever worked for the Committee Member Fox stated but I think we all agree that pure Bott's dots would be aesthetically inappropriate and ineffective? Committee Member Wheeler stated they all agreed on that. We want to make sure the property lines are clarified on a future submittal. We wanted to study the plant palette to come up with a way to provide larger specimen trees especially on the larger sanctuary worship space. Committee Member McCormack stated larger species with the appropriate ground plan growing area is the key issue with that. , Committee Member Wheeler stated in coordination with that to see more open patio space that is not used for parking and other uses that would mean having to probably reduce the massing of the building, although hopefully to have the applicant maintain the number of spaces or seats that they have now. Another item is that they want to make sure the documents were changed to show the height limit of the preschool should it be destroyed or raised would not be higher than the exiting preschool. Committee Member McCormack stated the concept of studying and actually having the EIR and the Specific Plan state that the open multipurpose turf area for parking is structural turf and not grasspave to then on top of that assess how the numbers work out in terms of the water efficient regulations and how it crafts the shrub palette and the ground plane palette for the landscape palette so that comes back as saying this works with the regulations rather than having it all approved and finding out they can't make it work. I want to make sure someone has done a draft ' "go around with that." Chair Woollett asked does the City check all of these calcs as far as the approval, if they don't meet all of these requirements there going to have to change it aren't they? Mr. Garcia stated typically the process is when the project was ready for �nal completion they make sure the landscaper of record has certified that the project will meet the water requirements. Chair Woollett asked if the applicant would need to do that before he submitted the final landscape plan? Mr. Garcia stated yes, for our purposes they want to make sure they have that documentation by the time they final the permit. Chair Woollett asked if that would be before the final approval of the plans and the building? Mr. Garcia stated yes. City of Orange—Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for March 7,2012 Page 30 of 34 Chair Woollett stated we're concerned they don't want to wait that long. We want to be sure it gets confirmed before they start any construction. Ms. Roseberry stated you'd be able to do that before the final plans would come back through the process because I've been thinking about this to try to do that now would take it to a level the plan and the EIR are not looking at, if I am understanding correctly. Committee Member McCormack stated what he would like to do and if it was his project to get down on his table and calc how much that grasspave was and do the calculation and see where I was at, it would take you half and hour and knowing I could pull that off but on all the other planting areas I need to have the palette look like that because it's level one total drought tolerant. Chair Woollett stated he wanted a preliminary. Committee Member McCormack stated I would do it if it was my project, analysis is too big for me to pull off and get to the finish line. Ms. Roseberry asked are you trying to determine a certain level of drought tolerance for the plant palette? Committee Member McCormack stated that's one, if it's too big Ms. Roseberry stated by too big,what do you mean? Committee Mernber McCormack stated if it is too inuch turf, even if we have level one drought tolerance then that has to get smaller it won't be compliant, in other words is that too big to do worst case is what he was saying. Committee Member Fox stated and then you don't have plants anywhere else. Chair Woollett stated the concept could be skewed,because ultimately it was unbuildable. Committee Member McCormack stated a quick hour, hour and a half calculation to see if that size turf area is only 20% of what remains. Chair Woollett stated make that specifically to address the turf. . Committee Member McCormack stated okay then do a calculation to see ls� draft if the amount of the play field and multipurpose play field structural turf area is appropriately sized to make sure the remaining landscape stays intact as drought tolerant. I also wanted to add the specific things about the one trash enclosure to have that illuminated if only one trash enclosure if needed and I stated this earlier in the meeting and it was a question is only 1200' of pervious pavement all we can do or can we do more? Chair Woollett stated wait a minute that was a rule you're going to run into when we do the Specific Plaii and it was easier to add more pavement more porous so why worry about it now? City of Orange—Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for March 7,2012 "� Page 31 of 34 Committee Member McCorinack stated okay we can strike that. The other one was there were bio retention areas all over the plan in the EIR and he would like to see the landscape and that was areas that were holding water to have those areas highlighted on the landscape plan and that was a different plant that could survive under water. Committee Member Wheeler stated but again wasn't that soinething that could wait for the more detailed submittal, does it need to be done on this one. Committee Member McCormack stated I guess it could wait, but that was the challenge and even if he said that they would only need to put another heading in their landscape palette; bio swale plants and it begins to address that use. That is all I had. Committee Member Wheeler asked do they want to add something about the visual appearance of the worship center as far as how it relates to the previous submittal? Ms. Roseberry stated what I would do with that is look at adding or deleting some of the architectural guidelines of the worship center if there was something that they wanted amplified or soinething they would want to, such as if looking at the materials and they are thinking they don't want that type of material in there or we absolutely want this material or if they were talking about the overhangs or some architectural detail that would result in x, that was how they would phrase it. Committee Meinber Wheeler stated let me suggest some and see how it flies; as far as materials if a new material such as artificial stone or real stone was incorporated in the design of the worship center that the drawing to coine back to us showing how that material could be utilized throughout the project site to defuse and tie into the existing buildings, does that make sense? The Committee Members stated yes. Committee Member Wheeler stated that the windows and large overhangs as shown on the submittal of 2006 seems more of an appropriate direction than the concept elevations th.at had been presented so far. Ms. Roseberry asked if there was another way to phrase that without looking back at a case that was withdrawn. Committee Member Fox stated there was good phrasing in the Speci�c Plan they just don't,they haven't applied it to the things they have in here to their concept plan in 6.2.3 doors and windows for the worship center: "prominent windows on highly visible elevations should be articulated in a manner consistent with the architectural styles such as recesses or projections, decorative grills or trellis projections." They have some good, I felt that the Specific Plan had some good wording on how the design should be done. I think the Specific Plan was very well articulated. On the Speci�c Plan she wanted to go into section 7.3.3 that stated building height for the worship center that stated 39' and she would like to propose 36' and, or if there was other mitigation to be at 39', but it says no more than 25% of the building roof plan can exceed 32', it says here and maybe it might be a much lower percent. City of Orange—Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for March 7,2012 � Page 32 of 34 Chair Woollett stated in the previous plan the height was 39" which was the way they designed it, they mitigated that height and mass. Committee Member Fox stated maybe that was what they wanted to see that the height and mass is mitigated and not necessarily control the height limit. When you look at that building when it was designed originally it was further away from the other buildings and now you got just this mountain up against all these other buildings. Committee Member Wheeler stated he thought they had been receptive to that other design in 2006, the height was 39' but it was also closer to Santiago Canyon Road,but then Committee Member Fox asked if he ever got to her question about was the height measured from adjacent grade and if so were they allowed to build up the grade such as now the height was even taller? Mr. Garcia stated the vertical distance from the building height is defined as the vertical distance from the average fmished grade as measured around the perimeter of a structure 5' out from the exterior wall surface to the highest point of a structure. Committee Member Fox stated o.k. they can't raise the adjacent grade too far because they have to meet the existing grade in their next door classroom so that would keep it locked in I think. I feel that massing is too much and if you guys don't agree at least on the preschool we should, we talked about changing the 32' to existing ridge,we mentioned that already. Chair Woollett stated the forms of the building should mitigate the height and mass of the building. Committee Member Wheeler stated of the worship center,which was a good way to put it. Chair Woollett asked if there was anything else they needed to add, and could they frame this into a motion now so people could go home? Ms. Roseberry stated you may want to ask the applicant if all those things were clear enough. Mr. Madden stated he just wanted to make sure they got a record of the meeting, there was a lot of infonnation and a lot of good comments so if you can just make sure they do that then if they had any questions on it,in terms of clarification they could contact Robert on it. Committee Member McCormack stated the Specific Plan was well written and if they followed it as a guideline, a lot of stuff on the plans did not follow this, or touch on it yet. Committee Member Fox stated that gave her a sense of security, because if they approved the Specific Plan that was what they will use to judge this. Committee Member Wheeler stated he would suggest a motion that we move to continue it based on the items described to the applicant. City of Orange—Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for March 7,2012 Page 33 of 34 Chair Woollett asked if they needed to be more specific? Ms. Roseberry stated they were fine, since it was being continued and between the three of us we had a pretty good list of what they were looking at and we will get the minutes from Sandi and we will be fine. The direction for the applicant to take back and sort of digest and look at. Chair Woollett asked if they should set a time when it would come back? Ms. Roseberry stated she would ask the applicant if there as a date certain, the DRC meets on the first and third Mondays? Mr. Madden stated they would need to pow wow, to talk to Frank. Ms. Roseberry stated it does not need a date certain. Chair Woollett asked if the next meeting would be noticed to people? Ms. Roseberry stated certainly, they could re-notice it. Verbatim text: Committee Member Wheeler stated: Chair, I would like to make a motion to continue DRC No. 4538-11, Salem Lutheran Church and School,with the guidance given during the discussion. SECOND: Carol Fox AYES: Carol Fox, Tim McCormack, Craig Wheeler,Joe Woollett NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None MOTION CARRIED. City of Orange—Design Review Coinmittee Meeting Minutes for April 18,2012 Page 3 of 30 AGENDA ITEMS: Continued Items: (2) DRC No. 4538-11 - SALEM LUTHERAN CHURCH& SCHOOL • A proposal of a Specific Plan for Salem Lutheran. The Specific Plan provides for a redesign of the church and school campus with a new worship center that includes a sanctuary, conference and meeting rooms, and administrative offices. • 6500 E. Santiago Canyon Road • Staff Contact: Robert Garcia, 714-744-7231,r arcia(a�citvoforan�e.org • Previous DRC Review: March 7, 2012 • DRC Action: Recommendation to the Planning Commission Associate Planner, Robert Garcia, presented a project oveiview consistent with the 5taff Report. Applicant, Mike Madden, address on file, stated he had no additional comments. He had two landscape professionals with him to answer any questions pertaining to landscape. Public Comment Christine Rosenow, address on file, stated she appreciated the Committee's insight from the last DRC meeting and the neighbors were truly appreciative of the landscape and architecture. In the 1998 CUP it was stated that the facility should be shrouded in sluubbeiy and a forest of green; and it was not. There were wire fences and things such as that. It was confusing for the residents as they were discussing the plan that was before them, they had plans and the applicant had plans and they had not known to what plan they were speaking to and who they should be speaking to. They were, what they had thought, in the midst of cominunication with the Salem representatives, but then the DRC meeting came about. 5he was requesting that no decisions be made until they could come back with the revisions. The applicant was revising the plans and she could not understand how a decision could be made on plans that were being revised. The entrance off of Santiago was a huge issue. She was on the OPA Board and now she was a very active member of the Real Estate Board and the Santiago issue was of great concern. The horse community was greatly concerned at having such a wide gap with 50 to 60 mile an hour traffic so near. Just last week there was a huge accident. She was also requesting to see a copy of the letter that had been submitted. She asked that any decision inaking be postponed until inore information was received. Chair Woollett stated there still appeared to be some confusion by public participants aUout the action the DRC was taking. The plans before them were not final plans, the plans were being submitted to establish some guidelines for design and when the final plans were prepared, the design plans, they would return to the DRC. They were currently dealing with the design rules and not so inuch the specific design and they were dealing with the rules that would guide the design. ATTACHMENT NO. ll MINUTES OF DRC—4-18-12 SAL�M LUTH�RAN JANUARY 19,2015 PC MTG. City of Orange—Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for April 18,2012 Page 4 of 30 Ms. Rosenow stated the confusion was that if the plans were changing weren't the rules changing? If a decision was made the project would inove to the Planning Commission and it was a powerful signature that they would be sending, as representatives of the Community, which they approved of the plan as presented. Her concern was that with any stamp of approval, when the plans were not solidified, and there were many plans in the works and they were on plans 4, 5 and 6. They were not on the same plan. Salem had presented plans to the Salem community that differed from the plans that were being presented before the DRC. There was a plan that showed the relocation of Fowler House due to mold issues and a plan that had a Santiago Canyon entrance removed. They had been doing this for some time; the plans were continually changing. Chair Woollett asked Mr. Garcia if he was aware that there were multiple plans? Mr. Garcia stated he was aware that the applicant and applicant's representatives had met with the community, and they continued to meet with the OPA and OPA Board. Liberty Grayson, address on file, stated he was a resident that was impacted by the Salem development. He was present to discuss the 7 objectives that the City had required of Salem and which none of the plans that Salem submitted had fulfilled. Salem needed to come up with a plan that encapsulated the minimum requirements the City encouraged Salem to presume and rightly so, Salem had a chance to positively work with its neighbors and lesson Salem's impact on the community and be an inviting place that brought together the equestrian, OPA and residential communities. Salem needed to tap its best resource, the neighbors. The project objectives under 2.2.3 The Salem School's Specific Plan Executive Summary were as follows: 1. Obtain the most suitable land use pattern for the campus with a functional and aesthetic relationship. 2. Ensure the quality appearance for Salem Church with consistent design and visual improvements and blending proposed facility with existing facility. 3. An efficient internal circulation systein to alleviate unnecessary project traffic overflow onto adjacent streets while ensuring the functional needs of the campus. 4. Maintain comparative on site open space and recreational amenities of the campus while meeting the program's needs. 5. Provide a comprehensive well rounded master plan for the property that addressed environmental, water quality, circulation and public facility and services. 6. Create a water quality drainage system that ininimized off site receiving waters. 7. Incorporate a sustainable design technique in the redesign plans for the campus. In most cases Salem's plan had not met those objectives, but the neighbors plans met or surpassed the objectives, in many instances in phases that could be implemented quickly while keeping Salem operating. On April 19, 2012 the residents would be meeting with the Salem representatives for the first time in 5 years to discuss the resident's plan for east Frank Lane and the Salein development. If Salem worked with the community until the changes were implemented there would not be as much distain and opposition. Salem could have the best plan possible if Salem used its most valuable resource, the neighbors and community. Chair Woollett asked where the 7 items had been pulled from? • City of Orange—Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for April 18,2012 Page 5 of 30 Mr. Grayson stated they were from Salem Lutheran's Specific Plan Executive Summary, on pages 2-3, section 2.2.3. Tom Grayson, address on file, stated he was a resident of Frank Lane. He stated he was addressing the issues of the plan, based on his 35 years of experience as a Project Manager of Cal State Fullerton, he just recently retired. He had observed many issues about safety and liability. He would address some of those issues with the Salem plan. One of the main objectives of any project would be to implement in its design a facility with minimum liability to the University, minimum liability was what he wanted to address in the Specific Plan. The Salem Lutheran Church and School was not a community church and school, it was a commuter church and school and there were 500 vehicles that went in and out of the site. With any facility there was functionality that needed to be built into the design. His 35 years of Cal State Fullerton experience dictated that the design needed to be incorporated into the physical elements into the function. The puipose of that was to leave it up to human programs or human management that had not worked. In a very short time all good intentions would go out the window and liability emerged. Cal State Fullerton developed policies to build into each project a functionality element that would minimize the reliance on human management for issues that concerned liability. The resident's plan had gone to considerable lengths to eliminate liability. He and his wife had been taking photos and sending them to City Staff and they were very concerned with what went on at Salem. One could not rely on good intentions and that had been shown with Salem not working with the residents. Salem needed to function independently with minimal impact to the community. Salem was not able to function within its own boundaries. The resident plan would go a long way in creating an environmental optimal envelope for the Salem school, the commuters, the community, the horses and residents. Please postpone any decisions until the residents were able to present their plan to the Salem representatives. Laura Thomas, address on file, stated she was president of OPA and they had met with the Salem representatives and they would continue to do that. Recently between those meetings the neighbors had gotten together and created a project concept. When they met last time with Salem representatives they asked for a meeting with the neighbors as they had a thoughtful plan. The timing presented itself with some members not available and the meeting was set for April 19, 2012. She was asking for a postponement of any final decision or vote on the proposed Salem project before them. She had read through the minutes and she felt it was worth the time to step back and allow the coinmuniry to work together and understand the ideas. It was an opporlunity for the neighbors, Salem, and OPA to work together to bring something that would make things right. Linda Cunningham, address on file, stated she concurred with the previous speakers and she hoped that the DRC would postpone any decisions on the proposed projects until they met with the Salem representatives with their plan; it was a beautiful plan that addressed every issue that had been out there for several years and would be a win-win for everyone. Chair Woollett opened the item to the Committee for discussion. He asked Mr. Madden to address the upcoming meeting to be held with the residents and the plan that had been brought up during the Public Comment portion of the meeting. City of Orange—Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for April 18,2012 Page 6 of 30 Mr. Madden stated in 2008, before he was involved, there had been meetings with several residents and from that meeting an email memo was put together with the concerns and issues. The last plan that had been presented to the DRC in 2006 or 2007, and the memo that subsequently followed raised some issues. There was a request for access to Santiago, request for physical separation on Frank Lane, to review the circulation and parking, to review the location of the worship center and from that memo concept diagrams were put together that were in the Specific Plan. Those addressed step by step how the issues and concerns would be addressed. The concept plans moved forward. The team decision, in conversations with Salem and the neighbors was to move forward with the concepts that were in the plan being proposed to the DRC. At some point in time the Specific Plan and EIR had to move forward to allow the process to begin. For the design and entitlement processes there were reviews, comments and recommendations; the NOI and draft EIR had gone out and they received comments from the neighbors and they had been meeting with the neighbor groups, the OPA groups and they had met in November to speak to the plan. There were ideas about the Santiago entry and it might not be the best idea as there were concerns about the horses and impacts to the horse trail. There were other alternatives proposed. There was discussion about demolishing Fowler House and moving the preschool. There was discussion regarding Frank Lane. There were many opinions and they took the comments and had met in November, February and on March 29 and they took the ideas and discussed how the concerns would be addressed. Input as they received from all sources would be taken into consideration and the plans were reviewed with the groups and they were pleased with the plan, they met with City Staff to review the issues that they were addressing with the community and some of the ideas presented. At the March 29 meeting with the OPA there had been indication that the neighbors had put together a plan and they wanted to meet to review that plan. That meeting would take place on April 19, 2012. As new ideas were presented the process ��ould continue to move forward with all the information received and in the end they would have a plan that satisfied the most people before they went before the City Council. The final plan would take into consideration the input from City Staff, community meetings, through DRC and Planning Commission recommendations and eventual recommendations from the City Council. During the process the plan would change with conditions that would apply and it was part of the process. Chair Woollett stated the plans before them represented Salem's response to their own objectives and with what had been presented to them by the community in the past. He askecl if the Salem representatives had met with any community groups since the last DRC meeting. Mr.Madden stated no. Mr. Garcia stated Staff had reviewed the resubmitted plans that responded to comments made at the previous DRC meeting; they had the environmental documents and a Speci�c Plan that was before them. The plan was conceptual and there could be changes to that plan. They were reviewing the standards and guidelines of the Specific Plan, the written documents and not the drawings, the documents that set the guidelines for the plans. Potentially there could be changes to the plans, however, they would still need to comply with the standards and guidelines. They were moving along with the process. Ciry of Orange—Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for April 18,2012 Page 7 of 30 Committee Member Fox stated the DRC was evaluating the draft EIR, Specific Plan and a conceptual site plan. She asked if they could present a forward motion on the draft EIR and Speci�c Plan, separate from the conceptual plan? Mr. Garcia stated as a Planner they would be reviewing the plan to ensure that they complied with the written documents. Chair Woollett stated there could be other drawings that complied with the written docuinents, plans that could differ from the plans that were before them. Senior Planner, Chad Ortlieb, stated that was correct. They could parse out their recommendations to the Planning Commission and City Council in any manner that they chose. Chair Woollett stated the DRC's action would be based on what was before them. Coinmittee Member Fox stated on any revisions or modifications to the plans that the applicant might have based on the meeting with the neighbors, those would go back through Staff review for traffic circulation issues. Mr. Garcia stated that was correct, any subsequent plans would be reviewed to ensure that they complied with the language in the Specific Plan and the environmental documents. Committee Member Wheeler stated if the plans changed considerably and the Specific Plan would no longer apply what would the next step be? Mr. Garcia stated an amendment to the Specific Plan would be required with the plan being brought back to the DRC for their review. Committee Member Wheeler stated they could discuss the conceptual plan before them with the understanding that as the plan evolved with any significant changes that it would return to the DRC for review. Chair Woollett asked the community members if the plan that they were proposing to present to the Salem's representatives would change any aspects of the 5pecific Plan? Mr. Grayson stated he was not familiar with the language of the Specific Plan. The proposal to the neighbors would alter traffic patterns, impact on the community, the existing structures and their proposal was a phased plan. There were plans that he had reviewed from the Salem representatives that could be incorporated into what the neighbors proposed. Chair Woollett stated the DRC would be going through the process for the Specific Plan for Salem Lutheran and there would be more highly developed drawings at a future date. The purview of the DRC was only for a portion of the Specific Plan which was primarily for aesthetics. There were other issues that would be dealt with at the Planning Commission level. They wanted to be responsive to the community's concerns, but also to the task before them and the process. City of Orange—Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for April 18,2012 Page 8 of 30 Committee Member Fox stated the Specific Plan had many objectives and language that was very good and she believed the plan that was being presented was not a good match,with the objectives of the Specific Plan. For her there were many issues with the plan; but there were smaller issues in the Specific Plan and possibly they could come together on some agreement to making changes to the Specific Plan and not the site plan. Chair Woollett stated there were site plans included in the Specific Plan. Committee Member Fox stated she was not ready to approve the Specific Plan as presented, but it was closer to where they needed to be. The objectives were clear it needed good circulation and separation on Frank Lane and there were many objectives that were very clear. Chair Woollett asked if there were some speci�c changes she wanted to address? Committee Member Fox stated there was a modification to the preschool going from a 32' to 26' height and she agreed with that. There were some changes that had been made to color choices and those had been handled well. There were other issues that the applicants had not agreed with and those needed to be discussed further. The issue on chain link, the height limit of the worship center and there were some landscape issues. Committee Member McCormack stated there was a landscape menu,but not a plant selection. In speci�c areas there was one candidate that would be head and shoulders above the rest. Committee Member Fox stated there was also the issue on the Frank Lane median and she was not in favor of the wording that was proposed. The part that was not acceptable was that in reading the proposed language it would appear that enhanced paving and Bott's dots would be acceptable as a combination. � Committee Member Wheeler stated he had the same concern, however, he realized that the plan would be returning to the DRC with that specific design. The information before them was setting the standard and guidelines of what could be used. They would review a final design. Mr. Garcia stated the plan would come back for a Staff review and nc�t necessarily return to the DRC. Committee Member Fox stated if that was the case then the language needed to include the requirement for split rail fence and that should be in the Specific Plan. Committee Member Wheeler stated he would propose a condition that the plan needed to return to the DRC. Chair Woollett stated in the Specific Plan there were items listed and the applicant often would take the attitude that they could choose from that in any manner that they wished; the view from the DRC was that there could be a requirement for specific items. City of Orange—Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for April 18,2012 Page 9 of 30 Committee Member McCormack stated that would be the case if all items were equal, but many times that was not the case. With the plant palette, most of the choices were equal and picking one tree over another could work. Chair Woollett stated with Bott's dots they could choose just to use those and none of the other choices listed for the Frank Lane separation elements. Committee Member McCormack stated there needed to be a hierarchy of what needed to be installed, such as the split rail fence which needed to be there and they could add enhanced � paving and Bott's dots if they chose those. Committee Member Fox stated they could conclition that a split rail fence be used with breaks as needed and the use of Bott's dots and enhanced paving for those areas; and with the majority to be split rail with the opporiunity to use other elements for emergency access and such. Chair Woollett stated in their action they needed to be specific. Mr. Madden stated on the design and separation of Frank Lane it carried many opinions. Some of the comments that they had heard were that the residents wanted the separation, others wanted openings and others preferred just the Bott's dots. There were notes regarding previous meetings and the general consensus was that there should be options for providing the larie separation. As the plan came together with all the input for the design of Frank Lane; personally he believed there should be the split rail fence with some openings, but the ultimate design for that area would be a combination of one or all of the different materials of split rail fence, enhanced paving and Bott's dots. Chair Woollett stated that particular issue would be one that the DRC should reserve any final action on. Committee Member Imboden stated in light of what the applicant had just stated it was within the purview of the DRC to make a determination such as an approval of the project would include split rail fence, with additional materials as determined and the details would not need to be 7eft open. Mr. Garcia stated that was correct. Committee Member Fox stated the height of the worship center was also an issue and she believed 39' was too high and that 36' was a better height limit. It created a hierarchy for the sanctuary,but not such a looming mass. She thought possibly a setback might be imposed where the peak would be allowed to avoid having a 39' peak right up against the property. It might be a way to layer in a condition to avoid having the mass right up against neighboring residential properties. Committee Member Wheeler stated his primary issue was the chain link fence. He presented photos of where the fence posts had been welded together to add an additional6' to the fence. In his calculation, the fence worked at 6', but at 12' the fence would not work structurally and with vines, as proposed, added to the 12' mass it would create a safety hazard and having the fence City of Orange—Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for April 18,2012 Page 10 of 30 fall over in a heavy wind. He was opposed to the chain link fence, visually, and the other fences in the neighborhood appeared to have been there for quite some time. There were some new colored ones around tennis courts and so forth. To approve chain link because others existed in the neighborhood was not a good argument as the DRC had not ap�roved any of the existing chain link fences in that area. They would not have approved a chain link fence in Orange as it was against the rules. The fence needed to go. Another argument that had been presented by the applicant in favor of having the chain link fence was to have a boundary for the ball play field areas. At the last meeting he had suggested the use of tubular steel fencing, except where ball control was needed, and for those areas to use rectangular pre-coated fabric fences. There were many around Disneyland and Knott's Berry Farm and those would provide for ball control and be much more attractive. That type of fencing might not comply with the OPA guidelines, but it was a much better choice than the use of chain link. He was prepared to offer a condition as follows: That the applicant not install new chain link fencing at the north end of the property, but instead to install new 8' maximum height steel tube fencing in that area and that all existing chain link shall be removed and replaced with maximum 6' height square tube fencing, except in the area where ball control was necessary, those areas could have welded wire fabric fencing with a maximum height to be determined by the zoning code with the color of the mesh to match the steel tube fencing. He believed the 12' height was an existing non-conforming condition. Mr. Madden stated with the school kids at play there was a lot that could be done with tubular steel and he was not certain why the 12' height had existed. In terms of the vine on chain link, that was seen everywhere and it was done successfully. The issue of seeing through the fence or not seeing through the fence, there were hedge rows along Santiago Canyon in front of the fencing. There was ground cover and vegetation along Orange Park Acres. The other thing that was important was along the equestrian facility was that there was a 30' plus drop there and if the fencing had to be changed along that area that it should be secure fencing. There was a visual and a far less visual edge. If the fencing needed to be changed he would want a recommendation be added. The chain link that existed had been there for a long time and served a purpose in keeping kids safe. The 12' stretch could be taken down and if the Committee felt strongly about the condition of that fence they could make a recommendation to the Planning Commission. Committee Member Fox stated she would not approve the proposal with�the chain link fencing. Mr. Madden stated Committee Member Fox had asked for some examples of where the chain link fence occurred and there was some with Bougainvillea across the street and it was fully covered. Committee Member Fox stated there was a code that dictated no chain link fencing. Mr. Garcia stated the Specific Plan allowed for chain link fencing. Committee Member Imboden stated he agreed that the 12' portion of fence had to be dealt with, and he was not certain as the fence existed that it was a safe condition for the children. One of the vines that had been chosen for the fence was Wisteria and that would not be an appropriate vine, it would not be attractive in the winter and would rip the fence apart in a inatter of a few City of Orange—Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for April 18,2012 Page 11 of 30 years. It would not be a proper vine treatment for that fence and should be removed from the plan language. There was discussion about a masonry wall on page 7 of the Staff Report, that discussed the height of the masonry wall of 6' to 10' high, it was in the minutes, the Specific Plan it stated a maximum height of 8'. The Specific Plan only referenced a portion of the wall and would they want to limit the height of all walls in the Specific Plan language. If the Specific Plan remained silent on a height limit, would the City ordinance need to be followed as it pertained to height limits of fences? Mr. Garcia stated that was correct,with a maximum height being 6'. Chair Woollett asked"maximum for low side and maximum for high side?" Mr. Ortlieb stated"high side 10', low side 6'." Committee Member Imboden asked Mr. Garcia if Staff was under the conviction that the proposed plan complied with the City standards? Mr. Garcia stated yes. Committee Member Imboden asked as the Specific Plan remained silent, the City standards would need to be adhered to for any new fencing? Mr. Garcia stated yes,they would need to be at a 6' maximum height. Committee Member Imboden stated he wanted to ensure that the applicant understood that. He was not clear on exterior lighting, and he understood the plan before them was conceptual. The lighting was noted as being submitted for Site Plan Review,which was an administrative process and those details would not go back to the DRC for.review. There was another area that it was noted that the plan would return to the DRC and he was wanting clarification on the process. Mr. Garcia stated the lighting would go through a department Site Plan Review and also to the Orange Police Deparhnent for their review. The details for lighting would not typically return to the DRC. Committee Member Imboden stated on the issue of lighting, the language for parking lot lighting stated it shall avoid spillage of light and he would prefer the word prevent be used, rather than avoid; as the word avoid would indicate that spillage might still occur and prevent would mean it would not occur. On reconstruction, in the event of a calamity; and that language was used a number of times; should Salem Lutheran choose to demolish a building and build a new one there was no provision for that and the language should cover other situations. With the items that came back that had not been in agreement with what the DRC had recommended he would leave those issues up to the other DRC members, as he was not present for that initial discussion. He had agreed with the comments that had been made and he agreed with having some control with the height limits and the fence issues that had been discussed. Committee Member McCormack stated from a landscape perspective he had been anxious to review the plans and he was having trouble with the Specific Plan; on the cross section there was . City of Orange—Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for April 18,2012 Page 12 of 30 a statement that there was a 4' shoulder and 16' double lane, and he understood that a fire lane was 25'. In the initial Staff Report it called for a 26' paved traffic surface and was there a discrepancy on where the split rail fence was intended to be installed per fire requirements? Unless there was a hardship, the fire access could go to 20'. He was coming up with some discrepancies when he reviewed the daily flow for the school. He pointed out a tree that would not be able to remain with the proposed daily church circulation and he wondered why they had not received the rest of the plan. The plan for Frank Lane was not complete and in reviewing the tuni around area there was not complete information for that. Mr. Madden stated there was not a proposal for a turnaround. In entering the preschool, there was a hammerhead turn around for the Fire Deparhnent. Committee Member McCormack stated there were in-bound lanes and 2 out bound lanes, the traffic came in and there needed to be some type of turn around lane. Mr. Madden stated as it was a preschool those parents would need to park. The Fire Department emergency lane was on the north side and explained in exhibit 4.14. The Fire Department had reviewed that access. Committee Member McCormack stated the edge was an asphalt and fence edge without a landscape edge to it. There was nothing to mitigate the fence and the Specific Plan had a notation for mitigation of fencing. Mr. Madden stated they were asked not to touch that edge. Committee Member McCormack stated he was not certain how the Specific Plan would be applied to that situation. His biggest concern was about the field and getting bigger trees there and the ground plane treatment. The plan was difficult to read. There was a 5' tree well and another 18" on each side. With that space for a Sycamore tree, he was hoping to get a little more of a ground plane gesture, which was not so urban. There was a tree well, then the concrete and there was 41' of asphalt before the architecture. There might be some other landscape treatment for the edges. The Sycamores and Eucalyptus trees we��e the prominent natural landscape aesthetic. There may be something more that could be done around that paved area. The trees would need to be maintained and the ground plane needed soine relief. Mr. Madden stated there was criteria for a student play area in the parking area, and those would also be used for sports courts and there was the multi purpose area with the play field that was also used for parking. They atteinpted to incorporate the flavor of the entrance along Santiago to wrap that around the parking lot to create separation between the parking lot and play courts. It was a less formal arrangement than initially presented, but to still respect the parameters of the play court area. At the conceptual level they wanted to set the tone for what the landscape would need to be. Committee Member McCormack stated if they chose not to green up the ground plane further,he suggested for the large trees where the roots were forced under the concrete to use structural soil. It was a proprietary element developed at Cornel University. The material was a soil that would allow the tree roots to inigrate under the concrete to find their water source. City of Orange—Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for April 18,2012 Page 13 of 30 Mr. Madden stated those were recommendations that could move forward. Committee Member McCormack stated with turf planted in sand there needed to be a lot of water to keep the turf alive. With the water use calculation, he suggested that the turf not be labeled as moderate water use, but a high water use. The playing field was needed, but the amount of water that was needed for the turf area as proposed would be high. Mr. Madden stated they had prepared a preliminary water usage report. Committee Member McCormack stated he was suggesting that they review the report to understand that the water usage would be extremely high. The Sycamores should be those chosen froin column A. The only other change that he suggested was on the bio retention areas, the plant choices were good, but it lacked the most important plant that would reside at the bottom of the retention area. The choice would be for a plant that could withstand being under water, his choice would be Leymus. He had stood at the Fowler House and there were some big pipes and he wondered where the water would go; he assumed that area would have a significant revision. Mr. Madden asked if he had reviewed the hydrology plan and analysis in the EIR? Some of the water was put into zones with other areas captured in storm water and piped out. All of that had been taken into consideration and was included in section 4.5 of the draft EIR. Chair Woollett stated he wanted to address the comments already brought forth. Mr. Garcia stated in Chapter 7 of the Specific Plan it addressed the implementation and administration of the proposal, specifically section 8.4.4 and the site plan review submittal process. There was a list for required information and items that would be added to encompass such items as the Bott's dots and light standards; those could be recommendations for additions to those lists if the Committee chose to do that. Chair Woollett stated he understood that after the Site Plan Review process the plan might not necessarily return to the DRC. Mr. Garcia stated after the Site Plan Review it would coine back to the DRC. They could add anything additional that they wanted to review, such as a comprehensive sign program. Chair Woollett stated the DRC had a choice to attempt to put together their various comments in an action or to continue the itein with a request by Staff to compile those comments; and he felt per the discussion that no Committee Member had taken issue with the concerns that had been brought forth. Committee Member Fox stated she still had an issue with the massing and height issue on the worship center and she was wanting to discuss mitigation measures for that height. The elevation and site plan presented had not mitigated the height as there had been some large trees added to one side of the building. It affected her ability to approve the Specific Plan with the height limits proposed. City of Orange—Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for April 18,2012 Page 14 of 30 Chair Woollett stated he had previously stated there were good reasons for the 39' height based on the type of building it was. Since that time there had been a review of another project, the Chapman University's Performing Arts building where the floor of that building had been lowered to mitigate the appearance. If the height of the building was lowered from 39' to 36' the floor could be lowered and it would not necessarily change the interior space. Committee Member Fox stated they were pleased with the alternate plan that had been presented at the last DRC review; the building had been placed closer to Santiago and in that situation the height would be more appropriate. Chair Woollett stated the proximity of the building to Santiago, as he understood it, was a huge neighborhood issue. The neighbors on the south side of Frank Lane would see the height,but the neighbors on the other side were concerned with seeing the building from Santiago. Mr. Garcia stated that had been an issue in the submittal back in 2006. Committee Member Fox stated the problem could be solved for both of those issues with a height reduction. � A member of the public spoke, Ms. Cunningham asked if the DRC was aware that the Salem property was already elevated and the height would actually be closer to 40-something feet. Chair Woollett stated they would need to review where the measurement was taken from. If the building was on a mound it could be higher. There would be a site plan submission that would return to the DRC at a later date. Committee Member Fox stated the Specific Plan would remain with the project and the site plan would change, especially in light of the meeting that would be held with the community. It would be helpful to nail down recommendations for the Specific Plan. Mr. Garcia stated that was what Staff was looking for. Chair Woollett stated there were issues that had been raised by the neighbors and many of the issues such as traffic were not within their purview. The DRC had a choice, to provide a recommendation with some specific requests related to the design issues that related to the Specific Plan and not the conceptual drawings. They could address some specific items and move the project to the Planning Commission,understanding that the plan details would return to the DRC. There were some items that would be left more open than they might want them to be, such as the fencing and division of Frank Lane. Committee Member Fox stated there were several little parts. Chair Woollett stated the DRC could review their notes and the issues that had been presented and attempt to put those comments together as conditions or recommendations with further discussion to ensure that all the components of the project and the concerns raised were addressed. City of Orange—Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for April 18,2012 Page 15 of 30 Committee Member Fox stated they would be making a motion on the Specific Plan and the draft EIR and not the site plan? Chair Woollett stated the site plan was included in the Specific Plan. Committee 1Vlember Fox stated they would need to make recommendations that would be acceptable to them,understanding that the site plan would return. Mr. Garcia stated the recommendations would need to be tied to the Specific Plan in order to move the item to the Planning Commission and they needed to avoid getting too caught up in the conceptual plan. Chair Woollett stated any comments that were gathered from the community meetings would be shared with the Planning Commission. Committee 1VIember Fox stated there were several items in the memorandum from Salem, such as the chain link that the DRC would be rejecting. Mr. Madden stated it was a Specific Plan and the site plan was referenced in the documents of that plan; they spoke about the fencing, building height and landscape and it would be very helpful to put their concerns or requests into a recommendation to the Planning Commission with language that would cover what the DRC was desiring. The Committee Members reviewed and discussed their comments and concerns to put together a motion. Mr. Garcia stated, for the applicant's clarification, the DRC would also want to see a comprehensive sign program that would include way finding and the aesthetic elements of colors and inaterials. He asked if that would want to be brought back with the site plan review or in a separate presentation? Committee Member McCormack stated he would want to see it as it pertained to other elements, such as if there would be signage on the split rail fence. It would be a big design element. Yerbatim text: Committee Member Wheeler made motion to recommend approval to the Planning Commission of DRC No. 4538-11, Salem Lutheran Church and School, subject to the conditions in the Staff Report and subject to the findings in the Staff Report with the following conditions as recommended to the Planning Commission: • First, that the height of the worship center be reduced to 36'. , • Second, that the separation on Frank Lane that was shown to be made up of split rail fencing, textured pavement, Bott's dots with the final details of that separation to be submitted to the DRC as part of the Site Plan Review. • The applicant shall not install new chain link fencing in the northwest portion of the property and instead install new 6' maximum height square tube fencing in that area and that all existing chain link fencing to be removed and replaced with new square tube 6' City of Orange—Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for April 18,2012 Page 16 of 30 fencing, except where ball control fencing in the athletic field is required and that to be pre-finished rectangular welded wire fabric fencing with a maximum height of 6' with color of welded wire fabric fencing and support po�ts. to match the new steel tube fencing. • Next recommended condition that exterior lighting design to return to the DRC as part of the Site Plan Review. • Next item reconstruction of any structures on the property can be for reasons other than calamity. • Next item that the sign program for the project to be resubmitted to this Committee at Site Plan Review. • Mr. Garcia stated on the sign progr�xn to be a comprehensive sign program to include way finding, directional and those details to include that. Committee Member Wheeler stated he would include that. And in addition to those recommended conditions they had some other recommendations: • one that structural soil be employed at the Committee Member McCormack stated that should be a condition. Chair Woollett stated: • where trees would be planted adjacent to pavement. Committee Member Wheeler stated all right,with the following recommendations: • that the Sycamore to be the major tree. Committee Member McCormack stated that should be a condition. Committee Meinber Wheeler stated okay up that to a condition: • on the plant material, add that one at the bottom of the retention basin. Committee Member McCormack stated: • the plant material at the bottom of the retention basin to be Leymus. Committee Member Wheeler asked if there was any other? Mr. Garcia stated they had spoken about the Wisteria not being used. Committee Member Fox stated they would not have that as there would be no chain link fence. Committee Member Imboden stated he had no aversion to Wisteria; he had an aversion to Wisteria on a chain linlc fence. Ciry of Orange—Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for April 18,2012 Page 17 of 30 SECOND: Carol Fox AYES: Carol Fox,Robert Iinboden, Tim McCormack, Craig Wheeler,Joe Woollett NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None MOTION CARRIED. RP I� � : '��'� . �P,� 1 h : � 7 _ I r { �� ^ ~{ � �� F� �� {l� _�p! ' ,��F,��yr��i'� �p -�_,J x :r''a I - �' � y �` , , i `� "i, �•��' _ '- ,r `J� � ' �� r ;t . -"�:�, _. � c �',, . n� � .��, '..1� �i i .t� ) . � � �'�� ' .. _. -i.: ' .�` f� � .g�.. � �� '� � — �.. ��'� �,� �-�� i,��t�� • � . �- 4 �, � ..�� '�` ��`� - - —� I� j �� ` � 'y�� U F'+( �-.� _ � � ._ •"- ��_ �- - ,�.. �� j —__. . ...... ....... . `�F, .'^�"A . _i � -. ...�_. . . � • „�, , � �: 4A18 N2�b'd_�JNb2lD - _ � t - _... :_�_•. _.� � � � � � �-- I _, � � _ _ � . ------- _--- �*` a _ ,�t�J- _ � f � '� --- I f� ' r r �Y " � � ;� ! jj{ /' � Y� e�� '1 Y�� I Ai � � r �I ; .� ��µ��. �, {j 1' ,,` ,} ,� : § ` , ��'� �` �`� , ��.� � � � �- ��-� -. '� r � � ; � 'd ; � Y� � � ' ' � o � �� I r'��f r ' � �;�'•' ,�;, � . � ;� �'.i:; �1�7-r F' , ti� `,��,. _. � � � � r � .. _�._. �. , Q 1 ;� �+�� $.; �"� ! _ � Q , � ,. ,t�: � rf ' � � A,,�. � , � r�'�� ;� i�� /� �,r ' �:f �� - �_�� . C �� • :�.�, ' ' O !'.. �� '� .� � k ' _ .�;, � � ��'� �� ;��, 4i � � � ! � �0 �,� ,Ed j �� __ f r ��: �.� �� _ )/) /� �' r � i/f � .(i• \ , !�f�,.., ` _ r ) � �`. . � F�� '�. T' 'e�S F&i ,� i . . . , i�• �, a4' �� ,�� 1�� ` ` � -- - - r� t � e s� T�< r+ g� . ,r� � �i" � - (�, � �>. �' A� i ''�!�. � 1�(� \. ��o '�,*",v +4�� ' yl �� 'M • . ,a` 4.��,' ; I ." �- �J � �� f' �� "' � ��11►.��`►"s� 9 �� < ��" ' �� r �l�=' � '�� , � � � � �� ,v �� ■� 1, � � � � ��'� <, �J' � _ ��a`��#1 � �` - ,{� '�",Y�+ \'�1. . � r . :� , , � *;�� ^� �}?d m I y�;� '�+ j � ' :t�� '��7- �� z �� t` dR,�.�� . �r�.�!�:. /. �,. � '� r � ��• `' �7- *f�� F' ' -.. ; � + .�r �� -.�"� \\ -J • _ � � •, x� f�._ '.. . . . . '' , � "r. �,<<� � - �� `: Y:F \% �, �'� � % � ' �¢, �� .� I .'�—�_ � : - - �� g �i A .•L. � �1 � � ��, y�q • � 4 /., �� + � ' rw �"'.� _• \ r � � � '; .� ��",.� , im. '� '•a�t , 1 j -� ' t.� � A � �, i��'\ �a � � 1�� ;=., �,�£ � ll V� �' l.�j� � ~� ,f' / � ' _ �°� �� dy . � �� Y ._ '�� .V _ .� ��'� _— � � /�� _ _ . , . �, �� *� \ � . - t4��'� t�- +� ��.#( � \� -`� � ft � k ; I �" i �\ '�``�. . . . 5 t e � f � � r�� t .� . � '�� _ l`� � � � � �" �'' w _"'1-=,:.� �� ,,r p+ . . u i � ye .. � � - .�ro,. t _ „ , ��'� J . .. , �� f �� - � � . � ,�� _ y� i� � �� 'k � . ��,� � ;-'� �� - � � . �-.r. . � ,f�s.�� '�, .� � --_ . � � � _ � � ti ��; � ��t �D,:�' � � 1 ' •�� k� �� ' � �. , '�� w� . � � �x � 1�_� � F.�r �� Tfi ,� �� .. � - , , _ , . ' . .� :.;� � �� • •� �. - ,� . , _ .=.cs_.. .: : .. �''}��., _ . � . � 1 � 11 .�A.�:•t ci W ��, �v r] J .f>J : -� ,'.c 'rB _3:-1't�r ; .l�l�:5a � � r� q�' � �r7 . la'. .v_?r !A J�d.5a70 0_-+:�„y,; � ,-r��f-r f) 1"� �?�f.yrl l #�3/� i i i,� .' � '� f -„, l'=r-�e+: �r �� :3J.�, f �_,.� ;i�r,; � 7:f:�) �� .� . Y�- � :�'�: . ( �._.._ „�,.,,,h �I,�`�., r .,` ' 'f '. . . `'�+' . . t . i�`�- � ��`-�� -� .E ,` -. _q ci� - �` � F, S � ,� �f `� !� �: 4��'4 3 4 A�y` � � ��~� � ~��',... � � } ` � 1 -- ~ � L"`_ T �1A 1� ""%� � �y` �fT _�� j f`� �� _�� -•-�' ' 1�`�'�-. ��_}-. , f,. Y i�' � �f �� tti �'' � � �' � � � f �i i � �; � � � � � � �� "�.� �•, ��i' 2� ( �. - � �- -�'�-s a- � �. �, � �t-� * i • `` + { � � � R' r� , ( ',j ��r I �� I � 'Y � � y4 � ! ' o. (�' � 'd .k- ' ��' J ' �. ;,� ,,� �� E t' .1�� i�.: i , �� 1� � �� :� � �`� �`� � �r i ! ��•i ��a i�i I ; �� ; � Si t � �� J � 1.,� `� ��1. � `'` ��J..� 0 I ,5. �,�� ' � , € -J ,9 , �� o . .<:r. �I � � .v=. <:�. �� ' t-l � .fr. .. ` <: • \y� '' �� 7 r' ,� �,� � ,� f -, �,� �: i i �_ .� z �� >rrr ��u I � I � I�' � � 1 i� 3 Uc� �;�J � �� ` I 41 , C.: �� i� �,-•s • � I � �{. � � __.....r.,� I �-t . ._�.;�'i I _ ...-,�.. t�i I � �- S t - •�} � `� _' 1�. �- !�� - _�Z ��; ��r � �' � - r ` - �; � ': -- 3,� ��.� '�v,;, "��y;� -�,j -�= �-� _ _ ��.`,..�� -- ��, ' �W' - �f'� i:, �-,--- ��`j I�4 � � �� , .F� � �� ze/ i � 4�, I I 'f��, ., ; � . �, �� . _ ��; , ,, , i .`4"�c�'�I 1� -•� � � �^3 °'� �J � �a� " .� s�� r r�� , � � I- ► ! � ��i-, � , -` I , r �; , : 4 ti �o ( Y�' � �., '� � ` oa ` � , „ �, ; � I � I i � �' l `� . . __`.��a�� tt� � {y. -.�.�.�'1 `�` � J�.,x� Si i �`. - �j j� �. %..:.t C} i� ---'.-�a� G � �` �✓ �� t� �� ' t'1 `r�� I Ul �;��r '�� Uj L �r Ir � Uy �-'� � i '11 '�� ° � �: ' �c; � � � t� �' 3 n: �� ►.� , � u . � �� . r; � �� i , � � �� I � • � � � � i , � � ° s' �' 1 �i f d � ( �- I 1 ;-�.� '' I �` '`_ '+.� 1 "" H >'a� .. ..,.��l{4 ,�h ��_ .�I �,i '� _.d.)' � �� f a-" ,,.�� , c:,.. -/r � K 1! �,�. - IR4 � I t� I I7 �f � fIy � --I��? � � z ; ,� � q I ., � � t - i '� _ I t , L, l ; �1'`�ji�`� ,�� 0 �'�� ! �i `�i•�!� �� r_�£. i�1i» n �i�:�l �t �� 1 W �� 5:� S4 �`'� r� �;, � � , �, 'J m t� ,� 9 r� , Y V] � �� y: � vi,� ',, '4J�'}i i `�� ; �'C� n ''li� �� W ��a '�. u [ • ��i r�, t o��I ` � � �' �7 n� . \ :9 u.� u� �,_ �R, .` n. I u 1, � � �u n ; v b ` i �� ! l `k,� w ` !U �!I �:` �; t' e� �3 �'t� V` ,�_ '�,� J; �i �I t W '��L �. I a ��1'' fij � �; ; :� . � �� ' .� � �i , .� ; * � g�`I � .� �< <� � �' � , :� 9�' �i t :;' � 9:' �i � 'a � ( ! ' �e: a ; I � � �� i � � ,�y i s �, ,�, �� y k � �� '- � ��- r� � �' � � ` `F[� �i ,� �(J � -- l` r _ J�-: - ? -1" - '� �. ; �` � �j ' , � � �� _ i1 / � _ ;� 'I�� "- _�,�� --- - __�� ! ' ---- � �'. '� _,- '_ .r'.'.�.E` }� �J __�1i1<M1'n''r 14I ,�'aJ �i�'�a �� iJ _-1� �1 ��a �" +� l�i W !( �"� 'f � ,7� '� � i '� ,� � �I t�� f �' i Et > :'3 ( n-i �� y� I. � 11 " , li� f. � r4 s ;�� ' f � l� A�� ` M g . . \ �f Y \5j :J • " `�) -3 t �� ,�: lin�� `+�„} '\`� l r�.I � o I.`� ( e� 1 a'� `�.: L� a�. �y: , ( ;`I �-t�. t E �."`Rt,j� I � ! �f ��'v I � � :s-� \��`�y�" �a � c4 \?,_}�1 I ��l �� ` 1 I 1 t \ ., `� �. �`�� '-? � 'X� \��1 ..4 � ,\` �� ,. ' ,�A�l \� ¢� V J T� �t ,. 3 Y� ;\ � ;r� '� � �✓ '.� `j � ��1 A� � l.�Y J � �N .. �Y� '� � `�y., i� � l ` .� Y# � � �,�1�� Z �N .,�` f �I e�! ��' ,�+� f 1�� A1 � �l�, fj �� 1 � : ,� ' i '�� '.h�j� .� �� ( .�i � � � �� r i� '� � �� _ � 41't�� (� t i e:�� '.� i t��y <,,�� - e''� �a � r•': � � e, � i -- f ===�_..� � \`�:!'_�S� � \ _��"� ! `=..�\ �� ` i} � � a T"ff�f�j � � r`� � ' � �-j� ��;• Q ---% � I 1 --� �.r� �/�"� , � y*� � � '�� , E 4_ ;' � _—�. � r r�i :>co'.`� R' I `, 7 .sic_ � 'i � 1 � 4� .ua`= ��., it v..,u� I � �i � �)� � � t. �,'h ',.1� `� E! Cl� .`� I r�, ;U J J {I �l! . I , � `� T ; G � } .� � .r� _'�.� �}� � —;..� j�� _"_ '� j �1� r'-`7�- �.�j i ,r,:�,-_ � � ''�� '� � µ�� 1} , � 3 -;i �j ,-. F . "�� 4,�,��ic'S (� f J,�,." .� J -e � .-: l.r��s � � j�„-, j � _ a�i a i:7�{}t - �,� �'�"' ' �7;I v �� E .r.,, irs �� -�� .�: �t�.J f� � �:J�' _i �._,_� J n � � ; � � � � � �.� �h � "_t �-�f � - = '� —ir+-�� _ ' y ---4;-� 1 - s,� �� Ce� . ({ 7�'e � J:7�' . ; v O�-. . - 'n .1I {� � �� ! ;^ j : . � �� L n� 'I � V -;s ,� .a , �.� �i 1$�? �.y � r� '� � � �� 1 'ti � � �1 ��:�y` t .�1 I� 9 ( � � \ l ,.� � � �- :� 1 ; � � 1 , : ,� ��; , � . _ , � � � _. , � � � � ;'}� .u,� . r , . ti; I � -�......-� -;t, �� t�..� �cz�„,,'`�{� ��,, ;�.��=� ;�r >-,�.,.._.�� ,✓` io n.��i �,,�` �� _._ _�- i � _.� 'z , � ' � a :1 , ( ' ! I i I ;