HomeMy WebLinkAboutSR - GPA-2014-02 - ORANGE PARK ACRES COMPROMISE SPECIFIC PLAN EXHIBIT B �.
r�r
�
� D raft
�
� Environmental Impact Report
�, Salem Lutheran Church and
� School Specific Plan
� City of Orange, Orange County, California
�
State Clearinghouse No. 2011101046
�
r
..
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
�,,, www.cityoforange.org
� Contact: Robert Garcia, Associate Planner
�
�
� Prepared by:
� Michael Brandman Associates
� 220 Commerce, Suite 200
Irvine, CA 92602
,�,, Phone: 714.508.4100
�" Contact: Kevin Shannon, Project Manager
�
w
� �
Atichael Branriman rlsuaciatrs
�
January 26, 2012
�
i�r
EXHIBIT B
*�* DEIR STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
�, NO.2011101046 DATED 1/26/12
SALEM LUTHERAN
� MARCH 10,2015 CC MTG.
�r
Draft
Environmental Impact Report
Salem Lutheran Church and
School 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
www.cityoforange.org
Contact: Robert Garcia, Associate Planner
Prepared by:
Michael Brandman Associates
220 Commerce, Suite 200
Irvine, CA 92602
Phone: 714.508.4100
Contact: Kevin Shannon, Project Manager
���� ..TT�
, �����
\lieh.�cl RranJntm \�+�>d.urs
January 26, 2012
Sa/em Lutheran Church and Schoo/Specific P/an
Draft EIR Table of Contents
Table of Contents
Section1: introduction......................................................................................................1-1
1.1 - Overview, Purpose, and Authority of the Draft EIR..........................................1-1
1.2 - Scope of the Draft EIR.....................................................................................1-2
1.3 - Technical Documents and Supporting Materials..............................................1-7
1.4 - Lead Agency, Consultant, and Project Applicant.............................................1-8
1.5 - Review of the Draft EIR....................................................................................1-8
Section 2: Executive Summary.........................................................................................2-1
2.1 - Purpose............................................................................................................2-1
2.2 - Project Summary..............................................................................................2-1
2.3 - Significant Unavoidable Impacts......................................................................2-3
2.4 - Summary of Project Alternatives......................................................................2-4
2.5 - Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and Project
DesignFeatures ..............................................................................................2-4
Section 3: Project Description..........................................................................................3-1
3.1 - Project Location ...............................................................................................3-1
3.2 - Project Summary, Background and Site Plan Chronology...............................3-1
3.3 - Project Objectives..........................................................................................3-10
3.4 - Project Characteristics...................................................................................3-13
3.5 - Project Phasing..............................................................................................3-33
3.6 - Required Public Agency Approvals and Requested Entitlements..................3-34
Section 4: Environmental Impact Analysis......................................................................4-1
Approach and Method to Environmental Analysis....................................................4-1
EnvironmentalTopics...............................................................................................4-1
Format Used for Impact Analysis.............................................................................4-1
4.1 -Aesthetics......................................................................................................4.1-1
4.2 -Air Quality......................................................................................................4.2-1
4.3 - Greenhouse Gas Emissions .........................................................................4.3-1
4.4 - Hazards and Hazardous Materials................................................................4.4-1
4.5 - Hydrology and Water Quality ........................................................................4.5-1
4.6 - Land Use and Planning.................................................................................4.6-1
4.7 - Noise.............................................................................................................4.7-1
4.8 - Transportation and Traffic.............................................................................4.8-1
4.9 - Utilities and Service Systems........................................................................4.9-1
Section 5: Cumulative Impacts.........................................................................................5-1
5.1 - Introduction and Summary of Cumulative Impacts ..........................................5-1
5.2 - Related Projects...............................................................................................5-2
5.3 - Cumulative Impacts..........................................................................................5-3
Section 6: Growth Inducing, Unavoidable Adverse, and Irreversible Impacts ............6-1
. 6.1 - Growth-Inducing Impacts.................................................................................6-1
6.2 - Unavoidable Adverse Impacts .........................................................................6-1
6.3 - Irreversible Impacts..........................................................................................6-2
Michael Brandman Associates iii
H.\Client(PN-IN)�3771\37710001�E[It\9-DEQL\37710001 Sec00-02 Salem TOC.doc
Salem Lutheran Church and Schoo/Specific P/an
Draft E/R Tab/e of Contents
�
Section 7: Alternatives to the Project..............................................................................7-1 3
7.1 - introduction ......................................................................................................7-1
7.2 -Alternatives Identified for Evaluation and Reasons for Including Selected �
Alternatives......................................................................................................7-2 #_
7.3 - Conclusion Summaries and Environmentally Superior Alternative................7-10
7.4 - Project Alternative Comparison .....................................................................7-13 """
7.5 - Project Objective Feasibility Summary...........................................................7-23
Section 8: Significant and Unavoidable Impacts............................................................8-1 W�,
Section 9: Other Long-Term Implications .......................................................................9-1
9.1 - Growth-Inducing Impacts.................................................................................9-1
9.2 - Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment to Resources.................................9-1 �R
9.3 - Cumulative Impacts .........................................................................................9-3
Section 10: Report Preparation Resources...................................................................10-1
10.1 - Draft EIR Preparation Personnel ................................................................. 10-1 '�`
10.2 - Technical Subconsultants............................................................................ 10-1
10.3 - Organizations and Persons Consulted ........................................................10-1
F.,..
ection 11: References ...................................................................................................11-1
Appendix A: Notice of Preparation, Initial Study, and Comment Letters "�"
A.1 - Notice of Preparation and Initial Study �.�.
A.2 - Public Comment Letters
Appendix B: City of Orange, City Attorney's Office: Memo - February 8, 2010 �
Appendix C: City of Orange, Design Review Committee, Draft Minutes - May 17, 2006; �
Neighbor Response Letter - September 22, 2008 ,�
C.1 - Design Review Committee Draft Minutes - May 17, 2006
,�_
.2 - Neighbor Response Letter- September 22, 2008
Appendix D: Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Analysis Report �
Appendix E: Environmental Data Resources, Inc. (EDR) Map Report �'
Appendix F: Hydrology and Water Quality ,,�,
F.1 - Hydrologic Assessment: November 4, 2011
F.2 - Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan: November 11, 2011 ��``
Appendix G: Noise Impact Analysis +�
Appendix H: Traffic Impact and Parking Demand Analysis ���
Appendix I: Salem Lutheran Church and School Specific Plan ��
Appendix J: Overflow Parking Plan ,w..
,�.
Michae/Brandman Associates ��
H\Client(PN-JN)�3771\37710001�EIR\9-DEIIt\37710001 Sec00-02 Salem TOC.doc ����
Salem Lutheran Church and School Specific Plan
Draft EIR Table of Contents
List of Tables
Table 1-1: Technical Studies and Supporting Materials.......................................................1-7
Table 2-1: Impacts and Mitigation Measures Summary.......................................................2-5
Table3-1: Land Use Summary..........................................................................................3-13
Table 3-2: Statistical Summary..........................................................................................3-14
Table 3-3: Proposed Improvements by Phase...................................................................3-33
Table 4.1-1: Comparison of OPA Plan Aesthetics Policies to Salem Lutheran Church
SpecificPlan...............................................................................................4.1-17
Table 4.2-1: Air Pollutant Standards, Effects, Properties, and Sources............................4.2-4
Table 4.2-2: Best Available Control Measures - SCAQMD Rule 403 ...............................4.2-9
Table 4.2-3: Local Air Quality Monitoring Summary—Anaheim Pampas Lane ..............4.2-14
Table 4.2-4: South Coast Air Basin Attainment Status ...................................................4.2-15
Table 4.2-5: SCAQMD Significance Thresholds.............................................................4.2-18
Table 4.2-6: Significance Threshold and Corresponding Draft EIR Impact Number.......4.2-19
Table 4.2-7: Short-Term Localized Construction Emissions...........................................4.2-23
Table 4.2-8: Traffic Intersection Analysis - 2010.............................................................4.2-24
Table 4.2-9: Short-Term Regional Construction Emissions............................................4.2-26
Table 4.2-10: Regional Operational Emissions...............................................................4.2-28
Table 4.3-1: Greenhouse Gases.......................................................................................4.3-3
Table 4.3-2: Greenhouse Gas Emissions Significance Threshold and Corresponding
Draft EIR Impact Number...........................................................................4.3-10
Table 4.3-3: Construction Greenhouse Gases................................................................4.3-12
Table 4.3-4: Operational Greenhouse Gases.................................................................4.3-12
Table 4.3-5: Total Annualized Greenhouse Gas Emissions ...........................................4.3-13
Table 4.3-6: General Plan Consistency ..........................................................................4.3-14
Table 4.4-1: Hazards and Hazardous Materials Significance Threshold and
Corresponding Draft EIR Impact Number ....................................................4.4-7
Table 4.5-1: Salem Lutheran Church and School Existing Condition Runoff Volume
Summary and Peak Flow Rate.....................................................................4.5-5
Table 4.5-2: Salem Lutheran Church and School Proposed Condition Runoff Volume
Summary and Condition Peak Flow Rate ....................................................4.5-6
Table 4.5-3: 2-Year Storm Event Conditions (Hydromodification) - Peak Flow Rate (Q)4.5-10
Table 4.5-4: 2-Year Storm Event Conditions (Hydromodification) —Time of
Concentration (Tc)......................................................................................4.5-10
�.�,
Table 4.5-5: 2-Year Storm Event Conditions (Hydromodification) —Volume..................4.5-
Table 4.5-6: Anticipated and Potential Pollutants Generated by Land Use Type...........4.5-12
„= Table 4.5-7: Combined Risk Level Matrix.......................................................................4.5-20
Table4.5-8: Site Design BMPs.......................................................................................4.5-21
Michael 8randman Associates �
H:\Client(PN-IN)�3771\37710001�E'.IR\9-DEIIt\37710001 Sec00-02 Salem TOC.doc
Sa/em Lutheran Church and Schoo/Specifc Plan
DraR E/R Tab/e of Contents
�,
Table 4.5-9: Non-Structural Source Control BMPs.........................................................4.5-21
u..
Table 4.5-10: Structural Source Control BMPs...............................................................4.5-22
Table4.5-11: Infiltration ..................................................................................................4.5-24 �
�.,
Table 4.5-12: Preliminary Water Quality Treatment Summary .......................................4.5-26
Table 4.5-13: Hydrology and Water Quality Significance Threshold and Corresponding """`
DraftEIR Impact Number...........................................................................4.5-29 ,__
Table 4.5-14: Construction-Related Pollutants...............................................................4.5-38 �
Table 4.5-15: Beneficial Uses.........................................................................................4.5-42
Table 4.6-1: Land Use and Planning Significance Threshold and Corresponding Draft
EIRImpact Number......................................................................................4.6-6 "�
Table 4.6-2: Proposed Project Consistency with Orange Park Acres Specific Plan.........4.6-7
Table 4.6-3: Project Consistency with the City of Orange General Plan: Land Use „�.
Element......................................................................................................4.6-19
Table 4.6-4: Project Consistency with the City of Orange General Plan: Natural �n
Resources..................................................................................................4.6-25 �
Table 4.6-5: Project Consistency with the City of Orange General Plan: Public Safety �.
Element......................................................................................................4.6-30
Table 4.6-6: Project Consistency with the City of Orange General Plan: Circulation and �
MobilityElement.........................................................................................4.6-34 �
Table 4.6-7: Project Consistency with the City of Orange General Plan: Noise Element4.6-39 „�,
Table 4.6-8: Project Consistency with the City of Orange General Plan: Cultural
�,
Resources and Historic Preservation Element...........................................4.6-42
Table 4.6-9: Project Consistency with the City of Orange General Plan: Infrastructure '"�
Element......................................................................................................4.6-45 ,�
Table 4.6-10: Project Consistency with the City of Orange General Plan: Urban Design
Element......................................................................................................4.6-48 ��
Table 4.6-11: Project Consistency with the City of Orange General Plan: Growth �
ManagementElement................................................................................4.6-52 „�„
Table 4.6-12: Project Consistency with the City of Orange General Plan: Economic ��
DevelopmentElement................................................................................4.6-54
Table 4.6-13: Project Consistency with the City of Orange General Plan: Housing "°
Element......................................................................................................4.6-58 �--
Table 4.6-14: Project Consistency with City Master Plan for Trails ................................4.6-74
,..
Table 4.7-1: Existing (Ambient) Weekday Noise Level Measurements............................4.7-7
<...
Table 4.7-2: Existing (Ambient) Sunday Noise Level Measurements...............................4.7-8
Table 4.7-3: Existing Noise Levels at Nearby Sensitive Receptors..................................4.7-9 "�
Table 4.7-4: Existing Weekday Roadway Noise Contours .............................................4.7-10 "'��
Table 4.7-5: Existing Sunday Roadway Noise Contours ................................................4.7-13 '�
Table 4.7-6: City of Orange Maximum Allowable Noise Exposure - Stationary Noise •*
Sources......................................................................................................4.7-16
Table 4.7-7: City of Orange Municipal Code Exterior Noise Standards..........................4.7-17 ��
Michae/Brandman Associates �� ;�
H�\Client(PN-IN)�3771\37710001�EIR\9-DEIR\37710001 Sec00-02 Salem TOC.doc
Salem Lutheran Church and School Specific Plan
Draft EIR Table of Contents
Table 4.7-8: City of Orange Municipal Code Interior Noise Standards...........................4.7-17
Table 4.7-9: Noise Significance Threshold and Corresponding Draft EIR Impact
Number.......................................................................................................4.7-21
Table 4.7-10: Demolition Noise Impacts at Nearby Sensitive Receptors Prior to
Mitigation....................................................................................................4.7-22
Table 4.7-11: Grading Noise Impacts at Nearby Sensitive Receptors............................4.7-23
Table 4.7-12:Building Construction Noise Impacts at Nearby Sensitive Receptors........4.7-24
Table 4.7-13:Weekday Project Traffic Noise Contributions ............................................4.7-25
Table 4.7-14: Sunday Project Traffic Noise Contributions..............................................4.7-26
Table 4.7-15: Project Only Onsite Noise Sources Noise Levels at Nearby Sensitive
Receptors...................................................................................................4.7-27
Table 4.7-16: Onsite Sources Maximum Noise Levels at Nearby Sensitive Receptors..4.7-28
Table 4.7-17: Stationary and Transportation Noise Impacts at Nearby Sensitive
Receptors...................................................................................................4.7-30
Table 4.7-18: Mitigated Demolition Noise Impacts at Nearby Sensitive Receptors........4.7-33
Table 4.7-19: Vibration Source Levels for Construction Equipment ...............................4.7-34
Table 4.7-20: Onsite Operational Noise Impacts............................................................4.7-36
Table 4.8-1: Level of Service Descriptions - Signalized Intersections ..............................4.8-4
Table 4.8-2: Level of Service Descriptions— Stop-Controlled Intersections.....................4.8-5
Table 4.8-3: Transportation and Traffic Significance Threshold and Corresponding
Draft EIR Impact Number.............................................................................4.8-6
Table 4.8-4: Existing (2010) AM Peak Hour Levels of Service .........................................4.8-8
Table 4.8-5: Weekday AM Year 2010 Existing + Project Intersection Peak Hour Levels
ofService ...................................................................................................4.8-19
Table 4.8-6: Sunday AM Year 2010 Existing + Project Intersection Peak Hour Levels
ofService ...................................................................................................4.8-20
Table 4.8-7: Parking Requirements ................................................................................4.8-22
Table 4.9-1: Orange County Landfills ...............................................................................4.9-8
Table 4.9-2: Utilities and Service Systems Significance Threshold and Corresponding
Draft EIR Impact Number...........................................................................4.9-10
Table 5-1: Cumulative Impact Comparison..........................................................................5-2
Table 5-2: Related Projects..................................................................................................5-3
Table 7-1: Sunday AM Existing Plus Project Intersection Peak Hour Levels of Service....7-12
Table 7-2: Alternative Impact Comparison by Topical Environmental Issue......................7-13
Table 7-3: Impact Summary Comparison of Project Alternatives ......................................7-23
Table 7-4: Project Objective Feasibility Comparison .........................................................7-23
Michael Brandman Associates VO
H\Clien[(PN-JN)�3771\37710001�EIIt\9-DEIR\37710001 Sec00-02 Salem 7'OC.doc
�
Sa/em Lutheran Church and Schoo/Specific P/an
Draft EIR Tab/e of Contents
�
List of Exhibits
Exhibit 3-1: Regional Location Map .....................................................................................3-3 ,�,
Exhibit 3-2: Local Vicinity Map - Topographic Base.............................................................3-5
Exhibit 3-3: Local Vicinity Map -Aerial Base .......................................................................3-7
�.
Exhibit 3-4: Existing Onsite Uses.......................................................................................3-11
Exhibit 3-5: Conceptual Development Plan .......................................................................3-17
Exhibit 3-6: Landscape Master Plan ..................................................................................3-19 �
Exhibit 3-7: Future Conceptual Preschool Building Elevation............................................3-21
Exhibit 3-8: Future Conceptual Worship Center Building Elevation...................................3-23 �
Exhibit 3-9: Fire Department Requirements.......................................................................3-29
Exhibit3-10: Phasing Plan.................................................................................................3-35 ,�
Exhibit 4.1-1a: Site Photograph Key Map........................................................................4.1-3
Exhibit 4.1-1b: Site Photographs 1 and 2 .........................................................................4.1-5 k
Exhibit 4.1-1b: Site Photographs 3 and 4 .........................................................................4.1-7 �
Exhibit 4.1-1b: Site Photographs 5 and 6 .........................................................................4.1-9 fi
Exhibit 4.1-1b: Site Photographs 7 and 8 .......................................................................4.1-11 "�'
Exhibit 4.1-1b: Site Photographs 9 and 10 .....................................................................4.1-13 ��
Exhibit 4.1-2: Frank Lane Enhancements......................................................................4.1-23 ,,,�
Exhibit 4.1-3: Santiago Canyon Road Entry Enhancements ..........................................4.1-27 �,
Exhibit 4.1-4: Walls, Fences and Monumentation Details..............................................4.1-29
�
Exhibit 4.5-1: Preliminary Water Quality Plan...................................................................4.5-3
Exhibit 4.5-2: Existing Hydrology ......................................................................................4.5-7 �
Exhibit 4.5-3: Erosion Prevention Plan ...........................................................................4.5-33 ''""�
Exhibit 4.7-1: Noise Monitoring Locations and Nearby Sensitive Receptors....................4.7-5 �'
Exhibit 4.7-2: Sunday Noise Contours............................................................................4.7-11 �
Exhibit 4.7-3: Onsite Locations of Portable Lights and Generators ................................4.7-31 ,�_
Exhibit 4.8-1: Roadway and Intersection Characteristics..................................................4.8-9
�
Exhibit 4.8-2: Weekday School Circulation Plan.............................................................4.8-11
..,
Exhibit 4.8-3: Sunday Church Circulation Plan...............................................................4.8-13
Exhibit 4.8-4: Santiago Canyon Road Entry ...................................................................4.8-15 '�
Exhibit4.8-5: Frank Lane................................................................................................4.8-17
Exhibit 4.9-1: Water System Plan .....................................................................................4.9-3 .��,
Exhibit 4.9-2: Sewer System Plan.....................................................................................4.9-5
Exhibit 4.9-3: Grading, Earthwork and Storm Drainage Plan..........................................4.9-13 ,�,
Exhibit 7-1: Single Access Alternative .................................................................................7-7
Michael Brandman Associates viii
H-\Client(PN-JN)�3771\37710001�EIIt\9-DEIIL\37710001 Sec00-02 Salem TOC.doc "
Salem Lutheran Church and School Specific Plan
Draft EIR Introduction
SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION
1.1 - Overview, Purpose, and Authority of the Draft EIR
This Draft Environmental Impact Report(Draft EIR)evaluates the potential environmental impacts
associated with approving the proposed Salem Lutheran Church and School Specific Plan(Salem
Specific Plan) for the existing Salem Lutheran Church and School located within the City of Orange
(City). The Salem Specific Plan incorporates all of the existing uses on the 6.03-acre site, which is
located at the southwest corner of South of Santiago Canyon Road and Orange Park Boulevard. The
proposed Salem Specific Plan proposes redesign of the church and school campus with a new worship
center that includes a sanctuary, conference and meeting rooms, and administrative offices. The
existing, onsite preschool will be relocated to an existing onsite vacant structure. Onsite
infrastructure will be redesigned by upgrading and improving storm water conveyance and water
quality management systems. Additionally, onsite parking will be redesigned to increase the number
of parking spaces. Refer to Section 3, Project Description of this document, where the full project
description is provided. The Salem Specific Plan represents a redesign of the existing, onsite uses
and does not propose new uses. There will be no changes to the school uses, which currently exist.
The redesign is intended to accommodate the growing congregation by integrating existing uses with
the construction of a new worship center resulting in a site plan with more efficient traffic flow,
increased parking, and improved infrastructure.
1.1.1 - Planning Case Numbers
The City assigned the following planning case numbers to this project:
• Environmental Impact Report No. 1827-I 1
• Zone Change No. 1259-11
• Design Review Committee No. 4538-I 1
• Specific Plan(SP No. SPLAN-0002)
1.1.2 - Purpose and Authority
This Draft EIR evaluates the potential environmental impacts associated with the Salem project. The
scope of this Draft EIR is discussed below in Section 1.2. This document conforms to the following:
• California Environmental Quality Act(Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.)
• State CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations Section 15000 et seq.)
• City of Orange Local CEQA Guidelines, April 11, 2006
This Draft EIR is intended to serve as an informational document for public agency decision-makers
and the public in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA). Environmental
impacts are analyzed to the degree of specificity prescribed by the State CEQA (Guidelines) Section
Michael Brandman Associates 1-1
H.\Client(PN-IN)�3771\37710001�EIlt\9-DEIIt\37710001 Sec01-OOlntroduction.doc
Sa/em Lutheran Church and Schoo/Specific P/an
Introduction Draft ElR
�
]5146. This document will address the potentially significant adverse environmental impacts that
may be associated with both short-term construction period and long-term operations of the project,
and will identify appropriate and feasible mitigation measures and alternatives in accordance with �f
CEQA. �
�
1.1.3 - Lead Agency Determination
Guidelines Section 15367 defines the Lead Agency as"... the public agency, which has the principal
responsibility far carrying out or approving a project." Criteria considered in identifying the Lead �
Agency include whether the agency: 1)has the greatest responsibility for supervising or approving `
the project as a whole; 2) is an agency with the general governmental powers; and 3) will act first on �
the project in question(Guidelines §I5051). As previously stated,the Lead Agency far this Draft
EIR is the City. In this capacity,the City is responsible for review of the environmental
documentation through certification of a Final EIR. �
In accordance with Section 15091 of the Guidelines,the Lead Agency would be required to make „,�
findings for each environmental impact of the project that cannot be mitigated below a level of
significance, should the Lead Agency determine that the benefits of the proposed project outweigh
unm�tigated, significant environmental effects that would remain after project implementation. The
�.
City would be required to adopt a statement of overriding considerations, stating the reasons `
supporting this action, regardless of the project's significant environmental effects that would remain. ,,,�:
This Draft EIR reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the City as required by the
�
Guidelines. Lists of organizations and persons consulted and the report preparation personnel are
provided in Section 10 of this document. ''"�"
�
1.2 - Scope of the Draft EIR
��
The scope of this Draft EIR includes information contained in the entitlement application, written �
comments received from public agencies and the public in response to the Notice of Preparation ,,,�
(NOP). Appendix A contains the written comments.
��
Project-Level Environmental Analysis. This Draft EIR contains project-level analysis with the ""�"
expectation that no additional environmental review will be required after the City certifies the Final ��
EIR and subsequently approves the project. Other State Responsible Agencies would be able to
A11R
approve subsequent actions germane to their respective areas of statutory responsibility without
��.
additional environmental review and documentation.
��
Related Actions. This Draft EIR also considers a series of actions related to the proposed project , .
that are needed to achieve the redesign for the Salem project and subsequent development activities.
��
Additional City approvals (e.g., grading permits,building permits, etc.)will be needed. Actions
involved in the implementation of the proposed project are described in Section 3 of this document. �
1"2 Michael Brandman Associates �,,,,
H�.\Client(PN-JN)�3771\37710001�EIIL\9-DEIR\37710001 Sec01-OOInVoduc[ion.doc �
ro-
Salem Lutheran Church and School Specific P/an
Draff EIR Introduction
Other agencies that may have discretionary approval over the project, or components thereof, are also
described in that section.
Initial Study. In order to focus the preparation of this Draft EIR, an Initial Study (Appendix A.l)
was prepared. Section 15063(c)(3) of the Guidelines identifies the following purposes for preparing
an Initial Study:
• Focus the Draft EIR on the effects determined to be significant.
• Identify the effects determined not to be significant.
• Explain the reasons for determining that potentially significant effects would not be significant.
• Identify whether a program Draft EIR,tiering, or another appropriate process can be used for
analysis of the project's environmental effects.
1.2.1 - Environmental Issues Not Found To Be Significant
The Initial Study prepared far the Salem project determined that certain topical environmental issues
were determined not to be significantly affected by the implementation of the proposed project and do
not require further analysis in this Draft EIR in accordance with Guidelines Section 15128. Each of
these is separately discussed below. For the complete discussion of each topical environmental issue,
refer to the Initial Study contained in Appendix A.1.
Agricultural and Forest Resources
The Initial Study circulated with the NOP evaluated potential impacts related to Agricultural
Resources and concluded that implementation of the Salem project would not result in significant
impacts to this topical environmental issue. The site is not designated as Prime Farmland, Unique
Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance, zoned for agricultural use under the City Zoning
Code, or enrolled in a Williamson Act contract. In addition,the site is not devoted to agricultural
production. Regarding farest resources,the Salem project does not conflict with existing zoning for
forestland or timberland. The project site is currently developed with Church and school uses and is
zoned as R-1-40(Single-Family Residentia140,000 sq ft)by the City of Orange. Thus,the proposed
project will not result in the loss of forestland and will not convert forestland to non-forest use.
Biological Resources
The Initial Study circulated with the NOP evaluated potential impacts related to Biological Resources
and concluded that implementation of the Salem project would not result in significant impacts to this
topical environmental issue. The properties nearby the proposed project include already developed
sites, within a developed portion of the City of Orange. As depicted in Figure VI-4, Wildlife Habitat
Areas, of the Orange County General Plan(2005),the proposed project is not located within a
wildlife habitat area.
Thus, development of the project site would not impact any listed or candidate species, or their
habitats. The proposed project falls within the boundaries of the Natural Communities Conservation
Michael Brandman Associates 1-3
H:\Client(PN-1N)�3771\37710001�EIIt\9-DEIR\37710001 Sec01-OOlntroduction.doc
�t.
Salem Lutheran Church and Schoo/Specific P/an
Introduction DraR ElR
�
Plan (NCCP) and Habitat Conservation Plan(HCP)- County of Orange Central and Coastal Sub- �
Region. However,the NCCP/HCP identifies the site as Non-Reserve and does not identify the site as
�;
a Reserve, Special Linkage, Existing Use Area, or Non-Reserve Open Space. Thus, no impact to
�ological resources is anticipated.
<.,:
Cultural Resources �
The lnitial Study circulated with the NOP evaluated potential impacts related to Cultural Resources
and concluded that implementation of the Salem project would not result in significant impacts to this '"�
topical environmental issue. As detailed in the City of Orange General Plan Program Environmental �_��
Impact Report(Figure 5.5-2) and the County of Orange General Plan (Figure VI-10, Prehistoric ,,,�
Archeology -General Areas of Sensitivity, Orange County General Plan, 2005), there are no known
archaeological resources on the proposed project site or in the vicinity of the site. If any �
archaeological resources are discovered during grading and construction activities, work in the area �`
would cease and deposits would be treated in accordance with federal, State, and local guidelines �-
including those set forth in California Public Resources Code Section 21083.2. In addition, if it is �
determined that an archaeological site is a historical resource, the provisions of Section 21084.1 of the
Public Resources Code and CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5 would be implemented. Thus,
impacts to cultura]resources will not be significant. "�"
The Native American Heritage Commission provided written comments stating the Sacred Lands File 4
u+n.
search did not identify any Native American cultural resources within the project area.
�,.
Geology and Soils
�
The Initial Study circulated with the NOP evaluated potential impacts related to Geology and Soils
�
and concluded that implementation of the Salem project would not result in significant impacts to this
topical environmental issue. No potential impact related to expansive soil has been identified. The '�""
project site is developed with structures, and therefore, was previously graded in compliance with all "'�
applicable State and County building and safety guidelines, restrictions, and permit requirements. In ,,.,
addition,the proposed development will comply with all applicable structural and design regulations, �.
and if necessary, with proper soil treatment techniques. With implementation of the grading
measures contained in the Orange Municipal Code as well as construction NPDES requirements,the '�
impacts due to potential erosion and sedimentation during construction are less than significant. '"""
Mineral Resources "'�'
The Initial Study circulated with the NOP evaluated potential impacts related to Mineral Resources �
and concluded that implementation of the Salem project would not result in significant impacts to this '"'�
topical environmental issue. Based on the City of Orange General Plan,the proposed project is not �_::-
located within any designated or known mineral resource zones. Consequently,the project does not
��
result in the loss of known mineral resources of either statewide (designated MRZ) or local
importance. '
�"4 Michael Brandman Associates A�,,:
H-\Client(PN-JN)13771\37710001�EIli\9-DEIli\37710001 Sec01-00 lnhoduction doc
Salem Lutheran Church and Schoo/Specific Plan
DraR EIR Introduction
In addition, implementation of the project would not result in the loss of availability of a known
mineral resource that would be valuable to the region or the State. Therefore, no loss of mineral
resources would occur.
Population and Housing
The Initial Study circulated with the NOP evaluated potential impacts related to Population and
Housing and concluded that implementation of the Salem project would not result in significant
impacts to this topical environmental issue. The proposed project will allow the church to serve a
larger congregation(due to an increase in seating capacity that would be provided in the new
sanctuary); however,this increased capacity for church attendance does not directly induce
population growth in the area. The proposed project includes relocating the existing preschool to an
existing onsite vacant structure. Therefore,the project would not displace existing housing in the
project area.
Public Services
The Initial Study circulated with the NOP evaluated potential impacts related to Public Services and
concluded that implementation of the Salem project would not result in significant impacts to this
topical environmental issue. The proposed redesign of the church could result in an incremental
increase in demand for police and fire protection on the site due to the increased attendance at church
services. With incorporation of requirements from the City and the Uniform Building Code,the
impacts from the proposed project related to fire and police protection services would be less than
significant. The proposed project would not increase the number of public school students in local
school districts and would not increase the demand for offsite parks or other public facilities.
Recreation
The Initial Study circulated with the NOP evaluated potential impacts related to Recreation and
concluded that implementation of the Salem project would not result in significant impacts to this
topical environmental issue. No increased use of existing recreational facilities in the area is
anticipated with project implementation. Additionally the project does not propose or require
construction or expansion of recreational facilities in addition to play area which is included as part of
the proposed project.
1.2.2 - Potentially Significant Environmental Issues
Listed below are the topical environmental issues that could result in potentially significant impacts to
the environment that are described and evaluated in this Draft EIR.
• Aesthetics � Land Use and Planning
• Air Quality • Noise
• Greenhouse Gas Emissions • Transportation and Traffic
• Hazards and Hazardous Materials • Utilities and Service Systems
• Hydrology and Water Quality
Michael 8randman Associates 1"5
H:\Client(PN-JN)�37�1\37710001�EIIL\9-DEIR\37710001 Sec01-OOlntroductiondoc
Sa/em Lutheran Church and Schoo/Specific Plan
Introduction Draft E/R
,rf
1.2.3 - Organization of the Draft EIR
In addition to this Introduction section,the remainder of the document is arganized into the following ���
main sections individually described below.
Section 2: Executive Summary "'�'
This section includes a summary of the Salem project and summary of the alternatives to the `""
proposed project addressed in the Draft EIR. Also included are brief descriptions of the issues to be +�
resolved, and a table that summarizes the impacts, mitigation measures, and level of significance after
mitigation.
�
Section 3: Project Description
The project description section provides a detailed description of the proposed Salem project, ,�
including its location,technical, and environmental characteristics. A discussion of the project
objectives, intended uses of the Draft EIR, responsible agencies, and anticipated approvals is also
provided. �"'`
Section 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
�.
The project-level analysis of each topical environmental issue section (Sections 4.1 through 4.10) is
�:,:
organized into the following sub-sections: Introduction, Environmental Setting, Regulatory Setting,
Significance Thresholds, and Project Impacts. The approach to environmental analysis at the '"""
beginning(page 4-1) of the Environmental Analysis Section provides details regarding format and ��
content of each of these sub-sections.
�
Section 5: Cumulative Impacts �
This section describes the potential changes in environmental conditions that result from the ��
incremental impact of the proposed project added to other closely related past, present, and probable ��
future projects. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor, but collectively significant, �
projects taking place over time.
�,,,„,
Section 6: Growth Inducing, Unavoidable Adverse, and Irreversible Impacts „�
This section describes if there are any growth inducing, unavoidable adverse or irreversible impacts ,�.
from the proposed project.
MmIC
Section 7: Alternatives to the Proposed Project
This section compares the impacts of the proposed Salem project with several land use alternatives, ��
including the mandatory No Project Alternative, to determine if any feasible alternatives exist that
would eliminate or reduce significant impacts. Among these alternatives, an environmentally
superior alternative is identified. ����
,,,,�
�"s Michael Brandman Associates
H_\Client(PN-IN)�3771\37710001�EIR\9-DEIR\37710001 SecAl-OOlntroductioadoc � �
Salem Lutheran Church and Schoo/Specifc P/an
Draft E/R /ntroduction
_ Section 8: Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts
This section identifies any significant unavoidable adverse impacts that would remain after
implementation of the proposed project.
Section 9: Other Long-Term Implications
This section identifies growth-inducing impacts, irreversible and irretrievable commitment to
resources.
Section 10: Report Preparation Resources
� This section lists the individuals who contributed to the preparation of the Draft EIR.
Section 11: References
This section lists the references cited in the body of the Draft EIR.
1.3 - Technical Documents and Supporting Materials
Table 1-1 lists the technical studies and supporting materials contained in the Appendices of the Draft
EIR.
Table 1-1: Technical Studies and Supporting Materials
Technical Documer►t/Supporting Material Author Appendix
Notice of Preparation and Initial Study Michael Brandman Associates A.1
Public Agency and Public Comment Letters ' — A•2
Memo on Processing of Salem Lutheran Church Project City Attorney's Office B
Design Review Committee, Draft Minutes,May 17,2006 City of Orange C.1
Neighbor Response Letter to September 17,2008 Meeting Linda Cunningham C.2
Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Analysis Report Michael Brandman Associates D
Environmental Data Resources Map Report Environmental Data Resources E
Hydrologic Assessment Fuscoe Engineering F.1
Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan Fuscoe Engineering F.2
Noise Impact Analysis Vista Environmental G
Traffic Impact Analysis and Parking Demand Analysis Linscott,Law& Greenspan H
Salem Lutheran Church and School Specific Plan Michael Madden Associates I
Overflow Parking Plan Salem Lutheran Church and J
School
Note:
1. Appendix A.2 contains written response from multiple authors.
, Source: Michael Brandman Associates,April 2011.
Michael Brandman Associates �'�
H1Client(PN-JN)U771\37710001�E[R\9-DEIR\37710001 Sec01-OOlntroduction_doc
Sa/em Lutheran Church and Schoo/Specific P/an
Introduction Drah EIR
�
1.4 - Lead Agency, Consultant, and Project Applicant ,_
The City is the Lead Agency in the review and certification of the Draft EIR. The project applicant is '�"`�
Salem Lutheran Church. Preparers of this Draft EIR are identified in Section 10, Report Preparation �
Resources, of this document. Key contact persons are: �
Lead Agency Robert Garcia, Associate Planner "
City of Orange
�
Community Development Department, Planning Division
300 E. Chapman Avenue
Orange, CA 92866
Email: rgarcia@cityoforange.org �
Environmental Consultant Kevin Shannon, Project Manager }
Michael Brandman Associates '"'
220 Commerce, Suite 200 „_,,
Irvine, CA 92602
Email: kshannon@brandman.com �
Project Applicant Salem Lutheran Church
6500 East Santiago Canyon Road �
Orange, CA 92869 �
Email: craig.olson@att.net
�.
1.5 - Review of the Draft EIR
�:.
This Draft EIR has been distributed to public agencies, other affected agencies, adjacent cities, and *'"
counties, members of the public, and any parties who have submitted a written request for a copy of �w.
the Draft EIR. The Notice of Completion of the Draft EIR has also been distributed as required by
��
the Guidelines. During the 45-day public review period, which begins on February 16, 2012, and
�:
ends on April 2, 2012,the Draft EIR, which includes the technical appendices, is available for public
review at the following locations: �
��>
City of Orange City of Orange �
Community Development Department,Planning City Clerk
Division 300 E. Chapman Avenue a�
300 E. Chapman Avenue Orange, CA 92866
Orange, CA 92866 '""
Orange Public Library and History Center El Modena Branch Library F�
407 E. Chapman Avenue 380 S. Hewes Street ,�,
Orange, CA 92866 Orange, CA 92866
Taft Branch Library
740 E. Taft Avenue ""`
Orange, CA 92865 ,
f�M
�"8 Michae/Brandman Associates
��
H1Client(PN-JN)�3771\37710001�EIIL\9-DEIIL\37710001 Sec01-OOlntroductioadoc
Salem Lutheran Church and Schoo/Specific Plan
Draft EIR /ntroduction
In addition to the locations identified above,the document will be available for review on the City's
web site at www.cityoforange.org. The document will be available for review, downloading or both
on the City's internet website and CD copies of the document will be available for purchase from the
City. Written comments on this Draft EIR may be delivered in-person, submitted via U.S. Mail or
� commercial delivery service, or emailed but must be addressed to:
Robert Garcia, Associate Planner
City of Orange
Community Development Department, Planning Division
300 E. Chapman Avenue
Orange, CA 92866
Email: rgarcia@cityoforange.org
Michael 8randman Associates 1"9
H-\Clien[(PN-JN)�3771\37710001�EIlt\9-DEIIt\37710001 Sec01-OOlntroductioadoc
��.
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�_�
�
�.
�
�,
�
��
�
��
�
��r
..�
Mhl9
��
4lAC
E�
Salem Lutheran Church and School Specific Plan
Draft EIR Executive Summary
SECTION 2: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
2.1 - Purpose
This Draft EIR is intended to serve as an informational document for public agency decision-makers
and the public in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA). Environmental
impacts are analyzed to the degree of specificity prescribed by the State CEQA (Guidelines) Section
15146. This document will address the potentially significant adverse environmental impacts that
may be associated with both short-term construction period and long-term operations of the project,
and will identify appropriate and feasible mitigation measures and alternatives in accordance with
CEQA. The Governor's Office of Planning and research has assigned State Clearinghouse
No. 201 1 1 01046 to this project.
The purpose of this Draft EIR is to inform decision makers,representatives of affected and
responsible agencies,the public, and other interested parties of the potential environmental effects
that may result from implementation of the proposed project This Draft EIR describes and evaluates
potential impacts to those topical environmental issues identified in the Initial Study that may have a
potentially significant impact on the environment.
2.2 - Project Summary
2.2.1 - Project Location
The site is located in the City of Orange (City) and within the boundaries of the Orange Park Acres
Specific Plan (OPA Plan). The OPA Plan overlies both City territory and unincorporated County
territory located east of the site. The site is on the south side of 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. '
Rural residential and equestrian-oriented developments characterize the immediate vicinity of the
project site including the equestrian-oriented community of Orange Park Acres (OPA),which
generally coincide with the OPA Plan boundary.
Open space and recreational uses in the general vicinity of the site include Irvine Regional Park with
the Orange County Zoo to the east, Peters Canyon Regional Park to the southeast, El Modena Open
Space Preserve to the southwest, Santiago Oaks Regional Park to the northeast, and Irvine Lake to the
southeast. Other major land uses include Holy Sepulcher Cemetery to the east and Santiago Canyon
�� College to the southeast of the site.
2.2.2 - Project Description
The Salem Specific Plan represents a redesign of the existing, onsite uses and does not propose new
uses. There will be no changes to the school uses that currently exist. The redesign is intended to
Michael Brandman Associates 2"�
H�.\Client(PN-7N)�3771\37710001�EIR\9-DEllt\37710001 Sec02-00 Executive Summary.doc
Sa/em Lutheran Church and School Specific Plan
Executive Summary Draft E/R
�,�
accommodate the growing congregation by integrating existing uses with the construction of a new
worship center resulting in a site plan with more efficient traffic flow, increased parking, and
improved infrastructure. """�
The Salem Specific Plan provides for a redesign of the church and school campus with a new warship ,,,�
center that includes a sanctuary, conference and meeting rooms, and administrative offices. The
existing, onsite preschool will be relocated to an existing onsite vacant structure. Existing onsite � �
infrastructure related to storm water and water quality management and improved vehicle circulation '"�'
and parking design to improve the flow of traffic entering and exiting the site are also part of the w-
redesign. All of the existing uses and proposed improvements conform to the "Public/Quasi-public" „�
designation for the site as specified in the OPA Plan, which serves to implement the City of Orange's
Land Use Element of its General Plan for the portion of the City located within the OPA Plan �
boundary. '""`
The list of Required Public Agency Approvals, and Requested Entitlements is provided below.
�
Certification of the Environmental Impact Report No. 1827-11 �
The City of Orange has determined that a Draft EIR is required to analyze the potential environmental �
impacts of the project. The Draft EIR will be prepared in accardance with CEQA and the CEQA �,;,:
Guidelines. The City of Orange will consider certification of the Draft EIR prior to taking action on
the requested approvals.
.r
�
Zone Change No. 1259-11
�
Approval of a zone change is required to change the existing zoning classification on the entire
�
project site from R-1-40 (Single-Family Residential)to the SP-PI (Specific Plan/Public and
Institutional). ""'�
�
Design Review Committee No. 4538-11
�..,R
Approval of a Design Review is required because the project includes the construction of new
buildings, reconstruction of parking lots and the multipurpose field, and landscape improvements i�
including construction of masonry walls. The project applicant proposes a Design Review ""�'
Committee application for the proposed project elevations, and landscape plan, reflective of the �
requirements of the Salem Church and School Specific Plan. „�,
Specific Plan No. SPLAN-0002 °`°
Approval of a Specific Plan is necessary to provide a uniform set of development standards applicable """
to the entire site.
,.�,:
2"2 Michael Brandman Associates
H�.\Client(PN-JN)\3771\37710001�EIIL\9-DEDt\37710001 Sec02-OOExecutiveSummary.doc ��
Salem Lutheran Church and Schoo/Specific Plan
Draft EIR Executive Summary
Other Additional Agencies Expected To Use This EIR
The following is a list of other additional agencies that are expected to use this Draft EIR for their
review of the project and the project component under their review and approval:
• South Coast Air Quality Management District-review for consistency with Air Quality
Management Plan.
2.2.3 - Project Objectives
The following objectives have been established by the project applicant to guide the development of
the proposed project:
OBJ-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.
OBJ-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.
OBJ-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.
OBJ-4 Maintain comparable onsite open space and recreational amenities of the campus
while meeting the programmatic needs.
OBJ-5 Provide a comprehensive, well-rounded master plan for the property that addresses
environmental, water quality, drainage, circulation and public facilities and services.
OBJ-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.
OBJ-7 Incorporate sustainable design techniques into the redesign plans for the campus.
2.3 - Significant Unavoidable Impacts
All topical environmental issues were either below the level of significance and did not require
mitigation or can be feasibly mitigated below the level of significance with implementation of
recommended mitigation measures, project design features, or both. There would not be any
significant and unavoidable impacts remaining after project implementation.
Michael8randman Associates 2"3
H.\Client(PN-JN)�3771\37710001�EIIL\9-DEIR\37710001 Sec02-OOExecutiveSummary.doc
yrt9..
Sa/em Lutheran Church and Schoo/Specific Plan
Executive Summary Draft E/R
�
2.4 - Summary of Project Alternatives
CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6 states that a Draft EIR"shall include a range of reasonable ""�
alternatives to the project, or the location of the project, which would feasibly attain most of the basic
objectives of the project but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the ,.,�,
project, and evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives." In addition, CEQA Guidelines
Section 15126.6(e) indicates that if other future uses of the land are predictable, such uses should be
discussed as possible no-project conditions and the project should be compared to them. Section 7 of �
this Draft EIR provides descriptions and analysis of each alternative in adequate detail to allow the
decision-maker to decide whether an alternative should be adopted in lieu of the proposed project. .�.�.
2.4.1 -Alternatives Analyzed in This Draft EIR
T e Draft EIR analyzes the following two alternatives:
.�,.
• No Project Alternative -No Development
�
• Design Review Committee Land Use Plan of May 5, 2006 Alternative
• Single Access Alternative �� ��
�
2.4.2 - Environmentally Superior Alternative �_
As addressed in Section 7, Alternatives, the Environmentally Superior Alternative is the proposed „�;
project because all of the alternatives identified greater impacts when compared to the proposed �
project.
�
2.5 - Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and Project �t
Design Features
��
Table 2-1 below lists the impact questions evaluated in this Draft EIR, organized by topical ��
environmental issue, and provides a tabular summary of the impact questions with the level of �
significance before mitigation, associated mitigation measures if applicable, and the resulting level of
��
significance after implementation of the mitigation measure(s). Threshold questions screened out
through the Initial Study are not included in the table below. '"'""
��,.
tl�BR
��k'
2"4 Michael Brandman Associates �,,,,
H�\Client(PN-JN)�3771\37710001�EIlL\9-DEIIL\37710001 Sec02-00 Executive Summary.doc �
�
�` N
� V � � � �+
U U U U
� Q � w w w w
� ° v'.��s o�n � � c�^n
_ > C � v� v� vi v�
V m �i� � � c�d c�d
a� J w'�
W C� � Y � �
� � �
� �
y .�-7 ..�] � �1
w
�
�+ 7
� �
m
� � 'O ^O 'O 'O
y ,�0� i s.�. s.�. i
N �� ��
pl o' c o� a�
� � L L i.�i L
�
� � � � � �
d � � � �
� � � � �
0
� E � E �
C� c c � c
+, o 0 0 0
� � o`�q o`�n on
'� '� '� �� �^
_ �E �E E E
�
�' z z z z
�
�
a �
� � o � ° � �
� v a3 v � �+ ?�
N � p1 �="
d �!7 b�^A b�^A b��A b��A
� � � � � �
� y
F— O � � � � � �
�w � � � � �
d � � � �
d m a�i a�i � � E
J E
..] ►] � •� `�
G '
a � V +N+ L `�
V � � � � �
i� (� N � � � p � U
O
C,1 � v' U � L V +�+ � y U �n
a y '> ^ o 00 � o 0 0 � .°; o
v� v � oo� c o � � � � •� a o
'o �e ^ .y �a - �, -o ^ o ^ � o. �
o a �. M
� � �3 •� .� 3 �� � 3 �� 3 ° o y�
,, y c� � � c� 4. � y y � y O C �o
a � .a; a� � .4;,Y � c� •o � •0.p •^ •v P
� � y � y � � � c� t �' O.� �, O. � X r�q�
t� ¢, a� O a. c�
Ct,1 � i+ 'O �+ rn ++ � � O-� � 'b N y o
., t O` +' y F. bp� [� 7 > � C7 �! f—� � � �. � c� G' G o
V � G a� � N � _ M ^ U a' N � O .O �M
C •C Q � � � � v, fd O 'O .� a y i � '� i �, c� ��
� W � � y .: � p � .: U � > N y N � � N iC p G�
t � � � .� s.. :tj � s., 0 a� � � � p � � a.•c� .> ��
t3r «, � �, ❑ «, 3 � c s.. c� s.. C z
... J� O C� cC a�+ c�C � t0 � ,L' �� O C�i R � �? GUC 'R3 ;� � m a
E W u a a'� � � °' 3 � � u a °�� a °� �,� � .�0e.v
v,a � � � � � � � c 3 'c v� � � 3 � � � � c ��
�s
W . , 'o ,�,..
� G1 � Q � � �I Q N
� � V V � cC (C ft3
o ,.. Q c w ?^ ?� ?� w . .
o � �d c R °°_° o��n o��n a��io a��n K.,„,
> rn �� '� '� '� '�
J�� � � � � �
C � Y Y � � � .
� � � � � �
y � �j � a�i � ,�
�-] .a �
e�rrr
�
� � �
� 7
� � ..
7 N
y � .tj �c
v ,ti
GN1 p a�i n�i � .'.�' y
� � �� '� .� � � �
fA Of O" 6" C s�, C
y +� �" � ��. � i
� �• �,� � y � y �
� � ro � �
O �' � � s�. v, ,�:
� � y, L � N
� � � �
� a�i �
� � � � � � ��.
= �
� � c c ° c �
.p ° ° o � o
C � Rf �� bA '�
�p bA �p pp ^
� �� '� •^ �� •� �RlN
C1 � � � O �
a � o o Z o �
� z z z . z
� d
��
�
_
o �,°� � � � � � ��
V U U U
: � � ?� a= �. w w
� �� � � � � � ��
N N� �� �� '� '� '�
d w ` � � � � � "�
� �� � � � .� ,� �
� � > m y � rn v� v, Z'
J � � G�J N � E all�
'"� ^� � .a ..a �
C � � � a�...�
� � 4. o
�i
� � C U � �+ 'U 6� x
� � � p � � v�, � y Nbfl o ��Il[
G�i � � � ..s". bA a� a�i � C 3 � � � � � bA � � � pn U •
h r.+ O V N aJ ,� > � O w U � V � � � � C V c�C 'C v, ��,.
o � � '� '� � a�i � � ,-: � �" h 'o o � � � o � �° °�3 3 ° o
a a ^ a� ,� �, � .�' �:, � = •� E �, '� on � . c � ro '� �' _ ��
.c � � a� � C o ' � 11J a' �, '�n ° o �' a�i ° � c°�i � M
y � � .n 3 a `� � � � 3 � � � � � Y 3 °" ¢, ao �'' �� -o y�
� � N RS y� +.,� a.�+ � � V N .D � � � � � N � � �V-� N �l L�.. L 1�.r G e._.
� d � .� 4• y v, � � �, � �' y � pA,� � O � � � 'O� � � .0° �
_ �1.•� �, � s., i� U y LL O 0 O y p O.� O p S1 a� � ^' O°-a e�>-.
t � O � � � cC � � � O �"-. s.`n. C � � O '> .� � � .L cUd 4`'�. y o
� 3 y-
v 10 '> >,�" � � '� v o E- o ` � Q � -o c E— �� . F.„ a � a�°i �� ,
� E c M y p, G a�i `� :� '-' � ass'i � c7 ° r; a�i o � c� ° � � " � R� :
`�° � W ev > ca o `'-' � 3 '� � � o y , a� ,� �; ,� 'o � r? ��, Q, °� E=
t� � +.., •y.� .T'. N � y v� N � •� M ; t7 � 3 a.+ M .,.�'., � ,� M �+ .£, U C� e�
� d -`� � � � � � �° � � � a ar �* „ � o � 3 0 on � � ' � ��
J;� V � �L.. �,' U �'� ,�' C�J .Y .�.' C a. C�J � .� �+ C�J U �+.+ C V U � m.z _ ..
y � � � �'�p. c� "' � G' � C v Q C. � •.�'. Q Or�, � 7 p„ � � O• ��
�k �, a. � � ,� Ea� o m � Ea� � � Eo °a�° a�°i 6 . � a' t =
Vl W �-•� cC cd L, cC C � � i..i � U fA rr bA c) . .. U s. L. ..w v� .� v�i V v .���..
�z
m . . . N
v
� 41
; $ U U U U
Q C 4. 4. 4. 4.
� � �+� bA b�^A b��A b��A
>
> > C � .� .� •� •�
v � � � � � �
� °S!�� , t ,�
� y Y � .�
� � � � �
in :� � � �
__ _
�' a
�
E �
E o
c�n �
� o � � � �
L � �, _ �. �.
� � '� '� 'a '3
y p� � c a- o-
� �+ a� a�
� L L i-' L
� � � � � �
C �n �n �n �n
O °' °'
� � � �
�
O� � y a`�i a`�i
� � � � �
� � c c c
0 0 0 0
a '' �" �� ��
� � o`��n on bD
N '^ '� '� '�
� �� �E E �
�. z z z z
E
_ �
c � o � � � �
�e._ � �
� �� � w � �
� c;W � c a �
N p�� dp aq on an
N •� '� '� '�
� O � �
� c�C c�C cC cC a
!0 �� � Y � +'�+ �
� ! � `" `" v�i v�i
J m � N � � �
E
� r-a ..7 .-a �%
�
lC4 N .� N �
a � � �.' � O vi ''' � v" � �n o
V •41 � G O .� � O O C y�'.. o
,k � � � ¢, � �.� � � � O �� � 'Y O o
y � Y Y ❑ � N i. ca y � 'O .7 � � ,� C bA N y � `�
a +, H o � �, -o � a� � o � o • c �- �, � s
'o � D � ° � � � ' 3 � 3 3 ;; � 3 � b '° � �. ° o
o a � � .`—' .�, E ' ?� cn c +- � ,� '— o on� a.`�. � � �
� � '� 3 � � � 3 � a � o • � �3 3 c � o o .� �
� m ., � o � � bn'� -a � 3 .� � �. •� • „ 3 � ��,
� � 2 � o" � 'o � `i' o • y �o c a�i � , a�i •X c� �.�. ,� � �o
� c c �o Y � �`c 'o o > 3 � � � 'o-o Y 'o a� � o � � 'u x
� E y a' ° .� � °-� .� � b°' � o �- Y °�' �'� '' � 3 ° y�
. � a� ., on,� a� �, „ s N °' � °' •� o � �
� � � ,� ^p � w � s. «i Y O � � .� s. y � s. � Q o
... ,C O N y �,.., � O p �, Y N 3 � � .� o) F-' �' ^ F" � � 4. � '� G�
U •� 2 � r: � � � fV U � �� � _ ,p r: .� •6' N � y � � p �p"
G C i:. � � �+ h � � O '� cC � � � N � ?,,L' � ��
d a.+ � y � t. Ifl ++ .� C
t W d, � � c�C � � � p '� � � c,Nj � � � y � � .� � � � •y L Z
a.. � ++ U C 'O �' "_' �' C w' cC L � C � .� C m Z
.. ►!� O C> � 4: � � � 4: .� ' V y � O C�i � 3 � CVC cyd � � L � �a
�W . � a �., � '� v�i G' o �� N �''b t�7 Q ¢ �, `V„ a.fl �+ y j � t v
jp � N � r��i � N 7 � O.� 4. � s�.. fA � � c�C 'O � v�i fl.� •� � V u
y� �2
�
W .. . _. . . � N �re�
� d � � � � � �
� � U U U U
� ,F a G ' !+ � 4: 4�, 4. r+^. -,::.
O b�0 b��A b��q b��A b�p b��A
m C�p � •� .� �,
.� .� ,� ,�
J,4��- � � � c� � � �
. C � � ,'�,, '� .....
� � �
+-+ � +.+ �,
C1 v� cn rn v� � v�
N �l �l � � � .�] �
�
�
�' W �
� 3
� � E_..
7 �
N � �,
L O � � a� � � �
r .� ��,
N � � � � a�i a�i a�i
!C 'N �- �.. �. s, a, a.
d � �
� � � � � � �
� � � � y �
:�+ � a�• � � � s�.
� � � � � � �
Q� �
� � O O O O O O �s�
� ' • • ...
la �A p�p � c� cd �
b�A b�A bA
bA
� •.�i � �Y �..� �� �^ �
V � � � � � �
�- z z z z z z �
E
_ �
:: �
o � ° � � � � � � �
� � V U U U U U
� �.,. � w w y=. ?� !�; y�.
r 01� b0 b0 CA b0 bA bA �
N �� �n � '� •� •� '�
G� .� 41 �, � �,
� O� � � � c�C � c�C Q ...
la �y +' +'C-� +'�-+ '� �'�.+ '
F' y m v�i v�i v�i v�i v�i v�i E ,�
"1 .� �1 � .� � .a �
�
� � a�N,
>
4 '�on � ° a�i .� o d
� � � � � � � X � p � � o ��
� s. bq �
3 � � � +' 4� +z"�. v�i +-' •'f-y' o
d � � � � N �' V 'C � � � 4�"-i 4�". �^ � � � ��4.�e
a+ +.+ �-' U
O. �+ s"�. bA a� s. � v� +.-� O cd O O .� a� �n
y � c°, ,� :n � � �a o � o � -v w' c 3 °c � c � °c � °: o
1° �, � 3 > o � � ._ ,_ -- Y
°o o, .� a c� � � � . .b , �, �. �, �, a� � ,e�
y E 3 •� .� ° � � � 3 =' a, n, ' 3 � 3 °.,' 3 �? . 3 ow a
� „ a� .� c .� :�, � � on � �a .� �a � y�
� � .� � � � 4, ° � 3 0 `o � � .a � 3 � 3 .a� � a� o �o �
� � o aXi � � � � � 'o � on � ° 'o>, �o � • �o � > 'o � ° ��
� �» �, � �. �,
.e �` p .c � a°, ,Y .� a�i o .c w 'x >,,o ,� 'c ,� o > � o � a�i b � Q� �
� �- F" � = �+. � � � E-� w a� v� � E-� co N c� •... E—� ca a � � o
V [ > «s v� p ;� �y„ .� O '+, a> 'o n t�. v a.•� o a�i �^ ,:_...
: E w `�' ?',� o � � = � � � �� v' � �° •� � � .� " 00 � � �=
�, � v� ., . � � �n '^ �'�' c �n � �n � �n � �n .� °' ��
cn � 4. � � 4' �, a� • • � >,.� >,., �, � c� "^"
� � � �� ° � � ° i: � � � ,� '� w .� � % � � i� � � a�i ,� ��
m
E� c,� i � s.." � �° � � � �-. ;� 4`'".. R � �' e�a �� � � �� � R o Y � ,z,
w U N m d�
= d � � � ,� .> � ° E o ,� � � � � � � �o 0 8 0 o n' a�i °`�-�' � t.=
cmn '� .. � a.� �, � 3 .. � ., 3 � 2 � o a� � a. � �, a. a. � � � 3 °� R�
��
�
� N
�0
�
� m C C � �
� � � �
..- E � c, U U U
� a c ?«� w 4- !�
d � �° b�A b�^A o�A c�A
>
v � C � �v� �vi � �
V � � � � � �
N t ,C
� '�
k C � y � Y �
W CI v� �n v, �n
�A � � .� �
a�
�
0o y U �
� ;c F-
�
� � o � �
� � on � �
'� o .�
•� c x .� �
� � .� 3
�c s a, � .b
� � on � c
'^ o �Y a� o �
�? � .� � �' ?'
.Y X � •^
� � °' � � .?
�, � � 'ti "
�' w � � � � � `�
la ^ � � � 'b �
� 7 O � n c� O ,C
E � � ° 0 3 3 �
(� � -a � o � >, on
o -- � o r''o
N � � a�i � � ia ca v� N C
� 't��+ � � � O y i� a� � O
fA Cl 6' a" O' c�C �' p�p E.-� � �
�a � �? �? � Y 3 •.� � �
m � � � 'c � � a� �
� � c � � � � °x' � ? o
o ° ' ? o ° � > a-Y
�+ � � � .� o �
^
Q1 a�i a�i a�i •° � � � � �
= E � � 0., o � o � o
a �,
� o 0 0 ,� '�
c
� }' � � � � o, 3 �
� � o`�n .on O �� � �.c
� .^ •� Z CC � +-+ Y
V � � '��+ ''' �j .� � .�
�- . . ....... ._ Z r� z O � ~ N �
G W O 3 �-^ E
�
� Y
♦� C � Y y �
O �+z U U � �+-
� !� �° w ?- �_ 'c
c`� � c��n � ,on
� �
c� �g '� '� '� >,
m o � � � � � �
H �m Y Y � � �
v� �n �n Y E
d m N N � 0 �
J r.� .� .-a a. `�
>
G J
t.
�0 � � p 'O � iC �ii
V +�-' •� � � � C � O '� p o
� � ''' � C .�? O ' Q^.= ^ ' o
y U '� +�.+ +' � � � U '� U V � � > � � 'n
4 .r o � 3 � ° '��' f1,•.. y � � pp � .�, y �, y„ •V
N � � � � � � � � C � �� � � � � � � � � O � o
O C. = � 0 .� .3 � � C � Q �7 .� 'b O y O � v � M.
� � �3 v N :� .� •° '- R 3 a� ,� � a o > 3 ❑ N � �, y�
�� �n �. •� c,.,, c U � � a +... � � ,�p V bA�+�., :� V �+. . C ,� y w
.,. � � � O � •�, y � �p N � 3 �,' �'�' C O � N � � ;b .+O �❑
� � •p U a� � o .b � O � >,'O a�i � v�i � O p '�'' p �`" �z
m s., 4^ � O Ci..� � s.. cd V � O, � �., . rn O p_
'G � G" G � � N v� � y Cl.^ � V rn n1 � � i1� N � v, �!�
u � y pp^ '� N O N ,a� sr �' ^ y �.. v� . 'O y o
,. t O � � O y � � � 'C V! [� c�C � �� O O, � y b! [-�-i � � .f. .b C o
U O O a� p � `n A O . V � V ¢' � � a� .0 O . bA� p G' R�
C ,C O� 4" � ~ �' p J 'v: ^� Ly,4. •�,id s. � G Z i:. �' s. � i.cC, �r
� W V� .Y •� c.�i � .•� y to � � � � O. C � 4� � �` � r Q v � � c�
t � � � O � � �v, � � � �, O y a� f1 C a C?! �+ v� � �^ m"
� �+ Y � �+ w+ U �+ C u G' 'y� y� bA.� � 'i+ C +.. u O c� � z
., J� eVC G > 44"'.. euC 4� v O G eC � ,� ''' N a��+ � � O �1 CC p � � .� G�°'
�W cs, Q- 3 0 0, � .°—', � 10 a� � i .� � c•� u �o a. � °' `° �
o ° m Q E • � > o o �c ' d � 8 � x � a c�i�
y o � � � i � '� a m � .. 3 �. o � � � E v� ., a a� tin ro
�T
�
�
W o
� �
m � � � � � N
o` ,F q c !� w w w
odo
� c � '' o��n o��n o��n o��n ,.�.
> t0 Q!: �' �N '�n 'rn
��� � � � �
�
C � � � � y
� � � � �
tn ai v `" `�'
�l � ,�j a "
_
^O -O
� �
�
O � y � ,�w
v p � cd
3 C � �
'O "3 L^, ,�
� � 0 3
�3 ¢ � � �
.�
>
� � � °? ,
� y � �
� � � � .� � �
�o
E � �� ,� � � ,�,
� IQ . L, � U � .....
7 41 � G, � � �
� � � � �o � y �
� � � � N � y '.� � �
(A ..��... � O" V � N � � � '� �....
� '� � Q.y� � 'O �, � a�i
� � � . N c�^'b c� Y � N � IAlIN
C �, U 'O s.��. � � � �
�
C �.�, '��, > � 'O w a�'i N
�+ . � o O a- p �^ �..
� � O. O, � U � � v�i
� � � � '+� 'O � � � �
p�#r
a ° N � � '� �� � o
c � �; � o W •° '� '�
�o on
rn ��_' � :° � � c '}; '� '�
� � � � � 4° p � ��
Q o 0 0 � .�. o o �
£ Z � � � � �a Z Z
_ � � �
v
c �
� �� U r+. V c� �Ws
U
r , =a� � b�A '� 4�
� �
N �� .� v, b[l pp
N � �� '�
� Q O . c�C cd � ❑ ��`
Y�. �'S�-+ ,L" 1: v°
l� m m fn L"" +� r"' Z'
~ d m � O � � E alalA
� a a a � N
e ; ;�,
� -
� � �
4 y,., ."f"�' U U � � U � � � � K
� p � cn � O �p � .b v, •c� r�, N > � � o r�
N � � C ,C, � 'LS o
y ..+p � v � � `� O '�n' � � cd O � O � O Q �" bA o
a . �n N s"' ,� N V O N � � � U 'C V c�`� cC � � � sM
y � . v�i � � ,�"." •� � � V > O c�., � LY'. � ��„ �^ � �f„ c�C � N � � vi o '�.,-,.
O
o p, ; -o a� a� o °' � � •� •�:. o b `� � �, � � ^ � ' '° �' � �
c=i � t�. � •� " � o � � � � � a��i c � >,� • � .� � i a� � � ��
y o ° � •;� � � � � 3 '° � � -o � �; •° �0 3 � 3 •° � � -v �-� y�
c � � °n a� � � o •'-� ° a�i ° � '� ° � 'o � -o � � � � � � � � ?° "o ��
� m � > � � � � ° � .� � ° � � � � c�i °�'.,' c� � �� °A� � Q � y�„� �o�
` � p� � � � � '.. N O O" C1 � y � b a� '� � � Q � � � � � p � y� ��
C � �n . ,� p, N �+r �-+ � � . cd y
t Z` � W � � Q °� � .� C a '� � c`�a � � � � ,� +� v� vi -�' °' �� a�"i � � Q g
V � �; y O � .0 � ` G � � N V O .� ''' � C cC'��' � � � � � � O C �•���
� � C N � bA M � •� � H '� rr .� � � cVC O � � � 3 G. N •� �^�j � � O � ��
d y W r �' O l� C U ''''^' Cp N � � � � p '..+ 's„ +-' � �pp,� 00 L]. � rn o V c�"'C C^ n�s
t R O '�7 ' 3 � � � c� p � v G.'^ y � �
J j V �� ,O v � •� � � C � u � � � .� 0 � O C� V u � � .� � � .� m�
� � c, � � c.° Q-�� � � a.� � n. c °' � c'-� ; a a,� on � � ° v �,a ,.
m � a� • a � � a� � � � a� -o ^ � � � _
v�W � o°'n�> � a� a�i t°n' � � 3 i � ° � c ° .� � � � 3 n,o � � �° �� ��
�z
�
� �
m �, �; • .� � N
E m � c c
� � � �
� � a c ?� w w w
� o � o � � c �
� :+ o�n on on �
w m C l0 •� •� •� 'n
V d � � � � � �
� J C� � a�.+ +�-+ �
� � � � �
tq a�'i a�'i a`�'i �
.a ...] .a -a
� W
� �
� �
N �
d O a�i a�i a�i �
a�
� �^ � �
7 1�6 �7 � � �
U! Of a" o" a" a"
� M y�. L L i"
� L
� � � � �
C v, �n v, N
O �
� a� �
�+ 7 � 7 �
R �
� c�C aY
cC
� N cN N �
� � G � �
� O O o �
0
C .� .� .� �
l0 �
y '-' � � =
v � � � �
� _ z z z z
_ �
O �++ U U U V
v 1� � 4r �+. 4. ,k^'
C� C G C =
r' p�•� pp b�A bA ?A
Ny� '� '� 'y ��n
� � V � � � � i
la m M�. �'�..+ +t'".+ � '� �
� d �n �n cn � E
d m N � N N E
—� .a .� � •a "
G '
l6 �• °J'
� � � � L p y y
aCt y ^ �. � c�d '+^+ Qp �l '� � •� o
V. � ,D � � � y�., �-• � � �3 'V � o
. y p � � i. Y � � � w � y Y ry�. y vi
y V G' � O � �' C O.. � N � � tA � � O � v�i � o
N O � N.� V � � '�;, . �
O C. ^' � y,�, V '� • '_"� O V � v�i p t� � 4" y �,,,�''"_, U � M
� � 3 �o � 'L ^ 3 � 3 �„ � � p Q-,-, Z 3 � o '� -o � y�
' � U N p, O � c) � U c�d � � � �C � y .� U 4. '� � «O
c�6 C 'O'� .��� � 'p � �p ¢' = O c�: � � � O V O C O � V a
d �"' a� v� p p., p, U �y v' G � v�i j N � 2 � � � V � v�i'�
� C ,5�.' N bA V O' �.�c � ,L .V ��'.+ .� O � j� d ,L O � N 3 p Q o
t P F- � " � °' E" � F-' o .� ^ � � � = � F" � � w cF, .^ e�
� �c M •° ;? °� � � � ,ri Q"� '� � � � � � ,� ,� Y ° ° � E"
``° W � �'Y �� 4" 00 � � °y' �`�' � on� rn ayi °` � � .� o � e�
� � .� y � pA � � � p � � O � 0 a � � '� � C .v � �z
�� U �' _ � a� u � U � :b Y `"i. � � C .. V � 3 p L r��—, m,z,
J W p,''i, .� b�A fn C.'O O..� � a�'i a. p, � '.�—,+ t�o p, av,i a� `� ��
�� � vi C N c� � bA b N �. v� tt Q �., � u. O .� t=i-
y O � � -o -o � � •5 � 3 °_' a.� � .s v� � � 0 3 0 � � �
�z
�
�
W � .�
� ', � � C . � � N
ip ,. �+ cC cC c�
O „�a C 4. !+: t,:,
�..; O � O b�A b�iD � b^�A
���... d C � �. . ..
.� ,� ,�
�� g � � �
«�
� � � �
� � a a �
____
�
�
�
� � �
�a
E � �
E o
� m
y g b �
� O a�i � `^�"
� � � � � �
N m C a�-' �
d � � � �
� � � � � �
�
c �, �'
O `i' '." �'
++ 7 � c�C
�0 �n rn N
� � a�i � �
= � � �
� o o �
.p o �
.�
�a o`�n ao o`�n
N �= �� '� �"
� � � �
�- z z z `�
� _
_ �
.. �,
� _ � _ � �
� � � �
� � � V U U
` �._. � 4, w ?�:
c c
N o�� ,on o��,o o_�n �""
(A '� 'v�
d � � � � � �
1� �� .��. .� � .o°
F' �m `� �' �' s �
�
J .� � ,� N
c
rr�
�o � � �' �, �
c
4 � � � .� '� �, � � x
� '� � 4. � � � � � o o i�
!� a. o 0 3 � � � � „ �, .� � o
d °: � � '�' :� � o � � a� � ° 'ti � �
tn .. 0 3 '� � a�i � � a�i .� o L � �'� � " �
O tw0 � C � .� � '� 'p � G� C Y � U � � o
= Q. "' o Cl.v � � cd Y � '.'� c� �n Ll.'O �" � �!
c, E 3 a� � .� 3 "cc '�. ¢, �3 � c� � � �
y �+ C �., rn > +r > � o
� p X +-' � N U �!�
� � � � °' °' � � °' •°-�' 3 � `� -o m° rr�
ro c �o i � Y o.� � o 0 0 � c �
d �- � •� „ � s. • �. � � a�-o •�, '��
cti � a- � • ca a.a � 3 a.� a� � a� � 0 5 ,�
,c C* c � � '� y � °' �' X " � � �, ? � � �X �o
V ip � F"' � w a`�i � E�-� � � � a�i � � v°�i � •0 � Q o
� > a� a� '+� .bA a� � cct � � � -� '-� s- c�p� �
C C N .0 bA;.: r�'n . W'j � 0 � C � .� � ^ � N
� � W d` � .c � �; 0� 3 � ° � a � � �� � � �� �.�
=y �* ' � `" � � c � � � � •° 3 � � ° ��
J 3 C� � � .�.� V CC U � � � � � .'O � � y m a ,�,,,,
y � � �- � .� � w, °�w o •;; a, a� > •�, p'� roG � ,_
a� � -� o o a� „
in 'u� `..+ 0 3 � ° � � � � i a�i � �o a o,,� ° �� ��
��
" Sa/em Lutheran Church and Schoo/Specific P/an
Draft EIR Project Description
_�,
SECTION 3: PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The purpose of this project description is to describe the project in a manner that will be meaningfW
to the public, reviewing responsible State agencies, and public agency decision-makers. State CEQA
Guidelines (Guidelines) Section 15124 requires that a complete project description contain the
following information:
• A detailed map showing the precise site location on a regional map and boundaries of the
proposed project.
• A statement of objectives sought by the proposed project, which should include the underlying
purpose of the project.
• The general description of the project's technical, economic, and environmental characteristics.
• The intended uses of the Draft EIR, including a list of agencies that are expected to use the
Draft EIR in their decision-making, a list of permits and other approvals required to implement
the project, and a list of related environmental review and consultation requirements required
by federal, State, and local laws, regulations or policies.
3.1 - Project Location
The site is located in the City of Orange(City) and within the boundaries of the Orange Park Acres
Specific Plan (OPA Plan). The OPA Plan overlies both City territory and unincorporated County
territory located east of the site. The site is on the south side of 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. Exhibit 3-1 provides the regional context and Exhibit 3-2 and Exhibit 3-3 provide the
local vicinity context with aerial base and topographic base, respectively.
The project site is located in a predominately-residential area and is situated within the boundaries of
the OPA Plan, also known as,the Orange Park Acres Plan (OPA Plan).
The site address is 6500 East Santiago Canyon Road.
3.2 - Project Summary, Background and Site Plan Chronology
3.2.1 - Project Summary
The Salem 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. The
�� existing, onsite preschool will be relocated to an existing onsite vacant structure. Existing onsite
- infrastructure related to storm water and water quality management and improved vehicle circulation
and parking design to improve the flow of traffic entering and exiting the site are also part of the
redesign. All of the existing uses and proposed improvements conform to the "Public/Quasi-public"
Michae/Brandman Associates 3-1
H.\Client(PN-JN)�i771\37710001�EIli\9-DEIIt\37710001 Sec03-OOProjeclDescriptioadoc
Salem Lutheran Church and Schoo/Specific P/an
Project Description Draft E/R
designation for the site as specified in the OPA Plan, which serves to implement the City of Orange's
Land Use Element of its General Plan for the portion of the City located within the OPA Plan
boundary. 4
Onsite infrastructure will be redesigned by upgrading and improving storm water conveyance and � .
water quality management systems. Onsite parking will be redesigned to increase the number of
parking spaces and integrating the redesigned parking with a new, redesigned circulation system to
improve the flow of traffic entering and exiting the project are also part of the redesign. Part of the �
site redesign is the addition of a second access driveway off Santiago Canyon Road and the redesign `
of the existing access from Frank Lane. Enhancements to Frank Lane will separate church and school «�
traffic from the residential traffic from nearby homes via addition of a raised median with decorative __
split rail fence or pavement markers (Botts' Dots) placed on the roadway in the same location.
�
The open grass multipurpose field and perimeter equestrian trail on the eastern portion of the project �
site will remain and will continue to enhance the entrance to the Orange Park Acres (OPA) ,,,r
community. The multipurpose field will continue to be utilized for overflow parking during special
events as indicated in the Parking Management Plan.
�
All of the existing uses and proposed improvements conform to the "Public/Quasi-public" �„,
designation for the site as specified in the OPA 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.
�.
The redesign of portions of the church/school campus will enhance the existing ambiance of the �
campus, will blend the proposed worship center's architecture/materials with the existing buildings
�
remaining onsite and will ensure that the church campus will continue to be compatible with the
surrounding OPA community, as it has since its development in the early 1970s. '"'"�
�
3.2.2 - Project Background
�
The Salem Lutheran Church was established in 1965 and its current property in OPA 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 of approximately 5.03 acres. 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 three years. �
�
�
�
3-2 Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client(PN-7N)\3771\37710001�EIIL\9-DEIItU7710001 Sec03-OOProjectDesaiption.doc
�
L
San Di as • .**.
� Covina ` ;/��
i
�' State of ' �
California Pomona;
� � Ontario
;
Walnut � �^*
� � ���!, _���------
� __ ; Chino,.•
i
� � i
,+^, i i
I �.
� ! �
Los Angeles County �
i
Project Site •�Sd I
� �da • 7
, �•�e,.� i Norco
�' r------�
� 9a rd�`,di-�,.
�m o �2s � 9c��.,�o�, i rado Flood
°z��U! -Miles �G�`��G� I ottU'O�BpSltt
P Yorba Linda y ��y '
s--� .�...
'� I__�"� Fullerton ,� ��
�` ;
��,,.,, ,�_ Cor na
�, L� �
�'1r Q Anaheim ProjeCt Site �•`
� �� •`-p
� • co
�. �. \, N.
i� � �
� �% Orang '� �,
�- �
i ,`�;-
Garden Grove lrvine Lake '��
� (Santrago ��
• ,,,•,,
'� � Seal Be2 m �� Reserrnir� ��,
i / ` ` �'
i�' i
Santa Ana ,� Cleveland ;
�n .�.. G�il
� �d Fountain Valley National Forest i
Y�
Huntington B a��, _�
P" '' —
� Cosf Mesa Irvine
� Lake Forest
La �,.' v
Newport •each �`�r'
�" La �na Hilis Mis 1 n Viejo
�
,.,.
� Pacific Ocean m
L. guna Beach
Lagu a Niguel
� an Juan Capistrano
,.�.
�_ ��
� Dana Point �
Source:Census 2000 Data,The CaSIL,MBA GIS 2011.
� ���� �� 5 2.5 0 5 Exhibit 3-1
"� a❑�❑ z � Miles Regional Location Map
�lichacl Brandman:A„ociates
A�' 37710001 •05/2011 �3-1_regional.mxd CITY OF ORANGE •SALEM LUTHERAN CHURCH AND SCHOOL SPECIFIC PLAN
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
__
� ?�L�_ 1\ \' e�' , r '+'t� :j �� E�i -- ,��.
P Y' . . � , '��-. • �-J;,j\,� 'r . �.r .%�, � + �,_,1'�,�i,,..� � • r
__� ob5 -., C-_ ��.\`� �Y,�..., J�`.-tr` _'� -,,, �'/- ♦� �r`yi?� j ' r''_ :� ' �, � �' `r� ����,f'
� �
1
_ . � - -.._.
.,.. . _
, �
� -' �. . , r.�: . .� _.._.. „ , � S _ — L _ _
� � {
� r �- :� _ - -=- c---'--��"�j_ .r ��`''1�. �,i �p :�� ( �,�
;
;� h, �f B:�'� .' � O 1�"���._ r r/� C _.
J � � 1� .- . .�,,h`� �t . .,`,_� � . r-.. _�,: �� ..��l0 1 ;�'y, �,� ._.', '.�'', -f-�:
� •���� � ` �''��}1tKli,,� �� �'� ��,,�
v ._` 'r� �.,� � ?n '';J / �x� .�a "� �. , �� kl'' � '�
,,k r� .;:�.,`'" � !• � ` �+s,�. '+ �' " - ' �.-.: '��' �,
�y, �`�ri1a}s�}�C \"��'`�irr:: , ¢ ` ry ''�.f� =j�-�Tl:'� ���.."���� ''�f��,ti �1�e�� ,, Ij�
� �j �„ M n ���-2. � ^ .. . ` r 1 \r�ti� �4, .... '+,, �r\l�a... .. .
)•�F�...�• ,�� „-�e•`�..%� ��._/ � 4.. r .+~..� �c��' , `�,� 5.- � �1 ` �� � „_/'I i
-,��'MI�A, � . � "C'F �'� l)`'`-^� ' � ' t� � '< . `
• � a�a �
iJ
�5" • �/�s�`�j f � y �-; x ' '�'�' �` � �' i � �1`,._
� Y • - •��1 � _ �
'f s+�0 �� ai l J• � �}� �� • �--'� � L2 'i �'�"�l
. . .
�--;, ��, . . �� �+ �t�,� �f� . : s��, t f ,'f � �' ���.
�.
,. ., . . fL �; � ;4-1J T1 f'?.l' , ...
. �
�'i s� .�� r,� •s . �^-f ��.�' : n�• •{' . . V' _ �f A � � " � �F
.
; ��t •� f.� S��i'� ,p,�j� .
� • 1� �� . , f Y
t ��a� �� � � _ �� �4 � �.; �.��;� ���., „ �-- .
,
�VA. �', `_.�} �+: � ' r t•'� 1 --� "iYrM� �� Sf ` � ,a�
� 11��.H83 _ ;�'� y �,,� t:�� � ,,a �} �:•� t ,�J ��J �
:�,����r � .� � ? 4 +'�� � ,,� � , r�M1 t f� � p/'".�`,` � `�f � ~�`��.� �1 �
� r r,5 w � 6 [ ( {�".s �� ��,F! ` e
'a:�--"�:- � . -- ' � _ �yr � . l� � ��`� � �, ,� � �„�'1 t4�w
✓ d. �`. � 13 .} • .. � .. ,_l . J;
� : , , ...- i � .,� �
�1i� ,. . ; . � n ,,��� �_� �.g� ��,,� � k j
P :� • . ,�� .t�..,�..;,a , �: „� ir f��. �.>: r ���,t'�.a'""��''_�.` �,�",��n , ,,� ` '°'�v'
� �� � #t,�• ��' �1 41�•; � f`� c'� ---`�--t,. * , �i -�r ,� �.,,'�l'..� 4� `..
� � � ,l �t�..+�. •� �� ��
�, .
• "' ` '
�...c. .� A � t' i././ � . �� .� .. . �#.�...1 f� �\� r��4:JD`%':.� 71 �
.`�` '��' ' " '
_ . , t ,�_.. � , � :. ,�. , .
. . � ,.- � (`�
,. .. : � ' �
* + �c °4' .� r ` . _ . � vwws "' �.. �� `�tK""�_�'. �� t„yN-��� ���} �
� � I �.,�� .'a����-�� ( � � �o� �.� �..� r� ' �.,sr;. , w��� �a_.,� ���� `� �
n
. h �.. �� . �r ' � , }� .L� ��j� �/ _'��gy}'�- ,. f �- .�i
� � � �, �'. i� . " ��y�� '':.i ��.>�� ' . . .�. �:�� �¢�'t��'�C ��� `� �` ~1 '':� <<" � ,� ' �.�r'V
.� � � � . ,T �.� � � :.M� �
' � ,y� / ' _
I � ;,: r �"""Y ,�-��� � i '�*j�g�rtakE
!� � _y i �� ..; �$. � , s�,�,t g,- ���`• �r. . . , �
� ��
, , _,
,
.,«..,. .. _ � -_ ��� �, r .,4. `w^/'t_.L.�^'� •• ��y"
' - < . �'� �' ..`L.-- ;
�• _ t .,..'�- " ry . T �WILA PJ�R �.
� � i � r �^ Pro�ect Site � °� ��.�,��•__ p,►�S i_
� ' � _ . f., , ��'�t�" �„ �� X =,,:•--'''':�!r' .. . ��:- '-(•,��js����-.
�. . s1• ;r�` ~"'t� �, . . x+ g�triA�ti. svr M�`� •�, '' ''4 �"� t, r .
' � 4 ,. i �v ir;� , � �.."..' ,` ti '„a ,��t ��; -+,K�f'' j�ry r .;
I �.. ... �'i . - '�.� ; ... .t` . .�� . . - . ���. . ' ��,.s'Fs,� ��� � - 1 �`�t
i ) ��" • •II�� (� �! � x 1 �:R /. ' i
� t 5 �. ,„ r«� 4 = � � I � �..�/ I 1
� t 1 �} ��� F�, � � �f.. µ � 1 .{
�t t ' , � �� �' �� � .�� � 54�+ 4 ` .
- • (' �g]� `�',� � � i i.
� — ,,,+.,,:" � ,�,�,�s J �`?"a J�� �• ' .�.;�ic ��t.-u�`rr�' "'�"�� �^ti'L' �
` _ . k � � . L
�; ` �.. .:� • = �' � • .�_ '► , __;`.
� ,t u,; • t � .
, �
� �' F�'' ai � �� -# -� '� '�' � ' ;��1'' � �°�t ' � )
, � � � �f , ,^:/ ' a, • ��'=_�� _ _-
, ,;
. � .,ti,� ` , ,�w
. .
F r � 1� " x � ., � � --�
'" -y _ ' � ..�. �r � �,. S�. : f���"��, � � C E E � 're
-�`t�'�r--.J92`s� '. .-,�., =�,.•!'e �W 'F. • 1�� .i' ��'+ � �
�Y . �;:1'.. . ��., C.. � �
�` ►� '4�i.s�' '�`.�,`�>.. � �`�� �r �}; �',, ,,,`�..�� �,� .- ��ti + , "�i�� i :
j �I ����� � �`' , o .� �'r . ' y =�� �'�f / 1 ! n,(�,�•��� �R ' . <
� � � ..�� , � �, � ��^'�-' I H E ULC �� I �7
� s� �� �` •7�� � � . �� � � - �
` �l� �' � i � � . +.'� f_ t .. t � i �
� ", ` � , '-,-,-�3 " ` , " • ��j�r,� ++ �', ;�•�'�``� ~�� ''t� � ��.'
•� �,�+�..°--f:� �_� �"µ .�. � •�' 4!'s ' � ..4`
`� : �� t.�y�*�`��7 .� :. . �.. -:� (!��, ``�p0 "I y ��E•�
� _ * .��•� � �• �,�� `� . �R�{j� a�'. �� � ,� �, `i t f
�: • s�
-0
� �,.� �..� .. �� �� !i� �� 1 ��� �� * ��8� =�ark �iere4-� � - � � .
� � '' � .�: � - - "
<, , �,. � � t _ .
, - .,
. . . _ ,
.�
r . . � ,
., � � � ��.
„ � r �� _ ., _ '.e?��- :�- �:., �'
iw» < '�. , ;� � •�•.�' �t..., ..- , �,� ,' � , �, �.• r-� �
,,._.. t� ,� � .. ,
• ,�t � , . . .
��� �� �: �',� • :;
�
� -- �� —; �, -::� :` � :� .�.� 4�� �y ��`�\ ',f�+ , '
■: , � � �E` _ �� �
�' '� ° �£ �'.',.�j � - .�- s �^�'' �"�,i� ,,� ,�
� � f� >t a..• . _^ . '� .•�� ' _1 :��-/
< /�."?� ���.. a� •� . , '! • •��� - � _ ��_` 4 •�� �
` + ,.��„ip�.� �e."� 2y if/ �
1 R�F
� L T Z! e�.313 �� f•tf7�� :���,py _ �. �:�"a ' 7. �� � ���
la : � � � �� ,' ,'� � �-? � ' j� � �_ �._� .�6 •}s�b �' �,v
� •Q a. � , � � °,� _{ ',,.�- " '_ f (� � FJ��J
; ' " i � �� . . � ���. # � �-~l�.�!� � !f� r-
� :.it' ,'4. � � , � .� t• ,. �4�� (�� n i .
'Y i. :L _�' . � ,��; r- A:,�1����s �� � . � �i '�'V
� .
, .! .^-.. � '''�• � - r. '� . `-,':
��' � -... I ', � � i,�'-' `� �'�` t�� � ,y. '�' � 'ti .
t
, �. i .. I ' .'• ', �. ';� ._. -/ .
� r _ .._.. I � r ' , ,� '' _' ` i i Q. ' +` .
�'� �" _ .� �'j '� ;-+ ¢, .
� �.! ':�w :�`,�+� _•.-f . a�a,,,�,.,�t , �c�i�; . .
" ' i ^__����} f t��. `` f ' �� ' l v`y,t � .
_--_ , � _ �
� Source:TOPOf USGS Orange,CA(1978)7.5'DRG.
Exhibit 3-2
���� � 2,000 ,,000 o Z,000 Local Vicinity Map
�� ���� z� � Feet Topographic Base
blichacl Brandman.As,ociatcs
" 37710001 •03/2011 �3-2_local_topo.mxd CITY OF ORANGE •SALEM LUTHERAN CHURCH AND SCHOOL SPECIFIC PLAN
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
1.
-
P
� t" 11i . .. }��`� . 1w.��_y�' ;� —.i-- K:
�# Legend x �� �,. ��: �� ,, �. ,
�J� • Project Site ''`� �� �..�� �� ryj�� .��.
�� \� ,r `' �;`" �� ` �.�. ►* Y tt ' � �
Orange ParkAcres � � � '�A ` '` �'� T Y i � ' �`��
, �'-�;-1� '� , .l� 1 .4 � k � .
� �} v ♦ � , �'1:L 9� ;y"Y'` �. �`.Kya� ,'{1�
y� �_ 4 z �pt y `+
L - ""�f 1, ':�F '" x �.p ��+�,�, ..` . . "7 ��;it. '^i��' .,� P �- <�:.5��.
�YI .r t"`� f R::.,� � fC'` � ,� �"� li�y � �5y+� �--��� 4'l .J� � 1�A�.,�.*�
�s��t�t k.'^sy'';� `�.�a`,'�' .i ��� ` " °• ���� <;$����.'�,�,`V��, •,w{'�'�",E� ?�`;;,,`�
. . . .. � I� �''�?stt�,"cb�.,�\`se._„'``,�1�!�(.�. s�c�}
� � � �s,,
.`� �`� � t '� "` � � "�", � �'i--- �'+� °'. r �1"
.^.
� � �� � . ' � �a� �� n �, _
, �
• ,r ��_
*.a � . ��:- h' F�✓f'�;� �y, .::.�� .$i..� , pj r .^ .. / �t. 1�-� .,r �� � -
" � � .f�� �k, �ii� x x t b n �� ��p,'.,._�"" �__._r .'y �1'�''
� ,/ .. �^, 1. . ,#�. ' •r f1'� °�.�,et„� �'r-. -
...'�'f,"T� ,�,��4. ,d' .� e`.. � L _ � s.-
,. l:,d � sr �1"� . ��c"��t r. . .��'� ' ,-t�,�}-y� �� �.z} �.r ,� a � �.,'
.,..;, �.�.- r`f �L' r :F .. .�� ��,��+ +a.y-\�y,����� ' ty��;��'��.,7� :... �'V�l �..j d -� � �r,.- -.e,:ll,��III�� � �::;
�, � � .�", ..�j t .+�h.�`i•����.,< �-.-}-li I�il� !y
�t ;-s^`'r r J .�'�,�*"Y.'� � ���t y°;�� r M*.�;
�. -" `` r _'�;�.'�-s q�,:�4 ��" ,,T a..— -
�,`� � ����- ��t:� �,��� ��„r, ��'��
, . _
, � «_«
� �L .1:^•i z"fl � / . `0 � .1 ` ,.,�
^M` `" c �.e.`;'a*a•. ^ .. �, �
� -.r t r_�.y�� k�.�r ,�,� ���`�_ ! r�� r ^� 1" �' �r ,x�M 3#I! �.
,t �- �� ; � �` .��' ..�,' � t� �
� ����� -..S � '� � �v � �
�.� , . ," � '.
,�i^�- s' r �� � . _, �#+.�f�q.1�✓f`+a`� ✓ _��r..,, o. . ,�,Ir. f. �
"�y�� r t[� k v= '�3 r^
1. � 'g �� � '°4�" .'4��"'�`��Wf 2_ �Y,�' '1 +-�'��+'�� tc�_ '7
, N. �"���.�.>.' �r s , '� �4 .
75� � _
�- x � �i IE i� P'}JC!'t.���.. it�C�ir u `�
} '
�. s $ #�i� + ,.��
�� ,r , � , .. Y� T �
� ' �. -i-�+� . � .. ' �#'� ,;.:, ,y��' r;,�` t , "''�
w � - ( SI ' -. �, ,a.;� ;`1'�f�.?#<!`"�, ,.;�.�..� '�. .� .k `<
"' ._:...._ .. -' '.:,-... .. .
ia l
�
�i� �:
s� '�
' C' � �;�:� -�. ��;.� , :a
..� �
_ -� �.� �.R�- , , � . .� ,.
_ .d.
'i�� F�. �+'„�.� �+N'• +'�h?'.� �y� . r�. �� ,� ,'{� .
+., + f� .:���r�-.���� f7���7,���.� �,i ' �.,'�.. °���.R�� i�r yf
�y,�'�t.+ ; is'};�2' }' ,( •. �� �, � � , .
��`!��r q•, ��r• �' r ��. " .. ^` ' ' Z� �° '�"�{':,... �.Y .
.
` T ` ` ��r'������„, �r- Project Site 4,� _� r
_ r ....
. , w
. , _ .�. . .. ,
t „. r__�� ., ,� .� x 1i;��i►-t �� ,�y ' �'�,�_.'�R.
, -C'� � �
rl. r . _�
. �- ��s� r ,�� � .•. .� _�;.� n� .}-� �t�Y '�'�r ,� - s�� �
'�� � � �*� r � A.. 1 � �_�.�,[��� �
�� �" �`{ °�*;�� �;� #e4�,�r t„� t��,'�. �t,9' ��
.
,
W :r."-„� a+�,.�`ri { � ""�. � �y.,c� �'� ",� ,,� ���•,
: ' .:, .� �+�� q ' l..�x � �:.c �� .,3 ,:z :
. p�!z,, �f �. t ¢+�' `-# 21Y•`y �
1 sq a'4 �:� �� � r e ��.. � .�i� ����4..�t' 'iT�.�\
�k ��"� � �~±���� '4^������ Y�, ��s _
1J �f ��� y �..� �„F:y��. �sl--�f ,. ��� �, "q� 4a'�'„.,� �' s',,
� �p � � 4� . r � l z. �.�, � #'�� �^� �'� '� .
!f� �'t � � � � �
� y k�r �,}�t i. � ..,..
i �.S•• .� .. � � r�M�i�t ;T � r� ..�f�....6��� ' #�. y*
� � �.�-1.� :• ..�i }'�,�,��a �� Y .�. 3�..�r'� ,�"�,'t�.(�e�� . r . x.nd.�� ��,
� �-�� .�' 't,�s ��' _�' ` ,''�, �,;; � .. � `.� �.
. '�''� � �, '" � ` ,�..� : 's .�� ��, �
� .�-ti 5� �., � �. • . �' �. � � .
�4,Y.3 ��i .; .. , � ".� ,�op ~ ��$� �,�?���.� � . ,A �S �y:�
�t �<4. �i J._�'��'�*!'.•y^�' ��,. , �3I 1 � � y�J` ` 1"� �, � •..@.,:f.�xl
� L Y
�. � ���i�r��J _''�.L,'_����w ..�. '/;s=� ;�1 � ..� 3€1 ,
�kitti . .� r � +�`r`t, 3�; �'` c ��• ;t�� v.
r'�, �r >�.. - '���`► � � .
7� � . �� �F ,�ri1-� �' � .��ez 3�
�I ��i':3�,�,"�r i' -c''`�'- � 1�+IL � .t.. ��J �1; ^�,.r.
. %
sr r,; ,y
�F�
� 4a { t ' � ��v � I � s�.
/.. Fq"' . ��._ 'r . '�. " -� 1. � 1 j�.:, �"�+,�i S' � '.:
�.. .'u�'a�i ��-�.�" �}�*, �.4 "` �t .�l���� � y`�..x.� ��ir.'�,1,,'��S%�����-:h"rr 4A ��
,.�r't� t}�}: `' '��;��k p .+,��++�' �+ `'�-� �^f,•t� s � ��.�.
�. j 1 '�`'. � .. � 4 .a ,� �
,, ��` � .7��7 {�s�a �• _ .E`� " a' ��'R'� #�_ ar,d._ �{ ,,a, 2
�. ��� .. .k 4 "."'.���� ,�"�� �, 'e�_ �p�g.��� ;_�a x 'o �d': .
�� � �r�� ; 1 '�,r,",� rr, �t{�,� ��' Y '{x���="� 1 �. ',# ,-I`� �
`'� . '1 ; ib +?,; �`'.`�
� '_�,M�, �� ryrA.fi4r ly:"�',� �:. �� : �,'��' V .� aw4,
+�.�r �+ttr
�f ,� �' a .�'ti"� .I�r�,�L� '• '� k„ Z��, � '� � � �,� , 1�
.;M _['�T''Yi ��4�, �.�� �'�'6 hw,�:d ���d' '�'`.: �r' � zj,y�R't�.G..J'J J� � .���` .R.�'�� �.�.�dy.
u� a '# .��. /
�I" ¢ `;�ar' , " � ' £� �'2 � s A � ^�t
� �����y�� � � ,�r ;'�� . � t ' ; �-;,,,.�.� ....M.,,. .1
� 'E�"..� ?K.�, � �yt:� .�*� °�'�'�..���r ±;� -�'�, x �" •' ��'"��'`� ,� �
- ..;� ��' _�. ';�, �' �e. � . T. f ,� , f.
ri '� � y�;. ��� a54;'A �•, L Y �f�jj�C� � �..�y +.
.
:.'. T� � � '(f Y "�`"yt�a 1 r
,�� .,yi i3y ' ��f. ^ 'Rirt�. �� �� a � � �
} .
� ,KF, �� '��Y�t :l^ �a�)�� ` v j' T ` 'tY� f " . .,.
t,-.`p�'d Jij i•��� ',;.�Ysy�.�' _''Y'�.: ,���`r ` ,>� ���.� ' S-:"�� f �.i... f���ir �;a+ ��, $Y ro1:
.�
�
�+ a.i. �,�.,� ,,�� . ��� �•� .� � .n� � i� yr � "���"} � � _
',4,� ,_.e fi � a� ��-. � R
t t
�-� 1 5 r�� � ; r rs ''1. „d' � �_ .ey+ 1
/� '�4��� f�f� � + �' F -`Y "� � ;�r�m 5 -s �d� �'�
1 �t q" �(,y, a �'R.• .�"''r� � �� -Y 1
_ . . ti
� Source Oran �, ;, ,�; �4,: ,-. , r, ., t.: �
, .r , �J.c �. � 'S'. . ' � � '1 � ` _�"
.. .. .. .. , � �. v.. ..r �. , ,..
� -'.�e\ .� . ,..�..: ..
ge County NAIP 2009
Exhibit 3-3
� ���� � 2,000 �,000 o �,000 Local Vicinity Map
� �❑�� z� Feet Aerial Base
1lichacl Brandman:Associatcs
� 37710001 •05/2011 �3-3_local_aerial.mxd CITY OF ORANGE •SALEM LUTHERAN CHURCH AND SCHOOL SPECIFIC PLAN
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Sa/em Lutheran Church and School Specific Plan
Drak E/R Project Description
The existing buildings that house the sanctuary and pre-school were built and first occupied in 1969.
The pre-school opened for students in l 976 followed by the opening of the elementary school in
1983. The elementary school building was completed in 1984 and the multi-purpose building and
eight additional classrooms were completed in 2000. Exhibit 3-4 depicts the onsite land uses.
3.2.3 - Site Plan Chronology
Prior to the Community Alternative B plan which the Salem Specific Plan represents, numerous
earlier plans 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.
Three of these plans act as chronological markers to the evolution of this project as proposed with this
Specific Plan. These plans are:
• September 28, 2004 Conceptual Plan.
• Design Review Committee Land Use Plan of May 5, 2006 (Preliminary Design Review
Committee Presentation, City of Orange, May 17, 2006.)
• July 2009, Community Alternative B Plan.
The September 28, 2004 Conceptual Plan proposed a 600 fixed-seat sanctuary and worship center
(which includes ancillary rooms and offices) of approximately l 6,500 square feet, relocation of the
preschool to the existing onsite vacant structure and parking for 207 vehicles. This plan was never
formally submitted to the City.
In the Design Review Committee Presentation, City of Orange on May l 7, 2006, a plan was
presented that proposed a 757 fixed-seat sanctuary and worship center of approximately 24,000
square feet, relocation of the preschool to the adjacent existing onsite vacant structure and parking for
200 vehicles on paved surface and 112 vehicles on the grass playfield when necessary. This plan was
prepared in response to comments received from neighbors regarding building placement, circulation
and parking, and with program re-evaluation by the applicant.
In July 2009, a plan was prepared as a result of ineetings with neighbors and is referred to as
Community Alternative B. The plan represents substantial modifications from that which was
presented to the Design Review Committee on May 17,2006, including the worship center location, a
reduction in size of the worship center and the sanctuary's seating capacity, site access considerations
�u and circulation improvements. This plan represents the proposed project that is addressed in the
Salem Specific Plan and described in detail in Section 3.5 below.
Michael Brandman Associates 3-9
H1Client(PN-IN)�3771\37710001�EIIt\9-DEIR�37710001 Sec03-00 Project Descriptioadoc
�
Sa/em Lutheran Church and School Specific Plan �
Project Description Draft EIR
�
3.3 - Project Objectives .._
The following objectives have been established by the project applicant to guide the development of "�
the proposed project. The goal number provided in parentheses corresponds to the Specific Plan. '°
�
OBJ-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 �Y f
expressed by surrounding residences and the City of Orange. (Specific Plan Goal �""'
No. 1.) �
OBJ-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.)
�
OBJ-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.) �
OBJ-4 Maintain comparable open space and recreational amenities of the campus while �"
meeting the programmatic needs. (Specific Plan Goal No. 4.) �
�:
OBJ-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.) �
..e
OBJ-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. .A.
(Specific Plan Goal No. 6.) ,,,�;
OBJ-7 Incorporate sustainable design techniques into the redesign plans for the campus. '"""
(Specific Plan Goal No. 7.) �
�
�
w
�
�
�;
,.�
�
3-10 Michael Brandman Associates �
H�\Client(PN-IN)13771\37710001�EIIt\9-DEIlt\37710001 Sec03-OOProjectDescription.doc
�
� � � Z�
1
M (� d�
� ,t� � f -�w_ ,� jx � „ .�..+ � LL�
�� _ _
�
� �C* ,� �", �• d �z'. .* � ;L • � L � a�
. � . ��
p. �!s„ ,' � , ..: �� y` ` � �m� �,•:....4��. W ��
. . �. x' ',. . . �. J—
,. . ..,.�
. ;.
j •« �., . , �"" � ` . . � .,R y. � ��„ t :.>�.. _ O�
� � 4 �, ' � � *� �,;, . ♦. � �Z
� , =+ ���"��� ti � �' �� "'� .,� ' _�i � ��
- .�! i �":. � '� +r z o
=� �.r� ��� 'i�^,�;a�}�,,i�a�l N a�
� ' ����H�� _ � �X �z
. W =w
� i _ � �4 � �*?� �"� �h,.. �; �� . � . � U
YI s=. p ,�� . �.t . Z
/� � , -'�''� �
� �� , � �- � �'""` �
� � � ��� �� � � �
� ?+ "� � - �' � w
• '' � � � Q
,�� 7" � � ,� �} Cn
e �5 .
� �= � �, W
� r�' ,�}` � f _ �j ��I f 1 b i "( Z
a. �y � �' ;� � al ���� x� ��A! � �
� �� 'k���• � �' � � �� � �`� OLL
,
�
yt $': .. ,;� t+ � . , � . fps �
m , . � �
l �} ' � � r� �� •� � { U
��� ` � �%��
� ��,;' �� '� \�` {
� , � .. � � i ._,. � ` ,r''.�..
� ��i w.vr+ s �i',-.�� �
� � 4 [ � �
Ie ' � � .y � `. � �� L` r..� �f �L� .., .. '�"�'� `
�:.. t'� li.;p�� ��C.� � .i �^ .
3r .�'
r �
�� �j �
..� . �\ t,.� "/ ..___.� .
. t �{� •� * � � �- ���
� �� n
'� �'•,� t�'•a�"�;-� � � '. i- t
�''t' � � �► � � � �
'`� "� � � ::�?ti�� �#� � � `*
� ,w�� � .�+ "�.����r� �� � � � �
� � � � �:. . � ���*
�
-� � � �., _ � ��
, �� y�` '� �: ��:` '=
a . `, • � �
� �.. '� r * ,. R, _y.�
'#� r - � r� �, ! `.. ,*
�<:.. � ,� � .,� }.�"" •� �. Ye� �`
�� � ���!" ` _ .i��-�t � O
� *.�� . ..__._"� �� . N
� 1M1 `
4_:_ ...i . •' v '�
�� » • U
i � � � � N
e
# � � 7
'� �� . N N �
� � � t_ � � � � C
.
, r 'b
. , .
�-
��., ' � O p .y
�.c � m
* �=;, ' Q ° � °�I
Z °'
c � �f
, � , �� � 1 ° r>
,r y —
.,,; ��' � f � f- y
# # �� � � a �
r � 4, m HlbON � o
X ♦ � �
�y, L
/, 94
� �k w
.:� ,�� �. � �� �
� •
� } � �� � o
0
V �� � O
�
n �� � M
Sa/em Lutheran Church and School Specific Plan
DraR E/R Project Description
3.4 - Project Characteristics
Table 3-1 provides a land use summary and Table 3-2 provides a statistical summary ofthe
breakdown of the uses and square footage of buildings on site and compares the existing and
proposed development onsite. Detailed descriptions of the project characteristics follow the tables
and are organized according to the following:
• Zone Change Characteristics (Section 3.4.1)
• Building, Landscaping and Architectural Theme Characteristics(Section 3.4.2)
• Landscaping, Trees, Fencing and Lighting Characteristics(Section 3.43)
• Infrastructure Characteristics (Section 3.4.4)
• Utilities (Section 3.4.5)
• Offsite Improvements(Section 3.4.6)
Table 3-1: Land Use Summary
Land Use Designation Acres
Building Environs 131
• Multipurpose Building
• Classroom Buildings(supporting kindergarten through eighth grade and
daycare)
• Worship Center
• Preschool Building(with pre-kindergarten)
Recreation and Open Space 3•2�
• Multipurpose Field
• Paved Play Courts, Paved Play Area, Play Structure and Parking Underlay
• Preschool Play Yard
• Plaza and Yard Areas
• Landscape and Open Space
Circulation and Parking 1.51
• Santiago Canyon Road Entry
• Frank Lane
• Parking Lot
Total Site Area 6.03
Source: Salem Lutheran Church and School Specific Plan,April 30,2011.
Michael Brandman Associates 3-13
� H-\Client(PN-JN)�3771\37710001�EIR\9-DEIR�37710001 Sec03-OOProjectDescription.doc
Sa/em Lutheran Church and Schoo/Specific P/an
Project Description Draft E/R
�
Table 3-2: Statistical Summary
Use Existing Proposed ~�".
_ _
_ _ _
Acres 6.03 6.03
Sanctuary 3,262 sq ft 10,650 sq ft� ,�„,�
Ancillary Rooms and Corridors(New 0 sq ft 12,350 sq ft�
Worship Center)
Multipurpose Building 11,171 sq ft 11,171 sq ft "�
Preschool 3,040 sq ft 5,981 sq ft Z
Classroom Building B 12,376 sq ft 12,376 sq ft �
Classroom Building C 7,380 sq ft 7,380 sq ft �k
Residential/Quasi-Public 5,798 sq ft 0 sq ft ,�,
Parking-Onsite Uncovered, Striped Spaces 153 Spaces 180 Spaces ,,,�
113 Multipurpose Field4
Total Student Enrollment 726 Maximum3 726 Maximum `�
(Daycare, Preschool,Pre-K,and K-8) �
Building Total 43,027 sq ft 59,908 sq ft
�
Notes:
� Preliminary estimate. .�
� Includes conversion of garage to usable space. No proposed increase in overall student enrollment.
3 726 is the maximum student enrollment allowed. The maximum number of students allowed on campus at any one �'
time is 611 per Conditional Use Permit No.2213-98.
4 Parking on the multipurpose field would be subject to the provisions of a Parking Management Plan permit. ""'
Source: Salem Lutheran Church and School Specific Plan,April 30,201 1.
■s
�
3.4.1 -Zone Change Characteristics
��
The Zoning Code, part of the City Municipal Code, also implements the Orange General Plan.
��.
Generally, each zone district specifies the permitted land uses and applicable development standards.
The zoning district on the project site is R-1-40(Single-Family Residential, minimum one acre lot ��
area). ��.
The Zoning Code allows churches in all residential zone districts with the granting of a Conditional �
Use Permit. The Salem Lutheran Church was granted Conditional Use Permit No. 2213-98 and is i�
therefore consistent with this R-1-40 zone district. ��
��
A change of zone will eliminate the R-1-40 district and replace it with the SP/P-I (Specific
Plan/Public and Institutional)zone district. The zone change will provide consistency for this ��
Specific Plan and the OPA Plan. �
�
Processing a zone change to SP/P-I as is proposed is appropriate and reflects the City's previous and
�,�.=
current practice with respect to other institutional uses located in the Ciry.
..
3-14 Michae!Brandman Associates
H:\Client(PN-JN)�3771\37710001�EIR\9-DEIIL�37710001 Sec03-00 Pmject Description doc ��
Salem Lutheran Church and Schoo/Specifc Plan
Draft E/R Project Description
3.4.2 -Architectural Theme Characteristics
Following are detailed descriptions of the development characteristics,which include the worship
center, K-8 School, preschool, landscaping, lighting, and the architectural theme. Exhibit 3-5
provides the details of the conceptual development plan.
Architectural Theme
The architecture of the buildings to remain (the existing onsite vacant structure, Multipurpose
Building, and Classroom Buildings B and C)have been constructed in the California Ranch style or
have a more contemporary interpretation of this style indicated by the buildings' form and mass, color
tones and materials. The existing onsite vacant structure to which the preschool will be relocated to is
predominantly one story, with a small second floor component on the east end of the building. The
doors are traditional in style and scale. The primary fa�ade material is smooth stucco with brick
columns along the front porch. The buildings to remain on site will define what the campus
architecture vernacular is and will guide the design of the new worship center. New construction,
while being respectful of the existing style, will complement the style but is not intended to be a
direct interpretation. Contemporary themes and architectural styles that evolve from the existing
development represents a normal course of growth. While being respectful of the current buildings
architecture described previously,the new building will reflect contemporary interpretations in both
style and function. Materials and color are important elements in blending the old with the new.
Exhibit 3-7 and Exhibit 3-8 provide the future conceptual building elevations for the Preschool and
worship center, respectively. Refer to the design guidelines section of the Specific Plan in Appendix
I.
Worship Center
The proposed project includes the construction of a new worship center building which will be
located in the same general area as the existing sanctuary/preschool building. The new worship
center will be approximately 20,000 to 23,000 square feet and will house the new sanctuary, which
has a fixed-seat capacity of 712 seats. Additionally, conference/meeting rooms,the sacristy, offices,
choir/music rooms, storage, childcare, and other ancillary/administrative rooms will be included in
the new building.
K-8 School
The existing K-8 classrooms on site are comprised of Classroom Building B and Classroom Building
C. Both of these classrooms will not be affected by the Salem Lutheran Church and School redesign
project. The maximum student enrollment on campus is 726 students; however, per the Conditional
Use Permit(CUP) 2213-98, Resolution 8974, approved by the City of Orange on July 14, 1998
Conditional Use Permit issued for the project site,the maximum number of students allowed on
campus at any one time is 611.
Michae/Brandman Associates 3-15
H\Client(PN-1N)�3771\37710001�EIR\9-DEIR137710001 Sec03-00 Project Description.doc
�
Sa/em Lutheran Church and Schoo/Specific P/an �
Project Description Draft E/R
�
Preschool
The existing preschool will be relocated to an existing onsite vacant structure and the existing
�
preschool building will be razed. The new preschool would be approximately 5,981 square feet. No
height increase to the existing structure is proposed. The exterior fa�ade will maintain its current y
characteristics while requiring some upgrades far 1-hour rating compliance. Seven classrooms are '"`
proposed, ranging in size from approximately 591 square feet to approximately 647 square feet. Each
classroom will have its own storage and toilet room. The remaining portions of the building will be �
occupied with supporting facilities such as office,public restroom, kitchen/laundry space, reception
�»
area, and storage. The existing landscape character will be preserved, healthy trees will be retained,
and an existing circular driveway, currently in the front yard area, will be removed and replaced with '"'�
informal groupings of lawn, shrubs, and groundcovers. The main entrance doors to the preschool will �
be located on the east side of the building and the southerly existing entry will be for visitors only. A �„
play area for the preschool students will be located on the northwest side of the building.
�.
3.4.3 - Landscaping, Trees, Fencing, and Lighting Characteristics �
This section describes the landscaping, fencing and lighting proposed on the project site. -�
Landscaping '""�
The intent of the landscape design on site is to unify the exterior spaces of the property,to �
complement the architectural style of the existing/proposed buildings and to connect the project �
contextually to the surrounding OPA community. A plant materials palette has been developed with ,�
consideration to the rural characteristics of this part of the City of Orange and OPA and includes both
�
low maintenance plant materials and the efficient use of water, as is specified in the City of Orange
document, "Guidelines for Water Efficient Landscapes." Exhibit 3-6 provides the landscape master �
plan. Refer to the landscape guidelines section of the Specific Plan in Appendix I far a detailed �
description of the proposed plant palette and tree species proposed for removal and retention. �.
Fencing and Walls '"""
Fences and walls on site will be constructed of material, finish, and color that are complimentary to `"�
the building architecture to which they relate. ,,,�
�
Fencing: Chain link fencing, as currently exists on the project site, is located along the campus
boundary adjacent to Santiago Canyon Road and Orange Park Boulevard and will remain in place for '"�
the safety of the children in play/recreation areas. For safety and security, rolling metal fence/gates �'*
will be constructed at all entries to parking lots from Santiago Canyon Road and Frank Lane. ,,,,r
�
�.
�:
�,«
3-16 Michael Brandman Associates ,�
H1Client(PN-JN)�3771\37710001�EIIL\9-DEIRU7710001 Sec03-OOProjectDescription.doc
� � � �o
Orange Park Boule�•Trd � � ��
� � �
J° C w U
e -
� 9 ._..__ .. �. . . . :...-_= w — ��
F � ���������" � J` X � °a
. �u �� _~
_ ' >. . . . . . . . . . . . . • ' ' _--. ,�. � u��
� ._.. _.---- ___. _ .___ -.� , > oz
_ .._..._.._----�-___ � Q�
- I � _>
� _ ��r �r ^ i � V W
/ W�s v � Q
�`o= ? U �
o'��� u C I C F
� c C�F F�� 7 .x l U �
� C ! w
' •� _``_` n G.s•, v<i
�'-" >. ,
c a w
, �
� �•�, -. -`—- - ~ � � 4a
�.
� fi � ; �
f LL
� � t':�' � � ; ��` ' ; �
f },1 =� ,,�
� �� a� � ,+ �� p' V
� ��.,i � � a��
m� I
� . ��I .. I a p;,
m
� C r { ; t � .. _�� .� ��i � C. z, �/
� C / ���.�, � _F' t �.� I � I I�' I * i- i ,Y}� (i f
.. 1CJ{
i�l
C� �... � . . . �y 6. . .... . .�y;' U 5� !L�
BO'D ..L X , ��
� '�' ' - - f�,.�� �j
C �y d
F," `�^' �' f(`-'t 1 �3� E�
U ;� � � b l
,� r\ �-.~?' � ��� ��Y„�{ � � d 1
r.. ' �. � �,:;.o ;
. y ' ;M _ ,� a�
'�.. � ��''r� .. �� } y? .
11�Y-/� �f v G =' �
� � "� � � c � �
m �c ��
s`r� 7.a ..}.... C,, . ��,
1�f.. ��' ,% `\ � A
� ,r
�: � � m �� �
o.� ' �
''^p v \ - _4- •
� ..:� L� F 1t . �
� �� t
1
I�° ! �
i o m
\/'1 o G
� �Y m�� i�
,� � ; ��•� �
-.� .:�
�� � G � � �
� �� � .
`�`� �� ;11�� ,
� , -�. :� o
m �
GJ �
,.:�,' 1 `; � � �
'� m � ��' � v
� � �
�, � ���:4 i �
t �� � a
�. 4-' a
� y �
5 ' .�,.�.<.,�" .-s 3 a:.z
� _ _ .� � - �',., � — ��.� .✓, 1 s7 ..
� a - � 3 . e � , � S a
� - - - - ' - �� o ��' �
= - - - '� �� E .. � _. � .:i ` '�,.
� 4 � � ~ --' �, 4 �� I .. N
. . --� ',;1� � � �0
� �E � f. . p� � L � N a¢il
� - 5 - E� ` o � . y� v:. � � �
� f` �' ` °� � cv. a'� . s <::. �:x r.,, � -�
i". d
s� � s �� _ � , ?` N
� �? 3 E d = g _
€ S . _ �.i��-'�8� '` . �� Q
� e � ° ,
_ � r � .R ..
� _.� � y . �� y �R.r R
6 5 �'p` � F Y ` -' � .. � -
� � �' � .« . '� -"` �-r �' i -
H_r�oN -
' I= ♦ _ �
`o z �� �� _
�� r� =
� � � �� ���
� � C j�
M � aa
�. � U�
�
U
. Or.�B 1f21t�d 3hNdNC.` � -' .. � .. ^ L � N a
� /.. 1��� i-•. `._:l.. '�-�� --��' ` � p z
. . .._ . �. _ ..�.. �..�._ ._
X �
W �
4��_������' ������S�Y����1-'- � �.._���/ � N W
;� .. i , , , . , oz
. . � (�II
� :.. . . . . . y
' -- � -- --- ' Z o
: . _... —...--- ._ . i � U a�
.- ' � i�� N c=z
� _.._.. _ _ ____ ____ ._. _
_ ' � =w
, _ '' � � � j � �
S ; .�. _ � � . J Q
' — �
_. 3 - �
w
a _ - t-- j
� � ._. ..... : -t- - } i - � - � �
�.� � ( � ltt�i3j ; 21 � t i � 4 � ! w
_... , � � . . . . . . . . � E .-- � a
�
_ "� w
� �'_ _,. � c7
�' ! � 9 I E Z
{ ; I ; - o
.. ����� Y' LL
f� � �� _ - � ' �
_ I, � F �� ,�' ,�2� U
� � ¢
�f� I 1� 'i i
�» . � . . . . ... �.,¢i
� '� ��._._-- .. _. � ����
o� ,` � r �
2 � i � � i �; ,
� p2 i � �•' - + :�_ ,I
Q �Ye` y '� m ._�__i i_I__�.� � , ,_i � �_1.. � �
� �., � � ,
U i ;
O ' � # 'I
� = r. - _ ��" �i �
h � � - � �..r . i i
,�': " ' i
� V,
a �% r� � �
��' `�5/ J '. Y4 I
.�r�.��/ � f � i
�t�if I
�'t Y
� t
��.��
,
. ,
��,�
;
I
; ;
� , �
� �. �
� O
� ���_ �
�� ��� �� ` C
� � ��� � a ��s�� ��� . . � �� � �'���
gg�€� a g� � �� ���aa � �x
g �
PE�!"y� @@@ �p�r�£�e� ���v� � �`��."',, ' N
��8����$'�����. $T'4�� �°�xfi3�e�����g���x; .. 1''1'' � � � ., �
� w��g���gYy��� .$as�� ��d g��.Y€YEk€Y �^ � ..\ �.:.W ^ . -, � .. _. � ..... �. U
� 7.r�idCi_�����£e.3en�a�.r€�'r3 4.:o-�� ". � i�� ,' m
�_ ..• ..Y�^C: 2�.-,..cR .KRx .. F > . ..�r. .�.
Si . 1 1 ; � .,� �
�33 38 � ,�t�` �-� � �
� � a € � ��.� � w
g � [
a�$'-��������3�Se ot��� � �g¢Hg�g� � � � �,;�,��, < 4_.- � ,.� w
o� ����5(b e y�e��s��`'.�a���a�lF;�d3i�� � y����� ����,. .,�'.
� � a€i�a z��q�d��FSt��Stis��k�i�-a 9��.�� ��r�� �, ��s,
� °�89"sS�!e3£�6k,rirYv�� ���3 B� E 'V�` �
��� �;ti�� � ` � �
�,, �.. , ; � �'
� �� p sa a¢a a e . , � o �,
� � d
� � � � * `° "
_ '
� � _ � � $ �.«,�� . ` r ` °
. .
��� ; �S'3�� q �: �g ��a 5��� �} � �,.,..�� �' . _ —
y 6 6� ��{ ��8��§ p i E Af���3'k�•(�(�j �': j �� •r,�:... a
t 3���Y�Y�•�S��i�'1 ����$ r� Y ��E�'�E�$�lr8,��' ;���� t i( a
� 'sa,a a �� �4 ��� � � � $���r���' ��E��g . f ' � �
r H12fON
,��'� ���O� L �1...1� y� . . �. . - � P�
S �� _ !
�� _ o
� � i i M
N
� � � Z�
1
M -,},�— aa
�' +' � U�
_ _ � � UU
_ ,� � w¢
= XW n�
r J—
� � � � O Q
� C =Z
'a � ��
�'�' r •� Q�
� � � �
2�
'� , � �W
: � _
�° ~ _ � � U
L' c: V Z
> (/�
� ` . � �
- � w
� � } L =
c � � H
� s' ^ t���� J
;y ♦
� ^ �•' � C # y� � IL
. t' .; � �� '� I +�+ Q
Q �
r, � .
+ U w
�� , , � � z
� _ � .'�- (� o
� ���� ° ' � � o
x� L �
„. � � �. � U
I�� � t - � Y� �
1 �
� _ e��
�
�.. i.."'.� �,�-��I
+ "'G•,4
1 Y-�
i«
Y �
LLi�.
�±, y
r, _ __ ; c �
a • ���.' � b a
� � �
� �
",� �:_. ti= `
._ __ ��
, a - - �, �
� >
� �
� �,
��: M x; �� � a �i
, � � —
tl a a
.��` ` m o�
0
L
, U
N d
Yap U a
-. m n
'__ � U
R � C
U
ie �I
�' o �
y �
Q � ��
� � � n
� l �oc%>
� ti —
a m �`� Q �'
� LI � � N
�, HlaoN � M
� �� o
L � �
V �
k' � �� � O
V �� c�d O
.r
� � �d � M
�
ZH
� �
M � aa
+� (a ��
� � V V
' L � w¢
° XW v�
' � J—
. . w . . � � � Q J
c > 0 Q
� r° � W C =Z
0
r��� � � ' m � �W
1l_ w �
= � '� �Z
, � Q�
; m �
_. i, � , L U Z
m � � , '' � ?W
W � � C ; C U
r— �
4 "7 ; `�i��� " � ls � Z
. 4 �' �_ 5 . U �
W / I I I . , ��I w
�
� i, CN l a =L
LL � � Ji , r
� � r �
. i I / { I�I . t� . I � 'J
A l � � � (;,i� i p w
�' � N � � ! r' �~ ' � �
� .�� �"`-' '��.� � � I j1� �, •
c� � S � � :� I �� 7 z
� , '',
� �,
�
� � �
I +
� � �' , � � � . � �
�� \ , _ � � � �, o
�; �- � � �I,r— � � � c, o
,
�,
, � .
� � u
, �, ,
,I� i �- - �_-- � ,, � �
r, w �� O
//� � +' t! �'_ r , U
`J
�//j ,lI� � i ' II^ � � �_ �
i ,/ 1 s, i ,� ; �
, / +�
�/ / � � � ' i� � �
/ ` _ � j ,' �,' .� �/l'+ � �
�� ,� � � '� � r��6��
�.\ T � : f ;; ,. t / "�
� � � �, �' '� / I� �,
`; ; ,t; ,
1 � 'I � ��'/'� r / 1? I � �
` '�,,�I, � v�' � t � � �
�I, �� r� � `�r ' / �u� m
`,` �I� I�� „� � � / ;i, i� � �
� I i (�` a
� I � C2 U
I �'� ,I I ' �i ,,: '. �':S� � �:�, � C N
! i � —
� �_ �,, V FF �, °'�
� � 1' , �_----� �`- � -�
r" � '
m
m I � \�', C �° �,
1 � � � �
� � ,� � n c
{ I � vl
� �7 " a
LL
� . \ `h �L•�'._ 0 N
lJ— N O
�
I t� � 3i
1' f � � c�i
'',� I � N �I
� � O �
� I O 7
� �`1 Q „ �I
% �0
� � f7
� ] y �
�
.... �I�'�.
� � t0 N
_._ � HlaoN �
� �� � �
� �� � �
0
0
0
7 �� U f�
n �� � �
Sa/em Lutheran Church and Schoo/Specific Plan
Draft EIR Project Description
WaIL• At the property line along the west edge of the project, adjacent to the proposed pre-school,
the reconstruction of an existing masonry wall is proposed. Due to grade separation,the wall will
range in height from 6 to 10 feet depending where along the wall, and which side the wall is viewed
from. The wall shall have a maximum height of 8 feet when measured from the highest elevation of
land contiguous to the wall.
Exterior Lighting
Sources of exterior lighting on the project site will 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 Site Plan review.
Parking lot lighting: Lighting for paved parking areas and vehicular drive aisles will continue to be
provided to assist the congregation, staff,visitors, and any emergency service vehicles that may be
needed with safe, clear, unobstructed way-finding between the adjacent streets and the parking areas.
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 Building Security Standards Ordinance No. 7-79, open parking lots providing more than ten 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 field 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
]0:30PM. It is anticipated that overflow parking requiring evening lighting will only occur two or
three times a year for events such as Good Friday services and special children's events.
Currently the Salem Lutheran Church and School has an overflow parking plan,which specifies the
locations on the school's field where vehicles can park. Depending on availability of personnel,
cones are set up between 3:00 PM and 5:00 PM the evening that temporary lighting is needed. Cones
are removed the next morning. Temporary lighting is currently set up in the approved locations
depicted in Appendix J and will continue to be placed in those locations in the future.
As depicted in Appendix J,three temporary lights are set up on site, as follows:
Michael Brandman Associates 3-25
H�\Client(PN-JN)�3771\37710001�EIIi\9-DEIIt�37710001 Sec03-00 Project Description.doc
�
Salem Lutheran Church and Schoo/Specific P/an
Project Description Draft E/R
�
One light is set up at the edge of the field, along the portion of the field that fronts Orange Park
Boulevard. A second light is set up along the edge of the filed, along the portion of the field that
fronts Frank Lane and a third light is set up near the share structure. (Ventura, pers. comm. October �p
4, 2011). A description of the set up of cones far parking before an event/church service and the set
up of cones/signs afterwards is provided in subsection 3.4.4 below. *-�
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 and be a combination of existing and new lighting fixtures. All
lighting will be indirect, with light sources concealed or shielded from view. All light direction will ��
be downward, rather than upward ar 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. „�.
3.4.4 - Infrastructure Characteristics ��
The proposed project includes infrastructure improvements required to implement the Salem project ""�
relate to vehicular access and onsite circulation, emergency vehicular access, parking, , water and ,,,�,
wastewater conveyance, storm water drainage and water quality, utilities, and offsite pedestrian and
��.
equestrian access. Descriptions of each follow below.
�
Proposed Vehicular Access and Onsite Circulation „�
The Salem Specific Plan proposes a driveway access off Santiago Canyon Road and retaining the �
existing access of Frank Lane. The proposed access off Santiago Canyon Road, designed to facilitate
��
eastbound right-turn movements directly into and out of the site, will reduce traffic volume on Frank
Lane. A "pork chop" shaped traffic island at the proposed Santiago Canyon Road entry drive will ''°�
direct traffic flow, accommodate fire truck movement and allow for pedestrian and eyuestrian �
crossing. Refer to Exhibit 3-5 in this section and in Section 4.8, Transportation and Traffic, Exhibit �
4.8-4.
��.
In conjunction with the proposed Santiago Canyon Road driveway, providing adeyuate internal �
circulation and loop movements within the site will ensure that queuing does not extend onto either ��:r
Santiago Canyon Road or Orange Park Drive during school drop-off and pick-up periods on a typical
n�
weekday. Exhibits 4.8-2 and 4.8-3 in Section 4.8, Transportation and Traffic, illustrate the weekday
circulation plan and Sunday church circulation plan, respectively. To facilitate school drop-off and �
pick-up operations,traffic control personnel will be stationed along the curbside staging area, at the "�'
intersection of the proposed Santiago Canyon Road driveway and internal/main parking lot loop, and �
at the intersection of Frank Lane and the internal/main parking lot loop. It is estimated that up to five ��
3-26 Michae/Brandman Associates ��,
H�.\Client(PN-JN)�3771\37710001�EIIt\9-DEIIL137710001 Sec03-OOProjectDescription.doc
a�::
Salem Lutheran Church and School Specific P/an
Draft EIR Project Description
traffic control personnel will be utilized. Traffic control personnel for school day drop-off and pick-
up would be staff inembers/employees of the church/school.
Two drop-off/pick-up areas are proposed. One drop-off/pick-up area will be located in the main
parking lot curbside adjacent to the worship center in the form of a"car line." The second drop-
off/pick-up area will be located in the parking lot between the existing classroom buildings and the
relocated preschool. Parents will park their vehicles in the parking lot and escort their children to and
from the preschool building(Exhibit 4.8-2 in Section 4.8, Transportation and Traffic).
Placards identifying vehicles will be provided for Orange Park Acre residents and non-resident's,
controlling right and left turns onto Orange Park Boulevard from Frank Lane. OPA residents will
have one Type of placard allowing them to turn right from Frank Lane onto Orange Park Boulevard.
Non-residents will have a different type of placard and will only be allowed to turn left from Frank
Lane onto Orange Park Boulevard. A traffic control person will be stationed at this intersection to
control vehicle turning.
The proposed design of Frank Lane will reflect a condition of two closely spaced but separate
driveways, one for church and school use, and one for residents only, which can be provided in a safe
and efficient manner. The 44-foot private drive for Salem Church will include 2 to 4 travel lanes with
adjoining parking(inbound versus outbound usage of the lanes depends on the day and/or time of
day) (Exhibit 4.8-5 in Section 4.8, Transportation and Traffic). During weekday school drop-off and
pick-up periods two ingress and two egress lanes will be provided. One egress lane will be for right-
turns onto Orange Park Blvd. and one egress lane will be for left-hand turns onto Orange Park Blvd.
During Sunday church services, one ingress and one egress lane will be provided.
Proposed Onsite Vehicular Parking
There will be provided on site 180 paved surface parking spaces and 113 overflow spaces on the
multipurpose field to accommodate parking needs on weekdays, Sundays and special events. Per
City of Orange Zoning Ordinance 17.34.060 (1 space/4 seats), adequate parking will be provided ]00
percent of the time. However, based upon recent surveys and analysis by the project's traffic
engineer:
• Adequate parking will be provided 100 percent of the time according to City Code.
. Adequate parking will be provided 85 percent of the time based upon empirical conditions
(actual demand).
• 15 percent of the time, based upon empirical conditions, a Parking Management Plan (PMP)
will be implemented as per Section 7.5 of the Specific Plan, allowing overflow parking to
occur on the grass multipurpose field.
Michae/Brandman Associates 3-2�
H\Client(PN-IN)�3771\37710001�E[R\9-DEIR�37710001 Sec03-00 Project Description.doc
Sa/em Lutheran Church and Schoo/Specifc P/an
Project Description Draft E/R
�
Prior to an event or church service two rows of cones are set up to divide rows 1, 2, and 3. Two rows r.,
of cones are set up to divide rows 3, 4 and 5. A row of large cones is also placed at the right end of
cones dividing rows 3 and 4, stretching to the tree line inform of the lunch area. Small cones are set �
up to block the handball court area and six consecutive (ar as close to consecutive cones) are set up to
reserve parking spots closest to the church for visitors. Entryway cones are set up as follows: cones �°
are place to block parallel parking spots along the grass, or up to the lunch benches. Cones are also ��;
placed from row 2, curving out to the street to define the left hand turn for entry. An exit sign is place
.�
at the far end of the cones dividing rows 2 and 3 (Ventura, pers. comm. September 22, 2011.). Refer
to Appendix J for the existing overflow parking plan. �
�
After an event or church service, cones that form the turn lane into the parking area are moved and
�.
the back of row 2 is blocked off. The cones that were blocking the parallel parking spaces along the
grass are moved to form an exit lane out of row 1. An exit sign is placed at the far end of rows 2 and �
3, in the middle of the grass so that cars coming from rows 4 and 5 must exit down row 3. An "exit '�`
far right"sign and other exit signs are placed direction cars to turn right when exiting at the end of .,�
rows 1 and 3. �
Proposed Emergency Access +�
Emergency access onto the project site would be provided from either of two locations: �
�
• Frank Lane at Orange Park Boulevard, providing a 26-foot paved travel surface.
• The Santiago Canyon Road project entry, providing a 30-foot paved travel surface. ��'
��
Access to the western portion of the site is by way of the church/school portion of Frank Lane, which �w�.
is an extension of the above-mentioned paved travel surface. A northerly access lane is provided
,�
from Frank Lane through the parking lot located between Classroom Building B and the relocated
��,
preschool, providing access to the rear of the campus buildings. A fire truck turn around
(hammerhead) is provided(Exhibit 3-9). Emergency access,travel surface widths, and �'
turnaround/hammerhead configurations will meet the City of Orange Fire Department standards. All �r�
fire access and fire water supplies shall comply with the California Fire Code, as amended by the
��
City, and in effect at the time of application for building permit.
��.
Access to the residences to the west is by way of a"knockdown bollard"and security chain, allowing .;,�
emergency access to transition from the church/school travel lanes of Frank Lane to the"residents ,,,�
only"travel lane, having a minimum width at this location of 20 feet.
�
��
��
.�
3"2$ Michae/Brandman Associates ��
H�\Client(PN-JN)�3771\37710001�EIR\9-DEIR�37710001 Sec03-OOProjectDescrip[ioadoc
� � <�
M � aa
� _ I'. I'. _ �. _ '-' � LL�
.. � V�
_ � � wQ
X ' �a
W � s
_ . _ a � - .. � � � � °a
' .� ` � :; . . ' ' ',=. O
.. ,�A' r � '•i.:��. � � N� =2
.... _ 1�. . � — LL N�
- Y . .. _ . . _ . . • - ' " ' " . . " " i_" . , � Z�
I � _>
_ � I �� . .. � �W
(E S
Q U
` I � � Q
_ � w
� _ �y�. � . . � S
�
C 5
{ i L
- 1 �'�' Li �
� _ .�i w
- - . - �,ca��, a
- m
� _ �w. W
c�
z
' - , . --� f o
r 7��i�`.�..�.-� = 1� T � . O
_ �;s*y'� �.;,*...`� U
_ _�1,�F'�.4 �:. . . .. � .
.._.. _"� .. _ r✓�' � . .
- � — . 1 . �_�__� � �,.p�...
.�-'�, .. _ o
,, �
� _ y `tr � �; m ���. .
,_ < k7
�R _�t f�°•+ �2°tt ��,
�� � _ ,� _ �
` - � �, �' � ;p,;� -"'--L.'._.�� �i'i ;;�
_ ,� � �� �,�
... � t� 7s ���.�F / . � O � � s`'�'+� . ��'�:
��, y,�_.,� ;:}, . . � � � Ci.,.
.?y✓y�� �'"'����� "! 'p"v'
� `�,y�. ��' ' �". .p� . .� . y e:�
_�� � 6 r � a�.
� � � �:
_ . ' - i �
;j _ /-1 i�' 1 ,,�� �,
� � , � � , ,� �
�F
_ � , � _�
_ � , � ,
= � i � i � _ � �
_,�, �� � �
. �- ,��u _� � �
�
. ;
_ �
� i
a x ^a �
r �_ -= �
� �+��+. cd 3 .
�� ~:`� : �4 V � � �: L: T�� o
�
�'-' S'„ . - .. �,
R ���y� � i �
� ��: g, i �
F i -��., .a'sta �' t
�� 1 ..."" � �I <
�� �cl_ �
.-� �-- �;-
, � `
. . . �� .. . �I': a
-_ � ^"""'*� . v
` - ,� ,��:��' � � � ��
�," 'o ,�,�: , . � i �
_
�_ , � , I
t � � � -� � � d
v
� 1
�� -
.� '�z'.i i.� �-' �;
: � � � � '� `��� `�`��. _ _ �I
� �� � �
- - � ��� � -¢P��.��, o �. i �
. _ . . . _ . . � � q .g k,Y I �! aEi
. —r._. ���•--w d, '. o
i b x (
� � �e � �.�.: �°ay�R ��Fy F•��� I � `�i
_ . _ s-'K� ' m
_ . D I ,�i w�'4� �`,�.� .5 I, � N 91
� a
� . - i f �' a �{� ��! 9 £'
�; ��,�� �� '� � r �
� ��aoN _ �
� �� _
zz = �
a� � �
� �= � �
�
�
�
��.
�
�
�
�
�
�.
�
�
�
�
:�
��
��r
��
n�
r�
�
��;
�s
cw�
AqIR
+�
4lI�
iwtk
iwe
#�af
Sa/em Lutheran Church and Schoo/Specific P/an
Draft EIR Project Description
Offsite Equestrian / Pedestrian / Bicycle Circulation
An existing off-street equestrian trail is located adjacent to the site along Orange Park Boulevard and
Santiago Canyon Road. The portion of the equestrian trail located 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 on both sides of Frank Lane that would
require vehicles to stop. Riders approaching Frank Lane from either direction would be able to
activate the crossing signal without dismounting.
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 (Exhibit 4.8-5 in Section 4.8,
Transportation and Traffic).
Santiago Canyon Road and Orange Park Boulevard are designated as Existing Class II (On-Street)
bikeways. 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.
Water and Wastewater Infrastructure
Water to the project site is provided by the Irvine Ranch Water District(IRWD). IRWD owns both a
6-inch diameter asbestos cement pipe (ACP)main and an 8-inch diameter ductile iron pipe(DIP) in
Frank Lane. The site is served by the 8-inch diameter main. Three public laterals serving on site fire
hydrants extend into the site and continue to provide domestic water. Refer to Exhibits 4.9-1 through
4.9-3 in Section 4.9, Utilities and Service Systems, for details related to onsite water lines and
infrastructure.
An existing onsite 21-inch wastewater line provides wastewater conveyance from the project site.
The Orange County Sanitation District(OCSD) owns a 21-inch diameter VCP main in Frank Lane,
which turns north and passes through the project site within a public easement in the site's primary
parking lot. The OCSD main is reduced to a 16-inch diameter at an angle point in Santiago Canyon
Road, at which point the OCSD main turns easterly and continues in Santiago Canyon Road. The
� OCSD 21-inch diameter main that passes through the project site currently serves the school and the
church, and is expected to continue as the point of service for the proposed project. Refer to Exhibit
4.9-2 in Section 4.9, Utilities and Service Systems, for a depiction of the sewer system plan.
Storm Water Conveyance and Water Quality
Site Drainage
The proposed project closely resembles the existing drainage patterns, rates, and volumes, as
_, described below. Under existing conditions, starmwater runoff from the project site sheet flows to
Frank Lane, flows along the western extent of Frank Lane, and discharges untreated into Handy
� Creek, located approximately 0.10 mile southwest of the project site. More specifically,
Michael Brandman Associates 3-31
� H1Client(PN-1N)�3771\37710001�EIR\9-DEQt�37710001 Sec03-OOProjec[Description.doc
�
Sa/em Lutheran Church and School Specifc P/an
Project Description DraR E/R
�
approximately 5.4 acres of the site drains southwesterly to Frank Lane, where runoff is transmitted to
Handy Creek(located approximately 450 linear feet from the project site). Flows travel along Frank
Lane and over private property befare reaching Handy Creek. Approximately 0.5 acre of the project �
site drains over the northwesterly property line and "sheet flows"cross the equestrian property
(located adjacent to the project site) and then to Santiago Canyon Road, and into Handy Creek. �
Approximately 0.1 acre of the project site flows directly onto Santiago Canyon Road from a frontage �_�
area.
�
The proposed project would redirect flow away from the equestrian facility to Santiago Canyon Road. X"
Additionally,the new entrance proposed at Santiago Canyon Road is designed to drain approximately „�
1.6 acres of runoff to Santiago Canyon Road,which would relieve some of the drainage flows that �
currently go to Frank Lane. Approximately 3.9 acres of flow would continue to drain to Frank Lane
under the proposed project design. Small increases in flow 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 by redirecting flows to Santiago Creek as described above. A hydrological �,,,
assessment has been prepared far the proposed project, which states that the proposed development �;,
on site will only marginally increase the total flow and runoff volume.
�
Low Impact Development „�,
As detailed in the Hydrologic Assessment far the proposed project, many of the site design BMPs
�
may also be considered low impact development(LID) features. The goal of LID features is to
mimic the site's existing hydrology by using design measures that capture, filter, store, evaporate, �
detain and/or infiltrate runoff, including redirecting runoff to vegetated areas, protecting native ��
vegetation and reducing the amount of impervious surfaces. �..
The proposed project will introduce Best Management Practices(BMPs) and Low Impact �"�
Development features. This project is classified as a Priority Project. Therefare, infiltration focused "`�
BMPs are required to remove pollutants typically associated with this type of development. The ,,,,,,
proposed project's BMPs will minimize directly connected impervious areas, create reduce or"zero ,,,�
discharge"areas, minimize impervious area/maximize permeability and conserve natural areas. Low
Impact Development(LID)features such as permeable asphalt, parous landscaping, and subsurface ��
m i tration galleries will reduce run-off and aid with water quality. As shown in the Preliminary
��
Water Quality Plan (Exhibit 4.5-1), in the Hydrology and Water Quality section of this document,the ��
multipurpose field serves as a storm water and infiltration zone. ,,�
Implementation ensures that the proposed BMPs to remove pollutants would reduce potential long- �"�
term water quality impacts to a less than significant level. The Project will introduce proven BMPs •xi�
and Low Impact Development(LID) design features to reduce long-term water quality impacts. �,,,�„
These features will include bioretention without underdrains, porous landscaping, subsurface
infiltrating galleries, permeable asphalt, permeable concrete and permeable concrete pavers.
�
3-32 Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client(PN-JN)\3771\37710001�EIR\9-DEIR137710001 Sec03-OOProjec[Descrip[iondoc ��
Salem Lutheran Church and School Specific Plan
Draft E/R Project Description
3.4.5 - Services
The following services would serve the Salem project:
• Electrical Service: Southern California Edison Company
• Natural Gas Service: Southern California Gas Company
• Telephone Service: AT&T
• Water Service: Irvine Ranch Water District
� • Wastewater Service: Orange County Sanitation District
• Solid Waste(Trash) Service: CR&R
,a 3.4.6 - Offsite improvements
Land will be required from the adjacent property owner west of the project site to accommodate the
proposed right-turn deceleration lane. Refer to Figure 11 in the Traffic Impact and Parking Demand
Analysis Report for a visual representation of the geometrics regarding the required right-of-way
(ROW)easement fro the right-turn deceleration lane (Appendix H). Figure 11 presents the
conceptual geometric design of the 315-foot deceleration lane with the required ROW
easement/dedication area, construction impact easement area, and ultimate ROW line shown. The
design of the proposed declaration lane is based on the standards contained in the California
Department of Transportation Highway Design Manual (5�' Edition)for deceleration lanes, which
requires a 3l 5-foot deceleration lane for a 40 mile per hour design speed. The ROW
easement/dedication area consists of approximately l,035 square feet. The ultimate ROW line is
based on the City's Major Arterial roadway standard, which consists of a 120-foot ROW standard or
60-foot half-width standard.
3.5 - Project Phasing
Improvements are expected to begin in late 2011 or early 2012. The following table provides
proposed improvements, by phase and Exhibit 3-10 provides the phasing plan.
Table 3-3: Proposed Improvements by Phase
� Phase Duration Improvements
Phase I 6 to 8 • Conversion of the existing onsite vacant structure for preschool use and the
Months relocation of the existing preschool approximately 300 feet west to an
��- (estimate.) existing onsite vacant structure.
• Improvements to the existing parking lot on the east side of the preschool and
construction of the parking lot on the north side of the preschool.
• Installation of adjacent landscape improvements.
• Improvements consistent with neighbor meetings to Frank Lane to provide
for separation between residential and school/church traffic lanes.
Improvements to include a raised median with decorative split rail fence or
pavement markers(Botts' Dots)placed on the roadway in the same location
Michael Brandman Associates 3-33
� H\Client(PN-JN)�3771\377IOOOl�E[R\9-DEIR�37710001 Sec03-00 Project Description.doc
�,•,,
Sa/em Lutheran Church and Schoo/Specifc P/an
Project Description Draft E/R
Table 3-3 (cont.): Proposed Improvements by Phase
��,
Phase Duration Improvements
Phase [I 18 to 20 . Demolition of the existing preschool and sanctuary buildings.
Months • Construction of the worship center.
(estimate.) • Construction of the entry off Santiago Canyon Road and central parking lots.
•Improvements to the existing multipurpose field. �
• Installation of remaining landscape and hardscape improvements.
Source:Salem Lutheran Church and School Specific Plan,April 30,2011. �
3.5.1 - Grading and Soil Balance �
Grading of the site will include re-grade of the existing multipurpose field to create reinforced turf to
be utilized for recreation and sports play, overflow parking and as a starm water and infiltration �'
system. A common form of reinforced turf consists of natural grass with a sand and soil/compost root
zone into which is blended a network of small interlocking mesh elements. The grass roots penetrate ,,,�
the mesh to form a deep anchored root system and very stable root zone. The result is a free draining �
natural grass surface with no visible structures, having high load bearing capabilities while being
suitable for sports play. The mesh root zone distributes the weight of vehicles more efficiently to ""°
reduce `rutting' by tire movement. The existing preschool building, sanctuary building, and parking `'�`
lot/playcourt area located in the middle of the site will be razed to be replaced by a new worship �
center and parking lot/play court area. The new worship center will conform to the existing site
�
topography with minor excavation and recompaction. On the west portion of the project site, a new
parking lot will be constructed north of the existing onsite vacant structure as part of the relocation of �
the preschool and associated improvements. Additionally,the existing pool and backyard features of ""`�'
the existing onsite vacant structure will be razed and replaced with the preschool play area. Minor cut ,,,�
and fill will be required to produce this parking lot and play area. Grading of the site is expected to ,�
balance within the site with an estimated quantity of 10,000 cubic yards or less.
�
3.6 - Required Public Agency Approvals and Requested Entitlements �°�
3.6.1 - Certification of the Environmental Impact Report No. 1827-11 '�
The City of Orange has determined that a Draft EIR is required to analyze the potential environmental
impacts of the project. The Draft EIR will be prepared in accordance with CEQA and the CEQA '�"
Guidelines. The City of Orange will consider certification of the Draft EIR prior to taking action on .�
the requested approvals.
��,
3.6.2 -Zone Change No. 1259-11 �•°
Approval of a zone change is reyuired to change the existing zoning classification on the entire ��
project site from R-1-40 (Single-Family Residential)to the SP-PI (Specific Plan/Public and
Institutional).
„�
3-34 Michae!Brandman Associates
H\Clien[(PN-JN)\3771\37710001�EIR\9-DEIRli7710001 Sec03-00 Project Descrip[ioadoc � �
O C Q�
� c0 0
� aa
M � u�
� � LL�
Orange Park Boule��ard � C w Q
L � ��
� W � °o�
o - — — — —- _ - —�? a v W
_ ..T _-,.—_
--�— ::�. - . . . .
�. _ ,-: •� . m�
n .. ... . ... . . . . . . � Zz
` / _ ...: .. ...... .... • ---_-- a°
E ' `- �� ♦ �• a • a��a' • a.. .� ..� . :._ . . 2>
— U
- _"_ �W
1 . . ... . .. .. - __ �
y . . . ... . . . . _
_ r.. ^ U
� � � P Z
� � W
_
� ���' W s . i r
�� J
�' ,�� . . . . _ �.. . � � w
a
Q o �� � __ [ }i �
� �c � --w ?I z
�
.� � ��, �� � �� Q
C . -v . �. .�. I O
SUG I� ' � ' � ' .._ � • LL
ww C � _'"_ .. O
I _. ...F .. . ____ � >
n::.. r
.� ,' _� _ _ . '.. ._ ' U
� � - ��l ?
:.:
� � -- - ;�° m
. �
. ,, . . :.
�. _ , _T� . - ` ::
'�, — , ; IIT� 1 � ; Q :
� - ' ,, �
: _ , � � :
„ � -� _-__ ---- � �
- - ; _ �
——' -r
r � ��,___ � ' I � m �
� �
� �,
,, �
, ,%�` a--� �" �
; � i
�
� �
. , .
� . � � .
:
---�-
r ����T, �-- — �; - -- �
6 � a
' ;�
� �
di
w
� R
m
, a,
U 4
�� m C "_ - _ �; '�.
O pp � �+ '�
a t ` � �
�^p a ._.. �.
' i
. d� �
:a 7 L �
'`° `' I
:
� 3
,. _ ,
�'���
e ,� _ .
' C
�., g
��` F i
. ��
` /
!��.
_ "., , ., . . . . <
-��,:. ��� ,.. . _ . _..,__;.
3 i �'
_�i ���� � G �II �
..� f� �ro� J r
� �
a. �
� i
'� L _.___ "� i---T--�-��r ,- /�
t �'�� _ I I
��� w A j � �,
- �� � �
� : '--t zs 2
� � I v .D' �'�, � Q
m ` �
n.
� � � 'tti ❑
� �,`
` � ` 'o s
_ 'ac
� O �W
_ � [� - c — �
a
_ �,
� � :i _ 'c , a
U] U1 _ y -- d �
C� C� � � " ` � �
.� .L" ,_ -. �'' �" \ o
, w a _ -- �
-- �
. �
� .
�:.
s�, v
__ _,^- � �
n � . .� o �
s�_ � �
, i t�-- ��� � -
� �� w 'I�� Q a
�
_ ___ � �,
� � -
r+iaoN = �
I�^ -
s _
� , .
� i�j� � o
� �
m 7 J -
� I7LJ
� iJ� i n
�
�
,�
�
.e�
�
�
rw�
�
�
�
��
��.
��.
�.�
r�
��
�,
��
f�-
��
.�
Salem Lutheran Church and Schoo/Specific Plan
Draft E/R Project Description
, 3.6.3 - Design Review Committee No. 4538-11
Approval of a Design Review is required because the project includes the 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 Design Review
� Committee application for the proposed project elevations, and landscape plan, reflective of the
�� requirements of the Salem Church and School Specific Plan.
3.6.4 - Specific Plan No. SPLAN-0002
� Approval of a Specific Plan is necessary to provide a uniform set of development standards applicable
�� to the entire site.
� 3.6.5 - Other Additional Agencies Expected To Use This Draft EIR
The following is a list of other additional agencies that are expected to use this Draft EIR far their
� review of the project and the project component under their review and approval:
• South Coast Air Quality Management District-review for consistency with Air Quality
Management Plan.
�.�
�
.�
Michael Brandman Associates 3-37
� H�\Client(PN-JN)�3771\37710001�E[R\9-DEQiU7710001 Sec03-0OProjectDescriptioadoc
�
�
�..�
�
w,�
�
�
��x
�
�
�
�.
�
,�
��
..�„
K.�,
��
Salem Lutheran Church and Schoo/Specific Plan
Draft E/R Environmental Impact Analysis
SECTION 4: ENVIRQNMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS
Approach and Method to Environmental Analysis
Sections 4.1 through 4.9 of the Draft Environmental Impact Report(Draft EIR)contain a discussion
�� of the potential environmental impacts related to the implementation of the proposed Salem Lutheran
Church and School project.
The environmental analysis evaluates the change to the environmental baseline conditions resulting
from implementing the proposed project in combination with the significance thresholds. This
method is commonly known as the "delta method" of environmental analysis.
Environmental Topics
The potential environmental effects of the project are analyzed in the following topical environmental
issue:
• Aesthetics (Section 4.1) • Land Use/Planning(Section 4.6)
� Air Quality (Section 4.2) • Noise (Section 4.7)
• Greenhouse Gas Emissions (Section 4.3) • Transportation/Traffic (Section 4.8)
• Hazards& Hazardous Materials (Section 4.4) • Utilities/Service Systems(Section 4.9)
• Hydrology/Water Quality (Section 4.5)
Format Used for Impact Analysis
Each of the topical environmental impact analysis sections contains the following components:
• Introduction identifies the purpose of the topical environmental issue and sources used in
support of the environmental impact analysis.
• Environmental Setting describes the existing onsite physical environmental conditions
existing at the time of publication of the Notice of Preparation(NOP), and which constitute the
baseline physical conditions that assist in determining whether an impact is significant. This
section also describes the regional and site vicinity setting.
• Regulatory Setting identifies those set of regulations that are applicable a particular area.
� • Significance Thresholds identifies thresholds from Appendix G of the State California
Environmental Quality Act(CEQA)Guidelines,the City's Local CEQA Guidelines, or other
published documentation that assists in a determination of whether an impact is significant.
Michael Brandman Associates 4'�
H�\Client(PN-JN)�3771\37'710001�EIIt\9-DEIR\37710001 Sec04-OOEnviroAnalysis.doc
,�
Salem Lutheran Church and Schoo/Specific P/an
Environmental Impact Analysis Draft E/R
The City has not adopted a significance threshold for construction-related vibration levels. The
Federal Transit Administration groundborne noise and vibration impact thresholds were used
in the analysis of vibration impacts. ��
The City's significance thresholds contained in its Local CEQA Guidelines reflect the March
2010 revisions to Guidelines Appendix G by the Resources Agency with the following �
exceptions: �
- Agriculture and Forest Resources Topical Environmental Issue: significance threshold "e"
deleted from the threshold language the conversion of forest land to non-forest use.
- Hydrology and Water Quality Topical Environmental Issue: six significance thresholds were �
added to this topical environmental issue far consistency with the 4`�' Term MS4 Storm ��
Water Permit approved in 2009 from the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board. �
Section 4.5.4 of the Hydrology and Water Quality section identifies these thresholds as "k"
through "p."
- Public Services Topical Environmental Issue: significance threshold "a"was slightly
reworded but did not change the threshold.
�
- Transportation/Traffic Topical Environmental Issue: significance threshold"fl'added
language related to alternative transportation.
�
- Utilities and Service Systems Topical Environmental Issue: significance threshold "b"was
expanded to add collection facilities to treatment facilities. �
�
• Project Impacts describes environmental changes to the existing physical conditions that may
�
occur if the proposed project is implemented, and evaluate these changes with respect to the
significance thresholds. Potentially significant impacts are discussed in this section and �
organized according impact statements that correspond to State CEQA Guidelines and the '"""
City's Local CEQA Guidelines significance thresholds. Each impact statement is assigned a ,,,,,
unique Draft EIR Impact Number. This section also lists impacts determined by the Initial �
Study to be less than significant.
��
• Mitigation Measures identifies those specific measures that may be required of the project by an
the Lead Agency in order to: (1)avoid an impact, (2)minimize an impact to a level of
insignificance, (3)rectify an impact by restoration, (4) reduce or eliminate an impact over time �
by preservation and maintenance operations, or(5) compensate for the impact by replacing or "�
providing substitute resources. „�
• Level of Significance after Mitigation describes the level of impact significance remaining " '
after mitigation measures have been implemented. „�
4"2 Michae/Brandman Associates
H_\Client(PN-JN)�3771\37710001�EIIt\9-DEDt\37710001 Sec04-00 EnviroAnalysis.doc
° Salem Lutheran Church and Schoo/Specific Plan Environmental Impact Analysis
Draft EIR Aesthetics
4.1 -Aesthetics
4.1.1 - Introduction
Purpose
The purpose of this section is to determine the impacts that may result to aesthetics from
� implementation of the project.
Sources
"" Information in this section is based on the following sources:
• Orange Park Acres Specific Plan (OPA Plan), September 1973.
• City of Orange Municipal Code.
_ • 2010 General Plan, City of Orange, March 9, 2010.
• Salem Lutheran Church and School Specific Plan, Michael Madden Associates, April 30, 201]
(Appendix I).
• Comments received during the public comment period. These comments are contained in
Appendix A.
4.1.2 - Environmental Setting
Regional
The project site is located in the City of Orange, in Orange County California. The site is on the
south side of Santiago Canyon Road,west of Orange Park Boulevard, and north of Frank Lane(refer
to Exhibit 3-1 in Section 3, Project Description).
Vicinity
The project site is located in a largely residential area and is situated within the OPA Plan area(refer
to Exhibit 3-3 in Section 3, Project Description). Land uses in the viciniry of the project include large
lot single-family dwellings, recreational open space, urban development, and undeveloped land. The
Sully-Miller Equestrian Arena and retail flower and vegetable building are adjacent to the northwest
site boundary (refer to Exhibit 3-4 in Section 3, Project Description). Residential uses are located
along Frank Lane south of the site and to the west at the end of Frank Lane(E�chibit 4.1-1 a). A
" commercial rock crushing operation is located northwest of the project site across Santiago Canyon
Road.
� Site Conditions
The project site is currently developed with the Salem Lutheran Church and School. The church and
"'� school campus site is comprised of classroom buildings,preschool,multipurpose building,
� � recreational facilities, and a sanctuary (refer to Exhibit 3-4 in Section 3,Project Description). The
Michael8randman Associates 4•�-�
H.\Client(PN-JN)�3771\37710001�EIR\9-DEIlt\37710001 Sec04-Ol Aesthetics.doc
ab
�„,.
Sa/em Lutheran Church and School Specific P/an
Aesthetics Draft E/R
existing onsite vacant structure is located adjacent to and west of Classroom Building B, is part of the
church and school campus and is the proposed site ofthe relocated preschool. Exhibit 4.1-1a
provides a site photograph key map and Exhibit 4.1-1 b provide photographs documenting the existing �
site conditions. ��
Nighttime Lighting
Currently, lighting sources onsite include security lighting, parking lot lighting, and building lighting.
Lighting located onsite is as follows: three large overhead lights are located along Frank Lane, six r�
large overhead lights are located in the parking lot. Security lighting is located on buildings
throughout the project site, including the exterior of the classrooms and sanctuary. Vehicular traffic
is also a source of light. Additional sources of night lighting are the large overhead lights along Frank
Lane and in the church parking lot, which are lit all night(McKnight, pers. comm.).
�-
Daytime Glare
Daytime glare occurs on the project site from the buildings and from windshields on vehicles parked �.
on the site and traveling along Frank Street to and from the project site.
Topography �
The project site is generally level and is at approximately 450 feel above mean sea level (refer to '°�
Exhibit 3-2 in Section 3,Project Description). The topography of the site falls toward the southwest �
with an overall change in grade of about 14 feet. The overall slope is a gentle 1.6 percent.
�.
Vegetation and Trees „�
A grass multipurpose field is located on northeast corner of the project site (Exhibit 4.1-1 a and site �
photograph 9 in Exhibit 4.1-1b). The field is approximately 1.3 acres and contains a shade shelter �
and play equipment. White alder and California Sycamore trees are located along Frank Lane, near
the existing vacant building where the preschool will be relocated (see site photographs 3 and 5 in �
Exhibit 4.l-lb). Several eucalyptus trees are located along the northwest perimeter of the project site, '"""
between the church buildings and the adjacent equestrian land use. Ornamental landscaping is �
planted between the parking and play-courts and the preschool and sanctuary. Additional ornamental ,�
landscaping is located between classroom No. 1 and No. 2.
4.1.3 - Regulatory Setting �.�.
Federal �,
There are no federal regulations associated with this topical environmental issue. ,,,�,
State ' �
The State Department of Transportation's (Caltrans) Landscape Architecture Program administers the '""`'
Scenic Highway Program, contained in Streets and Highways Code Sections 260-263. State �-��
highways are classified as either Officially Listed or Eligible. �
4•1'2 Michae/8randman Associates
H�.\Client(PN-JN)�3771\37710001�EIIL\9-DEIFt\37710001 Sec04-01 Aesthetics.doc
� _ ...
� . � • �l '� � (� g o
� �..��,-'''-!-�'`'~ ---- ` ; _�- �` � C a a
` w
S * �,,,, .^�' tu �—� � r G U �
� ,, � '� ,�- �'� - ...nT �r�'� _ a�`. V W W U
�
� ` = �� _a y � ��� � � �, � � a �
,.�► �" � �% �`'. ^��� ..-.. . s�; '� • � �n —
. ,
� � � � � }� � X � � ~
s� � � � ,•' " � :>• �F � :� w � v w
, . .
� .iu-- ~ . � � � o z
, �`,
� � O zp
� �`�. '' � . ���� � C ,�� � V Z
� � �� ,� I � � w
�'� - � z
� 3'a ��t.�t�'. � . . � � v
f �";. �,�� � fn �
�� °� �`�"'� '� t �a s� � ��? ��. ` � H
; ��. � �, '� �
� 6 ���� � � �-�� , ��r 4' '��.� `" r,. �' ��: W
� �
•�� ' e � ' , ,v� .• ��. y �,�� � Q
� . .� ������ � . �"' .� �'* a '��� �
t"S � ..�'t` .. i �.;x � ��,t `� �a^ W
�l �t, ' • ' � �� �'
� � `��` �. �° `° ' p
h � � 4 ._
t�. �A ,�,�. n�" �" �� �,�✓� o
�. ' `� t �"'�� �' k �
" �
�.
� . K ,t�� :. .
, ' . �.. . � 3 U
,-. .
, r . , �, �o �o, �. s
+� ��
� i + � r
a " �
�� � '� ; e � * f
�,�� ! :i � r ,
S q � . ^ .
���� • `
er � , . '�+�. ` . : ,
k� a� � ���`
r� � 4� �� ' �
� � � � �� � �
� � �..- - ��� __., '�t —. � ��' •�
4. � y.,
�' � ��:'
, �� � �' ��� ,�� ..���.
.,4�,'^'r,',, t \� S " ��'��e�' x � � �� �+�' ld
\ �y k �' M
' 1'�� � � _ ��� t� ♦,�� O
k T ' . . O
/ . a ... .. � . i `�
N
���,�il� ; � � � .w.��. .. 1--wI � � N
' t� N �x. �- �
Nx
� � 7 � �e t '.. -;+,r�" 1 qs�,,„,.� - a�i
'� ^•e
Fy. 7 t� ��� #�! - ,. . �F r Q '�
� , . e 'S 1r.` seF ���.7 ,�� �n
� t� YY ,'�p.� +`. . � � X
. , 'e :� m �
+t Y' '���� .+,. i u n
� �' �N,�'' '�� � ��� �`z.,' � � T�
y, .r:.. �'� � N
F� �-�� � Y
�� �� � ��
�
� O
C �:. � � ' ° -v.;.. ,?i� � L
� � ' �� � �.. #+ � � N
N
J � � � •� c � NI
� � � � � �
a t � �
� � ,. � • � � �
y O r a , a
(n p � � � �
L @ HlaoN � �
� • �
dd � r + • W " N
� � � � ....�..1� i.. .. .. . " } ... �':�.�.+: . ' , ��. � �'^ M
C a cn �. R'�-�.._ 1 '� o � o
� � ���# `� ��x .
d � �
e. ,.f, N ��s �
�
� . ,�.., �..
� (n ��/_ M
�
t d�y ` k t Y�`= .ya.�� � ..i7
_
� . �_'„:�_,�-� � y x
.r�'� �
'h `-+$�� ,� w�f�:"� �'�� ° � , f �E
-u*�`~ iy�� ':�T k f; �
� � �. .-+������ .aP
r
•rp, s
^�` r
s�
� �
� . �i"4� v ..Y�,� x� ,
' • `� cl" �
�,�.,;.� �1",�.�_ �� �:_ � , e
;.� r 1
N I�
�e,�r�,� �� �l
e. v ;-�ir `s'r
!
a
�
� d�'+"t `*" ' ,�; '�+f+
�� �.� ai
.:�
' '$ ��f� a
��fa
r� "�..�
. .. .fi..�f� �ul `li•�I
�, � �` ��t �.
r _. ..
„ . ��p„ �� _ � . . :sq a
� :- _ �\ �� •�� .�
�r ��i� .. . - � �. ° ��� �.'+�'r '�
..
„
- .,: �... . �.� �: �.�,'�s w � .,.F.. � y _ . ._ . . .
.
,
,,.� �, - .,' . `°' ,,,-, .
�
. � r - . � -. '� ' -
_ ,....r�.�� �Yc` �, --� , ..
_� �d:... .._,.� - � ''+.'w,nH'R� _ .. -; �
_. ,T',
��� — ' � �
i
I _
. ..., �_ 77�11��w.�-,x '' '!�_I��` ..
� - . ��._._._ — - A �;,._, .
. . . �.r, �. -- ._ .
, �.
�� ., �. ' . . ... � ,. . � ' •-�^ . � �,� .a `. . .
- �.r. .`�..- .. .
r
... � . -.. . . � ,�._... w ` .
Photograph 1: The backyard of the onsite vacant structure.
V
. � :
r�
s�
� � 'a.,
'�,d°�P'�'"�, .tt.
..i �� � .
�" }
�;., t� � ...�p:.
� �i� ��' "�`w,>�g...��, ��;
_. . . .. . .. �.�•�r
�'
x
� � ,,A�;
� ,�j
�
�ir y.
� � ��
1 � i�.
�.,.,
� -
�.r
�'4 - ..
� '
t
i..
, Photograph 2: Rear parking lot, looking south towards Frank Lane.
�:
Source:Michael Brandman Associates,2010.
���� Exhibit 4.1-1 b
" ���� Site Photographs 1 and 2
Michacl Brandman Associatcs
� 37710001 •03/2011 �4.1-1b_site_photos_1and2.cdr CITY OF ORANGE•SALEM LUTHERAN CHURCH AND SCHOOL SPECIFIC PLAN
�
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
�
� , � �. � <;� ,µ ��`, �f` ,��r.: � � ,�,;-.• . �`: �' '�`q.
7�r � . 4 y. r �,� ��>�
p '�'a'�t s`a'�`�- ..f' � a� ��" 4 �;� •1 r,
.. ' A y,...e�, �*.: r�* �� t� l�, �A'.
-'4"+ttr r r t:.Y#�'.,,y: -nr '�. ��. .
.. � : ,fii� ... _� �,�( .
� � ��',+ k_ � - �=:yr�y?�'�'�.,'�- �� � p� � �� V� ''7` b:
��� ' � � �+ � � 4 �}a� � �,
t *,.� � .w!+3�'f,y r. J�9 '�'�b '� �,. W '� *� it~ 'r .
'�'� � '�} 3 '^` �' � \ 'k »�� �1 R 4 � .
t s L� \ Y '��
$��' � � �:fi.�* ,t, `(��'� �`r "; i'.a�.'*����� ��
P� F � : -'.
� �� �' ��, 1 Y � ',`� �� � ���4,�;���.���
/ •. t � ��• �t� �"�,��.
,�..�.�' i�.,. � �p� Y
"9 „ '.r.���� ., �`
. '�, ' +r
_,� �° < ��y '_
; ' �r,�`s .,���:,�
� ' " �` s�` ', �1 11� ,r��; `� .�
.�
�� � , r •� ; � ,e � �;::.
F
�- � -s;.- ��� ��,.,_�'-
�' pk �'.a. '�1, j ,�� , };'L;
� �� �y . . �. �� �a�*�� ,�` . �,+�r� !I ��I��(
� � r r ,P+`,.- '�4s � � _., �� � j�� ��I��
g �� f� ;F� ��:�� � - -..rb�aF.�: . ,.
��m �\.... ' i��,�i��o�1�7� 'm� . . - � . . _ . . .. i f` � �
� � .
�
■
�
Photograph 3: This photo shows the existing onsite vacant structure.
�r
�"
�. �• �
�
.�
� '. .
�
� f rr � `""� �
, . .
. , . .
r, i �� .
t� r,F
' .
. .. :� R „ ,--.
' r. j i
� ii
i
...... .....'r�,.---_....�. a .�
-�^ ..
� ._• -,e.,.�,._ ,„ , . ....�.,
. ...H.�.�., � . •+x ""' sk,
F
. __.
__�
�
...w�u ....� :;� ; :. . . . � .... . .
.Wa ,. „5,.: .,,.,,,; � - -
__., � . .;-� .
��rs s -
� I V-�il��� � „ �
�� � �
i ..��,a�r * ",' w ..�,...,•
il:- ,.�
�^� °� �
�` � ;afi ;;�- �^�►'��: -
A"" ��'� -.�`�� � ��� k�`>
�1 ry�� �{r�� � ��.�..
�� �.
'„� Photograph 4: This photo shows the athletic field, looking east toward Orange Park Boulevard.
�
Source:Michael Brandman Associates,2010.
' ���� Exhibit 4.1-1 b
�k ���� Site Photographs 3 and 4
Michacl Brandman Associatcs
� 37710001 •03/2011 �4.1-1 b_site_photos_3and4.cdr CITY OF ORANGE•SALEM LUTHERAN CHURCH AND SCHOOL SPECIFIC PLAN
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
�
�-
� � �':
�., -�;.
;�'
� � €� .�.
1..: V :i. ����.
+ � �
� . y-� �`,5 � �� � � ��v��'�:
� `'I I '
i a.. .v � ��.h
`��
�* G d..
�
�.
. � `
� ' f . � . " ' _ .
�>��; � �: _:a� � ���''�
� h,� ,_� �,
t �:- f - � �
� io��,���"��_ -
� ,: �
, :
� -�--
�.
� �
�-
,-�"
��
,
,.n�� ,�.".: '� s. F
�� . .: y . . . w
� '.? k� � .. ' .. � .
«
;-_^: ...*j,:: *1�9 a+`
.f t. e. . +�'�.�s . . .
`� �� � '� �`� `�4�
� Photograph 5: This photo shows Frank Lane, looking north, with the church/school on the right
� and residences on the left.
r r
F ! 4
Y' � i.. . ��i �r� � �f���6� � c�t'^ .¥ �
Se 4A �
^ "_�' �1 i. \� �f ��$'N�� _� �'.F'Y 4 �:t� }`
S y �,
�a ,�
� � t � �' y� � p�k s � ��t� r•'���,, � � . 41
.n . '�t1��� t j}�- � ���y�,'��• � �'�°��g�, ay' �� i
� �,�,.,,..�� �::;�iyY � .,, � a�.� •`li,: ..�r�� y ��./y
� � , ''• �� �.i.� � � F A f i 9�'` •
r +. � y
� r
.
..i' �I._. � �_P � . . - _ _ ' �
_
>3 a �
�:_, --.�,.. .�
' i
P , P 1�
— 'Sq\� �a � — �;� �� ��,,� �,
� _�
,� r� � .
.,.
� � � ��.� i,�lil���� �,
r _
� � �.� *I � �I
�r„ �� .��'"""'e
� '
i�
R'
1
� . � . �:�, .:,.
�.
�rn � r
�
�i{ ._ � y���Aµ,� `_. " _
,�#
� . - . P'��� �!+�+�s"'ad�M9�- '� "'' ;�` �,��, „p
� ''ee�s�' :�,;
;�,:.�
, ���
� �'� yz�'+��
'� Photograph 6: This is a photo of the existing entrance to the school/church along Frank Lane.
r.
Source:Michael Brandman Associates,2010.
���� Exhibit 4.1-1b
'� ���� Site Photographs 5 and 6
Michael Brandman Associates
� 37710001 •03/2011 �4.1-1b_site_photos_5and6.cdr CITY OF ORANGE•SALEM LUTHERAN CHURCH AND SCHOOL SPECIFIC PLAN
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
,
�
�
�
�
� a�
., �
.
, ,
� �, _ -__ - ;
, _ . .
. � ,�; . � .. �
� � -
. � ---� 4.� .. .
. . '_ , .�. ., �.w
� ; �
�, i
�_.. � . .. ... �
��� � '���, • ,r��
� .s r d. �� E '��lxil�� .' : ' '�;
�
� ,-..
.., -
KK,. .
.' 7��l a.
� � _ _.._ .r
.
P - —�
R�
�_ *�
.. ....,. :. ..«.
� 4 a , . , �
� ��� � � � - ��.
, : .. __. _. . ., .s..
� Photograph 7:This photo was taken at the driveway/entrance to the church/school prope::,
ir,.
�
�
r ,
..:
k
P � ,�� T�
� i i
1r ,. I�"' ,... .. � ' ��..
�r ,
.�._ .. - ti ...,,,��` ., i�"' � , ��, r f��� i l� �
� ; � �
„ �� � � �:� �� � '._�k :,, �, �a � ;�4 � u a.. � � � 'r. ;
��...,.a.,�..� 'p �;;I�
, � , , .
'��., ��� a A.'�P 6 y - � '�
� . e . ' .+ � l 1. f
r"�'
�
�-. ,r s�.�., :t _„i.. �,., : .,. . .
a�^,4 i z"',p.` -
� ,
�
�
� .b
�'
, Photograph 8: This photo shows Frank Lane, looking south,with the church/school facility on the
left and residences on the right.
�
Source:Michael Brandman Associates,2010.
���� Exhibit 4.1-1b
i ���� Site Photographs 7 and 8
Michael Brandman Associates
37710001 •03/2011 �4.1-1b_site�hotos_7and8.cdr CITY OF ORANGE•SALEM LUTHERAN CHURCH AND SCHOOL SPECIFIC PLAN
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
�
I �
�
�
,, � ���; ��, h�
� � � �� ,; ,�, �
�`= " � , f �.�� ` �:�.
�' ' I 1- _ _�f � � . ' � �,�„ � �����
� - ���Ii lr '� .�+r:� �-• -
,_ �y� ,y�.
� .+ III�IMed =� w •-•.
. _ II���14�r�7�±� ` ' `
i � e�
� n �
« ,�;
�+e .;�
�
�
�
t
�n Photograph 9: This photo shows the athletic field, looking in a northwest direction.
� ��`� i�i������� `5�'` �
i.� � ��d ' ���.;+�� ��,
�\,. 4
,'+ 4
� �-,
y 5•
�,
"�+,, . "'I�IP'
�'A,� � .
� "`�� �`1n
f 5, f,..
� I � +
�� RV 4
� �� - ' �'���:. �.
� r ��t 1�. � i • ��� �u' � .� �
� � � i �,� �,.� ��` `�C e �_� �`!�
� � i �
�
�1' � ( I i '
� � � � � � � k � _
� s
� �
`� ' � � � ii � �
�� � ' �: �� � �� � _
� �`
, ���� �- � :� ,� s �
� � � - -� �,
- _ _ . — �,
_ .�.
�K�. _ .� .
- � �.:
��.� _� �
::f � - - �
� _ ��..��:..-�. _ _
�. ���:»� ;��.
. ,
�
��
,, Photograph 10: This photo shows the off-site equestrian trail that runs along the eastern edge
of the project site, between the project site and Orange Park Boulevard.
i.
Source:Michael Brandman Associates,2010.
4 ���� Exhibit 4.1-1 b
� ���� Site Photographs 9 and 10
Michael Brandman Associates
"' 37710001 •03/2011 �4.1-1b_site_photos_9and10.cdr CITY OF ORANGE•SALEM LUTHERAN CHURCH AND SCHOOL SPECIFIC PLAN
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
�
Sa/em Lutheran Church and School Specific Plan Environmental Impact Ana/ysis
Draft EIR Aesthetics
The intent of this program is to protect and enhance the natural scenic beauty of California highways
and adjacent corridors,through special conservation treatment. A highway may be designated scenic
depending upon how much of the natural landscape can be seen by travelers,the scenic yuality of the
landscape, and the extent to which development intrudes upon the traveler's enjoyment of the view.
There are no Officially Listed ar Eligible highways near the project site. The nearest Officially Listed
highway is State Route 91 and is so designated between State Route 55 and the eastern Anaheim city
limits.
Local
County of Orange
The Orange County General Plan designates specific roadways as Designated Scenic Highways
according to two types: Type I Viewscape Corridors and Type II Landscape Corridors. The intent is
to establish regulations and guidelines related to land use restrictions, identification of vista points,
and measures to preserve outstanding scenic features. There are no County-designated Scenic
Highways adjacent to or near the project site. The nearest designated roadways are Newport Avenue
and Santiago Canyon Road south of the site.
City of Orange
There are no City-designated Scenic Highways adjacent to the project site that are visible from the
project site. The nearest City-designated Scenic Highways (viewscape corridors)are Newport
Avenue and Santiago Canyon Road south of the site,which is the same as the County-designated
scenic highways.
The City's Tree Preservation Ordinance(Municipal Code Chapter 12.32)protects all trees, regardless
of species,that measure a minimum 10.5 inches in circumference, measured at a point 24 inches
above the ground. The purpose of the ordinance is provided below:
The primary concern of the City Council of the City is the regulation of large-scale tree
removal from undeveloped property in that large parcels of undeveloped acreage are more
likely to have a vast number of trees, the removal of which is more likely to have an adverse
affect upon the surrounding environment. Past destruction of trees on such property has not
� � only interfered with the natural scenic beauty and tourism of the City, but also greatly
diminished the ecological value of such natural vegetation.
4.1.4 -Significance Thresholds
According to Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines and the City's Local Guidelines, a project
�� would normally have a significant effect on the environment if it would result in the following:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to,trees, rock outcroppings,
and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
Michael 8randman Associates 4.1-15
H1Client(PN-JN)�3771\37710001�EIIL\9-DEIR\37710001 Sec04-01 Aesthetics.doc
Sa/em Lutheran Church and Schoo/Specific P/an
Aesthetics Draft E/R
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? �
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or
nighttime views in the area?
4.1.5 - Project Impacts
Impacts Not Found To Be Significant
,.,�
The Initial Study determined that either no impacts or less than significant impacts would result from
the following significance threshold yuestions from the significance thresholds listed previously in
Section 4.1.4: """
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
��
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to,trees, rock outcroppings, R
and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
,�
Refer to the Initial Study in Appendix A for a complete discussion. '
eebs
Potentially Significant Impacts
Significance thresholds deemed to be potentially significant are evaluated individually. The list �
below restates the significance threshold and gives the corresponding Draft EIR Impact Number. "'�'
t�:
EIR Impact
Significance Threshold-Aesthetics Number ��
_ _ _ ,
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its Impact 4.1-1 `"�`
surroundings?
R�
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day ar lmpact 4.1-2
nighttime views in the area? `�
��
Visual Character
Impact 4.1-1 The project will not substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of ��
the site and its surroundings. �
Impact Analysis z�,
This section analyzes the short-term and long-term aesthetic impacts ofthe proposed project.
Short-term Operations
Demolition of the existing sanctuary building and preschool building and construction of the new
worship center and offices will produce a short-term negative aesthetic impact. The proposed project
e+�
has impacts related to construction vehicles located on the project site, materials stored on the site and
:�:
site preparation and demolition activities. These activities are short-term in nature and will cease at
the completion of the project. ��
.�
4.1-16 Michae/Brandman Associates R�,
H:\Client(PN-JN)\3771\37710001�EIR\9-DEIIt\37710001 Sec04-01 Aesthetics-doc
It�it
Salem Lutheran Church and School Specific Plan Environmental Impact Ana/ysis
Draft EIR Aesthetics
Long-term Operations
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. The existing Multipurpose Building, Classroom Building B and
Classroom Building C will remain onsite and define the architectural style of the Salem Lutheran
Church (refer to Exhibit 3-5 in Section 3, Project Description). The exterior of the existing onsite
vacant structure will maintain its current characteristics while requiring some upgrades for 1-hour
rating compliance for the relocation of the existing preschool. 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 purpose of the Salem Lutheran Church Specific Plan design guidelines is 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 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(refer to Exhibit
3-7 and 3-8 in the Section 3, Project Description).
The following table provides a comparison of policies related to aesthetics from the OPA Plan to the
proposed Salem Lutheran Church and School project. Table 4.1-1 below includes the aesthetics-
related policies from the OPA Plan and provides a basis for determining if the proposed project would
substantially degrade the visual character of the surrounding area. Refer to Section 4.6, Land Use and
Planning, of this document for a consistency analysis of all OPA Plan policies.
Table 4.1-1: Comparison of OPA Plan Aesthetics Policies to
Salem Lutheran Church Specific Plan
OPA Plan Policy Salem �utheran Church Specific Plan
Maintain a free,open, and informal type of The characteristics of the proposed project are
development uninhibited by regimentation. designed to integrate with the existing development
surrounding the site. Within the existing site
constraints,the site plan includes placement of new
structures in the general location of the aging
preschool and sanctuary buildings being razed,and
design of structures so that they blend in with the
' existing structures onsite.
Provide a wholesome rural atmosphere emphasizing The characteristics of the proposed project are
a quiet seclusion close to nature. consistent with the OPASP. The proposed project
incorporates an already existing use.
Michael Brandman Associates 4.1-17
H-\Client(PN-TN)13771\37710001�E[IL\9-DEIR\37710001 Sec04-Ol Aesthetics.doc
Sa/em Lutheran Church and Schoo/Specific P/an
Aesthetics Draft E/R
�
Table 4.1-1 (cont.): Comparison of OPA Plan Aesthetics Policies to
Salem Lutheran Church Specific Plan
�.:
OPA Plan Policy Salem Lutheran Church Specific Plan -
Offer a positive entry treatment and visual A plant materials palette has been developed with ,�,
distinction of the main elements within Orange Park consideration to the rural characteristics of this part
Acres(OPA). of the City of Orange and the OPA community. -
Trees are configured in informal groupings,
reflecting the existing landscape characteristics of the `�'
surrounding OPA community. .
In addition,two monument walls are proposed at the ,„�,
new Santiago Canyon Road entry;one on either site
of the entry. The walls will be constructed with ��
materials that complement the architectural style of
the existing and proposed buildings,the other walls '"'�
on the campus and the rural character of the OPA
community. Each wall will contain signage '
identifying the Salem Lutheran church and school. „�,,.
Enhanced landscape(such as trees, shrubs,and
groundcover)will highlight and accent the walls. ��
Establish a"theme"element,such as a specific tree A specific tree type for OPA has not been ��
type or style of fence to be used throughout the area. established. The project proposes a raised median
with decorative split rail fence ar pavement markers ��
(Botts' Dots)placed on the roadway in the same
location down Frank Lane(to separate school/church ��
traffic from residential traffic). The decorative split
rail fence will be similar in design and character,and `�`
compliments the existing and new,updated fencing
�
in OPA. The extensive use of trail fencing
throughout OPA has established a de facto fencing ��
theme.
.�+
Promote a distinctive"lifestyle"which allows far a The project is consistent with the character of OPA.
diversity of activities. The purpose of the Salem Lutheran Church and ��u
School Specific Plan design guidelines is to establish
a context for the future redesign(of existing uses)of «
the campus that ensures complimentary and
compatible additions to the existing setting and "
community.
R�
Emphasize the rural,green image promoting the It is the intent of the landscape design to express a
maintenance of trees and the inclusion of landscaped family of materials,both hardscape and planting,that
corrals and fence lines. will serve to unify the exterior spaces of the Salem �,�
Lutheran Church property,complement the
architectural style of the existing and proposed �
buildings,and connect the project contextually to the
surrounding OPA community. R��
Maintain the existing trees where possible and The proposed project would involve retaining and a,.
replant new trees recommended by a landscape- preserving some of the existing trees,planting new
agricultural specialist. trees, and removing some of the existing trees. The ��
affected trees are of all sizes and none are heritage
trees or historic trees as defined by Chapter �`�
12.32.060 of the City of Orange Tree Preservation ��
Ordinance. New trees will be planted onsite in
.�
4.1-18 Michae/Brandman Associates ��,
H1Client(PN-7N)\3771\37710001�IR\9-DEIR\37710001 Sec04-01 Aes[hetics.doc
�rr
Sa/em Lutheran Church and Schoo/Specific Plan Environmental Impact Ana/ysis
Draff EIR Aesthetics
Table 4.1-1 (cont.): Comparison of OPA Plan Aesthetics Policies to
Salem Lutheran Church Specific Plan
OPA Plan Policy Salem Lutheran Church Specific Plan
accordance with applicable city ordinances.
Insure maintenance of view of positive features of As detailed in the OPA Specific Plan,the church is
and from the site. identified as a Landmark(refer to the OPA Image
Analysis on page 13). The proposed project has been
designed to complement the existing development
onsite and to fit into the fabric of the Orange Park
area. Thus, features of the site will remain
complementary to the existing rural nature of the
area. Views from the site will remain predominantly
the same as existing conditions because the height
and scale of the proposed development is much like
the height and scale of existing buildings onsite. The
worship center building will be 39 feet high at roof
peak,which is seven feet above the height allowed
by the Zoning Ordinance. No more than 25 percent
of the roof plane will exceed 32 feet.
Preserve and enhance the natural beauty of the area. The characteristics of the proposed buildings and
landscape are designed to compliment the
surrounding community and to fit into its fabric. The
purpose of the Salem Lutheran Church and School
Specific Plan design guidelines is to establish a
context for the future redesign portions of the
campus that ensures complimentary and compatible
additions to the existing setting and community.
Enhance the natural setting through planning and The landscape elements of the proposed project
landscape design. compliment the surrounding community and will
enhance the overall OPA appearance. The landscape
design for the proposed project expresses a family of
materials,both hardscape and planting,that will
serve to unify the exterior spaces of the Salem
Lutheran Church property,complement the
architectural style of the existing and proposed
buildings, and connect the project contextually to the
surrounding OPA community.
Promote the use of wood-rail fencing, either natural Walls and fences will be constructed of materials that
or painted white,to give a sense of openness-while complement the architectural style of the existing
restricting the use of block walls, chain link or other and proposed buildings and the rural character of the
opaque fencing. OPA community. Internal to the property decorative
metal fences, vehicular gates,and a pedestrian gate,
similar to the existing gates and fences,are proposed
at parking area points of access. These are proposed
for reasons of safety and security and will
� complement the architectural style of the existing
and proposed buildings and the rural character of the
OPA community. The project proposes a raised
median with decorative split rail fence or pavement
� markers(Botts' Dots)placed on the roadway in the
same location,separating resident traffic from
church/school traffic and will be similar in character
Michae/Brandman Associates 4.1-19
Pr.\Client(PN-IN)�3771\37710001�EIR\9-DEIR\37710001 Sec04-Ol Aesthetics.doc
:�
Salem Lutheran Church and Schoo/Specific P/an �
Aesthetics Draft E/R
A�
Table 4.1-1 (cont.): Comparison of OPA Plan Aesthetics Policies to ,,
Salem Lutheran Church Specific Plan
,�.
OPA Plan Policy Salem Lutheran Church Specific Plan =
to the trail fencing throughout OPA. ,,,�,
Provide for a variety of house and structure setbacks The placement of the proposed worship center in the
to avoid the straight-line affect caused by structures same general location as the existing sanctuary and
being"lined up." preschool minimizes building"massing"from ,«,��
Santiago Canyon Road. The project design does not
include any straight-line affects because structures `-���
onsite are not"lined up."
��
Encourage the use of natural exteriors for the The proposed architectural theme and design of the
structures including wood and warm,earth colors. worship center has been chosen to blend in and
compliment the existing character of the site,which
includes warm earth tones for some of the building's '""
exteriors.
Emphasize the use of one-story structures to create a The proposed project involves the redesign of
ranch rype or low profile rural feeling. portions of the site to include both one and two story """�
buildings,which is the same profile of buildings _
onsite currently. Additionally,the site has been
designed with the worship center along Frank Lane ,�,
in the same general location of two aging existing
structures to be razed,which will bring building °�
mass away from Santiago Canyon Road to maintain
the rural feeling of the neighborhood. "!"''
Provide rural road standards with minimum Frank Lane, a private road,will be retained and �°�
pavement section-no curbs,gutters,or sidewalks aesthetically enhanced via a raised median with
and incorporate equestrian,hiking,and bicycle trails decorative split rail fence or pavement markers ��"""
along the road. (Botts' Dots)placed on the roadway in the same ��
location,which will separate residential traffic from
Church and School traffic. The equestrian trail that ��,
currently runs north of the project site,along
Santiago Canyon Road and the trail that runs along ���
Orange Park Boulevard will remain.
��
Create a positive view from the roads emphasizing The project site is located along Orange Park
landscaped or open space features through open Boulevard and Santiago Canyon Road. The ��^
wood fences. multipurpose field onsite will be visible through the
existing white fence along Orange Park Boulevard "'�
and Santiago Canyon Road. Along Santiago Canyon
MiG
Road,in the plant beds between the equestrian trail
and fence line along the Salem Lutheran Church ��,
property,new shrub plantings will be incorporated
with the existing plant materials to refresh and ��
enhance the streetscape's appearance. Along Orange
Park Boulevard the addition of new shrub plantings "°"'
underneath the existing trees is proposed along the
split rail fence between the fence and the sidewalk to ���
enhance the arrival experience to both the OPA �,�
community as well as the Salem Lutheran Church
and School when approaching via this street ��»
�
.�
4.1-20 Michael 8randman Associates w�
H�.\Client(PN-IN)�3771\37710001�EIR\9-DEIIL\37710001 Sec04-01 Aes[he[ics.doc
i9t�
Sa/em Lutheran Church and Schoo/Specific P/an Environmental lmpact Ana/ysis
Draft E/R Aesthetics
Table 4.1-1 (cont.): Comparison of OPA Plan Aesthetics Policies to
Salem Lutheran Church Specific Plan
OPA Plan Policy Salem Lutheran Church Specific Plan
Retain a positive view to the hills,preserving the Development of the project site would not interrupt
undeveloped hillsides of O.P.A. Provide a views of distant hillsides because the project site is
landscape screen for all housing in those areas and relatively flat and because the height of the proposed
incorporate sensitive grading criteria throughout. worship center onsite will be 39 feet at roof peak,
which is seven feet above the height allowed by the
Zoning Ordinance. No more than 25 percent of the
roof plane will exceed 32 feet.
Source:OPA Plan,December, 1973,and Salem Lutheran Church Specific Plan,April 30,2011.
It is the intent of the landscape design for the Salem Lutheran Church and School to express a family
of materials, both hardscape and planting,that will serve to unify the exterior spaces of the Salem
Lutheran Church property, complement the architectural style of the existing and proposed buildings,
and connect the project contextually to the surrounding OPA community (refer to Exhibit 3-6 in
Section 3, Project Description). A variety of outdoor spaces offer quiet, intimate settings for staff,
students, congregation and visitors, as well as larger more public areas for general gatherings, play
and recreation.
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 and includes both low maintenance plant materials
and the efficient use of water, as is specified in the City of Orange document, Guidelines for Water
Efficient Landscapes. The irrigation system will include low-volume spray and drip emitter outlets,
automated controls, and inclement weather shut-off devices. Planting areas with similar water
requirements (hydrozones) and sun exposure will be grouped together to maximize irrigation
efficiency. Trees are configured in informal groupings,reflecting the existing landscape
characteristics of the surrounding OPA community. With the exception of the multipurpose field, turf
grass has been minimized. Shrubs,vines, and ground covers that flower have been selected to exhibit
flowering during different times of the calendar year.
In response to meetings with the adjacent residents,the streetscape enhancements within Frank Lane
will consist of a raised median with decorative split rail fence or pavement markers(Botts' Dots)
placed on the roadway in the same location separating Frank Lane residents ingress and egress drive
lanes and Salem Lutheran Church and School ingress and egress drive lanes. The raised median may
include a low decarative split rail fence to provide a physical and visually appealing separation
between residents and school/church travel lanes(Exhibit 4.1-2).
Michae/Brandman Associates 4.1-21
H-.\Client(PN-JN)�3771\37710001�E[IL\9-DEIR\37710001 Sec04-Ol Aesthetics.doc
�
��
��
��
,�.
s�
��
eso
.�,
��
w�,
�
�o�
�
��
.�*
,�,:._..
.�
m�
rw�
��
.�,
��
��,
e�
W�,,
ZF
N y Q�
� C aa
� � LL�
� U~
U
� W Q
� V N�
X c� o�
W � _�
C V W
�
�Z
Q� Z
� Q�
2j
� �W� � � UZ
S i �yi��� � �v J �w
� � �e� � � Y�uWo R w� �C U
�oW o�Wg p � ���� s �� � Q
�._� � W�� � � �
��� W°$� W� W� ����c� W� W� � x
au`e �
�
�
� �0�78 N21Nd 3�JNV2l0 W
a
�
Wg --- _ noi.vn3,a w
(7
�.° _� � ¢
�` �,�'�- • �
� •
�� �� J , /� , o
1 - LL
�g `,:. _ ' _ _ _—�— ___ o
__.�
�a ' �
W. � - t___ — 11 �
� —_ __ x
� � � �-- $ � i-�.
� � -- �W k �
'� -- ---�� �� � `'�_�";
A
:
e � -�,
3 r , _ �� a�� � �
, a . r I
. - :a �,� _-.
_-_ X.
� -- �Q �o� � r� ;ji
.
, W
� W �� �
I� -� -
. � _ . ._ __ I � h
--------------�� i ; �,..__- .
�
:
� � �--
� _____________'_i �:
� y i __.._-�-- i ��:�C-__.��I
� �
,
� 3 . � I �� . -.
e �
�- ' ___._ .__ . .. ._
� ,
°�' � � � X., -`�
w `�� � .
W
�
�yc I ________
� y� , �-, �
p: `"k i � .Y __- ,
°m z�ao �`a ---- --
�W �www �� _""' . � . _
W e� �z� I k \,
�� ��Ea ` gg< i, _ _— � �i
Y =�'t a�y --------------� � u--
�� �' �°�
�� ����p '�� ..� ` j �
uo � , � �
, y ,,
; ,<
�- - --- I `-/
----- � I
� ; _ _ _ __ I ,
♦ � � �
- --- ---� I
� , - ,
. . � � ,
k x
I ,
- --- _-
� �----------- � � -
� � -- � i �._—�'�
� 3 -
r, � � � Y . ��`. :
` ' ' �`�.. _-/
� �..______
� a___'�. � � _
� I �
�`) � ��1 r,���� � ���j . _ ______ � �
` . . I y/;j �.; �_'
7�yf�.'\,.'c��`� (',I;,� . � —''k'� -
:�
= Kj) �� � _ "
� --_ _
�
� �l ��'�'/�',v � � -
, _�_ �
� � C�. � I ✓ ��
-- -- I �
ti�. ' .,_�. __ __ - I _." x a
�� �', I � �^�.
w
�W .
... • . . , ,_. _ �
�s . �
W�� � � �� a
_ . � � m
_ � �� _ � � �������
d
� W� � N
3 e �
� a�w �o- y u
� v I
s� �� �i;° o
�w°= d
�� �W ;$'� ",
w� W� �� o
Q 'i
� �
� r � -
�
°1 H12/0N E c�
�� �
0 0
� �� � �
�, ��' � �
�
,�
„�;
��
,�,.
��
��
a�
��
d�
��
,�.
�e�►
��:
��
��.
,.�
m�.
,��..
�
��
�
.�
e.
��
Sa/em Lutheran Church and School Specifc Plan Environmental Impact Analysis
Draft EIR Aesthetics
Existing streetscape elements along Santiago Canyon Road include a concrete sidewalk, a curb
adjacent landscape parkway with trees and grass, a decomposed granite equestrian trail and split rail
fence, a chain link fence enclosing the church and schools play court areas and multipurpose field,
and various tree, shrub, and ground cover plantings.
To accommodate the additional project entry and turn lane proposed off Santiago Canyon Road,
portions of the above-described components will be impacted. Improvements will include the
realignment and replacement of these components to match the existing improvements. The new
project entry will be enhanced with decorative vehicular paving, signage, walls and landscape
plantings to compliment both the existing streetscape and the architecture of the church and school
campus (Exhibit 4.1-3).
Along Santiago Canyon Road, in the plant beds between the equestrian trail and fence line along the
Salem Lutheran Church property, new shrub plantings will be incorporated with the existing plant
materials to refresh and enhance the streetscape's appearance.
Walls and fences will be constructed of materials that complement the architectural style of the
existing and proposed buildings and the rural character of the OPA community. Internal to the
property decorative metal fences, vehicular gates, and pedestrian gates are proposed at parking area
points of access. These are proposed for reasons of safety and security and will complement the
architectural style of the existing and proposed buildings and the rural character of the OPA
� community (Exhibit 4.1-4).
New construction will complement the architectural style of the existing buildings that remain onsite
(the classroom buildings, multi-purpose building, and existing onsite vacant structure) by blending
contemporary themes and architectural styles into the loose/contemporary interpretation of the
� California ranch style of the existing buildings.
Landscaping onsite will be designed to blend in with the type of landscaping that is characteristic of
the OPA community and will be comprised of a plant palette that is compatible with both the existing
and proposed buildings onsite.
The placement of new buildings onsite shall respect the existing setback from residential property
� � lines to the south of the project site.
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.
The Salem Specific Plan is consistent with all the aesthetics policies in the OPA Plan.
Michae/Brandman Associates 4.1-25
H.\Client(PN-JN)�3771\37710001�E[R\9-DEIIL\37710001 Sec04-Ol Aesthetics.doc
Salem Lutheran Church and School Specific P/an
Aesthetics Drafi E/R
Level of Significance Before Mitigation
Less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required.
w.�.,
Level of Significance After Mitigation
Impacts were determined to be less than significant before mitigation. „,�.
New Source of Light or Glare
Impact 4.1-2 The project will not create a new source of substantial light or glare which would �
adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area. ,�,
Impact Analysis �
Short-term Operations
The visual character of the project site would be temporarily impacted during the short-term site
demolition and construction phases ofthe project. Impacts would be related to construction vehicles """'
located on the project site, construction materials stored on the site, and site preparation activities that ��•
would create daytime glare from these vehicles and materials. These activities are short-term in
��
nature and will cease at the completion of the project.
,�
Long-term Operations ��
The proposed project would result in changes in lighting and glare from the proposed redesign of the
,�,
new building and use of the multipurpose field far occasional overflow parking of vehicles. Sources
of li ht from the ro osed ro'ect include: arkin lot li htin tem ora multi ur ose field li htin �
g P P P J P g g g� P rY P P g g�
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 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 (Pancake, pers.
comm.) �"""�
Parking lot lighting. Lighting for paved parking areas and vehicular drive aisles will assist the ��,
congregation, staff, visitors, and emergency service vehicles with safe, clear, unobstructed way-
finding between the adjacent streets and the parking areas. Light sources for the parking lots shall be �mµ
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 ]0 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.
�
��.
�w
��.
4.1-26 Michae/Brandman Associates ��
H:\Client(PN-IN)�3771\37710001�EIl2\9-DEIli\37710001 Sec04-O]Aesthetics.doc
a�
M Y ��
' o
� � LL�
�, � �
UV
� V N�
X c0 0�
W s =�
C Vw
m
oi
wpw U ¢ �¢ � =K
K U4� � S ¢2t 2 ¢ �� C �Z
u Z� ��W TW � >� � W �W
.. wy ?3z� z�� �yWb� ?� u ow� u (fl zU
a
�°,3 w�?a w?n w°$�= wz �3 �W� � NO W
L.L =
" C �
. r � � �
... ,�_ �-5:;: � R L=�" w
��' � � �-.r-� C
,• � :I w v N
." <
•V ` ✓ \ � W `~�. Q �
�
, � ✓ � � �F4.. �
Z /•
` `��`.M` :."1 U � �
'. ' C LL
. " �; g � �
'r '�,��``. - �
o ,
�
- /
a ,
`!
� �r- _ �:;
*Y:
e / t .
�� � ; � �Y.
_ � r ,� � �. (
r� / � � �.
Q �
� �
O / � "- ' a
Q � � 1� � ` r �, .-_
� ! o � ��
� � 1 ,
� r�Q �� �,� ���t -' d/
, (((t � ;��� ��n:„�
� r� ��� %
. WW ?� ` �� F�
LLN J Wa
w ¢ �¢,Y¢ 2 2 `> �
VY pU DQ2W �n j � �O �F �y
� Y O� ` ' Q�� O-
Oe yW Z��a �� FW W ���c U2� ~Cj
Wp WO h�ppO_'�C 42> 0y.+, w2w i> �UI
� 2�n 2y W�wFaw wh w= 63 e ✓=i wa O�
^C
�:�
L- * n•
<
.. u ,/�'�� N
W � O
G '"� g
� �
3 �
�r' ' � m �
. � � �
� v Z
a �
� � m
a ,
Ei
N o
�q T
¢ �I
W
m A
A
� m
y � �I
¢
� �
� � v
A � �
� �°�"� �
�
� ��� �
�' �d� ^
�
,�
�:
,�
��
e�:.
��
iY�
111lF
i�
IA1k
Yii�
�
s�
may�
•T
!�
Ikkr
��
i�
I�b
iie�
t} y 2 H
� � aa
[� � LL¢
r-+ Q V V
:n C a a
L `��
O g
W � �
x
. . IZ _'Z � ZZ
O; E ¢&
U � �i
� CC
v� � �w
�� C U
� I �� �I �
J �� � ,� w
�_j= —__�� ,���-� � � W
�I',I� . - :�� gj � �� "'�;y' �� N �
� i J
ItiCk
.,.. /'�' rt Q'�' �526� �� r ' WI U W
�i �- �/„t: �I � N
a € �JI 3s¢�l t a" �
... g ..� ._. _ ._` I
r�
�� � m3 ��I �� i �� �; N Z
S`o '�
w3-. � 3� til �,�• �y - WI � O
.. g s n..� 8; � i -,�3�," F-' � LL
-- �'�� W� �' lLl �
�� � � = �I �
� � U
- ' �I ` ' \ �. �.
. i�: JI � � 1r; v
- .. -�S: I�—�' gU w�I 4�i'-^ �I
WI „
_ =;r
�s
� .tia
� I
-I - " �' U: �$ �,� �
- m�.�: �� �� �N �; �i
6' {� °a I �.�
� �
1� OI \ �J,�:;1 O,I
KS Ui \��f . �i'. VJ�
� L�-1' Q� ..I �Y �I
/ .I �,'. Z' I�I' `�.� Z
� /I .� p ,���" p
� t= .,�� F=�
s -. _ �II I. .:= �'�.
� �� . _ k` i I
w : w
� "� w� � l� w;
� �`�_ `� �
o a -
_ �
. _ _ � c !, s �-� m
, ��.,,
, 4
~�(NVId 335�L4 i.P.B t.P9
y
ti
��-� z
a i
. � . ._ _::e._——---��
� � I I I ; ~� �� .
�90'
�o I I I � iz _ �ri`� .e��
�l___�_ � _ r
�._� i - I'1 ����.
I I � ���=.
� I i � Y>.
� , �i il � - i �r:
-�_I I � ' � o
, � .�:
��� � � - �`;
�
� `�i � W �: i.
� � � ; � �g � Q ���� �
, r -- - � z " �
i � �, � _ � � -���- "
� , �
h. �,_ I � � �i U � 3
� i I ' i 'i ' ' : g
�
;.���
� � � � j � p °� r . 9
I � ��� � �r= ..i '
i ', � I ,1 a R �> � �
� �_ _ fx� 3'' �' 8
� :-
i
�i _
I 'I ' _ _ _ w� � ��
i I , cWi s �> Q � �
� y' z; m i
� � � W�, g � �; � a o
il_ _I I ' �I 60�i f' � 6 �
. `LI - - �s �F. �. �'. � `m
.. i�� ,TT'- �I � .. - - _ � �� �� W � �
� -� \I u''��' O � E
I � �I \f�' � � � i
� I� � � i �, -� . 7���,ri-';'��r�l..� u ._. 4. f �
� � � � �- '� � - m
I i �, � �i
. 1. _"_...D-_.. i � . . _ r`i/� —m
� r � 3
- _ - � � Y
a 8 =
m � � �
� o
� H1LON� �
�� � o
� ��m o
� ��s �
� ��'� �
�
�
��
,�
��
a�
�w�
o�
«�,
o��
..�
s�,
.»�
.�
�
a�
��
��w
��
..�
~ Sa/em Lutheran Church and School Specific Plan Environmental lmpact Ana/ysis
Draft EIR Aesthetics
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 ar 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 ar 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
l 0:30PM. 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.
Level of Significance Before Mitigation
Less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required.
Level of Significance After Mitigation
Impacts were determined to be less than significant before mitigation.
Michael Brandman Associates 4.1-31
H.\Client(PN-JN)�3771\37710001�EIIi\9-DEIIt\37710001 Sec0401 Aesthetics.doc
��
,�
��
,�
;,�.
�
��
��
n�
,�
�
e�.
��
��
R�0
sm�a
I�F
k�
k!
erar
+c»ss�
0�
a+s
1�
Yli�.
IIIR
��
e�
Sa/em Lutheran Church and Schoo/Specifc Plan Environmental Impact Analysis
Draf[E/R Air Quality
F 4.2 - Air Quality
4.2.1 - Introduction
Purpose
The purpose of this section is to describe the existing air yuality setting and potential impacts that
would result from the implementation of the Proposed Project. This section also identifies mitigation
measures to reduce any potentially significant air quality impacts, if any, and describes the residual
impact after imposition of the mitigation.
Sources
Information in this section is based on the following sources:
• Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Analysis Report, Michael Brandman Associates, August 25,
20]0 (Appendix D).
• Salem Lutheran Church and School Specific Plan, Michael Madden Associates, April 30,2011
(Appendix I).
• Comments received during the public review period. These comments are contained in
Appendix A.
4.2.2 - Regulatory Setting
Air pollutants are regulated at the national, state, and air basin level; each agency has a different
degree of controL The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)regulates at the
national level. The California Air Resources Board(ARB)regulates at the state level. The South
Coast Air Quality Management District(SCAQMD) regulates at the air basin level. Air pollutants for
which federal and state ambient air quality standards have been defined are termed "criteria
pollutants."
Federal and State Regulatory Agencies
The EPA handles global, international, national, and interstate air pollution issues and policies. The
EPA sets national vehicle and stationary source emission standards, oversees approval of all State
Implementation Plans,provides research and guidance for air pollution programs, and sets National
Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), also known as federal standards. There are NAAQS for
� six common air pollutants, called criteria air pollutants, which were identified from provisions of the
Clean Air Act of 1970. The criteria pollutants are:
• Ozone • Particulate matter(PMio and PMz.S)
• Nitrogen dioxide • Carbon monoxide (CO)
• Lead • Sulfur dioxide
Michael Brandman Associates 4•2-1
H�.\Client(PN-JN)�3771\37710001�EIIL\9-DEIIt�37710001 Sec04-02AirQuality.doc
Sa/em Lutheran Church and Schoo/Specific P/an
Air Quality DraR E/R
The NAAQS were set to protect public health, including that of sensitive individuals;thus,the
standards continue to change as more medical research is available regarding the health effects of the
criteria pollutants. Primary NAAQS are the levels of air quality necessary, with an adequate margin �
of safety,to protect the public health (ARB 2010).
The federal Clean Air Act requires that each state prepare a State Implementation Plan which is a
document prepared by each state describing existing air quality conditions and measures that will be
followed to attain and maintain national standards. The State Implementation Plan for the State of '�
California is administered by the ARB, which has overall responsibility far statewide air quality `""
maintenance and air pollution prevention. The ARB also administers the California Ambient Air ..�y
Quality Standards for the 10 air pollutants designated in the California Clean Air Act. The 10 state �,,�
air pollutants are the six national air pollutants listed above as well as the following: visibility-
reducing particulates, hydrogen sulfide, sulfates, and vinyl chloride. ��
The national and State ambient air quality standards their effects, and sources are described in Table ��„
4.2-1 Also, included in Table 4.2-1 are discussions ofvolatile organic compounds (VOC)and diesel
�.�,
particulate matter(DPM)far which there are no ambient air quality standards adopted but which play
an important role in the generation of ozone in the case of VOC and in describing the effects of toxic """'
air contaminants in the case of DPM. ���
��
Several pollutants listed in Table 4.2-1 are not addressed in this report. Analysis of lead is not
included in this report because the Proposed Project is not anticipated to emit lead. Visibility- ��"
reducing particles are not explicitly addressed in this analysis because such particulates are addressed ��
in the discussion of particulate matter. The Proposed Project is not expected to generate or be ��
exposed to vinyl chloride because Proposed Project uses do not utilize the chemical processes that
��e
create this pollutant and there are no such uses in the vicinity. The Proposed Project is not expected
.�
to cause exposure to hydrogen sulfide because it will not generate hydrogen sulfide in any substantial
yuantity, and there is no generation of hydrogen sulfide in the project area. «�
.�
South Coast Air Quality Management District
The agency for air pollution control for the South Coast Air Basin (basin) is the South Coast Air r�
Quality Management District(SCAQMD). SCAQMD is responsible for controlling emissions °��
primarily from stationary sources. SCAQMD maintains air quality monitoring stations throughout M�»
the basin. SCAQMD, in coordination with the Southern California Association of Governments „.,.
(SCAG), is also responsible for developing, updating, and implementing the Air Quality Management
.�
Plan (AQMP) for the basin. An AQMP is a plan prepared and implemented by an air pollution
district for a county or region designated as nonattainment of the national and/or California ambient R'
air quality standards. The term nonattainment area is used to refer to an air basin where one or more +�
ambient air quality standards are exceeded. ��
�
.�
4•2-2 Michae/Brandman Associates „�,
HiClient(PN-JN)�3771A37710001�EIRV9-DEIR�37710001 Sec04-02AirQualiry_doc
Salem Lutheran Church and School Specific Plan Environmental Impact Analysis
Draft E/R Air Quality
The current AQMP for the basin is the 2007 AQMP, which was adopted by the SCAQMD on June l,
2007 (SCAQMD 2007b). On July 13, 2007,the SCAQMD Board adopted the 2007 Final AQMP
Transportation Conformity Budgets and directed the Executive Officer to forward them to ARB for
�� its approval and subsequent submittal to the EPA. On September 27, 2007,ARB adopted the state
Strategy for the 2007 SIP and the 2007 AQMP as part of the SIP.
On January 15, 2009, EPA's regional administrator signed a final rule to approve in part and
disapprove in part the SCAQMD 2003 1-hour ozone plan and the nitrogen dioxide maintenance plan.
The parts of the plan that were approved strengthen the SIP. The Clean Air Act does not require the
disapproved portions of the plan,and the disapprovals do not start sanctions clocks.
The 2007 AQMP outlines a detailed strategy for meeting the national health-based standards for
PM2.5 by 2015 and 8-hour ozone by 2024 while accounting for and accommodating future expected
growth. The 2007 AQMP incorporates significant new emissions inventories, ambient
measurements, scientific data, control strategies, and air quality modeling. Most of the reductions
will be from mobile sources, which are currently responsible for about 75 percent of all smog and
particulate forming emissions. The 2007 AQMP includes 37 control measures proposed for adoption
by the SCAQMD, including measures to reduce emissions from new commercial and residential
developments, more reductions from industrial facilities, and reductions from woodburning fireplaces
and restaurant charbroilers.
Rules and Regulations
The AQMP for the basin establishes a program of rules and regulations administered by SCAQMD to
obtain attainment of the state and national air quality standards. Additional regulations in the form of
air toxic control measures have been adopted by the ARB to reduce emissions of toxic air
contaminants. The rules and regulations that apply to the Proposed Project include, but are not
limited to,the following.
South Coast Air Quality Management District Ru/es
SCAQMD Rule 401 prohibits the discharge of any visible emissions into the atmosphere from any
single source of emission whatsoever any air contaminant for a period or periods aggregating more
than three minutes in any one hour which is as dark or darker in shade as that designated No. l on the
Ringelmann Chart, as published by the United States Bureau of Mines.
SCAQMD Rule 402 prohibits a person from discharging from any source whatsoever such quantities
of air contaminants or other material which cause injury, detriment, nuisance, or annoyance to any
� considerable number of persons or to the public, or which endanger the comfort, repose, health or
safety of any such persons or the public, or which cause, or have a natural tendency to cause, injury or
damage to business or property.
Michael Brandman Associates 4.2-3
H�.\Client(PN-JN)�3771\37710001�EIIt\9-DEIR�37710001 Sec04-02 AirQuality.doc
''�' �' ....e
�� N
l0 � � y�,• ,� CA .b � ,� � � � �
¢� c�C �,O. a� � � �+ .'f�" � 'b � � ^O .� cd �, c� � •�
V Q a� �n r. ca �f-. � � C v� • O pq
+' O � ^ f, � C c� > y � sr cyC
� 0 � � O O .b � O v�i .� � v`ni ^ bA O •� � O ��.+ � �
� u.�o c� o Z � , o � a� �, � � � � o � � �•� � �
o .-. � "� � ti o '� �� � a� � � � � �.
� L ,d� � � � � � �>,,n �; � � a� � � o � Z � �� .
� c o '" U ° c� � c� • ° '� � c� •.� a� �
� y � � a� v�i 0 av'i aXi a�i `'-' � � a�i � C o a�i � � a�i °� "' � � �
� � +-' > � U U O cd .�,_, c> � � �., ' C ,r
, � o � �.. ,� a� � � on � � �' � 3 �. -o � w^ � o o � �,..
W � � � � � o " o .o � � � � � � o ° ° � � � o � .
�a� . 3 .� o � � a. � ::.° � � .� � " a'� w ,ro � r' .�
o � o � � � � � � `' a� � � • ^ � �, a� „ �;
� �, � :n -o � ,� � � � -o x � �� � � � �
N � N ,� � O c� � � N 'b O O � ��n � Q � v� ^O � ❑ c�
� a'�.+ � F" t1 �, � C..) �U �i � �.' O,U s.�. Q -�. •� 4�. � �U U +F'"-+ �+m,
�+ �
� +r"-' ^� � ^ tn ^� � O p G YO 1�
� 'D � bA� bp +-+ O �
y o � >, �c � > `� ,,X�,, °? b U � � 'ca `� o px Z `o � '° �,.
a•~ ..o o � � o '� �� � ,� � •� c � � � �
' U U abi .� .°^��' k•�� o � O � .� '� a��i � � � �Z � � w p-� i�r
� � � :� � °' oZ `" � p" ° � � c �o � .ti o •� :° p �� ° °�'
� d ,� � � � ^ � a�i s�. -C o � '� o � o .� a� 'b c X � ^ rs. .� '� �u�
10 O O � '�+ O � � a� �� •� � y �� � � � .b O •� �' � � x,b '^" c�C
o . � � c ... 3 a� � �. >, � � � � � 3 °� O � 3 ;c ��
y a ,� � � a� � > o �, -o �, �. o o U -o ,� �s � �, on O
d ¢' °' ai a`"i °� � O ,� c�a � ° � � � �° c � g � � � � z z � a��i c"a
� � � � � � C � � � � ' � �-�^ a� �� � � C o a� C ^'^� '" � �.,.w
� • CI .� >C' G 7 +� � � � 0 � �" y O ' c> >"' � � 0 p., ❑ � v;
a a� � �°' o o � ;� c� -� `� U �� > � ou � ou c � z � � '� .°_�
p � • o a.•.; a� � a� � •= �= � i o � c � .c � � z °' �
� N = � � � � a � °' p �; � � � � a � >, � >,o O -o o p � '� �w_
a � «, o � o � o � d � c� c x a� x x �, z � N o c�
O � � � �, � �, a,,� � U on 3 � a� �o o ,� o L o a.., � o Z w n.
w ._ ,
�
�
W � ,o c o .o � � � � •� •� � ...
i 0 •° � � .� � ' � v, •y^ � w a� s� � •� o � �, i � �AA►
� cC ^d v� � � � O � �, O U cC O C +-+ � � pq bA v
O � � a�i � a�i � � O O � � � .`�+ c�d U � � O � G,�p Q � cd �
� � � � � � � v a. ,^ 0 G. a� �' �L � � v� � � v � � .� � ,� � � o.a.
10 � y�j c� � ^ � bA,C �,O 'O p ^G a� �''T3 � a. O > �� o . � � O �� � � o
�C m O � � �.fl � r..Y' t.�.. � � � O � � 'bA � N cC v' � 0. N � ^d � � � c� y- tert�
� W X � � �;� � �.� �; y � y � •=' •� C � �i .� y a`�i y �. �' � c � ' a'� � �
C� � +-' c� � .0 v .� � c> � � = � o
� � C a, � � p�C- O c� '3 �' N � �V�-, .� p�p N O G v�i X .�1•'O 0 �w b�A vNi � � X v � .+ �,.
� d a� O '� � .^-� � � `�� � � � U y bA C 'O b C� N �..+ Q � � � N L b �
� � .'d � ,1� � � O �,,, � � � � O � � 'C O" � � .O ,x O `i' v� � � c�C �' O
�, Y � Q cC • � '�+ «i y N a� :b � • � +�
C1— y N 'O � cC ,� . �+ � � � � ,..� � «S i-. a� v� � 'O c� '`n � ' .S) cd � � O i�P
� � O cd .N Q c� � ❑ i-' O. � � O +-' �'O > � .� ai ' � � C � rn U O •� .
O �a � � � .� � y �'.E 'Y a. � E a�i �; � ��� � � 3 � 'c� w � a o � a co'� � ��- �a
d O a> p � � � `n c� .� N b i� � � � � bA� � N � va�i �' � � p � �,O YO O a> � p � ���
� � C.� `� ' � � � " c °: � a. °= �a � Q � °o � o �a E „ „ a .� a .c a. o
^'B � � p•4. p id C Y . 'O U '�." O �.L' L^ .� � v�i r. � U r. ¢' �" � � O � U vVi MAIIl�
Q cC � � � � N N O � �' N � s. cC U � � � U � �,' cC N T'�" � � U
`. cC ..0 O..... ^O � .L' U id cC cC 'O .L' 0. .�� U � O.'O � �n . .� �. rn 0�.. L1.� cd ..i'C
r
� .a.;.
N m �
� id'Q � p, �
41 �� � � �. Q e+�n
10 1�0 C � � f1 � p M .a
H Z .� O �. �1.0•, '""' p L' A..
�0 � O t'''� T � O �,
'a �
� ¢ .�
�: ea-p � � �
fn w c Q ¢" �" �. � � N �..:
. O �1, O o
l0 +� � � G' Q" oo c+� �
= V q� p o p � ^-' O � �e�
N � O C �
y Ng
C � �� K.
� C
t •��6 � �, �,
� i� O O O O � � y� ���
�.1 a~ .�, .�". r�". .�. .�. C �� rrr�.
00 �-.. 00 ,-. ¢ I�p�
G
�^ 11�8
t C -� � � �M
6� �
JW Q � � � � ^ o:U N �za ��
d� a N ro o � � o O � �
in o` ° c� � .� z L � �� R�
gz
y �" v� �-+ 4. N
'jp � O 4. � N S rn � v� � L � �' `7
O > a� a+ O � -� � 'O 'B
C C�l � O � � F. � •� � 'S3 n O y � O
Q � 'O s.�. � c� � F. C C }' � ^� 'O c� y � O �+�"'. c� �' cC � O �
V Q � N � � � y . � vi V] � � '.:, C � C a.� �, .. � y
�0 U •� 7 a3 p i" � ctl" a� � N � � '"' 'C > O cd u' � O c� � U �
a c � � ,� o � � .� o � � � .� � � ou � � o � '� o o � � .� � � �
E � � �•� � � cO >,.c-� � �o .� •� � � •,�-� �y c°� � 3 a� o � �. -o � � a�i ° ° � �
m d � o � � �- °°� • o � � c � c� .. ;� . 'v a o � �, :� � 4,
e � � v ,� ° � ,� .= c o ^ a`�i c � a�i �� ,� ,� a�'i a� � � �� ?i � � � " '' 'c� �n �
d � o � � > c E-� c� �a :ti :o '- � a��i � c°'i °' � � � � = y v � -� ° � £ � a
o y � � �' on � ai � b '" ,n,� •= �, 3 � �° � o .o � ^ � 3 � o a�i °'aw � ° �
b
� � O C �,,,� .0 4_. � p -p p O O, � ^ y � �
.... �� � v s:. cC .'S"�' � � .� � `� y v' � `i' O,� 'L' �s.. vi '�+ i� i � O �' C
C cC bA y'3 v� � ^ � c� a� p k � vi � iC O v � bA'O c� cC � � ,cC � ca
W � a� c � � -o � s ... c ,^ �o �a�'_' '� .� o � � � on � :� �, � o o a�
� W v`ni w O � V y a) Y U �N � a) cC � 7 y � a) a) .v� ,C ,� '� � > y 'b A•,;, p � �
� '� � c .^ � �o °' w E ? � w 3 c '� � �° � -�o -o " �° � >, � � � o :b = ^ o
o o � c� � o � � o � � � �? y � o i c c c ° °�'' — � � � � ,c, X `� � �
.Z 4. O. � N v� f1'C v� � 3 y vi cO �n V] c> s. . cC cG LL '� '�+ i. .+ � C/] a� O U n bA
fA � �^� .� � � � �
p V � '� 'O � • cG � C •� �„�, i cC �
V � � O � ^ � .b X U i.+ t�. 'fl .� N 'V N L' � Y U � s.. �
� �- o � • 3 � o � �c � . o •� � L � y E � o ;
� °.�' on '� „ -a � � -o ❑ � x i ,� � ° `� 0 3 � � c E � � .�
O v � � `� 'o � � �o �- � '� � � � � '-' a� � � �' � � w � ' � � � �
v� � �- � a x � 'b o � w ❑ � •� '° o. � ; � ;b � � -° � o ;; � _ `" � � �
� a�i o � a � b •� ° .� �' � °�' °' aw c � .� �oH � � '«, -° � � a� a � '� ° �
e�a � ° > � on �- � '° ° � s, � � a�°i � c° � � � �, �; �s �. � .5 0 .� o a..� � °' �
� � a� � on� � '- a�i � 'ap > v� � � �; � p,:° ° °n ai�c�y �' �= � �n � � � � �c�
f/j '�'' � V1 !� 'C O � c� i- N c� V i: � � �c i" � ^ cC C _^ O ,.� �G
_ � � � �, o ,� 3 a� � w — o � � ' s�, o a� ^ L
d ¢ cC � � v�i 'O i � v� O ,L' � � � cd v, � c'"'C `n G^ � � �, i- C N vi ..�.+
d �' � � � o '° � E � � Q .o � 4,��,, a"i o °-� � �'' 3 � p, c E E � � 'E �� � `;� o 0 3
p, 'X �c � �. ? x o o �. y — � -0 4. 'b �«, -o � o a� o o i «, ,� -
Q :� � � � � `*'^" ^"p � � Y � 'O a� o "O y � � � � •� � = � N y w ^ V� .� a�i ,�
c E �. • � -o � � .�c � 3 �. � � � �, �, .r a' ❑ o � 'b c �. � ., � 3 � � a�
a � o°'na.� x � a� a� � � �' 'o ° � a„� '� '°' '_ ' Q-.^ � ° �'= °' �' �� � � o .n
� � � ,n � O� � � � � � o � Y ; °' � •x o ° � � o � `^ •`-' � s � ,� 'c p o '°,o
c� v� a o '� .. � �.. � .� E � � -a n. v� E � �0 3 > � o,c�i E a ..., �v F- � v� � s �
m
�
W � �
N E � 'ti cC a> y a� �� ^� y- Y �.. '� O � a� a� a� � � .O
�` � ro � � .= 3 c�a c° � E `� L � � ° �' � ^'� � � �'� ° `� �' w i �
� � � � •� a�i a�i �' � o �� '� � a�i ��„ � � o 'p.� � � �p a'�i �,:d ° �.� � ° � a�i o �
� � � o >,� iG p � � ° � .� V � O .� ss. y � w c w � r n. a C v�i � o o ° > C �
:r m p � � 4. °' � '�. � � 3 � o ;d a � � '� � ,..,.� � o i a� � � � .,., �v ,� � �o
� � a � E o � a� �s � �, o � � �, � >,.� a� '�,' � � a� a ,s +- � � .. � '°'� �'
w K c � •° Q-� .� ... .� � c • `� • � � � a� � � � � c �3 -- > � c,
c .+W o � � �= c o, � � `� E •= o o � `" 3 =o � -c ° � `� ° ^ � � E �+- ai� �
c �+ •� a� � . o ,� 4, � �s � a. �. o ° �, �, ° � � •� �' -o � o �s °' ou o o � � a
:° w c � ;� a -v n,.� 4. °? o -v c .� �c E �. �, � � a� �s o � � � on.� � � o�n o
� > •� 3 a ��' a� ;3 °' � Y � 3 �, L ,o � � � � .� °�' .� � o � :.d � ,� Q � ° � p °.
d � � �' .r� ai •? � � �' � 3 " � c� � � °-;� � ca � � �-. v, � 'O � ^ >,j '� .-.
O a>— � � � � �s � a� � � a� � � � �
d � o ° o � � v°� "o �° ss. � > ,� � y � a, > •� " � � � c c �' � � � `-' `� > �,�?�.
� .� on.� c � o °� � �. a� �. c �o a� � �a
� +�o- o a � on-- . � �' • �- � � o a� o � .� ��c a � .c o „ ❑ �, �'.; �. � � �'
Q � � E '� '� ,� � ; � w •� -o °r ��'� W :� �° � 3 `*-� °p�� ^ '� � °' i .� � o°�n � on:—
� a�
'� '' '� = a ' ° � a� • �c a� -o Ll � Q `� ;�
.. o i >,� �° '� Y ° o t � o ,-• c " a�i o .x — •� > E c � .. c � .. � �
r.+ i' >,'� .L � v, � C ' v� >,•— � � s.. L � s.. c� 'O O � .� � rn v '3 cG •
� o� � 3 � a. �a � � 3 ca ^0 3 � �a .� � o Ll on'C o C] s ca o . � ...� � � n.-v >
O
= „ 9
� �o � � E "'� �'E
N o � a E a a � E on
� �C � � � Q �. I � O I 'Q
�
. C W{ �V+ O � � O O � �r
�0 �
O O O O �'''1 O�
'a F- a
� � �p �
� ,,. o
. . d �� M� �� � �
(n � C f1 I O. I bA bA I bA bA o
'� !� � � � � � �
O U� O O � N � N �
y d�
..o
G � �
C �c�°
� •�� _ f.. � � � O px
V �,� � � O � O � � � y o
.�G !~ `.� .Z S C � � � C G�
V a � cn N Q N � N Q N ��
G ��
y �+ N a� �?
L C � � �z
." ,� a� � }., ^ a`�i m z
�W Q � � X � c� c� � � N N 4� ry a
�� p `-�-" o Q � c�o � � � � v
io : a'
" V� Ll � 0`�. � °�'" 0`�. � °.."' v� �u
yo �x
y �` �o
�� � � O c'�C C� q � � � � � � �
.� cd N +-+
Q(i 'Y � p 'D �, "'a O O "O .:.^ � 3 � � 'a b�p in � c0 'O •'S'�
V Q N �,� .+ � � � � '� '-' C 3 ,C ,� ,D � cC y 'C ,.� � � 7 �'
a O C CI -O � •a: � .� y O C � ,U vi c� N `n � '� � � � � p,'O � '-�' r�'.,
E N • N }' ,S; S1 «3 � a+ N '�. �' N N rn LL�--� 4: . G
m � a��i � � G' � y �"� �' -o � .� ,� '�G�'. Q,w ,� a� '� ,� 3 X C � � � o
°�' 3 � � °�.' w � � a�°i a�i 3 � � � �° � �� � °" a� b -°o ..��., � � ano `� = ;_
E p � ca � os .� � � .o 0 0 o :ti ;b � � ��' � � � a� o � o � � o �».
o v� � � °n i � � .� `� � � � � ,s ° ? � � '� ° c;� ro � o �? -o .� o �
` � � •� � ' °' 3 '� o � � ,� � on� ., „ �a ,� �, �'� �, � -o
� � � � � °�.' � � 'o >, � °: `� � •� � � -o j a� o � � .� a� � c s
W ;? on � ° ,� o � •o ¢, � ,� aUi o �>, vi � v� ° o . � � � ^ o 0 0,o `� _.
o .c � ., o. � o � a..� '� '> .� � ° ,� � ,� � �' �a �� � o � o
� � v' `i' y-' V .� � � `n c� �,+ > � y C .V N 4: cY.) � � � .� c.�i i"' � " °�_.
� N Q p�p � � .� f�." v� � ,� c� � �'O a�.+ � 'O N G � N s, � �
� � � � � O ° � � � � ° � ° o ° � `� ,� °�,' � i .� `� c a o � o � ._,
� aa � Ea. � -os�. � � � � Q � 4.
N U � � '� � ,� � � c° c .� U � ��
a� ° x �, '� 0 3 0 �, ��, ❑ �,
L ,� ° ° � � v� 'ti s., � � ° � co � 'b c`�i � �
� f' � ° o ,� � n � ,�c � .� � ,� 'ti 3w � °c
f� +� � � 'b � �° `� � � i� � � � � �' '� a�i .�' � on
y � cC � :� a� 'O '� � � •O C �O C 'O N ^ �' ^ O bA �'
c m � iQ a-� °.,' ,`°, � � •o � o �o � -o .X � � aa�
� � m F��4 .�i
10 �' ,S"'y � �� a^� a •� � C L'�-r �'' V � L� ^ � .�Yn F�4 [�/] � m..5e�
41 cC O rn � � U � a> � <
� ^CJ bA b ,� � �. N s, R�.. cd N
G1 O .� � C '� sa�. � '"' N � C 'O °° O � .� Q' m 'B 'O O �
� n' �° ° °'� °' � ~ '� o � � -o � '� � 3 � -0 � ° � ° � �
o � �� �°, c �� � '� � ° � v' � ,� o � °n°� o c�a w c =' .=
�;.,
L o � � c v � � � �' �, .� � � ❑ � .� ,x a� � �
on �
a ._ � ?? '.; 3 � �. � -o �, � " � � "- � � .� o � �►
vi � �.., .� � °�,' �v � �-' ' o � • o �,'i, �. �; � �: �. � �
; � � � � � c� � � '.r � o 0 0 >, � � -o � ,r
� � a�i a ° a.� °a. 3 a °� a�i a-� > � � o > ° � x� � w�
tn � � 'Y °' o � .o �-c o a� ; c � :� s°; c`�i � a� ��
� o o � � o o ca '� � o a�i �' �; `� o o � � 'ti °' � c �
ta w �' w �� '" � �. o � � .9 � � � a.� � � o, � `�b.^. � `° � ��.
'o � �� � w., � .� ,� � " " °' � � " o �;� an a �' °n
�° � � o � o ° � � '� ,c �O,:� � :� '� � '� �bn >,�� � c � � o � � •� c`�i
cA `�k Q. � " �.�, � � a�i ,� s., °' o N o °' � 3 � � '> °' � '� -c °' •=" � � �
'C � � 4., a� ..�.� � '-' � a� � � � � �' � � S�, �' � s.�. ilAl�
�. w x � � � a� �., � �, 3 � :v °�' �' '" �� ,� ,'°, � � a� � ° ; >,-c ° �
r l6 C � b � � � � 'C i� �'LS � c�C �' � v�'i �� � x ^a�j •O � � 'O s.. N � c� O. � i�
7 > � tC p � � � p � � .� � y,,, N Cy'O �n � O. ��� y C^O v�i '� � -� U v�i N �
O GI � � � ; y � � � � � vi p "b aXi O � 'N W U j b s.. v O. s.�'. � 'O a� � � bA� 1�
d � p � -O . � � � c� � .� � � vi � � � j °� � c°�i ^ � :� �' � � �'
_ +r a � c '_' � o � c ��an�" o � � a� ;.d �, �+. � � . to a� a� ai�
� � c � � a� � .� � � �, — °n � � > E � � � q�
Q � ,b ai a�'i � � � o 'B o •� � � }' �� � c�c a � v�i � v�i � " " '� '❑ s��. � .� 0
.. � a`�i � '� c�i � � .� o � w � a�i � �> � � � � o °�. � > 3 �� �a�n � � °-� °�'0� .e�
++ ,r p o a� a� �, ,� 4, a� � � .� x �a c� a� �. c� ,r a� � o �
C J •.J .� .� w E- o.�o c �v � a. v� o c� � .c � 3 a� � .� � � 2 � .. �. ,� � n.
0
� w�
A
� � 'o "'�
� °� � � � � � s ��
c °° �-
� � � T
G � Z (A "'• _ �,.
� � � � a
a ~ < �.o
u
�: !0 � � o
L
h .�C �� I I ¢' O�, � �,�F
�bA
� � r. -
O O �
0 �� � � p � w�
,C .-� �
C�
�
� �q s.:;
G C � N
� M
'U P
�.
0) s. N s�
i � � � � � .� c� O � r0�
q
� 41 H 'O � �-. � � � p Q o
.G > p' � p O �"„ S
V a M O� R: � c�C N � tC0� ,,•.,
G �_
N �. � C� !!�F
� � � � L�
�� � a� � 'O bA y m
�W Q � � �•O �p � �4 sa�.
;� a° � � � �,� tv
v,o` •� > U x v� �� a�
��
h � �
�ro � � ,i N
�
7 O C �, 'O • � v�i V �
�pr .d � � p � ,o o a� o � L � . o � � ,�, � i ^ °�,' � a� � �
Q' � �Y °�' � ° � � � Y � •� �. o � Y � � � � � ?' o �o c �
�Q � �. a� � � .� � o � � o � o � ,�a a� .o a� o � ¢ �° a� .g �on a�
�0 � � � ° � °-' ° � � � '� .� o � � � a� � � � � i � � o � a�i �
E ' ai °+ � � .� .� -d ? � �.. o � v a�
U o o O � � � ° ° c � o � ° � o � c � � � .o � � o � � � .� �
f� �n a� a� • `'-� ., .� � � � � c� `� �' X 't7 � w v c� � � � 4. c> j
,io a� O o � � � a� a� ,� � 3 • o � -" �a ca a� o � °' � E c � �• °' a� v� -o
a�i � ��.. � o o � O .� y � ° � ° �° �a ° °� a 3 � `' � '� `� � � � ��°, � � . o
E o � �; � i -� > � g �j ° ;,� -o � o ,.;,c -o .; � :`� � ° � •= 3 � � � � '° i `'
o �A � � �a � a � •� °�,' � 3 � �� o. `� °�' 'o � ° a� �� � � �, �, •� � 4. � c
j � � o o � c � � > .^ ai � � a�i .r�, ° � �' �: ° _ � " `� c� � " � � o � .b
� O O vi �' O � � • C N � " iC � ''� N C • Y a�i '� Cl.�� � � � .
W rn rn s. s.. �i� �:� �+ N � ,L' C1, N N � -��, � .� .D O ^p C U X C. � �..' ^C « ^O 7
N O � V � � .i". � C � N �' � 'a.+ N cd � � .� N �+ v' y U
�- y �, p � � a� o o '� °' �- a� �+- ° a� Y a � � on � a� .., o � � �,
o � � ° � � � � o o ° � c � ;� -c � •� �v � � ? � i � � o .� .� .a a� .5
� '� °? a a � ,� w, � � ,on a� o �, c °' � � x � a� s � o � � � o o �
c, � O � Q �. ..J o .� � s m � > � W a � a� a �c a. Ca � u... CL1 a � a �
" � -o 0
�
N `o � ai `o bn ` o � � � �a o " � o�o
` v ;� '� a�i c �' c«. � � ai � � a, � ° ^ �n -C ,� w y w
G O � 'O ,� N c� C � U � .':.' a � � •� � � �� � � O
(n C� >, X � c�"a � cYd U � .� O � cd p 3 W C7 ,n � �n ^ � U U '�
�O � v� c�C i � U � •¢'.� � • � cC .= > 'O N � `��j � p �.,, 'O C
N y � � p U y � '�J' N � � � c� � iG � cd v� � � 0
� �t�' � � � � — � �� � ,s � .� � o .a'�' � 0" >' " w � � v, Q-.s
C1 pq.� � ,.�, � ca 0 bA'O ''' c� U ^� � s.: a� O V v�i � y � � iC c�
tn a � a� ,� ai � � a•, � a� �� a� o c �, . a� a� � � �
d Q c � -o � -v � .°c � � U �. � >,� -o a� � a•- � a a� o o :�
,� on � a, 3
� a � a� 4' � :b � }' n'_" � O � � -� E � � o �, Q •x -o e4 � �
C. o � �o o �a ; � '; ¢ ib .c •= 'b1p � := � � � � _'? E � a�i ° o �
� � c� � � � � � s � � � °�' � � � a� o� �n �, � � � y � � �, �
a � �j p, o O o O p '� a�i � C N i. �''� � .� .� � Cs.. O.� C '� a�i a~i
y � � � � � � � 4. a� c o .s o �, � � '� �o � � a� � � �
�+ a� O o � �s �c �c � � `'" p ,� a� o •o° � � � p- � a o � ,� �. � �a
� f� � � � � � � c� L '0 0.� o t7a � s on � � Ll a ce � n. 3 O a. E
�
lL �j � w p
-Np � � �^ .k O v�i vi c vi � w c�G � y � �- � N vi c .�.
� Q cC t.. U .�.+ c>�, O �, � � � � O 4. � � O G Spp� � N � �bA � N � �
C � 7 � w � �+• � o ai ro v�i '� j,� 7 � C �, c�V � vVi ,� '� o V � � bA v N � � '� �"i,
f� M � � C.' O C G' �,� � x rn v Y v� ,O .N a) C C �� 'O U ,�' �' C � ,� y cd
� � a � .`� V bA v� �� � L' C .Y '7 N C�d n'� N N .� � O � � � � 7 � � 7 'O N N � �
w. W K v� � s' c�C X y, � C > � •� N ,� � 'L � •`� O � 0 '� � O � U N � � � '�
C �+W � � � O V p � cC O .C y s" N � ^ C � cUC ..'y''_��,, � v� Y p � � `� O. � ,� � � >
i+ lO C ,L � c�"" N � Y U O •� CC �� �'' (C a'� "�' • R! CC .:..i •+--� p bA Q"� �l � N c�C LO Y y � � E
3 m cd C � � C 3 O ^p - � a� c^�C � O cv0 O� v � 'f�j' cC O � � ^p Y � 0 'C .bA:� 'V Q�" O
O dl� y � •� � p y � � k "d � .� v, � ..w � ;� � ,= -� � c� � � � .� c � o �-
a �o '� � � o '� � " � .� o o � v ^ � � � � � '�' > L c " � � � " � r �' � s >,
` �a '�°°o '� � Y °-' a��i � ° � � a�i � � .°', o °' � o ° �' � �� .s �� � � o o � � � °�' �
Q � � .S"r Vi � N 4� `C" .� 'f^ 0 C� +'�..+ � Y� 1 "'6 N � a.+ L i.. U � a.+ fC bA
LL v� c� s.
.. � � > 0 � C �? � � 'O v�i � 'O � � � �pp � p :,+ O.� � U ��i, � � y y"•+.:+ � � y � �
� Q .� > � ° .� 5 c � ° -o � � � vi � � -o .t °' � � o -o °' v� zs a�'i .� ,� c a� .5 a�i
0
� �.
a o
� �e v c �, �, a
c� � � °_' '� '� p
o�p � � �, �
d R C � = c� �' � N c0 � c� �
... z � +�' �+ v� ,L N � rn � r�
d � � Y � � Y � � � � � �
O .D 'fl � � O 'fl O 'b ¢
k A �C �' � c�C U cC � c�O � � v
� o
_.... a •O� � � � � � � c�C � �, (�C � v�
h � C i O �C..) �in � i � N t-a�. �' o
• °' O ca °' N °' � o
� s � �
t V� c a-> � °s�, F- a�� F � �
u
y ym
� C � �o
�
� •�d � O�
` �0 � � � y o
3 G/F- U n� Q o
c=i Q � � � ��
.� � � E-
m an � •" v�
t c � � � � `�
�0 z
�� � � � O � a ^ m z
.. J 7 '+=. GL N a> � �a
[W a — � � C a�i 0.�
d� � O O N '��"-
�no` a > v a� oQ "�
�_
y � �
N
�i7 »..
� � � � � � a
�C�J p O a`"i p a� �
Q� •�, � i.. > b
a�
�� � � � Q.Q 1.�, y U
a N ^� � s.. ^ y W � m,�,..
� � "O C � � � a� y °�
tll O � O � � 3 � O
`�: d a: a� �"'., � °' s .� w° M� �
aCi 7 p `� o � �j .� a 3 °�'0 �
CN �i N � p II � G' � a�o cd �.a.�.
� � � C �+ � C,, N `d y
L: N CC t `� L
G Y O bA � '_' c�o � V � O � .�,
R
W y � U � � a y O cUd � C
� � .� N O. O G. N � � R�**'
�o o .? � 'a- a, o a� o �3
� �
�a � a� 'a. a� �° � F- .o o �...
L T � � •
U � j '+��^ � � U C
O � cC 4.. ❑ ��, O L �1��.
G1 � � ^ N � 'O O T y C U
V .D � � � � c� O C .��, � � � �t�.
O U O.'C >, � � � M � 7 � � �
c
� ° 'b � >, � � a� � E � y c� c°'n in�
� � �C � � O � � � �D y C� W L L
� � � W � � � 1.vH
C � � Q � 0 � b O O.,i O y �
�] fA Q� � � � � e..
S (C � L GJ S� 0 .�' "O � cC 'f"" 7 ....
� a � .� o w o '� � � � � ,�, � -� ,�
� ^o � � � � � � 3
O. �o � ,� �' .� U `� � � � > o �
O � � � > � � °' � 3 -o � •G � .._..
d �y �� �a �a � � ' '�'�o o ° �x
C� > � t«.� v � v`�i � a�i .� � "�'
N � "O 3.+ L: '� �.. v� U
O O ,�
� o � 'cd" -o c�,c ° 3 Q � �, o � � .''
� � �s a 7 �a -o
��:
� �'C k a� a�
W � � .� p � � � �
`� 0 1�
� � O -C >, Q a' r�i, y r°�i, j
�0 Q� `�' � �' �n � �� '� Q y � w, �
C 1�
� � t�• f�0 � G ..-U• 7.�. � V +J C p -O -p O O �
C � � a� O � � U a C v, c`'d O `'-' ,� u
.A+ � � b c� Z a� � .� a� c� ¢ -o .r -o � �
U) `� C. s�. � �•.. b�A� ,L' � Y y a� � p. 11RA
a+ LL� K y •� v' � � O o aXi ,,, °' �n � v 7 �
r lC0 C � w � � � i� � v�i v s..�� � � a..� � �rr�,
> > �.�. � o `� � s.: `'' � E o c � c `� y
d
O Ct— �o � ¢'� p � `� o :o 'v ° 3 •° >, o rwe
d � a � Y o o � � v -o � � -o �' y �' � o°�,o
y �, � �o
y � bA c'�d vi 'O nq v�i Y � °� � � � y a� '`�- W�m
Q O x � y � �y 7 � n.N • G c� ,t a�
.. � � � •�� � � � -fl p� � y� '� o � �
.j � � a`i'i Y C� o .� � axi +c°-� �a � c U ?� a`di .a�
�' CC CC L �
bA � 3 p � .,., >,
v � �� s.�, � � r� u»k
" ��a v� '� � � �
N c � �� � � • " „ a
O c k .� 'c7 tR1r
d Z � M�b�A � M 7 0 � � 'O �o°
G � f/� �'-�-� O � a� °� °� cd � m�.;�.
cC 4. C�. � � � �
4 F � o. `d � = ``" � o�
° y a o a� o t < ��e
V iC U ,� > N o
�I: ld � k Y V N bU C
N � � �
p, .p 'C co o � c � > �c N m"w
� = C o ,E i °' '> ;? `� o 0
O l� +� � p,� � 'd ��i, `� � O
o U � � ca � � cC °� � �!1!!
t � � y > � N �' � '�
V � � cbC � M O P�J
y V O �' � y� N N y m W��.
� � G' c0 'O O Y v..�
C C � y,�'„ CL � 'C t" N �0 '
� C 'lj°'
t �Cl d � y A.,a.4. p 'O a�
� � � O � � .� q 4. b r� y� 1�
.7 d� � � cC � N O � . 'C y o
V a .� .b � � b 0 in p � C� ►rit
s. C y p � • v� bA ��
� rn Q N := � ,L � .y � in
0� a+ O � � � p � a�i C �j� G� /!�
+_-� C iC cC C cd ❑ � � �.�., ^� �-
L. � O. O ^p ^1 Q ?? �"
m
'� z
J ? a�i I I �iv Y �� � a p,.c p, �a ��
�� a 'p � � Z � � E-� . F� Qu.. a rd
in O` a Q a� � � -o �� ��
��
Salem Lutheran Church and School Specifc P/an Environmental Impact Analysis
Draft E/R Air Quality
_ SCAQMD Rule 403 requires fugitive dust activities to follow best available control measures
(BACM)to reduce emissions of fugitive dust from any activity or human-made condition capable of
generating fugitive dust. BACM are accounted for in the URBEMIS model used to estimate
construction emissions as "mitigation"although the measures contained in the URBEMIS model are
not technically mitigation but are required under Rule 403. The BACM and associated measure
contained in the URBEMIS model are provided in Table 4.2-2 and are incorporated into this analysis.
SCAQMD Rule 445 prohibits permanently installed woodburning devices into any new
development. A woodburning device means any fireplace, woodburning heater, or pellet-fueled
wood heater, or any similarly enclosed, permanently installed, indoor or outdoor device burning any
solid fuel for aesthetic or space-heating purposes, which has a heat input of less than one million
British thermal units per hour.
Table 4.2-2: Best Available Control Measures -SCAQMD Rule 403
Best Available Control Measure(BACM)' Associated Measure in URBEMISZ
Clearing and Grubbing
02-1 Maintain stability of soil through pre-watering of site Water exposed surfaces three times per
prior to clearing and grubbing day.
02-2 Stabilize soil during clearing and grubbing activities
02-3 Stabilize soil immediately after clearing and grubbing
activities
Earth Moving Activities
08-1 Pre-apply water to depth of proposed cuts
08-2 Re-apply water as necessary to maintain soils in a damp
condition and to ensure that visible emissions do not
exceed 100 feet in any direction
08-3 Stabilize soils once earth-moving activities are complete
Import/Export of Bulk Materials
09-1 Stabilize material while loading to reduce fugitive dust Equipment loading/unloading.
emissions
09-2 Maintain at least six inches of freeboard on haul
vehicles
���� 09-3 Stabiliae material while transporting to reduce fugitive
dust emissions
09-4 Stabilize material while unloading to reduce fugitive
dust emissions
09-5 Comply with Vehicle Code Section 23114
Landscaping
10-1 Stabilize soils,materials, slopes Replace ground cover in disturbed areas
Guidance: Apply water to materials to stabilize; quickly.
Maintain materials in a crusted condition;Maintain
effective cover over materials; Stabilize sloping
surfaces using soil until vegetation or ground cover can
effectively stabilize the slopes; Hydroseed prior to rain
season
Michae/Brandman Associates 4.2-9
H�\Client(PN-JN)�3771\37710001�EIIt\9-DE[RU7710001 Sec04-02 AirQuality.doc
Salem Lutheran Church and Schoo/Specific Plan
Air Quality Draft E/R
Table 4.2-2 (cont.): Best Available Control Measures -SCAQMD Rule 403
, �a�
Best Available Control Measure{BACM)' Assoclated Measure in URBEMISZ
Staging Areas _
13-1 Stabilize staging areas during use by limiting vehicle Reduce speed on unpaved roads to 15 ,�
speeds to 15 miles per hour miles per hour.
Traffic Areas for Construction Activities �d+
15-1 Stabilize all off-road traffic and parking areas Haul road dust watering three times per �
15-2 Stabilize all haul routes day. � �
15-3 Direct construction traffic over established haul routes �..
Guidance: Apply gravel/paving to all haul routes as
soon as possible to all future roadway areas; Barriers e�
can be used to ensure vehicles are only used on
established parking areas/haul routes �
Sources: ��
� SCAQMD Rule 403.
z URBEMIS output in Appendix D,Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Analysis Report. '�"
i�
SCAQMD Rule 481 applies to all spray painting and spray coating operations and equipment. "�
��
SCAQMD Rule 1108 governs the sale, use, and manufacturing of asphalt and limits the volatile
��
organic compound (VOC)content in asphalt used in the South Coast Air Basin. This rule would
regulate the VOC content of asphalt used during construction. Therefore, all asphalt used during '""""'
construction of the project must comply with SCAQMD Rule 1108. ��
��
SCAQMD Rule 1113 governs the sale, use, and manufacturing of architectural coating and limits the
VOC content in paints and paint solvents. This rule regulates the VOC content of paints available ��
during construction. Therefore, all paints and solvents used during construction and operation of the ��
project must comply with SCAQMD Rule 1113. ,
SCAQMD Rule 1143 governs the manufacture, sale, and use of paint thinners and solvents used in �'"
thinning of coating materials, cleaning of coating application equipment, and other solvent cleaning �'�
operations by limiting their VOC content. This rule regulates the VOC content of solvents used ,,,
during construction.
SCAQMD Rule 1186 limits the presence of fugitive dust on paved and unpaved roads and sets '�'
certification protocols and requirements for street sweepers that are under contract to provide •�.
sweeping services to any federal, state, county, agency or special district such as water, air, sanitation,
�
transit, or school district.
�
SCAQMD Rule 1303 requires that all new sources of air pollution that result in a net increase of any ��
nonattainment air pollutant or any halogenated hydrocarbons employ best available control „�
technology and sets significance limits various air pollutants.
�
r�e
Michael Brandman Associates 4.2-10 i�
H:\Client(PN-JN)�3771\37710001�EQt\9-DEIIt�37710001 Sec04-02AirQuality.doc
i��
Sa/em Lutheran Church and School Specific P/an Environmental Impact Analysis
Draft EIR Air Quality
Statewide Regu/ations
ARB Airborne Toxic Control Measure to Limit Diesel-Fueled Commercial Motor Vehicle
Idling adopts new section 2485 within Chapter 10,Article 1, Division 3,title 13 in the Califarnia
Code of Regulations (ARB 2005c). The measure limits the idling of diesel vehicles to reduce
emissions of toxics and criteria pollutants. The driver of any vehicle subject to this section: (1) shall
not idle the vehicle's primary diesel engine for greater than five (5)minutes at any location; and (2)
shall not idle a diesel-fueled auxiliary power system for more than five (5)minutes to power a heater,
air conditioner, or any ancillary equipment on the vehicle if it has a sleeper berth and the truck is
located within ]00 feet of a restricted area(homes and schools).
ARB Final Regulation Order,Requirements to Reduce Idling Emissions from New and In-Use
Trucks, would require that new 2008 and subseyuent model-year heavy-duty diesel engines shall be
equipped with an engine shutdown system that automatically shuts down the engine after 300 seconds
of continuous idling operation once the vehicle is stopped, the transmission is set to "neutral"or
"park", and the parking brake is engaged. If the parking brake is not engaged,then the engine
shutdown system shall shut down the engine after 900 seconds of continuous idling operation once
the vehicle is stopped and the transmission is set to "neutral"or"park."
ARB Regulation for In-Use Off-Road Diesel Vehicles. On July 26, 2007, the ARB adopted a
regulation to reduce diesel particulate matter and NOX emissions from in-use(existing)off-road
heavy-duty diesel vehicles in California. Such vehicles are used in construction, mining, and
industrial operations. The regulation imposed limits on idling, buying older off-road diesel vehicles,
and selling vehicles beginning in 2008;requires all vehicles to be reported to ARB and labeled in
2009; and then in 2010 begins gradual requirements for fleets to clean up their fleet by getting rid of
older engines, using newer engines, and installing exhaust retrofits. The regulation requires
equipment to be retrofitted or retired. The regulation takes effect in phases, requiring the largest
fleets to comply by 2010, medium fleets by 2013, and smaller fleets by 2015.
ARB Statewide Truck and Bus Rule. On December 12,2008,the ARB approved a new regulation
to significantly reduce emissions from existing on-road diesel vehicles operating in California. The
regulation requires affected trucks and buses to meet performance requirements between 20]l and
2023. By January 1, 2023, all vehicles must have a 2010 model year engine or equivalent. The
regulation applies to all on-road heavy-duty diesel fueled vehicles with a gross vehicle weight rating
greater than 14,000 pounds, agricultural yard trucks with off-road certified engines, and certain diesel
fueled shuttle vehicles of any gross vehicle weight rating. Out-of-state trucks and buses that operate
in California are also subject to the regulation.
Local Government
Local jurisdictions, such as the City of Orange, have the authority and responsibility to reduce air
pollution through its land use decision-making authority and for the assessment and mitigation of air
emissions resulting from its land use decisions. The City is also responsible for the implementation
Michael Brandman Associates 4•2-11
H�.AClient(PN-JN)�3771A37710001�EIItV9-DEIR\37710001 Sec04-02AirQuality.doc
Sa/em Lutheran Church and Schoo/Specific P/an
Air Quality Draft E/R
of transportation control measures as outlined in the 2007 AQMP. Examples of such measures
include bus turnouts, energy efficient streetlights, and synchronized traffic signals. In accordance
with CEQA reyuirements and the CEQA review process,the City assesses the air quality impacts of
new development projects, requires mitigation of potentially significant air quality impacts by
conditioning discretionary permits, and monitors and enforces implementation of such mitigation. "�'
To address compliance with the CEQA process,the City has developed the City of Orange Local y
CEQA Guidelines, April 11, 2006 and relies on the expertise of the SCAQMD and its CEQA Air "�
Quality Handbook as the guidance documents for the environmental review of plans and development `�`
proposals within its jurisdiction. ,.,�,,
4.2.3 - Environmental Setting �
Local Climate '"'"
The Proposed Project is located within the central portion of Orange County in the City of Orange, '""�
which is part of the South Coast Air Basin(SoCAB)that includes all of Orange County as well as the ,�
non-desert portions of Los Angeles, Riverside, and San Bernardino Counties. Orange County is _,
generally located on a coastal plain with connecting broad valleys and low hills to the east.
��
Regionally,the SoCAB is bounded by the Pacific Ocean to the southwest and high mountains to the
east forming the inland perimeter. The general region lies in the semi-permanent high-pressure zone "�
of the eastern Pacific. As a result, the climate is mild,tempered by cool sea breezes. Occasional �,�
periods of strong Santa Ana winds and winter storms interrupt the otherwise mild weather pattern. ,�;
Although the SoCAB has a semi-arid climate,the air near the surface is typically moist because of the "°"
presence of a shallow marine layer. Except for infrequent periods when dry air is transported into the s�
Basin by offshore winds, the ocean effect is dominant. Periods of heavy fog are frequent and low M�
stratus clouds, often referred to as"high fog"are a characteristic climate feature.
��
Winds are an important parameter in characterizing and influencing the air qualiry environment of a �
project site because they determine the regional pattern of air pollution transport and control the rate .�
of dispersion near a source. Daytime winds in Orange County are usually light westerly sea breezes
�
from off the coast as air moves regionally onshore from the cool Pacific Ocean. These winds are
o�
usually the strongest in the dry summer months. Nighttime winds in Orange County are a result
mainly from the drainage of cool air off the mountains to the east and they occur more often during ■'""
the winter months and are usually lighter than the daytime winds. Between the periods of dominant .�
airflow, periods of air stagnation may occur, both in the morning and evening hours. Whether such a
.�
period of stagnation occurs is one of the critical determinants of air quality conditions on any given
��
day.
�
During the winter and fall months, surface high-pressure systems situated over the Great Basin ��
deserts of the western United States (over Nevada and Utah) combined with other meteorological
n�
conditions, can result in very strong, dry and hot winds from the northeast that are called"Santa Ana
�+�:
Michael8randman Associates q,Y_12 ��
H�VClient(PN-IN)�3771A37710001�EIIL\9-DEIIL�37710001 Sec04-02 AirQualiTy.doc
sy;:
Sa/em Lutheran Church and Schoo/Specific Plan Environmental Impact Analysis
Draft E/R Air Quality
Winds." Typically, high pressure builds over the Great Basin resulting in higher air pressures over
the Great Basin than over southern California. As a result,this inland cold air moves westward from
the Great Basin towards southern California. As the air moves,the cold air there begins to sink which
compresses and warms at a rate of about 10 degrees Celsius (°C)per kilometer(29° Fahrenheit per
mile) of descent. As its temperature rises,the relative humidity drops;the air starts out dry and winds
up at sea level much drier sti1L The air picks up speed as it is channeled through passes and canyons.
These winds normally have durations of a few days befare more normal meteorological conditions
are reestablished. The highest wind speeds typically occur during the times of greatest air pressure
difference between the Great Basin and southern California and during the early morning hours prior
to the onset of the sea breeze. It is not uncommon to have sustained winds of 60 miles per hour with
higher gusts during a Santa Ana Wind. The primary wind direction near the Proposed Project site is
from the southwest direction.
The annual average temperature varies little throughout much of the basin, ranging from the low to
middle 60s, measured in °F. With more pronounced oceanic influence, coastal areas show less
variability in annual minimum and maximum temperatures than inland areas where the project site is
located. The climatological station closest to the project site is a National Weather Service Coop
weather station located at the Tustin Irvine Ranch about 5 miles south of the Proposed Project site.
Climatological data from the National Weather Service at this station spanning the period 1971-2000
indicate an annual average temperature of 63° F, with December and January the coldest months
(mean minimum daily temperatures of 42° F) and July and August,the warmest months of the year
(mean daily maximum temperatures of 85° F).
The majority of the annual rainfall in the basin occurs between November and ApriL Summer rainfall
is minimal and is generally limited to scattered thunderstarms in the coastal regions and slightly
heavier showers in the eastern portion of the basin along the coastal side of the mountains. The
climatological data from the Tustin Irvine Ranch National Weather Service Coop station spanning the
period 1971 - 2000 indicate an annual average precipitation of]4.0 inches. Eighty-five (85)percent
of the annual rainfall occurs during the November to March rain season. Highest monthly average
rainfall occurs during February. Year-to-year patterns in rainfall are unpredictable because of
fluctuations in the weather.
Temperature inversions limit the vertical depth through which pollution can be mixed. Among the
most common temperature inversions in the basin, radiation inversions form on clear winter nights
when cold air off mountains sink to the valley floor while the air aloft over the valley remains warm.
These inversions, in conjunction with calm winds,trap pollutants near the source. Other types of
temperature inversions that affect the basin include marine, subsidence, and high-pressure inversions.
The resulting patterns of winds and inversions results in the transport of air pollution created in the
coastal areas and around the Los Angeles area to the inland areas of the SoCAB until it reaches the
mountains where the combination of mountains and inversion layers generally prevent further
Michael Brandman Associates 4.2-13
H.\Client(PN-JN)�3771\37710001�EIIt\9-DEIIL�37710001 Sec04-02 AirQualiry.doc
Sa/em Lutheran Church and School Specific P/an
Air Quality DraR E/R
dispersion. This poor ventilation results in a gradual degradation of air quality from the coastal areas
to inland areas.
Local Air Quality -
Existing levels of ambient air quality in the project area are best documented ftom measurements �°-
made near the project site. The SCAQMD maintains an extensive air-monitoring netwark that
measures levels of several air pollutants throughout the SoCAB. The SCAQMD has subdivided the
SoCAB into 36 Source-Receptor Areas (SRA)' many containing one or more monitoring stations. �
The Proposed Project is located within SRA 17, Central Orange County. Within SRA ]7,the ,,,�,
SCAQMD operates the Anaheim-Pampas Lane air monitoring station in Anaheim, California. Table
�
4.2-3 summarizes air monitoring data from this station for the years 2007 through 2009,the most
recent 3-year period available. The data shows that during the past few years, the project area has ""�
exceeded the ozone, PM�o, and PM2.5 air quality standards. '�
�
Table 4.2-3: Local Air Quality Monitoring Summary—Anaheim Pampas Lane
�
Air Pollutant Averaging Time(Units) 2007 2008 2009
__ , �
Ozone Max 1 Hour(ppm) 0.127 0.108 0.093
�
Days>CAAQS (0.09 ppm) 2 2 0
Max 8 Hour(ppm) 0.099 0.086 0.077 �
Days>CAAQS(0.07 ppm) 7 l 0 2 `�
Days>NAAQS(0.075 ppm) 1 5 1 �
Carbon monoxide Max 1 Hour(ppm)* 4.1 4.9 39 �+w»
Days>CAAQS(20 ppm) 0 0 0
�
Days>NAAQS(35 ppm) 0 0 0
�.
Max 8 Hour(ppm) 2.9 3.4 2.7
�
Days>CAAQS(9.0 ppm) 0 0 0
�
Days>NAAQS(9 ppm) 0 0 0
Nitrogen dioxide Mean(ppm) .020 .020 0.018 "'�'
Max ] Hour(ppm) 0.086 0.093 0.068 '""""
Days>CAAQS (0.18 ppm) 0 0 0 ,�
Sulfur dioxide� Max 24 Hour(ppm) 0.004 0.003 0.004 �,
Days>CAAQS(0.04 ppm) 0 0 0
�
Days>NAAQS(0.14 ppm) 0 0 0
�
Mean(ppm) 0.001 0.001 0.00]
�
. �
' A Source Receptor Area is a geographical area identified by the SCAQMD that is a source area in which contaminants
are emitted and a receptor area in which the contaminants accumulate and are measured. Any area can be a source "�'
area,a receptor area,or both a source and receptor area. �
Michael8randman Associates 4.2-14 �,,,,,
H:\Client(PN-IN)�3771\37710001�EIR\9-DEIILU7710001 Sec0402AirQualiry.doc ��
Sa/em Lutheran Church and Schoo/Specific P/an Environmental lmpact Analysis
Draft E/R Air Quality
Table 4.2-3 (cont.): Local Air Quality Monitoring Summary—Anaheim Pampas Lane
Air Pollutant , Averaging Time(Units) , 2007 2008 2009
�� Fine particulate matter(PMio) Mean(µg/m3) 38.6 28.6 ID
24 Hour(µg/m3) 489 61 63
�� Days>CAAQS(50 µg/m3) 6 3 1
Days>NAAQS(150 µg/m3) 1 0 0
Ultra fine particulate matter Mean(µg/m3) 14.3 13.7 15.2
�PM2 5� 24 Hour(µg/m3) 79.4 67.8 64.5
Days>NAAQS(35 µg/m3) 14 13 9
Abbreviations:
>=exceed ppm=parts per million µg/m3=micrograms per cubic meter
ID=insufficient data ND=no data max=maximum
CAAQS=California Ambient Air Quality Standard NAAQS=National Ambient Air Quality Standard
Mean=Annual Arithmetic Mean
� Data derived from the SCAQMD Costa Mesa-Mesa Verde Drive air monitoring station
* The ARB does not report 1-hour CO data. Therefore,the 8-hour data were divided by a persistence factor of OJ to
arrive at a 1-hour concentration.
Source: California Air Resources Board(ARB 2009).
Air basins where ambient air quality standards are exceeded are designated by the EPA and the ARB
as"nonattainment" areas. If standards are met,the area is designated as an "attainment"area. If
there is inadequate or inconclusive data to make a definitive attainment designation,they are
considered "unclassified." Federal nonattainment areas are further designated as marginal, moderate,
serious, severe, or extreme as a function of deviation from standards.
The proposed project is within the South Coast Air Basin (basin). The current attainment
designations for the basin are shown in Table 4.2-4. The basin is designated as nonattainment for the
State and federal ozone, PM�o, and PM2,5, standards.
Table 4.2-4: South Coast Air Basin Attainment Status
Pollutant State Status National Status
Ozone Nonattainment Nonattainment
Carbon Monoxide Attainment Attainment
Nitrogen Dioxide Attainment Attainment
Sulfur Dioxide Attainment Attainment
PM,o Nonattainment Serious Nonattainment
PM2.5 Nonattainment Nonattainment
Source: State Status from ARB 2007;National Status from EPA 2009.
Michael Brandman Associates 4.2-15
H.\Client(PN-IN)�3771\37710001�EIlt\9-DEIR�37710001 Sec04-02AirQualiry.doc
��
Salem Lutheran Church and School Specific Plan
Air Quality Draft EIR
R«�
Local Sources of Air Pollution
Within a radius of about three miles from the project,there are several major freeways and their „�
attendant mobile source emissions with the State Route (SR) 91 about 3.0 miles to the north, SR-55
about 2.8 miles to the west, and SR-241 about 3.4 miles to the east. Nearby major arterial streets such
as Santiago Canyon Road and Cannon Street, also contribute mobile source emissions. '�
Other local emissions include those associated with residential land uses such as emissions from the
,�..
combustion of natural gas in heating systems, landscaping equipment, and use of consumer products
that release hydrocarbon emissions.
��,,,
Sensitive Receptors
�
Those individuals who are sensitive to air pollution include children,the elderly, and persons with
preexisting respiratory or cardiovascular illness. For purposes of CEQA,the SCAQMD considers a �
sensitive receptor to be a location where an individual could remain for 24 hours, such as residences, '�
hospitals, or convalescent facilities. Commercial and industrial facilities are not included in the �
definition because employees do not typically remain onsite for 24 hours. However,when assessing �
the impact of pollutants with 1-hour or 8-hour standards(such as nitrogen dioxide and carbon
�
monoxide), commercial and/or industrial facilities would be considered worker receptars for those
�
purposes.
�
The Proposed Project is surrounded by nearby residences in virtually all directions with the closest
�
residences located approximately 50 feet east and south from the property line of the Proposed
Project. �
�
4.2.4 -Signi�cance Thresholds
�
CEQA Guidelines
�
Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air
pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. According to """""
Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines and the City's Local CEQA Guidelines, a project would "'�°
normally have a significant effect on the environment if it would result in the following: ,,,�
��
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air ^�*
quality violation? �
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the
�
project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality
�
standard (including releasing emissions that exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone
precursors)? ""`�
d) Expose sensitive receptars to substantial pollutant concentrations? ��
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? �,.
�.
Michael8randman Associates 4.2-16 ,,,,,�
H�\Client(PN-1N)13771\37710001�EIIL\9-DEIIL�37710001 Sec04-02 AirQuality_doc
�_;.c
Sa/em Lutheran Church and Schoo/Specific Plan Environmental lmpact Analysis
Draft E/R Air Quality
South Coast Air Quality Management District Thresholds
While the final determination of whether a project has a significant air quality impact is within the
purview of the Lead Agency pursuant to Section 15064(b) of the CEQA Guidelines, SCAQMD
recommends that its quantitative air pollution thresholds be used to determine the significance of
project emissions. If the Lead Agency finds that the project has the potential to exceed these air
pollution thresholds,then the project should be considered to have significant air quality impacts.
The SCAQMD has defined thresholds for NOZ,VOC, Oxides of Sulfur(SOX), CO, PM�o, and PM2 5,
hereinafter referred to as"criteria"pollutants, and for health risk in terms of added cancer and non-
cancer risk.
The SCAQMD has defined four sets of significance thresholds that include regional thresholds,
localized thresholds, health risk thresholds, and carbon dioxide "hot spot"thresholds. Regional
significance thresholds were established to protect air resources within the basin as a whole, as
project emissions can potentially contribute to the existing emission burden and possibly affect the
attainment and maintenance of ambient air quality standards. Regional thresholds are defined on a
daily basis for construction and operational emissions and include emissions generated from both
onsite as well as offsite emission-generating activities�.
Localized significance thresholds (LSTs)were developed in response to the SCAQMD Governing
Board's environmental justice(EJ) initiatives(EJ initiative I-4)in recognition of the fact that criteria
pollutants such as CO,NOX, and PM�o and PM2,5 in particular, can have local impacts as well as
regional impacts. LSTs represent the maximum emissions or air concentrations from a project that
would not cause or contribute to an exceedance of the most stringent applicable federal or State
ambient air quality standard at any nearby receptor. LSTs are defined for different geographical areas
called Source Receptor Areas within the SCAQMD and apply separately for construction and
operational activities far NO�, CO, and particulate matter(PMio and PM2.5). LSTs were set to protect
sensitive receptors near sources from substantial exposures to elevated pollutant levels. The LST
impact assessment considers only those emissions generated from onsite construction and operational
emission sources.
Health risk significance thresholds apply to emissions of toxic air contaminants. A toxic air
contaminant or TAC is defined as an air pollutant which may cause ar contribute to an increase in
mortality or serious illness, or which may pose a hazard to human health. TACs are usually present
in minute quantities in the ambient air. However,their high toxicity or health risk may pose a threat
to public health even at very low concentrations. For those TACs that may cause cancer,there is no
concentration that does not present some risk. In other words,there is no threshold level below which
adverse health impacts are not expected to occur. This contrasts with the criteria pollutants for which
2 Examples of onsite sources include construction equipment,fugitive dust,and various types of area sources such as
natural gas consumption and landscape equipment. Offsite emissions include principally delivery vehicles,customer
vehicles,and paved road dust.
Michael Brandman Associates 4.2-17
H�.\Client(PN-7N)\3771\37710001�EIR\9-DEIR�37710001 Sec04-02AirQualiry.doc
Sa/em Lutheran Church and Schoo/Specific Plan `
Air Quality Draft E/R
�
acceptable levels of exposure can be determined and for which the State and federal governments
have set ambient air quality standards. The majority of the estimated health risk from TACs can be
�.q.
attributed to a relatively few compounds,the most important being PM from diesel-fueled engines,
diesel particulate matter(DPM).
��,
The carbon monoxide hot spot significance thresholds seek to minimize emissions of carbon
monoxide that potentially result in excessive levels of carbon monoxide. The largest contributor of
�
CO emissions is motor vehicles. A CO hot spot represents a location wherein high concentrations of
CO may be produced by motor vehicles accessing a congested traffic intersection under heavy traffic `
volume conditions accompanied by meteorological conditions that limit the dispersion of emissions. -•�
The various significance thresholds discussed above are presented in Table 4.2-5. A project with b
emissions or health risk metrics that exceed the values shown in Table 4.2-5 are considered to have a '""
significant air quality impact. �
.,�.
Table 4.2-5: SCAQMD Significance Thresholds
�,.:.
Regional Significance Thresholds(pounds/day)
- _ _ __ --- - . __ , ____ ____ __ _ _ _ �
Pollutant ; Construction Operation
NOX 100 55 �`
VOC 75 55 w�
PM,o 150 150 .�
PM2.5 55 55
�
SOX l 50 150
CO 550 550 W�
Lead 3 3 �"
Localized Significance Thresholds'(pounds/day) �,
_ _ _
NOX 115
�
CO 715 An operational LST analysis is not applicable to
PM�o 6 the type of under consideration "°�`
PMz.s 4 '�"""
Health Risk Significance Thresholds �;
Maximum incremental cancer risk>= 10 in 1 million
TACs Cancer burden>0.5 excess cancer cases(in areas>= 1 in 1 million) ""'
Hazard Index>= 1.0(project increment)
�
SCAQMD is in attainment;project is significant if it causes or contributes to an
CO Hot Spot exceedance of the following attainment standards:20 ppm(state) for a 1-hour average �
Or 9.0 ppm(state/federal)far an 8-hour average
�
Note:
� LSTs defined for SCAQMD Source Receptor Area 17,receptor distance of 25 meters,and a construction area of 2 �r
acres.
�
�
�
Michael Brandman Associates 4.2-18 �
H:\Ciient(PN-IN)U771\37710001�EIR\9-DEfILU7710001 Sec04-02AirQuality.doc
�
Sa/em Lutheran Church and Schoo/Specific Plan Environmental Impact Analysis
Draft E/R Air Quality
4.2.5 - Project Impacts
Impacts Not Found To Be Significant
The Initial Study determined that less than significant impacts would result from the following
significance threshold questions from the significance thresholds listed previously in Section 4.2.4:
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people?
Refer to the Initial Study in Appendix A for a complete discussion.
Potentially Significant Impacts
Significance thresholds deemed to be potentially significant are evaluated individually. The list
below restates the significance threshold and gives the corresponding Draft EIR Impact Number:
Table 4.2-6: Significance Threshold and Corresponding Draft EIR Impact Number
EIR Impact
Significance Threshold-Air Quality Number
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? Impact 4.2-1
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected Impact 4.2-2
air quality violation?
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which Impact 4.2-3
the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air
quality standard(including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds
for ozone precursors)?
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Impact 4.2-4
Air Quality Plan
Impact 4.2-1 The project will not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air
quality plan.
lmpact Analysis
The CEQA Guidelines indicate that a significant impact would occur if the project would conflict
with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan. Consistency with the 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 AQMP. The second is whether the
Proposed Project would exceed the assumptions contained in the AQMP on terms 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.
Michael Brandman Associates 4.2-19
H1Client(PN-.RV)U771\37710001�EII2\9-DE[RU7710001 Sec04-02AirQuality.doc
Sa/em Lutheran Church and Schoo/Specific P/an
Air Quality Draft E/R
Criterion 1: ProjecYs Contribution to Air Quality Violations
According to the 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 ar the interim emission reductions
specified in the AQMP(SCAQMD 1993, page 12-3). "�°
As will be shown in the discussion that addresses Impact 4.2-2,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, PM�o,
or PM2.5, it follows that the emissions could cumulatively contribute to an exceedance of a pollutant �
for which the basin is in nonattainment(ozone,PM�o,PM2.5)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 results shown in the discussion that
,�
addressed Impact 4.2-3 indicate that the construction and operation of 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. Therefare,the project meets 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 complies with this criterion. ,�„
�
�
�:
Michael Brandman Associafes 4.2-20 „�
H\Client(PN-JN)�3771\37710001�EIIL\9-DEIlt�37710001 Sec04-02 AirQualiry.doc
�
Sa/em Lutheran Church and Schoo/Specific P/an Environmental Impact Analysis
DraR EIR Air Quality
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.
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 complies with this criterion.
Level of Significance Before Mitigation
Less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required.
Level of Significance After Mitigation
Impacts were determined to be less than significant before mitigation.
Air Quality Standard
Impact 4.2-2 The project will not violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an
existing or projected air quality violation.
lmpact Analysis
The CEQA Guidelines indicate that a significant impact would occur if the project would violate any
air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation.
Two criteria are used to assess 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
Michael8randman Associates q,y_y�
H.\Client(PN-7N)\377I\3"/710001�EIR\9-DEIR�37710001 Sec04-02 AirQualiry.doc
Salem Lutheran Church and School Specific P/an
Air Quality Draft EIR
,�
follows that those emissions would not cause or contribute to a local exceedance of the appropriate :..,�
ambient air quality standard.
��
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 exhaust �
emissions(NOX, SOX, CO, VOC, PMIo, and PM2.5)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 exhaust from delivery vehicles, worker traffic, and road dust(PM�o and
�
PM2_5). 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). Specific details regarding construction,
including the length of construction,the construction equipment list, and construction phase details �
were not available for incorporation into this assessment. Therefore,a representative construction wwe
schedule was developed to estimate the construction emissions. The Proposed Project would include �
a total of approximately 6 acres although the construction of the new facilities would involve only
�
about 4 acres including the re-grading of the multipurpose field. The URBEMIS2007 land use
�
emission model assumes that a maximum of 25 percent of the total area to be graded would be
disturbed in a single day. For purposes of this assessment and to provide a worst-case estimate, it was +�
assumed that the entire 4-acre area to be developed would be disturbed in a single day. 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.
s��
�
�
Michael Brandman Associates 4•2-z2 ,wr
H:\Client(PN-IN)�3771\37710001�EIR\9-DEIIi�37710001 Sec04-02AirQualiry_doc
�
` Salem Lutheran Church and Schoo/Specific Plan Environmental Impact Anatysis
Draft E/R Air Quality
: Table 4.2-7 summarizes the Proposed Project's short-term localized construction-related emissions by
construction activity along with the respective LST for the Proposed Project. The information shown
in Table 4.2-7 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.
Table 4.2-7: Short-Term Localized Construction Emissions
, Onsite Emissions(pounds per day)
Activity NOx _ CO PM�o PM:s
Demolition _ 22 _ 1p 5 1
Grading 23 13 6 2
Trenching 16 8 1 1
Asphalt Paving 11 7 1 ]
Building Construction and Architectural Coating 9 5 1 1
Maximum Daily Emissions 23 13 6 2
Localized Significance Threshold 160 1,074 11 6
Exceed Threshold? No No No No
Notes:
Each of the above activities does not occur at the same time;therefore,the maximum daily emissions represent the
maximum emissions that would occur in one day.
Source:Michael Brandman Associates,2010.
Long-term Local Operational 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 therefore result 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. This analysis
follows guidelines recommended by the CO Protocol(UCD 1997) and the SCAQMD. According to
the CO Protocol, intersections with Level of Service(LOS) E ar 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
Michael Brandman Associates 4.2-23
H\Client(PN-]N)�3771\37710001�IR\9-DE[It�37710001 Sec04-02AirQuality.doc
Salem Lutheran Church and Schoo/Specific Plan
Air Quality Draft EIR
R1�'
following criteria: 1)the intersection is at LOS D or warse 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 or
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. Phase ,,,�
I project improvements are expected to begin in 2011 or 2012.
��
Table 4.2-8 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. ,�
Table 4.2-8: Traffic Intersection Analysis -2010 '°�"
_ �r
Existing ! Existing
i , Plus Project Plus ��+w
Intersection ' Intersection Traffic Volume : Project
' Number Name Peak Time ! (vehiclesJhr)� LOS' ,�,
_ ____
1 Orange Park Santiago Canyon AM Sunday 1,332 A �,
2 Orange Park Project Driveway/Frank Lane AM Sunday 447 B
�
3 Project Driveway Santiago Canyon AM Sunday 1,465 B
��
Note:
� Assumes 712-person attendance at Sunday worship services(95`h percentile level of attendance) �
Source: Linscott,Law&Greenspan 2010
�:
�
Because the Levels of Service at the above intersections are all LOS A or B,the extent of traffic ,,,�;
associated with the Proposed Project does 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. �
Level of Significance Before Mitigation "'�
Less than significant. "'�
�
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required. �
�
�
Michael Brandman Associates 4.2-24 �
H�.\Client(PN-IN)�3771\37710001�EIIt\9-DEIIL�37710001 Sec04-02 AirQualiTy doc
�,
` Sa/em Lutheran Church and Schoo/Specific P/an Environmental lmpact Analysis
Draft E/R Air Quality
, Level of Significance After Mitigation
Impacts were determined to be less than significant before mitigation.
Criteria Pollutant
- Impact 4.2-3 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).
Impact Analysis
According to the checklist in the CEQA Guidelines, a project would create a significant impact if it
� would "result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the
- project region is nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard
(including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)."
Section 15130(b)of the CEQA Guidelines states the following:
The following elements are necessary to an adequate discussion of significant cumulative
impacts: 1) Either: (A) A list of past, present, and probable future projects producing related
or cumulative impacts, including, if necessary,those projects outside the control of the
agency, or(B) A summary of projections contained in an adopted general plan or related
planning document, or in a prior environmental document which has been adopted or
certified, which described or evaluated regional ar area wide conditions contributing to the
cumulative impact.
In accordance with CEQA Guidelines 15130(b),this analysis of cumulative impacts incorporates a
summary of projections. The project must meet the following criteria to result in a less than
significant cumulative impact:
• Regional analysis: emissions of nonattainment pollutants below the regional significance
thresholds.
• Plan approach: project consistency with current air quality plans.
• Cumulative health impacts: less than significant cumulative health effects of the nonattainment
pollutants.
� • Impacts to air quality from climate change: less than significant potential of project
greenhouse gas emissions to increase cumulative ozone concentrations.
The SCAQMD 1993 Handbook suggests three voluntary approaches to determining cumulative
significance. The first approach is a 1-percent-per-year reduction(or 18 percent over 18 years to the
year 2010) in project emissions of VOC,NOX, CO, PM�o, and SOX. This approach is not
straightforward and operational reductions are not easy to quantify. The second approach is not
Michael 8randman Associates 4.2-25
H.AClient(PN-7N)�3'771A37710001�E11tV9-DEIlL\37710001 Sec04-02 AirQuality.doc
Sa/em Lutheran Church and Schoo/Specific Plan
Air Quality Draft E/R
applicable because it relies on SCAQMD Regulation XV, which was repealed in 1995 and therefore
is not applicable. The third approach is to reduce the rate of growth in vehicle miles traveled(VMT)
and trips. In this approach,the rate of growth in VMT and trips "should be held to the rate of
population or household growth." Data that was used by SCAG in the AQMP should be used in this
approach; however,that data is not available. Therefore,the approaches in the 1993 SCAQMD �'
Handbook are not used.
Criterion 1: Regional Analysis
If an area is in nonattainment for a criteria pollutant,then the background concentration of that
pollutant has historically been over the ambient air quality standard. It follows that if a project ,,,,Y
exceeds the regional threshold far that nonattainment pollutant,then it would result in a cumulatively
considerable net increase of that pollutant and result in a significant cumulative impact.
�
The South Coast Air Basin is in nonattainment for PM�o, PM2.5, and ozone. Therefore, if the project
exceeds the regional thresholds for PM�o, or PM2,5,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. ""�
�
Short-term Regional Emissions Impact Analysis
The regional construction emission estimates were based on the URBEMIS land use emission model �""
and include emissions produced by both onsite construction activities as well as from offsite delivery �
and worker vehicles. .,�
�
Table 4.2-9 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.
:�,r
Table 4.2-9: Short-Term Regional Construction Emissions "�`
�
Emissions(pounds per day)
', Source VOC NOx CO ' SOx ' PM�o PMz.s "�
Demolition 4 35 15 0 20 5 """
Mass Grading 3 23 13 0 6 2 �
Trenching 2 16 9 0 1 1 �
Asphalt Paving 2 12 9 0 1 1 �
Building and Architectural Coating � 9 8 9 0 ] 1
�
Maximum Daily Emissions 9 35 IS 0 20 5
�
Significance Threshold 75 100 550 150 l50 55
�w►
�
Michael8randman Associates 4.2-26 �,
H�.\Clien[(PN-.TN)�3771\37710001�EIIt\9-DEIIi137710001 Sec04-02 AirQualiry.doc
�
'�' Sa/em Lutheran Church and Schoo/Specific Plan Environmental Impact Ana/ysis
Draft EIR Aii Quality
-� Table 4.2-9 (cont.): Short-Term Regional Construction Emissions
' Emissions(pounds per day)
�° Source VOC NOx CO SOX PM�o PMz.s
Exceeds Threshold? No No No No No No
Note:
1 Mass grading PM�o and PMZ 5 emissions account for the implementation of Rule 403 BACM requirements as
outlined in Table 4.2-2 above
Source:Michael Brandman Associates,2010.
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 ]0,650 sq ft sanctuary (an increase from its
current size of 3,262 sq ft) and 12,350 sy ft of conference and meeting rooms, the sacristy, offices,
choir and music rooms, starage, child care and other ancillary/administrative rooms. In addition,the
existing preschool would be relocated to an existing onsite vacant structure. 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 morning 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
3 an attendance of 400 persons(corresponds to the 85`"percentile attendance level)was evaluated in the
traffic impact study for traffic impacts along with a 90`h 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 95th percentile attendance of 712 persons. For purposes of estimating
Sunday emissions, focus was placed on the traffic associated with the Sunday peak/maximum church
Michael Brandman Associates 4,y.y7
H1Client(PN-JN)U771\37710001�EIR\9-DEIR�39710001 Sec04-02 AirQualiry.doc
Salem Lutheran Church and School Specific P/an
Air Quality Draft E/R
service attendance(712-person attendance at the 95`"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 URBEMIS2007 land use emission model assuming the Sunday morning peak attendance
(95`h percentile) and are shown in Table 4.2-10 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.
�
Table 4.2-10: Regional Operational Emissions -
_
Emissions(pounds per day)' "�
Source , VOC NOx _ � CO ,. S�x _ FM�o PMz.s �"
Summer Season ,�
Area Sources 03 0.2 1.7 0.0 0.0 0.0
«�:
Mobile Sources 3.0 2.9 43.5 0.1 10.4 1.9
�.
Total 3.3 3.1 45.2 0.1 10.4 1.0
Significance Threshold 55 55 550 150 I50 55 �
Significant Impact? No No No No No No "'�
Winter Season "'�
Area Sources 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 �
Mobile Sources 3.3 3.6 403 OA 10.4 19
�
Total 3.5 3.8 40.5 0.0 10.4 1.9
�
Significance Threshold 55 55 550 l50 150 55
�
Signi�cant Impact? No No No No No No
_ �
Note:
� Assumes increase in traffic at the 95`h percentile Sunday service attendance.
Source:Michael Brandman Associates,2010.
�
The regional significance analysis of construction and operational emissions 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 �
�
Michae/Brandman Associates 4.2-28 ,,,�„
H�\Client(PN-JN)�3771\37710001�EIl2\9-DEIR\37710001 Sec04-02 AirQuality.doc
Salem Lutheran Church and School Specific Plan Environmental Impact Ana/ysis
Draft EIR Air Quality
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 measures 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 discussion of Impact 4.2-1,the Proposed Project is
consistent with the most recent AQMP. Therefare,the Proposed Project does not present a significant
" impact according to this criterion.
Criterion 3: Cumulative Health Impacts
The Basin is in nonattainment for ozone, PM�o, and PM2.5, 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 that were
described in Table 4.2-1. 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.
Level of Significance Before Mitigation
Less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required.
Level of Significance After Mitigation
� Impacts were determined to be less than significant before mitigation.
Sensitive Receptors
Impact 4.2-4 The project will not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations.
Impact Analysis
The CEQA Guidelines indicate that a significant impact would occur if the project would expose
sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. This impact was addressed using the
following criteria:
Michael Brandman Associates 4.2-29
H-\Client(PN-IN)\3771\3'7710001�EIR\9-DEIIi�37710001 Sec04-02 AirQuality.doc
Sa/em Lutheran Church and Schoo/Specific P/an
Air Quality Drafi E/R
• Localized Significance Threshold Impacts
• CO Hot Spot Threshold Analysis
• Indoor Air Quality; and
• Toxic Air Contaminants
Criterion 1: Localized Significance Threshold Impacts
The localized impacts from the emissions from the Proposed Project were addressed in the discussion
of Impact 4.2-4 above. The findings contained in that discussion concluded that 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
The potential for carbon monoxide emissions to create a hot spot was addressed in the discussion of "�"
Impact 4.2-2. As discussed therein, 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 terns 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 spares, 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.
��
I W.,.
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 exhaled; 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 far
exposures to radon. "
��,
In general,the method 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 "`�`
Michael Brandman Associates 4.2-30 .��
H:\Clien[(PN-IN)�3771\377IOOOI�EIIL\9-DE[ItU7710001 Sec04-02 AirQualiry_doc
Salem Lutheran Church and School Specific Plan Environmental Impact Analysis
Draft E/R Air Quality
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 dry 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 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/L 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 from 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 Pollutants
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. At the Proposed Project build out year of 20]1,
according to the traffic impact study prepared for the Proposed Project, the average daily weekday
Michae/Brandman Associates 4.2-31
H�.\Client(PN-JN)�3771\39710001�EIIL\9-DEIIt�37710001 Sec04-02AirQualiry.doc
Salem Lutheran Church and School Specific Plan
Air Quality Diaft EIR
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 (95`"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 on any sensitive receptors located within the
Proposed Project.
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. Far 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.
�
Level of Significance Before Mitigation
�;
Less than significant.
�
Mitigation Measures ,�,
No mitigation measures are required.
�
Level of Significance After Mitigation �
Impacts were determined to be less than significant before mitigation.
�
�
�
�
�
�
Michael8randman Associates 4.2-32 ,.�
H_\Client(PN-IN)13771\37710001�EIli\9-DEIIt�37710001 Sec04-02AirQuality.doc
Salem lutheran Church and Schoo/Specific Plan Environmental Impact Analysis
DraR EIR Greenhouse Gas Emissions
4.3 - Greenhouse Gas Emissions
4.3.1 - Introduction
Purpose
This section assesses the impact of the project's greenhouse gas emissions, assesses whether or not
the project would conflict with a plan, policy, or regulation pertaining to greenhouse gases, and
assesses the possibility of climate change effects impacting the project.
Sources
Informarion in this section is based on the following sources:
• Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Analysis Report, Michael Brandman Associates, August 25,
2010 (Appendix D).
• Salem Lutheran Church and School Specific Plan, Michael Madden Associates, April 30, 2011
(Appendix I).
� Comments received during the public review period. These comments are contained in
Appendix A.
4.3.2 - Environmental Setting
Climate change is a change in the average weather of the earth that is measured by alterations in wind
patterns, storms, precipitation, and temperature. These changes are assessed using historical records
of temperature changes occurring in the past, such as during previous ice ages. Many of the concerns
regarding climate change use this data to extrapolate a level of statistical significance specifically
focusing on temperature records from the last 150 years (the Industrial Age)that differ from previous
climate changes in rate and magnitude.
The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change constructed several emission
trajectories of greenhouse gases needed to stabilize global temperatures and climate change impacts.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change predicted that global mean temperature change from
1990 to 2100, given six scenarios, could range from 1.1 degrees Celsius (°C)to 6.4°C. Regardless of
analytical methodology, global average temperatures and sea levels are expected to rise under all
scenarios.
In California, climate change may result in consequences such as the following.
• A reduction in the quality and supply of water to the State from the Sierra snowpack. If heat-
trapping emissions continue unabated, more precipitation will fall as rain instead of snow, and
the snow that does fall will melt earlier,reducing the Sierra Nevada spring snowpack by as
much as 70 to 90 percent. This can lead to challenges in securing adequate water supplies. It
can also lead to a potential reduction in hydropower.
Michael Brandman Associates 4.3-1
H�.\Client(PN-JN)�3771\37710001�EIR\9-DEIR\37710001 Sec04-03 GHG.doc
Sa/em Lutheran Church and Schoo/Specific P/an
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Draft EIR
• Increased risk of large wildfires. If rain increases as temperatures rise, wildfires in the
grasslands and chaparral ecosystems of southern California are estimated to increase by
approximately 30 percent toward the end of the 21 st century because more winter rain will
stimulate the growth of more plant"fuel"available to burn in the fall. In contrast, a hotter,
drier climate could promote up to 90 percent more northern California fires by the end of the '"'"'
century by drying out and increasing the flammability of forest vegetation. �
• Reductions in the quality and quantity of certain agricultural products. The crops and products "�'
likely to be adversely affected include wine grapes, fruit, nuts, and milk. .
• Exacerbation of air quality problems. If temperatures rise to the medium warming range,there ""'°`
could be 75 to 85 percent more days with weather conducive to ozone formation in Los �R
Angeles and the San Joaquin Valley, relative to today's conditions. This is more than twice the
�
increase expected if rising temperatures remain in the lower warming range.
�.
• A rise in sea levels resulting in the displacement of coastal businesses and residences. During
�
the past century, sea levels along California's coast have risen about seven inches. If heat-
trapping emissions continue unabated and temperatures rise into the higher anticipated warming
range, sea level is expected to rise an additional 22 to 35 inches by the end of the century. �""
Elevations of this magnitude would inundate coastal areas with salt water, accelerate coastal �
erosion,threaten vital levees and inland water systems, and disrupt wetlands and natural
�
habitats.
�
• Damage to marine ecosystems and the natural environment.
w�
• An increase in infections, disease, asthma, and other health-related problems. �
• A decrease in the health and productivity of California's forests. �`
�
Greenhouse Gases
,�
Gases that trap heat in the atmosphere are referred to as greenhouse gases. The effect is analogous to
�
the way a greenhouse retains heat. Common greenhouse gases include water vapor, carbon dioxide,
methane, nitrous oxides, chlorofluorocarbons, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, sulfur '"�
hexafluoride, ozone, and aerosols. Natural processes and human activities emit greenhouse gases. " "
The presence of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere affects the earth's temperature. It is believed .-�.
that emissions from human activities, such as electricity production and vehicle use, have elevated the
concentration of these gases in the atmosphere beyond the level of naturally occurring concentrations.
Climate change is driven by farcings and feedbacks. Radiative forcing is the difference between the
incoming energy and outgoing energy in the climate system. Positive forcing tends to warm the ,�;
surface while negative forcing tends to cool it. Radiative forcing values are typically expressed in
watts per square meter. A feedback is a climate process that can strengthen or weaken a forcing. For
example, when ice or snow melts, it reveals darker land underneath which absorbs more radiation and !""
»�,,:
4•3"2 Michae/Brandman Associates A�
H�.\Clien[(PN-JN)U 771\3 7710001�EIR\9-DEIIL\37710001 Sec04-03 GHG.doc
��
Sa/em Lutheran Church and Schoo/Specific P/an Environmental Impact Analysis
Draft E/R Greenhouse Gas Emissions
causes more warming. The global warming potential is the potential of a gas or aerosol to trap heat in
the atmosphere. The global warming potential of a gas is essentially a measurement of the radiative
forcing of a greenhouse gas compared with the reference gas, carbon dioxide.
Individual greenhouse gas compounds have varying global warming potential and atmospheric
lifetimes. Carbon dioxide,the reference gas for global warming potential, has a global warming
potential of one. The calculation of the carbon dioxide equivalent is a consistent methodology for
comparing greenhouse gas emissions since it normalizes various greenhouse gas emissions to a
� consistent metric. Methane's warming potential of 21 indicates that methane has a 21 times greater
warming affect than carbon dioxide on a molecule per molecule basis. A carbon dioxide equivalent is
the mass emissions of an individual greenhouse gas multiplied by its global warming potential.
Greenhouse gases as defined by AB 32 include the following gases carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous
oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexaflouride. Greenhouse gases as defined
by AB 32 and sources are summarized in Table 4.3-1.
Table 4.3-1: Greenhouse Gases
Greenhouse
Gas Description and Physical Properties Sources
:_ _
Nitrous oxide Nitrous oxide is also known as laughing gas and Microbial processes in soil and water,
is a colorless greenhouse gas. It has a lifetime of fuel combustion,and industrial
114 years. Its global warming potential is 310. processes.
Methane Methane is a flammable gas and is the main Methane is extracted from geological
component of natural gas. It has a lifetime of 12 deposits(natural gas fields). Other
years. Its global warming potential is 21. sources are landfills,fermentation of
manure,decay of organic matter,and
cattle.
Carbon Carbon dioxide(COz)is an odorless, colorless, Natural sources include decomposition
dioxide natural greenhouse gas. Carbon dioxide's global of dead organic matter;respiration of
warming potential is 1. The concentration in bacteria,plants,animals, and fungus;
2005 was 379 parts per million(ppm),which is evaporation from oceans;and volcanic
an increase of about 1.4 ppm per year since outgassing. Anthropogenic sources are
1960. from buming coal,oil,natural gas,and
wood.
Chloro- These are gases formed synthetically by Chlorofluorocarbons were synthesized
fluorocarbons replacing all hydrogen atoms in methane or in 1928 for use as refrigerants, aerosol
ethane with chlorine and/or fluorine atoms. propellants, and cleaning solvents.
They are nontoxic,nonflammable, insoluble,and They destroy stratospheric ozone. The
chemically unreactive in the troposphere(the Montreal Protocol on Substances that
level of air at the earth's surface). Global Deplete the Ozone Layer prohibited
warming potentials range from 3,800 to 8,100. their production in 1987.
Hydro- Hydrofluorocarbons are a group of greenhouse Hydrofluorocarbons are synthetic
fluorocarbons gases containing carbon,chlorine,and at least manmade chemicals used as a
one hydrogen atom. Global warming potentials substitute for chlorofluorocarbons in
range from 140 to 11,700. applications such as automobile air
conditioners and refrigerants.
Michael Brandman Associates 4.3-3
H�.\Client(PN-IN)�3771\37710001�EIR\9-DEIR\37710001 Sec04-03 GHG.doc
Sa/em Lutheran Church and Schoo/Specific Plan
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Draft E/R
�
Table 4.3-1 (cont.): Greenhouse Gases
Greenhouse i ��<
Gas Description and Physical Properties Sources
Per- Perfluorocarbons have stable molecular Two main sources of perfluorocarbons
fluarocarbons structures and only break down by ultraviolet are primary aluminum production and �
rays about 60 kilometers above Earth's surface. semiconductor manufacturing.
Because of this,they have long]ifetimes,
between 10,000 and 50,000 years. Global ,�.,
warming potentials range from 6,500 to 9,200.
Sulfur Sulfur hexafluoride is an inorganic, odorless, This gas is manmade and used for
hexafluaride colorless,and nontoxic,nonflammable gas. It insulation in electric power �
has a lifetime of 3,200 years. It has a high global transmission equipment, in the
warming potential,23,900. magnesium industry, in semiconductor '�"
manufacturing,and as a tracer gas.
n�
Sources: Michael Brandman Associates,2010.
. . . . . . . . .. . . .. .. . .. . .... . . fM,
Greenhouse gases not defined by AB 32 include water vapor, ozone, and aerosols. Water vapor is an """'
important component of our climate system and is not regulated. Ozone and aerosols are short-lived ��
greenhouse gases; global warming potentials far short-lived greenhouse gases are not defined by the
A�
IPCC. Aerosols can remain suspended in the atmosphere for about a week and can warm the
atmosphere by absorbing heat and cool the atmosphere by reflecting light. Black carbon is a type of ��
aerosol that can also cause warming from deposition on snow. �
��
There are no adverse health effects from the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere at
�
the current levels, with the exception of ozone and aerosols(particulate matter). The potential health
effects of ozone and particulate matter are discussed in criteria pollutant analyses. At very high �"�
concentrations, carbon dioxide, methane, sulfur hexafluoride, and some chlarofluarocarbons can ��.
cause suffocation as the gases can displace oxygen. �
4.3.3 - Regulatory Setting �
There are a variety of federal, State, and local regulations regarding climate change and greenhouse "`�
gases. For a more detailed account of these regulations, please refer to the Air Quality and ,�,,,
Greenhouse Gas Analysis Report(Appendix D). A summary is contained herein. ��
Federal ��
International and federal agreements have been enacted to deal with climate change issues. In 1988, �
the United Nations and the Warld Meteorological Organization established the Intergovernmental ,�,
Panel on Climate Change to assess the scientific,technical and socio economic information relevant
to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts,
and options for adaptation and mitigation. '"�
,�.
On March 21, 1994,the United States joined a number of countries around the warld in signing the
��
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Under the Convention, governments
��;
4.3-4 Michae/Brandman Associates „�,
Pr.\Client(PN-JN)1i77]\37710001�EIIt\9-DEIIL\37710001 Sec04-03 GHG.doc
4�+
Salem Lutheran Church and Schoo/Specific Plan Environmental Impact Ana/ysis
Draft E/R Greenhouse Gas Emissions
gather and share information on greenhouse gas emissions, national policies, and best practices;
launch national strategies for addressing greenhouse gas emissions and adapting to expected impacts,
including the provision of financial and technological support to developing countries; and cooperate
�� in preparing for adaptation to the impacts of climate change.
A particularly notable result of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change efforts
is a treaty known as the Kyoto Protocol,which went into effect on February 16,2005. When
countries sign the Kyoto Protocol, they demonstrate their commitment to reduce their emissions of
greenhouse gases or engage in emissions trading. More than 170 countries are currently participating
in the Kyoto Protocol. Industrialized countries are required to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions
by an average of 5 percent below their 1990 levels by 2012. In 1998, United States Vice President A1
Gore symbolically signed the Protocol; however, in order for the Kyoto Protocol to be formally
ratified,the United States Congress must approve it. Congress did not do this during the Clinton
� Administration. Former President George W. Bush did not submit the Protocol to Senate to be
ratified based on the exemption granted to China. President Barack Obama has not taken action
regarding the Kyoto Protocol because it is about to end.
Massachusetts v. EPA (Supreme Court Case OS-1120)was argued before the United States Supreme
Court on November 29, 2006, in which it was petitioned that EPA regulate four greenhouse gases,
including carbon dioxide, under Section 202(a)(l)of the Clean Air Act. A decision was made on
April 2, 2007, in which the Supreme Court held that petitioners have a standing to challenge the EPA
and that the EPA has statutory authority to regulate greenhouse gases emissions from new motor
vehicles.
On December 7, 2009,the EPA Administrator signed two distinct findings regarding greenhouse
gases under Section 202(a)of the Clean Air Act: 1)Current and projected concentrations of the six
key well-mixed greenhouse gases--carbon dioxide,methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons,
perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride--in the atmosphere threaten the public health and welfare of
current and future generations. 2)The combined emissions of these well-mixed greenhouse gases
from new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle engines contribute to the greenhouse gas pollution,
which threatens public health and welfare.
State
, There has been significant legislative and regulatory activity that affects climate change and
greenhouse gases in California, as discussed below.
- Title 24. Although not originally intended to reduce greenhouse gases, California Code of
. Regulations Title 24 Part 6: California's Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and
Nonresidential Buildings, was first adopted in 1978 in response to a legislative mandate to reduce
California's energy consumption. The standards are updated periodically to allow consideration and
possible incorporation of new energy efficient technologies and methods. The 2008 standards
Michael Brandman Associates 4.3-5
H VClient(PN-.RJ)�377IA37710001�EIRV9-DEIIt\37710001 Sec04-03 GHG.doc
Sa/em Lutheran Church and Schoo/Specific P/an
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Draft E/R
became effective January 1, 2010. The requirement for when the 2008 standards must be followed is
dependent on when the application for the building permit is submitted. Energy efficient buildings
require less electricity;therefore, increased energy efficiency reduces fossil fuel consumption and
decreases greenhouse gas emissions.
California Green Building Standards. On January 12, 2010,the State Building Standards
Commission unanimously adopted updates to the California Green Building Standards Code, which
will go into effect on January 1, 2011. The Code is a comprehensive and uniform regulatory code for
all residential, commercial and school buildings. �
�
Pavley Regulations. California AB 1493, enacted on July 22,2002, required the ARB to develop
and adopt regulations that reduce greenhouse gases emitted by passenger vehicles and light duty �
trucks. The regulation was stalled by automaker lawsuits and by the EPA's denial of an '"'�
implementation waiver. On January 21, 2009,the ARB requested that the EPA reconsider its �•
previous waiver denial. On January 26, 2009, President Obama directed that the EPA assess whether ,�
the denial of the waiver was appropriate. On June 30, 2009,the EPA granted the waiver request,
�..
which begins with motor vehicles in the 2009 model year.
�
Executive Order S-3-O5. California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger announced on June 1, 2005, ,�,;
through Executive Order S 3-05, the following reduction targets for greenhouse gas emissions:
�r
• By 2010,reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 2000 levels. ��
• By 2020, reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels. ��
• By 2050, reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels.
�:
The 2050 reduction goal represents what scientists believe is necessary to reach levels that will
��
stabilize the climate. The 2020 goal was established to be an aggressive, but achievable, mid-term `"�'
target. The Climate Action Team's Report to the Governor in 2006 contains recommendations and ,,.�
strategies to help ensure the 2020 targets in Executive Order S-3-OS are met. , g
Low Carbon Fuel Standard- Executive Order S-01-07. The Governor signed Executive Order S- "`�
01-07 on January 18, 2007. The order mandates that a statewide goal shall be established to reduce =�
the carbon intensity of California's transportation fuels by at least 10 percent by 2020. In particular, ,�
the executive order established a Low-Carbon Fuel Standard and directed the Secretary for
Environmental Protection to coordinate the actions of the California Energy Commission,the ARB,
,,,,,,,
t e University of California, and other agencies to develop and propose protocols for measuring the
"life-cycle carbon intensity"of transportation fuels. This analysis supporting development of the
protocols was included in the State Implementation Plan for alternative fuels(State Alternative Fuels ,�,
Plan adopted by California Energy Commission on December 24, 2007) and was submitted to ARB
,;�-
for consideration as an "early action" item under AB 32. The ARB adopted the Low Carbon Fuel
Standard on Apri123, 2009.
��
;�
4.3-6 Michael Brandman Associates ��,
H�.AClient(PNdN)�3771A37710001�EIltV9-DEIR\37710001 Sec04-03 GHG.doc
YiYq
Salem Lutheran Church and Schoo/Specific Plan Environmental Impact Ana/ysis
Draft EIR Greenhouse Gas Emissions
AB 32. The California State Legislature enacted AB 32,the California Global Warming Solutions
Act of 2006. AB 32 requires that greenhouse gases emitted in California be reduced to 1990 levels by
the year 2020. "Greenhouse gases"as defined under AB 32 include carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous
oxide, hydrofluorocarbons,perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride. ARB is the State agency
charged with monitoring and regulating sources of greenhouse gases. AB 32 states the following:
Global warming poses a serious threat to the economic well-being, public health, natural
resources, and the environment of California. The potential adverse impacts of global
warming include the exacerbation of air quality problems, a reduction in the quality and
supply of water to the state from the Sierra snowpack, a rise in sea levels resulting in the
displacement of thousands of coastal businesses and residences, damage to marine
ecosystems and the natural environment, and an increase in the incidences of infectious
diseases, asthma, and other human health-related problems.
The ARB Board approved the 1990 greenhouse gas emissions level of 427 MMTCOZe on December
6, 2007. Therefore, emissions generated in California in 2020 are required to be equal to or less than
427 MMTCOZe. Emissions in 2020 in a"business as usual" scenario are estimated to be 596
MMTCOZe.
The ARB approved the Climate Change Scoping Plan in December 2008. The Scoping Plan contains
measures designed to reduce the State's emissions to 19901evels by the year 2020. The Scoping Plan
identifies recommended measures far multiple greenhouse gas emission sectors and the associated
emission reductions needed to achieve the year 2020 emissions target—each sector has a different
emission reduction target. The measures in the Scoping Plan will be in place by 20l 2. Most of the
measures target the transportation and electricity sectors.
Local
The City of Orange published interim guidance for greenhouse gas emissions analysis in CEQA
documents. The guidance is discussed in more detail in the Project Impacts section below.
On February 10, 2009,the Orange City Council adopted the"Orange Goes Green! Program." This
� program outlines City policies and actions aimed at guiding the City toward more resource efficient,
environmentally responsible planning, development, and operations. The green program focuses on:
• Public Information and Outreach;
• City Planning and Development Policy;
�� • City Facilities and Operations; and
• Private Development Incentives.
In 2009,the City held Orange Code Academy II focusing on the new energy and green building
standards, which will be incorporated into the California Building Code in the coming months. The
Michael Brandman Associates 4•3'�
H�.\Client(PN-JN)�3771\37710001�EIIt\9-DEIIL\37�10001 Sec0403 GHG.doc
Sa/em Luiheran Church and School Specific P/an
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Draft EIR
Code Academy also included workshops on City waste management and water conservation
programs, and utility provider rebates and City incentives available to Orange residents and
businesses.
To set the example,the City has adopted a policy that new public buildings and retrofits (greater than ,,,�,
10,000 square feet) will be designed to meet the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design
(LEED)green building standards, provided that the decision is fiscally responsible considering the
environmental benefit, up-front cost and long-term cost savings. In addition, City staff are evaluating �
purchasing,maintenance and fleet policies and will be making changes to incorporate greener "
practices. ,�„
To encourage others to build green, the City is offering "Priarity Processing" for planning entitlement *
and building permits for new third-party certified green buildings in Orange, and for eligible "green '"'�'
upgrades" to existing buildings. The City is also offering a Local Recognition Program whereby �
"green" projects will be recognized and promoted by the City as an example of environmentally �
responsible development in Orange.
4.3.4 - Significance Thresholds ,�
CEQA Guidelines ,�
According to Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines and the City's Local Guidelines, a project �
would normally have a significant effect on the environment if it would result in the following:
�.,
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly,that may have a significant �.�
impact on the environment? �
b) Conflict with an applicable policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the ,�
emissions of greenhouse gases? �
City of Orange Thresholds """
In its Interim Guidance far Greenhouse Gas Emissions Analysis,the City of Orange accepts the "Tier ��
3"yuantitative interim significance thresholds recommended by the SCAQMD for commercial, �^�
industrial, mixed use, and industrial development projects as follows: ,�.
• Industrial Projects - 10,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents (MTCO2e) per year ��
• Residential, Commercial, and Mixed Use Projects (including industrial parks, warehouses,
etc.) - 3,000 MTCO2e per year. "'�
Because of the nature of the project, the applicable greenhouse gas significance threshold is 3,000 ��
MTCOze. If the project would generate greenhouse gas emissions below the threshold, it is ,,�
acceptable to conclude that the project's greenhouse gas contribution would not be "cumulatively
„�
considerable" and would therefore be "less than significant" under CEQA.
;;�:,
4•3"8 Michae/Brandman Associates a�
H�.AClient(PN-JN)�3771�37710001�EIIL\9-DEIIL\37710001 SecOA-03 GHG_doc
u�.
Sa/em Lutheran Church and School Specific Plan Environmental lmpact Analysis
Draft EIR Greenhouse Gas Emissions
If the project would generate greenhouse gas emissions above the quantitative thresholds identified
above,the analysis should focus on design features or mitigation measures that would reduce or
sequester greenhouse gas emissions, such that project emissions would be reduced to below the
SCAQMD threshold. Feasible offsite greenhouse gas emission reduction projects could also be
considered as a last option. Potential mitigation measures are listed in Appendix B of the California
Air Pollution Control Officers Association report. Project level mitigation measures are also
identified in the "Addressing Climate Change at the Project Level" document developed by the State
Attorney General's Office. Energy conservation measures are also listed in Appendix F of the State
CEQA Guidelines.
If the project would continue to generate greenhouse gas emissions that exceed the threshold after all
feasible mitigation measures have been incorporated into the project,the analysis should conclude
that the project would contribute greenhouse gas emissions which may be"cumulatively
�" considerable"and the impact would be significant and unavoidable. Findings and a Statement of
� Overriding Considering(associated with a Draft EIR)would then be required,pursuant to CEQA.
4.3.5 - Project Impacts
The suggested components of a greenhouse gas analysis according to the City of Orange interim
greenhouse gas guidance and the corresponding location in this Draft EIR section are as follows:
• Regulatory background: briefly review State law and regulatory framework for greenhouse
gases(Section 4.3.3);
• Existing greenhouse gas setting: description of greenhouse gases, ARB and City of Orange
inventory of greenhouse gases(Section 4.3.2);
• Quantification of project greenhouse gases (Section 4.3.5);
• Significance determination (Section 4.3.5 - Level of Significance; and
� • Mitigation measures (Section 4.3.5).
Impacts Not Found To Be Significant
The Initial Study determined that impacts would result from all of the significance threshold
questions listed previously in Section 4.3.4.
Potentially Significant Impacts
Significance thresholds deemed to be potentially significant are evaluated individually. The list
; below restates the significance threshold and gives the corresponding Draft EIR Impact Number:
Michae/Brandman Associates 4.3-9
H\Client(PN-TN)�3771\37710001�E[R\9-DEIR\37710001 Sec04-03 GHG doc
Sa/em Lutheran Church and School Specific P/an
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Draft E/R
Table 4.3-2: Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Significance Threshold and Corresponding Draft EIR Impact Number
! EIR Impact
Stgnificance Threshold-Greenhouse Gas Emissions ; Number
_ _ ,
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions,either directly or indirectly,that may have a Impact 4.3-1 �
significant impact on the environment?
b) Conflict with an applicable policy,or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing lmpact 4.3-2
the emissions of greenhouse gases? �
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Generation '""'
Impact 4.3-1 Although the project would generate greenhouse gas emissions these emissions ��f
would not have a significant impact on the environment. �
Impact Analysis
This analysis is restricted to greenhouse gases identified by AB 32, which include carbon dioxide,
methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride. 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 project may also emit greenhouse gases that are not defined by AB 32. For example, the project
may generate aerosols. Aerosols are short-lived particles, as they remain in the atmosphere for about "�"
one week. Black carbon is a component of aerosol. Studies have indicated that black carbon has a �x
high global warming potential; however,the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change states that it ,,,�
has a low level of scientific certainty. Water vapor could be emitted from evaporated water used for
landscaping,but this is not a significant impact because water vapor concentrations in the upper t�
atmosphere are primarily due to climate feedbacks rather than emissions from project-related '"#
activities. The project would emit nitrogen oxides and volatile organic compounds, which are ozone �-
precursors. Ozone is a greenhouse gas; however, unlike the other greenhouse gases, ozone in the ,,,�
troposphere is relatively shart-lived and can be reduced in the troposphere on a daily basis.
Stratospheric ozone can be reduced through reactions with other pollutants.
���
Certain greenhouse gases defined by AB 32 would not be emitted by the project. Perfluorocarbons .
and sulfur hexafluoride are typically used in industrial applications,none of which would be used by
,..w
the project. Therefore, it is not anticipated that the project would emit those gases.
Greenhouse gas emissions from motor vehicles are assumed to remain the same over time because the •�
emission factors used to estimate emissions from the motor vehicles that would access the project site
are currently calculated as remaining constant. The on-road mobile inventory used the current
„�
version of the EMission FACtors model (EMFAC2007), and the off-road mobile inventory used the
OFFROAD model for base emission factors. Both the EMFAC and OFFROAD Models develop "��
carbon dioxide and methane emission estimates; however,they are not currently used as the basis for ��
y,:�..
4.3-10 Michael Brandman Associates ,�,
H�.\Client(PN-JN)�377]\37710001�EIR\9-DEIl2\37710001 Sec04-03 GHG-doc
Sa/em Lutheran Church and School Specific Plan Environmental Impact Ana/ysis
Draft E/R Greenhouse Gas Emissions
ARB's official greenhouse gas inventory,which is based on fuel usage information. It is important to
note that the current versions of EMFAC and OFFROAD are not fuel-based, but apply a single
carbon dioxide factor that is unchanged throughout future years. ARB is working to reconcile the
��� emissions estimates from the fuel usage approach and the models. Implementation of adopted
regulations(such as AB 1493)and anticipated regulations will reduce future motor vehicular
: emissions.
The City of Orange guidance indicates, "...given that COz [carbon dioxide] is the most prevalent
'Y GHG [greenhouse gas] associated with land development,the URBEMIS model will capture the
majority of project GHGs and is therefore a reasonable choice"(City of Orange 2010). The City of
Orange guidance also indicates that the methodology 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 from water consumption, etc.).
An inventory of greenhouse gas emissions generated by the project is presented below. 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 far 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 15]45,
upstream/life cycle emissions are speculative and no further discussion is necessary.
The emissions of carbon dioxide from project construction equipment, worker vehicles, and haul
trucks are shown in Table 4.3-3. Emissions of nitrous oxide and methane are negligible. The
emissions are from all phases of construction.
Michael8randman Associates 4.3-11
H.\Client(PN-JN)�3771\37710001�E11t\9-DEIR\37710001 Sec04-03 GHG.doc
Salem Lutheran Church and School Specific P/an
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Drafi E/R
Table 4.3-3: Construction Greenhouse Gases
_
Carbon Dioxide Emissions °-
Phase Emissiona(tons) ; (MTCOZe)
Demolition 31 28
Grading 25 23
Trenching 9 8
Asphalt Paving 7 6 ~
Building Construction and 209 190
Architectural Coating
Total 281 255
Amortized(per year) 9 9
Notes: ^�°^
MTCO2e=metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent,converted from tons by multiplying
by 0.9072 and the global warming potential of 1. Amortized emissions are the total '
divided by 30 years.
Source: Michael Brandman Associates,2010. "'"°
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 exhaust emissions from the ����
motor vehicles that would access the project site. Note that 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
w�
to generate the increase in electricity to be used for the project. An increase in building size may
reyuire an increase in air conditioning power. Refrigerants refer to leakages in refrigerants from the �
air conditioning system. Note that there may be negligible emissions from any increases in waste or '�'
water use; however,these would be minor and are therefore not reported. Table 4.3-4 summarizes the �
incremental increase in greenhouse gas emissions from the operation of the project. �
Table 4.3-4: Operational Greenhouse Gases �--�
; Carbon Dioxide "°�
Emissions , Days per Emissions
Activity ' (pounds per day) Year ' (MTCOze per year) ��
Area Sources 271 365 45 '"""
Motor Vehicles: Sunday 5,230 52 124 -
Electricity 225 365 37 ,.,�
Refrigerants N/A 365 51
Total — — 2g�
�
Notes:
MTCO2e=metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent. �
N/A=not applicable because refrigerants are hydrofluorocarbons,not carbon dioxide emissions.
Source: Michael Brandman Associates,2010. ��+
4.3-12 Michae/Brandman Associates „„:
H_\Client(PN-JN)�3771\37710001�EIR\9-DEIIt\37710001 Sec04-03 GHG.doc
Salem Lutheran Church and Schoo/Specific Plan Environmental Impact Analysis
Draft EIR Greenhouse Gas Emissions
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. Also provided is the greenhouse gas significance threshold accepted by
the City of Orange. As noted in the table,the annualized greenhouse gas emissions from the project
would not exceed the significance threshold accepted by the City of Orange.
Table 4.3-5: Total Annualized Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Emissions
Activity (MTCOze per year)
Construction(annualized over 30 years) 9
Operations 257
Total 266
City of Orange Greenhouse Gas 3,000
Significance Threshold
Exceeds Threshold? No
Notes:
MTCOze=metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent.
Source: Michael Brandman Associates,2010.
� 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 less than significant.
Level of Significance Before Mitigation
Less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required.
Level of Significance After Mitigation
Impacts were determined to be less than significant before mitigation.
Michael Brandman Associates 4.3-13
H.\Client(PN-JN)�3771\37710001�EIR\9-DEIIt\37710001 Sec04-03 GHG.doc
�
Sa/em Lutheran Church and School Specific P/an
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Draft E/R
Conflict with Existing Plans or Policies
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.
Impact Analysis
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 43-6. As shown in the table,the project is consistent with �
the applicable policies. =t�
Table 4.3-6: General Plan Consistency
_ ��
General Plan Policy Summary ' Project Conslstency
Land Use Element
Policy 2.6: Encourage linkage in and around mixed-use areas using Consistent. The project provides "�
a multi-modal circulation network,particularly transit,pedestrian pedestrian access via sidewalks along _
sidewalks,paths and paseos,and bicycle and trail systems. Orange Park Boulevard and Santiago
Canyon Road that provide perimeter �..
access to the site. �
Policy 2.7: Ensure that the architecture, landscape design,and site Consistent. The project provides
planning of mixed-use projects are of the highest quality, and that pedestrian access,as described above. �.
they emphasize a pedestrian orientation and safe,convenient
access between uses.
Policy 3.4: Discourage commercial and industrial enterprises that Consistent. The project does not have ,�
have significant adverse soil,air,water,or noise impacts. significant adverse air quality impacts.
�.
Policy 6.8: Maximize landscaping along streetscapes and within Consistent. The project involves
development projects to enhance public health and environmental landscaping. ,�„
benefits.
�k
Growth Management Element
Policy 1.7: Promote the expansion and development of alternative Consistent. The project provides """�
methods of transportation. pedestrian crosswalks at the �,
intersection of the proposed Santiago
Canyon Road entry and the .�..
intersection of Frank Lane/Orange
Park Boulevard from Frank Lane and �"`
is adjacent to bicycle lane on Santiago
Canyon Road. """°
Policy 1.8: Encourage the development of housing within close Not needed. The project does not "�
proximity to jobs and services. propose housing.
.�
Policy 1.9: Ensure that new developments incorporate non- Consistent. The project will include
motorized and alternative transit amenities such as bike racks,bus bicycle racks and pedestrian `"'
benches and shelters,and pedestrian connections. connections.
�
Policy 2.4: Explore infill development or mixed-use opportunities Consistent. The project could be
wherever possible as developable space becomes more limited. considered an infill project. "`
Policy 2.5: Continue to wark with OCTA and other regional transit Not needed. There are no bus routes �
agencies to provide such amenities as bus shelters,shade, and other adjacent to the project site.
special streetscape treatments at transit stations that encourage the `�'
use of regional bus and train services.
�
..�
4.3-14 Michael Brandman Associates ,,�„
H:\Client(PN-JN)�3771\37'710001�EIlt\9-DEIFt\37710001 Sec04-03 GHG-doc
Sa/em Lutheran Church and School Specific Plan Environmental lmpact Analysis
DraR E/R Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Table 4.3-6 (cont.): Greenhouse Gases
General Plan Policy Summary Project Consistency
Natural Resources Element
Policy 2.2: Support alternative transportation modes,alternative Consistent. T`he project provides
technologies, and bicycle and pedestrian-friendly neighborhoods to pedestrian crosswalks at the
reduce emissions related to vehicular travel. intersection of the proposed Santiago
Canyon Road entry and the
intersection of Frank Lane/Orange
Park Boulevard and bicycle access
from Santiago Canyon Road and
Orange Park Blvd.via Frank Lane.
Policy 23: Reduce the amount of water used for landscaping Consistent. The project would utilize
through the use of native and drought-tolerant plants,proper soil efficient irrigation systems.
preparation,and efficient irrigation systems as parks are built or
renovated.
Policy 2.6: Encourage sustainable building and site designs for new Consistent. The project incorporates
construction and renovation projects. sustainable features.
Policy 3.1: Evaluate the potential effects of climate change on the Consistent. Refer to the climate
City's human and natural systems and prepare strategies that allow change adaptation section.
the City to appropriately respond and adapt.
Policy 3.2: Develop and adopt a comprehensive strategy to reduce Consistent. The City of Orange
greenhouse gases within Orange by at least 15 percent from current greenhouse gas guidance indicates that
levels by 2020. the suggested numerical 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).
Public Safety Element
Policy 9.1: Enhance and maintain safe pedestrian and bicycle Consistent. The project provides for
movement through the integration of traffic control devices, pedestrian crosswalks at the
crosswalks,and pedestrian-oriented lighting, into the design of intersection of the proposed Santiago
streets, sidewalks,trails, and school routes throughout Orange. Canyon Road entry and the
intersection of Frank Lane/Orange
Park Boulevard and bicycle access
from Santiago Canyon Road and
Orange Park Blvd.via Frank Lane.
Policy 9.2: Support creation of safe routes that encourage children Consistent. The project provides far
to walk or bike to schools and recreational facilities. pedestrian crosswalks at the
intersection of the proposed Santiago
Canyon Road entry and the
intersection of Frank Lane/Orange
Park Boulevard and there are bicycle
lanes adjacent to the project.
Michael Brandman Associates 4.3-15
H.\Client(PN-JN)�4771\37710001�EIR\9-DEIR\37710001 Sec04-03 GHG-doc
Sa/em Lutheran Church and Schoo/Specific Plan
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Draft E/R
Table 4.3-6 (cont.): Greenhouse Gases
General Plan Policy Summary , Project Consistency �
__ _
__
Policy 93: Identify and attempt to remove impediments to Consistent. The project includes y�
pedestrian and bicycle access including those associated with rail, improvements to pedestrian access. �
street,freeway,and waterway crossings and poarly marked or
maintained pathways and sidewalks. �.
Infrastructure Element
�
Policy 4.4: Encourage integrated and cost-effective design and Consistent. The project includes
technology features within new development to minimize demands energy efficiency features. M*�#
on dry utility netwarks. �
Urban Design Element
�
Policy 6.2: Ensure that new infill development contributes Consistent. Parking will be
positively to the quality of the surrounding corridor or concentrated to the western and central '�"
neighborhood, including the potential to provide additional park portions of the site,resulting in less
��
space, and minimize the visibility of onsite parking. visibility from adjacent roadways.
The grass multipurpose field at the ,,,�
eastern end of the project site will be
used for occasional Sunday and
special event parking but will remain a
play field the majority of the time. '�"'
Source of General Plan Policy: City of Orange 2010. �,�.
Source of Project Consistency: Michael Brandman Associates.
��
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
re uce emissions.
s�
��
• New building construction and retrofitting the existing onsite vacant structure will incorporate
�
energy Title 24 efficient measures including Part I 1 - CALGreen.
r«,,
• Energy Star appliances and lighting will be incorporated into the project.
�«�
• Compact fluorescent lighting will be incorporated into the project. ,,N�
• Low flush toilets will be incorporated into the new building construction and retrofitting the ��'
existing onsite vacant structure. ,
• Recognize the City's Orange Goes Green policy and incorporate 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.
A�
4.3-16 Michae/Brandman Associates ��,.
H�.\Client(PN-JN)13771\37710001�EIlt\9-DEIIt\37710001 Sec04-03 GHG.doc
Salem Lutheran Church and Schoo/Specific P/an Environmental lmpact Ana/ysis
Draft EIR Greenhouse Gas Emissions
• 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.
• 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 eyuestrian trail along Orange Park
Boulevard.
• 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, and the proposed project entry at Santiago Canyon Road,
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.
Level of Significance Before Mitigation
Less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required.
Level of Significance After Mitigation
Impacts were determined to be less than significant before mitigation.
Climate Change Adaptation
Impact 4.3-3 The project would not be significantly impacted by climate change induced impacts
from a reduced water supply, increased wildfires, or flooding.
Impact Analysis
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 Sierra Nevada snowpack to supply water during the dry spring and summer months. Rising
Michael 8randman Associates 4.3-17
Pr.\Client(PN-JN)\3771\37710001�EIR\9-DEDt\37710001 Sec04-03 GHG-doc
Sa/em Lutheran Church and Schoo/Specific P/an
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Draft E/R
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]5 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 would obtain a portion of its water from the Sierra snowpack. Therefore, it is possible
that impacts from climate change could deplete the project's water supply. However, project features
would reduce the project's consumption of water resources(see Impact 4.3-2 for a list of features). '"""
Therefare,this potential impact is less than significant. �„�.
�M�
ncreased 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 temperatures stay in the lower warming range. �
The project site is surrounded by existing urban development and infrastructure on four sides. ��
Therefare, the project would not be at risk of wildfires. ,�
Flooding '""
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. Many California coastal areas are at significant risk for
��,
flood damage. For example,the city of Santa Cruz is built on the 100-year floodplain and is only 20
feet above sea level. ""�
As precipitation falls in the form of rain rather than snow with greater storm intensity, high frequency
.,�
flood events are projected to increase. Changes in soil moisture and watershed vegetation will change
runoff and recharge patterns. Increased impermeable surfaces also contribute to more floods. �
Potential increases in wildfires due to climate change would increase floods following fire. For the '"�
purposes of federal flood insurance,the Federal Emergency Management Agency has traditionally e�
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
4.3-18 Michae/Brandman Associates ��„
H:\Client(PN-JN)�3771\37710001�E[IL\9-DEDt\37710001 Sec04-03 GHG.doc
*,�,,
Salem Lutheran Church and School Specific Plan EnvironmentallmpactAna/ysis
Draft EIR Greenhouse Gas Emissions
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.
Level of Significance Before Mitigation
Less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required.
Level of Significance After Mitigation
Impacts were determined to be less than significant before mitigation.
Michael Brandman Associates 4.3-19
HiClient(PN-IN)13771\37710001�EIR\9-DEDi\37710001 Sec04-03 GHG.doc
��.
�
ailR
�?
Ltw-
�
4�MM
�
��
��
ikYNu-
��
1�
icpti
M�I4
!�
��
Wq5'
��
Gaa
Salem Lutheran Church and School Specific P/an Environmental lmpact Analysis
Draft E/R Hazards and Hazardous Materials
4.4 - Hazards and Hazardous Materials
4.4.1 - Introduction
Purpose
The purpose of this section is to describe any existing hazards and hazardous materials, and potential
impacts related to this topical environmental issue. This section also identifies mitigation measures to
reduce any potentially significant hazards and hazardous materials impacts and describes the residual
impact, if any, after imposition of the mitigation.
Hazardous materials are chemicals that could potentially cause harm during an accidental release or
mishap;they are defined as being toxic, corrosive, flammable, reactive, irritant or strong sensitizer
(i.e. a chemical that results in allergic reactions in people or animals). Hazardous substances include
all chemicals regulated under the United States Department of Transportation"hazardous materials"
regulations and the Environmental protection agency "hazardous waste"regulations. Hazardous
wastes require special handling and disposal because of their potential to damage public heath and the
environment. The probable frequency and severity of consequences from the use, transport or
disposal of hazardous materials is affected by the type of substance, quantity used or managed, and
the nature of the activities and operations.
Sources
Information in this section is based on the following sources:
• Environmental Data Resources Inc. (EDR)Map Report, December 1, 2005 (Appendix E).
• Salem Lutheran Church and School Specific Plan, Michael Madden Associates, April 30, 201 l
(Appendix I).
• 2010 General Plan, City of Orange, March 9, 2010.
• City of Orange Municipal Code.
• Comments received during the public comment period. These comments are contained in
Appendix A.
4.4.2 - Environmental Setting
The regional,vicinity, and site-specific environmental settings are described in more detail below.
Vicinity
In December of 2005, an EDR Radius Map Report was completed by Environmental Data Resources
Inc. This report details the properties nearby the proposed project that have hazardous materials on
site or that have a history of such material usage/storage onsite. The report found sites nearby the
proposed project with hydrocarbons (such as above and below ground storage tanks)as well as
Michael Brandman Associates 4.4-1
H_\Client(PN-JN)�3771\37710001�E[IL\9-DEIR\37710001 Sec04-04 Hazmat.doc
Sa/em Lutheran Church and School Specific P/an
Hazards and Hazardous Materials Draft E/R
contaminated drinking wells. The EDR Radius Map Report indicated that underground storage tanks
(UST)occur within approximately 0.5 mile of the project site, as detailed below:
Petroleum hydrocarbons are derived from crude oil, which is refined into various petroleum products
such as diesel, gasoline, kerosene, lubricants, and heavy fuel oils. Hydrocarbons constituents include ,�
benzene,N-heptane, and toluene, and generate health effects such as cancer, leukemia, asthmatic
bronchitis, kidney damage, and eye irritation. Hydrocarbons are stored in aboveground storage tanks
(ASTs) and USTs (underground storage tanks). Leaking ASTs and USTs can result in contamination "��
of groundwater sources or fire and explosion. �
�
Underground Storage Tank: The Underground Storage Tank database contains registered USTs.
USTs are regulated under Subtitle I of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act(RCRA). The �
data come from the State Water Resources Control Board's (SWRCB) Hazardous Substance Storage """"
Container Database. A review of the UST list, as provided by EDR, and dated October 10, 2005, has ��
revealed that there is 1 UST:
�
Larry Till Residence � �
20072 East Frank Lane n�,
Orange, CA 92869
UST U003879
�
Leaking Underground Storage Tanks (LUST): The Leaking Underground Starage Tank Incident `�`
Reports contain an inventory of reported leaking underground storage tank incidents. The data come w�
from the State Water Resources Control Board Leaking Underground Storage Tank Information �,,
System. A review of the LUST list, as provided by EDR, and dated October 10, 2005, has revealed
�w�
that there is 1 LUST site within approximately 0.5 mile of the project site, at:
�
Blue Diamond Materials
��s
6145 Santiago Canyon Road
,�:.
Orange, CA
LUST S105025371 '"'�
,�
Historical Underground Storage Tanks (HIST UST): A review of the HIST UST list, as provided ,..,.
by EDR, and dated October 15, 1990 has revealed that there are 2 HIST UST sites within
approximately 0.25 miles of the project site, at: �
e��
6145 E Santiago Canyon Orange Plants
6145 E Santiago Canyon Orange Shop
��
Statewide Environmental Evaluation and Planning System (SWEEPS): This underground
storage tank listing was updated and maintained by a company contacted by the SWRCB in the early `"""
4.42 Michae/Brandman Associates ,,,�>
H�.\Client(PN-JN)�3771\37710001�EIIL\9-DEIIt\377I0001 Sec04-04Hazma[doc
Salem Lufheran Church and School Specific Plan Environmental Impact Analysis
Draft EIR Hazards and Hazardous Materials
1980s. The listing is no longer updated or maintained. The local agency is the contact for more
information on a site on the SWEEPS list. A review of the SWEEPS UST list, as provided by EDR,
and dated June 1, 1994, has revealed that there is 1 SWEEPS UST site within approximately 0.25
mile of the project site, at:
Blue Diamond Materials 6145 Santiago Canyon Road
Review of Potential Hazardous Conditions in Project Vicinity
� CORTESE: This database identifies public drinking water wells with detectable levels of
contamination, hazardous substance sites selected for remedial action, sites with known toxic material
identified through the abandoned site assessment program, sites with USTs having a reportable
release and all solid waste disposal facilities from which there is known migration. The source is the
California Environmental Protection Agency/Office of Emergency Information. A review of the
Cortese list, as provided by EDR, has revealed that there is 1 Cortese site within approximately 0.5
mile of the project site, at:
Blue Diamond Materials, 6145 Santiago Canyon Road, Orange, CA
Site Conditions
The EDR report did not indicate that there is any specific hazardous contamination on site. The
existing buildings on the Salem Lutheran Church and School property, which house the sanctuary and
pre-school, were built and first occupied in 1969. The pre-school opened for students in 1976
followed by the opening of the elementary school in 1983. The elementary school building was
completed in 1984 and the multi-purpose building and eight additional classrooms were occupied in
2000. It seems to be generally accepted that asbestos has the potential to be found in buildings that
were constructed before 1980. Asbestos, lead and pesticides are hazardous materials that are of
concern. Each of these materials is discussed in more detail below.
Asbestos
Asbestos is the name given to a number of naturally occurring, fibrous silicate minerals minded for
their useful properties, such as thermal insulation, chemical and thermal stability, and high tensile
strength. Asbestos is commonly found in acoustic insulation,thermal insulation, fireproofing, and in
other building materials referred to as Asbestos Containing Materials (ACMs). Asbestos is made up
of microscopic bundles of fibers that may become airborne when asbestos-containing materials are
damaged or disturbed. When these fibers get into the air they may be inhaled into the lungs, where
they can cause significant health problems. The California Occupational Health and Safety
Administration(Cal OSHA) defines asbestos containing materials as any material that contains O.l
percent asbestos by weight.
Michael Brandman Associates 4.4-3
H\Client(PN-IN)�3771\37710001�EIIL\9-DEIIL\37710001 Sec0404 Humat.doc
Salem Lutheran Church and Schoo/Specific Plan
Hazards and Hazardous Materials Draft E/R
Lead
Lead is a highly toxic metal that was used until the late 1970s in a number of products, most notably
paint. Lead may cause a range of health effects, from behavioral problems and learning disabilities to �
seizures and death. Primary sources of lead exposure are deteriorating lead-based paint, lead "�
contaminated dust, and lead-contaminated soiL �.,
Pesticides
A pesticide is any substance or mixture of substances intended far preventing, destroying, repelling, �`
or mitigating any pest. The term pesticide applies to insecticides, herbicides, fungicides, and various ��u
other substances used to control pests. The health effects of pesticides depend on the type of �,
pesticide. Examples of health risks posed by pesticides include cancer, nervous system damage,
��
hormone or endocrine disruption, and eye or skin irritation.
�
4.4.3 - Regulatory Setting �
Federal, State, and local city regulations pertain to the use and storage of hazardous materials. This
�
section discusses each of the agency's roles in regulating hazardous materials.
Federal
�
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
The 1976 Federal RCRA and the 1984 RCRA Amendments regulate the treatment, storage, and
disposal of hazardous and non-hazardous wastes. The legislation mandated that hazardous wastes be ��
tracked from the point of generation to their ultimate fate in the environment. This includes detailed "
tracking of hazardous materials during transport and permitting of hazardous material handling ��
facilities.
The 1984 RCRA amendments provided the framework for a regulatory program designed to prevent '�
releases from USTs. The program establishes tank and leak detection standards, including spill and
overflow protection devices for new tanks. The tanks must also meet performance standards to �
ensure that the stored material will not corrode the tanks. Owners and operatars of USTs had until
December 1998 to meet the new tank standards. As of 2001, an estimated 85 percent of USTs
complied with the required standard. "'�"
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act
The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 introduced ��
active federal involvement to emergency response, site remediation, and spill prevention, most �
notably the Superfund program. The act was intended to be comprehensive in encompassing both the �
prevention of, and response to uncontrolled hazardous substances releases. The act deals with
environmental response, providing mechanisms for reacting to emergencies and chronic hazardous
r�
material releases. In addition to establishing procedures to prevent and remedy problems, it
��w
esta �shes a system for compensating appropriate individuals and assigning appropriate liability. It
��
Yasu
4.44 Michae/Brandman Associates ,,,�
H�.\Client(PN-IN)U771\37710001�EIR\9-DEDt\37710001 Sec04-04Hazmat_doc
Sa/em Lutheran Church and Schoo/Specific Plan Environmental lmpact Ana/ysis
Draft E/R Hazards and Hazardous Materials
is designed to plan for, and respond to, failure in other regulatory programs and to remedy problems
resulting from action taken befare the era of comprehensive regulatory protection.
State
California Health and Safety Code
The California Environmental Protection Agency has established rules governing the use of
hazardous materials and the management of hazardous wastes. California Health and Safety Code
Sections 25531, et seq., incorporate the reyuirement of Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization
Act and the Clean Air Act as they pertain to hazardous materials. Health and Safety Code Section
25534 directs facility owners storing or handling acutely hazardous materials in reportable quantities
to develop a Risk Management Plan (RMP). The RMP must be submitted to the appropriate local
authorities,the designated local administering agency, and the EPA for review and approval.
Transport of Hazardous Materials
Transportation of hazardous materials is regulated by Caltrans,the California Highway Patrol, and
Orange County Fire Authority,which is supported by the Orange Fire Department. Drivers must
have a hazardous materials endorsement to operate a commercial vehicle carrying hazardous
materials, including explosives. During the transport of materials, a route map must be maintained
that indicates safe routing and safe stopping places along the route.
California Fire Code Article 77 states that a permit from the local fire department must be obtained
for both the storage and use of explosive materials. In addition,the responsible party must file a
$100,000 corporate surety bond or have public liability insurance for the same amount. Section 7703
of the California Fire Code describes requirements for use, handling, and transportation of explosive
materials.
Local
County of Orange
The County Environmental Health Division Certified Unified Program Agency coordinates six
programs regulating hazardous materials and waste. The programs include management of hazardous
waste, underground storage tanks, aboveground storage tanks,hazardous materials disclosure,
- business plan, and California accidental release. County and city fire agencies within the County
have joined the Certified Unified Program Agency as participating agencies.
City of Orange Municipal Code
The City Municipal Code sets forth requirements regarding the adoption of Uniform Building Code
(May 27, 2008 Edition, "Restrictions in the Fire District"). More specifically, Section 1603 of the
code sets forth building restrictions for developments located in high hazard areas;those restrictions
include fire-resistant protection of exterior walls and openings, fire-retardant roofs, and unenclosed
under floor areas with allowable exceptions.
Michael Brandman Associates 4.4-5
H�.\Clien[(PN-IN)�3771\37710001�EIR\9-DEIR\37710001 Sec04-04 Hazmat.doc
Sa/em Lutheran Church and Schoo/Specific Plan
Hazards and Hazardous Materials Draft E/R
Orange Fire Department
The City recognizes that the handling, transport, and disposal of hazardous waste and hazardous
materials pose a risk to the public and service providers. To reduce the risks associated with the use
and handling of these materials,the City uses the criteria developed by the County Hazardous
Materials Service Section for its own program. The City of Orange Fire Department provides �
oversight in the planning process by providing a department representative during the environmental
review process. Additionally,the City supports the efforts of the department to enforce State "Right-
„r�
to Know" laws, which reyuire disclosure of information to the public regarding use, storage, and
transport of hazardous materials.
����,
4.4.4 - Significance Thresholds
According to Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines and the City's Local CEQA Guidelines, a
���
project would normally have a significant effect on the environment if it would result in the
following: °��,°
�
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use
or disposal of hazardous materials?
�
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonable foreseeable
upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the �
environment? ��
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or �
waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? ��
��.:
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites complied pursuant
to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to ��
the public or the environment? �
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been ��*
adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in ,�
a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area?
��
fl For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety ,,,�,
hazard for people residing or warking in the project area?
��
g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or , ,
emergency evacuation plan?
��
h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland _
fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are
intermixed with wildlands? ""'�
��
frid«
4.4-6 Michae/Brandman Associates �,,,�
H�.\Client(PN-IN)U771\37710001�EI}L\9-DEDi\37710001 Sec04-04Hazmatdoc
a«a+
Salem Lutheran Church and School Specific Plan Environmental Impact Ana/ysis
Draft EIR Hazards and Hazardous Materials
4.4.5 - Project Impacts
Impacts Not Found To Be Significant
The Initial Study determined that either no impacts or less than significant impacts would result from
the following significance thresholds listed previously in Section 4.4.4:
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonable foreseeable
upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the
environment?
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, ar
waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites complied pursuant
to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to
the public or the environment?
� e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been
adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport,would the project result in
a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area?
� � For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety
hazard for people residing or working in the project area?
g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan?
Refer to the Initial Study in Appendix A for a complete discussion.
Potentially Significant Impacts
Significance thresholds deemed to be potentially significant are evaluated individually. Table 4.4-1
restates the significance threshold and gives the corresponding Draft EIR Impact Number:
Table 4.4-1: Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Significance Threshold and Corresponding Draft EIR Impact Number
EIR Impact
Significance Threshold-Hazards and Hazardous Materials Number
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine Impact 4.4-1
transport,use or disposal of hazardous materials?
h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving Impact 4.4-2
wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where
residences are intermixed with wildlands?
Michae/Brandman Associates 4.4-7
H.\Client(PN-JN)�3771\37710001�EIR\9-DEIIt\37710001 Sec04-04 Hazmat.doc
Sa/em Lutheran Church and Schoo/Specific Plan
Hazards and Hazardous Materia/s Draft E/R
Routine Use
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.
Impact Analysis �
Short-term Operations ���
During the short-term site preparation construction phase,the proposed project could involve the �M.
transport, use, or disposal of relatively small quantities of routinely used but potentially hazardous
�
materials such as vehicle fuels, oils, and transmission fluids.
�;:;.
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 W
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. ,�
Level of Significance Before Mitigation "�
Less than significant. .,�.,
�
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required. �"�
��
Level of Significance After Mitigation
Impacts were determined to be less than significant before mitigation. �"�
„�
Risk of Wildland Fires
«
Impact 4.4-2 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. �„�
lmpact Analysis
The proposed project site is located in an established urban area not adjacent to but near open brush.
R��
The community also has stands of mature vegetation throughout and portions of the Orange Park
Acres plan area have experienced evacuation during wildfires. "µ
,�
��
�.a
m�.:
4.4-8 Michael Brandman Associates y�
H:\Client(PN-JN)\3771\37710001�EIR\9-DEII2\37710001 Sec04-04 Hazmatdoc
e�,,
Sa/em Lutheran Church and School Specif►c Plan Environmental Impact Analysis
Draft EIR Haiards and Hazardous Materials
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,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. Figure PS-1, Environmental and Natural Hazard Policy Map
in the City of Orange General Plan (Edaw, Inc. 2009) illustrates that the project falls within the
wildland high fire hazard Area or the wildland very high fire hazard 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.).
Level of Significance Before Mitigation
Less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are necessary.
Level of Significance After Mitigation
Impacts were determined to be less than significant before mitigation.
Michael Brandman Associates 4.4-9
H�.\Client(PN-1N)�3771\37710001�EIIL\9-DEIlt\37710001 Sec04-04Hazma[.doc
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
..0
�
�
�
�
r�e
�
�
�
�
�.
�
.0
�
Salem Lutheran Church and School Specific Plan Environmental lmpact Analysis
Draft EIR Hydrology and Water Quality
. 4.5 - Hydrology and Water Quality
4.5.1 - introduction
Purpose
��� The purpose of this section is to identify the potentially significant impacts to hydrology and water
r, quality from project implementation. This section also identifies mitigation measures to reduce any
potentially significant hydrology and water quality impacts and describes the residual impact, if any,
after imposition of the mitigation.
Sources
Information in this section is based on the following sources:
• Salem Lutheran Church and School Hydrologic Assessment,November 4, 2011, Fuscoe
Engineering 2011 (Appendix F.1).
• Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan for Salem Lutheran Church& School,November
�� 11, 2011 (Appendix F.2).
• Drainage Area Management Plan, County of Orange,July 2007.
• City of Orange Local Implementation Plan (LIP).
• Model Water Quality Management Plan and Technical Guidance Document, May l9, 2011.
• CASQA Construction BMP Handbook,November 2009.
• Orange Park Acres Specific Plan (OPA Plan), September 1973.
• City of Orange Municipal Code.
• 2010 General Plan, City of Orange, March 9, 2010.
• Salem Lutheran Church and School Specific Plan, Michael Madden Associates, April 30, 2011
(Appendix I).
• Comments received during the public comment period. These comments are contained in
Appendix A.
4.5.2 - Environmental Setting
The regional, vicinity, and site-specific environmental settings are described in more detail below.
Regional
In California,there are nine Regional Water Quality Control Boards(RWQCB or Regional Boards).
The Regional Boards develop and enforce water quality objectives and implementation plans to
protect the beneficial uses of the State's waters (State Water Resources Control Board 2010). The
Michae/8randman Associates 4.5-1
H.\Client(PN-JN)\3771\37710001�EIIt\9-DEDt\37710001 Sec04-OS Hydrology.doc
Salem Lutheran Church and School Specific Plan
Hydro/ogy and Water Quality Draft E/R
project site is located within the jurisdiction of the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board
(SARWQCB).
�
Vicinity
The proposed project is located in the OPA Plan area. The principal drainage feature in this area is �
Handy Creek, which originates at Peters Canyon Reservoir and flows northerly and northwesterly to
Santiago Creek.
,�,,
Site Conditions
Current onsite conditions discussed below include surface hydrology, offsite receiving waters, water ,,,�
quality, and flooding.
�
Surface Hydro/ogy .�
Existing development on the proposed project site includes the Salem Lutheran Church and School , _.
facilities. Specifically, development onsite currently includes classroom buildings, preschool
�
building, multipurpose building, recreational amenities, and a sanctuary building.
The above listed development on site is broken down as follows: the grass multipurpose field ,,,�„
comprises approximately 30 percent of the site, on the easterly side. The central portion of the site
�
contains the primary parking lot/play court area(and comprises approximately 10 percent of the site)
and the school/sanctuary campus, comprises approximately 40 percent of the site. The remaining `"""
approximate 20 percent of the project site(the western portion) is occupied by the existing onsite "'�
vacant structure. The site topography falls toward the southwest with an overall change in grade of „�„
approximately 14 feet. The project site is generally flat with an overall slope of l.6 percent. Refer to
�
Exhibit 4.5-1.
��
Under existing conditions, stormwater runoff from the project site sheet flows to Frank Lane, flows �..
along the western extent of Frank Lane, and discharges untreated into Handy Creek, located
�
approximately .10 mile southwest of the project site. More specifically, approximately 5.2 acres of
the site drains southwesterly to Frank Lane, where runoff is conveyed to Handy Creek(located �w
approximately 450 linear feet from the project site). Flows travel along Frank Lane and over private '"'"
property before reaching Handy Creek. Approximately 0.7 acre of the project site drains over the �r�
northwesterly property line and"sheet flows"cross the equestrian property (located adjacent to the ,,,�
project site) and then to Santiago Canyon Road, and into Handy Creek. Approximately 0.1 acre of
the project site flows directly onto Santiago Canyon Road from a frontage area.
,�
Under the proposed conditions,the majority of the site drainage (approximately 5.6 acres),will be ,_
directed towards E. Santiago Canyon Road to reduce flooding along Frank Lane. Reducing the
�
drainage and flooding potential along Frank Lane will be accomplished by implementing additional
storm drain infrastructure to collect flows from the majority of the site and tie into the storm drain c
system within E. Santiago Canyon Road. �
�
4.5-2 Michae/Brandman Associates ,�
H:\Clien[(PN-JN)\3771\37710001�EIIL\9-DEIIt\37710001 Sec04-OS Hydrology doc
��
� C Z�
� � aa
� a ��
r-+ � w V
� �' ... � � � y�
3
I 9 X � oQ
�- — — — — — -- � w ` �z
� � oz
� ' �an�e �avd 3�rveao � a�
U�
� �, �w
����-������ _
� ' � �
\ � � Q
_.�� i � �E �
�� x . w
x. � _
�
u �N � � � �
� � mx ; � � a w
- i ``� ¢�n ' <
I U N � N
1
� � ��� � �
o � ' °
� ��
� _, �
� i �------ �
� I��� ��� � U
�O ' 1 ,x�o '
Q ' i ��
U ` � �x
O i �� !
� ^` . ����������� Uo i �1
`_ ; LL g ;�
� / � �� � W
Z .��_ .. � 11 1 � Z
� � •. � �--- -- — , g
% .'� `� _; i �— �� i
� . ��� ai -- — ���' Y
� u
. � N� , "�< <g' <o _ � Q
� <o �
� �_r"_� *- ' LL
/ �\�, /����;� �1
� ���
/ ' yyy����� `
� �I , r������
I I� i ! ♦�����
f� o� I � �, '��� x
W a I� �T'� '�
Ii �� �� f 1 ��'
i on ♦ k , < � �x
�;� j�, �� i �e ♦ =o
�' �< mx �w , �`= c'c•,
r ♦ �� =o Z� ,1
� ;�, UN �O � f '
f ,, ; o� �_ , __ ,
�>, m� �- -,� — , , �
�
`.`. . . ' � � �� ._�
s .
�< zo� ,�`t', �� ' „ ���+
do �ci ♦s � � � 1
�� ��,�, � i o_ �
� � m
o � ♦� � _� �____ "
mr_�__��� 1 i -�
m w o� �� ,�� i 1 � ��1'� `��
�� ` w� ��� ♦ i � �.�'� '�� �'�
�� �n � ` �-�'� �=
b b � ♦♦ ♦ � , ♦
o� m � �,� ,��� � ,
00 00 ,� � ; ,�'`��'r�
1 1 W .. � ��r � i
1 1 �� w i i���'��i. ; �, ♦
� '�_.` a�'_� ��� ♦ � i i
��
� v�o � � � ��� �, w<
I O� I �� �, o ' V o
��� 1 WN 1 � Y< � 2� ♦��i
o�
a� � � � ��
... �m� ��� 1 ,�� O � Ct�� �"
e B 8 2 Z � � �� 1= O p� ♦
�'y� � I Z� ,;�n �
. a�� N v � I ` , �,, �O ,
3;; �� '� � � �� m� , ♦
�m •
.. �z u�i �W � .'� � �
� 1 ��� / -
� � o� ���` 1 1 ni
I � i v�"iw� �i 1 � � t , i a =
� I i �2� 1 1�� • �,�♦ I ,� � E
� W F� '_ 1 —�► , o �i
c� � ■ � � r z
x � �O� o� ;i
��a k'oo Z� - A
� 2�� �O �
m�� WN �< _� � � � �
o w
��o d� u.�.. -
U m O N 0 N1210N � �
00� m �d � �
� o
�d � o
° �� �
� �
�:
�
�
�
�
�
�
��
,�
�
��
,�
��
�:.�
,�
enM
1�
1�
��
Sa/em Lutheran Church and Schoo/Specific Plan Environmental Impact Analysis
Draft E/R Hydrology and Water Quality
A small drainage area of approximately 0.4 acres will continue to sheet flow to Handy Creek at the
southwest corner of the site resulting in significantly less drainage to Frank Lane under the proposed
condition.
• Table 4.5-1 summarizes and Exhibit 4.5-2 depicts the existing hydrologic conditions for the site
for the High Confidence (HC) flood control event related to 10-year, 25-year and 100-year
storm events (see Figure 4.1; Salem Lutheran Church and School Hydrologic Assessment,
November 4, 201],Fuscoe Engineering 2011 (Appendix F.1).
Table 4.5-1: Salem Lutheran Church and School
Existing Condition Runoff Volume Summary and Peak Flow Rate
Existing Condition Runoff Volume Summary(HC Events)
Sub-Area ' Drainage Area(ac) 10-year(ac ft) 25-Year(ac-k) 100-Year(ac-ft)
"A" 2.92 0.56 0.71 1.05
"B" 1.88 0.45 0.56 0.74
"C" 0.44 0.08 0.11 0.16
"D" 0.62 0.10 0.13 0.21
�� "E" 0.06 OA1 0.01 0.02
"F" 0.11 0.01 0.02 0.03
Total 6.03 1.21 1.54 2.21
E�cisting Condition Peak Flow Rate(HC Events)
_. _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _
Sub-Area Drainage Area(ac) 10-year(cfs) 25-Year(cfs) 100-Year(cfs)
"A" 2.92 639 7.74 10.06
"B" l.88 3.80 4.60 5.97
"C" 0.44 0.82 1.01 132
"D" 0.62 1.94 232 3.00
"E" 0.06 0.12 0.15 0.19
� "F" .l 1 038 0.45 0.59
Total 6.03 13.45 16.27 21.13
Table 4.5-2 summarizes(refer to Exhibit 4.5-1)the proposed hydrologic conditions for the site for the
High Confidence(HC) flood control events related to l 0-year, 25-year and 100-year storm events.
(See Figure 4.2; Salem Lutheran Church and School Hydrologic Assessment,November 4, 2011,
Fuscoe Engineering 2011 (Appendix F.1).
Michae/Brandman Associates 4.5-5
H�.\Client(PN-JN)\3771\37710001�EIR\9-DEIlt\37710001 Sec04-OSHydrology.doc
Sa/em Lutheran Church and Schoo/Specif►c P/an
Hydro/ogy and Water Quality Drafi E/R
Table 4.5-2: Salem Lutheran Church and School
Proposed Condition Runoff Volume Summary and Condition Peak Flow Rate
_ _
�
Proposed Condition Runoff Volume Summary(HC Events)
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ __ ..
__
Sub-Area Drainage Area(ac) � 10-year(ac-ft) 25-Year(ac-ft) ; 100-Year(ac-ft)
.,m„
��A,> 2.71 0.53 0.68 _ _ 0.98
"B" 1.15 0.29 036 0.46
"C" 0.43 0.08 0.11 0.l 7 ���
"D" 1.44 033 0.41 0.55 `
"E" 0.06 0.01 0.01 0.02 °�
"F" 0.24 0.04 0.05 0.08 �•
Total 6.03 (0.0) 1.28(+0.07) 1.62(+0.08) 2.26(+0.05) ,�
Proposed Condition Peak Flow Rate(HC Events) h.,.
Sub-Area Drainage Area(ac) 10-year(cfs) 25-Year(cfs) 100-Year(cfs)
,...
"A" 2.71 5.75 6.94 8.99
"B" 1.15 231 2.79 3.60
���
"C" 0.43 1.28 1.54 1.99
"D" 1.44 2.53 3.05 5.47 �
"E" 0.06 0.12 0.15 0.19 '�"
"F" 0.24 0.84 1.01 1.30 '�'h
Total 6.03 (0.0) 12.83 (-0.62) 15.48(-0.79) 21.54(+0.41) .�
:��.
Implementation of the project will result in negligible changes to the runoff rates and volumes as "'�'"
compared to the existing condition. For the 10-year and 25-year storm events, peak flow runoff will ��
slightly decrease while the ]00-year peak flow rate will increase by 1.9%. Similarly, storm water ,,�,
volumes for these flood control events will increase with the largest increase represented at the 10-
Y4#�
year event(5.4%)and the smallest increase at 2.3% for the 100-year. Based on the small increases in
volume and the small decreases in peak flow runoff rates,the proposed conditions will largely mimic "`�
the existing conditions and the existing infrastructure will be able to accommodate the proposed '�
runoff conditions. �,�
In addition to the High Confidence flood control event analysis,the project must also evaluate the ��
potential for Hydrologic Conditions of Concern(2011 Model WQMP). R�
The purpose of this analysis is to identify any hydrologic conditions of concern (HCOC) with respect
to downstream flooding, erosion potential of natural channels downstream, impacts of increased !�
flows on natural habitat, etc. As specified in Section 2.3.3 of the 2011 Model WQMP, projects must `�
identify and mitigate any HCOCs. ,�
iie�
4.5-6 Michael Brandman Associates *�„
H:\Client(PN-JN)\3771\37710001�Eilt\9-DEIR\37710001 Sec04-OS Hydrology.doc
N � ao
� � � aa
� p ��
+-' � U~
� wQ
� � ��
I L = �-
X � pa
w � =Z
� ._ U W
N
I � ❑Z
X ¢�
I W �>
� �w
_
� J 3 � z
a� d' � � a
� � � — — �
o � _
F
°' r- .an�a�avd 3�Nvao �:i J
�' l
�, z
� ,ZO'� M„Oti,LI.LIN " ` _ w
a
� �/ i � v�
� w
-. -�-',• o \`� � � � a
��=�i ' Z 3J O
.. . �. �� I n J LL
U] � I O
^ N
^ � ,��`j I / U
o � z � � � �
� � ^a `\ 1
O � .� a� ____I
U �l r__�I � I �I �
� � � � II
p � � � 11
I II
Q / � �—_I ��
2 � oa', � � � � I z
� �J g
� , /ry' i� ������
� � �
v J � ��J i„�< eV< 'C< Y
m Z
,L a � �- ao a< ao Q
� �; o o Q
� � M ' LL
� � �
/ �i I ��
� � o $� I�,�� ''_ i_____� i L_,� —� �
i '� � i � � ----� �i �
,z,�� A � �i i� `°
�,
j � �a 1�
''v`�� �;`�' '�� m•t"o� I�
v(J�
� � �9!���`�.�� ����` � �� w
� !````` . �_�� i ' �
�
� .
/ � � 9 ��� „�. � �
/ m� SF,� ���� � a z
o `� � m o
Q� � � I o
a �oo5,6F ��;��___� 11
u��o � •6�� `� �� ,^
� �\ J
O J
�o�y ___ __ � X
�, -� �'1� ���
m N ��, ` � � I I
�
0 �) /b� �
i� � \�� � �
�,a
Y ` N , ` � l.)N
� K W w �� G
...., Z = Z � W � N� N a ` ` •����
\
m Om m 2 N Z N� O Y � �
0 Q � W ��n o �?4�``' ` �
w 2 W 4] L.� Z ZW O z tI/ �� ` \
{=/1 � y �r � F J Z N � ' `„�
.. Q 3 Q W � � Q r �
3 3 Z Z o d � � r'�� � �
� � � � � � 1 � � � ��
� Z � � � pJ pJ •�p�. � 1I� ♦
� N � U 4. L� � �� ` �I
I ! 1 � � o
2 68'blZ M„SS,l�.9lN
I ' 1 T
I N
II f V I O �a �a j tl
Z ' I < I "
1 <m � J O ii U r � di
W I I � � � - -
C9 � i = : -
W � � ' W � < �
J � i „ =
o H12JON F �
� o
�' �� F o
° �� �
�n n
�
f.^�f
�
�''
P�A4-
�
■�
�
(�
��
��
NbN:
��
IWtli:
1�
1cpFF
��
141�
ee�ee
a�r
Is�
+aw
!�
��
' Sa/em Lutheran Church and Schoo/Specific Plan EnvironmentallmpactAnalysis
Draft EIR Hydro/ogy and Water Quality
A HCOC is a combination of upland hydrologic conditions and stream biological and physical
conditions that presents a condition of concern for physical and/or biological degradation of streams.
In the North Orange County permit area, a change to a site's hydrologic characteristics would be
considered a HCOC if the change would have a significant impact on downstream natural channels
and habitat integrity. The MS4 Permit requires an evaluation of potential impacts based on a 2-year
frequency storm event. A project would have a HCOC if one of the following conditions were
present:
• Increases in runoff volume;
• Decreases in infiltration;
• Potential increases in post-development downstream erosion; and
• Potential for adverse downstream impacts on physical structure, aquatic and riparian habitat.
A project does not have a HCOC if either of the following conditions is met:
• The volumes and time of concentration of storm water runoff for the post-development
condition do not significantly exceed those of the predevelopment condition for a 2-year
� frequency storm event(a difference of 5% or less is considered insignificant).
• The site infiltrates at]east the runoff from a 2-year storm event.
If a HCOC exists,the project shall implement onsite or regional hydromodification controls such that:
• Post-development runoff volume far the 2-year frequency storm does not exceed that of the
pre-development condition by more than 5%, and
• Time of concentration(Tc)of post-development runoff for the 2-year storm event is not less
than that for the pre-development condition by more than 5%.
A preliminary hydromodification analysis was prepared for the proposed project. Results are
summarized in the following subsections, and detailed calculations are provided in Appendix F.
As previously mentioned, runoff from the project site drains into Handy Creek, which ultimately
- discharges into Santiago Creek approximately 2,000 feet northwest of the project site. Santiago
Creek exists as an earthen channel stabilized with riparian vegetation within the Handy Creek
discharge point. In addition,there are two existing dams,which have major influence on the Santiago
Creek in channel discharge and sediment transport. The Santiago Reservoir is located approximately
5 miles upstream of the project site. The Villa Park Dam is located approximately 2 miles upstream
� of the project site.
Michael Brandman Associates 4.5-9
H�\Client(PN-IN)\3771\37710001�EIIL\9-DEIR\37710001 Sec04-OS Hydrology.doc
Salem Lutheran Church and School Specific P/an
Hydro/ogy and Water Quality Draft EIR
Hydrologic calculations to evaluate surface water runoff associated with the 2-year storm frequency
were performed for the project site, in accordance with the Orange County Hydrology Manual
��
(Rational Method, Expected Value). Results of the analysis are summarized in Table 4.5-3 through
Table 4.5-5 below including peak flow,time of concentration and volumes. Detailed calculations are
provided in Appendix F. �*
Table 4.5-3: 2-Year Storm Event Conditions (Hydromodification) -Peak Flow Rate (Q) ��
,�
Existing Condition Proposed Condition
Project Acreage Peak Flow Peak Flow Difference � Percent Change �
6.03 4.64 cfs 4.84 cfs +0.2 cfs +4.3% ""�
Notes: ��
cfs=cubic feet per second
�w�r
���
Table 4.5-4: 2-Year Storm Event Conditions (Hydromodification)-Time of Concentration (Tc)
„�
Area Existing Condition Proposed , �.,,;
Designation ! Tc(min) Condition Tc Difference Percent Change
_ ____ _ _ _ _ _ __ _
A 11.66 12.53 +0.87 +7.5% '�""
B l 5.07 l 5.18 +0.11 +.7% "�`
C 16.31 10.50 -5.81 -36% i�s
D 6.02 l 0.72 +4.7 +7g% �..�
E 11.4 11.40 No change 0% A�„
F 0.13 5.57 +5.44 >100%
��
Notes:
min=minutes ��
��
Table 4.5-5: 2-Year Storm Event Conditions (Hydromodification)-Volume "'�
_ ;,�
Existing Condition Proposed Condition Percent
Project Acreage Volume Volume Difference Change �..�
_ _
6.03 Acres 038 ac-ft 0.41 aaft +0.03 ao-ft +7.g% ;�.„
Notes:
ao-ft=acre feet "'"
��
The results of the 2-year hydrology analysis found that implementation of the proposed
redevelopment project would result in a slight increase in peak flow runoff and will remain within 5% tl'
of existing conditions. For Time of Concentration (Tc),the majority of the drainage areas will see an t�
increase in Tc thereby minimizing the impacts to downstream receiving waters. The 2-year volume ,��.
analysis indicates the proposed condition will result in an increase of 7.8% increase, which exceeds
��
the 5%threshold so therefore, infiltration of the 0.03 ac-ft onsite is required. Infiltration of the excess
;��.:
4.5-10 Michael Brandman Associates ,,,�
H:\Client(PN-JN)\3771\37710001�EIR\9-DEIIi\37710001 Sec04-OS Hydrology-doc �
�s..:
Salem Lutheran Church and School Specific Plan Environmental lmpact Analysis
Draft EIR Hydro/ogy and Water Qualiry
volume of approximately 0.03 acre-feet(1,307 cubic feet)will be achieved through the full
infiltration of the design capture volume required for water quality treatment(13,155 cubic feet)
because the design capture volume exceeds the hydromodification volume. Implementation of this
project design feature would result in less than significant impacts to Santiago Creek with respect to
hydromodification. Further details on the design of the infiltration systems for hydromodification
_ will be provided in the Final WQMP.
Offsite Receiving Waters
Handy Creek is adjacent to the western site perimeter and drains into Santiago Creek northwest of the
project site and ultimately into the Santa Ana River, a tributary to the Pacific Ocean. As described
above, runoff from the project site sheet flows to Frank Lane, flows along the western extent of Frank
Lane and discharges into Handy Creek. Handy Creek flows underground through box culvert
(Facility Number E08S06) and discharges directly into Santiago Creek, which in turn enters the
� Lower Santa Ana River(Salem Lutheran Church and School Specific Plan 2010) and ultimately
flows to the Pacific Ocean.
The project site is located within the boundaries of the Santa Ana River Watershed. This reach of
Santiago Creek is not listed on the SWRCB's 2008-2010 Section 303(d)List of impaired water
bodies compiled pursuant to Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act(CWA)nor is Handy Creek.
However, Reach 2 of the Santa Ana River, which the project ultimately discharges into via Santiago
Creek, is now listed on the State Water Resources Control Board's 2008-1020 list of impaired water
bodies for indicator bacteria pursuant to Section 303(d) of the CWA.
Water Quality
No water quality treatment features or water quality facilities currently exist on the project site.
Currently, stormwater discharged from the project flows untreated into Handy Creek. Hydrocarbons,
vehicular pollutants (brake dust,tire rubber),trash and debris, are presumed to be present in the storm
water flows. Additionally,pesticides and herbicides from landscaping activities may also be present
in runoff from the project site.
� Table 4.5-6 provides anticipated and potential pollutants generated onsite and offsite, by land use
- type. Please note that the onsite "commercial development" and "parking lot" land use types,while
not commercial uses per se, most closely match the proposed Salem Lutheran Church and School
Specific Plan(Salem Specific Plan)project land uses.
Michael Brandman Associates 4.5-11
H.\Client(PN-JN)\3771\37710001�EIIt\9-DEIlt\3771000I Sec04-OS Hydrology.doc
Sa/em Lutheran Church and Schoo/Specific P/an
Hydro/ogy and Water Quality Draft E/R
Table 4.5-6: Anticipated and Potential Pollutants Generated by Land Use Type
,_
Priority Project - Not Expected to be of
Source j Category Expected to be of Concern ; Concern
_ __.
-
Onsite Commercial Suspended Solid/Sediments Nothing listed
Development and Nutrients .-.
Parking Lot Heavy Metals
Pathogens(Bacteria/Virus) � ��
Pesticides
p.,u�.
Oil and Grease
Toxic Organic Compounds
Trash and Debris=
Offsite Detached Residential Suspended Solid/Sediments Heavy Metals �
Development Nutrients Toxic Organic Compounds ,�.
Pathogens(Bacteria/Virus)
Trash and Debris ,�
Pesticides
Oil and Grease �-����
Source:Table 21 from the Technical Guidance Document for the Preparation of Conceptual/Preliminary and/or Project ..«
Water Quality Management Plans(WQMPs),May 19,2011 website:http://www.ocwatersheds.com
/Documents/OC_TGD_5-19-I l.pdf. Accessed September 7,201 L
�
F/ooding =r..
Historic site development adjacent to and in the vicinity of Handy Creek has altered the natural „�
drainage patterns resulting in occasional flooding to adjacent and nearby properties along portions of
�a
Handy Creek. In addition, illegal dumping of concrete and other debris may have contributed to
occasional flooding. The OPA Plan describes certain areas along Handy Creek subject to inundation. �"�
Exhibit ]1 of the OPA Plan shows that the project site falls outside of the identified flood area. '"`�
Although the project site is located near Handy Creek and Santiago Creek, it has a Federal ,,,�
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)Zone"X" designation, which is an area determined to be
,.�..
outside of the 0.2 percent annual chance floodplain (Salem Lutheran Church and School Specific Plan
2010). '"�`
,a��
As detailed on hazard maps published in the City of Orange General Plan,the proposed project area is
not located within the 100-year flood plain associated with Santiago Creek,the Santa Ana River, or ��
any other water body including Handy Creek. Additionally,per the City of Orange General Plan, the �
closest dam to the proposed project site is the Villa Park Dam, which is located approximately two ""
miles from the project site. Santiago Dam impounds Irvine Lake and is located approximately 3.8 «�
miles from the project site. No potential impacts have been identified in the City of Orange General ��,
Plan related to flooding as a result of the failure of the Villa Park or Santiago dams.
4.5.3 - Regulatory Setting „�
There are three agencies that regulate activities within inland streams, wetlands, and riparian areas in ���
California: the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers(USACE),the California Department of Fish and ��
Game (CDFG), and the RWQCB. Any proposal that involves impacts to drainage courses ar streams
$�:6.
4.5-12 Michael Brandman Associates e,�
H�.\Client(PN-JN)\3771\37710001�EIR\9-DEIR\37710001 Sec04-OS Hydrology.doc
Salem Lutheran Church and School Specific Plan Environmental Impact Ana/ysis
Draft E/R Hydro/ogy and Water Quality
on the project site through filling, stockpiling, conversion to a storm drain, channelization, bank
stabilization, road, or utility crossing, or any other modifications may require permits from the
USACE, CDFG,and/or the RWQCB. The federal, State, and local regulatory settings are described
in more detail below.
Federal
The water quality standards for all waters in the State are established under the applicable provisions
of Section 303 ofthe Federal CWA and the State Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act. The
SWRCB and the RWQCB are responsible for assuring implementation of, and compliance with,the
provisions ofthe CWA and the Porter-Cologne Act.
Federal Clean Water Act
Section 303 of the Clean Water Act(CWA) requires that states adopt water quality standards for all
surface waters of the United States. Section 304(a) of the Federal CWA requires that the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)publish water quality criteria that accurately reflect the most
current scientific knowledge regarding the effects on health and welfare from the presence of
pollutants in the surface water. Where multiple uses occur, water quality standards must protect the
most sensitive land use. Typically, water quality standards are numeric, although narrative criteria
may be used where numerical standards cannot be established or where they are needed to
supplement numerical standards. States are required to adopt numerical water quality standards for
toxic pollutants for which the EPA has published water quality criteria and which could be expected
to interfere with designated uses in a water body.
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permits
The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit system was established in the
CWA to regulate municipal and industrial discharges to the surface Waters of the United States. Each
NPDES permit contains limits on allowable concentrations and mass emissions of pollutants
contained in the discharge. Section 402 of the CWA contains general requirements regarding NPDES
permits. Section 307 of the CWA describes the factors the EPA must consider in setting effluent
limits for priority pollutants.
Amendments adopted in 1972 to the CWA prohibit the discharge of pollutants to navigable waters
from a point source (discharge from a single conveyance such as a pipe)unless the discharge is
authorized by an NPDES permit. In 1987, in recognition that diffuse or non-point sources were
significantly impairing surface water quality, Congress amended the CWA to address non-point
source stormwater runoff pollution in a phased program requiring NPDES permits for operators of
municipal separate storm sewer systems (MS4s),construction projects, and industrial facilities. Phase
, I, approved in 1990, reyuired municipal permits for MS4s generally serving populations over
100,000, construction pertnits for projects five acres or greater, and industrial permits determined by
certain Standard Industrial Classification Code.
Michael Brandman Associates 4.5-13
H.\Client(PN-JN)\3771\3'7710001�EIR\9-DEIR\37710001 SecA4-05 Hydrology.doc
Sa/em Lutheran Church and Schoo/Specific P/an
Hydro/ogy and Water Quality Draft E/R
In December 1999,the EPA finalized Phase II of the NPDES program, which requires that operators
of MS4s located in urban areas implement programs and policies to control polluted stormwater
.�
runoff through the use of NPDES permits. In addition, Phase II includes small construction activities
that result in land disturbances of equal to or greater than one acre and less than five acres within the
NPDES program. ^�
The purpose of the NPDES program is to establish a comprehensive water quality program to manage
stormwater in order to minimize pollution of the environment to the maximum extent practicable. �
The NPDES program consists of characterization of the receiving water quality; identification of M'
harmful constituents; identification of potential sources of pollutants; and, implementation of a ..�
Comprehensive Stormwater Management Program. One of the primary objectives of water quality �
regulations, including the NPDES program is the reduction of pollutants and sediments in stormwater
runoff to the maximum extent possible through the use of Best Management Practices (BMPs). �
There are two categories of BMPs: structural BMPs and non-structural BMPs. Structural BMPs �,
involve the specific construction, modification, operation, maintenance, or monitoring of facilities to
minimize the introduction of pollutants from the drainage system. Non-structural BMPs are
activities, programs, and other non-physical measures that would contribute to the reduction of '"'�
pollutants from non-point source pollutants to the drainage system. ���
State "'�
In California,the regulation, protection, and administration of water quality are carried out by the �
SWRCB and nine California RWCQBs. The State is divided into nine regions due to regional issues �"*
related to water quality and quantity. In compliance with Section 303 of the C WA and the Porter- �=�
Cologne Water Quality Control Act, each RWQCB is required to adopt a Water Quality Control Plan
�
or Basin Plan which recognizes and reflects regional differences in existing water quality, the
beneficial uses of the region's ground and surface water, local water quality conditions and problems, �
and Total Maximum Daily Loads(TMDL). The project site is located within the Santa Ana Region, '�
which is addressed in the Water Quality Control Plan for the Santa Ana Basin, dated January 24, ��
1995, updated in 2008. The Santa Ana Basin Plan is designed to preserve and enhance water quality �
and protect the beneficial uses of its regional waters. The Santa Ana RWQCB has the authority to
�
implement water yuality protection standards through the issuance of permits to waters within its
jurisdiction.
�.ww
��
States are required to develop a Total Maximum Daily Load(TMDL)to address each pollutant
�
causing impairment. A TMDL defines how much of a pollutant a water body can tolerate and still
meet water yuality standards. Each TMDL must account for all sources of the pollutant, including: ��
discharges from wastewater treatment facilities; runoff from homes, forested lands, agriculture, and "�'
streets or highways; contaminated soils/sediments, legacy contaminants such as DDT and PCBs �
onsite disposal systems(septic systems) and deposits from the air. Federal regulations require that
�
the TMDL, at a minimum, account for contributions from point sources (permitted discharges)and
�
4.5-14 Michae/Brandman Associates „�,
H:\Client(PN-JN)\3771\37710001�EIIL\9-DEIIt\37710001 Sec04-OS Hydrology_doc
Salem Lutheran Church and School Specific Plan Environmental Impact Analysis
Draft EIR Hydrology and Water Quality
contributions from non-point sources, including natural background. In addition to accounting for
past and current activities, TMDLs may consider projected growth that could increase pollutant
levels. TMDLs allocate allowable pollutant loads for each source, and identify management
measures that, when implemented,will assure that water quality standards are attained.
The Santa Ana RWQCB administers the NPDES permit requirements for the project area, including
the project site. As discussed above, in 1990,the EPA established Phase I of the NPDES stormwater
program to address discharges from construction activities disturbing five acres or more of land. In
1992,the State adopted a related NPDES General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated
with Construction Activities(Construction Activities General Permit) for projects greater than five
acres in size. The permit required applicable projects have a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan
(SWPPP). The SWPPP specifies BMPs that would prevent construction pollutants from contacting
stormwater with the intent of keeping all products of erosion from moving offsite into receiving
waters; eliminates or reduces non-storm water discharges to storm sewer systems and waters of the
State; and, provides a monitaring program for the routine inspection of all BMPs.
ln 1999,the State adopted the NPDES General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with
Construction Activities (Construction Activities General Permit) (SWRCB Order No 99-08-DWQ,
NPDES CAS000002) which requires the development and implementation of a SWPPP for
applicable projects,where the threshold was reduced from 5 acres or greater of soil disturbance, set
by the 1992 General Construction Permit,to l acre or greater of soil disturbance. The SWPPP is
required to achieve two major objectives: to help identify the sources of sediment and other pollutants
that affect the quality of storm water discharges; and,to describe and ensure the implementation of
BMPs to reduce or eliminate sediment and other pollutants in stormwater and non-stormwater
discharges.
The State Water Resources Control Board issued Order No. 2009-0009-DWQ in September 2009,
which has been in effect since July 2010. This current General Construction Permit supersedes Order
No. 99-08-DWQ. This order regulates stormwater runoff and urban runoff, which includes storm
water and authorized non-storm water discharges from traditional construction activities such as
residential, commercial and industrial development, as well as linear underground/overhead
construction projects. Order No. 2009-0009-DWQ authorizes the discharge of storm water runoff
from construction projects that may result in land disturbance of one (l) acre or more (or less than
one acre, if it is part of a larger common plan of development or sale which is one acre or more).
Unlike its predecessors,this General Construction Permit classifies construction sites under three
Risk Levels. Risk Level ] sites are subject to requirements similar to those established in Order No.
99-08-DWQ. Risk Leve12 sites are subject to Numeric Action Levels(NALs)for pH and turbidity,
in addition to Risk Level 1 requirements. Risk Leve13 sites are subject to Numeric Effluent Limits
(NELs), in addition to Risk Level ] and 2 requirements. Project Risk Levels are determined by the
project's sediment discharge risk and its receiving water risk. The discharger shall develop a Storm
Michael Brandman Associates 4.5-15
H-\Client(PN-JN)\3771\37710001�EIIL\9-DEIIL\37710001 Sec04-OS Hydrology doc
H dro/o Salem Lutheran Church and Schoo/Specific P/an
y gy and Water Quality Draft E/R
Water Pollution Prevention Plan(SWPPP) and a construction site monitoring program prior to the
commencement of any of the construction activities,to be implemented until project completion.
Local
The 1987 Amendment to the CWA required municipalities to obtain NPDES permits for storm water
discharges to storm drain systems. In 1990,the County of Orange, County Flood Control District,
and incorporated cities(including Orange) received a regional NPDES permit. A "Second Term"
permit was renewed in 1996. A "Third Term"permit was adopted in 2002 and a fourth term permit �
was adopted in May 2009 (Order No. R8-2009-0030). '
���
Orange County is within two RWQCB jurisdictions. Northern and Central Orange County are in the
iiai„
Santa Ana RWQCB. Southern Orange County is in the San Diego RWQCB. The City of Orange is
within the jurisdiction of the Santa Ana RWQCB. �'""
City of Orange i
Drainage Area Management Plan �'"'
In accordance with the Fourth Term Permit,the Drainage Area Management Plan(DAMP) is Orange ��
County's principal policy and guidance document for the NPDES program. The County and ,,,�
stakeholders created the DAMP, which has been in effect since 1993, with subsequent updated
elements. The latest revision of the DAMP by the County of Orange was in 2007 and the DAMP is
un ergoing further revisions at this time.
�
The NPDES Permit through the Orange County Drainage Area Management Plan (DAMP)requires
���
cities and counties to develop a Local Implementation Plan(LIP)to mitigate illegal discharges into
the municipal separate storm sewer systems (MS4). The programs include inspections of commercial
and industrial properties, inspection and cleaning of storm water pipelines, construction, inspection, "�"
new development/redevelopment review, and responding to illegal discharges. ��;
Local Implementation Plan ""'
The Local Implementation Plan(LIP) describes how the City of Orange will comply with the NPDES "'�`
permit. The LIP requires development and significant redevelopment projects within the City to ,,,�,,
submit a Water Quality Management Plan(WQMP). The City of Orange updated their LIP for �
Section 7:New Development/Redevelopment in July 2011.
��
Water Quality Management Plan „�
A project's WQMP is used to manage the quality of storm water/urban runoff from a developed site
after construction is complete and when the project is operational. A Project WQMP describes BMPs #�
that will be used throughout the life of the project and are used to prevent and minimize water �ry�£
pollution that can be caused by storm water or urban runoff. The City of Orange requires all "'""'
development projects requiring discretionary approval to prepare and implement either Priority ar =�
Non-Priority WQMPs as part of the NPDES program to reduce/eliminate water pollution caused by ��,
runoff from developed sites. The proposed project is considered a Priority Project because it is a
akr:.
4.5-16 Michae/Brandman Associates ,,,�
H:\Client(PN-JN)\3771\377100011EIIL\9-DEIIi\37710001 Sec04-OSHydrology.doc
Sa/em Lutheran Church and School Specific Plan Environmental/mpact Analysis
Draft EIR Hydrology and Water Qualiry
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). A preliminary Priority
WQMP must be submitted as a component of the project's application for a discretionary project.
Final Project WQMPs must be approved before issuance of building or grading permits. A Project
WQMP and BMPs must be based on the Orange County Model WQMP. A Project WQMP typically
consists of the following four types of BMPs, which are listed and described below(City of Orange,
2011). Refer to the City of Orange WQMP website for additional information.
1. Low Impact Development BMPs- Project features that are designed to mimic
predevelopment site hydrology and include (1) infiltration(permeable pavement,porous
landscaping, infiltration beds, etc), (2)harvest and reuse (cisterns and rain barrels), (3)
evapotranspiration(landscaping), or(4) bio-treatment(biofiltration and bioretention). LID
BMPs must be selected based on a hierarchy that considers infiltration as the top tier level of
� treatment that must be maximized on-site to the maximum extent practicable. If a portion of
the Design Capture Volume(DCV) is not feasible to infiltrate, then harvest and use must be
evaluated before evapotranspiration and biotreatment. Bio-treatment can be selected once
infiltration, harvest and use and evapotranspiration have been maximized on-site and a
portion of the DCV still remains.
2. Site Design BMPs - Project features that include conserving natural areas, minimizing
impermeable surfaces, minimizing directly connected surfaces, and creating zero discharge
� areas. Examples include directing roof drains to landscaped areas, minimizing street widths
and clustering development.
3. Source Control BMPs - Activities or structures aimed at eliminating or minimizing contact
between pollutant sources and rainfall or runof£ Examples include education, sweeping,
litter collection, and the use of awnings or tarps to cover materials stored outdoars.
4. Treatment Control BMPs- Engineered devices or systems incorporated into the project's
drainage system to remove and filter pollutants from runoffbefore it leaves the project site.
Examples are catch basin filters, vortex separators and media filter cartridges. Treatment
control BMPs can only be implemented if LID BMPs are proven infeasible due to the
� project's site constraints.
4.5.4 - Proposed Water Quality Conditions
Short-Term Operations
Clearing, grading, excavation and construction activities associated with the proposed project may
impact water quality due to sheet erosion of exposed soils and subsequent deposition of particulates in
local drainages. Grading activities, in particular, lead to exposed areas of loose soil, as well as
sediment stockpiles,that are susceptible to uncontrolled sheet flow. Although erosion occurs
naturally in the environment, primarily from weathering by water and wind action, improperly
Michael Brandman Associates 4.5-17
H\Client(PN-7N)\3771\37710001�EIIt\9-DEIR\37710001 Sec04-OS Hydrology.doc
Salem Lutheran Church and School Specific Plan
Hydrology and Water Quality Draft E/R
�
managed construction activities can lead to substantially accelerated rates of erosion that are
considered detrimental to the environment.
�
Genera/Construction Permit
Prior to the issuance of grading permits,the applicant shall provide evidence that the dev�,lopment of �,�
the project shall comply with the most current General Construction Permit(GCP) and associated
local NPDES regulations to ensure that the potential for soil erosion is minimized on a project-by-
project basis. In accordance with the updated GCP (Order No. 2009-0009-DWQ),the following �
Permit Registration Documents (PRDs) are reyuired to be submitted to the SWRCB prior to �M
commencement of construction activities: �
�.
• Notice of Intent(NOI)
• Risk Assessment(Standard or Site-Specific) '"""'
� Particle Size Analysis(if site-specific risk assessment is performed) �
• Site Map ,,,,�
• SWPPP
• Post-Construction Water Balance Calculator(not required—project is covered under the North
�
Orange County MS4 permit Order No. R9-2009-0030)
• Active Treatment System (ATS) Design Documentation (if ATS is determined necessary) �
• Annual Fee & Certification �
�:
The updated GCP, Order No. 200-0009-DWQ, uses a risk-based approach for controlling erosion and
�
sediment discharges from construction sites, since the rates of erosion and sedimentation can vary
�;
from site to site depending on factors such as duration of construction activities, climate, topography,
soil condition, and proximity to receiving water bodies. The updated GCP identifies three levels of *�
risk with differing requirements, designated as Risk Levels 1, 2 and 3, with Risk Level ] having the r�
fewest permit requirements and Risk Level 3 having the most-stringent reyuirements.
�
The Risk Assessment incorporates two risk factors for a project site: sediment risk(genera] amount of "�
sediment potentially discharged from the site) and receiving water risk(the risk sediment discharges ,,,,,
can pose to receiving waters). Sediment risk from a project site is determined utilizing a derivative of ,�
the Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation (RUSLE), a model developed by the US Department of
�
Agriculture(USDA) and is utilized by the US EPA for estimating rates of soil loss at construction
sites during rain events. Utilizing RUSLE,the sediment risk for the project site is thus determined by `�'`
the following equation: �
�
A=(R)(K)(LS)(C)(P) �
Where:
�
A=rate of sheet and rill erosion, in tons/acre
�
R=rainfall-runoff erosivity factor
�
4.5-18 Michae/Brandman Associates ,,,,,
H\Client(PN-1N)\3771\37710001�EIIL\9-DEIIL\37710001 Sec04-OSHydrology_doc
Salem Lutheran Church and School Specific P/an Environmental Impact Analysis
Draft E/R Hydrology and Water Quality
K= soil erodibility factor
LS = length-slope factor
C = cover factor(erosion controls)
P=management operations& support practices (sediment controls)
The resultant risk of soil loss(A), measured in tons per acre, is then categorized as Low, Medium, or
High based on the following breakdown:
A < 15 tons/acre= Low Sediment Risk
A> 15 and <75 tons/acre=Medium Sediment Risk
A> 75 tons/acre=High Sediment Risk
The second risk factor in performing a Risk Assessment is Receiving Water Risk. The Receiving
Water Risk is based on whether or not the project site drains to a sediment-sensitive water body or a
� water body with spawning, reproduction, and development(SPAWN), cold freshwater habitat
(COLD), and fish migration(MIGRATORY)beneficial uses as designated in the region's Basin Plan.
The GCP identifies a High Receiving Water Risk if the project's receiving water meets at least one of
the above characteristics. If the project does not discharge to a water body that meets one of the
above categories, it is considered a Low Receiving Water Risk. The receiving water conditions that
result in a High Receiving Water Risk are summarized below:
• The disturbed area discharges (either directly or indirectly)to a 303(d)-listed water body
impaired by sediment.
• The disturbed area discharges to a water body that has a US EPA-approved TMDL
implementation plan for sediment.
� The disturbed area discharges to a water body with designated beneficial uses of SPAWN,
COLD, & MIGRATORY per the region's Basin Plan (see Section 3.2 for beneficial uses
related to the Project).
The resultant risk levels for Sediment Risk and Receiving Water Risk is then assessed in a matrix to
determine the combined risk level, based on a scale of 1 to 3. The combined risk level matrix is
presented as Table 7, Construction Site Risk Level Matrix(Table 4.5-7).
Michae/Brandman Associates 4.5-19
H-\Client(PN-JN)\3771\37710001�EIIt\9-DEIIt\37710001 Sec04-OS Hydrology.doc
Salem Lutheran Church and Schoo/Specific P/an
Hydrology and Water Quality Draft EIR
��
Table 4.5-7: Combined Risk Level Matrix
_ __ _ _ _
Sediment Risk �
__ --- _ __
Low Medium High .
_ _ � _ _
Receiving Low Level l Leve12
�
Water Risk High Leve12 Leve13
�
Based on the Risk Level a project falls under, different sets of regulatory requirements are applied to a,.
the site. The main difference between Risk Levels 1, 2, and 3 are the numeric effluent standards. In
�
Risk Level 1,there are no numeric effluent standard requirements, as it is considered a low Sediment
Risk and low Receiving Water Risk(see matrix above). Instead, narrative effluent limits are �
prescribed. In Risk Leve12,Numeric Action Levels (NALs) of pH between 6.5-8.5 and turbidity �
below 250 NTiJ are prescribed in addition to the narrative effluent limitations found in Risk Level 1 �
requirements. Should the NAL be exceeded during a storm event,the discharger is required to
�
immediately determine the source associated with the exceedance and to implement corrective actions
if necessary to mitigate the exceedance. For a Risk Leve13 site,Numeric Effluent Limits (NELs) are
applied in addition to the narrative and numeric effluent standards prescribed for a Risk Leve12 site. ""'
Based on the location of the proposed Project, the project will not trigger Risk Leve13 requirements. ��
A detailed, site specific Risk Assessment will be performed during the preparation of the final "�'
construction documents but a preliminary analysis was prepared for CEQA purposes. Based on the �""
proposed project,the project's sediment risk level is anticipated to be low or medium and the ,,.,�
receiving water risk is Low since the local receiving waters (Santiago Creek and Santa Ana River) are �
not impaired for sediment. Therefore,the project Risk Level is anticipated to be a Risk Level 2.
Prior to commencement of construction activities, the SWPPP will be prepared in accordance with the
�
site-specific sediment risk analyses based on the final rough grading plans and erosion and sediment "'�
controls proposed for each phase of construction. The phases of construction will define the �
maximum amount of soil disturbed, the appropriate sized sediment basins and other control measures �
to accommodate all active soil disturbance areas and the appropriate monitoring and sampling plans.
,.�,
Post-Construction Activities �
A Project WQMP is required to incorporate BMPs consistent with the Model WQMP and TGD with .�
the primary goal of infiltrating the design capture volume through the use of site design features,
,:.�;
source control and LID features. The goal of LID features is to mimic the site's existing hydrology
by using design measures that capture, store, evaporate, detain and/or infiltrate runoff, including '"""
redirecting runoff to vegetated areas, protecting native vegetation and reducing the amount of �a
impervious surfaces. These techniques may include pocket rain gardens with impervious areas such ,,�
as courtyards and common areas, porous/permeable paving integration into traditional impermeable
�
paved areas, landscaped storm water planters, and use of cisterns for capturing rainwater for re-use
from buildings.
��
��:
4.5-20 Michae/Brandman Associates „�
H:\Client(PN-1N)\3771\37710001�EIIL\9-DEIR\37710001 Sec04-OS Hydrology.doc
a;.:
Sa/em Lutheran Church and Schoo/Specific Plan Environmental Impact Ana/ysis
Draft E/R Hydro/ogy and Water Quality
A summary of the proposed site design BMPs are provided in Table 4.5-8.
Table 4.5-8: Site Design BMPs
Included?
_ __ _ _
Technique Yes ' No If no,state justiflcation.
� Minimize Directly Connected Impervious Areas �� ❑
(DCIAs)(GFactor Reduction)
Create Reduced or"Zero Discharge"Areas � ❑
(Runoff Volume Reduction)'
Minimize Impervious Area/Maximize Permeability � ❑
(C-Factor Reduction)�
Conserve Natural Areas � ❑
(GFactor Reduction)
Notes:
Detention and retention areas incorporated into landscape design provide areas for retaining and detaining storm water
flows,resulting in lower runoff rates and reductions in volume due to limited infiltration and evaporation. Such Site
Design BMPs may reduce the size of Treatment Control BMPs.
The"C Factor"is a representation of the ability of a surface to produce runoff. Surfaces that produce higher volumes of
runoff are represented by higher C Factors. By incorporating more pervious,lower C Factor surfaces into a
development,lower volumes of runoff will be produced. Lower volumes and rates of runoff translate directly to
lowering treatment requirements.
Additional details on each of the site design controls can be found in the PWQMP.
A summary of the proposed non-structural BMPs are provided in Table 4.5-9 below.
Table 4.5-9: Non-Structural Source Control BMPs
Not If Not Applicable, Provide
ID Name Included? Applicable? Brief Reason
N 1 Education for Property Owners, � ❑
Tenants and Occupants
N2 Activity Restrictions � ❑
N3 Common Area Landscape � ❑
Management
N4 BMP Maintenance � ❑
NS Title 22 CCR Compliance(How � ❑
development will comply)
N6 Local Industrial Permit ❑ � The city of Orange does not
� Compliance issue water quality permits.
N7 Spill Contingency Plan � ❑
N8 Underground Storage Tank ❑ � No underground storage tanks
Compliance proposed.
Michae/Brandman Associates 4.5-2f
H-\Client(PN-7N)\3771\37710001�EIIt\9-DED2\377I0001 Sec04-OS Hydrology doc
Salem Lutheran Church and Schoo/Specific P/an
Hydro/ogy and Water Quality Draft E/R
«�
Table 4.5-9 (cont.): Non-Structural Source Control BMPs _
' ' Not If Not Applicable, Provide �
ID � Name ! Included? , Applicable? Brief Reason �
_ __ __ ---- -+-- _. _ _
N9 Hazardous Materials Disclosure ' � ❑
Compliance "`""'
N 10 Uniform Fire Code � � "`
Implementation
�
N11 Common Area Litter Control � ❑
N12 Employee Training � � �
N13 Housekeeping of Loading Docks ❑ � No loading docks proposed. �
N14 Common Area Catch Basin � ❑ ��
Inspection �r
N 15 Street Sweeping Private Streets � ❑ �
and Parking Lots
N16 Retail Gasoline Outlets ❑ � No retail gasoline outlets are �'�
proposed. ,�,
��
Additional details on each of the non-structural source controls can be found in the PWQMP. ��
��
A summary of the proposed structural BMPs are provided in Table 4.5-10 below.
��
Table 4.5-10: Structural Source Control BMPs
w�
i Not If Not Applicable,Provide �°�
ID ; Name ; Inciuded? Applicable? Brief Reason
S 1 Provide storm drain system � �
��
SD-13 stenciling and signage „�
S2 Design and construct outdoor ❑ � No outdoor material starage ��„
SD-34 material storage areas to reduce areas are proposed.
pollution introduction .�
S3 Design and construct trash and � � ��
SD-32 waste storage areas to reduce
pollution introduction +�;,
S4 Use efficient irrigation systems � � ��
SD-12 &landscape design,water
conservation, smart controllers, ���.
and source control
SS Protect slopes and channels and � ❑ ��
provide energy dissipation �
S6 Properly Design: Dock areas ❑ � No dock areas are proposed. "�
SD-31
..�
.wr
..�
4•5'22 Michae/Brandman Associates ��
H�.\Client(PN-JN)\3771�37710001�EIIt\9-DEIIL\37710001 Sec04-OSHydrology.doc
Salem Lutheran Church and School Specific Plan Environmental Impact Analysis
Draft EIR Hydrology and Water Quality
Table 4.5-10 (cont.): Structural Source Control BMPs
, Not If Not Applicable,Provide
ID ' Name Included? ' Applicable? ' Brief Reason
S7 Properly Design: Maintenance ❑ � No vehicle maintenance bays
SD-31 bays are proposed.
S8 Properly Design: Vehicle wash ❑ � No vehicle wash areas are
SD-33 areas proposed.
S9 Properly Design: Outdoor ❑ � No outdoor processing areas
SD-36 processing areas are proposed.
S 10 Properly Design: Equipment ❑ � No equipment wash areas are
wash areas proposed.
S 11 Properly Design: Fueling areas ❑ � No fueling areas are proposed.
SD-30
S12 Properly Design: Hillside ❑ � The project site is not on a
SD-10 landscaping hillside.
S 13 Properly Design: Wash water � ❑
control for food preparation
areas
S 14 Properly Design: Community ❑ � No community car wash racks
car wash racks are proposed.
— Source control measures and ❑ � Not a public agency project.
maintenance measures described
in DAMP Section 5 (Public
Agency Projects Only)
Additional details on each of the structural source controls can be found in the PWQMP
LID Features—Infiltration BMPs
Infiltration BMPs are LID BMPs that capture, store and infiltrate storm water runoff. These BMPs
are engineered to store a specified volume of water and have no design surface discharge(underdrain
or outlet structure) until this volume is exceeded. Examples of infiltration BMPs include infiltration
trenches, bioretention without underdrains, drywells,permeable pavement, and underground
infiltration galleries.
A summary of the proposed LID infiltration BMPs are provided in Table 4.5-11 below.
Michael8randman Associates 4.5-23
H\Client(PN-IN)\3771\37710001�EQL\9-DEIR\37710001 Sec04-OSHydrology.doc
�
Sa/em Lutheran Church and Schoo/Specific P/an ""°`
Hydro/ogy and Water Quality Draft E/R
a.e�
Table 4.5-11: Infiltration
ID Name Included? ""�
_ ___ i
. _.
Bioretention Without Underdrains � �-
Rain Gardens � �,,,,
INF-3
INF-4 Porous Landscaping � �,
Infiltration Planters � �
Retention Swales � �
INF-2 Infiltration Trenches �
,...
INF-1 Infiltration Basins �
.�
INF-5 Drywells �
�«;a
INF-7 Subsurface Infiltration Galleries �
— French Drains �
INF-6 Permeable Asphalt � ""'"4
Permeabie Concrete � '�
Permeable Concrete Pavers � ,�„u,
Other: � „�
��
There will be a significant effort to integrate infiltration LID features within each drainage area(site �
design objectives),thereby providing treatment of low-flow runoff directly at the source and runoff ,,.�
reduction of small (i.e., more freyuent) storm event runof£ Additional details are provided below. p�,
Refer to Table 4.5-12 for a summary of preliminary water quality treatment, located after the
��
discussion of each Drainage Area below. Refer to Exhibit 4.5-1; Preliminary WQMP, for a depiction
of the proposed drainage areas and BMPs. ��
��
Drainage Area `A"
Drainage Area"A"consists ofthe multipurpose field used for occasional overflow parking(113 ��
spaces)and the existing asphalt parking area and recreational overlay. The multipurpose field will be ���
designed as a"zero runoff'site feature for the design capture volume through the use of a specialized =�8�
reinforced turf sufficient enough to meet the design capture volume. A common form of reinforced R�,
turf consists of natural grass with a sand and soil/compost root zone into which is blended a network
of small interlocking mesh elements. The grass roots penetrate the mesh to form a deep anchored �
root system and very stable root zone. The result is a free draining natural grass surface with no `'�
visible structures, having high load bearing capabilities while being suitable for sports play. The i�
mesh root zone distributes the weight of vehicles more efficiently to reduce"rutting"by tire ��,
movement. Additional infiltration subsurface structures may be necessary in conjunction with the
w�
reinforced turf to accommodate the design capture volume, dependent on infiltration rates. Permeable
pavement and/or subsurface infiltration galleries (Contech ChamberMaxx or equivalent)will be �"�
4.5-24 Michae/Brandman Associates ,,,,,
H_\Clien[(PN-JN)\377]\37710001�EIIL\9-DEIR\37710001 Sec04-OS Hydrology.doc ��
xh:,
Sa/em Lutheran Church and Schoo/Specific Plan Environmental Impact Analysis
Draft EIR Hydrology and Water Quality
utilized within the downstream portion of the asphalt parking area designed to the design capture
volume.
Drainage Area "B"
Drainage Area"B"consists of the new sanctuary and worship center. This area will include a
combination of permeable pavement and subsurface infiltration galleries in order to infiltrate the
design capture volume.
Drainage Area "C'
Drainage Area"C"consists of the existing pre-school relocation within the existing onsite vacant
structure at the western end of the site. Along with the renovations of the structure for the preschool,
BMPs will be implemented including infiltration galleries and porous landscaping with infiltration.
Drainage Area "D"
Drainage Area"D"consists of portions of the relocated preschool outdoor area and the proposed
parking lots surrounding the preschool (one existing and one proposed). A combination of parous
pavement and infiltration galleries will be utilized within the parking lot areas and porous landscaping
with infiltration will be utilized along the perimeter of the site within the outdoor preschool area.
Drainage Area "E"
Drainage Area"E"represents a landscaping area adjacent to the service drive. The required
treatment for this area will include porous landscaping.
Drainage Area "F"
Drainage Area"F" consists of the small drainage area associated with the proposed turn-around
adjacent to E. Santiago Canyon Road and the minor tributary areas on either side of the turn-around.
The proposed infiltration BMPs for this drainage area include parous landscaping.
The proposed infiltration features may change during final design including the addition of other
types of infiltration BMPs such as dry wells or the combination of infiltration features may be
adjusted under final design.
Based on the projected ability of the soil to infiltrate the full design capture volume, harvest and use,
bio-treatment BMPs and treatment control BMPs are not proposed. In the event full infiltration of the
design capture volume is not feasible, bioinfiltration techniyues will be utilized which infiltrate to the
maximum extent practicable and then biofiltrate the remaining volume (BMP Fact Sheet INF-4,
�� Technical Guidance Document 2011).
Infiltration BMP Calculations
In accordance with the MS4 permit and the new Model WQMP,the proposed LID BMPs were
evaluated to determine the appropriate footprints and depths required to treat the required Design
Capture Volumes (VLID)from each of the development areas. The Design Capture Volumes
Michael 8randman Associates 4.5-25
H�\Client(PN-JN)\3771\37710001�EIR\9-DEIR\37710001 Sec04-OS Hydrology.doc
Sa/em Lutheran Church and Schoo/Specific Plan
Hydro/ogy and Water Quality Draft E/R
�£
presented in the following table represent the minimum volume of storm water runoff reyuired to be
treated by LID and/or treatment control BMPs for the proposed project. The total Design Capture
��
Volume noted in the table represents the treatment requirement for all of the development areas.
Final design and calculations will be identified and documented during project WQMP development. y
General locations and the footprints of the evaluated BMPs are illustrated in the Conceptual Water �
Quality Exhibit, included in Section VI of the Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan ��
reproduced in this section as Exhibit 4.5-1. Detailed calculations are provided in Appendix F.2.
�
Table 4.5-12: Preliminary Water Quality Treatment Summary �
_ �
Minimum �
Sub- i ` Design „�
Draina�e Runoff j Capture � Treatment
Drainage Area Areas Coefficient ; Volume� ' Mechanism(s) ; LID BMP Sizing ,,�
Infiltration 20.5' x 29' ����
A-1 0.26 961 ft3 structures/ Contech
(1.18 ac) pervious
Drainage Area"A"
pavement ChamberMaxx '""'
�
Infiltration 20' x 100'
A2-A4 0.86 4 079 ft3 structures/ ChamberMaxx or ,�„
(1.53 ac) ' pervious 5,098 sf pervious
pavement pavement ��'
Infiltration 20' x 79' „�,
Drainage Area"B" B1-B2 0.86 3 066 ft3 structures/ ChamberMaxx or
(1.15 ac) ' Permeable 3,832 sf pervious ��
Pavement pavement
�.�
Infiltration 597 sf
Drainage Area"C" C� -C2 0.64 848 ft3 structures/Porous bioretention or ��
(0.43 ac) Landscaping 20' x 29' !�
ChamberMaxx
Infiltration 20' x 43' ��
D 1 -D2 0.86 1 440 ft3 structures/Porous ChamberMaxx or
(0.54 ac) ' 1,O13 sf ""'�
Landscaping
bioretention
►�
Infiltration �,233 sfpervious
D3 (037 ac) 0.86 986 ft3 structures/Porous Pavement or 20' """
Pavement x 29'
ChamberMaxx 4�
Drainage Area"D" ��
D4(0.21 ac) 0.79 51 l ft3 Porous 360 sf
Landscaping bioretention w�
DS (0.10 ac) 0.86 267 ft3 Porous 188 sf
Landscaping bioretention "�
D6(0.06 ac) 0.26 49 ft3 Porous 34 sf bioretention ��
Landscaping
��
D7(0.16 ac) 0.75 371 ft3 Porous 261 sf �
Landscaping biaretention
r��
4.5-26 Michael Brandman Associates ��
H�.\Cli ent(PN-JN)\3771\377]0001�EIIt\9-DEIIi\37710001 Sec04-OS Hydrology.doc �
Salem Lutheran Church and Schoo/Specific Plan Environmental Impact Analysis
Draft EIR Hydrology and Water Quality
Table 4.5-12 (cont.): Preliminary Water Quality Treatment Summary
Minimum
, ; Sub- Design �
; Draina�e Runoff Capture , Treatment �
Drainage Area Areas ' Coefficient , Volume� Mechanism(s) i LID BMP Sizing
Drainage Area"E" 0.06 0.26 49 ft3 porous 34 sf bioretention
Landscaping
Drainage Area"F" F 1 —F2 0.85 529 ft3 Porous 372 sf
(0.24 ac) Landscaping bioretention
Total Design Capture V olume 13,]55 ft3
Notes:
ac-ft=acre feet
�Refer to Section VI of the Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan for locations of the drainage boundaries and lot
designations used for BMP calculations and Exhibit 4.5-1 in this section.
Z Sizing is approximate based on minimum VLID for contributing drainage areas of proposed for development.
3 Detailed calculations are provided in Appendix F.
The calculations provided above demonstrate the ability of the proposed LID features to provide the
necessary water quality treatment requirement for the proposed project. Further details on the
selection and design of BMPs will be documented in the Final WQMP prepared during the design and
grading phases of the proposed project. The implementation of additional LID features such as
Hydrologic Source Controls (HSCs)as part of the project-specific design will also lower the
treatment BMP sizing requirements. For those BMP features that differ from the specific
characteristics of the BMPs described above, a similar approach will be utilized to quantify the
specific treatment capability of the feature and how it will be utilized to satisfy water quality
requirements, and will be documented in the Final WQMP.
Maintenance reyuirements for each of the proposed BMPs (structural, non-structural, and infiltration)
are provided in the Operation and Maintenance Plan (O&M Plan) within the PWQMP.
4.5.5 -Significance Thresholds
Accarding to Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines and the City's Local CEQA Guidelines, a
project would normally have a significant effect on the environment if it would result in the
following:
a) Violate any water quality standards ar waste discharge requirements?
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater
recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local
groundwater table level (e.g.,the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a
level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been
granted)?
Michael Brandman Associates 4.5-27
H�.\Client(PN-7N)\3771\37710001�EIIt\9-DEDt\37710001 Sec04-OS Hydrology.doc
Sa/em Lutheran Church and Schoo/Specific P/an
Hydro/ogy and Water Quality Draft E/R
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the
alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in a substantial
erosion or siltation on-or offsite? �
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the
�
alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate ar amount of
surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or offsite? �
e) 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? �.�
fl Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? �
g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard �
Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? ,�.
h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood �
flows? ,,,,,�
i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, "�'
including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? „�
j) Inundation by seiche,tsunami, or mudflow? ��
k) Potentially impact stormwater runoff from construction activities? ""�'
��
1) Potentially impact stormwater runoff from post-construction activities?
�
m) Result in a potential for discharge of stormwater pollutants from areas of material storage,
vehicle or equipment fueling, vehicle or equipment maintenance (including washing), waste ��
handling, hazardous materials handling or storage, delivery areas, loading docks or other �+�
outdoor work areas? ,�,
n) Result in the potential for discharge of stormwater to affect the beneficial uses of the Ar�
receiving waters? „�
o) Create the potential for significant changes in the flow velocity or volume of stormwater �.�
runoff to cause environmental harm? „�
p) Create significant increases in erosion of the project site or surrounding areas? «,„
s�
4.5.6 - Project Impacts
.�
Impacts Not Found To Be Significant
��
The Initial Study determined that either no impacts or less than significant impacts would result from
the following significance threshold questions from the significance thresholds listed previously in `�
Section 4.5.4: w-
�;�
4.5-28 Michae/Brandman Associates �„�
H�.\Client(PN-J1V)\3771\37710001�EIIL\9-DEIR\37710001 Sec04-OSHydrology.doc
w�.
Sa/em Lutheran Church and School Specific Plan Environmental lmpact Analysis
DraR EIR Hydrology and Water Quality
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater
recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local
groundwater table level (e.g.,the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a
level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been
granted)?
g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard
Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map?
h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood
flows?
i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding,
including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam?
j) Inundation by seiche,tsunami, or mudflow?
m) Result in a potential for discharge of stormwater pollutants from areas of material storage,
vehicle or equipment fueling,vehicle or equipment maintenance (including washing),waste
handling, hazardous materials handling or storage, delivery areas, loading docks or other
outdoor work areas?
Refer to the Initial Study in AppendiX A for a complete discussion.
Potentially Significant Impacts
Significance thresholds deemed to be potentially significant are evaluated individually. Table 4.5-13
below restates the significance threshold and gives the corresponding Draft EIR Impact Number:
Table 4.5-13: Hydrology and Water Quality
Significance Threshold and Corresponding Draft EIR Impact Number
Significance Threshold-Hydrology and Water Quality ', EIR Impact Number
a) Violate any water quality standards ar waste discharge requirements? Impact 4.5-1
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including Impact 4.5-2
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?
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area,including Impact 4.5-3
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?
e) Create ar contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing Impact 4.5-4
or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional
- sources of polluted runoff?
fl Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? Impact 4.5-5
Michael Brandman Associates 4.5-29
H.\Client(PN-IN)\3771\37710001�EIIL\9-DEIR\37710001 Sec04-OS Hydrology.doc
�.
Sa/em Lutheran Church and Schoo/Specific P/an """`
Hydrology and Water Quality Draft E/R
�
Table 4.5-13 (cont.): Hydrology and Water Quality �,.
Significance Threshold and Corresponding Draft EIR Impact Number
�
_
_
Significance Threshold-Hydrology and Water Quality EIR Impact Number -
___ _
k) Potentially impact stormwater runoff from construction activities? Impact 4.5-6 ,�
1) Potentially impact stormwater runoff from post-construction activities? Impact 4.5-7 �,_
n) Result in the potential for discharge of stormwater to affect the beneficial uses Impact 4.5-8
of the receiving waters? ""'
o) Create the potential for significant changes in the flow velocity or volume of Impact 4.5-9
�:.
stormwater runoff to cause environmental harm?
�
p) Create significant increases in erosion of the project site or surrounding areas? Impact 4.5-]0
�w
�
Violate Standards or Requirements
�.
Impact 4.5-1: The project will not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge ,,�,
requirements.
�.
lmpact Analysis
The project's short-term and long-term impacts to water quality standards/waste discharge '""`
requirements are discussed below. �.►
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. '�""
,�
In order to minimize short-term construction related impacts,the project will be required to deploy a �
minimum of BMPs including the following:
o�
• 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 e�
• 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 �"'�"
T�
4.5-30 Michael Brandman Associates ,�
H�VClient(PN-JN)A3771A37710001�EIIt\9-DEIR\37710001 Sec04-OSHydrology.doc
Sa/em Lutheran Church and Schoo/Specific P/an Environmental Impact Ana/ysis
Draft EIR Hydrology and Water Quality
• 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
Additional information regarding the above listed BMP categories can be found in the California
. Stormwater Best Management Practice Handbook, Construction,2009 Edition.
Implementation ofthe 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
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 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)has been
prepared for this project in conformance with the City's LIP and Countywide DAMP.
Based on the proposed site plan and the proposed LID features (See 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 ChamberMaxx ar 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-structural/structural 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 yuality standards.
Level of Significance Before Mitigation
Less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required.
Michael 8randman Associates 4.5-31
H\Client(PN-JN)\3771\37710001�EIIL\9-DEIIi\37710001 Sec04-05 Hydrology.doc
���
Sa/em Lutheran Church and School Specific P/an v"
Hydro/ogy and Water Quality Draft EIR
,�r
Level of Significance After Mitigation
Impacts were determined to be less than significant before mitigation.
Erosion or Siltation
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. !°°
Impact Analysis �
The project's short-term and long-term impacts to drainage patterns and erosion/siltation are µ,,„,
discussed below.
�
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(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 are expected to 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, approximately five ,,,,,,
additional acres of the project site that currently drains to Frank Lane will be redirected to the storm
��
drain system in East Santiago Canyon Road. 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 l4%thereby resulting in slightly lower potential for sediment yield �W,�
generation onsite and lower potential for erosion onsite following the implementation of the proposed
,�
project.
Level of Significance Before Mitigation «�
Less than significant
Mitigation Measures .—�
No mitigation measures are required.
��
4.5-32 Michae/Brandman Associates
H�\Client(PN-JN)\3771\37'710001�EIR\9-DEIR\37710001 Sec04-OSHydrology.doc
M C Q�
�
� � aa
� d' ��
� U�
� .� a a
t C N�
X � OQ
r,I w � �z
,�'� i� rUn�
� �Ip � Z Z
I�/� C Q�
� i =>
R, 0 �W
� •� �
'�P O x
�"`o, • � U
�g . . -.- -.-._ . .___ '_�- � w tt
_ ' - _
& �� _
� ! O�O � I �,�y��.�"� 7
, - .��`_ ._ __ _- -
..__. --F - .. __. t.. -7�-� .____ �
-..., f��^�,, 'a�p - fl__"_ _ '. , _� > �_ '__ __ .._..._ �
.. Z l 'O�18�RlVd 30N'd!!0 �I a
� ; ��S l0'OlC Oq,LI.LlN1��� I �'
� _ � �._ y---"� , � w
TTTT 1 ; (9
Q � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � i � Z
�2'�. � 1 I I 1 I 1 I 1 I 1 I 11 � I 1 I � L_� �
Y
� w... F-- --� � O
. �''y-f-1L �-- --� � ��1
F— i iiiiiiiiiii iiiiii � --� O
� .� . f-- Iilllllllllllillllllll --� I � �
f r-- f+++++++++++++t++++++i --i �
�-" � ' � � � � � � � � I � � � � � � ' � I � ' --� i � �
-my_ I ';; � F � � � � � � __� � �
, !, �-- --i
p L L�_ _—�
�< t1i . -� ii � iiiiii � iii iiiii � � iiiir-' �
J � : iiiiiiiiiiii � i iii � iiiiiiii
(' L111111111111 1111111111� � I I
� " 1
� - oo�o� � � ,
� ��`. � �--�-�-�-4�'.; o0 00 o e ` � I I
Y �` � a I
' �� � � ��
� �r � _ --T--_- _---�_ � �
I �
ej f �.'� - ._ - - , � I
` � - --- ----�----- -----}—-- �•, � ��
, I I
��,,' �, A -. - - -�- - � �
��R ' � � � ____ _— � � I
. _ _,
..,�,,��../,r,_ .. .�� > � � �
j�_�; I
��`� �' � �I � �
�,P�'' / • � i � I
bh:; ; `. � I �
/ — � � I
/ � ' .�,2� �� � _� � � I
�� '�k c'`9t� . -�� �- i � � �
� i i � I �
� �� I
/ • ���` �' � �
� r�y♦ I I �
/ / I I
���
i �' I
/ ��� 6`� - �_(�E�lt I I
��ss f'� -��._._ I
zy�_ l i
��� � I
.00�,� �
% i
i� r a I
� ��I I' ��o I
� �'�I ,
�n e a .'�''.., � I
c9 �'�I - .-u.-, I
_ � i .•,. �
Z � � ;"�o �
� �--� .� � i a
. �;< F,L J � i -
�y ,68'blZ M,SS,lf9lN -
c�' m a
,� Q
`ol
- o
0
a
m - al
� r _ o
NiaoN =
� �� � o
_ o
f°n 2� < n
F.0 i
}i�FR
IIAIy!
k4w
�
�:
�
�
�
�"
�
i�
��
�
��
I�Ws
i,�
t�
��
1YfR
1Fae
s�
.�.
i�
�w�
,.�
.�
:.�
�° Salem Lutheran Church and School Specific Plan Environmental Impact Analysis
Draft EIR Hydrology and Water Quality
Level of Significance After Mitigation
Impacts were determined to be less than significant before mitigation.
Flooding
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.
Impact Analysis
The project's short-term and long-term alteration of drainage patterns are discussed below,related to
flooding on and offsite.
Short-term Operations
Refer to Impact 4.5-2 for a description and assessment of alterations of existing drainage patterns
during construction.
Long-term Operations
Implementation of the project will result in negligible changes to the runoff rates and volumes as
compared to the existing condirion and onsite and onsite flooding potential will remain similar to
existing conditions with the exception of Frank Lane. Drainage will be directed towards East
Santiago Canyon Road to reduce the potential for localized flooding along Frank Lane under the
proposed condition. For the 10-year and 25-year storm events, peak flow runoff will slightly decrease
while the 100-year peak flow rate will increase by 1.9%. Similarly, storm water volumes for these
flood control events will increase with the largest increase represented at the 10-year event(5.4%)
and the smallest increase at 2.3% for the 100-year. Based on the small increases in volume and the
small decreases in peak flow runoff rates,the proposed conditions will largely mimic the existing
conditions and the existing infrastructure will be able to accommodate the proposed runoff
conditions. 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.
Level of Significance Before Mitigation
Less than significant
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required
Level of Significance After Mitigation
Impacts were determined to be less than significant before mitigation.
Michael Brandman Associates 4.5-35
H\Client(PN-JN)\3771\37710001�EIIi\9-DEIR\37710001 Sec04-OS Hydrology.doc
�.
Sa/em Lutheran Church and Schoo/Specif►c P/an `
Hydro/ogy and Water Quality Draft E/R
��
Runoff Water
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.
Impact Analysis ,,,�
The project's short-term and long-term impacts regarding polluted runoff are discussed below.
�
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 Impact 4.5.1.
�:
Long-term Operations �
Impact 4.5.3 provides a discussion and assessment of the changes in project runoff rates and volumes
as a result of the proposed project. One distinct drainage design feature of the proposed project site is
the diversion of additional onsite runoff to East Santiago Canyon Road to relieve localized flooding '�
along Frank Lane. Three alternatives for diverting the additional five acres to E. Santiago Canyon �
Road are discussed below: �
;�.
Alternative "A": Connect a proposed onsite storm system to the existing 36"reinforced concrete
pipe(RCP) drain in Santiago Canyon Road. This line discharges to the existing Handy Creek culvert �r,�
under Santiago Canyon Road. �
Alternative "B": Outlet the onsite storm drain system to the surface of Santiago Canyon Road via a "�"'
parkway culvert that will release flows to the surface and ultimately be collected back into the storm '�
drain system with the existing collection facilities downstream along E. Santiago Canyon Road. ,�,,,
Alternative"C": Install a new storm drain pipe within Santiago Canyon Road westerly and join the i�
existing Handy Creek culvert. ��a�
��
The preferred solution is Alternative "A,"which takes advantage of an existing storm drain and
avoids overland flow in the street. The capacity of this storm drain to accept the additional runoff ��'
will be evaluated for this use during the design phase. The overland street flow or a new"parallel" '�'
storm drain remains as a secondary option. Additionally, compliance with applicable City of Orange <�
development standards and Specific Plan development standards for water quality and meeting ��h
current MS4 Permit requirements for run-off management and quality assurance will reduce impacts
regarding polluted runoff from the project site. Therefore, less than significant impacts related to ��
exceeding the capacity of the planned storm water system would result. °"�"
��
Level of Significance Before Mitigation
Less than significant "�
.�.
�N,.
4.5-36 Michae/Brandman Associates ,,,�
H_\Client(PN-.TN)\3771\37710001�EIIt\9-DEIR\37710001 Sec04-05 Hydrology.doc ��
Salem Lutheran Church and School Specific Plan Environmental lmpact Ana/ysis
Draft EIR Hydrology and Water Quality
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required
Level of Significance After Mitigation
Impacts were determined to be less than significant before mitigation.
Water Quality
Impact 4.5-5: The project will not otherwise substantially degrade water quality.
Impact Analysis
The project's short-term and long-term impacts to water quality are discussed below.
Short-term Operations
Refer to Impact 4.5-1 Short-Term Operations for a discussion and assessment of construction related
impacts on water quality.
Long-term Operations
Implementation of the proposed project will result in changes in impervious/pervious conditions, the
addition ofnew 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.
Level of Significance Before Mitigation
Less than significant
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required
Level of Significance After Mitigation
Impacts were determined to be less than significant before mitigation.
Stormwater Runoff
Impact 4.5-6: The project will not potentially impact stormwater runoff from construction
activities.
Impact Analysis
The project's short-term impacts to storm water runoff are discussed below.
Short-term Operations
During the short-term site construction phase,there would be the potential far surface water runoff to
carry pollutants and sediment into offsite receiving waters such as Santiago Creek and the Santa Ana
Michael Brandman Associates 4.5-37
H-\CIieM(PN-JN)\3771\37710001�EIIL\9-DEIR\37710001 Sec04-OS Hydrology.doc
H dro/o Salem Lutheran Church and School Specific P/an
y gy and Water Quality Drafi E/R
�
River. Table 4.5-14 identifies typical construction site activities and the associated Pollutants of
Concern.
�.
Table 4.5-14: Construction-Related Pollutants
_ �.
Common Non-Visible Pollutants and Water Quality Indicator Constituents
__ . _ __ _ _ __ r.________ ___ _ A
General Work Activity/Potential Pollutants Water Quality Indicators of Potential Constituents
Adhesives COD,Phenols, SVOCs '�
__
Asphalt Work VOCs �
Cleaning �
Acids pH �,
Bleaches Residualchlorine
�
TSP Phosphate
�
Solvents VOCs, SVOCs
�
Detergents MBAS
�
Concrete/Masonry Work
Sealant(Methyl methacrylate) SVOC �`
Curing compounds VOCs, SVOCs,pH "�`
Ash, slag, sand pH,Al,Ca,Va,Zn �
Drywall Cu,Al,General Minerals ��-
Framing/Carpentry i�
Treated Wood Cu,Cr,As,Zn ��
Particle board Formaldehyde
�an
Untreated wood BOD
�.�.
Grading/Earthworks
,�
Gypsum/Lime amendments pH
�.�
Contaminated Soil Constituents specific to known contaminants,check
with Laboratory ��
Heating,Ventilation,Air Conditioning Freon ��
Insulation Al,Zn
�+�.
Landscaping
!�
Pesticides/Herbicides Product dependent,see label and check with
Laboratory �,�e
Fertilizers TKN,NO3,BOD,COD, DOC, Sulfate,NH3, ,�
Phosphate,Potassium
rwe
Aluminum sulfate Al,TDS, Sulfate
��
��
��.
4.5-38 Michae/Brandman Associates �,,,R,
H:\Client(PN-1N)\3771\37710001�EIIt\9-DEDi\37710001 Sec04-OS Hydrology_doc
Sa/em Lutheran Church and Schoo/Specifc P/an Environmental lmpact Ana/ysis
Draft EIR Hydro/ogy and Water Quality
Table 4.5-14(cont.): Table 4.5-1: Salem Lutheran Church and School
Existing Condition Runoff Volume Summary and Peak Flow Rate
Common Non-�sible Pollutants and Water Quality Indicator Constituents
General Work Activity/Potential Pollutants Water Quality Indicators of Potential Constituents
Liquid Waste Constituents specific to materials,check with
Laboratory
Painting
Resins COD, SVOCs
Thinners COD, VOCs
Paint strippers VOCs, SVOCs,metals
Lacquers,varnishes,enamels COD,VOCs, SVOCs
Sealants COD
Adhesives Phenols, SVOCs
PlantingNegetation Management
Vegetation stockpiles BOD
Fertilizers TKN,NO3,BOD, COD, DOC, sulfate,NH3,
Phosphate,Potassium
Pesticides/Herbicides Product dependent, see label and check with
Laboratory
Plumbing
Solder,flux,pipe fitting Cu,Pb, Sn,Zn
Pools and Fountains Residual chlorine, Cu,chloramines
Removal of existing structures Zn,VOCs,PCBs(see also other applicable activity
categories,e.g.,grading,painting)
Roofing Cu,Pb,VOCs
Sanitary Waste
Sewer line breaks and Portable Toilets BOD, Total/Fecal coliform
(using clear fluid—blue fluid is visible if discharged)
Soil Preparation/Amendments/Dust Control
� Polymer/Co-polymers TKN,NO3i BOD,COD, DOC, Sulfate,Ni
Lignin sulfate TDS,alkalinity
Psyllium COD, TOC
Guar/Plant Gums COD,TOC,Ni
Solid Waste(leakage) BOD
Utility Line Testing and Flushing Residual chlorine, chloramines
Vehicle and Equipment Use
Batteries Sulfuric acid;Pb,pH
Michael Brandman Associates 4.5-39
H-\Client(PN-JN)\3771\37710001�EIIL\9-DEQi\37710001 Sec04-OSHydrology.doc
Sa/em Lutheran Church and Schoo/Specific P/an
Hydro/ogy and Water Quality Draft EIR
�.
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 for a list of beneficial uses).
Typical erosion control BMPs used during the construction phase such as hydroseeding, bonded fiber �,,
matrix, 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 Leve12 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.
��
��
Long-term Operations
This discussion does not pertain to long-term operational impacts because only short-term ��
construction activities are addressed. ��r
iw�
Level of Significance Before Mitigation
Less than significant
�r�
,�
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required
,.�
a�
Level of Significance After Mitigation ��,
Impacts were determined to be less than significant before mitigation.
��.
Post-construction Stormwater Runoff „�
Impact 4.5-7: The project will not potentially impact stormwater runoff from post-construction y�
activities.
s�
Impact Analysis
The project's long-term impacts to stormwater runoff are discussed below. ��
��
��
4.5-40 Michael Brandman Associates �,A„
H�.\Client(PN-JN)\3'771\37710001�EIIt\9-DEIIt\37710001 Sec04-OSHydrology.doc
a,;n
'� Salem Lutheran Church and School Specif►c Plan Environmental Impact Analysis
Draft EIR Hydro/ogy and Water Quality
Short-term Operations
This discussion does not pertain to short-term temparary impacts because only post-construction(i.e.
project completion)activities are addressed.
Long-term Operations
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.
Level of Significance Before Mitigation
Less than significant
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required.
Level of Significance After Mitigation
Impacts were determined to be less than significant before mitigation.
Stormwater Affect on Receiving Waters
Impact 4.5-8: The project will not result in the potential for discharge of stormwater to affect the
beneficial uses of the receiving waters.
Impact Analysis
The project's short-term and long-term impacts to beneficial uses of receiving waters are discussed
below.
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 is 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 Geek northwest of the project site. Table 4.5-15 identifies the
beneficial uses associated with Santiago Creek.
Michae/Brandman Associates 4.5-41
H�.\Client(PN-JN)\3771\37710001�EIR\9-DEllt\37710001 Sec04-OS Hydrology.doc
Salem Lufheran Church and School Specific Plan
Hydrology and Water Quality Draft E/R
Table 4.5-15: Beneficial Uses
Designation Description '�"'
_ _ _
__ _
Municipal and Domestic Supply(MLTN) These waters are used for community,military,municipal or
individual water supply systems. These uses may include,but are
� not limited to,drinldng water supply. "'�
Groundwater Recharge(GWR) These waters are used far natural or artificial recharge of �
groundwater for purposes that may include,but are not limited to,
future extraction,maintaining water quality or halting saltwater "`"'
intrusion into freshwater aquifers. �
Water Contact Recreation(REG 1) These waters are used for recreational activities involving body
contact with water where ingestion of water is reasonably '"Q
possible. These uses may include,but are not limited to, „�„
swimming,wading,water-skiing,skin and scuba diving, surfing,
whitewater activities, fishing and use of natural hot springs. ,�
Non-contact Water Recreation(REG2) These waters are used for recreational activities involving �
proximity to water,but not nor►nally involving body contact with
water where ingestion of water would be reasonably possible. �,
These uses may include,but are not limited to,picnicking
sunbathing,hiking,beachcombing, camping, boating,tide pool °1�
and marine life study,hunting sightseeing and aesthetic
enjoyment in conjunction with the above activities. �
Warm Freshwater Habitat(WARM) These waters support warm water ecosystems that may include, �`
but are not limited to,preservation and enhancement of aquatic
habitats,vegetation,fish,and wildlife, including invertebrates. �
Wildlife Habitat(WILD) These waters support wildlife habitats that may include,but are "�
not limited to,the preservation and enhancement of vegetation
and prey species used by waterfowl and other wildlife. "�°'
Source: Santa Ana Region Basin Plan,Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board,February 2008. '°�
�
Implementation of the proposed project with the proposed LID infiltration features and WQMP "'�
(Appendix F.2), 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.
�
Level of Significance Before Mitigation -#�
Less than significant. �
Mitigation Measures �`
No mitigation measures are required �
Leve/of Significance After Mitigation '�
Impacts were determined to be less than significant before mitigation. we
.�.
�
�
4.5-42 Michael Brandman Associates �,
H�.\Client(PN-.!N)\3771\37710001�EIR\9-DEIIt\37710001 Sec04-OSHydrology.doc
�
Salem Lutheran Church and Schoo/Specific Plan Environmental ImpactAnalysis
Drafi E/R Hydro/ogy and Water Quality
Stormwater Runoff Velocity and Volume
Impact 4.5-9: The project will not create the potential for significant changes in the flow velocity
or volume of stormwater runoff to cause environmental harm.
Impact Analysis
The project's short-term and long-term impacts to flow velocity/volume of stormwater runoff are
discussed below.
Short-term Operations
See Impact Discussion 4.5-6 for a discussion of short-term impacts to stormwater runoff.
Long-term Operations
Long-term impacts of flow velocity and volume of storm water runoff are analyzed in 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 0.3 ao-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.
Further details on the design of the infiltration systems for hydromodification will be provided in the
Final WQMP.
Level of Significance Before Mitigation
Less than significant
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required
Level of Significance After Mitigation
Impacts were determined to be less than significant before mitigation.
Michae/Brandman Associates 4.5-43
H-\Client(PN-JN)\3771\37710001�EIIL\9-DE[R\37710001 SecA4-OSHydrology.doc
Sa/em Lutheran Church and Schoo/Specific P/an
Hydro/ogy and Water Quality Draft E/R
�
Increase Erosion
Impact 4.5-10: The project will not create significant increases in erosion of the project site or ,,,�,
surrounding areas.
Impact Analysis
The project's short-term and long-term impacts to erosion of the project site/surrounding areas are '�'�
discussed below. ��:
Short-term Operations ""`
See Impact 4.5-1 for additional details on erosion potential during construction activities.
�
Long-term Operations
See Impact 4.5-1 and 4.5-2 for erosion related assessments for post-construction runof£ �
�
Level of Significance Before Mitigation
Less than significant
�
Mitigation Measures �
No mitigation measures are required
�
Level of Significance After Mitigation ,,�
Impacts were determined to be less than significant before mitigation.
i�
.�,.:
��
��:
,�
��
5�,
A�
9q�
u�v+
��
��
��
Yi(�'.
,i�
ilib
4•5'`� Michael Brandman Associates „�,
H�\Client(PN-1N)\3771\37710001�EIR\9-DEDt\37710001 Sec04-OSHydrology.doc
we�
'' Salem Lutheran Church and School Specific P/an Environmental Impact Ana/ysis
Draft EIR Land Use and Planning
4.6 - Land Use and Planning
4.6.1 - Introduction
Purpose
The purpose of this section is to describe the potentially significant impacts related to land use and
planning. This section also identifies mitigation measures to reduce any potentially significant
impacts and describes the residual impact, if any, after imposition of the mitigation.
Sources
Information in this section is based on the following sources:
• 2010 General Plan, City of Orange,March 9, 2010.
• Orange Park Acres Plan(OPA Plan) or Orange Park Acres Specific Plan(OPA Plan), City of
Orange, September ]973.
• Memo on Processing of Salem Lutheran Church Project, City of Orange, City Attorney's
Office,February 8, 2010 (Appendix B).
• Salem Lutheran Church and School Specific Plan, Michael Madden Associates, Apri130,201]
(Appendix I).
� Master Plan of Recreational Trails, City of Orange, April 27, 1993.
• Comments received during the public comment period. These comments are contained in
Appendix A.
4.6.2 - Environmental Setting
Regional
The project site is located in Southern California and within the Orange County. The site is located
approximately 16 miles inland from the Pacific Ocean and approximately 25 miles from the base of
the San Gabriel Mountains. Orange County is generally located on a coastal plain with connecting
broad valleys and low hills to the east.
Urban development characterizes coastal Southern California. Within Orange County,there are 34
incorporated cities, including the City of Orange (City).
Between 1990 and 2000, Orange County's population increased by approximately 430,000, or
approximately 18 percent. Between 2000 and 2007,the population increased by approximately
310,000, representing an annual population growth of approximately 39,000. The City's population
increased between 1990 and 2006,the City's population increased from approximately 110,000 to
approximately 138,000.
Michael Brandman Associates 4.6-1
H�.\Client(PN-JN)�3771\37710001�EQL\9-DEIR\37710001 Sec04-06 Land Use.doc
Sa/em Lutheran Church and Schoo/Specific P/an
Land Use and P/anning Draft E/R
VlCllllt)/
OPA is characterized by rural development and equestrian activities. Approximately 15 percent of
the lots exceed one acre in size and many residences have private equestrian stables.
Site Conditions �_
The project site is developed with the Salem Lutheran Church and School. The church and campus
site is comprised of 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. The church and campus site is
comprised of �
• Two classroom buildings supporting kindergarten through eighth grade and daycare
• A preschool building(with pre-kindergarten) �
• A multipurpose building '�`
• A grass multipurpose field �
• 153 paved parking spaces ,�
• Two basketball courts within the main parking lot �
• Two playgrounds(within preschool and east of the main parking lot)
�.
• A ]80-seat sanctuary building
• Existing onsite vacant structure (i.e.,the proposed preschool site) �`
,�.
4.6.3 - Regulatory Setting ,,�
Federal
,�
Refer to State regulatory setting below for a discussion on regional transportation plans. �
State ��
The Regional Transportation Plan(RTP) serves as both the Federal and State required regional long- iw�+
range transportation plan for the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG)region „�
through the year 2015 and is the guide for developing the Regional Transportation Improvement
Program. The RTP links the goal of sustaining mobility with the goals of fostering economic ��
development, enhancing the environment, reducing energy consumption, promoting transportation- ��
friendly development patterns, and encouraging fair and equitable access to residents affected by '"�`
socio-economic, geographic, and commercial limitations. ..a,
Regional
��
South Coast Air Quality Management District Air Quality Management P/an `�"
The proposed project is located within the South Coast Air Basin and is therefore within the „�
jurisdiction of the South Coast Air Quality Management District(SCAQMD). In conjunction with ,��
SCAG, SCAQMD is responsible for formulating and implementing air pollution control strategies.
��
The Air Quality Management Plan(AQMP), adopted in 1997 by SCAQMD and SCAG to assist in
��.
4.6-2 Michae/Brandman Associates ,�
H\Clien[(PN-JN)�3771\3'7710001�EIIt\9-DEIR\37710001 Sec04-06 Land Use.doc
x�
Salem Lutheian Church and School Specific P/an Environmental Impact Analysis
Draft EIR Land Use and Planning
fulfilling these responsibilities, is intended to establish a comprehensive air pollution control program
leading to the attainment of State and Federal air quality standards in the South Coast Air Basin and
in portions of the Southeast Desert Air Basin that are within the SCAQMD's jurisdiction,thereby,
addressing the requirements set forth in the state and Federal Clean Air Acts. Refer to Air Quality
section(Section 5.2)for a discussion of the AQMP. In this capacity,the SCAQMD is a responsible
agency under the Guidelines.
Southern California Association of Governments Regional Comprehensive Plan
The proposed project site is located within the SCAG planning area. SCAG is a federal designated
Metropolitan Planning Organization with numerous roles and responsibilities relative to regional
issues that cross jurisdictional boundaries. SCAG also functions as the Areawide Clearinghouse for
projects that are of Statewide, Regional, or Areawide significance per Section 15206 of Guidelines.
In this capacity, SCAG functions as a responding agency. Included in SCAG's responsibilities is
preparation of the Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide (RCPG) in conjunction with its
constituent members and other regional planning agencies. The RCPG provides a general view of the
plans of the various regional agencies that affect local governments and responds to the significant
issues facing Southern California, including growth management. lt is intended to serve as a
framework for decision-making with respect to the growth and changes that can be anticipated by the
year 20l 5 and beyond. In addition,the RCPG proposes a strategy for voluntary use by local
governments, which will assist them in addressing issues related to future growth and in assessing the
potential impacts of proposed development projects within the context of the region. Fourteen sub
regions, including Orange County, have been recognized as partners in the preparation of the RCPG
and have submitted input to ensure that the RCPG reflects local concerns, which form the basis for
the region's planning process.
The RCPG includes five core chapters (Growth Management, Regional Mobility, Air Quality, Water
Quality, and Hazardous Waste Management)which respond directly to the Federal and State
requirements placed on SCAG and form the basis for certification of local plans. Ancillary chapters
within the RCPG (Economy, Housing, Human Resources, and Services, Management) reflect other
regional plans, but do not contain actions or policies required of local governments. The purpose of
the Growth Management Chapter is to present forecasts which establish the socio-economic
parameters for the development of the Regional Mobility and Air Quality Chapters of the RCPG and
to address issues related to growth and land consumption by encouraging local land use actions which
would ultimately lead to the development of an urban form that would help minimize development
� costs, save natural resources, and enhance the quality of life in the region.
Natural Communities Conservation P/an(NCCP) and Habitat Conservation Plan- County of
Orange Central and Coasta/Sub Region
The Natural Community Conservation Planning(NCCP)program was autharized by the California
Natural Community Conservation Planning Act of 1991 (AB 2172) and set forth in Section 2800
et seq. of the California Fish and Game Code. The purpose of the NCCP program is to have a broad-
Michael Brandman Associates 4.6-3
H\Client(PN-JN)\3771\37710001�EIlt\9-DEIIL\37710001 Sec04-06 I.and Use.doc
Sa/em Lutheran Church and School Specifc P/an
Land Use and P/anning Draft E/R
based approach to ecosystem conservation for the protection and perpetuation of biological diversity.
The NCCP program aims to provide regional or area wide protection of plants, animals and their
habitats while continuing to accommodate compatible land uses. This broad-based approach differs F�v�
from the objectives of the California and Federal Endangered Species Act, which focuses on the
preservation of individual species that have already significantly declined in numbers. The NCCP "�'
program establishes an area-wide reserve area for protection of multiple species. In this capacity,the
SCAQMD is a responsible agency under the Guidelines.
The proposed project site is within the Natural Community Conservation Plan & Habitat ��
Conservation Plan (NCCP/HCP) - County of Orange Central & Coastal Subregion, which protects �
natural communities and species while providing certainty to the public and affected landowners with
respect to the location of future development and open space in the subregion. The NCCP/HCP
particularly targets CSS habitat, CSS-obligate species, and other covered habitats and species, and �
mit�gates anticipated impacts to those habitats and species on a programmatic, sub-regional level.
�,,:
�
Local
�:
Orange Park Acres Specific Plan
OPA Plan was adopted by the City Council in December 1973, and identifies the goals, objectives, '�'
policies, and recommended land uses for the Orange Park Acres area. The OPA Plan was adopted to "'�'
serve as the Land Use Element of the City General Plan for that territory covered by the OPA Plan �
located with the City.
��:
The OPA Plan has been incorporated as part of the City General Plan and, as such, is not a "stand ��
alone" document that would reyuire a separate approval process. This distinction is important as 1) ��;
the OPA Plan carries the authority of the City General Plan and 2) a project that proposes to modify
the OPA Plan would actually be amending the City General Plan Land Use Element. �
��
City Genera/Plan
��
The City General Plan was revised in 2009 and adopted by the City Council in March 2010. The City
,.,�
General Plan provides goals, policies, and programs intended to guide future land use and
development decisions within the City. The City General Plan includes the following Elements: Land ��'
Use, Circulation and Mobility,Natural Resources,Public Safety,Noise, Cultural Resources and °�°�
Historic Preservation, Infrastructure, Urban Design, Economic Development, Housing and Growth „�.
Management.
City Master Plan of Recreational Trails ��
Within the City of Orange General Plan Open Space Element,there is a Master Plan of Recreational �,�
Trails that was adopted in 1993. The Plan identifies a network of existing and proposed trails
n�
segments citywide and addresses implementation standards and policies. The overall purpose of the
r�;
Plan is to provide a long-range plan to guide the City in enhancing the recreational opportunities for
the community. ��
��
4.6-4 Michae/Brandman Associates „�,
HVClien[(PN-IN)13771A37710001�OLV9-DEIIL\37710001 Sec04-06 Land Use.doc
fiNi+
Salem Lutheran Church and School Specific Plan Environmental lmpact Analysis
Draft EIR Land Use and Planning
City of Orange Zoning Designations
The Zoning Code of the Orange Municipal Code provides zoning districts and maps that establish and
control development regulations consistent with General Plan Land Use Designations.
City's Tree Preservation Ordinance
The Tree Preservation Ordinance of the Orange Municipal Code protects all trees, regardless of
species,that measure a minimum of 10.5 inches in circumference, measured at a point 24 inches
above the ground. The primary purpose of the subject provisions is to regulate the removal and
destruction of trees from undeveloped and public interest property.
4.6.4 - Significance Thresholds
According to Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines and the City's Local CEQA Guidelines, a
project would normally have a significant effect on the environment if it would result in the
following:
a) Physically divide an established community?
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with
jurisdiction over the project(including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local
coastal program, or zoning ordinance)adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect?
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation
plan?
4.6.5 - Project Impacts
Impacts Not Found To Be Significant
The Initial Study determined that either no impacts or less than significant impacts would result from
the following significance thresholds listed previously in Section 4.6.4:
a) Physically divide an established community?
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation
plan?
Refer to the Initial Study in Appendix A for a complete discussion.
Potentially Significant Impacts
Significance thresholds deemed to be potentially significant are evaluated individually. The list
below restates the significance threshold and gives the corresponding Draft EIR Impact Number:
Michael Brandman Associates 4.6-5
H�.\Client(PN-IN)13771\37710001�EIR\9-DEIlt\37710001 Sec04-06 Land Use.doc
Sa/em Lutheran Church and School Specific Plan
Land Use and P/anning Draft E/R
Table 4.6-1: Land Use and Planning
Significance Threshold and Corresponding Draft EIR Impact Number
�
� EIR Impact
Significance Threshold-Land Use Number '
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan,policy,or regulation of an agency with Impact 4.6-1 °�
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?
�.
Conflict with Plans, Policies, or Regulations ,�,
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.
k�
lmpact Analysis
The following plans, policies, and regulations are evaluated in the following order �
�.
• City Zoning District
�
• OPA Plan
�»
• City General Plan
• City Master Plan for Trails �"""'�
,�
City Zoning District �
Eliminating the existing R-1-40 (Single-Family Residential)zone district and replacing it with the ,�
proposed SP/P-I (Specific Plan/Public and Institutional)zone district would result in consistency with
the Salem Specific Plan. In addition,the proposed SP/P-I zone district would be consistent with the "'"`
OPA Plan. The City Attorney's Office proposed the zone change as a technical clean-up ""�
modification to ensure that the zoning properly reflects and implements the OPA Plan land use �
designations applicable to the project site and has provided a written memorandum (Appendix B)
,�
regarding the proposed zone change that states the following:
s�
1. Processing a specific plan pursuant to State law as the entitlement vehicle for the project is d�..
appropriate;
��
2. Processing a zone change to change the change site to SP/P-I is appropriate; and,
3. The processing of a specific plan and zone change to SP/P-I is consistent with the entitlement
process utilized for Chapman University and St. John's Lutheran Church and school, both of """
which are public institutional uses as defined by the Orange Municipal Code and are e�
governed by a specific plan. Based on the above, we believe that the proposed entitlement ��
process for the project is consistent with previous and current City practice.
��
��,
4.6-6 Michael Brandman Associates A�
H:\Client(PN-JN)\3791\37710001�EIli\9-DEIIi\37710001 Sec04-06LandUse-doc
Salem Lutheran Church and School Specific Plan Environmental lmpact Analysis
Draft EIR Land Use and Planning
Level of Significance Before Mitigation
Less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are necessary.
Level of Significance After Mitigation
Impacts were determined to be less than significant before mitigation.
Orange Park Acres Plan (OPA Plan)
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 provides a comparison of the Salem Lutheran Church and School project to the Orange
Park Acres Specific Plan.
Table 4.6-2: Proposed Project Consistency with Orange Park Acres Specific Plan
Goals and Objectives Salem Lutheran Church and School Specific Plan
1. Establish a Distinctive Community Theme
a. Maintain a free,open and The proposed project conforms to this policy.
informal type of The characteristics of the proposed project are designed to integrate with
development uninhibited the existing development surrounding the site. Within the existing site
by regimentation. constraints,the site plan includes placement and design of structures so that
they blend in with the existing structures on site.
b. Provide a wholesome The proposed project conforms to this policy.
rural atmosphere The characteristics of the proposed project are consistent with the OPA
emphasizing a quiet Plan. The proposed project includes the redesign of an existing use.
seclusion close to nature.
c. Foster compatible This policy does not apply to the proposed project.
residential development The proposed project does not propose residential development.
within the area visually
and functionally.
d. Link the various areas The proposed project conforms to this policy.
through a system of trails The recreational trails located along the eastern and northern perimeter of
and identifiable the project site are offsite trails,which will not be impacted by the
streetscape landscaping. proposed project and allow for the continued linkage.
Michae/Brandman Associates 4.6-7
H.\Client(PN-JN)�3771\37710001�EIR\9-DEIlt\37710001 Sec04-06 Land Use.doc
Sa/em Lutheran Church and School Specific Plan
Land Use and P/anning Diaft E/R
Table 4.6-2 (cont.): Proposed Project Consistency with Orange Park Acres Specific Plan
Goals and Objectives Salem Lutheran Church and Schooi Speciflc Plan
e. Offer a positive entry The proposed project conforms to this policy.
treatment and visual A plant materials palette has been developed with consideration to the rural
distinction of the main characteristics of this part of the City of Orange and Orange Park Acres.
elements within Orange Trees are configured in informal groupings,reflecting the existing
Park Acres. landscape characteristics of the surrounding Orange Park Acres
community. Additionally,the plant materials palette for landscaping of the �� �
proposed project has been chosen so that it reflects the rural characteristics
of the Orange Park Acres community.
In addition,two monument walls are proposed at the new Santiago Canyon ,M°'"''
Road entry; one on either site of the entry. The walls will be constructed
with materials that complement the architectural style of the existing and �
proposed buildings,the other walls on the campus and the rural character �,p
of the Orange Park Acres community. Each wall will contain signage
identifying the Salem Lutheran church and school. Enhanced landscape �a==
(such as trees,shrubs, and groundcover)will highlight and accent the walls
�n�
f. Establish a"theme" The proposed project conforms to this policy. ��
element, such as a A specific tree type for OPA has not been established. The project ��
specific tree type or style proposes a raised median with decorative split rail fence or pavement
of fence to be used markers(Botts' Dots)placed on the roadway in the same location �'
throughout the area. (to separate school/church traffic from residential traffic). The decarative
�
split rail fence would be similar in design and character,and would
complement the existing and new,updated fencing in Orange Park Acres. �
The extensive use of trail fencing throughout OPA has established a de
facto fencing theme. ���
g. Promote a distinctive The proposed project conforms to this policy. �
"lifestyle"which allows The project is consistent with the character of Orange Park Acres. The
for a diversity of purpose of the Salem Lutheran Church and School Specific Plan design �-
activities. guidelines is to establish a context for the future redesign of the campus
that ensures complimentary and compatible additions to the existing setting �+'�
and community.
��.
h. Foster a unity of interest The proposed project conforms to this policy.
and purpose among the The project is consistent with the character of Orange Park Acres. ��
residents. Additionally,the church/school site is utilized by several communiry
organizations including:the Orange Park Acres Association Board, several �
homeowners' associations, Boy Scouts of America,Girl Scouts of the ��,
USA,and The Red Cross,which fosters unity of interest/purpose.
i. Emphasize the rural, The proposed project conforms to this policy. ��
green image promoting It is the intent of the landscape design far the Salem Lutheran Church and „„,,
the maintenance of trees School Specific Plan to express a family of materials,both hardscape and
and the inclusion of planting,that will serve to unify the exterior spaces of the Salem Lutheran � -
landscaped corrals and Church property, complement the architectural style of the existing and
fence lines. proposed buildings,and connect the project contextually to the surrounding M�^'
Orange Park Acres community.
j. Establish a rural District This policy does not apply to the proposed project. �
Code for roads, lighting, The City has not yet established such a code. ��
setbacks, landscaping and
,.,�.
other criteria for rural
development to promote a ��
distinctive theme.
w�:
4.6-8 Michael Brandman Associates ��„
H.\Client(PN-7N)\3771\37710001�EII2\9-DEIIt\37710001 Sec04-06 Land Use.doc
Salem Lutheran Church and School Specific Plan Environmental lmpact Ana/ysis
Draft EIR Land Use and Planning
. Table 4.6-2 (cont.): Proposed Project Consistency with Orange Park Acres Specific Plan
Goals and Objectives Salem Lutheran Church and School Specific Plan
f'w 2, preserve and Enhance Natural Features
Maintain the existing trees The proposed project conforms to this policy.
where possible and replant The proposed project would involve retaining and preserving some of the
� new trees recommended by a existing trees,planting new trees, and removing some of the existing trees.
landscape-agricultural The affected trees are of all sizes and none are either heritage trees or
specialist. historic trees as defined by Chapter 12.32.060 of the City of Orange Tree
Preservation Ordinance. New trees will be planted on site in accordance
with applicable city ordinances.
� Preserve a positive image of This policy does not apply to the proposed project.
the hillsides through special The project is not located in a hillside area.
development controls.
���� Identify and preserve the This policy does not apply to the proposed project.
positive features of the major The project site is not located adjacent to Handy Creek.
drainage courses and bodies of
water within the area utilizing
them for recreational purposes
where appropriate.
Identify and protect unique The proposed project conforms to this policy.
and valuable flora and fauna. The proposed project is within the boundaries of the Natural Communities
Conservation Plan(NCCP)and Habitat Conservation Plan(HCP)-County
of Orange Central and Coastal Sub-Region. However,the NCCP/HCP
identifies the site as Non-Reserve and does not identify the site as a
Reserve, Special Linkage, Existing Use Area,or Non-Reserve Open Space
and does not contain unique and valuable flora and fauna.
Preserve distinctive geological This policy does not apply to the proposed project.
features. No distinctive geologic features exist on the project site.
Insure maintenance of view of The proposed project conforms to this policy.
positive features of and from As detailed in the Orange Park Acres Specific Plan,the church is identified
the site. as a Landmark(refer to the Orange Park Acres Image Analysis on page
13). The proposed project has been designed to complement the existing
development on site and to fit into the fabric of the Orange Park area.
Thus,features of the site will remain complementary to the existing rural
nature of the area. Views from the site will remain predominantly the same
as existing conditions because the height of the proposed development is
�. much like the height of existing buildings on site. Although the height of
the new worship center will be 39 feet at roof peak,which is only seven
� � feet above the height allowed by the Zoning Ordinance,no more than 25
percent of the roof plane will exceed 32 feet. Therefore, it is not
�'�" anticipated that this increased height will have a significant impact to views
in the project vicinity.
Reflect a visual unity within This policy does not apply to the proposed project.
��� � the geological boundaries of The project site is not located within Hanging Valley.
the Hanging Va11ey.
Preserve and enhance the The proposed project conforms to this policy.
�� natural beauty of the area. The characteristics of the proposed development are designed to
compliment the surrounding development and to fit into the fabric of the
community. The purpose of the Salem Lutheran Church and School
Michael8randman Associates 4.6-9
H�.\Client(PN-JN)�3771\37710001�EIIi\9-DEIIt\37710001 Sec04-06 Land Use.doc
Salem Lutheran Church and School Specific Plan
Land Use and Planning Draft E/R
Table 4.6-2 (cont.): Proposed Project Consistency with Orange Park Acres Specific Plan
Goals and Objectives Salem Lutheran Church and School Specific Plan �
__
Specific Plan design guidelines is to establish a context far the future
development of the campus that ensures complimentary and compatible
additions to the existing setting and community.
Enhance the natural setting The proposed project conforms to this policy.
through planning and The landscape elements of the proposed project compliment the
landscape design. surrounding development and would enhance the overall Orange Park
Acres appearance. The landscape design far the proposed project expresses
a family of materials,both hardscape and planting,that will serve to unify
the exterior spaces of the Salem Lutheran Church property, complement '°�'
the architectural style of the existing and proposed buildings,and connect
the project contextually to the surrounding Orange Park Acres community.
3. Provide For Economic Viability �
a. Establish a balance The proposed project conforms to this policy. ..
between facilities and Should the proposed project be approved and constructed,property tax
services provided and revenue would be collected from the church and school site. *�
revenues collected for this
area. "`�
b. Promote an increase in The proposed project conforms to this policy. �
land value over time Should the proposed project be approved and constructed, land value
through appropriate valuations should increase due to the improvements made to the project �
planning. site.
�
c. Provide housing far a This policy does not apply to the proposed project.
variety of incomes within The project does not propose housing. �`"
the economic parameters
of today's costs. °"�
d. Insure that housing This policy does not apply to the proposed project.
��
development proposed by The proposed project does not include development of housing. ��
the Plan is economicaliy ���
viable today.
;�
e. Provide for appropriate This policy conforms to the proposed project. ��
phasing of development. The proposed project will be developed in two phases. Development
phasing of the project has been designed to address issues including ��.
drainage and storm water management,utilities and parking.
A�
4. Promote the Safety, Health and Welfare of the People
a. Provide,where possible, The proposed project conforms to this policy. `'"
safe,low-trafficked roads The proposed project contains a proposed driveway that runs across the site ��
discouraging through and connects Santiago Canyon Road to Frank Lane. The addition of this
traffic compatible with driveway will reduce traffic issues at the intersection of Orange Park .
existing and proposed Boulevard and Santiago Canyon Road because it will promote traffic flow
arterial roads. during time of high traffic volume related to church and school activities. ��
b. Proposed improved This policy does not apply to the proposed project. ..
treatment of sewerage for The project site is not identified as a wastewater"problem area."
problem area. Regardless,the proposed project would include wastewater conveyance �!�`
lines and convey wastewater offsite for treatment.
kike�
c. Include adequate roads, This policy conforms to the proposed project.
clear areas and water to The proposed project includes adequate primary vehicular access,a ��
4.6-10 Michae/Brandman Associates ,,,�
H�.\Client(PN-JN)\3771\37710001�EIIL\9-DEIIt\37710001 Sec04-06 Land Use.doc ��
Salem Lutheran Church and Schoo/Specific P/an Environmental Impact Anatysis
Draft EIR Land Use and Planning
Table 4.6-2 (cont.): Proposed Project Consistency with Orange Park Acres Specific Plan
Goals and Objectives Salem Lutheran Church and School Specific Plan
protect against fire. driveway,and an emergency vehicular access.
d. Recommend treatment of The proposed conforms with this policy.
drainage to minimize The site design includes an integrated storm water and water quality system
danger during heavy that collects nuisance and storm water flows. Storm water treatment
rains. includes treatment control and source control Best Management Practices
(BMPs)(refer to Section 4.5 of this document for a complete discussion).
e. Provide for adequate The proposed project conforms with this policy.
police surveillance and Police protection to the OPA Plan area is a combination of the City Police
protection. Department and the Orange County Sheriff.
f. Provide recommendations This policy does not apply to the proposed project.
for clean-up and The recommendations for clean-up and code enforcement are provided by
maintenance within the the Orange Park Acres Board.
area.
g. Promote a reduction of This policy does not apply to the proposed project.
residential uses in areas No residential uses are proposed on site.
with noise or pollution
problems.
h. Promote safe trails and The proposed project conforms to this policy.
their crossing of streets, Class II bicycle lanes(on-roadway)are adjacent to the south side of
providing grade Santiago Canyon Road and west side of Orange Park Boulevard,adjacent
separation where to the church property. In addition,off-roadway equestrian trails are
appropriate. located adjacent to the church properiy along both roadways. The addition
of the proposed access point off Santiago Canyon Road would require a
"break" in the equestrian trail adjacent to Santiago Canyon Road. The
project proposes a crosswalk at this location.
Policies for Orange Park
Acres Salem Lutheran Church and School Specific Plan
1. Promote the use of wood- The proposed project conforms to this policy.
rail fencing,either natural Walls and fences will be constructed of materials that complement the
or painted white,to give a architectural style of the existing and proposed buildings and the rural
sense of openness-while character of the Orange Park Acres community. Internal to the property
restricting the use of decorative metal fences,vehicular gates,and pedestrian gates are proposed
block walls,chain link or at parking area points of access. These are proposed for reasons of safety
other opaque fencing. and security and will complement the architectural style of the existing and
proposed buildings and the rural character of the Orange Park Acres
community. Additionally, Frank Lane access will be enhanced with a
raised median with decorative split rail fence or pavement markers(Botts'
Dots)placed on the roadway in the same location parallel to the existing
fence on the south. The decorative split rail fence would begin at the Frank
Lane entrance and end near classroom building B.
2. Provide for a variety of The proposed project conforms to this policy.
house and structure The site plan provides for a design that minimizes the"straight line"or
setbacks to avoid the "lined up"effect typically associated with traditional and neo-traditional
� straight line affect caused developments. The project site has been designed to alleviate traffic along
by structures being"lined Santiago Canyon Road and Orange Park Boulevard while at the same time
�� up." including the proposed worship center in a location that minimizes building
mass along Santiago Canyon Road. The project design does not include
any straight-line affects because structures on site are not"lined up." The
Michae/Brandman Associates 4.6-11
H.\Client(PN-JN)13771\37710001�EIIt\9-DEIR\37710001 Sec04-06 Land Use.doc
Sa/em Lutheran Church and School Specific P/an
Land Use and P/anning Draft E/R
Table 4.6-2 (cont.): Proposed Project Consistency with Orange Park Acres Specific Plan
Goals and Objectives ' 3alem Lutheran Church and School Specific Plan
, _
proposed project does not include housing.
3. Encourage the use of The proposed project conforms to this policy. �"
natural exteriors for the The architectural theme and design of the worship center has been chosen
structures including wood to blend in and match the existing character of the site,which includes ��
and warm, earth colars. warm earth tones for some of the building's exteriors. �,,
4. Emphasize the use of The proposed project conforms to this policy.
one-story structures to The proposed project involves the redevelopment of the site to include both
create a ranch type or low one and two story buildings,which is the same profile of buildings on site ,„,�,
profile rural feeling. currently. Additionally,the site has been designed with the worship center
along Frank Lane in the same general area as the aging preschool and
sanctuary buildings that will be razed,which will keep the building mass
away from Santiago Canyon Road to maintain the rural feeling of the "�'
neighborhood.
�..;
5. Utilize natural drainage The proposed project conforms to this policy.
courses and landscaped Landscaped swales and other similar drainage management facilities will '"""
swales,discouraging be incorporated into project design to minimize lined channels. There is no �
lined channels etc. natural drainage on site.
6. Provide rural road The proposed project conforms to this policy. ""�
standards with minimum The project proposes a 30-foot wide driveway(non-dedicated drive)from �
pavement section-no Santiago Canyon Road through to Frank Lane. The equestrian trail that
curbs,gutters,or currently runs north of the project site, along Santiago Canyon Road and �
sidewalks and incorparate the trail that runs along Orange Park Boulevard will remain.
equestrian,hiking and �,,;.
bicycle trails along the
road. �
7. Create a positive view The proposed project conforms with this policy. �
from the roads The project site is located along Orange Park Boulevard and Santiago
emphasizing landscaped Canyon Road. The multipurpose field on site will be visible through the �"�""
ar open space features existing chain link fence around the multipurpose field and through the �
through open wood white fence along Orange Park Acres and Santiago Canyon Road. Along
fences. Santiago Canyon road in the plant beds between the equestrian trail and ��
fence line along the Salem Lutheran Church property new shrub plantings
will be incorporated with the existing plant materials to refresh and ��
enhance the streetscape's appearance. Along Orange Park Boulevard the
addition of new shrub plantings underneath the existing trees is proposed ��
along the split rail fence between the fence and the sidewalk to enhance the
arrival experience to both the Orange Park Acres community as well as the ��_
Salem Lutheran Church and School when approaching via this street. ��
8. Provide for continuous The proposed project conforms to this policy.
trail linkages throughout There will be access to the trails from the church via Frank Lane. The �
OPA connecting to project does not propose onsite trails. ��
County proposed trails,
major land use elements a,�
and natural features such
as Santiago Creek and a�
Handy Creek.
9. Retain a positive view to The proposed project conforrns with this policy.
the hills,preserving the Development of the project site would not interrupt views of distant '"'�
4.6-12 Michael Brandman Associates
H�\Client(PN-JN)U771\37710001�EIIt\9-DEIIt\37710001 Sec04-06 Land Use-doc
Salem Lutheran Church and Schoo/Specific Plan Environmental lmpact Anatysis
Draft EIR Land Use and Planning
- Table 4.6-2 (cont.): Proposed Project Consistency with Orange Park Acres Specific Plan
Goals and Objectives '; Salem Lutheran Church and School Specific Plan
�� undeveloped hillsides of hillsides because the project site is relatively flat and because the tallest
O.P.A. Provide a building onsite will be the 39-foot high worship center at roof peak,which
landscape screen for all is only seven feet above the height allowed by the Zoning Ordinance. No
housing in those areas more than 25 percent of the roof plane will exceed 32 feet.
and incorporate sensitive
grading criteria
throughout.
]0. Preserve Santiago Creek This policy does not apply to the proposed project.
as a balanced ecological The project site is not located adjacent to Santiago Creek.
system and riparian area,
maintaining the diversity
of plan and vertebrate
species while allowing for
�•��� light recreational uses
such as equestrian and
hiking trails. Specifically
support the Santiago
Creek Greenbelt Proposal
by the County of Orange.
11. Promote the phasing-out This policy does not apply to the proposed project.
�� � of gravel pit operations The project site is not located adjacent to Santiago Creek.
along Santiago Creek and
promote restoration of
natural amenities within
the area.
12. Provide for the This policy does not apply to the proposed project.
establishment and The project site is not located adjacent to Handy Creek.
preservation of a
greenbelt along Handy
Creek incorporating an
equestrian trail.
13. Establish a greenbelt strip This policy does not apply to the proposed project.
through the undeveloped The project site is not adjacent to the Holy Sepulcher Cemetery.
portion of the Holy
Sepulcher Cemetery west
of Santiago Canyon
Road. Utilize the natural
drainage channelto
provide for the
enhancement of wildlife
values through an open
space corridor,helping
retain a rural character
and provide for an
equestrian and hiking
link.
14. Retain and provide for the The proposed project conforms to this po[icy.
maintenance of the Although tbere is not a formal Eucalyptus hedgerow on site,the line of
Eucalyptus hedgerows Eucalyptus trees located along the northwest corner of the project site
Michael Brandman Associates 4.6-13
H-.\Client(PN-IN)�3771\37710001�EIR\9-DEIIL\37710001 Sec04-06 Land Use.doc
Sa/em Lutheran Church and School Specific Plan
Land Use and P/anning Draft E/R
Table 4.6-2 (cont.): Proposed Project Consistency with Orange Park Acres Specific Plan
_ _ __
; ,,�,
Goals and ObJectives Salem Lutheran Church and School Specifc Plan
within the area and (behind the existing classroom buildings)will be retained.
provide for the planting
of a more suitable variety
of Eucalyptus tree in
conjunction with the Plan
development. �
15. Preserve, if feasible,the This policy does not apply to the proposed project. -
lake on Mead Ranch in The project site is not located near Mead Ranch.
order to maintain the ^�
number of species of
plants and animals which ����`
depend upon it for food
and water. �
Wi4u:
16. Promote the continued This policy does not apply to the proposed project.
use of agriculture within The site is not used for agricultural production. �
the area.
17. Provide for landscape, This policy does not apply to the proposed project. �
geenbelt or open space No housing is proposed as part of the project. �,
buffer between differing
housing types. �
18. Restrict,through design The proposed project conforms to this policy. �
and ordinances,the The parking provided as part of the proposed project will be on site. No
parking along all the parking would occur on Orange Park Boulevard or Santiago Canyon Road. �
streets. Provide off-street Parking spaces are proposed along Frank Lane(a private road), as is the
parking on lots or parking case currently. e�e
bays which are
�
completely screened from
view.
�
19. Promote incorporation of The proposed project conforms to this policy.
certain"theme"elements, A specific tree type for OPA has not been established. The Salem Lutheran �
such as trees, fences or Church and School Specific Plan project provides landscaping throughout �
other landscaping,along the project site and would some of the existing trees on site. The project
the major roads within proposes fencing that similar in design and character, and compliments the +�
O.P.A. existing and new,updated fencing in Orange Park Acres. The extensive
use of trail fencing throughout OPA has established a de facto fencing �
theme. In addition,an architectural theme has been chosen that
��;
compliments the character of OPA and the existing buildings on site.
20. Recommend a The proposed project conforms to this policy. '"'
requirement for low-level Lighting on site will be downward facing and will be at low-]evels to
rural character lighting on maintain the rural character of the area.
each lot to reflect
�
individual architecture �����
and landscaping styles in �...�
order to replace the
typical cobra head �
streetlight.
�.
2l. Establish local scenic The proposed project conforms with this policy.
roads: Chapman, Santiago The project site is located along Santiago Canyon Road. The rural"theme" �
4.6-14 Michae/Brandman Associates ,,,�„
H:\Client(PN-JN)�3771\37710001�EIR\9-DEIlt\37710001 Sec04-06 Land Use.doc
Sa/em Lutheran Church and Schoo/Specific P/an EnvironmentallmpactAna/ysis
Draft E/R Land Use and P/anning
Table 4.6-2 (cont.): Proposed Project Consistency with Orange Park Acres Specific Plan
Goals and Objectives Salem l.utheran Church and School Specific Plan
Canyon Road,Newport, will be maintained as the project has been designed to set the worship
Orange Park Boulevard, center away from Santiago Canyon Road in the same general area as the
Meads Avenue, Winds aging preschool and sanctuary buildings that will be razed.
Drive and Amapola.
These would receive any
�� "theme"treatment
established for O.P.A.
Y 22. Adopt proposed trails as This policy does not apply to the proposed project.
shown on Exhibit#33 as There are no trails on the project site. There is an existing equestrian trail
the main trail system to on Orange Park Boulevard next to the multipurpose field and along
serve O.P.A.and promote Santiago Canyon Road,along the northern portion of the project site.
future grade separated
crossing at arterial road
crossings.
23. Provide for special The proposed project conforms with this policy.
landscape and entry The project has been designed to incorporate landscaping that is
treatment at all main complementary to the existing rural character and landscaping design
entry points into O.P.A currentiy on site. Along Santiago Canyon road in the plant beds between
via arterial roads and on the equestrian trail and fence line along the Salem Lutheran Church
to Orange Park Boulevard property new shrub plantings will be incorporated with the existing plant
and Amapola off these materials to refresh and enhance the streetscape's appearance.
arterials.
Two monument walis are proposed at the new Santiago Canyon Road
entry;one on either site of the entry. The walls will be constructed with
materials that complement the architectural style of the existing and
proposed buildings,the other walls on the campus and the rural character
of the Orange Park Acres community. Each wall will contain signage
identifying the Salem Lutheran church and school. Enhanced landscape
(such as trees,shrubs,and groundcover)will highlight and accent the walls.
Along Orange Park Boulevard the addition of new shrub plantings
underneath the existing trees is proposed along the split rail fence between
the fence and the sidewalk to enhance the arrival experience to both the
Orange Park Acres community as well as the Salem Lutheran Church and
School when approaching via this street.
24. Discourage any through This policy does not apply to the proposed project.
traffic along Orange Park The project site is not located north of Santiago Canyon Road.
Boulevard and other local
roads for the area. To
help accomplish this,
promote the relocation of
the extension of Orange
Park Boulevard north of
Santiago Boulevard
shown on the Master Plan
of Arterials.
25. Support a future traffic This policy does not apply to the proposed project.
study for O.P.A to The City and Orange County will determine the need and timing for a
determine the need, community-wide traffic study.
location and traffic
volumes in and around
Michael Brandman Associates 4.6-15
H\Client(PN-JN)�3771\37710001�EIR\9-DEDi\37710001 Sec04-06 Land Use.doc
Sa/em Lutheran Church and Schoo/Specific Plan
Land Use and Planning Draft E/R
Table 4.6-2 (cont.): Proposed Project Consistency with Orange Park Acres Specific Plan
__
Goals and Objectives Salem Lutheran Church and School Speciflc Plan t
_ ;_
O.P.A.to be carried out
jointly by the City and ��
County of Orange.
26. Re-evaluate the alignment This policy does not apply to the proposed project.
studies along Santiago The project site is not located adjacent to the cemetery property along �
Canyon Road along the Santiago Canyon Road.
cemetery property to
determine if an alternative
to extensive filling of an ��
important canyon area
can be avoided or "
minimized.
�
27. Develop an overall This policy does not apply to the proposed project. �
planning Committee for The determination to establish a planning committee is not applicable to a
O.P.A.to guide the single project. �
implementation of the �
Specific Plan and ,��
subsequent planning
within the area including �r
architectural controls,
maintenance requirements "`�
and special development
standards. This
�
Committee should have ,�„,;
representatives from the
County, City,residents,
�
developers and
landowners within the "�*
area.
��
28. Preserve the steep slopes This policy does not apply to the proposed project.
along the hillsides The project site is level and does not have any steep slopes to be preserved. '�"`
maintaining a constant
band of open space and
;�
trails along these areas. :„
29. Provide the flexibility for This policy does not apply to the proposed project. '�
raising and keeping of The proposed project does not include the keeping of animals.
animals in all
,.,:
development on the
flatland areas where ,4b.
possible.
30. Adopt a specific grading The proposed project conforms to this policy.
ordinance for all future The development is subject to, and would comply with,the City's Grading �*�
development such as the Ordinance.
example submitted with
this report prepared by !�
J.L. Webb(see
Appendix). ,�,,
31. Provide a landscape This policy does not apply to the proposed project. ��
screen to shield massive The project site is not located adjacent to Chapman Avenue.
,�
4.6-16 Michael Brandman Associates t„�,
H1Client(PN-JN)�3771\37710001�EIIi\9-DEIR\37710001 Sec0406 Land Use.doc
aW,a
Salem Lutheran Church and School Specific P/an Environmental lmpact Analysis
Draft EIR Land Use and Planning
: Table 4.6-2 (cont.): Proposed Project Consistency with Orange Park Acres Specific Plan
Goals and Objectives Salem Lutheran Church and School Specific Plan
� cut slopes along Chapman
as seen upon entering the
study area from the west.
Also screen any other cut
or fill areas which expose
only dirt and rocks and
are unsightly.
� 32. Provide minimum The proposed project confornzs to this policy.
setbacks along Chapman, The proposed project will provide minimum setbacks along Santiago
Santiago Canyon Road Canyon Road.
and Newport to shield
from noise,air pollution
and to aid in providing
visual corcidor along
these important roads.
33. Locate corrals, stalls, This policy does not apply to the proposed project.
pens, storage areas, etc. The proposed project does not include the development of corrals,stalls,
so as not to detract from pens,or storage areas.
the positive views from
the roads within the area.
Attention should be given
to the placement of
effective landscape
mounds or shrubs on the
lot.
34. Promote the incorporation This policy does not apply to the proposed project.
of a trunk sewer to serve The proposed project does not require the installation of a wastewater trunk
the entire area of existing line.
and proposed
development.
35. Require all new The proposed project conforms to this policy.
development to produce a The project applicant will prepare a cost/revenue fiscal report for the
cost/revenue impact proposed project and submit this to the Ciry for use in the Planning
report. Commission and City Council hearings.
The OPA Specific Plan contains 67 policies, of which 39 apply to the proposed project and the
remaining 28 policies do not apply to the proposed project. The Salem Lutheran Church project is
consistent with all applicable policies of the OPA Specific Plan (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. Refer to the City Attorney memo in Appendix B stating that: "the existing church and
school uses are consistent with both the OPA Plan and [City] General Plan designations."
Therefore, less than significant impacts would result from project implementation related to the
policies of the OPA Specific Plan and the change of zone.
Michael Brandman Associates 4.6-17
H\Client(PN-IN)\3771\37710001�EIIL\9-DEIR\37710001 Sec04-06 Land Use.doc
Salem Lutheran Church and School Specific P/an
Land Use and P/anning Draff E/R
Leve/of Significance Before Mitigation
Less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are necessary.
Leve/of Significance After Mitigation
Impacts were determined to be less than significant before mitigation.
City General 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 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 �
• Table 4.6-6: Project Consistency �
with the City of Orange General Plan: 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-]0: Project Consistency
with the City of Orange General Plan: Urban Design Element ��
• Table 4.6-1 l: Project Consistency °�'
with the City of Orange General Plan: Growth Management Element �'�'�
• Table 4.6-12: Project Consistency _.
with the City of Orange General Plan: Economic Development Element ��
• Table 4.6-13: Project Consistency
kFnb
with the City of Orange General Plan: Housing Element
��
Genera/Plan-Land Use Element
��;
Table 4.6-3 provides a comparison of the proposed project to each goal and policy of the following
Land Use Element. �.�
i�a
4.6-18 Michael 8randman Associates ��
H:\Client(PN-JN)�3771\37710001�EIIt\9-DEIIt\37710001 Sec04-06LandUse.doc
i�;
Salem Lutheran Church and School Specific P/an Environmental lmpact Anatysis
Draft EIR Land Use and Planning
Table 4.6-3: Project Consistency
with the City of Orange General Plan: Land Use Element
' �;���nent tiosl��I�ti�cie� � ����k�a�_t�►�r�Ch�r�h��r���t Sp��Pl�rn
_ _. �_._ .�.��__�_______�____�u ._ _� _�:� ��_ __ � � �' .
GOAL 1.0:Meet the present and future needs of alt residential and business sedors with a diverse and
balanced mix of land uses.
POLICY 1.1:Maintain a land use structure that The proposed project conforms to this policy.
balances jobs and housing with available The proposed project would redesign the school and
infrastructure and public and human services. church campus,which could potentially result in
additional jobs. No jobs are anticipated to be lost
because of the proposed project. Temporary,
construction-related jobs would be created.
POLICY 1.2: Balance economic gains from new The proposed project conforms to this policy.
development while preserving the character and The proposed project is intentionally designed to be
densities of residential neighborhoods. compatible with the character of the Orange Park
Acres area. The proposed changes to the existing
church and school campus will preserve the character
of the neighborhood.
POLICY 1.3:Provide a range of housing densities This policy does not apply to the proposed project.
and types to meet the diverse needs and lifestyles No residential development is proposed.
of residents.
POLICY 1.4: Ensure that new development reflects The proposed project conforms to this policy.
existing design standards,qualities, and features The proposed development reflects the existing
that are in context with nearby development. design,qualities,and features that allow it to blend
into the existing neighborhood and to blend in with the
other sri-uctures existing on site.
POLICY 1.5:Prioritize recreation and open space This policy does not apply to the proposed project.
uses at Irvine Lake and protect historic visual The proposed project is not in the Irvine Lake Area of
resources in east Orange. the eastern part of the City of Orange.
POLICY 1.6: Minimize effects of new The proposed project conforms to this policy.
development on the privacy and character of The project has been designed with input from the
surrounding neighborhoods. nearby residents and the siting of the worship center is
based on input from the community.
POLICY 1.7:Provide a range of open space and This policy does not apply to the proposed project.
park amenities to meet the diverse needs of current The City,and not the project applicant,is specifically
and new residents. responsible for implementing this policy.
GOAL 2.0:Create successful, high quality mixed-use distrids consisting of a mix of residential,commercial,
office,avic,and common open space land uses, supported by altemative modes of transportadon.
POLICY 2.1: Encourage development of mixed- This policy does not apply to the proposed project.
��� use projects to revitalize older commercial areas The project site is not located within a commercial
throughout the City and industrial areas area or near the Santa Fe Depot.
surrounding the historic Santa Fe Depot.
POLICY 2.2: Encourage transfers of development This policy does not apply to the proposed project.
rights within areas designated Urban Mixed-use on The project site is not designated Urban Mixed Use on
�� the Land Use Policy Map to promote development the Land Use Policy Map.
of high-rise office and residential structures at
compatible locations.
Michae/Brandman Associates 4.6-19
H.\Client(PN-JN)�3771\37710001�EIIL\9-DEIR\37710001 Sec04-06 Land Use.doc
Salem Lutheran Church and Schoo/Specific P/an
Land Use and Planning Draft E/R
Table 4.6-3 (cont.): Project Consistency
with the City of Orange General Plan: Land Use Element
�riii�.�ae Elemerit�c�sts�t��oli�le� X i��"$al+�'li +a�ran Cht#��`�8 Sp�iTic Pla�
, �....�
,.�. __ _�_a --_ t . _ .___ . :
POLICY 2.3: Encourage transfers of development This policy does not apply to the proposed project. �
rights within areas designated Neighborhood The project site is not designated Neighborhood
Mixed-use and Old Towne Mixed-use on the Land Mixed Use or Old Towne Mixed-use on the Land Use
Use Policy Map to promote historic preservation Policy Map.
and creation of open spaces accessible to the �-e
community.
POLICY 2.4: Encourage mixed-use projects that This policy does not apply to the proposed project.
contain a variety of compatible uses,and provide The proposed project is not a mixed-use development
necessary supporting public and community and does not meet the statutory definition of a mixed-
facilities. use land use according to Chapter 17.04 of the Orange �
Zoning Code. �
POLICY 2.5: Minimize traffic and parking impacts This policy does not apply to the proposed project.
of proposed mixed-use projects. The proposed project is not a mixed-use development �*
and does not meet the statutory definition of a mixed- �,
use land use according to Chapter 17.04 of the Orange
Zoning Code. �.,
POLICY 2.6: Encourage linkage in and around This policy does not apply to the proposed project. �,
mixed-use areas using a multi-modal circulation The proposed project is not a mixed-use development
network,particularly transit,pedestrian sidewalks, and does not meet the statutory definition of a mixed- �
paths and paseos, and bicycle and trail systems. use land use according to Chapter 17.04 of the Orange
Zoning Code �e
POLICY 2.7: Ensure that the architecture, This policy does not apply to the proposed project. �•
landscape design,and site planning of mixed-use The proposed project is not a mixed-use development
projects are of the highest quality,and that they and does not meet the statutory defmition of a mixed- �
emphasize a pedestrian orientation and safe, use land use according to Chapter 17.04 of the Orange
convenient access between uses. Zoning Code. ""�
��
POLICY 2.8: Ensure that adequate gathering areas This policy does not apply to the proposed project.
or plazas are incorporated within mixed-use The proposed project is not a mixed-use development �A
projects and areas to allow for social interaction and does not meet the statutory definition of a mixed- �
and community activities. use land use according to Chapter l 7.04 of the Orange
Zoning Code. ��.
POLICY 2.9: Encourage mixed-use development This policy does not apply to the proposed project. +�
to include ground floor retail. The proposed project is not a mixed-use development
and does not meet the statutory defmition of a mixed- ��
use land use according to Chapter 17.04 of the Orange
Zoning Code ��
GOAL 3.0: Create commercial uses that provide a solid economic base and employment opportunities and ��
identify O�ange as an attractive and diverse shopping destination.
POLICY 3.1:Promote development of revenue This policy does not apply to the proposed project. ��
generating land uses that help defray the costs of The City,and not the project applicant, is specifically „�
high quality public services. responsible for implementing this policy.
��
POLICY 3.2:Actively promote the City as a place This policy does not apply to the proposed project.
to shop and conduct business,and encourage local The City, and not the project applicant, is specifically �..56
patronage of Orange businesses. responsible for implementing this policy.
��
4.6-20 Michael Brandman Associates „�;
H.\Client(PN-JN)�3771\37710001�EIIL\9-DE[EL\37710001 Sec04-06 Land Ose-doc
"' Salem Lutheran Church and Schoo/Specific Plan Environmental lmpact Analysis
Draft EIR Land Use and Planning
Table 4.6-3 (cont.): Project Consistency
with the City of Orange General Plan: Land Use Element
_ _
. ' i;�it�{�r�mietr���t���nct Polkies ; Sal�n Lutl�ran Church�in�,Sa#��i 8p�iift�Plan
POLICY 3.3: Improve vehicular,pedestrian,and This policy does not apply to the proposed project.
visual connections between commercial areas and The proposed project is not located in a commercial
the rest of the community. area of the City. The project is located in Orange Park
Acres,which is a semi-rural area of the City of
Orange.
POLICY 3.4: Discourage commercial and This policy does not apply to the proposed project.
industrial enterprises that have significant adverse No commercial ar industrial land uses are proposed
soil, air,water,or noise impacts. and the project site does not border either type of land
use district.
GOAL 4.0: Encourage high quality,sustainable, industrial and office uses that provide jobs and revenue;
support environmental quality;and promote options for adaptive reuse.
POLICY 4.l: Maximize use of limited land This policy does not apply to the proposed project.
resources for industrial and office uses within areas The project site is not located within an area
designated Light Industrial or Industrial on the designated commercial or industrial and the project
Land Use Policy Map. site does not border either type of land use district.
POLICY 4.2: Encourage development of This policy does not apply to the proposed project.
professional office space located near medical This effort is the responsibility of applicable City
institutions and County facilities. departments. The project is not located near medical
institutions or County facilities.
POLICY 43: Protect residents and the This policy does not apply to the proposed project.
environment from potential adverse soil,air,water, The proposed project does not include industrial
and noise impacts of industrial operations. operations.
POLICY 4.4: Encourage development of mixed This policy does not apply to the proposed project.
office, industrial, and support commercial uses in The project site is not located within an area
areas designated Light Industrial on the Land Use designated Light Industrial on the Land Use Policy
Policy Map. Map.
POLICY 4.5:Accommodate a wide variety of This policy does not apply to the proposed project.
industrial uses that contribute to a healthy and No commercial or industrial land uses are proposed.
diverse economic base.
GOAL 5.0: Maintain and enhance the vibrant,transit-accessible,pedestrian-friendly,and livable character of
Old Towne's neighborhoods and commeraal core.
POLICY 51:Promote targeted development of This policy does not apply to the proposed project.
mixed-use,transit-oriented development The project site is not located within or adjacent to the
surrounding the Santa Fe Depot to achieve Old Towne district.
development intensities compatible with the fabric
���� of Old Towne.
�" POLICY 5.2: Promote adaptive re-use of This policy does not apply to the proposed project.
previously industrial and agricultural historic The project site is not located within or adjacent to the
structures for residential,office,or commercial Old Towne district,nor contains any historic
purposes. structures.
POLICY 53: Continue to promote institutional and This policy does not apply to the proposed project.
civic uses located throughout Old Towne. The project site is not located within or adjacent to the
Old Towne district.
Michael Brandman Associates 4.6-21
H�\Client(PN-JN)�3771\37710001�EIIL\9-DEIIt\37710001 Sec04-06LandUsedoc
Sa/em Lutheran Church and Schoo/Specific Plan
Land Use and P/anning Draft EIR
Table 4.6-3 (cont.): Project Consistency
with the City of Orange General Plan: Land Use Element
��ise a_�_ i�''�aa��#P� � Salem Luth�ra�t Ch ��'�+�hao! °�'I�n
POLICY 5.4: Develop additional sensitively This policy does not apply to the proposed project. ,,,�
designed public parking throughout Old Towne. The project site is not located within or adjacent to the
Old Towne district. ��
POLICY 5.5: Continue to require consistent,high This policy does not apply to the proposed project. ,,�,:
quality,historically-referenced design within Old The project site is not located within or adjacent to the
Towne. Old Towne district. �-
POLICY 5.6: Continue to upgrade infrastructure This policy does not apply to the proposed project. ,,,KK,
throughout Old Towne. The project site is not located within or adjacent to the
Old Towne district. �>
POLICY SJ: Ensure that roadway improvements This policy does not apply to the proposed project. �
within Old Towne are designed to promote The project site is not located within or adjacent to the
walkability and a safe pedestrian environment. Old Towne district. «�
POLICY 5.8: Maintain balance between Old This policy does not apply to the proposed projecz ,�,�
Towne and Chapman University's growth, so that The project site is not located within or adjacent to the
the University complements Old Towne. Old Towne district. ��
POLICY 5.9: Promote attractive and safe This policy does not apply to the proposed project. �,,,
pedestrian access between the Santa Fe Depot and The project site is not located within ar adjacent to the
the Plaza. Old Towne district. �a
, GOAL 6.0:Advance development activity that is mutually beneficial to both the environment and the �
community.
POLICY 6.1: Ensure that new development is The proposed project conforms to this policy. ��
compatible with the style and design of established The project site has been designed to be compatible �
structures and the surrounding environment. with the style and design of the existing structures on
site and compliment the surrounding area. The .�
worship center is located along Frank Lane and has
been set back from Santiago Canyon Road in the �
general location of the aging preschool and sanctuary
buildings that will be razed,to meet local resident's "�"
desire to retain the rural nature of the Orange Park
Acres area and to reduce building mass along Santiago �
Canyon Road. Additionally,architectural design and �
plant palette has been chosen to blend with existing
development on site. �
POLICY 6.2: In areas where residential uses abut This policy does not apply to the proposed project. �
commercial or industrial land uses,use buffering The project is located in the Orange Park Acres area
techniques to improve compatibility. Such and is not in an area where residential uses abut �*
techniques include the use of setbacks, screening, commercial or industrial land uses.
soundwalls with pedestrian access,and appearance �"`'
standards.
�
POLICY 6.3: Establish and maintain greenways, The proposed project conforms to this policy.
and pedestrian and bicycle connections that Pedestrian and bicycle connections along Santiago �"
complement the residential, commercial and open Canyon Road and Orange Park Boulevard will be �
space areas they connect. maintained and will not be detrimentally impacted by
the proposed project. �
�
�
4.6-22 Michae/Brandman Associates ,,,�
H\Client(PN-JN)\37J1\37710001�EIIt\9-DEIIL\37710001 Sec04-06LaodUse.doc
Sa/em Lutheran Church and Schoo/Specific Plan Environmental Impact Analysis
Draft EIR Land Use and Planning
Table 4.6-3 (cont.): Project Consistency
with the City of Orange General Plan: Land Use Element
'" � � i, �� �; �`�5��= � �il*�Vr��!�.1�11���1� � �€�
__ _ ._.
_ �> ,..:
POLICY 6.4: Create and maintain open space This policy does not apply to the proposed project.
resources that provide recreational opportunities, No open space resources exist on site as this is a
protect hillside vistas and ridgelines,and conserve previously developed project site.
natural resources.
POLICY 6.5: Reduce pollutant runoff from new The proposed project conforms to this policy.
development and urban runoff to the maximum The proposed project will reduce runoff from new
extent practicable. development and urban runoff to the maximum extent
practicable because the project involves the
development of a Water Quality Management Plan
and the implementation of Low Impact Development
(L.I.D)Best Management Practices consistent with the
City's policies,which will reduce the project's
impacts to water quality.
POLICY 6.6: Enhance the walkability of both new The proposed project conforms to this policy.
and current development. The site has been designed to improve on site
circulation and the ability of children to be picked
up/dropped off at school more efficiently. The
existing trails adjacent to the site will be preserved.
POLICY 6.7:Integrate natural amenities and This policy does not apply to the proposed project.
connections, including waterways and wildlife The site has been previously developed and lacks
corridors,within the design of urban and suburban natural amenities and connections.
spaces.
POLICY 6.8: Maximize landscaping along The proposed project conforms to this policy.
streetscapes and within development projects to A plant materials palette has been developed with
enhance public health and environmental benefits. consideration to the rural characteristics of this part of
the City of Orange and Orange Park Acres.
POLICY 6.9: Restrict development in areas where This policy does not apply to the proposed project.
exposure to hazards such as flood, erosion, The project site is not located in an area where
liquefaction, dam failure,hazardous materials,and exposure to hazards such as flood,erosion,
toxic gases cannot be mitigated to reduce risk to liquefaction,dam failure,hazardous materials, and
residents and liability to the City. toxic gases cannot be mitigated to reduce impacts.
POLICY 6.10: Mitigate adverse air,noise, The proposed project conforms to this policy.
circulation, and other environmental impacts The project includes multiple traffic control features,
caused by new development adjacent to existing landscape buffers,and sound walis.
neighborhoods through use of sound walls,
landscaping buffers, speed limits, and other traffic
control measures.
� POLICY 6.11: Recognize the value of natural and This policy does not apply to the proposed project.
cultural resources in the undeveloped portions of The project site is in a developed portion of the City of
the planning area. Orange.
���� POLICY 6.12: Maximize the land use This po[icy does not apply to the proposed project.
opportunities for the Irvine Lake area by providing The project site is not in the Irvine Lake area.
a mix of uses, such as lodging,housing,and
recreational uses.
Michael Brandman Associates 4.6-23
H�.\Client(PN-IN)�3771\37710001�EIR\9-DEIIL\37710001 Sec04-06 Land Use.doc
Sa/em Lutheran Church and School Specific P/an
Land Use and Planning Draft EIR
Table 4.6-3 (cont.): Project Consistency
with the City of Orange General Plan: Land Use Element
��,
��� � � � {��rt ��1�r :
. _� �_.�._ , �:e. ��....��__ ."' __.__ � ..__..�_,�___ ��_.�_ �x �_.�:_ _� _
GOAL 7.0: Promote coordinated pianning among City departments and agencies,property owners, residents, „�
special districts,and other jurisdictions in the region.
POLICY 7.1: Coordinate with the Orange Unified This policy does not apply to the proposed project. `"
School District and Community College District The existing preschool and K-8 school is associated
regarding future plans for their facilities. with the Lutheran Church and has no impact on the �
Orange Unified School District.
POLICY 7.2: Work with institutions within the This policy does not apply to the proposed project.
City to ensure that implementation of their future The City, and not the project applicant, is specifically `�
plans is compatible with the City's goals for responsible for implementing this policy. �,,:
surrounding areas.
POLICY 73: Coordinate planning efforts with This policy does not apply to the proposed project.
�
adjacent cities, special purpose agencies,utilities, The Ciry, and not the project applicant, is specifically �
and community service providers. responsible for implementing this policy.
POLICY 7.4: Ensure positive benefits for Orange This policy does not apply to the proposed project.
�
from regionai transportation, land use,air quality, The City,and not the project applicant, is specifically ,�:
waste management and disposal,and habitat responsible for implementing this policy.
conservation plans. ,,,�,.
POLICY 7.5: Wark with and encourage other This policy does not apply to the proposed project. ,,
agencies and service providers to minimize The City, and not the project applicant, is specifically
potential visual and environmental impacts of their responsible for implementing this policy. �
facilities on Orange.
�
POLICY 7.6: Explore joint use agreements with This policy does not apply to the proposed project.
other agencies to share existing and future public This effort is the responsibility of applicable City �a
facilities among institutions in Orange. departments.
�
GOAL 8.0: Encourage active involvement of residents, businesses,and agencies in the planning and decision
making process. �
POLICY 8.1: Continue to provide opportunities for This policy does not apply to the proposed project. ,�„k.
public education and involvement in land use The City, and not the project applicant, is specifically
planning decisions through public hearings, responsible for implementing this policy. �,
community meetings, study sessions,electronic
media,and any other appropriate and available �
means.
�
POLICY 8.2: Emphasize public-private This policy does not apply to the proposed project.
cooperation in implementing the General Plan and The City,and not the project applicant, is specifically `""`
future planning activities. responsible for implementing this policy.
_ ,�
POLICY 83 Foster meaningful involvement and This policy does not apply to the proposed project.
interaction among diverse groups within the City The City,and not the project applicant, is specifically
regarding land use planning efforts and decision- responsible for implementing this policy.
making. ""
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 ]0 policies and is therefare consistent with the Land Use Element(Table 4.6-3)and is �
4.6-24 Michael Brandman Associates ,,,,,
H�.\Client(PN-JN)�3771\37710001�EIIt\9-DEQi\37710001 Sec04-06 Land Ose.doc
Sa/em Lutheran Church and Schoo/Specific P/an Environmental Impact Anatysis
Draft EIR Land Use and P/anning
. not in conflict with these goals and/or policies. Therefore, less than significant impacts would result
from project implementation related to the goals and policies of the Land Use Element.
Genera/P/an-Natural Resources E/ement
Table 4.6-4 provides a comparison of the proposed project to each goal and policy of the following
Natural Resources Element.
Table 4.6-4: Project Consistency
with the City of Orange General Plan: Natural Resources
_ _ __ _ _ __ _
', . N�,�rc�.�Qw�pr�ls a��►+��ciss Salerrt I:�n Ch�+i and Schoo!$p�c#fk PI�►�
_ _ __ . ���._�._„ y.,. � �
_.�_____� �____�...__ __._--� _ ___ _ ______ _ - -__� ,�.. .___ __ ---._.___.
GOAL 1.0: Provide recreational use,scenic enjoyment,and the protection of natural resources and features in
open space areas.
. __ _ _ _ _ _
POLICY 1.1: Conserve open space through various This policy does not apply to the proposed project.
public-private funding mechanisms and The City, and not the project applicant, is specifically
management strategies including,but not limited responsible for implementing this policy.
to,conservation easements.
POLICY 1.2:Actively seek out new public open This policy does not apply to the proposed project.
� space opportunities through land recycling. The City, and not the project applicant, is specifically
responsible for implementing this policy.
POLICY 13: Promote development of additional This policy does not apply to the proposed project.
open spaces and access points adjacent to The City, and not the project applicant, is specifically
waterways and planned trails. responsible for implementing this policy.
GOAL 2.0: Protect air,water,and energy resources from pollution and overuse.
POLICY 2.1: Cooperate with the South Coast Air This policy does not apply to the proposed project.
Quality Management District(SCAQMD)and The City,and not the project applicant, is specifically
other regiona]agencies to implement and enforce responsible for implementing this policy.
regional air quality management plans.
POLICY 2.2: Support alternative transportation The proposed project conforms to this policy.
modes, alternative technologies,and bicycle and The proposed project complies with this policy
pedestrian-friendly neighborhoods to reduce because it includes bicycle racks,and improves the
emissions related to vehicular travel. pedestrian,bicycle and equestrian crossing area at the
intersection of Orange Park Boulevard and Frank
Lane.
POLICY 2.3: Reduce the amount of water used for This policy does not apply to the proposed project.
landscaping through the use of native and drought- No parks are being built or renovated onsite.
tolerant plants,proper soil preparation, and
efficient irrigation systems as parks are built ar
renovated.
_ POLICY 2.4: Encourage the production, The proposed project conforms to this policy.
distribution,and use of recycled and reclaimed The proposed project has integrated Best Management
water for landscaping projects,while maintaining Practices related to Low Impact Development to
urban runoff water quality objectives. maintain urban runoff water quality objectives.
POLICY 2.5: Continue to work toward local and The proposed project conforms to this policy.
regional waste-reduction and diversion goals. Any remnant materials from building construction that
can be recycled will be, so as to reduce the amount of
waste that is landfilled.
Michael Brandman Associates 4.6-25
H1Client(PN-JN)�3771\37710001�EIR\9-DEIR\37710001 Sec04-06LandUse.doc
Sa/em Lutheran Church and School Specific Plan
Land Use and Planning Draft E/R
Table 4.6-4(cont.): Project Consistency
with the City of Orange General Plan: Natural Resources
�
�._ .
vw_. _ �
Na� t R��urce� : #� au�c#�►licies �a � „ 'Chu+'�h a�t � +�pt�n
,:� wu,�.v. _ ��.� _ � _ � ._ .�__���.u�„_�. . . . _ ��:�f _ _
POLICY 2.6:Encourage sustainable building and ' The proposed project conforms to this policy. ,,�,,
site designs for new construction and renovation The proposed project encourages sustainable building
projects. design and incorparation of energy efficient measures.
POLICY 2.7: Coordinate with energy suppliers to This policy does not apply to the proposed projecz �
ensure adequate energy supplies to meet The City,and not the project applicant,is specifically
community needs,and to promote energy responsible for implementing this policy. � -
conservation and public education programs for
that purpose. '�"`
POLICY 2.8: Encourage development that The proposed project conforms to this policy.
incorporates pedestrian-and transit-oriented design The proposed project incorporates pedestrian-oriented
and landscape elements. design and landscape elements. For example,the �
proposed project will provide a variety of outdoor
spaces offer quiet, intimate settings for staff,students,
congregation,and visitors,as well as larger more �,,,
public areas for general gatherings,play,and
recreation. �-�
_ _
POLICY 2.9: Promote City operations as a model This policy does not apply to the proposed project. �
for energy efficiency and green building. The City,and not the project applicant, is specifically
� responsible for implementing this policy. ��
POLICY 2.10: Work toward replacing existing This policy does not apply to the proposed project. �
City vehicles with ultra low or zero emission The City, and not the project applicant, is specifically
vehicles. At a minimum,new City vehicles shall responsible for implementing this policy. �
be low emission vehicles as defined by the
California Air Resources Board,except if certain """
vehicle types are not available in the marketplace.
�
Public safety vehicles are exempted from this
requirement.
w
POLICY 2.11:Protect the ecological integrity and This policy does not apply to the proposed project.
overall health of Orange's watersheds. The City,and not the project applicant,is specifically ��'
responsible for implementing this policy. �
POLICY 2.12: Cooperate with water supply This policy does not apply to the proposed project.
�
agencies to protect the quantity and qualiry of local The City,and not the project applicant, is specifically
groundwater supplies. � responsible for implementing this policy. �
POLICY 2.]3: Control surface runoff water The proposed project conforms to this policy.
�
discharges into the stormwater conveyance system The proposed project will comply with the City of
to comply with the City's National Pollutant Orange National Pollutant Discharge Elimination �
Discharge Elimination System System(NPDES)Municipal Permit and also includes
(NPDES)Municipal Permit and other regional a Water Quality Management Plan(WQMP). The �
permits issued by the Santa Ana Regional Water WQMP will be reviewed and approved by the City of
Quality Control Board. Orange. "*"
POLICY 2.14: Reduce pollutant runoff from new The proposed project conforms to this policy. �
development by requiring use of the most effective A Water Quality Management Plan(WQMP)has been
Best Management Practices(BMPs)currentiy developed for the proposed project,which includes '""0"
available. Best Management Practices. The WQMP will be
�
� reviewed and approved by the City of Orange.
POLICY 2.15: Minimize the amount of impervious The proposed project conforms to this policy. ^"�
�
4.6-26 Michael Brandman Associates �
H:\Client(PN-JN)�3771\37710001�EIR\9-DEIIt\37710001 Sec04-06LandUse.doc
«�sz
Salem Lutheran Church and School Specific Plan Environmental lmpact Analysis
Draft EIR Land Use and P/anning
Table 4.6-4(cont.): Project Consistency
with the City of Orange General Plan: Natural Resources
_ _
__ _
1�liN�#1`A���i���:�����.��Ptp�l� i $81dRf 1.11f���`i11tlf�Gh�i�d$�i1100���P�#i�
surfaces and associated urban runoff pollutants in The proposed project has been developed with
new development and significant redevelopment pervious surfaces throughout such as the multipurpose
throughout the community. field,which serves as a storm water and infiltration
zone. T'he proposed project will utilize a Low Impact
Development approach that includes project features
that are designed to mimic predevelopment site
hydrology and include infiltration,harvest and reuse,
evapotranspiration or biotreatment.
POLICY 2.16: Protect in-stream habitat and natural This policy does not apply to the proposed project.
stream and channel features. This is outside the scope of the proposed project
because it does not alter natural stream and channel
features. The proposed project is located
approximately 0.10 mile from Handy Creek.
POLICY 2.17: Educate City residents and This policy does not apply to the proposed project.
businesses on the effects of urban runoff. The City,and not the project applicant, is specifically
responsible for implementing this policy.
GOAL 3.0: Prepare for and adapt to the effects of dimate change and promote practices that decrease the
Ciry's contribution to climate change.
POLICY 3.1: Evaluate the potential effects of This policy does not apply to the proposed project.
climate change on the City's human and natural The City, and not the project applicant, is specifically
systems and prepare strategies that allow the City responsible for implementing this policy.
to appropriately respond and adapt.
POLICY 3.2: Develop and adopt a comprehensive This policy does not apply to the proposed project.
strategy to reduce greenhouse gasses(GHGs) The City,and not the project applicant, is specifically
within Orange by at least 15 percent from current responsible for implementing this policy.
levels by 2020.
GOAL 4.0: Conserve and protect wildlife habitat, plant and animal species of concem, and general
biodiversity.
POLICY 4.1: Preserve and protect native and This policy does not apply to the proposed project.
habitat-supporting plant resources throughout the The City,and not the project applicant, is specifically
C]ty, responsible for implementing this policy.
POLICY 4.2: Work with agencies, including the This policy does not apply to the proposed project.
Orange County Flood Control District,to identify The proposed project is not adjacent to Santiago
opportunities to enhance the natural qualities of Creek. This effort is the responsibility of applicable
Santiago Creek to protect habitat and reintroduce City departments.
native plants and animals.
POLICY 4.3: Reduce the impact of urban This policy does not apply to the proposed project.
development on important ecological and The proposed project is not located on a site with
biological resources. important ecological and biological resources.
POLICY 4.4: Repair or improve ecological and This policy does not apply to the proposed project.
biological conditions in the urban and natural The City,and not the project applicant, is specifically
environments when reviewing proposals for site responsible for implementing this policy.
development and redevelopment, as well as public
improvements.
POLICY 4.5: Protect the Santiago Creek and Santa This policy does not apply to the proposed project.
Michae/Brandman Associates 4.6-27
H\Client(PN-JN)�3771\37710001�EIR\9-DEIR\37710001 Sec04-06 Land Use.doc
Salem Lutheran Church and School Specifc Plan
Land Use and Planning Draft E/R
Table 4.6-4(cont.): Project Consistency
with the City of Orange General Plan: Natural Resources
N�Wr� u ���fis �,�icie�s j ��i�.0 '��hurah�i-�cltoa�t` Y �Alan
u � .s.. u ,
_.._._LL.� __ . _ .���_s.k�� ..�m� .._ _ .�..x,. � A . _. . �
_ a , � �
Ana River corridors from premature urbanization The proposed project is not located adjacent to
to ensure the continued availability of important Santiago Creek and Santa Ana River corridors and no
sand and gravel resources. sand ar gravel resources have been identified on site.
' GOAL 5.0: Provide recreational facilities and programs that adequately serve the needs of residents. �
POLICY 5.1:Maintain existing City parks at levels This policy does not apply to the proposed project.
that provide m�imum recreational benefit to City The City,and not the project applicant, is specifically �
residents. responsible for implementing this policy.
.,..
POLICY 5.2:Provide a range of high quality This policy does not apply to the proposed project.
recreational facilities and programming to serve a The City, and not the project applicant, is specifically �
broad cross section of residents, including youth, responsible for implementing this policy. �,
seniars,young adults,mature adults,and people
with disabilities. �.
POLICY 5.3: Establish joint recreational use of This policy does not apply to the proposed project. �
open space land and facilities owned by school The proposed project involves a redesign of an
districts and/or the City. existing private school and church use on site. This is �
outside the scope of the proposed project,as it is a
private school and is not a part of the Orange Unified �*�
School District.
��A
POLICY 5.4: Develop new public parks and open This policy does not apply to the proposed project.
space resources by establishing incentives to use The Ciry, and not the project applicant, is specifically ��
creative techniques available to property owners responsible for implementing this policy.
and developers that support public-private open ""�
space partnerships.
��
POLICY 5.5: Explore and pursue new approaches This policy does not apply to the proposed project.
to new park development and to providing a The City,and not the project applicant, is specifically ��
balanced mix of amenities and facilities. responsible far implementing this policy. ��
POLICY 5.6: Identify areas within the City that are This policy does not apply to the proposed project.
currently underserved by existing open space,and The City,and not the project applicant,is specifically �"���
develop programs to purchase land and build park responsible for implementing this policy. �
amenities at a minimum level of 3 acres per ],000
persons and the goal of 5 acres per 1,000 persons. ,�;
Support provision of a total of 10 acres of parkland
per 1,000 persons, inclusive of County regional M�r
parks within the planning area.
POLICY 5 J: Consider the use of Transfer of This policy does not apply to the proposed project. »
Development Rights(TDR)as a means to acquire The City,and not the project applicant, is specifically �*�
and develop more publicly accessible open space. responsible for implementing this policy.
w�
GOAL 6.0: Provide for alternative modes of transportation and access to recreational resources through a
multi-use trail system that links the City's parks and regional open space amenities. .�+
__
POLICY 6.1: Complete muiti-use trail links This policy does not apply to the proposed project. ti,�,
throughout the City that serve recreational and This effort is the responsibility of applicable City
circulation purposes as funding is available. departments. ��
POLICY 6.2: Ensure consistent, safe, and efficient This policy does not apply to the proposed project. > .
maintenance of trails,and minimal impacts to the This is outside the scope of the proposed project and
environment. pertains to the City of Orange. There are no trails on �++�
,�,
4.6-28 Michae/Brandman Associates b,m,
H\Client(PN-JN)U771\37710001�EIIt\9-DEIR\37710001 Sec04-06 Land Use_doc
owi.
Salem Lutheran Church and School Specific Plan Environmental lmpact Analysis
Draft EIR Land Use and P/anning
Table 4.6-4(cont.): Project Consistency
with the City of Orange General Plan: Natural Resources
' Natur�l Resour�es Eisment't�aa�`and�olkies ; Salem Lutlu�►i��htn�h arx���haal Specfflc Plan
the project site. Trails are located just north and east
of the project site,along the project boundary between
the site and Santiago Canyon Road and Orange Park
Boulevard.
POLICY 6.3: Work with the Rails-to-Trails This policy does not apply to the proposed project.
Conservancy, surrounding residents,utility This effort is the responsibility of applicable City
providers, flood control and water agencies,and departments.
community organizations to pursue the joint use of
local rights-of-way and easements far multi-use
trails.
POLICY 6.4: Link existing equestrian trails and This policy does not apply to the proposed project.
provide outlets to open space areas,particularly in This effort is the responsibility of applicable City
the northeast region of the City,to reach regional departments.
parks such as Santiago Oaks,Irvine,Peters
Canyon,and the Cleveland National Farest.
POLICY 6.5: Ensure that the trail system has a safe The proposed project conforms to this policy.
interface with existing development. The proposed project will improve the existing trail
crossing along Orange Park Boulevard,where it
intersects Frank Lane. Additionally, improvements
will be made where the trail will cross the proposed
driveway off Santiago Canyon Road,which is
proposed as a point of access for the project site.
POLICY 6.6: Encourage an integrated relationship The proposed project conforms to this policy.
between trails and developed areas. Refer to the response for Policy 6.5 above.
GOAL 7.0: Protect significant view corridors,open space,and ridgelines within the urban environment.
POLICY 71: Preserve the scenic nature of This policy does not apply to the proposed project.
significant ridgelines visible throughout the The project site is not located on a significant ridge
community. visible throughout the Citywide community. The
project site is relatively flat and is not located in a
ridgeline area.
POLICY 7.2: Designate Santiago Canyon Road This policy does not apply to the proposed project.
east of Jamboree Road as a City Scenic Highway to The project site is not located east of Jamboree Road.
preserve the scenic nature of the open space
adjacent to the road.
POLICY 73: Encourage the development of This policy does not apply to the proposed project.
landscaped medians and parkway landscaping The City, and not the project applicant, is specifically
along arterial streets in public and private projects, responsible for implementing this policy.
and encourage the state to provide freeway
landscaping.
POLICY 7.4: Coordinate with Southern California This policy does not apply to the proposed project.
��� Edison and other utilities to place utility lines The City, and not the project applicant, is specifically
underground wherever possible. responsible for implementing this policy.
POLICY 7.5: Encourage the retention and This policy does not apply to the proposed project.
� enhancement of scenic corridors and visual focal This effort is the responsibility of applicable City
points within the community. departments.
Natural Resources Element
Michael Brandman Associates 4.6-29
HVClient(PN-JN)�3771A37710001�E'.6tV9-DEIlt\37710001 Sec0406 Land Use.doc
Sa/em Lutheran Church and Schoo/Specific P/an
Land Use and P/anning Draft E/R
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. ^^�
Genera/Plan-Public Safety Element �
Table 4.6-5 provides a comparison of the proposed project to each goal and policy of the following """"'
Public Safety Element. x�-«
�
Table 4.6-5: Project Consistency
with the City of Orange General Plan: Public Safety Element k�
,
Pub�+F,�a��: ��Da�and Polic� _ �at�m L;t�hl�r�n Churc�t and Sr.�iaot Spac #�i�#an �
_ ._�_ . ..�__ �_. ��__��.i�.._._ _u.� _. . u_.K._ . ���:+ _._ _�.a _.. . .____ _ __. �._ _ ,__. �_.__ __.� ,�,.._.__
GOAL 1.0:Protect residents and businesses from seismic hazards and other geologic constraints. "*�'
POLICY l.l: Minimize the potential loss of life The proposed project conforms to this policy. �
and damage to structures that may result from an � The project will be built per City codes and per
earthquake. Uniform Building Code standards so that structures "`"`
are as safe and stable as possible during an
earthquake. Any variances obtained will also comply "'"`
with safety standards. �,
POLICY 1.2: Educate and train individuals and This policy does not apply to the proposed project.
neighborhoods how to respond to emergency The City,and not the project applicant, is specifically �"
situations. responsible for implementing this policy. �,;,
POLICY 13: Participate in federal, state, and local This policy does not apply to the proposed project.
earthquake preparedness and emergency response The City,and not the project applicant, is specifically '�"
programs. responsible for implementing this policy. ,,,�
GOAL 2.0: Protect the City from flood-related risks and hazards.
_ ___
____
i�
POLICY 2.1: Cooperate and work with the Orange This policy does not apply to the proposed project.
County Flood Control District to ensure The City,and not the project applicant,is specifically "�`
District flood control facilities are well maintained responsible far implementing this policy.
and capable of accommodating, at a minimum, �"
100-year storm flows.
��
POLICY 2.2:Protect critical public and private This policy does not apply to the proposed project.
facilities located within areas subject to flooding The City,and not the project applicant,is specifically '""�
and dam inundation. responsible far implementing this policy. Ft
POLICY 23: Evaluate and monitor water storage This policy does not apply to the proposed project.
facilities to determine which facilities might pose The City, and not the project applicant,is specifically �""�
an inundation hazard to downstream properties. responsible for implementing this policy. ,,
POLICY 2.4: Employ strategies and design This policy does not apply to the proposed project.
features that will reduce the amount of impervious The City,and not the project applicant, is specifically ��"
surface(i.e.paved area)within new development responsible for implementing this policy. ,��,
projects.
��
RII�
4.6-30 Michael Brandman Associates �,�
H\Clien[(PN-JN)�3771\37710001�EIR\9-DEII2\37710001 Sec04-06 Land Ose.doc
Sa/em Lutheran Church and Schoo/Specific Plan Environmental Impact Analysis
DraR EIR Land Use and Planning
Table 4.6-5 (cont.): Project Consistency
with the City of Orange General Plan: Public Safety Element
_ .
. ;„ . . i �� . .
1�a1�t�C, , tt.�hiur+�h 1�.
� �Ir�d
. � . �
. g, : �
. _�_ ��,��:.x��.__.��.___,�.�_��.�..___� _.___ �_,�.._ w � �
GOAL 3.0:Protect lives and property of Orange residents and businesses from urban and wildland fire
hazards.
POLICY 3.1: Continue to identify and evaluate This policy does not apply to the proposed project.
new potential fire hazards and fire hazard areas. The City,and not the project applicant, is specifically
responsible for implementing this policy.
POLICY 3.2:Consider non-traditional methods of This policy does not apply to the proposed project.
controlling vegetation in undeveloped areas. The project site is developed along with the
surrounding area.
POLICY 3.3: Require planting and maintenance of This policy does not apply to the proposed project.
fire-resistant slope cover to reduce the risk of brush The project site is not located within a wildland-urban
fires within the wildland-urban interface areas interface area.
located in the northern and eastern portions of the
City and in areas adjacent to canyons, and develop
and implement stringent site design and
maintenance standards for all areas with high wild
land fire potential. To the extent possible,native,
non-invasive plant materials are encouraged.
POLICY 3.4:Provide adequate fire equipment This policy does not apply to the proposed project.
access and fire suppression resources to all The City, and not the project applicant, is specifically
developed and open space areas. responsible for implementing this policy.
POLICY 3.5: Establish and maintain optimal This policy does not apply to the proposed project.
emergency response times for fire safety. Require The City, and not the project applicant, is specifically
new development to ensure that City response responsible far implementing this policy.
times and service standards are maintained.
POLICY 3.6: Educate the public regarding fire This policy does not apply to the proposed project.
safety. The City,and not the project applicant, is specifically
responsible for implementing this policy.
POLICY 3.7: Continue to adopt and honor This policy does not apply to the proposed project.
agreements with adjacent communities far mutual The City, and not the project applicant, is specifically
aid assistance. responsible for implementing this policy.
POLICY 3.8: Ensure that the Fire Department has This policy does not apply to the proposed project.
sufficient capacity, stations,personnel,and The City, and not the project applicant, is specifically
equipment to meet growth needs in the City far fire responsible for implementing this policy.
protection and related emergency services.
GOAL 4.0: Minimize risks to life,property,and the environment associated with producing, using,storing,or
transporting hazardous materials.
POLICY 4.1: Assess potential risks of disposing, This policy does not apply to the proposed project.
transporting,manufacturing and storing existing The City,and not the project applicant, is specifically
hazardous materials,and develop appropriate responsible for implementing this policy.
mitigation measures in case of accidents.
POLICY 4.2: Prohibit new disposal,transport, This policy does not apply to the proposed project.
manufacture,and storage of hazardous materials The City, and not the project applicant,is specifically
within the City without a mitigation plan in case of responsible for implementing this policy.
accidents. Hospitals meeting current state and
federal standards are exempt.
Michae/Brandman Associates 4.6-31
H�.\Clien[(PN-JN)U771\37710001�E[R\9-DEIR\37710001 Sec04-06LandUse.doc
Sa/em Lutheran Church and Schoo/Specific P/an
Land Use and P/anning DraR E/R
Table 4.6-5 (cont.): Project Consistency
with the City of Orange General Plan: Public Safety Element
�
` }Pui�liC _
f.�r�ehtGt��ratN�,�olicisa� .: E Salem Lu#t��►n�h�rch��chotal F�lan
�� r:w_ ��u � .�_.�; ��,,
�
_ .. __ _. _� _ . .. n .r� .__. ,. _�._
POLICY 4.3: Identify hazardous materials This policy does not apply to the proposed project.
dumpsites, and ensure that the sites are cleaned in The project site is not designated or identified as a
conformance with applicable federal and state laws hazardous materials dumpsite.
prior to the establishment of new uses.
.�
POLICY 4.4: Ensure that the public is protected This policy does not apply to the proposed project.
from fires,noxious fumes,and other hazards within This policy is a Citywide policy and is the ��
the City's industrial area. responsibility of applicable City departments. The site
is not located within the City's industrial area. �
GOAL 5.0: Reduce safety hazards associated with civilian, military,and medical air traffic. �e�
__ __ _ __ _ __ _
POLICY 5.1: Work with the Federal Aviation This policy does not apply to the proposed project. �
Administration,the Orange County Airport Land The City,and not the project applicant, is specifically
Use Commission,California Department of responsible for implementing this policy. ��>
Transportation,and other agencies to establish
aircraft corridors which minimize the exposure of .w,
Orange residents to air traffic hazards.
�
POLICY 5.2: Work with major medical institutions This policy does not apply to the proposed project.
to minimize the impact of helicopter and airplane The City,and not the project applicant, is specifically �
traffic on Orange residents. responsible for implementing this policy.
_ �,,.
GOAL 6.0: Provide public safety seroices of the highest quality.
___ __
_
_ _ . _
POLICY 6.1:Provide the Police Department with This policy does not apply to the proposed project. ��
adequate personnel,equipment and state-of the-art The City,and not the project applicant, is specifically ;,,,�;
technology to effectively combat crime,meet responsible far implementing this policy.
existing and projected service demands, and ,,,�,
provide crime prevention programs. These
resources should be provided prior to anticipated ""�
needs.
��w
POLICY 6.2: Provide resources for additional This policy does not apply to the proposed project.
police services as needed to maintain average The City, and not the project applicant, is specifically """"
response times. responsible far implementing this policy.
�
POLICY 63: Provide and use up-to-date This policy does not apply to the proposed project.
technology to improve crime prevention,fire 7'he City, and not the project applicant, is specifically ��
suppression,and emergency services. responsible for implementing this policy.
��
POLICY 6.4: Continue to support,develop,and This policy does not apply to the proposed project.
implement programs which improve the Ciry's The City,and not the project applicant, is specifically "�
approach to fighting crime. responsible for implementing this policy. ��
POLICY 6.5:Provide ongoing public information This policy does not apply to the proposed project.
and education regarding the City's Emergency The City,and not the project applicant, is specifically ��
Preparedness Program,homeland security, and responsible for implementing this policy.
other similar programs. '�
POLICY 6.6: Establish designated evacuation This policy does not apply to the proposed project. ��
routes throughout the City. The City, and not the project applicant, is specifically
��
responsible for implementing this policy.
o�
M�
.�
4.6-32 Michae/Brandman Associates ,,,�
H:\Client(PN-1N)U771\37710001�EIR\9-DEIR\37710001 Sec04-06 Land Use.doc
wux.
Sa/em Lutheran Church and Schoo/Specific Plan Environmental Impact Ana/ysis
Draft EIR Land Use and P/anning
Table 4.6-5 (cont.): Project Consistency
with the City of Orange General Plan: Public Safety Element
-
'` " Etem�nt�aa�s and Poiic.las � x L�+er�n Church a�!S±�h0�1 ' +�Plan
� �> � _.
POLICY 6.7:Maintain and update the City's This policy does not apply to the proposed project.
Emergency Operations Plan as needed,and ensure The City,and not the project applicant, is specifically
��� ongoing consistency between the General Plan and responsible far implementing this policy.
the Emergency Operations Plan and Fire
Deparhnent Strategic Deployment Plan.
GOAL 7.0: Improve community safety and reduce opportunities for criminal activity.
_
POLICY 7.1�:Provide crime prevention, This policy does not apply to the proposed project.
community service,and education programs The City,and not the project applicant, is specifically
designed to prevent crime. responsible far implementing this policy.
POLICY 7.2: Promote and integrate crime- The proposed project conforms to this policy.
preventive characteristics and design features into The project site contains nighttime security lighting
all phases of the planning and development and will incorporate security measures during project
process. construction.
POLICY 73: Maximize natural surveillance The proposed project conforms to this policy.
through physical design features, including,but not The proposed project includes a visible entryway as
limited to,visible entryways from surrounding well as visible walkways and gates.
structures and businesses;well defined and visible
walkways and gates;well-lighted driveways,
walkways,and exteriors;and landscaping that
preserves or enhances visibility.
POLICY 7.4: Ensure that community areas and This policy does not apply to the proposed project.
amenities such as transit stops,sidewalks,plazas, The City,and not the project applicant, is specifically
parks,trails,and bike paths are appropriately responsible for implementing this policy.
lighted,free of hiding places,and frequently
patrolled.
POLICY 7.5: Maximize security of public spaces, The proposed project conforms to this policy.
recreation facilities,and new development by The site has been designed with complementary uses
encouraging complementary uses that support a and has security features such as gates and nighttime
safe environment. security lighting.
POLICY 7.6: Continue to involve the Orange The proposed project conforms to this policy.
Police Department in the project design and review The proposed project will be reviewed by several City
process. departments, including the Orange Police Department.
GOAL 8.0: Emphasize emergency preparedness both within City Hall and throughout the community.
POLICY 8.1: Sponsar and support public This policy does not apply to the proposed project.
education programs for emergency preparedness The City,and not the project applicant,is specifically
and disaster response. responsible for implementing this policy.
° POLICY 8.2: Coordinate disaster preparedness This policy does not apply to the proposed project.
with other public and private agencies. The City,and not the project applicant, is specifically
responsible for implementing this policy.
�� POLICY 8.3: Coordinate emergency response and This policy does not apply to the proposed project.
preparedness planning with other cities and public The City, and not the project applicant, is specifically
agencies in the region. responsible for implementing this policy.
Michael Brandman Associates 4.6-33
H�\Client(PN-7N)�3771\37710001�EIR\9-DEQt\377I0001 Sec04-06 Land Use.doc
Salem Lutheran Church and Schoo/Specific P/an
Land Use and P/anning Draft E/R
Table 4.6-5 (cont.): Project Consistency
with the City of Orange General Plan: Public Safety Element
�
_ _ _..._. �. _
Pub�� :. htC#i� ':` Polir.ie�# � ,�alem Lu�erarr Che�nch andl�chook S�alflc Plan _
POLICY 8.4: Develop and maintain a fully This policy does not apply to the proposed project. ,�,,,
functioning Emergency Operations Center,and The City, and not the project applicant, is specifically
adequate and up-to-date emergency preparedness responsible for implementing this policy. �
resources and plans.
GOAL 9.0: Provide safe pedestrian and bicycle environments. �
_ ___ ._ _ __
_ ___
POLICY 9.1: Enhance and maintain safe The proposed project conforms to this policy. �
pedestrian and bicycle movement through the The proposed project will enhance the safety of
inte ration of traffic control devices crosswalks �
g , , pedestrians and bicyclists by improving signage at the
and pedestrian-oriented lighting, into the design of cross walk at the intersection of Frank Lane and �,s�
streets, sidewalks,trails, and school routes Orange Park Boulevard.
throughout Orange. �
POLICY 9.2: Support creation of safe routes that The proposed project conforms to this policy. �
encourage children to walk or bike to schools and Refer to the discussion of Policy 9.1 above.
recreational facilities. �a
POLICY 93:Identify and attempt to remove The proposed project conforms to this policy. r�.
impediments to pedestrian and bicycle access Refer to the discussion of Policy 9.1 above.
including those associated with rail,street, ,�r
freeway,and waterway crossings and poorly
marked or maintained pathways and sidewalks. �'
�
�.
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 Element ,,,�
Table 4.6-6 provides a comparison of the proposed project to each goal and policy of the following ,,,,�
Circulation and Mobility Element.
,�
Table 4.6-6: Project Consistency .�.
with the City of Orange General Plan: Circulation and Mobility Element
_
�
C�lation and�b�litY�mer�t Gtsals ant! �
���_ #����� °ri 'Y ' ° I 3alem Lu#heratn C1�uwc1��nd Schaol Speciti�Pian
µ�._ �.�_�.�
.._ � _ _ __ . _ _ ... __�<:__
_ _.... � ____ . _.__ _:�_._µ._ __. _ .,___ J__.._
GOAL 1.0: Provide a safe,efficient,and comprehensive circulation system that serves local needs,meets ''"""
forecasted demands,and sustains quality of life in neighborhoods.
�
__
_____
POLICY 1.1: Plan,build, and maintain an This policy does not apply to the proposed project.
integrated,hierarchical,and multi-modal system of The City,and not the project applicant, is specifically �
roadways,pedestrian walkways,and bicycle paths responsible far implementing this policy ,�
throughout the City.
�
�
4.6-34 Michael8randman Associates ,,,�
H\Client(PN-J1V)�3771\37710001�EIR\9-DEIR\37710001 Sec04-06 Land Use.doc
x�
Salem Lutheran Church and School Specifc P/an Environmental lmpact Analysis
Draft E/R Land Use and Planning
Table 4.6-6 (cont.): Project Consistency
with the City of Orange General Plan: Circulation and Mobility Element
,
���a �, �� � � � . � t�: , �;�
n . � . , � , la,��ch+urcn ar�dt��or s�w�P�r� `
, ��, � ,� „
�� �,:.. - . �_ � �
__ __ _ �.._
POLICY 1.2: Identify key intersections and streets This policy does not apply to the proposed project.
� with historical or projected traffic congestion This policy is a Citywide policy and is the
problems and apply creative traffic management responsibility of applicable City deparhnents.
measures to improve overall circulation.
POLICY 13: Consider various methods to increase The proposed project conforms to this policy.
safety on City arterials and neighborhood streets, The proposed project includes signage at the
including landscaping,provision of bike/transit pedestrian,bicycle, equestrian crossing at the
lanes,and consideration of traffic calming on intersection of Frank Lane and Orange Park
neighborhood streets in accordance with the City's Boulevard. The proposed project also includes a
Neighborhood Residential Traffic Management raised"pork chop"traffic device on Santiago Canyon
Program. Road that will facilitate eastbound right-turn
movements into the church from the deceleration land
and prevent left-hand turns onto westbound Santiago
Canyon Road.
POLICY 1.4: Prohibit on-street parking where The proposed project conforms to this policy.
possible to reduce bicycle/automobile conflicts in Frank Lane has been designed with some on street
appropriate target areas as recommended by the parking;however, Frank Lane is a private street. The
Bikeways Master Plan. site design will improve traffic flow and will reduce
traffic congestion at the Santiago Canyon Road and
Orange Park Boulevard intersection due to the
redesign of the site with a driveway connecting
Santiago Canyon Road to Frank Lane.
POLICY 1.5: Address possible safety and noise This policy does not app[y to the proposed project.
effects of increased rail activity on grade crossings The City,and not the project applicant,is specifically
throughout the City. responsible for implementing this policy
POLICY 1.6: Maintain and repair roadways and This policy does not apply to the proposed project.
sidewalks as necessary to improve circulation and The City, and not the project applicant, is specifically
safety. responsible for implementing this policy
POLICY 1.7: Consolidate driveways along This policy does not apply to the proposed project.
roadways that provide access to commercia]uses to The proposed project is not commercial land use.
minimize side street interruption and promote
smooth traffic flows. On-street parking is
prohibited on commercial access streets to provide
adequate curb-to-curb width far travel lanes.
GOAL 2.0: Provide an effective regional transportation network.
POLICY 2.1: Ensure consistency with the County This policy does not apply to the proposed project.
MPAH in order to qualify for funding programs. The City, and not the project applicant, is specifically
responsible for implementing this policy
�� POLICY 2.2:Coardinate with adjacent cities to This policy does not apply to the proposed project.
plan and develop major east/west and north/south The City,and not the project applicant, is specifically
arterials and rapid transit to connect the City with responsible far implementing this policy
the cities of Anaheim,Tustin, Santa Ana,Garden
Grove,and Villa Park,as well as developing areas
� within the City's sphere of influence.
Michael8randman Associates 4.6-35
H�.\Client(PN-.RV)U771\37710001�E[R\9-DEIIt\37710001 Sec04-06[.andUse.doc
Sa/em Lutheran Church and Schoo/Specific P/an
Land Use and P/anning Draft E/R
�
Table 4.6-6 (cont.): Project Consistency
with the City of Orange General Plan: Circulation and Mobility Element
�
�i�rrut �+ti �� t�1t�a� � �. �� �:. �_ �� �,_,� ���
�, �, �
:
�. .: � � �� �����' � . � � � ��Cch� Rlan
_�. ,
# $ ,�, �� � r �SpecNlc�
� s_._� _�:� �
_ _ _ _ � , ... .: $_._ z__.
POLICY 2.3: Cooperate with and support local and This policy does not apply to the proposed project. �
regional agencies' efforts to improve regional The City,and not the project applicant, is specifically .
arterials and transit in order to address increasing responsible for implementing this policy
traffic congestion. �,
POLICY 2.4: Coordinate land use planning with This policy does not apply to the proposed project. .�.
anticipated future development of roadways and This effort is the responsibility of applicable City
other transportation facility improvements as well department. �
as the expansion of commuter rail and bus service.
„�..
POLICY 2.5: Ensure that transportation facilities This policy does not apply to the proposed project.
and improvements do not degrade the quality of The proposed project does not include transportation +�
Orange's commercial and residential areas. facilities.
�
POLICY 2.6: Encourage the use of regional rail, This policy does not apply to the proposed project.
transit,bicycling,carpools,and vanpools far work The City,and not the project applicant, is specifically �
trips to relieve traffic congestion. responsible for implementing this policy.
�.
POLICY 2.7: Continue to support the use of rail This policy does not apply to the proposed project.
corridors within the City for the movement of The City,and not the project applicant,is specifically �+
freight and goods,and work with rail operators to responsible for implementing this policy
minimize associated traffic delays. �
GOAL 3.0:Connect centers within the City to each other and to the region through effiaent and accessible w�s
public transportation.
_ _ �
POLICY 3.1: Work with OCTA and other agencies This policy does not apply to the proposed project.
to assess City public transportation needs and to The City, and not the project applicant, is specifically �"
ensure delivery of services when and where they responsible for implementing this policy �
are needed.
POLICY 3.2: Enhance and encourage provision of This policy does not apply to the proposed project. "'�
convenient and attractive transit amenities and The Ciry,and not the project applicant, is specifically
streetscapes to encourage use of public responsible for implementing this policy �
transportation(e.g.,benches,trash cans, shelters,
and lighting). �"`
POLICY 3.3: Require incorporation of transit- This policy does not apply to the proposed project. �
oriented design features within major commercial The project site is not located within a major +�
and employment areas as well as in medium commercial area.
density residential and mixed-use development ,�
areas.
�...�
.�,.
��
��
r�
��
4.6-36 Michae/Brandman Associates �,�,
H�.AClient(PN-JN)A3771A37710001�EIRV9-DElti\37710001 Su04-06LandUse.doc
ea�..
Salem Lutheran Church and School Specific Plan Environmental lmpact Analysis
Draft EIR Land Use and Planning
Table 4.6-6 (cont.): Project Consistency
with the City of Orange General Plan: Circulation and Mobility Element
_ __ _ _ __
c���`������� � . � t�
%�:
��' "��. �r ���►��1�: # ;; ��, � � ��R�1�#��1��`Ii�Ch�Tk���'�'��� ��It4 -
, ,, „ � �
�__�_� u� ���- �_�._.__ � .�:�...w
_ _ _�_:._ _:--- .�.,�..__�_�____ __ v_—
' GOAL 4.0:Provide effiaent and accessible modes of pedestrian,bicyGe,and equestrian transportation and
improved facilities and amenities.
POLICY 4.1: Create a comprehensive bicycle This policy does not apply to the proposed project.
network that is integrated with other transportation The City,and not the project applicant, is specifically
systems by establishing complementary on-street responsible far implementing this policy
and off-street facilities as identified in the City of
Orange Bikeways Master Plan and OCTA
Commuter Bikeways Strategic Plan, including
Santiago Creek,the Santa Ana River,and the
Tustin Branch Trail.
POLICY 4.2: Install racks and safe storage This policy does not apply to the proposed project.
facilities at parking areas for City facilities,as The proposed project is not a City facility. This effort
appropriate,and encourage incorporation of such is the responsibility of applicable City department.
facilities within privately developed projects.
POLICY 43: Improve citywide awareness of This policy does not apply to the proposed project.
automobile and bicycle safety. The City, and not the project applicant, is specifically
responsible for implementing this policy
POLICY 4.4: Encourage use of the bikeway system This policy does not apply to the proposed project.
by providing adeyuate signage,trail markings,and The City,and not the project applicant, is specifically
other amenities. responsible for implementing this policy
POLICY 4.5: Ensure that pedestrian sidewalks, This po[icy does not apply to the proposed project.
trails,and bikeways are safe environments through The City,and not the project applicant, is specifically
the use of crime prevention-oriented trail design responsible for implementing this policy
features,lighting where appropriate,pedestrian and
bicycle safety improvements at at-grade rail
crossings, access for emergency vehicles,and links
to the roadway signal system.
POLICY 4.6: E�.plore opportunities to convert This policy does not apply to the proposed project.
abandoned rail corridors into segments of the City's The City, and not the project applicant,is specifically
bikeway and pedestrian trail system. responsible for implementing this policy
POLICY 4.7: Provide ADA accessible sidewalks This policy does not apply to the proposed project.
and pedestrian amenities throughout the City. The City,and not the project applicant, is specifically
responsible for implementing this policy
POLICY 4.8: Expand and maintain an equestrian This policy does not apply to the proposed project.
� trail network and provide for appropriate staging The City,and not the project applicant, is specifically
areas and infrastructure. responsible for implementing this policy
GOAL 5.0: Provide adequate parking to meet the needs of activity centers throughout the City.
POLICY 5.1: Provide adequate parking to protect This policy does not apply to the proposed project.
and support the economic vitality and diversity of The proposed project is not located in Old Towne.
Old Towne.
POLICY 5.2:Plan for and design parking facilities This policy does not apply to the proposed project.
throughout the City that are adequate to meet The City, and not the project applicant, is specifically
demand,but also consider land use-parking responsible for implementing this policy
efficiencies, and the surrounding natural and built
Michael Brandman Associates 4.6-37
H-\Client(PN-JN)�3771\37710001�EIR\9-DEIR\37710001 Sec04-06 Land Ose.doc
Sa/em Lutheran Church and Schoo/Specific P/an
Land Use and P/anning Draft E/R
f,.
Table 4.6-6 (cont.): Project Consistency
with the City of Orange General Plan: Circulation and Mobility Element
.�e
�y �y�. - x � �r �i � �
� ��i' ����i�M �4#Y r�.rn � �k�� : ���i;: �z�,u . „c�;'� , , .
v. . �
,
v
` : '�: -``�'" .. �... ,� . � � t
: ;;,. `' � �i81�1�1@f`8tT�. �
� � �..,,�.
� , , � ��R _
. :: _ . .. _ • _ ..._ �, _ {�
environment. """
_
POLICY 53: Encourage adjacent businesses to This policy does not apply to the proposed project.
consolidate parking facilities and access points. This policy is a Citywide policy and the City, and not �
the project applicant,is specifically responsible for
implementing this policy. The project site is not �.-�
adjacent to existing businesses.
POLICY 5.4: Encourage well-designed structured This policy does not apply to the proposed project. '�
parking in commercial areas where such features The project site is not located in a commercial area. �,
would be economically feasible, safe,and visually
integrated with existing development. �
i GOAL 6.0: Provide roadway corridors that are aesthetically pleasing and contribute to a feeling of safety, �.�
security,and comfort for motorists,bicyGists,and pedestrians.
�
POLICY 6.1: Supply adequate,clear, and correctly The proposed project conforms to this policy.
placed signage to direct both motorists and non- The addition of the proposed access point off Santiago �
motorists toward destinations and away from Canyon Road would require a"break"in the
hazards. equestrian trail adjacent to Santiago Canyon Road. A �
crosswalk will be added to reduce impacts. �
Additionally, signs shall be placed at the Frank
Lane/Orange Park Boulevard intersection to warn ,�
motorists of pedestrians,equestrian riders and of
bicycles which are traveling along Orange Park �
Boulevard.
�
POLICY 6.2:Provide clear indicators in the right- The proposed project conforms to this policy.
of-way for where pedestrians and bicyclists are Refer to the discussion regarding Policy 6.1 above. �+•+_
encouraged to walk,bike,or cross safely. These
may include special paving, line stripes, and i�
crosswalks.
,�
POLICY 63: Provide lighting, landscaping,street This policy does not apply to the proposed project.
trees, and other appropriately scaled streetscape The City,and not the project applicant, is specifically ��
features that accommodate all users on commercial responsible for implementing this policy
corridors. Where appropriate, lighting should be ""'
scaled for autos as well as pedestrians.
,�
��
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 provides a comparison of the proposed project to each goal and policy of the following r
Noise Element. a�
4.6-38 Michae/Brandman Associates ,,�.
H�.\Client(PN-JN)\3771\37710001�EIIt\9-DEllt\37710001 Sec04-06 Land Ose.doc
Sa/em Lutheran Church and School Specific Plan Environmental lmpact Analysis
Draft EIR Land Use and P/anning
Table 4.6-7: Project Consistency
with the City of Orange General Plan: Noise Element
�
� ;:Noi��v�matrt t�oals�#Pa1i�i•; �S����!��:t�.�1�u�t�aun�.Sch�t�A�t�ta Plsr+
GOAL 1.0: Promote a pattern of land uses compatible with current and future noise levels.
_ _ .
_ _ _ _
POLICY 1.]: Consider potentia]excessive noise The proposed project conforms to this policy.
levels when making land use planning decisions. A Noise Impact Study was prepared far the project
that evaluated the potential for excessive noise
impacts.
POLICY 1.2: Encourage new development projects This policy does not apply to the proposed project.
to provide sufficient spatial buffers to separate The proposed project is neither a new development
excessive noise generating land uses and noise- project nor a land use that generated excessive noise
sensitive land uses. levels.
POLICY 13: Incorporate design features into This policy does not apply to the proposed project.
residential and mixed-use projects that can be used The proposed project is not a residential or mixed use
to shield residents from excessive noise. project.
POLICY 1.4: Ensure that acceptable noise levels The proposed project conforms to this policy.
are maintained near noise-sensitive uses. A noise impact study was prepared specifically for the
proposed project that evaluated offsite noise impacts
during the short-term construction period and long-
term operational phase of the project. This study
� concluded that project implementation would not
result in significant,unavoidable noise impacts.
POLICY 1.5: Reduce impacts of high-noise activiry This policy does not apply to the proposed project.
centers located near residential areas. The proposed project is not a high-noise activity
center.
POLICY 1.6: Require an acoustical study for The proposed project conforms to this policy.
proposed developments in areas where the existing A noise impact study was prepared specifically for the
and projected noise level exceeds or would exceed proposed project that evaluated offsite noise impacts
the maximum allowable levels identified in Table during the short-term construction period and long-
N-3. The acoustical study shall be performed in term operational phase of the project. This study
accordance with the requirements set forth within concluded that project implementation would not
" this Noise Element. result in significant,unavoidable noise impacts.
GOAL 2.0: Minimize vehicular traffic noise in residential areas and near noise-sensitive land uses.
_ POLICY 2.1: Encourage noise-compatible land Tleis policy does not apply to the proposed project.
uses along existing and future roadways,highways, This policy is a Citywide policy and is the
and freeways. responsibility of applicable City deparhnents. It is the
responsibility of the City of Orange to encourage
noise-compatible land uses along existing and future
roadways,highways,and freeways.
POLICY 2.2: Encourage coordinated site planning The proposed project conforms to this po[icy.
��� and traffic control measures that minimize traffic The proposed project includes a coordinated site
noise in noise-sensitive land use areas. design which allows traffic to flow through the site
from Santiago Canyon Road to Frank Lane and in
doing so reduces traffic congestion and noise at the
Orange Park Boulevard and Santiago Canyon Road
intersections.
Michael8randman Associates 4.6-39
H-\Client(PN-JN)U771\37710001�EIIL\9-DEDt\37710001 Sec04-06 Land Use.doc
Salem Lutheran Church and Schoo/Specific P/an
Land Use and P/anning Draft E/R
Table 4.6-7 (cont.): Project Consistency
with the City of Orange General Plan: Noise Element
�
� , � r^'- -t . _: .,. .�__
� x�� ' � i.-� .-,�
r.
� . .- +�'� � �' � , � � �3tte�Lu�ttie�ran��h �� ,�peci��Pian
POLICY 2.3: Encourage the use of alternative The proposed project conforms to this policy. �„�„
transportation modes such as walking,bicycling, The proposed project includes bike racks, and has
mass transit,and alternative fuel vehicles to signalized intersections and cross walks to encourage
minimize traffic noise. alternative modes of transportation such as children
walking/biking to and from school. �
POLICY 2.4: Continue to work with the California This policy does not apply to the proposed project. ���
Department of Transportation(Caltrans),the The project site is not adjacent to a freeway or
Orange County Transit Authority(OCTA),and highway. *�
Transportation Corridor Agencies(TCA)to install,
maintain, and update freeway and highway rights- ""
of way buffers and soundwalls.
�•
POLICY 2.5: Work toward understanding and This policy does not apply to the proposed project.
reducing traffic noise in residential neighborhoods The City, and not the project applicant, is specifically "
with a focus on analyzing the effects of traffic noise responsible for implementing this policy ,�,
exposure throughout the City.
GOAL 3.0: Minimize train noise in residential areas and near noise-sensitive land uses. ""
POLICY 3.1: Encourage noise-compatible land � This policy does not apply to the proposed project. +�
uses and incorporate noise-reducing design features The proposed project is neither mixed-use
within transit oriented,mixed-use development development nor►ocated near a rail corridor. '
near rail corridors.
�
POLICY 3.2: Support establishment of quiet zones This policy does not apply to the proposed project.
near areas where rail crossings intersect public The project site is not near a rail crossing. "°`
roads to minimize the noise impacts of train horns.
__ _ _
�
GOAL 4.0:Minimize aircraft related noise in residential areas and near noise-sensitive land uses.
__ _ �,
POLICY 4.1: Continue to provide input to the This policy does not apply to the proposed project.
Orange County Airport Land Use Commission as The City,and not the project applicant, is specifically �w�
appropriate to minimize airport noise. responsible for implementing this policy
���
POLICY 4.2: Continue to work with regional, state, This policy does not apply to the proposed project.
and federal agencies, including officials at John The City,and not the project applicant,is specifically e�
Wayne Airport and Long Beach Airport,to responsible for implementing this policy
implement noise-reducing measures and to monitor ° =
and reduce noise associated with aircraft.
��
POLICY 43: Continue to coordinate with the This policy does not apply to the proposed project.
Federal Aviation Administration,Caltrans Division The City,and not the project applicant, is specifically '""""
of Aeronautics,and the Orange County Airport responsible far implementing this policy
Land Use Commission regarding the siting and "'�`
operation of heliports and heliotropes in order to , ,
minimize excessive helicopter noise.
GOAL 5.0:Minimize commercial activity noise in residential portions of mixed-use areas where residential c�
units are located above commercial uses or within the same development.
POLICY 5.1: Encourage the design and This policy does not apply to the proposed project.
construction of mixed-use structures to minimize The proposed project is not mixed-use in nature. "'�
commercial noise within the residential
components of the development. �T�
��.
4.6-40 Michae/Brandman Associates 4��
H:AClient(PN-IN)�3771A37710001�EIR\9-DEIIt\37710001 Sec04-06LandUse.doc �
Salem Lutheran Church and School Specific Plan Environmental Impact Analysis
Draft EIR Land Use and Planning
Table 4.6-7 (cont.�: Project Consistency
with the City of Orange General Plan: Noise Element
__. _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Nois���ren+a�t Goals#nd p�slic� Salem I.utMaer�in Church and�chool�p�aciflc Plan
POLICY 5.2: Encourage new mixed-use This policy does not apply to the proposed project.
development to locate the residential component of The proposed project is not mixed-use in nature.
the development away from noise-generating
sources such as mechanical equipment,
entertainment facilities,gathering places, loading
bays,parking lots,driveways,and trash enclosures.
POLICY 53: Encourage residential developments This policy does not apply to the proposed project.
within mixed-use developments and located The proposed project is not mixed-use in nature.
adjacent to commercial or retail and entertainment
�� related uses to notify potential residents that they
may be affected by noise from these uses.
GOA�6.0:Minimize industriat activity noise in residential areas and near noise-sensitive land uses.
_
POLICY 6.1: Encourage the design and This policy does not apply to the proposed project.
construction of industrial uses to minimize The proposed project is not industrial in nature.
excessive noise through project design features that
include noise control.
POLICY 6.2: Encourage industrial uses to locate This policy does not apply to the proposed project.
vehicular traffic and operations away from abutting The proposed project is not industrial in nature.
residential zones as much as possible.
GOAL 7.0:Minimize construction, maintenance vehicle,and nuisance noise in residential areas and near
noise-sensitive land uses.
_ __ _
POLICY 7.1: Schedule City maintenance and This policy does not apply to the proposed project.
construction projects so that they generate noise The City, and not the project applicant, is specifically
during less sensitive hours. responsible far implementing this policy
POLICY 7.2: Require developers and contractors to The proposed project conforms to this policy.
employ noise minimizing techniques during The proposed project will employ noise minimizing
construction and maintenance operations. techniques during construction and maintenance to
limit noise impacts to nearby residential land uses.
POLICY 73: Limit the hours of construction and The proposed project conforms to this policy.
maintenance operations located adjacent to noise- The proposed project includes the implementation of
sensitive land uses. noise mitigation measures during project construction
to mitigate potential impacts on surrounding
residential development. Noise impacts from the
proposed project will be reduced to less than
significant levels.
POLICY 7.4: Encourage limitations on tbe hours of This policy does not apply to the proposed project.
operations and deliveries for commercial,mixed- The proposed project is not commercial,mixed-use or
use,and industrial uses abutting residential zones. industrial in nature.
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.
Michael Brandman Associates 4.6-41
H�\Client(PN-IN)\3771\37710001�EIIt\9-DEIIL\37710001 Sec04-06 Land Use.doc
Sa/em Lutheran Church and Schoo/Specific P/an
Land Use and P/anning Draft E/R
.xi�
General Plan- Cultura/Resources and Historic Preservation E/ement
Table 4.6-8 provides a comparison of the proposed project to each goal and policy of the following �
Cultural Resources and Historic Preservation Element. �
Table 4.6-8: Project Consistency with the City of Orange General Plan: Cultural Resources and
Historic Preservation Element �
r,.�C�uftuez�jR�eqtoutrCe��ntd Historic P�en►a�l�r ; - ,� , ;
, . , ��mnl�t��`sis ar�d�'t►lkies � .�tM�rn�i�e��Chu�^ch and$ch��pe�lfl�P�#�n „�'
--_ �_� .�� �__.._ ,�.�u_ _. a> __e _ , ,
__ --_. y�. ... __.w��� _._ __ _ __. __�._W_ . .--._.________ -
GOAL 1.0: Identify and preserve potentia!and listed historic resources, inGuding buildings,structures,
objects,sites,districts,and archaeological resources citywide.
_ _ __ __ a,�
POLICY 1.1: Maintain an accessible inventory of This policy does not apply to the proposed project.
designated and potential historic resources. The City, and not the project applicant, is specifically '��
responsible for implementing this policy
�
POLICY 1.2: Promote community education and This policy does not apply to the proposed project.
awareness of the significance of Orange's potential The City,and not the project applicant, is specifically "'�`
and listed historic resources. responsible for implementing this policy
�
POLICY 13: Provide long term assurance that This policy does not apply to the proposed project.
potential and listed historic resources will be used, The City,and not the project applicant, is specifically �
maintained, and rehabilitated in conformance with responsible far implementing this policy
Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the "'""
Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines �
far Preserving,Rehabilitating, Restoring and
Preserving Historic Buildings(Secretary's �
Standards). ��
POLICY 1.4: Encourage alternatives to demolition This policy cloes not apply to the proposed project. �
such as architecturally-compatible rehabilitation, The City,and not the project applicant,is specifically ,�,
adaptive re-use,new construction,and relocation. responsible for implementing this policy
��
POLICY 1.5: Require that no permit for alteration This policy does not apply to the proposed project.
or demolition of properties identified in the Orange The project site does not contain structures identified ,,,�
Historic Resources Inventory as potential historic in the Orange Historic Resources Inventory.
resources shall be issued until alternatives to �
demolition have been duly considered.
�
POLICY 1.6: Promote the preservation of cultural This policy does not apply to the proposed project.
and historical resources controlled by governmental The proposed project is private and not controlled by "�"
agencies, including those related to City, School any government agencies.
District,and other agencies. ��
GOAL 2.0: Identify and preserve neighborhoods that are culturally and historically significant but do not retain ��
sufficient integrity for eligibility as a local,state,or national district.
,�
POLICY 2.1: Encourage identification and listing � This policy does not apply to the proposed project.
of Neighborhood Character Areas within the El The City,and not the project applicant, is specifically ��
Modena, Cypress Street Barrio, responsible for implementing this policy. The City
Railroad/Packinghouse Corridor,and Orange Park has no Neighborhood Character Areas within OPA 01"'
Acres neighborhoods. neighborhoods.
,�
POLICY 2.2: Promote community and visitor This policy does not apply to the proposed project.
awareness and education concerning the unique and The City,and not the project applicant, is specifically "'""
special history and architecture found in responsible for implementing this policy. The City �
Neighborhood Character Areas. has no Neighborhood Character Areas within OPA �
neighbarhoods. �
��.
4.6-42 Michae/Brandman Associates a,�
H\Clien[(PN-JN)�3771\37710001�EIIL\9-DEIR\37710001 Sec04-06 Land Use.doc
��
Sa/em Lutheran Church and School Specific Plan Environmental lmpact Analysis
Draft EIR Land Use and Planning
Table 4.6-8 (cont.): Project Consistency with the City of Orange General Plan: Cultural
Resources and Historic Preservation Element
� Gu�tural�tes��r+�q�:�nd �� �.l�t�aeerv�tics� � �� � ' � ��;�� �`:-�� �
�� � eM di�ls i���+� # Eta���.�rthet���Chfur�h�id 3t:t't�ol. � V �Ptan
POLICY 2.3: Ensure that those qualities that This policy does not apply to the proposed project.
contribute to the historic character of designated The City, and not the project applicant, is specifically
Neighborhood Character Areas are retained through responsible for implementing this policy The City has
application of design guidelines consistent with the not Neighborhood Character Areas within OPA
local context and key physical amibutes of each neighborhoods
neighborhood.
GOAL 3.0: Provide incentives and expand education efforts for historic preservation.
_ _
POLICY 3.1: Expand education efforts to facilitate This policy does not apply to the proposed project.
and encourage historic preservation and recognition The City,and not the project applicant, is specifically
of the City's historic resources. responsible for implementing this policy
POLICY 3.2: Provide incentives to encourage and This policy does not apply to the proposed project.
support historic preservation. This effort is the responsibility of applicable City
department.
POLICY 3.3: Actively seek funding for historic This policy does not apply to the proposed project.
preservation activities. The City, and not the project applicant, is specifically
responsible for implementing this policy
� POLICY 3.4: Leverage recognition of the City's This policy does not apply to the proposed project.
historic preservation program,participate directly The City, and not the project applicant, is specifically
in federal and state historic preservation programs, responsible far implementing this policy
and gain access to designated historic preservation
funding.
POLICY 3.5: Explore additional funding sources This policy does not apply to the proposed project.
for maintenance and rehabilitation of historic The City, and not the project applicant, is specifically
resources. responsible for implementing this policy
GOAL 4.0: Identify and preserve archaeological and cultural resources.
POLICY 4.1: Identify,designate,and protect This policy does not apply to the proposed project.
historically and culturally significant The City,and not the project applicant, is specifically
archaeological resources or sites. responsible for implementing this policy
POLICY 4.2: Recognize the importance of This policy does not apply to the proposed project.
Santiago Creek as an archaeological resource. The project site is not adjacent to Santiago Creek.
POLICY 43: Encourage curation of any cultural This policy does not apply to the proposed project.
resources and artifacts recovered in the City for The City,and not the project applicant, is specifically
public education and appreciation. responsible for implementing this policy
POLICY 4.4: Celebrate the cultural history of the This policy does not apply to the proposed project.
�� community by increasing community awareness The City, and not the project applicant,is specifically
through the design features of public projects and responsible for implementing this policy
facilities such as parks,plazas,and community
buildings.
POLICY 4.5: Encourage private development to This policy does not apply to the proposed project.
celebrate the cultural history of the community The City,and not the project applicant, is specifically
through project design. responsible for implementing this policy
Michael8randman Associates 4.6-43
H�.\Client(PN-JN)�3771\37710001�EIIL\9-DEIft\37710001 Sec04-06 Land Use.doc
Sa/em Lutheran Church and Schoo/Specific Plan
Land Use and Planning Draft E/R
Table 4.6-8 (cont.): Project Consistency with the City of Orange General Plan: Cultural
Resources and Historic Preservation Element
,w����;�k
Cuitu�ral�Resd+i�r�. � � s � ,,;� ��� a-� t � �� u s . :�_ � ,�
'�er�Q ' ���t�on .
: :< <� , .
, � t �N�rtti Lutherai�C1it��r aihd S�c�i���iffic�itt
�
� . � ,.
__ .. _ _�. ., _W . x .
, _ A.. ,
��
POLICY 4.6: Provide additional resources and This policy does not apply to the proposed project.
promotion for the Orange Public Library Local The City,and not the project applicant, is specifically �-����
Histoty Collection. responsible for implementing this policy
GOAL 5.0: Meet the educational,cultural,civic, information, recreation, business,and lifelong leaming needs �"
of residents through the provision of library resources. , ,,�
POLICY 5.1: Continue to expand,coordinate and This policy does not apply to the proposed project.
modernize the City's public library system, The City,and not the project applicant, is specifically ""`
ensuring that it becomes the premier information responsible for implementing this policy �,;,.
and learning resource for the City to meet the needs
of Orange's growing and diverse population. ,,,�
POLICY 5.2: Support the strategies and This policy does not apply to the proposed project. ,�
recommendations of the Orange Public Library The City,and not the project applicant, is specifically
Facilities Master Plan 2002-2020,and continue to responsible far implementing this policy �
explore new strategies that make the library
accessible to all members of the community. ��
POLICY 5.3: Work with the community to assess, This policy does not apply to the proposed projecz �.�
select,organize,and maintain desired collections of The City, and not the project applicant,is specifically
library materials and information sources and make responsible for implementing this policy �
these materials available to the public free of
charge to promote information literacy. '*�"
POLICY 5.4: Promote collaborations among This policy does not apply to the proposed projecz `�
community groups, educational institutions and the The City,and not the project applicant, is specifically
Public Library to enhance sharing of information, responsible for implementing this policy �"""
resources and financial support for library facilities, �
services and programs.
POLICY 5.5:Provide friendly and welcoming This policy does not apply to the proposed project.
��
library facilities that support the creation of both The City,and not the project appiicant, is specifically ,
formal and informal neighborhood commons. responsible for implementing this policy �
�
,�
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-lnfrastructure Element ��
Table 4.6-9 provides a comparison of the proposed project to each goal and policy of the following ��-�
Natural Resources Element.
��
��
4.6-44 Michael Brandman Associates ,,,��
H1Client(PN-JN)�3771\37710001�EIIt\9-DEIIt\37710001 Sec04-06LandUse.doc
�
� Sa/em Luiheran Church and Schoo/Specific Plan Environmental Impact Analysis
Draft EIR Land Use and Planning
�
M, Table 4.6-9: Project Consistency
with the City of Orange General Plan: Infrastructure Element
�
e ies
�
, :
..
� �
� �__JL.�3,."R.a • r� a a ..-. : ,.-. ,< : �-a . .. . . r rr .
�x •
.J
., . ..� ,*.. ....v = . _ ,�..,.�—..�= 4„�� a � , . ..,s . « .�
GOAL 1.0:Ensure water,sewer,and storm drain systems that meet the needs of residents and businesses.
�
__ _ _- __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ . _ _ _
POLICY 1.1: Provide sufficient levels of water, This policy does not apply to the proposed project.
r.� sewer,and storm drain service throughout the The City, and not the project applicant, is specifically
community. responsible for implementing this policy
�
POLICY 1.2: Correct lrnown deficiencies in the This policy does not apply to the proposed project.
� City's sewer, storm drain,and water systems and The Ciry, and not the project applicant, is specifically
work toward environmentally sustainable systems. responsible for implementing this policy
� POLICY 13: Promote water conservation The proposed project conforms to this policy.
�' programs aimed at reducing demands. The project includes water efficient features,as
detailed in the Specific Plan for the proposed project.
� POLICY 1.4: Explore environmentally efficient The proposed project conforms to this policy.
r"' infrastructure improvements such as the use of The project includes the integration of permeable
reclaimed water,maximizing percolation,and surfaces,which will filter storm water and allow for
�"" similar technologies. percolation of water on site.
� POLICY 1.5: Investigate and carry out cost- The proposed project conforms to this policy.
effective methods to reduce storm water infiltration The project includes Best Management Practices,
�" into the sewer system. which include ways to reduce storm water infiltration
� into the sewer system such as the use of bioswales and
altering the multipurpose field so that it is a permeable
es
surface that allows water to pass through it.
�y, POLICY 1.6: Require that new developments fund This policy does not apply to the proposed project.
fair-share costs associated with City provision of The proposed project did not identify any
� water, sewer,and storm drain service and are infrastructure upgrades that would require fair-share
consistent with City and service provider plans to funding.
�" complete needed improvements and funding
capacity for such improvements.
e�
__
GOAL 2.0: Reduce the amount of waste material entering regional landfills with an effiaent and innovative
� waste management program.
POLICY 2.l:Provide sufficient levels of solid This policy does not apply to the proposed project.
� waste service throughout the community. The City, and not the project applicant, is specifically
'� responsible for implementing this policy
POLICY 2.2: Expand outreach and education This policy does not apply to the proposed project.
'�'" regarding recycling opportunities to all City The City, and not the project applicant, is specifically
�"' customers. responsible for implementing this policy
POLICY 23: Develop programs that encourage This policy does not apply to the proposed project.
� residents to donate or recycle surplus furniture, old The Ciry,and not the project applicant, is specifically
� electronics,clothing, and other household items responsible for implementing this policy. Also,the
rather than disposing of such materials in landfills. proposed project does not include residential
�« development.
�"' POLICY 2.4: Expand outreach and education to all This policy does not apply to the proposed project.
City customers regarding residential collection of The City,and not the project applicant, is specifically
� household hazardous wastes including paint responsible for implementing this policy
i� containers,electronics,household chemicals,motor
oils,and pesticides.
�
Iorr
� Michael Brandman Associates 4.6-45
H�.\Client(PN-7N)�3771U77IOOOI�EIR\9-DEQt\37710001 Sec04-06 Land Use.doc
�
Sa/em Lutheran Church and Schoo/Specific Plan
Land Use and P/anning Draft E/R
Table 4.6-9 (cont.): Project Consistency
with the City of Orange General Plan: Infrastructure Element
_ _
s., � _� , �
inf�,f:�r+s���i�1��� t�cies�; �.��L�hln�t�h�ch ai?�#.��lk�;�$�,�+i�n
GOAL 3.0: Ensure adequate maintenance of public rights-of-way to enhance public safety and improve
circulation.
POLICY 3.1: Continue to maintain and repair This policy does not apply to the proposed project.
sidewalks and pavement surfaces on public rights- The City, and not the project applicant, is specifically
of-way. responsible for implementing this policy
POLICY 3.2: Provide sufficient levels of street This policy does not apply to the proposed project.
sweeping,landscaping,graffiti abatement, The City,and not the project applicant, is specifically
shopping cart and bulk item removal from streets, responsible for implementing this policy
sidewalks alleys,and other public rights-of-way. _
POLICY 33: Continue to design, install,and This policy does not apply to the proposed project.
maintain signals, signage,street lights, and traffic The City,and not the project applicant, is specifically
control devices within rights-of-way. responsible for implementing this policy
POLICY 3.4: Investigate the feasibility of using This policy does not apply to the proposed project.
energy-efficient street lights to conserve energy. The City, and not the project applicant, is specifically
responsible for implementing this policy
POLICY 3.5: Preserve and improve existing on- This policy does not apply to the proposed project.
street bike paths within rights-of-way. This effort is the responsibility of applicable City
department. .
POLICY 3.6: Require that new developments fund This policy does not apply to the proposed project.
fair-share costs associated with City provision of The proposed project is a modification of an existing
right-of-way maintenance services and are development and is not a new development.
consistent with City and service provider plans to
complete needed improvements and funding
capacity for such improvements.
GOAL 4.0: Ensure adequate provision of electricity, natural gas,telephone and data services and cable
television.
POLICY 4.1: Continue to work with dry utility This policy does not apply to the proposed project.
service providers to ensure that the community's The City,and not the project applicant,is specifically �
current and future needs are met. responsible for implementing this policy
POLICY 4.2: Continue to require utilities to be The proposed project conforms to this policy.
placed underground for new development. The City,and not the project applicant, is specifically �
responsible for implementing this policy
POLICY 43: Promote the use of new and emerging This policy does not apply to the proposed project.
communication technologies. The City,and not the project applicant, is specifically
responsible for implementing this policy
POLICY 4.4: Encourage integrated and cost- This policy does not apply to the proposed project.
effective design and technology features within The proposed project is a modification of an existing
new development to minimize demands on dry development and is not a new development.
utility networks.
4.6-46 Michae/Brandman Associates
HiClient(PN-JN)13771\37710001�EIR\9-DEDi\37710001 Sec04-06 Land Use_doc
Sa/em Lutheran Church and Schoo/Specific Plan EnvironmentallmpactAnalysis
Draft E/R Land Use and Planning
Table 4.6-9 (cont.): Project Consistency
with the City of Orange General Plan: Infrastructure Element
_ _ _ _
_ _ __ ___
Nt��+►��(t�r��t�GoAis and Poli� ` '� S��n�.uth�t�n Chu�h a�d:�+4�S�1tic�Plsn
� ..���,.a_____�
GOAL 5.0: Ensure lifeline infrastructure systems that meet the City's public health and safety needs.
POLICY 5.1: Continue to work with regional and This policy does not apply to the proposed project.
federal agencies to ensure that infrastructure for The City,and not the project applicant, is specifically
transportation systems,water,gas,electricity,and responsible for implementing this policy
telecommunications meet regional emergency
preparedness standards.
POLICY 5.2: Work with utility service providers to This policy does not apply to the proposed project.
create resiliency performance standards for water, The City, and not the project applicant, is specifically
gas,electricity,and telecommunications responsible for implementing this policy
infrastructure.
POLICY 53: Identify engineering vulnerabilities in This po[icy does not apply to the proposed project.
lifeline utilities exposed to human-caused and The City,and not the project applicant, is specifically
natural hazards, including seismic activity, responsible for implementing this policy
wildland fire,and flooding.
POLICY 5.4: Incorporate disaster mitigation This policy does not apply to the proposed project.
strategies into the City's infrastructure master plans The City, and not the project applicant,is specifically
for retrofitting water,gas,electricity, responsible for implementing this policy
telecommunications utilities,and transportation
infrastructure.
POLICY 5.5: Review and limit the location and This policy does not apply to the proposed project.
intensity of development and placement of lifeline The City, and not the project applicant, is specifically
infrastructure in identified earthquake fault zones. responsible for implementing this policy
The City's Infrastructure Element contains 25 policies, of which 4 are applicable to the proposed
project and the remaining 2l 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
lnfrastructure Element.
General P/an- Urban Design Element
Table 4.6-10 provides a comparison of the proposed project to each goal and policy of the following
Urban Design Element.
Michael Brandman Associates 4.6-47
H�.\Client(PN-JN)�3771\37710001�EIIL\9-DEIR\37710001 Sec04-06 Land Ose.doc
�
Sa/em Lutheran Church and Schoo/Specifc P/an �
Land Use and P/anning Draft E/R
�
Table 4.6-10: Project Consistency �
with the City of Orange General Plan: Urban Design Element
«�
y`xUrban Q�i�n YE��'+e�nt Q�oa1a and Po1�M� '��$aale�m L $ S Plar,t
_ �. �.._ :���. ������U���!�'_�_u . �.....
' GOAL 1.0:Promote streetscapes that enhance the eoonomic vitality and overall visual quality of commercial
corridors,support the circulation network,and support pedesVian-scale streets and patterns of activity. �
__ _
_ _ . _. _ _ __
POLICY L 1: Enhance the streetscape along the This policy does not apply to the proposed project. _
City's major commercial corridors and other major The project site is not located along a major
streets through coordinated public and private commercial corridor. "'"
improvements to convey a positive image of the
district,contribute to its economic vitality and � �`�
perception of the City, and improve visual and �
physical transitions into adjacent neighborhoods.
Streetscape designs should include wide sidewalks �
to accommodate unified landscaping,trees,
lighting,paving, street furniture, and other public �
improvements appropriate to the scale of the
streets. ""`
POLICY 1.2: Provide streetscape improvements on This policy does not apply to the proposed project. '""
Tustin Street and Chapman Avenue that convey The project is not located along either Tustin Street or
their role as major boulevards in the City and Chapman Avenue. �
County.
,�
POLICY 13: Ensure that streetscape improvements This policy does not apply to the proposed project. �
provide for an environment that offers a pleasant The proposed project does not include streetscape �
experience for motorists,pedestrians, and transit improvements. ��
riders.
POLICY 1.4: Coordinate with local utility This policy does not apply to the proposed project. ��
providers to identify priority areas for The City,and not the project applicant,is specifically ��
undergrounding or relocation of overhead electrical responsible for implementing this policy
and telephone/cable wires to remove visual clutter �..:
of existing infrastructure.
.�!,
POLICY 1.5: Emphasize street-oriented This policy does not apply to the proposed project.
development,with parking located behind or next The proposed project is not a commercial land use. +�
to buildings rather than in front. Encourage
commercial activities such as sidewalk and outdoor '"�'`
dining.
- �w�
GOAL 2.0: Create commercial and mixed-use areas of varying scale and function that are visually distinct and
complement the City's identity. ,,,�
POLICY 2.1: Transform corridors such as This policy does not apply to the proposed project. �..
Chapman Avenue, Main Street, The City Drive, The project site is not within a corridor such as
and Katella Avenue into active,pedestrian-friendly Chapman Avenue,Main Street, The City Drive,ar r�
streets that balance auto,transit,and pedestrian Katella Avenue.
mobility. These streets should accommodate ``�
compact development that is ariented to the
sidewalks to promote active street life.
.w
POLICY 2.2: Provide convenient pedestrian and This policy does not apply to the proposed project. �`�
transit access throughout commercial and mixed- The proposed project is located in Orange Park Acres ��
use corridors, including an interconnected network and is not located within either a commercial or
of high-amenity streetscapes,attractive and mixed-use corridor. „�,
comfortable transit stops,and multiple walkways
that connect activities and uses. �
�.a
4.6-48 Michae/Brandman Associates „�,
H\Client(PN-.1N)U771\37710001�EIIL\9-DEDt\37710001 Sec04-06 Land Use.doc
W�
Salem Lutheran Church and Schoo/Specific Plan Environmental lmpact Analysis
Draft EIR Land Use and Planning
Table 4.6-10 (cont.): Project Consistency
with the City of Orange General Plan: Urban Design Element
__ _ ___
U�17esigh�in�nt t�oa��pnd Policies ` �alem l.utheran CF�ur�h�nd Schobl$p�ltl+c�►n,
u.�„ _
POLICY 2.3: Improve the appearance of arterials This policy does not apply to the proposed project.
and corridors that pass through commercial and The proposed project is located in Orange Park Acres
mixed-use areas. Use street trees and other and is not located within either a commercial or
landscape and hardscape improvements to improve mixed-use corridor.
the visual and spatial experience of drivers,transit
riders,and pedestrians using City streets.
POLICY 2.4: Design future infill mixed-use This policy does not apply to the proposed prpject.
projects in a manner that reduces ar eliminates The project site is developed and is not an infill
adverse effects on adjacent single-family mixed-use project.
residences.
POLICY 2.5: Develop design standards that ensure This policy does not apply to the proposed project.
the integration of urban parks and open spaces The project site is not located within a mixed-use
within mixed-use corridors by providing safe and corridor.
comfortable pedestrian paths,paseos,and high-
amenity streetscapes.
GOAL 3.0: Express the City's distinct community identity and sense of place th�ough improvements to the
appearance of new development and commercial and mixed use corridors.
POLICY 3.1:Promote community identity through This policy does not apply to the proposed project.
streetscape enhancements,building designs,and The project site is not located at a primary entrance to
treatments marking the primary entrances to the the City.
City.
POLICY 3.2: Encourage contemparary The proposed project conforms to this policy.
interpretations of historic building types and The proposed project has been designed to integrate
features to promote architectural continuity within the existing fabric of the Orange Park Acres
throughout the communiry that reflects the Ciry's community. The proposed redesign is intended to
historic and cultural characteristics and emphasizes integrate in and compliment the existing
the history of Orange. improvements. New construction will respect the
existing style of buildings to remain on site,while at
the same time provide a more contemporary
architectural style that blends in with the existing site.
POLICY 33: Strengthen the urban form of the This policy does not apply to the proposed project.
City's commercial,industrial, institutional,and The project site is not located within a commercial,
mixed-use districts by working within the character industrial, institutional,and mixed-use district.
of the existing historical and architectural fabric of
the community,while allowing for the addition of
complementary new development and urban design
elements.
POLICY 3.4: Provide better visual continuity This policy does not apply to the proposed project.
between The Block at Orange shopping center and The project site is not located near the Block at
the rest of the City through consistent streetscape Orange shopping center.
treatments]inking The City Drive to West
Chapman Avenue.
Michael Brandman Associates 4.6-49
H�.\Client(PN-JN)�3771\37710001�EIli\9-DEIR\37710001 Sec04-06 Land Use.doc
Sa/em Lutheran Church and School Specific Plan
Land Use and Planning Draft E/R
�
Table 4.6-10 (cont.): Project Consistency
with the City of Orange General Plan: Urban Design Element
�
s _� � _ �
, � _
�: � �� ; : �j �,
« � ��___. .�,_._.�_,�. ��., ._���:�� �$ P#tr� uc+�h�t� ;$p�i�,#�latt
__.�__�_ � , � . ___ ___. ___�.__� _ _.�.� __. �__.
GOAL 4.0: Establish and reinforce distrid and neighbofiood t�aracteristics recognized both within the �
community and throughout the region.
POLICY 4.1: Establish appropriate transitions The proposed project conforms to this policy. �"°
between commercial, industrial,higher density The proposed project has been designed to integrate
residential,mixed-use development,and lower within the existing fabric of the Orange Park Acres �
density residentia] areas. community. The proposed redesign is intended to ,.�
integrate in and compliment the existing
improvements. ,,,�
POLICY 4.2: Encourage the use of creative This policy does not apply to the proposed project. ��
landscape designs to visually define districts and The proposed project is not a commercial land use.
reduce conflicts between residential and ,,,,�
commercial land uses.
�
POLICY 4.3: Create an attractive,walkable This policy does not apply to the proposed project.
pedestrian environment within and between The project site is not adjacent to a commercial �•�
commercial districts and neighborhoods through district.
careful site planning,architectural design,and `"�'
provision of pedestrian amenities such as
sidewalks,benches,plaza areas, information '"�"
kiosks,and other street furniture. ,�
POLICY 4.4: Provide pedestrian linkages between This policy does not apply to the proposed project.
government buildings and around the Civic Center The project site is not within the Civic Center ��'
complex. complex. ,,,,�
POLICY 4.5: Provide incentives to create This policy does not apply to the proposed project.
neighborhood parks,green spaces,or other public The City,and not the project applicant, is specifically '�
open spaces throughout the City,particularly within responsible for implementing this policy ,�,,,,
commercial and mixed-use corridors.
_
GOAL 5.0:Maintain Old Towne's identity as the only authentic and intact historic downtown in Orange '�"
County.
_ �ww
POLICY 5.1: Encourage diverse commercial, This policy does not apply to the proposed project. �
housing, employment and cultural opportunities The project site is not located within or adjacent to the �
throughout Old Towne,placing emphasis on Old Towne district. f�
context-sensitive mixed-use and pedestrian-
oriented development patterns and adaptive re-use. �
POLICY 5.2: Protect the single-family character This policy does not apply to the proposed project. ��
and enhance the quality of Old Towne Orange's The project site is not located within or adjacent to the
residential areas while accommodating change in Old Towne district. ,,,�
the commercial core. �
POLICY 53: Require infill development to be This policy does not apply to the proposed project. ��
compatible with the scale and appearance of The project site is not located within or adjacent to the „�„
neighbaring historic structures and to comply with Old Towne district or adjacent to historical structures.
all applicable historic preservation design and ��
development standards and Secretary of the Interior
standards. �
POLICY 5.4: Support preservation and This policy does not apply to the proposed project. ""
rehabilitation of commercial and residential The project site is not located within or adjacent to the
buildings in Old Towne,ensuring consistency with Old Towne district. ""'�
��.
4.6-50 Michae/Brandman Associates „�,
H1Client(PN-1N)�3771\37710001�EIIL\9-DEDi\37710001 Sec04-06LandUse.doc
uwtv
Sa/em lutheran Church and School Specific Plan Environmental lmpact Ana/ysis
Draft EIR Land Use and Planning
Table 4.6-10 (cont.): Project Consistency
with the City of Orange General Plan: Urban Design Element
_ . _
Urbar�t�Ig��te+'asr�t�i�and Polt�i�` � Sal�n lutl�eran Gli�fiiYch and��hool 9t�Nit��r1
the historical context of the District.
GOAL 6.0: Encourage contextually appropriate infill development projects and property renovations
POLICY 6.1: Encourage consistent high quality The proposed project conforms to this policy.
design of development projects,and provide The proposed redesign is intended to integrate in and
development standards that ensure building and site compliment the existing improvements. The new
design that is well integrated with infrastructure project entry will be enhanced with decorative
and circulation systems. vehicular paving, signage,walls and landscape
plantings to compliment both the existing streetscape
and the architecture of the church and school campus.
POLICY 6.2: Ensure that new infill development The proposed project conforms to this policy.
contributes positively to the quality of the The proposed redesign is intended to integrate in and
surrounding corridor or neighborhood, including compliment the existing improvements. New
the potential to provide additional park space,and construction will respect the existing style of
minimize the visibility of onsite parking. buildings to remain on site,while at the same time
provide a mare contemporary architectural style that
blends in with the existing site.
POLICY 63: Encourage development of public This policy does not apply to the proposed project.
spaces and plazas within commercial,mixed-use, The proposed project is not a commercial,mixed-use
and residential projects that can accommodate civic or residential project.
events and function as community gathering areas.
POLICY 6.4: Promote the renovation and This policy does not apply to the proposed project.
upgrading of older commercial developments to The proposed project is not a commercial
create more attractive and functional retail development.
environments.
POLICY 6.5: Provide logical transitions between This policy does not apply to the proposed project.
higher intensity development within the City's The project site is not]ocated within established
established commercial,office,and institutional commercial,office,and institutional corridors.
corridors and nearby single-family neighborhoods.
Scale,massing, and the location of services within
these corridors should respond sensitively to
adjacent residential uses.
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 ofthe Urban Design Element(Table 4.6-10) Therefore, less than significant
impacts would result from project implementation related to the goals and policies ofthe Urban
Design Element.
General Plan- Growth Management E/ement
Table 4.6-11 provides a comparison of the proposed project to each goal and policy of the following
Growth Management Element.
Michael Brandman Associates 4.6-51
H\Client(PN-JN)�3771\37710001�EIIt\9-DEDt\37710001 Sec04-06 Land Use.doc
Sa/em Lutheran Church and Schoo/Specific P/an
Land Use and Planning Draft E/R
�
Table 4.6-11: Project Consistency
with the City of Orange General Plan: Growth Management Element
Qro�'t��Aar�a � ��� ' �x. �
r �
�
,� . ,,:. �,:� ��� " �� �.
� - Y �i�►r��r��� �C pM4Ct
•
� � „�
-. _ LL� �_._m ��_ , ,. �t��
x
�
_. � _._ _...__-----_ _ �_ _.w._..,��. _..�.__ _..� _��_____W�_ ,__
GOAL 1.0: Reduce traific congestion within the City. .�
_ ___ __.
POLICY l.1: Establish LOS D as the level of ' This policy does not apply to the proposed project. ,�,:
service standard for traffic circulation within the The City, and not the project applicant, is specifically
City for both roadway segments and peak-hour responsible for implementing this policy w�
signalized intersection movements.
�,
POLICY 1.2: Ensure completion of transportation This policy does not apply to the proposed project.
improvements as agreed upon by the City and No transportation improvements are proposed ar �
developer prior to completion of a development required.
project. '�
POLICY 1.3: Ensure that new devetopment pays its This policy does not apply to the proposed project. �
fair share of street improvement costs,including The proposed project did not identify any
regional traffic mitigation. New revenues infrastructure upgrades that would require fair-share �""`
generated from Measure M, if available, shall not funding. Also,the proposed project is a modification
be used to replace private developer funding which to an existing development and is not new ��
has been omitted for any project. development. ,,,�
POLICY 1.4: Continue to collect transportation This policy does not apply to the proposed project.
��
impact fees for improvements within the City The City,and not the project applicant, is specifically
boundaries and work with adjacent jurisdictions to responsible for implementing this policy
�i
determine that an appropriate level of
transportation impact fees are maintained within „�;,
the established County GMAs.
,��
POLICY 1.5: Require new development projects to This policy does not apply to the proposed project.
link issuance of building permits for the appropriate The traffic study found that the project will have no �sr
portion of the development plan to roadway impacts regarding transportation and traffic. Impact
improvements required to achieve the appropriate fees are not required. '"``
LOS. Monitor the implementation of this
requirement for each new development project on ""�"�"
an annual basis.
��.
POLICY 1.6: Integrate land use and transportation This policy does not apply to the proposed project. �
planning to provide adequate transportation system The City, and not the project applicant, is specifically
service standards. responsible for implementing this policy ,�
POLICY 1.7: Promote the expansion and The proposed project conforms to this policy.
development of alternative methods of The proposed project includes bike racks and '""�
transportation. improvements to the cross walk at the intersection of p.�
Orange Park Boulevard and Frank Lane to enhance
the safety of pedestrians and bicyclists going to and .�
from the project site.
..�
POLICY 1.8: Encourage the development of This policy does not apply to the proposed project.
housing within close proximity to jobs and The proposed project does not include housing,thus .�
services. this policy does not apply.
��
POLICY 1.9: Ensure that new developments The proposed project conforms to this policy.
incorporate non-motorized and alternative transit The proposed project includes bike racks and a ��
amenities such as bike racks,bus benches and pedestrian crosswalk(at the Frank Lane and Orange
shelters,and pedestrian connections. Park Acres intersection). Additionally,a crosswalk i`�
will be provided at the Santiago Canyon Road entry. �
.�
4.6-52 Michael Brandman Associates �,�
HiClient(PN-JN)\3771\37710001�EIIt\9-DEQt\37710001 Sec04-06LandUse.doc
irrw
Sa/em Lutheran Church and School Specific P/an Environmental Impact Analysis
Draft EIR Land Use and P/anning
Table 4.6-11 (cont.): Project Consistency
with the City of Orange General Plan: Growth Management Element
_ .
Gr+a�r+th Mat�ament Element Goal�� ` < -
�. P'ol� � 5alem Lu#tier�in Gi�urc�and�Schti�l3�iB��lan
POLICY 1.10:Apply traffic calming measures, This policy does not apply to the proposed project.
where appropriate,to residential neighborhoods This effort is the responsibiliry of applicable City
affected by cut-through traffic in accordance with department.
the City's Residential Neighborhood Traffic
Management Program.
POLICY 1.11: Adopt and maintain a 7-year CIP in This policy does not apply to the proposed project.
conformance with the provisions of Measure M for The City,and not the project appiicant, is specifically
the purpose of maintaining the LOS standards responsible for implementing this policy
established in this Element.
POLICY 1.12: Promote traffic reduction strategies This policy does not apply to the proposed project.
through the measures adopted within the City's The City,and not the project applicant, is specifically
Transportation Demand Management(TDM) responsible far implementing this policy
Ordinance.
GOAL 2.0: Provide for adequate regional and local transportation facilities.
POLICY 2.1: Cooperate with other agencies to This policy does not apply to the proposed project.
address regional issues and opportunities related to The City,and not the project applicant,is specifically
growth,transportation, infrastructure,and other responsible for implementing this policy
planning issues.
POLICY 2.2:Plan for future maintenance and This policy does not apply to the proposed project.
expansion of the City's roadway and bikeway The City, and not the project applicant, is specifically
systems and other infrastructure on an annual basis. responsible for implementing this policy
Anticipate changes in funding availability,project
priority,and project feasibility.
POLICY 2.3: Continue to work toward achieving a This policy does not apply to the proposed project.
balance between residential,industrial,commercial, The City,and not the project applicant,is specifically
and public land uses. Support programs that match responsible for implementing this policy
Orange residents with local jobs to reduce long
commutes and improve the fiscal and public health
of the community.
POLICY 2.4: Explore infill development or mixed- This policy does not apply to the proposed project.
use opportunities wherever possible as developable The project site is developed and does not represent
space becomes more limited. an infill or mixed-use development.
POLICY 2.5: Continue to work with OCTA and This policy does not apply to the proposed project.
other regional transit agencies to provide such The City,and not the project applicant,is specifically
amenities as bus shelters,shade,and other special responsible for implementing this policy
streetscape treatments at transit stations that
encourage the use of regional bus and train
services.
POLICY 2.6:Participate in interjurisdictional This policy does not apply to the proposed project.
planning forums within the City's established The City,and not the project applicant, is specifically
GMAs as adopted by the Regional Advisory responsible for implementing this policy
Planning Council.
Michael8randman Associates 4.6-53
H.\Client(PN-1N)�3771\37710001�EIlt\9-DEIEL\37710001 Sec04-06 Land Use.doc
Salem Lutheran Church and School Specific P/an
Land Use and P/anning Drafi E/R
�y,,,
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).
General Plan-Economic Deve/opment Element �„
Table 4.6-12 provides a comparison of the proposed project to each goal and policy of the following
Natural Resources Element. �
�
Table 4.6-12: Project Consistency a�
with the City of Orange General Plan: Economic Development Element
,�m r _. _ _ ___�,. �
E�o�c�krt�[�ar�te[�mi1►�t��i�r�`�+�i�I ' �� �,� _
� � I�W� ..-- . � � �i� � �ru! aol� ��tZ#'isr+ ��
,
.�
�� � `� t � s�� � �� ���
�� � '��%
_._....�______�._�, __ x....,�__. ___
__ _ __. _.____. ,..Y. � _______�.�.�...... � ., zwv, _ __...
! GOAL 1.0:Sustain a diversified economic base and strong fiscal stability. ,,.�
. __.
_
_ _ _ _ _ __ -_
POLICY i.l:Provide for land uses that allow a This policy does not apply to the proposed project. �,,,�
variety of retail, service,manufacturing, The proposed project does not include of retail,
institutional,office,and recreational businesses to service,manufacturing, institutional,office,and .�.
locate in Orange. recreational businesses.
�
POLICY 1.2:Retain the small, independent This policy does not apply to the proposed project.
business character of Old Towne and other areas The project site is not located in Old Towne. �
where smaller, family-owned businesses flourish,
while accommodating national and regional
retailers along major commercial corridors,and
encouraging corporate headquarters and offices in '�"'
the Ciry's prominent office and commercial areas. ��,
POLICY 1.3: Retain industrial land for businesses This policy does not apply to the proposed project.
that provide jobs for manufacturing and processing The proposed project is neither industrial in nature nor '"�°
of goods and create local revenue sources. on industrial land. ��
POLICY ].4: Encourage physical expansion of This policy does not apply to the proposed project.
manufacturing operations and research and The proposed project does not include manufacturing ��
development businesses within light industrial and operations and research and development. „r,
manufacturing areas.
��
POLICY 1.5: Encourage new development and This policy does not apply to the proposed project.
businesses that supplement smaller components of The proposed project does not include retail land uses. ,�,,
the City's retail base, such as apparel retailers, food
stores, and home furnishings and appliances. �
POLICY 1.6: Continue to utilize redevelopment as This policy does not apply to the proposed project. �,�
a fmancing tool for City-initiated revitalization and The City,and not the project applicant,is specifically
to encourage and promote private investment. responsible for implementing this policy. ��"
POLICY 1.7: Pursue a variety of funding This policy does not apply to the proposed project. �,�.
approaches, including grants,impact fees, The City,and not the project applicant, is specifically
assessments, and transportation funds in order to responsible for implementing this policy. ■.r
support public services,municipal programs,and
capital investments that support City businesses. `"�
�
e�
a�
.�
4.6-54 Michael 8randman Associates „�.
H:\Client(PN-1N)\3771\37710001�EIIt\9-DEIIi\37710001 Sec04-06 Land Use.doc
Sa/em Lutheran Church and School Specific P/an Environmental Impact Analysis
Draft E/R Land Use and P/anning
Table 4.6-12 (cont.): Project Consistency
with the City of Orange General Plan: Economic Development Element
_ _
Ecot�+�rn�c� ,�t�i»ent�3q�is,and ` -.; � .
} ..
.� �n. � �le�4u1#�era�n��sh� ��N'�P�
rt � . .- f1t.. � .
� ., �__ ��. __�
____ _� ---_ __ ---z_�_ ,_.._�___ __ -----, _----_ _—_ _i_.__ _,_�_� __..
GOAL 2.0:Cultivate a business environment that is conducive and appealing to the commeraal and retail
industry,including smaller entrepreneurs.
POLICY 2.1: Encourage public-private This policy does not apply to the proposed project.
partnerships that will support business and The proposed project is a private development and
employment growth. does not propose a public-private partnership.
POLICY 2.2: Increase local tax revenues by This policy does not apply to the proposed project.
providing performance-based financial assistance The proposed project is a private development.
to new and existing businesses in Orange.
POLICY 23: Periodically evaluate local sales tax, This policy does not apply to the proposed project.
transient occupancy tax,business license fees,and The City, and not the project applicant,is specifically
building permit fees to determine the effect of fees responsible for implementing this policy
on local businesses,or as a deterrent to new
businesses,as well as to ensure adequate revenues
far the City.
POLICY 2.4: Maintain adequate infrastructure, This policy does not apply to the proposed project.
transportation systems,and physical conditions that The proposed project does not include retail land uses.
encourage retailers to invest in the City.
POLICY 2.5: Encourage retention of existing retail This policy does not apply to the proposed project.
businesses that will complement,and/or locate The proposed project does not include retail land uses.
within,new or larger retail businesses or centers.
GOAL 3.0:Strengthen the Ciry's economic base and stimulate employment through new commercial and
industrial development and expansion.
POLICY 3.I: Utilize the City's Redevelopment This policy does not apply to the proposed project.
resources to help make commercial and industrial The project site is not located within a redevelopment
construction and development financially feasible. area.
POLICY 3.2: Encourage public and private sector This policy does not apply to the proposed project.
investments that promote commercial development The proposed project is not a commercial
and expansion opportunities. development.
POLICY 33: Provide a venue for businesses to This policy does not apply to the proposed project.
discuss economic issues and opportunities and to The City, and not the project applicant, is specifically
inform the public of various economic development responsible for implementing this policy
and redevelopment programs.
POLICY 3.4: Encourage higher density residential This policy does not apply to the proposed project.
and mixed-use projects to provide a community- The proposed project is not a residential or mixed-use
based workforce and market for industrial and development.
commercial areas.
GOAL 4.0: Encourage economic development efforts through outreach and maintenance of a pro-active
business environment.
POLICY 4.1: Monitor land uses by business type This policy does not apply to the proposed project.
ranging from entertainment to industrial uses to The City, and not the project applicant, is specifically
help identify citywide growth opportunities and responsible for implementing this policy
target markets.
POLICY 4.2: Through land use policy and This policy does not apply to the proposed project.
redevelopment efforts,work to reduce deficiencies The project site is not located along a commercial
Michael Brandman Associates 4.6-55
H.AClient(PN-JN)1i771A37710001�EIRV9-DfiIFt\37710001 Sec04-06LandOse.doc
�
Sa/em Lutheran Church and Schoo/Specific P/an
Land Use and P/anning Draft E/R
�:
Table 4.6-12(cont.): Project Consistency ..,
with the City of Orange General Plan: Economic Development Element
�
s. ,� �
� „ t�tic ` `� .�� , rt��c�l�! £ , �. �
� �� � � � � �� � ,�_ � �;utl�e�`t�#Chttrch�iitd S�hoW'� �` i��� �.
_ _ ..�..
within prominent commercial corridors such as corridor.
vacant and underutilized land, irregularly shaped _
lots,deteriorated or outdated public improvements
and facilities,traffic congestion,excessive noise, .�.
poor air quality,and deficient parking.
POLICY 43: Where appropriate,consolidate This policy does not apply to the proposed project.
inadequately sized land ar land owned by multiple The proposed project does not include integrated *�
owners into parcels suitable for integrated development.
�a
evelopment with improved pedestrian and
vehicular circulation.
_ �r
POLICY 4.4: Maintain an active presence in the This policy does not apply to the proposed project.
business community and engage in outreach efforts The City,and not the project applicant, is specifically `�
with property owners,tenants,brokers,community responsible for implementing this policy �
stakeholders,and local residents.
POLICY 4.5: Encourage an environmentally This policy does not apply to the proposed project. `�
friendly business atmosphere that maintains local The City,and not the project applicant,is specifically
regulations favorable to clean industry,and responsible for implementing this policy �
provides assistance to industries seeking to comply �
with environmental regulations.
_ _
GOAL 5.0: Improve economic viability of business districts�rough aesthetic enhancement,reconstruction, �
rehabilitation,and elimination of physical deterioration.
_ _ _ _ w�,
POLICY 5.1: Eliminate and prevent physical � � This policy does not apply to the proposed project.
deteriaration and economic obsolescence by The project is not within the Orange Merged and ""�
implementing the Orange Merged and Amended Amended Redevelopment Plan. ��
Redevelopment Plan.
_
POLICY 5.2: Im rove the lon term economic This oli does not a 1 to the ro osed ro'ect. '"�'"
p g- P �1' PP Y P P P J
viability of Katella Avenue, Chapman Avenue,and The project is not located on Katella Avenue, ,�,
Tustin Street by promoting upgrades to fa�ades and Chapman Avenue or Tustin Street.
aesthetics of retail properties,as well as the „�
streetscape in the pubiic right-of-way.
:w.
POLICY 5.3: Improve the long-term economic This policy does not apply to the proposed project.
viability of Old Towne, South Main Street,Katella The project site is not located in the Old Town, South ��
Avenue,Uptown Orange,The Block at Orange, Main Street, Katella Avenue, Uptown Orange,The
and the Town and Country Road area by Block at Orange or the Town and County Road area. """
introducing mixed-use residential,commercial,and
office projects that are visually and economically '"""
compatible with their surroundings. w *
POLICY 5.4:Redevelop and rehabilitate This policy does not apply to the proposed project.
underutilized and vacant lands and public rights-of- The project site is not an underutilized ar vacant """
way to stimulate development, and consider parcel of land. „�„
conversion of vacant lands to community
amenities. �
POLICY 5.5: Develop design guidelines,as This policy does not apply to the proposed project. b„�
needed,to encourage attractive development and The City,and not the project applicant, is specifically
clear signage,without increasing costs or barriers responsible for implementing this policy .�
.�
4.6-56 Michae/Brandman Associates
H\Clien[(PN-JN)�3771\37710001�EIR\9-DEDt\37710001 Sec04-06 Land Ose.doc
Salem Lutheran Church and School Specific Plan Environmental Impact Analysis
Draft E/R Land Use and P/anning
Table 4.6-12 (cont.): Project Consistency
with the City of Orange General Plan: Economic Development Element
_ _ _ _
'� Lt�it�mi+�E�a � �:�In��a�suld � i � ���� �; � , ,..,. _
` ����tes ; �alem(:uthe�n�hurch��c�+oot�c l�I�n
to economic development.
GOAL 6.0: Provide sufficient infrastructure to support anticipated economic development and growth.
_ _ _
POLICY 6.1:Provide and maintain infrastructure This policy does not apply to the proposed project.
adequate to support growth and expansion of The project site is not located in an area characterized
commercial,industrial,and institutional areas, by commercial,industrial,and institutional land uses.
including water, sewer,streets,curbs,gutters,
sidewalks,storm drains, access, and parking
improvements.
POLICY 6.2:Provide public improvements to This policy does not app[y to the proposed project.
support commercial, industrial and institutional The project site is not located in an area characterized
uses. by commercial, industrial,and institutional land uses.
GOAL 7.0: Encourage development and preservation of affordable workforce housing to increase housing
opportunities and improve quality of I'rfe for workers in Orange.
Policy 7.]: Identify and market sites appropriate for This policy does not apply to the proposed project.
housing development for all income groups that The proposed project does not include housing.
will support adjacent commercial development.
Policy 7.2: Encourage mixed-use developments to This policy does not apply to the proposed project.
provide housing close to employment hubs for The proposed project does not include mixed use
employees in all income segments and household development or housing.
types.
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 impacts would result from project implementation related to the goals
and policies of the Economic Development Element.
General Plan-Housing Element
Table 4.6-13 provides a comparison of the proposed project to each goal and policy of the following
Natural Resources Element.
Michael Brandman Associates 4.6-57
H�.\Client(PN-7N)U771\37710001�EIR\9-DEDt\37710001 Sec04-06 Land Ose.doc
Sa/em Lutheran Church and Schoo/Specific P/an
Land Use and P/anning Drafi E/R
Table 4.6-13: Project Consistency
with the City of Orange General Plan: Housing Element
_ _ _
�
Hot�N+�g.����t�t�tl��#�ollcde� ` �y'.��,��1.4�t`�i�C�!1�Pch a�s��W`►, �'peCif�e Pliut
_... , ._ ._. ._ �!�_.�
POLICY ACTION D.1: Update General Plan Land This policy does not apply to the proposed project.
Use Element The City,and not the project applicant, is specifically ""'"
responsible for implementing this policy
Adopt a comprehensive revision to the City's
General Plan Land Use Element and appropriate
sections of the Zoning Code to maximize the �
potential for infill,mixed use and other creative
residential development types. Ensure new land ��
use designations in the updated General Plan �
provide appropriate densities to accommodate units
affordable to Extremely Low-,Very Low-,and �
Low-Income households.
�
POLICY ACTION D.2: Processing Annexation of This policy does not apply to the proposed project.
East Orange General Plan Area The project site is outside the East Orange General �
Plan planning boundaries. �
To maximize future residential development
potential in the City,the City is in the process of
annexing the East Orange area into the City. This �
process began in 2006 and shall continue until the
remaining portions of the area are included within *�
the City's legal boundaries.
�:
POLICY ACTION D3: Annual Review of This policy does not apply to the proposed project.
Housing Element The City,and not the project applicant, is specifically '�"
responsible for implementing this policy
Pursuant to HCD Requirements,the City will �
conduct an annual implementation review of the
Housing Element. The review will include the �'�'
following information: a log of new residentiai �
development permits and completion reports;
inventory of units built in the Extremely Low-, ��
Very Low-and Low-Income categories, an update
or inventory of approved projects; an annual ��.
estimate of population from the State Department
of Finance; and available vacant land and zoning �"
survey.
��
POLICY ACTION D.4: Promotion of Affordable This policy does not apply to the proposed project.
Housing No housing is proposed as part of the school and "`�"
The City recognizes the need for housing
church project. ��
affordable for all income segments of the
population,especially Lower-Income households. ��`
The City will continue to support and encourage
the development of housing affordable to Lower-
Income households through incentives such as ,,,,�
density bonuses and funding assistance.
4�
��
rrw
�
��
4.6-58 Michael Brandman Associates ,�
H:\Client(PN-JN)\3771\3 7710001�EIR\9-DEIR\37710001 Sec04-06 Land Use.doc
m;;_
Salem Lutheran Church and School Specific Plan Environmental lmpact Analysis
Draft EIR Land Use and Planning
Table 4.6-13 (cont.): Project Consistency
with the City of Orange General Plan: Housing Element
H+�u���ent t3a�s�d P � S� L�lhera�Church and 3�ti►�� �f Pl�n
,__ _ _ .
POLICY ACTION D.S: Promotion of New Rental This policy does not apply to the proposed project.
Housing The project does not propose any housing.
Promote through financial assistance the
development of new rental housing affordable to
Extremely Low-,Very Low-and Low-Income
households where such development will promote a
balanced inventory of housing types. The City
shall develop and initiate an annual solicitation
process to make the development community aware
of available funds and seek partnerships in
developing new rental housing.
POLICY ACTION D.6:Provision of Second Unit This policy does not apply to the proposed project.
Development No housing is proposed as part of the project.
Continue to comply with State Housing Law to
provide by-right development of second units on
existing single-family properties. Encourage the
development of such units as a source of additional
rental housing opportunity. Provide review of the
City's adopted regulatory policies for second units
through the annual Housing Element
implementation reports and implement revisions as
deemed appropriate.
POLICY ACTION DJ: Development of Housing This policy does not apply to the proposed project.
for Large Families No housing is proposed as part of the project.
Encourage and support through direct outreach to
private and non-profit housing developers,the
development of rental and for-sale housing for
larger families. Encourage developers/builders to
incorporate larger bedroom counts to accommodate
the needs of larger families and reduce incidents of
overcrowding in the existing housing stock. The
City shall review,revise and monitor the
Affordable Housing Plan and Affordable Housing
Ordinance to incorporate the appropriate regulatory
incentives,financial incentives and other policies
that encourage and support the development of
housing for large families.
In order to outreach effectively,the City shall
provide the Affordable Housing Ptan and
Ordinance,as amended,to housing developers
upon their initial interest in or inquiry about
developing a new project. The City will encourage
developers to include housing far larger families
prior to formal application submittal. Information
on housing for larger families with be included in
the Affordable Housing Resource Toolkit(See
Policy Action D.20)
Michael Brandman Associates 4.6-59
H�.\Client(PN-JN)U771�37710001�EIR\9-DEIR\37710001 Sec04-06 Land Use doc
Sa/em Lutheran Church and School Specific P/an
Land Use and P/anning Draft E/R
Table 4.6-13 (cont.): Project Consistency
with the City of Orange General Plan: Housing Element
�__, _ . m_ _
�
d��erne�!� `"� � ,y e�e i=:.� ; Salsm L,utheran�Chu�+ci� � " �chaal�ific Rlan ;,�
, . _ _. .ry _
POLICY ACTION D.8: Provision of Senior This policy does not apply to the proposed project. �
Housing Opportunities The proposed project does not propose senior housing
or any housing whatsoever.
The City recognizes the unique needs of its elderly `°"
residents. Seniors typically have fixed incomes and �
necessitate unique housing needs that are not
typically included in market rate housing. The City ��
shall encourage through incentives(e.g., fmancial
assistance when feasible,parking reductions, �
regulatory waivers,etc.),the development of senior
housing that offers a wide range of housing choices �
from independent living to assisted living with �
services onsite, including healthcare,nutririon, �
transportation and other appropriate services. The �
City currently has special incentives for senior
housing, as provided in Section l 7.15 of the Zoning �
Code. This section was recently amended as part
of the City's Density Bonus Ordinance update, �'
effective in February of 2008(Ordinance No.2-
08). To further encourage the provision of senior �
housing opportunities,the City shall review and �,
revise the General Plan and Zoning Code, including
the existing special incentives contained in Section w�
17.15 of the Zoning Code to further encourage
senior housing opportunities. *�
POLICY ACTION D.9: Provision of Family This policy does not apply to the proposed project. �+
Housing Ancillary to Medical Facilities The project site is not located near the Children's
Hospital of Orange County. '"'�
The City of Orange provides for world-class child
medica]services through Children's Hospital of ��
Orange County and understands the need for family
housing to accommodate families with children "'*�
receiving treatment. The City will review and �
revise the General Plan and existing Zoning Code �
to specifically address the provision of family w,,,
housing as an ancillary use to medical facilities and
potentially offer incentives to encourage the ,�
development of family housing targeted for parents
with children receiving medical treatment in "�"`
Orange.
��
POLICY ACTION D.10:Promotion of Balanced This policy does not apply to the proposed project.
Housing Development The proposed project does not include housing. � �
Encourage the development of mixed income �w�r
developments where housing units are provided for
a variety of income levels. Encourage "°�
developers/builders to integrate market-rate and �
affordable units within development projects
through the establishment of incentives or other ,a,�.
regulatory concessions. Provide for review,
revision and monitoring of the existing Affordable ��
��
4.6-60 Michael Brandman Associates ,,,�,
H\Client(PN-JN)\3771\37710001�EIIt\9-DE]R\37710001 Sec04-06 Land Ose.doc
Salem Lutheran Church and School Specific Plan Environmental Impact Analysis
Draft EIR Land Use and Planning
Table 4.6-13 (cont.): Project Consistency
with the City of Orange General Plan: Housing Element
H�ti��lei�tent t3oals and Paliaies, ' 8alenr Lutl�eran ChurY:h and Scho��3�c Plan
Housing Plan and Affordable Housing Ordinance
to provide appropriate incentives to encourage the
development of balanced housing in Orange and to
achieve the City's RHNA obligations.
POLICY ACTION D.1 I: Facilitate Infill This policy does not apply to the proposed project.
Construction The project site is not vacant(i.e.undeveloped)and
The City has an adjusted RHNA need(2006-2014 does not propose any housing.
RHNA need adjusted for units constructed,entitled
units and market rate units converted to affordable
units)of 1,802 housing units for Extremely Low-,
Very Low-,Low-and Moderate-Income
households. The City has limited vacant land
available for residential development and no vacant
land zoned at densities to support affordable
housing. Therefore,the City will continue to
aggressively pursue infill development within
feasible development sites for homeownership and
rental units. This process would encourage the
development of infill residential development
through proactive and coordinated efforts with the
Redevelopment Agency,Community Development
and private development entities to provide
development guidance and assistance to encourage
the construction of residential development
affordable to Extremely Low-,Very Low-,Low-
and Moderate-Income households through a variety
of land use tools(i.e.,streamlined review,reduced
development standards, land assemblage, lot
consolidation,fee assistance and other methods
deemed appropriate).
The City will identify and develop an inventory of
potential infill sites utilizing the site analysis found
in Appendix B of the Housing Element. The City
will seek partnerships with and provide
informational material including a copy of the
inventory and listing of City incentives and
programs to housing developers.
POLICY ACTION D.12: Adaptive Reuse of This policy does not apply to the proposed project.
Historic Structures No structures of historic significance exist on site.
The project site has been developed over the past forty
The City has an abundance of historically years with a church/school facility.
significant structures that provide opportunities for
adaptive reuse to contribute to the provision of
additional housing opportunities. The City views
adaptive reuse as a means to encourage additional
housing opportunities while also preserving and
enhancing the City's historic resources for the
benefit of the entire community. The City shall
evaluate the appropriateness of providing an
Adaptive Reuse Ordinance that addresses
Michael Brandman Associates 4.6-61
H-\Client(PN-JN)�3771\37710001�EIR\9-DEIIt\37710001 Sec04-06 Land Use.doc
Sa/em Lutheran Church and Schoo/Specific P/an
Land Use and P/anning Draft E/R
Table 4.6-13 (cont.): Project Consistency
with the City of Orange General Plan: Housing Element
�� ��e�nt�R�1�i�r1tl Po m �W;j �s, Salem Lutheran Chw�ar��l�s�3#�cifi� J
� u. < _ a � .. ��:_ ___ ._
regulatory incentives, financial assistance,the
Histaric Building Code,and other policy actions to
encourage the adaptive reuse of historic structures
far residential uses. The City shall revise the
Zoning Code,as appropriate,to establish a menu of �
incentives and/or financial assistance that further
encourage adaptive reuse of historic structures. `
POLICY ACTION D.13: Review and Revise the This policy does not apply to the proposed project. *�°°
City's Existing Affordable Housing Plan and The City,and not the project applicant, is specifically
Affardable Housing Ordinance responsible for implementing this policy � �
The City has seen limited construction of new ���
affordable housing as a result of its existing
4...i
Affordable Housing Plan and Affordable Housing
Ordinance. In order to more effectively facilitate �
and encourage housing for Extremely Low-,Very
Low-Low-and Moderate-Income households,the k�,,:
City shall review,amend and monitor, its existing
Affordable Housing Plan and Affardable Housing wn
Ordinance.
�m�:
To further encourage private and non-profit
participation in affordable housing development, �
the City will evaluate the Affordable Housing
Ordinance and Plan. The City will engage "`�
stakeholder organizations, including non-profit �
housing developers and service providers,when
evaluating the existing Affordable Housing ,�,,,;
Ordinance and Plan and determining appropriate
revisions. ,,,r�
Based on its fmdings,the City shall refine financial ,,�,
assistance and regulatory concessions,to
potentially include but not be limited to reduced k•►
processing timelines,reduction of fees,additional
density bonuses, and other revisions that respond �"�`
effectively to market need. �
The Affordable Housing Plan and Ordinance will
focus efforts on development in the General Plan `�'
Focus Areas, as these areas have the largest �,,
opportunity to accommodate residential growth.
The City wiil annually monitor the effectiveness of ��
the Affordable Housing Plan and Ordinance in
supporting and facilitating the development of �►
housing units affordable to Lower-and Moderate-
Income households. Based on its findings,the City `�
shall amend the Affordable Housing Ordinance and �
Plan as appropriate.
�..
�
r�
4.6-62 Michael Brandman Associates �,
H:\Client(PN-IN)13771\37710001�EIIt\9-DEQt\37710001 Sec04-06 Land Use.doc
Yi�r
Salem Lutheran Church and School Specif►c Plan Environmental lmpact Analysis
Draft EIR Land Use and Planning
Table 4.6-13 (cont.): Project Consistency
with the City of Orange General Plan: Housing Element
_ _.
Housing�I+�ttent ti�ris and k'vNcl�le ; $�m L�e�a��htuah sut�!��Il��p��1'tan
POLICY ACTION D.14: Interdeparhnental This policy does not apply to the proposed project.
Coordination for Entitlement Funding and The City, and not the project applicant, is specifically
� Redevelopment Housing Set-Aside Funds responsible far implementing this policy
Provide for annual coordination with the City's
Economic Development Deparhnent,and
Community Development Department and other
interdepartmental agencies for the use and
distribution of Federal entitlement programs and
Housing Set-Aside Funding far the express purpose
of assisting affordable housing developers in
constructing housing units affordable to Extremely
Low-,Very Low-and Low-Income Households.
Establish a coordination process to better integrate
Housing Element policies,programs and reporting
requirements with the City's Consolidated Plan.
POLICY ACTION D.l 5: Support Community This policy does not apply to the proposed project.
Housing Development Organization New No housing is proposed as part of the project.
Construction Projects
Provide funding far qualified CHDO's to develop
affordable housing. The City may issue RFQs
seeking qualified non-profit organizations for
acquisition,construction and rehabilitation of
affordable housing. Funds will be made available
on an annual basis,contingent on funding
availability.
POLICY ACTION D.16: Compliance with State This policy does not apply to the proposed project.
Density Bonus Law(SB 1818) The project applicant is not requesting a density
bonus.
The City shall implement the recently amended
Zoning Code density bonus provisions, effective in
February of 2008. The Density Bonus Ordinance
(No.2-08)provides for incentives to further
enhance the provision of affordable housing in the
City of Orange. The City shall implement the
provisions of Ordinance No.2-08 and provide for
monitoring of the provisions as set forth in the
Ordinance. The City of Orange shall provide a
report on the effectiveness of the Ordinance
approximately midway through the planning period
and implement any modifications, as deemed
appropriate.
POLICY ACTION D.17:Provide for Adequate This policy does not apply to the proposed project.
Sites for Housing Development The City,and not the project applicant, is specifically
responsible for implementing this policy
To ensure the availability of adequate sites to
accommodate estimated future construction need
by income category,the City shall update and
revise the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance to
establish and codify land use
Michael Brandman Associates 4.6-63
H�.\Client(PN-JN)�3771\37710001�EIR\9-DEDt\37710001 Sec04-06 Land Use.doc
Salem Lutheran Church and Schoo/Specific P/an
Land Use and P/anning Drafi E/R
N„,µ
Table 4.6-13 (cont.): Project Consistency
with the City of Orange General Plan: Housing Element
���
Ha�l�9�, a�;� .. ,,. �"o1�i� � $aN�m L�#reran Ct�ur�h�irtd ot�l�lf�plan ..�
__ �._x =: .:_ _
designations/classifications that will provide
adequate sites to meet projected need by income '��
category for the 2006-2014 Planning Period. ,
Specifically,the City will initiate and adopt
General Plan Land Use and Zoning Code �
amendments as identified in Appendices B-1 and
B-3 that will provide adequate sites and "
accommodate the remaining regional housing need
of 1,795 for Extremely Low-,Very Low-, Low-, �
Moderate-and Above Moderate-Income rental and �
for-sale housing units.
The amended General Plan land use designations �
and associated zoning district classifications will �
permit owner-occupied and rental multifamily uses
as a matter of right,not subject to a conditional use ••�
permit,planned unit development or other non-
design related discretionary review. To "`
accommodate the remaining need for Lower-
Income households,a minimum standard of 30
�
du/acre shall be applied. The development ,,�
standards and other regulatory provisions
associated with the revised]and use ,,,R
designations/classifications shall maximize �
development capaciry and promote a variety of �
housing types at various levels of affordability.
The remaining projected regional share for 1,705 ""'�
Lower-Income households shall be accommodated
�.
on sites with densities and development standards
that permit at least l 6 units per site. ,�
To ensure the accommodation of at least 50 percent ��
of the remaining RHNA for lower income
households on sites zoned for residential-only use ,,,�
throughout the planning period,the revised Zoning
Ordinance will include a housing overlay zone '°�`
per►nitting exclusive residential use. The housing
overlay zone will encompass a minimum of 57
�
acres of land within the West Chapman/Uptown �
Orange, South Main Street and Katella Avenue
General Plan Focus Areas. Nonresidential uses or „„;
mixed-use with a residential component within the
overlay zone shall not be a principally permitted '�*°
use. Any applications for non-residential uses or
mixed-use with a residential component within the "'""'
housing overlay zone shall be required to obtain ��
discretionary Site Plan approval with specific
findings that will ensure 100 percent of the City's ,,,,,,
remaining regional share of Lower-Income need
can be met on remaining sites within the overlay �
zone. Prior to any discretionary approvals for non-
residential development projects within the overlay ""'
��
4.6-64 Michae/Brandman Associates �
H.\Client(PN-JN)�3771\37710001�EIIi\9-DEIR\37710001 Sec04-06 Land Use-doc
■wm.
Sa/em Lutheran Church and Schoo/Specific Plan Environmental lmpact Analysis
Draft E/R Land Use and Planning
Table 4.6-13 (cont.): Project Consistency
with the City of Orange General Plan: Housing Element
_ __ ___
Y H,�r�ttg�nr�tt tioals�d P��i+�t +, :3�lem Lu�in Chwch iu�d Sdiool�$p�ili�I�an
zone,specific findings shall be made by the City of
Orange, demonstrating sufficient capacity within
the residential overiay zone to accommodate 100
percent of the remaining regional housing need for
Lower-Income households.
To ensure the continued availability of residential
sites within the housing overlay zone,the City of
Orange shall implement a RHNA Housing Sites
Monitoring System to ensure the capacity of sites is
at a minimum equivalent to the remaining Rt�NA
need. The monitoring system will adjust the site
acreage requirements based upon the City's
remaining need for Lower-lncome households on a
project-by-project basis. The monitoring system
shall be updated on a project-by-project basis and
an annual monitoring report shall be provided to
the City Council in conjunction with annual
progress reporting requirements pursuant to
Government Code section 65400.
POLICY ACTION D.18: Review and Amendment This policy does not apply to the proposed project.
of Residential Development Standards Amendments to the Zoning Code(regarding review
and amendments of residential development
To respond to changing market trends and standards)are the responsibility of the City,not the
encourage continued provision of housing project applicant.
opportunities for Orange residents,the City will
review and revise the existing Zoning Code,
including residential development standards,as
appropriate. The amendment of the code shall
evaluate modifications and or revisions that further
encourage the feasibility of residential
development. Amendments and modifications to
the existing Zoning Code may include mixed use
development standards,infill development
standards,adaptive reuse,and multi-family and
single-family development standards.
POLICY ACTION D.19: Monitoring of This policy does not apply to the proposed project.
Development Fees Monitoring of the required development is the
responsibility of the City,not the project applicant.
To contribute to the feasibility of affordable
housing development,the City will monitor
required development fees consistent with the
provision of the Affordable Housing Plan,
Affordable Housing Ordinance and the Zoning
Code to ensure in-lieu fees,development impact
fees and processing fees are not considered an
undue constraint on residential development. The
City shall provide for review of development
impact and in-lieu fees in addition to periodic
review of processing fees,as appropriate. The City
shall seek the assistance of affordable housing
Michael Brandman Associates 4.6-65
H�.\Client(PN-JN)�3771�37710001�EIR\9-DEQL\37710001 Sec04-06 Land Use.doc
.e
Sa/em Lutheran Church and School Specific P/an
Land Use and P/anning Draft E/R
mmr
Table 4.6-13 (cont.): Project Consistency
with the City of Orange General Plan: Housing Element
�.
H�in�Elem+at�E '' ., �� $_ , � ti...
rar�`��urchl��IdXr oc�,S � �Plan
��___ _ _z .__. _ _ � _
developers and other stakeholders in the review of �
fees to ensure they are responsive to the needs of
the market. %
POLICY ACTION D.20: Affordable Housing This policy does not apply to the proposed project.
Resource"Toolkit" Preparation of an affordable housing toolkit is the �
responsibility of the City,not the project applicant.
To ensure the development community is aware of
the availability of State,Federai and local funds as �
well as local in-kind assistance,the City shall
develop an affardable housing resource"toolkit." �
The toolkit shall provide for dissemination of
information regarding funding/financing options .e+
available at the Federal, State and]ocal level,
incentives,partnership opportunities and other �'
resources that will promote a well-informed
�:�
citizenry. The"toolkiY'approach shall provide the
public with a wide-range of sources intended to ,,,}_
educate and inform, including but not limited to:
• Development of an internet-based resource
�
clearinghouse on the City's website. �
• Development of outreach flyers and print media �
to provide information on programs, funds and
resources for affordable housing. �,
• Sponsorship/Partnership with agencies,private �,
entities and non-profit for educational
seminars/warkshops. .�a
• Outreach efforts specifically for development of ,�
housing for special needs groups including large
families. �.�r
POLICY ACTION D.21:Priority Project Review This policy does not apply to the proposed project. nw
for Affordable Residential Development The City,and not the project applicant, is specifically
To streamline project review and building plan
responsible for implementing this policy "'�
check processing of affordable residential projects, ,,,�
the City shall continue the provision of priority
project review and expedited processing by the "'�
Community Development Department Building �
Division to ensure residential project applicants are
not unduly burdened with extensive or unnecessary y�
project reviews. The Community Development
Department shall provide internal coordination ,,,�
among City departments to priaritize project review
and approval of affordable housing projects. ��
�.,�
�
��
4.6-66 Michael Brandman Associates ��
H\Client(PN-JN)�3771\37710001�EIR\9-DEIIL\37710001 Sec04-06 land Use.doc
��
Salem Lutheran Church and School Specif►c Plan Environmental lmpact Ana/ysis
Draft EIR Land Use and P/anning
Table 4.6-13 (cont.): Project Consistency
with the City of Orange General Plan: Housing Element
' l�irr�sCt►�f�me�t �� , e� 3alem Lutl�eran:Chu�rch and Sahool$pecili�Plan
POLICY ACTION D.22: Explore Workforce This policy does not apply to the proposed project.
Housing The City and not the project applicant is specifically
made responsible far the coordinating with the
The City shall explore the housing needs of the Chamber of Commerce, local business entities, and
current workforce to maximize the potential for stakeholder groups to analyze the current needs of the
residents to live and work in the City. The City business community and its employees.
shall coordinate with the Chamber of Commerce,
local business entities and stakeholder groups to
analyze the current needs of the business
community and its employees. Based upon the
analysis of these needs,the City will develop a
workforce housing strategy to be used as a
guidance tool for future parinerships and policy and
regulatory revisions to facilitate workforce housing.
POLICY ACTION D.23: Redevelopment Agency This policy does not apply to the proposed project.
Affordable Housing Obligation The City,and not the project applicant, is specifically
responsible for implementing this policy
The Orange Redevelopment Agency is obligated, in
accordance with California Community
Redevelopment Law,to ensure that at least 15
percent of all new dwelling units within a project
area developed by an entity other than the
Redevelopment Agency must be available at
affordable housing cost to Low-and Moderate-
Income persons. Of these units,40 percent shall be
restricted to Very Low-Income households. The
City prefers the affordable units to be provided
onsite.
POLICY ACTION D.24:Acquisition and This policy does not apply to the proposed project.
Rehabilitation of Multi-Family Residential The City, and not the project applicant, is specifically
Development responsible far implementing this policy
Subject to available Redevelopment Agency and
HOME funding sources annually,the City will
provide for financing,regulatory incentives and
other in-kind technical assistance to non-profits,
affordable housing developers and property owners
for the acquisition and rehabilitation of multifamily
properties for affordable housing. Encourage,
through a variety of incentives such as streamlined
permit review,reduced development standards,
parking reductions or other remedies to increase the
feasibility of acquisition and rehabilitation of multi-
family units. Ensure affordability is maintained
long-term through restriction and/or covenants.
Prioritize and target those buildings exhibiting the
highest levels of deferred maintenance.
Acquisition and rehabilitation may also include the
rehabilitation of existing affordable multifamily
units or the acquisition and rehabilitation of multi-
family units that are being offered at market rate.
Michae/Brandman Associates 4.6-67
H-.\Client(PN-JN)\3771\37710001�EIIt\9-DEIR\37710001 Sec04-06 Land Use.doc
�
Salem Lutheran Church and School Specific Plan `°�'
Land Use and P/anning Draft E/R
�
Table 4.6-13 (cont.): Project Consistency -�y
with the City of Orange General Plan: Housing Element
�
' tiy�' �� ` �tNcies ;� ;�alem I�u Church and oW$ ,_ Plan_
` ___'.v _ � .. �__.a_. v�._w _ ;_ �
The acquired market-rate units would be ,,,,
rehabilitated and offered at affordable rental rates.
POLICY ACTION D.25: Home Improvement This policy does not apply to the proposed project.
Program The City,and not a project applicant, is responsible „�,
for providing rehabilitation loans and grants for
Continue to provide rehabilitation loans and gants exterior and interior improvements that enhance the
for appropriate exterior and interior improvements guality,safety and livability of existing single-family
that enhance the quality,safety and livability of homes. ^^
existing single-family homes through the Home
Improvement Program to. The City shall provide -��
information and materials to eligible applicants.
�
POLICY ACTION D.26: Utilize External Funding This policy does not apply to the proposed project.
Sources for Rehabilitation The City,and not a project applicant, is responsible �
for assisting the in the rehabilitation of unsafe housing
Continue to utilize Federal formula grants through conditions in the City. ""
the City's Federal Entitlement Grant Funds(HUD)
to assist in the rehabilitation of unsafe housing "�
conditions citywide. Provide low interest loans and
grants to qualified applicants to encourage the "�
rehabilitation of deteriorated single family and �
multi-family housing.
POLICY ACTION D.27: Funding for In-Place This policy does not apply to the proposed project. ""'
Supportive Housing The City,and not the project applicant, is specifically �
Continue to support locai and inter-jurisdictional
responsible for implementing this policy
efforts to reduce temporary and chronic "M`
homelessness. The City shall continue to allocate ,��
Federal Entitlement funds and public service
agency funds for helping homeless persons find „�
permanent housing through continued support of
City-supported CDBG sub-recipients. The City of
Orange shall continue to promote a comprehensive
approach to addressing homelessness consistent ""*`
with the Continuum of Care model. The City shall �
provide support for non-profit entities,the Orange
County Housing Authority and other applicable �,
government agencies to provide a range of services
and housing opportunities for homeless persons in •�
Orange.
�
POLICY ACTION D.28: Support Fair Housing This policy does not apply to the proposed project.
Services The City, and not the project applicant, is specifically �
responsible for implementing this policy
The Fair Housing Council of Orange County ,�,,,
provides community education, individual
counseling,mediation,and low-cost advocacy with "�
the expressed goal of eliminating housing �
discrimination and guaranteeing the rights of all
people to freely choose the housing for which they
qualify in the area they desire. The City refers all ��
inquiries for these services to the Fair Housing �
�-
4.6-68 Michael8randman Associates �,
H�.\Client(PN-1N)13771\37710001�E.IR\9-DPllt\37710001 Sec04-06 Land Use.doc
�„
Salem Lutheran Church and School Specifc Plan Environmental Impact Analysis
Draft EIR Land Use and Planning
Table 4.6-13 (cont.): Project Consistency
with the City of Orange General Plan: Housing Element
F�� " ';,�meM Qa�ts urct �► � a �'s � � . „ n�hutal���he�EN +��'►
Council of Orange County and maintains literature
and informational brochures at City Hall available
for public distribution. In order to more effectively
outreach to the community the City will also
provide informational brochures at the City library,
Seniar Center and other locations frequented by the
pubiic. The City will continue the provision of fair
housing assistance including landlord/tenant
counseling,homebuyer assistance, and
amelioration or removal of identified impediments.
The City will work with the Fair Housing Council
to provide community education on fair housing on
an annual basis.
POLICY ACTION D.29: Adopt Reasonable This policy does not apply to the proposed project.
Accommodation Procedures The City,and not the project applicant, is specifically
responsible for implementing this policy
The City recognizes the unique needs of persons
with disabilities. To comply with Federal and State
housing laws(SB 520),the City will analyze
existing land use controls,building codes,and
permit and processing procedures to determine
constraints they impose on the development,
maintenance,and improvement of housing for
persons with disabilities. Based on its finding,the
Ciry will develop a policy for reasonable
accommodation to provide relief to Code
regulations and permitting procedures that have a
discriminatory effect on housing for individuals
with disabilities. The policy shall include
procedures for requesting accommodation,timeline
for processing and appeals, criteria for determining
whether a requested accommodation is reasonable,
and ministerial approval for minor requests. This
policy is not intended to allow boarding houses in
residential zones where they are otherwise
prohibited.
POLICY ACTION D30: Adequate Sites for This policy does not apply to the proposed project.
Emergency Shelters/Transitional Housing The City,and not the project applicant, is specifically
responsible for implementing this policy
In compliance with SB 2,effective January i,2008,
the City must analyze and revise the existing
Zoning Ordinance to allow for emergency shelters,
transitional housing and supportive housing to
homeless individuals and families for annual and
seasonally estimated need. The City will comply
with the requirements of the State in the following
manner:
• The City is considering amending the PI,M1 and
M2 zones,or other suitable zone with sufficient
capacity,to permit emergency shelters without
Michael Brandman Associates 4.6-69
H-\Client(PN-JN)13771\37710001�EIR\9-DEIR\37710001 Sec04-06 Land Use-doc
Sa/em Lutheran Church and School Specific P/an
Land Use and P/anning Draft E/R
M...
Table 4.6-13 (cont.): Project Consistency
with the City of Orange General Plan: Housing Element
Ht#using�ia�r►+�tt����[�,����ici�► j` $�1+��ut�ir��Church and��3��Pian
._v,�� .�� _ �
��_ _. _ _ _ __
discretionary approvals. The City will also
consider allowing emergency shelters without
discretionary approvals in the future Urban �
Mixed Use zone(s). The subject zoning
category(ies)shall include sites with sufficient �
capacity to meet the local need for emergency
shelters. �
• The number of sites or zoning identified shall +��
provide sufficient capacity to meet the estimated
need identified in this Housing Element. The �"
City shall adjust its estimated need based on the
�
2009 Point-in-Time Homeless Count when data
becomes available. -Ensure the provisions of the „�
Housing Accountability Act are enforced and
prohibit the denial of emergency w,r
shelter/transitional housing facility via
discretionary approvals if it is consistent with � '"��
adopted regulatory standards. -Evaluate
development standards and regulatory provisions
�
to ensure that standards encourage rather than ,�„
discourage development. -Amend its Zoning
Code to permit transitional,supportive and �„
single-room occupancy housing as a residential
use and only subject to those restrictions that `�
apply to other residential uses of the same type in
the same zone. -Ensure emergency shelters are """�
only subject to the same development and �
management standards that apply to residential or
commercial uses within the same zone. ,�,
POLICY ACTION D.31: Section 8 Rental This policy does not apply to the proposed project. ,,,�,
Assistance The City,and not the project applicant, is specifically
responsible for implementing this policy �a
The Orange County Housing Authority currently
administers the Section 8 Rental Assistance �
program on behalf of the City. Currently the
program assists renter households in the City of �,
Orange. Based on future congressional
appropriations,the County Housing Authority will '�=
apply for additional funding which will enable the '�
Housing Authority to administer additional
vouchers for families, elderly,handicapped and „�
disabled persons over the Housing Element
planning period. The City of Orange will continue ,,,,,
to provide referral services and information to the
�ty's residents.
�
;.�;,
r�sr
d�
4.6-70 Michael Brandman Associates ,,,�
H�.\Client(PN-JN)13771\37710001�EIR\9-DEIIL\37710001 Sec04-06 Land Ose.doc
Salem Lutheran Church and School Specific P/an Environmental Impact Analysis
Draft E/R Land Use and Planning
Table 4.6-13 (cont.): Project Consistency
with the City of Orange General Plan: Housing Element
N " ��" e��oala and'i�ll�ies j :�atem Lutl�eran Churcf�and$choW�.S�c�I�lan
POLICY ACTION D32: Explore"Shared Living" This policy does not apply to the proposed project.
and"Co-Housing"Concepts The City, and not the project applicant, is specifically
responsible for implementing this policy
Continue the provision of the City's Shared
Housing Program for seniors through Orange
Elderly Services. To further enhance this program,
the City shall evaluate the viability of the"shared
living"concept whereby the City provides
connection with those willing to share a home.
Particular emphasis shall be placed on seniors,but
also with students and single person households.
Additionally,evaluate the viability of"co-
housing,"whereby residents share common
facilities. City staff shall survey current practices
and evaluate its potential application in the City of
Orange. Based upon a finding of feasibility,
amendments to the Zoning Code and other
regulatory revisions shall be implemented to
encourage shared-living and co-housing
opportunities. This policy is not intended to allow
boarding houses in residential zones where they are
otherwise prohibited.
POLICY ACTION D33: Monitoring and This policy does not apply to the proposed project.
Preservation of"At-Risk"units The City,and not the project applicant, is specifically
responsible for implementing this policy
The City currently has 75 units that are at risk of
converting from affordable,deed-restricted units to
market-rate units. The City shall provide for
regular monitoring of deed-restricted units that
have the potential of converting to market-rate
during the planning period. Additionally seek
funding and opportunities for owners of these units
to extend and/or renew deed restrictions and/or
covenants.
To proactively address the conversion of affordable
units to market-rate units,the City will develop a
program that establishes partnerships with non-
profit housing developers and a strategy to preserve
the units. The City shall ensure compliance with
noticing requirements and provide far tenant
education when a notice of conversion is received.
POLICY ACTION D34: Promotion of Water This policy does not apply to the proposed project.
Conservation Plans and Practices The proposed project does not include residential
development.
Promote the inclusion of state-of-the-art water
conservation practices in existing and new
residential projects where proven to be safe and
environmentally sound. Promote the use of low
water demand fixtures, landscaping and drought
tolerant materials in new and existing residential
projects. Establish outreach and marketing
Michae/Brandman Associates 4.6-71
H�.\Client(PN-.TN)\3771\37710001�EIIL\9-DEIR\37710001 Sec04-06 Land Use-doc
�
Sa/em Lutheran Church and Schoo/Specific Plan
Land Use and P/anning Draft E/R
�
Table 4.6-13 (cont.): Project Consistency ��
with the City of Orange General Plan: Housing Element
, _ _ . .., .
�
H�, k Elenf�eri�t� ` n�'+o►lici� . ;; � : S�lem Lutl�eran Church�,��liac►t���t[c Piaa
materials for public distribution that describes the ,�,
benefits of water conservation,resources for
implementation and other appropriate information. 4
POLICY ACTION D35: Green Building Program This policy does not apply to the proposed project. �
The proposed project does not include residential
It is the City's policy to encourage"green building" development. ,
practices in new and existing residential
development. To facilitate and encourage the use ,,�
of green building practices,the City shall conduct a
comprehensive review of existing zoning,building ��
and development standards related to green
building. The City will analyze current trends and ""�
best practices and based on its findings establish
�+,
and market a program of information resources
and/or incentives that will facilitate and encourage
�
the incorparation of materials and technology that
promote resource conservation and efficiency and +�
the development of high-efficiency, sustainable
buildings. The program shall encourage residential �
developers/builders to maximize resource
conservation through proactive site,building and �
building systems design,materials and equipment
to maximize resource efficiency and minimize �
ongoing utility and building maintenance costs. �
To further promote efficient use of resources, �,
evaluate the potential for offering incentives such
as financial assistance, fee waivers,priority w�
processing,or other strategies to further encourage
resource conservation. The program will �
encourage energy and resource conservation in both
new construction and remodeling. �
POLICY ACTION D.36: In-Kind Technical This policy does not apply to the proposed project. "�'
Assistance The proposed project does not include residential
development �
Continue to offer in-kind technical assistance on a
request basis for property owners pursuing �
improvements that enhance the quality of the City's
housing stock. �`
POLICY ACTION D37: "On the House Permits" This policy does not apply to the proposed project. "'�"'
Program The proposed project does not include residential �
The City will offer,periodically,the"On the House development
Permits"program that waives building plan review �"`�
and permit fees for home improvements for a „�,
limited time period. Residents would be informed
through informational brochures,website and other �
appropriate means.
��
�
�:
4.6-72 Michael Brandman Associates �,
H�\Client(PN-1N)\3771\37710001�EIIt\9-DEQt\37710001 Sec04-06 Land Use doc
" Salem Lutheran Church and School Specific P/an Environmental Impact Ana/ysis
Draft E/R Land Use and Planning
Table 4.6-13 (cont.): Project Consistency
with the City of Orange General Plan: Housing Element
__ _ _ __ _
Housing Element Goals and Policie� ! Sal+�t�.utheran Church and�chqol S�Iflc Plan
POLICY ACTION D38: Proactive Code This policy does not apply to the proposed project.
Enforcement for Private Property The project site is not considered a residential
neighborhood.
Continue to administer the City's Neighborhood
Enhancement Team(NET)and other similar
programs to proactively address code violations
and deferred maintenance and encourage continued
maintenance of existing neighborhoods. The City
shall target a minimum of four neighborhoods each
year that exhibit significant deferred maintenance
and prioritize funding and resources accordingly.
� POLICY ACTION D.39: Blight Removal on Public This policy does not apply to the proposed project.
Property The project site is not considered a residential
To enhance the quality of Orange's residential peighborhood.
neighborhoods,the City will continue to utilize the
Public Works and Community Services
Departments for the as-needed removal of graffiti
and other deferred maintenance issues on public
property,including sidewalks,parks,bus shelters
signs and other structures adjacent to the public
right-of-way.
POLICY ACTION D.40:Neighborhood-Based This policy does not apply to the proposed project.
� Community Preservation The project site is not considered a residential
neighborhood.
Encourage the involvement of local neighborhood
goups and interested residents in identifying,
maintaining and improving the quality of
residential development. This initiative may
include continuation of the City's Neighborhood
Enhancement Program. Proactively engage
community groups in planning activities that
enhance neighborhood quality.
POLICY ACTION D.41: Preservation of Historic This policy does not apply to the proposed project.
Residential Structures No historic structures exist on the project site.
The City places high priority to the conservation,
preservation and enhancement of the City's historic
residential neighborhoods. The City will continue
to enforce the goals and objectives contained in the
Historic Preservation Element of the General Plan
and the Historic Preservation Design Standards for
Old Towne to ensure the continued quality of the
City's historic residential resources. In addition,
the City will continue to promote the Mills Act
Program and develop public information and
outreach materials.
Michael Brandman Associates 4.6-73
H1Client(PN-IN)�3771\37710001�EIIt\9-DEIIL\37710001 Sec04-06 Land Use-doc
Salem Lutheran Church and School Specifc Plan
Land Use and P/anning Draft E/R
�
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.
Level of Significance Before Mitigation
Less than significant.
Mitigation Measures .�
No mitigation measures are required.
Level of Significance After Mitigation
Impacts were determined to be less than significant before mitigation. �,�
City Master Plan for Trails '"�`
Table 4.6-14 provides a comparison of the proposed project to the goals and objectives of the Master �
Plan of Recreational Trails. �,,
There is an existing off-street multipurpose/equestrian trail along Orange Park Boulevard abutting the �v
east side of the project site, which runs west along Santiago Canyon Road abutting the north side of �u
the project site. The multipurpose trail terminates where it intersects with the Sully-Miller Equestrian �
Arena that is adjacent to the project site.
�
Within the City's Recreational Trails Master Plan,the trail standards state that a 10-foot trail width is �"`
standard. Special circumstances allow 6 feet to occur with adequate turnouts. ,,,,,,
Accarding to the Recreational Trails Master Plan,the trail standards criteria calls for minimizing �
maintenance costs, producing minimum disturbance to the natural environment and maximizing the �
enjoyment of users through a diversity of experiences. �
Table 4.6-14: Project Consistency with City Master Plan for Trails '�"'
_ _
�
' �ais and Objectiv�s �a1sm Lutheran Chu�and Scho�3pecific Pfan
_ _.. . .:. _ _ _ ..,__x __ __... _ _ �
1. Is aimed at a variety of users and shall be This policy does not apply to the proposed project.
designated as a multipurpose,soft surface The proposed project does not include any onsite trails. �
trail,providing recreational opportunities
for equestrians,hikers and bicyclists while '�''
restricting motorized vehicles from the trail. �
2. Will provide for a loop trai]system with This policy does not apply to the proposed project.
varying loop lengths within the system. The proposed project does not include any onsite trails. "�
3. Will provide for diversity in trail This policy does not apply to the proposed project. +"�
experiences including variety in difficulty, The proposed project does not include any onsite trails.
terrain, environment and the exploration of �'"
historical and interpretive opportunities. �
�
rr�
4.6-74 Michae/Brandman Associates �
H:\Client(PN-JN)�3771\37710001�EIIL\9-DFIR\37"/10001 Sec04A6LandUse.doc
�
Sa/em Lutheran Church and School Specific Plan
Land Use and Planning Draft E/R
Table 4.6-14(cont.): Project Consistency with City Master Plan for Trails
f3aals ant�Qb�ves i t'�_� 3a#e�t�Lu#heran Ghur�a�3$+�hoot l�pe+cffiePlan
. ,, � .: � �.xUn
12. Will have environmental sensitivity as a The proposed project conforms to this policy.
foremost concern and be designed to During project construction, including changes to the
minimize the impact to the environment. trail as a result of the proposed driveway on site that will
connect Santiago Canyon Road to Frank Lane,Best
Management Practices will be utilized to reduce water
quality impacts during construction. Additionally a "'"
Water Quality Management Plan will be prepared for the
proposed project to mitigate construction-related water
quality impacts,which have the potential to detrimentally ,�
impacts water quality.
13. Will provide for handicap access whenever This policy does not apply to the proposed project. �
possible. The proposed project does not propose any onsite trails. ,�,
14. Will be designed to reduce exposure to This policy does not apply to the proposed project. �
liability to the City of Orange and adjacent The proposed project does not propose any onsite trails.
landowners. �
15. Will provide for connections to the City of The proposed project conforms to this policy.
�.
Orange's Class I and II bicycle trails, The proposed project design will allow for connectivity
whenever possible,to facilitate bicycle from the property to the Class II bicycle lanes(on- �
commuting opportunities. roadway)that are adjacent to the south side of Santiago
Canyon Road and west side of Orange Park Boulevard, �
adjacent to the church property via access from Frank
� Lane. Connectivity to the bicycle lanes will facilitate �"
bicycle commuting opportunities.
�
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. *�
�
Level of Significance Before Mitigation
Less than significant. ''"�
�
Mitigation Measures
�.
No mitigation measures are necessary.
�.
Leve/of Significance After Mitigation
w�
Impacts were determined to be less than significant before mitigation.
rr�
�
sr�
�
N.-,
4.6-76 Michael Brandman Associates ,,,,,,
H_\Cliem(PN-JN)�3771\37710001�EIR\9-DEIR\37710001 SecA4-06 Land Use.doc
���
'� Sa/em Lutheran Church and Schoo/Specific P/an Environmental Impact Analysis
Draft E/R Land Use and P/anning
Table 4.6-14(cont.): Project Consistency with City Master Plan for Trails
. Q�a►1s a�id QbjeGtfves , � Salem�,utheran Church�Sc�tool Spe�l#Ic�Plan
4. Will link recreational opportunities within This policy does not apply to the proposed project.
the City of Orange and County providing This policy primarily relates to the City's provision of an
for connections between parks,open spaces overall Citywide loop trail system. The proposed project
and trail systems in adjoining jurisdictions. does not include any onsite trails.
5. Will be designed with safety as a paramount The proposed project conforms to this policy.
concern and will: The proposed project includes a crosswalk at the
• Minimize vehicular/trail crossings, proposed driveway off Santiago Canyon to the project
• Maximize the separation between roads site to facilitate the crossing of equestrian riders. The
and trails(with planting and distance), addition of the second vehicle access point would reduce
• Maximize visibility and warning signage the existing traffic volumes at Frank Lane,which would
where interface between vehicles and the correspondingly reduce vehicle—equestrian conflicts
trail does occur,and resulting in a beneficial impact at the Frank Lane Orange
• Provide access for patrol,emergency Park Boulevard intersection.
vehicles and maintenance.
6. Will address issues of regular upkeep and This policy does not apply to the proposed project.
patrol to insure maximum trail safety and The proposed project has no relation to upkeep of the
low cost maintenance. offsite trail system.
7. Will be signed with a system of easily The proposed project conforms to this policy.
recognized markers,which will allow users The trail along the northern edge of the project site will
to clearly recognize the trail system. be interrupted by the proposed driveway that runs the
project site from Santiago Canyon Road through to Frank
Lane. The trail will be clearly posted so that motorists
are aware of the potential conflict between vehicles and
those utilizing the trail. A crosswalk will be provided.
Additionally, at the intersection of Frank Lane and
Orange Park Boulevard,there is an existing break in the
trail that runs along Orange Park Boulevard. The trail
will be clearly marked with a crosswalk at this location
as well.
8. Will,whenever possible,be designated in This policy does not apply to the proposed project.
locations that will provide the community The proposed project does not propose any onsite trails.
with trails yet minimize the financial
burden to the City of Orange through:
• a phasing plan,
• designations on private parcels that will
require the developer to implement the
trail, and
• by locating the trails along existing paths
and unimproved roads.
9. Will provide for flexibility in trail standards This policy does not apply to the proposed project.
to maintain compatibility with adjacent land The proposed project does not propose any onsite trails.
uses.
10. Will minimize impacts to adjacent This policy does not apply to the proposed project.
landowners from trespass,damage and The proposed project does not propose any onsite trails.
property loss associated with the trail.
11. Will provide standards that will be designed This policy does not apply to the proposed project.
to be compatible with adjacent jurisdictions. The City,and not the project applicant, is specifically
responsible for implementing this policy
Michael Brandman Associates 4.6-75
H.AClient(PN-IN)�3771A37710001�EIItV9-DEIR\37710001 Sec04-06 Land Ose.doc
" Salem Lutheran Church and Schoo/Specific P/an Environmental Impact Ana/ysis
Draft E/R Noise
4.7 - Noise
4.7.1 - Introduction
Purpose
The purpose of this section is to describe the existing noise setting and potential noise impacts of the
, proposed project. This section also identifies mitigation measures to reduce any potentially
significant impacts to a less than significant level.
Sources
Information in this section is based on the following sources:
• Noise Impact Analysis Salem Lutheran Church Project City of Orange, Vista Environmental,
Inc., January 23, 2012 (Appendix G).
• Salem Lutheran Church and School Specific Plan,Michael Madden Associates, April 30, 2011
(Appendix I).
• City of Orange Municipal Code.
• City of Orange General Plan, 2010.
4.7.2 - Environmental Setting
Below the regional,vicinity and site conditions,noise-related environmental settings are discussed.
Regional
On a regional level, mobile noise sources include airports,trains, and freeways/traffic. John Wayne
Airport is located in Orange CounTy and is a mobile source of noise in the region. The Interstate 55
Freeway creates noise and impacts those land uses located immediately adjacent. Additionally,traffic
on roads throughout the region also serves as a source of noise.
Vicinity
The project site is located in the City of Orange in Orange County, California. Mobile noise sources
in the City of Orange include: motor vehicles,trains, and aircraft. Stationary noise sources include
mechanical equipment such air conditioners, lawn mowers, and leaf blowers. Other noise from
animals and human-related activities contribute to the existing noise levels in the project vicinity.
Site Conditions
The project site is located in a developed area surrounded by residential uses. The ambient noise in
the project vicinity is generally characterized by vehicle traffic on the nearby roadways; maintenance
activities associated with an equestrian community, and from aircraft over flights at John Wayne
Airport(located approximately 10 miles south of the project site). The church and school on site are
currently in use. The existing onsite vacant structure is located adjacent to and west of Classroom
Michael8randman Associates 4•7-�
H�.\Client(PN-JN)�3771\37710001�EIIL\9-DEIR\37710001 Sec04-07Noise.doc
Sa/em Lutheran Church and School Specific P/an
Noise Draft EIR
Building B, is part of the church and school campus and is the proposed site of the relocated
preschool.
Noise Description and Standards
Various noise rating scales, noise standards, and community noise assessment criteria are discussed � .
below to provide an overview of noise evaluation and the various noise standards used in the City of
Orange (City).
�
Noise Descriptors
Noise is most often defined as unwanted sound. Noise Equivalent sound levels are not measured „�
directly,but are calculated from sound pressure levels typically measured in A-weighted decibels
�.;,.
(dBA). The equivalent sound level (LeQ)represents a steady state sound level containing the same
total energy as a time varying signal over a given sample period. The peak traffic hour Leq is the """`
noise metric used by California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) for all traffic noise impact ��°
analyses. �
The Day-Night Average Level(Ld„) is the weighted average of the intensity of a sound,with ����
corrections for time of day,and averaged over 24 hours. The time of day corrections require the ��
addition of ten decibels to sound levels at night between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. The Community Noise �«�
Equivalent Level (CNEL) is similar to the Ldn, except that it has another addition of 4.77 decibels to
�
sound levels during the evening hours between 7 p.m. and 10 p.m. These additions are made to the
sound levels at these times because during the evening and nighttime hours (as compared to daytime ��
hours)there is a decrease in the ambient noise levels, which creates an increased sensitivity to sounds. #a*
For this reason,the sound appears louder in the evening and nighttime hours and is weighted +�
accordingly. The City relies on the CNEL noise standard to assess transportation-related impacts on
i�
noise sensitive land uses.
i�i
Another noise descriptor that is used primarily for the assessment of aircraft noise impacts is the .�
Sound Exposure Level, which is also called the Single Event Level (SEL). The SEL descriptor �;
represents the acoustic energy of a single event(e.g., an aircraft overflight)normalized to a one-
second event duration. This is useful for comparing the acoustical energy of different events
�
involving different durations of the noise sources. The SEL is based on an integration of the noise ��
during the period when the noise first rises within 10 dBA of its maximum value and last falls below n�
10 dBA of its maximum value. The SEL is often 10 or more dBA greater than the L,,,aX, since the ,
SEL logarithmically adds the Leq for each second of the duration of the noise. The L,,,aX is the
measured maximum decibel level in a single noise event. �
4MM
Vibration Descriptors �
The propagation of ground-borne vibration is not as simple to model as airborne noise because noise #;�
in the air travels through a relatively uniform median, while ground-borne vibrations travel through
the earth which may contain significant geological differences. There are three main types of
�
,,�.
4•�-Z Michael Brandman Associates �
H�.\Client(PN-JN)U771137710001�EDt\9-DEIR\37710001 Sec04-07Noise.doc
Wr�
Salem Lutheran Church and Schoo/Specifc P/an Environmental Impact Ana/ysis
Draft E/R Noise
vibration propagation: surface waves, compression waves, and shear waves. Surface waves (also
referred to as Rayleigh waves)travel along the ground's surface. These waves carry most of their
energy along an expanding circular wave front, similar to ripples produced by throwing a rock into a
pool of water. Compression waves (also referred to as P-waves) are body waves that carry their
energy along an expanding spherical wave front. The particle motion in these waves is longitudinal
(i.e., in a"push-pull" fashion)and these waves are analogous to airborne sound waves. Shear waves
(also referred to as S-waves) carry energy along an expanding spherical wave front,the particle
motion is transverse or"side-to-side"and perpendicular to the direction of propagation.
There are several different methods used to quantify vibration amplitude such as the maximum
instantaneous peak in the vibrations velocity, which is known as the peak particle velocity (PPV)or
the root mean square(rms) amplitude of the vibration velocity. Due to the typically small amplitudes
of vibrations, vibration velocity is often expressed in decibels and is denoted as(L�) and is based on
the rms velocity amplitude. A commonly used abbreviation is VdB,which is when L� is based on the
reference quantity of 1 micro inch per second.
As vibration waves propagate from a source, the vibration energy decreases in a logarithmic nature
and the vibration levels typically decrease by 6 VdB per doubling of the distance from the vibration
source. This drop-off rate can vary greatly depending on the soil but has been shown to be effective
enough for screening purposes, in order to identify potential vibration impacts that may need to be
studied through actual field tests.
Construction activity can result in varying degrees of ground vibration, depending on the equipment
used on the site. Operation of construction equipment causes ground vibrations, which spread
through the ground and diminish in strength with distance. Buildings in the vicinity of the
construction site respond to these vibrations with varying results ranging from no perceptible effects
at the low levels to slight damage at the highest levels.
Noise Standards
The City has adopted noise standards as part of its General Plan Noise Element. The City uses the
CNEL scale as the criterion for assessing the compatibility of residential land uses with
transportation-related noise sources by utilizing an interior noise standard of 45 dBA CNEL and an
exterior noise standard of 65 dBA CNEL.
The City has noise requirements, which control onsite generated noise during short-term construction
activities and long-term project operation excluding traffic-related noise. Construction noise is a
short-term condition and is permitted as long as it occurs within the specified timeframes of the
respective noise requirements. Other, onsite stationary source noise is subject to the provisions of the
City's noise requirements. This includes specified noise levels that cannot be exceeded for certain
time intervals.
Michae/Brandman Associates 4.7-3
H�.\Client(PN-JN)�3771\37710001�EQt\9-DEIR\37710001 Sec04-07 Noise.doc
Salem Lutheran Church and Schoo/Specific P/an
Noise Draft EIR
,�
Vibration Standards
The City has not adopted vibration impact criteria for construction-related vibration levels. The
��
Federal Transit Administration's ground borne noise and vibration impact thresholds presented in the
proposed project's noise study were utilized.
,�
Transportation-Related Noise
In community noise assessment, changes in noise levels greater than three dBA are often identified as
�
significant,while changes less than one dBA will not be discernible to the human ear. In the range of
one dBA to three dBA, people who are very sensitive to noise may perceive a slight change in noise �
level. No scientific empirical evidence is available to support the use of three dBA as the significance ±+�
threshold. In labaratory testing situations, humans are able to detect noise level changes of slightly „�
less than one dBA. However, in a community situation,the noise exposure is extended over a long
��
time and changes in noise levels occur over years, rather than the immediate comparison made in a
��;
laboratory situation. The level at which changes in community noise levels become discernible is
likely to be some value greater than one dBA and, therefore,three dBA appears to be appropriate for �
most people and is generally considered an appropriate level that can be perceived by more people. i�:
Field Survey ""�
Measurement Procedure and Criteria ""�"
To determine the existing noise at and adjacent to the project site, field monitoring was conducted by n�
Giroux and Associates between Wednesday March 29, 2006 and Friday March 31, 2006 and by Vista ��,,
Environmental on Wednesday June 6,2010 and between Saturday June 19, 2010 and Sunday June 20,
•�„
2010. The 2006 noise measurements were included since the data was available and the 2006 noise
��
measurements represent a worst-case analysis, since those noise measurements were taken prior to the
recession, when the school enrollment was at 585 students and there was more traffic on the nearby �*�
roadways. For reference,the school enrollment for 2010 was 486 students. The project site is located �++�
in a relatively developed area. The site is specifically bounded by Santiago Canyon Road and single-
�
family residential uses to the north, Orange Park Boulevard, and single-family residential uses to the
east, Frank Lane and single-family residential uses to the south, and single-family residential uses and ��
an equestrian center to the west. �
F�,
The noise monitoring locations were selected in order to obtain noise measurements of the current
noise sources impacting the project site and to provide a baseline for any potential noise impacts that ��
may be created by the proposed project. Exhibit 4.7-1 depicts the onsite noise measurement locations ''�
and locations of sensitive nearby sensitive receptors. Noise measurements were taken at several ..+
locations on and near the proposed project site to determine the existing ambient noise level, which is ,�,
generally characterized by: 1)vehicle traffic from Santiago Canyon Road and Orange Park Boulevard
2)noise from aircraft related to John Wayne Airport, located approximately 20 miles south of the �
��
project site and 3) activities at the equestrian facility to the northwest of the project site.
�
r�:
4.7-4 Michael8randman Associates �
H�.\Client(PN-JN)U771�37710001�EIIL\9-UEDt\37710001 Sec04-07Noise.doc
�a�a
. � L Z Q'
I
I` O a a
ut i 4' i p � � LL�
,� • � t` �� �� �... c.� w�
• �„ � � a a
� • ' c� u,�
'� ° � J
� , � �„�„� � ��
�
� " ...►�� e:: � � V Z
`�� }.c � .N UJ�
� � � � �Z
. g t � +-.� s:,"_ � � � Q�
fn � _>
�u .� � f�xs� �C U Z
,� , � • �,i' � � �w
.
3 �. ��
_ ; .
' � - ��' � . � �
�. ,E �� ,, _
" �`�� A ` U
y � N �
-.�. w-, Q m �. Z
, ��� � � __.: ,. Z -o � �
� a
' �'. �_ � ,��`��i� W Z N w
�``" � �r �:. ��9ePa�� � � � cn -a ?
.__---- �
.. ^'z � � J �
� `''� C �
. t� :x� �� ,',�'r�
� J
" � � f/� �
�, �� � •
O �
�� �m oll � z
� �^ l V o
� N � J o
� � �.
� y" � �
� N �L
1����'I!� �
t ,
+-•
� �: � o
��,. � � " N
N
/ `�`` Z
�
� . f.
�
��
_,:
�� �:� �� <
``�p:�. �:::
S
� ��
,, .. .. '#'�}� .�� O
,[ N
I �
� � �
� , C
. �{ a?r� �` ��,.�. .1� �' tlj U
f N �
f �g• � C
+, � �� [�� W O
� �n �'�� y� � � `� I Q EI
�� � � � �
, . . _ �o
�« � - � � `° _�
w � ��� � .� � � �., � � �
; � `,� '. �fi z r � � �
�"„.a *�,` E •� a
1 `i" C � y —
O �l ¢ .—
�; �> �LJ O
�� � ���' w` HlaoN � �
,i. �. ';.�,' . �'�y . . . Vl �� td O'
> �� � �
O
O
U �� �
O
c°n �� � M
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
��
��
,�
,�
�
��
�
�;
+,�
.�
��
r�
!�
!9#�
��d�
Salem Lutheran Church and School Specific P/an Environmental Impact Ana/ysis
Draft EIR Noise
On Exhibit 4.7-1, noise measurements with a"w" show the location of weekday noise level
measurements and noise measurements with an"s" show the location of Sunday noise level
measurements. Noise measurement results for existing ambient weekday noise is shown in Table
4.7-1. Results for existing ambient Sunday noise level measurements are shown in Table 4.7-2.
Table 4.7-1: Existing (Ambient)Weekday Noise Level Measurements
Noise Levels
_ _ _ _ ____
Site Maximum dBA L,,,,,/ � dBA
No. Location dBA L� L.q 1 hour/Time ' Time CNEL
W 1 Existing tot lot play area fence line' 60.7 65/12:00 p.m. —3 61.0
W2 Vehicle gate near basketball courts' S83 64/12:00 p.m. —3 59.8
W3 Closest residential property line to 58.5 63/12:00 p.m. —3 59.9
school vehicle entrance'
W4 Proposed site far new pre-school play 55.3 56/I 1 a.m. —3 56.]
area.`
WS Northeastern corner of 6350 Frank 593 59.34 78.3/8:30 a.m. —5
Lanez
W6 On the southern fence at 10292 63.4 63.44 77.7/8:10 a.m. —5
Orange Park Boulevard2
W7 Next to the fence for the fire access 65.2 65.24 78.5/8:21 a.m. —5
way north of Santiago Canyon Road2
Notes:
� Noise measurement taken by Giroux and Associates between I p.m.on March 29,2006 and 7 p.m.on March 31,2006
and primarily captured school activities when school enrollment was at 585 students compared to 486 students in
2010.
z Noise measurements taken by Vista Environmental on June 2,2010 between 7:50 a.m.and 8:45 a.m.and captured
noise levels associated with the drop-off of children at the school.
' Data not available.
4 Noise measurements less than 1 hour.
5 Noise measurements taken for less than 1 hour,which is not a long enough sample to calculate CNEL.
Source:Noise Impact Analysis,Vista Environmental,January 23.2012.
Table 4.7-1 above shows that the greatest existing weekday noise levels occur at Site W7, which was
next to Santiago Canyon Road. Although W1, W2, W3, and W4 found that the maximum Leq one
hour levels occurred midday,the morning noise levels were very close to the maximum Leq one-hour
levels. All sites exceed the City's 55 dB Leq daytime and 45 dB Leq nighttime stationary noise
standards and only site W7 exceeds the City's 65 dBA CNEL transportation noise standard.
Michael Brandman Associates 4•7-7
H.\Clieni(PN-IN)�3771\37710001�EIIt\9-DEIIt\37710001 Sec04-07Noise-doc
Sa/em Lutheran Church and Schoo/Specific P/an
Noise Draft E/R
Table 4.7-2: Existing (Ambient) Sunday Noise Level Measurements
_ _ ,
Noise Levels
_-- . -- r ___ .
S�� Maximum dBA L,,,�/ dBA
Na Location' dBA L,q L,q 1 hourlTime � Time CNEL
Sl On fence on south side of Frank Lane 48.9 55.1/10:48 a.m. 75.6/4:37 p.m. 52.3 �
and 60 feet east of 6350 Frank Lane.
S2 On fence on project site western 50.3 58.1/5:08 a.m. 77.4/5:03 a.m. 56J
property line and 80 feet north of �V
Frank Lane.
S3 Same as W 1,during service,no kids 519 —4 64.6/10:21 —3
playing. a.m. �
S4 Next to fence on northwest side of 57.4 57.45 65.5/10:42 —3
project site, approximately 90 feet a.m. �
southwest of Multipurpose room and
70 feet northeast of west parking lot. ...
SS Inside multipurpose room next to 69.4 69.45 82.1/10:54 —3
e�
western door(open)during service. a.m.
S6 Same as W1,after service,during 66.6 66.65 85.3/11:04 —3 �'
fellowship with children playing. a.m. �
S7 North side of Frank Lane 20 feet west 53.4 53.45 54.5/822 p.m. —3 �
of project site and 20 feet from water
fountain and pump.
�
Notes:
' Noise measurement taken by Vista Environmental between Saturday June 19,2010 at 8:06 p.m.and Sunday June 20, �
2010 at 5:10 p.m.
3 Noise measurements taken for less than 1 hour,which is not a long enough sample to calculate CNEL. �
4 Site S3 captured the ambient noise level without any impacts from onsite sources,the noise measurement for Site S6
�
represents the maximum Ley 1 hour for Site S3.
5 Noise measurements less than 1 hour.
Church service times are on Sundays at 8:OOAM,9:OOAM and 1030AM "�"
Source: Noise Impact Analysis,Vista Environmental,January 23,2012.
��
�
Table 4.7-2 above shows that the greatest existing Sunday noise level occurs at Site S5, which was ,�
inside tlie multipurpose room during the service with amplified musia Currently, all sites exceed the
�
City's 45 dB LeQ nighttime stationary noise standard, sites S1, S2, S4, S5, and S6 exceed the City's 55
dB Leq daytime stationary noise standard, and only sites SS and S6 would exceed the City's 65 dBA ��
CNEL transportation noise standard if these noise sources were continuous for the entire day. �
�
SoundPlan Modeled Existing Noise Levels
�
The existing noise environment was modeled and calibrated so that the potential noise impacts
created/received by the proposed project could be compared to the existing noise levels. The existing �`
noise environment was modeled using SoundPlan Version 7.0 noise modeling software. In addition, u�
the offsite roadways were also modeled using the FHWA Traffic Noise Prediction Model - FHWA- .,�:
RD-77-108 (FHWA Model). Refer to the Noise Impact Analysis for additional details regarding
�
software and modeling input parameters.
4•7-8 Michael8randman Associates ,�
H�.\Client(PN-JN)�3771U7710001�EIIt\9-DEDt\37710001 Sec04-07Noise.doc
Salem Lutheran Church and Schoo/Specific Plan Environmental lmpact Analysis
Draft EIR Noise
SoundPlan Modeling Results
In order to provide a baseline of the existing noise level in the project study area,the SoundPlan
Model was used to calculate the existing noise levels at the facades of nearby homes, which are
summarized in Table 4.7-3. The SoundPlan model was also used to produce noise contour map
showing the dBA CNEL in the project vicinity and is shown below in Exhibit 4.7-2 for the Sunday
conditions.
Table 4.7-3: Existing Noise Levels at Nearby Sensitive Receptors
Weekday Sunday
_
dBA L,y dBA L.q � dBA
Receiver Description 1 hour dBA CNEL' 1 hour CNE��
1 Single-family home north of 63.5 68.3 59.9 64J
project site.
2 Single-family home northeast of 67.2 71.6 63.6 68.0
project site.
3 Single-family home east of 58.5 63.0 55.1 59.6
project site.
4 Single-family home east of 63.2 66.7 60.0 63.4
project site.
5 Single-family home southeast of 61.6 64.9 58.4 61.7
project site.2
6 Single-family home south of 57.5 61.1 54.4 57.7
project site.�
7 Single-family home south of 50.1 53.7 47.7 50.6
project site.
8 Single-family home south of 48.3 51.5 46.3 48.7
project site.
9 Single-family home south of 56J 59.1 53.2 55.5
project site.
10 Single-family home south of 51.0 54.2 48.0 50.7
project site.
11 Single-family home southwest of 55.5 61.1 543 603
project site.2
12 Single-family home west of 54J 59.2 51.5 55.8
project site.
Notes:
� Noise level includes a 4.77 dBA penalty to account for the noise sensitive evening hours and a 10 dBA penalty to
account for the noise sensitive nighttime hours.
z Noise level is worst of either 1 S'or 2"d floor.
Source: SoundPlan Version 7.0.
Table 4.7-3 above shows that currently on weekdays Receivers 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 9, and 11 exceed the
City's 55 dB Leq daytime stationary noise standard, and on Sunday Receivers 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 exceed
Michael 8randman Associates 4.7-9
H�\Client(PN-JN)�3771\37710001�E[IL\9-DEIIt\37710001 Sec04-07Noise.doc
Salem Lutheran Church and Schoo/Specific Plan
Noise Draft EIR
�
the City's 55 dB Ley daytime stationary noise standard. In addition Receivers 1, 2, 4, and 5 exceed _
the City's 65 dBA CNEL transportation noise standard on weekdays and Receiver 2 exceeds the
City's 65 dBA CNEL transportation noise standard on Sundays. ��A
FHWA Model �
Since the noise impacts created by the proposed project outside of the immediate vicinity of the .
project site would only be caused by an increase in vehicle noise,the FHWA Model was used to
analyze the offsite roadway noise levels. The details regarding model inputs and operation are �
provided in the Noise Impact Analysis. `
�
FHWA Model Results
�
The noise contours of the nearby existing roadway were calculated to provide a baseline of the
existing traffic noise levels. The calculated existing noise contours are shown below in Table 4.7-4 �
for the weekday conditions and Table 4.7-5 for the Sunday conditions. `�
�
Table 4.7-4: Existing Weekday Roadway Noise Contours
�:
' ', Distance to Contour(feet) �,
i ! dBA CNEL _ ; _._ .
; ' 55 r�
at Nearest , 70 dBA 65 dBA ; 60 dBA ` dBA
' Roadway Segment ' Residence' ; CNEL CNEL ' CNEL ! CNEL
__ _ J �
Santiago Canyon West of Project Driveway 75.8 145 313 674 1,452
Road ��
Santiago Canyon West of Orange Park 75.8 145 313 674 1,452 ,�
Road Boulevard
;�
Santiago Canyon East of Orange Park 75.2 133 286 6l7 1,329
Road Boulevard ,�,
Frank Lane West of Orange Park 60.0 RW RW 30 64 ,�
Boulevard
Frank Lane East of Orange Park 47.2 RW RW RW RW �
Boulevard y�
Orange Park South of Santiago Canyon 65.9 RW 34 74 159 �
Boulevard Road
Orange Park South of Frank Lane 64.2 RW RW 57 124 ��'�
Boulevard
s�
Note:
� For Santiago Canyon Road the nearest residence was measured at 60 feet from the centerline. For Orange Park '"�
Boulevard and Frank Lane the nearest residence was measured at 30 feet from the centerline.
RW=Noise contour is located within right-of-way of roadway. '"°'
Source: Noise Impact Analysis,Vista Environmental,January 23,2012.
�
,�„
4J-10 Michael Brandman Associates �,�
H.\Client(PN-JN)�3771U7710001�EIIt\9-DEIIt\37710001 Sec04-07Noise.doc
N L z�
�
f` � a a
� O ��
� � v�
�,s � 0 a a
U ��
J
UJ .� �H
� ��
�4 Z �z
e ��,� � Q�
� _>
a U Z
" I, � ?W
� � _
�
��'�!'I I
U
� � ; �" � �
_ ch �tc8°��evatd �
��a�ge pa � �
�
w
J
��� �
...,,:,�. W
� '�S�:a:,. �
d ,+� � Z
td �
O
�� � O
v � �
�
� U
�O
tC
O
�
�
C — �
C � � ,
;e:
�
U �
o :
� � M �'
� � � �
N
�
�
� � . :
� � � U � Z •♦ O
o � v`
t� `o rn � o � � � o
N c ° u� � � �
C � � a� y � � � H o
� w � a � a � u�. a � � c
(!� e., _ � N � � c°.�
� � f/� � � a ai l
� I �1�` I ����,� ',`•�� , ', ' � c
Ou") O � O � Otf> O I
O >,
d� d� �c) �n to tD 1� t� ao N � v
J II II II il 11 11 11 II II � � �
j W V V V V V V V V V � N y�
� � � � C y N
� �
� � V �'
� V � c �
. Q V V V V V V V V V � ° `� �
� 00 o �no ►no �no �no A c � N
Z "p d� �t tn tn c0 co i� 1� a0 .:.. �.'� w ,�E o
� �d � �
> �� �
s
0
0
� �� � �
� �d � �
�
.�,
�
�
�
�,
�
�
�
�
��
,�
��e
��
��
��
�
��
��
t�
e�
��
ew;
I�s
1#RP
#�
i�':'
Sa/em Lutheran Church and Schoo/Specific Plan Environmental lmpact Analysis
Draft EIR Noise
Table 4.7-4 above shows that for the existing weekday conditions, only the analyzed roadway
segments of Santiago Canyon Road currently exceed the City's 65 dBA CNEL residential standard.
Existing weekday noise levels on all roadway segments range from 47.2 to 75.8 dBA CNEL.
Table 4.7-5: Existing Sunday Roadway Noise Contours
Distance to Contour(feet)
_ _ _
dBA CNEL at '' " ' S5
Nearest � , 70 dBA ', 65 dBA � 60 dBA ; dBA
Roadway Segment Residence CNEL CNEL ! CNEL ! CNEL
,
Santiago Canyon West of Project Driveway 72.2 84 181 391 842
Road
Santiago Canyon West of Orange Park 72.2 84 181 391 842
Road Boulevard
Santiago Canyon East of Orange Park 71.4 74 159 343 740
Road Boulevard
Frank Lane West of Orange Park 56.1 RW RW RW 35
Boulevard
Frank Lane East of Orange Park 43.3 RW RW RW RW
Boulevard
Orange Park South of Santiago Canyon 62.8 RW RW 46 100
Boulevard Road
Orange Park South of Frank Lane 61.1 RW RW 35 76
Boulevard
Note:
� For Santiago Canyon Road the nearest residence was measured at 60 feet from the centerline. For Orange Park
Boulevard and Frank Lane the nearest residence was measured at 30 feet from the centerline.
RW=Noise contour is located within right-of-way of roadway.
Table 4.7-5 above shows that for the existing Sunday conditions, only the analyzed roadway
segments of Santiago Canyon Road currently exceed the City's 65 dBA CNEL residential standard.
Existing Sunday noise levels on all roadway segments range from 43.3 to 72.2 dBA CNEL.
Construction Related Noise
Construction noise represents a short-term increase in ambient noise and vibration levels. Noise and
vibration impacts from construction activities associated with the proposed project would be a
function of the noise and vibration generated by construction equipment, equipment location,
sensitivity of nearby land uses, and the timing and duration of the construction activities.
The General Plan Noise Element places restrictions on hours of activity for construction-related
noise. Construction may only take place between 7 a.m, and 8 p.m. on weekdays including
Saturdays, excluding Sundays and federal holidays. The City Municipal Code implements these
standards to control construction-related noise on the project site. In the context of the Noise Impact
Michae/Brandman Associates 4.7-13
H.\Client(PN-JN)U771\37710001�EIIL\9-DEIR\37710001 Sec04-07 Noise.doc
Salem Lutheran Church and School Specific Plan
Noise Draft EIR
Analysis,the noise impacts from construction activities associated with the proposed project are
controlled by the Municipal Code. The City does not provide noise level limits specifically for
construction noise that occurs during the allowable times, however in the absence of a construction
noise level standard,the maximum noise exposure level allowed for residential development with
noise reducing mitigation(75 dBA CNEL)has been utilized. Since the City does not have specific ���
vibration impact criteria for construction-related vibration levels, Caltrans thresholds presented in its
Transportation- and Construction-Induced Vibration Guidance Manual, June 2004, were utilized.
�.,
The report recommends a threshold of 0.04 inch per second PPV for continuous events such as
vibration for grading equipment. Refer to Table A in the Noise Impact Analysis (Appendix G),
which shows the construction equipment noise emission and usage factors. """
4.7.3 - Regulatory Setting
�
All levels of government have responsibilities for exercising control to mitigate the annoyances
caused by noise. '"
�
Federal
�
The adverse impact of noise was officially recognized by the federal government in the Noise Control
Act of 1972,which serves three(3)purposes: �
�
• Promulgating noise emission standards for interstate commerce. ��
• Assisting state and local abatement efforts.
��
• Promoting noise education and research.
i�
The Federal Office of Noise Abatement and Control (ONAC)was initially tasked with implementing �
the Noise Control Act. However,the ONAC has since been eliminated, leaving the development of ��
federal noise policies and programs to other federal agencies and interagency committees. For
.�
example,the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)agency prohibits exposure of
workers to excessive sound levels. The Department of Transportation(DOT)assumed a significant '�""
role in noise control through its various operating agencies. +��
��
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)regulates noise of aircraft and airports. Surface
transportation system noise is regulated by a host of agencies, including the Federal Transit �"�
Administration (FTA). Transit noise is regulated by the federal Urban Mass Transit Administration =�
(UMTA), while freeways that are part of the interstate highway system are regulated by the Federal ,y_
Highway Administration (FHWA). Finally,the federal government actively advocates that local
b��
jurisdictions use their land use regulatory authority to arrange new development in such a way that
"noise sensitive" uses are either prohibited from being sited adjacent to a highway or, alternately that '�
the developments are planned and constructed in such a manner that potential noise impacts are ""�
minimized.
��
4J-14 Michae/Brandman Associates ,,,�
H\Client(PN-JN)1i771137710001�EIR\9-DEIR\37710001 Sec04-07 Noise-doc
Salem Lutheran Church and Schoo/Specif►c P/an Environmental lmpact Analysis
Draft EIR Noise
Since the Federal government has preempted the setting of standards for noise levels that can be
emitted by the transportation sources,the City is restricted to regulating the noise generated by the
transportation system through nuisance abatement ordinances and land use planning.
State
Established in 1973,the California Department of Health Services Office of Noise Control(ONC)
was instrumental in developing regularity tools to control and abate noise for use by local agencies.
One significant model is the "Land Use Compatibility for Community Noise Environments Matrix,"
which allows the local jurisdiction to clearly delineate compatibility of sensitive uses with various
incremental levels of noise.
Article 4 of the California Administrative Code (California Noise Insulation Standards, Title 24,
Chapter 1)requires noise insulation in new hotels, motels, apartment houses, and dwellings(other
than single-family detached housing)that provides an annual average noise level of no more than 45
dBA CNEL. When such structures are located within a 60-dBA CNEL(or greater)noise contour, an
acoustical analysis is required to ensure that interior levels do not exceed the 45-dBA CNEL annual
threshold.
Government Code Section 65302 mandates that the legislative body of each county and city in
California adopt a noise element as part of its comprehensive general plan. The local noise element
must recognize the land use compatibility guidelines published by the State Department of Heath
Services. The guidelines rank noise land use compatibility in terms of normally acceptable,
conditionally acceptable, normally unacceptable, and clearly unacceptable.
Local
City of Orange Municipal Code
Chapter 8.24 of the City of Orange Municipal Code is the City's noise ordinance. The noise
ordinance applies to noise on one property impacting a neighboring property. It sets limits on noise
levels that can be experienced at the neighboring property. The noise ordinance is part of the City's
Municipal Code and is enforceable throughout the City. The noise ordinance specifies dBA noise
levels that cannot be exceeded in residential areas for a specified time.
The noise ordinance states that the daytime noise level for a noise source measured at an outdoor area
of a residential property cannot exceed 75 dBA ever, 70 dBA for more than 1 minute of any hour, 65
dBA for more than five minutes of any hour, 60 dBA for more than 15 minutes of any hour,or 55
dBA for more than 30 minutes of any hour. Nighttime noise level limits are reduced by 5 dB to
reflect the increased sensitivity to noise occurring during this time. The noise ordinance also states
that the noise level for a source measured at an indoor area of a residential property cannot exceed 65
dBA ever, 60 dBA for more than 1 minute of any hour, and 55 dBA for more than five minutes of any
hour.
Michae/Brandman Associates 4.7-15
HiClient(PN-IN)l3"771\37710001�EIR\9-DEDi\37710001 Sec04-07 Noise.doc
Salem Lutheran Church and Schoo/Specific P/an
Noise Draft E/R
Noise Standards
The City has developed its own land use compatibility standards based on recommended parameters
.�.
from the California Governor's Office of Planning and Research. The City's m�imum allowable
noise exposure levels from Transportation noise sources are identified in Table N-3 of the General
Plan. For single-family residential and school uses the maximum allowable noise levels are 45 dBA "'�'
CNEL for interior areas and 65 dBA CNEL far exterior areas. Far places of worship,the maximum
allowable noise levels are 45 dBA CNEL for interior areas and no exterior threshold is defined. �,
The City's maximum allowable noise exposure levels from stationary sources are defined in Table N- "
4 of the General Plan and reprinted below in Table 4.7-6. �
Table 4.7-6: City of Orange Maximum Allowable Noise Exposure -Stationary Noise Sources �
_ _ _
�
Noise Level Descriptor Daytime(7 a.m.to 10 p.m.) ' Nighttime(10 p.m.to 7 a.m.) �
_ -_ __ _ _ _ . _ _.
Hourly Equivalent Level(Leq),dBA 55 45
�
Maximum Level(Lmax),dBA 70 65
�
Notes:
1 These standards apply to new or existing noise sensitive land uses affected by new or existing non-transportation noise
sources,as determined at the outdoor activity area of the receiving land use. However,these noise level standards do �'
not apply to residential units established in conjunction with industrial or commercial uses(e.g.caretaker dwellings). ,,,�.
2 Each of the noise levels specified above should be lowered by five dB for simple tone noises,noises consisting
primarily of speech or music,ar for recurring impulsive noises. Such noises are generally considered by residents to
be particularly annoying and are a primary source of noise complaints. These noise level standards do not apply to �
residential units established in conjunction with industrial or commercial uses(e.g.caretaker dwellings). ;�
3 No standards have been included for interior noise levels. Standards construction practices that comply with exterior
noise levels identified in this table generally result in acceptable interior noise levels. �
4 The City may impose noise level standards,which are more or less restrictive than those specified above based upon
determination of existing low or high ambient noise levels. If the existing ambient noise level exceeds the standards ,��a
listed in Table N-4,then the noise level standards shall be increased at 3 dB increments to encompass the ambient
noise environment. Noise level standards incorporating adjustments for existing ambient noise levels shall not exceed ,,,�
a maximum of 70 dB Leq.
Source:City of Orange General Plan Table N-4. �,,,
�
City of Orange Municipal Code �
The City of Orange Municipal Code Title 8, Health and Safety, Chapter of 8.24,Noise Control, „�
states:
�.
Section 8.24.050 Exterior Noise Standards �
A. The following noise standards(Table 4.7-7), unless otherwise specifically indicated, shall -�
apply to all residential property within a designated noise zone: �„
�
�«
4.7-16 Michael Brandman Associates �
HiCliem(PN-JN)�3771\37710001�EIR\9-DEDi\37710001 Sec04-07Noise.doc
�
Salem Lutheran Church and Schoo/Specific Plan Environmentallmpact Analysis
Draft EIR Noise
Table 4.7-7: City of Orange Municipal Code Exterior Noise Standards
Noise Zone Noise Level ' Time Pe�iod
°° 1 55 dB(A) 7:00 a.m.— 10:00 p.m.
-na- 50 dB(A) 10:00 p.m.—7:00 a.m.
Source:City of Orange Municipal Code Section 8.24.050.
B. It is unlawful for any person at any location within the City to create any noise, or to allow
the creation of any noise on property owned, leased, occupied or otherwise controlled by such
person, which causes the noise level when measured on any other residential property to
exceed:
1. The noise standard for a cumulative period of more than thirly minutes in any hour;
or
2. The noise standard plus five dB(A) for a cumulative period of more than fifteen
minutes in any hour; or
3. The noise standard plus ten dB(A)for a cumulative period of more than five minutes
in any hour; or
4. The noise standard plus fifteen dB(A)for a cumulative period of more than one
minute in any hour; or
5. The noise standard plus twenty dB(A)for any period of time.
C. In the event the ambient noise level exceeds any of the five noise limit categories, designated
in Subsection B of this section, the cumulative period applicable to said category shall be
increased to reflect the ambient noise level. Furthermore,the maximum permissible noise
level shall never exceed the maximum ambient noise level.
D. Each of the noise limits specified in Subsection B shall be reduced by five dB(A) for impact
or simple tone noises, or for noises consisting of speech or music. (Ord. 17-74: Prior Code
9500.5)
8.24.060 Interior Noise Standards
A. The following noise standards(Table 4.7-8), unless otherwise specifically indicated, shall
apply to all residential property within a designated noise zone:
Table 4.7-8: City of Orange Municipal Code Interior Noise Standards
Noise Zone Noise Level Time Period
] 55 dB(A) 7:00 a.m.— ]0:00 p.m.
-na- 45 dB(A) 10:00 p.m.—7:00 a.m.
Source:City of Orange Municipal Code Section 8.24.060.
Michael Brandman Associates 4.7-17
H�.\Client(PN-7N)\3771\37710001�EIIt\9-DEQt\37710001 Sec04-07Noise.doc
Sa/em Lutheran Church and School Specific Plan
Noise Draft E/R
B. It is unlawful for any person at any location within the City to create any noise or to allow the
creation of any noise, or to allow the creation of any noise on property owned, leased,
occupied or otherwise controlled by such person which causes the noise level when measured
within a dwelling unit on any residential property to exceed:
1. The noise standard for a cumulative period of more than five minutes in any hour; or �
2. The noise standard plus five dB(A)for a cumulative period of more than one minute �
in any hour; or
�
3. The noise standard plus ten dB(A) for any period of time.
�z
C. In the event the ambient noise level exceeds any of the above three noise limit categaries
designated in Subsection B of this section,the cumulative period applicable to the category '""
shall be increased to reflect the ambient noise level. Furthermore, the maximum permissible �
noise level shall never exceed the maximum ambient noise level.
�
D. Each of the noise limits specified above shall be reduced by five dB(A)for impact or simple
�.
tone noises, or for noises consisting of speech or music. (Ords. 49-74; 17-74: Prior Code
9500.6) '"'�
�
Section 8.24.070 of the City's noise ordinance exempts several activities from the noise ordinance.
�
Exempted activities relevant to the project include:
��
• Construction, repair, remodeling, or grading of any real property, provided said activities do ,��,
not take place between the hours of 8:00 PM and 7:00 AM on weekdays, including Saturday,
��,
or at any time on Sunday or a federal holiday.
,.�
• Activities conducted on public parks, public playgrounds, and public or private school grounds. ��
• Maintenance of real property provided such activities take place between the hours of 7:00 AM ,�,,
and 8:00 PM on any day except Sunday or a federal holiday, or between the hours of 9:00 AM
,�
and 8:00 PM on Sunday or a federal holiday.
�
City of Orange General Plan Noise Element e�
The purpose of the City General Plan Noise Element is to identify community noise sources,to �
describe anticipated future noise levels, and to establish polices/programs which are designed to
minimize the effect of noise on persons who live and work in the City. The following goals and FMt.
policies in the Noise Element relate to the proposed project: `"�
GOAL 1.0: Promote a pattern of land uses compatible with current and future noise levels.
��
Policy 1.1: Consider potential excessive noise levels when making land use planning decisions. `"�'
,�
Policy 1.2: Encourage new development projects to provide sufficient spatial buffers to separate
excessive noise generating land uses and noise-sensitive land uses. �
;�,
4.7-18 Michae/Brandman Associates �„�
H.\Client(PN-JN)�3771�37710001�EIR\9-DEDt\37710001 Sec04-07Noise.doc
e;,,;
Sa/em Lutheran Church and School Specifc Plan Environmental Impact Analysis
Draft EIR Noise
:n Policy 1.4: Ensure that acceptable noise levels are maintained near noise-sensitive uses.
Policy 1.5: Reduce impacts of high noise activity centers located near residential areas.
Policy 1.6: Require and acoustical study for proposed developments in areas where the existing
and projected noise level exceeds or would exceed the maYimum allowable levels
identified in Table N-3. The acoustical study shall be performed in accordance with
the requirements set forth within this Noise Element.
GOAL 2.0: Minimize vehicular traffic noise in residential areas and near noise sensitive land
uses.
Policy 2.1: Encourage noise-compatible land uses along existing and future roadways, highways,
and freeways.
Policy 2.2: Encourage site planning and traffic control measures that minimize traffic noise in
noise-sensitive land use areas.
Policy 2.2: Encourage site planning and traffic control measures that minimize traffic noise in
noise-sensitive land use areas.
GOAL 7.0: Minimize construction, maintenance vehicle, and nuisance noise in residential areas
and near noise-sensitive land uses.
Policy 7.2: Require developers and contractors to employ noise minimizing techniques during
construction and maintenance operations.
Policy 7.3: Limit the hours of construction and maintenance operations located adjacent to noise-
sensitive land uses.
Policy 7.4: Encourage limitations on the hours of operations and deliveries for commercial,
mixed-use, and industrial uses abutting residential zones.
Based on the noise/land use compatibility standards in the City's Noise Element, outdoor and indoor
noise limits for various land uses impacted by transportation noise sources are defined. The noise
limits specified in the Noise Element are in terms of the CNEL. The standard states that for
residential land use,the exterior noise exposure level shall not exceed 65 CNEL and the interior noise
exposure level shall not exceed 45 CNEL.
The City's General Plan Noise Element provides the following guidance for determining if a project's
increase to the ambient noise levels is significant. A project will have a significant noise-related
impact if it would:
Michael Brandman Associates 4.7-19
H.\Client(PN-JN)�3771\37710001�EQt\9-DEDt\37'710001 Sec04-07 Noise.doc
Salem Lutheran Church and Schoo/Specific P/an
Noise Draft EIR
• Increase noise levels by 5 dB or more where the without project noise level is less than 60 dBA
CNEL.
• Increase noise levels by 3 dB or more where the without project noise level is greater than 65
dBA CNEL.
�
4.7.4 - Significance Thresholds °�y
According to Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines and the City's Local CEQA Guidelines, a �^^
project would normally have a significant effect on the environment if it would result in the ...
following:
�
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the LL
local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? ,�,:
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne �"y
noise levels? �
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels �
existing without the project? ,�
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity ��
above levels existing without the project? �
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been ��.
adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose
��
people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
s�,
fl For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing
��
or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
,�
4.7.5 - Project Impacts „�
Impacts Not Found To Be Significant ,�
The Initial Study determined that either no impacts or less than significant impacts would result from
��
the following significance thresholds listed previously in Section 4.7.4:
��
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels „�
existing without the project? ��
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or,where such a plan has not been ,,,�
adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose „�;
people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
��
� For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing ��,
or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
��
5�bk'
4.7-20 Michael Brandman Associates ,,,�,;
H:\Client(PN-JN)U771U7710001�EIR\9-DEIIt\37710001 Sec04-07Noise.doc
i.�-
Salem Lutheran Church and School Specific P/an Environmental lmpact Analysis
Draft EIR Noise
Refer to the Initial Study in Appendix A for a complete discussion.
Potentially Significant Impacts
Significance thresholds deemed to be potentially significant are evaluated individually. The list
below restates the significance threshold and gives the corresponding Draft EIR Impact Number:
Table 4.7-9: Noise
Significance Threshold and Corresponding Draft EIR Impact Number
i EIR Impact
Significance Threshold-Noise , Number
_ _ _
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established Impact 4J-1
in the local general plan or noise ordinance,or applicable standards of other agencies?
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or Impact 4.7-2
groundborne noise levels?
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project Impact 4.7-3
vicinity above levels existing without the project?
Noise Levels
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.
Impact Analysis
Short-term Operations
Construction noise represents a short-term 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
duration of the construction activities.
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 for the removal of the existing pool and concrete pad areas adjacent to the existing onsite
�� vacant structure; upgrades to the exterior fagade (for 1-hour rating compliance)of the existing onsite
vacant structure; construction of a parking lot and tot lot to the north of and adjacent to the relocated
preschool; 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 to determine the construction noise impacts onto the nearby sensitive
Michae/Brandman Associates 4•�-2�
H�.\Client(PN-7N)�3771\37710001�EIIt\9-DEIR\37710001 Sec04-07 Noise.doc
Sa/em Lutheran Church and Schoo/Specific Plan
Noise Draft E/R
�
receptors,these three phases of construction have been analyzed based on the construction equipment �.,
assumptions provided in the 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 E x
noise from demolition activities and have been based on the simultaneous operation of a wheeled �
loader, excavator, and water truck. Table 4.7-10 provides the anticipated noise levels at the nearby ���'�
receptors during demolition activities. ,�„,
Table 4.7-10: Demolition Noise Impacts at Nearby Sensitive Receptors Prior to Mitigation �
�
Existing Existing+ Increase
; Weekday Demolition C Over "'�'
Receiver Description dBA L,y E dBA L,q � Existing
_ _ _ _ �
1 Single-family home north of project site. 63.5 66.5 3.0
�.
2 Single-family home northeast of project site. 67.2 67.9 0.7
3 Single-family home east of project site. 58.5 59.9 1.4 `�'
_
4 Single-family home east of project site. 63.2 65.0 1.8 ��
5 Single-family home southeast of project site.� 61.6 63.6 2.0 ��
6 Single-family home south of project site.� 57.5 64.9 7.4 ��
7 Single-family home south of project site. 50.1 59.0 89 �,,,�,�
8 Single-family home south of project site. 48.3 62.4 14.1 ,�
9 Single-family home south of project site. 56.7 76.5 19.8 ��
]0 Single-family home south of project site. 51.0 63.2 12.2
«�.
11 Single-family home southwest of project site.� 55.5 64.7 9.2
�
12 Single-family home west of project site. 54.7 54.8 0.1
Notes: �R
� Noise level is worst of either 1 s`or 2"d floor. w�
Source: SoundPlan Version 7.0.
��.,
9!!M
The table above shows that 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 reyuire 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 ��
�
��
4•�'22 Michael8randman Associates ,�„
H:\Client(PN-JN)�3771�37710001�EIl2\9-DEIR\37710001 Sec04-07 Noise.doc
sa�:-
Sa/em Lutheran Church and Schoo/Specific Plan Environmental lmpact Analysis
Draft EIR Noise
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.
2) Grading
Noise from grading activities has been analyzed with the SoundPlan model and have 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 provides the anticipated noise levels at the nearby receptors during
grading activities.
Table 4.7-11: Grading Noise Impacts at Nearby Sensitive Receptors
Existing Existing+ Increase
Weekday dBA Grading Over
Receiver Description , Ley , dBA L.q Existing
1 Single-family home north of project site. 63.5 65.0 1.5
2 Single-family home northeast of project site. 67.2 67.8 0.6
3 Single-family home east of project site. 58.5 59.9 1.4
4 Single-family home east ofproject site. 63.2 65.1 1.9
5 Single-family home southeast of project site.' 61.6 63.7 2.1
6 Single-family home south of project site.' S7.5 61.5 4.0
7 Single-family home south of project site. 50.1 61.8 11.7
8 Single-family home south of project site. 48.3 60.0 11.7
9 Single-family home south ofproject site. 56.7 72.4 15.7
10 Single-family home south of project site. 51.0 72.8 21.8
11 Single-family home southwest of project site.� 55.5 67.7 12.2
12 Single-family home west of project site. 54.7 70.8 16.1
Notes:
�Noise level is worst of either]g`or 2"d floor.
Source: SoundPlan Version 7.0.
Table 4.7-11 shows that the maximum 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
Michael8randman Associates 4.7-23
H�.\Client(PN-.RV)\3771\37710001�EIR\9-DEIR\37710001 Sec04-07Noise.doc
Sa/em Lutheran Church and Schoo/Specific Plan
Noise Draft E/R
backhoe. Table 4.7-12 below provides the anticipated noise levels at the nearby receptors during
grading activities.
�
Table 4.7-12:Building Construction Noise Impacts at Nearby Sensitive Receptors
Existing ; Existing+ "�
Weekday ':, Grading dBA Increase �,
Receiver ' Description dBA L,q E Ley ; Over Existing F
1 Single-family home north of project site. 63.5 67.4 3.9 "�"'
2 Single-family home northeast of project site. 67.2 68.8 1.6 "�
3 Single-family home east of project site. 58.5 61.4 29 *a*
4 Single-family home east of project site. 63.2 68.5 53 �--
_
5 Single-family home southeast of project 61.6 65.7 4.1 �„
site.'
6 Single-family home south of project site.' S7.5 66.0 8.5 �
7 Single-family home south of project site. 50.1 68.7 18.6 `""�"'
8 Single-family home south of project site. 48.3 68.8 20.5 �'
9 Single-family home south of project site. 56.7 73.6 169 �
10 Single-family home south of project site. 51.0 67.2 16.2 ��
11 Single-family home southwest of project 55.5 61.3 5.8 ��
site.'
i�t
12 Single-family home west of project site. 54J 54.8 0.1
Notes:
,�
' Noise level is worst of either 1 g`or 2"a floor.
Source: SoundPlan Version 7.0.
��
��
Table 4.7-12 shows that the maximum average noise levels during the 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 9�
nearby residential uses would be below the 75-dBA threshold of significance. Therefore,through R�
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
.,�
4•�'24 Michae/Brandman Associates „�,
H�\Client(PN-JN)\3771�37710001�EIIL�9-UEIR\37710001 Sec04-07 Noise.doc
Salem Lutheran Church and School Specific Plan Environmental Impact Analysis
DraR EIR Noise
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 Conditions
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.
Table 4.7-13:Weekday Project Traffic Noise Contributions
dBA CNEL at Nearest Residence 1 potential
E�sting Existing�th Project Significant
Roadway Segment yy�kday Project Contribution �mpact?
Santiago West of Project 75.8 75.8 0.0 No
Canyon Road Driveway
Santiago West of Orange Park 75.8 75.6 -0.2 No
Canyon Road Boulevard
Santiago East of Orange Park 75.2 75.2 0.0 No
Canyon Road Boulevard
Frank Lane West of Orange Park 60.0 58.7 -1.3 No
Boulevard
Frank Lane East of Orange Park 47.4 47.4 0.0 No
Boulevard
Orange Park South of Santiago 65.9 64.6 -1.3 No
Boulevard Canyon Road
Orange Park South of Frank Lane 64.2 64.2 0.0 No
Boulevard
Note:
� For Santiago Canyon Road the nearest residence was measured at 60 feet from the centerline. For Orange Park
Boulevard and Frank Lane the nearest residence was measured at 30 feet from the centerline.
Source:FHWA Traffic Noise Prediction Model-FHWA-RD-77-108;Caltrans,2009.
Michael Brandman Associates 4.7-25
H.\Clien[(PN-JN)�3771\37710001�EIR\9-DEIIL\37710001 Sec04-07Noise.doc
Sa/em Lutheran Church and Schoo/Specific Plan
Noise Draft E/R
Table 4.7-13 above indicates that for the weekday conditions the noise level contributions from the
proposed project to the study area roadways would range from-1.3 to 0.0 dBA CNEL. Noise level
�
decreases would occur on Santiago Canyon Road west of Orange Park Boulevard, Frank Lane west of
Orange Park Boulevard, and Orange Park Boulevard south of Santiago Canyon Road. The decreases
in noise levels on these roadway segments would be created from the re-routing of traffic onto the -'�
proposed driveway off of Santiago Canyon Road. Since the proposed project would not increase any
roadway noise contours for the weekday conditions, a less than significant impact would occur.
�
Sunday Conditions ��
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 ofthis comparison are shown in Table 4.7-14. �
�
Table 4.7-14: Sunday Project Traffic Noise Contributions
�
dBA CNEL at Nearest *�`
; Residence' ; Potential
....._. _ _.
Existing Project signi- �"`°
Exist3ng I With ' Contri- ' ficant
Roadway Segment !, W�kday !; Project ; bution j �mpact? �
_ _ _; _
Santiago Canyon Road West of Project Driveway 72.2 72.8 0.6 No "'�
Santiago Canyon Road West of Orange Park Boulevard 72.2 723 0.1 No i�,
Santiago Canyon Road East of Orange Park Boulevard 71.4 71.4 0.0 No ,�.
Frank Lane West of Orange Park Boulevard 56.1 57.8 1 J No ��
Frank Lane East of Orange Park Boulevard 43.3 43.3 0.0 No
��
Orange Park Boulevard South of Santiago Canyon Road 62.8 63.1 0.3 No
!�R
Orange Park Boulevard South of Frank Lane 6l.1 62.8 1.7 No
.�,
Note:
� For Santiago Canyon Road the nearest residence was measured at 60 feet from the centerline. For Orange Park �,
Boulevard and Frank Lane the nearest residence was measured at 30 feet from the centerline.
Source: FHWA Traffic Noise Prediction Model-FHWA-RD-77-108;Caltrans,2009. s�.
��
Table 4.7-14 above indicates that for the Sunday conditions the noise level contributions from the '�
proposed project to the study area roadways 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. ,�
.�,
4J-26 Michael Brandman Associates ,,,�
H:\Client(PN-JN)�3771�37710001�IIL\9-DEIR\37710001 Sec04-07Noise.doc
€�:
Salem Lutheran Church and Schoo/Specific Plan Environmental Impact Analysis
Drafi EIR Noise
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 Ley 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 Lmax at the nearby
sensitive receptors for both the weekday and Sunday conditions. The Noise Impact 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(Le�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-]5.
Table 4.7-15: Project Only Onsite Noise Sources Noise Levels
at Nearby Sensitive Receptors
Maximum 1 Nour dBA L.q�
_ __
Receiver Description Weekday Sunday
1 Single-family home north of project site. 38.7 41.5
2 Single-family home northeast of project site. 36.7 38.8
3 Single-family home east of project site. 33.0 34.0
4 Single-family home east of project site. 41.9 45.4
5 Single-family home southeast of project site.� 42.9 42.1
6 Single-family home south of project site.Z 43.5 42.8
7 Single-family home south of project site. 38.6 38.3
8 Single-family home south of project site. 33.3 31.6
9 Single-family home south of project site. 44.4 45.3
� � 10 Single-family home south of project site. 34.3 28.6
11 Single-family home southwest of project site.� 34.5 31.2
12 Single-family home west of project site. 32.1 24.3
City of Orange Stationary Noise Standard 55 55
Michael Brandman Associates 4•�-2�
H1Client(PN-IN)�3771\3'7710001�EIIt\9-DEIR\3771000]Sec04-07Noisedoc
Sa/em Lutheran Church and Schoo/Specific P/an
Noise Drafi E/R
��„
Table 4.7-15 (cont.): Project Only Onsite Noise Sources Noise Levels
at Nearby Sensitive Receptors
�
_ _
' Ma�cimum 1 Hour dBA L.q�
x___ __ _--- . _ _
Receiver Description � Weekday Sunday �
- _ __ __
Notes _ -
� Calculated noise level is limited to noise created onsite and does not include nearby existing noise sources.
2 Noise level is highest of either ls`or 2"d floor.
Source: SoundPlan Version 7.0. �
Table 4.7-15 above 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. �
�
Maximum Noise Level(L,,,�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, ar 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-]08 ""�
model. Each source was analyzed as a point source since the Lmax Would occur from one action such ��
as the slamming of a car door. The propagation of each point source was analyzed based on a"hard- ,�,
site"drop off rate of 6 dB per doubling of distance.
��
The results shown below in Table 4.7-16 below provides a worst-case scenario since attenuation from 4*�
walls, buildings, and landscaping were not incorporated into the calculations. s�
Table 4.7-16: Onsite Sources Maximum Noise Levels at Nearby Sensitive Receptors """
Reference Noise Measurement Nearest Sensitive Receptor
_ _ _. _ .�
' Distance of i ; Distance of
' Receptor to Noise Level(dB Receptor to Noise Level(dB
Onsite Noise Source Source Lm,x) Source ' L,„„�) ��
Parking Lots and Onsite Roads 20 783 45 74.8 ��
Rooftop Mechanical Equipment 10 60.3 250 463
Playground 2 85.3 200 65.3 "�
Sanctuary Open Door 2 82.1 220 61.7 �
Fellowship Reception 10 853 300 70.5 �,«.
City of Orange Stationary Noise Standard '75 _
Source:FHWA-RD-77-108 model,with a hard-site drop-off rate of 6 dB per doubling of distance.
��
4.7-28 Michae/Brandman Associates �„�
H\Clien[(PN-JN)\3771U7710001�EIIt\9-DEQt\37710001 Sec04-07 Noise.doc
Sa/em Lutheran Church and Schoo/Specific P/an Environmental lmpact Anatysis
Draft E/R Noise
Table 4.7-16 above shows that the maximum noise levels from the onsite noise sources at the nearest
sensitive receptors would not exceed the City daytime maximum noise standard of 75 dBA Lmax•
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.). Refer to Exhibit 4.7-3 that 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/generatars 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 1 Opm. Therefore, a less than significant impact is anticipated regarding the use of temporary
lights for overflow parking.
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
Michae/Brandman Associates 4.7-29
H-\Gient(PN-JN)�3771\37710001�EIR\9-DEIR\37710001 Sec04-07 Noise.doc
Salem Lutheran Church and Schoo/Specific Plan
Noise Draft E/R
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 summarized below in Table 4.7-17. �'
�
Table 4.7-17: Stationary and Transportation Noise Impacts at Nearby Sensitive Receptors
Noise Levels{dBA CNEL)Z ,,,�
' Weekday ' Sunday ,,,�
__ �__ _ {- -- -- __
- - ._
' Receiver� Existing With Project Change ', Existing ; With Project ' Change
_ .�
1 68.3 68.2 -0.1 64.7 64.8 0.1
�
2 71.6 71.4 -0.2 68.0 68.0 0.0
�
3 63.0 62.7 -03 59.6 59.9 0.3
�
4 66.7 65.9 -0.8 63.4 63.8 0.4
5 64.9 64.6 -0.3 61.7 62.7 1 A "`�
6 61.1 61.1 0.0 57.7 58.6 0.9 _
7 53.7 54.5 0.8 50.6 52.2 1.6 �
8 51.5 51.6 0.1 48.7 49.5 0.8 �»
9 59.1 58.1 -1.0 55.5 56.8 13 ,,,�,�
10 54.2 53.3 -0.9 50.7 51.9 1.2 „�,,;
11 61.1 61.0 -0.1 603 60.4 0.1
�
12 59.2 59.1 -0.1 55.8 56.4 0.6
�
Notes:
� Receiver noise level based on highest noise levels for either first or second floor. .�n
z Noise level includes a 4.77 dBA penalty to account for the noise sensitive evening hours and a]0 dBA penalty to
account for the noise sensitive nighttime hours. ��
Source: SoundPlan Version 7.0.
�
Table 4.7-17 above shows that the proposed projects' combined transportation and stationary noise w,..
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. In addition, for all receivers except Receiver 7 for the weekday
conditions were found to decrease by up to 1.0 dBA. This is primarily due to the addition of the "�`
proposed driveway off Santiago Canyon Road. 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.
��
4.7-30 Michael Brandman Associates �
H.AClient(PN-JN)A3771�37710001�EIRV9-DEIIL\37710001 Sec04-07Noise.doc
Z�
� L
I` O a a
� � LL�
_ i--' N w c~i
.� C a a
_ " _ X � oa
= i ' w � V w
C �
�: ; � N o Z
iC; � -''�_:=_: � ZQ�
e L C=j�
� �W
J =
U
,.�, .. \ � �
' � m tD Q7 - - �'�
` I � 2
� _.'���1���." J
�� i 0
,�' � �� / � � \ � a w
i i i i i �� Ij - � c�p
/ / i i i / / ->�::.::_ _
i i i i i i i i
< , ����J.������vn> � C �
' i'X i i i i i i z
� ' i � � � mi i � / O �
,� I � . � . � . �.,
� , ,� o ,� �, N O
� � V LL
� v=;�i�r� . �c�>3d<; yc;'ss:t���; O
_ \ \ \ \ � \ `� � /:� J �
'^ n � n n i� n \� � � �
f�l <�����! '- �! � �! �!-4`�l ��!
� I` � U
� � � \ \ \ \� \ �
� � �� G� \� �� � �
� _, � �' _��;-.- = c
,� � � � � �.. ���, - O
� 4j r
. . m. � . . i
, � .� �.� �. � � � ��
i� i� �� i� f� i� i�� \ �:__ \ �
� : I ?-- .. `�....�,..��;-�.....�. �,. _ .._��
'� i� i� i� i c�J i� i� � -e / =Y`::: �k., � �:_:,
� / / / , / i �� �. � ,
�`1 ' 3 a� � � �;
� � m �� I �' i
� � � � � � � � � � � \
\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \� \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
� \ \ \ \ � \ \ \ \ \ \ \ � \
I � � � � � � � � � � � T � � � � � �
I <��l\ �l\ �` �l �C�`�C �l �t` �l �l r' �C �l �l Y �C `:
� � \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
\ �\ �\ �\ � �\ �\ ����� �\ �\ �� �� �` �� �� �
�
. � eqa, � N �+ �l
? �
� �� �/ �/ �' �' �� �/ �/ �/ �/ �/ �/ � ,.
� �@ I // / � � � � � / / / � � � _.� -
� \� �/�v�._v/�v/��/�v/� /� /� � /� � '/ �
� `,'v .i � .� �
�� � i � i i � i i � � � � �
a� i i i i � � i i i i i i � v`
� . . . . �� � . . � . �
� " �o., _ = o
I� \ \ \ \ . \� \ \ \ \ \ \ '\� �
\ \ \ \ \ \ �\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ �
'' � � � � � � � � � � � � � �� -- - � rn
��� v__ � � --� � � � �_�_��—��i_ «I
,._. i f.. � L
�
�'
Q�
a
m
�
f I����_I.� . _I�`Il.l � _ L_ J Q
N C�JI
� � �
U �
C y —
� � r
� c0 N
C E O
m �� '� �
m �� � o
j �� U O
� �d � M
&��
.�.•
��
��
�,.
��
��.
��
�w�
��
��
��
9�
�
OIiMF
�
1if�
!llA�t
��
tFlR4
A�
1�
�
7ks�
'�NtY�:�:.
Salem Lutheran Church and School Specific Plan Environmental Impact Analysis
Draft EIR Noise
Level of Significance Before Mitigation
Potentially significant.
Mitigation Measures
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.
Level of Significance After Mitigation
Less than significant impact, as described below.
The demolition noise levels have been recalculated based on construction of the temporary 8-foot
high wall on the south side of the project site and the results are shown in Table 4.7-18.
Table 4.7-18: Mitigated Demolition Noise Impacts at Nearby Sensitive Receptors
, Existing Existing+ Increase
Weekday Demolition Over
Receiver Description dBA L,q ' dBA L,q� Existing
1 Single-family home north of project site. 63.5 66.5 3.0
2 Single-family home northeast of project site. 67.2 67.9 OJ
3 Single-family home east of project site. 58.5 59.9 1.4
4 Single-family home east of project site. 63.2 65.0 1.8
5 Single-family home southeast of project site.� 61.6 63.7 2.l
6 Single-family home south of project site.Z 57.5 64.9 7.4
7 Single-family home south of project site. 50.1 60.8 10.7
8 Single-family home south of project site. 48.3 62.2 13.9
9 Single-family home south of project site. 56J 69.0 12.3
]0 Single-family home south of project site. 51.0 63.9 12.9
l 1 Single-family home southwest of project site.� 55.5 57.9 2.4
12 Single-family home west of project site. 54.7 54.8 0.1
Notes:
� Includes attenuation from incorporation of Mitigation Measure NOI-1.
2 Noise level is warst of either ls`or 2"a floor.
Source: SoundPlan Version 7.0.
Table 4.7-18 shows that with implementation of the proposed 8-foot temporary sound wall,
demolition noise levels would be reduced to as high as 69.0 dBA Leq, which is within the 75 dBA
Michae/Brandman Associates 4.7-33
H-\Client(PN-JN)\3771\37710001�EIlt\9-DEIR\37710001 Sec04-07Noise.doc
Salem Lutheran Church and Schoo/Specific P/an
Noise DraR E/R
»-
threshold of significance. Thus, Mitigation Measure NOI-1 will reduce noise impacts from
construction-related demolition noise to a less than significant level.
�
Groundborne Vibration or Noise
Impact 4.7-2 Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or �
groundborne noise levels?
Impact Analysis
��
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 i�
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. ��
Table 4.7-19: Vibration Source Levels for Construction Equipment `�`"
A�
Peak Particle Velocity Approximate
; (inches/second)at 25 ! Vibration Level(L�)at
Equipment ' feet 25 feet u�
-
Pile driver(impact) Upper range 1.518 112 ,,,,
Typical 0.644 104
Pile driver(sonic) Upper range 0.734 105 �
Typical 0.170 93 „�„
Clam shovel drop(slurry wall) 0.202 94
y�
�
iYwt
4.7-34 Michael8randman Associates e�„;
HVClient(PN-JN)U777A37710001�EIRV9-DEIIL\37710001 Sec04-07Noise.doc �
��
"" Salem Lutheran Church and School Specific P/an Environmenfal Impact Analysis
Draft E/R Noise
,. Table 4.7-19 (cont.): Vibration Source Levels for Construction Equipment
Peak Particie Velocity ' Approximate
(inches/aecond)at 25 � Vibration Level(L„)at
Equipment feet 25 feet
Hydromill(slurry wall) In soil 0.008 66
In rock 0.017 75
Vibratory Roller 0.210 94
Hoe Ram 0.089 87
Large bulldozer 0.089 87
Caisson drill 0.089 87
Loaded trucks 0.076 86
Jackhammer 0.035 79
Small bulldozer 0.003 58
Source:"Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment,"Federal Transit Administration,May 2006.
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)
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.
Level of Significance Before Mitigation
Less than significant impact.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are necessary.
Level of Significance After Mitigation
Impacts were determined to be less than significant before mitigation.
Substantial Increase of Ambient Noise
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.
Impact Analysis
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
Michael Brandman Associates 4.7-35
H\Client(PN-IN)�3771\37710001�EIli\9-DEQt\37710001 SecA4-07 Noise.doc
Salem Lutheran Church and Schoo/Specific Plan
Noise Draft EIR
residents and students on site). Refer to the discussion under Impact 4.7-1 for a detailed discussion of
construction-related impacts. Implementation of Mitigation Measure NOI-1 will reduce temporary
construction-related noise impacts to a less than significant level. �
Long-term Operations ,_
The Salem 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 ]5 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 tye ��
proposed sanctuary's interior noise levels. •�
��
The results from the weekdays and Sunday noise scenarios are shown below in Table 4.7-20.
�.�
Table 4.7-20: Onsite Operational Noise Impacts ,�,
Exterior Noise Interior Noise Levels(dBA CNEL) ""�
Level at Fagade � __ _ __ _ _ _ Required Interior
Scenario (dBA CNEL) � Windows Open� Windows ClosedZ Noise Reduction �
Weekdays 63.9 48.9 38.9 18.9 ,�
Sunday 64.7 49.7 39.7 19.7 ��„
Notes:
' A minimum 15 dBA noise reduction is assumed with windows open condition. "�
Z A minimum 25 dBA noise reduction is assumed with a windows closed condition.
wr�
Source: SoundPlan Model Version 7.0 and Vista Environmental.
�
Table 4.7-20 above 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. ,,,,,
Level of Significance Before Mitigation "�
Potentially significant. """'
�
4,7-36 Michael Brandman Associates �,,
H:\Client(PN-JN)�3771\3�710001�EIIL\9-DEIIL\37710001 Sec04-07Noise.doc
'" Sa/em Lutheran Church and Schoo/Specific Plan Environmental Impact Anatysis
Draft E/R Noise
Mitigation Measures
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 Uniform Building Code standards. This
shall be achieved with standard air conditioning or a fresh air intake system.
Level of Significance After Mitigation
Less than significant impact, as described below.
With implementation of the proposed mitigation,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.
Michael Brandman Associates 4.7-37
H�.\Client(PN-JN)U'771\37710001�EIIt\9-DEIIt\37710001 Sec04-07 Noise.doc
�
a,.
�
.;,d;
�
�
�
�
.�
�-
.�
�
�
�.
�
�
.,.
�
�
�>
r�
�,
�
�
�
Sa/em Lutheran Church and Schoo/Specific P/an Environmental Impact Ana/ysis
Draft E/R Transportation and Tra�c
4.8 - Transportation and Traffic
4.8.1 - Introduction
Purpose
The purpose of this section is to identify the existing setting regarding transportation/traffic and
potential effects from project implementation. This section also identifies mitigation measures to
reduce any potentially significant transportation/traffic impacts and describes the residual impact, if
any, after imposition of the mitigation. The traffic study for the proposed project analyzed three key
intersections for detailed weekday AM and Sunday AM peak hour level of service analysis:
1. Orange Park Boulevard and Santiago Canyon Road
2. Orange Park Boulevard and Frank Lane
3. Proposed Entry Driveway and Santiago Canyon Road
The existing 2010 conditions were analyzed for both the Orange Park Boulevard/Santiago Canyon
Road intersection and the Orange Park Boulevard and Frank Lane intersection. Since the entry
driveway and Santiago Canyon Road intersection is proposed, it was not analyzed under existing
conditions. A SimTraffic evaluation was conducted for the proposed entry driveway on Santiago
Canyon Road. The evaluation worksheets are appended to the Traffic Impact and Parking Demand
Analysis Report(refer to Appendix H).
Sources
Information in this section is based on the following sources:
• Linscott, Law and Greenspan, Traffic Impact and Parking Demand Analysis Report for the
Proposed Salem Lutheran Church and School Project, August 20, 2010 (Appendix H).
• 2010 General Plan, Circulation Mobility Element, City of Orange March 9, 2010.
• Salem Lutheran Church and School Specific Plan, Michael Madden Associates, April 30, 201 1
(Appendix I).
• City of Orange, Bikeways Master Plan, January 2010.
• Comments received during the public comment period. These comments are contained in
- Appendix A.
4.8.2 - Environmental Setting
The project site is located within the Orange Park Acres Specific Plan (OPA Plan). Access to the
project site is provided via Frank Lane, a private street,which intersects with Orange Park Boulevard,
East Santiago Canyon Road intersects with Orange Park Boulevard at the northeast corner of the
project site.
Michael Brandman Associates 4.8-1
H�.\Client(PN-JN)�3771\37710001�EIR\9-DEIIt\37710001 Sec04-O8 Transpo.doc
Sa/em Lutheran Church and School Specific Plan
Transportation and Tra�c Draft E/R
Regional
A network of federal and State freeways,toll roads, and local jurisdictional major arterials provides
vehicular transportation in the Southern California region. Freeways and toll roads in the general
vicinity of the site include the Orange Freeway (State Route [SR] 57)and Costa Mesa Freeway (SR-
55)west of the site,the Riverside Freeway (SR-91)north of the site,the Eastern Transportation '"'"
Corridor Toll Road(SR-241) east of the site,the Santa Ana Freeway (Interstate 5)south of the site,
and the Garden Grove Freeway (SR-22)to the southwest of the site. Major arterials include Santiago ,,�
Canyon Road, adjacent to the northern portion of the project site, Chapman Avenue south of the site,
and both Hewes and Cannon Street west of the site.
�
John Wayne Airport is located approximately 10 miles to the southwest. The Southern California ��
Regional Rail Authority (Metrolink)commuter train operates two corridors near the project site: the
�
91 Line and the Orange CounTy Line. The 91 Line runs parallel to the SR-91 freeway and is located
�:
approximately four miles north of the project site and the Orange County Line approximately five
miles west of the site. The BNSF freight railroad shares track rights with Metrolink's 91 Line. �*
�
Vicinity
�
Orange Park Boulevard, classified by the City General Plan as a Collector, runs along the eastern
boundary of the project site and does not provide direct access into the Salem Lutheran Church and `�`
School site. A paved sidewalk and equestrian trail are located between the project site and Orange ��
Park Boulevard. The asphalt-paved sidewalk begins at Santiago Canyon Road and ends at Frank ,�,
Lane, which also serves as the entrance to the project site. The non-paved(i.e., dirt)equestrian trail is
��
separated from the roadway by a white split rail style fence.
�
Santiago Canyon Road, classified by the City General Plan as a Major Collector,runs along the „�;
northern boundary of the project site. A paved sidewalk and equestrian trail are located between the
�.
project site and Santiago Canyon Road. The concrete-paved sidewalk begins at North Meads Avenue
east of the site and ends approximately 400 feet west of Orange Park Boulevard. The non-paved (i.e., �
dirt)equestrian trail directly connects the trail along the eastern boundary of the site described above �`'
to the Sully-Miller Equestrian Arena adjacent to the northwest corner of the site. Striped crosswalks ,,,�
and pedestrian pushbuttons are provided only on the west side of the intersection of Santiago Canyon
Road at Orange Park Boulevard, and only on the east side of the intersection of Santiago Canyon
�
Road at North Meads Avenue. An eyuestrian crossing pushbutton, separate from the pedestrian
crosswalk pushbutton, is provided at the Orange Park Boulevard and Santiago Canyon Road Po""
intersection adjacent to the site. �r
�
The City General Plan identifies the equestrian trails adjacent to the project site as Recreational
Trails. The OPA Plan identifies the trails adjacent to the project site as combined equestrian and ""�
bicycle trails. ���°�
�
4.8-2 Michael Brandman Associates ,,,�
H1Client(PN-]N)\3771�37710001�EIIt\9-DEIIt\37710001 Sec04-08 Transpo.doc
Sa/em Lutheran Church and Schoo/Specific P/an Environmental Impact Ana/ysis
Draft E/R Transportation and Tra�c
Existing bicycle lanes are located in Santiago Canyon Road and Orange Park Boulevard. The City
General Plan classifies these as Class II On-Street lanes.
Transit routes that serve the proposed project vicinity include Route 57 (which runs north-south on
State College Boulevard/The City Drive), Route 54 (which runs east-west along Chapman Avenue),
Route 454(which runs east-west along Chapman Avenue serving The Block at Orange and the
Orange Transportation Center), and Route 757 (which runs south on The City Drive and Bristol
Street, east on Chapman Avenue, and north on State Route 57 [SR-57]).
Onsite Conditions
Frank Lane
Frank Lane is a private access easement serving the church and adjacent residential properties to the
south and west. Orange Park Boulevard and Frank Lane intersect at the southeast corner of the
project site, adjacent to the existing multipurpose field.
4.8.3 - Offsite Improvements
Land will be required from the adjacent property owner west of the project site to accommodate the
proposed right-turn deceleration lane. Refer to Figure l l in the Traffic Impact and Parking Demand
Analysis Report for a visual representation of the geometrics regarding the required right-of-way
(ROW) easement fro the right-turn deceleration lane. Figure ]1 presents the concept design of the
315-foot deceleration lane with the required ROW easement/dedication area, construction impact
easement area, and ultimate ROW line shown. The design ofthe proposed declaration lane is based
on the standards contained in the California Department of Transportation Highway Design Manual
(5`�' Edition) for deceleration lanes, which requires a 315-foot deceleration lane for a 40 mile per hour
design speed. The ROW easement/dedication area consists of approximately 1,035 square feet. The
ultimate ROW line is based on the City's Major Arterial roadway standard, which consists of a 120-
foot ROW standard or 60-foot half-width standard.
4.8.4 - Regulatory Setting
Federal
No federal regulations are associated with this topica] environmental issue.
State
The State Department of Transportation(Caltrans) established performance standards for all State
highway facilities are the transition between LOS C and D. If a State highway facility operates below
the transition between LOS C and D, the Caltrans' thresholds is to maintain the lower level of service.
Michae/Brandman Associates 4.8-3
H-\Clien[(PN-JN)�3771\3"7710001�EIIt\9-DEIR\37710001 Sec04-OS'Iranspo.doc
Salem Lutheran Church and School Specific Plan
Transportation and Tia�c Draft E/R
�.�;,
Local
County of Orange ,
Congestion Management Program
The Orange County Congestion Management Program (CMP) administered by OCTA is a
requirement of the Proposition 111 gas tax increase passed in 1990. The CMP requires that �
designated intersections throughout the county be maintained at a specified level of service.
Guidelines with respect to CMP traffic studies require that the potential impacts at CMP intersections
�
be analyzed for any significant land use proposals.
Growth Management Plan �
The Orange County Measure M Growth Management Plan (GMP)was developed to assess and .
mitigate the impacts of local land use decisions on the county's transportation system. Central to the
program is the requirement that each jurisdiction in the county adopt a Growth Management Element `""
of its General Plan to be applied in the development review process in order to receive transportation `"�
revenues generated from the Measure M half-cent sales tax increase. The GMP includes specific „�
guidelines for traffic impact studies, establishing LOS thresholds and requirements for mitigation. ,�
The information contained in this report satisfies the requirements of those guidelines.
�
City of Orange �
A traffic study area for the proposed project was developed based on discussions with City staff and �
the requirements of the City of Orange(City)Traffic Impact Analysis(TIA) guidelines. The study
�
area requirement was based on the amount of new traffic distributed throughout the roadway system.
Because the proposed does not generate any new vehicular trips only the signalized intersection of '"""`
Orange Park Boulevard and Santiago Canyon Road was analyzed. The TIA analyzed the arterial �
highways in the traffic study area based on the peak hour level of service(LOS) and intersection „�,;
capacity utilization(ICU)methodology at the signalized intersections and the Highway Capacity
�.
Manual (HCM) methodology at unsignalized intersections. Local roadway capacities were analyzed
based on volume to capacity ratios. Table 4.8-] summarizes level of service definitions for signalized �
intersections. Table 4.8-2 below shows the level of service definitions for unsignalized intersections. "'�"'
�
Table 4.8-1: Level of Service Descriptions -Signalized Intersections
�.
Level of Intersection Capacity
Service Utilization Description �
A <0.60 Free Flow "�"`
B >0.60-0.70 Rural Design °"""
C >0.70-0.80 Urban Design �
D >0.80-0.90 Maximum Urban Design ,�,
E >0.90-1.00 Capacity ,...
�
4.8-4 Michae/Brandman Associates �
H\Client(PN-IN)\3771�37710001�EIIt�9-DEIR\37710001 Sec04-OS Transpo_doc
Sa/em Lutheran Church and Schoo/Specific P/an Environmental Impact Analysis
DraR E/R Transportation and Tra�c
Table 4.8-1 (cont.): Level of Service Descriptions -Signalized Intersections
Level of Intersection Capacity
Service Utilization Description
F > 1.00 Forced Flow
Source:
Linscott Law&Greenspan Traffic Impact and Parking Demand Analysis Report for the Proposed Salem Lutheran
Church and School Project Table 1.
Table 4.8-2: Level of Service Descriptions—Stop-Controlled Intersections
Level of ' Delay
Service (SecondsNehicle) Description
A < 10.0 Little ar No Delay
B > 10.0 and< 15.0 Short Traffic Delays
C > 15.0 and 5 25.0 Average Traffic Delays
D >25.0 and<35.0 Long Traffic Delays
E >35.0 and<50.0 Very Long Traffic Delays
F >50.0 Severe Congestion
Source:
Linscott Law&Greenspan Traffic Impact and Parking Demand Analysis Report for the Proposed Salem Lutheran
Church and School Project Table 2.
4.8.5 -Significance Thresholds
According to Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines and Local CEQA Guidelines, a project
would normally have a significant effect on the environment if it would result in the following:
a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ardinance 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?
b) 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?
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a
change in location that results in substantial safety risks?
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous
intersections) or incompatible uses(e.g., farm equipment)?
Michael8randman Associates 4.8-5
H�.\Client(PN-JN)�3771\37710001�EIIt\9-DEIIL\37710001 Sec04-OS Transpo.doc
Sa/em Lutheran Church and School Specific Plan
Transportation and Tra�c Draft E/R
e) Result in inadequate emergency access?
fl Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or a*�
pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance ar safety of such facilities
supporting alternative transportation(e.g. bus turnouts,bicycle racks)? r
4.8.6 - Project Impacts
Impacts Not Found To Be Significant ""��
The Initial Study determined that either no impacts or less than significant impacts would result from '�"��
the following significance threshold listed previously in Section 4.8.4: �
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a �
change in location that results in substantial safety risks? '�
Refer to the Initial Study in Appendix A for a complete discussion. �
Regional Transportation Plan ""
The proposed project would be consistent with the applicable policies of the Regional Transportation ,,,,,�
Plan (RTP) and no impact would occur. The project site has been previously developed and existing
�
uses are served by regional and local transportation facilities.
�
Potentially Significant Impacts �-
Significance thresholds deemed to be potentially significant are evaluated individually. The list �
below restates the significance threshold and gives the corresponding Draft EIR Impact Number:
�
Table 4.8-3: Transportation and Traffic �
Significance Threshold and Corresponding Draft EIR Impact Number
EIR Impact
Significance Threshold-Transportation and Traffic Number �
a) Conflict with an applicable plan,ordinance or policy establishing measures of Impact 4.8-1 �"`
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?
�
b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including,but not Impact 4.8-2
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? "`�'
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature(e.g.,sharp curves or dangerous Impact 4.8-3 z
intersections)or incompatible uses(e.g.,farm equipment)?
�.
e) Result in inadequate emergency access? Impact 4.8-4 �
� Conflict with adopted policies,plans,or programs regarding public transit,bicycle,ar Impact 4.8-5
pedestrian facilities,or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities „�,
supporting alternative transportation(e.g. bus turnouts,bicycle racks)?
w.%
4.8-6 Michael Brandman Associates �
H�\Client(PN-JN)\3771U7710001�EIIL\9-DEIR\3771000]Sec04-08 Transpo-doc
�:
" Sa/em Lutheran Church and School Specific Plan Environmental Impact Ana/ysis
Draft E/R Transportation and Tra�c
Conflict with Circulation System Effectiveness
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.
Traffic and Circulation-Impact Analysis
The potential to impact the circulation system is directly related to church and school activities on the
site. Note that, as detailed in the Traffic Impact and Parking Demand Analysis Report for the project,
the existing preschool will be relocated to an existing vacant building within the site, and as a result,
the traffic analysis only reflects the rerouting of existing traffic, based on typical school and church
activities on weekdays and varying church attendance on Sundays, as a result of the proposed site
access improvements.
Sunday Church Services and Activities
On a typical Sunday,the Church currently has one-hour worship services that start at 8:00 AM,
9:15 AM, and 10:45 AM, with Sunday school/bible classes and adult bible study between 9:]5 AM
and 10:15 AM, and children's church between 10:45 AM and 11:45 AM. The 10:45 AM worship
service has typically had the greatest attendance. No changes to the Sunday worship and activity
schedule are proposed as part of the project.
Weekday Elementary School and Preschool
The existing preschool will be relocated to the existing 5,981 square foot onsite vacant structure.
While there is no increase in preschool enrolment anticipated at this time the occupancy cap is
proposed to increase nominally from 101 preschool students to 105 preschool students, which is well
within the campus enrollment limitations set by the Restrictive Covenant recorded against Salem's
property. Preschool drop-off is between 9:00 AM to 9:15 AM and pick-up is between 11:55 AM and
12:15 PM. For the preschool, parents currently park their vehicles in the parking lot and pick-
up/drop-off their children. (Ventura, pers. comm.) The elementary school has a current enrollment of
410 students in kindergarten through Grade 8. Classes start at 8:30 AM (doors open at 8:10 AM), and
end at 3:00 PM (student drop-off is between 8:00 AM and 8:30 AM and pick-up is staggered from
2:55 PM to 3:20 PM) (Ventura,pers. comm.) Half-day kindergarten (with l 7 students)also starts at
8:30 AM, but ends at 1]:30 AM. After-school activities primarily involve sports and small
art/dance/chess/golf classes that start at 3:15 PM, with all activities and student pick-up ending before
4:30 PM.
There are 90 students currently enrolled in the preschool. Preschool begins at 8:45AM. Half-day
programs ends at 11:45 AM and full-day programs end at 3:30 PM. Two-day (Tuesday and
Thursday) and three-day (Monday, Wednesday, and Friday)programs are also offered.
Michae/Brandman Associates q,g_7
H�.\Client(PN-JN)U771\37710001�EIR\9-DEiR\37710001 Sec04-OSTranspo.doc
Sa/em Lutheran Church and School Specifc P/an
Transportation and Tra�c Draft E/R
t�
The total number of teachers, faculty, and staff is 50. These individuals arrive between 7:30-8:00 AM ..,
and leave around 4:00 PM. Some part time staff arrive and leave at different times throughout the
,�
day. Four of the 50 faculty, staff and teachers walk to work.
Table 4.8-4: Existing (2010)AM Peak Hour Levels of Service ,.�
' ICU or Average ;
Key Intersection � Peak Hour Control Type � Delay(sec/veh) ; LOS �^
Orange Park Boulevard at Weekday AM Six-Phase Signal 0.772 C M�
Santiago Canyon Road Sunday AM 0.326 A
..�a
Orange Park Boulevard at Frank Weekday AM Two-Way Stop 13.5 B
Lane(Existing Church Entrance) Sunday AM 9.8 A ��
Source:
Linscott Law&Greenspan Traffic Impact and Parking Demand Analysis Report for the Proposed Salem Lutheran �
Church and School Project Table 3. �
�
Project Traffic Distribution �
The directional traffic distribution pattern for the proposed project was developed based upon the
.�
existing traffic volumes during Sunday morning conditions. The following summarizes the general
�
distribution pattern applied to the project:
•.:
• 73 percent inbound from the west on Santiago Canyon
�
• 5 percent inbound from the east on Santiago Canyon .�
• 22 percent inbound from the south on Orange Park Boulevard `�"
�
• 53 percent outbound to the west on Santiago Canyon
�
• 7 percent outbound to the east on Santiago Canyon
.�
• 40 percent outbound to the south on Orange Park Boulevard �,
Approximately 40 percent of Church traffic is estimated to use the proposed access off Santiago ,,,�,
Canyon Road, which will be designed to facilitate eastbound right-turn movements directly into and ��
out of the site by the addition of an exclusive right-turn lane on eastbound Santiago Canyon Road at
the proposed driveway. Additionally, during weekday AM peak hours future conditions with the """'
proposed access off Santiago Canyon Road are expected to result in better levels of service at Orange ""°
Park Boulevard/Santiago Canyon Road and Orange Park Boulevard/Frank Lane and reduce the ,.,,
traffic volumes using Frank Lane. A "pork chop" shaped traffic island will direct traffic flow, ��;
accommodate fire truck movement and allow for pedestrian and equestrian crossing.
�
Exhibits 4.8-1 through 4.8-5 below show roadway characteristics, circulation plans,the proposed ^�
Santiago Canyon Road Entry as well as the proposed improvements to Frank Lane. �„
�p:.
4.8-8 Michae/Brandman Associates ,,,,�
H\Client(PN-JN)13771�37'710001�EIIL\9-DEIR\37710001 Sec04-OS Transpo.doc
�,
�
�
� U
OD w., a a
� � ��
L LL
F-
� � aa
L (Up ��
X � oa
x
L N�
U �
a Z c Q�
z z � �'
o a ' � �W
Q � o o P�R�C B�v� � �
c� �N �RPNGE c �
�� U
aa) V � �
�� ��y. � ti � �
R- yU � ` ��,., �+ N
-�� t�'C�.� �.�t- a' 3 W
h��r � E � �
t � o 0
H 1 � LL
=a� �� z �
a�� ` � U
�o tn z ........::. -:- '��� E-�
� '� �
-�" :��: . (a
ll�ki � �� o
� R \ U
: I \ W
�� t � �
o�� � ��: �
� € \ �
t '�
� �
�
o �: �:�
� �� �
Q ���'
�
2
� z
�
��v� wd
�¢awQ�
NdpQ�v
a�V15Jy��
T��>�
Z#a���w
YU�NOpNuI
awU0�0 U
O�45w w
2�Q�3N O
a���Z�a a
n u u u n u n
� �
lY• Nx�
�
Y
Z Y
� a 3 � 8��0
U LL �N oRP�1GE P PR
1 � qU
o •f �ao)
a� "
R— 7,J i �'.�`��
-�L �,�-�S z
� o
�� � z a
QJN ` O L�
=a U
azv�
.��z 1 \ � m
� a z �
� '� � s
� � � �
�
I \ W a s
f ; � � �
[ � a
, � m
n �
t \ � W
�
� J � ��
p �' �� � o
Q ��\. :z.:��� � m
� � � m
2 - c
Q i
� � E
i
� m n ab
I � � � e
m
� � o
� H1tlON� m
�� 9 0
� ��.2 �
� �d � �
�....e
!r�
1�
�
�
�
�iYi'
�'
�r-
�
�
�
�$M
�
�
�
�
�
�
1��
� 9'
�
fWXa
�
�"
�
C§iYn
10.�1wf
W,�:;.
ll�f
N c0 �o
> 00 a a
� d ��
.� c "�
� � a<
�,, N a
L (0 ��
I X � Oa
w ` �w
m
U oZ
Qo
O �
1 � _>
o �Z
� a.� � w
U =
(n U
..�� ��.,..... . . . .. � . � ¢
5 � w
^� � _
d� Y J
l _
8 � �
� �" �n�e �avd 3�Nvao a — — — — — � W
� � � J
<
�
, ty� ' . �� WUI" �IY� � I .
W
� _ �
JIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIL Z
Q
Z�� _ _ � �
� � a _ IIIIIIII Ilillllllllll = . � � �
.. +'�1 _ _ � F
� U
Q ' = IIIIIIIJ Illilllllllll = -�� I�
i .
p � - -
� � iiiiiiiii� ii i'xiiiiiiiiir
Z 1 � � , � � � � � � , � r
o �
Z
Q � s �
o �� `����` i ; �
� �
Q �' -- -- - --� I � �
Z I L a
N , !' T'�— � i!�
I _ _�_�� ___ -__ 04 x U
z
i a
. �� ....i._�.._--► I � �&��n
cz
a� ���� � I I gg��
� .,� ��'�� � �� �
, I I ���: �
t f }�_�� _�
YDapV�O Y
` '", '.�. . . . •• xl I � KU
. : I =�=�u n 2
. � . '_ . ; . F�Fo� u
. .� ' . 5a 3 y�i.
� � :� �' � Y ( � � ���o���
� ����LL�o
� "y " �. �� � � �� ,I .. s&�3&U x
/ \ . .. . . � . . . . . U
y��\ �o�p o�y
/ � � ' I I I ;��",
� _
� �
/ �
��� I
". � ' '(
�o
��.
� a �
3NY1 aNf108N1` � � I
K I v
��� �j
3NVl 4Nf10BNl< � . �=' ., � � I m I
3
_ I -
•� �
3Mf1 ONf1091f10�� i
� �; � (
U �\
3NVl QNf1091l10� � - � �EP�IL R4i.K91M -
H
saaHavwao —
Ntl103W N I = � � 6
`ol
o �
i (S1N3053M)< m . . . � .. n I.�
I AVM3A180 . . .. .
'. 31VAIMd' . . .. �
^ E I°o
i13Q1f10H5 :r � I"i
3
Q �
� r - -
HiaoN = �
�� _
� �� m
u �� �
° I�^ _
u� < M
M @ Qo
i
00 a a
� � ��
.r C "�
� � aa
L � �'�
X � oQ
W �
� �W
U oZ
' I Z
� a&
U =>
` �w
J � �
� U
I U Z
� @ �
_ �. � w
� �
_ c 3
�
�-� _ — — — --T— — —
c� W
�� y �
�:
.. . � - � ayu,��_ a — — s, I �
z
� JIIIIIIIIIIullllllllllllllll_ I �
�a - - ' o
s� - I >
iiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiii �
U
� _ IIIIIII� IIIIIIIIIIIII _ I
- a
� iiiiiiiii� ii i.iiiiiiiiiir ; �
t � ii � � � i � ii � �
� I r
� � � IIIIIII'IL � I I zW
��
� � I � �
, :.� � :. - -- — --- �,: < a�
0
� -- r�� �� --�.�L�-1; � �o
—— --- — � _�
�R�R`R- V�
�;,•=`i,�11�' • .. . � I � Q W
O�
O 2 N
� � ' . I 1=/1 K
� � � W R K
Y O O
, ,' ' ... . . . ... � . . �+ I I 00
,
r- c7
I � I K K�
, .` . � y.'�, .. \ � � � V V t~/1
� � �' �` � .' I w
� U V V
2 2 W
A = � � .. ��v�i
��\ n o n
�o - 11
.�� ... . . y � �, I tl
� � I II
/ ..
� , _ - I
/ ��� �
° ~ j(i' � ,1 �
�e —
,� o
. I �
� I
oNiHavd �s� I ,�,
332q30 O6 � -
' m
-. ~ . �'.,.1...' � . o
3NYl ONf108N1 t � I
.. N ��' _ � � - I
3NV'1 ONf108L00� o � .ta�ra ya.iuw . _
ai
sa�avw ao � �
r+ria3n i o �
: '
b -
(sirr�a�saa�F ^� ��
Avx,3nia E
�vniad� o
��
a3mnoNs + "
N
a
ml
a
� r - -
„ N1aoN � N
i�� -
� �� � o
m Z� f �
�:
�
�
�
��
,�;
��
;�.
,�
,�
��
���
,�
��;
w�
.�
��
��
��
w�
��
�;�,
��
��:
��
��
•e
��.
� Z�
1
00 � g a
� W LL�
y += 'a wc�i
� (� a a
v � -� p ��
X � oQ
� � W � °Z
� � W � ��
� ' w � Q�
� v �W
� _
� U
� 3 5, 12' J � z
C �
� a� 8� , � '{,��^, �
N � � \ -" J
�+J �
W
� a
�
w
c�
z
Q ` o
O � LL
� � '�,o� O
� �� �
Z � `' � "� U
O
Z '"a �v � � o
�� � o � � �
� �'� � c�is' "� 'Q �
� O / �
�
� � �
Q
�
�
Z
N � I
� �
0
N
2
Y Q
g � Q `
O �
� ' V N m
� Z c
� � � � � �
� � J N C
� � LL ��
�7r (� 7 n � � � �
�G� �7� � r`� �d ��� ' � � N T
Z z t � � a �
I c,� c,g � N �
� � �W � �
k� x� �� ��
o �
W�— �u►_ Q � �I
�
c � �
d � o �
� y _
� �J ¢ O
� HlaoN � �
� �� � o
0
0
` �� � o
� �d � M
��
�
�
�
A�.►
,�
,�
��
��e
,�
,�
,�
s�
��
�a.
r�
e�
.„�
.�
��
��
�.�
.�+
.�
��
�
��►
x�
�
��.
��
r�,
es•
f6.
FilSEltf7J1
4' g' 8' 1' I1' I1' I1' 11'
I ' LANf �UNf� lANf UNE TRAVl1 lANES FOR SGIOOL UAY
� PEAK FAOUR 1/SE
I i 18'
IPAR�CJh�IXARAIG CHt1RG�SERYICf'•
IWSTNrG
�� t I
I MEDIAN d FENCE OR pps►�y�
PAVEMENT BUTTONS �[(y�
I ��� � (sorrs nors�
mGE OF AC .
PAYE1fFM I PAVEMENI
i;��..�
aC f7C�STMHG
��r� p��� PAYEtJEM �
FN�lf51f �
CRAOE
50CtlOri
���IG
EDiGE Q�
(SAtEY lUIHERW p1URGl AND SChtlDi) PAVFIEM
- —_ - — — .
. --
m _ Q
_ , �
�. _ �
FRANK IANE 4 '�u�� N _ I �U
1 MEDIAN AND ����� �
l FENCE OR '� �
PAVEMENTBUTTONS
(�sl ��
/�snNc
�nce ar
PNVE4IEM
Plan
Source:Michael Madden Associates,December 2011 (as prepared by Fuscoe Engineers,July 2010).
������ Exhibit 4.8-5
����z-J Frank Lane
Michacl Brandman Associatcs
37710001 •12/2011 �4.8-5_frank_lane.cdr CITY OF ORANGE•SALEM LUTHERAN CHURCH AND SCHOOL SPECIFIC PLAN
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
�
�
�
��,
�
�,
�
�
��
�
��
��»�
,�
��
��
��
��,
..�
��:
.�
��.
A�RlM
�u�.
AsAF
tm�-
��
mw
Sa/em Lutheran Church and Schoo/Specific P/an EnvironmentallmpactAnalysis
Draft EIR Transportation and Tra�c
Significant Traffic Impact Criteria
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 or F), and the Total Intersection Delay increase attributable to the
project is 2.00 sec/veh or greater.
Refer to Table 4.8-5 below, which shows the peak hour levels of service for the weekday AM
intersection analysis.
Table 4.8-5: Weekday AM Year 2010 Existing + Project Intersection Peak Hour Levels of
Service
; Year 2010 Existing and
Proposed Project(with
Existing , Driveway)
Ke Intersections Peak Hour ' �CU or Average ICU or Average
y Delay(sec/veh) ; LOS Delay(sec/veh) ; LOS
Orange Park Boulevard at Weekday AM 0.772 C 0.746 C
Santiago Canyon Road
Orange Park Boulevard at Weekday AM 13.5 B 12.1 B
Frank Lane(Existing Church
Entrance)
Proposed Driveway at Weekday AM -na- -na- 19.0 C
Santiago Canyon Road
-na- not applicable
Source: Linscott Law&Greenspan Traffic Impact and Parking Demand Analysis Report for the Proposed Salem
Lutheran Church and School Project Table 5.
Based upon the application of the significance criteria described previously, Table 4.8-5 indicates that
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. Future conditions with the
proposed driveway off Santiago Canyon Road are expected to result in better levels of service (i.e.,
lower ICU or delay values) at the Orange Park Boulevard/Santiago Canyon Road and Orange Park
Boulevard/Frank Lane intersections compared to existing conditions without the Santiago Canyon
Road driveway.
Michael Brandman Associates 4.8-19
H�\Client(PN-JN)�3771\37710001�EIIt\9-DEIR\37710001 Sec04-OS'Iranspo.doc
�
Sa/em Lutheran Church and School Specific P/an "'"
Transportation and Tra�c DraR E/R
�
Refer to Table 4.8-6 below, which shows the peak hour levels of service for the Sunday AM ,;,�,
intersection analysis.
�
Table 4.8-6: Sunday AM Year 2010 Existing + Project Intersection Peak Hour Levels of Service ��~
..�
I Year 2010 Existing and
' , , Existing ° Proposed Project �n.
, ___ _ ___ --� __ , --_ _ ___
ICU or Average ; � ICU or Average �
Key Intersections : Peak Hour Delay(sec/veh) � LOS i Delay(seclveh) LOS ""
,
Orange Park Boulevard at Sunday AM 0.326 A 0362 A ����-
Santiago Canyon Road
��
Orange Park Boulevard at Sunday AM 9.8 A 11.4 B
Frank Lane(Existing Church �
Entrance)
��
Proposed Driveway at Sunday AM -na- -na- 10.4 B
Santiago Canyon Road ��
Notes:
iww
-na- not applicable
The proposed project condition represents a 712-person attendance. ,,�
Source:Linscott Law&Greenspan Traffic Impact and Parking Demand Analysis Report for the Proposed Salem
Lutheran Church and School Project Table 6. i�
„�
During the Sunday AM peak hour, Table 4.8-6 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. Thus, impacts are less than significant and no mitigation
A�I!
measures will be necessary under Sunday AM peak hour conditions.
��
Level of Significance Before Mitigation ��
Less than significant.
��
Mitigation Measures .,�,
No mitigation measures are required. F�
Level of Significance After Mitigation aR
Impacts were determined to be less than significant before mitigation. ��
Parking-/mpact Analysis '""
The latest revision to the State CEQA Guidelines (effective March 18, 2010)eliminated from '�'
Appendix G of the Guidelines the significance threshold related to parking in conformance with the ,�,
provisions of SB 97 (California 2009). In 2010,the City revised its environmental factors checklist to
��
match the revised State Guidelines; therefore, the City does not have an adopted significance
.��
threshold for parking. However, inadequate onsite parking capacity could have the potential to affect
the offsite circulation system resulting in potential conflicts with the circulation system effectiveness. '�
For this reason, a parking analysis is included in this section and specifically under Impact 4-8-1. ��
A«
4.8-20 Michae/Brandman Associates ,,,�
H\Client(PN-JN)�3771�37710001�EII2V9-DEIIt\37710001 Sec04-08 Transpo_doc
�ri.
Salem Lutheran Church and Schoo/Specific P/an Environmental Impact Analysis
Draft E/R Transportation and Tra�c
Refer to Exhibit 4.8-2 or Exhibit 4.8-3, which graphically depicts the proposed circulation and
parking plan for the project.
Currently, 153 spaces are provided onsite and are located in the following areas:
• 28 spaces in the staff parking lot located west of the school buildings.
• 24 spaces on Frank Lane, south of the school building. These spaces are primarily used for
preschool drop-off and pick-up on weekdays.
• 77 spaces in the main parking lot located east of the school buildings (of which 27 spaces
adjoining the school buildings are used for curbside staging of passenger unloading/loading
during school pick-up and drop-off times on weekdays.
• 24 spaces on Frank Lane, south of the existing field/grass play area, with parking restricted
during school drop-off and pick-up times on weekdays.
Currently there are 153 parking spaces on site and the proposed parking supply would total 180
spaces, constituting an increase of 27 spaces compared to existing supply. Parking demand counts
were performed on Sunday, March 28, 2010 between 7:30 AM and 12:30 PM, in 15-minute intervals.
Based on attendance counts conducted by Church staff during the March 28, 2010 surveys,the peak
attendance occurred during the 10:45 AM service,with 3l 0 seats occupied in the sanctuary. Dividing
the peak demand of 136 spaces by the 310 seats yields an empirical parking ratio of 0.439 spaces per
seat or 1 space per 2.28 seats.
If the ratio of 1 space per 2.28 seats were considered to represent an Average Vehicle Occupancy
(AVO) of 2.28 persons per vehicle, it would be consistent with the AVO of 2.24 persons per vehicle
determined from the actual AVO counts performed. Therefore,the application of the empirical
parking ratio of 1 space per 2.28 seats in estimating the Church's parking needs is a reasonable
approach, and would reflect the unique parking characteristics of the Church.
Parking demand was also calculated using the City Municipal Code, which specifies a parking ratio
of"1 space/4 seats, or 1 space/30 sq ft of gross assembly area, whichever is greater"for churches.
The ratio of 1 space per 4 seats was used in the parking calculations because it is interpreted to be
applicable to "fixed" seating, consistent with what now exists and is proposed for the Church. Table
� 4.8-7 summarizes the application of this ratio per City Code, and compares the Code-based parking
requirements against the empirical estimates.
Michael Brandman Associates 4.8-21
H�.\Client(PN-IN)�3771\37710001�EIIt\9-DEIR\37710001 SecA4-08Transpo.doc
�.,.
Sa/em Lutheran Church and Schoo/Specific P/an
Transportation and Tra�c Draff E/R
�
Table 4.8-7: Parking Requirements �
; Required Spaces Per Required Spaces Per "*�
I City Code at 1 Space/ � Empirical Ratio at 1 Space/
Church Attendance Scenarios 4 Seats ' 2.28 Seats "''"
__
_ _ _ __
400 Person Attendance „�
(Design-Level 85�'Percentile Demand) l00 175
556 Person Attendance Implement PMP
(Design-Level 90`�'Percentile Demand) �39 (Allow up to 222 vehicles) �
660 Person-Attendance 165 Implement PMP �.
(10:30 AM Service on 09-16-07) (Allow up to 264 vehicles)
712 Person Attendance Implement PMP �
(Design-Level 95`f'Percentile Demand) ��g (Allow up to 285 vehicles) ��
Note:
PMP=Parking Management Plan "�
With the implementation of a Parking Management Plan(PMP)during larger services/events,an Average Vehicle �
Ridership(AVR)of 2.5 persons per vehicle is presumed. This AVR,which is considered to be typical of greater
attendance levels during key worship services,corresponds to a greater number of persons in each vehicle compared to �
the AVR of 2.28 persons per vehicle derived from field study.
Source:Linscott Law&Greenspan Traffic Impact and Parking Demand Analysis Report for the Proposed Salem „�
Lutheran Church and School Project Table 8.
��
As indicated on Table 4.8-7, based on a proposed supply of 180 spaces, adequate parking will be �
provided 100 percent of the time according to City Code, and 85 percent of the time based on ""�
empirical/actual demand. For the remaining 15 percent of the time under empirical conditions, "'�
implementation of the recommended Parking Management Plan(PMP)would address residual �„�
parking needs. It should be noted that there will be no concurrent use of the sanctuary, and the Y�
multipurpose building for assembly purposes if the total attendance far the assembly will exceed 712
persons. """'
��
The PMP would generally consist of occasional overflow parking on the multipurpose field on the
�
eastern portion of the site, which would add 113 parking spaces, for a total parking supply of 293
spaces. The need for overflow parking is intended to be 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.
�_�
��
��
.;�
4.8-22 Michae/Brandman Associates ��„
H�.\Client(PN-JN)U771\37710001�ED2\9-DEIIL\3771000]Sec04-08Transpo.doc
��:
Sa/em Lutheran Church and Schoo/Specific Plan Environmental Impact Ana/ysis
Draft E/R Transportation and Tra�c
Conflict with Congestion Management System
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.
Impact Analysis
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. Mareover,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.
Level of Significance Before Mitigation
Less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required.
Level of Significance After Mitigation
Impacts were determined to be less than significant before mitigation.
Transportation or Traffic Hazards Due to Design Features
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).
Impact Analysis
No existing hazardous design features existing 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 doars 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. Access to Frank Lane will be enhanced with a
raised median with decorative split rail fence or pavement markers (Botts' Dots) placed on the
roadway in the same location that will facilitate traffic flow.
Michael 8randman Associates 4.8-23
H�.\Client(PN-JN)13771\37710001�EIR\9-DEIR\37710001 Sec04-O8 Transpo doc
�
Sa/em Lutheran Church and Schoo/Specific P/an ""
Transportation and Tia�c Drafi E/R
�
In conjunction with the new Santiago Canyon Road driveway, providing adequate internal circulation ,,�.
and loop movements within the site will ensure that queuing does not extend onto either Santiago
Canyon Road or Orange Park Drive during school drop-off and pick-up periods on a typical weekday.
Level of Significance Before Mitigation ,�
Less than significant.
Mitigation Measures .�.
No mitigation measures are required.
Level of Significance After Mitigation ��
Impacts were determined to be less than significant before mitigation. ...
Emergency Access "�'
,�
Impact 4.8� The project will not result in inadequate emergency access.
Impact Analysis ��
Currently all access, including emergency access, is limited to the single entry via Frank Lane. This `"�`
access will be retained and improved, which includes a raised median with decorative split rail fence ,�
or pavement markers(Botts' Dots)placed on the roadway in the same location that separates church ,;�
and school traffic from residents south and west of the site. The redesign of Frank Lane will provide
►�un
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
(E�chibit 3-9 in the Project Description section). The redesign will retain emergency vehicle access to R�
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. A�
k�•
The addition of the proposed driveway off Santiago Canyon Road would provide an additional �
emergency access point resulting in two emergency vehicular access points providing access along
Y�}
the southern site perimeter and adjacent to the eastern side of the existing Multipurpose Building and
proposed worship center. This new access point would result in a beneficial impact. Therefore, no '�`
negative impacts to emergency access would result from project implementation. "�
.,�
Level of Significance Before Mitigation
Less than significant. '�"
��
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required.
a�:�
Leve/of Significance After Mitigation
Impacts were determined to be less than significant before mitigation.
PslS
4.8-24 Michael Brandman Associates ,,,,�
H:\Client(PN-JN)�3771U7710001�EIIt\9-DEIIt\37710001 Sec04-OSTranspo.doc �
wa;;
Sa/em Lutheran Church and Schoo/Specific P/an Environmental Impact Ana/ysis
Draft E/R Transportation and Tra�c
Public Transit, Bicycle, or Pedestrian Facilities
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).
Impact Analysis
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 addition of the proposed
access point off Santiago Canyon Road would require a"break" in the equestrian trail adjacent to
Santiago Canyon Road. The project proposes a crosswalk at the "break" in the equestrian trail.
The addition of the second vehicle access point would reduce the existing traffic volumes at Frank
Lane, which would correspondingly reduce vehicle—equestrian conflicts resulting in a beneficial
impact at this location.
Level of Significance Before Mitigation
Less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required.
Level of Significance After Mitigation
Impacts were determined to be less than significant before mitigation.
Michael Brandman Associates 4.8-25
H:\Client(PN-JN)�3771\37710001�EIlt\9-DEDt\37"/10001 Sec04-OS Transpo.doc
�
�.
�.
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�.�r
�
��
,�
��
��
��
,�
.�.
.�
�-
R�
��t-
Salem Lutheran Church and Schoo/Specific Plan Environmental Impact Analysis
Draft EIR Utilities and Service Systems
4.9 - Utilities and Service Systems
4.9.1 - Introduction
Purpose
This section describes the existing utilities, service systems, and potential effects from project
implementation on the site and its surrounding area. Descriptions and analysis in this section are
based on the sources listed below.
Sources
Information in this section is from the following sources:
� Orange County Water District 2009 Update Groundwater Management Plan.
• 2010 General Plan, City of Orange, March 9, 2010.
• Orange County Integrated Waste Management Department.
• Salem Lutheran Church and School Specific Plan, Michael Madden Associates, Apri130, 20l 1
(Appendix I).
• Comments received during the public comment period. These comments are contained in
Appendix A.
4.9.2 - Environmental Setting
The regional,vicinity, and site-specific environmental settings are described in more detail below.
Regional
Regional Water Supply
The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California(MWD) is a wholesale water agency
responsible for providing supplemental water(water form sources other than local groundwater and
surface water)to agencies within its service area. MWD supplies imported water to Southern
California from Northern California and the Colorado River. As a wholesale agency, MWD finances,
constructs, and operates the pipelines and other facilities to transport water from its sources to the
wholesaler's area of service. The water purveyors, such as the City Water Department,transport the
water from MWD's storage facilities or distribution pipelines and provide water service to their retail
� customers.
Vicinity
Loca/Water Supply
The majority of the domestic water used in Orange County is from the groundwater basin managed
by the Orange County Water District(OCWD). The OCWD manages the groundwater basin that lies
under north and central Orange County. Water produced from the basin is the primary water supply
for the approximate 2.5 million persons living within the Orange County Water District boundaries
Michael Brandman Associates 4.9-1
H-\Client(PN-JN)U77I\37710001�EIIt\9-DEIIL�37710001 Sec04-09 Utils Svc Sys.doc
�
Sa/em Lutheran Church and Schoo/Specific Plan "�
Utilities and Service Systems Draft E/R
�
(Orange County Water District. 2009). In 2009,the OCWD updated its 2004 Groundwater ,�;
Management Plan. The OCWD 2009 Updated Groundwater Management Plan provides information
�
on District operations, lists projects completed since publication of the 2004 report, and discusses
plans for future projects and operations. "�`
�
City of Orange
�
The City obtains approximately 64-75 percent of its water supply from City-owned wells. The
remaining approximate 25-36 percent is imported from the Metropolitan Water District of Southern """
California(MWD),the Serrano Water District, and the East Orange County Water District. '"�'
�
Irvine Ranch Water District
Irvine Ranch Water District(IRWD)has a number of water sources. Approximately 50 percent of "
IRWD's water supply is purchased from MWD via the Municipal Water District of Orange County. �
The remainder of IRWD water comes from district sources, which include the Dyer Road Wellfield, ,�,
Irvine Subbasin, West Irvine Wells (under development), Baker Pipeline, Irvine Lake,the Mickelson
,�`�
and Los Alisos Water Reclamation Plants.
�
Site Conditions
��
Water Supply
�
As detailed in the Initial Study for the proposed project, domestic and irrigation water will be
supplied to the project site by the Irvine Ranch Water District(IRWD). Water supply to the site is ""�'
currently provided by the IRWD through an existing 6-inch diameter asbestos clay pipe (ACP) line ��°'
and an 8-inch ductile iron pipe (DIP) line under Frank Lane. Additionally,three public laterals ,��
extend into the project site. Refer to Exhibit 4.9-1,which graphically depicts the location of current „�
and future water lines on site. All fire access and fire water supplies shall comply with the California
Fire Code, as amended by the City, and in effect at the time of application for building permit. ��`
...�
Wastewater
��
The IRWD is the local wastewater service agency. An existing onsite 21-inch wastewater line
,;Ko
provides wastewater conveyance from the project site. The Orange County Sanitation District
(OCSD) owns a 21-inch diameter vitrified clay pipe (VCP)main in Frank Lane, which turns north ��
and passes through the project site within a public easement in the site's primary parking lot. The
OCSD main is reduced to a 16-inch diameter at an angle point in Santiago Canyon Road, at which „�
point the OCSD main turns easterly and continues in Santiago Canyon Road. The OCSD 21-inch
diameter main,which passes through the project site, currently serves the school and the church, and
is expected to continue as the point of service for the proposed project. Refer to Exhibit 4.9-2, which �'"
graphically depicts the location of current and future sewer lines on site.
��,
The City of Orange owns an 8-inch diameter VCP main in Santiago Canyon Road, which is near the
northeast corner of the site. The 8-inch main does not currently provide service to the site, nor is it *'�
expected to do so in the future. »�
4.9-2 Michae/Brandman Associates �,�
H�.\Client(PN-JN)\3771\37710001�EIR\9-DEIIt�37710001 Sec04-09 Utils Svc Sys.doc
ira:,
� � zr
� � aa
� a ��
c LL
�+ C W U
L y ya
�
W (n $�
�' =z
� N�
I � <°
�
�' U�
�.� �W
2
U
��� � �
, , .
�� �� _ __ �
o� � � �, __
�_ �
� c-
o --� - _ — — W
'dl1'18 HHVd�Nd!!O ',:I oi
��. � &f `� Z l:,l0'Otf M.04,L111N.� � � •I W
� �� � I �I �I �
�.. LL
!;�`���� � � �j�' �
� U
.. ' ' •�O I ��I �•I
/ z^
� I I
� � � � I
�� � �1 ^`•
�� g � � � �� �
€� ' � � �� ~
; � : .:� � �.� ' �I �
r
r � - = -_ - - _ = _ _ - - -� ��� �
�
� �;, —t—�- - -�- - -�— � I �
„ �
�� � . / Qi —�,= I � ��i
� `�
� ; �M� s
�az/ ,_ �
�,
,Z, � , � I � °° �3
,�� ��,_ �
. �; .�,�,�9 � s I
� ` \ ; � I �
�0/ �� � � � �
m � o�r� ��i ao � �
/ / �
� � � II
ryJ
� � _ II
.2oas6�£
6��� �A.� � �A�
�d�. \ I I
/OO� ` I I
.�
2 �Q ( O
� ( N
W ' T
W
N,�� I I �
r^ i I �
Z �
�
W
� II �
'�-o�, � a
��'y ,68'4tZ � M,SS,lf.9lN I g
e
� �
� 8
N �
� E
� m
�'
m %i
'm m
� ;
p y I
Q
m pi
9 � � v
f � o
� H1MON�g �
� �� mg o
� ��3 �
� �d � �
�
�
�
�
�:.
�
�:
�
�4:
�
�
,ANr
,�
��
��w
1�
,�:
<�
YY.
1�'
s;.;
1�
il�
!IR
1�
�
�ait.
ae�
�
A�
m�
l�se
■�s
a�
zr
� �
� n' �W
�
Y � V V
.� � a a
t y N�
X >, O Q
W fA °x Z
I ` N�
3 ZZ
� a°�
xj
$ � �w
�
� UZ
"� K
o� � , _ _ d�1.tyZ�� �
� ��. ���-T _ , - - . ' . ,.....-` J
'��o r_�: — �— W
� = i 'OAlB NHVd 3�JNW0 ,+I N
� �4,,ZO"Ot£ M„04,L111N j� � I
� �I w
� � , i �
,: �
�� o
� "�-' t � ;��-� �
h� �� I � U
= O
�g �� � ' �� �
�� �`� �� � � ' I
� I � I
�
� � _ - I � I �
„ - - - - - - � '-�°�
/ - - -- - dy�ta - - - --- I �I
.� �
� � � � _ '� � I
. i
� , a i �
� � i I ��
�.
#!/; ,1,�' I I
�/ � ' � i
� ,�"�„Y •��, d�9 � I
� / `',c, �
•/ o� �t� �� �
// / 9� J�� ,,.;. � �
!'y �e t
` �' �� ��� �' 1
/ ����Sa2�� �� / I I I
� � I
I6Q �� \
o; _ i� �
� !i� � o
W (I I N
M1�' W
�
N�' I� I �
Z^ I�I ( W
� ��{ � �
�O�' �i
�< I I a
� � �
�'y ,68'4tZ � M,SS,tf.9LN �
� n
V 8`
N{ �
W �
� �
m %I
m �
Q NI
0 � �
9 � -
� � � O
� �� � �
9 0
C
0
� ��� �
f°n �� � m
�
�
�
�
�.
�
�
�
�:
�
�
�
�
�
,�
�w
��
��
��
��-�_
��
��
,�
�
��
n�
��
,�+
a�
.�.
�ar
«�,
e�
��
A Sa/em Lutheran Church and Schoo/Specific P/an Environmental Impact Ana/ysis
Draft E/R Utilities and Service Systems
The Orange County Sanitation District is responsible for the collection and treatment of sewage in the
City of Orange. Collected effluent is treated either at Reclamation Plan No. 1 in Fountain Valley or
Treatment Plant No. 2 in Huntington Beach. Average flows for Reclamation Plant No. 1 and
� Treatment Plant No. 2 are 92 mgd and 129 mgd, respectively. The combined average flow is 221
mgd. Reclamation Plant No.l has a design capacity of]08 mgd with average daily flow of 92 mgd.
Treatment Plant No. 2 has an average daily flow of 129 mgd with a design capacity of 168 mgd.
(Edaw,Inc. July 2009, page 5.12-13).
A portion of the sewage fee charged to developers is paid to the Orange County Sanitation District for
improvements to regional facilities. This fee paid to OCSD is referred to as the Capital Facilities
Capacity Charge, and it funds improvements in the efficiency and effectiveness of OCSD operations.
The OCSD fee is applied to cities and developers for new development and/or expansion of existing
facilities (Edaw, Inc. January 2009, page INF-11).
Solid Waste
Solid waste collection in the City is provided by CR&R, a commercial trash hauler under license from
the City. The City is currently under contract to the Orange County Integrated Waste Management
Department(Orange County IWMD)to commit all of its waste to the Orange County landfill system.
The County owns and operates three active Class III landfills: the Olinda Alpha Landfill,the Frank R.
Bowerman Landfill, and the Prima Deshecha LandfilL Class III landfills accept only non-hazardous
municipal solid waste for disposal; no hazardous or liquid waste can be accepted. Table 4.9-1,
Orange County Landfills, summarizes information regarding these landfills.
The Olinda Alpha Landfill, located in the City of Brea, accepts municipal solid waste from
commercial haulers and the public. The landfill is permitted to receive up to 8,000 tons of waste per
day. This landfill is approximately 565 acres with 420 acres permitted for refuse disposal. The
Olinda Alpha Landfill opened in 1960 and is scheduled to close in December of 2021.
The Frank R. Bowerman Landfill, located in the City of Irvine, accepts commercial waste only. The
landfill is permitted to receive a daily maximum of 11,500 tons of waste per day. The landfill is
approximately 725 acres with 534 acres permitted for refuse disposal. The Frank R. Bowerman
Landfill opened in 1990 and is scheduled to close in the Year 2053.
�� The Prima Deshecha Landfill, located in San Juan Capistrano, accepts municipal solid waste from
commercial haulers and the public. The landfill is permitted to receive up to 4,000 tons of waste per
day. This landfill is approximately 1,530 acres with 699 acres permitted for refuse disposal. The
Prima Deshecha Landfill opened in 1976 and is scheduled to close in the Year 2067.
Michae/Brandman Associates 4.9-7
H�.\Client(PN-JN)�3771\37710001�EIIL\9-DEIILU'7710001 Sec04-09 Utils Svc Sys.doc
Salem Lutheran Church and School Specific P/an
Utilities and Service Systems Draft E/R
Table 4.9-1: Orange County Landfills
Permitted ' �
' Scheduled Date � Maximum Daily � Acres Permitted
Landfill Name Address for Closure Tonnage ; for Refuse `
Olinda Alpha 1942 North Valencia December 2021 8,000 420 �
Avenue,Brea,CA
92823 �-
Frank R. Bowerman 1]002 Bee Canyon 2053 11,500 534 ,�
Access Road, Irvine,
CA 92602 °�}
Prima Deshecha 32250 La Pata 2067 4,000 699 ..+
Avenue., San Juan
Capistrano,CA �"
92675
�.�
Source: Orange County Waste and Recycling. 2010
�>
�
As detailed in the Salem Lutheran Church and School Specific Plan by Michael Madden Associates, �
and from information provided by Fuscoe Engineering, below is information regarding the project's
,�
gas, electricity, and telephone services.
�
Natura/Gas
�.�
Natural gas is provided to the site by Southern California Gas Company via a 2-inch diameter main in
Frank Lane. Additionally,there is a 10-inch diameter main in Santiago Canyon Road, which is not ��
expected to be used for the proposed project. �"_
,�
E/ectricity
Electrical service is provided to the site by Southern California Edison via an aerial line on the south "�'
side of Frank Lane, which provides power to an existing transformer at the southwest corner of the '~~
project site. This service location will remain, with a possible upgrade of the transformer.
►�;,
Telephone ""�
Telephone service to the project site is provided by AT&T via the aerial line on the south side of �,�
Frank Lane. �
4.9.3 - Regulatory Setting '�'
Federal �
There are no federal regulations associated with this topical environmental issue. .•�
State �
There are no State regulations associated with this topical environmental issue. �"�
�,,�.
��
��
4.9-8 Michae/Brandman Associates �,�
H:\Client(PN-.TN)\3771\37710001�ED2\9-DEIIt�37710001 Sec04-09 Utils Svc Sys.doc
��,
Sa/em Lutheran Church and Schoo/Specific Plan Environmentallmpact Analysis
Draft EIR Utilities and Service Systems
Local
Countywide Integrated Waste Management Plan (C/WMP)
The California lntegrated Waste Management Board(CIWMP) requires that all counties have an
approved Countywide Integrated Waste Management Plan (CIWMP). To receive approval,the
CIWMP needs to demonstrate that there will be sufficient solid waste disposal capacity for at least 15
years or identify additional available locations outside of the County where there is available
capacity. The Orange County CIWMP, dated 1996, describes future solid waste disposal demand
based on the County population projections adopted by the Orange County Board of Supervisors.
The database for the Orange County CIWMP indicates that the landfill system in the County has
capacity in excess of 30 years, which is well within the 15-year threshold defined by the California
Integrated Waste Management Board.
4.9.4 - Significance Thresholds
According to Appendix G ofthe State CEQA Guidelines and the City's Local CEQA Guidelines, a
project would normally have a significant effect on the environment if it would result in the
following:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control
Board?
b) 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?
c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of
existing facilities,the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects?
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and
resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed?
e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves ar may serve
the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to
the provider's existing commitments?
fl Be served by a landfill with insufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's
solid waste disposal needs?
g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid wastes?
4.9.5 - Project Impacts
Impacts Not Found To Be Significant
The Initial Study determined that either no impacts or less than significant would result from the
following significance threshold questions listed previously in Section 4.9.4:
Michael8randman Associates 4.9-9
H.\Client(PN-JN)�3771\37710001�EIR\9-DEIR�37710001 Sec04-09 Cltils Svc Sys_doc
�:
Salem Lutheran Church and School Specific P/an �'"'
Utilities and Service Systems Draft EIR
�
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control „�,
Board?
.�
fl Be served by a landfill with insufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's ..
solid waste disposal needs?
�
g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid wastes? �,�;
�
Potentially Significant Impacts �
Significance thresholds deemed to be potentially significant are evaluated individually. The list ,,,�
below restates the significance threshold and gives the corresponding Draft EIR Impact Number:
�,
Table 4.9-2: Utilities and Service Systems e�
Significance Threshold and Corresponding Draft EIR Impact Number
�
, EIR Impact ,,,�
Significance Threshold-Utilities and Service Systems Number
__. _ _ _ _ .�
b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment ar Impact 4.9-1
collection facilities or expansion of existing facilities,the construction of which could �
cause significant environmental effects?
�
c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or Impact 4.9-2
expansion of existing facilities,the construction of which could cause significant �
environmental effects?
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements Impact 4.9-3 ��
and resources,or are new or expanded entitlements needed? �
e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may Impact 4.9-4 �
serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand
in addition to the provider's existing commitments?
�
New Wastewater Treatment or Collection Facilities .�
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. i�u
Impact Analysis �
Domestic and irrigation water will be supplied to the project site by Irvine Ranch Water District ,�.
(IRWD). Wastewater from the proposed project site is treated by the Orange County Sanitation
,�
District(OCSD). The short-term and long-term impacts of the proposed project on water and
wastewater facilities is discussed in more detail below. ��
��
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. '"*�
4.9-10 Michael Brandman Associates ��
H:\Client(PN-.!N)\3771\37710001�EIIt\9-DEIR�37710001 Sec04-09 Otils Svc Sys.doc
i�:
Salem Lutheran Church and School Specific Plan Environmental lmpact Analysis
Draft EIR Utilities and Service Systems
Wastewater: During the short-term construction 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. 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 capacity 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.
Level of Significance Before Mitigation
Less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required.
Level of Significance After Mitigation
Impacts were determined to be less than significant before mitigation.
Storm Water Drainage Facilities
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.
Impact Analysis
Under existing conditions, approximately 5.4 acres of the site drains southwesterly to Frank Lane,
where runoff is transmitted to Handy Creek(located approximately 450 linear feet from the project
site). Flows travel along Frank Lane and over private property before reaching Handy Creek.
Michael Brandman Associates 4.9-11
H.\Client(PN-JN)�3771\37710001�EIR\9-DE[R�37710001 Sec04-09 Utils Svc Sys doc
�
Sa/em Lutheran Church and Schoo/Specifc Plan �""'
Utilities and Service Systems Draft E/R
�
Approximately half an acre of the project site drains over the northwesterly property line and"sheet „�;
flows"cross the equestrian property (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. 6"*
�
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. Refer to the Hydrology and Water Quality section of this ""�
document for a discussion of storm water run-off during the construction phase of the project. �
Long-term Operations �
The proposed project closely resembles the existing drainage patterns, rates and volumes. The "�
proposed project would redirect flow away from the equestrian facility (0.5 acre)to Santiago Canyon �
Road. Additionally,the new entrance proposed at Santiago Canyon Road is designed to drain �,
approximately 1.6 acres of runoff to Santiago Canyon Road, which would relieve some of the
�
drainage flows that currently go to Frank Lane. Approximately 3.9 acres of flow would continue to
drain to Frank Lane under the proposed project design. Small increases in flow 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 w�
described above. Refer to Exhibit 4.9-1, which depicts storm water features on site and to Exhibit
��
4.9-3, which shows the gading, earthwark, and stormwater drainage plan for the site. As shown in
the Water Quality Plan,the multipurpose field serves as a storm water and infiltration zone. In ��'
addition,the project includes a proposed storm drain near the northwest corner of the project site. ��
Refer to the Hydrology and Water Quality section of this report for a discussion of the proposed ,�
project's potential impacts to water quality.
��
Level of Significance Before Mitigation
Less than significant. �
Mitigation Measures
��.
No mitigation measures are required. ,,,�
Level of Significance After Mitigation �
Impacts were determined to be less than significant before mitigation. "'�
,�
,�
.�
,�
��
��.
4.9-12 Michael8randman Associates ��
H:\Client(PN-JN)\3771\37710001�EIIL\9-DEIIt�37710001 Sec04-09 Utils Svc Sys.doc
ZH
I �
� a UW
K
W � � aa
� . � Nf
X � pQ
�
C��> � � y�
�~ J t � Zo
�
� � WW a�~� � �z
< ( � 0��7cQ =W
� ' � ��<�0� C z
4 � � �
� ' ��W`�W p �
� � 3 �
°° � � � �
d , ��, m .
� ,� o� � .__-�-= w �
-o�—�--. j- - . �
� ' _ c
"_ _ :
� � � 'OAlB HHVd :;.I •— °
� � d0'Olf 041t11N '' � LL
� � (7 - � �.. ... ��1���� ����L�� ri � � O
� �� � �TTTTTTTTTTTTTT TTTTTrTTTTTI I �
�' j jiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiii i � � � v
p � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �_, 1
i �C1 � � �. �F-- --i � I �
�C Si�_ '� �-- --� k'
�C J= W �, �" �-- � � � � � � � � --i ' gla:� p
� t n � � F-- i iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii ii __� , �) 1�
F . F-- F1 t++++++++++++++++11 --i i�
\ r-- � � � ii � l ' I � I � � � � � � i � � --i � � r I �
�� ti�... �.: � �— � � � � � � � � � � __� � I =
� �-- --i J
< c� g J �_- , , , , � � , . , � „ „ � „ , � , -_� i W
° �
�.�.� � I111111 111111 II III III � I .
�Y � � 1111 11111 1111111 � I � � ��
1 I
J 1 � t
�� � � � � ��i��r� �� � � � 0�
`�O �� � `w .� � - - - 070G0 0 ?� •�; � � � ��
o�� � r � � � ��
�c 1- r - -- - ----- • � i } i W� c7�
. . . _ _.
°C � ' "J � � �i F°�
. .,, ,, , ,
�� �- . - , _ . .. ��,� �
o� -- - - Yi s
d�o =,� �: "- - - - - �- _ i i W�
i �i �
�l. �' f,\'.i;' ' '� i i �g
. I � � •4. I ' I �i t
� , �
I
� �� � � �
I
� �f � I ��
� � i� . I �
�,�
/ ♦ � �� � I
/ ..C� •��,�9\ I� i I ! i
I� . -�--
/ /�� � � � � � I��,
/ t�
� o\�� � I I �
2
,� . -�� � - ) � I
. ,ro/�.s;, _` � � �
/ -S�dryl� . ' ,' • I, �
� ��� / � , _ I��
c�o o� r � �
C� �� �. _ 111
� ��' ����` °¢ '1 '
v �i i
i�
�� i �. � ' ` i
�, �; � ;� �
o��e� o �^I , ��, �
�
t� 0 i _ '� �:e � �;r i $ 3
� I � A
r g
O�C O�C G ��Q � >. �: � ,, I' i � �
co � ' I w �
~IM �s' ,6B'4lZ � M,SS,I£.91N � �'
� €
�iw 2 � LL q
1/� n N jl
Q 0
' I
� C
�y �
C m �
v � � e
W � �
;� �°�"� �
� �� m S
� ��< g
� �d� �
��
�
i�
��
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�<
�.
�,
�
�
�
�
�s�
��
,�
��
��
�
��
;�
��
,�
;�
�
�
�
�.,:
Sa/em Lutheran Church and School Specifc P/an Environmental lmpact Ana/ysis
DraR E/R Utilities and Service Systems
Water Supplies
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.
Impact Analysis
The water service provider far 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.LP. 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 Salem 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
reyuirements related to fire flow. Therefore, less than significant impacts required to fire flow water
supply would result from project implementation.
Level of Significance Before Mitigation
Less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required.
Level of Significance After Mitigation
Impacts were determined to be less than significant before mitigation.
Adequate Capacity for Wastewater Treatment
Impact 4.9-4 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.
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 712 people (which is an increase of 52 additional seats over the Opening
School Day Services held in September of each year, reaching 660 attendees at the September 17,
Michae/Brandman Associates 4.9-15
H-\Client(PN-IN)�3771\37710001�EIR\9-DEIR�37710001 Sec04-09 Utils Svc Syadoc
��
Sa/em Lutheran Church and School Specific Plan `�'
Utilities and Service Systems Draft E/R
i�
2007 service). Therefore,the proposed project may reyuire the expansion of existing treahnent ��
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 and is used to pay for improvements in the efficiency and effectiveness of OCSD
�
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 Operations
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.
�
Long-term Operations �
The proposed project involves the development of a new worship building with the capacity to house „�
712 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 adeyuate
wastewater treatment capacity during the long-term operational phase would result. �
.�
Leve/of Significance Before Mitigation
�
Less than significant.
�
Mitigation Measures ,,,�
No mitigation measures are required.
�
Level of Significance After Mitigation �
Impacts were determined to be less than significant before mitigation.
�
�
�
�
�
�
�.
�
�
�
4.9-16 Michael Brandman Associates �
H_\Client(PN-JN)�3771\37710001�EIR\9-DEIR\37710001 Sec04-09 Utils Svc Sys.doc
I�a.
Sa/em Lutheran Church and Schoo/Specific Plan
Draft EIR Cumu/ative Impacts
SECTION 5: CUMULATIYE IMPACTS
5.1 - Introduction and Summary of Cumulative Impacts
Cumulative impacts describe the potential changes in environmental conditions that result from the
incremental impact of the proposed project added to the impacts from other past, present, and
probable future projects.
Pursuant to Guidelines Section 15130, a Draft EIR shall discuss the cumulative impacts of a project
when the project's incremental effect is cumulatively considerable as defined in section 15065(a)(3)
which states:
The project has possible environmental effects that are individually limited but
cumulatively considerable. Cumulatively considerable means that the incremental
effects of an individual project are significant when viewed in connection with the
effects of past projects,the effects of other of past projects,the effects of other
current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.
Guidelines Section 15130 further states that an adequate discussion of cumulative impacts necessarily
includes the following elements:
(A)A list of past, present, and probable future projects producing related or cumulative impacts,
including, if necessary,those projects outside the control of the agency, or
(B) A summary of projections contained in an adopted general plan or related planning
document.
Table 5-] summarizes cumulative impacts of the proposed project when combined with Related
Projects. The following environmental topics were evaluated in the Initial Study: Agricultural and
Forestry Resources, Geology and Soils, Mineral Resources, Population and Housing, Public Services,
and Recreation.
Michae/Brandman Associates 5_�
H\Client(PN-IN)�3771\3�'710001�EIIt\9-DEIR\37710001 Sec05-00 Cumulative.doc
!�
Salem Lutheran Church and School Specifc P/an `�
Cumu/ative Impacts Draft E/R
i�
Table 5-1: Cumulative Impact Comparison i,�;
Proposed Project , Cumulative Impacts with �"�
Environmental Issue � Impacts Related Projects
__ i .w
Aesthetics LTS LTCC
�
Agricultural and Forestry Resources NI LTCC
�
Air Quality LTS LTCC
Biological Resources NI LTCC '�
Cultural Resources NI LTCC °i"�
Geology and Soils NI LTCC �,,,
Greenhouse Gas Emissions LTS LTCC „�;
Hazards LTS LTCC
�
Hydrology and Water Quality LTS LTCC
rr�
Land Use Planning LTS LTCC
Mineral Resources NI LTCC �
Noise LTS-M LTCC �""'
Population and Housing NI LTCC �
Public Services NI LTCC r�
Recreation NI LTCC
�
Transportation and Circulation LTS LTCC
��
Utilities LTS LTCC
�
Abbreviations:
NI=no impact r�
LTS=less than significant without mitigation
LTS-M—less than significant with mitigation �,
SIG=significant and unavoidable
LTCC=less than cumulatively considerable �
CC=cumulatively considerable
�
�<
5.2 - Related Projects
�
Related projects considered in the cumulative analysis include projects known to the City that, when �
combined with the proposed project, have the potential to result in cumulative impacts. �
The City's list of pending applications was reviewed to determine if any similar projects, project �
located in close proximity to the project site, or both, had the potential to result in cumulative �
impacts. Table 5-2 provides details of the related projects. �
�
�.
�
�r�
5-2 Michael Brandman Associates �
H:\Client(PN-IN)�3771\37710001�E11t\9-DEIR\37710001 Sec05-0OCumulative.doc
�
Salem Lutheran Church and Schoo/Specific Plan
Draft E/R Cumulative/mpacts
Table 5-2: Related Projects
, Distance
From
, Project
Related Project � Land Use Description Status Site
_ a _ _ _ _
Immanuel Church Kitchen and storage Approved by Design Review 3.00 miles
Lutheran room expansion Committee on August 4,2010
Church
St. John Maron Church Expand office area Application submitted and Site 4.00 miles
Church 14,667 sq. ft. Review Committee on August 4,
2010,and Planning Commission
on September 8,2010(tentative
date)
Coptic Orthodox Church Expand church and Planning Commission on June 1, 1.00 miles
Church outdoor gathering area 2009, and Phase I of parking of
under construction
Ridgeline Residential 39 lots and ride-in only Planning Commission approval 0.75 miles
Equestrian equestrian arena on June 7,2010. City Council
Estates hearing anticipated in 2010.
Rio Santiago Mixed-Use Maximum of 265 unit Notice of Preparation published 030 miles
senior complex, on April 8,2011,
maximum of 130
single-family
residences,private
recreational land uses,
and 48 gross acres of
dedicated natural open
space
Peltzer Ranch Agriculture Tree and shrub farm Planning Commission continued 1.00 miles
to September 20,2010.
Source: City of Orange,Community Development Department,Planning Division,List of Pending Applications.August
19,201Q Rio Santiago Notice of Preparation,2011.
5.3 - Cumulative Impacts
The analysis in this section addresses each of the topical environmental factors referenced in the State
CEQA Guidelines. The analysis first summarizes proposed project impacts at the project-level detail
and then discusses impacts that would result when those impacts,whether significant or less than
significant, are combined with anticipated impacts from the related projects. Finally, the analysis
considers whether the proposed project's contribution to a potentially significant impact is
cumulatively considerable.
5.3.1 -Aesthetics
Introduction - Aesthetic impacts relate to scenic vistas, scenic resources,visual character, and new
sources of light and glare.
Michael Brandman Associates 5-3
H�\Client(PN-IN)�3771\37710001�EIR\9-DEIIL\37710001 Sec05-OOCumulative.doc
�
Sa/em Lutheran Church and Schoo/Specific P/an ""'
Cumu/ative/mpacts Draft E/R
�
Proposed Project- Implementation of the proposed project would not result in significant and �.
unavoidable impacts related to this topical environmental issue. All of the impacts were less than
�
significant.
�,
Analysis - Each of the related projects 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 r
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
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. �
,�
Conclusion - Impacts are less than cumulatively considerable and therefore, less than cumulative
significant. "�''
��
Level of Significance Before Mitigation: No impact.
;�
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is necessary. ,.,�
��
Level of Significance After Mitigation: No impact.
��
5.3.2 -Agriculture and Forestry Resources ,��
Introduction - Impacts to Agriculture and Forestry Resources relate to the loss of agricultural and
s,�.
forestry lands, conflicts with Prime or Unique Farmland, conflicts to lands enrolled within the
��
Williamson Act, and lands zoned for agriculture and forestry.
��
Proposed Project-No impacts to this topical issue were identified. g,#;,
Analysis- 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.
,�
5-4 Michae/Brandman Associates „�
H�.\Client(PN-1N)U771\37710001�EII2\9-DEIli\37710001 Sec05-OOCumulative.doc
i�:,.
Sa/em Lutheran Church and Schoo/Specific Plan
Draft E/R Cumulative/mpacts
Conclusion - Impacts are less than cumulatively considerable and therefore, less than cumulative
significant.
Level of Significance Before Mitigation: No impact.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is necessary.
Level of Significance After Mitigation: No impact.
5.3.3 -Air Quality
Introduction- Air quality impacts relate to the potential for violating air quality significance
thresholds established by the SCAQMD dealing with the project emissions generated during
construction and operation,to the exposure of sensitive receptors to pollutant concentrations and to
the creation of objectionable odors.
Proposed Project- Implementation of the proposed project would not result in significant and
unavoidable impacts related to this topical environmental issue. All of the impacts were less than
significant before mitigation.
Analysis - 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.
Conclusion- Impacts are less than cumulatively considerable and therefore, less than cumulative
significant.
Level of Significance Before Mitigation: No impact.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is necessary.
Level of Significance After Mitigation: No impact.
Michae/Brandman Associates 5-5
H-\Client(PN-JN)�3771\37710001�EIIL\9-DEIlt\37710001 Sec05-00 Ctimulative.doc
��
Sa/em Lutheran Church and Schoo/Specific P/an '�`II
Cumu/ative/mpacts Draft E/R
i�
5.3.4 - Biological Resources „�
Introduction-This section addresses cumulative impacts related to special status species, habitats, �,
riparian areas, wetlands, movement of any migratory species, local policies related to protection of
�
biological resources, and conformance with habitat conservation programs.
�
Proposed Project-No impacts to this topical issue were identified. ,�
Analysis - 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, no incremental impacts would result from adding the proposed ,,,.,
project to this related project.
Conclusion - Impacts are less than cumulatively considerable and therefore, less than cumulative ��
significant. ,�;.
Level of Significance Before Mitigation: No impact. "'"�
��
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is necessary.
,�
Level of Significance After Mitigation: No impact. '�'
��
5.3.5 - Cultural Resources
a�
Introduction -This section addresses potential impacts to historical structures and archeological and
paleontological resources. '�"'
iilC-
Proposed Project-No impacts to this topical issue were identified.
��
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, no incremental impacts would result from adding the proposed project to this
,�,,
related project.
��
Conclusion- Impacts are less than cumulatively considerable and therefore, less than cumulative ,�f
significant.
��
Level of Significance Before Mitigation: No impact. '�
��
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is necessary.
��
Level of Significance After Mitigation: No impact. ,,,�
s,�
5-6 Michae/Brandman Associates ,�
H�\Client(PN-JN)\3771\37710001�EIIL�9-DEQt\37710001 Sec05-OOCumulative.doc
i�
Salem Lutheran Church and School Specific P/an
Draft E/R Cumu/ative/mpacts
5.3.6 -Geology and Soils
Introduction - Geology and soils impacts relate to geologic events such as the rupture of a known
earthquake fault, seismic ground shaking, seismic-related ground failure including liquefaction,
landslides, erosion, and loss of topsoil,unstable geologic units, expansive soils, or soils incapable of
supporting septic systems.
Proposed Project-No impacts to this topical issue were identified.
Analysis - 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 this related project.
Conclusion- Impacts are less than cumulatively considerable and therefore, less than cumulative
significant.
Level of Significance Before Mitigation: No impact.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is necessary.
Level of Significance After Mitigation: No impact.
5.3.7 - Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Introduction - Impacts from Greenhouse Gas Emissions relate to analyzing emissions and conflicts
with applicable plans,policies, and regulations.
Proposed Project- Implementation of the proposed project would not result in significant and
unavoidable impacts related to this topical environmental issue. All of the impacts were less than
significant and did not require mitigation.
Analysis - Each of the related projects would be required to analyze the contribution to Greenhouse
Gas emissions in accordance with the City's Interim Guidance memo on Greenhouse Gas. Because
the proposed project did not result in any cumulative impacts related to greenhouse gas emissions and
did not require mitigation measures, adding the proposed project to the related projects would not
result in incremental impacts.
Conclusion - Impacts are less than cumulatively considerable and therefore, less than cumulative
significant.
Level of Signifcance Before Mitigation: No impact.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is necessary.
Michael8randman Associates 5-7
H:\Clien[(PN-JN)�3771\37710001�EIIt\9-DEIR\37710001 Sec05-00 Cumulative doc
,�
Salem Lutheran Church and School Specific P/an �'
Cumu/ative/mpacts Draft E/R
,s�r
Level of Significance After Mitigation: No impact. ,�,;
5.3.8 - Hazards and Hazardous Materials ""�
Introduction - Hazards and hazardous materials impacts relate to creating a significant public hazard �
through the routine transport,use or disposal of hazardous materials,the accidental release of �
hazardous materials into the environment, emit hazardous materials within one-quarter mile of an �x
existing or proposed school,the presence of hazardous materials onsite, exposure to airport hazards,
�
interference with an adopted emergency response plan, and exposure to wildland fires.
�
Proposed Project- Less than significant impacts to this topical issue were identified. �
Analysis - Each of the related projects would be reyuired 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 this related project.
�
Conclusion- Impacts are less than cumulatively considerable and therefore, less than cumulative �
significant. �
Level of Significance Before Mitigation: No impact. ��
�
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is necessary.
�
Level of Significance After Mitigation: No impact. +�
5.3.9 - Hydrology and Water Quality """
Introduction - Hydrology and water quality impacts relate to the potential for violation of water `�"'
quality standards, depletion of groundwater supplies, alteration of existing drainage patterns on the �
site and surrounding area, create excess starm water run-off, degrade water quality, placement of „�
structures within flood zones, exposure from dam failure, and increased erosion.
�
Proposed Project- 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.
�
Analysis - Each ofthe 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 ar any of the related projects, no incremental impacts
�:
would result from adding the proposed project to this related project.
�
�.
5-8 Michael Brandman Associates �
H�.\Client(PN-JN)�3771\37710001�E[R\9-DEIR\37710001 Sec05-OOCumulative.doc
ia%F
Salem Lutheran Church and Schoo/Specific P/an
Drafi E/R Cumu/ative Impacts
Conclusion- Impacts are less than cumulatively considerable and therefore, less than cumulative
significant.
Level of Significance Before Mitigation: No impact.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is necessary.
Level of Significance After Mitigation: No impact.
5.3.10 - Land Use and Planning
Introduction - Land use impacts relate to physically dividing an existing community, conflicting with
applicable land use plans, and conflicting with habitat conservation plans.
Proposed Project- Implementation of the proposed project would not result in significant and
� unavoidable impacts related to this topical environmental issue.
Analysis - 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 this related project.
Conclusion-Impacts are less than cumulatively considerable and therefore, less than cumulative
significant.
Level of Significance Before Mitigation: No impact.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is necessary.
Level of Significance After Mitigation: No impact.
5.3.11 - Mineral Resources
Introduction - Mineral resources relate to the loss of a known mineral source of value and the loss of
a mineral source delineated on a general plan.
Proposed Project- Implementation of the proposed project would not result in any impacts.
Analysis -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 this related project.
Michae/Brandman Associates 5-9
H:\Client(PN-]N)�3771\37710001�EIR\9-DEIIL\37710001 Sec05-00 Cumulative.doc
r�
Salem Lutheran Church and Schoo/Specific P/an "�'
Cumu/ative/mpacts Drafi E/R
��
Conclusion- Impacts are less than cumulatively considerable and therefore, less than cumulative ,,;�
significant.
,e�
Level of Significance Before Mitigation: No impact. "�"
,�
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is necessary.
Level of Significance After Mitigation: No impact. ,,,�
��
5.3.12 - Noise
Introduction-Noise impacts relate to exposing persons to generation of noise levels above '""
applicable standards, excessive groundborne vibration and noise levels, increasing temporary or �'°
permanent ambient noise levels above applicable standards and exposing persons to noise from ,�,
airport-related noise.
�
Proposed Project- All of the impacts were either less than significant before mitigation or would ��
result in less than significant impacts after implementation of the recommended mitigation measures. „�
Analysis - 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, would be less than
��
significant ar 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. First,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. Second,the traffic-generated noise from the Rio Santiago related �`
project when combined with the proposed project would not result in incremental impacts because the '�
proposed project would result in a decrease 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 `�"
.�
�
5-10 Michae/Brandman Associates �,
H:\Client(PN-JN)13771\3771000I�EIIi\9-DEIIt\37710001 Sec05-OOCumulative.doc
�-
Sa/em Lutheran Church and School Specific Plan
Draft EIR Cumu/ative Impacts
the proposed project to the three church related projects would not result in incremental impacts
related to interiar noise.
Conclusion- Impacts are less than cumulatively considerable and therefore, less than cumulative
significant.
Level of Significance Before Mitigation: No impact.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is necessary.
Level of Significance After Mitigation: No impact.
5.3.13 - Population and Housing
Introduction- Population and housing impacts relate to the inducement of substantial population
growth and the displacement of substantial numbers of people or substantial numbers of housing
units. The Initial Study concluded that no significant impacts to Population and Housing would result
from project implementation.
Proposed Project- Less than significant impacts to this topical issue were identified.
Analysis - 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 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 incremental impacts would result from adding the
proposed project to this related project.
Conclusion- Impacts are less than cumulatively considerable and therefore, less than cumulative
significant.
Level of Significance Before Mitigation: No impact.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is necessary.
Level of Significance After Mitigation: No impact.
5.3.14 - Public Services
Introduction - Public service impacts are related to the provision of new or altered public facilities to
provide police, fire, recreation, and other governmental services.
Michae/Brandman Associates 5_��
H:\Client(PN-JN)�3771\37710001�E[R\9-DEIIt\37710001 Sec05-OOCumulative.doc
��
Salem Lutheran Church and Schoo/Specific P/an ''�`
Cumulative Impacts Draft EIR
�wr
Proposed Project-Less than significant impacts to this topical issue were identified. �,
Analysis- Each of the related projects has the potential 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 this related project.
�
Conclusion-Impacts are less than cumulatively considerable and therefore, less than cumulative �
significant. „�
�
Level of Significance Before Mitigation: No impact.
�
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is necessary.
�
Levei of Significance After Mitigation: No impact. �
�.
5.3.15 - Recreation
Introduction- Recreation impacts are related to impacts from increased use of neighborhood and �
regional facilities and construction of recreational facilities. "�
�
Proposed Project- Less than significant impacts to this topical issue were identified.
�
Analysis - Both the Ridgeline Equestrian Estates and Rio Santiago related projects includes 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
�
incremental impacts would result from adding the proposed project to this related project.
�:
Conclusion- Impacts are less than cumulatively considerable and therefore, less than cumulative ,�
significant.
�
Level of Significance Before Mitigation: No impact. !�'"
��
5-12 Michael Brandman Associates ,,,�,
H�.\Client(PN-IN)�3771\37710001�EIIL\9-DEIR\37710001 Sec05-00Cumulative.doc
+�
Sa/em Lutheran Church and Schoo/Specific P/an
Draft E/R Cumulative Impacts
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is necessary.
Level of Significance After Mitigation: No impact.
5.3.16 - Transportation and Traffic
Introduction - Transportation and traffic addresses the impacts of the project on roadway and
intersection capacity and level of service, as well as road hazards, emergency access and plans for
alternative transportation.
Proposed Project- Less than significant impacts to this topical issue were identified.
Analysis - Each of the relate 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 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.
Conclusion - Impacts are less than cumulatively considerable and therefore, less than cumulative
significant.
Level of Significance Before Mitigation: No impact.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is necessary.
Level of Significance After Mitigation: No impact.
5.3.17 - Utilities and Service Systems
Introduction - Utilities and service systems addresses the impacts of the project on the provision of
wastewater treatment services,provision of adequate water supplies, construction of storm water
drainage facilities, and landfill capacity.
Proposed Project- Less than significant impacts to this topical issue were identified.
Analysis - Each of the related projects has the potential 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
Michael8randman Associates 5-13
H.\Client(PN-JN)�3771\37710001�EIEt\9-DEIR\37710001 Sec05-OOCumulative.doc
�
Salem Lutheran Church and School Specific P/an '�""
Cumulative/mpacts Draft EIR
��
utilities or 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 this related project. �'
�
Condusion-Impacts are less than cumulatively considerable and therefore, less than cumulative
.�
significant.
�
Level of Significance Before Mitigation: No impact. ,�,
�
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is necessary.
�
Level of Significance After Mitigation: No impact.
�,
�
�
�
�
�
�.
�
�
�
�
,�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
5-14 Michael Brandman Associates �
H�.\Client(PN-JN)�3771\37710001�EIIt\9-DEIIt\37710001 Sec05-OOCumulativedoc
iipe
Salem Lutheran Church and School Specific P/an Growth/nducing,Unavoidable Adverse,
Draft E/R and Irreversib/e Impacts
SECTION 6: GROWTH INDUCING, UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE, AND
IRREVERSIBLE IMPACTS
6.1 - Growth-Inducing Impacts
As discussed in more detail in Section 9, Other Long Term Implications, the project will not have any
growth inducing impacts because the project does not affect economic or population growth, and does
not involve the construction of additional housing, either directly or indirectly, in the surrounding
environment. The proposed project is a redesign of the church and school uses that have existed on
site for over 40 years. Refer to Section 9, Other Long-Term Implications, for additional information.
6.2 - Unavoidable Adverse Impacts
A Draft EIR must disclose the significant unavoidable impacts that will result from implementation of
a proposed project. Moreover, Guidelines Section 15126(b)states that a Draft EIR should explain the
implications of such impacts and the reasons why the project is being proposed, notwithstanding such
impacts. Implementation of the project would result in the alteration of the physical environment.
The proposed project includes mitigation measures that either reduce or eliminate potentially
significant impacts to a level below significance.
After implementation of the proposed project, it has been determined that the following topical
environmental issue can be feasibly mitigated below the level of significance:
• Noise
The following topical environmental issues were below the level of significance and did not require
mitigation:
• Aesthetics
• Air Quality
• Greenhouse Gas Emissions
• Hazards and Hazardous Materials
• Hydrology and Water Quality
• Land Use and Planning
• Transportation and Traffic
• Utilities and Service Systems
No environmental issues remain significant and unavoidable after implementation of the proposed
� project.
Michae/Brandman Associates g_�
H-\Client(PN-JN)�3771\37710001�EIIt\9-DEIR�37710001 Sec06-00 Gnvth Unavoid.doc
Growth Inducing, Unavoidable Adverse, Salem Lutheran Church and School Specific Plan
and Irreversible Impacts Draft E/R
��
Agriculture and Forest Resources, Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Geology and Soils, �.
Mineral Resources, Population and Housing, Public Services and Recreation were evaluated in the
�
Initial Study and determined to be less than significant and did not require mitigation measures.
6.3 - Irreversible Impacts �
�
As discussed in more detail in Section 9, Other Long Term Implications,the project will have
irreversible impacts on the environment. Approval and implementation of the actions related to the '�
implementation of the project would result in an irretrievable commitment of non-renewable •
resources. Environmental changes associated with the implementation of the proposed project result ,,,�
in alterations of the physical environment. Refer to Section 9 for additional information.
�
�
�
�;
�
�
�
�.;
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
��t
g_y Michael Brandman Associates ,�
H�.\Client(PN-.iN)\3771\37710001�EIIt\9-DEIIt\37710001 Sec06-00 Gnvth Unavoid.doc
�w
Sa/em Lutheran Church and Schoo/Specific Plan
Draft E/R A/tematives to the Project
SECTION 7: ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROJECT
7.1 - Introduction
The Guidelines require Draft EIR to describe a range of alternatives to the proposed project, or to the
location of the proposed project, which would feasibly achieve most of the basic project objectives,
but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects identified in the analysis. A
Draft EIR is not required to consider every conceivable alternative to a proposed project. Rather, a
Draft EIR must consider a reasonable range of alternatives that are potentially feasible; a Draft EIR is
not required to consider infeasible alternatives.
Alternatives must be considered even if they would impede, to some degree, the attainment of project
objectives or be more costly. The determination of feasibility of project alternatives may include, but
not be limited to, factors such as site suitability, economic viability, infrastructure, plan consistency,
regulatory and jurisdictional limitations, and control of an alternative site, if applicable.
The analysis contained in this section compares each of the alternatives to the proposed project, and
includes an analysis of each alternative with respect to each of the topical environmental issues
evaluated for the proposed project. In addition,the analysis of alternatives includes the assumption
that all applicable mitigation measures associated with the proposed project would be implemented
with an alternative, where applicable. However, applicable mitigation measures may be scaled to
reduce or avoid the potential impacts of the alternative under consideration, and may not precisely
match those identified for the proposed project.
The analysis in this section is guided by the fact that the Salem Lutheran Church and School is an
existing, permitted land use that will remain in operation. The Salem Specific Plan represents a
redesign of the existing, onsite uses and does not propose new uses. There will be no changes to the
school uses that currently exist. The redesign is intended to accommodate the growing congregation
by integrating existing uses with the construction of a new worship center resulting in a site plan with
more efficient traffic flow, increased parking, and improved infrastructure. Based on the analysis
contained in this section,the Environmentally Superior Alternative is the proposed project because all
of the alternatives identified greater impacts when compared to the proposed project.
The alternatives section provides a description of the alternatives (Section 7.2), conclusion summaries
of each alternative (Section 7.3), a tabular comparison of alternatives to the proposed project, by
topical environmental issue (Section 7.4), and a tabular comparison of alternatives to the proposed
� project(Section 7.5).
Michae/Brandman Associates 7_�
H�.\Client(PN-JN)\3771\37710001�EQL\9-DEIR\37710001 Sec07-00 Altematives.doc
��
Sa/em Lutheran Church and School Specifc Plan `�"
Alternatives to the Project Draft EIR
A�
7.2 - Alternatives Identified for Evaluation and Reasons for Including Selected i�
Alternatives
,�
The following three alternatives have been identified for evaluation: �$
�
• No Project Alternative -No Development
• Design Review Committee Land Use Plan of May 5,2006
• Single Access Alternative �"�'
Following is a description of each alternative and a discussion of the reasons for including these �
alternatives.
7.2.1 - No Project Alternative - No Development Alternative �
The discussion and evaluation of a No Project Alternative is required by the Guidelines. Therefore, ��
the City has an obligation to comply with the provisions of CEQA by discussing and evaluating this
�
alternative. This alternative provides a comparison between the environmental impacts of the
�
proposed project contrasted with the environmental impacts as if the project were not proposed.
�
The unique nature of this analysis is that existing church and school uses currently approved and �
operating on the site are in fact viable and will remain ongoing, in essence the no project alternative.
The proposed project that is being submitted by the applicant is merely a redesign of existing uses on �"`
�
the property.
�
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 driveway off """
Santiago Canyon Road, proposed enhancements to Frank Lane, and the increased number of parking �»
spaces 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. In the "No Project"alternative the Orange Park "�"
Boulevard/Frank Lane intersection providing the only access to the site, and the existing uses �
currently approved and operating on the site will remain ongoing,which include: ,,,�
• Two classroom buildings(Classroom Buildings B and C) supporting kindergarten through ��
eighth grade and daycare ""�
• A preschool building including pre-kindergarten ��
• A multipurpose building ,�
• A grass multipurpose field _,_
• 153 paved parking spaces
�
• Two basketball courts within the main parking lot
7.y Michael Brandman Associates �
H\Client(PN-JN)�3771\37710001�EIIt\9-DEIIt\37710001 Sec07-00 Altematives doc
��-
Sa/em Lutheran Church and School Specific Plan
Draft E/R Altematives to the Project
• Two playgrounds (within preschool and east of the main parking lot)
• A 180-seat sanctuary building
The"No Project"alternative would result in the negative 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 this document), and in subsequent discussions, would not be addressed, including the
following:
1. Ingress/egress is needed off of Santiago Canyon Road although constraints were
acknowledged. (Note: Linscott, Law and Greenspan's August 20, 2010"Traffic Impact and
Parking Demand Analysis" indicates that approximately 40 percent of church traffic is
estimated to use the proposed access off of Santiago Canyon Road, greatly reducing traffic
volumes on Frank Lane. During weekday AM peak hours future conditions with the
proposed access off of Santiago Canyon Road are expected to result in better levels of service
at Orange Park Boulevard/Santiago Canyon Road and Orange Park Boulevard/Frank Lane,
greatly reducing traffic volumes using Frank Lane.)
2. Traffic congestion on Orange Park Boulevard during student drop-off and pick-up times and
impact to resident's accessibility to their homes.
3. During peak usage Salem Lutheran visitors use both lanes (church and residential) for entry.
Residents want unencumbered access on Frank Lane at all times.
4. The existing configuration of Frank Lane results in traffic conflicts at peak usage during
school and church activity.
As such, denial of the project resulting in the continuation of the operation of Salem Lutheran Church
and School in its current state, as per this alternative, would eliminate the benefit of resolving the
following neighbor concerns:
1. Existing configuration of Frank Lane results in traffic conflicts at peak usage during school
and church activity.
2. During peak periods Salem visitors utilize both lanes for entry.
3. Neighbors want the right to unencumbered access on Frank Lane at all times.
4. Parents picking up students congest and block Orange Park Boulevard causing residents to
wait and sit in backed up traffic as well as neighbors trying to go home along Frank Lane.
5. Salem needs to clear cars parked along their white fence on their driveway before pickup
times so parked cars are not blocking the straight away.
Michae/Brandman Associates 7_3
H.\Client(PN-JN)\3771\37710001�EIIL\9-DE(R\377IOOOI Sec07-00 Alternatives.doc
R�
Salem Lutheran Church and School Specific P/an
Altematives to the Project Draft E/R
em•
6. In order to help parents follow school rules and not use Orange Park Boulevard as a cut- ,w_
through, have colored placards for Orange Park Acres residents only so they can turn right,
»
and all non-residents have a different colored placard so they will only be able to turn left.
Have a crossing guard at the corner directing traffic and monitoring this. x�
��
7. Salem needs ingress off Santiago (Canyon Road)although constraints were acknowledged.
8. Light covers not shielded- agreed to shield but no action taken.
��.
9. Salem needs to educate parents,teachers, staff, and children about respecting horses on the ;.�
street when driving through Orange Park Acres and other traffic rules.
�
10. Noise from playground is excessive - can be remedied by having adults on the field to
supervise children and fewer children at one time on field.
�
11. No basketball courts closer to homes- Keep activities away, shielded from homes. a�
Evaluation of the No Project Alternative -No Development will determine if any significant impacts �
identified with the proposed project would be eliminated or if any less than significant impacts would �'
be further reduced below the level of significance. �w
�
7.2.2 - Design Review Committee Land Use Plan of May 5, 2006 Alternative
Salem Lutheran Church and School has been conducting studies and analysis for the redesign of the '""�
existing campus and construction of a new worship center for several years in response to the growth �
of the congregation. A variety of plans have been prepared, analyzing access and internal circulation, ,,,�
parking,the location of the proposed worship center, relocation of the existing preschool to an
�
existing onsite vacant structure, and layout and distribution of the other existing uses. Beginning with
an early conceptual plan prepared in September 2004, numerous ongoing studies and analysis have '�
been prepared by architects, civil engineers,traffic engineers, and landscape architects to address and �"'
evaluate issues related to the campus redesign. +�
�
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: �µ�
�
• Raze the existing church facilities.
• Develop a new worship center that includes an 11,000 syuare foot sanctuary with 757 seats.
�
• 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 existing grass field for temporary overflow parking. �
7_q Michael Brandman Associates „�
H VClient(PN-JN)�3771 A37710001�EIltV9-DEIIt\37710001 Sec07-00 Altematives_doc
�,
Salem Lutheran Church and Schoo/Specific P/an
Draft EIR Altematives to the Project
• Convert the existing onsite vacant structure into a preschool and add a playground with
additional hardscaping.
• Retain the shared access from Frank Lane.
A review of the meeting minutes (Appendix C.1)revealed multiple concerns on the DRC Land Use
Plan raised by DRC committee members and the public that attended the meeting. These concerns
are summarized below.
Aesthetics - Aesthetics concerns related to the height of the proposed worship center to exceed the
height of the onsite structure and exceed the allowed height of the City Municipal Code. The
proposed worship center's ranch style buildings appears not to match any existing ranch style
buildings in the community due to the proposed massive sloping rooflines and high, continuous walls.
In addition,the proposed roof coloring was considered inconsistent with the goals and policies of the
Orange Park Acres Specific Plan. The proposed redesign would add additional lighting resulting
from increased attendance and vehicle lights, event lighting, and security lighting. This additional
lighting would conflict with the minimal ambient lighting characteristic of the Orange Park Acres
community. The proposed height of the parking lot lighting poles was also a concern. In addition,
the existing illuminated monument sign at Orange Park Boulevard and Frank Lane was determined to
result in "light trespass" into the residential homes and backyards along Gray Lane. Daytime and
nighttime glare reflecting from the proposed glass soundwall was considered a safety problem for
drivers.
Hydrology- Hydrology concerns related to the increased surface area, height, and slope of the
proposed warship center roof resulting in greater storm water runoff volume and rate onto Santiago
Canyon Road.
Land Use- Land use concerns related to moving the preschool from the existing location to the
existing onsite vacant structure and the precedent that would be created for similar actions in the
Orange Park Acres community. Increasing the classroom space might result in an increase in student
population that violates the provisions of the existing conditional use permit.
Noise-Noise concerns related to relocating the parking lot and playground closer to the residential
homes and backyards along Gray Lane as a result of the proposed location of the worship center,
resulting in noise impacts.
Traffic- Traffic concerns related to the proposed retention of Frank Lane as the only access point
that would create traffic conflicts between the residents and church/school traffic. The potential for
adequate staff parking was also raised as a concern.
In addition to the concerns raised in the DRC meeting as noted above, a communique from adjoining
neighbors to the applicant dated September 22, 2008(refer to Appendix C.2 of this document), and in
Michae/Brandman Associates 7-5
H\qieN(PN-.IN)\3771\37710001�EIIt\9-DEIR\37710001 Sec07-00 Altematives.doc
�
Sa/em Lutheran Church and School Specific P/an �"
A/tematives to the Project Draft EIR
�
subsequent discussions,the following concerns were expressed, which the DRC Land Use Plan did „�,:
not address:
�
L The existing configuration of Frank Lane results in traffic conflicts at peak usage during "�
school and church activity. �,
2. During peak usage Salem Lutheran visitors use both lanes (church and residential)for entry.
�
Residents want unencumbered access on Frank Lane at all times.
3. Traffic congestion on Orange Park Boulevard during student drop-off and pick-up times and �
impact to resident's accessibility to their homes. `�''
4. Ingress/egress is needed off of Santiago Canyon Road. „�.
5. The location of the proposed worship center closer to Frank Lane. �
Evaluation of the Design Review Committee Land Use Plan of May 5, 2006 Alternative considers the ,�,,
proximity of the worship center to Santiago Canyon Road, other land use distribution, and the single �*
vehicle access point requiring all traffic to and from the project site to use the Orange Park Boulevard
and Frank Lane intersection. "'�
�:
7.2.3 - 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 ��
now includes a dedicated right-turn lane into Frank Lane south of Santiago Canyon Road for church �.�
and school use (Exhibit 7-1). With the exception of eliminating the proposed driveway off Santiago
��
Canyon Road,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 �'�
��
As with the proposed project, all improvements and uses are located in the same general area as the
existing conditions with the exception of relocating the existing preschool to an existing vacant onsite '"'"�
structure. In addition to relocating the preschool, improvements would include construction of the ��
new worship center, improvements to Frank Lane to provide physically separated travel lanes for *,,,,�
resident-only use and church/school use via a raised median with decorative split rail fence or
b��
pavement markers (Botts' Dots)placed on the roadway in the same location, and internal circulation
parking improvements. °'""
��
.�
.�
�'s Michae/Brandman Associates ��,,
H:AClient(PN-JN)13771�37710001�EIlt\9-DEIlL�37710001 Sec07-00 Alternatives.doc
aw:
� � a�
0
+� (0 U w
j � ` LL�
j 'C � ul Q
� w aa
�
�
� fn O�
k f� �F
x
U
Z
U o�
Q Q O
. . . -- . �- �� � �
- _>
_.-
—
� �z
C �w
--- ------- ------ ---- ----- '------------ --�--------- (� _
� ..�.�-- - �--
- _. __ . -- ---
�--- -—_—_---� I � Q
=--t -- �
� w
F =
� � � —��j� i > >
i �_ '? i�� ���'�!TT'iT"I T' �f—�- ' I '; w
�: � i i Tl ''_
h-- j —1 {� I._ _ - a
� 4 I� �
� _ I ` j _ •
� ��I II ', I I� I, � f I � I� I� � a I - C7
. � � -_
i II � � � �
¢
---{ � I
�� l- � .- I ' �� —{ � �� � � __ -� O
I I II I
. I
. o i e. _ �!�_Li1 L�1L� � '' i �i�_L1_L111111� J � I i o
o i � i �`
F z i - � �I -� �_ � i
Z � � ` �---=i ` ,� �: � i =
� � � �
o j , — I I � � I I�I -�� �( i
� �r - ' — � I.
� / —1- I i .
�� i � .. ,.�. ,
r t
Q 1n � � � ,;� � r �-�-h,' � � I -
, `� �' � � � �_—���, - ,�� _ , ����-� � -
� _
� ; �� � �� . � � i � � _ _
e � � � � —_- � Il. i -
�� �i I� i
�
� .-- . ,� -
- ` � I I I' I I I I I ! j � ..l4 I J 9 � I I ��—��.� �I � _�
.� � �i L I I � I ''y���, �'I.� I 1 .� � I ..
� -�� ..- . _ z o0 \ . f� iI i i i�_, .
� . � _
. ; _ � � ,II � � , � _
i �' v /'/ i.pI i _
� j II � /� � I� -
i - - � /\, i I i =
% - � � /� _� I: I �
i �i� - � � � �� � � � �
� I I _
� j� � Z \�. .� ���l � aa �, i i1'_ j __
; ; __ _ -� .�o � � ;�.��- �� __ g � ;��; I
% i � � -- ��� x \��� �fi � ,,� �
; -- .. � . ; w� _ 1�� - ��� �� �— i� i ii
, ; .�� _.1�..��.���--- ��- �
% % � - �-I �i � - _
� � � �i � -
; � o � � � �
% � ��!� � , i : � _
' % \ ��° ; �i � -
4 I� I _
� % �� t� I
� ��� e< * _ �,;,�-� � �� !� F ='
� \F�«� I\ � I111'U��`�`�it�� �� � . . -
�� � j���j i� � i �j i =
��
�I '�;'ll II ! I � ! III�I��`�� � �_= • -
-� -- �,�,���__���_, =—- �- � _;
'nl';JJJ��" �; �
�i i
� � .
r � �i i , _ -
� �i i
-- o _ �� i
- �� �I I
tl° MI j
III I :.
� 1I I
I;i i
� : � ii i' tl «
�J �i I, -
t pi �-:
�I i�__ �
' v' x
s:.` E
rt - _ � �
f: = N >
'. W
_' a �
`m
��.11-I��I�-6'_F� �\d\� 0�.-t9t-G�t .�.It �I
V\1'i1.3 S1F�9 1:39d,L5 4.\t;Id IF.HFI - � � �
=r
3
�'o
J C N
� ����
� �0�8
g =o
m ��%�
�
�.
�
�
�
�
�
�.
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
��
�
��
�,�.
,�
�
��
e�
i�
��
d�
�R9la
I@$
IA#�C
��
Salem Lutheran Church and Schoo/Specific Plan
Draft EIR Altematives to the Project
In the neighborhood meetings leading up to the proposed project, a number of concerns were
discussed and memorialized in a September 22, 2008 e-mail to the applicant's representative(refer to
Appendix C.2 of this document). Neighborhood concerns included the following issues:
1. The existing configuration of Frank Lane results in traffic conflicts at peak usage during
school and church activity.
2. During peak usage Salem Lutheran visitors use both lanes (church and residential) for entry.
Residents want unencumbered access on Frank Lane at all times.
3. Traffic congestion on Orange Park Boulevard during student drop-off and pick-up times and
impact to resident's accessibility to their homes.
4. Ingress/egress is needed off of Santiago Canyon Road.
5. The location of the proposed worship center closer to Frank Lane.
The Single Access Alternative would address most of the concerns raised by the neighbors in the
September 22, 2008 e-mail (Appendix C.2). The proposed worship center would be located in the
same general area as the existing sanctuary and preschool away from Santiago Canyon Road.
Proposed improvements to Frank Lane would provide Frank Lane resident's unobstructed access 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. A raised median with decorative split rail fence or pavement
markers(Botts' Dots)placed on the roadway in the same location would separate the resident lanes (2
lanes)from the church/school lanes(2-4 lanes). A 44-foot wide private drive for Salem Church and
School will include 2 to 4 travel lanes with adjoining parking(inbound versus outbound usage of the
lanes and allowance for parking depends on the day of the week,time of day, or both). Internal
circulation and parking would be improved to allow for more efficient traffic movement during
school day drop-off and pick-up periods.
Neighbor concerns pertaining to parking along Frank Lane during school drip-off and pick-up,
colored placards to control resident/non-resident turning onto Orange Park Boulevard, light shields,
etc., can be addressed in this alternative.
The"Single Access Alternative"does not address the following issue pertaining to Orange Park
Boulevard and the need for access off Santiago Canyon Road as stated in the September 22, 2008 e-
mail:
• Ingress/egress is needed off Santiago Canyon Road.
For reference, Linscott,Law and Greenspan's August 20, 2010 traffic report entitled"Traffic Impact
and Parking Demand Analysis" indicates that approximately 40 percent of church traffic is estimated
to use the proposed access off of Santiago Canyon Road, greatly reducing traffic volumes on Frank
Lane. During weekday AM peak hours future conditions with the proposed access off of Santiago
Michael Brandman Associates 7-9
H�.\Client(PN-JN)U771\37710001�EfR\9-DEIR\37710001 Sec07-00 Alternatives.doc
�
Sa/em Lutheran Church and Schoo/Specific P/an `'�''
A/tematives to the Project Draft E/R
�
Canyon Road are expected to result in better levels of service at the Orange Park Boulevard/Santiago ,�
Canyon Road and Orange Park Boulevard/Frank Lane intersections, greatly reducing traffic volumes
using Frank Lane. In the absence of the proposed driveway off Santiago Canyon Road, the Single �
Access Alternative would continue to direct all ingress and egress traffic onto Orange Park �
Boulevard, Frank Lane, and the associated intersection. The levels of service on weekdays would �*
remain the same as the existing conditions and the level of service on Sundays would remain LOS B �
or better. Table 7-1 Sunday AM Peak Hour Levels of Service with the dedicated right-turn travel
�
lane.
�,,
Evaluation of the Single Access Alternative will determine if any significant impacts identified with ,�,
the proposed project should be eliminated or if any less than significant impacts would be further ,�,
reduced below the level of significance.
�
7.3 - Conclusion Summaries and Environmentally Superior Alternative �
�
The following discussion summarizes each alternative based on the results of Table 7-3 of this
section. "'�
��
No Project - No Development Alternative
��
The No Project-No Development Alternative would result in greater impacts than the proposed
project related to the following six topical environmental issues: Aesthetics, Air Quality, Greenhouse "�
Gas, Hydrology/Water Quality, Transportation/Traffic, and Utilities/Service Systems. No significant "�
and unavoidable impacts are anticipated under this alternative. Additionally,this alternative does not ,,,�
address the concerns identified by the adjacent neighbors in their September 22, 2008 communique to
�<�;
the applicant(Appendix C.2) regarding Frank Lane, Orange Park Boulevard and access off of
Santiago Canyon Road. """
s.�
Design Review Committee Land Use Alternative of May 5, 2006
e�
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. No '""
significant and unavoidable impacts are anticipated under this alternative. 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.
��
Single Access Alternative ��,
The Single Access Alternative would result in greater impacts for the following four topical ��
environmental issues: Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas,Noise, and Transportation/Traffic. No
��
significant and unavoidable impacts are anticipated under this alternative. Additionally, this
alternative does not address the concerns identified by the adjacent neighbors in a September 22, "�"
��
7�10 Michael Brandman Associates ,�,
HiClient(PN-JN)�3771�37710001�EIIt�9-DEIR\37710001 Sec07-00 AI[emativesdoc
illy:.
Salem Lutheran Church and School Specific Plan
Draft EIR Altematives to the Project
2008 e-mail to the applicant's representative as describe in section 7.2.3 regarding Orange Park
Boulevard and access off of Santiago Canyon Road.
Environmentally Superior Alternative
Based on the analysis contained in this section,the Environmentally Superior Alternative is the
proposed project because all of the alternatives identified greater impacts when compared to the
proposed project.
Michael Brandman Associates �'��
H-\Client(PN-JN)�3771\37710001�EIIi\9-DEIR�37710001 Sec07-00 Altemativesdoc
�
�;
�
m
o � c ' O ¢ � �
� � d �
a�� �' _ �
ac �
� �r� ; o ��m �, � �;
�• Q ,e : � �— > ' � �
°� ; C) Q�� o
.► �
:�
...,._ ,�
W
O �� O Q r� �
' c eo
`� _
m� �° ,� �'
� 'o o �= o mrn�.m �
•� a !; �g a� a i � d d� °; N ..�
� c U_ Q�v o
O ;a ._ . _ _._.__ . ,�.
H � '
� �K ' �
W �, (A
J � C Gi�;, ; � Q f� �,
O O V C
7 ` � 1C0 � `.._. _
O t0 ; d'fl �
�� = m ac �, m y � r�
�W Y } ' � �, � Cly.� a��
4� ta �4 = � � � > � � � r�w
,�p a �...,; U >0 a�i o '" y �
a � a a' �¢ '�
y O _ _ Q o
�+ �
0
O G�1 � � ��
� GI ! C 41� ' � Q Q� �o
C C � C 41 m� I�
� �' ! a� � , . _ _ __ ��
v �ra
� •O p CCl Q' a„ m Z vo
m�
V a ;, .t Q� � ��zA�� ,.�,� o �� ,wa
�: U >LJ d O o
y � : Q v o s�ia
t � �
.. a �
' � __ =
� � �■.
d w' O Q Q ?
� y � C! I J
y �j O C a .;�:
N �:. �__.._ . ._.._ ___ �
� � X ` d u
Q m W p Ol�+m \o ca'i = eu�
� } % _ ��� M � c�d
�° C) >0 d O °, c �,�.
c a ;� �
� � .,�
N _ o
L � � L �--�
� �--� fieYE
1� O ¢ ¢ R O
d = � � N i.
� Y 'O 'O r � �eaw
l0 �y
� a � � y a�i
V] V] � � „�
°' z_____ _ ;
o � � ��
� �
� � _ _
�. � � w��
.� � ,Y `
� � b c�
� o � � � o
o v i c"c � � '23 eet
d� d a " �
� '> 'O "1 •�.� ..�,
+�.. C W Cq � o,o
w � s'�. 's�. G� � vvi
� � � � i N � !e�
i Y °" � a" � o°...�
«. � p � 3 0
E � � � .? � °' L ��,
� �
Q OU OL zHv°� � ��.
�
MMIa.
Salem Lutheran Church and School Specific Plan
Draft EIR Altematives to the Project
7.4 - Project Alternative Comparison
Table 7-2 below compares the impacts of the proposed project to each alternative arranged by topical
environmental issue. Following this table, Table 7-3 summarizes the results of Table 7-2.
Table 7-2: Alternative Impact Comparison by Topical Environmental Issue
Altemative Compa�ison
Aesthetics
Proposed Project Under the proposed project,the features incorporated into the project
design do not result in aesthetic impacts related to visual characteristics
and new sources of light and glare to a less than significant level during
the long-terrr►operational phase. Negative aesthetic elements associated
with the construction phase are temporary in nature,would be removed
after construction and result in less than significant impacts.
Implementation of the proposed project would not result in significant
and unavoidable impacts related to the Aesthetics topical environmental
issue.
Summary: Under the proposed project,all potentially significant
impacts were determined to be less than significant and do
not require mitigation measures.
No Project-No Development The No Project-No Development Alternative would result in greater
impacts compared to the proposed project because the redesign provides
for a more efficient and aesthetically balanced site design that would
enhance the visual character of the site. The additional trees and Frank
Lane enhancements would provide a better integration with the
surrounding visual characteristics of the Orange Park Acres community.
No impacts would result during the construction period because no
construction activities are proposed.
Conclusion: Impacts would be greater under the No Project-No
Development Alternative.
Design Review Committee The Design Review Committee Land Use Plan of May 5,2006
Land Use Plan of May 5,2006 Alternative would result in greater impacts because the proposed worship
� center would be placed nearly adjacent to Santiago Canyon Road and
close to Orange Park Boulevard resulting in greater building"massing"
and visual impacts. Negative aesthetic elements associated with the
construction phase are temporary in nature,would be removed after
construction and result in less than significant impacts.
Conclusion: Impacts would be greater under the Design Review
Committee Land Use Plan of May 5,2006 Alternative.
Single Access Alternative Under the Single Access Alternative,the proposed driveway off Santiago
Canyon Road would not be constructed;all other components of the
proposed project would be implemented. Impacts to Aesthetics would be
nearly identical to the proposed project Negative aesthetic elements
associated with the construction phase are temporary in nature,would be
removed after construction and result in less than significant impacts.
Conclusion: Impacts would be similar under the Single Access
Alternative.
Michael Brandman Associates 7'13
H.\Client(PN-IN)�3771\37710001�EIR\9-DEIIt�37710001 Sec07-OOAltematives.doc
�
Sa/em Lutheran Church and Schoo/Specific P/an
A/ternatives to the Project Drafi E/R
�
Table 7-2 (cont.):Alternative Impact Comparison by Topical Environmental Issue �_
_ _
_
Altemative t Comparison """'°
_
Air Quality �„
Proposed Project Under the proposed project,potential air quality impacts during the short- �
term construction phase of the proposed project related to site clearing
grading,and infrasriucture installation would result. Potential long-term •
operational impacts relate to the proposed redesign,considered stationary
sources,and vehicle trips. '"'�
Implementation of the proposed project would not resuit in significant ��
and unavoidable impacts related to the Air Quality topical environmental
issue. �""°
Summary: Under the proposed project,all of the impacts were
determined to less than significant and do not require ,,,�
mitigation.
No Project-No Development Under the No Project-No Development Alternative,air quality �
Alternative emissions would increase during the long-term operational phase �,
compared to the proposed project because site access improvements(i.e.
the addition of an access point off of Santiago Canyon Road)would not '"�'
be made and the additional parking spaces would net be created. This
would result in more vehicle queuing at the Orange Park '�
Boulevard/Frank Lane intersection and idling from inefficient onsite �,
vehicle circulation. Under this alternative,potential air quality impacts
would be less than the proposed project during the short-term ��
construction period because no construction activities would occur.
,�
Conclusion: Impacts would be greater under the No Project-No
Development Alternative during the long-term operational ,�
phase.
��
Design Review Committee Under the Design Review Committee Land Use Plan of May 5,2006
Land Use Plan of May 5,2006 Alternative, air quality emissions would be slightly worse compared to „■,
the proposed project because more vehicle queuing and idling would
occur,which would slightly increase emissions. Air quality impacts '�
during the short-term construction period would be similar to the
proposed project. �!`
��,
Conclusion: Impacts would be greater under the Design Review
Committee Land Use Plan of May 5,2006 Aiternative. ,,,�
Single Access Alternative Under the Single Access Alternative,air quality emissions would k�
increase compared to the proposed project due to increased vehicle
queuing and idling as all vehicular traffic would be via the Orange Park ,■,
Boulevard/Frank Lane intersection. In addition, onsite circulation would
be less efficient than the proposed project resulting in increased �*"
emissions. Air quality impacts during the short-term construction period
would be similar to the proposed project. '"�
Conclusion: Impacts would be greater under the Single Access °���
Alternative.
x��.�
��
7-14 Michae/Brandman Associates �,,,,
H\Gient(PN-JN)\3771�37710001�EIIt\9-DEIIi\37710001 Sec07-00 Alternatives doc �
a,;;
Salem Lutheran Church and School Specific Plan
Drafi E/R A/tematives to the Project
Table 7-2 (cont.):Alternative Impact Comparison by Topical Environmental Issue
Altemative Comparison
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Proposed Project Under the proposed project,potential greenhouse gas impacts during the
short-term construction phase of the proposed project related to site
building demolition,clearing,grading,asphalt paving,building
construction and architectural coating,and infrastructure installation
would result. Potential long-term operational impacts relate to motor
vehicle trips,electricity usage, and refrigerants.
Impacts related to greenhouse gas emissions effecting global climate
change were evaluated and determined to be too speculative to quantify
and are considered to be de minimis on a global scale. The City's Interim
Guidance for Greenhouse Gas Analysis uses a threshold of]0,000 metric
tons per year of COZ to determine the significance of an individual
project's contribution to GHG emissions. The City's guidance states that
� if an individual project generates GHG emissions below this threshold,it
is acceptable to conclude that GHG emissions are generated,but do not
result in a cumulative considerable contribution to GHGs or global
warming. Design features incorporated into the proposed project and
retention of existing features adjacent to the project site do not result in
potential conflicts with existing greenhouse gas plans and policies.
Implementation of the proposed project would not result in significant
and unavoidable impacts related to the Greenhouse Gas topical
environmental issue.
Summary: Under the proposed project,all of the impacts were
determined to be less than significant and did not require
mitigation.
No Project-No Development Under the No Project-No Development Alternative, impacts related to
Alternative greenhouse gas emissions would be less than the proposed project
because no site improvements or construction of additional development
would occur during the short-term construction phase. Under this
alternative,potential impacts to greenhouse gas emissions during the
long-term operational phase would be greater because none of the
proposed features incorporated into the project would be implemented.
Under this alternative,potentia]greenhouse gas impacts would be less
than the proposed project during the short-term construction period
because no construction activities would occur.
Conclusion: Impacts would be greater under the No Project-No
Development Alternative during the long-term operational
phase.
Design Review Committee Under the Design Review Committee Land Use Plan of May 5,2006
Land Use Plan of May 5,2006 Alternative, impacts related to green house gas would be greater than the
proposed project because of the additional vehicle queuing and associated
increase emissions from the proposed project Greenhouse gas impacts
during the short-term construction period would be similar to the
proposed project.
Conclusion: Impacts would be greater during the long-term operational
period under the Design Review Committee Land Use
Plan of May 5,2006 Alternative.
Michae/Brandman Associates 7-15
H�.\Client(PN-IN)\3771\37710001�E[R\9-DE[R�i7710001 Sec07-00 Alterna[ives doc
�,,.,
Sa/em Lutheran Church and Schoo/Specifc P/an
A/tematives to the Project Draft EIR
m��
Table 7-2 (cont.): Alternative Impact Comparison by Topical Environmental Issue u::>
_ _
_
Altemative � Comparison ,"�,
_ _ ,
_ .__
Single Access Alternative Under the Single Access Alternative, impacts related to greenhouse gas '^'�
would increase when compared to the proposed project because of the
increased vehicle emissions resulting from additional vehicle idling and a �""`
less efficient internal vehicle circulation system. Greenhouse gas impacts „�,
during the short-term construction period would be similar to the
proposed project. „�,
Conclusion: Impacts would be greater during the long-term operational
period under the Single Access Alternative. �����
Hazards and Hazardous Materials „„�
Proposed Project Under the proposed project,potential impacts would be related to the use ,
and storage of small quantities of potentially hazardous materials in the
form of cleaning solvents and pesticides during the long-term operational ,,,�,
phase and construction materials during the short-term construction
period. However,such materiais would be contained, stored, and used in �
accordance with manufacturers' instructions and handled in compliance
with applicable standards and regulations. Potential impacts were also "'"
related to the potential impacts from wildland fire exposure. �
Implementation of the proposed project would not result in significant
and unavoidable impacts related to the Hazards and Hazardous Materials `""�
topical environmental issue. �
Summary: Under the proposed project,all potentially significant
impacts were determined to be less than significant and did '"""
not require mitigation. #�
No Project-No Development Under the No Project-No Development Alternative,potentially
Alternative hazardous materials that would be used during the construction phase of "�"
the proposed project(such as vehicle fuels,oils,and transmission fluids) „��„
would not be brought on site because no construction would occur.
During the long-term operational phase, similar household hazardous „�,
wastes would be used. Exposure of persons or structures from wildland
fires would also be similar. �--
Conclusion: Impacts would be less under the No Project-No ��
Development Alternative during the short-term
construction phase but similar during the long-term «�"
operational phase.
e�ar
Design Review Committee Under the Design Review Committee Land Use Plan of May 5,2006
Land Use Plan of May 5,2006 Alternative,the same mandatory requirements regarding the use and ""`
storage of potentially hazardous cleaning materials and pesticides would
be required. In addition,the risk of exposure from wildland fires would ��"
not be different. Quantities of hazardous materials similar to the �;,�
proposed project would be used during the construction phase.
Conclusion: Impacts would be similar under Design Review �'�
Committee Land Use Plan of May 5,2006 Alternative. .�,�
e�-
b�
�"�s Michael Brandman Associates A�„
H\Client(PN-JN)\3771�37710001�EIIt\9-DEIIt\37710001 Sec07-00Alternatives.doc
��,
Salem Lutheran Church and School Specific P/an
Draft EIR A/tematives to the Project
Table 7-2 (cont.): Alternative Impact Comparison by Topical Environmental Issue
Altierna�ve Comparison
Single Access Alternative Under the Single Access Alternative,the same mandatory requirements
regarding the use and storage of potentially hazardous cleaning materials
and pesticides would be required. In addition,the risk of exposure from
wildland fires would be the same. Quantities of hazardous materials
similar to the proposed project would be used during the construction
phase.
Conclusion: Impacts would be similar under the Single Access
Alternative.
Hydrology and Water Quality
Proposed Project Under the proposed project,a new integrated storm water conveyance
and water quality system would be installed and integrated into the site
� development. With the proposed project,runoffrates will remain similar
to the existing conditions(within 5%)and the onsite drainage pattern will
be slightly altered to reduce localized flooding of Frank Lane. Under the
proposed conditions,the majority of the site drainage(approximately 5.6
acres),will be directed towards E. Santiago Canyon Road to reduce
- flooding along Frank Lane. The new system would maintain existing
volumes and rates of stortnwater into Handy Creek and provide onsite
water quality treatment via treatment mechanisms such as infiltration
structure,pervious pavement,permeable pavement, and porous
landscaping. The proposed project includes Low Impact Development
(LID)features such as bioretention without underdrains,porous
landscaping,subsurface infiltration galleries,permeable asphalt,
permeable concrete,and permeable concrete pavers,which will reduce
run-off and aid with water quality during the long-term operational phase.
Additionally,the proposed project is classified as a Priority Project,and
as such,the project's BMPs shall be focused on infiltration,harvest, and
evapotransiration in an effort to reduce,minimize,and eliminate
pollutants. Preparation of a mandatory Storm Water Pollution Prevention
Plan would address potential hydrology and water quality impacts during
the short-term construction period.
Implementation of the proposed project would not result in significant
and unavoidable impacts related to the Hydrology and Water Quality
topical environmental issue.
Summary: Under the proposed project,all of the impacts are less than
significant and did not require mitigation.
No Project-No Development Under the No Project-No Development Alternative,the project site
Alternative would continue to convey untreated storm water directly from the project
site into Handy Creek via private properties to the west of the site. In
addition,under this alternative the minor offsite flooding on properties to
the west of the site would continue. No short-term impacts to hydrology
and water quality because no development activities are proposed.
Conclusion: Impacts would be greater under the No Project-No
Development Alternative.
Michael8randman Associates �-��
H�.\Client(PN-JN)�3771\37710001�EIIt\9-DEIIL�37710001 Sec07-OOAlternatives.doc
Sa/em Lutheran Church and Schoo/Specific P/an
A/tematives to the Project Draft E/R
�
Table 7-2 (cont.): Alternative Impact Comparison by Topical Environmental Issue
_
__ . _ _
Aitemative Comparison '�'
. __
Design Review Committee Under the Design Review Committee Land Use Plan of May 5,2006
Land Use Plan of May 5,2006 Alternative,the installation of an onsite storm water conveyance system
and water quality system similar to that of the proposed project would be
constructed. Similar to the proposed project,storm water would be
collected and infiltrated onsite and conveyed offsite into Handy Geek.
Similar to the proposed project,a Storm Water Pollutant Prevention Plan �
would be implemented during the construction phase.
Conclusion: Impacts would be greater under the Design Review �
Committee Land Use Plan of May 5,2006 Alternative .��-
during the long-term operational period.
Single Access Alternative Under the Single Access Alternative,the installation of an onsite storm
water conveyance system and water quality system similar to that of the ,�»
proposed project would likely be constructed. Similar to the proposed
project, storm water would be collected and infiltrated onsite and ��`
conveyed offsite into Handy Creek. Similar to the proposed project,a
Storm Water Pollutant Prevention Plan would be implemented during the '"""�
construction phase. „�
Conclusion: Impacts would be similar under the Single Access
Alternative during the long-term operational period. �""
Land Use and Planning �°
Proposed Project The Orange Park Acres Specific Plan(OPASP)designates the site as ,,,�„
Public&Quasi-Public and the City General Plan Land Use Element
designates the site Estate Low Density Residential. The proposed project �"'
is consistent with all the applicable policies in every element of the City's
General Plan,as well as the OPASP and the City Master Plan of �
Recreational Trails. The project proposes a Specific Plan and change of ,
zone to SP-PI(Specific Plan/Public Institutional). The proposed project
provides the same existing permitted uses currently approved on the site. „�,
No new uses are proposed. Upon adoption of the specific plan and zone
change,the proposed would continue to be consistent with the City ���-
Zoning Code during the long-term operational phase. Potential
significant impacts during the short-term construction phase would not '""°
occur.
na�
Implementation of the proposed project would not result in significant „�,
and unavoidable impacts related to the Land Use and Planning topical
environmental issue. �-
Summary: Under the proposed project, all of the impacts were „�.
determined to be less than significant and do not require
mitigation. �-�
No Project-No Development Under the No Project-No Development Alternative,the existing land ,�
Alternative uses would remain consistent with the existing City General Plan land
use designation and associated zoning classification,and OPASP land �'
use designation. No changes in zoning classifications or land use
designations are required for the construction phase. '�'
Conclusion: Impacts would be similar under the No Project-No `
Development Alternative.
�,
7-18 Michae/Brandman Associates ,�„�,
H�.\Client(PN-.TN)�3771�37710001�EIR\9-DEIIt\37J10001 Sec07-OOAlternatives.doc
�>
Salem Lutheran Church and Schoo/Specif►c Plan
Draft EIR Aliematives to the Project
Table 7-2 (cont.):Alternative Impact Comparison by Topical Environmental Issue
Altemative Comparison
.
Design Review Committee Under the Design Review Committee Land Use Plan of May 5,2006
Land Use Plan of May 5,2006 Alternative,the worship center would be located closer to Santiago
Canyon Road and Orange Park Boulevard. This has no bearing on land
use and planning and the project's consistency regarding land use and
planning would be the same as with the proposed project. No changes in
zoning classifications or land use designations are required for the
construction phase.
Conclusion: Impacts would be similar under the Design Review
Committee Land Use Plan of May 5,2006 Alternative.
Single Access Alternative Under the Single Access Alternative,the proposed improvements to
Frank Lane associated with the proposed project would remain.
However,the proposed driveway off Santiago Canyon Road would not
be constructed. This has no bearing on land use and planning and the
project's consistency regarding land use and planning. No changes in
zoning classifications or land use designations are required for the
construction phase.
Conclusion: Impacts would be similar under the Single Access
Alternative.
Noise
Proposed Project Under the proposed project,the redesign of the existing church and
school facility would result in the introduction of noise associated with
temporary construction activities and the long-term operation of the
expanded sanctuary and redesigned site plan.
Implementation of the proposed project would not result in significant
and unavoidable impacts related to this topical environmenta]issue.
Summary: Under the proposed project,all of the impacts were
determined to be either less than significant before mitigation
or would result in less than significant impacts after
implementation of the recommended mitigation measures.
No Project-No Development Under the No Project-No Development Alternative,the noise associated
Alternative with the existing activities would continue;however,because the
sanctuary would not be expanded and the preschool not relocated and
thus,would not have an increased capacity,noise levels are anticipated to
be slightly less. However,under this alternative,the proposed driveway
off Santiago Canyon Road, improvements to Frank Lane and onsite
circulation and parking improvements would not occur thereby
continuing the existing noise levels associate with vehicular activity
during the long-term operational phase. Because no development is
proposed,no short-term construction noise impacts would result.
Conclusion: Impacts would be similar under the No Project-No
Development.
Design Review Committee Under the Design Review Committee Land Use Plan of May 5,2006
Land Use Plan of May 5,2006 Alternative,greater noise related impacts than the proposed project
would result because the traffic flow to and from the site would only be
via the Frank Lane and Orange Park Boulevard intersections. Whereas,
under the proposed project,the access point from Santiago Canyon Road
Michael Brandman Associates 7�19
H-\Client(PN-JN)�3771\37710001�E11t\9-DEIILU7710001 Sec07-00 Alternatives.doc
�
Sa/em Lutheran Church and Schoo/Specific Plan `
A/tematives to the Project DraR E/R
�
Table 7-2 (cont.):Alternative Impact Comparison by Topical Environmental Issue
_
, _ _ _ _
' Altemative Comparison ""�'
_ _
would decrease the amount of traffic at the Orange Park Boulevard and °
Frank Lane intersections,which are closest to the nearby residential and
uses. In addition,the arrangement of the existing Multipurpose Building
and Classroom Buildings B and C and proposed worship center would
reflect and concentrate noise generated on the basketball and play areas
adjacent to Frank Lane and direct that sound to the residential uses south �,
of Frank Lane. Potential noise impacts from construction activities
associated with the proposed project would be greater that this alternative �
but would cease after construction is completed.
�
Conclusion: Impacts would be greater under the Design Review
Committee Land Use Plan of May 5,2006 Alternative.
Single Access Alternative Under the Single Access Alternative the proposed driveway off Santiago �,.
Canyon Road would not be constructed resulting in all vehicular traffic
using Frank Lane. In addition,the single access point would decrease �"
onsite circulation efficiency. Together this would result in an increase in
noise levels above that of the proposed project. Potential noise impacts �
from construction activities associated with the proposed project would „�,
be greater that this alternative but would cease after construction is
completed. ,�„
Conclusion: Impacts would be greater under the Single Access ,�
Alternative.
Transportation and Traffic +�
Proposed Project Under the proposed project,a driveway off Santiago Canyon Road would �
be added and improvements would be made to Frank Lane,which would
separate the church/school traffic from the residential traffic during the '�`
long-term operational phase. This redesign of the project site would ,,,�,
improve traffic flow on site and will result in a decrease in traffic
congestion at the Orange Park Boulevard and Frank Lane intersection. ;,,,
Traffic associated with the short-term construction period would not
resu(t in traffic disruptions. ���=�
Implementation of the proposed project would not result in significant �,e
and unavoidable impacts related to the Transportation and Traffic topical
environmental issue.
,�
Summary: Under the proposed project, all of the impacts were ��
determined to less than significant and did not require
mitigation. '�'�
No Project-No Development Under the No Project-No Development Alternative,the existing traffic ��
Alternative congestion would not be alleviated at the Orange Park Boulevard/Frank
Lane intersection and onsite circulation would continue to be congested `�"
and residential versus church/school traffic conflicts would continue. No
construction related traffic impacts would occur because development is ��"
not proposed. ,,,
Conclusion: Impacts would be greater under the No Project-No �
Development Alternative. ��
,�„
7"20 Michae/Brandman Associates R,�,
H:\Client(PN-JN)�3771�377IOOO1�EIIt\9-DEIR\3771000]Sec07-00 Altematives.doc
a�-.
Salem Lutheran Church and Schoo/Specific Plan
Draft EIR A/fematives to the Project
Table 7-2 (cont.): Alternative Impact Comparison by Topical Environmental Issue
_ _
Alternative " Comparison
_ _
Design Review Committee Under the Design Review Committee Land Use Plan of May 5,2006
Land Use Plan of May 5,2006 Alternative,the existing site entrance from Frank Lane would be retained
but improved with two closely spaced but separate driveways and raised
median and fence providing resident lanes(2 lanes)and church/school
]anes(2-4 lanes). In addition,the single access point would decrease
onsite circulation efficiency. However,the proposed driveway access off
Santiago Canyon Road would not be constructed resulting in greater
impacts(i.e.,reduced levels of service)at both the Orange Park
Boulevard/Frank Lane and Orange Park Boulevard/Santiago Canyon
Road intersections. Traffic impacts would also be greater under this
alternative during the construction period due to construction vehicles
also using the single access point resulting in construction vehicle
conflicts with church/school vehicles, and vehicles accessing the
residences south and west of the site.
�� Conclusion: Impacts would be greater under the Design Review
Committee Land Use Plan of May 5,2006 Alternative for
both the construction period and long-term operational
- phase.
Single Access Alternative Under the Single Access Alternative the proposed driveway off Santiago
Canyon Road would not be constructed resulting in all vehicular traffic
�- using Frank Lane, In addition,the single access point would decrease
onsite circulation efficiency. Together this would result in an increase in
vehicle congestion above that of the proposed project consri-ucted
resulting in greater impacts(i.e.,reduced levels of service)at both the
Orange Park Boulevard/Frank Lane and Orange Park Boulevard/Santiago
Canyon Road intersections.. Traffic impacts would also be greater under
this alternative during the construction period due to construction
� vehicles also using the single access point resulting in construction
vehicle conflicts with church/school vehicles,and vehicles accessing the
residences south and west of the site.
Conclusion: Impacts would be greater under the Single Access
Alternative for both the construction period and long-term
operational phase.
Utilities and Service Systems
Proposed Project Under the proposed project,a new integrated storm water conveyance
and water quality system would be installed and integrated into the site
development thereby reducing storm water discharge volume and rate
into Handy Creek and provide onsite water quality treatment. The
proposed project includes Low Impact Development(LID)features such
as permeable pavements, the turfed parking/multipurpose field,and
water-conserving landscapes will reduce run-off and aid with water
quality during the long-term operational phase. Wastewater service and
water supply infrastructure would continue to serve the site as before.
Implementation of the proposed project would not result in significant
and unavoidable impacts related to the Utilities and Service Systems
topical environmental issue.
Summary: Under the proposed project,all of the impacts were
determined to less than significant and did not require
mitigation.
Michael Brandman Associates 7-21
H�.\Client(PN-JN)�3771\37710001�EIIt\9-DEIIL�37710001 Sec07-00 Alcernatives doc
��
Sa/em Lutheran Church and Schoo/Specific P/an
A/tematives to the Project Draft E/R
�
Table 7-2 (cont.): Alternative Impact Comparison by Topical Environmental Issue ..
_ _
Altemative Comparison `�
. _ __ _
_
No Project-No Development Under the No Project-No Development Alternative, storm water flows �'�
Alternative would continue to discharge offsite to the west onto adjacent properties
and the occasional flooding would not be eliminated. Under this '"°'
alternative,potentially significant impacts related to water and _
wastewater treatment capacity and conveyance facilities would be greater
to the proposed project. Because no development is proposed,no short- ,�,
term construction impacts to utilities and service systems would result.
Conclusion: Impacts would be greater under the No Project-No
Development Alternative. ,�„
Design Review Committee Under the Design Review Committee Land Use Plan of May 5,2006
Land Use Plan of May 5,2006 Alternative, all of the proposed uses would be the same except the
proposed driveway off Santiago Canyon Road. Impacts would be similar ,�
to the proposed project during the construction period.
,�.
Conclusion: Impacts would be similar under the Design Review
Committee Land Use Plan of May 5,2006 Alternative. ""
Single Access Alternative Under the Single Access Alternative, all of the proposed uses would be �`"
the same except the proposed driveway off Santiago Canyon Road.
Impacts would be similar to the proposed project during the construction "�`
period. �
Impacts would be similar under the Single Access Alternative. ,,,,,,
.�
Table 7-3 below summarizes Table 7-2 by providing a side-by-side comparison of the impact *+�
significance level of the proposed project with the impact significance level of each alternative �
according to the following two levels of analysis.
�
Level 1 This comparison level assumes the post-mitigation condition of the proposed project "'""
and the same feasible mitigation measures and project requirements are available and ,,,�
able to be implemented for each alternative. �
Leve12 The comparison rating level assigns a Less, Same, or Greater impact significance `"
rating. The Leve12 rating indicates that, although the alternative also has less than +�
significant impacts, when compared relatively to the proposed project, impacts are �
deemed to be less than the proposed project(Less), approximately the same as the
�
proposed project(Similar), or Greater than the proposed project(Greater).
�
Refer to Section 4 of this Draft EIR for a detailed discussion of each topical environmental issue. �,;
�
�
��22 Michae/Brandman Associates �,
H\Client(PN-IN)�3771�37710001�EIItV9-DEIIL\37710001 Sec07-00 Alternatives.doc
�
Sa/em Lutheran Church and Schoo/Specifc Plan
Draft E/R Altematives to fhe Project
Table 7-3: Impact Summary Comparison of Project Alternatives
Alternatives
__ __
__ ___ __
Design Revlew
No Project- Committee Land Use Single Access
P��� No Deveiopment Plan of May 5,2006 ! Altemative
_. __ .
Topical Environmentai Issue Project Level 1 Level 2 Level 1 � Level 2 Leve11 Leve12
Aesthetics � LTS LTS Greater LTS Greater LTS Similar
Air Quality LTS LTS Greater LTS Greater LTS Greater
Greenhouse Gas Emissions LTS LTS Greater LTS Greater LTS Greater
Hazards and Hazardous Materials LTS LTS Less LTS Similar LTS Similar
Hydrology and Water Quality LTS LTS Greater LTS Greater LTS Similar
Land Use and Planning LTS LTS Similar LTS Similar LTS Similar
Noise LTS-M LTS Similar LTS Greater LTS Greater
Transportation and Traffic LTS LTS Greater LTS Greater LTS Greater
Utilities and Service Systems LTS LTS Greater LTS Similar LTS Similar
Abbreviations:
LTS=Less Than Significant LTS-M=Less Than Significant with Mitigation
Source: Michael Brandman Associates,June 2011.
7.5 - Project Objective Feasibility Summary
A project alternative must be able to feasibly attain most of the objectives of the proposed project.
Table 7-4 provides this feasibility by comparing each alternative to each objective and stating
whether any of the three alternatives would or would not attain the basic objectives identified in
Section 3.3, Project Description. For clarity and ease of reference,the objectives are repeated in this
table.
Table 7-4: Project Objective Feasibility Comparison
Project Altematives
Design Review
Committee Land
Project Ob ective No Project- Use Plan of May 5, Single Access
j No Development 2006 Altemative
OBJ-l. Attain the most suitable land use pattern
for the campus with a functional and aesthetic
relationship of facilities while being responsive to No No No
the concerns and wishes expressed by surrounding
residences and the City of Orange.
OBJ-2. Ensure the quality appearance for Salem
Church Campus with consistent design and visual
improvements blending proposed facilities with No No Yes
existing facilities,thus continuing the visual
character and appeal of the existing faciliry.
Michae/Brandman Associates �-23
H.\Client(PN-IN)�3771\37710001�EIR\9-DEIILU7710001 Sec07-OOAltematives.doc
�.
Salem Lutheran Church and Schoo/Specific P/an
Altematives to the Project Draft E/R
�F
Table 7-4(cont.): Project Objective Feasibility Comparison
R,�,
Project Aitematives
— _. _ _ _
� Design Review , �-
! Committee Land ;
Project Objective No Project- Use Plan of May 5, '� Single Access •��
__
No Development 2006 , Altemative
__ _
OBJ-3. Have an efficient internal circulation
system to alleviate unnecessary project-related �
traffic overflow onto adjacent streets while No No No
ensuring the functional access and parking needs
of the campus.
�
OBJ-4. Maintain comparable onsite open space
and recreational amenities of the campus while No Yes Yes �
meeting the programmatic needs.
OBJ-5. Provide a comprehensive,well-rounded �
master plan for the properiy that addresses No No No �
environmental,water quality, drainage,circulation
and public facilities and services. �
OBJ-6. Create a water quality and drainage �--
system that minimizes the impact to offsite
receiving waters and ensures that runoff from No Yes Yes �
smaller events is infiltrated or otherwise addressed
as applicable,before entering Handy Creek and �
Santiago Creek.
�
OBJ-7. Incorporate sustainable design techniques No No Yes �
into the redesign plans for the campus.
Notes: �
Yes=the alternative would attain the objective. No=the alternative would not attain the objective.
Source: Michael Brandman Associates,June 201 L �
,�
�
�■o
,we
��
•,+�
��
�'24 Michael8randman Associafes ��
HiClient(PN-JN)\3771�37710001�EIIt\9-DEIIt\37710001 SecA7-OOAlternatives.doc
z.�;-
Sa/em Lutheran Church and School Specific Plan
Draft EIR Significant and Unavoidable Impacts
SECTION 8: SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS
A Draft EIR must disclose the significant unavoidable impacts that will result from implementation of
a proposed project. Moreover, Guidelines Section 15126(b) states that a Draft EIR should explain the
implications of such impacts and the reasons why the project is being proposed, notwithstanding such
impacts. Implementation of the project would result in the alteration of the physical environment.
The proposed project includes mitigation measures that reduce potentially significant impacts to a
level below significance.
After implementation of the proposed project, it has been determined that the following topical
environmental issues were below the level of significance and did not require mitigation or can be
feasibly mitigated below the level of significance through mitigation:Noise.
The lnitial Study evaluated and determined the following topical environmental issues to be less than
� significant and did not require mitigation measures: Agricultural and Forestry Resources, Biological
Resources, Cultural Resources, Geology and Soils, Mineral Resources, Population and Housing,
Public Services, and Recreation.
Michael Brandman Associates 8-1
H�.\Client(PN-JN)\3771\37710001�EIIt\9-DEIR\37710001 Sec08-OOSi„vnificantUnavoidable.doc
�
�
««�,
.,x.,
�
�
�
�
�
�
,�
��
��
,�
r�u
��
Sa/em Lutheran Church and School Specific P/an
Draft EIR Oiher Long-Term/mplications
SECTION 9: OTHER LONG-TERM IMPLICATIONS
9.1 - Growth-Inducing Impacts
This section evaluates the potential for the proposed project to affect economic or population growth,
or the construction of additional housing, either directly or indirectly, in the surrounding environment.
There are two types of growth inducing impacts that a project may have: direct and indirect. To
assess the potential for growth-inducing impacts,the project's characteristics that may encourage and
facilitate activities that individually or cumulatively affect the environment must be evaluated.
Direct growth inducing impacts occur when the development of a project imposes new burdens on a
community by directly inducing population growth, or by leading to the construction of additional
developments in the same area. Also included in this category are projects that remove physical
obstacles to population growth, such as a new road into an undeveloped area or a wastewater
treatment plant with excess capacity that could allow additional development in the service area.
Construction of these types of infrastructure projects cannot be considered isolated from the
development they facilitate and serve. Projects that physically remove obstacles to growth, or
projects that indirectly induce growth are those, which may provide a catalyst for future unrelated
development in an area such as a new residential community that requires additional commercial uses
to support residents.
As discussed in Section 3 of this document,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. The existing
preschool will be relocated to the existing onsite vacant structure and 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 addition of a secondary access point off Santiago
Canyon Road is proposed. The proposed project is a redesign of the church and school uses that have
existed on site for over 40 years. The proposed 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).
9.2 - Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment to Resources
The environmental effects of the project are discussed in Section 4, Environmental Impact Analysis,
of this document. Implementation of the project would require the long-term commitment of natural
resources as described below.
Michael Brandman Associates 9-1
H�\Client(PN-IN)�3771\37710001�EIR\9-DEIItl3"/710001 Sec09-OOOtherLong-tertn.doc
Sa/em Lutheran Church and School Specific P/an
Other Long-Term/mplications Draft EIR
Approval and implementation of the actions related to the implementation of the project would result
in an irretrievable commitment of non-renewable resources such as energy supplies. The energy
resource demands will be used for construction activities, heating and cooling of buildings,
transportation of people and goods, as well as lighting and other energy associated needs.
Non-renewable resources will be committed primarily in the form of fossil fuels, and will include
fuel, oil, natural gas, and gasoline used by vehicles and equipment associated with the construction of
the project. Those resources include,but are not limited to, lumber and other forest products, sand '�
and gravel, photochemical construction materials, steel, copper, lead, and water.
�
Environmental changes associated with the implementation of the proposed project result in
alterations of the physical environment. If the proposed project is approved, and subsequently
implemented, new structures would be built, additional utilities would be constructed, and circulation �
improvements would be made. �
The commitment of resources and the levels of consumption associated with the proposed project are �
consistent with anticipated changes. Therefore,there is no particular justification for avoiding or �`"�
delaying the continued commitment of these resources. �
�
Appendix F of the Guidelines, revised in 20]0, requires consideration of the energy implications of a
project and the discussion of the potential energy impacts of a proposed project, with emphasis on �""
avoiding or reducing inefficient, wasteful, and unnecessary consumption of energy. The US Energy ��
Information Administration provides the following definition of energy: �
The capacity for doing work as measured by the capability of doing work(potential energy) s"�
or the conversion of this capability to motion (kinetic energy). Energy has several forms, �•
some of which are easily convertible and can be changed to another form useful for work. �
Most of the world's convertible energy comes from fossil fuels that are burned to produce
�
heat that is then used as a transfer medium to mechanical or other means in order to
�,;
accomplish tasks. Heat energy is usually measured in British thermal units (Btu).
�
Energy sources are classified as either nonrenewable or renewable. Nonrenewable sources are
derived from fossil fuels and include coal, natural gas, petroleum (crude oil), and uranium (nuclear �*
energy). Renewable energy sources include solar,wind, geothermal, hydroelectric, and biomass. �'
2010 California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen)
�
The California Green Building Standards Code, also referred to as the CALGreen Code. The
w,«,
California Green Building Standards Code is Part 1] of 12 parts of the official compilation and
publication of the adoption, amendment, and repeal of building regulations to the California Code of """�
Regulations, Title 24, also referred to as the California Building Standards Code. More specifically,
the 2010 California Green Building Standards Code is part of the California Code of Regulations, ,,,�
9-2 Michael8randman Associates ,,,�„
H:AClient(PN-JN)�3771A37710001�IItV9-DEIIt\37710001 SecA9-00OtherLong-term.doc
Salem Lutheran Church and School Specific Plan
Drafi EIR Other Long-Term Implications
Title 24, Part 11. The California Building Standards Code is published in its entirety every three
years by order of the California Legislature (California Building Standards Commission 201 Oa).
Cities and counties are required by state law to enforce the California Code of Regulations(CCR)
Title 24. Cities and counties may adopt ordinances with more restrictive requirements than provided
by CCR Title 24, because of local climatic, geological, or topographical conditions. Such adoptions
and a finding of need statement must be filed with the California Building Standards Commission.
� The current edition of CCR Title 24 includes 12 parts. Part ll of which is the California
Green Building Standards Code (California Building Standards Commission 2010b).
The City adopted these standards in November 20]0.
With the mandatory implementation of the provisions CALGreen, implementation of the Salem
project would not result in the inefficient, wasteful, and unnecessary consumption of energy.
9.3 - Cumulative Impacts
Section 15130 of the Guidelines requires the consideration of cumulative impacts within a Draft EIR.
Cumulative impacts are defined as two or more individual effects which, when considered together,
are considerable or which, compound or increase other environmental impacts. The individual effects
may be changes resulting from a single project or a number of separate projects. The cumulative
impact from several projects is the change in the environment, which results from the incremental
impact of the project when added to other closely related past, present, and reasonably foreseeable
probable future projects. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively
�� significant projects taking place over time. Cumulative impacts are separately discussed in Section 5
of this document.
Michael Brandman Associates 9"3
HVClient(PN-TN)�3771A37710001�EIItV9-DEIIt�37710001 SecA9-00 Other Long-tertn doc
ou�ier
k':.+F+
�
� Y
�
�
�
�
M+4
�
R^«T:
�
I/!Nr
i�
!%Ar
{�.:
!�
l�PF
A�
kw'..
Salem Lutheran Church and Schoo/Specific Plan
Draft EIR Report Preparation Resources
SECTION 10: REPORT PREPARATION RESOURCES
10.1 - Draft EIR Preparation Personnel
Michael Brandman Associates
Principal-in-Charge ....................................................................................... Michael Brandman, Ph.D.
ProjectManager.............................................................................................................. Kevin Shannon
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Analysis............................................................. Vince Mirabella, MS
Environmental Analysis.........................Margaret F. Partridge, MURP, AICP, LEED Green Associate
SeniorEditor.................................................................................................................Sandra L. Tomlin
Graphics......................................................................................................................Karlee McCracken
Reprographics .....................................................................................................................Jose Morelos
Cole Forbes
Administration.........................................................................................................Daphne Ott de Vries
10.2 - Technical Subconsultants
FuscoeEngineering....................................................................................................Patrick Fuscoe, PE
Cal Woolsey,PE, PLS
Vista Environmental.................................................................................Greg Tonkovich, INCE, AICP
Linscott, Law & Greenspan..........................................................................................Keil Maberry, PE
Trissa(de Jesus)Allen, PE
Michael Madden Associates.....................................................................Michael Madden, MUP, MLA
Irwin Partners Architects...............................................................................Greg Irwin, AIA Associate
10.3 - Organizations and Persons Consulted
Elfend & Associates, Inc. ......................................................Franklyn Elfend, Chief Executive Officer
Law Offices of Carmen A. Morinello ..........................................................Carmen A. Morinello, Esq.
Michael Brandman Associates ��'�
U�\WPWIN\Client(PN-IN)\3771�37710001�EIR\9-DEIIt�37710001 Sec10-00 Report Prep-doc
Salem Lutheran Church and School Specifc Plan
Draft EIR References
SECTION 11: REFERENCES
California Building Standards Commission. 2010a. California Green Building Standards Code
2010. June.
California Building Standards Commission. 2010b. Guide to Title 24 California Building
Standards Code 2010.
California Stormwater Best Management Practice Handbook, Construction, 2003 Edition.
California, State of. 2009. Natural Resources Agency. Final Statement of Reasons for Regulatory
Action: Amendments to the Sate CEQA Guidelines Addressing Analysis and Mitigation of
. Greenhouse Gas Emissions pursuant to SB 97. December.
Edaw, Inc. 2009. City of Orange General Plan Program EIR. July.
Edaw, Inc. 2010. Orange General Plan. March 9.
Environmental Data Resources Inc. (EDR). 2005. EDR Radius Map Report. December 1.
Fackiner, Doug. Administrative Captain, City of Orange Fire Department. Personal
communication: phone conversation. June 16, 2010.
Fuscoe Engineering. 2010. Salem Lutheran Church and School Draft Hydrologic Assessment.
May 4.
J L Webb Planning. 1973. Orange Park Acres Plan. September.
Linscott, Law and Greenspan. 2010. Traffic Impact and Parking Demand Analysis Report for the
Proposed Salem Lutheran Church and School Project. August 20.
McKnight, Kathi. Executive Administrative Assistant. Salem Lutheran Church. Personal
communication: telephone August 17, 2010.
Michael Madden Associates. 201 l. Salem Lutheran Church and School Specific Plan. April 30.
Orange County Stormwater Program Constructior. Runoff Guidance Manual, September 2008.
Orange County Water District. 2009. Update Groundwater Management Plan. July 9.
Orange Park Acres Association. Riding and Hiking Trails: Orange Park Acres and Vicinity.
Undated.
Orange, City of. 1993. Master Plan of Recreational Trails. April 27.
Orange, City of. 2010 General Plan. March 9.
Orange, City o£ 2010. Bikeways Master Plan. January.
Michae/Brandman Associates ��"�
H;Client(PN-JN)�3771�39710001�EIR\9-DEIR�37710001 Secll-OOReferences.doc
Sa/em Lutheran Church and Schoo/Specific Plan
References Drafl EIR
Orange, City of. 2010. Municipal Code City of Orange, California. Website:
http://library2.municode.com/default-
now/home.htm?infobase=16539&doc_action=whatsnew. Accessed June 16, 2010.
Orange, City of. 2010. Website:
http://www.cityoforange.org/civica/filebank/blobdload.asp?B1obID=6756. Accessed June
15, 2010.
Orange, City of. 20]1. Website
http://www.cityoforange.org/depts/commdev/orangegoesgreen/city/default.asp Accessed �
March 10, 2011.
Orange, City of. City Attorney's Office. 2010. Memo on Processing of Proposed Salem ""�'
Expansion, February 8. ,
Orange, City of. Water Quality Management Plan. 20]0. Website �F
http://www.cityoforange.org/depts/pub I icworks/storm_water_npdes/water_yuality_manage
ment�lans_(wqmps).asp. Accessed June 15, 2010. ���
�
Orange, County of. 2003. Drainage Area Management Plan. July 1.
�.
Orange, CounTy of. 2011. Technical Guidance Document for the Preparation of
�
Conceptual/Preliminary and/or Project Water Quality Management Plans(WQMPs)May
19. ,r�,
Orange, County of. Orange County Waste and Recycling. 2010. Website: '"'"`
http://egov.ocgov.com/ocgov/Info%200C/Departments%20&%20Agencies/OC%20Waste „�
%20&%20Recycling/Landfill%20Information. Accessed June 15, 2010.
�
Pancake, Doug. President of Douglass Pancake Architects. Personal communication: telephone.
September 22, 2011 �"
Rutan & Tucker, LLP. 20]0. Letter to City of Orange, Director of Community Development, �
September 22. ��z
State Water Resources Control Board. 2010. Website: ""'"''
http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/santaana/about us/water boards structure/index.shtml �
Accessed June 15, 2010.
,�
Tonkovich, Greg. Vista Environmental. Personal communication: e-mail. September 22, 2011. „�
Ventura, Dan. Director of Finance and Operations. Salem Lutheran Church and School. Personal ��
communication: telephone. September 22, 2011.
�.�
Ventura, Dan. Director of Finance and Operations. Salem Lutheran Church and School. Personal ,�
communication: telephone. October 4, 2011
,.�
Vista Environmental, Inc. 2012. Noise Impact Analysis Salem Lutheran Church Expansion
Project City of Orange. January 23. "�
��
�,.::.
11-2 Michae!Brandman Associates !�,
H;Client(PN-JN)\3771\377IOOOI�EIR\9-DEIR\37710001 Secll-OOReferences.doc
1ia-