Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTPO003_HYATT REGENCY HOTEL TP0003 RESOLUTION NO. 9915 A' RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH AMENDING -THE PLANNED COMMU- NITY DEVELOPMENT •PLAN FOR KOLL CENTER NEWPORT ` TO PERMIT THE- TRANSFER OF ALLOWABLE SQUARE FOOTAGE WITHIN THE PLANNED COMMUNITY, AND ACCEPTING THE ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT (Amendment No. 550) WHEREAS, Section 20.51.045 of the Newport Beach Municipal. Code provides that final amendments to a Planned Community Development Plan must be approved by a� resolution of the City Council setting forth full particulars of the amendments.; and WHEREAS, the, Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on September 4, 1980, at which time it considered certain amendments to the Planned Community Development Plan for Kolb. Center Newport to permit the transfer of allowable square footage } within the Planned Community; and WHEREAS, at said public hearing the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 1055 recommending to the City Council that certain amendments to the Planned Community Development Plan for Koll Center Newport, as set forth in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and by this reference made a part hereof, be adopted; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds and determines that said amendments to the Planned Community Development Plan for Koll Center Newport as set forth in said Exhibit "A" are desirable and necessary; and WHEREAS , the City Council has conducted a public hearing on the proposed amendments in accordance with all , _ .` - - �- �- ,'." Iariat:;I.L-` _ _":.��*`t.i..j•�i"•''i`'"'f;tei:;lni' �y'�i�' -� ., --.. ., -;j'�,-s-. .z ., r . . .r .t'.:=;i.'::, ..r:: -`•'f�a`: ws'e¢' dr i:r• - :s• • _ . provisions of law, NOW,' THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, -that the"City: Counci1 of' the City of Newport Beach hereby approves the-'proposed, amendments to the Planned Community Development P.I;an for' Koll Center Newport to ,: • • _ _ p permit the transfer. of 'alloxbl��aquare. footage.`'' - within the Planned Community, .' i - �.i ,r„ -i<'_ ',}<:'-'P:.pe'(Y p'-• J_.`1,..,rnT :' -ti 4J4. t BE_ IT FURTHER RESOLVED that, the envlr6ni enUtl document is hereby accepted. ADOPTED this day of NOV �,0 ;• ,, 1980 . tz ATTEST: -ri.•:rr..v_Js M��,'!'�:ti.+:•:�t';4*'.�r'-'YG�.R4r_,-°>:T.--s:, n. s.;, +'^' _ City Clerk ;. kv • „��y� ' I jet: _ Page 2 •s:- ,i , Sri, :; ' ,,, .itt ;.y ;L,,' .. :}s..:.A..-Yf<;'J4 •`tear.i4'i��t'P}, _+,Z}•'l.", i•- . ;��; 3 }'. -aa :rFy,�'^ld,';iC �:i �',S�l1t• 4\S�•.vi 4. � r ,- 777777 -.. � , •,t�•, - :9. :Fi'. •'': a-- :pb 'ffi'. ,:,'•}� •r,4',ir.'iE, La::. L-.:�,.:'.d•:<�i"a.�, PLANNED COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Koll -Center Newport UXH��IT A - ''i•. ,'\ � ' � _�'1Ci� _ r _ r. thl •M1:Ltid . r • ! _ f - ' << . . rr .,.wt.l. ar. RIr r • i - �'�) i . � _ _ - 4t.A'.1w[.tM1e i ':� • PLANNED COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS For Koll Center Newport Ordinance No. 1449 adopted by the City of Newport Beach on August 14, 1972. Original draft' - May 5, 1972 Amendment No. (1) June 21, 1972 1 r Amendment No. (2) September 7, 1972 Amendment No. (3) July 6, 1973 Amendment No. (4) January 11, 1974 _ Amendment No. (5) March 22, 1974 Amendment No. (6) April 18, 1975 Amendment No. (7) September 8, 1975 Amendment No. (8) April 23, 1976 Amendment No. (9) November 5, 1976 Amendment No. (10) June 26, 1978 Amendment No. (11) August 28, 1978 Amendment No. (12) Amendment 514 Amendment No. (13) August 8, 1980 (Proposed) Note: See Footnotes, Page 45 for description of amendments. PART 11 •,COMMERCIAL 1 :.�:,• Section 1 . Site Area and Building Area (4) Group 1 . PROFESSIONAL& BUSINESS OFFICES Acreages shown are net buildable land area including landscape setbacks with property lines. (4) A. - Building Sites (4) Total Acreage Office Acreage f Site A ...... ... . . 30.939 acres* . . .. . .. ... 30.939 acres* . Site B ..... ... .. 43.7(13 acres('11). . . . . ..... .., 43.703acres (11) Site C . ......... 18.806 acres(10) .. . . . .. . 18,806 acres (l0) Site D . ..... .. . . 19.673 acres .. .. . . . .. . 19.673 acres Site E ... ...... . 2.371 acres . . .. .. . .. . 2.371 acres Site F . ..... .... 1 .765 acres 1 .765 acres • Site G . . ... . .. . . 5.31.7 ocres(8). . .. . . . . . . 5.317 acres (8) 122.574 acres(8x10) (11) 122.574 acres (8)(10) (11) B. Allowable Building Area Site A 350,200 square feet ' Site B ........ . . 953,651 square feet (13) Site C ...... .... 379,800 square feet(10) Site D 240,149 square feet(8)(13) Site E .......... 32,500 square feet(4) Site F .. ..... 24,300 square feet(4) Site G ..... ..... 45,000 square feet(8) 1,992,000 square feet . . . . . 1,992,000 square feet(8) C . Statistical Analysis (4) The following statistics are for information only. Development may include but shall not be limited to the following: Story heights shown are average heights for possible development. The buildings within each parcel may vary. Assumed narking criteria: a. ' One-M space per 225 square feet of net building ,area'@ 120 cars per acre for Site C, D, E, F, and G. b. One (1) space per 300 square feet of net building area @ 120 cars per acre for Site A, B. (11) * (3) (4) In addition to 17.399 acres of office use, there is 9.54 acres for hotel-and motel and 2.5 acres for restaurants and 1 .5 acres of retail and service within Office Site A. Therefore, there are 30.939 acres net within Office Site A. -13- S5ite /3 .Allowable Building Area . ...... ..:- '350,200 square feet Site Area ........ ..... . . ... .... ...... .17.399 acres* (3)(4) a, Building Height :-Land Coverage Two story development 4.02 acres 'Three story development 2.68 acres ' ' f Four story development 2.01 acres Five story development ,, , , •, ' "• . . . ' 1.61 acres ' Six story development 1.34 acres Seven story development 1 . 15 acres 1 Eight story development ... ..... .. . 1 .00 acres - Nine story development .... . .... . '0.89 acres Ten story development ` .... .... .: ' .0.81 acres Eleven story development .......... . 0. 13 acres - .• Twelve story development ........ .. 0.61 acres b. Parking Land Coverage 1167 cars ..... .. .. .. ........ . .... . 9.73 acres (11) c. Landscaped Open Space (4XI1) Land Coverage Two story development .. .. . . :.... J.65 acres _ ;ti,,, ,_. .,• •. , ,. ..Three story development ,,,, , ,;- 4,99 acres Four story development ..... .... . , . 5.66 acres Five story development 6.06 acres Six story development 6.33 acres Seven story development ... ... ... .. 6.52 acres. Eight story development .... . ..... . 6.67 acres Nine story development 6.78 acres Ten story development ..... . .... 6•86 acres Eleven story development 6.94 acres Twelve story development ..... .... . 7.06 acres • , 2. Site B Allowable Building Area ...... .. . .. ... . 953,651 sq. ft. (13) Site Area ........................... 43.%03 acres (4)(11) a. Building Height •Land Coverage Two story development ,,,,, ,,,, 10.95 acres i Three story development 7.30 acres Four story development . .. .... .... 5.47 acres Five story development 4.38 acres Six story development 3.65 acres Seven story development o. 3.13 acres Eight story development 2.74 ocres Nine story development . ..... 2.43 acres Ten story development 2.19 acres Eleven story development .... .. ... . 1.99 acres Twelve story development .. . .. . ... . 1.82 acres IA 7 6= Parking lr ~f.:ind Covcrape-- ' --79 cars .- :-_. ... ..,. . ...' .. '.26.49 acres .(11)•(13) - c.. Landscaped Open Space (11)' Land Coverage (11) (13) Two story development . . . . . . . 6.26 acres Three story'developmene . . . . 9.91 acres Four story development . . .. ....11.74 acres Five story development . . . . ...12.83 acres Six story development . . . .. ..13.56 acres Seven story development .. . .14.08 acres . Eight story development . . . . . . .14.47 acres Nine story development . . . : . . .14.78 acres • " Ten story development . . .. . . .15.02 acres Eleven story development . . . . . . .15.22- acres Twelve stoty -development . . . . . . .15.39 acres 3. Site C (10) Allowable Building Area 379.800 sq:feet Site Area 18.806 acres _(4) ' a. Building Height Land Coverage. . 2. Two story development 4.36 acres.— Three story development 2.91 acres Four story development 2.17 acres story development ..1..74 acres „ Six story development 1.46 acres " seven story development 1.25 acres t Eight story- development • 1.09 acres Nine story development 0.96 acres Ten story development 0.88 acres ;• Eleven story development 0.79 acres * - Twelve story development 0.72 b. Parking Land Coverage 1688 cars 14.07 acres c. Landscaped Open Space (4) Land Coverage Two story development 0.38 acres Three story development 1.83 acres Four story development 2..57 acres Five story development 3.00 acres Six story development 3.28 acres Seven story development 3.49 acres Eight story development 3.65 acres ' Nine story development 3'.78 acres Ten story development 3.86 acres Eleven story development 3.96 acres . Twelve story development 4.02 acres 71 SiteD Allowable Building Area 240,149 sq. ft.- (8) (13) Site Area ........: 19.673 acres (4) a. Building Height Land Coverage (8) (13) Two story development 2.75 acres Three story development ' . ..... .. . . ' 1.84 acres Four story development .... 1.38• acres -Five story development 1.10 acres Six story development . ..... ... .. 0.92 acres Seven story.development , . . ....:. . . 0.79 acres ".Eight story development . . :..... 0.69 ' • acres; Nine story development . ....... . ... 0.61 acres _ Ten story development ........ . : 0.55 acres " M•' ' Eleven story development . .... .... . 0'50 acres Twelve story development , 0.46 ' acres. b. - Parking land Coverage (8) (13) 1,067 cars" :.::... .... . . .-. . .. 8.89 acres. r •- , a... Landscaped Open Space Land Coverage ' (4) (8) Two story development . . .... ... .. 8.03 acres (13) _ Three story development .........: . 8:94 acres- ' Four story development . ..... .. . . 9.40 acre's Five story development . .. ... ... . 9.68 acres Six stoy development 9.86 acres Seven story development. .. .... .... 9.90 acres Eight story development :..... .. . . 10.09 acres Nine story development . ... . ... . . 10.17 acres Ten story development . ..... .. .. 10.23 acres Eleven story development ..... . 10.28 acres - Twelve story development . . ... .... . 10.32 acres. 5. Site E Allowable Building"Area . ....:. .....: 32,500sq. ft. (4) Site Area .......... .... ...... ........... 2.371 acres (4) a. Building Height Land Coverage (4) Two story development . . ...... . . 0.37 acres Three story development . . ....... . 0.25 acres Four story development . .... .... . 0.19 acres Five story development . ....... . . 0.15 acres Six story development ...... .. .. 0.12 'acres -16- r (L1) Plannod 'Ci,mmunl_C} 'Ccxt" revision Au};ust •28, 1()78 incorparating- thL• fuLluwing chany;es: a. blade provision for consideration of add;iLlonal left turn ingress from MacArthur Boulevard. b. Eliminated Service Station Site lo: 1 and added the land area to Professional and Business Office Site B. c. Revised the parking requirement for office buildings within Professional and Business Office Sites. (12) Planned Community Text revision incorporating the following City Council changes: a. Established existing, and additional allowable development as of October 1, 1978. b. Established•criteria for development key and the additional allowable development as of October 1, 1978. yr� - (13) Planned Community Text revision (proposed) incorporating the transfer of allowable building area from Professional & Business Office Site "D" to Professional & Business Office Site "B". 1 -47- ' f r Ile ,� :S•bob•• .ilr�w t /'l �./ . DC II�1•I tY / __ �.. +(I(ffi� flr�./J+.•'Y-IG•.N•le 4 �• �� /if/ • . O.•IC1l� ?� 3. 3. IX -ART 142kSTCAL �.I,r a �_ 7 � '�� /�' /�y / `\ � ..�. ceriaovu .x Tif , •�7 ' ' �♦ '1.6.i•nMf`�.11x�0 ' 1 Oil,l•.„ • _ 'i LANODONRLVILSON . • ,O _ �—_— ___��_. �� >. •_ _ ___l.__.__-___ _LAND CSE ND EOLL CENTER NEWPORT Ijw -- 1 City Council Qeting October 27 , 1980 Study Session Agenda Item No . 3(c )2 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH October 27, 1980 TO: City Council FROM: Planning Department SUBJECT: Proposed Hotel Projects Background At the City Council Study Session of September 8, 1980 , the Staff was requested to prepare a report which would pull together in •one document, information pertaining to hotel development, both new and proposed expansions of existing projects , and to report back to the City Council at the Study 'Session of October 27, 1980 . Attached for the review of the City Council is the best available information we have been able to put together on thirteen hotel projects proposed on eleven sites located in the cities of Newport Beach , Irvine , Costa Mesa , and the downcoast. The location of each hotel site is illustrated on the map (Attachment No. 1 ) , and the eneral characteristics of each project are summarized in the tables Attachments No . 2 and 2-A) . Distribution of Hotel Projects They thirteen projects include two in the City of Costa Mesa , four in the City of Newport Beach , including a site i.n the Newport Dunes area ; six projects in the City of Irvine; and two thousand hotel rooms in the downcoast area which have not been allocated to specific hotel projects . This report does not include any project for which spe- cific information could not be obtained ; such. as expansions of the Newporter Inn and the South Coast Plaza Hotel% The Newporter Inn has , from time to time , investigated the possibility of adding guest rooms (146±) and expanding the meeting room and adjoining;. tennis club , facilities .. In addition , the Los Angeles Times recently carried a story indicating that there could be a 200 to 400 room expansion of the South Coast Plaza Hotel . Telephone contact with the Airporter Inn indicated no future plans for expansion . Number ,of Hotel Rooms and Anticipated Occupancy Combined, the thirteen projects account for 6;,130 hotel rooms which would be phased over' a period of.- fifteen years . Earliest occupancy would occur in 1982 ,with 450 rooms (Marriott Hotel and the Dunes project) ; 1983 with 1090 rooms ( koll Center Newport, Parker Hannifin and the -Orange County Fairgrounds ) ; 1984 an additional 1000 rooms Y' Fl TO: City Council - 2. (Newport Center and Irvine ' s Golden ' Triangle ) ; and 2250 rooms in 11985 (Downcoast and Irvine 's Town Center) An additional 700 rooms would be occupied in the ten year period between 1985 and 1995 ( Irvine 's Golden Triangle) , and the occupancy of 640 rooms is unknown (Cities of Irvine and Costa Mesa) . Number of Hotel Guests Assuming an average stay of 2. 3, nights per person , 1 .,5 persons per room, and an occupancy rate of 80%, the 6,130 rooms noted above would accommodate 1170,830 guests each year. If the occupancy rate increases to 90%, 1 :311 ,870 guests would be accommodated each year. In Newport Beach the four projects noted above would produce 265,490 visitors each year at an 80% occupancy rate. If the rate is in- creased to 90%, 297,460 guests could be accommodated. Impact on John Wayne Airport An airline passenger generation analysis performed for a proposed 440 room, 400 ,060 sq . ft. complex near John Wayne 'Airport by The Newport Economics Group indicates that 47 . 2% of its rooms would be occupied, on an annual average basis , by Orange County airline visi - tors . Assuming 80% occupancy for 365 days per year, 1 . 5 persons per room, and an average stay of 2. 3 nights , the thirteen hotels included in this report would accommodate 552 ,631 airline passengers . Count- ing arrival's and departures , these passengers would represent ap- proximately 40% of the total airline trips for John Wayne Airport ip 1979'. If the occupancy rate is raised to. 90% and the other assump- tions remain the same, a total of 619, 180 airline passengers account- ing for approximately 45% of the 1979 airline trips would be generated'.,. Hotel Employees The number of hotel employees varies , depending on the type of ,hotel and the services provided. Hotels contacted by Staff averaged from . 3 to 8 employees per room. Using a ratio of . 75 employees per room, the hotels noted above Would employ approximately 4600 persons . Traffic The traffic-generating characteristics of hotels is shown below with the characteristics of other land uses illustrated for comparison. These figures were generated from an analysis 9 9 of Hyatt House Hotels in Oakland and San Jose , which are similar in operation , facilities and location to i facilities proposed n Newp ort Beach . ti , T0 : Ci toCounci 1 - 3. PM PEAK HOUR LAND USE DESCRIPTOR ADT In Out Office 1 ,000 Sq.Ft. 13.0 0.6 1 .7 Industrial 1 ,000 Sq.Ft. 8.3 0.2 1 .0 Medium Density Residential Dwelling Unit 9.0 0.5 0.2 Low Density Residential Dwelling Unit 10.0 0.7 0.3 Hotel Room 13.6 0.5 0.5 Retail 1 ,000 Sq.Ft. 115.8 7.2 7.2 y Restaurant 1 ,000 Sq.Ft. 50.0 5.0 3.0 Using the traffic factors noted in the chart above , a 440 room hotel with related retail and restaurant facilities would generate traffic as follows : ADT PM In PM Out", PM , T.otal, 7370 315 305 620 Assuming a project of 400,000 sq . ft. , a hotel such as the one noted above would produce a PM outbound peak of . 76 trips per 1000 sq . ft. This factor is 2. 24 times smaller than would be used for a similar amount of office space and 9 . 5 times less than an identical• amount of retail use. Cost/Revenue In the fiscal impact analysis prepared for a proposed hotel i•n Newport Beach , a 400,000 sq . ft. complex containing 440 rooms , The Newport Economics Group , Inc . projected total revenues to the City to be $635 ,400 ($1 ,217 per room) and expenditures to be $65 ,98'0 . This would produce a net revenue of $469 ,460 annually. Assuming a net revenue of $1067 per room, the four hotels proposed for Newport Beach would produce an annual surplus of approximately $1 ,483,130 . In terms of actual vs projected revenues , we obtained from the Finance a Department actual figures in five categories for the Sheraton , Marri - ott and Newporter Inn . These figures indicate gross revenues from the three hotels to be $1 ,020 ,489. This amounts to a gross revenue of approximately $980 per hotel room (see Attachment No . 3) . , The difference between actual and projected revenues may be partially accounted for in that the projected revenue figures include various other sources of income which have not been specifically identified on the actual revenue exhibit. In addition to reoccurring revenues , there are revenues collected by the City on a one time basis . One of these revenues is on excise tax of $: 21 a square foot which would be assessed against hotel r TO: City Council - 4. construction to help defray costs for public improvements such as fire stations , libraries and parks . Therefore a proposed 400 ,000 sq. ft. complex, exclusive of the parking structure, would generate a tax of $840000. , Respectfully submitted, PLANNING DEPARTMENT 4WkES D . HEWIC ER la ning Director JDH/kk Attachments for City Council Only: 1 ) Location Map 2) Summary Charts 3) Actual Revenues i _ 9 g . l RA •�� r •q 1 ;ze , W.l M a •K � • 'l J�4f ... --•� ., ' i..{ r , %ram - J i �� �-• AV A — AAA 10 • �� �_ _ �•• _ +• .� f�.• ��. .N�``.�.� 6 ' -.. ♦\-. y!• ^_ram_—, . . WW r.. .. •� 1 . r ) J A . 4 3 2 5 ATTACHMENT No. 1 HOTEL CHARACTERISTICS N scre lonary Approval Remaining Timing Type Fiscal Impact Land w W ; ," a Begin umber Number Jurisdiction Owner . Developer Operator , Const-. Occu anc C . 8 Y Total Rooms Employees Hyatt 1 CNB Koll KolI Regency - x - - - - x 1981 1983 x $469,460 440 330 2 CNB TIC TIC Unk - x - x - - - 1983 1984 3/4 1/4 $533,48D 500 375 - 3 CNB TIC Unk Marriott - x - x - - - 1981 1982 3/4 1/4 $213,392 200 150 4 CNB C Merrigan Unk x 1N; x - - - x 1981 1982 x $266,740 250 188 5 Co TIC Unk Unk - x x x x - Unk I9t85 1/4 3/4 2,000 1,500 Parker- 6 Irvine Hannifin Koll Unk - x - x x - - 1981 1983 x 500 375 7 Irvine TIC TIC Unk - TBD - TBD x x x Unk Unk x 500 375 8A Irvine TIC TIC Unk - x - - - x - 1983 1984 3/4 1/4 - •500 375 - 8B Irvine TIC TIC Unk - x - - x x - 1989 1990 3/4 1/4 350 263 8C Irvine TIC TIC Unk - x - - x x - 1994 1995 3/4 1/4 350 263 9 Irvine TIC Unk Unk - x - - x x - 1984 1985 1/4 3/4 250 188 CA Inn Holiday 10 Co,to Mafia" Unk Kiny't Inn 140 lob 11 COCIA Mara $laic 0uk Unk • • • • long 11I0 r< lho Ili (101101 by 051:4 Mega Planning 01114gglon TOTAL $1,4113107P 6,1,10 MOD oswport Dpach p usieon CM CostaMea Business TIC The Irvine Company V Visitor/Tourist Koll Tbo Kolb Conpany Co . County ATTACHMENT No. 2 i HOTEL CHARACTERISTICS (CONT.) l� Timing of 1979 Airline Trips - Land Begin Number Annual Guests l Airline Passengers 2 John Wayne Airport Jurisdiction Owner Developer Operator Const. Occupancy Rooms 80% 90% 80% 90% 80% 90� 1 CNB Koll Kull heaency 1981 1983 440 84,040 94,160 39,667 44,444 2.86 3.20 2 CNB TIC TIC Unk 1983 1984 500 95,500 107.000 45.076 50,604 3.25 3.64 3 CNB TIC Unk Marriott 1981 1982 200 38,200 42.800 18,030 20,202 1.30 1.46 4 CNB C Merrigan Unk 1981 1982 250 47,750 53,500 22,538 25,252 1.62 1.82 5 Co TIC Unk Unk Unk 985 2,000 382,000 428,000 180.304 202,016 12.99 14.56 _ t 6 Irvine parker- Koll Unk 1981 1983 500 95,500 107,000 .45,076 50,504 3.25 3.64 E Hannifin i 7 Irvine TIC TIC Unk Unk Unk 500 95,500 107,000 45,076 50,504 3.25 3.64 8A Irvine TIC TIC Unk 1983 1984 500 95,500 107,000 45,076 50,504 3.25 3.64 8B Irvine TIC TIC Unk 1989 1990 350 66,850 74,900 31,563 35,353 2.27 2.55 8C Irvine TIC TIC Unk 1994 1995 350 66,850 74,900 31,553 35,353 2.27 2.55 f 9 Irvine TIC Unk Unk 1984 1985 250 47,750 53,500 22,538 26,252 1.62 1.82 10 Costa Mesa Unk CA Inn Holiday 140 26,740 29,960 12.621 14,141 .91 1.02 Mang't Inn 11 Costa Muso State Wk Unk 1982 1983 150 28,650 32,100 13,523 15.151 .97 1.09 TOTAL 6,130 1,170,830 1,311,820 662.631 619,100 39.01 44.63 I Assumes an average stay of 2.3 Nights and a8 Occupancy of 1.5 persons per room 2 Assumes 47.2% of annual guests i • t ATTACHMENT No. 2-A i • � I i i ' i t ACTUAL REVENUES _ Quarterl Bed Tax Liquor 1st 2nd 3rd 4th Total License usines Property Tax Sales Tax Renewal Licenses Total SHERATON (349 Rooms) 41 ,654 49,722 37,381 60,404 189,161 22,938 21 ,906 638 375 235,018 MARRIOTT (377 Rooms) 83,098 84,077 116,860 81 ,595 365,630 38,200 52,185 638 375 457,028 NEWPORTER (315 Rooms) 62,330 67,302 71,381 60,337 261 ,350 17,675 48,405 638 375 328,443 TOTALS (1041 Rooms) 187,082 2Q1 ,101 225,622 202,336 816,141 78,813 122,496 1914 1125 1 ,020,489 ATTACHMENT No. 3 WE KO CONTRACTOR November 13 , 1980 Mr. Fred Talarico Planning Department City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd . Newport Beach , CA 92660 Dear Fred: Attached are copies of two colored renderings used in our City presentation . If I can be of any further assistance , please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely yours , THE KOLL COMPANY Michael L . Lewis t' Vice President, Development ,? �10'� MLL/cs Attachment. cc: Tim Strader; The Koll Company / 4490 Von Karman Avenue Newport Beach • California 92660 (714) 833.3030 WESTEC Services, Inc. 3211 Fifth Avenue San Diego, CA 92103 82-365—E (714)2949770 October 13, 1982 NNU Mr. Fred Talarico Environmental Coordinator and Project Planner Community Development Department City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92663 Dear Mr. Talarico: This letter is to inform you that the archaeological monitoring of the grading operations at the office space parcel designated KCN-14 of the Kill Center Newport Planned Community is complete. During the months of July, August, and September the project site was visited on five separate occasions by myself or William Breece. These visits were timed to observe the grading and trenching during different phases of the project. Included were grading for the parking structure, grading for the building foundation, and trenching for pipe and power lines. As stated in my letter of June 15, 1982; the entire project area has been covered with several feet of fill soil and initial grading did not completely penetrate this layer. However, back-hoe operations for the foundation pilings and grading for the parking structure did penetrate the original soil layer. The results of the monitoring program were negative; no evidence of an archaeological deposit was observed within the original soil layer. Therefore, we recommend that no further archaeological investigations be required at this project site. If you have any questions regarding this project or require any clarifications, please do not hesitate to contact me. Re c f 1 tted, lan Schi z Proje Arch eologist AJS:kar cc: Mr. Roger Cormier .4 ;-j ��� •�51982�' �� N Langdonwon 9 ` - RECEurrE"� . c Architects -axnY OCT5 1981� Robert E.Langdon Jc AIA t iIiY OF Ernest C.Wilson Jr.AIA 1'�° 1s(?NI BEACH, Hans MumperAlA CHLIF. Robert S.Kraft AIA 4320 Von Karmen Avenue,P.O.Box 2440 � • Newport Beach,California 92660.714/833-9193 September 24, 1981 JOB MEETING NOTES: Koll Center Newport - Buildout LOCATION: City of Newport Beach Planning Department DATE OF MEETING: September 22, 1981 ATTENDEES: Jim Hewicker -, Director Planning Department Fred Talerico - Environmental Affairs Dan Webb - Public Works Ev Davis - President, Koll Center Newport Syd Buck - The Koll Company Mike Lewis - The Koll Company Patrick Allen - Langdon & Wilson Gin Wong - Gin Wong & Associates Wayne Kelly - Emmett Wemple & Associates Bob Fletcher - Robert Bein, William Frost & Associates DISTRIBUTION: Those in attendance Rich Edmonston - Traffic Engineer Stan Brockhoff - The Koll Company Jim Milligan - Asset Manager, Koll Center Newport Ernie Wilson - Langdon & Wilson Orville Myers - Robert Bein, William Frost & Assoc. OBJECTIVE: To review the Phasing Plan, Hotel Use Permit and Resubdivision 683 conditions of approval with the staff for clarification, intent, responsibility and timing. LangdonWilbon Architects JOB MEETING NOTES: Koll Center Newport - Buildout LOCATION: City of Newport Beach Planning Department DATE OF MEETING: September 22, 1981 DISCUSSION: Item 1 : The substantial portion of the Koll Center Newport Buildout will consist of the Hyatt Hotel on Office site A and KCN-14 of Office site B. Item 2: In addition to the submission of two sets of plans to the building department for plan check, a copy of all site plans should be submitted to Public Works so that Don Webb and Rich Edmonston can be reviewing these documents concurrently with the Building. Department and Zoning. The Fire Marshal should ba contacted to see if they want a similar submission. Item 3: Several of the conditions discussed are to be addressed by letter. It was agreed that these letters are to be compiled and submitted as a package. Item 4: The attached outline, dated September 23, 1981 , contains the condition items reviewed at this meeting with the addition of a column in the left margin indicating that a given item is a condition of Building Permit or occupancy. Also, fol- lowing each item is a summary of the discussion relating to that item. The recipiants of these meeting notes and enclosure are asked to advise Langdon & Wilson in wirting of any exception, correction or addition to these notes. Y Patrick Allen Associate Partner bl/7242-14 & 7242-172 Langd®nw s®n Architects Robert E.Langdon Jr.AIA Ernest C.Wilson Jr.AIA Hans MumperAlA Robert S.Kraft AIA 4320 Von Kerman Avenue,P.O.Box 2440 Newport Beach,California 92660.7141833.9193 September 23, 1981 KOLL CENTER NEWPORT - BUILDOUT CONDITIONS Abbreviations: - L&W Langdon & Wilson, Architects GW Gin Wong & Associates KCN Koll Center Newport - Owner KCN-A Koll Center Newport - Asset Management TKC The Koll Company - Contractor RBF Robert Bein, William Frost & Associates WEMPLE Emmet Wemple & Associates BP* 0** A. PHASING PLAN CONDITIONS KCN 1 . That prior to ppccupa�ncy of any buildings on the site beyond the ' X existing de — velopm�ompleted or under construction, the circulation Systems Improvements contained in the Traffic Report, dated August 13, 1980, Table 6, Page 9, shall have been constructed (unless subsequent project approvals require modification thereto) . i The Circulation Systems Improvements shall be subject to the approval of the City Traffic Engineer. Mike Lewis advised that The Koll Company has joined the Newport Development group and that one of the functions of this group is to assist and monitor the progress of this- condition. X KCN 2. That prior to the occupancy of any buildings on the site beyond the existing development completed or under construction, the Circulation Systems Improvements required of committed projects listed on Page 5 of the Traffic Report dated August 13, 1980, shall also have been constructed, (unless subsequent project approvals require modifications thereto) . The Circulation Systems Improvements shall be subject to the approval of the City Traffic Engineer. Same comment as A.l . X KCN 3. That prior to the issuance of any 8uildina Permits, the applicants shall indicate to the Director of the Planning Department, in writing, that they understand and agree to conditions 1 and 2 above. Koll Center Newport to write a letter and submit with other letters accompanying plan check package. * Building Permit ** Occupancy . .e Lang d®nMils®n Architects September 23, 1981 Page 2 Phasing Plan Conditions Continued BP 0 X L&W GW 4. That the architectural character and landscape design established , Wemple within the existing Koll Center Newport shall be maintained. The Planning Department will substantially rely on The Koll Company and Langdon & Wilson to insure that this condition is satisfied. X L&W GW 5. R landscape and irrigation plan for the project shall be prepared Wemple by a licensed landscape architect. The landscape plan shall integrate and phase the installation of landscaping with the proposed construction schedule. (Prior to the Qccuoancy I X of any structure, the licensed landscape architect shall certify to the Planning Department that the landscaping has been installed) in accordance with the prepared plan) . Emmet Wemple & Associates are the landscape architects on both projects as well as the landscape architects on the parkways and most of the KCN projects built to date. L&W/GW 6. The landscape plan shall be subject to the review of the Parks, X Wemple Beaches, and Recreation Department and approval of the Planning. Department. Wemple to coordinate with the staff of these two depart- ments. X Kip 7. The landscape plan shall include a maintenance program which, le Wemp controls the use of fertilizers and pesticides. - Wemple to note on plans , controls to satisfy this con- dition during installation and initial 60 day maintenance provided by the installing landscape contractor. The Koll Company to prepare letter addressing this issue for on- going maintenance after the 60 day period. - X L&W/GW 8. The landscape plan shall place heavy emphasis on the use of Wemple drought-resistant native vegetation and be irrigated via a system designed to avoid surface runoff and over-watering. This item is not intended as a conflict with Item 4 above, however, if there is a reasonable choice in' the selection of plant material the more drought resistant and fire retar- dant specimens shall be selected. The Koll Company to pre- pare a letter describing how they propose to controll run- off and over-watering, i .e. de-activate automatic sprinkler system when it is raining and re-set time clocks according to season, etc. X L&W/GW_9, The landscape plan shall place heavy emphasis on fire-retardant >emple vegetation. See continents under A.8 above. LangdonMison Architects September 23, 1981 Page 3 Phasing Plan Conditions Continued .BP A X L&W/GW 10. Street trees shall be provided along the public streets emd e as required by the Public Works Department and the Parks, Beaches, and Recreation Department. See comments under A.5 and A.6 above. X KCN-A 11 . Landscsping shall be regularly maintained free of weeds and debris. All vegetation shall be regularly trimmed and kept in a healthy condition. The Koll Company to submit letter describing Koll Center Newport's maintenance program. X L&W/GW 12. Plant materials used for screening purposes shall consist Wemple of shrubs and trees, either lineal or massed, which are of sufficient size and height to screen or interrupt views of parking areas. See comments under A.4 , A.5 and A.6 above. X L&W/GW;l3. Earth berms shall be contoured and natural in appearance. Wemple See comments under A.4 , A.5 and A.6 above. (Note: The parkway earth berms and landscape already exist.) X KCN-A 14. The landscape plan of an existing development in Blocks A, B, *Wemple D, & G shall be reviewed by a licensed landscape architect. The existing landscape program should be modified to include the concerns oc conditions 7 and 8 above to the maximum extent practicable that can maintain the character of the existing program as a result of this review should be phase and incorporated as a portioh of existing landscape maintenance. Relates to fertilizers, pesticides , excess surface rumoff and over-watering. Wemple to review with Koll Center Newport and The Koll Company to address in their letter described under A.7 and A.8 above. X L&W GW16. Development of the site shall be subject to a grading permit RBF to be approved by the Building and Planning Departments. RBF to process. X L&W/GW16. That a grading plan shall include a complete plan for temporary RBF and permanent drainage facilities, to minimize any potential Wemple impacts from silt, debris, and other water pollutants. OF to coordinate with the City's Grading Inspector, Jim Lorman. This item relates to the City's grading ordinance. X TKC_]7. The grading permit shall include, if required, 'a description RBF of haul routes, access points to the site and a watering and sweeping program designed to minimize impacts of haul operation. This item is typically covered at the pre-grading conference held at the site. RBF to verify with Jim Lorman. X I OF 18. An erosion and dust control plan shall be submitted and be TKC _ subject to the approval of the Building Department. Langd®nWils®n Architects September 23, 1981 Page 4 Phasing Plan Conditions Continued BP 0 ' RBF 19. That an erosion and siltation control plan, if re wired, be X L&W/GW approved by the California Regional Water Qua ity Control Board - Santa Ana Region. RBF to discuss with Jim Lorman, however, approval will probably be required. X OF 20. The velocity of concentrated run-off from the project shall be L&W/GW evaluated and erosive velocitoes controlled as part of the .project design. Same comment as A.16. 21 . That grading shall be conducted in accordance with plans X L&W/G41 prepared by a Civil Engineer and based on recommendations of a- soil engineer and an engineering geologist subsequent. to the completion of a comprehensive soil and geologic investigation of the site. Permanent reproducible copies of the "Approved as Built" grading plans on standard size sheets shall be furnished-to the Building Department. Same comment as A.16. x 'KCN-A 22• That the applicant provide for weekly vacuum sweeping of all parking areas. Koll Company to address in letter form. X L&lV/GW 23. That final design of the project shall provide for the Wemple incorporation of water-saving devices for project lavatories Mechanical and other water using facilities. Consultants Zoning to rely on opinion of building department for com- pliance. Suggest that L&W/GW prepare letter describing methods designed into respective projects. X KCN-A 24. Prior to the occu anc of any buildings, a program for the sorting of recyc ab a material from other solid wastes shall be developed and approved by the Planning Department. Plans to indicate area designated for sorting of recyclable material . X TKC 25. That should any resources be uncovered during construction, that a RBF qualified archaeologist or palenotologist evaluate the site prior to completion of construction activities, and that all work on the site be done in accordance with the City's Council Policies K-5 and K-6. Archaelogical representative to be present at pre-grading conference. RBF to coordinate. X L&W GW 26. That any mechanical equipment and emergency power generators *db assoc. shall be screened from view and noise associated with said shall be attenuated to dcceotable levels in receptor areas. The latter shall be based upon the recommendations of a qualified acoustical engineer, and be approved by the Planning Department. Acoustical engineer to review plans and prepare letter for submission with plan check. Criteria to be 55 dba at pro- perty line, i.e. street. L LangdonWilson Architects September 23, 1981 Page 5 Phasing Plan Conditions Continued BP 0 X L&W/GW 27. That the fire Department access shall be approved by the Fire Department. Suggest review of Hotel & KCN-14 site plan prior to plan check submission. X L&W/GW 28. That all buildings on the project site shall be equipped with fire suppression systems approved by the Fire Department. Only applies to new construction. This condition is not retroactive. X L&W/GW 29. That a "defensible space" concept shall be incorporated to the i construction andslgn of the project and be reviewed and approved by the Police Department prior to the issuance of any grading and building permits. Review plans with Police Department. X KCN-A 30. The proposed project shall incorporate an internal securing L&W/G4! system (i .e. security guards, alarms, access limits after hours) that shall be reviewed by the Police and Fire Departments and approved by the Pl,anning Department. Review with Police Department. Suggest letters be prepared by L&W and GW in conjunction with KCN describing the respec- tive KCN-14 and hotel security systems. X L&!•!/GW31 , That the final design of on-site pedestrian circulation be reviewed We and approved by the Public Works Department and the Planning Department. Suggest a pre-meeting to review the KCN-14 and hotel site plans prior to plan check. X L&W/GW32. Prior to the issuance of any buildinq permits_ for•the site, RBF the applicants shall pemonstrate to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department and the Planning Department that • adpayatg_sewer facilities will hp availablp- RBF to satisty by letter. X KCN 33, 'That prior to the issuance of any building permit authorized by the approval of this Traffic Phasing Plan, the applicant shall deposit with the City Finance Director, a sum propotional to the per- centage of future additional traffic related to the project in' the subject area, but not to exceed 523,750.00 to be used for the construction of a wall on the westerly side of Jamboree Road between Eastbluff Drive and Ford Road. _ No comment X KCN 34. That the sum of $367,253.08 be provided for circulation and traffic improvements to intersections as specified on Page 4, Table 4, of the Traffic Report dated August 13, 1980, as shown on the City's Master Plan of Circulation consistent with the General Plan, with priority given to improvements within the vicinity of the project, if feasible. The Koll Company to propose a formula to allocate or sequencing this money in conjunction with the Hotel and KCN-14, LangdonWilson Architects September 23, 1981 Page 6 Phasing Plan Conditions Continued ' BP 0 X ' KCN-A 35. That prior to the issuance of any building permits_, the applicants. shall demonstrate to the satisfaction on ?ha Pinning Department that all practicable measures to reduce total and peak hour traffic (i .e. car pool/van pool , staggered employee work hours, tenant mix) have been or will be taken. The Koll Company to submit letter. X L&W/GW36. That prior to the issuance of any building permits for the proposed ! KCN project, the applicant shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Planning Department that avigation easements granted to Orange County by The Irvine Company for the subject area have not beet, exceeded. ' Submit copy of FAA approval form and verify if this is consistant with county navigation easement. X L&W/GW37. That a complete plan for pedestrian 'access for each site Wemple shall be approved by the Public Works and Planning Directors. 1 Same comment as A.31 above. X KCN 38. That prior to the Accupanc' of anv buildings on the site beyond the existing development completed or under consturction, an additional eastbound through- lane shall be constructed at the intersection of Coast Highway and MacArthur Boulevard (unless subsequent project approvals require modification thereto). This improvement shall,be subject to the approval of the City Traffic Engineer. This item to be re-evaluated by the Planning Commission. Review by Planning Commission to follow Building Permit. X *L&W 39. That a bus stop shelter be constructed along MacArthur Boulevard. . *RBF *Wemple I To be submitted with item C.3 and C.4 below. Langd®nMi s®n Architects September 23, 1981 Page 7 BP 0 JB. HOTEL USE PERMIT CONDITIONS X GW 1 . That development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved plot plan, floor plans and elevations. The Hotel design has not changed. X X GW 2. That all development shall be in conformance with the approved phasing plan and related conditions of approval . See items A.1 through A.39 above. X GW 3. That all development shall comply with the Uniform Building Code 1976 edition. The 1979 UBC is now in effect. X GW 4. That all access to the buildings be approved by the Fire Department. Same comment as A.27 above. X GW 5. That all on site fire protection (hydrants and Fire Depart- ment connections) shall be approved by the Fire and Public Works Department. Same comment as A.27 above. X GW 6. The surface of the three-level parking structure shall be landscaped with trees and shrubs either recessed or in tub/ Wemple planter boxes, in a manner approved by the Directors of the Parks, Beach & Recreation and Planning Departments. I GW & Wemple to coordinate -ng nish shall X GW 7 nal site subject tans and choice iw appotior buildi Pl-anni be oreve an& roval by the ngfDepartment. Same comment as B.1 above. X KCN 8. That prior to the issuance of any building permit, the appli- cants shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Public Works and Planning Departments that all practicable measures to reduce total and peak hour traffic including but not limited to: car pool/van pool ; staggered employee work hours , shuttle service to the airport; schedules of uses of any roams to be used for meeting, seminars or other business/social functions have been or will be taken. The Koll Company to submit letter X RBF 9. That the conditions of approval for Resubdivision No. 635 be L&W/GW fulfilled prior to accupancy of the hotel . Any changes in the parcel map required by the hotel shall be made. See items under 'C' below. (635 has been superceded by 683) X *L&W 70. That a P.C.C. sidewalk be constructed along the west side o *RBF Von Karmen Avenue. *Wempla See item C.3 and C.4 below X L&W G411 That the final design of on-site pedestrian circulation system Wemple be reviewed by and approved by the Public Works and Planning Departments. This system shall provide pedestrian walkways from the main entrance of the hotel to three public streets and the adjoining developments. Langd®nWi son Architects September 23, 1981 Page 8 Hotel Use Permit Conditions Continued BP 0 See item A.31 above. GW to be responsible for Hotel link to three public streets. L&W to be responsible for Hotel link to KCN-11 X GW ' 12. That parking be prohibited on the 30 foot access roadway KCN-A running between Von Karmen Avenue and MacArthur Boulevard. Cover by note on drawings. X KCN 13. That a traffic signal be installed at Birch Street and .Jamboree Road prior to the occupancy of the hotel . The Koll Company to discuss with City Trafffc Engineer. X GW 14. That a median island be installed in Von Karmen Avenue KCN prohibit left turns in and out of the service/parking fatcoility . entrance drive. This condition may be waived by the Traffic Engineer if a traffic study is provided to show that turning access to the drive will not adversely affect the traffic on Von Karmen Avenue and the operation of the Von Karmen/Birch Street intersection. Wes Pringle has prepared a report that is currently being reviewed by the City Traffic Engineer. X GW 15. That the entrance and exit ramps design to the underground ' parking facili°ty from the main entrance to the hotel be approved by the Traffic Engineer. X GW 16. That the final design of parking facilities shall be re- viewed by the City Traffic Engineer. Compact space shall not exceed 15 percent of total and handicapped parking shall comprise 2 percent of total spaces. w • LangdonWilson Architects September 23, 1981 Page 9 BP 0 C. BLOCK 'A' - RESUBDIVISION NO,. 683 CONDITIONS Hotel Parcel & KCN-11 Parking Structure footprint lot) RBF 1 . That a parcel map be filed. I KCN Tentative map expires in 18 months, from approval date. RBF 2. That all improvements be constructed as required by ordinance KCN and the Public works Department. RBF to coordinate. X *L&W 3. That an B-foot-wide P.C.C. sidewalk be constructed on the east- *RBF erly side of MacArthur Boulevard from Von Kerman Avenue to *Wemple join the existing sidewalk now ending 900± feet northerly of Von Karman Avenue. The sidewalk may meander to minimize the i removal of trees and grading of berms. I Currently in design and to be submitted as a separate package in conjunction with item A.39 above and CA below except for that portion of the Von Karman sidewalk fronting on the hotel property which is included in the hotel development drawings. f X *L&W 4. That. a 5-to-6-foot-wide (6-foot wide when adjacent to the curb) I *RBF P.C:C. sidewalk be constructed on the westerly side of *Wemple Von -Karman Avenue and Birch Street to MacArthur Boulevard in a meandering easement for pedestrian purposes . The sidewalk shall be constructed to minimize the removal of trees and orad- ing of berms. See item C.3 above. RBF 5. 'That a standard subdivison agreement with accompanying surety -KC—tj be provided to guarantee the satisfactory completion of public improvements within 12 monthsif it is desired to record the parcel map prior to completion of the public improvements. RBF to coordinate. X L&!•1GW 6. That the final design of the on-site pedestrian circulation sys- Wemple tam be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department and the Planning Department. See item A.31 above. X GW 7. That the location of fire hydrants be reviewed and approved by the Fire Department and Public Works Department. See item A.27 and B.5 above. X G41 n, That the final design of the on-site parking be reviewed by the Planning Department and the Public Works Department. X GW o, That each building shall be provided with individual connections to the public water and sewer facilities. , KCN l0, That all vehicular access rights to MacArthur Blvd. be released RBF ani reli^.nuished to the City except for the existing access. RBF to satisfy, KOLL CONTRACTOR h'""2'r}4 .,�j� RD pp November 5, 1980 �3 ' cam' tt Ip0 L1. \ . ti Mr. James D. Hewicker Planning Director City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92663 Re: Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Dear Jim: At the Planning Commission hearing we were requested to meet with the Orange County Transit District to encourage additional service for the future employees of the Hyatt Regency. Enclosed is a copy of their Ride Guide, Commuter/ Express Routes, and information on Routes 61 , 71 , 76 , and 78 which all provide service in the vicinity of the proposed hotel. Route 61 presently operates every half hour during peak hours and originates at the Civic Center in Santa Ana and terminates at Fashion Island. Route 71 operates every half hour during peak hours and originates at the Mall of Orange and goes through Tustin finally terminating at Fashion Island. Route 76 operates every 20 minutes during peak hours and originates in the Huntington Beach area and terminates at UCI. Route 78 operates every hour and originates in Laguna Hills and terminates at South Coast Plaza. There are two express service lines with stops in the vicinity which provide two trips in the morning and two in the evening. The first is Route 204 which originates in the Fullerton area and Route 203 which originates in San Clemente. The OCTD does have plans to increase frequency of service on or before 1983 based upon funding limitations for the various routes that presently service the area. In addition, they have tentative plans to adopt additional routes as demand increases. We hope this information will be of some benefit. V�ny ruly o s, Ti'otE Strader Executive Vice President and General Counsel TLS:klt Enclosures 4490 Von Kerman Avenue 9 Newport Beach California 92660 • (714) 833.3030 1 • LAW OFFICES OF • VI 00401 J04NS/N OAVIO 0.15 0I M E LV E N Y & M Y E R S 1000 CENTURY PARK EASY JAM[5 C ONCCX[ 9t[PNEX CANCAN LOS ANOCLCS,CALIFORNIA 90001 [WNOAM T ESTBROO Jn. TEI11RW BA CKMA 611 WEST SIXTH STREET PINUP WCSt01100A PCI[N W OLACXMAN TCLMNONL 167- 35]•6)00 CLYDE T 0HIN'tCL INiBLE3I D MCLAN[ CVRLR D CLAM CHARLE>n MD[R•m LOS ANGELES,CALIFORNIA 90017 TELEX B)•+oa) HUGH [CROSS MICHAE RYAH HV011 L URYMACHCILLA MICNAEL W IIAPANAN OIO NEWPOPT CENTER DRIVE q RIION BEEN CLARX WILM ICN P PE P[ TELEPHONE 1213)G20.1120 nAg1011 UCCX WIIUAN f.ADAMS NCWPOgT BEACH,CALIFORNIA 92000 H CHARPER O OAXALY.JR, LAUNCH E 0 TWEOLC IPLLIAM W WUONN A ROBERT PISANO TELEX 67.4122 TELEPHONE VI41 700•2000 • 1213)020.1120 RICHANOIt SHERWOOD ROBERT 5 DRAPER TELEX 07•4122 PIN111,0 IABIN NARK WOOD DONALD V PEIRONI RENT V GRAHAM CABLE ADDRESS"MOMS" DORN 0 MILLER OCRIMNO M COOPER 1000 M STREET,N.W. DONALD 11 HODGMAN RICNAPD N FISHER RICNAPD S VOLPCRT LOWELL C MARTINPALC.JR. WASHINGTON,0.C 20030 II IIJOH H RONEY It MICHAEL T MASIN TELEPHONE(2021 457.5300 ODUBUS l PICHARBSON DIAIIA L WALKER JOHN O O,RIERO.JR MARY P TOBRMAN TELEX 09.022 HENRYC TRUMANN bMICHAEL MANNER LAWRENCE J.SHEEHAN JOHN 0 ARCS 4 PLACE OE LA CONCORDE PAVL O NANxOx IIN"C.DENJARIN y DONALD M WESSLING (RCOWICK A RICHMAN NOVP.mlJer PAgD 9y FRANCE JOHN 0 POWCP HAROLD N MCSSNCP.JR 04RICHARD C WARNER FRANCIS J NUROWCOER,JR 3d TELEPHONE 205 39.33 tICOWANOJ M D AXI(( JAMES W COCRLM r TELEX 042• RICXARD C WHITE JAMES V SCLYA 080115 SOLO IIOWCNNOLPIx XAMN JCF REYJOHN F Ot PLPO AUMp STANTON N EANROW GORDON E KRISCHCR 1 9 O 0 MARTIN WILLMM K KRAMER [DONALD IL DOSS S"(, CNARLCS W SCHOW EDWARD W HIERONYMUS 41ROD L E000POU.IR DMIOE GORDON OUR FILE NUMBER DONALD R SPVCNLER GIDCRT T PAT OVIOO R.NLNBY.JR MICWEL J FAIRCLOUON CNARLCS F RICHER! ROBERT J WHITE RCHDALL R BISHOP NARK R,STEINBERO JAMES R UKROPINA JOSEPH M.MALXIN RALPH W BAD WILLIAM M WAROLAW ,3 (L PATRICK LYNCH JOHM W.STAMPER 4671T260-1 • INiI[K u4/• Ana aix[K[ADMIn[D Ix ull/.n0i D.C. ) HAND DELIVERY City of Newport Beach City Attorney' s Office 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92663 Attention: Hugh Coffin, Esq. City Attorney Re: Roll Center Newport Development Dear Mr. Coffin: This office represents The Roll Company in connection with its application to the City 'of Newport Beach for approval of a project comprising: (i) Traffic Phasing Plan for the remaining development in the Roll Center Newport Planned Com- munity District; (ii) Amendment No. 550 to amend the Planned Community Development Plan for Roll Center Newport; and (iii) Use Permit No. 1953 to permit the construction of a 12-story hotel. The City Council of the City of Newport Beach is presently considering that application and is reviewing the environmental impact report prepared by the City on the project. 0n behalf of The Roll Company, we hereby submit a proposed Statement Of Facts containing both the findings re- quired by Section 21081 of the California Public Resources 1 • • #2 - City of Newport Beach - ll/l/80 Attn: Hugh Coffin, Esq. Code and a Statement Of Overriding Considerations. In the view- of The Koll Company, the environmental impact report on the project is complete and complies with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act, the State EIR Guidelines and City Policy. The proposed Statement Of Facts submitted herewith sets forth these views and details facts which would support a decision by the City Council to approve the project, should the Council choose to do so. ,By copies of this letter, I am mailing copies of the proposed Statement Of Facts to those persons listed on the attached distribution list who have expressed an interest in the project. Sincerely yours, r Francis J. rgweg , Jr. of O'MELVENY & MYERS FJB:ekt Enclosures cc: Mr. Fred Talarico Planning Department DISTRIBUTION LIST Citizens Environmental Quality Advisory Committee c/o Ms. Judy Cooper 1220 Outrigger Drive Corona Del Mar, California 92625 S.P.O.N. c/o Ms. Jean Watt 1151 Dove Street Newport Beach, California 92660 r� L.E.A.F. c/o Ed Siebel, Esq. 302-A Marine Avenue Balboa Island, California 92660 Friends of UpperNewport Bay P. O. Box 2001 Newport Beach, California 92663 Central Newport Beach Community Association c/o Mrs. Bobby Lovell 1242 west ocean Front Newport Beach, California 92663 East Bluff Homeowners ? Association c/o Mr. Gary Schaumberg 2900 Alta Vista Drive Newport Beach, California 92663 Four Fours, Association c/o Mr. Roy Jnutson 2504 University Drive Newport Beach, California 92660 Newport Upper Bay Estates c/o Mr. Tim Shepherd 2215 Anniversary Lane Newport Beach, California 92660 LAW OFFICES OF DEANE F.JOHNSON DAVID D WATTS OY M E-LV E N Y & M Y E R S 1800 CENTURY PARK EAST JAMEB C GREENE STEPHEN J.STERN LOS ANGELES,CALIFORNIA 90067 .WILLIAM T.COLEMAN,JR, JERRY W.CARLTON 611 WEST SIXTH STREET PHINP F.WESTBROOK PETER W.DLACKMAN TELEPHONE(213) 563.6700 CLYDE E.TRITT FREDERICK B M[LANE EVME C.CROSSY CHARLESPH R MEEKERMAN ,= LOS ANGELES,CALIFORNIA 90017 TELEX 67•4097 HUGH L.MACNEIL MICHAEL W.HARAHAN 610 NEWPORT CENTER DRIVE R BRADBURY CLARK STEPHEN P.PEPE TELEPHONE 1213)620-1120 BARYON BEEK WILLIAM G AWMS NEWPORT BEACH,CALIFORNIA 02660 [[CHARLES B.SAIULY,JR IAURENCE O.PRCDLE WILLIAMARD 9NAEHYOHN A ROBEBERTS.UMPFR TELEX 67-4122 TELEPHONE 1714)760-e000 • (213)620-1190 RICPHILIP D.IRWIN MARK WOOD TELE% 67.4122 DOLUIO V PETRONI KENT V.OMHAM CABLE ADDRESS"MOMS" DONN B.MILLER BERTRAND N COOPER 1800 M STREET,N.W. DONALD R.HODGMAN RICHARD N FISHER RICHARD5 VOLPERT LOWELL C.MARTINDALE,JR. WASHINGTON,D C.20035 $$oOHN H RONEY BON $$OIANA LLWAL[RN TELEPHONE(202)457-6300 JOHN O DETERO.JR STUART P TOBISMAN TELEX 80.822 HENRYC.TNUMANN SSMICHAEL HAMMER UWRENCE J SHEEHAN JOHN 0 HILLS PAUL B.""NON .$BEN E BENJAMIN 4 PLACE DE LA CONCORDE DONALD M WESSLING FREDERICKA RICHMAN November PARIS EI FRANCE J0HN O POWER HAROLD M MESSMER,JR. RICHARD C.WARMER FRANCIS J DURGWEGEN,JR 3rd TELEPHONE 265 39.33 $$EDWARD J MUNIFF JAMEB W.COLBERt,9[ RICHARD C WHITE JAMES V SELHA TELEX 842.860)IB SOLOMON M MUM JOHN F MUM p 0N STANTON IP NARROW GORDONF E. PERO NER 1 9 O 0 WILLIAM 0 GOULD MARTIN GLENN WILLAM&KRAMER IDONALD I.BLISS CHARLES W BENDER EDWARD W HIERONYMUS CRAFT BDSFUEU,JRHLeA oueDE GO T.0.AY N OUR FILE NUMBER CHARLES F G. NIEM[iN ROPE T JR L J.J WHITE JAMESKENDAL0.U POP NA JOSEPH MT HALk NO RALPH W MU WILLIAM M.WARDLAW PATRICK LYNCH JOHN W.STAMPER 467,260-1 MB[R P.C.F..R u Axe D C u �eiMC lxiiR[i AD..wnm N ullr;e[PT ac. HAND DELIVERY City of Newport Beach City Attorney's Office 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92663 Attention: Hugh Coffin, Esq. City Attorney Re: Koll Center Newport Development Dear Mr. Coffin: This office represents The Koll Company in connection with its application to the City of Newport Beach for approval of a project comprising: (i) Traffic Phasing Plan for the remaining development in the Koll Center Newport Planned Com- munity District; (ii) Amendment No. 550 to amend the Planned Community Development Plan for Koll Center Newport; and (iii) Use Permit No. 1953 to permit the construction of a 12-story hotel. The City Council of the City of Newport Beach is presently considering that application and is reviewing the environmental impact report prepared by the City on the project. On behalf of The Koll Company, we hereby submit a proposed Statement Of Facts containing both the findings re- quired by Section 21081 of the California Public Resources #2 - City of Newport Beach - ll/1/80 Attn: Hugh Coffin, Esq. Code and a Statement Of Overriding Considerations. In the view of The Koll Company, the environmental impact report on the project is complete and complies with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act, the. State EIR Guidelines and City Policy. The proposed Statement Of Facts submitted herewith sets forth these views and details facts which would support a decision by the City Council to approve the project, should the Council choose to do so. By copies of this letter, I am mailing copies of the proposed Statement Of Facts to those persons listed on the attached distribution list who have expressed an interest in the project. Sincerely yours, sa2" &WVJA Francis J. urgw , Jr. of O'MELVENY & MYERS FJB:ekt Enclosures cc: Mr. Fred Talarico Planning Department DISTRIBUTION LIST Citizens Environmental Quality Advisory Committee c/o Ms. Judy Cooper 1220 Outrigger Drive Corona Del Mar, California 92625 S.P.O.N. c/o Ms. Jean Watt 1151 Dove Street Newport Beach, California 92660 L.E.A.F. c/o Ed Siebel, Esq. 302-A Marine Avenue Balboa Island, California 92660 Friends of Upper Newport Bay P. O. Box 2001 Newport Beach, California 92663 Central Newport Beach Community Association c/o Mrs. Bobby Lovell 1242 West Ocean Front Newport Beach, California 92663 East Bluff Homeowners' Association c/o Mr. Gary Schaumberg 2900 Alta Vista Drive Newport Beach, California 92663 Four Fours. Association c/o Mr. Roy Jnutson 2504 University Drive Newport Beach, California 92660 Newport Upper Bay Estates c/o Mr. Tim Shepherd 2215 Anniversary Lane Newport Beach, California 92660 11TY OF NEWPORT &EACH C UNCIL MINUTES 9G ROLL CALL INDEX (g) A resolution from the City of Seal Beach urging Governor Edmund G. Brown, Jr. to sign SB 512 (creating an Orange County Cal Trans District) . i (h) A resolution from the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California supporting Proposition 8 on the November 4 election ballot. (i) A resolution of the City Council of the City \\ of Orange, urging the Governor to lift the \ odd-even gas distribution system. (j) utes of the Local Agency Formation Commis- sio •,,of Orange County for September 10, 1980. (Attached) (k) Applicationb,before the Public Utilities Com- mission: (1) Southern California Edison Company for authorization to extend Edison's Tax Change Adjustment Clause ("TCAC") from December 31, 1980 to December 31, 1981. (Attached) (2) Southern California Gas Company for an amendment to Application No. 59929. (Attached) (1) Agenda of the Orange County Board of Super- visors meetings of September 23, 24 and 30, and October 1, 7 and 8, 1980. (m) Letters from "King Alfonzo". Lizanetz regarding his ongoing campaign against Seagram's Dis- tillery. (n) A letter from the Central Newport Beach Community Association opposing any increase in hotels, opposing the removal of reference and other material from the Balboa Library to other libraries in the City_ , and attaching a list of policies supported by the Association. (Attached) - - _ 5. CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES. . For denial and confirmation of the City Clerk's (36) referral to the insurance carrier: (a) Claim of Sandra J. King for pareonal injuries King allegedly received when ght contacted a high ridge near the curb at the intersection of Palm Street anc).-Newport Beach Boardwalk while roller skating on June 10, 1980, falling and breaking"both wrists. Volume 14 - Page 212 CIT* OF NEWPORT BEAfH C UNCIL MINUTES by s�A 9G � ROLL CALL c ber 1 1980 INDEX (f) To the Traffic Affairs Committee for report Bayside Dr back, a petition bearing 73 signatures of (76) residents in the Bayside Drive area requesting that an immediate study be made to make Bayside Drive into two dead-end streets as the result of excessive speeds and careleasnes by motorists. (Attached) (g) To the Pending Legislation and Procedural Redondo Bch/ Ethics Committee, a resolution of the City of Resolution Redondo Beach regarding the use of school (77) property. (Attached) (h) To the Pending Legislation and Procedural GGrove Res Ethics Committee, a resolution of the City (77) Council of the City of Garden Grove requesting the Orange County Division of the League of California Cities seek measures to insure that the authority of Cities to zone school district property continues. (Attached) Removed from the Consent Calendar. 4. CO ICATIONS - For referral to the City Clerk for inclu 'on in the records: (a) A 1 tter to Charles R. Gross, Police Chief, from range County Human Services Agency, Public Health and Medical Services regarding the Ne ort Beach Police Department annual inspecti of local detention facilities. (b) Letters fro Koll Company and CommerceBank, expressing th nka to Council for their affirms tive vote for e City's continued participa- tion in County re Station #27. (Attached) (c) A letter from Karl Pottharat, Ph.D, in support of the City litigation against the Orange County Airport and Civil Aeronautics Board prohibiting furt r expansion of Orange County Airport. (Attach d) (d) A copy of a letter to Mobi Oil Company from Gerald A. Riesen registering a complaint against the Mobil Station at th and Balboa Boulevard as the result of a se vice charge fee to repair a punctured tire. (Attached) (e) A letter from James F. Helfrich, su1�porting the traffic circle at Cliff Drive and Irvine, crediting Evelyn Hart for her support\pf the project, and urging Council to try anotiker innovative project. (Attached) (f) Removed from the Consent Calendar. Volume 34 - Page 251 Gin Wong Associates Al 4!J Ft r'7' Planning and Architecture Gin 0. Wong FAIA President /�^/� F'1G-J45 October 15, 1980 Ms. Evelyn Hart Mayor Pro Tem City Hall 330 Newport Blvd Newport Beach, Ca 92663 Dear Madam: In responding to your question at last night's public hearing of the Koll Center Hotel project, regarding the unspecified spaces - I had mentioned that the majority of the unspecified space is really part of the circulation space - public corridors leading into guest rooms, public atrium rooms, corridors leading to restaurants, retail spaces and other usable space to make the hotel functional. Enclosed you will find the detailed breakdown of space, which I hope will clarify your inquiries. If you have any further questions, I would be most pleased to furnish the answers. Most cordially, #i ? Wong, F.A.I.A. GDW:ad Enclosure cc: Mr. Tim Strader ✓� 1666 West Third Street Los Angeles California 90017 Telephore 213 483 8822 Table 1.2 HOTEL USES USE SPACE Guest Rooms (440) 185,000 square feet Food Service Coffee Shop (200 seats) 3,600 square feet Specialty Restaurant (150 seats) 3,740 square feet 'Entertainment Lounge (150 seats) 3,740 square feet Lobby Bar (75 seats) 1,350 square feet Employee Cafeteria (about 85 seats) 1,700 square feet Kitchens (3 or 4) 17,300 square feet ' I Main Ballroom 12,000 square feet Pre-function Space (Ballroom Lobbies) 4,000 square feet Banquet Rooms (3 rooms with partitions) 7,500 square feet Conference Rooms 1,500 square feet Retail Facilities Gifts & Notions 2,040 square feet Rent-A-Car, Airline Services 1,776 square feet Front 'Office 1,925 square feet Administration & Sales Office 4,400 square feet Accounting Offices 2,100 square, feet Maintenance & Engineering 2,250 square feet Locker Rooms, Valet & Uniforms 2,375 square feet Laundry & Housekeeping 6,500 square feet Receiving Area 3,500 square feet General Storage 3,000 square feet Banquet Furniture Storage 2,500 square feet Linen Storage 1,300 square feet Vending Machine Area 910 square feet Lost and Found 200 square feet Circulation (including atrium, elevators, lobby, foyers) 111,000 square feet Other (Mechanical rooms, public toilets, pool equipment, room service, coat check, etc.) _ 12,794 square feet TOTAL 400,000 square feet KOLL OWIRW CONTRACTOR October 15 , 1980 Mr. James D. Hewicker Planning Director The City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92663 Dear Jim: Enclosed is some information on affordable housing which we have put together for your use. This data was compiled by Dick Hogan, therefore, please contact him if you have any questions regarding it. Very truly y urs , Q Timoth L Strader Executive Vice President and General Counsel r` TLS:klt Enclosures 4490 Von Kerman Avenue Newport Beach California 92660 • (714) 833.3030 THE R. V. HOGAN CO. POST OFFICE BOX 8443 NEWPORT BEACH. CA 82680 (714) XhnM= 833-9054 October 14, 1980 Mr. Timothy Strader The Koll Company 4900 Birch Newport Beach, CA 92660 Dear Tim: The information you requested regarding Affordable Housing and Commercial Zoning is attached. If I can be of further service, please call. Very truly yours, i i R. V. Hogan RVH:lt Enclosures � n t • at OCT 1980> 1 t . r AFFORDABLE HOUSING p In February, the Board of Supervisors of Orange County adopted a resolution amending the Housing Element of the General Plan defining Affordable Housing and clarifying the requirements for provision of affordable units. A copy of that resolution is attached. The Environmental Management Agency has prepared a "Housing Affordability Table" matching rent or house payments with the various income categories in order to determine compliance with the resolution. The Table is revised from time to time as new information becomes available on median income. A copy of the -Table dated September, 1980 is attached. The E.M.A. also keeps statistical records on the location and amount of affordable housing, which are compiled for various areas of the County called "Community Analysis Areas" or "C.A.A. " . I have excerpted the pertinent data from seven of the Areas with the following rough boundaries: West - Beach Blvd. in Huntington Beach North - Santa Ana Freeway East - Los Trancos Canyon and Irvine City Limits South - Pacific Ocean Number Total Number % Multi- % -Multi- Location CAA Dwellings Affordable Affordable Family Family Southeast Huntington Beach 36 17, 627 5041 28. 6 2757 9. 9 South Santa Ana 41 13, 701 8563 62 .5 5291 42 .2 North Costa Mesa 44 15,316 7505 49.0 5979 39.0 South Costa Mesa 45 12,789 9566 74. 8 6760 52 . 8 Coastal Newport Beach 46 14,033 6329 45. 1 5930 42 .2 North Newport Beach 47 10,754 3764 35.0 3633 33. 8 South Irvine 50 5, 808 1580 27.2 1544 26 .5 90,028 42,348 47.0 31, 894 35. 4 - Out of the total dwellings in the area in and immediately sur- rounding Newport Beach, 47% are found to be in a price range of $80,000 or less or to be rental units. The county has found generally that rental units fall into the affordable price range of one or more of the income categories. The statistics were gathered for the end of 1979. New information is in the process of compilation but is not yet available. 2 3 RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF I� 4 ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA i 5 February 6 , 1980 6 On the motion of Supervisor Anthony, -duly seconded and carried, 7 the following Resolution was adopted: 8 WHEREAS, the County of Orange has an adopted General Plan, which 9 includes a Housing Element; and 10 W1IEREAS, Housing Element Amendment 1980-1 (if 80-1) was added to 11 the General Plan Amendment Schedule for the sole consideration of I 12 Housing Element modifications, if any, to amend the sections of the 13 element dealing with the definition of affordability; and I 14 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors have z= 15 duly conducted public hearings on Amendment 1980-1 to the Housing i 'w 16 Element of the Orange County General Plan; and oa 17 WHEREAS, this Amendment is a "project" pursuant to the California 1S Environmental Quality Act; and 19 WHEREAS, this Board has reevaluated previously certified Final , 20 Environmental Impact Report 132 as to its completeness and adequacy in i 21 addressing all environmental effects of the proposed amendment; 22 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that this Board does hereby i 23 recertify as complete Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) 132 for I 24 the Orange County General Plan Housing Element Amendment 1980-1 with 25 the following findings: 26 1. After receiving and considering all proposed findings and ti 17 recomJrendations from the Orange County Planning Commission, as well as 28 other appropriate public comments, this Board hereby finds that AR:dh F•esolution No. 80-208 RF-CEIV`D kent 1980-1 to Housing Elcmant 1. Orange County General Plan FEB 81980 j previously certifiedenvironinental Impact Acpoie 132 is complete, ! 2 adequately addresses - the environmental effects of the proposed project 3 and has been considered in this Board 's action on the proposed project. 4 2. Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated 5 into General Plan Housing• Element Amendment 1980-1 which mitigate or 6 avoid certain of the significant environmental effects-thereof as 7 identified in the Final Environmental Impact Report. 8 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that Amendment 19801 to the Housing 9 Element of the Orange County General Plan as described below is adopted. i 10 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the. following. language modifications 11 be made to the Housing Element: I 12 DIAINTAIN 3 13 A. DEFINITION i 14 1. Affordable Unit 15 ' A unit whose cost is such that: o , u e 16 o the buyer/renter does not pay a gross payment for a 17 unit that exceeds 25% of the monthly/annual income of 18 families earning 80€ or less of median family income 19 for 'the County or 30% of the monthly/annual income of 20 those families earning 81£-120% of median family 21 income. 22 (Reference: Housing Element Page IV-1 (Definitions) ] 23 AND ADD 24 - OR: ALTERNATIVELY 25 In order to provide for maximum creativity 'in the ti 26 building industry and to encourage innovative financ- i ` .27 ing, an affordable unit is a unit that is actually ® '28 sold to and will be occupied by a buyer in an 2. 1 i income Otegory specified in Sect*n E of Appendix D 2 of this Housing Element. The seller must provide 3 certification to the County as to the qualifications 4 of the buyer. Acceptable certification processes 5 shall be specified by Resolution of the Board of Supervisors. 7 BE IT FORTHER .RESOLVED as follows: g 1. To satisfy the Housing Element requirements for the provision 9 of affordable units under the alternative definition of an affordable 10 unit as one sold to a buyer in an appropriate inco:re category, the 11 seller shall use any of the certification processes that follow: 12 A. Certification by a subsidizing agency that the unit was 13 sold under a subsidy program in accordance with subsidizing 14 agency criteria for buyer affordability. �; 15 B. Certification by an appropriate County agency such as the o0 VV , o �6 Housing Authority. 17 C. Certification by a process developed by the seller and 18 approved by EMA and this Board. 19 2. Certifications shall be complete when submitted to EMA and 20 may be subject to audit. 21 3. For the purpose of implementing the affordable unit cost 22 definition, gross payment is defined as that amount paid by a 23 low/moderate or medium income family for rent, or mortgage principal 24 and interest, taxes and insurance after a 10% down payment. Actual 25 down payment may vary at the option of the eligible family to meet 26 lender requirements or to reduce the actual monthly payment. ft IL27 Ten percent may be added to the maximum payment for three and ® 28 four bedroom units and 10% may be subtracted for studio and one bedroom 3. 1 units. .For- those u*s ,meeting special needs . target groups, • 10% 2 may be added to the maximum payment for a two bedroom unit of at least 3 1, 400 square feet. 4 Ten percent may be added to the maximum payment for a single 5 family detached affordable unit if such unit is proposed for diversity 6 within the market priced single family dwelling development. 7 -4. Where it' has been determined by the Environmental Management 8 Agency that public investment and incentive programs which would male 9 the provision of units in the low/moderate income category economically 101 feasible are not available, the provision of such required units shall 11 be in the medium income category and shall be equally divided between 12 the Medium I or -Medium II categories. 13 14 15 �Q 16 , u • o� 17 0 AYES: SUPERVISORS PHILIP L. ANTHONY, HARRIETT M. WIEDER, EDISON W. l8 MILLER, AND RALPH B. CLARK 19 NOES: SUPERVISORS THOASAS F. RILEY 20 ABSENT: SUPERVISORS NONE 21 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) 22 ) ss. COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ?3 •I, JUNE ALEV-NDER, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors of Orange County, California, hereby certify that the above and foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly adopted by i 24 the said Board at a regular meeting thereof held on the 6th day of February 25 19 80 , and passed by a four-fifths vote of said Poard . e 26 February WITNESS 1:7irREJF, I have hereunto set my hand and seal this 6th day of , 1980. w "0 27 C 28 —- - -- -.. JUNE ALEXPQ%DER Clerk of the Board of Supervisors of Orange County, California 4. ..� _ •5��.....•R.�...r..�N.n.�•���..��a�A.�T�T^fa.T�......YJ'w•'f.l—'^Y�f...—sv. +..� .... . ..• -........�..�.—...��...--.���^r.Rl�..+..� .n�' ..�� •.\n..LS Y_•`.•I-:.^.o.���Vim^.•�'•-.af.ri.w.Yrt..rr=T a.>r-. � __ COUNTY OF ORANGE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT AGENCY HOUSING AFFORDABTLTTY TABLE Effective SEPTEMBER 1980 ! Housing units shall be certified as affordable if prior to issuance of Certificates of 'Use and Occupancy documentation is submitted to the Director, EMA, which indicates that: A. For LOW/MODERATE units, the payment or rent does not exceed $ 390.00 . B. For MEDIUM I units, the payment or rent does not exceed $ 580.00 C. For MEDIUM II units, the payment or rent does not exceed $ 690.00 OR D. For LOW/MODERATE units, the purchaser yearly income does not exceed $ 18,600.00 E. For MEDIUM I units, the purchaser yearly income does not exceed $ 23,250.00 F. For MEDIUM II units, the purchaser yearly income does not exceed $ 27=900.001 i • NOTES: • 1. If A, B. or C above is utilized, the payment must include principal, interest, taxes, and insurance, and should be calculated based on 10% dowmpayment. The payment may increase by .10% if the unit to be certified includes more than two bedrooms, or includes two bedrooms and is 1400 square feet - or more, and/or if it is a single family detached unit. Actual downpayment may be higher but payments must be reduced accordingly. For more information, contact the Information and Housing De'Velopment Office at (714) 834-6208. { i Community Analysis Areas "Affordable Objective Met" Alternative i • / (��.`� �� � i � ' /i' III -,Alzll, V- ,Zoe . i I U CAA's with no development potential F7 CAA's with no potential for use of 1 within County jurisdiction "25� objective met" alternative CAA's with potential use of 1125 0 COMMERCIAL ZONING INFORMATION NEWPgRT BEACH. - Total Area 10 ,030 acres (Not including water) Commercial Zoning 1 ,200 acres Percent Commercial 11 . 9 Population 66 ,000 Commercial acres/1000 18 In Newport Beach zoning and planning are equal. Commercial area will probably not increase. IRVINE Total Area 26, 488 acres Commercial Zoning 607 acres Percent Commercial 2 .3 Population 64 ,000 Commercial acres/1000 9.5 Lion Country Safari with an additional 321 acres is not included. if it were, it would bring the acresJ1000 up to 14.5. The com- mercial area in the City will probably increase substantially with City growth. SANTA ANA Total Area 17, 586 acres Commercial Zoning 2,649 acres Percent Commercial 15 Population 189,000 Commercial acres/1000 14 COSTA MESA Total Area 10 ,048 acres Commercial Zoning 1 , 105 acres Percent Commercial 11 ~_Population 81,600 Commercial acres/1000 13..5 Costa Mesa data has been adjusted to include streets in the amount of 18. 4% of the area in order to make it comparable with the data from other cities. STANTON Total Area 2 ,112 acres Commercial Zoning 214 acres Percent Commercial 10 Population 23, 500 Commercial acres/1000 9 BUENA PARK Total Area 61566 acres Commercial Zoning 978 acres Percent Commercial 15 Population 63,500 Commercial acres/1000 15 %%%TWESTEC Services, Inc. LET1R OF TRANSMITTAL To: ('; 7 � 4 Project No. V58 Date: t (IaJZ/JSo 4n�� )— R2(✓C�3 Subject: Attn: ,-Fc 1 Q�AA�o oce l The following items are transmitted: ❑ Herewith ❑ Under Separate Cover Via: No.of Copies Description f , The above items are submitted: t your request ❑ For your review ❑ For your files ❑ For your approval ❑ for your action ❑ For your Information ❑ Per contract dated: ❑ General remarks: Copies to: Transmitted by:CC Receipt Acknowledged By: Date: (t) 80 Forward reply to WESTEC Services office indicated below: 3211 Fifth Avenue 18 Brookhollow Drive ❑ 570•Meln Street No.206 ❑ 550 Pinetown Roar/ Suite 423 San Diego,CA 92103 Santa Ana,CA 92705 Brawley,CA 92227 Fort Washington,PA 19034 (714)294-9770 (714)556.9350 (714)344.1157 (215)628.2565 505 Marquette NW ❑ 2129 Paradise.Road ❑ 1012 S Street Albuquerque,NM 87102 Las Vegas,NV-89104 Sacramento,CA 95814 (505)243-2835 (702)369-0493 (916)447-0337 _ Gin Wong Associates r Planning and Architecture Gin o.Wong FAIA Pres:den' October 22, 1980 Mr. Mike Lewis, Vice President The Koll Company 4400 Von Karman Ave. Newport Beach, Ca 92660 Dear Mike: You have asked that we respond to your inquiry regarding definitions of a "resort," "business," and "convention" hotel and the differences between them. We have not been able to locate a true Webster Dictionary definition, but we have managed to do some research which provides some specifics. Our findings are as follows: RESORT TYPE HOTEL A resort hotel is the type where a stimulating environment is of prime importance. It can be defined as reflecting the environment of the country or the area where the hotel is located, as typified by hotels in such resort areas as Hawaii, the Carribbean, Acapulco, etc. In a resort hotel, there must also be plenty of recreational facilities for guests, such as golf courses, ski slopes, beaches, etc. BUSINESS HOTEL A "business" hotel is one which primarily caters to the individual, traveling, businessman. Its location is primarily either an urban or business center. The main emphasis is comfort and service, and the business hotel's facilities should function primarily to serve business people. It should feature such basic amenities as coffee shops, room service, meeting rooms, a small ballroom, public steno's, and be in close proximity to the business center where businessmen conduct their affairs. CONVENTION TYPE HOTEL The convention hotel usually features a large number of available rooms where they can attract major industries. These convention- type centers are located in such cities as Las Vegas, Anaheim, 1666 West Thtrd Street Los Angeles California90017 Telephone 213 4838822 r � • n Honolulu, New York City, San Francisco, New Orleans, Atlantic City, etc. A major exhibition hall and/or a ballroom where they can accommodate between one to ten thousand people is important. The exhibiton hall, ballrooms, meeting rooms, should be at least twenty five to fifty thousand square feet. Convention facilities would include amenities such as audio/visual equipment, closed circuit television, large halls to handle exhibition of products, etc. Conventions attract groups in the neighborhood of ten to thirty thousand people. I hope this information will help to clarify the difference between these three types of hotels. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call me. Cordially, 4iWong, F.A.I.A. GW:ad I y ATTACHMENT No .-5 4 SEW�Rr � • Department of Community Development DATE: October 27 , 1980 TO: File FROM: Fred Talarico SUBJECT: Meeting on October 27 , 1�r80 from 10 : 00 a .m. to 12 : 00 P .M. with Bobi Lovell and Jean Watt , related to the response to comments "Addendum to the Certified Final EIR for the Koll Center Newport Planned Community Development for the Koll /Ae,tna Property" . The purpose of the above subject meeting was to discuss the City ' s response to comments related to the Environmental Document for the Koll/Aetna project. Ms . Lovell and Ms . Watt had previously been mail - ed a list of questions upon which comments will be provided prior to the continued Public Hearing (November 10 , 1980) . The following additional information was requested . 1 . Due to recent decisions related to Colorado River water indicate a potential long-term water supply problem inherent with the project? 2. Is a generation factor of. 75 employees per hotel room, accurate for the proposed project? ( For other hotels in the area? ) 3 . How does the project relate to regional housing and transportation policies that 'recommend that people should live and work in the same ".community" ? 4. If, the City of Newport Beach does not provide with in its boundaries opportunities for the employees of this project to live , will- the fact that the employees has his home in another city that the one he works in have an adverse impact on that city beyond that addressed in the Environmental Documents? 5 . What is the anticipated timing of the extension of the Corona del Mar freeway and implementation ofthe San Joaquin Hill Transportation Corridor? 6 . What will roadway conditions .be like between project occupancy and the extension of the Corona del Mar Freeway and the implementation of the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor? 7. The fiscal impact analysis indicates on page III - 16 (B-25) "other expenditures equal to $50. 00 per room" . What expenditures are included in the figure? 8 . What is the timing of the proposed transit facilities/services between : 1 ) John Wayne/Orange County Airport and Anaheim; and 2) Anaheim and Ontario Airport? Page 2 • . Memo to File : 9 . What impact will the hotels (proposed) have on operations at John Wayne/Orange County Airport? is a 3. 5 million passenger limit realistic in light of these impacts? 10 . Will the proposed hotels marketing program related to week'-end occupancy have a growth induciing imipact on tourist related facilities with in the City of Newport Beach? 11 . What types of conventions do the project sponsors invision for the hotel ? PLANNING DEPARTMENT JAMES D . HEWICKER, DIRECTOR By �l�[�� Fred Talarico Environmental Coordinator cc : Bobbi Lovell Jean Watt Westec Services The Koll Co . NOTE: A tape of this meeting is on file with the Planning Department . FT/tk 3 • ATTACHMENT No . 4 D-2 Koll Center Hote�10-14-80 Jean Watt 4 Harbor Island Newport Beach , CA 92663 Bobby Lovell 1242 W ., Ocean Front Newport Beach , CA 92661 Elynne Bloomberg 1300 Antigua Way Newport Beach , CA 92660 Pat Hollander 213 Via Dijon Newport Beach , CA 92663 Judy Cooper 1220 Outrigger Dr. Corona del Mar , CA 92625 Suzy Ficker 110-9th St. Newport Beach , CA 92661 George Ochsner 1834 Leeward Ln . Newport Beach , CA 92660 Dan Emory 2250 Golden Circle Newport Veach , CA 92660 Dick Spooner , Pres . Newport Harbor Chamber of. Commerce 1470 Jamboree Rd. Newport Beach , CA 92660 Ray Williams 1723 Port Sheffield Newport Beach , CA 92660 I Y I M1 I COMMENTS received related to the "Addendum to the Certified Final Environmental Impact Report for the Koll Center Newport Planned Community Development for the Koll Aetna Property" l.. What are the housing related impacts of the proposed project? 2. What are the Circulation/Transportation impacts of the pro- ject outside of the City of Newport Beach? 3 . What is the proposed use for the 123 ,794 sq . ft. indicated on Page 11 of Vol . I of the Environmental Document? 4. What is the definition of a "Convention Hotel " , " Destination Resort Hotel " , and "Business Hotel "? 5 . Does the project create a demand for an additional Fire Station (CNB ) in the airport area? Is this the project that triggers that need? 6 . Does the project have a significant adverse impact on police services? Is there a need for added police services in the area because of the project? 7 . What is the definition of a " defensible space concept" ? 8. Does the Cost/Revenue System adequately anticipate impacts of the project? 9 . Would a joint City/County growth control reduce the impacts of the project? 10 . What are the impacts of the project on the John Wayne/ Orange County Airport? 11 . Is the Staff response to comments on the Environmental Document adequate? 12 . Why was the Environmental Document indicated on an "Addendum"? 13. Has the City complied with the Woodland Hills decision? 14. How many hotels (new and expansion) are planned in the adjacent communities ( Costa Mesa , Irvine and County) ? Does this project have a growth inducing or cumulative impact when viewed in relationship to these proposals? CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Office of CITY ATTORNEY November 10 , 1980 To: Fred Talarico From: Assistant City Attorney Subject: Notice of Determination - Koll Center Newport I would suggest that you add another paragraph, No. 6, which should indicate that the certified Final EIR (or addendum to the EIR) and record of project approval may be examined at the Planning Department of the City of Newport Beach, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California. Other than that, it' s perfect. rhb CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING DEPARTMENT January 28 , 1981 TO: Debra Allen , Planning Commissioner FROM: Planning Department SUBJECT: Supplemental I•nformati,on Report - Koll Center Newport Phasing Plan, Amendment No. 550 and Use Permit No, 1953 (Koll Hotel ) At the Planning Commission meeting of January 22, 1981 , you raised a concern regarding a Condition of Approval which had been placed on the Koll project which would require the removal of parking on Coast Highway in Corona del Mar. At that time it appeared that the Planning Commission may not have fully understood the implica- tion of that particular condition. Inasmuch as you were not present at the Planning Commission meeting of September 4, 1980, I am forwarding to you a copy of the Staff report dated September 4 , 1980, which was hand-distributed to the Planning Commission the evening of the meeting. Please note that the middle paragraph , titled "Supplemental Traffic Data , " references the attached letter report from Weston Pringle and Associates , which indicates that the ICU at the intersection of Coast Highway and MacArthur Boulevard could be reduced from .9428 to .8630 by the addition of an east-bound through lane. In addition you should note that the letter report from Weston Pringle and Associates expresses the concern by the City's Traffic Engineer with respect to the phas- ing plan, and indicates the concern of the Public Works Department that the implementation of this circulation system improvement would require the elimination of an undetermined amount of on-street parking on Coast Highway. Subsequently the Planning Commission added Condi - tion No. 38 to the phasing plan as set forth in the supplemental report. The supplemental report was also forwarded to the City Council for its consideration at the City Council meeting of October 14, 1980. The supplemental report was designated as Attachment No. 3. I hope this memo will clear up any question you may have had regard- ing the Condition of Approval and the information which was presented by the Staff to the Planning Commission and City Council . PLANNING DEPARTMENT J S D. EWICKER , Director JDH/kk XC : Planning Commissioners on W WESTEC Services, Inc. • 118 Brookhollow Drive Santa Ana, CA 92705 (714) 55&9350 N0 NV0% 1814-TCR2258 November 5, 1980 Mr. Fred Talarieo Environmental Coordinator City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92663 Dear Mr. Talarico: Enclosed are 50 copies of the Attachment 1, Comments and Responses for the Koll Aetna project as you requested. Very truly yours, Thomas C. Ryan Manager, Environmental Studies TCR:pc Enclosures .� CV !1 �G\asF' 1 �aQ�GQy 1 LAW OFFICES OF O' M E LV E N Y & M Y E R S 1600 CENTURY PARK EAST 611 WEST SIXTH STREET LO6 ANGELES,CALIFORNIA 90067 TELEPHONE 12131 553-6700 LOS ANGELES,CALIFORNIA 90017 TELEX 67-4097 I BOO M STREET, N.W. TELEPHONE 12131 620-1120 WASHINGTON,D.C.20036 TELEX 6)-4122 TELEPHONE(202)457-5300 TELEX 60-622 CABLE ADDRESS'MOMS' 4 PLACE OE LA CONCORDE PARIS BO, FRANCE TELEPHONE 265 39-33 TELEX 042.660715 November — 5th T 9 O 0 OUR FILE NUMBER 467, 260-1 BY MESSENGER EG��co Mr. Fred Talarico V5 t,', '• Environmental Coordinator Community Development Department F� 1t City of Newport Beach 2 1 3300 Newport Boulevard N Newport Beach, California 92663 Re: Koll/Aetna Proposed Hotel Project Dear Mr. Talarico: I am enclosing fifty (50) copies of a Proposed Index to the Addendum to the Certified Final Environmental Impact Report on the Koll/Aetna Project. Sincerely, Ber E / Arbit Legal Assistant BEA/cl cc: Francis J. Burgweger, Esq. (w/encls. ) Enclosures Action on Item D1: Action: Hold hearing ; close hearing ; if desired, a) Sustain the recommended actions of the Planning Commission and 1) Make the Findings with respect to the Final EIR as set forth in Attachment No. 1 to the Supple- mental Staff Report and accept, approve and certify the Final EIR. 2) Make the Findings with respect to the Traffic Phasing Plan as set forth in Attachment No. 1 to the Supplemental Staff Report and approve the Traffic Phasing Plan for the remaining develop- ment in Koll Center Newport. 3) Make the Findings with respect to Use Permit No. 1953 as set forth in Attachment No. 1 to the Supplemental Staff Report and approve Use Permit No. 1953 to permit the construction of a 12 story, 440 room hotel with related facilities in Koll Center Newport. 4) Make the Findings with respect to the amendment to the Planned Community Development Plan for Koll Center Newport as set forth in Attachment No. 1 to the Supplemental Staff Report and adopt Resolution amending the P-C Development Plan for Koll Center Newport to permit the transfer of allowable square footage within the Planned ` Community. OR b) Approve the project with modifications. OR c) Deny the project. i� OITY OF NEWPORT TEACH C UkkZf1\�j'3 MINUTES ROLL CALL October 27, 198p INDEX 3. COMMUNICATIONS: - For referral as indicated: the Traffic Affairs Committee for reply, a IrvBl/Mrnrs/ lette Louise H. Cote regarding the 18th St/Trf ' dangerous con s still existing on Irvine (85) Boulevard and Mariners 18th Street since her initial correspondence November 2, 1977. (Attached) 4, COMMUNICATIONS - For referral to the City Clerk for inclusion in the records: (a) A letter from_ Shirley Knutsep regarding the effect o_f Kol,LRotel-and_the_Dunes_.proj.ect_on airport expansion, increased nolse_and-in- creased-traffic. (Attached) (b) A letter from Dr. Eugene D. Gierson thanking the City Council and General Services for their attention to his complaint regarding the lack of street sweeping on 36th Street. (Attached) (c) Minutes of the Friends of Oasis Boa/"eetof September 22, 1980. (Attached) (d) Removed from the Consent Calendar. (e) Resolution of the Local Agency For Commission of Orange County ad'op ng the negative revision of the City Newport Beach's Sphere of Influence exclude the "Bay Knolls: area generally ocated westerly of Tustin Avenue, between anta Isabel and 22nd Streets." (Attach ) (f) Minutes of the Loca Agency Formation Commis- sion of Orange Co ty, dated September 24, 1980. (Attache (g) Letter' from at Krone, Public Affairs Manager, regarding acific Telephone Company's program for dire dialing to Northwest Mexico. (Attac d) (h) Le er from the City of South Lake Tahoe tending an invitation to the City of Newpor each to meet with their Council while attend- ing the League of California Cities Annual Conference in Los Angeles. (Attached) (i) Resolution of the City Council of the City of Yorba Linda endorsing landscaping for the Orange Freeway. (Attached) (j) Removed from the Consent Calendar. Volume 34 - Page 263 I ' CI0Y OF NEWPORT BE*H C UNGIL MINUTES ti sytiyJ��ryG�� . ROLL CALL `�'�s October 27, 1980 INDEX (b) Resolution No. 9906 authorizing the Mayor and UP 1949 City Clerk to execute an Off-Site Parking C-2217 Agreement between the City of Newport Beach R-9906 and Tonti-Walker Investors, Inc., in connec- (38) tion with Use Permit No. 1949 (2800 Lafayette Avenue). (Report from the Planning Depart- ment) (c) Removed from the Consent Calendar. (d) Resolution No. 9908 awarding a contract to Lee Roofing Lee Roofing Company in connection with the C-2201 reroofing of City Hall (C-2201) . (Report R-9908 from the Public Works Director) (38) (e) Resolution No. 9909 authorizing the Mayor and Simpson Agmt City Clerk to execute a Consulting Services 208/Study Agreement between the City of Newport Beach C-2219 and Donald C. Simpson in connection with the R-9909 208 Study. (Report from the Public Works (38) Department) ( Resolution No, 9910 establishing the south Chnl PI/Pkg aide of Channel Place between Marcus Avenue R-9910 and Rivo Alto as a no parking tow away zone. (64) eport from the Traffic Affairs Committee) (g) Res ution No. 9911 authorizing the Mayor and Resub 611 City lerk to execute a subdivision agreement R-9911 betwee Newport Beach and Temple Bat Yahm in connect on with public improvements required with Res division 611. (Report from the Public Wor s Department) (h) Resolution N 9912 of the City Council of Bic/Ped Funds the City of Ne ort Beach approving the SB821 application for icycle and/or pedestrian R-9912 funds authorized nder SB 821 and authorizing (61) the City Manager o his designated representa- tive to make applic tion for the funds and to act as the City's co act person. (Report from the Public Works apartment) (i) Resolution No. 9913 auth izing the Mayor and KOCM/Hutton City Clerk to execute a L ense Agreement R-9913 between the City of Newport each and Hutton (42) Broadcasting Incorporated fo the use and maintenance of the radio trans itter and transmitting tower near the int section of 16th Street and Monrovia Avenue. (Report from the Utilities Director/with a reement) (j) Resolution No. 9914 of the City Coun 1 0£ KOCM/Wstrn the City of Newport Beach consenting n R-9914 assignment of a License Agreement from utton (42) Broadcasting Incorporated to Western Bro d- casting Company for the operation and mainte- nance of a radio transmitter and transmitting tower on City-owned property near the inter- section of 16th Street and Monrovia Avenue, contingent upon Federal Communications' Commission approval, (See report with 11-2(1)) (Assignment attached) K Volume 34 - 262 October 14, 1980 Mayor Jackie Heather E Newport Beach City Council 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, Ca. 92663 Dear Council, Perhaps I am too late in writing you concerning the Koll Hotel plans at MacArthur E Campus; but, I feel the concerns I have with that hotel also will apply to the Dunes project when that comes before this council. • The airport expansion seems to happen even though {Host of us do not want more planes, more noise, more traffic. There- fore, I feel the added attraction of another hotel (s) with con- vention facilities (more air traffic and ground traffic) entices visitors and expansion. Freeways are a long way off and we just can't keep absorb- ing all these air trips, 60,000 persons per year means average 106 per day plus private jets along with 12,000 car trips per day which is over one-twentieth of San Diego Freeway travel. If we impact ourselves so much with hotels etc. , we cer- tainly will dim the chances of another regional airport elsewhere. Sincerely, k 1j ShirI Knutsen 321 Coral Avenue Balboa Island, Ca. 92662 • CO Please make copies for each council member. d 'Date/ D •/% F ' COPIES SENT TO: ❑ Mayor "Manager or1-900&. ❑ Attorney 0 P W Dlrertor camDav nileuor �❑ ,� J Other �.. Councllmen 1 Sue L. Ficker 110 9th Street Balboa, Ca. , 92661 November 3, 19 s 9 Department of Community Development RECEIVED CI?Y ft�+ITS City of Newport Beach Attentions Fred Talarico NOV 61980 ;- 10CIP! OF Environmental Coordinator Imo"WORT DEiCH, CRLIF. � Dear Mr. Talarices ;b/ I have carefully analyzed all of the four- ~ teen points included in your summary of October 2Oth 1980 and still find it sadly lacking and perhaps even superficial in addressing adequately the most essential issues (i.e. such as sewage system; water; air quality; im act o tourism on marine oriented golsunuui,ki,es etc* ) I m par�ticuul ra ly dristressed that there seems to be no real concern for the effect of site run off on the Bay, both before and after completion. All the "insignificant impacts," collective-ly, have resulted in the total ruination of the Back Bay, to say nothing of the--detk;mental effects of same which have found their way into the lower regions of the bay as well. To continue to utilize "no significant impact" in this -instance and others as well is grossly inadequate if not down right fallacious in the light of past experience. Unless the afforementioned and all other com- ponents are eve aluated in terms of commulative effect of all ccn emplated future clevelo rn� ent, there can be no validity for purposes of making intelligent decisions of long range consequence. Please refer to enclosed file containing information and questions WHICH ARE CRYING FOR i)A ANSWER• Have you had access to the same data that the County of Orange basis its projections for the future problems Date Q attendant to growth in Orange County? Did the E.I.R. `s CQPIE .SEhT T0: of the following : Corporate Plaza, Pacific Mutual# Sea i Island, Newport North, Ford Aeroneutronic play any part +tayef in your ultimate evaluations and decisions? 6tanager ri/Attorney 9P W Director 'CDmDer Director othe E{ 2uncilrnen r 19aDy�r .�1 2. The E.I.R. 's on all these projects, plus many others, with which I have become greatly familiar the past ten years, all claim "NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT." Then what is it that has created the obvious deteriation of our Community that now sees itself confronted with an insurmountable problem for which there are no immediate - or even far reaching solutions? In the past, the tremendous pattern of growth has obviously rnot resulted in improvement of services and support• systems, so on what basis do you predict that future growth shall prove to be any more renumerative? When one analyzes the compilation of past staff recommendations and commentary in the E.I.R. 's, which often are not couched in fact, one can only conclude that the staff is either working with misin- formation or that it has succumbed to that inevitable pressure of development that manifests itself through- out our entire county. Until there are answers to the questions contained herein (including questions in the attached newspaper article) I feel that the staff is greatly remiss in sup;,lying this community, with those very necessary directives that will insure a happy, healthy, prosperous future for all its residents, not just that chosen few who chose to exploit Newport Beach's finest attributes. Thank you for taking the time to communicate. I appreciate your consideration in sending your- reply by Certified mail. I shall be looking forward to bearing from you at your earliest convenience. Most sincerelyyours, SLF/am Sue L. Ficker CCs City Council City Manager Planning Commission Fate Of 846 HomesRests On Decision Eight hundred forty-six homes million, plus an annual cost of groups, including the Friends'Of the hearing she favors the gravi- and 441,000 square feet of com- $2,200. Newport Bay. The state Coastal; ty flow line, because of the mercial development rest on a' •—A new pumping station that Commission disallowed thi�`o energy savings. controversial decision tonight on 'would cost$1.085 trillion to tion three years ago,' an environmentally sensitive build, and cost$31,400 a year The current'10-inch sewer:'i ; ` As`a result of the projected sewer line. 'for electricity and$12,000 a line, from a pumping Sid tfon' '' • high price of the alternatives, ; The sewer line would provide year for maintenance. north'of San Ioaqum* Hills Road the single•faridly home hookup .` an increased capacity to allow —A gravity flow line that to a gravity flow ling Rear c';:", cost is $850, instead of $250 in the new development east of Up- . would cqst $816,000 to build, Newport Dunes, would be'i� ;:s;- other areas within the zone, said_ "' lied Harper,per Newport Bay. $2,200 a year to maintain and replaced. a 24-inch gravity acounty sanitation The directors of Orange travel down Big Canyon Gully, ' flow lino'that would wind down.:.' director:Commercial hookups County Sanitation District Five wiping out a riparian (riverbed) the gully and travel'along Back cost$440 per 1,000 square,feet, are expected to make the deci- habitat. This route was previous- Bay Road. •. :..•,;:• i: :t' :;N,g. Versus$130 in other areas. ;;; . • sion after a public hearing. ly opposed by environmental Mayor Heather said going`into '" : Roger Angle,'. tonight at 7:30 at the Oasis Senior Citizens Center, Fifth and Marguerite streets, Corona tt del Mar. Q l�L'J�10L1�, Ae,% , wotvlt� 4m r,6vr. 'CheA&A,oI SA The developments—including parts of Spyglass Hill, Ford 1Y\TV0\11Z tt1.J MJr-S 6 °t--C3VI12, Aeronutronics, Easibluff and tO ,,( Q , ��� �� -�CL I what remains to be constructed 1, t �';• f in Big Canyon—have been held '"LJ— tJ1 e Ce S$QN` �1 GCI Q,� t t �Y �O V up since the district adopted a � t ��• rr sewer hookup moratorium Jan. �O W LM -- ` CCk C.'rA "G° 15, reportedly because,of a threatened overload. 0��°1 �X� a-04-3i0L\ ? The directors at that time were Paul Ryckoff, then mayor; Ray ��t f. ll Williams, then mayor pro tem, i 1 ( S �t�,(�al �tt COL C, I 114r o-C 4 i 4 and Fifth District Supervisor y Tom Riley. Rypkoff and LNilliams Se W Cal @ S t4 tVL +fit'�• t L4�q bt V� OVrL° Q • were defeated in the April coup- '`�,$ ���LY Q L �/ awt 10�$.V' C'?L QM t s cilmanic election. They have -.-----------+ ( } 'z""'— �p been replaced on the sanitation Maw 6e- V6�9.CQ SS CWY tV^ T�tL 1LM1tk4%_aV ; e Y board Mayor Jackie Heather' and Couu ncilmacilman John Cox. This board will have to choose from three controversial alternatives: t( QL.t �d u-� , ��W�QQ� 1 �QCIk. • w —A .tJ foot-deep tunnel under .{. $�� � •� L'�p S�►`tl� a hill at jamboree and San Joa- ;- C � �v @^� '�{7� k quin Hills, at a cost of $2.65 t i a�,�� Y x(S•�S k +Qj eFA rQ�c AA_ACAe.d a w'k of 4i is s��Sc-o r 6-� - su� n SEE ITEM D-2 IN SEPARATE ENVELOPE STpf Ciry'�FI�FD CC� O 1f _ L N Polir of 15�0► 2 • OUR �. PO BOX 102 BALBOA ISLAND, CALIF. 92662 Septarber 17, 1980 /•� i� r Mayor Heather and Newport Beach City Council 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92663 Concerning: Koll Center Hotel and EIR After a short silence, let us re-introduce ourselves. sPON is an organization which tries to promote responsibility through informed and active participation of citizens in govermmilent. The issues that need our support are those.which have no natural support through money to be • made or positions to be gained. For several years we have worked toward a positive future for the residents of Newport Beach in terms of both environmental amenities and actual preservation of residential neighbor- hoods. The City's economic base is always to be considered - taxes paid and services received. Many times, a case is made for large ccammercial enterprises such as Hotels because of the income brought to the City. This income will presumably buy us more of the services which seem to be in ever increasing need. So far, the new projects have not proven them- selves to have brought increased services - rather, there seems to be an increasing drain. When the real cost/benefits are analyzed, especially in view of the proliferation of hotels and related activities in this area, we believe the burden of proof has to be on the side of permitting so much of this activity at this time. We believe Newport is suffering from a Too MUCH, Too SOON syndrome for which the defense seems to be the • need for economic growth. We ask you to tell us how long this magnitude of economic growth can continue and what happens later. In answering, please consider sane of the following eommments. Date 2 � r COPIES SENT To: SPON strongly supported General Plan AnmendL ent 79-1, including thatErmayor part affecting Koll Center.. We believed that, because of circumstances:® Manager ® Attorney airport demand and resulting neighborhood ingmacts, problems providing O P W Director ground transportation and resulting poor air quality and congestion; ®E� Othery Director problem with adequate employee housing - use of the remaining property Ea 0 Councilmen at Koll Center should be low density, locally oriented offices or even residential. A change in zoning is permissable and expected under such changing and extremely difficult circumstances. In determining the use of this property at this tune, you are faced with giving the Koll projects a use permit. In doing this, the original 1972 EIR plus an addendum must be reviewed. We have spent ,a great deal of time reviewing the issues involved and believe the same problems - or possibly worse ones - are now evident surround- ing the use of this property as were known at the time of general. Plan Amendment 79-1. We are of an even stronger opinion that such changes were appropriate and necessary. Here are some examples of devastating facts which, when pulled together and understood thoroughly, form an appalling picture: AIRPORT: Newport Beach residential areas are dependent for their survival: on the completion of a new regional airport facility. Until that happens, other airports, including Orange County, will have to take up the slack. How far away is that facility? Who Knows? Not • within 15 years! There is a strong organization fighting against the Long Beach Harbor idea. What are the chances of Camp Pendleton or El Toro? Don Koll promised us Camp Pendleton at the time of the ori- ginal Kola Center request. If we do not have a new airport facility, all other existing airports will have to expand beyond their current limits meaning constraints would be removed and neighborhoods displaced. Fbr our City, in particular, it seems to be walking a precipice to continue with airport demanding land uses when the airport dilemma stands totally unresolved and we are unrelentingly vulnerable. My have developments which create obviously excessive airport demand when other viable alternatives are possible? There is a choice and our . City's residents and economy will be far better served by slower growth than by the certain possiblity of destruction. If the case is made that such hotel facilities will simply be • built in adjacent cities, then consider the next issue: GR3OWD TRANSPOR MTICN: The layers of government dealing with ground transportation are unbelievable. It is easy to see how we fall vic- tim to the Too MUCH, TOO SOON syndrome since the complexities of fund- ing sources can be used to conjure up visions of great hope. Rather deflating, to the vision is an article in the Times on 9/17/80 entit- • -3- led Nation's Transport System in Trouble. "Because of its pervasive- ness, it is easy to take transportation for granted, and that may be • the reason the magnitude, of 'the problems has escaped general notice". The Federal government is authorizing a study on the Santa Ana Freeway Corridor because the Orange County Transportation planners have de- fined it as cost urgent in the County and are asking for Federal funds. This Corridor (currently very congested) improvement is 7-10 years from completion and need $400-600 million (1980 dollars) . Orange County recently completed the Orange County Multi-modal Study which calls for anywhere from $3.2 - 7.3 billion in needed projects. Sources of State funding are sadly insufficient even with the potential increase as a separate District. $85 million for the next 5 years with a possible addition of $10 million/yeas as a separate •District. A detailed descrip- tion of current financing methods for,transit and sources of Federal , funds is necessary to adequately portray this issue. The Multi-modal Study contains sane of the necessary information. One statement, vague • but providential, on page V-145, reads "An analysis of the proposed allocation to Orange County in conjunction with the current highway in- vestnent needs suggested by local,agencies indicates that current fund- ing levels are inadequate to finance the highway component of any but the most basic multi-modal alternatives (such as Alternate A) and still satisfy highway needs suggested by local agencies. YOU HAVE TO TAKE THE ABOVE IQOMEDGE APART AND LOOK AT IT -(Alternate A represents a no-build alternative which in the study team's concept represents no new major investment by the public sector but assumes that the private sector would continue to provide incremental develop- ment of the arterial facilities through dedicated new facilities in newly developed areas) . p. !V-2 Multi-modal Study.. THINK ABOUT THIS - This 'means that the private sector will continue to build new projects while the public sector gets further and further be- hind in the older areas, and more and more impacted as well, by the traffic from the new. Finally, we will need sane sort of bailout financing which seems to be at the very root of our tax problems. As to Federal financing, do'read the aforementioned Times article. Clearly, our City would be served better in the long run with slower growth until these issues are resolved - so the public knows exactly what it is buying. Is that possible? -4- HOUSING: Housing has not even been referred to in the EIR for the Foll project. We cannot believe that this is so considering the fol- • lowing increasingly aninous situations: Hotels have a very high rate of employee needs; Newport Beach already has twice as much caarercial development as the. Orange County average; Contrary to the cotnron desire for less bureaucracy, the regional agen- cies such as SCAG are formed out of necessity to try to save us f=m our own inability to balance land uses; SCAG has said the City must provide units for low and moderate incase persons; .The City is under litigation by the Orange County Fair Housing Council to try to ensure provision of adequate low and moderate cost housing. CONCLUSICN: There will be many incongruities 'apparent if the City is to allow this sort of intensive cmmeroial growth at this time. • The City is seeking help from regional, State and Federal agencies for problems of airport iupact and transportation needs - seem to be critical of these layers of govenmient when they attach strings to the help - and yet continues to choose land uses which exacerbate the very problems we need help for. We believe we will suffer increasingly, and on an ever enlarging scale, from the TOO MCH, TOO SOON syndrome. Some very responsible choices have to be made and THERE ARE CHOICES. Sincerely, Jean Watt SPCN Steering Committee • • Spef 20, 1990 Members Newport Beach City Council Because many of the residents are concerned about the large number of hotel rooms being proposed for our City and our area, this would a good time to give the voters an opportunity to express their o?ini�ns. queeti-)"Is, :!uch rks `:1; ='oll.owi_:;;, with the correct numbers inaterted eVStaff, could be sent with the water bill. We all need to see the pertinent figures again, and those interested in the issue, will have the chance to communicate with the Council. 1Q . . . . . numbers of hotels and . . . numbers of additional hotel rooms have been proposed for Newport Beach and the surrounding area. How many of each would you consider appropriate and or reasonable. . Q Considering the estimated dollar return from bed tax per room of . :. . . how would you vote on the following. l. all ow . . . . . . . . . number 2. allow only enough to meet business demands but not necessarily tourist demands 3. Allow fewer hotels and place more emphasis on curtailment of non—essential City services and more effecient management • of City goverment. . . . . . suggestions welcome. . . . . . ter should be . THE PRIME consideration of the Council in this mat i4 preservation of the residential quality of our City- Yes. . . . . . no. . . . . Please answer and return to the Newport Beach City Council 3300 Newport Beacn Blvd. , Newport Beach, Ca. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. Jean Morris 1032 Sea Lane, Corona Del Mar, Ca. 0 COPIES SENT TO: C�yF��jG�'D •0 to Attorney p N Nre"tor ylllFaq� �� 19do 4j • �CeiiJzr Cirecfar 2/\ �9l/FQE7Cy Cilter Counctimen rA, N J 7, M'ESAVERS 0)INC TEMPORARY PERSONNEL 4630 Campus Drive • Newport Beach, CA 92660 • 979.9740 • Corporate Headquarter SUNNYVALE 408-734-9940 CITY Ct.EU *' ANAHEIM S E P 2 tG 714.635-8000 b 3 i sr September 22, 1980 OTY OF BURLINGAME r f 4x^q if m¢a� JJ 415-347-0776 �i Q/MlJfr. Mayor and City Councclman CONCORD City, of. Newport Beach / 415-671-7228 Newport Beach, California 92663 DALY CITY 415-992-0141 Honorable Mayor and City Councilman: HAYWARD After reviewing an article in the Newport Harbor 415-786-2800 Area Chamber of Commerce LOOKOUT, on the prospects p LOS ALTOS of Hotel Development in our area, this letter will 415-948-9400 explain my views, which I hope will be of some • value in future deliberations. NEWPORT BEACH 714-979-9740 I am in favor of any orderly growth so long as the Quality of life we presently enjoy is not distorted. OAKLAND Attention to enviornmental considerations including 415-763.7010 building design, landscaping, traffic .flow and people S CARLO movement will be of paramount considerations in the SAN SANCARLO final decision making process. 415-595-1270 Build the hotels. Please be very careful not to 415-434-1841 SANFR O 1841 turn Newport Beach into another Oahu and Wikiki Beach, over run by too many people, too many cars, SANJOSE and to few surface streets to handle the masses. 408-267-2072 Your kind consideration of this letter will be SANTAANA appreciated. 714-973-4991 Sincerely, TORRANCE 213-373-0501 213-373-6807(Technical) (,eorge Howes • Area Manager Date GEH:gh COPIESSENT T TO: n mayor 0lanager r� Aaorney f f i"NDirector - �romUei Direotot Cf Other [� Coun4irtatl �� MRs. DAVID BALLANTINE 119 $HORECLIFF ROAD CORONA DEL MAR, CALIFORNIA 92625 0 • v, Octobe � , 19aen 00 � Newport Beach City Council 3300 Newport Blvd. . Newport Beach, Calif . 92663 Dear Councilpeople: It is with growing alarm that we view the antici- pated expansion of the hotel and office developments near the airport . aow can we cope with the additional traffic congestion that this will mean- both on our roads and at the airport? I feel that the City Council must take a hard look at the facts with which we are presented, and try to hold out for what will be a reasonable rate of growth for such projects before we find ourselves in a lituation from which we cannot withdraw. We have to consider the . quality of the environment upon which we rely for our h ealth, as well as the beauty that we wish to retain in one of the loveliest resort areas in California. Sincerely yours, Helen Ballantine • 724 Aleppo Street Newport Beach Calif. 92660 • October 1D8 Mayor Jackie Heather and the 1 Y Q[�({ER Newport Beach City Council ' 3300 Newport Boulevard OCT 198d► Newport Beach 0 California 92663 �� NEVYAART BEACH, CALIF, Subject: Koll Center•Hotel c' We are strongly opposed to the granting of a Use Permit for the Koll Cen Hotel for the following reasons: 1. Significant increase in traffic congestion. Traffic congestion in the Newport area is almost intolerable right now. The Los Angeles Times Orange County Section (Part III page 1, column 61 September 299 1980) describes it better than we can - 'With population growth in the area already threatening to turn the road system into a replica of the Santa Ana Freeway at rush hour, ...". We are aware that the county now has its own transportation district and thus more road money. We are also aware that there is still a very serious shortage of funds for roads. (The • Times correctly describes the district as "essentially a psychological viot- crytt for the county because of the statewide funds shortage.) It is just not logical to allow construction of another hotel in this area in view of the present and projected future traffic congestion even without it. 2. Inevitable demand for more Orange County Airport expansion. Approval of the Koll Hotel will just add voices to the chorus clamoring for more flights, more airlines,, larger airplanes and longer hours. We are aware of your stand against airport expansion and commend you for it. (As resi- dents of Eastbluff, we are reminded 41 times daily that jets fly out of the airport.) We are also aware that you face powerful opposition (including the FAA with airport funds to withhold)v and it would seem illogical for you to take any action which would add strength to an already powerful opposi- tion. In summary we strongly urge you not to grant the Koll Center Hotel Use Permit, lincer ly` � avid 7*. Friest `"� Diana Friest ��iGliGLsL / //IiLGe�� bete /,D _— MRS Sw To: Q Mayor Manager Attorney P W Director COMOV Nrectar 0thcr a ❑ Ceune;tmen 213 via Dijon • Newport Beach, Ca. 92663 rn 4 November 1980 CRypFIVRp Mayor and City Council Persons ��ERK City of Newport Beach, 9 NOV 419800, Newport Beach, Ca. 92663 C17Y of � HFwroRr aeac Your Honors : I urge you to delay the Koll Hotel project until its w plans take into account the energy crisis that we are in. My reasons areas follows; The Southern California Edison Company (in a letter to the Newport Beach City Council, September 25, 1979) has already stated in regard to this project that 'bur ability to serve all customer loads during peak demand periods could become marginal by 1984." Since September 1979, the date of the letter, the energy crisis has worsened • considerably, particularly as an end to the Iraq-Iran war is not in sight. The Southern California Gas Company (in a letter attached to the Addendum of the EIR) offered the services of its Commercial-Industrial Market Services Staff to assist the Koll Company with 'energy saving advice. The Koll Company has failed to take advantage of this offer. The hotel proposal makes no mention of energy saving devices or insulation to reduce energy requirements . There is no evidence of plans to use soft energy technologies . Hotel orientation in relation to the sun's rays or sea breezes is not mentioned. Hotels , unlike other industries, do not have to have alternate fuel facilities ; i.e. , when gas supplies are insufficient most industries must turn to their own supply of oil. Hotels and private residencies have equal access to gas supplies. • Southern California Edison offers advisory services to help builders in the planning stages of construction but there is no evidence in the EIR Addendum of requests for energy saving advice. Only in passing, does the proposal take into account the energy crisis; i.e. , the day-night compatibility will be reviewed to determine the potential integration of energy sharing and the projects impact on the Huntington Beach power plant will be assessed. Otherwise, in regard to energy, the remainder of the proposal discusses mechanical access to energy sources. • 1 • There are several firms that specialize both in fore- • casting energy requirements of proposed buildings and in cutting energy consumption. The Koll Company does not appear to have enlisted such expert assistance. All of us must conserve energy. Most of us have the opportunity to affect energy consumption only in our homes or in our use of the automobile. You, on the other hand, are afforded the opportunity to help us all by enforcing energy conservation measures. I hope and trust that you will actin the best interests of the city--indeed, of the country--by .taking the lead in energy matters. Unless the Koll Company moves to plan an energy efficient hotel, you must prohibit the building of it. Sincerely, O. a - kfxva ,..61. P.A. Hollander C.C. to Fred Talarico . Environmental Coordinator City of Newport Beach �I it • - IX HUNDRED NDRED S U • 4600 Campus Drive, Newport Beach, Ca, 92660 , Office of N 1 Walter W.Cruttenden Jr. RECEIVED" -_ 0CT241980W _ Mayor October 23 , 1980 City of Newport �4 Beach. Mayor Jackie Heather Vjj �o' 1 City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 Your Honoress , In the last year I have had to send more than two • dozen of our clients to hotels outside of the Newport Beach area for lack of space! I would appreciate you and the members of the City Council to give support to more hotels in the John Wayne Airport Area. Sincerely , W. W. Cruttenden, Jr . WWC/jp cc : Editor "The Ensign" Editor "The Daily Pilot" • (714) 540-7000 om C1 R�EpCH 0� NAP �p41�• �aEW�Rr • �.-- Department of Community Development °�tiroaa`� CERTIFIED MAIL NO . 223345 October 20, 1980 Pat Hollander 213 Via 'Dijon Newport Beach , CA 92663 SUBJECT: Addendum to the Certified Final , EIR-Koll Center Newport Planned Community Development for the Koll /Aetna .Property SCH#79101117 Dear Ms . Hollander: The City of Newport Beach appreciated you taking time to comment on the above subject document at the City Council Meeting of October 14, 1980. City staff is now preparing responses to the comments received at that Public Hearing. Attached for your review is a Tist of the comments staff will be responding to at the continued public hearing scheduled for Monday, November 10, 1980, at 7: 30 p .m. at 3300 West Newport Boulevard, Newport .Beach , CA 92663. It would be greatly appreciated if you could review the attached list to determine if all your concerns have been listed. If there are additional comments you wish to make, please do so 'by Friday, October 31 , 1980. Should you wish to meet with staff to discuss this project and/or its documentation, please contact Fred Talarico at (714) 640-2197. Resp.ectfullyvsubmit.ted_, _ PLANNING DEPARTMENT JAMES D. HEWICKER, DLRECTOR By .10'j, Fre Talari o Environmental Coordinator FT/ps attachment • 213 via Dijon Newport Beach, Ca. 92 C\J 4 November 1980 F Fri , Mayor and City Council Persons 1980�' City of Newport Beach, !l NOV 4 Newport Beach, Ca. 92663 p, qff'� " S NLWPC, BEACH, Your Honors : P .L d Mr. /%i'e �a�4 y�`e o CALIF. I urge you to delay the Koll Hotel project until its co plans take into account the energy crisis that we are in. Per reasons are as follows: ' The Southern California Edison Company (in a letter to the Newport Beach City Council, September 25, 1979) has already stated in 'regard to this project that "our ability to serve all customer loads during peak demand periods could become marginal by 1984." Since September 1979, the date of the letter, the energy crisis has worsened considerably, particularly as an end to the Iraq-Iran war is not in sight. The Southern California Gas •Company (in a letter attached to the Addendum of the EIR) offered the services of its Commercial-Industfial Market Services Staff to assist the Koll Company with energy saving advice. The Koll Company has failed to take advantage of this offer. The hotel proposal makes no mention of energy saving devices or insulation to reduce energy requirements. There is no evidence of plans to use soft energy technologies. Hotel orientation in relation to the sun's rays or sea breezes is not mentioned. Hotels, unlike other industries, do not have to have alternate fuel facilities; i.e. , when gas supplies are insufficient most industries must turn to their own supply of oil. Hotels and private residencies have equal access to gas supplies. Southern California Edison offers advisory services to help builders in the planning stages of constuucti.on but there is no evidence in the EIR Addendum of requests for energy saving advice. Only in passing, does the proposal take into account the energy crisis; i.e. , the day-night compatibility will be reviewed to determine the potential integration of energy sharing and the project's impact on the Huntington Beach power plant will be assessed. Otherwise, in regard to energy, the remainder of the proposal discusses mechanical access to energy sources. There are several firms that specialize both in fore- casting energy requirements of proposed buildings and in cutting energy consumption. The Koll Company does not appear to have enlisted such expert assistance. All of us must conserve energy. Most of us have the opportunity to affect energy consumption only in our homes or in our use of the automobile. You, on the other hand, are afforded the opportunity to help us all by enforcing energy conservation measures . I hope and trust that you will act in the best interests of the city--indeed, of the country--by taking the lead in energy matters. Unless the Koll Company moves to plan an energy efficient hotel3 you must prohibit the building of it_. Sincerely, -Pa. �: P.A. Hollander C.C, to Fred Talarico Environmental Coordinator City of Newport- Beach ' --+-.� v..• i . i.�,^'i}' .•, �^�;Y��WA , _ _ .` ;.fir�...w'_.-. ,�r_ -����1 2 NH/CM' SCUTTLEBUTT', ,• Fridav,',Nobember 21, 1980 ding and-'zoning codes after 8 years THE. SCUTTLEBUTT -, ;'of ,.'planning'• ( .,and has ), then we,. PubIishec'by NEWPDRT- HARBOR/=A NESA' ° the public; - should':be;:prepared " to BOARD OF. REAMRS purchase , that property_' An indivi- dual property owner should not have _ 40-1 No;rtd'ei,port, BNd:,,'; "�FTelephonec '`. ' {to-. bear the• ,burden_ lof. the public's ' Newport- Beach, Ca.- 926.63 646-167f demand for. open" space and- down- . y,. • , - .tl 1.' l ;. . •.-., ' ;` -•-•;' ' - .' ',.::; :,zoning, .,, z .-; '••.�.:::._-�°�:':- `.,:�::,.: : ::;. VIRGINIA CIECK. . .".:`,.:.`...:.:.`.'.President H.R. (Hal) PINCHIN. . . .. Executive vice- DREDGING;of -Upper Newport Bay and ;s r :., ; president; ;u-,;-;;;., the . Big -;Canyon gravity-feed,--sewer +project were both approved at -the -j: South;�Coa'st: :,Regional .Coastal.. Cor%•_- :,3.�::r.,.:_:•- .fiM:,-::$ sH,^- .+,,.4: � ' ».....- x. ,.. . .,. } ,'.T'rv-i.wtd•- .,• . "•-,': .- :-M,;,,. , ,,_mission,-meeting,, n'_Huntington, Beach oil November'10. ' Interestingly; .,one of. the commis= -stoners,, in.-fact, one of the .more li: d DrANEiPATPISCg3 '; '`, beral' " of` .the: commissioners; asked "� •'' - ""- ' • ' "'°` �""''' �"•'''"r,%"=•`'':the'i^Same:".' uestiOn+which- had "come ALTHOUGH ' it was the i first 'item on up in- our Board's Local Governmen- the agenda at•. the•. 'City, of'Newport '- tai I Relations -committee:-meetingi.... 'Beach- City- Council'meeting,"the vo- __'"has:,�the Coastal- Commission's:,,}'affor- ting on the _Kbll -Hotel` 'proiect did- ;-,,dable'..housing policy been tested in, not take. place 'until- ardund Jt-.p.m!! court? ` t; ,- ; :Y-, After a - repeat erformance b "The answer .is no. Julie Froeberg, P P - y'', legislative ,.assistant .to Marian Ber- those opposing the. hotel: ` a ',three g hour - filibuster -='•the Council voted _ - 'geson;;,,,• and•,l Mayor .Jackie Heather'• - 5-2 to approve the 440-room hotel. agreed- on the reason: it is' 'so cost- 500 signatures, including -those . of .ly in terms of'..both _tune and. money , many Realtors, were' presented, to to the builder'._.,'-`. the Council in support;:of 'the: pro- He; .needs, to-,get his project go- ject. "- ••ing, 'and cannot afford •to wait for a "' courtn�decision.� `Besides, ' building' Despite the rhetoric;' the '•issues ~ ' the '' "affordable" doesn't cost the were simple: T) ground traffic, builder- a penny.: To quote Forrest =` 2) air traffic, and '3) 'property - Dickerson of" the: Broadmoor Company rights: Six hours- of• speechmaking who ' was presenting o some Tansy did not convince the 'Council- that P g P traffic conditions, ground" or air, "Let's ..-not kid '-anyone, these units would be improved by not allowing ("affordable") will be subsidized by Koll to build. everyy - other homeonwer- (in the Hotels are needed * and they tracf).- will be built in Costa Mesa, Irvine - or Newport Beach. The closer the . hotel is to the airport and the free- HELP! Have you had any experiences way, the less ground traffic. with the Report of Residential Buil- The number of flights at the air- ding Records in Newport Beach port is limited. More demand for which you will share? flights is inevitable. Hopefully, the . What has been your buyers' • re- City and the County will accept action to the inspection - and the Koll's offer to work together toward, seller's? an acceptable, positive way to meet Are the change' which `are requi- that demand - either rapid transit red as a result of the inspection to Ontario airport or to another air- reasonable or ridiculous? Are in- port site. spections made in a timely manner? * * * The City of Costa Mesa is consi- PROPERTY RIGHTS? . If the residents deririg requiring inspections at time of Newport Beach `are not prepared of sale. Please call me, Diane, at to let a property owner use his pro- the Board - 646-1671 - if -you have perty in compliance with City bull- any input. M 1 COMMISSIONERS f ptember 4 ,. 1980 MINUTES City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL INDEX d . A surface drainage plan that will not create downstream erosion. e. Er ion control measures on all exposed slope' 26 . The direction srgning plan shall be prepared and submitted to 'Ne Traffic Engineer for approval . 27 . That the applicant sha11 in tall grease traps in the parking lot if required4llb< the Buildin Department to be cleaned out ever six months 28. That the flagpole shall not be more tha 25 feet high . Item #8 Request to consider a Phasing Plan for the remain- PHASIPIG ing development in the Koll Center Newport Planned PLAN Community , and the acceptance of an Environmental APPROVED Document. CONDI- AND TIONALLY Request to amend the Planned Community Develop- Item #9 ment Plan for Koll Center Newport so as to allow AMENDMENT the transfer of allowable square footage within NO. 550 the Planning Community. APPROVED AND Request to permit the construction of a 12-story Item #10 l hotel with related banquet rooms , restaurants , meeting rooms and recreation facilities in Koll US PERMIT Center Newport. N0. 1953 LOCATION : The Koll Center Planned Community ; APPROVED bounded by MacArthur Boulevard on the west, Campus Drive on the north , ,CONDI- and Jamboree Road on the EAst. TIONALLY ZONE: P-C APPLICANT: The Koll Company, Newport Beach OWNER: Aetna Life Insurance Company , Newport Beach -26- COMMISSIONERS ' Sepomber 4, 1980 • MINUTES Ll City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL NDEX 21 . That a standard agreement and accompanying surety consisting of cash or certificate o deposit be provided to guarantee the sati - factory completion of public i.mproVement within six months after final approval , f the Use Permit. 22. That a resubdivision shall be filed on the parcel if an extension in the term ,t the Use Permit is requested in the futu-te. { (Construction of ultimate permane i street improvements would be a recommen4�d condition of approval of the resubdivi-slop . 23. That cross ingress and egress easements or agreements be provided to the/satisfaction of the Public Works Department ,by the property owners of 2340 and 2344 Eas-i Coast Highway as a condition for Use Permits 1924 (Amended) and 1929 (Amended) respecC"ively. 24. That this permit shall .e`xtend for a period of 18 months , providing that the property owner shall prepare and submit to the City a development plan fo'r the ultimate use of the property withinJ18 months of the approval of this applicatio ' A one year extension may be granted bythe Modifications Committee subject to the landowner having submitted said P-C Development Plan for the ultimate use of the property. 25. Landform altgg�nation on the site should be subject to the approval of a grading permit. The grading- permit should' be prepared by a civil ehql,?leer based upon recommendation of ,in enginel6ring geologi t. The grading per- miI 1 102d InCludv : a . A Zmplete p1,an for temporary and per- /h. dnent drainage facilities . n erosion and dust control plan . n erosion and siltation control plan pproved by the California Regional ater Quality Control Board. -25- COMMISSIONERS Optember 4 , 1980 • MINUTES -4 s City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL INDEX Agenda Items No . 8, 9 and 10 were heard con- currently due to their relationship. The public hearing was opened in connection with these items . Motion X Motion was made to continue these requests for Ayes X X one month so that the Commission could study the Noes X X X X supplemental information as submitted today, Absent * which MOTION FAILED . Mr. Tim Strader, General Partner of the Koll Center Newport Development appeared before the Commission . Mr. Strader stated that this is not ' ' a new item, it has been before the City since 1972 when the original zoning was approved. He stated that the rea•1 issue here is that we are asking to increase the previously approved 360 room hotel to a 440 room hotel . In addition , we are asking to transfer certain square footage on Office Site D to Office Site B. We are also pre- senting a phasing plan , which will be the last one . Mr. Strader stated that economically, this hotel proposal will create a positive contribution to the City of over $500 ,000 per year. Based on the EIR and other data before you , this is a positive economic development for the City. He stated that the EIR clearly states that only two percent of the people coming through the Airport use the hotels in Newport Beach . He added that certain traffic will be created by this project, but this will be mitigated by the fact that we will con- tribute over $330 ,000 to the City to solve the intersection traffic problems . This amount is in addition to the two and a half million dollars already spent in the widening of streets and traffic improvements to the existing Koll Center Mewport. Mr. Strader added that they accept the recommendations and conditions as outlined in the staff report. Mr. Gin Wong , architect for the development, ap- peared before the Commission . Mr. Wong presented a model of the development along with artist renderings depicting the hotel . He explained the general concepts of the proposal . -27- C MISSIONERS1 Otember 4 , 1980 . MINUTES City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL INDEX Chairman Haidinger asked Mr, Strader if they were in agreement with the inclusion of Condition No. 38 to the Phasing Plan as noted in the Supplement el Information Report dated September 4, 1980. Mr. 1 Strader stated that this was acceptable. Mr. Mike Wright of Westec Services and Mr. Bob Dunham of the Newport Economics Group appeared before the Commission . Commissioner Beek asked for their responses concerning the contents of the EIR with regard to the airport usage and hotel . Mr. Dunham stated that a series of studies were performed relative to the hotel and office usage in relation to the airport. The issue is whether or not it will cause people to come here or to re- distribute .where the people stay. The EIR address- es the fiscal impact on the City of Newport Beach . Commissioner Beek asked why only the City of New- port Beach is being considered in the EIR, rather than the total area which will be affected by this outcome. Mr. Fred Talarfco, Environmental Coordinator, stated that the City of Newport Beach requested that the fiscal analysis section , which is not even required by CEQA, address the fiscal impact on City services using the City ' s cost revenue system. Commissioner Beek stated that this project will take business away from other hotels in other areas . He stated that he would like the EIR to address the impact on these other areas . Commis- sioner Thomas concurred. , Mr. Robert Burnham, Assistant City Attorney, w attempted to explain the differences between a Supplemental EIR and a Subsequent EIR. A Supple- mental EIR is prepared when the changes in cir- cumstances are minor; and a Subsequent EIR is prepared when the changes are significant or im- portant. He stated that the Commission would have to decide Whether the issues such as housing , em- ployment and growth inducing impacts are substan- tial enough in change to warrant the preparation of a Subsequent EIR. -28- COMMISSIONERS 10tember 4 , 1980 • MINUTES ' City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL INDEX Commissioner Thomas stated that the increase in growth and demand in the area would seem to war- rant a Subsequent EIR. He also stated his con- cerns on the traffic problems- At this time , Commissioner Beek noted that both the original EIR and the Addendum are deficient in the following respects : 1 ) They completely ignore the regional water . shortage which Southern California will face upon the opening of the Arizona Water Project. 2) They completely ignore the surplus of employ- ment and shortage of housing which prevails in Newport Beach . 3) ' They completely ignore the surplus of commercial /office zoning in Newport Beach . 4) They completely fail to consider where the project' s employees will be housed, or to reflect the costs of supplying police , fire , school , health , and .other services to those employees . 5 ) The original EIR identifies the aggravation of the housing problem, but regards this as a positive effect of the project. 6) The addendum fails to consider the cumulative effect of this project and other similar pro- jects throughout this area of the County. Motion. X Motion was made that the Planning Commission Ayes X X X approve the "Addendum to the Certified Final Noes X X Environmental Impact Report - Koll Center Newport Absent * Planned Community Development for the Koll/Aetna Properties " and recommend that the City Council certify the environmental document as complete with the findings listed below, which MOTION CARRIED : FINDINGS : 1 . That the environmental document is complete and has been prepared in compliance with the -29- h COMMISSIONERS Optember 4 , 1980 . MINUTES City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL INDEX California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) , the State EIR Guidelines and City Policy. 2. That the contents of the environmental docu- ment have been considered in the various decisions on this project, 3. That based on the information contained in the environmental document, the project in- corporates sufficient mitigation measures to reduce the adverse effects of the project, ,and that the economic benefits that would accrue to the community , as demonstrated in the document, together with the mitigation measures override the anticipated negative effects of the project. Chairman Haidinger stated the following reasons for recommending an approval of the Phasing Plan: 1 ) There is a need for additional hotel space in the area, 2) A hotel near the airport will not create additional airport traffic. Businesses create additional 'airport traffic. The people who will be using this hotel will be coming to the area anyway. The airport traffic will not be dramatically affected. 3) The employees coming to the hotel will gener- ate additional traffic, but the hotel is in the middle of a major commercial/industrial center, which will reduce some of the traffic because the businessmen coming to the area will be able to locate lodging close to their specific destinations . 4) This will not be a destination type of hotel fo.r tourists . The traffic in the airport will not increase due to tourism, nor will driving increase due to tourism from this hotel . -30- COMMISSIONERS Optember 4 , 1980 MINUTES -1 w City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL INDEX 5 ) The people who are developing this property have a presumption of right to develop this project , unless we have a firm conviction that what they propose to do is detrimental . Commissioner McLaughlin stated that for the reasons listed , she would support a motion for approval of the Phasing Plan. Commissioner Thomas asked Chairman Haidinger if he would accept an amendment to a motion for ap- proval that the tax increment benefit to the City of $500 ,000 be put in a fund for transit and road improvements . Chairman Haidinger stated that there is not an existing operating fund which would accomplish this . Planning Director Hewicker stated that there is a condition for approval that the developer contribute towards transportation and circulation improvements . Chairman Haidinger stated that Commissioner Thomas was considering the tax revenue money . Commission- er Cokas stated that only the City Council woul'd have the authority to do this . Chairman Haidinger stated that he agrees with Commissioner Thomas in concept and concern , but will not include this in his motion for approval . Commissioner Balalis stated his concerns for the Oranqe County Transit District (OCTD) and the many employees of a lower economic, base who will need transportation to this hotel . He asked Mr. Strader if they would accept a condition to pro- vide a bus stop location . Mr. Strader stated that the OCTD has service on MacArthur Boulevard and they would be most happy to contact OCTD on increasing service to the area and providing a bus stop location. Commissioner Balalis recommended that an addi - tional condition for approval state that The Koll Company contact OCTD and encourage them to service the area with public transportation arrd' that The Koll Company provide and maintain a bus stop location on site , with benches . Chairman Haidinger stated that he would include this re- commendation in his motion for approval . -31 - COMMISSIONERS + ' MINUTES ` September 4, 198O City of Newport Beach ROLL STALL , f ; INDEX Commissioner Beek stated that because h'eihr'tsfjno environmental documentation on the impacts' of ' this project, he would have to vote Noon a I I motion for approval' . + � 4 Motion Motion was made that the Planning Commis§ion ap-, Ayes X X X prove the Phrasing Pian• for the remaining allow- ' Noes X X able development in the Roll Center Nealpart P-C Absent bistrict under the ownership of the applicant with the findings and subject tb ' the 'conditions ! , listed below: 1 � FINDINGS: 1. That the environmental' document is complete and has been Ilre�ared j in compliance with the California Environmental Qualdtyi A9t (CEQA), the state EIR, GO do l inbs and City'Pal icy. 2. That the contents of the environmental document have been Considered in the decision on this portion of the project. ' i 3. That based on the information contained In the environmental document, the project incorporates sufficient mitigation measures i I to redoee, the advorse effects of the project, and that the economic benefits that would accrue to the community, as j I demonstrated ip the, document, together with the mitigation measures overrSda the anticipated negative effects of the 'prbject., ( 4. That the Phasing Alen is consistent With the Newport Beach General , Plan and the Planned Community Development Plan for Aol'1 Gen Newport, 1 1 S. That based on the Phastng Plan and surrounding information slbmitted , - therewith, there is a reasonable correlation between projectFd i traffic at time of completion and the capacity of affected intersections. . ' i , 6. That the applicant has taken into consideration in the ,prdparation of his plan characteristocs in the design of his development which either reduce traffic generation or guide traffic onto less impacted arterials or through intersections in the least ton§ested direction. COND11IONS: 1. that prior to occupancy of any buildings an the site beyond the I existing development completed or oodor construction, the;CIrcu1a Lion Systems Improvements contained in the Traffic Report, qat d r August 13, 1980. Table 6, Page 9, shall have been con$yru toed (unless subsequent project approvals rogpiec modification there�o). The Circulation Systems improvements shad be subject to thelaP ro'val of the City Traffic Engindhr. , 2. That prior to the, occupanty of say buildings on the site beyond, the existing development completed or under constructidn,�thb Circulation Systems Improvements required of committed pSbjects listed on Page 5 of the Traffic Report dated August 13,, 1980, shall also have been constructed, (unless subsequent project approvals require modifications thereto). The Circulation Systems Improvements( shalt be subject to the approval of the City Traffic Engineer. 3. That prior to the issuance of any Building Permits, the applicants shall indicate to the Director of the Planning Department, in ' writing, that they understand and agree to conditions i and y apove. 4. That the architectural character and landscape design established ' within the existing Roil Center Newport shall be maintained.; -32- i C MISSIONLRSI Oeptember 4 , 1980 • MINUiFS City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL INDEX 5. A landscape and irrigation plan for the project shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect. The Landscape plan shall integrate and phase the installation of landscaping with the proposed construction schedule. (Prior to the occupancy of any structure, the licensed landscape architect shalt certify d to the Planning Department that the landscaping has been installed I in accordance with the prepared plan). 6. The landscape plan shall be subject to the review of the Parks, Beaches, and Recreation Department and approval of the Planning Department. 7. The landscape plan shall include a maintenance program which controls the use of ferti'l,izers and pesticides. 8. The landscape plan shall place heavy emphasis on the use of drought-resistant native vegetation and be irrigated via a ' system designed to avoid surface runoff and over-watering. 9. The landscape plan shall place heavy emphasis on fire-retardant vegetation. 10. Street trees shall be provided along the public streets as required by the Public Works Department and the Parks, Beaches, and Recreation Department. 11 . landscsping shall be regularly maintained free of weeds and debris. All vegetation shall be regularly trimmed and kept in a healthy condition. 12. Plant materials used for screening purposes shall consist of shrubs and trees, either lineal or massed, which are of sufficient size and height to screen or interrupt views of parking areas. 13. Earth berms shall be contoured and natural in appearance. 14. The landscape plan of an existing development in Blocks A, B, D, 8 G shall be reviewed by a licensed landscape architect. The existing landscape program should be modified to include the concerns oc conditions 7 and 8 above to the maximum extent practicable that can maintain the character of the existing program as a result of this review should be phase and Incorporated as a portion of existing landscape maintenance. 15. Development of the site shall be subject to a grading permit to be approved by the Building and Planning Departments. 16. That a grading plan shall include a complete plan for temporary 1 and permanent drainage facilities, to minimize any potential impacts from silt, debris, and other water pollutants. 17. the grading permit shall include, if required, a description of haul routes, access points to the site and a watering and sweeping program designed to minimize impacts of haul operation. 18. An erosion and dust control plan shall be submitted and be subject to the approval of the Building Department. 19. That an erosion and siltation control plan, if required, be approved by the California Regional. Water Quality Control Board - Santa Ana Region. 20. The velocity of concentrated run-off from the project shall be evaluated and erosive velocitoes controlled as part of the project design. -33- COMMISSIONERS Sleember 4, 1980 MINOIES " i D 1 21 City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL INDEX 21, Thnt grading shall be conducted in accordance with plans prepared by a 'Civil Engineer and based on recommendations of a soil engineer and an engineering geologist subsequent to the completion $ of a comprehensive soil and geologic investigation of the site. a Permanent reproducible copies of the "Approved as Built" grading plans on standard size sheets shall be furnished to the Building Department. 22. That the applicant provide for weekly vacuum sweeping of all parking areas, 23. That final design of the project shall provide for the incorporation of water-saving devices for project lavatories. and other water using faciti ties. 24. Prior to the occupancy of any buildings, a program for the sorting of recyclable material from other solid wastes shall be developed and approved by the Planning Department. 25. That should any resources be uncovered during construction, that a qualified archaeologist or palenotologist evaluate the site prior to completion of construction activities, and that all work on the site be done in accordance with the City's Council Policies K-5 and K-6. 26. That any mechanical equipment and emergency power generators shall be screened from view and noise associated with said shall be attenuated to acceptable levels in receptor areas. The latter shall be based upon the recommendations of a qualified acoustical engineer, and be approved by the Planning Department. 27. That the fire Department access shall be approved by the Fire Department. 28. That all buildings on the project site shall be equipped with fire suppression systems approved by the Fire Department. 29. That a 'defensible space" concept shall be incorporated to the construction and design of the project and be reviewed and approved by the Police Department prior to the issuance of any grading and building permits. 30. The proposed project shall incorporate an internal securing system O,e. security guards, alarms, access limits after hours} that shall be reviewed by the Police and Fire Departments and approved by the Planning Department. 31. That the final design of on-site pedestrian circulation be reviewed and apprgved' by the Public Works Department and the Planning Department. 32. Prior to the issuance of any building permits for the sites the applicants shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department and the Planning Department that adequate sewer facilities will be available. 33. That prior to the issuance of any building permit authorized by the approval of this Traffic Phasing Plan, the applicant shall deposit with the City Finance Director, a sum prgpotional to the per- cent age of future additional traffic related to the project in the subject area. but not to exceed $23,750,00 to be used for the construction of a wall on the westerly side of Jamboree Road between Eastbluff Drive and Ford Road. -34- C MISSIONERS1 °ember 4 , 1980 , MINUTES -a w City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL INDEX 34. That the sum of $367,253.08 be provided for circulation and traffic improvements to intersections as specified on Page 4, Table 4, of the Traffic Report dated August 13, 1980, as she on the City's Master Plan of Circulation consistent with the General plan, with priority given to improvements within the vicinity of the Project, if feasible. 35. That prior to the issuance of any building permits, the applicants 6 shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Planning Department 1} that all practicable measures to reduce total and peak.. hour traffic (i.e. car pool/van pool , staggered employee wort: hours, tenant mix) have been or will be taken. 36. That prior to the issuance of any building permits for the proposed project, the applicant shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Planning Department that avigation easements granted to Orange County by The Irvine Company for the subject area have not been exceeded. 37. That a complete plan for pedestrian access for each site shall be approved by the Public Works and Planning Directors. 38. That prior to the occupancy of any buildings on the site beyond the existing development completed or under construction , 'dn addi - tional eastbound through-lane shall be con- structed at the intersection of Coast Highway and MacArthur Boulevard ( unless subsequent project approvals require modi - fication thereto ) . This improvement shall be subject to the approval of the City Traffic Engineer. 39 . That the applicant contact the Orange County Transit Distric•t ' (OCTD) and encourage them to service the area with public transpor- tation and that the applicant provide and maintain a bus stop location on site , with benches . Motion X Motion was made that the Planning Commission adopt Ayes K X X X Resolution No . 1055 , approving Amendment No . 550 Noel X and recommend same to the City Council for adop- Absent * tion with the findings listed below: FINDINGS: 1. That the environmental document is complete and has been prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State EIR Guidelines and City Policy. 2. That the contents of the environmental document have been considered in the decision on this portion of the project. 3. That based on the information contained, in the environmental document, the project incorporates sufficient mitigation measures to reduce the adverse effects of the project, and that the economic benefits that would accrue to the community, as demonstrated in the document, together with the mitigation measures override the the anticipated negative effects of the project. -35- COMMISSIONERS Otember 4 , 1980 ` MINUIEs' iz City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL INDEX Commissioner Beek stated that for the lack of a sufficient environmental document, he must vote No on the following motion . Motion X Motion was made that the Planning Commission ap- AyeIs X X X X prove Use Permit No. 1953 with the findings and Noes X subject to the conditions as follows : Absent It ND I IIGS• 1 That the envi ronmenlaI dot owatil II. comple Le and has been lire- , pared fn co,upilance with fat I foroin Invironmental Quality Act (Cr.QA), the State flit Guidelines and Clty Policy. 2. That the contents of the environmental document have been considered in the decisions on this portion of the project. 3. That based at, the information rnnlainod If, Or luviroomentnl Docunien L, the project incorporate•. •.uifi, trot millgal fern ' nlra,tires to Pedine the ulver•.r rfdrt Ls (it the prate, I , and that the PConomil beurtit•. Lbal would aitrup In the fommunity, as demonstrated in Life documea L, Logetbcr with the mititialion measures override the anticipated negative offects of Lhe project. 4. Tllat th¢ proposed project is con;ifitehl With the liewport Reach General Pian and the Kell Center Nrwpnrt rlanned Com- munity District. 5. That the proposed project will not, under the rircumstances of the particular case, b¢ detrimental to the health, safety, prate, comfort and General welfare of prrso as residing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use or be detri- mental or the to property and improvements In the neighborhood or the 'general welfare of the City and further that the proposed modification is consistent uii th the legis- lative intent of Title 20 of the Municipal Code. 6. The approval of Use Permit No. 1953 will not, under the circumstances of this case be detrimental to the health♦ safety, peace, morals, comfort and general welfare of ,per- sons residing and working in the neighhorhood or be detrimental or Injurious to property or improvements in life neighhorhnod of the general welfare of the City. COIIDITIONS: 1. That development %hall be in ,oh%laritfal ,.onformanrr with the • approved plot plan• floor plan% .,ad rlrvatiom. 2. I lid l all development. shell be in rnnformante with the approved i phasing plan nail related cundilrnn•• of approval 3. , that all developmpnt shall roogily with Life Uniform Dullding Code 1976 edition. 4. That all access to the bul.ldipes be approved by the fire Department, 5. That all on site fire protection (hydrae Ls and fire Depart- ment connections) sit 11 he approved by the Fire and Public Works Department. ' 6. The surface of the tbrur-levri parfinq +truct.ure shall be landscaped with traps and shrubs vi Lifer reressed or In tub/ Planter boxes, in a manner approved by flip Dirpctor% of lit Parks, Neach 4 ileerealion and Planning NopartmentS. -36- I COMMISSIONERS •ptember 4 , 1980 , MINUTES City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL INDEX 7. Final site plans and choice of exterior building finish shall be subject to review and approval by the Planning Department. 0. That prior to the istuan<e of any bulldinq permit, the appli- cants shall demonstrate to the +a Lisfae Lion of the Public ' Works and Planning Departments that all practicable measures A to reduce total and peak hour traffic including but not limited !Ij to: car pool/van pool; staggered employee work hours, shuttle service to the airport; schedules 'of uses of any rooms to be used for meeting, seminars or other business/social functions have been or will be taken. ' 9. That the conditions of approval for Resubdivision No. 635 be ' fulfilled prior to accupancy of the hotel. Any changes in the parcel map required by the hotel shall be made. 10. That a P.C.C. sidewalk be constructed along the west side of Von Karmen Avenue. 11. That the final design of on-site pedestrian circulation system be reviewed by and approved by the Public Works and Planning Departments. This system shall provide pedestrian walkways from the main entrance of the hotel to three public streets and the adjoining developments. 12. That parking be prohibited on the 30 foot access roadway running between Von Karmen Avenue and MacArthur Boulevard. 13. That a traffic signal be installed at Birch Street and Jamboree Road prior to the occupancy of the hotel. 14. That a median island be installed in Von Karmen Avenue to prohibit left turns in and out of the service/parking facility entrance drive. This condition may be waived by the Traffic Engineer if a traffic study is provided to show that turning access to the drive will not adversely affect the traffic on Von Karmen Avenue and Lhe operation of the Von Karmen/Birch Street intersection. 15. That the entrance and exit ramps design to the underground parking facility from the main entrance to the hotel be approved by the Traffic Engineer. 16. That the final design of parking facilities shall be re- viewed by the City Traffic Engineer. Compact space shall not exceed 15 percent of total and handicapped parking shall comprise 2 percent of total spaces. r The Planning Commission recessed at 9 : 45 p . m. and reconvened at 9 : 55 p . m. -37- • t COMMISSIONERS Sember 4, 1980 MINUTES• ' x n " H City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL I EX f �g Item �f11 Request -to construct two, two-unit condominium'!' USE PERMIT projects in t'he R-2 District. — � N0. 1952 a' APPROVED AND CONDI- TIONALLY Request to create two parcels of land so as to Item #12 permit two, two-unit condominium projects on the property in the R-2 District. RESUB- e LOCATION: Lots 19 and 22, Bloc'k 8, Tract 27, DIVISION located at 427 and ,.431 Westminster NO . 665 Avenue on the westerly Side of Westminster Avenue between Broad APPROVED Street and North` Newport Boulevard' ONDI- in Newport Heights . IONALLY ZONE: R-2 APPLICANT: Arthofer and Lachenmyer, Newport Peach .Y OWNER: Same af Applicant ENGINEER: Donald E. Stevens , Incorporated, CosI ta Mesa Agenda Items Nq': 11 and 12 were heard concurrently because of their relationship. rr The public hearing was opened 'in connection with these items and Mr. Gene Lachenmyer, the appli - cant, appeared before the Commission and stated that they are in agreement with the staff report. Commissioner McLaughlin asked why these units were switched from apartments to condominiums . Mr. Lachenmyer stated that these were originally duple es , now, being changed to condominiums because of the ho`iisinq shortage . Commissioner Beek slated Lhat two letters have bee received from neighbors who are concerned with the drainage on the property . Planning Director Hewic er i stated that these letters have been brought to the attention of our Grading Engineer, There will be no problem with the drainage on this project which " will drain to the street in front, but staff will -38- AIRPORT LAND USLOCOMMISSION FOR ORANGE COUNTY - 18741 Airport Way North ,Santa Ana, Cal. 92707 Phone:714 841-2925 NOTICE OF MEETING Thursday, September 18, 1980 PLACE: Public Administrator/Registrar of Voters Building County Operations Center, Room 208 1300 South Grand Avenue, Santa Ana, CA TIME: 7 :30 p.m. 11 SUBJECT: Regular Meeting 9 Q��1g�o' 1 AGENDA i iAPPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commission.Meeting of Thursday, August 21, 1980. SPECIAL REPORTS ON ITEMS FROM PREVIOUS MEETINGS: 1. REVISIONS TO THE AIRPORT- ENVIRONS LAND USE PLAN: Sections 2.2 to 3: (Action) NEW BUSINESS: 2: PROPOSED WOMEN'S MINIMUM.-SECURITY FACILITY AT- THE JAMES "A. MUSICK FACILITY, NORTH EL TORO AREA: (Action) Next Regular Meeting: 10-16-80 r From-the Office of City Clerk TODAY'S MAIL �` O � ` Date; � SEp 2c�INV .y Members Newport Beach City Council Because many of the residents are concerned about - the large number of hotel rooms being proposed for our City and our area, this would be a good time to give the voters an opportunity to express their opinions. wome que=tions, such as thp ='01I -7 with the correct numbers insterted the Staff, could be sent with the water bill. We all need to see the pertinentfl.gures again, and those interested in the issue, will have the chance to communicate with the Council. � . . . . . numbers of hotels and . . . numbers of additional hotel rooms have been proposed for Newport Beach and the surrounding area. How many of each would you consider appropriate and or reasonable. . . . . . . . . . Q Considering the estimated dollar .return from bed tax per room of . . . . . how would you vote on the following. l. all ow . . . . . . . . . number 2. allow only enough to meet business demands but not necessarily tourist demands 3. Allow fewer hotels and place more emphasis on curtailment of non—essential City services and more effecient management of City goverment. . . . . . suggestions welcome. . . . . . 4. THE PRIME consideration of the Council in this matter should be preservation of the residential quality of our City. yes. . . . . . no. . . . . Please answer and return to the Newport Beach City Council 3300 Newport Beach Blvd. , Newport Beach, Ca. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. Jean Morris 1032 Sea Lane, Corona Del Mar, Ca. Date � •-,� •- � l5 �� COPIES SENT 10: p•G:ayor � :,,nn•rGer � SFp2 Crl•,�.�• �:; Attorney y C/ /9 n INc,re:.,or 2 lay�o h of B0�Aj 9. b Cz1I'w V;raC:or � RT �\ CallFB4C,q 0 O i • 71MESAVERS oINC. TEMPORARY PERSONNEL 4630 Campus Drive • Newport Beach, CA 92660 • 979-9740 Corporate Headquarters tq SUNNYVALE e� 408-734-9940 ANAHEIM S EP 2 3 ' 714-635-8000 September 22, 1980 CITY CF BURLINGAME d '?„ W JJ 415-347-0776 �t:i �11Y Mayor and City Councclman CONCORD City of. Newport Beach -�t 415-671-7228 Newport Beach, California 92663 DALY CITY 415-992-0141 Honorable Mayor and City Councilman: I-iAYWARD 415-786-2800 After reviewing an article in the Newport Harbor Area Chamber of Commerce LOOKOUT, on the prospects LOSALTOS of Hotel Development in our area, this letter will 415-948-9400 explain my views, which I hope will be of some value 'in future deliberations. NEWPORTBEACH 714-979-9740 I am in favor of any orderly growth so long as the quality of life we presently enjoy is not distorted. OAKLAND Attention to enviornmental considerations including 415-763-7010 building design, landscaping, traffic flow and people SANCARLOS movement will be of paramount considerations in the 415.595-1270 final decision making process. SAN FRANCISCO Build the hotels. Please be very careful not to 415-434-1841 turn Newport Beach into another Oahu and Wikiki Beach, over run by too many people, too many cars, SANJOSE and to few surface streets to handle the masses. 408-267-2072 Your kind consideration of this letter will be SANTAANA appreciated. 714-973-4991 • Sincerely, TORRANCE 213-373-0501 213-373-6807(Technical) George Howes Area Manager Nj Date 46 GEH:gh K P.tanaaer $EP24 f-I Attorney [t P W Dlroctor fVE1�JP(}t�T E.,,H �� �CemOev Diroctot CAL,, � [] Otter 1 :1 ', ❑ i � i �� '� a i�F� � I, 6,�1,J V J r\ ' • 724 Aleppo Street Newport Beach ( - Calif. 9266o Trom the Office of October Q8 tD City Clerk 19 0 RECENED Mayor Jackie Heather and the TODAY MAIL CITY CLERK Newport Beach City Council 3300 Newport Boulevard Date: /> ' b OCT D 1980 o Newport Beach 7 '# �' CIfiY Of California 92663 Attn:U 4. �`-- , NEWAIIRIT EACH, Subject: Koll Center Hotel - -- - - b r We are strongly opposed to the granting of a Use Permit for the Koll Cen Hotel for the following reasons: 1. Significant increase in traffic congestion. Traffic congestion in the Newport area is almost intolerable right now. The Los Angeles Times Orange County Section (Part II, page 1, column 6, September 29, 1980) describes it better than we can - ttWith population growth in the area already threatening to turn the road system into a replica of the Santa Ana Freeway at rush hour, .,,% We are aware that the county now has its own transportation district and thus more road money. We are also aware that there is still a very serious shortage of funds for roads. (The Times correctly describes the district as ttessentially a psychological vict- ory" for the county because of the statewide funds shortage.) It is just not logical to allow construction of another hotel in this area in view of the present and projected future traffic congestion even without it. 2. Inevitable demand for more Orange County Airport expansion. Approval of the Koll Hotel will just add voices to the chorus clamoring for more flights, more airlines, larger airplanes and longer hours. We are aware of your stand against airport expansibn and commend you for it. (As resi- dents of Eastbluff, we are reminded 1+1 times daily that jets fly out of the airport.) We are also aware that you face powerful opposition (including the FAA with airport funds to withhold), and it would seem illogical for you to take any action which would add strength to an already powerful opposi- tion. In summary, we strongly urge you not to grant the Koll. Center Hotel Use Permit. �ncer d y aT F x st- 4 Diana Friest or C3' r�r.c 57 Dale/n / CZ ` Vic°vae ,y 4 top" ❑ Mayor Manager 2 Q i` s ❑ Attorney q 6t - ❑ P W Director ComD.-,Dhector ❑ Other ❑ Councanen yK 0 CENTRAL NEWPORT BEACH Community Association P.O. BOX 881E BALBOA, CALIFORNIA 92661 October 6, 1980 To the Mayor and City Council Members : At the annual general meeting of the Central Newport Beach Com- munity Association on Saturday, October 4th, the membership indicated their strong feelings about some issues before the City and added important new statements of policy to their existing policy statement. I have been asked to transmit these to you. The Association vigorously opposes any increase in hotel capacities within the City limits; largely because of the unmanageable increase in traffic that additional hotel facilities would bring. The Association strongly states that they want to have Balboa library maintained at full strength and that they oppose the removal of reference and other material from the Balboa library to other libraries in the City. Services provided are excellent, but dimunition in reference and other materials at the Balboa library must be avoided. For your further information I append the entire list of policies supported by the Central Newport Beach Community Association, Respectfully DNV146- 3�co-Ce Dorothy Beek Secretary, CNBCA O ti r Copies to Mayor 6 RECEiVrp Plennin•X City Council Members n �ii r Planning Commission g OCT'7 1980�- �2 City Library Board Cirr CIF WVVPCIST F icli, L citur. / cn� CENTRAL NEWPORT BEACH COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION POLICY STATEMENTS FOR YEAR ENDING SEPTEMBER, 1981 Adopted, October 4 , 1980 The Central Newport Beach Community Association : 1 . opposes construction of buildings greater than two stories in height within the Association boundaries ; 2 . Is opposed to the construction of a road along the Ocean Front on the Peninsula or in West Newport ; 3. Is in favor of a shuttle-tram system for off-Peninsula parking ; 4. Opposes the construction of any public parking structures on �he Peninsula ; Supports the predservationSof the Ocean Frontt %%l%fPast� Ocean pronttwalk asoaeba e, antrailo opposes designa i 6. Opposes construction of additional trails or sidewalks for bicycles or other wheeled vehicles on the Ocean Front ; 7 . Is opposed to expansion of air services at Orange County Airport ; 8 . Is opposed to the construction of additional parking lots , for either automobiles or for bicycles or other vehicles on the Ocean Front; 9 . Is opposed to any further removal of sand from Ocean Front beaches, and encourages the City to investigate alternative methods of sand control ; 10. Requests the City Council to undertake an investigation to determine what measures are required to control erosion of the beach east of Newport Pier ; 11 . Strongly opposes siltation and all other sources of pollution that affect our beaches and harbor , and requests that the City take whatever action is necessary, both by moral suasion and through legal means to maintain cleanliness and purity in these areas ; 12. Opposes the drilling of offshore oil" wells in the ocean south of the Santa Ana River boundary and supports the efforts of the Coastal Area Protective League to prevent further offshore oil drilling and exploration ; 13. Opposes imposition of City Tidelands Use Fees and/or Pier Inspection Fees on piers associated with upland R-1 property; 14. Supports the retention of the present residential zoning within the boundaries of our community ; 15 . Opposes construction of public launching ramps for trailered boats on the Balboa Peninsuila ; 16. Opposes construction of any more public restrooms between the two piers on the Ocean Front ; 17 . Supports the idea of City Staff posting "Notices of Intent" when they are planning, discussing , or deciding on large city-wide issues before the decisions are made and the money is spent ; 18. Endorses the efforts of the City Commissions to revise the Land Use Element of the General Plan in order to reduce density and plan for orderly growth in our City ; 19. Urges the installation of a traffic signal at 15th Street and Balboa Blvd. , for safety reasons ; 20. Supports and encourages the strict enforcement of all laws relative to the use of all streets , highways , and boardwalks within the city limits ; 21 . Opposes the establishment of rental businesses relative to the use of bikes , roller skates and others of a similar mode; in addition, we encourage the strict enforcement of all laws relative to the regulation of such businesses ; 22 . Supports and encourages the enforcement of all laws relative to the maintenance of our streets , alleys and beaches, - plus the re-establishment of the twice a week trash pickup ; 23. Opposes any further extension of the Costa Mesa Freeway from its present termination point ; 24. Requests that the City impose , within the Association boundaries , parking restrictions one day , two hours per week on City streets , to assist the City in street sweeping efforts 25 . Opposes the operation of pedicabs on Peninsula boardwalks , bike lanes or streets ; 26. Opposes any increase of hotel capacities within the City limits ; and 27 . Supports the maintenance of the Balboa Library at full strength and opposes the removal of reference and other material from the Balboa library to stock other libraries in the -City . The Association sees a need for an increase and expansion in reference materials at the Balboa library. Response to Comments Received related to the "Addendum to the Certified Final Enviornmential' Imapct Report for the Koll (@nter Newport Planned Community Development for the Koll Aetna Property" OCTOBER 1980 1 . What are the housing related impacts of the proposed project? Information Required (Hotel & Office) A. Number employees anticipated B . Anticipated income levels all employees C. Existing housing stock for employees D. Distance housing stock to project ; E. Potential availability of employees F. Existing housing problems with in labor pool G. Number employees anticipated as head-household Summary - Housing impacts of the proposed project 2. What are the Circulation/Transportation impacts of the project outside , of the City of Newport Beach? Information Required : A. ICU analysis (existing & regional & committed & project) for MacArthur Blvd. , Von Karmen Ave, and Jamboree Rd. from City boundry -(Newport Beach to San Diego Frwy) . B . Anticipated impacts on Campus 'Drive in the City of Irvine . C . Anticipated impact on project on the San Diego and Corona del Mar Frwys . ( include existing and projected volumes) D. Present status of the San Juaquin Hill Transportation Corridcr and summary of possible future . E . Discussion of the existing and project transit system. F. Review by the Traffic Consultant of EMA letter and City Staff responce . 3 . What Vol ! the proposed use for the 123,794 sc .ft. indicated on page 11 of Vol . I of the Environmental Document? 4. What is the definition of a "Convention Hotel " , "Destination Resort Hote & Business Hotel '? Information Reouired : A. Definition each: number rooms , type facilities , associated ammenities , etc . B . What the anticipate impacts of each might generally be on John Wayne Orange County Airport. 5 . Does the project create a demand for an additional Fire Station (CNB) in the airport area? Is this the project that triggers that need? Information Required : A. Present status County/City agreements from City Managers office B. Review of previous letter with Fire Dept. 1 • . 6 . Does the project have a significant adverse impact on police services? Is there a need for added police services in area because of the project? Information Required: A. Summary and clairification (3%+) in environmental document. B. Review previous comment with Police Dept. 7. What' is the definition of a "defensible space concept"? 8. Does the Cost/Revenue System adequately anticipate imapcts of project? Information Required: `A. Is proposition No . 4 accounted for? B. Is the system defensible? 9. Would a joint City/County growth control reduce the impacts of project? Information required: - 10. What are the Impacts of the project on JW/OC Airport? Information required, A. Summary data in environmental document. B. Cite page in environmental document. C. Reference questions 4 and 'll . 11 . Is the Staff response to comments on the Environmental` Uocument adequate? Information Required: A. Weste'b Review B . Pringle Review (EMA) . C . City Attorney Review D. Additional response as warranted by A, B, & C above. E . Emphasis letters CEQUAC, SCAQMD & EMA 12 .Whv' was the Environmental Document indicated on an "Addendum" Information Required: A. Response City attorney' s Office 13 . Has the City complied with the Woodland Hills decision? Information Required : . A . Response from City Attorney ' s Office Jr14: How many hotels (new & expansion) are planned in the adjacent communities (Costa Mesa , Irvine, & County)? Does th.is project have a growth inducing or cumulative impact when view in relationships to these proposals? Information Required : A. Data supplied to City Manager for C/C 10-27-80. B. Westec review for status change "a' above . C. Summary comment cumulative & growth inducing. 3 L • ,State of &1ifornin i9 � r� GOVERNOR'S OFFICE S RccF7V�p ' OFFICE OF PLANNING AND RESEARCH P"'n"IJ Q �'•• 1400 TENTH STREET .I7 r � 31uht SACRAMENTO 95814 — SEP5 1980""o f a. (916) 445-0613 EDMUND G. BROWN JR. CITY NOF GOVERNOR ONPORT EACH, CALIF. V J \ September 3, 1980 Fred Talarico City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd Newport Beach, CA 92663 SUBJECT: SCH 79101117 - KOLL CENTER NEWPORT Dear Mr. Talarico: State agencies have commented on your draft environmental document (see attached) . If you would like to discuss the concerns and recommendations in their comments, contact the staff from the agencies whose names and addresses appear on the comments. You may formally respond to the agencies' comments by writing to them (including the State Clearinghouse Number on all such correspondence) . When filing the Final EIR, you must include all comments and responses (State EIR Guidelines, Section 15146) . State review of your draft environmental document will them be complete. To aid in preparing environmental assessments on future project, you should send to state agencies and the Office of Planning and Research your Notice of Preparation as prescribed by AB 884 and Section 15066 of the EIR Guidelines. If you would care for assistance or if the need arises, the Office of Planning and Research is available to help identify responsible agencies, distribute Notice of Preparation, organize coordination meetings, mediate disputes, and hold consolidated hearings. Please contact Pam Aronhalt at (916) 445-0613 if you have any questions. Sin rely, S e en illianmson wL� A � State Cl aringhouse Attachment cc: Ken Fellows, DWR �Srlate of'Galifbrnia • 0 The Resources Agency Memorandum 1. James-W. Burns To Assistant Secretary for Resources Date . AUG 2 D 1988 .2. City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. File No.: Newport Beach, CA 92663 Attn: Mr. Fred Talarico Subject: Addendum to the Certified Final Environmental Impact Report, Koll Center Newport Planned Community Develop- From i Department of Water Resources ment for the Koll Aetna Los Angeles, CA 90055 Property. July 1980 SCH 79101117 The Department of Water Resources' recommendations related to water conservation on the subject document are attached. ack J. Coe, Chief (I Southern District (213) 620-4107 Attachment zeduce water dered, the following water consel0ion measures should be I% Piameuted: fPj2321ted. by lav: 3.- Lavr-flush toilets (see Section 17921.3 o£ the Health and Safety Code). 2..' Low-flow showers and faucets (California Administrative Code; Title' 24, Pare 6, Article 1, T20-1406F). . lisulation of hot water lines in water recirculating systems (California ;EmmW Commission regulations). Mcosm<e►id be implemented where applicable: '.1de• 'SakpplF'line pressure: recommend water pressure greater' than 50 pounds per square inch (psi) be reduced to 50 psi or less. by means of.a .• pre=ure reducing valve. �a ••Plu sh-valve operated water closets: recommend 3 gallons per•flusah.. J. fountains: . recommend equipped with self-closing _valves. 4. : Pi2d insulation: recommend all hot water lines in dwelling be insulated to provide hot water faster with less water .waste, and to,kesp_•hot pipes from heating cold water pipes.. $. '• Hotel rooms: recommend posting-•conservation reminders in-rooms and rent. rooms*. Recommend thermostatically-controlled Aim valve for bath/shower..; 6. 'Lari_dry'facf73ties: recommend use ;of water-conserving models of washers. -7. Restaurants: recommend use of water-conserving models of dishwashers or retrofitting spray emitters. Recommend serving drinking water upon request ' Mutarior: $.• Lmidscape with low.water-consuming.plants wherever feasible. 2, Mnl-47e use of lawn by limiting it to lawn dependent uses- such as playing :Fields. 3. Use.mul.ch esteasively in all landscaped areas. Mulch,applied -on top of aoU will improve the water-holding capacity of the soil by reducing ,.__ GVagaration and soil compaction. .. *The Department of Water Resources or local water district may aid .in - developing these materials.- II� .,� ,„ •; 'Preserve and Taect existing-trees and shrub! Established plants are often ,adapted low water, conditions and their use saves water needed W astablish replacement vegetation. 5. 'Ynotall efficient irrigation systems which minimize runoff and' evaporation and maximize the water which will reach the plant, roots. Drip irrigation, soil moisture sensors "and automatic irrigation systems are a few methods of Increasing irrigation efficiency. z 6.- •IIaez pervious paving material whenever feasible to reduce surface water • ==ff -and aid in ground water recharge. d, Grading of slopes should minimize surface water tunoff.. L: ^ Investigate the feasibility of utilizing reclaimed waste water, stored rainwater,, or household gray water for irrigation. 9. Encourage cluster development which can reduce the amount of land being converted to urban use. This will reduce the amount of impervious pving created and thereby aid in ground water recharge. 10., Preserve -existing natural drainage areas and encourage the incoPporation of natural drainage systems in new, developments. This would sid in • Sround water recharge. 22... Flood plains and aquifer recharge areas which are the best sites for ground:, •, - 'inter recharge should be preserved as open space. ...y.,n"F."$'rR' 4. - .:,:�*'"- .;r•. ,{rit. ' n, - r.sinw.« WESTEC Services, Inc. 118 Brookhollow Drive Santa Ana, CA 92705 (714) 556.9350 INt 1716-TCR2258 September 10, 1980 Mr. Fred Talarico Environmental Coordinator City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92663 Re: Additional Copies of Koll Aetna EIR Dear Fred: Enclosed are twenty-five additional copies of the 3-volume Koll Center Aetna EIR as you requested. Very truly yours, Thomas C. Ryan Manager, Environmental Studies TCR:pc Enclosures P 6 4 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ax Planning Department 640-2197 �t1FOR?��P August 19, 1980 Environmental Management Agency County of Orange - 811 N. Broadway, Room 201 Santa Ana, CA 92702 Attn: Mark Goodman-Environmental Analysis Division Subject: Addendum to the Certified Final EIR - Koll Center Newport for the Koll/Aetna Properties. Dear Mark: In accordance with your request enclosed, please find two (2) copies of the above subject document. In order to provide the City's decision-makers on this project with all possible information related to the above subject document, it would be appreciated if your comments could be received by Friday; August 29, 1980. Public hearings related to the project are scheduled for September 4, 1980. If I can be of any assistance, please contact me at (714) 640-2197. Very truly yours, PLANNING DEPARTMENT JAMES D. HEWICKER, DIRECTOR A z gy Fred Ta arico Environmental Coordinator FT/dt Enclosure City Hall' • 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California 92663 ^ 4��WPpgT @� CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ,� . Planning Department 640-2197 �G/poRN,P August 19, 1980 Environmental Management Agency County of Orange 811 .N. Broadway, Room 201 Santa Ana, CA 92702 Attn: Mark Goodman-Environmental Analysis Division Subject: Addendum to the Certified Final EIR - Koll Center Newport for the Koll/Aetna Properties. Dear Mark: In accordance with your request enclosed, please find two (2) copies of the above subject document. In order to provide the City's decision-makers on this project with all possible information related to the above subject document, it would be appreciated if your comments could be received by Friday, August 29, 1980. Public hearings related to the project are scheduled for September 4, 1980. If I can be of any assistance, please contact me at (714) 640-2197. Very truly yours, PLANNING DEPARTMENT _ JAMES D. NEWICKER, DIRECTOR By . Fred Ta arico Environmental Coordinator FT/dt Enclosure City Hall • 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California 92663 i 9 FiG��Q�• �°' i Q 9Q m10 R, AGREEMENT aG �O�PG P �aoGPy THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into on this 24th day of July, 1979 , by and between the CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH , a municipal corporation , hereinafter referred to as " CITY , " and WESTEC Services , Incorporated, hereinafter refer- red to as " CONSULTANT. " W I T N E S S E T H WHEREAS , CITY ' s Environmental Affairs Committee has determined that an Addendum to the Certified Environmental Impact Report is necessary prior to processing of a Use Permit and Traffic Phasing Plan for development in Koll Center Planned Community District, in the City of Newport Beach , County of Orange , State of California ; and WHEREAS , CONSULTANT has submitted to CITY a proposal to prepare said Report; and WHEREAS , CITY desires to accept said proposal ; NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing, the parties hereto agree as follows : 1 . GENERAL CONSULTANT agrees to prepare the subject Report in accordance with the requirements set forth in Paragraph 2 of this Agreement. CITY agrees to remit to CONSULTANT the amounts set forth in Paragraph 3 of this Agreement in accord- ance with the terms and conditions set forth in this document. - 1 - 2 . SCOPE OF WORK The subject Environmental Impact Report will be prepared in accordance with the CONSULTANT' s proposal dated July 5, 1979 , and as modified by the CONSULTANT' s letter dated July 19 , 1979 , which are attached to this Agreement, marked as Exhibits "A" and "B" and by this reference incorporated herein at this point as if fully set forth . 3. BILLING AND PAYMENT CONSULTANT shall be paid under this Agreement on a time and material basis and in no event shall the maximum amount of this Agreement exceed Thirty Thousand Nine Hundred Sixty Dollars and no cents ($30 ,960. 00) . Partial payments shall be made by CITY to CONSULTANT upon CONSULTANT' s presentation of statements verifying the time and material costs incurred by it in connection with this Agreement. 4. FAITHFUL PERFORMANCE CONSULTANT shall use diligent efforts to complete i this contract within forty-two (42 ) days after execution of this Agreement. The subject Report must meet the approval of the Environmental Affairs Committee of the City. In the event additional work is required due to input during the public hearings , said additional work shall be subject to a separate contract. 5 . TERMINATION This Agreement is subject to termination by the CITY at any time upon serving written notice to CONSULTANT. The CITY shall be thereafter liable to CONSULTANT only for fees and costs incurred as of the date CONSULTANT receives such notice of termination . - 2 - t i IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have entered into this Agreement as of the date and year first above written . APP VED AS T ORM CITY OF NEWP RT BEACH El ' BY Actin Cit Atto n irectorfxx Comm ty Dev opment Department CITY WESTE . Service I cor or ted By By CONSULTANT 3 - FT/kk VVESTEC Services, Inc, 180 East Main Street Tustin,CA 92680 (714)838.4644 I NM 908-MWW/NG510. 02 July 5, 1979 Mr. Fred Talarico City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92663 RE: Koll Center Dear Fred: WESTEC Services, Inc. is pleased to submit this proposal to prepare the Addendum to the Certified Final EIR for the Koll Center Newport Planned Community Development. The scope of work set forth on the following pages is reflective of those issues identified as of key concern to the City. Please excuse the brevity of the description of work to be completed: time constraints did not permit an expanded discussion. However, based upon our meeting this past Monday, I believe a clear understanding of the project requirements was established. We look forward to meeting with you and the applicant on Friday at 2 : 00 pm to finalize the contract. We appreciate the opportunity to be of service to the City of Newport Beach once again. Yours ,truly, Michael W. Wri ht Vice President Environmental Division MWW:sc Enclosure PROPOSAL ADDENDUM TO THE CERTIFIED FINAL EIR KOLL CENTER NEWPORT PLANNED COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Prepared for : City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92663 Prepared by: WESTEC Services, Inc. 180 East Main Street, Suite 150 Tustin, California 92680 C714) 838-4644 July 5, 1979 SECTION 1 . 0 INTRODUCTION 1 . 1 PROJECT REQUIREMENT The requirement is to prepare an addendum to the certified Final EIR for the project known as "Koll Center Newport - Planned Community Development. " The proposed project consists of the con- struction of an approximately 500-room hotel. Project implementa- tion would require approvals of: (1) use permit; (2) resubdivision; and (3) traffic-phasing plan. The addendum to be prepared will address each of these three discretionary actions as they relate to the project. The environmental analysis of the project will use the concept of a focused Environmental Impact Report, and address those issues identified in Section 1. 2 at a level of detail commen- surate with their potential significance and with the level of project data available. The analysis will review and rely on information presented in the certified Final EIR, as well as update and supplement information contained therein. The -addendum will be prepared in compliance with the specifications of the California Environmental Quality Act, as amended, and the Guidelines of the City of Newport Beach. As outlined by the City, preparation and distribution of "Nonstatutory Advisements," "Notices of Preparation,' "Notices of Completion," and "Notices of Determination," as rbquired by State laws and City policy, will also be necessary. 1. 2 IMPORTANT ISSUES Based on our meeting with the City, the following important i issues have been identified. We propose to address ourselves to these topics , as outlined in Section 2 . 2. o Land Use o Traffic o Cost/Revenue o Community Services o Energy o Aesthetics o Geology o Water Quality o Air Quality o Noise o Biology o Archaeology/Paleontology SECTION 2 . 0 SCOPE OF WORK 2. 1 WORK PLAN Upon receipt of ,your authorization to proceed, WESTEC Services will commence preparation of the addendum to the EIR, using the personnel and other resources outlined in Section 3 . 0. The report will be prepared in compliance with CEQA and the City' s Guidelines . Pursuant to the latest revisions to CEQA, we propose to prepare this report as a focused document, providing detailed analyses on significant issues, and dismissing other topics as insignificant, as appropriate. We plan to submit a limited number (seven) of screencheck. draft addendums to the City for review. Following the reviews , we will prepare sufficient copies of the draft addendum to satisfy the requirements of the City within ten days . 2. 2 APPROACH TO IMPORTANT ISSUES There are several important issues surrounding development of the project. We plan to approach the key issues previously identi- fied and listed in Section 1 . 2, as outlined, in the following manner. 2. 2.1 Land Use The proposed project will be reviewed for compatibility and conformance with the General Plan, Specific Plan, and applic- able ordinances (i . e. , park dedication, zoning, etc. ) . We shall work closely with the City' s Advanced Planning Department to ensure that uses proposed at the site conform with those permitted in the City' s P-C zone. Potential impacts on adjacent land uses will be identified. 2 . 2. 2 Traffic The traffic analysis will entail the following : 1 . Data Collection. This would include existing traffic volumes, development plans , previous studies , and similar data. A critical data input will be the City 1979 traffic counts , which should be available in late July. It is understood that land use data will be provided by the City of Newport Beach. In order to obtain data for the hotel, trip generation, and parking studies would be conducted at similar facilities in Oakland and San Jose. 2. Trip Generation and Assignment. Estimates would be made of daily and peak hour trips to be generated by the site. These would be based upon trip generation rates acceptable to the City and the studies of similar facilities . Trip distribution models have been developed for other projects in the area, and would serve as a basis for this site. Projected traffic from the development would be assigned to the street system in accordance with the dis- tribution model. 3. Traffic Impact Analysis . Project traffic would be combined with existing, regional growth, and committed project traffic to simulate conditions upon completion of the development. The intersections identified as critical for this area by the City would be analyzed to determine Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) values. Any intersection with an ICU value greater than 0 . 90 would be further examined for means of reducing the ICU and mitiga- tion measures recommended. Consideration would be given to circula- tion system improvements programmed by governmental agencies or required of other projects . The impacts and proposed mitigation measures would be summarized in a tabular form. 4. Onsite Circulation and Parking. The onsite circula- tion and access provisions for the hotel site would be examined with respect to traffic operations and safety. Parking provisions would be reviewed and the adequacy examined. Data from the field review of similar facilities would serve as a basis for the parking review. Any problem areas would be identified and mitigation measures recommended as required. 5. Alternatives. It is understood that six alternative land uses for the area would be developed by the City. The alter- native would be examined with Items 2 and 3 (above) being completed for each. A table would be prepared summarizing the ICU values at the critical intersections under each land use alternative. 2. 2. 3 Cost/Revenue The firm of Newport Economics Group will prepare this portion of the analysis. The analysis of the proposed use and project alternatives will be prepared according to City policy. It will include an assessment of all alternatives and the relation- ship of this project to operations at Orange County Airport. 2. 2. 4 Community Services All agencies which would provide service to the site will be contacted to identify existing service levels . Potential capa- city problems or service deficiencies will be discussed as applic- able. 2 . 2. 5 Energy The proposed project' s energy consumption will be assessed for its impact on the Huntington Beach Power Plant. The day/night compatibility of the hotel will be reviewed to determine the poten- tial integration of energy saving/sharing systems. 2. 2. 6 Aesthetics Emphasis will be placed on the visual and design charac teristics of the hotel and its potential view impact on surrounding uses . 2. 2. 7 Soils/Geology/Seismicity The project will be reviewed for existing land forms and changes resulting from grading. Inherent seismic hazards will be identified. Appropriate mitigation for control of erosion, silta- tion, and seismic conditions will be outlined. It is anticipated that this section will be based on geotechnical survey data provided by the applicant and verified by WESTEC Services. 2. 2. 8 Water Quality Any hydrologic concerns which affect type, nature , or location of potential development will follow identification of drainage paths and associated downhill problems , groundwater level characteristics, and existing drainage facilities . In addition, the regional issue of urban runoff will be treated as it relates to the Back Bay. 0 2 . 2 . 9, Air Quality Any meteorological or air quality constraints , partic- ularly those of a local nature, will be identified. These local considerations will include (but not be limited to) a discussion of potential impacts of construction activities , traffic emissions (on and offsite) , air circulation patterns , and possible carbon mon- oxide "hot spot" occurrences from the parking structures . The status of ambient regional air quality and this project' s general relationship will be briefly summarized. 2. 2 . 10 Noise The noise analysis will consider impacts upon the project for the nearby highway and airport operations. In addition, the surrounding circulation system will be reviewed for potential increases in the ambient noise levels resulting from project- generated traffic. 2. 2.12 Archaeology/Paleontology Identification of any archaeological or paleontological resources will be accomplished through review of existing litera- ture and a field survey by WESTEC Services' staff archaeologist and paleontologist. Such an identification process will serve to insure the preservation of any such resource. If archaeologic sites are found within the project boundaries , the effort neces- sary to mitigate the site will be defined. 2 . 2 . 13 Project Alternatives A discussion of project alternatives , presented in a separate section, will be prepared according to state and local requirements for CEQA. These will include : 1. No Project (existing development) 2. Design Alternatives 3. Development as permitted under GPA 78-21 4. Commercial/Residential Mix S. 20% Reduction in Proposed Density 6 . Medium-High Density Residential 7 . Low Density Residential The discussion of alternatives will include a comparison of rela- tive impacts in each of the areas of concern previously described. 'Based on land use information provided by the City SECTION 3. 0 STAFFING WESTEC Services , Inc. will undertake this project with regular members of its staff under the supervision of Mr. Michael W. Wright, Project Principal. Ms . Nina Gruver will serve as Project Coordin- ator for the project. Public hearings and liaison with local homeowners or interest groups , if required, will also be attended by Mr. Wright and Ms . Gruver. The following members of WESTEC' s in-house staff will partici- pate in this study: Michael W. Wright, A. I .P. M.A. , Geography John F. Westermeier M.A. , Biology Sandra Genis M.S. Candidate, Environmental Studies Frank Kingery M.A. , Geology, Reg. No. 3352 Hans Giroux Ph.D. Candidate, Meteorology Nina Gruver B.A. , Geography William H. Breece M.A. , Archaeology Barbara Stewart B.A. , Studio Arts , Graphics Concentration Weston Pringle f, Assoc. Traffic and Transportation Engineers (Consultant to WESTEC Services) Newport Economics Group Economic consultant to WESTEC Services SECTION 4 . 0 TIMING AND COST 4. 1 TIMING WESTEC Services, Inc. will complete a draft addendum to the certified Final EIR within six weeks of the award of contract and the receipt of all pertinent project data from the .City. Seven copies of the screencheck of the draft report will be delivered to the City for review no more than five weeks after award of contract. Comments and necessary revisions will be incorporated into the completed draft addendum. - Achievement of these delivery dates is dependent upon timely receipt of project description data from the lead agency and appli- cant and expeditious review of draft materials when received by the lead agency. Delays in these actions will result in comparable schedule slips in follow-up deliverables . 4. 2 COST A cost breakdown by project element and by project team member is provided on the following page. Total costs through completion of the project (Response to Comments) are provided. Costs are detailed by labor, materials , travel , and fees . WESTEC Services proposes to negotiate a contract for the total project effort which will represent a not-to-exceed figure. Monthly invoices with sufficiently detailed accounts showing accrued expenditures will be submitted against the negotiated contract price. Monthly progress payments on the basis of the invoices are requested in accordance with the attached Schedule of Fees . r . The estimated cost to prepare the draft addendum to the certified Final EIR and Response to Comments is $36, 378 . 63. This estimate is inclusive of all costs associated with preparation and delivery of the report and includes attendance at five public hearings, as specified by the City. A breakdown of all costs are as follows: Project Cost Estimate Project Management Project Principal $ 1 , 600. 00 Project Manager 1 , 875 . 00 Subtotal : $ 3,475 . 00 - Environmental Analysis Water Quality $ 328. 00 Soils/Geology/Seismicity 164 . 00 Cost/Revenue 4, 095 . 00 Air Quality 1, 600. 00 Aesthetics 492. 00 Biology 492 . 00 Archaeology/Paleontology 952 . 00 Land Use 2, 280. 00 Noise 492 . 00 Traffic � Circulation 9 ,214. 00 Community Services 656. 00 Energy 656. 00 Impacts on Orange County 'Airport 1,400. 00 Alternatives 1,312 . 00 Preparation of Nonstatutory Advisements , Notice of Preparation, Notice of Completion, 360 . 00 and Notice of Determination Subtotal : $24,133. 00 Support Services Graphics $ 680. 00 Clerical 720. 00 Mileage 110 . 50 Supplies 50. 00 Printing 70. 00 Screencheck C 9 copies) Draft (78 copies) 780 . 00 Certified Final ( 7 copies) 88 . 00 Subtotal : $ 2,498. 50 Five Hearings' Project Principal $ 625 . 00 Project Manager 312 . 50 Traffic Consultant 625 . 00 Subtotal : $ 1 , 562. 50 Response to Comments2 Subtotal : $ 4 , 709 . 63 Total : $36 ,378 . 63 'Assumes 2 . 5 hours per hearing 2It •is extremely difficult to predict the cost of preparing res- ponses to comments . Our experience indicates that 15% of a draft EIR fee *is normally adequate. This figure, however, assumes that no unusual or unforeseen problems arise. • *ffectiye April 3 , 3979 SCHEDULE OF FEES Professional Services Environmental/Planning Assistant $15 . 00/hr - $120/day Archaeology Analyst $20 . 50/ht - $164/day Environmental/Planning Analyst $20 . 50/hr - $164/day Senior Environmental/Planning Analyst $23. 00/hr - $184/day Project Manager $25 . 00/hr - $200/day Environmental/Planning Specialist $25 . 00/hr - $200/day Senior Environmental/Planning Specialist $32. 50/hr - $260/day Environmental Scientist $40 . 00/hr - $320/day Senior Project Manager $40 . 00/hr - $320/day Senior Scientist $50 . 00/hr - $400/day Project Principal $50. 00/hr - $400/day Hearings/Court Testimony $50 . 00/hr - $400/day Support Staff Researcher $12 . 00/hr - $ 96/day Field Aide I $12 . 50/hr - $100/day Field Aide II $14 . 00/hr - $112/day Reproduction Typist $15 . 00/hr - $120/day Illustrator $17. 00/hr - $136/day General 1. Travel, reproduction, telephone, supplies , and other non-wage direct costs are billed at cost plus twelve (12%) percent. 2. Computer charges are billed at on-line costs plus fifteen (15%) percent. 3. Statements will be submitted monthly for work in progress or upon completion of work. Statements are payable within 30 days of receipt. _ Any invoice unpaid 'after 30 days shall have service charges added at a rate of 1. 5 percent per month on the unpaid balance. Compensation for services performed will not be contingent upon the necessity of client to receive payment from other parties . -•WESTEC Services, Inc. • • 180 East Main Street Tustin,CA 92680 (714)838.4644 lkw 935-MWW/NG510 . 02 � '` QJ July 19 , 1979 �commvni v \ Y1 I� f9eveloRmF04 Mr. Dick Hogan O� 19791w Community Development Department CRY OF City of Newport Beach NE�JF4RT6EACMe $ 3300 Newport Blvd. �o cALtF. Newport Beach, CA 92663 d' Dear Dick: As a result of this morning' s meeting with you concerning the Koll Center project , we have made revisions to the original cost estimate proposed to you on July 5, 1979 . We have attempted to refine the scope of work and associated costs to the best of our ability. You will note in comparing the revised cost estimate sheet with the original that several items of analysis have been deleted and costs reduced in other areas . As we see it, the list of alternatives to consider is essentially no different from the original , obviating any real reduction in level of effort and costs in that area. If you have any questions regarding these changes , please give me a call . 4Si cerely, is Wright Vice President Environmental Division MWW:deb Five Hearings (l� Project Principal $ 625 . 00 Project Manager 312 . 00 Traffic Consultant 625 . 00 SUBTOTAL $ 1 , 562 . 00 Respose to Comments (2) SUBTOTAL $ 3 , 670 . 00 TOTAL $30 ,960 . 00 • fey p (l ,Assumes 2 . 5 hours per hearing (2) It is extremely difficult to predict the cost of preparing res- ponses to comments . Our experience indicates that 150 of a draft BIR fee is normally adequate. This figure , however, assumes that no unusual or unforeseen problems arise. The estimated cost to prepare the draft addendum to the certified Final EIR and Response to Comments is $30 ,960 . 00 . This estimate is inclusive of all costs associated with preparation and delivery of the report and includes attendance at five public hearings , as specified by the City. A breakdown of all costs are as follows : PROJECT COST ESTIMATE Project Management Project Principal $ 1 ,600 .00 Project Manager 1) 1 ,875 . 00 SUBTOTAL $ 3,475 . 00 Environmental Analysis Water Quality $ 328 .00 Cost/Revenue 2 ,950 . 00 Air Quality 1 ,600 . 00 Aesthetics 200 .00 Land Use 2 ,280 . 00 Noise 492 . 00 Traffic F, Circulation 9 , 065 . 00 Community Services 300 . 00 Energy 400 .00 Impacts on Orange County Airport 1 ,400 . 00 Alternatives 1 ,100 .00 SUBTOTAL $20 ,115 .00 Support Services Graphics $ 570 . 00 Clerical 680 . 00 Mileage 110 . 00 Supplies 50 . 00 Printing Screencheck (9 copies) 70 . 00 Draft (78 copies) 570 .00 Certified Final (7 copies) 88 . 00 SUBTOTAL $ 2 ,138 . 00 Includes Preparation of Notices �� p F � F� 3 o N�wOo rYo �9�9 . rn f � r WESTEC Services, Inc. 180 East Main Street Tustin,CA 92680--- (714)8384644 - NNW 908-1vIWW/NG510. 02 July 5, 1979 Mr: Fred TalaNewport City of Newport"Beach 3300 Newport . Boulevard Newport Beach, , California 92663 RE: Koll Center Dear Fred: ' WESTEC Services , :Inc. is, pleased to submit this proposal to prepare the Addendum to the Certified Final EIR `for ' the Koll Center Newport Planned' Community Development. 1 The scope o£''work 'set forth on the following pages is 'reflective of 'those 'issues identified as of key concern to the City. ;Please excuse the brevity.-of the description of work to be completed: time constraints' did not- permit an expanded discussion. However, based upon our meeting " this past Monday, I believe a clear understanding of the project -:.,'.. ' requirements was established, „ We look forward to meeting- with you and the applicant on Friday at 2 : 00 pm to finalize the contract. We appreciate the opportunity to .be of service ;to , the City of Newport.,Beach once again. ; :ours�tr`u-l"y, Michael W. {Uri ht Vice President Environmental Division MnWW: s c Enclosure PROPOSAL ADDENDUM TO THE CERTIFIED FINAL EIR KOLL CENTER NEWPORT PLANNED COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Prepared for: City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92663 Prepared by: WESTEC Services, Inc. - 180 East Main Street, Suite 150 Tustin, California 92680 (714) 838-4644 July 5, 1979 SECTION 1 . 0 INTRODUCTION 1 . 1 PROJECT REQUIREMENT The requirement is to prepare an addendum to the certified Final EIR for the project known as "Koll Center Newport - Planned Community Development. " The proposed project .consists of the- con- struction of an approximately 500-room hotel . Project implementa- tion would require approvals of: (1) use permit; (2) resubdivi'sion; and (3) traffic-phasing plan. The addendum to be prepared will address each of these three discretionary actions as they relate to the project. The environmental analysis of the project will use the concept of a focused Environmental Impact Report, and address those issues identified in Section 1. 2 at a level of detail commen- surate with their potential' significance and with the level of project data available. The analysis will review and rely on information presented in the certified Final EIR, as well as update - and supplement information contained therein. The addendum wil l -be prepared in compliance with the specifications of the California Environmental Quality Act, as amended, and the Guidelines of the 'City of Newport Beach. As outlined by the City, preparation and distribution of "Nonstatutory Advisements," "Notices of Preparation," "Notices of Completion," and "Notices of Determination," as required by State laws and City policy, will also be necessary. 1. 2 IMPORTANT ISSUES Based on our meeting with the City, the following important J issues have been identified. We propose to address ourselves to these topics, as outlined in Section 2 . 2. o . Land Use o Traffic o Cost/Revenue o Community Services o Energy o Aesthetics o Water Quality o Air Quality o Noise _ \� b/ 1 • f SECTION 2 . 0 SCOPE OF WORK 2. 1 WORK PLAN Upon receipt of your authorization' to proceed, WESTEC Services will commence preparation of the addendum to the EIR, using the personnel and other resources outlined in Section 3. 0. The report will be prepared in compliance with CEQA and the City' s Guidelines. Pursuant to the latest revisions to CEQA, we propose to prepare this report as a focused document, providing detailed analyses on significant issues, and dismissing other topics as insignificant, as appropriate. We plan to submit a limited number (seven) of screencheck. draft addendums to the City for review. Following the reviews , we will prepare sufficient copies of the draft addendum to satisfy the 1 requirements of the City within ten days . 2. 2 APPROACH TO IMPORTANT ISSUES There are several important issues surrounding development of the project. We plan to approach the key issues previously identi- fied and listed in Section 1. 2, as 'outlined, in the following manner. 2. 2.1 Land Use The proposed project will be reviewed for compatibility and conformance with the General Plan, Specific Plan, and applic- able ordinances (i. e. , park dedication, zoning, etc. ) . We shall work closely with the City' s Advanced Planning Department to ensure that uses proposed at the site conform with those permitted in the City' s P-C zone . Potential impacts on adjacent land uses will be identified. 2 . 2. 2 Traffic The traffic analysis will entail the following : 1. Data Collection. This would include existing traffic volumes, development plans, previous studies , and similar data. A critical data input will be the City 1979 traffic counts , which should be available in late July. It is understood that land use data will be provided by the City of Newport Beach. In order to obtain data for the hotel, trip generation, and parking studies would be conducted at similar facilities in Oakland and San Jose . 2. Trip Generation and Assignment. Estimates would be made of daily and peak hour trips to be generated by the site. _ These would be based upon trip generation rates acceptable to the City and the studies of similar facilities . Trip distribution models have been developed for other projects in the area, and would serve as a basis for this site. Projected traffic from the development would be assigned to the street system in accordance with the dis- tribution model. 3. Traf£ic. Impact Analysis . Project traffic would be combined with existing, regional growth, and committed project traffic to simulate conditions upon completion of the development. The intersections identified as critical for this area by the -City would be analyzed to determine Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) values. Any intersection with an ICU value greater than 0 . 90 would be further examined for means of reducing the ICU and mitiga- tion measures recommended. Consideration would be given to circula- tion system improvements programmed by governmental agencies or, required of other projects . The impacts and proposed mitigation measures would be summarized in a tabular form. 4. Onsite Circulation and Parking. The onsite circula- tion and access provisions for the hotel site would be examined with respect to traffic operations and safety. Parking provisions would be reviewed and the adequacy examined. Data from the field review of similar facilities would serve as a basis for the parking review. Any problem areas would be identified and mitigation. measures recommended as required. S. Alternatives. it is understood that six alternative land uses for the area would be developed by the City. The alter- native would be examined with Items 2 and 3 (above) being completed for each. A table would be prepared summarizing the ICU values at the critical intersections under each land use alternative. _ 2. 2. 3 Cost/Revenue The firm of Newport Economics Group will prepare this portion of the analysis. The analysis of the proposed use and project alternatives will be prepared according to City policy. It will include an assessment of all alternatives and the relation- ship of this project to operations at Orange County Airport. 2. 2. 4 Community Services All agencies which would provide service- to the site will 1 be contacted to identify existing service levels . . Potential capa- city problems or service deficiencies will be discussed as applic- able. 2. 2. 5 Energy The proposed project' s energy consumption will be assessed for its impact on the Huntington Beach Power Plant. The day/night compatibility of the hotel will be reviewed to determine the poten- tial integration of energy saving/sharing systems. 2. 2. 6 Aesthetics Emphasis will be placed on the visual and design' charac teristics of the hotel and its potential view impact on surrounding uses. 2 2. 7 So ' ls/G olo /Se smi it Uthis e pro ect wit be eviewe for exist ng 1 nd forms a d cltin from g ading Inhe ent seism c haz rds wi 1 be iApp opriate miti ation or ontrol of er sion, ilta- tism' c Condit ons ill be out ined. It is ntic pated tcti n will a bas d on g ote nica surveya provided bcant and v rified WE TEC Ser ices. 2. 2. 8 Water QualitX Any hydrologic concerns which affect type, nature, •or location of potential development will follow identification of drainage paths and associated downhill problems , groundwater level characteristics , and existing drainage facilities . In addition, the regional issue of urban runoff will be treated as it relates to the Back Bay. 2 . 2 . 9 Air Quality Any meteorological or air quality constraints, partic- ularly those of a local nature, will be identified. These local considerations will include (but not be limited to) a discussion of potential impacts of construction activities , traffic emissions (on and offsite) , air circulation patterns, and possible carbon mon- oxide "hot spot" occurrences from the parking structures . The status of ambient regional air quality and this project's general relationship will be briefly summarized. 2 . 2. 10 Noise The noise analysis will consider impacts upon the project for the nearby highway and airport operations. In addition, the surrounding circulation system will be reviewed for potential increases in the ambient noise levels resulting from project- . � generated traffic. 2. 2 .12 rch oloQ / aleo tolo Identi icat on of ny ar haeo ogica or al,eon to ical esour s will b acc mplis ed th ough evi of e isti g li era- ture a d a fief surve by VESTEC Sery ces ' staff rcha olog st and pa eontolog st. S ch n ident' fi ation rocess wil se ve t6 insure the pre ervatk n of any suc esource. If archa of gic sites tre foun wit n the projec b undari s , the effo t neces- sary o mitigat e site wil e def 2 . 2 . 13 Project Alternatives A discussion of project alternatives , presented in a separate section, will be prepared according to state and local requirements for CEQA. These will include : `y1. No Project (existing development}— c� 2. Design Alternatives — fC y -=-3. Development as permitted under GPA 78;21 � '.�l.ow,.5lc wsC �4. Commercial/Residential Mix `o•�.T•ue.37 —5. 20 o Reduction in Proposed Density CA�T•ao•�.) 6. Medium-High Density Residential la�r•►+o #) 7. Low Density Residential LkA-T• .+o• S) The discussion of alternatives will include a comparison of rela- tive impacts in each of the areas of concern previously described. 'Based on land use information provided by the City L , J SECTION 3. 0 STAFFING WESTEC Services, Inc. will undertake this project with regular members of its staff under the supervision of Mr. Michael W. Wright, Project Principal. Ms . Nina Gruver will serve as Project Coordin- ator for the project. Public hearings and liaison with local homeowners or interest groups, if required, will also be attended by Mr. Wright and Ms. Gruver. The following members of WESTEC' s in-house staff will partici- pate in this study: Michael W. Wright, A. I .P. M.A. , Geography John F. Westermeier M.A. , Biology Sandra Genis M. S. Candidate, Environmental Studies Frank Kingery M.A. , Geology, Reg. No. 3352 Hans Giroux Ph.D. Candidate, Meteorology Nina Gruver B.A. , Geography William H. Breece M.A. , Archaeplogy Barbara Stewart B.A. , Studio Arts', Graphics Concentration Weston Pringle $ Assoc. Traffic and Transportation Engineers (Consultant to WESTEC Services) Newport Economics Group Economic consultant to WESTEC . Services SECTION 4 . 0 TIMING AND COST 4 . 1 TIMING WESTEC Services , Inc. will complete a draft addendum to the certified Final EIR within six weeks of the award of contract and the receipt of all pertinent project data from the City. Seven copies of the screencheck of the draft report will be delivered to the City for review no more than five weeks after award of contract. Comments and necessary revisions will be incorporated into the completed draft addendum. - Achievement of these delivery dates is dependent upon timely receipt of project description data from the lead agency and appli- cant and expeditious review of draft materials when received by the lead agency. Delays in these actions will result in comparable schedule slips in follow-up deliverables. - 4. 2 COST A cost breakdown by project element and by project team member is provided on the following page. Total costs through completion of the project' (Response to Comments) are provided. Costs are detailed by labor, materials , travel , and fees . 1PESTEC Services proposes to negotiate a contract for the total project effort which will represent a not-to-exceed figure. Monthly invoices with sufficiently detailed accounts showing accrued expenditures will be submitted against the negotiated contract pride. Monthly progress payments on the basis of the invoices are requested in accordance with the attached Schedule of Fees . r . The estimated cost to prepare the draft addendum to the certified Final EIR and Response to Comments' is $36 , 378 . 63 . This estimate is inclusive of all costs associated with preparation and delivery of the report and includes attendance at five public hearings, as specified by the City. A breakdown of all costs are as follows : Project Cost Estimate Project Management Project Principal $ 12600. 00 Project Manager _ 1 ,875 . 00 Subtotal : $ 32475. 00 - Environmental Analysis Water Quality $ 328. 00 Soils/Geology/Seismicity 164 . 00 Cost/Revenue 4 ,095. 00 Air Quality 1 ,600. 00 Aesthetics 492. 00 Biology 492 . 00 - Archaeology/Paleontology 952. 00 Land Use 2, 280. 00 Noise 492. 00 Traffic & Circulation 9,214. 00 Community Services 656. 00 Energy 656. 06 Impacts on Orange County 'Airport 1,400. 00 Alternatives 1,312. 00 Preparation of Nonstatutory Advisements , Notice .of Preparation, Notice of Completion, and Notice of Determination 360 . 00 Subtotal : $24,133.00 Support Services Graphics $ 680. 00 Clerical 720. 00 Mileage 110 . 50 Supplies 50. 00 , Printing Screencheck ( 9 copies) 70. 00 Draft - (78 copies) 780. 00 Certified Final ( 7 copies) _ 88 . 00 Subtotal : $ 2,498. 50 i Five Hearings ' Project Principal " $ 625 . 00 Project Manager 312 . 50 Traffic Consultant - 625. 00 Subtotal : 1, 562 . 50 Response to Comments2 Subtotal : $ 4, 709 . 63 Total : $36,378 . 63 'Assumes 2 . 5 hours per hearing 2It is extremely difficult to predict the ,cost of preparing res- ponses to comments . Our experience indicates that 150 of a draft EIR fee is normally adequate. This figure, however, assumes that no unusual or unforeseen problems arise. Effective April 1 , 1979 SCHEDULE OF FE-Es Professional Services Environmental/Planning Assistant $15 . 00/hr - $120/day Archaeology Analyst $20 . 50/hr - $164/day Environmental/Planning Analyst $20 . 50/hr - $164/day Senior Environmental/Planning Analyst $23. 00/hr - $184/day Project Manager $25 . 00/hr - $200/day Environmental/Planning Specialist $25 . 00/hr - $200/day Senior Environmental/Planning Specialist $32 . 50/hr - $260/day Environmental Scientist $40 . 00/hr - $320/day Senior Project Manager $40 . 00/hr - $320/day Senior Scientist $50 . 00/hr - - $400/day Project Principal $50. 00/hr - $400/day Hearings/Court Testimony $50 . 00/hr - $400/day Support Staff Researcher $12. 00/hr - $ 96/day Field Aide I $12 . 50/hr - $100/day Field Aide II $14 . 00/hr - $112/day - Reproduction Typist $15 .00/hr - $120/day Illustrator $17 . 00/hr - $136/day General 1. Travel, reproduction, telephone, supplies , and other non-wage direct costs are billed at cost plus twelve (12%) percent. 2 . Computer charges are billed at on-line costs plus fifteen (15%) percent. 3. Statements will be submitted monthly for work in progress or upon completion of work. Statements are payable within 30 days of receipt. Any invoice unpaid 'after 30 days shall have service charges added at a rate of 1. 5 percent per month on the unpaid balance. Compensation for services performed will not be contingent upon the necessity of client to receive payment from other parties . KOLL 6p foe CONTRACTOR July 30, 1979 Mr. Richard B. Hogan Director Community Development City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92660 Re; Koll Center Newport Environmental Impact Report Dear Dick: Enclosed is our check in the amount of $32,508 . 00 representing fees for the Environmental Impact Report - Koll Center Newport. If we can be of any further assistance to you with regard to this matters please give us a call, Very truly yours,, Timothy L, Strader Senior Vice President and General Counsel TLS:klk Enclosure c� ti AFC !� Oe�e ✓G Oeb���e t c� Ot %,poR o 4 6 o'�<�FeEao� S 1901 Dove Street • Newport Beach • California 92660 9 Phone: (714)833-3030 'WPOKE BEACH CITY OF Nt ?" a . �", Ma..,".2,.�:�'".1Y„'.:a..nwr.:'"hC^h'.rvv:.Si..",•NrJss:�.ve.: '.�.:...ar �•FJS..._..'«.. ..u'.ti e.� .. .. '. `�.�-f ..'etn avlT :J CALIFORNIA c��IFor•�'�' City hall 3300 Newport Blvd. (714)01.1.2xb9 640-2197 July 26 , 1979 Mr. Michael Wright WESTEC Services , Inc . 180 East Main Street - Suite 150 Tustin , California 92680 Subject: Contract - Koll Center Addendum EIR Dear Mike : Enclosed please find an original and one copy of our contract for the preparation of the Addendum to the Certified Final EIR - Koll Center Newport Project. Please sign both copies , retain the xerox for your files and return the original to my office . The City looks forward to working with you on this project. Respectfully , DEPARTMENT OF COMM LAITY DEVELOPMENT R. V . HO AN, Di re^ to,� by N, MD TFvA DA RICs� Environmental Coordinator FT/kk Enclosures KOLL 0-0Vi rire CONTRACTOR July 19, 1979 Mr. Richard B. Hogan Director Community Development City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92660 Re: Koll Center Newport Environmental Impact Report Dear Dick: This letter is authority to have Westec Services, Inc. proceed with the environmental impact report for the hotel use permit and traffic phasing plan. Please forward to us an invoice for the deposit you require and we will return it upon receipt of your letter. Thank you for your assistance. Very truly o s, Timothy L. Strader Senior Vice President and General Counsel TLS:dh 1901 Dove Street • Newport Beach * California 92660 • Phone: (714)833-3030 SUMMARY of AN QUALITY in the SOUTH COAST AlR BASIN of CAL/FOMA 1979 Evaluation and Planning Division John S. Nevitt Director of Evaluation & Planning Margaret F. Brunelle Assistant Director of Evaluation & Planning Authors Ditas C. Shikiya Air Quality Specialist Margaret Hoggan Intermediate Air Quality Specialist Arthur Davidson Head, Air Quality & Health Effects Section SOUTH COAST AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT 9150 Flair Drive, El Monte, CA 91731 June, 1980 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page List of Figures ii List of Tables iii Introduction I Description of Report 2 Discussion of Contaminants Ozone 3 Carbon Monoxide 4 Sulfur Dioxide 4 Nitrogen Dioxide 4 Total Suspended Particulate 5 Lead 5 Sulfate 6 Nitrate 6 Visibility 6 References to Health Effects Table 23 Cover: aerial view of part of the South Coast Air Basin looking north from the city of Los Angeles to the San Gabriel Mountains. i LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE PAGE 1 Ozone,Number of Days Exceeding the 8 State Standard, 1979 2 Ozone,Number of Days Exceeding Stage 9 One Episode Level, 1979 3 Ozone, Number of Days Exceeding Stage 10 Two Episode Level, 1979 4 Carbon Monoxide, Number of Days Exceeding 11 the State Standard, 1979 5 Sulfur Dioxide, Number of Days Exceeding 12 the State Standard, 1979 6 Nitrogen Dioxide, Number of Days Exceeding 13 the State Standard, 1979 7 Total Suspended Particulate, Percent 14 of Days Exceeding the State Standard, 1979 8 Lead, Number of Months Exceeding the State 15 Standard, 1979 9 Sulfate, Percent of Days Exceeding the State 16 Standard, 1979 10 Nitrate, Annual Average, 1979 17 11 Visibility, Number of Air Pollution-Induced 18 Low Visibility Days, 1979 ii LIST OF TABLES TABLE PAGE 1. Comparison of Air Quality Standards 19 and Emergency Criteria II. Health Effects of Air Pollutants 21 111. Air Monitoring Stations with Greatest 24 Percent of Days Exceeding the State Standard IV. Number of Days State Standards were Exceeded 25 and Annual Maximum Hourly Averages, 1979 V. Number of Days State Standards were Exceeded 26 and Annual Maximum Daily/Monthly Averages, 1979 VI. Ozone, Number of Days Episode Levels were 27 Reached in 1979 with Comparison to 1978 VII. Number of Days Not Meeting Federal Standard, 28 1979 iii SUMMARY OF AIR QUALITY IN THE SOUTH COAST AIR BASIN OF CALIFORNIA 1979 INTRODUCTION This report presents the 1979 air quality at locations in Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, and San Bernardino counties monitored by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (District), with emphasis on the South Coast Air Basin (SOCAB). The air pollutants considered are: • ozone (03) • carbon monoxide (CO ) • sulfur dioxide (SO2) • nitrogen dioxide (NO2) • total suspended particulate (TSP) • lead (Ph) • sulfate • nitrate Visibility degradation caused by air pollutants is also considered. The South Coast Air Basin has an area of about 6,600 square miles, and a population of almost 10 million people.The District operates and maintains a network of 35 air monitoring stations, of which 28 are located in SOCAB and 7 in the adjacent Southeast Desert Air Basin (SEDAB). These air monitoring stations are equipped with a collective total of over 200 instruments which continuously monitor or sample the eight air pollutants listed earlier. Nearly 2 million hours of gaseous pollutant data(03,CO, SO2,and NO2)are collected each year. In addition, 24-hour average samples of particulate pollutants are collected every sixth day, totaling over 2,000 samples per year. These samples are analyzed in the District laboratory for total suspended particulate, lead, nitrates and sulfates. The calculation of air quality statistics from this large body of data requires several months of hand and computer data processing. - 1 - DESCRIPTION OF REPORT The state and federal governments have each established air quality standards and emergency episode criteria for various pollutants (Table 1). Air quality standards ,are set at con- centrations which define essentially clean air and provide a sufficient margin to protect public health and welfare. In contrast, episode criteria define air pollutant concentrations at which short term exposures may begin to affect the health of that portion of the population especially susceptible to air pollutants. The health effects are progressively more severe and widespread as pollutant concentrations increase from stage one to stage two and stage three episode levels. These episode stages require specific actions by industry, the public and the District(Table'1). No special actions.are taken when contaminant concentrations exceed the' air,quality standards but remain below the first stage episode levels. The individual pollutants in the atmosphere of SOCAB vary considerably in toxicity.Table II lists the observed health effects for specified concentrations of ozone, carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide,lead,and sulfur dioxide combined with particulate. Also shown in Table iI are the annual maximum contaminant concentrations in SOCAB during 1979. This report emphasizes the comparison of the 1979 air quality data to California state air quality standards. Comparisons to the episode criteria have also been made. Figures I through 9 are maps showing the frequency of exceedance of state air quality standards or episode criteria levels within the District.The striped lines show the boundaries of the South Coast Air Basin. Each of the cities shown on the map is(or was) the location of an air monitoring station. Contour lines have been drawn connecting areas with an equal number or percentage of days not meeting the state air quality standard or episode criterion for the indicated pollutant. If only a few areas of the District did not meet a standard,these areas are enclosed by a heavy line. Figure 10 shows the areal distribution of annual arithmetic .mean nitrate concentrations, and Figure I I the areal distribution of the annual number of pollutant-induced low visibility days. Each map is discussed in detail in the following pages. When using Figures 1 through 10 to estimate the air quality at a particular location, it is necessary to consider variations due to the effect of local pollutant sources. Lead, carbon monoxide and oxides of nitrogen(NOx)are usually higher near heavily traveled roads than in areas with less traffic. Similarly, sulfur dioxide is likely to be more concentrated near stationary sources such as power plants, petroleum refineries and large steel plants. Data on exceedances of air quality standards and episode criteria are also presented in the form of tables. 'table III lists those stations with the greatest percent of days not meeting the state standards in 1979. Tables IV and V show the 1979 air quality compared to state .standards.Table VI shows the number of days on which each air monitoring station reached ozone episode levels (stage one and two). Table VI1 shows the 1979 air quality compared to the federal standards. - 2 - DISCUSSION OF CONTAMINANTS * Ozone Ozone (03) is a colorless gas with a strong odor. It is highly reactive and is formed in the atmosphere by amulti-step photochemical reaction between oxides of nitrogen and reactive hydrocarbons in the presence of sunlight. These precursors of ozone(reactive hydrocarbons and NOX),are emitted from both mobile and stationary sources, with the greater contribution coming from mobile sources. Because of the time required for the reactants to form ozone, peak ozone concentrations usually occur from late morning through afternoon. By this time sea breezes usually have moved the pollution cloud inland,causing the highest concentrations to occur there rather than in the area of heavy precursor emissions. More ozone is formed in summer than in winter, since in summer, solar radiation is more intense and of longer duration, and temperature inversions are stronger and more persistent. Ozone concentrations are reported in parts per million(ppm). The state air quality standard for ozone is a I-hour average concentration equal to or greater than(?)0.10 ppm(I/ 10 of a part of ozone per million parts of air, by volume). Figure 1 presents the areal distribution of the number of days in 1979 not meeting the state ozone standard. A single hour >_0.10 ppm causes the day to exceed the standard.The pattern shows that the coastal sections exhibit the fewest exceedances and that there is a sharp increase in exceedances from the coastal to the inland valley portions of SOCAB. The area with the greatest exceedances extends from the San Fernando Valley through the San Gabriel Valley and into the Riverside area. The locations with the greatest number of days in exceedance were Fontana(197), Pasadena(191), Riverside(186), Azusa (178), and Newhall (177). Figure 2 shows the areal distribution of the number of days which exceeded the state stage one ozone episode criterion( >0.20 ppm, hourly average).The number of stage one episode days was highest at Fontana (95), Lake Gregory (80), Pasadena (78), Azusa (71), and San Bernardino (62). During 1979 SOCAB had a total of 17 days with stage two ozone episodes ( >0.35 ppm,hourly average). On these 17 days a total of 46 second stage episodes occurred at various stations. Figure 3 shows that Pasadena experienced the greatest number of stage two episode days (11), followed by Azusa (10), and Fontana (9). Azusa recorded the Disrict's highest single hourly average of the year, 0.45 ppm(9/8/79). The stage three ozone episode level(>0.50 ppm,hourly average)has not been reached in any portion of SQCAB since 1974. On February 8, 1979 the federal ozone standard was changed from > 0.08 ppm/hourly average to >0.12 ppm/hourly average.Table VII shows the federal standard was exceeded at most inland locations on 125 or more days, with maximum days in exceedance at Fontana (164), Riverside (151), and Pasadena (150). - 3 - Carbon Monoxide Carbon monoxide (CO) is a colorless, odorless gas produced by incomplete combustion of carbon-containing fuels such as gasoline. Over 95 percent of the CO in the atmosphere of SOCAB is emitted directly from motor vehicles, so that CO concentrations are generally higher in areas where there is heavy traffic. CO levels in SOCAB tend to be highest in winter, and during night and early morning hours, because the concentration of CO emissions is favoted by the high incidence of surface-based inversions during these periods. Figure 4 shows the areal distribution of days exceeding the state standard (12-hour average CO ? 10 ppm) during 1979. Most of the exceedances occurred in the more heavily traveled portions of Los Angeles and Orange counties,with the greatest number of d4ys in exceedance at Lynwood (38), Burbank (36), and Lennox (35). The area of CO exceedances is much smaller in size than that of ozone exceedances. More thanbalf of SOCAB's area is presently in compliance with the state CO standard. The maximum annual 1-hour average CO concentration was 30 ppm at Lynwood(12/18/79). The state stage one episode level( >40 ppm, hourly average or ?20 ppm, 12-hour average) was not reached in any'patt of SOCAB in 1979. • Sulfur Dioxide Sulfur dioxide(SO2)is a colorless gas With a sharp,irritating odor. It is emitted directly into the atmosphere„primarily by stationary sources such as power plants, petroleum refineries, chemical plants, and steel plants. Figure 5 shows that during 1979 there were only 2 air monitoring stations which exceeded the state S02 standard (24-hour average S02>_0.05 ppm, combined with an exceedance of the ozone or total suspended particulate standard).There were 4'days in exceedance at Whittier and 1 day in exceedance atLynwood.The less stringent federal 24-hour S02 standard(>0.14 ppm) has not been exceeded at any regular air monitoring station in SOCAB since the mid-1960's. The maximum 24-hour average S02 concentration in 1979 was 0.064 ppm at Whittier (9/6/79)• Nitrogen Dioxide Nitrogen dioxide(NO2) is a light brown gas with a strong odor similar to bleach. Primarily NO2 is formed in the atmosphere by rather rapid oxidation of nitric oxide(NO),though NO2 also is emitted with NO from stationary and mobile combustion sources. These compounds, NO and NO2, are referred to collectively as oxides of nitrogen (NOx). In SOCAB a larger percentage of NOx is emitted from mobile sources(about 60%)than from stationary sources (about 409o'). Figure 6 shows the areal distribution of days not meeting the state NO2 standard(>0.25 ppm -4 - hourly average).'TThe area wit[it lie greatest number of dal s in exceedance is centered in West Los Angeles(42 clays)and extends into t he eastern San Fernando Valley(27 days). Both these locations are subject to large amounts of NOx emissions from heavy motor vehicle traffic. Few or no exceedances of the NO2 standard occurred outside of the heavily traveled portions of Los Angeles and Orange counties. The maximum 1-hour average NO2 concentration was 0.47 ppm at downtown Los Angeles (6,128/79) and Long Beach ( 10123:79). • Total Suspended Particulate Total suspended particulate(TSP) is a complex mixture of natural and man-made materials in the air, including soil particles, sea salt, sulfates, nitrates, lead, and a variety of organic compounds.TSP concentration is determined by passing a measured volume o1 air through a glass fiber filter in a 24-hour high volume sampler and weighing the particulate matter collected. Concentrations are reported in micrograms pet-cubic meter(ug/m3), One ug/m3 is approximately equal to one billionth of an ounce per cubic foot. Figure 7 shows the areal distribution of exceedances of the state standard for"I:S P(100 ug+m3 24-hour average)in SOCAB i'or 1979.The greatest number of exceedances occurred in a belt extending from the eastern San Gabriel Valley,through the Pomona Valley and into the San Bernardino-Riverside area. Riverside exceeded the TSP standards most frequently (Tables III and VII), with 85 percent of days sampled exceeding the state standard and 18 percent of days exceeding the federal primary standard (260 ug/m3, 24-hour average). The highest 24-hour average TSP concentration was recorded at the Pico Rivera station(417 ug/m3 on 12/l l/79). 9 Lead Lead (Pb) emissions in the atmosphere of SOCAB come almost entirely from the lead additives in gasoline. Bound into various chemical compounds, atmospheric lead is a small percentage of the material collected as TSP. In 1979, annual average lead concentrations ranged from 0.9% to 1.9% of TSP collected in the more densely populated sections of Los Angeles and Orange counties, and 0.8% or less of TSP collected in the less heavily traveled areas of SOCAB. Figure 8 shows that the state air quality standard for lead(>1.50 ug/m3, monthly average) is most frequently exceeded in the densely populated portions of Los Angeles and Orange counties. The location with the greatest number of months not meeting the standard was Lennox (7 months). Lennox also recorded the highest monthly average lead concentration (3.91 ug/m3 in December, 1979), and Lynwood the second highest concentration (3.67 ug/m3 in December 1979). - 5 - • • Sulfate Atmospheric sulfates are particulate pollutants collected as part of TSP.The principal sulfate particulates are generally a mixture of ammonium sulfate,ammonium bisulfate and traces of sulfuric acid. Sulfates are formed mainly by the oxidation of SO2 in the atmosphere. High relative humidity,photochemical activity,and limited vertical mixing favor the conversion of SO2 to sulfate. Unlike ozone, sulfate is often as high in areas close to the coast as in inland areas. In SOCAB, sulfate comprises 6-15% of TSP, based on comparisons of 1979 annual average concentrations. Figure 9 shows that the number of days exceeding the sulfate standard is greatest in the vicinity and downwind of areas.where the major SO2 emi8sion sources in SOCAB are located. The greatest percentage of days exceeding the state sulfate standard of 25 ug/m3, 24-hour average was at Fontana(1396) where the air quality is adversely affected not only by-sulfate brought in from coastal sources, but by sulfate formed from SO2 emissions from a nearby steel plant and electrical power plant.The maximtim24-hour average sulfate concentration in SOCAB was 36.1 ug/m3 at Lennox (9/12179). • Nitrate Nitrates and ozone are final products of the photochemical reaction of oxides of nitrogen and reactive hydrocarbons.Atmospheric nitrates consist primarily of ammonium nitrate,sodium nitrate and traces of nitric acid. Nitrates comprised 9-20% of TSP in SOCAB in 1979. Like ozone, nitrate concentrations are highest downwind of the densely populated, high emission areas of SOCAB.This is because by the time the chemical reactions forming nitrate compounds have proceeded to a significant degree, the polluted air mass has been carried some distance inland by prevailing sea breezes. At present, there are no standards set for nitrate by the state or federal government.The data on nitrate air quality are therefore presented in terms of actual concentrations rather than the number of days exceeding a standard. Figure 10 shows that the highest average nitrate concentrations in 1979 occurred in an area extending from the San Gabriel Valley eastward into the San Bernardino-Riverside area. The highest annual average nitrate concentration was 26.6 ug/m3 at Riverside (218/79), • Visibility Factors that impair visibility include fog, rain, wind-blown dust, soil and sand, and air pollutants. The major portion of visibility reduction by air pollution is due to sulfates, nitrates, and organic compounds. - 6 - In evaluating the effect of air pollutants on SOC AB visibility, it is necessary to distinguish between those low visibilities caused by air pollutants and those caused by such natural phenomena as rain, fog, and even blowing sand. This has been done by separating visibility statistics into different categories. Of interest are those days with visibilities less than 3 miles occurring in association with relative humidities of less than 70 percent. This excludes days with rain or fog as the visibility restrictor. Also excluded by inspection are days on which low visibilities were caused by blowing dust or sand. Figure I 1 shows the areal distribution of the number of days on which visibilities were less than 3 miles with relative humidity less than 70%.The area most severely affected by these air pollution-induced low visibilities extends from the Ontario airport (between Upland and Chino) to Riverside. This is as expected, since this area also recorded among the highest concentrations of TSP, sulfate, and nitrate during 1979. - 7 - figure 1 OZONE NUMBER -OF DAYS EXCEEDING STATE STANDARD (1—HOUR AVERAGE 03 ? 0.10 PPM) 1979 - - -fit•' ..� C-+4 - ,ll<IYlll[[ •,• °St.' � _ r•r 1' 7a 1 • IA Ap ♦ , ,ifi votuti<faF�P .�M� -`; �'^�.'W..�fi�'T.�{� �-f•�' .,a`•-1.P �� ��'� -tRp RI _,1P •.�"'� _ I 1 1 South Coast ; ` y?' - �..an•-IITLt4 .i< - .1_f �'± "'�+`�sw:. j✓ 1- - �` Jj 1 AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT I 1 I t I I I n L• ' f ~f•f,J _--�"f i} '4 'y �.� •N f .i/��Sx;i�'--` -- 'Y,�ntlflllllllF -f �''�£.-✓,Y i j Sat�`AY•i�� �' ' • *Not measured at this location. --in 25-day interval ,In 50-day interval Figure 2 OZONE NUMBER OF DAYS EXCEEDING STAGE ONE EPISODE LEVEL (1—HOUR AVERAGE Og ? 0.20 PPM) 1979 + d > - >�;j °t •y. -s.,r, f t - - _r _. arc wnuc'_ i Y �r : a.•f _y�yF ;(? eia' __a-«:."3 �. � �i+•1''•` :fit � k`"tia a AD ti t'�Ity`a.e•t ~M' �.y,�ly.->�if,. $>•,t d {� - - � i - „�+ae> �`f.1"{y'r, .a aa>,. :a�4K y�T 'tom r }�4�� f-• itc.•S4 � t �' �F` - ., bp;t V � < • 4, - t.�r, a 4�� ���'yf g �� 7a�' �`a ��f � a' ��� ' 'L r 'aiam '# y�.x@`.7#3t� �✓' •,6�t - i:i;,T" su F '._,,,--� • �{t' d ��p �i` 05�.1 :� �_ <� t .gu•otu 1 _ - . '7 -�"`' ''�� 'a�l� �c ayfn.A S- f 4q`' + A{ pf'' ii �F+:s y . ,' - _ s•°+`•s i iiw3 'au tt Wi" ud' " ,,.t- '?,fd� f r A. Ix j���yyi(,}g�y� yy,, �p �y}$ + 1' +�'� -�'' r i - 1 - r _• �q r;.8" ?-,f f�1 '_ a TyFqu '� r"'1-:1min tl{•�.+,_ � in •4fr:;Y^ . �f `AIL - s. i?I',�_ - �' 1 V6t _aYYa04 ���� ham' >�t'PP•ppf .Yr South Coast AIR QUALITY �mul ! .urtrx; "r i • , s}"t,, R�TI'c '�' ` - E# MANAGEMENT DISTRICT � ' " _ � a�!♦ - } '` '- d' J , • IIIIIIIIII ax•. - ! ��.^�' ! J Ax{� I �'}.>"" .R�,i, 3t-Y•r.f'ay„;- f �•C-v', ~'"d 7a� NI o e is x J }�'�s bWSWa; .I D{�i• � 'a`� s y"' -.'.!"'���jr�� . - Y ,'y�j _ ..r':ry' 'd'. .✓yJ�- 1'''!!!```< i d - t� `,fig � +-Not measured at this location. ---- in 10-day interval In 20-day interval Figure 3 OZONE NUMBER OF DAYS EXCEEDING 'STAGE TWO EPISODE LEVEL (1—HOUR AVERAGE 03 ? 0.35 PPM) y) 1979 )`T _ +'r'#hyk�• .4 �'� 1 `*.0 r ' ti;, )c w113{ +1'-i - •i17 `'a a. i 46 Ae .e.,r t�rs.:'aXfJF :# '_'#"�*.it�;'.s'>~ � [. 5 e - - .'...- S•• .� - - '-z'fi ",'t� -.Y+ ._�_in'k.`-� v c� � _ '^Y J. _ >; s i v� _p+-- ' y' y ��r�` ^ }' .w • 'ae `er'q f- ��Y±�y����,.'l'C .J`�-iic■,,,{J�j�$�y?t!. (411 L! s,� }^ } - _ _ _ "� .F`r1• _ -9,C ' ,�LY+il� td� ° 3 % -IZn tOSyu[tO • 103 YfEffi �'_� �^/xl�1J 7.,ti>•. � amuSYs., ; i -� �� 77 ' �" t` , ~ �` v f°R ••���N�,l' t- � ..: -".`,�`��y��. � J` s �, t �Y 'f- 1'. O F South Coast - 1 AIR-QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT i . • - -#W.,u IM f } �';_c. i . '_y°*3 l j 1'�i .•" i-w 1. . Ea_ s(._� •1' Jtq: ems. 7'v 116 *5. f � �• - i 1 I t I 1 I �y 1Z_ _ �k 3 x • y jzj(1 S'_ . .c -Not measured 'at this location. -Numbers-beside the air monitoring stations are the-number of second stage episode days. Figure 4 CARBON MONOXIDE NUMBER OF DAYS EXCEEDING STATE STANDARD (12—HOUR AVERAGE CO ? 10 PPM) 1979 - � . 6 Ak� "i:- ��,��_._ _''�,�• �e �' -- � - - -- -_ yi33LLVIIfE '§'� �a"., .� 4 -= 1.; - -z:.:3. i�fi `(- - `'�xyy�i., a: j• aka, n4`aa .i•• i "x '.. t`o- "7��,'-k nultma ' L 4 A _ k` .;` . \• Gof •c \(\/\/�����t�c�,\ , 1+ i.y� /J' :+t,'^.' ` y'�jj�{(��, .'t �' -�,,y�" �JlgC'trq}%T4� 2,_ .; ft.' rtsw �• •I. ~ �J Yo `I�e. 1a• ` d't'.W� '1B _��}g' �• J.•`( G, '. � �'3U,w3 • -s. - '' - - ��� r 4.1 . �zL- %a r rwoFx3 . �� ' 7 - I' • .. • -"t .d` ;r♦�£ - a e y�'��p �°E a�^•3�+31C.. `f ili ad•.�.�- ' :•. onw� Farw w moln !°F;c__ at .Fou33s .. �ntou t �-^•,ti,y t ieo 1 � +t �Ir•� �`�K r2�' r � �.1, 2 �vxfta Int."- 3 \ !� -Iflar `.c �'w'G1�' i, !woot"eYie „•�., . r> .�• f South Coast ]7'�� "'lys>:\4 WR/ t Awk LIS- StI A .3_ 'T- I ;� - •' -c.C_i fti�- -its;�..-�• .-r-- j'f;.�..�_� - { . AIR QUALITY - - .. x' ;+',) •;_ - S •k <-j Snu®I may, +U�Irtm d ..+. 'ILc • .? k r d + s . MANAGEMENT DISTRICT 'yF _. . _,y - .?-'• -ktF'> el _ _ • vim. 'x�ye #i'.y�5ai. f -'Q'X a aT!tT Ililllllll s'I • ww / • ..�.�ewm.xa.t.new "ikn f r i� �• -'ixl. ss -2' �•: 4'F' t"' e 1. ,• i � ,-�� ,c�_. I � •.� # Not measured at this location. Figure 5 SULFUR DIOXIDE NUMBER OF DMIS EXCEEDING STATE STANDARD (24—HOUR AVERAGE SO2 ? M5 PPM)*' 1979 " �'l��•�a's/d�.i. �'.`ayv�• e;!`�T"f" .'�� � i�r. `. C� 1�T 4.,`.� `• �Y`?:�*� _ 'ay _ _ ._ °# __ k ^-•,--rat�-�.( C"l +�`+• + ;*� �� r ` � � +[� .M_.,-.-�'�.? %A„ �-�:d+. � "{l '"5'.,L.'_ • •1 � ' Y r.�-4� � {Yy �'�-tR,� a �Y��~ -a, a�$`_. ".�.1 � �eseY,t. •'- .4 y.}t�.�.�� j�y�(.s•^f'' -_$..1•,,�. �e Y 3tl -�y - ` e x�sl' �. "a^.�.-`-fx'gs�; ` `t'- m-:nWeuu -_ _i � ! - •�xi 't~'��At�'g_ �� �{)�)lr f'"'A'� z��3� -t ^. Jr 1 - a°Y! aRUY trwrlu - aaAacurylid'`- � - _ ..•.-'>f', � % Yasr wxa iv 4m{.ia� t 'x�+oion.l.,y _(•_.—.._.�• � f '+a 3� � , . �v \ ,� `_ r� � �"s•'lt��iJ'c'.7L. 1 Y '�.4�.. .�.' � x�• ta' `}"' � s � 'N•:..y..c=�.`��j i k (.�-•� Ae x�'" Ir ;L� `v . y � � a won f � 7nmaY J<•_ - '1 n, ,a 'c'�.!S [ M. +.= p l' ," NSouth Coast _ _ >•,naoa - % _ . .•- 3�i:`�'T'.udtSp`s.: ``: _ ' ►)" t' `N•`-- �• saYdslu:varor• qr, s. .- ^�• .y""'_, - - AIR QUALITY7Z MANAGEMENT DlSIR(CT j +�?+3"�`nt"•y �'°yy�•'`s.* ,ice'�` - MIA- ly � :�;} 3. .shy ,a` o�t• +� #Not measured at this location. Numbers-bide the ,air monitoring stations.nre the number.vf'days on which the standard was exceeded. 4C-ambined'with 1-hour.average 03 � 0-10 ppm or 244mur-average TSP ? 700 ug/m3. Figure 6 -NITROGEN DIOXIDE NUMBE8 OF .BAYS EXCEEDING.STATE STANDARD (7 NOUR -AVERAGE NO? ? 0.25 PPM) 1979 —.G 1 a ! i"�O 'it t•:x - ti `.. lnaA nmax - ar -R,.-.;'' i Y J. I �� � � F ��� •�_� 1f,� '�'%vp�-%;" � 7'_--+fix-S.�•�. ` '�+ R•' � .r .•r - w South Coast " AIR QIlAUTY - A. ; ♦ 1 �• MANAGEMENT DISTRICT yx • � # " 'Y•"f rr^ •'��)�i{i a. �iir� • '¢,� �3-4 �cr.�v.'.� 4,.y!.��� '• -L e y 1Inmull x F�.�, • 7sxF - a s is a � �'> !� _. �•>��^��r�� _ = a -,tom • JIr 5 r y 2 #'Not mmwred 3t this .location. �•---in 20-day interaral in 40itay .interval Figure 7 TOTAL SUSPENDED PARTICULATE PERCENT OF DAYS EXCEEDING,STATE STANDARD (24—HOUR AVERAGE TSP - 100 ug/m3) 1979 y ° :� . .� � f � _ ., vr. ',- • `'�� _ - "may r'Y. It '-A"i -,�� er al����J�`'$1t« lti_ •'', s� ri,+nyJ �1,tY' °T:}:i s ( Y WI IXPE.,• _� '. .:S �-`, - - 5? E� 't.�;l k�r„��'A+`}p�1 � •`r �_ r ",r Jv 1.+' E - c. � Y'a s, -�r "-`T�,. '• rv ♦ 9. _�'+ ` , y _ .. 4 t' ��!• • ,._syc e.Wvi,:l1 I "Gt . J jA • w2�E`�4{' � ?r�� � �fi � w ' 'Arw M'�rn ° >�(� ' ;wr 't" a'��'� _ " 4ce�� •. $' ?py'>'y'����+ T Y Ty y, +. r 'c I . ♦ 'yam \'� I a �'��•iaA�igryN�_y'� ` v_l I�y♦ .` •l�Y M•�st� .�VR1, ` ' 1 ♦ • •Jt rl f 1 E.,.y�,+J . _ ,E4 Yi{l �..• M l.�•�.• u J im usElEs - ri r,:'Fi° :f• �.�..�.� -, t -•. ��. I i. xcAryj' Ak 411 ff A South coast l i r - ,�_s„IaM -r .X 1. 'a ' , - •`i f Ys= - '� > 4 t 1. - �`•L _ tip 9ERIY pI � AIR QUALITY �- •}* IM0E1 • } M' . MANAGEMENT DISTRICT S•' m A4111}m - •+l a ;:y t'r }J j%t�yr'� �!j Kee 1 -1 . 'Sij° '� I till f numl° e \ • . r6>fa>gsr- -`. J. i•z.•t.c�'".:S�VV7 ,,,,yam^ i +'4�s• �`"�> '�'w �� yr, :. o , c. ., s. =1 � �'`a.;,iy'.l"�:� tEt��<.,� •t�,�?.`-" �I`.^ -,MM•J`�'-:-"•r� '�� ��' 14 � .�y'- • s..l..ni.. � ��s�'sY F" "Z• ,Y.. j'i�a � � � ,�i i"57` T 31�IIffI1111i•.^. tat 2 �$` �ir91M!! _ • 3.3�� '}l.a�;: .+ tiM.�p l 36 � �g`::Fss` Y!!l-1 ����• �\.�i��u��' t'r ::1, "��'4R .._x. 'r "Cy `t � s yl uu nnnnl� u �` y ,.p�`31 - � Ili I :•'.FYt�. uy+' .r»Y,'- ♦ Not measured at this location. Total suspended particulate is measured every sixth day. Figure 8 ' LEAD NUMBER OF MONTHS EXCEEDING STATE STANDARD (MONTHLY AVERAGE Pb > 1.50 ug/m3) 1979 1;; � 's 3�a.r3.0 .�+e,'1. 'y, r .yam ?a•�:i'. - A [�[ui �' "e9y, ` - -_ _ ',f}x'; ���[e`x`��i�14t�! ••hhrruu-.. .:s".�'_'r�1, r.,r„} ry_ _t e�2J4�. - n '3-. �` .- [ ?� .�'`.. �"` - ' :.��".�•�_ - f4 '"�'3-'rt��k ir. .M1`� ? :. � -''.4r'it �, '�' jr' `'$ '�`';�^+'•��, .► '•� x ' Jf� '�• '�� ��q<y� USE ��,, S k', �1a`" f.:�i.' ,� „6`r pfi - :/..f yyyy,,,���tf$' a' "•_ k�`. rt[nx • 1 Yyf' ,✓7.. O t 'y d I ,✓ ? '_. 1Y -t lam' ,.� .0. � _ _ -•.y, �}�Y �7' raiW WV ib ,k US AUEUS ' �' �� FO YGxn" 1C11�Y�f• � '•'t � T'F_.r scant[[[! if, Via 21 J/yyr�� - , �_`yL�` ' Y..°Y;�S,.,. `j '� nircuu'e-'�'3 .ai;. trHE a (nln[t " '• + . rwoo m __ i-t it y •—�� .... South Coast to I lip ' -�x 1'ay��. ��'�f ,1• _ AIR QUALITY i ucn 1' xu�[fn r.}. F: l i ij 1 MANAGEMENT DISTRICT 'a ° [a±YtsE��.^ •nw tUKIVS 1 lay �'kx /, �"'j' - "¢�f ,>, 1_:�� yy:'��- •rL' ' t GJ. `• -x� a reJ ,}_d_, .f,'•N - #.� '.- - ' r. X,gyi e� 76 ", - i ` .�t+n•V,l 'vs. i[ io '±�[ ;'- F[ °" R:"^a`�, .t�"�i'. r7Y6�'a •`;S x Illlllllll .« ... i6nx }l }j'..t.$4s T K EHI 4 p.• fSt Et 4Mo l.id, C� ✓ 3: d� a n is ac Mir d e r t'Fy.7�' a .,•T^'^' s�+yYtF,= i t �uE E n [ 2 ` r' i �z��� 4.{ i v, f;'• q`i�z'.i .•'y.: �� ` ; rah_ • ^!ter •K •mil•''-' i nu"lfiu xmx' ui -=� f 9 •it { � lam' ? 4- Not measured at this location. Lead is measured every sixth day. Figure 9 SULFATE PERCENT OF DAYS EXCEEDING STATE-STANDARD (24—HOUR AVERAGE SOq ?_25 ug/m3) 1979 ..' - i� J�t ��.'�"ALL.•w -P Ry .Y.S. � e -_ --i T'T(.t�^.k _ . _ - _ n,.; - -ig y_�a,.r-7'?F.'. 1,•��s'�f�w;s}�.�ay �[ S -`t `'"- :s e _�" �' r - '~•L`z�.� - ••F .. .• � kcy, ' r. 7 � �' �•,�;4Y�} s . .. a -'"}�c. _ r. '.tb•- . �� ���YI•t�-. y-.i„1'ji^' ��'`I^!'-x ,.'v'MyuM_ _ �ymn •. ;'.`�`JI .� �� �:r'rM ��' � �.`i i - x �{-•y. St�i�['��^~ 3'k� F � �f - L,am%yy` ,i7 w!� ^.i �ffomw yr -mid - �,,a'• 1-.'' .T� t .� a � '1 ( �f wrrdu •i=-�'lr�,s!'-' t f. : '!� = s. :kaR� ._��2.1��` a South coast AIR QUALITY - -�_ li Piu - _Y✓. ,1L:,it aT Y'_.�. - .. ,} _ . , Imo` ` M 3tY I MANAGEMENT DISTRICT '. �.. �, M l y,, - , IIIIIIIIO v«w.ev.w.. _ �pa.'(�_.., � �j"'L�yf �•�Ly.7bi �y J't" .G !` �r� .�U��shy `t y l � �• }- `4 J ! & • -� f - 7 ;t%, t,1 �_ IIIII { ',f��, a i?GGG///,"'illf��� ��=iiiiii r f�� ..:P: t `•S s -+,Not measured at this location. Sulfate is measured every sixth clay. Figure 10 NITRATE ANNUAL AVERAGE, ug/m3 1979 �Y •Ziv *:_.a2 4lI .ix { i - i .:•+•y' "1_ Yf +r� j�I f t�. .y`nyS,(.�,y + sR 1 � :. - -• , `�` r t '.z `- a i -,,g iQj�'�* ?j-y�4I - f. _ •. g.; pr _ y „ •••r j{-rg } lKY •t ' ': -v1T Y ` -a}noT •t'� + �)� t,�}�; '.k'v ' ,. ! �,� r. •'i. u 4 r f'- `'^• ~ y ' :�.' �W._.'� '•. �� ��t"♦r }g;r �� 'xrrni°.°}u► U�as•�--.- J . _ _ �c�:�" ':'� r ' ;z�'- •�' S;.S���}� �} ��- �:�r r - _ '�' �; nrud� -� xr.u� ;au{�'�w�e -ec f I'�'_ :.a I 1 [csi.lnsz aew usum¢ .., ZPt�jTl` •C'- .',,:i. {. d I �--_ _[���jP.InT�� 'sa1.����Jtr27 .}'•+ ."jf -_ _"`'' �'FYr + s..�-.tom,.—'�}.. South Coast Y - AIR QIIAIJTY - t• �xwum- '. J . _ 3 _''�7i° ''�t'L',�, i'.5�: � s-�, , s! MANAGEMENT DISTRICT gg}'sr. t -jjJ--- ;.({! i}• ;� 'z'arans . h ,y, r' +,�°" r +t # M1 \ 1 f- #.. ~ i ,t+ .•..'3J4,l 7jjl nmmn ........... . f. •R� �� .6r.�..` ,¢. ���L's.�- fir` �, y � � {b�, ,. ... '>'.�� ,. •+f Not measured at this location. Nitrate is measured every sixth day. e . Figure 11 VISIBILITY NUMBER OF AIR POLLUTION—INDUCED LOW VISIBILITY DAYS'* 1979 l:•`: 11�14� � Y t _ { , �► � i�,,r" r-,f� y �' `�"� :'•'- ; !e, q ,t._ ! _ -r - - `- s.�r� - ' - ' ' °fib,-!'. - '�) - i`.. >j.✓c;. ,�{,�,�_ - ��-./.•»r�Y�'�r, ,t} -s �3 M •:1�:;�K��r�y;ir "- — -_-/ _ :, .:'�J^,..-.� Y 'W ;�� ai -' ali '�f7Y,y'i.S •' , ` rr ' ifr'a'€ p 4 s`{a';r3. - -,+. '�'� - �� 1 - - - .- }F; tile 'I h w -'�' %�ti='a�:'.a9,•i -_'�. _u- } i? '. ' spy �`'• Si`k.-� l ' r . zF K• �r '�rf sr'st",T„4."!�k ,t t`, tMxSlvu[i4 �. ,...` , !- •.:s � ,., � ,�„- •RT � t ) F •�i. r^"4���4�M,1 '.++y;}'�a��.4�'"1� �jt~R' 1 ;. a„". ��eewm - rou.o .set-^ - - ti?-Lr• � ��"1= # {+�,�� fit\ • .r ! ,. -.. .i• ,=,,r. '• _ • : x s�a�s ws mr �w.t[f _. '! -i�1J J.. vibe '• _ '/ i �' 1 w -�" 1 '.uLo� � ��'•"!nilirrra. -• '}]T- 3. it � '1Y '• . i--l(- 0o South Coast - •� ' �m: yiay�' ate; :ty„�:y"�:' .?�}'.i. ' ' i.7� :� ;* tl�ti• � f'"` 'aYv- 'ki `:..;-: Try s`"- _' a -_ • AIR QUALITY luecrwi' r• !ath.'-rv€.. , , -1 3 6d nn�..s' j - _ 4 �� 'uuxuxtrvs i r_°4:a t� Yy ka,��'-tf.! .,iiK i �" � •"•-.��L•.. r •yl MANAGEMENT DISTRICT .--• d-- itltlttttt .� .o .. � ``��; _'a Jn�•'' �v,,,�,�,+,�?a.i,�r.?�-T?'` � i � =J' �, • r�r...ner,..v.ne. M ¢ sC i i 'r c µ' df-.._ .,,,, .t M1y'•r�• "�"''yp ,F• *s t� ,+�1>! _ ,� a e io oa �t F } �fit.�gy3 .' v9fg=..#.:7r �• t�� '� • 'py,, 40 1 I o 1 1 1 Tt g.- P ya 7 l Q r-1 ' ti�� a kid_ •' i.?f';.r-ram �l.._t�'ta '� �f ,o _� k< -•3 *Number of days with visibility less than 3 miles at relative humidity less than 70%. ♦Visibility measured -at these general areas, not necessarily.at the air monitoring station. Table 1 CaPARISWS OF AIR WOALITY STAN ARDS AND EMERGENCY CRITERIA Air Air Quality Standardsa Emergency Criteria Pollutant Mational SCAOMDc and California Episode National Episode and Action Stage I Emergency Significant Required California Primary Secondary Naalth Stage 2 Stage 3 Alert warning Action Harm To Advisory Warning Emergency Level Level Loyal Health Level 0.12 ppm 0.12 ppm Ozone 0.10 Fps, (24C ug/03) (240 ug/m3) 0.20 Fps, 0.35 ppm. 0.50 ppe 0.18 ppi* 0.40 ppm 0.50 ppe, 0.60 ppe, 03 1-hr. avg. 1-hr. avg. 1-hr. avg. t-hr. avg. 1-hr. avg. 1-hr. avg. 1-hr. avg.. •1-hr. avg 1-br. arg. 1-br. avg. 0 ppm, 0 ppm. 50 ppm, • 10 ppm, (10 ag/83) (10 e4/e3) 20 ppm, 35 ppm, 5o FP, W-1tr, avg. Carbon 12-hr. avg. 8-hr. avg. 8-hr. avg. 12-hr. avg. 12-hr. avg. 12-hr. arg. Monoxide 15 ppm, 30 Fps, 40 May. 75 pp, CO 40 ppm, 35 ppm 35 ppm 40 ppm. 75 ppa, 16D ppe. 8-hr. avg. $-hr. avg. $-hr. avg. 4-hr. avg. 1-hr. avg. (40 mg/m�) (40 Wn!I) 1-br. avg. I-br. avg. 1-br. avg. 125 ppm, 1-br. avg. 1-hr. avg. 1-hr. avg. 0.15 ppa, 0.30 ppa, 0.40 pp, 0.50 Fps, Nitrogen 0.05 ppm 0.65 ppm, 24-hr. avg. 24-hr. avg. 24-hr. arg. 24-hr. avg. Dioxide 0.25 Fire. (1D0 ug/J) (tog ug(m3) N92 I-hr. avg. All AAM 0.80 M. 1.2 ppm. 1-5 No, 2.6 "s, ' 1-hr. avg. 1-hr. avg. 1-br, avg. 1-br. avg. �c 0.14 ppm 0.05 ppm,' (385 u 0.20 ppm, 11.70 ppa. O.GO ppm, Sulfur 24-hr. avg. 24-hr. avg. 0.50 ppm, 24-br. avg. 24-hr. avg. 24-hr, avg. 4.30 ppm, 0.8o ppm, 1.80 ppa, 1.0 pp, Dioxide (1300 ug/e3) 24-hr, avg. 24-hr. avg. 24-hr. avg. 24-hr. avg. S02 0.50 ppm, 0.03 3-hr. avg. 0.50 ppm, 1.0 ppm, 2.0 ppm, 1-hr. avg. (Be ug/7) 1-hr. avg. t-hr: avg. 1-hr. avg. AAM ozone In Combination 0.20 ppm, 0.35 ppm, 0.50 ppe, With Sulfur 1-hr. avg. 1-hr. avg. 1-hr. avg. • 0ioxided) Sulfate In 25 ug/e31 25 ug/m3, 24-hr, avg, combined with Particulate 24-hT. avg. Ozone, 0.20 ppm, 1-br. avg. Matter 1GO ng/w3, 260 ug/m3 150 n9/0 - 24-hr. avg. 24-hr. avg. 24-hr. avg. Particulate - 375 ug/r1 625 ug/m3 675 ug/m3 1000 ug/e3 (tatter .So.uoll 75 ug/m3 80 ug/03 24-hr. avg. 24-hr. avg. 24-hr. avg. 24-hr. avg. (TSP) AGM AGN AGM Particulate Matter (og/e3) x 85,000 281,00 393,000 490,000 SO (ppm) x-2620 24-hr. avg. 24-hr. eye. 24-hr. avg. 24-hr. avg. Occuring in combination with a violation of the State Ozone or TSP standards. No standard or criteria when blacks are blank. This is inconsistent with the federal standard of 0.12 ppm, hourly average, and is expected to be revised in the near future. • (Continued) Table I (Continued) COMPARISONS OF AIR QUALITY STANDARDS AND EMERGENCY CRITERIA Air Air Quality Standardsa -Emergency Criteria Pollutant National SCAOMUc and California Episode National Episode - •• and Stage 1 Action California Primary Secondary Health Stage 2 Stage 3 Alert Warning Emergency Act o significant Required Advisory Warning Emergency Level Level Level Health Level Lead 1.5 ug/a 1.5 ug/m3 - Pb 30-dayavg. calendar quarter averalfe _ Hydrocarbons 0.24 ppm 0.24 ppm - - (corrected for _ (160 ug/03) (160 ug/m3) methane) 3-hr. avg. 3-hr. avg. 8-0 a.m. 8-9 a.m. • j Hydrogen 0.03 ppa, Sulfide 1-hr. avg_. N7S Vinyl Chloride 0.01 plum - (chloroethene) 24-hr. avg. KID plan 0-hr. avg. tv Ethylene 0 0.50 ppm i-hr. avg. In sufficient - - concentration to reduce Visibility visibility to Reducing less than ton Particles miles at role- five humidity of less than TOA. i Voluntary Open burn- Incinerator reduction in Mandatory ing prohib- use prchih- physical ac- abatement ited. Re- ited. Re- Vehicle use tivity and measures. quested quired re- prohibited. Same as Actions vehicle Action ranges State can reduction duction in Industry shut "Emergency" to be operation. from voluntary take action in vehicle vehicle dawn or cur- except most Taken Open burning to mandatory. if local operation. operation. tailment. industry banned (not efforts Industrial Industry Public acti- shut dawn. an action at fail. Curtail- curtailed vities cease. this level Rent. further. after IGTB). a) Standards shown in parenthesis are restatements of the preceding standard but-expressed on an alternative basis. b) Concentrations other than annual averages not to be exceeded more than once a year. c) SCADS - South Coast Air Quality Management District. d) Ozone and sulfur dioxide concentrations both must be greater than 0.10 plum. - - TABLE II HEALTH EFFECTS OF AIR POLLUTANTS 1979 ANNUAL HIGH CONCENTRATION IN SOCAB CONCENTRATION/ OBSERVED HEALTH EFFECTS CONCENTRATION/ LOCATION, POLLUTANT, EXPOSURE TIME AT SPECIFIED CONCENTRATIONS AVERAGING TIME DATE Ozone 0.15 ppm/l hour Increased frequency of asthma attacks.1,2* or short term peaks of 0.25 ppm 0.30 ppm/l hour Cough, chest discomfort and headache 0.45 ppm/l hour Azusa, in some humans.3 9/8/79 0.37 ppm/2 hour Decline in pulm�nary function in healthy humans. 1.0 ppm/continuously In rats and mice, death occurs with continuous exposure.5 N Carbon Monoxide 15-18 ppm/8 hour Can cause decreased exercise capacity 23.4 ppm/8 hour Lynwood, in patients with angina pectoris.6.7,8 12/16/79 50 ppm/l hour Can cause impairment of time interval 30 ppm/l hour Lynwood, estimation and visual function.9 12/18/79 Nitrogen Dioxide 0.10 ppm/few minutes Sensory responses in humans may be elicited or altered.10 Daily peak exceeds Some impairment of pulmonary function 0.47 ppm/1 hour Los Angelele 0.45 ppm on 10% of and increased incidence of acute 6/28/79 days_. respiratory disease may b associated Long Beach, with such concentrations.g0 10/23/79 1.50 -ppm/short term Can cause difficulty in breathing in healthy as well as bronchitic groups.10 TABLE II (Continued) HEALTH =,_rCTS OF AIR POLLUTANTS 1979 ANNUAL HIGH CONCENTRATION IN SOCAB CONCENTRATION/ OBSERVED HEALTH EFFECTS CONCENTRATION/ LOCATIOt,, EXPOSURE TIME AT SPECIFIED CONCE\T_RjTIONS AVERAGING TIME DATE _ead 5-10 ug/m3/weeks ^hese atmospheric concentrations may 3.91 ug/m3 Lennox cause blood levels of 10 ug/deciliter, monthly average Dec. 1979 ` which may impair hemoglobin synthesis.11 20-40 pg/m3iweeks These atmospheric concentrations may cause blood lead ieveis of 40 pg/_ deciliter, which causgj a decrease in hemoglobin synthesis.- : fur Zioxide/ 0.037 ppm SG: Higher frequencies t` acute respiratory 0.026 ppm Sol Los Angeles Total quspended annual average s t� ymptoms and diminished ventilatory annual average n3 Parricuiate associated with function may be found ir_ children- combined with ,Tcc, 100 yg/m3 smoke** Lowest concentrariq; rercrted to have 105 pg/m3 TSP/ an adverse effect.!- annual average a%rer=criDts refer to data sources gown :.r References to Health Effects at the end of text. * .oke is i British maasure cf -3articuiate n.a.ter ccrcentraticn. s=jar co, out generally somewhat lower than HP. t References for Table II 1. Schoettlin, E.E., and E. Landau. "Air Pollution and Asthmatic Attacks in the Los Angeles Area", Public Health Rep 76:545-548, 1961. 2. U.S. Dept. of H.E.&W. Public Health Service. National Air Pollution Administration. Summary and Conclusion. Air Quality Criteria for Photochemical Oxidants. NAPCA Publ. No. AP-63 Washington D.C.; U.S. Government Printing Office, 1970, pp. 10-1 through 10-13. 3. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development. Air Quality Criteria for Ozone and Other Photochemical Oxidants. Volume 1, 1-12. Volume 11, 10-30, 1978. 4. National Academy of Sciences. Division of Medical Sciences,Assembly of Life Sciences, National Research Council. "Ozone and other Photochemical Oxidants", p.8, 1977. 5. "Health Effects of Air Pollution",American Thoracic Society NEWS. Fourth Revision of a 1973 American Thoracic Society Statement, p.24. 1978. 6. Aronow,et al: "Effect of Freeway Travel on Angina Pectoris",Ann. Intern. Med.Vol.77, p. 669, 1972. 7. Aronow and Isbell, "Carbon Monoxide Effects on Exercise-Induced Angina Pectoris, "Ann. Intern. Med. Vol. 79, p. 392, 1973. 8. Anderson, E.W., et al: "Effect of Low Level Carbon Monoxide Exposure on Onset and Duration of Angina Pectoris, A Study in Ten Patients with Ischemic Heart Disease", Ann. Intern. Med Vol. 79, p. 46, 1973. 9. Air Quality Criteria for Carbon Monoxide, U.S. Dept. of H.E.&W., 8-49, 1970. 10. "Health Effects for Short-Term Exposures to Nitrogen Dioxide", Final Draft, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, 5-53. 1978. 11. Air Quality Criteria for Lead, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,Office of Research and Development. p. 1-6. pp. 12-38. 1977. 12. "Health Effects of Air Pollution", The American Thoracic Society. A pre-publication excerpt from: The American Thoracic Society NEWS p. 47, 1978. - 23 - TABLE III AIR MONITORING STATIONS WITH GREATEST PERCENT OF DAYS EXCEEDING THE STATE STANDARD PERCENT OF DAYS POLLUTANT AT WORST SITE a) LOCATION Total Suspended Particulate 85% Riverside Lead 58% Lennox Ozone 54% b) Fontana Sulfate 13% Fontana Nitrogen Dioxide 12% West Los Angeles Carbon Monoxide 10%r Lynwood Sulfur Dioxide 201-c Whittier N A a) Lead, total suspended particulate and sulfate are sampled on every 6th day, or about 60 times per year.Ozone,carbon monoxide,sulfur dioxide and-nitrogen dioxide are sampled daily. The percentages given are the percent of sampling days on which the air quality standards were not met, except in the case of lead. The lead standard is in terms of monthly average concentration so the percent given is the percent of months not meeting the standard. b) Note that although ozone did not meet the standardon 54%of the.days in 1'979,this does njQj mean that ozone was above the standard on 54%of the hours in 1979.If a singlebour during any day is above the ozone standard,that day does not meet-the standard.Similar reasoning applies to nitrogen dioxide and carbon monoxide. TABLE IV • NUMBER OF DAYS STATE STANDARDS WERE EXCEEDED AND ANNUAL MAXIMUM HOURLY AVERAGES 1979 RBON NrnOM OZONE im-n DEc) DIOXIDEd) DIOXIDE Dsysa) Max.b) Days Msx. Days Max. Days Max. Station No. Location Code LOS ANGELES COUNTY 001 Los Angeles CENT 114 0.34 4 21 0 .036 14 0.47 060 Azusa ESGV 178 0.45 0 11 0 .023 4 0.40 069 Burbank ESFV 137 0.39 36 27 0 .031 27 0.35 072 Long Beach SOCO 31 0.21 7 20 0 .042 22 0.47 074 Reseda WSFV 146 0.33 16 23 0 .014 6 0.31 075 Pomona PWVA 167 0.35 0 14 0 .027 6 0.34 076 Lennox SWCO 17 0.19 35 27 0 .035 13 0.38 080 Whittier SOEA 80* 0.32* 5* 20* 4* .064* 10* 0.37* 081 Newhall SCRV 177 0.32 0 11 0 .031 2 0.29 082 Lancaster** ANVA 80 0.20 0 15 NA N4 0 0.10 083 Pasadena WSGV 191 0.44 1 17 0 .025 14 0.36 084 Lynwood SCLA 52 0.29 38 30 1 .051 12 0.37 085 Pico Rivera SSGV 160 0.39 7 16 0 .025 13 0.41 086 West L.A. NWCO 90 0.26 18 24 0 .027 42 0.46 ORANGE COUNTY 3176 Anaheim ANAH 61 0.33 14 19 0 .019 8 0.33 3177 La Habra LAHB 112 0.38 2 20 0 .035 0 0.24 3185 Costa Mesa COST 26 0.21 5 21 0 .018 4 0.29 3186 El Toro TORO 57 0.32 N4 N4 0 .022 24 N4 3190 Los Alamitos LSAL 50 0.26 N4 N4 0 .038 &1 N4 3191 Santa Ana C. SACN 95 0.39 N4 N4 0 .005 N4 N4 RIVERSIDE COUNTY 4137 Palm Springs** PLSP 112 0.24 0 5 0* .022* 0* 0.10* 4139 Indio** INDO 45 0.21 0* 11* 0* .027* 0* 0.09* 4140 Prado Park PRPK 160 0.33 0 9 N4 N4 R4 M 4144 Riverside RIVR 186 0.34 0 10 0 .030 0 0.20 4149 Perris PERI 151 0.25 0 7 R4 N4 N4 N4 4150 Banning** BANN 123 0.27 0 5 N4 N4 N4 N4 SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY 5151 San Bernardino SNBD 164 0.34 0 10 0 .035 0 0.23 5155 Barstow BARS 32 0.16 0 12 N4 N4 0 0.16 5165 Redlands REDL 173 0.34 0 9 NM N4 0 0.19 5174 Upland UPLA 163 0.37 0 11 0 .033 1 0.30 5176 Fontana FONT 197 0.42 0 20 0 .039 0 0.18 5181 Lake Gregory LKGR 166 0.40 0 12 N4 D44 N4 N4 5190 Victorville** VCVL 90 0.21 0 8 N4 E4 0 0.13 5191 29 Palms** TNPS 46 0.13 0 8 N4 M N4 N4 5192 Trona** TRON 6 0.12 0 12 N4 M 0* 0.06* a) DAYS-number of days exceeding state standard for indicated pollutant. b) MAX-single highest 1-hour (for S02 24-hour) average of the year in parts per million. c) All exceedances and maxima are of the 12-hour standard. The 1-hour standard was not exceeded. d) All exceedances and maxima are of the 24-hour standard. The 1-hour standard was not exceeded. * Less than 12-months data. ** Southeast Desert Air Basin stations. All others in South Coast Air Basin. NM-not measured - 25 - TABLE V NUMBER OF DAYS STATE STANDARDS WERE EXCEEDED AND ANNUAL MAXIMUM DAILY/MONTHLY AVERAGES 1979 TSp SULFATE LEAD No, oonf�g Days a) Max.b) Days a) Myc.b) Monthsajtax,°) D�aysd)- Station No. .Location Code LOS ANGELES COUNTY 001 Los Angeles CENT 31 267 2 29,7 6 2.82 61 060 Azusa ESGV 35 237 0 24.5 1 1.48 60 069 Burbank ESFV at IM M tv at N4 94 072 Long Beach SOCO at 144 NM N4 N4 44 N4 074 Reseda WSFV 28 230 0 22.9 3 2.24 60 075 Pomona PWVA M DM N4 [M N4 tM 1M 076 Lennox SWCO 21 206 3 36.1 7 3.91 60 080 Whittier SOEA NM at N4 NM 111 04 N4 081 Newhall SCRV N4 1Z1 NM N4 101 N4 NM 082 Lancaster** ANVA 22 339 0 14.4 0 1.13 58 083 Pasadena WSGV 27 193 1 26.4 5 2.54 59 084 Lynwood SCLA 32 252 5 28.1 5 3.67 61 085 Pico Rivera $sqv 36 417 3 30.6 4 2.24 61 086 West L.A. NWCO 7 154 0 23.5 2 2.17 61 ORANGE COUNTY 3176 Anaheim ANAH 25 301 10 24.4 2 1.90 60 3177 La Habra, LAHB 30 3DO 2 26.2 2 1.89 60 3185 Costa Mesa COST 26 252 0 24.2 3 1.00 61 3186 El Toro TORO 13 219 0 21.5 0 0.72 61 3190 Los Alamitos 18AL 26 327 1 26.6 3 2.71 61 3191 Santa Ana C. SACN 25 247 0 23.1 0 1.20 61 RIVERSIDE COUNTY 4137 Palm Springs** PLSP 4 188 0 12.0 0 0.44 59 4139 Indio** INDO 19 211 0 13.9 0 0.52 57 4140 Prado Park PRPK N4 *1 N4 M NM N4 N4 4144 Riverside RIVR 52 374 3 28.1 0 1.30 61 4'149 Perris PERT N4 at N4 N4 &I N4 NM 4150 Banning** BANN 28 193 10 20.0 0 0.61 61 SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY 5151 San Bernardino SNBD 36 290 5 31.7 1 1.49 61 5155 Barstow BARS 9 308 1 27.0 0 0.45 61 5165 Redlands REDL 33 242 0 23.7 0 O'•82 55 5174 Upland UPLA 25* 256'* 4* 32.0* yr 1.43 45 5176 Fontana FONT 40 320 8 32.8 0 1.20 60 5181 Lake Greggcry LKGR 9 132 0 13.9 0 0.48 59 5190 Victorville** VCVL 23 358 0 18.0 0 0.49 61 5191 29 Palms** TNPS 2 137 0 9.4 0 0.19 59 5192 Trona** TRON 26* 362* 2* 39.3* 0* 0.29 47 a) Number of days/months violating state standard for indicated pollutant. b) Single highest 24-hour average of the year in pg/m'. t c) Single highest monthly average of the year in pg/m', d) Measurements are normally made on every sixth day. * Less than 12 months data, ** Southeast Desert Air Basin stations. All others in South Coast Air Basin. NM- not measured - 26- • TABLE VI OZONE NUMBER OF DAYS EPISODE LEVELS WERE REACHED IN 1979 WITH COMPARISON TO 1978 STAGE 1 STAGE 2 (hourly average a 0.20 ppm)(hourly average 2 0.35 ppm) 1978 1979 1978 1979 Station No. Location Code i LOS ANGELES COUNTY 001 Los Angeles CENT 16 14 0 0 060 Azusa ESGV 76 71 5 10 069 Burbank ESFV 30 26 0 2 072 Long Beach SOLO 0 1 0 0 074 Reseda WSFV 16 24 0 0 075 Pomona PWVA 72 57 9 3 076 Lennox SWCO 2 0 0 0 080 Whittier SOEA 18 16 1 0 081 Newhall SCRV 45 59 0 0 082 Lancaster** ANVA 5 1 0 0 083 Pasadena WSGV 85 78 8 11 084 Lynwood SCLA 0 6 0 0 085 Pico Rivera SSGV 48 38 5 3 086 West L.A. NWCO 10 7 0 Q ORANGE COUNTY 3176 Anaheim ANAH 13 5 0 0 3177 La Habra LAHB 24 21 1 1 3185 Costa Mesa COST 3 1 0 0 3186 E1 Toro TORO 10 6 0 0 3190 Los Alamitos LSAL 5 2 0 0 3191 Santa Ana C. SACN 9 14 0 RIVERSIDE COUNTY 4137 Palm Springs** PLSP 3 3 0 0 • 4139 Indio*** INDO 0 1 0 0 4140 Prado Park PRPK 34 24 2 0 414.4 Riverside RIVE. 62 55 2 0 414 Perris PERI 38 26 0 0 4150 Banning** BANN 22 22 0 0 SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY 5151 San Bernardino SNBD 72 62 1 0 5155 Barstow BARS 0 Q 0 0 5165 Redlands REDL 64 57 2 0 5174 Upland UPLA 68 59 2 2 5176 Fontana FONT 98 95 11 9 5181 Lake Gregory LKGR 73 80 0 3 5190 Victorville** VCVL 1 3 0 0 5191 29 Palms** TNPS 0* 0* 0* 0* 5192 Trona** TRON 0 0 0 0 * Leas than 12 months data. ** Southeast Desert Air Basin stations. All others in South Coast Air Basin, - 27 - TABLE VII • ; NUMBER OF DAYS NOT MEETING FEDERAL STANDARD ! 1979 SULFUR OZONEa) fib) Db5ibO}®Ec) TSPd) IEO) Station No. Location Code v LOS ANGELES COUNTY 001 Los Angeles CENT 62 20 0 1 2 060 Azusa ESGV 149 0 0 0 0 069 Burbank ESFV 92 57 0 NM NM 072 Long Beach SOCO 11 21 0 NM NM 074 Reseda WSFV 103 32 0 Q 1 075 Pomona PWVA 126 2 0 NM NM 076 Lennox SWCO 7 54 0 0 2 080 Whittier SOFA 47 19 0 NM NM 081 ITewhall SCRV 140 0 0 NM NM 082 Lancaster** ANVA 40 0 NM 2 0 083 Pasadena WSGV 150 25 0 0 1 084 Lynwood SCLA 126 20 0 1 2 085 Pico Rivera 3SGV 086 West L.A. NWCO 44 33 0 0 1 ORANGE COUNTY 3176 Anaheim ANAN 27 35 0 1 1 3177 Is Habra LAMB 62 23 0 1 1 3185 Costa Mesa COST 16 18 0 0 0 3186 E1 Toro TORO 24 NM 0 0 0 3190 Los Alamitos LSAL 18 Nil 0 1 1 3191 Santa Ana C. SACN 47 NM 0 0 0 RIVERSIDE COUNTY 4137 Palm Springs** PLSP 49 0 0 0 0 4139 Indio** INDO 16* 0* 0 0 0 4140 Prado Park PRPK 114 0 NM NM NM 4144 Riverside RIVR 151 0 0 11 0 4149 Perris PERI 118 0 NM NM NM 4150 Banning** BAN$ 84 0 NM 0 0 ;r SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY 5151 San Bernardino SNBD 140 0 0 2 0 5155 Barstow BARS 6 1 NM 1 0 5165 Redlands REDL 139 0 NO 0 0 5174 Upland UPLA 135 0 0 0 0 5176 Fontana FONT 164 5 0 4 0 5181 Lake Gregory LKGR 139 0 NM 0 0 5190 Victorville** VCVL 31 0 NM 1 0 5191 29 Palms** 5192 Trona** TAON 01 0 NM 4 0 a) Based on number of days 03 > 0.12 ppm, 1-hour average. b) Based on number of days CO > 9 ppm, 8-hour average. (The 1-hour average was not exceeded.)' c) Based on number of days S02 > 0.14 ppm 24-hour average. d) Based on number of days TSP > 260 pg/ml, 24-hour average, e) Based on number of quarters Pb > 1.5 pg/m°, quarterly average. * Less than 12 months data. ** Southeast Desert Air Basin stations. All others in South Coast Air Basin. NM-not measured - 28 - -��., �` ''% "7 ��,. , �_ , , � '��� ,-I � j�i ^���, 1 1�,;�I' r GO R�rE WESTEC Services, Inc. �_.' 5E4'4 LETTER OF TRANSMITTA�'LSB p� To: C, 1 fXr Iiew'F0gr Rat- 3. ca Project No. IV Ssvc) 00awlp — FA"Ip , V ' Date: 8(rliar—> pew I + ect+ ` GA• Subject: k0l1 Attn: FreO 7ALAOC4 The following items are transmitted: ❑ Herewith ❑ Under Separate Cover Via: No. of Copies Description 1 N�SfC� b� GDM(�'('ION AIJD Np'R�-3' OF C��+pU6I"�DU lo1wo& us 1 P(oIIGiZ D� COwtPLt3Tfbn1 A"t:, alp, mmwiaC uv The above items are submitted: t your request ❑ For your review ❑ For your files ❑ For your approval ❑ Foryour action ❑ For your information ❑ Per contract dated: ❑ General remarks: Copies to: Transmitted by: Receipt Acknowledged By: h J�- Date: Forward reply to WESTEC Services office indicated below: ❑ 3211 Fifth Avenue 180 East Main Suite 150 ❑ 570 Main Street No. 206 ❑550 Pinetown Road Suite 423 San Diego, CA 92103 Tustin, CA 92680 Brawley,CA 92227 Fort Washington, PA 19034 (714)294-9770 (714)638,4644 (714)344-1157 (215)628-2565 t DATF, July 31, 1980 • NOTICE OF COMPLETION 0 70: FROM: Planning Department City of Newport Beach X� See Attached List •3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach,- CA 92663 DATE: July 31, 1980 PROJECT TITLE: Addendum to the Certified EIR'- Koll Center Newport Planned Community PROJECT LOCATION - Proposed project is bounded by MacArthur Blvd., Jamboree Rd., and Campus Dr. SPECIFIC: PROJECT LOCATION - -PROJECT LOCATION = Orange CITY• Newport Beach' `• :` - COUNTY: g DESCRIPTION OF NATURE,' .PURPOSE AND BENEFICIARIES• OF PROJECT: The EIRaddresses the'environmental•effec'ts ,df.a proposed-hotel facility and • ' development of remaining allowable commercial space for the Koll Aetna property within Koll Center Newport, .City of Newport Beach, California. The City of Newport Beach is the Lead Agency for this project. •A copy of the Draft Environmental Impact Report: Co `01 ,� ® is attached for your review EF 9 � t � r .y is available for review at the �99) Department of Community Development 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 REVIEW PERIOD: j DAYS' • ENDING ON: r Seote mber1, 1980 CONTACT PERSON: Fred Talarico TITLE: Environmental Coordinator PHONE: 714/640-2197 NOTICE OF COMPLETION LIST: Department of Fish and Game ' 1416 9th Street Sacramento, CA 95814 State of California State Lands Commission 1807 13th Street Sacramento, CA 95814 State of California Air Resources Board P.O. Box 2815 Sacramento, CA 95812 CALTRANS 1120 "N" Street Sacramento, CA 95814 CALTRANS Attn: Sue McCulla 420 S. Spring Street - Los Angeles, CA 90012 S.A.R.W.Q.C.B. 6833 Indiana Avenue S-2 Riverside, CA 92506 County Sanitation District P.O. Box 8127 Fountain Valley, CA ' 92708 South Coast Air Quality Management Distric t 9420 Telstar Avenue El Monte, CA 91731 S.C.A.G. 1 600 S. Commonwealth Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90005 Orange County Environmental Management Agency P.O. Box 4048 Santa Ana, CA 92702 ,Airport Land Use Commission 18741 North Airport Way Santa Ana, CA 92702 Irvine Ranch Water District 4201 Campus Drive` Irvine, CA 92714 City of Costa Mesa 77 Fair Drive Costa Mesa, CA 92626 City of Irvine P.O. Box 14575 Irvine, CA 92715 DA7f' -July 31, 1980 • NOTICE OF COMPLETION . TO: FROM: Planning Department City of Newport Beach Xx See Attached List -3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach-, CA 92663 DATE: July 31, 1980 PROJECT TITLE: Addendum to the Certified EIR'- Koll Center Newport Planned Community PROJECT LOCATION - Proposed project is bounded by MacArthur Blvd., Jamboree Rd., and Campus Dr. SPECIFIC' PROJECT LOCATION - PROJECT LOCATION CITY: Newport Beach' ':' COUNTY: Orange DESCRIPTION OF NATURE; -PURPOSE AND BENEFICIARIES OF PROJECT: The EIR addresses'the environmental'effects pf a proposed hotel facility and development of•remaining allowable commercial space for-the Koll Aetna property within Koll Center Newport,-.City of Newport Beach, California. The City of Newport Beach is the Lead Agency for this. project. ,•A copy of the Draft Environments Lt act Report: 9" ° ❑ is attached for your review -is available for review at ,the Department of Community Development 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 REVIEW PERIOD: 3 DAYS ENDING ON: Septem6er1, 1980 CONTACT PERSON: Fred Talarico TITLE: Environmental Coordinator PHONE: 714/640-2197 v � NOTICE OF COMPLETION LIST: Friends of Upper Newport Bay P.O. Box 2001 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Irvine Unified School District 2941 Alton Avenue Irvine, CA 92714 Newport-Mesa School District 1857 Placentia Avenue Costa Mesa, CA 92627 W. R. Perkins Southern California Gas Company P.O. Box 3334 Anaheim, CA 92803 C. V. Wright Southern California Edison Company Westminster, CA 92683 Coast Community College District 1370 Adams Avenue Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Central Newport Beach Comm. Assoc. Mrs. Bobby Lovell, President 1242 West Ocean Front Newport Beach, CA 92663. East Bluff Homeowners' Assoc. Gary Schaumburg, President 2900 Alta Vista Drive Newport Beach, CA 92663 Four Fours Association Mr. Roy Jnutson, President 2504 University Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 Newport Upper Bay Estates Mr. Tim Shepard 2215 Anniversary Lane Newport Beach, CA 92660 Newport Harbor Chamber of Commerce Mr. Gordon West, President 1470 Jamboree Road Newport Beach, CA 92660• Jack Tatham ' Pacific Telephone 1700 Garry Avenue, Rm. 214 Santa Ana, CA 92705 Parks and Recreation Department 1220 K Street Mall Sacramento, CA 95814 Water Resources Conservation Board 1416 9th Street Sacramento, CA 95814 NIWA 610 Newport Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 Clerk, Board of Supervisors P.O. Box 687 Santa Ana, CA 92702 S.P.O.N. Ms. Jean Watt 1151 Dove Street Newport Beach, CA 92660 L.E.A.F. Ed Siebel, Attorney at Law 302-A Marine Avenue Balboa Island, CA 92662 Chamber of Commerce 1470 Jamboree Road Newport Beach, CA 92660 Harbor District 1901 Bayside Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 August 28, 1980 TO: FRED TALARICO FROM: Rich Edmonston SUBJECT: KOLL CENTER TRAFFIC PHASING PLAN The following comments are offered regarding the subject phasing plan analysis dated 8-15-80: 1) Is only 30% for North Ford right? 2) Distribution. is too heavy to Campus @ Bristol St. N. Result will be that Birch @ Bristol St. N. will need ICU examined. 3) It is unclear at this time what the configuration of Coast Highway @ MacArthur will be in the future. If additional lanes are not carried through the intersection, the remark on page 8 is incorrect. (You may wish to check with D. Webb on this.) Richard M. Edmonston Traffic Engineer RME:hjo LO Re c ti r �a6`wPOgr t ' A Department of Community Development ��tiroa''�r DATE : August 1 , 1980 DO,idO4 R@iJ1bW . TO: Planning Commission a FROM: Planning Department y� SUBJECT: Addendum to the Cetified Final EIR Koll Center Newport Planned Community Development for the. Koll /Aetna Properties Pursuant to Planning Commission direction, please find attached the above subdect d'ocuient•. The document will be reviewed by the Citizens ' Environmental Quality Advisory Committee at their meeting of August, 5 , 1980 . It is presently anticipated that it will be on the Planning Commission agenda on September 4, 1980 . N-V • Fred Ta arico Environmental Coordinator Alto FT/dt ` OttSv.:Sk er Qt .Sc %%V%WESTEC Services, Inc. LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL To: Cf Y rr 6f? N �r1 i Project No. 'ZISS �� 1 r"—G1 Date: &/j DRa Subject: �O Attn: -."OL.>✓'k'ICO �I The following items are transmitted: erewith ❑ Under Separate Cover Via: No.of Copies Description The above items are submitted: t your request ❑ For your review ❑ For your files ❑ For your approval ❑ For your action ❑ For your information ❑ Per contract dated: ❑ General remarks: WA I74e �&P, ^("{J2 GWVt2S I`Jdi LINING VP N.J.ftH j ftg '711LB IRWCf" WCA2if_ CeP_R9C!F1r-)6 jt+e 533ST- of motes) bL)51- WILL, Oh\4" VJN ► evJ `nne `PAkaS- ©PPNAeit.:-( wily wovt.D K*16A 1Aal_ &C)� 91, Y00 S11BMSD r`a3ssgt�i?b Copies to: Transmitted by: s Sit h$a� 1 '�'iH (D�b12-11— Receipt Acknowledged By: Date: Forward reply to WESTEC Services office indicated below: ❑ 3211 Fifth Avenue EJ180 East Main Suite 150 570 Main Street No.206 El 550 Pinetown Road Suite 423 San Diego, CA 92103 Tustin, CA 92680 Brawley, CA 92227 Fort Washington, PA 19034 (714)294.9770 (714)838-4644 (714)344-1157 (215)628-2565 ` Langdon&Nihon Architects �' `° A � �Fo Robert E.Langdon Jr.AIA Ernest C.Wilson Jr.AIA HansMumperAlA Robert S.KraftAlA N 'OO�ryO 79?9.� 9 3990 Westerly Place,Suite 200,P.O.Box 2440 A Newport Beach,California 92663.71418 3 3-91 9 3 Z OA��F November 6, 1979 Mr. Fred Talarico Environmental Coordinator Department of Community Development City of Newport Beach RE: Koll Centex Newport Dear Fred: This letter is to confirm our recent telephone conversation with regard to the scope of the focused EIR,use permit and phasing plan for Koll Center Newport. The scope or "project" is to be limited to the Koll/Aetna con- trolled land. See attached Exhibit "A". It is our understanding that the Irvine Company, utilizing the same consultants retained by the city, is proceeding with a parallel focused EIR and phasing plan that will be sub- mitted to the Planning Commission concurrently with the Koll/Aetna submis- sion. The other land ownerships within Koll Center Newport are not a part of the "Project" but will be addressed for their impact on the potential total buildout of Koll Center Newport, etc. See attached Exhibit "B". Per our conversation Mr. Bob Leonard is to review the number in Exhibit "A" & "B" prior to your consultants use of them. We hope that this letter and the attached statistics will clarify any confusion that may have existed. Sincerely SIA 'L, Patrick Allen Associate Partner PA:btb cc: Mr. Robert Leonard, Advanced Planning w/encl. Mr. Tim Strader w/encl. Ms. Nina Grover w/encl. .Langdon&Wilbn Architects KOLL CENTER NE1WRT EXHIBIT A 11-2-79 Koll/Aetna Land °Project" Planning CcEmission Present Allaaable Proposed Allowable Office Site A office 10,198 7,139 * restaurant 5,000 3,500 retail 10,000 7,000 hotel use permit use Pen-Lit Office Site B office 200,685 140,487 * restaurant 7,000 4,900 Office Site D office 93,051 65,136 Office Site G restaurant 7,855 5,498 333,789 233,660 + 143,014 built since 10/1/78 376,674 * i "G"to Restaurants r 're a use 't. The restaurant in office s has a use permit and is currently in plan check for a building permit. Langdon&W&n ! Architects ROLL CENTER NEWPORT EXHIBIT B 11-2-79 KCN Land Ownership Other Than Koll/Aetna Present Remaining Remaining Plann. CCeim. Owner/Site/Use Allowable 300 70% Prop. Allow. Remarks IRV NE CO. Office "C" office 358,200 107,460 250,740 .282,978 TEN This site has been Office "E" fully developed office 5,725 1,717.5 4,007.5 -0- leaving a 5,725 s.f. surplus CAL. CAN, BANK This site has an Office "F" approved phasing plan office- 1,611 -0- 1,611 -0- for 22,689 s.f. of restaurant 10,000 3,000 7,000 -0- office which is under gas station 32,245 9,673.5 22,571.5 -0- construction & will build out the site. AKULIAN/WHITE/ HULIBANS Retail Site No.1 19,800 s.f. of office 20,000 6,000 14,000 15,781 restaurant built after retail & rest. 50,120 -0- 30,320 35,420 10-1-78. FOCEWELL Industrial Site No. 1 & 2 Industrial & Office 31,775 . .9,532.5 . . 22,242.5 25,102 COURT HOUSE Phasing plan etc. Goverment 25,625 25,625 -0- 25,625 does not apply TOTALS 535,301 163,008.5 352,492.5 384,906 r , 4 _rrY OF N VTORT BEACH FO'O• October 19, 1979 Ms. Nina Gruver c/o Westec Services, Inc. 180 Main Street Suite 150 Tustin, CA 92680 Subject: Remaining Development Peymitted Koll P-C Ms. Gruver: I have enclosed a copy of the statistics related to the remaining development that would be permitted in Koll P-C, under each alternative that is 'to be considered in the two EIR's. These numbers have been prepared by the Advance Planning Division-and are consistent with General Plan Amendment 79-1 . I have transmitted copies of this information to the applicants (David Dmohowshi and Pat Alien) and will authorize you to proceed with those sections of the EIR's as soon as the applicants have reviewed this information and concur. Very truly yours, DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT JAMES D. HEWICKER, ACTING DIRECTOR By Fred Talaficbi Environmental Coordinator FT/dt Enclosure City Hall • 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California 92663 y Y� S •astrm;ta< ..�,.....,.......'i f"1 •�wi}.,Ly^t �1+4«...n...».r.m..n...............a.....w.....m... ^^`^^".'^....v............e...ww..w....+......�...........w. .........»...,. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH C,�R�Vd"i October 19, 1979 Pat Allen Langdon & Wilson 3990-200 Westefly Place Newport Beach, CA 92660 Subject: remaining Development Permitted Koll P-C Dear Mr. Alien: Enclosed please find a copy of the statistics related to the remaining development that would be permitted in Koll P-C under each alternative that will be reviewed in the Draft EIR. These numbers have been prepared by the Advance Planning Division and are consistent with 'those under consideration in General Plan Amendment 79-1 . Please review these figures as soon as possible. If you should have any questions, please contact Bob Lenard and/or myself. I have transmitted a copy of this information to the City's EIR Consultant. They have been directed to proceed with the preparation of the Draft EIR _. upon verification from me that you are in agreement with these figures. Very truly yours, DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT JAMES D. H WICKER, ACTING DIRECTOR By Fred Talarico Environmental Coordinator FT/dt Enclosure City Hall 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California 92663 r y DEVELOPMENT PERWED UNDER EACH ALTERNATIVE-KOLIQNTER NEWPORT 1 - ,No 4�a'EcC' ���rP iQRp3 • 1lAM s��t�' sP •t' `t�eP� s%A ,LOX) sK71• B.hD7�d. QEFlS 1)OFFtcez 540,002 loik9B 32.uu�T-s —O — 6Sua%TS 2touNk'cs21 —a — eeseu. 10,000 5,000 2,500 315o SL :t -o - 10 o0a 5000 -11g00 -o - -o - 6000 R) Hotc - o - fiord lAorcl liorc\ OF �6 GIA I�OcE�cc �5q qls Z©0 b$5 a, Uj -cs XTs IS Lk X s em u• _ 1,000 0ao 35 00 5,530 21,600 358,2�0 t,� U its 2g2 q-18 133uN�is B3vNics 1-l(� 831 :�140,I A9 Z '�31051 —o — 13,51a —o — —o (OFF Lce I0i00 bra rt,04 �6- -_ o�F��,B 5 Oo0 I:��FEIC� 2J QL� zR,88o bo, iZO 15,128 35,�IZO —o - -o - Ig,12o _ �)T►K1�. 3�lZ, 000 g1,��5 I5,O88 2S1102_ — (•(out .,tc b�,3-15 2S,bZS 25,C�Zrj Z5,(oZS 25�bZ5 25)(a25 Z5,1o25 CE','_LJ'._si: PCP,,I I: EJ iii'e',�` .`. �.`-���i f�i; T.VE-Y.OLL CEN I ER NEUMW . � ;fir �}.0 �q�•�'- ,� �.� _ rc �a: fir, t. 2�t�„ G:J 4. ,t . I)CI7 fib,0.^. L r totVIA ✓Z.t1}Y � =�-� J i I��UUt1 .S i 2� Uh1'15 —.p sioa& Ai 0c.rc1 t 14--T_ tUTcI o — —o — "Aa-Ic ,raC �5 uhttS 23, 2)�csrt7� _11_OOc'' -1,000 ) l.Cc _21,b�0 / r� s, p �� u s �$Z `11"O 133uw1' s u,, 1 1� —O — i _ V l•jo �c ----22 cel Io� OnO - _ 1). - � cu• "7,855 392S .,r ,cob 1o,Doo 13,18f - ° - —o - 1�, 00( - — z)Prr4t� 151120 35,LA2G —o — — o — iS lzo 15,��8 ) 'J l5 2 5 c3 F21(p � zt re 1 143, 0 ! 4- LA 1-4 190 -71 000 I10 1�/1 t)aL �2v..•"I vb�ISO--�: rehl�u hf 1� oov 4) 90C) i I 1 r(�Zi3� `l g`� Q33, Co(p0 4 Stiue, -�P?Cvl (ol4- cat- - 143014- 47,1 Z� = 140 401 };/•I(!�r�, � � effy OF NE 7PORT` BEACH .........-�__ October 19, 1979 Ms. Nina Gruver c/o Westec Services, Inc_ 180 Main Street Suite 150 Tustin, CA 92o-80 Subject: Remaining 'Developsznr Penult-ted Kola P-C Ms. Gruver: I have enclosed a copy of the statistics related to the remaining development that would be permitted in Koll P-C, under each alternative that is to be considered in the two EIR's. These numbers have been prepared by the Advance Planning Division-and are consistent with General Plan Amendment 79-1. I have transmitted copies of this information to the applicants (David Dmohowski and Pat Allen) and will authorize you to proceed with those sections of the EIR's as soon as the applicants have reviewed this information and concur. Very truly yours, DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT JAMES D. HEWICKER, ACTING DIRECTOR red alarico Environmental Coordinator FT/dt Enclosure City Hall • 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California 92663 t � � r ti? • ; RT CITTY OF NEWPORT BEACH - gC1F0 FDf�� October 19, 1979 David Dmohowski c/o The Irvine Company 550 Newport Center flrave Newport Beach, CA 92553 Subject: Remaining Deve3opment Permitted Koll P-C Dear David: Enclosed please find a copy of the statistics related to the remaining development that would be permitted in Koll P-C, under each alternative that will be reviewed in the Draft EIR. These numbers have been prepared by the Advance Planning Division and are consistent with those under consideration in General Plan Amendmentase iew gures s soon as myself.possible- if you should lf I have transmitted a copy of this information to the City's EIR Consultant. They have been directed to proceed with the preparation of the Draft EIR upon verification from me that you are in agreement with these figures. Very truly yours, DEPARTMENT- OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT -JAMES D. HEWICKER, ACTING DIRECTOR By L, Fred Talarico Environmental Coordinator FT/dt Enclosure City Hall 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California 92663 DEVELOPAIENT PE I.jr WMER s , ALTERNATIVE-KOLIAnCENTER NEWPORT 't -------------- lpo Yap scC' ay��'- - � xc$by.,+�.Lcon r� .aye �takG°��aat - 1t,*,>) zci%A- A. is 3 O OOZ AD �1` ?"Ztiu.m-cs { -O - I�SuUi�S 2� U ukT-s -o - 1)OSftG —�_- e 4 --- _ _ --_ —_. to 7-1 — ,,�dt 9 ZO O 3150 _ — - - - �2_��it-..1__=� 23, S5104 _I,DOc9 I �7 ADO 35 5.530 - p - —o -- 13'So0 -���cc 25,(�0o 135YJ Uitaazs 2$2,q-18 133uNres I 53uuacs ; I1�,83� ; )Or L '�o,�ilq `t3,��1 —o 2?, 6I6 9 21t45 1 �,855 �3aZg i �205 j —o — — o — ' j 39Z8 _ .��tQ<< •, 2q,88d �_. i .50�.i2o . t5,t2a 1 35,`�� - -- `�--- ---f--=o — � ig,lzo - �i�dus, 3�2, 000 31,�`I5 15,888 i 2.5,1aZ�— 'craijbc�0. 1_lCaAc�.wiL� �`�,3-15 � 2.S,bZS LZ5,�Z5 2•S,��.5 ' ��t�zS �,�Z.S zs,�,z _ WESTEC Services, Inc. • 180 East Main Street Tustin,CA 92680 (714)838.4644 1114-MWW2 2 5 8/2 2 71 "`,, October 15 , 1979 Mr. Fred Talarico Community Development Department City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 RE: Addendum to the Certified Final EIR - Koll Center Newport Dear Fred: Due to the delays in establishing a firm project description and definition -of project alternatives , we are concerned with the November 2 deadline for delivery of the draft EIR. The time frame outlined in our contract estimated that about three and one-half weeks would be needed for impact analysis plus production time. Because we do not anticipate the required information until approximately October 19 , we feel that some slippage in the deadline will be required to allow for proper impact evaluation. Therefore , assuming delivery of the afore- mentioned materials to our office by October 19 , we estimate completion of the impact analysis by about November 9 and delivery of a preliminary draft to the City by November 15. If you have any questions concerning this matter, please give me a call . Ijnchael W. Wright Vice President Environmental Division MWW:pc REC^ly FD OCT 171979= CAu,. e'd7 ro WESTEC Services, Inc. • • 180 East Main Street Tustin,CA 92680 (714)838-4644 10 04-NG 2 2 5 8 August 22 , 1979 IN Mr. Fred Talarico City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92663 Dear Fred: A meeting was held Friday morning, August 10 , with Langdon and Wilson to discuss details of the Koll Center project . We were supplied with preliminary sketches and a description of the preliminary hotel program which they had submitted to the Hyatt representatives . . As I indicated to you in our conversation on Tuesday, Langdon and Wilson are awaiting approval on the hotel program before proceeding with any further architectural design. Per our agreement, WESTEC Services , Inc. can initiate work on the environmental analysis in accordance with our contract. At your direction, we will not authorize work on the traffic or socio-economic portions of the report until Hyatt 's approval of the proposed hotel program is received. We will keep you in- formed of any developments in the area. Assuming Hyatt 's approval is received no later than August 31 , we would anticipate delivery of the screencheck report about October 5 , as long as no subsequent delays or changes in the project occur. Very truly yours , Nina Gruv Environmental Planner NG:pc 00 0 1� J QJ co —I N 'IESTEC Services, Inc. • • 180 East Main Street to Tustin,CA 92680 00 (714)938,4644 r p Deg°ryn t' g 946—NG2258p R cr 19j9s� July 27 , 1979 Cq</FFgC N Mr. Tim Strader Koll Company 1901 Dove Newport Beach, CA 92660 Dear Mr. Strader : Yesterday morning Michael Wright and I attended a meeting with Fred Talarico in the City of Newport Beach to iron out details of the environmental work for the Koll Center project. Before we can actually commence work on either the Notices of Preparation or the EIR, a more detailed project description will be needed. Specifi- cally, receipt of the following information and materials pertaining to the hotel will be necessary: Project Acreage Building Height Number of Stories Square Footage Building Materials (i .e. , finished surfaces) Special Design Features Site plans depicting proposed grading and any drainage improvements will also be needed. Project renderings would be beneficial, especially as they would apply to the discussion of aesthetics . If aerial photos of the site are available, they would also be useful. Finally, we will be reviewing the remaining development allowed in the Koll Center Planned Community District and thus will need either a schematic site drawing or brief description of the preliminary development concept of the commercial area. As specified in our contract with the City, the EIR will include a fairly extensive discussion of alternatives to the proposed project. We will be examining a total of seven alternatives as outlined by the Planning Commission. These will include the following: ' 1 . , No Project, - which permits no development other than existing. 2 . Design Alternatives Page Two Mr. Tim Strader . • Koll Company July 27 , 1979 3. 20% reduction in the proposed density of the total remaining buildable area. 4 . 50% reduction in proposed density. 5 . Commercial/Residential Mix. 6 . Medium - High Density Residential 7 . Low Density Residential We feel it would be prudent at this time for you to consider the potential for a 20% or 50% reduction in density and how the Koll Company might adjust its development plans . It is understood that any alternative design concepts which you would furnish us with would of necessity, be rather general in nature. However, it would probably be more advantageous to present alternatives considered feasible by your firm rather than to have us devise something unacceptable . If you have any questions regarding the above, please give me a call. Thank you for your time and cooperation. Sincerely, Nina Grutdr Environmental Planner cc: Fred Talarico NG:deb Al r - 4 ._ 5_ .` _ 7 g _ _. r cr 1. OFFMC 3yoj 02— _ :.tC1� < ge I }32 uN,cs .- -0—' f 6S uu•rs )-6 um, _ —o -- II 111 lam' eP + 5000 q.�lotc� I � fi*I' — I � A i... t_ i_f-1o'r�(.•. _ }kOTcl..-. � —o -^ I —o — �TGI. 5 ,I5 ,b8� (. OFF-icy , ('° f �Q }3t UNccs— -- I �02 UNCCS !� 1 !,I I 2 far. i " I 00 - 0615` 35oQ `j,530 —o — o — Sisoo Ot-'Fhi�Sirc ter/ t oFFk,L -a,l�� 00 I/ 35� 2.oa t ���N-cs �2,`��� 1•b3 ur:�Ts I S3UN�cs ��t � 6 ��V . — I (. b Il`15 ��� 5.�25 — a — •-- o -y —o — —o — — o -- I - Lcr-Ftcc,- �� °Fd9- 'f.,'�•1 —° -' �� ^� `o — —o 45 P ca o z.Ycstuapt ' �'yS '( $55 392$ - (g205 `�iFEI CC ` 'i — 2ca�t7oo lo�aod 15� 18 ' —� — — v '- lo,000 z. ! � ` eo soj17.c9 1502a 35) •—O , �b 15 izo anio.+sr 137 &Z) N,1Z5 s,S$8 �2-5, 162- —o — —O — 15, 068 i- 2.5,(-Z5 Z5� loZrj z5 25 25 62 5 u WESTEC Services, Inc. • 180 East Main Street 111 Tustin,CA 92680 (714)838-4644 9 6 9-NG 2 2 5 8 "`,, August 2 , 1979 Mr. Fred Talarico City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 Dear Fred: To confirm our telephone conversation on August 2 , 1979 pertaining to the Koll Center project , all environmental work on that project is being temporarily suspended. We lack sufficient project information to proceed at this time. Per a conversation with Ev Davis on Wednesday, the information I requested in an earlier letter to' Tim Strader will be forthcoming sometime around the end of next week. We anticipate submitting the screencheck report to you by September 9 , assuming no further delays transpire . Sincerely, Nina Gruve?'"� Environmental Planner NG :pc cr '�-i I. °I 17 Langdonmiton • Architects Robert E.Langdon Jr.AIA Ernest C.Wilson Jr.AIA Hans MumperAIA Robert S.Kraft AIA 3990 Westerly Place,Suite 200,P.O.Box 2440 II Newport Beach,Caiffomia 92663.714/833-9193 � n S RECEIVED Conn unity Dove L,Polent October 30, 1979 nkot.. 9 OCT 3 11979;t- CM,OF Ms. Nina Gruver � NEWPCALI t:r1+.4H, i• CALIF. Westee Services, Inc. 180 East Main Street / �) Tustin, California 92680 Reference: Koll Center Newport Dear Nina: I Enclosed is the following information for your use. Item 1: Letters' from Janes A. Knawles & Associates, Inc. dated October 19, 1979, addressing the conceptual energy conserva- tion features of the proposed Hyatt Hotel. 1 Item 2: Landuse Exhibit 'A' to the Koll Center Newport Planned Ca mutity Develogrent Standards. Item 3: Hotel space and planning requirements, dated DecadDer 8, 1978, prepared by Hyatt Hotels Corporation. Item 4: Standard Criteria for the design of a Hyatt Convention Hotel Facility, dated February 8, 1974 and prepared by Hyatt Corpora- tion Technical Assistance Services. 4 Item 5: Sutanary of Koll/Aetna remaining allowable development and time table. This summery outlines the "Project" and Planning Omission alternative. It is our understanding that the EIR will only address the Koll/ Aetna awned land and development rights, as presently permitted by the P.C. text, as well as alternatives to those developrent rights. Item 6: oblique color aerial photograph of Koll Center Newport (Black and White to follow in a couple of days) . Langdon&Witon Architects Ms. Nina Gruver October 30, 1979 Page Two Item 7: Miscellaneous Information 7.1 The exterior materials contemplated for the mining proposed office and hotel development will be selected . based on compatibility with the existing character of Koll Center Newport. The exterior skin of these buildings will be designed to meet or exceed the minimum requ reTents of Title 24. These materials will be selected from a palette of reflective and non-reflective glass, metal, con- crete and masonry. Where appropriate, the exterior material will be backed up with insulation. 7.2 The exterior landscape will be canpatible with the existing planting vocabulary established for Koll Center Newport. Landscaping consisting of trees, shrubs, ground cover, flaaers and lawn will exceed the minimum requirem&nnts dictated by the P.C. text. The parkways for all Koll/Aetna undeveloped sites were berried and landscaped with trees and lawn in 1973/74. This landscape will remain or be reworked to a minor extent. Any existing trees removed due to grading or new driveways will be replaced. Parking lot trees will be min:uman 15 gallon trees with a mini- mum ratio of one tree per five parking spaces. The building pad will be landscaped with specimen trees ranging in size up to sixty inch box trees. For Koil/Aetna developments within Koll Center Newport the percentage of site developed as land- scape and pedestrian hardscape is in excess of 25% of the net land area. The proposed developments will maintain this overall ratio. i 7.3 Grading for the hotel site and office site will be consistent with previous Koll/Aetna developments. Both the hotel and office develop rent will be integrated and joined to existing improve- ments to accannodate caaron parking, auto circulation and drainage systems. Drainage will either be directed to existing flow lines or new systems developed. All development will be consistent with the City of Newport Beach grading ordinance. Langdon&Wilon Architects Ms. Nina Gruver October 30, 1979 Page Three Enclosed are prints shaaing the existing topography of the undeveloped sites and the permmter of the adjacent developed sites. toe hope that this information will be useful in ompleting the focused EIR for the Koll/Aetna portion of Koll Center Newport. Please call if you have any questions or require additional inforniation. Sincerely, Patrick Allen Associate Partner PA/mre cc: Fred Talerico Tim Strader Langdon& &n Architects October 30, 1979 KOLL CENTER NEWPORT KOLL/AETNA LAND (Subject to an approved phasing plan) P.C. Text Designation P.C. Text Planning Commission Estimated Date Allowable Alternative of occupancy Office Site A Office 10,198 7,139 Not before 1982 *Restaurant 5,000 3,500 Not before 1982 Retail 10,000 7,000 Not before 1982 Hotel By Use Permit By Use Permit April 1982 Office Site B Office 200,685 140,487 September 1981 *Restaurant 7,000 4,900 Not before 1981 Office Site D Office 93,051 65,136 Not before 1982 Office Site G **Restaurant 7,855 5,498 July 1980 TOTALS 333,789 233,660 * Subject to a use permit ** Has an approved use permit and is in plan check Langdon&Wi0bn Architects Robert E.Langdon Jr.AIA Ernest C.WiilsonJr.ALA S RECEIVED Hans MumperALA Community 9 Robert S.Kraft AIA Development ^1 ODept. stc ` ,Suit26O.Box1 8 Newport eahCalifornia 963 3-993 November 6, 1979 4 NEW pTE ary or BE P �! ti Mr. Fred Talarico Environmental Coordinator DepartTent of Commniity Development City of Newport Beach RE: Koll Center Newport Dear Eyed: This letter is to confirm our recent telephone conversation with regard to the scope of the focused EIR.,use permit and phasing plan for Koll Center Newport. The scope or "project" is to be limited to the Koll/Aetna con- trolled land. See attached Exhibit "A". It is our understanding that the Irvine Cc rq:)any, utilizing the same consultants retained by the city, is proceeding with a parallel focused EIR and phasing plan that will be sub- mitted to the Planning Canaission concurrently with the Koll/Aetna submis- sion. The other land ownerships within Koll Center Newport are not a part of the "Project" but will be addressed for their impact on the potential total buildout of Koll Center Newport, etc. See attached Exhibit "B". Per our conversation Mr. Bob Leonard is to review the number in Exhibit "A' & "B" prior to your consultants use of them. We hope that this letter and the attached statistics will clarify any confusion that may have existed. Sincerely ' Patrick Allen Associate Partner PA:btb cc: Mr. RDbert Leonard, Advanced Planning w/encl. Mr. Tim Strader w/encl. Ms. Nina Grover w/encl. Langdon&WiAn • ` Architects ROLL CENTER MWPORT EXHIBIT A 11-2-79 Koll/Aetna Lana "Projectu Planning COmnission Present Allowable Proposed Allowable Office Site A office 10,198 7,139 * restaurant 5,000 3,500 retail 10,000 7,000 hotel use permit use permit Office Site B office 200,685 140,487 * restaurant 7,000 4,900 Office Site D office 93,051 65,136 Office Site G restaurant 7,855 5,498 333,789 233,660 + 143,014 built since 10/1/78 376,674 * Restaurants require a use permit. The restaurant in office site "G" has a use permit and is currently in plan check for a building permit. Langdon&Wlton • Architects FOIL CENTER NEWPORT EXHIBIT B 11-2-79 KCN Land Ownership Other Than Roll/Aetna Present Remaining Remaining Plann. Ccam. Owner/Site/Use Allowable 30% 70% Prop. Allow. Remarks IRVINE CO. Office "C" office 358,,200 107,460 250,740 , 282,978 TEN EyCK/W�,TG This site has been Office "E" fully developed office 5,725 1,717.5 4,007.5 -0- leaving a 5,725 s:f. surplus Cps CAN, BANK This- site has an Office 'Y' approved phasing plan office 1,611 -0- 1,611 -0- for 22,689 s.f. of restaurant 10,000 3,000 7,000 -0- office which is under gas station 32,245 9,673.5 22,571.5 -0- construction & will build out the site. AKULIAN/WHITE/ HULIHANS Retail Site No.l 19,800 s.f. of office 20,000 6,000 14,000 15,781 restaurant built after retail & rest. 50,120 -0- 30,320 -35,420 10-1-78. MCKWELL Industrial Site No. 1 & .2 Industrial & Office 31,775 .9,532.5 . , . .22,242.5 25,102 OJUFT HOUSE Phasing plan etc. Goverrnrent 25,625 25,625 -0- 25,625 does not apply TOTALS 535,301 163,008.5 352,492.5 384,906 5 'r:WPC) Department ' off Comm Development ^"k C't l!'O P1tf• DATE : September 18, 1979 TO: Pat Allen Dave Dmohowski Westec Services FROM: Fred Talarico SUBJECT : Project Schedule - Koll Center Attached for your review is a tentative schedule for processing Koll Center Environmental documentation and related permits/phas,ing plans . In preparing this schedule I have made 2 assumptions : ( 1 ) That the State Clearinghouse will shorten its normal review period from 45 days to 30 days ; and (2) That the applicants are prepared to hand carry and pick- up any comments from the State Clearinghouse. If either of these 2 assumptions are incorrect approximately 25 days should be added to this time frame . Attachment cc : Jim Hewicker i • KOLL • TIC IR UP TPP EIR TPP Consultant Contract /24 ? Notice Preparations(NP) /21-11/5 9/21-11/5 Non-Statutor Advise(NSA} )/21-10/23 9/21-10/23 Deadline (NSA) 10/23 10/23 Screencheck EIR 11/2 11/2 Env. Aff. Comm. 11/5 11/5 Deadline (NSA) 11/5 11/5 Retype & Print 11/5-11/12 11/5-11/12 Submission EIR 11/12 11/12 Notice Completion 11/12 11/12 State Review EIR* 1/12-12/12* 11/12-12/12* File Permits ; 11/20 11/20 11/20 CEQAC(lst Mtg) 12/4 12/4 Deadline State Comments 12/12 i 12/12 Staff Reports Out 12/14 j 12/14 12/14 12/14 12/14 I P.C. Mtg. 1st 12/20 12/20 12/20 12/20 12/20 P.C. Meeting 2nd 1/10 1/10 1/10 1/10 1/10 Set Hearing C/C �/28 1/28 1/28 1/28 1/28 C/C Hearing � /11 2/11 2/11 1 2/11 2/11 C/C Hearing /25 2/25 2/25 i 2/25 2/25 Notice Determination /26 2/26 Prep. Cert. EIR /26-3/28 I 2/26-3/28 End EIR Challenge /28 i 3/28 l i � /�!/tNAEG sa�GNT u/tssec sei�ioes ,,1.ac . -- � J G�2.Z��►az aL.�AI• -- ___� — ttsnlk,_�a/iF. 9ZG8o _ 11L—tG� /n�r_.�1GjC�lctT1O d ors �r �r T— pLQNA U L -,ak c��MrrtJ?. ANri �71 e¢dN! _ i OWL �elatc's S/? i�� ,a�ccrs A- IC77r /Zcc�rAIC -- --- --- —�'� _ all�'r�rrr ,r — -- —�����a,v�—=�irn Sx',L/arerG. �&��3Q�o��-�L✓�raa� ro ---- - - -- ------�) �- Tom._•_ �. .,�,t:. ��' T�� ��-/ �, �z_ h�i - - - za ��,�_—�� `3 crldN, — — -------� / / zd,y'S. �� ter' O�CTQI 5�7oellU -- --- t MZ7 70 f}PRUCCl -10) - Zr XS impv,(r4wr TD NDM, _ Y�_ weP/ i,c� 7l2 All eCAAMe la&Ak(Z _.__. B. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS: -- 1 . An estimate of total cost to prepare the study and its' individual components. 2. An estimate of the length of time to prepare the study.(#ho6 -, �o b aFr�sy�cics r �� 3. An indication of project staff and designation of specific project manager. — — 4. Attendance at five meetings for the project manager and traffic j consultant. I 5. Submission of seven copies of a screen check study�tise�ic Ty—Fwa Coptc;Z� c� THE Dr0.FT AV�D FlU'C. COp1CJ ac Tic Ct:2ct Pt&* FtNM.; � -- 6. All work shall be done in accordance with the California Environmental �— Quality Act, City Policy K-3, and the State EIR Guidelines. 7. The firms willingness to prepare any additional environmental Imo_ documentation as may be required. 8. The preparation and distribution of "Nonstatutory Advisements", — "Notices of Preparation", "Notices of Completion", and "Notices of Determination" as required by State laws and City policy. _ --� 9. The preparation of all responses to comments received on the project. 10. Other information as deemed appropriate by the firm. I C. 5coM C- Add-Cud* 4-�Otkk(A a CAc aJC-G ecu�ca J ©a `&rnFvL� F.�L( l:.I 9Z 'L�.C>,5� A.TCr'JrION �ve�A� �av�1 To apcc�F�C� fi��I:F�S - !' 1 . Water Quality including all surface and subsurface waters . 2. Soils/Geology/Seismecity including existing and proposed land forms. 3. Cost/Revenue analysis in accordance with City policy. 4. Air Quality with emphasis on localized impacts and any potential significant impacts on Huntington Beach power plant. 5. Aesthetics/visual analysis. 6. Biotic Resources. 0 . 7. Arch all ogy/Paleontology. + 8. Land use compatibility including analysis of General Plan, Specific Plans, and Ordinances (i.e. park dedication/zoning) . 9. Noise including impacts of highway noise on the project. Noise impacts. from aircraft. Noise generated by project traffic added to circulation system (i .e. Jamboree Road, MacArthur Boulevard, and interior streets in Big Canyon). i 10. Circulation System with emphasis on access to the site, internal circulation, AUQ PARK1WCo• 11 . Community Services: A. Police - B. Fire C. General Government D. Water E. Sewer F. Gas G. Electricity H. Educational facilities. 12. Energy including analysis of project impacts on Huntington Beach Power Plant. 13. Impacts on Orange County Airport. --- -- - i �, �T'C1�1'Ik�ysiJ 6P �e. p.c-�cr►.�tti.ue�s G��scc.bcU�l} �/ e.`��c GlS VCQ%4-\\"C<j �`1 S'CNcC� Oho\ �OCGI\ Ct�� rt��\\c-eMG'A1"�51"r02 �1 -- 2. -rc 3. Dcoc M pdcG fir J� IT I �l\S GaNQ��s�S 54ee,u�, cowmk,t ) 0. ccc&vc.CVso,� OC 3 . C 12cu.�/�.T10 IJ S.�dtSE E, t.N�cr� co�tSJ,l��rrtatJ -- F• �-.a uSE c.om_r�T���`�car - - _ ,l' m�Mnu�,11T� �fv�CG.T i � i D_I115TAWL zljftxb A�Ql�. �K mille-tc �y WGS Z�N �C \�10.\L owrA OC1QlOS FOB -- NFor T\>" SN u\�01JMetirit , i�oG�ln\ErrtfZ l0� . c\ NfJ�CCnTI'C'� y ACA lJc&ilM mu SST — P� �oc� aN `�Ny\c-o�trnENT� -- _ Qc-=NA_tI�^1TLnQ cnQ TrAG __ � cV�NIAG 1�NP.1u c�S r ��os x Alf�rntGT\Oe S rn -,ics _PceQc�cc u5 UJO\ s�1�TeM I } i E : i co i i ( rn c� t f t vST 4(, it/�9 1 co�r►w..li2e5 zoo � �1�•firt} LRh1l7 tl.Src { } 1 us t?.vt4.D I i �f20 'C1rt ; W, L Ynl�j } t UCn0�3 0' t3 1)EhISIT'y 1 14E�441,.TY. i Q�Tav2afsT (to� tq, ly5 76,1{00 7to,4Fo � 7f6��}oo ' �16j"Poi ! cm cc- f( l bs 236 �t 3'78o 10753!78� job!F 340' 1,1n,78Q Coan4►� (LS� �13oa �, 800 iS, Bod `�,8do �,800 { t�,9oo j 1 ! (3TO;41►) 39?,000� 39��000� (39?,'000) 3Q'I,000) (3y� 000� • ! lt�SaJSTRtrrtr (15��� 3g 36amA .. �{o.Fs 6 ` 46.8�foai o.. �fot�fc l{D.gtair, � 4O.r't6 J � ' k\jIt, OMcee(26O iq0,�000 go,o00 g0,000 gQ0001 40,000 c(OICOD 1�2���6tri r�i 2;�(68!9$OR� t�928f9�o 2�2.40j54�)O 1, 3za!►rso t�32�'q �,0 ! ! 35:3( IJo,tstocMAQ� 40.$6Gfaw�. �to.86cu�ua_ .86cti�az �O,g�c �- i i oDnq� �,000) {3�i?,Ooo (3ti ?jo�� - } t t ki C./as swcac4r �nt.�. eCu'ce�� �r� •� ta°.l�l� '— k•C.. $33p- Soso J 11450 8'�oN �icscet.. �N cm " N p - -_ r d _ - - M r • • —' I.ocActoA oFFtcE S�tE Ac p�cc 1T s�c�art Zyc..�-A 1. '— NCE.� ot"F-tt�E Hc�cee.ex�ac - !ec 1.��.M•s v Y�DT1c"'L...... -- 5) FIX ..... _ tl;.� _�Pprs�e�Nv s�uo•1 -.-C__w�Wk_ _�.•u.�) C-did -h-r+r�,d�� AMPS - VAV1 iC 'PktPtSiufe - Pld++tJ ....._ Lwcs ac��a►�.or� - - -- � TMIPAcc �•��__ C Watec©va4,�r�� --- _ _ Quataz y -- - i - = --'►�•rt�duM.-ro Ceecii�tcr+'F�Nw\ �.tR. -- - -- - - - - -- -- - - - - -- - - - — - — � A�O'_ttFy --�. Qceu�gu�_ - - - • �lvO��G!!�E _NON�StAt�►l�t� �vKt/MR'MC ------- - ---- - - ,. — -- - — - — — — -- —--C,,,.,Q. - -- -- - - - - — - - - - - - - - --' ¢eSp.Nd,_-Via±-__��.__ Gt►wv��tires -- ---- - — -- -