The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutTPO034_KOLL CENTER (AETNA LIFE) I IIIIIIII IRI ql IIIN INIIII QIII IIIIII INI NI IIII TP0034 ril 9, 1981 ro: _"C©MMISSIONRS _ MINUTES City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL INDEX Request to consider, Amendment No. 1 to the Item #9 Phasing Plan for the remaining development in the Koll Center Newport Planned Community. TRAFFIC LOCATION: 4490. Von Karman Avenue , PHASING Koll Center Newport ZONE : P-C APPLICANT:' The Koll Company, Newport Beach APPROVED OWNER: Aetna Life Insurance, Co. , . 'Newport Beach The public hearing opened in connection with this item and Mr. Mike Lewis , representing The Koll Company, •appeared before the' Commission . Mr. Lewis -stated that they will not be constructing the proposed addition for occupancy until mid 1982. He stated that space in an adjacent build- ing will solve the occupancy requirements for sit to eight months , over what is contained in the phasing plan . Chairman Haidi-nger asked what the -requirements are for Phase II . Mr. Lewis ' stated that the . phasing plan allows construction of additional office space in two phases . He stated that these are also conditioned with road improvements in the area . He 'stated that most likely these im- provements will be completed in 1982 . Commiss}Loner Allen asked if the road improvements will be in place prior to the requested develop- ment. Mr. Lewis stated that this is the antici- pation of the developers involved. Motion X Motion was made for approval of Amendment No . 1 All Ayes X X X X X to the Koll /Aetna Traffic Phasing 'Plan , with the findings as follows , which MOTION CARRIED: 'FINDINGS : 1 . That subsequent changes in the project will not require revisions to the Certified Final EIR. -32- COIE SSIONERSrit 9 , 1981 MINUTES � WD N y City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL INDEX 2. That no new significant environmental impacts not considered' in the Certified .Final EIR were found . '3. That no substantial changes have occurred with respect to the circumstances under which the project will be undertaken . 4. That no new information of substantial - im- portance related to the project has become available. 1 5 . That the Phasing Plan- is consistent with the . Newport Beach General Plan and the Planned- Community Development Plan for Koll Center Newport. 6. That based on the Phasing Plan and surr•oundin information submitted therewith , there is a reasonable correlation between projected traffic at time of completion and the capacit of affected intersections . 7. That the applicant has taken into 'considera- tion in• the preparation- of his plan charac- teristics in the design of his development which either reduce traffic generation or guide traffic onto less impacted arterials or through intersections in the least con- gested direction . Request to consider an off-site• parking agree- Item #10 ment- for a portion of the required parking spaces'-jn conjunction with the Beachcomber OFF-SITE Restaurah,,t facility. PARKING LOCATION : �P•ortion' of Lot H, Tract No . 919, ANT lo`ca�ted at 2633 West Coast Highway, on tire, south side of West Coast APPROVED Highway; Westerly of Tustin CONDI- Avenue on arineh' s Mile, (Restau- TITNALLY rant Site) ZONE: •SP-5 . -33- w\ i Planning. Commission Meeting April 9, 1981 Agenda Item -No . 9 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH TO : Planning Commission FROM: Planning Department SUBJECT: Traffic Phasing Plan (Discussion) Request to consider Amendment No . 1 to the Phasing Plan for the remaining development in the Koll Center Newport Planned Community. LOCATION : 4490 Von Karman Avenue , Koll Center Newport ZONE : P-C APPLICANT: The Koll Company , Newport Beach OWNER: Aetna Life Insurance , Co . , Newport Beach Application The applicant has requested the app•rova'l . of an Amendment to the Phasing Plan for the remaining development in the Koll Center Newport Planned Community under Koll/Aetna ownership . The amendment,, if approved , would allow the construction and occupancy of a 7 ;650 sq . ft. addition to the KolI Company Corporate Headquarters to occur in .1981 where presently it would not occur until 1983. • Phasing Plans must be developed in accordance with the Planned Community Development dPlan , City Council Resolution 9742 , Amendment No . 514 , Amendment No . 550 , and the City ' s definition of the term reasonableness . The existing approved Phasing Plan was approved by the City Council on November 10, 1980 and by the Planning Commission on Se.ptember 4 , 1980. Environmental Significance An EnvironmenOl Impact Report was certified in conjunction with the adoption of the Traffic, Phasing Plan for the Kol.1/Aetna Properties •in Koll Center Newport. Staff has reviewed the proposed project and determined that there are no new significant environmerrtal• impacts not previously considered, nor has there been substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the project will be undertaken . Conformance with the General Plan " The proposed project is consistent with the various elements of the Newport Beach General Plan . -1 - TO: Manning Commi's•sion -2. • Y e Zoning The project site is within the- Koll Center Newport P-C District. The . project site is a portion of Block "B" which is designated for the proposed use. Amendment No . 550• was approved at the same time as the Traffic Phasing Plan that transferred 93,051 sq . ft. of allowable develop- ment from Block "D" to Block "B" . P Block "911 Square Feet • Acres Existing Development 6.t p 6 6,915 36 ,043 Remaining Buildable 300 736 7. 66 43 703 Total, 967,65 Phasing Plan The ap proved PhasingPlan for or the Koll/Aetna allows for the following phasing schedule: properties 1983 - Occupany of Phase I (440 room Hotel and 225,198 sq . ft. of office/'restaurant/retail us•e. ) 1984 - Occu ancy of Phase II (•100,736 sq . ft. of officelrestaurant usel The applicants have requested that they be allowed' through this amendment to construct and occupy a 7,650 sq . ft. addition to Kol•l Company Co r or to He d uarters in ve e j q mb r, 1981 . • i 0 �Z - Traffic fic Study In order to determine if the earlier construction and occupancy would have an impact on the City ' s circulation system, a Traffic Study was prepared by Weston Pringle and Associates for the applicant at staff s request. The potential traffic impacts of the proposed . 7,650 sq . ft. addition on the •15 intersections identified for analysis under the Traffic Phasing Ordinance was analyzed and it was determined that the 2. 5 hour traffic volumes were less than 2% on all approaches and no further analysis Was required (0. 26% highest) . Suggested Action Staff recommends approval of this project with the Findings i-nd'icated in Exhibit A . PLANNING DEPARTMENT Attachments : Letter: The Koll Company JAMES D. HEWICKER, Director February 13, 1981 A Letter: The Koll Company March 4, 1981 Traffic Study - B Weston y Pringle and Associates - red dalarico, March 2, 1981 Environmental Coordinator FT: tk EXHI BIT"A" Recommended Findings for Approval of Amendment No . ] to 'the Koll/Aetna Traffic Phasing Plan: FINDINGS : 1 . That subsequent changes in the project will not require revisions to the Cert- ified Final EIR. 2 . That no new significant environmental impacts not considered in the Certified Final EIR.were found. 3. That no substantial- changes have occurred ' with respect to the circumstances under which the project will be undertaken . 4. That no new information of substantial importance related to the project has become available . 5 . That the Phasing Plan is consistent with the Newport Beach General Plan and the Planned Community Development Plan for Koll Center Newport, 6 . That based on the Plasing Plan and sur- rounding information submitted therewith , there is a reasonable correlation between projected traffic at time of completi-on and the capacity of affected intersections . 7. That the applicant has taken into consider- ation in the preparation of his plan characteristics in the design of. hi•s development which either reduce. t,raffic generation or guide traffic onto less im- pacted arterials or through intersections in the least congested direction . L CONTRACTOR �• ` e1 198 } February 13, 1981 Mr. Fred Talarico City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92660 . RE: KOLL CENTER TRAFFIC PHASING PLAN Dear Fred: The Koll Company is proposing to add 7,650 square feet to our existing corporate headquarters office building of 25,425 square feet. The expansion is necessary to relieve an over-crowded condition that currently exists in our office facility. .Our review of the allowable development in Block B and the recently approved Traffic Phasing Plan (November 11, 1980) indicates that it is possible that any development that is. occupied prior to 1983 is in violation of the Traffic Phasing Plan. If your review confirms this situation, we would like to request a modification of the Phasing Plan to allow for the expansion of our building during the following time period: Construction 'Start Date May 1981 Completion Oct-Nov. 1981 Occupancy November 1981 This is our most optimistic schedule, but it represents a timetable. for your processing: Please inform us as soon -is possible as to the City's deter- mination of our status in relation to the approved Traffic Phasing Plan. If a modification is necessary; please inform us of the procedure that is necessary to enact the modifica- tion, and the probable schedule for processing. ' »"!f• 'r•+o !carman Avenue• Newport Beach 9 California 92660•(714)833.3030 Mr. Fred Talarico City of Newport Beach Page Two February 13, 1981 We would appreciate your cooperation in this matter Fred, and please do not hesitate to call me for 'additional infor- mation that you might require. Sincerely .yours, THE KOLL COMPANY 11-1 k_ Michael L. Lewis Vice President=Development MLL/cs cc: Tim Strader; The Koll Company Pat Allen; Langdon. & Wilson iKOLL. CONTR4CTOR 1, ` 1� MPR5 1981 r ` March 4, 1981 J � Mr. Fred Talarico Environmental Coordinator City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92660 RE: Roll Headquarter Office Building Expansion Dear Fred: Per your request, I have attached a traffic study by Weston Pringle & Associates analyzing the expansion of our office building by 7,650 square 'feet in terms of the 2% test during the 2h hour peak period. As we stated in our letter of February 13, The Roll Company is requesting a modification of the Traffic Phasing Plan for Roll Center New port that was approved in November of 1980 to allow for 7,650 square feet of office space to be occupied in late 1981 or early 1982 . -It is my understanding that this modification has to be approved by the Planning Commission and we would appreciate-.being scheduled at the next available Planning Comm' on fissi• g meeting. If I can provide any additional information lease don't hesitate to call. p Sincerely yours, THE ROLL COMPANY 1. Michael L. Lewis Vice President-Development MLL;cs Attachment. 790 Van Farman A4enui • Newport Beach • California 92660• (714) 933.3030 W + � . ;T, TRAFFIC & TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING March 2, 1981 Mr. Michael Lewis The Koll Company 4490 Von Karman Avenue New Beach, CA 92660 Dear Mr. Lewis, This letter summarizes our analysis of the traffic requirements of an addition to the Koll Company office located on the southeasterly corner of- Von Karman Avenue and Birch Street. This study has been undertaken to evaluate any circulation needs in response to the Newport Beach City Council Resolution Number 9472 requiring an improvement phasing plan for this project. This study is based upon current (1980) traffic volume d'at•a, regional traffic growth data and committed project data provided by the City of. Newport Beach. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project is Located on the southenst corner or Vou Karman Avenue anti Birch Street in the City of Newport Beach. ' Vehicular• accuss will be litovidod till Vole Karman Avenue and Birch Street. The planned development is a 7650 square foot addition to the Koll Company office building. and will be for office use. The project is scheduled for completion in- late 1981 or ,early 1982. The proposed 7650 square feet of office use is part of the 200,000 square feet of office use in Block B of Koll Center Newport that was shown as Phase I development in our analysis of the traffic requirements for circulation improvements in Koll Center y q a P Newport dated July 13, 1980. The 200,000"square feet of office use was scheduled 'for completion in 1983. TRIP GENERATION Estimates have been made of PM peak hour and the PM 2.5 hour peak period traf-fic t, be generated by this project. Generation rates and estimated volumes for the project 2651 EAST CHAPMAN AVENUE • SUITE 110 FULLERTON. CALIFORNIA 92631 • (714) 871.2931 for each time period are listed in Tabll 1. These generation rates have been utilized in previous studies for this site. ' Table 1 TRIP OENERATION TIME PERIOD RATES VOLUMES IN OUT IN OUT PM Peak Hour 0.6 1.7 5 13 11M-2.5 Peak Hour 1.2 3.4 9 26 TRIP DISTRIBUTION AND ASSIGNMENT The geographic distribution of traffic generated by this development was established in previous traffic studies for the site. Figure 1 illustrates the traffic distribution that has been utilized for this study. The distribution is for outbound traffic from the site. Inbound traffic would be the same percentage generally in the opposite direction. By applying the distribution percentages of the trip generation data in Table 1, estimates can be made of traffic volumes from the project at various locations. CRITICAL 'fNTERSECTION TUEN' IVICATION The next step in the process is to identify Lhuse intersections that could be impacted by the project. The 15 intersections identified for analysis under the Traffic Phasing Ordinance for this area were examined. For this examination, the "1% Traffic Volume Analysis" forms from the Traffic Phasing Ordinance were utilized. Appendix A contains the data for the individual intersections and the results are summarized in Table 2. The,basis for comparison included existing traffic, regional growth and approved project traffic. For this study, the following projects were included as committed: AeronutronLc Ford Newport Place Backbay Office Sea Island Orchard Office Bayside Square Koll Center Newport (Under Const.+100%) Bank of America Civic Plaza (100%) Bank of Newport Pacific Mutual Plaza National Education North Ford Baywood Apartments Rogers Gardens Shokrian Seaview Lutheran Plaza Cal Canadien Bank Corporate Plaza 3701 Office Boyle Engineering Harbor Point FIGURE 20 % 10% 20% DR. 5% 30% u ¢ m o� BRISTOI ST m y` BRJS NORTH JN�\I Tp� ST 5% BONITA CYN, 110 3 • O v J � a GIRO. FORD 6� G O , SPN ✓pAQN�N w C S+ RD. 5 % COAST NW . PACIFIC 5% DIRECTIONAL DISTRIBUTION WESTON PRINGLE AND ASSOCIATES /r I Table 2 CRITICAL INTERSECTION IDENTIFIECATION LOCATION 2.5 HOUR PERCENTAGES - 1983 _NB. SB EB WB Bristol Street North & Campus Drive -• - - 0.06 Bristol Street North & Birch Street 0.26 0.20 - - Bristol Street North & Jamboree Road Bristol Street & Campus Drive, - Irvine Avenue - _ 0105 _ Bristol Street & Birch Street Bristol Street & Jamboree Road - - 0..06 - Jamboree Road & Campus Drive 0.15 0.06 - - Mac Arthur Blvd. & Jamboree Road _ Jamboree Road & Eastbluff- Ford Jamboree Road & San Joaquin Hills Road Jamboree Road & Coast Highway - Mac Arthur Blvd. & Campus Drive 0.13 0.06 - - Mac Arthur Blvd. & Nord Ruud Mac Arthur Blvd. & San Joaquin Hills Road Mac Arthur Blvd. & Coast Highway _ _ _ r I I • . �y� Since the proposed project was included in the Koll Center. Newport traffic, a deduction was made so that project Lraffie'would not• be double counted. The. criteria established by the City Council indicated that any intersection where the prUiveL traffic during Lhe 7.. 5 hour peak exceed:, two pr ri cat of existing plus regional growth plus approved project traffic must be analyzed in detail. Review of Table 2 indicates .that none of the 15 •intersections have an approach where the 2.5 hour volume exceeds the maximum 2 percent. Therefore no further analysis is required for the 15 intersections'. SUMMARY The potential traffic impacts of the proposed addition of 7650 square feet of office space to the Koll Company Office on the 15 intersections identified for analysis under the Traffic Phasing Ordinance have been analyzed and it was determined that 2.5 hour traffic volumes were all less than 2 percent on all approaches and no further analysis was required. We trust that this analysis will be of assistance to you and the City of Newport Beach. If you have any questions or require additional information, please contact us. Respectfully submitted, WESTON PRINGLE AND ASSOCIATES Robert A. Belknap, P.E. RAB:cd #9372 f A Traffic Volume Analy is Intersection �Rr5�t— S-��AJ Cg„J�g �Z (Ex-isting Traffic Vo ume�s based on, Ave ge Winter/Spring 194�7) 'aPor:arq ' E�fstlnq 1 Peak 2% Hour Approved Projected ",Yirof Projected 1 Project Direction Peat 2y door aegfoal Projects Pak ty Hour Peak 2y hour Peak :y v.ur volwe Growth Peak 2y Hour Yoluwe YolunK YA1;ane 1 Yol ua4 Yoluar 'Northbound Z b 6S Q4 3Z Z 303► 61 Soucnbouna 355 Z 87 392- 4-031 i (Eastbound i I ilestbound_y 963F,. 2996 12, 753 ZSS 8 0.06% ® Project Traffic is estimated to be less than A of Projected Peak 23, Hour Traffic Volume ❑ Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 2� Hour Traffic Volumen.- Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. DATE 11 Traffic Volume Anal Intersection �y _ F�rP-X-r+ 'S� (Existing Traffic Volumes based on AvLra Winter/Spring 198d !Approach I Eaisting Peak 24 Hour Approved Projected °of Projected Project Direction Peak 2y Hour Regional Projects Peak 2&S Hour eak 2ls Hour Peak 2y Hour* I ; volume Growth Peak Zh Hour vo1us volume Yolues j volume Volume , 'Northbound C � o ISL¢ 30 I ¢ c.c ISouthbound i Z7Z91 1 / /8 ; 39/3 78 6 0. 20'0/0 ! (Eastbound I wt:tbound ' 72L�� 9 2032 ': 934-3 ❑ 2`l^ ' Project Traffic is estimated to be less than ,Yb of. Projected Peak 2� Flour Traffic-Volume I ❑ Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than I% of Projected Peak 2k Hour Traffic Volumen. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. DATE: t 2°lo 'it Traffic Volume Analysis In tor;ectfon �,q�S.Xvc s .,(?e •, (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Ntnter/Spring 19ta) 1 I_d•79 lApproach 1 Exist 9 Peak 211 Hour APProred Projected 12 of Projected Protect 'Direction Peak 2%Mour Reg tonal Projeets Peak !!our ! Peek 2 Hour Volur* Growth Peak 24 Hour Volume Vol N Peik 2y Hour• Volume Vol L" Valve iNorthbound 1 77¢ 2 S 3 4-0 2139 4.3 , IsoUthbodnd ZSoS 6 P 202 3079 64 !Eastbound (e 581 83 1682 634-& /67 i pstbound ® Project Traffic is estimated to be Jess than t`��bf Projected Peak 2� Hour Traffic Volume , ❑ Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 2h }lour Traffic Volumen. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. �I 2�s Y Traffic Volume Analysis : ntr'r•.(•t.1.ion Nye/,TOE S/'/Ei/�Zc.H. `%T (Ex istimi fraffir_ VI)Iwill ba'a'd uil eraye Winter/�In•inp Nbrc. rt-rj-79 •Apprracn Hour Approvod Projected 1 'at Projected Project -Direction Peak 21 Hour Regional Projects Peak 2S Hour 12 Peak 2y Hour Peak 2S Hour I Volume Growth Peak 2S Hour Volume Volume Volu:W Volume Volume _ z o 3 66 269 S iNorthbound ISouthbound l270 Eastbound Sso 4� 69 /436 '7009 . l 4- ° 0.06% _— i M...bound —�—�— Project Traffic is estimated to be less than wof Projected Lai Peak 2t2 Hour Traffic Volume ❑ Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 21; Hour Traffic Volumen.. Intersection Capacity Ut•ilizat-ion (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. nnn V/`T. • 11 Z (s X Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection �wn.a}y,;�m_r,`, eq,.1pJ.* P4 (Existing Traffic Volumes based on RveAge Winter/Spring 19s0 'Direction Eaistiog Peak 2h Hour 'Approved Projacted of Projected Project . Direction Peak 2h Hour Regional Projects Peak 2% Hour Peak 2y Hour Peak 24 Hour* I ; volire Growth Peak 2% Hour voluft volese voles voluaae Val LOW !'Northbound ' 2:94¢ l0 /098 ¢os2. 61 n seuthbound z773 /0 SB6 3369 6 2 ; 0.06% Eastbound ; LO )s 49 490 ZSS¢- S1 ettbound rsoz 44 82 1928 3 2� ® Project Traffic is estimated to be less than )9 of Projected Peak 2h Hour Traffic Volume ❑ Project Traffic, is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 2� {tour Traffic Volumen. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I .C.U. ) Analysis is required. DATE: s Z (J J4 Traffic Volume Ana ysis Intersection ��,an4vo__18. G!}!!t v5 P� (Existing Traffic Volumes based on A• erage later•/Spring 1980) lApproaeh i Existing Peak 24 Hour Approved I Protected Z,K°o! Pro Jected Protect Direction , Peak 24 Hour Regional Protects Peak 2S Hour Peak 24 Hour Peak 2S rour I 1 Volu a Growth Peak 2S Hour Volume Volume t Volume Voluee Volume _ 18Z6 4751 96' 1 6 0, 13a1e �Horthbound 2 92 1 ISouthbound _ 2738 4 -77Z 3514 70 Z 0. 0617b (Eastbound j Z0¢3 2/8 2311 46 Mestbound z469 60 398 2997 59 ® 2% Project Traffic is estimated to be less than of Projected Peak 211 Hour Traffic Volume ❑ Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 10 of Projected Peak 2� Hour Traffic Volumen. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I .C.U. ) Analysis is required. DATE: i Q SEW aoRT CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING DEPARTMENT ( 714) 640-2197 cq41 FO RN�P February 23, 1981 Michael L. Lewis The Koll Company 4490 Von Karman Ave . Newport Beach , CA 92660 SUBJECT: Koll Center Traffic Phasi-ng Plan Dear Mr. Lewis : Pursuant to your letter of February 13 , 1981 , and our phone conversation to the proposed addition of 7,650 sq. ft. to the existing Koll Company Corporate Headquarters . In . order to proceed with this expansion, within the timetable you have requested, it would be necessary to prepare an Amendment to the Traffic Phasing Plan. In order to process this request we would .like you to prepare a 2% test to determine if there would be any impact (traffic) caused by the earlier construction . Additionally , it would be appreciated if you would prepare a table that would describe the Traffic Phasing Plan as approved for the Koll/Aetna pro- perties and the proposed Amendment. We Took forward to working with you on this project. Please feel free to contact me at your convenience at (714) 640- 2197. Very truly yours , PLANNING DEPARTMENT JAMES D . HEWICKER, Director By Fred Talarico , - Environmental Coordinator FT: tk ('its• IIall • 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California 92663 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING DEPARTMENT January 28 , 1981 TO: Debra Allen , Planning Commissioner FROM: Planning Department SUBJECT: Supplemental Information ,Report - Koll Center N)ew.po.rt 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 Hi-ghway 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. E ICKER, Director JDH/kk XC : Planning Commissioners Don Webb Fred Talari o CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING DEPARTMENT Ja-nuary 27, 1981 TO : Planning Commissioner Helen McLaughlin FROM: Planning Director SUBJECT: Supplemental Information Report - Koll Center Newport Traffic Phasing Plan dated September 4, 1980 Attached for your information and review is a copy of the supple- mental information report distributed to the Planning Commission the evening of September 4, 1980 , which was the night that the Koll project was approved. Please note the second paragraph pertaining to the letter from Wes Pringle and the admonition from 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. Also attached is a copy of the letter report from Wes Pringle and a copy of the minutes . PL NNING DEPARTMENT J D. HEWICKER P anni g Director JDH P. S . We can provide the Planning Commission with the i-nforma- tion but we cannot require them to read it or understand it; nor can we require that they attend the meetings . Planning Commission Meeting January 22 , 1981 Agenda Items No . 2 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH TO : Planning Commission FROM: Planning Department SUBJECT: Traffic Phasing Plan (Continued Public Hearing) j Request to consider Amendment No . 1 to the Traffic Phasing Plan for the remaining development of Office Site C of the Koll Center Planned Community , and the acceptance of an Environmental Document. LOCATION : Office Site C of the Planned Community of Koll Center Newport, location easterly of MacArthur Boulevard between Campus Drive and Birch Street. ZONE: P-C APPLICANT: The Irvine Company , Newport Beach OWNER: Same as applicant At the January 8, 1981 , Planning Commission meeting the above sub- ject item- was continued to allow staff to provide the Planning Commission with addit•onal information related to the Traffic Study, possible circulation systems improvements and the allocation of office space . Attached for your review and consideration is a Traffic Study prepared by Weston Pringle and Associates - January 12 1981 , for the applicant . Attitionaly, attched is a copy of the proposed site plan and allocation of office space exhibit. Traffic Study At the request of the Planning Commission the applicant ' s consultant has prepared an additional Traffic Study related to I . C . U . values for critical intersections . The following table summarizes that study and indicates I .C.. U . values for the intersections with and without the additional development . It is important to notethat there are no circulation systems improvement or mitigation measures that are not conditions of a being proposed by the applicantpProval of other "committed projects" . -T- I TO: Planning Commission -2 . • Item #2 ICU COMPARISON Mac Arthur Place ICU - 1983 APPROVED PROPOSED INTERSECTION PROJECT PROJECT INCREASE Bristol St. N. & Campus Dr. 1.2468 1.2837 0.03691 Bristol St. N. & Birch St. 1.1086 1.1151 0.0065 Bristol St. & Birch St. 0,7564 0.7588 0.0024 Bristol St. & Jamboree Rd. 0.8342 0.8342 0.0000 Jamboree Rd. & Campus Dr. 1.0436 1.0561 0.0125 Mac Arthur Blvd. & Jamboree Rd. 0.7723 0.7723 0.0000 Mac Arthur Blvd. & Campus Dr. 0.9606 0.9762 0.0156 Coast Aighway & Mac Arthur Blvd. 0.9077 0.9108 0.0031 "Coast Highway/MacArthur Boulevard At the Mauary 8, 1981 , Planning Commission meeting the Commission expressed concer for the East Coast Highway/MacArthur Boulevard inter- section I .C.U. which was projected to be over 0. 9000 upon completion of this project. The applicants Traffic Consultant has reviewed this intersection and has found that based upon the circulation systems improvements required of the-'Corporate Plaza P-C Traffic Phasing , the I .C. U. at this intersection will be 0. 8671 upon completion of this project." The Planning Commission ' s approval of the Corporate Plaza P-C Traffic Phasing, hasing Plan included the following condition related to this roadway : " CONDITION NO .23 That Avocado Avenue improvements between San Miguel Drive and East Coast Highway be completed to the width determined to be necessary to handle the two-way traffic projected from the development , plus other approved projects . This shall provide width necessary for turning lanes and -pockets ." This condition would require The Irvine Company to provide approximately 35 ' and turning lanes of having on Avacado Avenue between East Coast Highway and San Miguel Drive . The City Public Works Department has indicated that as an approval of the Amended Traffic Phasing Plan for Block C of Koll Center that a minimum width of 48 feet with an asphalt curb should be required. An additional Condition of Approval has been pre- pared (see suggested action) . TO : Planning Commission -3. Item #2 Office Space Allocation In accordance with the Planning Commission ' s request the applicant has prepared additional information related to the allocation of office space in Block C'. (Attachment No .2) .• The attachment indicates each building interms of the development existing/under construction , what was previously approved in the Traffic Phasing Plan and where the development under consideration in the Amended Traffic Phasing Plan would occur. It is important to note that the Traffic Phasing Plan will not effect the location of the proposed development on the site . The location will be governed by the Planned Community District Regulation . However, the Traffic Phasing Plan will effect the timing of the development. Suggested Action Staff suggests that the Planning Commission approve the project with the findings and subject to the conditions indicated in Exhibit "A" attached to 'the January 8, 1981 staff report with the additions and changes indicated below: 1 . Add : Environmental Document , Finding l . ,a . 4. Planning Commission Supplement Staff Report- January 8, 1981 , with attachments . 5 . Planning Commission Staff Report- January 22 , 1981 , with attachments . Phasing Plan , Conditions 6 . That prior to the occupancy of any building on the site beyond f the existing development and 107 ,460 sq . ft. of new construction , San Miguel Drive shall be completed as approved and Avacado Avenue from East Coast Highway to San Miguel Drive shall have been constructed for two-way traffic with a minimum 48 ft. of width and asphalt curb , including necessary width for turning lanes and pockets in a manner acceptable to the Public Works Department ( unless subsequent project approval 'requires mod- ification thereto) . The Circulation System Improvement shall be subject to the approval of the City Traffic Engineer. 2. Chbnge : Statement of Facts Statement of Overriding Considerations (Incorporating by reference Condition No . 6 above, or modifications thereto or other conditions deemed appropriate by the Planning Commission) . TO : Planning Commission -4. , Item #2 Respectfully submitted, PLANNING DEPARTMENT JAMES D. HEWICKER, DIRECTOR By Fred Ta ar co , Environmental Coordinator FTJtk Attachments : 1 . Traffic Study-Weston Pringle & Associates January 12, 1981 2. Office Space Allocation 3. Staff Report - January 8, 1981 4. Supplemental Staff Report - January 8, 1981 5. Memorandum Public Works Department - January 8, 1981 RtECE14EfS W + ebb ',t •� p� ar A W P e*W 1'K[{�k ad AwdvI1 JAN 14 1981 TRAFFIC & TRANSPORT�IIEERING �9 W January 12, 1981 S' RECEIVED 9 PLANNING DEPARTMENT Mr. Paul Thakur ti JAN 141981► 10 Commercial/Industrial Division CITY OF ORT The Irvine Company NEWPCALIFEACH, , 7 550 Newport Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92663 ti Dear Mr. Thakur: At the request of the Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach at their meeting on January 8, 1981, we have completed additional analyses of the proposed Mac Arthur Place project on the southeasterly corner of Mac Arthur Boulevard and Campus Drive. Additional analyses were conducted relative to the impact of the project on the eight critical intersections identified in our October 17, 1980 report. The pruject cunsists of adding 125,370 square feeL of Office space to the previously approved Phasing Plan for the site. Our report of October 17, 1.980, identified the intersection impacts associated with this total. project; however, Lhe increase due to the additional 125,370 square feel was not specifically noted. In order to provide a means of evaluating Lhe impact Of the current project, 1CU's were calculated for the eight critical intersections with the previously approved project and with the current proposal. These data are summarized in Table 3A which is equivalent to Table 3 of our October 17, 1980, report with the addition 1 of the approved project values. As noted in Table 3A, the analyses are based upon the same intersection conditions (improvements) . No new improvements are included for the current project in these calculations. Some improvements were required of the previous approval of this as well as other projects. To further clarify the impact of the proposed addition, the 1983 ICU values for the approved and proposed project are summarized in Table A. Review of Table A indicates minor increases in ICU values due to the proposed additional development. 2651 EAST CHAPMAN AVENUE • SUITE 110 • FULLERTON. CALIFORNIA 92631 • (714) 871-2931 ir Table 3A ICU SUMMARY Mac Arthur Place INTERSECTION EXISTING- BXISTING(1) EXISTING(l) EXISTING(1) EXISTING(2) EXISTING(2) (1980) + + + + + REGIONAL REGIONAL REGIONAL REGIONAL REGIONAL COMMITTED COMMITTED COMMITTED COMMITTED COMMITTED (1982) + + + + 30ZPROJECT 30/.PROJECT PROJECT R! ::r? (1982) (1983) (1983) PRO.IECT (1983) Bristol Street North & 1.1280 1.1477 1.1592 1.2465 1.2468 1.2837 Campus Drive Bristol Street North & 0.9753 1.0374 1.0405 1.1055 1.1086 1.1151 Birch Street Bristol Street & Birch 0.6095 - - - 0.7564 0.7588 Street Bristol Street & Jamboree 0.7617 - - - 0.8342 0.8342 Road Jamboree Road & Campus 0.9695 0.8715 0.8840 0.9318 1.0436 1.0561 Drive Mac Arthur Blvd. & 0.7493 - - - 0.7723 0.7723 Jamboree Road Mac Arthur Blvd. & 0.9482 0.9607 0.9758 1.0300 0.9606 0.9762 Campus Drive Coast Highway & 0.8022 0.8897 0.8928 0..9435 0.9077 0.9108 Mac Arthur Blvd. (1) No project related improvements are considered in these calculations. '', (2) Improvements required by previously approved projects are included in these calcualtions. • -3- Table A ICU COMPARISON Mac Arthur Place ICU - 1983 i APPROVED PROPOSED i INTERSECTION PROJECT PROJECT INCREASE Bristol St. N. & Campus Dr. 1.2468 1.2837 0.0369 Bristol St. N. & Birch St. 1.1086 1.1151 0.0065 Bristol St. & Birch St. 0.7564 0.7588 0.0024 Bristol St. & Jamboree Rd. 0.8342 0.8342 0.0000 Jamboree Rd. & Campus Dr. 1.0436 1.0561 0.0125 Mac Arthur Blvd. & Jamboree Rd. 0.7723 0.7723 0.0000 Mac Arthur Blvd. & Campus Dr. 0.9606 0.9762 0.0156 Coast Highway & Mac Arthur Blvd. 0.9077 0.9108 0.0031 �, d V � • 4 l The maximum increase or 0.0369 would not be noticeable to the average driver. This increase is less than the accuracy of the basic traffic volume data and the analysis procedure. No change is indicated at two intersections since project traffic is not added to the critical movements. A second area of concern expressed by the Planning Commission was the intersection of Coast Highway and Mac Arthur Boulevard. As indicated in Table 3A, this intersection was projected to have an ICU value greater than 0.90 in 1983 with or without the approved or proposed project. Some improvement is anticipated from the addition of an eastbound through lane which has been required of previously approved projects. City Staff proposed two additional methods of reducing this ICU value. In addition, we have reviewed the various factors related to this ICU calculation. A traffic phasing report was prepared for Corporate Plaza and submitted to you on March 3, 1980. This report was subsequently approved by the City. The street system utilized in that report did not include an Avocado - San Miguel connection to Mac Arthur Boulevard. Actions by the City since that report have resulted in the requirement-for the construction of this link which would be utilized by traffic from Corporate Plaza and other areas. The Corporate Plaza Traffic Phasing Report indicated 70 eastbound left turn vehicles at Coast and Mac Arthur from that project. With the construction of the Avocado - San Miguel connection to Mac Arthur, these trips would not utilize the Coast/Mac Arthur intersection, This diversion of trips would result in a reduction in the ICU value at Coast and Mac Arthur to 0.8671 in 1983 with the proposed addition. An ICU analyses sheet supporting this value is attached to this report. Based upon the preceeding discussion, current street improvement requirements will result in an acceptable condition at the Coast Highway/Mac Arthur Boulevard intersection with no additional improvements. This conclusion is based upon the re-routing of the remaining portion of Corporate Plaza development. Since some existing Corporate Plaza traffic as well as other traffic can be expected to change travel patterns, the revised ICU value is conservative or high. In summary, additional analyses have been completed to indicate the incremental impact of the additional square footage and to examine methods of reducing the ` ICU value at Coast Highway and Mac Arthur Boulevard. ICU increases due to the proposed addition are minor in nature and not significant with respect to the overall analysis process. Required development of the San Miguel link to re-route eastbound left turn traffic at Coast Highway and Mac Arthur Boulevard will provide for a reduction in ICU values to below the 0.90 level. We trust that this additional analyses will be of assistance to you and the City of Newport Beach in the review of -this project. If you have any questions or require additional information, please contact us. Respectfully submitted, WEE.SSTOON PRINGLE AND ASSOCIATES Weston S. Pringle, P.E. WSP:cd #8216 10 • n ICU ANALYSES PREVIOUSLY APPROVED PROJECT i Inters*on k ( Existing Traffic Volumes Bases on Average Daa Traffic Winter/Spring 198?� ;, 7y� EXISt. EXIS[. R[11TOt co"M !e MUTED EXIS[11A MOWED Vic Rate') PROJE.' ae:,iW tao.e.an; PK.HR• Vic GROW a PRQIEC[ Lanes CAP. Lanes GP' Vol, Ratio Yorur Vol" w/o Project Volume Vic Ratio Volume NL 1600 ZCV& . 1bb3 21 0.1794 " O,-n94 NT 37.cpo 6175 •2109 /7 //0 0,250(a 20 0.2909 NR SL ST M1Soo 2 000 (190 . 30a 17 23 O, l8u S 0,/L330 �• SR V,.$)2400 -7$1 78 0,3579 &0 0,3829 EL ET ER —� NL 1(000 491 . 3069 C60 10,3444 /0 0,3506 WT U,400 351'5 • 5552 44 1350 1J 0,7742* ea 0,7636 WR 40 8 YELLOWTIME .10D0 EXISTING INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION I.1 EXISTING PLUS COIMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH W/PRQPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U.1 /,236/ 1 EXIST!NC PLUS COPMITTEO PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH PLUS PROJECT I.C.U. /.2468 ❑ Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 ❑ Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 e ❑ Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. with systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 Description of system improvement: L Add Southbound right turn lane 0 DATE: PROJECT _ -._-_--- FORM 11 ♦,t,• 4wL%,ItVtt Ofll ,ti,l1 , v,•r...•+.♦v. .•n.•r•...e 12 Intersec,n 5,I.I ,� S ( Existing Traffic Volumes Bases on Average DaJKY Traffic winter/Spring 19Ld EX1.57. EXIST. RE:IC:PL CO6 MEO PROJECTED EUSTIlia PROPOSED V/C Ratio PRGJE. �R:JEC: tW.t..r•t tunas Up. lenes Cap. PF.RR. Y/C GPWrl PROJECT Wo Project Volume V/C Ratio Val, Ratio Volume Volw YOLwe NL /Geo 8/ •,000r- 3 0,05Z5, 01052s NT ;zoo Z-70 • 0e44 257 o,/647 7-5 CJ72s NR SL ST /11.00 *&1 .Zest 28 0,3D5-(. /O 0,3419 � SR /600 3200 633 •39S6 44.9 0 3sl 6s 0,*6 EL ET ER wL7 136 wT r.400 z957. •4797 32 979 0,644Z* 0,6442 wR �•6 / YELLOMTIME 0,1o00a� 0,/000 I t EXISTING INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION .9753 t i EXISTING PLUS C"ITTED PLUS REG16MAL GROWTH w/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U.1 7702 1XTSTTNG PLUS COMMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH•PLUS PROJECT I.C.U. ❑ Projected plus project traffic I.C,U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 ❑ Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 ❑ Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. with systems improvement will 'be i less than or equal to 0.90 , Description of system improvement: (1) ADD SOUTHBOUND RIGHT TURN LANE (0) DATE: PROJECT i � FORM II 1 Inter seeon—P�2i.gr•oe S7-, //Zce 57- ►3 ( Existing affic Volumes Bases on Average Daily Traffic Winter/Spring 19801 (o o%V 79 EXI•.T. EXIST. REGI0:7aL COWL TTED PROJECTED EXISTI hG VRU?USED V/C Ratin PFGJE:' No,a en; Pn.HR. V/C GROWTH PROJECT W/o Project Volume WC flat'-) Lanes Cap. Lanes Cap. Vol. Ratio Volume Volume Volume NL NT /hoo -7 l ,oszs 24 O,o7oo S a,073/ NR 13 _ 4 IJ SL /E.00 / (n5 ./03/ /0 0,/09441 0,/(1941 It ST -5 0o 36G ./20ra &1 011397 /0 0,14.Zb SR 1 EL Zo3 250 ZS ET 640o 1997 .353 ZS_ 46 lk 0,4700-* 0,4739 ER 6 WL WT WR YELLOWTIME 0,/000 0,/000 ,fop0 F � � EXISTING INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0,6095- EXISTING PLUS COMMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH W/PROPOSED INPROVEMENTS I.C.U.L0,7 4 1 EXISTING PLUS COMMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH"PLUS PROJECT I.C.U. 16,756 ❑ Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 ❑ Projected plus project traffic I.C,U. will be greater than 0.90 ❑ Projected plus project traffic I.C,U. with systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 Description of system improvement: DATE: PROJECT ----- .+—•--• -----•—•------•�- FORM II • . .LJVV11•/.I VI•I LV.• . -r.r�rr •• •nr• 1 • m IL.( Intersec•n_gQr< 7L sT Q-go IZb ( Existing Traffic Volumes Bases on Average 6aily Traffic Winter/Spring 1g�) ss-.arci Z-/f-7 ED EXISTI..0 PROPOSE',) EXIST. EXIST. R[i:IYAL CCIMITTEO PRO,IECTio e -K4•a..ent PK•RR. V/C GWn PRWEct Y/C 0.stlo PPCJE.' A Ra Lenh GP• Lynn cap. Vol. Ratio Volpe Moller Voo Proleet Volwo VA MtH Y01we* NL 40 NT 5000 Z o4 .30�3 /066 0,4464�` 5- 0,447o NR 5 4 SL ST 48ov / C70& .209(. / l75 01240 Zo O,Z 0¢ SR EL /600 140 .037S 44 O,//so 10,115C ET 340c 7 65 .239l /0 144 1 O.2$79'X 0,2872 ER 3Zoo / / 3 4 0,4566 0,068 WL WT -- WR ' VELLOWTIME : /pp0 O,/off j i bl/DOo it EXISTING INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION .76 17 1 I 1 EXISTING PLUS COMMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH W/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. ,�3 36 I EXISTING PLUS COMMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH PLUS PROJECT I.C.U.' e ❑ Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 ❑ Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 ❑ Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. with systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 Description of system improvement: (A) SINCE THE EASTBOUND RIGHT TURN LANE CAN MOVE CONCURRENTLY WITH THE NORTHBOUND LEFT AT BRISTOL ST. N„ THE EASTBOUND THROUGH IS CRITICAL• DATE PROJECT FORM 1I Intersef on_jA mje"� 2le ( Existing Traffic Volumes Bases on Average Dail Traffic Winter/Spring 1980) SXIST. EXIST. RE:Ic'iaL C"'ITTED PROJECTED c ExIsri w PROPOSED V/o Proje PPWCC' lo Ndrt.ee: Lanes Cap. Lanes Cap. Vol. Y/0 Vol= PRDJEOT «/o ProSeet Yolona V/C Ilatlo Vol. Ratio Yolla.a Yo11wu Volans 7 D,ro9 7 NL 1200 o0y7 0,009 S 650 40 0.3733NT 04$w 2910 7 a ,O,IcYNR /0 0,In&9 SL Iio00 t2)320V .l�E O,/768 01179 ST /Me SR 1 i b V 27 0,223/ /6 0,2294 EL Z400 Sol 421 z1 /¢O 0,2704 * ¢O 0, 2871 ET 2.4o0 OZ .L49Z /2 /S 0,22e4 /D 0,224/a ER 1 b00 83 .051 WL 1600 jog .0G,61 /l 0,0750 S 0,078! ( a 7 20 WT 0,/028 S 0,10 43Zoo � 30Z 1819 WR P)/boo Z b op O,/000 it ' ' 011000. K YELLOWTIME ( o t 1 i 1 j I EXISTING INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION EXISTING PLUS COMMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH W/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. /,O/7 0 11 0 310 EXISTTMG PLUS COMMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH PLUS PROJECT I.C.U. ❑ Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 ❑ Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 ❑ Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. with systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Description of system improvement: (1) ADD NORTHBOUND THROUGH AND RIGHT TURN LANE (0) (2) ADD SOUTHBOUND LEFT TURN LANE (0) (3) ADD WESTBOUND RIGHT TURN LANE (0) _ DATE: PROJECT FORM II l6 Intersec�nL�l�►c�RsL�� .�► o� �r� ( Existing Traffic Volumes Bases on Average D ily Traffic Winter/Spring 191P No{#�Ant EXISTIRG PROPOSED MST. j5T. R01MAL COMfITTEO V/C 8alo ►PWE: t•'.CL' Lines C.p, L.nes C.p. ►K.Mfl, GROWN PROJECT V/o Ratio Volum. Y/C RaIJ Vol. Volu Volume w/oVol Prme NL /Lo0 55 . O,o344 0,0344NT 4 t o 0 ��4900 343 1 2a(' 10,16921, • - NR 109 /oS SL /(Ooo Z 14 . 1-336 0,1369 ST Tz00 '-�14900 4487 .z 14 1 228 . '011908 20 01195*0 SR /b0 tr col Z .3g88 & 0,4409 20 0,46/3 EL /Goo 43Zoo 36 7 z z .04-11 146 0,/603,A S 0,16/9 ET 4800 G4 .lasz I A00 a /-&e8 o,/bas ER 1600G o0 0,0038 0,0038 WL /bop 0432oo Z3/ . 1444 ' 72 0,o94.7 0,09¢7 WT 4 too SZO . 170 3 2ol 0,2133 012f 33 WR Ifoo / 7/ .oI�31 0,063/ 010b3i YELLOWTIME .Id00 01/000*; i0,/000 t EXISTING INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTIL1UT10N .74 i t � EXISTING PLUS COMMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH W/PROPOSED INPROVEMENTS I.L.U. 0,7697 Ii EXISTING PLUS COMMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH PLUS PROJECT I.C.U. 0,7723 ❑ Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 ❑ Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 ❑ Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. with systems improvement will be + less than or equal to 0.90 Description of system improvement: (1) ADD NORTHBOUND THROUGH OR RIGHT TURN LANE (0) (2) ADD SOUTHBOUND THROUGH LANE (0) (3) ADD EASTBOUND AND WESTBOUND LEVT TURN LANES (0) PROJECT FORM II .1 7 ' lirI Ocon_g ll tArMW l i UI ILI LNI IVII M1r,rLi Old 17 Inter seacAlR_mfcv0 Ao .0A� f Existing Traffic Volumes Bases on Average Dai y Traffic Winter/Spring 19 P EXIST, EXIST, REr.1 O�IaL COPM:TTEO PROJECTEO ,. E%ISTII16 PROPOSE. pX,HR, V/C GAOYin PROJECT V/C Ratln PRGJE.' !bra a lanes GP. Uner Gp. w/o ProjeCt Volume V/C 1letla Vol. Ratio Volume Volans Volume NL 1 -00 (2)3zoo //o Olo88 5- 0,0359 010359 hi 3Loo (q� b`¢oo /085 .33'9/ 2 0/(0 0,3094 40 30,317Z NR IboO 60 .0315 / 7 �O 5l 1(,00 11) 3zoo BS . 053 0,0275 /6- 0,0322 I` ST 3Z00 (3)¢&n 793 , 2478 / 3z5 o,2337 /5 0,23fo9 SR f600 2b / ,l 1 /0 0,/744 o,/7t44 EL I boo 3 1 5 19 69 4-7 0,U2 ,Z* 0,2262 ET '3ZOO 4` to ./834 // Z7 0,1963 ZO 0,2025 ER Z 1 3 WL Ir000 I0 ,off S 0,07/2 ZS O,oS69 WT zoo 3 20 4 0,2�47 /ass o,2aso WR ' 1(000 OOfO 0,100� 4-0 0,lZSfo YELLOWTIME ppp O,/ooOj ;0,/000 EXISTING INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION .9 Z E EXISTING PLUS COMMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH W/PROPOSED INPROVEMENTS I.C.U. 0, ) 7 3 i lXISTING PLUS COMMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH PLUS PROJECT I.C.U. 019 60 6 ❑ Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 ❑ Projected plus project traffic ❑ Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. with systems improvement will be 1 less than or equal to 0.90 Description of system improvement: (1) ADD NORTHBOUND LEFT, THROUGH, AND RIGHT TURN LANES (0) (2) ADD SOUTHBOUND LEFT AND THROUGH LANES (0) (3) CONVERT NORTHBOUND RIGHT TURN TO OPTIONAL THROUGH OR RIGHT (p) DATE: FRO,:FCi _.__..___�.-----.—.._--- .._ ..._._----•- -------_..--- FORM 11 INTERSECTION LAPACITY UILL11AT1UN ANALYbib Interse Lit naoas7.4w r//"A4Q4.A`7-140,Z%,,e. ( Existing Traffic Volumes Bases on Average Daily Traffic Winter/Spring 198b) EXISTING PROPOSEO EXIST. EXIST. RESIONAL COM MEO FRWECTED �4o.s.eat Lanes GPI Lanes Cap. PA.MR. V/� GRDMTN PRWECT w/o Rat Jut PPWEC: e,e�C• t VOIuwK V/C RatioVol. Rat o Volum VOluv Volur NL -- NT -- NR SL 3Zoo 89z .Z786 S 275 0,3663* 20 0,3725' Yc ST SR /6b0 /f13 •1 t0(o 9S 01/800 01/800 EL /boo /98 .Iz 3 8 2/4 0,25-7Sf' 0,2S75' ET 3Zo0 0 45M 136S .4z3 /7 /45 1 0,3/w 0,3/60 ER -- WL • WT 4$00 77Z .1`08 /4 &7 0,1777;* 0./777 WR /&Ovo 42-7 .2G/•9 7 /04 ,33o IS 0',339¢ YELLDWTIME . (000 0,/000 j j 0,/000 EXISTING IMTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIlAT'ON .SOz2 j t 1 EXISTING PLUS COMMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH W/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. 0,90/S EYISTI44 PLUS COMMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH PLUS PROJECT I.C.U. 0.9077 ❑ Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. will be less than orequal to 0. 90 ❑ Projected plus project traffic I .C.U. will be greater than 0.90 ` i . ❑ Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. with systems improvement wil-1 be less than or equal to 0.90 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Description of system improvement: (1) ADD EASTBOUND THROUGH LANE (P) DATE: PROJECT FORM II lq ' ICU ANALYSES � � I COAST HIGHWAY/MAC ARTHUR BOULEVARD REVISIONS f •.II LI\JLV I.VI\ VIM\V.I • rr_-_-r rr.rr• r•••.. y L 20 Intersec ne-eigAT n LC-,4 ! rZP. ( Existing Traffic. Volumes Bases on Average Daily Traffic Winter/Spring 198b) tSTIN PFUUEO EEISt. EAM. III Ccw:fR d PRCdECTE0 Nay. <t: PR.RR, V/C GROWN " V/C Ratio L+n,i Cap. Unes Cap. Vol. R+tlo Volme V., , woProject t YPOPWImC:P' Y1/.C�R.�+U• alu" , Yoll+n, NL NT --- NR — SL 3Zo0 89Z •z788 S Z? 3 S JO 0r3 f6k ST SR /(000 / 9 3 •1?.O(o 9S / DO /ray EL. /foOO / 98 .la 8 38 se" ET 3ZOO rs ER WL WT .¢8O0 77Z .1v06 WR /(0 0 0 ¢ Z7 • /Of 3363 5" YELLOWTIME . IO O O 7E i i EO/oav t0/�� EXISTING INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION i .SOZZ EXISTING PLUS COMMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH W/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. i EXISTING PLUS COMMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH PLUS PROJECT I.C.U. A ❑ Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 ❑ Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 ❑ Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. with systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - . Description of system improvement: DATE: PP i Ct FORM I I r/� ;� �� i�� .K A .n,•r=r—ar=a_ra�_i_._a�.t `!� Iy�r�:!!:.�:1±1 Ir 1� o 1 I E:<M Bissell/Auguste 2� MacARTHUR COURT—ALLOCATION OF SQUARE FOOTAGE IN DIFFERENT PHASES. Parentheses Show Number of Stories. EXIST./UNDER PREVIOUSLY APPROVED PHASING PLAN BLDG. NO. CONSTRUCTION PHASING PLAN UNDER CONSIDERATION TOTAL Existing 21 ,600 (2) -- -- 21 ,600 (2) 1 -- 20,000 (2) 10,000 (1) 30,0001 (3) 2 -- 20,000 (2) 10,000 (1) 30,000 (3) 3 65,744 (4) -- -- 65,744 (4) 4 33,888 (2) -- -- 33,888 (2) 5 -- 93,198 (6) 105,370 (4) 198,208 (10) Total 121 ,232 133,198 125,370 379,800 NOTE: Above allocation is one of the different options available for additional square footage. In the final analysis, an additional building shown as ;possible building" in the site plan maybe feasible. r R 23 Planning Commission Meeting January 8, 1981 Agenda Items No. 8 _ CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH TO: Planning Commission FROM: Planning Department SUBJECT: Traffic Phasing Plan ( Public Hearing) Request to consider Amendment No . 1 to the Traffic Phasing Plan for the remaining development on Office Site C of the Koll ' Center Planned Community , and the acceptance of an Environmental Document. LOCATION: Office Site C of the Planned Community of Koll Center Newport, located easterly of MacArthur Boulevard be- tween Campus Drive and Birch Street. ZONE : P-C APPLICANT: The Irvine Company , Newport Beach OWNER: Same as applicant Request The Irvine Company has requested approval of an amendment to the approved Phasing Plan for the remaining development of Office Site C of the Koll Center Planned Community District to comply with Resolution No. 9472 of the Newport Beach City Council and Amendment No . 514. The Phasing Plan for Block C was approved by the Planning Commission on April 24, 1980 (minutes attached) . Additionally, the applicant requests the acceptance of an Environmental Document. Enviornmental procedures are as outlined by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) , The State EIR Guidelines and City 1 Policy K-3. ` Background The Koll Center Newport Planned Community was originally approved by the City on August 14, 1972. Development of the Koll Center Newport site has occurred over an eight year period consistent with the P-C District and subsequent amendments . On November 27 , 1978, the City Council adopted an ordinance approving Planning Commission Amendment No. 514, which required the preparation of phasing plans consistent with the Circulation Element of the General Plan (30/70 Rule) . On March 12 , 1979 , the City Council defined the "Test of Reasonableness " the Planning Commission was to use in the evaluation of phasing plans. Phasing plans have been approved to date as follows : TO: Planning Commission -2 . Item # 8 A) Newport Place P-C Emkay Air California Ketchum Bear Brandt Ranch Boyle Engineering B) Koll Center Newport P-C California Canadian Bank Block "C" (The Irvine Company) Block ' s "A,B,D,& G (Koll/Aetna) C) Ford-Aeronutronid_P-C All properties D) Corporate Plaza P-C All properties E) Civic Plaza P-C All properties F) North Ford P-C All properties On December 10, 1979, the City Council approved General Plan Amend- ment 79-1 . The amendment reduced the permitted square footage o•f office development in Office Site C and the remainder of Koll 'Center Newport. A Phasing Plan for the permitted development in Office Site C was prepared by the, applicant and was approved by the Planning Commission on April 24, 1980. The amendment to the General Plan lead to a law suit against the City by the Koll Company. Settlement of the lawsuit . in May of 1980 required the City to rescind General J Plan Amendment 79-1 as it effected Koll Center Newport and reinstate land use allocations in effect prior to its passage. The Irvine Company now proposes to amend the approved Phasing Plan to include an 'additional 125,370 sq.ft. of office space in Office Site C. Total development of Office Site C would be as follows : Existing------------- 21 ,600 sq .ft. Approved Phasing Plan----------232,830 sq .ft. Additional Office space--------125 ,370 sq. ft. TOTAL---------------------------379 ,800 sq. ft. A 2� TO: Planning Commission -3 . Item # 8 Project Description The approval of this project will allow for the buildout of Office Site C in accordance with the Koll Center P-C District. A vicinity map showing the location of the proposed project and the preliminary site plan are located below and on the following page: O 800' N� Site c SUBJECT PROPERTY Retell IL Serviea Site A ,td`a Bite a Site D r r 4ve courthouse Site E, Light Industrial light Industrial Site 7 Site t e . N Bite G iy;7 Site F a 7 � Jamboree Blvd. ti• rM Aa I I � � f. , , �� 1 �• w �t��l .I(� �I LP !C ; 6 t• 1• will m •\ fi � "i \0 C��„ \� Y j. Mimi, U '!p9 � y�%�y - � � i� s M • � !fir!�f Pre liminary Site Plan .ice 3 27 TO: Planning Commission -5. The preliminary site plans (Figure 1 .4 for the subject property depict five different structures which would occupy a combined building area of 358,200 sq . ft. in addition to the existing 21.,600 sq . ft. office building currently located on site . Two of the structures would total 20,000 sq'. ft . , each at heights of two stories , a third two- story building would total 33,000 sq . ft. , and one four-story structure would occupy 64,000 sq .ft. The largest of the five had been proposed as a 95 ,800 sq . ft. building , eight stories in height. The additional square footage proposed is anticipated to be incorporated into the plan as an expansion of structures 1 , 2, and 5 as shown in Figure 1 .4 . An additional floor would be added to proposed structues 1 and 2 , 4 increasing their height to three stories . Structure number five would incorporate.- two additional floors resulting in a ten-story building. Another alternative amy be to allocate the proposed additional footage as a completely new structure, to be located in the southeastern portion of the subject property (Figure 1 . 4) . If this alternative is to be implemented, the two-level parking structure would also expand to accomodate the parking area displaced by the new structure. General Plan The proposed project is consistent with the Newport Beach General Plan Zoning The proposed project is consistent with the Koll Center Newport P-C District Regulations for Block C . Environmental Significance An Environmental Impact Report addressing the potential development ' impacts of Koll Center Newport was certified inconjunction with the adoption of the Planned Community District Regulation in 1972. This original EIR established the ultimate levels of development allowable for all blocks within Koll Center Newport. An Addendum to the Certified Final EIR was certified inconjunction with the approval of the Phasing Plan by the Planning Commission on April 24, 1980 . The City' s Environmental Affair' s Committee determined that a focused addendum should be prepared inconjunction with the request. Copies of the draft report prepared by the City' s consultants were distributed to the Planning Commission previously and it would be appreciated if the members of the Commission could br.iog them to the January 8, 1981 , Planning Commission meeting. An offical review period for the report was established by the State Clearing House starting on November 26 , 1980, and ending on December 30, 1980. Attached for your consideration is a copy of the comments and responses received as of this writting (Attachment No. l ) . The Citizen ' s Environmental Quality Advisory Committee reviewed this project and report at their December 2, 1980 meeting , They deferred action till their meeting of January 6, 1980. Copies of their comments on this project and report will be distributed at the time of project evaluation by the Commission. TO: Planning Commission .6. Item N 8 The staff is of the opinion after reviewing the Environmental Document that the only area of significant environmental effect beyond that which was identified in the previous documentation is related to Traffic and Circulation. Phasing Plan if The applicants have indicated that development of the project site, the Phain Plan is The timingsofgdevel.opmentp under�theurequested wold Occuroamendment and rapproved Phasing Plan is indicated below: PHASING SCHEDULE YEAR RE UIRED EXISTING 1981 100,000 sq.ft. 100000 sq.ft. 1982 258,000 sq.ft. 132:830 sq.ft. Resolution No. 9472 Attached for the Planning Commission's consideration is a copy of the applicant' s responses to the Planning Commission' s guidelines for reviewing the Phasing Plan, as modified by the City- Council . Traffic Resort A traffic Report was prepared for the applicant by Weston Pringle and Associates. The Traffic Report examined the same 15 intersections for analysis as the original report. It is summarized on the following pages and is incorporated intq the Environmental Document: • • TO: Planning Commission -7. Item # 8 CRITICAL INTERSECTION IDENTIFIVATION Mac Arthur Place L40MTICH 2.5 HOUR PERCENTAGES - 1983 NB SD EB WB Bristol Street North & Campus Drive 2.0 5.0 - 1.6 ' Bristol Street North & Birch Street 6.3 6.2 - - Bristol Street North & Jamboree 0.1 1.7 - - Bristol Street North & Campus Drive - 0.5 1.3 1.5 Xzvine Avenue Bristol Street & Birch Street 3.9 2.4 1.1 - Bristol Street & Jamboree Road 0.1 2.5 - Jamboree Road & Campus Drive 3.6 3.1 6.7 1.1 Mac Arthur Blvd./Jamborae Road 0.5 3.4 0.3 - Jamboree Road & Eastbluff - Ford 0.2 1.3 - Jamboree Road & San Joaquin Hill Road 0.3 1.2 - Jamboree Road & Coast Highway - 1.3 0.2 - Mac Arthur Blvd. & Campus Drive 3.0 2.9 2.7 14.9 y Mac Arthur Blvd. & Ford Road 0.3 1.5 - - Mac Arthur Blvd. & San Joaquin Fulls Road 0.4 1.4 - - Mac Arthur Slut. & Coast Highway - 2.1 - 0.3 • 1 TO,: Planning Commission -8. Item # 8 3 Icq SUMMAW Mac Arthur Place TEI2SECTION. (1) EXISTING EXISTING EXISTING(1) EXISTING(1) EXISTING(2) (1980) REGIONAL + + + REGIONAL REGIONAL REGIONAL + + + + Cot*aT= COMKIImw WlQQTP80 COmbaTTE0 1982 + + 30% PROJECT 30%PROnM PROJECT 1982 1983 2983 i Bristol Street North a 1.1280 1.1477 Campus Drive 1.1392 1.2465 1.2837 Br 1oh 1 Street North a 0.0953 , 1.0374 1.0405 1.1O55 1.1151 Bristol Street a Birch St- 0.6095 Bristol Street a Jamboree 0.7617 0.7588• Jamboree a Cam" 0.9695 0.8715 0.8342 0.8840 0.9318 1.0561 Had Arthur a jamboree 0.7493 Mac Arthur a Campus 0.9482 0.9607 0.7723 0.9758 1.0300 0.9762 Coast Nigfiray a Mee Arthur 0.8022 0.8897 0.8928 0.9435 0.9 108 (1) No e� P�j related isproveseats are co nsiderad in these calculatioru. (2) Project related ia4+ruvemeats are incl uded. t - ---- ------- I • 3� TO: Planning Commission -9 . Item N8 A summary of the traffic consultant' s comments on the intersections that will be operating upon completing of the project at 0. 9000 or greater is given below: Bristol Street North and Campus Drive . The existing ICU value at this 'site--_ section is 1.1280. In 1983 the ICU value with this project, regional growth, committed projects and previously required improvements, is projected to be 1.2837 The 1983 ICU value at this intersection with only 30 percent of the 1 project is 1.2465 (See Appendix D) which indicates that the project will result in an increase of 0.0372. Bristol Street North and Birth Street . The ICU value at t1;is intersection is projected to increase from an existing 0.9753 to 1.1151 in 1983 with complete development of the project. An ICU value of 1.1055 is projected for 1983 with 30 percent of the project. The full project would increase the ICU value by I 0.0096 which cannot be considered significant within the accuracies of the analysis. Jamboree Road and Campus Drive. In 1983, the projected ICU, at this intersection is 1.0561 with full development of this project. This is an increase from the 1980 ICU value of 0.9695. As can be seen from Table 4, the increased ICU value in 1983 is 0.1243 as a result of this project. Mac Arthur Boulevard and Campus Drive. Due to the proximity of the project to this intersection, it receives a greater impact. The current ICU of 0.9482 is projected to increase to 1.0300 in 1983 without full development of the project. As a part of the project, it is recomeended that the northbound right turn lane be converted to an optional through or right turn lane. This results in a 11)83 ICU value of 0.971,2 wish full development of the ,pruicet which is a reduction of U.U9)e. Coast Highway and Mac Arthur Boulevard. The 1983 ICU value for this inter- section is projected to be 0.9108 with full development of this project. With only 30 percent of the project, the 1983 ICU level is 0.9435 which indicates a decrease of 0.0327 due to the project. This reduction is due 1. to the addition of a third westbound lane which is a recommended project related improvement. T0; Planning Commission -10. Item N 8 �gested Actions • thefFindingstandhsubjectptonthegconditionsnindicatedtin Exhibit °A°h Respectfully submitted, PLANNING DEPARTMENT JAMES D. HEWICKER, DIRECTOR BY Fred a arico Environmental Coordinator FT/tk Attachments : l .Exhibit "A" a 2-Statement of Facts 3-Statement of Overriding Considerations 4-Planning Commission Minutes - April 24. 1980 5-Attachment No. 1 - Environmental Document The Irvi-ne o 1980 7.Narativeon P1anningCommissi g Commission "Test of Reasonableness" 8.Traffic Report - Weston Pringle & Associates, October 1980. NOTE: Copies of the above information and the Environmental Document- ation are a0ailable for public review and inspection in the Planning Department, City of Newport Beach, 3300 West Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, CA 92663. a h 1 l 33 EXHIBIT "A" FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL RECOMMENDED TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 8, 1981 Environmental Document FINDINGS : 1 . Accept and approve the Environmental Document with the following ; findings : a. The City of Newport Beach has prepoared a Final EIR Addendum for the porposed project consisting of the following documents : 1 . Draft: Addendum to the Certified Final Environ- mental Impact Report - Koll Center Newport Planned Community Development - Total Buildout of Irvine Company Property. 2. Planning Commission Staff Report dated January 8, 1981 with attachments . 3. Any additional related correspondence presented to the Planning Commission subsequent to the preparation of this report. b. The Planning Commission of Newport Beach accepts and approves the Final EIR Addendum and certifies that the Final EIR Addendum has been prepared pursuant to , and in compliance with , the California Environmental Quality Act (hereinafter referred to as "CEQA" ) and the State EIR Guidelines (here- inafter referred to as "Guidelines" ) and fully complies with, and satisfies , all of the requirements of CEQA and Guidelines . c. The Planning Commission of Newport Beach certifies that it has reviewed and considered the information contained in the Final EIR Addendum inconjunction with the various decisions and approvals associated with this project. l Statement of Facts FINDING: , 1 . The Planning Commission of Newport Beach approves and thereby makes the Findings , contained in the Statement of Facts , with respect to significant impacts identified in the Final EIR Addendum. Statement of Overriding Considerations FINDING: 1 . The Planning Commission of Newport Beach approves and thereby finds o that the facts set forth in- the Statement of Overrding Considerations are true and are supported by substantial evidence in the record , including the Final EIR Addendum. t 31 EXHIBIT "q" Phasing FINDINGS: The Planning Commission of Newport Beach finds ! I. That environmental documentation on this proposed project has been Act Prepandd City cPolicynKe3wand thatith the CItsfcontentsrnia vhivembeenlcoQuality nsir in decisions on this project. deed 2. That the Phasing Plan is consistent with the Newport Beach General Plan and the Planned Community Development Plan for Ko11 Center Newport. 3. That based on the Phasing Plan and supporting information submit therewith, there i,s a reasonable led traffic at timecorrelatioi, between o n Projected intersections , f completion and the capacity of affectedcted 4• That 'the applicant has taken into consideration in the preparation of his plan chara cteristics de tics veto in the design pment which either reduce traffic onor of his onto less impact arterials or through intersectionsoi guide traffic congested direction. n the leas t S. The Planning Commission of Newport Beach finds that, although the Final EIR Addendum Identifies certain unavoidable significant environmental effects that will result if the project is approved, all significant environmental effects that can feasible be miti- gated or avoided have been eliminated or reduced to an acceptable level , and that the remianing unavoidable significant effects , when balanced against the facts set forth in said Statement of environmentalneffects , are accepiving tableater weight to the unavoidable 6 , The Planning Commission of Newport Beach approves the Amendment to the Phasing Plan for Office Site C of the Koll Center Newport Planned Community, subject to the Conditions indicated b e1,ow: EXHIBIT "A" CONDITIONS CONDITIONS: I . That all the Conditions of Approva met, I of the original Phasing Plan be 2. That an additional sum of $48,075. (for a total of 138 0" be provided for circulation- and traffic. improvements to ntersections as specified on Page 5, Table 3, of the Traffic Report dated Octobetent r 17, 1980, as shown on the City's Master Plan of Circulation r mentsswithinitheth tvicinity General ofPlan , rt,iIf aible, ifesto improve- 1 1 EXHIBIT "A" CONDITIONS 3. That prior to the issuance of any building permits for the proposed project, the applicnt shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Planning Department that aviation easements granted to Orange County for the subject area have not been exceeded. 4. That prior to the occupancy of any building on the site beyond the existing development and 107 ,460 sq . ft. of new construction , the Circulation Systems Improvements contained in the Traffic Report, dated October 17, 1980 , Table 4, page 8, shall have been constructed (unless subsequent project approval require modification thereto) . The Circulation System Improvements shall be subject to the approval of the City Traffic Engineer. 5. That prior to the issuance of any building permit authorized by approval of this Phasing Plan , the applicant shall deposit with the City Finance Director, a sum proportional to the percentage of future additional traffic related to the project in the subject area, but not to exceed an additional $3415.= (for a total of $14 , 415 .=) to be used for the construction of a wall on the westerly side of Jamboree Road between Eastbluff Drive and Ford Road. Y • s t t • Attachment 1 STATEMENT OF FACTS January 8, 1981 SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS WHICH CANNOT BE AVOIDED IF THE PROPOSAL IS IMPLEMENTED, FINDINGS WITH RESPECT TO IMPACTS , STATEMENT OF FACTS IN SUPPORT THEREOF, AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERA- TIONS , ALL WITH RESPECT TO THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT OF THE PHASING PLAN FOR THE TOTAL BUILDOUT OF THE IRVINE COMPANY PROPERTIES LOCATED IN OFFICE SITE C OF KOLL CENTER NEWPORT, CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH . BACKGROUND The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the State EIR Guidelines (Guidelines ) promulgated pursuant thereto provide : "No public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an environmental impact report has been completed and which identifies one or more significant effects of the project unless the public agency makes one or more of the following written findings for each of the significant effects , accompanied by a statement of the facts supporting each finding. " (Section 15088 of the Guidelines ) The City of Newport Beach proposes to amend the Phasing Plan for Block C of the Koll Center Newport P-C District. Because the pro- posed amendment constitutes a project under CEQA and The Guidelines, the City of Newport Beach has prepared an addendum to the certified final Envihonmental I-mpact Report (EIR) . This EIR addendum has identified certain significant effects that will flow from this pro- ject and should the Planning Commission desire to approve this project, after determining that the EIR Addendum is complete and has been pre- pared in accordance with CEQA and the State EIR Guidelines , the findings set forth herein should be made. 3 7 TRAFFIC and CIRCULATION IMPACT Increased traffic levels at completion of all Office Site C ' development will contribute about 4,650 vehicle trips daily. Congestion levels on . surrounding street network would be aggravated. FINDINGS (a ) Specific economic, social and other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternativesidentified in the final EIR Addendum. (b ) The significant effect which remains will be substantially lessened through the incorporation of -mitigation measures into the project, and the remaining .effect .is, when balanced against the facts set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations , and giving greater weight to the significant effects , acceptable . FACTS IN SUPPORT OF FINDINGS• 1 . There is a reasonable correlation between project traffic at the time of completion and the capacity of affected intersections . 2. The proposed project was found to be exempt from the Newport Beach Traffic Phasing Ordinance by Resolution No. 9384 of the Newport Beach City Council . 3. T. a Conditions of Approval require the applicants make several improve- ants to intersections within the City of Newport Beach which will be dhmpleted prior to the occupancy of the project . 4. The Conditions of Approval require the applicant to deposit an addition $48,075' for circulation and traffic improvements within the City of Newport Beach . 5. The proposed project provides adequate parking and is or will be de- signed in such a •manner so as to be consistent with applicable Traffic Engineering Principles . 6 . The proposed project is providing for adequate pedestrian circulation . 7. The proposed project is consistent 'with the Master Plan of Bikeways of the City of Newport Beach . 8. The impacts of ICU values and on other circulation factors will be mi- tigated by Conditions of Approval of the amended Phasing Plan and the Phasing Plan . 9 . The increases in ICU values for regional intersections can be mitigated by construction of the Harvard overcrossing of the San Diego Freeway and the construction of the Corona del Mar Freeway extension. These improve- ments are beyond the jurisdiction of the City of Newport Beach but should 0 �- 38 be undertaken by the California Department of Transportation and other agencies ha.Ving jurisdiction . 10. There are no readily available measures to mitigate the effects of the project upon the ICU value at the intersection of MacArthur Blvd./Campus Dr. 11 . The cumulative impact on traffic and congestion that will result from the implementation of the project will not be entirely mitigated inas- much as this is a regional problem and an inevitable result of regional growth. However, the resulting level of the impact is acceptable , as hereinafter described . 12. The applicants ' preparation of their plan took into consideration char- acteristics which either reduce the amount of traffic generated or guide traffic onto less impacted arterials or through intersections in the least congested direction. 13. All significant environmental effects that can feasibly be avoided have been eliminated or substantially lessened by virtue of mitigation measures identified in the final environmental document and incorpora- ted into the project. WATER QUALITY IMPACT Surface water runoff from the project site Will be added to other surface drainage from the urban area which will cumulatively degrade quality of the Upper Newport Bay. FINDINGS (.a ) Specific economic, social and other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project .alternaiives identified in the Fi-nal EIR Addendum. (b) The significant effect which remains will be substantially lessened through the incorporation of mitigation measures into the project, and the remaining effect is , when balanced against the facts set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations , and giving greater weight to the significant effects , acceptable . FACTS IN SUPPORT OF FINDINGS 1 . The Conditions of Approval, of the original phasing plan and this amend- ment contain all reasonable and practical measures to reduce surface water runoff and pollutants . 2. The cumulative impact on water quality in Upper Newport Bay that will result from the implementation of the project will not be entirely mi- tigated and cannot be avoided by an alternative, because runoff from undeveloped land carries pollutants and runoff from undeveloped land carries silt. The level of the impact is acceptable . III I 2 � 3q 3. All significant environmental effects that can feasibly be avoided have been eliminated or substantially lessened by' virtue of miti- gation measures identified in the final environmental document and incorporated into the project. 4. The remaining unavoidable significant adverse impacts which are not mitigated by any of the factors shown above are, when balanced against the facts set forth in the "Statement of Overriding Consideration" and giving greater weight to th•e adverse environmental impacts , found to be acceptable because the aestheti.c , social and economic benefits of the project outweigh the unavoidable significant effects . AIR QUALITY , f IMPACT Fugitive dust levels would be temporarily elevated during construction activity . Temporary increases in local levels of CO and NOx would result from con- struction equipment. Mobile and stationary ema.ssion sources associated with the proposed project would contribute to regional air cell pollution . Mobile sources will generate about 1 .25 tons of pollutants further de- grading the local airshed. Project-generated traffic will exacehbate already unhealthy levels of CO on 'the presently most heavily congested roadways . FINDINGS (a) Specific economic, social and other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the final EIR Addendum. (b) The significant effect which remains will be substantially lessened through the incorporation of mitigation measures into the project, and the remaing effect is , when balanced against the facts set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations , and giving greater weight to the significant effects , acceptable . FACTS IN SUPPORT OF FINDINGS I. The air quality impacts during the construction phase identified in the environmental document will be minimized to the maximum extent feasible and would be associated with all possible other project al- ternatives . 2. The air quality impacts associated with the operational phase of the project have been or will be reduced because of the traffic-related Conditions of Approval . L x W 3. The effects on air quality from project-related stationary source emissions will be mitigated through energy-conscious design and materials used in the project. 4. The effects on air quality from mobile source emissions associated with the project will be partially mitigated by traffic-related Con- ditions of Approval , including improvements to intersections and signalization. There are no other feasible mitigation measures . It is not feasible to avoid air quality impacts because air quality impacts would be associated with all other alternatives to the pruject. 5. The cumulative impact on air quality that will result from the im- plementation of the project will not be entirely mitigated inasmuch 'as this is a regional problem that cannot be solved on a case by case basis . However, the level of impact is acceptable as herein described. 6. All significant environmental effects that can feasibly be avoided have been eliminated or substantially lessened by virtue of mitigation measures identified in the final environmental document and incorpor- ated into the project. NOISE IMPACT Localized short-term impacts would occur during construction. FINDINGS (a) Specific economic, social and other considerations make infeasible and the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the final EIR Addendum. (b) The significant effect which remains will be substantially lessened through the incorporation of mitigation measures into the project, and the remaining effect is , when balanced against the facts set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations , and giving greater weight to the significant effects , acceptable. FACTS IN SUPPORT OF FINDINGS 1 . During the construction phase of the project, surrounding commercial and office facilities will be subjected to annoyance noise occurring intermittently. 2. Noise generated during the construction of the -project cannot be avoided. 3. There are no sensitive noise receptors such as residential uses , schools or health care facilities adjacent to the project site which would be impacted by construction-related noise. The noise effect is therefore acceptable. 3 , I • � I� Lit 4. The final EIR Addendum does not identify noise from the operation of the project as having a significant effect. Nevertheless the condi- tions of approval require that the applicants attenuate noise from mechanical equipment and emergency power generators to acceptable levels in receptor areas and that the applicants deposit an amount not to exceed $14,415 .= to a fund for the construction of a noise wall on Jamboree Road between Ford Road and Eastbluff Drive North . 5 . The noise impacts from the operation of the project would be asso- ciated with all other alternatives to the project. 6. The proposed project will be designed in such a manner so as to minimize the impacts of external noise sources on the facilities . PUBLIC SERVICES/UTI'LITIES IMPACTS There will be a sustained increase in demand for energy resources despite energy efficient design . Further developments in Koll Center when considered with other ongoing growth in the area would have cumulative impacts on all service systems . FINDINGS (a) Specific economic, social and other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the final EIR Addendum. (b) The significant effect which remains will be substantially lessened through the incorporation of mitigation measures into the project, and the remaining effect is , when balanced against the facts set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations , and giving greater weight to the significant effects , acceptable . FACTS IN SUPPORT OF FINDINGS 1 . The impacts resulting from the 'project on fire and police services will be mitigated by conditions of approval on the Phasing Plan . These con- ditions require that the applicants ' landscape plan for the project place heavy emphasis on fire-retardant vegetation , that the City Fire Department approve access , that the applicants equip all buildings with approved fire suppression systems , that the City approve all on-site fire protection systems , that the applicants incorporate a "defensible + space" concept into the project and that the applicants incorporate an approved internal security system (i .e. , security guards , alarms and access limits after hours ) . 2. There is adequate capacity in Koll Center Newport for the provision of water and sewer services to the project. I I � + I 3. The effects of the project 'od the consumption of water and production of waste water will 'be mitigated by conditions of approval on the " Phasing Plan . These conditions require that the landscape plan for the project emphasize drought-resistant native vegetation, that the project' s final design incorporate water-saving devices for lavatories and other water using facilities and that the applicants implement an approved program for the sorting of recyclable material from other solid waste. 4. The cumulative impact of the project and all other developments on non-renewable energy resources will not be entirely mitigated inasmuch as this is a national or worldwide problem that cannot be solved on a case by case basis . However, the level of impact is acceptable as hereinafter described. • • Attachment 2 STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS ( 1 ) The project will have a beneficial aesthetic effect . The project site is a now vacant lot with initial construction taking placelacking..any scenic or aesthetic value. The design of the project will be an asset to the community. Conditions of approval of the Phasing Plan call for the planting of trees and shrubs of sufficient size and height to screen views of parking areas and these and other landscaping requirements will contribute to the pleasing appear- ance of the project. (2) The project will have a significant fiscal benefit to the City of Newport Beach in the following respects : (a) The City of Newport Beach will receive additional revenue if the project is developed as proposed. (b ) Approval of the project is conditioned upon a contribution by the developer of an additional $48,075 . = to be utilized by the City of Newport Beach for the purpose of traffic and circulation improvements throughout the City. (c) Approval of the project is conditioned upon a contribution by the developer of approximately $ to be used by the City of Newport Beach in the construction of a sound attenuation wall along the west side of Jamboree between Eastbluff Drive North and Ford Road. (3) The project will have a significant beneficial impact on traffic in that improvements associated with the project as Conditions of Approval will reduce the estimated ICU values from those that would be anticipated without those improvements . The intersections bene- fited are among those most heavily impacted by traffic at the present time. (4) The project represents an in-filling of vacant urban parcels in an area where surrounding uses are compatible with , and supportive of, the proposed use , and where facilities and services are adequate to support the proposed use . (5) The proposed project is consistent with the goals , policies and objectives of the community as expressed in its General Plan and 1 Zoning Regulations . (6) The proposed project is consistent with and compatible to other existing and proposed uses of land in the vicinity of the project and community generally. . • PTThchmE�r tlo. J qq CCxv1MISSIONERS MINUTES April 24 , 1980 City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL INDEX Comm ioner Beek stated his preference that car- ports n ever be counted as floor space. Commissione aidinger suggested postponing dis- cussion of th item to a study session. 'The Planning Commi on and Staff then briefly discussed Commission Beek's six suggested amend ments to the Zoning Co Commissioner Beek suggested at they repeal the prohibition on parking ih bot ide yards . (Commissioner McLaughlin arrived a :45 p.m. ) Motion x Motion was made that this item be cont ed to the Ayes x x x x regular Planning Commission meeting of Ma , Absent * * 1980, and that this item also be discussed the 'Study Session on May 8, 1980. * * * Request to consider a Phasing Plan for the re- Item #2 maining development in Office Site C for the Koll Center Planned Community, and the acceptance of PHASING an Environmental Document. �� LOCATION: Office Site C of the Planned Com- APPROVED munity of Koll Center Newport, lo- runt-— cated easterly of MacArthur Boule- TTWLLY vard between Campus Drive and Birch Street. ZONE: P-C APPLICANT: The Irvine Company, Newport Beach OWNER: Same as Applicant Fred Talarico, Environmental Coordinator, com- mented that the applicant submitted an amendment to the Traffic Phasing 'Plan dealing with the in- tersection of MacArthur Boulevard and Campus -5- ' • • r COMMISSIONERS MINUTES �S April 24 , 1980 City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL INDEX Drive. He stated that they had suggested an ads ditional improvement that would lower the ICU from 1.0843 to 1. 0011. 1 In response to a question posed by Commissioner " Haidinger, Mr. Talarico commented that on the MacArthur Boulevard/Campus Drive intersection ICU, the applicant' s traffic support consultant has suggested an additional improvement, as the existing intersection is .96 and that a year from the time the project is developed, the ICU for that intersection is computed at 1 .0843. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Allen , James Hewicker, Planning Director, replied that the only time solar water heating was dis- cussed was at the time of the proposed building for Sutton Industries . In response to a question posed by Commissioner Haidinger, Richard Edmonston, Traffic Engineer, replied that he had reviewed this from the ex- tent of the numerical analysis and that the only question that remains is whether possibly north' of the intersection there is adequate right-of- way existing, or further right-of-way may neces- sarily be required to make the improvements . The discussion continued regarding this item and Ron Hendrickson , Irvine Company, appeared before the Planning Commission and commented on solar water heating, pointing out that on these build- ings they are required to meet the State'.s Title 24 and that they always look at solar water heat- ing and if it is practical , feasible and energy- 4 saving, they will consider incorporating it. He added that there are cases where it is not feas- ible and there are other means in the building where they can save energy to a greater extent than making the expenditure on solar water heat- ing. He stated that they underwent an analysis of their two four-story twin buildings at the Airport Business. Center and discovered that it was not feasible, to go to solar water heating in' those two buildings . He expressed their feeling -6- t A COMMISSONERS . 1980 MINUTES April 24, 3 City Newport Beach ROLL CALL. INDEX that they meet the requirements for the Test of Reasonableness and that there is a reasonable correlation between the traffic projected at the time of the project completion and the capacity of the affected intersections . He reminded the Planning Commission that the project has already been subjected' to a rather substantial reduction by virtue of General Plan Amendment 79-2, and that there was a 35% reduction in the project at th at time. He stated that ductions of any of the other hprojects dintKolle Cen- ter. He explained that there are three inter- sections that are affected by the project that are already Drive/Bris- tol Streets which cICU is only being sincreased iby 0016; Campus Drive/MacArthur Boulevard, to which the Irvine Company is making improvements to both Campus Drive and MacArthur Boulevard, widening Campus Drive on the south side, east of the inter- sections and widening MacArthur Boulevard on the east side, south of the intersection at a cost of E115000. He added that their additional proposal is the suggestion that the 'northbound free right turn lane be converted to an optional through lane, northbound, which would further reduce the ICU. He stated that this optional through lane would cost about $5 ,000. Commissioner Balalis expressed his concern that the intersection of Campus Drive/MacArthur Boule- vard is in desperate need of being improved im- mediately, Mr. Hendrickson expressed his feeling that the reason the improvements have not gone ahead is that the projects to which those improvements were tied haven 't gone ahead. He then concluded that at the intersection of Campus Drive/Jamboree Road, there is currently an ICU of 1. 1159 and with the approval of this project, the ICU would be reduced to .9375. He also conclud ed that Staff suggests , and they concur, that the si9 nalization of Bir ch Street/Jamboree Road be considered by the Irvine Co mpany and that they would consent to -7- ' 0 COMMISSIONERS MINUTES q 7 April 24, 1980 City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL INDEX paying for half 'of this and Koll Center would pay for the other half. + Commissioner A11pn inquired regarding fire pro- tection to which Mr. Hewicker replied that they are undergoing discussion regarding closure of the fire station at the airport. Mr. Hendrickson stated his understanding that the Newport Beach Fire Department feels that the service to that area will be adequate. Mr. Hewicker confirmed that were the fire station at the airport closed, there would be adequate protection from the Newport Beach Fire Department to protect the Einkay Development and Koll Center. He added, however, that the level of fire pro- tection from what currently exists would• drop and the fire insurance rates for the buildings in tha area would go up', but wouldn ' t necessarily affect the overall insurance ratings for the City. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Balalis , Mr. Edmonston replied that one of the conditions states that this is subject to the more precise determination of the events that have taken place in the meantime. Commissioner Balalis suggested that the inter- section of Campus Drive/MacArthur Boulevard be completed prior to grading for the buildings . Mr. Edmonston informed the Planning Commission that the .State has a project at several intersec- tions along MacArthur Boulevard to upgrade the signals , that they currently hope to bid on in I November of 1980. He added that the project as shown in their plans now envisions the widening to have taken place at that time , agreed upon between the developer and the state in discussing who was going to do what as far as the improve- ments. He explained that initially the: State was going to do the Widening as well , but was ap- prised that it had been conditioned upon the de- veloper in appro'kimately the same time frame and it was worked out that the developer would do the widening and the City would do the' signal work. -8- 1 1 COMMISSIONERS April 24, 1980 MINUTES City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL INDEX Commissioner Balalis again expressed his concern that the improvements on this intersection be done immediately. t Mr. Hendrickson informed the Planning Commission that the Irvine Company is currently in the pro- cess of awarding a contract for the construction of the first 100,000 sq. ft. of that project, which is the 30t allowable .building area, and in- cluded in the work on that project is the widen- ing on the south side of Campus Drive and on the east side of MacArthur Boulevard. In. response to a comment made by Commissioner Balalis , Mr. Hendrickson commented that CalTrans will be involved in this project and it could slow down the process immediately. He stated that their intent is to make an effort to ensure that the contractor starts that work as fast as possible. He concluded that they would probably loose their bids on this project i.f they had to postpone construction until these improvements are completed. In response to a correction made by Commissioner Allen that the traffic figures are in error to the extent that they do not include all of the resi- dential project, Mr. Talarico replied that the Weston Pringle ,Report incorporates all of the in- dustrial and that there are separate discretion- ary actions that were part of the stipulated judgement on a residential project, so that it will have to meet certain further tests, as will the retail , service and commercial , which is subject to a separate traffic phasing plan. He added that this is not considered committed. Commissioner Allen stated her concerns about the facts related to this project, including: 1) 3,000 additional vehicle trips per day; 2) exist- ing and regional and committed traffic without project-related improvements indicates the future increase of the traffic problem in the area, and, ' 3') project and project-related improvements indi- cates that every intersection gets worse even -9- • �— COMMISSIONERS MINUTES / April 24, 1980 -4 �Fa City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL INDEX with said project-related improvements . She fur- ther expressed her concern with the future pro- blem of electricity and of fire protection. She then stated her desire to add an additional con- dition that the company contribute a portion to the circulation and transit fund that was es- tablished with City Council action on Civic Plaza , based on a percentage as applied to Civic Plaza for similar unmitigated impacts . She added that in addition to this , the Civic Plaza contribution to this fund was $90,000, based on 234,706 sq . ft. , or 38. 3� a sq . ft. She stated that Block C is 232,830 sq. ft. at 38. 3t a sq. ft. , which comes to $89,173. She expressed her feeling that the advantage and public benefit of this mitiga- tion is obvious : not only' does it contribute to the City' s transit and circulation fund and pro- vide money for road improvements , not necessarily the ones closest to- the project itself, but it contributes to the overall improvement of traffic circulation in the City, which is to the benefit of the company as well as the City. She con- cluded that in addition, every dollar contributed by the developer can qualify for federal or coun- ty matching funds , which is a double benefit to the citizens of the City as well as the Irvine Company. In response to a .question posed by Commissioner Balalis , Mr. Hendrickson replied that the cost of the road improvements that they will be making is $120,000. Mr. Edmonston added that new sig- nals will be installed at that intersection at $60,000, for which the state would not reimburse them. A representative from the Irvine Company explain- ed that this project includes new asphalt., needed because of pavement failure and cracks . In response to a question posed by Commissioner Balalis , Mr. Edmonston replied that the portion of the improvements that pertains to MacArthur Boulevard/Campus Drive that CalTrans will be per- forming primarily relates to the interconnect pro- ject in that they are replacing the existing traf- -10- I COMMISSIONERS MINUTES � April 24 , 1980 I I �L City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL INDEX fic signal control equipment at every intersec- tion in that stretch and there will also be some new poles at that intersection to account for the double left turns. In response to another question posed by Commis- sioner Balalis, Mr. Edmonston replied that the work CalTrans is doing can be done independently of the Irvine Company's planned improvements. I'n response to yet another question posed by Com- missioner Balalis , Mr. Edmonston replied that the CalTrans project and the Irvine road improve- ments project are related, but the project that is proposed, by the Irvine Company is an interim project, because in addition to that project, the State project involves some restriping to provide the additional lanes. He added that the width would be there at the completion of the Irvine Company' s project, but the configuration of the lanes would be changed, as well as some of the signal equipment, by -the State 's project. He concluded that it is basically equipment and striping and not additional widening . In response to an additional question posed by Commissioner Balalis , Mr. Edmonston replied that the Irvine Company' s Campus Drive/MacArthur Boule- vard improvements would be an improvement of and by itself, but would be less than the total improvement shown in the consultant' s report, be- cause of the striping and additional signal equipment that goes along with the striping change. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Haidinger, Mr. Edmonston replied that when the paving is done, the striping can be done, but when extra lanes are created, additional detec- tion in the street is required so that the new lanes will provide input to the traffic signal equipment, which must be coordinated with the State. He concluded that he anticipates that Cal/Trans will be letting the contract for the inter-connect in November, which will include -11- y • � 14 COMMISSIONERS MINUTES 151/ April 24, 1980 � f City .of Newport Beach ROLL CALL INDEX new lanes and new sensors . Mr. Hendrickson stated that they would not start their project until the improvement of the widen- ing of Campus Drive/MacArthur Boulevard is made. He added that they are still waiting for a permit from CalTrans to begin work. Mr. Hewicker commented that on the Civic Plaza project, the Irvine Company was required to do- nate to the City the $90,000 to be used i-n the vicinity of Newport Center. He added that it is not known how this fund will grow or how they will obtain state and federal matching funds , because the City is not at the present time divided into zones to which these funds can be assigned. He continued that the way it was initially set up was that the $90 ,000 would be used in the vicinit of Newport Center, so that as these funds are col- lected and more projects come down the road and the Planning Commission desires to add these kind of conditions , the money that must be given to the City by the developer is going to necessarily have to be spent in areas that will most benefit the project. Commissioner Haidinger stated his understanding that there is nothing that can be done at this intersection that isn ' t already being done and that he did not understand how Commissioner Allen ' s concept could be applied specifically to this intersection. Commissioner Balalis stated his preference that the $90,000 be spent to specifically solve the traffic problems , rather than put into a fund. Mr. Edmonston explained that for the most part the City has initiated procedures to make these im- provements as they have been needed and that there are other improvements that are scheduled to be made at the time of future developments . -12- a i %j c COMMISSIONERS R MINUTES 5z April 24 , 1980 i D� City of Newport Beach ROLL CA!L INDEX Mr. Hendrickson again appeared before the Planning Commission in response to Commissioner Allen's proposal and asked Whether the figures for the improvements of the half of the signal at Jam- boree Road/Birch Street, the improvement at Campus Drive/MacArthur Boulevard and the wall would be subtracted u tracted from .her $89 ,000 figure. Commissioner Allen responded that this Was not done in the case of Civic Plaza, but was an ad- ditional mlti tion 90 measure to mitigate the in- tersections that were unmitigable by any project- related improvement that was feasible. Commissioner McLaughlin 'stated that she could not support a motion that would require this of the applicant. Mr. Hendrickson stated that they do want to im- prove the traffic conditions beyond what the im- pacts of the projects are and that they would be willing to accept what has been proposed, although they are concerned as to what will happen with the circulation and transit fund and they would ac- quiesce to these conditions with the understand- ing that the Planning Commtssion. or City Council or Staff will soon designate how these funds could best be spent. Motion x Motion was made that the planning Commission make Ayes K x x x the following findings : Absent 1. That environmental documentation on this pro- posed project has been prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act and City Policy K-3 and that its contents have been considered in decisions on this project. 2. That the Phasing Plan is consistent with the Newport Beach General Plan and the Planned Community Development plan for Koll Center enter , -13- • (:OMMISSIC)NER5 MINUTES 53 April 24 , 1980 ZA City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL INDEX 3. That based on the Phasing Plan and support- ing information slubmitted therewith , there is a reasonable correlation between project- ed traffic at time of completion and the ca- pacity of affected intersections . 4. That the applicant has taken into considera- tion in the preparation of his plan charac- teristics in the design of his development which either reduce traffic generation or guide traffic onto less impact arterials or through intersections in the least con- gested direction. and approve the Phasing Plan for the remaining development in Office Site C for the Koll Center Planned Community , subject to the following re- vised conditions : 1. That prior to the occupancy of any buildings on the site beyond the existing development and 107 ,460 sq. ft: of new construction, the circulation system improvements contained in the Traffic Report, dated February 19, 1980, Table 4, Page X, shall have been con- structed, (unless subsequent project approval requires modification thereto . The circula- tion systems improvements shall be subject to the approval of the City Traffic Engi - neer) . 2. That prior to the occupancy of any buildings on the site beyond the existing development and 107,460 sq. ft. of new construction, the circulation system improvements required of committed projects listed on Page 4 of the Traffic Report dated February 19 , 1980, for the intersections listed in "Table 3" of said report shall also have been constructed, (un- less subsequent project approval requires modification thereto. The circulation sys- tem improvements shall be subject to the ap- proval of the City Traffic Engineer) . -14- 1 A COMMISSIONERS MINUTES 5y = April 24, 1980 City of New t Beach ROLL CALL INDEX 3. That all development on the proposed project site shall be in conformance with the Traffi Phasing Plan and these conditions of appro- val . 4. That prior to the issuance of any building permits , the applicants shall in to th Planning Director in writing that they under stand and agree to condition nos. 1 through 3 above. 5. That the architectural character and land- scape design established within the existing Koll Center Newport shall be maintained. 6. A landscape and irrigation plan for the pro- ject shall be prepared by a licensed land- scape architect. The landscape plan shalt integrate and phase the installation of land- scaping with the proposed construction sche- dule. (Prior to the occupancy of any struc- ture, the licensed landscape architect shall certify to the Planning Department that th'e landscaping has been installed in accordance with the prepared plan. ) 7 . That landscape plan shall be subject to the review of the Parks , Beaches and Recreation Department and approval- of the Planning De- partment. 8. The landscape plan shall include a mainten- ance program which controls the use of fer- tilizers and pesticides. 9. The landscape plan shall place heavy emphasis on the use of drought-resistant native vege- tation and be irrigated via a system designed to avoid surface runoff and over watering. 0. That erosion control measures shall be done on any exposed slopes within thirty days af- ter grading or as approved by the Grading Engineer so as to reduce erosion potential . -15- C i 9� COMMISSIONERS • 0 MINUTES 7�l April 24 , 1980 City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL INDEX 11. Development of the site will be subject to a grading permit to be approved by the Build- ing and Planning Departments . Surface and subsurface drainage shall be provided to the satisfaction of the Build.ing Department and . the Public Works Department. 12. That the grading plan shall include a com- plete plan for temporary and permanent drain- age facilities , to minimize any potential impacts from silt, debris , and other water pollutants . 13. The grading permit shall include, if requir- ed , a description of haul routes , access points to the site and a watering and sweep- ing program designed to minimize impacts of haul operation. 14. That the graded slopes at all intersections be designed to provide sight distance for a speed of 25 m.p.h. Landscaping, walls , and other physical obstructions shall be con- sidered in the sight distance requirements . The sight distance requirements may be ap- propriately modified at non-critical loca- tions , subject to approval of the City Traf- fic Engineer. 15. An erosion and dust control plan shall be submitted with the grading permit applica- tion and be subject to the approval of the Building Department. 16. That an erosion and siltation control plan be approved by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board - Santa Ana Region, and the plan be submitted to said Board thirty (30) days prior to any construction activities. -16- CC)MMISSONERS • • MINUTES April 24, 1980 City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL INDEX 17. That the applicant provide for weekly vacuum sweeping of all parking areas. 18. That the applicant provide on-site retention basins (i .e. grease traps) in accordance with the requirements of the Building De- partment., and provide for their maintenance. The maintenance program shall be reviewed by the Director of General Services and ap- proved by the Building Department. 19. That grading shall be conducted in accordant 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. Perma- nent reproducible copies of the "Approved as Built" grading plans on standard size sheets shall be furnished to the Building Department, 20. The velocity of concentrated runoff from the project shall be evaluated and erosive velo- cities controlled as part of the project design. 21. That final design of the project shall pro- vide for the incorporation of water-saving devices for project lavatories and other water using facilities. 22. Prior to the occupancy of any buildings , a program for the sorting of recyclable mater- ial from other solid wastes shall be develop- ed and approved by the Planning Department. 23. That should any resources be uncovered during construction, that a qualified archaeologist or paleontologist evaluate the site prior to completion of construction activities, .and that all work on the site be done in accor- dance with' the City's Council Policies K-5 and K-6. -17- COMMISSIONERS 0 . MINUTES April 24 , 1980 5 7 -+ � City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL INDEX 24. That the final design of on-site pedestrian circulation be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department and the Planning De- partment. I i 25. That prior to the issuance of any building permits , the applicants shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Planning Department that all practicable measures to reduce to- tal and peak hour traffic (i .e. car pool/van pool , staggered employee work hours , tenant mix) have been or will be taken. 26. That any mechanical equipment and emergency power generators shall be screened from view and noise associated with said shall be at- tenuated 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 ap- proved 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 is- suance of any grading and building permits . 30. The proposed project shall incorporate and internal securing system (i .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 prior to the occupancy of the proposed project, a traffic signal should be installed at the intersection of Jamboree Road and -18- l 7. CQNIMISSIONER5 MINUTES 58 'April 24, 1980 1 1. 4 Fii 4 City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL INDEX Birch Street. Further, that 50% of the fund ing for the said traffic signal' shall be the responsibility of the applicant. 32. That all applicable conditions of Resubdivi - sion No. 603 be met. 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 proportional to the percentage of future additional traffic related to the project in the 'subject area, but not to exceed $11,000, to be used for the construction of a wall on the westerly side of Jamboree Road betwee Eastbluff Drive and Ford Road. 34. That the work at the intersection of MacAr- thur Boulevard/Campus Drive be completed prior to starting construction on any build- ing on the remaining 70%. It is understood that said improvement is subject to CalTrans ' approval of the permit. 35. That the sum of $90,000 be provided for circulation and traffic improvements to intersections as specified in Volume 2, 'Page 7 of the addendum to the Environmental Impact Report as shown on the City's Master Plan of Circulation consistent with the GO- eral Plan, with priority given to improve- ments within the vicinity of the project, if feasible. Motion x Motion was made that the Planning Commission make Ayes x x K x the following findings : Noes Absent * 1. That a Draft Addendum to the Certified Final Environmental Impact Report - Koll Center Newport Planned Community Development for The Irvine Company property has been prepare in compliance with the California Environ- mental Quality Act and that its contents -19- C MISSK)NERSJ 0 MINUTES 5�9 April 24, 1980 City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL INDEX have been considered in the decisions on this project. 2. That based upon the information contained within the environmental documents , the pro- posed project will have a significant en- vironmental impact, the project subject to the conditions listed below incorporates sufficient mitigation measures so that the economic and social benefits to the commun- ity override any presently anticipated nega- tive environmental effects of the project. Motion x and accept the Environmental Impact Report and Ayes x x x x recommend that the City Council accept same. Noes Absent * Commissioner Beek stated that he could not approv an amendment to an Environmental Impact Report which he felt was totally inadequate, as it fails to address the fact that they are creating more employment in an area which has too much employ- ment and too little housing , that it is creating more traffic in an area that is already traffic- impacted , and where the surrounding intersections seem to have no hope of being rescued from unsa- tisfactory conditions . He also noted that at the time the Koll Center development plan was approv- ed, it was vigorously opposed by the Irvine Com- pany on the grounds that it would create traffic which the transportation system could not bear. The anning Commission recessed at 9:55 p.m. and recon ed at 10 : 10 p.m. * * * Request to cons er an amendment to Chapter 20. 42 Item #3 of the Newport Be Municipal Code as it per- tains to permitting sidential uses in the M-i-A AMEND- District, and the acce nce of an Environmental RENT—No. Document r2— INITIATED BY: Pity of Newpor each APPROVED -20- t i i ATTACHMENT NO. 4 6b J Attachment No. 1 to the ADDENDUM TO THE CERTIFIED FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT KOLL CENTER NEWPORT PLANNED COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT TOTOAL BUILDOUT OF IRVINE COMPANY PROPERTY Prepared for: CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING DEPARTMENT 3300 West Newport Blvd. Newport Beach , California 92663 Prepared by: CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING DEPARMENT (714) 640-2197 and WESTEC SERVICES, INC . 118 Brookhollow Drive Santa Ana , California 92705 (714) 556-9350 JANUARY 1981 NOTICE OF COMPLETION and MAILING LIST I_ ♦ a DATE 11/'l_D/Rtl _ _ _ NOTICE OF COMPLETION i0. FROM: Planning Department City of Newport Beach Secretary for Resources 3300 Newport Boulevard 1400 Tenth Street Newport Beach, CA 92663 Sacramento, CA 05814 DATE: November 20, 1980 PROJECT Addendum to the Certified Final EIR - Roll Center Newport, Total Buildout of TITLE: The Irvine Company Property PROJECT LOCATION - Undeveloped area between MacArthur Blvd. , Von Karman Ave., Campus Dr., SPECIFIC: and Birch Street PROJECT LOCATION - Newport Beach PROJECT LOCATION Orange CITY: COUNTY: g DESCRIPTION OF NATURE, PURPOSE AND BENEFICIARIES OF PROJECT: The project involves the construction of an additional 125*370 square feet of com- mercial office space by The Irvine Company on Site C Within the Koll Center Newport ' Development. This project would bring the total approved square footage of commercial office space to 379,800 for The Irvine Company Holdings, which is consistent with the original Koll Center Newport Planned Community Text. The City of Newport Beach is the Lead Agency for this project. A copy of the Draft Environmental Impact Report: LnJ is attached for your review ❑ -is available for review at the Department of Community Development •3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 REVIEW PERIOD: 32 DAYS ENDING ON: December 22, 1980 CONTACT PERSON: Fred Talarico TITLE: Environmental Coordinator PHONE 714/640-2197 DATE__. ! ILf80 _• __ _�• NOTICE OF COMPLETION TO: See attached list FROM- Planning Department City of Newport Beach ❑ 3300 Newport Boulevard �a ro- i0 Newport Beach, CA 92663 N. JJ DATE: November 20, 1980 x PROJECT Addendum to the Certified Final EIR - Koll Center Newport, Tolal Buildout o TITLE: The Irvine Company Property PROJECT LOCATION - Undeveloped area between MacArthur Blvd., Von Karman Ave.., Campus Dr. SPECIFIC: and Birch Street PROJECT LOCATION - PROJECT LOCATION - CITY: Newport Beach COUNTY: Orange DESCRIPTION OF NATURE, PURPOSE AND BENEFICIARIES OF PROJECT: The project involves the construction of an additional 125, 370 square feet of com- mercial office space by The Irvine Company on Site C within the Koll Center Newport Development. This project would bring the total approved square footage of commercial office space to 379,800 for The Irvine Company Holdings, which is consistent with the original Koll Center Newport Planned Community Text. The City of Newport Beach is the Lead Agency for this project. A copy of the Draft Environmental Impact Report: 0 is attached for your review ❑ -is available for review at the Department of Community Development .3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 REVIEW PERIOD: 32 DAYS ENDING ON: December 22, 1980 7 CONTACT PERSON: Fred Talarico TITLE: Environmental Coordinator PHONE: 714/640-219 G Notice of Completion and Supplemental EIR Irvine Ranch Water District 4201 Campus Drive Irvine, CA 92714 S.A.R.W.Q.C.B. 6833 Indiana Avenue, S-2 Riverside, CA 92506 South Coast Air Quality Management District 9420 Telstar Avenue El Monte, CA 91731 S.C.A.G. 600 S. Commonwealth Los Angeles, CA 90005 Airport Land Use Commission 18741 N. Airport Way Santa Ana, CA 92702 State of California Office of Planning and Research 1400 Tenth Street Sacramento, CA 95814 Business and Transportation Agency Ann Barkley Division Chief, DOTP Dept. A-95 Coordinator Sacramento, CA 95814 C.V. Wright Southern California Edison Company Westminster, CA 92683 Jack Tatham Pacific Telephone 1700 Garry Avenue, Room 214 Santa Ana, CA 927.05 1� OATL__ __ I1 ?.U180 NOTICE OF COMPLETION TO: See attached list �• FROM: Planning Department I � City of Newport Beach LJ �. 3300 Newport. Boulevard -� Newport Beach, CA 92663 ,} ;v _T1_ s DATE: November 20, 1980 PROJECT Addendum to the Certified Final EIR - Koll Center Newport, Total Buildouto TITLE: The Irvine Company Property PROJECT LOCATION - Undeveloped area between MacArthur Blvd. , Von Karman Ave., , Campus Dr. SPECIFIC: and Birch Street , PROJECT LOCATION - PROJECT LOCATION - CITY: Newport Beach COUNTY: Orange DESCRIPTION OF NATURE, PURPOSE AND BENEFICIARIES OF PROJECT: The project involves the construction of an additional 125,370 square feet of com- mercial office space by The Irvine Company on Site C within the Koll Center Newport Development. This project would bring the total approved square footage of commercial office space to 379,800 for The Irvine Company Holdings, which is consistent with the original Koll Center Newport Planned Community Text. The City of Newport Beach is the Lead Agency for this project. A copy of the Draft Environmental Impact Report: ❑ is attached for your review 0 is available for review at the Department of Community Development 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 REVIEW PERIOD: 32 DAYS ENDING ON: December 22, 1980 CONTACT PERSON: Fred Talarico TITLE: Environmental Coordinator PHONE: 714/640-2197 1 a Notice of Completion Orange County Environmental Management Agency P.O. Box 4048 Santa Ana, CA 92702 County Sanitation Districts P.O. Box 8127 Fountain Valley, CA 92708 CALTRANS 1120 "N" Street Sacramento, CA 95814 State of California Air Resources Board P.O. Box 2815 Sacramento, CA 95812 Department of Fish and Game 1419 9th Street Sacramento, CA 95814 Bobby Lovell 1242 W. Ocean Front Newport Beach, CA 92661 S.P.O.N. Jean Watt 4 Harbor Island Newport Beach, CA 92663 L.E.A.F. c/o Clemente Shure Shure, Mihaly be Weinberger 396 Hayes, Suite One San Francisco, CA 94102 City of Irvine Attn: Ray Heatherton P.O. Box 14575 Irvine, CA 92715 COMMENTS I r, unnexrvn NL1x{X IL�IXMT WATER ```` 'K'K11 IRVI.NE �tl1N'G�I �11�TER DEVI1 I(T P.D.BOX D-104201 rampur Dnve•irwre,calif.92718.1714/833.1223 Dece 980 1032KL12/80 S OR 3.10 City of Newport Beach rr:lt SE 6.5:1 Planning Department tr DEC4 1980> 3300 Newport Boulevard rrrlo:' Newport Beach, CA 92663 cn�sr. Attn: Mr. Fred Talarico \ �" Re: Addendum to the Certified Final EIR - Ko11 Center Newport, To tal B uT'ldout of The Irvine Comp any Property P Y Dear Mr. Talarico: The Irvine Ranch Water District (IRWD) appreciates this opportunity to review the "Addendum to the Certified Final EIR - Koll Center Newport," dated November 1980. There are two items which should be noted in the final version of this report. First, on page 17, it is stated that "The underground basin is largely by the present development since the major source water is supplied by theffected Metropolitan Water District's aqueduct system via the Irvine Ranch Water District." By this statement we presume you are referring to possible declines in ground- water basin levels due to extraction of groundwater for municipal use. Please be advised that IRWD is currently planning a major conjunctive use well 11 field which will ex-tract u to 20 00 p 0 acre feet of water per year from the main Orange County Groundwater Basin to serve existing and planned development 'm within IRWD. The area to be Ppo served by this well field project may include Kol Y 1 Center Newport. Although the well field project is not expected to result in severe, permanent decreases in groundwater elevations, the possible future source of water supply to the development in question should be clarified. Also, on page 30, you discuss the responsibility of IRWD to provide water supply to the proposed project. Please note that IRWD, and not the City of Newport Beach Public Works Department, has the responsibility for actual distribution of water to the area in question. Upon completion of the final version of the above subject addendum, we would appreciate receiving a copy for our files. If you have any questions concerning our comments on this document, please do not hesitate to contact me or Mr. Gregory P. Heiertz of this office. Sincerely, /.��tfi�iC iSasiJ�►••3•l•�. Keith Lewinger Q Planning Section KL/GPH:rvb Section Head r r ��-,�......,�.� nJ.t ��..R/1J..1'•il 1Jlr'1.1J, ,��_., !(r:..r.J � 1,�.> Fr.�,.. t ( of O ILi, 111./1 D(111/11 Y11:1!•i, 41}0 I . I LAM I'll.. I [. G+Url 1'L, (,A •f1/.N O,� f AI.IAIWIM OVI'1<.I:• U•ID 1% IIAl I. IM., AIIAII AM. (.n :r.;nub (nnJ !•••l nov •`�/ CANSON OF1-!Ct:• �Ml noel I N PI_., !•I'A(A 1% CAI('.on, CA •10/46 . (%].1) s fe•clnz '\�i C0I.1.0N OFI"ICB, eau'.o COBL1:Y uu., ( (x:rool, cn uz.(za (nnl uan A64,I+ ,,I,`�l \��•/ Planning Department Cityof Newport llal:c _ 12/8/80 - wport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. +D File. No . B 011215 1 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Ael" --_ COMMENTS ON: -- Addendum to Certified EIR-Koll Center NgwMq. t_ ADJ?QUACY OI A'l.Tt Q1JA1, 1 'I'1' nNIATYSTS Acl ICJ cwtLo Inadequ_(rc Existing Asir, Quality in �rroa -- --- —• — D (1) C' Isxist:inct; &IiSS1011S '.!Ti Area —• - - -- ED Project Emissions : Construction Pharr --- — — Compl.et id Project- Veb i culax -- — — — Complc..t:cd Proj strt i.om'Iy -- .-- —_ 1_5�c.:!i: g - Pro•I(te( Tml!nct on Ai I: Qun.l i ry- ----- Me AD1;Q11ATJi M.P.f.'TGATTON tL:AS(]I;1;S PIZO'dJc1J:D FOR Yes_ IncormuleCc: PROJECT A`.I:1; TQ7.I..UTA^!'c5� _ r� r I _. AIU.J CTiOWTJJ INDUCINC7 ETF11X'I•fi OF PROJECT ON Yes: Inc( -11_cte. l.'OI.L(JTANT'L:P�i.CSSlONS l�ll;i:(?ll�'L'JL�Y• l>'LSI:(ISSia)? -- - ----I--= AQMD PERi9IT POT1iMlML V,[�FE t' ON AIR 011AL-ITY (AO) -X� Not required lkncficin'l.: w1l.l probably t:cnd to :improva AQ Roquired No efjoc.t- May be 'regtri_red, "g' Minar 3.ntnaiimnt of c•onCnct. _ 1hfavorabl'Ic: nrly dolgrack AQ to a sign-H-J.cnnt: exCcn.L Adverse: will dci;rade AO t.o a S',lf Cificant: ex Lent Inclovenilinat'c: s;oc- not(. on other, side of page t a {�_6 . • 70 (1) 1979 data are enclosed and should be used in the document. Very truly yours , J. A. Stuart Executive Officer. Brian 19. Parris, IIead. Impact Analysis and Energy Resources Section Headquarters If ,you have- any ftir.ther gtiesrions , p:irnse call �� --�- ai (J.:13) 572-. 6418,_: enclo. I;N. OAT(. 11/20/8() • NOlIC1 Of COMM1110N TO: See attached list FROM: Planning Department n City of Newport Beach ❑ , . , •3300 Newport Boulevard 1980 = Newport Beach, CA 92663 1� CIH• 71 DATE: November 20, 1980 PROJECT Addendum to the Certified Final EIR - Roll Center Newport, Total Buildout o TITLE: The Irvine Company Property PROJECT LOCATION - Undeveloped area between MacArthur Blvd., Von Karman Ave.., Campus Dr. SPECIFIC: and Birch Street PROJECT LOCATION - PROJECT LOCATIO CITY: Newport Beach COUNTY: Orange DESCRIPTION OF NATURE, PURPOSE AND BENEFICIARIES OF PROJECT: The project involves the construction of an additional 125,370 square feet of com- mercial office spade by The Irvine Company on Site C within the Roll Center Newport Development. This, project would bring the total approved square footage of commercial office space to 379.,800 for The Irvine Company Holdings, which is: consistent with the original Roll Center Newport Planned Community Text. The City of Newport Beach is the Lead Agency for this project. A copy of the Draft Environmental Impact Report: €ti= CEIV� D- 1. '19t30 ❑ is attached for .your review cshic° tio-vo".mvnkw ❑ -is available forri review at the Department of Community Development 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, �A 92663 REVIEW PERIOD: 32 DAYS ENDING ON: December 22, 1980 CONTACT PERSON: Fred Talarico TITLE: Environ men tal.'Coordinator PHONE: 714/640-2197 Fe)z ,q L . l✓/ G. eoy�.r�E�I/rs: PZ- TO 1q1-,1&,. 1-E-7-7-E.e OF 19uGcts7- .aa, 19NO C R777WOW,-OOD. rat y�cle 1=u�-�E2 iNFD�,M,�TiON� �E'EFE�°. TD •.✓EcvPo�e�'L3�q.2,�f �'Esf�. of SEP7EAI& ie 'Yj/9TO (477,4WE76)• �i,J 1-7h��s�., L � z Notice of Completion and Supplemental EIR Irvine Ranch Water District 4201 Campus Drive Irvine, CA 92714 S.A.R.W.Q.C.B. 6833 Indiana Avenue, S-2 Riverside, CA 92606 South Coast Air Quality Management District 9420 Telstar Avenue El Monte, CA 91731 S.C.A.G. 600 S. Commonwealth Los Angeles, CA 90005 Airport Land Use Commission 18741 N. Airport Way Santa Ana, CA 92702 State of California Office .of Planning and Research 1400 Tenth Street Sacramento, CA 95814 Business and Transportation Agency Ann Barkley Division Chief, DOTP Dept. A-95 Coordinator Sacramento, CA 95814 C.V. Wright Southern California Edison Company Westminster, CA 92683 Jack Tatham Pacific Telephone 1700 Garry Avenue, Room 214 Santa Ana, CA 92705 RECEIVED N 0 V 2 19980 ✓�i v J ,A.IRPAT LAND USe COMMISSION FOR ORANGE COUNTY - 18741 A' �.�. upon Way North,Santa Ana, Cal. 92707 Phone:714 S=It 5, 641-2925 August 22, 1980 City of Newport Beach Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92661 Gentlemen: ADDENDUM TO CERTIFIED FINAL EIR, KOLL CENTER NEWPORT PLANNED COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT During the regular meeting of August 21, 1980, the Airport Land Use Commission for Orange County reviewed the subject addendum. Thereafter, it was moved, seconded and carried that.the Airport Land Use•Commission recommended that no objection be interposed to the adoption of Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report for Koll Center Newport Planned.Community Development subject to the condition that the Avigation Easement granted•to Orange County by the Irvine Company be referenced to indicate that'it restricts building heights within Koll Center Newport. The building height limit at Koll- Center Newport is 203.32 feet above mean sea level as determined by the Horizontal Surface (Part 77'.of the Federal Aviation Regulations) for John Wayne Airport, Orange County: FOR THE COMMISSION, Shirli A. Reithard, Ph.D., P.E. Secretary SAR:es cc: Koll Company/Aetna Life Insurance Company Attachment FILE Copy t s i41 o� ........ CITY CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH u a.c Planning Department 640-2191 September 4, 1980 Shirley Rienhart Airport Land Use Commission for Orange County 18741 Airport Way/Ngrth Santa Ana, CA 92707 SUBJECT; Addendum to the Certified Final EIR - Ko-11 Center Newport Planned Community Development for the Koll/Aetna Property SCH #79101117 Dear Ms. Rienhart: The City of Newport -Beach has received your comments related to the above subject document and projects. Your .comments will be forwarded to the City of Newport Beach Planning Commission for their review and consideration in regards to this project. Staff is recommending that the City adopt the following condition of approval related to your concerns: "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." Very truly yours, PLANNING DEPARTMENT JAMES D. HEWICKER, DIRECTOR 8 y tzcc2. ivca Fre Ta arico y . Environmental Coordinator i980 Y n r Ciro T��ii . �4nn Ai.......•,_. n_..�_---. � w► . „ „ ... - _ - t T ; RESPONSES 1 s CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH S�+`41FODEPARTMENTr PLANNING ( 714) 640-2197 December 22, 1980 Irvine Ranch Water District P.O. Box D-1 4201 Campus Drive Irvine CA 92 716 Attn : Keith Levinger Subject: "Addendum to the Certified Final EIR Koll Center Newport Planned Community Development Total i Buildout of Irvine Company Properties " SCH#79101118 Dear Sir: The City of Newport Beach has received your comments on the above subject Environmental documen t.nt: Your comments will be forward to theforwarded Ci ty s Planning Commission for their consideration in re- view of this project. I The comments noted in your letter of December 2, 1980, serve a-s clarification and correction to our draft '•report. We appreciate Your interest in this project. If we can be of any assistance to You, please contact me at ( 714) 640-2197. Very truly yours , PLANNING DEPARTMENT JAMES D. HEWICKER, Director B y_ 1!_/ ./lJ//i Fred Talarico Environmental Coordinator FT:nma City Hall 0 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California 92663 •� l �EWPp�T ejt T d CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH r �c OIL Y PLANNING DEPARTMENT (714) 640-,2197 December 22, 1980 i South Coast Air Quality, Management Distr•.ict 9150 East Flair Drive El Monte , CA 91731 Attn : Brian W. Farris Subject: "Addendum to the Certified Final EIR Koll Center Newport Planned Community Development Total Buildout of Irvine Company Properties " - SCH#79101118 Dear Sir: The City of Newport Beach has received your comments on the above subject Environmental document . Your comments will be forwarded to We City' s Planning Commission for their consideration in re- view of this project. The date you enclosed related to 1979 Existing Air Quality will be incorporated into the final environmental document and will be on file with the Planning Department of the City of Newport Beach . If I can be of a-ny assistance to you in your review of this pro- ject , please contact me at ( 714) 640-21,97 . Very truly yours , PLANNING DEPARTMENT JAMES D. HEWICKER , Director By— / Fred arico . Environmental Coordinator FT:nma City Hall 0 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California 92663 r J • • 76 4��WPOR� CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING DEPARTMENT ( 714) 640-2197 December 22, 1980 Airport Land Use Commission 18741 N. Airport Way Santa Ana , CA 92704 Subject: "Addendum to the Certified Final EIR Koll Center Newport Planned Community Development Total Buildout of Irvine Company Properties " - SCH#79101118 Dear Sir : The City of Newport Beach has received your comments on the above subject Environmental document. Your comments will be 'forwarded to the City's Planning Commission for their consideration in re- view of this project. In response to your comments staff is re- commending that the City adopt a condition similar to that imposed on the Koll/Aetna project on this project. If I can be of any further assistance , please feel free to contact me at (714) 640-2197. Very truly yours , PLANNING DEPARTMENT JAMES D. HEWICKER, Director By_ ' Fr d Talarico Environmental Coordinator FT:nma City Hall • 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California 92663 • • ATTACHMENT NO . 5 7c > 7HE IRVINE CMIR4Ny 560 Newport Center urim pp Box I Newport Beach. Cahforpr,3 92.663 (714) 644.3011 1 I l t ' July 29, 1980 i• �UL3� t I "1 . Mr. Fred Talarico Vi/ riT �isj�/ Environmental Coordinator City of of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA SUBJECT: Requested Amendment to Campus/MacArthur Phasing Plan Dear Fred: Enclosed herewith is our response to the "test of reasonableness" and a copy of the consultant's traffic study dated July 7, 1980. These documents are submitted in support of our request of July 8, 1980 to amend the previously approved phasing plan for Site C in Koll Center Newport. Very truulyyyyo1urs, R ald W. Hendrickson Director Design/Planning Commercial/Industrial Division RWH/dg Attachment t r • ATTACHMENT NO. 6 KOLL CENTER BLOCK C TRAFFIC PHASING PLAN Item I Each project subject to the phasing requirement of Council Resolution No. 9472 shall be examined as to the extent of existing development and the amount of development remaining to be completed. The Koll Center Planned Community provides for a variety of land uses including offices, banks, restaurants and the Harbor Municipal Court House. Block C. as an element of the planned community, will provide a total of 179,806 sq.ft. available for business and office uses when ultimately completed. The only presently developed land use on the Block C site' is a 27,600 sq.ft. business office structure. This structure was initially constructed for, and used"as the .Irvine Industrial Complex Corporate Headquarters; but is at present occupied by Santiage Bank and various other office uses. Additional land uses for Block C which are in the process of development under the 30% rule are 100,000 sq.ft. of office buildings. This is marginally less than the maximum 107,460 sq.ft. feasible for Block C under the 30% rule due to the specific sizes of the structures to be built. The portion of the planned community which would be developed upon approval of the Traffic Phasing Plan is the balance of development for the site, 258,200 sq.ft. of business office use. •Item 2 Information shall be submitted indicating the amount of traffic being generated by existing development, that projected for remaining development, and traffic that will exist after completion of the project, Based on established trip generation rates for similar land uses, the existing and future traffic being generated from the site is estimated as follows: PM Peak Hour Existin ADT g - occupied OUT 9,950 sf Bank 1 ,650 18 70 11 ,650 st Office ISO 7 PO Subtotal existing 1,800 25 90 _ r / Page 2 Under development - for occupancy in 1981 (30%) Phase I 100,000 sf, Office 1 ,300 60 170 Future Development - for occupancy in 1982 Phase II 258,200 sf Office 3,400 155 440 Total Block C Site 6,500 240 700 i The amount of traffic to be generated by the completion of all remaining development is also shown on Table 1 of the attached report. Land uses for the existing offices and bank was not included in that analysis as it was an existing land use and included in existing traffic volume data. Item 3 An examination shall be made of the circulation system in the vicinity of the project to determine what improvements remain to be completed, with particular consideration being given to those improvements which will directly aid in moving traffic generated by the project. The area to be examined shall extend to those intersections where traffic generated from the project increases the traffic for any leg of the intersection during the peak two and one-half hour period by 2% or more. Table 2 of the attached report summarizes the analysis for critical intersection ident- ification, with the backup calculation sheets included in Appendix A. Identifying critical intersections was based on the intersections to be examined by the procedures of the Traffic Phasing Ordinance for the Koll Center area and further examination is included for any intersection for which the project would increase traffic by 20% or more during the 2 1/2 hour period. The site is generally bounded by MacArthur Blvd. , Campus Drive, Birch Street and Von Karmen Ave. Along MacArthur Blvd. , the applicant is to construct the full ultimate roadway improve- ments from Birch to Campus. There is also to be the widening of Campus Drive from the MacArthur intersection to approximately 150' easterly. The remainder of Campus Drive, Birch, and Von Karmen have been previously improved to full ultimate needs. The construction of the full ultimate improvement of MacArthur Blvd. and widening of Campus Drive will significantly improve traffic operations at the MacArthur/Campus intersection. The Campus/MacArthur intersection improvement project has been previously identified as Caltrans project in the approval of other development projects. Although Caltrans is providing a pavement overlay and interconnecting of the traffic signals on MacArthur, the applicant is funding the pavement widening portions of the MacArthur/ Campus project. t + YV BZ Page 3 Item 4 Existing traffic at those intersections shall be shown prior to making any projections. Existing traffic volumes for all identified critical intersections are shown in Appendix B, Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis. Item 5 The developer may include in his proposed traffic phasing plan completion of or contri- bution to complete of needed improvements consistent with the level of traffic genera- tion and a reasonable proportion of the cost of these improvements. In conjunction with the development of the site, the landowner is proposing to pro- vide for the full ultimate pavement Widening improvements along MacArthur Blvd. and Campus Drive adjacent to the site. The current estimated cost to the applicant for these improvements is $115,000, Item 6 The developer is also to take into consideration in the characteristics in the design of his development which eitherration reduce trafficplan or guide traffic onto less impacted arterials or through intersections in the least congested direction. Access to the site is to be taken from Campus Drive and Birch Street, and no access is to be taken from MacArthur. As a major north/south arterial in the City, access to the site from MacArthur would have the impact of reducing the service capabilities of MacArthur Blvd. Access to the site from Campus and Birch is thus directing traffic into less critical roadway and enhancing the operational capabilities of MacArthur. Item 7 Upon receipt of the plan and information, the Commission will determine whether there is a reasonable correlation between projected traffic at time of project completion and capacity of affected intersections in considering the project for approval. In the attached traffic study, five intersections have been identified as exceeding ICU values of .90 with the approval of the project. An ICU value of .90 is not, however, the sole evaluation criteria as all of these intersections have been previously identified as exceeding ICU values of .90 in the approval of other traffic phasing plans. A more detailed discussion of projected intersection operations and the marginal impacts due to the project are in the attached traffic study, although the consultant has identified that the project would not make worse any intersection with respect to existing conditions. (vf Page 4 Item 8 Mitigation proposed needs to indicate degree of performance in order to meet the test. The roadway improvements identified are considered as permanent facility improvements although additional modifications such as re-stripping, construction to ultimate $ (where appropriate) and signal operations modifications, may also occur in the future. The optional improvement at MacArthur and Campus as identified by the consultant, if implemented, may only be an interim condition until other portions of the City's Circulation element are completed. • �-rcAc�n•,��.;c No � Planning Commission Meeting January 8, 1981 Agenda Item No. 8 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH TO: Planning Commission FROM: Planning Department SUBJECT: "SUPPLEMENTAL STAFF REPORT" Amendment No . 1 - Traffic Phasing Plan Koll Center Block'- C Attached for your consideration in the review of the Environmental Document on the above subject project are comments and responses received on this project to present. The offical review period for this document has ended. Respectfully submitted, PLANNING DEPARTMENT JAMES D. HEWICKER, DIRECTOR BY 't Fred Ta arico, Environmental Coordinator FT/tk Attachments : Comments & Responses t=°Rr CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH �4/FORN�A "CITIZENS ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE" Janury 5, 1981 Mr. Chairman and Members of the•.:Planning Commission City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard i Newport Beach , Ca 92663 i Dear Mr. Chairman and Commissioners : The Environmental Impact Report Subcommittee of the 'Ci•tizens Environmental Quality Advisory Committee has 'reviewed 'the draft EIR prepared for additional office space in Koll Center Newport. The proposal includes the addition of 125 ,370 square feet of development and 232 ,830 square feet previously approved. This would bring the total square feet of the . development area ( Site C) to 379 ,800 square feet. L It is important to note that the original EIR done for this area was completed in 1972 and that the EIR under review is an addendum to it. According to the document, "The original EIR esfablished the' ultimate levels of development allowable for all blocks within Ko_11 Center Newport." After considerable review, our committee finds the EIR •addendum.. raises severe environmental impacts yet offers meaningless short term mitigation• to these impacts . For example , even with proposed intersection and road improvements , one third of the intersections impacted would have ICU values greater than 0. 90 at full develop- ment. The resultant air pollution levels are high due to the physical conditions of the site which do 'not permit adequate dispersal of pollutants . The EIR does no•t offer solutions to these impacts ; rather it asks the City to accept them as a fact of live and as the result of situations beyond the control of this develop- ment, such as regional traffic and auto emission controls . (See page 35, Section 3.0) As a planned development , Koll Center Neip.ort has been developing. in segments since 1972 . This project is ' the last segment and would complete the Project . For this reason it is the recommendation of this committee that this project should be used as a test for the overall environmental adequacy of the entire project . However, in order to make this environmental assessment, definitive data is missing . ' Our committee feels that this data would be;.appropriate in this addendum and requests - that it be made available prior to acceptance of this EIR addendum. City Hall • 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California 92663 "CITIZENS ENVIRONMENTAL QUALTIY ADVISORY COMMITTEE" Page 2 January 5, 1981' To be more specific , the original projections for the entire project should be compared with actual environmental data based on the existing situation which resulted from the development of the other segments of the project. This actual measurement data should be added to this EIR to determine if compliance has been substantiated based on the 1972 projections. If it is found that the original 1972 EIR projections verses today' s actuals , plus the Site C EIR projected totals should NOT comply, then appropriate adjustments should be made to the develop- ment of the last remaining p.roject segment to achieve compliance. The committee finds the' data in 'the EIR addendum to be accurate and recommends acceptance of the document. Further, the committee recommends that the Commission follow one meaningful and City envorceable mitigation recommendation regarding air pollution made on page 29, Section 2.4.3 which states , "The most significant miti- gation that could be achieved from this project would be if it were delayed for several years until' car emissions are further re- duced by retiring older, more pollution generating vehicles . " i The committee feels that further phasing of the remaining 125,370 square feet of office space--which. would contribute an additional 4,650 vehicle trips each day from the site--would reduce the severity of the projected impacts to this area of Newport Beach. Since the additional office space proposed is the last segment to this project, it also represents the l,ast opportunity the City has to -achieve a degree of mitigaiton to the unacceptable environ- mental problems of traffic, air and water pollution projected as a result of this development. Sincerely, fir, Judith Cooper EIR Subcommi tee Chairman Jerry Kin Chairman Citizens Environmental Quality Advisory Committee JC/tk c ' . aGOVERNOR'S OFFICE OFFICE OF PLANNING AND RESEARCH 1400 TENTH STREET JAN5 1981,. 9 SACRAMENTO 95814 %c;. "n"`i• EDMUND G. BROWN JR. 2'� CA�tf.:^Cy, �O GOVERNOR . f December 29, 1980. Fred Talarico t Newport Beach Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 SCH$ 79101118 KOLL CENTER NEWPORT - ADDITIONAL BUILDOUT Dear Mr. Talarico: State agencies have reviewed the above environmental document, and only the Department of Transportation, District 070 has comments to offer. Caltrans is concerned about congestion in the'.project vicinity and points out that impacts beyond the city limits on MacArthur Boulevard should be addressed. (The Clearinghouse would like to add that Section 15143 (b) of the.CEQA Guidelines supports this statement by indicating any significant impacts• must be discussed'. ) In .addition, mitigation measures appear inadequate. Caltrans has permit authority over the project. Please direct questions on these comments to Jim, Danley at (213) 620-5567. You may formally respond to the department's comments .by-writing to Caltrans, including the State Clearinghouse number on all correspondence. When filing the final EIR, you must include all comments and responses (State EIR Guidelines, Section 15146) . State review of your EIR will then be complete. In the event that the project is approved without adequate mitigation of the significant effects identified in the final EIR, the County must make written findings for-each of those significant effects (State EIR Guidelines, Section 15Q88) and it must support its actions with a written statement of overriding considerations (Section 15089) . If a decision is made to approve the project, please forward a copy of 'the Notice of Determination to the State Clearinghouse. __Sincerely, AStephen V. Williamam -----Soson -^ nia� B' State Clearinghouse State Clearinghouse (916) 445-0613 S 4 cc: Ken Fellows, DWR. L State of California • ,mess and Transportation Agency Memorandum To : ANN BARKLEX, DIVISION CHIEF - DOTP Dole- December 18, 1980 Department A-95 Coordinator 1120 N Street File A-95 REVIEW Sacramento, California 95814 Attention: Darrell Husum ALLAN H. HENDRIX - District 07 From 3 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION I ' subjech Project Review Comments SCH NUMBER Ko11 .Center Newport Planned 79101118 Community Development Caltrana is a Responsible Agency and has permit authority for the work on State-Route 73 presented as mitigation measures in this and pre- vious documents. The work would require an encroachment permit. Caltransl comments on previous addendums to the Koll Center Final oon- eerned traffic impacts and mitigation measures. We remain concerned over congestion in the vicinity of the project and the fact that a number of intersections will have ICU values greater than 0,90. The document indicates that 20 percent of the trip activity would be on MacArthur Boulevard north of Campus Drive. No analysis of impacts was performed, however, because this area is outside city limits. These impacts should be addressed in this document. This was also a comment on the previous addendum. Mitigation measures mentioned may fall short of actually mitigating circulation problems. Other possible mitigations that should he con- sidered are possible strategies for encouraging the use of buse82 car- pools, vanpools, bicycles, or other transit services. It might be appropriate that these types of measures be a condition of approval for this project. Please send us a copy of the Final document showing the disposition of ur comments. of Environmental Planning Branch Transportation District 07 Clearinghouse Coordinator For information, contact Jim Danley (ATSS) 640-5567 or (213) 620-5567 I Attachment �•I P . CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Planning Department 640-2197 Ofat January 7, 1981 Jerry King, Chairman Members of Citizens Environmental Quality Advisory Committee of Newport Beach 3300 W. Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 Subject: Addendum to the Certified EIR .for the Total Buildout of Block C - Koll Center Newport Chairman King and Members : The City of Newport Beach has received your comments related to the above subject document and they will be forewarded to the City' s Planning Commission for consideration in their review of this project . In response to your letter the following comments are offered: Paragraph #1 : No Comments Paragraph #2 : An Addendum to the Certified Final ELR was approved by the City on April 24, 1980. The purpose of this purpose of this supplemental report was to review and consider new information i•n terms of changes to the project or the environment since the approval of the original document- in 1972 . The purpose of this additional report is to further clarify the impacts of the project. Paragraph #4: The Environmental Document is designed to provide the City with information upon which to base their decisions . In instances where there are no "solutions to problems" they are termed Sign- ificant Unavoidable Adverse Environmental Effects . These effects are listed on Page 35 of the Document. It is the' responsibility of the decision maker to balance the benefits of a proposed project against its unavoidable environment risks i•n determining whether to approve a project. ( "State EIR Guidelines- 1508911 ) c ' City Hall • 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California 92663 i .r e• j q0 Page 2 To : CEQAC January 7, 1981 Paragraph #5: It is the opinion of staff that the original projections comparasion with the new project- ions is not meahingfull . This information though is avail-able in our offices . The important consideration is the accuracy of the data contained within the document at this time. Staff has determined that the original 1972 data is inaccurate and to a large extent this required the Ci:ty to prepare both the April 1980, "Addendurd' and this report. Paragraph #6: See :comment paragraph 5 Paragraph #7: No Comment Paragraph #8: No Comment Paragraph #9: No Comment Very truly yours , PLANNING DEPARTMENT I JAMES D. HEWICKER, DIRECTOR 6 By Fre a ar co Environmental Coordinator FT/tk 1 ' [ ao ► • . CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Planning Department (714) 640-2197 C'9</ppAN�P January 7, 1981 Sonia Binnendyk State Clearinghouse Office of Planning and Research 1400 Tenth Street Sacramento , CA 95814 SUBJECT: SCH #7910118 Koli Center Newport Additional Buildout Dear Ms . Binnendyk: The City of Newport Beach has received your comments on the above sub- ject document and they will be forewarded to the City' s Planning Commission for consideration in their .review of this project. The City appreciates your review of the appropriate sections of the CEQA Guidelines related to project approval without adequate miti- gation of significant effects. I have enclosed for your review and consideration a copy of the City ' s Staff Report on this project which contains additional mitigation measures and statements of overriding considerations that we have suggested for our City' s consideration . Very truly yours , PLANNING DEPARTMENT - JAMES D . HEWICKER, DIRECTOR By Fred Talarico Environmental Coordinator FT/tk Enclosure : Staff Report-January 8, 1981 City Hall • 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California 92663 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH s� Planning Department 640-2197 G+ciFOR��r I January 7, 1981 Jim Danley (1-11F) Allan H. Hendrix CALTRANS 120 So. Spring Street Los Angeles , CA 90012 SUBJECT: SCH #7910118 Koll Center Newport Planned Community Development Dear Mr. Danl'ey: The City of Newport Beach Has received' your comments on the above subject document and they will be forwarded to the City's Planning Commission for consideration in their review of this project. In conjunction with the City' s approval of "The Addendum to the Certified Final EIR for Koll Center Newport Planned Community Development for the Koll/Aetna Property - November 1980112 the City of Newport Beach reviewed the anticipated ICU ' s at MacArthur Blvd. and Michelson Drive, MacArthur Bled. and Eastbound Ramp, Jamboree Rd. and Michelson Drive, Jamboree Rd. and Eastbound Ramp and Michelson 'Drive and Von Karmen Ave- Four of the -Five inter- sections were projected to have ICU values greater than 0. 90 in 19859 this would .be with or without this project or that project. Additionally , the City of Irvine has recognized that conjestion is to be anticipated on Jamboree Road an:d• MacArthur Blvd. in their General Plan . The City of Newport Beach staff has offered several additional conditions of approval of this and the previous project which Will act to some degree to mitigate possible adverse effects. A copy of our staff report is enclosed. Very truly you:r.s , PLANNING DEPARTMENT JAMES D. HEWICKER, DIRECTOR By Fre alarico , .Environmental Coordinator FT tk Attachment: Staff Re ort City Hall 0 3300 Newport Boulevard, New ort Beach,, California 9�2663 j January 8, 1981 TO: COMMISSIONER ALLEN FROM: Public Works Department SUBJECT: TRAFFIC PHASING PLAN FOR SITE C--KOLL CENTER In response to your question about reducing the I.C.U. at Coast Highway and MacArthur Boulevard, I have :reviewed the calcula- tions for the intersection: First, the third eastbound lane on Coast Highway through the MacArthur intersection is needed with either of the proposals listed below. The I.C.U. can be reduced below the 0.9108 level in one of the following ways: 1. Adding a second eastbound left-turn lane to Coast Highway at MacArthur would reduce the I.C.U. to 0.7816. This would also require the construction of a third 1 northbound lane on MacArthur Boulevard from Coast Highway to about Harbor View Drive. When the couplet is imple- mented, this third lane would'not be' needed. `Cgmpleting •the Avocado Avenue-,Aniiprovements`between Coast n Highway and San Miguel Drive=would give the•4alitbound -: motorist the opportunity to:.tu!^n left at Avocado -Avenue and"get to MacArthur-Boulevard tiy •utilizing San Miguel Drive. If 17 motorists made this move, the I.C.U. at MacArthur and Coast Highway'would drop to 0.90. If 1/2 of those desiring to go north on MacArthur (206 vehicles) learned to turo-.at Avocado, the,•tlacArthur-Coast Highway I.C.U. would drop,-to .781fi_;= ;••. - T e 'added�:�;�. ,. . • , ; ••„ . ..> •'._.hN flexibility_of- havng-;Avocado�Avenue- completed and _ • �,:�,�_,:�,•=_:L�, ,,�;;�i.�is�rvice:.appGars;;to,�tie_-the most Genefic7a'(improveme�i't:�;It;also . .,x "Y --• �t�, ,,;; ��3'�ii'�ny�y.;M��a;,"Construct:a�T�'ne'oti,MacArthur.;that`woul`d`,��t��Ve: to be •: �` i77�1'#�,� §•�'•^ _ ^�y� C:`W��rY�dRrS:"�y"�r''f`;7'bii:Sy'`'x. ..+:,7. .; :r•• �J ��§• •Y- `x" t•:� Y ti =..a ,•:.:..:.`��..•j?-•^r.... '..• 2 .. `.?e.L..t�l« ..•.y is S .Jn`� P 1b , 'Y Y. .r. �1.":a••5i +.C" n J t.. '1. a: •r. JS,' .,1 ��4 a t -7,; ,;r��"-' ,. ,1 Y .-r-4`T•ih'»;.;_ r ,-��. '�� t;�ht ' 'a.:_C qi sHIN`. :may . •.cfr'.:v: t'W .�'1.M•1^ - ��[•:^ ':' :X;?�. •-.`8,�^C. . :.•i n . -6 _ n ,Jl{`:t ,r. r'Y a.• I',� t.. v�,r, h, !.. COMMISSIONERS I&ptember 4, 1980 • MINUTES Cityof Newport Beach ROLL CALL INDEX d. A surface drainage plan that will not create downstream erosion . e. Erosion control measures on all exposed slopes . 26 . The direction signing, plan shall be prepared and submitted to the Traffic Engineer for approval . 27 . That the applicant shall install grease traps in the parking lot if required by the Buildin Department to be cleaned out every six months 28. That the flagpole shall not be more than 25 feet high . Item #8 Request to consider a Phasing Plan for the remain- PHASING ing development in the Kol1 " 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 trans.fer of allowable square footage within N0 . 550 the Planning Community. APPROVED AND Request to permit the construction of a 12-story Item #10 hotel with related banquet rooms , restaurants , meeting rooms and recreation facilities in Koll USE PERMI- 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- C MISSIONERS1 �ptember 4 , 1980 i MINUTES ig 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 Y 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 real issue here is that we are asking to increase the previously approved 360 room hotel to a 440 'room hotel . hn addition , we are asking to transfer certain square footage on Office Site D to Office Site B. We, a,re also pre- sehting a' phas•in'g 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 Newport. 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- COMMISSIONERS .-Stember 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. 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 E"IR 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 Talarico , 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, 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- i COMMISSIONERS, �tember 4 , 1980 MINUTES City P 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. defici-ent 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- C MISSIONERSI eptember 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 necommendi-ng an app"val -pf 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 for tourists . The traffic in the airport will not increase due to tourism, nor will driving increase due to tourism from this hotel -30- COMMISSIONERS ,Jeptember 4 , 1980 . MINUTES CIO City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL IN 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 a•sked ' 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 existi-ng 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 Thoma was considering the tax revenue money. Commission- er Cokas stated that only the City Council would have the authority to do this . Chairman Haidinge 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 Ordnge 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 servi•ce- 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 and 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 . C -31 - COMMISSIONERS MINUTES ptember 4, 1980 • r In City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL INDEX Commissioner Beek stated that because he has no environmental documentation on the impacts of this project, he would have to vote No on a motion for approval . Motion Motion was made that the Planning Commission ap- Ayes X H. X prove the Phasing Plan for the remaining allow- Noes X X able development in the Koll Center Newport P-C Absent District under the ownership of the applicant with the findings and subject to the conditions listed below: , FINDINGS: 1. That the environmental document is complete and has been prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Ouali ty Act (CEOA), 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 T)• demonstrated in the document, together with the mitigation measures override the anticipated •negative effects of the project. 4. That the Phasing Plan is consistent with the Newport Beach General r Plan and the Planned Community Development Plan for Koll Center Newport. 5. That based on the Phasing Plan and surrounding information submitted therewith, there is a reasonable correlation between projected traffic at time of completion and the capacity of affected intersections. 6. That the applicant has taken into consideration in the preparation 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 congested direction. ' CONDITIONS: 1. That prior to occupancy of any buildings on the site beyond the existing development completed 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). The Circulation Systems Improvements sha 11 be subject to the approval of the City Traffic Engineer. 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 i ' listed on Page 5 of the*Traffic Report dated August I" "'a' 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. 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 1 and 2 above. 4. That the architectural character and landscape design established , within the existing Koll Center Newport shall be maintained. -32- COMMISSIONERS •September 4 , 1980 • MINUTES City p 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 shall certify to the Planning Department that the landscaping has been installed 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 fertilizers and pesticides. ' B. 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. Y . 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. BI- D, 6 G shall be reviewed by a licensed landscape architect. The existing landscape program should be modified to include the concerns oc conditions 7 and B 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 and permanent drainage facilities, to minimize,any potential impacts from si'it, 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- C MISSIONERS1 orptember 4, 1980 • MINUTES ' 81 Ll City P of Newport Beach ROLL CALL INDEX 1 21. That 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. 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 shalt provide for the I incorporation of water-saving devices for project lavatories and other water using facilities. 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 palenotol09l st 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 (i.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 approved by the Public Works Department and the Planning Department. 32. Prior to the issuance of any building permits for the site, 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 propotional to the per- , tentage 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. , C • -34- COMMISSIONERS JVtember 4 , 1980 . MINUTES 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, i 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. I 35. That prior to the issuance of any building permits-, the applicants shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Planning 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. 36. That prior to the issuance of any building permits for the proposed project, the applicant shall demonstrate tD 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, an addi - tional eastbound through-lane shall be con- 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 District (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 Y Resolution No : 1055 , approving Amendment No . • 550 Noes . , 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 *eptember 4, 1980 • MINUTES 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- Ayes X X X X prove Use Permit No . 1953 with the findings and Noes X N subject to the conditions as follows : Absent FINDINGS• 1. That the environmental document is complete and has been pre- pared in compliance with 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 decisions 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 anticipated negati.ve effects of the project. 1 4. That the proposed project is consistent with the Newport tBeach General Plan and the Koll Center Newport Planned Com- munity District. 5. That the proposed project will not, under the circumstances of the particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, comfort and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use or be detri- mental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City and further that the proposed modification is consistent with 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 neighborhood or be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood of the general welfare of the City. CONDITIONS: 1. That development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved plot plan, floor plans and elevations. 2. That all development shall be in conformance with the approved phasing plan and related conditions of approval. .r 3. That all development shall comply with the Uniform Building Code 1976 edition. r 4. That all access to the buildings be approved by the Fire Department. 5. That all on site fire protection (hydrants and Fire Depart- ment connections) shall be approved by the Fire and Public Works Department. C 6. The surface of the three-level parking structure shalt be landscaped with trees and shrubs either recessed or in tub/ planter boxes, in a manner approved by the Directors of the Parks, Beach & Recreation and Planning Departments. -36- C MISSIONERS1 �eptember 4 , 1980 • MINUTES City P 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. D. 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 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 shalt 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 signallbe tn"stalled 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 I access to the drive will not adversely affect the traffic on Von Karmen Avenue and the 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 I approved by the Traffic Engineer. 1 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'. The Planning Commission recessed at 9 : 45 p .m. and -reconvened at 9 : 55 p .m. C -37- t Planning Commission Meeting September 4 , 1980 Agenda Item No . 8, 9 & 10 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH August 28, 1980 TO : Planning Commission FROM: Planning Department SUBJECT: Request to consider a Phasing Plan for the remaining_ development in the Koll Center Newport Planned Communit , and the acceptance of an Environmental Document tPublic Hearing AND Amendment No . 550 ( Public Hearing) Request to amend the Planned Community Development Plan for Koll Center Newport so as to allow the transfer of allowable square footage within the Planning Community. AND Use Permit No . 1953 (Public Hearing) Request to permit the construction of a 12-story hotel with related banquet rooms , restaurants , meeting rooms , and recreation facilities in Koll Center Newport. LOCATION : The Koll Center Planned Community ; bounded by MacArthur Boulevard on the west, Campus ' Drive on the north , and Jamboree Road on the east. ZONE : P-C APPLICANT: The Koll Company , Newport Beach OWNER: Aetna Life Insurance Company, Newport Beach Applications The applicants have requested several approvals from the City in conjunction with the continued development of the Koll Center Newport Planned Community District. The requests being made are as outlined below: 1 . Acceptance of the Addendum to the Certified Final Environmental Impact Report - Koll Center Newport Planned Community Development T0 :' Onning Commission - 2 . • for the 'Koll /Aetna property as having been completed according to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and City policy, and certification that the data was considered in the final decision on the project. 2. The approval of a Phasing Plan for the remaining development in the Koll Center Newport Planned Community District under Koll /Aetna ownership in accordance with the Planned Community Development Plan and Standards , City Council Resolution No . 9742 , Amendment No . 514 to the Newport Beach Municipal Code and the City ' s definition of the term, "Reasonableness " . 3. The approval of Amendment No . 550 to amend the Planned Community Development plan for Koll Center Newport so as to allow the trans- fer of allowable square footage within the Planned Community. 4. The approval of Use Permit 1953 to permit the construction of a 12-story hotel with related banquet rooms , restaurants , meeting rooms , and recreation facilities in Koll Center Newport. Background Information The Koll Center Newport Planned Community was originally approved by the City on August 14, 1972 . Development of the Koll Center Newport site has occurred over an eight year period consistent with the P-C District and subsequent amendments . On November 27 , 1978 , the City Council adopted an ordinance approving Planning Commission Amendment No . 514 , which required the preparation of phasing plans consistent with the Circulation Element of the General Plan ( 30/70 Rule) . On March 12 , 1979 , the City Council defined the "Test of Reasonableness " the Planning Commission was to use in the evaluation of phasing plans . Phasing plans have been approved to date as follows : A) Newport Place P-C Emkay Air California Ketchum Bear Brandt Ranch Boyle Engineering B) 'Kol l 'Center 'Newport P-C California Canadian Bank Block "C" (The Irvine Company) C) Ford-Aeronutronics P-C All properties D) Corporate Plaza P-C All properties E) Civic Plaza P-C All properties F) North Ford P-C All properties r T0 : Planning Commission - 3 . The applicants began processing the phasing plan and the hotel portions of this project in July 1979 . Prior to the completion of required environmental documentation the City Council adopted General Plan Amendment 79-1 on December 10 , 1979 . This amendment reduced the per- mitted square footage of office development and deleted the proposed hotel . This action led to a law suit against the City which was sub- sequently settled when the square footage of office development and the ability of the Koll Company to pursue the proposed hotel development was restored . Project Description The three separate discretionary actions (phasing plan , amendment and use permit) if approved will allow for the build-out of Block A, B , D and G of the Koll Center P-C District as indicated below: O 8OOr Site C Retail 8 Serride Site A Site S Site D Carthousa Site E d Light Industrial Light IndustnaI Ste 2 Site t SIN G yi Site F c Jamboree Blvd. 7 ti With Project Without Project Existing Remaining • Remaining Total Total Development Buildable Bu.ildable (l ) W/Project W/O Project Site Sq . Ft. Acres Sq. Ft. Acres Sq . Ft. Acres Sq . Ft. Acres Sq . Ft. Acres A 350,002 25 . 179 25,198 5 . 76 25 ,198 5. 76 375,200 30. 939 375 ,200 30 . 939 B 666 ,915 36. 043 300 ,736 7 . 66 207 ,685 7 . 66 967,651 43. 703 874,600 43. 703 D 240 ,149 19. 673 0 0 93 ,051 0 240 ,149 19 . 673 333 , 200 19 . 673 • G 47,145 4.282 7 ,855 1 . 035 7,855 1 . 0352 55 ,000 5. 317 55 ,000 5 . 317 w f � TOTAL 1 ,304,21T2 )85 . 177 333,789 14. 455 333 ,789 14. 455 1 ,638,000 99 . 632 1 ,638,000 � 99 . 632 n +hotel +hotel +hotel +hotel +hotel 0 a J. N O (l )As defined by the City of Newport Beach Community Development Department, • October 25 , 1979. (2 )Use permit had been approved for a restaurant prior to GPA 79-1 . This restaurant is presently operating. TO : Planning Commissign - 5 . Project Characteristics Office : The proposed remaining allowable development permitted by the project ( 333, 789 sq . ft. ) would be developed in accordance with the standards established by the Koll Center Newport P-C District. Specific site designs have not yet been formulated . Hotel : The proposed hotel would be located at the intersection of Von Karmen Avenue and Birch Street. To the north of the proposed project on MacArthur Boulevard is an existing six-story office building and to the south is an existing nine-story office building . Primary access to the site would be from MacArthur Boulevard . A secondary access will be located on Von Karmen Avenue . Additionally two existing access points on Von Karmen Avenue and Birch Street which serve adjacent developments will also serve the hotel . The proposed hotel will contain 440 rooms , banquet rooms , restaurants , meeting rooms , recreational facilities and parking . The hotel rooms will be located in three wings off of a central atrium. The following two charts indicate the general characteristics of the proposed hotel and the use of spaces within the hotel . ' 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) 39740 square feet Entertainment Lounge (150 seats) 3,740 square feet Lobby Bar (75 seats) 1,350 square feet Employee Cafeteria (about 85 seats) 11700 square feet Kitchens (3 or 4) 17,300 square feet Main Ballroom 12,000 square feet Pre-function Space (Ballroom Lobbies) 41000 square feet Banquet Rooms (3 rooms with partitions) 7,500 square feet Conference Rooms (2 at 800 sq ft and 2 at 700 sq ft) 19600 square feet Retail Facilities Gifts do Notions 29040 square feet Rent-A-Car, Airline Services 1,776 square feet Front Office. 1,925 square feet Administration do Sales Office 4,400 square feet Accounting Offices 20100 square feet Maintenance dt Engineering 2,250 square feet Locker Rooms, Valet be Uniforms 2,375 square feet TO: Planning Commission - 6 . Laundry.& Housekeeping 6,500 square feet Receiving Area 3,500 square feet Other General Storage 3,000 square feet Banquet Furniture Storage 2,500 square feet Linen Storage 11300 square feet Vending Machine Area 910 square feet Lost and Found 200 square feet Linen Chute unspecified Trash Chute unspecified Electrical Rooms unspecified Pool Equipment unspecified Circulation (including stairs, elevators, lobby, atrium, foyer) unspecified Coat Check unspecified Room Service unspecified Restroom Facilities unspecified 123,794 , square feet TOTAL 400,000 square feet Source: Gin Wong and Associates, Architects, 1980. Basement General Storage 3 ,000 square feet Maintenance Engineering 2 ,250 square feet Mechanical 6 ,700 square feet Laundry 3 ,500 square feet Receiving 3,500 square feet Lockers 1 ,875 square feet Personnel 500 square feet Housekeeping 3,000 square feet Docking , Loading Employee Entrance Lower Lobby Guest Entrance Parking 396 spaces Ground Level Main entrance Passenger drop-off Guest entrance Parking 136 spaces Retail 1 2266 square feet Retail 2 1550 square feet Accounting 2100 square feet T0: Planning Commission - 7 . Employee Cafeteria 1 , 700 square feet Speciality Restaurant 3 ,740 square feet Lobby Registration Administration/Sales 4,400 square feet Employee entrance Atrium Lobby Bar 1 , 350 square feet Entertainment Lounge 3 ,740 square feet Coffee Shop 3,600 square feet Main Kitchen 14 ,800 square feet Guest Rooms Terrace Second Level Guest Rooms Meeting Rooms 1 , 500 square feet Convention Lobby Pre-function 4 ,000 square feet Main Ballroom 12 , 000 square feet Banquet rooms (3) 7 ,500 square feet Banquet storage (2) 3,000 square feet Banquet kitchen 2,500 square feet Guest entrance Parking 71 spaces Third Level Guest Rooms Pool ( 20 ' x 40 ' ) Jacuzzi Tennis Courts (3) Racquetball Courts (4 ) Lockers , steam exercise 3 ,000 square feet Fourth thru Twelfth Levels Guest rooms The applicants have indicated that they have not selected final construction materials and exterior finish for the hotel . The landscape system will be incorporated into the hotel design and it has been indicated that it will exceed P-C District standards . General Plan The proposed project is consistent with the Newport Beach General Plan . An element by element analysis is as follows : T0 : Planning Commission - 8 . Land Use Element: The Land Use Element states : "No change from the existing land use pattern and the approved development under the Planned Community Districts is proposed . " The Land Use Plan designates the area for "Administrative , Professional and Financial Commercial " uses , with no limits on intensity other than the P-C District Regulations and Traffic Phasing requirements . Circulation Element: The Master Plan of Arterial Highway ' s desig- nates MacArthur Boulevard as a six lane divided major roadway and Von Karmen Avenue as a four lane divided primary road in the vicinity of the project. Noise Element: The Noise Element of the General Plan indicates the sites are subject to high noise levels from automobile and fixed wing aircraft. Recreation and Op en S ace Elements : The Master Plan of bikeways esignates MacArthur Boulevard and Von Karmen Avenue as secondary bikeway routes . Public Safety Element: The Public Safety Element indicates the project site as follows : Ground Shaking Category 1 - "Lowest potential risk" ; Soil Hazard Area 1 - "Moderate to highly expansive soils likely" ; and Erosion Potential Slight - "Potential risk not significant" and moderate - "Potential risk more significant" . Zoning The project site it totally within the Koll Center Newport P-C District. The following chart compares the proposed hotel portion of the project with the zoning : Zoning/Hotel Comparison Project Required A. Site Area 5. 76 acres Minimum 30 ,000 sq . ft. B . Building Area N/A N/A C . Setbacks Front yard (MacArthur Blvd. side) 270 feet ± 30 feet Side yard 35 feet min . 10 feet Rear yard (Von Karmen Avenue side ) 55 feet min . 30 feet D. Loading areas underground 70 ' from street right-of-way or 110 ' from street ± , the greater and must be screened from view. ' �0 : •Planning Commission - 9 . • Project Required E . Storage Areas - 8 foot screen F. Refuse Collection Areas - opaque screen G. Telephone/electrical - underground H. Pedestrian Access - plan to be approved by Planning Director prior building permits I . Parking Spaces ( 1 ) Standard Compact Total Basement 268 128 396 Level 1 94 42 136 Level 2 61 10 71 Total Structure 423 180 603 Surface 124 124 Total 547 727 868 J . Signs Ground (2 ) 200 square feet Wall (2) 2 at 200 square feet Pole (2) 1 at 50 square feet double face, 20 ' height maximum ( 1 ) A detailed review of parking is provided in the Addendum to the FEIR on pages A-26 thru A-28 of Volume III and summarized in the Environmental Significance Section . (2) No sign program has been submitted. Environmental Significance An EIR was prepared in conjunction with the adoption of the Planned Community District Regulations for Koll Center Newport. In accor- dance with CEQA, the City' s Environmental Affairs Committee deter- mined that a focused addendum •to the "Certified Final EIR Koll Center Newport Planned Community Development" for the Koll /Aetna properties should be prepared. Copies of the report prepared by the City ' s consultant were distributed to the Planning Commission previously and it would be appreciated if the members of the Commission could bring them to the September 4, 1980 Planning Commission Meeting . T0 : Planning Commission - 10 . An official review period for the report was initiated on August 1 , 1980 and ends on September 3 , 1980 . Comments and responses on the environmental document will be distributed to the Planning Commission at the time of their review of this project. The following is a summary of project findings and suggested miti - gation measures : (SEE FOLLOWING PAGES ) SECTION 3.0 . 'SUMMARY OF PROJECT FINDINGS AND MITIGATION Topic Section Im act —�- Mitigation Land Use 3.1 The hotel and other commercial office uses Reducing the square footage of the hotel represent more intense use of land and than end/or office space use would decrease the • now exists. density of development and the visual appearance(primarily the vertical extent) of final buildout.Alternatives are discussed In Section 6.0. The undeveloped land would be converted to permanent high density urban use. J Development represents infilling in an r essentially urban area. Proposed was are consistent with provisions of the Planned Community Development Standards. No conflict Indicated with adjacent land uses. Traffic&Circulation 3.2 The project would generate approximately 12,000 dolly Provide shuttle service for hotel trips with 1435 ocurrhq during the pm peak-hour, guests to the airport. The majority of traffic would originate from the hotel on Site A(30.7%)and office use on Meetings,seminars or other business/social Site D(32.1%). functions held at the hotel should be scheduled to commence or end during non-peak traffic hours. • Set up a central'carpool/vanpool for one or more of the office buildings. Stagger employee work hours where feasible. Of the 20 intersections analyzed,4 would have ICU Circulation system improvements are planned to values greater than 0.90 with or without the project alleviate the conditions at the intersections. due to regional traffic growth and traffic from committed projects. Tbese include: 1 ♦h�,Y 1 A;l SECTION 3.0 SUMMARY OF PROJECT FINDINGS AND MITIGATION Topic Section Impact Mitigation Traffic Circulation 3.2 Bristol St North/Campus Dr;Jamboree Blvd/Campus Circulation System Improvements. • (continued) Drl Jamboree Blvd/Mae Arthur Blvdi Mae Arthur Blvd/ 1. Add southbound through or right turn lane Campus Dr. on Birch St at Bristol St North. 2. Add southbound through lane on Campus Dr On-site circulation for the hotel is considered 3. Add northbound and southbound left turn lanes adequate. on Mac Arthur Blvd at Birch St. 4. Add westbound right turn lane on Campus Dr Parking-requirements for the hotel were analyzed at Jamboree Blvd. Indicating that 597 parking spaces would be required. 5. Signalizatlon will be required on Birch St i at Von Korman Ave and Jamboree Blvd. J N Cost/Revenue 3.9 The City of Newport Beach would accrue an annual Mitigation measures are not deemed necessary based surplus of$566,370 if ail Koll/Aetna properties upon the lack of adverse Impacts are developed as proposed. 82%of the total surplus($469,960)would be generated by the hotel. No capital costs or unusual operating costs would be Imposed on the City from any of the projects. Water Quality 3.4 The volume of surface flow will increase and Grading plans must be submitted for review and • pollutants in urban runoff will increase due to approval by the City for consistency with the development. City grading ordinance. Existing dralage facilities(i.e.pipeline, catch basins,grease traps)should be improved or expanded as necessary to provide adequate on and off-site control of runoff. Routine sweeping and cleanup of parking surfaces should be arranged to reduce debris and pollutants carried in first flow. 1 SECTION 3.0(Continued) SUMMARY OF PROJECT FINDINGS AND MITIGATION Topic Section Impact Mitigation Water Quality 3.4 A landscape maintenance program should be devised (continued) which specifies control of fertilizers,pesticides, and irrigation water subject to approval of the • City. Noise 3.5 Short-term construction-related noise would Construction machinery should be equipped with be significant and intermittent,but short-term muffling devices and properly maintained. In nature. Existing noise levels from vehicular traffic would increase. Mechanical equipment such as cooling towers, emergency power generators, and pool pumps Exterior noise exposure from the roadways adjacent should be screened or enclosed in order to to the hotel(i.e.,CNEL values of 63 to 67.4 dB(A) reduce noise sources to acceptable levels in , and airport operations would be considered"normally receptor areas. acceptable"for that use. However,outdoor noise exposure due to airport flights may be periodically Heavily landscaped walls and/or earth berms annoying to hotel patrom should be placed between parking areas and the outdoor recreational area(pool and tennis courts). Incorporate adequate acoustical attenuation measures In all new developments. Special attention should be given to hotel • accommodations subjected to traffic and airport noise. Air Quality 3.6 Short-term,localized degradation of air quality Dust palliatives and other means to minimize would occur from dust and fumes generated during adverse effects of construction should be construction activity. utilized during grading and earthwork operations. Commercial activity would generate small and Reduced energy consumption through site design Insignificant amounts of stationary source and selection of building materials and design pollutants. can reduce pollutants from stationary sources. + I SECTION 3.0(Continued) SUMMARY OF PROJECT FINDINGS AND MITIGATION Topic Section Impact Mitigation Air Quality 3.6 Pollutants would be primarily from mobile sources. Roadway improvement plans(see Section 4.2)by (continued) The local airshed would receive about 3 additional alleviating congestion will secondarily reduce tons of pollutants daily. CO levels. Project-generated traffic will exacerbate already Car pools, transit programs and staggered work hours unhealthy levels of carbon monoxide(CO)on the although encouraged, will produce negligible benefits. presently most,heavily congested roadways. Delay of one or more parts of the project should be Total emmisssions will be Incrementally degrading to considered until car emissions are reduced on a the regional air cells. regional scale by retiring older more polluting vehlcles. 4- ubl c Services 3.7 i Utilities A Fire Fire Some increase in demand for fire and police Fire Department access shall be approved by the protection will be generated because of fire department. expected call Increases. The magnitude of the development in conjuction with other projects Future structures should be equipped with fire may necessitate an additional fire station in suppression systems(i.e.,sprinklers,alarm • the airport area. systems, etc.). Fire-retardant vegetation should be used Police In landscaping and building materials. Crime levels are projected to increase about 3%. Police The ability to absorb call increases will depend upon the workload due to criminal "Defensible space"concepts should be incorporated Investigation, traffic control and other services. In construction and design-phases to deter vandalism. SECTION 3.0(Continued) SUMMARY OF PROJECT FINDINGS AND MITIGATION Toalc Section Im act Public Services Mitigation Utilities 3.7 A security system to include security guards, alarms, (continued) and limited elevation access after business hours should be utilized, thereby reducing demands on • police services. Sold Waste end Beaver Solid Waste Cumulative Increase In generation of solid waste and sewage. The final design of the project provides for the sorting of recyclable material from other solid waste. Sewer Development will be subject to City ordinances u1 regulating the discharge of contaminants in the City cn sewer system. Water "— Water Cumulative depletion of water and energy resources. Installation of flow reducers on water systems and low volume toilets, If required of all new development, wouli effectively reduce flow rates In sewage systems. However,such methods would also increase the amount Of dissolved salts In the water system. Other water conservation measures include: • -Planting of drought-resistant plants; -Avoidance of watering during mid-day hours;and -Use of drip irrigation in landscaped areas. Energy Site and building design and construction materials should be directed toward efficient use of energy, including use of applicable State energy standards. See detailed list in Section 4.7.2.5. i , i I SECTION 3.0(Continued) 1 , SUMMARY OF PROJECT FINDINGS AND MITIGATION Topic section impact Mitigation Aesthetics 3.8 Appearance of vacant lots lack unique or scenic street trees shall be provided along the public streets• value. Architectural atyle,application of as required by the Public Works Department and the building materials,and employment of land- Parks,Beaches,and Recreation Department. ' seeping to proposed hotel compares favorably with surrounding developments. Landscaping shall be regularly maintained free of weeds and debris. All vegetation shall be regularly trimmed and kept In a healthy condition. 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. e, Earth berms shell be contoured and natural in appearance. All on-site utility lines shall be placed underground. The surface of the three-level parking structure should be landscaped with trees and shrubs either recessed or In tub/planter boxes. i Based upon the ratio of airline visitors to Final site plans and choice of exterior building finish • hotel patrons, shall be subject to review and approval by the City. Airport Passenger 3.9 Hotel patrons are projected to represent about Issues of nolse,safety,access and parking related to Generation two percent of all Orange County airline trips airport use are a regional concern. Means to alleviate However,it Is estimated that only a small fraction or eradicate these problems are beyond the control of of this amount of passengers would be influenced this single project. whether or not to travel to Orange County based on _. the availability of rooms In the immediate area. M SECTION 3.0(Continued) SUMMARY OF PROJECT FINDINGS AND MMOATION TOPIC Section impact Airport Passenger 3.9* Mitigation Generation(continued) The anticipated number of total airline trips likely to result from office space uses is considered negligible. A total of about 1250 airline trips are • projected to,be made by staff and visitors to the firma occupying the proposed office apace. This total representa.0005 of the total Orange County passenger traffic in 1979. The disclosure statement quotedbelow is required for all leases,subleases, covenants, conditions and restrictions recorded against property in Koll Center Newport per the 1972 conditions of approval of the Planned Community Development Standards. _v The Lessee herein,his heirs,successors and assigns V acknowledge than The Orange County Airport may not be able to provide adequate air service for business establishments which rely on such service. When an alternate air facility is available,a complete Phaseout of Jet service may occur at the Orange County• Airport. The City of Newport Beach may continue to oppose additional commercial air service expansion at the Orange County Airport. Lessee,his heirs,succesors and assigns will not actively Oppose any action taken by the City of Newport Beach to phase out or limit Jet air service at the Orange Source: City of Newport Beach, 1972 County Airport. TO : tanning Commission - 18. • Phasing Plan The applicants have indicated that development of the project site , if the Phasing Plan is approved , would occur as follows : Phasing Schedule : "1983 - Occupancy of Phase I of the remainder of the proposed development of Koll Center Newport. (This includes a 440-room hotel and 225 , 198 sq . ft. of office/restaurant/ retail use . ) 1984 - Occupancy of Phase II of the remainder of the proposed development of Koll Center Newport. (This includes 100 , 736 sq . ft. of office/restaurant use. ) " Resolution No. 9472 Attached for Planning Commission consideration is a copy of the applicant' s response to the Planning Commission guidelines for reviewing Phasing Plans as modfied by the City Council . Traffic Report A Traffic Report was prepared for the applicant by Weston Pringle and Associates . This report was prepared subsequently to the environmental document in order to update said report in response to recent project approvals . The Traffic Report examined the 15 intersections identified for analysis in the Traffic Phasing Ordinance . Thirteen (13) of the 15 intersections analyzed exceed the 2 percent. The report is summarized on the following pages : Table 4 CRITICAL INTERSECTION IDENTIFICATION 2.5 HOUR PERCENTAGES - 1985 LOCATION NB SB EB WB Bristol Street North & Campus Drive 11.0 13.1 - - Bristol Street North & Jamboree• Road 0.6 2.5 - Bristol Street & Campus Drive - Irvine Avenue 1.9 1.6 3.8 Bristol Street & Birch Street 8.0 3.2 - - Bristol Street & Jamboree Road 0.7 3.8 - - Jamboree Road & Campus Drive 10.2 6.9 1.2 2.6 Mac Arthur Blvd. & Jamboree Road 2.7 3.4 2.1 1.5 J;unhorve & EaytbIuff Drive - Ford Road 0.8 2.0 - - Jamboree Road & Coast Highway - 2.1 1.0 - Mac Arthur Blvd. & Campus Drive /.4 6.6 - Mac Arthur Blvd. & Ford Road 1.3G.3 - - Mac Arthur Blvd. & San Joaquin Hills Road 2.4 2.1 - - Mae Arthur Blvd. h Coast Highway - 3.2 - 1.4 Table 5 ICU SUMMARY INTERSECTION EXISTING EXISTING EXISTING EXISTING EXISTING REGIONAL REGIONAL REGIONAL REGIONAL COMMITTED COMMITTED COMMITTED COMMITTED 1984 +PHASE I 1985 + TOTAL PROJECT PROJECT 1984 1985 Bristol Street North & Campus Drive 1.1280 1.3392 1.401/ 1.3413 1.4210 Bristol Street North & Jamboree Drive 0.9393 0.9961 1.0049 0.9964 1.0077 o Bristol street & Campus Drive - Irvine Avenue N 0.8284 0.8180 0.8385 0.8209 0.8455 Bristol Street & Birch Street 0.6095 0.7171 0./1/4 0.7122 0.7185 e Bristol Street & Jamboree Road 0.7617 0.8190 0.8215 0.8200 0.8231 0 Jamboree Road & Campus Drive 0. 9695 0.9303 0.9621 0.9312 0.9703 c Mac Arthur Blvd. & Jamboree Road 0.7493 0.7565 0.7689 0.7567 0.7712 Jamboree Road & Eastbluff Drive - Ford Road 0.8800 •0.8465 0.8507 0.8467 0.8519 ro a Coast Highway & Jamboree Road 0.9403 0.8420 0.8420 0.8426 0.8426 Mac Arthur Blvd. & Campus Drive 0.9482 0.9526 0.9729 0.9546 0.9804 . Mac Arthur Blvd. & Ford Road 0.8042 0.7681 0.7791 0.7684 0.7825 Mac Arthur Blvd. & San Joaquin Hills Road 0.7921 0.9438 0.9547 0.9441 0.9581 Coast Highway & Mac Arthur Blvd. 0.8022 0.9265 0.9375 0.9288 0.9428 0 . I T0: -planning Commission - 20 . • A summary of the traffic consultants comments on the intersections that will be operating upon completion of the project at 0 . 9000 or greater is given below: IlBristol Street North and Campus Drive. The existing ICU value at this intersection is 1.1280. This number increased to 1.3413 in 1985 when regional growth, committed projects, and previously required improvements are added. When the total project traffic is added, toe ICU becomes 1.4210. The values are only slightly smaller in 1984. The above ICU values include a project recommended improvement. Without that improvement, the projected 1985 ICU values would be 1.4499 without the project and 1.5561 with the project. It can be seen that the 1985 ICU value with the project and improvement (1.4210) is less than the projected 1985 ICU value without the project and improvement (1.4499) by 0.0289. While this is a relatively insignificant amount the project with improvements would still have a positive impact on the intersection. Bristol Street North and Jamboree Road. As can be seen in Table 5, the projected 1985 ICU values for this intersection are 0.9964 without the project and 1.0077 with the project, which is a difference of 0.0113. However, these numbers are the result of a recommended project improvement. Without that improvement, the 1985 ICU value would be 1.0722 with or without the project. Therefore, the project would cause the 1985 ICU value to decrease by 0.0645, which would be an improvement over conditions without the project. Bristol Street and Campus Drive - Irvine Avenue. Table 5 shows the projected 1985 ICU values for this intersection as being 0.8209 and 0.8455, without and with the project, respectively. These acceptable values are due to a recommen- ded project improvement. Without that improvement, both ICU values would be over 0.90. Jamboree Road and Campus Drive. In 1985, the projected ICU at this intersection with the project is 0.9703. This is an increase of only 0.0008 from the 1980 value of 0.9695 and is due to various improvements by governmental agencies and/or required of other projects. As can be seen from Table 5, the increased ICU value in 1985 is 0.0391 as a result of this project. While the projected ICU exceeds 0.90, the operation is expected to remain essentially the same as the existing conditions. T0: Planning Commission - 21 . Mac Arthur Boulevard and Campus Drive. The ICU level at this intersection increases from 0.9546 to 0.9804 in 1985 a result of the project. Review of the intersection does not identify any readily available mitigation measures. However, the intersection is anticipated to operate satisfactorily with the completion of the circulation system. Mac Arthur Boulevard and San Joaquin Hills Road. The ICU value in 1985 is projected to be 0.9441 without the project afid 0.9581 with the project which is an increase of 0.0140. This increase is so small that it would be imperceptable to the average driver. This problem will be mitigated by projects currently under study in the City. These projects include the redesign of Mac Arthur Boulevard with Avocado as a one-way couplet between San Joaquin Hills Road and Coast Highway. Additional lanes on Mac Arthur Boulevard are also under consideration. Coast Highway and Mac Arthur Boulevard. The ICU value in 1985 is projected to be 0.9288 without the project and 0.9428 with the project, an increase of 0.0140. Again, this increase is so small that it would be imperceptable to the average driver. The City is currently considering adding another eastbound lane to Coast Highway. This improvement would reduce the ICU at this intersection to below 0.90, thus mitigating the problem. tI Intersections Over 0 . 9000 In conjunction with the approval of Phasing Plans for Civic Plaza P-C , Block C of Koll Center Newport P-C and Corporate Plaza P-C , the approvals were conditioned as follows : Civic Plaza P-C "The applicant shall contribute an amount equal to what would be the City ' s share of the cost of the free right-turn lane on Jamboree Road behind the Texaco Station ($90 ,000 . 00) to a Circulation and Transit Fund to be used at the discretion , of the City for circulation and transit purposes in the Newport Center area . " Block C - Koll Center Newport P-C "That the sum of $90,000. 00 be provided for circulation and traffic improvements to intersections as specified in Volume 2 , Page 7 of the addendum to the Environmental Impact Report as shown on the City ' s TO: Planning Commission - 22 . Master Plan of Circulation consistent with the General Plan , with priority given to improvements within the vicinity of the project, if feasible . " Corporate Plaza P-C That the sum of $54,000 . 00 be provided for circulation and traffic improvements to intersections as specified on Page 4 , Table 2 of the Traffic Report dated March 20 , 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. Staff has provided a condition of approval (Number 34) similar to the above in conjunction with this request for Planning Commission consideration . AMENDMENT NO . 550 Amendment No . 550 will amend the existing planned community text to provide for the transfer of 93 ,051 square feet of allowable develop- ment from Office Site D to Office Site C . Amendment procedures are outlined in Section 20 . 51 . 045 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code . Staff Analysis Office Site D of Koll Center Newport is presently developed with one-story buildings . Office Site B is directly across Birch Street from Office Site D. The applicant has indicated that the amendment is necessary in order to allow Office Site D to remain as one-story buildings as presently developed. The applicant has indicated furthe'r that Office Site B is to be developed with multi -story buildings . An analysis of the environmental impact of the proposed amendment has been summarized under previous sections of this report. USE PERMIT NO. 1953 Use Permit No. 1953 if approved would permit the construction of the 12-story hotel , related banquet rooms , restaurants , meeting rooms and recreational facilities in Office Site A of the Koll Center Newport P-C . Use Permit procedures• are outlined in Chapter 20. 80 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code . A detailed description of the proposed project is contained in the environmental documenta- tion on the proposed project and previous sections of this report. Staff Analysis The proposed project is in conformance with the Newport Beach General Plan and the Koll Center Newport P-C District (Zoning ) . The impacts of the proposed project have been analyzed in the environmental documentation and traffic data has been updated in the phasing plan . It is the opinion of staff that if the Planning 1710 ' Planning Commission - 23 . Commission approves the phasing plan for the development of the remainder of the allowable buildable area in Koll Center Newport , that the major issue remaining will be the anticipated impact of the proposed hotel on the John Wayne/Orange County Airport . Con- sultants for the City have indicated that an additional hotel facility in the airport area would not significantly increase the number of visitors to the County. (See pages F-3 to F-31 Volume III of the environmental document) . Section 20. 80. 060 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code provides that in order to grant any use permit, the Planning Commission shall find that the establishment, maintenance or operation of the use or building applied for will not, under the circumstances of the par- ticular case be detrimental to the health , safety, peace , morals , comfort and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City. Recommended Action It is Staffs recommendation to approve this project with the findings and subject to the conditions as set forth in Exhibit "A" attached. Separate actions on the environmental document, phasing plan , amendment and use permit need be taken . PLANNING DEPARTMENT JAMES D. HEWIC'KER, DIRECTOR BY 9/,V( E/ Fred Talarico Environmental Coordinator FT/pw Attachments : Exhibit "A" Letter - VTN - August 26 , 1980 Amendment No . 514 Letter - The Koll Company - August 15 , 1980 Narrative on Planning Commission - "Test of Reasonableness " Traffic Report prepared by Weston Pringle & Associates , dated August 13, 1980 for the applicant Plot Plan , Floor Plans and Elevations , TO : nning Commission - 24 . • EXHIBIT "A" FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVALS RECOMMENDED TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION 1 . ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the "Addendum to the Certified Final Environmental Impact Report - Koll Center Newport Planned Community Development for the Koll /Aetna Properties " and recommend that the City Council certify the environmental document is complete , making 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 various decisions on this 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 anticipated negative effects of the project. 2 . PHASING PLAN Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the Phasing Plan for the remaining allowable development in the Koll Center Newport P-C District under the ownership of the applicant with the findings and subject to the conditions 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 anticipated negative effects of the project. 4. That the Phasing Plan is consistent with the Newport Beach General Plan and the Planned Community Development Plan for Koll Center Newport. TO: OPLanning Commission - 25 . • 5 . That based on the Phasing Plan and surrounding information submitted therewith , there is a reasonable correlation between projected traffic at time of completion and the capacity of affected intersections . 6 . That the applicant has taken into consideration in the preparation 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 congested direction . CONDITIONS: 1 . That prior to occupancy of any buildings on the site beyond the existing development completed 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) . The Circulation Systems Improvements shall be subject to the approval of the City Traffic Engineer. 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. 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 1 and 2 above . 4. That the architectural character and landscape design established within the existing Koll Center Newport shall be maintained. 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 shall certify to the Planning Department that the landscaping has been installed 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 fertilizers 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 . T0: Plao ng Commission - 26 . • 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 ahealthy 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, & 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 maPontain 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 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 e-rosion 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 . 21 . That 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 : 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 . TO: Pining Commission - 27 . • 23 . That final design of the project shall provide for the incorporation of water-saving devices for project lavatories and other water using facilities . 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 ( i .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 approved by the Public Works Department and the Planning Department. 32 . Prior to the issuance of any building permits for the site , 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 propotional to the per- centage 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 . PTO: Oanning Commission - 28. 0 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 . 35 . That prior to the issuance of any building permits , the applicants shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Planning 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 . 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 . 3. AMENDMENT NO. 550 Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt a-iResolution opprowijng Amendment No . 550 and recommending same to the City Council for adoption 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 conside-red 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. TO : Planning Commissio.n - 29 . 4 . USE PERMIT 1953 If the Planning Commission approves or modifies and approves the Phasing Plan , staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve Use Permit 1953 wi.th the Findings and subject to the conditions listed below: FINDINGS : 1 . That the environmental document is complete and has been pre- pared in compliance with 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 decisions 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 anticipated negative effects of the project. 4. That the proposed project is consistent with the Newport Beach General Plan and the Koll Center Newport Planned Com- munity District. 5 . That the proposed project will not , under the circumstances of the particular case , be detrimental to the health , safety, peace , comfort and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use or be detri - mental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City and further that the proposed modification is consistent with 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 neighborhood or be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood of the general welfare of the City . CONDI'TIONs : 1 . That development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved plot plan , floor plans and elevations . 2 . That all development shall be in conformance with the approved phasing plan and related conditions of approval . 3. That all development shall comply with the Uniform Building Code 1976 edition . TO : Planning Commission - 30 . 4. That all access to the buildings be approved by the Fire Department. 5. That all on site fire protection (hydrants and Fire Depart- ment connections ) shall be approved by the Fire and Public Works Department. 6. The surface of the three-level parking structure shall be landscaped with trees and shrubs either recessed or in tub/ planter boxes , in a manner approved by the Directors of the Parks , Beach & Recreation and Planning Departments . 7 . Final site plans and choice of , exterior building finish shall be subject to review and approval by the Planning Department. 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 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 Vo.n 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 dr. i•ve . 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 . TO: • Planning Commission - 31•. 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 . L . � • � P32 N 2301 Campus Drive P O Box C.19529 Irvine,CA 92713—(714) 833.2450 Engineers Architects • Planners TWX• 910-5951534 VTN OR MIN August 26 , 1980 George Cokas , Secretary Planning Commission City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92663 Gentlemen: Being landowners in the area concerned with regard to Permit #1953 , we want to go on record that we are in favor of the construction of a 12-story hotel with related banquet rooms, restaurants , meeting rooms and recreation facilities in Koll Center Newport. Very truly yours , VTN CORPORATION K. W. Carlson /:.;R. Nelson � v . Trindle KWC:ejj cc: Don Koll T � Planning Commission Meeting Marcha •�; 0 -t0 . Agenda Item No . 9 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH March 13 , 1980 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Planning Department SUBJECT: Request to consider a Phasing Plan for the remaining development in Office Site C for the Koll Center Planned Community, and the acceptance of an Environmental Document Discussion LOCATION : Office Site C of .the Planned'-Community of Koll• Center Newport, located easterly of MacArthur Boulevard between Campus Drive and Birch Street. ZONE: P-C APPLICANT: The Irvine Company, Newport Beach OWNER: Same as Applicant At the March 6 , 19$0 Planning Commission meeting , this item was continued to the meeting of March 20 , 1980 to allow for the completion of the mandatory state review period of the Draft Addendum to the Certified Final EIR. The review period ends on March 20 , 1980 and staff will bring to the Planning Commission meeting any additional responses received. Attached for the Planning Commission review are comments and responses thereto received since the Planning Commission meeting of March 6 , 1980 . Please bring staff reports of March 6, 1980 and Draft EIR to the meeting . PLANNING DEPARTMENT JAMES D . HEWICKER, DIRECTOR By Z,—/1,2z"4tl Fred a 'arico Environmental Coordinator FT/dt Attachments : Letter C. E. Q .A. C . - March 5 , 1980 Letter SCAG - March 5 , 1980 Response to Attachment No. 1 Response to Attachment No. 2 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 3 z e. C741FOR CITIZENS ' ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE March 5, 1980 Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission 3360 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach , CA 92663 SUBJECT: Draft EIR Addendum for Koll Center Newport - The Irvine Company - Properties Dear Mr. Chairman and n Members of the Planning n ng Commission : The Environmental Impact Report Subcommittee of the Citizens ' En- vironmental Quality Advisory Committee has reviewed the Koll Center EIR Addendum and herewith submits its comments and recommendations to the Planning Commission. The subcommittee did not have the original 1972 draft EIR, because it was deemed inadequate by staff. Further, the EIR portion which includes the hotel was also withheld from our perview for legal reasons due to lawsuit. In terms of the adequacy of the EIR, the subcommittee finds that certain questions are unanswered and that some of the EIR findings require further scrutiny to aid the Planning Commission in its decision on the project. QUESTIONS THE EIR DOES NOT ANSWER: 1. What is the project trip generation figure for the AM .peak and noon peak hour traffic from and to the site? 2. What previously approved projects required the improvements of Bristol North/Jamboree, Jamboree/Campus and Jamboree/MacArthur as listed on page A9 of the Appendix?• Are they funded? What ICU requirements did they meet in the conditioning of these inters.ection improvement projects? 3. How can only 3% of all the bay siltation be a result of con- struction, as is stated in the EIR? 4. Have the existing Koll Center siltation basins been effective during the past rains? Will they be adequate with the new construction? Do they service the 'project? Will proposed P � more be required? Are grease traps installed and working? City IIall • 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California 92663 3� Planning Commission Page 2 March 5, 1980 5. Is it true the City has no traffic level measurements for Jam- 'boree , MacArthur, Campus and Von Karman , as is stated on Page 29 , Volume I? Is so , why? 6. What further impediment to Jamboree traffic flow will result with the construction of a signal at Birch and Jamboree? How will the signal effect traffic and ICU ' s at Jamboree and Mac- Arthur? 7. What types of office space will the project attract? If ten- ants are mostly of single small businesses (as is alluded to in the text of the airport trip generation section) , can there be a possibility of carpooling (a recommended traffic mitiga- tion measure) ? B. Why is there no information in, the EIR on the ohasing of the project? PROJECT IMPACTS DESERVING PLANNING COMMISSION SCRUTINY : 1. The highest percentage of PM peak traff is emanating from the project (30% impacts the right turn movement at the intersec- tion of Campus and Bristol . The only recommendation for miti - gation is one additional right turn lane . Uncertain CDM free- way completion is the only other mitigation . 2 . The Jamboree/Campus road improvements do not improve the PM peak flow of 20% directional distribution of traffic from Campus turning east on to Jamboree toward the 405 freeway ; yet, these improvements are cited as mitigation measures to the intersec- tion impacts . 3 . The directional cited on page A6 of the appendix has traffic exiting from the two parking egresses onto .Campus , travelling west and turning north on MacArthur or continuing in a wester- ly direction . None' of the improvements previously required by other projects at the intersection of MacArthur/Campus will im- prove the lane capacity for the PM peak traffic (30% of total ) emanating from the project site. EIR- SUBCOMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS : 1. Install signals at the Birch/Jamboree intersections prior to project construction. 2. Require the water quality mitigation measures as cited on page 16 of Volume II : r rt Planning Commission Page 3 March 5, 1980 .t 4, 4 .2 Mitigation Measures o Grading plans must be submitted for review and approval by the City for consistency with the City grading ordi - nance . o Existing drainage systems shall be improved or updated to the satisfaction of the City. Both temporary and permanent facilities shall minimize any potential im- pacts from debris , or other water pollutants . o Onsite retention basins shall be adequate to control first flow pollution from the existing and proposed development. o Drainage facilities shall be properly maintained by the applicant. o Any slopes exposed during site preparation shall be planted as soon as feasible in order to reduce erosion potential . o A landscape maintenance program shall be devised which specifies control of fertilizers , pesticides , and irrigation water subject to approval of the City. o Routine vacuum sweeping and cleaning of surface parking areas should be arranged to reduce debris and pollu- tants carried into the drainage system. 3. Seek means to require the carpooling and staggered work hours recommendation and then condition the project to make these pro- visions prior to building occupancy. 4 . Require the installation of security lock on individual tenant offices as a requirement for building occupancy . (See EIR re- commendation to minimize police coverage of proposed new office space . ) The above has been unanimously approved by CEQAC members and is res- pectfully submitted to the Planning Commission for consideration . Sincerely, ' Judy Cooper ' EIR Subcommittee Chairman Jerry King CEQAC Chairman JC/qp I J JOUTHERn CALIFORIIIR AMOCIRTIOO OF GOVERf1fI1HfITJ 600 fouth Commonwealth avenue•fults 1000•loi nngelei•Collfornlo,90005.213/385-1000 DATE: March 5, 1980 TO: Fred Talarico Community Development Dept. City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd.- Newport Beach, Ca. 92663 FROM: Metropolitan Clearinghouse SUBJECT: Addendum to the •Certified Final EIR - Koll Center Newport Planned SCAG File Number: OR-14818-ED Thank you for submitting the environmental document for the referenced project for SCAG review. In accordance with procedures developed to comply with the clearinghouse guidelines for the review of voluntarily submitted environmental impact reports, we have disseminated information regarding the document to cities, counties and some special agencies which may be affected by, or interested in the project or the results of the environmental assessment. No comments were received in response to this areawide notification. Additionally, the environmental document has been reviewed by SCAG staff to determine the relationship of your project and possible environmental impacts resulting from it to. adopted regional policies, plans or programs. The SCAG staff review of the proposed development found that it: 1. is primarily local in nature; 2. does not conflict with adopted regional plans; and 3. is consistent with adopted regional policies. le ringhouse Offi 1 10 ' , LA/bb JGc` i� SEW PO CITY OF 'EWPORT BEACH Planning Department 640-2197 ~- March 13, 1980 Loretta Anay.a c/o SCAG 600 S. Commonwealth Avenue Suite 1000 Los Angeles, California 90005 SUBJECT: Addendum to the Certified Final Environmental Impact Report Koll Center Newport Planned Community Development for The Irvine Company Properties DearMs . Anaya: The City of Newport Beach has received your comments on the above subject environmental Impact Report. Your comments will be forwarded to the City' s Planning Commission for their consideration in review of this document . Thank you for your cooperation . i Very truly yours , PLANNING DEPARTMENT JAMES D. NEWICKER, DIRECTOR By Fred al rico Environmental Coordinator FT/dt City Hall • 3300 Novport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California 92663 4�FWPO CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH u x Planning Department 640-2197 cq4 ro 1% March 13 , 1980 Jerry King , Chairman c/o Citizens ' Environmental Quality Advisory Committee 3300 West Newport Boulevard Newport Beach , CA 92663 SUBJECT: Addendum to the Certified Final Environmental Impact Report Koll Center Newport Planned Community Development for The Irvine Company Properties . Dear Mr. King: The City of Newport Beach has received your comments on the above subject environmental document. Your comments will be forwarded to the City' s Planning Commission for their consideration in review of this project. The following comments are offered as they relate to the concerns expressed in your letter: "Questions the EIR Does Not Answer" Responses : Item No. 1 The AM peak and noon peak hour traffic to and from the site are not included within the Draft EIR Addendum. The traffic data contained in the subject document and the Traffic Phasing Plan has been done in accordance with the Traffic Phasing Ordinance and City Policy. S-1 ("Administrative Procedures for Implementing the Traffic Phasing Ordinance" ) . As such , it represents the peak hour traffic conditions of the day. Therefore, the worst case conditions have been analyzed. Item No. 2 The traffic data have been revised and expanded based on approved projects between the time of preparation of the d-raft report and Planning Commission hearings thereon . A list of projects included . as "committed" is contained on page 4 of the Traffic Report dated February 19 , 1980 prepared by Weston Pringle E Associates for the applicant. The ICU requirements met by each project is that either established by the City ' s Traffic Phasing Ordinance or the City Council in approval of Traffic Phasing Plans . - 1 - City Hall • 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach. California 92663 g T0: Mr. Jerry Kinlp- 2 . y Item No. 3 In the description of existing environmental conditions (Volume I page 28) an estimate of general construction related siltation impacts was made. Project level impacts and measures designed to minimize said are found in Volume II on pages 15 and 16. These measures have been incorporated in concept as suggested conditions of approval for Planning Commission consideration. Item No. 4 The effectiveness of existing siltation basins in Koll Center Newport has not been established during the past rains . There have been several conditions of approval suggested by staff for Planning Commission consideration as they relate to potential adverse impacts during both the construction and operational phases of the project. (Staff Report to Planning Commission - March 6 , 1980 Conditions 6 through 13 and 15 through 20) . Item No. 5 Traffic projections for each of the streets mentioned are available within the City. Item No. 6 It is anticipated that a traffic signal at Birch Street and Jamboree would have a positive effect on traffic flow on Jamboree Road. This traffic signal will be part of a synchronized system run by the City of Irvine and has been. planned since the original approval of Koll Center Newport . No adverse impact of this signal is anticipated at the intersection of Jamboree Road and MacArthur Boulevard. Item No. 7 Staff has recommended to the Planning Commission (Staff Report - March 6 , 1980 Condition No. 25) that the applicant be required to demonstrate that al'1 practicable measures to reduce total a'nd peak hour traffic (i .e. carpool /van pool ,staggered employee work hours , tenant mix) have been or will be taken. Item No. 8 I-nformation on the development phasing of the project is contained in the letter to the City by the applicant dated - February 20, 1980 and was developed based upon information in the Draft Report and Traffic Report. "PROJECT IMPACTS DESERVING PLANNI-NG COMMISSION SCRUTINY" Item Nos . 1 , 2 , & 3 This information has been transmitted to the City' s Planning Commission in accordance with the Committee' s request. IU: Mr. Jerry Og - 3. 0 "EIR SUBCOMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS" Item Nos . 1 , 2, 3, & 4 Staff has suggested as conditions of approval of the Traffic Phasing Plan the concepts expressed in each of the above 4 EIR Subcommittee recommendations (Staff Report - March 6 , 1980) . PLANNING DEPARTMENT JAMES D. HEWICKER, DIRECTOR By _ ` d al arico Environmental Coordinator FT/dt mice ' ._ . . . . AYaa Gvrupctfi�,avt�s _ _=nd ��' ___. t k, 4h2 SOZ t8,d7 - �iin .Nei- revs WM,,. 1 _ . r►�ttti- �e�tac�� rk°iP revht a