Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTPO040_PACESETTER HOMES (OFFICE) TP0040 COMMISSIONERS #ber 10, 1985 ` MINUTES J F C O C > v = z c M nmzZaz Tm City of Newport Beach A ROLL CALL INDEX Ilse—permit all expire unloss over^ spa within 24 months from the date of approval as cified in Section 20.80.090 A of the Newport Beach nicipal Code. S. That the Plann n33.Commission may add to or modify conditions of appr� 1 of this use permit, or recommend to the City ncil the revocation of this use permit, upon a de ination that the operation which is the subject of 's use permit, causes injury, or is detrimental to health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, or general fare of the community. Traffic Study (Public Hearing) Item No.6 Request to consider a traffic study so as to allow the Traffic construction of a 55,000 sq.ft. office building, and Study the acceptance of an environmental document. Approved LOCATION: Lots No. 13-16, Tract No. 3201, Condition- located at 3952-4020 Campus Drive, on ally the southeasterly side of Campus Drive, between Dove Street and Quail Street, across from the John Wayne Airport. ZONE: M-1-A APPLICANT: Pacesetter Homes, Inc. , Newport Beach OWNER: Same as applicant The public hearing was opened at this time, and Mr. Steve Strauss, appeared before the Planning Commission on behalf of the applicant. Mr. Strauss stated that the applicant concurs with the findings and conditions of approval in Exhibit "A". In response to a question posed by Commissioner Winburn, Patricia Temple advised that the proposed 55,000 square foot office building is equivalent to the 0.5 floor area ratio allowed in General Plan Amendment 81-2, and the Traffic Study is the only discretionary action that is required of the project. The public hearing was closed at this time. Motion 3 Motion was made to approve the findings for approval of Ayes x x x x x x x the Environmental Document and Traffic Study in Exhibit "A". Motion voted on, MOTION CARRIED. -17- COMMISSIONERS *ber 10, 1985 • MINUTES x x C O O E 9 v m z c m y m Z Z Z Z Z T m City of Newport Beach C Z N O r 0 0 9 ROLL CALL INDEX A. Environmental Document Findings: 1. That an Initial Study and Negative Declaration have been prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act, and that their contents have been considered in the de- cisions on this project. 2. That based on the information contained in the Negative Declaration, the project incorporates sufficient mitigation measures to reduce poten- tially significant environmental effects, and that the project will not result in significant en- vironmental impacts. Mitigation Measures: 1. That the lighting system shall be designed and maintained in such a manner as to conceal the light source and to minimize light spillage and glare. The plans shall be prepared and signed by a Licensed Electrical Engineer; with a letter from the Engineer stating that, in his opinion, this requirement has been met. 2. The design of the parking lot shall be subject to review and approval of the City Traffic Engineer. B. Traffic Study Findings: 1. That a Traffic Study has been prepared which analyzes the impact of the proposed project on the peak hour traffic and circulation system in accordance with Chapter 15.40 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code and City Policy S-1. 2. That the Traffic Study indicates that the proj- ect-generated traffic will be greater than one percent of the existing traffic during the 2.5 hour peak period on any leg of one critical intersection, but will not have an intersection Capacity Utilization of greater than .90. -18- 4 COMMISSIONERS Ocher 10, 1985 • MINUTES F F C O O S 1 9 9r m 2 C m a m = A = _ M m City of Newport Beach a ROLL CALL INDEX 3. That the Traffic Study indicates that the proj- ect-generated traffic will neither cause nor make worse an unsatisfactory level of traffic on any 'major, ' 'primary-modified,' or 'primary' street. neral—Plan-Gonaiateney-Dete minatlex—(8feeeeeien) Item No.7 Request to consider a transfer of allowed retail General velopment from Newport Village and Civic Plaza to Plan Fa hion Island within Newport Center as permitted by Consistency Gen ral Plan Amendment No. 78-2. Determina- INITIA D BY: The City of Newport Beach tion � Traffic Study B. Traffic ud (Public Hearing) Approved Request to co Isider a traffic study so as to allow construction of P6,000 sq.ft. of retail and restaurant uses in Fashion Island, and the acceptance of an environmental doc nt. LOCATION: Variou locations within Tract No. 6015 known a Fashion Island, within Newport Center. ZONE: C-0-H APPLICANT: The Irvine Com \General OWNER: Same as applica In response to questions e by Commissioner Koppelman regarding the miti measure of a northbound through lane on Mahur oulevard at San Joaquin Hills Road, Mr. Webblied that MacArthur Boulevard northbound has twoes of raffic and a single left turn lane. He saiat in o er to add a third northbound lane the Cias Indic ted to the applicant that it will be necry to wide the road on the westerly side and to the medi islands over. Mr. Webb commented thafinal dete nation regarding the intersection wie in accordant with the results of the Newport Cr General Plan. Hesaid that the MacArthur Boulevidening will be om600 feet to 1,000 feet going ithe San Joaquin Hil sRoad intersection to about 1,0eet going out of th -19- Planning Commission Meeting October 10, 1985 Agenda Item No. 6 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH TO: Planning Commission FROM: Planning Department SUBJECT: Traffic Study (Public Hearing) Request to consider a traffic study so as to permit the construction of a 55,000 square foot office building. LOCATION: Lots 13, 14, 15 and 16 of Tract 3201, located at 4000 Campus Drive in Newport Beach. ZONE: M-1-A APPLICANT: Pacesetter Homes, Newport Beach OWNER: Same as applicant Applications Approval of a Traffic Study has been requested to allow construction of a 55,000 square foot office building in the Campus Drive Indus- trial/Office area. A Traffic Study is required for any commercial project which is 10,000 square feet or greater. ' Traffic Study proce- dures are contained in Chapter 15.40 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. Background On January 21, 1981, the Planning Commission approved a Traffic Study for a 50,000 square foot office building proposed for three of the four lots proposed for development in this application. Subsequent to this approval in May of 1983, the City Council adopted General Plan Amendment 81-2 limiting development intensity in the Campus Drive Industrial/Office area to 0.5 times the buildable area (0.5 FAR) . Environmental Significance In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) , the State CEQA Guidelines, and City Council Policy K-3, an Initial Study was prepared for the proposed office project. Based upon information contained in the Initial Study, it has been determined that the project will not have a significant effect on the environ- ment. A Negative Declaration has been prepared and is attached to this report for the review of the Planning Commission. s ^s TO: Planning Commission - 2. Conformance with the General Plan The Land Use Element of the Newport Beach General Plan designates the site for a mixture of "Administrative, Professional and Financial Commercial" and "General Industry." This land use designation allows offices, services, hotels, motels and convalescent hospitals, with some limited retail uses supportive of predominant uses; and research, development, manufacturing, professional services, warehouses and wholesale sales. The proposed general office use is consistent with the General Plan. Subject Property and Surrounding Land Uses The project site consists of 2.66 acres and is currently occupied by three one-story buildings with related parking. The existing struc- tures total 43,500 square feet and are occupied by commercial and office uses. The project site is surrounded by mixed office, light' industrial and commercial uses. Across Campus Drive are commercial and service uses associated with John Wayne-Orange County Airport. Traffic Study The Traffic Study prepared addressed an original project proposal of 68,232 square feet office building. This project would have required a determination that the project, in excess of a Floor Area Ratio of 0.5, would generate no more traffic than a typical office project at 0.5 FAR. Consistency with the General Plan provision was proposed through establishment of a Transportation Management Plan (TMP) . Upon completion of the Traffic Study, the applicant reconsidered the project proposal, due to two factors: 1) the 68,232 sq.ft. project did not meet the criteria of the TPO and would, therefore, require a 4/5ths majority to gain approval; and 2) the City Traffic Engineer's opinion that a carpool/vanpool program was not workable for a small, multi-tenant office building. The Traffic Study analyzed the proposed project of 55,000 sq.ft. of office in conformance with the city's Traffic Phasing Ordinance and City Council Policy S-1. The TPO procedures allow for credit to be granted for existing development in redevelopment projects. The existing and proposed traffic generation is as follows: TO: Planning Commission - 3. TRIP GENERATION Pacesetter Homes Office Revision LAND USE GENERATED TRIPS Daily 2.5 Hour Peak PM Peak Hour In Out In Out Proposed Office 720 65 185 35 95 (55,000 sq.ft.) Industrial -140 -10 -40 -5 -20 (20,000 sq.ft.) Existing Office -310 -30 -80 -15 -40 (23,500 sq.ft. Net Increase 270 25 65 15 35 The proposed project is expected to be completed in 1987. Analyses were, therefore, completed for 1988. The City Traffic Engineer identified four (4) intersections which could be affected by the project at full occupancy. The first step in evaluating intersections is to conduct a 1% Traffic Volume Analysis, taking into consideration existing traffic, regional growth and the traffic of previously committed projects. The previous Pacesetter Homes TPO approval was deleted from the list of committed projects for the purposes of this analysis. For any intersection where, on any approach leg, project traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of the projected peak two and one-half hour volume, an Inter- section Capacity Utilization Analysis (ICU) is required. Results of the 1% test indicate that project traffic exceeded 1% of projected traffic on an approach leg of one' intersection. An ICU Analysis was conducted for this intersection, with an intersection capacity utilization ratio as follows: ICU SUMMARY - 1988 Pacesetter Homes Office Revision 1985 Existing Existing Existing +Regional +Regional ICU +Committed +Committed INTERSECTION +Project MacArthur Boulevard and Campus Drive 0.8416 0.8902 0.8949 TO: Planning Commission - 4. The projected ICU ratio for the critical intersection identified does not exceed 0.90. The project meets the criteria of the Traffic Phasing Ordinance. Conclusion and Recommendation In order to approve a Traffic Study, the Planning Commission must find that the proposed project will neither cause nor make worse and unsatisfactory level of traffic service on any major, primary-modified or primary street. The proposed project traffic exceeded 1% of projected traffic on one intersection which had an ICU ratio of less than 0.90. staff recommends approval of the Traffic Study for a 55,000 sq.ft. office building proposed by Pacesetter Homes. Findings for approval are attached in Exhibit "A". PLANNING DEPARTMENT JAMES D. HEWICKER, Director sy 'li PATRICIA L. TEMPLE Environmental Coordinator PLT:jm SR11 Attachments: 1. Exhibit "A". 2. vicinity Map 3. Traffic study 4. Negative Declaration I EXHIBIT "A" FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL ENVIRONMENTAL TRAFFIC STUDY A. Environmental Document Findings: 1. That an Initial Study and Negative Declaration have been prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act, and that their contents have been considered in the de- cisions on this project. 2. That based on the information contained in the Negative Declaration, the project incorporates sufficient mitigation measures to reduce poten- tially significant environmental effects, and that the project will not result in significant en- vironmental impacts. Mitigation Measures: 1. That the lighting system shall be designed and maintained in such a manner as to conceal the light source and to minimize light spillage and glare. The plans shall be prepared and signed by Electrical a Licensed E1 Engineer; with a letter from opinion, this stating p the Engineer g that, in his I g requirement nt has been met. 2. The design of the parking lot shall be subject to review and approval of the City Traffic Engineer. B. Traffic Study Findings: 1. That a Traffic Study has been prepared which analyzes the impact of the proposed project on the peak hour traffic and circulation system in accordance with Chapter 15.40 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code and City Policy S-1. 2. That the Traffic Study indicates that the proj- ect-generated traffic will be greater than one percent of the existing traffic during the 2.5 hour peak period on any leg of one critical I intersection, but will not have an intersection Capacity Utilization of greater than .90. 3. That the Traffic Study indicates that the proj- ect-generated traffic will neither cause nor make worse an unsatisfactory level of traffic on any 'major,' 'primary-modified, ' or 'primary' street. SR11 - 2 6 VICINITY MAP TRAFFIC STUDY Pacesetter Homes Office -.- -- DONE 4— M Ip o N � } m •. 1 1• a 19 .+ ro • u d 1 .} LOT 7a1cT No.1394 M w 14A2•.ac. 3 .. P-C u n K Or } � 1 n IM Ml 0, s o � N HR/5T0L �r�uur 60RONA 1E ]—got �7I av--7 sra : I 7 TRAFFIC & TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING June 18, 1985 Ms. Marie Gilliam 1825 Westcliff Dr., Suite 177 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Dear Ms. Gilliam: This letter summarizes our study of traffic factors related to the proposed Pacesetter Homes Office project on Campus Drive in the City of Newport Beach. The study is based upon information provided by you and the City of Newport Beach as well as previous studies. This study has been completed to provide input for an EIR and to satisfy the requirements of the City of Npwport Beach Traffic Phasing Ordiqance. The proposed project would consist of the construction of a P8,232 square foot office building which would replace an existing 20,000 squarp foot industrial building and two office buildings of 13,500 and 10,000 square feet. A study was completed in December, 1980, for a 50,000 square foot office building on three of the four lots included in this project. The current proposal would house the Pacesetter Homes corporate offices as well as subsidiary companies. In addition, some space could be available to lease for general office use. EXISTING TRAFFIC CONDITIONS Campus Drive is a four lane facility with limited on-street parking and would provide all vehicular access. At Mac Arthur Boulevard and Bristol Street North, additional turning lanes have been provided. Mac Arthur Boulevard is a north- south, major arterial with three lanes of travel in each direction and special turning lanes. The extension of the Route 73, Corona del Mar Freeway, is currently under construction and is anticipated to be completed in 1986. Existing daily traffic volumes are illustrated on Figure 1. Also indicated on Figure 1 are 1985 ICU values at intersections in the environs of the project site. 2651 EAST CHAPMAN AVENUE • SUITE 110 • FULLERTON, CALIFORNIA 92631 • (714) 671-2931 Q VICINITY MAP TRAFFIC STUDY Pacesetter Homes Office t N ++ y to •t 1• •t is N 46 I O LDT I 7aacT No.1994 •1 C P- i It D O N to •t • •• N t � n j IA • MI N s i BR/STOL fl?URE CORONA " Baisra y — a 7 W { db A Wealm 'P►ccNgQe Al AooedaW TRAFFIC & TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING June 18, 1985 Ms. Marie Gilliam 1825 Westcliff Or., Suite 177 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Dear Ms. Gilliam: This letter summarizes our study of traffic factors related to the proposed Pacesetter Homes Office project on Campus Drive in the City of Newport Beach. The study is based upon information provided by you and the City of Newport Beach as well as previous studies. This study has been completed to provide input for an EIR and to satisfy the requirements of the City of Newport Beach Traffic Phasing Ordiqance, The proposed project would consist of the construction of a P8,232 square foot office building which would replace an existing 20,000 square foot industrial building and two office buildings of 13,500 and 10,000 square feet. A study was completed in December, 1980, for a 50,000 square foot office building on three of the four lots included in this project. The current proposal would house the Pacesetter Homes corporate offices as well as subsidiary companies. In addition, some space could be available to lease for general office use. EXISTING TRAFFIC CONDITIONS Campus Drive is a four lane facility with limited on-street parking and would provide all vehicular access. At Mac Arthur Boulevard and Bristol Street North, additional turning lanes have been provided. Mac Arthur Boulevard is a north- south, major arterial with three lanes of travel in each direction and special turning lanes. The extension of the Route 73, Corona del Mar Freeway, is currently under construction and is anticipated to be completed in 1986. Existing daily traffic volumes are illustrated on Figure 1. Also indicated on Figure 1 are 1985 ' ICU values at intersections in the environs of the project site. 2651 EAST CHAPMAN AVENUE • SUITE 110 • FULLERTON, CALIFORNIA 92631 • (714) 871-2931 Q u LEGEND 36 = DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUMES, IN 1000's 0.8416 - ICU VALUES 0.8416 28 DR. 16 09186 I Q,co 20 o 44 1.152 No �u'm & G4 BRISTOL SP coN 42 BR1STpL S-r NggTH aN�v��` 31 32 � 0 B0NITA CYN•o 4 D 09 yG�RD. FORD GO gPN JOAp��N iu SZ RD. O m COAST Hwy PACIFIC EXISTING DAILY VOLUMES .AND ICU VALUES WESTON PRINGLE AND ASSOCIATES FIGURE I R -2- TRIP GENERATION In order to examine potential traffic impacts of the project, it is necessary to estimate the number of trips that would be generated. Trip generation rates for various land uses in the City of Newport Beach have been established in previous studies and are utilized in this study. Table 1 lists the trip 'gene- ration rates utilized for this study. By applying these rates to the project, estimates of daily, 2.5 hour peak and PM peak hour trip generation were obtained. There are currently three buildings on the proposed site which dontribute traffic to the existing circulation system. Since the potential traffic impact of the project is the net increase in traffic, it is necessary to deduct the existing trip generation from that estimated for the project. Table 2 lists the estimated daily, 2.5 peak and PM hour trip generation for the proposed and existing uses. As indicated in Table 2, the estimated net trip generation is 440 daily, 150 2.5 hour peak and 75 PM peak hour for the proposed project. These volumes are less than would be generated by a 10,000 square foot office building which is excepted from the Traffic Phasing Ordinance. Estimates are also indi- cated for a 55,000 square foot building which is equivalent to a 0.5 FAR condition permitted,by current zoning. The net traffic increases are reduced with the re- dUced 'building area. TRIP DISTRIBUTION Data were provided by Pacesetter Homes which included the home zip codes for current employees. These data were utilized to develop a geographic trip distri- bution pattern for the project which is illustrated on 'Figure 2. The estimated net increase in traffic due to the project was then assigned to the street system. Net increases in daily traffic as a result of the project are illustrated on Figure 3. The distribution illustrated on Figure 2 was also utilized to assign 2.5 hour peak and PM peak hour trips to the potentially critical intersections. ANALYSIS In conformance with the Traffic Phasing Ordinance of the City of Newport Beach, the City Traffic Engineer was contacted and identified four intersections for -3- Table 1 TRIP GENERATION RATES Pacesetter Homes Office Revision LAND USE TRIP ENDS PER 1000 SQUARE FEET Da_y 2.5 Hour Peak PM Peak Hour In Out In Out Office 13.0 1.20 3.40 0.60 1.70 Industrial 7.0 (1) 0.48 1.94 0.24 0.97 (1) Source: "Trip Generation", ITE for Industrial Parks. Table 2 TRIP GENERATION Pacesetter Homes Office Revision LAND USE GENERATED TRIPS Dajly 2.5 Hour Peak PM Peak Hour n • Out In Out Proposed Project Proposed Office 890 80 230 40 115 (68,232 sq. ft.) Industrial -140 -10 -40 -5 -20 (20,000 sq. ft.) Existing Office -310 -30 -80 -15 -40 (23,500 sq. ft.) — — — — — Net Increase 440 40 110 20 55 Alternative Project (0.5 FAR) Proposed Office 720 65 1.185 35 95 (55,000 sq. ft. ) Industrial -140 -10 -40 -5 -20 (20,000 Sq. ft.) Existing Office -310 -30 -80 -15 -40 (23,500 sq. ft.) — — — — — Net Increase 270 25 65 15 35 l� 25% 25% 0R. y 10% 20% �� x eRiSroL IV a� sr. BRISTp N � STORTH JN`J�P 10% 5% 5% 80NITA CYN•Rp 4 yo mJ � s C� GIRD. FORD B� ca s JpA08/N e� y�<<s RO. 0 m a CpAST NW . PACIFIC DIRECTIONAL DISTRIBUTION PACESETTER HOMES OFFICE REVISION IM�i1�iN PRINGLI AND ASSOCIATES O p 45 0 gQ BRISTOL ST m m BRISTOL Sr NORTH a NO NO BOHITA C'Ok-0 � a a 09 N ►- G FORD �O 9PN JOAQ��N w y�<<S RD. 0 m a COAST HtyY PACIFIC 1 PROJECT DAILY VOLUMES PACESETTER HOMES OFFICE REVISION WESTON PRINGLE AND ASSOCIATES , F loups 3 13 -4- inclusion in this analysis. The first step in the analysis was the "One Percent" test. An intersection is defined as critical by the Ordinance when the project traffic exceeds one percent of existing plus committed project plus regional growth traffic on any approach to an intersection during the 2.5 hour peak period. A list of committed projects was provided by the City for inclusion in this study and is contained in Table 3. Since the project is anticipated to be completed in 1987, the analyses were completed for 1988 as required by the Ordinance. A project was approved for this site in 1981 and has been included in the City's Committed Project list sunce that time. For this study, these Pacesetter Com- mitted Project traffic volumes were removed from the Committed Project Traffic utilized in these analyses. Appendix A contains "One Percent" analysis sheets for the four intersections for the proposed project and for a 0.5 FAR project. The results of the "One Percept" test are summarized in Table 4. For the proposed project, Bristol Street North/Campus Drive, Jamboree Road/Campus Drive and Mac Arthur Boulevard/ Campus Drive do not pass the "One Percent" test. With the 0.5 FAR project, only the Mac Arthur Boulevard/Campo; Drive intersection fails the "One Percent" test. As required by the Ordinance, additional analyses were completed for these three intersections. These additional analyses included ICU calculations with existing,, committed project, regional growth and project PM peak hour traffic. The ICU analyses are contained in Appendix B and summarized in Table 5. Review of Table 5 indicates that the Bristol Street North/Campus Drive and Jamboree Road/ Campus Drive intersections would have unacceptable conditions (ICU value greater than 0.90) with the project and without mitigation. The ICU analyses did not include the compltion of the Corona del Mar Freeway extension in 1986. With this freeway extension, traffic will be diverted from Bristol Street North to the freeway with the resultant reduced volumes at the Bristol Street North/Campus Drive intersection. It is anticipated that this will result in acceptable conditions at this intersection. Table 3 COMMITTED PROJECTS Pacesetter Homes Office Revision Hoag Hospital Flagship Hospital National Education Office Big Canyon 10 Aeronutronic Ford Fun Zone Back Bay Office Marriott Hotel Civic Plaza St. Andrew's Church Corporate Plaza YMCA KolI Center Newport Allred Condos Mac Arthur Court Morgan Development Four Seasons Hotel North Ford Block 400 Medical Newport Place Sheraton Expansion Shokrian Mac Arthur Court, Amend. No. 1 Sea Island Baywood Apartments Ford Aeronutronic, Amend. No. 2 Harbor Point Homes Carver Granville Office Rudy Baron Corona del Mar Homes Martha's Vineyard Big Canyon Villa Apts. Valdez 1400 Dove Street Coast Busjness Center 1100 Quail Street Koll Center Npt. No. 1 Heltzer Medical Office Ross Mollard Koll Center, Amend. No. 4A Banning/Newport Ranch Ford Aeronutronic, Amend. No. 1 Park Lido North Ford, Amend. No. 1 Villa Point Rosan's Development Heritage Bank Block 500 Newport Center Project Newport Aquatics Center 2600 E. Coast Highway National Education Office (RUSD) )6 -6- Table 4 CRITICAL INTERSECTION IDENTIFICATION Pacesetter Homes Office Revision INTERSECTION 2.5 HOUR PERCENTAGES - 1988 NB SB EB WB Proposed Project Bristol Street N. & Campus Drive 0.4 1.3 - 0.1 Bristol' Street & Campus Drive 0.2 0.8 0.1 - Jamboree Road & Campus Drive - 0.3 1.5 0.3 Mac Arthur Boulevard & Campus Drive - 0.2 3.1 0.4 Alternative Project (0.5 FAR) Bristol Street N. & Campus Drive 0.4 0.7 - 0.1 Bristol Street & Campus Drive 0.2 0.6 0.1 - Jamboree Road & Campus Drive - 0.2 0.9 0.3 Mac Arthur Boulevard & Campus Drive - 0.1 1.9 0.3 Table 5 ICU SUMMARY - 1988 Pacesetter Homes Office Revision 1985 EXISTING EXISTING EXISTING +REGIONAL +REGIONAL ICU +COMMITTED +COMMITTED INTERSECTION +PROJECT Proposed Project Bristol Street N. & Campus Drive 1.1525 1.3568 1.3606 Jamboree Road & Campus Drive 0.9186 1.0532 1.0553 Mac Arthur Boulevard & Campus Drive 0.8416 0.8902 0.8965 Alternative Project (0.5 FAR) Mac Arthur Boulevard & Campus Drive 0.8416 0.8902 0.8949 Ib 187 ICU-7- The Jamboree Road/Campus Drive intersection is projected to have a 9 values of 1.0532 without the project. The ICU value is increased by 0.0021 to 1.0553 with the project. While this increase would not be perceptible to the average driver, the intersection would exceed the City's criteria. Re- view of the intersection and ICU analysis did not indicate any readily applicable physical mitigation measure. The previously approved Pacesetter Homes project included a van/car pool program to reduce traffic impacts. A similar plan can be considered to mitigate the identified impact. Currently, there are 53 employees which drive their own vehicles to work and no ride sharing. Review of employee lists indicated a total of 30 employees as being potential ride share participants. These po- tential participants were then grouped by home Zip Code as indicated in Table 6. With this program the trip generation for Pacesetter Homes would be reduced by 25 outbound trips during the PM peak hour. This is equivalent to a 45 percent reduction in trip generation during the most critical period. While this reduction would not mitigate the condition at Jamboree Road/Campus Drive, it would reduce overall traffic impacts of the project. As indicated in Table 4 and 5, an 0.5 FAR project would not result in a traffic impact as defined in the Traffic Phasing Ordinance. The ICU value at Jamboree Road/Campus Drive would exceed 0.90 with this condition so that actual impacts would be similar. SUMMARY This study has examined potential traffic impacts of the proposed Pacesetter Homes Office development in the City of Newport Beach. The analysis was completed to conform to the Traffic Phasing Ordinance of the City. Existing, committed project and regional growth traffic were considered in addition to project traffic. Based upon these conditions and the completion of the Corona del Mar Freeway extension, the proposed project would have a minor traffic impact at one inter- section. While the identified impact would not be completely mitigated, the previously approved ride share program would reduce outbound trip generation by 45 percent during the PM peak hour. 1� -8- Table 6 POTENTIAL RIDE SHARE COMBINATIONS Pacesetter Homes Office Revision ZIP CODE S EMPLOYEES VANS/CARS 92714 & 92715 9 1 92626, 92627, 92646 8 1 92647, 92648, 92649 4 1 92677 & 92630� 4 1 92705 & 92680 5 1 30 5 _9_ The following are principal findings of the study: 1. The net trip generation due to the project is 440 daily trip ends with 150 occurring during the 2.5 hour peak and 75 during the PM peak hour. 2. A project based upon an 0.5 FAR would generate an estimated 270 daily trip ends with 80 during the 2.5 hour peak and 50 during the PM peak hour. 3. The trip generation estimates are less than would be generated by a 10,000 square foot building which is excepted from the requirements of the Traffic Phasing Ordinance. 4. Of the four intersections examined, three did not pass the "One Percent" test. 5. ICU analyses indicated that the Bristol Street North/Campus Drive and Jamboree Road/Campus Drive intersections would have ICU values greater than 0.90 both with and without the project. 6. The previously approved ride share program for Pacesetter Homes would reduce PM peak hour outbound trips by 45 percent. MITIGATION MEASURES The following measure is recommended to partially mitigate traffic impacts from the project. 1. A car/van pool program should be established to reduce trip generation by Pacesetter Homes employees. We trust that this study 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 & ASSOCIATES �/ Weston S. Pringl Registered Professional Engineer State of California Numbers, C16828 & TR565 WSP:bas #0592 APPENDIX A ONE PERCENT ANALYSES �0 1% Tr4ffjc Volume Analysis Intersection $rfsfol %. (u) ® CamPus Dr- (9xisting Traffic Vplumes baspo on verage WinferiSpring19W Peak 211 Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1 of Projected Project Direction Peak 2y Hour Growth Peak A Hour Ptak 211 Hour Peak 2y Hour I Peak h How Volume Volume Volume Volume Volute Volume Northbound �29 64 /68 286 29 /D Southbound 5075- 75 376 3526 35- 45 ; 1.39. Eastbound — wstbound 1p176 128 ZOl9 /23Z3 12-3 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Q Peak 211 Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater thap l% of Projected Peak 2� Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. ACESE• -MtL HOMES OFFICE KE—VISIOM — 1988 DATE: (!)/857 FRDJ CT: Zl 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection S+. 0 Irving Ave Cam s Dr. (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average rotor pring 1940 Peek 21s Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1, of Projected Project Diragion Peak 2K Hour Growth Peak 21% Hour Peak 21s Hour Peak 2y Hour PRak 24 Hour Volume Volume VQJWM Volume Volume Volu" Northbound 21133 30 17Z 2335' 23 5 °0.2% southbound 2371 S8 223 2652. 27 20 ;0.8% Eastbound I001s lu 1948 I2089 12,1 10 - 0. 1 % Yastbound n Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected R Peak 2� Hour Traffic Vo)ump Project Traffic is estimatp4 to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 2� Hour Traffic Volume, Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. PAcESE-rTer2 (OMc-4 OFFIcE i"EvisioN - 1988 DATE: 61BS PROTT: 1Z 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection Jav„64cPe Vcoo � Q Ca A. t<; D� (Existing Traffic Volumes based on verage inter pring 9 ,1i Peak 21s Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1", of Projected Project Direction Peak 2k Hour Growth Peak 2% Hour Peek 2k Hour Peak 2ti Hour Petk 2k Hour Yolume Voluar Volume Volume Volume YolumY Northbound 539g Ig 8!S8 6275 63 Q ` sorthbound 2 7 ql /0 624 3431 3 /0 -7 10.3% Eastbound 65 Z746 27 40 !!I.s% Westbound t 1 -7 Zq 42 87 S Project Traffic is estimated to •be less than 1% of Projected Q Peak 2h Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater. than 1% of Projected ® Peak 2� Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.•C.U.) Analysis is required. QACE 5C--TTEiz NAMES OpFI F lZ y rz,10M — I988 DATE• 6165 PROJECT: FORM T 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection Hac 4v-+ iw- Slud-0 QmCus Dr- (Existing Traffic Volumes ased on Average Winter/Spring pring 19a Peek 21s Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 18 of Protected Project l Direction Pak 2y Hour Growth Peak 21s Hour Peak 24 Hour Peak 2� Hour ( Peak 2y Hopr Voluu Volume volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 2797 4 789 3590 36 0 ! — §0e '"d 3590 5 74-3 4338 43 /o 0.27f, eastWund 1938 47 147 Z132 V 65 3.1 1. wat4wnd 25S8 63 75S 3376 34- Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 2� Hour Traffic. Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected �( Peak 2►s Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilitation (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. _PAcESe—rrEe- Homes OFFIcE 9-eyiS10N — 1988 DATE: 6�BS PRDJ CT: zv 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection Bris�,lsf. (4) @Campus Dr. (Existing Traffic Volumes based on v�erage linter pr ng Lu Er Pak 2k Mour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected ! 1a of Projected Project Direction Pak 2k lour Growth Peak 2k Hour Peak 2k Hour Peak 2� Hour Pak 21 Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 2629 6¢ 166 2861 29 /0 1'04%- southbound 3075- 7S 37b 3S7-6 1 35 Eastbound Yestbound /0/76 IZB 2-019 /2,3Z3 /2-3 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 2)1 Hour Traffic VolWV Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 21s Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. PACESe-r- e- HOMES aFF1ce e Fy151DAI 1'0 S FAZ - /268 DATE: 6-/86- PROJECT: 25 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection s+. 0 Irvine Ave.— Caws s Dr. (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring Pak 2k Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 11; of Projected Project l Direction Pak 211 Hour Growth Peak 2y kour Pak 2y Hour .Peek 24 Hour Pak 2y Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume , Volume Northbound Z133 3p 172 Z33S 23 0.2°1. soutntound Z371 58 223 26 SZ 27 /S 0.69, Eastbound S }'0./IF. l Dol S 126 194.8 1 ZO89 l21 ; Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 2k Hour Traffic Vol R Project Traffic is estimat44 to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 21s Hour Traffic Volume- Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.u.) Analysis is required. �°"`�7 " '� ►"FS OFFICE P OSIOM COS FA>`) 1988 DATE LOS' PROJ CT: Z6 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection JaVAb or toe P64.. d 60 • Caw kta �t- (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average inter peing Peek i21so Hour Approved % �� Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1,. of Projected Project Direction Peak 2k Hour Growth Peek 2h Hour Peak 2N Hour Peak 2�- Hour Peak 2y Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 5398 19 85$ 6275" 63 ' o - southbuund 2 -7 q-7 /0 (O 3431 3¢ 5 i0Z% Eastbound 2 13 2 3 57 365, Z74S 27 Z S a9% Westbound t 1 -7 Zq 42- 67 /8S3 /9K. ! S •0,39. ® Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 211 Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 2J, Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I..C.U.) Analysis is required. PACE s677Ee HOMES QPPICE PLEMS16M rnS FAP) 1988 DATE 6185- PROJECT: �� 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection Hgc.�hu r Stud. CaMRL's Dr. (Existing Traffic Volumes base on AVerage nter pring 194 Peek 2k Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1 of Projected Project Giraction Pewk 2k hour Growth Peak 2k Hour Peak 2k Hour Peak 2� tour Peak 2k Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 2797 4 769 3590 36 O sorthbound 3590 S 743 ¢338 1 43 Eastbound 1938 47' /47 213Z I Z► 40 ;1.9 9• westbowwl Z5S8 63 755' 3376, 34 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected I' P Peak 21� Hour Traffic Volume Project. Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected 'll � Peak 2� Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. PAcESE-rrEt2. NOMEs oFFtcE eSMOM (O.S FAR)- 1986 DATE:--- b1B15 PROJPCT: APPENDIX B INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSES T T 1n161%JCl.la%Jn E.ArA6111 VIII.LLAILUIY AIYMLIJW Intersection Bristol 5+. OLD am Ltc Dr. t Misting Traffic Volumes Bases on Average Daily Traffic Winter/Spring 198�) • EXIST. EEIST, REGIONAL COMMITTED ►ROJECTED E 1Yri�Mlt EIISTIRG ►AOPDSEO ► IST XVICIS REGION PROJECT Y/C Ratio PROJECT PROJECT Lawn Cap. Lana Cap. Val. Ratio Volt" VolumeVol Vol Pro7ett Yolw Y/C Ratio Volume NL /60o 3 0.2/31 * 9 0.2188 Oz188 NT 32oo 7 0.2369 19 75 0.266 5 oz678' NR — — — SL — — — ST S83 0./822 1 Sl 0.2025 /,O 0.2056 SR * 3200 727 0.2272* 138 6.270 l0 0.2 34 EL — ET — -- — _ ER — — WL /600 3S8 6.2238 59 0.26D6 O. WT 3879 0.6122* 49 946 0.767 0.76 WR 39 5 YELLOWTIME 0.1000%-; la/000 EXISTING INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION EXISTING PLUS COMMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH W/PROPOSED INPROYEMENTS I.C.U. 7.3 EXISTING PLUS COMMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH PLUS PROJECT L.C.U. 1.360 4COU51DElt OPTIONAL P-16MT7UR.9/THE'U LANE IS /0076 OCCUPIED BY'El6HT TO(-M1►d6 TVAFgG. ❑ Projected plu's 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: PACESEITeE4 MomEs OFFICE 96V/S10A1-- 1968 DATE: 6�85 30 PROJECT . FORM II I _ INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS Intersection Jimborioe koad (a) C/ampu= Dr ( Existing Traffic Volumes Bases on Average Daily Traffic Winter/Spring 1g8S) E%IST. EXIST. REGIONAL COMMITTED PROJECTED EXISTING PROPOSED V/C Ratio PROJECT PROJECT Movement PK.HR. V/C GROWTH PROJECT w/o Project Volume V/C Ratio Lanes Cap. Lanes LaD• Vol. Ratio Volume Volume Volume NL /600 yl . 0254 0.0256 0.0256 NT q,?()o I S2 t . a-77V* 6 29 0.4700 0.4700 4, NR /6 00 383 , z394 1 10.0g00 0.2400 SL 3200 316 0 ley 0P?6-24-2-7 698 sr ppn 77/� ,177 / 3 2 8 0.7� SR 71{ 3 S EL Z`/00 q85 .2azl 9S 0.241 IS 0. ET g400 662 ,2-7Q /6 88 0. 3192- S 0. 32-19 ER ti ° 97 — — — wL /600 /0 �/ 0 !0 • 1 0.0 0.0656 � WT 3200 Z 5 I , 070 del 6 +i9o. 0. 093 S 0. 0953 wR /6oq 339 . z11q 2119 6.2-119 YELLOWTIME �O,/000 EXISTING INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.9 186 EXISTING PLUS COMMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH W/PROPOSED INPROVEMENTS I.C.U.11,05 EXISTING PLUS COMMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH PLUS PROJECT I.C.U. 1 0553 ❑ 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: PACEse-rTeig. poMES OFFICE IZ6yI510A1 -- 1988 DATE: 6I85- 31 PROJECT 'FORM II 1NIMLLIIUN LArALj'14 U11L1L111UN ANALTb;3 Intersection Udc &Y4ue 131. Q Qmpu.s Dr f; Existing Traffic Volumes Base$ on Average Daily 'traffic Wipter/Spring 19§j EXIST. EXIST. REGIONAL COMMITTED PROJECTED NOrMent EXISTING PROPOSED ►KIN. Y/C GROWTH PROJECT Y/C R4tto PROJECT PROJECT LautGp. Lout Cap. Vol'. Rrtto Volume Volume w/o Project Volume Y/C Ratio Volume NL lboo /69 O.los /0 0. 1119 * 0.1119 NT wo 95Z 0.1 1 393 6.21o3 0.2103 NR 1600 88 010550 0.055D 0.0550 SL /600 122 6.076.3 64- a 1163 0.1163 ST 4e0o 1125 0.2341, Z 305 0.zQ8 3 6'Z983 SR /600 260 0.1750 1 0. (756 5 -0.1-788 EL /6o0 (Z)3Zo0 268 lo.1675* Z 0.0 IS 0. 891 ET 32(b 479 0.1931 8 ( 6.2191 20 RO.Z20 ER J 139 4 WL l b00 130 0.0831 010831 0.6891 WT 3Z00 749 0.2341 13 /84- 0.2956 5 0. 2972 WR u s, M 1183 — I — YELLOWTIMIE 0,I0Qy'1° :0./Dm* ; . 0./D00 EXISTING INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.84.16 1 I i EXISTING PLUS COMMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH W/PROPOSED INPROYEMENTS I.C.U. 02 i EXISTING PLUS COMMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH PLUS PROJECT I.C.U. O.8 6S ® 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: /• Add easl-bouHd le..F+ 4u.rvt lovie Co). PANCEse7 reMz AoM16:t OFFICE P—GW- ial --1968 DATE: 616G- 32-- PROJECT . FORM 11 jryltKbLL.IIUn LArIJUIT UIILLLHILUM AMALTJIZ Intersectiop 11gc A& t-91. (M Cameas Dr. ( Existing Traffic Volumes Bases qn Average gaily Traffic Linter/Spring 198J EXIST. EXIST. REGIONAL COMMITTED PROJECTED METrEot EXISTING ►ROPDSED ►K."R. VIC GROWTH PROJ[CT w/o Project YOY/C Ratio IWA yR'DCJ"Ito LEME CEP. LAME CEP. YoT. PAM YDILM Volume value* NL /boo /69 0. /OS /0 0. 19 i1` 0.1 NT Wo 952 0.1488 1 393 6.2103 0.2/03 NR 1660 88 0.0SSD 0.0550 0.055a SL /boo 122 6.0763 6¢ 0. 1/63 0. 1/63 ST 1125 0.23Q¢* 2 305 0.2983* 0.71 83 SR /600 280 0.17W 1 6.1756 S 0. 1788 EL /600 M3200 268 0•I675* 2 .0 * /0 08 5 ET 3240 479 0.1931 8 -71 10 0.nzz ER J 139 4 WL 1 b00 130 0,0831 0. 8 31 0.6831 WT 3200 749 0.2344 l3 184 0.2956IP S 0. 2972 WR u,5, 123 - /83 - VELLOWTIME 0,/007f` 0./000*; g 0.1000 EXISTING INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION O.SQ!b E 1 EXISTING PLUS COMMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH W/PROPOSED INPROVEMENTS I.C.U. 6.8902 EXISTING PLUS COMMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH PLUS PROJECT I.C.U. 10.,994q ® 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 eas4bouKd lerf 4urm lane Co) . °,CEse-r-t 9- )JoMrs QFFICE P-GV1<,IQM CoS" 1988 DATE: 6leS PROJECT : F4 { 33 NEGATIVE DECLARATION TO: Secretary for Resources FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT 1416 Tenth Street CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Sacramento, CA 95814 P.O. Box 1768 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658-89,15 County Clerk of the County of Orange P.O.Box 838, Santa Ana, CA 92702 NAME OF PROJECT: pacesetter Homes office PROJECT LOCATION: 4000 Campus Drive, Newport Beach, California PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Construction of a '55,000 sq.ft. office building. IL FINDING: Pursuant to the provisions of City Council jPolicy K-3 pertaining to procedures and guidelines to implement the California Environmental Quality Act, the Environmental Affairs Committee has evaluated the proposed project and determined that the ,proposed• project will not have a significant effect on the environment. MITIGATION MEASURES: See attached initial study. INITIAL STUDY PREPARED BY: City of Newport Beach INITIAL STUDY AVAILABLE FOR REVIEW AT: 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, CA DATE RECEIVED FOR FILING: Environmental Coordinator Date: October 1, 1985 FNVIRONMENTAL CRECYLIST FORM I. Background !� ' I 1. Name of Proponent r/)G $ j2. 170M6.5 2. Address and Phone Number of Proponent T S ftlb • 2- 3. Date of Checklist Submission 9- 4. Agency Requiring Checklist C IT4 or- N ewpysa- 13sAGN 5.. Name of Proposal, if applicable 'PAC9_69TI3a2 "aS f)FFiQE II. Environmental Impacts . (Explanations of all "yes" and "maybe" answers are required on attached sheets.) YES MAYBE NO 1. Earth. Will the proposal result in: a. Unstable earth conditions or in changes in geologic substructures? X b. Disruptions, displacements, com- paction or overcovering of the soil? c. Change in topography or ground ' surface relief features? d. The destruction, covering or modi- 'filiation of any unique geologic or physical features? X e. Any, increase in wind or water erosion of soils,' either on or off the site? f. Changes in deposition or erosion of beach sands, or changes in siltation, deposition or erosion which may modify the channel of a river or stream or the bed of the ocean or any bay, inlet or lake? ' 35 YES MAYBE NO g. Exposure of people or property to geological hazards such as earth- quakes, landslides, mudslides, ground failure, or similar hazards? 2. Air. Will the proposal result in: a. Substantial air emissions or deteri- oration of ambient air quality? X _ b. The creation of objectionable odors? c. Alteration of air movement, moisture or temperature, or any change in climate, either locally or regionally? X 9. Water. Will the proposal result in: a. Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water• movements, in either marine or fresh waters? b. Changes in absorption rates,, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? X c. Alterations to the course of flow of flood waters? X d. Change in the amount of surface water X in any water body? e. Discharge into surface waters or in any alteration of surface water quality, including but not limited to temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? f. Alteration of the direction or rate X of flow of ground eaters? g. Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct addi- tions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cut" x or excavations? _ h. Substantial 'reduction in the amount of ,water otherwise available for X public water supplies? i. Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding or tidal waves? X 36 YES MAYBE M) 4. Plant Life. Will the proposal result in: a. Change in the diversity of species, or number of any species of plants (including trees, shrubs, grass, crops, and aquatic plants)? b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of plants? c. Introduction of new species of plants into an area, or in a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species? d. Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop? 5. Animal Life. Will the proposal result in: a. Change in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of animals (birds, land animals including reptiles, fish and shellfish, benthic organises, or insects)? b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of animals? c. Introduction of new species of ani— mals into an area, or result in a barrier to the migration or movement of animals? d. Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat? 6. Noise. Will the proposal result in: a. Increases in existing noise levels? X b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels? X 1. Lipht and Glare. Will the proposal produce new light or glare? — _ R. Land Use. Will the proposal result in a substantial Alteration of the present or planned land use of an area? '( 37 YRS MAYBE He 9. Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in: a. Increase in the rate of use of any natural resources? x b. Substantial depletion of any non- renewable natural resource? .10. Risk of Upset. Does the proposal involve E a risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation) in the event of an accident or upset conditions? 11. Population. Will the proposal alter the location, distribution, density, or growth rate of the human population of an area? 12. Housing. Will the proposal affect exa'—sting housing, or create a demand for additional housing? 13. Transportation/Circulation. Will the proposal result in: a. Generation of substantial additional vehicular movement? b. Effects on existing parking facilities, or demand for new parking? �( c. Substantial impact upon existing transportation systems? d. Alterations to present patterns of circulation or movement of people } and/or goods? . e. Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic? f. Increase in traffic hazardous to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? 14. Public Services. Will the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered governmental services in any of the following areas: YES MAYBE NO a. Fire protection? b. Police protection? X c: Schools? d. Parks or other recreational facilities? e. Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? f. Other governmental servicest x 15. Energy Will the proposal result in: a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? b. substantial increase in demand upon existing sources of energy, or require the development of new sources of energy? 16, Utilities. Will the proposal result in a seed for new systems, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a. Power or natural gas? b. Communications systems? c. Water? d. Sewer or septic tanks? X Xe. Storm water drainage? f. Solid waste and disposal? x 17. Human Health. Will the proposal result in: a. Creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard (excluding mental health)? ---- b. Exposure of people to potential X health hazards? ---- 18. Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in the obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public, or will the proposal result in the creation' of an aesthetically k offensive site open to public view? 3� YES MAYBE ND 19. Recreation. Will the proposal result in an impact upon the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities? x 20. Archeological/Historical. Will tor. proposal 'result in an alteration of a significant archeological or historical site, structure, object or building? 21. Mandatory 'Findings of Significance. a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self—sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal'community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? X b. Does the project have the potential to achieve short—term, to the disadvantage of long—term, environmental goals? (A abort—term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief definitive period of time while long— term impacts will endure well into the future.) X c. Does the project have impacts which , are individually limited, but cumu— latively considerable? (A project may impact on two or more separate resources where the impact on each resource is relatively sinall, but where the effect of the total of those impacts on the environment is significant.) x d. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? III. Discussion of Environmental Evaluation IV. Determination On the basis of this initial evaluation: 0 I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. © I find that although the proposed project could .have a significant ef£ect 'on the environment, there will not be a significant•effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find the proposed project MAY .have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. Datd Signature • K� Attachment III l.b. Construction of the proposed office building will result in structures and related parking areas covering the soil. This impact is inherent to development and is insignificant. 7. implementation of the proposal will result in construction of an office building and related parking facilities which will be lighted. Compliance with the following City policy will reduce any anticipated impact to an insignificant level: That the lighting system shall be designed and maintained in such a manner as to conceal the light source and to minimize light spillage and glare to the adjacent residential uses. The plans shall be prepared and signed by a Licensed Elec- trical Engineers with a letter from the Engineer stating that, in his opinion, this requirement has been met. 13.b The office structure will require parking facilities, which are proposed as part of the project. No environmental impact will result. SR10 7Z MITIGATION MEASURES 1. That the lighting system shall be designed and maintained in such a manner as to conceal the light source and to minimize light spillage and glare to the adjacent residential uses. The plans shall be prepared and signed by a Licensed Electrical Engineer; with a letter from the Engineer stating that, in his opinion, this requirement has been met. 2. The design of the parking lot shall be subject to review and approval of the City Traffic Engineer. SR10 z/3 PACESETTER HOMES, INC. 4540 CAMPUS DRIVE- NEW PORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92660.(714)854-8600 T'-- Co 0 KEC2z a'" t September 10 , 1985 S DeP3rcm 5� ZO Ms. Pat Temple N Cp�t� Environmental Coordinator CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92660 Subject: Proposed Campus Drive Office Building Dear Ms. Temple: In accordance with our telephone conversation, Safeco Title insurance Company has prepared the enclosed 300 foot radius map and mailing labels for your use. Please give me a call if you have any questions. Very truly yours , PACESETT HOMES St ven . Strauss Vice President Commercial/industrial Development SRS:cg Enclosures SAFECO l SAFECO TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY (714) 547 7251 825 NORTH BROADWAY P.0. BOX 208 SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA 92702 Order No. 515854-11 SAFECO TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY HAS FURNISHED YOU THE FOREGOING INFORMATION FOR YOUR SOLE USE AND BENEFIT, SUBJECT STRICTLY TO THE UNDERSTANDING THAT THIS INFORMATION HAS BEEN OBTAINED FROM THE CURRENT COUNTY ASSESSORS ' S TAX ROLL. ON THIS BASIS, THE COMPANY VERIFIES THAT THE INFORMATION IS CORRECT, AND ASSU14ES NO LIABILITY IN EXCESS OF THE FEE CHARGED FOR THIS REPORT. DATED: September 9 , 1985 �r N Engineering Department County of Orange i Irvine Industrial Complex 1T481 S. Airport Way i Signal Development Corp. Santa Ana, CA 17890 Sky Park Blvd. Irvine, CA 92714 A.P. No. 427-042-35 A.P. No. 427-131-11 County of Orange Irvine industrial Complex 19531 S. Airport Way 1 Edward P. Jarvis Santa Ana, CA 4043 Birch St. Newport Beach, CA 92660 A.P. No. 427-042-36 A.P. No. 427-131-12 County of Orange Irvine Industrial Complex SITUS PENDING George Souleles 33 Cool Brook A.P . No. 427-042-38 I Irvine, CA 92715 A.P. No. 427-131-13 County of Orange Irvine Industrial Complex 19511 S. Airport Way Aldo Shiappero Santa Ana, CA 18109 Coastline Dr. Malibu, CA 90265 A.P. No. 427-042-40 A.P. No. 427-131-14 County of Orange Irvine Industrial Complex Dept. of Real Prop. Services Aldo Shiappero 400 W. Civic Center Dr. 18109 Coastline Dr. Santa Ana, CA 92701 Malibu, CA 90265 A.P . No. 427-042-67 A.P. No. 427-131-15 Irvine Industrial Complex Irvine industrial Complex 900 Wilshire Blvd. Birch Development Co. 1100 W. Ocean Front Los Angeles, CA 90017 Balboa, Balb CA 92661 A.P. No. 427-131-01 A.P. No. 427-131-16 Bishop Graphics Inc. 4040 Campus Dr. Newport Beach, CA A.P. No. 427-131-06 i Donald K. Edler 4000 Campus Dr. Newport Beach, CA A.P. No. 427-131-07 Irvine Industrial Complex Signal Development Corp. 17890 Sky Park Blvd. Irvine, CA 92714 A.P. No. 427-131-08 Irvine Industrial Complex Signal Development Corp. 17890 Sky Park Blvd. ! Irvine, CA 92714 A.P. No. 427-131-10 j ;; i County of Orange Irvine Industrial Complex 1148118. Airport Way Signal Development Corp. Santa Ana, CA 17890 Sky Park Blvd. Irvine, CA 92714 A.P. No. 427-042-35 A.P. No. 427-131-11 County of Orange Irvine Industrial Complex 19531 S. Airport Way Edward P. Jarvis Santa Ana, CA 4043 Birch St. Newport Beach, CA 92660 A.P . No. 427-042-36 A.P. No. 427-131-12 County of Orange Irvine Industrial Complex SITUS PENDING George gouleles 33 Cool Brook A.P. No. 427-042-38 Irvine, CA 92715 A.P. No. 427-131-13 County of Orange Irvine Industrial Complex 19511 S. Airport Way Aldo Shiappero Santa Ana, CA 18109 Coastline Dr. Malibu, CA 90265 A.P. No. 427-042-40 A.P. No. 427-131-14 County of Orange Irvine Industrial Complex Dept. of Real Prop. Services Aldo Shiappero 400 W. Civic Center Dr. ! 18109 Coastline Dr. Santa Ana, CA 92701 Malibu, CA 90265 A.P. No. 427-042-67 A.P. No. 427-131-15 Irvine Industrial Complex Irvine Industrial Complex 900 Wilshire Blvd. Birch Development Co. Los Angeles, CA 90017 1100 W. Ocean Front Balboa, CA 92661 A.P. No. 427-131-01 A.P. No. 427-131-16 Bishop Graphics Inc. 4040 Campus Dr. f Newport Beach, CA A.P. No. 427-131-06 Donald K. Edler 4000 Campus Dr. Newport Beach, CA i A.P. No. 427-131-07 Irvine Industrial Complex Signal Development Corp. 17890 Sky Park Blvd. Irvine, CA 92714 A.P. No. 427-131-08 Irvine Industrial Complex Signal Development Corp. 17890 Sky Park Blvd. Irvine, CA 92714 (^S A.P. No. 427-131-10 j i �OIJNTY ASK, pORV ORANGE . 4` I I j 427-13 I 04 I CAMPUS (ACACIA ST) DRIVE —$ l _ L31 W TRACT i I I h I � y 1 I I ti . I 1 � 1 1 I I I I e_—__Lrti O //I/2 icoc /3 /a /5 - ioo 101 9 /6 19 — z/ I ' —SrISJ ___mac ,, /B 8_______—_ 122 149 4B 4T 46 4> 44 43 `+ 921 4/Ia0 --- h 340AC I I � <19 AC 1 I 1 I I I I i i N I6 15 14 13 12 II 10 ry 1' i •e I 1 i O f I I I j NO. i 3201 o 4o I I i 11 Z j 1 I 40' 23 /00' 1 29�• I �E.waoRr PANNING DEPARTMENT w ``�•,'" Jlitil_i ,41;;PA i CITY I {ALLL_u Baas+ua CH� QyN�P 3300 Newport Boulevard P .O . Box 1768 Newport Beach A 92658-8915 vine dustrial Complex ,* 9'H shire "Blvd. Los geles, CA 90017 P. No. 427-131-01 ' • IMPORTANT Public Hearing Notice ��/ ��� • "ICE OF PUBLIC HEAPING • Notice is harobv given that the Planghq Commission of the City of Newport Poach will hold a public hearing on the application of Pacesetter Homtm to consider a Traffic Studv so as to allow the construction of a 55.000 sq.ft, office Luiidinq on property located At 4000 campus Drive NOTICE IS HEREBY FURTHER GIVEN that a Negative Declaration has been prepared by the City of Newport Beach in connection with the application noted above. The Negative Declaration states that, the subject development will not result in a significant effect on the environ- ment. It is the present intention of the City to accept the Negative Declaration and supporting documents. This is not to be construed as either approval or denial by the City of that subject application. The City encourages members of the general public to review and comment on this documentation. Copies of the Negative Declaration and supporting documents are available for public review and inspection At the Planning Department, City of Newport beach, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California, 92658-8915 (714) 644-3225. Notice is hereby further given that said public hearing will be held on the 10th day of October 1985, at the hour of 700 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Newport leach City Nall, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California, at which time and place any and All persons interested say appear and be heard thereon. For information call (714) 644-3200. Pat Eichenhofer, Secretary, Planning Commission, City of Newport Beach NdfB, The expense of this notice is paid from a filing fee collected from the applicant. NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Notice is hereby given that the Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach will hold a public hearing on the application of Pacesetter Homes to consider a Traffic Study so as to allow the construction of a 55,000 sq.ft. office building on property located at 4000 Campus Drive NOTICE IS HEREBY FURTHER GIVEN that a Negative Declaration has been prepared by the City of Newport Beach in connection with the application noted above. The Negative Declaration states that, the subject development will not result in a significant effect on the environ- ment. It is the present intention of the City to accept the Negative Declaration and supporting documents. This is not to be construed as either approval or denial by the City of the subject application. The City encourages members of the general public to review and comment on this documentation. Copies of the Negative Declaration and supporting documents are available for public review and inspection at the Planning Department, City of Newport Beach, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California, 92658-8915 (714) 644-3225. Notice is hereby further given that said public hearing will be held on the 10th day of October 1985, at the hour of 7:30 p.m, in the Council Chambers of the Newport Beach City Hall, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California, at which time and place any and all persons interested may appear and be heard thereon. For information call (714) 644-3200. Pat Eichenhofer, Secretary, Planning Commission, City of Newport Beach NOTE: The expense of this notice is paid from a filing fee collected from the applicant. NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Notice is hereby given that the Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach will hold a public hearing on the application of Pacesetter Homes to consider a Traffic Study so as to allow the construction of a 55,000 sq.ft. office building on property. located at 4000 Campus Drive NOTICE IS HEREBY FURTHER GIVEN that a Negative Declaration has been prepared by the City of Newport Beach in connection with the application noted above. The Negative Declaration states that, the subject development will not result in a significant effect on the environ- ment. It is the present intention of the City to accept the Negative Declaration and supporting documents. This is not to be construed as either approval or denial by the City of the subject application. The City encourages members of the general public to review and comment on this documentation. Copies of the Negative Declaration and supporting documents are available for public review and inspection at the Planning Department, City of Newport Beach, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California, 92658-8915 (714) 644-3225. Notice is hereby further given that said public hearing will be held on the loth day of October 1985, at the hour of 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Newport Beach City Hall, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California, at which time and place any and all persons interested may appear and be heard thereon. For information call (714) 644-3200. Pat Eichenhofer, Secretary, Planning Commission, City of Newport Beach NOTE: The expense of this notice is paid from a filing fee collected from the applicant. i 4County of Orange t Irvine Industrial Complex � 19481 S. Airport Way Signal Development Corp. Santa Ana, CA - 17890 Sky Park Blvd. Irvine, CA 92714 A.P. No. 427-042-35 2 A.P. No. 427-131-11 County of Orange Irvine Industrial Complex 19531 S. Airport Way ;; Edward P. Jarvis Santa Ana, CA 4043 Birch St. Newport Beach, CA 92660 A.P. No. 427-042-36 A.P. No. 427-131-12 County of. Orange Irvine Industrial Complex SITUS PENDING George Sc:uleles 33 Cool Brook A.P. No. 427-042-38 Irvine, CA 92715 A.P. No. 427-131-13 County of Orange J Irvine industrial Complex a 19511 S. Airport Way j Aldo Shiappero l 18109 Coastline Dr. Santa Ana, CA ; Malibu, CA 90265 j A.P. No. 427-042-40 A.P. No. 427-131-14 � , County of Oranges Irvine Industrial Complex Dept. of Real Prop. Services r Aldo Shiappero 400 W. Civic Center Dr. 18109 Coastline Dr. Santa Ana, CA 92701 Malibu, CA 90265 A.P. No. 427-042-67 A.P. No. 427-131-15 Irvine industrial Complex Irvine Industrial Complex ! ! 900 Wilshire Blvd. Birch Development Co. Los Angeles, CA 90017 # 1100 W. Ocean Front Balboa, CA 92661 771, A.P. No. 427-131-01 A.P. No. 4277131-16 Bishop Graphics Inc. ;,! pftG�c5E7TEf' F �c�►Y1c5 4040 Campus Dr. i DODO Ci-'Y) PL&S Crt QE Newport Beach, CA A.P. No. 427-131-06 a Donald K. Edler f 4000 Campus Dr. 5 Newport Beach, CA A.P. No. 427-131-07 Irvine Industrial Complex Signal Development Corp. 17890 Sky Park Blvd. "e Irvine, CA 92714 A.P. No. 427-131-08 Irvine Industrial Complex Signal Development Corp. 17890 Sky Park Blvd. l: Irvine, CA 92714 A.P. No. 427-131-10 SMECO 0 SAFECO TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY (714) 547-7251 825 NORTH BROADWAY P.O. BOX 208 SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA 92702 Order No. 515854-11 SAFECO TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY HAS FURNISHED YOU THE FOREGOING INFORMATION FOR YOUR SOLE USE AND BENEFIT, SUBJECT STRICTLY TO THE UNDERSTANDING THAT THIS INFORMATION HAS BEEN OBTAINED FROM THE CURRENT COUNTY ASSESSORS' S' TAX ROLL. ON THIS BASIS, THE COMPANY VERIFIES THAT THE INFORMATION IS CORRECT, AND ASSUMES NO LIABILITY IN EXCESS OF THE FEE CHARGED FOR THIS REPORT. DATED: September 9 , 1985 r o Engineering Department � wc• �a �0 w � >v County of Orange • Irvine Industrial Complex 19481 S. Airport Way Signal Development Corp. Santa Ana, CA 17.890 Sky Park Blvd. Irvine, CA 92714 A.P. No. 427-042-35 A.P. No. 427-131-11 County of Orange Irvine Industrial Complex ;r 19531 S. Airport Way Edward P. Jarvis Santa Ana, CA 4043 Birch St. Newport Beach, CA 92660 A.P. No. 427-042-36 A.P. No. 427-131-12 County of- Orange Irvine Industrial Complex , SITUS PENDING George S Brook s 33 Cool Brook A.P. No. 427-042-38 Irvine, CA 92715 A.P. No. 427-131-13 County of Orange Irvine Industrial Complex 19511 S. Airport Way Aldo Shiappero Santa Ana, CA 18109 Coastline Dr. Malibu, CA 90265 A.P. No. 427-042-40 A.P. No. 427-131-14 County of Orange Irvine industrial Complex Dept. of Real Prop. Services Aldo Shiappero 400 W. Civic, Center Dr. 18109 Coastline Dr. Santa Ana, CA 9270i Malibu, CA 9'0265 A.P. No. 427-042-67 A.P. No. 427-131-15 Irvine Industrial Complex Irvine 'Industrial Complex 900 Wilshire Blvd. , Birch Development Co. Los Angeles, CA 90017 1100 W. Ocean Front Balboa, CA 92661 A.P. No. 427-131-01 A.P. No. 427-131-16 Bishop Graphics Inc. .4040 Campus Dr. Newport Beach; CA I A.P. No. 427-131-06 " Donald K. Edler 4000 Campus Dr. Newport Beach, CA A.P. No. 427-131-07 Irvine Industrial Complex Signal Development Corp. 17890 Sky Park Blvd. Irvine, CA 92714 A.P. No. 427-131-08 Irvine Industrial Complex Signal Development Corp. 17 890 Sky Park Blvd. Irvine, CA 92714 A.P. No. 427-131-10 AIRP ® RT c ®vNTY ®MANGE 427-13 04 i"= i00' I CAMPUS /ACAC/A srl $ DRIVE L 3`l 00 I I I r^O' I I I � TRACT I ' I, m O O `J O____ __0 - I I 1 I I I I I 1 I I I I I 1 //I1 5l20 0 /3 /4 /5 /6- I /7 /B /9 - 2/I1 N1 — — O5/ ...._ ----00— 2 49 48 47 46 44 43: h 421 41 140 'n 340AC I 4/9 AC I 1 I 1 I I I I I 1 I I N 16 15 14 13 12 II 10 N 1 . 1 I I d O NO. i 320/ p I I I 6O' I I I �• 23 /00, /00• I 296' 1 �' 'm V ro BIRCH STREET— • 02-219- �4 • NAME PHONE APPLICANT: 'Pdc.e5e++er IT rneggb kei� h (oa - CONSULTANTS: (oq5 — vl 1 DATE DEPOSIT FEES PAYMENT REMAINING BALANCE • 5_ 5 vc��5o �"3�a, 5a - f •y ,50 T76, o0 /ola.so 37 9a, sa 7- 7 a.00 1 no , 5a -� -14b.It, As . ......,.. ..-.,_.._.. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH RECEIPT ; • �� Rb NEWPORT BEACH. CALIFORNIA 92683 No. 13412 i `n OAT ' RECEIVED FROM -t4 FOR: ' ACCOUNT NO. AMOUNT r i© I DEPARTMENT �YV, BY .'j......w........w...rw..w ............r....w......... ........ .....r.....r.r....wr....r P II r 1 • CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH DEMAND FOR PAYMENT Date September 24, 1985 Demand of: Marie E. Gilliam Address: 1825 Westcliff Drive, Suite 177 Newport Beach, California 92660 In the amount of $ 261.84 ITEM OF EXPENDITURE BUDGET # AMOUNT fessional services rendered re Pacesetter Homes Initial Study Invoice No. 85-4 (PCs) 02-219-24 TOTAL $261.84 Approved For Payment: Department ea 16ed nd Approved: Finance Director 0 marie e. gilliam, aicp APPROVED FOR PAYMENT rban plannin W25 westcliff drive, suite177 By newport beach, ca. 92660 anni� g Director 714-645-0939 a' NT N0.: 0-2/9- 9 September 20, 1985 . Ms. Patricia Temple Environmental Coordinator City of Newport Beach 3300 W. Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92663 Subject: Invoice No. 85-4 (PCs) Pacesetter Homes Initial Study Dear Pat: • This constitutes the final invoice on the above project. Should any additional work be regUired in the future, a new authorization may be necessary. Professional Services Hours Charges Project Manager 5.0 :$200.00 sub-total $200.00 Expenses Misc. Printing $ 61.84 Mileage Telephone sub-total $ 61.84 TOTAL DUE $261.84 Please call if there are any questions regarding these charges. N Sincerely, RrE c E t V Ep PkmnirrQePartn� g • -241 8 /� � gEP24 795,m- �0 Parie illiam, Al P £ ry C1I1 CF PORT C1i CAltfi ! ,h MEG/if ! r .. . CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH DEMAND FOR PAYMENT Date August 23, 1985 Marie E. Gilliam Demand of: Urban Planning Address: 1825 Westcli£f Drive, Suite 177 Newport Beach, California 92660 In the amount of $ 740.66 ITEM OF EXPENDITURE _ BUDGET # AMOUNT ,dMiLofessional services rendered re Pacesetter Homes Initial Study Invoice 85-3 (PCs) 02-219-24 TOTAL $740.66 Approved For Payment: D partment ea A e)da d Approved: Finance Director f .. 0 .APPROVE? FOR PAYMENT marie e. giIIiam, aicp 0ban plannin P, 25 westcliff rive, suite177 newport beach, ca. 92660P n 'ng Director 714-645-0939 UNT NO.: oa -a�9-L uc August 16, 1985 Ms. Patricia Temple Environmental Coordinator City of Newport Beach 3300 W. Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 Subject: Invoice 85-3 (PCS) Pacesetter Homes Initial Study Dear Pat: The following charges have accrued to the lbove project in the completion . of the screencheck report. Professional Services Hours Charges Project Manager 10.0 $400.00 Graphic Artist 2.0 40.00 sub-total $440.60 Expenses Clerical and printing $279.73 Mileage 6.25 Telephone (long distance) 4.18 Miscellaneous 10.50 sub-total $300.66 TOTAL DUE: $740.66 Please call if there are any questions regarding these charges. r' W Sincerely, 9 RECEIYEO g Depannnnt t0 • arie E. Gilliam, AICP b AUG191985 .t . Cm•of It MEG/if NEWPORT BEACH, CALIF. 'V j C • • • CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH DEMAND FOR PAYMENT Date July 23, 1985 Demand of: Marie E. Gilliam Address: 1825 Westcliff Drive, Suite 177 Newport Beach, California 92660 In the amount of $2,780.00 ITEM OF EXPENDITURE BUDGET # AMOUNT Adb�nfessional services rendered re Pacesetter Initial Study Invoice No. 85-2 02-219-24 TOTAL $2,780.00 Approved For Payment: Department Head jo UanApproved: Finance Director • St • �, marie e. gilliam, aicp APPROVED FOR PAYMENT � roan planning By 25 westcliff drive, suite177 — � newport beach, ca, 92660 13nn; g Director 714-645-0939 AC NT PJOa ham— )9 -'ag .� July 3, 1985 Ms. Patricia Temple Environmental Coordinator City of Newport Beach 3300 W.,:Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 Subject: Invoice No. 85-2 Pacesetter Initial Study Dear Pat: The following charges have accrued to the above project in the • completion of the screencheck draft. Hours Charges Professidnal "S&Vices Project Manager 12.0 $ 480.00 sub-total $ 480.00 'Expenses Clerical and Printing $ 300.00 Traffic Analysis 2,000.00 sub-total $2,300.00 Total Due $2,780.00 Please call if there are any questions regarding these charges. Sincerely, Marie E. Gilliam, AICP S RFcei 5�. y, De den % fD MEG/if ✓�/( inn'ent • £ r✓Et m�8s, t0! '� c�C�F �9� 'l • r • CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH DEMAND FOR PAYMENT Date June 10, 1985 Y Demand of: Marie E. Gilliam Address: 1825 Westcliff Drive, suite 177 Newport Beach, California 92660 In the amount of t"092.50 ITEM OF EXPENDITURE BUDGET # AMOUNT rofessional services rendered re Pacesetter Initial Study Invoice No. 85-1 (PCS) 02-219-24 TOTAL $1,092.50 Approved For Payment: Department Hea and Approved: i Finance Director I marie e, giI Iiam, aicp APPROVED FOR PAYMENT rban plannin By W25 westcliff rive, suite177 - newport beach, cc, 92660 annrNT ctor 714-645-0939 ac No.: 02 212-2'1 June 4, 1985 Ms. Patricia Temple Environmental Coordinator City of Newport Beach 3300 W. Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 Subject: Invoice No. 85-1 (PCS) Pacesetter Initial Study Dear Pat: The following hours ha�e been charged to tie above project in the • preparation of the screencheck Initial Study up to May 31, 1985. Professional Services Hours Charges Project Manager 16.0 $ 640.00 Research Assistant 8.0 200.00 Graphic Artist 12.0 240.00 sub-total $1,080.00 Expenses Clerical Services $ 12.50 sub-total TOTAL DUE: $1,092.50 Please call if there are any questions with regard to these charges. Sincerely, Marie E. Gi liam, AICP �' RECEIv� MEG/if b po • D nMant _ JINN 198r,.a...NznWpn 1;—� Rra�, SCREENCHECK ' INITIAL STUDY for Pacesetter Homes Office Building 4000 Campus Drive, Newport Beach, CA ' June 28, 1985 ilk Prepared for: The City of Newport Beach Planning Department 3300 W. Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 ' (714) 644-3225 ' Prepared by: ' Marie E. Gilliam/Associates 1825 Westcliff Drive, Suite 177 Newport Beach, CA 92660 .(714) 645-0939 t ' 1 1 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page INTRODUCTION.. . .. . . . .. . .. ... . . .. . :. . . . . . . . .. . .... . . . . . . . . . 1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Location. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . 2 ProjectHistory. . .. .:. . ... .. .. . . . . . .. ...... ... . . . . .. .. 2 ' 1 Project Characteristics. .. . . ... . . . . . . ... . . . .. . . . . .. . .. 2 Comparison of the Proposed Project to Development Standards and the General Plan. . . . . .. . . .. 7 1 Traffic Phasing Ordinance and Committed projects: : :: :: 9 Permits Required. . 9 DESCRIPTION OF EXISTING CONDITIONS, POTENTIAL IMPACTS 1 AND MITIGATION MEASURES LandUse.. . ... .. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... ... .. . . . . .. ... . 11 Traffic and Circulation. . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . .. . . . . . . . . . 15 1 Public Services and Utilities. . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . ... . 22 PERSONS AND ORGANIZATIONS CONTACTED. . . . . . .. . ... . . . . . . . . . .. 24 .. . ... . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 REFERENCES . . . .. . . . .. . . ... .. . .. 25 APPENDICES 1 Appendix A - Environmental Checklist Appendix B - Summary of applicable Standard City Policies and Requirements 1 Appendix C - Text of General Plan Amendment 81-2 Appendix D - Committed Projects Appendix E - Potential Increase in Development 1 Intensity at 0.62 FAR Appendix F - Traffic Analysis 1 1 . �,II • 1 1 1 LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES ' FIGURES 1 - Regional Location. . . . . . . . . . ... . . .. . . . . .. . 3 2 - Vicinity Map.. . . . .. .. . . . . .. . .. ... .• . .. . . . . . . . • • . 4 3 - Site Plan... .. ... . . . ... . .. . ... .. . ... .. . . . . . .. .. . ... . .. . 5 4 - Building Elevations. ... . . . . . . . . . ... . .. . . . . . . . .. .... . . . . 6 5 - Existing Traffic Volumes and ICU Values. . . . . . ... . .. . .. . 16 6 - Project Daily Volumes. . 18 ' TABLES A - Comparison of the Proposed Project to Zoning Requirements. . 8 B - Development Trends in the Project Vicinity. . 12 C - Projected Trip Generation. . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . .. . .. . . 17 ' D - Critical Intersection Identification. . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 1 1 ' INTRODUCTION ' This Initial Study has been prepared in accordance with provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), State EIR Guidelines and procedures of the City of Newport Beach for the implementation of CEQA. The purpose of this analysis is to determine whether or.not the proposed project will have a significant effect on the environment, either ' on an individual or a cumulative basis, and to identify any feasible miti- gation measures. This Initial Study focuses on areas of potentially significant environmental concern as identified by the City of Newport Beach. (A complete Environmental Checklist of all CEQA concerns is contained in Appendix A to this report. ) Analysis includes a review of the proposed project in relation to applicable ' development standards and plans and identification of necessary project approvals. Evaluation of impacts summarizes existing conditions, potential impacts, and mitigation measures which may be required above and beyond standard City Conditions of Approval, which are contained in Appendix B for reference. If, based upon information presented in this study, it is determined that 'the project will not have any significant impacts or that such impacts can be mitigated, a Negative Declaration may be issued. If it is determined that the proposed project will have significant environmental impacts ' which'cannot be adequately mitigated, the City will require preparation of an Environmental Impact Report. The lead agency in preparing this environmental assessment is the City of Newport Beach. The applicant and project consultants are listed below with other key contact persons. Other contributors to this report are ' listed on Page 24. . City of Newport Beach Ms. Patricia Temple Environmental Coordinator City of Newport Beach (714) 644-3225 Planning/Environmental Consultant Marie E. Gilliam, AICP 1825 Westcliff Drive, #177 Newport Beach, CA (714) 645-0939 Traffic Consultant Weston Pringle & Associates 2651 -E. Chapman Ave. Fullerton, CA (714) 871-2931 Project Applicant Keith Cook Pacesetter Homes, Inc. 4540 Campus Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 ' (714) 852-8600 ' PROJECT DESCRIPTION Location The project address is 3952-4020 Campus Drive .(Lots 13, 14, 15, 16 of Tract 3201) in Newport Beach. The site is located within the Campus.Drive area of General Plan Amendment (GPA) 81-2 which is bounded by Campus Drive, MacArthur Boulevard, Birch Street and Bristol Street North. Figures 1 and 2- illustrate project location within a regional and local setting, respectively. Project History Three of the 4 lots involved in the current application were the subject ' of a previous development approval. In 1981, the same property owner obtained approval from the City of Newport Beach for the construction of two office buildings (one 2 stories and one 3• stories in height) totalling ' 43,000 square feet in area. Specific approvals included an off-site parking agreement, parking modification, traffic study approval and a resubdivision. Conditions of approval attached to the Traffic Study required the applicant to develop a ridesharing program prior to occupancy in order to achieve • a reduction in traffic impacts identified at that time. Subsequently, in 1983 the City Council approved GPA 81-2, which affects the project site by limiting development intensity to a 0.5 floor area ratio (FAR) , with an FAR of up to 1.0 allowed with certain findings regarding traffic and circulation impacts. (These requirements are outlined in the section of this report dealing with the relationship of the project to applicable planning programs and development standards. ) According to planning staff, the prior modification and resubdivision ' approvals have expired on the project site. Due to the differences between the previous project and the current project, neither the earlier traffic study or the off-site parking agreement are considered valid in relation ' to the existing request. Characteristics of the proposed project are outlined below. ' Project Characteristics The project site is 2.7 acres in size and is currently occupied by 3 one story buildings and related parking lots. Existing buildings total 43,500 ' sq.ft. and are devoted to commercial and office uses. All structures currently on-site will be demolished in order to accommodate the proposed project. ' The project applicant proposes to construct 1 four story office structure .68,232 square feet in size. Surface parking is provided for 275 cars ' at a ratio of 1 space per 248 square feet of office space. Approximately 25,000 sq.ft. of office space will be devoted to the headquarters of Pace- setter Homes and a savings and loan operation. The remainder will by multi-tenant office space offered for lease. Figures 3 and 4 illustrate the proposed site plan and building elevations. ' 2 1 i REGIONAL LOCATION FIGURE 1 1 PACESETTER HOMES 1 los angeles county �• i—••—•• • ••—••� san Bernardino county 1 a,Y•r•b, Fwy Anaheim Orange ' l riverside county Santa O 1 � Ana 1 S." Project Site „,,,�,, `•• Huntington Costa Beach Mesa Iz 777 �4 Irvine O j 1 Newport , •\ Beach a Cy . 1 Pacific ocean I/ Laguna 1 Beach DIN°W San Juan 1 Capistrano / 1 San Clemente / san diego county 1 mane e odlgm.cricp 1 urban plonnino 1825 wesIdd a`ine,ante177 nev=I becch co,42660 1 VICINITY MAP FIGURE 2 PACESETTER HOMES •iti[x IMr!1!'1 ii�' •iN 3[n • ( OI' d/I ` I x y Q1 y. �� r­QST FRWY?�ss c SAN OIEG'O I S DIEGO r9lY0nf.[ a � 4-u•y GC }y•-1 I[ ' PEl ER , n ti - I / �,n•. 1 h"n "�' p°icfu 5[W id — Irc •'- . / — .• �•a y � [rLL�4 1 e a � ` _ uu.•.,P VUNINO .,,,BAKER a —9AKERf II. ?I a♦>' -/—�,- w'f °o`o"as ° a I � I b �P •I d F ;1 F � • •slat+ ar gi3 •5 9 C a S �n p`�W,�v' pr xe$ p 1 ___-°'__-� a �7.3.5' I ( 3__N� p.�,... [ ....,- aYafr[•v0 ',r ..rr y g d ud'0 :' r , "I F 1 1 • m F 1Y NO.4 . LL W R[u•,p a w a g 1- y (//� a�•"�u Jr Ilk I.. "�*., cud[xxi �• ♦.+ � ia.L q9, rd � .° a D xa'Gu[ a tOmii°' �< .+P"• _ ___�i ra� ��j i§g•�Vrq 4 t4�yrW'tet �' .r. � ��.n I� y. .. J� I yt:,, r 3 :%_ � En rt1u• _ t?CQ+° " � a � a Iw du �a ..[• 4 ijr��.` t la Ks, W�Vs�. ! / O� (� I ru r ♦y„ �4 N—A � ;. p vuw;d I�1 re xv..e t •' -{ /I .,� " 1. m I n S� 000 o .]wiNct cwavlr rNscaawos. I •lV. :.•'•� d9 R, `•• � ' u � <u,^[• b Pa �c � "'• � :#.; w©u x.x ,:I- � OP. .. _ ye( .q• I +/ .� 'br..p,,,o � ST 1 d car ;i-_, p„�„a•. . . .,..�C/ 2 • cuuvrer aus•:;,.'iP wu� ♦ �. r. �«M ly I. a r- i., i n[+c'r l ;;. ^ car<uu.°sr:.?.� o as � � • � -' ,4• � •[i [! M tixiM .,Ou1N[x. /i i° .. ♦ il' �'A r. E _ • {ggqdWly 1 S ml [py sv[r[artc � • � xmdc. \ _-- ,,,���iKKa _ _ ___ E� Ni g e g,oui•• t `� oxr �+�y/� '•a`S( 14 --<a°,°ry a'`'a�~�"°"aw8 <y`c"•�o,( :•'. .':t'•3P d O a y • ` 1 i�_ 1 .. o . ' 'o,"P'^ .[. / 3rit r4s Qt,�4. tc h rd' /. •.t,..+,: S �F� , a '•�i i\e •, of P .a3rr G^ '�i"/d� l ro [T b •:( OJa :A� 9vM I! ••♦ `�'9 •"' r'! 1' g S��3 l x[Nsl j.uarr ar � 4': 'ff �. a•[. .:, ba vas. 2s�= w gg ,•.• / e 'h[Y a v /�( I ♦r p st �• !°° ar.ls,: " rG 1 �" /I °°[��' .�3�y/v.• ��r:'(�� �:•;v:�5 y°•d' �al'w ac�9�-°( a, i. i'E �/ cry\ o ♦ 1♦ ♦ \ F { i soP!E�i�S . � � �� y sv J� •' .�Y 3r .7 �? � '�'�vnru(. �.�♦ ° ♦,}�. S Si'I qe p mo wt 1 + Q E aU`' ._ _ $ i c di r�♦.�?• ♦v NP i 'b4• < Cr '�,8��/�a/ '` .;, •tupc 1 lV0[lCOI� t u)ILL�•. ,Iy ,/°.4�yA.Y,.C•",1.� ` !r•Y .°S��MP.E.� %M` �E 9 i\�tM11'° 1 ` [1: `, VICi0Nr1 51 Kn'� � aJ SOgJ '",. ' : 10•T^ _' •Qy! ! -1 P �([r LT.-wx --off__1• .. b'� xo _� s,� ucF((,n/,/Y/'�•S1-�'•``\ •ti��j 0� :! i —_�:yK ,rd4o�+. .' � -- ouca � , tea'-+'�/ a'// °�' C� P �'Q''".V ror�•r, 1\ 11` uY� �1�• LLI 1 •e`` ajC P7i d/.1'"' rn P:'�dt�.� _• I r.�ur�• UPPER � - - .- �I� •� Sy uv i�° .. , o♦w 1 , a � n $'Lti �:«�`. NEWPoHI �✓ .. % a ' a �'•. All ♦ °'`• ° k ,d� v V � + -gpY. ¢aP[rci[. `C [Fn su__ cJ' o . •b,• '`•'ic�� `'� d °♦` �• I :.•(rN.`♦��isrJ� '1 •a°•', 1 1 ¢ �..,,[P/j. .1 JY • yak \ +Ce\\\\.wY ie '•,♦,'[ P'[\w a•d^'L:a.• ' ,^•.i n."=..N � V!I MW/,. r d/r� ^uub' .[}, °> •'J't!a(`:1�4, �.��.� • _•.'0( ..,• 'M�;,hf� 'h'n 1 ¢1 � y b r °°[d�' 'ESf;/ ♦^iri/` ..y 'y i r.rr .. j_ r:'•.� WlI n t�• nk 1 " s� r� -_4 1 9r, ♦�a�t �'v a) ysb A�Nrf: y 7% ('�i/ tl // � � '• •♦�ef'v..k/-.^ •,o- �g ^•ia ,r �'" \sb `° 4' i .\ � a!1,.`�`'qy 1 /111�r< �.,•>xr••..`i`l;.`�: : � I 1, •1� 1 \ C P Y1 1 YF N�° `0� I I '1.1�A``J'' 1'E1.•L.•�;y Y y �' '� 'W'L41' o I ��w,C si\ •''• Wit( at `q nn •/ - •P^ G �e(�;4n..•rVa'Z`v nuri i �sl n- 4'T sG yva �i ..• .lUn Y °`Yl•Y� � � er.y / C'� �1•��t�°x '=an •p. ^ir�i.' � �rNN �?' S . P e .�''•( •• r __. ,y;r .f-9':n �Y x R a,rw.,r, \ ``P.^a.2A.�•b i'YII O ``• •a[ t�.•'d[M [ c r q[ " ryM r•�k \1 Y6,R 1`x i1 dti .}.. 1V-•Y, 4 g • c° '•o r r o ' '••, ap,s` d � \;..t�:4}s. .Y�iE-E � 1. .V 1'�� , i"r i�,'m [ 'c< 4 rr e.,bs,C f 1h: T,�.•'�!-,�try��•- .'lls i}} t� i'J`- @t"E-x 3'y h sy, r�uMlblas�S�Y klr ' M �••J � �I I b h _ 2d'✓'• 1..h�5 E 1 �/q,(.as S�•y\'?s•p ny�,an�ol �A e?1��� .i w a+.iV�.,:, •s�6- `•�'A -8y�• _ S4� _ {' %.°t.. • Y..� 1 tin•. I 1 SITE PLAN i FIGURE 3 PACESETTER HOMES 1 CAMPUS DRIVE -- . ._ - --.- --- — 1 u_ ._ ■_u_u_u_o_u_u_u_u_o_■■_u_u .. ul + . Lill, ` 6 ■ • I ■ I I � � I I Y—io � n I � b ' � 1 1 1 � . 1 mane e.gill'lam,aicp urban plon�inngg l 1825 westcliffe,sjite177 ' Source: Howard F. Thompson h Associates, Irvine, CA newFXXt beaCh 6a92660 BUILDING ELEVATIONS FIGURE 4 . PACESETTER HOMES ■■n■■■�n■■■■■■■■�■■��■■�■■■■n■■■ ■■n■�n■n■e■■■�� ten■■■■ NORTH CAMPUS DRIVE EAST ll �■�■���■�■■��n�����nN■n�n����� ■�■m�■n���■�■� min � y/�f�+di� L/ � � � � ,•■.■■n n�T3A3 �`S ee�.' �oclIIri%� iAi17i' sAms�'. . i t;• ■uavicu�rarzwanwcxaf aram h srr�c �u ■ i.vcz. ,mfrmmvssaazmcv: aar r�mraatriv� p�p��sy4��� C{�y^'�'.�� �'=?��`A�r.��;E�Fc�'�rex�t#�r� � 3i�i�?�::►`�_trs+��"'9���1�� ����3��s�4�3.�i SOUTH WEST . ��/ppagqR���JppUS�f �■■ � I��By/Fi_,SfSCTd�S*a��tff��.tyy- 'm9�a�¢1y��� 7�1�E-{b�Yyi!H� .iyR�6L: pP�r'y��yyy��r�y�y 'iCr�RJ f_•Y� .Q�w t �Y&�w�✓,tiHT ��Li YSYS�- ti�S�>+�•S•�.•�'y�.3' E':aN9f 4C� 'iliKRiM3iiCY!dlilTd TW! more egillicirn,aicp •• • • • 1825 - • - •• •-• •• • ••• ' In order to allow the proposed development, approval of a request to exceed the established development intensity of 0.5 FAR, a modification to parking ' standards and a resubdivision, is required. Further comment on these requests is contained in the following section. ' Comparison of the Proposed Project to the General" Plan and Development tan ar s The proposed project must be developed within the framework of applicable ' planning programs and ordinances, which are examined below. General Plan.' As has been noted, General Plan Amendment 81-2, approved ' in a'—P y 8 established a 0.5 FAR development intensity limit in the Campus Drive area. GPA 81-2 also allowed that an FAR of up to 1.0 could be approved if a finding could be made that traffic and circulation impacts generated would be no greater than those generated by a similar development of 0.5 FAR. The text of GPA 81-2 as it relates to the Campus Drive area and the project site is contained in Appendix C to this report for reference. ' The proposed project constitutes a request to exceed the 0.5 FAR development intensity limit to a 0.62 FAR. The use requested is consistent with the applicable land use designations. The determination of consistency of the development intensity requested is dependent upon traffic and circulation considerations which are outlined in the impact analysis portion of the report. ' Consultation with the Newport Beach Planning Department indicates that the proposed project is in compliance with all other relevant elements of the General Plan. ' Zonin Code. The project site is designated M-1-A (Light Industry and ministrative Office) . Table A provides a comparison of the proposed ' project relative to these development standards. 1 1 i 7 ' TABLE A COMPARISON PROPOSED PROJECT ZONINGTO Requirement M-1-A Zone Proposed Project ' Building Site Area 10,000 sq.ft. minimum 116,000 sq.ft.1 ' Buildable Area - 110,000 sq.ft.2 Floor Area 55,000 sq.ft. 68,232 sq.ft. (per GPA 81-2) Intensity of Use 0.5 FAR 0.62 FAR (per GPA 81-2) Building Height high-rise 4 stories Setbacks Front - 15 feet Front - 25 feet Side - none Side - 135 feet Rear - none Rear - 135 feet ' Parking 1 space per 225 net 275 spaces total; square feet 1 space per 248 (1 space per 250 net gross sq.ft. ' square feet with Modi- fication approval) ' Sources: Howard F. Thompson & Associates, Irvine; and the City of Newport Beach Planning Department ' 1 - 4 lots 400 ft. width x 290 ft. depth = 116,000 sq.ft. ' 2 - 116,000 sq.ft. total lot area minus 6000 sq.ft. of front setback area equals the net buildable area. 1 • ' 8 As Table A illustrates, the proposed project is in compliance with all zoning related requirements with the exception of intensity of use which ' has been previously noted, and parking requirements. The parking ratio requested by the applicant will require the approval of a modification to M-1-A parking standards. At a ratio of 1 space per 225 square feet, approximately 303 spaces would be required by established standards. The project proposes 275 spaces at a ratio of 1 space per 248 square feet, Traffic Phasing Ordinance and Committed Projects ' The proposed project is also subject to the City's Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO) and Administrative Guidelines for the implementation of the TPO. All projects involving 10,000 sq.ft, or more are subject to TPO provisions. Once a project has received all necessary approvals, including TPO approval, it is considered a "committed" project for purposes of estimating traffic ' generation. Projects within Newport Beach which are considered committed are listed in Appendix D to this report. The traffic analysis contained in the Traffic and Circulation section of this report is based upon con- sideration of the proposed project as well as committed projects listed. Permits Required ' The proposed project will require the following approvals from the City of Newport Beach. No discretionary approvals by other agencies are required. ' 1. California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) . The acceptance of—this environmental ocument and approval of a Negative Declaration (or preparation and acceptance of an EIR) is required. ' 2. Request to exceed a 0.5 floor area ratio. In accordance with the provisions of General 1JlFn Amendment 81-2, the approval of ' a .62 FAR is requested by the project applicant. 3. Resubdivision. In order to allow construction of the proposed Project, the 4 existing lots must be combined into one lot through ' a Resubdivision. 4. Modification. In order to allow parking at a ratio of 1 space ' per 248 net square feet, a modification must be approved. t 9 1 ' DESCRIPTION OF EXISTING CONDITIONS, POTENTIAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES 1 - 10 1 LAND USE Existing Conditions The project site is currently utilized for commercial and office uses ' as previously noted. Figure 2 - Vicinity Map, illustrates the project's proximity to John Wayne Airport and Newport Bay. Major access to the project area is provided by MacArthur Boulevard and Bristol Street. A ' short history of the project site is provided in the Project Description section of this report. t The area surrounding the subject site is developed with a mix of office, light industrial and commercial uses. Structural heights vary from 1 to 10 stories in the immediate area. According to the Environmental Impact Report for GPA 81-2, existing floor area ratios average 0.34 in the Campus ' Drive area.1 In May of 1983, approximately 755,000 square feet of office, 156,000 square feet of industrial , 19,000 square feet of mixed use (office/indus- trial).. and 23;000 square feet of commercial space, totaling 953,000 square ' feet existed in the area. Approximately 830,400 square feet of this develop- ment is located in the project vicinity north of Bristol Street. Since 1983, approximately 91,250 square feet of additional development has been approved in the Campus Drive area. Requests for approximately 182,000 square feet (including the National Education Headquarters and the proposed project) are currently under review by the City of Newport Beach. ' Land use issues surrounding the proposed project must be considered in the larger context of on-going development trends in the general vicinity as well. Within the City of Newport Beach and adjacent jurisdictions; ' a number of large scale development projects have been approved in the vicinity of Campus Drive. These projects are listed in Table B. Aside from these developments, the County of Orange has recently approved a 255,000 square foot expansion to facilities as at the nearby John Wayne Airport. Development trends. in the vicinity of Campus Drive will be influenced ' by planned circulation improvements in the area, particularly the completion of the Corona del Mar Freeway. Proximity to the airport also contributes to the desirability of the area for office/industrial development. Potential Impacts The primary purpose of this analysis is to evaluate the potential impact of the proposed project as a precedent to other surrounding properties to seek similar consideration. The project involves a request to approve ' a building of 68,232 sq.ft. at an FAR of 0.62. The project request seeks an exception to' the development intensity set for the Campus Drive area by GPA 81-2 (0.5 FAR) . In order to allow the approval of a higher development intensity (up to 1.0 FAR) , the applicant must demonstrate that traffic and circulation impacts will not exceed those of a 0.5 FAR. (These impacts are evaluated in the next chapter dealing with Traffic and Circulation.) 1 - This area includes property both north and south of Bristol Street. 11 TABLE B DEVELOPMENT TRENDS IN THE PROJECT VICINITY PACESETTER HOMES JUNE, 1985 ' LOCATION USE SIZE ' CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 1. North Ford Residential 888 units ' Commercial 50,000 sq.ft. Office 345,000 sq.ft. 2. Koll Center Hotel 440 rooms ' Office 325,934 sq.ft. 3. MacArthur Court Office 558,400 sq.ft. ' 4. Sheraton Hotel Hotel 119 room expansion Sub-Total 888 residential D.U. 559 hotel roams 1•,229,334 sq.ft. office 50,000 sq.ft. commercial ' CITY OF IRVINE Irvine Business Center Office 1,778,292 sq.ft. Commercial 125,000 sq.ft. Industrial 57,166 sq.ft. CITY OF COSTA MESA ' Airport area Office/ Industrial 267,000 sq.ft. ' COUNTY OF ORANGE Bayview Residential 233 units Commercial 35,500 sq.ft. Office 631,644 sq.ft. Hotel 300 400ms Total 1,121 residential D.U. ' 210,500 sq.ft. commercial 3,639,270 sq.ft. office 57,166 sq.ft. industrial ' 267,000 sq.ft., office/industrial 859 hotel rooms ' Sources: Planning Department of the respective jurisdictions noted. 12 1 ' Because the requested approval is an exception to established guidelines based upon the individual characteristics of the proposed project, it ' is not feasible to attempt to examine surrounding properties on an individual basis to determine if the potential exists for a request similar to that of the proposed project. Consequently, a worst case estimate of future ' expansion potential has been assumed. - If all existing properties within the Campus Drive area were to request an increase in square footage to a 0.62 FAR, as has been requested by ' Pacesetter Hanes, an increase of approximately 668,500 square feet could be anticipated over existing development. Similarly, a 0.62• FAR would represent an increase of approximately 290,000 'above a 0.5 FAR development ' intensity level .1 The EIR for GPA 81-2 examined the associated impacts of a 0.5 FAR in the Campus Drive area. . In the case of concerns such as traffic, noise, airport . ' use, air quality, energy, and demand for housing and public services, an increase in development intensity to•0.62 FAR throughout the area would result in roughly proportional increases in impacts, with the possible exception of some localized problems which could reach threshold levels at an increased development intensity. It is not within the scope of . this Initial Study to examine such potential impacts in detail. ' From a land use perspective, a development intensity of 0.62 FAR would be almost twice the level of intensity existing in the surrounding area (0.34) . Should the entire Campus Drive area be developed to this intensity ' it would significantly alter the character now existing and.would increase similar pressures in adjacent areas such as Newport Place. ' The Traffic and Circulation chapter of this report is specifically directed at evaluating the characteristics of the project relative to the provisions of GPA 81-2. This review process will be applied to all similar requests. ' As a consequence, it can be assumed that some portion of future projects will not comply and thus the worst case scenario is unlikely to occur. Within the context of the Campus Drive area, it is considered improbable ' that any significant environmental impacts will occur from approval of the project. On a cumulative basis, however, it will add incrementally to development pressures in the general area� and to associated impacts. ' The worst case expansion of the Campus Drive area to a 0.62 FAR would be considered cumulatively significant. It is not possible, however, to draw a definitive connection between expansion which may be approved on the project site and development or expansion which might subsequently ' occur in the vicinity. ' 1 - These figures represent development in the Campus Drive area north of Bristol Street only. Calculations are contained in Appendix E. ' 13 ' Mitigation Measures ' The project will be required to comply with all applicable provisions of GPA 81-2, existing City policies and standard conditions of approval as contained in Appendix B to this report. ' Significance of Impacts after Mitigation The potential land use impacts of this project as proposed are not considered significant on an individual basis. On a worst case, cumulative basis, however, significant impacts '•could occur. 1 14 ' TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION ' Introduction ' A traffic analysis has been conducted by the firm of Weston Pringle & Associates to assess potential impacts of the proposed project on the existing circulation system in the project area. This analysis is required by the City of Newport Beach Traffic Phasing Ordinance and by General Plan Amendment (GPA) 81-2 which have both been described in preceding sections of this report. The following discussion summarizes the conclusions of the traffic analysis, which is contained in Appendix F to this report. tAnalysis. of traffic and circulation impacts are based upon the construction of a 68,232 square foot building by 1987. Because of the nature of the ' approval requested, this analysis also examines potential. traffic impacts if the project were limited to a 0.5 FAR. In order to be consistent with the provisions of GPA 81-2 it must be demonstrated that the proposed project not ohly complies with the Traffic Phasing Ordinance but that impacts ' generated do not exceed those of a project of 0.5 FAR. This would constitute a building of 55,000 square feet. ' Existing Conditions The project site and the surrounding street system are illustrated in Figure 2 - Vicinity Map. The road system is fully developed in the immediate ' area of the project site. Campus Drive, which the project site -fronts upon, provides two lanes of travel in each direction with limited on-street parking. MacArthur Boulevard, which provides access to the project area, ' is a major arterial with 3 travel lanes in each direction. Bristol Street North also provides access to the project area. ' In the area surrounding the project site, major improvements are currently under construction on the Corona del Mar Freeway, with completion anticipated in 1986. Other future planned improvements include the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor and improvements to MacArthur Boulevard from Jamboree Road to Pacific Coast Highway. This improved and expanded roadway system will facilitate access to the project area and significantly increase circulation capacities. For purposes of this analysis, the City Traffic Engineer identified 4 intersections as potentially impacted by project implementation, and provided estimated volumes of existing daily traffic and ICU (Intersection Capacity Utilization) values for the roadways in the project vicinity. Figure 5 illustrates existing daily traffic volumes and ICU values. All inter- sections analyzed are identified in Appendix F to this report. i Potential Impacts In order to determine potential traffic impacts from the proposed project, trip generation rates established for general office uses in the City of Newport Beach were utilized. By applying these rates to the proposed use and that of a hypothetical project at 0.5 FAR, estimates of daily, 2.5 hour peak and PM peak hour trips were calculated. Appendix_ F contains specific generation rates utilized. 15 ' . EXISTING DAILY VOLUMES & ICU VALUES FIGURE 5 ' PACESETTER HOMES - ro 28 DR. t .8592 .58876 7453 a� ST. 20 h a 44 BRI 1.2805 m" m `gy rOL S7 N�9661 .6360 42 RftiSiOL .896503 ' .9180 T 7678 31 .7565 ' M{ BONITA CYN•RD . ' J D • m a in tiG a �RD. _ W ' FORD 6� O i5PN JOAQN7N ' w S.RD. 0 ro a COAST HWr. PACIFIC LEGEND _ I'I , 44 DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUMES, IN THOUSANDS .9180 ICU VALUES more a gd Iqm,atcp rban plornir� 1825u westcl�ttUrne,sude177 Soucy,Weston Pringle &Associates reNPort beoch•oa926bO ' Table C illustrates trip ends estimated to result from the proposed project (0.62 FAR) and a 0.5 FAR project. Estimated traffic impacts are based ' on the calculated net increase in traffic generation, allowing for existing trip generation from businesses presently located on the project site. As indicated in Table C. the proposed project is estimated to generate 440 daily trip ends, with 150 occurring during the 2.5 hour peak and 75 ' during the PM peak hours. TABLE C ' TRIP EN R TION Paceset e� r Romes Office ' LAND USE GENERATED TRIPS Dai y 2.5 Hour Peak PM Peak Hour n OF In but Proposed Project Proposed Office 890 80 230 40 115 ' (08,232 sq.ft.) Industrial -140 -10 -40 -5 -20 (20,000 sq.ft.) Existing Office -310 -30 -80 -15 -40 (23,500 sq.ft. ) ' Net. Increase 440 40 110 20 55 ' Alternative Project (0.5 FAR) Proposed Office 720 65 185 35 95 ' (55,000 sq.ft. ) Industrial -140 -10 -40 -5 -20 ' (20,000 sq.ft.) Existing Office -310 -30 -80 -15 -40 (23,500 sq.ft. ) _ _ _ _ — Net Increase 270 25 65 15 35 ' Source: Weston Pringle & Associates ' Based upon data provided by Pacesetter Homes concerning the home zip codes of current employees, net project-related trip generation was assigned ' to the street system. Appendix F illustrates the geographic trip distribution Patten derived for the project. Figure 6 illustrates net increases in daily traffic projected to occur as a result of the proposed project. ' 17 1 1 PROJECT DAILY VOLUMES FIGURE 6 1 PACESETTER HOMES 1 - 0 0 h 45 ■ r o , ■ u -i pQ' 90 BR►ST°L ST m ` 1 BRISTpL sr NQ4TH `moo 1 "ONI TA CYN•R' pQ- 3 � D 1 J� D 1 d FORD `O 1 J° 5PN 4 a�7N 1 y�<<S RD. ma 1 a COAST HWY 1 PACIFIC 1 mcne a alfl om oir_p urtm ok5y)alp 1825 He4ciitl cf'ne suee 177 1 Sourom:W"ton PrkvW t Attmittet neAVa t te-ch co v.'a'+D ' Finally, an analysis to identify intersections which could be potentially impacted by the project was conducted based upon criteria .contained in the City's Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO) . This analysis indicated three of the four intersections identified by the City Traffic Engineer would not pass the "one percent" test. These intersections include Bristol ' Street North/Campus Drive, Jamboree Road/Campus Drive and MacArthur Boule- vard/Campus Drive. With a 0.5 FAR project, only the MacArthur Boulevard/Cam- pus Drive intersections fails the "one percent" test. ' As required by the TPO, additional analyses were conducted on the three intersections noted to determine intersection capacity utilization (ICU) . ICU calculations, which are contained in Appendix F, include existing, ' committed project, regional growth and project PM peak hour, traffic. Table D illustrates the results of this analysis in summary form. ' TABLE D ICU SUFfMA1FY-- 1988 Pacesetter Homes ffice ' 1985 EXISTING EXISTING EXISTING +REGIONAL +REGIONAL ICU +COMMITTED +COMMITTED ' INTERSECTION +PROJECT Proposed Project ' Bristol Street N. & Campus Drive 1.1525 1.3568 1.3606 Jamboreee Road & Campus Drive 0.9186 1.0532 1.0554 ' MacArthur Boulevard & Campus Drive 0.8416 0.8902 0.8965 ' Alternative Project (0.5 FAR) MacArthur Boulevard & Campus Drive 0.8416 0.8902 0.8949 Source: Weston Pringle & Associates ' As Table D illustrates, the Bristol Street North/Campus Drive and Jamboree Road/Campus Drive intersections would have unacceptable conditions with ' the proposed project and without mitigation. The completion of the Corona del Mar Freeway is anticipated to reduce traffic volumes to an acceptable level at the Bristol Street North/Campus Drive intersection. The Jamboree Road/Campus Drive intersection is projected to have a 1987 ICU value of 1.0532 without the proposed project. . While the increase attributable to the project is considered minor, the intersection would ' clearly exceed the TPO criteria with project implementation. No readily applicable physical mitigation measures are feasible. Consequently, a traffic management program similar to that approved with previous project plans is recommended. 1 19 ' Based upon information supplied by the applicant regarding employees place of residence, it is estimated that trip generation could be reduced by 25 trips utilizing ridesharing during the PM peak hour which is considered the most critical period. While this program would reduce project-related traffic impacts by approximately 45% during the PM peak, it will not fully mitigate the condition at the Jamboree Road/Campus Drive intersection. As Tables C and D illustrate, a 0.5 FAR project would not result in a traffic impact at the MacArthur Boulevard/Campus Dr. intersection as defined ' by the TPO. The ICU value at Jamboree Road/Campus Drive would, however, exceed 0.90 without the project and would result in conditions similar to those identified for the proposed project at a 0.62 FAR. The difference ' in trip generation during the PM peak hour for these alternatives is 25 trips (in and out). • Initiation of a ridesharing program would essentially result in a reduction in trip generation and associated traffic impacts to a level similar to a 0.5 FAR project. Other traffic management measures such as staggered work hours may also be feasible. Aside from the implementation of a traffic management/ridesharing program, ' the only other available mitigation measure is a reduction in the size of the project. Based on this traffic analysis, it would require an FAR . .of less than 0.5 to comply with the Traffic Phasing Ordinance. Mitigation Measures The following mitigation measures are suggested to minimize project traffic impacts. 1. A traffic management program incorporating ridesharing and other measures as feasible to the operational character of the proposed project shall be developed by Pacesetter Homes. This program shall be reviewed and approved by the City of Newport Beach Planning and Traffic Engineering Departments. 2. Pacesetter Homes shall include in the proposed traffic management program specific efforts to involve all tenants of the proposed structure in order to further reduce impacts. 3. Pacesetter Homes shall submit to the Newport Beach Planning Department an annual report indicating traffic management measures in effect. This report will be evaluated by a licensed traffic engineer to assess the effectiveness of the program in operation. ' 4. A restrictive covenant shall be recorded against the property, the form and content to be approved by the City Attorney, requiring that the applicant and all successors in interest in perpetuity comply with the approved traffic management program in order to maintain and assure future consistency with the provisions of the Newport Beach General Plan. 20 5. A revised Traffic Study shall be required prior to any change in ownership or other significant changes which could result in the potential for increased ' traffic generation or the negation of approved traffic management measures. Significance of Impacts After Mitigation The potential traffic impacts of the project are not considered significant on an individual basis. On a worst case cumulative basis, in conjunction ' with regional growth, impacts could be significant. t ' 21 i tPUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES ' Existing Conditions Fire Protection. The Newport Beach Fire Department provides fire , suppres—suppression an rescue services to the project area through a contract with the County of Orange. Station 27, located at the John Wayne Airport at the intersection of Campus Drive and Quail Street, provides ' a staffing level of 3 firefighters. Other companies responding in the project area provide backup assistance as necessary. Current -response time is estimated at 2-3 minutes. ' The next closest station is located at Santa Barbara and Jamboree Road in the City of Newport Beach. Response time from this station is estimated at 5 minutes, although traffic conditions may affect ' this estimate. The City of Newport Beach also anticipates the con- struction of a new fire station in the recently. approved North Ford project in the vicinity of Jamboree Road and University Drive, ' Police Protection. The Newport Beach Police Department provides full police protection to the project area from its facility on Santa ' Barbara Drive in Newport Center, located approximately 3 miles from the project site. Response times are estimated at 5-10 minutes for non-emergencies and 2-4 minutes for emergencies. ' Transit. The Orange County Transit District (OCTD) provides transit service to the project area with three bus routes. Route 76, from Huntington Beach to Saddleback College-North Campus, provides service on Campus Drive at 30 minute intervals. Route 61, from Santa Ana to Newport Center, provides service on MacArthur Boulevard at 30 minute intervals during peak hours and 60 minute intervals during non-peak hours. Route 71, from the Mall of Orange to the John Wayne Airport area, provides service to Campus Drive at 30 minute intervals during peak hours only. ' Wastewater. The City of Newport Beach Utilities Department provides ocl of sewer service to the project site. Wastewater is treated by the Orange County Sanitation District at its treatment facility in ' Huntington Beach. Water. The City of Newport Beach Utilities Department provides domestic water service to the site. Potential Impacts ' Fire Protection. The City of Newport Beach Fire Department currently anticipates no difficulty providing emergency medical or fire suppression ' services to the project site. The proposed project expansion will not adversely impact present service level capabilities and will not necessitate additional fire protection services. The anticipated provision of the new fire station in the North Ford area will also ' supplement existing fire protection capabilities in the area of the project site. j ' 22 Police Services. The project will not adversely impact current police protection services or require additional personnel. iTransit. The Orange County Transit District indicates that existing ub s routes have more than sufficient capacity to accommodate any additional ridership which might be generated by the proposed project. Wastewater. The City's Utilities Department does not foresee any need to expand facilities as a result of the proposed project. Simi- larly, the. Orange County Sanitation District has adequate capacity in existing treatment facilities to accommodate the proposed project. ' Water. The Newport Beach Utilities Department foresees no problem in supplying domestic water service to the proposed project. ' Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures beyond those required by existing City policies and Standard Conditions of Approval are considerd necessary. ' Significance of Impacts Including Mitigation Measures The potential public service and utility impacts of the proposed project ae considered insignificant. 23 ' PERSONS AND ORGANIZATIONS CONSULTED ' City of Costa Mesa Christin Caspars, Planning Department City of Irvine . Chris Magashima, Planning Department City of Newport Beach Patricia Temple, Environmental Coordinator William Ward, Current Planning Don Webb, City Engineer Rich Edmonston, Traffic Engineer Captain Topping, Fire Dept. ' Tom Little, Police Dept. County of Orange Environmental Management Agency ' General Services Agency Orange County Transit District ' 24 I ' REFERENCES ' LSA, Inc. , 1983. • Draft Focused Environmental Impact Report, Sheraton-Newport Hotel Expansion. Prepared for the City of Newport Beach. LSA, Inc. , 1983. Draft Focused Environmental Im act Re ort-North Ford/San Diego Creek Sites GPA 82-1 . Prepared for the City of Newport Beach. Newport Beach, City of General Plan, Land Use Element Zoning Code: M-1-A Zone Phillips, Brandt, Reddick. May 1983. Certified Final Environmental Impact Report - General Plan Amendment 81-2. Prepared for the City of Newport ' Beach. Pringle, Weston and Associates, June 1985. Traffic Anal sis for Pacesetter Homes. Prepared for Marie E. Gilliam, TICP, Newport Beach, CA. I ' - i • ' 25 ' Appendix A Sample Environmental Checklist 1 ( EWROW&WAL CHEC10_IST FORM 1. Background ' 1. Name of Proponent Pacesetter Homes 2. Address and phone Number of Proponent 4540 Campus Drive III Newport Beach 3. Date of Checklist Submitted H69_8600 4. Agency Requiring Checklist ' 5. Name of Proposal, if applicable Pacesetter Homes Office 11.- Environmental Impacts ' (Explanations of all "yes" and "maybe" answers are required on attached sheets.) ' Yes Maybe No 1. Earth. Will the proposal result in: ' C a. Unstable earth conditions or in changes in geologic substructures? x ' b. Disruptions, displacements, coapaction or overcovering of ihe'soil? c. Change in topography or ground surface relief features? 2<0 d. The destruction, covering or modification of any unique geologic or physical features? M e. Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off the site? i t. Changes in deposition or erosion of beach sands, or changes in siltation, deposition or ' erosion which may modify the channel of a river or stream or the bed of the ocean or any bay, inlet or lake? �( 1 )Les —Maybe g. Exposure of people or property to geolo- gic hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, — mudslides, ground failure, or similar hazards? 2. Air. Will the proposal result in: ' a. Substantial air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality? ?C ' b. The creation of objectionable odors? c. Alteration of air movement, moisture, or temperature, or any change in climate, — either locally or regionally? 3. Water. Will the proposal result in: ' a. Changes is currents, or the course of di- rection of water movements, in either ' marine or fresh waters? X b. Changes in absorption rates, drainoge pat- terns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? c. Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? x ' d. Change in the amount of surface water in any water body? ' e. Discharge into surface waters, or in any alteration of surface water quality, in- cluding but not limited to temperature, ' dissolved oxygen or turbidity? �C f. Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground waters? x Ili , g. Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or with- drawals, or through interception of an — oquifer by cuts or excavations? 7� h. Substantial reduction in the amount of ' water otherwise available for public water — supplies? >� i. Exposure of people or property to water re- lated hazards such as flooding or tidal waves? K ' ' l Yes Maybe No 4. Plant Life. Will the proposal result In- c. Change in the diversity of species, or ' number of any species of plants (including shrubs, gross, crops, and aquatic plants)? ?C b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, ' rare or endangered species of plants? ?� c. Introduction of new species of plants into , kin area, or in a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species? X ' d. Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop? _ S. Animal Life. Will the proposal re§ult in: ' a. Change in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of animals (birds, ' land animals including reptiles, fish and shellfish, benthic organisms or insects)? b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, ' rare or endangered species of animals? _ c. Introduction of new species of animals into ' an area, or result in a barrier to the Y migration or movement of animals? _ d. Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat? x 6. Noise. Will the proposal result in: ' a. Increases in existing noise levels? b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels? K ' 7. Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce new light or glare? }C ' 8. Land Use. Will the proposal result in a sub- stantial alteration of the present or planned x land use of an area? ' 9. Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in: a. Increase in the rate of use of any .natural , • resources? f i b. Substantial depletion of any nonrenewable Maybe No, renewobie 7C' natural resource? _ 10. Risk of Upset. Will the proposal involve: t a. A risk of an explosion or the release ' of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation) in the event of an accident or upset conditions? b. Possible interference with an emergency ' response plan or an emergency evacuation — plan? 2� 11. Population. Will the proposal alter the location, t distribution, density, or growth rate of the — human population of an area? � 12. Housing. Will the proposal affect existing hous- ing, or create a demand for additional housing? 13. Transportation/Circulation: Will the proposal result in: a. Generation of substantial additional vehicular movement? ?� _ b. Effects on existing parking facilities, or demand for new parking? 2� c. Substantial inpoct upon existing transpor- tation systems? X ' d. Alterations to present patterns of circula- tion or movement of people and/ot goods? 2� e. Alterptions to waterborne, rail or air ' traffic? X f. Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? 2S 14. Public Services. Will the proposal have on effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered governmental services in any of the ' following areas: a. Fire protection? X _ ' b. Police protection? c. Schools? �t 1 � . t Yes Maybe No d. Parks or other recreational facilities? ?f e. Maintenance of public facilities, including ' roads? 2� _ f. Other govemmental services? 2! ' 15. Energy. Will the proposal result in: ` a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? ><— t b. Substantial increase in demand upon exist- ing sources of energy, or require the ' development of new sources of energy? 16. Utilities. Will the proposal result in a need ' for new systems, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: , a. Power or natural gas? , b. Communications systems? K c. Wafer? �- >< d. Sewer or septic tanks? I I e. Storm water drainage? f. Solid waste and disposal? 2� 17. Human Health. Will the proposal result in: a. Creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard (excluding mental health)? ?f ' b. Exposure of people to potential health hazards? ?� 18. Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in the obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public, or will the proposal result in the creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view? 19. Recreation, Will the proposal result in an , Impact upon the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities? ?C 20. Cultural 'Resources. ' G. Will the proposal result in the alteration of or the destruction of a prehistoric or ' historic archaeological site? b. Will the proposal result in adverse physical Yes Maw No ' or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or _ historic building, structure, or object? ZS c. Does the proposal have the potential to ' cause a physical charge which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? d. Will the proposal restrict existing religious ' or sacred uses within the potential impact area? 21. Mandatory Findings of Significance. a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, ' substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wild- life population to drop below self sus- taining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b. Does the project have the potential to ' achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? (A short- I term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive period of time while long-term impacts will endure well into the future.) c. Does the project have impacts which are individually limited, but cumulatively con- siderable? (A project may impact on two or more separate resources where the impact on each resource is relatively small, but where the effect of the total of those impacts on the environment is significant.) X ' d. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? 7S ' III. Discussion of Environmental Evaluation M IV. Determination (To be completed by the Lead Agency) 1 On the basis of this initial evaluation: i I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. 1 find that although the proposed project could have o significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on on attached sheet have — , been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL W PREPARED. 1 find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environ- ment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Is required. Dole Signature For ' (Note: This is only a suggested form. Public agencies are free to devise their own format for initial studies.) ' Appendix B Summary of Applicable Standard City Policies and Requirements 1 1 1 1 APPENDIX B ' SUMMARY OF A PT LICE STANDARD CITY POLICIES AND RE UIREME TS A. The development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved ' site plan, floor plans, and elevations. ' B. All mechanical equipment and trash areas shall be screened from public streets, alleys, or adjoining properties. C. Signage and exterior lighting shall be approved by the Planning ' Department and the Police Department, as appropriate. D. The following disclosure statement of the City of Newport Beach's policy regarding John Wayne Airport shall be included in all leases or subleases for space in the project and shall be included in any ' Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions which may be recorded against the property. Disclosure Statement The Lessee herein, his heirs, successors, and assigns acknowledge that: , a) John Wayne Airport may not be able to provide adequate air service for business establishments which rely on such services; ' b) When an alternate air facility is available, a complete phaseout of jet service may occur at John Wayne Airport; c) The City of Newport Beach may continue to oppose additional * ' commercial air service expansion at John Wayne Airport; d) Lessee, his heirs, successors, and assigns will not actively ' oppose any action taken by the City of Newport Beach to phase out or limit jet air service at John Wayne Airport. , E. The project sponsors will comply with California energy conservation standards for non-residential buildings (Title 24, Administrative Code). ' F. Development of the site will be subject to a grading permit to be approved by the Building and Planning Departments. ' G. A grading plan may include a complete plan for temporary and permanent drainage facilities, to minimize any potential impacts from silt, , debris, and other water pollutants. H. The grading permit may include, if required, a description of haul routes, access points to the site, and watering and sweeping programs ' designed to minimize impacts of haul operations. APPENDIX B continued) ' I. An erosion, siltation, and dust control plan, if desired by the ' City, shall be submitted and be subject to approval by the Building Department and a copy will be forwarded to the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Santa Ana Region. t J. Grading shall be conducted in accordance with plans prepared by a civil engineer and based on recommendations of a soils engineer and an engineering geologist subsequent to completion of a compre- hensive soils and geologic investigation of the site to be prepared prior to issuance of building permits. Permanent reproducible copies of the "Approved as Built" grading plans on standard-size sheets shall be furnished to the Building Department. ' K. The Fire Department shall review design plans to ensure adequate access and emergency exits. 1 L. The provision of adequate fire flow shall be reviewed by the Fire Department. ' M. Structures shall be equipped with fire suppression systems as required by code. ' N. Final design of the project shall provide for the incorporation of water-saving devices for lavatories and other water-using facilities. 0. Prior to the issuance of any building permits, a program for the sorting of recyclable material from other solid wastes shall be developed and approved by the Planning Department. P. The final layout and composition of surface parking shall be subject to the review and approval of the City Traffic Engineer and the Planning Department. Q. Handicap and compact parking spaces shall be designated by a method approved by the City Traffic Engineer and the Planning Department. ' The quantity and design of such spaces shall comply with all city codes. ' R. All onsite drainage shall be approved by the City Public Works Department. ' S. The project shall contribute a sum equal to its "fair share" of future circulation system improvements, as shown on the City's Master Plan of Streets and Highways. ' T. All buildings will conform to the Uniform Building Code and the City's seismic design standards. ' U. A landscape and irrigation plan shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect and approved by the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Department, the Public Works Department and approval of the Planning Department. APP8NDIX B cont nue ) V. The landscape plan shall include a maintenance program which controls the use of fertilizers and pesticides and which places emphasis ' upon the use of drought-resistant native vegetation. W. Any mechanical equipment or emergency power generators shall be ' screened from view and noise associated with said structures shall be sound-attenuated so as not to exceed 55 dBA at property lines. X. Final design of the project shall provide for the incorporation of ' water-saving devices for project lavatories and other water-using facilities. Y. That all mechanical equipment and trash areas shall be screened from , the public streets and adjoining propeties. Z. That the project shall be so designed to eliminate light and glare of adjacent uses. All parking lot lighting shallibe subject to the approval of the Planning Department. AA. Prior to occupancy of any building, the applicant shall provide , written verification from the Orange County Sanitation District that adequate sewer capacity is available to serve the project. ' 1 1 ' Appendix C , ' Text of General Plan Amendment 81-2 1 it ' APPENDIX C ' TEXfiTF—GW81-2 Campus Drive: Designate the area bounded by Campus Drive, Dove ' Street,, Birch Street, and Bristol Street for a mixture of General Industry and Administrative, Professional and Financial Commercial , uses. 1. Establish a permitted intensity of development for �..+l+�Iprg1�11M r•bf«Olµ the Campus Drive area (as shown on Exhibit 7 following Page 12 of the draft EIR) of ��of •q."':a`::�'w:. �'. 1(" 0.5 floor area• ratio, with a floor area ratio of up to 1.0 """'r" " "" "' ` �� ;• rw r•ww.ra•r. .�S �.w w r�r.rrJ may be approved if a finding "N;• ��� can be made that the traffic �• <:;;;��y` '�� ' and circulation system :•: \�-,?F� impacts are no greater than those generated by an office development of 0.5 FAR. The floor area ratio limits are defined as the ratio of gross =( ' structural area to the buildable area of the site. v 2. Direct that the zoning in the r ' 7 \ area be amended to implement ffII G this General Plan Amendment. 1`�;} ��1• J� 3. At the time of future discretionary actions, individual projects shall be required to contribute a sum equal to their fair share ' of future circulation system improvements as shown on the City's Master Plan of Streets and Highways and any other mitigation measures as required. 1 1 1 Appendix D Committed Projects 1 ' 1 1 � . 1 1 . 1 1 ! ! 1 1 1 1 a . OCCilfil7) 11FIn 9ros oo s1 e: n e4 es as n Be 89 90 91 9r 91 9s . 1. InnAea Ltrern!t (I Muxt rlall 17.fKKi .ft. IOOa I. twin 1•M lUi let +nit C•etlt[ )• 76F nene Oa O 1. tar tics[ xm•imx aM Imo fv[Cleel - 1 .000• .ft. lOni a�f�rrrtt+r m+<c le[[fcrl SO OWa .[t. Oa 0 - 5. ?rrnn t f d / /A tl 71 ]00 4 It • IOa 0 f6q ]S ..its xeupleA I36 vn{te 1n 661 ' f•. L.ct ta• rf[Ire iCf Clctl 69.)I05 .[t. 40A 1..vir I'ne{rrrrin loft Teel L',000i .[C. 100% M. Cal cmmA/an rant tottfetl l0 100s .[t. ]OOa' - n• .f,(vl r. Mata IetCltcl ' n1iiu 0 nrt I:nswH 16,Mga .[t. oa O , Ittlnurant O.G00. .ft. na 0 offlcr 154.694[ .ft. oa 0 1Lcatee 20.000! .Ct. Oa O - In.I:cr(rrate rlaso loffiee/ r/rice _ )9.0765 Office 101.1505 11. t•.I l Center Ifemtt /r/ace. lndvctr:al) nrt^1 440 FDOwr Ot 0 ltl -f(ter - _ 275,196sn•[t. Oa 0 ?•. .. I:f f;re IG6.)!6a .Lt. 0a 0 . ,. l7_PortrtTur Cevrt CoM el offin 100.000x .ft. 100% 0 Nt. rffice 750.000s .[t. Oa 0 I.l flrt 21.600s .Lt. 100% iinrc6xd office-fettle.) ]0,000• .(t. 100a )n_rmtr!, Ibtunl rlara -trice _ 2/S.000r0.1t. 100% O - —re=tanunt 5.00Mft. 100a 0 17. 11DI 61 A Office1 ffi 1 14.264s [t. t0 a _ in. I,­rcrt mace lattice) Ifa'as lofricc) 7M.269so.ft. 100% Iv,.r kr d r A /OffiC ) 61 000c0.[t ions — ­Sfr[',%if. fof!Icei 90,951• [C Oa ��L•r ririn Itr(ferl 6].019x0.[t. na- �i•+[Y 1 ffi N 66 aaia9.(t. Oa -��• OCCUPICU Ot1AN1TT 9/04 80 81 82 83 84 05 86 87 88 89 '9fi 91 92 93 94 • 19. SI• lrian (office) 2A,000• .ft. 60% 0 2n.PaPark of Ile Tart (affirr) lop% 71*my id• fqu.re (off I ffi ) toot ' ;2.Sra /sir.nd fresido,UsU 1]Tmfis St 2). 1•.wood AM rtr•nts (rcPl dontf nil GOunit. at 0 24.IUricr Point i:er^.s (residential) 21units Ot 0 25. P•nrr's oar.:cos Icn,r•crrizl) As submitted Inn% - 21, St avl et, •.utb,ran PI.,A frrsldenti.11 300 units loot 0 • 27. Iu,y PAron (office) Ivrzil 7.501bsq.ft. Ot O office 11.500 ft at 0 2A. fond Ousinecs Center (office) 17,0005q.ft. 100% t9. 4.1 •le'••poet Plvd. (office) 11.0003q.ft. 100% 30.111"b", ulr.••rrd it-tnvAN 2,9.-ong.ft. Ot 0 -"(tier 15.fiJ L-q.[t. 0% 0 i1,VA I,bY - 3101 O. Coast IMY.(Office) 41,494So.ft. 0% 0 l` fol•t llu-liras Centtrinfricel 37.0n03 .ft. 0% 0 - Jl. roll center Ur."rt and No. I TPP -- Office 7,650eq.ft. a, 0 office f-7.64nSq.:t.) 0 ` 34. Arnt lent It.. 1 Pord Aern TPP _ In•1•ta:::el 15.000rq.ft. 1001 L••rrtrlal 123.000 ft. inn- _—in•In rt rlAt 300,00y03q.ft. J00% 0 :,•nutria( 70,000Sq•ft. at o l i.!vse nnl 25.000sq.ft. nt Ird •trial 25,000 ft 0• 0 35. 1,—, 1bllAid - 1511 L 1252 Superior flied. C) 25.000zg.ft. 0% 0 J6_Ft-Pi ov/ne•+I»r: 81ncb _nftice 235,6nOzq.ft. Ot 0 Industrial 164.400sq.ft. 0% 0 _ —•l,fldrnti.11 406units a% 0 J1�. lari, Lido IP.di^AI Lfflcc) 65.2(9s ft Ot O \'i• Pn�na. (U.'u•tri ])IFFY 9/s/011 I1n,00n5 .tt. Mal 0 No.k fi,l0osq.ft, at 0 orrice 17.465tr,.ft, at 0 -Au 11 pr rite IJ.37lag.t4 51 U --� CCCUPifn - (1WXZTY 0/s4 so si 02 Oi n4 RS ob A7 Os 09 90 91 92 03 04 41. rin shi nos it47 RA beds O\ O 42. Cly CJn pn 10 21 units Ot 0 43. Nn Cnno Office 26 320-s .ft. at 0 •t it 36 16 an.[t. Ot 0 • )..t4u..t b dob s .Lt. O\ O • _ N. itarTiOtt Patel - 234 roods O\ O 45 5t AnOre.s cRurci, 2.400 c aaclW 0% 0 _ - 46. Yf29. Ir_t.Jns[eN 45,000 .ft. O\ O • 41. All 1•d Condos 50 units 0\ 0 4p, Homan rcvcIC =cnt 17 units 0\ 0 A. it ur Searnnr. 325 more 0\ 0 sr Opiv. Att. Club TPP 4 177W 516 sn•ft. loot 0 53. blp % 4w redieal so,000 a .[G. OR 0 _ 52. rhwratcn tictel - 19 ropes 0\ 0 51, r+lrth rcrA tAnend a .1 TPP) fp 12011.i 300 units M 0 ro IdmKi\I - 450 units 0\ 0 Itridcntlal L rark 135 units 0% O L' - 1 1 50.000 SQ.ft. ov 0 54. Mc!¢thur/Court 'black C' • fr,:nd 110.3 TPP) DELI 2921 O 55 A -f 3 Education Ravined (office) l250apt 0\ 0 Sf. •M No. 2 ford fern TPP t0cicourtl 130 units Ot 0 57 Crv.r fettle.) 35 0o0 sp.Lt. O\ 0 sn. eoroua del Oar upoc, 49 units Ut 0 39 Me 'anon VS11 Arts. 00 units U. 0 bn. 1:40 dove Strut (offlla tTr► A 47 16,154 9 LC Ot 0 r 11 IIOD o it St t (office)) 1 an N.-ft. Ot .i7 al •k 500 OCTL"t C t A orl ffi e) 3] 550 ap.lt. 0\ 0 - �1 R3 rAl TPP Aaend P4 -o- Ut 0 t transfer fuss CS-A to OS-R , 10.395 office, S,000 rest. 10.000 retail , '.64. sure i r r Nmi l t ui rt 13.112 P.t.fe. a ' o • -Ijila 1bin0 (res/Awnt Stl) 354 unite Ot O • 7 a .11. V. OCCIIPIm guA6JT'T 9/Oa. 80 61 02 80 84 85 86 87 00 89 90 91 92 91 94 66, Ponan PrrptrtT Iniald) .retan 6,103 aq.ft. Ot 0 Offtc! 23,380 sq.ft. Ot O Festaurint laroarl Beet•w not IneU T 0 I 88 R FOR 0 �6% 1'et t Pl 1rP Jun d 8 �0- 0% 0 • ; iran-fer fra r,C-i t0 B05-5 4,120 ag.ft. t 69. NouTort )nuatle Cniter IIICCYlatlOn) 18,228 q.ft. 0\ 0 t i ' CITTI hvl:ed 9/20/A4 J Appendix E ' Potential Increase in Development Intensity at 0.62 FAR 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 Pacesetter Homes - Campus Drive Office , Potential Increase in Development Intensity at 0.62 FAR Existing development:) 830,400 sq.ft. (0.34 FAR) , 0.5 FAR: 1,208*790 sq.ft. (EIR for GPA 81-2) 1.0 FAR: 29417,58U sq.ft. ' 0.62 FAR: 2,417,580 x 0.62 = 1,498,899 sq.ft. Increase over existing: 1,498,899 minus 830,400 = 668,499 sq.ft. Difference between 0.5 and 0.62 FAR: 1,498,899 minus 1,208,790 = 290,109 sq.ft. 1 - Area contained in EIR for GPA 81-2 north of Bristol Street only. - A - ' Traffic ppendix F Analysis 1 1 Walm 'Pt*k and Amide TRAFFIC A TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING ' June 18, 1985 ' Ms. Marie Gilliam ' 1825-Westcliff Dr., Suite 177 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Dear Ms. Gilliam: This letter summarizes our study of traffic factors related to the proposed ' Pacesetter Homes Office project on Campus Drive in the City of Newport Beach. The study is based upon information provided by you and the City of Newport Beach as well as previous studies. This study has been completed to provide input for an EIR and to satisfy the requirements of the City of Npwport Beach Traffic Phasing Ordinance, t The proposed-project would consist of the construction of a 08,232 square foot ' office building which would replace an existing 90,000 square foot industrial building and two office buildings of 13,500 and 10,000 square feet. A study was completed in December, 1980, for a 50,000 square foot office building on three of the four lots included in this project. The current proposal would house the Pacesetter Homes corporate offices as well as subsidiary companies. ' In addition, some space could be available to lease for general office use. EXISTING TRAFFIC CONDITIONS Campus Drive is a four lane facility with limited on-street parking and would , provide all vehicular access. At Mac Arthur Boulevard and Bristol Street North, additional turning lanes have been provided. Mac Arthur Boulevard is a north- ' south, major arterial with three lanes of travel in each direction and special turning lanes. The extension of the Route 73, Corona del Mar Freeway, is currently under construction and is anticipated to be completed in 1986. Existing daily traffic volumes are illustrated on Figure 1. Also indicated on ' Figure'1 are 1985 ICU values at intersections in the environs of the project site. ' 2651 EAST CHAPMAN AVENUE • SUITE 110 • FULLERTON, CALIFORNIA 92831 • (714) 871-2931 , 1 LEGEND 36 = DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUMES, IN 1000's 0.8416 - ICU VALUES 1 0.8416 28 DR. 16 09186 h h aJ 2'0 �. 1 i.152 N� ¢ r'v' r. o¢ 44 8R►Sl'OL Sp m m c� 42 8RISTOL S IN 1 x 31 32 • s0 e0N►TA CYN.ao 1 4Q � D 1 yo 9 N � G FORD �! �0 1 J04Q / 1 s UN w C S RD. 1 a ' COAST Hwr PACIFIC 1 II EXISTING DAILY VOLUMES 1 AND ICU VALUES LESTON PRINGLE AND ASSOCIATES FIGURE I ' I TRIP GENERATION In order to examine potential traffic impacts of the project, it is necessary , to estimate the number of trips that would be generated. Trip generation rates for various land uses in the City of Newport Beach have been established in previous studies and are utilized in this study. Table 1 lists the trip gene- ration rates utilized for this study. By applying these rates to the project, ' estimates of daily, 2.5 hour peak and PM peak hour trip generation were obtained.: There are currently three buildings on the proposed site which contribute traffic td the- existing circulation system. Since the potential traffic ' impact of the project is the net increase in traffic, it is necessary to deduct the existing trip generation from that estimated for the project. Table 2 lists ' the estimated daily, 2.5 peak and PM hour trip generation for the proposed and existing uses. As indicated in Table 2, the estimated net trip generation is 440 daily, 150 2.5 hour peak and 75 PM peak hour for the proposed project. These volumes are less than would be generated by a 10,000 square foot office building which is excepted from the Traffic Phasing Ordinance: Estimates are also indi- cated for a 55,000 square foot building which is equivalent to a 0.5 FAR condition permitted by current zoning. The net traffic increases are reduced with the re- duced building area. TRIP DISTRIBUTION Data were provided by Pacesetter Homes which included the home zip codes for , current employees. These data were utilized to develop a. geographic trip distri- bution pattern for the project which is illustrated on Figure 2. The estimated net increase in traffic due to the project was then assigned to the street system. Net increases in daily traffic as a result of the project are illustrated on Figure 3. The distribution illustrated on Figure 2 was also utilized to assign 2.5 hour peak and PM peak hour trips to the potentially critical intersections. ANALYSIS ' In conformance with the Traffic Phasing Ordinance of the City of Newport Beach, ' the City Traffic Engineer was contacted and identified four intersections for ' -3- Table 1 ' TRIP GENERATION RATES Pacesetter Homes Office Revision LAND USE TRIP ENDS PER lobo- S UARE FEET ' Da_ 2.5 Hour Peak PM Peak Hour In Out In Out ' Office 13.0 1.20 3.40 0.60 1.70 Industrial 7.0 (1) 0.,48 1.94 0.24 0.97 ' (1) Source: "Trip Generation", ITE for Industrial Parks. ' Table 2 TRIP GENERATION ' Pacesetter Homes Office Revision ' LAND USE GENERATED TRIPS Dail 2.5 Hour Peak PM Peak Hour In Out In Out Proposed Project Proposed Office 890 80 230 40 115 ' (68,232 sq. ft. ) Industrial -140 -10 -40 -5 -20 (20,000 sq. ft. ) ' Existing Office -310 ,30 -80 -15 -40 (23,500 sq. ft. ) Net Increase 440 40 110 20 55 ' Alternative Project (0.5 FAR) Proposed Office 720 65 185 35 95 ' (55,000 sq. ft.) Industrial -140 -10 -40 -5 -20 (20,000 Sq. ft. ) Existing Office -310 -30 -80 -15 -40 (23,500 sq. ft. ) tNet Increase 270 25 65 15 35 � I 25% 25% oR. d+`y 10% 20% v Ja aQ BRISTOL m go sr BRIS'r S NaRrH JN�Jti� ' T 10% 5/. . . 5/e 80NITA CYN•1ko H N 9� a pPD. , �A W FORD �< 6Q SpN JOAQ��N <S RM o , m COAST Hwy PACIFIC DIRECTIONAL DISTRIBUTION FACESETTER HOMES OFFICE REVISION N PRINGIE AND ASSOCIATES 0 0 DR. 45 a o Q T m 9Q BRIS7OL S7 m ` ' BRISTOL S-r NORTM JN��EQ `moo �0 SONITA C0'fko r. � D 9 4p GIRD. FORD SPN JOAQ��N 1 y�C<S RD. o - m 1 COAST MWy ' PACIf IC ' PROJECT DAILY VOLUMES PACESETTER HOMES OFFICE REVISION k9$TON PRINGLE AND ASSOCIATES FIGURE 3 -4- ' inclusion in this analysis. The first step in the analysis was the "One Percent" , test. An intersection is defined as critical by the Ordinance when the project traffic exceeds one percent of existing plus committed project plus regional growth traffic on any approach to an intersection during the 2.5 hour peak ' period. A list of committed projects was provided by the City for inclusion in this study and is contained in Table 3. Since the project is anticipated to be completed in 1987, the analyses were completed for 1988 as required by the Ordinance. A project Was approved for this site in 1981 and has been included in the City's ' Committed Project list sunce that time. For this study, these Pacesetter Com- mitted Project traffic volumes were removed from the Committed Project Traffic utilized in these analyses. ' Appendix A contains "One Percent" analysis sheets for the four intersections , for the proposed project and for a 0.5 FAR project. The results of the "One Percent" test are summarized in Table 4. For the proposed project, Bristol Street North/Campus Drive, Jamboree Road/Campus Drive and Mac Arthur Boulevard/ , Campus Drive do not pass the "One Percent" test. With the 0.5 PAR project, only the Mac Arthur Boulevard/Campus Drive intersection fails the "One Percent" test. • As required by the Ordinance, additional analyses were completed for these three intersections. These additional analyses included ICU calculations with existing, committed project, regional growth and project PM peak hour traffic. The ICU analyses are contained in Appendix 8 and summarized in Table 5. Review of Table 5 indicates that the Bristol Street North/Campus Drive and Jamboree Road/ ' Campus Drive intersections would have unacceptable conditions (ICU value greater than 0.90) with the project and without mitigation. , The ICU analyses did not include the compltion of the Corona del Mar Freeway , extension in 1986. With this freeway extension, traffic will be diverted from Bristol Street North to the freeway with the resultant reduced volumes at the Bristol Street North/Campus Drive intersection. It is anticipated that this will result in acceptable conditions at this intersection. ' Table 3 ' COMMITTED PROJECTS Pacesetter Homes Office Revision ' Hoag Hospital Flagship Hospital National Education Office Big Canyon 10 Aeronutronic Ford Fun Zone I Back Bay Office Marriott Hotel Civic Plaza St. Andrew's Church Corporate Plaza YMCA ' Koll Center Newport Allred Condos Mac Arthur Court Morgan Development ' Four Seasons Hotel North Ford Block 400 Medical Newport Place Sheraton Expansion Shokrian Mac Arthur Court, Amend. No. 1 Sea Island ' Baywood Apartments Ford Aeronutronic, Amend. No. 2 Harbor Point Homes Carver Granville Office Rudy Baron Corona del Mar Homes Martha's Vineyard Big Canyon Villa Apts. Valdez 1400 Dove Street ' Coast Business Center 1100 Quail Street Koll Center Npt. No. 1 Heltzer Medical Office Ross Mollard Koll Center, Amend. No. 4A Banning/Newport Ranch Ford Aeronutronic, Amend. No. 1 ' Park Lido North Ford, Amend. No. 1 Villa Point Rosan's Development Heritage Bank Block 500 Newport Center Project ' Newport Aquatics Center 2600 E. Coast Highway National Education Office (RUSD) -6- 1 Table 4 , CRITICAL INTERSECTION IDENTIFICATION Pacesetter Homes Office Revision INTERSECTION 2.5 HOUR PERCENTAGES - 1988 ' NB SB EB WB Proposed Project Bristol Street N. & Campus Drive 0.4 1.3 - 0.1 Bristol Street & Campus Drive 0.2 0.8 0.1 - Jamboree Road & Campus Drive - 0.3 1.5 0.3 Mac Arthur Boulevard & Campus Drive - 0.2 3.1 0.4 , Alternative Project (0.5 FAR) , Bristol Street N. &. Campus Drive 0.4 0.7 - 0.1 Bristol Street & Campus Drive 0.2 0.6 0.1 - , Jamboree Road & Campus Drive - 0.2 0.9 0,3 Mac Arthur Boulevard & Campus Drive - 0.1 1.9 0.3 ' Table 5 ICU SUMMARY - 1988 ' Pacesetter Homes Office Revision 1985 EXISTING EXISTING EXISTING +REGIONAL +REGIONAL ICU +COMMITTED +COMMITTED INTERSECTION +PROJECT Proposed Project ' Bristol Street N. & Campus Drive 1.1525 1.3568 1.3606 Jamboree Road & Campus Drive 0.9186 1.0532 1.0553 ' Mac Arthur Boulevard & Campus Drive 0.8416 0.8902 0.8965 Alternative Project (0.5 FAR) ' Mac Arthur Boulevard & Campus Drive 0.8416 0.8902 0.8949 III -7- ' The Jamboree Road/Campus Drive intersection is projected to have a 1987 ICU values of 1.0532 without the project. The ICU value is increased by 0.0021 to 1.0553 with the project. While this increase would not be perceptible ' to the average driver, the intersection would exceed the City's criteria. Re- view of the intersection and ICU analysis did not indicate any readily applicable physical mitigation measure. The previously approved Pacesetter Homes project included a van/car pool program ' to reduce traffic impacts. A similar, plan can be considered to mitigate the identified impact. Currently, there are 53 employees which drive their own ' vehicles to work and no ride sharing. Review of employee lists indicated a total of 30 employees as being potential ride share participants. These po- tential partici,pants were then grouped by home Zip Code as indicated in Table 6. With this program the trip generation for Pacesetter Homes would be reduced by ' 25 outbound trips during the PM 'peak hour. This is equivalent to a 45 percent reduction in trip generation during the most critical period. While this reduction would not mitigate the condition at Jamboree Road/Campus Drive, it ' would reduce overall traffic impacts of the project. As indicated in Table 4 and 5, an 0.5 FAR project would not result in a traffic impact as defined in the Traffic Phasing Ordinance. The ICU value at Jamboree Road/Campus Drive would exceed 0.90 with this condition so that actual impacts would be similar. SUMMARY This study has examined potential traffic impacts of the proposed Pacesetter Homes Office development in the City of Newport Beach. The analysis was completed ' to conform to the Traffic Phasing Ordinance of the City. Existing, committed project and regional growth traffic were considered in addition to project traffic. Based upon these conditions and the completion of the Corona del Mar Freeway extension, the proposed project would have a minor traffic impact at one inter- section. While the identified impact would not be completely mitigated, the previously approved ride share program would reduce outbound trip generation by 45 percent during the PM peak hour. -8- Table 6 ' POTENTIAL RIDE SHARE COMBINATIONS Pacesetter Homes Office Revision ZIP CODE S EMPLOYEES VANS/CARS 92714 & 92715 9 1 92626, 92627, 92646 8 1 92647, 92648, 92649 4 1 92677 & 92630 4 1 , 92705 & 92680 5 1 ' 30 5 ' The following are principal findings of the study: 1. The net trip generation due to the project is 440 daily trip ends with ' 150 occurring during the 2.5 hour peak and 75 during the PM peak hour. 2. A project based upon an 0.5 FAR would generate an estimated 270 daily ' trip ends with 80 'during the 2.5 hour peak and 50 during the PM peak hour. 3. The trip generation estimates are less than would be generated by a 10,000 square foot building which is excepted from the requirements ' of the Traffic Phasing Ordinance. 4. Of the four intersections examined, three did. not•pass the "One Percent" ' test. 5. ICU analyses indicated that the Bristol Street North/Campus Drive and ' Jamboree Road/Campus Drive intersections would have ICU values greater than 0.90 both with and without the project. ' 6. The previously approved ride share program for Pacesetter Homes would reduce PM peak hour outbound trips by 45 percent. MITIGATION MEASURES The following measure is recommended to partially mitigate traffic impacts from the project. ' 1. A car/van pool program should be established to reduce trip generation by Pacesetter Homes employees. We trust that this study 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 & ASSOCIATES Weston S. Pringl ' Registered Professional Engineer State of California Numbers C16828 & TR565 WSP:bas ' #0592 1 it APPENDIX A { ' ONE PERCENT ANALYSES 1 11 1 1 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection $ris¢21 -54. (U) ® �amPus Dr. (9xisting Traffic Volumes based on Average infer pr ng 19 W Peek 2h hour Approved � Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected It of Projected Project Direction Peak 2h Hour Growth Peak 2y Hour Peak 2h Hour Peak 2r; Hour ' Peak 2y Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volum MorthDound 2(029 64 168 0861 29 /0 �'0.4�o Isoutmound 3075 7S 376 3526 35 45 ; 1.39. Eastbound Was Wound /0/76 * 128 2019 12323 /2-3 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 2� Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 2� Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Uti)itation (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. 1 1 1 „PACES67TEr2 NoME-S OFFICE 46VISIOM - 1988 DATE: 6/8S PROJFCT: II 1% Traffic Volume Analysis ! s Intersection 5+. rui�e love•— Caws be. ' (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average ntgr pang Pak 2k Hour Approved tproach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1 of Projected raction Pak 2k Hour Growth Pak 2k Hour Peak 21 Hour Peak 2y Hour I PRak 2k Hour ' Volwe Val we Volm Volume Vo)Wa � VOW* Hortheouhd 71133 30 172. 2335 23 s01t 2371 SB 1 223 1 2652 27 20 10.4 t,atboand J 001 S 126 1948 M089 12,1 1 o R 0. 1 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Q . Peak 2►s Hour Traffic Volump ' Q Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 2� Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization ' (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. PACESE-rTea ijomE-- : OFr-tcE PEVIsRO&J — 1968 DATE: PROJECT: 1% Traffic Volume Analysis y Intersection JavhLaCPB Vcod j ro CxtM P Lt 1JC (Existing Traffic Volumes based on verage inter piing 9 ,,5 Peak 2y Hour Approved � Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1" of Projected Project Direction Peak 2h Hour Growth Peak 24 Hour Peak 2k Hour Peak 2y Hour Peak 2h Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume 'Volume Northbound ✓j98 19 858 62-l5 63 I 0 SouFpbound 2 7 q7 /0 624 3431 3 /D Eastbound 2 3 Z 3 I 57 3657 27¢6 Z7 40 Westbound t 1 "7 Zq 42 87 /853 19 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 24 Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 2h Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. I ' _PACESC-7TIG MOM ES COPPICE 2EYWOAI 1988 DATE: 6165 ' PROJECT: 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection Har,4v-+hair Slud.© (cOweus Dr. (Existing Traffic Volumes based on AVerAge winter/Spring g19 a Peek 21s Hour Approved Apprach Existing Regional Projects Projected iD of Projected Project l Direction Peak 2h Hour Growth Peak 2y Hour Pak 24 Hour Peak 2y Hour 1 Peak A hour ' Volume Volume Minim Volume Volume Volume Northbound 2797 4 789 3590 36 0 >outhbouad- 3590 5 743 1 4338 1 43 /0 L0.24F1 Eastbound 1938 47 14-7 Z132 21 bs ;3.1 Westbound 2558 63 755- 3376 3¢ 15 10.41, n Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected , F� Peak h Hour Traffic Volume ` Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected ' �( Peak 2)1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Otlliiation (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. 1 1 I PACFsSfITEP_ HOMES OFFICE t26Y1SiON ^ 1988 DATE: 6/65" ' PROJECT: ' 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection $risfol Sf. (U) ® Campus Dr. (Existing Traffic Volumes a�sed—on Average anter/3pring 1-9 t Peak 2y Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1:: of Projected Project Direction Peak 2ms Hour Growth Peak 2y Hour Peak 24 Hour Peak 25 Hour Peak 2y Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 'L(A29 6¢. 168 Z861 29 I lO I;0470 southbound 3O7S 75 376 3SZ6 3S ZS ;o•7�a Eastbound wstboaed 10176 /28 2019 12-3Z3 12-3 ' S Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of projected Peak 2� Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 2� Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. i ' PACESET7 =12 HOMES OFFICE eE:VK1QM (0 5 FAO - 1988 DATE: 6-/eS PROJCT: 1 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection Bn's•lol 5+. 0 Iruine Ave.— Cam us Dr. ' (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 19dot Peak 2h Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 10; of Projected Project Direction Peak 21s Hour Growth Peak 2y Hour Peak h Hour Peak 24 Hour Peak 2y Hopr Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume m Volume ,- Northbound 2133 30 172 2335 ' 23 102°!. southboand 2371 58 223 26$2 Eastbound /O01S 126 1948 lzoe9 121 Wstbound Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 21w Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected �] Peak 21% Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization ' (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. pA FSF?-n�P— oMES OPR66 RE slOO (O-S Fae) - 1988 SATE: PROJ CT: 1% Traffic Volume Analysis ' IntersectionJavhbvrpp Dodd n0. - Caw k; (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average inter pang 9 Peak 2h Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected I, of Projected Project Direction Peak 21s Hour Growth Peak 2h Hour Peak 2k Hour Peak 2�- Hour Peak 24 Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume i Northbound 53 98 19 8S� , 621 S- �jg sorthbound 2 '7 q7 /0 6 4- 3431 Eastbound Z 3 2 3 I 57 36S Z74S ! 27 ' Westbound t ! Z�f 42 g7 /8s3 19 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 2� Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 2� Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I .C.U.) Analysis is required. I , ' PACESE'f7FJ2 HOMES nEaCL PE\J1s1Q l (nS FAP—) - )988 DATE: 6,185 PROJECT: 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection 11Qc4v-4h i- Nvd.® Cc wQs Dr. (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average nter prin�9a Pak 21s lour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1" of Projected Project Direction Peak 2h Hour Growth Pak 2y Hour Peak 21s Hour Peak 2y lour Peak 2y Hopr Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume , Northbound Z797 4 769 3S90 36 O j southbound 3590 743 3 S •�.( . S 4336 4 , ? Eastbound 1938 47 147 2t32- , 40 ':19 w"tb01"d 2,558 . 63 755' 3376 34 ! lO ;o.37. Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected P Peak 2-� Hour Traffic Volume K=i Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected , Peak 2> Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilitation (I-C.U.) Analysis is required. WiFsoe-rmW- Homes OFRCE eEV1VQA1 (o.s FAR)- 1968 DATE: 616S t PROJFCT: t • APPENDIX B ' INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSES 1 Intersection $ris4ol Sf. (M) 0 Cameuc 'Dr. W sting Traffic Volumes Bases on Average Daily Traffic Winter/Spring 198� EXIST. EXIST. REGIONAL COHUTTED PROJECTED EXISIIIW PROPOSED Y/C Ratio PROJECT PROJECT Mnieent PR.NR. V/C GROWTH PROJECT W/o Project Volw VIC btlo Lanes Cap. Lanes Cap. Vol. Ratio VOILM Volme Voluee NL /600 3 0.2131 * 9 ' 0. 2168 0.2188 �`• ' NT 3200 -7Q5 o.2369 19 75 0.2-663 5 0.2678 NR SL — — - ST 32,00 583 o./822 ! 51 0.2o2S /0 0.2o5'6 SR ** 3�jO 727 0.2272* 138 6.2 03 /0 0.2 34 EL ET — — — — ' ER WL /600 358 6.2238 59 0.2606 0. WT 3879 a6122* 49 94-6 0.7677 Q.76 84 4 uR 39 S ' VELLOHTIME r0.lOOD�` D.1000 �I �O./D00 � EXISTING INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION /, /S25 ' EXISTING PLUS COMMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH Y/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C-UT/.3568 EXISTING PLUS COMMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH PLUS PROJECT I.C.U. l•360 ' **COUSIDEC OPTIONAL. P-16HTTUQK1/Tl4f 0 LADE IS 1*OM6 OCCUPIED BY'R-1614T TOe-M 196 TPAFFIC. ' ❑ 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_to0.90 ' Description of system improvement: 1 ' PAC6SE'I71✓R° HOME-s OFFICE R6V/S10A1— 1988 DATE:_6185 tin irrr_ INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS Intersection JaknLorpe ICaj Q eaKARk4 �t ( Existing Traffic Volumes Bases on Average Daily Traffic Winter/Spring 1985) ' EXIST. EXIST, REGIONAL COMITTED PADJECTED EXISTING PROPOSED PX.HR. Y/C GROWTH PROJECT Y/ Ratio PROJECT PROJECT t Norement Lines Cap. Lanes CAP. Vol, Ratio Yolw* Yolme w/oo Project Yotume Y/C Ratio 56 00 Yolun�e ' NL /600 �/l . �ZS6 0.0256 0,02 NT '{6f00 /8Zl , ,-77y* 6 29 0.4100 23 0.4.7 NR /� 00 3b'3 , 1Y 1' 0.24 O 2 0. 400 SL 3200 3/60 98'# �k 6.0984 0.09 IT �o0 77/� ,1771 3 2 8 0.2 27 0.24- SR 71{ 3 '5 EL z�oa lfd5 .2ozl 95 0,241 15 2cq ET Z0!) 662 ,z-75` /6 88 0. 3192- 5 0, 3213 ER WL 1600 f 0 t/ 0 aS. 1 0.0 0.0(056 WT 17200 Z 5 1 , 0751 6 43 Q. 093 '5 D. 09s3 ' WR /60�1 339 , z11q 0. 2119 0.2119 YELLOWTIME t0./o00* EXISTING INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.9186 t t EXISTING PLUS COMMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH W/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS [.C.U. ,OS , EXISTING PLUS COMMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH PLUS PROJECT I.C.U. OS5 I ❑ 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: , Mores T-raIe.flpmeS OFFICE f2.E:Y1510A1 — 1986 DATE: 6185 PROJECT FORM II L Intersection Ugc ArAut 81. Campm Dr. Existing Traffic Volumes Bases on Average Daily 'traffic Winter/Spring 18s) ' EXIST. EXIST. REGIONAL COMMITTED' PROJECTED EXISTING PROPOSED Y/C Ratio PROJECT ►ROIECT Ibrwnt PR.MR. Y/C GROWTH PROJECT w/o Project Vol%" Y/C Ratio Lines Cap. Lanes Cap. Vol. Ratio Vol wa Yoiune Yolune ' NL /boo /69 0. 105; /0 0. 1119 * 0.1119 NT (boo 952 0.1488 1 393 0.2103 6. 2/03 ' NR /600 88 0.0S50 0. 05Sv 0.0550 SL 1b00 1 ZZ 6.076.3 64• 0. 1163 0./l63 ST 4800 11 ZS 0.2344.* Z 305 6.29 3 6.Z983 SR /600 080 0.1750 1 0. 1756 S . 0.17 8 EL /600 (2)32oo 268 0.1675* Z 0.084411S 0.0891 ET 332,00 4.79 ?0-1931 8 1 0.2191 ZD 0.2253 ER 139 4- WL l boo 130 0.0831 0.0831 6.6891 ' WT • ' 3200 74-9 0.2341 13 /84- o2-95761 5 0. 297Z . WR �,s. 123 - 183 YELLOWTIME 6./0Cut /DM* i i0./000 EXISTING INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATIGN ,94-16 ' EXISTING PLUS COMMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH N/PROPOSED INPROYEMENTS I.C.U. O. 02 I EXISTING PLUS COMMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH PLUS PROJECT I.C.U. 1O,S96S ® 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_ - _thanorequalto0.90_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ � - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ' Description of system improvement: I. Add easfboumd le-F1- -furvi looe, (0). ,MCeSe-r-rf-W �-JOMFC nFFICE 2EYlslou -1968 DATE: 61,515 PROJECT . - _- -- Intersection Nec Ar4kav- 131. Q Campm Dr. Existing Traffic Volumes Bases on Average gaily Traffic Winter/Spring 19Qj EXIST. EXIST. REGIGNAL COMNITTEG ►AWECTEG Iloro�mt UiNiIGv. Nn�ifSW►. ►R.NR. VIC GAGWTN ►AWECT r%o Ratio v iiii YI,IOEJEC`i, tol. Ratio Yolwit Yolw wa project NL Moo /69 0 /Os /0 0. 19 * D.l , HT Wo 952 0.1488 1 3.93 0.2103 0.2103 NR /60o 88 O.OSSr7 I 6.055U 0.0550 SL /6M 122- 6.0763 64- o. 1163 0. 1163 ST 4i5W 1125 .0.2344* Z 305 0,2983* 0.2 83 * ' SR l600 280 0.1750 1 • 0.1756 S 0. 1788 EL /600 M32o0 268 0.1675* Z * /0 0,08 5 ET 3240 479 0.1931 8 1 7 0.2191 /0 0.2222 ER 139 4- WL /boo - 130 0.0831 0. 83! 6.6831 WT • 32 74-9 a 2,341 13 /84 0.25b 9 'k 00 S 0. 2.972 * ' WR Al.s. 12-3 /83 - -" YELLG IME 0.IOQ�` 0.1000*; 6.1000 EXISTING INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.606 EXISTING PLUS COMMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTR PROPOSED 1NPROVEMENTS I,C.U. 0.8902 EXISTING PLUS COMMITTED PLUS REGIONAL 66911 PLUS PROJECT I.C.U. D. ® Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or a ual to 0.90 J P P J q ❑ 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 - - - - - - - W - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Description of system improvement: , I. Add e&s4boUKd kri -furm lame (U) . I ,PAcr=se-rri;;P Hoh4es OFFIc1 P-Gyl,Slonl <a.sFw _1988 DATE: 6M5 I� PRQJEU ' F 0 0 marie e, giI Iiam, aicp urban planni2prrlive 1825 westcliff , suite177 newport beach, ca. 92660 714-645-0939 April 26, 1985 Ms. Pat Temple Environmental Coordinator City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92660 Subject: Proposal for Initial Study Pacesetter Homes Dear Pat: I am pleased to submit this proposal to prepare an Initial Study for the environmental review of the construction of a new 68,232 sq.ft. office building to be located on the site of the existing Pacesetter offices on Campus Drive. Based on our conversations, I have outlined a scope of work (attached) which I believe will determine the type and degree of environmental impacts which might result from the pro- posed project. A traffic analysis for the project will be conducted by Weston Pringle & Associates. In addition, this environmental analysis will address land use compatibility and potential growth inducing impacts as well as the issue of consistency with the General Plan and applicable development standards. The attached scope includes preparation of a screencheck and draft Initial Study but does not include any time for attendance at public meetings. The budget outlined represents an estimate of costs and will be billed on an hourly basis, not to exceed the budget totals without prior notification and approval by the City. Expenses will be billed at cost. Ms. Pat Temple April 26, 1985 Page 2 I hope this proposal responds adequately to your concerns regarding this project. Your signature on the attached Scope of Work will act as an authorization to initiate work. If you have any questions, please give me a call . Sincerely, Marie E. Gilliam, AICP MEG/if PROPOSAL' FOR PACESETTER "HOMES INITIAL STUDY April 11, 1985 Introduction The following scope of work has been formulated to determine if any potentially significant environmental impacts are likely to occur as a result of the proposed project. The report will" be prepared in accordance with all the requirements of the City. of Newport Beach and the State of California. Scope of Services Marie E. Gilliam will prepare an Initial Study which will contain the following information and will explore the following environmental issues with regard to the proposed project: 1. Project Description: A description of the proposed project including location, project characteristics, description of the project's relationship to relevant plans, regulations and ordinances and a listing of permits and required approvals will be prepared. 2. " Identi•fication'of'the Existing'EnVironmental 'Setting: In each area of environmental concern, a brief description of existing conditions will be prepared. 3. Identification of Potential Environmental Effects and Measures to Mitigate Impacts: The Initial Study will explore the following issues based on the city's identification of potential impacts and will outline measures to mitigate adverse impacts to an acceptable level . a. Land'Use Compatibility'and'Growth=inducing Affects: The potential for the proposed project to influence the intensification of development-on similar surrounding properties will be explored. This analysis will outline existing development intensities in the project vicinity and other factors influencing potential for recycling of existing development. b. Traffic/Circulation/Parkin : Traffic and parking analyses will be con ucted by deston Pringle & Associates. In addition to traffic generation and impacts on existing transportation systems, the Initial Study will assess the adequacy of proposed parking relative to applicable regulations as well as from a functional perspective. Special operational characteristics of the proposed use will be noted. Traffic and circulation impacts will be evaluated within the framework of the requirements of GPA 81-2. r , c. Public -Services and Utilities: The Initial' Study will include a brief identification of any potentially adverse impacts on public services and utilities. Other environmental concerns contained in the CEQA Guidelines include air quality, water quality, noise, soils and geology, plant and animal life, light and glare, depletion of non-renewable natural resources, housing, population, and energy are. not considered to be potential environmental issues due to the limited scale of the proposed project. Other concerns such as human health, hazardous wastes, recreation, and cultural resources are not applicable to use involved. A checklist of these items will be included in the Initial Study. Project Budget The study will be prepared on a time and material basis for an estimated maximum of $4,875.00. This fee will include the following services: Screencheck and Draft Initial Study $1,875.00 ' Traffic Analysis 2,300.00 Estimated Expenses* 700.00 PROJECT TOTAL $4,875.00 Project Schedule The preparation of the screencheck will -be completed four weeks from the date of authorization provided that the project does not undergo any significant changes during tide course of. the study and that all necessary information is obtained from the project applicant and any other source in a timely manner. The Draft Initial Study will be com- pleted within two weeks after revisions to;:the Screencheck are received, barring unforeseen circumstances. Acceptance of Proposal The preceding Scope of Work, budget and schedule are accepted and initiation of work authorized as of the date indicated below. Signature - Title for the City of Newport Beach Date: S *Expenses include the estimated cost of printing and binding approximately 60 copies of the Initial Study (Screencheck and Draft) and the cost of clerical services.